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 the
mutually 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 relationship
in the past and the present. The case of Bronze Age (ca. 2200-825 BC ) decorated stelae and statue-menhirs
in the Iberian Peninsula is illustrative. They have been generally conceptualized as static containers of
symbolic meanings. But understanding stelae and statue-menhirs as an integral and active part of social
relations entails addressing them as signs of practices historically situated within a wider complex network
of practices structuring social relations in a meaningful way. Stelae and statue-menhirs suggest multiple
indexical relations that can be taken as evidence for social practices related to the structuration of collective
identities, memories and places. This approach contributes to a renovated understanding of the historicized
relationships 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 entre
lo social y lo material, su mutua constitución, sean reconocidas y consideradas. En este contexto, la semiótica
Peirceana – una teoría de significado fundamentada en la experiencia – nos ayuda a entender el desarrollo
de esta significativa relación, tanto en el pasado como en el presente. En este sentido el caso de las estelas
decoradas 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 sociales
es necesario analizarlas como signos de prácticas sociales que están históricamente situadas en una compleja
y amplia red de prácticas que estructuran las relaciones sociales de una forma llena de significado. Estelas
y 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 the
Theme “Materializing Identities II: materials, techniques, practice” organized by Johanna Brück and Chris
Fowler. I am very grateful to Rosemary Joyce for her invitation to co-organize this session, which was a very
rewarding experience for me. The session benefited from the interesting papers presented by the varied
contributors, which included a wide range of topics and points of view, “materializing” a stimulating diversity.
**
Departamento de Prehistoria, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. marta_diaz_guardamino@hotmail.com
32 Marta Díaz-Guardamino Uribe

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

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

FAUST:
«[…]
Ich schau in diesen reinen Zügen
Die 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 the
social and the material takes place through practices that are materialized creating temporal
and 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 on
substantial evidence to suggest that human beings conceptualize the most basic bodily
experience through signs, primary conceptual structures – conceptual metaphors – that
function 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 the
materialization of practices is a meaningful process (Reckwitz 2002). Nonetheless, as recently
argued by Rosemary Joyce, when we talk about meaning we don’t necessarily talk about
symbolic or linguistic meanings (Joyce 2007, 107-8).
The theory of meaning of Charles Sanders Peirce is an alternative to previous
logocentric conceptualizations of the material – such as linguistic structuralism – that could
not 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; Joyce
2007). Peirce’s theory of meaning is based on the triadic relation of the material form of
the sign (representamen), its object (referent) and its interpretant (the sense made of the
sign), considering the very materiality of the sign, and the active role of the interpreter, his
or 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 the
sign vehicle (representamen) and the object (referent) experienced by the interpreter, the
arbitrariness of meaning varies, and based on this variation is the most fundamental and

1
In these pure lineaments I see
Creative 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)
 Iconical signs, Indexical Relations: Bronze Age Stelae and 33
Statue-menhirs in the Iberian Peninsula *

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

2. INTERPRETING STELAE AND STATUE-MENHIRS 2

From this perspective, given the nature of stelae and statue-menhirs, the main modes
of signification explored by researchers until now have been iconicity and symbolicity.
Nevertheless, the linguistic perspective that has dominated their study has favoured their
treatment as passive recipients of final, extant and static meanings. Their materiality has
not been considered, neither their role in the process of signification (Díaz-Guardamino
2006, see also Joyce 2007 for a similar case in Mesoamerican research). Iconicity has been
explored to establish chronological parameters and to develop typological studies. Through
symbolicity authors have mainly made inferences regarding social prestige and
hierarchization, commonly concluding that the stelae and statue-menhirs represent elitist
individuals that through this medium tried to implement their own and particular “discourse
of power” during the Bronze Age (e.g. Almagro-Gorbea 1977; Barceló 1989, 238; Jorge
1999a; Celestino 2001; Harrison 2004; Bueno, Balbín & Barroso 2005b). On the other
hand, indexicality, which provides us with real physical connections that could be explored
to 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 framed
the work of most researchers has contributed to this situation. The actual scarcity of stelae
and statue-menhirs known within (vertical) stratigraphical contexts drove most researchers
to focus on the stelae and statue-menhirs themselves and their engravings, considering
them as closed compositions, as static remains isolated in time and space.
The concept of indexicality, which includes physical contiguity and causality, involves
an 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 necropolis
indexes the practices involved in its elaboration and placement, and refers to those
surrounding material features, materializing a relationship that might have been an integral
part of those past practices as, for example, those involved in mortuary rituals. In this
sense, 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 the
human body, allude to persons that might be visually articulated through elements that have been labelled
as ‘emblems’, ‘clothing’, ‘ornaments’, ‘objects of personal care’, ‘prestige elements’ or ‘weaponry’. From an
interpretive point of view, ‘stela’ and ‘statue-menhir’ are heuristic concepts that let us explore the material
aspects of these remains that we interrelate in the present and interpret in varied directions.
34 Marta Díaz-Guardamino Uribe

between material features on the one hand, between material features and practices on the
other, at varied spatial scales and beyond temporal structures. Nevertheless, to make sense
of indexical relations within the dynamic of social relations and the interrelation between
the social and the material, it is necessary to “historize” them. In short, the analysis of
indexicality should account for stratigraphical relations (vertical and horizontal), including
“re-usages” of older menhirs or statue-menhirs, the engravings and modifications made in
different “stages”, material features found in a place (stelae, statue-menhirs, other
archaeological remains or “natural” features) not so “evidently” interrelated, or even wider
relations 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 the
norm, at least from our partial and actual perspective. In any case, as we consider these
practices, they structure our knowledge about stelae and statue-menhirs in the present, as
well as they might have structured social relations in the past. Either way, it is precisely
the 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 relations
that 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 containers
and change is attributed to external and self-contained events, these are exceptions that
rarely are integrated in a social or cultural interpretation. From a point of view that attempts
to consider stelae and statue-menhirs as elements that actively structured social relations,
these outliers might be interpreted as heterodox 3 materialized practices of the Past that had
an active role altering social relations. On the other hand, these outliers might change our
general perception of stelae and statue-menhirs in the Present, either considering them as
part of heterodox practices in the Past or as indication of a wider set of orthodox practices
in the Past still to be acknowledged by researchers in the Present.
In recent works some indexical relations have been noted, such as the varied
interventions 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 Eduardo
Galán, who used an enlarged concept of “context” to explore the relationship between Late
Bronze 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 total
correspondence between the objective order and the subjective organization principles, when the natural and
the 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 sphere
of the conscious reflection: “Orthodoxy, straight, or rather straightened, opinion, which aims, without ever
entirely succeeding, at restoring the primal state of innocence of doxa[3],. Exists only in the objective
relationship which opposes it to heterodoxy, that is, by reference to the choice… made possible by the
existence of competing possibles and to the explicit critique of the sum of total of the alternatives not chosen
that the established order implies” (Bourdieu, [1972]1977: 169).
 Iconical signs, Indexical Relations: Bronze Age Stelae and 35
Statue-menhirs in the Iberian Peninsula *

elements actively engaged in a process of social differentiation (Ruiz-Gálvez & Galán

1991; Galán, 1993). Nevertheless, besides disregarding collective identities and social action
in this process (as pointed out in Díaz-Guardamino 2006), his analysis relating stelae and
passage zones ends in a fairly reductionist way, interpreting stelae as territorial markers but
neglecting “places”, their particular historicity and materiality, and the role of stelae
structuring them. As I will argue, indexical relations suggest that stelae, statue-menhirs and
the “places” where they were located were part of complex networks of practices structuring
social relations through merging temporalities and spatialities.

3. EXPLORING INDEXICALITY: NORMATIVE PRACTICES & “OUTLIERS”

The incipient analysis of indexical relations has disclosed the existence of repetitive
patterns involved in the elaboration and placement of Late Bronze Age stelae, such as their
systematic placement in passage zones (Ruiz-Gálvez & Galán 1991) or the usage of stones
present in the immediate surroundings of their location to elaborate them (e.g. Celestino
2001, 79-80), an aspect that was recently supported by the preliminary analysis of the
stelae 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. García
Sanjuan et al. 2006). Today’s available data is qualitatively restricted. Some of the studies
of recently “discovered” stelae and statue-menhirs unveil “exceptional” details that enrich
the list of already known “odd” situations, inviting us to look at them from alternative
points of view.
The selection and sources of the “raw” material, for example, is a topic with enormous
potential 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 through
time. Permanence is a material quality that might have played a relevant role in the
selection of stone, while its provenience, texture, colour or previous biography might have
influenced the choice of a particular stone. Stones constitute fields of action in which
practices are materialized incorporating different temporal and spatial referents, providing
an interesting interpretative potential still to be explored. Regarding Bronze Age stelae and
statue-menhirs, the few available data suggests the existence of a promising variability. In
the case of stones that are being modified for the first time, preliminary impressions
suggest 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 the
raw material was 25 km away towards the North of the location were it was found, at the
other side of the river Tajo (Portela & Jiménez 1996). This case is especially interesting
because 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 where
another stela and a Middle Bronze Age necropolis were found (Fig. 1). On other occasions
older menhirs or statue-menhirs are used to perform new modifications or engravings. This
selection might be significant, as the places that are better known suggest. This would be
36 Marta Díaz-Guardamino Uribe

the case of Collado de Sejos (Cantabria) or Soalar (Navarra), both in the North of the Iberian
Peninsula. The Early Bronze Age statue-menhir of Soalar (Baztán, Navarra), which probably
reuses a pre-existing menhir, is situated by an open air activity site and it is located in an
area where there are several megalithic structures, none of them systematically excavated till
now (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 de
Sejos 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 numerous
structures, 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 Bronze
Age stela of Alfarrobeira, possibly also Passadeiras 1, reusing a menhir and situated in an
Early/ Middle Bronze Age necropolis (Gomes 1994), the late Bronze Age stelae of Magacela
and Cancho Roano, reusing falic menhirs (Celestino 2001, 386-7; Harrison 2004, 255-7), or
the 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. Both
stelae were found with a third stelae – or statue-menhir – in a settlement with remains that
reveal a Late Bronze Age occupation (Vilaça 1995, 80, 250). Finally, the stela of Bayuela
1, 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 Age
necropolis (Gil Pulido et al., 1988). Although information is still very poor, the latest engravings
or modifications performed in these menhirs and statue-menhirs refer to them as pre-existing
materials 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 (following
Joyce & 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-existing
engravings, reproducing the previous composition or modifying it. Richard Harrison has
recently reviewed Late Bronze Age stelae that present modification of their iconography
during that period or later (Harrison 2004, 46-51) but there are also earlier exemplars that
might have undergone similar modifications, such as Peñatú (Balbín, 1989, 29, 31, but see
Bueno 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 some
examples.
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 hill
located in the middle of a fertile valley (Sousa 1996; 1997; Jorge 1999b). The top of the
hill 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 the
representation is mainly focused on clothing/emblems. The stratigraphy of the site revealed
a possible single phase of construction but did not provide further material remains to date
or to deepen in the history and nature of this place.
 Iconical signs, Indexical Relations: Bronze Age Stelae and 37
Statue-menhirs in the Iberian Peninsula *

During the Early/Middle Bronze Age stelae and statue-menhirs might appear as
single pieces of this category, grouped and/or spatially related to other archaeological
remains. As occurs in the mentioned cases of Collado de Sejos (Fig. 2) or Soalar, the
related Early Bronze Age image of Peña Tú is engraved and painted on a massive outcrop
that spatially structures the flat mountain range of La Borbolla, where there are several
mounds, one of them providing an anthropomorphic stela, and areas of activity dated to the
late 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). Recent
research in Moimenta da Beira (Viseu) has disclosed the material richness of the place of
Chã das Lameiras, in which there are several dolmens of varied typology, one of them
reused during the early second Milennium BC , as well as a mound possibly constructed in
this moment, a third Milennium BC settlement and two statue-menhirs that probably date
to 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 area
were there are at least six megalithic monuments, two of them were excavated during the
1970s (Almagro Basch 1972; Almagro-Gorbea & Hernández 1979; Díaz-Guardamino 2006,
Fig. 8). The stela of Granja de Toniñuelo (Southern Extremadura), also with hair-dress and
necklace, probably dated in Early/Middle Bronze Age, was found in an unspecified spot
of a valley (Leisner 1935) where is situated the impressive corbelled monument of Granja
de Toniñuelo (Carrasco 2000). Recent works in this monument have documented an
anthropomorphic 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 references
situate 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 less
contemporary burial structures but with no stratigraphical connection to them (e.g. Ervidel
1, 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; Almagro
1966, 120-1, Fig. 41, Pl. 36; Coelho 1975, 196; Vasconcelos 1908, 304, Fig. 8; Almagro
1966, 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 of
Santa 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 primary
context was in the stela of Alfarrobeira, found in the eponymous cist necropolis (Gomes
1994). Data recovered in the excavation of this site suggested that this stela could have been
placed by one of the smallest and most recent cists of the cemetery (Gomes 1994). The stela
1 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 and
also a Late Bronze Age stela (Ervidel 2) (Gomes & Monteiro 1977).
In some occasions Late Bronze Age stelae are grouped with – or close by – other
stelae with similar or different iconography – in some cases of earlier chronology as seen
in the cases of Hernán Pérez (Almagro Basch 1972) or Ervidel (Gomes & Monteiro 1977)
38 Marta Díaz-Guardamino Uribe

–, 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 or
later 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; Harrison
2004, 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), La
Bienvenida 2 and 3 (Murillo et alii 2005, 35, Note 57), Setefilla (Aubet 1997), Écija 2 and
4 (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 indirect
oral accounts described the existence of possible cremated bones in relation of two of these
stelae: 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 references
indicated that the stela of Figueria was covering a cist when it was found (Gomes & Silva
1987, 46, map B), although there is much confusion about the context of its discovery, as
summarized by E. Galán (1993, 110). The stela of Haza de Trillo was documented sealing
the entrance of a ‘collective’ tomb (Mergelina 1944; Harrison 2004, 283-4). In the following
decades this interpretation was questioned as the existing data didn’t offer sufficient
confidence and none of the following discoveries provided contextual findings in this
direction (Galán 1993, 16-8). Two recent discoveries confirm this possibility but also
suggest the existence of diverse situations. In Cortijo de la Reina, 50 m away from the
Guadalquivir River, two stelae were found buried in probable primary position, one covering
three urns of Late Bronze Age-Early Orientalizing typology with rests of cremation. In the
same region there are also oral accounts that refer the existence of ashes and bones associated
to the stela of Cerro Muriano 2 (Murillo et alii 2005, 17-9, Fig. 2). In Almadén de la Plata
two stelae were found together on an artificial mound made of white quartz stones. In this
case 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, for
example, rivers, water springs or rock outcrops, as in the mentioned case of Peña Tú. The
published data in hand and the information recorded by myself exploring some of these
sites reveal that varied Early and Middle Bronze Age stelae and statue-menhirs were
documented 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), even
in the cases situated in mountain landscapes, as Collado de Sejos or Soalar. This relationship
with seasonal or permanent rivers is also very frequent in the case of Late Bronze Age
stelae (Celestino 2001, 76) as, to note mentioned cases, the stelae of Hernán Pérez, Almadén
de la Plata 1 and 2 or Cortijo de la Reina 1 and 2.
 Iconical signs, Indexical Relations: Bronze Age Stelae and 39
Statue-menhirs in the Iberian Peninsula *

4. INDEXICAL RELATIONS & RESEARCH

Considering that the materialization of practices is a meaningful process, Peirce’s

theory of meaning provides a suitable framework to explore these meaningful processes –
to acknowledge the meaningful interrelation between practices and the material – in the
Past and the Present. The concept of indexicality inspired by Peirce supplies us with a
suitable working tool to explore stelae and statue-menhirs as links within a wider network
of materialized practices, transcending time and space.
In the present, the archaeological record suggested by stelae and statue-menhirs has
an active role in the generation of narratives about them. In our present situation research
aimed to interpret the processes of the past related to stelae and statue-menhirs incipiently
seeks normative trends through the concept of indexicality. Nevertheless, indexical relations
also direct our attention towards several exceptional cases or situations that have an
interpretive potential to be explored. If explored in depth, these indexical relations might
confirm the exceptionality of the practices involved in their making in the past, promoting
their interpretation as heterodox practices aimed to re-structure social relations. On the
other hand, the outcome of investigating indexical relations further could open up a rather
new and rich matrix of data through which we could explore in depth the dynamic
relationships between the material and the social during the Bronze Age in these areas, in
short, the active role of stelae and statue-menhirs within the social relations of the
collectivities 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 and
in the present. To assume this task it is necessary to rethink our research strategies regarding
stelae and statue-menhirs considering that, regardless of the concrete situation in which the
stela 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 a
botton-up approach; as Fredrik Fahlander recently noted regarding research on burial places
of the Late Mesolithic in South Sweden:
“Such microarchaeological studies focus on social practice involved in the disposal of the
dead as a mediating level between the local and particular on one hand and the normative and
general on the other.” (Fahlander 2008, 29).

In this sense, the study of these places at a micro – and mesoscale is a necessary and
preliminary step to dynamize our actual knowledge about these stelae and statue-menhirs, as
suggested by the recent case study published by a team of the University of Seville (García
Sanjuan et al. 2006). The detailed study of the topography or the development of systematic
field 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 at
the micro-scale. In this sense, excavations have a great potential but whenever they are set
out as “open area excavations” that also provide time depth and while they are developed
within interdisciplinary teams. The same could be said about the stones, their extraction or
reusage, the engravings and modifications performed in stelae and statue-menhirs. Their
dynamic nature could be fully acknowledged through detailed and systematic analyses.
40 Marta Díaz-Guardamino Uribe

It normally seems that because of their iconographic nature stelae and statue-menhirs
provide substantial information to interpret them in social terms. Nevertheless, the concerns
of 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, Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Almagro Basch, M. (1972). Los ídolos y la estela decorada de Hernán Pérez (Cáceres) y el ídolo
estela 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), in
Estudios 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, Ediciones
Ausa: 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 de
la Universidad de Navarra, 13: 11-86.
Bauer, A. A. (2002). Is what you see all you get? Recognizing meaning in archaeology. Journal
of Social Archaeology, 2(1): 37-52.
Blas Cortina, M. A. (2003). Estelas con armas: arte rupestre y paleometalurgia en el norte de
la Península Ibérica, in El Arte Prehistórico desde los Inicios del Siglo XXI: Primer
Symposium 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 de
Soalar. Valle de Baztán (Navarra). Trabajos de Arqueología Navarra, 18: 5-39.
Bueno Ramírez, P., R. Balbín Behrmann & R. Barroso Bermejo (2005b). Hiérarchisation et
métallurgie: 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 Collado
de Sejos (Valle de Polaciones, Santander). Campaña de 1982. Noticiario Arqueológico
Hispánico, 22: 27-58.
 Iconical signs, Indexical Relations: Bronze Age Stelae and 41
Statue-menhirs in the Iberian Peninsula *

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 los
Caballeros (Badajoz), in El Megalitismo en Extremadura (Homenaje a Elías Diéguez
Luengo), 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 y
formación 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 Durante
a 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 del
I 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 y
estatuas-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 Cultural
de Arqueología AGIRI.
Díez-Castillo, A. & J. Ruiz Cobo (1993). Cromlechs y círculos de piedras: los datos en el sector
central 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 la
Tierra y por la Tierra). Trabajos de Arqueología Navarra, 14: 151-75.
Fahlander, F. (2008). A Piece of the Mesolithic. Horizontal Stratigraphy and Bodily Manipulations
at 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 Homenaje
al Doctor Antonio Beltrán Martínez. Zaragoza: 463-75.
Galán Domingo, E. (1993). Estelas, paisaje y territorio en el bronce final del suroeste de la
Península Ibérica. Madrid, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
García Sanjuán, L., D. W. Wheatley, P. Fábrega Álvarez, M. J. Hernández Arnero & A. Polvorinos
del 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 prehistóricas
y protohistóricas (2): 93-100.
Gomes, M. V. (1994). A Necrópole De Alfarrobeira (S. Bartolomeu de Messines) E A Idade Do
Bronze No Concelho De Silves. Silves, Cámara Municipal de Silves.
Gomes, M. V. & J. P. Monteiro (1977). Las estelas decoradas do Pomar (Beja-Portugal). Estudio
comparado. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 34: 165-212.
42 Marta Díaz-Guardamino Uribe

Gomes, M. V. & C. T. Silva (1987). Levantamento Arqueológico do Algarve. Concelho de Vila

do 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 Grupo
de Estudos Arqueológicos do Porto, 6: 1-24.
Jorge, V. O. & S. O. Jorge (1993). Statues-menhirs et stèles du nord du Portugal, in Les
Representations Humaines du Néolithique à L´Age du Fer. Actes du 115e congrès national
des sociétés savantes. Avignon, 1990, J. Briard & A. Duval (eds.). París, Éd. du Comité
des travaux historiques et scientifiques: 29-44.
Joyce, R. A. (2007). Figures, Meaning, and Meaning-making in Early Mesoamerica, in Material
Beginnings: 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 of
Archaeological Method and Theory, 12(4): 365-74.
Keane, W. (2003). Semiotics and the social analysis of material things. Language and
Communication, 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 London
Press: 1-16.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and its
Challenges 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. Sociedad
Española 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, Diputación
de 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 guerrero
procedentes 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 of
Signs. Theory, Applications, and Connections, V. M. Colapietro & T. M. Olshewsky
(eds.). Berlin & New York, Mouton de Gruyter: 126-66.
 Iconical signs, Indexical Relations: Bronze Age Stelae and 43
Statue-menhirs in the Iberian Peninsula *

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-Theoretic
Foundations 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 Plana
de 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 carvings
from 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. O
Archeologo Português, 15: 31-9.
Vazquez Seijas, M. (1936). Una curiosa Placa-ídolo en piedra granítica. Boletín de la Academia
Gallega, 22 (263): 281-3.
Vilaça, R. (1995). Aspectos do Povoamento da Beira Interior (Centro e Sul) nos Finais da Idade
do Bronze. Lisboa, IPPAR.
44 Marta Díaz-Guardamino Uribe

Fig. 1 - Statue-menhirs and stelae documented in the area around the Talavera ford (“Vado”), in
the province of Toledo, middle Tajo valley (Schematic drawings made by the author after the
original drawings and photos of Fernández Miranda 1986, Moreno Arrastio 1995, Portela &
Jiménez 1996, Gutiérrez 2002 and Pacheco & Deza 2003. Topographic map generated through the
Carta Militar Digital de España 2000).
Iconical signs, Indexical Relations: Bronze Age Stelae and 45
Statue-menhirs in the Iberian Peninsula *