Social Agreement versus Technological Agreement: The Beginnings of Metal Production in Iberia
The state of affairs regarding the origins of copper metallurgy in Europe was laid bare by Heather Lechtman some years ago with her usual perspicacity: "these metals did not have the same impact on Andean civilization that they had among peoples of Europe and the Ancient Near East" (Lechtman 1984:1). Currently in Europe, the debate surrounding the social impact of metallurgical technology on prehistoric societies continues to rule the agenda. However, comparative studies between the Old and New Worlds were not a priority then; nor are they now. This meeting is an excellent opportunity to stake a larger theoretical and methodological union between the two.
The Iberian Peninsula is in the eye of the storm surrounding the discussion on innovation and technological change. Scientific debate is currently focused on the possible existence of distinct areas of technological invention, as opposed to Childean neo-diffusionism from a single nucleus in the Near East. Apparently, this situation is similar to that of a few decades ago; however, the perspective has changed completely because other theoretical models are now utilized, mainly due to conceptual redefinitions in technological, economic, social, and symbolic fields. This allows us to plant new questions and challenges: Is metallurgical technology a homogeneous block? When, how, and why do different forms of specialization arise? At what scale in the archaeological record can one trace the social agreement that allows or prevents a new technology taking root? As Andrew Feenberg (2003:79) states, "technical development is not an arrow seeking its target, but a tree branching out in many directions."
This paper attempts to explain these conceptual and methodological changes in the context of early European metallurgy, with particular emphasis on the metallurgy of gold, and on what remains to be done.
