Theoretical-conceptual framework

The Neolithic is conceived, from the theoretical perspective of Marxism, as the result of the progressive transformation of hunter-gatherer societies into peasant societies, as a consequence of their own internal conflicts. For Testart (1982), the development of stor-age, both of wild and domestic products, will be fundamental in the gestation of this conflict, while for Vincent (1990), the loss of inter and intra-group reciprocity in the hunter-gatherer-fisher communities is the reflection of the tensions that existed in the social relations of these groups. This change in the "infrastructure" of society, that is, in the forces and social relations of production, will also generate transformations in the political and ideological "superstructure". In this same context the appearance of ce-ramics is interpreted, not as an ethnic or cultural marker as conceived from the histori-cal-cultural paradigm, but as a response to the needs of a new economic, social and ideological reality (Vincent 1990). Therefore, for Marxist authors the process of neoliti-zation should not be defined from a supposed typological dichotomy between epipaleo-lithic-mesolithic and neolithic elements, but as the dismantling of a conflicting social formation and the emergence of a new one.

Thus, neolitization is the complex processes that led to the expansion of agriculture and livestock, and the related social, material, ideological, etc. transformations. The differ-ent explanations that have been given for this process are determined by several factors:

a) the register and the available data; b) the geographical scale used, whether continen-tal, regional or local, and c) the school of thought of each researcher, since the different theoretical frameworks will start from different premises, even in relation to the very meaning of the Neolithic concept. Another of the widely discussed concepts regarding neolitization is the concept of domestication.

Around animal domestication, this concept has been treated and characterized as a new production process whose practice has meant important changes in the subsistence

30

practices. From a historical point of view, animal domestication has been approached from different perspectives that coincide in considering the domestication of animals as a complex process in which the interaction between human and animal communities played a fundamental role within the level of subsistence strategies (Saña 2009). Some emphasize the degree of cultural control over natural populations of particular species (Higgs 1969). However, authors such as Ingold emphasize the social order aspects of domestication as well as the social appropriation of successive generations of animals (Ingold 1988). The social appropriation of the resources that entails the animal domes-tication, until then of collective access, supposes a development in the social forms that legitimate the different use of the resources (Saña 2005). Consequently, the social form that regulates the maintenance, control and use of domestic animals implies a series of work processes. This causes the live animal to constitute a means of production and a product. The difference between these two concepts lies in the type of management:

when the animal is a product it is sacrificed, whereas when the objective of animal man-agement is its insertion in the means of production, it is maintained as a permanent resource that requires maintenance and reproduction (Saña 2005, Redman 1990).

With all this, when we talk about livestock, we will refer to the set of production pro-cesses aimed at maintaining the animals and obtaining their products (Saña 1999).

We find the same debate when we talk about agricultural domestication and plant products. Following Ford's definition of plant food production, this implies a deliberate manipulation of specific species for use or consumption (Ford 1985). This manipulation is established by means of different production methods related to maintenance, in which forage groups or collectors would not participate. However, this implies a gradual process on the part of humans that would always culminate in the cultivation of any type of plant (Antolín, 2013). Many authors have tried to define the intermediate stages between cultivation (of wild plants) and agriculture (with domestic taxa) (Fuller 2007).

On the contrary, Ingold asserted that agriculture is not about producing food, but culti-vating it (Ingold 1996). Thus, farmers establish the conditions for the growth of those plants that they decide are the most appropriate.

31

The integration of domestic plants and animals into the economic strategies of Neolithic societies involved the implementation of new work processes linked to their mainte-nance, breeding and reproduction and, with this, the establishment of new production relations. Within the framework of these, it was essential to provide the availability of seeds for the new agricultural cycles and the feeding and demographic control of the herds of domestic animals.

Farmers needed reliable food supplies throughout the year, which, at least sometimes, involved storage. Storage has been considered a necessary precursor to agriculture (Bender 1978), as a concomitant feature of sedentary life (Testart 1982). This indicator of socio-cultural complexity (Price and Brown 1985, Flannery 1972), promotes an im-portant step in the conceptualization of private property (Bettinger 1999) and social control (Wesson 1999).

The ability to manipulate the availability of food, both wild and domestic, and to regu-larly exceed the seasonal calendar of availability, in both good and bad years, is a fun-damental basis for the emergence of social differentiation in communities. In many ge-ographical and temporal contexts, food storage precedes the domestication of plants, although storage does not automatically lead to food surpluses (Kuijt 2011). According to some researchers, this generates a problem not of economic, but social root: the ap-propriation of resources (Gamble 1986). The pre-existing organization, based on "gen-eralized reciprocity" both within the group and in inter-group relations, would exclude the possibility of appropriation and lack categories for it (Vincent-García 1991). For these authors, the passage to the peasant way of life would imply the appropriation, both of production and the means of production (Gilman 1984, Testart 1982).

The domestication of animals and plants therefore led to control over the seasonal avail-ability of certain food resources, while at the same time making it possible to include new sources of protein in the diet. Both the storage and processing need of new prod-ucts have been closely linked to the third element that has been materially characteriz-ing neolitization: ceramics.

32

Ceramics constitute the category of archaeological materials object of study in this the-sis, with the objective of knowing the role it had in the changes that occurred in the strategies of subsistence and feeding during this time interval, in a concrete way for the Iberian Peninsula. In order to do so, it will be essential to know how to use them. Due to their relative abundance, ceramic products constitute a very important part of the material testimonies that have reached us from the human communities of the past. In their role as containers, ceramic containers are tools (Braun 1983) and a subset of a much broader category of utilitarian devices called facilities (Wagner 1960). Ceramic containers are made with the aim of participating in one way or another in a wide variety of work processes within the framework of the different production and reproduction activities carried out by the people who manufacture and/or use them (Clop 2002). Fur-thermore, these products are not necessarily passive containers; they can increase the usefulness of their contents by extending their useful life or by allowing them to be transformed by different types of energy (Rice, 2015).

For this reason, a distinction needs to be made between the concept of function and that of use. In archaeology, various types of indirect evidence can be provided to try to understand the functionality of ceramic vessels. It is important to recognize the differ-ence between direct and indirect eviddiffer-ence, because it will be what marks the use of one or the other concept. Indirect approaches allow us to know the function of vessels, from the context of recovery (Schiffer 1976), ethnography, experimental archaeology (Skibo, 2013), and studies of vessel shape, including physical, technological and mechanical skills (Rice, 2015). As we seek to make more refined inferences, it is imperative that we begin with as specific information as possible on how the package was used throughout its useful life (Skibo, 2013). In contrast, the actual function does not always correspond to the intended function. The pots may be designed to cook stews, but the home may need a storage jar, so the pot is put into service for a function the potter never intended to do. In this way, we will talk about use, and more specifically effective use, when we know the content resulting from a certain use of the container or repeated occasions.

Biomolecular analyses of the organic residue eventually conserved in its interior will al-low us to approach this use.

33