European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012, 187–216 Amber Sources and Trade in the Prehistory of the Iberian Peninsula MERCEDES MURILLO-BARROSO1 1 Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists 2 AND MARCOS MARTINÓN-TORRES2 Instituto de Historia, CCHS-CSIC, Spain Institute of Archaeology, University College London, UK The use of amber is documented in the Iberian peninsula since the Palaeolithic. The procurement and trade of this fossil resin has often been considered in discussions of long-distance trade and the emergence of social complexity, but so far no comprehensive view of the Iberian evidence has been produced to allow a more overarching interpretive model. This paper presents the Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) characterization of archaeological amber from three Iberian prehistoric sites: a necklace recovered from the megalithic site of Palacio III (Almadén de la Plata, Sevilla), a pommel from PP4 Montelirio (Valencina de la Concepción, Sevilla), and a necklace from the Muricecs de Cellers cave (Llimiana, Pallars Jussà, Lleida). Based on these new data and a review of the literature, we present an overview that outlines fluctuations in the use of amber since the Upper Palaeolithic and demonstrates long-distance amber exchange connecting Iberia with northern Europe and the Mediterranean region since the Chalcolithic period at least. We discuss changes in the origins and cultural use of amber and their implications for the consolidation of trade networks. Keywords: amber, long-distance trade, prehistory, FTIR, Iberian peninsula INTRODUCTION Amber is a soft, fossil, vegetal resin, typically exhibiting pale red or orange colours. Historical terms employed for this material highlight the cultural appreciation of its transparency, colour, and other physical characteristics: for example, the Latin terms are succinum, derived from succus (rubber), or lapis ardens, which refers to its combustibility. The Germanic term reported by Pliny is glaesum, derived from the Anglo-Saxon glaes, the same root as the modern glass – thus noting the translucent or transparent character of amber. The ancient Greeks noticed the electric behaviour of amber when rubbed against other objects, hence the modern term © European Association of Archaeologists 2012 Manuscript received 28 September 2011, accepted 12 January 2012, revised 1 February 2012 electricity, from the Greek ἤλεκτρον (élektron) which means amber. In Spanish, the term employed is ámbar, from the Arabic ‫( ﻋﻨﺒﺮ‬anb’r), meaning ‘which floats on the sea’ (Nava, 2007) and acknowledging its low relative density (1.04–1.1 g/cc), barely higher than that of water (1 g/cc) (Ross, 1998). Magic, esoteric, and curative properties are also commonly attributed to amber, which highlights that the appreciation of this fossil resin may well have gone beyond its colour, translucence, or other physical properties. In Greek mythology, for instance, amber was supposed to be Heliade’s tears, which had been converted into black poplars by Zeus. The myth indicates both an awareness of amber being DOI 10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000009 Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists 188 produced from tree resin, and the links between amber and the supernatural. Amber forms from residual vegetal resins originating chiefly from conifers and some angiosperms, which have over time undergone a process of fossilization and polymerization until they loose all volatile components. The non-volatile components of the resin – diterpenoid (C20) and triterpenoid (C30) – are generally those which fossilize forming extensive, irregular masses of amber (Grimaldi, 2009). When not all the volatile components of the resin are lost, the resulting substance is a mass of resin very similar to amber: copal. This is hardly discernable from amber visually, and hence often used in imitations. However, amber and copal can be distinguished by their molecular composition, and because the latter becomes sticky when in contact with alcohol, whereas the former remains unaffected by it (Guiliano et al., 2007). The process of polymerization took place in the ambers of the Dominican Republic and Mexico some 20 million years ago, although Bray and Anderson (2009) have recently documented amber as old as 320 million years. The molecular composition of amber varies depending on its botanical origins, even though all hardened resins share some common compounds. The composition is generally identified scientifically through pyrolisis (Py)–gas chromatography (GC) and mass spectrometry (MS), which provide a Py–CG–MS fingerprint that is usually characteristic of the original botanic species (Bray & Anderson, 2009; Grimaldi, 2009; Menor-Salván et al., 2010). However, the 320 million year old amber analysed by Bray and Anderson (2009) displayed a molecular composition only documented for angiosperms of a much later origin, of about 200 million years, in the Cretaceous period. This suggests that unrelated plants may produce resins very similar at the molecular level European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 (Grimaldi, 2009), which makes the determination of the botanic origins of amber more difficult. Not all vegetal resins fossilize as amber. In Europe, most amber is formed from the resin of the extinct Pinus succinifera (hence its denomination as succinite). In modern times, amber only forms from two species: the Kauri of New Zealand and a leguminous Hymenaea courbaril of Eastern Africa and Central and South America (Ross, 1998; Grimaldi, 2009). However, amber deposits are relatively abundant across the world, with the most famous being around the Baltic Sea, Russia, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Spain. One of the most valued and exploited sources is the Baltic Sea, whose amber was traded widely since prehistory, as discussed below. However, it should be borne in mind that the common denomination ‘Baltic amber’ is not restricted to the current Baltic Sea. Even though this amber did form some 70 million years ago in the area currently covered by the Baltic Sea, geological phenomena such as the movement of tectonic plates during the Ice Age or fluvial erosion facilitated the movement of succinite towards both southern and northern areas reaching as far as the east coast of England and the Black Sea (Beck et al., 1971). Even so, the amber from the Samland peninsula (Kalingrad) constitutes about 90 per cent of all the amber available from European deposits (Palavestra & Krstić, 2006); thus, regardless of the movement of amber masses through natural phenomena, the bulk of the Baltic amber still remains in the Baltic Sea area. This continues to be the most extensively exploited deposit, yielding about 4000 kg of amber every year. In the Iberian peninsula, several amber deposits have been identified: ÁlvarezFernández et al. (2005) and Peñalver et al. (2007) documented over forty Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists Murillo-Barroso and Martinón-Torres – Amber Sources and Trade in Iberia palaeontological localities with Cretaceous amber on the Cantabrian coast and a further eight localities in surrounding areas; Rovira i Port (1994) documented geological amber in the hinterland of Barcelona, and Domínguez Bella et al. (2001) identified amber in the area of Puerto del Boyar, Grazalema, Cádiz; geological amber has also been documented around Guadalajara in central Spain (Cerdeño et al., in press) even though not in the abundance documented in the northern regions. Among the most important deposits, those of Peñacerrada (Basque Country and Burgos), San Just (Teruel), and El Soplao (Cantabria) may be highlighted. It is therefore surprising that exogenous amber was used in the Iberian peninsula when the same raw material was available in local resources. The hardness of Spanish amber ranges 2–2.4 on the Mohs scale, compared with a range of 2–3 for Baltic amber, so there does not appear to be a significant difference in quality that might justify the choice of foreign amber. The reasons for the resort to foreign amber must respond to changing socio-economic or cultural reasons much more than to the physico-chemical properties of the resin. Modern studies of amber from the Iberian peninsula began in the mid-1990s, when researchers from the Museo de Ciencias Naturales in Álava discovered in Peñacerrada one of the most important deposits of Cretaceous amber (Alonso et al., 2000). In 2005, a team of researchers coordinated by the University of Barcelona started a systematic study of deposits of Cretaceous amber in the peninsula. In 2008, a team from the Instituto Geológico y Minero of Spain discovered an amber deposit with previously unknown Cretaceous insects and an excellent state of preservation in the cave of El Soplao, near Rábago, Cantabria, with an exceptional abundance of the 189 unusual blue amber. Amber from this site was characterized by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and GC– MS in an attempt to identify the botanical origins. The resulting study suggests that this amber may derive from the extinct coniferous tree Frenelopsis as well as from other species yet to be determined (Menor-Salván et al., 2010). Although written sources indicate that the physical and chemical properties of amber were well-known in antiquity, archaeological data show the use of amber for personal adornment several thousand years earlier in Upper Palaeolithic huntergatherer societies. Examples of such early use are the pendant with engraved decoration from West Zealand, Denmark, and the anthropomorphic amulets from Joudkrante, Lithuania (Fraquet, 1987). Past knowledge and use of amber are also documented archaeologically in the Iberian peninsula from the Upper Palaeolithic. Since this period, the abundance and cultural uses of amber appear to vary, also showing significant geographic patterns. This article starts with a brief review of the methods employed to characterize and source amber, before presenting three analytical studies of Iberian archaeological amber. The new data are then contextualized more broadly in our knowledge of the amber exchange in European prehistory. The last section comprises a synthesis of our knowledge of archaeological amber in the Iberian peninsula, highlighting spatial and temporal variations in its appreciation, procurement, and contexts of deposition. Some hypotheses are presented to explain these patterns, as well as some pointers for future research. DETERMINING THE OF GEOLOGICAL ORIGINS AMBER The characterization of Baltic amber or succinite has attracted much attention Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists 190 since the nineteenth century. Towards the end of this century, Helm (1877) proposed that Baltic amber could be identified on the basis of its levels of succinic acid. According to him, Baltic amber should contain between 3 and 8 per cent, whereas amber from other sources should contain less or no succinic acid. Partly following this approach, Siret (1913: 39) analysed amber from the Iberian Southeast and attributed a Baltic origin to it, in spite of a succinic acid content of only 2 per cent. This method of provenancing amber was invalidated by the work of Beck and colleagues (between the 1960s and 1980s), when they demonstrated that both Romanian amber or ‘rumanite’, and Sicilian amber or ‘simetite’, contained significant quantities of this acid (Beck et al., 1964, 1965, 1978; Beck, 1970). Rottländer (1970) also noted that the levels of succinic acid depended mostly on the times and rates of fossilization and oxidation, and could therefore not be used as a proxy of provenance. After these studies, this approach to amber sourcing was abandoned. Nevertheless, the level of succinic acid in amber does have a bearing on the European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 determination of its botanical origins. The molecular structure of amber varies depending on its botanical source; on this basis, fossil resins have been classified into five general categories (Grimaldi, 2009). The most common types of amber belong to class I, based on the polymerization of their labdanoid diterpenes (aromatic hydrocarbons). This class can be further subdivided with regard to the stereochemical nature of the labdanoids and the presence/absence of succinic acid in their macromolecular structure. Ambers with a regular polylabdanoid structure (Figure 1a) and containing succinic acid fall into subgroup Ia (including, among others, Baltic amber); those with a similar structure but lacking succinic acid constitute subgroup Ib (most common ambers); and those in Ic are based on polymers of enantio-series labdanoids (Figure 1b) and also lack succinic acid (Bray & Anderson, 2009). As an organic resin, amber is generally characterized by FTIR. The extended use of this technique is justified by the fact that it is one of the best methods for the identification and classification of resins, it requires a relatively small amount of Figure 1. Regular labdanoid structure and ent-labdanoid structure. Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists Murillo-Barroso and Martinón-Torres – Amber Sources and Trade in Iberia sample (approximately 2 mg), and it allows the discrimination between Baltic and other amber sources, as discussed below (Beck et al., 1964, 1965; Beck, 1965, 1982). Other techniques, such as GC, thin-section chromatography, MS or nuclear magnetic resonance, Fouriertransform Raman spectroscopy, or neutron activation analysis can yield similar or complementary results (Stout et al., 2000; Palavestra & Krstić, 2006; Teodor et al., 2010). However, FTIR remains the fastest, simplest, and cheapest approach to the identification of amber. It is even possible to do away with sample preparation, through the use of attenuated total reflection with a diamond crystal (Guiliano et al., 2007). Beck and his team tried to characterize Baltic succinite through the analysis of 120 reference samples by FTIR, including 69 samples from the Baltic and 51 from other regions (Beck et al., 1964, 1965, 1971; Langenheim & Beck, 1965; Beck, 1982). They found that 68 out of the 69 Baltic samples showed the same feature: an intense absorption peak in the 1160– 1150 cm−1 range of the FTIR spectrum that was invariably preceded by a flat band between 1250 and 1180 cm−1, henceforth 191 named ‘Baltic shoulder’ (Figure 2). The 1160–1150 cm−1 peak is due to the tension of the simple C–O bond of the ester group, while its intensity and precise location on the cm−1 axis vary depending on the influence exerted by the ester C = O double bond (Guiliano et al., 2007). Even though the 1160–1150 cm−1 absorption peak has been observed in samples of different sources, the Baltic shoulder has only been documented in European samples from this region, hence providing an excellent criterion for provenance studies. Although this feature has been noted in FTIR spectra of North American (Beck, 1982) and Asian resins (Savkevich, 1981), these sources are irrelevant to the study of the amber trade in European prehistory. The degree of inclination of the Baltic shoulder has been related to the degree of preservation of the resin, with a zero degree of inclination denoting wellpreserved resins and the negative increase of the band being directly correlated to the degree of oxidation of the succinite (Stout et al., 1995; DomínguezBella et al., 2001). The characteristic spectrum of Sicilian amber or simetite has also been defined by Figure 2. FTIR spectrum of a reference sample of Baltic amber. Note the absorption peak in 1160– 1150 cm−1 preceded by the ‘Baltic shoulder’ between 1250 and 1180 cm−1. Spectrum provided by E. Stout (Amber Research Laboratory). Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists 192 Beck and Hartnett (1993) and can be identified by FTIR. Initially, it seemed impossible to obtain a reliable Sicilian fingerprint by FTIR analyses owing to the diversity of patterns observed and to the fact that one of the peaks which appeared in many spectra at around 890 cm−1 corresponds to an exocyclic carbon–carbon double bond that is highly vulnerable to oxidation. However, Beck and Harnett showed that the variability observed was partly a result of the erroneous classification of some copal and Baltic amber as simetite. Once these samples were discarded, they were able to better define the pattern of simetite spectra on the basis of 130 secure samples. They concluded that simetite shows its main absorption peaks in the diagnostically useful region of 1300–1100 cm−1, with a maximum absorption peak at 1241 ± 5 cm−1 and a secondary absorption peak – usually less intense – at 1181 ± 5 cm−1 (Figure 3). They also observed that none of the Sicilian samples showed the intense peak at around 890 cm−1, even though some samples did show a weak band in this area, probably due to the fact that the original resin could have had exocyclic methylene groups subsequently lost by degradation processes (Beck European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 & Hartnett, 1993: 41). They concluded that an intense absorption peak at 890 cm−1 was more common in copal, while Baltic amber showed a weak one. CASE STUDIES New analyses of amber from three archaeological sites are presented here, before incorporating them in a broader review. The first one stands out because of the context in which the amber was found: a megalithic monumental burial with an Iron Age cremation; the second one, because of the typology of the artefact – a possible pommel – which stands out in stark contrast to the ubiquitous beads recorded at most sites; and the third site is significant because of the large amount of amber recovered – 135 beads. The megalithic site of Palacio III (Almadén de la Plata, Sevilla) The first amber artefacts studied and reported here were recovered during archaeological excavations by the universities of Sevilla and Southampton in the funerary complex of Palacio III. The funerary structures of Palacio III were all Figure 3. FTIR spectrum of a reference sample of simetite. Note the absorption peak at 1240 cm−1 and the secondary absorption band at 1180 cm−1. Spectrum provided by E. Stout (Amber Research Laboratory). Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists Murillo-Barroso and Martinón-Torres – Amber Sources and Trade in Iberia excavated on a small mound of 40 m length and 7 m height with a south-east orientation. The earliest structure is a megalithic chamber burial or ‘passage grave’, 5 m long and trapezoidal in plan, which appeared to have been looted. No datable evidence was recovered and the stratigraphy was disturbed, so there is no precise date for this structure, although architecturally it seems the earliest one. The only prehistoric item found was a Chalcolithic plate which, according to the excavators, is likely to be related to a secondary use of the passage grave. At the opposite end of the mound, there was a Chalcolithic tholos built of slate slabs, with a circular chamber, 2.5 m in diameter, and a 2 m long corridor. A well-preserved votive offering was documented inside the tholos with more than 150 items, including stone objects, ceramic vessels, as well as ornamental or symbolic items such as an anthropomorphic idol. 193 Between these two structures, a roughly quadrangular Iron Age cremation pit was identified (García Sanjuán & Wheatley, 2002, in press). The assemblage of particular relevance here was a small ‘treasure’ or hoard that appeared, in situ and undisturbed, under one of the fallen orthostats of the megalithic chamber. This group of materials, thought to be contemporary with the Iron Age cremation, included three quartz items (a cornaline bead and two prisms of, respectively, prasium and transparent quartz), two small iron fragments, a silver pendant, two simple silver rings, a further silver ring with a bezel, a bronze needle, a small ceramic sherd, and over a dozen amber beads of various sizes (Figure 4a). The typology of some of these artefacts indicated strong orientalizing features, typical of this region and period (see Murillo-Barroso et al. (in press) for the general study and characterization of this Figure 4. Amber objects analysed for this study. (a) Amber beads from the ‘hoard’ of the Megalithic complex of Palacio III (Almadén de la Plata, Sevilla). (b) Amber knob from a tholos of the PP4 Montelirio (Valencina de la Concepción, Sevilla). (c) Amber beads from the Muricecs cave (Llimiana, Pallars Jussà, Lleida). 194 European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 assemblage, and Forteza et al. (2008) for the lithic items). Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists The Muricecs de Cellers cave (Llimiana, Pallars Jussà, Lleida) Muricecs de Cellers is a karstic cave with an overall length of 390 m, divided into several units. It has a large opening of 3 × 4 m and a 28 m long gallery that ends at the so-called ‘Sala de Muricecs’, the largest chamber in the cave at 25 × 18 × 9 m. This room is connected through various openings with an upper level, leading on to other galleries (Gallart i Fernàndez, 2006). A total of forty-one bronze artefacts have been recovered from the cave, currently deposited at Museu de Valls, Alt Camp, and under study by Josep Ramón Gallart i Fernàndez (Direcció General del Patrimoni Cultural, Generalitat de Catalunya) and Ignacio Montero Ruiz (CCHS-CSIC, Madrid). Based on their typology and parallels in southern France, these artefacts have been dated to the Middle Bronze Age (around 1400–1200 cal BC) (Gallart i Fernàndez, 2006). The bronze artefacts were associated with 135 amber beads, as well as a further ten dentalium beads, two beads of shell and two of glass. Some of these beads show copper corrosion products on their surface, as shown in Figure 4b. Most of the amber beads are flat, circular, and small (between 0.5 and 1 cm diameter), except for seven larger ones – six of them rounded, and one quadrangular. Plan Parcial 4 Montelirio (Valencina de la Concepción, Sevilla) The last amber sample reported here (Figure 4c) was discovered during excavations at a tholos of the necropolis of the Valencina de la Concepción site, in the delimited area known as ‘Plan Parcial 4 (PP4) Montelirio’. It is currently held at the Museo Arqueológico Provincial, Sevilla. The ongoing study of the archaeological materials of these excavations is being coordinated by Leonardo García Sanjuán of the University of Sevilla. Valencina de la Concepción, located under the modern-day village of Valencina de la Concepción and partly under Castilleja de Guzmán (Sevilla), is one of the most important Iberian Chalcolithic sites. The site is about 300 ha in area, although the fact that it lies under the modern villages makes extensive excavation difficult, and its structures are known only partially. The site has been traditionally divided into two main areas: a habitational and productive area, and a necropolis (Vargas, 2004) – although this spatial patterning has been questioned recently (Costa Caramé et al., 2010). The necropolis is composed of various funerary structures, the largest ones being the megalithic burials of La Pastora, Matarrubilla, Ontiveros, and Montelirio; the last one is currently under excavation. Around the Montelirio megalith, another sixty-one inhumations were documented and the area, known as ‘Plan Parcial 4’ was recently excavated. The Chalcolithic tholos where the amber was recovered consists of a circular chamber, 2.25 m in diameter, and a 2.25 m long corridor. It contained the remains of a single individual adorned with red pigments and accompanied by a deposit including flint knives, a flint halberd, a few bone vessels, an elephant dentalium, and a small hemispherical amber artefact. The latter piece is dark red and translucent. It has an internal diameter of 30.3 mm and an external diameter of 42.5 mm; its maximum thickness is 17.4 mm (Murillo-Barroso & García Sanjuán, in press). The item has been provisionally interpreted as the pommel of a handle, perhaps belonging to a halberd. Its closest typological parallels are: Murillo-Barroso and Martinón-Torres – Amber Sources and Trade in Iberia the amber dagger pommel from the burial of Hammeldon in Devon (UK) – although the latter was decorated with gold nails – and the amber pommel from Manton (Preshute) (Beck & Shennan, 1991: 79). Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists ANALYTICAL METHOD AND RESULTS In order to investigate the origins of the prehistoric amber found at these Iberian sites and also the internal homogeneity of the amber bead assemblages, we took four samples from four beads from Palacio III, a further four samples from beads from the Muricecs necklace, and one sample from the PP4 pommel, all for FTIR analyses. Approximately 2 mg of analyte were ground by hand using an agate mortar and mixed with a small amount of KBr, before pressing the mixture in a 13 mm diameter mould in order to produce 1 mm thick discs. The specimens were analysed using a Perker Elmer System 2000 FTIR spectrometer at the Wolfson Archaeological Science Laboratories of the UCL Institute of Archaeology. The data were collected as infrared transmission spectra after scanning each specimen fifty times in the range 4000–370 cm−1, with a resolution of 4 cm−1. The four samples from Palacio III yielded very similar spectra, indicating that all the beads were manufactured using the same type of resin. The same applies to the four samples from Muricecs. As regards the origins of the raw material, all eight spectra show the typical Baltic shoulder discussed above, i.e. an intense absorption peak in the 1160–1150 cm−1 range, preceded by a characteristic band between 1250 and 1180 cm−1. The Baltic origin of the amber used to manufacture these beads seems therefore unquestionable. Only one of the spectra from Muricecs appears slightly different, most notably in that the peak at 1400 cm−1 195 seems less marked. However, this feature may well be due to poorer preservation, and all the diagnostic features of Baltic amber remain observable (Figure 5). The FTIR spectrum of the Montelirio pommel shows totally different features in the 1250–1150 cm−1 range, hence a Baltic origin can be dismissed (Figure 6). The spectrum also differs from that of Cretaceous amber from the north of the Iberian peninsula published by Peñalver et al. (2007). Amber from this region typically displays two absorption peaks in the 1250–1150 cm−1: one at 1160–1150 cm−1, similar to that of Baltic amber; and another between 1250 and 1180 cm−1, in the area where Baltic amber shows its characteristic shoulder. It also shows two absorption peaks at around 1020 and 960 cm−1 which are not present in Montelirio spectrum, and an intense transmission peak at around 1400 cm−1. Neither does the Montelirio spectrum match the geological amber from Puerto del Boyar (Cádiz) published by Domínguez Bella et al. (2001: 627). This presents bands at around 1600, 1450, 1075, and 875 cm−1 which do not appear in the Montelirio spectrum. Another relevant geological sample, from La Clusa (Vilada, Barcelona), has been analysed by Rovira i Port (1994: 79). Unfortunately, the superficial description and low quality of the spectrum published make any comparison difficult, but visually it does not appear to be a match for the Montelirio spectrum either. Lastly, the FTIR spectra of geological amber from Guadalajara recently analysed by Cerdeño et al. (in press) do not show the characteristic peaks at around 1245 and 1175 cm−1 which are present in the Montelirio sample, so this area of central Spain may also be dismissed as a source. The spectrum obtained from the Montelirio sample shows two peaks in the region of interest: one at 1245 cm−1 and a Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists 196 European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 Figure 5. Transmittance FTIR spectra of amber samples from Muricecs, Palacio III, and one reference spectrum of Baltic amber provided by E. Stout (Amber Research Laboratory). The area of the characteristic ‘Baltic shoulder’ is highlighted in grey. Figure 6. Transmittance FTIR spectrum of the amber sample from Montelirio and two reference spectra of simetite provided by E. Stout (Amber Research Laboratory). The areas of the most significant peaks discussed in the text are highlighted in grey. Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists Murillo-Barroso and Martinón-Torres – Amber Sources and Trade in Iberia secondary band at 1172 cm−1. In this, the Montelirio spectrum strongly resembles those of reference Sicilian amber or simetite, which, as discussed before, show a diagnostic absorption peak at 1241 ± 5 cm−1 and a secondary one at 1181 ± 5 cm−1 (Figure 6). A weak absorption peak can also be seen at 887 cm−1 in the Montelirio spectrum. Although this feature is normally absent in simetite, Beck and Hartnett (1993, see discussion above) noted that a few samples of simetite did have a slight band here, which could be a consequence of the degradation of exocyclic methylene groups in the resin. Furthermore, Guiliano et al. (2007) have shown that this band disappears with thermal exposure, which confirms that the presence or absence of this feature is not a reliable proxy for provenance. All in all, having dismissed other possibilities, and considering that the Montelirio sample matches the simetite in the most diagnostically useful region, we propose that the origin of this amber is indeed Sicilian. Further archaeological amber samples from Iberia have revealed patterns similar to those of simetite, with peaks at 1241 ± 5 and 1181 ± 5 cm−1 as well as an absence of an absorption at 890 cm−1. These include the amber from the Neolithic megalithic tombs of Alberite (Cádiz), Mamoa V (Portugal), and Chousa Nova (Pontevedra). A Sicilian provenance was proposed in the original publication for the amber beads found in Alberite (Dominguez Bella et al., 2001); while Vilaça et al. (2002) and Dominguez-Bella and Bóveda-Fernández (2011) acknowledged the resemblance with simetite but noted that a local origin from botanical sources similar to the Sicilian simetite should not be rejected either. In this respect, the botanical sources of simetite are hard to assign: Beck et al.’s (2003) study concluded that all simetite comes from some kind of leguminosae but neither genus nor 197 species could be defined, either because the resin had undergone severe transformations during fossilization or because the source tree is nowadays extinct (Beck et al., 2003). Whatever the case, all the Iberian geological amber hitherto analysed shows different patterns and has been shown to be of a Cretaceous origin, while simetite is a Terciarian amber, thus the hypothesis of a local origin for these beads is not supported by current evidence. At least until local amber showing the same characteristic spectrum is discovered and analysed, a Sicilian provenance remains the most probable option for both the Montelirio pommel and for the other artefacts mentioned above. SOURCES, EXCHANGE AND VALUE OF AMBER IN THE IBERIAN PENINSULA: A DIACHRONIC PERSPECTIVE The broader European context The case studies presented above add to a growing but still meagre body of analytical data pertaining to prehistoric amber finds from Iberia. While any overarching perspective will hence remain preliminary, it is worth highlighting some apparent trends that may serve as pointers for future research. In this section we attempt to integrate our new data with the information previously available and scattered in the Iberian archaeological literature. In view of the long-distance links between the Iberian peninsula and Europe evidenced through amber analyses, it is appropriate to begin with a broader European contextualization. As an exotic and prestige item, the use of amber has been considered as an important variable in the study of social complexity in prehistory (Rovira i Port, 1994). However, the use of amber is documented in some regions much earlier than any signs of social stratification. Conversely, as discussed below, amber is totally Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists 198 absent in some contexts with a marked increase in social stratification, such as the Bronze Age in the Iberian Southeast. It is also interesting to highlight the fact that foreign amber is widely documented in the Iberian peninsula, even in areas where this material was available from local resources. The value, use, and exchange of amber thus show important cultural variations over space and time. From a broader perspective, the trade of amber in late prehistoric Europe is relatively well understood. It has been proposed that, between 1900 and 1600 cal BC, contacts existed between Britanny and Wessex whereby the former region supplied amber from Denmark, obtaining metal axes in return. Metal axes European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 progressively replaced amber in Danish tombs, and the latter material came to be used exclusively for exchange (Kristiansen, 2003). Between the Bronze Age and Late Antiquity, Baltic amber would have been a fundamental material in the strengthening of links between the northern European regions and the Mediterranean area. As early as 1925, De Navarro already suggested the existence of an ‘amber route’ in Europe that moved progressively to the East (Figure 7) (De Navarro, 1925). The results of more recent provenance work on archaeological amber from Central Europe and the Mediterranean are broadly in agreement with this scenario, although the coexistence of both imported succinite and local resources in some areas should also Figure 7. Displacement of amber routes to the East. Map elaborated by Antonio Uriarte (CCHS – Spanish National Research Council, CSIC). Adapted from De Navarro (1925) and Palavestra & Krstić (2006). Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists Murillo-Barroso and Martinón-Torres – Amber Sources and Trade in Iberia be considered (e.g. Sprincz & Beck, 1981; Angelini & Bellitani, 2005; Palavestra & Krstić, 2006; Teodor et al., 2010). While it is evident that amber played an important role in developing transEuropean links, determining precisely the trade routes is not as simple as identifying archaeological sites with Baltic amber and joining the dots on a map. This kind of understanding of social exchange responded to a diffusionist conception of external influences as driving forces of cultural change (Palavestra, 2007). It is likely that any single site could have traded in various directions and not exclusively in amber, and that routes varied depending not only on economic, but also on social and cultural, needs (Palavestra & Krstić, 2006; Palavestra, 2007). As Vilaça et al. (2002: 77) have also highlighted, it is more likely that the traditional ‘North– South’ route in Central Europe had in fact ‘tentacular tendencies’ and amber could also have been obtained through indirect contacts. In this sense, the routes proposed by De Navarro (1925) are useful for indicative purposes (as a matter of fact, Baltic amber has been found in Central Europe and the Mediterranean) but they cannot be considered as permanent commercial routes. Kristiansen (2003: 233) contends that, following the collapse of the trade routes previously established between Villanova (Italy) and Fuen (Denmark) towards the end of the eighth century BC, elites in the areas of Denmark and northern Germany lost control of Nordic amber. In a process related to numerous social changes, a new and much more direct route would have been established between the Pomerania region (Poland) and the elites of Hallstatt or the Balkans. The Villanova–Seddin– Fuen route, with important sites such as Lusehøj, would thus be replaced by a Pomerania–Lausitz–Slovenia route. In the latter, centres such as Stična (where 32 per 199 cent of the burials contained amber) would have played an important role, providing amber to the Hallstatt region, the Balkans or Italy. From the sixth century BC, amber became more and more abundant in Italy, with new local workshops that would have supplied the periphery (Palavestra & Krstić, 2006). As a matter of fact, lavish royal tombs in the central Balkans dated to this period include large numbers of amber figurines imported from central Italy (Kristiansen, 2003: 237). According to Kristiansen (2003: 334), this is evidence of a strategy whereby Italian sites began to import raw materials, process them and transform them into prestige items, before selling them to their surrounding regions with a significantly added value. Italian influences, including Mediterranean shells, can also be noticed in the Pomerania region; however, the volume of the archaeological evidence recovered so far does not suggest a massive material interdependence between these two areas (Kristiansen, 2003). Given that amber was only used for prestige items and does not appear to have constituted the prime economic basis of any social system, its economic value should not be overstated – in the sense that it is unlikely to have required a large number of specialists serving an elite. However, it is reasonable to assume that the growth in Baltic amber consumption in Hallstatt and Italian regions would have led to an intensification in the extraction of raw amber on the Baltic coast. Overall, analytical studies, especially by FTIR, have demonstrated that Baltic amber reached Central Europe, Italy, the Balkans, and the Mediterranean coast by the Bronze Age at the latest. The analyses presented in this paper, and further data compiled below, indicate that both Baltic and Sicilian amber reached the Iberian peninsula in late prehistory. Amber, however, has been recovered from Iberian 200 European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 archaeological sites dating to much more remote times. Hence, important questions remain about the interplay between local and exogenous amber, how this may have fluctuated over time in different areas, and the specific cultural values and uses to which this material was put. Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists The Iberian peninsula As in other regions, the identification of archaelogical amber has been used in Iberian prehistory to propose long-distance contacts and Iberian links with northern Europe – typically assuming a Baltic provenance. However, these studies have not usually been supported by analytical data to verify provenance. With the exception of Siret’s early attempt in 1913 (Siret, 1913), it was not until the beginning of the twenty-first century that we began to have systematic provenance analyses of Iberian amber – yet these are still very scarce. Moreover, the discovery of geological sources of amber within the peninsula has broadened the range of possibilities and further reinforces the dangers of assuming amber provenance without supporting analytical evidence. Our own analyses show that amber from different sources was used in Iberia during prehistory, and that sources of amber changed over time – likely a reflection of broader changes in cultural exchange, trade systems, and social structures. In the following paragraphs, we present an overview of amber consumption in prehistoric Iberia and its chronological changes in terms of frequency and supply. Table 1 and Figures 8–10 present a summary of Iberian archaeological sites with amber from the Paleolithic to the Early Iron Age. Given the frequent lack of absolute dates, the dates have often been assigned based on associated archaeological materials; in five cases, the amber appeared totally decontextualized. A further limitation stems from the relative scarcity of analytical studies, with only 22.5 per cent (20) of the assemblages having been subjected to archaeometric analyses aimed at determining their provenance and addressing supply routes. Notwithstanding these challenges and even though the list is unlikely to be comprehensive, this first synthesis of the information offers a starting point to address temporal and spatial variations in consumption and exchange patterns. Amber use is first documented in the Upper Palaeolithic. It is noticeable that its consumption appears confined to the Cantabrian coast (Figure 8), which is precisely the area where the main geological amber deposits have been identified. This pattern thus appears to denote the exploitation of resources available locally, as also indicated by analytical studies (Álvarez et al., 2005; Peñalver et al., 2007). During the Neolithic period, amber finds are reported over a much broader region spanning as far south as Cádiz or Almería. The amber finds from La Encantada (Almería) appear as a prelude to the Chalcolithic cultural expressions of this southern region. Also worthy of special mention is the amber from Alberite (Cádiz). For these beads, both nearby amber deposits in Grazalema (Cádiz) and the more important Cantabrian deposits in the North were dismissed as potential sources on the basis of FTIR analyses (Dominguez-Bella et al., 2001); it was proposed that this material constitutes simetite of Sicilian origin. Similarly, as we have discussed above, FTIR analyses of amber beads from two other Neolithic contexts – Chousa Nova (Pontevedra) and Mamoa V (Portugal) – revealed spectra that strongly resemble those of simetite, and our Montelirio pommel may constitute a later addition to the corpus of Sicilian amber in prehistoric Iberia. Some authors (Vilaça et al., 2002; Dominguez-Bella & Bóveda Fernández, Murillo-Barroso and Martinón-Torres – Amber Sources and Trade in Iberia 201 Table 1. Summary of Archaeological Sites with Published Reports of Amber in the Iberian peninsula from the Palaeolithic to the Fifth Century BC. We have excluded purported Baltic amber beads incrusted in ceramic vessels reported by Cabré Herreros (1931), which have never been analyzed but have recently been suggested to actually constitute glass (Blanco González, 2010). We have also excluded a lion-shaped figurine now in the Museo Arqueológico Provincial of Badajoz because its provenance and date are unknown. No. Site Material Context Analysis and ID Reference Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists Upper Palaeolithic (35,000–8000 BC) 1 Gatzarria (Zuberoa) One cylindrical carved fragment Cave Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 165); Sáenz de Buruaga (1991) 2 Labeko Koba (Arrasate, Guipúzcoa) Cueva Morín (Villanueva, Villaescusa, Cantabria) El Pendo (Escobedo de Camargo, Cantabria) One raw fragment One fragment Cave Cave FTIR retinite Six fragments Cave FTIR retinite Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 165) Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 165) Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 165) 5 Cueva de La Garma A (Omoño, Ribamontán al Monte, Cantabria) Several raw fragments Cave FTIR retinite Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 165); Peñalver et al. (2007: 844) 6 Altamira (Santillana del Mar, Cantabria) One fragment and amber powder identified as pigment Cave MO, DRX, emission spectrography Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 165) 7 Antoliñako koba (Gautegiz-Arteaga, Vizcaya, Euskadi) One buttom with two perforations Cave Aguirre Ruiz de Gopegui (1998–2000); Álvarez et al. (2005: 165) 8 Cova Rosa (Ribadesella, Asturies) Two perforated items Cave Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 165) 9 Las Caldas (Priorio, Oviedo, Asturies) El Castillo (Puente Viesgo, Cantabria) One bead Cave Not specified Cave Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 165) Peñalver et al. (2007: 845) 3 4 10 Mesolithic (ninth to sixth millennia BC) 11 Cabeço da Amoreira (Muge, Salvaterra de Magos, Ribatejo) One raw fragment Mesolithic site Vilaça et al. (2002: 74) Rovira i Port (1994: 71) Neolithic (fifth to fourth millennia BC) 12 Sepulcro tumular de Cal Rajolí (Llobera de Solsones, Solsones, Lleida) One bead Barrow 13 Dolmen de Alberite (Villamartín, Cádiz) Several beads Megalithic tomb FTIR and DRX simetite Dominguez-Bella et al. (2001: 621) 14 Dolmen de Mamoa V de Chã de Arcas (N. Portugal) Chousa Nova (Silleda, Pontevedra) El Juncal (Ubrique, Cádiz) One bead Megalithic tomb FTIR simetite Fifteen beads Barrow FTIR simetite One bead Megalithic tomb Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 163); Vilaça et al. (2002: 62) Dominguez-Bella and Bóveda Fernández (2011) Gutiérrez López (2007: 296) 15 16 Continued 202 European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 Table 1. Continued Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists No. Site Material Context Analysis and ID Reference 17 Orca de Seixas (Moimenta da Beira, Beira Alta) One bead Megalithic tomb Vilaça et al. (2002: 72) 18 Anta dos Pombais (Marvão, Alto Alentejo) Four fragments Tholos Vilaça et al. (2002: 74) 19 Anta Grande do Zambujeiro (Valverde, Évora, Alto Alentejo) Fifty beads Tholos Vilaça et al. (2002: 75) 20 La Encantada 3 (Almizaraque, Almería) Not specified Tholos Molina and Cámara (2009: 53) 21 Necrópolis del Campo de Jockey (San Fernando, Cádiz) Two beads Pit Vijande Vila (2011: 17) Chalcolithic/Bell Beaker (BB) (third millennium BC) Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 166) 22 Trikuaizti I (Murumendi, Beasain, Gipúzcoa) One raw fragment Megalithic tomb with BB FTIR Cretaceous amber 23 Larrarte (Murumendi, Beasain, Guipúzcoa) Fragment of a ring Megalithic tomb with BB FTIR succinite Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 166) 24 Gorostiarán E (Aitzkorri, Parzonería de Altzania, Guipúzcoa) One bead (now lost) Megalithic tomb with BB Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 167) 25 Sepulcro tumular de la Fossa del Gegant (Linya, Naves, Solsones, Lleida) Monumento Megalítico de La Velilla (Osorno, Palencia) One bead Megalithic tomb with BB Megalithic tomb with BB Rovira i Port (1994: 69) 26 27 28 Los Millares 4, 7, 12, 63, and 74 (Santa Fé de Mondújar, Almería) Dolmen de Montelirio (Castilleja de Guzmán, Sevilla) Not specified Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 167); Delibes de Castro and Zapatero Magdaleno (1995) Chapman (1991) Several beads Barrows Several beads Tholos Fernández Flores and Aycart Luengo (in press) 29 Necrópolis de Alcalá 3 and 4 (Algarve) Several beads Megalithic complex Lorrio (2009: 287) 30 Atalaião o Atalaia dos Sapateiros (Vila Fernando, Elvas, Alto Alentejo) One bead Chalcolithic site Vilaça et al. (2002: 74) 31 Bela Vista (Colares, Sintra, Estremadura) One bead. Lost. Tholos Vilaça et al. (2002: 74); Da Veiga Ferreira (1966: 5) 32 PP4 Valencina de la Concepción (Sevilla) Pommel Tholos 33 Cova del Frare (Matadepera, Valle occidental, Barcelona) One bead Cave Rovira i Port (1994: 72) 34 Anta de Vale de Antas (Cardigos, Mação, Beira Baixa) One bead Megalithic monument Vilaça et al. (2002: 74) FTIR simetite Murillo-Barroso and García Sanjuán (in press); this paper Continued Murillo-Barroso and Martinón-Torres – Amber Sources and Trade in Iberia 203 Table 1. Continued No. 35 Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists 36 Site Material Anta Grande da Five unspecified Comenda da Igreja items (Montemor-o-Novo, Alto Alentejo) Monumento 3 de Alcalar Five pendants (Mexilhoeira Grande, Portimão, Algarve) Context Analysis and ID Reference Tholos Vilaça et al. (2002: 75); Da veiga Ferreira (1966: 6) Tholos Vilaça et al. (2002: 75); Da veiga Ferreira (1966: 6) 37 Monumento 4 de Alcalar (Mexilhoeira Grande, Portimão, Algarve) Two beads Tholos Vilaça et al. (2002: 75); Da veiga Ferreira (1966: 6) 38 Caño Ronco (Camas, Sevilla) Several beads Megalithic tomb Cabrero García (1985: 3) 39 Los Delgados I Several beads (Fuenteovejuna, Córdoba) Megalithic tomb Cabrero García (1988: 46) 40 Cueva III, Quinta do Anjo (Palmela, Setúbal) Cueva 1 del Valle de las Higueras (Toledo) Some raw fragments Several beads Artificial cave 42 Cueva 3 del Valle de las Higueras (Toledo) Several beads Artificial cave FTIR undetermined Berdichewsky Scher (1964) Bueno et al. (2005: 74); Dominguez-Bella (2010: 283) Bueno et al. (2005: 76); Dominguez-Bella (2010: 283) 43 Cova de la Pastora (Alcoy, Alicante) One pendant and two beads Cave Mederos (1993–4: 155) 44 Blanquizares de Lebor (Totana, Murcia) One bead Cave Mederos (1993–4: 155); cf. Arribas (1956: 89) 45 Tumba E3 del Paraje del One bead and Monte Bajo (Alcalá de los one raw fragment Gazules, Cádiz) Artificial cave Lazarich et al. (2010: 199– 200) 41 Artificial cave FTIR undetermined Chalcolithic/Bronze Age (third to second millennia BC) Fragments 46 Dolmen de Las Arnillas (Moradillo de Sedano, Burgos) 47 Sepulcro tumular del Fragments Collet (Su, Riner, Solsones, Lleida) Cova de la Roca del Frare One bead (La Llacuna, L’Anoia, Barcelona) Llano de la Sabina 97 One bead (Guadix, Granada) 48 49 Megalithic tomb Barrow Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 167); Delibes de Castro et al. (1993: 38); Delibes de Castro et al. (1986: 33); Gutiérrez Morillo (2003: 140) Rovira i Port (1994: 71) Cave Rovira i Port (1994: 73) Tholos Lorrio (2009: 177) 50 Llano de la Sabina 99 (Guadix, Granada) One perforated disc. Lost Tholos Lorrio (2009: 179) 51 Llano de la Teja 18 (Fonelas, Granada) Oval item Tholos Lorrio (2009: 196) 52 Sepulcro tumular de I de el Bosc (Correà, L’Espunyola, Bergueda, Barcelona) Nineteen beads Barrow Rovira i Port (1994: 70) 53 Sepulcro de la Pera (Ardevol de Pinos, Solsones, Lleida) One bead Megalithic tomb Rovira i Port (1994: 72) Continued 204 European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 Table 1. Continued No. Site Material Context Analysis and ID Reference 54 Cova de El Garrofet (Querol, L’Alt Camp, Tarragona) Not specified Cave Rovira i Port (1994: 73) 55 Castell Morrás, Zaragoza Not specified Barrow Rovira i Port (1994: 83) Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists Bronze Age (second millennium BC) 56 Los Lagos I (Campoo de Suso, Cantabria) Fragments Tholos FTIR Cretaceous 57 Pedra Cabana (El Vilar de Cabo, Cabo, Alt Urgel, Lleida) Two fragments Barrow FTIR succinite Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 178); Rovira i Port (1994: 70) 58 Cabana del Moro de Colomera (Cabó, lleida, Cataluña) Five beads Barrow FTIR succinite Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 178); Rovira i Port (1994: 70) 59 Cova de Can Mauri (La One bead Valldan, Berga, Berguedà, Barcelona) 60 Sepulcro tumular de Can Cuca (Su, Riner, Solsones, Lleida) Cova de les Pixarelles (Tavertet, Osona, Barcelona) 61 62 63 Sepulcro tumular de Bullons (Riner, Solsones, Lleida) Muricecs (Llimiana, Pallars Jussà, Lleida) Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 167); Gutiérrez Morillo (2003) Cave Rovira i Port (1994: 70) One moon-shaped pendant One bead and one rectangular plaque with three perforations One bead and some fragments Barrow Rovira i Port (1994: 71) Cave Rovira i Port (1994: 72) Barrow Rovira i Port (1994: 71) 135 beads Cave FTIR succinite This paper Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age (first millennium BC) 64 Trayamar (Málaga) One bead Phoenician hypogeous Phoenician necropolis Schubart and Niemeyer (1976: 125) Garrido Roiz (1978: 45, 185) 65 La Joya (Huelva) Not specified 66 Villaricos (Almería) Not specified Phoenician necropolis Astruc (1951: 32–34; 73–75) 67 Necrópolis del Puig des Molins (Ibiza) Not specified Punic hypogeous Gómez Bellard (1984: 82) 68 Dolmen de Palacio III (Almadén de la Plata, Sevilla) Several beads Megalithic complex 69 Huelva (city) Several beads 70 Necrópolis de Ferrão Vaz (Ourique) Moreirinha (Monsanto, Idanha-a-Nova, Beira Baixa) Fifteen beads Phoenician site Barrows Several beads LBA site 71 FTIR succinite García Sanjuán and Wheatley (2002); Murillo-Barroso et al. (in press); this paper Gonzalez de Canales et al. (2004: 141) Jiménez Ávila (2003: 100) FTIR succinite Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 178); Beck and Vilaça (1995); Vilaça et al. (2002: 67) Continued Murillo-Barroso and Martinón-Torres – Amber Sources and Trade in Iberia 205 Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists Table 1. Continued No. Site 72 Senhora da Guia (Baiões, São Pedro do Sul) Several beads LBA site 73 Necrópolis de Pardieiro (Odemira) Two beads Barrows Álvarez-Fernández et al. (2005: 178); Beck and Vilaça (1995); Vilaça et al. (2002: 65) Jiménez Ávila (2003: 99) 74 Necrópolis de Mealha Nova (Ourique) Several beads Slabbed pit Jiménez Ávila (2003: 102) 75 Necrópolis de Mealha Nova (Ourique) One bead Slabbed pit Jiménez Ávila (2003: 102) 76 Necrópolis de Pardieiro (Odemira) Necrópolis de Fonte Santa (Ourique) Several beads Barrow Jiménez Ávila (2003: 99) Several beads Barrow Jiménez Ávila (2003: 101) 78 Necrópolis de Favela Nova (Ourique) Four beads Barrows Jiménez Ávila (2003: 100) 79 Herrerías II (Guadalajara) One bead LBA necropolis 80 Quinta do Marcelo (Almada, Setúbal) One bead LBA necropolis Cardoso (2004) 81 Túmulo 4 Necrópolis tumular de Pajaroncillo (Serranía de Cuenca) Tesoro de Villena (Alicante) Several beads Megalithic Possible fragments (unconfirmed) Several beads Hoard Lorrio (2009: 288); Almagro (1973); Rovira i Port (1994: 83) Almagro Gorbea (1974: 54) Tholos Vilaça et al. (2002: 72) One bead LBA site Vilaça et al. (2002: 75) Not specified EIA necropolis Rovira i Port (1994: 83) 77 82 83 84 85 Anta do Pinheiro dos Abraços (Bobadela, Oliveira do Hospital, Beira Litoral) Corôa do Frade (Nossa Senhora da Tourega, Évora, Alto Alentejo) Peña Negra (Alicante) Material Context Analysis and ID FTIR succinite FTIR succinite Reference Cerdeño and Sagardoy (2007); Cerdeño et al. (in press) Decontextualized 86 Gruta do Correio-mor (Loures, Estremadura) Pendants Cave Vilaça et al. (2002: 74) 87 Alcarapinha (Vila Fernando, Elvas, Alto Alentejo) Several beads Megalithic Vilaça et al. (2002: 74); Da veiga Ferreira (1966: 6) 88 Barranco da Nora Velha (Nossa Senhora da Cola, Ourique, Baixo Alentejo) Nine beads Tholos Vilaça et al. (2002: 75); Da veiga Ferreira (1966: 6) 89 Cova del Llidoner One bead (Cocentaina, Alicante) Cortes de Baza (Granada) One bead Cave Mederos (1993–4: 155); González (2002–3: 61) Salvatierra and Jabaljoy (1979) 90 Cist Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists 206 European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 Figure 8. Palaeolithic sites with amber objects in Iberia. In grey, sites with samples analysed. The site numbers on the map correspond with those in Table 1. Map designed by Antonio Uriarte (CCHS – Spanish National Research Council, CSIC). 2011) have understandably called for caution in acknowledging that these artefacts could derive from yet undiscovered Iberian amber sources. However, at present we have characteristic spectra of geological amber from northern, northeastern, central, and southern Spain – all of these can be safely rejected as potential sources, and thus Sicilian amber remains the strongest candidate. The reluctance to accept Sicily as the source of amber found in Iberia might reflect aprioristic assumptions regarding the lack of ability of pre-state societies to engage in long-distance exchange. Conversely, if our interpretation is correct, it would come to strengthen the plausibility of early connections with the Mediterranean and continental Europe. Those connections have already been demonstrated in the Chalcolithic through the analysis of ivory items both from Portugal and from Valencina de la Concepción, Sevilla (Schuhmacher et al., 2009, in press), and it would not be impossible for such long-distance contacts to have started in the Neolithic, as suggested by amber finds. Neolithic long-distance contacts across Europe have been evidenced by the analyses of jadeite stone axes and variscite beads from Brittany, whose origins were shown to be in northern Italy and the Iberian peninsula, respectively (Querré et al., 2008) – thus the Iberian peninsula was integrated in longdistance European connections as early as the Neolithic. Simetite and ivory analyses jointly give weight to the proposal that Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists Murillo-Barroso and Martinón-Torres – Amber Sources and Trade in Iberia 207 Figure 9. Archaeological sites from Neolithic to the Bronze Age with amber objects. All sites are megalithic and collective burials. Some have Chalcolithic/Bell Beaker materials, other structures have Chalcolithic and Bronze Age materials, and others just Bronze Age materials. In grey, archaeological sites with samples analysed. Note that Baltic amber is restricted to the North and mainly to Bronze Age sites. The site numbers on the map correspond with those in Table 1. Map designed by Antonio Uriarte (CCHS – Spanish National Research Council, CSIC). trans-Mediterranean connections and long-distance contacts may have occurred in absence of highly stratified or centralized societies. Such connections had already been proposed over forty years ago by Harrison and Gilman (1977), based on the identification of ostrich eggs and ivory in the south of the Iberian peninsula. The nature and spatial distribution of amber-yielding sites changes significantly in the Chalcolithic period (Figure 9). The number of amber artefacts documented increases dramatically during this period, and all of these were invariably recovered from burial mounds. Despite the overall abundance, there is a noticeable lack of finds reported for the central area of the peninsula. Such a spatial distribution may be indicative of predominantly maritime sources of amber, although the area of Cataluña in the Northeast could also have obtained amber through contacts with southern France. This is also the period when we have the earliest unequivocal evidence of Baltic amber in the Iberian peninsula – namely the ring fragments from Larrate (Guipuzkoa) (ÁlvarezFernández et al., 2005). The other two published analyses of Chalcolithic amber, and the seven analyses for earlier periods, are clearly not Baltic, and local origins have been suggested in each case (but see above Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists 208 European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 Figure 10. Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age sites with amber objects. In grey, archaeological sites with samples analysed. The site numbers on the map correspond with those in Table 1. Map designed by Antonio Uriarte (CCHS – Spanish National Research Council, CSIC). for the Sicilian amber exceptions). Whatever the case, the Larrate find points to a change that would become a pattern in the Bronze Age, when all the analyses carried out so far indicate a Baltic origin (with the single exception of a bead from Los Lagos I, Cantabria (Gutiérrez Morillo, 2003)). Even so, we must again acknowledge the relatively small number of analytical results available (seven results for Bronze and Iron Age context finds), and hence the possibility that these initial impressions may be modified in the future. A remarkable feature of the Iberian contexts with ‘Bronze Age’ amber is that none of them correspond to the typical individual burials that characterize this period – a phenomenon also noted for jet and, to a lesser extent, quartz and rock crystal (Costa Caramé et al., 2011). No amber is found in any burials from the Argaric area, where a number of sites have been extensively excavated, nor at the wellknown Bronze Age sites of the peninsular Southwest, La Mancha or the Valencia area. Only one amber bead has been assigned to an individual cist: cist 1 of Cortes de Baza (Granada). However, those tombs had been disturbed and the graves reconstructed with dispersed materials (Salvatierra & Jabaljoy, 1979), therefore this ascription is unreliable. The only reliable contexts where amber appears associated with Bronze Age material is in ‘archaic style’ burial mounds where the funerary rite continues to be collective rather than individual. In several of these structures, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists Murillo-Barroso and Martinón-Torres – Amber Sources and Trade in Iberia materials appear mixed, so the amber cannot be dated precisely; in others, however, the relevant publications note that all the datable material culture can be assigned to the Bronze Age (Table 1). As such, it is possible that these mounds, even if built during the Chalcolithic, would not have been in use until the Bronze Age. Alternatively, it may be suggested that this type of structure was not just re-used during the Bronze Age but also built anew during this period. Whatever the case, it seems that, by the Bronze Age, amber does not hold a key cultural value as an identity marker in the new social relations. Its use, only documented in conservative cultural practices that continue earlier traditions, may be interpreted as a sign of endurance of ancestral traditions, or perhaps as a response by those excluded from the new social practices, ideologies, and value systems of the Bronze Age. Another feature to be highlighted is that, with few exceptions such as the Montelirio pommel, the vast majority of the Chalcolithic amber finds are beads. The use of beads could have had a variety of socio-cultural implications such as the visual expression of identities (age, gender, class, faction), aesthetic values in ornamenting the body, prestige and status, magic, and protective properties against the supernatural, medicinal or symbolic properties, etc. (Thomas, 2010). The social value of amber may have been heightened by its relative scarcity, but in any case it is likely to have been an important element in the symbolic code and funerary behaviour shared by Chalcolithic societies. It is also significant in this sense that in areas such as Portugal, Southeast Iberia, and Southwest Iberia, where amber use is well documented during the Chalcolithic, this material disappears during the Bronze Age. With the single exception of the bead from Los Lagos I (Cantabria), all the Bronze Age 209 amber is found in the area of Cataluña, in the vicinity of the Pyrenees, perhaps responding to stronger cultural links with southern France than with other peninsular areas. It thus seems that the material value system of Bronze Age societies in Cataluña is closer to French than to Iberian (mainly Argaric) models. The typological parallels identified for the metal finds associated with the amber from Muricecs also point in this direction (Gallart i Fernández, 2006). One should also note that three published analyses of Bronze Age amber from Cataluña revealed a Baltic origin, which again indicates links with northern Europe via the South of France. In societies of the Iberian peninsula undergoing a marked process of social stratification during the Bronze Age, such as those of the Southeast, amber was not used by the elites as a prestige or social status marker. The new social relations thus seem to have been manifest in new standards of ideological and symbolic value: the new elites broke with the symbolic expressions of the Chalcolithic (baetyls, anthropomorphic and decorated idols, symbolic decorations on ceramic vessels, ostrich eggs, and, notably, amber), and a new material value system was established (chiefly in the form of metal ornaments and weapons), where amber did not play a role. These seemingly new material and symbolic expressions were not accompanied by other exotic materials such as ivory, ostrich eggshells or jet, previously used in the Chalcolithic. There could be two explanations here, which are not mutually exclusive: on the one hand, there was an important change in the symbolic system of values shared by Iberian communities, and metal artefacts (mainly weapons and ornaments) were preferred as expressions of personal identities and social status (Costa Caramé & García Sanjuan, 2009); on the other hand, there may have been a breakage or disturbance Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists 210 European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 (intentional or not) in the long-distance networks. During the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, we witness an increase in the consumption of amber in Iberia coinciding with a consolidation of European trade routes. Amber seems to regain value as a symbolic or social status marker. Besides its deposition in orientalizing burials such as those of La Joya, Huelva, Villaricos or Trayamar, amber continues to appear in burial mounds that were either re-used or never ceased to be used, as is the case with the Palacio III site reported above and with other Portuguese burial mounds (Figure 10). The three amber assemblages from this period subjected to analyses also reflect a Baltic origin. It is likely that this amber reached the Iberian peninsula via Italy: intense trade routes connecting Andalucía with the Central Mediterranean are well documented for the seventh century BC (Ruíz-Gálvez, 1986; Fernández-Miranda, 1991), seemingly resuming Mediterranean connections that existed in the third millennium BC and which, at least for amber, appeared to have vanished during the second millennium BC. Given the scarcity of the data available, we cannot hypothesize further details about the trade relationships and cultural preferences that may underlie these patterns of amber supply and use. We hope that future analytical work on archaeological and geological amber may be stimulated by the tentative synthesis presented above, so that our initial hypotheses may be reconsidered with the benefit of additional empirical data. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are very grateful to Leonardo García Sanjuán (Universidad de Sevilla), David Wheatley (University of Southampton), and Josep Ramón Gallart i Fernàndez (Generalitat de Catalunya) for making the amber available to us for study. All the FTIR analyses were carried out at the Wolfson Archaeological Science Laboratories of the UCL Institute of Archaeology. The Palacio III samples were analysed by Mercedes MurilloBarroso during her stay as a Marie Curie Fellow (MEST-CT-2004-514509); the other samples were analysed by Louise Iles; all analyses benefitted from valuable technical assistance from Kevin Reeves. This work is framed in the Programme Consolider-Ingenio 2010 (CSD 2007-00058). We are indebted to Edie Stout (Amber Research Laboratory, Vassar College, New York) for the provision of reference spectra on various amber types; to Antonio Uriarte (IH, CCHS – Spanish National Research Council, CSIC) for designing the maps; to Coronada Mora Molina for the data, images and assistance during sampling of PP4 Montelirio; to Teresa Palomar and Javier Peña (IH, CCHS – Spanish National Research Council, CSIC) for their enlightening clarifications on matters of organic chemistry; to Guillermo Curt (Director of the Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Badajoz) for information and pictures of amber in his museum collection; to Aleksandar Palavestra for giving us copyright permission to use his map as the basis of our Figure 7; and lastly to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. REFERENCES Aguirre Ruiz de Gopegui, M. 1998–2000. El yacimiento paleolítico de Antoliñako koba (Gautegiz-Arteaga, Bizkaia): secuencia estratigráfica y dinámica industrial. Avance de las campañas de excavación 1995–2000. Illunzar, 4: 39–81. Almagro Gorbea, M. 1973. Los Campos de Túmulos Pajaroncillo (Cuenca). Aportación al Estudio de los Túmulos de la Península Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists Murillo-Barroso and Martinón-Torres – Amber Sources and Trade in Iberia Ibérica. Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España 83. Madrid: Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Archivos. Almagro Gorbea, M. 1974. Orfebrería del Bronce Final en la Península Ibérica. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 31: 39–100. Alonso, J., Arillo, A., Barrón, E., Corral, J.C., Grimalt, J., López, J.F., López, R., Martínez-Declòs, X., Ortuño, V., Peñalver, E. & Trincão, P.R. 2000. A New Fossil Resin with Biological Inclusions in Lower Creaceous Deposits from Álava (Northern Spain, Basque-Cantabrian Basin). Journal of Paleontology, 74: 158–78. Álvarez-Fernández, E., Peñalver, E. & Declòs, X. 2005. La presencia de ámbar en los yacimientos prehistóricos (del Paleolítico Superior a la Edad del Bronce) de la Cornisa Cantábrica y sus fuentes de aprovisionamiento. Zephyrus, 58: 147–70. Angelini, I. & Bellintani, P. 2005. Archaeological Ambers from Northern Italy: An FTIR–DRIFT Study of Provenance by Comparison with the Geological Amber Database. Archaeometry, 47(2): 441–54. Arribas, A. 1956. El ajuar de las cuevas sepulcrales de los Blanquizares de Lébor, Murcia. Memoria de los Museos Arqueológicos Provinciales, 14: 78–126. Astruc, M. 1951. La Necrópolis de Villaricos. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación Nacional. Comisaría General de Excavaciones Arqueológicas. Beck, C.W. 1965. The Origin of the Amber Found at Gough’s Cave, Cheddar, Somerset. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeology Society, 10(3): 272–76. Beck, C.W. 1970. Amber in Archaeology. Archaeology, 23: 7–11. Beck, C.W. 1982. Physical Methods Used to Determine the Geological Origin of Amber and Other Fossil Resins; Some Critical Remarks: Comments. Physics and Chemistry of Minerals, 8: 146–47. Beck, C.W. & Hartnett, H.E. 1993. Sicilian Amber. In: C.W. Beck & J. Bouzek, eds. Amber in Archaeology. Proceedings of the II International Conference on Amber in Archaeology, Liblice, 1990. Prague: Institute of Archaeology, Czech Academy of Sciences, pp. 36–47. Beck, C.W. & Shennan, S. 1991. Amber in Prehistoric Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 211 Beck, C.W. & Vilaça, R. 1995. The Provenience of Portuguese Archaeological Artefacts – A Case Study from Moreirinha (Beira Baixa). Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia, 35: 209–19. Beck, C.W., Wilbur, E. & Meret, S. 1964. Infra-Red Spectra and the Origin of Amber. Nature, 201: 256–57. Beck, C.W., Wilbur, E., Meret, S., Kossove, D. & Kermani, K. 1965. The Infrared Spectra of Amber and the Identification of Baltic Amber. Archaeometry, 8: 96–109. Beck, C.W., Adams, A.B., Southard, C. & Fellows, C. 1971. Determination of the Origins of Greek Amber Artifacts by Computer-Classification of Infrared Spectra. In: R.H. Brill, ed. Science and Archaeology. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 235–40. Beck, C.W., Greenlie, J., Diamond, M.P., Macchiarulo, A.M., Hannenberg, A.A. & Hauck, M.S. 1978. The Chemical Identification of Baltic Amber at the Celtic Oppidum Staré Hradisko in Moravia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 5: 343–54. Beck, C.W., Stout, E.C. & Wovkulich, K.M. 2003. The Chemistry of Sicilian Amber (Simetite). In: C.W. Beck, I.B. Loze & J. M. Todd, eds. Amber in Archaeology. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Amber in Archaeology, Talsi 2001. Riya: Institute of the History of Latvia Publishers, pp. 17–33. Berdichewsky Scher, B. 1964. Los Enterramientos en Cuevas Artificiales del Bronce I Hispánico. Bibliotheca Praehistorica Hispana, 6. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Blanco González, A. 2010. La definición del Hierro Antiguo en el Castro de las Cogotas (Cardeñosa, Ávila). Consideraciones sobre algunos materiales del Museo Arqueológico Nacional. Complutum, 21(1): 123–43. Bray, P.S. & Anderson, K.B. 2009. Identification of Carboniferous (320 million years old) Class Ic Amber. Science, 326: 132–34. Bueno Ramírez, P., Barroso, B. & Balbín Behrmann, R. 2005. Ritual Campaniforme, Ritual Colectivo: la necrópolis de Cuevas Artificiales del valle de las Higueras, Huecas, Toledo. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 62(2): 67–90. Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists 212 Cabré Herreros, H. 1931. El problema de la cerámica con incrustaciones de cobre y ámbar de las Cogotas y la peninsula Ibérica. In: Institut International d’Anthropologie, ed. XVe Congres International d’Anthro-pologie et d’Archeologie Prehistorique. IVe Session de l’lnstitut International d’Anthropologie, Portugal 21–30 Sept. 1930. Paris: Librairie E. Nourry, pp. 1–11. Cabrero García, R. 1985. El Sepulcro Megalítico de Caño Ronco (Camas, Sevilla) y su Vinculación con el Yacimiento Calcolítico de Valencina de la Concepción. Prehistoria, 1: 1–16. Cabrero García, R. 1988. El Yacimiento Calcolítico de los Delgados. Fuente Obejuna (Córdoba). Córdoba: Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Córdoba. Cardoso, J.L. 2004. A Baixa Estremadura dos Finais do IV Milénio a.C. até à Chegada dos Romanos: Um Ensaio de História Regional. Oeiras: Câmara Municipal de Oeiras. Cerdeño, M.L. & Sagardoy, T. 2007. La Necrópolis Celtibérica de Herrerías III y IV (Guadalajara). Zaragoza: Fundación Segeda. Cerdeño, M.L., Martínez, J.F., Agua, F., Sagardoy, T. & Monasterio, M. in press. Ámbar en la meseta oriental durante el bronce final: yacimientos locales e importaciones Bálticas. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 69(2). Chapman, R. 1991. La Formación de las Sociedades Complejas. Barcelona: Crítica. Costa Caramé, M.E. & García Sanjuán, L. 2009. El papel ideológico de las producciones metálicas en la Edad del Bronce: el caso del suroeste de la Península Ibérica (C. 2200–1500 Cal ANE). Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada, 19: 195–224. Costa Caramé, M.E., Díaz-Zorita, M. & García Sanjuán, L. 2010. El asentamiento de la Edad del Cobre de Valencina de la Concepción (Sevilla). Demografía, organización espacial y metalurgia’. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 67(1): 85–117. Costa Caramé, M.E., García Sanjuán, L., Murillo-Barroso, M., Parrilla Giráldez, R. & Wheatley, D. 2011. Rocas raras en los contextos funerarios del IV-II milenios cal ANE en el Sur de España: una revisión. In: L. García Sanjuán, C. Scarre & D. W. Wheatley, eds. Exploring Time and Matter in Prehistoric Monuments: Absolute European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 Chronology and Rare Rocks in European Megaliths. Proceedings of the 2nd European Megalithic Studies Group Meeting (Seville, Spain, November 2008). Menga: Journal of Andalusian Prehistory, Monograph 1: 253–93. Da veiga Ferreira, O. 1966. Os artefactos pré-históricos de ámbar e sua distribuição em Portugal. Revista de Guimarâes, 76(1– 2): 64–66. Delibes de Castro, G., Rojo Guerra, M.A. & Sanz-Mínguez, C. 1986. Dólmenes de Sedano. II. El sepulcro de corredor de Arnillas (Moradillo de Sedaño, Burgos). Noticiario Arqueológico Hispano, 27: 7–39. Delibes de Castro, G., Rojo Guerra, M.A. & Represa Bermejo, J.I. 1993. Dólmenes de La Lora, Burgos. Guía Arqueológica. Salamanca: Junta de Castilla y León, Consejería de Cultura y Turismo. Delibes de Castro, G. & Zapatero Madgaleno, P. 1995. Sobre la implantación del megalitismo en el valle medio del Duero: el testimonio de La Velilla de Osorno (Palencia). In: M.V. Calleja González, ed. Actas del III Congreso de Historia de Palencia, I. Palencia: Diputación de Palencia, pp. 35–63. De Navarro, J.M. 1925. Prehistoric Routes between Northern Europa and Italy Defined by the Amber Trade. The Geographical Journal, 66: 481–507. Dominguez-Bella, S. 2010. Objetos ornamentales en el Calcolítico del centro de la Península Ibérica. Estudio analítico de las cuentas de collar de los enterramientos prehistóricos del Valle de las Higueras. In: S. Dominguez-Bella, J. Ramos Muñoz, J. M. Gutiérrez López & M. Pérez Rodríguez, eds. Minerales y Rocas en las Sociedades de la Prehistoria. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz, pp. 275–85. Domínguez-Bella, S., Álvarez Rodríguez, M. A. & Ramos Muñoz, J. 2001. Estudio analítico de las cuentas de collar de ámbar del Dolmen de Alberite (Villamartín, Cádiz). Naturaleza química y mineralógica e implicaciones sobre su origen. In: B. Gómez Tubío, M.A. Respaldiza & M. L. Pardo Rodríguez eds. III Congreso Nacional de Arqueometría. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 621–30. Dominguez-Bella, S. & Bóveda Fernández, M.J. 2011. Variscita y ámbar en el Neolítico Gallego. Análisis arqueométrico Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists Murillo-Barroso and Martinón-Torres – Amber Sources and Trade in Iberia del collar del túmulo I de Chousa Nova, Silleda (Galicia). Trabajos de Prehistoria, 68(2):369–80. Fernández Flores, A. & Aycar Luengo, V. in press. El dolmen de Montelirio. Un sepulcro clave para la comprensión del registro de los grandes monumentos funerarios de Valencina de la Concepción-Castilleja De Guzmán. In: L. García Sanjuán, J. M. Vargas Jiménez, V. Hurtado Pérez, T. Ruiz Moreno & R. Cruz-Auñón Briones, eds. El Asentamiento Prehistórico de Valencina de la Concepción (Sevilla): Investigación y Tutela en el 150 Aniversario del Descubrimiento del Tholos de La Pastora. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. Fernández-Miranda, M. 1991. Tartessos: indígenas, fenicios y griegos en Huelva. In: E. Acquaro, ed. Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, 1. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, pp. 87–96. Forteza González, M., García-Sanjuán, L., Hernández Arnedo, M.J., Salguero Palma, J. & Wheatley, D. 2008. El cuarzo como material votivo y arquitectónico en el complejo funerario megalítico de Palacio III (Almadén de la Plata, Sevilla): análisis contextual y mineralógico. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 65(2): 137–50. Fraquet, H. 1987. Amber. London: Butterworths. Gallart i Fernàndez, J.R. 2006. Notícia sobre un nou dipòsit de la cova dels Muricecs de Cellers (Llimiana, Pallars Jussà). Cota Zero, 21: 10–13. García Sanjuán, L. & Wheatley, D.W. 2002. Investigations récentes dans les paysages mégalithiques de la province de Séville, Andalousie: Dolmen de Palacio III. In: R. Joussaume, L. Laporte & C. Scarre, eds. Origine et Developpement du Mégalithisme de l’Ouest de l’Europe (Bougon – 26/30 Octobre 2002). Bougon: Conseil Général des Deux-Sèvres, Musée des Tumulus de Bougon, pp. 473–85. García Sanjuán, L. & Wheatley, D. eds. in press. The Palacio III Funerary Complex (Almadén de la Plata, Sevilla, Spain). A New Approach to the Megalithic Phenomenon in Southern Iberia. Southampton: University of Southampton. Garrido Roiz, J.P. 1978. Excavaciones en la Necrópolis de ‘La Joya’, Huelva II (3a, 4a, y 5a Campañas). Excavaciones Arqueológicas 213 en España, 96. Madrid: Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Archivos. Gómez Bellard, C. 1984. La Necrópolis del Puig des Molins (Ibiza). Campaña de 1946. Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España, 132. Madrid: Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Archivos. González Alcalde, J. 2002–3. Estudio historiográfico, catálogo e interpretación de las cuevas-refugio y cuevas-santuario de época ibérica en Alicante. Recerques del Museu d’Alcoi, 11(12): 57–83. González de Canales, F., Serrano, L. & Llompart, J. 2004. El Emporio Fenicio Precolonial de Huelva (ca. 900–770 aC). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. Grimaldi, D. 2009. Pushing back Amber Production. Science, 326: 51–52. Guiliano, M., Asia, L., Onoratini, G. & Mille, G. 2007. Applications of Diamond Crystal ATR FTIR Spectroscopy to Characterization of Ambers. Spectrochimica Acta, Part A, 67: 1407–11. Gutiérrez López, J.M. 2007. Un avance de la excavación del sepulcro megalítico de El Juncal (Ubrique, Cádiz). Revista Atlantico Mediterránea de Prehistoria y Arqueología Social, 9: 291–301. Gutiérrez Morillo, A. 2003. Sustancias exóticas en la Prehistoria Reciente del sur de Cantabria: el ámbar de Los Lagos I (Campoo de Suso). In: Colectivo para la Ampliación de Estudios de Arqueología Prehistórica. ed. 25 Años de Investigaciones Sobre el Patrimonio Cultural de Cantabria. Santander: Ayuntamiento de Camargo, pp. 137–44. Harrison, R.J. & Gilman, A. 1977. Trade in the Second and Third Millennia B.C. between the Magreb and Iberia. In: V. Markotic, ed. Ancient Europe and the Mediterranean. Studies presented in Honour of Hugh Hencken. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, pp. 90–114. Helm, O. 1877. Notizen über die chemische und physikalische Beschaffenheit des Bernsteins. Archive der Pharmazie, 211(3): 229–46. Jiménez Ávila, J. 2003. Estructuras tumulares en el Suroeste Ibérico. En torno al fenómeno tumular en la protohistoria peninsular. Boletín de la Asociación Española de Amigos de la Arqueología, 42: 81–118. Kristiansen, K. 2003. Europe before History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists 214 Langenheim, J.H. & Beck, C.W. 1965. Infrared Spectra as a Means of Determining Botanical Sources of Amber. Science, 149: 52–55. Lazarich González, M., Ramos, A., Carreras, A., Fernández, J.V., Jenkins, V., Feliú Ortega, M.J., Versaci, M., Torres, F., Richarte, M.J., Peralta, P., Mesa, M., Nuñez, M., Stratton, S., Sánchez, M. & Grillé, J.M. 2010. La necrópolis colectiva en cuevas artificiales de paraje de Monte Bajo (Alcalá de los Gazules, Cádiz). In: J. A. Pérez Macías & E. Romero Bomba, eds. Actas del IV Encuentro de Arqueología de Suroeste Peninsular (Aracena, Noviembre de 2008). Huelva: Universidad de Huelva, pp. 193–203. Lorrio, A.J. 2009. Qurénima: El Bronce Final del Sureste en la Península Ibérica. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia. Mederos Martín, A. 1993–4. Los Estados Incipientes del Sureste de la Península Ibérica. Repercusiones en las Cuencas de los Ríos Aguas, Antas y Almanzora. Almería (4500-1300 a.C./5300-1600 a.C.). Serie Tesis Doctorales, Universidad de la Laguna, La Laguna. Menor-Salván, C., Najarro, M., Velasco, F., Rosales, I., Tornos, F. & Simoneit, B.R. T. 2010. Terpenoids in Extracts of Lower Cretaceous Ambers from the Basque-Cantabrian Basin (El Soplao, Cantabria, Spain): Paleochemoaxonomic Aspects. Organic Geochemistry, 42: 1089– 103. Molina Fajardo, F. & Cámara Serrano, J.A. 2009. Almería. In: L. García Sanjuán & B. Ruiz González, eds. Las Grandes Piedras de la Prehistoria. Sitios y Paisajes Megalíticos de Andalucía. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía, pp. 32–54. Murillo-Barroso, M., Martinón-Torres, M. & Hunt Ortiz, M. in press. El ‘tesorillo’ del Dolmen de Palacio III (Almadén de la Plata, Sevilla). Entre la tradición y el cambio. In: L. García Sanjuán & D. Wheatley, eds. The Palacio III Funerary Complex (Almadén de la Plata, Sevilla, Spain). A New Approach to the Megalithic Phenomenon in Southern Iberia. Southampton: University of Southampton. Murillo-Barroso, M. & García Sanjuán, L. in press. El ámbar del PP4 Montelirio. In: L. García Sanjuán, V. Hurtado Pérez, J.M. Vargas Jiménez, T. Ruiz Moreno & European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 R. Cruz-Auñón Briones, eds. Valencina Prehistórica. Actas del Congreso Conmemorativo del Descubrimiento de La Pastora (1860–2010). Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. Nava, M.L. 2007. Ambre: transparenze dall’antico. In: M.L. Nava & A. Salerno, eds. Transparenze dall’Antico. Ambre. Milano: Museo Archeologico Nazionale, pp. 7–15. Palavestra, A. 2007. Was There an Amber Route? Aegaeum, 27: 349–56 Palavestra, A. & Krstić, V. 2006. The Magic of Amber. Belgrade: National Museum. Peñalver, E., Álvarez-Fernández, E., Arias, P., Declòs, X. & Ontañón, R. 2007. Local Amber in a Paleolithic Context in Cantabrian Spain: The Case of La Garma A. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34: 843–49. Querré, G., Herbault, F. & Calligaro, T. 2008. Transport of Neolithic Variscites Demonstrated by PIXE Analyses. X-Ray Spectrometry, 37(2): 116–20. Ross, A. 1998. Amber. The Natural Time Capsule. London: The Natural History Museum. Rottländer, R.C.A. 1970. On the Formation of Amber from Pinus Resin. Archaeometry, 12(1): 35–52. Rovira i Port, J. 1994. Ámbar y pasta vítrea. Elementos de prestigio entre el neolítico avanzado y el Bronce Final del Nordeste de la Península Ibérica. Un primer estado de la cuestión. Quadernos de Prehistoria Castellana, 16: 67–91. Ruíz-Gálvez, M. 1986. Navegación y comercio entre el Atlántico y el Mediterráneo a fines de la Edad del Bronce. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 43: 9–42. Sáenz de Buruaga, A. 1991. El Paleolitico Superior de la Cueva de Gatzarria (Zuberoa, Pais Vasco). Anejos de Veleia, Series Maior 6. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco. Salvatierra, V. & Jabaljoy, M.E. 1979. Algunas cuestiones sobre los enterramientos en cistas en la provincia de Granada. Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada, 4: 203–25 Savkevich, S.S. 1981. Physical Methods Used to Determine the Geological Origin of Amber and Other Fossil Resins; Some Critical Remarks. Physics and Chemistry of Minerals, 7: 1–4. Schubart, H. & Niemeyer, H.G. 1976. Trayamar, los Hipogeos Fenicios y el Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists Murillo-Barroso and Martinón-Torres – Amber Sources and Trade in Iberia Asentamiento en la Desembocadura del Río Algarrobo. Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España, 90. Madrid: Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Archivos. Schuhmacher, T.X., Cardoso, J.L. & Banerjee, A. 2009. Sourcing African ivory in Chalcolithic Portugal. Antiquity, 83: 983– 97. Schuhmacher, T.X., Banerjee, A., Dindorf, W., Nocete Calvo, F. & Vargas Jiménez, J.M. in press. Los marfiles del yacimiento de Valencina de la Concepción en el contexto del Calcolítico del Suroeste peninsular. In: L. García Sanjuán, V. Hurtado Pérez, J.M. Vargas Jiménez & R. Cruz-Auñón, eds. Valencina Prehistórica. Actas del Congreso Conmemorativo del 150 Aniversario del Descubrimiento de La Pastora (Sevilla, Noviembre de 2010). Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. Siret, L. 1913. Questions de Chronologie et d’Ethnographie Ibériques. Paris: P. Geuthner. Sprincz, E. & Beck, C.W. 1981. Classification of the Amber Beads of the Hungarian Bronze Age. Journal of Field Archaeology, 8: 469–85. Stout, E.C., Beck, C.W. & KosmowskaCeranowicz, B. 1995. Gedanite and Gedano-Succinite. In: K.B. Anderson & J.C. Crelling, eds. Amber, Resinite and Fossil Resins. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, pp. 130–48. Stout, E.C., Beck, C.W. & Anderson, K.B. 2000. Identification of Rumanite (Romanian Amber) as Thermally Altered Succinite (Baltic Amber). Physics and Chemistry of Minerals, 27: 665–78. Teodor, E.S., Teodor, E.D., Virgolici, M., Manea, M.M., Truică, G. & Liţescu, S.C. 2010. Non-Destructive Analysis of Amber Artefacts from the Prehistoric Cioclovina Hoard (Romania). Journal of Archaeological Science, 37: 2386–96. Thomas, J.T. 2010. Fashioning Identities, Forging Inequalities: Late Neolithic/ Copper Age Personal Ornaments of the Portuguese Estremadura’. European Journal of Archaeology, 14(1–2): 29–59. Vargas Jiménez, J.M. 2004. Carta Arqueológica Municipal de Valencina de la Concepción. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía. Vijande Vila, E. ed. 2011. La Necrópolis Neolítica de Campo de Jockey. La Muerte 215 Hace Seis Mil Años en la Isla de San Fernando. Catálogo de los Materiales Expuestos en el Museo Histórico Municipal de San Fernando. San Fernando: Ayuntamiento de San Fernando. Vilaça, R., Beck, C.W. & Stout, E.C. 2002. Provenience Analysis of Prehistoric Amber Artifacts in Portugal. Madrider Metteilungen, 43: 61–79. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Mercedes Murillo-Barroso obtained her MSc in Technology and Analysis of Archaeological Materials at University College London with a Marie Curie EST fellowship. She is currently a PhD candidate at the Spanish National Research Council, Madrid, supported by a shcolarship from the Spanish Government (Formación de Personal Investigador Programme). Her ongoing research focuses on production and consumption processes of silver in the Argaric society (second millennium cal BC) and the first Phoenician settlements in southern Iberia (first millennium cal BC), integrating archaeometallurgical analyses with social issues such as the relationship between the organization of silver production and consumption patterns, and the evolution of social complexity. Address: Instituto de Historia, CCHS – Spanish National Research Council, CSIC, C/ Albasanz, 26-28, CP 28027, Madrid, Spain. [email: mercedes.murillo@ cchs.csic.es] Marcos Martinón-Torres is Senior Lecturer in Archaeological Science and Material Science at the UCL Institute of Archaeology. Much of his work is concerned with technological reconstructions and cultural transmission, often with a focus on metallurgy. Ongoing projects 216 focus on post-medieval alchemy, technological transfer in contact-period America, and the making of the Terracotta Army of Xi’an, China. European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012 Address: Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, UK. [email: m.martinon-torres@ucl.ac.uk] Published by Maney (c) European Association of Archaeologists Origines et commerce de l’ambre pendant la préhistoire de la péninsule ibérique L’utilisation de l’ambre est documentée sur la péninsule ibérique depuis le Paléolithique. L’approvisionnement et le commerce de cette résine fossile ont souvent été examinés lors de débats sur le commerce à longue distance et l’apparition de la complexité sociale, mais jusqu’à présent il n’existait pas d’opinion globale sur les preuves ibériennes qui aurait permis de définir un modèle interprétatif plus général. Nous présentons ici la caractérisation d’ambre archéologique provenant de trois sites préhistoriques ibériens par le spectromètre infrarouge à transformée de Fourier (IRTF), à savoir d’un collier du site mégalithique de Palacio III (Almadén de la Plata, Sevilla), d’un pommeau de PP4 Montelirio (Valencina de la Concepción, Sevilla) et d’un collier de la grotte de Muricecs de Cellers (Llimiana, Pallars Jussà, Lleida). Nous présentons, en nous basant sur ces nouvelles données et après une révision littéraire, une vue d’ensemble exposant brièvement les fluctuations dans les utilisations de l’ambre depuis le Paléolithique récent et montrant l’existence d’un commerce de l’ambre à longue distance qui reliait l’Ibérie avec l’Europe du Nord et la région méditerranéenne, depuis au moins le Chalcolithique. Nous considérons également les changements des lieux d’origine et les modifications dans l’utilisation culturelle de l’ambre, et leurs implications relatives par rapport à la consolidation des réseaux commerciaux. Translation by Isabelle Gerges Mots clés: ambre, commerce à longue distance, préhistoire, IRTF, Péninsule Ibérique Bernsteinquellen und -handel in der Vorgeschichte der Iberischen Halbinsel Die Nutzung von Bernstein ist für die Iberische Halbinsel seit dem Paläolithikum belegt. Die Beschaffung und der Austausch dieses fossilen Harzes wurden oft im Zusammenhang mit Diskussionen von Fernhandel und dem Auftreten sozialer Komplexität betrachtet, doch erfolgte bislang keine umfassende Betrachtung der iberischen Funde, um ein übergreifenderes interpretatives Modell zu entwerfen. Dieser Beitrag stellt die Ergebnisse der Fourier-Transformations-Infrarotspektroskopie (FTIR) von archäologischem Bernstein dreier iberischer vorgeschichtlicher Fundplätzen vor: ein Halsband aus dem megalithischen Fundplatz von Palacio III (Almadén de la Plata, Sevilla), ein knaufartiges Bernsteinobjekt von PP4 Montelirio (Valencina de la Concepción, Sevilla) sowie ein Halsband aus der Höhle von Muricecs de Cellers (Llimiana, Pallars Jussà, Lleida). Auf der Basis dieser neuen Daten und einer Neubewertung der bisherigen Literatur wird ein Überblick präsentiert, der Schwankungen in der Nutzung von Bernstein seit dem Paläolithikum andeutet und Fernhandel mindestens seit der Kupferzeit belegt, der die Iberische Halbinsel mit Nordeuropa und dem mediterranen Raum verband. Es werden Veränderungen in den Ursprüngen und der kulturellen Nutzung von Bernstein sowie deren Bedeutung für die Konsolidierung von Handelsnetzwerken diskutiert. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg Stichworte: Bernstein, Fernhandel, Vorgeschichte, FTIR, Iberische Halbinsel