sign in sign up
<<
Home , Megalith

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Journals of Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana

UDK 903’12/’15(46)"633/634" Documenta Praehistorica XXVIII

Re-thinking the - transition in the : a view from the West

Luiz Oosterbeek1 Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Landscape Management Department, Estrada da Serra, Tomar [email protected]

ABSTRACT – Paper focuses on Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Iberian Peninsula by critical re- view of avaliable concepts and models. The obvious diversity of archeological record is taken as a strating point. Transition in this perspective is not seen as uniform and sudden economic or demo- graphic change but as a slow political process, where different regional groups would have been forced to share the innovations while keeping their differences.

IZVLE∞EK – ∞lanek obravnava prehod iz mezolitika v neolitik na Iberskem polotoku s kriti≠nim pre- tresom obstoje≠ih modelov in konceptov. Izhodi∏≠e je o≠itna raznolikost arheolo∏kih zapisov. V tej perspektivi prehod ni hitra ekonomska in demografska sprememba, ampak po≠asen in asinhron po- liti≠ni proces, kjer razli≠ne regionalne skupine sprejemajo inovacije, a ob tem ohranjajo razlike.

KEY WORDS – Mesolithic; Neolithic; Iberia; “cardial model”; “shifting centres model”

To discuss the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Ibe- cial conflicts, political complexity and individual ini- ria implies, first, the defining of the concepts. By tiative. The archaeological record does not answer Neolithic, or Neolithisation, we understand a set of most of these aspects, but they remain essential, ne- tendencies towards an increasing intensification of vertheless. resources exploitation, demographic growth, com- plexity of economic relations, social differentiation, In this sense, the “Neolithic” begins in the late “Me- technological improvement and the generation of a solithic”, the transition period. The evidence for this new ideology. It was not inevitable, however, and early stage in Iberia includes (see Oosterbeek 1994): the main question is not how it occurred (even if this is a basic assessment), but why it occurred. In ❶ the Muge-Cocina sequence, spanning the 7th, 6th this process, one must not avoid the fact that it im- and part of the 5th millennia2. This is the “geomet- plied not only economic or demographic growth, ric” Mesolithic tradition. In the top layers of the but, primarily for the groups that were invol- of La Cocina (Dos Aguas) and the Cabeço da ved in it, it meant more work and increasing aliena- Arruda shell (Muge), sherds of re- tion. Therefore, it was also a political process. And, late to an evolved stage of the Neolithic; using Braudel’s (1972) notions, if the long-term is measured by the preceding infrastructure variables, ❷ the Mallaetes sequence, not represented in Portu- the short-term, decisive changes paid tribute to so- gal, and dominated by a bladelets . Some

1 Director of Landscape Management Department and Professor of at the Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Estrada da Serra, P-2300 TOMAR. Email: [email protected] 2 The chronology discussed always refers to calendar years BC, based on termoluminescense or calibrated radiocarbon dates.

75 Luiz Oosterbeek authors relate it to a second Neolithic origin, with- and 1892 (the Almerian culture, after the site of El out cardial impressed pottery; Garcel), N. Delgado in 1884 (Cave of ), N. Åberg in 1921 or Cartaillac in 1886, Bosch-Gimpera ❸ the macrolithic Mesolithic, divided into different (1932) made the first synthesis, defining four “cul- groups of unclear chronology (Asturian, Mirian, An- tures”: the Almerian, the group (with two sub- corian or Languedocian). These groups do not over- groups, from and Estremadura), the Por- lap in space with the microlithic Mesolithic, but they tuguese (megalithic) and the Pirinean. Further deve- have no clear relation with the earliest Neolithic as- lopments by J. Martinez Santa Olalla (1941) estab- semblages. Two facts must be mentioned: the pres- lished the first links with Africa: the Spanish-Mauri- ence of pottery in macrolithic sites in Alentejo (Xe- tanian Neolithic (including the caves), and the Ibe- rez de Baixo) and the Tagus valley (e.g. Amoreira, rian-Saharan Neolithic (including the Almerian). La- Monte Pedregoso), and the occurrence of macro- ter, a similar approach was defined by J. San Valero in megalithic assemblages, which could indi- Aparisi (1948). cate some sort of relationship (even if the are basically 5th to 3rd millenium phenomena); The excavation and publication of the cave of Are- ne Candide in Liguria became a turning point for ❹ the sites with cardial impressed pottery. These the study of the Iberian Neolithic. The author, B. are associated with other Neolithic improvements, Brea (1950), defined for the first time a model of and dominate some coastal areas such as the Spa- Neolithic expansion from the east. According to him, nish , part of the , the Mondego estu- the Neolithic had a fast and “Hellenistic” expan- ary, with a few inland penetrations (Nabão and Al- sion, suggesting a migration of people from the east monda valleys, and an unclear site in the Alentejo), affecting coastal areas. The cardial pottery had orien- and minor occurrences associated with other types tal origins in and Silicia (Tell Iudeideh, Ras of pottery in other coastal areas (the Alentejo coast, Shamra, Mercin, Chagar Bazar, Arpachiyah, Ni- the Sado estuary, Andalusia, north Africa). This nive), Thessally (pre-), Greece (Choirospilia), spread has been traditionally related to the west Me- Corfu (Afiona), Montenegro (Crvena Stijena), Herze- diterranean Neolithic with cardial impressed pot- govina (Zelena Pe≤ina), crossing Italy and reaching tery, but has also suggested speculation over the re- , Liguria (Arma dell’ Aguila, Arene Candide), lation with the Mesolithic groups in Iberia, namely Southern , Catalonia and the Spanish Levant. the Muge shell-; The penetration inland was thought to be slow, this group hardly reaching the south and west of Iberia, ❺ the Neolithic sites without cardial impressed pot- with few exceptions. The strong Mesolithic tradition tery that have a more variable distribution, prima- of sites like Coppa Navigata in Italy would indicate rily in the highlands in some areas (Andalusia), or local groups’ interactions with Neolithic sailors. coastal in others (Alentejo, Portuguese Estremadura), with some inland penetrations (like the Nabão val- This new approach would lead, in the late 1950’s ley). This group includes very old dated sites in An- and early 1960’s, to the definition of several coloni- dalucia (e.g. Cueva de la Dehesilla), but also sites sation theories, from the early Neolithic to the Chal- that are clearly older then the cardial impressed colithic. Meanwhile, the research provided deep stra- group, and some that have no clear chronology (Rio tigraphies for the whole Neolithic process, in sites Maior, Alcobaça or Peniche); like Cueva de la Cariguela (Andalucia), Cova de l’Or (Alicante) or the Muge shell middens. Interest in ❻ the earliest megalithic assemblages. M. Heleno the problem of navigation in the Mediterranean re- (1956) identified and excavated a number of cistoid lated to the introduction of Neolithic innovations has chambers, with and polished stone, that been a subject for continuous research. The distribu- were considered the earliest phase of the megaliths tion of obsidian is, for the central and eastern Medi- by V. Leisner (1967). None of these sites has been terranean, a direct form of evidence. Such evidence properly published, still less dated. However, they does not exist for Iberia, and contacts by sea with could date back to the late 6th millennium, having a the Maghreb or other parts of the Mediterranean, mainly inland distribution (like the megaliths of the before the , remain hypothetical. For 5th millennium). instance, G. Camps (1982) used decorative patterns to stress that the presence of cardial pottery in the After the late 19th and early 20th centuries, attempts Maghreb (Achakar group, Idols Cave, El-Khril ca- to identify the Neolithic in Iberia by L. Siret in 1890 ves, Gar Cahal and Caf That el Gar), always coastal,

76 Re-thinking the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Iberian peninsula: a view from the West stands for contacts with Iberia, at an epicardial stage, J. Guilaine (1996) points to the fact that these sites likely with the Levant (and not Andalusia), whereas could be associated with an economy dependent on another group (Oran), would relate to Andalusia, exploiting marine resources. Economic data is still with impressed and grooved pottery, not cardial. limited, however, and an evaluation of these sites must still be based on other criteria. I believe that Regardless of the means of distribution, the diffusio- the very early Neolithic with cardial impressed pot- nist model dominated the 1960’s, and it remains tery reached the interior at a later stage, as may be one of the most widely accepted views. Among these, recognised in Alcobaça (and, one could add, Tomar the wave of advance model of Ammerman and Ca- or Torres Novas). A second phase of the Neolithic valli-Sforza (1971) is one of the most coherent. It would then include sites like the cave of Furninha measured those items in a chrono-geographical (Peniche), Bocas I (Rio Maior), Casa da Moura (Ce- frame, taking Jericho as the presumed original cen- sareda), the shell midden of Cabeço do Pez (Sado tre, and defining the west Mediterranean as an area estuary) or Lapa do Fumo (Sesimbra). This phase, dominated by impressed pottery that could be even combining heavy decorated pottery (impressed, so- older than itself. metimes with cardium, with incised, plastic decora- tion) would be parallel, in the 5th millennium, to From the late 1960’s on, following on the one hand early building, this one dominating the in- the new approaches to territorial analysis, and on land areas). Guilaine also notes strong relations be- the other, the papers of the New , name- tween this group and the Andalusian Neolithic, and ly C. Renfrew (1979) (even if concerning later peri- speculates on defining the origins of each of the ods), explanatory models of the Neolithic started to identified groups. All in all, Guilaine proposes a mo- be built with greater tribute to the interaction of all del for the western Mediterranean where each re- areas of human behaviour (technological, economic, gion integrates itself in the world of food producers social, ideological), with each other and with the en- by means of its own specific process, depending on vironment, while regional studies became a priority several variables (location, resources, soils potential, of research. the characteristics of the local Mesolithic, the ability of the groups to accept certain acquisitions, etc.), Not much is known about the environment in this even if this does not imply a multitude of original period. Following isolated studies, one may assume Neolithic focus. He interprets the persistence of li- that after a colder phase, the weather became war- thic traditions and the variability of pottery types mer and more humid. The sea level was higher than and decorative motifs as evidence for these regional it is today. The soils were covered by a forest of Pi- groups. In this sense, the similarities between diffe- nus spp. and Quercus spp. trees, with a rich fauna. rent groups in the French Midi, Andalusia or Portu- From the archaeological assemblages, it is known gal, throughout the whole Neolithic, would stand for that hunting was still of major importance in the a general evolutionary tendency, rather than for a early Neolithic (including for species such as red single phenomena. deer, wild pig, wild cat, lynx, etc.). The earliest Neo- lithic sites, like Cova de l’Or, indicate a dietary The problem of the origins of the Neolithic become change from proteins to carbon-hydrates. Some Neo- even more complex with the set of sites without car- lithic sites (Caldeirão, Or) indicate, from the start, dial that have been dated in the southeast from the full domestication, but others (Nerja) suggest ani- 7th and 6th millennia: Cova Fosca de Castellón, Ab- mals were domesticated before plants, and all sorts rigo Grande 2 del Barranco de los Grajos, (Murcia), of possibilities may be found. Cueva del Nacimiento (Jaen), Cueva de Nerja (Ma- laga), Cueva Chica de Santiago (Sevilla), Cueva de The vast majority of early Neolithic sites studied with la Dehesilla (Cadiz). They have incised, corded and stratigraphy are caves. In they are in most grooved pottery, sometimes painted (almagre, ocre, cases assemblages, although habitats are magnesium), but rarely impressed (and never car- known from open-air sites (Vale Vistoso, Vale Pin- dial), blades, bladelets, rare geometric microliths, a cel, Salema, Forno da Cal, Várzea do Lírio, etc.). poor bone industry, few ornaments, and domestica- What is known indicates a pattern of estuary or ri- tions associated with hunting and gathering. These verine groups of round or oval , without natu- dates, still controversial for some archaeologists, but ral or artificial defences, corresponding to a still mo- which are tending to be more and more coherent bile settlement (seasonal?), unlike the east Mediter- and numerous, prove that this early Neolithic is, at ranean villages. least, as old as the cardial group. It should be noted

77 Luiz Oosterbeek that these sites, although broadly coastal, are actu- After Gilman’s (1975) research, the excavation of Ma ally in the highlands (Sierras). This is also the case Izza in Atlantic Morocco, provided an interesting for most early Neolithic sites without cardial pottery stratigraphy. There, Berthélémy and Accart (1987) in Portugal. recognized an early Neolithic layer with cardial im- pressed and incised pottery, under another layer A discussion of the origins of the Neolithic in Iberia with . This is curious for two reasons: can not ignore the evidence from north Africa, first, it is an unsuspected area for the occurrence of which lies 13 km south of Gibraltar. A. Gilman cardial pottery; second, the impressed and incised (1974) identified two major groups that could relate ware precedes the grooved ware. Also, both layers to Iberian assemblages: Oran and northern Moroc- are pit , dug and reinforced with stones. This co. In Oran, early Neolithic site with an assembla- pattern is not very different from what is to be ob- ges close to the Iberian early Neolithic, with impres- served in many Iberian regions in the 5th millenni- sed non cardial ware, provided radiocarbon dates um, and makes us rethink the problems of stratigra- from the mid 6th millennium (Cimitière des Escar- phic interpretation of El-Khril, Gar Cahal and other gots) and the 5th millennium (Deux Mamelles), whe- Northern Morocco sites. reas in a related inland site (Columnata) two 5th millennium dates have been obtained. There are no According to J. Lewthwaite (1986), the transition to absolute dates in northern Morocco, but there is a the Neolithic in the west Mediterranean was slow, stratigraphic layer with cardial impressed and gro- due to a system where seasonal crops became com- oved ware (Achakar, Caf Taht el Gar) (Jodin 1959). plementary to hunting and gathering, together with Stressing the problems of dating and the stratigra- sheep and goat-herding. The village mode of social phic reliability of the Moroccan sites, Gilman also organisation was not adopted, and macro-tools con- underlines the difference of decoration patterns be- tinued to be used. This “contradiction” could be a re- tween these and Andalusia: the difference of compo- sult of animals, as as pottery, being prestige sition and virtual absence of the cardial in Andalu- goods. Also, the islands may have worked as a filter sia, the dominance of rocker-stamping in Tangier of the eastern Neolithic package, due to the restric- (rare in Andalusia), the dominance of linear impres- tions of the insular landscapes and environment. sions in Andalusia (rare in northern Morocco), and the much later occurrence of the grooved ware in Considering an older Neolithic in the Italian penin- Iberia. Therefore, apart from an eventually vague re- sula, Lewthwaite proposed three processes of diffu- lation to the impressed ware of the west Mediter- sion that could have taken place. The first is the tra- ranean, no clear links could be established with Ibe- ditionally accepted European coastal one, bearing a ria. major Cardial/Ligurian influence. The second would reach Iberia following an open sea voyage, for which The Iberian Neolithic, at least in the southeast, evidence is found at early Neolithic island sites. The would have been associated with works. Neolithic package in these islands would be adapted Gilman underlines the absence of a significant dif- to the natural conditions of the islands, namely steep ference in the early Neolithic assemblages in diffe- mountains, thus being filtered to the profit of pasto- rent areas of (dry and humid), that suggests ralism over agriculture, this filtered version being that in dry areas, the lack of water was balanced by that which reached southern Iberia. A third model “regadio” (irrigation), which became very important implies a north African diffusion from Italy to Tuni- in the social process. sia (which does not imply more than 70 km by di- rect sea route), passing through Morocco before rea- The approach by G. Camps (1982) uses basically ching Iberia or not. These alternative routes would the same evidence as Gilman, but draws different explain the existence of two types of the earliest conclusions. He considers the differences of cardial Neolithic in Iberia. and impressed ware from northern Africa and Ibe- ria within the variability of the epicardial complex, Following similar reasoning to Guilaine’s, but inte- although agreeing with a greater proximity to the grating the newly dated sites, M. Pellicer and P. Aco- Levant than to Andalusia. However, he maintains sta (1982), discussed the possibility of different na- that the Oran pottery belongs to a different tradition tures for the two main early Neolithic groups: the of incised, impressed and grooved ware, with good Cardial (from the Levant) and the Andalusian (from typological and chronological relations with Andalu- Dehesilla, Mujer, etc.). The former could be a direct sia (Murciélagos, Nerja) in the 6th millennium. result of the impact of the Southern France cardial,

78 Re-thinking the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Iberian peninsula: a view from the West whereas the later could be of local origin to a grea- have the occupation of the middens, the lithic varia- ter extent, becoming powerful enough to influence bility indicating the specialization of the sites. The other areas of Iberia, such as the Spanish Meseta or last phase would be similar to model A, thus conside- Portugal. ring the megaliths as a result of coastal population growth and subsequent occupation of the interior. In this discussion, the radiocarbon dates tend to be a major concern of many scholars. Based on the re- R. Chapman (1988) discussed these views, suggest- cent studies of important sites from the Levant, such ing the possibility that the major population concen- as Cova de l’Or, Cueva de la Sarsa and Cova de les tration was already to be found inland (Alentejo), Cendres, M. Oliver (1987) considers two stages in due to the problems of diseases and flooding in the the Early Neolithic, a cardial and an epicardial, the estuaries. He refused to see long-distance interaction latter being different from the French, and characte- as a major stimulus for complexity, as well as the im- rized by the rarity of the cardial impressed pottery, plication that similar structures in distant areas are and a general decay in the quality of the fabric and indicative of that interaction. decoration of . Both stages would date from the 6th millennium, this epicardial also correspon- Pushing further the approach to regional variability, ding to the early Neolithic layers of sites from the S. Jorge (1990) pointed out that the fitness of some Levant and Andalusia (thus refuting the 7th millen- Mesolithic groups prevented Neolithic improvements nium dates obtained for some of those sites). until the late 5th millennium. It would be the case of the shell-middens of the Tagus and Sado estuaries, After their research on the early Neolithic sites of Si- which relied on the marine and terrestrial resources. nes in the Alentejo coast (Vale Pincel I, Salema, Vale This author suggests differences within this broad Vistoso), Tavares da Silva and J. Soares (1987) iden- strategy between the two areas, the Muge sequence, tified two Early Neolithic layers that they consider including large mounds that indicate several genera- both excluded from the cardial network, and relates tions of occupation (apart from the visual impact of to the Andalusian Neolithic, namely Cueva de los these middens), with a richer assemblage of lithics Murcielagos. While agreeing with Marti, they consi- (microliths of Mediterranean type, including strong der also the possibility of two separate Neolithic pro- regional variants), antler and bone, whereas the cesses with a similar chronology, the non-cardial be- Sado middens are smaller and without typical re- ing of major importance in Andalusia and Portugal. gional artifacts. The marginal occurrence of pottery in the top of the Muge sequence also would contra- These assemblages, together with the Sado estuary, dict the Sado acceptance of this item and point to a have been the basis for J. Arnaud (1982) proposing greater persistence of the Mesolithic in the Tagus two alternative models. Model A considers a first valley. phase of the Mesolithic population in the mid-Sado valley, with episodic incursions to the coast or the I would note, at this stage, that the importance of interior in critical periods. A second phase would marine resources was not merely coastal, as the correspond to a mobile frontier between these Me- cave Mesolithic shell-midden of Lapa do Papagaio solithic people and the newly arriving , (near Fátima) proves. This site also has the impor- which would nevertheless retain fishing and hunt- tance of drawing our attention to the complexity of ing as the main subsistence activity. Sedentism and exchange routes between coastal and inland areas, agriculture would generate population growth, the as early as the 9th millennium, since it is a huge cave occupation of the best agricultural lands (without shell midden, 40 km inland, at the top of the lime- the abandonment of others) and the gradual disap- stone massif: clearly a site, indicating a very pearance of the mobile frontier. The final phase complex behaviour pattern. would correspond to the emergence of proto-mega- liths (). Model B considers for the first phase a Entering the debate concerning the origin of the seasonality of occupation of coastal (Autumn-Win- Neolithic, S. Jorge (1990) stressed the distinction be- ter) and mid-Sado (Spring-Summer) sites, followed tween the Alentejo sites, with rare cardial pottery, by the arrival of Neolithic innovations, when the and those at Mondego, Estremadura and Ribatejo, shell-middens would still have been seasonally occu- much closer to the cardial of the Spanish Levant. pied by part of the population, the majority of which This picture suggests “influences” from different Ibe- would settle in the coast, combining hunting, fishing rian groups over the first Neolithic populations of and farming (Vale Pincel 1, etc.). Phase 3 would still Portugal (that are also contemporary with the Meso-

79 Luiz Oosterbeek lithic shell middens, and without stratigraphic con- Neolithic assemblages, even if they differ in its in- tinuity). Following Zvelebil’s and Rowley-Conwy’s terpretation. From our point of view, it is clear that model (1986), S. Jorge considered that the second there is not a moment of simultaneous discontinuity half of the 6th millennium could correspond to the (as the synchronic sequences of the shell middens availability phase, with a network of information and early Neolithic sites indicate), but the introduc- uniting both Mesolithic and Neolithic populations. tion of a new socio-economic structure, even if mar- Only in the late 6th and in the 5th millennium would ginal at first, which marks a change in the generic one observe the substitution phase, with less coastal process. The different regional groups would have and increasingly inland sites (towards soils with hi- been forced to share the innovations. gher arable potential), the occurrence of Neolithic items in the Sado and Muge shell-middens (pottery This, however, is still a period of economic variabi- and lithics, as in the layer III of Cocina), new arte- lity, social continuity and political dispersion. It only fact types (retouched blades and bladelets, an increa- announces a new cycle of increased differentiation sing number of polished stone tools, incised and pla- which becomes clear in the 4th millennium. stic pottery decoration, and domestic animals. From this process would eventually emerge, in the 5th mil- The two basic perspectives are conditioned by vari- lennium, the first proto-megaliths. ous theoretical plans. On the one hand there are au- thors who understand the Neolithic process pre-emi- As I have mentioned, apart from details, there are nently as a phenomenon of alogeneous origin, and the two basic theories explaining the origins of the for whom the Neolithic and Mesolithic concepts are, Neolithic in Iberia. Whereas some, although interes- fundamentally, diverse. Following the pioneer work ted in the local and region variability, stress links of J. Guilaine and V. Ferreira (1970), the main defen- with the Mediterranean, others take this variability der of this perspective, which we will call the “car- as a starting point. dial model”, is J. Zilhão (1992).

It is obvious the basic problem, on which everyone The coherence and simplicity of the diffusionist per- agrees, is the lack of evidence to unscramble what J. spective is not to be found in the other perspective. Lewthwaite (1952) called the “cardial disorder”. If In fact, the Mesolithic and the Neolithic, especially in one removes from the record all sites that did not their long-lasting coexistence, may be conceived as have good stratigraphies or were badly excavated, fundamentally associated, or as a single and integra- one might end up with very few, or close to none. ted complex system. Various models may derive Tomar provided probably the best Portuguese se- from this perspective, expressed in the defence of quence for the early Neolithic, and I think its study the originality of some contexts, or in the search for casts new light on the issues considered above. polygenetic origins for Neolithisation, or still in the refusal to accept the cardial ceramics or any other One aspect seems to be accepted by all the models item (including the domesticated fauna and flora) as mentioned: the extreme variability associated with a major indicator. elements of resemblance. Everything points to a mo- saic of groups that, although keeping their differen- The defenders of the first perspective try to empha- ces, do share a similar path. C. Runnels and T. H. sise the clarity of their statements, disdaining the ap- van Andel (1982) proposed the existence of an in- parent “confusion” of the remaining. They say that formation network born of the need for information in science we proceed with univocal statements, and about unstable weather, different resources, etc., that their proposals are supported by irrefutable do- which generated a centre/periphery relation in the cuments. Furthermore, they try to emphasise the ar- . In fact, this unity/diversity dialectic is al- chaeo-graphic weakness of their “opponents” (Gui- ready present in the Mesolithic, in the relations of laine 1996; Zilhão 1997). Moita do Sebastião and Cocina I, and the affiliation of the Cocina sequence with the Sauveterrian and As defenders of a dialectical and plural view of the Castelnovian complexes. Neolithic process, with this contribution we want to emphasise two essential aspects: the archaeo-graphic It has been discussed to what extent the early Neo- basis of the cardial model can not be understood in lithic represents a major break with the Mesolithic. a univocal way; and theoretical simplicity does not As we have mentioned, scholars have recognised the allow an explanation of important “irregularities” in importance of the Mesolithic tradition in the early the archaeological record.

80 Re-thinking the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Iberian peninsula: a view from the West

Let us take, for example, the problem of the Mesoli- cardial early Neolithic of the Gruta do Caldeirão thic/Neolithic transition in Western Iberia, and parti- (Oosterbeek 1993)), or like Set (conjunto) 4 of Bu- cularly in the Alto Ribatejo. The “Alto Ribatejo” (North raca Grande (excluded because of not have decora- Ribatejo) is a region of central Portugal, characteri- ted ceramics), while dates without closed stratigra- sed by the merging of three different geo-morpholo- phic contexts are included, like those from the Algar gical units: the limestone massif of Estremadura, to do Picoto or from the Casa da Moura. This is, as the west; the Miocene basin of the Tagus, with its one may notice, a clear option: preferring the model quaternary terraces, to the south; and the granites rather than the “pressure” of the archaeological re- and schists from the “Beiras”, to the east (which will cord; valorising evidence according to the pre-defi- form the Spanish “Mezeta”). It is a region that finds ned model. its unity in the diversity of landscapes and natural and cultural resources, and through the connection In the same work from 1995 the conclusion is re- of the main rivers (the Tagus, Zêzere and Nabão) peated: the absence of Mesolithic sites similar to the that constitute a sort of skeleton of the region. Muge industries (except for Forno da Telha, in Rio Maior) would confirm the secondary character of Several sites (see Cruz 1992; 1993; 1995; 1997) re- the human settlement in Estremadura during that lated to the Mesolithic and early Neolithic have been period. It is that the authors indicate, regarding excavated in this region: Povoado da Amoreira (Me- open-air sites, the predominance of quartz and quar- solithic/Early Neolithic), the open-air site of Santa tzite industries over flint and chert, without establi- Cita (Mesolithic) (Bicho 1997.10–29), several caves shing, nevertheless, their correlation, which I consi- with early Neolithic burials (Gruta do Caldeirão, der more logical, with pre-Neolithic industries of an Gruta de Nossa Senhora das Lapas, Gruta do Al- identical nature. monda) and an early passage-grave (Anta 1 de Val da Laje) (Drewett et al. 1992). A similar approach, with the recurrent use of the no- tion of a hiatus between the Epipaleolithic and the The Gruta do Caldeirão was the subject of a very early Neolithic, is made by J. Guilaine, who was, in detailed and well presented monograph in 1992 by fact, the first author responsible for the modern in- J. Zilhão, who has built from it a Portuguese version troduction to Portugal of the “cardial paradigm” (Gui- of the “cardial model” (Zilhão 1992). laine and Ferreira 1970). In his recent revision of the Neolithic process in the western Mediterranean, In short, the earliest Neolithisation of western Iberia Guilaine (1996) argues against “very low Epipaleoli- would have taken place in Estremadura, as a new co- thic dates” and “very high dates for ceramic con- lonisation of a type of ecosystem abandoned by peo- texts”, suggesting a hiatus in the sequences of Ara- ple since the end of the upper Palaeolithic, by groups guina Senola ( Corsica), of Corbeddu (), already adapted to the new agricultural and pasto- or of several, Andaluzia sites, while subscribing to ral economic model. The Estremadura, uninhabited, Zilhão’s model of Portugal. would have been available for this change and would have constituted a “cardial” enclave, around It happens that the cardial model, presented in vari- which the Mesolithic shell middens would persist. ous publications, is an excellent example of an in- Different ecosystems would correspond to various duction exercise, whose limited overtaking we dis- economic models, accepting the Neolithic process as cussed elsewhere. On a pure theoretical-methodolo- a colonisation beginning in the littoral. gical basis, in its extreme version as offered by J. Zil- hão, it is a model that argues from a theory based In this model, the key element is the evaluation that on one site (the Gruta do Caldeirão, in spite of is made of other sites attributed to the early Neoli- mentioning others), against theories that are land- thic in the Iberian Peninsula. J. Zilhão systematically scape and multi-site based. Alternatively, J. Guilaine questions the validity of the interpretation of strati- bases his reasoning on a selection of “key sites”, but graphic sequences in various Neolithic places in the procedure is, in the end, the same. In order to Spain, and continually valorises the contexts with do so, it questions all the remaining sites that are cardial ceramics, particularly the “Cova de l’Or”. Ac- then grouped into two categories: those that, al- tually, this methodology, extends to several sites in though even if without a clear stratigraphy, may be Portugal; this is how J. Zilhão and A. Carvalho (1998), accepted (those that integrate, in the collection, car- initially leave out sites like Nossa Senhora das La- dial ware), and those that are considered as inaccu- pas (with a dated context very similar to the non- rately excavated (those that, although having early

81 Luiz Oosterbeek absolute dates, or alleged stratigraphic sequences, we can ask about the Neolithic process? The obvi- do not have cardial ware). ous answer that the defenders of the cardial model support, as well as many of their opponents, is the What has been discussed requires a return to the question, “What is the best way of archaeographi- question of the Neolithic process model. Should we cally testing the various hypothesis that are, or will accept the priority of the diffusion mechanism, or of be, generated concerning Neolithization?” But the the evolutionary mechanism? I think this is a false best answer is: “The best way is to test them outside question. I previously defended (Oosterbeek 1994) the archeographic field”. So, the best question is not a multi-linear evolution model with what I called the obvious one, but the other, that we can only for- “shifting centres”. It is, in a certain way, the same mulate correctly, as we are building the answers, idea that V. Garcia (1997) proposes, after the no- which is, by redefining the truth criteria. tion of reciprocity between groups, by suggesting a Neolithic “capillarity” process, or from what we can From this we infer that the problem of the Neolithic deduce, although for a more recent period, from the process is obviously not an archaeology problem, study on the distribution of jadeite polished in it is a prehistory problem. The basic epistemologi- (Pétrequin et al. 1998). The most recent data, cal error of the cardial models occurs from trying to again, makes it difficult to separate, chronologically, answer in the archaeological field a problem that the Early Neolithic (except for the pre-cardial layers) has little to do with it. Inevitably, it develops a and even Middle Neolithic occupations. There is a strange relation with the archaeological record, and difference in material culture, but there is a super- produces a hybrid in the strict sense of the word: imposition of dates, and there are no arguments even if occasionally endowed of internal coherence strong enough to make the option in favour of a (which, as we have seen, is not always the case), it chronological, rather than geographical or “cultural” is incapable of breeding, and pernicious for the de- differentiation. The choice of identifying a “first stage” velopment of knowledge. Hence, it is in the prehi- of the Neolithic process, grouping all this evidence, storic field that V. Garcia (1997) explains the Cova suggested by A. R. Cruz (1997), still seems, from an de l’Or as a social storage place, in an argument that archaeological point of view, the most cautious. we could also apply to the Gruta do Caldeirão. In the so-called “Early Neolithic” of Iberia, the absence The Neolithic process must have been a process of villages, in association with exogamic practices, without sudden discontinuities, marked by many in- has at least two elements of proof: in the archaeo- ter-group articulation mechanisms, sharing a general graphic plan there is no evidence for the first; in the tendency, but nevertheless without any of the ele- biological plan, the reproductive nexus would im- ments of the so-called Neolithic package being indi- pose the existence of the practices derived from the spensable; a process in which the novelties are accep- second assumption. Consequently, we can revise cer- ted by some groups (as V. Garcia 1997 suggests), or tain emblematic sites of the Neolithic process, such socially imposed in some cases. In fact, when read- as Gruta do Caldeirão, or Cova de l’Or, and some ing J. Guilaine’s balance once again (1996), what artefacts, like the cardial ceramics or bracelets made seems to stand out is that the cardial model is limi- of Glycymeris glycymeris, as a further advance in ted to two areas (the French Midi and Valencia) and, the anthropisation of the landscape, similar to above all, the fact that in the insular and southern art. The absence of the village model, on the other contexts there are, frequently, very early dates for hand, is the strongest argument against the idea of Neolithic contexts without cardial (!). However, it oc- a rapid and finished Neolithic period. Contrarily to curs that the type of model we are suggesting is not other elements of the “package”, like breeding easy to test in archaeology. Ultimately, it is so dif- or ceramics, agriculture brought about a dramatic fuse, that archaeological evidence that could con- break in the management of the communities’ time. firm or invalidate it will never be found. Is this a By tying them to the soil, it ordered and gave rhythm useless model, then? No! It simply belongs to prehi- to people’s behaviour, contributing to the alienation storic and not to archaeological research. It is refu- of a part of the community. This process certainly table and possible to test in the logical and palaeo- took a long time, and had to cope with much oppo- anthropological comparison domain, and not in the sition. contextual description domain.

We are again in a paradoxical situation which recalls Markosian’s (1996) text: what is the best question

82 Re-thinking the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Iberian peninsula: a view from the West

REFERENCES ABERG N. 1921. La civilisation énéolithique dans la tígios de ocupação humana pré-histórica. Lisboa, Péninsule Ibérique. Uppsala. dissertação de Doutoramento (dact.).

AMMERMAN A. J., CAVALLI-SFORZA L. 1971. Measu- CRUZ A. R. 1995. Amoreira:trabalhos de emergên- ring the rate of spread of Early Neolithic farming in cia no IP6. TECHNE–Revista da Arqueojovem, nº1: Europe. Man. 6: 674–688. 28–37.

ARNAUD J. M. 1982. Le Neolithique ancien et le pro- 1997. Vale do Nabão. Do Neolítico à Idade do cessus de Neolithisation au Portugal. Le Néolithioque Bronze, Tomar, CEIPHAR, col. ARKEOS, vol. 2. Ancien Méditérranéen – Actes du Colloque Interna- tional de préhistoire. Montpellier, Éd. du C.N.R.S. DELGADO J. F. N. 1884. La grotte de Furninha à Peni- che. Congrès International d'Anthropologie et d'Ar- BERNABÓ BREA L. 1950. Il neolítico a ceramiche im- chéologie Préhistoriques à Lisbonne, 1880. Lisboa. presse e la sua difussione nel Mediterraneo. Rivista di Studi Ligure, vol. XVI(1-3): 25–36. DREWETT P., OOSTERBEEK L., CRUZ A. R., FÉLIX P. 1992. Anta 1 de Val da Laje 1989/90 – The excava- BERTHÉLÉMY A., ACCART R. 1987. Ma Izza, site néo- tion of a at Tomar (Portugal). Bulletin lithique marocain. Bulletin de la Société Préhistori- of the Institute of Archaeology London. que Française, vol. 84: 75–82. GILMAN A. 1974. Neolithic of Northwest Africa. Anti- BICHO N. F. 1997. A Escavação de Emergência do Sí- quity, vol. 48: 273–282. tio Paleolítico de Santa Cita/Tomar. Em busca do passado, 1994–1997: 10–29. 1975. A late Prehistory of Tangier, Morocco. Ame- rican School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin. Pea- BOSCH-GIMPERA P. 1932. Etnologia de la Península body Museum. Ibérica. Barcelona. GRIMALDI S. P. R., CRUZ A. R., OOSTERBEEK L. 1999. BRAUDEL F. 1972. The Mediterranean and the Medi- A geo-archaeological interpretation of some “Langue- terranean World in the age of Philip II. London, Col- docian” lithic collections of the Alto Ribatejo (Cen- lins. tral Portugal). In A. R. Cruz, S. Miliken, L. Oosterbeek, Peretto C. (eds.), Human Population Origins in the CAMPS G. 1982. Les relations entre l'Europe et l'Af- Circum-Mediterranean Area: Adaptation of the Hun- rique du Nord pendant le Néolithique et le Chalco- ter-Gatherer groups to environmental Modificati- lithique. Travaux du LAPMO – 1982. ons, série ARKEOS, vol. 5: 231–242.

CARTAILHAC É. 1886. Les âges préhistoriques de GUILAINE J. (1996), La Neolithisation de la Méditér- l'Espagne et du Portugal. Paris. ranée Occidentale. In R. G. Cremonesi, J. Guilaine, J. L’Helgouac’h (eds.), The Neolithic in the Near East CARVALHO A. F. 1998. O Abrigo da Pena d’Água (Re- and Europe, Forlé, XIII International Congress of xaldia, Torres Novas): resultados dos trabalhos de Prehistoric and Protohistpric Sciences: 53–68. 1992–1997. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, vol. 1(2): 39–72. GUILAINE J. and FERREIRA O. da V. 1970. Le Néolithi- que ancien au Portugal. Bulletin de la Société Pré- CHAPMAN J. 1988. From ‘space’ to ‘place’: a model of historique Française, vol. 67: 304–322. dispersed settlement and Neolithic society. C. P. T. Burgess C. Mordent, M. Maddison. Enclosures and de- HELENO M. 1956. Um quarto de século de investiga- fenses in the Neolithic of . Oxford, ção arqueológica. O Arqueologo Portugues, vol. 3 B.A.R. -International Series. (Nova Série): 221–237.

CRUZ A. J. C. da 1992. Análise geoquímica da coluna JODIN A. 1959. Les Grottes d'El Khril Achakar (Pro- de amostragem D (camadas A/B/C–Eb) da Gruta do vince de Tanger). Bulletin d'Archéologie Marocaine, Caldeirão. In Zilhão J. (ed.), Gruta do Caldeirão. O vol. 3: 249–313. Neolítico Antigo: 203–214. JORGE S. O. 1990. Dos Últimos Caçadores-Recolecto- 1993. Estudo Geoquìmico de Preenchimentos Se- res aos Primeiros Produtores de Alimentos. J. Alar- dimentares de Grutas da Estremadura com ves-

83 Luiz Oosterbeek cão. Portugal das Origens À Romanização. Lisboa, Pre- SAN VALERO APARISI J. 1948. La península Hispá- sença. nica en el Mundo Neolítico. Madrid, Seminário de História Primitiva del Hombre. LEISNER V. 1967. Die Verschiedenen Phasen des Neo- lithikums in Portugal. J. B. Wolters. Palaeohistoria, SILVA C. T., SOARES J. 1987. Les Communautés du vol. XII. Neólithique Ancien dans le Sud du Portugal. Pre- mières Communautés Payannes en Méditerranée Oc- LEWTHWAITE J. 1986. The transition to food produc- cidentale. Paris, Éditions du C.N.R.S. tion: a Mediterranean perspective. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in Transition. Mesolithic Societies of Tem- SIRET L. 1890. Las primeras edades del metal en el perate Eurasia and their transition to farming. S.E. de España. Barcelona,

1992. Cardial disorder: ethnographic and archa- 1892. La fin de l'époque néolithique en Espagne. eological comparisons for problems in the early L'Anthropologie, vol. 4: prehistory of West Mediterranean. Le Néolithique Ancien Méditérranéen. Montpellier, Éditions du VICENT GARCIA J. M. 1997. The Island Filter Model CNRS. Revisited. In Miriam S. Balmuth, A. Gilman, L. Prados- Torreira (eds.), Encounters and Transformations. MARKOSIAN N. 1996. O paradoxo da pergunta. In Di- The archaeology of Iberia in transition: 1–13. sputatio, vol. 1 (http://purl.inesc.pt/pub/disputatio). ZILHÃO J. 1987. A Gruta do Caldeirão (Pedreira, To- MARTINEZ SANTA–OLALLA J. 1941. Esquema Palet- mar). Balanço de sete anos de escavaçóes arquelógi- nologico de la peninsula ibérica. Madrid. cas (1979–1985). Algar, vol. 1: 29–38.

MARTI OLIVER B. 1978. El Neolitico de la Peninsula 1992. Gruta do Caldeirão. O Neolítico Antigo. Lis- Ibérica; Estado actual de los problemas relativos al boa, IPPAR. proceso de neolitización y evolución de las culturas neoliticas. Sagvntvm, vol. 13: 59–98. 1993. Gruta do Caldeirão (Pedreira, Tomar). Re- latório técnico-científico dos trabalhos arqueoló- OOSTERBEEK L. 1985. Elementos para o estudo da Es- gicos realizados em 1983. Lisboa, dact. para o tratigrafia da Gruta do Cadaval (Tomar). Almadan, IPPAR. vol. 4/5: 7–12. 1997. Maritime pioneer colonisation in the early 1993. Nossa Senhora das Lapas – excavation of Neolithic of west Mediterranean. Testing the mo- Prehistoric cave burials in Central Portugal. Papers del against evidence. Poro≠ilo o raziskovanju pa- of the Institute of Archaeology, vol. 4: 49–62. leolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 24: 19–24. 1994. Echoes from the East: the western network. An insight to unequal and combined develop- ZILHÃO J., ANTÓNIO M. F. CARVALHO 1995. O Neo- ment, 7000–2000 BC. Londres, University of Lon- lítico do Maciço Calcário Estremenho. Crono-estrati- don, PhD. Dissertation (2 vols.). grafia e povoamento. I Congrés del Neolitic a la Pen- insula Ibérica, Gavá-Bellaterra, RUBRICATUM, nº1: PELLICER M., ACOSTA P. 1982. El Neolítico antiguo 659–71. en Andalucia Occidental. Le Néolithique Ancien Mé- ditérranéen. Montpellier, éditions du CNRS. ZILHÃO J., MAURÍCIO J., SOUTO P. 1991. A Arqueolo- gia da Gruta do Almonda (Torres Novas). Resultado PÉTREQUIN A.-M., PÉTREQUIN P., CASSEN S. 1998. La das escavações 1988–89. Actas das IVªs Jornadas Ar- función de las hachas en el Neolítico. Mundo Cien- queológicas. tífico Nº 195: 68–73. ZVELEBIL M., ROWLEY-CONWY P. 1986. Foragers and RENFREW C. 1979. Problems in European Prehis- farmers in . In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hun- tory. Edimburgh University Press. ters in Transition. Mesolithic Societies of tempe- rate Eurasia and their transition to farming. RUNNELS C., van ANDEL T. H. 1988. Trade and the origins of Agriculture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 1: 83– 109.

84