Earthen Architecture and Craft Practices of Early Iron Age Ramparts: Geoarchaeological Analysis of Villares de la Encarnación, South-Eastern Iberia

Abstract

The use of mudbricks in Early Iron Age ramparts is an uneven feature of defensive architecture on the Iberian Peninsula. The use of mudbricks as a building material has been linked to the arrival of Levantine building traditions with the Phoenicians, and its appearance among local societies varies between the eighth and sixth centuries BC according to the public or domestic nature of the structures. In this article, we present the geoarchaeological analyses of the mudbricks used in constructing one of the defensive towers or bastions at Villares de la Encarnación (Caravaca de la Cruz, Spain). This site, endowed with two complex fortification lines and towers, is one of the main settlements for understanding the development of the Early Iron Age among the inland and mountain communities of the region. The analytical program includes wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence, CHN elemental analysis, and thin-section petrography and provides new data about soil procurement and manufacturing choices. These results highlight the technical and social complexity behind mudbrick constructions and the adoption of new earthen practices among Early Iron Age communities in order to build more imposing and elevated towers that might convey an image of the power and strength of these inland settlements.

Principles and Sustainable Perspectives in the Preservation of Earthen Architecture from the Past Societies of the Iberian Peninsula

“…However, as these constructive techniques have mostly been defended for their value within the field of archaeology in the Iberian Peninsula [33,34], their study focuses mostly on the characterization [35,36], excavation, scope, and cultural position within the different societies [37], as well as on the search for guidelines for conservation [38]. Broadly speaking, this heritage has barely been documented and valorized, especially in the case of more fragile typologies such as domestic, productive, and funerary archaeological heritage compared to monumental and defensive heritage.…”