No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Valcamonica-Valtellina complex (central Alps) and Mount Bego (south-western Alps) can be defined as the two poles of the Alpine Rock Art, bearing by far, in number and in quality the largest number of engraved signs of all the Alpine valleys. In appearance they are two different and distant poles. Differences can be outlined in the geomorphology and in the anthropisation, the Valcamonica pecked areas being situated within a 250-1200 m elevation range, while M. Bego engravings start from 1950 m and reach 2700 m above sea level. The research history is clearly distinct: M. Bego rock art was scientifically discovered more than sixty years before that of Valcamonica; after late 19 th cent. pioneers such as Moggridge and Riviere, the botanist C. Bicknell discovered, since 1897 to 1912, the most of M. Bego rock art, in particular the Fontanalba complex, reproducing on paper rubbings more than 12000 figures. He passed the baton on to the archaeologist of the Piedmont state Superintendence, P. Barocelli, who understood the importance of a complete documentation, of a chronological seriation and of the comparison with archaeological prehistoric findings, in particular blades. Barocelli planned a scientific study undertaken from 1924 till 1942, building a mountain refuge as a logistical support and starting the establishment of a complete corpus. This task was completed by the sculptor C. Conti, who mainly performed chalk casts, and who also first recognised the existence of numerous scratched figures. Tracing methods were preferred in the south-western pole, while photography was the choice in Valcamonica until the 1950s. Starting from the 2 nd part of the 20 th century two research teams, led in Valcamonica from 1956 by the anthropologist and archaeologist E. Anati, and in M. Bego from 1967 by the natural scientist and archaeologist H. de Lumley, conducted detailed studies based on the contact transparency tracing method (fig. 1), with some differences related to the reproduction of the inner pecking (Valcamonica) vs. the marking of the external outline only (M. Bego). In the central Alps pole the goal of the research was to build a chronological frame (Anati 1975, partially revised by de Marinis 1988b, 1994b, Fossati 1991, Arca 2005), based on the study of the superimpositions among figures and on the archaeological comparisons, drawing in such a way a detailed palimpsest where each phase corresponds to a different archaeological period. On the south-western pole, on the contrary, classification was more taxonomical than chronological (Bicknell 1913, de Lumley et alii 1976, 1995, 2003a, 2003b), leading to an interpretation which looks at each engraved panel as a single unit composition. No team or single scholar has ever made an in-depth comparative examination of the two alpine rock art poles. The building of the corpus of the engraved signs (3.600 rocks and 32.000 figures were counted in Bego area, 1770 rocks counted and more than 100.000 estimated in the Valcamonica) is considerably more advanced in the south-western pole, where all the rocks were traced, against 54% in the other pole. On the contrary more rocks of the Valcamonica area (about 20%) were published with the complete tracing. Given all these differences, it is however possible to find many contact points in common. First of all both the two alpine rock art poles lie on the same rocky framework (fig. 2): a Permian fine siliceous sandstone, most probably siltites or pelites. These fine-granulated surfaces were hard-polished by the pleistocenic glaciers, thus offering a series of perfect natural blackboards. In the Alpine arc these suitable surfaces are present only in the two main rock art poles, hence the huge amount of engraved signs. Moreover it is possible to unveil at least three couples of common subjects, clearly represented and comparable in the two areas, which are geometric and topographic figures (Arca 2000, 2004), ploughing scenes and weapon depictions, particularly daggers and halberds. All these pairs clearly correspond to different degrees, in shape, in stratigraphy (based on superimpositions) and in matching archaeological comparisons. In both sites it is possible to demonstrate the chronological priority of the topographical representations (fig. 3), which are very similar regarding the completely pecked areas, the so called common modules and the dotted units. In this way such compositions, related to an anthropic agricultural landscape depiction, represent the first engraved phase, late Neolithic or first Chalcolithic, in the two areas. The subsequent ploughing scenes (fig. 4), Chalcolithic (M. Bego and Valcamonica) and Ancient Bronze Age (M. Bego only), may also be compared in the two alpine rock arte poles, showing an evolution of the plough from the spade type to the hoe type. Focus must be given finally on the weapon representations (figg. 5, 9), mainly dagger and halberd triangular blades, where the crucial point is the base-shoulder diagnosis. The comparison with archaeological objects shows the parallelism of the two poles with Copper Age 2 (2900-2400 BC, i.e. Remedello culture phase 2) tanged daggers with straight heel (figg. 5, 8), Copper Age 3 (Bell-Beaker, 2400-2200 BC) tanged daggers of Bell Beaker type (figg. 6, 9) and Early Bronze Age (2200-1600 BC) bronze hilted daggers (fig. 7). In this way it is possible to demonstrate the parallelism of the most ancient Valcamonica and M. Bego engraving phases, in correspondence with the first camunnian rock art cycle, i. e. from the end of the Neolithic to the end of the Early Bronze Age-beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. This range probably matches the Lobben cold climatic Phase (3 rd quarter of the II mill. BC) at its ending point, harsh to endure at the high elevation of the M. Bego area, so probably forcing the interruption of the summer mountain pasture and subsequently of the engraving practice. It is also possible to draw a M. Bego four styles seriation (fig. 11), where the chronology is raised starting from the Neolithic and where the Style I (Neolithic and first Copper Age) is represented by the topographical representations (IA ring type, IB geometric type), the Style IIA (Copper Age 2) by stick body horned figures (and ploughing scenes) and straight heeled triangular blades, the Style IIB (Copper Age 3) by full body horned figures (and ploughing scenes) and tanged triangular blades of Bell Beaker type, the Style III (Early Bronze Age) by round heeled blades and hoe-type ploughs, the Style IV, to be better detailed, by the historical (mainly scratched) figures. The situation of many other European and Mediterranean sites in the same way may be faced (fig. 12): principally Galician (Gondomar, Castrino do Conxo), Corsican (Apazzu) and Moroccan (Oukaimeden). Here the iterated depiction of triangular-blade daggers and halberds clearly focus on such a kind of metal icons.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.