by Chris Fowler
Libera, J. and Tunia, K. (eds) 2006. Idea Megalityczna w Obrządku Pogrzebowym Kultury Pucharów Lejkowatych. Lublin: Instytut Archaeologii I Etnologii PAN.
Lillios, K. 2004. Lives of stone, lives of people: re-viewing the engraved plaques of Late Neolithic and Copper Age Iberia. European Journal of Archaeology 7, 125–158.
Lillios, K.T. 2008. Heraldry for the dead. Memory, identity, and the engraved stone plaques of Neolithic Iberia. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Lopez-Romero Gonzalez De La Aleja, E. 2008. Characterizing the evolution of visual landscapes in the late prehistory of south-west Morbihan (Brittany, France). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 27, 217–239.
McFadyen, L. 2006. Building technologies, quick and slow architectures and early Neolithic long barrow sites in southern Britain. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 21, 70–81.
Midgley, M.S. 2005. The monumental cemeteries of prehistoric Europe. Stroud: Tempus Publishing Ltd.
Midgley, M.S. 2008. The megaliths of northern Europe. London: Routledge.
Mischka, D. 2011. The Neolithic burial sequence at Flintbek LA 3, north Germany, and its cart tracks: a precise chronology. Antiquity 85, 742–758.
Nielsen, P.O. 1984. Flint axes and megaliths—the time and context of the early dolmens in Denmark. In G. Burenhult (ed.), The archaeology of Carrowmore, 376–386. Stockholm: Theses and Papers in North-European Archaeology 14.
Nielsen, P.O. 2004. Causewayed camps, palisade enclosures and central settlements of the Middle Neolithic in Denmark. Journal of Nordic Archaeological Science 14, 19–33.
Noble, G. 2006. Neolithic of Scotland: timber, stone, earth and fire. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Oosterbeek, L. 2003. Problems of megalithic chronology in Portugal. In G. Burenhult (ed.), Stones and bones. Formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic-Neolithic interface 6000–3000 BC, 83–86. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Persson, P. and Sjögren, K-G. 1995. Radiocarbon and the chronology of Scandinavian megalithic graves. Journal of European Archaeology 3(2), 59–88.
Piggott, S. 1954. The Neolithic cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Renfrew, C. 1973. Monuments, mobilisation and social organisation in Neolithic Wessex. In C. Renfrew (ed.), The explanation of culture change, 539–558. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Renfrew, C. 1976. Megaliths, territories and populations. In S.J. De Laet (ed.), Acculturation and continuity in Atlantic Europe, 198–220. Brugge: De Tempel.
Richards, C. 2004. Labouring with monuments: constructing the dolmen at Carreg Samson, south-west Wales. In V. Cummings and C. Fowler (eds), The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: materiality and traditions of practice, 72–80. Oxford: Oxbow.
Robinson, G. 2007. The prehistoric island landscape of Scilly. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Sanjuán, L.G. and Díaz-del-Río, P. 2006. Advances, problems and perspectives in the study of social inequality in Iberian Late Prehistory. In L.G. Sanjuán and P. Díaz-del-Río (eds), Social inequality in Iberian late prehistory, 1–9. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Scarre, C. 2001. Modelling prehistoric populations: the case of Neolithic Brittany. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20, 285–313.
Scarre, C. 2009. Stones with character: animism, agency and megalithic monuments. In G. Cooney, B. O’Connor, and J. Chapman (eds), Materialitas: working stone, carving identity, 9–18. London: Prehistoric Society.
Scarre, C. 2011. Landscapes of Neolithic Brittany. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scarre, C., Laporte, L., and Joussaume, R. 2003. Long mounds and megalithic origins in western France: recent excavations at Prissé-la-Charrière. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 67, 235–251.
Schuldt, E. 1972. Die mecklenburgischen Megalithgräber. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
Schwarz, R. 2003. Zwölf Jahre Luftbildarchäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt. Pilotstudien Landesamt für Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt. Halle (Saale): Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte.
Shee Twohig, E. 1981. The megalithic art of western Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Shee Twohig, E. 1990. Irish megalithic tombs. Princes Risborough: Shire.
Sjögren, K.-G. 2003. Mångfalldige uhrminnes grafvar … ’. Megalitgravar och samhälle i Västsverige. Institutionen för arkeologi, Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet.
Steelman, K.L., Carrera Ramírez, F., Fábregas Valcarce, R., Guilderson, T., and Rowe, M.W. 2005. Direct radiocarbon dating of megalithic paints from north-west Iberia. Antiquity 79, 379–389.
Thomas, A., Chambon, P., and Murail, P. 2011. Unpacking burial and rank: the role of children in the first monumental cemeteries of Western Europe (4600–4300 BC). Antiquity 85, 772–786.
Thomas, J. 2000. Death, identity and the body in Neolithic Britain. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6, 603–617.
Thomas, J. and Tilley, C. 1993. The axe and the torso: symbolic structures in the Neolithic of Brittany. In C. Tilley (ed.), Interpretive archaeology, 225–272. Oxford: Berg.
Tilley, C. 1994. A phenomenology of landscape. Oxford: Berg.
Tilley, C. 2004. The materiality of stone: explorations in landscape phenomenology. Oxford: Berg.
Vafiadou, A., Murray, A.S., and Liritzis, I. 2007. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating investigations of rock and underlying soil from three case studies. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 1659–1669.
Watson, A. 2001. The sounds of transformation: acoustics, monuments and ritual in the British Neolithic. In N. Price (ed.), The archaeology of shamanism, 178–192. London: Routledge.
Watson, A. and Keating, D. 1999. Architecture and sound: an acoustic analysis of megalithic monuments in prehistoric Britain. Antiquity 73, 325–336.
Whittle, A. 2000. ‘Very Like a Whale’: menhirs, motifs and myths in the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition of northwest Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10, 243–259.
Whittle, A., Barclay, A., Bayliss, A., McFadyen, L., Schulting, R., and Wysocki, M. 2007. Building for the dead: events, processes and changing worldviews from the thirty-eighth to the thirty-fourth centuries cal. BC in southern Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17, 123–147.
Worm, O. 1643. Danicorum Monumentorum Libri Sex. E spissis antiquitatum tenebis et in Dania ac Norvegia extantibus ruderibus eruti ab Olao Worm. D. Medicinae in Acad. Haffn. Professore publ. Hafniae. Copenhagen.
Worsaae, J.C.C. 1843. Danmarks Oldtid oplyst med Oldsager og Gravhøje. Copenhagen.
CHAPTER 44
NEOLITHIC ROCK ART IN IBERIA
SARA FAIRÉN-JIMÉNEZ
INTRODUCTION
ARCHAEOLOGISTS’ appreciation of the key role played by rock art in the transformations that shaped social life in Neolithic Europe has increased significantly over the last decades. In few places has this been more noticeable than in the Iberian Peninsula. The inception and development of Neolithic communities in this area was accompanied by the emergence of a wide range of rock art styles, which featured different distributions, techniques and contexts of use (Fig. 44.1). The Neolithic rock art in Iberia is characterized by its diversity: although one of its unifying characteristics is its frequent open-air character, other attributes vary between, and even within, different geographic areas.
FIG. 44.1. Neolithic rock art styles in the Iberian Peninsula. A) Levantine; B) Schematic; C) Megalithic; D) Galician-Atlantic.
As a general rule, we can say that whilst rock art in the Mediterranean area (e.g. the Levantine style) is most frequently painted in open-air rock-shelters, in the Atlantic the typical occurrence in is carved outcrops (e.g. the Galician-Atlantic style). Other styles, however, are not clear-cut in their definition: for instance, schematic rock art has a widespread distribution throughout the whole of the Peninsula, it can be either painted or carved, and it can be found both in open-air locations and inside caves. Moreover, some of the schematic motifs also appear in association with megalithic monuments (tombs and standing ston
es), or in material culture belonging to the megalithic symbolic world (freestanding statues and stelae, decorated ceramics, etc.). The context in which each motif was deployed is paramount in allocating it to one style or another. Some authors favour the treatment of these similar designs under the all-encompassing label of ‘megalithic art’ regardless of whether they are located at megalithic monuments or elsewhere (Bueno and Balbín 2000, 2002; Bueno et al. 2004). However, others have argued that this approach ignores the implications that different locations have for the physical and social context of the designs (Bradley 2002). Both positions raise interesting points: whilst the repetition of similar designs in different media and contexts might indicate an intentional reinforcement of the messages that art was intended to transmit in diverse spheres of activity, it is also clear that the analysis of this variability offers richer opportunities for archaeological interpretation. The variation in the context in which rock art was to be seen can indicate differences in its past uses, and also in the size and character of the audience that could have accessed it at any one time. This analysis can be done at two different scales: attending to the distribution of designs within a panel, site, or monument; and attending to the topographic location of sites in the landscape. The placement of the designs is also important in that their archaeological and landscape associations can give us hints about the potential uses served by Neolithic rock art. In the case of megalithic art, the funerary connotations of these designs is clear when they are deployed in dolmens and passage graves, but this is more difficult to establish when those designs appear in association with menhirs (which have an open-air context). Similarly, for those motifs deployed in rock-shelters and outcrops, the identification of the context in which they were created and used is more difficult to grasp and always requires looking beyond the panels. In these cases, their archaeological and geographical context is crucial for understanding the sort of practices that they were originally associated with.
This contribution examines similarities and differences between rock art at megalithic sites and open-air rock art of Neolithic Iberia—painted and carved designs that appear in rock-shelters, cliffs, and outcrops. The stylistic overlaps and cross-references between the different art styles that emerged during this period will be discussed, whilst also exploring the variability appreciable in their content, topographic location and archaeological context.
STYLES
Levantine
The naturalistic, dynamic, and stylized character of Levantine paintings sets them apart from the other Iberian Neolithic rock art styles. This style is characterized by detailed and naturalistic hunting compositions, where (allegedly) male individuals armed with bows and arrows track or hunt wild animals, as well as by scenes representing diverse gathering activities. Also typical, although less frequent, are scenes with archers marching or in confrontation with other groups of archers, isolated groups of animals, or human figures engaged in what traditionally have been considered ritual ‘dances’. Animal figures (especially cervids, wild caprids, and bovids) play leading roles in the hunting scenes and, although they are frequently wounded, very few of them are actually represented dead but in static standing positions. Human figures are also the focus of attention. Very few of them show obvious sexual attributes, and yet they have customarily been considered male representations, leading to proposals that Levantine art reflects a politico-ideological strategy of concealment of the social role of women in Iberian Neolithic communities (Escoriza 2002). The apparent lack of interest in representing sexual attributes of both women and men contrasts with the attention paid to material culture: bows, arrows, quivers, baskets, and ornaments (bracelets, ribbons, feather headdresses, etc.) are often represented with great detail. Although this apparent contradiction could raise interesting questions regarding the way in which the authors of the paintings expressed their identity, the subject has not been explored to any extent. This is probably due to the still unsolved issues regarding the chronological and cultural attribution of the Levantine style.
Indeed, the chronology of Levantine paintings has been disputed since the first discoveries in the late nineteenth century, and even today the debate remains open. Originally, this style took its name from the distribution of the first sites discovered throughout eastern, or ‘Levantine’, Spain. In fact, the name was proposed by Henri Breuil in order to differentiate this style from the Cantabrian Palaeolithic cave art, as he considered that the two of them had the same Palaeolithic chronology. However, this classification turned out to be wrong. On the one hand, subsequent discoveries indicated a much wider area of distribution (towards the interior of the Peninsula, in areas far away from the coast such as the mountains of the Pre-Pyrenees in Huesca, or the sierras of Cuenca and Jaén). On the other hand, its chronology is now accepted to be at least Neolithic, if not more recent. The chronological debate, however, is far from closed, mainly because of the so far unsuccessful attempts to obtain radiocarbon dates from the paintings. A recent study (Ruiz et al. 2006) has tried to date the oxalate crusts that cover the paintings, but their results are not conclusive: in the best of cases, they can only provide an indirect estimation of the age of the paintings that either underlie or cover these accretions.1 As a consequence, the chronological debate still relies on indirect evidence: the identification of the material culture depicted; superimpositions with motifs belonging to other Neolithic styles (Fig. 44.2); and similarities with designs that also occur on Neolithic decorated ceramics and other portable objects. These arguments are not conclusive, which allows for the current polarization of the debate: some authors take the images literally, suggesting that they were carried out by hunter-gatherer groups who maintained a Mesolithic way of life, although within the time frame of the local Neolithic (Alonso 2002). Other authors, however, have suggested that these scenes have a metaphorical dimension, as they were created by genuine agricultural communities (Hernández and Martí 2000–01; García et al. 2003; Fairén 2004).
FIG. 44.2. Levantine paintings over macro-schematic at La Sarga (Alcoi, Spain).
Accepting the validity of the Neolithic attribution despite the relative uncertainty of the chronological arguments, recent studies on Levantine paintings have concentrated on patterns of distribution in the landscape and the wider archaeological context in which the rock art sites were created and used. Ever since the earliest discoveries it was noted that Levantine paintings were preferentially located at shallow rock-shelters, distributed along the hillsides of narrow valleys and gullies, and overlooking rivers or small streams. Recent Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analyses of these sites have confirmed these patterns, which suggest the articulation and economic exploitation of the landscape by communities with an important degree of mobility (Fairén 2004; Cruz Berrocal 2005). These analyses have also revealed differences in the patterns of location between the larger and more accessible rock-shelters (such as the well known Minateda, Cantos de la Visera, La Sarga, and Cogul, among many others), and the smaller ones, which are usually scattered around the main sites, or isolated in more remote locations. The differences between these types of locales extend to the content of the scenes, with the larger sites deploying more complex compositions. Ultimately, these differences have been attributed to the different roles that these sites served: the smaller sites, placed in more secluded locations, seem to have had a higher economic potential than the bigger ones, whose use seems to have been related to gatherings of ample audiences (Fairén 2004; Fairén-Jiménez 2007).
Schematic
Schematic Art is difficult to characterize. For many years, this label has been treated as a catch-all term for any representations with a heavily stylized character which could not be clearly ascribed to any other style. As a consequence, designs labelled as ‘schematic’ have an extensive distribution across time and space: they may range from the early Neolithic to the Bronze and Iron Age and they can be found across most of the Iberian Peninsula (although a significant vacuum has been not
ed in the north-western area) and beyond (southern France, Italy, and some Mediterranean islands). However, for the purposes of research it has been conventionally accepted that there is a distinct and coherent, regional variant of the schematic tradition in the Iberian Peninsula that spans the Neolithic and Copper Age. The definition of this style follows, with the necessary updates and modifications, the proposals of Pilar Acosta (1968), which in turn revised Henri Breuil’s research during the early twentieth century (Breuil and Burkitt 1929; Breuil 1933–35). Acosta’s typology grouped the commoner designs within this style, despite the variability in forms and techniques that characterizes the schematic repertoire. These designs include human and animal figures, representations of the sun, occuli and idols, plus a wide range of non-figurative, geometric designs (dots, bars, zigzags). These motifs are characterized by the simplification of the figures to minimal outlines, their reduced size, and the scarcity of scenes and compositions (Fig. 44.3).
FIG. 44.3. Schematic paintings at Pala Pinta, Alijó, Portugal.
(Photo: Lara Bacelar Alves).
Acosta’s influential classification is still used by most researchers, although nowadays her terminology, which identified designs as certain animals or objects, tends to be substituted by descriptive denominations rather than interpretive ones (Chapa 2000). Many of Acosta’s other suggestions have been confirmed by recent research. For instance, although her investigations were focused on painted designs, it is now accepted that carvings were just as important in this style. Also, it is increasingly evident that these designs are not just to be found in open-air rock-shelters, but in a range of different settings including flat outcrops, vertical cliffs, and even caves that are not reached by natural light, such as: El Pedroso, in Zamora; Atapuerca, in Burgos, and; La Pileta, Nerja and others, in Andalucía (Bradley et al. 2005; Gómez-Barrera 2006; Márquez and Sanchidrián 2005). Indeed, the contexts in which schematic art is found and the technique of execution display significant regional variation: in the Mediterranean and southern areas designs are normally painted in rock-shelters (Hernández et al. 1988; Martínez García 1998), but in Andalucía the same designs have also been found in a number of subterranean caves (Márquez and Sanchidrián 2005). In other areas, such as Portugal and the northern Spanish Meseta, both painting and carving are used, sometimes in the same sites, and designs can be found in outcrops, cliffs, rock-shelters, and caves (Alves 2002; Silva and Alves 2005; Collado and Garcia 2009; Gómez-Barrera 2006). Finally, as we will see later, some of these designs appear in sites that yield evidences of funerary use. Overall, schematic art appears in the widest range of contexts of all the Iberian Neolithic art styles, suggesting that these designs served different roles in different areas.
