UDK 903’12/’15(46)“633/634” Documenta Praehistorica XXXI Archaeographic and conceptual advances in interpreting Iberian Neolithisation Luiz Oosterbeek Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Portugal loost@ipt.pt ABSTRACT – Prehistoric research has evolved, in the last decade, from a mere collaboration of disciplines into a new, trans-disciplinary, approach to Prehistoric contexts. New stable research teams, involving researchers with various scientific backgrounds (geology, botanic, anthropology, history, mathematics, geography, etc.) working together, have learned their diversified “vocabularies” and methodologies. As a main result, a more holistic approach to Prehistory is to be considered. Previous models of the Neolithic on the Atlantic side of Iberia were focused on material culture and strict economics (this being an important improvement concerning previous typological series). Current research became open to discussing the meaning of concepts like “food production”, “chiefdom” or “territory”. It also dropped the “Portuguese/Spanish” frontier that pervaded previous models (to the limited exception of some interpretations for megaliths). Finally, new and important data is now confirming that the “Cardial Neolithic” coastal spread was only one, and a minor element in the Neolithisation of the western seaboard. IZVLEEK – Prazgodovinske raziskave so v zadnjem desetletju na osnovi sodelovanja razlinih disciplin dosegle nov, transdisciplinarni pristop k prazgodovini. Strokovnjaki z razlinih znanstvenih podroij (geologija, botanika, antropologija, zgodovina, matematika, geografija itd.), zbrani v novih stalnih raziskovalnih ekipah, so se spoznali z razlinimi strokovnimi besednjaki in metodologijami. Glavni rezultat tega je bolj celosten pristop k prazgodovini. Prejnji modeli neolitika na atlantski strani Iberskega polotoka so se osredotoali na materialno kulturo in gospodarstvo v ozkem pomenu besede (kar je pomemben napredek v primerjavi zgolj s tipologijo). Dananje raziskave pa so odprte za razpravljanje o pomenu konceptov, kot so “proizvodnja hrane”, “poglavarstvo” in “teritorij”... Ravno tako smo presegli omejevanje z mejo Portugalska/panija, ki je vplivala na stareje modele (z del- no izjemo nekaterih interpretacij megalitov). In konno, novi in pomembni podatki sedaj potrjujejo, da je bilo razirjanje impresso cardium neolitika ob obali le eno in da je bil to le manj pomemben element pri neolitizaciji zahodne obale. KEY WORDS – Iberia; Neolithic; interpretative models Archaeology is a long term inquiry into the past, Behind the concepts of Neolithic or Neolithisation aimed at recognising major trends and paths. Even rests our notion that the shift towards food producthe increasingly detailed chronological methods do tion and increasing social complexity was a major not enable us to achieve the level of identifying glo-achievement from the point of human cultural evobal synchrony. But we are able to characterise terri-lution. This notion derives from a mere observation: tories, to identify migration routes, raw materials ex-in the framework of competition between hunter-gachange, and so forth. Archaeologists may look at ada-thering and agro-pastoralism, the latter prevailed, ptation mechanisms, both to environmental changes enabling demographic growth and wealth accumuand social dynamics. They do so approaching resour-lation. Regardless of the interpretative models (poces management or technological improvements, but pulation pressure or other), the fact remains that in also inferring social change. the long term, agro-pastoral models have proved to Luiz Oosterbeek have greater competitiveness. Agro-pastoralism was a step further towards globalisation, in rendering human behaviour more homogeneous (a process already acceleratiing within later Palaeolithic communities that engaged in specific symbiotic relations). This Neolithisation is often perceived as progress from the later hunter-gatherer economies towards food production, assuming that animal and cereal domestication and increased social complexity were recognised as an improvement in these societies. The Neolithic may hence be interpreted as a process of creating an artificial environment, an anthropic environment, filled in by selected species, burned prairies, and stone or wood constructions. Man acted in transforming more stable environments into quantitatively more productive, but less diverse and stable ones. As an example, deforestation enabled crop growth, but impoverished soils and accelerated erosion. One must pay attention, though, to troubling evidence in this process, which suggests it was not so homogeneous: not all species were domesticated at the same time and in the same way. The earliest evidence varies greatly from site to site. There is a great diversity of strategies: hunting, gathering, animal breeding, and cultivation evolve side by side for over two millennia in Iberia. Behind demographic growth there are signs, in some cases, of seasonal hunger. The earliest efforts to deal with the issue of the transition into a system once recognised as the origin of our own society were oriented towards the identification of its single, or main, origin. The focus could be on technological improvements (with Lubbock), major socio-economic changes (with Childe), adaptation economics (with Grahaeme Clarke and, later, Eric Higgs), population pressure, or other factors. But the goal was to identify the origin of the process, perceived as a single trend. To a large extent, the different theoretical approaches, from historic-culturalism onwards, “respected” this goal. Not surprisingly, Orientalism was the prevailing explanatory framework, since it provided a “one-sense” explanatory flow. The “wave of advance” model, established by Luca Cavalli-Sforza, is the most coherent expression of this approach: one centre, one process, one cause (even if the latter was subject to debate). We all know the arguments, taking the greater oriental antiquity of domestication, pottery (including cardial pottery) or population pressure, as well as the alleged absence, in the West, of the main domesticated species. It is curious to notice that the dawn of archaeology was, to a large extent, much open to contradictory explanations, namely when dealing with quaternary stratigraphies. But this was not the case of Neolithic studies, and I believe that a major shift only occurred in the last quarter of the 20th century, when a new generation of models, focused on the process of transition rather than its ultimate result, were developed. The “availability model”, by Marek Zvelebil and Peter Rowley-Conwy, and the “islands filter model”, by James Lewthwaite, were among these, and the most influential in Iberian studies. More than before, they addressed the issues of local dynamics and continuity, and drew attention to the differences in rhythm of the process: Mesolithic sedentary sites, hunting farmers, pastoralists without agriculture, seasonalism, and so on (Jorge 1998). This new generation of models was a response to the previous rather linear explanations, and provided more questions than answers. It was never a real alternative, but a questioning of earlier approaches. In Portugal, it dominated most of the prehistoric research developed in the last 30 years, but proved to be insufficient to break the previous linear approaches. There is a good reason for this: questioning rather than answering, these models became less popular in an expanding archaeology community, largely oriented to global heritage concerns, who felt the need to start their studies with a basic linear corpus of data associated with the old models. University demography, in this case, was the weapon used by “old timers”. In fact, it is significant that three decades of research did not produce a single adjourned manual of Portuguese Prehistory, even if several very important books have been published, namely a “New History of Portugal”, with an updated and interrogating Neolithic excellent section by Susana Jorge (1990). The manual, actually, would finally be offered by Joao Cardoso (2003), but following the old linear approaches. In fact, the data accumulated in the last 30 years, largely gathered following the interrogations suggested by the second generation models, now require, at last, some answers (Cruz 1997; Cruz and Oosterbeek 2000; 2001; 2002a; 2002b; Oosterbeek 1997; 1999). It is my opinion that only two possible avenues may be followed at present: to resume diffusionism (which offers a coherent explanatory framework) or to build an alternative theoretical background. Let me make a short excursion into the evidence, taking the North Ribatejo region as a case study. Archaeographic and conceptual advances in interpreting Iberian Neolithisation The North Ribatejo is an ecotonal region defined as the confluence towards the Tagus valley of three main geomorphological units. To the east, one finds ancient massif granitic, schist and gneiss formations. To the west are located Secondary limestone hills, and to the south, along the river banks, are recorded Tertiary and Quaternary detritic deposits. The middle Tagus basin, with its tributary main rivers (Ocreza, Eiras, Rio Frio, Moinhos, Zezere, Nabao/Atalaia and Almonda – all on its north bank) unites these different units. By the mid 7th to early 6th millennium BC, whereas in the lower, estuarine, part of the Tagus valley, Mesolithic groups were managing the landscape by building shell middens (as in the Muge area), other groups were still mainly mobile (sites of Amoreira, or Coalhos), leaving behind several sites dominated by macrolithic industries, mainly made on quartzite, associated with a flint bladelet industry. The latter is little more than residual evidence composed of broken tools, suggesting that these sites were temporary camps, and that once people left they would leave behind only the broken (flint) and coarse (quartzite) tools. A thorough geo-archaeological review of these sites enabled their clear allocation to the Holocene period (previously doubted by many authors). It is in these macrolithic contexts that pottery and polished stone axes first occur, in the transition to the 6th millennium (sites at Amoreira and, probably, Monte Pedregoso). One must consider that this chronology is equivalent to some Andalucian sites, and slightly older (but, in fact, partially overlapping) than the earliest dates for cardial contexts (Cabranosa and Caldeirao). The bulk of the lithic industry is coarse, dominated by direct abrupt percussion. The location of these settlements suggests an exploitation of riverside resources, including hunting and fishing (although no bone remains exist). In the second half of the 6th millennium this scenario does not seem to have changed, although a few kilometres to the west, in the limestone area, cardial burials have been excavated (Caldeirao and Pena d’Água). Although we do not have absolute dates for the building phase of the earliest megaliths in the region, they are associated with industries similar to the settlement of Amoreira: coarse pottery, heavy duty tools, scarce flint objects, and polished stone axes. The fabrics of the pottery, and the lithic raw materials, coincide with those found in Neolithic non-cardial sites in the Tagus valley, and indicate a strong divergence from the cardial contexts, which are dominated by good quality decorated pottery and flint objects. One may trace the origins of megaliths in the other margin of the Tagus valley, in the Alentejo region, and one may also find another link between the two regions: rock art. Thus, one observes that the earliest Neolithic is introduced in the region through two routes. One, occupying part of the limestone area, begins with burial cave contexts with cardial or epicardial pottery (the caves of Caldeirao, Nossa Senhora das Lapas, Almonda and, later, Cadaval, and even a cave as far North as the Alvaiázere mountains). Its probable origin is the Atlantic coast, where Neolithic sailors might have arrived from the Central Mediterranean, interacting with coastal Mesolithic population (Araújo 1998; Soares 1997; Soares and Silva 2001). The other route, which occupies the Eastern and Southern territories, is dominated by macrolithic contexts associated with plain coarse pottery. These are dominant in settlements like Amoreira (Tagus valley), but also in the foundation layers of passage graves (e.g. Val da Laje). Their origin is to be found to the southeast, in the Alentejo, suggesting an inland spread of the Neolithic (Calado 2001; Diniz 2001a; 2001b; Gonçalves 2001; 2002). This approach denies the dual vision of the Neolithic, opposing Neolithic incomers to epipalaeolithic indigenous people, a model long supported by Jean Guilaine (1996) and recently re-enacted by Joao Zilhao (1992). In the view of these authors, a more selective use of the available data, relying upon a minority of sites (e.g. the cave of Caldeirao in Portugal), suggests that the Neolithic package expanded to the West associated with cardial pottery, establishing, as J. Zilhao proposed for Iberia, “Neolithic enclaves”. But such an exercise leads to difficulties: if the Neolithic is associated with a coastal “cardial spread”, why do we find very old cardial ceramics inland? If shell-middens are the result of estuarine adaptation, why do we find them at great distances, like 800 metres a. s.l. and 40 km from the coast? If megaliths are part of a similar trend, why can’t we identify a sound structural chronology for them? And if they are not, why can we find so many convergences, both in architecture and art? Why can we see similar bone arrangements in caves and megaliths? Aren’t these signs of a web rather than of exclusive enclaves? At this point we may resume our first arguments. I have mentioned that the questioning of established “truth” has been successfully raised in the past 30 Luiz Oosterbeek years, but without leading to the construction of a data, but a mere fragment of it. One must build a global alternative interpretation model. This is, per-method to approach such aleatory distribution Bo- haps, because we are still operating in the “true/ gossian 1997; Chaitin 1975). false” framework, which is efficient when considering archaeological evidence (objects, moments), but The evidence mentioned above suggests that the Neofaces difficulties when dealing with temporal sequen-lithic was a process without major material breaks, ces (the main goal of our research). The latter are with several inter-group mechanisms, in which none focused on objects’ dynamics, and requires a non-of the material elements that integrate the “Neolithic Aristotelian framework, with three alternatives: pos-package” needs to be present. A process where news sible (theoretically determined), true (instantly ob-is differentially and selectively accepted by some or served), and absurd (not possible). imposed to others (see Vicent-Garcia 1997). Since all archaeological temporal distributions are We are still far from being able to establish a global aleatory (their comprehensive description is never alternative theory to the current dominating frame- shorter than their extension), one has to take this work that, ultimately, was generated with historical- into consideration in the interpretation process. In culturalism. But I believe one head pursue in such a fact, the available data (radiocarbon dates or other) direction, using non-Aristotelian logics and matheis never a sample of the total universe of potential matics as a guide.  REFERENCES ARAÚJO A. C. 1998. O concheiro de Toledo (Lourinha) no quadro das adaptaçoes humanas do Pós-Glaciar no litoral da Estremadura. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 1(2): 20–38. BOGHOSSIAN P. 1997. O que o embuste de Sokal nos deve ensinar. Disputatio, vol. 2 (ed. Internet: purl. inesc.pt/pub/disputatio). CALADO M. 2001. Da Serra d’Ossa ao Guadiana. Um estudo de Pré-História regional, Lisboa, Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia. CARDOSO J. L. 2002. Pré-História de Portugal. Lisboa, Verbo. CHAITIN G. 1975. Randomness and Mathematical Proof. Scientific American, 232–no5: 47–52 (versao html: www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/Chaitin). CRUZ A. R. (1997). Neolitizaçao do Vale do Nabao: do Neolítico a Idade do Bronze. Tomar, ARKEOS 3, CEIPHAR. CRUZ A. R., OOSTERBEEK L. coord. 2000. Territórios, Mobilidade e Povoamento no Alto Ribatejo I – indústrias e ambientes. Série ARKEOS, vol. 9, Centro Europeu de Investigaçao da Pré-História do Alto Ribatejo. coord. 2001. Territórios, Mobilidade e Povoamento no Alto Ribatejo II - Santa Cita e o Quaterário da Regiao. Série ARKEOS, vol. 11, Centro Europeu de Investigaçao da Pré-História do Alto Ribatejo. coord. 2002a. Territórios, Mobilidade e Povoamento no Alto Ribatejo III – Arte Pré-Históricae e o seu contexto. Série ARKEOS, vol. 12, Centro Europeu de Investigaçao da Pré-História do Alto Ribatejo. coord. 2002b. Territórios, Mobilidade e Povoamento no Alto Ribatejo III – Indústrias macrolíticas. Série ARKEOS, vol. 13, Centro Europeu de Investigaçao da Pré-História do Alto Ribatejo. DINIZ M. 2001a. O sítio neolítico da Valada do Mato, Évora: problemas e perspectivas. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 4(1): 45–59. 2001b. Neolitizaçao e Megalitismo: Arquitecturas do Tempo no Espaço. In Gonçalves, V. S. (ed.), Muitas antas, pouca gente – Actas do I Colóquio Internacional sobre Megalitismo: 105–116. GONÇALVES V. S. (ed.) 2001. Muitas antas, pouca gente – Actas do I Colóquio Internacional sobre Megalitismo. Archaeographic and conceptual advances in interpreting Iberian Neolithisation 2002. Lugares de povoamento das antigas sociedades camponesas entre o Guadiana e a Ribeira do Álamo (Reguengos de Monsaraz): um ponto da situaçao em inícios de 2002. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 5(2): 153–189. GUILAINE J. 1996. La Neolithisation de la Méditérranée Occidentale, In R. G. Cremonesi, J. Guilaine, J. L’Helgouac’h (eds.), The Neolithic in the Near East and Europe, Forlé, XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistpric Sciences: 53–68. JORGE S. O. 1990. Consolidaçao do sistema agro-pastoril. In J. Alarçao (coord.), Nova História de Portugal, vol. I. Das origens a romanizaçao: 163–212. 1998. Domesticar a terra. Lisboa, Gradiva. OOSTERBEEK L. 1997. Echoes from the East: the western network. An insight to unequal and combined development, 7000–2000 BC. Londres, University of London, PhD. Dissertation (2 vols.) 1999. The Neolithisation of North Ribatejo (Portugal). Journal of Iberian Archaeology 1 (no prelo). SOARES J. 1997. A transiçao para as formaçoes sociais neolíticas na costa Sudoeste portuguesa. In O Neolítico atlántico e as orixes do megalitismo, Santiago de Compostela: 587–608. SOARES J., DA SILVA C. T. 2001. Protomegalitismo no Sul de Portugal: inauguraçao das paisagens megalíticas. In Gonçalves V. S. (ed.), Muitas antas, pouca gente – Actas do I Colóquio Internacional sobre Megalitismo, Lisboa, Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia: 117–134. VICENT-GARCIA J. 1997. The Island Filter Model Revisited. In M. S. Balmuth A., Gilman L., Prados-Torreira (eds.), Encounters and Transformations. The archaeology of Iberia in transition: 1–13. ZILHAO J. 1992. Gruta do Caldeirao. O Neolítico Antigo, Lisboa, IPPAR. cont ent s