2008 Bueno Et Al. - Models of Integration of Rock Art

7/29/2019 2008 Bueno Et Al. - Models of Integration of Rock Art

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2008-bueno-et-al-models-of-integration-of-rock-art 1/14

Graphical Markers and

Megalith Builders in the

International Tagus,

Iberian Peninsula

Edited by

Primitiva Bueno-Ramirez

Rosa Barroso-Bermejo

Rodrigo de Balbín-Berhmann

BAR International Series 17652008



This title published by

ArchaeopressPublishers of British Archaeological ReportsGordon House276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 7EDEngland

[email protected]

BAR S1765

Graphical Markers and Megalith Builders in the International Tagus, Iberian Peninsula

© the individual authors 2008

ISBN 978 1 4073 0254 6

Printed in England by Butler and Tanner

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxfordOX2 [email protected]

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is availablefree from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com



5

Chapter 1

MODELS OF INTEGRATION OF ROCK ART AND MEGALITH BUILDERSIN THE INTERNATIONAL TAGUS

Primitiva BUENO RAMIREZ, Rodrigo de BALBÍN BEHRMANN & Rosa BARROSO BERMEJOUniversidad de Alcalá de Henares

Abstract: The great increase in the inventory of Schematic Art and the introduction into the Iberian Peninsula of methods concerned

with the analysis of territories began, in the late 1980’s, to transform a panorama which until then seemed to be immovable. Openair paintings and engravings were understood as two technical, chronological and geographical entities. For the paintings, the

difusionist models prevailed while the engravings were more closely linked to an altantist perspective. But different teams wereworking in the field on the idea of integrating the graphical markers and the territory, thus contributing the first interpretative

models that surpassed the exclusive function of “sanctuary”. The transition from religious hypotheses to the consideration of other factors of analysis has taken over a century. From the late 1980’s onwards, the richness of nuances, the analytical data and the field surveys organised in relation to the

localization of post-Palaeolithic graphical markers, began to give shape to very interesting perspectives regarding the value of these

symbols for the cultures who created and respected them.Our research throughout the whole of the Interior Basin of the Tagus always included the premise of the strong connection between

the open air markers, the paintings and the engravings, and the areas of human activity, either habitational, funerary or of another kind. And, moreover, the perspective of a global analysis which considered the general contemporary nature of the paintings and

engravings. This hypothesis presented for the first time in the Iberian Peninsula a model in which different techniques and positionswithin the territory, paintings and engravings, were integrated within a single analysis. The earliest producers were the first to

create a network of symbols by means of paintings and engravings which codified the territory throughout which they circulated.Their maintenance and multiplication throughout the 4th millennium BC and, particularly the 3rd millennium cal. BC, justify social

interpretations in which tradition played a key role.The inclusion of the position of the postglacial engravings of the Tagus within the framework of territories of traditional use, whose first graphical evidence can be dated in the Upper Palaeolithic, supports a line of analysis of the occupation of the area that

distances itself from the hypotheses of marginality and depopulation that had previously characterised the study of this area.Key words: Models; Graphical markers; Paintings; Engravings; Standing stones; Settlements; Tradition

Resumen: El notorio incremento del inventario del Arte Esquemático y la introducción en la Península Ibérica de metodologíasconectadas con análisis territoriales de origen geográfico, comenzó ya a finales de los 80 a transformar un panorama que hastaentonces parecía inamovible. Pintura y grabado al aire libre se entienden como dos elementos técnica, cronológica y geográficamente distintos. Para la pintura, los modelos difusionistas se imponían; para el grabado, una cierta perspectiva

atlantista. Pero distintos equipos trabajan sobre el terreno en la idea de integrar marcadores gráficos y territorio, aportando los primeros modelos de interpretación que superaban la exclusiva funcionalidad de “santuario”. Más de un siglo había costado la

transición entre las hipótesis religiosas y la apertura a otros factores de análisis. A partir de finales de los 80, la riqueza de matices, las elaboraciones analíticas y prospecciones organizadas en relación con la

localización de grafías postpaleolíticas, comienzan a configurar perspectivas muy interesantes, en relación con el valor de estos símbolos para las culturas que los produjeron y respetaron.

Nuestra investigación en toda la cuenca interior del Tajo siempre incluyó la premisa de la fuerte conexión entre marcadores al airelibre, las pinturas y grabados, y las áreas de actividad humana, ya sean habitacionales, funerarias o de otro tipo. Y, sobre todo, la

perspectiva de un análisis global que consideraba la contemporaneidad genérica entre pinturas y grabados. Esta hipótesis presentaba, por primera vez de forma organizada en la Península Ibérica, un modelo en el que diversas técnicas y diversas posiciones en un territorio, pinturas y grabados, se integraban en un mismo modelo de análisis. Serían los más antiguos productores

los primeros en generar una red de establecimientos simbólicos que codificaron el territorio por el que transitaban con grabados y pinturas. Su mantenimiento y acrecentamiento a lo largo del IV y, sobre todo, del III milenio cal BC, justifican reconstrucciones sociales en las que el factor de la tradición juega un papel muy destacado.

Incluir la posición de los grabados postglaciares del Tajo en el marco de territorios de uso tradicional, cuyas primeras evidencias gráficas pueden situarse en el Paleolítico Superior ,afianza una perspectiva de análisis del poblamiento del sector , en el que éste se

aleja de las hipótesis de marginalidad y despoblación que lo habían caracterizado.Palabras clave: Modelos; Grafías; Pintura; Grabado; Megalitos; Menhires; Poblados; Tradición

1.1. INTRODUCTION

The analysis of the post-Palaeolithic Art of the Iberian

Peninsula developed in parallel to the hypothesis of anoriental colonisation (Acosta, 1968; Almagro Gorbea, 1973),and thus gave priority to religious meanings as one of themain explicative factors for their global understanding.

This kind of interpretative perspective was established inEuropean Prehistory with the very first discoveries of Palaeolithic Art. The beautiful animal figures of the

franco-cantabrian caves offered a very different image of prehistoric man, and the existence of an aesthetic thatcould be understood by modern humans played a previously unimagined role.



P. BUENO R AMIREZ, R. DE BALBÍN BEHRMANN & R. BARROSO BERMEJO

6

The personality and prestige of H. Breuil (reed. 1974)helped favour one of the longest-held positions of European Prehistory: that these paintings and engravingshad constituted the decoration of dark and hidden places,frequented by few, and represented the religiosity of

Palaeolithic man.

The little technical development of post-Palaeolithic art,discovered very soon after the great Glacial Art (Cabré,1915), led to a degree of mimetism according to which allshelters in the Iberian Peninsula that displayed Levantineand Schematic Art were understood as sanctuaries inwhich the human groups expressed their beliefs andrepresented their gods and goddesses. As sanctuaries,these shelters were located in inhospitable places, at themargin of everyday activities.

Progressively, some nuances were introduced regardingthe chronology (Marcos, 1981; Carrasco & Pastor, 1982)and the origin of these postglacial expressions (Acosta,1984). However, a reasoned assessment of the relation-ship between paintings and engravings and the systems of territorial occupation of the producer groups was still far off.

The important growth of its inventory and theintroduction into the Iberian Peninsula of methodologiesfrom geographic models of territorial analysis began inthe late 1980’s to transform a framework that until thenseemed immovable. Different teams worked in the fieldon the idea of integrating the engravings and paintingsinto the cultural expressions of the groups that createdthem. Their locations were understood as part of anetwork of supports that carried a symbolic message,creating paths throughout the frequented landscape(Bradley et al . 1995), or as another type of evidence of human occupation that fulfilled diverse functions, amongwhich demarcating the territory was one of the mostdistinguished (Bueno,1986, 1987,1987a).

The transition from religious hypotheses to a broader scope of considerations took over a century, but from thelate 1980’s, the wealth of nuances, the analytical

applications and the field-surveys organised in relationwith the location of post-Palaeolithic rock art, shapedinteresting perspectives regarding the value of thesesymbols for the cultures that produced and respectedthem.

At this time, our team began a new line of researchconcerned with the megalithic art of the Iberian Peninsulathat, focusing on the theme of this paper, argued thecontemporary nature of paintings and engravings, at leastsince the earliest megalithic decorations, and the narrowrelationship between the open-air and the funerary themes(Bueno & Balbín, 1992).

Our research throughout the entire interior Tagus Basinalways included the notion of a strong connection between the open-air markers, paintings and engravings,

and the funerary markers, and moreover, a perspective of global analysis that considered the generic contempora-neity of paintings and engravings. This hypothesis presented, for the first time in the Iberian Peninsula in anorganised manner, a model in which different techniques,

paintings and engravings, and different locations in thelandscape (river basins, valleys and mountains) wereintegrated within the same territory.

The earliest producers would have been the first to createa network of symbolic establishments that would codifythe territory through which they passed, using paintingsand engravings. Their insertion within a previousframework formed by rock art from the Upper Palaeolithic onwards supports the interpretation of theinhabitants of the western regions of the Peninsula withina long discourse, at the margin of the hypothesis of depopulation that characterises the reconstruction of theseterritories during Prehistory. It is precisely the rock artmarkers that point towards the reality of this longoccupational sequence in which the large river basinswould have played an active role in the aggregation of human groups. Their recurrent use supports the definitionof these areas as “traditional territories” (Bueno, in press),in which the rock art constituted part of the systems of definition and demarcation.

Their maintenance throughout the fourth and particularlythird millennia cal. BC justifies social reconstructions inwhich the factor of tradition played one of the mostdistinguished roles.

1.2. MODELS IN THE L ATE 1980’S

By presenting a brief summary of the basic models of analysis of postglacial art, we are reflecting on thediscourse of our discipline and the changes of emphasiswhich have enabled us to arrive at the current state of thequestion.

This review serves to illustrate the division between paintings and engravings, in which the former embodied

all of the evidence and arguments regarding orientalism and, in this sense, mediterraneanism. The latter, theengravings, were either not considered of prehistoricnature or were related to the notion of an Atlanticinfluence or origin (Hidalgo, 2006), in contrast with theMediterranean nature of the paintings.

An assessment of the interpretative models applied to both techniques must first underline the dichotomy which played a leading role in the interpretation of the westernterritories: indeed, it was understood that the paintingshad not reached these areas, at least not to the extentdocumented in the entire southern peninsular. The

engravings of the Tagus embodied their difference.

Regarding the paintings, the interpretations centred ontwo perspectives, diffusionism and, more recently,



MODELS OF INTEGRATION OF ROCK ART AND MEGALITH BUILDERS IN THE I NTERNATIONAL TAGUS

7

approaches related to archaeologies of landscape andsocial history.

Diffusionism and religion

Under this heading we have grouped together all of theinterpretations that use comparative chronology andexternal origin as the method of analysis of any historical phenomenon.

The relationship between these constants and religiousexplanations can be set within a particular nineteenthcentury philosophy that required religious explanations inorder to situate the past history within the mentality of present-day man. These explanations were deeply rootedin nineteenth century philosophies that argued theintegration of the prehistoric groups within a globalunderstanding of the origin of humanity that couldreconcile our myths of origin, Judea Christianity, with anarchaeological reality that was much more difficult toaccommodate.

The impact of diffusionism and, particularly, orientaldiffusionism in the Iberian Peninsula found at LosMillares a point of reference that could support the arrivalof oriental settlers, with a fully formed religion in whichthe female figures represented a Mother Goddess(Almagro & Arribas, 1963).

The ever earlier dates for the first peninsular producersforced the oriental arrival to be pushed back in time. Theemergence of metallurgy was thus converted into thearrival of peoples with wheat and sheep who, again, brought a fully formed religion. The indigenous peoplewould have reacted by creating their own imagesinfluenced by the new cults, as is the case of theLevantine Art, or by reproducing elements characteristicof the oriental religion (Jordá, 1966).

The parallels extracted from here and there, even withvery different chronologies (Acosta, 1968), were never considered a problem for the quite generalised assumptionof the relationship between Schematic Art and the arrival

of the Oriental peoples.The aggiornamiento of the oriental origin of production, based on work carried out by the research groups of Valencia, have introduced nuances to a proposal that basically maintains the differences put forward by Jordá between a Levantine Art, later than the Schematic Art,and the Schematic Art itself, as evidence for the arrival of new beliefs, recently with the incorporation of Macro-schematic Art (Martí & Hernandez, 1998; Hernandez &Martí, 2001). Their density in one area of Alicante isinterpreted as the place of arrival of the new peoples,those who painted the Macro-schematic Art. Levantine

Art is attributed to the response of the indigenous groups.The first incomers were the creators of the Schematic Artwhile the groups that found refuge in the mountainousareas were the hunters of the Levantine Art.

The thoughts and doubts are many; indeed the archaeo-logical documentation of the mountainous areas providesradiocarbon dates, territorial, funerary and graphicalorganisations very similar to those from the rest of theIberian Peninsula. Moreover, the latest finds (Martinez et

al . 2003) show that part of the Levantine Art belongs toStyle V (Bueno et al . in press b), that defines thechronological limit of the Epipalaeolithic, and in whichnaturalism was one of the inherited characteristics fromthe Upper Palaeolithic. It is not place here to attempt toresolve such a complex issue; however, regarding thequestions dealt with in this paper, the presence of largenaturalist figures beneath the schematic figures at theshelters of El Buraco and La Grajera (Carrera et al . 2007)adds to the evidence of this style in the nearby areas(Collado, 2004) and to the evidence collected by Breuil(1935) in Andalusian shelters, that opens the door to thecentral place of these naturalist styles prior to thedevelopment of Schematic Art (Bueno et al . 2006a: 41-42).

Oriental diffusionism and religious interpretation are twofactors intrinsically associated in explanations of thedistribution of the Iberian schematic paintings. Thegeneralised definition of “sanctuaries”, inherited fromold interpretations of Palaeolithic Art, has been presentin most of the interpretations of Holocene Art, practi-cally throughout the entire second half of the 20th cen-tury.

Paintings and territory

The immersion of peninsular research in theoreticalapproaches coming from the Anglo-Saxon world, particularly since the 1980’s, had important repercussionsin the field of post-Palaeolithic rock art. Theseapplications are most notorious in the case of the open air engravings of Galicia, as we shall see below, but there areseveral authors who have begun to integrate a wider vision of the painted shelters, in which their location playsa particular territorial role, beyond the classicaldenomination of sanctuary.

Without the intention of developing an exhaustivehistoriographical review, the work of J. Martinez makesthis interpretative approach quite explicit. Territory andsocial organisation are given central importance in theunderstanding of the role of the paintings among thehuman groups that created them.

The organisation of shelters in nuclear groups or linear arrangements surrounding hills and river basins isconsidered as evidence for the territorial systems of theearly producers and metallurgists (Martínez, 2006: 40).The second model, the linear arrangement around hills,connects different river basins, as is the case of Villuercas

with shelters that mark the path between the Tagus andthe Guadiana Basins and is located on good pasture landthat could possibly have supported a transhumanteconomic activity.




8

The first phase of schematic painting would havedeveloped in a mountainous environment, related with Neolithic occupations, and its chronology would be closeto that of the first megaliths, at the end of the fourthmillennium BC. The second phase of schematic painting

would have developed throughout the 3rd millennium,alongside its marked expansion. It was in this period thatthe panels with genealogical themes held a distinguished place, as evidence of the unequal social organisation thatused the factor of inheritance as a justification of itsdominant positions (Martínez, 2006: 52).

As we were mentioning above, the traditional modelshave not analysed the spatial relationship between paintings and engravings, since such a relationship wasthought not to exist (Martínez, 2006:40) due to thehypothesis of the two techniques being mutuallyexclusive and regional specialisations among which theGalician engravings and those of the Tagus and Guadianawere considered as one-off examples. For this reason, theinterpretation of the engravings has been set apart in thisreview.

Archaeologies of landscape

The line of research developed by Criado and his team(Criado, 1993) from the 1990’s onwards centred itsmethodology on approaches closely linked to postpro-cessual idealism. Symbolism became an explanation per

se and an almost exclusive social motor, above parameters such as economy, chronology or other nuances

derived from the most basic empirical observations. Their contribution of these researchers can be valued as theintroduction of hodderian thought into the peninsula andthe incorporation of interesting nuances to the traditionaltypological issues that have been so damaging to the

study of Postglacial Art.

Galician petroglyphs and social organisation

The dynamic Galician archaeology soon overcame the postprocessualism described above, and instigated metho-dological approaches set in social history. The economic parameters (location of the settlements, archaeologicaldocumentation, and comparison between tombs) are whatenabled the proposal of an interpretation of the location of the petroglyphs and of their meaning within the socialgroups that created them. From this perspective, VazquezVarela (1997), de la Peña and Rey (2001), or Fábregas(2001) have put forward a series of hypotheses regardingthe inclusion of the engravings within the symbolicexpressions of the social intensification that characterisedthe third millennium cal BC in the area.

However, in both cases, the cited authors refer exclusively to the Galician sphere. With rare exceptions(Balbín, 1989; Bueno et al. 1998; Gómez Barrera,1992), the rest of the peninsular engravings, apart fromthose of the Southeast that we shall discuss below, havehad little repercussion on the general understanding of the post-Palaeolithic Art of the Iberian Peninsula. (Fig.1.1).

Fig. 1.1. Groups of engravings in the Iberian Peninsula




9

Fig. 1.2. Traditional border between engraving & painting

1.3. ROCK ART AND MEGALITHS IN THEINTERNATIONAL TAGUS:MODELS OF INTEGRATION OFENGRAVINGS AND PAINTINGS

The important conceptual, chronological and geographicaldifferences between the engravings and paintings of theLate Prehistory of the Iberian Peninsula were one of thereasons that motivated our study of the Megalithic Art of the Iberian Peninsula. The analysis of both techniques infunerary contexts allowed us to provide a chronologicalreference for the open-air art and, even better, aninventory of the thematic and technical associations that

could support the close relationship between the creatorsof paintings and engravings at open-air sites and at themegaliths (Bueno & Balbín, 1992, 2000).

Two issues were central to the interpretation of theIberian Megalithic Art: geographical dispersion andtechnical dichotomy. It is noteworthy that these sameissues were key in the interpretation of postglacial open-air art.

The definition of the latter located the paintings in thesouth of the Iberian Peninsula and rejected the engravingsas a technique of the same age as the paintings (Acosta,

1968). It was thought, and still is, that the two techniqueswere to some extent mutually exclusive and, in the case of areas such as Galicia or the basins of the Tagus andGuadiana, the numerous panels of engravings were

thought to have replaced the paintings that were barely present (Bradley & Fábregas, 1999; Martínez, 2006: 36).

There was however one difference between the appro-aches of Megalithic and Schematic Art that has beenconsidered very little despite the interest that it holds for the hypothesis above mentioned. Whilst the North ischaracterised by the lack of open-air paintings, this areastands as a reference for the definition and characteri-sation of Megalithic Art of north-western characteristics(Shee, 1981). The south was characterised by engraveddolmens whilst it is precisely in this area that the largestconcentrations of painted open-air shelters has been

recorded. (Fig. 1.2)Our team began working with the decorated dolmens of the South and West, observing the very common presenceof paint in megaliths which were denied this technique(Balbín & Bueno, 1996; Bueno & Balbín, 1992, 1996).Soon, we were able to confirm our observations in themegaliths of the North, in which paintings and engravingswere complementary protagonists, and to put forwardchronological references for the use of both techniques infunerary contexts (Bueno & Balbín, 1992: 522; 1998,2000a, 2006, 2006a). These dates were completelyconfirmed by the direct dating of the paintings (Carrera &

Fábregas, 2002), archaeological arguments (Bueno &Balbín, 1992:522; 1996, 2006, 2006b, Bueno et al , 1999;2007) and the dates of the engraved and painted standingstones.




10

We were thus able to propose, for the first time in theIberian Peninsula, a model of integration of engravingsand paintings. Both techniques could be traced to the veryearliest funerary contexts dated in the fifth millenniumcal. BC. The detailed analysis of their location within the

tombs and their association with preferred themes (Bueno& Balbín, 1994, 1996a, 1997) suggested a similar use of the techniques as that observed in Palaeolithic Art.Paintings and engraving had been associated or dissociated according to the particular themes establishedinside the tombs.

Without any doubt, paintings and engravings both existedwithin the context of the graphical systems of the groupsof the fifth millennium cal. BC in which they were used indifferent spaces. It is likely that their selection dependedon other factors than whether they were known or not.

On the other hand, the identification of standing stones atopen-air sites and their connection to settlements of theearly Neolithic (Calado, 1997; Gomes, 1997) shapedanother interesting parameter, since many were carvedand some even showed evidence of red paint (Gomes,1997: 261).

This relationship between standing stones and settlementswith impressed pottery was soon confirmed by theradiocarbon dates from these contexts (Calado et al . 2004;Oliveira, 1997; Gomes, 1997), thus revealing that theengraved and painted standing stones played adistinguished role in the definition of the occupationalspaces of the first Neolithic groups in the early half of thefifth millennium cal. BC and possibly earlier, according tosome evidence that we shall discuss further down.

These observations joined our idea of rock art asindicators of the position of the human groups within a particular territory (Bueno & Balbín, 2000, 2000a) andconsolidated a model that could suggest how the differentgraphical indicators, open-air engravings and paintings,standing stones and decorated monuments, wereconnected within the territories of the megalith builders.

The work that we have carried out since the 1980’s in theTagus Basin has placed us in a privileged position fromwhich to evaluate the possibilities of a model of interconnection between the different graphical indicatorsand, moreover, to assess the documentation of decorateddolmens in this sphere (Bueno, 1988; Bueno & Balbín,1992, 2000a, 2000b; 2003; Bueno et al. 2004a; Oliveira,1997b, 2004).

The engravings at Huerta de las Monjas (Bueno, 1988),the dolmens of Alcántara (Bueno et al . 2000b), of Cedillo(Oliveira, 1997b) and of Santiago (Bueno et al. 2006a)supported their coexistence alongside paintings, as was

suggested by the analyses of cinnabar on a hand-grinder from the dolmen of Trincones I and decorated plaquesfrom the same monument (Bueno et al. in press), or thesmall bowl containing ochre and animal fat from the

dolmen of Lagunita I, at Santiago de Alcántara. The presence of red paint at the Anta Grande de Zambujeiro(Bueno & Balbín, 1992), in the dolmens of Guadancil(Bueno & Balbín, 2000b: 349), or the traces detected by J.Oliveira at the Anta da Nave do Padre Santo (pers. com.),

confirm the possibility of retrieval of this type of information from granite and schist monuments. In particular, J. Oliveira has had the opportunity to confirm black and red pigments at the Anta da Horta, at Alter doChâo and on one of the uprights of the Anta da Cabeçuda,at Marvâo (Oliveira, 2004).

With these premises we have developed a generic model, published in L’Anthropologie in 2000 (Bueno & Balbín,2000) and a predictive model, based on the former, towhich we have incorporated empirical verifications fromthe different research projects that we have carried out inthe area, especially at Santiago de Alcántara (Bueno et al .2004a).

We relied on the numerous studies of our Portuguesecolleagues who, since the 1970’s (Baptista et al. 1978;Serrâo et al . 1972), made known the enormous richness of their engraved stones. And, above all, on approaches of integration of cup-mark open-air engravings andmegaliths, led by the researchers of the “Associaçâo doEstudos do Alto Tejo” (Cardoso et al . 1997; Henriques et al. 1993, 1995, 1995a). The relationship between the cup-marks as a simple form of open-air engraving, and thelocation of the megaliths had particular repercussions onthe interpretations formed in the Galician sphere (Villoch,1995), since similar results were provided in twounrelated groups and in very different work environments.For both, the simplest themes, the cup-marks, displayedthe strongest connection with the settlements and funeraryensembles of the megalith builders, thus enabling thesuggestion of their strict contemporaneity. It seems quitelikely, as suggested by Laming-Emperaire (1962) for Palaeolithic Art, that the simple engravings at open air sites coexisted with engravings in caves, or in this case, inmegaliths.

The work carried out in funerary contexts suggested, as

we have already mentioned, the contemporaneity of thetwo techniques and, most of all, a strong thematiccoincidence, that is confirmed in the International Tagus by the identification of engraved dolmens associated with paint (Bueno et al. 1998a, 1999, 2000b, 2004a, 2006a;Bueno & Balbín, 2000, 2000b, 2000c; Oliveira, 2004).

In the granite monuments (Oliveira, 2004a) and those build out of slate (Bueno et al. 2000b), painting musthave been one of the components of a global decorationthat included quite clearly an important anthropomorphic presence by means of decorated plaques, statuettes, stelaeand standing stones (Bueno et al . in press).

Although the evidence of the same engravings,technically and thematically speaking, was confirmed,there was no reason to justify the absence of painting at




11

Fig. 1.3. Location of graphical markers in the International Tagus

Fig. 1.4. Predictive model of integration of engravings and paintings in the International Tagus

open-air sites, especially given the lack of systematicfieldwork in this direction.

Joining together all of these theoretical premises, the next phase of elaboration of our predictive model (Bueno et al. 2004a) focused on the organisation of the data, that in theInternational Tagus region enabled us to analyse the

location of the open-air engravings, the carved standingstones, the decorated monuments and the paintings. Adetailed map of this data (Fig. 1.3), an assessment of synchrony and diachrony, and an exhaustive definition of

the locations justified the creation of a predictive modelaccording to which the engravings would have occupieddistinguished locations within the river basins, in both themain Tagus and its confluents, while paintings wouldhave occupied important places in the quartzite hillranges.

This model (Fig. 1.4.), based on our work at Santiago,offered similar possibilities in the identical territories of the central area of the International Tagus (Bueno et al .2004a: 703).




12

Time showed that we were right and painted shelters arenow known in the districts of Alcántara, Marvâo and, of course, Santiago de Alcántara. The continuation of projects in this line will provide more important foci of paintings, especially since three enclaves of this type are

already known in the hills of Santiago.

It is hoped that the same pattern will be observed at VilaVelha de Rodâo, the largest group of open-air engravingsin the area, thus confirming –as suggested by our hypothesis- that the strict divisions between groups of paintings and engravings cannot be maintained. TheInternational Tagus demonstrates just this, that the paintedshelters are part of the systems of delimitation of themegalithic territories, at least since the Neolithic, andoccupy preferentially high locations.

The implications of these results in the global analysis of Iberian Schematic Art are of greatest interest. The basinsof the Douro, Tagus and Guadiana offer evidence of theoverlapping of engravings and paintings in the samespaces. The detailed studies of the Tagus area confirm thisand it is only a question of time and of similar theoreticaland methodological developments before the rest of the basins provides confirmation of the same situation.

Our fieldwork has centred on studying the quartzitemountain ranges in search of painted shelters and themargins of the confluents of the Tagus. This is how the paintings at Santiago and Alcántara were discovered. It istherefore to be hoped that an increase of fieldwork in thisrich megalithic region will lead to the identification notonly of one of the largest foci of engravings in the IberianPeninsula but also one of the most dense groups of schematic paintings, thus corroborating that the graphicalmarkers were located in different locations within the vastterritories occupied by the megalith builders.

1.4. CURRENT STATE OF THE MODEL OFINTEGRATION OF ENGRAVINGS ANDPAINTINGS IN THE INTERNATIONAL TAGUS

The general model that we put forward in 2000 (Bueno &Balbín, 2000), in which the megalith builders would notonly have defined territories in the lowlands as wassuggested by the classical hypothesis, but also in thehighlands, has been completely confirmed, thus indicatingthe systematic use of mountain resources such as timber, particular stones such as quartzite, or pastures that wouldhave been of key importance. Our predictive model(Bueno et al. 2004a) has also been confirmed, thusleading the focus of fieldwork to be place on determinedsectors of the International Tagus.

In the current situation of our theoretical premises andempirical confirmations, several questions have risenfrom the systematic application of the model describedabove.

Once taken on board the possibility of the presence of paintings, their consideration tends to grow, especiallywhen object of specific recording projects. As well asour work at Santiago de Alcántara, the Junta deExtremadura is fieldsurveying the districts of Alcántara

and Ceclavín with interesting results which we hope will be published in short (Collado, in press). The paintingsof Alcántara display a contrast to the decorated dolmensthat we have excavated and made known, and to theevidence of open-air engravings in the same style as inthe Portuguese Tagus (Bueno et al. 1998b, 1999,2000b).

Our Portuguese colleagues, aware of this approach, havealso carried out similar recording tasks, the results of which we await with interest.

Although quantity is a measure that cannot be ignored inthe assessment of the presence of schematic paintings inan area traditionally considered void of such expressions,their quality, the complex compositions and their thematicsingularity are equally remarkable.

The recently published study of the paintings of Santiagode Alcántara (Carrera et al. 2007) presents interesting perspectives of analysis for our shelters. The volumetry of the locations that tend to be small caves instead of flatstones in the open areas, alongside the global discourse of several anthropomorphic figures of particular importance,verbalises a very special symbolic situation.

To the spectacular scenes of social aggregation, of whichthe procession of La Grajera is particularly illustrative, wemust add the observation of superpositions that support anearlier naturalist phase beneath the more recent schematic paintings.

As we have argued on the basis of our first interventionsat Santiago (Bueno, 1994) and Valencia de Alcántara(Bueno, 1987, 1988) and, as has been confirmed by our excavations at Alcántara (Bueno et al. 2000; Bueno &Balbín, 2000b), the peak of the small schist necropoli can be placed without doubt in the second half of the fourth

millennium cal. BC and third millennium cal. BCalthough we must always be aware of an undeniableearlier occupation that must have included Neolithictombs (Bueno, 2000). The superpositions at Santiago deAlcántara or those identified by Collado (2004) atCeclavín confirm the presence of earlier groups thatmarked the same places as the later megalith builders.

The new graphical markers therefore constitute a goodargument in favour of the intensification of our work atSantiago de Alcántara, with the aim to locate archaeolo-gical evidence of this earlier occupation.

In our first studies (Bueno & Balbín 2000, 2000b) weunderlined the difficulty of confirming the presence of mixed techniques: engravings in the highlands, alongside paintings and paintings in the lowlands alongside




13

engravings. And this from the perspective of the possiblecoexistence suggested by Megalithic Art.

More recently, we have obtained confirmation of this pattern. We know that the painted shelters are located on

the margins of the river course, as is the case of theshelter of La Grajera (Bueno et al . 2006a; Carrera et al .2007), in direct relationship with the water line. Variousthemes were also engraved at the base of some paintedsupports. This is the case of the paintings of Alcántara or,as published at the time (Bueno et al . 1998a), the paintedshelters that surround the occupational focus of LosBarruecos.

Our model, with regards to the location of the paintings,must therefore underline the coexistence of the twotechniques in both the highlands and the areas close to theriver. This however does not exclude the fact that painting plays a key role in the environment of the mountains andfoothills.

Regarding the new contributions and precisions towardsthe location of the engravings, the focus of thefieldsurveys in the Tagus river course and its confluentshas provided indications of some degree of hierarchicalorganisation of the engraved locations, similar to thatsuggested for the ancient Palaeolithic engravings of theCôa valley (Baptista & García, 2002). The largest fociwould correspond to the larger scale aggregations whilethe small groups of engravings may have had connectionswith temporary installations or may have been related to a particular resource. The small location of Los Canchitos,at the feet of the necropolis of Cerro León, at Santiago deAlcántara (Bueno et al . 2006a: 49), could be understoodin this way.

The difficulties of fieldsurveying in the Tagus dam have been overcome by the hypothesis of the presence of engravings in its confluents. We hope that the results of the fieldsurveys in course in the Spanish area and thosealready mentioned carried out by the team led by Collado –Head of the Archaeological Unit of the Junta deExtremadura- will provide new corroborations of our

predictive model.The possibility that the engravings of the riverside mayalso have been painted has already been contemplated(Bueno & Balbín, 2000; Bueno et al. 2004a), as well asthe tendency towards the selection of stones with strongcolour contrast, particularly red surfaces. It is obvious thatif paint may have existed in these contexts, its presser-vation would have been unlikely due to the river floods.As we have mentioned, the presence of painted sheltersnear to the river confirms the presence of paint in theseareas and has led us to include more explicitly in our model the role of the paintings as graphical markers in the

lowlands of our study area.

Another of the developments is related to the territorialvastness and variability of the International Tagus that, as

well as the areas closest to the basin with lowlands around400 meters above sea level where most of the occupation-nal and funerary installations are located, also includeshigher lands. The work of the teams of Caninas (2004) inthe Serra de Oleiros has demonstrated the presence of

settlement and funerary areas above 700 meters thatcorrespond to the high plains of the area. The possiblefunction of delimitation of the occupational areas fulfilled by these engraved stones is similar to that documented atsimilar heights in the central Spanish meseta (Bueno et al.

1998) which, as suggested at the time, is very similar tothe delimitation of occupational areas structured through paintings and engravings in the interior regions of theTagus, such as for example at the settlement of LosBarruecos and other Neolithic and Chalcolithic settle-ments from the Northeast of Cáceres (Bueno et al . 1998:118).

The International Tagus represents the only confirmedmodel of the deep connection between paintings andengravings within the context of the symbolic delimita-tions of the megalithic territories of the Atlantic facade.Its example must be considered as a case study for other similar situations in other territorial contexts of theIberian Peninsula.

The continuation of work will lead to the documentationof compact groups of paintings, which like the engra-vings, reflect long chronological sequences and insistupon the long occupational discourse of the producer groups by which they were created. It can be hoped, also,that the detailed study of the distribution of the groups of engravings will inform about the hierarchical organisationof greater or lesser concentrations that appear to be con-nected with different occupational or economic functions.

In short, more subtle perspectives on the wide Palaeolithicand post-Palaeolithic occupation of the western regions of the Peninsula have begun to take shape based on thelocation of the enormous graphical richness of the sites inthe Basins of the Douro, Tagus and Guadiana.Demographic marginality and chronological delays are nolonger applicable to the occupational dynamics of a

strongly territorial settlement that make the westernregions of the Peninsula an ideal platform for thediscussion of the origin of unequalitarian societies.

1.5. THE GRAPHICAL MARKERS OF THE TRADITIONAL TERRITORIES

Our research line on the producer and metallurgic groupsof the interior Tagus Basin (Bueno, 1988; 2000) hasinsisted on the long occupational discourse that gives theinhabitants of the area a greater role beyond that of merereceptors of new developments arriving from the coast at

a very late date.

The location of the graphical markers as a parameter of analysis of the position of the groups within the territory




14

(Bueno & Balbín, 2000, 2000b) has proven useful.Indeed, the International Tagus and the central area thatconstitute our study area provide one of the best casestudies in the line that we have put forward. Palaeolithicand post-Palaeolithic engravings are located on rock

surfaces in the areas of the river basins and the highest plains. The confirmation that many of them were created by hunters of the late glacial period (Baptista, 2004)opens interesting perspectives for the documentation of long sequences similar to those recorded in the areas of the Douro (Bueno et al. in press b) and the Guadiana(Collado, 2004).

Many prehistorians have defended the graphical continuum between the Palaeolithic and post-Palaeolithic usingdifferent arguments. The open-air sites of the westernfacade of the Iberian Peninsula have confirmed this in thedensely decorated areas whose stones display the clearestevidence of this continuum: the inhabitants of the regionreturned again and again to the same places to deco-rate them thus adding to the oldest symbols (Bueno, in press).

The Palaeolithic to post-Palaeolithic sequences, repeated-ly documented at these sites, indicate that open-air settlement was larger and more dynamic than the patternstraditionally accepted for the Palaeolithic and immedia-tely posterior times and for the Neolithic.

One of the first deductions from the concentration of sitesunder study is that neither their location not their use giveany indication of them being unique. They could,therefore, serve a model of reflection for the analysis of other Atlantic areas which have traditionally beenconsidered poor in evidence of Palaeolithic Art. It is very possible that the scarceness observed in the British Islesor in Western France could be overcome by open-air sites,especially considering that these are relatively common in post-Palaeolithic times.

Indeed, some authors in the sphere of Late Prehistoryhave emphasised the recurrent coincidence of foci of open-air art with megalithic art (Bueno & Balbín, 2001;

Bueno et al. 1998; Peña & Rey, 2001:95), thusunderlining the relationship between interior and exterior sites (Bueno & Balbín, 2000b).

The absolute contemporaneity of interior and exterior decoration (Balbín & Alcolea, 1994; Bueno & Balbín2000) gives new dimensions to the meanings of the prehistoric rock art that in these different contextsconveyed messages of polysemic significance and in our case some degree of territorial contents (Bueno & Balbín,2001).

The “banner scenes” of the oldest stones, which are

mostly vertical and large engravings, appear to evolvetowards less visible elements, predominantly oriented tothe zenith. This evolution may indicate that these stonesformed part of a traditional territory, sufficiently well-

known for the symbols to be less evidently marked(Bueno, in press). The recognition of the producer groupswould have formed part of the traditional knowledge and probably would have been taught by the elders(Kristiansen, 1991).

The location of the open air sites offers an insight into themobility of the groups under study and, moreover, theobservation that the interior lands were occupied as earlyon as the coast, thus invalidating the coast-inland dialectic by means of progressive populations, in the chronologicalsense of the term (Bueno, 2000: 38). During the Upper Palaeolithic (Balbín & Alcolea, 1994) and in later times(Bueno et al. 1995, 2002), the inland regions were butanother economic setting of the prehistoric peninsular groups and it is precisely the decorated sites that havedemonstrated this (Bueno and Balbín 2000, 2000b).

The painted and engraved expressions have formed partof human cultures since the Upper Palaeolithic and haveoccupied different spaces of interest to the groups thatcreated them. The suggestion of a graphical continuum inthe Iberian Peninsula has found support in the river valleys of the Douro, the Tagus and the Guadiana. Of course, this situation cannot be handled as a unilinear hypothesis that considers a constant evolution throughoutthe development of prehistoric rock art. It does however enable us to argue that the location of the rock art in theterritories of the hunters and later on of the farmers andmetallurgists did not vary substantially over time in some peninsular enclaves, thus supporting the hypothesis of “traditional territories”. These would have been spaces of recurrent use that formed part of the understanding of theworld that surrounded the protagonists of great part of thePrehistory of the Peninsula.

The sites of the Douro, Tagus and Guadiana display thefrequency of locations that can only be explained by aconstant demographic presence. The abundant postglacialart points in the same direction, thus invalidating thenotion of demographic marginality as a universalexplanation of supposed chronological and culturaloffsets, which recent studies have incited to handle with

caution. On the contrary the open air decorated sitesdemonstrate the strength of the territorial settlement andlong-lasting modes of traditional use.

The Palaeolithic hunters used the decorated sites asoccupational references and very probably places of social aggregation. The producer groups found sufficientresources in the same areas: water, dehesas and extractiveopportunities, as well as the security and the cohesion of the permanency of the ancestral territories in which thesymbols of the past were still perceptible. The subsistenceneeds were thus smothered with ideology and justified inthis way the control over particular territories.

The open-air sites are the strongest ideological argumentto defend territorial demarcation as a strategy of occupation among the prehistoric groups of the South of




15

Europe. The ideological resource of the traditionalterritories was maintained over many generations and if there were still to be any doubt about this, the technique par excellence, pecking, shares the same time span. Spaceand technique can be added to the hypothesis that

demarcation by means of rock art that was recognisable by the group constituted one of the basic systems of identification of the territories of the hunting groups andlater megalith builders of the Western facade.

The dimension and continuity of these sites, their technical specialisation and their association withsettlement areas, situate the western facade of the IberianPeninsula as one of the enclaves with the longestcontinuous occupation known in European Prehistory,

thus raising an interesting basis of reflection for a new perspective on the prehistoric rock art which constitutesan invaluable affirmation of the modes of occupation of the territory.

MEGALITHIC ENGRAVING PAINTING TAGUS

ANTHROPOMORPHE

STELES

SNAKES

ZIGZAG

ZOOMORPHS

SUNS

CROOKS

CIRCLES /

OBLONG

Oblongs with

internal elements

Circles with

internal elements

Simple Circles

Cup - marks

Oblongs

Fig. 1.5. Comparison of the megalithic engravings, paintings of the mountain and foothills,

and engravings of the Tagus river



Documents

2008 Bueno Et Al. - Models of Integration of Rock Art