Content uploaded by Thomas Schuhmacher
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas Schuhmacher on Dec 15, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
rkSFB 1070
RessourcenKulturen
rk
RK Band
ISBN ----
The Iberian Peninsula displays extreme geographic and climatic differences, resulting
in very different local preconditions. To what extent are these responsible for the
heterogeneous social and cultural development in different regions observable during
the rd mill. BC? To answer this question it is necessary to identify what was considered
to be a resource and to determine how these resources were valuated.
This book aims at investigating and reconstructing the dynamics and the diversity
of the sociocultural manifestations on the Iberian Peninsula in relation to the use
of resources in a comprehensive way during the Chalcolithic. In general regional
overviews and detailed studies of the use of infrastructure, raw materials or social
relations the possibilities to identify key resources as factors in these processes are
explored.
KEY RESOURCES AND SOCIO-
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS
IN THE IBERIAN CHALCOLITHIC
KEY RESOURCES AND SOCIOCULTURAL
DEVEL OPMENTS IN THE IBERIAN CHALCOLITHIC
Martin Bartelheim, Primitiva Bueno Ramírez
and Michael Kunst (Eds.)
Bartelheim/Bueno Ramírez/
Kunst (Eds.)
6
KEY RESOURCES AND SOCIO-
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTS
IN THE IBERIAN CHALCOLITHIC
Martin Bartelheim, Primitiva Bueno Ramírez
and Michael Kunst (Eds.)
RK
Band 6
Tübingen
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation
in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische
Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.
© Tübingen Library Publishing und die Autoren
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
ISBN ----
http://hdl.handle.net//
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:-dspace-
http://dx.doi.org/./publikation-
Redaktion: Marion Etzel, Henrike Michelau, Uwe Müller, Jadranka Verdonkschot
Layout: Büro für Design, Martin Emrich, Lemgo
Gestaltung und Druckvorstufe: Henrike Michelau, Marion Etzel
Druck: Pro BUSINESS digital printing Deutschland GmbH
Printed in Germany
Peer Review:
The papers published in this volume were subject to an anonymous
international peer review.
Cover Picture:
View from the ore-rich Cerro de San Cristóbal in Logrosán (Cáceres) to-
wards the dry lands of the Dehesa landscape in the Spanish Extremadura
symbolising the abundance of mineral resources and the scarcity of water
on the Iberian peninsula. Photo: Martin Bartelheim.
The publication of this text is licensed under the terms of the Creative
Commons BY-NC . DE license. The full legal code is available at https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/./de/. Illustrations are not part
of the CC license, the copyright is with their authors, if not otherwise
specified.
Contents
Martin Bartelheim and Primitiva Bueno Ramírez
Resource Use and Sociocultural Dynamics in the Chalcolithic of the Iberian Peninsula.
An Introduction and Synthesis .................................................................. 7
Primitiva Bueno Ramírez, Rosa Barroso Bermejo and Rodrigo de Balbín Behrmann
Ancestors’ Images as Marks of the Past. The Dolmen of Azután, Toledo (Spain) .................. 23
Felicitas Schmitt
Enclose Where the River Flows. New Investigations on the Southern Meseta
and the Ditched Enclosures of Azután (Toledo) .................................................. 37
Carlos P. Odriozola, Rodrigo Villalobos García, Primitiva Bueno Ramírez,
Rosa Barroso Bermejo, Raúl Flores Fernández and Pedro Díaz-del-Río
Late Prehistory Body Ornaments. Exchange and Social Dynamics in the Middle Tagus Basin ..... 59
Rosa Barroso Bermejo, Primitiva Bueno Ramírez, Rodrigo de Balbín Behrmann,
and Maria Angeles Lancharro
Production and Consumption of Salt in the Inland Tagus Valley in Prehistory (Spain) ........... 89
Corina Liesau
Fauna in Living and Funerary Contexts of the 3rd Millennium BC in Central Iberia ............... 107
José Antonio López Sáez, Antonio Blanco González, Sebastián Pérez Díaz, Francisca Alba Sánchez,
Reyes Luelmo Lautenschlaeger, Arthur Glais and Sara Núñez de la Fuente
Landscapes, Human Activities and Climate Dynamics in the South Meseta of the
Iberian Peninsula During the 3rd and 2nd Millennia calBC ........................................ 129
Rui Mataloto, Catarina Costeira and Diana Nukushina
Local Shop for Local People. Resource Management During the 3rd Millennium BCE
at São Pedro (Redondo, Portugal) .............................................................. 143
Victor S. Gonçalves and Ana Catarina Sousa
The Shadows of the Rivers and the Colours of Copper. Some Reections on the
Chalcolithic Farm of Cabeço do Pé da Erra (Coruche, Portugal) and Its Resources .............. 167
António Carlos Valera
The ‘Exogenous’ at Perdigões. Approaching Interaction in the Late 4th and 3rd
Millennium BC in Southwest Iberia ............................................................ 201
Elena Morán, Rui Parreira and Helmut Becker
Alcalar and the Management of the Resources of Its Territorial Environment
in the 3rd Millennium BCE ...................................................................... 225
Leonardo García Sanjuán
Farming Economy and Wealth Economy in the Copper Age of the Lower Guadalquivir River.
Debating Strategic Resources at Valencina de la Concepción (Seville, Spain) .................... 237
Javier Escudero Carrillo, Marta Díaz-Zorita Bonilla, Martin Bartelheim
and Leonardo García Sanjuán
Chalcolithic Enclosures in the Lower Guadalquivir Basin. La Loma Del Real Tesoro
(Carmona, Seville, Spain) and Its Resources .................................................... 257
Mercedes Murillo-Barroso and Ignacio Montero-Ruiz
The Social Value of Things. Amber and Copper in the Iberian Chalcolithic ...................... 273
Thomas X. Schuhmacher
Ivory Exchange Networks in the Chalcolithic of the Western Mediterranean ................... 291
291
THOMAS X. SCHUHMACHER
Ivory Exchange Networks in the
Chalcolithic of the Western Mediterranean
To the memory of Rui Boaventura, who would
have read it.
The world is changed because you are made of ivory
and gold (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray,
1890).
Keywords: ivory, exchange, scientic analysis, Ibe-
rian Peninsula, Maghreb, Chalcolithic, peer-polity
interaction
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the German
Science Foundation (DFG) for the funding and
the German Archaeological Institute for hous-
ing these projects, all members of the team for
their work, especially A. Banerjee (University
of Mainz), who directed the scientic analysis,
as well as all the institutions and persons impli-
cated for their friendly help and the permission
to study and analyse these objects. The study of
the pieces from Perdigões was undertaken in co-
operation with the ‘Perdigões Global Research
Program’, directed by A. C. Valera (ERA Arque-
ologia Lisbon). The ten analyses of objects from
Camino de Yeseras were partially financed by
the project of the German Science Foundation,
directed by myself, and partially by the project
CCG06-UAM/HUM-0469: ‘Economía y ritualidad
en el tránsito del III al II milenio a.C. en la Co-
munidad de Madrid’, directed by C. Liesau (Uni-
versidad Autónoma Madrid) and financed by
the Comunidad de Madrid and the Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid. I would also like to thank
A. Mederos for reading the manuscript and all
his suggestions and advice.
Abstract
By two comprehensive research projects, nanced
by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG, Bonn) and located
at the German Archaeological Institute (Madrid) we
attempted to compile a new catalogue – as complete
as possible – of all ivory objects from the Iberian
Peninsula and north-western Africa dated from the
beginning of the Chalcolithic at about 3000 BC until
the end of the Early Bronze Age about 1650 BC. Dur-
ing these works, we recognised approximately 2000
ivory objects and analysed 150 objects by scientic
methods, including measurement of the Schreger
angle by optical microscopy, Fourier Transformed
Infrared ( FTIR)-Spectroscopy, elemental analysis
and Isotopic Ratio Mass Spectrometry. The detailed
study of the pieces and their contexts as well as
the scientic analysis could give new dates on the
chronological and geographical distribution, their
social importance and the origin and exchange of
the raw material. In this way, we recognised the ex-
istence of two different exchange networks during
the Chalcolithic, by which on one hand Asian ivory
reached the Southeast of the Iberian Peninsula and
the Guadalquivir estuary and on the other hand
African ivory from the Maghreb came to south-
western Spain and Portugal. In the Pre-Beaker as
well as in the Bell Beaker Chalcolithic local elites
maintained this exchange network in order to ob-
tain exotic objects by a sort of peer- polity interac-
tion to express their prestige and power.
Introduction
Being exotic to the Iberian Peninsula, ivory
was of special interest from the beginning of
Thomas X. Schuhmacher
292
archaeological investigation, because it was sup-
posed to give clear hints with respect to prehis-
toric overseas contacts and exchange. As early as
the late 19th cent., S. P. M. Estácio da Veiga exposed
the idea that nished ivory objects as well as the
raw material were imported from northern Afri-
ca ( Veiga 1886 –1891, vol. 1, 268‒270; vol. 2, 212).
L. Siret (1913, 33) already differentiated between
pieces made of elephant and others from hippo-
potamus ivory and thought about both groups
being imported from Egypt as finished objects.
J. C. Serra Ráfols (1925, 87) pointed out that, on the
contrary, there was really no evidence for an Egyp-
tian origin, and that we should consider Northwest
Africa to be the source. At the same time A. Götze
(1925, 87) argued that local fossilised ivory was too
fragile and brittle to have been used. Finally, A. Jo-
din (1957) and G. Camps (1960) related the nds of
ivory on the Iberian Peninsula to the appearance
of Bell Beakers in Northwest Africa. Since then a
Northwest African origin has been widely accepted
(Harrison/Gilman 1977; Spindler 1981. See Poyato/
Hernando 1988 for an opposing view). Subsequent-
ly, there were specic studies of the relations be-
tween the Iberian Peninsula and Northwest Afri-
ca during the Bell Beaker period. But in fact this
was only an assumption based on the geographic
proximity, while scientic analysis had never been
made to conrm this.
In their monumental work on the megalithic
tombs of the Iberian Peninsula, the Leisners (Leis-
ner/Leisner 1943) included a list of ivory objects
from the southern part of the peninsula. Later,
A. Gilman and R. Harrison (1977) produced an
updated inventory list for ivory objects known
from bibliographic sources. After that, only a few
regional works have been published, those of
K. Spindler (1981) for Portugal and of J. L. Pascual
Benito (1995) for the País Valenciano.
Therefore, in two comprehensive research
projects, nanced by the German Research Foun-
dation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG,
Bonn) and located at the German Archaeological
Institute (Madrid) we attempted to compile a new
catalogue – as complete as possible – of all ivory
objects from the Iberian Peninsula and Northwest
Africa dated from the beginning of the Chalco-
lithic at about 3000 BC until the end of the Early
Bronze Age about 1650 BC (Schuhmacher 2012a;
2016).1 Our preliminary work has revealed that
the aggregate number of prehistoric ivory objects
known, and thus the scale of ivory exchange, is
much greater, than previously thought. In fact, we
have recognised approximately 2000 ivory objects.
The detailed study of the pieces and their contexts
as well as the scientific analysis could give new
dates on the chronologic and geographic distribu-
tion, their social importance and the origin and ex-
change of the raw material.
The Beginning of the Use of Ivory
We can arm that the utilisation of ivory on the
Iberian Peninsula began in the second half of the
4th mill. BC (Schuhmacher 2013; 2016). We know
at least several very thin bracelets in hypogea 1
and one comb of ivory coming out of hypogea 5
in Sobreira de Cima (Alentejo, Portugal) (Valera
et al. 2008).2 Three of the published radiocarbon
dates place the burials in these rock-cut tombs in
the period of 3357–3099 calBC.3 One date, albeit
slightly earlier, might be compatible with this
range. Another one, the only one from tomb 5,
dates already into the rst half of the 3rd mill. BC.
Six OSL-dates situate the tombs 1 and 2 also into
the second half of the 4th mill. BC.4
Here we have to remind two AMS-dates from
ivory pins from a rock-cut tomb in Praia das Maçãs
(Sintra, Portugal), which delivered a similar re-
sult with 3312–2916 calBC.5 It is therefore clear
that the use of ivory appears quite suddenly at the
1 DFG-Project: SCHU 1539/2-1.2 and SCHU 1539 /3-1 under
the direction of the author and Dr. A. Banerjee (University
of Mainz). The research group was integrated by W. Dindorf
(†), Dr. F. Enzmann (both University of Mainz), Prof. Dr. Th.
Reischmann (Mainz), Dr. Ch. Sastri (Proteosys AG Mainz) and
Dr. A. Mikdad (INSAP, Rabat).
2 Excavation by ERA Arqueologia S. A., Lisbon.
3 All radiocarbon dates are made on human bones: Beta-
231071 (AMS): 4670 ± 50 BP = 3517‒3371 calBC (tomb 3); Sac-
2260: 4530 ± 50 BP = 3357‒3111 calBC (tomb 1); Sac-2261:
4500 ± 70 BP = 3344‒3099 calBC (tomb 1); Sac-2256: 4520 ±
35 BP = 3350‒3114 calBC (tomb 4); Beta-232637 (AMS): 4080
± 40 = 2839‒2500 calBP (tomb 5) (Valera et al. 2008). All dates
in this text are calibrated by OxCal 4.1 and are given with a
probability of 68,2% (1 sigma) (Bronk Ramsey 2009).
4 SBC-3: 5231,4 ± 369,6 BP for tomb 1 and 4897 ± 259,8 BP
for tomb 2 (Dias et al. 2008).
5 OxA-5509 (AMS): 4410 ± 75 BP = 3312‒2916 calBC and
OxA-5510 (AMS): 4395 ± 60 BP = 3096‒2916 calBC (Soares
2003, table 5).
Ivory Exchange Networks in the Chalcolithic of the Western Mediterranean 293
end of the 4th mill. BC in a burial context of a Late
Neolithic or Early Chalcolithic.
The question is, why does ivory use begin at
this moment, whereas for the whole Neolithic of
the Iberian Peninsula, until now, we could not nd
any ivory objects? Is this related to the supposed
start of complexity at the beginning of the Chal-
colithic? Are the exchange networks expanding
because of the need for prestige objects of an elite
in formation? Or do we have to look for external,
extra- peninsular, causes?
The analysis of ve fragments of bracelets and
the comb from Sobreira de Cima reveal that we are
talking about ivory from the African Savannah ele-
phant (Loxodonta africana africana) (Schuhmacher
2013; 2016). If we look at Northwest Africa we can
see, that there a rst use of ivory begins at about
4000 BC, related to an increasing importance of
Saharan elements, like ceramics with comb im-
pressions or ceramics type Rouazi-El Kiffen and
Ashakar (Daugas 2002, 151–153; Daugas/El Idrissi
2008, 67 f.; Banerjee et al. 2011a; Linstädter 2016;
Schuhmacher 2016). This is probably caused by a
migration of human groups from the Central Sa-
hara to the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts of
North Africa due to the drying of the Sahara at the
end of the ‘African Humid Period’ (Nehren 1992,
204 f.; Escacena 2000; Daugas 2002, 151–153; Lin-
städter 2016). At the same time, it seems possible
as well that elephants of the species Loxodonta af-
ricana africana migrated north.6 This would have
brought elephants and human groups, who used
ivory, for the rst time in sight and reach of the so-
cieties of the Southern Iberian Peninsula. It would
therefore be a possible explication for the sudden
beginning of ivory use on the Iberian Peninsula at
the end of the 4th mill. BC.
But it seems difficult to relate the highly so-
phisticated and very varied ivory industry of the
Iberian Peninsula dated to the beginning of the
3rd mill. BC to the much more ‘primitive’, because it
was much more restricted in forms and technique,
of the Maghreb, so that this northward movement
of people in Northern Africa might not be the only
cause (Schuhmacher 2012a; 2016; Schuhmacher /
6 On the methods used for the source analysis of ivory and
our identication of North African elephant as belonging to
the species Loxodonta africana africana (African Savannah
elephant) see Banerjee et al. 2011a; Schuhmacher 2016.
Banerjee 2012). Furthermore, our scientic investi-
gations indicate that, besides African ivory, around
the Guadalquivir estuary and in the Southeast
ivory from the Asian elephant was also in use as
early as the beginning of the 3rd mill. BC, although
the dates we have at the moment, are slightly later
than the ones from Sobreira de Cima and Praia
das Maçãs.7 The nearest source for that kind of
ivory in the 3rd mill. BC was the Near East. There-
fore, it seems possible that not only Asian ivory
but also the know-how of the production of ivory
objects goes back to the Orient, principally the
zone of Syria (Nocete et al. 2013). So the beginning
of ivory working on the Iberian Peninsula could
be due to external factors, innate to the Eastern
Mediterranean.
The Distribution of Ivory Objects
For the rst half of the 3rd mill. BC we could regis-
ter 374 ivory objects with a total weight of nearly
3kg (fig. 1) on the Iberian Peninsula (Schuh-
macher 2012a, 300–345 Table 4; Valera et al. 2015).
Amongst the ivory objects from this period idols
of different types, cylindrical boxes, beads, combs,
pins and collars and occasionally also buttons,
bracelets and plaques are predominant. The ma-
jor part of these objects, 62% in Spain and 51% in
Portugal, came from collective burials. If we look
at the geographical distribution, we nd several
centres, the peninsula of Lisbon and the Spanish
Southeast, the Portuguese Alentejo together with
the Spanish Middle Guadiana valley and the Gua-
dalquivir valley. We can observe a clear connec-
tion between the distribution of the ivory objects
and the coast and the river system.
During the second half of the 3rd mill. BC, in
accordance with the diffusion of the Bell Beaker
phenomenon, the distribution of ivory objects
changes in respect to the Early Chalcolithic. Now
7 In this case the analysed ivory was coincident with ivo-
ry from the modern Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) and
different from that of modern African elephants (Loxodon-
ta africana africana and Loxodonta africana cyclotis) and
did also not coincide with that of extinct elephants (Mam-
muthus primigenius or Elephas antiquus). It was also differ-
ent from our analysis on ivory from prehistoric samples
of North African elephant from Morocco. On the methods
used for the source analysis of ivory see Nocete et al. 2013;
Schuhmacher 2016.
Thomas X. Schuhmacher
294
apart from Portugal, the Spanish Southwest and
Southeast, which are still the areas with the most
numerous occurrence, we assist to an expansion to
the Spanish Levant, centre and even the north of
the Peninsula (g. 2). We can date 545 ivory objects
to this period of time. An increase in the total num-
ber and a loss in weight of the ivory objects (2350g)
in respect to the Early Chalcolithic is observed.
Now we mainly nd small buttons with a V-per-
foration (29%), followed by beads and pendants,
raw material and half-finished objects, but also
anthropomorphic idols with folded arms (Schuh-
macher 2004; Blanco 1962, g. 1, pl. 1. 2. 5; Fernán-
dez Gómez/ Oliva 1980; Arribas 1977; Moreno 1994,
382 no. 46), for example in Marroquíes Altos, Torre
del Campo (both in Jaén), La Pijotilla (Badajoz),
probably El Malagón (Granada) and recently doz-
ens of these idols made of ivory in the settlement
of Perdigões (Valera et al. 2015). Also in this period,
a 63% of the ivory objects came out of collective
burials, but at the end of this period the individu-
al interments of the rst Early Bronze Age cultures
appear.
The Social Role of Ivory
The social importance of ivory during the Early
Chalcolithic can be demonstrated by the necropo-
lis of Los Millares (Santa Fe de Mondújar, Almería)
(Almagro/Arribas 1963; Chapman 1981; Molina /
Cámara 2005, 57–62; Schuhmacher 2011; 2012a,
Fig. 1. Distribution by number of the elephant tusks and ivory objects () during the Older Chalcolithic (aprox.
end of the 4. mill. BC until 2500 BC) on the Iberian Peninsula in comparison with the situation of the Late and
Final Neolitic (approx. 4500–2500 BC) in northwestern Africa. The results of the scientic analyses – Elephas
maximus () and Loxodonta a. africana () – and the routes of ivory exchange are represented. 1 Bou Zabaouine;
2 Khanguet Si Mohammed Tahar (Grotte Capélleti); 3 Columnata; 4 Brézina (R’ar Msakna); 5 Kahf Taht el Ghar;
6 Dar es-Soltan; 7 Rouazi-Skhirat; 8 Kehf-el-Baroud; 9 El Kiffen; 10 Cap Sim; 11 Zambujal und Cova da Moura;
12 Leceia; 13 Palmela; 14 Capela; 15 La Pijotilla; 16 Nora; 17 Valencina de la Concepción; 18 Cueva Antoniana;
19 Los Millares; 20 Perdigões. 1–5 objects; 6–10 objects; more than 10 objects.
Ivory Exchange Networks in the Chalcolithic of the Western Mediterranean 295
383–386, Abb. 124; 2012b; Afonso et al. 2011). Here
the 85 burial monuments extend over a surface
of 13ha in front of the outer fortication wall of
this settlement. The monuments are for the big-
gest part tombs with false domes (tholoi). These
tombs, excavated in their majority by L. Siret, de-
livered 48 ivory objects, distributed among nine
tombs. R. Chapman could demonstrate that only
part of the population was buried in these tombs.
Although they do not differentiate much in the ef-
fort inverted in their construction, they do in the
richness of their offerings. Chapman differentiated
a group of eight tombs (5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 40 and 63)
called ‘prestige tombs’, clearly highlighted by the
quantity and diversity of their grave goods. Among
them are all the tombs with ivory (tombs 5, 7, 8, 12,
40), except tomb 71, which we can situate on the
plan of the necropolis. Later studies led to similar
conclusions (Molina/Cámara 2005, 57–62; Afon-
so et al. 2011). Following Afonso et al., the tombs 7
and 40 belong to the richest group A, tombs 5 and
12 to group B and tomb 8 to group C. Although
A. Mederos (1993/94, 217 –220) criticised the clas-
sication of Chapman, he came to the conclusion
that only the exotic grave objects like ivory and os-
trich eggs are suited for a social differentiation of
the tombs. In his view, the tombs 8, 12, 40 and 63
are the most important ones, corresponding to the
founding lineages of Los Millares during the Final
Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic, and tombs 5 and 7 to
non-founding lineages, which gained importance
during the Middle Chalcolithic.
Of special interest is tomb 40, one of the tombs
with the richest grave offerings of the necropolis
Fig. 2. Younger Chalcolithic/Older Early Bronze Age. Distribution of ivory objects on the Iberian Peninsula and
in the Maghreb () by number. The results of the scientic analyses – Elephas maximus () and Loxodonta a.
africana () – and the routes of ivory exchange are represented. 1 Damous-el-Ahmar; 2 Kehf el Baroud; Camino
de Yeseras; 4 Perdigões; 5 La Orden-Seminario de Huelva, 6 Valencina de la Concepción; 7 Los Algarbes; 8 Gatas;
9 El Argar; 10 Fuente Álamo; 11 La Bastida de Totana; 12 Molinos de Papel. 1–5 objects; 6–10 objects; more
than 10 objects.
Thomas X. Schuhmacher
296
of Los Millares (Leisner/Leisner 1943, 21– 24,
Taf. 9/10). It does not only contain the highest num-
ber of ivory objects, among them cylindrical idols
and boxes and combs, but also numerous metal
objects and int arrowheads. And we do nd ex-
ceptional grave goods like containers and idols of
stone, painted and symbolic pottery.
We have to be conscientious that we are talking
about collective burials. Probably a kinship group
was buried together in one tomb (Chapman 1981,
408; Cruz Auñon et al. 2010, 54 f.; Afonso et al. 2011,
299). Thus, the differences in number and quality
of grave goods, besides other differences between
tombs, e.g. size, architectural complexity, primar-
ily refer to differences in social rank or prestige
between groups of persons (Valera et al. 2015).
But this does not necessarily exclude the existence
of outstanding individuals with a high prestige
among these groups, reected in the offerings be-
longing to one specic burial, although many times
camouaged under a supposed collectivity. In Los
Millares the documentation available in most cas-
es does not allow to individualise inhumations and
their grave goods, but in other monuments this
seems to be possible to a certain degree, e.g. Praia
das Maçãs (Portugal) (Leisner et al. 1969).
In regard to Valencina de la Concepción, only
recently a compilation of the information avail-
able has been started. This will enable us to do a
similar study in the future (Cruz Auñon et al. 2010;
Cruz-Auñón Briones/Mejías 2013). But we can
already say that there are some specific tombs,
extremely rich in their offerings and outstanding
in their monumentality. Structure 10042-10049
from PP4-Montelirio is a megalithic funerary
construction with two chambers (García Sanjuán
et al. 2013; Luciañez Triviño et al. 2013). There is
an access corridor with a maximum length of 12m
and maximum width of 0.7m, bounded by slate
slabs. This leads into the rst chamber with a max-
imum diameter of 2.57m, which was partially de-
stroyed by work carried out in 1998 in this sector
of the site. The remains of four persons were iden-
tified between the access corridor and the first
chamber. From the rst chamber a second corri-
dor connects it with the second chamber. This sec-
ond chamber, which is better preserved than the
rst, has a maximum diameter of 2.16m and is en-
closed by 23 slabs. Two stratigraphic layers could
be identied in the second chamber, which con-
tains only the inhumation of a male of 20–25 years.
In total, with over 50 objects found in the first
chamber and access corridor and about 100 in the
second chamber (more than 30 items in the lower
level and over 70 in the upper), structure 10042-
10049 yielded some 150 objects. In some cases
made from non-local raw materials (such as am-
ber, cinnabar and ivory, and also an ostrich egg)
which, together with the architecture of the grave
and its position in respect to the others, suggests
that the persons buried there enjoyed high social
status. The 22 ivory objects identified from this
grave represent 56.4% of the total recovered from
sector PP4- Montelirio (39 pieces), although this
count will probably increase as their study pro-
gresses. Albeit it is not the Chalcolithic funerary
structure containing the most ivory objects found
in Iberia, structure 10042-10049 certainly held the
largest quantity in gross weight (table 1). Among
the 39 ivory artefacts identied in the PP4-Monte-
lirio sector are bracelets, hairpins, various types of
containers, two elephant tusks (one unworked and
the other with carved decoration), plaques, the hilt
of a dagger and part of what may be its sheath, a
pair of combs or ornamental combs, and remains
of other, unidentied objects.
It seems clear that we nd extraordinary ob-
jects of ivory in the Dolmen de Montelirio as well
as in tomb 10049 and that in both cases the ma-
jority of the grave goods belong to one or only a
few individuals. Therefore, it might be possible
to identify a rst notion of individuality, a change
from a segmented society to one with an emerging
elite with high prestige and power (García Sanjuán
2006, 157; Cruz-Auñón Briones/Mejías 2013, 196 f.).
Nevertheless, it will be necessary to study more in-
tensively these and other tombs to understand the
grade of hierarchization and complexity of these
societies. Clearly these personalities are the bene-
ciaries of the exchange of ivory and other exotic
goods, used to express their prestige and power, no
matter whether we have to call them ‘big men’ or
‘chiefs’ (compare Strahm 2002). But are these per-
sonalities also the ones who organised the middle
and long-range exchange of prestige goods? Are
they the merchants of ivory themselves?
There is another fact that might help to clari-
fy this question. In tomb 10049 of Valencina an
Ivory Exchange Networks in the Chalcolithic of the Western Mediterranean 297
elephant tusk appeared, complete but cut transver-
sally into three pieces (g.3). Afterwards the three
pieces were deposited together, as if the tusk were
still intact. Was this tusk thought to be transformed
into objects for the dead buried in this tomb? But
did this man die before the objects were nished,
so that instead the unworked tusk was included
among the grave-goods? Or, on the contrary, are
the tusk and the ostrich egg an expression of the
control over the exchange of exotic goods, which
Sites Context Area
Settlement
Ivory objects
number weight (g)
Zambujal Settlement 2 3
Cabeço da Arruda tomb 1 1 2
Cova da Moura 1 1
Total > 2,5 ha 4 6
Vila Nova de São Pedro aprox. 1,5 ha 8min. 8
Leceia aprox. 1,5 ha 10 16
Praia das Maçãs Tomb 8min. 132,8
Palmela Tomb 2 1 1
Tomb 3 112
Total 213
Alcalar 20 ha 117
Perdigões Tomb 1 62* 142,9*
Tomb 2 203* 546*
Total 16 ha 265* 688,9*
La Pijotilla 80 ha 3>63
Valencina de la Concepción Pit 402 36* 69,6*
Señorío de Guzmán tomb 2 129,3
Señorío de Guzmán tomb 3 1
Montelirio tomb min. 2
Tomb 10.042-10.049 min. 25 min. 1198
Total max. 230 ha min. 65 min. 1296,9
Gilena Cueva Antoniana tomb 1 912,7
Juan Corrales tomb 1 1
Total 10 min. 12,7
Los Millares Tomb 5 324
Tomb 7 534,5
Tomb 8 3
Tomb 12 11 min. 105
Tomb 20 1
Tomb 31 1
Tomb 40 22 min. 97,9
Tomb 59 1
Tomb 71 1
Total 6 ha 48 min. 261,4
* includes fragments
Tab. 1. Number and weight of ivory objects in different settlements and tombs of the Older Chalcolithic period.
Thomas X. Schuhmacher
298
this person carried out, and therefore the tusk was
taken out of circulation? Or do we see here the
tomb of a specialist who worked ivory? It seems
like the last possibility is the least probable, be-
cause, besides the silex blades and the copper awl,
we did not nd any other items in the tomb, which
would be appropriate for such work, for example
there is no copper saw.
In the ditched enclosure of Perdigões (Por-
tugal) two tholos tombs were excavated (Valera
et al. 2015). Tomb 1 was used only during the rst
half of the 3rd mill. BC and delivered, amongst
others, 60 objects and fragments of ivory. Tomb 2
had two phases of use. To the rst phase, dated to
the Pre-Beaker Chalcolithic of the rst half of the
3rd mill. BC, 89 objects and 114 fragments can be
assigned. In both tombs we nd also raw material
and production waste of ivory. Therefore, it seems
possible that among the dead of the two tombs we
could nd also some ivory craftsmen. However, be-
cause of the collective burial rites, with more than
100 individuals in tomb 1, it is impossible to indi-
vidualise the inhumations and their grave goods.
In any case, as the ivory workshop from Va-
lencina de la Concepión as well as the raw ma-
terial fragments in Perdigões demonstrate, the
majority of the Asian as well as the African ivory
should have arrived already in the rst quarter of
the 3rd mill. BC in the form of raw material, to be
worked locally (Vargas et al. 2012; Nocete et al.
2013). In Valencina a pit (402), formed like the g-
ure eight, was discovered in the southern margin of
a metallurgic quarter, excavated between 2001 and
2005 and situated in the southwestern periphery of
the settlement. The pit contained a concentration
of ivory together with bone tools, mainly pins and
spatulas, int blades, a crucible, fragments of rock
crystal and ceramic fragments. The ivory consists
of raw material, half-nished objects and produc-
tion waste. Inside the same pit and next to a con-
centration of ivory, a copper saw was deposited.
It may be said that in the Late Chalcolithic/be-
ginning of the Early Bronze Age (ca. 2500–1900 BC),
the number of ivory objects grows, compared to
the Early Chalcolithic period, while the total weight
diminishes (Schuhmacher 2011; 2012a, 392–394;
2012b; 2016). At the same time, the geographical
distribution of ivory objects expands; the exchange
networks within the Iberian Peninsula are grow-
ing. Therefore, there are now many small ivory
objects in the hands of many people. Thus, we
could either suppose a certain popularisation and
loss of importance of ivory or, on the contrary, a
growing elite group. A few contexts stand out with
an extra ordinary number and variety of objects,
such as the tombs of Matarrubilla (Sevilla) (Ober-
maier 1919; Collantes 1969), Los Algarbes 5 (Cádiz)
(Posac 1975; Rivero 1988, 82 f.; Mata Almonte 1991;
García Jiménez et al. 2011) and the funerary area 2
of Camino de Yeseras (Madrid) (Liesau et al. 2008;
2011). It seems clear that only very few prominent
personalities from a growing elite were allowed a
great staff with ivory and gold elements. As in the
previous phase, these characters seem to be those,
who organised the exchange at a long and medium
distance. Here we must mention the necropolis of
Los Algarbes located near the Strait of Gibraltar
(g. 2). Due to its geographical location, it seems
reasonable to assume that the corresponding
settle ment played an important role in relation
Fig. 3. Valencina de
la Concepción (Seville).
Elephant tusk from
tomb 10.042-10.049.
Ivory Exchange Networks in the Chalcolithic of the Western Mediterranean 299
to maritime trac through the strait. Also for this
time, the social structure still needs to be analysed,
in order to decide whether we need to call these
outstanding gures ‘big men’ or ‘chiefs’. In fact, in
the case of the dead buried in the hypogeum of the
funerary area 2 of Camino de Yeseras it seems like
we are talking about a religious leader (Blasco et al.
2009; Blasco/Ríos 2010, 368 f.). These exchange sys-
tems surely conform social strategies of the leaders
to obtain exotic objects like ivory to underline and
express their power and prestige. These strategies
include, as Garrido (2006, 84 f.) explains, alliances,
political pacts, marriage agreements and the ex-
change of prestige objects.
The Source of Ivory and its Exchange
According to our scientic analysis on ivory ob-
jects from the Iberian Peninsula we are able to
recognise two different exchange networks of
ivory during the Chalcolithic (Banerjee et al. 2011;
Schuhmacher/Banerjee 2012; Nocete et al. 2013;
Schuhmacher 2016). So, during the Early Chalco-
lithic Asian ivory dominates in the southeast of the
Iberian Peninsula and African Savannah elephant
ivory in what is today Portugal and the Spanish Ex-
tremadura (g. 1). In the Guadalquivir Valley we
nd both types of raw material. In the Early Chal-
colithic of Los Millares (Almería) we found ivory of
the Asian elephant in 80% of the samples, although
we have to admit that the number of analysis is
still small. The rest is from Elephas antiquus. In Va-
lencina de la Concepción (Seville), including tombs
10042-10049 and the one of Montelirio, 77% of the
analysed samples are from Asian elephant ivory,
the rest is African.
For the second half of the 3rd mill. BC we have
a total of 56 analyses. Regarding the Portuguese Es-
tremadura, we made a considerable effort to clari-
fy what kind of ivory was mainly used during the
Bell Beaker period (approx. 2600–2000 BC) (Schuh-
macher/Banerjee 2011; Schuhmacher 2012a, 415,
Catalogue 2; Schuhmacher et al. 2013). In this re-
spect, up to now we failed to clarify the situation,
but just could confirm the use of sperm whale
teeth. We currently have a total of 15 analyses of
four sites from the Tagus estuary that have pro-
vided sperm whale ivory. Given the small number
of these ndings, lack of harpoons and scenes of
whale hunting and a very small amount of whale
bones in settlements, we conclude that this reects
a use of beached animals.
Besides these 15 objects from the region of the
Tagus estuary, in the second half of the 3rd mill. BC
most are made of ivory from Elephas antiquus
(32.6%), followed by ivory from the Asian (19.6%)
and the African Savannah elephant (19.6%)
(Schuh macher 2012a; 2016; Valera et al. 2015).
But the raw material composition of ivory
again seems to differ geographically. In the South-
west, in the tomb of Matarrubilla, belonging to the
site of Valencina de la Concepción (Seville) six of
twelve analysed objects are ivory from the Asian
elephant, the rest is from Elephas antiquus (g.2).
In tomb 5 of Los Algarbes there is also one Asian
and another one from Elephas antiquus, the latter
was also identied in one piece from the tomb of
Señorío de Guzmán (Valencina de la Concepción).
Among the objects from the tombs in Perdigões
one button and six other objects were clearly dat-
able into Bell Beaker times and are made from
African Savannah elephant ivory, the same as an
idol from La Orden (Seminario de Huelva). From
one tomb in Camino de Yeseras (Madrid) we could
analyse ten pieces, nine being from ivory of Ele-
phas antiquus and one from African ivory.
The analysed contexts of the southeastern
El Argar Bronze Age, like Molinos de Papel, La
Bastida, Gatas, Fuente Álamo and El Argar belong
already to the Early Bronze Age, between 2250
and 1900 BC. Here we recorded six times African
Savannah elephant and in two cases Asian ele-
phant ivory.
But where exactly did this Asian ivory come
from and how did it reach the Iberian Peninsula?
From literal, gurative and archaeological sources
we do know about the existence of the so called
Syrian elephant, in fact a variant of the Asian ele-
phant. This would be the nearest source of Asian
elephant ivory in the 3rd mill. BC (Nocete et al. 2013;
Schuhmacher 2016). A supply of Asian elephant
ivory to the Iberian Peninsula from or via Syria
seems therefore possible. But the problem is that
the few studies undertaken until now rather sug-
gest that in the Levant as well as in Egypt, Crete and
Greece until the beginning of the Final Bronze Age
the most part of the ivory used was hippopotamus
Thomas X. Schuhmacher
300
ivory. On the other hand some recent investiga-
tions about the Final Bronze Age of Ugarit (Gachet-
Bizollon 2007, 15 f., 240) demonstrate that, even
though a 60% of the ivory is hippopotamus ivory,
in contexts of the Royal Palace the percentage of
elephant ivory increases up to 85%. This could in-
dicate a higher appreciation of elephant ivory and
its connection with the highest spheres of society.
Hence, a preference of elephant ivory for an ex-
change of prestige goods between elites would not
be strange. We also should not forget that on the
Iberian Peninsula the use of ivory and its manufac-
ture is an innovation beginning at the end of the 4th
mill. BC, whereas in the Orient ivory manufacture
already starts at the end of the 5th or the beginning
of the 4th mill. BC (Nocete et al. 2013). Therefore, it
seems reasonable to suppose that not only the raw
material but also the know-how related to ivory
reached the Iberian Peninsula by sea and ultimate-
ly from the East.
The problem is not only the geographic origin
of the raw material but also the routes and the
mode of exchange. Unfortunately, detailed studies
and scientic analysis of the ivory objects in Italy,
Southern France, Corsica and Sardinia, indeed for
almost the whole of the Mediterranean outside the
Iberian Peninsula, are still missing.8 Therefore, by
now, it does not seem possible to reconstruct with
accuracy this exchange of Asian ivory over the
Mediterranean during the Chalcolithic.
Regarding African Savannah elephant ivory,
we detect a big quantity of gurative representa-
tions of elephants in North African rock art, for ex-
ample in Morocco south of the Atlas (Banerjee et al.
2011a; 2011b; Schuhmacher 2016). In addition, we
do have literal sources and gurative representa-
tions from Punic and Roman times talking about
their presence until the 8th cent. AD. We could af-
rm that this North African elephant belonged to
the species Loxodonta africana africana or African
Savannah elephant, detected in our analysis on
ivory objects from the Iberian Peninsula and the
Maghreb. In the Maghreb in the 4th and 3rd mill. BC
8 Recently rst analyses have been made on material
from the tomb of Padre Iossu (Sardinia), detecting also ivo-
ry from the Asian elephant. This therefore might conrm
our results and clarify part of the exchange route of that
raw material for the second half of the 3rd mill. BC (Morillo
2015). I thank J. M. Morillo for allowing me to consult his
Master thesis.
we do nd ivory raw material and objects in the
region between Rabat and Casablanca, in concrete
in Dar es-Soltan, Rouazi-Skhirat, Kehf-el-Baroud
and El Kiffen (g.1). First strontium isotope anal-
ysis demonstrate that the 87/86Sr rate of some ivory
objects out of two tombs of Perdigões coincides
with the one of ivory raw material from the cave
of Kehf- el-Baroud (Morocco). Other samples from
La Pijotilla (Badajoz) on the contrary show rates
similar to those from Cap Sim (Essaouira, Marrue-
cos). This seems to conrm that at least part of the
African ivory came from the Atlantic coast of Mo-
rocco to the Portuguese Alentejo and the Spanish
Extremadura, probably via the Guadalquivir (Va-
lencina de la Concepción) and the Tagus estuaries.
As the ivory tusk from tomb 10042-10049 from
Valencina de la Concepción and the correspond-
ing grave goods corroborate, it came together
with ostrich eggs primarily as raw material to the
southern Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula.
Unfortunately, ostrich eggs did not get enough
scientific attention since the publication of the
tombs of Los Millares by the Leisners. Tomb 12 of
Los Millares delivered 800 beads made of ostrich
egg-shells and another twelve were found in
tomb 63 (Leisner/Leisner 1943; Harrison/Gilman
1977). Recent nds of ostrich egg fragments in the
smaller chamber of the tomb of Montelirio and
a complete egg in the upper level of tomb 10049
finally confirm these dates (Fernández/Aycart
2013; García Sanjuán et al. 2013). Those nds are
documented in Morocco in the contemporaneous
necropolis of Rouazi-Skhirat and in the caves of
Kehf- el-Baroud and Dar es-Soltan (Wailly 1973–
1975, 53; Bokbot 2005, 144 f.; Ruhlmann 1951, 100).
Other elements which highlight this rela-
tionship in the rst half of the 3rd mill. BC are cy-
lindrical boxes of ivory, found primarily in the
Portuguese Estremadura, but also in the Alente-
jo, Southwest and Southeast Spain, as well as
in the contemporaneous necropolis of Rouazi-
Skhirat ( Rabat) (Daugas 2002; Bokbot 2005, 145 f.,
g. 27, 28) (g.4). 9 Other elements reached North-
west Africa in exchange for ivory, like painted pot-
tery, found in level IIIb of Gar Cahal (Ceuta), or the
copper axes and bifacial silex daggers from Gar
9 I would like to thank J.-P. Daugas for further informa-
tion on these nds.
Ivory Exchange Networks in the Chalcolithic of the Western Mediterranean 301
Cahal (Tetuan) and Kehf-el-Baroud (Ben Slimane)
(Bokbot 2005, 147–149 Abb. 36–38; Monteagudo
1977, 34-41 Nr. 93–138A). In Kehf-el-Baroud two
copper awls were found too.
We could add another ceramic type to this dis-
cussion. Daugas saw similarities between the ves-
sels with comb impressions of the type Rouazi-el
Kiffen and such of the Bell Beaker horizon ( Daugas
2002, 151–153. Compare Bokbot 2005, 148 f.). He
thinks it possible that the ceramics of the type
Rouazi-El Kiffen did take part in the evolution of
the Bell Beaker ceramics of the Iberian Peninsula.
Turek recently revisited this idea, proposing that
the Bell Beaker phenomenon originated out of this
contact between Northwest Africa and the Portu-
guese Estremadura (Turek 2012).
Harrison and Gilman already postulated an ex-
change of North African ivory for products from
the Bell Beaker culture on the Iberian Peninsu-
la in the second half of the 3rd mill. BC (Harrison/
Gilman 1977; Souville 1984, 241 – 245; Bokbot 2005,
167). Unfortunately, our analyses are still not able
to conrm this, as we still lack evidence for Afri-
can ivory in the Tagus estuary. Up to now in the Ta-
gus area we only could detect sperm whale ivory
(Schuhmacher/Banerjee 2011; Schuhmacher et al.
2013). However, the presence of African ivory in
La Orden (Huelva), Perdigões (Alentejo) and Cami-
no de Yeseras might arm that the Atlantic route
from Northwest Africa to the Spanish Southwest
and Central Portugal was still active ( Schuhmacher
2012a, 425– 429; 2016). Thus, the sea routes from
Northwest Africa to Central Portugal pass by the
coast of Huelva.
In contrast, in the Maghreb we effectively rec-
ognise a fairly large number of objects, probably
imported from the Iberian Peninsula (Banerjee
et al. 2011a; Schuhmacher 2014; 2016). Amongst
this material we nd Bell Beakers, Palmela points,
a halberd, a tanged dagger, metal awls and a wrist-
guard (fig. 5). Among the Bell Beaker ceramics,
apart from maritime vessels, other fragments were
identied, whose decorations and shapes remind
others from the Iberian Peninsula, and more specif-
ically, the estuaries of Tagus and Guadalquivir. As
it is known, the Palmela points also show a concen-
tration in their distribution throughout these two
regions. The sites of the Maghreb, which provided
materials imported from the Iberian Peninsula,
are mostly concentrated around Tangier and also
around Rabat and Casablanca. Some import goods
were redistributed inland, towards the Fez area.
Therefore, it is here on the Atlantic coast between
Casablanca and Tangier where ivory was shipped
towards the estuaries of Guadalquivir and Tagus.
The Process of Exchange
In the case of the exchange of African ivory we
do have evidence that at the end of the 4th and the
whole of the 3rd mill. BC at least part of the ivory
came from the Atlantic coast of Morocco and
reached the Guadalquivir estuary, the Portuguese
Algarve and the Tagus estuary by an Atlantic sea-
route (Ponsich 1974; Belén et al. 1996, 354 f.; Schuh-
macher 2012a, 418–429, g. 153, 156). But how did
this exchange work? Who were the merchants?
As we have seen, in the Early Chalcolithic on
the Iberian Peninsula objects of ivory are consid-
ered prestige objects present in monumental tombs
and related with elites. We still do not know well
the contemporaneous societies of the Maghreb.
For example we are still lacking settlements and
we do have only two contemporaneous necropo-
leis (El Kiffen and Rouazi-Skhirat) (Bailloud/Mieg
1964; Lacombe et al. 1990; Daugas 2002; Lacombe
2004; Linstädter 2004, 53–57; Texier et al. 2008).
Fig. 4. Cylindrical box from the necropolis of
Rouazi-Skhirat (Morocco).
Thomas X. Schuhmacher
302
They show a fragmentary documentation, yet it
seems clear that the presence of ivory in some of
these burials was an exception and probably a sign
of prestige, connected at least in Rouazi-Skhirat to
individuals. Perhaps we are also witnessing the be-
ginning of a process of social differentiation and
the birth of elites in the Maghreb, which neverthe-
less is still not perceived clearly. The amount of ex-
changed ivory is small and probably sporadic. Are
we therefore experiencing an exchange of prestige
objects among elites on a small scale? The lack of
respective data and clear detection of elites calls for
caution, assuming a sort of ‘peer-polity interaction’
seems the most likely path (Renfrew 1986).
For the second half of the 3rd mill. BC in North-
west Africa the number of known cemeteries and
individual graves is still very small as well (Schuh-
macher 2014; 2016). Nevertheless, the few burials
containing metal objects, Bell Beaker vessels or
other elements from the Bell Beaker complex of
the Iberian Peninsula – all imported – like the ones
from Mers, Aïn Dalia el Kebira, Sidi Slimane y Ifri
n’Amr or Moussa, give us the rst indications of an
incipient elite, who differentiates itself by funerary
goods imitating the elites from the Iberian Pen-
insula. Still, we are talking about an exchange of
prestige objects at a small scale. At least now, in the
second half of the 3rd mill. BC, the ivory exchange
with the Iberian Peninsula appears to have caused
the emergence of elites in the Maghreb, which until
then were dicult to recognise (Harrison/Gilman
1977, 97–99).
But who were the seafarers and merchants
and who brought the African ivory to the Iberi-
an Peninsula? In any case, we can talk about an
exchange controlled by an elite. It seems like the
Fig. 5. Exchange network in the Bell Beaker period between Northwest Africa and the Iberian Peninsula.
Distribution of ivory objects on the Iberian Peninsula () in comparison with the distribution of objects imported
to the Magreb from the Iberian Peninsula and the exchange routes for African ivory. Bell Beaker ceramics (),
Palmela points (), Copper awls (▼), Halberds (☓), Tanged Copper Daggers () and Wrist-guards (▽).
Ivory Exchange Networks in the Chalcolithic of the Western Mediterranean 303
Chalcolithic societies of the Iberian Peninsula were
much more complex than the ones of Northwest
Africa and had much more benet of this ivory ex-
change, so we would expect Iberian seafarers go-
ing to the Maghreb in order to get the ivory. Here
we should remember the fact that we are still lack-
ing any information about Chalcolithic sea-going
vessels – although they had to exist – for the Ibe-
rian Peninsula, as the oldest ones represented on
Iberian rock-art probably date to the Final Bronze
Age (Mielke/Schuhmacher 2011).
Thanks to the ivory tusk found in the tomb
10049 in Valencina de la Concepción, we know
that African ivory was imported, at least partially,
as raw material to the Iberian Peninsula to be pro-
cessed locally. This is demonstrated by the ivory
workshop in Valencina de la Concepción, although
in the latter case it was Asian ivory (Nocete et al.
2013; García Sanjuán et al. 2013; Luciañez Triviño
et al. 2013).
The big settlement of Valencina de la Concep-
ción without any doubt played an important role
in the exchange, reception, transformation, redis-
tribution and consumption of ivory (Nocete et al.
2013; García Sanjuán et al. 2013). The tombs and
the ivory workshop related to this site delivered
one of the most numerous contexts of ivory objects
for the Early Chalcolithic and the Bell Beaker Chal-
colithic. Together with the presence of other exotic
objects this highlights the importance of Valencina
in middle and long distance exchange (compare
Sindbæk 2013, 86). There is an ongoing discussion
about the character of this site and the exact size of
the site in any specic moment in time is an open
question. There are arguments favouring major
horizontal movements of the site during time or
even the possibility of different contemporaneous
sites (Mederos et al. 2015; Schuhmacher et al. 2015).
Questioning whether we are talking about a per-
manent settlement, other possibilities like a meet-
ing-point are brought in discussion (García San-
juán 2013, 35). It is correct, that we are still lacking
almost any evidence for domestic structures like
huts, but the presence of numerous furnaces or
crucibles for the reduction and smelting of copper,
non-ritual domestic pits (besides others obviously
of ritualistic character), grave monuments, com-
mon ware ceramics and the presence of grinding
stones speaks in favour of a permanent settlement.
The reduced number of grinding stones and the
lack of habitational structures, like huts, probably
is due to the lack of systematic research on the site
and cannot be used as an argument against the as-
sumption of a settlement. Although in Los Millares
we still lack an ivory workshop and ivory raw ma-
terial, it should have fullled the same role for the
Southeast (Schuhmacher 2012a). Other centres,
where the ivory arrived during the rst half of the
3rd mill. BC, could be Alcalar ( Algarve), although
the amount of ivory documented there is still very
small (table 2).
During the Chalcolithic a quite big amount of
ivory appears in some tombs in Atlantic Central
Portugal, such as Praia das Maçãs for the Early
Chalcolithic or Palmela for the Bell Beaker period.
On the other hand, some ivory objects are docu-
mented in the fortied settlements, such as Leceia,
Zambujal, Vila Nova de São Pedro and Pedra do
Ouro, but their number is, until now, quite small
(gs.1–3). Of course, this corresponds to the fact,
that in the Chalcolithic ivory artefacts appear
mainly in funerary contexts and not settlements.
Here, in many cases we still do not know the settle-
ment corresponding to the tombs with ivory, or
this settlement has not yet been excavated. In con-
trast, in Leceia, Vila Nova de São Pedro, Pedra do
Ouro, we still lack the corresponding funeral mon-
uments. In the case of Zambujal the burials of the
corresponding articial cave of Cabeço de Arru-
da and the cave Cova de Moura at least delivered
a few ivory objects. For all these reasons it is still
very dicult to determine the role of the fortied
settlements of the Portuguese Estremadura in the
ivory exchange. Sousa and Gonçalves (2012, 387,
391) argue that the Portuguese Estremadura is a
territory that shows little territorial hierarchiza-
tion. The exotic objects disseminate among the big
number of fortied settlements. They also claim,
that the tombs of this region do not show much
signs of social differentiation. But this is only par-
tially true, as we actually do nd tombs, although
with a collective ritual, which contain much more
prestige objects than others, such as Praia das
Maçãs. Furthermore, Waterman et al. (2015) ob-
served dietary differences between different buri-
als in the Portuguese Estremadura based on stable
isotope analysis. So, the persons buried at Cova da
Moura show a higher protein intake, which could
Thomas X. Schuhmacher
304
be caused by a social differentiation, especially if
we take in mind that the Cova da Moura burials
also exhibit a higher number and greater diversity
of rare raw materials (Thomas 2011). And we have
to assume that the Cova da Moura burials are relat-
ed to the fortied settlement of Zambujal.
It is true, that the differences, both in size, ar-
chitecture and prestige objects between the for-
tified settlements in Estremadura are small and
the number of ivory objects is quite scattered over
many sites. Nevertheless, we do believe they played
a central role in the exchange of ivory (Jorge/Jorge
1997, 134 – 136; Kunst 1995; Schuhmacher/Cardoso
2007; Schuhmacher 2012a, 308– 311, 329–331), al-
though almost none stands out among the others. At
the same time, the distribution of ivory objects does
not match with a ‘down-the-line’-exchange, but an
exchange organised by elites (Renfrew 1984; 1986).
The Redistribution of Ivory Objects in
the Iberian Peninsula
African ivory probably reached the sites near the
Tagus estuary and from there this material was
redistributed towards inner Portugal, the Alente-
jo and the middle Guadiana (Schuhmacher 2012b,
294–296; 2016). The arguments sustaining this are
various. In the Alentejo as well as in the Peninsu-
lae of Lisbon and Setúbal African elephant ivory
was used, whereas in the Guadalquivir estuary
we do have a majority of Asian ivory, although the
latest analyses demonstrated a certain amount
of African ivory in Valencina as well as in Gilena
(Seville).
We do have additional arguments resulting
from other investigation projects:
a) R. Müller could demonstrate that the cop-
per used in the Tagus estuary came from the
Alentejo region (Müller/Soares 2008; Müller/
Cardoso 2008; Cardoso /Carvalhosa 1995; Car-
doso 2004; Sousa/Gonçalves 2012; Gauss 2015),
the same region J. L. Cardoso identified as a
source for amphibolite. So both could have
acted as a gift in return for ivory.
b) In the Portuguese Estremadura we do nd only
some schist plaques whereas these objects do
have their major distribution in the Alente-
jo (Sousa/Gonçalves 2012; Boaventura 2011).
On the other hand, objects made of limestone
Site Context Area
Settlement
Ivory objects
number weight (g)
Palmela Tomb 1 66,5
Tomb 4 314
Total 920,5
Pedra do Ouro Settlement 0,15 ha 5 9
Verdelha dos Ruivos Funerary cave 6 9
Vila Nova de São Pedro aprox. 1,5 ha 6 7
Perdigões Tomb 2 572* 1208,4*
Ambience 1 297 300,8
Pit 16 10 2,9
Pit 40 223 542,1
Total 16 ha 1102 2054,2*
La Pijotilla 80 ha 228
Valencina de la Concepción Tomb of Matarrubilla max. 230 ha 86 618,5
Los Algarbes Tomb 5 121 105,3
Cerro de la Virgen Settlement 12 -
Camino de Yeseras Rock-cut tomb aprox. 20 ha 24 6,9
Tab. 2. Number and weight of ivory objects in different settlements and tombs of the Younger Chalcolithic/Bell
Beaker period.
Ivory Exchange Networks in the Chalcolithic of the Western Mediterranean 305
show the reverse pattern, their majority comes
from the Portuguese Estremadura and only a
minority from the Alentejo.
c) First results of strontium isotope analysis on
human bones reveal that part of the popula-
tion buried in two tombs of the settlement of
Perdigões situated in the Alentejo region orig-
inally came from the Lisbon peninsula (Hillier
et al. 2010). At the same time, Waterman and
her team could verify that the opposite move-
ment of persons occurred too (Waterman et al.
2014).
Still, we cannot completely exclude that African
ivory reached the Middle Guadiana regions, e.g.
Perdigões and La Pijotilla, by a southern route,
upriver the Guadiana or by the Guadalquivir estu-
ary (Valencina de la Concepción). Studies on teeth
morphology on individuals from the tombs of Per-
digões and Cerro de las Baterías (La Albuera, Bada-
joz) and DNA studies from Perdigões indicate the
presence of African elements (Cunha 2012; 2015,
217–227, 267 f., 281 f.; Afonso et al. 2013). This
contrasts the results of other analyses, although of
small sample size, on individuals from the tombs
of Bolores and Feteira in the Portuguese Estrema-
dura, where other non-African traits could be
detected.
In any case, among the materials exchanged
by the river system between the Tagus estuary and
the Alentejo we have to include ivory (Boaven-
tura 2011). So in Perdigões (Alentejo) we can nd
big quantities of ivory in two tombs (Valera et al.
2015). Among nished objects there raw material
and production waste occurs as well, indicating
that probably also raw material was exchanged
in order to process it locally. Valera et al. (2015,
402 –404) postulate, that ‘several circumstances
favour the possibility that the site operated as a
meeting place’. This refers to the already published
studies on strontium isotopes and teeth morphol-
ogy, which suggest a signicant presence of out-
siders in Perdigões, coming from the region of
the Tagus estuary. It is even possible that, related
with the ivory exchange, restricted movements of
people from Northern Africa to the Iberian Penin-
sula took place too.
In the second half of the 3rd mill. BC we are
facing a growth of consumption of local ivory
like that of Elephas antiquus and of sperm whale
(Schuhmacher/Banerjee 2011; Schuhmacher
2012a; Schuhmacher et al. 2013). Otherwise, we
consider the hypothesis of Harrison and Gilman
(Harrison/Gilman 1977; Souville 1984, 241–245;
Bokbot 2005, 167; Banerjee et al. 2011a; Schuh-
macher 2012a; 2016) of an exchange of North Af-
rican ivory for objects of the Bell Beaker complex
to be valid, as demonstrated by the proper distri-
bution of the ivory objects on the Iberian Peninsu-
la and the Bell Beaker objects in Northern African
(g.5). In fact, a big part of the decorations and
forms of North African Bell Beakers do nd par-
allels in the Bell Beaker complex Palmela (Portu-
gal) and the ones of the Guadalquivir valley. Still,
we have to admit, that at present the results of our
analyses only partially can corroborate this hy-
pothesis, as we still lack proof for a utilisation of
African ivory in the Bell Beaker period in the Por-
tuguese Estremadura. Then again, we could detect
it in Perdigões (Alentejo) and in the settlement of
La Orden-Seminario de Huelva.
We suppose that the process was similar
as before, an exchange of ivory from the Tagus
estuary to the Alentejo, among others because of
the presence of Asian ivory in the Guadalquivir
estuary and a simultaneous lack of African
ivory. But now we see that the African ivory also
came upstream and reached the sites of Central
Spain like Camino de Yeseras (San Fernando
de Henares, Madrid) and probably Humanejos
(Parla, Madrid) (Ríos/Liesau 2011, 365‒367
figs. 4, 5; Liesau et al. 2011). Thus, in Yeseras
we find besides an utilisation of local Elephas
antiquus ivory at least one sample of ivory from
Loxodonta africana africana. Among others the
presence of two buttons with double appendices
in Humanejos underlines the connection, as this
is a form typical for the Tagus estuary and only
rarely present outside this region (Uscatescu 1992,
83–86, g. 35; Schuhmacher 2012a, 202–208 gs.
54, 55; 2016). In Humanejos a Carrapatas type
halberd appeared as well, a form of clear Atlantic
origin (Pardo et al. 2011, gs. 3, 7; Schuhmacher
2002). We also will have to ask ourselves, whether
this concentration of ivory artefacts in the south
of Madrid, Camino de Yeseras, Humanejos and
Ciempozuelos, could not be related to the resources
of int and salt available and exploited there (Ríos
2011, 47‒51 gs. 17, 19).
Thomas X. Schuhmacher
306
Conclusions
The studies on ivory objects from the Chalcolithic
period of the Iberian Peninsula and Northwest
Africa demonstrated that the consumption of ivory
objects on the Iberian Peninsula during the Chalco-
lithic was more important than previously thought.
We could arm the beginning of ivory use at the
end of the 4th mill. BC corresponding with the start
of social complexity and a prestige based elite. It is
possible that this sudden beginning on the Iberi-
an Peninsula in part was due to northward move-
ments of population – and elephants – in North-
west Africa caused by the drying of the Sahara
region. Still, the quite complex ivory manufacture
of the Iberian Peninsula needs secondary explana-
tions, which probably lie in other external factors
innate to the Eastern Mediterranean, if we con-
sider that part of the ivory used in Southeast and
Southwest Spain belongs to the Asian elephant.
At the same time, from the Atlantic coast of
what is today Morroco African elephant ivory
reached the fortied settlements and/or ditched
enclosures of the Atlantic coasts of Portugal and
southwestern Spain by peer-polity interaction in
exchange for painted pottery, metal objects and
silex daggers in the Early Chalcolithic and Bell
Beaker vessels and other objects of the Bell Beaker
complex in the Late Chalcolithic. Mainly raw ma-
terial came to the Iberian Peninsula, where it was
processed locally, redistributed and consumed in
elite burials. Especially between the Portuguese Es-
tremadura and the Alentejo (Perdigões) we could
detect a complex network of exchange related with
the redistribution of ivory. This implies also the
movement of individuals. Ivory clearly serves as a
prestigious material for the local elites to express
their status and power and the exchange of ivory
nally contributes to the development of a local
elite in Northwest Africa.
Bibliography
Afonso et al. 2011: J. A. Afonso Marrero / J. A. Cámara Serrano/G. Martínez Fernández/F. Molina González,
Objetos en materias primas exoticas y estructura jerárquica de las tumbas de la necrópolis de Los Mil-
lares (Santa Fé de Mondújar, Almería, España). In: L. García/ C. Scarre/D. W. Wheatley (eds.), Exploring
Time and Matter in Prehistoric Monuments. Absolute Chronology and Rare Rocks in European Meg-
aliths, Proceedings of the 2nd European Megalithic Studies Group Meeting, Seville (Spain), November
2008, Menga Monográco 1 (Seville 2011) 295–333.
Afonsoetal.2013: C. Afonso/ A. M. Silva/A. Malgosa, Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic in Portugal. Preliminary
Results from Ancient DNA Analysis. Poster Presented at I Bioanthropological Meeting (Coimbra 2013).
Almagro/Arribas1963: M. Almagro Basch / A. Arribas, El poblado y la necrópolis megalíticos de Los Mil-
lares (Santa Fé de Mondújar, Almería). Bibliotheca Praehistorica Hispana 3 (Madrid 1963).
Arribas 1977: A. Arribas, El idolo de „El Malagón“ (Cullar-Baza, Granada). Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la
Universidad de Granada 2, 1977, 63–82.
Bailloud/Mieg1964: G. Bailloud/P. Mieg de Boofzheim, La nécropole néolithique d´El-Kiffen. Libyca 12,
1964, 95–171.
Banerjee et al. 2011a: A. Banerjee/W. Dindorf/A. Mikdad/T. Reischmann/T. X. Schuhmacher, Die Elfen-
beinfunde aus Kehf-el-Baroud (Ziaïda, Ben Slimane, Marokko) und die Frage des Nordafrikanischen
Elefanten. Madrider Mitteilungen 52, 2011, 113–138.
Thomas X. Schuhmacher
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut
Abteilung Madrid
Serrano 159
28002 Madrid, Spanien
thomas.schuhmacher@dainst.de
Institut für Archäologie, Denkmalkunde
und Kunstgeschichte
Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg
Am Kranen 14
D-96047 Bamberg
thomasxsch@ono.com
Ivory Exchange Networks in the Chalcolithic of the Western Mediterranean 307
Banerjee et al. 2011b: A. Banerjee / A. El Khayari/D. Marzoli /J. Eiwanger/F. Enzmann/J. Goebbels /P. M.
Grootes/J. Huth/M. Hüls/D. Meinel/J. Michel/M.-J. Nadeau/T. Reischmann/J.-O. Schwarz, Naturwis-
senschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Elfenbein von Sidi Harraz/Cap Sim und Mogador (Essaouira, Ma-
rokko). Madrider Mitteilungen 52, 2011, 87–138.
Belén et al. 1996: M. Belén / J. L. Escacena/C. López Roa/A. Rodero, Fenicios en el Atlántico. Excavaciones
españolas en Lixus. Los conjuntos „C. Montalbán“ y „Cata Basílica“. In: M. A. Querol/ T. Chapa (eds.),
Homenaje al Prof. M. Fernández Miranda. Complutum Extra 6.1, 1996, 339–357.
Blanco 1962: A. Blanco Freijeiro, Die ältesten plastischen Menschendarstellungen der Iberischen Hal-
binsel. Madrider Mitteilungen 3, 1962, 11–20.
Blasco et al. 2009: C. Blasco /C. Liesau/ P. Ríos/ J. F. Blanco/R. Aliaga/E. Moreno /A. Daza (eds.), Kupferzeit-
liche Siedlungsbestattungen mit Glockenbecher- und Prestigebeigaben aus dem Grabenwerk von El
Camino de Las Yeseras (San Fernando de Henares, Prov. Madrid). Untersuchungen zur Typologie des
Grabritus und zu dessen sozialer Symbolik. Madrider Mitteilungen 50, 2009, 40–70.
Blasco/Ríos 2010: C. Blasco/P. Ríos, La función del metal entre los grupos campaniformes. Oro versus co-
bre. El ejemplo de la región de Madrid. Trabajos de Prehistoria 67.2, 2010, 359–372.
Boaventura 2011: R. Boaventura, Bodies in Motion. Implications of Gender in Long-Distance Exchange be-
tween the Lisbon and Alentejo Regions of Portugal in the Late Neolithic. In: K. T. Lillios (ed.), Compara-
tive Archaeologies. The American Southwest (900–1600 AD) and the Iberian Peninsula (3000–1500 BC)
(Oxford 2011) 207– 219.
Bokbot 2005: Y. Bokbot, La civilización del vaso Campaniforme en Marruecos y la cuestión del sustrato Cal-
colítico precampaniforme. In: M. A. Rojo Guerra/R. Garrido Pena/I. García Martínez de Lagrán (eds.),
El campaniforme en la Península Ibérica y su contexto europeo (Valladolid 2005) 137–173.
Bronk Ramsey 2009: C. Bronk Ramsey, Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51.1,
2009, 337–360.
Camps 1960: G. Camps, Les traces d’un Age du Bronze en Afrique du Nord. Revue Africaine 104, 1960, 31–55.
Cardoso2004: J. L. Cardoso, Polished Stone Artefacts at the Prehistoric Settlement of Leceia (Oeiras). Ma-
drider Mitteilungen 45, 2004, 1–32.
Cardoso/Carvalhosa 1995: J. L. Cardoso/A. B. Carvalhosa, Estudos petrográcos de artefactos de pedra pol-
ida do povoado pré-histórico de Leceia (Oeiras). Análises de proveniências. Estudos Arqueológicos de
Oeiras 5, 1995, 123–151.
Chapman 1981: R. Chapman, Archaeological Theory and Communal Burial in Prehistoric Europe. In: N.
Hammond/I. Hodder/G. Isaac (eds.), Pattern of the Past. Studies in the Honour of David Clarke (Cam-
bridge 1981).
Collantes 1969: F. Collantes de Terán, El dolmen de Matarubilla. In: V Symposion Internacional de Prehis-
toria Peninsular, Jerez de la Frontera 1969 (Barcelona 1969) 47– 61.
Cruz-AuñónBriones/ Mejías2013: R. Cruz-Auñón Briones/J. C. Mejías García, Diversidad de prácticas funer-
arias e identidades en el asentamiento de Valencina de la Concepción (Sevilla). 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 2013) 175– 199.
Cruz Auñon et al. 2010: R. Cruz-Auñón/F. Nocete/J. C. Mejías, Ciertos aspectos funerarios en la necrópolis
de Valencina-Castilleja (Sevilla). In: D. Calado / M. Baldia / M. Boulanger (eds.), Monumental Questions.
Prehistoric Megaliths, Mounds and Enclosures. British Archaeological Reports. International Series
211 (Oxford 2010) 51‒56.
Cunha 2012: C. Cunha, Caracterização da morfologia dentária no Médio Guadiana no Neolítico Final-Cal-
colítico. Fundamentação para o mapeamento morfológico das populações locais na Préhistória re-
cente. Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património 8, 2012, 49–55.
Cunha 2015: C. M. S. Cunha, Crossing the River. The Dental Morphology of Chalcolithic Populations in the
Middle Guadiana (PhD-Thesis Universidade de Coimbra 2015).
Daugas 2002: J.-P. Daugas, Le néolithique du Maroc. Pour un modèle d’évolution chronologique et cultur-
elle. Bulletin d’Archéologie Marocaine 19, 2002, 135–175.
Thomas X. Schuhmacher
308
Daugas/El Idrissi 2008: J.-P. Daugas / A. El Idrissi, Neolitico Antiguo de Marruecos en su contexto regional.
In: J. Ramos/M. Zouak / D. Bernal/B. Raissouni (eds.), Las ocupaciones humanas de la cueva de Caf Taht
el Ghar (Tetuán). Colección de Monografías del Museo Arqueológico de Tetuán 1 (Cádiz 2008) 63‒91.
Dias et al. 2008: M. I. Dias/M. I. Prudêncio/J. Sanjurjo Sànchez/ G. O. Cardoso /D. Franco, Datação por lu-
minescência de sedimentos de sepulcros articiais da necrópole pré-histórica da Sobreira de Cima (Vi-
digueira). Resultados preliminares. Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património 2, 2008, 31‒40.
Escacena 2000: J. L. Escacena Carrasco, Applications of evolutive archaeology. Migrations from Africa to
Iberia in the Recent Prehistory. In: A. Arnaiz Villena (ed.), Prehistoric Iberia. Genetics, Anthropology
and Linguistics (New York 2000) 125–162.
Fernández/ Aycart2013: A. Fernández Flores/ V. Aycart Luengo, El dolmen de Montelirio. Un sepulcro clave
para la comprensión de los grandes monumentos funerarios de Valencina-Castilleja. In: L. García San-
juán/J. M. Vargas Jiménez/V. Hurtado Pérez / T. Ruiz Moreno/R. Cruz-Auñón (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 2013) 233– 260.
Fernández Gómez/ Oliva 1980: F. Fernández Gómez/D. Oliva Alonso, Los ídolos calcolíticos del Cerro de la
Cabeza (Valencina de la Concepción, Sevilla). Madrider Mitteilungen 21, 1980, 20–44.
Gachet-Bizollon 2007: J. Gachet-Bizollon, Les ivoires d’Ougarit et l’art des ivoires du Levant au Bronze Ré-
cent. Ras Shamra-Ougarit 16 (Paris 2007).
García Jiménez et al. 2011: I. García Jiménez /V. Castañeda Fernánez/F. Prados Martínez, La necrópolis de
cuevas articiales de Los Algarbes, Tarifa (Cadiz). Nuevas explicaciones históricas a raíz de las actu-
ales investigaciones. In: Memorial Luis Siret, I Congreso de Prehistoria de Andalucía, La tutela del pat-
rimonio prehistórico (Sevilla 2011) 583‒586.
García Sanjuán 2006: L. García Sanjuán, Funerary Ideology and Social Inequality in the Late Prehistory of
the Iberian South-West (c. 3300–850 cal BC). In: P. Díaz del Rio/L. García Sanjuán (eds.), Social Inequal-
ity in Iberian Late Prehistory. British Archaeological Reports. International Series 1525 (Oxford 2006)
149–169.
GarcíaSanjuán 2013: L. García Sanjuán, El asentamiento de la Edad del Cobre de Valencina de la Con-
cepción: Estado actual de la investigación, debates y perspectivas. 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 Descubrimien-
to de La Pastora. Universidad de Sevilla (Sevilla 2013) 21– 59.
GarcíaSanjuánet al.2013: L. García Sanjuán / M. Luciáñez Triviño/T. X. Schuhmacher/D. Wheatley/A.
Banerjee, Ivory Craftsmanship, Trade and Social Signicance in the Southern Iberian Copper Age. The
Evidence from the PP4-Montelirio Sector of Valencina de la Concepción (Seville, Spain). European Jour-
nal of Archaeology 16.4, 2013, 610–635.
Garrido 2006: R. Garrido Pena, Transegalitarian Societies. An Ethnoarchaeological Model for the Analysis
of Copper Age Bell Beaker Using Groups in Central Iberia. In: P. Díaz-del-Río/L. García Sanjuán (eds.),
Social Inequality in Iberian Late Prehistory. British Archaeological Reports. International Series 1525
(Oxford 2006) 81– 96.
Gauss 2015: R. Gauss, Zambujal und die Anfänge der Metallurgie in der Estremadura (Portugal). Technolo-
gie der Kupfergewinnung, Herkunft des Metalls und soziokulturelle Bedeutung der Innovation. Iberia
Archaeologica 15.1 (Tübingen 2015).
Götze 1925: A. Götze, cf. Elfenbein, Europa. In: M. Ebert (ed.), Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte 3 (Berlin 1925) 87.
Harrison 1977: R. J. Harrison, The Bell Beaker Cultures of Spain and Portugal. American School of Prehis-
toric Research, Bulletin 35 (Cambridge 1977).
Harrison/Gilman 1977: R. J. Harrison/A. Gilman, Trade in the Second and Third Millennia B.C. between the
Maghreb and Iberia. In: V. Markotic (ed.), Ancient Europe and the Mediterranean. Studies in Honour of
Hugh Hencken (Warminster 1977) 90– 104.
Hillier et al. 2010: M. Hillier / R. Boaventura/ V. Grimes, Moving Around? Testing Mobility with Strontium
Isotopes (86Sr/87Sr) in the Late Neolithic of South-Central Portugal. Poster Presented at the 8º Encon-
tro de Arqueologia do Algarve. A Arqueologia e as outras Ciências (Silves 2010).
Ivory Exchange Networks in the Chalcolithic of the Western Mediterranean 309
Jodin 1957: A. Jodin, Les problèmes de la civilisation du vase campaniforme au Maroc. Hespéris 44, 1957,
353–360.
Jorge/Jorge 1997: S. Oliveira Jorge/V. Oliveira Jorge, The Neolithic/ Chalcolithic Transition in Portugal. In:
M. Díaz Andreu/S. Keay (eds.), The Archaeology of Iberia. The Dynamics of Change (London 1997)
128–142.
Kunst 1995: M. Kunst, Central Places and Social Complexity in the Iberian Copper Age. In: K. T. Lillios (ed.),
The Origins of Complex Societies in Late Prehistoric Iberia (Ann Arbor 1995) 32– 43.
Lacombe2004: J.-P. Lacombe, Anthropologie du Néolithique marocain. La nécropole de Skhirat. Approche
chrono-géographique des dysplasies pariétales. Antropo 7, 2004, 155–162.
Lacombe et al. 1990: J.-P. Lacombe/ J.-P. Daugas/F.-Z. Sbihi Alaoui, La nécropole néolithique de Rouazi-Skh-
irat (Maroc). Présentation de l’etude des sépultures. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d´Anthropolo-
gie de Paris Nouvelle Série 2.3/ 4, 1990, 55–60.
Leisner/Leisner1943: G. Leisner /V. Leisner, Die Megalithgräber der Iberischen Halbinsel. Der Süden.
Römisch Germanische Forschungen 17 (Berlin 1943).
Leisner et al. 1969: V. Leisner/G. Zbyszewski/ O. da Veiga Ferreira, Les monuments préhistoriques de Praia
das Maçãs et de Casainhos (Lisboa 1969).
Liesau et al. 2008: C. Liesau / C. Blasco/P. Rios /J. Vega/R. Menduiña/J. F. Blanco/ J. Baena/T. Herrera/A.
Petri/J. L. Gómez, Un espacio compartido por vivos y muertos. El poblado calcolítico de fosos de Cami-
no de Yeseras (San Fernando de Henares, Madrid). Complutum 19, 2008, 97–120.
Liesau et al. 2011: C. Liesau/A. Banerjee/J.-O. Schwarz, Camino de las Yeseras’ Ivory Collection. Advances
in Analysis Technology Used in Identifying Raw Material. In: C. Blasco/C. Liesau/P. Ríos (eds.), Yaci-
mientos calcolíticos con campaniforme de la región de Madrid. Nuevos estudios. Patrimonio Arque-
ológico de Madrid 6 (Madrid 2011) 381–386.
Linstädter2004: J. Linstädter, Zum Frühneolithikum des westlichen Mittelmeerraumes. Die Keramik der
Fundstelle Hassi Ouenzga. Forschungen zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie 9 (Aachen
2004).
Linstädter 2016: J. Linstädter, Climate Induced Mobility and the Missing Middle Neolithic in Morocco.
In: M. Reindel /K. Bartl / F. Lüth/N. Benecke (eds.), Palaeoenvironment and the Development of Early
Settlements, Proceedings of the International Conferences Palaeoenvironment and the Development
of Early Societies (Şanlıurfa/ Turkey 5–7 October 2012) and The Development of Early Settlement in
Arid Regions (Aqaba/Jordan 12–15 November 2013). Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen, Forschungs-
Cluster 1.14 (Rahden/ Westf. 2016) 63– 80.
LuciañezTriviñoetal.2013: M. Luciañez Triviño/L. García Sanjuán/T. X. Schuhmacher, Restaurierung von
archäologischem Elfenbein am Beispiel von vier chalkolithischen Elfenbeinobjekten aus der Siedlung
von Valencina de la Concepción (Sevilla). Restaurierung und Archäologie 6, 2013, 71–87.
Mata Almonte 1991: E. Mata Almonte, Informe sobre la intervención en el yacimiento de Los Algarbes, Tar-
ifa (Cadiz). Campaña 1990. In: Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía. Volume 3: Actividades de urgencia.
(Cadiz 1991) 83‒93.
Mederos1993/ 1994: A. Mederos, Los estados incipientes del sureste de la Península Ibérica. Repercu-
siones en las cuencas de los ríos Aguas, Antas y Almanzora. Almería (4500‒1300 A.C./5300‒1600 A.C.)
(PhD-Thesis Universidad de La Laguna 1993/1994).
Mederos et al. 2015: A. Mederos /J. M. Vargas/T. X. Schuhmacher/F. Falkenstein/T. Link, Prospecciones
arqueológicas y geo-magnéticas en los cerros de La Cabeza y del Mármol, sector Norte del poblado
calcolítico de Valencina (Sevilla). Campaña de 2014, SPAL. Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología de
la Universidad de Sevilla 25, 2016, 11‒42; <http://dx.doi.org / 10.12795 /spal.2016i25.01> (last access:
07.02.2017).
Mielke/ Schuhmacher 2011: D. P. Mielke/ T. X. Schuhmacher, Zeugnisse prähistorischer Seefahrt? Die Fels-
bilder mit Schiffsdarstellungen von der Iberischen Halbinsel. In: In Poseidons Reich 16. Frühe Seefahrt
im Mittelmeer. Von den Anfängen bis zur späten Bronzezeit 800 v. Chr., DEGUWA-Tagung, Heidelberg.
Skyllis 11.2 (Heidelberg 2011) 74–87.
Thomas X. Schuhmacher
310
Molina/Cámara 2005: F. Molina/J. A. Cámara, Los Millares. Guía del yacimiento arqueológico (Sevilla
2005).
Monteagudo 1977: L. Monteagudo, Die Beile auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. Prähistorische Bronzefunde 9.6
(München 1977).
Moreno1994: A. Moreno Onorato, El Malagón. Un asentamiento de la Edad del Cobre en el altiplano de
Cullar Chirivel (PhD-Thesis Universidad de Granada 1994) (Microche-Edition).
Morillo 2015: J. M. Morillo León, On-eld characterization of Late-Prehistoric Mediterranean Ivories with
Portable Instruments and Noninvasive Techniques (unpublished Master Thesis Università La Sapienza
di Roma 2015).
Müller/Cardoso 2008: R. Müller/J. L. Cardoso, The Origin and Use of Copper at the Chalcolithic Fortication
of Leceia (Oeiras, Portugal). Madrider Mitteilungen 49, 2008, 64– 93.
Müller/Soares 2008: R. Müller/A. M. Monge Soares, Traces of Early Copper Production at the Chalcolithic
Fortication of Vila Nova de São Pedro (Zambuja, Portugal). Madrider Mitteilungen 49, 2008, 94–114.
Nehren 1992: R. Nehren, Zur Prähistorie der Maghrebländer (Marokko- Algerien-Tunesien). Materialien
zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie 49.1 (Mainz 1992).
Noceteetal.2013: F. Nocete/J. M. Vargas/ T. X. Schuhmacher/A. Banerjee/W. Dindorf, The Ivory Workshop
of Valencia de la Concepción (Seville, Spain) and the Identication of Ivory from Asian Elephant on
the Iberian Peninsula in the First Half of the 3rd Millennium B.C. Journal of Archaeological Science 40,
2013, 1579–1592.
Obermaier 1919: H. Obermaier, El dolmen de Matarubilla (Madrid 1919).
Pardo et al. 2011: A. I. Pardo /J. Barrio /L. Gutiérrez, Arqueología, restauración y arqueometría. Principios
básicos para una colaboración ecaz. In: C. Blasco/C. Liesau/P. Ríos (eds.), Yacimientos calcolíticos con
campaniforme de la región de Madrid. Nuevos estudios. Patrimonio Arqueológico de Madrid 6 (Ma-
drid 2011) 87– 98.
Pascual Benito 1995: J. L. Pascual Benito, Origen y signicado del marl durante el Horizonte Campani-
forme y los inicios de la Edad del Bronce en el País Valenciano. Saguntum 29, 1995, 19–31.
Ponsich1974: M. Ponsich, La navigation antique dans le détroit de Gibraltar. In: R. Chevalier (ed.), Litéra-
ture gréco-romaine et géographie historique, Mélanges offerts a Roger Dion. Ceasarodunum 9bis (Par-
is 1974) 257– 273.
Posac 1975: C. Posac Mon, Los Algarbes (Tarifa). Una necrópolis de la Edad del Bronce. Noticiario Arque-
ológico Hispánico, Prehistoria 4, 1975, 87–119.
Poyato/ Hernando 1988: C. Poyato Holgado /A. Hernando Grande, Relaciones entre la Península Ibérica y el
Norte de Africa. „Marl y campaniforme“. In: Actas del Congreso Internacional „El Estrecho de Gibral-
tar“, Ceuta 1987. Volume I (Madrid 1988) 317–329.
Renfrew1984: C. Renfrew, Approaches to Social Archaeology (Oxford 1984).
Renfrew 1986: C. Renfrew, Introduction. Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. In: C. Ren-
frew/J. F. Cherry (eds.), Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. New Directions in Archaeol-
ogy (Cambridge 1986) 1– 18.
Ríos 2011: P. Ríos, El medio físico. Análisis preliminar de los recursos naturales del III milenio en la región
de Madrid. In: C. Blasco/C. Liesau/ P. Ríos (eds.), Yacimientos calcolíticos con campaniforme de la
región de Madrid. Nuevos estudios. Patrimonio Arqueológico de Madrid 6 (Madrid 2011) 29– 69.
Ríos/Liesau 2011: P. Ríos/C. Liesau, Elementos de adorno simbólicos y colorantes en contextos funerari-
os y singulares. In: C. Blasco/C. Liesau/P. Ríos (eds.), Yacimientos calcolíticos con campaniforme de la
región de Madrid. Nuevos estudios. Patrimonio Arqueológico de Madrid 6 (Madrid 2011) 357– 370.
Rivero 1988: E. Rivero Galán, Análisis de las Cuevas Articiales en Andalucía y Portugal (Sevilla 1988).
Ruhlmann 1951: A. Ruhlmann, La grotte préhistorique de Dar es-Soltan. Collection Hespéris 11 (Paris 1951).
Schuhmacher 2002: T. X. Schuhmacher, Some Remarks on the Origin and Chronology of Halberds in Eu-
rope. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21, 2002, 263–288.
Ivory Exchange Networks in the Chalcolithic of the Western Mediterranean 311
Schuhmacher2004: T. X. Schuhmacher, Frühbronzezeitliche Kontakte im westlichen und zentralen Mit-
telmeerraum und die Rolle der Iberischen Halbinsel. Madrider Mitteilungen 45, 2004, 147–180.
Schuhmacher 2011: T. X. Schuhmacher, Elfenbein des Chalkolithikums und der Frühen Bronzezeit auf der
Iberischen Halbinsel. Ergebnisse eines Interdisziplinären Forschungsprojekts. In: A. Banerjee/C. Eck-
mann (eds.), Elfenbein und Archäologie, INCENTIVS-Tagungsbeiträge 2004– 2007. Römisch-Germanis-
ches Zentralmuseum Tagungen 7 (Mainz 2011) 91– 122.
Schuhmacher 2012a: T. X. Schuhmacher, Die Elfenbeinobjekte des Chalkolithikums und der Frühen
Bronzezeit auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. Interdisziplinäre Studien zu Herkunft, Austausch, Verarbei-
tung und sozialer Bedeutung von Elfenbein. Iberia Archaeologica 16.2 (Darmstadt 2012).
Schuhmacher 2012b: T. X. Schuhmacher, El marfil en España desde el Calcolítico al Bronce antiguo.
Resultados de un proyecto de investigación interdisciplinar. In: A. Banerjee/J. A. López Padilla/T. X.
Schuh macher (eds.), Marl y Elefantes en la Península Ibérica y el Mediterráneo, Internationale
Tagung Museo Arqueológico de Alicante, 26.–27. November 2008. Iberia Archaeologica 16.1 (Darmstadt
2012) 45–68.
Schuhmacher2013: T. X. Schuhmacher, Ivory from Sobreira de Cima (Vidigueira, Beja). In: A. C. Valera
(eds.), Sobreira de Cima. Necrópole de hipogeus do Neolitico (Vidigueira, Beja). ERA Monográca 1
(Lissabon 2013) 95– 97.
Schuhmacher2014: T. X. Schuhmacher, Dancing in the Dark? The Westernmost “Cypriot” Knot-Headed Pin
from Aïn Smene (Morocco). Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid 40, 2014, 41– 50.
Schuhmacher 2016: T. X. Schuhmacher, Elefanten und Elfenbein auf der Iberischen Halbinsel und in Nord-
west-Afrika. Interdisziplinäre Studien zu Austauschsystemen im 3. und der ersten Hälfte des 2. Jts. v.
Chr. Iberia Archaeologica 16.3 (Tübingen 2016).
Schuhmacher/Banerjee 2011: T. X. Schuhmacher/A. Banerjee, Pottwalelfenbein im chalkolithischen Portu-
gal. Restaurierung und Archäologie 4, 2011, 107–119.
Schuhmacher/Banerjee 2012: T. X. Schuhmacher/A. Banerjee, Procedencia e intercambio de marl en el
Calcolítico de la Península Ibérica. In: M. Borrell/F. Borrell/J. Bosch/X. Clop/M. Molist (eds.), Xarxes al
Neolític. Circulació i intercanvi de matèries, productes i idees a la Mediterrània occidental (VII– III mil-
lenni aC). Actes del Congrés Internacional Xarxes al Neolític. Revista del Museu de Gavà, Rubricatum 5
(Barcelona 2012) 289– 298.
Schuhmacher/Cardoso 2007: T. X. Schuhmacher/J. L. Cardoso, Ivory Objects from the Chalcolithic Fortica-
tion of Leceia (Oeiras). Estudos Arqueologicos de Oeiras 15, 2007, 95–118.
Schuhmacheretal.2013: T. X. Schuhmacher/A. Banerjee/ W. Dindorf/C. Sastri/ T. Sauvage, The Use of Sperm
Whale Ivory in Chalcolithic Portugal. Trabajos de Prehistoria 70, 2013, 185– 203.
Schuhmacher et al. 2015: T. X. Schuhmacher/F. Falkenstein/T. Link/A. Mederos/J. M. Vargas, Archäologi-
sche und geophysikalische Prospektionen im Nordbereich der chalkolithischen Siedlung von Valenci-
na de la Concepción bei Sevilla (Andalusien) im Jahr 2014. Madrider Mitteilungen 56, 2015, 1–39.
Serra Ráfols 1925 : J. de C. Serra Ràfols, cf. Elfenbein, Pyrenäenhalbinsel. In: M. Ebert (ed.), Reallexikon der
Vorgeschichte. Volume 3 (Berlin 1925) 87–88.
Sindbæk2013: S. M. Sindbæk, Broken Links and Black Boxes. Material Aliations and Contextual Network
Synthesis in the Viking World. In: C. Knappet (ed.), Network Analysis in Archaeology. New Approaches
to Regional Interaction (Oxford 2013) 71–94.
Siret1913: L. Siret, Questions de chronologie et d‘éthnographie ibériques (Paris 1913).
Soares2003: J. Soares, Os hipogeus pré-históricos da Quinta do Anjo (Palmela) e as economias do simbólico
(Setúbal 2003).
Sousa/Gonçalves 2012: A. C. Sousa/V. Gonçalves, In and Out. Tecnologias, símbolos e cultura material . In-
teracções e identidades regionais no Centro e Sul de Portugal no 3º milénio A.N.E. In: M. Borrell/F. Bor-
rell/J. Bosch/X. Clop/M. Molist (eds.), Xarxes al Neolític. Circulació i intercanvi de matèries, productes
i idees a la Mediterrània occidental (VII–III millenni aC). Actes del Congrés Internacional Xarxes al
Neolític. Revista del Museu de Gavà, Rubricatum 5 (Barcelona 2012) 383– 392.
Thomas X. Schuhmacher
312
Souville1984: G. Souville, Découverte récente de vases campaniformes au Maroc. In: J. Guilaine (ed.), L‘Âge
du cuivre européen (Paris 1984) 241–245.
Spindler 1981: K. Spindler, Cova da Moura. Die Besiedlung des Atlantischen Küstengebietes Portugals vom
Neolithikum bis an das Ende der Bronzezeit. Madrider Beiträge 7 (Mainz 1981).
Strahm 2002: C. Strahm, Tradition und Wandel der sozialen Strukturen vom 3. zum 2. vorchristlichen Jahr-
tausend. In: J. Müller (ed.), Vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit. Muster sozialen Wandels? Ta-
gung Bamberg 2001 (Bonn 2002) 175–194.
Texier et al. 2008: J.-P. Teixier/J.-P. Raynal/D. Lefèvre / J.-P. Daugas/F.-Z. Sbihi Alaoui, Le site néolithique de
Rouazi à Skhirat (Maroc). Contexte stratigraphique et évoliution morpho-dynamique de son environ-
nement littoral. Quaternaire 19.3, 2008, 239–247.
Thomas 2011: J. T. Thomas, Fashioning Identities, Forging Inequalities. Late Neolithic/ Copper Age Personal
Ornaments of the Portuguese Estremadura. European Journal of Archaeology 14.1/ 2, 2011, 29–59.
Turek 2012: J. Turek, Origin of the Bell Beaker Phenomenon. The Moroccan Connection. In: H. Fokkens/ F.
Nicolis (eds.), Background to Beakers. Inquiries into Regional Cultural Backgrounds of the Bell Beaker
complex (Leiden 2012) 191– 203.
Uscatescu 1992: A. Uscatescu, Los botones de perforación en „V“ en la Península Ibérica y las Baleares du-
rante la Edad de los Metales (Madrid 1992).
Valera et al. 2008: A. C. Valera/ A. Monge Soares/ M. Coelho, Primeiras datas de radiocarbono para a necró-
pole de hipogeus da Sobreira de Cima (Vidigueira, Beja). Apontamentos de Arqueologia e Património 2,
2008, 27–30.
Valera et al. 2015: A. C. Valera / T. X. Schuhmacher/A. Banerjee, Ivory in the Chalcolithic Enclosure of Per-
digões (South Portugal). The Social Role of an Exotic Raw Material. World Archaeology 47.3, 2015, 390–
413. DOI: 10.1080/ 00438243.2015.1014571.
Vargas et al. 2012: J. M. Vargas Jiménez/F. Nocete Calvo/T. X. Schuhmacher, Contextos de producción de
marl en Valencina de la Concepción (Sevilla). In: A. Banerjee/J. A. López Padilla/T. X. Schuhmacher
(eds.), Marl y Elefantes en la Península Ibérica y el Mediterráneo occidental, Actas del coloquio in-
ternacional, Museo Arqueológico de Alicante 2008. Iberia Archaeologica 16.1 (Darmstadt 2012) 69– 81.
Veiga1886– 1891: S. P. Martins Estácio da Veiga, Palaeoethnologia. Antiguidades monumentães do Algarve.
4 Volumes (Lisboa 1886–1891).
deWailly1973 – 1975: A. de Wailly, Le site du Kef-el-Baroud. Bulletin d’Archéologie Marocaine 9, 1973 –
1975, 39–101.
Watermanetal.2014: A. J. Waterman/D. W. Peate/A. M. Silva/J. T. Thomas, In Search of Homelands. Using
Strontium Isotope Analysis to Identify Biological Markers of Mobility in Late Prehistoric Portugal. Jour-
nal of Archaeological Science 42, 2014, 119–127.
Waterman et al. 2015: A. J. Waterman/R. H. Tykot /A. M. Silva, Stable Isotope Analysis of Diet-Based Social
Differentiation at Late Prehistoric Collective Burials in South-Western Portugal. Archaeometry 58.1,
2015, 131–151. DOI: 10.111/arcm.12159.
