UNION INTERNATIONALE DES SCIENCES PRÉHISTOzuQITES ET PROTOHISTORIQI]ESINTERNATIONAI LTNION OF PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SC]ENCES

PROCEED]NGS OF THE X\,'I WORLD CONGRESS (FLORIANÓPOLIS, 4-10 SEPTEMER 2011)ACTES DU XVI CONGRÊS MONDIAT (FLORIANóPOLIS, 4- I O S-EPTE N,GRI 20 I1)

vol-. I

Actes de la session 17Proceedings of session 17

The Intellectual andSpiritual Expression ofNon-Literate Societies

Edited by

Chairman

Emmanuel AnatiCo-Chairman

Luiz OosterbeekCo-editor

Federico Mailland

BAR International Series 236020t2 B.A.R

r* JO\àR"r-\l$a§f,L\\

Published by

ArchaeopressPublishers of British Ar€haeolog;cal ReportsGordon House

276 Banbury Road

Oxford OX2 7ED

Englandbãr@archaeopress.comwww,archaeopress.com

BAR S2360Proceedings of the XVlWorld Congress ofthe lnternational Union of Prêhistoric ând Protohistoric SciencesActes du XVI Congràs mondial de l'Union lnternationale des Sciences PretristonquÊs et Protohistoriques

SecÍetaryoÍthe Congress: Rossano Lopes Bâstos

President of the Congress Nãtional Commission: Erika Robrhan-Gonzalez

Elected Bureau (2011 2014):Presidênt: Jean Bourgeoís

Se€retar/ General: Luiz OosterbeekIreasuren François DjindjianSeries Editors: luiz Oosterbeek, Erika Robrhan GonzalezVolume êditors: tmmanuelAnatí, Luiz Oosterbêek, Federico Mailland

The lntellectuol and SpiritudlExpression oÍ Non-Líterate Societies

O Archaeopress ând IL,SPP and the individuâl authors 2012

lsBN 978 14073 0947 7

Thê signed papers arê the sole responsibil;tv oftheir authors.Lestextes signés sont de la sêule Íesponsabilité de leurs auieurs.Coniacts:General Secretariat of the u,l.S,P.P. - lnternational Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Scienceslnstituto Politécnico deTomar, av. Dr. Cándido MaduÍeira 13,2300 ToMAREmail: uispp@ipt.pt

Printêd in England by cMP (UK) Ltd

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd

122 Bânbury Road

Oxfordox2 7BP

England9{w-hadrianbôoks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details ofâlltitles in print, prices and meâns of payment is available f.ee fromHadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

TIIE DEER FIGIJTRE IN TAGUS ROCK ART

Sam GARCÊS

Ml§eu de Arte Pré-Histórica e do Sagràdo do Vale do Tejo, Mâção, PoÍlugâl. hstituto Terra e McmóriâGrupo Quaternário c Pré-Hisrória do Centrc dc Geociências (u. ID73 - FCT) Bolsenâ FCT (SFRH,tsDi6962s/2010)

Ph.D Cândidate in Quatemâry, Materiêls and Cultüres (Unive§idâde de Trásos-Montes e Alto Douro - Portugêl)This soik wâs $pported br tlE Poíüguese Siâtc thrcrgh lCT FmdâÇâo pu a Ciência e Tecnôlôgia wiúnIúe Eoject (SFRH/BD/69625/2010)

Abstruct: This onosraphic str.ly ok íheliEur.t oíded dkd afíheir L\socidtio$ rcwdls íhe spetialrol. Pldled b! íhis dnnnalin the

conceptuaL \|orLl oí th. Prchklotic Naküs d th. tock dt tu the Tagrs Íralley-

HISTORICÀL BÀCKGROUND ÀND LOCATION

The Tâgus Vâlley Rock An Complex hâs been the targclof repeâted âttcmpts ât interpretation since its submergen-

ce in the 1970s, when the FÉtel dam wâs built causing

the loss of âbout 90% of the rock ârt thât was in sohist

rocks on boú sides of the Portuguese Iligh Tagus RiveÍ,over 40 km. This cornplex is roughly locâted 111 a territorybetween the Cedillho dâm (which marks the border withSpainl "nd rhe Oc.e/" ,r\er rrouü ,a rriburâit r ter on

úe .iút bant ofthe Tâgus River) (Fisure I ).

BIBLIOGRAPIIICAL BACKGROUND

Ch.eÍ time. some li1erâture contributions on the

interFetation of this rock ârt complex have bcen mâde,

mostly of a general nàiure, tbcusing on the chronologicêlquestion, although some monographs hâve proposed

specific models ot' inlerpretâtion. Recentll, â disseÍationentitled 'The Deer on the Têgus Valley Rock AÍ:contribution to the study of the recent prehistory (Garcês

2009) hâs hiúlishted the imponânce of the figure of the

dcer, especialy in the symbolic reâlm of the prehisioric

Iigure I Map ofrhe Tâgxs Valley Rock Arl Conplà( rock aÍ sites (âccording to Serrão, 1978, 1981)

Adapt€d trom úe Poúuguese Military Chfft numbers 3l3, 314, 315, 323 & 324

11

,TTE IN I ELI-EüUÀT AND SPTRI I LI^T EIIRESSIoN oT NoN.LI,IIRÂTF So.Fm s

communitjes of the Tagus River. The deer fl$re hâspaÍiculâÍ associations with â úde-range figurâtive, inpmticular, humân figues ând animats, ênd is believed toârjse in diffeÍent chronological periods. Mário VarelaGomes has recently presented his doctorâl dissertâtion onthe rock aÍ ofúe Tâgus Vâlley in which he proposes âglobal reâding of this rock aÍ complex. The PrehistoricRock Ari and úe Saüed Tâgus Valley Museum hasbegun a proglâmme of systematic review of the surfâcemoulds of úe eryrâved rocks that were made in the1970s under úe rock art project, at úe same time thât theFratel dâm was beiry built. These moülds âre now theobject of ân intensive reseârch meúodology, photogaphyând registrâtion, in order to be able to colleú â11 possibleinfomâtiôn on this §pe of mate.iâI, whjch is rare, butwhich mâintains the trâces of úis magnificent rock ãÍsite. Thjs work aims to conbibute to the organization ofthe cor?us of representâtions of the complex and irsdetâiled study. The pupose of developing a workfocüsing on the figule of the deer was vâried: the deer isone of the best represented mâmmals in Paleolithic ândpost-Pâleolithic ârt in the lberiân Pe nsulê and itsimportance is notjust the fâcts that arise in the rock art ofthe Tagus but because it is a pime lactor in úe econonyof the Eehistoric sociúies of the transition to âgo-pastoralism. In PoÍtugal, the deer even hâs hâd â relevânttiuction since mcient ctuonolosicâl periods, such asthose depictions in the Côa Valley ftoÍl the end of thePleistocene util the mid-Holocene.

There have been rêcoÍds of'written stones' on úe TagusRiver since 1946. The ethnogrâpher Pâulo CaratãoSoromenho, who knew the region very well, followedsome of the Group for the Study of the PortüguesePaleolithio in the tust dây of úe discovery of theengrâvings of the Tagus. These are, in generâI, obrainedby pecking on the flât schist platfoms, ofteÍr âíângedhorizontally. It is beüeved that the large âmounr of quarzand quârtzite pebbles úât abol'ud in the region may havebeen used âs râw mâterial for the incisors. These rocks,mrânged on both bà*s of the Tâgus River, sufíered theeffects of ercsion of the Iiver for thousânds of years, âlâ(l Bhich mâde rhem so cooouc.re ro engl.a!ing.Howevet resistânce is also one of their characteistics:hence it wâs possible to reâch up tô todây well preserved(A,rca er al. 2001: Baptistâ 1986; undated; Fari.la2005; Oosterbeek 2008; Sântos 1985: Silva and Alves200t.

The motifs are p.immily of abstact symbolic chârâcterând the circle and circular and geometric combinarionsâre the most dominânt themes. Other châmcteristic motifsare zoomo+hic figures ircludine deer Oredominant) andalso goâts, hoÍses, does, snâkes, â bear and a bird (therange ofânimals represented mây increase wiú continuedresearch in the moulds of the rocks). Some of ihesemotifs are rclâted to eâch oúer or to geometric figures,schematic ând even stylized, âssociâred with otherfigures, or not, usually the ctcles ând spüals. Oúerrelevà1t aÍefacts also ffise in the Tagus Valley Rock ArtComplex, câlled idols stele, hunân footprints, cup-marksând some rare tools, ând somc authors defend the

existence of weapons (although úis is difilculr tointerpÍet). S,rhemâtic, abstract and symbolic arepredorninan (Bâptista 1986; Santos 1985).

CHRONOLOGICAI BACKGROUND

Early rheone\ abour úe chíonology ol Lhe engÍavingswere conceived. The tust, âdvocâted by Octâvio da VeigâFelreim, râised serious doubts about the antiqui§i of úeengravings (Ferreirâ 1973), but El1rmanuel Anâti,inspired by his periodizâtion of the câliciãr-Portuguesegloup, argued on behâlf of the tust theory âbout thechronological Tagüs. The theory wâs based on hvo cyclessepârated by an occupational gap, accolding to generalclimatic fâctors, which, êccordnig to Anati, hadconditioned the volume of the river and úereforc thetemporaÍy imrnersior of the river banL on which thêengrâvings were made, and he proposed two very disrincrphases. The first corresponded to a time evolved from theBoreâl (6s00 5500 BC), that would be câlledEpipâleolithic, and the second phãse of the Sub-Borcâl(3000 2000 BC) that beloneed to the Late Neolithic(Bâptistâ 1986; Carinas e Hennques 1985; He.riques etâ1. undâted; Jorge, 1983, 1987: Oosterbeek 2008; Senão1978). According to Anâti, these are the stâges when theriver had its lowest flow rate, resulting in â drier cljmate,ând such chânges in the water level would make maÍgive a great importmce alrd co.sequent worship byengravins (Anati 1 97s).

Later, Eduardo dâ Cuúa SeÍão, úe teâm leader that wassupervising the work of moúding thê rocks ofúe Tâgus,argued that 'The prehistoric temple ;s sketched, took along time, Fobâbiy since úe Neolithic, the Bronze Ageor even later' (Serrão 1978: 5). The first stêrt in úeNeolithic period (5500 BC) finished in the Brcnze Age(1750 BC). The second period hâd its peak itr about 700BC or úe Iron Age (Cani"âs aM Henriques 1985;Henriques et al. lrlúated). Larer, António MâdinlloBaptista, Eduârdo da C!Írha SeÍão and Mânuelâ Martirs,in the Sâo Simão study, Foposed a new periodizariondivided into thrce phâses: â pre-mesaliúic styte with asubdued nâturalism and cbronologically &ãncd possibtyin úe first hâlf ofúe fifth lnillennium BC. The secondar1d third phase, described âs the .ichest in úorifs. aredâted to the fourth ând thiÍd milenium BC during thedevelopment of the megâlithic pe nsular culture(Baptista e, lrl I978a; Cêninâs ard Hendque, 1985;Henriques et âl- undated; Jorge 1983, 1987; Oosreúeek2008). According to A.M. Bâptista, 'On€ câÍmot inferthat Tagus âú goes beyond the Early Neollthjc', andrefers to úe cmergence of geometric figures in the eârlyaÍ of úe Tâgus River, demonstrating the antiquity ofceÍain figures lrsuâlly âttibuted to lâter perjods ofEehistory. The discovery in 2000 in the Ocrezê River, bythe same âuúor. of a pictue of â horse, engaved bypecking ând dated to úe crâvettiân úlq dlaws pârâltetsbetween this and similâr pictures of ihe old phâsc ofPleistocene aÍ of the Côâ Valley, thêt is, more than22,000 years BP. With the r+timing ofthe ctuonology onúe Tâtsur. úe audror úgLci lha. úeÍe rrc tour major

'12

S- GÀncÉs: TIIE DEER rrcuRHs ü.r T^cus RocK aRr

Fisüre 2 - Rock number 60 ofAlâgadouro. Possible hunting scere (?) involving m ânthropomorphicpresence ofa different aÍistic úle (Gomes, 1989, 1990a, 1990b,2000â; 2001, 2002)

phases (Pâleolithic, Neolithic, Brcnze Ase and historisâla few of this last one), wiúout ê connection between

thÊ OcÍeza Paleolithic art and the next phâses of tlreTâgus rock art (Bâptista 2001).

In 1980. a new theory was pÍesented by Gomes andPinho Monteiro of a long cycle of âíistic developmentcoverjng six different phâses (Bâptistâ 1986; Caninas andHenriques 1985; Henriques eÍ a/. undâted; comes 1980,1987, 1989, 2001, 2002; Jorge 1983, 1987;Monteiro ândGomes, 1980). Period I was 'subnâ1ürâjism': hunter-gâthererc h postglâciâl tines who prolonged aPâleolithic tradiiionâl economy ând figurative designmârked by large ânimâls, âlnosi âll deer, segmentedbodies, elegant and precise profiles, with well reproduceddetails. These engrâvings woDld dâte fiom the sixthmiuemium BC ând would note lhe concem of man injoinine a world where survivâl depended on the preciseknowledge of the nâturâlúythms ofthe ânimals. PeriodII wãs '§tâtrc-s) liled': , process of in(reasúgsrylizâtion, with representation of deer and goats,sometimes with the interior of the body divided by thelifelinê, by pârâllel lines horizontally striped o. fil1ed bypecking. Period m was 'dynamic-styled':adlropoÍnoryhic figures with different dimensions andparticipating in scenes from nature accompanied byhrmting dogs and vâried alld small fauna with rormdedbodies- There are perspective, oblique dlection andvitâljty. The author also defends the existence ofreligiousbehaviour. Period lV wâs 'meridionâl', âcknowledgingan iconographic renewal by societies ofúe lâte Neoljthicând Châlcolithic, à1d the àlthropomorphic andzoomoryhic forns e reduced to their essentiâl and adoptâ geometric symbology; theÍe aÍe râre footage, rarcârtefâcts ând pans of sur-shaped figures. Period V is'Atlântic', with stong symbolic representâtions ofspirals, corceÍric clcles, me&rder foÍns, mazes, shieldfigures and schematic antbÍopomorphism. Period VI is'cncles ând lines', charâcterized by â lêree âmomt ofvery simple idiomorphic figüres, âssociâtions úlhpi€tues of úe previoüs periods, representâtions ofw€âpons úth shields, swords aÍId fantâs.ic ânimâls, as

well as snakes (Baptista 1986, Caninâs and Hênriques1985;Henriquês e1a1. undated; Gomes 1980, 1987, 1989,2001, 2002; Jorge 1983, 1987; Monteío ând comes1980).

There âre 14 rock âr1 sites that are direcily pârt oftheTâgus Vâlley Rock AÍ CompleÍ (Portuguese side): SãoSimâo, Alagâdouro, Lombâ da Bmcâ, Cachão doAlgarve, Ficalho, Fivenco, FÉtel, Câscâlheira do Tejo,Foz da Ribeirâ de Nisa, Chão dâ Velhâ, Silveirâ, cârdete.Figuenó ând the Ooreza River. However, considering thestâte of research on the figure of the deer in the rock aúof úe Tâgus, not aU these plâces hâve been looked at,though there is information aboui some of these sitessince the rock moulds and bibliogrâphy present us úttrsome dâtâ. According to the êuthors who hâve dedicatedthemselves over the last yeârs to ürriting âbout the Tagusrock âr! the deer is the mosi represented ânimâl in thiscomplex. However, it is â figure that Íaises maryquestions since it is represented in vârious ways aÍdstyles. Different chÍonoiogicâl periods? Differentsymbolic noments? Different groups?

ÀLAGADOURO

The core ofúe Alâgadouro rock âÍt is located on úe lelibank of the Tâgus River, âbout 3 kü downstream of úeCedilho dam, in Vilâ Velhâ de Ródão. It is one olrcck ârtsites of the Tâgus Vâlley which is currently subnerged-In this mrcleus is one of the most curious figures kno\rnin the Tagus, and its interpretation is very controversial.The scene prese ed exhibits a characteristic to be takeninto account. The deeÍ are srylistically diÍferent ftom theântkopomorphic figurc that accompânies them. Can weceÍâinly infer that these âre ditrerent chronologicâlpenods? r we coNider the chronologicâl hwoihesis úâtsome authors hâve Eised for the Tagus, is it likely thârthe ânthÍopomoehic figure is lâter úan the deer? This isâ scene that can be interpreted as a hunting scene, but itcan only be ünderstood in úis wây âfter the âddilion ofthe anttuopomorphic figure ofthe scene.

I HI. IN]'FI,I,H'] I ^

I, ^ND

SPIRITI J^' EXPRESSnN OF NONT.ITFR^TF SÔ'FMS

On the veÍicâl rock, rock nunber 60, ofAl.tgâdouro $,cobserved neâr one of rhe ends, â côupl§ ot' lâree deer,showing well detailed heads and frames (Figure 2). Theânâtomical featufes ol each deer allow the finding thatthis are female. with iess developed antlels, úe bodymuch wider, perhaps reEesenting a pregnancy, anddifferent hêir. On the opposite side, âbout 0.5 m âwây ândon ihe edge of the suppoÍ, it is possible to identiti anânlhÍopomoehic figure. stânding lviih arms hàlf-râisedând, it scerns, §earing a skit. Tt is possibly a huntcr whostêlks his prey, covered by a dense set of veÍical cracks(Gomes 1989, 2001). ln contrâsr to this position, A.M.Bâptisrâ (1981), describhg the rock of Fratel number155, stesses a lâck of huniing scenes or scenes ofeverydây life in rhe âIt of the Tâgus. The circles, spnâls,n1emdels, lines ând geometric figLrres

'lould become

inexplicâble.

CACHÀO DO AICARyE

Cachão do Algane is located on the right bank of theTagus River, alnost opposile the Lomba da Bârcânucleus. This is the second rock art site ofúe Tâgus thatpresents úe lârgest mmber of zoomorphic figures thatembrâce boú the subnâ1urâ1 style (Epipaleolithic) ând úesrylized-stâtlc (Eârly Neoliúic) (Gomes 2007).According lo Sc.rào (1978), this set conlâins âbout 2,140rock âit engâvings. One of úe mosi enigmâtic flgules ofdeer in the Tâgus rock ârt is located on rock nunber 59, ahuge deer wiih thc heâd ând body in perspective,supenmposcd by scveÍâl oihcr gconetric Iigures- Gomes(1987, 1989,2007) puts this dccÍ chronologicâlll in úeEpipâleolithic (period I) by assigning i1â subnâlurâl style.In contrâst, Baptista (1981) statcs that this figure belongsto thc second phase (Late Neolithic) and provcs thât thespirâl is older than úe think, since this figure issuperimposed by úe deer. ln fact, this theory was likely

to prove úe delâiled stLLdy ofthe ,noulds of the rocks ofthe Têsus, which confim that the antlers of this deereffectively ovcnide a spirêI.

a):b)

Iigur€ 3 Deer figurcs from Chão daVelha rock aú site.â) (Goncs, 2001). b) (Baptistà et a|.1971;QU€rcl et al-

1975; Senâo, 1978). c) (Gomes,2007). d) (Baptista e/ al.1974;Querol e, a1. 1975; SerÍão, 1978)

C}LÃO DA \TLHÀ

The Châo dâ Vclhâ rock aÍ sire is located on the leftbânl of ihc Tâgus River, south ol Fratel, near lhe dâmthâ1 submerged it. One of the four knol\,n deer figures ofthis silc (Figu.e 3) presents itse lf associated 'lvith anotherzoomoehic figure which Gomes said belonged to ê'hunling related inÍh' belonging to úe dlnamic-styledperlod (Iull Neolithic).

Figure 4 a: Rock üumber 59 from Câchão do A1gârve (Gomes, 2007) b: Detâils ofÍock number 59fiom Cachão do Algârve 1Íâcing ofúe mou1d. Source:Insdruto Terrâ e Memórlâ

S. GÁncts: TnE DrtrR FrcuNrs r|l Tacus RfirK aRr

Figure 5 Rock number 49 ftom FÍârel. The blâck colour deer ofthe first group (Full Neotiúic)and grây coloul deer h the second soup (Late Neoliúic) (Gonesal 99.0â; 2007)

FRÀTtrL

The Frâtel nucieus has oÍre of rhe lâreesr concenrrârionsofrock engrêvings ofúe Tâgus Vâlley, consisting lnâintyof deer, extending for abour 1-5 kln on the riút bà* ofthe Tagus River. It is also the firsr gÍoup of prids locâreddownsheam of the monunental nâtural geologicalphenomena PoÍâs do Ródão, a narlow gorge of massivequartzite that the .iver hâs created over rime fcomes2007). In this rucleus there e two of úe nost famousrocks ol the entirê complex. These âre the most srudiedand quoted rocks in publicâtions in Tâgus rock aÍ ând themost impoúant for reFesentârions of deer both inquartity âlld in quâ1i8,. For the research so fâr undertâkenin úis site, there âre 29 figures of deer, tt of rhembelonging to rock 49 (Iisule s).

The rock in question is locâred ilr ê secrion ot the rjghtedge of the middle Tâgus River, neâr rhe portâs doRódâo. According to Gonles (200?), the deer in úis rookare Fesented âccording to two distincl groups. tn úe firstgloup úey âre stylisticâlly similâr, sharins c€úainchârâcteristics which refer to úe sâme ctuonolosicalpeíod ot engÍâ! ing (fâÍt1 \eolirhicl. The second gioupof deer, some of which overlap úose of the tusr group,Fesent some different charâcteristics àom úe tust one.They have smaller dimensiom and, according to theauthor, are ckoarologicâlly lâter. He infers thar úeybêlong to the Full Neolithi,r, in whioh there âre ml,tlsâboul l'unlfrg dcu\irier in\ol\ing figures .uch as dier,dogs, â very vâ.ied fâuna, scenes of mâting paÍs of deerand representations of fl ocks.

Gomes (1990â) attempted ro ple-empr a possibleinteeretation of the rock described based on the idea otbuildi4 religiols systems according ro the imporrâncethat hunting, for sure, would hâve for comnunities,folloúng the lâws of shamanism- Religious pracriceswould include the engaving of úe ênimât whichmight be hunted, ifthe ânimâl were formd in narure ândthe hunt was conslnmâted again aM agâin (comes1990a).

Fratel is considered ro be the nost impoÍant rock âÍ siteof the Tâgus complex, boú by extension, densiry anddiversity of úe piúures cont ined therein, as for beingseen as vital in defining úe early srâges of rhe art(Baptista 1981).

This site includes another rock which is extremelvrmDoíanr in úe rock an ol lagus. Rock t5: rt igure o') i.considered on€ of the most notâble engaved rocks inTêgus rd is vitâl for undersranding the religious andjdeological motivâtioN of the aÍ ol the Tâgus. Erosionmd oxidâtion of the ferrous elements shale skared â lorand gave it â colour between dârk blue ând red-blownrust. According to the author, there are abour 104 figureson this rock (nine of them are deer). Atthoush the rwoêuthors who have dedicared themselves to sludyàg therock aÍ of Tâgus disâgee on rhe chronology, rhey have apoint in common: the rock of Frâtel 155 is indeed ânimpoÍant milestofle in rhe perception of the more remoieengravings of the Tagus.

One of the most importart detâils about rhis rock is theoverlâp â1d associâtions between spials à1d zoomorphicfigures or circles. According ro Baptistâ (1981), ânânalysis of the most significânt overlaps shows rhât thespil?ls ar€ alwâys on the bottom of rhe srratigaphy andâbove those are the zoonorphic figures in nârüralisticstyle (the oldest ones). This conclusion is suppoúed,according to úe âuthor, by the pârine .which aiso show êgIeât antiqúty for the mosr anttuopomorphic figures, buthere is orc to tâke into âccount certâin tecllrlicât vnrietvâmong the figures'.

sÃo str!áo

The Sào Si'nào rock an rire is one ofúe rhrce remainingsites where it is possible! even today, to hâve access tothe rocks ât certêin times ofyeâr. Ir is considered one ofthe sites with the greatest concenrration ofrock aÍ oftheTagus, âlong with Fratel and Câchão do Algarve. Thedeer known to belong to this site are not mâny, but of the

'/5

THE INTETLEüIÁI ^ND

SprRrnral- ErGRrssroN or NoN LTTELATE SoclEills

I l0rlcM

D eÊí lÉ*Íe.

Oi!r! zúúfrÕip!r. flErÉs

Anlt ofm dfhic ffgwes

Sfi!ô1q .mcentic ciícles ad circlesih

Figure 6 Rock nunber 155 &om Frâtel. This reproduction attempts to demonstrête úe level ofpossibleâssociâtions between deer ând zoomorphic figures ilr general wiú úis type ofmotif Tte representâtion of

thê rock is bâsed ody on â personâl interpretation ofthe figues that exist wiúin it (becâuse it wâsimpossible so fâr to mâkc thc trâcing of ihe rock mould). However, Bâptistâ (1981) ârgues ihât dccÍ figuÍebelongsto the period Clâssic Subnâturàlism orEvolved including spirâls úât scem to bê âssociâted to them

exisú€ six, three of úem fâll into very interestingcontexts. Tn paticular, the famous rock olSâo Sinâo úatpresents a phallic anttuoponoryhic figure with a deer onhis back, inlerpreted as ê 'dead admâl harEing in the âiÍ'or ân 'ânthropomorphic representâtion of sustaining a

deâd deer' (Golnes 1983, 1987, 1989, 1990â, 2001;Serrão 1981; Baptislê 1986; JoÍge l99l). This is quite ânamà7ing figure given úat is associated with two moredeer, an animal not yet identified and what looks like theanders of one ânother. In the Tâgus rock ârt we can findpffalels to these en$avings in other rocks, but \liih thcdead deer replaced by figules of the srm.

OCREZA RIVf,R

In the 1970s, in the Ocrezâ River (Tâgus Rivermainnream) $me panelc colréining cimildr erCÍd\ inC5

were identified h ttle surveys which were mâde ê1ongwith the construclion of the dâm thât wiped out mosr ofthe ârt of the Tâgus River. Thus wâs identified úemâximum size ofthe Tâgus Valley Rock AÍ Complex.Inthe Vâlley ofRovinhosa, there are five deer. three on a

rock câlled the Rock ofthe Deer, R2 (Iigure 7). whil€ theother two âre locaied on Rock Two Deer. R3. R2 isconsideredone ofthe most interestiry surfaces ofrock aÍ

76

S. GaRcÉs: TnE DEER lrcrr€s D{ Tacus RocK aR'r

â)

Figurê 8 - â) Pânel 1 ftom Two Deer Rock Rovinhosâ Valley, Ocleza River. Source: Instituto Terrâ e Memóriâ,Portusal. b) Panel 2 Rovinlosa Valley, Ocreza River. Source: Ílstituto Term e Memóriâ, Pofugâl

in the Ocrea Valley, despite the suppoú being alrcady inan advanced state of erosio& making it dif6cult toiúerpret the engrâvings. However, it is poss;ble toidentiry in one of the deer (which is on the rieht edee ofthe mck) the typicâl repÍesentâtion of the tul peckedneck ând heâd, chârâcteristic of deer in Tâgus rock art.R3 is divided into two pânels. On the fiÍsa one, there is apâiÍ of zoomoryhic figures identiíed âs deer, whichrepresert o y the hilrd legs and one fiont leg â1d â series

of perfomtions which appear to be the neck. The head ismissing but it is possible to see clearly a paú ofthe bâck,

à dôuble line ofthe belly (common in Tacus deer) and thehind less (FisuÍe 8). Tte second panel consists of â seriesof concentric lines (sptual?), a populâr motif in Tagüsrock ârt. Is ii feâsible io suggest â possible âssociâtionbefrr'een these two deer md â spirâl or concentric circle?

It is interesiing to undeÍstând the predilection torengrâving the deer 6gure regularly ât â pâÍiculâr tilnê ofthe yeâr. Most deer âre engrâved with greât ând brmchedântleÉ, à1d if we tâke into âccount úe aÍmuâl cycle ofllfe of this animal. one can conclude thât most of úe

Figure 7 Rock ofúe Deer Rovinlosa Vâlley, OcÍezê tuveÍ. Source: Instituto Terla e Memória, Poúusal

'77

TIII INIELLECTUAi- A\D SPtr{ITU^L EXPRESSION O[ NON L]IER^TE SOCIETIES

â)

Iisüe 9 ReEesefltâtions of deer pierced with weapons. a) Rock number 45 ftom Iratel (Gomes, 1989).b) Rock number 56 liom Cachão do Aisârve (Gomes , t990a, 2007)

ensâvings were probâbly mâde in lâte summer earlyauaumn, thc peak of growth for ântlers, which âre used âtúis time of year to impress the females, Íight rivâls ândmârk its tenitory in the bush. In âddition to úepreviously presented figures of deer, there âre somcrepresentations in úe Tagus that have been interpreted âs

mâting, huntin& religious rituals, the presence ofweâpons associated with deer, etc. Aocording to dâtâcollected so far, úe Fesence of weapons in Tâgus rockaÍ is extemely râÍe and precise interpretation ofthe typeof weâpon is stili very difEcult. This kind of picturemakes visible the direct presence of man in rock art.Gomes (2001) stâtes that 'hu1nan presence is reflected inthe iconosmphy of eârlier periods, not orly úrough úlebehaüour of certâin ântuâls in â stâre of âleÍ, possiblydue to úe âpproâching hunters, but âlso because êreobseÍed dÍowjng \,íeâpons, speârs or dârts, flxed on thebâck of ât leâst two inâges of deer (rocks number 56from Câchâo do Algarve ând 45 Som Frâtel)' (Fisüre 9).

The scene represented in Figure I0 is very interesting ândone of the possible interpreiâiions is thât it is a mâtingscene betwe t\vo deer. According lo Gomes (2007),assosiations of sexual themes found in vânous pieces ofrock aÍ ofthe Tagus reflect the leaming ofnâturâl cyclesand the m],thical âspects of fertility conneúed withsympathetic mâgic or shamanic dtuâls. According to thesame author, ttle êrt of the lâst hunter-gatherers consistsof nore caretul figurâtioq and more elegant and moredetâiled anâtomicâl feâtuÍes, especiâlly in the head. Hereare presented mâirly repÍesentâtions of deer in the so-cêlled subnaturêlist sr1e. However, úe author arsres thatthe existence of zoomorphic figüres fits in the same

chronological perioü but they hâve some differentanatomical features. So, despite being inieglâied in úesâme phase àbove, these are considered to be a little lâter,in the words of the author, described as figures mor€ thânshafts, less €legânt, ovenized, wiú traces or stains insidethe body ând ântlers in peNpective. The subnâtwalist aúbelongs to commünities of hunter-gêtherers prolongedinto postglacial times, with an economy, figulativedesign ênd cognitive Paleoliúic odgin. The âbsence ofânthÍopomorphic figues h more remote periods cân thenbe explained by a conceÍr for lrature inherent in theânâromy ând nâtuml rh]úms of the animals, which hâd âvital imporlânce foÍ the survivêl ofn1ên and úus are theonly representâtions of úât period, si re on thisknowledge would depend úeir survivâl (Gomes 2007).

FiguÍe 10 Possjble mâting in rock numbêr I55from Frâtel- AccoÍdingto M.V. Gomes (1987, 1990â;

2000b) âssociated with the femaleto a male ofthe châic period ôfphâse I (subnaturâlisiic)

Another auúor (Bâptistâ, 1981) arsues, litewise, that úist "e

of zoomorphic fisure ând §?icâ1 representâtions ofhunting societies hâs â Neolithic chÍonology (Gomesclaims úey ffe 4?ical representations of Epipâleoliúic,âlso covering pârt of the Full Neolithic) ând sâys thâi thevêrious spirâls cân be interFeted âs âssociâtions úthanimâls, foÍ exâmple, the rock of Frâtel number 155.However, he âlso staies that despite these possibleâssociations, the spotlight continues to be úe zooEorphicfigure itseli whioh in the example of rock 155 seems tobe an adult male, soon to be represented ât the centre ofthe activiry represented on úe rock. Similârly, the authorattributes this kifld of representation of huntercommunities to â úamanic trâdition (....) because theshaman hurter besides engaving or pâinting the hrmtedanimâl usually splii its trurtk, in theiÍ attempt to flx thevitâl pârts of th€ skeleton, knoúng tltât the non-destructioú ând sübsequent .joinring of the bones of theslâughlered ânimal âre vitâl to his resurection. Thisengraving ofthe intemalpaÍs ofthe animâl (sonetimesalso of vital organs) may be a simple lifeline, whichsometimes represents itself in meander spi.als, morecommon iÍ Siheíân ând Arctic art. The act of re-

78

S. CqRcÉs:ftn DL€Â FtcrrREs tr! TacusRocKARr

Figur-e l1 a) Rock nrmber 60 ftom A lasadoum. Couple of deer ând possible hunrer (?) (colnes, r 989,1990a, 1990b, 2000a; 2001, 2002). b) Rock nunber 174_t7s from Fmtel. possiUte'trunting scene

involving anthÍoponorphic fisures, one (or more) possible dog and deer (the zoomom,-hicwhich is in rhe middte ofúe scene could possibly be irÍerprúed as â deer?)

-

engrâving an ânimal previously Eepâred and used ifl any§pe of dtual ceremony may be sufÊcient ro make irrebom hence, perhâps. rhe fâct rhat they processed theremâkes âlwâys and only h ãúmâts ând never on rhegeonetric symbols (spi.als) rhar may accompany them. Inúris q0) ... nor onl) the rub natu,dtisric si\ te bul êlso b)lhe l)pe oí'represmLarron. rhe .nârn moril, oI úe rocknumber 155 âre the expression of úe ideolog/ of arocrer) in shrch hu-nrjng sas one otúe mâin economnactivities, ând are the main feâtures poinred out, whiohhave hitiâlly attached ro such shâmânic ítuats. Tmdiriondoes not disâppear ât all, as proved by rock 56 fro,nCachão do Algarve.

tli. figrü-e has an âmazins pdâllet ir rhe qüre srmtarfigure. al\o I' erprered as a scene ot maiing ir rnenothwestem Peninsula, the Lâxe das Lebes em poio(Anati 1968; comes 2007).

Rock s6 from Câchão the Algâr.r'e (Figure 9) is descrjbedby Bâptista (1981) âs a remâ*able composition of Tâgusrock âú, featuring a cilcle ând inside â schemâiic deerwiú â throwing weâpon stuck in úe bâck. the existenceof úe weapon is coffidered to be a râre fact ir Tâgusschist ând the âuthor âttributes úe deer to phâse III(which ürcludes aU the Bronze Àge), trying ro show thâtthât other êuthors tlink the deer is a differenr dâte &omthe circle. This must be revised since. accordins to iheaLIl'or. sryle \hould r)or dicrate chronotogica, periods andrhe ascocrJlrons ro sp,lals ir târer chronotogicat periodsprcves úat úis kind of sub nâruralist assôciation wâskept fÔI a lons time (Iisurê l2). Gomes (1990a, 2007)sÍâies that this type of figure is one of ú€ oldesttestimonies directly relâred ro hrmaing. The same âurhorârgues thêt deer figures Iike the ones in rock numbers 59àrd 6l ftom Cachão do Algffve, rcck rumber I55 ftomIratel ând rock numbels 43 ând 119â from São Simão. inspite ofbeiry clronologically diÍIerent, are in soure wayoverlapped by circles, concentric circl€s and,/or spirats,but they are much lâter, belonging to rhe period of circtes

and lines, period VI ofthe Lâre Bro.ze Age or Eârly konAge.

As mentioned eârlier, some aurhors argue thar rhe tustchromlogical penods ofthe Tagus rock art do nor includeântkopomorphic figures since mm!,s entire existence wâsbased on the câpâcity for subsistence, ard this dependedon wisdon in relârior to nature and the etements thâicumpoçed ir. Mo:t olúe engraving\ uere pertormed bylhe tirsl Íàrmerc srill bea\ity dependenr on hunring andgaúering. lr is rheretore nâruraÍ úuÍ rheü represenld on.âlto denore tbe gredr pÍo\imis ard LnowteÍige úe] hâdâcqux-ed rn the Íepresenlârion ol ânimals hohes anddeer during the Upper Pâleoliúic, (Iâ.inhâ, 2005). rflÀe consrdcr rha, rocl an i( rhe exprcsioD ot sociat,economic ând ideological or religious communities, t isgparent why in úe most remote ckonotogicâl periodshurnan beings focused úeir attention on whât reallymattered: the à1imals, rheir prinâry livelihood-According to the sême êutho.s. it is in rhe Lâte Neolithicthat anthropomorphic figures emerge ir Tâgus rock âr!ho$ever. al.o dssociared \\irh úe menrali0 or rhe eart)hunters' rimelmes. Rock nlunbeÍ t1824t Êom sàoSimão hâs one of ihe most beautitul and fâlnous scen€sfrom lhe Tagus rock ân: a phâ ic anúúopomorphicsustâinr his ârmr rai.ed rn a dead deer. Lduardo da C\xúaSerrâo (1981) consideÍs this rock as one of the rârescenes of the iver Tagüs that conhibutes to the slmbolicnâturc of this complex and, âccording ro the auúor,corÍe:ponded ro úe fulfill]nent ôt a ntuât sesrure, úeri\er being lhe main huh otall the impoíânrieremonie.

It wâs also assigned a tusl moment of dynarnjsm byBaptistâ (1986); however, rhe author claims thar itbelongs to the Final Neolirhic in contrast to comes(1983), who arguês that this rock betongs to úe FuUNeolithic and continues to express the m)1hs ofhunring.However, this âuihor âlso thinks rhat úis scene is one ofthe most importânt in Tâgus rock art for uderstânding

19

T1llj INl H LECruaL aND SprRrru^r E)sREsvoN or NoN-]-trrRATr sor r FnEs

Figure 12 Example ofdeer/ ciÍc1es ând spirals âssociation. â) Rock number 56 from Câchão do Atgarve(Bâptistê, 1981). b) Rock number 61 from Cachão do AlsâÍve. c) Rock number I I I from tmrel d) Rock number

1i5 &om Fratel. c) Rock number 2l l'from Fratel. 1) Rock nunber 13 froln São Simão s) Rock nlmber i lEftoln São Sinão. h) Rock nulnbcr 386 from Sâo Simão

lhis compler as â p]âcc of reiigious mânifestâtions. Atfirst it might be possible to interpret úe scenc as a likelysituation ofhuntnlg ând the symbolisn ofthe consequentconquest, or âs a possible initiâlion ritLlal by a younghunter, â trial of strength irrld power by an importantmember ôfthe commlúty. The chances êre negligible nlúe field of interpretation ând âll could be consideredvâlid until we hâve â betler scnse of Tagus rock âÍ- It is

not becâuse of any of these situarions, becâu-se it ispossjble to find slnilar figures, âccording to someauihors. a litt1e schcmatic, bui in the same attirude.sustaining not â dcer or zoomoryhic, bui solar slanbols(Gomes,1983).

The deer is no$, replaced by the solar s],mbo1, leâdlng toên hterpretâtion that goes through úe evolutiôn of

o d)

.\'}

t0

S, CÁRcts: TnE DIER rrcuREs rN racus RocK aÀ,r

Figure I 3 Phailic ânthropomorphic süstaining â dead deer in his arms.Rock number 12 ftom São S imão.' Inreresring ro consider úe possibi tity

ofthe àÍlers ofúe deer hâve been made in a later phâse thar the deer itself.Thê pâÍ that joins úe two points âppeârs to be different thân úe rest

ofthe ântlers. Coincidence or not, the antlers êppeas ro have hâdan ultimate goal solâr represeniâiion

behaviour. mentâlity, from time. According to Fffinha(2005), 'in úe eaíy Neolithic period ... when huniingwâs still ân essentiâl element of survivâI, ânimals appeârsmall p,ofiles. dlnâmic. .ugge,dng â hunring scene inwhich you can see hunteÍs, dogs and wildlife hunting. Bvthe end of the Neolithic, hulrtins scenes are replaced byastral elements - especially úe Sun, suggesting ânelÊment of mystification of the creator elemenr ândfbÍified crops and life. Finâlly, rvith lhe firstmetalugists, there are schemâtic and srnbolic ways,

' Tne Rocl AÍ Lâboratory ofthe Mueu ofPrehisloric Arl ofMaÇão,Poíugal !âs cmied out a thorous[ íxdy ofl]e Tagu VâUcy Rock AnConplex. Thê i,rcjed "Ruplejo" (6 ôrdi.ated by Luiz ooíerb€et)üvobes lhe det iled work both in rhe mck art sites still out of warer udúe ba.ing ofúe Tâgú eng.aved rccks in the Rook AÍ Lâborâiory.Recddy (2011), lield work ai úe rocr ú sire of São Sinão(coordinâied by Mila Simões de Abreu) úabled úc cvalLELion in situ ofso,ne oÍ ihe eDsraved Íocks which sere accessed alreâdy ü rlE labútuush úe monlds ôf úe Tagus. São Sinão is o.ô orlhe few rock arrnuoleuses rhat âre still visirable bcôarBe sotre engrâvcd rccks renâií

typical of the Chalcolithic culrure of úe souúempeninsula.'A1so accordins to Comes (1983). that is whenthe humm beiry begins to have a greârer sense of seli ânâwâreness of who ând what he does, giving youlsell thesame impotance so fâr only intended for animâls.

CONCLUSION

Àfter this short anâlysis of deer of the Tagus, and beffingin mind that reseflch is ongoing ând in a very early srâge,some considemtions can be mâde more precise. Thc mostimpoÍant relàrs to an importânt fact abour the deerpresented. Most zoomorphic figures prescnt highlydeveloped antlers and hence we can reâch someinteresting conclusiors. Tâking into account the rype ofdeer presÊnted úis is probably the cems elaphus, themost commor deer in the Peninsular Holocerc (Bâptista1981), which makes us believe thâr lnosr are ma1e, young

8l

THr INrErEcruÁr aÀD S?rRmraL E),?x$sroN or NoN LrrlLÀTr Socmrrns

râ) b)

Figure 14 - Anthropomorphic tigurâtions sustâining solâr Íigures in the âir. Rock number 126 from Fratel(Bâptislâ e/ at, 1974; Golneq 1983, 1987, 1989,2001; Querol eí at, 1975; Seüão. 1978; Oonçalves,2004)

and rock number l2Irom licâlho (Bâptistâ, 1989; Gomes, 1983, 1989, 2001; Jorge e Jorge, l99l)

or adult males, but not old. Ihe rise and fal1 ofthe antlersare connected vdth the activity of úe sexual organs andaffect úeir characteristic shape aromd seven or eiútyears old. The ander loss typicâly occurs betweenFebruary and April ênd iis rext development lasts aboutfour morÍhs, so that wiú high probêbility, mosi of thesezoomorphic reFesentêtions hâve been made in lâtesummer or eâdy âutumn, when the ântlers âre at the peakof then developrnent ând âre used as a weâpon againstother mâles ât the time of hmt, ând âs â marker ofter.itory (by odoroüs signâls).

Understânding the dynamics of relâlionships betweenhumâns ând deer is a tâsk that can be looked ât grâduâlly.The deer is the a mal most represented in thc rock âÍt ofthe Tagus and becomes associated with theanthropomorphic figlues, geometric figures, weapons,and oúer zoomorphics. Ít is definitely ar animal thâtsho*s úe importânce it holds h the imagination of the{irst ago-pastorâl society, and the Tagus River itselfseems to hêve a pivotal role in this relationship.

This is pâlt of â reseârch progmlnme in the Àlto Ribâtejoregion on fâuna, the pâleo-environmcntâl ând úe pâleo-climate (Almeida 2010; Ferreirâ 2010; Câmpos 2009) andoccupancy territory, as pâÍ of anthropoLogicâI, materiâland symbolic reseffch (Notue 2006, Tomé 201l; Cru2011), â these ffe úe s€ts of dâta that it is believed wiUsuppoÍ the continuâlion of research on deer in the TâgusVâlley Rock Art Complex.

References

ALMEIDA, N. 2010 A Constituição das PnmeirâsEconomiâs Àgro-Pâstoris, Parâdigmas em Debate. O

Contributo da Zooârqueologiâ e TâÍbnomiâ pârâ oAlto Ribâtejo. DissertâÇão de Mestrâdo em Arqueo-logiâ Pré-Históricâ e Arte Rupestre (policopiado).Insiituto Poliiécnico de Tomârruniversidâde de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro.

ANATT, E. 1968 Ane Rupestre rele Regioni occidentalidella ?enisola Iberica, Archivi di AÍe keihistorica 2.Edizioni del Cento. Ce ro Camuno di StudiPreistorici, Bresciê.

ANATI, E. 1975 Incisioni Íupestri nell'âlto vâllc delFiume Tâgo, Portogâllo. Bollettino del CentroCamuno di Srud PÍersro.ici. l2.pp. l5b.-ti0.

ARCÀ, A.; BEDNAIK, R,G.;IOSSATI, A,; JAFFE, L,e ABREU, M.S. 2001 Damrcd dams âgâin: the pliútolPoÍusuese rock ârt. Rock An Reseârcb i8(1), pp.I IV.

BAPTISTA, A.M. 1986 À àte rupestre pós-glâcituiê.Esquemâtismo e âbstrâcção. Históriâ dâ Aúe emPortugâl. Do Pâleolitico à Arie Visigótic4 pp. 30-55.Publicações Alfa, Lisboa.

BAPTISTA, A.M. 1986â Arie Rupeslre do Vâle do Tejo:â aÍe dos Povos Neoliiicos do Vâle do Tejo. CI^RT:Centro de literpretâção de Alte Rupestre do Vâle doTejo. (vilâ Vêlhâ de Ródão).

BAPTISTA, A.M. 2001 Ocreza (Ervendos, Mação,PoÉwal certral): um novo síiio com êrte pâleolíticade âr livre- In Ana Rosâ Cruz e Luiz Oosterbeek(coord.), Teritó os, rnobiljdâde e povoamento noAlto-Ribatejo. II: Santa Cita e o quatemário dâ região,Tomar. Arkeos: perspectivas em diálogo, I l, pp. I63-92. Tomar: CEPHAR Centro Europeu deInvestigação dâ PráHistória do Alto Ribate"ro-

BAPTISTÀ, A.M.; GOMES, M.V.; LEMOS, F.S.;MARTINS, T,; MONTEIRO J,P,, RAPOSO L,;

li2

SERRÃO V.M.; SLVÀ, A.C. dâ.; eUEROL, M. delos A.; SERIÃO, E. da C. 1974 O Complexo de AÍeRupeste do Tejo. Processos de Levantamento. Aúasdo Ill Congresso Nâcionâl de Arqueologia" 1, pp.293 324. IV ests. Ministério dâ Educação Nâsional,

BAPTISTA, A,M,; SERRÃo, E. da C.; MARTINS,M.M. 1978 AÍe Rupestre do Vale do Tejo.Exposiçâo. 6p. Mllseu de Arqueologia e Etnoglafiâ dâJunta Distrital de Seúbêl, SerubâI.

CANINAS, J.; HENRIQLIES F. 1985 Testemunhos doNeolítico e Câl€olítico no Corcelho de Nisâ. Actâsdas l"s Jomâdâs de Arqueologiâ do NordesteAlentejano, pp. 69 112.

CAM?OS. L. 2009 Dinâmicas Clifráticâs e

Comportamento Hummo nâ Pênínsula lbficâ de 14 â4 mil câl.BP. DisseÍâção de Mestrado lPTruTAD.(texro não publicâdo)1.

CRUZ, A.R. 2011 A Pré-História Recenrc do vale doBalxo Zê^erc. DisseÍação de Doutoramento(policopiado)1. Universidade de Trás-os-Montes eAlto Douro.I vols.

GARCÊS, S. 2009 Cervídeos nâ Aúe Rupesrre do Valedo Tejo: oontributo pffa o esrudo da Pré-HistónaRecente. Dissertação de Mestâdo em Arqueologiâ?ré-Histónca e Ane Rupestre Golioopiado)]. rnstituroPolitécnico de Tomarruniversidade de Trás-os-Montes e AIto Douro.

GOMES, M.V. 1980 AÍe do Tejo. Erciclopédia Verbode Cultura 20, pp. 1100-4. Editorial Verbo, Lisboâ.

GOMES, M.V. 1981 Arte esquemáticâ do VÂle do Tejo.Zepht Írs 3 6. pp. 27 7 85. Sâlâmanca

COMES, M.V. 1987 Ane Rupestre do Vale do Tejo.Arqueologia no Vâle do Tejo, pp. 2í43. IPPCIrstitutô Português do ?atrimónio Cultural, Lisboâ.

GOMES, M.V. 1989 AÍe Rupesrre do Val€ do Tejo - umsantuário pré-his6noo. 'Ercueniro sobre el Tajo: Elagua y los êsentâmientos humanos'. Cuâdemos deSan Benito 2, pp. 49 75. Fundêcion Sân Benito de

GOMES, M.V. 1990a A rochâ 49 de Fratel e os peíodosestiiizâdo-estático e estilizâdo-dinâmico dâ ârte doVêle do Tejo, Homenagem âo Professor Sados Júniorl, pp. 151 77. lnstituto Português de lnvestigâçãoCientífica, lisboâ.

GOMES, M.V. 1990b A lmpoÍância dos ElementosNaturâis e do Ambiente na Arte Rupestre. Jomadâssobre Pârques com AÍe Rupestre, pp. 123 48.Zâragoza.

GOMES, M.V. 2000â A rocha 175 de Fratel -Iconogâfia e interpretâção. Estudos Pré-Hisr&icos, 8,pp.81-112.

CTOMES, M.V. 2000b AÍe keistorioa del PoÍogâIlo,40000 Anri di Ane Contemporanea, L'Art Pr€istoricâdEuropê, pp. 23-41. Centro Camum di StudiPreistorici, Câpo di Ponte-

GOMES, M.V. 2001 AÍe rupestre do Vâle do Tcjo(Poúugâl) Artropomorfos (estilos, comportamentos,

S- GaRcÊs: TH! DE|R rrc! RLs N Tac|s RocK ARr

cronologiâ e interpretações), Série Arqueoiógica -Semiótica del AÍe Rupestre, pp. 53-88. Academiâ DeCultura Vâlencianâ. Sección De Prehistoriâ YArqueologia. Valêrciâi Dipu.âción Provincial de

GOMES, M.V. 2002 AÍe Rupestre em Portügâlperspectivâ sobre o últino século. ln José MoraisAmâud, Arqueologiâ 2000: Balarço de uln Século deInvestigação Arqueológica em PoíugâI. Arqueologiae História Revistâ dâ Associação dos ArqueólogosPoÍugueses, 54, pp. 139 96.

GOMES, M.V. 2007 Os períodos iniciâis da ârte do Vâledo Tejo (Pâleolítico e Epipâleolítico). Cuademos deAÍe Rupeslre, 4, pp. 81 116.

GONÇAL\TS, V.S. 2004 Portugai nê Pré-história. lnJoão Medinâ(Dir) História de PortugâI. Portusâl nêPré-históriâ, 1 607pp. (173 82, 329, 449\. EüÍaEdiclube, Alfiâgide.

IARINHA, L. 200s Umajarelâ sobre o Ródão. Históriâ,80, pp. 56-59.

FERREIRA, o.V. 1973 Acercê das châmâdas 'gla\,urêsrulestres' de Frâtel CoÍas de Ródão). DóLne& l, pp.l5 l6 Iiqhôâ

FERREIRA. C. 2010 Contribuição paÉ o Estudo dasTrânsfbmações Ambientais na TransiÇâo pâra oAgro-Pâstoralismo no Alto Ribâtejo. Dissertâção deMestrâdo em AÍqueologia ké-Hist&icâ e ArteRupestre [policopiâdo]. Instituto Politécnico deTomârrunivercidade de Trás-os-Montes e AltoDouro.

I{ENRIQUES, F.; CANINAS, J.; coU\rEIA, J.2010AÍe Rupeste do Vale do Tejo. ltinerários por TeÍasde Açafa. Vilâ Velha de Ródão. Associação deEstudos do Alto Tejo: CâÍlam Municipal de VilaVelha de Ródão.

JORCE, V.O. 1983 Graluras Portuguesas. Zephyrus, 36,pp.53 61. Salamarca.

JORGE, V.O. 1987 crâvürâs Poúuguesas. In Projectar oPâssâdo. Ensâios sobre fuqueologiâ e Pré-história,pp.263 :7't. Lisbo .

JORGE, V.O.; JORCE, S.O. 1991 Figurations humainesprehistoriques du Portugal: Dolmens ómes, âbdspeints, rcchers gaves, statues-menhirs. Colloque leMonre Bego. Lne \4onrâgr)e Sacree de l'Àge duBronze, (pré-actas) l,pp. 39I 433. Tende.

NOBRE, L. 2006 Arte Rupestre Pré-Históricâ da MargemEsquerda do rio Erges. Dissertâcâo de Mestrado.lpolicopiâdol. Instituto Politécnico de Tomar/Universidâde de Trás-os-Montes e Aito Dou.o.

MONTEIRO, J.P.; COMES, M.V. 1980 Ate Rupestre doVale do Tejo evoiüção estilística cronológicâ ecultural. Resumos do IV Coryresso Nacionâl deArqueologia, Volume T, pp. 19 23. Faro.

QUEROL, M.A.i LEMOS, I.S.; MONTEIRO, J.P.;GOMES, M.V. I975 E1 conplejo de AÍe rupestre delTâjo (Portugal). Crónicâ del XIII CongressoArqueólogico Nacionêl (Huevâ, 1973), pp. 231 44.Seminário de Arqueologia. Zârâgozâ.

ul

TB TNmrr.IimrÀr. aM SmmrÂr. Em.ssroN oF NoNr.nERÂF Somms

OOSTERBEEK L. 2008 El Arte del Tejo (PoÍtueal) enel marco de los studios de AÍe Rupestre en PortugâI.AÍe RupestÍe do Vâle do Tejo e outÍos Estudos deAÍe PráHistórica- In L. Oosteúeek e C. Buco(coord-), Ark€os: penpectivâs em diálogo, 24 pp. 11

30. Centlo Europeu de Investigação da Pré-Históricâdo Alto do Ribâtejo (CEIPHAR). TomâÍ.

SANIOS, M.F. 1985 PniHistória de Portusal. Bibliotecadâs Civilizâções Primitivâs. 3â Edição. 2l4pp.Editorial Víbo, Lisboa.

SILVA" A.M.S.P.; ALVES, L.B. 2005 Roteiro de ArteRupestre do Noroeste de Portugal. AÍe RupestrePrúistódca do Eixo Aúántico. pp. 189 219. Porto,Viso. Eixo Adântico.

SANTOS, M.F. 1985 hé-Históda do ?oúugâl. Bibliotecadâs Civilizâções Primitivas. 3a Edição. 2l4pp.Editoriâl Veúo, Lisboa.

SBRRÁO, E.C. 1978 A âÍte rupeste do vâle do Tejo.Aspectos e métodos da P.é-Historià TÉbalhos doGrupo de Estudos Arqueológicos do PoÍto, 1, pp. 5-14. PoÍto.

SERRÃO, E.C. 1981 As qstagões de arte rupestre do Valedo Tejo. Arqueologia,3, pp. l2l 2.

TOMÉ, T. 2011 Até que â morte nos rcúãâ. Trmsiçãoparâ o agro-pâstoralismo nê Bâcia do Tejo e Sudoestepeninsulâr. Dissertâção de Douiormnento(policopiado). 343 pp. Universidade dê Tús-os-Montes e Alto DouÍo.

i

I

I

I

84