DISCUSSION

In this chapter, an overview of the Neolithic in the north-east of the Iberian Peninsula has been provided, including the settlement patterns, and the funerary and economic practices. The currently still ongoing debate surrounding its chronology and periodisation has also been outlined. This review has focused particularly on the Middle Neolithic, because it is the period to which the issues addressed in this thesis are attributed.

Despite the peculiarities and particularities of the “Pit Burials”, very little was known about them until only a few years ago. The main reason for this was primarily the fact that very few had been safely documented and, since not much radiocarbon dating had been performed, the determined chronology of most of the structures was no more than a rough approximation based on the characteristics of their construction and the few items deposited as grave goods.

Looking at the geographical map of the main settlements documented up until now (Figure 1), it becomes clear that their distribution is unequal, both in terms of the volume of the archaeological record found there and the typological characteristics. This is due to the urbanisation process, especially at the beginning of the 21^st century, which facilitated more preventive and urgent fieldworks in some areas (those closest to the coast), than in others (inland and mountains). This difference is the same in relation to the quality of the available data, since the more recently urbanised areas (Vallès, Penedès and Barcelonès) have the most well-known and well-investigated settlements.

Despite the incompleteness of the data, the Middle Neolithic “Pit Burials” have traditionally been considered a “cultural unit” of “agricultural and pastoralist”

communities that shared a belief system. However, there was, in fact, not enough empirical data to draw conclusions about the economies of these societies and to homogenise their funerary practices.

Traditionally, it has been proposed that at the beginning of the “Pit Burials” cultural horizon, the settlement pattern changed from cave settlements to those in plain areas. The more documented presence of silo structures and mills, as well as the archaeobotanical evidence of domesticated seeds and fauna remains, have led researchers to propose a mixed settlement model based on agriculture and livestock. However, such archaeobotanical studies are generally scarce and fragmentary. Though the results are very interesting (Piqué 1993; Antolín 2013; Antolín et al. 2018), they fail to offer decisive conclusions about the type of agriculture practised (intensive or extensive shifting agriculture). Furthermore, apart from the archaeobotanical studies, the only other approach to investigating agricultural practices has been a technological and use-wear analysis of the lithic tools (Gibaja 2003), but in the absence of systematics studies of the storage capacities of the silos, it is difficult to arrive at general conclusions. There are only very fragmentary studies in very specific areas such as the Penedès (Mestres et al. 1998) or the “Can Gambús” sector of the “Bòbila Madurell-Can Gambús” necropolis (Plasencia 2016).

The situation is the same with regard to the livestock practices. The studies suggest the presence of oxen, followed by ovicaprids and an occasional presence of suids. The animals were mainly used for traction (Saña 1994 & 1998). Nevertheless, these studies are also very fragmentary and based on very few sites (mainly the necropolis of “Bòbila Madurell-Can Gambús” and the mines of “Gavà-Madurell-Can Tintorer”). Moreover, there have been no specific isotope studies on animal remains, while paleodietary analyses are few and far between (Fontanals 2015; Fontanals et al. 2015 & 2017).

The lack of this type of studies makes it impossible to clarify the economic model of the occupation of the territory, especially in terms of such aspects as the grade of importance of the different kinds of productivity in the various sites and the possible self-sufficiency or the existence of complementary systems between the different areas.

Regarding the artefacts and raw materials that were transported over long distances, the exact periods in which these “exchanges” took place are not known precisely, while the exact areas of origin of honey flint has not been conclusively clarified. Moreover, although there are indications that not everyone had access to these artefacts and materials, it remains to be determined whether this differentiation of access was due to an uneven distribution depending on the needs of a particular group or whether this may have been the result of these items being controlled by a minority.

As mentioned above, the quantity and quality of the available archaeological record has improved substantially in recent years thanks to the project headed by Dr Juan F. Gibaja, who has undertaken homogeneous and systematic analyses of new data, sites, utilising a range of new analytical methods, approximations on a more global scale, as well as synthesis studies. This thesis is part of the project.

Establishing the exact chronology is indispensable for explaining and interpreting the funerary practices of the “Pit Burials” horizon. However, the discussion on temporality is still open, particularly in relation to the different types of burials, the presence of the materials and artefacts of foreign origin documented among the grave goods, and the transition between the traditionally accepted periods. As stated in the introduction, this thesis aims to fill this gap based on a new battery of radiocarbon dates and a number of large-scale analyses that address the chronology of this funerary practice.

Given the type of the available record, in this work, the “Pit Burials” are not considered a homogenous “culture”, but the term is instead used to refer to different communities whose common features make it possible to affirm that ideological and economic relationships existed between these communities, manifested in similar funerary practices and demonstrated by clear contacts and a common subsistence model based on agriculture and livestock. However, what the record also shows is that there was heterogeneity even within these shared elements, both in economic terms and in relation to the probable symbolism of some of the artefacts. These communities can thus not be regarded as a uniform group. Consequently, in this work, the term "Pit Burials horizon” will be used to refer to a social reality consisting of a set of communities which lived within a particular

temporal and geographical framework, shared common characteristics and were fundamentally linked to a certain funerary practice.