No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
catalaL’analisi de la documentacio funeraria i de l’estructura del poblament a l’area estudiada indica que, almenys des del segle IV aC, l’element clau de l’organitzacio politica no es el parentiu, sino el territori, amb tres grans unitats, de caracter estatal, que semblen correspondre a les etnies dels indiketes, laietans i cessetans. Aquest sistema estava dominat per una classe dirigent netament separada de la resta de la poblacio i legitimada per l’existencia d’un codi cognitiu que n’estipulava una relacio privilegiada amb el mon sobrenatural, cosa que justifica plenament l’us del terme “aristocracia” per a definir aquest sector dominant de la societat. Desconeixem la naturalesa precisa de les institucions de poder i, en particular, si existien formes de poder personal, que no es poden excloure, malgrat que no son evidents en el registre arqueologic. Tampoc estem en condicions de precisar la naturalesa de les relacions socials de produccio, pero alguns indicis suggereixen que una gran part de l’instrumental agricola era controlada per l’aristocracia, i podem suposar que el mateix s’esdevenia, en bona mesura, amb la terra, si mes no al nivell de la propietat objectiva. Tambe es tracta la possible existencia d’esclaus, aixi com l’estatut d’artesans i comerciants. EnglishThe analysis of the funerary data and the settlement patterns in the study area indicates that, at least from the fourth century BC, the key element of political organization is no longer kinship, but territory, with three large state-like units that seem to correspond to the Indiketes, Laeetani and Cessetani. This system was dominated by a ruling class clearly separated from the rest of the population and whose privileged position was legitimized by a cognitive code that stipulated its privileged relationship with the supernatural world. This fully justifies the use of the term “aristocracy” to designate this dominant sector of society. We do not know the nature of power institutions, and in particular whether there were forms of personal power, which can not be excluded, although they are not apparent in the archaeological record. Nor are we able to specify the nature of the social relations of production, but some evidence suggests that a large part of the agricultural implements was controlled by the aristocracy, and we can assume that the same holds true with land, at least at the level of the objective property. We also discuss the possible existence of slaves, as well as the status of artisans and merchants.
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.