The Beaker Culture of the Balearic Islands: An inventory of evidence from caves, rock shelters, settlements, and ritual sites 9780860548904, 9781407350240

Citation preview

BAR S709 1998 WALDREN: THE BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

B A R

Western Mediterranean Series 1

The Beaker Culture of the Balearic Islands An inventory of evidence from caves, rock shelters, settlements and ritual sites

William H. Waldren

BAR International Series 709 1998

Western Mediterranean Series 1

The Beaker Culture of the Balearic Islands An inventory of evidence from caves, rock shelters, settlements and ritual sites

William H. Waldren

BAR International Series 709 1998

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford

BAR International Series 709 Western Mediterranean Series 1 The Beaker Culture

if the Balearic Islands

© W H Waldren and the Publisher 1998 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9780860548904 paperback ISBN 9781407350240 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860548904 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 197 4 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd/ Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 1998. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

EMAIL

PHONE FAX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

lPRIElFACIE

I prefer to think of the Chalcolithic Period as the Age of Accumulation of Surplus of which the Beaker Phenomenon is an inherent part. A time in prehistory that grew, sometimes gradually and sometimes quite abruptly, ou of the smaller, simpler more disassociated units of people living in caves, rock shelters, evenyually emerging into the increasing complexity of the Copper Age. A definable time period of prehistory when the compexity fully emerged into the Bronze and ensuing Iron Ages. Nowhere is the process and the mechanisms that powered it more evident than in the multifarious Balearic sites we are about to examine, where I have tried more to define that passage in 'hard' time, than relative.

YSZVYYSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

ACJKNOWJLIElOlGIEMlENT§

I started this book the same year that I finished my Oxford doctoral thesis in 1982. Since then it has been periodically put aside and picked back up, but never far from my mind. When not thinking about Beakers, I have been fortunate enough to be digging them up. Regardless of the interruptions somehow, the book has managed to survive, although long overdue. My interest in Beakers, however, started long before any of this and long before I came up to Oxford in 1975. It started in /960 when I dug up my first piece of Beaker pottery, in a place it should not have been. Since then, my interest has never weakened. Nor has the writing of this book done anything to allay that interest. People who know me, know that it is not far off being my obsession. As this book is about Beaker settlement, it is about people. Paradoxically, the Beakers were not a People, but the Beakers were people. Therefore, this book is about people. It follows that the acknowledgement and dedication of this book is to people. Those who, through the years, have faithfully and patiently supported my efforts, as well as tolerated my talking about the people who made the artefacts found in this book. The people who made these artefacts left no tangible dedication or acknowledgement. Perhaps, this book, through me, will be theirs. The list of people to whom this book is dedicated is a long one. I have chosen a few but have not forgotten the others .... I thank you all. First, I owe enormous gratitude to the Centre for Field Research, the Earthwatch Institute, and the many hundreds of Earthwatch vollunteers for their more than twenty three years research support. What I have done in that time is their legacy. I am grateful for having the best colleagues in the world, so, special thanks to my dear friends and associates. Josef Ensenyat and Carmen Cubi. To my dear friend and associate, Mark Van Strydonckfor his radiocarbon expertise and his belief and long interest in our Deya Project, there is also special thanks. To my spiritual brother and editor-in-arms, Rex Claire Kennard, a million thanks apart. To Jaime Orvay, my left hand and the finest chief field assistant I have ever had. Thanks and I am looking forward to many more years of your company in the field. To Jackie, my wife, friend and colleague and our five beautiful daughters, I can never give enough thanks. To those friends who have quietly and not so quietly stood in the background, but gave immense aid and vital support when they could or could not.... A person could not have Beaker or better friends: Patricia Greene, Pauline and Stephen Moorbath, Gae and Lars Eisenhardt, Galla Eisenhardt, George and Mary Barrie, Michael Hoskin and the Newbyweds To my colleagues at Donald Baden Powell Quaternary, Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford where I have done most of the writing and especially Derek Roe, who in a busy academic life generously went over parts of this book and made helpful suggestions. To the Conselleria de Cultura de! Govern Balear and Conselleria de[ Consell de Mallorca, I extend thanks for there interest, official support and long confidence in my work Last but not least this book is dedicated to Dr Don Juan Cirrera and family of Son Mas and Sr Don Pedro Coll and family of Son Oleza, whose generousity and understanding have made my work on their land possible W. Waldren, Oxford 1998.

VSZVSZSZ\2VSZ\Z\2VSZ\Z\2VSZ\2VSZ\Z\2VSZ\Z\2VSZ\2VSZ\Z\2VSZ\Z\Z\Z\,

ii

CONTENT§

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... .

1-25

CHAPTER II.

EUROPEAN COPPER AGE: CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD ................. .

26-51

CHAPTER III.

QUESTION OF BALEARIC BEAKERS ............................................... .

52-61

CHAPTER IV.

SITES, STATIGRAPHIES AND METHODOLOGY ............................ .

62-70

CHAPTERV.

ROCK SHELTER OF SON MATGE. .................................................. .

71-89

CHAPTER VI.

FERRANDELL-OLEZA CHALCOLITHIC OLD SETTLEMENT ..... .

90-116

CHAPTER VII.

PREHISTORIC SANCTUARY OF SON MAS .................................... .

117-153

CHAPTER VIII.

SECONDARY AND TERTIARY SITES ............................................. .

154-165

CHAPTER IX.

ARTEFACTS AND INVENTORIES ..................................................... .

166-181

CHAPTERX.

LITHIC INDUSTRY ............................................................................... .

182-202

CHAPTER XI.

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... .

203-229

INVENTORIES .............................................................. .

231-376

THE ROCK SHELTER OF SON MATGE. ..................................................................................

.

231-242

THE FERRANDELL-OLEZA CHALCOLITHIC OLD SETTLEMENT.. .................................. .

243-316

THE PREHISTORIC SANCTUARY OF SON MAS .................................................................... .

317-363

THE ROCK SHELTER OF MUERTOS GALLARD ................................................................... .

361-362

THE SETTLEMENT OF CA NA COTXERA ............................................................................... .

364-371

THE REGION OF ES VILAR .......................................................................................................

372-376

VSZVVV\2SZ\2S2S2SZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\2S2SZ\2SZ\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\2S2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

iii.

.

JI

C /h({)J,p tee1r

INTRODUCTION The Beaker Culture of the Balearic Islands: an inventory of evidence from caves, rock shelters, settlements and ritual sites William H. Waldren

0

riginally, the name Bell Beaker was used to describe a distinctive bell-shaped pottery vessel popular during the third and second millennia BC. It was coined as a descriptive term with the best intention of ridding the archaeological vocabulary of an even more awkward nomenclature....the Ancient British Fictilia or Drinking Cup. Variant forms, such as squat bell-shaped or carinated vessels, along with shallow semispherical and hemispherical bowls, are in many geographic areas as common as the classical bell-shaped beaker. Perhaps more diagnostic than the shape of the pots is their rich decoration. The vessels, usually highly burnished and of varying colour and hue, are heavily decorated, often, with intricate geometric designs in the form of horizontally banded motifs. Although almost universal in their designs, there is wide variation in the application of the motifs and the techniques used in the decorations, ranging from deeply applied incisions to finely etched, impressed or stamped patterns, logically executed in form and arrangement. These horizontally banded designs are made up of finely executed cross-hatching, chevrons, triangles, checker-boards, meanders, herringbone and barbed wire motifs. The vessels, made without the use of the potter's wheel, are amongst the finest ever made and rank, arguably, as the most beautiful pottery in the whole of prehistory. NOMENCLATURE It is more than a century since the introduction of the term Bell Beaker. During that time, these distinctive vessels have become the principal representative of what has been regarded in archaeological circles as both a culture and a people. As a characteristic component or representative of a people and culture, it has quite doggedly run the gauntlet of numerous and largely inadequate theoretical explanations regarding the societies and times it has come to represent. These deceptive and certainly erroneous roles have resulted in considerable

contention, particularly as to the part such a vessel played within the numerous, quite different societies and regions in which it has been found. The function and importance of the vessels along with the origin of the individuals that made and used them have in the form of theoretical explanation undergone one metamorphosis after another (e.g. Sangmeister 1963, Clarke 1973, Sheenan 1976, Harrison 1974 and 1980, Gilman 1981, and Lewthwaite 1986). By way of definition and explanation for their exceptionally wide geographic distribution, as a people I culture, we have had the societies and individuals that made them theoretically filling such diverse and specialized roles as wandering tinkers, traders, prospectors, warriors, managerial experts, shepherds, revolutionary agriculturists. In short, our efforts in role-casting have resulted in a veritable pantheon of definitions and explanations, none of which have been very helpful. Nor have they given us a commonly acceptable definition for what best should be considered, more specifically, a concept or phenomenon , rather than a people or culture in the conventional definition. There have been and still are a number of very disturbing questions regarding the idea of a Beaker phenomenon. Perhaps, the most disturbing of these has been the deceiving appearance and persistent manifestation of the phenomenon in the form of a specific tool kit of objects and activities that were widely distributed over the whole of Europe during the period, and which were in a variety of ways and to different degrees socially, economically, ritually and symbolically significant. In turn, what has appeared as a very widely distributed phenomenon (in some respects a veritable diaspora or designed dispersion), although indeed widely visible is, when closely examined, by no means geographically evenly distributed, and it seems unexplainable that many of us have overlooked this obvious factor of uneven distribution for so long. The fact that the phenomenon is in every way synonymous with a significant part of the larger Chalcolithic Period in which it occurred

VSZV'.VV\Zv'\2S2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2S2S2S2S,

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

Beaker sense synonymous. The word phenomenon is therefore considered interchangeable in meaning between the conventional dictionary use: anything that can be perceived as an occurrence or fact by the senses, and that found in the readings of Kant (1724-1804): phenomenon is a thing as it appears, as distinguished from its real nature as a thing-in-itself. The word concept is simply used as: something formed in the mind, and is therefore frequently replaces the term Beaker Culture. The word complex which is also often used in a contextual sense refers mainly to the physical (artefactual and architectural) components of a site as being synonymous, or when used as Beaker Complex to include all of the cultural components on an international basis. Whenever appropriate, other special usage of terms will be defined as they appear in the text. The author further believes that before we can arrive at, either, a fuller understanding of the phenomenon, or, arrive at a convincing explanation and commonly acceptable definition that it will be essential, first, to define the phenomenon in accurate regional temporal terms, using modern dating and other analytical techniques, establishing its chronometric duration in as many individual regions as possible. In the interim, we would be best to expect, even accept, the fact that the duration of the phenomenon and the extent of its presence will, for the present, vary a great degree from region to region, and perhaps that it may not have penetrated some regions at all. The Copper and Initial Bronze Ages, during which the Beaker Phenomenon apparently thrived so extensively, was a specific time. One, I believe, to accumulate both surplus and status (Waldren 1986). Also, I believe that this development and its resulting potential in the accumulation of surplus was, in most areas, the main factor in our ability of differentiating the Copper Age from the former Neolithic Period. It was also a period in which technology in the form of metallurgical, ceramics and other technological skills developed, flourished and changed importance and meaning, and in turn stimulating and nurturing social and economic change and interaction. It will also be argued that this accumulation of surplus and development of new technologies, on their own, would have brought about significant economic change, social differentiation and general demographic growth in areas with the right environmental conditions . These new technological developments (processes in reality) and the mechanisms they fostered are in many respects, themselves, phenomenal. The degree of im-

adds further to the problem. Although here too it is no more evenly spread in chronological duration than it is in distribution, varying greatly from geographic area to geographical area. Such factors have led to a great deal of contradiction as well as uncertainty regarding terminology and definition. In the opinion of the present author, these contradictions and uncertainties do much to reinforced the belief that such shortcomings will have to be resolved on a strictly regional basis and not generally dealt with, if they are to be resolved at all. Why? this apparent widely regional variation in distribution, duration and sometimes character occur is one of the other major questions. This too has to be addressed on a local basis and not universally as in the past. What? the specific requisites (environmentally and economically) were for its development within certain regions and not in others can, in the mind of the author, only be understood by extensive regional studies and research. One in which a more dedicated effort and regard is given to local environment, the natural resources, the development of regional technology, economy and the general social structureof any given period itself. CONCERNING THE PHENOMENON The term Phenomenon as it is applied to the Beaker question in the current study is according to Durkheim's definition. Durkheim (1938: 6-7) sees the term as social phenomena that cannot be universally defined and therefore individual consciousness is not on this basis a social fact. Accordingly, social phenomena can be truly characterized as the collective aspects of the beliefs, tendencies and practices of a group. A definition that to the present author seems best to fit the local Beaker question and, perhaps, elsewhere as well. That such groups are idiosyncratic and regionally spread, and by no means evenly distributed, is a certainty. Perhaps, the only interpretative one and single characteristic that we can be absolutely sure about in the current interpretative climate. Also the term phenomenon as it is used in the current study largely refers to the way it flourished, often idiosyncratically, in individual regions, and especially in the region of this present research. Its growth and development locally, and probably elsewhere as well, were certainly greatly dependent on the resources and even environment of the region in which it occurred. And like all phenomenon it had and has a definable temporal duration within those regions in which it did occur. It is also best to say here that in the following text the terms phenomenon and/or concept are in the

VSZVVVSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAAAAAAAZ\Z\AAAA, 2

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARICISLANDS

THE QUESTIONOF CHRONOLOGY

pact of such phenomena on different regions and even the individuals within them would have largely depended on the resources as well as environment of these regions and, therefore, to a large degree the extent in which the Beaker Phenomenon itself developed in them. In my opinion, the careful study of these phenomena should naturally result in extensive regional studies and in tum require more strategically focused in excavational investigation as well as general and specific research. I feel, a closer consideration of the different stages of development within regional limitations would also bring about a better understanding of their chronological duration. But equally important, it might, quite naturally and logically, result in the formation of reliable and useful regional models as well as temporal frameworks, which might possibly answer some of the most pertinent questions regarding chronology. In any event, none of the theoretical approaches or explanations, so far pursued, whether social, economic or chronological oriented, regarding the Beaker phenomenon and its times, have gained general approval. Nor for that matter has there been a satisfactory or logical explanation proposed for its wide international distribution. Something that can be equally said concerning our understanding of the processes and mechanisms behind this wide spread, other than perhaps a general agreement that such a distribution is in itself a tantalizing and enigmatic, cultural phenomenon. So, on my part, the present effort is not geared to offer any universal answer to these questions, but simply to offer a set of data, along with an account of the methodology used in collecting it, along with some personal experiences from having dealt with the Beaker problems locally since 1959 (when I found my first Beaker sherd). Should any more profound insight result from it, it is not for me to say, but left for my peers and others reading it to evaluate. I do consider however that the data and experiences are worth publishing and that if any more ambitious contribution is gained from these I shall be more than pleased. The ideas concerning the phenomenon for the most part are my own, based mainly on long personal experience, but largely derived from empirical evidence I have had the good fortune to find in the field over the last three decades. There are limitations in the form of shortcomings in that I have not heavily drawn from other people's books. Regardless, I also believe with some conviction that the information included here constitutes an interesting regional model, where none existed before.

The Beaker phenomenon, I believe, is one that certainly constituted above all a specific and highly significant period of time, a definable time in the development of what we have come to know as modem structured society. A phenomenon that was capable of developing and flourishing, along with embodying itself in seemingly fertile, regional areas, eventually spreading in time like the process of osmosis, over the vast geographic areas we know today. A phenomenon that, in all and in part, probably consisted of a bit of each of the many roles so far assigned to it. Old habits of thinking, however, die hard and many of us continue to regard the beakers, if only occasionally, as being representative of a single people or culture, dispersing itself from some single centre in a diasporalike movement into the wide areas of its distribution. We continue to use, if only in part and in one form or another, the many and varied theories and definitions we have devised, and using the inadequate nomenclature we have employed unsuccessfully over the years. This is one of the reasons, I believe, that there may never be a single completely acceptable explanation or solution to what is a complex and complicated problem for which we would do better to seek answers in regional examples and not in any universal scheme. As archaeologists and prehistorians, by now one would think we should have come to terms with the fact that most of prehistory is ambiguity and that we must frequently slip in and out of the role of devil's advocate in order to keep our perspective and judgement. In short, I believe, the largest part of the Beaker problem to be a regional as well as chronological one, and I will attempt to demonstrate with the evidence in the example of the Balearic Beakers that a regional approach can be valid, highly informative and productive. A great deal of confusion has resulted in accepting and using existing interpretations at face value, and in viewing the problem much too broadly. This has resulted in a poor understanding of the true mechanisms or processes involved in the occurrence of the Beaker Phenomenon and the particular form it takes in any given region. For example, none of the definitions or explanations proposed so far have given us any clearer insight as to the possible origin(s) of the phenomenon, much less cause for its unusually wide distribution over such a spectacularly, vast geographical area; a distribution that has grown in number and complexity, literally in some areas with each new digging season. As found today, beakers are spread as far north as the Orkney Islands in

VSZVSZVSZSZ\AAZSZ\AAZ\ZSAZ\ZS/2/22\ZS/2/22\ZS/22\Z\A/22\ZS/2/2/26.

3

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

diocarbon dating in the form of well-structured and strategically conceived surveys, carried out in settlements and other areas of activity in order to define them in their complexity as precisely as possible. The results of such surveys, I believe, would led not only to a much better understanding of the phenomenon generally, but also be particularly productive and helpful in the construction of badly needed, reliable, regional models, that eventually could be useful in a much wider, global perspective than realized until now. Whatever the ultimate chronological parameters of the Beaker period and however variable its duration and intensity from one geographical area to another, it was foremost a specific and therefore logically a definable as well as important period of social and economic transition in each of the regions in which it occurred. One which was exceptionally varied, as well as largely dependent on the environment, resources and differential preservation of site evidence. Despite the large gaps in our knowledge regarding the Beaker Phenomenon, it was a critical, if at times, ambiguous stage in the development of early European society. As a phenomenon, it coincides precisely with this challenging and important prehistoric scenario of Western Europe. Indeed, it is highly characteristic of it. It coincides, overlaps and incorporates what we know as the Chalcolithic Period or European Copper Age and part of the initial Bronze Age. In detail, if we seriously consider it, it had all of the early requisites and initial complexity of modern society. In its transitional capacity, it also had a special role in spanning the gap between the more or less egalitarian communities of the Neolithic Period and the highly structured societies of the Bronze Age. We are concerned in the present study with the description and temporal definition of this specific period of time and the examination of empirical evidence in a relatively small region where the phenomenon appears to have had an important place ... in this case in the Balearic Islands Here, we are involved with a geographically restricted area and closed or insular environment; although an area which has served as a testing ground and regional study model. In the present study, we will not examine or discuss former Beaker interpretations in any great detail, nor will we closely examine the phenomenon as it possibly occurred throughout the rest of Europe (which has been done extensively or in synopses by investigators like Harrison, 1974 and 1986, as well as others). Its real purpose is to examine the local Beaker Phenomenon mainly on its own merits. It will, however, refer briefly

Scotland, extending southward to the coast of North Africa, eastward to Hungary and Portugal to the west. One of the persistent problems and certainly one of the most important lies in the fact that we have not been able so far to establish with any degree of accuracy and confidence, other than very generally, the chronological duration of the phenomenon from place to place. This, quite understandably, severely limits our knowledge of way and degree it evolved throughout the various regions of its international distribution. Perhaps, in this regard, as in other areas of interpretation and definition, we will never understand the true processes involved or totally agree to a single consensus, simply because of the phenomenon's apparent multi-variation and idiosyncratic nature. Chronologically speaking, we need only consider the fact that, until some years ago, estimates assigned dates of 300-400 years for the duration of beakers and others recently as long as 700 to 800 years. Today, based on calibrated radiocarbon dating, there is strong indication that the Beaker Phenomenon encompassed a much longer time span, in some places a duration of a thousand years or more (1300 cal BC to 2500 cal BC) (Harrison 1991, Waldren 1990 and 1996): a period of time that embraces the latter half of the 3rd millennium and the second part of the 2nd millennium BC. This being the case, the rate of development and spread of Beakers once considered rapid becomes more realistic, certainly more understandable, and its emergence and spread in the final analysis, certainly, less phenomenal. Support for such a long duration of the phenomenon generally, however, would depend largely on the site, the extent of excavational survey and a dedicated and extensive use of radiocarbon dating to establish this. At the same time, we cannot expect to find such long duration in every case. It is not too much to expect that the frequency of sites with long duration would perhaps be rare, based on many factors and conditions, and largely dependent on the inherent wealth of evidence and other information available in the first place, and none of which can quaranteed or easily determined at the outset.. OTHER PROBLEMS

While it is dedicated study and research that will determine our future understanding of regional prehistoric societies in the final analysis, the major part of that effort will have to be spent in defining their economics, religions, resources and technology in chronological terms. For this, we will require the extensive use of ra-

VSZVVVSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA, 4

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

population socially and economically. Finally, it will attempt to demonstrate, again through the empirical evidence, the interaction and continuity of the sites examined. It further examines and discusses the different strategies and methods used in each of the sites and in interpreting the various types of evidence, both in the field and in the laboratory. This is done in terms of the use of specific field strategies to establish and delineate the local chronological sequence, the environmental setting and resources as well as salient local responses to problems of subsistence, social organization and technology (Waldren 1996). In view of this new evidence from the Balearics, the time appears right to approach the question of Beakers from such a more geographically restricted, in this case, insular point of view, compared to the broader more universal perspectives undertaken up until now. This is why, I believe, we should try to see how things perhaps operated in grass-root or enclosed environmental terms, rather than more broadly. This has entailed maintaining at times a strict regionalism in my approach that has been necessary for the most part in order to put aside previous concepts of a singular Beaker culture (a term that as stated earlier is used sparingly, other than where and when it is essentially necessary or particularly pertinent for the sake of reference). When I do attempt occasionally a more scholarly approach and return to familiar nomencature, I will do it only for the sake of the overall continuity and respect to its importance and relevance to the local Beaker argument. To do otherwise, might tempt me to reiterate old arguments and revive old interpretations in the familar way, instead of presenting a fresher and perhaps more constructive perspective. Besides, any serious or more extensive discussion of previous arguments and theory would largely increase the size of the current study and even perhaps obscure some of the important issues in question and that are present in the new empirical evidence. Therefore, at the price of creating what may be a serious shortcoming to a more discerning reader, I will dispense with most past thinking on Beakers and attempt to approach the Beaker question less academically and more practically as well as intuitively. The evidence used in the various arguments originates from a selected number of well studied archaeological sites investigated for over three decades, whose contexts are geographically varied and closely interrelated, and that examined together form what is best termed an environmental catchment or model (Figure 8). The major issues that occupied our thinking up until the 1970s were centered on the questions of the origins

at times to a few of the more popular and what I call better interpretations, and to attempt to view the Beaker problem briefly other than just regionally. It will do this in order to be of more value and to present a broader perspective and scope for comparison. When such literary meandering does take place the more universal issues and concurrent theories-- both past and present-are reviewed in the briefest way possible. Reference materials and general bibliography are used as they seem fit, where they apply to specific continental contexts and where it is necessary to compare and correlate them with local Beaker evidence. In this respect, I will pick and choose from these exterior data, selecting evidence that seems to be the most pertinent as well as applicable to the Balearic Islands' materials. This way I hope not to get too far off course from my main objective. The goal here is to present evidence from what is believed to be an unusual regional model in the simplest possible terms and not as a continental correlation or synthesis, No doubt, such restrictions will seem to some to be both basicall flawed and seriously limiting. The value of the current approach lies in understanding the Beaker problem as it occurred in a rather singular regional environment and presenting it as a matter of reference. The empirical material and other supporting evidence, I believe, will speak for itself. Whether or not the Balearic Beaker scenario closely coincided with other areas and can be definatively compared with other sites in these areas, only time will tell. In short, it only looks outward to more universal issues when it seems necessary to broaden the scope of a particular argument or to compare that evidence generally. The main theme or core argument in the present study is largely a chronological and contextual one, but it will also examine in detail what are believed to be the most crucial issues of the Beaker problem as it appears locally and may well occur elsewhere. It will examine the way in which the Beaker Phenomenon manifested itself in terms of the socio-economic structure and religious organization within the local prehistoric communities, and place this data as accurately as possible within the framework of a chronological sequence in order to demonstrate and support the idea of local and possible long-range interaction and continuity. It will examine through the physical and other evidence what can be deduced from the patterns in the local prehistoric subsistence economy, natural resources and environment of the period. It also examines other related aspects such as local technologies (pottery, metal, etc.), subsistence strategies and the impact these innovations had on the

VVVVV\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\Z\Z\,

5

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

ly the concept is perhaps somewhat over-simplified and looking toward the method as too much of a remedy. Contrary to such a direct, perhaps, overly naive chronological approach, Richard Harrison (1989) has warned us of the potential dangers of relying too heavily on any possibility of resolving our chronological problems mainly by the use of radiocarbon method. As he has rightly pointed out, although radiocarbon dating has replaced relative dating in many areas throughout Europe, the question of absolute dating has been further complicated where the method has been used in the recent recalibration of conventional radiocarbon dates. This development, it is true, has had direct and serious ramifications on Beaker chronology across the board. This has not, however, diminished its importance or deterred its extensive use in the sites examined here. There are ways of overcoming a great many of these shortcomings, if the method is used extensively and innovatively. For the present author, there is little doubt that recalibration, as well as the inherent shortcomings in radiocarbon method generally, have created sizable problems in chronological interpretation, as well as in other areas of prehistoric social and economic interpretation, especially when dealing directly with acceptable and well established relative chronologies. Nevertheless, there are a number of other independent reasons, quite apart from calibration and other inherent shortcomings in the method itself that hinders its more frequent use as an effective tool for detailed contextual dating and general interpretation. Much of the difficulty stems not so much from the differences between calibrated and non-calibrated dates and the recalibration ranges (discrepancies which I feel will be worked out eventually), but how extensively and the way in which we use the method, such as collection method and the important question of the differential preservation of the physical evidence. In any event, we have to adopt a more realistic view of what we hope to gain from its use, both in short and long-· range terms. A lot of the difficulty is also due to the lack of facilities and funding for a more extensive and innovative use of the method. It is becoming increasingly apparent to a few investigators (the author among them) that radiocarbon dating should be used as extensively as possible, both regionally and contextually, and employed with especially designed methodology and well thought-out strategies designed to answer specific questions and solve particular problems. It is my experience that used this way, a reliable chronological scheme is possible and can give us

of the Beakers, their geographic distribution and their broader relative chronology (e.g. Childe 1956, Sangmeister 1963 and Clarke 1973). Since the advent of radiocarbon dating, however, a finer chronological delineation and definition have been made possible, but unfortunately its use has not been as fully instrumented or appreciated as one would wish. While origins still play a dominant role in the thinking of many of us, the idea of origins or ethnicity has been hard to break with and often it has been only relegated to a subconscious level of thinking. The popularity of origins has become in a sense a sign of our times, where personal roots have been the focus of much attention. Attempts at Beaker as well as other cultural chronology prior to the introduction of 14C were in most cases engaged in periodically moving relative dates for important prehistoric events around the map of Europe and up or down a score or more hypothetical chronological frameworks. This was done sometimes in a manner more reminiscent of guesswork than on any really solid basis for doing so, other than perhaps the appearance of periodical new evidence and more elaborate typological studies. Unfortunately, relative dating of this nature is still being done, much to the frustration of the more discerning. In some respects, it has come to the point where one is tempted to wonder whether or not it is being carried out for no other reason than, eventually, perhaps getting it accidentally right. Nevertheless, to give credit where due, some of the more intelligent guesswork has perhaps not been too off-the-mark. In most cases, however, it has been highly unsatisfactory, and arriving at the necessary chronometric refinement for accurately describing specific cultural moments like the Beaker Phenomenon or its possible phasic subdivision has been a serious problem, and besides the possibility of any more complicated division and delineation within regional settings would require quite different chronological approaches than those undertaken until now. Radiocarbon analysis (regardless of its inherent shortcomings) offers us the first positive tool to enable us, if it is properly used, to arrive at the kind of chronometric precision and refinements necessary for a better prehistoric chronological framework, not only, for the areas dealing with the Beaker Phenomenon, but for other cultures and areas of Europe as well. In turn, such dating precision and refinement would make interpretation in regional and all sorts of contextual settings, where it is especially needed, a lot easier. Hence, the particularly heavy emphasis on radiocarbon dating and the use of special methodology is in the current publication both particularly pertinent and applicable, although admitted-

VVVVV\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\Z\,

6

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

socio-economic issues in Los Millares and other textbook site have depended on far to few dates for chronological as well as other explanation, although there has been little lack of speculation as well as extrapolation.

solutions to other difficult interpretative problems as well. There is however still an existing tendency to evaluate matters on the basis of relative chronology or, on the other hand, a few absolute dates spread over a

Chronological & Stratigraphical Overlaps in the Research Sites

1235 BC .--------, 1260BC 1512BC IF®ll'IITlllTil@®lill 1519BC i(J)ll®Z'.:lll 1523 BC ~ 1550BC 1673 BC 1700BC 1740BC 1749 BC 1818BC 1829BC 1829 BC 2030BC 2075 BC 2080 BC 2239 BC 2468 BC

MALLORCA 1485 l6?3

BC BC

2228 2483 2539

B B

m~::re___

Gallard

1673 BC

__,..___,

Marroig

B

...___,,,--...

1818 BC 2735BC 3375BC 3972BC

4633 BC 4722BC 4849BC

5591 BC

Geological Contexts

---

Oldest Fossil Remains Myotragus 8-6mya

* all radiocarbondatescalibrated

L Schematic Diagram of Pretalayotic Calibrated Radiocarbon Dating Ranges

large geographic area. Most absolute dates, as they exist in most areas, because of their usually small number have given us considerable difficulties. Such small numbers of dates have even confused many important issue and impaired logical solutions and conclusions. For example, the Millares radiocarbon dates for the Copper Age, as well as being a quandary as well as problem to its excavators, have been taken for years, by many of us, either at face value or with common scepticism. Interpretation of complicated architectural as well as archaeological contexts, along with the complex

Sites such as Los Millares, in most cases, are exceedingly large and archaeological contexts extremely complicated. The danger of basing complex socio-economic and other issues and interpreting complicated stratigraphical contexts on a hand full of dates scattered over a large geographic area should be obvious, but often they are not. At times, one wonders whether or not it is the importance of the sites or its material evidence alone or the newness of radiocarbon method that has led us to depend so heavily on the few available radiocarbon readings, and not the well considered awareness

VSZVVS?SZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\Z\Z\,

7

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

In many areas, investigators still rely largely on relative and comparative assessments for chronological interpretation of Beaker elements, mixing these with a few absolute dates (when these exist) and relying heavily on the presence of highly fragmentary Beaker paraphernalia. In short, in such sites where only a few absolute dates are available and only a few Beaker artefacts are present, interpretations are usually made and generally accepted on such grounds to be Beaker sites. Frequently when radiocarbon dating has been used uncalibrated Beaker dates demonstrate, very large margins of error, for a number of reasons, some logical and some not so clear, or the chronological polarity established in the range of the single or small group of dates appear, in the opinion of investigator either too great or too little. Such chronometric variation or polarity of radiocarbon dates (with their individual built-in statistical margins of error) are further magnified by the recalibration of these conventional dates. Even where there are a large number of dates, calibration can cause still further dilemma in that it can create on its own a certain statistical uncertainty in terms of calibrated sigma date ranges, the results off troughs in the calibration curve. In this respect, calibrated dates can be more problematic than the statistical margins of error found in conventional uncalibrated dates. Date interpretation, in these case, falls back on the use of probabilities and the personal experience and familiarity with the samples contextual environment. In the calibrated versions we are dealing with probabilities which are largely a matter of choice as to the sigma ranges preferred or the assessment and interpretation of the specific context within that range, even where there are a large number of dates. Another difficulty lies in the periodical changes found in the calibration conversion tables themselves, and much in terms of accuracy depends on the version of the conversion programme used at the time of the publication of dates. Another factor, for example in the analysis of charcoal, where idiosyncrasies such as 'the old wood effect' can give unexpected results. Clear descriptions of these conditions are necessary for precise chronometric interpretations. Often the lack of these details can cause confusion for the reader, even errors in published results . Despite the increasing number of radiocarbon dates gradually becoming available for the Iberian Peninsula and Western Mediterranean, there are still vast, unexplored geographic areas and large chronometric gaps in current chronological frameworks for all the prehistoric periods. At the same time, within the radiocarbon lists that do exist, there is very little inclusion or emphasis

of the poor coverage they give. It would be better to treat the few dates from such sites as simply nuclei or beginning of some future, larger regional radiocarbon inventory, and not as absolute indications of age. In short, important sites should have well-designed and carefully thought-out dating strategies, otherwise the few isolated dates available, broadly interpreted, are of little value.

THE ROLE OF RADIOCARBON DA TING

The strategy of a well organized and widespread radiocarbon survey, carried out on a region by region basis, has not yet been seriously considered here in southern Mediterranean Europe, although a few large regional lists like the current ones presented in this study do crop up in the literature from time to time (e.g. Lull et al 1992). However very little effort until recently has been made to bring these isolated lists together into a form of comprehensive inventory, other than strictly regional. Consequently large, useful radiocarbon lists for regional areas are particularly rare. The prospect of building an informative chronometrical scheme based on radiocarbon dating, such has been done elsewhere, other than in the form of a series of regional radiocarbon inventories, would have to be provisional and in the present climate tentative and certainly open-ended, although, there are sufficient evidence, data and information to lay the ground work for such a pilot programme. Before this can be attempted, however, there are major problems to overcome, some of which have been already mentioned, such as funding etc. There are many geographic areas, especially in the Iberian Peninsula, where vast areas are unexplored and little prospecting has been carried out (Chapman 1980; Harrison 1980). There are other areas where numerous Beaker sites are known, although regrettably in these areas there has been little attempt made, other than signalling their existence (e.g. Garrido Pina, 1997), either to date pertinent contexts extensively or in any innovative way. As a result, we are faced with either accepting the few available dates that come to light from time to time form such sites either at face value, or not accepting them seriously enough. In fact, in the case of Beaker sites, there appears to be very little criteria for exactly what does or does not constitute a Beaker site. Nor are their any specific rules concerning what separates them from ordinary Neolithic, Copper or Bronze Age locales, other than the artefacts themselves.

YVVVV\Z\ZSAAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAAAA, 8

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARICISLANDS

RADIOCARBONDATING ELSEWHERE

on Beaker chronology itself. Beaker contexts are generally included, either, within the chronological division of the Copper Age or that of the Bronze Age. Add to this, the normally sporadic regional publication, slow dissemination of new data and information when it is available and poor radiocarbon coverage generally, and we may very well see why there is no immediate prospect of a widespread and organized radiocarbon solution to the Beaker question. Only regional coverage seems to be practical. Unless a concerted effort is made to alter the situation in the near future, we will have to content ourselves with small listings of site dates for some time to come, short listings that hopefully will eventually build themselves into larger more useful ones. This would indeed be unsatisfactory. Within the present climate, there is space, in the meantime for dedicated, individual efforts toward producing more significant radiocarbon lists, similar to the present Balearic inventory and a few already partly underway (e.g. Lull, et al. 1991 and Lull, et al. in press), and use them as a basis for a much larger, more comprehensive survey. It is also becomes apparent, when we look at the character and function of the existing longer lists, that continued effort should be directed toward the formation of smaller substantial intersite inventories as well as more general larger regional ones. These would of course be useful regionally and such efforts might be instrumental in eventually initiating a still grander plan for a really functional, open-ended chronological framework or model, first, in a small number of regions and then even farther afield. As outlined here, such a master framework or Western Mediterranean model would require a well organized, coordinated and dedicated, region by region effort, as well as a dedication to the extensive use of the method and a strong desire to solve the question of chronological duration of the phenomenon in individual geographic areas. Certainly such a project would have to be carried out on a site by site basis, in order to form the necessary extensive, individual or regional radiocarbon lists required for the formation of an international inventory. Such an effort would necessitate a central organization for the close correlation and periodic dissemination of all the associated and incoming data. Only then will some of the smaller as well as larger chronological issues, such as those present in the international Beaker phenomenon, as well as other local and long-ranged chronological and archaeological contexts, begin to be resolved in any major sort of way.

Compared to the situation in southern Europe and the Iberian Peninsula, there has been some dating success during the last two decades in northern Europe, especially, when dealing with the duration of the Beaker phenomenon. The chronometrical approach coupled with typological studies of Beaker pottery is exemplified by the Dutch Model presented at the Oberreid meeting in 1974 (Lanting and van der Waals 1976). In my opinion, this Dutch model also exemplifies in part what is needed currently here in the south. Unfortunately, however, since its inception little has been added to this ground-breaking and important chronological project and a re-opening of the question there to update findings and results is overdue. Exactly thirty years have transpired since the publishing of this important event. Since the presentation of the Dutch Model, a few of us in the Western Mediterranean (Harrison 1980 and 1990, Chapman 1990, Waldren 1986,1988 and 1991 and Lull, et al. 1992 and Lull, et al. in press) have been trying to apply to the Beaker problem here in the south, some of the standards and methodology present in this northern European model, as well as to observe and apply some variant in the Iberian Peninsula or Western Mediterranean that might approximate the Dutch Model. The failure to achieve this up until now may well be indicative of no such similar model being applicable here in the south, due perhaps to the immense geographic zones or the broad diversity of cultures involved. On the other hand, as briefly discussed, no such dedicated or collaborative approach in the form of an extensive chronometric survey as undertaken in the Dutch Model has been attempted, so far, in the Iberian Peninsula, or for that matter in the regions of southern France. Certainly not one that would effectively, as yet, bring together the chronometric data, artefacts and other necessary information into an acceptable southern model, as it has been done in the north. I, for one, cannot accept that some similar chronological model cannot be constructed eventually for Iberia and the Western Mediterranean. Any such effort would have to incorporate, however, what has been outlined earlier, a close study and use of reliable regional sources or models, along with a concerted search for new sites (in the present context, Beaker sites) that have the potential of offering us a broader variety, even choice, of environments for study. Given enough time, such regional thinking could eventually encompass an increasingly wider geographical area, finally incorporating the

VSZVVV\Z\2S66Z\Z\66Z\Z\62\2S662\Z\662\Z\62\Z\66Z\Z\6666,

9

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

entire Iberian Peninsula and south of France and other Mediterranean peripheral areas. ON THE QUESTION OF CRITERIA

Until now, there has been no specific criteria in theselection of representative Beaker sites, although some re-

----

kind of evidence demonstrating such aspects as social and economic structure. Another shortcoming in the study of the European Copper Age and the Beakers in particular has been the focus on burial sites and not urban settlement, where the understanding of the period undoubtedly lies. There has been no effort either to differentiate clearly known Copper Age settlements with-

30km

cent efforts have been made to inventory potential Beaker sites in the region of central Spain (Garrido Pina, 1997 and in press). Regardless, no explicit criteria or requirements so far have been laid down regarding what is and what is not a Beaker site. Certainly such criteria should exist in order to deal with the complexities of burial and settlement, and to assess a site on the basis of its evidence before it qualifies as a Beaker site. It has been the tendency to go simply on the artefact evidence alone. Surely, any assessment should take into consideration, not only the physical evidence but chronometric and architectural information, as well as the

out Beaker evidence from those with Beaker contexts. In short, the criterion required of Beaker sites generally has not always been based on the quality and quantity of the evidence, but founded more on a few radiocarbon dates, a sherd or two of Beaker pottery or other isolated Beaker paraphernalia. Hopefully, this inadequate kind of strategy and thinking is on the decline. In all events, it has contributed, I believe, significantly to what are the major difficulties in the understanding of the period. This question of criteria in the evaluation of what is or is not a Beaker site is usually left to the discretion and qualification of the interpreter, using the available

VSZVVV\Z\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

data and information, very much like the selection or choice of sigma ranges are in the interpretation of radiocarbon dates. Often little that is directly related to Beakers, apart from artefact description and reference details

amount of the other associated information and correlation of the evidence. Most of all, there has been very little, if any, description given to the use of new, on-site methodology or innovative strategies having been em-

M A lL lL (Q)IR?JC A

c:::=--==-•30km

I. MATGE,2.FERRANDEL-OLEZA,3. SON MAS, 4. MUERTOSGALLARD,5. MARROIG,6.MULETA,7. SIMO, 8. MASSACH,9.NEGRET, 10. TORRETA, II. PORC, 12. NET, 13. BAUCA, 14.MAIOL,15.CANNET,16.SUNYER, 17. CORNAVAQUES,18.COXTERA,19.VERNISSA,20.CANOVA,21. BOUS, 22. SANTUERI,23. SINIA, 24.DRACH, 25.LLUISSA

are given in Copper Age site reports and what they do provide is usually frustratingly brief, especially details of the physical and contextual environment closely associated with any radiocarbon documentation. Even in the better site reports (e.g. Bernabeu 1984) little detail of this nature associated with the Beaker evidence is given when compared to the sheer weight of artefact description. Certainly, this should not be the case in excavations where a great deal of contextual data should be present to offer us more information . Neither does there seem to be any established statistical requirements regarding such topics as the frequency of Beaker artefacts, number of radiocarbon dates and

ployed in these sites. Especially techniques that are dedicated and deal directly with a site's Beaker or other specific chronological or stratigraphicalt problems. In short, by and large, Beaker contexts are not often designated as such but dated as a small part of larger stratigraphical contexts and little detail of artefactual and contextual associations given from which we can learn, or possibly compare or correlate with confidence either locally or farther afield. Artefact evidence and site information are usually assembled into standard, even formulated parcels of information, regardless of the use of any real criteria or concern for quantity or quality. A condition probably the result of the general

VVVVVS2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

11

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

formation is usually limited to a dot on a distribution map. There is the possibility that such low yield evidence could be equally intrusive as indigenous, or simply an indication of a site's poor potential as a Beaker site.. These are questions that can only be answered when and if more extensive surveys are carried out. At

low frequency of beaker finds. For example, this lack of real criteria is clearly demonstrated in Harrison's Bell Beaker Cultures of Spain and Portugal (1977: 82), where he revealingly cites statistical beaker sherd frequencies and the number of sites found in Catalonia and the Levant. According to

N

RADIOCARBON DATE DISTRIBUTION

■ Ill a

200RMORE lO OR MORE I ORMORE

--===--==:::i

30km

MAJLlLOJRICA

DISTRIBUTION MAP: RADIOCARBON DATING 1993

Harrison's account, there are eighty-nine known Beaker sites in these two regions, and which appear on his distribution maps. Fewer than ten of these, however, have produced more than one beaker pottery sherd and few have any other items of the usual Beaker assemblage. Few have good stratigraphical conditions This stresses the serious need for criteria in the assessment of what are accepted unquestionably from the experts as Beaker sites, even down to the presence of only one sherd with no other substantiating artefact or other evidence. One would hardly expect to qualify a Beaker site on the basis of a single sherd and yet, as the literature shows, we do just this. In such cases, the useful in-

best, low yield sites of the sort noted by Harrison have to be treated with reserve, and certainly not interpreted as Beaker sites on the merit of a sherd or two. Although in all likelihood, much of this is understandable in lieu of the general scarcity of reliable Beaker sites generally throughout Iberia and elsewhere. We have therefore to work with what we have, which when we look at the prehistoric record is not very much with which to begin. On the more positive side, there is the increasing number of new sites that may possibly provide us with the kind of evidence necessary to shed new light on the Beaker problem.

VSZVVV\Z\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA 12

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

POSSIBILITY OF A CHRONOLOGICAL MODEL

The introduction of a chronological model on the scale of the Dutch Model for the south would, not only, need a collaborative and coordinated effort of isotopic sample collection and dating, carried out over a relatively large area, but also definite criteria involving the assessment of new sites, along with the reassessment of some of the older ones, and surveys and research would have to be more specifically oriented toward the Beaker problem and equally include a close study of the chronological periods interfacing both ends of the Copper Age. It would require the periodic correlation and exchange of data with detailed artefact and site information. Finally, all the evidence and information would have to be brought together into some centre of data dissemination. Something would be needed comparable to what is currently being done on a worldwide scale with radiocarbon dating , only dedicated to specific archaeological problems, particular geographical and chronological periods. Such a programme might, under the right circumstances, eventually, result in the construction of not only an acceptable chronological Beaker model but frameworks for other periods and regions as well as Iberia and the Western Mediterranean, along with other chronological information and, eventually, incorporating the rest of Europe. With the number of existing archaeological projects and the increasing number of more systematic excavations underway and with still others in the planning stage in which radiocarbon survey will undoubtedly play a significant role, the time seems ripe for the introduction of such a radiocarbon dating programme. Unlike the north where the kind of effort required has resulted in the Dutch Model, I find it rather remarkable that we have not been able to form, even in the current atmosphere, a more broadly acceptable framework concerning the chronological duration for the Iberian and southern French Beakers. So far, the most constructive efforts in this direction are found in the recent work of Harrison (1988) and Lull, et al. (1992), where the Iberian Chalcolithic chronological question is treated for the first time. However, despite their contribution, these works are only one step in the right direction towardwhat is really needed for the construction of a southern Beaker model. Based on the existing radiocarbon documentation available for the Chalcolithic of the Iberian Peninsula (despite the dramatically changing yearly inventory), the earliest dates we have been able to establish for the initial stages of the Beaker phenomenon in calibrated

terms is from circa 2400-2300 BC. These dates are in the contexts of the Copper Age settlements of Los Millares (Arribas and Molina 1981) and Zambujal (Sangmeister and Schubart 1981). There are similar dates circa 2400-2300 BC from Cerro de la Virgen (Vogel and Waterbolk 1972) and middle range dates of circa 19001700 BC, along with questionable later dates of circa 1400-1200 BC from other smaller sites. These assessments when grouped together give us a rough, long duration of some 1200 years. However, Harrison (1980 and 1988) has argued that it is improbable that such late dates of 1400-1200 BC really belong to Beaker contexts at all, and sees them fitting better into the Bouquique or Argaric Cultures rather than Beaker contexts. At the same time, this chronological range or duration is made up of composite readings, spread out over a large geographic area of the Peninsula, and in no way do these dates form a comprehensive Beaker continuum of dates for a single site or even the area itself. There is is also no clear distinction between those that have only Chalcolithic contexts and those that have a combination of contexts in which Beaker is included. While the major difficulty, in arriving at more accurate and detailed estimations for the duration of Beakers, stems from the lack of reliable radiocarbon coverage within individual sites, there are other equally influential and understandable reasons for our lack of more concrete evidence. Had the highly productive textbook sites used radiocarbon method in more depth over the last two decades, particularly, in the use of more specific and better designed dating strategies, they might possibly have given us more informative and conclusive chronometric coverage of critical Beaker contexts than they have so far. In the majority of sites, Beaker chronometric listings, even in the larger textbook sites like Los Millares and Zambujal, have been very limited in number, using the method to achieve a few widely scattered dates with either too wide or no polarity at all, except for statistical margins of error which add a certain ambiguity to them. These have been in the final analysis of little real value. In effect, they have been in these sites misleading, forming what appears to be little more than an intrusive element as a Beaker phase within a longer Copper Age chronological sequence. In such cases, the Beaker contexts comprise a very narrow horizon, offering us very little detail for what must have been much broader contexts. If we consider the narrow archaeological horizons the dates coverand the large geographical acreage most of these textbook sites cover, along with the total sum of their chronological data, the number of what. we could call representational Beaker sites with radiocar-

VSZVVVSZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAZ\Z\AAAAAAZ\Z\AZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAAAA,

13

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

ered to have proportionately large radiocarbon lists are few in number, and these include in ratio more prebeaker and postbeaker dates than beaker. Another important factor is that by northern European standards, most of the the better dated Iberian sites have poor stratigraphical contexts and include the highly eroded conditions in the contexts of open-air settlement, typical of the Western Mediterranean Basin. Sadly, these poor stratigraphical conditions further complicate the question of chronology and interpretation, because most of the evidence necessary for the understanding of the Beaker Phenomenon can only be found in settlements. However, one of the more positive aspects lies in the fact that a few of the small number of informative longer lists of dates come from stratified cave deposits and in one rare case a deeply stratified open-air site. These have good stratigraphical contexts by Mediterranean standards with relatively deep sequential levels (e.g. Cova de Frare; Estevez et al. 1982 and Orce: Cerro de la Virgen; Schiller 1980). Although the chronological evidence from these sites are informative, they are still not what is required and lack the number of dates necessary to demonstrate uccessfully the overall chronological continuity of the period in these areas. In each of these cases, there seems to be crucial gaps in the overall sequences. Most of the smaller, lesser known open-air sites come from the Mediterranean coastal areas. These have low yield Beaker evidence and apart from rare examples, have highly eroded stratigraphical conditions, lacking in the good vertical stratigraphy that could, otherwise, provide us with badly needed, reliable vertical chronological sequences. Furthermore, southern French open-

bon dates is remarkably small. Considering what really is required for better chronometric understanding of such large and complex occupational sequences, they are not particularly informative and certainly not by any means satisfactory. For example, all the important textbook sites listed below have produced some radiocarbon results where the Beaker horizons show variable duration, suggesting short to medium range occupational phases: for example (1) the Cova del Frare (3 dates: duration 400 years) (Martin, Biosca and Albareda 1984), (2) Moncin in the Ebro Valley (5 dates: duration 520 years) (Harrison 1988), (3) Cerro de la Virgen (7 dates: duration 195 years) (Vogel and Waterbolk 1972) and (4) Zambujal (7 dates: duration 465 years) (Sangmeister and Schubart 1981). By no means do the existing dates for these sites bestow confidence as to the question of duration in the Beaker contexts found in them. Neither do they give us, other than in the broadest of terms, an idea of the actual duration or possible continuity of occupation of these sites. They succeed mainly in delineating only the most variable of date ranges for their Beaker contexts and in the end give us very little solid evidence for the Beaker phenomenon as a whole, much less details of their activities. Finally, they tell us nothing of the conditions, life styles or other problems dealing with the Beaker contexts within those settlements, especially concerning their socio-economic organization. Apart from Zambujal in Portugal, the majority of radiocarbon dated sites are in the eastern regions of the Peninsula and by comparison relatively few are found in the central regions, although by recent information this situation is changing. The sites that can be consid-

PLATE 1.

Assembled Beaker sherds from the workshop area of the Rock Shelter of Son Matge 2288 cal BC (1870± 120 yrs).

YYVVV\Z\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA, 14

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

!ares is one of these sites where dates have been usually well receiveded and at other times controversial. For example, the Beaker contexts are not at all clearly defined and the fact that the site incorporates other cultural parameters terms of pre-beaker and post-beaker contexts, which are equally poorly dated, further confuses the Beaker cultural connections. This has generated, understandably, a great deal of concern regarding the extent and duration of the Beaker involvement in the site, and as a result contributing little to our knowledge of the Beaker Phenomenon in the southeast. Nor does it reinforce our understanding of social, economic and religious development and change during that time. Consequently, this important Copper Age site is largely a disappointment, although recent reopening of work on the site may hopefully change things, as it is one of the most largest and bet preserved Iberian sites. It would be helpful in the meantime to look to other sites for fresher evidence and information, that possibly might support and confirm the little data we have so far retrieved from the older sites. I think that in the final analysis it would be better to accept the view that sites with a small numbers of dates and few supporting artefact evidence will inevitably give us wide dating polarity of very variable results, until more extensive lists are available, despite a site's size and historical importance, and that until then conclusively very little can be drawn from them. There seems to be a kind of probability at work in cases like this where the overall date ranges will only change significantly when we increase the number of individual samples tested and contexts dated. This is why? I have never been able to accept the fact that a small sample cannot give us a reliable assessment of what we are asking from it, and that the larger the sample the higher the probability that we will learn something useful. In short, I believe, no single date or even small series of dates are of much value unless they are carried out with some specific end in mind, treated only as the nucleus of an in-site inventory and in turn incorporated into some larger framework with the potential of becoming a still larger regional one. This approach, I believe, is particularly clear in the examples and sites we are about to examine from the Balearics Islands and which can be very favourably compared on any level with all of the textbook sites cited. In the interim, there is little doubt that the dates of Los Millares (Arribas and Molina 1976 and 1987) as well as Zambujal (Sangmeister and Schubart 1981) and Cerro de la Virgen (Schille 1981) are examples that have conditioned our Copper Age and Beaker assess-

air sites are little different from their Iberian counterparts and also have low profile, highly eroded stratigraphical conditions. In comparison to northern climes, where deep vertical stratigraphy can usually be expected and radiocarbon dating is more frequent, this type of Mediterranean Basin stratigraphy renders open-air, multi-occupational sites all but impossible to interpret with any kind of real confidence. This has largely added to the general dilemma concerning chronological duration and activity sequences within Copper Age settlements. The combination, here in the south, of poorly stratified, sparsely radiocarbon documented sites with few well preserved artefacts is by far more the rule than the exception. In the final analysis, the choice of Western Mediterranean reference sources in the study of Beakers is indeed limited. Moreover, it has been the general rule to incorporate these low-yield sites, here, in the south (where these poor conditions predominate) almost without criteria into the overall picture of the Beaker Phenomenon. This kind of thinking is demonstrated quite clearly in the statistics provided by Harrison, mentioned earlier, where he discusses the number of Beaker sites in Catalonia and the Levant and their artefact frequencies (Harrison 1977: 82). His statements, there, particularly emphasize the sort of errors we make in our assessments and qualification of what has until now constituted a Beaker site. The criteria seems, indeed, to be very rudimentary, limiting itself to little more than a mark or dot on a general site distribution map. Such statistical reporting, while undoubtedly factual and important as a matter of record, clearly points out the limited value and low yield evidence of many sites used in our Beaker inventories. In certain respects, it only serves to emphasize the often exaggerated importance given these sites, both large and small, over the years, when in actuality, these low-yield sites really do have little, if any, intrinsic value in a larger perspective, other than that of a strictly statistical interest. Logically, however, they must be considered as statistics and included in our thinking if nothing more than for inclusion and use at some later date into a more workable scheme of things. In the higher yield sites, because of their size, historical or strategical importance, relative duration of occupation and the fact that they do have some radiocarbon documentation, there is a general tendency to take them more seriously, using them as a pivot point. We have come to depend heavily in our interpretation on such historically important sites, despite the wide chronometric polarity in some of their dates and even, in some cases, moderate duration of occupation. Mil-

VSZVVV\Z\2S2S2SZ\2S2S2SZ\2S2SZ\2S2S2SZ\2S2S2SZ\2S2SZ\2S2S2SZ\2S2S2S2S2S,

15

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

tail. It should be pointed out that until recently Los Millares had produced only nine beaker sherds to represent its Bell Beaker phase, and only two radiocarbon dates. In Zambujal (Kiinst 1988) the quantity of Beaker artefacts are vastly higher than Los Millares (over 700 beaker sherds), but despite this the absolute dating is only just proportionately better than Los Millares and even the Beaker pottery that has been found has been distributed over a large acreage. Cerro de la Virgen is probably the better of the three regarding the artefact evidence, relative size of the site, Beaker artefact evidence (well over 300 beaker sherds), found in a limited

ments in the Iberian Peninsula for many years. No doubt, they will continue to do so for a long time to come, partly because of the invested interest in them over the decades, as well as their geographic size, their varied and exceptionally large artefact inventories and unusual architectural contexts. Despite the information they have given us in other respects, the fact still remains they have disproportionate and extremely small dating lists. Their complex stratigraphical contexts and vast surface areas have not undergone the required stringent chronometric surveys or dating strategies to work out their occupational complexity in any real de-

PLATE 2. The overhead photo shows a view of the concave front and entrance of the Prehistoric Sanctuary of Son Mas, locat-

ed near the Village of Valldemossa on Mallorca. Seen are the foundation stones of the Late Bronze Age structure recently dated at 800 cal BC. Beaker levels are found in the red earth deposits beneath the foundations on both the inside and outside of the building. The white squares mark the location of radiocarbon samples, part of the current list of over 45 dates available ranging from 2170 cal BC to 200 BC, with incipient use in classical times until 200 AD. The radiocarbon samples were taken to determine the full range of occupation of the site, from the earliest utilization of the area until its final abandonment. T he Beaker pottery inventory consists at present of over 400 sherds, representing 60 vessels. The Son Mas Sanctuary served as the centre of ritual activity for the adjacent Ferrandell-Oleza Prehistoric Settlement Complex, located some 1400 meters to the west of the sanctuary. Both the artefacts and radiocarbon dating of the sanctuary area and the settlement are exactly contemporary with the older area of the complex. The sanctuary is a multi-occupational structure, unlike the single occupational Chalcolithic Old Settlement, part of the larger Ferrandell-OlezaPrehistoric Settlement Complex, it has a complex, although shallow, vertical stratigraphy, wheras the Chalcolithic Old Settlement has a highly eroded one.

VSZVVV\Z\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA, 16

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

calibration of conventional radiocarbon dates as a possible solution to many of the discrepancies in our regional and broader chronological frameworks. It must be admitted that in the long run calibration has not done much to encourage either our confidence or the more extensive use of the method. For example, in many geographic regions and with most chronological schemes, calibration has seriously altered and even widened gaps in local and larger chronological schemes. As Harrison has pointed out (1988), it has been received as a mixed blessing, causing all sorts of difficulties. Most of which take on some serious revision in thinking to bring concepts into better perspective. On the more positive side, as in the example of the Balearics with the large inventory of Beaker dates and other Beaker evidence available here, recalibration has had a more positive effect and really no large alteration over what has been accomplished with conventional dates. In fact, interpretation has been enhanced in some ways and calibration has done much to clarify a number of chronological issues. Most of all, it has demonstrated the close relationships and interaction on socioeconomic and other levels that existed between a number of sites with quite varied environments. Other issues, apart from calibration, can affect the success or failure of radiocarbon method in most geographical area. The most important question is the quality of investigation being carried out on a project and the objectives perceived (long or short term). This includes the methods and strategies themselves and the ways they have been used in the retrieval of the evidence. There is also the extremely important question of differential preservation of the evidence, which gravely affects the results attained all around. And which of course, largely varies from region to region. In regard to methodology and strategy of retrieval in particular, the extent and way in which a radiocarbon survey has been carried out is critical. The way and reason samples are collected can be directly proportionate to the results attained. The question of confidence in the context and sample is especially important and should reflect the particular archaeological problem. I do not think it is possible to over-stress the importance as to the kind of research strategy and enquiry that is done. In my experience, it is how and for what reason radiocarbon method has been used on a site, along with the frequency of its use, that are both the main-stays and shortcomings of any radiocarbon survey, and not not necessarily the method itself. Until now, not enough emphasis or consideration have been given to the coordinated, innovative and common use of the method, es-

zone. It has a similar proportionately small number of dates as Zambujal; however in terms of radiocarbon documentation Cerro de la Virgen reflects a short duration for its occupation. Considering these data and in the light of more recent evidence, I believe, it better in some cases to allow for long duration and continuity of the phenomenon in certain geographic areas, with the possibility of large Beaker chronological overlaps and even the possibility of late survival of the culture and its influences in still other areas. This late survival in some regions is an important factor in itself. As we shall see, there is a good degree of support within the contexts of the Balearic Beakers for all three of these views. Using the evidence here, the amount of radiocarbon dating, its variety and the way it has been employed, best demonstrates the use of the method under local conditions, and the way it has been employed to solve a number of difficult problems, some of which no doubt share parallels with the mainland. Most of the evidence from the Balearics shows the phenomenon's duration for well over a thousand years. It is perhaps understandable that for some investigators the question of Beaker chronological duration of 1200 years as it appears in the Balearics may seem excessive. Even so, with calibration as well as some conventional radiocarbon dates, large dating polarities or ranges do appear throughout much of Europe. Since only a few years ago we were arguing in terms of ranges of 400 to 500 years of duration as being too long, the possibility of such a long use and survival of the phenomenon becomes especially interesting. Considering the vast distribution of Beakers, the fact remains that it is very difficult to accept that they could have in that short a time spread out as far as they have. Iberian Beaker inventories as they are listed in Harrison's Tables 1-4 (1988: 464-469) largely support this long chronology, although he also recognizes the shortcomings and problems of calibrated ranges. Regardless, given the very wide distribution of the Beaker Phenomenon throughout Europe, a very long duration for their spread over that immense area should not be all that surprising or appear excessive in the least. Considering the most recent indications of the extended duration of the European Copper Age in general back to well over 3000 cal BC (Swiss Ice Man findings), the recent dates for the spread of Beakers throughout Europe is not all that excessive. It like the introduction and use of copper would have needed time on its side to spread the way it did. Many of us have looked toward dendrochronological

VSZVVV\7\7\LLZ\Z\LLZ\Z\LZ\Z\LLZ\Z\LLZ\Z\LLLLLZ\Z\LLLL,

17

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

these observations are admittedly obvious and mostly hindsight by nature, they do serve to remind us of the mistakes made in the past and which we should try and avoid making in the future.

pecially here in southern Europe. Absolute dating should be a high priority on any excavation. I believe, from the experience and results of the Balearic surveys, that a long duration of use in some geographic areas did occur (up to 1200 years in calibrated terms), and that accordingly this long duration may be accurate for many areas in the Iberian Peninsula and Southern France as well as elsewhere. Although, I also have a firm conviction that in some areas the phenomenon was of shorter duration, or it may not have reached certain areas at all. In some areas, it may well have become deeply entrenched quite early, while in others its presence was sporadic, taking on the guise of an intrusive element. In the present climate, it is just that illusive and ambiguous. There is certainly a great deal of evidence to support the idea of wide temporal variation. A variation that occurred, I believe, for a number of interrelated reasons, mainly dealing with such forces as geographic situation, environment and natural resources, etc but also regional idiosyncrasies and preference. In summary, we have had a strong tendency over the years to use the existing radiocarbon results and the empirical evidence of the phenomenon in our interpretations in far too wide a theoretical and geographical perspective. We have taken isolated or small lists and even the few larger inventories of both dates and materials too much at face value, and as a result prevented ourselves from understanding their real spacial and temporal contexts, over-looking the other intrinsic value they may have had on strictly more regional bases. We have over-looked the fact that single dates or small lists and sparse materials, used as representative examples, are bound by probability, either to have too wide or too narrow a polarity, in which case they are either too late or too early in their range to successfully use in demonstrating the true duration of Beakers. It seems that many of us have been looking for some ideal or universal date range for the phenomenon. Perhaps, this is something that may well exist in certain regions, but paradoxically, something that we cannot expect to be found in every geographic zone with the same intensity. In the final analysis, there is no doubt in my mind that we will find that the date ranges for the phenomenon vary from geographic area to geographic area, in some regions even dramatically, although there will also no doubt be areas where ranges are the same. These variations and characteristics, unfortunately, are some of the factors and issues that can only be determined on a regional basis over time and through application, and in no other way. While most of

THE BALEARIC EXAMPLE

The present example, I believe, is a good argument for the extensive use of both long-term investigation, innovative field techniques and chronometric dating itself. It is demonstrated in the various Balearic radiocarbon inventories, where there is a probability factor and certain ratio frequency that exists between ( 1) a large number of radiocarbon dates, (2) the selection of sites, (3)the different kinds of contexts dated, (4) the field retrieval methods used, (5) their spatial distribution, first, from site to site and then over a larger regional area. The increased statistical probabilities referred to are especially evident where they have been focused, either, on specific chronometric problems, or contextual, artefactual or architectural questions. Here, we will see that extensive dating lists can be relied on to reflect, quite accurately, a site's actual temporal and spatial use and social, economic interaction and continuity. In the Balearics, the large lists offer us not only essential and useful evidence of a chronological nature, but also suggest answers to other broader Beaker questions, like every day subsistence, social and economic intrastructure and other technological information. Primarily, however they demonstrate an unusually long duration of the Beaker Phenomenon in the Balearic Islands, where evidence of much of the necessary everyday requirements and activities of the island's inhabitants are present to illustrate this long duration. There is a proven duration of the phenomenon in the Balearics of at least 850 uncalibrated radiocarbon years, circa 2080 be to 1230 be, with calibrated ranges of dates of circa 2550 cal BC to 1350 cal BC; a period of about 1200 years (Tables 1 and 2). If the current inventory of 45 dates within both conventional and calibrated ranges can be relied on as accurate for the Beaker duration on Mallorca, then the Mainland estimates for a similar long range chronology are credible. One cannot rule out the possibility of the longer currency of beakers in some areas than others and that Mallorca may have been one of those places. One might expect that interaction and general traffic would perhaps be more extensive in the geographic areas of the mainland than the closed environment of islands. Although as we will see that the Balearics were not as cut-off from mainland contact as has been priorly thought.

YSZVYSZSZSZS66ZSZS66ZSZS62SZSAAZSZ\66ZSZS6ZSZS66ZSZ\6AA6,

18

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

and consist of the following: (1) the Rock Shelter of Son Matge, (2) the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement and (3) the Prehistoric Sanctuary of Son Mas. A few nearby secondary sites are also included like (a) the Rock Shelter of Muertos Gallard, (b) Cave of Son Marroig and (c) Settlement of Cotxera, and finally (d) the Megalithic Tomb of Ca Na Costa on the Island of Formentera. These have supportive and closely comparative evidence, although the artefact materials and radiocarbon dating are much less extensive. However, it is the primary sites which include cave, rock shelter, settlement and ritual situations that best demonstrate the varied wealth of the Beaker evidence available from the Balearic Islands. In regard to the importance of each of the sites, each is equally important in its own right, each site has its particular and idiosyncratic nature as well as individual physical characteristics, although the radiocarbon coverage is about equal. On the basis of its unique Copper Age occupational duration, it is the open-air site of Ferrandell-Oleza and its Chalcolithic Old Settlement that is perhaps the most interesting of the three main Balearic examples, because it offers us deep insights into the question of urban settlement and it organization. However as a question of chronological order of discovery and for the sake of overall continuity and, also, as a matter of introduction to the question of Balearic Beakers generally, it is the Rock Shelter of Son Matge that is the first to be examined. In this site, the Rock Shelter of Son Matge, the Beaker contexts are part of a chronologically much longer (multi-period) sequence (Table 3), containing a deep, vertical, closed rock shelter stratigraphy made up of six millennia of cultural accumulation, circa 5600 cal BC to 200 AD and which consists of levels that are prebeaker as well as postbeaker in origin. The second site examined, the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement, although a highly eroded stratigraphy, consists entirely of Beaker horizons throughout the whole of its duration of occupation, a characteristic that has made it particularly important from the point of view of the local Beaker Phenomenon. This factor makes it different from the other two primary sites of Son Mas and Son Matge, where Beaker horizons are part of a chronologically much longer (multi-period) sequence (Table 3). The Prehistoric Sanctuary of Son Mas, the third of the primary sites, also has a multi-period sequence, spanning over two millennia from circa 2200 cal BC to 200 AD. The site served as a ritual and religious centre for the two other primary sites as well as two of the sec-

For the moment, it is enough to say that the Balearic example strongly supports a chronometrical and stratigraphical duration within a calibrated 1200 year dating range in all three of the primary sites studied in this publication. ABOUT THE BALEARIC BEAKER SITES

For the last two decades, evidence of long duration for Beaker contexts in Mallorca has been well documented in the deep, vertical stratigraphy of the Rock Shelter of Son Matge (Waldren 1982), as well as in shallower Oow-profile) stratigraphical contexts and horizontal stratigraphy of the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement (Waldren 1986 and Waldren, Ensenyat and Cubl 1990) and still more recently in the Prehistoric Sanctuary of Son Mas (Waldren, Ensenyat and Cubl 1991; Waldren and Van Strydonck 1992 and 1993). There are also a number of secondary sites with less dating and artefact evidence, but which are important in their own right, in that they help give further support to the primary ones as well as establishing their own identity and validity. What is interesting regarding these primary sites, apart from their established long temporal duration, are their geographic variation, their individual physical characteristics, function and the different environmental conditions from which the chronological, architectural and artefactual evidence originates. The three primary sites, which constitute the major part of the present study form a small, single, closely interrelated environmental unit, consisting of caves, rock shelters, open-air settlement and other types of activity areas. This variability is not only interesting and revealing but it also supports the idea of continuity and interaction between the sites, giving us, indeed, an unusual model. Although the geographic area involved is not very extensive compared to that generally found in most mainland situations for such studies, it forms a very complete and highly manageable, environmental unit. Its geographic limitations (which may be considered by some, either, an advantage, or shortcoming) make up in quality whatever appears to be lacking in geographical dimension. In terms of quality, the large number of dates, the chronometric range of their radiocarbon documentation, the types of architectural remains, the amount and high quality of the artefacts and other evidence representing, both, the Balearic Beaker contexts and the Copper Age, more than make up for the limited geographic area. The research sites themselves are small in number

YSZVVVSZSZS66ZSZS66ZSZS6ZSZS66ZSZS66ZSZS6ZSZS66ZSZS6666,

19

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

ure 3). These have produced the geometrically decorated pottery evidence illustrated in the inventory. The earlier discoveries made up until 1950 are the least wealthy in material evidence, as well as the poorest documented; hence they are of the least informative value (Waldren 1986). Since Harrison's (1977) observations of Catalonian and Spanish Levantine loci on the mainland, about 25% of the Balearic sites can be said to be extraordinarily rich because of the nature and quantity of their materials. They are also of particular value and interest because of the systematic study that has been done on them and the existing chronometric documentation that has emerged from their contexts. This is the criteria that establishes them as important, new reference sources from which further reliable information can be expected further to emerge, as the sites are on-going projects. Based on the quality and quantity of the evidence, there are few Beaker chronological or stratigraphical environments elsewhere in Europe that show comparable homogeneity and continuity. This can be equally, be said for the radiocarbon documentation, artefact assemblages and associated architectural evidence, as those exemplified in the corpus of the Matge-FerrandellOleza-Mas prehistoric complex. The wealth of detail present in this corpus, not only, suggests both homogeneity and continuity, but also offers insights into the varied functions, social and economic history of the sites, in turn giving us clues to the possible processes and mechanisms responsible for change throughout the their occupation. With the exceptions listed below, all of the 45 dates available for the Balearic Pretalayotic Period (Tables 1 to 3) originate from the primary sites of Matge, Ferrandell-Oleza and Son Mas, located in the mountainous regions of the islands (Figure 3). The dates from these sites make up a significant part of the overall inventory of about 350 dates for the various Balearic prehistoric periods (Waldren 1993, also see Inventory Radiocarbon Tables this volume for a comprehensive listing). The exceptions to the extensively dated primary sites are four secondary sites with one 14C date each for Beaker contexts as follows: Marroig (SMRG): 1520± 80 be (1819 cal BC) (Y-1856) (Waldren and Kopper 1967), Muertos-Gallard (ABMG): 1840± 80 be (2239 cal BC) (Y-1789) (Waldren and Kopper 1967), Ca Na Cotxera (CX): 1800±120 be (2168 cal BC) (I-5515) (Cantarellas Camps 1972) on Mallorca and Ca Na Costa (CNC): 1320± 80 be (1526 cal BC) (BM-1667) (Fernandez, Plantalamor and Topp 1978) on the island of Formentera and one recent pretalayotic date from the

ondary ones examined. In the Ferrandell-Oleza example, the Beaker artefacts and their associated radiocarbon dates, circa 2080 be to 1300 be (2550 cal BC to 1360 cal BC), fit the full Beaker dating range suggested earlier for Mainland sites. In our examination of this site, it is important to bear in mind, again, that it has produced nothing but Beaker evidence, and that not a single sherd of pottery or other artefact belonging to a later horizon has been found. Both locally and elsewhere, this is has been advantageous as well as unusual compared with the multiperiod sites . As such it represents the key research site and comparative chronological link in the current research. It will also be interesting as well as important to note, as we get farther into the text and illustrations, that at least 4 and possibly 5 different sorts of decorated beakers are present at this site, a fact which also tends to support a long duration of occupation. Another equally important aspect lies in the fact that the artefact typologies and assemblages of all three of the sites examined represent the full range of Beaker paraphernalia, as found and described throughout Western Europe (see Frontispiece and appropriate section on artefacts). In addition, this quantity and wide variety of artefacts, apart from the absolute dating itself, supports the argument for long, contemporary chronological duration in all these Balearic sites (though especially in the Ferrandell-Oleza settlement). Such a continuity in turn suggests what we might possibly expect but have not so far found in temporal terms in continental regions. In the current Balearic Mallorcan inventory, we are not dealing with a small collection of geometrically decorated Beaker pottery, consisting of a dozen or more sherds, or sometimes fewer, as recorded in many Mainland sites (e.g. Harrison 1988), but a total which currently amounts in the neighborhood of 2000 pieces, along with abundant examples of other items of the Beaker tool kit, such as 'v' perforated buttons and other items of elephant ivory, bone, stone and shell, including an incision decorated loom comb, so-called wristguards and tabular flint blades and sickles. All, items which are both diagnostic and characteristic and, at the same time, span long time ranges. There are multiple types of Beaker pottery involved, as well as the multiple types of 'v' perforated buttons. Items, all of which, for example, are found within the Ferrandell-Oleza inventory and where there is evidence in the pottery inventory of early, corded and impressed-ware designs (see Frontispiece and appropriate Inventory Figures). There are at present 25 known sites on Mallorca (Fig-

VSZVVSZ\2\2SZ\Z\2\2SZ\Z\2\2SZ\2\2SZ\Z\2\2SZ\Z\2\2SZ\2\2SZ\Z\2\2SZ\Z\Z\Z\,

20

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

Taula Sanctuary Site of Torralba den Salort, 1516 cal BC (KIK30/UtC1263). The pertinent radiocarbon dates for the Beaker contexts are listed in the reference tables (1 and 2) and the distribution map (Figure 4). They have been published in one form or another prior to the present publication as shorter partial lists within much larger chronometric listings or other contextual surveys (Waldren 1979, 1981,1983, 1986, 1990 and 1993; Waldren, Ensenyat and Cubf 1990; Waldren and Van Strydonck 1993).

IN CONCLUSION

As a conclusion to this chapter, which has argued the importance and potential value of long range and extensive regional investigation, I personally find that the early theory of Kulturkreis is as good a place to begin an explanation of the Balearic Beaker problem as any other. A champion of this theory is found in the early thinking of Gustav Kossinna, where he applied it in the broader sense of Continental Europe. Kulturkreis is an ethnological term denoting the belief that a number of

PLATE 3. A finely incised Beaker sherd from the Prehistoric Sanctuary of Son Mas, circa 2170 cal BC-1818cal BC. The sherd originates from quadrant 7Q2 on the east side of the sanctuary.

VSZVVV\ZSZ\/2/22\Z\/2/22\Z\AZSZ\/2/22\Z\AAZSZ\AZSZ\AAZSZ\/2/2/2/2,

21

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

trate the parallels here in the text were to some extent chosen for their similarities to Mainland counterparts, but they have been selected also for the techniques used in the application of the designs, as well as other attributes, such as their chronological contemporaneity. The individual similarities and comparisons do not cease with those chosen solely for illustration. They can, upon closer examination, be seen to exist on many other levels and are found in the inventory at the end of this publication, where they are discussed in some detail. Whether or not one accepts the Kulturkreis viewpoint, where regional evolution and other developments have taken place and can be compared in terms of possible origin or source, one is still struck by the degree and extent of the physical similarities and other affinities in the examples used for comparison. Their parallelism and the close cultural ties suggested are surely evidence more akin to hard demonstrable fact than arguable hypothesis, especially when coupled with the other evidence. On the other hand, the regional character of the Balearic Beaker and Iberian Mainland evidence, of course, largely separates itself from the Beaker material found in northern and western Europe, not only geographically, but in character and in other ways. In essence, it maintains much of a Mediterranean or Western Mediterranean characteristic on this basis; although there are indisputably some very strong similarities with these other regions. This has been one of the major problems in past assessments and interpretations. It has been rather an issue as to whether or not we chose to focus our attention on of two characteristics ....differences or similarities. Both are typological in nature and cannot be counted on to tell very much. I personally feel that we have made too much of typological studies already and that these can be deceptive. The recent Swiss "Ice Man" copper axe is a case in point. However, a focus on the differences would be perfectly understandable, considering the processes of Kulturkreis. Although I do not think we can possibly separate the issue too great a degree in either the similarities or differences, when comparing most of these other more distant European areas with Mediterranean counterparts. It boils down again as to which we place more importance on and what seems to make more sense at the time. It is even less likely that we can expect large cultural or chronological differences from those of the islands' immediately adjacent peripheral areas of the mainland. Again, in this case, there are such generally strong parallels in the local beakers that there seems (strange as it might seem) almost no regional developments of style that would indicate independent ev-

culture spheres or culture basins normally exist in a given geographic area and that these in each area comprise cultural strata which reflect a relative chronology for that area (Graebner 1905) (Binder and Bradley also take this view). This theory, it seems to me, despite its old-fashioned nature should be able to be tested by a use of extensive radiocarbon survey, thus removing some of the relative chronological questions in regional dating, as pointed out by the original exponents of the theory. I agree with Harrison (1974), that in using this Kulturkreis in theory, certain Beaker complexes can be demonstrated to be more closely related than others. In this regard, we may expect the Balearic group to link itself to those groups which are the most geographically proximate. This does occur in the Balearic example. In fact, this type of regional comparison can be made where the Balearic Beakers compare very favourably with regions as far afield as the Languedoc-PyrenneanSalam6 groups and equally well with Beaker sites in the Levant as well as the Almerian Ciempozuelos of the southeast (see appropriate Figures) (also see Waldren 1990 and 1993). ON THE AREAS OF INFLUENCE

All these groups fall within a geographical arc of immediate influence (Figure 5. and Chapter II). If we study closely the similarities and parallels illustrated in the text, it is hard to conceive that there is not some cultural relationship or actual Beaker connection with the geographic zones reflected in these examples outlined in the suggested arc of immediate influence. A relationship which consisted of contemporaneity, even deep rooted regional tradition and periodical interaction and contact with those areas at a relatively early stage. A very recent development that strongly substantiates Mainland connections is found in the discovery of bouquique pottery in the last occupational phase of the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement. This development is discussed further on in the text. This is the first instance of this distinctive pottery found out of its normal Mainland context. Its presence is empirical evidence of some contact with those regions. Another new development that still further supports Mainland connections can be found in the recent finds in the Matge rock shelter of objects of elephant ivory, such as the loom comb with Beaker decorative designs and a number of 'v' perforated buttons or necklace elements made of elephant tusk ivory. Chronologically, both finds span a considerable part of the Beaker scale in the Balearics. The Beaker geometric pottery designs used to illus-

VSZVYSZ\7\7\LLZ\Z\LLZ\Z\LZ\Z\LLZ\Z\LLZ\Z\LZ\Z\LLZ\Z\LLLL, 22

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

with European contexts generally. I cannot help but feel, on the basis of findings in the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement, that the key to the emergence of the phenomenon has been a question of successful food production, a knowledge of efficient soil, crop, animal and water management. All this would have been necessary before other considerations would have been possible, such as investment in technology (metallurgy). Barring natural disasters and in the right environment the accumulation of surplus would have been a natural outcome and order of things. The more productively successful the group, the more the certainty, knowing human nature, that social differentiation would emerge, as well as population increase on the basis of increase in wealth and security. And I cannot conceive that human nature then was significantly different than now. In the local evidence, there seems reflected, not only an accumulation of surplus but self as well as group aggrandizement. For example, this is seen in the construction of the Oleza settlement's compound walls, which demonstrate not only a declaration of proprietorial domain and capital investment but social differentiation. When dealing with the development of metallurgical techniques, manufacture of finely decorated pottery or other luxury commodities, one of the first requirements would be a matter of available time for such pursuits, free of the complicated and time consuming duties of subsistence. In short, important factors such as a successful social organization and economic and subsistence structures as a backup would have had to be worked out before having time to embark on other creative, time invested pursuits such as exploration. The study of the artefacts, particularly the most significant and diagnostic item, the pottery, has two camps of thought: one of typology and the other of function. From the Balearic Beaker site evidence, I am in part agreement with H. Case (1987), that the Beaker pot was a multifunctional vessel, although he believes one without a particular ritualistic use. For me it not only served multifarious functions but also had a polysemous status (Waldren 1993), mainly a ritualistic one. It is a 'time invested' vessel in any respect and its fabrication would surely have been governed by available time, or it may also have been made by specialists in which case it was a currency of sorts. If it was an exchange commodity, its importance and value were still considerable, both sought after and symbolic. Whether or not we can interpret it as an item reserved only for the rich, or that it was an item manufactured by specialists only for trade are all matters that fall within the question of the pottery's function. Whether or not

olution of decorative ideas. This is contrary to what has been suggested and believed before. Once again it largely depends on our sample. What appear to be regional difference may in truth be differences over time. Until now it has been material similarities in the culture that have mainly attracted our attention. It has been only since the advent and use of radiocarbon dating that we have become a bit more aware of the subtler differences and comparative similarities within so vast a geographic distribution. These differences have made us more aware of the actual temporal as well as possible cultural divisions in the Beaker Phenomenon from one geographic area to another. This is something, along with probable temporal changes, that we should have been aware of all along and taken into consideration in our interpretation. Instead we have sought out possible universal explanations of the processes and mechanisms responsible for the phenomenon as a whole. This has been in a way very similar to the way in which we have looked for a universal chronology for the phenomenon when we should have been approaching the problem on a stricter regional basis. The body of Balearic evidence presented here, and the framework formed by it, constitutes the fullest, most recent account of the evidence available for the Beaker Phenomenon as it appears in the islands. What is immediately evident is that chronometrically, as well as materially, the Balearic sites are contemporary with most of the accepted examples of the European Copper Age or Chalcolithic settlement found within the arc of immediate influence. Most of my peers have until very recently referred to the Balearic Beaker contexts as late and related only vaguely to Mainland types, but as more evidence becomes available (e.g. Harrison 1980 and Barfield 1986) their views are beginning to change (Harrison 1990). Based on the most recent chronometric and material evidence examined, there can be little doubt of the cultural and geographic connections. If we look at the radiocarbon listings, even in their conventional uncalibrated form (Table 1 and 2), they tightly group around 21002000 be (2600 cal BC- 2500 cal BC) in the earliest ranges, 1900-1700 be (2400 cal BC-2050 cal BC) in the middle ranges and 1600-1300 be (2000 cal BC-1550 cal BC) in the late ranges. This compares well in calibrated terms with most Northern European assessments and even Western Europe, where only a very few dates prior to 2200 be (2700-2600 cal BC) are known. Contemporaneity with other geographic regions is well demonstrated in the Balearic artefact types as well as the architectural evidence, both of which like the radiocarbon dating demonstrate quite remarkable correlation

VSZVYSZSZSZS66ZSZS66ZSZS6ZSZS66ZSZS66ZSZS6ZSZS66ZSZS6666,

23

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

ly demonstrated from the evidence in the Balearic Islands, it is obvious that during this long duration it underwent stylistic changes. At least five distinct techniques in the application of the intricate geometric designs have been used in the sites studied here (see Figure 31: Chapter 10). In my opinion, it is these designs for which the pottery should be known, every bit as much as for its characteristic bell shape with which we have been ladened. The same designs and motifs as well as the techniques used in executing the decorations are universally spread, even more so than their 'bell' or other shape. There are just so many shapes of pot possible, every other characteristic is a question of proportion. Especially valuable in the present case is the fact that the variety of design-motifs and their application can be shown to be a question of chronological development and can be assigned reasonably precise parameters in the sites examined. Whether or not such decorative and chronological correlation bear any relationship to factors dealing with the function of the Beakers is for the moment open to conjecture and too early to properly as-

we believe that it was made by specialists or a product of home manufacture are I believe questions that may be regional. The fact that it took more time and consideration to produce than the more abundant but often equally skilled undecorated wares or the less appealing everyday domestic pottery is certainly apparent. There are few however who would not agree with Beaker vessels as having had some ceremonial or votive purpose, given the special nature and character of Beaker pottery (its artistic and aesthetic beauty and its extra fine craftsmanship). Therefore, it is neither surprising nor hard to arrive at the notion that it was highly valued and most likely used for special purposes, occasions or functions. Most of the evidence is in place, and all we have to do in the case of the Balearics evidence is to examine it more closely. Its apparent use in the Balearics for up to 1200 years, circa 2500 cal BC to 1300 cal BC, as indicated by recent radiocarbon dating in the sites examined here, would further testify to its importance and duration as a polysemous symbol in the lives of its makers. As clear-

........ ,,...:,.:::·

PLATE 4. Photograph shows a small, shallow, undecorated Beaker bowl and a decorated rim sherd of a second vessel during excavations at the Rock Shelter of Son Matge. The context has been dated from charcoal at circa 2150 cal BC.

VSZVVVSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA 24

standpoint of cleaning or hygiene. It is the bottom of the bowl that is given the full decorative treatment. The designs can only be fully appreciated up-side-down or when held high in the hand while drinking, eating or in some other position, where the bottom can be clearly visible, such as pouring into another vessel, or even prior to smashing the bowl from an extended height. While there is some reasonable claim to the suggestion that the designs are signs of a knowledge of basketry, the designs and motifs a result of this experience, what is more striking when we consider the designs on the basis of the suggestions above, they are abstractly reminiscent, with their circular centre and strong radial lines and expanding bands, of solar and lunar motifs. One need only consider the frequency of this recurrent theme of the circle and radial lines, even in basketry, to become aware of this universal symbology. Neither can one deny for example the abstract nature and the brooding impression of stele decoration (e.g. the oculus or oculi), being representational of spiritual or ancestral dieties or recognition and manifestations of the forces of good and evil, fertility and barrenness, prosperity and poverty or life and death. The fact that Beaker pottery designs possibly have similar meaning, if slightly less earthly immediate and more cosmically universal, is strongly implied in the celestial symbology of the pottery designs. The contemplative vision of a sunrise or sunset or that of the full moon in a night sky are all events and themes that have been commonly appreciated and communicated through endless ages. While similar evidence and examples of the special function of Beaker pottery can be found spread over a wide geographical sphere throughout Europe, and its particular idiosyncratic use at times recorded, no single geographic region has demonstrated its multifunctional use as a ceremonial and votive object so clearly or completely as in the Balearic Islands and the Pitiussaes. Nor has there been another geographic area, apart from the Netherlands (Lanting and Van der Waals 1976) and its Dutch Model, where its long chronological duration of use has been better delineated.

sess; although such lines of enquiry are certainly interesting and might be productive if seriously pursued and subject of future research. The evidence in the present publication suggests that at least five different functions and environmental situations can be demonstrated where Beaker pottery appears to have been used for ceremonial and votive purposes in the sites examined. These include: (1) Beaker pottery as a vessel used in funeral practices and offered as an item of grave goods in caves, rock shelters and various sorts of constructed tombs, (2) Beaker pottery as a crucible vessel, used in ritual dealing with metal working, (3) Beaker pottery as a special drinking or eating vessel used in the course of secular or domestic ritual activity, (4) Beaker pottery as a votive vessel used as an offering or ceremonial vessel during the construction and dedication of architectural structures and (5) Beaker pottery as a vessel offered as a gift or used in the ceremonial or votive religious activities within a sanctuary. All of which are situations that point to its multifarious function and possible polysemous status. It is hard to deny that the beauty of the intricate designs and fine finish of the vessels is not one of the functions of Beaker pottery. It is a pottery that was meant to be seen and appreciated. These visual and surface qualities represent a concentrated, dedicated, time consuming effort that had either been carried out by specialists for gain or borne out of tradition and dedicated to accomplishing an end product of exceptional beauty, meaning and use. While our focus of attention has centered on its characteristic and diagnostic 'bell shape' the archaeological record shows that this form is by no means the single shape of Beaker pottery. Equally shared and if not more frequently found is the shallow or semispherical bowl, especially in areas like Portugal, Southern France, Catalonia and the Balearic Islands. These, should a frequency study be made, would certainly vie closely with the bell shaped 'tankard'. A tankard that itself varies greatly in form from 'bell' shape to 'funnel' shape to 'squat' beakers. The shallow, semispherical forms I am convinced were meant to be seen and displayed up-side-down. The full impact of the beauty of their designs cannot be seen or appreciated in their upright position, where only a very small proportion of the decoration can be seen, even at eye level, hence the possible significance of the designs and motifs. Otherwise, the decoration would be best seen and more effective if the designs were applied to the inside of the bowl.. On occasions this does occur, however it is exceptionally rare. Besides, the incised nature of the designs would render a bowl with internal decoration highly impractical and unfunctional from the

VSZVVV\Z\ZSAAAAAAZ\ZSAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAAAA, 25

Clhuaqp t e Tr

JlJl EUROPEAN COPPER AGE: CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD

The Beaker Culture of the Balearic Islands: an inventory of evidence from caves, rock shelters, settlements and ritual sites William H. Waldren

0

hand with a general lack of regional nomenclature that would better fit them into a more universal scenario of dates and events. The problems of chronological interpretation as well as other interpretative issues are indeed manifold, many of these overlap and are interrelated. They are also highly indicative of what data is missing from the archaeological record, both in our overall understanding of the age and Beaker phenomenon in particular. This is especially so in questions dealing with the social structure and organization of the settlements from one geographic area to another during this period, as well as those of the preceding and following one. The questions and problems that confront the prehistorian and field archaeologist alike are not just numerous, but theoretically complex and there are no lack of possible explanations or answers to the majority of these enquiries. The problem has been to try and find the best and most logical answers to key questions, something we have not done satisfactorily so far. Unfortunately, for our better understanding of the age, as well as ou rgeneral peace of mind regarding the age, logical answers to at least some of these questions are necessary before this important process of understanding can take place. As stated in the introduction, this, I believe can only be accomplished through archaeological evidence from longterm and systematically carried out excavation programmes with well-oriented archaeological enquiry. Some of the more pertinent of these enquiries can be demonstrated in the following: Why?, for example, despite its generally wide-spread and otherwise ubiquitous geographical distribution does the Beaker phenomenon occur in what amounts to concentrations or hot spots in certain regions and not in others? Certainly, this is not only a matter of the amount of work done in those regions, but perhaps equally more significant. What was it about those particular regions or settlements that seemed to have fostered the phenomenon? Were conditions perhaps more favourable in one particular place than in others, perhaps because of more abundant natural resources or environmental conditions generally?

ne cannot approach the question of Beaker settlement without considering the archaeological age in which it evolved .... the European Copper Age or Chalcolithic Period. In the story of human societies, the period was a time of great economic transition and social change. A time when organized communities were becoming more complex and progressively wealthier in property and technology. For prehistorians, it is certainly one of the most challenging and polemic areas of archaeological research today. Nowhere is this more evident than in the study and interpretation of Copper Age open-air settlement. Because most of our knowledge of the age stems from burial sites and not from the potentially more revealing contexts of settlement, we have formed a rather limited and one-sided perspective of Copper Age societies and their many cultural groups. This has resulted over the years in an almost traditional focus and dependence on burial contexts for our understanding of the period. It has impeded our better understanding of such important issues as settlement patterns and the socio-economic development of these settlements during this transitional and formative period of European prehistory. Apart from the socio-economic changes and technological advancements that occurred in urban settlements, perhaps, the most contentious issue of Chalcolithic settlement is the role played by the enigmatic phenomenon we have come to regard throughout Europe as the International Bell Beaker Culture. In many respects this widely spread phenomenon is synonymous with the age itself. According to recent findings and estimates, it was contemporary with the major part of the European Copper Age and part of the Bronze Age, circa 2500 BC to 1400 BC. Unlike the two periods (Neolithic and Bronze Age) flanking either side of it, for which we have perhaps more detailed archaeological evidence, the question of precise dating and possible subdivision of the Copper Age are for the moment matters of broad speculation. There are many differing views and these go hand in

YSZVVV\ZSZ\AAZSZ\AAZSZ\AZSZ\AAZSZ\AAZSZ\AZSZ\AAZSZ\AAAA

26

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

tle else, apart from a good deal of confusion. It is empirical evidence that is basically what the discipline of archaeology and prehistory are all about. Although intellectual and theoretical exercise does have its value as well as dangers. Some investigators beside myself have stressed the lack of productive sites as well as insufficient study materials and chronometric dating as the general reasons for the poverty of essential information (e.g. Chapman 1994 as well as others). Although, there is undoubtedly a great deal of truth in these observations, they have been, I believe, a large part a product of our own making. We have, as can be seen from the lack of detailed information and data in the new literature, relied on older, well established sites for our (new or recent) theoretical thinking, and not necessarily always the use of the most recent site sources and their study materials. Although over the past few years, thankfully, this situation has started gradually to change and the return to the use of new sources is beginning to emerge. When dealing with the Chalcolithic and its Beaker phase, one wonders if we have not actually in the past set our standards too high by looking for some far all too enlightening explanation for both the age and phenomenon? On the other hand, perhaps, in terms of strategy, methodology and theorizing, we should ask whether or not our criteria have been really high enough? As to the first of these, most of us have done this to some degree or another in the past, when as hind-sight we might have been better off by concentrating our efforts on simpler, far more regional focus and details, using more individualized and flexible criteria, than in seeking global or universal explanations. As an example of such global or universal thinking, in our nomenclature and interpretations of the age and phenomenon today, we still refer to an International Bell Beaker Culture, using in our literature such antiquated and inadequate terminology as the Beaker People or Folk, in a sense making it an ethnic issue. In fact, we have not really decided in most of our minds whether or not the occurrence was actually a culture, a phenomenon, or simply a single intrusive element found within indigenous archaeological contexts of a transitional age. There is also the reality and possibility that it was a still larger, more widely spread concept or horizon than we thought, and that it is too immense, perhaps, to ever comprehend entirely. It is becoming increasingly evident that the culture was not an international one in the true sense, at least not in the sense of a unified culture spreading diaspora-like throughout Europe, but that of perhaps a rather less complex and even

Was the duration and intensification of the phenomenon greatly different from place to place and if so why? Why does it briefly appear in some regions and then for no apparent reason abruptly disappear? These are but a few of the kinds of enquiry that have to be directed to excavations and in particular the use of the methodology in them. There is some recent indication that this important process of general enquiry is already beginning to take place throughout the Iberian Peninsula and elsewhere, particularly in the area of changing attitudes and the general focus on more systematically planned excavations, where better criteria and methodology are beginning to emerge. With the implementation of new methods, innovative techniques and sounder interpretative strategies, such as those beginning to be adopted by some younger investigators, I am reasonably convinced that it is only a matter of time before we have available more archaeologically ideal sources of data and information, sources that will make it possible to fill in some of the gaps and lack of detail in the archaeological record, especially in the area of Copper Age settlement. A PROBLEM WITHIN THE PROBLEM

Despite the new direction (focus and emphasis) in technology and methodology and even the changing philosophy of archaeological investigation, we have still not arrived at a single consensus of opinion that convincingly describes the Chalcolithic Period, much less one that satisfactorily explains the Beaker phenomenon, so deeply incorporated in it. The lack of Copper Age definition and detail concerning the formative stages of the Beaker cultural moment, especially in the question of its origin(s), development, change and decline and particularly by an accurate chronometric delineation of the period are, I believe, the source of most of the existing archaeological turmoil and controversy. While there has been a general tendency over the last few years among many prehistorians and archaeologists alike toward the development and belief in world models, I would like to believe that the necessity for such concepts is beginning to lose its charm and importance. I do not think that we can ever doubt, looking back over the last three decades, that there has been a great deal of vogue or mode setting that has been done by a few trend setters in places of prominence without much real success to date, apart from creating archaeological 'schools'. Trends, like the modes have come and gone and apart from making themselves known have left lit-

VSZVVV\Z\ZSAAAAAAZ\ZSAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAZ\ZSAAAAAAAA,

27

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

natural resources. I for one adhere to the belief, that the reasons were a combination of natural and physical factors that are the direct result of environmental conditions, natural resources and past human intervention as well as partly a matter of a differential preservation of evidence. There may also be in some areas certain elements of heritage and origin background, accounting for many of the characteristics of the phenomenon. There has certainly been a great deal of evidence to support all of this in Balearic archaeological contexts in general, where sites, artefacts, analytical surveys and other evidence are present in the local scenario. Like Chalcolithic sites in most of the Mediterranean Basin, heavy erosion and agricultural practices have taken their toll for over four millennia on the native soils and the materials they contain. In such open-air sites, differential preservation of materials, among other agencies, are factors over which archaeologist's have little control., but that do have a major influence on the evidence. Inconsistency and poor, fragmentary Beaker evidence are factors always to be expected in most areas of the Western Mediterranean Basin, as well as in many mainland areas, and that no amount of investigation will change this situation, where it occurs. In which case, we may have to accept this paucity and come to terms with it by incorporating it into our thinking, retrieval practices and interpretations. The low frequency of Beaker evidence or even its total absence within some Copper Age settlement contexts, on the other hand, may be the result of insufficient time dedicated to excavation or incorrect retrieval techniques. In which case, our excavational efforts perhaps have not been thorough or methodical enough. We may not have stretched our imagination or inventiveness enough or we may not be looking in the right places in order to get at the evidence and root of a particular problem. There is strong evidence of most of these failures having occurred in local Balearic sites in the past and no reason to believe that they have not occurred elsewhere as well. As an example of poor local excavational techniques, many archaeologists interpret the inferior red soils in local excavations as 'cold' weather deposits and therefore sterile in archaeological content. Local excavations in the past have usually stopped when these soils have been encountered. It has been the author's experience that these red earth levels are anything else but sterile and are the levels where local Beaker contexts are most frequently found. Such factors are contingent however and have to be dealt with on an individual site-to-site basis.

more widely spread regional phenomenon than we first thought. One that could be adapted to and developed over time and in an unspectacular way in the environment and resources of particular regions and not in others. In some respects the enigma widens and does not marrow Another major stumbling block, I believe, has been our difficulty and inability to address (more thoroughly and innovatively) the many, individual and different Beaker contexts that we have encountered. Here again, as well as in the use of new methodology, we must go back to the question and necessity for criteria in our evaluations, . As a matter of fact, not all known Copper Age settlements or other sites of this age provide us with Beaker evidence or contexts. Often when Beaker evidence or contexts do appear, as the record shows, their frequency rate is low compared with other associated evidence and we fail to apply criteria of what does or does not constitute the Beaker Culture, or for that matter a Beaker site is or is not? On the other hand, the majority of Beaker site assemblages are incomplete, where many objects of the Beaker tool-kit are missing and the pottery evidence, when present, limited only to a pottery fragment or so. In this respect, the objects of the tool-kit may only be articles of vogue or a question of availability. Although, if this is so, it was a vogue and a product that was not only very widely spread but in some place long lasting. Herein, this ubiquitous distribution and apparent long duration of currency lies one of the major obstacles to understanding Copper Age settlements, in particular, the unraveling of the social and economic structures of these settlements. One of the enigmas lies in the phenomenon's inconsistent frequency, its sparseness or even total lack of Beaker evidence in many sites of Chalcolithic age, and yet its wide geographic distribution over vast geographic areas of Europe, factors that are largely illusionary when the different types of distribution are really broken down. This factor, perhaps more than any other, accounts for such ideas as the culture having been spread universally by a specialized group(s), engaged in trade specialization, or even the result of class distinction, such as elites, etc. Eventually, some of the answers to the question of distribution may tum out to be less complicated and ambiguous than we think. It may tum out that some of the factors suggested, such as the lack of proper sites, insufficient material evidence and documentation, poor methodology and complicated theories, are only partly responsible for our inability to understand the phenomenon better and that it was more a case of geography and

VSZVVVSZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

28

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

In conjunction with these, there has been the introduction and an increased emphasis on various forms of statistically oriented projects, utilizing especially designed methodology (Garrido Pena, in press). In such cases, the focus has been on specific problems and questions directly pertaining to settlement organization, social conditions, economy, environment and resources, as well as distribution studies within these sites. There has also been an added rethinking and closer evaluation of some of the well known older textbook sites like Los Millares and Zambujal. The Gatas Project (Lull, Sanahuja and Chapman 1989) and the Balearic Project (Waldren, Ensenyat and Cubl 1990 and 1993)(Ensenyat Alcover, in Press) are examples of the new type of research underway, while the recent renewal of excavations at Los Millares (Arribas and Molina 1987) is an example of the reassessment of older sites. Regardless of such increased excavational interests and the introduction of new methodology and techniques over the last decade, proportionately, very little new chronological data in the form of radiocarbon dating has emerged in the study of open-air or rural Copper Age settlement. For example, there is still far too few chronometric data from critical areas in the Peninsula and South of France, which would give us a better chronological perspective from these regions. Hence there are large gaps in our knowledge regarding settlement patterns from there. Furthermore, apart from one or two areas, this applies for northern Europe as well. Despite the many hypotheses, and field work over the years addressing settlement issues, such as interaction between regions, we have gathered very few clear details concerning the different processes and mechanisms that stimulated change during the Copper Age, especially in the way these forces possibly affected life in the settlements. We know very little, for example, about the transitional stages and changes that took place between the former less complex, mostly egalitarian Neolithic communities and those of the Chalcolithic Period. On the same scale, we have an equal lack of detail concerning the formative influences and mechanisms responsible for the transition between the Copper Age settlements and the highly stratified social groups of the Bronze Age. This lack of knowledge extends to the natural resources available in most Chalcolithic settlements and, equally, about such vital issues as the management of water, agricultural land practices and animal domestications, as well as the available technology. Oddly enough, compared to what we know about Chalcolithic settlements in most regions, we know proportionately more about the societies and economics

Regarding the distribution of Beaker sites generally as they appear today, there seems to be a paradox in which the only thing we can be sure of is that the phenomenon is unevenly and idiosyncratically dispersed over an immense geographic area, frequently appearing on the one hand as an isolated element within the contexts of a particular large geographic region and at other times as an apparently short lived intrusive element. It is extremely rare where the phenomenon stands out in a site as the single, major component in the archaeological record. This is to say, where the Beaker contexts are the one major element in a settlement sequence. Rarer still is the case where the phenomenon can be clearly distinguished as forming a very sizable unit within a larger chronological sequence, including a number of different kinds of sites. When either of the latter two examples occurs, as it apparently has in two of the primary research sites examined in this publication, it offers us a rather unique study opportunity, one from which we stand to learn a great deal. While the crux of the problem is generally exemplified by the serious lack of urban settlement evidence, which has resulted in the generally poor knowledge of the cultural influence and the social and economic environments that flourished in Copper Age communities, the largest obstacle has been the general absence of detailed chronometric data for the age. As pointed out in Chapter I, this also includes the amount and type of investigation carried out in the past. Past shortcomings have not only left hiatuses in our understanding of settlement structure, its organization and resources, but also the mechanisms and processes that stimulated and shaped cultural, social, economic and technological change. These mistakes have been off-set in recent years, however, by an increased interest in the problems surrounding rural settlement,where evidence of these factors are most apt to be found. This new interest has been brought about, not only, by a more acute awareness of the essential elements missing in the older textbook sites and in the literature generally, but it has also been stimulated by the discovery of new settlements. A good proportion of these new discoveries in the field are the result of increased archaeological interest and activity in geographic areas that until recently have not been considered seriously enough, like the central and southeast regions of the Iberian Peninsula (the present Balearic sphere of interest is also a case in point). As well as in the field, there has been equally a general development and use of modern interpretative techniques, using both in the physical and natural sciences. That is to say a focus on inter-disciplinary research.

VSZVYYSZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

29

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

have used a combination of widely separated sites, with various categories and quality of evidence as they appeared in different geographic areas (e.g. Barfield 1984 and 1987, Chapman 1985, Gilman 1981, Harrison 1980, Lewthwaite 1986). Many have dealt with artefactual comparisons, chronological correlations, signs of economic interaction, funerary customs and burial methods etc., most of which have searched for universal or global explanations (e.g. Clarke 1976, Childe 1957, Sangmeister 1963, Sheenan 1976, Sherratt 1987).

present during the former Neolithic Period, where in sites like the Neolithic Swiss Lake Settlements, we have much better preserved evidence of such activities and resources than those of the Copper Age . Despite the general lack of evidence and other data, there are many visible differences between the Neolithic Period and the Chalcolithic Period, even though we do not understand them very clearly. One of the most important of these is the emergence and the first appearance of social and economic differentiation, clear divisions of property, labour specialization and varied technological development, which brought about what I refer to as the emergence or generation of surplus, the ability to accumulate more than the individual or group could consume. Here in the Balearics, as in many mainland areas, much of the Beaker evidence shows that both the culture and the age were times of critical and dramatic change. It was a period of time when human relationships in the form of social and economically conscious, self-developing units, altered and grew in important ways over former times. This appears to have resulted in a period of development in which an overall generation of surplus became possible. It is further argued that this change in status in the form of generation of surplus, more than any other factor, went hand-in-hand in the case of the Balearics with the growth of social differentiation and activity specialization (arts and technology). It is a possibility that it may have similarly and contemporarily occurred in other regions on the Peninsula and Europe. As the existing radiocarbon evidence shows, there is an exact contemporaneity between the Balearics and mainland sites. This certainly increases the probability that similar conditions may well have prevailed in certain regions there. This status in the local generation of surplus is well demonstrated in the architecture, artefacts and technological skills found in the Balearic research sites and that, in these, the hypothesis of a Balearic environmental model is strongly supported. In contrast to what appears to be the case in the Balearic Islands, the greatest majority of mainland Copper Age settlements are either completely lacking or scarce in the essential evidence of the day-by-day activities and subsistence patterns that went on within the communities, or the mechanisms and processes influencing and controlling these. A few investigators have attempted to deal directly and indirectly with these mechanisms and processes thought to be responsible for the various developmental stages and innovative changes within the various societies of the period. Usually these studies

I think that rather than a rehashing of former thinking , solely for the purpose of academic exercise and the academic record, or a search for new theories to replace the old, we need to adopt more practical methods as well as innovative means and methods that address themselves to the particular situation and immediate environment. Although it it very difficult to hold off from creating hypotheses of one sort or another, either personal or a broader sense. As with the question of chronology, discussed in the Introduction, a new focus based on regionally oriented investigation and research are needed to construct a series of realistic and manageable regional models. Undoubtedly, this would necessitate both long term commitment and dedication to critical areas and a selected groups of sites within those areas and a reduction in the number of single, short term sites investigated at any given time. But this would not be a bad thing in the long run, concentrating funding, specialization and effort on areas where we could expect the best results. I cannot help but think that it is better to focus our efforts on the long time excavation and research of a small number of sites, rather than on many sites over a short period of time. In certain respects, too many sites are being excavated already with short time commitment, and not always with the highest standards or with any specific question in mind. Somehow, we have adopted the idea, in a desire to achieve a broader perspective, that diversity is a sign of progress, and that it is better, after a year or two on a site to move on to another. Lack of funding too are often prime considerations. As over-used as the analogy may be, it is better to remember that prehistory is a huge jig-saw puzzle in which most of the pieces of the puzzle have been lost, and a large percentage of these pieces, perhaps, never to be retrieved. There is more truth in this than we would like to admit in this concept, and such a thought in the study of prehistory is sometimes quite daunting. I believe, that in trying to construct a picture from widely separated pieces of the puzzle, we cannot expect to

YSZVVV\Z\ZSAAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAAAA,

30

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

ed efforts in more limited areas might have been more productive and given us a better picture of past events. In short, by trying to create more grandiose schemes, based on bits and pieces, these past theoretical forays have in most cases been disappointing and, at times, have actually led us astray. While we have examined the question of the lack of essential chronometric data and other information from caves, rock shelters, burials and settlement generally, it is the question of rural or open-air settlement that most concerns us at this point. We have also briefly discussed some of the pitfalls present in the traditional study and interpretation of burials and treatment of the dead. Although the study of these are both necessary and informative, they are in no way a match for the study of settlements on 'grass root' levels, where evidence of organization, life style and environmental details are far more evident. It is from the environment of rural or open-air architectural settlement and not burials or cave deposits where we can expect to encounter evidence that will eventually provide us with the missing pieces required for a more detailed picture of the Beaker culture, as well as the Copper Age itself. While it is important to know where? and when? rural settlements occurred, it is equally important to know how? sites interacted with one another on a socioeconomic basis. We must know What? processes and mechanisms were at work within the settlements. We must know How? these individually differed and How? they compared to one another, especially in a regional sense, as well as more widely. The only way to do this is to study sites that are closely related on as many levels as possible. Such questions, along with others of the same nature, probably interacted with and overlap one another on every level in the past, and although at present we usually react to them separately, they are part and parcel of the same investigative process, and are in the final analysis actually inseparable. Paradoxically, there is a strange parallel between this thinking and the current research. There has been, for example, always a firm link between the methodology used in the sites and the particular questions that were being asked during the different stages of enquiry. Where each site was treated initially as an independent unit with an individual set of questions, these eventually demonstrated that there was a strong interaction between them. In short, while each of the sites underwent different and independent stages of enquiry, where in certain contexts single questions were asked and specific solutions sought, the enquiries were individually inseparable and formed a whole or unit which showed

form any sort of coherent picture, other than one where the many large, vacant areas between the scattered pieces of the puzzle are implanted by theory that is for the most academic postulation. Not that this is not necessary at times and of some value. Nevertheless, most existing theories have been based on bits and pieces of data and information that have been selectively extracted over vast geographic areas from well known and lesser known sources, with largely, varying degrees of applicability and reliability. It seems to me we would do much better in trying to reconstruct small regional pieces of the puzzle until we have larger sections that can be eventually correlated and compared to other regional areas, where similar studies are in progress, and where, if nothing else, interaction and continuity can be established between the separate units. In this way, eventually some idea of the prehistory of individual areas might emerge that is more enlightening and conclusive than what we have at present. Individual areas that eventually can be compared to one another, with a lot more assurance. An approach of this kind would entail treating small, individual sites as components in separate geographical catchments, where these elements eventually become larger interrelated study units, or working models. Much in the manner in which the present research sites have evolved in the Balearics (Figure 8). In this way, a series of systematically studied research catchments would result that were representative of a specific geographic area. Such research catchments would, not only, provide us with a broader and more detailed perspective of what, possibly, transpired during the prehistory of that particular region, but might also produce evidence to support still wider hypotheses, certainly in a far more realistic and convincing way than many of the proposed past esoteric explanations . This, I believe, can only be done on a region by region basis and by extensive and long-term research, where all the methodological requirements and site criteria so far discussed are carried out. Only then will we be able to understand possibly how? in terms of processes and mechanisms, an enigmatic phenomenon such as the Beaker culture developed within the many different regional environments in which they occurred. It might also help to establish the duration and role played by the Beaker phenomenon within the Chalcolithic Period itself a bit more accurately. In any event, this is why?, I believe, that most of the larger theoretical approaches have failed, mainly because we have looked at the Beaker question over too vast a geographic area, when actually more concentrat-

VSZVVV\2SZ\2S2SZSZ\2S2SZSZ\2SZSZ\2S2SZSZ\2S2SZSZ\2SZSZ\2S2SZSZ\2S2S2S2S,

31

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

and shared a continuity and homogeneity. These sorts of enquiries as with the various excavations themselves, both singly and collectively, were the main areas in which most, if not all, the current chronological and other research has been and is currently centered. These different surveys were primarily designed to provide us with possible clues to the ingredients necessary for successful survival of the inhabitants, along with the objective of an understanding of the everyday problems of the people in the settlements. For example, we have been given partial solutions for such questions as to how the inhabitants of the various settlements and areas dealt with subsistence problems like water, land and animal management? We were given clues to What? on the site evidence were present to support various activities, and How? they possibly differed through time from region to region, and to what degree? It is details such as these and other similar enquiries that are the most lacking in many investigations and that give us the most difficulty in our understand of the times. Again, it is necessary to say that the evidence presented here has been largely dependent on the geographic environment and the natural resources of the region, and that these are prime considerations in any situation. As individual units themselves, they form a single, interrelated catchment. And that after all, it is How? the inhabitants of the Copper Age and Initial Bronze Age dealt with these subsistence issues, both generally and specifically, that are extremely important areas of enquiry which we have often neglected to consider sufficiently during site excavations. We must, I believe, find both understandable and satisfactory ways of arriving at explanations for most of these questions, if we are to be even half-way sure of the arguments on which we base our conclusions and other hypotheses concerning the distant past. The questions of chronometrically dating such processes and activities on a particular site, as with analyzing the processes and mechanisms in a wider geographical sense, I believe, can only be accomplished by dedicated study much in the way suggested. For the sake of continuity and reference, in the following section, we will discuss and examine local environmental conditions and other related evidence as well as make a few observations and comparisons with mainland and continental areas. This is also done in order to demonstrate some of the similar, as well as different, conditions present in these areas, and to prepare the reader for other pertinent environmental examination further on in the text, and in the discussion of the sites themselves.

ON GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Along with general climatic change, human intervention brought about by demographic growth, constant agriculture practices and such events as soil erosion, modem commercial building and other constructional activities are forces that have brought about great geographical changes in much of Continental Europe over the last five millennia. However, these forces in most areas of northern and western Europe have not had, apparently, the same effect that they have had in the southern Mediterranean regions of Europe. In northern and western Europe, over the last four thousand years, forest growth, different rain-fall patterns and active river and lake systems have resulted in the burial of Copper Age settlements and other earlier contexts deep beneath present-day soil levels, frequently under several meters of top-soil accumulation. This has made the discovery of informative Copper Age settlement sites in these northern and western regions very rare and then mainly the result of heavy, commercial constructional activities, such as building site excavations and road cuttings. On the other hand, the discovery of sites in the western Mediterranean basin, where they are far more frequent, are found on or close to the ground surface, where soil conditions can be far more archaeologically problematic. Here, the landscape has undergone many millennia of extensive agricultural activities, severe natural top-soil erosion, other elemental alteration and forms of environmental disturbance. All of these events and conditions have become common-place features to local investigators and, hence, regarded as characteristic even diagnostic of Western Mediterranean Basin landscape. Consequently, most Copper Age sites in the Western Mediterranean Basin have stratigraphy that has been badly altered over time, where one level has been weathered down into another, redistributed and even eroded completely away. Interpretation is made extremely difficult and conclusions, certainly, hard to depend on under these circumstances with any great degree of confidence. Excavation itself is also difficult under such conditions and often requires special techniques, which are frequently different from standard practice. Similar examples of severely eroded conditions in open-air settlement are not only limited to the Iberian Peninsula but are equally encountered in Southern France where poor stratigraphical conditions plague

VSZVYY\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\Z\Z\,

32

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

such important and interesting Copper Age sites as: Lebous, Fontboui:sse,Cambous, Camp de Laure etc. All of these sites have produced some Beaker pottery and a few have a limited amount of radiocarbon coverage, but once again these can not be relied on for the same reasons outlined in the Iberian sites. Nor has there been much better criteria for recognizing them as Beaker sites in these areas than in Iberia. On the whole, Copper Age settlement sites in these southern French areas experience the same kind of differential preservation of artefacts, architectural remains and other archaeological contexts as found in Iberia, and interpretation because of these conditions has been particularly problematic well. As a result of such conditions, like their Iberian counterpart, artefacts and other evidence have undergone the damaging processes of severe alteration, reduction and redistributions. This has limited the use and effectiveness of radiocarbon techniques in these French sites, probably partly accounting for the few dating lists that have emerged from the area. To add to the problem, like most Iberian sites, all of these French sites are complex, multioccupational loci, spanning several ages, therefore their materials and levels are mostly mixed, so that it is a common occurrence to find Copper Age pottery along side and mixed with pottery and other artefacts from as late as the Middle Ages.

are aspects of serious consideration and must be seriously reckoned with. Apart from contributing to our knowledge of the sequence of prehistoric events within limited geographic areas, insular investigation can equally give us insights into the prehistoric sequences of adjacent mainland areas, in many cases, truthfully reflecting mainland conditions and, at the same, time help us to identify the regions of greatest contact and influence (Waldren 1990). In short, islands can present us with a learning process and a tool that can be extended and refined and which works in both directions Island environments are capable of reflecting prehistoric happenings, more reliably than in mainland situations, preserving evidence often with more detail, because of fewer disruptive influences and conditions. In fact, as has been proven time and again in Balearic sites, the preservation of material evidence is better than elsewhere. Islands undergo less intrusion and traffic over the millennia, such as heavy agricultural and building activities; activities which over intervening centuries can very rapidly alter, destroy or obscure archaeological contexts and other traces of human cultural activity. This is especially true locally, due to the fact that in many areas of the islands, particularly on Mallorca, the soils, although shallow by nature in the higher mountainous regions, deep plowing has been less destructive than on the flat land or coastal areas, where the island's main commercial development and other activities have been far more extensive. Geographical factors of islands, such as the ease or difficulty of access to and from adjacent mainland coastal regions, can have a great deal of bearing over the arrival, adaptation and development of life forms or host cultures over time. These natural and selective processes involve a number of mechanisms. Perhaps the greatest of which is insularity itself. While the mechanisms of insularity (for there are more than one) always have to be recognized as a major, contributing factors in the development of insular ecological and cultural systems. Systems which are influenced and limited by land area and demography, as well as being subject to other natural laws, such as native resources and climate. Insularity, however, need not be a limiting factor. On the contrary, insularity is usually a rich, varied and dynamic set of forces that in the course of ecological evolution or by cultural change can produce rare and unique examples, sometimes quite rapidly, which can often be identified and understood more clearly on islands. Over time, islands have served as an overflow of

ON INSULARITY

As early as the days of Darwin, island investigators have pointed out that insular environments are unusual warehouses of prehistoric ecological and cultural data and information, capable of offering us important and highly reliable prehistoric evidence (Cherry 1981 and 1984, Evans 1973 and 1977, Patton 1996, Renfrew 1973 and Sondaar 1977). Renfrew has presented us with the concept of independent development of cultures, permitting us to place the 'classical' mechanism of cultural diffusion into better perspective. Evans, for example, (apart from pointing out some of the advantages to be gained from insular research) has gone so far as to suggest that the islands of the west might supply some of the answers to problems concerning demographic movement and trade in the Mediterranean generally. For anyone working any length of time on islands, these observations have become through experience common knowledge. When undertaking insular prehistoric ecological and cultural research of any sort, the processes, mechanisms and idiosyncrasies of insularity

VSZVVSZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

33

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

and mainland was apparently easily maintained, even at earliest stages in the islands' cultural development (Waldren 1990). From the anthropological standpoint, I believe, there are only two main stimuli that foster cultural change to any significant degree, with possible admixtures of the two. One of these two main stimuli is invasion or replacement of one culture by another, forcefully or peacefully by supremacy of numbers, such as colonization or migration. The other main factor is necessity, where change becomes vital for survival or for purely subsistence reasons, as a matter of economics, demographic increase or other external, internal pressure of a non aggressive nature and origin. In any event, culture and tradition, which go hand-inhand, are hard to break. Once a culture or way of doing things is entrenched within the culture, if it is successful and gains a traditional status, stronger influences, motivations and stimulation are required for noticeable change to occur. This is usually brought about by processes of a economic or political character, which may either take on an aggressive or passive pattern or policy. Since time immemorial, these requirements (processes) of change have been demonstrated socially and historically, over and over again. So one would think that we should have little difficulty in recognizing them in the prehistoric record. It is often the measure or degree to which these processes of change occurred and the motivations behind them that are most difficult to pin down and define with any detail. It seems likely and logical, to assume that an island's initial settlers, as well as later arrivals, brought with them deeply entrenched and often individual and traditionally rich cultural backgrounds or knowledge, not to mention their distinctive tool kits and ways of doing things. These were consequently employed within or adapted to the existing framework of a new and different environment. They would have had to utilize the resources at hand and in turn adapted these in a direct or indirect way to what they already knew from past experience. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that if they did not import the actual tool kits and work materials themselves, they did import the knowledge and experience to make them. This human distribution, the result of gradual migrant movement, might possibly be a partial explanation to the way that the Beaker phenomenon spread fro area to area. Given that such mechanisms as change, adaptation, tradition and past experience existed, one would expect strong cultural traces to be preserved and hence to be detectable in the archaeological record. In the case of

mainland population and therefore reflect the cultures from the areas most proximate. Given enough time, the mechanism of insularity can result in highly individual and specialized cultural and biological adaptations, and by the same token, islands preserve evidence, often to a remarkable degree, largely unaltered. Examples are found in the evolution of such insular animals as the dwarf antelope of the Balearics, Myotragus balearicus and dwarf elephants and hippos of Cyprus, Malta and Crete, all of which from recent evidence have been exploited by early inhabitants of those islands. The preservation of archaeological evidence on islands can be seen in cultural developments of all sorts: as traces of mother or host cultures, in evidence of social and economic change, as representatives of religious activities, as well as the origins from which all of these may have been derived. Other insularity factors deal with the peripheral mainland to island distances, which to a great extent control the probability and intensification of insular environments and population. Still other factors are related to island mass and potential for food production and natural resources and resource exploitation. The larger the island and its proximity to the mainland the greater is the ecological and cultural potential and hence a high probability exploitation. When the environment or conditions are right, insularity can also lead to still another island characteristic. This is seen in the stimulation and creation of a certain homogeneity, or common cultural nature, and what can appear as a cultural unity or purpose among an island's communities. This manifests itself in the lack of marked regional variation and even an unwar-like conduct on the part of the inhabitants. All these characteristics are found in the Balearic prehistoric environment and for which support can be found in the empirical evidence and data to be examined. If there are any particular characteristics in the Balearics, these demonstrate homogeneity and continuity. Homogeneity and continuity are particularly evident during the Balearic Beaker cultural period, as well as periods on both sides of it. Homogeneous cultural development appears to have been favoured by the easy access route to and from the adjacent mainland coastal regions, as well as among the islands themselves. This easy access route and sphere of influence was operative during most, if not all, of the islands' prehistoric sequence and is manifested by this homogeneity during the different chronological periods. This route and sphere of influence is not much different from that of today. As a result of proximity and easy access, cultural interaction and trade contacts between the islands

VSZVYSZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\2S2SZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\2S2SZ\Z\,

34

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

mainland situations, which frequently causes interpretative difficulties. These artefact similarities and other comparative elements like the architectural and chronological data along with the islands' geographic proximity to adjacent mainland areas have led the author to his proposal of a geographic arc of immediate influence (Figure 5) from which most Balearic cultural parallels can be traced and some of which are argued as Bell Beaker in origin (Waldren 1980, 1981, 1984 and 1990).

the Balearics, these strong cultural traces are not only found but take on the nature and character of homogeneity. This homogeneity can be demonstrated in the Balearics as being composed of common elements of similar and uniform nature which are found in the artefact and other evidence. It also manifests itself as a general as well as specific continuity, one that persisted from site to site. This local homogeneity and continuity suggests a well organized or regulated interaction and communication existing between the different geographic zones of the islands. It is also strongly reflected in the islands' site contextual sequences, radiocarbon documentation and artefact evidence. In the artefact and other evidence, it is manifest in similar pottery decoration and other typological elements. Homogeneity in the Balearic Beaker artefact assemblage is also present in such contexts as the compositional characteristics and construction of the pottery and its patterns of its distribution, as well as in other items in use at the time, such as 'v' perforated buttons, flint tools etc. This type of correlation is also seen in the construction of the architecture of the period, where we find strong parallels in a number of geographic areas of the Mainland and its periphery, especially those of southern France .. Continuity, most of all, is seen in the radiocarbon documentation in the research sites examined and in the pottery assemblages in terms of stylistic characteristics and their apparent long duration of currency from one period to the other, these strongly suggest their origins. This long term homogeneity and continuity occurs in determinable time ranges in artefacts, like the Beaker pottery and 'v' perforated buttons, but also in the pottery assemblages of the other periods. In the case of the Balearic Beakers, such factors and characteristics show a continuity covering about 1200 years, with changes only occurring slowly over that period in the application of the pottery decorative techniques, a similar date range and duration of use that is becoming increasingly evident in some Mainland regions (Harrison 1989). The various Balearic Beaker assemblages with their remarkably similar elements and duration of currency show an almost total lack of regional variation and other characteristics, which act as cultural trace elements with strong parallels that can be found within a mainland arc of immediate influence. There is little doubt that the islands' insularity also helped preserve the different mainland cultural influences once they arrived on the islands. There can also be little argument concerning the more intense traffic in

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

As discussed earlier, until recently, Balearic Beaker contexts were usually associated with rock shelters and caves. The presence of Beaker evidence in local openair settlement is a relatively recent development. Contrarily to what is encountered in mainland situations, where Beaker evidence is usually found as part of a site's Chalcolithic sequence and not the single cultural element. As we will see in the following chapter (III), for the first time a Beaker urban settlement, the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement and a ritual site , Prehistoric Sanctuary of Son Mas, can be discussed seriously. Before this process can take place further general discussion regarding local distribution of sites and materials are necessary for the sake of background, along with some reference to mainland contexts. Balearic Beaker sites by mainland standards of distribution are spread over a relatively small geographical area. This may partly account for the homogeneity of the local artefact evidence. Geographically, sites are limited mainly to the island of Mallorca with one source on the small island of Formentera off the coast of Ibiza. No Beakers to date have been found on the Island of Menorca, although it is probably only a matter of time before they do. What amount to undecorated or plain wear similar in all characteristics but decoration have been found in at least one site on Menorca (e.g. the Taula Sanctuary of Torralba den Sallort, Alayor, Menorca). As well as directly affecting the life-style of the inhabitants, this limited geographic distribution can be considered advantageous in that, I believe, it has curtailed the development of regional variation and change within the material culture, and thus was probably conducive to homogeneity. As we will see, the local Beakers, within their limited area of distribution are quite profuse and interesting and even highly representative of their kind. Balearic sites, independent of the known occupation

VSZVSZ½Z\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

35

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

France (e.g. Lebous, Cambous, Fontboui"sse and Camp de Laure, etc.). As pointed out earlier, there are none that have given us the variety and quantity of detail needed to form a really clear picture of Copper Age everyday life, much less the mechanisms and processes that influenced their growth and decline. They do however reflect the level of development and high degree of social sophistication reached during the Copper Age. In short, the picture of the Copper Age given to us in these areas by organized urban settlement is far less clear and much more complex than appears in the Balearics. Artefacts from burials in caves, rock shelters and various sorts of tombs, and not from contexts of open-air settlement, have been the main sources of our knowledge and interpretation of the age. These burial sources of evidence on the mainland just have not been very informative in that they have provided with a distorted and somewhat biased view of the Chalcolithic societies of which they are thought to be representative. As a result, such focus on burials has created what is for the want of better description a thanatologistical (view on death) interpretation of society, an interpretation that is based mainly on burial practices, grave architecture and funerary paraphernalia, and not evidence of the more informative aspects of Chalcolithic communities and their everyday problems. This rather distorted and one-sided, death oriented view of a transitional society, I believe, has been one of the other major obstacles confronting our understanding of an increasingly complex social structure and economic organization. At the same time, this has further influenced our conception of the underlying forces and stimuli of change that took place during the Copper Age, consequently making it difficult to answer other important questions concerning the individuals that made up the many different societies. Although it is important to know how people treated their dead, it is equally important to know how sites interacted with one another on a socio-economic basis. The only way to do this, I believe, is to establish when? and how? such relationships occurred and the impact they had within regional contexts, and to do this by extensive and long time research in which all the requirements so far discussed are carried out. Only then will we be able to understand more fully possibly how? in terms of processes and mechanisms such an enigmatic phenomenon, as the so-called Beaker Culture, developed within the Chalcolithic Period throughout the various regional environments in which it did. It seems to me that as well as to incorporate the Beaker phenomenon within the European Copper Age, we

and use of caves and rock shelters, have produced unusual and informative examples of rural or open-air architectural settlement, in which evidence of intensified agriculture and animal husbandry can be demonstrated. As well as long term commitment to the areas in which they have been constructed, these newly discovered settlements show considerable energy, investment and productivity on the part of the Copper Age inhabitants in the construction of permanent rural or open-air settlements. In the Balearics, settlements sites like these show an elevated organization and sophistication. They go hand-in-hand with the appearance of social differentiation and development of their resources through technological skills, such as the construction of irrigation ditches, terracing and the development of lithic, metallurgical and, in the case of Beaker pottery, extremely fine ceramic skills. The fact that this technological evidence is found in a wide variety of different environments in the Balearics, both in the open-air settlements as well as rock shelters and caves is especially interesting, and in some respects gives the local Beakers especial significance. That the Beaker pottery (undoubtedly, the most common, and easily recognized article of the artefact assemblage) evidently had multifarious functions and a long duration of use as a polysemous symbol within the society is very well supported (Waldren 1994). Because of its possible different uses, broad variety, contemporaneity, and more particularly its high frequency, makes it one of the pivotal points of the research in the primary sites and can be said on these bases, rightly, to be diagnostic of the local Copper Age and phenomenon in general, tying both closely together. Evidence of similar functions and physical characteristics of Beaker pottery are found on the mainland, however, perhaps, not so clearly distinguishable and closely associated with settlement and ritual situations in these areas, as they are in the Balearics. Although considering the collective evidence of the different function of Beakers in Iberian Copper Age sites, we will note that all the components are present in these regions for favourable comparison. For example, as well as in domestic situations, and of course in burials, where their ritual significance is evident, the use of Beakers in settlements as metal working crucibles occurs in several regions of the Peninsula. As we know, some excellent examples of Copper Age open-air or rural settlements sites are known throughout the whole of Western Europe, but that the best of these are found mainly in the Iberian Peninsula (e.g. Los Millares, Cerro de la Virgen and Zambujal) and Southern

VSZVVVSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA

36

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

need also to separate it in some respects. A series of systematically studied smaller sites such as those examined here, each located in a critical geographic area, I believe, would not only provide us with a broader and more detailed perspective of what went on during prehistory but also give us evidence that could eventually

the Balearics and Pitiussaen island groups form a set of natural stepping-stones thrusting out from the Valencian peninsula, each within mid-distant sight of one another. As the centre of the circle of the possible areas of influence that surround them, they are more closely related to the Iberian mainland than the other insular

ARC OF IMMEDIATEINFLUENCE

be applied to and used to support, in a far more realistic way, still wider hypotheses than the many esoteric explanations proposed to date have done.

and continental peripheral areas. The closest distance is 92 kilometers from the Valencian coast to the island of Ibiza in the Pitiussaes and a further 90 kilometers to Mallorca from Ibiza, with a mere 48 kilometers separating Mallorca from Menorca. An open sea distance of 167 kilometers lies between Mallorca and the Barcelona and the Catalan coasts (a distance parallelled in the case of the island of Melos and the Franchthi cave on the coast of Greece, where evidence of VIIIth millennium navigation with a mainland to island distance of 152

THE ARC OF IMMEDIATE INFLUENCE

Located at the far end of the Mediterranean, equidistant from the French coast to the north (370 kms), the north African coast to the south (320 kms) and the islands of Sardinia and Corsica to the east (340 kms),

VSZVVV\Z\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA

37

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

some evidence that these eastern contacts, while present to a degree were until the Roman Colonization in 123 BC, prior to colonization, not as strong as would be expected. They were off-set by stronger mainland peripheral cultural influences from the southwest, west and northwest. A great deal of the Balearic evidence, for example, demonstrates strong Late Bronze and Early Iron Age associations from the Celtic world to the northeast and north. These influences and evidence of trade and contact lasted well into the Late Bronze Hallstattian and late La Tene Iron Ages and seem to have coexisted with classical trade interests like those from the Carthaginian colonization of Ibiza in 654 BC. In fact these classical interests and their maritime skills may well have been directly responsible for the arrival of the Celtic influences themselves, as early as the Vllth- VIIIth centuries BC, providing the necessary marine transport. In short, it is only after the last of the Punic Wars in the Ilnd century BC and the Roman Colonization in 123 BC when serious influence, trade and territorial occupation with the classical world occurred. Despite the Carthaginian VIIth century colonization of Ibiza in the Pitiussaen Group, until the Ilnd Century BC, the classical world had no real territorial hold on the Balearics, although as stated contact, trade and influence did exist earlier. In the wake of the classical contact, trade influence and mercenary involvement, the so-called, indigenous Talayotic culture eventually became completely dominated and underwent an almost total decline by the time of the Roman colonization. Strong evidence of this extensive trade and contact appears in the late indigenous settlements in increasingly large quantities of imported trade goods in the form of pottery, metal and other commercial items . There is ample evidence in the artefacts that escalating and multivaried influences were arriving from several directions during the Vllth century BC forward by what can be considered aflotsam and jetsam process of arrivals. These arrivals were equally southwestern, western and northwestern as well as the eastern contacts, having the greatest influence in the form of serious alteration and decline during the final stages of the local Talayotic Bronze and Iron Age societies. Prior to 1100 BC, however, the main areas of cultural influence and trade are to be found almost exclusively within the geographic regions already outlined in the arc of immediate influence.

kilometers has been recorded: Jacobsen 1976), so that no great difficulty would have been encountered in reaching the Balearics from that route. The most distant and least accessible route into the Balearic Group is across the treacherous Gulf of Lyons. Some 340 kilometers of open sea in which severe, unpredictable winds blow, making passage even in modern sailing vessels difficult from Sardinia to the Balearic island of Menorca. In the author's mind, this is the least likely direction, even during good weather, for a steady flow of contact. Although, we cannot exclude a peripheral coastal route in the lee of the land along the southern French and Catalonian coasts. Good weather for long spells in summer and favourable sea currents southwestward from the southern French coast of Sete to the Iberian coastal areas of Catalonia offered a more distant but still feasible route of entry to the Balearics in antiquity. In short, the easiest avenues of access and geographic proximity are from island to island or from the Valencian, Catalan and Pyrenean regions directly to the west and northwest. It is logical to expect that strong cultural ties with these proximal geographical zones would have taken place and to some extent continued through most of the prehistoric period. That these avenues of access would have had a particular appeal as well as influential bearing on cultural, demographic and commercial movement between the Balearics and these peripheral areas throughout prehistory is more than a strong probability. They are certainly a serious geographic factor for contact and the arrival of influences and commerce to the present day. The author's geographic arc of immediate influence (Figure 5) extends from the regions of Almeria in the southwest, through the Valencian Peninsula to the west, continuing northwestward into Catalunia, the Pyrenees and further northward and northeasterly into the Languedoc, Provence and Bouche-du-Rhone of Southern France. It is spread within this wide geographic hemisphere that the earliest contacts, major evidence and largest number of parallels for Balearic and Pitiussaen prehistory are to be found until Classical times (Waldren 1982). While it is the earliest contacts with the west that most concern the arc of immediate influence, it is eastern influences in the form of classical eastern trade, colonization and military involvement in the islands from circa 800 BC forward into the !Ind century BC that strongly effected the indigenous societies and to a still greater extent well into the Ilnd century AD. There is

VSZVVV\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2S2SZ\Z\2S2S2S2SZ\Z\2S2S,

38

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

ON THE BALEARIC CULTURAL SEQUENCE

profile, interesting, often unique, certainly important but frequently, informatively limited. Until recently, this has been very much the case in the Balearic Islands, where despite the fact that abundant Beaker evidence has been around for a long time, it has been received rather unenthusiastically and treated for the most part as an intrusive element within the local Pretalayotic Period (e.g. Cantarellas Camps 1972 and Topp 1989). As a result, this view has done little to attract the interest of Mainland investigators or the done much to encourage its more extensive use. In fact, it has led in some cases, to mixed opinions even scepticism on the part of a some international investigators (e.g. Barfield 1986, Harrison 1980). The local views as well as the international ones have left in their wake controversy and a fair share of poor evaluation of existing data (e.g. Topp 1989). In all events, adversity to the idea of Beaker presence in the Balearic Islands is therefore understandable but not unique. We will presently see that the islands have a rather long negative history concerning Beaker involvement, one which has been fraught with controversy and ambiguity. Despite quite solid evidence to the contrary, for some odd reasons, it has been difficult for investigators, both local and international to accept the fact that the Balearic Islands could have attracted and sustained Beaker interests, especially any long term one, and much less that it may have actually flourished in a manner rare in mainland situations. The fact too that the Beaker phenomenon appears to play only a role in the large panorama of the Chalcolithic Period, like it apparently does on the mainland and elsewhere, the role it played here in the Balearics is proving to be not only an intrinsic one but an inseparable one as well. Part of the purpose of the present work is to demonstrate that the local Chalcolithic or Pretalayotic period was unusually rich in Beaker involvement and to show as fully as possible to what degree. Nevertheless a great many problems still remain in the question of absolute dating, despite two productive decades of advancement in archaeological thinking, methodology practices and radiocarbon research consisting of over 350 dates for the local sequence. Difficulties in the calibration of conventional radiocarbon dates have arisen at a time when we were just beginning to accept and come to terms with the broader chronological parameters suggested by the conventional method. To some degree radiocarbon calibration has created not only problems in general theoretical interpretation, it has most affected local ideas of chronology and most accepted chronometric schemes universally as well.

Much of the subject of chronology and importance of radiocarbon dating has been covered in the Introduction of Chapter I. Parts of the present section are therefore partly repetitive, but for the sake of continuity this is necessary in order to extend further the question of the Balearic Beaker cultural sequence, chronological framework and its place and importance within European contexts. It is also included to equip the reader with the latest scheme for the division of Balearic prehistory I have discussed in considerable detail, how useful larger radiocarbon listings for Beaker contexts could be and when we do have substantial lists how they are usually far too generally discussed in Copper and Bronze Age site reports (e.g. Martin, Biosca and Albareda 1984) and in some recent textbooks (e.g. Marcen, Lull and Risch 1992). But even with these few larger lists, the representative dates for any given context or temporal range, such as the Beakers, are simply statistical data and usually not linked to any particular event or problem present at the time. Nor are they usually presented as nuclei for larger schemes other than very generally and applicable to large geographic areas. In short, there is usually no information or data on what questions or problems they were intended to resolve. They are mainly lists. We often forget that the dates not only represent a specific moment in time, but that they are in reality the witness of an event or action that took place which was the result of human or natural activity, and hence they have a highly personalized and indicative nature, which at times could be particularly informative. Regarding chronological frameworks as a whole, with the present state of radiocarbon dating surveys, it is of little wonder that we have few if any structural frameworks built on radiocarbon documentation, but more that are built on relative chronology, artefact typology and inference. When we study most chronological illustrations or graphic representation of archaeological sequences, it is quite evident that specific interfaces depicting events in the sequence are lacking in detail. Smaller radiocarbon listings involving Beaker evidence, for example, when they are available are frequently incorporated as low-yield statistics, a minor part of the general archaeological context, not linked with others. That is to say, because they are limited in number, they are treated rather like an intrusive chronometeric element in an otherwise homogeneous local chronological atmosphere and as a result their importance is seen as minimal, a generalization in the broader chronological

VVVYY\Z\Z\66Z\Z\66ZSZ\6Z\Z\66ZSZ\66ZSZ\6Z\Z\66ZSZ\6666,

39

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

As pointed out earlier, I believe, most of the chronological difficulty still arises from the lack of adequately dated evidence from critical contexts, and goes back once again to the need for a larger series of well dated sites in which extensive excavations and long-term research have gone hand-in-hand with the use of specific objectives and site strategies, designed to answer and find solutions for some of the more immediately pertinent problems, like absolute dating or chronometry. This, again, is apparent in the literature where the rarity of such well dated sites, the lack of proper Beaker settlements and the special conditions and requirements necessary for their study is a matter of record. We can see these same general failings throughout the vast areas of the Iberian Peninsula, which despite the existence of many sites of this age, few can really be said to be qualified Beaker sites, although their Copper Age origins are often visible and well confirmed, and these on the whole have comparatively few radiocarbon dates (Paloma, Marcen, Lull and Risch 1992). The trouble with the few conventional radiocarbon series that do exist from Iberian sites (e.g. Los Millares, Cerro de la Virgen, Moncin, Cova del Frare and Zambujal etc), the number is still not significantly enough to give a really clear or even moderately satisfactory chronological perspective to form an acceptable chronometric framework for what is a very large geographical area, much less for smaller regional ones. Although a few sites have what are considered as long lists by some (Harrison 1990), the available dates from these sites are actually extremely limited in number and use, and to my way of thinking are short lists, especially considering the size, complexity and general importance of the settlements they represent. We have seen how such radiocarbon listings have given us, at times, unacceptable date ranges, dates that are either to large in their calibrated polarity or have no polarity at all., apart from their large sigma statistical margins of error. Indeed, the results have been far from satisfactory when trying to understand such problems as the real duration of a site in occupational terms, or the length of any possible chronological subdivision within relative chronologies, much less in determining the date of some specific activity like a construction date for an architectural element or other important activity or event. In short, calibrated date ranges have upset chronometrical precision and interpretation universally and on many occasions left us with a sense of general dissatisfaction, confusion and even doubt as to what to accept or expect. Once again, an example of this is found in the uncali-

brated dates from the textbook Copper Age contexts of Los Millares (1870 ± 40yrs be) where the polarity created by the statistical margins of error of the conventional 14C date is only 80 years, whereas the calibrated date (2378 cal BC) has a calibration date range of 250 years (2462 - 2214 cal BC). This widening of the calibrated date range polarity, compared to the conventional statistical margin of error in conventional dates is, in most cases of radiocarbon calibration, broader for this period than in conventional carbon 14 dating. The one advantage is that calibrated dates are said to give us generally more accurate dates than conventional ones from the standpoint of precision (a rather contradiction of thinking). In certain respects, the few sites with larger lists of dates (larger than one or two dates), calibration has created proportionately more problems in chronological interpretation than smaller lists, although paradoxically the built in and overlapping ranges reduce the probability error. This problem is particularly visible when dealing with the more precise delineation of site activities and determination of phasic chronological stages in their development. In this they succeed for the most part in giving us absolute dates that are no better in certain ways than relative ones, except perhaps in slightly higher probability terms. Furthermore, as they relate to Beaker sites and the Beaker Phenomenon in particular, the calibrated versions of conventional 14C dates create the large gaps mentioned over the full time range of prehistoric chronological interpretation, affecting all existing chronological schemes in their wake (Waldren 1990). This, if we chose to think this way, has placed us literally back to square one, when trying to deal and come to terms with the question of absolute chronology; thus increasing our sense of ambiguity regarding the use of the method as a reliable tool. This can be seen more so in most smaller, wider spread dating inventories rather than larg~ comprehensive lists of dates like the Balearic inventory, where most problematic areas are less predominant due to accumulated probabilities and the ability to correlate and compare a large series of independent inter-site inventories encompassing a relatively small geographic area. Large listings like these when broken down into smaller independent site inventories within a limited area, more often than not, represent common contexts within the broad chronological contexts themselves. In other areas like the Iberian Peninsula, inventories are made up of a large number of independent small components, representative of a very large geographic area where these small components are not in themselves extensive (e.g.

40

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

local radiocarbon surveys can be seen in the pentapartite division and subdivision of local Balearic prehistory illustrated in Figure 6.

Paloma, Marcen, Lull and Risch 1992 ). In such cases the individual site inventories can be expected to show wide date ranges and become particularly notable when only one or two dates are available for each site. In the final analysis, in such instances, calibrated dates tell us, not only, very little about the true history of the site, but also speak little about their reliability, and as pointed out earlier, small lists of dates for well known sites have become seemingly significant mainly because of the actual historical importance of the site itself. Then too, in calibration, we are given a choice of different probability sigma ranges and in the literature it is not always clear what sigma range is being used in quoted readings, which for the reasons of interpretation are easier to understand when given in middle sigma ranges (something I myself do for interpretation, as well as publication and because of the large quantity of dates available for most of my sites). In short, this lack of a large number of dates for a single site can leave us with even more significantly altered date ranges than before the introduction of calibration; an outcome that is discussed elsewhere in an appropriate Chapter in regard to Balearic Beaker contexts . If we take a negative position, the refinement and use of absolute dates, like relative dates, give us points of reference and parameters of duration that are just too broad for accurate definition of the subtler aspects of the Copper Age and the activities of the people living during the period. Calibrated dates, also like conventional radiocarbon and relative dating, do little, for example, to answer the essential questions as to how the inhabitants of Copper Age communities went about dealing with their basic day-by-day subsistence problems. They tell us little about such problems as water control, agriculture, management of livestock and technological skills, like pottery, metal working and other production. However, the proper use of the method, despite its inherent limitations, can in the right circumstances give us very positive results, even in the subtler regions of chronological and general interpretation. I have found through experience, that if the method is used with a strategical purpose and objective in mind, as well as used with innovated techniques, some of the calibrated shortcomings can be minimized, understood and actually worked to advantage. In any cases, it has been used in the Balearic Islands in forming a reasonably reliable, working chronological framework, one based on several hundred radiocarbon dates and one that could not have realized by other means. The chronological framework, the results of the

THE BALEARIC CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

The late Gordon Vernon Childe made the statement toward the end of his life that without some framework in which to present prehistory, all was chaos. Unlike history, because of the lack of the normal channels of evidence, data and information, such as the written record, personal experience and other frames of reference with which to work, the study of prehistory has for the most part merely the remnants of material culture that miraculously have managed, somehow, to survive the ravages of time. Therefore some theoretical structure or set of guidelines must be established in the form of a modus operandi before we can make much sense out of the distant past. It is of small importance whether or not our framework or hypothesis eventually turns out to be wrong and has to be discarded for a new one. What is important is that a framework is formed in the first place, with a solid basis to do so, and that in the long run it serves as a working model or nucleus for something larger, which in tum is functional. To be able to determine what specific events occurred, as well as where and when they transpired in moments of prehistory are essentially the most important questions in archaeological investigation and research. At the same time, the answers to these three specific questions form a large part of the substance on which archaeological theory and hypothesis are based. They are also the bases for the formation of any chronological framework or scheme. Any framework or working hypothesis is made up of the excavated bits and pieces of empirical evidence defined by these questions of what, where and when, and in this way they form the various landmarks and important stages that make up our scenario of the past. Hypothesis and theory and the questioning they entail, must grow by degrees out of the empirical evidence, before we can possibly undertake the formation or delineation of any chronological scheme. The way we view and interpret past events, either hypothetically or metaphorically, is greatly influenced by the way we use these bits and pieces and what we logically believe they mean. Anything other than these is made up of physical analyses, experimentation, intuition and innovation. As archaeologists and prehistorians, it is both our task and duty to ask as much as we can from our materials, as well as other sources of evidence. The answers we

VSZVYYSZV\AAZV\AAZV\AZV\AAZV\AAZV\AZV\AAZV\AAAA,

41

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

may get from the evidence are not always immediate, nor are they as clear as we would like. The outcome is frequently dependent on a combination of elements, such as our familiarity with the evidence, its context and origin and the way we decide to use it to in our particular hypothesis. There is also a huge amount of doubt in not knowing for sure whether or not the answer we get is really a true reflection of the past. Perhaps, this is as it should be and the recognition should make us cautious in the choice and use of theory and metaphor. Both hypothesis and metaphor can also become cumbersome, if not held in moderation, frequently causing difficulties and obscuring the complicated and subtle processes and change that moulded human conduct and development. The empirical evidence is really important or useful, only, when it clearly reflects the influences and forces responsible for change and development... quite outside hypothesis and metaphor. This is to say, when there is present in the empirical evidence as little choice of metaphor or hypothesis as possible and the articles of evidence multiply themselves and correlate with other pieces of evidence .... removing as much ambiguity as possible from the situation . After all, it is the empirical evidence mainly with which we have to work and that is the starting point to any larger perspective of events. The present chronological study determines, if only within the realm of probabilities, what and when particular events occurred in Balearic prehistory, thus forming a working chronological framework. One which defines specific landmarks, dealing with cultural arrivals, technological introduction and change. To accomplish this, it uses extensive radiocarbon dating and is therefore not a relative chronology, but that of a chronometric nature. Regardless of the clear cut appearance of the chronological scheme outlined (Figure 6) or the metaphoric expressions for it in terms of landmark events, arrivals or in terms of the cultural waves to be discussed, it should be understood from the beginning that the scheme is only a working hypothesis in which a chronometric order is applied to the events and materials encountered, dated and described. It is not a rigid plan of things in the form of a permanent scheme, but a tentative one made up of absolute dates which are in themselves for the moment provisional. Nor is it a hypothetical framework in the strictest sense, because it is constructed and based on over 350 radiocarbon dates and prolific artefact evidence, which evoke certain statistical probabilities. The rate at which chronometric information and new

findings have been emerging from the Balearics (e.g. Waldren, Ensenyat and Cubi 1989, 1990; Waldren 1990, 1992, 1993 and Waldren and Van Strydonck 1993 and 1994), makes it difficult and almost impossible to maintain any unaltered framework for very long. There have been annual versions in the form of monographs, site reports and more substantial publications, incorporating seasonal data for several year inventories in which the lists have altered. In fact, the occasional changes in calibration tables have also necessitated periodical corrections. In this respect, the framework is flexible and in a continual state of change. The present version is offered to familiarize the new reader with the chronological sequence and nomenclature as it is used in this publication and not necessarily in former ones. Outlines of chronological scheme of other investigators are included in a more appropriate part of the text, where they are pertinent and useful for reference as well as comparative purposes. To avoid unnecessarily long lists or tables of abbreviations, both terminology and abbreviations are inserted and described where they are used. THE BALEARIC PENTAPARTITE DIVISION OF PREHISTORY

The chronological scheme used in the present publication is a pentapartite division of Balearic prehistory (Waldren 1991 and 1992). It is constructed around an original tripartite system devised early in the century by two mainland prehistorians, J. Colorninas Roca and E. Cartaillac (1915), who named the Talayotic Culture as the Balearic Island's mother culture. The term Talayotic is based on an Arabic word, atalaya, meaning sentinel, lookout or watchtower, with the local derivative of ot. It is equally used as a descriptive term for the most characteristic structure of the Balearic prehistoric architectural assemblage, the Talayot, a round or square, towerlike megalithic building, with a stone roof supported by a large stone central mediterranean pillar. They are similar to and roughly contemporary with the Nuraghi or Torreanos of Sardinia and Corsica. A brief outline of the current framework has been offered earlier in Chapter I. The detailed one offered here considers each of the framework's subdivisions individually. The divisions of Colorninas Roca and Cartaillac consisted of (1) a Pretalayotic Period (Culture of the Caves), (2) a Talayotic Period (Bronze Age) and (3) a Post Talayotic Period (Iron Age) (generally associated with the arrival of Classical influences). The pentapartite divisional framework used here has added two addi-

VSZVVV\Z\ZSAAZ\ZSAAZ\2SAZ\2SAAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAAAA,

42

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

lineated by over 350 radiocarbon dates and other analytical results. The Balearics Islands throughout their prehistoric record, as well as their recent history, have been the re-

tional periods to this original three in the form of (4) an Early Settlement Period and (5) a Presettlement Period and, both at the beginning of the tripartite order (Figure 6 below).

ROMAN COLONISATION

V

First Roman Arrivals, Increase of Classical Trade, Military Involvements with Eastern Mediterranean, Decline in Talayotic Architecture, Pottery Technology, Colonisation of Ibiza by Carthaginians in 654 BC, Varied Burial Techniques, Decline in Talayotic Architectural Techniques, First lnhumation in Quicklime and Introduction of Iron

POST TALAYOTIC

Iron.Ages 1000 BC - 123 BC

E

M

L

10-8

8-6

6-1

123 BC

Upper Interface for the Introduction of Iron, Upper Interface of Classical Mediterranean Contacts, North European (Hallstatt) Influences, Continuation of Talayotic Building. Taulas etc., Apogee of Talayotic Architecture

IV TALAYOTIC

Well Structured Social Organisation- Population Growth

BronzeAges 1300 BC - 1000 BC

~~;!J~tetfse T:~3Ci~~fil'afi~~~frITr~n~remationBurials

E

M

L

13-12

12-11

11-10

Lower Interface of Talayotic Culture Traditional Phase of Talayotic and Preta]ayotic Periods

requen use o m Dronze Emergence of Surplus, Weal!h and Status Social Differentiation First Use of Tin Bronze

L

m

~

;

PRETALAYOTIC Copper Age, Chalcolilhic, Initial Bronze

3900 BC - 1300 BC NECP

EBP

LBP

N

39-2S

25-18

18-13

E C

p

...

Early Metallurgical Techniques Introduction of Beaker Culture into the Balearics Earliest Open-Air Settlements and Sanctuaries First Quality Lithic Industry

SURVIVAL

OF MYOTRAGUS

Introduction of Domesticated Animals Introduction of Ceramic Technology

n

lncipiem Agriculture Attempts at Domestication ofMyotragus Coexistence of Man and Myotragus

EARLY SETTLEMENT Neolithic

-

5600 BC - 3900 BC

I

Evolution

PRESETTLEMENT

ARRIVAL OF MAN

of the Islands

Endemic Species

MYOTRAGUS (ruminant) (rodent) HYPNOMYS (insectivor) NESIOTIIBS

Paleo-Meso-Neolithic

8-6 million years ago - 5600 BC

The various periodic and phasic delineations are structural, temporal divisions used to construct and define the present framework. As new data and information becomes available, being tentative, they are subject to change at any time, along with the data within the major divisions. In this respect, the framework has a built in flexibility which can deal with new input as necessary. While other relative chronological schemes exist, some using occasional radiocarbon dates, this is the first scheme based entirely on radiocarbon analysis. As pointed out earlier, the parameters and interfaces of the periods and phases as well individual events are de-

cipients of what the author refers to as a series of periodic arrivals or waves of cultural and commercial influences which have shaped their past. It is reasonable to assume that among these influences and connections were included demographic overflow and migration from adjacent mainland areas; important events that are discernible and can be accredited to the prehistoric sequence. The various prehistoric cultural periods described and as are evident from the research sites examined in this section are made up of distinct stages or phases formed by changes and specific developments within their dif-

VSZVYSZ\2\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2S2S2S2S,

43

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

texts themselves is manifested in the pentapartite framework by firmly establishing specific events such as: the islands' initial settlement, survival and extinction of the islands' endemic species, introduction of domesticated species, cultural arrivals and introduction of various technologies and changes in religious practices and burial techniques, etc. That most of these important prehistoric occurrences can be directly and indirectly traced to mainland sources or origins has been already argued to some extent. (Paradoxically, it could be argued here that very little present so far in the Balearic and Pitiussean archaeological record does not appear to have been in some respects intrusive, having been introduced from somewhere and at some particular time). What is important however at this point is that only the length of the conti- , nuity and duration of the event within each of the various periods that differ, and that many of the individual land mark events and their dates both reflect great similarity and contemporaneity to many areas of the Iberian mainland and southern France. I believe, that this later aspect is to be expected and is a fair assessment, due to the proximity to the Balearics with these areas and the probable strong ties that linked them.

ferent societies, economy, religious and burial practices during the different prehistoric periods. These changes and developments are referred to as landmark events and constitute specific and important occurrences or highlights creditable within the periods and phases in question and dated from stratigraphical contexts. The succession of cultural arrivals in the Balearics throughout prehistoric time take on the metaphorical character of a number of cultural waves that sporadically or periodically arrived on their shores. While the metaphor of waves are used to describe influences as they arrived in the Balearics, it is not meant to be confused with the theoretical wave of advance as proposed by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1971 and 1973), although in certain aspects there may be some similarity. The terms landmark events, arrivals or stages are used as provisional terms suitable to the circumstances and to describe metaphorically the processes of change described. More important the insularity, proximity, land size and resources of the Balearics have been the controlling or instrumental factors in the change, development and decline (extinction in the case of animals) of the various life forms and cultures, once they arrived on the islands from abroad. We can also expect that the processes or mechanisms responsible were not constant but were periodically stimulated, sustained or changed by new arrivals, again not too unlike waves which come in all sizes and intensities and in all seasons. Also, on the bases of the Balearic archaeological record, as we shall presently see, there is reason to believe that such arrivals or changes could establish themselves as local status quos (homogeneity and continuity). Once established or entrenched as such, they were capable of surviving, as in the case of the Beaker culture, for a considerable duration. At the same time, as the evidence also seems to imply, they could be not only rapidly incorporated but also pacifically or easily assimilated as part of what was already there . One of the subsidiary objectives or studies of the chronometric survey has been not only to establish the order of the arrival of the different influences but also to determine (quantify), if possible, the rate (time, frequency and duration) at which the various landmark events and changes in the status quo took place. For example, these subsidiary studies have successfully established the duration of use and continuity not only of the various sites and their contexts, but also suggests and perhaps even reflects the more global event for this area of the Mediterranean. The close relationship between landmark dates and the varied site con-

0

THE SEQUENCE (I) PRESETTLEMENT PERIOD (PSP)

The period begins with the early fossil record and the Balearic endemic fauna approximately seven million years ago in the Upper Pliocene. The period cannot be included as a cultural arrival although it marks the introduction and development (evolution) of the endemic mammalian population of the Balearics in its final phase and contact with man. On this basis it is classified as evidence of the first arrival in terms of human occupation of the island. Apart from a limited assortment of reptiles, amphibians and invertebrate species, the faunal structure of the Balearics (Mallorca and Menorca) consisted of three mammals of different sizes, each serving a particular function in the palaeoecology of the islands, a palaeoecology which differed considerably from that of the Pitiussaes in faunal structure. The three mammalian forms were that of Myotragus (Bate 1909), a highly modified and aberrant member of the Neomorphaedine family of antelope (artiodactyla) (ruminantia) for which at least four fossil species of the animal are known: kopperii, antiquus, batei and balearicus, respectively. Hypnomys (Bate 1918, 1919) is a giant dormouse (rodentia). At least two species are known: waldrenii and morpheus, respectively and Nesiotites (Bate 1944), a giant shrew

YSZVVV\Z\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

44

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

and that when it does the Myotragus will have served as the main food sources for human consumption and exploitation. It is a matter of future excavations being carried out in the right areas for such evidence to emerge. In fact, there is at present some evidence, although the contexts are not so clear and are a matter of inference rather than direct proof, that contact may have taken place at a still earlier date than the Vlth millennium BC (Kopper and Pons 1983). In all events, the survival of the major endemic fauna and its adaptation through the various fossil species of its antecedents and well into the final stages of this period forms a whole new source and perspective of future island research. A listing of absolute dates for reference purposes are included in Table 4.

(insectivore) of which only one species is known: hidalgoi). Myotragus balearicus, the Pleistocene-Holocene species, until the discovery of the Muleta cave by the author in 1962 (Waldren 1964 and 1982) was thought by most authorities to have become extinct, like so many other Quaternary mammals, such as the Hairy Mammoth, Sabre-toothed Tiger, during the last glacial period some 40,000 years ago. The Muleta cave, which contained the remains of some 1500 Myotragus balearicus, dated its survival at circa 5000 BC. An extensive radiocarbon, racemization of aspartic acid and uranium thorium dating series of 31 absolute dates (Waldren 1992) traces its history in the deposit of Muleta along with the other species of the indigenous mammalian trilogy and invertebrate fauna. The limitation of three species of Holocene mammal in the Balearics and the absence of all but one, the shrew Nesiotites, in the Pitiussaes is a particularly interesting area of research, both for palaeontologists and palaeoecologists. The size and environment of the Pitiussaes in early prehistoric times may well account for the absence of the larger endemic Balearic fauna. The fauna! structure of the Balearics is unique in character and individual in nature, and like the natural selective laws found on other islands its endemic fauna is severely limited. At the same time, the types and function of the Balearic species, a ruminant, a rodent and an insectivor, reflect to some extent the environmental conditions as well as their function in the ecosystem. The type of island species are also restricted for obvious functional reasons and almost entirely lack predators, as islands cannot accommodate carnivores in that they require large amounts of prey ( according to some studies, a ratio of about 400 to one). If we study the unique fauna! structures of the different islands in the various regions of the Mediterranean (i.e. Kurten 1971), we will see the rich variety of types and the different functions of these endemic species within their habitat (e.g. the dwarf elephants and hippopotami of Malta, Sicily and Cyprus). In the case of the smaller ruminants, (e.g. the Sardinian, Antelop meloni ), they would have served as subsistence resources in the form of meat and other animal products for early human exploitation and consumption. In the Balearic Islands, Myotragus indeed did serve as a human resource for exploitation. On the basis of evidence so far, there is little doubt in the author's mind (Waldren 1982) that eventually the Balearics will give evidence of Mesolithic and perhaps even Upper Palaeolithic human presence in the islands,

(II) EARLY SETTLEMENT PERIOD (ESP).

The First Arrival (Wave), circa 6680 BP (cal 5589 BC). A small number of individuals (perhaps fishermen) arrived probably by accident, carrying very little equipment other than what would have been considered necessary for an offshore fishing expedition by raft or boat. They seemed to have possessed some foreknowledge of farming and perhaps animal management and according to preliminary fossil pollen analysis in the Muleta cave, some cereal grasses were present (Martin, Gottesfeld and Waldren 1966: Waldren 1982) and evidence of exploitation of Myotragus. In the different pollen profiles radical changes in the pollen rain appear in the radiocarbon dated strata of the cave between the PSP and ESP, circa 6000 BC- the period that coincides with the first human occupation of the islands. They may also have found that hunting Myotragus as well as attempts at domestication of the animal was an easy matter because of unique physical characteristics in the animal (i.e. frontal eye orbits, shortened and inflexible limbs that characterize slow locomotion: the result of the lack of predators among other factors). It could have yielded a sufficient meat supply and clothing to support their number, though not necessarily sufficient as their population grew. The evidence for the first human arrivals in the Balearics originates from two sources: the Cave of Son Muleta (SM) and the Rock Shelter of Son Matge (ABSM), both further examined below. At Muleta, human remains found associated with Myotragus were dated at 5935 BP (cal 4848 BC) and Myotragus remains directly below at 7135 BP (5740 cal BC). At Matge the three earliest dates for human occupation of the shelter are: 5750 BP (4633 cal BC), 5820 BP (4722 cal BC)

VSZVYY\Z\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZS2S662S2SAZV\AAAAAAAA,

45

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

weapon-like tools other than a microlithic assemblage in the Early Settlement Period (Waldren 1982). There is however a finely made blade and sickle industry present in the first Pretalayotic open-air settlement contexts. In short, the characteristics of the animal, with its narrow field of vision, short and tightly articulated limbs would have permitted man to approach it and so make a kill relatively easy without necessarily having spears or bows and arrows. Also, there is no evidence of dog in these Early Settlement levels, although there is later evidence in Pretalayotic contexts. This is odd as one would expect such an animal to have been imported along with the first domesticated species, which are present by circa 3500 BC. It becomes even more odd when we consider that the dog is present in archaeological deposits dating from the 7th to 6th Millennia BC in most Mainland areas surrounding the Mediterranean. Nevertheless, this lack of dog has been noted in other Neolithic sites (i.e. the Middle Neolithic levels of Egozwil 3 in Switzerland). It comes as no surprise that it can be demonstrated that humans arrived in the Balearic Islands as early as circa 6000 BC. In the last decade, evidence has shown that man reached most of the Mediterranean Islands at dates as early as the 7th and 8th Millennia BC. Typical examples of this being the island of Sardinia (Guilaine 1974) and the island of Melos, where obsidian had been brought back to the Greek Mainland as early as the 8th millennium BC. The same cave deposit that produced this last evidence (the Franchthi cave) has a level containing large fish bones, remains of prehistoric man's deep sea fishing as early as 7,250 BC (Jacobsen 1976). So that earlier Balearic settlement should come as no revelation to us. There are still many problems to be solved however regarding the origin of these first settlers and their subsistence patterns. We must seriously consider that what we are dealing with as the settlers of Muleta and Matge may not be the first settlers at all; in fact the odds against them being the first are considerable. In all events, human presence in the Balearic Islands at Muleta and Matge during 6000 BC to 3000 BC is definite, as is the probability that the economy during that period (ESP) was based as late as 2735 BC partly on the exploitation of Myotragus balearicus (see the NECP below). In turn, these findings place Balearic prehistory in a new light. They are of considerable value in the knowledge of the movement of early peoples in this end of the Western Mediterranean. They also demonstrate the degree and early stage at which people were capable of

and 6680 BP (5589 cal BC). This latter date marks the earliest human evidence. While the five dates listed delineate the duration of the Balearic ESP, they do little to sub-divide the period. There is however other information to be gained from the evidence they do date. They establish the coexistence of Myotragus with early settlers and give us details of their relationship. We see in the evidence of trimmed Myotragus horns, the extensive coprolite beds of a corral, butcher marks, broken and burnt long bones detailed evidence of attempts at manipulation, domestication and exploitation of the animal on a subsistence status (Waldren 1982). The extensive fire levels of these contexts, free of domestic animal evidence, demonstrate that Myotragus was the main meat source over a thousand year period. The lack of ceramic evidence in these levels in both sites is diagnostic but not conclusive. It is possible that the lack of ceramic technology may have been due to the arrival of the islands' first settlers having taken place much earlier than our present working date of circa 6680 BP (5589 cal BC). If so, what we see in the Matge rock shelter and the secondary site of Muertos Gallard, where the earliest representative pottery evidence is found, is a late phase in these first arrivals, one in which an aceramic status still existed. Or it is a factor that may simply reflect the poverty of the sites' stratigraphical contexts earlier than 5000 BC. The precise source area for the first settlers of the Balearics can only be postulated as coming from one of the coastal regions of the Iberian Mainland. At the same time, it is too early to speculate on the population during this Early Settlement Period. It does, however, appear certain from the few currently known sites with sufficiently earlier evidence (limited to Muleta and Matge) that the tally was not great, probably confined to geographically dispersed small groups (the reader should also consider the fact that Muleta and Matge are situated about 22 kms apart). Either site area would have had its advantages, but from different standpoints. Muleta is easily accessible, being located on a flat promontory of land overlooking the sea. Matge is situated in a valley whose access from the plains is through a narrow pass located close to the shelter, being one of the few easy routes into the Northern Sierras. One of the reasons why evidence of humans having hunted Myotragus is lacking may be due to the fact that the animal was a slow moving creature and therefore it was easy to catch. This is shown by osteological characteristics which indicate the animal was such easy human prey that long-range weapons were not necessary. This may also account for the lack of any weapons or

VVVVV\Z\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2S2S2S2S,

46

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

alonia and Southern France as well as elsewhere in Europe, and is similar both in typology and chronology. Similarities can be expected to be the results of influence from the regions nearest to the first two regions and not more distant eastern areas as suggested by some investigators. So we can conclude that Balearic Early Pretalayotic indigenous wares are of Neolithic age and typologically comparable to those regions of the Mainland. Of course, these aspects open up new thought concerning the early movement and exchange of peoples at this time in this particular part of the Western Mediterranean. This appears to be a movement that is part of a general one that was taking place due to population increase throughout most of Europe at this time, and is reflected in the Balearic NECP pottery artefact evidence as well as supported in the chronometrical dating framework. Dated burials from this phase do not exist. However on the basis of associated artefact typology and known early types of burial we can say that they consisted of extended and contracted, primary earth burials in caves and rock shelters (see section on Balearic Burials Customs).

movement by sea. It is also proof that the open seas which separate the islands from the mainland were no real obstacle and perhaps much less so at an later date. We will shortly see how these first expeditions were to be followed by many other arrivals in turn; arrivals that were to leave their mark on the prehistoric record in subsequent periods. (Illa) PRET ALA YOTIC PERIOD (PRT) NEOLITHIC EARLY CERAMIC PHASE (NECP)

The Second Arrival (Wave), circa 5160 BP (3500 cal BC). The period is delineated from the preceding period and following phase by a series of three dates and a number of others define the period's three phasic subdivisions: the NECP, EBP and LBP. The phasic dates of the NECP mark three major prehistoric events: earliest pottery at Muertos Gallard, 5160 BP (3927 cal BC), earliest pottery and domesticated animals at Matge, 4650 BP (3375 cal BC) and the date for the extinction of Myotragus balearicus, 4093 BP (2735 cal BC). The people of the NECP were settlers who arrived having knowledge of animal husbandry and ceramic technology, as seen by the radiocarbon and other evidence. They came bringing stock animals with them (sheep, goat, pig and small cattle and by the very latest indications did have dog). This second arrival suggests higher navigational skills. It also marks a firm intention on the part of the settlers to discover and occupy new land, whether they knew of the Balearic Islands specifically or not. We must continually consider that their proximity to the Iberian mainland makes them visible for landfall navigation. It also suggests that sporadic contact and exchange may have taken place more frequently than we have evidence at present to support. The introduction into the Balearic Islands of both pottery technology and domesticated animal species as shown by radiocarbon analyses at circa 3375 BC is not particularly surprising. At least two mainland stations demonstrate very similar dates, i.e. Verdelpino (Cuenco) (Morales, in press) and Tabernas (Almeria) (Von der Driesch and Morales, in press) where dates of circa 3000 BC have been recorded for pig, goat, sheep and small cattle. In fact, this date of circa 3000 BC for domesticated species (especially rupicaprines) seems to be widespread for the Middle and Late Neolithic Periods, according to radiocarbon method (Morales 1978). The gourd and sack-like, horizontal and vertical perforated lugged NECP wares of the Balearics also compare favourably with mainland counterparts from a broad geographical spectrum. This spectrum spreads from southeastern Andalucia, Valencian Peninsula, Cat-

(Illb) PRET ALA YOTIC PERIOD (PRT) EARLY BEAKER PHASE (EBP)

The Third Arrival (Wave), circa 3950 BP (2450 cal BC). New settlers and traders came to the islands during this phase bearing with them newer and more advanced pottery technology, advanced navigational skills, collllllercial connections, a knowledge of metal working and even architectural skills which show that these earlier settlers moved out of the caves and rock shelters circa 2500 BC to build the first open-air settlements; although as radiocarbon dating shows occupation and utilization of caves and rock shelters continue during this phase. The inhabitants of these first open-air settlements practiced profitable agriculture and other new skills like metal production. The former technology is demonstrated by a quality, sickle and blade, lithic industry (Waldren 1986), and the latter shown by metal workshop areas, where objects (mainly awls) of copper and tin bronze were present as early as 3700 BP: 2076 cal BC (Waldren 1979). Copious on-site animal remains show they were also rich in livestock (sheep, goat, pig and cattle as well as dog). Artefacts like spindle-whorls and pottery strainers show wool and cheese production. The phase marks the oldest open-air settlement with architectural achievements (particularly similar to southern French settlements; Arnal 1984). According to

VSZVYS2SZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

47

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

very recent data, these are the first areas dedicated to ritual or religious activities; both events of which are synonymous and directly associated with Bell Beaker cultural contacts (Waldren, Ensenyat and Cubi 1989 and 1990). Evidence of metal working practices are also present, as shown by crucibles and other signs of metal working (Waldren 1978, 1982). It is this phase and the subsequent LBP that give us the best evidence, examples and parallels for the contacts, influences and cultural arrivals in the Balearics during the Copper and Initial Bronze Ages. Extensively supported chronometrically, both in the settlements of the caves, rock shelters and open-air establishments, the types of evidence demonstrating these phases of the Pretalayotic Period are both exemplary and enormously informative on all levels. Despite the fact that the different kinds of evidence are derived from a small number of local sites, they clearly define what occurred and when it occurred. Furthermore the evidence correlates remarkably well between the different sites. In some cases, they give us details on how things were done and insights into the inhabitants' responses to environmental conditions and subsistence problems. This is seen, for example, in the construction of hydraulic systems, such as the one in the Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement. Of equal importance is the data it gives us regarding Beaker contacts and settlement in the Balearics during this time, and evidence of a rare instance of contact in the Pitiussaes. Furthermore, it defines and delineates the period of approximately 1100-1200 years, from 2500 BC to 1300 BC, using an extensive list of radiocarbon dates (Table 1). In doing this, it emphasizes a remarkable continuity, both for the settlements and for the use of the newly discovered ritual site. (ibid). Included in this 1100-1200 year period are the contacts and parallels (artefact, architecture and chronometry) used to demonstrate what occurred, and where it came from within what is described above as an arc of immediate influence. For example, the Beaker pottery variation during this period shows stylistic parallels with regions within the entire geographical arc, reaching through the Valencian, Catalan, Pyrenean and Languedocean areas. The latter of the sites bear strong parallels with Balearic Chalcolithic architecture (Amal 1984, Waldren 1987 and Waldren 1990). Three types of dated burials exist for this EBP phase. These consist of extended primary earth burials, contracted primary earth burials in caves and rock shelters and one contracted, stone-slab fosa burial (see Balearic Burial Customs). As yet no cremation burials were being carried out.

(Ille) PRETALAYOTIC PERIOD (LBP) LATE BEAKER PHASE (LBP)

The Fourth Arrival (Wave), circa 3670 BP (2050 cal BC). Increasing commercial contacts and trade, navigation and communication with the mainland areas seems to mark this phase until circa 1675 cal BC. It seems to be a time when the circulation of copper and, later on in the phase, tin-bronze had increased considerably over the introductory phase of the EBP. While there seems to be a single surge of new influence as in the earlier arrivals, there also appears to be a much steadier flow of contact with the mainland, especially with the Argaric culture toward cal 1675 BC. Such minor waves of influence seem to continue throughout the local Talayotic Bronze Age, although less distinctive than preceding ones. Several ore sources have been found recently close to the SFO-OS Beaker settlement and some local exploitation, in the form of mining and production may well have taken place, however the general scarcity of local copper (but by no means lack of it) and a total lack of tin suggests a mixture of sources (local as well imported) for the many items available during this time. One of the most recent developments can be found in the appearance at the beginning of this phase of elephant ivory artefacts in the form of a loom and "v" perforated buttons. A trade of this exotic material at such an early period would strongly support the idea of open trade links with the Mainland. Artefacts, architecture and chronology to be found in southern French sites like Lebous (Arnal 1967, 1973), Fontbouisse (Gutherz 1975, 1980), Camp Laure, Cambous and others, while sites like Cova del Frare (Martin, Biosca and Albareda 1984) with their deep stratigraphy, chronology and artefacts, as well as materials from the Cova del Fonda de Salomo in Catalunia, suggest cultural contacts and trade with these geographic areas. Further south in the Valencian Peninsula we find other parallels in terms of artefacts and chronology in sites of the Valencian region (Bernabeu 1980) and in Cerro de la Virgen (Schiile 1970), where the entire artefact assemblage and chronology can be compared favourably with that of the Balearic evidence during this period. Three types of dated burials are also known here: extended and contracted primary earth burials in caves and rock shelters and non-articulated, secondary earth burials in caves and rock shelters (see appropriate section below). Although no Beaker pottery has been found, we can included burials in rock-cut tombs

VSZVVV\Z\Z\AAAAAAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZV\AAZV\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

48

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

among these, such as the recently excavated Megalithic Tomb of S' Aigua Dolca (Coll, Guerro and Calvo 1996), with calibrated IC dates 1745 BC-1675 BC.

tic contacts. While most authorities set the dates of the construction of the Talayots at circa cal 1650 BC, in fact, recent evidence suggests a much later date for the Talayots. Several radiocarbon dates for constructional contexts show building dates of circa 1100-1200 cal BC. Several different burial methods were employed during this period, the predominant form being cremation burials (see appropriate section below).

(IV) T ALA YOTIC PERIOD (T) EARLY, MIDDLE, LA TE BRONZE AGE (EBA, MBA and LBA)

The Fifth Arrival (Wave), circa 3180 BP (1450 cal BC) forward. There is a common use and flow of tin-bronze during this period. Certainly local sources were not enough to supply the needs of the populace and mainland trade sources would have been well developed by this time, judging from the large amounts of bronze objects in circulation. Some preliminary analytical results have been published and other work is currently being carried out on Talayotic Bronze Age and Post Talayotic Iron Age metals (Waldren 1978; Northover 1984; Fernandez-Miranda and Delibes 1986; Hoffman 1990 and Diaz-Andreu and Fernandez-Miranda 1990). There appears to be increased activity during this phase in the construction of the Talayotic open-air settlements which up to this time seem to have been unfortified. The presence of single isolated Talayots in some areas away from the settlements suggest their function as territorial delineators. Contrary to popular thought the fortification of the settlements appear to have taken place at a much later date probably stimulated by later contacts with the classical. world. In fact most evidence points to fortification of the major Talayotic settlements occurring in the latter part of the Post Talayotic Period, circa 300 BC to 200 BC. Hallstattian influences appear in the bronze artefact of the early and middle phase of the period, with the appearance of heavy tin bronze pummelled swords, heavy tin bronze knives, awls and blades as well as other rich metal personal ornaments (Waldren 1982) (FernandezMiranda and Delibes 1986). Similarities are also found in the rich pottery finds where remarkable parallels can be found in the western sectors of the south of France (Languedoc and Pyrenees), as far north in Montans in the Tarn, in northern Catalonia and as far west as Burgos (Waldren 1982). Non-decorative pottery markings (Schmidt 1903) also reflect these cultural parallels in the Balearic EBA and MBA pottery assemblages (Waldren 1982). The first iron artefacts appear circa cal 900 BC in the Matge cremation burials followed by an intense presence of iron in quicklime inhumation burials of circa 800 cal BC and continue into the Roman Colonization in the second century BC. These early iron artefacts are fine indicators of origins, as well as markers of a transition into the Post Talayotic Iron Ages and La Terre Cel-

(V) POST T ALA YOTIC PERIOD (PT) EARLY, MIDDLE AND LATE IRON AGE (EIA, MIA and LIA)

The Sixth Arrival (Wave), circa 2730 BP (cal 900 BC). This period represents a mixed bag of trade contacts, different cultural influences, varied burial customs and practices. The first iron was introduced by this period, correlating as shown by radiocarbon dating with the Celtic Urn Field Invasion of northern Spain 900 cal BC. Hallstatt C and D influences as well as later La Terre in the form of antennae short swords can be recognized in the artefacts of this phase. The first classical trade items such as wheel turned pottery appear toward 700 cal BC, probably due to contact with adjacent Ibiza, which was founded as a Carthaginian colony in 654 BC. Vth century Greek wares also appear in the imported pottery assemblages of this time. Toward 400 BC- 300 BC, there is a complete deterioration of local pottery techniques, resulting in pottery identical to the poterie grossiere of southern France sites like Enserune and Villanova (Taffanels 1958 and Jannovray 1948). The appearance of poterie grossiere in the Balearics is a sign of new settlers and influences and further proof of contact (Waldren 1982). The homogeneity of these wares on Mallorca and Menorca further substantiates this cultural contact. Many influences are present during this LIA phase and rapid change takes place at increasing intervals until the Roman Colonization in 123 BC. A variety of different burial customs often overlap and are carried out simultaneously; thus indicating the probability of various cultural or ethnic groups coexisting throughout the islands during this period. Inhumation in quicklime, a burial custom unique to the Balearics is the most common, at least for the later three quarters of the period. There are historical records of considerable mercenary involvement demonstrated by Balearic recruitment and participation in military campaigns of both the Carthaginians and Romans from the Vth century BC forward, a factor that would have brought demographic, social and economic change as well as a significant alteration in the local culture itself. More detail and research are

YSZVVV\2SZSZ\Z\2SZSZ\Z\2SZSZ\2SZSZ\Z\2SZSZ\Z\2SZSZ\2SZSZ\Z\2SZSZ\Z\Z\Z\,

49

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

necessary in order to better delineate these different aspects. This mixture of cultural, social and economic factors as well as involvement in the affairs of the eastern classical world eventually have brought about the seeds of decline and ultimate collapse of the Talayotic Culture; although evidence shows that life in the indigenous Post Talayotic settlements continued sporadically and that considerable fortification and reorganization of the settlements took place during this time, at Ses Paisses on Mallorca (Lilliu 1962) and Son Catlar on Menorca, a process that continued until the Visigothic arrival.

schemes are outlined below and this is done to illustrate the development over the last three decades of prehistoric chronology in the Balearics and Pitiussaes. The more recent versions consist mainly of borrowing what seems to be highlights (single dates) from published longer lists that serve the authors at the time, a question of choosing whatever seems to fit the new hypothetical framework. As pointed out below, none of these are either flexible or practical or use all of the chronometric evidence available.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS

EARLIER CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEMES: SUMMARY

During the last two decades a number of different chronological schemes have been presented by investigators, including the latest one proposed by the author. The most important of these have been proposed since 1960 by investigators such as G. Rossello Bordoy (1973), G. Lilliu (1962), M. Fernandez-Miranda (1979) and C. Veny (1968). Apart from certain points of nomenclature and chronological boundaries, these recent frameworks do not differ radically from that set down by E. Cartailhac and J. Colominas Roca, who introduced the name 'Talayot' into the scientific vocabulary. For the most part, the old tripartite division of Balearic cultural prehistory, consisting of Pretalayotic, Talayotic and Post Talayotic Periods has been generally accepted, although the last decade has seen investigators attempting to better define this tripartite system. The main stimulus for change in thinking concerning Balearic prehistoric chronology has been the introduction of the use of radiocarbon age determination into the Balearic Islands. Since the author introduced the use of this method into the interpretation of the stratigraphical horizons in his sites (Waldren, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1980), the method has revised many views regarding Balearic prehistoric problems (Pericot Garcia 1973, Rossello Bordoy and Waldren 1973; M. Fernandez-Miranda and Waldren 1976 and Fernandez-Miranda 1979), and other recognition of the success of the method of age determination to Balearic problems of prehistoric chronology has been reviewed along with mainland Iberian contexts (Fernandez-Miranda 1978 and AlmagroGorbea 1978). As matters of continuity and reference, a brief review of other chronological schemes are offered below. These are for the most part earlier schemes drawn up over two decades ago shortly after the introduction of radiocarbon dating into the Balearic Island. Several other schemes have been offered more recently (Limongi 1989; Gual, Guerrero, Lopez and Pons 1989). Only the earlier

As this section deals with initiating the reader in past as well as present dating research in the Balearics, a brief summary of the various chronological schemes used to divide the local prehistory should illustrate the immediate differences between each of the major frameworks presently used in interpreting local prehistoric events. Accordingly, these may be compared in the text with regards to their divisional nomenclature with the author's chronological scheme, outlined in detail above. It will be seen that while the introductory use of radiocarbon dating has been responsible to varying degrees for the formation of the different chronological schemes to date (which from the point of view of actual chronology differ from one another very little). Apart from one very recent attempt (Gual, Guerrero, Lopez and Pons 1989) they do little to compare, suggest parallels or, for that matter attempt to correlate the Balearic data and material evidence with the wider perspective of Iberian prehistory, or with larger Western European contexts. The main criticism the present author"has with these earlier local chronologies, as well as those of more ancient vintage, has been their tendency to regard the Balearic problem as a strictly insular one, either totally neglecting wider contexts or applying them more widely only on occasion. While this is a safe position to take, and while there are many of the local developments that can be considered perhaps mainly insular, there are an equal number of material signs of influence and exterior reflections of events, as pointed out earlier, that are the products of outside trade and contact. These have not been as well studied as should be, with the result that these are insular in nature .. The chronological schemes outlined below represent the most serious of those proposed in the last twenty five years. It might also be added that they are by no means open-ended or capable of being extended or easily added to. The first is the result of excavation at the fortified

VSZVVV\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

50

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

settlement of Ses Paisses on Mallorca. It was excavated by G. Lilliu from 1959 to 1962 and his hypothesis for a chronology is based on stratigraphical interpretation and one radiocarbon date (a typical example of the early use of radiocarbon dating in a complex context), obtained from a series of living quarters within the Ses Paisses village compound; the chronological plan being based on the stratigraphy of two particular buildings (House 12 and House 3) in which he recognized three distinct layers, as follows: TALAYOTICI

House 12 14C date 950 be± 110 yrs. (layer on bedrock) House 3 earlier than 800 be (layer on bedrock) TALAYOTICII

circa 700 be to 400 be

TALAYOTICIII

circa 400 be to 200 be

The second of the earlier chronologies is proposed by G. Rossello Bordoy (1973) in which this investigator bases a good part of his chronological framework on recent radiocarbon dating but, also proportionately, on his excavations and experience in the field. This framework and the following one, except for chronological details, are quite different from the author's framework; with large differences in nomenclature and subdivisions. Bordoy's chronological scheme consists of five divisions, which are as follows: PRETALAYOTIC PERIOD circa 5000 be to circa 1400

be TALA YOTIC TALA YOTIC TALA YOTIC TALA YOTIC

I II III IV

circa 1400 be to circa 1000 be circa 1000 be to circa 800 be circa 800 be to c.irca 500 be circa 500 be to the Roman Coloni-

zation The third and latest of these new chronological schemes is proposed by M. Fernandez-Miranda (1979 and consists of the following five periods. I.

PRECERAMIC MAN

In the author's opinion, these chronological frameworks are more cautious than useful and deal mainly with local prehistoric events in the most general of terms, despite the fact that ample chronometric data and materials are available for more ambitious or comprehensive schemes. The realization of such a working scheme has been the principal aim of the pentapartite division of local prehistory outlined above, where use has been made of the full Balearic radiocarbon inventory of over 350 dates from such sites as Muleta, Matge, Ferrandell-Oleza and Son Mas as well as other sites with reliable chronometric data. In the following chapters, the text will examine and attempt to link artefacts and other evidence with possible mainland parallels and sources. Apart from the Beaker pottery, the homogeneous nature of the local artefact assemblages, though quite remarkable on its own, is rather drab and monotonous when studied only on a local basis. Its real interest and value lies when it is examined and compared in a wider context with materials and evidence from mainland and and other continental areas. Broader comparisons and possible external correlations are long over due and their lack to date has been largely responsible for much of the local controversy, especially when dealing with the island's Beaker contexts, but it also applies to a great extent in the interpretation of materials from other periods as well. However before we approach the examination of the individual research sites and the materials used in this particular study, some discussion concerning the nature and background of the Balearic Beaker problem has to be historically as well as generally reviewed. This is because the sequential order of age and date of discovery of the different sites have a natural order, which in its own right forms part of the overall continuity. This affords us the opportunity in a sense to view the research in progress through time. This natural continuity is strongly supported by the chronological ages represented in the individual deposits, which in an abstract way along with their discovery matches that of the history of the Balearic Beaker problem itself, hence the need for the historical review in the following chapter.

circa 5000 be to circa 2000

be II.

INCISED POTTERY HORIZONS

circa 2000 be to

circa 1700 be III.

BRONZE PRETALA YOTIC

circa 1700 be to circa

1500bc IV. TALAYOTIC I circa 1200 be to circa 800 be V. TALAYOTIC II circa 800 be to circa 100 be

VSZSZY½ZSZ\AAZSZ\AAZSZ\AZSZ\AAZSZ\AAZSZ\AZSZ\AAZSZ\AAAA,

51

l!l!l! QUESTION OF BALEARIC BEAKERS The Beaker Culture of the Balearic Islands: an inventory of evidence from caves, rock shelters, settlements and ritual sites William H. Waldren

1r

reinforced by these recent discoveries. The evidence in rock shelters and caves from circa 2500 BC to 1400 BC (Waldren 1984 and 1986) is further supported by chronometric data from Pretalayotic Copper and Early Bronze Age open-air settlement, circa 2400 cal BC to 1300 cal BC and recently discovered ritual areas dated circa 2200 BC to 1800 BC (Waldren, Ensenyat and Cubf 1990;Waldren and Van Strydonck 1996 and Waldren 1997) further enhance the Balearic Beaker argument. This new wealth and rich variety of site evidence from different stratigraphic contexts and environments, represents the core of the local Balearic Beaker phenomenon. In turn, they give us an excellent idea of the degree to which the phenomenon evolved locally during the III to II millennia BC in the Balearics, offering us considerable insights and details of social-economic along with religious organization, as well as other aspects like the direction and development of technology. There seems little possibility that the Balearic evidence is an unrelated insular occurrence of strictly local development, having coincidentally developed independent of Beaker cultural and economic conditions as they happened elsewhere on the continent. In view of the evidence, such an accidental and independent development of the phenomenon is neither logical nor possible. Nevertheless, an insular and closed-minded attitude toward all things Beaker does exist among a good many local investigators and until recently others elsewhere, resulting in an inability to put the local Beaker question into proper perspective, other than as an intrusive element found within the local Pretalayotic Period. This has not only greatly slowed down any normal consideration or proposition of Beaker settlement, but actually impeded the exchange of data and information readily available for over two decades. At the same time, the situation has done little to encourage confidence in the construction of any reliable local chronology (relative or absolute) that includes Beakers. Consequently, regarding the islands' early prehistoryit has not stimulated any wide interest among mainland or continental investigators. In fact, it undoubtedly accounts for the nega-

he question and likelihood of Beaker cultural presence in the Balearics has been a highly controversial issue since the disco.very of the notorious Mallorcan Felanitx fragments. shortly after the tu;n of the centmy, Much of the on-going controversy' and general resistance to idea of Beaker contact and presence are no dtmbtpartly the result of the obscure origin and circumstances surrounding .the discovery pf the first Felanitx Beaker sherds (Figure 7). The provenance and actual location of the finds was from the outset ambiguous and the sherds themselves . something of an enigma and embarrassment to authorities and even their presence today are unknown. This has caused serious difficulties over the years, both in acceptance and communication among locals and experts, as well as in the dissemination of related data and information. Many of these elements of resistance to the idea of Balearic Beakers still exist and there remains a general reticence on the part of most local investigators towards accepting or seriously considering the idea of actual Beaker connections or settlement in the islands, despite the quantity of evidence to support such a proposition. The few publications by local investigators on the subject of Balearic Incised Wares published up to 1989, do not recognize Beaker connections with the Balearics, except in a distant context, interpreting the local incised wares as a strictly local development with little if any connections to Mainland Beakers (e.g. Cantarellas 1972; Fernandez Gomez, Plantalamor Massanet and Topp 1974 and 1984 and Topp 1989). However in the light of the new evidence, it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible to dismiss the issue of Beaker presence in the Balearics and even the possibility of direct Beaker settlement. The sheer body and high standard of the new evidence emphasizes the need to re-examine the Balearic Beaker question much more closely than has been done before. At least on Mallorca, probability of Beaker cultural presence and even actual Beaker settlement is strongly

VSZVYYSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAAAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

52

WILLIAMH. WALDREN

tive views maintained as late as 1987 by some international specialists, when confronted with the question of Balearic Beakers. For example, L. Barfield has expressed the view that the application of the term Beaker culture to the Mallorcan complex is a "distortion of the terminology" (Barfield 1987). Until very recently, R. Harrison (1980) in his assessments saw some of the Balearic materials as:

controversial as the Beaker question. Much less being able accept the idea that any such contexts might possibly closely or accurately reflect events that took place on the mainland. There have been however a few exceptions over the years to what has been the general opinion and which have demonstrated and encouraged interest and supported different approaches to the problem of insular prehistory generally, as well as the Beaker question in particular. Perhaps one of the most perceptive observations and statements in summing up the Balearic problem nearly twenty-five years ago was made by the late J. Maluquer de Motes . It is an excerpt translated from his preface to the 'VI Symposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular' held in 1972 and published by the Institute of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Barcelona several years later in which he seems to have been the first to use the right nomenclature and place his finger on the crux of the local Beaker problem (a fact that seems to have been completely overlooked or ignored by both local and continental researchers over the years). The statement was made in response to the first radiocarbon Beaker dates from the Balearics and his comments actually signaled the dawn of new thinking regarding Balearic prehistory generally:

"incised beakers, most of them shallow bowls". He goes on to say, "There is also a species which is possibly derived from Bell Beaker originals and using geometric designs from Ca Na Coxtera on Mallorca. " He goes further to add, "Though it has been likened to Beakers in Spain, much of it is • not Beaker ware at all, being closer to the Moarda style pottery in Siciiy (here he uses Cantarellas 1972 as a reference)".

(*author'snote: the Coxterawares are identicalto most of the more commonlyknown Beaker fragments found throughout the island, including the Felanitx examples, and classified in local nomenclatureas 'A' Type Incised Ware), belonging to the Early BeakerPhase (EBP). The fact that pertinent and extremely interesting study materials have been available for at least thirty years (over twenty years in which the Balearic sites have had correlative radiocarbon dating as well as comparative artefacts), certainly places them on equal status and comparable with many Iberian Mainland sites of the same age. On the mainland, as Harrison pointed out in 1978, sites have been frequently recognized from only a few Beaker sherds. He has noted that in areas like Catalonia and the Levantine:

"the discovery by Jose Colominas of an incised pottery fragment at the Cova dels Rous in Felanitx Mallorca, had been a unique find of its kind, and for that reason it was widely discussed and even refitted for a long time. Research carried out in the last years has provided not only the confirmation of the existence of an abundant and widespread incised decorated pottery horizon, but also its close relationship with the Bell Beaker Culture, although one with a personality of its own. Unfortunately, most of the finds come from burials, a factor which makes the evaluation of this cultural development difficult, especially when dealing with the assessment of its effects on the earlier colonizer population of the islands.

"although sixty-nine Beaker sites are plotted on figure 30 and another sixteen on figure 31 for the Levant, the Beaker distributions include at least a score of sites where no more than a single modest Beaker sherd was found. The actual number of rich sites is little more than a dozen or so and hardly any have a stratified sequence. " (*)

A summary of the past history of Balearic Beakers is introduced in the following paragraphs for the sake of continuity and in order for readers to understand the basis and origin of much of the problem and to enable readers to move on uninterrupted and better prepared into the discussion of the most recent evidence.

(*author'snote: needlessto say that in such cases radiocarbon documentationis also exceptionallyrare). It makes one think that, perhaps, it has been simply the prejudicial and insular nature of the Balearic evidence alone that has stood in the way of a local as well as universal recognition and appreciation of the rich Beaker involvement that now from the new evidence appears to have taken place in the islands. In fact, many investigators dealing academically with the Western Mediterranean still hold the opinion that little can be gained or relied on from island sources, compared to Mainland events, particularly regarding events as complex and

HISTORICALBACKGROUND The Felanitx fragments (Figure 7), according to the records, were reputedly found by a geologist, a certain Sr Darder, during prospection in one of the caves in the region of Santueri, Felanitx, Mallorca, shortly after the first decade of this century. They were in due course

YSZVVV\Z\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

53

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

vestigated by us, we have not collected a single object older than the first Bronze Age".

given for safekeeping to a local archaeologist, a Sr Cabre, who in turn deposited them with the Museum of Natural Sciences in Madrid. Over the ensuing years, these Felanitx fragments have been lost. Fortunately, they were photographed at some stage after their discovery.

About this same time, P. Bosch Gimpera and A. Castillo Yurrita also referred to the fragments, remarking on the anomalous character of the pieces within the framework of Mallorcan prehistory, stating:

FELANITX FRAGMENTS

The first written reference to the Felanitx Beaker fragments was made by the Spanish prehistorian, J. Colominas Roca in 1915 and accredited today to the Cova des Bous. He stated at the time that the pieces were found in the Cave of Calenta, Santueri, a discrepancy from statements made later; thus arousing grave doubts as to their true provenance. Subsequently, J. Colominas Roca made more direct reference to their discovery in 1920 by saying :

" that while they could not place them in any immediate perspective within the local chronological scheme, they could, however, emphasize their importance as a point for some interesting hypotheses ".

"Of the Stone Age, nothing has been found on Mallorca, although from the Eneolithic, some fragments of Bell Beaker pottery have been found in the Cave of Calenta in Felanitx by a Sr. Cabre. However, we have excavated the cave totally and not another fragment has come to light, apart from some Argaric fragments. In all the caves in the Santueri region in-

"Onlyfor reasons of methodology do I form a group from this one set of fragments. The island of Mallorca has many excavations and only these few Bell Beaker fragments have appeared from them. Even the place of their discovery is doubtful, and even though they are includ~d _int_h~graphics of the Balearic Group, they have some szmzlarifles to the group

In another reference, in this same vein, given later in his doctoral thesis, 'La Cultura def Vaso Campaniforme' (A. Castillo Yurrita 1928), the author was the first to try and place the Felanitx Beaker fragments within the structure of continental Bell Beaker styles, assessing them as follows:

VSZVVVSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAA/

54

WILLIAMH. WALDREN

northward in Sardinia. I do this not only for the technological likeness they seem to have with the Sardinian group, but also because during this epoch it appears the cultural relations between the Balearics and Sardinia were much closer than between the islands and the peninsula".

incised pottery into two groups (which he called 'A' and 'B' types) on the basis of observational analysis. This is only partly valid in clinical tests at present, and then only in the very broadest of application. It is neither made on physical and chemical analysis of the clay fabrics nor chronometric association, although brief references to certain petrographic characteristics have been made. Local investigators, at this point in 1960, do not use the term Beaker Ware for the Balearic incised pottery (e.g. G. Rossello Bordoy, B. Ensefiat Estrany, L. Amoros Amoros and C. Cantarellas Camps), a stance maintained until the present day (Topp 1989). They refer to the pottery as Balearic Incised Wares instead of Beaker pottery, the terminology used earlier by Colominas Roca and Castillo Yurrita. Between 1961 and 1967, there were a number of other archaeological sites on Mallorca that produced Beaker pottery evidence, so augmenting the inventory number of sites; (4) Son Torrello, Soller (Ensefiat Estrany 1961) (where a number of Beaker sherds actually belonging to the Rock Shelter of Muertos Gallard were erroneously published as coming from Torrello (Mascaro Pasarius 1964), adding another incident to the dilemma of local material and site origins. Other sites in the finds lists were: (5) Son Sunyer, Palma, (6) Son Maiol, Palma ), (7) Son Bauca, Palma (Rossello Bordoy 1962), (8) Son Simo, (9) Can Lluissa (Ensefiat Estrany 1967), (10) Muertos Gallard and (11) Son Marroig (Waldren 1967). The latter two stations are the first to give us associated radiocarbon dates of 1840 ± 80 yrs. be (2239 cal BC ) (Y-1769) and 1520 ± 80 yrs. be (1819 cal BC ) (Y1856), respectively. They established the first rough chronometric parameters for Balearic Beaker contexts and form the chronometric delineation of what we now know as the middle to late date ranges (the Early and Late Beaker phases of the Pretalayotic Period). Until 1968, the reasons for not fully recognizing Beaker contexts locally was perhaps understandable and explicable, as the number of sites were few and reliable analytical data non-existent. As the record shows, there was also a lack of archaeological sites with supportive stratigraphic sequences, and, of course, apart from the Muertos Gallard and Marroig 14C dates, no radiocarbon evidence on which to base chronological interpretations. Under such circumstances, it was natural and of little wonder that the idea of Beaker involvement in the islands found no support or credence. Then too, there was at the time a complete lack of any Beaker architectural or chronometric evidence from open-air Pretalayotic settlements, caves or rock shelters. However, dur-

A. Castillo Yurrita's eastern origins for the Balearic influences, reflected in the fragments as he saw them, appeared in direct opposition to that of J. Colominas Roca's theory of western origins for the islands' early inhabitants. It was not until 1937 that P. Bosch Gimpera and J. Colominas Roca revised their theories, although without completely abandoning their mainland hypotheses, to state rather as a compromise that definite eastern influences were equally evident in the Balearic Bell Beaker fragments. These assessments completely changed existing theories and led some to postulate that the main sources of prehistoric evidence were from an eastern origin, and that western or occidental influences in the Balearics were nothing more than sporadic. It was not until 1951 that further Balearic Beaker evidence was discovered in the small cave of Canova d'Ariany, Petra, Mallorca. This evidence was reported on in 1951 and 1952 by J. Caniqueral, and in 1953 by L. Amoros Amoros and B. Ensefiat Estrany, after considerable controversial debate as to the details regarding the actual excavation of the pieces; details, most of which had little, if any, scientific bearing on the initial report. Unfortunately, it did however greatly add to the general confusion. Another Balearic Beaker sherd was found by the perpetrator of the Canova d'Ariany affair, B. Ensefiat Estrany in the collection of excavated materials from J. Colominas Roca's cave of Vernissa, Santa Margarita a sherd had evidently been overlooked by Colominas Roca in his study of the cave's materials. Such details and circumstances regarding the ambiguous background of the first Felanitx fragments and subsequent findings did little to enhance the picture. At this point in the rather complicated background to the Balearic Beaker evidence, there appears only three archaeological stations that produced Beaker pottery (1) Cova dels Bous, Felanitx, (2) Canova d'Ariany, Petra and (3) Vernissa, Santa Margarita; all of which are located in the eastern part of the island of Mallorca, and each with a curious history. Strangely as we will presently see, a similar history also plagued some of the later finds, also giving them obscure and polemic backgrounds. In a review of the Canova d'Ariany and other Balearic Beaker pottery evidence, G. Rossello Bordoy (1960) published the first systematic assessment of the evidence up to that time by attempting to sub-divide local

VSZSZSZSZ\2SZ\AAZ\Z\AA2SZ\A2SZ\AA2SZ\AA2SZ\A2SZ\AA2SZ\AAAA,

55

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

similar materials and chronology as they appear elsewhere, much less than nearer to home in the Balearics themselves. For what reason? It is truly hard to understand, other than as a matter of insular thinking or plain competitive motivation . Examining the data and information that has been made available in reports of the Cana Costa site on the Island of Formentera, it is difficult to conceive how a better comparative study has not been made, especially since the artefacts and radiocarbon dates are identical to those known on Mallorca (see appropriate Figure). This is particularly curious considering the architectural uniqueness and importance of the site from which the evidence has originated: that of a megalithic tomb, certainly the best preserved of the very few that exist in the islands. At the present time there are only three or four dolmens or megalithic tombs in the Balearics of Pituisae Groups. Another major consideration in the question of Balearic Beakers, lies in the fact that, prior to 1978, there was no clear evidence of open-air settlement earlier than the Bronze and Iron Age Talayotic establishments. Although there were curiously enough two Pretalayotic open-air settlements reported by one local investigators well before this time: Antigors (Pasarius Mascaro 1964) and Ca Na Cotxera (Cantarellas Camps 1972), both located in the southeast regions of the island. Despite the fact that a large collection of Beaker pottery fragments was found at the Ca Na Cotxera site, these sites were for some reason, again, only briefly studied and merely included as part of the general inventory of Pretalayotic sites, having a potential, but uncertain importance as a Beaker site. One radiocarbon date is also available for the Cotxera site, which correlates remarkably well with the more extensively documented sites. Once more, this is a fitting example and reflects the reticence on the part of local investigators, concerning the question or possibility of Beaker involvement in the Balearics. The whole question is made even more difficult to understand in view of other positive remarks made as early as 1972 by the much respected and admired prehistorian, the late Maluquer de Motes (words that are still pertinent here in 1995), where he observed that:

ing the interim years between 1968 and 1988, excavation and findings have produced a veritable flood of evidence from deep cave and rock shelter stratigraphies, including open-air Pretalayotic settlement, which has been further enhanced with evidence in other architectural sites, such as sanctuaries. Paradoxically, in Mainland Beaker sites, where contexts are known and where recognition has often been based strictly on comparison or relative dating, identification and evaluation have not been impaired by such aspects. In fact, as we have seen in Harrison's remarks, concerning the single sherd criteria used in many mainland sites, that evaluations and interpretation in those areas, strangely, have been more than often totally acceptable. However in the final analysis, it just does not seem correct or satisfactory and signals the need perhaps for a serious re-evaluation of such sites. In the Balearic sites, until after 1968, as elsewhere little or no solid stratigraphical evidence was available from deposits in the Balearics, although other relatively strong material evidence in the form of artefacts, as can be seen, did exist. Until that time, there were just no deposits capable of providing us with the necessary combination of comparative materials and stratigraphic conditions to make chronometric documentation available for the so-called local incised ware contexts. After 1968, however, the situation began to change radically and radiocarbon dates became increasingly more available for prehistoric contexts generally, mainly in the principal sites examined here. Although despite this generally freer access archaeological atmosphere, it is only very recently that the question (not the possibility) of Beakers has had some recognition and use made of radiocarbon method to date Beaker contexts. Except for one case, where it has suited investigators to reinforce their contra-argument (Fernandez Gomez, Plantalamor Massanet and Topp 1974 and 1984), opposition to the idea of Beaker contact with the Balearics is still an active issue. In the site in question, Ca Na Costa on the Island of Formentera in the Pituissae Group, the controversy focuses on the Incised versus Beaker argument (Topp 1989). Apart from recording two late dates from the sites badly preserved contexts consisting of a few sherds and other Beaker paraphernalia, no attempt has been made to compare these finds or the contexts from which they originate with the bulk of the other accessible Balearic Beaker artefacts and chronometric evidence from Mallorca. Here, except in a very critical way, the Balearic Beaker question has been completely ignored, the artefact evidence treated very conservatively with no reference to

"it will be necessary to direct our research towards the discovery of open-air and other habitational sites that could provide levels where the Incised Pottery Horizon is well documented, that is to say, levels with a chronology dating from around 2000 BC. "

Apart from these astute observations by this eminent

VSZVVVSZ\2SAAZS2SAAZ\2SAZ\2SAAZ\2SAAZS2SAZ\2SAAZ\2SAAAL

56

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

looming ahead for any programme designed to solve the question of chronometric parameters. If radiocarbon calibration is causing difficulties and undergoing reticent acceptance in mainland circles, it will not be surprising that in the islands the processes of recognition and acceptance of radiocarbon (unclaibrated much less calibrated) dates undoubtedly will be furthered slowed down, even lose the ground it may have gained over the last few years . Historically speaking, attempts to understand the Beaker problem either locally or on an European basis are well demonstrated in the four major collections of conference papers that have appeared over the last 19 years: (1) the well known Oberreid Glockenbecker Symposium (Lanting and van der Waals 1976) in which some in-roads were made toward a chronological understanding for Northern Europe; (2) the Oxford International Conference: Bell Beakers of the Western Mediterranean, (Waldren and Kennard 1987), where the emphasis was placed on the Western Mediterranean ; (3) the Ilnd Deya International Conference of Prehistory: Archaeological Techniques, Technology and Theory (Waldren, Ensenyat and Kennard 1991), where some of the latest results dealing with a wide range of recent local research were published, some dealing directly and indirectly with the Beaker problem and lastly (4) the IIIrd Deya International Conference of Prehistory: Ritual, Rites and Religion in Prehistory (Waldren, Ensenyat and Kennard 1995), where several Beaker related topics and site findings were discussed . In these conferences, the variety of papers delivered and the different hypotheses presented, illustrate the crux of the problem and the various areas of research being undertaken dedicated toward a better understanding of the problem. In certain respects, they demonstrate the general disorder that still exists the unresolved problems regarding the Beaker phenomenon generally, as well as the diversity of concepts and explanations most currently in circulation .. In the interim year, on a more global front, since the middle 1970's, a number of important and influential articles and books (e.g. Gilman 1981, 1987 and Harrison 1974, 1980 and 1988) have given us widely varying interpretations of the European Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, usually including the Beaker phenomenon. These have attempted to explain the culture, its society and economics, especially as they occurred in regions like the Iberian Peninsula, but also in the rest of Northern Europe. These include quite comprehensive and synthesized, works like R. Harrison's recent contribution, Beaker Folk: Copper Age Archaeology in Western Europe (1980). All of these sources of reference are full

mainland prehistorian and his others quoted earlier, the local disinterest and unenthusiastic response on the part of local investigators to the possibility of Balearic Beaker settlement has undoubtedly had repercussions farther afield, and can be seen in the cautious attitudes maintained by most European specialists until as late as 1988 (e.g. Harrison 1980 and Barfield 1987). It is only at present that some international recognition of the Balearics as potential sources of Beaker data and information has appeared in the literature (e.g. Gasull 1989 and Harrison 1990). Despite all of the past ambiguity, controversy and insular thinking regarding the question of Balearic Beakers, we now have overwhelming evidence of both settlement and extensive chronometric dating with which we can demonstrate Beaker presence, as well as to create a reliable chronological history for that presence in the Balearics. It now remains, only, to place the existing evidence in a broader and more enlightened perspective comparable with that of the rest of Europe. It seems an appropriate time to release it from the narrow constraints as a strictly insular problem or happening, despite what might be said in regard to the regional scope and character of the present study. This aim is one of the main purposes of the present study. In my manner of thinking, not to do so, even in a preliminary way would be, both, a grave error of judgement and a considerable scientific oversight, even a loss. Not to include it in any future overview of European Prehistory would be to exclude an excellent insular example from which we might learn a great deal regarding the Copper and Bronze Age. It is not inconceivable that it demonstrates at least one concrete example of Beaker settlement, where the Beaker phenomenon is clearly visible as an integral part of the Copper Age. There is also the possibility that the mixed aura of controversy and uncertainty that until now has surrounded Balearic Beakers will continue to be a delicate and rather sensitive area for argument as well as one of the provocative issues for some time to come, despite the present evidence to the contrary. It will probably be a provocative issue to a very similar degree in which the Beaker question continues to be on the mainland. This, I suppose, is to be expected, especially in view of the new problems created by radiocarbon calibration. As R. Harrison has pointed out in his recent article in Antiquity (1990), regarding the question of radiocarbon dating of Beakers in Spain and Portugal, that the advent of calibrated radiocarbon dates, in place of being an elixir, are causing complex problems along the full range of prehistoric chronology, and not just in the Chalcolithic itself. He warns that storm clouds are

VSZVYYSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA

57

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

belonging to the Continental Bell Beaker Complex. The increasing wealth and variety of the Balearic Beaker evidence required that a more comprehensive and systematic account than the one originally started some seventeen years ago be undertaken and made available to prehistorians and scholars world-wide. As compared to 1980, the evidence grew to a remarkable proportion, forming at present an unusual and highly informative source (in radiocarbon dates alone, over 350 currently exist, about 30% of which deal directly with the sites and archaeological period concerned). The fact that the new Balearic evidence can be compared favourably on every level with most mainland archaeological stations, particularly those within the geographic areas described earlier as the arc of immediate influence, is of special pertinency and interest in view of the arguments presented here and as a convincing example of the phenomenon as it appeared in the Balearic Islands. On the basis of the types of local sites involved, some of which clearly show some form of long distance trade and other interaction with mainland areas, along with associated chronometric data that links these areas together, it is possible to compare the Balearic Beaker evidence favourably in every respect with larger southeastern Iberian archaeological loci like Los Millares, Cerro de Virgen and sites as far west as Zambujal in Portugal, as well as northward into the Pyrenean and southern French regions. It is not only the comparative attributes and correlations with these textbook sites and geographic areas that is interesting, but the Balearic evidence may serve in its own right as a potentially new and valuable source of reference and comparison in future research on the subject, in so doing contribute toward a better interpretation and explanation of the Beaker Phenomenon generally. We will see that despite its rather restricted insular background and source, it offers all the requisites of what the author believes to be an environmental Copper Age settlement model.

of information that is admirable in range and content, but none have offered practical or realistic solutions regarding the Beaker problem. Nor, for that matter, do these accounts either give any too clear a picture or detailed explanation of the mechanisms and processes that occurred on a regional basis, the concern being mainly on an international level. When they have tried to approached the problem on a more regional basis (e.g. Harrison 1980), there has been a lack of real detail, the approach more general than specific. In their recent reviews of the Oxford IWMBB Conference, R. Whitehouse (1988) as well as R. Harrison (1988) have pointed out that little has been gained in trying to reach any common ground concerning the Beaker problem (neither have they suggested extensive regional studies). Yet it seems to me that we continue to try and solve the problem on a universal level. In these reviews, the critical theme focuses mainly on the shortcomings of the various conference papers and not in offering constructive criticism and suggestions as to possible courses of action. For example, new areas of research that might be followed or possible courses of action that feasibly could produce something new. This is to say, some direction from which we can constructively learn and apply to more the critical questions . SOME FINAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF BALEARIC BEAKERS

A few final statements to this chapter finishes the question of Balearic Beakers and historical background. It remains only to say that this publication started out in 1980 initially as a simple graphic inventory of the Balearic Beaker evidence for general circulation, some of which have appeared in short monographs. At that time, it consisted principally of the geometrically decorated pottery and some of the more exotic associated artefacts found over the years, along with some references to radiocarbon dating. In the intervening years, it has been periodically worked on and put aside to make way for other priorities. Consequently, here in 1997, it still retains some of the original character of an inventory, but with a considerable difference. The difference lies in nearly two decades' additional investigation and research with the discovery of a series of exceptionally rich sites with well preserved architectural contexts, associated artefacts and considerably more chronometric documentation. All of which has greatly amplified the study. Over the years, it gradually emerged that all of the sites were very closely interrelated, offering evidence and proof with which to argue a Balearic Branch

A FEW PRE-EMPTED SITE CONSIDERATIONS

As we shall presently see, recent findings strongly support the idea of Balearic Beaker contexts of a multivaried kind. They consist of important architectural contexts and cultural environments, where we can observe important details of settlement and other forms of activities, rarely so clearly seen in Copper Age sites. There is a new wealth of artefact materials that can be closely correlated and analyzed on a number of different levels, and which have extensive supportive chrono-

VSZVYS2'\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\Z\/

58

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

compiling dates and the resulting individual site inventories (Tables 1-4), along with the special natures of the sites themselves, although varied in nature and despite their diversity have proven highly supportive of one another. This type of correlation is important and makes them of special interest, because of their proven correlation and interaction with one another. They have also given us a number of new ways of looking at Beaker evidence and that have given us what I believed to be unusually informative and reliable chronometric results for each of the sites. Some preliminary statements are also included regarding the various diagnostic differences of each of the sites and some advanced reference to problems later more fully described and discussed in the individual site sections. As stated earlier, contrary to most recent criticisms of the effects of calibration on radiocarbon dating (e.g. Harrison 1990), I take a more optimistic view regarding the question and probability of accurate radiocarbon delineation of chronometric parameters, in this case the Balearic Beakers. If this were not possible, we would have to entirely dismiss radiocarbon method as an effective chronometric tool and return to what we had before the advent of radiocarbon determination: relative dating and guesswork. Such a proposition is of course totally unthinkable at this late stage. Although some reservation should be maintained, we have not, in my opinion, begun to use the method really effectively, and in the way it should be used to successfully delineate both the phenomenon and the age. Here in the Balearics, because of the extensive way in which radiocarbon dating (Tables 1-4) and the techniques that have been used over the years in these local surveys, there is little doubt that the method has proven its worth , both in conventional and calibrated terms, in defining Beaker as well as other Balearic chronological parameters. The effectiveness of the method when used extensively and innovatively with clear goals in mind, regardless of calibration, demonstrates its full value as an exceptionally effective tool (Waldren 1984 and 1992). For example, the individual dates and finally the site inventories themselves have enabled us to make close cross-correlations between the various sites' stratigraphical sequences, artefacts and architectural contexts, permitting us to establish phasic chronological divisions as well as artefact and activity sequences. Equally important, the various surveys have served to build up the master inventory of several hundred dates for the Balearics; which has become an important on-going and ever-growing reference source. Along similar lines,

metric data. All of which, it is believed, accurately delineates the period. In the present circumstances and atmosphere, it becomes difficult to dismiss or explain away the issue of Beaker presence in the Balearics and even the possibility of direct Beaker settlement. The sheer body and high standard of the new evidence emphasizes the need to re-examine the Balearic Beaker question much more closely than ever before. As will be demonstrated in the following chapters, at least on Mallorca, the probability of Beaker cultural presence and even actual Beaker settlement is strongly reinforced by these recent discoveries, and the evidence derived from them. Furthermore, the contextual evidence from rock shelters and caves from circa 2500 BC to 1400 BC (Waldren 1984 and 1986) coincides with Copper and Early Bronze Age open-air settlement circa 2400 BC to circa 1300 BC along with recently discovered ritual areas dated circa 2200 BC to 1800 BC (Waldren, Ensenyat and Cubf 1990), evidence that further enhances and reinforces the Balearic Beaker argument by providing us with a distinct continuity. The author intends to further establish this by closely considering what he believes is a special Beaker settlement model, in some respects independent of others, but in turn considering its setting within a larger regional environmental model. With the existing evidence, I do not know what else can be done, or how otherwise it could be interpreted than that of a strong Beaker presence in the islands . Finally, the following chapter deals with a description of the research sites, the stratigraphies and the methodology, and techniques used in both in the field and laboratory. The various field and laboratory strategies and collection techniques and other special planning involved are examined and discussed in some detail. Some of these entail a review or explanation of the field hypotheses and special methods of approach to a particular problem. The conditions and shortcomings of the different stratigraphies and other geographical and geological environmental factors and conditions are examined, along with some further geographical description. These environmental factors and other conditions have been for the most part not always ideal or even satisfactory and have had to be dealt with sometimes using unconventional excavation techniques. In most cases, this has not been totally a shortcoming, but on the contrary has led to the invention of methods and techniques that have produced unexpected results and which have set the stage for the development of still other innovative methods and techniques. These strategies and innovative techniques used in

VSZVYSZ\2VSZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\2VSZ\2VSZ\Z\2VSZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\2VSZ\Z\2VSZ\Z\Z\Z\,

59

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

and Sanahuja 1987). At Gatas, as in the Balearic surveys, regional chronology, evidence of environmental and processual change and interaction equally shared with the delineation and explanation of other regional social and economic relationships are long range concerns. As pointed out earlier in some detail, the delineation of the Beaker chronological parameters and the various artefact inventories compiled over the years in the Balearics have been only one part of a much larger picture in the form of a number of inter-site, inter-island radiocarbon surveys, where especially adapted and innovated methods of contextual and phasic dating have been developed and employed. Similarly, each of these different Balearic projects while chronologically oriented have had individual and specific goals in mind, being originally designed to answer a particular question or define a certain idiosyncratic or characteristic element found in each of the site contexts and to chronometrically pinpoint artefacts themselves. These dating surveys consisting of long-term, nonconventional, specially designed collection strategies, supported by practical, often simplistic, working field hypotheses, have been conscientiously applied in order to obtain the maximum of data and information regarding their origin and contextual environment. While only briefly described until now, these especially adapted techniques along with the results obtained are subsequently approached in more detail in the following chapter. Here, they deal directly with the various sites, stratigraphies, methodology where the various modi operandi are described in relationship to the individual sites and stratigraphies, and where over the years they have been conscientiously developed and employed in order to construct the most comprehensive and manageable study model possible. This is followed in subsequent chapters by an individual and full examination of each of the research sites which have served as the testing grounds for not only the different innovative techniques used, but more importantly also serve as a new basis for a possible, broader more universal hypothesis. Finally, the various individual radiocarbon listings have been used to acertain degree in these chapters and in turn combined and subsequently presented at the end of the text as a comprehensive sequential calibrated inventory list, as provided by the latest Belfast Washington calibration programme (Appendix I).

over the years, the use of the method and the results obtained have helped to pin-point specific and critical landmark events with new accuracy and defining artefact seriation throughout the island's prehistoric sequence. These have been necessary toward the understanding of both the sequence as a whole and the particular highlights within that sequence. At present, the resulting individual site inventories serve as a practical working hypothesis by establishing accurate regional chronometric parameters for the Balearic Beakers (Tables 1 to 4), as well as the cultural division of other periods. At the same time, the various lists are the beginning of a larger and more detailed ongoing chronological framework, potentially, to be used in forming a still larger local environmental model. To do this it has been necessary to begin by building the series of individual reference dating lists or individual site inventories, literally site by site, to serve as chronological standards for still further series as well as the incorporation and inter-correlation of new site contexts. At the current accelerated rate of new results from the present research sites and other future sites, such an open-ended master inventory is necessary to synthesize the data. Interpretation and explanation of the Beaker phenomenon, as already pointed out on several occasions, is best studied and, chances are, better understood when it is carried out on a site by site and regional to regional basis. This is both a slow process and a tedious one. For the time being, it is better not to attempt any particular universal hypothesis based on chronometry alone, as Harrison has pointed out. The regional, open-ended general chronological one proposed here a working, temporary framework will do for the moment. While the need for an accurate and reliable general chronometric framework is essential first in order to record and correlate, it still has to be built up over time and accomplished with specific aims and worthwhile goals in mind. The result of this reasoning is manifest in the formation of the pentapartite division of Balearic prehistory and the regional environmental model presented here as a constructive reference and current syntheses. C. Renfrew (1973) has pointed out the necessity of working within limited geographic areas and the use of radiocarbon dates to test the relationships between different regional areas. Essentially, this has been the main objective of the Balearic surveys among the other aims noted and no doubt similar objectives have also motivated some of the strategies in such important programmes as the Gatas Project (Chapman, Lull, Picazo

VSZSZVV\Z\2SAAZ\2SAAZ\2SAZ\2SAAZ\2SAAZ\2SAAAAAZ\2SAAA/

60

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

PLATE 5. Examples of serrated, tabular flint blades and sickles, part of the Olezian Chalcolithic Old Settlement. A collection of over 700 such tools, most of which contain sickle gloss polish on the cutting edges, have been found within the settlement and the adjacent fields. Associated 14C dates within the compound and adjacent fields places these pieces circa 2400 cal BC to 1400cal BC.

VSZVVV\Z\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2S2S2S2S,

61

J/V RESEARCH SITES, STRA TIGRAPHIES AND METHODOLOGY The Beaker Culture of the Balearic Islands: an inventory of evidence from caves, rock shelters, settlements and ritual sites William H. Waldren

T

he archaeological stations and stratigraphical deposits used to demonstrate the Balearic Beaker evidence can be classified into three categories: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Research Sites. Only the first and second categories are considered in detail. Description and discussion of the third category are included when the site contexts warrant it and when information can be regarded as reliable or essential to the argument. The site and stratigraphical classifications into categories are based on the following criteria: (a) the site's environment (geology and geography), (b) type of stratigraphical deposit (closed or open), (c) the artefact content and other available documentation, such as radiocarbon dates. The third category includes sites with very little physical evidence and no radiocarbon documentation and also represent sites for the most part excavated before 1960. PRIMARY RESEARCH SITES

The primary research sites are geologically and geographically varied, consisting of cave, rock shelter and open-air locales (settlement and ritual areas). The depositional character of these in terms of natural and cultural accumulation are also varied. They are divided and differentiated into two classes of stratigraphical accumulations: conventional, deep, vertical stratigraphies, where one level is laid over another, and eroded, horizontal or linear stratigraphies, where different geographic zones have been used during different chronological periods. Further classification of the primary and secondary sites is made in order of rank by criteria of their duration of occupation or use. This will naturally place deep, vertical stratigraphy first in order of priority over others and therefore the first to be examined and discussed. Primary research sites are also loci that have been the most extensively and methodically studied. This will also include sites that are currently in the process of in-

vestigation and that have already demonstrated pertinent evidence, such as substantial documentation in the form of detailed stratigraphical contexts and finally a rich variety of artefact evidence supported by chronological data in the form of radiocarbon and other analytical results. The primary sites are geographically located in the Northern Jurassic Sierras of Mallorca. Along with two of the secondary sites, they create a chain of archaeological stations located along a ten kilometer sector of the north coastal mountain range of the island (Figure 8). Collectively they form the large environmental catchment made up of the smaller site catchments (Figure 9), briefly described and discussed earlier. They represent a varied geographical and site cross-section of this area of the northern coastal sector of the islands and are regarded as representative of the new generation of regional Balearic investigation. The reason for the sites' being closely grouped geography is a combination of intuitive and fortuitous beginnings in 1960 and later an acquired, more strategical planning, as the interaction between the individual sites became apparent. The Northern Sierras were until 1960 the least investigated geographic area of the island. Until that time most archaeological excavation took place in the central, eastern and southern regions of the island, the location of most of the later Bronze and Iron Age Talayotic settlements. The sierras are the location of most of the island's caves and rock shelters as well as small, enclosed, soil rich, open-air catchment areas in the form of alluvial plains and small intramontane valleys or basins. The fertile intramontane plains and basins have excellent water resources and are surrounded by mountains and hills containing innumerable rock shelters and caves. Recent research has shown that these small but fertile intramontane catchment areas appear to have been favoured and especially suited for the islands first out-door settlement. While the present research sites give us a representative profile of a relatively small and selective geographic area of the island's 3640 km2 land mass, they also

YSZSZYYSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

62

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

form a veritable chronological yardstick for the prehistory of the islands (Waldren 1982). By and large, architectural elements of Balearic prehistoric sites are well preserved above ground, although these open-air sites are usually very poor in vertical stratigraphy, consisting of badly eroded top-soil, where

cient architectural remains to reveal well preserved walls and foundations. Vertical stratigraphical conditions in rock shelters and caves are better than exterior deposits. However, Balearic rock shelters and caves on the whole are not renowned for deep soil deposition and good vertical stra-

MUERTOS GALLARD-MARROIG

RESEARCH SITES: NORTHERN COASTAL ROAD NETWORK

bedrock emerges in most places. The bedrock itself is highly irregular, formed of jutting pieces and crevices filled with different kinds of accumulated soils, depending on the passage of time. Often the architectural elements rest directly on bedrock, occasionally incorporating it. At other times, the architectural elements have been covered by field-stone plowed up over the centuries and piled on the ancient building stones by modem farmers. Excavation in these cases consists mainly of removing the loose field-stone from over the buried an-

tigraphy. Seasonal rainfall swiftly drains off the eroded limestone of the mountainous regions of the island, transporting soils rapidly to the sea, via steep ravines and torrent beds. Because of this, soil accumulation can be particularly poor in caves and shelters. Despite these depositional factors, however, occasionally good stratigraphical conditions do occur, such as those examined at present. In these sites, the artefact materials show a remarkable preservation and the cultural homogeneous character or lack of regional variation men-

YSZVVSZ\2V\AA2V\AA2V\AZ\Z\AA2S2SAA2S2SA2VSAA2VSAAAA,

63

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

The primary sites are three in number and are all located in the Municipality of Valldemossa, Mallorca: (1) the Rock Shelter of Son Matge (ABSM), (2) the openair Cha/eolithic Settlement Complex of FerrandellOleza (SFO-OS) and (3) Prehistoric Sanctuary of Son Mas (SMSS). They are found within a four kilometer catchment radius and form part of the chain of sites ex-

tioned earlier, characteristics that even exist between islands. This is unlike sites in the wider, more congested geographic contexts of mainland continental regions, where a combination of demographic and other factors like extensive agricultural practices and severe regional soil degradation have taken place, accounting for more variation and a poorer preservation of evidence, not

PREHISTORIC SITES CATCHMENT AREA: FERRANDELL-OLEZA-MAS

0 0 0

0

2 Kilometer Catchment Radius - Pia Del Rei 4 Kilometer Catchment Radius

11 Kilometer Catchment Radius

2 Kilometer Catchment Radius - Others

present on the islands. The lack of regional variability and less human involvement and traffic, the author believes, are factors that make for a much clearer picture of past events on islands than in mainland areas, where a more mixed and variable set of conditions is found. All factors considered, (the general homogeneity, population factors, the islands' geographic proximity to the mainland and artefact assemblages and other evidence of long and well defined cultural continuity), the Balearic primary and secondary research sites have been logical as well as rich choices for extensive study from the beginning.

tending slightly inland along a 10km sector of the coast and within easy walking distance of one another (Figures 8-9). SECONDARY AND TERTIARY RESEARCH SITES

The secondary research sites are geologically and geographically more varied and dispersed than the primary ones. Two of the secondary sites, Muertos Gallard and Marroig, are still part of the north coast chain and also within the catchment area and a short walking distance of the Valldemossa site catchment (above). They represent the first sites investigated by the author in the

VSZVVV\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

64

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

cally speaking, brief mention is made to a recent auxiliary secondary site, (7) Ca Na Costa (CNC), a megalithic tomb discovered on the small island of Formentera in the Pituissaes (Fernandez, Plantalamor and Topp 1978). There several pieces of Beaker pottery have been found along with other artefacts of Beaker assemblage. It seems illogical that the Ca Na Costa Formentera fragments (see Topp 1989) be excluded as part of the present inventory, for certainly being proximal islands

1960's. The third of the secondary sites, Ca Na Cotxera is found farther afield. The secondary research sites are principally those in which either the depositional conditions are less well defined or are otherwise present in a more simplified form than the primary deposits. They are sites which have reliable, although fewer artefact materials for comparison with the primary sites. They have had extensive excavation which has provided us with some absolute

BRACKET DATING

SERIES DATING

Hl

EJRadiocarbon

dating (research sites having only one or two radiocarbon dates). The secondary research sites examined here are: (4) the Rock Shelter of Muertos Gallard (AMG), (5) Cave of Son Marroig (SMG), Municipality of Deia, both approximately three kilometer distance from the outer perimeter of the alluvial plain of the FerrandellOleza-Mas complex catchment (Figure 9, above) and (6) Ca Na Cotxera (CX) found in the Municipality of Muro, about 50 kilometers distance away, in the southeastern quadrant of the island. While Ibiza and Formentera are not found in the Balearic Group of Mallorca, Menorca and Cabrera techni-

Sample

they fall within the geographical sphere of the Balearics more than that of the Mainland. Therefore, it seems only a technically spatial argument for excluding them. For this reason and the fact that radiocarbon dating and an artefact assemblage on a limited scale is available (Topp 1986). And the fact that systematic work has been carried out, it seems to me justifiable that this site and its data be included as a secondary source. The tertiary research sites are those more randomly scattered geographically over the island of Mallorca, being those in which either the depositional conditions are not known, completely lacking or otherwise very

YYYSZV\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

65

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

poor in stratigraphical detail. Apart from one site, Es Vilar, which has a large Beaker inventory, they are loci which have very few materials, no reliable chronological or radiocarbon documentation and can at best be rel-

[]

THE PRIMARY STRATIGRAPHIES

The primary stratigraphies representative of the Balearic Beaker contexts originate from two distinctly, differ-

Radiocarbon sample

LEVEL I LEVEL Il LEVEL ill

SERIES DATING: EXTERIOR VERTICAL STRATIGRAPHY

Post Talayotic (Iron Age) Architectural Element

PHASE I PHASE II PHASE ill

BEDROCK

liL

BRACKET DATING: PHASIC STRATIGRAPHY

atively dated on the basis of comparison of materials from the primary or secondary sites, where absolute dates do exist. Most of these are those sites included in the overall list as earlier discoveries up until 1960. The tertiary sites represented are: (8) Es Vilar (EVJCE), Municipality of Llucmayor and (9) Cova dels Baus (Municipality of Santueri), (10) Vemissa (Municipality of Santa Margarita), (11) Sa Canova d'Ariany (Municipality of Petra), (12) Can Massach (Municipality of Soller), (13) Son Sunyer (Municipality of Palma), (14) Son Torrella (Municipality of Escorca), (15) Coval Sim6 (Municipality of Soller), (16) C'an Lluissa (Municipality of Soller), (17) Cova de Sa Sinia (Municipality of Manacor), (18) Es Corral de Pore (Municipality of Lloseta), (19) Cova de Canet (Municipality of Esporlas ), (20) Son Negret (Municipality of Soller), (21) Comavaques (Municipality of Pollensa), (22) Cova def Drach (Municipality of Manacor), (23) Son Bauca (Municipality of Esporlas), (24) Son Net (Municipality of Andraitx). There are a few other tertiary discoveries which have not been officially reported.

ent types of physical environment: (1) the closed contexts of deep, vertical stratigraphy (depositional sequences characteristic of cave and rock shelter deposits) and (2) the open environment of shallow, horizontal stratigraphies (representative of eroded open-air settlements and other areas of outdoor activity, such as ritual structures, etc). Each type of physical stratigraphical environment has its particular advantages, as well as limitations. In each case, they require different approaches and special treatment, depending on stratigraphical as well as environmental conditions. Occasionally, because of difficult soil and other conditions, they have required the use of new and innovative techniques in order to extract the potential data and information. Of the two types of stratigraphical conditions, we are most familiar with the closed contexts of conventional, deep, vertical stratigraphy; as these follow the disciplinary study and systematic removal of depositional sequences, one overlaying the other (Figures 11 and 12). It is the poor soil conditions as frequently found in badly eroded, open-air settlement environments, as those found in the Western Mediterranean Basin, that give us

VSZVVSZ\ZV\Z\Z\ZV\Z\Z\ZV\Z\ZV\Z\Z\ZV\Z\Z\ZV\Z\ZV\Z\Z\ZV\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

66

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

the most difficulty regarding collection techniques and contextual interpretation. Compared to the better known or conventional, multi-sequential horizons found in closed stratigraphical environments of caves and rock shelters, sites with openair contexts are the most problematic. Unfortunately, such eroded soil conditions are a very familiar situation to anyone having had excavational experience in the Mediterranean Basin. In these regions, these conditions are more a general rule than an exception . The techniques of series, bracket and contextual or phasic dating described below were developed for use in dealing with the poor soil conditions normally found in highly eroded sites, such as those examined here. In two of the three primary sites examined special collection techniques and strategies have been absolutely necessary. Highly eroded stratigraphic conditions, like the ones discussed have required extra care in excavation as the study of their materials. In the primary sites examined, statistical and stratigraphical controls on a meter to meter basis throughout a site has been absolutely required, due to the thin vertical stratigraphical interfaces or lens-

es found in the shallow soil conditions, as well as their prolific artefact content. This has been the case, particularly, where heavy agricultural activity has taken place over the millennia. In such cases, extra-special attention has had to be paid to the linear or horizontal distribution of artefacts, every bit as much as their vertical depth. Dating badly eroded soil conditions are in the best of circumstances extremely difficult to control properly, unless some form of computerized recording are used,

PLATE 8. A Beaker rim sherd from a shallow, spherical bowl from the secondary research site of the Rock Shelter of Son Matge. It was associated with a single, contracted cist burial dating 2239 cal BC (1840 be ± 80 yrs). This sherd and six others were the first Balearic Beaker contexts dated. The rock shelter's stratigraphical contexts and materials are exactly contemporary with the Matge rock shelter, differing only in size, quantity of artefacts and number of radiocarbon dates.

PLATE 9. A thirty meter section of the Elevated Water Channel in the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement. The section is part of a complete hydraulic system which brought water into the domestic areas of the settlement. Radiocarbon dates on animal bones from in the channel 's walls gave dates of 1710 cal BC, probably a date close to the construction of this section, and a reading of 1300 cal BC for organic materials in the channel, a date close to the sites abandonment.

YSZVVVSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA

67

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

sults and intelligent interpretation from these highly eroded soil environments. The combination of modern computer technology, statistical recording and newly developed techniques, such as bracket and series dating have been particularly effective in the badly eroded sites examined. While it is series dating techniques of collection that

along with conventional or innovative retrieval techniques. This is especially true regarding difficult stratigraphical conditions and the collection of the best radiocarbon samples. The need to find new ways of approaching the collection of samples, poor stratigraphical conditions and interpretation generally have been absolutely crucial, in order to attain reliable dating re-

FERRANDELL-OLEZA OLD SETTLEMENT WATER CHANNEL

PLATE 10. Overhead photograph of the southern end of the Ferrandell-Oleza Water Channel showing the Run-Off Gulley (D) leading into the Catch Basin(+) from the Water Channel (C). The two level construction of the Catch Basin stands out clearly in the photograph. Excavations show that there was a second water channel along side the main one that was constructed shortly before the site was abandoned. This auxiliary channel may have been necessary as water requirements for the settlement increased. The large, flat stones aligning the water channel are also visible along with the bridge-stones placed at intervals in the bottom of the channel, set there to control the downhill flow of water into the catch basin. Both the water channel and the catch basin were originally lined with clay to prevent the water escaping. The original clay lining the inside of the water channel was removed during excavation.

VSZVS?SZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

68

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

particular architectural feature, but also give a very good assessment of the duration of use of the site. Collection is done by carefully retrieving datable organic materials and artefacts (a) from an activity zone adjacent to or otherwise directly associated with some architectural feature (exterior contexts), (b) from within the wall fill of a particular architectural feature (interior contexts) and (c) from bedrock fissures and bedding soils beneath the wall fill in the architectural element itself (inferior contexts) (Figure 11). Bracket dating like serial dating can, if carefully carried out, quite accurately date an archaeological context or architectural element, thus making it possible to arrive at a better interpretation regarding constructional activities as well as individual contexts dealing with subjects like occupation and abandonment. There will be further description in the use of these techniques later in the text, where they apply to the individual sites and their various related stratigraphical contexts. This is perhaps best illustrated in an example where the methods were first used to solve a particular problem and to answer a specific set of questions, that of the age, date of construction and other stages of change in a prehistoric sanctuary monument, the Taula Sanctuary of Torralba d'en Salort on the Balearic Island of Mallorca. Here, two radiocarbon samples from two separate areas and levels were collected and results received. One sample was taken from a bedrock crevice in the floor in the northeastern corner of the interior of the Taula sanctuary and the other collected from beneath the exterior southwestern wall of its precinct. Both samples were collected with the specific intention of establishing the age of these two preconstruction / construction levels. The results were two separate dates which at most inferred a date prior to its construction or at the time of construction of the monument and not much more, despite the fact that there is more than one 14C date and that both are from different areas. The dates received were: 880 be ± 40 yrs (998 cal BC) (QL-1164) and 890 be± 30 yrs (998 cal BC) (QL1089), for all purposes identical dates. On first glance both these dates, because of their stratigraphical situation and common age, strongly suggest construction of Torralba d'en Salort Taula sanctuary at a time after 900 be (1000 BC). But they do not tell us the age of the actual construction of the sanctuary, other than by inference. As we shall see presently, these dates are further supported by findings made in zones outside and adjacent to the Taula precinct which enable us by bracket dating to pinpoint the age of construction of the Taula precinct still more precisely.

are the most familiar, being the conventional approach, the technique of bracket dating (retrieval or collection) is the more unconventional of the two methods, and the least used. This is probably because of the number of radiocarbon samples needed in order for the method to be effective in answering a specific question, such as the origin of a level or object. By and large, it requires a more elaborate strategical approach and method of collection. The way in which bracket dating has been used in the research sites consists mainly of dating architectural features, usually in eroded, open-air situations, where vertical stratigraphy is shallow, reduced to a linear, horizontal distribution. Although, it is equally effective when used for individual contexts in either open or closed stratigraphical situations with either vertical or horizontal depositions. It can also be used in conjunction with series dating in deep, vertical deposits. In the following paragraphs, both the terms, collection methods and dating strategies are considered synonymous. In discussion, they are equally interchangeable with the terms phasic or contextual dating and stratigraphy, where there has been the customary minimal vertical deposition (Figure 12). Whereas series dating deals directly with the sequential order of deposition, where numerous levels are present, one on top of the other. A mixture of the two techniques are possible and have been used effectively. It depends on the situation and the sort of stratigraphical environment. The deep, vertical stratigraphy of the Matge rock shelter is a typical example, where a complicated, vertical stratigraphy was present and both series and bracket dating were used. The shallow (eroded) soil deposition of the Oleza settlement (Chapter VI) and Son Mas prehistoric sanctuary (Chapter VII) are examples in which very poor stratigraphical conditions were present, and where bracket dating was used in the chronological and constructional understanding of the site. In each of the two techniques, the choice of method has depended on the particular dating or contextual problem, the soil conditions and other circumstances present, not only, in the stages in the construction of the site, but also in the site's occupational duration. The method of bracket dating architectural features, for example, consists of dating (1) post constructional contexts, (2) constructional and (3) preconstructional contexts associated with individual architectural features or other important contexts. Enough of such groups of dates will eventually result in a bracket of dates that should not only make it possible to date the

YVVSZV\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\Z\Z\,

69

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

the earliest levels on which the Taula walls were constructed. This demonstrates that using sampling and selective dating strategies to solve particular problems or to answer specific questions can work in difficult and a variety of situations, in this instance an architectural building sequence. A similar dating survey has been in progress in the Ferrandell-Oleza- Mas Prehistoric Settlement Complex described earlier. The Chalcolithic Old Settlement examined for its particular architectural elements in this publication (Chapter VI) is a part of that larger survey. In the section dedicated to the description of the site's architectural elements, many of the Chalcolithic Old Settlement's numerous structures have dates associated with them, which are fully described in that section of the chapter on the architectural elements of the site. In fact, preliminary list of some 16 dates for the site in general can be found in Table 1 with another 16 readings for the Bronze and Iron Age Younger Settlement. The listing for the Old Settlement as it exists at present shows that the site underwent a occupation of about 1300 years, between 1261 cal BC to 2548 cal BC. It will go on to suggest a series of dates for the sites's various stages of development as well as each of the various architectural elements. The survey is far from complete, as pointed out earlier, and there are numerous sample results pending, samples collected in order to give us further details as to the sequence of preconstruction, construction, renovation and abandonment over the time period suggested in the overall date ranges of occupation of the site. Some of the dating survey results have inferred critical stages in the site's development, among these the first occupation and probable abandonment of the site and the construction of the elevated water channel and subsequent alterations to it. The dating surveys have also given us details concerning the introduction and change of certain associated artefacts through time, such as the Beaker pottery (Figure 32). They have also suggested date ranges for the lithic artefacts and other technologies. Most of all, they have introduced a new methodological tool into the chronological interpretation of prehistoric architectural elements and suggested how it might be further used to advantage in other sites. In the following chapters, the research sites and their individual stratigraphies are examined and important artefacts illustrated for immediate reference or in some cases as an introduction to a subsequent chapter or section. The bulk of the artefact illustrations and 14C data are found in the various appendices of Volume II.

The latter samples were taken from a series of contexts that originated from several carefully selected occupational and other activity levels outside the confines of the Taula sanctuary. One set of samples was collected from beneath the foundations of an earlier naviformed building constructed adjacent to the Taula sanctuary. This earlier Talayotic structure showed signs of being partly dismantled for stone elements which were reutilized in the final construction of the Taula sanctuary precinct after 900 be (1000 cal BC). This particular set of samples from the Naviform Talayot (a tower-like structure similar to Sardinian Nuraghi) were selected for their constructional or preconstructional contexts and gave the following results: 1080 be± 70 yrs (1310 cal BC) (QL-1433), 1070 be± 60 yrs (1284 cal BC) (HAR-2908b) and 1020 be ± 70 yrs (1235 cal BC) (HAR-2980a). They predate not only the Taula sanctuary but the naviformed Talayot itself, placing the dismantling of its stone elements for the construction of the Taula sanctuary precinct, on the basis of other excavational evidence, two or more centuries after the construction of the naviformed Talayot and as yet an unknown date after its abandonment. At their face value, this established a relative dating at most with some radiocarbon bracketing of the Taula sanctuary construction dates. However, the probability of a still more accurate date for the Taula's construction came from an radiocarbon date collected from a floor at the base of a radial wall of a building (an annex addition), built off of and attached to the southwest wall of the Taula precinct, and cited earlier as having had preconstruction or construction dates circa 880 and 890 be (1000 cal BC). The level from the floor in this annex building, an occupation one, demonstrates the Taula precinct already built and in full use circa 900 cal BC. The date for that use was 760 be ± 50 yrs (900 cal BC) (QL-1165). It brackets the preconstruction or construction dates of circa 880 and 890 be (1000 cal BC) for the Taula inner northeast corner and the precinct's southwest wall and we can use the date of 760 be (900 BC) for occupation level associated with the radial wall built onto the outer wall of the Taula precinct as an additional bracketing date. This strongly suggests a construction date for the Taula Sanctuary of Torralba d'en Salort of circa 800-850 be (950-1000 cal BC) (see appropriate stratigraphical illustrations). The reasoning here being that the radial wall of the annex building, as does its level of occupation, post dates the erection of the Taula walls, which had to have been built at a time shortly after the deposition of

VVVYY'\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

70

V ROCK SHELTER OF SON MATGE The Beaker Culture of the Balearic Islands: an inventory of evidence from caves, rock shelters, settlements and ritual sites William H. Waldren

1r

THE SHELTER'S GEOGRAPHIC ENVIRONMENT

he Matge deposit is certainly the best vertical stratigraphy in the Balearics and has offered us an exceptionally interesting cultural sequence for nearly 6000 years of Balearic prehistory. In its five and half meter deep, vertical prehistoric cultural accumulation, it has been possible to establish many of the important milestones of local prehistory. These begin with (1) the oldest evidence of human occupation in the Balearics, circa the Vlth millennium BC, during which time subsistence economy was based on local prehistoric fauna and flora; (2) the late survival and final extinction of the islands' earliest endemic fauna, Myotragus balearicus, during the Illrd millennium BC; (3) the introduction of domestic animals, i.e. sheep, goat, pig and cattle; (4) the earliest pottery technology also during the Early Illrd millennium BC; (5) the introduction of metal working in copper and bronze; (6) major periodic changes in burial customs; (7) (pertinent to this present study) early Beaker elements in the Middle and Late Illrd millennium and (8) earliest dates for the introduction of iron in the Balearics during the Ist millennium BC, among other archaeological milestones (Waldren 1982). Along with the palaeontological deposit of the cave of Muleta with its ten meter vertical stratigraphy (not pertinent to this study but briefly mentioned as part of chronological continuity), the Matge site forms a nearly unbroken cultural and palaeoecological yardstick of over 250,000 years of local prehistory, including early human arrival circa the Vlth Millennium BC. The two sites serve as ecological and cultural reference stratigraphies, representing the full length of this quarter of a million year period (Waldren 1982). Combined, the two stations have undergone a total period of over thirty years research and have been the subject of various extensive chronometric and other dating surveys, including, radiocarbon, racemization of aspartic acids in bone, uranium thorium dating of bone and calcium carbonate dating of quicklime burials, thus forming the prehistoric sequence indicated above.

The rock shelter is located at a 13.5 km distance from the Balearic Island's Capital of Palma, along the PalmaValldemossa road and 4 km from the mountain village of Valldemossa. At this point, the road passes through a narrow ravine known as, S'Estret (the narrows), forming the shortest and most direct access route of only three into the island's Northern Sierras and north coast. The shelter is reached at this point in the road by way of a narrow path up the side of the mountain to the south of the S'Estret pass (39°35'N, 6°25'E) (Figure 10). The narrow path passes through a shrub-oak forest for about 3/4 of a kilometer before climbing a steep slope up the side of the mountain (Puig de Boixes, 555m) which eventually leads to the rock shelter. At some unknown date the Matge shelter was formed by a massive displacement of part of the north face of the Puig de Boixes, creating a natural overhang 48 meters long and 10 meters wide, and in some places from 10 meters to 30 meters high (see Figures 12-13 and, part iii, Waldren 1982) (also this Chapter's frontispiece). It seems that tectonic debris, probably caused by the original displacement and by subsequent erosion from the rock face, built up a natural platform in front of the newly formed shelter. The platform was later enlarged by the occupants of the shelter, who constructed a retaining wall of large fitted stones, some as large as lm long x 0.75m wide, along the edge of the platform; thus enlarging the area beneath the overhang to about 480 m2 and keeping the platform from eroding away downhill. This was done when the area was eventually converted into a Talayotic Bronze Age cemetery, circa 1300 be (1520 cal BC). However, the earlier first settlers, circa 5000 be (5600 cal BC), used the original platform as they found it, or else increased its width only in a rudimentary way, mainly in the older eastern sectors, known as the Eastern Enclosure. Undoubtedly, the site was initially selected by the ancient people who first settled there, circa 5600 BC, for its strategical situation within an attractive area; (a) be-

VSZVV\2S2SZ\AAZSZ\AAZSZ\AZSZ\AAZSZ\AAZSZ\AZSZ\AAZSZ\AAAA,

71

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

72

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

PLAN AND ELEVATION: EAST ENCLOSURE, ROCK SHELTER OF SON MA TGE

1T I

i i

! !

t·~ I

,-

.-

,·

I

1

T

.

i

i i i i i

,, Myotragus remains

+

•

T•

Talayotic sherds Pretalayoticsherds Beakersherds RadiocarbonAnalysesSamples

J

t

l

i

i \

i

i i i

i

EASTENCLOSURE

i i

imodernwallre

i

·--

·.,

.

·>. -·•~~ ..i--.-).·:···~· ·-~

~

limeburial 1 posttalayotic

,·

,_

levelscoveredallthe shelters

1-wallsshownexcavated in PT levels

____ _J

25

2tl

21

2'8129

30

31

33

34

3;T311

37

ing closely situated to the narrow pass, it would have been quite easy to defend with only a small force of men; (b) it commanded a panoramic view of the valley

311

46

39

-

HEARTHZONES& COPROLITEBEDS

-

of Valldemossa; (c) a convenient source of water during most if not all the year would have been the stream which runs through the pass; (d) the overhang gives

VSZVVVSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

73

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

ample protection from driving rain, despite the fact that further erosion of the rock face and more recent tecton-

ROCX

SHELTER

OF

was first discovered by the author in 1968. Together the evidence left from the different uses of the shelter form

SON

1,t,lTGE,VAI..LDEMOS.\.M.o\LLORCA

2.

shelter

ov111rh11119

3 ___

WEST PROF !LE, EAST ENC LO SURE, SECTION NORTH SOUTH, K1-K 2 , SON SHOWING BOULDER -•---.--.-·---•·-··~

pntala:,otic

----

3 "'

2_._1_Ll

SP

MATGE

BOULDER FALLEN ON TALAYOTIC WALL.J LATER INCORPORATED IN POSTALAYOTIC QUICKLIME BURIALS

levels

ic displacement have decreased the effectiveness of the overhang in modern times; (e) there is ample arable land available for agricultural and pastoral activities on the floor of the flatlands below the shelter. The different uses to which the shelter was put from prehistoric and into historical times have been demonstrated during the excavations undertaken since it

the chronological yardstick referred to earlier, providing us with an excellent vertical stratigraphy against which we can correlate other sites; sites in which there are poorer soil accumulations and lesser artefacts. There are five distinct functions for which the shelter served; not necessarily continuous, but between the limits indicated:

VSZVVSZ\2VSAAZ\2SAAZ\2SAZ\2SAAZS2SAAZ\2SAZ\2SAAZ\2SAAA

74

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

the area and levels that represent them are evenly distributed throughout the different zones of the shelter. The actual naming of the different zones, which in total cover an area of 460 square meters (46 meters by 10

(1) an animal shelter, including a corral for Myotragus between 5600 cal BC and 4650 cal BC. (2) a habitation for some of Mallorca's earliest settlers from about 5600 be until circa 1500 cal BC. (3) a workshop and living area during the local Beaker phase

SCHEMATIC PROFILE Matge East Enclosure Stratigraphy

Rock Face

Rock Face

Rock Face * AU RadiocarbonareCalibratedReadings

...

meters) did not occur until well into the excavations, when it was impossible to advance the work any father in an easterly direction. At that time, the length of the shelter was arbitrarily divided into 3 main areas for further excavation which followed an eastern to western sequence and was provided by certain visible physical divisions already in place. As it turned out, the utilization of the shelter by the prehistoric inhabitants followed these divisions, resulting in a natural chronological sequence in the use of the shelter. The three areas of the Matge rock shelter are the following:

of the Pretalayotic Period, circa 2550 cal BC to 1500 cal BC and again during the late Bronze Age of the Talayotic Period, circa 1300 cal BC to 1000 cal BC as a pottery firing area; (4) a burial site during the local Bronze Age and Iron Age, circa 1500 cal BC to about 50 AD. (5) and finally, it was again used in historical and modem times as an animal shelter.

It is the pertinent levels of phases 2 and 3 (above) related to the Pretalayotic Period of this listing which directly concerns the present study and which are examined in detail. The different functions of the shelter and

VSZVVSZSZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\Z\Z\,

75

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

(I) The Eastern Enclosure covers an area about 20 meters by 10 meters, between survey markers 26-46 (Figures 12-13). From the point of vertical stratigraphy, this is the most important area, and one which deals directly and extensively with all of the prehistoric periods, having supplied most of the vital chronometric and artefact evidence for this sequence. (IT) The CentralEnclosure covers an area about 15 meters by 10 meters, between survey meter markers 11-26 (Figure 17). The full importance of this area was not immediately identified, until the study of its materials and further excavation proved it to be a workshop area, circa 2100 BC to about 1650 BC. (Ill) The Western Enclosure covers an area about 11 meters by 8 meters, between survey meter markers 0-11 (not applicable here). This is the last area to be used in the sector sequence, although toward the end of the shelter's use by the prehistoric inhabitants there is evidence that they returned to using the Eastern Enclosure for burial purposes at about the time of the Roman Colonization and afterwards.

I copper encrustrations

Only the first two enclosures have extensive Pretalayotic contexts and Beaker materials. It is these that are BEAKER CRUCIBLES BEAKER ELEPHANT IVORY LOOM COMB

described in detail. (Should the interested reader seek further information and a fuller account of the stratigraphy, it can be obtained from the author's doctoral thesis (Waldren 1982). A summary of the contents of the Pretalayotic levels from these different enclosures are as follows:

A

THE EASTERN ENCLOSURE:STRATIGRAPHY

B (1) Five levels of charcoal and ash representing hearth zones with frequent pottery evidence, domesticated animal bones along with Myotragus remains (the extinct, endemic ruminant first used by early Balearic man as a meat source) , all showing signs of being burnt or butchered. These are the NECP levels (Neolithic Early Ceramic Phase) of the Pretalayotic sequence (Table 1), prior and are made up of STRATA 28, 27, 26, 25 and 24. Both the upper and lower interfaces of this phase have radiocarbon dating as well as STRATUM 26. The dating sequence is STRATUM 28: (3375 cal BC, 4650 bp) (2700 be)± 120 years) (ABSM 51); STRATUM 26: 2735 cal BC, 4093 bp (2143 be ±392 years) (ABSM 50a), and STRATUM 24: 2539 cal BC, 4020 bp (2070 be± 50 years) (ABSM 50), STRATUM 25 and 27 are without dating.

VSZVY½ZvSAA2SZ\AA2SZSA2SZSAA2SZSAA2'.vSA2SZSAA2SZ\AAA

76

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

(2) Seven levels of charcoal and ash representing hearth zones with frequent pottery evidence, domesticated animals (but no Myotragus). These are the EBP levels (Early Beaker Phase) of

K'

FINDS

ENCLOSURE

SHOWING

AREAS

OF

EAST

WEST

PLAN

SON

MATG E

FINDS

KEY

@beaker

crucibles

@ bronze @ beake:

bone comb

®bronze

CENTRAL

TUM 18: 2368 cal BC, 3820 bp (1870 be ±120 years) (ABSM 46) (Table 2), STRATUM 17: (2075 cal BC, 3670 bp (l 720 be ± lOOyears) (ABSM 43a), contact zone between EBP and

awls

point

Early T11!ayotlc and

.#

E,.rly-Late

Beaker

workshop

areas

®

@ cowrie snells N @ necktace bone units @ bon,e awl components @hones

cache

18

the Pretalayotic sequence, containing abundant Beaker incised wares as well as undecorated Beaker wares and common wares. These and the following are the pertinent levels for this Beaker publication. Those preceding it are here included for continuity. The sequence of the EBP is made up of Strata 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18 and 17. A chronometric series exists for this phase. The dating sequence is as follows: STRATUM 23: without 14C dating, STRATUM 22: (2522 cal BC, 3980 bp (2030 be± 170 years) (ABSM 49) Stratum 21: without 14C dating, STRATUM 20: 2483 cal BC, 3980 bp (2020 be± 100 years) (ABSM 48): STRATUM 19 without dating: STRA-

LBP. (3) Eight levels of charcoal and ash representing hearth zones with frequent pottery finds, domesticated animals. These are the LBP contexts (Late Beaker Phase) of the Pretalayotic Period containing abundant pottery fragments of the Late Beaker Phase and common wares. The LBP contexts are made up of STRATA 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 and 9. A chronometric sequence exists for this phase. The dating sequence which is available for this series is as follows, STRATUM 17: 2075 cal BC, 3670 bp (1720 be ± 100 years) (ABSM 43a) (contact zone included as part of both EBP and LBP sequences),

V\ZVVSZ\2V\AA2V\AA2V\A2V\AA2V\AAZV\AAAAAZV\AAAA,

77

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

STRATUM 16: 1824 cal BC, 3620 bp (1620 be ± 80 years) (ABSM 42), STRATUM 15: without 14C dating, STRATUM 14: 1999 cal BC, 3480 bp (1530 be± 80 years) (ABSM 41), STRATUM 13: without 14C dating, STRATUM 12: 1740 cal BC, 3420 bp (1470 be ± 100 years (ABSM 39) and STRATUM 11: 1673 cal BC, 3350 bp (1400 be± 60 years (ABSM

po"t

talayotlc

tatayotlc p111talayotic

lime

inhumation

charcoal workshop

levels levels

THE CENTRAL ENCLOSURE

The pertinent levels of the East Enclosure as well as areas in the Central Enclosure of the rock shelter have produced notable amounts of Beaker artefacts (e.g. Fig-

levels

-

.,- EA•~~

P~~FILE

SECTION

NORTH

r 1 -r 2 ,

SOUTH.

SHOWING

SON

MATGE

PRETALAYOTIC

CENTRAL

WORKSHOP

ENCLOSURE

-

LEVELS

2.

·•

SP_,_.

10

-··•---9-~

post

ta!ayotic

lime

lnhumanation

tal,iyl\c

bone

& eharcoa1

shelter

level! levels

Uoor

-

,

EAST

PROFILE.

SECTION

NORTH

SOUTH

~·L 2 , SON

MATGE

,CENTRAL

ENCLOSURE,

2.

38). These strata form an unbroken sequence or continuity of use which clearly defines the parameters of the Balearic Beaker contexts in the form of a deep, vertical deposition which is useful for comparative purposes with open-air stratigraphical conditions

ures 12-13 and 17) in both vertical and horizontal deposition. These have included quantities of geometrically incised Beaker sherds along with a great many other items of Beaker typology and assemblage, such as 'v' perforated bone buttons, copper awls and even a Beaker

V\ZVVV\ZV\AAZV\AAZV\AZV\AAZV\AAZV\AZV\AAZV\AA3

78

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

(Waldren 1978). This is attested to on the basis of a copper awl hoard (presently discussed) in various stages of manufacture, from newly made to badly used pieces for recycling; including many awls mounted in bone handles, and several unmounted but prepared handles. Several crucible sherds, including Beaker geometrically decorated crucible fragments with copper encrus-

decorated ivory loom comb (Figures 16 and 20). Large quantities of Common Ware sherds, comparable with the domestic wares from the other research sites, originated from the hearth areas or occupational zones of the East Enclosure. Evidence from the Central Enclosure suggests that it was used as a workshop area during Beaker times

MATGE EAST ENCLOSURE STRATIGRAPHY

PLATE 11. Photograph shows a section of the stratigraphical profile of the Beaker, Neolithic Early Settlement Ceramic Phase (Pretalayotic) levels of the matge East Enclosure. The numerous compressed ash and charcoal strata are clearly visible. A detailed representation and description of these strata are found in the text and Figure 14.

YVVVVSZVSAAZ\2SAAZ\2SAZ\2SAA2V\AA2V\A2V\AA2V\AAAA,

79

WILLIAMH. WALDREN

stone moulds of this age have been found (Pericot 1972; Bordoy 1973) and artefacts accredited to these periods show that considerable metal objects were in circulation during both these periods. Up until now, the appearance of such items has been the result of heavy external trading and commercial contacts with Mainland metal producing regions rather than to the presence of natural resources. It has also been assumed that the islands have had no significant copper or tin sources. Recent surveys show that a number of copper sources do exist and three of the six of the recently recorded are sources close to the primary sites studied here (publication pending). One of these, actually has seams of coal close to the copper veins. Whether these would have been sufficient, in view of the amount of known artefacts, to support a full fledged Bronze Age is doubtful, although they may have been enough for the needs of a modest Copper Age, producing small copper items like awls, knives and points. It is for the moment too early a development to assess properly. There is nevertheless strong recent evidence that some early metal working using copper did exist in at least two of the research sites studied here: the site of the Matge rock shelter and in the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement. The crucible sherds illustrated above support the melting of copper on the Matge site, as does the awl hoard and other objects in the process of manufacture (also see Waldren 1979). Further details and information on the topic of metal working and artefact manufacture are included as we go along . It suffices here to discuss the subject in a preliminary way as it is pertinent to the Matge workshop area and the Beaker contexts there. The main items and assemblages illustrated and discussed at present are from the older levels and belong to the Early and Late Beaker Phases of the Pretalayotic Period.

tations, diagnostic of metal melting and casting, were found in the work shop area (Figure 17) ' well as cowrie shell necklace units, with and without perforations and numerous 'v' perforated bone buttons or necklace elements. Charcoal associated with the workshop area and Beaker sherds have given a date of 2090 cal BC, 3700 bp (1750 be)± 60 yrs) (ABSM 43b). Here in the Central Enclosure, the pertinent levels for the Pretalayotic Period are STRATA 12 to 9. These levels in age correspond to the whole EBP STRATA 24 to 17 and the LBP STRATA 16 to 10 of the East Enclosure. The description of the pertinent Central Enclosure levels is as follows: STRATUM 12: This is a thick accumulationof earth on the top of the shelter floor. In quadrant meter marker 17, a few Myotragus bones were found, along with a few EBP sherds and commonware fragmentsand the Beaker loom comb (Figure 16). The Munsell soil colour is 5YR 5/8 and the soil contains stones about 10mm to 20mm, probably the result of erosion of the overhangface. STRATUM11: This is a layer of red earth and some charcoal which has been collected but not yet processed. It is about IOcms to 15cms thick, and made up of tightly compressed lenses of charcoal and ash. In these layers, EBP incised crucible sherds were found with globules of copper oxides attached to them. (Figure 16). This is the first appearance of such sherds at Matge in EBP contexts. The Beaker loom comb (Figure 14) and a bronze flat cast spearhead were also found in a forward sector of Stratum 12 of the enclosure. STRATUM 10: This is a layer of ashes and earth with charcoal lenses tightly compressed,similar to the preceding level. It also contained EBP sherds and common wares. The hoard of bronze awls were found in the counterpartof this level in a forward sector of the enclosure. STRATUM9· This level is another brownish red earth, Munsell, 7.5YR 5/4, and correspondswith level 17 in the East Enclosure dated at circa 1730be. Two unincisedcrucible sherds (Figure 16) were found in this level with copper residue on them. The level was about 4cms to 10cms thick. This area and its levels constitute the Beaker workshopzone mentionedearlier (Waldren 1979) and has produceda remarkable variety of Pretalayotic artefacts and other evidence, despite it not being a particulardeep vertical stratigraphy.

METALLURGICALEVIDENCE:SUMMARY In 1978 a bronze hoard consisting of some sixty awls, most of them in various stages of finish, accompanied by fragments of others (Plates 12 and 13) were found in an undisturbed Late Beaker Phase (LBP) STRATUM10) and other items were discovered immediately below in a EBP context (STRATUM 11) in the Central Enclosure. They can all be considered as accredited to the same context as previous discoveries in the immediate area of EBP and LBP date circa 2200 cal BC to circa 1500 cal BC. The discovery gave a completely different perspective to our previous interpretation of the nature of occupation of the area in question. Linked with other evidence, it was very probable that what we were dealing

Until recently, evidence of local prehistoric metal working in the Balearic Islands has been relatively rare, especially during the earlier stages of the Pretalayotic period, circa 2500 BC to 2000 BC. From circa 2000 BC forward to the local Talayotic Bronze Age, circa 1200 BC, there are signs of increased metal working activity, although by no means extensive. There is some evidence demonstrating that casting in bronze and iron occurred during the local Bronze and Iron Ages as a few

VSZVVV'.\ZV\AAZV\AAZV\AZV\AAZV\AAZV\AZV\AAZV\AAA

80

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

(I) In 1973 a number of fragments of a ceramic crucible (plain wares) were found with bronze residue attached to the inner surface (Figure 17), in STRATUM 11, between meter markers 19-21, close to coordinate Ll-L2, in the southwestern

with in the Central Enclosure was a workshop area. This is a salutary example of how even a minor extension of an excavated area may change one's ideas. It now seems quite clear that the area was actually

~~

~

IVORY, BONE AND STONE V

PERFORATEDBUTTONS

quadrant of the Central Enclosure. (II) Several fragments of beaker pottery (EBP) were also found in 1973, in the same immediate area, in STRATUM 12,

used as a workshop, not only in LBP times, but also in EBP times, for the manufacture of several different kinds of artefacts. The salient points are as follows:

VSZVYY'.\Z\ZSAAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAAAA

81

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

Si'.i

~

ABSM

Continental Beaker pottery, as well as local motifs (Figure 21). Other sherds with the same motifs have been found in large quantities within the confines of the Eastern Enclosure and have been dated at 2088 cal BC, while fragments with similar clay fabric and similar incised designs were found earlier in the Muertos Gallard rock shelter and in the FerrandellOleza Old Settlement and have produced identical dates in those two sites (Waldren 1990 and 1992. (IV) The excavations in 1974 located a substantial number of cowrie shell necklace beads, a large number of small disc-like bone beads and many rectangular shaped, centre -pierced bone beads, along with pyramidal 'v' perforated bone and ivory buttons, under 'J" rock and adjacent to the bronze awl hoard. These items were found at the interface of STRATUM 12, but are interpreted as being associated with STRATUM

a matter of a few centimeters below the crucible fragments. Other fragments of the same pot were found at the same level but several grid markings away. (Ill) Other fragments of EBP wares were found in STRATUM 11 and 12 during sifting of each of these levels in 1973. Afterwards these sherds were cleaned in the laboratory and assembled. On examination, the inside of these incised fragments could also be seen to contain copper encrustations exactly like the crucible sherds found earlier in 1973 (Figure 16), and would suggest that some ritual or ceremony involving incised crucibles may have existed. This votive or ceremonial significance to the Beaker pottery is discussed presently and in the text's conclusions. This is another significant addition to our information concerning the area, as the EBP sherds were incised with chequer board patterns typical of

YSZVVV\ZSZ\/2/2ZSZ\/2/2ZSZ\/2ZSZ\/2/2ZSZ\/2/2ZSZ\/2ZSZ\/2/2ZSZ\/2/2A

82

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

rocks that had fallen earlier in this area, corresponding to the earth in which the shell and bone ornaments were found (STRATUM 11). The awls, as mentioned above, were in various stages of completion; one awl was still in its sheath mould, another awl is made of bone (an animal ulna). (VI) After the awls and their containing deposit had been removed, an earlier earth filling of the crevices, equivalent to

11 as they were found just below the wood ash and charcoal, where it thinned out into the earth. Elsewhere, at Matge such pieces are found both in Early Talayotic and Pretalayotic contexts, and they are items probably with a long period of currency . This is long duration of use has been further substantiated recently in the SFO-OS site, where we will examine this question in more detail.

A

B

C

2L EXAMPLES OF BEAKER POTTERY FROM THE ROCK SHELTER OF SON MATGE

STRATUM 12, was noted. In air pockets within it, which could be reached with the hand, an ivory comb (now known to be elephant ivory)(Figure 15) with Beaker designs on both sides and an unused flat cast, triangular-bladed bronze spearhead with a flat shaft were found. These two highly typical EBP items closely resemble pieces found on the mainland, and a date of circa 2200 cal BC to 2000 cal BC would suit them admirably. (VII) Among further artefacts from the Central Enclosure, two items (Figure 22) were found to have a stratigraphic prov-

(V) The hoard of bronze awls itself was actually discovered during clean-up activities in the eastern perimeter of the central Enclosure in 1976, at the north end of 'J" rock, under some fallen rocks which also represented a displacement of eroded debris from the overhang face and had fallen prior to 'J" rock itself. It should be noted that 'J' rock must have fallen after the construction of the Talayotic dividing wall between the East Enclosure and the Central Enclosure because its fall had actually crushed this dividing wall. The awl hoard was distributed in a deposit of earth filling the crevices between

YSZVVVSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAAAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

83

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

guards would have destroyed the bow string by abrasive action. Furthermore, the hardness of these stones is exceptional: they were made of a type of stone not found in the Balearic Islands. The first piece (Figure 22B) with signs of wear on its edges and perforated with a single hole at the top end has a hardness of more than 6.5 and proved to be perfectly capable of scoring plate glass. The broken stone piece with three

enance precisely equivalent to the last two pieces described, although they were found between meter markers 22-23, approximately 7m from the face of the overhang. Both these items appear to be hones drilled at one end; one has three holes which are countersunk and the other has only one hole. This latter piece was evidently meant to be hung around the neck like an amulet, although its purpose was that of a hone

A

B

0

C

ABSM

as is testified by the clear traces of use on its edges. The other item, of which the upper half is preserved since it had broken through the centre of these holes horizontally, (Figure 22C) may, in the author's opinion, perhaps not be a hone after all, but may have been used for drawing metal wire- possibly copper or bronze. Typologically similar objects have been found on the mainland in various parts of Europe in contexts which seem to be of broadly similar age, even if chronometric dating is not available. They have often been referred to as archer's wristguards, although the author is not in accord with this hypothesis because it seems quite clear to him that such stone

countersunk holes is strikingly similar to present day hard metal plaques with various sized holes used by metal smiths to draw soft metal wires like gold and silver. These modemday plaques have similar countersunk holes through which one threads a length of silver or gold wire whose end has been tapered. Pliers are used to grasp the end and sufficient force used to pull the untapered part of the wire through the opening, thus drawing the larger wire down to the required dimension and increasing its length. The author has personally operated such a wire die, using, instead of pliers, a simple green wooden dowel round which he could wrap the tapered end of

VSZVV\ZSZV\AAZV\AAZV\AZV\AAZV\AAZV\AZV\AAZV\AAA

84

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

hammered flat on the other, probably to suit the shape of the bone handle it was to be driven into. A flattened end could be easily driven into fresh bone to form a well fitting handle, as some hafted examples show.

the silver wire in order to draw the wire through the hole in the die. Unfortunately, the piece in question cannot be tested experimentally as a wire die because the artefact itself is broken across the holes, the stone is certainly harder than either copper or bronze, and this would be advantageous in such a use. Besides, if the piece were a wristguard, it would not require three holes drilled in it in order to secure it to an archer's arm, nor would it need more than one or two holes to hang it around the owner's neck. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE ARTEFACTS AND THE FUNCTION OF THE AREA

The copper encrusted crucible fragments, incised and unincised, the bronze awls, the cast spear-point and the other EBP and LBP items, such as the bone pieces, are significant clues that strongly suggest the area's func-

PLATE 13. Assorted bronze awls

The two most important clues to the use of the area in Pretalayotic times are the metal encrusted interior of the crucible fragments (now known to be pure copper oxides) and the finished state of many of the awls. The presence of some bone handles without awls mounted, and the fact that the points of some of the awls show use and even breakage, indicate that some may have been collected for either remounting or else for recycling of the bronze. These considerations certainly support the idea of a workshop area for at least the manufacture of the awls, as does the occurrence of one in what appears to be a casting sheath. It is important to note that the cowrie shells and the different kinds of bone pieces have the same stratigraphical context as the bronze awl hoard, while the ivory comb, the triangular spearhead and the Beaker incised sherds can be linked with a slightly earlier part of the known age-range of the Beaker fire levels in the East Enclosure. There is a complete lack of kitchen debris in the Central Enclosure, although it is very frequent in the rear of the East Enclosure with its hearth areas. This also suggests that the area of the Central Enclosure was not employed for living. It seems very likely that the two areas comprised a contemporary settlement in which the living area

PLATE 12. Bone hafted bronze awls

tion as a workshop. Many of the awls were found mounted in handles which were made from metatarsals and metacarpals of young goats. There does not seem to be any consistency regarding which end of the bone had the non-functional end of the awl driven into it: examples showing the use of both the distal and proximal end were found in the collection. The unmounted awls of the hoard are of different lengths and shapes, most show different stages of completion. Some are round in section and pointed at both ends, others rectangular in section, pointed at one end and blunted on the other or

VSZVVV\ZSZ\LLZSZ\LLZSZ\LZSZ\LLZSZ\LLZ\7\LZ\7\LLZ\7\LLLL,

85

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

This would mean that they were made several centuries before the established date for the abandonment of the area and its conversion first into a Talayotic cemetery and later into a Post Talayotic one. This poses no problem for the over all sequence at the site, despite the fact that the recent date is just slightly older than the earlier estimate. On the other hand, the incised ivory comb, the flat bronze spearhead and the contemporary Beaker sherds, both with and without copper oxide encrustations are older on grounds of both typology and stratigraphy. Their horizon corresponds to an earlier part of the Beaker fire levels of the East Enclosure. These span the period of 2450 cal BC to circa 1700 cal BC and cover both the EBP and LBP (it should be perhaps mentioned here that as yet there is no solid evidence for a MBP, although dates for such a phase are available). Within this chronometric range, we may assess the age of the comb and spearhead at circa 2200 cal BC to 2100 cal BC. As we have seen the hone and supposed wire die were in a level of the same age (on stratigraphic grounds) as the comb and spearhead. The use of the Matge rock shelter in the Central Enclosure as a workshop area, and perhaps as a small trading post, occupied by a small group of craftsmen is strongly suggested. The shelter's strategical situation, at the northwest opening of the narrow access route leading into the mountains, where foot passage by people passing in and out of the area could have been easily controlled, as well as advantageous to trading the goods made in the shelter. Besides the surrounding oak forest would have made an excellent source of fuel. All of these factors may have accounted for the choice of the area as a workshop and trading area. It is certain in view of the collective evidence that the Central Enclosure was not a habitational zone as was the Eastern Enclosure, but an area apart, used as a workshop from circa 2500 BC to the shelter's occupational abandonment and reconversion into a prehistoric cemetery around 1400 BC. All the artefacts retrieved correspond chronologically and typologically to materials from sites within the arc of immediate influence. Evidence strongly suggests that two reasonably well defined Beaker phases (EBP and LBP) existed during this time. They are stratigraphically distinguishable, as well chronologically and typologically, both in the East Enclosure and in the Central Enclosure. It also becomes quite evident that some metal working did take place in the Balearics. What may account for the lack of more copper objects ac-

(East Enclosure) and working space (Central Enclosure) were kept carefully separated. The available radiocarbon dates strongly suggest that their occupation was indeed contemporary. As regards the precise age of the artefacts from the workshop area, we must depend on the evidence of both

PLATE 14. Bronzeawl sheathmould

typology and the radiocarbon analyses. Although both the EBP and LBP are involved, according to the pottery evidence, it is clear from the stratigraphy that the bronze awl hoard, the bone and shell necklace units and the LBP pottery fragments belong to a slightly younger level that which yielded the incised ivory comb and unused cast spearhead. If their date is therefore to be slightly later than that of the latter two items, we may estimate the age at circa 1925 cal BC to 1800 cal BC (a date now exists for this context of circa 2010 cal BC).

VSZSZVV\2VSAA2VSAA2VSA2VSAA2VSAA2VSA2VSAA2VSAAA

86

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

and the possible reasons behind it in cultural terms, and at the same time similar details in the other areas. This is very much the same kind of procedure and strategy taken in the solution of the problems and our understanding of the Beaker workshop area. The 42 dates (Table 1) for the Matge stratigraphy demonstrate the value of large series datings and the manner in which a deep deposit can reflect important stages in prehistoric cultural development from period to period and, at the same time, suggest dates for individual events and contexts, thus making it possible to construct a working framework for a prehistoric sequence (Figure 6). A framework which can eventually incorporate other site evidence as well. It also shows us the way in which the various individual elements and units of information can be joined together to form an integral whole.

credited to the local Pretalayotic Period and its Beaker phases might be that metal scrap and worn out implements were conscientiously collected and melted down to provide new objects. In short, a conservation of the meager sources that did exist. The example of the bronze awl hoard would substantiate such a recycling of metal objects. REGARDING THE DATING OF THE DEPOSIT

The strategy in the case of the chronometric survey at Matge was to make full advantage of the deep, vertical stratigraphy by the extensive use of serial dating. The result of this has produced a radiocarbon list (Table 1) that clearly shows the continuity of the site and the full range of the Balearic prehistorical cultural sequence. It has offered us an excellent source of reference and yardstick by which to measure and compare sites and materials, where there is little or no radiocarbon evidence evidence. In the case of Matge, the approach to dating has been in some ways more direct than the way it has been used in the other sites to be examined. While the general approach has been basically that of applying absolute dating to the stratigraphical levels and their materials in succession, to form an overall perspective and sequence, the immediate objectives, although varied, have been more specific, particularly concerning the individual issues evident in the different contexts. For example in dealing with the Matge Beaker levels, the function of the various enclosures themselves (east, central and west) has been an important and central issue. The strategy in this case has been a comparative study of the dates for specific contexts, materials and the function of the different enclosure areas themselves in relation to the shelter's broarder Beaker horizons. By a study of these and the materials found in them, it has been possible to determine the character, function and duration of use of the different areas, as in the case of the Central Enclosure's Beaker workshop and Eastern Enclosure. Another example (although not concerning Pretalayotic levels, but relevant to the strategy used) occurs when dealing with the dating of the site's Post Talayotic quicklime inhumations (Waldren and Van Strydonck 1993 and 1994). For example, establishing the duration of the burial custom in chronometric terms was an important aspect, but so was the order of spatial use and function of the other areas important. The way this was done was by treating both the vertically and horizontally stratigraphy equally. This enable us to gain a clearer picture of the significance, duration and way in which the process of inhumation in quicklime was carried out

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, it is unnecessary to come to any far reaching conclusions regarding the Rock Shelter of Son Matge, other than point out once again the importance of the site as an unbroken stratigraphic record of the entire known Balearic prehistoric sequence, one in which we can assign it special value as a comparative and correlative stratigraphy. Its record in this respect has been reviewed and studied extensively earlier and elsewhere. What we are interested in the present situation is the Beaker contexts within that prehistoric sequence, and what they tell us about the Balearic Beaker phenomenon, both in general and specific terms. Although it will be impossible further on in the text to exclude the broader aspects of the site, where it will be necessary to reexamine what it tells us concerning the periods flanking the Beaker contexts, for the present, we have momentarily to isolate certain Beaker data and information from the stratigraphy and consider what they tells us specifically about the phenomenon's manifestation in this site in particular. Firstly, the apparent function of the locale as a workshop area in Pretalayotic times is, undoubtedly, the main centre of our present interest. The location of such a permanent or seasonal trading station strongly suggests quite heavy traffic having existed between the northern mountainous regions and the flatter regions of the island. From the evidence here we can see metallurgical activities being carried out, along with other items of manufacture. This is clearly seen in the evidence of metallurgical activity, such as the Beaker crucible sherds and what appears to be manufacture of ivory and bone objects. Both the Beaker crucible and other Beaker

YSZSZYVSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

87

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

sherds appear to support the idea of some form of ritual significance attached to these luxury items. From the bone and other remains in the hearth zones, there are signs of both habitational as well as manufacturing activities. We can deduce from this and the radiocarbon documentation that at least a small percentage of the populace was utilizing the caves and rock shelters simultaneously with more highly organized architectural open-air settlement. The extent and concentration of these is demonstrated both by the chronometric data and artefact evidence of having been carried on by small groups of specialized individuals who lived, probably periodically over a period of many hundreds of years at the site and practised various trades, outside organized settlement. The strategical location of the site at the mouth of a narrow ravine where it was easy to control access in and out of the area, probably was also much more advantageous for trading than a question of defense. However, although there is no evidence of weaponry or militant activity, the site was no doubt chosen with a certain latent idea of defense, though pacific by nature. As to the activities of these artisan groups (perhaps family or clan), analysis of the artefacts produced demonstrate such interesting aspects as the recycling of metals, the ability to amalgamate tin with copper on site to make tin bronze (Waldren 1976), which indicates sophisticated technological knowledge. The importation of exotic materials (either manufactured from raw material or imported as finished products) were part of the trade goods and is shown in the form of elephant ivory, used in the production of the decorated loom comb and 'v' perforated ivory and bone buttons, which definitively signal long distant trade and bear with it the implication that the islands were not off-course of the trade routes of such exotic goods. This long distant or offisland contact is further demonstrated quite early in the production of bronze object, when there is no know tin sources on the island and this vital raw material or bronze ingots would have had to come from abroad. From the kind of objects being made at the shelter, some of these were exotic and suggest that they would have been highly valued and that there was probably a good market for such items. This in itself implies social differentiation and presence of wealth in form of the means of purchasing such luxury goods. These are conditions that are further demonstrated in greater deal in the other research sites examined. Social differentiation is further supported here in the apparent independence of these small artisan, manufacturing groups and the ability of these individuals to exist in conditions where they would not have had to participate in the normal

everyday subsistence activities of the larger organized communities The truth of both the success and duration of such artisan specialists on Mallorca can be seen reflected in chronometric surveys of the site and, as will be seen eventually, in the Beaker evidence from the other research sites. Whether or not these metallurgical and other activities were full time occupations on the part of these individuals or groups of artisans is not known for the moment. Or whether they may well have travelled from region to region plying their trade in some form of seasonal or other periodic pattern is also no known. What is certain from the accumulation of such manufacturing activity at the shelter and the duration in which it was carried on, there was definitely a period of several hundreds of years involved at the Matge rock shelter. One of the salient factors gained from the data so far is that evidence like this definitively brings the question of interaction between the islands and the mainland into better focus.

In the following sections of Chapter VI, we will examine further evidence of these relationships, except the evidence in his example will originate from the highly eroded stratigraphy and Beaker contexts of the open-air settlement of the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement. There we will have none of the conveniences and advantages of deep, vertical stratigraphy, but conditions which the author refers to as a horizontal or linear stratigraphy, where cultural levels are not so logical or clearly deposited. Stratigraphy, on a square meter by square meter basis, in locales like the SFO-OS site can vary considerably and bedrock is never far from the surface. The vertical sequences, when they do exist, can be a matter of centimeters and not the luxurious four or five meter depths found in the vertical sequences of sites like the Matge rock shelter. In situations like Ferrandell-Oleza, bedrock can frequently lie on the surface, or lie only a centimeter or two below it. It is in conditions like these where the technique of bracket sample collection or dating has been most useful, not only in the dating of the archaeological contexts of the FerrandellOleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement and its materials, but, as will be seen, also in the dating of the site's diagnostic architectural elements . A table (Table 1.), giving the site's complete radiocarbon inventory, is included on the following page for quick reference. The pertinent dates for the site's Beaker contexts are emphasized by bold type. Similar tables will be included at the end of each pertinent chapter.

VSZVVV\Z\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAA

88

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

TABLE 1. CONVENTIONAL & CALIBRATED RADIOCARBON RESULTS Balearic Pre-Talayotic, Talayotic and Post-Talayotic Periods ROCK SHELTER OF SON MATGE Valldemosa, Mallorca, Baleares, Spain Site Context Reference 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

ABSM-ESP ABSM-ESP ABSM-ESP ABSM-PRT ABSM-PRT ABSM-EBP ABSM-EBP ABSM-EBP ABSM-EBP ABSM-EBP ABSM-EBP ABSM-EBP ABSM-LBP ABSM-LBP ABSM-LBP ABSM-LBP ABSM-LBP ABSM-MBA ABSM-EIA ABSM-EIA ABSM-EIA ABSM-EIA ABSM-EIA ABSM-EIA ABSM-EIA ABSM-EIA ABSM-EIA ABSM-EIA ABSMMIA ABSM-MIA ABSM-MIA ABSM-MIA ABSM-MIA ABSM-MIA ABSM-MIA ABSM-LIA ABSM-LIA ABSM-LIA ABSM-LIA ABSM-LIA ABSM-LIA ABSM-LIA

bp date

bcDte 4730± 120bc 3870±360bc 3800± 115 be 2700± 120bc 2143 ±398bc 2070± 50bc 2030± 120bc 2020± lOObc 1870± 120 be 1820± lO0bc 1750± 60bc 1720± lO0bc 1620± 80bc 1530± 80bc 1470± 80bc 1400± 60bc 1250± lO0bc 870± 50bc 780± lO0bc 750± 170bc 700± 60bc 690± lO0bc 670± 160bc 620± lO0bc 620± lOObc 610± 60bc 600± 60bc 600± 60 be 590± 80bc 590± 80bc 590± 60bc 570± 80bc 530± 70bc 450± 80bc 400± 55 be 340± lOObc 310± 60bc 290± 70bc 250± lOObc 130± 90bc 120± 120bc 15 ± 55 be

6680 yrs 5820 yrs 5750 yrs 4650 yrs 4093 yrs 4020 yrs 3980 yrs 3970 yrs 3820 yrs 3770 yrs 3700 yrs 3670 yrs 3570 yrs 3480 yrs 3420 yrs 3350 yrs 3200 yrs 2820 yrs 2730 yrs 2700 yrs 2650 yrs 2640 yrs 2620 yrs 2570yrs 2570 yrs 2560 yrs 2550 yrs 2550 yrs 2540yrs 2540 yrs 2540 yrs 2520 yrs 2480 yrs 2400yrs 2350 yrs 2290 yrs 2260 yrs 2240yrs 2200 yrs 2080 yrs 2070 yrs 1965 yrs

cal BC/ cal BP 5591 BC 4722BC 4632BC 3375BC 2735 BC 2539BC 2523 BC 2483 BC 2288 BC 2214BC 2090BC 2075BC 1923 BC 1833 BC 1740BC 1673 BC 1485 BC 993BC 897BC 838BC 813BC 809BC 800BC 795BC 795BC 793BC 791 BC 791 BC 786BC 786BC 786BC 770BC 655BC 408BC 400BC 391 BC 379BC 370BC 295BC 105BC 101 BC 25AD

VVVVV\ZSZ\/2/22SZ\/2/22SZ\/22SZ\/2/22SZ\/2/22SZ\/22SZ\/2/22SZ\/2/2/2/2,

89

7540BP 6671 BP 6581 BP 5324BP 4684BP 4488BP 4472BP 4432BP 4237BP 4163 BP 4039BP 4024BP 3872BP 3782BP 3689BP 3622BP 3434BP 2942BP 2846BP 2787 BP 2762BP 2758 BP 2749 BP 2744BP 2744BP 2742BP 2740BP 2740BP 2735 BP 2735 BP 2735 BP 2719BP 2604BP 2357 BP 2349BP 2330BP 2328BP 2319 BP 2244BP 2054BP 2050BP 1974BP

Lab.No QL29 CSIC176 15516 QL988 BM1408 QL23 CSIC178 QL5B Y2359 BM1995 IRPA835 QL24 CSIC179 CSIC180 QL5A QL5 Y2667 QL986 QL7 QL11 IRPA811 QL27 IRPA695 IRPA790 QL20 IRPA803 IRPA676 IRPA751 QL24 QL4 IRPA752 QL6 QLl0 Y2669 IRPA710 QL5C QL22 QLlA QL9 QL8 QL7A 1RPA710

C Jh(!]Jp ere 1r

Vl!

FERRANDELL- OLEZA CHALCOLITHIC OLD SETTLEMENT The Beaker Culture of the Balearic Islands: an inventory of evidence from caves, rock shelters, settlements and ritual sites William H. Waldren

TI

habitants gradually cleared the land of dense shrub-oak forest, much of which is still visible in the mountain top regions above the modern agricultural terraces, to farm the land and raise livestock. Over several centuries, they constructed the permanent, remarkably well organized and sophisticated community, which according to a recent series of calibrated radiocarbon dates and supporting artefact evidence prospered for an approximate 1200 year period from circa 2500 cal BC until circa 1300 cal BC (Table 2). Dates that are exactly contemporary with those of the Matge rock shelter and the various human activities that took place within the shelter. The Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement, contrary to the deep, vertical stratigraphy of Matge, is a typical example of an eroded open-air Western Mediterranean archaeological station that has had most of its top soil weathered away by extensive agricultural activities and severe natural erosion over the intervening millennia. In most places, this has resulted in the thin soil deposition and exposed large areas of bedrock throughout the site that we have today, thus accounting for one of the main physical and stratigraphical differences between the two sites, the other notable differences being demographic and functional. Despite the obvious difference and importance in the number of occupants and different size of the sites, their main interest lies in the individual, even distinctive, functions the sites served and what these can tell us about local Copper Age social and economic organization and the Beaker phenomenon in particular. From these, we gain to learn a great deal. At Matge, the rock shelter was used as a workshop and trading post during its Beaker phases, probably, because of the geographic advantage of being able to control the S'Estret pass and its easy access into the Valldemossa and the intermontane basin with its rich alluvial agricultural soils, which gives us some clue to the kind and extent of the movement in and out of the region. Another advantage in the choice of the shelter would have been the surrounding indigenous oak forest, which would have provided a source of fuel for the

n comparison with what we have examined in the last chapter, the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement differs radically from the Matge deposit. It differs, not only, in stratigraphical conditions, but in the function of the site as well. These factors alone add a different dimension to our study of the site, region and the Balearic Beaker phenomenon as a whole. Firstly, it moves the question of Balearic Beakers out of the contexts of caves and rock shelters into a rural environment. Secondly, it significantly enlarges our understanding of the subsistence and other activities of the Copper Age inhabitants of the region, thus extending our conception of its social and economic organization, as well as saying something about its natural resources. At Matge, the Beaker occupational levels consisted of what appears to be little more than the activities zones of a small numbers of individuals: a small group of artisans and traders, carrying out workshop production. This is demonstrated by the the site's hearth zones, workshop areas and evidence of living activities carried out over a considerable length of time, and which were mainly confined to the eastern and central zones of the rock shelter. Although these levels consisted of only two Beaker chronological phases, included within the larger Pretalayotic sequence, they spanned the whole of the Pretalayotic Period, including the Neolithic Early Ceramic Phase (NECP) (circa 3375 cal BC), through the Early Beaker Phase (EBP) (circa 2539 cal BC) and into the Late Beaker Phase (LBP) (circa 1673 cal BC. This is represented by 11 radiocarbon dates (Table 2), spanning some 866 years of the deposit's stratigraphical continuity, with many dates on both ends of the Beaker sequence. By contrast, the evidence from the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement includes large stone architectural building and shows more extensive living activities having taken place. Here, the size of the social unit, based on the dimensions of the settlement and the number of the buildings, appears to be that of a much larger group of individuals, probably from 4 to 6 families: a clan or extended family. These Copper Age in-

VSZSZSZVSZ\Z\AAAAAAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAAAAAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAAAAAAA,

90

WILLIAMH. WALDREN

VSZVSZV\ZV\AAZV\AAZV\AZV\AAZV\AAZV\AAAAAZV\AAAA,

91

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

metallurgical and other activities carried out in the shelter. As for the inhabitants of the Ferrandell-Oleza settlement site, it is quite obviously they exploited the advantages of the rich, agricultural soils and other strategical advantages of the Pla del Rei, engaging in extensive crop production and animal husbandry, as well as the construction of permanent stone dwellings, with such sophisticated features as the elevated water system. From these environmental and geographic differences, we can deduce other details. In the case of Matge, the individuals were artisans, engaged in metallurgy and other artisan productivity, while in the settlement they were agriculturists and pastors, engaged in food production, animal husbandry and building activities. And within these different occupational activities, a high degree of social and economic differentiation can be discerned and explained, particularly through the study of the artefact and chronometric information available for the two sites. However in reality, in both these cases, we are in some respects dealing with a lack of differences, rather than differences. For example, except for quantity, there are no apparent differences in either the general quality of the artefact assemblages or the similarities of the chronometric documentation associate with the artefacts or the sites themselves, they coincide perfectly. While there are no differences in quality or chronology of the artefacts that are so far discernible, as we will see, there are differences as might be expected in the quantity of the artefacts and a certain minor diversity in these objects. These are, as pointed out, mainly because of the size of the sites, character and demographic differences between the two. What is however of interest at this point in our argument is the diversity of activities and the rich detail of subsistence and social information available so far in both the Ferrandell-Oleza Old Settlement and Matge rock shelter. The artefact diversity is manifested as a similar richness in both sites, but again in a somewhat different quantity. In both sites, the inhabitants had access to particular kinds of objects and worked in certain materials that can only be considered as exotica, which more than any other factors reflect the different functions of the sites and different occupations of the inhabitants. Where one group was probably more the supplier and the other more the consumer, although both probably did live symbiotically. In which case, there was undoubtedly a two way interaction at all times. However, despite the more obvious differences in the function, , on both occasions, physical characteristics and interac-

tion of the sites and even the similarities themselves, the rare and rich items they had access to distinctly show distant trade, as well as an access to raw materials from areas well outside the islands. Apart from telling us a great deal about the people that made them, the exotic nature of some of these items, in turn, do much generally to amplify our knowledge of the period and, more specifically, give us a strong indication of the origins of both the materials and the culture of the people that made them, as well as the possible trade routes by which they traveled. Important informative and evidence that did not exist prior to the discovery of these sites and the research that has followed. They also do much to suggest what might have similarly occurred in other regions farther afield. For example, in Matge items like the cast bronze objects and elephant ivory loom comb, buttons and Beaker pottery give us excellent evidence, not only, of local technology and local patterns of exchange but, at the same time, strong indications of the possible origins of these pieces, so supporting certain hypotheses regarding the more distant trade links. Another example is the evidence of metal working, as seen in the site's Beaker crucibles and later in the use of tin bronze during the Late Beaker Phase that furthers our understanding and opens new avenues of research. The importance of tin bronze technology, alone, becomes especially pertinent, as no tin sources for its production are known on the islands and tin bronze presence as far afield as the Balearics at such an early date opens a myriad of possibilities. Apart from the great wealth of pottery exotica in the form of abundant and richly decorated Beaker ware and other Beaker paraphernalia, the architectural evidence of the Ferrandell-Oleza settlement, with its sophisticated as well as obvious highly developed internal organization, not only, shows us how daily life and even longer term problems were coped with in such open-air communities, but, also, the inhabitant's skills in architecture and hydraulic engineering. All of these aspects are reflected further in the Matge evidence and elsewhere in the secondary sites, where the artefacts and chronometric information demonstrates a contemporaneity present in rock shelters and caves. This shows us the extent to which social and economic organization and interaction developed in these contemporary, though individual and quite different environments. The fact too that both forms of communal life were indeed carried on simultaneously and that interaction between the two actually existed is both provocative and of special interest and importance. Almost nothing was known about early open-air settlement older than that of

VSZVYYSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

92

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

how few, what we can reliably call, Beaker settlements exist throughout Europe. In northern Europe we have at best a few settlements in the form of hut or groups of hut bases, with evidence consisting of scarce Beaker pottery and other fragmentary evidence. Here, in the regions of the Iberian Peninsula and Southern France, where Copper Age settlements are know, there are few that meet the criteria of Beaker settlement. The argument here lies in the proposition that the FerrandellOleza settlement fulfills such requirements and that a great deal can be learned from its study, especially regarding issues related to the social and economic development of such settlement during the Copper Age. The following section briefly describes the settlement and some of the more salient details of its organization and chronological duration of occupation.

81.5014

THE SETTLEMENT

Circa2500 BC, an extended family group or clan of 16 to 24 individuals settled along a slope on the western perimeter of the Pliocene alluvial plain known as the Pia del Rei (Plain of the King), near the village of Valldemossa in the Northern Jurassic Limestone Sierras of the Balearic Island of Mallorca. The Copper Age inhabitants having cleared the land of the shrub-oak forest gradually over several centuries constructed a permanent, remarkably well organized and sophisticated rural community, which according to a recent series of calibrated radiocarbon dates prospered for a 1200 year period of occupation until circa 1300 BC. The Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement is a typical example of an eroded Western Mediterranean archaeological station, where much of the soil has been weathered away exposing bedrock in many places. The large stone walls of the settlement form a rectangular shaped compound with an overall wall extension of 246 metres, enclosing an area of 3606 square metres. The walls, with their well preserved 2.5 metre wide foundations, originally rose to an estimated height of 3 metres, incorporating a semicircular tower-like main entrance in its southern central aspect and evidence of two square tower like reinforcements at the eastern and western flanks of the south compound wall (Figure 27 and Plate 18A). The division of the walled compound into two clearly defined sectors with a residential and work areas to the west and east, respectively, is unusual in its organization and architectural planning. There are foundations of two large, well constructed apsidal shaped houses in the western sectors as well as one smaller structure of

81.5027

\ 81.5018

EBP BEAKER SHERDS: FERRANDELL-OLEZA

23.

later Talayotic Bronze Age times before this. Nor for that matter was very much known regarding the early social and economic organization within caves and rock shelters throughout the islands, until the discovery of Matge and the Ferrandell-Oleza settlement. Before these discoveries evidence from rock shelters and caves was of the nature of supposition and summarized by early prehistorians as belonging to the Pretalayotic period, known as the Culture of the Caves.

As pointed out in the Introduction (Chapter I), we need merely to consult our textbooks in order to realize just

VVVVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\Z\Z\.

93

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

There is considerable evidence that during the settlement's occupation, the inhabitants carried out extensive agricultural activities in the fields immediately adjacent to the compound. Field collections of over 700 serrated, tabular flint sickles and blades from the surrounding fields and in the confines of the settlement itself demonstrate a highly developed lithic industry. From the sickle gloss polish on most of the blades found in the fields, it was determined that there were seasonal harvests of cereal grains, probably wheat and barley. The dense alluvial soils of the intermontane basin even today form an extremely fertile plain that has been inhabited and used continually, perhaps in a similar way since the 3rd millennium BC, and the growing of wheat and barley is to this day one of the field products for which the plain is well known. Because of its closely related historical, geographical and environmental characteristics, the entire catchment has been the centre of sharp interest and a focus of extensive research since 1978. During this time, some 20 prehistoric activity areas have been discovered in the immediate vicinity of the alluvial plain and briefly surveyed, with at least 8 more sites on its outer perimeters (Plate 21). All of which will undoubtedly supply additional important information and data in years to come At the present time, the area is exploited by four residence-estates, known as fincas: (1) Son Ferrandell, (2) Son Oleza, (3) Son Mas and (4) Son Moragues. It is these residence-estates, all of which have extensive prehistoric architectural ruins on their property, surround the plain in cardinal sectors that form the natural geographic catchment . Interior occupational zones and an exterior refuse area to the southwest of the settlement compound, known as the West Old Settlement (WOS) have produced abundant animal remains of goat, sheep, pig, dog and small cattle, showing a wealth of domesticated livestock and experience in animal management. There is a strong suggestion that the animals were sheltered in the corral zones of the compound during a good part of the year, probably to protect the growing grain in the nearby fields. The site's other artefact assemblages of special interest consist of unusually large quantities of finely decorated Bell Beaker pottery. There are some 1200 fragments for some 90 vessels, based on the number of different rim sherds, a rich variety of common ware Begleitkeramik (some 135,000 fragments, representing several hundred vessels), 38 'v' perforated ivory, bone, shell and stone buttons or necklace elements and wristguard-whetstones, all of which were found associated

SPINDLE WHORLS

FERRANDELL-OLEZA

CHALCOLITHIC SETTLEMENT

undetermined use. The most notable of the three buildings is the H4 Habitation (Plate 14C) with its 2 metre wide foundation and curved rear wall. Equally notable, within the western sector of the walled compound and bisecting it lies a sophisticated, water system. It is made up of a vertically aligned, stone slab water channel some 60 metres in length, originally lined with clay and covered by stone slabs to prevent evaporation and contamination, bringing water directly into the domestic zones. The water channel has a downhill water catchbasin, supplied by an uphill reservoir with an estimated 40 cubic metre storage capacity (Figure 27 and Plate 17). Together the various elements form a contained water system and demonstrates an unusually high degree of efficiency and engineering in the conservation, control and transport of water. A fuller description and the dating of this architectural element is discussed further on in this chapter.

VSZVVVSZ\2S662\2S666662\2SAAZ\2SAAZ\2SAZ\2SAAZ\2SAAAA,

94

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

with the various architectural elements. The presence of numerous examples of clay spindlewhorls and cheese-strainer bowls speak for the on-site production of wool and dairy products. The finds of many, tabular flint cutting blades and beach-cobble, pounding and polishing stones, apart from the Olezian flint harvesting sickles, strongly suggest animal hide production. Limited copper working is shown in the retrieval of a number of copper awls and copper ingots, along with some pottery crucible fragments. This has been further substantiated recently by the discovery of copper ore deposits in adjacent seashore areas below the settlement (Waldren, Ensenyat and Cubl, in preparation).

A

OLEZIAN POTTERY CHEESE STRAINER

THE QUESTION OF FORTIFICATION

Because of its similarity to other mainland sites, where such walled features are interpreted as fortification, it is difficult to overcome the impression in the case of the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement, with its two meter wide, three meter high stone wall compound, impressive covered tower-like main entrance and flanking wall reinforcements, that these features are other than fortification. There are a number of good reasons, however, for belying this impression. The fact that the site lacks any object resembling a weapon in its artefact assemblage is one of the valid points of the argument. There are certain architectural characteristics that also show the function of the walls as other than one of fortification, particularly as fortification is understood and interpreted in mainland textbook sites of similar age. One of the strongest of these architectural arguments is found in the location of the uphill water reservoir outside the northwestern corner of the west compound wall. In such a situation, it would have been totally accessible to an enemy during any sort of siege. Another major argument is found in the extra wide, unprotected rear entrance in the north compound wall, where the settlement would have been equally vulnerable to attack. All of which further speaks for the non-fortified function of the walls and entrances (Figures 28 and 29). In the case of the Old Settlement, the heavy construction of the compound walls, made up as they are of large stone elements on both inner and outer surfaces and normally associated with fortification, take on more the function of a delineation of property than a protective characteristic. In lieu of other evidence, the high walls served another function, one that is probably closer to their real purpose, as that of a permanent corral and work area. This would have been something essen-

B

---~==,---'!====cm

TWO COPPER INGOTS AND COPPER AWLS

-

• ...

YSZVVVSZ\2SAAZ\2SAAZ\2SAZ\2SAAZ\2SAAZ\2SAZ\2SAAZ\2SAAAA,

95

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

"

27.

FERRANDELL-OLEZA CHALCOLITHIC OLD SETTLEMENT PLAN: LOCATION OF RADIOCARBON.

long term investment, rather than actual fortification per se. They strongly suggest, for example, social separation and economic independence from other inhabitants of the alluvial plain, delineating as they do precise proprietorial domain. Abundant animal remains within the

tial to the maintenance of livestock and protection crops. Both these architectural characteristics along with their impressive physical characteristics strongly suggest group wealth and social differentiation as well as

VSZVVV\ZV\666666ZV\AZ\Z\A6Z\Z\66Z\Z\AZ\Z\66Z\Z\A666,

96

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

The fact that the inner areas of the walled compound are divided approximately in half, forming two clearly separated activity zones, as well as sound organizational planning, show practical considerations in the overall organization and function of the settlement,. For example, the domestic areas with their large stone, apsidal ended habitations and water channel dominate the western uphill areas, while the lower eastern zones comprise the corral and work areas. Artefacts such as spindlewhorls and flint knives and other contextual evidence found in the lower eastern zones indicates that they were used, not only, for corralled animals, but other activities like wool-working, milking, shearing and butchering. In short, the location, use and apparent function of the different zones of activity substantiate the idea of this planning, as well as offering us clues to the practical responses necessary for successful management of livestock, and not as fortification as first impressions lead us to believe. The upper western domestic area is further subdivided by the elevated, sixty meter long covered water channel with its catch basin, located at the down hill end. Both of these are adjacent to the residence buildings and away from the corral zones. The water channel and its subsidiary elements form a complete hydraulic system which is unique to the archaeological record of Copper and Bronze Age settlements, although small sections of similar water channeling have been found in sites like Los Millares (Arribas and Molina 1987) and Cerro de la Virgen (Schiile 1981). On the basis of the evidence. it is of considerable importance and interest, demonstrating, not only, a high degree of sophistication in hydraulic engineering, but in the management and conservation of water. It also offers us the opportunity to observe a small group of individuals and their environmental responses over a long period of occupation, as well as the various solutions undertaken regarding subsistence generally. In some respects, they strongly support what A. Gilman (1981 and 1990) refers to as an intensified capital investment and long term dominion, and not fortification as one would expect of such architectural features. In a subsequent sections, space is given to a detailed description of the individual architectural features of the site, the artefacts, radiocarbon dating and other evidence directly associated with these architectural elements. However before this takes place a few more remarks are necessary concerning the settlement in general, as well as some brief comments on the dating techniques used to obtain the various results. While the dating techniques have been more than adequately cov-

confines of the walls further suggest a wealth in the breeding and maintenance, as well as strict management of large animal flocks, especially sheep and goats. These ovicaprines represent over 85% of the livestock evidence, the skeletal remainder representing cattle and pigs. A few dog bones are also present as well as gnawed animal bones which may have served as shepherd and guard animals. The presence of considerable lithic evidence found in the adjacent fields, with further evidence of flint working close to the walls, shows that cultivation of crops took place near to the precincts of the compound (Figure 31). This proximity to the compound would have been effective in overseeing the crops and an aid to more efficient management of livestock. These kinds of considerations would also have been essential to a small group of inhabitants, where their group efforts would have been more effective and more easily carried out. Such proximity of growing crops would have required constant and careful management of livestock during much of the year, as animals would have had to have been kept out of the fields until harvest. This also suggests that alternatives such as transhumance, as has been suggested by some investigators (Lewthwaite 1984), may not have been practical or readily applied in the case of Ferrandell-Oleza. Management of the animals outside the shelter were limited to grazing only short distances from their nightly sheltering in the compound and not on the distant hill sides. Part of the animal management may have entailed actually bringing fodder into the compound for the animals during the growing part of the year. After the growing and harvesting season, they could be safely set out to benefit from the remains of the harvested grain. What better means to do this? Than a permanent, high walled corral, where the animals would be successfully kept away from the agricultural fields, during the critical part of the growing season, and additionally safe at night from the less wealthy inhabitants of the plain, as well as the possible use of the corral zones being as a general work area. The heavily constructed compound walls, while they are reminiscent of fortification and suggest mainland cultural origins where such fortification is common, they do suggest a foreknowledge and familiarity with such architectural techniques. They further reflect an expert knowledge of engineering and construction skills on the part of the builders. A good example of these are found in the site's elevated water channel and apsidal habitations. Like the artefacts and dating, similar structures and building techniques are known in many Iberia and southern French textbook sites mentioned earlier.

VVSZVVSAAAAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZV\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

97

BEAKERCULTUREOF THEBALEARICISLANDS

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

1887 1829 1829 1819 1749 1713 1673 1549 1519 1450 1357 1261 998 1563

cal cal cal cal cal cal cal cal cal cal cal cal cal cal

BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC

RADIOCARBONDATES

FIGURE

SOUTH COMPOUNDAREAS: ENTRANCE, C2 TOWER STRUCTURE, H4 HABITATION

2, &

WATER CF.

compound itself, made up of the four cardinal compound walls. The settlement's main importance lies not only in the sophistication of the architecture as a whole, although this aspect is interesting and tells us a great

ered in Chapter V, it is necessary to briefly reiterate some description, especially as it applies to the dating of the settlement's features. Following this some remarks on the central unit of examination, which is the

VSZVYSZ\ZSZ\AAZSZ\AAA/2AZSZ\A/2ZSZ\AAZSZ\AZSZ\AAZSZ\AAA/2,

98

WILLIAMH. WALDREN

PLATE 15

WATER CHANNEL

SF0-0S

YSZVYSZ\Z\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

99

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

deal about the high level arrived at, but the various stages of construction and duration of occupation. In these the architecture is in this sense a central issue and a key to the Beaker pottery and other artefacts found on the site. This is further emphasized by the close relationship and correlation between the architecture, artefacts and chronometric evidence, which interweave themselves throughout the entire settlement, as well as the other research sites and the investigations in general. The fact that the site is of a single prehistoric period adds to its importance and value in that it simplifies its interpretation by not having a complicated stratigraphy. THE SETTLEMENT COMPLEX: BACKGROUND The settlement was discovered in 1978 as the result of field walking and a site catchment survey in areas adjacent to the north of the site's Talayotic (Bronze and Iron Age) Younger Settlement. The field surveys produced extensive Pretalayotic (Chalcolithic) pottery scatters on the ground surface. The presences of these scatters near and around what appeared to be aligned, large stone elements gave the first clue to a possible archaeological and architectural association between the two. In the initial stages of the survey and first excavation, little more than the uppermost surfaces of individual stone elements of building foundations were showing above ground (Plate 18). It was not until exploratory trenches were excavated across the width and along the length of several sections of the visible stone alignments that the first archaeological associations between the the surface pottery and architectural elements was established. Profuse Copper Age pottery evidence was clustered at the base and against both the inner and outer rows of the foundation stones, materials weathered down or deposited earlier than and after their construction The frequency of the pottery evidence from the beginning showed that without exception the prehistoric pottery collected from the exploratory trenches belonged to a single chronological period, that of the local Pretalayotic Period. The initial collections also included numerous incised pottery fragments of Beaker typology. There are more than 135,000 fragments found to date, not one of which is of a date later than the Pretalayotic Period.

wide, which stood originally to the estimated height of 3 meters or more. The four Compound Walls and their 246 meter extension form a rough rectangle with the interior area of 3606m2 (Figure 26). While these inner dimensions are roughly similar to many Copper Age settlements in the Iberian Mainland and south of France (e.g. Cabezo de! Plomo and Lebous have similarly sized enclosed areas), the more geometrical, rough rectangular shape of the SFO Old Settlement is atypical. Most known settlements of this age have been built to follow the natural contours of the land on which they were constructed. The settlement compound and the areas immediately adjacent to it can be sub-divided into two settlement activity zones is as follows: (a) the Old Settlement Compound and (b) West Old Settlement; the latter is a disposal or trash pit area used by the occupants of the settlement and is a separate research area included in part at the end of this study. The regular geometrical plan of the compound is further emphasized by the fact that the compound has two entrances directly opposite one another: one in the South Wall, mid-distance along its extension and the second also mid-distance along the length of the North Wall. Although as pointed out in the site's general description, the two entrances completely differed in their function and character. Although there is some gradient between the northwest zones of the SFO-OS site and those of the southeast (about 9 meters difference in elevation), the regular shape of the site is probably due to the rather low ground contours as well as the relatively flat area of the eastern corral zones. In reality, the incline of the whole area facing the escarpment is somewhat more than appears when standing on it. The actual incline of the area is such that the site on the whole has an advantage of commanding a full view of the entire alluvial plain from its position well up on the sloping side of the western escarpment of the plain, against which it is situated. (Figure 8, Chapter IV). This general geographical incline, as well as the gradient of the entire site probably accounts for the extensive erosion that has taken place over the ensuing millennia of land use. In fact there is good reason to believe, as will be discussed eventually, that extremely severe soil erosion had already taken place by the time of the sites abandonment, circa 1300 cal BC and that the site was finally abandoned because the top soil depletion around the compound, making the area agriculturally no longer viable. INNER COMPOUND AREAS Once through the South Wall Entrance, the 3606m2 inner area of the Walled Compound Areas is divided into two main zones: (1) the Domesticated Areas to the west and (2) the Corral and Work Areas to the east, each cover approximately l 800m2. It begins with the 56 meter long southern compound wall which has a wide, semi-circular tower-like structure or facade with a tunnel or covered main entrance in its centre. The latter is an impressive architectural feature that not only dominates the entire southern aspect of the compound, but also would have impressed any transient visitor. The four

THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS THEW ALLED COMPOUND The Old Settlement walled compound is made of large stones (units of approximately 1.25m by .65m by .50m) on both inner and outer faces, forming foundations for walls 2.5 meter

VSZVS7YSZ\2SAAZvSAAZvSAZvSAAZvSAAZvSAZvSAAZvSAAAA

100

WILLIAMH. WALDREN

PLATE16

C2TOWERSTRUCTUREENTRANCE

SFO-OS

YSZVVVSZ\2SAAZVSAAZ\2SAZ\2SAAZ\2SAAZ\2SAZ\2SAAZ\2SAAAA,

101

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

compound walls extend form an enclosure, roughly rectangular in shape, with a 72 meter long west compound wall, a 69.5 meter east compound wall and the 43.5 north compound wall. The domestic area contains almost all of the important architectural elements so far excavated within the compound walls (see Reconstruction: Figure 31). The upper half of the domestic area is further divided by a 60 meter long, large stone lined water channel and catch basin, which was at one time covered with stone slabs to guard against evaporation and contamination (Figure 24). The water channel traverses the compound in a north to south direction, descending from a large water reservoir built outside the uphill, northwestern comer of the compound. This latter architectural feature is unique and of considerable archaeological interest, forming a complete hydraulic water system that demonstrates a remarkably high degree of engineering sophistication and a good knowledge of water management. The high walled compound would have assured that the inhabitant's seasonal agricultural and pastoral activities, along with being well organized, were functionally separated, the high walls of the compound providing both safe shelter for their animals and at the same time preventing damage to the crops that were grown on two sides of the walled compound during a good part of the year. This division and use of the inner areas of the compound and the erection of a permanent enclosure and water supply show a highly organized establishment and one of careful planning, where domestic and subsistence activities are closely interrelated and dependent on successful land, water and animal management. They also show 'capital' or long-term investment (Gilman 1981) in the area as well as 'a declaration of propriatorial domain and social differentiation in relation to other inhabitants of the alluvial plain. For the present author, they also show a collective identity and a sense of shared purpose. Plans of each of these archaeological elements, including the four compound walls, are described and illustrated below in detail, along with pertinent chronometric data and pottery distribution information.

ENTRANCES The South Wall Entrance is the narrower of the two and gives the site's main access into the domestic areas. It is also the more significant of the two entrances, having had a large stone covered roof and impressive four meter long passage, leading through the tower-like structure of the south wall and into the inner areas of the compound The covered passage terminates at the southern end with a broad fore-court or courtyard, directly in front of the principal residence, the H4 Habitation. The overall feeling one gets from this impressive entrance and passage is one of wealth and importance, as there has been a particular attention paid to the details of its inner and semicircular construction and which has an especially constructed chamber in the form of a flagstone recess area, located midway along the covered passage, large enough for a man or large dog (Plates 16 and Figure 28).

The North Wall Entrance is much broader and simpler in construction than the southern entrance, giving access into the eastern areas of the compound. It was probably a work entrance used for bringing animals into the corral and work zones of the compound's eastern sectors. A simple wooden gate would have been all that was necessary for easy access, as there was no attempt at elaboration of the north wall itself such as present in the reinforced, south wall main entrance, where easy entrance seems not to have been particularly encouraged, but certainly meant to impress as well as control access. This as pointed out earlier, leads one to the view that the walls of the compound were again something other than fortification. Such a simple rear entrance with a gate of wood would would not have withstood any serious insurgence by an unwelcome guests from that quarter, although it would have been practical for moving animals in and out of the corral areas with considerable facility. ELEVATED WATER CHANNEL The Water Channel (WC) (Plates 15 and 18) is without a doubt one of the most interesting and major architectural features of the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement. In the author's knowledge, there are only two examples of such a structure: one is in the Chalcolithic Settlement of Cerro de Virgen (Orce) (Schille 1984) and Los Millares (Almeria) (Arribas and Molina 1987). Neither of these on the other hand are quite as complete or elaborate, consisting of a few meters of aligned stones. The Water Channel has been excavated to its present length of 40 meters. There is only a small section of about 20 meters, between the northern end and the water reservoir in the northwest comer of the settlement, that is as yet unexcavated. The channel is lm wide and aligned with vertical stone slabs, the units of which measure approximately lm long by .75m high. The channel runs in a north to south direction and was at one time covered with stone slabs and the interior lined with clay to prevent water loss by evaporation as well as protection from contamination (see site plan and reconstruction, Figures 27 and 31). There are other characteristic which are equally interesting in its construction. The gradient of the channel was so constructed that its pitch ensured a slow downhill flow of water, rather than a flooding of the channel, which would have probably resulted in not only carrying impurities down hill but would also have disturbed the clay lining covering the the interior of the channel. The flow of water was controlled by the gradual slope of the channel and its diagonal course across the gradient. Further control of water flow was achieved by a series of stone slabs that acted like water traps or locks set in the channel at intervals along its downward course. The fact that the whole structure was elevated and supported by a large stone foundation gave it a permanency and once it had been lined with clay further protected the water in the channel against evaporation and contamination. When viewed in conjunction with other physical features that are part of the water system, one is

YSZVVV\/2/2/2/27\Z\/2/27\Z\/27\Z\/2/27\Z\/2/27\Z\/27\Z\/2/27\Z\/2/2/2/2,

102

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

struck by the unusually high degree of technological knowledge available in the inhabitant's control and management of water. At the extreme southern end, the channel ended in a RunOff Gulley formed by an enlarged natural fissure in the bedrock, and from there it flowed into a Catch Basin (Frontispiece and Plate 6). The area of the catch basin may well have been covered by a wood and thatched roof to prevent further loss and contamination and also as a general protection from heating by the sun. At the stage of excavation, heavy concentrations of red clay were found weathered into the Catch Basin, some of which was probably the channel's original clay lining. In a section of the water system mid-distant above the catch basin, in the northern half of the settlement compound, the channel consisted of bedrock fissures incorporated as part of the overall operation. At this point, there are signs that some of these natural bedrock fissures have been artificially worked and enlarged in order to direct the flow of water into the stone slab alignment of the channel. It is at the northern end of these bedrock rock fissures that a small section of the system is still unexcavated, mainly the section leading to and directly in front of the main Water Reservoir (Plate 17). One date is so far available that is directly associated with the late use of the Water Channel, although several others are pending. Animal bone debris from inside the water channel, beneath the aligned slabs, at its extreme southern end and near the Catch Basin has given us a date of 1713 cal BC (1440 ± l00bc: BM 2312) (9: Table 1) (The date was first reported by the BM as 1260± 70 be). This radiocarbon date along with the one from the area of the C2 Tower Structure nearby, 1673 cal BC (1400±100 be: BM-1698R) (11: Table 1), represent late occupational dates for the site, close to the time of abandonment. The one from under the channel's stone slab alignment suggests the date of construction or renovation of that section of the elevated structure. Another date exists for an upper level (0-IOcm) of this area just outside the Catch Basin, but directly associated with it. The date also on animal bone is 1357 cal BC (1120± 50 be: HAR-3490) (14: Table 1) and along with a similar reading of 1261 cal BC (1040± 160bc: QL 4044) (15: Table I) from a nearby area known as the Circular Hut Structure (CHS) represent dates close to the final abandonment of the site.

texts, using techniques described earlier (Waldren, Ensenyat and Cubl 1991; Waldren and Van Strydonck 1993), it has been possible to assign specific chronometric parameters for many of these building contexts, fixing their construction, duration and abandonment. At the same time, providing us with an inventory of dates that express the complete chronological history of the site and region in general. In the case of the Elevated Water Channel, its construction and the inferior levels prior to construction were the aspects in question. The date of 1713 cal BC given above is the first of a large series in progress and the only one so far received as a construction date for the structure. However, it is also the one available date which has had to be re-analyzed by the BM lab. Therefore a certain amount of reservation must be taken concerning its accuracy or reliability. Contextually these early BM dates have from the beginning been considered at least two centuries too young, when compared to artefacts and other nearby datings. However despite the early discrepancies the second readjusted dates are currently more acceptable in view of recent findings as substantiated by bracket dates from structures in adjacent zones to the Water Channel. Organic materials in the form of animal bones and charcoal, part of the construction fill of the wall, were collected from beneath the foundation stones of the W ater Channel. Other similar test materials were removed from within bedrock crevices of the preconstruction level (see appropriate stratigraphical sections). This was done in an attempt to date both the construction of this section of the water channel and the preconstruction levels beneath. The samples are in the process of analysis and results may eventually give us a more precise indication of the age of its construction, as well as the preconstructional levels on which the water channel was built. A 3m wide section, 115m2 in area, known as the Exploratory Trench West (EXW), stretching north-south along the outside of the Water Channel has yielded 17,890 fragments (68,507 grms) of pottery, a distribution frequency of 142 fragments m2. A high frequency of this kind would indicate considerable domestic activity in and around the length of the water channel. Considering the function of the sector as a possible work area, such a frequency is not surprising. Other radiocarbon samples were also collected from inferior levels of these zones, below the occupational ones. Recent excavations have unearthed the foundations of a third structure, although not anywhere as well built as the larger and more sturdily built apsidal habitations.

CHRONOLOGICAL STUDY: WATER CHANNEL In 1984, a survey study was designed and undertaken to

determine the age of the Water Channel and its close vicinities, along with the dating of other architectural elements throughout the site (also see appropriate section below). All of which was part of the extensive radiocarbon dating surveys already underway for the whole region and designed to understand the building sequence, as well as to establish the duration of use of the site. By dating the site's numerous architectural and other con-

VVVVV\2SZ\AAZV\AAZV\AZV\AAZV\AAAAAZV\AAZV\AAAA,

103

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

I.

2468 cal BC

RADIOCARBON DATES 1993

EAST COMPOUND WALL

The structure situated at the end of the EXW (Exploratory Trench West), between the Catch Basin and the West Compound Wall has wall foundations that are only about a 1.25m in width. Made up as they are of considerably smaller stones and based on the narrowness of the foundations, they could not have risen any

higher than 1.5 meters with any stability. This has led to the conclusion that the structure was either a circular shed or walled in work area, which may or may not have had a roof. This is more or less substantiated by the pottery and animal bones found throughout the floor areas. A radiocarbon date is available for this third dwelling.

YSZVVVSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

104

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

tower-like structure built into the centre of the wall which in tum incorporates the covered South Wall Entrance and the areas known as the Guard's Recess Area (Plate16). Considered as a individual unit of study, these three constructional elements form an interesting architectural feature. (1) The central element, known as the Tower Structure (C2), is a semicircular widening in the South Compound Wall. This in tum incorporates (2) the covered 1.25m wide South Wall Entrance that runs through the thickened Tower Structure (C2) and (3) the Guard's Recess Area. This latter element is some 2m long by 1.25 m wide (Plate 16). The combination of these elements in the centre of the South Compound Wall, viewed from either the inside of outside, creates a singular, impressive architectural feature, especially when seen in conjunction with the other elements, such as the fore-court, H4 dwellings and the elevated water channel and catch basin. Animal bones from an occupation level (0-lOcms) just inside the compound fore-court and against the tower structure have given us a radiocarbon reading of 1673 cal BC (1400± 100 be: BM-1698) (11: Table 2). Pottery collected from an area of 25m2 in the fore-court of the compound wall gave us 1552 fragments (4781 grms), a distribution of 62 fragments m2.

It comes from charcoal excavated in a zone of activity associated with what is believed to be its construction level, below the wall fill. The date is 1829 cal BC (1540± 80 be: QL-4042) (5: Table 2). A total of 3559 fragments (15,254 grms) of pottery in an area of 51m2 were found spread throughout the inner floor, a frequency of 72 fragments m2. This is a distribution similar to other activity zones, such as the Ancient Terrace Area (ATl-3), where there are strikingly similar 14C dates for these areas. SOUTH COMPOUND WALL C2CENTRALTOWERSTRUCTURE The South Compound Wall extends for a distance of 56 meters (Chapter Frontispiece and Plate 19A). It is best preserved in the central and western sections. Considerable damage has been done to the eastern section by modem agricultural activities, and many of the stones have been displaced or removed. Of the four compound walls this one is the most important in that it incorporates several architectural elements. As the most elaborate of the four compound walls, it has also served as the basis for a number of surveys, mainly concerned with the compound's constructional stages, as well as the settlement's general chronological sequence and duration of occupation. Excavation at the west end of the South Compound Wall leads us to believe that a rectangular reinforcement or towerlike structure was constructed where the south end of the West Compound Wall meets the western end of the South Compound Wall. There are some signs that a similar structure existed at the other (eastern) end of the South Compound Wall, where it joined the East Compound Wall (see site reconstruction, Figure 31). The function of these reinforcements or tower-like structures is not known, nor is it known whether or not they were solid in construction or contained chambers. Trenches excavated along the full extent of the interior of the South Compound Wall and areas adjacent to and north of the wall have provided us with very large amounts of Copper Age pottery of all categories including many Beaker sherds. In an excavated area of 125m2 some 12,975 fragments (51,383grms) of pottery were retrieved, with a pottery distribution of 103 fragments m2. Such a large number of pottery fragments is probably due to the proximity of two of the structures used for living; as well as the nearby water channel catch basin (Figure 28). One of the two structures is a hut-like construction, or shed, set in lean-to fashion against the inside face of the South Compound Wall and another low walled structure in the open area to the left of the catch basin, both of which were probably work buildings or open enclosures, perhaps with thatched roofs, and may even have contained special farm animals, such as cows or goats. Excavated bone samples strongly support this possibility. The most notable feature of the South Compound Wall is a

ANCIENT TERRACE AREAS To the east of this combination of structures there is a low terrace like platform known as the Ancient Terrace Areas (ATl3) (Plate 18C, right foreground, and Figure 28, lower right and marked AT on the plan). It is connected both to the interior of the South Compound Wall and the Tower Structure. The function of the Ancient Terrace Areas is not clear, but there are indications that at one time it extended well to the north, forming a terrace-like platform or foundation for a wall, dividing and separating the corral work areas from those of the western domestic areas. A simple wooden post and thatch fence would have served for this purpose, as well as being easy to maintain, although at present no post holes for such a fence are evident. If we consider the assemblage of these building elements once again in relation to the rest of the well built structures of the inner compound and domestic areas, the whole becomes another impressive unit, one which further reflects the work of a highly organized and industrious social group, capable on many different levels of subsistence activity. Animal bones taken from the building fill at a depth of 30cms in the ATl-3 zones have recently given us a date for the construction of this element of 1829 cal BC (1540± 30 be: QL-1859) (6: Table 2). Although accounting for an area of only 18m2, it has provided us with 1283 fragments (5725 grms) of pottery; a distribution of 71 fragments m2. In an inferior level below the fill (50cms), in red earth weathered into bedrock crevices several pieces of older corded, impressed ware were found, giving us further clue to a still older and earlier occupation and utilization of this area.

VSZVVV\Z\Z\LLZ\Z\LLZ\Z\LZ\Z\LLZ\Z\LLZ\Z\LZ\Z\LLZ\Z\LLLL,

105

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

2.

2239 cal BC

RADIOCARBON DATES 1993

NORTH COMPOUNDWALL

APSIDAL H4 HABITATION Access to the main apsidal or naviform dwelling, the Apsidal Habitation (H4), is gained through the covered passage of the C2 Tower Structure, South Compound Wall and the interior courtyard or fore-court area. The structure has 2m wide stone foundations and was made of exterior and interior building stone elements as large as 1.50m x l.OOmx .75m. The whole structure must have originally risen to nearly 3m height and

was probably covered with a large, wood beamed ceiling and thatched roof. It is attached to another similar dwelling on its west side, the Central Stone Structure (CSS). Once having gained access through the covered passage of the tower structure and standing in the fore-court area one would have been immediately struck by the appearance of these two large well made buildings (see site reconstruction, Figure 31). Structures such as the Apsidal Habitation (H4)

YSZVVVSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZSZ\AZSZ\AAZSZ\AAZ\Z\AZSZ\AAZSZ\AAAA,

106

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

fragment m2. A number of Beaker sherds are included in this distribution. A radiocarbon sample from a small hearth zone in the H4 Habitation is currently in the process of analysis.

(Plate 18C) with its two meter wide foundations and naviformed wall structures are strongly reminiscent of the long houses of the Southern French sites of Cambous (Roudil and Canet 1981) or other similar architectural structures such as those found in Lebous (Amal 1973). A large rectangular room, 10m long by 2.Sm wide, forms what is best described as a boat-shaped long house. It is made up of large, aligned flat slabs, some as big as 1.50m x 125m and .75m thick. From occupational levels within the building, some 2804 fragments (1 l,610grms), living debris walked into the floor of the building and from bedrock crevices, were excavated in an area of 39m2; a pottery distribution range of 72

PLATE 17

CENTRAL STONE STRUCTURE The Central Stone Structure (CSS) (Figure 28 and Frontispiece) is the second of the two major dwellings. It is located just off the small fore-court area and connected to the Apsidal Habitation (H4) on its east side. The two dwellings have their apsidal ends opposed, the H4 to the north and the CSS facing south as one enters the fore-court. The structure has an interior floor area of about 18m long by 5 meters wide, flanked on

UPHILL WATER RESERVOIR

SFO-OS

YSZVVV\Z\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

107

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC

PLATE 18

SOUTH COMPOUND WALL, WATER CHANNEL AND H4 HABITATION

VSZSZVVSZ\Z\AAAAAAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA

108

SFO-OS

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

35 fragments m2. Accompanying the common or domestic wares found in these three areas were over 400 Beaker sherds. Based on the number of rim fragments, they represent more than a score of vessels. A small fire zone associated with 18 fragments of Beaker pottery was found against the East Compound Wall. It was subsequently dated by the British Museum at 2548 cal BC (2080± 110 be: BM-1843R, a date formerly published by the BM at 2000 ± 65 be) (1: Table 1). The charcoal sample was found at the base of the foundation of the inside face of the south section of the compound wall. The sample comes from a context which is believed to represent an activity area prior to the time of the construction of the wall in this sector The results of several additional 14C analyses are pending from all three of these areas. These include samples from within the wall fill, as well as from the bedrock crevices beneath the foundations of the wall. When they are available they should give us a better idea of the true age ranges and the sequencing of the various areas along the east wall. They should also provide a more complete survey, similar to the one carried out on the South Compound Wall, C2 Tower Structure and ATl-3 areas.

the west by the raised water channel, incorporating the raised water channel as its west wall and sharing the wall of the H4 Habitation as its east wall. As has occurred with most of the other architectural elements, there has been several stages of building and renovation, involving the CSS building as well as the adjoining water channel. One of the excavational strategies has been to date these various stages of construction and renovation. A section of the common wall, that served as part of the raised water channel's west wall and that of the central stone structure, has been disassembled as part of a study to date the construction and renovation of the various architectural and contextual elements in this area (Plates 8-10). Details concerning the study are found in an appropriate section below. All of the open areas and floor levels found in and around this concentration of architectural elements have given us an artefact distribution (especially pottery) that has been quite profuse, indicating its importance as an area of domestic activity. In the zones of the Central Stone Structure an area of 15lm2 has given us pottery finds consisting of 20,490 fragments (78,846 grms); a pottery distribution of 135 fragments m2. A large number of Beaker pieces are included in this pottery distribution, including several sherds of late Beaker chronology. While the results of several radiocarbon dates are pending for these areas, one reading is available at this time for a zone near the raised water channel This date is 1549 cal BC (1330± 120 be: QL-1896) (11:Table 2) and is believed to represent a late occupational phase shortly before the site's abandonment. As we will seen presently, this date for the final stages of the site's occupation has further substantiation from radiocarbon analysis of materials from within the water channel itself.

NORTH COMPOUND WALL The North Compound Wall (NW) (Figure 30) is the best preserved of the four compound walls. It extends to a length of 43.5m. Its length is somewhat shorter than the other three compound walls and this characteristic accounts for the irregular rectangular shape of the compound. In one sector, the northwest comer, the foundations are preserved to a height of 1 meter (comprising two courses of stone), setting the criteria for estimates of what the walls must have originally looked like. Here, the wall is a bit over 2 meters wide along the top and gives further substantiation to the estimate of their height of three meters. The second entrance (North Compound Wall Entrance) is found halfway along the wall, giving a two meter wide access directly into the northeastern and eastern zones of the compound and the corral and work areas. It is this second, simply constructed, wide, rear entrance that helps support the belief that the compound walls were not defensive and that the entrance was used to bring animals into the corral area of the eastern zones of the compound. The best example of the junction of the compound walls is seen in the northeast comer of the compound. This is the junction of the east comer of the north wall and the north end of the east wall. Here, the comer is perfectly preserved on the exterior face and the comer stone (1.25m long and .60m high) is well cut and placed in perfect alignment with several adjoining ones running in a west and southerly direction). Only a narrow area, one meter wide, has been excavated along both sides of the north wall, so there are no comprehensive pottery distribution statistics as yet available for these zones, although a preliminary report of the existing data has appeared elsewhere (Waldren and Ensenyat 1987). A collection of 10 fragments of Beaker pottery was found to one side

EAST COMPOUND WALL The East Compound Wall (EW) extends in a north-south direction for a distance of 69.5m (Figures 27, 30 and 33). There are three excavational sectors in this area: (1) in the southern zones on the inside of the compound wall (EWI), (2) also another along a two meter wide area of the outer face and southern end of the compound wall (EWX) and (3) the northern sectors of the inside face of the compound wall (EWN). Each of these have produced large pottery distributions. In the EW sector (1), a total of 8661 fragments of pottery (38,226 grms) was found in an area of 324m2, a distribution of 82 fragments m2. The EWX sector (2) produced a higher frequency range of 130 fragments m2, a collection of 7544 fragments (33,067grms), found in an area of 56m2. It is thought that this high concentration of sherd material in the EWX sector, outside the compound wall as well as along the inner wall, represents occupation that took place before the wall's construction and that the compacted occupational debris collected in these areas probably belonged to hut floors in use before the wall construction. In the EWN sector, a total of 5901 pottery fragments (23,464grms) were found in an area of 105m2, a distribution of

YSZVYSZS:ZVSAAAAAAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

109

BEAKERCULTUREOF THE BALEARICISLANDS

A

B

C

D

SFO-OS

3L

YSZVVV\2V\AA2V\AA2V\A2V\AA2V\AA2V\A2VSAA2V\AAAA,

110

WILLIAMH. WALDREN

A

B

C

D

SF0-0S

32.

VSZVVV\ZSZ\/2/2ZSZ\/2/2/2/2/2ZSZ\/2/2ZSZ\/2/2ZSZ\/2ZSZ\/2/2ZSZ\/2/2/2/2,

111

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

of the entrance near the outside face of the wall. There were several others found within the wall fill itself and collected during excavation and consolidation of the wall. A C14 date on charcoal associated with the Beaker sherds found near the entrance and at the base of the wall dated by the Quaternary Research Centre of the University of Washington at Seattle have given us a reading of 2239 cal BC (1840± 90 be: QL1636) (2: Table 2). A fuller study of this north wall sector was carried out in 1988 in an effort to get additional data from both the wall fill and inferior levels below the foundations. This also included the exterior contexts farther south and north of the North Compound Wall. The operation as in other wall foundations consisted of removing wall fill and carefully collecting archaeological materials for dating. The artefact found during these surveys also make especially interesting study materials as they typologically reflect the time periods in which the bone, stone and pottery materials were deposited in the walls. The organic materials from this particular area survey are currently in the process of analysis and once completed, like similar surveys carried out on the other compound walls and structures, should help establish the sequence of events in this particular area. UPHILL WATER RESERVOIR UWR The Exterior Uphill Water Reservoir (UHXWR) (Plate 17) is built on to the exterior of the northeast comer of the West Compound Wall. The reservoir has an interior measurement of 5m x 4m with lm wide foundations. The walls of the reservoir rose to an estimated 2 meters height and when full would have stored about 40 cubic meters of water. This would have been ample amount to see a small group through most of the summer months' dry period, if carefully controlled. There is also some evidence from recent excavations of a second water channel slightly to the north of the reservoir and leading higher up the escarpment face. With excavation this second channel may eventually lead us to a second reservoir. The source of the water and the method used to fill the reservoirs is not for the moment clear, although it would have been perfectly possible to have trapped and directed rainwater off the slanted side of the escarpment into the reservoirs by blocking and using the natural gullies of the bedrock, or possibly wooden troughs. The fact that the water reservoir has been built on the exterior of the compound wall, where it would have been easily reached by an enemy in times of unrest, strongly supports the evidence of the non-defensive nature of the walls. For surely, if the walls were defensive, this water reservoir would not have been constructed on the exterior of the compound wall, but on the inside; simply as a precaution against any interference with the water supply. This is further substantiated, a pointed out earlier, by the wide, unreinforced and easily accessible north compound wall entrance and complete lack of weapons on the site. All of which requires that other functions for the walls be considered. It also gives credence to the prop-

osition that the walls, rather than serving a conventionally defensive function, represent a declaration of proprietorial domain or property delineation as well as a practical, permanent corral. CONCLUSIONS: A REGIONAL RECONSTRUCTION What we have demonstrated in the evidence so far regarding the function and organization of the two sites, in certain respects, amount to a set of tentative conclusions, even generalities. While in earlier sections of this chapter we have described and discussed the differences between the two sites, in some detail, regarding their environments and functions, along with remarks about the individuals that used them, much remains to be said. This is especially true in that we have yet to examine the evidence from a contemporary ritual centre, one that played a significant role in the lives of the region's inhabitants, the Prehistoric Sanctuary of Son Mas, where still another dimension can be added to our local prehistoric scenario as well as our view of the Balearic Beaker phenomenon itself. If we are to reach any conclusions at this point, it is necessary to summarize the evidence so far. The main factor in the interpretation rests in the settlement's excellent preservation and the fact that we are dealing with a single period site, making it relatively easy to interpret the evidence and other information. Here, one of the contributing factors in the site's preservation rests in the fact that the foundations of the various architectural elements were preserved under field stone, gathered throughout the centuries by local agriculturists during plowing and placed to accumulate over the foundations of the ancient architectural remains. The farmers, rather than remove the foundations and stones from the larger, ancient buildings, have taken advantage of these areas to stack and store stone loosened by the plow, creating what are locally called clappers. This too has been an advantage. Apart from preserving the ancient remains, it has simplified excavation in that the accumulated stone can be easily removed by hand, leaving the remaining foundations clearly discernible beneath. Since 1978, excavations of the Chalcolithic Old Settlement of Ferrandell-Oleza have revealed the original plan of the site with considerable detail. The exposed foundations clearly show the outline of the numerous architectural elements, giving us evidence of a permanent, well organized and planned settlement in which a great deal of time and effort have been placed. This has greatly facilitated interpretation and reconstruction of the individual architectural features, enabling us to es-

VSZVVVSZ\2S2S2SZ\2S2S2SZ\2S2SZ\2S2S2SZ\2S2S2SZ\2S2SZ\2S2S2SZ\2S2S2S2S2S,

112

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

their exceptional architectural and organizational skills. Such evidence presents the picture of an exceptionally, well organized, social group, having attained and engaged in a rich economy consisting mainly of animal husbandry and agriculture.

tablish clearly the original dimensions and other details of the various structures and giving us clear indications of the degree and skill with which they were originally built. Along with the extensive chronological data and artefact evidence found in them, we are given clear in-

PLATE 19. Photograph shows two serrated, tabular flint sickles found at the base of one of the entrance keystones during the exca, tions. The sickles may have been offerings made during the construction of the South Wall Compound and C2 Tower Structure Entrance. Most of the walls and other structures had Beaker pottery incorporated in their dry fill, probably placed there during the construction of the walls and various other structures.

sights into the socio-economic activities and way of life of the inhabitants, thus adding still other dimensions. The division of the compound area into clearly defined residential and work zones is quite remarkable in its urban planning, separating as it does the domestic areas of the compound and its reservoirs from the animal corrals of the east sectors, further increasing the impression of

This grip on essentials and order is also notable in the well preserved and sophisticated, internal water system with its various elements, which brought water directly into the domestic areas, close to the living quarters of the settlement, giving control over and easy access to the water supply. The efficiency and sophistication of the water system, important studies in their own right,

VSZVYYS:Z\Z\Z\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\2SZ\Z\Z\2SZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\2VSZ\Z\Z\Z\,

113

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

which in its heyday must have cornrnanded great respect and attention for its sheer sense of massiveness and effort. From the vantage point of the fore-court or small courtyard, a visitor would irnrnediately face the settlement's principal dwellings and the centre of domestic activity. Even today, the foundations of these architectural features (Plate 18C) are remarkably imposing, giving the impression both of prestige and status. As can be seen in the reconstruction, the fields on at least two sides- to the east and south of the settlement compound- were used for agricultural activities (Figure 32). This is dramatically emphasized by fragments of over 700 quality tabular flint tools (sickles and blades) collected from the fields and which still have high sickle gloss polish; a sign of their agricultural use in the harvesting of grain (Plate 5: ChapterIII). With the close proximity of these agricultural fields to the settlement compound, it would have been absolutely necessary to have efficient control of livestock for a good portion of the year, while crops were being grown. Once this was achieved the animals could profit from the remainder of the harvest, but until then the animals would have to have been carefully supervised. The compound walls would have not only provided protection for the crops from livestock but equally the livestock from theft. These factors show a considerable attention paid to a tight management of property, as well as such essential requirements as water. The potential storage of water is manifested in the reservoir (Plate 13) and the fact that the reservoir was constructed outside the West Compound Wall as well as the Rear Entrance speak for the pacific climate of the times. Evidence of the wealth as well as elite status of the inhabitants is not only suggested by the territorial delineation of the settlement compound but also in the elaborate possessions, such as is displayed in the site's various artefact assemblages. This is reflected in the wealth of Beaker pottery present on the site (Figure 23), as well as other fine ware. Apart from the architectural skills and hydraulic engineering discussed above, on site metal working, quality lithic industry, evidence of wool, hide and cheese production (Figures 24, 25 26) gives us further insight regarding the technological skills available to the group. From still another standpoint, all of these display, not only wealth, power and capital investment, but also social differentiation in that they display a social as well as economic difference from the inhabitants of other areas of the alluvial plain. While the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settle-

clearly offers us unusual details as to how the inhabitants went about the storage and management of water during the 3rd millennium BC. The fact that the channel's course was covered by stone slabs is shown by several large slabs that were found in the channel during excavation. A covering of stone slabs would have insured minimal evaporation and contamination of the water supply, as well as keeping any animals away from it. Accumulated clay sediment excavated from the lower catch basin and the channel itself indicates that the water channel was probably originally clay lined. Furthermore, the internal incline and the upright stones placed at intervals in the channel (Plate 11) would have acted a check against the clay lining from being washed down into the catch basin at the lower end of the channel. The site plan (Figure 26) is a surveyed view of the Old Settlement showing the major elements and areas of excavation up to 1996. The reconstruction which has been done on the basis of the site plan (Figure 32) and other evidence shows us a walled property with at least two dwellings and a smaller one, as well as hutlike buildings that stood in lean-to fashion against the compound walls. According to the pottery distribution statistics, the western zones had the greatest concentration of domestic activity, while the eastern zones were open work areas where corralling and perhaps animal shearing and other activities related to livestock took place. Based on the excavation and resulting heavy concentrations of pottery fragments, there appears also to have been some domestic activities outside as well as inside the southern zones of the East Compound Wall, probably of earlier origin, before the permanent compound walls were erected. This is supported by the radiocarbon dates of 2468 cal BC, the earliest date of the inventory. Access into the inner areas of the compound was made through one of two entrances. The principal means of access was through the south compound wall and the narrow, tunnel-like main entrance with its guard's recess (Plate 16). The elaborate character of this entrance leads one to believe that it was devised more to impress than as a means of protection, although its structure would certainly provide that also. Viewed either from the outside looking in or from the inside itself, it must have given visitors an impression of wealth and power, unexpected in a settlement of such a relatively few individuals, small dimension and age. In all, the incorporation of the central tower structure and guard's recess into the south compound wall results in a very interesting architectural combination, one

VSZVYSZ\Z\2SAA2SZ\AA2SZ\AZ\2SAAZ\Z\AAZ\2SA2SZ\AAZ\2SAAAA,

114

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

FERRANDELL-OLEZACHALCOLITHICOLD SETTLEMENT

graphic area. As we will see with the inclusion of the Son Mas sanctuary, despite their shared common characteristics, the three did have the interesting quality of having different functions and somewhat different stratigraphical conditions, yet are part of the whole, and what we are to examine in the following chapter will best demonstrate these common as well as different characteristics.

ment is definitely linked in terms of artefact and radiocarbon dating data with the Matge rock Shelter, it is even more closely associated to the Son Mas prehistoric sanctuary examined in the following Chapter (VII) .. Although in reality, it is impossible to separate any of these three primary sites from one another, other than a convenience for study. All three, it seems shared contemporaneity and together form a model of interactive continuity for the geo-

VVVVV\ZV\AAZV\AAAAAAAAAZV\AAZV\AZV\AAZV\AAAA,

115

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

TABLE2 CONVENTIONAL & CALIBRA1ED RADIOCARBON RESULTS Balearic Pre-Talayotic, Talayotic and Post- Talayotic Periods FERRANDELL-OLEZA PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT COMPLEX Valldemosa, Mallorca, Baleares, Spain Site Context Reference 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

SFO-OS-EW SFO-OS-NW SFO-WOS-W17 SFO-WOS-W40 SFO-OS-EWF SFO-OS-CHI SFO-OS-ATI-2 SFO-OS-SW SFO-OS-CHI SFO-OS-WC SFO-OS-EXWl SFO-OS-H4 SFO-OS-WCS SFO-OS-WC SFO-OS-SWF SFO-OS-C2 SFO-OS-CHS SFO-OS-SWS SFO-YS-Tl SFO-YS-Tl SFO- YS-TlENTa SFO-YS-TlENTb SFO-YS-Tl SFO-YS-TIE SFO-YS-T4 SFO-YS-Tl SFO-YS-WT SFO-YS-T4 SFO-YS-WT SFO-YS-HHI SFO-YS-T2 SFO-YS-T4 SFO-YS-XM SFO-YS-T2 SFO-YS-T4 SFO-YS-Tl SFO-YS-T4 SFO-YS-Tl SFO-YS-T4 SFO-OS-Tl SFO-YS-T2 SFO-YS-Tl SFO-YS-Tl SFO-YS-Tl SFO-YS-T4 SFO-YS-T4 SFO-YS-74 SFO-YS-T2 SFO-YS-Tl SFO-YS-T2 SFO-YS-T2 SFO-YS-HHE SFO-YS-Tl SFO-YS-T2

be Date

bp Date

2080± lO0be 1840 ± 90 be 1750± 30be 1690 ± 100 be 1600± ll0be 1540 ± 80 be 1540± 30 be 1520± 50 be 1500 ± 110 be 1440± lO0be 1400± lO0be 1350± 60be 1330 ± 120 be 1290± 30be 1230± 80 be 1120± 50 be 1040 ± 160 be 800± 120 be 1020± 55 be 1010± 35 be 1000± 35bc 1000± 25be 940± lO0be 880± 100 be 865 ± 60 be 780± 30be 750± 30be 730± 60be 720± 60be 710± 30be 670± 60 be 660± 70be 650± 70be 630± 30be 630± 60be 610± 80be 590± 45 be 590± 60be 590± 30be 570± 50be 550± 50be 550± 40be 550± 40be 540± 50be 540± 80be 525± 40be 510± 30be 510± ll0be 510± 80be 480±230be 450± 60be 450± 60be 150 ± 65 be 40± 55 be 1250 ± 35 ad

4030 yrs 3790 yrs 3700 yrs 3640 yrs 3550 yrs 3490 yrs 3490 yrs 3470 yrs 3450 yrs 3390 yrs 3350 yrs 3300 yrs 3280 yrs 3240 yrs 3180 yrs 3070 yrs 2990 yrs 2830 yrs 2970 yrs 2960 yrs 2950 yrs 2950 yrs 2910 yrs 2830 yrs 2815 yrs 2730 yrs 2700 yrs 2680 yrs 2670 yrs 2660 yrs 2625 yrs 2610 yrs 2600 yrs 2580 yrs 2580 yrs 2560 yrs 2540 yrs 2540 yrs 2540 yrs 2520 yrs 2500 yrs 2500 yrs 2500 yrs 2490 yrs 2490 yrs 2475 yrs 2460 yrs 2460 yrs 2430 yrs 2400 yrs 2400 yrs 2150 yrs 1990 yrs 580 yrs

cal BC/cal BP 2468 BC 2239 BC 2090BC 2030BC 1884 BC 1829 BC 1829 BC 1819 BC 1749 BC 1710BC 1673 BC 1563 BC 1550BC 1519 BC 1445 BC 1357 BC 1261 BC 998BC 1238 BC 1160BC 1150 BC 1150 BC llO0BC 998BC 975BC 897BC 838BC 828 BC 823 BC 818 BC 806BC 801 BC 801 BC 793BC 793BC 793BC 790BC 786BC 785 BC 770BC 687BC 687BC 687BC 681 BC 681 BC 653 BC 646BC 646BC 516BC 408 BC 408 BC 129BC SBC 1270 AD

4417 BP 4188 BP 4039 BP 3979 BP 3833 BP 3778 BP 3778 BP 3768 BP 3698 BP 3659 BP 3622BP 3512BP 3499 BP 3468 BP 3394BP 3306BP 3210BP 2947 BP 3187 BP 3170BP 3099 BP 3099 BP 3059 BP 2947 BP 2924BP 2846 BP 2787 BP 2777 BP 2772 BP 2767 BP 2755 BP 2750BP 2750BP 2742BP 2742 BP 2742 BP 2739 BP 2735 BP 2734BP 2719 BP 2636 BP 2636 BP 2636 BP 2630BP 2630BP 2602BP 2595 BP 2595 BP 2465 BP 2357 BP 2357 BP 2078 BP 1957 BP 579BP

Lab. No. BM1843R QL1636 QL1592 BM1981R UtC2742 QL4042 QL1859 QL4100 QL4043 BM2313R BM1698R UtC3192 QL1896 QL? QL4191 HAR3490 QL4044 QL4041 IRPA1041 UtC4731 UtC4575 UtC4363 QL1531 IRPA813 IRPA907 QL4190 QL4074 IRPA880 BM1511 QL4075 IRPA1044 UtC1155 IRPA1262 QL4098 IRPA881 IRPA1012 IRPA1016 HAR3458 UtC5126 IRPA986 IRPA1045 QL1533 IRPA1046 IRPA989 UtC1154 IRPA1015 UtC5123 HAR3458 BM1842 15398 IRPA782 IRPA885 IRPA776 IRPA885

VSZVYSZ\ZV\AAZV\AAZV\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZV\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA

116

VJJJJ

Clhapterr

PREHISTORIC SANCTUARY OF SON MAS The Beaker Culture of the Balearic Islands: an inventory of evidence from caves, rock shelters, settlements and ritual sites William H. Waldren

TI

n the previous chapter, some reference has been made to the way the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic settlement is linked with the Matge rock shelter, and the fact that it is even more closely related to Son Mas sanctuary in a number of unique ways. In the sections that follow, we will examine evidence from the Prehistoric Sanctuary of Son Mas, correlating it with these two sites, further demonstrating the way they are incorporated into what is considered a single, prehistoric environmental unit. While it will be shown that the sanctuary is inseparable from the other two primary research, even as a study unit, there are important differences, which like the other sites are none the less interesting and important to our understanding of the chronology as well as the social and economic organization of the region. The differences between the other sites and the sanctuary lie mainly in its stratigraphical conditions and its function. In the Son Mas sanctuary, we are concerned with a multi-occupation site in which all the Balearic prehistoric periods are richly represented. The sanctuary is the oldest documented structure of its kind and one that played a significant role in the social, religious and economic activities of the area for well over 2000 years. Pertinent to the present situation, it is the most recent site to provide us with extensive Beaker contexts and enables us to arrive at details related to ritual activities and religious practices of the inhabitants, not only for the period in question, but the subsequent periods as well. THE GEOGRAPHIC SITUATION

The Son Mas Prehistoric Sanctuary forms the most recent part of the extensive excavation and research programme underway since 1968. Discovered in 1987, the Son Mas sanctuary is situated at the extreme eastern end of the Pla del Rei (39°, 45' N, 6°, 66' E), approximately 1400 meters from the Ferrandell-Oleza Prehistoric Settlement Complex of which the FerrandellOleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement is part (Plate 20).

The sanctuary is located at an altitude of 400 meters directly overlooking the sea and the Port of V alldemossa below and is visible from the north western part of the SFO-OS site. The Rock Shelter of Son Matge lies to the southeast of Son Mas at a distance of 4 kilometers. The Son Mas sanctuary forms the pivot point of the Pla del Rei area catchment. All the sites are within walking distance of one another. While there are 28 recorded prehistoric sites found within a four kilometer radius of the plain, most of these are concentrated within a still smaller geographic zone, within a two kilometer radius. It is the smaller of the two catchment areas, made up of the Pla del Rei as a pivot point, that forms the nucleus of the larger catchment four kilometer one, illustrated in Figure 9, Chapter IV: 59-60). The alluvial flatlands are part of the extremely fertile mountain basin, being made up of soils which have been eroded down from the surrounding hills and mountain range known as the Teix Range, which enclose the eastern and southern sides of the alluvial flatland. As pointed out earlier, the rich alluvial soils of the basin have been exploited in modern times by four major residence-estates, known locally as fincas. These are Son Mas and Son Moraques, located at the eastern end of the plain, and Son Ferrandell and Son Oleza situated at the western end. The excavations and other survey evidence collected to date strongly suggests that agricultural exploitation of the rich alluvial soils of the basin took place as early as the Third Millennium; perhaps in a similar manner as at present. Hence, the probable economic importance of the area in ancient times. Other evidence from nearby the caves and rock shelters indicates that exploitation took place even earlier. Each of the residence-estates or fincas presently exploiting the plain have closely associated prehistoric architectural features and activity zones on them, which strongly supports an occupational continuum, one that is not too dissimilar to the present day exploitation and settlement pattern of the plain. One of the aims of the current research has been to understand to what degree such occupational continuum may or may not have taken place.

VSZVVVSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\66666666,

117

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

THE SETTLEMENT CATCHMENT

PLATE 20. The survey map shows the prehistoric activity area within the two kilometer radius (inner circle) and a four kilometer catchment radius (outer circle) of the Municipality of Valldemossa and their distribution in relationship to the Pia de! Rei (Pain of the King). The principal research sites shown are: (1) Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settlement: (2-6) the Younger Settlement on the western end of the alluvial plain, as well as the prehistoric Sancyuary of Son Mas (11) at the astern end of the plain. The Rock Shelter of Son Matge is number (20) on the map.

VVVVV\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

118

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

TAULA SANCTUARY OF TORRALBA DEN SALORT Alayor, Menorca, Baleares, Spain

~--1

--2 4

10

C

5

7

LOCATION OF RADIOCARBON DATES

Before we begin to examine the evidence, it is necessary, as a matter of introduction, to give some background and consideration to the question of Balearic sanctuaries in general, as well as a short discussion of the past history and recent research carried out on these structures. For a more detailed account than that presented here the reader should consult the literature already published on the site (see Waldren 1989; Waldren, Ensenyat and Cubi 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994; Waldren and Van Strydonck 1994 and 1995). BALEARIC PREHISTORIC SANCTUARIES

The Balearic prehistoric sanctuary while numerous in the form of Taula Sanctuaries on the Island of Menorca are found much less frequently on Mallorca. Those that have been well excavated and systematically investigated on either island are few in number. Of the 30 odd known sanctuaries on Menorca, the Taula sanctuaries of

Trepuco and Torreta excavated by M. Murray in 1938; Torralba d'en Salort excavated by M. FernandezMiranda and W. Waldren from 1975 to 1987 (in preparation); Torre d'en Gaumes excavated by G. Rossello Bordoy from 1975 to 1986 (Rossello Bordoy 1987) and Sonacasana recently excavated by Plantalamor Massanet (1992) are those that have been the most systematically studied. In only one of these Menorcan sites, the Taula Sanctuary of Torralba d'en Salort, has there been any well planned radiocarbon dating carried out (Chapter N:6566). Here, a series of 15 radiocarbon dates are available for horizons within the sanctuary as well as its adjacent areas (Figure 34, above). Early in its excavations, a dating project designed with the intention of dating the Taula's various stages of construction and occupation was initiated, and proved to be particularly informative, not only from the standpoint of establishing the site's age, but also to be instrumental in the development of

VSZVVV\2SZ\2S2S2SZ\Z\2S2SZ\Z\2SZ\2S2S2SZ\2SZ\2SZ\2S2SZ\2S2S2SZ\2S2SZ\Z\,

119

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

In the case of sanctuaries, there has been very little attempt to study or integrate them into a broader social and economic scheme, other than in the most rudimentary way. As we shall see in the sections to come this has been one of the aims and long term objectives of the current study and the results will hopefully demonstrate how the Son Mas sanctuary was an integral part of the life and economy of the individuals that inhabited the area over at least two millennia. The Mallorcan prehistoric sanctuaries regarded as being of late date, based on an artefact typology of indigenous and imported classical pot sherd evidence, are the Sanctuaries of Son Oms (Rossello Bordoy and Camps 1971) and the Sanctuary Group of Almallutx (Fernandez-Miranda, Enseiiat and Enseiiat 1971). While 5 of the 8 known Mallorcan sanctuaries do have the somewhat general horseshoe plan with an apsidal shaped rear aspect, characteristic of the Menorcan Taula sanctuaries, most bear little other similarity in construction to the Taula sanctuaries of Menorca. This is basically because of the missing central 'T' shaped Taula stone and concave frontal aspect so indicative of the Menorcan sanctuaries. In the place of the one massive central Taula element, the Mallorcan counterparts have 4 or more short, rounded, drum-like units or column-like stones placed at cardinal points. These are thought by some investigators (the authors included) to have been used as altars upon which to place offerings or to make sacrifices rather than acting as roof supporting pillars. Those considered as earlier types are the Sanctuary of Son Mari (Guerrero Ayuso 1983 and 1992), Sanctuary of Ses Antigors (Colominas 1915-20) and the Sanctuaries of S'Illot (Frey and Rossello Bordoy 1966). The consensus of opinion regarding the age of these earliest Mallorcan sanctuaries ranges from the V-VI centuries BC. This places them much later than their Menorcan counterparts, which some authorities believe are as early as 1800 BC; although there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for such antiquity (e.g. Torralba den Salort construction dates), other than their similarity of form to the Maltese Temples, to which they have often been compared. Once again, we need remind ourselves that up until now estimates as to age have rested on the relative dating of the materials encountered within the precincts of the sanctuaries (materials representing their last use and not possible earlier contexts) or estimates based on architectural comparisons and not on more methodological means to determine the range of age by the use of absolute dating strategies, such as those described. We should also bear in mind that these monuments

the collection methods subsequently used in dating stratigraphical local horizons elsewhere . THE MALLORCAN SANCTUARIES

In all ,only 8 prehistoric sanctuaries are known on Mallorca. These have been relatively dated as chronologically late by most local investigators at circa 500 BC to 200 AD. This has been mainly interpreted on the basis of the wide range of imported classical pottery together with late indigenous wares belonging to Post Talayotic Period usually found during excavations. This mixture of imported and indigenous pottery of late classical chronology are almost without exception found in the upper occupational and abandonment levels of not only the Balearic sanctuaries, but also in the sanctuaries and settlements on Menorca as well and, on the basis of the known age of these classical wares, are reliable dating materials, however, only for the final phases of occupation and abandonment of the sites and not necessarily an indication of the age of the monument in which they are found. Such materials, viewed on their own and taken at face value, are highly deceptive and do little to speak for the true age of the settlements and sanctuaries, their duration of use and function and certainly not the various activities that possibly took place earlier in their history. In fact, there has been a general tendency to evaluate the age of Mallorcan Late Bronze and Iron Age (Talayotic and Post Talayotic) sanctuary monuments, as well as their Menorcan counterparts, to their late or ultimate use as ritual sites, rather than to make any attempt to date their preconstruction and construction contexts, or similarly to date the adjacent structures or areas around such structures. Whenever, construction or age and duration of use estimates have been made, such assessments have been relative to the artefacts found in them, for the most part neglecting the architectural evidence. It is only very recently that any attempt or strategy has been made to correlate both artefacts, architecture and function in a wider perspective in excavation. For the most part, it has been a matter of excavating a specific monument during a season or two and interpreting the history of the site on the basis of the artefacts found in them. Then going on by repeating the same poor strategy and short seasonal excavation in a similar site looking for confirmation of what has been found in the last site. Neither has there been much less effort to place individual sites, whether they be sanctuaries or other form of building, properly into the social and economic organization of settlements as a whole.

VSZVYY\Z\2SAAZ\2SAAZ\2SAZ\2SAAZ\2SAAZ\2SAZ\2SAAZ\2SAAAA,

120

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

trance that bears the most striking similarity in plan to the Menorcan Taula Sanctuaries, as well as in certain respects a resemblance to the considerably older temples of Malta. Son Mas is the only Mallorcan sanctuary so far to have this distinctive concave frontal facade, all the others having their fronts squared off. Whether or not this particular feature is an indication of chronological age or architectural influence on the part of the builders of the Menorcan sanctuaries is not known. Given the evidence on hand, it would be speculation to presume a chronological difference; although it is certainly an idea seriously to consideration at some later date. There are at least three large stones incorporated in the entrance that are older in appearance than the rest of the facade. These are evidence along with radiocarbon dating and artefacts which are strong argument for the existence of a much older structure having been on the spot earlier than the one visible at present. During the last century or so, most of the outer and inner precinct walls were dismantled and the stones reused by farmers over the last few centuries to build a modern wall, running in an east to west direction, along the north side of the sanctuary. In most cases, the stones, once removed from the sanctuary's walls, were re-erected and fitted in the construction of the modern wall, frequently in a similar order in which they were originally positioned in the sanctuary's walls. With a bit of care and study, this factor makes their replacement in the sanctuary wall (when serious reconstruction does take place) a relatively easy task. The replacement of some stones originally belonging to the sanctuary walls has already been carried out as part of seasonal consolidation activities. This restoration and consolidation of some of the architectural features is a measure that has been made necessary by the local authorities for continuation of excavation permits as a matter of conservation. While most of the excavational work has been done on the inside sectors of the sanctuary precinct, the areas immediately outside the walls and the outer fields have been every bit as productive and informative as excavations on the interior and, perhaps, in certain respects, as we shall see, even more productive. During the last few years, excavations have centred on the dating surveys, retrieval of materials and other data from the outer fields to the south and southeast of the sanctuary. This has been done to ascertain the type, age and extent of activity in these sectors. Evidence shows that not only were the inner sectors of the sanctuary periodically cleaned out and the materials redeposited by various

undoubtedly were periodically cleared out and purged of the long course of their history. Little would remain of these earlier materials, apart from occupational debris on which they were built and which became incorporated into their building, or walked into the floor during occupation or materials once discarded outside the precincts of the sanctuaries were later redistributed by agricultural activity. Little attention has also been given to these areas and lower levels outside the sanctuaries proper. Nor has there been much emphasis placed on these exterior areas or earlier accumulated levels beneath the buildin structures. It is these lower levels at Son Mas that are particularly pertinent to Beaker question and which have been the most revealing. By way of introduction to the sanctuary of Son Mas itself, it is necessary to provide a few details that relate to the earliest archaeological contexts and the lower stratigraphical levels. It is also necessary to remind the reader of the fact that the site is a multi-occupational one in a highly eroded environment or landscape. There are also distinct occupational phases as well as stages in the construction of the sanctuary itself. It must be understood that the monument we see preserved today is both Bronze and Iron in origin and not to be confused with earlier Beaker contexts. This is difficult at times as the different phases, both chronological and constructional, are closely linked in a temporal continuity that is different from what has been generally understood or accepted concerning these ritual areas up to the present. At the same time, despite the extensive radiocarbon dating these different chronological contexts in the sanctuary and its adjacent areas have had (some 48 dates at present), we will have to carefully examine the later Bronze and Iron Age chronological contexts and what we have found out about them in order to approach the Beaker and initial stages of the sanctuary's background. THE PREHISTORIC SANCTUARY OF SON MAS

The foundations of the Son Mas Sanctuary are made up of large well shaped, tightly fitted (nested) limestone blocks as large as 2m by 1.75m in the exterior walls to lm by 1.5m stones in the interior walls, forming a horse-shoe shaped precinct roughly 12 by 13 meters in area (Plate 2: Chapter I). It has an apsidal or naviform rear wall in the northwest and a concave frontal wall with an entrance in the middle, facing the southeast. The two meter wide entrance is flanked by massive upright stones (Plate 21) and at one time probably had equally massive lintel stones, spanning the uprights (also see Figure 35). It is the concave front wall and en-

YSZVVV\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

121

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

RECONSTRUCTION-PROJECTION: SOUTHEAST ASPECT

34,

PLATE 21.

SANCTUARY:SOUTHEAST

ASPECT

VSZVV'V\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

122

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDSf

from the deep closed stratigraphies of rock shelters and caves (Tables 1-3). This allays, in a sense, some of the uncertainties as to possible differences between the two contrasting environments, from the standpoint of possible specimen contamination by rainwater and other open-air agencies. The dates compared here show no significant specimen age difference between the two types of site . Although changes do occur in specimen preservation in artefacts of pottery and bone in open-air situations, where some surface alteration due to movement and redeposition of such objects by agricultural practices and other agencies does take place in the soil over time which can seriously alter their state of preservation and superficial appearance.

means in the surrounding fields. Evidence also shows that the outer sectors were arenas for various exterior activities. These areas are at present giving us richer and more varied information than the inner sectors, especially regarding the question of the age of the structure and its function over time. These sectors are also giving us a very good idea of what activities were carried out in them during the different prehistorical periods. These outer areas have also been excellent testing grounds for the various dating techniques and strategies used. Consequently, it has been possible to reconstruct a stratigraphical and phasic chronometric sequence for most of the site, in turn, enabling us to recognize sets of stratigraphical conditions that are similar to one another and which are predictable and recurrent within certain variation throughout most of the site (Figures 39-45). To some degree, it has been possible to predict certain stratigraphical conditions in advance, in areas as yet unexcavated. This gives one the sense of being able to approach unexcavated areas with a kind of foreknowledge, based on experience gained from previous sectors already excavated. This needless to say can be advantageous, in that any deviation from contextual norm during excavation is almost immediately recognized, giving us further opportunity to test and perfect some of the newer techniques used in a conducive environment. Descriptions of the various collection methods and their use are described in following sections, where they have been focused on the dating of the sanctuary walls and other context situations in the more open areas. The various schematics included will best illustrate the various kinds of stratigraphical conditions encountered, both in the sanctuary and its surrounding fields. They will also give an account of the location of the numerous samples in the stratigraphy, and exemplify, as they did in the case of the Menorcan Taula Sanctuary of Torralba den Salort, the value of the different strategical techniques used, not only, to solve contextual and chronological problems, but also some of the more isolated activities in the history of the structure. They also demonstrate the kind of results possible with a dedicated use of such strategies and techniques in a site with badly eroded, stratigraphical conditions. On the basis of these results, they have been permanently adopted as part of general on-site methodology of such sites. Equally interesting is the fact that despite the highly eroded and often agriculturally disturbed stratigraphical conditions present in Mediterranean stratigraphies, the radiocarbon dates received from these open-air environments correlate remarkably well with the sequences

SITE METHODOLOGY AND SURVEY

The present study is one in which the methodology and strategy has been similar to that carried out at Son Matge and in the Ferrandell-Oleza Prehistoric Settlement Complex, in which the objective has been to give reliable chronometric dimensions to the contexts of the different sites. The possibility of linking and correlating these through the architecture, artefacts and other evidence has grown out of this initial objective. While the methods and the strategies have been similar in each case, there has been some variety in the actual application of the methods and strategies. Most of this variation in the application has been a matter of the terrain, environment and the questions asked or the problems present, as well as what has proven to be priority. In all events, these have been amply described in Chapters I and IL It remains merely to described the modus operandi in the case of Son Mas. The area survey strategy was quite simple. Two base lines, one running north-south and another east-west were surveyed, using the centre of the sanctuary structure as a pivot point or axis. Super-Quadrants of 9m2 (3m x 3m) were then surveyed and marked to cover the entire area to be eventually excavated (Figures 37-38 ). The resulting grid system was maintained as an overhead grid over the sanctuary and other architectural features and as a ground grid system in the adjoining open areas. Accordingly each 9m2 Super-Quadrant was assigned an alphabetical and numerical designation, the columns of the grid system alphabetical and the rows numerical. In turn, individual meters within the Super-Quadrant were designated numbers 1-9, beginning in the northwest corner of the Super-Quadrant. The final designation of any single meter would have an origin and orien-

VSZVVSZ\ZvSZ\Z\ZvSZ\Z\ZvSZ\ZvSZ\Z\ZvSZ\Z\ZvSZ\Z\AZ\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\Z\,

123

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

ment bracket as well as series dating techniques have been used to establish the various stages of occupation as well as the use of the particular areas. An example of the way in which bracket dating was carried out in the sanctuary is described below. Here, the techniques were employed in order to establish a date for the construction of a section of the West Wall of the sanctuary (Plates 19, 20 & 21). Although in this particular case the dating is not specifically related to the Beaker phenomenon but the dating of the a much younger construction phase of the sanctuary, it is an integral part of the whole sequence and necessary for the understanding of the ritual use and continuity of the site throughout

tation such as: 12K2, 6H9, etc. These single meters were known as work units or quadrants. This made immediate or future identification and reference of location, artefact or sample collection an easy matter. It was decided from the out-set that a 90% or more retrieval rate of artefacts would be maintained. This would assure, as it did in the other sites, the retrieval of a high percentage of all artefacts. Pottery, bone, stone, etc., regardless of size were collected from these work units and then processed in the lab, where they were further classified, counted, weighed and measured and finally computerized. Each quardrant has been carefully excavated to bedrock and processed for artefacts and

PLATE 22. Aerial photograph shows the Prehistoric Sanctuary of Son Mas during excavations and the overhead grid system. The area of the east wall used in the dating of the sanctuary is marked by the white square. A series of bracket dates indicates a construction date for this wall is circa 850 cal BC.

other materials, including the earth accumulated in the bedrock crevices. Charcoals and other organic and sedimentological specimens have been carefully collected and stored for future identification and processing. As in the Ferrandell-Oleza Chalcolithic Old Settle-

time. In that it marks the construction stage of one of the better preserved elements of the building, the dates are important and interesting and help us to understand this form of Bronze Age architecture a little better.

YSZSZYYSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

124

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

tached descriptively to their contextual associations in text and graphic form. There is also the personal conviction that the large number of available dates currently examined, along with the way they are interwoven throughout the various sites and their depositional contexts, requires as clear an explanation and description as possible, in order to show the reader how and why the

THE METHODOLOGY IN GENERAL

This section is dedicated to the detailed description of the methodology used at Son Mas, it is offered to give the reader a clearer and more graphic understanding of the strategy and procedures behind their use. It is also

□

LEVEL

LEVEL

Radiocarbon

sample

I

II

LEVEL III

BEDROCK

SERIES DATING:

EXTERIOR VERTICAL STRATIGRAPHY

Post Talayotic

(Bronze

Pretalayotic

(Copper

Talayotic

ArchitectlElement

Age)

Age)

Archite

t

l

(Iron

Age)

Architectural

men

PHASE PHASE

II

PHASE III

BEDROCK

BRACKET DATING:

PHASIC STRATIGRAPHY

presented because descriptive details of this nature are not often given or illustrated clearly enough when reporting on radiocarbon dating and excavational activities in general. At the same time, the techniques of bracket and series dating as used in the different research sites are not always the same, and there are differences or variations in the techniques that are important in their application and characteristic of a site . Nor, for that matter, are the immediate objectives behind their use always the same. This is especially evident when there are a large number of dates for a site, such as those studied here. In such cases, they are usually simply listed in table form, treated more often than not as grouped isolated data only loosely and briefly at-

particular collection and dating techniques were used. Hence, the present over-kill in graphic representation and some repetition of previous discussions. In the light of this, it seems fully warranted. Often the real reasons for using Carbon 14 dating become obscure in our desire to simply know the age of an object or a particular context from which the artefact originated, and hence it is little more than a single interesting piece of information, the results of which become an exercise in physics. Besides, there is no written guarantee that the age of the object, or even set of objects, and the age of the context in which it or they are found are one in the same thing. Wood and charcoal are typical examples, where the test material may actu-

VSZVYYSZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA

125

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

tablish construction dates, along with as many other details as possible, regarding the individual cultural stages and other human activities and involvement within the various locales. This was carried out mainly through the dating of their architectural and stratigraphical contexts. This has become more complicated by the present need not only to establish these relationships between a growing number of sites in the Pla del Rei, but to examine more closely the role played by the Beaker phenomenon within the catchment's larger context. The importance and main difference between the Prehistoric Sanctuary of Son Mas and the other sites so far examined lies in the fact that the sanctuary played a very special role in the history of the catchment, serving as the ritual and religious centre for the whole of the region of the Pla del Rei during more than two millennia, and where at least 28 known other sites are involved. In this role, it differs, both in importance and function, from the other sites, having a particular significance that is its very own. As we will eventually see, the sanctuary in its later stages not only had a socioeconomic importance for the area, which is not present in the other sites, but also produced abundant evidence demonstrating an unprecedented Beaker involvement in its earliest stages of development .

ally have been around for several centuries before it found its final resting place. Wooden beams, for example, can last for centuries before they are burnt and end up as charcoal. Considerable age differences can exist between two objects in the same level, specially if they are widely separated spatially. In such cases, more than one sample or even a series of samples should be dated, for the sake of probabilities and precision. Admittedly such multiple analyses are not always possible, nor even practical. Large lists are usually the result of the compilation of dates over a long period of time from single or many sources. It depends largely on the circumstances, resources and importance of the sample. In any event, I believe, radiocarbon dating can only be relied on when it is used with discernment, innovation and its strategical purpose and objectives are kept firmly in view. This is especially necessary when the dates are numerous and used in conjunction with a lot of other closely related data in potentially highly productive contexts. All of which leaves us once more faced with the reality that singular dates are at most informative in a minimal way and sometimes even misleading. When we link with these the need to periodically remind ourselves of the shortcomings inherent in the method itself, we have to adopt what is in some cases a flexible attitude and at other times a firm and rigid one .. Although many dates do form a better picture as well as give us important reference lists and increased probabilities, the key issue however is really not the number of radiocarbon dates available for a particular context or area, but the dating strategies behind them and the necessity for the use of a large number of dates to arrive at the desired objective, such as the solution of a particular problem or an answer to a question. This has been especially true in the current research where both strategy and hypothesis are central issues and where these strategies have been approached from several different levels. While the present chapter has been generally involved in the question of interpretation of age and origin of the Son Mas sanctuary, it has been equally concerned with the way the site interacted and correlates with the other research sites. In these respects, the problems in Son Mas are no different from those first confronted in the Menorcan sanctuary. Nor for that matter are they different from other similar dating surveys undertaken in other architectural contexts over the last five years (e.g. Chapman, Waldren and Van Strydonck 1992, in press; Waldren and Van Strydonck, 1992, in press, Waldren, Ensenyat and Cubl 1991 and 1992). In these surveys, the issues were somewhat simpler, to es-

USE OF BRACKET AND SERIES TECHNIQUES: PHASIC AND CONTEXTUAL DATING While the highly eroded, stratigraphical conditions in Son Matge are similar to those of the Ferrandell-Oleza Old Settlement, they differ in that in the case of Son Mas we are dealing with a multi-occupational environment and not one of a single cultural period; one that extends over the full range of Balearic prehistory, including several centuries into the Classical Period. Since the techniques of bracket and series dating in particular were originally introduced as a response to poor stratigraphical conditions, it has been used perhaps even more extensively at Son Mas than normally. This is because of the multi- occupational and cultural nature of the site, where the question of the deposition of materials has been especially problematic. Consequently, as working techniques bracket and series dating have become over the years an integral and vital part of the dating survey procedure. As a further consequence of its use, two subsequent techniques or refinements of both bracket and series dating have been developed. These are phasic and contextual dating. Phasic dating (Figure 35) as the term is used is concerned with establishing cultural divisions and subdivi-

vszvvvszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszszs, 126

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

ciated with the site's various architectural features and activity zones. In the present case, the West Wall of the sanctuary was used. This was done by carefully collecting organic materials for dating and artefacts from areas (a) adjacent to or otherwise directly associated with both sides of the wall and from (b) beneath the wall in the debris used as a foundation on which to construct the wall (Plates 23 and 24). In other cases, sample were collected from (c) the interior contexts of the architectural features, where debris has been used with dry stone fill, as well as collected from (d) bedrock fissures, crevices and bedding soils beneath the wall fill and the architectural element itself (inferior contexts). Results of such bracketed dating, like serial dating, if carefully carried out in such a way can quite accurately date an architectural element or other artefact, both by deduction and inference, as well as contribute to the overall chronological interpretation by forming a chain of informative data suitable for a more detailed picture throughout a site.

sions within stratigraphical contexts and implies situations in which the problem is to understand a sequence of broad events, relative to one another within a much larger established chronological context. For example understanding the phase in which a specific stage of construction in an architectural situation has taken place. It has been mainly used for determining phasic changes and duration in building or occupation sequences, although it can be used in different ways, depending on the situation. A combination of bracket and series collection/dating techniques can be used in conjunction with phasic dating. Phasic dating implies the results of multiple dates for sequential comparison that in turn defines the relationships between two or more events. Contextual dating is concerned with establishing the age of specific artefacts and stratigraphical contexts. This implies direct dating of objects or series of objects and/or the particular context in which they are found. Like Phasic dating, it too can be used in conjunction with both bracket and series collection/dating techniques. Phasic and Contextual dating are less physically applied techniques, by nature more specific in their application and used when dealing with more immediate problems than either bracket and series dating, which asks their questions across a broader spectrum of interpretation. When dealing with highly eroded soils, special attention has to be paid to thin stratigraphical interfaces or differences in colour, texture and contents, since these soils have been over long periods subjected to heavy agricultural activities by the seasonal use of the plow. Experience has shown, contrary to what would be expected, in rocky soil and especially where bedrock is close or even at times emerging from the surface in modern day levels, the effects of the plow are not always thorough in its displacement and redistribution of surface materials . It has been observed that large quantities of artefacts can become trapped or deposited up against larger rocks or in bedrock crevices. In which case, they are usually well preserved and likely not to have moved very far from their original place of deposition. In such situations, linear or horizontal deposition and distribution of materials are usually reliable and much can be learned from a close record of the distribution of surface finds over large areas. To accomplish this a high rate of retrieval and a rigid metric control is necessary .. The method of bracket dating in Son Mas (Figure 34) consists of dating (1) post constructional, (2) constructional and (3) preconstructional contexts directly asso-

CHRONOMETRIC EVIDENCE AND ARTEFACTS FROM THE SANCTUARY: A SUMMARY

The proven antiquity of the Son Mas sanctuary is certainly one of the most interesting aspects of the most recent chronometric surveys. The importance of its antiquity is over-shadowed however by the site's apparent long, multi-cultural duration of use as a ritual centre during a period of several millennia, giving us an opportunity to study change both in ritaul paractices as well as other functions of the site. Radiocarbon dates show that this span of time began in the local Pretalayotic Period (Chalcolithic-Initial Bronze Age), circa 2200 cal BC to 1250 cal BC, and continued through the ensuing Talayotic and Post Talayotic Periods (Bronze and Iron Ages), circa 1200 cal BC to 200 cal BC, with occasional or incipient use as late as 200 AD. This is a duration of use as a sanctuary or ritual site of remarkably long length has so far no precedent in the Balearics. All and all, a chronological duration of some 2300 years can be demonstrated (some 45 radiocarbon dates are available (Table 3 and appropriate figures). This, along with the age and type of artefacts retrieved, more than suggests, it conclusively proves that the site was a centre of ritual and religious use by the entire region of the alluvial plain. The Pretalayotic radiocarbon results, demonstrating the oldest levels of the sanctuary are four charcoal sample dates, 4119 cal BP (2170 cal BC) (UtC4676); 3852

VYVVV\Z\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

127

WILLIAM H. WALDREN

PREHISTORIC SANCTUARY OF SON MAS Valldemossa, Mallorca, Baleares, Spain DISTRIBUTIONOF RADIOCARBON RESULTS

N

2

3 4 5 6

w

·.":::·

7

,\? ■ 4

8 9

·.:.·.....

IO

11

'•

- ... ·

17

.·.:

■

..

12

.··.= ·,··.:·

13

-::··.

14 15 16

■

32

17 18 19 J

K

L

M

N

0

p

Q

s

R

T

u

V

W

y

X

z

AA

s ■

CALIBRATED RADIOCARBON DATES AS OF 1992-1995 1. 2170 BC 2. 1903 BC 3. 1875 BC 4. 1818 BC 5. 1312 BC 6. 1272 BC 7. 1172 BC 8. 1162 BC

9. 1162 BC 10.1160BC 11. 1120 BC 12. 1030 BC 13. 1015 BC 14. 957BC 15. 888 BC 16. 827BC

17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24.

827BC 820BC 809 BC 795 BC 793 BC 791 BC 790BC 790BC

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

788 BC 788 BC 678 BC 678 BC 677BC 606BC 604BC 602BC

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

594BC 594BC 450BC 407BC 405BC 405BC 399BC 284BC

41. 280BC 42. 279BC 43. 279BC 44. 169BC 45. 24BC 46. 46AD 47. 1414AD

~'

Analysis Location

~

Sanctuary Precinct Agora structures Beaker sherd distribution

37.

VSZVYSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\ZVSZ\Z\ZVSZ\Z\Z\Z\,

128

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

PREHISTORICSANCTUARYOF SON MAS Valldemossa, Mallorca, Baleares, Spain DISTRIBUTIONOF STRATIGRAPHICSECTIONS

N ~

2

3 4

5

I

6

w

-

•

12 ~

7 13 5

••

8

191

:-~:m

12

14

13

■

47.,;:!1.1.--··

..

.

l? ~•t·~ ·■

l.lll'm, l.l.l ■ ■

I

E

.,)l}

•4

.. 0

Mas

-

.

.:;'

.·

A

E

B

C

MGS

HJJ2

YVSZVS?\Z\ZSAAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAZ\ZSAAZ\ZSAAAA,

196

.

;·"':---~.

.

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

A

D

A

EVA mt,

HJJ3 B

CBR cmt

VSZVYYSZSZ\LLZSZ\LAZSZ\AZSZ\AAZSZ\LLZSZ\AZSZ\AAZSZ\AAAA

197

WILLIAMH. WALDREN

A

B

sv

A

AL

100i

YSZVVVSZ\Z\LAZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\ALZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AZ\Z\AAZ\Z\AAAA,

198

B

BEAKER CULTURE OF THE BALEARIC ISLANDS

~I ,d'lSri

s