=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2024/IberCrono_20
|storemode=property
|title=C14 references and cultural sequence in the Proto-history of Lanzarote (Canary Islands). (Referéncias C14 y la secuencia cultural en la protohistoria de Lanzarote (Islas Canarias).
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2024/IberCrono_20.pdf
|volume=Vol-2024
|authors=Pablo Atoche Peña,Mª. Ángeles Ramírez Rodríguez
}}
==C14 references and cultural sequence in the Proto-history of Lanzarote (Canary Islands). (Referéncias C14 y la secuencia cultural en la protohistoria de Lanzarote (Islas Canarias).==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2024/IberCrono_20.pdf
C14 references and cultural sequence in the Proto-history
of Lanzarote (Canary Islands)
(1) Pablo Atoche Peña, (2) Mª. Ángeles Ramírez Rodríguez
(1) University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Department of Historic Sciences (2) University of Las
Palmas de Gran Canaria. Research Group «G9. History, Economy and Society»
(1) pablo.atoche@ulpgc.es, (2) angelesramirez57@gmail.com
Resumen. Hasta la década de los años 80’ del siglo XX la actividad
arqueológica desarrollada en la isla de Lanzarote no había aportado ninguna
datación cronométrica; a partir de la segunda mitad de esa década y hasta el
presente los trabajos de excavación que hemos efectuado en yacimientos de la
isla han proporcionado una amplia serie de fechas radiocarbónicas que
permiten secuenciar con precisión la etapa protohistórica, retrasar el momento
del inicio de la colonización humana del Archipiélago Canario a un instante
cercano al cambio del II al I milenio a.C. y fortalecer la hipótesis que
otorgaba a Lanzarote la primacía temporal en el proceso poblador frente a las
restantes islas del archipiélago.
Referéncias C14 y la secuencia cultural en la protohistoria de Lanzarote
(Islas Canarias)
Abstract. Up until the 1980s, the archaeological activity carried out on the
island of Lanzarote had not provided any chronometric dating. From the
second half of the 1980s to date, the excavation work that we have done at
sites on the island has provided an ample series of radio-carbon dates that
enable us to offer an accurate sequence of the proto-historic stage, push back
the moment in which human colonization of the Canary Islands started to
somewhere close to the change from the II to the I millennium BC and
strengthen the hypothesis that Lanzarote was the island that spear-headed the
settlement process, ahead of the other islands.
1 Introduction
Almost sixty years after the first radio datings were published for archaeological sites in the Canary Islands, taken from a
range of samples from proto-historic burial sites in Gran Canaria [Fus59: 21-22] and Tenerife [Cus68: 211-212], there is
still a certain distrust in island archaeology of the real potential of radio-carbon dating and the need to revise the criteria
that lead to the use of C14, regarding both the kind of samples that should be selected and the number of radiometric
analyses required for an archaeological site to be considered correctly dated.
In the archaeology practised on the island of Lanzarote, radio-carbon dating has been infrequent, preventing us from
having a time line that establishes the first human presence on the island and its cultural development until recently. The
first absolute datings were taken in the El Bebedero site (Teguise) in the late 1980s [Ato89], followed by new references
from other sites [Ato09a, Ato11], and we now have an ample series of dating that allow for an appropriate approach to the
time limits in which the proto-historic period unfolded and its different stages and phases.
Despite this initial absence of chronological references, the geographic proximity of Lanzarote to Africa has driven
sporadic research to consider the possibility that the colonization of the Canary Island Archipelago started there, hence
giving it certain priority over the other islands in the process that gave rise to human settlement. This is an idea that the
series of C14 datings available, together with other dates obtained by thermo-luminescence in the nearby islet of La
Graciosa [Gon07, Gon09], allows us to start considering a conjecture with some scientific backing. The possibility of
verifying the hypothesis of an early settlement of the Canary Islands, starting at the easternmost point and spreading west,
was one of the reasons that has lead us to focus much of our research work on Lanzarote over the last thirty years.
2 Lanzarote: isotopic datings
Neither literary sources (classic Greco-Latin, Ethno-Historic, etc.), nor archaeological practise has been able to document
actual human activity in the Canary Islands prior to the 10th century BC; between this moment and the 15th century AD, is
when the proto-historic stage unfolds, a period in which Lanzarote witnessed a series of cultural processes that we have
attempted to delimit from a chronological point of
view. To such end, we feel it is necessary to have the
largest possible number of radiometric references per
excavated site and per stratigrahic unit identified,
organised in coherent series based on objective criteria
determined by the layer of origin, the kind of sample
and the analysis procedure used.
We have forty three C14 references obtained from
samples of different kinds (charcoal, organic sediment
–micro-carbon-, bones from sheep and goats and snail
shells), processed in the laboratories of Groningen
(Centrum voor Isotopen Onderzoek, Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen), BETA (Beta Analytic Radiocarbon
Dating Laboratory, Florida) and UBA (14CHRONO
Centre, Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland)
using both standard C14 and AMS as procedures of
analysis. This diversity of parameters has given rise to Figure 1 - Hut with structure of combustion. El Bebedero
certain difficulties when comparing the results (Teguise. Lanzarote) (Photo P. Atoche)
directly, making it necessary to establish an order
based on the nature of the sample and the isotopic
procedure used (Table 2). As a result, we have seen that
the datings obtained by AMS for the same stratum
and/or sub-stratum as slightly later than the datings
obtained by standard C14 and a comparison of the
results provided by the different laboratories that
processed the samples reveals a notable degree of
similarity and, therefore, reliability of the results.
The forty three chronometric references (Table 3)
date four archaeological sites (El Bebedero, Buenavista,
Caldereta de Tinache and Los Corrales) and one non-
archaeological site (Valle de Femés). The broadest
series covers El Bebedero (20 references), followed by
the Buenavista series (12 references) and the Caldereta
de Tinache series (8 references). The Los Corrales site
is dated with two dates and Valle de Femés with one; in
this latter case for a stable profile with no Figure 2 - Structure E2. Buenavista (Teguise. Lanzarote) (Photo
archaeological evidence. P. Atoche)
The dating references obtained from El Bebedero
come from samples recovered from five stratigraphic
cross sections (A7, A9, B3, X12 y PF), which we have
grouped depending on whether they had been analysed
by AMS (15 datings) or by standard C14 (5 datings).
The dates of each of these groups, in turn, have been
organised in sets based on the kind of matter analysed,
charcoal (11 samples, ten of which were analysed by
AMS and one by standard C14), bones from sheep and
goats (six samples, four of which were analysed by
standard C14 and two by AMS) and organic sediment
(three samples analysed by AMS, one of which comes
from the structure of combustion found inside the
exhumed hut and the other two were recovered from a
stratigraphic unit laying underneath the first human
presence in the place) (Fig. 1).
The twelve dating references from Buenavista were Figure 3 - Collecting C14 samples. Buenavista (Teguise.
obtained from twelve samples of organic sediment, Lanzarote)
charcoal and sheep and goat bones collected from both inside and outside of structures E1 and E2. Specifically, one
sample from cross section B6 (inside structure E1), two from cross sections E4 and F4 (inside structure E1), one from
cross section B10, two from cross section D9, one from cross section H2, two samples from cross sections C8 and F1 (all
outside of structure E1). The three remaining samples were obtained: one from cross section W7, another from cross
273
section X8 (both outside of structure E2) and the third one from cross section U3 (inside of structure E2) (Figures 2 and 3).
All the samples were analysed by AMS.
The eight references from Caldereta de Tinache come from samples collected from three stratigraphic cross sections
(East Profile, West Profile and North Profile), grouped in accordance with whether they had been processed by AMS (6
references) or by standard C14 (2 references). As with El Bebedero, the dates included in each of the two groups were
organised in turn, in series based on the kind of sample analysed, charcoal (6 references analysed by AMS), bones of sheep
and goats (1 reference analysed by standard C14) or snail shells (1 reference analysed by standard C14). In general, the
Caldereta de Tinache series is very much in line with the series obtained both from El Bebedero and Buenavista, and with
the dating of Valle de Femés. The two time references from Los Corrales site date the same stratigraphic cross section
(B3) and both were processed by AMS.
The different dating series and the chronological sequence that they suggest are presented in Figure 4, where the
diachronic regularity of the dates obtained can be seen, along with their fit from the beginning of the 1st millennium BC to
the first third of the 2nd millennium AD. If these chronological references are analysed from a cultural perspective, three
datings situated in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, obtained from El Bebedero and Caldereta de Tinache, enable us to confirm
the absence of human activity in Lanzarote before the change from the 2nd to the 1st millennium BC, placing the oldest
level of archaeological occupation at the Buenavista site, for now, dated with a chronological amplitude from the 10th
century BC (960 cal. BC) to the 4th century BC (380/330 cal. BC), with an intermediate date of the 6th century BC (530 cal.
BC). The ample series of dates from El Bebedero, Caldereta de Tinache, Los Corrales and the most recent ones from
Buenavista are situated after this period, which, as a whole, lead us regularly from the 1st century BC to the 14th century
AD, establishing the most recent chronological development of the proto-historic settlers that lived in Lanzarote quite
accurately.
Figure 4 - Series of the calibration intervals to 2 sigmas (95% probability) of the radiocarbon datings from proto-historic
contexts of Lanzarote
274
3 C14, human settlement and proto-historic phases of colonization of the Canary Island
Archipelago
The moment that colonization started and the first humans finally settled in the Canary Islands must be close to the oldest
datings available, a group of C14 dates that set the first human presence in Lanzarote around the mid-10th century BC
[Ato11: 153-156] and in Tenerife, in the early 9th century BC [Gon07: 54]. The age proposed by C14 dating has been
corroborated by datings obtained by thermo-luminescence on pottery fragments modelled on a wheel recovered from the
coastline of La Graciosa [Gar03, Gon09]. Consequently, the evidence suggests the 10th century BC as the lower limit for
the start of human settlement in Canaries and for the start of the proto-historic stage, which would last for two and a half
millennia, drawing to a close during the 15th century AD as a consequence of the process of conquering and settling the
islands, starting in 1402 with the Norman expedition lead by Jean de Béthencourt and Gadifer de la Salle [Nfa80], which
culminated with the Castilian conquest of Tenerife in 1494.
Regarding the datings obtained in Lanzarote, the oldest date was provided by the Buenavista site, which dates the base
of the outside wall of structure E1, establishing that it was built in the mid-10th century BC. The use of this structure would
continue until the last third of the 4th century BC, when the construction was amortised [Ato11]. In Buenavista the
previous datings were followed by other from 200 cal. BC and 180 cal. BC, peers to the dating of 190 cal. BC obtained
from Femés, which, as a whole, suggest the end of the Punic phase in Lanzarote was at some time close to the time that
Carthage was destroyed in 146 BC.
From the first half of the 2nd century BC to the 6th century AD, the Buenavista site was once again occupied, when
structure E2 was built, coinciding with the first occupation of the nearby hollow where El Bebedero site is located, at a
time in island proto-history that marks the start of a phase characterised by the intensification of the use of the resources of
the island, as shown by the new settlements built and distributed throughout the island. This opens a new stage for which
we have a set of date references that situate strata of Buenavista, El Bebedero and Caldereta de Tinache at different
moments between the 1st century BC and the 14th century AD, in the latter case at a time very close to the start of the
Norman-Castilian conquest responsible for terminating Proto-history in the islands (Fig. 5).
Figure 5 - Graph of probabilities of the C14 samples from proto-historic contexts of Lanzarote
275
Extensive exploitation of the territory of Lanzarote started in the 1st century BC, an economic phenomenon sustained
by a kind of settlement that was an island model of agrarian factory represented by El Bebedero or Caldereta de Tinache,
linked to the economic interests of the Roman world [Ato95]. Up until that moment, the island appears to have been
subject to a single, low intensity wave of settlement, represented by both some of the enclaves on the coast (Rubicón) and
inland (the deepest level of Buenavista). This dichotomy is reflected in the distinct forms of occupying the island: up to the
4th-5th centuries AD using a disperse pattern based on small, not very functional settlements aimed mainly at livestock
production and from this moment onwards, using a majority pattern concentrated on different-sized urban settlements n
synthesis, Buenavista is proof of the presence in Lanzarote of a group of humans fully established in the 10th century BC,
which is associated with a material context characterised by the presence of artefacts of Punic-Phoenician origin, amongst
other elements 1, apart from the objects that were already known for this island with a similar cultural origin [Ato97]
[Ato99a, Ato99b, Arc00, Ato08b, Ato09b]. Hence, the datings provided by Buenavista imbue the process of settling the
Canary Islands with greater chronological depth than has previously been considered and they confirm the age perceived
from the dates published by Mª.C. del Arco et al [Arc97] for several sites around Icod de los Vinos (Tenerife) 2 and La
Graciosa, islet where the El Descubrimiento site has provided material proof of the possible presence of Mediterranean
sailors in waters of the archipelago in the transit
from the 2nd to the 1st millennium BC [Gon09].
The various settlements and infrastructures
located at strategic points of the Lanzarote coast
(e.g. Pozo de la Cruz, in Rubicón [Ato99b]) 3
(Figure 6) seem to date from the early moments
of island colonization, settlement of the mooring
point or factory kind, very probably the result of
this process of passing maritime vessels that
some researchers have related to the Tartessian
Culture [Gar42: 177]. The sea route that runs
down the Atlantic coast of what are now
Morocco and Mauritania has been known at least
since Cardial Neolithic times, which is when
cultural relations were established between the
southern Iberian Peninsula and North West
Africa, which remain evident during the full and
late Bronze Age. In fact, the drive that initially
led to the discovery and posterior colonization of
the Canary Island Archipelago must have started Figure 6 - Pozo de la Cruz, Rubicón (Yaiza. Lanzarote) (Photo P.
with the cultural and economic reactivation that Atoche)
occurred in Lower Andalusia in the late Bronze
Age.
4. Phases of Canary Island Proto-history
From the historic point of view, the material and chronological sequence experienced in Lanzarote marks the succession of
two ample periods of time, articulated respectively in relation to the presence or absence in the material record of extra-
island elements, first of Phoenician-Punic cultural origin and later, Roman, and the development of major transformations
in the vegetation cover, soils, wildlife, the composition of the livestock, technological patterns, the form and intensity of
the occupation of the island, etc.
Based on these data and taking our proposed phasing for Canary Island proto-historic cultures as a starting point
[Ato08], the following stages and phases would have unfolded in Lanzarote (Table 1):
I. First stage (discovery, colonization and establishment 4 -circa 10th century BC to 4th century AD-). This
encompasses almost a millennium and a half during which we would see the start and later development of the
1
Different fragments of pottery modelled on a wheel can be found from the deepest stratum in Buenavista and metal artefacts of copper, bronze and iron,
associated with an “indigenous” context dominated by hand-made pottery. The petrographic characterisation analyses of the clay has highlighted the
great similarities between these pottery fragments made on a wheel with several of the pottery groups defined in the Phoenician-Punic colony of La
Fonteta (Alicante) [Gon08].
2
In Tenerife, the series of dates provided by some dwelling enclaves (caves of La Arena, Las Palomas, Don Gaspar and Los Guanches) place the oldest
moment of its colonization at the start of the 1st millennium BC (820 cal. BC -Cueva de Los Guanches-) (Gak-14.599).
3
Rubicón, on the southernmost tip of Lanzarote, is the model for settlements of this kind, characterised by presenting similar infrastructure to those found
in the factories on the nearby coast of Africa founded in the Phoenician-Punic Age and reactivated by Juba II in Roman times, which remain in operation
during almost the entire Roman-Mauritanian period to exploit the abundant marine and terrestrial resources of this region of the Atlantic.
4
From four models of island settlement proposed for East Polynesia [Gra95].
276
exploration of the resources of the African Atlantic, the discovery of the “Canary Island archipelagos” [San02,
Ato03, San06, San07, Lop09], their colonization and later the establishment of the first groups of humans on
some of the islands. It must have been a highly dynamic stage in which several successive phases can be
distinguished:
a. Phoenician phase (discovery and initial colonization -circa 10th to 6th centuries BC-). This coincides
with the process of exploration, appraisal and exploitation of the Atlantic seaboard of Africa by
Phoenician sailors and merchants settled in the Western Mediterranean. In the islands, this phase would
start with a process of passing through as has been shown by sites such as El Descubrimiento in La
Graciosa.
b. Punic phase (colonization and final establishment -circa 6th to 2nd centuries BC-). The closure of the
Near Eastern markets to metals from the Western Mediterranean after the fall of Tyre (572 BC) and the
consequent re-directing of the economy towards agricultural produce, intensified Punic contacts with the
indigenous peoples of the West, with an increase in productive business, generating a need to continue
and augment the establishment of population groups, not only in centres around the Mediterranean, but
also on the Atlantic seaboard and very probably in the Canary Islands, by transplanting communities of
Lybio-Phoenicians. If we accept the thesis of F. López Pardo [Lop91], the start of this phase would be
very close to the process of creating colonies of Lybio-Phoenicians along the African Atlantic coast
described by the Periplus of Hanno.
c. Roman phase (culmination of the colonization of the islands -circa 1st century BC to 4th century AD-).
After the 1st century BC, the economic intensification initiated by Iuba II in the Atlantic Region of North
Africa reactivated and/or maintained the presence in Canary Islands of non-natives, so that Romanised
sailors from the Circle of the Strait passed through Canary Island waters until the 4th century AD [Ato95]
[Ato99c, Ato06]. After the crisis that affected the Roman Empire in the 3rd century AD and the
consequent abandonment of much of the province of Tingitana, came the end of the activities of a large
number of factories along the Atlantic coast of Morocco [Pon65: 116-117].
II. Second stage (abandonment -circa 4th to 5th centuries AD-). This period has a very short timeline, determined by
the end of external economic dependence as a consequence of the political-economic crisis that affected the Roman
Empire in the 3rd century AD, a phenomenon that had nothing to do with the islands, but which would be
responsible for their progressive isolation and the consequent crisis of island social formations that had been reliant
on the outside world up until that moment. This is the start of one of the most interesting cultural processes of
Canary Island Proto-history that gave rise to the development of endemic cultures that explain many of the
differences observed in the different Canary Island cultures of the 1st millennium AD.
III. Third stage (isolation -circa 5th to 13th centuries AD-). The presence of sailors from the Circle of the Strait marked
the start of a new stage in the islands that covers almost a millennium, in which what are known as “Canary Island
cultures” start to appear, which base their development on autarchic economic and social processes. They are the
result of the diversification of island social formations to readapt to the new circumstances caused by isolation from
the outside world. This is the best documented stage from an archaeological point of view, encompassing a single
phase:
a. Canary Island phase (constitution and development of the “Canary Island cultures”-circa 5th to 13th
centuries AD-). Sudden contacts with the centres that gave rise to the discovery and posterior
colonization of the Canary Islands would force the island populations to develop in relative isolation,
generating cultural systems characterised by being immersed in a technological state that we have called
“Forced Neolithic” [Ato97: 15]. One of the cultural aspects that they must have to have changed around
that time was undoubtedly the economic sub-system, such that one can see at least two different models
of subsistence over the course of Canary Island Proto-history, an initial one, characterised by its
dependence on the outside world and unequal trade, which must have lasted to a greater or lesser extent
from the time humans first settled in the 10th century BC up to the 5th century AD; and another, later
autarchic model, based on a wide-ranging agrarian economy, which survived up until the 15th century
AD, when the medieval Norman conquerors reached the islands and put an end to Proto-history. In
Lanzarote, from a cultural point of view, this second economic model is what is known as the “Mahos
Culture”.
IV. Fourth stage (acculturation -circa 14th to 15th centuries AD-). This starts in the 13th century AD, when the Canary
Island Archipelago is once again visited by European explorers responsible for what is known as the “rediscovery”
277
[Ser61, Mor71], what is really a new phenomenon of sailing by the islands that will prepare the Norman-Castilian
conquest of the 15th century AD.
5. Conclusions
In the current state of archaeological research in the Canary Islands, the island of Lanzarote is, very probably, the island
that has provided the stratigraphic sequences that go back the furthest. The sites that have dated timelines are situated in
the open air, inside volcanic calderas or hollows, with powerful sedimentary packages in which rains produce seasonal
deposits of water (maretas, as they are known locally). It is precisely the association of fertile soils and seasonal lagoons
that lead these places to be constituted as ecologically-favourable environments for populations to settle on the basis of a
subsistence economy based on the two main activities of livestock and agriculture, right from the beginning of the
settlement of the island, while also explaining the existence of powerful archaeological strata comprising extensive human
occupations. It is in sites of this kind that our team has been conducting systematic archaeological excavations over the last
thirty years, which have provided broad stratigraphic sequences that, once compared, present notable similarities between
them from both a morpho-genetic point of view and from the point of view of the archaeological record they contain.
Although most of the absolute datings recorded throughout the Canary Island Archipelago are situated after the 1st
millennium AD, there is also an ample series of chronologies situated in the 1st millennium BC, which enable us to adjust
the time limits for the start of Canary Island Proto-history in which the cultural context was marked successively by a
Phoenician-Punic presence and a Roman presence. An historic analysis of the archaeological data provided by the
Buenavista site indicate that the colonization of at least one of the Canary Islands (Lanzarote) had already taken place in
the 10th century BC, opening up the possibility that the discovery of the archipelago and visits to it could have occurred
sometime prior to this moment. Initially, it must have been a state-sponsored enterprise, a process of colonization for geo-
strategic purposes and for agricultural exploitation [Lop92, Wag00] in which the raw materials of the region would also
have been of colonial interest, using contingents of North African settlers from the same geographical and cultural context,
the paleo-Berbers in contact with the Phoenician culture in North Africa. The likely later contributions of populations to
the colonization process would not necessarily have affected all the islands to the same extent, as this would depend on the
interests that drove those responsible for programming and implementing the colonising effort at any one time. In fact,
after the 8th and 7th centuries BC and up until the 1st century AD, we can find several moments in which the necessary
conditions were in place for reactivating the island colonization process, on the basis that the Canary Islands were at the
centre of a rich economic zone open to exploitation in a broad range of possibilities that would depend solely on the law of
demand and supply. In any event, the island colonization process must have intensified after the 6th century BC in
connection with the expansion of Carthage [Fan88, Fru91, Aub94], a city that, at that time set out to dominate large
territories of Africa and to close the Gibraltar Straits to other sea traffic in order to control and monopolise the economic
resources to be found on the other side of the Columns of Hercules [Lop92].
The information available from sediment and pollen [Ato09] indicate until the change of Era, Lanzarote would only
have been the objective of low-intensity colonization. From that moment on, the start of an extensive exploitation of the
island territory can be observed, based on a kind of settlement that was an island model of agricultural factories (El
Bebedero, Caldereta de Tinache,...) aimed at producing goods derived from the livestock (skins, etc…) and linked to the
economic interests of Rome [Ato95]. The economic intensification that occurred in the Canary Island-North African
Atlantic in the last third of the 1st century BC, which Juba II was responsible for, maintained the actual presence of non-
natives in the islands. These were Romanised sailors from the Circle of the Straits that sail through Canary Island waters
until the late 3rd century or the early 4th century AD, and their presence in the island came to an end after the political-
economic crisis of the Roman Empire and its abandonment of much of its province of Tingitana, putting an end to the
activities of a large number of purple factories and salting factories to be found on the Atlantic coast of Morocco. At this
time, the Canary Islands enter a phase of abandonment, with a very short timeline (circa 3rd-4th c. AD), marked by the end
of economic dependent on the outside world as a result of the crisis that affected the Roman Empire in the 3rd century AD,
something that had nothing to do with the island, but which would be responsible for its isolation and for the crisis of the
social formations that had, until that moment, focused on the outside world, which entered a new phase that would lead
them to develop social and economic strategies marked by the island syndrome.
Acknowledgements
This papers forms part of the studies that we are conducting within the HAR2013-40899-P project «Settlement, cultural
adaptation and environmental change in Canary Island Proto-history: the cases of Lanzarote and Fuerteventura», funded by
the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Spain). PI: Pablo Atoche Peña.
278
References
[Arc97] Arco, Mª.C. del, M. del Arco, E. Atiénzar, P. Atoche, M. Martín, C. Rodríguez & Mª.C. Rosario (1997)
Dataciones absolutas en la Prehistoria de Tenerife, en: A. Millares, P. Atoche & M. Lobo (coords.) Homenaje a
Celso Martín de Guzmán (1946-1994). Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Pp. 65-77.
[Arc00] Arco, Mª.C. del, R. González, R. Balbín, P. Bueno, Mª.C. Rosario, Mª.M. del Arco & L. González (2000) Tanit en
Canarias, Eres (Arqueología/Bioantropología), 9 (1), pp. 43-65.
[Ato89] Atoche, P., Mª.D. Rodríguez & Mª.A. Ramírez (1989) El yacimiento arqueológico de ‘El Bebedero’ (Teguise,
Lanzarote). Resultados de la primera campaña de excavaciones. Madrid: Secretariado de Publicaciones.
Universidad de La Laguna/Ayuntamiento de Teguise.
[Ato95] Atoche, P., J.A. Paz, Mª.A. Ramírez & Mª.E. Ortiz (1995) Evidencias arqueológicas del mundo romano en
Lanzarote (Islas Canarias). Arrecife: Cabildo Insular. Col. Rubicón, 3.
[Ato97] Atoche, P., J. Martín & Mª.A. Ramírez (1997) Elementos fenicio-púnicos en la religión de los mahos. Estudio de
una placa procedente de Zonzamas (Teguise, Lanzarote), Eres (Arqueología), 7, pp. 7-38.
[Ato99a] Atoche, P., J. Martín & Mª.A. Ramírez (1999) Amuletos de ascendencia fenicio-púnica entre los mahos de
Lanzarote: ensayo de interpretación de una realidad conocida, VIII Jornadas de Estudio sobre Lanzarote y
Fuerteventura (Arrecife, 1997), II, pp. 421-458.
[Ato99b] Atoche, P., J. Martín, Mª.A. Ramírez, R. González, Mª.C. del Arco, A. Santana & C. Mendieta (1999) Pozos con
cámara de factura antigua en Rubicón (Lanzarote), VIII Jornadas de Estudios sobre Lanzarote y Fuerteventura
(Arrecife, 1997), II, pp. 365-419.
[Ato99c] Atoche, P & J.A. Paz (1999) Canarias y la costa Atlántica del N.O. africano: difusión de la cultura romana, II
Congreso de Arqueología Peninsular (Zamora, 1996), IV, pp. 365-375.
[Ato03] Atoche, P. (2003) Fenómenos de intensificación económica y degradación medioambiental en la Protohistoria
canaria, Zephyrus, LVI, pp. 183-206.
[Ato06] Atoche, P. (2006) Canarias en la Fase Romana (circa s. I ANE al s. III DNE): los hallazgos arqueológicos,
Almogaren, XXXVII, pp. 85-117.
[Ato08a] Atoche, P. (2008) Las culturas protohistóricas canarias en el contexto del desarrollo cultural mediterráneo:
Propuesta de fasificación, en: R. González, F. López & V. Peña (eds.) Los Fenicios y el Atlántico. Madrid: Centro
de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos. IV Coloquio del CEFYP (Santa Cruz de Tenerife, 2004), pp. 317-344.
[Ato08b] Atoche, P. & Mª.A. Ramírez (2008) Manifestaciones de la religiosidad mediterránea en la Protohistoria canaria
(circa s. X ANE al s. XV DNE), Gerión, 26, nº 1, pp. 183-202.
[Ato09a] Atoche, P. (2009) Estratigrafías, cronologías absolutas y periodización cultural de la Protohistoria de Lanzarote,
Zephyrus, LXIII (enero-junio), pp. 105-134.
[Ato09b] Atoche, P. & Mª.A. Ramírez (2009) Manifestaciones rupestres protohistóricas de Lanzarote: viejas y nuevas
iconografías en un diferente contexto cronológico, cultural e interpretativo, en: R. de Balbín, P. Bueno, R.
González y Mª.C. del Arco (eds.) Rock Carvings of the European and African Atlantic Façade. Oxford: BAR
International Series, 2.043, pp. 187-209.
[Ato11] Atoche, P. & Mª.A. Ramírez (2011) Nuevas dataciones radiocarbónicas para la Protohistoria canaria: el
yacimiento de Buenavista (Lanzarote), Anuario de Estudios Atlánticos, 57, pp. 139-170.
[Aub94] Aubet, Mª.E. (1994) Tiro y las colonias fenicias de Occidente. Barcelona: Crítica.
[Bro13] Bronk Ramsey, C., M. Scott & H. van der Plicht (2013) Calibration for Archaeological and Environmental
Terrestrial Samples in the Time Range 26?50 ka cal BP, Radiocarbon, 55(4), 2021-2027.
[Cas96] Castro, P.V., V. Lull & R. Micó (1996) Cronología de la Prehistoria reciente de la Península Ibérica y Baleares
(c. 2800-900 cal ANE). Oxford: Bar International Series, 652.
[Cus68] Cuscoy, L.D. (1968) Los guanches. Vida y cultura del primitivo habitante de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife,
Publicaciones del Museo Arqueológico, 7. Cabildo Insular de Tenerife.
[Fan88] Fantar, M. (1988) Carthage: archetypes et specificité. Carthage et son territoire dans l'antiquité, Actes du IV
Colloque International sur l'Histoire et l'Archéologie de l'Afrique du Nord, I, pp. 53-65.
[Fus59] Fusté, M. (1959) Algunas observaciones acerca de la antropología de las poblaciones prehistórica y actual de Gran
Canaria, El Museo Canario, Años XIX-XX, Nº 65-72, pp. 1-27.
[Fru91] Frutos, G. de (1991) Cartago y la política colonial. Los casos norteafricano e hispano. Écija: Gráficas Sol.
[Gar42] García y Bellido, A. (1942) Fenicios y cartagineses en Occidente. Madrid: CSIC. Serie C, nº 1.
[Gar03] García-Talavera, F. (2003) Depósitos marinos fosilíferos del Holoceno de La Graciosa (Islas Canarias) que
incluyen restos arqueológicos, Revista de la Academia Canaria de Ciencias, XIV (nos 3-4), pp. 19-35.
279
[Gon08] González, A. (2008) Avance de los análisis de caracterización de las cerámicas de La Fonteta, Cuadernos de
Arqueología Mediterránea, 18, pp. 53-79.
[Gon07] González, R. & Mª.C. del Arco (2007) Los enamorados de la Osa Menor. Navegación y pesca en la Protohistoria
de Canarias, Canarias Arqueológica. Monografías, 1. Museo Arqueológico de Tenerife. OAMC. Cabildo de
Tenerife.
[Gon09] González, R. & Mª.C. del Arco (2009) Navegaciones exploratorias en Canarias a finales del II milenio a.C. e
inicios del primero. El cordón litoral de La Graciosa (Lanzarote), Canarias Arqueológica
(Arqueología/Bioantropología), 17 (anejo I), pp. 9-80.
[Gra95] Graves, M.W. & D.J. Addison (1995) The Polynesian settlement of the Hawaiian Archipelago: integrating models
and methods in archaeological interpretation, World Archaeology (Colonization of Islands), vol. 26, nº 3, pp. 380-
399.
[Lop92] López Castro, J.L. (1992) Los libiofenicios: una colonización agrícola cartaginesa en el sur de la Península
Ibérica, Rivista di Studi Fenici, XX (1), pp. 47-65.
[Lop91] López Pardo, F. (1991) El Periplo de Hannón y la expansión cartaginesa en el África occidental, V Jornadas de
Arqueología fenicio-púnica (1990), pp. 59-70.
[Lop09] López Pardo, F. (2009) La isla Planasia de Statius Sebosus: elementos para la discusión, Canarias Arqueológica
(Arqueología/Bioantropología), 17, pp. 53-78.
[Mor71] Morales, F. (1971) Los descubrimientos en los siglos XIV y XV y los archipiélagos atlánticos, Anuario de
Estudios Atlánticos, 17, pp. 429-465.
[Pon65] Ponsich, M. & M. Tarradell (1965) Garum et industries antiques de salaison dans la Méditerranée Occidentale.
Paris: PUF.
[San06] Santana, A. & T. Arcos (2006) Las dos islas Hespérides atlánticas (Lanzarote y Fuerteventura, Islas Canarias,
España) durante la Antigüedad: del mito a la realidad, Gerión, 24, nº 1, pp. 85-110.
[San07] Santana, A. & T. Arcos (2007) La expedición de Juba II a las Islas Afortunadas y el meridiano cero del Orbis
Terrarum. Orbis Terrarum. Internationale Zeitzchrift für Historische Geographie der Alten Welt, Band 9, 2003-
2007, pp. 143-158.
[San02] Santana, A., T. Arcos, P. Atoche & J. Martín (2002) El conocimiento geográfico de la costa noroccidental de
África en Plinio: la posición de las Canarias. Hildesheim-Zürich-New York: Georg Olms Verlag. Spudasmata,
Band 88.
[Ser61] Serra, E. (1961) El redescubrimiento de las Islas Canarias en el siglo XIV, Revista de Historia Canaria, 135-136,
pp. 219-234.
[Wag00] Wagner, C.G. (2000) Santuarios, territorios y dependencia en la expansión fenicia arcaica en Occidente, ARYS, 3,
pp. 41-58.
[Nfa80] N.F.A. (1980 [1419]) (Introducción y Traducción de A. Cioranescu) Le Canarien. Crónicas francesas de la
conquista de Canarias. Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Cabildo Insular de Tenerife. Aula de Cultura de Tenerife.
280
TABLES
Table 1 - Proposed phases for proto-historic Canary Island cultures (corrected from [Ato08: 329])
VARIABLES
STAGES OF HUMAN ISLANDS COLONISED
CULTURAL PHASES EXPLAINIGN DRIVER OF CHANGE
SETTLEMENT OR SETTLED
CULTURAL CHANGE
PHOENICIAN PHASE Economic integration of
(cir. 10th to 6th c. BC) the islands in the Settled: Lanzarote,
Mediterranean circuits Tenerife, G. Canaria (?)
Commercial expansion
as producers of raw
in the Atlantic
materials Colonised: La Palma
st
1 STAGE PUNIC PHASE (Carthage unified and Fuerteventura (?)
(cir. 6th to 2nd c. BC) Western Phoenicia)
DISCOVERY,
COLONIZATION AND
ESTABLISHMENT HIATUS (circa 2nd to 1st centuries BC)
(cir. 10th c. BC to 3rd c. Crisis in the Punic colonization model
AD) Economic expansion in
Mauretania Tingitana Consolidation of human
presence in the settled
ROMAN PHASE Economic
Economic islands and the final
(cir. Ist c. BC to 4th c. intensification in the
intensification: settlement of people in
AD) African Atlantic
integration of islands that thus far had
agricultural-fisheries only been colonised
production
nd
2 STAGE Political-economic
CANARY ISLAND
PHASE: End of economic crisis of paleo-Canary
ABANDONMENT Island social formations
CONSTITUTION AND dependence on outside
(cir. 4th to 5th c. AD)
rd
DEVELOPMENT OF world and development Settled: all
3 STAGE CANARY ISLAND of autarchic economic Re-adaptation and
CULTURES and social processes diversification of paleo-
ISOLATION (cir. 4th to 13th c. AD) Canary Island social
(cir. 5th to 13th c. AD) formations
th
4 STAGE PHASE OF
Widespread crisis
DESTRUCTION OF Commercial expansion
among paleo-Canary Settled: all
ACCULTURATION CANARY ISLAND in the Atlantic
Island social formations
(cir. 14th and 15th c. AD) CULTURES
281
interception of the radiocarbon age with the calibration curve, organised by site of origin, stratigraphic
cross section, strata, sub-strata, series and isotopic dating method used (corrected from [Ato09a: 123])
EL BEBEDERO CALDERETA DE TINACHE BUENAVISTA FEMÉS CORRALES
Table 2 - Lanzarote. Stratigraphic distribution of calibrated datings (2 sigma) resulting from the
CROSS
STRATA SECTIONS CROSS
EAST/WEST CROSS SECTION
AND CROSS SECTIONS A7/A9/B3/X12/PF NORTH PROFILE B6/C8/E4/F1/ SECTION SOUTH PROFILE
PROFILES B3
SUB-STRATA F4/D9/H2/W7 B10
/X8/U3
O.S. SERIES O.B. SERIES O.S. SERIES O.B. SERIES S.S. SERIES O.S. SERIES O.B. SERIES S.S. SERIES O.S. SERIES
AMS ST. C14 ST. C14 AMS AMS ST. C14 ST. C14 AMS AMS AMS AMS
1300 AD
III-1
1010 AD 1030 AD
900 AD 920 AD
III 870 AD
III-2
690/690 AD
540 AD 540 AD
IV-1 415 AD
IV-2 385/330 AD
IV-3 345/330 AD
345/335 AD
IV 235 AD 240 AD
220 AD
220 AD
IV-4 140 AD
130/130 AD
130 AD
110 AD
90 AD 80 AD
60 AD
30 AD 0 AD/BC
0 AD/BC 40 BC
180 BC 190 BC
200 BC
330 BC
V-1 380 BC
530 BC
V
960 BC
V-2 1690 BC
V-3 2546 BC
V-4 2835 BC
V-5
282
Table 3 - Lanzarote. List of datings available. Conventional signs used: SS = Surface Settlement; P.S. SP = Sedimentary
Profile. The order number is the same as the one assigned to the datings in Figures 4 and 5
(corrected from [Ato09a: 131-132])
2 SIGMA
LABORATORY
CALIBRATION
SITE NUMBER
(BC-AD)
--- --- CONVENTIONAL ±
Nº SAMPLE
STRATIGRAPHIC METHOD OF RADIOCARBON AGES YEARS INTERCEPT OF TYPE SITE
DETAILS ANALYSIS RADIOCARBON AGE
WITH CALIBRATION
CURVE
1280-1410 AD cal.
El Bebedero 90 GrA-2463
1 635 BP 50 Ovicaprid bones SS
A9/III-1 AMS 1300 AD cal.
420-640 AD cal.
El Bebedero 90 GrA-2464
2 1520 BP 50 Ovicaprid bones SS
A7/III-2 AMS 540 AD cal.
250-540 AD cal.
El Bebedero 90 GrA-2470
3 1660 BP 50 Charcoal SS
A7/IV-2 AMS 385 AD cal.
210-440 AD cal.
El Bebedero 90 GrA-2478
4 1710 BP 50 Charcoal SS
A7/IV-2 AMS 330 AD cal.
210-440 AD cal.
El Bebedero 90 GrA-2479
5 1705 BP 50 Charcoal SS
A7/IV-3 AMS 330 AD cal.
230-450 AD cal.
El Bebedero 90 GrA-2471
6 1685 BP 50 Charcoal SS
A7/IV-3 AMS 345 AD cal.
230-450 AD cal.
El Bebedero 90 GrA-2473
7 1685 BP 50 Charcoal SS
A7/IV-4 AMS 345 AD cal.
230-440 AD cal.
El Bebedero 90 GrA-2475
8 1690 BP 50 Charcoal SS
A7/IV-4 AMS 335 AD cal.
120-390 AD cal.
El Bebedero 90 GrA-2472
9 1775 BP 50 Charcoal SS
A7/IV-4 AMS 235 AD cal.
80-350 AD cal.
El Bebedero 90 GrA-2474
10 1805 BP 50 Charcoal SS
A7/IV-4 AMS 220 AD cal.
20-260 AD cal.
El Bebedero 90 GrA-2511
11 1870 BP 50 Charcoal SS
A7/IV-4 AMS 90 AD cal.
110 BC-130 AD
El Bebedero 90 GrA-2477
12 1980 BP 50 Charcoal SS
A7/V-1 AMS 0 BC/AD cal.
210-620 AD cal.
El Bebedero 90 GrN-19192
13 1635 BP 90 Ovicaprid bones SS
A7/IV-1 Standard C14 415 AD cal.
200 BC-450 AD cal.
El Bebedero 90 GrN-19195
14 1895 BP 120 Ovicaprid bones SS
A7/IV-4 Standard C14 80 AD cal.
400 BC-350 AD cal.
El Bebedero 90 GrN-19194
15 1980 BP 140 Ovicaprid bones SS
A7/IV-4 Standard C14 0 BC/AD cal.
80-250 AD cal.
El Bebedero 87 GrN-15804
16 1840 BP 30 Ovicaprid bones SS
B3/IV-4 Standard C14 130 AD cal.
El Bebedero 87 GrN-15762 100 BC-230 AD cal.
17 1950 BP 60 Charcoal SS
B3/IV-4 C14 Estándar 30 AD cal.
20-80 AD cal.
El Bebedero 11 Beta-334944 SS
18 1950 BP 30 Organic sediment
X12/IV-4 AMS 60 AD cal.
283
El Bebedero 12 UBA-31979 2622-2470 BC cal.
19 4022 BP 34 Organic sediment SS
PF/V-3 AMS 2546 BC cal.
2871-2799 BC cal.
El Bebedero 12 UBA-31.980
20 4199 BP 38 Organic sediment SS
PF/V-4 AMS 2835 BC cal.
970-1040 AD cal.
Caldera Tinache 05 Beta-214123
21 1020 BP 40 Charcoal SS
PE1/III-1 AMS 1010 AD cal.
760-960 AD cal.
Caldera Tinache 05 Beta-214124
22 1190 BP 40 Charcoal SS
PE2/III-2 AMS 870 AD cal.
660-790 AD cal.
Caldera Tinache 05 Beta-214125
23 1300 BP 40 Charcoal SS
PE2/III-2 Base AMS 690 AD cal.
Caldera Tinache 05 Beta-214126 660-790 AD cal.
24 1300 BP 40 Charcoal SS
PE2/III-2 Base AMS 690 AD cal.
Caldera Tinache 05 Beta-214127 70-250 AD cal.
25 1850 BP 40 Charcoal SS
PE2/IV-4 AMS 140 AD cal.
Caldera Tinache 05 Beta-172349 10 BC-250 AD cal.
26 1890 BP 60 Ovicaprid bones SS
PN1/IV-4 Standard C14 110 AD cal.
Caldera Tinache 05 Beta-275164 780-1000 AD cal.
27 1130 BP 40 Charcoal SS
PO/III-2 AMS 900 AD cal.
Caldera Tinache 05 Beta-214128 1880-1530 BC cal.
28 3400 BP 60 Snail shells SS
PN3-4/V-2 Standard C14 1690 BC cal.
400-350 BC cal.
Buenavista 06 Beta-230885
29 2280 BP 40 Organic sediment SS
B6/II-1 AMS 380 BC cal.
Buenavista 07 Beta-237340 370-150 BC cal.
30 2180 BP 40 Organic sediment SS
E4/II-1 AMS 330 BC cal.
Buenavista 07 Beta-237341 780-400 BC cal.
31 2450 BP 50 Organic sediment SS
F4/II-3 AMS 530 BC cal.
Buenavista 08 Beta-251320 220-260 AD cal.
32 1780 BP 40 Ovicaprid bones SS
B10/I-1 AMS 240 AD cal.
Buenavista 08 Beta-251321 60 BC-10 AD cal.
33 2030 BP 40 Organic sediment SS
D9/I-2 AMS 40 BC cal.
200-150 BC cal.
Buenavista 08 Beta-251323
34 2140 BP 40 Organic sediment SS
H2/I-2 Base AMS 180 BC cal.
1010-910 BC cal.
Buenavista 08 Beta-251322
35 2810 BP 40 Charcoal SS
D9/II-3 Base AMS 960 BC cal.
60-240 AD cal.
Buenavista 09 Beta-275162
36 1870 BP 40 Organic sediment SS
C8/I-2 AMS 130 AD cal.
50-250 AD cal.
Buenavista 09 Beta-275163
37 1860 BP 50 Organic sediment SS
F1/I-2 AMS 130 AD cal.
125-255 AD cal.
Buenavista 16 Beta-445241
38 1820 BP 30 300-315 AD cal. Organic sediment SS
W7/I-2 AMS
220 AD cal.
355-275 BC cal.
Buenavista 16 Beta-445242 255-165 BC cal.
39 2170 BP 30 Organic sediment SS
X8/II-1 AMS 125-120 BC cal.
200 BC cal.
Buenavista 16 Beta-445243 425-595 AD cal.
40 1540 BP 30 Charcoal SS
U3/I-1 AMS 540 AD cal.
360-280 BC cal.
Valle de Femés 05 Beta-172350
41 2150 BP 40 240-60 BC cal. Snail shells SP
P/V-1 AMS
190 BC cal.
284
Los Corrales 12 Beta-334945 880-990 AD cal.
42 1120 BP 30 Organic sediment SS
B3/II Base AMS 920 AD cal.
1020-1160 AD cal.
Los Corrales 12 Beta-334946
43 960 BP 30 Organic sediment SS
B3/II AMS 1030 AD cal.
285