House Societies in the Ancient Mediterranean (2000–500 BC)

González‐Ruibal, Alfredo; Ruíz-Gálvez, Marisa

doi:10.1007/s10963-016-9098-8

Cited by 53 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moritz Kinzel and colleagues (2020: 3) note that 'Neolithic build ings, houses in particular, are perceived by many as a focal point for maintaining, building up and transmitting social memory' and similar arguments have been made by a wide range of authors discussing numerous different contexts (e.g. Joyce, Gillespie 2000;Watkins 2006;Beck 2007;Borić 2008;González-Ruibal 2016). At Tell Sabi Abyad, however, the focus on ancestry and place primarily occurs at the community level in the location of the site and the cemetery, as well as in the continuity of mortuary practices and styles of houses and other forms of material culture.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Breaking continuity? Site formation and temporal depth at Çatalhöyük and Tell Sabi Abyad

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial continuity of the house is often seen as crucial in providing temporal depth for the Neolithic societies of southwest Asia. While an emphasis on the creation of such continuities is evinced at densely agglomerated sites, other sites are characterised by dispersal and frequent relocation of habitation. Çatalhöyük (Turkey) and Tell Sabi Abyad (Syria) appear to be at either end of this spectrum. However, recently found evidence and reinterpretation of older evidence call into question the apparently stark distinction between the two sites. The purpose of this paper is to compare aspects of the archaeological evidence from Tell Sabi Abyad and Çatalhöyük, and in doing so to understand the different ways in which site formation and social continuity were achieved. In particular, the presence of breaks in spatial continuities – an often overlooked aspect of site formation – and its implications are discussed. It appears that at these two sites both continuity and breaks gave form and meaning to the settlements and to the societies that inhabited them. We argue that social continuities and anchors to the past can be constructed in many variable ways, and that direct spatial continuity of the house is but one.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Breaking continuity? Site formation and temporal depth at Çatalhöyük and Tell Sabi Abyad

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…En este sentido, consideramos que esta lectura sobre las alhajas de Aliseda contextualizadas en el paraje ritual Cortinas-Ejido sugiere -como ya vamos entreviendo y seguiremos viendo-no pocos indicadores arqueológicos de una Sociedad de Casa enunciados recientemente por algunos autores: la bilateralidad-dualidad, el simbolismo, la riqueza material e inmaterial, el rango y el poder, la autoperpetuación y legitimación, la familia extendida, la dialéctica jerarquíaheterarquía, la competencia, etc. (González-Ruibal y Ruiz-Gálvez, 2016).…”

Section: De Las Cortinas Al Ejido: Un "Juego De Espejos"unclassified

El Tesoro De Aliseda (Cáceres): Una Relectura

Díaz

SOLDEVILA²,

Espino

2021

NRH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

En el siglo transcurrido desde su hallazgo, el Tesoro de Aliseda ha sido una referencia constante en el desarrollo disciplinar de la protohistoria peninsular. Los estudios sobre estas icónicas alhajas orientalizantes han caracterizado su tecnología, estilos, procedencias, composición, cronología…, así como sus aspectos socioculturales y simbólicos. Cuestiones sin duda esenciales para su valoración his- tórica, pero por desgracia lastradas por su desconocido contexto que, desde 1920 hasta hoy, se ha rela- cionado indistintamente con una tumba, un escondrijo, un santuario y/o el tesoro de la comunidad. A partir del análisis combinado de la documentación recuperada en diferentes archivos y del registro ar- queológico obtenido en el paraje de Las Cortinas, colindante al del Ejido donde apareció el tesoro, se propone la relectura de su contexto, uso y significado.

show abstract

“…Lists have been made of recurring features and common traits in House Societies (Helms 1998; González‐Ruibal and Ruiz‐Gálvez 2016, 387–8). But by the definition of Lévi‐Strauss himself, these common traits can usually be grouped under one of the following three main aspects: 1) the perpetuation of the House, 2) through referring to kinship or alliance or both, 3) in order to transmit (im)material property.…”

Section: Definitions and Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Study of house societies appears especially valuable in contexts of socio‐political transformations where egalitarian kin‐based societies become ranked, and are in a transitional phase towards social stratification and territory‐based systems (Waterson 1995; Moore 2005, 184). Egalitarian societies where houses play a central role, but strong socio‐political inequalities and power competition do not exist (beyond age and gender) may better be defined as house‐centric societies (Gonzáles‐Ruibal and Ruiz‐Gálvez 2016, 390). Houses have also been referred to as ‘proto‐houses’ (Schrauwers 1997, 364–5) or ‘embryonic houses’ (Lévi‐Strauss 1987, 192; Sandstrom 2000, 68) when not entirely adhering to the definition of Lévi‐Strauss.…”

Section: Definitions and Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

House (Centric) Societies on the Prehistoric Greek Mainland

Wiersma¹

2020

Oxford J Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The concept of ‘House Societies’ was introduced by Lévi‐Strauss. It not only considers the social aspects of houses and households, but also the economic and political ones. By so doing, one gains a much more complete understanding of how a community is structured and organized, and how changes can slowly unfold within seemingly static communities. In this article it is argued that Early Helladic III and early Middle Helladic communities on the Greek mainland can be considered proto‐house societies, while House Societies proper do emerge at some places during the later Middle Helladic and Late Helladic I periods. The arguments are based on an analysis of domestic architecture, mortuary practices and the domestic economy. These indicate that the concept of property became more important during the Middle Helladic period. The house was perpetuated through rebuilding and mortuary practices, thereby referencing the concept of kinship, in order to transmit property. Such habits define House Societies.

show abstract

House Societies in the Ancient Mediterranean (2000–500 BC)

Cited by 53 publications

References 81 publications

Breaking continuity? Site formation and temporal depth at Çatalhöyük and Tell Sabi Abyad

Breaking continuity? Site formation and temporal depth at Çatalhöyük and Tell Sabi Abyad

El Tesoro De Aliseda (Cáceres): Una Relectura

House (Centric) Societies on the Prehistoric Greek Mainland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About