8
Household Archaeology in Mediterranean Spain: Family Forms from Iberia to Hispania

Xurxo M. Ayán Vila

University of the Basque Country, Spain

Introduction

Until recently in Spain knowledge of protohistoric communities since the nineteenth century had solely depended on the reliable interpretation of classical texts (Figure 8.1). However, these sources do not mention details of the systems of kinship, or the structure or the size of the family. Thus, Strabo left interesting observations on the towns of the northern peninsula, but he made no mention of marriage or family among the Iberians, who occupied the Mediterranean area.

Map of the Iberian Peninsula marking the locations of Iron Age peoples.

Figure 8.1 Iron Age peoples of the Iberian Peninsula according to classical sources.

In spite of this limitation, the revision of ancient history from the mid-1970s has harnessed the development of a line of inquiry centered on the critical analysis of written sources (Bermejo 1978, 1982, 1983) and epigraphics (Albertos 1977; Pereira 1983; Beltrán 1988) as the basis of an interpretation of the social context of the Iron Age in the northwest. Comparisons of these social interpretations from archaeology began to be made during the 1980s. Until then the study of domestic space in archaeology had been carried out from the formalist and typological perspective of the history of art.

Interest in the study of microspace came about at that time as a result of the consolidation in Spain of approaches of spatial archaeology, settlement archaeology (Ucko et al. 1972) and household archaeology (Wilk and Rathje 1982), through the Teruel Colloquium of Spatial Archaeology and the work undertaken in various projects by the Prehistory Department of Complutense University (Fernández and Ruiz 1984). The Colloquium on Microspace held in Teruel in September 1986 clearly demonstrated the reinforcement process of a perspective that tried to achieve greater knowledge or understanding of the Iron Age societies of the Iberian Peninsula, starting with the analysis and interpretation of domestic units and the internal organization of the towns (Colloquium on Microspace 1986). In accordance with this standpoint, the organization of the habitat, the internal space of the town, the houses, and other architectonic structures would reflect the daily lives of their inhabitants; they would be, therefore, directly related to the patterns of familial and social life of those communities.

The study of the house and the organization of domestic space in the protohistory of the Iberian Peninsula has advanced remarkably during the last two decades, with the application of new methodologies and spatial analyses to the archaeological record. There can be no doubt that in this general context the most remarkable developments have taken place within the research framework of Mediterranean Iberian culture.1 Therefore, while archaeological approaches to other chrono-cultural fields have continued to be reduced to typological systematizations, the study of Iberian architecture, on the other hand, has been oriented toward new lines of inquiry, incorporating models of microspatial analysis in the interpretation of domestic structures exhumed during excavations of fortified towns (Colloquium on Microspace 1986). The assumption of this perspective on the part of the main research groups that study the Iberian and Celtiberian world has allowed a good general characterization of its collective architecture (Maluquer et al. 1986; Abad 1991; Ruiz and Molinos 1993), and, more importantly, is making a considerable contribution to the definition of the habitational model, with its logical regional variants, produced by Iberian society (Pons et al. 1994). This line of investigation, in turn, has been enormously significant in the field of applied research, mainly in the Catalan and Levantine area, since it has served as a point of departure for the approach in recent years of projects concerned with the revaluation of Iberian deposits.

Starting from this historiographical context, in the pages that follow we will approach an updated synthesis of the knowledge obtained from household archaeology on the family structure of the pre-Roman communities of the Spanish Mediterranean.

Domestic Architecture and Early Iron Age Societies

In the vast area of the mid-Duero the emergence between the end of the tenth century and the beginning of the ninth century BC of the settlements linked to the group known as the Soto de Medinilla represents a departure from previous models of domestic space (the so-called Cogotas culture). There was now a desire for permanence that broke with previous mobile and itinerant practices, as demonstrated by the wide stratigraphic sequences that have been recorded in deposits or in the remodeling of houses and homes. The new layout of the open settlements does not suggest a preoccupation with defense, although they do feature small adobe or rammed-earth walls, as well as fencing and fields of standing stones, mainly in the westernmost zone. Domestic structures, which are dispersed within open and fortified villages alike, do not comply with previous approaches to urban planning (Romero et al. 2008: 660–4). What is noteworthy is the predominance of circular huts, built of adobe, which are connected to small rectangular storage structures, such as the one documented at level V of the Soto de Medinilla (Delibes et al. 1995; Ruiz Zapatero 2009: 235, fig. 9). The existing standardized and defined model of a circular house features elevations of rammed earth or adobe, prepared ground, the application of wall coatings, and the bench and hearth. The example of house XV at the Soto de Medinilla site is the most complex example of those documented until now (Delibes et al. 1995; Romero et al. 2008: 663, fig. 3).

An outstanding feature of the soteña house is the effort that was invested in the decoration of the walls, shown by the wall coverings and polychrome paintings with geometric motifs. A clear Mediterranean influence can be seen in these decorative schemes and also in imported products such as the fibula with bilateral spring (a type of brooch), painted ceramics, or early ironwork. Nevertheless the traditional circular shape was maintained, despite the contacts that gave rise to the arrival of new ideas, materials, and objects.

Like other elements of material culture, the house is a device of nonverbal communication that transmits information within the cultural code of the community. The homes themselves, the symbolic center of daily life, sometimes appear to have been decorated. This monumentalization of the house coincided with an interesting process of ritualization which kept the newborn and animals underneath the flooring (Romero et al. 2008: 662–3). These rituals underline the nature of the hut as a metaphor for the reproduction of the family unit and its own identity. As G. Ruiz Zapatero (2009: 236) points out: the houses are, in some way, reservoirs of the traditional beliefs and values of the community.

This domestic architecture is a continuation of the traditional Late Bronze Age (Cogotas I) model, with huts of a circular layout, not exceeding 30 m2, with a conical straw roof and an entrance preferably oriented toward the south-southeast. This noticeable continuity began to be broken in the transition toward the Late Iron Age, with the appearance, in the last phases of the settlement of the Corona/El Pasadero, of the first cobblestone or paved streets of clay that formed the structure of the domestic space, with the houses arranged around these roads; also, the occupation units consist of various rooms, delineated as a whole by means of a small enclosing fence (Romero et al. 2008: 664). See Figure 8.2.

Sketches of the hypothetical reconstruction of circular houses in the Duero and Ebro valleys.

Figure 8.2 Hypothetical reconstruction of circular houses in the Duero and Ebro valleys (Jimeno 2009: 190, fig. 1).

With regard to the first Vetton hill forts of the western plains of the northern plateau, the houses, of quadrangular and rectangular layout, are detached and freely distributed without any apparent order, but are adapted to the orographic conditions: the valleys or depressions of the settlements determine the distribution of the houses (Álvarez-Sanchís 1999, 2003; Ruiz Zapatero 2009: 232, fig. 6). The isolation and internal dispersion of the town are characteristics that would endure a posteriori in the great hill forts of the area, such as the Raso de Candeleda (Fernández Gómez 2008), Ulaca, or La Mesa de Miranda (González-Tablas 2008).

In the Celtiberian area of the Alto Duero, the oldest levels of occupation of some emblematic settlements, such as El Castillo of Fuensauco or Cerro of Haya (Sanz et al. 1995), consist of domestic spaces formed by circular huts built from perishable materials and with a central hearth (Jimeno 2009: 193, fig. 3). In Castro de Zarranzano a circular house was documented which was 6 m in diameter, with rubblework walls, a central hearth, and a southeastern access with a tiled exterior, adjoining an earlier rectangular cabin (Romero and Misiego 1992). In these first hill forts of the early Celtiberian period (from the seventh to the fifth centuries BC) the previous model of domestic space is reproduced, with patterns of spatial organization which, as in the case of the northwest, seem to indicate a predominance of family units in the community; the lack of internal partitioning of the domestic constructions, and the presence of multifunctional spaces, contrasts with the great size of the defenses: the material and spatial reference of the collective (Arenas 2007; Jimeno 2009: 207). Within this process, in the transition between the seventh and fourth centuries BC, are glimpses of the first changes that point toward the prevailing model in the Late Iron Age, with the gradual substitution of the circular huts by rectangular houses.

The same process is documented in the Castilian branch of the Iberian system: after a notable lack of settlements at the end of the second millennium BC, villages formed from modest groupings of huts built from timber posts and mud bricks began to appear (Arenas 1999). This settlement model was to undergo an abrupt transformation at the beginning of the seventh century BC with the appearance of fortified towns equipped with solid stone structures, delimited by walls and ditches set out in a dual pattern alternating between high fortified settlements and low open valley settlements (Arenas 2009: 213). A process of territorialization of the local communities emerged, focused on the land and seizing economic and symbolic control of the territory. The monumentalization of the towns would reflect a remarkable individualization of communal space: the weight of the community was materialized in the first settlements (seventh to the sixth centuries BC), as in phase I of Ceremeño, by the spatial predominance of communal space around which, on the periphery, domestic constructions were located (Cerdeño and Juez 2002; Arenas 2007: 219). The great transformation of this pattern is found, once again, in the fifth to the fourth centuries BC, with the increasing complexity of domestic space.

As regards the central zone of the plateau, ascribable to the Carpetan area, the development of large projects to control archaeological impact has started to shape an interesting reality in Iron I (Ruiz Zapatero 2009: 237–8). The panorama reveals a remarkable architectonic polymorphism in which, on the one hand, the continuation of huts with large storage cavities, following the earlier tradition, is evident; on the other hand, constructive innovations like the hut of Ecce Homo or the first rectangular houses with stone socles are documented (Puente Largo del Jarama). At the same time appear large huts supported by posts with floor plans of enormous dimensions, some of which reached 200 m2 in surface area (Dávila 2007; Urbina et al. 2007).

Returning to the Atlantic coast and focusing upon the southwestern peninsula, the emergence of the fortified landscape coincided with contact between Atlantic and Mediterranean that would mark the evolution of an architecture inspired by both the tradition of the high-altitude settlements of the northwest, with its circular huts, and the spatial organizational patterns of the south. In the Early Iron Age a change of architectonic style can be discerned, with the spread of the rectangular shape, the systematic fortification of the settlements, the increasingly uniform model of spatial organization within the settlements, and the appearance of an architecture of prestige and a new scenography of clear Phoenician influence, such as the enclosure of Fernão Vaz (Ourique, Beja) (Correia 2009: 272–3).

In the case of the inner areas of the Alentejo, which are farther from the roads by which contact with the Mediterranean colonists was made, an intense process of ruralization of the population occurred, with small dispersed rural settlements, during the first half of the first millennium BCE. Excavations of Late Bronze Age sites, dating from between the tenth and the eighth centuries BC (such as Rocha do Vigío), echo the southwestern tradition, with domestic spaces articulated from huts of a round or oval layout (Mataloto 2009: 282–4, fig. 2). Domestic architecture built from perishable materials and circular ash remains known as “hut floors” continued to characterize broad zones of the interior. However, under the influence of contact with the Phoenicians, this model of spatial organization began to alter, giving rise to the spread of the rectangular shape and generating dynamics of privatization of the interior of the new constructions. Settlements such as Espinhaço de Cão constitute the clearest example in the Alto Alentejo territory of the profound extent of the implementation and integration of the basic concepts of Mediterranean architecture in rural areas, spread in the context of interaction with the Phoenician colonial world (Mataloto 2009: 287). Other small rural settlements such as Herdade da Sapatoa (Mataloto 2004) adopted the characteristic shapes and new construction techniques on a small scale, maintaining a pattern of use of traditional family domestic space, with multifunctional spaces and constructions of small dimensions, throughout Iron I. Only from the fifth century BC was a process of population concentration consolidated within the fortified towns of the Alto Alentejo (Mataloto 2009: 282).

In the Levantine area we have an interesting sequence that shows the passing of the traditional domestic architecture of the Bronze Age and the emergence of the typical Iberian model of urban planning. Between the beginning of the first millennium BC and the end of the seventh century, throughout the phase known as the pre-Iberian, various forms of habitation have been documented, including caves, huts, and isolated groupings of houses, as well as the first agglomerations of arranged houses following pre-urban models (Belarte et al. 2009: 94–8). The old occupation levels of some settlements are characterized by the presence of huts of an oval, circular, and sometimes pseudo-rectangular (with curved corners) layout, dispersed around the interior of the settlement, isolated from one another, and lacking dividing walls. These houses, constructed from perishable materials, consist of a single space that rarely exceeds 20 m2, all of which seems to respond to the same architectonic model, with no variation in status size or organization of the internal space (Martín 1998; Belarte et al. 2009: 95, fig. 2).

Emerging alongside these pre-urban towns are settlements which anticipate the typical Iberian urban model, as early as the Late Bronze Age, such as the well-known site of Genó. The urban framework is formed by houses of rectangular, square, or sometimes trapezoidal layout, with groupings of houses and defined and delimited circulation spaces. This type of settlement began to proliferate from the seventh century BC in the Catalan area (Figure 8.3), by which time it had already appeared in Puente Tablas (Jaén), superseding the huts of the Late Bronze Age; at this time the traditional circular house was replaced by rectangular ones. This change involved the internal subdivision of space and allowed artisanal and domestic duties to be carried out under the same roof; in the previous phase these had been divided between the great circular or subcircular huts and the floors of circular huts (Ruiz and Molinos 2007: 140). The rigidity of the model and the architectonic isomorphism indicate communities with a domestic means of production, no social hierarchization, family units of production and consumption, and the predominance of values of community cooperation (Belarte et al. 2009: 96). From the second half of the seventh century BC a certain economic specialization can be observed in some settlements, related to trade with the Phoenician world.

Image described by caption.

Figure 8.3 Aerial view of the Iberian settlement of Els Vilars (Arbeca, Garrigues, Catalonia).

(Photo by Jordi Lomas).

These proto-urban settlements of the Early Iron Age would lay the foundations of the architectonic style of the subsequent period and define the basic model of the Iberian house: structures of rectangular or trapezoidal layout, with walls of stone and earth, spread throughout the interior of the settlement, with shared dividing walls and alternating with circulation spaces.

Domestic Architecture and Late Iron Age Societies

The means of domestic production characteristic of leaderless tribal societies of the Early Iron Age gave way to a new reality in the transition toward Iron II, in other Mediterranean areas of the Iberian Peninsula and of Europe. For example, from the sixth to the fifth centuries BC in the eastern Mediterranean and the south of France, local communities paved the way toward social segmentation with the supremacy of certain lineages that mobilized patronage, managed and redistributed surpluses, and controlled trade with merchants and Mediterranean settlers (Isoardi 2009: 73). Also, these leaders legitimized their position through the practice of a heroic philosophy that sublimated the warrior character of these elites (González García 2006: 34, 2009: 64). Demographic pressure and colonial contacts prioritized from the fourth century BC the concentration of the population in proto-urban agglomerations, the direct antecedent of the oppida, from which the influence of Greco-Italian domestic architectonic models (Isoardi 2009: 75) and the presence of specialized craft areas (Girard 2009) emerged.

In the Mediterranean Iberian area archaeological research reveals a similar process to that experienced in the northwest: throughout the fourth and especially the fifth centuries BC a significant increase in the number of settlements occurred, with the creation of numerous nuclei of settlements dispersed or connected with specialized economic activities (Belarte et al. 2009: 93). The pre-urban models of isolated huts of the Early Iron Age disappeared and upon these foundations a new pattern of the organization of domestic space became widespread, the model of a settlement with a central street. Originating in the mid-Ebro valley during the seventh century BC (the sites of Genó, Cabezo de Monleón, Zaforas, and Loma de los Brunos), this stretched in the Early Iron Age toward the mouth of the Ebro with settlements such as Puig del Roget or Moleta del Remei (Burillo Mozota 2009: 183). During the mid-Iberian period there was a greater degree of monumentalization of these fortified towns, including the reinforcement of the walls and the placement of a bunker in one of the sides, close to the entrance.

At this time a type of dwelling of rectangular layout with walls built generally from adobe was increasingly common, in which there was a collective space with a fireplace for cooking and maintenance tasks, and another room (located at the back, away from the areas of transit) used for storage, with an abundance of ceramic vases and pots. The most complex constructions may also feature areas in which some kind of specific artisanal activity was carried out, as well as rooms of a cultural character associated with domestic rituals and banquets (Belarte et al. 2009: 98–9).

In the mid-Iberian period a clear standardization of the house model took place: a process of complexification of the domestic space and a territorialization of communities, with clear hierarchical structuring of the settlements (Sanmartí and Santacana 1994; Belarte 1997, 2009; Grau 2002; Sala 2005; Bonet et al. 2007; Asensio et al. 2009; Mata et al. 2009). In the better-studied territories, this hierarchy reflects similar situations, identifying great nuclei of the first order, or cities; nuclei of the second order, or minor towns and villages; small fortified nuclei; settlements of specialized function; and small farms or nuclei of rural settlements (Belarte et al. 2009: 99). This hierarchy is documented within the settlements themselves, by the houses and residential districts of the Iberian aristocratic elites as well as the humbler and more discreet households of farmers and craftsmen (Figure 8.4).

Photo of an Iberian settlement of Calafell presenting the levels of houses inside a closed perimeter.

Figure 8.4 Iberian settlement of Calafell (Alorda Park, Catalonia): in the northwest corner we can see the aristocratic house (Didpatri).

The complex houses reveal greater internal compartmentalization, larger dimensions, and architectonic care. They also feature prestige elements (column bases, signinum paving, wall coverings) and display imported goods. The construction of such residences frequently necessitated the appropriation of collective spaces and structures, entailing the privatization of access to the defensive system or the occupation of public routes of circulation. This dynamic not only reveals a desire for socio-spatial differentiation but implies an acceptance of such differentiation on the part of the community (Belarte et al. 2009: 119).

As in the case of the northwest, this material reality was connected to increases in agrarian productivity and technological development (here from the sixth century BC), processes that generated an increase in surpluses and production systems that would be controlled by aristocratic elites, by particular lineages that segregated the community.2

The same model was repeated during the mid-Iberian phase in the Celtiberian area of the Alto Duero (Jimeno 2009: 195–8, fig. 5) and in the mid-Ebro valley, where settlements with a central street have a long historical development; paradigmatic sites such as Los Castellares of Herrera de los Navarros demonstrate the effectiveness of this settlement model and the continuity of a social structure ingrained in the time and the territory (Burillo Mozota and Sus Giménez 1986; Burillo Mozota and Ortega 1999; Ortega 1999, 2006; Burillo Mozota 2009). Nevertheless, the prevailing social model stemmed from a more egalitarian tradition, dating from the Late Bronze Age until its disappearance in the late Iberian period, when the social hierarchy materialized definitively. In the Celtiberian state structure, extended and nuclear family groups would still retain their validity as references of identity for individuals, at least in the mid-Ebro valley. Towns such as Los Castellares conformed to a previous architectonic plan, according to which the construction of the settlement commenced with the erection of the wall; a posteriori the internal space was distributed in equal parts and the dividing walls of the houses rose, the only ones that featured rubblework socles. Each family had about 52 m2 which could be divided according to their own criteria (Burillo Mozota 2009: 104–5, figs. 22–4). Unlike other areas of the peninsula, the population increase was not resolved by the extension of the enclosures of the fortified towns, but by means of processes of division and integration that gave rise to settlements of a new layout (Burillo Mozota and Ortega 1999: 130; Ortega 1999, 2005). The community established in these new hill forts maintained its kinship relations with the home community, based on the formation of groups by patrilineal bloodline.

From the fourth century BC the interior space distribution of the hill forts of the Alto Duero closely followed this same model, with a high standardization of these spaces of equal area. There gradually came about greater internal compartmentalization and a homogenization of urban modules, which entailed a greater regularization of public and private spaces, with the hearth arranged in the central zone and long benches in various locations. The trifunctional model of the Celtiberian peasant house, having rectangular layout, triple compartmentalization, and a cellar and/or silo, was now consolidated in the fourth to third century BC (Jimeno 2009, 207). This domestic architecture stemmed from processes of economic diversification and agrarian intensification, as well as from the foundation of new settlements connected with productive agricultural zones at the expense of traditional livestock practices (Arenas 2007).

On the eastern plateau there is a good example of the changes that occurred over the long duration of the Celtiberian organizational model of domestic space. I refer to Ceremeño de Herrería (Cerdeño and Juez 2002): see Figure 8.5. In its first stage of occupation, a central space predominated, free of construction and for public use, and which was surrounded by private and semi-private spaces intended to fulfil the residential and productive requirements of the community. It was organized in a radial fashion with entrances opening toward the aforementioned nuclear space (Arenas 2009: 217, fig. 4). By contrast, the second phase involved the privatization of public space and a linear urban approach in which the entrances of the houses now opened onto straight streets. In addition, there is a notable waterproofing of the domestic units, a marked control of the circulatory routes, and a reduction in the visual relation between constructions. On the town level the monumentalization of the defensive enclosure was part of a strategy of conspicuous consumption, with the aim of strengthening the position of specific groups within the community (Arenas 2009: 218–19). The emergence may therefore be observed of a process of social division that broke with the egalitarian model dominant in Iron I, in which towns such as El Ceremeño 1 were designed to cover all the community’s subsistence requirements, from the construction of living spaces to handicrafts and communal acts.

Sketch of the Celtiberian settlement of El Ceremeno presenting the arrangement of houses within a closed perimeter.

Figure 8.5 The Celtiberian settlement of El Ceremeño.

(Cerdeño and Juez 2002: fig. 54)

On the northern plateau, in the Vetton area during Iron II, the rectangular layout became widespread and a model of an internally partitioned modular house was established which is considered to show a clear orientalizing influence (Fernández Gómez 2008: 192–3; Ruiz Zapatero 2009: 233). At later stages great agglomerations that reproduced the Celtiberian pattern appeared, such as Raso de Candeleda (Fernández Gómez 1986, 1991) or Mesa de Miranda; in the latter settlement a great aristocratic house patio has been excavated (González-Tablas 2008: fig. 5; Ruiz Zapatero 2009: 234, fig. 8) that again seems to reproduce the orientalizing prestige architecture of Extremadura and the southwestern peninsula. This is represented in the house model that features modules around a central space, as in the well-known case of the palace-sanctuary of Cancho Ruano.

From the fourth century BC the Vaccean and Carpetan cultural landscape of the plateau was increasingly defined as the confluence of several processes: the configuration of great settlements, the adoption of houses of a rectangular layout, the intensification of cereal-based agriculture, the spread of iron instruments, the appearance of wheel-thrown pottery, and the introduction of incineration rituals (Romero et al. 1993, 2008; Sanz et al. 2009). The domestic architecture repeated the tripartite modular models already associated with the Celtiberian and Iberian areas, with a remarkable compartmentalization and internal complexity, including kitchen, storage, milling, and banqueting areas (Morín et al. 2003; Baquedano et al. 2007; Ruiz Zapatero 2009: 237, fig. 193, 2007; Sanz et al. 2009: 256, fig. 2, 263, fig. 6).

House, Family and Community: The Path Toward Social Division

The birth of sedentary and stable towns during the Early Iron Age in the Iberian Peninsula constitutes a radical innovation that modifies the model of implementation of communities existing in the territory during the Bronze Age. The social context in which the hill forts emerged seems to be characterized by fixation of groups to the land, by a process of territorialization defined by the sedentarization of the housing areas. In this sense, during the Early Iron Age a caesura in the process conducive to the establishment of a divided society seems to have taken place; the means of acquisition and display of power entered a crisis in this period, with community preponderant over leaders. In spite of the regional variation that we have found, the domestic world reproduces the same evolutionary model. Therefore, in the Celtiberian as in the Iberian area, during the Early Iron Age a household is documented in which tradition defines the formal housing model, generating models of spatial organization distinguished by a remarkable isomorphism of domestic spaces linked to family units. The egalitarian social logic of the domestic mode of production brought about a democratization of technology, a homogenization of material culture, and a generalization of technical-operational chains. There are no notable differences between the huts, all of which display similar household items typical of the settlements of recent prehistory. Each family group seems to have managed its subsistence. Open-field excavated settlements indicate the predominance of houses of a similar layout and surface area. With some exceptions, the dimensions of the houses suggest that they were occupied by a small number of people, such as a nuclear family.

In the second Iron Age a process of monumentalization of the house is documented that reached its greatest levels in the Mediterranean coastal area during the period known as the mid-Iberian. Archaeologically a noticeable inequality between settlements can be detected: the inequality between family units and differential access to autochthonous and allochthonous resources. There was now the development of complex, compartmentalized housing with hyper-specialized homes that corresponded to hierarchical communities, authentic chiefdoms with dependent communities and a patronage system. These new materialities seem to reveal a deep social transformation with certain extensive domestic groups playing a significant role. It is here that we find the local elites that would be the protagonists in the process of Romanization which unfolded from the second century BC when Iberia became Hispania, with the gradual onset of new civic models of individual, family, and community.

References

  1. Abad Casal, L. 1991. La arquitectura ibérica. Cuadernos de Arte Español 12. Madrid: Historia 16.
  2. Albertos Firmat, M. L. 1977. “Perduraciones indígenas en la Galicia romana: los castros, las divinidades y las organizaciones gentilicias en la epigrafía,” in Actas del Coloquio Internacional sobre el Bimilenario de Lugo. Lugo: Patronato del Bimilenario de Lugo: 17–27.
  3. Álvarez-Sanchís, J. 1999. Los vettones. Biblioteca archaeologica hispana 1. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia.
  4. Álvarez-Sanchís, J. 2003. Los señores del ganado: arqueología de los pueblos prerromanos en el occidente de Iberia. Madrid: Akal.
  5. Arenas Esteban, J. A. 1999. La Edad del Hierro en el sistema ibérico central, España. British Archaeological Reports 780. Oxford: Archaeopress.
  6. Arenas Esteban, J. A. 2007. “Sociedad, ideología y entornos construidos durante la protohistoria del oriente meseteño: el caso de El Ceremeño de Herrería”. Trabajos de Prehistoria 64.1: 121–36.
  7. Arenas Esteban, J. A. 2009. “Arquitectura doméstica y sociedad en contextos del oriente meseteño,” in L’espai domèstic i l’organització de la societat a la protohistòria de la Mediterrània occidental (Ier millenni a. C.). Arqueo Mediterrània 11. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona-Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica: 213–23.
  8. Asensio, D., R. Cardona, C. Ferrer, C. García-Dalmau, J. Morer, J. Pou, and O. Saula. 2009. “L’arquitectura domèstica en el nucli fortificat ilergeta dels Estinclells (Verdú, l’Urgell), segle III a. C.,” in M. del C. Belarte ed., L’espai domèstic i l’organització de la societat a la protohistòria de la Mediterrània occidental (Ier millenni a. C.) Arqueo Mediterrània 11. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona-Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica: 125–42.
  9. Ayán Vila, X.. 2008. “A round Iron Age: the circular house in the hillforts of Northwestern Iberian peninsula,” e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies 6: 903–1003.
  10. Baquedano, E., M. Contreras, G. Märteens, and G. Ruiz Zapatero. 2007. “El oppidum carpetano de El Llano de la Horca (Santorcaz, Madrid),” in A. Dávila ed. Estudios sobre la Edad del Hierro en la Carpetania: registro arqueológico, secuencia y territorio. Zona arqueológica 10. Alcalá de Henares: Museo Arqueológico Regional de la Comunidad de Madrid: 374–94.
  11. Belarte, M. del C. 1997. Arquitectura domèstica i estructura social a la Catalunya protohistòrica. Arqueo Mediterrània 1. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.
  12. Belarte, M. del C., ed. 2009. L’espai domèstic i l’organització de la societat a la protohistòria de la Mediterrània occidental (Ier millenni a C). Arqueo Mediterrània 11. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona-Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica.
  13. Belarte, M. del C., H. Bonet, and F. Sala 2009. “L’espai domèstic i l’organització de la societat ibèrica: els territoris de la franja mediterrània,” in M. del C. Belarte ed. L’espai domèstic i l’organització de la societat a la protohistòria de la Mediterrània occidental (Ier millenni a. C.) Arqueo Mediterrània 11. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona-Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica: 93–123.
  14. Beltrán, F. 1988. “Un espejismo historiográfico: las ‘organizaciones gentilicias hispanas’,” in G. P. Menaut ed., Actas del I Congreso Peninsular de Historia Antigua (1–5 de julio 1986, Santiago). Santiago: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela: 197–237.
  15. Bermejo Barrera, J. C. 1978. La sociedad en la Galicia castreña. Santiago: Follas Novas.
  16. Bermejo Barrera, J. C. 1982. Mitología y mitos de la Hispania prerromana I. Madrid: Akal.
  17. Bermejo Barrera, J. C. 1983. “Etnografía castreña e historiografía clásica,” in G. P. Menaut ed., Estudos de cultura Castrexa e de historia antiga de Galicia. Santiago. USC, IEGPS: 129–46.
  18. Bonet, H., C. Mata, C., and A. Moreno. 2007. “Paisaje y hábitat rural en el territorio edetano durante el ibérico pleno (siglos IV–III a. C.),” in A. Rodríguez and I. Pavón eds., Arqueología de la tierra: paisajes rurales de la protohistoria peninsular. Castuera: Universidad de Extremadura: 247–75.
  19. Burillo Mozota, F. 2009. “Espacio doméstico en la Celtiberia de los belos,” in M. del C. Belarte ed., L’espai domèstic i l’organització de la societat a la protohistòria de la Mediterrània occidental (Ier millenni a C). Arqueo Mediterrània 11. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona-Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica: 165–88.
  20. Burillo Mozota, F. and M. L. de Sus Giménez. 1986. “Estudio microespacial de la casa 2 del poblado de época ibérica Los Castellares de Herrera de los Navarros,” Arqueología Espacial 9: 209–36.
  21. Burillo Mozota, F. and J. Ortega Ortega. 1999. “El proceso de formación de las comunidades campesinas en el sistema ibérico (1400–400 a.C.): algunas consideraciones acerca del concepto de ruptura,” in J. Arenas and M. V. Palacios eds., El origen del mundo celtibérico. Molina de Aragón: Ayuntamiento de Molina de Aragón: 123–41.
  22. Cerdeño, M. L. and P. Juez. 2002. El castro celtibérico de “El Ceremeño” (Herrería, Guadalajara). Monografías Arqueológicas 8. Teruel: SAET.
  23. Colloquium on Microspace 1986. Arqueología espacial: coloquio sobre el microespacio-3. del bronce final a época ibérica. Teruel: Seminario de Arqueología y Etnología Turolense. Colegio Universitario de Teruel.
  24. Correia, V. H. 2009. “Espaços domésticos e modelos urbanos na proto-história da fachada atlántica,” in M. del C. Belarte ed., L’espai domèstic i l’organització de la societat a la protohistòria de la Mediterrània occidental (Ier millenni a C). Arqueo Mediterrània 11. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona-Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica: 271–7.
  25. Dávila, A. 2007. “La Edad del Hierro en el bajo valle del río Henares: territorio y asentamientos,” Zona Arqueológica 10.1: 88–135.
  26. Delibes de Castro, G., F. Romero Carnicero, and A. Morales Muñiz eds. 1995. Arqueología y medio ambiente: el primer milenio a. C. en el Duero medio. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León.
  27. Fernández Gómez, F. 1986. Excavaciones arqueológicas en El Raso de Candeleda (Ávila). Ávila: Institución Gran Duque de Alba.
  28. Fernández Gómez, F. 1991. “Los poblados y las casas,” Revista de Arqueología, Extra. Los Celtas de la Península Ibérica: 42–51. Madrid: Zugarto Ediciones.
  29. Fernández Gómez, F. 2008. “Anatomía de un castro vettón: El Raso de Candeleda (Ávila),” in J. Álvarez Sánchez ed., Arqueología vettona la meseta occidental en la Edad del Hierro. Zona Arqueológica 12. Madrid: Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid: 182–201.
  30. Fernández Martínez, V. and G. Ruiz Zapatero. 1984. “El análisis de territorios arqueológicos: una introducción crítica,” Arqueología Espacial 5: 7–20.
  31. Girard, B. 2009. “Le mobilier métallique des habitats gaulois du Midi comme objet d’interprétation sociale,” in M. del C. Belarte ed., L’espai domèstic i l’organització de la societat a la protohistòria de la Mediterrània occidental (Ier millenni a C). Arqueo Mediterrània 11. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona-Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica, 79–91.
  32. González García, F. J. 2006. “El noroeste de la Península Ibérica en la Edad del Hierro: una sociedad pacífica?” Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos 119: 131–55.
  33. González García, F. Javier. 2009. “Between warriors and champions: warfare and social change in the later prehistory of the north-western Iberian peninsula,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28.1: 59–76.
  34. González Ruibal, A. 2006. “House societies vs. kinship-based societies: an archaeological case from Iron Age Europe,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25: 144–73.
  35. González-Tablas Sastre, F. J. 2008. “La casa vettona: actuaciones recientes en el castro de La Mesa de Miranda (Chamartín de la Sierra, Ávila),” in J. Álvarez-Sanchís ed., Arqueología vettona la meseta occidental en la Edad del Hierro. Zona Arqueológica 12. Madrid: Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid: 202–11.
  36. Grau Mira, I. 2002. La organización del territorio en el área central de la Contestania ibérica. Alacant: Universitat de Alacant.
  37. Isoardi, D.. 2009. “L’apport des données démographiques dans une étude de l’organisation de la société préromaine de France méridionales: une nouvelle lecture des oppida,” in M. del C. Belarte ed., L’espai domèstic i l’organització de la societat a la protohistòria de la Mediterrània occidental (Ier millenni a C). Arqueo Mediterrània 11. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona-Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica, 67–78.
  38. Jimeno, A. 2009. “Espacio doméstico y sociedad en la Celtiberia ulterior,” in M. del C. Belarte ed. L’espai domèstic i l’organització de la societat a la protohistòria de la Mediterrània occidental (Ier millenni a C). Arqueo Mediterrània 11. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona-Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica: 189–211.
  39. Maluquer de Motes, J. E. Huntingford, A. M. Rauret, R. Pallarés, and M. del V. Vila. 1986. Arquitectura i urbanisme ibèrics a Catalunya. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.
  40. Martín, A. 1998. “Les cabanes enfonsades de l’Illa d’en Reixac: el poblament de la primera edat del ferro a Ullastret, Baix Empordà,” Cypsela 12: 47–61.
  41. Mata, C., A. Moreno, G. Pérez, D. Quixal, and J. Vives-Ferrándiz. 2009. “Casas y cosas del campo: hábitat agrícola y estructura social en los territorios de Edeta y Kelin (siglos V–III a.n.e.),” in M. del C. Belarte ed., L’espai domèstic i l’organització de la societat a la protohistòria de la Mediterrània occidental (Ier millenni a C). Arqueo Mediterrània 11. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona-Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica: 143–52.
  42. Mataloto, R. 2004. “Um ‘monte’ da Idade do Ferro na Herdade da Sapatoa: ruralidade e povoamento no Io milénio a.C. do Alentejo Central,” Trabalhos de Antropologia 37. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia.
  43. Mataloto, R. 2009. “Através dos campos: arquitectura e sociedade na Idade do Ferro alto alentejana,” in M. del C. Belarte ed., L’espai domèstic i l’organització de la societat a la protohistòria de la Mediterrània occidental (Ier millenni a C). Arqueo Mediterrània 11. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona-Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica: 279–98.
  44. Morín, J., E. Navarro, M. Escolà, F. Sánchez, R. Barroso, C. Fernández, M. López, E. Agustí, and A. Pérez-Juez. 2003. “Urbanismo y vivienda de la II Edad del Hierro en la Comunidad de Madrid,” Bolskan 19: 335–44.
  45. Ortega Ortega, J. 1999. “Microespacio y microhistoria: la arqueología del espacio doméstico,” Arqueología Espacial 21: 101–15.
  46. Ortega Ortega, J. 2006. “Parentesco y sociedad en las comunidades rurales del Sistema Ibérico (s. V-III a. C.)”, in A. Chaín Galán and J. I. de la Torre Echávarri eds., Celtíberos: tras la estela de Numancia: 83–88. Soria: Diputación Provincial de Soria.
  47. Ortega Ortega, J. 2006. “Socios et consanguíneos: dos reflexiones sobre la ciudad, el parentesco y la etnia de la Celtiberia,” in Francisco Burillo ed., Segeda y su contexto histórico: entre Catón y Nobilior (195 al 153 a.C.). Mara: Fundación Segeda: 169–75.
  48. Parcero Oubiña, C. F. J. González García, and X. Ayán Vila. 2011. “Iron Age societies against the state,” in X. L. Armada and T. Moore eds., Atlantic Europe in the First Millennium: Crossing the Divide. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 285–301.
  49. Pereira Menaut, G. 1983. “Los castella y las comunidades de Gallaecia,” Actas del II Seminario de Arqueología del Noroeste (Santiago, 1980). Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura: 167–92.
  50. Pons, E., M. Molist, and W. Cruells. 1994. “Hábitat i habitació a la protohistòria de la Mediterrània nord-occidental,” Cota Zero 10.
  51. Romero Carnicero, F. and J. C. Misiego. 1992. “Los orígenes del hábitat de la Edad del Hierro en la provincia de Soria: las cabañas de El Castillejo de Fuensauco”. 2o Simposium de Arqueología Soriana. Colección de Temas Sorianos 20. Soria: Diputación Provincial de Soria.
  52. Romero Carnicero, F., C. Sanz Mínguez, and Z. Escudero Navarro eds. 1993. Arqueología vaccea: estudios sobre el mundo prerromano en la cuenca media de Duero. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León.
  53. Romero Carnicero, F., C. Sanz Mínguez, and J. Álvarez-Sanchís. 2008. “El primer milenio A.C. en las tierras del interior peninsular,” in F. G. Alonso ed., De Iberia a Hispania. Barcelona: Ariel: 649–732.
  54. Ruiz, A. and M. Molinos. 1993. Los iberos: análisis arqueológico de un proceso histórico. Barcelona: Crítica.
  55. Ruiz, A. and M. Molinos. 2007. Los iberos: análisis arqueológico de un proceso histórico. 2nd edn. Barcelona: Crítica.
  56. Ruiz Zapatero, G. 2007. “Antes del hierro: cultura y sociedad en el centro de la meseta (ca. 1200–500 a.C.),”. Zona Arqueológica 10.1: 36–63.
  57. Ruiz Zapatero, G. 2009. “Casas, comunidades y tipos de sociedad en el área céltica de la Península Ibérica,” in M. C. Belarte ed., L’espai domèstic i l’organització de la societat a la protohistòria de la Mediterrània occidental (Ier millenni a C). Arqueo Mediterrània 11. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona-Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica: 225–43.
  58. Sala Sellés, F. 2005. “Consideraciones en torno a la arquitectura y urbanismo en la Contestania ibérica,” in L. Abad, F. Sala and I. Grau eds., Jornadas de Arqueología Ibérica: Contestania ibérica, treinta años después. Alacant: Universitat d’Alacant: 119–46.
  59. Sanmartí, J. and J. Santacana. 1994. “L’urbanisme protohistòric a la costa de Catalunya,” Cota Zero 10: 27–37.
  60. Sanz, C., G. Delibes, Z. Escudero, F. Romero, and L. C. San Miguel. 1995. “Panorama arqueológico de la Edad del Hierro en el Duero medio,” in G. Delibes et al. eds,. Arqueología y medio ambiente: el primer milenio a. C. en el Duero medio. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León: 49–148.
  61. Sanz Mínguez, C., F. Romero Carnicero, and C. Górriz Gañán. 2009. “Espacios domésticos y áreas funcionales en los niveles sertorianos de la ciudad Vacceo-Romana de Pintia (Pintilla de Duero-Peñafiel, Valladolid),” in M. C. Belarte ed., L’espai domèstic i l’organització de la societat a la protohistòria de la Mediterrània occidental (Ier millenni a C). Arqueo Mediterrània 11. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona-Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica: 253–70.
  62. Ucko, P., R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby eds. 1972. Man, Settlement and Urbanism. London: Duckworth.
  63. Urbina, D., J. Morín, L. A. Ruiz, E. Agustí, and I. Montero. 2007. “El yacimiento de Las Camas, Villaverde, Madrid: longhouses y elementos orientalizantes al inicio de la Edad del Hierro en el valle medio del Tajo,” Gerión 25,1: 45–82.
  64. Wilk, R. and W. Rathje. 1982. “Household archaeology”. American Behavioral Scientist 25: 617–39.

Notes