Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

DOI 10.1007/s10437-010-9070-4
O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E

The Libyco–Berber and Latino–Canarian Scripts

and the Colonization of the Canary Islands

A. José Farrujia de la Rosa & Werner Pichler &

Alain Rodrigue & Sergio García Marín

Published online: 28 April 2010

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract Research into Canarian rock art, Libyco–Berber inscriptions, and the
colonization of the Canary Islands—within the North African context—has
presented several problems since the emergence of Canarian archeology in the
nineteenth century. This paper analyzes the evolution of research into Canarian rock
art and Libyco–Berber inscriptions from a historical and diachronic perspective and
develops a thesis concerning the origin of the Libyco–Berber script based on new
discoveries of inscriptions on the Canary Islands as well as in Morocco. In light of
this new thesis, we propose a diachronic hypothesis for the ancient colonization of
the Canary Islands.

Résumé La recherche sur l’art rupestre, les inscriptions libyco-berbères et la

colonisation des Îles Canaries, dans le contexte nord-africain, présente de nombreux
problèmes dès les débuts de l’archéologie canarienne dans le xixe siècle. L’article
examine donc l’évolution des recherches sur les figurations rupestres et sur les
inscriptions libyco-berbères des Îles Canaries dans une perspective historique et
diachronique, et développe une nouvelle thèse concernant l’origine de l’écriture

A. J. Farrujia de la Rosa (*)

Sociedad Española de Historia de la Arqueología (SEHA), Camino de Las Peras,
1, Edf. El Cristo, p. B, 1° J-22, La Laguna 38208 Tenerife, Islas Canarias, Spain
e-mail: afarruji@hotmail.com

W. Pichler
Institutum Canarium, Hauslabgasse 31/6, 1050 Vienna, Austria
e-mail: we.pichler@tele2.at

A. Rodrigue
7 rue Richard Fosse, 81100 Castres, France
e-mail: arodriguelvh@yaoo.fr

S. García Marín
Departamento de Prehistoria, Antropología e Historia Antigua, Universidad de La Laguna,
Campus de Guajara, 38205 La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Islas Canarias, Spain
e-mail: garciamsergio@yahoo.es
14 Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

libyco-berbère, basée sur de nouvelles découvertes d’inscriptions sur les îles et au

Maroc. En considération de cette nouvelle thèse, nous proposons une hypothèse
diachronique pour l’ancienne colonisation des Îles Canaries.

Keywords Canarian rock art . Libyco–Berber script . Indigenous knowledge .

Insular colonization . African prehistory

Introduction

More than 130 years ago, the first examples of the Libyco–Berber script were re-
discovered in the Canary Islands. Since then, generations of scholars and others
have searched for and documented new inscriptions and sought to translate them.
The level of research differs from island to island; while we have a satisfying
quantity of data from Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, El Hierro, and La
Gomera, we know of only one inscription each from Tenerife and from La
Palma.1 In this sense, some of the statements developed in this paper are provisional
and we expect they will be modified by new discoveries. We will analyze the
connection between the Canary Islands and North Africa and the historiography of
Canarian rock art, paying special attention to the evolution of research on the
Libyco–Berber inscriptions of the islands from a historical and diachronic
perspective.2 We will also develop a new thesis concerning the origin of the
Libyco–Berber script, based on discoveries of inscriptions on the Canary Islands and
in Morocco (Pichler and Rodrigue 2003; Pichler 2007). In light of this new thesis,
we propose a diachronic hypothesis for the ancient colonization of the Canary
Islands, which we argue took place in two different moments but with Libyan–
Berber populations in both cases.
It is important to make clear that this paper does not refer to findings at other rock
art sites documented in the Canary Islands during the nineteenth century and the
period of the Provincial Comissioners. This has already been addressed in chapters I
and X of the monograph by Mederos Martín et al. (2003: 23–55, 223–270), in
chapter VII of Ab initio (Farrujia de la Rosa 2004), and in the book Arqueología y
franquismo en Canarias (Farrujia de la Rosa 2007). In the specific case of some rock
art sites, such as the El Julan engravings, see the work by Aquilino Padrón (1874).

The Connection between the Canary Islands and North Africa

From a historiographic perspective, the relationship between the indigenous

Canarian population and North Africa dates back to the second half of the
fourteenth century AD when, following the rediscovery of the Canary Islands, the

1
In the case of La Gomera, it is important to highlight the recently discovered archeological site of “Las
Toscas del Guirre,” due to the many inscriptions documented, now under research (Navarro Mederos et al.
2006).
2
In the present paper, we have used the concept “inscription” as shorthand for alphabetic inscriptions and
“rock art” for spirals, sinuous lines, and other shapes.
Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41 15

indigenous people of the islands were first linked to the inhabitants of Africa through
the Judeo-Christian tradition and the establishment of ethnographic and linguistic
parallels. This approach would remain relatively stable until the mid-nineteenth
century. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the emergence of evolutionism,
archeology, physical anthropology, and the social construction of racial classifica-
tions would make “race” the defining element in the diffusionist models
subsequently outlined, a feature that had a decisive impact on the Europeanization
of the Guanches (the name used to designate the ancient inhabitants of Tenerife,
although, in the nineteenth century, it was used as a general term to designate the
inhabitants of the Canarian Archipelago) and the dismissal of the Canaries-African
connection. In this context, a relationship was advocated between the Guanches and
certain (Celtic Iberian) European cultures, as this was the only way to link the
indigenous Canarian people to world history. As Fernando Estévez Gozález
(1987:100, 163) and others have pointed out, the evolutionist theory developed in
Europe—and assimilated by the Canarian authors—placed non-Western societies
outside history. Within these coordinates, only certain ancient civilizations could
claim an honorable position in the history of the human race. This is why Canarian
authors emphasized the relationship between the indigenous Canarian people and the
founders of European classical civilizations.
Later, after the Spanish Civil War, the rise of culture-historicism and the changes
affecting archeology in the Canary Islands as a result of nationalism and
institutionalization (Farrujia de la Rosa 2007) were factors that would eventually
enable diffusionist models to emerge. This led to the establishment of the concept of
“archeological culture.” However, the issue of race did not disappear, as this was
another defining feature of the diffusionist thesis in vogue at the time. As a result of
the racial perception of the prehistory of the Canary Islands, and of the nationalism
of the archeology developed in the islands, the Canarian–African connection was
recovered, although it now focused on the Sahara and on links with the so-called
“Iberic–Mauritanian” and “Iberic–Saharan cultures.”3
The current situation is at something of an impasse, since recent research offers
disparate solutions to the problem of locating the ancient inhabitants of the
Archipelago. Some works advocate North African origins but locate the homeland
in areas other than those proposed by the Francoist archeologists. Others insist on
the Saharan roots of the first settlers, especially for islands such as La Palma and
Tenerife, on the multiethnic nature of the indigenous Canarian people, or represent
attempts to revive the Phoenician–Punic option first developed in the late
nineteenth century. Therefore, despite the consolidation of the Canarian–African
relationship in recent decades, there remains no consensus in the literature on
when the islands were settled and colonized, where the first inhabitants came from,
and how they arrived.

3
According to Martínez Santa-Olalla (1946:54-56), the Iberian–Mauritanian, dated to the 3rd millennium
BC, was defined by the polished industry, by the rudimentary bone industry and by a pottery of dull glaze,
profusely decorated and stamped with shells. The Iberian–Saharan culture, on the other hand, was dated to
the beginnings of the second half of the 3rd millennium BC,, being defined by flint work, by a geometric
and colored ceramic, by a better bone industry and by polished stone work.
16 Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

The First Phase: Questioning the Knowledge of Writing

As stated above, from a historiographical perspective, the relationship between the

indigenous Canarian population and North Africa dates back to the second half of
the fourteenth century when, following the rediscovery of the Canary Islands, the
indigenous people of the islands were first linked to the inhabitants of the
neighboring continent through the Judeo-Christian tradition and the establishment
of ethnographic and linguistic parallels. This approach would remain relatively
stable until the mid-nineteenth century. Nevertheless, there are virtually no specific
references to rock art in the ethnohistoric documents from this period, a fact that can
be explained by the nature of the sources in question as well as the degenerationist
and Judeo-Christian world view they reflected (Farrujia de la Rosa 2004).
The first written sources did not reflect indigenous Canarian knowledge as it
existed prior to the territorial invasion of the Canary Islands by the Normans and
Castilians among others, which lead to the imposition of a distinctive, dominant
culture. The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries marked the beginning of the
exploration and colonization of much of the world by Western European countries.
Sailors had begun to meet groups of indigenous peoples in the Americas, Africa, and
the Pacific, as well as the Canarian people. Descriptions of native peoples and their
customs started to circulate around Europe, and items of native material culture such
as tools and clothing were brought back by travelers and displayed as curiosities. At
first, the discovery of peoples who had no knowledge of metal and customs that
contradicted Christian teachings seemed to confirm the medieval vision claiming
that groups from outside the Middle East were furthest from divine revelation and
the most morally and technologically backward (Trigger 1992: 58–61; Farrujia de la
Rosa 2004: 36–38). In the case of the Canary Islands, the idea of the technical and
moral degeneration of the indigenous people, reflected in the testimony of Nicoloso
da Reco in 1341, would be a recurring theme in all later written ethnohistoric
sources (Farrujia de la Rosa 2004: 38).
The nature of the written sources and the concept of the indigenous Canarian
people as technologically backward, implied that they could not know how to write
or engrave stones. Therefore, in almost all the ethnohistoric sources written between
the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries, there are only three writers who sought to
describe Canarian rock art: Leonardo Torriani, Antonio Sedeño, and Marín de
Cubas. Even in these cases, the gulf between “Western” thought and indigenous
Canarian knowledge prevented the writers from understanding the nature and
significance of the examples they described (Farrujia de la Rosa 2009).
In the eighteenth century, Viera y Clavijo explored Canarian rock art in more
detail, in particular the engravings in the Cave of Belmaco (La Palma), becoming the
first author in Canarian historiography to specify the physical location of a rock art
site. However, his opinion on the engravings remained faithful to the worldview
described above: the Canarian indigenous people were barbaric shepherds and
therefore illiterate. According to Viera y Clavijo,

It was believed that certain motifs that can found inscribed on a tombstone in a
beautiful cave in the Ravine of Belmaco on the island of La Palma (the house
of Prince Tedote) proved that these indigenous people had some knowledge of
Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41 17

the art of writing, but one erudite person who has examined these characters,
engraved not on a movable tombstone but on a firm rock in the shape of a tomb,
categorically states that the motifs are merely scribbles, games of chance or the
fantasies of the ancient barbarians. (Viera and Clavijo 1967 [1772], vol. I: 156)
With regard to Viera's interpretation, it is important to stress that he explicitly
provided technical information, albeit vague and imprecise, on the engravings (type
of support, technical execution), but no graphic information. In the Canary Islands,
archeological interest in the indigenous past began nearly half a century after the
works of Viera, and this period will be analyzed in the next section.

The Second Phase: Rock Art and Inscriptions, Race, and Archeology

Coinciding with the development of European archeology and physical anthropology

in the second half of the nineteenth century, the European and particularly the French
frame of reference played a crucial part in the emergence of Canarian archeology.
Archeological and anthropological research started in the Canary Islands in the second
half of the nineteenth century when scientific institutions associated with both
disciplines were founded: El Gabinete Científico (1877), El Museo Canario (1880),
and La Sociedad Cosmológica (1881; Farrujia de la Rosa 2005b).
The presence of French authors such as Sabin Berthelot and René Verneau on the
Canary Islands helped disseminate the main trends in French archeology. Berthelot
lived in the islands for more than 25 years and published some of his articles in
Canarian journals (e.g., Revista de Canarias). Verneau spent some time at El Museo
Canario (Gran Canaria) where he studied archeological materials from the ancient
Canarian populations and published some of his articles in a local journal, Revista de
El Museo Canario. At the same time, some Canarian authors, such as Gregorio Chil y
Naranjo, Juan Bethencourt Alfonso, and Rosendo García Ramos had been to Paris.
They visited academies and learned societies and established ongoing relationships
with the leading scientific figures of the day, such as Boucher Crèvecoeur de Perthes,
Armand de Quatrefages, Teodore Hamy, and Paul Broca. This ensured that French
publications circulated widely throughout the Canaries.
Canarian archeological literature of the nineteenth century thus was broadly defined
on the basis of a combination of evolutionist and diffusionist arguments, as in the rest
of Europe. For this reason, the foreign and Canarian intellectuals studying the
indigenous Canarian people appealed to both diffusionist and evolutionist theories to
explain cultural change. It was considered inexplicable that human groups who had
lived in isolation could evolve at the same pace and in the same way as groups from
Africa or Europe. Diffusionist theses, starting with the mechanism of migration, thus
provided explanations for the similarities observed between the Archipelago and the
place of origin or diffusion, usually located in Europe.

Rock Inscriptions, the Maghreb, and the Canary Islands

The study of rock art was also imbedded in the French frame of reference. French
authors such as Sabin Berthelot, Louis Leon Cesar Faidherbe, and René Verneau
18 Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

were interested in the study of Canarian rock engravings, mainly the Libyco–Berber
inscriptions influenced by the North African context and, above all, using the
methodology developed by French archeology in the Maghreb. The florescence of
archeology in this area cannot be understood outside of the French conquest of the
country and the colonial politics this inaugurated, since political power found in
archeology a source of information on conquest and a model for colonization. In
fact, the French Ministry of War had requested the Academy of Inscriptions and
Belles Lettres to set up a research program in 1833 into the history and archeology
of Algeria. Consequently, fieldwork became the province of the colonial army, the
official administrators, and the civil servants who took charge of locating ruins and
copying down the numerous inscriptions (Sheppard 1990). Between 1830 and 1850,
it was basically military officials who provided the necessary impetus for field
archeology. Nevertheless, many of these functionaries had been instructed by Karl
Benedikt Hase, a professor at the Polytechnic School since 1830, who had given them
lessons on ancient history and taught them how to reproduce inscriptions. This meant
that the archeology of the Maghreb was founded mainly on the basis of epigraphic
texts rather than excavations, and it was not until 1890 that the archeological study of
North Africa began to take on a separate existence (Haoui 1993; Sibeud 2001).
In the Canary Islands, therefore, authors such as Berthelot, Faidherbe, and Verneau
focused on the study of Canarian inscriptions, influenced by the scientific context of
the time (see Hernández Pérez 1996; Mederos Martín et al. 2003: 23–52) and by the
rediscovery of the El Julan alphabetic inscriptions by Aquilino Padrón in 1873.
Faidherbe (1874), Berthelot (1874), and Verneau (1878) identified these inscriptions as
Numidic (Libyan), relating them to the pre-Aryan populations that had invaded North
Africa, and extended their conclusions to the study of other inscriptions in El Hierro
(La Candia, La Caleta). In the case of national or Canarian authors, this thesis was
adopted by Grau Bassas (1882) and Millares Torres (1893) among others.
From a methodological point of view, it is important to stress that the first graphic
reproductions of the inscriptions were freehand rather than traced and that the French
authors who studied them did not know the rock art sites first-hand. The first
drawings of the El Júlan engravings, for example, were done by Aquilino Padrón
(1874), who passed them on to Berthelot. Despite these deficiencies, the examples of
rock art were soon used for sequencing Canarian prehistory. Berthelot, in his
Antiquités Canariennes (1879) for example, identified two population waves,
stressing the importance of rock art to his conclusion. Following Antigüedades de
Andalucía (1868) by Manuel de Góngora, and the phases which he established for
Andalusia, Berthelot defined an initial prehistoric phase for the Canaries represented
by the El Hierro and La Palma (Belmaco) inscriptions which are identical to those
found in the southern mainland (Berthelot 1980 [1879]: 134).4 This phase was
followed by a phase of megalithic construction or protohistoric phase (Berthelot
1980 [1879]: 134). For Verneau, the Semitic population wave would have been
responsible for introducing Libyan inscriptions to the Canaries, although, in the case

4
René Verneau was the first author to point out that there were no similarities at all between the El Hierro
and La Palma engravings, because “je ne puis guère voir une inscription dans les signes de l’île de la
Palme” (1881:26). In other words, contrary to Berthelot's opinion, the Belmaco engravings were
ideographic, not alphabetical.
Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41 19

of Gran Canaria, the French author identified a Numidian population wave

influenced by his interpretation of the engravings in the Ravine of Balos (Tirajana;
Verneau 1886). Manuel de Ossuna used the inscription on the Anaga Stone to argue
for a Semitic presence in the Canary Islands (Farrujia de la Rosa 2002).
The French authors also insisted that the inhabitants of islands such as Tenerife and La
Gomera were not responsible for the Canarian Libyco inscriptions. In their view, the
Guanches, who came from a more archaic culture than the Libyans, were illiterate and
could not have produced these inscriptions (Farrujia de la Rosa 2004:256–268).5 This
thesis was shared by Canarian authors such as Millares Torres (1893:6).

Rock Inscriptions, Europe, and the Canary Islands

The French scientific frame of reference, the study of Canarian inscriptions in

connection with the colonization of the islands, and the regionalism of Manuel de
Ossuna and Juan Bethencourt Alfonso explain the links established by these authors
between the Guanches on the one hand and the Celts and Iberians on the other on the
basis of the Canarian inscriptions. The El Júlan and La Dehesa (Hierro) engravings
and the inscriptions in the Ravine of Balos (Gran Canaria) were particularly
influential in this case. Dismissing the African option and relying on the conclusions
of Canadian philologist John Campbell (1904), the two authors claimed that the El
Hierro and Gran Canaria inscriptions proved that the ancient Iberians and Celts were
present on the Canary Islands and that the indigenous language spoken on the
islands was common to all of them.
It is important to point out that the regionalist authors from Tenerife, such as
Ossuna and Bethencourt, were against the politics of Leon y Castillo (the leader of the
Gran Canaria Liberal Party) and defended Tenerife and its political interests and not
the division of the Canary Islands into two provinces. This political positions helps
explain why they argued for the original ethnic unity of the archipelago and the
presence of an Atlantic civilization on the islands that was strongly Ibero–Celtic in
character, thus developing the discourse used by Castilian nationalism in its centralist
politics. It was critical to the regionalists to show that, despite the initial cultural
diversity on the islands, they had come to constitute a single cultural entity. In this
sense, Ossuna and Bethencourt did not speak of island cultures, but instead,
considered the archipelago to be populated by a general Atlantic civilization (Farrujia
de la Rosa 2004: 396–404).

The Third Phase: Rock Art and Inscriptions, Culture-Historical Theory,

and Field Archeology

Following the work of Ossuna and Bethencourt, Canarian archeological research

experienced profound changes as a result of Franco's victory in the Spanish Civil

5
Similar interpretations to those outlined by the French authors can be found in other contemporary
European scientific contexts, since these evolutionist ideas led many archeologists to reject the
authenticity of rock paintings, considering them too advanced to have been produced by early humans
(Trigger 1992: 102).
20 Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

War. The changes introduced after the nationalization of Spanish archeology and the
establishment of the Comisarías Provinciales de Excavaciones Arqueológicas
(Provincial Commissioners for Archaeological Excavations) had clear implications
for the future of Canarian archeology, particularly in the field of rock art or pre-
Hispanic rupestrian art, as it was called in those days (Farrujia de la Rosa 2007). The
concept of pre-Hispanic rupestrian art is obviously incorrect. In connection with the
connotations of the term “art,” as Teresa Chapa Brunet (2000) has pointed out, we
should bear in mind that this concept is derived from an approach that emanates
from researchers and does not reflect a similar concept in the types of societies in
question. A theoretical discussion on the use of the term “art” can be found in the
work of Searight (2004) and Fraguas Bravo (2006). With regard to the attribute pre-
Hispanic, it has already been argued that its ideological implications and the chrono-
cultural inconsistency arose out of its use in the field of Canarian prehistory (Farrujia
de la Rosa 2007).
From a methodological point of view, the archeological fieldwork carried out
by the two Canarian Commissioners (Eastern/Western) in the 1940s and 1950s
led to an increase in the discovery and documentation of rock art sites since
other sites with different types of motifs featuring different techniques from the
Libyco inscriptions were also documented. In addition, archeological sites began
to be documented more scientifically; their geographic coordinates and the form,
nature, and type of engravings were specified, and the panels were traced and
photographed.
From a theoretical point of view, race continued to have an impact on studies at
this time, and the concept of archeological culture was introduced for the first time.
Culture-historicism and the guidelines of Official or Francoist Archaeology
developed during Franco's regime enabled Canarian rock art to be used to support
a Spanish nationalist discourse, by relating the spiral engravings of La Palma to
those in Bronze Age Galicia. This was taken even further by linking the first
examples of rock art in what was known as the Spanish Sahara to certain rock art
sites in the Canaries (Iberian–Saharan Culture). On the basis of this interpretation,
the Canary Islands would have been part of the great Hispanic–Saharan cultural
circle. The Atlantic area (Britain, Ireland, Scotland, and Galicia) was also linked to
the Canaries, mainly through the rock art sites of La Palma, emphasizing a
Canarian–Celtic or Aryan connection. This pro-Germanic vision ultimately enabled
a relationship between the Canaries and the Atlantic cultural circle to emerge
(Farrujia de la Rosa 2007).
As in the 19th century, examples of rock art were also used to sequence the
prehistory of the Canary Islands, although the absence of BC radiocarbon dates and
the inability to read and interpret the stratigraphy of certain archeological sites
created obstacles that led to the development of diachronic sequences without
archeological foundations. Contributions within this context include those of José
Pérez de Barradas (1939), who included ceramics in his sequence, and Juan Álvarez
Delgado (1949) who, in an attempt to develop a definitive work from a graphic point
of view, defined four phases or horizons from criteria such as formal parallels
observed with other relatively dated foreign sites. However, the Canarian philologist
did not consider the techniques used to execute the engravings and thus an analytical
criterion with possible cultural implications was disregarded. The methodological
Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41 21

inconsistencies underlying the works of Álvarez Delgado are striking, given that he
was one of the most prolific authors of the time working in the field of rock art, yet
carried out virtually no fieldwork (Farrujia de la Rosa 2007).
Luis Diego Cuscoy (1968) also took rock art into consideration when sequencing
Canarian prehistory. However, as in the work of Pérez de Barradas and Álvarez
Delgado, the anteriority or posteriority of new cultural horizons were not established
on any factual basis and other elements of the indigenous material culture were
disregarded. The theoretical presuppositions remained the same: culture-historicism
and diffusionist theory.
The “absence” of rock sites in Tenerife and La Gomera was attributed to the
archaic culture of these islands, which in this view had been populated mainly by
early Upper Paleolithic Cro-Magnon peoples, contrary to what happened in the
islands mainly populated by the Mediterranean racial type, where rock art sites
were more frequent. Thus, a nineteenth century perspective was adopted,
influenced by evolutionism. However, unlike the nineteenth century French
authors, Pérez de Barradas attributed rock inscriptions directly to the Guanches
rather than the conquerors (Numidians). This made Pérez de Barradas the first author
to argue that these cultural manifestations were indigenous (Farrujia de la Rosa
2007).
In 1964, Álvarez Delgado focused on the study of Canarian petroglyphs with no
intention of analyzing the diachronic sequence of Canarian prehistory. On this
occasion, he only studied the Libyco inscriptions found in El Hierro and Gran
Canaria and those of dubious Libyco nature in Tenerife, Fuerteventura, and La
Palma. However, the purpose of the study was to provide a corpus of Libyco
inscriptions found in the Canaries, rather than to further knowledge of the origin,
nature, and dating of such inscriptions.

Continuity After the Franco Dictatorship

The study of Canarian rock art has not changed significantly since Franco's regime, a
fact that can be explained by theoretical continuity and an “impasse” in certain areas
of research, as Hernández Gómez et al. (2004–2005) have also pointed out.6 In the
field of space–time contextualization, for example, absolute dates—though scarce
and unevenly distributed among the islands—have “rejuvenated” the indigenous
Canarian people, whose arrival on the islands now dates back to the middle of the
first millennium BC.7 In addition, the identity of the indigenous Canarian people has
been fragmented due to the development of a new concept of island colonization in
which those who populated each island “seem” to have been colonizers with a well-
defined ethnic entity (Guanches in Tenerife, Canarios in Gran Canaria, Majos in
Lanzarote and Fuerteventura, Gomeros in La Gomera, Bimbaches in El Hierro, and
Auaritas in La Palma) of African descent (Libyan–Berber). From a research

6
The minor changes in Canarian archeology in the aftermath of the Franco dictatorship and following the
creation of the Department of Archaeology, Prehistory and Ethnology at the University of La Laguna in
1968 are discussed in Farrujia de la Rosa 2007.
7
The indigenous period is still defined as prehistoric, and therefore, the scientific community speaks about
the “Prehistory” of the Canary Islands which lasted a relatively short time (roughly 2,000 years, from the
sixth century BC to the AD fifteenth century).
22 Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

standpoint, this has turned the islands into small Taif kingdoms, with all the
underlying interests, not only scientific, of a new political–administrative reality in
which the cabildos (the local government institutions on each island) play a
significant role (see Hernando González 2006 for political and intellectual
implications of this).
In the specific case of rock art, the number of documented sites has increased
greatly as a result of archeological field work, mainly due to the archeological work
developed since the early 1980s. This has resulted in: the documentation of rock art
sites on islands such as Tenerife and La Gomera, thus eliminating the belief that the
absence of such archeological evidence on these islands was due to the
predominance of Cro-Magnon; an increase in recorded sites of various types8; and
the documentation of Libyco–Berber inscriptions on all the islands. It has been
accompanied, from a methodological perspective, by the use of new technologies,
particularly since the late 1990s (computerized databases of archeological sites, use
of GPS, digital photography, and digital layers).
Examples of rock art have also been studied with the aim of sequencing the
prehistory of the islands. Illustrative examples include the work by Pellicer Catalán
(1971–1972: 13–16) which, developed in the aftermath of the Franco dictatorship,
reaffirmed the Saharan option; the work by Hernández Pérez (1973), which is the
first PhD thesis on Canarian rock art and once again emphasizes the Saharan and
Atlantic options and, more recently, the work by Martín Rodríguez (1998) on La
Palma, which proposes a periodization for the island's rock art on the basis of the
evolution of decorative motifs on stratigraphically documented ceramics.
Equally, from the early 1980s onwards, examples of rock art have played a
genuine role in defining the Guanche identity (Libyco–Berber and Latin inscriptions,
the Zanata Stone, anthropomorphs, podomorphs, spirals, etc.; Farrujia de la Rosa
2009). This has been generated, to a large extent, within a scientific context in which
the historical–cultural paradigm is still dominant and theoretical reflection plays a
minor role.

The Origin of the Libyco–Berber Script: a New Thesis

In the light of recent research, therefore, there is no doubt about the Libyco–Berber
origin of the ancient inhabitants of the Canary Islands. But the panorama becomes
more complex when trying to define the ethnic distribution on each island, the
chronological moment in which the colonization took place, and if there were one or
several waves of immigration. According to the thesis we propose in the following
pages, the ancient or prehistoric colonization of the Canary Islands took place in two
different chronological moments or waves of immigration, in light of the study of
Libyco–Berber inscriptions and indigenous material culture.

8
The increased number of archeological sites has been accompanied by the emergence of studies
classifying Canarian rock art. Illustrative examples include the monograph coordinated by Tejera Gaspar
and Cuenca Sanabria (1996) or the monographs by Mederos Martín et al. (2003) and Tejera Gaspar et al.
(2008).
Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41 23

Regarding the Libyco–Berber script, though Algerian colleagues (e.g., Hachid

2000) claim its independent invention, such an elaborate alphabetical script without
any previous stage of pictographic or syllabic script would presuppose one of the
most ingenious acts of invention in the history of mankind. We can find no second
example worldwide. The assumption that this brilliant creator took the same signs
for the same phonemes in a series of cases as the creators of the old Phoenician
alphabet is beyond any credible probability. So, it seems reasonable to assume that
the Libyco–Berber script was not a unique invention in the strict sense of the word
but a creative adaptation.
More than 90% of all researchers agree on the preference of Sumer as the
probable place of origin of this script. At the beginning of the second millennium
BC, the idea of the script reached the coast of the Mediterranean. At about 1700 BC
the idea of a consonantal script was born in the region between Syria and the Sinai
peninsulas. Out of this region, the script developed in two different directions, into
the S-Semitic scripts of the Arabian Peninsula and the NW-Semitic scripts. The
clear favorites for precursors among these two groups are the so-called
“Thamudic” scripts and the old Phoenician script. Contact with the seafaring
Phoenician people who colonized a great part of the Mediterranean coast is the
most plausible scenario for transmission of the script to North Africa and the
Canary Archipelago.
Jürgen Untermann (1997) proved that the Phoenicians brought the script to the
southern part of the Iberian Peninsula during the ninth century BC. Is it therefore
plausible to presume a similar act of taking the script south of the Strait of Gibraltar
(Fig. 1) We argue that it is.
There are three lines of evidence we bring to bear, which support each other: the
system of the script, especially the three half-vowels (Fig. 2); the timing; and the
place of the transfer. While the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula took over

Fig. 1 Origin of the Libyco–Berber script

24 Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

Fig. 2 Evolution of the vowel systems

the three half-vowels from the old Phoenician alphabet and added two more vowels
under Greek influence, the inhabitants south of Gibraltar kept the system of three
half-vowels.
In terms of timing, the development of some old Phoenician characters gives us a
temporal corridor for the transfer of the system to Gibraltar between the tenth and
ninth centuries BC and to North Africa about the eighth or seventh century BC. If all
that we know about the development of the Libyco–Berber script is not totally
wrong, we can identify the oldest inscriptions in the mountains of the High Atlas. In
2006, trial trenches were made on the Oukaimeden plateau in the High Atlas, one of
them exactly in front of the famous “frise aux éléephants” which also bears one of
the supposed oldest Libyco–Berber inscriptions. The radiocarbon date obtained from
the charcoal of a hearth resulted in an age of 2,680±35 BP. The authors of this study
summarize: “It is tempting (but dared) to establish a link between the date of this
charcoal and the Libyco–Berber inscription of the frieze of elephants. (...) But this is
purely hypothetical” (translation by authors El Graoui et al. 2008: 107).
We agree completely with this statement. In fact, this radiocarbon date is no proof
of the age of the inscriptions. Nevertheless, it is a remarkable correspondence with
the age deduced from the historical evolution of script in the Mediterranean.

The Libyco–Berber Script and the Canary Islands

The Archaic Script

The aforementioned original type of alphabet, which can be called the archaic one,
spread to the East as far as the Kabylia and to the West as far as the Canary Islands.
Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41 25

Fig. 3 Expansion of the archaic alphabet

The most plausible time of this transfer to the islands as deduced from the epigraphic
development is the sixth century BC (Fig. 3).9
We can find these archaic inscriptions especially on El Hierro and Gran Canaria
and single ones on La Gomera and La Palma. Their main features are that they are
pecked (and not carved or scratched); they prefer round variants (instead of angular
ones); and they occur in a clearly definable context of linear and geometric
depictions, such as circles, serpentines, labyrinths, nets, etc. (Fig. 4). It is evident that
this context shows striking similarities to the so-called “megalithic” repertoire of
signs. During the last century D.J. Wölfel and his students tried to search for these
roots of an “Atlantic culture,” but we have no evidence of such a connection so far,
and we do not expect to find one (Pichler 2003a, b; Farrujia de la Rosa and Arco
Aguilar 2004). However, it is no secret that North African rock art provides
thousands of examples which show an evident similarity to Canarian ones (Fig. 4).
It is no surprise that we can find in these archaic inscriptions personal names
identical to ones from inscriptions in Morocco, for example:
NGRN NGRH (RIL 441)
STN STH (RIL 980)
MZL MSHL (RIL 586)
MSKL MSKL (RIL 713)
KSN KSN (RIL 719)
Who were the creators of these archaic inscriptions? Since Wölfel it was usual to
ascribe the Libyco–Berber inscriptions to seafarers who made a short stop or
unintentional visitors such as shipwrecked sailors: “My provisional impression is
9
In relation with the colonization of the Canary Islands and the Lybico-Berber script, see also the works
of Tejera Gaspar (1993), Belmonte et al. (1998), and Springer Bunk (2001). They also develop a similar
approach, but without taking into consideration the Latino–Canarian script.
26 Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

Fig. 4 Comparison of rock art motifs of La Palma (1–3) and Morocco (4–6)

that the greatest part of the inscriptions is situated near the coast. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to think of seafarers who visited the islands to bunker fresh water and to
have a rest” (1940: 306, our translation). Wölfel felt confirmed in this assumption by
his own translation of one line from La Caleta/El Hierro (Fig. 5):
l)£ta = LRYT = lereita = was here.
However, this transliteration is not correct. The first sign, l, stands for /w/ in
vertical lines, the sign for /l/ would be P (l turned 90°).
Nowak, also influenced by evolutionist thinking, took over Wölfel's ideas and
resumed: “An assignment of these alphabetiform inscriptions to the original
inhabitants seems to be just as bold as improbable” (1986: 70). Only a few very
rough inscriptions at a greater distance from the coast were considered to be native
Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41 27

Fig. 5 Detail of inscription from La Caleta

copies of inscriptions made by the inhabitants. All of these conclusions were based
on a sample of some dozens of inscriptions from El Hierro only. In fact, nearly
90% of the panels on this island are situated nearer than 1 km from the coast and
almost 10% are within 10 m from the coast. Nowadays we have the counter
example of Fuerteventura: on this island all sites except two can be found at
distances between 6 and 12 km from the coast. If we consider that the typical width
of the island is between 18 and 26 km, this means a near-maximum distance of the
sites from the coast. In addition, we register typical altitudes of 200–570 m: half of
the sites lie on top of mountains. In view of these facts, the thesis of occasional or
unintentional visitors as creators of the inscriptions is difficult to support.
There is a well-known second group of inscriptions on the eastern islands of the
archipelago. For a better understanding, let us first have a look on the further
development in the northernmost part of Africa.

The Classic Script

Since the third century BC, two Numidian kingdoms developed: one of the
Masaesyli and one of the Massyli. The Libyco–Berber script of this time, which can
be called the classic one, was adopted as an “official script” of these kingdoms,
especially used for monuments and gravestones (Fig. 6). The considerable influence
of the Roman and Punic cultures upon these inscriptions is documented by a series
of bilingues.
28 Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

Fig. 6 Expansion of the classic alphabet

In this era, a second wave of immigration to the Canary Islands took place. Berber
people who were accustomed to Roman culture and script brought a second type of
inscriptions to the islands which differ from the archaic ones in three points: they are
carved or scratched, they prefer angular variants, and they occur often in a context of
Latin cursive inscriptions (Fig. 7). Not every scratched inscription necessarily
belongs to the classic type, but there is a striking preference. The same goes for the
preference of angular variants which is caused by the technique: it is much easier to
scratch or carve straight lines than curved ones.
The second type of alphabetic inscriptions on the Canary Islands (the Latino–
Canarian type) plays an important role in dating the associated Libyco–Berber
ones. The first examples of this type were discovered in the late 1980s on
Fuerteventura and Lanzarote. Pichler widened the basis for examination and
interpretation from a handful of lines to about 240 lines. As it was already
demonstrated in the 1990s, this special type of cursive script, which is typical for
the border territories of the Roman Empire, can be dated to the time of about Jesus
Christ's birth (Pichler 1994, 1995). This is exactly the time of the colonies of
Augustus in Morocco (e.g., Tingis, Lixus, Zilis,: 27 BC–14 BC) and of the
Mauretanian king Juba II (25 BC–AD 23) with his crimson manufactories at
Mogador and probably also in the Canary Islands.
Among the Latino–Canary lines, we can find personal names which are well-
known from North African inscriptions (Fig. 8):
ANIBAL HANIBAL
NUFEL NUBEL/NUVEL
The preferred destination of this wave of immigration was the eastern islands
Lanzarote and Fuerteventura, where the classic type of script is the only one.
Occasional examples seem to exist on Gran Canaria, Tenerife, and El Hierro as well.
A great many of the ancient inscriptions are decipherable based on discoveries of
the last decades. A basis group of the sign inventory never changed during the
2,500 years of development:
à=M, t=T, O=N, P=L, r=R, ¢=Y
Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41 29

Fig. 7 The main differences between archaic and classic inscriptions

Some additional signs did not change their form and phonetic value until the
invention of recent Tifinagh:
m=D, l=W, ú=P/F, I=S
A series of further characters easily can be recognized as variants of a basic form:
=ú, =∏, =¢
In these last cases, a statistical analysis of the frequencies can help to establish
assignments to phonetic values with a high degree of probability. In any case, the
result must be a complete alphabet and a frequency of each character which is
usual in the used language/s. In 1994 some examples of bi-scripts (Libyco-Berber
and Latino-Canary) were documented on Fuerteventura (Pichler 1994). Since this
time, the transcription of Libyco–Berber inscriptions in general is far beyond
speculation.
30 Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

Fig. 8 Inscriptions from Morro Pinacho and Barranco del Cavadero

In the case of these bi-scripts, we can be very sure that the writer had control of
both alphabets. He surely comes from a territory inside the borders of the Roman
Empire, growing up with the Berbers' own script and learning a second one through
contact with the Romans. Such a Romanized Berber wrote his name in Latin
characters and added his filiation in Libyco–Berber characters: he acknowledged his
participation in Roman culture but attested to his Berber origins as well (Fig. 9).
In general, we can notice a very close connection between the Latino–Canary and
the Libyco–Berber inscriptions of the Canary Islands:
1. We have some bi-scripts of the same word in both scripts on the same panel:
e.g., WMKRN–AVMACURAN
2. We have examples of the same personal name in Latino–Canarian and Libyco–
Berber script on different panels/sites: e.g., WSM’–VASIMA
Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41 31

Fig. 9 Inscription from Cuchillete de Buenavista

3. We have examples of Latino–Canarian lines with one Libyco–Berber character

for a phoneme which cannot be represented by a Latin character (all sibilants
except /s/): e.g., IUFAS (Fig. 10)
4. We can notice a distinct influence of the Libyco–Berber way of writing on some
Latino–Canarian inscriptions, e.g., the direction of writing (Figs. 11 and 12).
The second step of reading the Canarian inscriptions is the transcription of the lines,
mainly consisting in the addition of the unmarked vowels. This is no problem in the
case of several personal names which are attested in Latin inscriptions on the
Canaries:
SM’ SIMA
or—in most cases—in North Africa:
MSKL MASCAL/MASCEL
In some cases, we even can translate a Libyco–Berber line:
WMKRN=AVMACVRAN=son of MAKURAN (PN, male).
32 Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

Fig. 10 Inscription from Cuchillete de Buenavista

The Transitional and the Tifinagh Scripts

During a period of some hundred years, the transformation from the archaic to the
classic alphabet consists only of minimal changes: nearly all alterations of signs can
be classified as variants of the basic forms. But some time later, at an unknown date,

Fig. 11 Inscription from Montes de Valle Corto

Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41 33

Fig. 12 Archaic alphabets of Morocco and El Hierro in comparison with the classic one from
Fuerteventura/Lanzarote

the appearance of the Libyco–Berber script changed completely. All phonemes, with
six exceptions, were represented by totally new signs. We call this new type of
alphabet Tifinagh. This change took place through a continuous process rather than
suddenly. We can find examples of this transitional alphabet all over Northern
Africa, from Mauritania and Morocco over Ahaggar, Adrar, and Aïr to the Tassili
and Messak. The most obvious feature of this alphabet is the appearance of dotted
signs in addition to linear ones:
? together with l
q together with þ
A further characteristic is the presence of the sequence q r þ (according to
Aghali-Zakara 1999:3: “əγreγ” = “I am called,” followed by a personal name).
We can find only one inscription from the Canary Islands which can be related to
this stage of evolution of the Libyco–Berber script. It was documented at the site
Llano de Zonzamas/Lanzarote (Pallares Padilla 1991:59, Fig. 13) and contains,
surprisingly, the sequence q r þ as above, but in opposite order.
34 Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

Fig. 13 Inscription at Llano de Zonzamas

Evidence for Tifinagh is found on thousands of rock inscriptions across North

Africa, but only a very few in Morocco. This last restriction may be the reason for
the fact that we can find no Tifinagh inscription in the Canary Archipelago.

The Colonization of the Islands: a Diachronic Hypothesis on the Basis of Libyco–

Berber Inscriptions

We are far from being able to give any final opinion about the situation of the whole
archipelago because the level of research differs enormously from island to island.
Nevertheless, examination of the Libyco–Berber inscriptions indicates a division of
the Canary Islands into two episodes of Berber influence from different times, but
geographically overlapping (Fig. 14).
& An archaic Berber culture of the sixth century BC including El Hierro (El Julan,
La Caleta, etc.), parts of Gran Canaria (Barranco de Balos, Arteara, etc.), one
inscription on La Palma (Cueva de Tajodeque) and probably one on La Gomera
(Las Toscas del Guirre).
& A Romanized Berber culture from the time of Augustus and Juba II, including
Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, probably parts of Gran Canaria (Hoya Toledo, Llanos
de Gamona, etc.), some inscriptions on El Hierro (Barranco de Tejeleita,
Barranco Cuervo, etc.) and one inscription on Tenerife (Cabuquero).10 The

10
Some other rock art sites in Tenerife have already been related to this period by means of stylistic
comparisons with several sites located in Western Sahara (Farrujia de la Rosa and García Marín 2005,
2007).
Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41 35

Fig. 14 Distribution of the two main types of Libyco–Berber script on the Canary Islands

connection of the inscription from Tenerife with additional linear-geometric

engravings similar to those of Lanzarote and Fuerteventura increases the
probability of this assignment. The assignment of the inscriptions of Gran
Canaria and El Hierro is highly provisional.
In addition to these two significant waves of cultural influence, we have a very
small indication for contact in the era of the transitional alphabet. But, we have not
the slightest indication that North African people imported the Tifinagh alphabet
after the Conquest.

Archeological Research and Libyco–Berber Inscriptions11

By means of the evidence of the distribution already described, we cannot exclude

the possibility that immigrants reached the eastern islands and Tenerife too, in the
pre-Roman period, as will be argued below. They might have left no evidence of
their script on rock surfaces, any images might have been destroyed in the meantime,
or perhaps any existing archeological sites have yet to be documented. The same
goes for the possibility that immigrants of Romanized culture reached La Palma.
Being aware of these possibilities, how does the sketch of Berber immigration fit
the archeological research? Unfortunately, we have only a few radiocarbon dates for
Canarian archeological sites so far. In Tenerife, for example, the most ancient site (a
habitation cave in Icod) dates to the fifth century BC (Arco Aguilar et al. 2000;
Farrujia de la Rosa 2004), but it is also true that we have only one Libyco–Berber
inscription for this island. Therefore, it is clear that this island was inhabited since
the fifth century BC.12
In the case of La Palma, Martín Rodríguez (1992) among other authors has
argued for the existence of two phases when speaking about the Berber colonization
11
The problem regarding archeological research and ancient colonization has already been addressed in
detail in another publication (Farrujia de la Rosa 2004).
12
There is another habitation cave in Tenerife, in the Ravine of La Arena, dated in the 6th century BC, but
the human occupation of this ancient level has been questioned by several authors (Farrujia de la Rosa
2007).
36 Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

of the island, although without the help of radiocarbon dates and focusing his
research on the ceramic typology. In this island, the most ancient radiocarbon date
was obtained from a wooden funeral bed (chajasco) dated to the third century BC,
and as it happens in Tenerife, we only know one Libyco–Berber inscription in the
island. Archeology confirms the introduction of the Archaic Berber culture to this
island, but does not shed light on a second immigration.
In the case of La Gomera, the material culture presents several parallels with that
of Tenerife (inhabited since the first phase), although the earliest radiocarbon date is
quite recent: fifth century AD. It is highly probable that this island was colonized in
the first phase given the characteristics of its material culture and Libyco–Berber
inscriptions recently discovered. The same thing can be said for El Hierro: the island
was inhabited since the first phase, although the earliest radiocarbon date is quite
recent (second century AD). There are no similarities between the material culture of
the El Hierro and that of Tenerife or La Gomera.
On Gran Canaria, there is valuable confirmation of the first wave of immigration:
the necropolis of Arteara (Gran Canaria). This is the first example of a Canarian rock
art site with Libyco–Berber characters, anthropomorphic and geometric signs,
associated with a funeral context (García Navarro et al. 2004). Schluter Caballero
(1981) dated the oldest stratum of the necropolis to the fifth century BC. The second
wave of immigration has also been documented, not only with the Libyco–Berber
inscriptions but also thanks to the study of the material culture, especially the
ceramic idols (Fortunatae... 2004).
In the case of Lanzarote, radiocarbonic dates and material culture fit perfectly
with the hypothesis of an immigration during the second phase (Romanized Berber
culture; Atoche Peña et al. 1995; Cabrera Pérez et al. 1999; Farrujia de la Rosa
2006), although there are several authors who have also argued a Punic colonization
for this island (e.g., Atoche Peña et al. 1999; Santana Santana et al. 2002). At the
archeological site of El Bebedero, the most ancient stratum has been dated to a
chronological period close to the start of the Christian era (30 BC), and the material
culture of this site is comprised of fragments of amphorae and different artifacts
made of iron, copper, bronze, and also a vitreous fragment. The amphorae pieces
come from Campania (Dressel 1A, 1B, and 1C), Baetica (Dressel 20 and 23), and
North Africa (Tunisian area, type Class 40).
In Fuerteventura, the panorama is similar to the one already described for El
Hierro and La Gomera, in the sense of a lack of information. The earliest
radiocarbon date is quite recent (third century AD), but the cultural analogies
existing between Fuerteventura and Lanzarote make plausible the idea of a common
colonization for both insular territories, which are separated by a distance of nearly
15 km (Cabrera Pérez 1993).

Conclusions

Scientific research into the rock art of the Canary Islands has been characterized by
an interest in issues such as timing and significance, in some cases from evolutionist
approaches and, more recently, from a culture-historicist perspective. In the case of
Libyco–Berber inscriptions, they have played an important role from a diachronic
Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41 37

point of view and been studied with the aim of sequencing the prehistory of the
islands. In recent years, this has been accompanied by the emergence of numerous
publications produced outside research programs and divorced from theoretical
discussion. These have been characterized by the isolated study of certain rock art
sites consisting of small-scale historical units (district, ravine, etc.), the failure in
most cases to incorporate the perspective of spatial archeology and the development
of research limited to the formal description of rock motifs that does not explore the
inherent chrono-cultural or interpretative issues.
This problem in recent Canarian archeology is a direct consequence of how the
Canarian scientific community deals with the study of rock art and when trying to
unravel such questions as origin and meaning, the scenario remains unresolved.
Currently, there are no research programs that provide for systematic survey and
excavation.
Nevertheless, we can affirm that the ancient colonization of the Canary Islands
(Archaic Berber culture) was initiated by the sixth century BC in El Hierro, La Palma,
La Gomera, Tenerife, and Gran Canaria. In a second stage, a Romanized Berber
culture was introduced since the time of Augustus and Juba II (first century BC–1
century AD) to Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, El Hierro, and Tenerife.

References

Aghali-Zakara, M. (1999). Les marqueurs d’orientation dans la lecture des inscriptions. La Lettre du RILB,
5, 2–3.
Álvarez Delgado, J. (1949). Petroglifos de Canarias. Publicaciones de la Real Sociedad Geográfica, n°
231. Madrid: S. Aguirre impresor.
Álvarez Delgado, J. (1964). Inscripciones líbicas de Canarias. Ensayo de Interpretación líbica. Tenerife:
Universidad de La Laguna.
Arco Aguilar, Mª. C., González Hernández, C., Arco Aguilar, M., Atiénzar Armas, E., Arco Aguilar, J., &
Rosario Adrián, C. (2000). El menceyato de Icod en el poblamiento de Tenerife: D. Gaspar, Las
Palomas y Los Guanches. Sobre el poblamiento y las estrategias de alimentación vegetal entre los
guanches. Eres (Arqueología), 9(1), 67–129.
Atoche Peña, P., Paz Peralta, J., Ramírez Rodríguez, M. A., & Ortiz Palomar, M. E. (1995). Evidencias
arqueológicas del mundo romano en Lanzarote (Islas Canarias). Arrecife: Servicio de Publicaciones
del Excmo, Cabildo Insular de Lanzarote.
Atoche Peña, P., Martín Culebras, J., Ángeles Ramírez Rodríguez, M., González Antón, R., Arco Aguilar,
M. C., Santana Santana, A., et al. (1999). Pozos con cámara de factura antigua en Rubicón
(Lanzarote). In VIII Jornadas de Estudios Sobre Lanzarote y Fuerteventura. Volume II (22-25
septiembre 1997). Servicio de Publicaciones del Excmo. Cabildo Insular de Lanzarote. Excmo.
Cabildo Insular de Fuerteventura. Arrecife, pp. 365–419.
2004. Fortunatae Insulae. Canarias y el Mediterráneo. Tenerife: OAMC.
Belmonte, J., Springer Bunk, R., & Perera Betancort, M. A. (1998). Análisis estadístico y estudio
comparativo de las escrituras líbico-bereberes de las Islas Canarias, el Noroeste de África y el Sahara.
Revista de la Academia Canaria de Ciencias, X(2-3), 9–33.
Berthelot, S. (1874). Sur l’ethnologie canarienne. Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris. Tomo
IX(2ª serie), 114–117.
Berthelot, S. (1980) [1879]. Antigüedades Canarias. Anotaciones sobre el origen de los pueblos que
ocuparon las Islas Afortunadas desde los primeros tiempos hasta la época de su conquista. Goya
Ediciones. Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
Cabrera Pérez, J. C. (1993). Fuerteventura y los Majoreros. La Prehistoria de Canarias, 7. CCPC. Santa
Cruz de Tenerife.
Cabrera Pérez, J. C., Perera, M. A., & Tejera Gaspar, A. (1999). Majos. La primitiva población de
Lanzarote. Madrid-Lanzarote: Fundación César Manrique.
38 Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

Campbell, J. (1904). Critical examination of spanish documents relative to the Canary Islands, submitted
to the writer by Senor Don Juan Bethencourt Alfonso, of Tenerife. Transactions of the Canadian
Institute, volume VII.
Chapa Brunet, T. (2000). Nuevas tendencias en el estudio del Arte Prehistórico. Arqueoweb, 2(3), [URL:
http://www.ucm.es/info/arqueoweb].
Diego Cuscoy, L. (1968). Los Guanches. Vida y cultura del primitivo habitante de Tenerife. Publicaciones
del Museo Arqueológico de Tenerife, 7. Excmo. Cabildo Insular de Tenerife. Servicio de
Investigaciones Arqueológicas. Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
El Graoui, M., et al. (2008). Recherche d’indices chronologiques sur le passage des graveurs de rochers de
l’Oukaimeden (Haut Atlas, Maroc). Sahara, 19, 105–108.
Estévez Gozález, F. (1987). Indigenismo, raza y evolución. El pensamiento antropológico canario (1750-
1900). Publicaciones científicas del Excmo. Cabildo Insular de Tenerife (Aula de Cultura de Tenerife).
Museo Etnográfico, n° 4. Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
Faidherbe, L. L. (1874). Quelques mots sur l’ethnologie de l’Archipiel Canarien. Revue d’Anthropologie,
III, 91–94.
Farrujia de la Rosa, A. J. (2002). El poblamiento humano de Canarias en la obra de Manuel de Ossuna y
Van den Heede. La Piedra de Anaga y su inserción en las tendencias ideográficas sobre la primera
colonización insular. Estudios Prehispánicos, 12. Dirección General de Patrimonio Histórico.
Viceconsejería de Cultura y Deportes. Gobierno de Canarias. Madrid.
Farrujia de la Rosa, A. J. (2004). Ab Initio (1342-1969). Análisis historiográfico y arqueológico del
primitivo poblamiento de Canarias. Artemisa Ediciones, Col. Árbol de la Ciencia, vol. 2. Sevilla.
Farrujia de la Rosa, A. J. (2005b). El nacimiento de la arqueología prehistórica en Canarias. III Congreso
Internacional de Historia de la Arqueología. Madrid, 25-27 de noviembre de 2004. In V. Cabrera
Valdés & E. Ayarzagüena Sanz (Eds.), El nacimiento de la Prehistoria y de la Arqueología Científica.
Archaia 3-5, Madrid, pp. 135–144.
Farrujia de la Rosa, A. J. (2006). Roma y las Islas Canarias: la leyenda de las lenguas cortadas y el
poblamiento insular. XVI Congreso L’Africa Romana (Rabat. Marruecos). Mobilità delle persone e
dei popoli, dinamiche migratorie, emigrazioni ed immigrazioni nelle province occidentali dell’Impero
romano. Volumen Segundo, Carocci Editore. Urbino, pp. 839–856.
Farrujia de la Rosa, A. J. (2007). Arqueología y franquismo en Canarias. Política, poblamiento e
identidad (1939-1969). Colección Canarias Arqueológica, 2. Organismo Autónomo de Museos y
Centros. Cabildo de Tenerife. Sevilla.
Farrujia de la Rosa, A. J. (2009). Pensamiento arqueológico e historia de la investigación sobre las
manifestaciones rupestres canarias. Complutum, 20(1), 9–28.
Farrujia de la Rosa, A. J., & Arco Aguilar, M. C. (2004). El primitivo poblamiento humano de Canarias en
la obra de Dominik Josef Wölfel: La prehistoria insular como <<Cultura marginal o de frontera>>
Tabona, 12, 15–41.
Farrujia de la Rosa, A. J., & García Marín, S. (2005). The Canary Islands and the Sahara: reviewing an
archaeological problem. Sahara, 16, 55–62.
Farrujia de la Rosa, A. J., & García Marín, S. (2007). The rock art site of Risco Blanco (Tenerife, Canary
Islands), and the Saharan Horsemen Cycle. Sahara, 18, 69–84.
Fraguas Bravo, A. (2006). De la hegemonía al panel. Una aproximación a la ideología del arte prehistórico
del noreste africano. Complutum, 17, 25–43.
García Navarro, M., et al. (2004). Nueva estación de grabados rupestres localizada en la necrópolis de
Arteara, San Barolomé de Tirajana, Gran Canaria. Tabona, 12, 119–136.
Grau Bassas, V. (1882). Inscripciones numídicas de la isla del Hierro (II). El Museo Canario. Tomo IV.
Año II, n° 47, 333–334.
Hachid, M. (2000). Les premiers Berbères. Entre Méditerranée, Tassili et Nil. Aix-en Provence.
Haoui, K. (1993). Classifications linguistiques et anthropologiques de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris
au XIXeme siècle. Cahiers d’Études Africaines, 33(1), 51–72.
Hernández Gómez, C., Barroso, V. A., & Velasco Vázquez, J. (2004–2005). Enfoques y desenfoques en la
arqueología canaria a inicios del siglo XXI. Revista Atlántico Mediterránea de Prehistoria y
Arqueología Social, 7, 175–188.
Hernández Pérez, M. (1973). Grabados rupestres del Archipiélago Canario. Tesis doctoral inédita (leída
el 10.IV.73). Universidad de La Laguna. Tenerife.
Hernández Pérez, M. (1996). Las manifestaciones rupestres del Archipiélago Canario. Notas historiog-
ráficas. In A. Tejera Gaspar & J. Cuenca Sanabria (Eds.), Manifestaciones rupestres de las Islas
Canarias (pp. 25–47). Dirección General de Patrimonio Histórico: Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41 39

Hernando González, A. (2006). Arqueología y Globalización. El problema de la definición del “otro” en la

Postmodernidad. Complutum, 17, 221–234.
Martín Rodríguez, E. (1992). La Palma y los Auaritas. La Prehistoria de Canarias, 3. CCPC. S/C. de
Tenerife.
Martín Rodríguez, E. (1998). La Zarza: entre el cielo y la tierra. Estudios Prehispánicos, 6. Dirección
General de Patrimonio Histórico. Gobierno de Canarias. Madrid.
Martínez Santa-Olalla, J. (1946). Esquema paletnológico de la Península Hispánica. Madrid:
Publicaciones del Seminario de Historia Primitiva del Hombre.
Mederos Martín, A., Valencia Afonso, V., & Escribano Cobo, G. (2003). Arte rupestre de la Prehistoria de
las Islas Canarias. Estudios Prehispánicos, 13. Dirección General de Patrimonio Histórico. Madrid.
Millares Torres, A. (1977) [1893]. Historia General de las Islas Canarias. Tomo I. Edirca. Santa Cruz de
Tenerife.
Navarro Mederos, J., Springer Bunk, R., & Hernández Marrero, J. C. (2006). Inscriptions libyco-berbères
à La Gomera (Îles Canaries): Las Toscas del Guirre. Sahara, 16, 245.
Nowak, H. (1986). Die "alphabetiformen Inschriften" der Kanareninsel Hierro. Almogaren. Hallein:
Kanarische Studien II.
Padrón, A. (1874). Relación de unos letreros antiguos encontrados en la isla del Hierro, Las Palmas de
Gran Canaria.
Pellicer Catalán, M. (1971–1972). Elementos culturales de la Prehistoria Canaria. Ensayo sobre orígenes y
cronología de las culturas. Revista de Historia Canaria, XXXIV, 47–72.
Pérez de Barradas, J. (1939). Estado actual de las investigaciones prehistóricas sobre Canarias. Memoria
acerca de los estudios realizados en 1938 en “El Museo Canario”. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria:
Publicaciones de El Museo Canario.
Pichler, W. (1994). Die Ostinsel-Inschriften Fuerteventuras, Transkription und Lesung. Almogaren, XXIV-
XXV/1993-94, 117–220.
Pichler, W. (1995). Neue Ostinsel-Inschriften (latino-kanarische Inschriften) auf Fuerteventura (pp. 21–
46). XXVI: Almogaren.
Pichler, W. (2003a). Die “Megalithikum“-Diskussion im Zusammenhang mit den Steinbauten von El
Julan/El Hierro, Islas Canarias (pp. 297–308). XXXIV: Almogaren.
Pichler, W. (2003b). Las inscripciones rupestres de Fuerteventura. Fuerteventura: Servicio de
Publicaciones del Cabildo de Fuerteventura.
Pichler, W. (2007). Origin and development of the Libyco–Berber script. Berber Studies, vol. 15. Köln:
Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.
Pichler, W., & Rodrigue, A. (2003). Some new Libyco–Berber inscriptions in Southern Morocco. Cahiers
de l'AARS, 8, 23–24.
Santana Santana, A., Arcos Pereira, T., Atoche Peña, P., & Martín Culebras, J. (2002). El conocimiento
geográfico de la costa noroccidental de África en Plinio: la posición de las Canarias. Zurich: Band
88.
Schluter Caballero, R. (1981). Necrópolis de Arteara (pp. 101–106). XXXVIII-XL: El Museo Canario.
Searight, S. (2004). The prehistoric rock art of Morocco. A study of its extensión, environment and
meaning. Oxford: BAR International Series, 1310.
Sheppard, P. J. (1990). Soldiers and bureaucrats: the early history of prehistoric archaeology in the
Maghreb. In P. Robertshaw (Ed.), A history of African archaeology (pp. 173–188). Londres: James
Currey Ltd.
Sibeud, E. (2001). La fin du voyage. De la pratique coloniale à la pratique ethnographique (1878-1913). In
Blanckaert Claude (Ed.), Les politiques de l’Anthropologie. Discours et pratiques en France (1860-
1940) (pp. 173–198). L’Harmattan, Paris: Histoire des Sciences Humaines.
Springer Bunk, R. A. (2001). Origen y uso de la escritura líbico-bereber en Canarias. Tenerife: Centro de
la Cultura Popular Canaria.
Tejera Gaspar, A. (1993). Les inscriptions libyques-berbères des îles Canaries e l’ambiente del Sahara
preistorico: dati e interpretazioni. L’arte Memorie della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali di
Milano, 26(2), 533–542.
Tejera Gaspar, A., & Cuenca Sanabria, J. (Eds.). (1996). Manifestaciones rupestres de las Islas Canarias.
Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Dirección General de Patrimonio Histórico. Gobierno de Canarias.
Tejera Gaspar, A.; Jiménez González, J. J. & Allen, J. 2008. Las manifestaciones artísticas prehispánicas
y su huella. Historia Cultural del Arte en Canarias, Vol. I. Viceconsejería de Educación, Cultura y
Deportes. Gobierno de Canarias. Litografía Romero. Tenerife.
Trigger, B. G. (1992). Historia del pensamiento arqueológico. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica.
40 Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41

Untermann, J. (1997). Neue Überlegungen und eine neue Quelle zur Entstehung der althispanischen
Schriften. Madrider Mitteilungen, 38, 49–66.
Verneau, R. P. (1878). De la pluralité des races anciennes de l’Archipiel Canarien. Bulletins de la Société
d’Anthropologie de Paris. Tome premier, 3éme série, pp. 429–436.
Verneau, R. (1881). Sur l’ouvrage de M. Sabin Berthelot, intitulé: Antiquités canariennes. Bulletins de la
Société d’Anthropologie de Paris. T, IV(3ª serie), 320–329.
Verneau, R. 1996 [1886]. La Raza de Cromañón. Sus emigraciones, sus descendientes. In La Raza de
Cromañón. Colección a través del tiempo, n° 14. Ediciones J.A.D.L. La Orotava (Tenerife), pp. 7-27.
Viera y Clavijo, J. 1967 (1772–1792). Noticias de la Historia General de las Islas Canarias. T. I y II,
Goya Ediciones. Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
Wölfel, D. J. 1979 [1940]. Vorläufige Mitteilungen zu den kanarischen Siegeln und Inschriften. Leonardo
Torriani: Die kanarischen Inseln und ihre Urbewohner, Leipzig 1940, Reprint Hallein 1979, Anhang
III, 304–310.

Further Reading

Almagro Gorbea, M. (2005). El futuro de la arqueología. In S. Del Campo (Ed.), Anticipaciones

académicas (Vol. II, pp. 35–53). Madrid: Instituto de España.
Álvarez Delgado, J. (1947). Excavaciones arqueológicas en Tenerife (Canarias). Plan Nacional, 1944-
1945. Informes y Memorias, 14. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación Nacional. Comisaría General de
Excavaciones Arqueológicas.
Arco Aguilar, M. C., Jiménez Gómez, M. C., & Navarro Mederos, J. F. (1992). La arqueología en
Canarias: del mito a la ciencia. Interinsular. Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Interinsular Ediciones
Canarias.
Beltrán Martínez, A. (1971a). El arte rupestre canario y las relaciones atlántidas. Anuario de Estudios
Atlánticos, 17, 281–306.
Beltrán Martínez, A. (1971b). Los grabados del Barranco de Balos (Gran Canaria). Las Palmas de Gran
Canaria: El Museo Canario. Patronato José María Cuadrado. Excmo. Cabildo Insular de Gran Canaria.
Beltrán Martínez, A., & Alzola, J. M. (1974). La Cueva Pintada de Gáldar. Zaragoza: Librería General.
Bethencourt Alfonso, J. (1999) [1912]. Historia del pueblo guanche. Su origen, caracteres etnológicos,
históricos y lingüísticos. Tomo I. Francisco Lemus Editor, 3ª edición. La Laguna (Tenerife).
Breuil, H. (1952). Quatre cents siécles d’art pariétal: les cavernes ornées de l’age du renne. Montignac:
Centre d’Etudes et de Documentation Préhistoriques.
Desanges, J. (1983). Los protobereberes. In G. Mokhtar (Ed.), Historia General de Africa. II. Antiguas
civilizaciones de África (pp. 429–447). Madrid: UNESCO. Editorial Tecnos.
Diego Cuscoy, L. (1955). Nuevas consideraciones en torno a los petroglifos del “caboco” de Belmaco (Isla
de La Palma). Revista de Historia, XXI(109-112), 6–29.
Diego Cuscoy, L. (1982). El Museo Canario y factores determinantes de su continuidad. Las Palmas de
Gran Canaria. El Museo Canario, XLII, 7–18.
Farrujia de la Rosa, A. J. (2005). Imperialist archaeology in the Canary Islands. French and German
studies on prehistoric colonization at the end of the 19th century. Oxford: Archaeopress. British
Archaeological Reports. International Series, 1333.
Farrujia de la Rosa, A. J. (Forthcoming). La identidad de los indígenas canarios: génesis y desarrollo de un
constructo social. XIII Jornadas de Estudios sobre Fuerteventura y Lanzarote. 17-21 de septiembre de
2007. Caleta de Fuste, La Antigua. Fuerteventura: Cabildo Insular de Fuerteventura. Fuerteventura.
Farrujia de la Rosa, A. J. (Forthcoming). Canarias y el Norte de África desde una perspectiva historiográfica
y arqueológica. VI Jornadas de Patrimonio Histórico. Investigación arqueológica en Canarias:
territorio y sociedad. Arrecife, 10, 11 y 12 de septiembre de 2008. Cabildo de Lanzarote. Lanzarote
Fernández Martínez, V. (2005). Una arqueología crítica. Ciencia, ética y política en la construcción del
pasado. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica.
González Antón, R., & Tejera Gaspar, A. (1990). Los aborígenes canarios. Gran Canaria y Tenerife.
Oviedo: Colegio Universitario de Ediciones Istmo.
Green, L. F. (2008). Indigenous knowledge and science: reframing the debate on knowledge diversity.
Archaeologies. Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 4(n° 1), 144–163.
Grenier, L. (1998). Working with indigenous knowledge. A guide for researchers. Canada: IDRC Books.
Hernández Pérez, M. (2002). El Julan (La Frontera, El Hierro, Islas Canarias). Estudios Prehispánicos,
10. Dirección General de Patrimonio Histórico. Viceconsejería de Cultura y Deportes del Gobierno de
Canarias. Madrid.
Afr Archaeol Rev (2010) 27:13–41 41

Horsthemke, K. (2008). The idea of indigenous knowledge. Archaeologies. Journal of the World
Archaeological Congress, 4(n° 1), 129–143.
Jiménez González, J. J. (1996). Manifestaciones rupestres de Tenerife. In S. Cuenca & A. Tejera Gaspar
(Eds.), Manifestaciones rupestres de las Islas Canarias (pp. 223–252). Gobierno de Canarias, Santa
Cruz de Tenerife: Dirección General de Patrimonio Histórico.
Johnson, M. (2000). Teoría arqueológica. Una introducción. Barcelona: Editorial Ariel S.A.. Colección
Ariel Historia.
Le Quellec, J. L. (1998). Art rupestre et Préhistoire du Sahara. Paris: Le Messak libyen. Bibliothèque
scientifique Payot.
Leroi Gourham, A. (1965). Préhistoire de l’Art Occidental. Paris: Lucien Mazenod.
Lewis Williams, J. D. (1981). Believing and seeing: symbolic meanings in southern San rock art. London:
Academic Press.
Lhote, H. (1961). Hacia el descubrimiento de los frescos del Tassili: La pintura prehistórica del Sahara.
Barcelona: Ediciones Destino.
Martín de Guzmán, C. (1984). Las Culturas Prehistóricas de Gran Canaria. Ediciones del Excmo,
Cabildo Insular de Gran Canaria, Madrid-Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.
Martínez Santa-Olalla, J. (1941). Los primeros grabados rupestres del Sahara Español (pp. 163–167).
XVI: Atlantis. Actas y Memorias de la Sociedad Española de Antropología, Etnografía y Prehistoria.
Mederos Martín, A., & Escribano Cobo, G. (2002). Los aborígenes y la Prehistoria de Canarias. La
Laguna: Centro de la Cultura Popular Canaria.
Mithen, S. (1990). Thoughtful foragers: A study of prehistoric decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Monod, T. (1932). L’Adrar Ahnet. Contribution à l’étude archéologique d’un district saharien, vol. 19.
Paris: Travaux et Mémoires de l’Institut d’Ethnologie.
Muzzolini, A. (1995). Les images rupestres du Sahara. Toulouse: Alfred Muzzolini.
Navarro Mederos, J. F. (1992). Los Gomeros. Una prehistoria insular. Estudios Prehispánicos, 1.
Dirección General de Patrimonio Histórico. Viceconsejería de Cultura y Deportes. Gobierno de
Canarias. Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
Navarro Mederos, J. F. (1996). Las manifestaciones rupestres de La Gomera. In A. Tejera Gaspar & J.
Cuenca Sanabria (Eds.), Manifestaciones rupestres de las Islas Canarias (pp. 253–297). Santa Cruz
de Tenerife: Dirección General de Patrimonio Histórico.
Navarro Mederos, J. F. (1997). Arqueología de las Islas Canarias. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Serie I,
Prehistoria y Arqueología, 10, 447–478.
Navarro Mederos, J. F. (2008). El uso de lo indígena y de iconos arqueológicos como referentes de
identidad y prestigio en la sociedad canaria actual. In A. Bethencourt Massieu (Ed.), Lecturas de
historia de Canarias (pp. 47–86). Tenerife: Academia Canaria de la Historia 2006.
Navarro, M. G., et al. (2003). Nueva estación de grabados rupestres localizada en la necrópolis de Arteara,
San Bartolomé de Tirajana, Gran Canaria. Tabona, 12, 119–136.
Rodrigue, A. (1999). L’art rupestre du Aut Atlas Marocain. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Schiller, F. (1979). Paul Broca. Founder of French anthropology, explorer of the brain. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Tejera Gaspar, A. (2006). Los libio-bereberes que poblaron las Islas Canarias en la Antigüedad. In A.
Tejera et al. (Eds.), Canarias y el África Antigua (pp. 81–105). Tenerife: Centro de la Cultura Popular
Canaria.
Tejera Gaspar, A., Jiménez González, J. J., & Cabrera Pérez, J. C. (1987). La etnohistoria y su aplicación
en Canarias: los modelos de Gran Canaria, Lanzarote y Fuerteventura. Anuario de Estudios
Atlánticos, 33, 17–40.
Tilley, C. (1991). Material culture and text: the art of ambiguity. London: Routledge.
Ulbrich, H. J. (1991). Felsbildforschung auf Lanzarote. Almogaren, XXI(2), 1990.
Wölfel, D. J. (1942). Ensayo provisional sobre los sellos e inscripciones canarios. (Apéndice III, de la
edición de Torriani). Conclusión. Revista de Historia, VIII(59), 151–155.
Copyright of African Archaeological Review is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.