access, style and imagery: the audience for prehistoric rock art in atlantic spain and portugal,...

RICHARD BRADLEY

ACCESS, STYLE AND IMAGERY: THE AUDIENCE FORPREHISTORIC ROCK ART IN ATLANTIC SPAIN ANDPORTUGAL, 4000–2000 BC

Summary.The prehistoric rock art of western Iberia is normally divided intoseveral styles with different associations, distributions and chronologies. Someare associated with monuments and others are found in the open air. A morebasic division may help to account for the degree of overlap between theseseparate groups. This paper suggests that it may be possible to learn somethingof the significance of the painted and carved designs by considering theiraccessibility and the audiences to whom they could have been addressed. Theargument is illustrated by recent fieldwork at Monte Penide and El Pedroso.

THE CONTEXTS OF PREHISTORIC ROCK ART

‘Rock art’ is an unfortunate term, but it is one that has become part of the language ofarchaeology. It describes a medium rather than a coherent field of study. Rock is a raw materialthat has preserved some visual images, but it is not always clear whether it was selected withthat purpose in mind (Tac¸on 1994) or whether ancient paintings and carvings have survivedentirely by chance. In any event similar motifs may once have existed in other forms, of whichno trace survives.

Art is an even more confusing term for it does not imply the kind of aesthetic self-expression that prevails in the West today. It may be more significant as a means ofcommunication, and Gell (1998) has even suggested that art possesses a special kind of agency:it is credited with the power to make things happen. In either case, it can only functioneffectively in relation to a specific audience. In the case of ‘rock art’ what matter are thecontexts in which decorated surfaces were created and used.

The word context can be employed in more than one sense, for it refers both to thelocations in which ancient pictures were made and to the circumstances in which these imageswere seen. Studies of non-Western art make it quite clear that this approach lacks the necessarysubtlety, for any one motif or composition may have a whole range of meanings for those whoview it, according to the experience that they bring to the task and what they are allowed toknow (Layton 1991 and 1992). Such images may have an inner meaning as well as an outermeaning, and access to the entire range of information that is present in visual form depends onwho is permitted to visit particular sites and on their wider roles in society (Morphy 1991).They may be strangers or kin, old or young, men or women, and this will influence theknowledge that they have at their disposal.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 21(3) 231–247 2002ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UKand 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 231

Becausetheremay be so many levelsof meaningin a singlecomposition,it followsthat it can provide quite different kinds of information to different people: from practicalinformation about the distribution of natural resourcesto sacredknowledgeof an altogetherdifferentorder(Layton1986).It is evenpossiblefor separatestylesof art to havecoexistedinthe samecommunity.They could employdistinct framesof reference,from the sacredto thesecular,andagainthey might havebeenaddressedto different audiences(Layton 1992).

At the heartof the problemis the questionof access.Again this is a term which hasmorethanoneconnotation.Accessin thesenseof understandingcouldbe socially controlled,so that only certain people might have the requisite knowledge to comprehendthe fullsignificanceof particularimages.Indeed,manypeoplemay not havebeenpermittedto viewthemat all. That is a difficult questionfor archaeologiststo answer,but accesshasa secondmeaning,too. It canalso refer to the topographyof particularrock art sites,to the meansofapproachingthemandto the organizationof spacein front of the carvedandpaintedpanels.Could theseplacesaccommodatelargegatherings,or wasspaceat sucha premiumthatonly asmall numberof peoplecould be theretogether?That is a questionthat field archaeologyiswell equippedto investigate.

In a recentarticle (Bradley2001)I suggestedthat therock art of Neolithic andBronzeAgeEuropeshowstwo striking tendencies.Therewasamovementawayfrom abstractimageryto motifs that were more naturalistic. They may still have held many different levels ofsignificance,but at leasttheir outerframeof referencewould havebecomemoreobviousovertime. During the sameperiod,rock art sitesoccupiedincreasinglyaccessiblepositionsin thelandscape,so that, in principle, they could havebeenvisited by largernumbersof people.Inthat casemoreof the designsweresharedwith portableartefacts.

Thereweresomenotableexceptionsto this scheme.The abstractrock art of Britainand Ireland was one such case,but a more complicatedsituation arosein consideringtheprehistoricpaintingsandcarvingsfound alongthe Atlantic coastlineof Iberia. In this paperIwould like to renewthediscussionof this material.In particular,it is importantto considertherelationshipbetweenthe different art stylespresentin this regionandtheir developmentovertime.Thisstudyinvestigatestheaccessibilityof thesegroupsof imagesin relationto theresultsof two new field projects.

THE DIVERSITY OF IBERIAN ROCK ART

Five groupsof imagesare consideredhere.The most significant are Megalithic art,Schematicart,Galician-Atlanticart andGaliciancist carvings,althoughcupmarkscanalsobefound in isolation or togetherwith thesedifferent groups(Bueno and Balbın 2000aand b,2001).Too little is known abouta sixth style, first identified in the TagusValley, for it to bediscussedin this paper(Baptista,Martins andSerrao1978).

Unfortunatelythesestyleshavenot beendefinedaccordingto onesetof criteria.Twoof the groups (Schematicart and Galician-Atlantic art) are characterizedby a series ofdistinctive motifs and the mannerin which they were combined,whilst Megalithic art andGalician cist carvingsare identified by the contextsin which they weremade(Acosta1968;Gomez 1992; Costasand Novoa 1993; Pena and Rey 2001; SheeTwohig 1981; BuenoandBalbın 2000a;FabregasandPenedo1994;PenedoandFabregas1997).Not surprisingly,someof thesecategoriesoverlapandcertainof the motifs found insidestonetombsoccur in othercontexts.When they do so, they are normally attributed to different ‘styles’. This causes

THEAUDIENCEFORPREHISTORICROCKARTIN ATLANTICSPAINANDPORTUGAL,4000–2000BC

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY232 ß Blackwell PublishersLtd. 2002

confusion,but it raisesan important issue,too. Which is more informative: to achieveanunambiguousclassificationof thedifferentmotifs, in which eachis attributedto only onestyle,or to investigatethe contextsin which thesedesignsare found?In a recentpaperBuenoandBalbın (2000a)questionthe reliability of the currentschemeand suggestthat someof theseseparatestylescould be merged.That would be logical, but it would be achievedat a cost.Inthis article I take the oppositeapproachand suggestthat a better way of addressingthesedifficulties is to studythe changinglocationsof theseimagesover time.

THE QUESTIONOF STYLE

Megalithicart is perhapstheleasthomogeneousof thesecategoriesandit is oneof theearliest.It is primarily associatedwith passagegravesandseemsto bea featuremainly of thefourthmillenniumBC, althoughindividualexamplesareverydifficult to date(Figures1, A and3). Moreovercertainmonumentsmay not havebeendecoratedassoonasthey werebuilt, forthereis abundantevidencethat their chamberswerestill beingvisitedduring theCopperAge.

The designsfound in megalithic tombsare of two main kinds (SheeTwohig 1981;Buenoand Balbın 2000a),and this diversity is one of the featuresthat haveled scholarstoquestionwhetherMegalithicart shouldstill beconsideredasa unitaryphenomenon.Themostimportant are probablyabstractpanelsof decorationwhich could be carvedor paintedandmight well havebeenexecutedin both thesemedia.Themoststriking motifs arezigzaglines,triangles,meandersand grids. The other elementin the megalithsof westernIberia is thepresenceof paintings— and,occasionally,carvings— of peopleandanimals,togetherwith arangeof otherdistinctivedesignsincludingwhathavebeendescribedassunsymbols.All theseelementsareconcentratedin the deepestpartsof thesemonumentsandespeciallytowardstherearwall of the chamber(Figure2; Jorge1998).Cupmarksarefoundaswell, but sometimesoccupy more accessiblepositions within these structures.Larsson (2001) has recentlysuggestedthat they may be a specialfeatureof the entrancearea.It is certainly true that cup-markedstonesareoften found outsidethesetombs.

The second main style, Schematic art, overlaps with the decoration of thesemonumentsbut is found on natural surfacesin the landscape(Figures1 and 3, C and D;Acosta1968;Gomez1992).Again it is characterizedby a rangeof abstractmotifs, but thesearefrequentlyfoundtogetherwith drawingsof humansandanimalsvery like thosein passagegraves.Thereis no reasonto distinguishbetweenthem on morphologicalgrounds,but theirchronologypresentsa seriousproblem.Paintingsandcarvingsin the openair arenotoriouslydifficult to dateandit seemsclearthatthecreationof thesetwo groupswouldhaveoverlapped.Their laterhistoryis still morerevealing.Evenif theyhaddevelopedsimultaneously,it is clearthatSchematicart retainedits importanceafter theprimaryuseof megalithictombswasover.This is becausesomeof the motifs found in this style of rock art also occur on diagnosticceramics(GarridoandMunoz 2000).The finds from cavesandrock sheltersdecoratedin thisstyle evensuggestthat it retainedits importanceinto the Early BronzeAge.

A third style hasa muchmorerestricteddistribution,althoughin this caseit is clearthat it mustdatefrom the transitionbetweenthe third andsecondmillenniaBC (Figures1 and3, F). This is confinedto thedecorationof anumberof cistsin north-westSpain,someof whichareassociatedwith distinctivegravegoods(FabregasandPenedo1994;PenedoandFabregas1997).The main reasonfor consideringthis materialhereis that the decorationfound insidethesecists bearsa striking resemblanceto the linear decorationthat is so characteristicof

RICHARD BRADLEY

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGYß Blackwell PublishersLtd. 2002 233

megalithictombs.Thatraisesa chronologicalproblem,for thereis little to suggestthatpassagegraveswerestill beingbuilt by this time. On the otherhand,thereweremanycasesin whichtheir chamberswerevisited during the currencyof Bell Beakerpottery (CriadoandVazquez1982),andthatmaybehowthosedesignsbecameavailableto latergenerations.Thedecorationinsidethe cistsmay evenhavebeenintendedto establisha relationshipto the past.

The fourth group consideredin this paperis also describedas Galician,althoughinreality its distribution extendsfrom north-westSpain down the Atlantic coast of Portugal(Figures1 and 3, E; Costasand Novoa 1993; Pena and Rey 2001). This style is entirely

Figure1Outlinedistributionsof themainstylesof rock art consideredin thispaper. Key: A — Megalithicart; B — Schematicart; C — Galician/Atlanticart; D — Galiciancist slabs.The figure alsoshowsthe locationsof MontePenideandEl

Pedroso.



confinedto bouldersandoutcropsandis characterizedby a distinctivemixture of cup marks,curvilinearmotifs anddrawingsof artefactsandanimals.Apart from theubiquitouscupmarks,Galicianopenair art showslittle overlapwith the otherstylesfound in Iberia, althoughthereare a few carved panels around the outer limits of its distribution which combine itscharacteristicimagerywith thatof Schematicart (BradleyandFabregas1998).Thereis alsoavery limited overlapbetweenGalicianart andthe geometricdesignsinsidemegalithictombsandcists(PenedoandFabregas1997;Pena andRey 1997).The bestindicationof the dateofthis style comesnot from theseoccasionallinks but from the depictionsof artefactsfound inGalicia.Theseincludecylinder idols, daggersandhalberdsandimply that it developedduringthe CopperAge andmay havecontinuedin usealongsidedecoratedcistsin the Early BronzeAge. A tentativechronologicalschemeappearsin Table1.

Theseargumentssuggesttwo observationson the developmentof prehistoricrock artin westernIberia.First, it seemsclearthat this entireareaadoptedthedistinctiverepertoireofMegalithicart with its emphasison abstractpanels.Thedrawingsof humansandanimalshavea more restricted distribution within this style, and this is reflected by the currency of

Figure2Outlineplansof thepassagegravesat JuncaisandAntelas,showingthedecoratedstonesin black.Notethat theseareconfinedto the centralchambers.Most of the orthostatsarepaintedwith abstractdesigns,but the positionsof three

kinds of naturalisticmotifs are indicatedon the plans.

RICHARD BRADLEY


Schematicart which is distributedover largepartsof the Iberianpeninsulabut seemsto avoidthenorth-westentirely (Gomez1992).It washerethatGalicianrock art developedandit is inthe sameregion that a small numberof cists were embellishedin a style that recalls thedecorationof chamberedtombs.After theconstructionof passagegraveswasover,carvedandpaintedimagesseemto haveassumeda more local character.

Thesecondpoint follows from this.Despitetheareasof overlapbetweenimagesin allthesestyles,it is clearthattheychangedtheir contextsovertime. In thenorth-west,two distinctstylesof rock carving emerged,one associatedwith funerarymonumentsand the other withopenair sites.Furtherto the southand east,acrossthe distribution of Schematicart, naturalsurfacesweredecoratedratherthanmonuments.Again thereis evidenceof a growingdiversitywhich reachedits peakin the CopperAge andEarly BronzeAge (Table2).

Figure3Major stylesof rock art in westernIberia.Key: A — Megalithicart at PedraCoberta(afterSheeTwohig 1981);B —

Megalithic art at Juncais(after SheeTwohig 1981);C — Schematicart at El Raton(after Breuil 1933);D —Schematicart at Solanadu NuestraSinora del Castilo (after Breuil 1933);E — Galician/Atlanticart at Laxe dos

Cebros(after Pena andRey 2001);F — Galiciancist slabat Agolada(after PenedoandFabregas1997).



THE QUESTIONOF CONTEXT

It is obviousthat the classificationof Iberian rock art hasnot beenundertakenon aconsistentbasis.Two of thestyles(Schematicart andGalician-Atlanticart) aredefinedon thebasisof their imagery and the others(Megalithic art and the decorationof Galician cists)becauseof the contextsin which they are found. It is this questionof context that must beconsiderednow.

That is not simply a proceduraldistinction, for it is closely relatedto the kinds ofaudienceto whom the decoratedsurfacesmight havebeenaddressed.It may be difficult towork out themeaningsof thesepictures,but purelypracticalconsiderationsdictatehow manypeopleare likely to haveseenthem.Two of thesestylescould havebeenviewed by only alimited numberat anyonetime, andat leastoneshouldhavebeenintendedexclusivelyfor thedead.

Suchargumentsare familiar in the caseof megalithic tombswherethe scaleof thearchitecturenot only determineshow peoplecan move aroundthesebuildings but also thenumberof individuals that they can accommodateat any one time (Thomas1992). It seemslikely that theMegalithicart of westernIberiawasdirectedtowardsa restrictedaudience.Thepositioningof the paintedandcarveddecorationseemsto focuson the deepestspacesinsidethesemonumentsand to contrastwith the distribution of cup-markedstonesthat may haveextendedto the entranceandout into the surroundinglandscape.

TABLE 1Outline chronologyof rock art in westernIberia

Neolithic CopperAge Early BronzeAge4000 3000 2000BC

Megalithic art ————————————————

Schematicart ———————————————————————————————

Galician/Atlantic art ? —————————————

Galiciancists ———————

Cup marks ———————————————————————————————

TABLE 2The changingdistributionof rock art stylesin westernIberia

INITIA L SYSTEMSouth North

Megalithic art ————————————————

Cup marks ————————————————

TRANSFORMATIONCup marks ————————————————

Schematicart ————————

Galician/Atlantic art ————————

Galiciancist slabs ————————

RICHARD BRADLEY


Thatsamedualityseemsto characterizetherockartof laterperiods,althoughit is rightto acknowledgethat it not clear when Schematicart first developed;at all eventsit clearlyremainedimportantlongaftertheconstructionof megalithictombshadlapsed.Schematicart isfound widely in the Iberian landscape,but its distribution is rarely studiedin much detail.Where any information is available, it seemsclear that it was generally in fairly remotelocations,including cliffs, cavesandrock shelters(Garcıa 1990;BradleyandFabregas1998;Collado2001).Not only weresomeof theseplacesdifficult of access,few of themhadenoughspaceto accommodatemanypeoplein front of the decoratedsurfaces.Certainsiteshadto bereachedalong narrow ledgesor would havebeendifficult to find on a rocky mountainside.Otherswerelocatedin areasthat areunlikely to havesupportedyear-roundsettlement.In thatrespecttheir distributiondiffers markedlyfrom thatof cup-markedstones,althoughit mustbeacceptedthat theseareimpossibleto dateexceptwherethey arefound in a stratifiedcontext.Enoughexamplesareknownat laterprehistoricsites,however,to suggestthat thedistributionof rock art in the wider landscapeperpetuatesthe basic distinction that had already beenestablishedin the layout of megalithic tombs. Schematicart may have possesseda morerestrictedrole thanthecupmarksthataresowidely representedin thelandscape,andthatcouldbe why a few of the decoratedcavescontainhumanremains(Aguado2001;Table3).

If Schematicart owed its specializedcharacterto its links with passagegravesandevenwith cavescontaininghumanburials,thesameis undoubtedlytrueof thedecoratedcistsin Galicia, althoughthey sharetheir characteristicimagerywith a quite different selectionofthe motifs associatedwith megalithicmonuments(Pena andRey 1997).Their adoptionmayhavebeeninspiredby a wish to form connectionswith the past,and they maintainthe sameassociationwith thedead.Evenmoreimportant,theywould havebeenentirely inaccessibleto

TABLE 3The changinglocationsof rock art in westernIberia

ORIGINAL ORGANIZATION:-

MAIN MOTIFS WITH PASSAGEGRAVES

Abstractmotifs, humans, Cup markstowards Cup marksoutsideanimalsin interior exterior

(Megalithic art) (Openair rock art)

TRANSFORMATION:-

MAIN MOTIFS IN THE WIDER LANDSCAPE

Abstractmotifs, humans Cup marksanimals

(SchematicArt) (Openair rock art)

Inaccessible locations Accessible locations

Caves,cliffs, rock shelters, Closeto settledland

Conspicuous Inconspicuous

Occasional links to Occasional links to openenclosed/defendedsites sites



theliving oncethefuneralceremonywasover.In thatrespecttheyonly enhancethespecializednatureof thesemotifs.

Galicianopenair art seemsto havedevelopedin parallelwith thesecist carvings,but inalmosteveryrespectit representsits antithesis(CostasandNovoa1993;Pena andRey2001).Infact it haslittle in common with thedecorationof eithermegalithsor cists.It containsnumerousdrawingsof artefactsandanimals,but theseareshownin astylequitedifferentfrom thefigurativeimagesfoundin passagegraves.Similarly, theabstractmotifs thatform amajorcomponentof theGalician-Atlantic grouparepredominatelycurvilinearandhavelittle in commonwith the moreangularpatternsassociatedwith mortuarymonuments.Nor do theseimagesoverlapsignificantlywith the repertoireof Schematicart, with which their periodof useran in parallel.

Still more important, Galician open air art is located according to a completelydifferent logic from Schematicart.With theexceptionof a few drawingsof weaponsandstags,it is nota featureof particularlyprominentrocksandit tendsto avoidsuchlocationsevenwhenthey are readily available.Comparedwith Schematicart sites,the decoratedsurfacesdo notcommandextensiveviews and their distribution focuseson small patchesof fertile, well-wateredland andon the routesleadingbetweenthem.It seemsas if they were locatedin, oraround,themainsettledareas,sothat theycouldhavebeenvisitedby largenumbersof peoplehad they wished to do so. Galician-Atlantic art has few of the specializedconnotationsofSchematicart, althoughthat is not to suggestthat the imagescreatedin theseplacesprovidearoundedpictureof the prehistoricpatternof settlement.In fact they seemto privilege certainactivitiesat theexpenseof others.Like manystylesof rockart in CopperAgeandEarlyBronzeAge Europe,theyrecordtheself-imageof thehunterandthewarrior ratherthantheroutinesofdaily life (Bradley1997,chapter13).

To return to the debateover the classificationof Iberian rock art, it seemsclear thatthereis aconsistentrelationshipbetweendifferentgroupsof imagesandtheaudiencesto whomthey were addressed(Table 3). The most specializedimagerywasoriginally associatedwithmegaliths,but it couldalsobefoundin two othercontexts:in a seriesof relatively inaccessiblelocationsin the openair and in the decorationof a small group of burial cists. A differentselectionof designswasemployedin eachof thesesettings,but all threewould seemto have

TABLE 4The changingassociationsof rock art in north-westIberia

ORIGINAL ORGANIZATION

MAIN MOTIFS WITH PASSAGEGRAVES MAIN MOTIFS OUTSIDE PASSAGEGRAVES

Abstractmotifs Cup marks

Restrictedaccess More openaccess?

TRANSFORMATION

Abstractmotifs on cist slabs Cup marks,augmentedby drawingsofgeometricforms,animalsandartefacts

(Cist decoration) (Galician/Atlantic rock art)

Underburial moundsbeyond Associatedwith routesacrossthethe settledarea landscapeandwith opensettlements

Barrowsoccupyconspicuous Rock carvingsoccupyinconspicuouspositions positions

Inaccessible Accessible

RICHARD BRADLEY


beenassociatedwith activities that were not availableto the entire population.Few peoplewould have been commemoratedby a megalithic tomb and many may never have beenpermittedto go insideone.Only a limited groupcould visit someof the major surfaceswithSchematicart becausespacewasoftenquiterestricted,andsomeof thesesiteswereassociatedwith humanburials(Aguado2001).That alsoappliesto the decoratedcistsof Galicia, whichstill fewer peoplewould haveseen.

Galician-Atlantic art, on the other hand, has little connectionwith the imagery ofmegalithicmonuments.It seemsto havebeencreatedin very differentcontextsandcouldhavebeenaddressedto a quite different audience.Theserock carvingswerereadily accessibleandwerecreatedin placeswhich morepeoplewould havebeenableto visit. Again it is impossibleto say whether everyonewas allowed to view these pictures — they certainly seem toemphasizea limited rangeof supposedlymaleactivities(Bradley1997,chapter13) — but theplacingof theseimagesin the landscapedid not imposeany restraints(Tables3 and4).

Lastly, that twofold division is reflectedin theuseof thewider landscape.Althoughthedistinctioncanbe exaggerated,it doesseemasif the distributionof Galicianrock art is closelyrelatedto thepatternof settlement.Certainlocationsmayhavebeenuseddiscontinuouslyoveralong periodof time,but within theareawith rock carvingsabruptcontrastsin climatic conditionsduring the courseof the yearwould probablyhavenecessitateda significantdegreeof mobility(Mendez1994).With theonsetof drought in coastal areasanimalsmight havebeentakento thehigher ground,and there is little evidenceof sustained occupationbefore the building of thedefendedenclosuresknown ascastrosin the first millennium BC.

That contrastswith developmentsfurther to the southandsouth-eastwhereenclosedsiteswereestablishedduringtheCopperAge.A numbercontainedstone-builthousesandeventowersandseemto havebeendefendedby oneor morecircuits of walls (Jorge1994).Theyprovide convincingevidencefor craft productionand someof them have beenregardedasmajor settlements,althoughoneof the mostnortherlyexamples,CasteloVelho, is interpretedby its excavatorasa ceremonialcentre(Jorge1999).During the sameperiodopensiteswereestablishedon top of prominenthills.

A connectionwith Schematicart is circumstantialratherthanconclusive.Paintedanddecoratedsites certainly exist in the vicinity of the defendedsettlementsand someof thepotteryassociatedwith burialsat Los Millares in south-eastSpainis evendecoratedwith thesamemotifs (Almagro and Arribas 1963). More important are a small numberof defendedhilltopswhichhavedecoratedcaveson their flanks.It seemspossiblethatthesemayhaveactedassanctuariesassociatedwith the occupationthat wastaking placenearby.

RECENTWORK AT MONTE PENIDE AND EL PEDROSO

I havesuggestedthatMegalithicart wasreplacedby two very different traditions,oneof which retainedsomeof its specializedcharacterand may havebeenassociatedwith thecommunitieswho built the first defendedenclosuresin Iberia.The other,in the north-west,isconnectedwith a lessstablepatternof settlementandseemsto havebeendirectly integratedinto theuseof theland.In this casethereis little to suggestthataccessto therock carvingswasrestricted.Both theseideashavebeentestedin recentfieldwork, andthepaperconcludeswith asummaryof the principal findings.

Monte Penideis a large upland landmassoverlookingthe Rıa de Vigo on the westcoastof Galicia. Intensivesurveyby Fabregas(2001) hasbrought to light a seriesof rock



carvings that illustrate practically the entire repertoireof imagesin that region, includingabstractmotifs anddrawingsof weapons.Becauseof the fortunatechancethat somuchof thesurroundingtopsoil had beendisturbed,it was also possibleto identify a seriesof artefactscatters,for normallythesewould beconcealedby thethick vegetationthatcoversmuchof theGalician landscape.The pottery from thesedepositsspansthe late third and early secondmillenniaBC andis closelyassociatedwith thepositionsof thecarvedsurfaces(Figure4). Thischronologyis supportedby radiocarbondating of samplescollectedon thesesites.Detailedanalysisof the depositsforming on the hilltop has permitteda reconstructionof the localenvironmentat the time when the imageswere createdand suggeststhat the land had beenpartly clearedof vegetationandwasbeingusedfor a mixture of stockraisingandsmall scalecultivation. The latter is also indicatedby the phytolithsassociatedwith a numberof querns.

Figure4Thedistributionsof rockcarvingsandoccupationsitesatMontePenide.Contoursat25m intervals.Informationfrom

Fabregas(2001).

RICHARD BRADLEY


Monte Penideitself is an extensiveplateaubut the lower groundnear to the coastmight not havebeenoccupiedall yearbecauseof the effect of summerdrought.It may havebeen then that part of the population moved inland where more of the carvings includedepictionsof animals.It is in thelatterareathatanumberof domesticsiteshavebeenidentifiedduring the constructionof an oil pipeline(Criado1995).Again thereis evidenceof domesticartefactscatterscloselyassociatedwith petroglyphs.Theymaynot mark thepositionsof long-lived settlementsandtendto be associatedwith small naturalbasinswhich provide the mainsourcesof moistureandshelterduring thewarmermonths.Suchareaswould offer ideal areasof grazingland at the leasthospitabletime of year.

The resultsof this fieldwork confirm the closeassociationbetweenGalicianrock artanda way of life thatmayhaveinvolveda significantelementof mobility. Thedomesticsitesall seemto beof similar characterandthereis no evidenceto suggestthatsomeof themplayeda morespecializedrole thanothers.Therock carvingswereintimately linked with settlementsandit is unlikely that accessto themwastightly controlled.More imageswerelocatedon theroutesthat seemto havecommunicatedbetweenthe uplandgrazingland andoccupationsitescloserto the sea.

By contrast,El Pedrosois at oneedgeof thedistributionof Schematicart andthesite,which is locatedon the borderbetweenthe Upper Duoro Valley and the NorthernMeseta,combinesmanyof the elementsthat havebeendiscussedso far (Delibes,Herran, de Santiagoanddel Val 1995,50–3).On top of a prominentgranitehill thereis a fortified settlementofCopperAge date,defendedaroundpartsof its perimeterby a wall, a massivegatewayandatower. Within this enclosureexcavationby German Delibeshasidentified the positionsof anumberof housesanda workshopin which arrowheadsweremade.Therewerealsoa numberof terracesbeyondthedefensivecircuit whichseemto havebeenoccupiedat this time.Closetothesettledareawasa cavewith cupmarksin its entrancethatmayhavebeenusedfor burials,andanother,provisionallyinterpretedasa ‘sanctuary’,hasbeenlocatedbeneatha conspicuousrock formation on the flank of the hill. The entranceto this cave cannotbe seenfrom thedefencesbut its position is markedby a cairn on the summitof the outcrop.

This cavewasinvestigatedby RamonFabregasandthewriter between1998and2000.It hadtwo distinct chambersconnectedby a low passage,but only the easilyaccessibleoutercompartmentseemsto havebeenusedduring theCopperAge: theperiodin which thehillfortwas occupied(Figure 5). The walls of the first chamberwere profuselydecoratedwith cupmarks.In the areaoutsidethe cavemoutha terracewasprobablybuilt at this time, its outeredgeretainedby a wall that was constructedin a similar techniqueto the hillfort. Both thedecoratedchamberandthesurfaceof the terraceproduceda rich arrayof artefacts,dominatedby an extraordinary density of ceramics. By comparison, lithic artefacts were poorlyrepresented.Therewasno evidencethat therehadbeenany buildingson this terrace.

Duringasubsequentphase,provisionallyassignedto theEarlyBronzeAge,thehillfortseemsto havebeenabandonedandoccupationoutsideits defencesmay alsohaveceased.Itwasat this stagethatactivity at theotherexcavatedsiteseemsto havereachedits peak(Figure6). A second chamber in the cave came into use and it is possible that the passagecommunicatingbetweenit and the outer compartmentwas partly blocked in order to makeaccessmoredifficult. Thewalls of this innerchamberweredecoratedwith a varietyof imagestypical of Schematicart, including a numberof humanfigures.

Thereis only limited evidencefor continuedactivity in theouterpart of the caveandnothingto indicatethatthecupmarkson its wallsweremodifiedduringthisphase.It contained



a few artefactsof Early BronzeAge date,but theseweregreatlyoutnumberedby thedensityoffinds from the inner chamber.Again they consistedmainly of ceramics;althoughthey alsoincludedaPalmelaPointandavariscitebead.Thereis very little spaceinsidethis chamberandit seemsmostunlikely that it couldeverhaveservedasa domesticsite.It seemsmoreprobablethat it playeda specializedrole.

That interpretationis supportedby the developmentsthat took placeoutsidethe cavemouth. Material continuedto accumulateon the surfaceof the terrace,including enormousquantitiesof pottery,andanoval stoneplatformwasbuilt acrosstheexistingretainingwall. Itmay have had a superstructurethat later caught fire, for this part of the site included aconcentrationof burntdaub.It doesnot seemto havebeena domesticbuilding andits closestparallelis foundoutsidetheenclosurewall at CasteloVelho, wherea similar constructionwasassociatedwith a depositof humanbones(Jorge1999).Activity continuedin this part of the

Figure5The‘sanctuary’at El Pedrosoduringits first phaseof use.At this stagedecorationwasrestrictedto theouterchamberanda terraceoutsidethe cavemouthwasdefinedby a massivewall. The excavatedareasareindicatedby diagonal

shading.

RICHARD BRADLEY


complexat El Pedrosoafter domesticactivity hadceasedon the hilltop and it is temptingtoregardthe caveandthe terraceoutsideit assomekind of ceremonialsite (Table5).

If thatis true,thedistributionof therockart on thissitetakesonanaddedsignificance.Theaccessiblefirst chamberin thecavewascharacterizedby adensedistributionof cupmarks.By contrast,thepanelsof Schematicart, which wereaccompaniedby a seriesof Early BronzeAge artefacts,could only be reachedwith some difficulty through a narrow passagewaycommunicatingbetweenthe two compartments.This mayhavebeenpartly blockedduringtheuseof thesite.Activity certainlycontinuedin theoutercompartmentaswell ason the terraceoutside.It is hard to resistmaking two wider comparisons.On one level, the distribution ofSchematicart contrastswith that of the cup marksat El Pedroso,yet this reflectsthe relativedistributionsof thesetwo groupsof motifs acrossthe landscapeasa whole,with cupmarksinthemoreaccessibleareasof domesticsettlementandthemajorgroupsof Schematicart in moremarginalpositions.Again they may havebeenaddressedto different audiences.

Figure6The ‘sanctuary’at El Pedrosoduring its secondphaseof use.Now decorationextendedto the inner part of the caveanda massiveoval platform wasconstructedacrossthe existingterracewall. For the extentof excavationin 1998–

2000seeFigure5.



Theothercomparisonis with thedecoratedpanelsinsidepassagegraves.Eventhoughthe constructionof suchbuildingswould haveceasedbeforethe main caveat El Pedrosowasused,the organizationof the carvedsurfaceson this site bearsa striking resemblanceto theirusein megalithicmonuments.Theouterterraceis equivalentto the forecourt,thecup-markedoutercompartmentto anentrancepassage,andthedeepestrecessof thecave,with its panelsofSchematicart, would be equivalentto the burial chamber.Again different groupsof motifswere appropriatein different contextsand there may have beena gradationin what Diaz-Andreucalls the ‘ritual depth’ of the different panelsof rock carving(2002,167).

Fieldwork at Monte Penide and El Pedrosohelps to substantiatesome of theinterpretationsput forward earlier in this paper.Both are sites on which the decorationofdifferent rock surfacesseemsto reflect their wider role in the landscape.That includestheirdistinctive topographyand their relationshipto settlements.Even thougharchaeologistshavesomedifficulty in penetratingeven the outer meaningsof theseimages,it seemsas if thedecoratedpanelswould havebeenaddressedto different groupsof peopleand inspectedondifferentoccasions.Indeedtheymayhaveplayedquitedistinctrolesin society.Suchvariationsaresoonobscuredwhen‘rock art’ is treatedasaunitaryphenomenon,or whenstylisticanalysisbecomesan endin itself. More canbe learntwhenthoseimagesarestudiedin relationto theplaceswherethey weremadeandthe audiencesfor whom they wereoriginally intended.

Acknowledgements

This paperwasfirst presentedasa GarrodResearchSeminarin theDepartmentof Archaeologyat CambridgeandI mustthankMarie LouiseSørensenfor inviting me to speakandthe participantsfortheir helpful contributionsto the discussion.I am grateful to Bob Chapmanfor informationon CopperAge enclosuresin Iberia.Thanksarealsodueto RamonFabregasfor his commentson thetext andto myothercolleaguesin theexcavationat El Pedroso:German Delibes,JorgedeSantiagoandLaraAlves.Theillustrationsareby Aaron Watson.

Departmentof ArchaeologyUniversity

WhiteknightsReadingRG6 6AA

TABLE 5A provisionalinterpretationof the archaeologicalsequenceat El Pedroso

COPPERAGE

Hillfort Defences; houses,arrowheadworkshop;occupationof externalterraces;cavebesidethe settlementwith probableevidenceof burial(s);cup marksin the original entranceto the cave.

‘Sanctuary’ Cupmarksin theouterchamberof thecave;depositsof artefactsin theouterchamber;constructionof walled terrace(s) outsidethe cavemouth;depositionof artefactson the upperterrace.

EARLY BRONZE AGE

Hillfort Occupation ceases;externalterracesgo out of use.

‘Sanctuary’ The passagebetweenthe two chambersis partially blocked; the inner, more remotechamberisdecoratedwith Schematicart; the inner chamberis filled with artefacts,plus burnt stone andmetalwork; many artefactsare depositedon the external terrace; a massivestone platform isconstructedon top of the terracewall andits superstructure is burnt.

RICHARD BRADLEY


REFERENCES

ACOSTA, P. 1968:La pintura rupestreesquema´tica in Espana (Salamanca).

AGUADO MOLINA , M. 2001: Pinturasy grabadospostpaleolı´ticos en cuevascon contextofunerario. InCostas Goberna, F. (ed.), Actas do Congreso Internacional de Arte Rupestre Europea (Vigo,Departmentode Patrimoniodo Concellode Vigo). CD Rom.

ALMAGRO BASCH, M. and ARRIBAS, A. 1963: El poblado y la necropolis megalitico de Los Millares(Madrid).

BAPTISTA, A.M., MARTINS,M. andSERRAO, E. 1978:Felskunstim Tejo-Tal.Madrider Mitteilungen19, 89–111.

BRADLEY, R. 1997:RockArt and the Prehistoryof Atlantic Europe(London).

BRADLEY, R. 2001: The authority of abstraction:knowledgeand power in the landscapeof prehistoricEurope.In Helskog,K. (ed.),TheoreticalPerspectivesin RockArt Research(Oslo),227–41.

BRADLEY, R. andFABREGASVALCARCE, R. 1998:Crossingtheborder:contrastingstylesof rock art in theprehistoryof north-westIberia. Oxford Journal of Archaeology17, 287–308.

BREUIL, H. 1933:Lespeinturesschematiquesde la peninsuleIberique, volume2 (Paris).

BUENO RAMIREZ, P. andDE BALBI N BEHRMANN, R. 2000a:Art megalithiqueet art en plein air. Approchesde la definition du territoirepour lesgroupesproducteursde la peninsuleIberique.L’anthropologie104,427–58.

BUENO RAMIREZ, P. andDE BALBI N BEHRMANN, R. 2000b:Arte megalıtico versusmegalitismo:origendelsistemadecorativomegalitico.Trabalhosde Arqueologia16, 283–302.

BUENO RAMIREZ, P. andDE BALBI N BEHRMANN, R. 2001:Le sacreet le profane:notespour l’interpretationdesgraphesprehistoriquespeninsulaires.Revuearcheologiquede l’Ouest, supplement9, 141–8.

COLLADO GIRALDO, H. 2001:Approximacion significado,la functionalidady la cronologıa le la pinturarupestreesquema´tica en Extremadura.In CostasGoberna,F. (ed.),Actasdo CongresoInternacionaldeArte RupestreEuropea(Vigo, Departmentode Patrimoniodo Concellode Vigo). CD Rom.

COSTASGOBERNA,F.J. andNOVOA, P. 1993:Los grabadosrupestresde Galicia (La Coruna).

CRIADO BOADO, F. 1995: El control arqueologico de obras de trabazolineal: plantamientodesdelearqueologıá del paisaje.Actasde XXII congresonacionalde arqueologıá, volume1, 253–9.

CRIADO BOADO, F. andVAZQUEZ VARELA, J.M. 1982:La ceramicacampaniformeen Galicia (La Coruna).

DELIBES DE CASTRO,G., HERRAN MARTINEZ, J.,DE SANTIAGO PARDO, J. andDEL VAL RECIO,J. 1995:Evidencefor socialcomplexityin theCopperAgeof theNorthernMeseta.In Lilios, K. (ed.),TheOriginsof ComplexSocietiesin Late Prehistoric Iberia (Ann Arbor, InternationalMonographsin Prehistory),44–63.

DIAZ-ANDREU, M. 2002:Marking the landscape:Iberianpost-Palaeolithicart, identitiesandthesacred.InNash,G. andChippindale,C. (eds.),EuropeanLandscapesof Rock-Art (London),158–75.

FABREGASVALCARCE, R. 2001:Lospetroglifossucontexto.Un ejemplode la Galicia meridional(Vigo).

FABREGASVALCARCE, R. andPENEDOROMERO,R. 1994:Petroglifose cistasdo Noroeste.Trebaruna3, 2–21.

GARCIA ARRANZ, J. 1990:La pintura esquema´tica enla comercadeLasVilluercas,Caceres(Salamanca).

GARRIDO PENA, R. andMUNOZ LOPEZ-ASTILLEROS, K. 2000:Visionessagradasparalos lıderes:ceramicoscampaniformescon decoracioń simbolica en la PenınsulaIberica. Complutum11, 285–300.

GELL, A. 1998:Art and Agency(Oxford).

GOMEZ BARREIRA, J. 1992:Manifestacionesdela fasciesesquema´tica enel centroy nortedela PeninsulaIberica. Espacio,Tiempoy Forma 5, 231–64.

JORGE,S.O.1994:Coloniasfortificoes,lugaresmonumentalizados.Trajectoriadasconcepçionessobreumtemado calcolitica peninsular.Revistada Facultadede Letras11, 447–546.



JORGE,S.O. 1999:CasteloVelho de Freixo de Numao, Geschichteder Interpretationversuche.MadriderMitteilungen40, 80–96.

JORGE,V.O. 1998:Interpretingthe ‘megalithic art’ of WesternIberia: somepreliminaryremarks.Journalof Iberian Archaeology(1998),69–79.

LARSSON,L. 2001.Decoratedfacade?A stonewith carvingsfrom the megalithictomb Vale de Rodrigo,monument2, Alentejo, southernPortugal.Journal of Iberian Archaeology3, 35–46.

LAYTON, R. 1986:Ritual andterritorial structureamonghuntergatherers.Man 21, 18–33.

LAYTON, R. 1991:TheAnthropologyof Art (Secondedition) (Cambridge).

LAYTON, R. 1992:AustralianRockArt: a NewSynthesis(Cambridge).

MENDEZ FERNANDEZ,F. 1994:La domesticacio´n del paisajedurantela Edaddel Broncegallego.Trabajosde Prehistoria51.1,77–94.

MORPHY, H. 1991:AncestralConnections(Chicago).

PENA SANTOS, A. andREY GARCIA, J.M. 1997:Arte parietalmegalıtico y GrupoGalaicode arte rupestre:unarevision critica desusencuentrosy desencuentrosenla bibliografıaarquelogica.Brigantium10,301–31.

PENA SANTOS,A. andREY GARCIA, J.M. 2001:Petroglifosde Galicia (La Coruna).

PENEDO ROMERO, R. and FABREGAS VALCARCE, R. 1997: Cistas decoradasde Galicia y su contextoregional.Brigantium10, 333–42.

SHEETWOHIG, E. 1981:TheMegalithic Art of WesternEurope(Oxford).

TACON, P. 1994:Socialisinglandscapes:the long-termimplicationsof signs,symbolsandmarkson theland. Archaeologyin Oceania29, 117–29.

THOMAS, J. 1992:Monuments,movementandthecontextof megalithicart. In Sharples,N. andSheridan,A. (eds.),Vesselsfor the Ancestors(Edinburgh),143–55.

RICHARD BRADLEY


access, style and imagery: the audience for prehistoric rock art in atlantic spain and portugal,...

Documents