Volviendo a pensar la Edad del Hierro

This paper argues there is an urgent need to critically evaluate the basic assumptions used by Iron Age archaeologists across Europe. It suggests that the existing frameworks of explanation and interpretation are at best inadequate to understand the actual archaeological evidence for the period. At worst they are still unconsciously reproducing nineteenth century nationalist and racist ideologies (e. g. the preoccupations with the «Celts≫ or «Iberians≫, etc.). Drawing on examples from Britain, and the Czech and Slovak republics. We will argue that archaeological evidence Iron the Iron Age does not neatly fit our modernist and Eurocentric assumptions about what the period ought to have been like. It suggests Iron Age archaeology must recognise the difference of the past, that prehistoric societies in Europe may have had very different forms of social organisations, world views and economies than those in later European history. This means critically questioning archaeological evidence and being open to the possibility that existing interpretations are wrong (e. g. stressing the impact of the Mediterranean World Economy, that Oppidas were urban centres, or that settlement and subsistence data can be adequately understood in modern capitalist/functionalist terms, etc.). As such Iron Age studies can on/y be a «Contextual Archaeology≫.<br><br>Este artículo defiende la urgente necesidad de evaluar críticamente las asunciones básicas manejadas por los arqueólogos de la Edad del Hierro en toda Europa. Sugiere que los marcos explicativos e interpretativos existentes son, en el mejor de los casos, inadecuados para comprender la evidencia arqueológica real sobre el período. En el peor, están reproduciendo todavía las ideologías nacionalistas y racistas decimonónicas (p. e. las preocupaciones por los “Celtas”, los “Iberos”, etc.). A partir de ejemplos de Gran Bretaña, y las Repúblicas Checa y Eslovaca, sostenemos que la evidencia arqueológica sobre la Edad del Hierro claramente no encaja con nuestras suposiciones modernas y eurocéntricas sobre lo que el período debería haber sido. Se sugiere que la arqueología de la Edad del Hierro tiene que reconocer la diferencia del pasado, el hecho de que las sociedades prehistóricas en Europa pudieron haber tenido formas de organización social, visiones del mundo y economías muy diferentes a las de la Historia europea posterior. Esto significa la puesta en cuestión crítica de la evidencia arqueológica y estar abierto a la posibilidad de que las interpretaciones existentes sean erróneas (p. e. recalcando el impacto de la Economía Mundial Mediterránea, el que los <em>Oppida</em> eran centros urbanos, o que los datos del poblamiento y subsistencia puede ser comprendidos de manera adecuada en términos capitalistas/funcionalistas modernos, etc.). Los estudios de la Edad del Hierro, en cuanto tales, sólo pueden ser una “Arqueología Contextual”

Mass transport deposits in deep-water minibasins: Outcropping examples from the minibasins adjacent to the Bakio salt wall (Basque Country, Northern Spain)

International audienceRecent subsurface studies show that mass-transport deposits (MTDs) in salt-controlled basins may correspond to local or regional bodies induced by either regional tectonics, or diapir growth. These MTDs are commonly considered as muddy bodies but they may alternatively incorporate a high amount of clasts and reworked beds with good reservoir properties and thus they are often challenging deposits in oil and gas exploration. The minibasins adjacent to the Bakio salt diapir, in northern Spain, provide a unique opportunity to study up to seven outcropping MTDs comparable in size to subsurface examples. Detailed structural analysis was used to reconstruct the transport direction for each MTD and to infer their source locations. In addition, facies analyses enabled the estimation of their percent of mud or matrix, allowing for a discussion on their potential reservoir and seal properties. At least six of the studied MTDs correspond to locally-derived MTDs sourced from the Bakio diapir or from the footwall of the adjacent sub-salt extensional faults. The primary trigger for these MTDs may be halokinesis, probably with contributions from other secondary processes, such as carbonate platform aggradation, high sedimentation rates and regional extension. Transport directions together with palaeoflow analysis suggests that regionally-derived turbidites flowed along the minibasin axis, while MTDs were transported laterally from the minibasin margins at high angle with the turbidity flows. We identified three types of MTDs: muddy siliciclastic-dominated MTDs, sandstone clast-rich siliciclastic-dominated MTDs and carbonate-dominated MTDs. Using this classification and subsurface analogs we propose a model of locally-derived MTDs according to the nature of the source area and the sedimentary facies reworked along the MTD downslope trajectories. This model suggests that reservoir and seal properties could be suggested for MTDs in subsurface studies by characterizing the nature of the diapir roof and the facies at the seafloor found along the MTDs trajectories. © 2021 Elsevier Lt

Excavations at 16-20 Church Street, Bawtry, South Yorkshire

Also numbered as County archaeology monograph no. 3SIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

Excavations at 16-20 Church Street, Bawtry, South Yorkshire

Also numbered as County archaeology monograph no. 3SIGLEGBUnited Kingdo