by Chris Fowler
The chronology of schematic art is mostly based on indirect evidence. The only exception to this are the radiocarbon dates obtained from charcoal paintings in some Andalusian subterranean caves. A painting at La Pileta cave yielded a date of 2394–1795 BC, which relates it to Copper Age materials found in the site (Sanchidrián et al. 2001, 17). This is coherent with the archaeological context of other schematic paintings found in Andalusian subterranean caves (Márquez and Sanchidrián 2005). However, schematic art has a long time-span. Acosta, following Breuil, proposed a late Neolithic/Copper Age chronology for this style, which she linked to the emergence of metallurgy in Iberia. Her proposal was based upon parallels with Copper Age ceramics (such as those from Los Millares) and the idols that characterize burial paraphernalia during this period (Acosta 1984). Current evidence, however, indicates a broader chronological framework. Since the 1980s, schematic designs have also been identified on Cardial impressed ware, on late Neolithic ceramic styles (incised and painted), and even on Bell Beakers. These parallels indicate that although schematic art was being represented from the very beginning of the Neolithic period, it remained in use and updated its repertoire during the Copper Age (Carrasco and Pastor 1980; Marcos 1980–81; Martí and Hernández 1988; Torregrosa and Galiana 2001). This chronology varies within the Iberian Peninsula, as in some regions the style seems to have been adopted earlier than in others. Moreover, its repertoire did not remain stable throughout this period. Parallels with portable objects seem to indicate that motifs such as zigzags, animals, human figures, and representations of the sun were in use from early times, whereas the imagery related to objects belonging to the funerary world (occuli, idols) only started to be deployed during the Copper Age.
The archaeological associations of this style also varied throughout the Neolithic and Copper Age, although this may be partly due to the variability in the settings in which schematic art was deployed. Although these designs were sometimes placed in conspicuous locations, overlooking paths and major axes of movement, most of the sites are found in remote and inaccessible locations at a distance from contemporary settlements. Although some sites could accommodate large numbers of visitors, others seem to have had a very restricted audience (Alves 2002; Bradley 2002). Moreover, most of the smallest sites were located in remote and inconspicuous locations; consequently, it has been proposed that their location would only be noticed if it was previously known, and that these sites were only visited in association with particular social practices that had to take place there (Fairén-Jiménez 2007, 135).
A special variation within the schematic style, called macro-schematic due to the large size of the paintings (Hernández et al. 1988), was identified during the late 1980s and is demonstrably a coherent sub-group of schematic art. Unlike other schematic art, macro-schematic representations only include anthropomorphic figures and geometric designs, surrounded by curvilinear parallel lines and clusters of dots. Most of the anthropomorphic figures are represented with raised arms and outspread fingers, horns and other unusual features such as radial motifs emanating from what are considered to be ‘heads’. Parallels with decorated ceramics indicate a short early Neolithic lifespan for these paintings. As for their geographic distribution, although initially it was considered to be restricted to the central Mediterranean coastal area, in the past few years new sites have been found in the surrounding areas of Murcia, Valencia, and Cuenca. At many sites in these regions, macro-schematic designs were painted under Levantine ones and were surrounded by schematic figures (see Fig. 44.2 for an example of macro-schematic paintings covered by Levantine stags). This confirms their earlier chronology in relation with other art styles.
Megalithic
Megalithic art is difficult to characterize, for in this case the style is not defined by its imagery (which changes from area to area, and frequently overlaps with schematic designs), but by the contexts in which it is found (Bradley 2002, 232). Therefore, a strict definition of megalithic art would comprise those designs that appear associated either with megalithic monuments (dolmens, passage graves, menhirs), or with artefacts belonging to this world (statues, stelae, decorated ceramics). Although megalithic monuments sometimes re-use previously carved boulders and slabs, which originally featured in open-air landscapes (Bradley 1997, 58ff; Bueno et al. 2007, among others), in most cases the designs were clearly made after the erection of the monuments (see Bueno et al. 2007, 596 for a selection of examples where this is the case).
The style encompasses both geometric motifs such as cup-marks, meanders, zigzags, and concentric circles, and figurative motifs such as representations of the sun, occuli, animals (snakes and quadrupeds), and human figures. Representations of human bodies occur as explicit depictions and as implied by the forms of statues, stelae, menhirs, and even individual orthostats within monuments (Fig. 44.4). Painted or carved motifs of human figures often appear in association with quadrupeds and representations of the sun in what have been interpreted as scenes of ritual hunt (Bueno and Balbín 2000, 442). Despite earlier views that megalithic art in the Iberian Peninsula was mostly painted, with carvings being a marginal expression (Shee Twohig 1981), it is now accepted that these designs can be painted, carved, or pecked. Not only are these techniques contemporary, but in certain figures they were used simultaneously (Bueno and Balbín 2000; Carrera and Fábregas 2006).
FIG. 44.4. Megalithic paintings at Antelas, Oliveira de Frades, Portugal.
(Photo: Lara Bacelar Alves).
Until recently, the chronology of megalithic art has been based on indirect evidence (stratigraphic and stylistic). It was assumed that the oldest representations were contemporary with the building of the first monuments, and that they remained in use until at least the third millennium BC. Recent radiocarbon dates obtained from the black pigments that decorate some monuments in the north-west have permitted refining this temporal framework. A panel from a passage grave in Antelas, Viseu, Portugal yielded a date of 4655 ± 65 BP (Cruz 1995). Steelman et al. (2005; see also Carrera and Fábregas 2006) have dated both charcoal from megalithic paintings and samples from the related archaeological deposits. Their results range between 5300 and 2130 BC, which is consistent with published dates for monument construction and early activity at megaliths in the north-west (Steelman et al. 2005, 386).
Megalithic art has been identified in dolmens and passage graves across most of the Peninsula, with the exception of the central Mediterranean area. These designs appear on orthostats along the passage and in the chamber of megalithic tombs, although their distribution within the monument seems to follow certain rules: whereas the simplest motifs such as cups occupy the most accessible areas of the entrance, figurative designs (especially human representations) tend to concentrate in the deepest part of the monument, especially the rear wall of the chamber (Alves 2002, 61; Bradley 2002, 233). As for their distribution in the landscape, it has been noted that megalithic monuments tend to be placed in highland plateaus, circular basins, and the bottom of minor river valleys (Alves 2002). These locations are often close to agricultural lands, and thus the monuments are often interpreted as territorial markers (Bueno et al. 2004).
Galician-Atlantic
The petroglyph tradition of north-western Iberia consists entirely of rock carvings on flat outcrops. They have frequently been linked with the cup-and-ring tradition widely found in Britain and Ireland. However, along with the geometric designs that form the basis of the Atlantic imagery (cup marks, grooves, concentric rings, spirals, and labyrinths), the defining element of Atlantic carvings is the representation of figurative motifs: mostly antlered stags (Fig. 44.5), but also, though in smaller numbers, horses, human figures, and artefacts (especially weapons) (Peña and Rey 1997). Despite its name, this tradition is not restricted to the Galician region, for some examples have been found in the coastal area of northern Portugal—the so-called Group I in Baptista’s classification (1983–84; see also Bradley and Fábregas 1998).
FIG. 44.5. Os Car
ballos, Campo Lameiro, Spain.
The chronology of these designs has been discussed for over a century without any direct dates. Currently the debate is polarized between two opposing proposals. On the one hand, followers of the traditional view favour a short chronology (third millennium BC–early second millennium BC). These researchers argue that the tradition emerged during the Copper Age concurrently with the introduction of metallurgy (as indicated by the depiction of certain weaponry, such as halberds and daggers), although it may have remained in use during the early Bronze Age (Peña and Vázquez 1979; Peña and Rey 1997; Peña 2003). On the other hand, some researchers argue for a longer chronological span, with the earliest carvings (cups) dating back to the late Neolithic (fourth millennium BC), but with the majority of carvings produced throughout the Bronze and Iron Age (Criado and Santos 2006). This long time-span, which has not been readily accepted by many researchers, is based on the depiction of horse riding scenes and labyrinths, as well as stratigraphic evidence obtained during the excavation of rock panels in Campo Lameiro (but see Santos 2005a). But even if this late chronology is not accepted, it is interesting to note that the history of Atlantic carvings overlaps with that of schematic and megalithic art. Similarities, however, end here: geographically, this style is distributed across an area where schematic art is not present; and in stylistic terms its content is quite distinct from megalithic art.
Their location also sets this tradition apart from others. These carvings were generally created on flat or gently sloping outcrops and boulders, never particularly conspicuous within the landscape. They were often located close to paths running along the edge of brañas, natural basins which remain relatively moist even at the height of summer, and therefore concentrate the main productive resources. As such, the carvings seem to have been closely integrated in the pattern of movement of wild animals (stags, horses) between basins and around the landscape (Bradley et al. 1994; Santos 1998). It has been pointed out that this pattern seems to emphasize the importance of mobility long after the adoption of domesticated resources—a key aspect of this art, considering that it is located in areas best suited to exploitation by hunting, mobile pastoralism, or shifting agriculture (Bradley et al. 1994, 375).
CONCURRENCES AND VARIABILITY: ART IN THE LANDSCAPE AND OTHER CONTEXTS OF USE
So far we have seen similarities but also differences in the stylistic content, chronology and broad geographical and topographical distribution of the different Neolithic art styles in Iberia. Whilst some of them show distinct stylistic characteristics (e.g. Levantine and Galician-Atlantic imagery), there are also significant overlaps and cross-references between them. As well as representations of the sun and occuli appearing in both schematic and megalithic art (among other motifs; see below), cups and concentric rings can be found in both the Galician-Atlantic and megalithic imagery. In the later case, it could be tempting to attribute the concurrence to the re-use of Galician-Atlantic panels in later megalithic monuments. However, this explanation is obviously flawed as the Galician-Atlantic style has a very restricted geographical distribution, whereas megalithic art can be found across most of the Peninsula. Schematic and Levantine paintings also show complementary distributions both at a macro level (location of sites in the landscape) and at a micro level (organization of motifs within the panels at a rock-shelter). For instance, in the Mediterranean area it is relatively common to find both styles using different rock-shelters within what is considered to be a single site (a grouping of shelters). When schematic and Levantine paintings share the same panel, it is frequent that those panels that contain more complex Levantine compositions have scarce schematic designs, and vice versa. In some of the panels where both styles occur together, schematic figures tend to copy attributes from Levantine art—for instance, schematic human figures armed with bows and arrows (Fairén-Jiménez 2006, 144). Finally, further stylistic cross-references can be found in the scenes of ritual capture of stags where the animal is tied with rope and kept alive, rather than shot with arrows. Although these scenes are not very frequent, they are present in all four styles: Levantine (for instance in Muriecho, Huesca: Ayuso et al. 2000), schematic (Mallata, Huesca: Utrilla and Martínez Bea 2005), megalithic (Orca dos Juncais, Viseu: Shee Twohig 1981), and Galician-Atlantic (Os Carballos, Pontevedra: Santos 2005b).
However, stylistic overlaps are most noticeable between the schematic and megalithic art: both styles share techniques (paintings and carvings) and imagery (geometric designs, human figures, representations of the sun, occuli). Based on this evidence, Bueno and Balbin (2000, 2002) argue that this art should be treated as a single tradition. schematic and megalithic paintings are commonly found at caves and rock-shelters that were used as funerary deposits during the Late Neolithic and Copper Age in Alicante and Murcia. In both these regions megalithic tombs are absent. Bueno and Balbín (2002, 621) argue that the same funerary ideology was expressed at the caves and rock-shelters and the megalithic tombs. However, the funerary associations of schematic paintings have also been noted in areas where megalithic tombs are common, such as in Extremadura and Andalucía. Indeed, most of the subterranean caves in Andalucía where schematic paintings have been documented also yielded evidences of burials (Márquez and Sanchidrián 2005). This demonstrates the versatility of the schematic imagery, where similar designs convey very different messages depending on the context in which they were deployed: these designs were used both in open-air landscapes and inside caves; some of the sites were readily accessible to large audiences, whereas others could only be entered by a few people at a time; and, finally, whilst some of these sites seem to have been devoted to activities related to the living (economic practices and social gatherings), others were addressed mainly to the dead. This variability may be partly due to chronological differences. Indeed, it is easy to appreciate a changing tendency from the visibility of the sites that marked the landscape during the early Neolithic to the more secluded deployment of rock art during the late Neolithic and Copper Age. The development of the funerary dimension of schematic rock art during this period would only confirm this trend. However, this is just a part of the picture, as the specialized character of schematic art sites was present since the beginnings.
From this point of view, if we attend to the context in which each style was deployed, we can appreciate important divergences that undermine Bueno and Balbín’s proposal. Whilst schematic designs are sometimes found inside caves that do not receive natural light and impose restrictions to the circulation of people—much like the interior of megalithic tombs—the vast majority of them are found in open-air locations. Similarly, only a few schematic art sites are associated with Copper Age burials. It seems clear therefore that, if we attend to the landscape setting and the immediate archaeological contexts of schematic art sites, only a small number of them can be equated in character to megalithic monuments. All in all, schematic sites serve other, different roles beside this.
The location of many of the small open-air schematic sites inside narrow valleys, or close to mountain tracks and passes, is a feature shared with many Levantine sites. All these sites are relatively accessible and command good views over their surrounding landscape (see Fairén 2004 and 2007 for a more detailed examination). Variability in the size and location of all these open-air sites indicates that they had different specializations, and not all of them follow this pattern. For instance, the largest sites are always also the most accessible, and are located by main axes of movement—the natural corridors that connect the Mediterranean coast with areas of the inner Peninsula. They also contain more complex compositions and multiple superimpositions, which indicate that the panels were re-used and modified repeatedly, perhaps by different authors. In contrast, some schematic art sites show a preference for remote and isolated locations: most frequently, high elevations that command extensive views around the surrounding territory and main areas of settlement and movement. The limited space available at those sites indicates that they
could only be visited by small audiences (one or two persons at a time). Consequently, it could be said that in those cases the author and the audience of the representations had to be one and the same. The remoteness and invisibility of these sites adds a dimension of secrecy to the viewing of the images, which might be associated with rites of passage—as mentioned before, their location had to be known beforehand. But it can also be argued that in these cases the importance of the paintings resided in their making, and images were not intended to be revisited afterwards at all.
All in all, this variability indicates that there is an important degree of specialization in the uses served by schematic art sites, which would be overlooked if Schematic art were included within the sphere of the megalithic phenomenon. Furthermore, although both styles can be widely found across most of the Peninsula, in some areas they seem to avoid each other: this is the case in the north-west (Galicia), where megalithic art abounds but there are no schematic art open-air sites; or in the central Mediterranean area, where there are no megaliths but painted schematic rock shelters are plentiful. Finally, parallels on decorated ceramics (mainly Cardial impressed ware) indicate that schematic imagery was in use from the very beginning of the Neolithic period, but, as schematic imagery is also present on Bell Beakers, it also continued to be made in open-air sites for some time after the building of megalithic tombs had lapsed. This chronological range is broader than that of the megalithic phenomenon.