Rock art as an archaeological and social indicator: The neolithisation of the Iberian Peninsula

Abstract

Rock art has been regarded as a second class archaeological data source. In this paper we use Levantine rock art as a case study, to show how this situation can be reversed. This rock art, found along the Mediterranean region of the Iberian Peninsula, has been considered to be typically Mesolithic due to its distinctive hunting scenes. A review of certain archaeological indicators provides new arguments about its chronology, its socio-cultural attribution, and its significance. We first deal with the chronological issue, presenting the evidence that led to the recent consideration of the Levantine style as Early Neolithic, in synchrony with two other rock art styles (Schematic and Macroschematic). We will further propose that rock art itself is a central and independent source of information to explore the historical context of the Neolithisation of Mediterranean Iberia. Its wide geographical distribution allows us to study different and complementary territories as a single entity. This contrasts with the limitations posed by the study of settlements, whose differences, at a regional scale, are usually interpreted in terms of cultural variability. If we consider rock art as a key aspect in the constitution of social landscapes, it must not be treated just as an ideological by-product of the Neolithisation, but as a key factor in understanding this historical process.

Climate change and population dynamics during the late Mesolithic and the Neolithic transition in Iberia

“…day Bernabeu 2007; Cruz and Vicent 2007;Carvalho 2003;Juan-Cabanilles and Martí 2002;Martí 2008;Rojo et al 2006 among others).…”

“…In Iberia, the most elaborated cultural diffusion model is the 'Capillary Model' (Vicent 1997;Cruz and Vicent 2007;among others). This model assumes continuity of human occupation between the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods to explain the introduction and spread of pottery and domesticates in hunter-gatherer social networks.…”

Analogical Evidence and Shamanism in Archaeological Interpretation: South African and European Palaeolithic Rock Art

“…The epistemic value of analogy was established long ago (see Wylie 1985, Lane 2006 and analogical reasoning has helped to make rock art meaningful in its broader social context on many occasions. Ethnography has been a real peer to archaeology, especially in case studies where ethnographic data have been complemented with a strong interest in landscape, the location of the rock art and the patterns of association of rock art and other elements (Deacon 1988, Morwood & Hobbs 1992, Smith 1992, Taçon & Faulstich 1993, Bradley et al 1994, Waddington 1996, Millerstrom 1997, Rosenfeld 1997, David & Lourandos 1998, Martínez 1998, Santos 1999, Layton 2000, Lee & Stasack 2005, Cruz Berrocal & Vicent 2007). For these reasons, an anti-ethnography declaration is totally out of place.…”

Neolithic rock art in context: Landscape history and the transition to agriculture in Mediterranean Spain

“…This art dates to the Neolithic period (5600-2200/2000 cal BC), but it is impossible to determine if rock art production occurred throughout the period or only in punctual events. In the past few years, attempts have been made to interpret the social meaning of this artistic record, most recently by Cruz Berrocal and Vicent García (2007). Special attention has been given to the relationship between rock shelters with art and their surrounding landscape (Fairén, 2004(Fairén, , 2007Cruz Berrocal, 2005;Cruz Berrocal and Vicent García, 2007) using GIS technologies and theoretical discourse to explore questions of visibility, access, spatial distribution, and relationships with natural corridors and historic pastoralism routes in addition to the evaluation of rock art's social contexts.…”