Analysing Social Change through Domestic and Public Spaces

Abstract

This paper presents a study of Iron Age (IA) societies through the analysis of architecture and built space. The approach is focused on a small area in the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula, and constructs a small-scale narrative that seeks to identify different social dynamics concerning the onset, development and decline of the fortified habitat (between the ninth and first centuries BC). Three main spheres of human habitation are assessed: the environment of the household, the construction of collective and non-domestic buildings and the development of settlement planning. The main characteristics of these spheres are discussed and summarised, and they are understood as part of the same dynamic that reflects how the IA communities of northwest Iberia were structured. The main objective of the paper is to employ this methodology to study social dynamics at different scales and thus build a multi-scale historical and archaeological narrative about the development of heterogeneous processes in IA societies.

A Preliminary Approach to Early Iron Age Demography. Testing Paleodemographic Methodologies on a Microspatial Scale: The Case of Punta De Muros (Nw Iberia)

“…The domestic space began to be compartmentalised and to present storage areas and others for productive activities such as metalworking (Nión-Álvarez, 2022b: 494) or the processing of food or raw materials (Cano Pan, 2012: 355). A notable increase in the capacity to accumulate and store goods can also be observed both in the presence of storage spaces and in the exponential increase of the storage containers in each domestic unit (Nión-Álvarez, 2022a). The amount of roofed space during this period is significantly increased (almost doubling, see Table 3).…”

OPPIDUM VOCANT, QUIDVIS CUM VALLO ATQUE FOSSA. SOME THOUGHTS ON OPPIDA, CENTRAL PLACES, AND SOCIAL COMPLEXITY IN THE EUROPEAN IRON AGE

“…Although both display similar expressions within the domestic sphere (Nión‐Álvarez 2023b), they show several differences in town planning. Borneiro provides some signs of internal inequality among households, but its organic layout and the lack of public spaces reflects representative features of a ‘equally shared’ hillfort; Elviña, however, suggests well‐structured planning through top‐down strategies, displaying a clearly hierarchical and directed perception of public space (Nión‐Álvarez 2023a). This pair define the difference between a ‘common’ fortified village and a real oppidum .…”