prehistoria

Trabajo, producción y “neolítico”.
CASTRO MARTÍNEZ, Pedro V.*
ESCORIZA MATEU, Trinidad**,
FREGEIRO MORADOR, Mª Inés*,
OLTRA PUIGDOMENECH, Joaquín*
SANAHUJA YLL, Mª Encarna*
*División de Prehistoria. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.
**Departamento de Historia, Geografía e Historia del Arte. Universidad de Almería.

Abstract
We want to propose some reflections around the “importance ofthe neolithic”. We will focus on two aspects, which
have not been given enough consideration by social explanation theories.
First of all we want to find if the “neolithic” is a response to a global social change, and if agriculture and stockbreeding
are related to other wide range changes. Or if, by the other hand, such association is only fruit of logical rationalizations
were differentdynamics with no relation at all, nor cause nor consequence, are putted together. In this same reflection
we want to see to what point the terminology related to domestication speaks about crucial changes, such as the
substitution of hunting by stockbreeding or gathering by agriculture seem to show. Or if it would be much more correct
to understand agriculture and stockbreeding as a compilation ofmultiple techniques of production of vegetal and animal
food, all of these with different importance and relevance, and with diverse consequences. And even more diverse if are
putted in specific historic moments and with specific material conditions. We suspect that understanding “productive
economies” as a unity that carried the essence that changed the “world”, is fruit of the application ofan historical logic
that is dangerously away from reality.
In second place, we think that is becoming necessary to uncover the material conditions that are related to the diverse
aspects involved in “neolithic”. And not to restrict the materiality involved in agriculture, stockbreeding, demographic
growth or the consolidation of surpluses to a simple abstract relation within society andenvironment, to an
uncompressible change in mentality or to a simplistic change in stages of sociocultural systems. To uncover the hidden
aspects of the “neolithic” is to remember the real conditions of production and reproduction of societies and to not
forget that is the work of women and men the only agent capable of giving social life to matter. If we forget that work is
involved in all activityof social use of matter, we are running the risk of ending up thinking that some changes, that can
carry enormous efforts and pain for a few or the totality of society, are advances in a progress-process. A “progressprocess” that is only in our minds.
Resumen
Queremos proponer una serie de reflexiones en torno a la “trascendencia del neolítico”. Para ello, vamos a intentar
responder a doscuestiones sobre las que creemos que las teorías sociales que sustentan la comprensión de la historia
humana todavía no se han detenido suficientemente.
En primer lugar, nos preocupa aclarar si realmente el “neolítico” responde a un cambio social global y si la agricultura y
la ganadería se asocian a otras transformaciones de amplio alcance. O si, por el contrario, tal asociación es sólo fruto deuna racionalización lógica donde se encajan dentro de un mismo fenómeno dinámicas de cambio que no están
vinculadas entre sí, que no son causa ni consecuencia las unas de las otras. Dentro de esta misma reflexión, nos interesa
también acotar en qué medida la propia terminología asociada a la domesticación da cuenta de inflexiones cruciales, tal
como la sustitución de caza por ganadería o derecolección por agricultura podrían dar a entender. O si lo correcto sería
reconocer que agricultura o ganadería son términos que agrupan múltiples técnicas de producción de alimentos
III Congreso Neolitico Peninsular, Santander, 2003

1

Castro Martínez et al.

vegetales y animales, cuya relevancia es desigual y cuyas consecuencias pueden ser muy diversas. Más diversas aún si
se ubican...