Journal articles on the topic 'European protohistory'

The survey results Mosandurei ground level at the site shows potential archaeological remains are diverse, but it can not be interpreted broadly associated with human use of the site by supporters. So we need systematic research with excavation. This paper aims to determine the pattern of human use of the site by supporters; knowing the character of human culture supporter Mosandurei site and to know the culture process Mosandurei sites. This paper aims to determine human life ever Mosandurei activity on the site in the past. Data collection is done in several ways, namely literature, surveying the ground, excavation. Data analysis was performed with artefaktual analysis, contextual analysis, and stratigraphic analysis. The survey and excavation at ground level Mosandurei site managed to find shells of mollusks, bone fragments, teeth, fragments of pottery, fragments of Chinese ceramics, European ceramics fragments, fragments of European bottles, beads, and stone tools. Based on the analysis of the data it is concluded that the site Mosandurei a prehistoric dwelling sites that continued until past history.AbstrakHasil survei permukaan tanah di situs Mosandurei menunjukkan potensi tinggalan arkeologi yang beragam, namun hal ini belum dapat menginterpretasikan secara luas terkait dengan pemanfaatan situs oleh manusia pendukungnya. Oleh karena itu, penelitian yang sistematis dengan ekskavasi perlu dilakukan. Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui kehidupan manusia yang pernah beraktivitas di situs Mosandurei pada masa lampau. Kajian tulisan ini dilakukan dengan pengumpulan data dan analisis data. Pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan beberapa cara, yaitu studi pustaka, survei permukaan tanah, ekskavasi. Analisis data dilakukan dengan analisis artefaktual, analisis kontekstual, dan analisis stratigrafis. Hasil survei permukaan tanah dan ekskavasi di situs Mosandurei berhasil menemukan cangkang moluska, fragmen tulang, gigi, fragmen gerabah, fragmen keramik Cina, fragmen keramik Eropa, fragmen botol Eropa, manik-manik, dan alat batu. Berdasarkan analisis data maka diinterpretasikan bahwa situs Mosandurei merupakan situs hunian prasejarah yang berlanjut hingga masa sejarah.

The chronological framework of European protohistory is mostly a relative chronology based on typology and stratigraphic data. Synchronization of different time periods suffers from a lack of absolute dates; therefore, disagreements between different chronological schemes are difficult to reconcile. An alternative approach was applied in this study to build a more precise and accurate absolute chronology. To the best of our knowledge, we have collected all the published14C dates for the archaeological sites in the region from the Ebro River (Spain) to the Middle Danube Valley (Austria) for the period 1800–750 BC. The available archaeological information associated with the14C dates was organized in a database that totaled more than 160014C dates. In order to build an accurate and precise chronology, quality selection rules have been applied to the14C dates based on both archaeological context and analytical quality. Using the OxCal software and Bayesian analysis, several14C time sequences were created following the archaeological data and different possible scenarios were tested in northern Italy and southern France.

The chronological framework of European protohistory is mostly a relative chronology based on typology and stratigraphic data. Synchronization of different time periods suffers from a lack of absolute dates; therefore, disagreements between different chronological schemes are difficult to reconcile. An alternative approach was applied in this study to build a more precise and accurate absolute chronology. To the best of our knowledge, we have collected all the published 14C dates for the archaeological sites in the region from the Ebro River (Spain) to the Middle Danube Valley (Austria) for the period 1800–750 BC. The available archaeological information associated with the 14C dates was organized in a database that totaled more than 1600 14C dates. In order to build an accurate and precise chronology, quality selection rules have been applied to the 14C dates based on both archaeological context and analytical quality. Using the OxCal software and Bayesian analysis, several 14C time sequences were created following the archaeological data and different possible scenarios were tested in northern Italy and southern France.

Abstract This article describes analyses of the glass trade-bead assemblage of the Goose Lake Outlet #3 (GLO#3) site (20MQ140), a probable short-term winter campsite located in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Based on typological and attribute analysis of the beads, which employed the Kidd and Kidd classification system and comparison with published “glass bead periods” or GBPs developed for assemblages in Ontario, the GLO#3 bead assemblage is assigned a date within the 1630s. Comparison with other midwestern protohistoric assemblages further supports this interpretation. Situated within a protohistoric period of intercultural interaction and exchange, the material culture from the site provides archaeological evidence for some of the earliest arrivals of European-made trade items in the Midwest.

Vincent Ard and Lucile Pillot eds, Giants in the Landscape: Monumentality and Territories in the European Neolithic. Proceedings of the XV11 International Union of the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences World Congress. Edited by Volume 3 / Session A25d. Oxford, UK: Archaeopress (2016). Paperback, English, vi+94 pages; illustrated throughout in black and white. ISBN: 9781784912857. £26.00. Also available to download from Archaeopress Open Access.

Tarascan metallurgy was not only a complex technology, but a significant marker of elite social status and a major source of wealth for the ruling dynasty. Reanalysis of ethnohistoric material, when coupled with new cartographic and archaeological data, provides insight into the structure and role of copper, silver, and gold production in the Protohistoric Tarascan State. The increasing political centralization of the Tarascan State in the last century before European contact resulted in the emergence of new forms of exploitation of mineral resources, tempered by the technological and transport constraints of a prehispanic civilization.

The journal of Lourens Lourenszoon is a brief original description of his observations of seven years among the Arocouro Indians. He gives a detailed description of his stay among these Indians and their way of life. The arrival of many European traders on the Guiana coasts at the beginning of the 17th century form the starting point of intensive trading activities between European seafarers and South American Indians at the lower Oyapock River. European-made ware and tools from this early historic period have been found at late precolonial and protohistoric archaeological sites forming archaeological evidence of contacts between the Dutch and the Indian tribes of what is now eastern French Guiana and northern Amapá state, in Brazil. The journal of Lourens Lourenszoon mentions that various Indian tribes are part of a political alliance under the leadership of the Arocouros. Eventually, this alliance vanished during the 17th century due to continuing warfare and decimation of several ethnic groups. The remnants of these populations grouped together and gave birth to the present day Palikur.

Abstract This article reports on recent findings from the ongoing archaeological project at the single- component early seventeenth-century Huber phase site, Middle Grant Creek (11WI2739), located at Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie in Will County, Illinois. Excavations and geophysical surveys conducted over the past four years are yielding valuable data that are expanding our understandings of this critical period just prior to European colonialism. Findings have revealed a wide range of protohistoric activities, including foodways, skilled craft production, and ceremonial activities as well as far-flung trade relationships that illustrate the endurance of Indigenous trade networks into at least the early seventeenth-century. This article introduces the latest findings from Middle Grant Creek and brings them into discussions of this key period in Midwestern archaeology.

Abstract Timing, inclement weather, and limited budgets can obstruct archaeological survey efforts. Here, we ameliorate some of these with use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) at the Goose Lake Outlet #3 (GLO#3) site (20MQ140). GPR surveys to guide survey and excavation efforts in these well-drained sandy soils are limited. GPR imagery exhibited false positives; however, shovel probes, subsequent site excavation, and artifact analysis led to numerous discoveries at this protohistoric site—including glass trade beads dating to the 1630s. These discoveries solidify evidence for some of the earliest European-made trade items in the region and provide further confirmation for placement of an Indian trail and ancient travel corridor between Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. Two 14C samples obtained from moose-bone in features with trade goods fall within the expected occupation range of 1633–1668 and 1615–1647. Several anomolies, possible hearth clusters were seen on the GPR imagery; however, many features remained invisible.

Excavation of part of the Bosman site, a Wellsburg phase site (A.D. 1520-1580) located in Muskingum county, Ohio, revealed four structures and associated features within a palisade. Nineteen mammalian species, one bird, five reptiles, one amphibian, five fishes, two gastropod species, and an undetermined number of mollusc species were identified in the sample of 70,293 faunal remains. Faunal resources are almost equally distributed across three seasons of the year from late spring through fall. While the dominant food resources appear to have been elk, deer, turtles, turkey, fish, and bear, the amount of beaver remains recovered from the Bosman site, is greater than expected if the proportion of beaver is simply a function of sampling. Bosman site inhabitants may have been participating indirectly in Indian-European trade networks. The intensity of processing of faunal resources suggests pressure from some direction, perhaps resulting from the effects of the fur trade, on subsistence.

The presence of horses in archaeological sites across North America is often noted in research as an indicator of European contact. Fewer studies, however, have considered how Indigenous peoples incorporated horses as an intrinsic aspect of their lives. Research that considers Indigenous peoples’ relationships with horses typically focuses on Southern Plains groups and does not feature Northern Plains communities as a central aspect. Looking specifically at one Northern Great Plains Indigenous people, this paper analyzes how Blackfoot lifeways were altered as a result of the protohistoric (seventeenth to eighteenth century) reintroduction of the horse. Blackfoot lives were transformed as their relationship with the land evolved, economic systems reformed, and trade, religion, and war became centered around the horse. Almost all Blackfoot people would have felt the effects of the horse’s introduction, however not necessarily equally as these changes caused a shift in hierarchy. These impacts and changes on lifeways are evidenced by European historical accounts, Indigenous oral histories, and the archaeological record. Examining the relationship that the Blackfoot formed with horses demonstrates the significant influence that animals can have over people’s lives. Horses’ introduction to Blackfoot peoples proved to cause significant changes in the ways many conducted their lives, such as through the establishment of nomadic pastoralism and trade routes centered around the horse. This paper additionally calls for further research into the continued relationship between the Blackfoot peoples and the horse.

<p class="Pa26">La década de los 70 del siglo pasado cons­tituye la “protohistoria” de la Formación del Profesorado Universitario en España. Con la LRU de 1983 se inició una exten­dida práctica de la acción formativa del profesorado universitario. Los procesos de evaluación de la calidad, así como el de convergencia europea han propiciado un significativo desarrollo de la misma. La formación pedagógica del profesorado no es práctica común en las universidades europeas (con algunas notables excep­ciones), existiendo grandes diferencias entre sistemas e instituciones. En España la situación no es distinta: significativas diferencias entre instituciones. Primero se aborda una breve sinopsis de los hitos más relevantes de la formación pedagógica del profesorado en la universidad española y se identifican algunas omisiones significa­tivas en trabajos previos sobre el tema. En segundo lugar se exponen los enfoques de la acción formativa (marco de referen­cia: ideas, teorías, modelos) que han “ilu­minado” dicha formación en la praxis del sistema universitario español. Así mismo se analiza el contenido de dicha forma­ción. A semejanza de lo que acontece en otros contextos, la mayoría de los progra­mas, generalmente no evaluados, con fre­cuencia reducidos a un único curso o aun conjunto de seminarios que el profesora­do elige acorde a sus intereses. En cuanto a la formación inicial, en algunos países es obligatorio para todos los “assistant professor” cursar un programa de forma­ción. En otros, la obligatoriedad inicial ha sido suspendida y la universidad tiene la decisión de aplicarla. En España no existe normativa que obligue a una formación pedagógica del profesorado universitario. El último punto trata de cómo se ha difun­dido en el sistema universitario español la práctica de la Formación del Profesorado Universitario (FPU).</p><p> </p>

AbstractThis is an interview about archaeology in Germany and beyond. Friedrich Lüth, currently president of the European Association of Archaeologists, among other positions, talks about archaeological practice and thought in Germany and Europe and the relationship between both. Is German pre- and protohistoric archaeology still best known for its disciplined approaches to material evidence and the thoroughness with regard to the data (Härke 1989)? Are there still concerns whether it is atheoretical (Klejn 1993)? In this interview Lüth reflects on university chairs versus ‘schools’, we hear about how to gain new facts and how to deconstruct interpretations, and we learn about the sixteenfold German heritage management – archaeology is the competence of the sixteen Bundesländer (states) rather than of the Bund, because state archaeological services as well as the universities fall under the laws of the states, not under federal laws. Topics range from the Bologna process to Germany's attitude towards ‘world archaeology’, from positivism to plurality, and from budgets to languages. We also learn much about the self-perception of archaeology in Germany as a subject between data and theory, between humanities and sciences, and between knowledge production and public relevance.

The current paper is part of an interdisciplinary project focusing on the intellectual dimensions of the French colonial experience in colonial Viet Nam, particularly in relation to the archaeology of Southeast Asia. As such, the work presented here is intended as a follow-up to the recently published exploration of intellectual movements under colonialism in French-ruled Viet Nam produced by Susan Bayly. Its wider aim is to contextualise the work of the Ecole Française d'Extrême Orient in order to better understand why its product, the cultural history of Viet Nam, is now so far out of step with the rest of mainland Southeast Asia that despite more than thirty years of post-colonial fieldwork by Vietnamese scholars, and more than fifteen years of collaboration with Western institutions, our understanding of Vietnamese protohistory has advanced little since, in a now famous review of the then current state of Vietnamese archaeology, Jeremy Davidson opined that ‘our knowledge of Champa remains so fragmentary, vague and inaccurate that the whole subject must be reworked’. The current work has many points of concordance with Bayly's interdisciplinary study. Here too it is argued that the distinctive understandings of race, culture and polity brought to the colony by French scientists, profoundly affected the thought and actions of Vietnamese as well as Europeans, and that the effects of their work were felt both within and beyond the French empire.

RESUMENNuestro conocimiento sobre las religiones protohistóricas se encuentra prejuiciado por categorías de pensamiento presentistas y el recurso a fuentes posteriores. Para lograr una caracterización mínima de la fenomenología de tales manifestaciones se propone una aproximación a partir de los materiales de la Edad del Hierro, con atención a los problemas y metodologías de la arqueología, que privilegie el estudio de casos particulares frente a la generalización céltica. A través del ejemplo de la cultura castreña, se examinará qué elementos constituyeron objeto de atención ritual y sobredimensión simbólica para una sociedad de la Edad del Hierro.PALABRAS CLAVE: Cultura Castreña, Edad del Hierro, protohistoria, ritual, arqueologíaABSTRACTOur knowledge of protohistoric religions is prejudiced by presentist ways of thinking and recourse to later sources. To achieve a minimum characterization of the phenomenology of such manifestations, I propose an approach based on Iron Age materials, being careful of the archaeological problems and methodologies, and favouring particular case studies rather than Celtic generalizations. Through the example of Castreño culture, I will examine which elements might have been the object of ritual attention and symbolic oversizing in an Iron Age society.KEY WORDS: Castro culture, Iron Age, Protohistory, ritual, archaeologyBIBLIOGRAFÍAAlmeida, C. A. F. (1980) “Dois Capacetes e tres copos, em Bronze, de Castelo de Neiva”, Gallaecia, 6, 245-257.Alonso Burgos, F. (2014): Estructura social y paisaje simbólico: las comunidades astures y el imperio romano. Tesis doctoral inédita, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Angelbeck, B. y Grier, C. (2012):“Anarchism and the Archaeology of Anarchic Societies Resistance to Centralization in the Coast Salish Region of the Pacific Northwest Coast”, Current Anthropology 53(5): 547-587.Armbruster, B. R. y Perea, A. (2000) “Macizo/hueco, soldado/fundido, morfología/tecnología, el ámbito tecnológico castreño a través de los torques con remates de doble escocia”, Trabajos de Prehistoria, 57 (1), 97-114.Álvarez Núñez, A. (1986): “Castro de Penalba. Campaña de 1986”, Arqueoloxía, Memorias, 4.Armada Pita, X. L. (2005) Formas y rituales de banquete en la Hispania Indoeuropea. Tesis Doctoral Inédita, Universidade da Coruña.Armada Pita, X. L. y García Vuelta, O. (2003): “Bronces con motivos de sacrificio del área noroccidental de la península ibérica”, Archivo español de arqueología, 76, 47-75.— (2014): “Os Atributos do Guerreiro. As Ofrendas da Comunidade. Interpretación dos torques a través da iconografía”, Cátedra, revista Eumesa de Estudios, Monografía, 3, 57-92.Bettencourt, A. M. S. (2001) “O Mundo Funerario da Idade do Ferro do Norte de Portual: algumas questões”, Proto-história da Península Ibérica. Actas do 3º Congresso de Arqueología Peninsular, 5, pp. 43-61.Blas Cortina, M. A. (1983): “La prehistoria reciente de Asturias”, Estudios de arqueología Asturiana, 1.Blas Cortina, M. A. y Villa Valdés, A. (2007): “La presencia no accidental de un Hacha de talón en un fondo de hogar en el castro de Chao de Samartín (Grandas de Salime, Asturias)”, en Celis Sánchez, J., Delibes de Castro, G., Fernández Manzano, J. y Grau Lobo, L. El hallazgo leonés de Valdevimbre y los depósitos del Bronce Final Atlántico en la península Ibérica, León, Diputación de León, 280-289.Brück, J. y Fotijn, D (2003) “The myth of the chief: prestige goods, power, and personhood, in the European Bronze Age”, The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age. Oxford University Press. Oxford, 197-205.Carballo Arceo, X. y Rey Castiñeiras, J. (2014): “O depósito de Máchados de talón de Cabeiras (Arbo, Galiza) no contexto da Bacia Baixa do río Miño”, en Bettencourt, A. M. S., Comendador Rey, B. y Aluai Sampaio, H., Corpos e metáis na fachada atlántica da Iberia. Do Neolítico a Idade do Bronze. Braga, Citcem, 103-120.Clastres, P. (1984), Socity Against the State, New York, Zone books.Currás, B (2014): Transformaciones sociales y territoriales en el Baixo Miño entre la Edad del Hierro y la integración en el Imperio Romano, Tesis doctoral inédita, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.Esparza Arroyo, A. (1986) Los castros de la Edad del hierro del Noroeste de Zamora. Zamora: Instituto de Estudios Zamoranos de Florian de Ocampo.Fabian, J. (1983): Time and the Other. How anthropology makes its object, Columbia.Fanjul Peraza, A. y Marón SUÁREZ, C. (2006): “La metalurgia del Hierro en la Asturias Castreña. Nuevos datos y estado de la cuestión”, Trabajos de Prehistoria, 63, 113-131.Fernández Rodríguez, C. (2006): “Os recursos de orixe animal: primeiros datos e avaliación preliminar”, en Aboal Fernández, R. y Castro Hierro, V. (coords.), O Castro de Montealegre, Moaña, Pontevedra, Noia, Toxosoutos, 325-340.García Quintela, M. V. (1999): Mitología y mitos de la Hispania prerromana III. Madrid: Akal.García Vuelta, O. (2002) “Técnicas y evolución, fabricación y materias primas en los torques”, en Rodero Riaza, A. y Barril Vicente, M. (coords.), Torques. Belleza y poder. Madrid, Museo Arqueológico Nacional, 31-47.González García, F. J. (2006): “El noroeste de la península ibérica en la Edad del Hierro: ¿una sociedad pacífica?”, Cuaderno de Estudios Gallegos, 53 (119), 131-155.González García, F. J., Parcero, C., Ayán Vila, X. (2011): “Iron Age societies against the state. An account on the emergence of the Iron Age in the NW Iberian Peninsula”. en T. Moore y X. L. Armada Pita (eds.): Atlantic Europe in the first Millenium BC. Crossing the Divide, Oxford, Oxbow books, 285-262González Ruibal, A. (2006-07): “Galaicos, poder y comunidad en el Noroeste de la Península Ibérica (1200 a.C.-50 d.C.)” Brigantium boletín do museo arqueolóxico da Coruña, 18-19.González Ruibal, A., Rodríguez Martínez, R. y Ayán Vila, X. (2010): “Encounters in the ditch: ritual and middle ground in an Iron Age hillfort in Galicia (Spain)”, Bolletino di archeologia on line, volume special, 25-31.Gledhill, J. (2000): Power and its desguises, Anthropological Perspectives on Politics, London, Pluto Press.Hidalgo Cuñarro, J. M. (1992-1993): “Nuevas cerámicas romanas de importación del Castro de Vigo (Campaña de 1987)”, Castrelos, 5-6, 41-70.Hingley, R. (2009): “Esoteric knowledge? Ancient Bronze Artifacts from Iron Age Contexts”, Proceedings of Prehistoric Society, 75, 143-165Ladra, L. (2005): “Dous novos torques achados en Vilar do Monte (San Fiz de Reimondez, Sarria, Lugo)”, Anuario Brigantino, 28, 27-38.— (2006) “Un novo torques achado na croa de Bardaos (Tordoia, A Coruña)”, Anuario Brigantino, 29, 39-52.Martin, M. (1988): “O povoado fortificado de Lagos, Amares”, Cadernos de Arqueología, Monografías, 1.Maya, J. L y Cuesta, F. (2001): “Excavaciones arqueológicas y estudio de los materiales de La Campa de Torres”, en Maya González, J. L y Cuesta Toribio, F. (dirs.), El Castro de la Campa de Torres. Periodo Prerromano. Gijón, Ayuntamiento de Gijón, 11-277.Meijide Cameselle, G. y Acuña Castroviejo, F. (1989): “Piezas de la Edad del Bronce en el Museo de la Tierra de Melide”, Cuaderno de Estudios Gallegos, 28 (103), 7-34.Merrifield, R. (1987): The Archaeology of ritual and magic, London, Routledge.Nunes, S. A., y Ribeiro, R. A. (2001): “Uma estrutura funeraria da Idade do Ferro em contexto habitacional no castro de Palheiros – Murça NE de Portugal”, Protohistória da Península Ibérica. Actas do 3º Congresso de Arqueología Peninsular, 5, 23-43.Parcero Oubiña, C. (1997): “Documentación de un entorno castreño: Trabajos Arqueológicos en el Área de Cameixa, Ourense”, Trabajos en arqueología del paisaje, 1, 2-26.Parcero Oubiña, C., Ayán Vila, X., Fábrega Álvarez, P. y Teira Brión, A. (2007): “Arqueología, paisaje y sociedad”, en González García, J. (coord.), Los pueblos de la Galicia céltica, Madrid: Akal, 131-257.Parcero Oubiña, C. y Criado Boado, F. (2013): “Social change, social resistance. A long term approach to the process of transformation of social landscapes in the NW Iberian Peninsula”, en Cruz Berrocal, M., García Sanjuán, L. y Gilman, A. (coords.), The Prehistory of Iberia: Debating Early Social Stratification and the State. London: Routledge, 249-266.Peña Santos, A. de la (1985-86): “Tres años de excavaciones arqueológicas en el yacimiento galaico-romano de Santa Tegra (A Guarda, Pontevedra)”, Pontevedra Arqueológica, 2, 157-189.— (1992): Castro de Torroso (Mos, Pontevedra). Síntesis de las memorias de las Campañas de excavaciones 1984- 1990, Santiago de Compostela, Xunta de Galicia.Quesada Sanz, F. (1997): El armamento Ibérico. Estudio tipológico, geográfico, funcional, social y simbólico de las armas en la Cultura Ibérica (Siglos VI-I a.C.), Montagnac, Éditions Monique Mergoil.Rodríguez Corral, J. y Alfayé, S. (2009): “Espacios liminales y prácticas rituales en el noroeste peninsular”, Actas de paleohispánica, 9, 107-111.Ruíz-Gálvez Priego, M. L. (1980): “Consideraciones sobre el origen de los puñales de antenas gallego-asturianos”, Actas do seminario de arqueología do Noroeste peninsular, 1, 85-112.Santos Cancelas, A. (2015): “La memoria de las piedras. El pasado presente en los guerreiros Castreños”, Antesteria, 4, 167-186.— (2016b): “Muchas teorías y pocas fuentes: religiones castreñas”, en Cisneros, I., Herrera, J. y Lanau, P. (eds.), Problemas y limitaciones en el estudio de las fuentes. Actas de las I jornadas doctorales en Ciencias de la Antigüedad, Zaragoza 18 de Septiembre de 2015, 15-28.— (2017) Ritos, memoria e identidades Castreñas, Tesis doctoral inédita, Universidad de Zaragoza.— (e.p.): “Cambio Cultural e hibridación religiosa: el caso castreño”, Archivo Español de Arqueología.Sastre, I. (2011): “Social inequality during the Iron Age: Interpretation Models”, en T. Moore and X. L. Armada Pita (eds.): Atlantic Europe in the first Millenium BC. Crossing the Divide, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 264-284.— (2008): “Community, identity and conflict. Iron Age Warfare in Iberian Northwest”, Current Antropology 49, 1021-1051.Sastre, I. y Sánchez Palencia, F. J. (2013): “Non-hierarchical approaches to The Iron Age societies: Metals and inequality in the Castro Culture of The Northwestern Iberian Peninsula”, en M. Cruz Berrocal, L. García-Sanjuán, y A. Gilman (eds.): The Prehistory of Iberia. Debating social stratification and the State, London, Routledge 292-310.Suárez Otero, J. (2007): “Hachas de talón decoradas: un fósil de la ritualidad en torno a la producción metalúrgica del Bronce Final Atlántico”, en Celis Sánchez, J., Delibes de Castro, G., Fernández Manzano, J. y Grau Lobo, L. (eds.), El hallazgo leonés de Valdevimbre y los depósitos del Bronce Final Atlántico en la península Ibérica, León, Diputación de León, 290-297.Villa Valdés, A. y Cabo Pérez, L. (2003): “Deposito funerario y recinto fortificado de la Edad del Bronce en el castro de Chao de Samartín: Argumento para su datación”, Trabajos de prehistoria, 60 (2), 143-151.Woolf, G. (2011): Tales of the barbarians: ethnography and the empire in the RomanWest, Sussex, Wiley-Blackwell.

To understand the implications of archaeological site recording practices and associated inventories for studying Indigenous persistence after the arrival of Europeans, we examined the documentary record associated with nearly 900 archaeological sites in Marin County, California. Beginning with the first regional surveys conducted during the early 1900s and continuing into the present, the paper trail created by archaeologists reveals an enduring emphasis on precontact materials to the exclusion of more recent patterns of Indigenous occupation and land use. In assessing sites occupied by Indigenous people from the late sixteenth through the mid-twentieth centuries, we discuss how the use of multiple lines of evidence—including temporally diagnostic artifacts, chronometric dating techniques, and historical documentation—may help illuminate subtle but widespread patterns of Native presence that have been obscured by essentialist assumptions about Indigenous culture change. Our findings further reveal the shortcomings of traditional site recording systems, in which archaeologists typically categorize sites within the prehistoric-protohistoric-historic triad on the basis of commonsense decisions that conflate chronology with identity. Instead, we argue for recording practices that focus specifically on the calendric ages of occupation for any given site.

The technological analysis of a collection of cores, flakes, unifaces, and bifaces from a Chickasaw site in northeast Mississippi makes it clear that the lithic industry was substantially reorganized to meet the functional demands of the early eighteenth-century colonial economy. The focus of this industry was a distinctive, well-made end scraper. Similar tools occur throughout the Midwest during late prehistoric times and extend into the middle Mississippi River valley during the protohistoric. Although the Midwest scrapers are likely a response to the spread of bison into that region, a study of the distribution of the Chickasaw tool kit in time and space suggests that it was used to process deer skins, the primary focus of the trade with the French and English in the Southeast. However, stone scrapers are not found on all early eighteenth-century Chickasaw sites. The historical documents suggest that some villages were more successful in their trade relations with the Europeans and were therefore able to replace stone tools with metal at an earlier date. An examination of the occurrence of stone tools throughout the Southeast during the early historic period indicates that relative distance to ports of trade was the primary determinant of the rate at which stone-tool technology was abandoned.

In a series of studies about settlement density in the Rhine area from protohistoric to modern times, K.-P. Wendt and A. Zimmermann try their hand at the difficult task of evaluating the palaeodemography of a region. Their task is all the more complex because these are times and spaces for which written sources are lacking, as a result of which reasoning relies very broadly on interpretation of the archaeological record. The two researchers also attempt to characterize the density of rural settlements and their spatial distribution. I shall not dally on the methods employed, which involve quite complex statistics and geomatics (anyway, they lie outside my area of scientific competence), and shall take the figures at face value, even if I might question some of them. I shall contemplate the economic impact of population growth on the countryside of Gaul in Imperial times. It is a subject that has often been addressed, but one which I intend to reconsider in the context of a European programme on this issue. The relationship between population numbers, agricultural yield, gross domestic product and taxation has certainly been one key to our understanding of the Roman economy ever since the model suggested by K. Hopkins. Here, however, I do not wish to proceed in terms of theory, but intend to review critically the archaeological sources, which, for want of written evidence, are our mainspring for evaluating the key components of economic development on the regional scale of NE Gaul.

The Danes and the Origin of the Danish KingdomOn the Research Programme “From Tribe to State in Denmark”Since the 1970’s, the ethnogenesis of the Danes and the origin of the Danish kingdom have attracted increased interest among Danish archaeologists. Marked changes over time observed in a growing source material form a new basis of interpretation. In written sources, the Danish realm does not appear until the Viking Age. The formation of the kingdom is traditionally placed as late as the 10th century (Jelling and all that). But prehistorians have raised the question whether the formation of the kingdom was not a much longer course. Some scholars believe that we have to study the periods preceding the Viking Age to be able to understand the development, at least from the 3rd century. In Scandinavia, this covers the Late Roman Iron Age, the Migration and Merovingian periods, as well as the early Viking Age. In a Continental perspective, it parallels the Late Antiquity (3rd-6th centuries) and the Early Middle Ages (6th-10th centuries).In 1984, the Danish Research Council launched the research programme “From Tribe to State in Denmark” which aimed to understand the formation of the Danish kingdom by studying the interaction between economic, social, and political circumstances from the Roman Period to the Viking Age. This paper presents a short synthesis of my work in the programme.Two themes have been brought into focus:1) The ethnogenesis of the Nordic peoples: the formation of the tribes that appear in the few and problematic written sources of the first millennium AD, in casu the Danes;2) The making of the Nordic kingdoms: in this case Denmark.A problem with this kind of long-term research is the inherent teleological perspective, revealed in the programme title. It is essential for me to emphasise that the early Danish kingdom was not a self-evident formation but the result of a series of concrete historical circumstances. There have been alternative possibilities at several occasions.In Scandinavia, the period is prehistoric. However, in South Scandinavia it deserves to be labelled protohistoric. Scandinavian archaeologists often forget or ignore the fact that in large parts of Europe, the first millennium AD is a historical period. The Scandinavian development is too often evaluated in isolation from the rest of Europe, in spite of the fact that the material culture demonstrates that interaction with continental as well as insular powers was continuously influencing Scandinavia. Necessarily, a relevant approach to Scandinavian late prehistory includes a historical dimension and a European perspective. South Scandinavian societies were over time linked to different realms in Europe. The Danish development was certainly part of a common west European trajectory.The best possibility of interpreting the archaeological record of South Scandinavia is by analogy with historians’ interpretations of other more or less contemporary Germanic peoples, based on descriptions in the written sources. Long-term studies of Scandinavian societies in the first millennium AD has laid new ground on which scholars have to build their image of the making of a Danish kingdom. The paper briefly describes some of the results and focuses on changes in the material that I find significant.Rural settlement: Great progress in the study of Iron Age and Early Mediaeval farming suggests economic growth, a development from subsistence economy to a production of a surplus, from collective forms of farming to individually run farmsteads, from small family farmsteads to large farms and manors. It is the surplus created by this expansion that could carry the late Viking and high medieval Danish kingdom with its administration, military power, church, towns, etc.Trade and exchange: Prestige-goods exchange dominated in the beginning of the period. Goods came from various parts of Europe. The connections to central and east Europe were broken in the sixth century, not to be reopened until the Viking Age. This explains the dominating position held by West European material culture in the development of South Scandinavia. Thus, South Scandinavia became part of the commercial zone of West Europe, certainly an important element in the making of the Danish kingdom. In the Viking Age, the rapid urbanisation demonstrates that Denmark gained great profit from its key position in the North Sea-Baltic trade network.Central places and early towns: Complex settlements appeared already in the Late Roman Iron Age, e.g. Gudme/Lundeborg, Funen. Further central sites appeared, and the number of central places grew rapidly. By the year 700, they are found in virtually every settlement area of South Scandinavia. The sites were not simple trading stations, as most were labelled a few years ago, but many also fulfilled important political, social, and religious functions; some were also manorial residences. The resident elite based their power on the mobilisation of the rural surplus; at the same time, one can say that the stimulus to produce a rural surplus was probably caused by an increasing demand from the elite at the centres.In the Viking Age, urbanisation began, which meant that the old central places lost their position and were replaced by towns like Hedeby, Ribe, and Århus. Excavations show that urbanisation started in the 8th century, a little later than the famous emporia Quentovic, Dorestad, Hamwic, and Ipswic.So today, it must be concluded that at the threshold to the Viking Age, South Scandinavian societies had a more advanced economic system and a more complex social organisation than believed only 20 years ago.Warfare: The dated indications of war cluster in two periods, the 3rd to 5th centuries, and the 10th to 11th centuries. The early period could be characterised as one of tribal warfare, in which many polities were forced to join larger confederations through the pressure of endemic warfare and conquests. In the archaeological record, indicators of war seem to disappear after AD 500, not to reappear in large numbers until the Viking Age. Was this period a Pax Danorum? Indeed, the silent archaeological record could indicate that the Danes had won hegemony in South Scandinavia. This phase can be understood as a period of consolidation between an early phase of tribal warfare and a later phase in which the territorial defence of a Danish kingdom becomes visible in the record.Wars with the Carolingian empire in the 9th century are the first wars in Denmark to be mentioned in the written record. However, archaeology demonstrates the presence of serious military threats in the centuries before, e.g. the first dykes at Danevirke. The strategic localisation of the period’s defence works reveals that threats were met with both navy and army. According to the texts, the 9th century wars are clearly national wars, either wars of conquest on a large scale between kingdoms, or civil wars, which for a large part seem to be triggered by an aggressive Frankish diplomacy.The two phases of warfare mirror two different military political situations: in the Late Roman and Migration Periods they are tribal wars and conflicts over resource control; in the Late Merovingian Period and the Viking Age they concern a Danish kingdom’s territorial defence.Religious changes: The conversion is often considered a major turning point in Scandinavian history; and in a way it was, of course. But the importance of Christianisation is heavily overestimated. The conversion was simply a step in a process that started long before. The paganism of the Scandinavians must not mislead us into believing that they were barbarians.A great change in cult practice took place around AD 500 when the use of bogs and lakes for offerings rapidly decreased. Instead, religious objects are found hoarded in settlement contexts, sometimes in the great halls of the magnates. This indicates that the elite had taken control of religion in a new way. The close link between cult and elite continued uninterrupted after Christianisation; churches were built by the magnates and on their ground. Therefore, we have a kind of cult-site continuity. From the Migration Period, the archaeological material demonstrates a close link between cult and magnates. This is certainly one important element in the formation of a Danish kingdom.Political development: Analyses of material culture reveal that South Scandinavia in the Early Iron Age consisted of many small regions, and based on sources like Tacitus and Ptolemy, one can guess that they correspond to tribal areas. In the Late Roman Iron Age and the Migration Period, the formation of a South Scandinavian super-region can be discerned, but still subdivided into a small number of distinguishable culture zones, and, again, on the basis of written sources (Jordanes and Procopius), one can guess that small tribes had joined into larger confederations precisely as on the Continent. In my opinion, a Danish kingdom appeared not later than the sixth century. Based on the well-studied material culture of the early Merovingian Period, one can assume that it had its core area in Central Denmark - South Jutland, Funen, and Zealand – with a close periphery of North Jutland, South Halland, Scania, Blekinge, and Bornholm. Probably more loosely attached to the Danish hegemony was a more distant periphery in South Sweden.So the Danish kingdom already had a history when it first appeared in the Frankish sources at the end of the 8th century. Danish involvement in European politics is first clearly observable in 777 and again in 782. Obviously, the Danish kingdom was a political and military actor on the North European scene long before the Viking Age.In the light of all these arguments, three phases can be described:– Roman Iron Age: Tribal societies with chieftains or small kings.– Late Roman Iron Age, Migration Period, and early Merovingian Period: A process of amalgamation started and warfare characterises the period. The result is the formation of tribal confederations. Written sources speak in favour of the Danes as the people who eventually won hegemony over South Scandinavia.– Late Merovingian Period and Viking Age: A process began in which royal agents replaced local chieftains. The last area to be integrated under direct Danish royal rule, in the reign of Sven Forkbeard, was probably Scania. Thus Medieval Denmark appeared.Final remarks: As a result of archaeological achievements in the last decades, a number of traditional views about Scandinavian late prehistory appear less likely, or rather erroneous. It is an underestimation that the pagans were unable of organisation and that a formation of a Danish kingdom is unthinkable before the late Viking Age. Unfortunately, the ethnogenesis of the Danes is beyond the reach of study, but a rough hypothesis may be formulated. The Danes were once one of several tribes somewhere in South Scandinavia. Events outside the Scandinavian scene were of fundamental importance for the possibility of the Danish gens to grow in power in the Late Roman and Migration Periods. Already before the Merovingian Period, the Danes won hegemony between the Baltic and the North Sea. A Danish kingdom could probably be based on this key position. Its survival was by no means a matter of course. In their continued efforts to secure the Danish position, capable kings established the borders of high medieval Denmark in the course of the Viking Age.Ulf NäsmanInstitutionen för humaniora och ­samhällsvetenskap Högskolan i Kalmar

RESUMENEl culto a los muertos es una práctica documentada en el ser humano desde tiempos prehistóricos. Uno de los fenómenos funerarios que revisten mayor popularidad dentro de la Prehistoria Reciente es el megalitismo, desarrollado en amplios territorios de Europa desde mediados del v milenio cal BC, y caracterizado por la construcción de grandes tumbas colectivas cuyo imaginario permanece en el folclore popular hasta nuestros días. En este trabajo se ofrece una interpretación de las prácticas funerarias que engloban dicho fenómeno a partir del estudio regional del conjunto megalítico de la Lora burgalesa, en el noreste de la Submeseta Norte española. Tras décadas de estudio, que en los últimos años se ha focalizado en el análisis de las colecciones esqueléticas, ha sido posible profundizar en el conocimiento de las sociedades que enterraban a sus muertos en estas tumbas. Palabras clave: megalitismo, prácticas funerarias, enterramientos colectivosTopónimos: Lora burgalesa, Submeseta Norte españolaPeriodo: Neolítico Final, Calcolítico ABSTRACTThe cult of the death has been a well-documented human activity since prehistoric times. A popular funerary phenomenon of Neolithic period is megalithism, developed in large areas of Europe from the mid-5th millennium BC. It is characterised by the construction of large collective tombs that have remained in popular folklore to the present day. This paper offers an interpretative approach to the funerary practices involved in this phenomenon from the regional study of the megalithic complex of la Lora burgalesa, in the northeast of the Spanish North Plateau. Decades of study, which in recent years focus on the analysis of skeletal collections, have provided us with a better knowledge of the societies that buried their ancestors in these tombs. Keywords: megalithism, funerary practices, collective tombsPlace names: Lora burgalesa, Spanish North PlateauPeriod: Late Neolithic, Chalcolithic REFERENCIASAcsádi, G. y Nemeskéri, J. (1970): History of Human Life, Span and Mortality. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó.Alesan, A., Malgosa, A. y Simó, C. (1999): “Looking into the demography of an Iron Age population in the Western Mediterranean. I. Mortality”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 110(3): 285-301.AlQahtani, S. J., Hector, M. P. y Liversidge, H. M. (2010): “Brief communication: The London atlas of human tooth development and eruption”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 142(3): 481-490. —(2014): “Accuracy of dental age estimation charts: Schour and Massler, Ubelaker and the London Atlas”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 154(1): 70-78.Alt, K. W., Zesch, S., Garrido-Pena, R., Knipper, C., Szécsényi-Nagy, A., Roth, C., … y Rojo-Guerra, M. A. (2016): “A community in life and death: The late neolithic megalithic tomb at Alto de Reinoso (Burgos, Spain)”. PLoS ONE, 11(1). Álvarez-Vidaurre, E. (2006): “Percepción y reutilización de monumentos durante la prehistoria reciente: El caso de Navarra”. Cuadernos de Arqueología de la Universidad de Navarra, 14: 117-150.Andrés-Rupérez, M. T. (2000): “El espacio funerario dolménico: abandono y clausura”. Saldvie, 1: 59-76.Aranda, G., Díaz-Zorita, M., Hamilton, D., Milesi, L. y Sánchez, M. (2020): “The radiocarbon chronology and temporality of the megalithic cemetery of Los Millares (Almería, Spain)”. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 12(5): 1-17.Balzeau, A., Turq, A., Talamo, S. et al. (2020): “Pluridisciplinary evidence for burial for the La Ferrassie 8 Neandertal child”. Scientific Reports, 10, 21230. Barrett, J. C. (1988): “The living, the dead and the ancestors: Neolithic and Early Bronze Age mortuary practices”. En J. C. Barrett y A. Kinnes (eds.): The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Sheffield: Department of Prehistory Beckett, J. y Robb, J., (2006): “Neolithic Burial Taphonomy, Ritual and Interpretation in Britain and Ireland: A Review”. En R. Gowland y C. Knüsel, C. (Eds.): The Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains. Oxbow, Oxford. Bellido, A. y Gómez, J. L. (1996): “Megalitismo y rituales funerarios”. Complutum extra, 6(1): 141-152.Bello, S. y Andrews, P. (2006): “The intrinsic pattern of preservation of human skeletons and its influence on the interpretation of funerary behaviours”. En R. Gowland y C. Knüsel (Eds.): Social archaeology of funerary remains. Oxford, Oxbow: 1-13.Benet, N., Pérez, R. y Santonja M. (1997): “Evidencias campaniformes en el valle medio del Tormes.” En II Congreso de Arqueología Peninsular: Zamora 24-27 de septiembre de 1996. Fundación Afonso Henriques: 449-470.Binford, L. R. (1971): “Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential”. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, 25: 6-29.Bocquet-Appel, J.P. y Masset, C. (1977) : “Estimateurs en paléodémographie”. L´Homme, 4: 65-90. Boz, B. y Hager, L. (2014): “Making sense of social behavior from disturbed and commingled skeletons: A case study from Çatalhöyük, Turkey”. En A. Osterholtz, K. Baustian y D. Martin (Eds.): Commingled and Disarticulated Human Remains. New York, Springer: 17-33.Bronk Ramsey, C. (2009): “Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates”. Radiocarbon, 51(1), 337-360.Brown, D. (1991): Human universals. New York, McGraw-Hill.Bueno, P., Barroso, R., y de Balbín, R. (2010): “Entre lo visible y lo invisible: registros funerarios de la Prehistoria reciente de la Meseta Sur”. En P. Bueno et al. (Eds.): Arqueología, Sociedad, Territorio y Paisaje. Estudios sobre Prehistoria Reciente, Protohistoria y transición al mundo romano en Homenaje a Mª. Dolores Fernández Posse. Madrid, CSIC: 53-74.—(2016): “Between east and west: megaliths in the centre of the Iberian Peninsula”. En Laporte L. y Scarre Ch. Eds.: The megalithic architectures of Europe. Oxford Oxbow books: 157-166. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dpw8.19Carbonell, E. y Mosquera, M. (2006): “The emergence of a symbolic behaviour: the sepulchral pit of Sima de los Huesos, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain”. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 5: 155-160.Carmona, E., Arnaiz, M. Á. y Alameda, M. C. (2014): “El dolmen de Arroyal I: usos y modificaciones durante el iii milenio cal A.C.”. En J. Honrado et al. (Eds.): II Jornadas de Jóvenes Investigadores del Valle del Duero. Del Neolítico a la Antigüedad Tardía (León 2012), 2. Valladolid, Glyphos: 41-54.Cauwe, N. (1997): “Les morts en mouvement. Essai sur l´origine des rites funeraires mégalithiques”. En A. Rodrígez Casal, (ed.): O Neolítico atlántico e as orixes do megalitismo. Santiago de Campostela, Universidad de Santiago: 719-737.Chamberlain, A. (2006): Demography in Archaeology. New York, Cambridge University Press.—(2009): “Archaeological Demography”. Human Biology, 81 (3): 275-286. Childe, V. G. (1958): Los orígenes de la sociedad europea. Madrid, Ciencia Nueva.Cintas-Peña, M. y Herrero-Corral, A. M. (2020). “Missing prehistoric women? Sex ratio as an indicator for analyzing the population of Iberia from the 8th to the 3rd millennia BC”. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 12(11): 1-13.Clarke, D. L. (1978): Analytical archaeology (Second edition-original 1968). London, Methuen.Delibes, G. (1995): “Ritos funerarios, demografía y estructura social entre las comunidades neolíticas de la submeseta norte”. En R. Fábregas, F. Pérez y C. Fernández (coords.): Arqueoloxia da Morte na Peninsula Iberica desde as orixes ata o Medievo, Xinzo de Limia, Biblioteca Limiá: 61-94. —(2000): “Itinerario arqueológico de los dólmenes de Sedano (Burgos)”. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 57 (2): 89-103.—(2010): “La investigación de las sepulturas colectivas monumentales del iv milenio A.C. en la Submeseta Norte española. Horizonte 2007”. En J. Fernández-Eraso, J. y J. Mujika (Eds.): Actas del Congreso Internacional sobre Megalitismo y otras manifestaciones funerarias contemporáneas en su contexto social, económico y cultural. Munibe. Suplemento 32. Donostia, Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi: 12-56.Delibes, G. y Rojo, M. (1997): “C14 y secuencia megalítica en la Lora burgalesa: acotaciones a la problemática de las dataciones absolutas referentes a yacimientos dolménicos”. En A. Rodríguez Casal (ed.): O Neolítico atlántico e as orixes do megalitismo. Santiago de Campostela, Universidad de Santiago: 391–414.—(2002): “Reflexiones sobre el trasfondo cultural del polimorfismo megalítico en la Lora burgalesa”. Archivo Español de Arqueología, 75 (185-186): 21-35. Delibes, G., Rodríguez-Marcos, J. A., Sanz, C. y del Val, J. M. (1982): “Dólmenes de Sedano I. El sepulcro de corredor de Ciella”. Noticiario Arqueológico Hispanico, 14: 149–196.Delibes, G., Rojo, M. A. y Sanz, C. (1986): “Dólmenes de Sedano II. El sepulcro de corredor de Las Arnillas (Moradillo de Sedano, Burgos)”. Noticiario Arqueológico Hispanico, 27: 7–41.Delibes, G., Moreno, M. y Valle, A. del (2011): “Dólmenes de Sedano (Burgos) y criadero cuprífero de Huidobro: Una relación todavía posible”. En P. Bueno et al. (eds.): Arqueología, sociedad, territorio y paisaje. Estudios sobre Prehistoria Reciente, Protohistoria y transición al mundo romano en homenaje a M.ª Dolores Fernández Posse. Madrid, CSIC: 35-52. Delibes, G., Rojo, M. y Represa, I. (1993): Dólmenes de la Lora. Valladolid, Junta de Castilla y León.Delibes, G. y Santonja, M. (1987): “Anotaciones en torno al megalitismo del occidente de la Meseta (Salamanca y Zamora)”. En Megalitismo en la Península Ibérica, Madrid, Asociación de Amigos de la Arqueología: 200-210.Díaz-Zorita, M. (2013): The Copper Age in south-west Spain: A bioarchaeological approach to prehistoric social organisation. Doctoral dissertation, Durham University.Díaz-Zorita, M., Aranda, G., Escudero, J., Robles, S., Lozano, Á., Sánchez, M. y Alarcón, E. (2016): “Estudio bioarqueológico de la necrópolis megalítica de El Barranquete (Níjar, Almería)”. Menga, 7: 71-98.Díaz-Zorita, M., Aranda, G., Robles, S., Escudero, J., Sánchez, M. y Lozano, Á. (2017): “Estudio bioarqueológico de la necrópolis megalítica de Panoría (Darro, Granada)”. Menga, 8: 91-114.Dietrich, O., Köksal-Schmidt, Ç, Notroff, J. y Schmidt, K. (2013): “Establishing a Radiocarbon Sequence for Göbekli Tepe. State of Research and New Data”. Neo-Lithics, 1/13: 36-41.Duday, H. (1987): “Organisation et fonctionnement d’une sépulture collective néolithique. L’aven de la Boucle à Corconne (Gard)”. En Anthropologie physique et archéologie: méthodes d’étude des sépultures. Paris, CNRS: 89-104.—(2006): « L’Archéothanatologie ou l’archéologie de la mort. Translated by Knüsel”. En Gowland R.L. and Knüsel, C.J. (Eds.) Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains. Oxford, Oxbow Books: 30-56.Duday, H., Courtaud, P., Crubezy, É., Sellier, P. y Tillier, A. M. (1990): «L’Anthropologie «de terrain»: reconnaissance et interprétation des gestes funéraires”. Bulletins et Mémoires de La Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 2(3): 29–49. Fabián, J. F. (1995): El aspecto funerario durante el Calcolítico y los inicios de la Edad del Bronce en la Meseta Norte. Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca.Ferembach, D., Schwidetzky, I. y Stloukal, M. (1980). “Recommendations for Age and Sex Diagnoses of Skeletons”. Journal of Human Evolution, 9: 517–549.Fernández-Crespo, T. (2015): “Aportación de la Arqueoantropología a la interpretación de la dinámica sepulcral de las tumbas megalíticas de Cameros (La Rioja, España)”. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 72(2): 218–237. Fernández-Crespo, T. y de la Rúa, C. (2015): “Demographic evidence of selective burial in megalithic graves of northern Spain”. Journal of Archaeological Science, 53: 604-617. —(2016): “Demographic differences between funerary caves and megalithic graves of northern Spanish Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 160(2): 284-297. Fernández-Eraso, J. y Mujica, J. A. (2013): “The megalithic station of the Rioja Alavesa: chronology, origins and utilisation cycles”. Zephyrus, 71: 89-106.Furholt, M. y Müller, J. (2011): “The earliest monuments in Europe: architecture and social structures (5000-3000 cal BC)”. En M. Furholt, F. Lüth y J. Müller (eds.): Megaliths and Identities. Early Monuments and Neolithic Societies from the Atlantic to the Baltic. Bonn: R. Habelt: 15-32.Gallay, A. (2006): Les sociétés megalithiques. Pouvoir des hommes, memoires des morts. Lausanne, Le savoir suisse.Garrido-Pena, R. (2000): El Campaniforme en la Meseta Central de la Península Ibérica (c. 2500-2000 AC.) (Vol. 892). BAR International Series, Oxford.Gil-Merino, R., Moreno, M., Delibes, G., Villalobos, R. (2018): “Luz para ver y ser vista: los efectos de la iluminación solar durante el solsticio de invierno en los dólmenes de corredor de la provincia de Burgos”. Munibe, 69: 157-175.Guerra, E., Delibes, G., Zapatero, P. y Villalobos, R. (2009): “Primus Inter Pares: Estrategias de diferenciación social en los sepulcros megalíticos de la Submeseta Norte española”. BSAA Arqueología, 75: 41-65.Hertz, R. (1990): La muerte y la mano derecha. Alianza Universidad n.º 637, Madrid.Huidobro, L. (1957): “Descubrimiento megalítico en Nocedo (Sedano)”. En Actas del IV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología. Zaragoza, Institución Fernando El Católico: 125-126.Larsen, C. (1995): “Biological Changes in Human Populations with Agriculture”. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24(1): 185-213. Leclerc, J. (1990) : « La notion de sépulture”. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 2(3): 13-18.Ledermann, S. (1969): Nouvelles tables-types de mortalité. Paris, PUF (Travaux et Documents, 53).Livi-Bacci, M. (1990): Historia mínima de la población mundial. Ariel, Barcelona.Lyman, R. L. (1994): “Quantitative units and terminology”. Zooarchaeology, 59(1): 36-71.Maluquer de Motes, J. (1960): “Nuevos hallazgos de la cultura del vaso campaniforme en la Meseta”. Zephyrus, 11: 119-130.Martín-Vela, R., Delibes, G. y Municio, L. (2021): “Megalitos al norte de la Sierra de Guadarrama: primicias de la excavación del dolmen de Santa Inés en Bernardos (Segovia)”. CuPAUAM, 47(2): 11-38. Martinón-Torres, M., d’Errico, F., Santos, E. et al. (2021): “Earliest known human burial in Africa”. Nature, 593: 95–100. Masset, C. (1971): «Erreurs systématiques dans la détermination de l’âge par les sutures crâniennes”. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d›anthropologie de Paris, 7(1): 85-105.—(1972): “The megalithic tomb of la Chaussée-Tirancourt.” Antiquity, 46(184): 297-300.Masset, C. (1987): «Le recrutement d’un ensemble funéraire”. En H. Duday, H. y C. Masset (eds.): Anthropologie physique et archéologie: méthodes d’études des sépultures. Bordeaux, CNRS: 111-134.Moreno, M. (2004): Megalitismo y Geografía. Análisis de los factores de localización espacial de los dólmenes de la provincia de Burgos. Studia Archaeologica, n.º 93. Valladolid, Universidad de Valladolid. Moreno, M., Delibes, G., López-Sáez, J. A., Manzano, S., Villalobos, R., Fraile, A. y Basconcillos, J. (2010-2012): “Nuevos datos sobre una alineación de menhires en el norte de Burgos: el yacimiento de Las Atalayas, en Avellanosa del Páramo (Burgos)”. Sautuola, 16-17: 71-93.Moreno, M., Delibes, G. Villalobos, R. y Basconcillos, J. (2020): Tumbas de Gigantes. Dólmenes y túmulos en la provincia de Burgos. Diputación Provincial de Burgos.—(2021): Territorio Megalítico. Burgos, Agrupación de Municipios Territorio Megalítico. Reimer, P. J., Austin, W. E., Bard, E. y Talamo, S. (2020): “The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP)”. Radiocarbon, 62(4): 725-757.Renfrew, C. (1972): The Emergence of Civilisation. The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C. London, Methuen.—(1976): “Megaliths, territories and populations”. En S. J. Laet (Ed.): Acculturation and continuity in Atlantic Europe Mainly during the Neolithic period and the Bronze Age. Papers presented at the IV Atlantic Colloquium. Brugge, De Tempel: 198-220.—(1983): “The social archaeology of megalithic monuments”. Scientific American, 249(5): 152-163.Robb, J. (2016): “What can we really say about skeletal part representation, MNI and funerary ritual? A simulation approach”. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 10: 684-692. Rojo Guerra, M. Á. (1990): “Monumentos megalíticos de la Lora Burgalesa: Exégesis del emplazamiento”. Boletín Del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y arqueología: BSAA, 52: 53-63.—(1993): El fenómeno megalítico en la Lora burgalesa. Tesis doctoral mecanografiada. Universidad de Valladolid.Rojo, M.A., Delibes, G., Edo, M. y Fernández, J.L. (1995): “Adornos de calaíta en los ajuares dolménicos de la Provincia de Burgos: Apuntes sobre su composición y procedencia”. Rubricatum, 1: 239-250.Rojo, M., Kunst, M., Garrido, R., García, I. y Morán, G. (2005): Un desafío a la eternidad: tumbas monumentales en el valle de Ambrona. Arqueología en Castilla y León (Vol. 14). Valladolid, Junta de Castilla y León.Roksandic, M. (2002): “Position of skeletal remains as a key to understanding mortuary behavior”. En Haglund, W. D. y Sorg, M. H. (Eds.): Advances in forensic taphonomy: method, theory, and archaeological perspectives: 99-117.Sánchez-Quinto, F., Malmstrom, H., Fraser, M. y Jakobsson, M. (2019): “Megalithic tombs in western and northern Neolithic Europe were linked to a kindred society”, PNAS, 116 (19): 9469-9474. Santa Cruz, A. (2022): Caracterización antropológica y temporalidad de los sepulcros megalíticos de la Lora (Burgos). Tesis doctoral (inédita). Universidad de Valladolid. Santa Cruz, A., Delibes, G. y Villalobos, R. (2020a): “Sobre la impronta campaniforme en los dólmenes de la Lora (Burgos): dataciones de C-14 y naturaleza funeraria”. En Estudios In memoriam Prof. Emilio Illarregui. Segovia, IE Universidad: 23-39.—(2020b): “Nueva serie de dataciones radiocarbónicas sobre hueso humano para el dolmen de Los Zumacales (Simancas, Valladolid)”. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 77(1): 130-147.Schulting, R. J. (2015): “Mesolithic skull cults?”. En K. von Hackwitz y R. Peyroteo-Stjerna (eds.): Ancient Death Ways. Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia, Uppsala: 19-46.Schulz Paulsson, B. (2019): “Radiocarbon dates and Bayesian modeling supportmaritime diffusion model for megaliths in Europe”. PNAS, 116, 9: 3460-3465.Séguy, I. y Buchet, L. (2013): Handbook of Palaeodemography. London: Springer.Sellier, P. (1996): “La mise en évidence d’anomalies demographiques et leur interprétatión: population, recrutement et práctiques funéraires de tumulus de Courtesoult”. En J. F. Piningre (ed.): Nécrópoles et société au première Âge du Fer: le tumulus de Courtesoult (Haute-Saône). Paris: Maison des Sciences d l’Homme, 54: 188-202.Sherratt, A. (1990): “The genesis of megaliths: Monumentality, ethnicity and social complexity in Neolithic north-west Europe”. World Archaeology, 22(2), 147-166.Silva, A. M. (2003): “Portuguese populations of late Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods exhumed from collective burials: an overview”. Anthropologie, 41(1-2): 55-64.Smith, M. y Brickley, M. (2009): People of the long barrows: life, death and burial in the earlier Neolithic. Stroud, History Press.Stloukal, M. (1974): “Recherches paléodémographiques en Tchécoslovaquie”. Historická demografie, 7: 5-28.Tejedor Rodríguez, C. (2014): “Reconstruyendo ‘biografías megalíticas’: algunos ejemplos de alteraciones estructurales en monumentos megalíticos del valle del Duero”. En Actas de Las II Jornadas de Jóvenes Investigadores del Valle del Duero. Glyphos: 67-86.Thomas, J. (1991): Rethinking the Neolithic. London, Cambridge University Press.Tilley, C. (1984): “Ideology and the legitimation of power in the middle neolithic of southern Sweden”. En D. Miller y C. Tilley (Eds.): Ideology, power and prehistory. New directions in archaeology. Cambridge university press, Nueva York: 111-146.Ucko, P. J. (1969): “Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains”. World archaeology, 1(2): 262-280.Villalobos García, R. (2014): “The megalithic tombs of the Spanish Northern Meseta. Material, political and ideological ties between the Neolithic people and their territory”. Préhistoires Méditerranéennes, (Colloque), 1-17. http:// pm.revues.org/1047—(2015): Análisis de las transformaciones sociales en la Prehistoria Reciente de la Meseta Norte Española (milenios vi-iii cal a. C.) a través del empleo de la variscita y otros minerales verdes como artefactos sociotécnicos. [Universidad de Valladolid]. http://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/16693—(2016): Análisis de las transformaciones sociales en la Prehistoria Reciente de la Meseta Norte Española (milenios vi-iii cal a.C.). Studia Archaeologica, 101. Universidad de Valladolid.—(2016): Una aproximación cuantitativa al trabajo destinado a la arquitectura monumental en la Prehistoria Reciente de la Meseta Norte Española. SPAL-Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología, (25), 43-66.Zapatero, P. (2012): “El sepulcro de La Velilla, en Osorno (Palencia), dentro del marco del fenómeno megalítico de la Meseta Norte”. Patrimonio Histórico de Castilla y León, 46: 51-58.—(2015): El Neolítico en el Noroeste de la Cuenca del Duero: el yacimiento de La Velilla en el Valle del Valdivida (Palencia). Tesis doctoral mecanografiada: Universidad de Valladolid.

Archaeologists have long looked to Homeric epic, which describes the collection of heroes’ ashes in metal vessels for interment, as a comparison to high-status burials found in the Greek world and, beyond, in temperate Europe. Rarely, however, has the phenomenon of aristocratic metal-urn cremation burials across Bronze and Iron Age Europe and the Mediterranean been analysed as a single phenomenon. The author presents a continental-scale study based on a corpus of nearly 600 burials, identifying chronological and geographical patterns. The results emphasise how this elite funerary custom drew on and extended a set of shared aristocratic values and practices across Europe and the Mediterranean in the first millennium BC.

This article is a discussion of archival research on contact through historic period (ca. A.D. 1519 to 18th century) Caddo groups in eastern Texas and west central Louisiana. First, I describe general objectives for current and long-term research on the Caddo Indians, followed by the central issues the article will address. A brief summary of protohistoric and historic events, actors, and sources will be followed by methodological considerations, as well as a discussion of Caddo economies, concluding with some reflections on Caddo archives and economies. This article explores the complex and interrelated economies of Native American and European populations during the colonization process in early Spanish Texas.

The Gum Creek cluster represents a group of contemporaneous Caddo sites in the Little Cypress Creek basin of East Texas that were apparently occupied between ca. A.D. 1670-1720. These sites are closely affiliated with the Titus phase and may represent some of the very latest occupied Titus phase settlements in the Cypress Creek basin. The Gum Creek cluster Caddo sites were excavated by Buddy Calvin Jones in the 1950s and 1960s, but were never reported by him during his lifetime. After his death, his vessel collection and other artifacts were documented by Perttula, with the able assistance of Bo Nelson and Bobby Gonzalez, and at that point it became clear that a certain number of excavated Caddo cemeteries in the Little Cypress Creek basin-the Gum Creek area specifically-had a distinctive artifact assemblage (especially in the form and decoration of certain vessels) that sometimes occurred in association with a few European trade goods. Caddo sites with European trade goods are otherwise very rare in the Big and Little Cypress Creek basins, and it seems likely that most of the aboriginal Caddo populations had vacated the area by the very end of the 17th century. Those few sites that are left. such as the Gum Creek cluster and various sites along Caney Creek and Stouts Creek in Wood and Hopkins counties, Texas, may hold one of the keys in understanding this rapid abandonment of an area of East Texas occupied by Caddo peoples for many centuries.

El estudio de 16 huesos de una gran ave ha permitido identificar un ejemplar adulto de buitre negro (Aegypius monachus) hallado en el interior de un silo ibérico del Serrat dels Espinyers en el Prepirineo de Lérida, aproximadamente contemporáneo a la instalación de un campamento militar romano y a la fundación de la ciudad romana de Aeso, a corta distancia del yacimiento. El silo, datado entre finales del siglo II y la primera mitad del siglo I a.C. contenía depósitos intencionales de otros animales, destacando el esqueleto en conexión de un équido y los restos de catorce perros. La aparición de huesos de buitre negro es inusual en la protohistoria europea y los escasos ejemplos documentados se relacionan con depósitos de carácter cultual de época romana, hecho que en el caso de estudio refuerza el carácter simbólico de este animal y aporta nuevas evidencias sobre los ritos asociados a la fase final de la cultura Ibérica.

AbstractThe Golasecca Celtic Civilization (GCC) developed in the Italian Iron Age, between the 9th and 4th centuries BCE, and is characterized by the predominant use of cremation as a funerary ritual in the Italian area. Reconstructing the steps of the cremation ritual in archaeology is a complex challenge, as many anthropic actions leave only faint traces in cremated remains. Within the funerary rituals of prehistoric and protohistoric Italy, the skull has received particular attention from numerous archaeological cultures and civilizations. The context of via Marconi 2020 (Sesto Calende, Varese, northern Italy) has allowed hinting at this practice also in GCC, through the anthropological analysis of cremated remains found in two different but spatially close tombs. The analysis of the cremated remains identified the selection of some elements of the skull of an adult individual and the post‐cranium of a non‐adult individual in the first tomb, and the presence of only the skull of the non‐adult individual in the second tomb. The possibility of a ritual attention of the GCC reserved for the skull has been proven for the first time thanks to the analysis of these subjects. This work provides new data on funerary ritual behaviors of the GCC, allowing for a better understanding within the Italian and European panorama.

In 1999, the late Dr. James E. Corbin of Stephen F. Austin University in Nacogdoches, Texas, recorded 41NA223 in a proposed parking lot associated with offices for the City of Nacogdoches. The site is located on the southern edge of an upland ridge (290 ft. amsl) between Banita Creek and La Nana Creek, southward-flowing tributaries of the Angelina River, and the area around it has a number of commercial buildings. During the course of development of the parking lot for the County Courthouse of Nacogdoches, Caddo ceramics, animal bones, and late 18th early 19th century European artifacts were found on the surface in disturbed contexts. Corbin initiated some limited archeological investigations in the parking lot area to determine what these artifacts represented functionally and culturally, as well as to assess the contextual integrity of any remaining archaeological deposits. Although no final conclusions were ever reached, Corbin concluded that 41NA223 represented a protohistoric or historic Caddo site and/or the site of the 1804 Guadalupe del Pilar mission church. In the course of those investigations-primarily a short trench and minimal hand excavations along the trench where a single pit feature had been exposed-a small assemblage of Caddo ceramic sherds (111 sherds and 60 sherdlets) were recovered from 41NA223. These sherds are the subject of this article. The purpose of this study of the 41NA223 ceramics is two-fold. First, I wish to thoroughly analyze the sherd collection in stylistic and technological terms to ascertain if the sherd collection is Historic Caddo in age, and if so, determine the general characteristics of this assemblage. And second, since "understanding the Caddo ceramics of Historic natives will be essential for workers in this area", particularly in unraveling the archaeological signatures of different Caddo groups that lived in the Angelina River basin, I hoped to make some head way in comparing the nature of this Historic Caddo assemblage with other recently described Caddo sherd collections from Nacogdoches County and the Neches/Angelina river basins.