©
Christian Züchner 2000-06-20
Introduction
The title of this article implies a
contrast which actually should not exist, as rock art is as much a part of
prehistoric cultures as are all the other kinds of sources with which
prehistoric archaeology usually deals: stone tools, bronzes, pottery, artefacts
from settlements etc. Despite this, research in the field of rock art and
archaeological research in its usual sense go their own ways. This is even true
of those countries where numerous rock art sites exist, e.g. in France, Spain
and Italy. It is hardly ever seen and recognised as source of great importance.
Certainly, this has a lot to do with the influence of some outstanding scholars
of the post-war era, for in the generation of M. Hoernes, O. Menghin, H.
Obermaier and H. Kühn – just to mention some Germans– this separation really
did not exist yet. Especially in Germany the study of rock art is rejected by professionals
as more or less exotic or even dubious, with scant regard for the possibilities
of new cognition about prehistoric cultures and cultural interrelations offered
by this kind of source. At best, they are handled with a few, trivial remarks
on the religion of our ancestors. In the field of rock art – for the most part
still a domain of laypersons – artefacts in turn are at best regarded as a
means to identify and date the objects represented. Comparing analyses between
pictures and archaeological finds and evidences are rather the rare exception.
It is the intention of our article
to raise interest in an underestimated kind of archaeological source and to
show by means of a few examples how many information could be gained from it
especially for the cultures of the Copper and Bronze Age.The possibilities for
cognition considered in this paper apply to different levels, going from the
simple study of facts to the understanding of cultural and religious relations.
Of course, a critical reader will complain about premature conclusions and
comparisons and demand more precise information. This would, however, require
to discuss numerous objects and observations on very different material, like
grave and hoard finds, pottery decorations, objects of jewellery etc., in its
development in space and time. This cannot and will not be done here by obvious
reasons.
Reconstruction of the prehistoric
reality
When we talk about the typology of
prehistoric tools we actually only discuss fragments of fragments. This means:
our sources – stone tools, bronzes, pottery fragments from graves, hoards and
settlements – provide only a tiny, random excerpt of the richness of a former
culture whose value for their users we do not know. And even these testimonies
handed down to us are still incomplete. We talk about objects of which only the
durable parts were conserved and which have little to do with what people
really held in their hands. This means we categorize the durable remains of
items that existed once and try to find out what they can tell us about
history, social history or religion (Eggert, Veil 1998). Rock art often can
provide much more precise information about what they really looked like and
about their formal variety because it does not show objects as fragments but in
their real appearance. A few examples may illustrate what we mean.
”Crook” (Scimitar) (Figure 1)
A typical example of the fact that
rock art can help to recognize and understand nearly lost objects and its
distribution are the so-called ”crooks”, a sort of scimitars (sabres) of the
Copper Age. Only a single original made of copper has been preserved in
Zaerzentmihály (Hungary) (Csalog 1960). However, this weapon must have been
widely used and been of great significance in Ancient Europe. The ”God of Szegvár
Tüzköves” (Csalog 1959, Idole 1973) shoulders a scimitar – not a sickle as
Gimbutas (1974) presumes because the cutting edge of the blade is on the
outward side – as a sign of his power. Among the objects of gold jewellery of
Varna grave 36 is a miniature which served as a pendant (Varna 1988, fig. 36).
While in Central Europe any evidence seems to be missing so far, in Western
Europe ”crooks” appear as a central motif in rock art and in portable art
although an original, i.e. a usable weapon of this type does not exist there,
either. Made of slate, they are a characteristic votive in the megalith tombs
of Portugal (e.g. Almagro Gorbea 1973). A number of Breton menhirs bear one or
more engraved or carved representations (Shee Twohig 1981, fig. 173 etc.).
Thus they qualify the aniconic steles as male warrior statues in the widest
sense. The huge back stone of the ”Table-des-Marchands” roughly shaped like a
human stele shows a great number of them arranged in bundles(Shee Twohig 1981,
fig. 102). They seem to refer to belligerent powers. At the same time, the
worship of weapons, and equally of warlords and war gods becomes evident, which
dominates the thinking of European peoples even today. ”Crooks” obviously were
known throughout Ancient Europe. If they hardly ever appear in the original,
this may depend on the burial customs of their time. Another reason may be that
they were mostly made of (hard) wood and thus were not conserved. At least in
Gran Canaria there still exist some wooden specimens – however old they may be.
Daggers of the Copper and Bronze Age
(Figure 2) (Figure 3)
As a rule, early daggers consist of
a triangular blade which may be strictly triangular, slightly arched or, more
seldom, lanceolate. They have a broad, more or less rectangular handle (e.g.Mont
Bégo: Lumley 1995), or a stick-shaped handle with a mushroom-like pommel (e.g.
Sion, Valtellina, Valcamonica: Anati 1967, 1968, 1972, Priuli 1985).
Occasionally rivets and two-coloured inlays made of different materials are
indicated. The representations suggest that the rich decoration of the dagger
handles, which are known from Brittany (Gallay 1981) and Wessex (Gerloff 1975),
was in fact much more common than is normally assumed and that the actual
concentration on a few sites is mainly due to special conditions of
conservation. Sometimes the dagger handles are formed extremely like an hour
glass so that the upper end can be interpreted as a broad pommel. These types
are so similar to the miniature daggers of Central Europe (Gandert 1957, Bcichácek,
Moucha 1993) that they can easily be associated with each other. Rock paintings
thus provide effortlessly the interpretation of these small object discussed
controversially in literature.
As a rule, daggers were depicted
without its scabbard. Of course there may have been types of strictly
triangular shape, so that a decision about whether the weapon was bare or not
would be impossible. However, this was probably rather the exception. In
Valcamonica and Valtellina there are representations of daggers which are put
so deeply in a scabbard, which is triangular at the lower and rectangular at
the upper part, that only the arched pommel or the rivets are visible (e.g.
Cemmo 1: Anati 1967, fig. 16). Precisely this type was found in the hoard of
Kozí Hrbeti (Neustupny 1961, pl. 45, Böhm 1928, pl. III). Although it may
have impeded quick use of the dagger it seems to have been widely used in
Europe during the Early Bronze Age.
Halberds (Figure 4)
Excavated halberds consist of a
triangular blade made of copper or bronze with a strong rib in the middle, and
of a straight handle of wood or, especially in Central Germany, of bronze
(ORíordaín 1937, Lenerz-de Wilde 1991). However, the examples of Mont Bégo
(Bicknell 1913, Lumley 1995) and Valcamonica (e.g. Luine: Anati 1982,
Montecchio: Anati 1976, fig. 82) prove that this was not the only form that
existed. There is a great number of types with different blades, handles and
forms of hafting that are unknown among archaeological finds.
Halberds are regarded as a key form
of Early Bronze Age. However, rock art shows, by its combination with other
weapons, that they already existed in the Copper Age. It is highly probable
that they can be traced back to Neolithic bone artefacts like those known from
the Swiss lake dwellings (Corboud, Pugin 1992). That means the controversial
debate about the origin of halberds – Ireland, Central Germany, Italy or Spain
– is meaningless, for it only refers to a few mostly late forms. At the same
time, rock art proves that halberds were much more widely used than
distribution maps pretend (Lenerz-de Wilde 1991). In Valcamonica and at Mont
Bégo hundreds of halberds were depicted which figure only marginally in
archaeological literature. If all engraved examples of the Iberian Peninsula
are taken in consideration then what results is a much more regular spreading
than the bronzes suggest. It seems to be mostly unknown that at Oukaimeden in
the Atlas mountains (Morocco) there are numerous, very precisely drawn halberds
so that this region should not be disregarded (Malhomme 1959-1961, Chenorkian
1988, Züchner 1998, Rodrigue 1999). Metal finds only reflect special customs of depositing but
not the prehistoric reality.
The view was taken that halberds did
not serve as real arms but rather as a kind of sceptre. One of the reasons may
be that they mainly come from hoards and only occasionally from graves. Fact is
that daggers, halberds, ground plans of houses, maps etc. are depicted on Mont
Bégo, in Valcamonica and in the High Atlas without any difference being
noticeable between the individual motifs. On a stele in Arco at Lake Garda
(Italy) (Bagolini et al. 1992) halberds are as much part of the warrior´s
equipment as are its daggers and other objects.
Shields (Figure
5)
Original shields from the Copper and
Early Bronze Age are more or less unknown. However, rock art of Italy and Spain
shows a great number which provides an idea of what it looked like. A lot of
them can be seen in Luine (Valcamonica) (Anati 1982, figs. 144-146) and in
Northern Spain (e.g. Idolo de Peña Tu: Hernández Pacheco et al. 1914, see also:
Almagro Basch 1972, Bueno Ramirez 1990, Bueno Ramirez, Balbin Behrmann 1992,
Züchner 1998). They are always of the same type. Surprisingly, there are none
of them among the thousands of weapons of Mont Bégo, at least if they are not
meant by some simple rectangle. The usual form of the shields of these periods
seems to have been rectangular, often with a rounded or semicircle-shaped upper
edge. Sometimes eyes, eyebrows and a nose give them a human appearance. The shield and the protecting
deity merge into one entity so that an identification to be find in the
literature as shield as well as idol may well be justified (Züchner 1998).
Settlements and agriculture (Figure 6)
Evidence from excavation and aerial
photography normally provides only a limited insight in the structures of
settlements and field systems of the Neolithic and the Early Metal Ages. They
tell us even less about the elevation of buildings, as usually only ground
plans or vague positions of posts have been conserved. Especially in this
respect rock art provides information which otherwise would be difficult to
obtain.
Topographic representations, which
means maps in the broadest sense, are an important element of prehistoric rock
art (Züchner 1986/87, 1989, 1994 a, 1996, Arcà 1999). Two main types can be
differentiated which replace each other at the turn from the Copper to the
Bronze Age. First, there are more or less regular rectangles which are
subdivided into smaller parts in different ways. Some are structured simply,
others in a very complex way. Apart from single ones, there are also greater
entities which are connected with each other. This type belongs mainly to the
Copper Age and is common in the Alps area, in Spain and in the Moroccan Atlas
mountains. But it can also be found in the megalith tombs of Portugal, Spain
and Brittany. In literature this rectangular type is sometimes called ”land
registers” (Malhomme 1959-1961, Searight, Hourbette 1992) and looks very
similar to the ”Celtic Fields” which still exist in South England (Fleming
1988). They go back to early prehistory and seem to have been the usual form of
agriculture in many parts of Neolithic Europe. The fact that this type occurs
in megalith constructions of West Europe (Shee Twohig 1981, figs. 37, 38, 93
etc.) and other, chronologically similar context, justifies its dating into the
forth and third millennium B.C..
In the course of the Early Bronze
Age these grid patterns are replaced by more complex maps in Valcamonica, on
Mont Bégo and in Galicia. Now they show very concretely more or less extended
farms and villages with their gardens, fields, paths and roads. They provide a
very concrete idea of the settlement structures and the land use during the
Bronze and Iron Age.
Cultural interrelations (Figure 7)
Rock art can sometimes say more than
artefacts do about cultural interrelations covering great distances and about
the exchange of goods and ideas (Acosta 1968, Züchner 1985, 1994 b, 1995). In
this respect, only two examples will be given.
When comparing the daggers
(Chenorkian 1988) of Mont Bégo with those of Valcamonica, it is striking that
in both areas totally different handles and pommels are to be observed. The
rectangular or approximately hour-glass-shaped form of Mont Bégo which not
infrequently is ornamented, point to comparable objects from Western Europe,
Brittany and England, but also to the bell beaker daggers of North Spain and to
the engravings in Morocco. There are, however, no daggers with a stick-shaped
handle and an arched or semi-circle-shaped pommels which may be decorated with
rivets. This form occurs in the Upper Italian Remedello Culture, but is mainly
distributed in the Eastern Mediterranean. This means the cultural relationships
tend much more towards the Near East than to the neighbouring regions in the
west and north. Branigan (Branigan 1966) emphasized the relation of the
Remedello daggers with those from Crete many years ago. And indeed, in Crete
there are some original pommels of the Early Bronze Age which could as well
belong to the Remedello daggers (Zervos 1956, figs. 199, 293).
In a similar way halberds testify to
relationships covering even those areas where bronze artefacts are rare.
Despite the great distance between England, Ireland and Mont Bégo, all the
types which Harbison (Harbison 1969) has distinguished
in Ireland, are present in the approximately 450 pictures of this sacred
mountain. Some of them are so precise and the similarities are so great that
the respective types were obviously commonly known, even if apparent lack of
finds seems to deny such interrelations over such distances at first. Together
with other arguments it becomes obvious that Morocco is closely linked to the
Atlantic cultures of the Bronze Age as well, although from this country there
exists only very few evidence so that it is neglected by European scholars, as
a rule(Züchner 1998).
Numerous other examples of these
material and cultural contacts could be mentioned, but this would go to far
here. It may be sufficient to draw attention to the manifold interrelations
between Atlantic Morocco and Europe revealed by the engravings of High Atlas
mountains (Morocco), Spain, France and Italy (Züchner 1998).
Hoard and individual finds (Figure 8)
Since the Copper Age at the latest,
precious objects were deposited isolated or in hoards of smaller or bigger size
in many parts of Europe; in caves, moors, springs, under rocks and in other
remote places. As is known, the reason for this depositing was very
controversially discussed. They were interpreted as offerings, as hidden goods
of traders or as hideaways in connection with military conflicts. The hoards
are too different to just mention one reason for its depositing. Rock art at
least can provide arguments important for the understanding of early hoards. In
Tyrol, Valcamonica and Valtellina there are steles and stele-like stones (Anati
1968, 1990) of more or less human appearance.
On some of them there are sets of weapons whose combination is more or less the
same as that one of hoards and grave goods of the same period. Here, the
individual weapons and other items - belts, neck rings, ornamental discs,
groups of animals and fields - were drawn in one moment. They form an entity
and did not accumulate in the course of an unknown space of time. They
correspond to equipment of the person depicted, be it an outstanding warrior or
a deity. The importance of the person is represented by these objects and can
be emphasized by ”multiple equipment” in the same way as there are grave
equipments with just a single weapon or a simple set and graves in which the deceased was buried with several specimens
of each type of arms. This means that pictures and real objects are two facets
of the same custom and the same belief.
There also is a clear connection to
the early hoards. Their composition often is similar to that one engraved into
steles and stele-stones. Objects can be present once or multiple, according to
the importance of the offering person or of the addressee. This shows that depicted and real hoards are offerings
backed by a concrete meaning. The same applies to the respective individual
finds from extraordinary situations. Depicted and deposited items are the two
sides of one custom. They are votives or gifts offered to certain deities at
special events, like those at Christian pilgrim churches. The differences are
probably more of a local than a content-wise nature and complement one another.
Summary
It was the intention of this
contribution to draw attention to a rich and widely-spread kind of source which
is hardly noticed in prehistoric studies in Central Europe and often even
rejected as not serious. It was only possible to mention some selected examples
here. But it would cause no difficulties whatsoever to cite numerous other
convincing examples in order to show the close connection between the different
remains of prehistoric cultures and by this outline a much more colourful
picture of past epochs than archaeological artefacts, often so austere, allow.
Selected bibliography
Acosta P. 1968: La pintura rupestre esquemática en España. Memoiras del
Seminario de Prehistória y Arqueología 1. Universidad de Salamanca.
Almagro Basch M. 1972: Los ídolos y la estela decorada de Hernán Pérez
(Cáceres) y el ídolo estela de Tabuyo del Monte (León): Trabajos de Prehistoria
NS 29, 83-124.
Almagro Gorbea M. J. 1973: Los ídolos del Bronce I Hispano: Bibliotheca
Praehistorica Hispana 12. Madrid.
Anati E. 1967: I Massi di Cemmo: Pubblicazione del Centro Camuno di Studi
Preistorici 3. Breno.
Anati E. 1968: Arte preistorica in Valtellina. Archivi di Arte Preistorica
1. Capo di Ponte.
Anati E. 1972: I pugnali nell’arte rupestre e nelle Statue-Stele dell’Italia
settendronale. Archivi di Arte Preistorica 4. Capo di Ponte.
Anati E. 1976: Evolution and Style in Camunian Rock Art. An inquiry into the formation of European civilisation: Archivi di Arte
Preistorica 6. Capo di Ponte.
Anati E. 1982: Luine - Collina Sacra: Archivi di Arte Preistorica 8. Capo
di Ponte.
Anati E. 1990: Le statue-menhir. Relazione preliminare. Bolletino del
Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici 25-26, 269-356.
Arcà A. 1999: Fields and Settlements in Topographic Engravings of the
Copper Age in Valcamonica and Mt. Bego Rock Art. In:
Della Casa Ph. (ed.) 1999: Prehistoric alpine
environment, society, and economy. Papers of the international colloquium PAESE
'97 in Zurich. S. 71-79. Bonn.
Bagolini, B. Lanzinger A. & Pedrotti 1992: Rinvenimento di quattro
statue stele ad Arco (Valle della Sacra – Trentino meriodinale). Atti della
XXVIII Riunione Scientifica. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 1989
(1992), 355-370.
Bicknell C. 1913: A Guide to the Prehistoric Rock Engravings in the Italian
Maritime Alps. Bordighera.
Bcichácek P.
& Moucha V. 1993: Die Úneticer Kultur in Böhmen und der obere
Donauraum. Archeologické rozhledy 45, 460-465.
Böhm J. 1928: Poklad
bronzových dýk na Kozích Hrbetech. Památky
Archeologické 36, 1-14.
Branigan K. 1966: Prehistoric relations between Italy and the Aegean. Bulletino di Paletnologia Italiana vol. 75, NS XVII, 97-109.
Bueno Ramirez P. 1990: Statues-menhirs et stèles anthropomorphes de la
Péninsule Ibérique: L’Anthropologie 94, 1990, 85-110.
Bueno Ramirez P., Balbin Behrmann R. 1992: L´art mégalithique dans la
Péninsule Ibérique. Une vue d´ensemble: L’Anthropologie 96, 1992, 499-571.
Csalog J. 1959: Die
anthropomorphen Gefässe und Idolplastiken von Szegvár-Tüzköves. Acta
Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 11, 7-38.
Csalog J. 1960: Das
Krummschwert des Idols von Szegvár-Tüzköves. Acta
Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 12, 57-68.
Chenorkian R. 1988: Les armes métalliques dans l´art protohistorique de
l´Occident Mediterranéen. Paris.
Corboud P., Pugin Chr. 1992: Les stations littorales de Morge Vers-l´Eglise
et des Roseaux. Nouvelles données sur le Néolithique récent et le Bronze ancien
lémanique. Jahrbuch
SGUF 75, 1992, 7-36.
Eggert M. K. H. & Veit
U. (Hrsg.) 1998: Theorie in der Archäologie. Zur englischsprachigen Diskussion.
Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher Band 1. Münster.
Fleming A. 1988: The Dartmoor Reaves. Investigating Prehistoric Land
Divisions. London.
Gallay G. 1981: Die kupfer-
und altbronzezeitlichen Dolche und Stabdolche in Frankreich. Prähistorische
Bronzefunde Abteilung VI.5. München.
Gandert O.F. 1957: Der
Hortfund von Berlin-Lichtenrade und die nördliche Verbreitung der Aunjetitzer
Kultur: Jahrbuch der Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 4, 1957, 23-62.
Gerloff S. 1975: The Early Bronze Age Daggers in Great Britain and a Reconsideration of the Wessex Culture: Prähistorische Bronzefunde Abteilung VI,2 .München..
Gimbutas M. 1974: The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe. 7000 to 3500 BC.
Myths, Legends and Cult Images. London.
Harbison P. 1969: The Daggers and the Halberds of the Early Bronze Age
in Ireland: Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abt. VI,1. München.
Hernández Pacheco E., Cabré J., Conde de la Vega del Sella 1914: Las
pinturas prehistóricas de Peña Tu: Comisión de Investigaciones Paleontológicas
y Prehistóricas 2. Madrid.
Idole 1973: Prähistorische Idolkunst. Kultbilder und Opfergaben aus Ungarn. Ausstellung des
Ungarischen Nationalmuseums Budapest in Verbindung mit der Prähistorischen
Staatssammlung im Münchner Stadtmuseum, 8. Februar bis 23. april 1973.
Ausstellungskataloge der Prähistorischen Staatssamllung Band 1. München.
Lenerz-de Wilde M. 1991:
Überlegungen zur Funktion der frühbronzezeitlichen Stabdolche: Germania 69,
1991, 25-48.
Lumley H. de 1995: Le Grandiose et le Sacré. Paris.
Malhomme J. 1959-1961: Corpus des gravures rupestres du Grand Atlas:
Publications du Service des Antiquités du Maroc, 1ère partie: fascicule 13
(Rabat 1959). 2ème partie: fascicule 14. Rabat.
Neustupny E.& J. 1961: Czechoslovakia before the Slavs. Ancient
Peoples and Places. London.
ORíordaín S. P. 1937: The Halberd in Bronze Age Europe. A Study in
Prehistoric Origins, Distribution, and Chronology: Archaeologica. Miscellaneous
Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Vol. 86, 1937, 195-321.
Priuli A. 1985: Incisioni rupestri della Val Camonica. Quaderni di cultura
alpina. Ivrea (Torino).
Rodrigue A. 1999: L'art rupestre du Haut Atlas Marocain.
Paris-Montréal.
Searight S., Hourbette D. 1992: Gravures rupestres du Haut Atlas: La Grande
Traversée des Atlas Marocains. Casablanca.
Shee Twohig E. 1981: The Megalithic Art of Western Europe. Oxford.
Varna 1988: Macht,
Herrschaft und Gold. Das Gräberfeld von Varna (Bulgarien) und die Anfänge einer
neuen europäischen Zivilisation. Ausstellung in: Moderne Galerie des
Saarland-Museums Saarbrücken 1988. Saarbrücken.
Zervos Chr. 1956: L’art de la Crète néolithique et minoenne. Paris.
Züchner Chr. 1985: Los
grabados del Monte Bego y el arte esquemático: Zephyrus 36, 1983 (1985),
315-317.
Züchner Chr. 1986/87:
Kartenbilder des 3. und 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr.: Mitteilungen der Fränkischen
Geographischen Gesellschaft 33/34, 1986/87, 321-344.
Züchner Chr. 1989: Häuser,
Felder und Wege in der galicischen Felsbildkunst: Madrider Mitteilungen 30,
55-75.
Züchner Chr. 1994 a:
Steinerne Karten - Topographische Darstellungen im vorgeschichtlichen Europa.
In: G. Tromnau (ed.), Begleitband zur Ausstellung ”Verfolgt, geachtet,
universal - Gerhard Mercator, Europa und die Welt” anläßlich des 400.
Todestages von Gerhard Mercator im Kultur- und Stadthistorischen Museum Duisburg
vom 4. September 1994 bis zum 31. Januar 1995.Duisburg, 241 - 251.
Züchner Chr. 1994 b: Der
kupferne Stier B 257 in der Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Sammlung der
Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. Bericht der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege
30/31, 1989/90 (München 1994), 66-77.
Züchner Chr. 1995: Mediterranean Elements in the Schematic Art of Spain.
Iternational Rock Art Congress (NEWS 95) Torino 1995 (CD Rom).
Züchner Chr. 1996: The Scaliforme Sign of Altamira and the Origin of
Maps in Prehistoric Europe: A. Moure Romanillo (ed.), ”El Hombre Fósil” - 80
años después. Volumen conmemorativo del 50 aniversario de la
muerte de Hugo Obermaier. Santander, 325 - 343.
Züchner Chr. 1998:
Kulturhistorische Überlegungen zu den Felsbildern von Oukaimeden und Yagour im
Hohen Atlas (Marokko). Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie
18, 297-315.
Dr. Christian ZÜCHNER
Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte
Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Kochstr. 4/18
D-91054 ERLANGEN
GERMANY