Rock Sanctuaries, Sacred Landscapes, and the Making of the Iberian Pantheon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sanctuaries are common spaces of interaction between humankind and the gods. In many religious systems, mountains and other elevated topographical features are known to have formed part of these privileged spaces of communication. It is not surprising that open-air and, in many cases, rock sanctuaries are the cultic spaces par excellence among the pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula. In this article, we offer a more nuanced picture of these architectonically humble but culturally rich sacred spaces by studying the Palaeohispanic inscriptions recorded in rock sanctuaries located in the territories of the Iberian peoples (fourth–first centuries BCE). Special attention will be paid to the corpus of inscriptions in Cerdanya (Pyrénées-Orientales and Catalonia), where more than 150 texts have so far been identified. After a brief introduction contextualizing the Rock Sanctuaries, the Iberian language, and the epigraphic habit of its speakers, the first section of our article analyses the characteristics that enable us to interpret most of these inscriptions as religious and votive formulations. The second half of the paper discusses what these inscriptions can reveal about the Iberian pantheon and how these rock sanctuaries formed a consolidated religious landscape that was to survive the Roman conquest. The reinterpretation of the Celtiberian sanctuary of Peñalba de Villastar will be fundamental to put forward the hypothesis that, while Iberian and Celtiberian places of worship and pantheons had points of contact, they were mostly dissociated from each other prior to the Roman arrival.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".