McClureetAl

8/3/2019 McClureetAl

1/12

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

in Mediterranean Spain

Sarah B. McClure a,*, Lluis Molina Balaguer b, Joan Bernabeu Auban b

a Department of Anthropology and Museum of Natural and Cultural History, 1218 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USAb Departament de Prehistria i Arqueologia, Universitat de Valncia, Valencia, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 5 May 2007Revision received 22 April 2008Available online 16 July 2008

Keywords:

NeolithicIberian peninsulaRock artChronologyLandscape archaeology

a b s t r a c t

Rock art is one of the most salient features of Neolithic societies in eastern Spain and an explicit form oflandscape history. This paper summarizes current debates of Mediterranean rock art chronology andinterpretation and explores the contextual differences in two areas of Neolithic settlement with rockart: the Canyoles Valley (Valencia) and the Alcoi Basin (Alicante). Large-scale survey of the Canyoles Val-ley resulted in a clearer understanding of agricultural land use during the Neolithic that contrasts withevidence from the Alcoi Basin. By analyzing Neolithic rock art in its archaeological context, we discussthe significance and limitations of rock art analysis for understanding and characterizing landscape his-tories and the transition to agriculture in the region.

2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Archaeological landscapes are palimpsests of cultural remainsfrom natural and cultural processes operating at different temporaland spatial scales (Anschuetz et al., 2001; Wandsnider, 1998).Although landscape archaeology is by no means a well-devel-oped theoretical approach, the utility of regional perspectives inarchaeology has been recognized and practiced for many years(e.g., Billman and Feinman, 1999; Binford, 1982; Chapman et al.,1996; Fish and Kowalewski, 1990; Wandsnider, 1998). In contrastto traditional settlement systems analyses, landscape approachesconsider variation in physical properties and spatial patterns ofarchaeological assemblages as a part of a greater dynamic whole.A landscape approach complements traditional archaeological usesof space and time, while integrating human history and agencyinto their constructions (Anschuetz et al., 2001).

The transition to agriculture in the Mediterranean region ofSpain offers an ideal framework for this kind of approach, includingchanges in economic land use, the creation of rock art, and socialand ideational shifts within societies. In fact, one of the most sali-ent records left by Neolithic societies in this region is the largequantity of rock art in rock shelters and shallow rock faces. Threerock art styles are found in the central Mediterranean region ofSpain (Hernndez, 2005): Macroschematic, Schematic and Levan-tine. This art dates to the Neolithic period (56002200/2000 calBC), but it is impossible to determine if rock art production oc-

curred throughout the period or only in punctual events. In thepast few years, attempts have been made to interpret the social

meaning of this artistic record, most recently by Cruz Berrocaland Vicent Garca (2007). Special attention has been given to therelationship between rock shelters with art and their surroundinglandscape (Fairn, 2004, 2007; Cruz Berrocal, 2005; Cruz Berrocaland Vicent Garca, 2007) using GIS technologies and theoreticaldiscourse to explore questions of visibility, access, spatial distribu-tion, and relationships with natural corridors and historic pastoral-ism routes in addition to the evaluation of rock arts socialcontexts.

In this paper we present results from a regional scale archaeo-logical survey of the Canyoles Valley (Valencia) in comparison withdata from the Alcoi Basin (Alicante) in Eastern Spain. We discussthe distribution of Neolithic rock art in the two areas in order toemphasize differing contexts of rock art production, and highlight

recent debates on its chronology and interpretation. Finally, theimportance for examining rock art in its archaeological context isillustrated and implications for interpreting similar rock art inother parts of Mediterranean Spain are presented.

The Neolithic in central Mediterranean Spain

The transition to agriculture

The appearance of Neolithic lifeways in Iberia is part of a largerphenomenon in the western Mediterranean, where agriculture andassociated technologies, particularly pottery, spread from Liguriain northern Italy to southern Spain and Portugal. Based on existing

0278-4165/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2008.05.001

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1 541 346 0668.E-mail address: [email protected] (S.B. McClure).

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 326337

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j a a
mailto:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784165http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaahttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784165mailto:[email protected]


2/12

radiocarbon dates, this process took less than 500 hundred years(Bernabeu, 2006; Zilho, 2001) and once on the Iberian Peninsula,rapidly spread to the interior (Bernabeu et al., in press-a; Kunst andRojo, 2000; Kunst, 2001). The absence of wild ancestors for themain domesticatessheep and goat, emmer, einkorn wheatindi-cate that key features of this mode of production were imported tothe Iberian Peninsula. Recent genetic studies (Armelagos and Her-

per, 2005; Beja-Pereira et al., 2006; Fernndez et al., 2006) supportthis, although the diversity within domestic animal herds point togenetic influences beyond a simple, direct transfer of species fromthe Near East and likely document interbreeding between intro-duced species with wild counterparts in the Western Mediterra-nean. However, the nature of the transition to agriculture, therelative roles of indigenous hunter-gatherers, and specific local, re-gional, and supra-regional processes, are still heavily debated. Sev-eral scholars consider the transition to agricultural societies in theWestern Mediterranean as a product of colonization by farminggroups with subsequent adoptions by indigenous foragers (Berna-beu, 1995, 1996; Binder, 2000; Fortea 1973; Garca Puchol, 2006;Mart and Juan-Cabanilles, 1987, 1997; Zilho, 1993, 1997). Othersapply transition models from other parts of Europe (Cruz Berrocaland Vicent Garca, 2007; Hernando Gonzalo, 1999; Schuhmacherand Weniger, 1995; Vicent Garca, 1997). These authors argue thatthe process of neolithization of the Iberian Peninsula is the result ofindigenous hunter-gatherers adopting farming technologies andincorporating these into their existing social and economicnetworks.

Recently, Cruz Berrocal and Vicent Garca (2007) highlightedthe argument for a local adoption model of agricultural practices,known as the capillary diffusion model (Hernando Gonzalo,1999; Rodrguez et al., 1995; Vicent Garca, 1990, 1997), basedon the premise of continuity between Mesolithic and Neolithicpopulations and the inherent ability of indigenous hunter-gather-ers to engender, by themselves, a process of economic transfor-mation and increasing social complexity (2007:687). Sincehunter-gatherer studies emerged as a research focus with seminal

works such as Man the Hunter(Lee and DeVore, 1969; see also Jo-chim, 1976, 1981), the inherent cognitive, adaptive, and creativeabilities of foraging populations has not been questioned, andmany instances of indigenous adoption or independent domestica-tion processes are documented throughout the world. The problemof Cruz and Vicents argument lies not in the possibility of this kindof transition, but rather in the archaeological data of Mediterra-nean Spain. The capillary diffusion model requires the introductionof domesticates as prestige items, the existence of local and long-distance kinship and reciprocity networks, strategies of intensifica-tion and diversification of the economic basis during the Meso-lithic, cycles of delayed-return consumption, and the unexpectedconsequences of partial transformations in economic and socialpractices (Cruz Berrocal and Vicent Garca, 2007:687; see also

Vicent Garca, 1990, 1997). However, as summarized below, thearchaeological record of Mediterranean Spain does not support thismodel as the primary, supra-regional process of neolithization,rather it is limited to specific local and regional contexts.

Archaeological data indicate that the earliest agricultural tech-nologies (domesticates, ceramic production, polished stone tools,and a specific lithic technology) appear together and are clearlydelineated from preceding local hunter-gatherer cultural and eco-nomic traditions. Technologically, Early Neolithic pottery is highlyvaried, with a number of clay/temper recipes, firing, and decorativetechniques used consistently at different Early Neolithic sites(McClure, 2004, 2007; McClure and Molina, in press), suggestingexperienced potters practiced this technology from the Early Neo-lithic onwards. Furthermore, Early Neolithic sites demonstrate a

widespread use of a variety of crops, and domesticated faunal re-mains represent over 65% of faunal assemblages (Mart and Juan-

Cabanilles, 1997; McClure et al., 2006; Prez, 1999). It appears,therefore, that early farmers in eastern Spain were not low-levelfood producers (sensu Smith, 2001), but rather had a well devel-oped production economy.

The coastal distribution of most of the earliest evidence forfarming further supports a diffusionist and maritime pioneeringmodel (Zilho, 2001, 2003). After initial settlement, interactions

between farmers and the local populations may have taken manyformsco-evolution, acculturation, assimilation, substitutiondependingon local context. The relative role that colonizers and lo-cal hunter-gatherers had on the spread of domestic animals andplants to the region is still heavily debated (e.g., Barnett, 1995,2000; Bernabeu, 1995, 1996; Bernabeu et al., 2001a; Donahue,1992; Mart and Juan-Cabanilles, 1987; Mart, 1988; Zilho, 1993,1997, 1998, 2000) and likely varied on local and regional scales.This model of colonization and subsequent interaction has beentermed the dual model (Bernabeu, 1995, 1996, 2002, 2006).

New radiocarbon and ceramic data from a range of sites on theIberian peninsula are shedding light on the timing and points oforigin of Early Neolithic pottery dispersals (Bernabeu et al., inpress-a; Manen et al., 2007). Included in these recent revisions isa renewed interest in the role of North Africa for pottery foundin southern Spain and Portugal (Manen et al., 2007), as well asthe identification of an Impressa-phase (pre-Cardial) in easternSpain (Bernabeu et al., in press-a). Specifically, the presence of pot-tery decorated with sillon dimpression shows connections to south-ern France and Liguria, Italy, while rockerimpressions and painteddecorations are related to wares found in southern Italy (perhapsvia northern Africa). These data are statistically contemporary withthe classic Cardial assemblages in sites in eastern Spain, and sug-gest that the spread of pottery to the Iberian Peninsula was multi-phased, multi-directional, and much more complex than previ-ously thought (Bernabeu et al., in press-a). The implications ofthese new data on models of neolithization are as yet unclearand ongoing studies of pottery assemblages and detailed re-analy-sis of the earliest levels at Neolithic sites throughout the Iberian

Peninsula will likely change our understanding of specific issuesrelating to the transition to production economies (Bernabeu etal., in press-a). However, these findings further support the roleof migration, possibly multiple migrations, as an important facetfor the transition to agriculture in the Western Mediterranean.

The Alcoi Basin in northern Alicante is a core area of Early Neo-lithic settlement (Fig. 1), providing the earliest dates for farmingpopulations in Mediterranean Spain. Available radiocarbon datesof short life samples document a 500 year gap between the lastMesolithic and first Neolithic dates (Fig. 2). As argued in detail else-where (Bernabeu, 1995; Garca Puchol, 2006; Garca Puchol andAura, 2006; Juan-Cabanilles and Mart, 2002), the absence of LateMesolithic industries in the region suggests that this area was onlymarginally used by hunter-gatherers at that time. This may have

been part of a larger trend throughout the Western Mediterranean,where gaps of 300+ years between Late Mesolithic and Early Neo-lithic sites are common, despite increases in survey and excavationactivity in the past 20 years (Biagi, 2003; Guilaine, 2003; Skeates,2003; Zilho, 2003). In contrast, adjacent areas such as the UpperVinalopo Valley and Serra del Caroig mountains may have beencores of Mesolithic hunter-gatherer settlement that continued intothe Neolithic (Fig. 1).

Once established, farming groups spread quickly across thelandscape and currently more than 30 sites date to the second halfof the 6th millennium cal BC. Interaction with surrounding forag-ing communities is documented (e.g., Fortea, 1973; Garca Robleset al., 2005), although the nature of contacts remains elusive. Re-cent data from the Meseta in central Spain highlight the rapid

spread of agriculture (Kunst and Rojo, 2000; Kunst, 2001). SinceEpipalaeolithic settlement is not documented in this area either,

S.B. McClure et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 326337 327


3/12

Kunst (2001:59) argues that the first farming populations arrived

in the area via the Ebro and Jaln Rivers from the Mediterraneancoast. By the end of the 6th millennium BC archaeological remainsevidence the dissolution of traditional forager industries and pop-ulations with a production economy are documented throughoutthe Iberian Peninsula (Juan-Cabanilles and Mart, 2002; Molina etal., 2003).

From the onset, Neolithic communities created a particularlandscape. In recent years, large-scale surveys in the Alcoi Basinhave identified a number of open-air sites (Barton et al., 1999,2004a,b; Bernabeu et al., in press-b). Excavations at some of thesesettlements and reconstruction of settlement intensity comple-ment earlier research at caves and rock-shelters (e. g. Barton,2006; Bernabeu and Orozco, 2005; Bernabeu et al., 2001a; Berna-beu et al., 2003; Bernabeu et al., 2006; Mart et al., 1980; Garca Pu-

chol and Aura, 2006), giving us a detailed viewof land use practicesby the first farmers of the region. Widely scattered small villages

were located on fertile valley bottoms close to streams and second-

ary rivers. Farmers focused their subsistence pursuits on domesticanimals and plants, while continuing to exploit wild resources to alesser degree. Of the domestic animals, sheep and goats were theprimary livestock held, and archaeological evidence suggests thatfarmers used the landscape in an extensive manner, limiting theirpresence to some upland valleys for summer pasture (McClure etal., 2006; Molina et al., 2006; Prez, 1999). Despite relying primar-ily on domestic plants andanimals for the bulk of their subsistence,Early Neolithic sites also evidence wild plants and animals. Itshould be of no surprise that farmers hunted and gathered re-sources, particularly when spending time away from the village,such as while taking sheep and goats to pasture. Cruz Berrocaland Vicent Garca (2007:688) imply that contexts where evidencefor hunting and gathering coincide with agricultural products

(ceramics, domestic animals) necessitate interpretations of indig-enous transformations, disregarding a large body of research that

Fig. 1. Map of the study region showing the location of sites from the middle sixth millennium cal BC and those cited in the text. The survey area in the Canyoles Valley ishighlighted by the box.

328 S.B. McClure et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 326337


4/12

discusses the role of hunting in farming societies (e.g., papers inKent, 1989). Indeed, the transition to agriculture was much more

complex than the hypothetical model these authors suggest, andremains a methodological and interpretive challenge, particularlyfor characterizing and understanding the role of Neolithic rockart. In the following we present archaeological data from the Cany-oles Valley to highlight a different context for rock art production.

The Canyoles Archaeological Survey Project

The Canyoles Archaeological Survey Project was initiallydesigned to examine Early Neolithic settlement and land usepatterns in a setting distinctive from the Alcoi Basin. Prior to thisproject, major research efforts, including large-scale surveys, hadbeen limited to the Alcoi Basin located ca. 25 km southeast of theCanyoles Valley (Barton et al., 1999, 2002, 2004a,b; Barton, 2006;

Bernabeu et al., 1999, 2000). By characterizing Neolithic land usein an adjacent region, wehoped to test if cultural patternsdescribedabove were representative of the region as a whole. This survey areacontrastswiththeAlcoiBasininthatitisalargerivervalleyconnect-ing the coastal plain to the interior plateau, while the Alcoi Basinconsists of several interconnected valleys surrounded by mountainranges withonlylimitedaccessto thecoast (Fig.1).Inordertoobtaincomparative data, our surveystrategy was similar to that applied inthe Alcoi Basin. We conducted an intensive off-site survey with amulti-stage sampling design (Molina and McClure, 2004; see alsoe.g., Plog et al., 1978; Read, 1986), using the collection units as theunits of measurement instead of defining site borders. Previouswork inthe SerpisandPolop Alto valleys intheAlcoi Basinsuggestedtemporal and density differences in cultural material based on loca-

tion, highlighting the need for independent samples of differentlocations (Barton et al., 1999; Bernabeu et al., 1999).

The Canyoles Valley is located ca. 40 km southwest of the city ofValencia, Spain, on the southern end of the Valencia Province ( Fig.

1). It is a natural corridor that connects the interior plateau of thecentral Meseta with the Mediterranean coastal plain, north of theBaetic Mountains that encircle the eastern and southern marginsof the Iberian Peninsula. Historically, this valley has been animportant communication route: the Roman Via Augusta traversedthe valley (Arasa and Rosell, 1995), as did principal thoroughfaresof the Reino Valenciano (Valencian Kingdom) in the 16th centuryAD. Today, the valley is home to a major highway and a high-speedtrain line.

The Canyoles River originates in the eastern end of the Mesetaand drains into the Xquer River, the major river system of thearea, ca. 15 km from the Mediterranean Sea, north of the town ofXtiva on the coastal plain. The diversity in elevation, topographicsetting and vegetation communities of the Canyoles Valley offered

a broad range of wild resources to prehistoric inhabitants. The val-ley is aligned SW-NE and is bordered to the south by the SierraGrossa rising to over 900 m and to the north by the Sierra de Engu-era rising to over 1000 m. The valley bottom varies in elevationfrom 150 m in the NE to 550 m in the SW and covers almost 50sq. km in area. Arable land in the Canyoles Valley is extensiveand today sheep and goats are pastured in some upland areas.Much of the valley bottom is currently under cultivation, largelywith almond, olive, and fruit trees, along with some vineyardsand wheat fields.

Evidence for the Early Neolithic has been identified along thevalley, primarily by the presence of Impressed Ware and rock art(Juan-Cabanilles and Mart, 2002; Molina et al., 2003; Molina andMcClure, 2004; Figs. 3 and 4). Cardial Ware is an excellent tempo-

ral marker and found at a number of sites along the valley (Apari-cio, 1977; Aparicio et al., 1979, 1982; Bernabeu et al., 2001b ).

CEENDRES GifA-101360

FALGUERA Beta142289

MAS D'IS Beta166727

MAS D'IS Beta162092

OR OxA10191

OR OxA10192

CENDRES Beta142228

CENDRES Beta107405

FALGUERA AA-60625

SANT MART Beta166467

580060006200640066006800 5600 5400 5200 5000 4800 4600

580060006200640066006800 5600 5400 5200 5000 4800 4600

NEOLITHIC

I A

BICIHTILOEN

EARLY

NEOLITHIC

EARLY

NEOLITHIC

MIDDLE

NEOLITHIC

FALGUERA Beta171910

FALGUERA AA2295

FALGUERA AA59519

EL COLLADO UBAR280

EL COLLADO UBAR281

T. de la ROCA Gif6898

CENDRES GifA-101358

Phase A Phase B

Late

Mesolithic

cal BC

Fig. 2. Available C14 dates on short-life samples for the study region related to the transition to Neolithic.



5/12

Unfortunately, few of these sites were excavated systematicallyand our knowledge of Neolithic developments in this valley waslimited to data from mixed deposits or poorly published excava-tion reports (Garca Borja and Molina, 2001). Despite these prob-

lems, Early Neolithic materials were not so abundant as tosuggest an intensive occupation of the valley during this period(Fig. 3).

Fieldwork concentrated on the Western part of the valley that isless affected by recent human activity. A total of 15 units were sur-veyed that were randomly chosen in a hierarchical sampling strat-egy (Molina and McClure, 2004). Survey during two field seasonscovered 8.05 sq km, 15% of the total study area. Artifacts datingfrom the Middle Palaeolithic to modern periods were collected,confirming human land use of the valley stretching back to theUpper Pleistocene. Detailed survey results were published in Moli-na and McClure (2004) and Mesolithic and Neolithic results aresummarized below.

Among the artifacts collected, evidence for the Mesolithic is

strikingly absent. Early Holocene stone industries (Epipalaeolithic)are documented in cave deposits and surface assemblages

(Aparicio et al., 1982; Molina and McClure, 2004). Small endscrap-ers, backed points, and bladelets characterize the Epipalaeolithicassemblages and provide a clear continuity from Late UpperPalaeolithic (Magdalenian) traditions (Aura et al., 2002; Villaverde

et al., 1998). In survey, these artifacts were usually found scatteredalong river terraces and appeared in low densities, suggesting apersistent but low-intensity use of these areas through time.

Since use of the valley is clearly documented for the Epipalaeo-lithic, the lack of Mesolithic artifacts suggests a change in hunter-gatherer land use strategies. This was surprising given its proxim-ity to known Mesolithic sites to the North and South. One of themain characteristics of late hunter-gatherer land use in the Wes-tern Mediterranean is the preference for site locations close tolakes and marshes. In the Canyoles Valley, three areas may havehad these features prehistorically: Bosquet, Pla de les Alcusses andCaicn (Fig. 3). In the case of Caicn, alterations associated withthe high-speed train infrastructure have dramatically changed thisarea, so it is not possible to test this further. Historic documents

mention the presence of a small lagoon in Pla de les Alcusses thatwas exploited during Iberian Iron Age (Bonet et al., 2000). It was

Xtiva

Albaida

Font de la

Figuera0 km 5 km

N

Neolithic site

Chalcolithic burial cave

Rock art location

Fig. 3. Canyoles Valley. Location of the previously documented Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and rock art sites. The survey area is highlighted by the box.

Fig. 4. Cova Santa, Canyoles Valley. Early Neolithic ceramics with applied and Cardial impressed decorations.



6/12

drained in the 19th century AD and currently is visible as dark soilsin the eastern part of the upland valley. Finally, due to its particularorography, Bosquet supports one of the oldest water reservoirs ofValencia. Transformations date to the 18th century AD, but itwas likely an important water source for the area prehistorically.

All three areas were surveyed, although in the case of Caicn,modern impacts proved problematic. Bosquet showed a scarce

presence of some lithic materials, but nothing that could be clearlyrelated with human activities before Bronze Age (Molina and McC-lure, 2004). Known Bronze Age sites in the form of fortified hilltopsettlements surround and visually control the area (Garca Borja,2004). Despite some caves with Early Neolithic and Chalcolithic re-mains in the Sierra del Serruig, no evidence of these occupationsappear in the surface assemblage (Fig. 3).

A small lithic assemblage with bladelets was recovered fromwhat was once the edge of the lagoon on the Pla de les Alcusses.Bladelets are often associated with Late Mesolithic or Early Neo-lithic stone tool assemblages. Most of these materials were col-lected from an open irrigation trench and were found in a blacksoil level buried close to a meter below the current surface. Frag-ments of hand-made pottery were also collected. However, Phoeni-cian pottery from the Early Iberian period was found in the sameassemblage. This makes a Neolithic interpretation of the bladeletsproblematic because contrary to later in the Iron Age, both hand-made and wheel thrown pottery were produced during this period.Therefore, the relationship between the lithics and pottery is not

clear. Finally, although the flint raw materials used (black andbrown) are uncommon in Neolithic assemblages, the absence ofany diagnostic pieces prevents us from attributing the assemblageto a specific period (Molina and McClure, 2004). Only in the LateNeolithic/Chalcolithic is a stable and more intensive settlementof the area visible archaeologically. Prior to this, few materialsincluding typical combed pottery from the Middle Neolithic appear

in the region.By the 4th millennium BC, small farming settlements wereestablished in the Western Canyoles Valley. Diagnostic materials,including ceramics, lithics, and ground stones, were concentratedin three locations (Fig. 5), and many surrounding areas containedlower-intensity assemblages that could not be explained solelyby post-depositional dispersion. On the contrary, this kind of dis-persal appears to have been related to extensive activities aroundthe settlements, likely agricultural activities, as suggested by thepresence of sickle blades and ground stones (for a detailed discus-sion, see Molina and McClure, 2004).

Regionally, farming settlements increase in number during theLate Neolithic and Chalcolithic and are often located in previouslyunexploited agricultural areas (Bernabeu and Pascual, 1998; McC-lure et al., 2006). This demographic expansion is visible throughoutthe Iberian Peninsula and likely explains the first agricultural vil-lages in the Canyoles Valley. Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic occupationof the Canyoles Valley is reinforced by the use of small caves androck shelters in the surrounding mountains as burial sites (Fig. 3).

>2000 pieces/sq km

1000-2000 pieces/sq km

500-1000 pieces/sq km

500 pieces/sq km

0 1 2 km

110

9

8

7

6

5

2

12

13

14

11&15

4

3

Fig. 5. Prehistoric lithics and ceramic concentrations found on survey. Circles mark areas withLate Neolithic/Chalcolithic materials. Sectors: 1: Carrasca, 2: Simeta, 3: Foia, 4:

Caicn, 5: Fontsanta, 6: Alt del Granadero, 7: Biosca, 8: Posino, 9: Cnyoles, 10: Cabezuelas, 11: Albarades, 12: Mas del Fondo, 13: Mas de Sant Joaquim, 14: Serruig, 15:Bosquet.



7/12

Results obtained on the survey have offered us a compellingview of the development of Neolithic landscapes. Human occupa-tion of the Canyoles Valley is known to have extended back at least100,000 years (Molina and McClure, 2004). Abundant raw materialin sectors such as Alto Granadero, Fuensanta and Biosca would havebeen attractive to prehistoric peoples, and concentrations of theseraw materials provided a focal point for lithic production in the

valley through time. The lithic artifacts throughout the valleyand raw material in these sectors support the notion that theywere continually revisited throughout prehistory (Molina andMcClure, 2004). Despite its location, ecological diversity, and posi-tion as a natural corridor, farming settlements are not documenteduntil the 4th millennium BC. Evidence for Early Neolithic activity,therefore, is limited to cave and rock art sites. People in the 6thmillennium were not using this area for farming, nor is there evi-dence of it as a foraging settlement area. It is a distinctive landuse pattern, and very different from that found in the Alcoi Basin.In the following, we discuss the most salient feature of the EarlyNeolithic in the Canyoles Valley: rock art. By comparing the con-texts of rock art in these two areas, we suggest alternative inter-pretations based on the confluence of rock art distributions,chronology, and archaeological data.

Neolithic rock art

Listed as World Heritage by UNESCO in 1998, rock art of theMediterranean Basin in Spain includes some of the most fascinat-ing representations of post-Palaeolithic art in Europe. More than100 sites with rock art are currently documented in the region

located along the boundary of the provinces of Alicante and Valen-cia. Three different types of representations have been identified,all of them currently considered to date to the Neolithic: Macro-schematic, Schematic and Levantine art (Fig. 6). As it is the casefor most rock art, temporal placement is difficult. In the case ofMediterranean Spain, the origins, chronology, and cultural mean-ings continue to be heavily debated, and this debate is tightly

linked with concrete views of the neolithization process of each re-gion (Cruz Berrocal and Vicent Garca, 2007; Garca Puchol et al.,2004). In the following, we briefly describe rock art styles foundin the region and follow with a summary of the debates surround-ing their chronology and interpretation. We then turn to rock artsites in the Canyoles Valley and the Alcoi Basin and discuss the dif-fering settlement contexts in which they were created.

Macroschematic art

Macroschematic art (Arte Macroesquemtico) is found exclu-sively in this region and generally displays large, schematic repre-sentations of anthromorphs with raised arms (Hernndez, 1995;Mart and Hernndez, 1988). Geometric motifs, such as zigzags of-ten accompany the human-like figures. Most of the Macroschemat-ic art is found in shallow rock shelters without occupationaldeposits. Chronological assignment is facilitated somewhat bysuperimpositions of other rock art styles (especially Levantineart, see below) and parallels in mobile art (Hernndez, 1995:97).Similar motifs are found on a wide array of Cardial ceramics, par-ticularly from Cova de lOr and Cova de la Sarsa (Hernndez,1995; Mart and Hernndez, 1988; Mart and Juan-Cabanilles,2002). Indeed, Hernndez (1995) has demonstrated that the distri-

Macroschemaic

Schematic

Macroschemaic

Levantine

5 cm

3 cm

A B C

Fig. 6. Distributionof rock artsites andexamples of the differentrock art styles: A. Macroschematic(Barrancde lInfern); B: Schematic (Barrancde la Magrana); C: Levantine(Abric del Mas dEn Josep).



8/12

bution of Macroschematic rock art and Cardial Neolithic sites isclosely connected. The stylistic similarity between motifs on Car-dial pottery and Macroschematic art suggests that it is an EarlyNeolithic phenomenon and part of the cultural material relatedto the transition to agriculture (Garca Puchol et al., 2004; Hernn-dez, 1995; Hernndez et al., 1988; Mart and Juan-Cabanilles,2002; Molina et al., 2003).

Schematic art

Schematic art is characterized by smaller, more simple andbasic figures, and is much more widespread in the region. Humanrepresentations, animals, geometric figures (lines, zigzags, dots,etc.), suns and symbols constitute the main motifs of this style.Similar designs are commonly found on pottery throughout theNeolithic and Bronze Age sequences, so it is more difficult to definea chronological parallel based on mobile art. Recent studies haveillustrated a relationship between some Schematic motifs withEarly Neolithic pottery (Martnez Garca, 2004; Torregrosa andGaliana, 2001). Furthermore, some representations of symbolsand anthropomorphic figures interpreted as idols have counter-parts in Chalcolithic materials (4th millennium cal BC). This asso-ciation is strengthened by the location of Schematic art close tocaves and rock shelters used as burial areas for multiple inhuma-tions during this period. However, it is unclear if Schematic artwas produced throughout the Neolithic to Bronze Age or in severaldifferent and independent cycles.

Levantine art

Levantine art is by far the most closely studied of the Neolithicrock art styles and early publications date back to the end of the19th and early 20th century AD (Breuil, 1912; Cartailhac and Bre-uil, 1908; Marconell, 1892). Stylistically, Levantine art is very dif-ferent from either Macroschematic or Schematic art. It is definedby its naturalistic and narrative character and is distributedthroughout the eastern Iberian Peninsula. The size of motifs varies,but figures are usually under 10 cm in size and depict humans and

animals including ovicaprids, deer, horses, pigs, cattle, insects, andsome birds, often in scenes. Most of these motifs are found in largerpanels with one or more scenes, often depicting an action, such asrunning, hunting, and warfare (Guilaine and Zammit, 2001; Her-nndez et al., 1988).

Rock art in the Canyoles Valley

Only two areas in the Canyoles Valley exhibit rock art despite amultitude of suitable rock shelters and exposures in the region(Fig. 3). Rock art is found in two southern side arms of the mainvalley: Bosquetand Pla de les Alcusses. Schematic and Levantine fig-ures have been documented in these shelters, although they arenot particularly abundant (Galiana et al., 2005). An exception isshelter 1 of Barranc del Bosquet (Hernndez and C.E.C, 1984) thatcontains 35 figures distributed in 11 panels, of which one motifis identified as Macroschematic (Figs. 7 and 3). This motif is locatedin a natural depression in the rock face in the center of the mainpanel and a variety of Schematic and Levantine figurines (espe-cially anthropomorphic and zoomorphic) are located around it.

Neolithic rock art: chronology, authorship, and interpretation

The debate on the chronology of rock art and its cultural signif-icance in this area has recently become the focus of several papers,particularly regarding Levantine art. Chronological and culturalattributions have ranged from hunter-gatherers to complex farm-ers and in dates from the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic, BronzeAge and even Iron Age (Aparicio et al., 1988; Fortea, 1974; Martand Juan-Cabanilles, 2002; Mart and Hernndez, 1988:35). Histor-ically, Levantine art was thought to be a product of forager creativeexpression due to the predominance of wild fauna and huntingscenes (Hernndez, 1995:102). However, Cruz Berrocal and VicentGarca (2007:681) overstate issues of chronology in their discus-sion of Levantine art when they argue that this chronological attri-bution has varied only slightly since then. Numerous studiessince the 80s have highlighted a Neolithic (and sometimes later)

Fig. 7. Main panel from Abric II del Barranc del Bosquet; Fig. 3 is Macroschematic.



9/12

age for this style. Similarities in lithic arrow points typical of theChalcolithic and weapons painted by Levantine artists suggeststhat this art style was at least partially created during the Late Neo-lithic/Chalcolithic (Fernndez Lpez de Pablo, 2006; Galiana, 1986;Guilaine and Zammit, 2001). The discovery of Macroschematic artand its analysis have also influenced chronological attribution. Evi-dence of superposition of Levantine art onto Macroschematic art at

Cova de la Sarga and Barranc de Benial has provided aterminus

post quem and shifted the chronology for the beginning of Levan-tine art to some point during or after the Early Neolithic ( Hernn-dez, 2005; Mart and Juan-Cabanilles, 2002; Molina and McClure,2004). Furthermore, several authors have argued that a pre-Neo-lithic date for Levantine art in Castelln (northern Valencia) isnot likely given the sparse Late Mesolithic archaeological recordin the area (Garca Robles et al., 2005; Villaverde and MartnezValle 2002). In a broad regional survey, Molina et al. (2003) alsosuggested that Levantine art must be seen (at least partially) as arelatively late phenomenon, and Fairn (2002, 2004, 2006, 2007)discusses the evidence in Alicante for treating rock art styles aschronological markers spanning the Early Neolithic to Bronze Age.

Many of the arguments regarding chronological placement relyon two sets of data: superpositions and parallels in mobile art(ceramics, bone). Although parallels on different media provide asense of chronology, they are not causally linked. In terms of chro-nology, Cruz Berrocal and Vicent Garca (2007:685) argue correctlythat superimpositions do not carry information about how muchtime elapsed between the different phases of painting. This is oneof the myriad of issues facing prehistoric rock art analyses. How-ever, superpositions do show some temporal distinctions, particu-larly for the Macroschematic art that underlays various instancesof Levantine and Schematic motifs. Furthermore, the authorswould like all styles to date to the Early Neolithic, however theydo not deny that some Schematic and Levantine motifs may bemore recent (Cruz Berrocal and Vicent Garca, 2007:684). Basedon this observation, the assumption of synchrony of all Neolithicrock art is highly questionable. In sum, current research suggests

that Holocene rock art traditions started in the Early Neolithic,but the exact temporal placement of styles is still debatable. Mac-roschematic art is likely an Early Neolithic phenomenon with alimited chronology. Schematic and Levantine art may well have be-gun in the Early Neolithic, however they likely span a 3000 yearperiod of production.

Cruz Berrocal and Vicent Garca (2007:677) further argue thatthe different rock art styles in Mediterranean Spain developedsimultaneously during the Early Neolithic and are differentexpressions of a unique rock art tradition, developed by a singlesocial formation. Similar to Garca Puchol et al. (2004), Garca Ro-bles et al. (2005), and Molina et al. (2003), they maintainthat inter-pretations of rock art chronology and significance, as well asauthorship, are linked with models of the process of neolithization.

Based on the capillary model, Cruz Berrocal and Vicent Garca(2007) interpret Neolithic rock art as the product of foraging pop-ulations in transition. Differences in style are functional, not chro-nological, markers, and served different uses within the samecommunity. Distribution patterns show proximity of rock art sitesto traditional historic transhumance routes, and rock art sites inthe Gasulla and the Valltorta Systems in Castelln (north of Valen-cia, see Fig. 1) were guided by structural reasons, based on a par-ticular system of economic exploitation of different andcomplementary territories (2007:692), connecting interior andcoastal areas. Although they connect rock art creation to pastoral-ism, they argue that this system is the result of pre-existing sea-sonal exploitation patterns of different territories alreadydeveloped by Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers. However, following

their argumentation, another interpretation is possible. Levantineart may be a result of a shift in cave use that is visible at the end

of the Early Neolithic and throughout the 5th millennium BC, whenspecialized pastoralists began using caves and rockshelters as cor-rals for their herds.

In contrast, other studies of Neolithic rock art that follow thedual model of neolithization place greater emphasis on chrono-logical differences and multiple authorship. Indeed, some have ar-gued that Levantine art may have initially been a hunter-gatherer

response to farmer art (see Cruz Berrocal and Vicent Garca, 2007for discussion), but several researchers have also suggested author-ship by farmers with varying chronological and functional aspects(e.g., Garca Borja, 2004; Garca Robles et al., 2005; Mart and Juan-Cabanilles, 2002; Molina et al., 2003). Much of this interpretationrelies on the abundant evidence for ritual activity during the EarlyNeolithic in the Alcoi Basin. Deposits at Cova de lOr and Cova de laSarsa contained large quantities of pottery, bone tools (includingspoons and, at Cova de lOr, some possible musical instrumentsmade of vulture bones: Mart et al., 2001), polished stone axes,bracelets, and other stone ornaments made from non-local rawmaterials (Orozco, 2000). The faunal assemblage from Cova delOr includes many young and immature sheep (Prez, 1980). Anabundance of symbolic style Cardial decorated ceramics wereuncovered, including human figures and other Schematic represen-tations that may have carried additional social and/or religiousmessages, forming the basis for interpreting these sites as ritualsanctuaries (Bernabeu, 2002; Mart and Hernndez, 1988). Thesignificance of these sites is further supported by the use of sur-rounding small caves and shelters as burial locations (Bernabeuet al., 2001b).

Within the economic, settlement, and ritual context of the AlcoiBasin, Macroschematic art has been interpreted as the artisticexpression of a ritual and ideological belief system of the earliestfarmers in the region (Bernabeu, 2002; Mart and Juan-Cabanilles,2002). Due to the large size of many of the depictions (in contrastto Schematic and Levantine art), rock faces with major concentra-tions of Macroschematic art were possibly seen by a large numberof spectators at the same time. This has promoted the idea that

places such as Cova de la Sarga and Pla de Petracos could haveplayed a special role in ritual life, possibly as public sanctuaries(Mart, 1990; Mart and Juan-Cabanilles, 2002).

Recently, Fairn (2002, 2004, 2006, 2007) studied the relation-ship between Neolithic settlements and rock art sites in Valencia,particularly in Alicante. She argues that rock art structured Neo-lithic landscapes by defining and reflecting the economic and sym-bolic activities of farmers. Although she treats Neolithic rock artstyles as chronological markers, spanning the Early Neoltihic toBronze Age, she highlights the complexity of questions of author-ship when she suggests different rock art styles created by thesame groups of people may have coexisted (Fairn, 2007).

Discussion: Implications for Canyoles Valley rock art

Despite evidence of the Early Neolithic in cave deposits and thepresence of rock art in shelters of Bosquet and Pla de les Alcussesareas described above, evidence of recognizable settlement is lim-ited to the Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic and more recent prehistory.This differs from land use patterns documented in the Alcoi Basin,where village-based farming is documented throughout the Neo-lithic. Rock art found in the Alcoi Basin is surrounded by a land-scape of agricultural activity and permanent settlement. Incontrast, survey results of the Canyoles Valley suggest that peoplein the Early Neolithic used the landscape more ephemerally and fora different suite of activities. Since the rock art is similar in the twoareas, how can this difference in context influence interpretationsof rock art during the Neolithic?

The answer to this question depends a great deal on the chro-nology of the rock art. We agree with Cruz Berrocal and Vicent Gar-



10/12

ca (2007) that Levantine and Schematic art may have begun in theEarly Neolithic, but based on the archaeological evidence pre-sented above, Levantine and Schematic styles cannot be regardedsolely as an Early Neolithic phenomenon. Barring this chronologi-cal determination, any discussion of Neolithic rock art must remainfocused on hypotheses for two likely possibilities that may vary be-tween rock art sites: (1) Neolithic rock art is synchronous; (2) Neo-

lithic rock art spans up to 3000 years. Thus, each rock art site withmultiple styles must be interpreted in both manners unless com-pelling chronological evidence (such as imagery of Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic or Bronze Age weaponry) is present. In the case ofthe CanyolesValley, we cannot determine the chronology of Levan-tine and Schematic motifs. The location of rock art is limited to aspecific area of the Canyoles Valley, despite an abundance of avail-able rock faces over other parts of the valley. It is noteworthy thatmuch of the documented rock art is in a narrow entrance to a smallupland valley, off the beaten track of the natural corridor of theCanyoles Valley bottom, without clear taphonomic processes to ex-plain the current distribution.

Ritual or economic use of at least parts of the valley during theNeolithic may have preceded long-term agricultural exploitation.The ecological diversity of the valley may well have been a drawfor hunting game or collecting plant fibres and foods not availableon the coastal plain or in higher elevations. The lure of lithic rawmaterials documented in numerous survey sectors may have alsobrought people to the valley. Available pasture and ease of trans-portation may have made the valley an interesting destination orcorridor for transhumance. The presence of water sources in bothareas where rock art is found in the Canyoles Valley is highly sug-gestive. Particularly the natural water reservoir of Bosquet mayhave provided the context for increased economic and ritual activ-ity. Unlike some rock art sites in the Alcoi Basin, travellers throughthe Canyoles Valley would not see the images from the main val-ley. Rather, the location of the rock art in a side valley, accessingthe Bosquet area, suggests that visitors to the Canyoles Valleywould need to specifically seek out this side valley, and only then

would they encounter the imagery prominently displayed on rockfaces. This may suggest that the rock art helped delineate a specialarea, in which gatherings, burials, and rock art production tookplace, or livestock could be easily cared for. It is possible that peo-ple spent enough time in the Canyoles Valley to include these sitesas an integral part of their lives, or that this area was visited muchmore sporadically.

If rock art styles in the Canyoles Valley were synchronous, pro-duction occurred in a context of ephemeral land use. Cruz Berrocaland Vicent Garca (2007) argue that different styles reflect differentuses by the same social group, although they do not elaborate orsuggest what these uses may have been. Instead, they link rockart distribution with economic networks, and state that rock artshould be understood as nodal points in the landscape which have

been given a social value (2007:693). Under these conditions, rockart in the Canyoles Valley could be understood in similar terms:marking an area of economic interest and imbuing it with socialmeaning. Given the presumed functional differences betweenstyles, this would suggest a variety of social meanings. Thus thediversity of rock art may visualize the various uses of this areafor economic returns (wild and domestic resources, raw materials)and ritual purposes (e.g., burial).

In contrast, if rock art styles were produced with temporal var-iation, sites may have been persistent places on the landscape (e.g.,Barton et al., 1995; Schlanger, 1992). Despite differences in landuse observed throughout the Neolithic sequence, people continu-ously returned to the same rock shelters to create their own styleof rock art. The continuity of rock art production may indicate the

recognition of ritual space by farming villagers up to 30 genera-tions after initial Macroschematic rock art production. Although

the particular importance of the area may have changed signifi-cantly in the course of many centuries, the presence of waterwould have been a constant. The production of new kinds of rockart on the same rock faces could indicate a continuity of practice(if not of content) by farmers settling in the valley. These Late Neo-lithic/Chalcolithic permanent inhabitants may have used their dif-ferent rock art styles as a conscious attempt to connect their

presence on the landscape with earlier generations. Rather thansymbolizing a continuity of ritual or economic behavior, the loca-tion of Levantine and Schematic art close or in contact with thoseearlier depictions may have been a conscious attempt by later pop-ulations to connect to an ancient tradition, legitimizing or reinforc-ing their own social and ritual practices. However, this may havealso been subconscious: as is frequently seen at rock art sites inEurope, modern depictions are often located on the same panelsas ancient ones, indicating a tendency to draw on surfaces alreadydisplaying imagery even if the meaning and makers of the earlierimagery are unknown.

Conclusions

The interpretations of Neolithic rock art in the Canyoles Valleyare contingent on chronology and archaeological context. We donot share Cruz and Vicent (2007) optimism that Neolithic rockart in Mediterranean Spain can be used as a primary source ofarchaeological information regarding the transition to agriculturein this region. Rather, problems of chronology increase the needto interpret rock art distributions cautiously, and rock art mustbe analyzed in the context of other archaeological data. Otherwise,arguments quickly become circular and, in the end, serve to rele-gate rock art to illustrations of empirically unfounded and non-testable hypotheses. It is clear that rock art is an important featureof Neolithic society, plays a key role in structuring the landscape,and allows us to glimpse the rich symbolic life of past peoples.However, we are still far from understanding the roles of rock artin Neolithic Spain. We hope to have demonstrated in this paper

that a contextual analysis of rock art is worthwhile and can provideinteresting hypotheses for the significance of places on the land-scape. This type of analysis furthers existing discussions of themeaning of rock art production and can help refine the study ofrock art sites throughout Mediterranean Spain.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank C. Michael Barton, Rosa Garcia, MichaelJochim, Douglas Kennett, Jose Perez, and Bernat Mart for their sup-port and insights into GIS and the Canyoles Valley. Jose Perez gra-ciously shared data, maps and aerial photographs with us. Logisticsupport from the Departament de Prehistoria i dArqueologia of theUniversitat de Valncia was greatly appreciated. Special thanks to

our crew for tireless days of survey. We remain indebted to thepeople of Font de la Figuera and Moixent, Valencia for letting uswalk their fields. This research was funded by Fulbright Full Grantto Spain 2001-2002 (McClure) and a National Science FoundationDissertation Improvement Grant # 8-447628-21569-7-2902.

References

Armelagos, G.J., Herper, K.N., 2005. Genomics at the origins of agriculture. Part One.Evolutionary Anthropology 14, 6877.

Anschuetz, K.F., Wilshusen, R.H., Scheick, C.L., 2001. An archaeology of landscapes:perspectives and directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 9, 157210.

Aparicio, J., 1977. Las Raices de Mogente. Prehistoria y Protohistoria. Real Academiade Cultura Valenciana, Valencia.

Aparicio, J., San Valero, J., Martnez, J.V., 1979. Actividades arqueolgicas en elbienio 19771979. Varia I. Universitat de Valncia, Valencia.

Aparicio, J., San Valero, J., Martnez, J.V., 1982. Actividades arqueolgicas en eltrienio 19791982. Varia II. Universitat de Valncia, Valencia.



11/12

Aparicio, J., Bentrn, A. Boronat, J., 1988. Nuevas pinturas rupestres en la ComunidadValenciana, Academia de Cultura Valenciana, Valencia.

Arasa, F., Rosell, V.M., 1995. Les Vies Romanes del Territori Valenci, GeneralitatValenciana, Valencia.

Aura, J.E., Villaverde, V., Prez, M., Martnez, R., Guillem, P.M., 2002. Big game andsmall prey: Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic economy from Valencia (Spain).Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9, 215268.

Barnett, W.K., 1995. Putting the pot before the horse. Earliest ceramics and theNeolithic transition in Western Mediterranean. In: Barnett, W.K., Hoopes, J.W.(Eds.), The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient

Societies. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 7988.Barnett, W.K., 2000.Cardial pottery and the agricultural transitionin Mediterranean

Europe. In: Price, T.D. (Ed.), Europes First Farmers. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 93116.

Barton, C.M., 2006. Systematic survey and landscape studies. In: Garca Puchol, O.,Aura, J.E. (Eds.), El Abric de la Falguera (Alcoi, Alacant). 8000 aos de ocupacinhumana en la cabecera del ro de Alcoi. Diputacin de Alicante, Ayuntamientode Alcoi. CAM, Alcoi, pp. 7383.

Barton, C.M., Bernabeu, J., Aura, J.E., Garca Puchol, O., 1999. Landscape dynamicsand socioeconomic change: an example from the Polop Alto Valley. AmericanAntiquity 64, 609634.

Barton, C.M., Bernabeu, J., Aura, J.E., La Roca, N., Garca Puchol, O., 2002. Dynamiclandscapes, artifact taphonomy, and landuse modeling in the westernMediterranean. Geoarchaeology 17, 155190.

Barton, C.M., Bernabeu, J., Aura, J.E., Molina, Ll., Schmich, S., 2004a. Historicalcontingency, nonlinearity, and neolithization of the western Mediterranean. In:Athanassopoulos, E., Wandsnider, L. (Eds.), Current Issues in MediterraneanLandscape Archaeology. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 99124.

Barton, C.M., Bernabeu, J., Aura, J.E., Garca Puchol, O., Schmich, S., Molina, L.l.,2004b. Long-term socioecology and contingent landscapes. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory 11, 253295.

Barton, R.N.E., Berridge, P.J., Walker, M.J.C., Bevins, R.E., 1995. Persistent places inthe Mesolithic landscape: an example from the Black Mountain uplands ofSouth Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 81116.

Beja-Pereira, A., Caramelli, D., Lalueza-Fox, C., Vernesi, C., Ferrand, N., Casoli, A.,Goyache, F., Royo, L., Conti, S., Lari, M., Martini, A., Ouragh, L., Magid, A., Atash,A., Zsolnai, A., Boscato, P., Triantaphylidis, C., Ploumi, K., Sineo, L., Mallegni, F.,Taberlet, P., Erhadt, G., Sampietro, L., Bertranpetit, J., Barbujan, G., Luikart, G.,Bertorell, G., 2006. The origin of European cattle: evidence from modern andancient DNA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 103 (21), 81138118.

Bernabeu, J., 1995. Origen y consolidacin de las sociedades agrcolas. El PasValenciano entre el Neoltico y la Edad delBronce. Actes de les Segones JornadesdArqueologia, 3760.

Bernabeu, J., 1996. Indigenismo y migracionismo. Aspectos de la neolitizacin en lafachada oriental de la Pennsula Ibrica. Trabajos de Prehistoria 53, 3754.

Bernabeu, J., 2002. The social and symbolic context of Neolithization. Saguntum(PLAV) Extra-5, pp. 209234.Bernabeu, J., 2006. Una visin actual sobre el origen y la difusin del Neoltico en la

Pennsula Ibrica. In: Garca Puchol, O., Aura, J.E. (Eds.), El Abric de la Falguera(Alcoi, Alacant). 8000 aos de ocupacinhumana en la cabecera del ro de Alcoi.Diputacin de Alicante, Ayuntamiento de Alcoi. CAM, Alcoi, pp. 189211.

Bernabeu, J., Barton, C.M., Garca Puchol, O., La Roca, N., 1999. Prospeccionessistemticas en el Valle del Alcoi (Alicante): primeros resultados. ArqueologaEspacial 21, 2964.

Bernabeu, J., Barton, C.M., Garca Puchol, O., La Roca, N., 2000. Systematic survey inAlicante, Spain:first results.Trkyie Bilimer Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 3, 5786.

Bernabeu, J., Barton, C.M., Prez, M., 2001a. A taphonomic perspective on Neolithicbeginnings: theory, interpretation, and empirical data in the WesternMediterranean. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 597612.

Bernabeu, J., Molina, Ll., Garca Puchol, O., 2001b. El mundo funerario en elhorizonte cardial valenciano. Un registro oculto. Saguntum (PLAV) 33, 2736.

Bernabeu, J., Molina, Ll., Dez, A., Orozco, T., 2006. Inequalities and power. Threemillennia of Prehistory in theSpanish Mediterranean(5600-2000 cal BC). In:Daz-del-Ro, P., Garca Sanjun, L. (Eds.), Social Inequality in Iberian Late Prehistory.

British Archaeological Reports. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 97116.Bernabeu, J., Orozco, T., 2005. Mas dIs (Penguila, Alicante): Un recinto

monumental del VI milenio cal A.C. In: Arias, P., Ontan, R., Garca-Manco, C.(Eds.), III Congreso del Neoltico en la Pennsula Ibrica (Santander 2003).InstitutoInternacional de InvestigacionesPrehistricas de Cantabria, Santander,pp. 485495.

Bernabeu, J., Orozco, T., Dez, A., Gmez, M., Molina, F.J., 2003. Mas dIs (Penguila,Alicante): aldeas y recintos monumentales del Neoltico inicial en el Valle delSerpis. Trabajos de Prehistoria 60, 3960.

Bernabeu, J., Pascual, J. Ll. (Eds.), 1998. LExpansi de lAgricultura. La Vall de lAlcoifa 5000 anys. Perfils del Passat, 4. Diputaci de Valncia, Valencia.

Bernabeu, J., Molina, Ll., Esquembre, M.A., Ramn, J., de Dios Boronat, J., in press-a.La cermica impresa mediterrnea en el origen del Neoltico de la pennsulaIbrica. In: Homenage Jean Guilaine..

Bernabeu, J., Molina, Ll., Orozco, T., Dez, A., Barton, C. M., in press-b. Los Valles delSerpis (Alicante): 20 aos de trabajo de campo. IV Congreso del Neoltico en laPennsula Ibrica, Alicante, Noviembre 2006..

Biagi, P., 2003. A review of the Late Mesolithic in Italy an its implication for the

Neolithic transition. In: Ammerman, A.J., Biagi, P. (Eds.), The Widening Harvest.Archaeological Institute of America, Boston, pp. 132156.

Billman, B.R., Feinman, G.M. (Eds.), 1999. Settlement Studies in the Americas: FiftyYears since Vir. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC..

Binder, D., 2000. Mesolithic and Neolithic interaction in Southern France andNorthern Italy: new data and current hypothesis. In: Price, T.D. (Ed.), EuropesFirst Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 117143.

Binford, L.R., 1982. The archaeology of place. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 1, 537.

Breuil, H., 1912. LAge des cavernes et roches ornes de France et dEspagne. RevueArchologique 123..

Bonet, H., Dies, E., Rubio, F., 2000. Proyecto de rea didctica y de investigacin

arquitectnica. La construccin de un casa ibrica en la Bastida de les Alcusses(Moixent, Valncia). In: Mata, C., Prez, G. (Eds.), bers. Agricultors, Artesans iComercians. III Reunisobre Economia al Mon Ibric. Saguntum (PLAV) Extra-3,Valencia, pp. 431439.

Cartailhac, E., Breuil, H., 1908. Nouvelles cavernes a peintures dcouvertes danslAragn, la Catalogne et les Cantabres. LAnthropologie XIX, 371373.

Chapman, J., Shiel, R., Batovic, S., Shields, R., 1996. The Changing Face of Dalmatia:Archaeological and Ecological Studies in a Mediterranean Landscape. LeicesterUniversity Press, London.

Cruz Berrocal, M., 2005. Paisaje y Arte rupestre. Patrones de localizacin de lapintura levantina. British Archaeological Reports, International Series. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Cruz Berrocal, M., Vicent Garca, J.M., 2007. Rock art as an archaeological and socialindicator: the neolithisationof the Iberian Peninsula. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 26, 676697.

Donahue, R.E., 1992. Desperately seeking Ceres: a critical examination of currentmodels for the transition to agriculture in Mediterranean Europe. In: Gebauer,A.B., Price, T.D. (Eds.), Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Prehistory Press,Madison, pp. 7380.

Fairn, S., 2002. El paisaje de las primeras comunidades productoras en la cuencadel ro Serpis (Pas Valenciano). Fundacin Municipal Jose Mara Soler, Villena.

Fairn, S., 2004. Rock-art and the transition to farming. The Neolithic landscape ofthe central Mediterranean coast of Spain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23, 119.

Fairn, S., 2006. El Paisaje de la Neolitizacin. Arte Rupestre, Poblamiento y MundoFunerario en las Comarcas Centro-meridionales Valencianas. Universidad deAlicante, Alicante.

Fairn, S., 2007. Rock art and social life: revisiting the Neolithic transition inMediterranean Iberia. Journal of Social Archaeology 7, 123143.

Fernndez, H., Hughes, S., Vigne, J.-D., Helmer, D., Hodgins, G., Miquel, C., Hnni, C.,Luikart, G., Taberlet, P., 2006. Divergent mtDNA lineages of goats in an EarlyNeolithic site, far from the initial domestication areas. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences 103 (42), 1537515379.

Fernndez Lpez de Pablo, J., 2006. Las flechas en el arte levantino: aportacionesdesde el anlisis de los proyectiles del registro arqueolgico del Riude les Coves(Alt Maestrat, Castell). Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina XXVI, 101159.

Fish, S.K., Kowalewski, S.A. (Eds.), 1990. The Archaeology of Regions: The Case for

Full-Coverage Survey. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC..Fortea, F.J., 1973. Los Complejos Microlaminares y Geomtricos del EpipaleolticoMediterrneo Espaol. Memorias del Seminario de Prehistoria y Arqueologa 4.Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca.

Fortea, F.J., 1974. Algunas aportaciones a los problemas del Arte Levantino.Zephyrus XXV, 221257.

Galiana, M.F., 1986. Consideraciones sobre el Arte rupestre levantino: las puntas deflecha. El Eneoltico en el Pas Valenciano, 2333.

Galiana, M.F., Torregrosa, P., Ribera, A., 2005. El arte rupestre postpaleoltico en elValle del Ro Albaida y la cuenca del Cnyoles. In: Hernndez, M.S., Soler, J.A.(Eds.), Arte rupestre en la Espaa Mediterrnea. Dipt. Provincial de Alicante,C.A.M., Alicante, pp. 111121.

Garca Borja, P., 2004. Avan sobre el poblament de la Vall del Cnyoles durantlEdat del Bronze. In: Hernndez, L., Hernndez, M.S. (Eds.), La Edad del Bronceen tierras valencianas y zonas limitrofes. Ayuntamiento de Villena, Villena, pp.203212.

Garca Borja, P., Molina, L.l., 2001. El Neoltic a La Costera. Estat de la Qesti.Congrs dEstudis comarcals de La Costera, Xtiva.

Garca Puchol, O., 2006. La lectura del inicio de la secuencia neoltica en el abrigo.

In: GarcaPuchol, O., Aura, J.E. (Eds.), El Abric de la Falguera (Alcoi, Alacant).8000 aos de ocupacin humana en la cabecera del ro de Alcoi. Diputacin deAlicante, Ayuntamiento de Alcoi. CAM, Alicante, pp. 173180.

Garca Puchol, O., Aura, J.E.(Eds.), 2006. El Abric de la Falguera (Alcoi, Alacant). 8000aos de ocupacin humana en la cabecera del ro de Alcoi. Diputacin deAlicante, Ayuntamiento de Alcoi. CAM, Alicante.

Garca Puchol, O., Molina, L.l., Garca Robles, M.R., 2004. El Arte Levantino y elproceso de neolitizacin en el arco mediterrneo peninsular: el contextoarqueolgico y su significado. Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina XXV, 6190.

Garca Robles, M.R., Garca Puchol, O., Molina, L.l., 2005. La neolitizacin de lascomarcas interiores valencianas y la cronologa del Arte Levantino. Un nuevomarco para un viejo debate. In: Arias, P., Ontan, R., Garca-Manco, C. (Eds.), IIICongreso del Neoltico en la Pennsula Ibrica (Santander, 2003). InstitutoInternacional de InvestigacionesPrehistricas de Cantabria, Santander, pp. 793802.

Guilaine, J., 2003. Aspects de la nolithisation en Mditerrane et en France. In:Ammerman, A.J., Biagi, P. (Eds.), The Widening Harvest. Archaeological Instituteof America, Boston, pp. 189206.

Guilaine, J., Zammit, J., 2001. The Origins of War .Violence in Prehistory. BlackwellPublishing, New York (English edition 2005).



12/12

Hernndez, M.S., 1995. Arte Rupestre en el Pas Valenciano. Bases para un debate.Actes de les Segones Jornades dArqueologia, 89118.

Hernndez, M.S., 2005. Del Alto Segura al Turia. Arte rupestre postpaleoltico en elArco Mediterrneo. In: Hernndez, M.S., Soler, J.A. (Eds.), Arte rupestre en laEspaa Mediterrnea. Dipt. Provincial de Alicante, C.A.M., Alicante, pp. 4570.

Hernndez, M.S.Centre dEstudis Contestans, 1984. Pinturas rupestres en el Barrancdel Bosquet (Moixent, Valencia). Lucentum III, 522.

Hernndez, M.S., Ferrer, P., Catal, E., 1988. Arte Rupestre en Alicante. Alicante.Hernando Gonzalo, A., 1999. Los primeros agricultores de la Pennsula Ibrica.

Sntesis, Madrid.

Jochim, M.A., 1976. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A PredictiveModel. Academic Press, New York.

Jochim, M.A., 1981. Strategies for Survival: Cultural Behavior in an EcologicalContext. Academic Press, New York.

Juan-Cabanilles, J., Mart, B., 2002. Poblamiento y procesos culturales en laPennsula Ibrica del VII al V milenio A. C. (8000-5500 BP). Una cartografa dela neolitizacin. In: Badal, E., Bernabeu, J., Mart, B. (Eds.), Neolithic Landscapesof the Mediterranean. Universitat de Valncia, Valencia, pp. 4590.

Kent, S. (Ed.), 1989. Farmers as hunters: the implications of sedentism. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Kunst, M., 2001. Das Neolithikum auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. Phillip von Zabern,Frankfurt.

Kunst, M., Rojo, M.A., 2000. Ambrona 1998. die neolithische Fundkarte und 14 C-Datierungen. Madrider Mitteilungen 41, 131.

Lee, R.B., DeVore, I., 1969. Man the Hunter. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Manen, C., Marchand, G., Carvalho, A.F., 2007. Le Nolitique ancien de la pninsule

Ibrique: vers une nouvelle volution du mirage africain? XXVI CongrsPrhistorique de France. Socit Prhistorique Franaise, 133151.

Marconell, E., 1892. Los toros de La Losilla. Miscelnea Turolense 9-10, 160.Mart, B., 1988. El Neoltico. In: Barandiar, I., Mart, B., del Rincn, M.A., Maya, J.L.

(Eds.), Prehistoria de la Pensula Ibrica Ed. Ariel, Madrid, pp. 121196.Mart, B., 1990. Impressed Cardial decorations and rock art in Eastern Spain. In:

Cahen, D., Otte, M. (Eds.), Ruban et Cardial, vol. 39. E.R.A.U.L., pp. 405415.Mart, B., Arias-Gago, A., Martnez, R., Juan-Cabanilles, J., 2001. Los tubos de hueso

de la Cova de lOr (Beniarrs, Alicante). Instrumentos musicales en el NeolticoAntiguo de la Pennsula Ibrica. Trabajos de Prehistoria 58, 4167.

Mart, B., Hernndez, M.S., 1988. El Neoltic Valenci. Art Rupestre i CulturaMaterial. Diputacin de Valencia, Valencia.

Mart, B., Juan-Cabanilles, J., 1987. El Neoltic Valenci. Els primers agricultors iramaders. Diputaci Provincial de Valncia, Valencia.

Mart, B., Juan-Cabanilles, J., 1997. Epipaleolticos y Neolticos: poblacin yterritorio en el proceso de neolitizacin de la Pennsula Ibrica. Espacio,Tiempo y Forma, Serie I, Prehistoria y Arqueologa 10, 215264.

Mart, B., Juan-Cabanilles, J., 2002. La decoraci de ls cermiques neoltiques i laseua relaci amb les pintures rupestres dels abrics de la Sarga. In: Hernndez,M.S., Segura, J.M. (Eds.), La Sarga Arte Rupestre y Territorio. Ayuntamiento deAlcoi, Alcoi, pp. 147170.

Mart, B., Pascual, V., Gallart, M. D., Lpez, P., Prez, M., Acua, J. D., Robles, F., 1980.Cova de lOr (Beniarrs, Alicante), vol. II. Trabajos Varios del S.I.P., 65 Diputacinde Valencia, Valencia.

Martnez Garca, J., 2004. Pintura rupestre esquemtica: una aproximacin almodelo antiguo (neolitizacin) en el Sur de la Pennsula Ibrica. LaProblemtica del Neoltico en Andaluca. II Simposio de Prehistoria Cueva deNerja, pp. 102114.

McClure, S.B., 2004. Cultural Transmission of Ceramic Technology during theConsolidation of Agriculture in Valencia, Spain. Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

McClure, S.B., 2007. Gender, technology, and evolution: cultural inheritance theoryand prehistoric potters in Valencia, Spain. American Antiquity 72 (3), 485508.

McClure, S.B., Jochim, M.A., Barton, C.M., 2006.Human behavioral ecology, domesticanimals, and land use during the transition to agriculture in Valencia, easternSpain. In: Kennett, D.J., Winterhalder, B. (Eds.), Human Behavioral Ecology andthe Transition to Agriculture. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 197216.

McClure, S.B., Molina, Ll., in press. Cardial y la tecnologia ceramica del neoliticoantiguo en Valencia. IV Congreso del Neoltico en la Pennsula Ibrica, Alicante,

Noviembre 2006..

Molina, Ll., Garca Puchol, O., Garca Robles, M.R., 2003. Apuntes al marco crono-cultural del Arte Levantino: Neoltico vs Neolitizacin. Saguntum (PLAV) 35,5167.

Molina, Ll., Carrin, Y., Prez, M., 2006. Las ocupaciones del Aric de la Falguera encontexto. El papel de la gandera en las sociedades neolticas. In: Garca Puchol,O., Aura, J.E. (Eds.), El Abric de la Falguera (Alcoi, Alacant). 8000 aos deocupacin humana en la cabecera del ro de Alcoi. Diputacin de Alicante,Ayuntamiento de Alcoi. CAM, Alcoi, pp. 237251.

Molina, L.l., McClure, S.B., 2004. Canyoles Archaeological Survey Project. Resultadospreliminares. Recerques del Museu dAlcoi 13, 149169.

Orozco, T., 2000. Aprovisionamiento e Intercambio: Anlisis petrolgico del utillajepulimentado en el Prehistoria Reciente del Pas Valenciano. BritishArchaeological Reports, International Series. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Prez, M., 1980. La fauna de vertebrados. In: Mart, B., Pascual, V., Gallart, M.D.,Lpez, P., Prez, M., Acua, J.D., Robles, F. (Eds.), Cova de lOr (Beniarrs,Alicante), vol. II. Trabajos Varios del S.I.P., 65. Diputacin de Valencia, Valencia,pp. 193255.

Prez, M., 1999. La explotacin ganadera durante el III milenio a.C. en la PennsulaIbrica. Saguntum (PLAV) Extra 2, 95103.

Plog, S., Plog, F., Wait, S., 1978. Decision making in modern surveys. Advances inArchaeological Method and Theory 1, 383421.

Read, D.W., 1986. Sampling procedures for regional surveys: a problem ofrepresentativeness and effectiveness. Journal of Field Archaeology 13, 477491.

Rodrguez, A., Alonso, C., Velzquez, J., 1995. Fractales para la arqueologa: un nuevolenguaje. Trabajos de Prehistoria 52 (1), 1324.

Schlanger, S.H., 1992. Recognizing persistent places in Anasazi settlement systems.In: Rossignol, J., Wandsnider, L. (Eds.), Space, Time and ArchaeologicalLandscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 91112.

Schuhmacher, T.X., Weniger, G.-C., 1995. Continuidad i cambio. Problemas de laneolitizacin en el este de la Pennsula Ibrica. Trabajos de Prehistoria 52, 8397.

Skeates, R., 2003. Radiocarbon dating and interpretations of the MesolithicNeolithic transition in Italy. In: Ammerman, A.J., Biagi, P. (Eds.), The WideningHarvest. Archaeological Institute of America, Boston, pp. 157187.

Smith, B.D., 2001. Low-level food production. Journal of Archaeological Research 9,143.

Torregrosa, P., Galiana, M.F., 2001. El Arte Esquemtico del Levante Peninsular: unaaproximacin a su dimensin temporal. Millars XIV, 153198.

Vicent Garca, J.M., 1990. El Neoltico Transformaciones sociales y econmicas.Boletn de Antropologa Americana 24, 3161.

Vicent Garca, J.M., 1997. The island filter model revisited. In: Balmuth, M.S.,Gilman, A., Prados-Torreira, L. (Eds.), Encounters and Transformations. TheArchaeology of Iberia in Transition. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, pp. 113.

Villaverde, V., Aura, J.E., Barton, C.M., 1998. The Upper Palaeolithicin MediterraneanSpain: a review of current evidence. Journal of World Prehistory 12, 121198.

Wandsnider, L., 1998. Regional scale process and archaeological landscape units. In:

Ramenofsky, A.F., Steffen, A. (Eds.), Unit Issuesin Archaeology: Measuring Time,Space, and Material. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 87102.Zilho, J., 1993. The spread of agro-pastoral economies across Mediterranean

Europe: a view from the far west. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 6, 563.

Zilho, J., 1997. Maritime pioneer colonisation in the Early Neolithic of the westMediterranean. Testing the model against the evidence. Porocilo orazinskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXIV, 1942.

Zilho, J., 1998. A passagem do Mesoltico ao Neoltico na costa do Alentejo. RevistaPortuguesa de Arqueologia 1, 2744.

Zilho, J., 2000. From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in the Iberian Peninsula. In:Price, T.D. (Ed.), Europes First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 144182.

Zilho, J., 2001. Radiocarbon evidence for maritime pioneer colonization at theorigins of farming in west Mediterranean Europe. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 98, 1418014185.

Zilho, J., 2003. The Neolithic transition in Portugal and the role of demic diffusionin the spread of agriculture across West Mediterranean Europe. In: Ammerman,A.J., Biagi, P. (Eds.), The Widening Harvest. Archaeological Institute of America,

Boston, pp. 207223.


McClureetAl

Documents

Transcript of McClureetAl