Evaluación de la manifestaciones gráficas parietales de la Cueva del Forcón (A Fueba, Huesca): nuevas perspectivas sobre el arte paleolítico en la vertiente sur del Pirineo Central
[EN] In 1976, a team led from the Museum of Huesca conducted a series of archaeological works in El Forcón Cave (San Juan de Toledo, A Fueba, Huesca). In addition to the recovery of several materials and prehistoric tools in a completely disturbed context, it was discovered the existence of parietal...
| Autores: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2016 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) |
| Repositorio: | DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:digital.csic.es:10261/141894 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10261/141894 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Rock Art Northern peninsular Engravings Finger flutings Chronology Arte parietal Norte peninsular Grabados Trazos digitales Cronología |
| Sumario: | [EN] In 1976, a team led from the Museum of Huesca conducted a series of archaeological works in El Forcón Cave (San Juan de Toledo, A Fueba, Huesca). In addition to the recovery of several materials and prehistoric tools in a completely disturbed context, it was discovered the existence of parietal anthropic engravings. After the discovery of the Palaeolithic parietal site of Fuente del Trucho, also on the southern slope of the Central Pyrenees, and joined to the formal similarity of the El Forcón engravings with other Franco-Cantabrian ensembles, a Palaeolithic chronology was proposed for the ‘parietal art’ of this site. Since then, the scientific literature has included this ensemble in the inventory of cave art. Recently, we undertook a study of the graphical device –unrevised since its first publication–, to assess its potential and the arguments to establish a chronology. In this paper we discuss the evidence found and present the conclusions of the study. The most relevant is that the arguments do not support a Palaeolithic –or even a Prehistoric– chronology for the parietal motifs. |
|---|