The stylistically Paleolithic petroglyphs
of the Côa valley (Portugal) are of Paleolithic age
A refutation of their <<direct dating>> to recent
times
João Zilhão
1. Introduction
The controversy regarding the Côa valley petroglyphs began in November
1994, when their existence was made public. Rock art experts and prehistorians
from Portugal and all over the world immediately recognized them to be of
Paleolithic style and, therefore, of Paleolithic age. This recognition was
based on several readily apparent characteristics of the art: the animals
represented (aurochs, horse, ibex, deer) were the large herbivores that
make up the vast majority of Ice Age iconography; the large size of the
figures (most being between 50 cm and 1.5 m long) and the conventions followed
(profile view of the bodies, twisted rendering of the horns, sinuous cervico-dorsal
lines, <<pregnant>> bellies, absence of a ground line) were
identical to those documented in cave art sites, particularly in those well
dated to the Solutrean period, around 20,000 BP; the animals that are rare
in Paleolithic art (birds, reptiles, fish, etc.) were absent, as were any
that could unquestionably be classified as domesticated (sheep, chickens,
pigs, etc.); and, finally, representations of planets, stars, clouds and
mountains, as well as of scenes with participating humans (hunting stories,
dances, etc.), were also absent. The patina of the engravings, identical
to that of the surrounding rock, and the obvious damage by weathering, faulting
and breakage that could be observed in many panels also testified to an
ancient age and excluded the possibility of a modern forgery.
Given the number of engraved figures and the extent of their distribution
along the valley (more than 15 km), this complex of sites implied a major
revolution in our understanding of Paleolithic art. After the smaller discoveries
made since 1981 in Portugal, Spain and France, it represented the final
demonstration that major Paleolithic art was not restricted to caves and
suggested that, in the past, most such art may have been done in the open
air (Bahn 1995).
As a result of this recognition, a campaign to stop the construction of
the dam that threatened to submerge and destroy this rock art complex was
immediately started by Portuguese archaeologists and rock art researchers.
This campaign was based on a characterization of the heritage value of the
Côa valley that stressed several points (e.g. Zilhão 1995b):
the open air situation of the Paleolithic petroglyphs and the extent of
the site, which allowed us to have the first insights into the way Upper
Paleolithic people conceptually organized the landscape they lived in; the
continuity in the use of the valley for rock art representations throughout
later time periods (petroglyphs and paintings dated to the Neolithic, the
Chalcolithic, the Iron Age and historical times, up to the present century,
were also known), making the valley a unique case, anywhere in the world,
of an <<open air art museum>> with such a time depth; and the
natural beauty of the valley and the need to preserve the art in the context
that gave it meaning, which created an excellent opportunity to turn the
area into a world heritage archaeological park.
This campaign received extraordinary support from the media and the public,
both nationally and internationally. Between January and March 1995 important
Portuguese political leaders, such as the President of the Republic and
the leader of the opposition, called for a suspension of the construction
work following the recommendations of a UNESCO mission that visited the
area in February (according to which it was necessary to carry out a detailed
archaeological study of the valley over several years). Finally, in May,
the Portuguese prime-minister ordered the construction work to slow down
and, at present (September 1995), the dam can be described as being technically
(although not formally) stopped. A final decision on its future is to be
made by the new government that will come out of the general elections of
October 1st, 1995.
EDP (Electricidade de Portugal), the state owned electricity company building
the dam, responded to this campaign by questioning the relevance of the
engravings. As part of this response, they organized a <<direct dating
project>> of the Côa petroglyphs that had been attributed to
the Paleolithic on stylistic grounds, and hired four researchers to carry
out those studies: Robert Bednarik, Ronald Dorn, Fred Phillips and Alan
Watchman. Preliminary results of the work by Bednarik, Dorn and Watchman
were leaked to the press by the office of the Minister for Industry, and
published in the July 7 issue of the Portuguese weekly O Independente (Sá
and Ferreira 1995). This article interpreted such results as demonstrating
that the art was post-Paleolithic and accused Portuguese archaeologists
campaigning to preserve the site of incompetence and fraud.
In a press conference held by its board of directors on July 13, EDP confirmed
that their official interpretation of the results was that the Côa
rock art site was post-Paleolithic (EDP 1995). Therefore, it did not have
the importance attributed to it by archaeologists and rock art researchers,
and there was no reason to abandon the construction of the dam. According
to several newspaper accounts, they even went as far as stating that, given
these results, the site did not justify the money budgeted for the construction
of a site museum next to the dam, which EDP planned to withdraw (Jornal
de Notícias, Porto, 14/7/1995). These statements were backed by the
Portuguese Minister for Industry.
As a result, political leaders who, previously, had expressed the view that
the valley should be preserved, stated that they were puzzled with these
developments, and that, if a late chronology for the Côa valley art
was to be confirmed, they might change their position (e.g. António
Guterres, general secretary of the Socialist Party and leader of the opposition,
in an interview with Público, dated August 3, 1995). These circumstances
transformed the scientific arguments concerning the chronology of the Côa
valley art into a critical topic in the struggle to save it from destruction
and led to the production of a report to the Portuguese authorities on EDP's
<<direct dating project>> (Zilhão and Soares 1995). The
methodological inconsistencies and internally contradictory results of EDP's
project were exposed, and it was shown how such results did not constitute
a valid basis for questioning the Paleolithic age of the stylistically Paleolithic
petroglyphs. This paper is an elaboration of the arguments originally presented
in that report, particularly as regards the work of Alan Watchman and Robert
Bednarik, which is examined in further detail.
Esta página foi realizada para o Nestcape Navigator
2.0
Última actualização no dia 1 de Junho 96
siljan@gemini.ci.uc.pt