iconical signs, indexical relations: bronze age stelae and statue-menhirs in the iberian peninsula

ICONICAL SIGNS, INDEXICAL RELATIONS:BRONZE AGE STELAE AND STATUE-MENHIRS IN

THE IBERIAN PENINSULA*

by

Marta Díaz-Guardamino Uribe**

Abstract: The adoption of theories of social action in Archaeology has opened up the way to consider themutually constitutive relationship between the social and the material. In this context, Peircean semiotics –a theory of meaning embedded in experience – helps understanding the unfolding of this meaningful relationshipin the past and the present. The case of Bronze Age (ca. 2200-825 BC) decorated stelae and statue-menhirsin the Iberian Peninsula is illustrative. They have been generally conceptualized as static containers ofsymbolic meanings. But understanding stelae and statue-menhirs as an integral and active part of socialrelations entails addressing them as signs of practices historically situated within a wider complex networkof practices structuring social relations in a meaningful way. Stelae and statue-menhirs suggest multipleindexical relations that can be taken as evidence for social practices related to the structuration of collectiveidentities, memories and places. This approach contributes to a renovated understanding of the historicizedrelationships between people and this type of remains.

Key-words: Materiality; Iconography; Bronze Age.

Resumen: La adopción de teorías de acción social en Arqueología ha contribuido a que la interrelación entrelo social y lo material, su mutua constitución, sean reconocidas y consideradas. En este contexto, la semióticaPeirceana – una teoría de significado fundamentada en la experiencia – nos ayuda a entender el desarrollode esta significativa relación, tanto en el pasado como en el presente. En este sentido el caso de las estelasdecoradas y estatuas-menhir peninsulares durante la Edad del Bronce (ca. 2200-825 BC) puede ser ilustrativo.Generalmente han sido conceptualizadas como estáticos contenedores de significados simbólicos. No obstante,para entender las estelas decoradas y estatuas-menhir como parte integral y activa de las relaciones socialeses necesario analizarlas como signos de prácticas sociales que están históricamente situadas en una complejay amplia red de prácticas que estructuran las relaciones sociales de una forma llena de significado. Estelasy estatuas-menhir sugieren múltiples relaciones indéxicas que pueden ser consideradas como evidencias de

* This work is the written version of a paper presented at the WAC6, Dublín (2008), in the session“Materializing Practices”, organized by Prof. Rosemary Joyce (Berkeley) and myself, hosted within theTheme “Materializing Identities II: materials, techniques, practice” organized by Johanna Brück and ChrisFowler. I am very grateful to Rosemary Joyce for her invitation to co-organize this session, which was a veryrewarding experience for me. The session benefited from the interesting papers presented by the variedcontributors, which included a wide range of topics and points of view, “materializing” a stimulating diversity.

** Departamento de Prehistoria, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. [email protected]

32 Marta Díaz-Guardamino Uribe

prácticas sociales relacionadas con la estructuración de identidades, memorias y lugares colectivos. Esteacercamiento contribuye a una comprensión renovada sobre las relaciones históricamente situadas entrepersonas, estelas, estatuas-menhir.

Palabras-Clave: Materialidad; Iconografía, Edad del Bronce.

FAUST:«[…]

Ich schau in diesen reinen ZügenDie wirkende Natur vor meiner Seele liegen.Jetzt erst erkenn ich, was der Weise spricht:

“Die Geisterwelt ist nicht verschlossen;Dein Sinn ist zu, dein Herz ist tot!

[…]1”»(J. W. Goethe, Faust – erster Teil, 1808)

1. MATERIALITY AND MEANING

This paper sets out from a premise that argues that the interrelation between thesocial and the material takes place through practices that are materialized creating temporaland spatial structures (Gosden 1994, 74-80, 124-5). George Lakoff and Mark Johnson,partially inspired by the argumentation of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, have recently drawn onsubstantial evidence to suggest that human beings conceptualize the most basic bodilyexperience through signs, primary conceptual structures – conceptual metaphors – thatfunction at the level of the pre-consciousness (Merleau-Ponty 2003[1945]: 129, 181-3,206-9; Lakoff & Johnson 1999, 56-7, 77-93). In this context, it can be considered that thematerialization of practices is a meaningful process (Reckwitz 2002). Nonetheless, as recentlyargued by Rosemary Joyce, when we talk about meaning we don’t necessarily talk aboutsymbolic or linguistic meanings (Joyce 2007, 107-8).

The theory of meaning of Charles Sanders Peirce is an alternative to previouslogocentric conceptualizations of the material – such as linguistic structuralism – that couldnot account for the relationship between meaning and the material (Olshewsky 1995, 442-3; Preucel & Bauer 2001; Bauer 2002; Keane 2003, 412-3; Preucel 2006, 44-89; Joyce2007). Peirce’s theory of meaning is based on the triadic relation of the material form ofthe sign (representamen), its object (referent) and its interpretant (the sense made of thesign), considering the very materiality of the sign, and the active role of the interpreter, hisor her experience, in the process of signification through the concept of the interpretant(Pape 1998, 2019-22; Preucel 2006, 50-60). Depending on the relationship between thesign vehicle (representamen) and the object (referent) experienced by the interpreter, thearbitrariness of meaning varies, and based on this variation is the most fundamental and

1 In these pure lineaments I seeCreative Nature’s self before my soul appear.Now first I understand what he, the sage, has said:“The world of spirits is not shut away;Thy sense is closed, thy heart is dead!(Translation by George Madison Priest)

33Iconical signs, Indexical Relations: Bronze Age Stelae andStatue-menhirs in the Iberian Peninsula*

known classification of signs of Peirce: icon, index and symbol (Peirce 1998, 5-10). AsWebb Keane has recently summarized, iconicity is a matter of resemblance, of potentialand possibility, symbolicity is a matter of rules and conventions. Finally, indexicality is amatter of proximity, contiguity and causality, there is an intrinsic relationship betweenrepresentamen and object independent of the sign relation. There is a real, an existentialor dynamical connection (Keane 2005, 7-10). These modes of signification are a triad andco-exist and the dominance of any of them will depend on the experience of the interpreterand the context.

2. INTERPRETING STELAE AND STATUE-MENHIRS2

From this perspective, given the nature of stelae and statue-menhirs, the main modesof signification explored by researchers until now have been iconicity and symbolicity.Nevertheless, the linguistic perspective that has dominated their study has favoured theirtreatment as passive recipients of final, extant and static meanings. Their materiality hasnot been considered, neither their role in the process of signification (Díaz-Guardamino2006, see also Joyce 2007 for a similar case in Mesoamerican research). Iconicity has beenexplored to establish chronological parameters and to develop typological studies. Throughsymbolicity authors have mainly made inferences regarding social prestige andhierarchization, commonly concluding that the stelae and statue-menhirs represent elitistindividuals that through this medium tried to implement their own and particular “discourseof power” during the Bronze Age (e.g. Almagro-Gorbea 1977; Barceló 1989, 238; Jorge1999a; Celestino 2001; Harrison 2004; Bueno, Balbín & Barroso 2005b). On the otherhand, indexicality, which provides us with real physical connections that could be exploredto approach the active and meaningful roles of stelae and statue-menhirs in social proces-ses, has been generally under-explored. The rather narrow concept of “context” that framedthe work of most researchers has contributed to this situation. The actual scarcity of stelaeand statue-menhirs known within (vertical) stratigraphical contexts drove most researchersto focus on the stelae and statue-menhirs themselves and their engravings, consideringthem as closed compositions, as static remains isolated in time and space.

The concept of indexicality , which includes physical contiguity and causality, involvesan enlarged notion of context in which practices and materials are indexically interrelated.A Bronze Age statue-menhir found by a water spring and an old megalithic necropolisindexes the practices involved in its elaboration and placement, and refers to thosesurrounding material features, materializing a relationship that might have been an integralpart of those past practices as, for example, those involved in mortuary rituals. In thissense, besides vertical stratigraphic relations, indexicality comprises the physical contiguity

2 When I talk about ‘decorated stela’ and ‘statue-menhir’ I refer to free standing, potentially mobile -but not portable-, most of the times monumental, worked stones that implicitly or explicitly refer to thehuman body, allude to persons that might be visually articulated through elements that have been labelledas ‘emblems’, ‘clothing’, ‘ornaments’, ‘objects of personal care’, ‘prestige elements’ or ‘weaponry’. From aninterpretive point of view, ‘stela’ and ‘statue-menhir’ are heuristic concepts that let us explore the materialaspects of these remains that we interrelate in the present and interpret in varied directions.


between material features on the one hand, between material features and practices on theother, at varied spatial scales and beyond temporal structures. Nevertheless, to make senseof indexical relations within the dynamic of social relations and the interrelation betweenthe social and the material, it is necessary to “historize” them. In short, the analysis ofindexicality should account for stratigraphical relations (vertical and horizontal), including“re-usages” of older menhirs or statue-menhirs, the engravings and modifications made indifferent “stages”, material features found in a place (stelae, statue-menhirs, otherarchaeological remains or “natural” features) not so “evidently” interrelated, or even widerrelations as the ones suggested by the stones and their sources.

Therefore, there are varied ways in which stelae and statue-menhirs index practices(see Joyce 2007 for a relevant case study) involved in their elaboration, placement,maintenance and “afterlife”. Practices might have been repetitive or diverting from thenorm, at least from our partial and actual perspective. In any case, as we consider thesepractices, they structure our knowledge about stelae and statue-menhirs in the present, aswell as they might have structured social relations in the past. Either way, it is preciselythe materialization of those practices what promotes engagements that structure meanings.Indexical relations might suggest normative practices related to the elaboration of statue-menhirs and stelae, as repetitive trends in the selection of the “raw” materials, locations,or the performance of their engravings. Nevertheless, there are further indexical relationsthat are not considered at all or regarded as “outliers” that could be interpreted in, at least,three ways. From a perspective that considers stelae and statue-menhirs as static containersand change is attributed to external and self-contained events, these are exceptions thatrarely are integrated in a social or cultural interpretation. From a point of view that attemptsto consider stelae and statue-menhirs as elements that actively structured social relations,these outliers might be interpreted as heterodox3 materialized practices of the Past that hadan active role altering social relations. On the other hand, these outliers might change ourgeneral perception of stelae and statue-menhirs in the Present, either considering them aspart of heterodox practices in the Past or as indication of a wider set of orthodox practicesin the Past still to be acknowledged by researchers in the Present.

In recent works some indexical relations have been noted, such as the variedinterventions implicated in the engravings we see today in some stelae (Harrison 2004, 44-52) or the existence of varied archaeological remains in the places where stelae or statue-menhirs were found (Bueno, Balbín & Barroso 2005a; García Sanjuan et al. 2006;Díaz-Guardamino 2006). But a pioneering research in this sense was the work of EduardoGalán, who used an enlarged concept of “context” to explore the relationship between LateBronze Age stelae and passage zones, within a wider framework that considered them as

3 Bourdieu defined “doxa” as the non-discursive sphere in which one experiences an almost totalcorrespondence between the objective order and the subjective organization principles, when the natural andthe social spheres seem self-evident, the world of tradition is experienced as “natural” (Bourdieu, [1972]1977:164). On the other hand, “orthodoxy” and “heterodoxy” are experiences that belong to the discursive sphereof the conscious reflection: “Orthodoxy, straight, or rather straightened, opinion, which aims, without everentirely succeeding, at restoring the primal state of innocence of doxa[3],. Exists only in the objectiverelationship which opposes it to heterodoxy, that is, by reference to the choice… made possible by theexistence of competing possibles and to the explicit critique of the sum of total of the alternatives not chosenthat the established order implies” (Bourdieu, [1972]1977: 169).


elements actively engaged in a process of social differentiation (Ruiz-Gálvez & Galán1991; Galán, 1993). Nevertheless, besides disregarding collective identities and social actionin this process (as pointed out in Díaz-Guardamino 2006), his analysis relating stelae andpassage zones ends in a fairly reductionist way, interpreting stelae as territorial markers butneglecting “places”, their particular historicity and materiality, and the role of stelaestructuring them. As I will argue, indexical relations suggest that stelae, statue-menhirs andthe “places” where they were located were part of complex networks of practices structuringsocial relations through merging temporalities and spatialities.

3. EXPLORING INDEXICALITY: NORMATIVE PRACTICES & “OUTLIERS”

The incipient analysis of indexical relations has disclosed the existence of repetitivepatterns involved in the elaboration and placement of Late Bronze Age stelae, such as theirsystematic placement in passage zones (Ruiz-Gálvez & Galán 1991) or the usage of stonespresent in the immediate surroundings of their location to elaborate them (e.g. Celestino2001, 79-80), an aspect that was recently supported by the preliminary analysis of thestelae of Almadén de la Plata (Sevilla) (García Sanjuan et al. 2006, 142-3).

Except for some cases, research on Bronze Age stelae, statue-menhir and their contexts(in the “enlarged” sense previously mentioned) has not been systematic (but see i.e. GarcíaSanjuan et al. 2006). Today’s available data is qualitatively restricted. Some of the studiesof recently “discovered” stelae and statue-menhirs unveil “exceptional” details that enrichthe list of already known “odd” situations, inviting us to look at them from alternativepoints of view.

The selection and sources of the “raw” material, for example, is a topic with enormouspotential but still under-explored by research on Iberian Bronze Age stelae and statue-menhir. Although it can be argued that related images made in perishable materials (i.e.wood) might have also existed, as it is known in other areas of Europe (Van der Sanden& Capelle 2001), stone stelae and statue-menhirs are the ones that have endured throughtime. Permanence is a material quality that might have played a relevant role in theselection of stone, while its provenience, texture, colour or previous biography might haveinfluenced the choice of a particular stone. Stones constitute fields of action in whichpractices are materialized incorporating different temporal and spatial referents, providingan interesting interpretative potential still to be explored. Regarding Bronze Age stelae andstatue-menhirs, the few available data suggests the existence of a promising variability. Inthe case of stones that are being modified for the first time, preliminary impressionssuggest that most of the Late Bronze Age stelae incorporated stones from the surroundings.Nevertheless, in the case of Talavera the analysis concluded that the nearest source for theraw material was 25 km away towards the North of the location were it was found, at theother side of the river Tajo (Portela & Jiménez 1996). This case is especially interestingbecause the Late Bronze Age images were engraved on a – most probably older – statue-menhir, while the area of extraction might have been spatially related to a place whereanother stela and a Middle Bronze Age necropolis were found (Fig. 1). On other occasionsolder menhirs or statue-menhirs are used to perform new modifications or engravings. Thisselection might be significant, as the places that are better known suggest. This would be


the case of Collado de Sejos (Cantabria) or Soalar (Navarra), both in the North of the IberianPeninsula. The Early Bronze Age statue-menhir of Soalar (Baztán, Navarra), which probablyreuses a pre-existing menhir, is situated by an open air activity site and it is located in anarea where there are several megalithic structures, none of them systematically excavated tillnow (Ondarra 1976a; 1976b; Bueno, Balbín & Barroso 2005a, 28, Fig. 18; Barrero et al.2005; Cabodevilla & Zabalza 2006, 167-75). The Early Bronze Age stelae of Collado deSejos were engraved in two selected menhirs that were part of a cromlech (Bueno, Piñon &Prados 1985; Díez Castillo & Ruíz Cobo 1993, 49-50). In the surroundings there are numerousstructures, some of which could pre-date the stelae: menhirs, another possible cromlech,smaller stone circles, mounds and outcrops with cupules (Fig. 2) (Díaz-Casado 1993, 42;Díez-Castillo 1996-1997, Fig. 4.18). Other known examples are the Early/Middle BronzeAge stela of Alfarrobeira, possibly also Passadeiras 1, reusing a menhir and situated in anEarly/ Middle Bronze Age necropolis (Gomes 1994), the late Bronze Age stelae of Magacelaand Cancho Roano, reusing falic menhirs (Celestino 2001, 386-7; Harrison 2004, 255-7), orthe Late Bronze Age stelae of São Martinho 1 and 2 (Celestino 2001, 357-60; Harrison 2004,229-33), the second made on a falic menhir and the first possibly on a statue-menhir. Bothstelae were found with a third stelae – or statue-menhir – in a settlement with remains thatreveal a Late Bronze Age occupation (Vilaça 1995, 80, 250). Finally, the stela of Bayuela1, displays a schematic human figure similar to the ones found in Late Bronze Age stelae,but in this case without related objects, using a falic menhir (Fig. 1) (Gutierrez 2002; Pacheco& Deza 2003). This stela was found on the foot of a hill where there is a Middle Bronze Agenecropolis (Gil Pulido et al., 1988). Although information is still very poor, the latest engravingsor modifications performed in these menhirs and statue-menhirs refer to them as pre-existingmaterials that, at the same time, index practices related to their manufacture and, possibly,their placement. These cases suggest the existence of complex chains of practices (followingJoyce & Lopiparo 2005) structuring these places, especially in the cases where further ma-terial evidence has been documented, as in Collado de Sejos (Fig. 2), Soalar, Alfarrobeira,São Martinho or Bayuela (Fig. 1).

But the engravings of stelae and statue-menhirs might as well refer to pre-existingengravings, reproducing the previous composition or modifying it. Richard Harrison hasrecently reviewed Late Bronze Age stelae that present modification of their iconographyduring that period or later (Harrison 2004, 46-51) but there are also earlier exemplars thatmight have undergone similar modifications, such as Peñatú (Balbín, 1989, 29, 31, but seeBueno 1992, 508; 1995, 83), Chaves (Jorge & Almeida 1980, 5-24 y figs. 3-7), Guarda(Silva, 2000: 230, 233) or Muiño de San Pedro (Taboada Cid 1988-1989) to cite someexamples.

Groups of stelae and statue-menhirs materialize multiple references between them,indexing practices that sought this physical contiguity. The place of Cabeço da Mina(Vilariça, Bragança) is paradigmatic of this situation. This is placed on a prominent hilllocated in the middle of a fertile valley (Sousa 1996; 1997; Jorge 1999b). The top of thehill was partially excavated and this work exhumed part of an enclosure made of stelae,some decorated, others not. Decorated stelae sometimes depict facial traits, but therepresentation is mainly focused on clothing/emblems. The stratigraphy of the site revealeda possible single phase of construction but did not provide further material remains to dateor to deepen in the history and nature of this place.


During the Early/Middle Bronze Age stelae and statue-menhirs might appear assingle pieces of this category, grouped and/or spatially related to other archaeologicalremains. As occurs in the mentioned cases of Collado de Sejos (Fig. 2) or Soalar, therelated Early Bronze Age image of Peña Tú is engraved and painted on a massive outcropthat spatially structures the flat mountain range of La Borbolla, where there are severalmounds, one of them providing an anthropomorphic stela, and areas of activity dated to thelate fourth, early third Millenia BC (Menéndez 1931; Pérez & Arias 1979, 714; Bueno &Fernández Miranda 1980, 451-67, Fig. 3-5; Arias & Pérez 1990, 100; Blas 2003). Recentresearch in Moimenta da Beira (Viseu) has disclosed the material richness of the place ofChã das Lameiras, in which there are several dolmens of varied typology, one of themreused during the early second Milennium BC, as well as a mound possibly constructed inthis moment, a third Milennium BC settlement and two statue-menhirs that probably dateto the early second Milennium BC (Cruz 2001, 150, 173-6, 374-8, Fig. 54, 167, Pl. 62-5).Another relevant place is the Dehesa Boyal of Hernán Pérez (Northern Extremadura),where seven -probably Early/Middle Bronze Age- anthropomorphic stelae depicting hair-dresses and necklaces and the fragment of a Late Bronze Age stela were found in an areawere there are at least six megalithic monuments, two of them were excavated during the1970s (Almagro Basch 1972; Almagro-Gorbea & Hernández 1979; Díaz-Guardamino 2006,Fig. 8). The stela of Granja de Toniñuelo (Southern Extremadura), also with hair-dress andnecklace, probably dated in Early/Middle Bronze Age, was found in an unspecified spotof a valley (Leisner 1935) where is situated the impressive corbelled monument of Granjade Toniñuelo (Carrasco 2000). Recent works in this monument have documented ananthropomorphic stela that was part of the corridor (Carrasco 2000, 303, Figs. 8, 9, Pl. V)and rests of the decoration of the monument (Bueno and Balbín 1997). Other referencessituate the findings of the stelae of Paredes de Abajo (Santa Maria de Castro de Rei, Lugo)and Boulhosa nearby mounds (Vazquez Seijas 1936, 281-3, Figs. 1-2; Vasconcelos 1910,31-3, Fig. 2; Jorge, V. & S. 1993, 29-31). Other early/middle Bronze Age stelae are found,sometimes in groups of two or more stelae or fragments of stelae, around more or lesscontemporary burial structures but with no stratigraphical connection to them (e.g. Ervidel1, Passadeiras 1, 2 and 3, Gomes Aires, Panoias) (Gomes & Monteiro 1977; Gomes 1994,86-9, Figs. 57-61 A & B; Paço, Nunes Ribeiro & Franco 1965, 99-103, Fig. 2; Almagro1966, 120-1, Fig. 41, Pl. 36; Coelho 1975, 196; Vasconcelos 1908, 304, Fig. 8; Almagro1966, 59-60, Fig. 17, Pl. 13). Some cases were found, most probably reused, as cist covers,as it was reported for the stelae of Mombeja 1, 2 and 3, Trigaxes 1 and 2, and the stela ofSanta Vitória (Vasconcelos 1906, 182-5, Pl. 1,2, Figs. 5, 6, 8; Almagro 1966, 41-5, 48-9,Figs. 7, 9, 11, Pl. 5, 6, 8). The only case in which researchers documented a possible primarycontext was in the stela of Alfarrobeira, found in the eponymous cist necropolis (Gomes1994). Data recovered in the excavation of this site suggested that this stela could have beenplaced by one of the smallest and most recent cists of the cemetery (Gomes 1994). The stela1 of Ervidel might have been originally located in the “Sitio da Fonte” (Herdade do Pomar,Ervidel, Aljustrel, Beja), where two cists contemporary to this stela 1 were documented andalso a Late Bronze Age stela (Ervidel 2) (Gomes & Monteiro 1977).

In some occasions Late Bronze Age stelae are grouped with – or close by – otherstelae with similar or different iconography – in some cases of earlier chronology as seenin the cases of Hernán Pérez (Almagro Basch 1972) or Ervidel (Gomes & Monteiro 1977)


–, as in Pedra da Atalaia (Lobão, Marques & Neves 2006, 35), S. Martinho (Harrison 2004,231-4), Torrejón Rubio 1 and 2 (Harrison 2004, 195-8), Capilla 5, 6 and 7 (Enríquez 2006,165), Zarza Capilla 1, 2 and 3 (Celestino 2001, 380-4; Harrison 2004, 250-4), El Viso 2,6 and 3 (Celestino 2001, 396-8, 402), Almadén de la Plata 1 and 2 (García Sanjuán et al.2006), Écija 2 and 4 (Harrison 2004, 291-4), Cortijo de la Reina 1 and 2 (Murillo, Morena& Ruiz 2005, 25-32, Fig. 4) or Cerro Muriano 2 (Murillo et alii 2005, 17-9, Fig. 2).

There is an increasing number of Late Bronze Age stelae found on the top of hills,some of which have documented -or are spatially related to- previous, contemporary orlater occupations, as the mentioned stelae of São Martinho 1-3 (Almagro Basch 1966, 36-8, Pl. 3; Vilaça 1995, 80, 250), Las Herencias 1 (Moreno Arrastio 1995, 275-94; Harrison2004, 224-6) and maybe Las Herencias 2 (Moreno Arrastio 1990, 277; De Álvaro, Municio& Piñón 1988), Valencia de Alcántara 2 (Diéguez Luengo 1964, 129-30, Pl. 2), LaBienvenida 2 and 3 (Murillo et alii 2005, 35, Note 57), Setefilla (Aubet 1997), Écija 2 and4 (Harrison 2004, 291-4) or Montemolín (Chaves & De la Bandera 1982, 137-47, Figs. 1-3). Late Bronze Age stelae have traditionally been interpreted as tomb markers, as indirectoral accounts described the existence of possible cremated bones in relation of two of thesestelae: Granja de Céspedes (Almagro Basch 1966, 105-7, Fig. 34, Pl. 29; Harrison 2004,275-7) and Solana de Cabañas (Roso de Luna 1898; Harrison 2004, 218-20). Other referencesindicated that the stela of Figueria was covering a cist when it was found (Gomes & Silva1987, 46, map B), although there is much confusion about the context of its discovery, assummarized by E. Galán (1993, 110). The stela of Haza de Trillo was documented sealingthe entrance of a ‘collective’ tomb (Mergelina 1944; Harrison 2004, 283-4). In the followingdecades this interpretation was questioned as the existing data didn’t offer sufficientconfidence and none of the following discoveries provided contextual findings in thisdirection (Galán 1993, 16-8). Two recent discoveries confirm this possibility but alsosuggest the existence of diverse situations. In Cortijo de la Reina, 50 m away from theGuadalquivir River, two stelae were found buried in probable primary position, one coveringthree urns of Late Bronze Age-Early Orientalizing typology with rests of cremation. In thesame region there are also oral accounts that refer the existence of ashes and bones associatedto the stela of Cerro Muriano 2 (Murillo et alii 2005, 17-9, Fig. 2). In Almadén de la Platatwo stelae were found together on an artificial mound made of white quartz stones. In thiscase the stelae were not related to any stratigraphy and the mound has not been excavated,but this spatial relation is believed to be significant (García Sanjuán et al. 2006).

Other features equally relevant have to be considered as part of this interplay as, forexample, rivers, water springs or rock outcrops, as in the mentioned case of Peña Tú. Thepublished data in hand and the information recorded by myself exploring some of thesesites reveal that varied Early and Middle Bronze Age stelae and statue-menhirs weredocumented close to natural fountains (e.g. Tremedal, Moimenta da Beira, Ervidel 1),permanent or seasonal rivers (e.g. Paredes de Abajo, Chaves, Quinta de Vila Maior,Longroiva, Hernán Pérez, Abela, Tapada da Moita, Monte de Abaixo, Santa Vitória), evenin the cases situated in mountain landscapes, as Collado de Sejos or Soalar. This relationshipwith seasonal or permanent rivers is also very frequent in the case of Late Bronze Agestelae (Celestino 2001, 76) as, to note mentioned cases, the stelae of Hernán Pérez, Almadénde la Plata 1 and 2 or Cortijo de la Reina 1 and 2.


4. INDEXICAL RELATIONS & RESEARCH

Considering that the materialization of practices is a meaningful process, Peirce’stheory of meaning provides a suitable framework to explore these meaningful processes –to acknowledge the meaningful interrelation between practices and the material – in thePast and the Present. The concept of indexicality inspired by Peirce supplies us with asuitable working tool to explore stelae and statue-menhirs as links within a wider networkof materialized practices, transcending time and space.

In the present, the archaeological record suggested by stelae and statue-menhirs hasan active role in the generation of narratives about them. In our present situation researchaimed to interpret the processes of the past related to stelae and statue-menhirs incipientlyseeks normative trends through the concept of indexicality. Nevertheless, indexical relationsalso direct our attention towards several exceptional cases or situations that have aninterpretive potential to be explored. If explored in depth, these indexical relations mightconfirm the exceptionality of the practices involved in their making in the past, promotingtheir interpretation as heterodox practices aimed to re-structure social relations. On theother hand, the outcome of investigating indexical relations further could open up a rathernew and rich matrix of data through which we could explore in depth the dynamicrelationships between the material and the social during the Bronze Age in these areas, inshort, the active role of stelae and statue-menhirs within the social relations of thecollectivities related to them.

Exploring indexicality would contribute to acknowledge the dynamism of the mate-rial and to approach its active interplay with people through social practices in the past andin the present. To assume this task it is necessary to rethink our research strategies regardingstelae and statue-menhirs considering that, regardless of the concrete situation in which thestela or statue-menhir has been found (reused, stratified or not, isolated in the landscape,etc.) it is necessary to undertake detailed studies of those places. This would mean abotton-up approach; as Fredrik Fahlander recently noted regarding research on burial placesof the Late Mesolithic in South Sweden:

“Such microarchaeological studies focus on social practice involved in the disposal of thedead as a mediating level between the local and particular on one hand and the normative andgeneral on the other.” (Fahlander 2008, 29).

In this sense, the study of these places at a micro – and mesoscale is a necessary andpreliminary step to dynamize our actual knowledge about these stelae and statue-menhirs, assuggested by the recent case study published by a team of the University of Seville (GarcíaSanjuan et al. 2006). The detailed study of the topography or the development of systematicfield surveys in these places, with the versatility and potential that they can offer today,would greatly enrich our knowledge about countless aspects related to stelae and statue-menhirs. The entanglement of materials and practices, time and space, is best documented atthe micro-scale. In this sense, excavations have a great potential but whenever they are setout as “open area excavations” that also provide time depth and while they are developedwithin interdisciplinary teams. The same could be said about the stones, their extraction orreusage, the engravings and modifications performed in stelae and statue-menhirs. Theirdynamic nature could be fully acknowledged through detailed and systematic analyses.


It normally seems that because of their iconographic nature stelae and statue-menhirsprovide substantial information to interpret them in social terms. Nevertheless, the concernsof today require that we open our mind, let icons, stones and places suggest novel relations,analyze them from different perspectives and dynamize our narratives about them.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Almagro Basch, M. (1966). Las Estelas Decoradas del Suroeste Peninsular. Madrid, ConsejoSuperior de Investigaciones Científicas.

Almagro Basch, M. (1972). Los ídolos y la estela decorada de Hernán Pérez (Cáceres) y el ídoloestela de Tabuyo del Monte (León). Trabajos de Prehistoria, 29: 83-124.

Almagro-Gorbea, M. (1977). El Bronce Final y el período Orientalizante en Extremadura.Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.

Almagro Gorbea, M. J. & F. Hernández (1979). La necrópolis de Hernán Pérez (Cáceres), inEstudios Dedicados a Carlos Callejo Serrano. Cáceres, Diputación de Cáceres: 53-77.

Arias Cabal, P. & C. Perez Suarez (1990). El fenómeno megalítico en la Asturias Oriental.Gallaecia, 12: 91-110.

Aubet, M. E. (1997). A propósito de una vieja estela. Saguntum (PLAV), 30: 63-72.Balbín Behrmann, R. (1989). El arte megalítico y esquemático del Cantábrico, in Cien años después

de Sautuola, M. R. G. Morales (ed..). Santander, Diputación Regional de Cantabria: 15-96.Barceló, J. A. (1989). Las estelas decoradas del suroeste de la Península Ibérica, in Tartessos.

Arqueología Protohistórica del Bajo Guadalquivir, M. E. Aubet (ed.). Barcelona, EdicionesAusa: 189-208.

Barrero, B., I. Gaztelu, A. Martínez, G. Mercader, L. Millán, M. Tamayo & I. Txintxurreta, I.(2005). Catálogo de monumentos megalíticos en Navarra. Cuadernos de Arqueología dela Universidad de Navarra, 13: 11-86.

Bauer, A. A. (2002). Is what you see all you get? Recognizing meaning in archaeology. Journalof Social Archaeology, 2(1): 37-52.

Blas Cortina, M. A. (2003). Estelas con armas: arte rupestre y paleometalurgia en el norte dela Península Ibérica, in El Arte Prehistórico desde los Inicios del Siglo XXI: PrimerSymposium Internacional de Arte Prehistórico de Ribadesella, R. Balbín Behrmann & P.Bueno Ramírez (eds.). Ribadesella: Asociación Cultural Amigos de Ribadesella: 391-416.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Bueno Ramírez, P. (1992). Les plaques décorées alentéjaines: approche de leur étude et analyse.

L´Anthropologie, 96(2-3): 573-604.Bueno Ramírez, P. (1995). Megalitismo, estatuas y estelas en España, in Statue-stele e massi

incisi nell’Europa dell’Età del Rame, S. Casini, R. C. De Marinis & A. Pedrotti Bergamo.(eds.). Bergamo: Civico Museo Archeologico di Bergamo (Lombardia): 77-129.

Bueno Ramírez, P. & R. Balbín Behrmann (1997). Arte Megalítico en sepulcros de falsa cúpula.A propósito del monumento de Granja de Toniñuelo (Badajoz). Brigantium, 10: 91-121.

Bueno Ramírez, P., R. Balbín Behrmann & R. Barroso Bermejo (2005a). La estela armada deSoalar. Valle de Baztán (Navarra). Trabajos de Arqueología Navarra, 18: 5-39.

Bueno Ramírez, P., R. Balbín Behrmann & R. Barroso Bermejo (2005b). Hiérarchisation etmétallurgie: statues armées dans la Péninsule Ibérique. L’ Anthropologie, 109: 577-640.

Bueno Ramírez, P. & M. Fernández Miranda (1980). El Peñatu de Vidiago (Llanes, Asturias),in Altamira Symposium: 451-67.

Bueno Ramírez, P., F. Piñón Varela, F. & L. Prados Torreira (1985). Excavaciones en el Colladode Sejos (Valle de Polaciones, Santander). Campaña de 1982. Noticiario ArqueológicoHispánico, 22: 27-58.


Cabodevilla, I. & M. I. Zabalza (2006). Catálogo Megalítico del Valle de Baztán. Pamplona,Gobierno de Navarra.

Carrasco Martín, M. J. (2000). El sepulcro megalítico de la Granja de Toniñuelo. Jerez de losCaballeros (Badajoz), in El Megalitismo en Extremadura (Homenaje a Elías DiéguezLuengo), J. Jiménez Ávila & J. J. Enríquez Navascués (eds.) (Extremadura Arqueológica,8). Mérida, Junta de Extremadura: 291-324.

Celestino Pérez, S. (2001). Estelas de guerrero y estelas diademadas. La precolonización yformación del mundo tartésico. Barcelona, Bellaterra.

Chaves, F. & M. L. De la Bandera (1982). Estela decorada de Montemolín (Marchena, Sevilla).Archivo Español de Arqueología, 55: 137-47.

Coelho, L. (1975). Nueva estela insculturada proveniente del Baixo Alentejo (Ervidel, Portugal).Trabajos de Prehistoria, 32: 195-7.

Cruz, D. J. (2001). O Alto Paiva: Megalitismo, Diversidade Tumular e Práticas Rituais Durantea Pré-história Recente. Coimbra, Universidade de Coimbra, 2 Vols.

De Álvaro, E., L. J. Municio & F. Piñón (1988). Informe sobre el yacimiento de “Los Castillos”(Las Herencias, Toledo): un asentamiento calcolítico en la Submeseta Norte, in Actas delI Congreso de Historia de Castilla-La Mancha. Toledo: 181-92.

Díaz Casado, Y. (1993). El Arte Rupestre Esquemático en Cantabria: una revisión crítica.Santander, Universidad de Cantabria.

Díaz-Guardamino, M., (2006). Materialidad y acción social: el caso de las estelas decoradas yestatuas-menhir durante la Prehistoria peninsular, in Actas do VIII Congresso Internaci-onal de Estelas Funerarias. Lisboa, Museu Nacional de Arqueología: 15-33.

Diéguez Luengo, E. (1964). Nuevas aportaciones al problema de las estelas extremeñas. Zephyrus,15: 125-30.

Díez-Castillo, A. (1996/1997). Utilización de los Recursos en la Marina y Montaña Cantábricas:una Prehistoria Ecológica de los Valles del Deva y Nansa. Gernika, Asociación Culturalde Arqueología AGIRI.

Díez-Castillo, A. & J. Ruiz Cobo (1993). Cromlechs y círculos de piedras: los datos en el sectorcentral de la Cornisa Cantábrica, in Actas del XXII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología,Vigo, 1993. Zaragoza: 47-53.

Enríquez Navascués, J. J. (2006). Arqueología Rural y Estelas del SO (desde la Tierra, para laTierra y por la Tierra). Trabajos de Arqueología Navarra, 14: 151-75.

Fahlander, F. (2008). A Piece of the Mesolithic. Horizontal Stratigraphy and Bodily Manipulationsat Skateholm, in The Materiality of the Death: Bodies, Burials, Beliefs, F. Fahlander &T. Oestigaard (eds.). Oxford, Archaeopress, 29-45.

Fernández Miranda, M. (1986). La estela de las Herencias (Toledo), in Estudios en Homenajeal Doctor Antonio Beltrán Martínez. Zaragoza: 463-75.

Galán Domingo, E. (1993). Estelas, paisaje y territorio en el bronce final del suroeste de laPenínsula Ibérica. Madrid, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

García Sanjuán, L., D. W. Wheatley, P. Fábrega Álvarez, M. J. Hernández Arnero & A. Polvorinosdel Río (2006). Las estelas de guerrero de Almadén de la Plata (Sevilla). Morfología,Tecnología y Contexto. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 63 (2): 135-52.

Gil Pulido, J. L., M. L. Menéndez Robles, F. Reyes Tellez & J. L. Reyes Tellez (1988).Excavaciones en el yacimiento del Bronce Medio del Cerro del Obispo de Bayuela (Toledo),in I Congreso de Historia de Castilla-La Mancha, Tomo III: Pueblos y culturas prehistóricasy protohistóricas (2): 93-100.

Gomes, M. V. (1994). A Necrópole De Alfarrobeira (S. Bartolomeu de Messines) E A Idade DoBronze No Concelho De Silves. Silves, Cámara Municipal de Silves.

Gomes, M. V. & J. P. Monteiro (1977). Las estelas decoradas do Pomar (Beja-Portugal). Estudiocomparado. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 34: 165-212.


Gomes, M. V. & C. T. Silva (1987). Levantamento Arqueológico do Algarve. Concelho de Vilado Bispo, Delegaçao Regional do Sul. Secretaria de Estado da Cultura.

Gosden, C. (1994). Social Being and Time. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.Gutiérrez Pulido, D. (2002). La estela antropomorfa de Castillo de Bayuela. Aguasal, 26: 14-7.Harrison, R. J. (2004). Symbols and Warriors. Images of the European Bronze Age. Bristol,

Western Academics & Specialist Press Ltd.Jorge, S. O., (1999a). Stelen und Menhirstatuen der Bronzezeit auf der Iberischen Halbinsel:

Diskurse der Macht, in Götter und Helden der Bronzezeit. Europa im zeitalter des Odysseus.Ostfildern, Hatje Cantz Verlag: 114-22.

Jorge, S. O. (1999b). Cabeço da Mina (Vila Flor, Portugal). Ein Kupferzeitliches Heiligtum mit“Stelen”, in Götter und Helden der Bronzezeit. Europa im Zeitalter des Odysseus. Ostfildern,Hatje Cantz Verlag: 137-41.

Jorge, V. O. & C. A. F. Almeida (1980). A estátua-menir fálica de Chaves. Trabalhos do Grupode Estudos Arqueológicos do Porto, 6: 1-24.

Jorge, V. O. & S. O. Jorge (1993). Statues-menhirs et stèles du nord du Portugal, in LesRepresentations Humaines du Néolithique à L´Age du Fer. Actes du 115e congrès nationaldes sociétés savantes. Avignon, 1990, J. Briard & A. Duval (eds.). París, Éd. du Comitédes travaux historiques et scientifiques: 29-44.

Joyce, R. A. (2007). Figures, Meaning, and Meaning-making in Early Mesoamerica, in MaterialBeginnings: A Global Prehistory of Figurative Representation, C. Renfrew & I. Morley(eds.). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research: 107-16.

Joyce, R. A. & J. Lopiparo (2005). PostScript: Doing Agency in Archeology. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory, 12(4): 365-74.

Keane, W. (2003). Semiotics and the social analysis of material things. Language andCommunication, 23: 409-25.

Keane, W. (2005). The hazards of new clothes: what signs make possible, in The Art of Clothing.A Pacific Experience, S. Küchler & G. Were (eds.). London, University College LondonPress: 1-16.

Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and itsChallenges to Western Thought. New York, Basic Books.

Leisner, G. (1935). La estela-menhir de la Granja de Toniñuelo. Investigación y Progreso, 5: 129-34.Lobão, J. C., A. C. Marques, D. Neves (2006). Património Arqueológico do concelho de Celorico

da Beira: subsídios para o seu inventário e estudo. Praça Velha. Revista Cultural, 19 (1):15-37.

Menéndez, J. F. (1931). La necrópolis dolménica de la Sierra Plana de Vidiago. SociedadEspañola de Antropología Etnografía y Prehistoria. Actas y Memorias, 10 (1-2): 163-90.

Mergelina, C. (1944). Tugia. Reseña de unos trabajos. Boletín del Seminario de Arte y Arqueología,10: 27-30.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2003). Phenomenology of Perception. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.(Originally published in French in 1945).

Moreno Arrastio, F. J. (1990). Notas al contexto de Arroyo Manzanas (Las Herencias, Toledo),in Actas del Primer Congreso de Arqueología de la Provincia de Toledo. Toledo, Diputaciónde Toledo: 275-308.

Moreno Arrastio, F. J. (1995). La estela de Arroyo Manzanas (Las Herencias II, Toledo). Gerión,13: 275-94.

Murillo Redondo, J. F., J. A. Morena López & D. Ruiz Lara (2005). Nuevas estelas de guerreroprocedentes de las provincias de Córdoba y de Ciudad Real. Romula, 4: 7-46.

Olshewsky, T. M. (1995). The Construction of a Peircean hermeneutics, in Peirce´s Doctrine ofSigns. Theory, Applications, and Connections, V. M. Colapietro & T. M. Olshewsky(eds.). Berlin & New York, Mouton de Gruyter: 126-66.


Ondarra, F. (1976a). Nuevos monumentos megalíticos en Baztán y zonas colindantes y III.Príncipe de Viana, 142-143: 21-54.

Ondarra, F. (1976b). Nuevos monumentos megalíticos en Navarra. Príncipe de Viana, 144-145: 329-63.Pacheco Jiménez, C. & A. Deza Agüero (2003). Castillo de Bayuela (Toledo). Una nueva estela

decorada. Revista de Arqueología, 262: 48-53.Paço, A., F. Nunes Ribeiro, F. & G. L. Franco (1965). Inscriçao ibérica da Corte do Freixo

(Almodóvar). Zephyrus, 16: 99-107.Pape, H. (1998). Peirce and his followers, in Semiotik. Ein Handbuch zu den zeichentheoretischen

Grundlagen von Natur und Kultur – Semiotics. A Handbook on the Sign-TheoreticFoundations of Nature and Culture, R. Posner, K. Robering & T. A. Sebeok (eds.). Berlin& New York, Walter der Gruyter: 2016-40.

Peirce, C. S. (1998). The essential Peirce: selected philosophical writings. Volume 2 (1893-1913). Bloomington, Indiana University Press.

Pérez Suarez, C. & P. Arias Cabal (1979). Túmulos y yacimientos al aire libre de la Sierra Planade la Borbolla (Llanes, Asturias). Boletín del Instituto de Estudios Asturianos, 98: 695-715.

Portela Hernando, D. & J. C. Jiménez Rodrigo (1996). Una nueva estela de guerrero. La estatua-menhir-estela de guerrero de Talavera de la Reina. Revista de Arqueología, 188: 36-43.

Preucel, R. W. (2006). Archaeological Semiotics. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.Preucel, R. W. & A. A. Bauer (2001). Archaeological Pragmatics. Norwegian Archaeological

Review, 34(2): 85-96.Reckwitz, A. (2002). The Status of the “Material” in Theories of Culture: From “Social Structure”

to “Artefacts”. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32(2): 195-217.Roso de Luna, M. (1898). Lápida sepulcral de Solana de Cabañas, en el partido de Logrosán

(Cáceres). Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia, 32-33: 179-82.Ruiz-Gálvez, M. & E. Galán, (1991). Las estelas del Suroeste como hitos de vías ganaderas y

rutas comerciales. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 48: 257-73.Silva, M. D. O. (2000). Estátua-menir de A-de-Moura (Santana de Azinha, Guarda). Estudos

Pré-Históricos, 8: 229-36.Sousa, O. C. F. (1996). Estatuária Antropomórfica Pré e Protohistórica do Norte de Portugal.

Porto, Universidade do Porto.Sousa, O. C. F. (1997). A estação arqueológica do Cabeço da Mina, Vila Flor. Noticia Prelimi-

nar. Estudos Transmontanos e Durienses, 7: 186-97.Taboada Cid, M. (1988/1989). Estela funeraria antropomorfa do Muiño de San Pedro (Verín).

Boletín Auriense, 18-19: 79-93.Teira Mayolini, L. C. & R. Ontañón Peredo (2000). Revisión de los grabados rupestres del

Collado de Sejos (Polaciones), in Actuaciones arqueológicas en Cantabria 1984-1999, R.Ontañón Peredo (ed.). Santander, Gobierno de Cantabria, Consejería de Cultura: 285-7.

Van der Sanden, W. & T. Capelle (2001). Mosens Guder. Antropomorfe traefigurer fra Nord-og Nordvesteuropas fortid/ Immortal Images. Ancient anthropomorphic wood carvingsfrom northern and northwest Europe. Silkeborg: Silkeborg Museum.

Vasconcelos, J, L. (1906). Estudos sobre a época do Bronze em Portugal. O Arqueologo Por-tuguês, 11: 179-89.

Vasconcelos, J. L. (1908). Estudos sobre a época do Bronze em Portugal. O Arqueologo Por-tuguês, 13: 300-13.

Vasconcelos, J. L. (1910). Esculpturas prehistoricas do Museu Ethnologico Portugués. OArcheologo Português, 15: 31-9.

Vazquez Seijas, M. (1936). Una curiosa Placa-ídolo en piedra granítica. Boletín de la AcademiaGallega, 22 (263): 281-3.

Vilaça, R. (1995). Aspectos do Povoamento da Beira Interior (Centro e Sul) nos Finais da Idadedo Bronze. Lisboa, IPPAR.


Fig. 1 - Statue-menhirs and stelae documented in the area around the Talavera ford (“Vado”), inthe province of Toledo, middle Tajo valley (Schematic drawings made by the author after theoriginal drawings and photos of Fernández Miranda 1986, Moreno Arrastio 1995, Portela &

Jiménez 1996, Gutiérrez 2002 and Pacheco & Deza 2003. Topographic map generated through theCarta Militar Digital de España 2000).

iconical signs, indexical relations: bronze age stelae and statue-menhirs in the iberian peninsula

Documents