an offprint from
he Megalithic Architectures of Europe
edited by
Luc Laporte and Chris Scarre
Hardback Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-014-9
Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-015-6
© Oxbow Books 2015
Oxford & Philadelphia
www.oxbowbooks.com
Published in the United Kingdom in 2016 by
OXBOW BOOKS
10 Hythe Bridge Street, Oxford OX1 2EW
and in the United States by
OXBOW BOOKS
1950 Lawrence Road, Havertown, PA 19083
© Oxbow Books and the individual authors 2016
Hardback Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-014-9
Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-015-6
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Laporte, Luc. | Scarre, Chris.
Title: he megalithic architectures of Europe / edited by Luc Laporte and
Chris Scarre.
Description: Oxford : Oxbow Books, 2015. | Includes bibliographical
references.
Identiiers: LCCN 2015033850| ISBN 9781785700149 (hardback) | ISBN
9781785700156 (digital)
Subjects: LCSH: Megalithic monuments--Europe. | Tombs--Europe. | Antiquities,
Prehistoric--Europe. | Architecture, Prehistoric--Europe. | Neolithic
period--Europe. | Europe--Antiquities. | Europe, Northern--Antiquities. |
Europe, Western--Antiquities. | Excavations (Archaeology)--Europe,
Northern. | Excavations (Archaeology)--Europe, Western.
Classiication: LCC GN803 .M473 2015 | DDC 722--dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015033850
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher in writing.
Typesetting and layout by Ray Davies
Printed in Wales by Gomer Press
For a complete list of Oxbow titles, please contact:
UNITED KINGDOM
Oxbow Books
Telephone (01865) 241249, Fax (01865) 794449
Email: oxbow@oxbowbooks.com
www.oxbowbooks.com
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Oxbow Books
Telephone (800) 791-9354, Fax (610) 853-9146
Email: queries@casemateacademic.com
www.casemateacademic.com/oxbow
Oxbow Books is part of the Casemate Group
Front cover: Chambered cairn of Cairnholy, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland. Photo: Chris Scarre
Back cover: Dolmen angevin of La Roche-aux-Fées at Essé, Ille-et Vilaine, France. Photo: Chris Scarre
Contents
List of contributors
vii
Preface: megalithic architecture in Europe
Luc Laporte & Chris Scarre
ix
SECTION 1: THE MEGALITH-BUILDERS
1. Menga (Andalusia, Spain): biography of an exceptional megalithic monument
Leonardo García Sanjuán and José Antonio Lozano Rodríguez
2. Structural functions and architectural projects within the long monuments of Western France
Luc Laporte
3. Megalithic building techniques in the Languedoc region of southern France: recent excavations at
two dolmens in Hérault
Noisette Bec Drelon
4. Megalithic constructional techniques in north-west France: cairn III at Prissé-la-Charrière
Florian Cousseau
5. A monumental task: building the dolmens of Britain and Ireland
Vicki Cummings and Colin Richards
6. he megalithic construction process and the building of passage graves in Denmark
Torben Dehn
7. Accident or design? Chambers, cairns and funerary practices in Neolithic western Europe
Chris Scarre
8. Dolmens without mounds in Denmark
Palle Eriksen and Niels H. Andersen
9. In the eye of the beholder: key architectural elements in 25 years of visual analysis of
Danish megalithic tombs
Jørgen Westphal
3
17
31
39
49
59
69
79
89
SECTION 2: CEMETERIES AND SEQUENCES
10. Building forever or just for the time being? A view from north-western Iberia
Ramón Fábregas Valcarce and Xosé Ignacio Vilaseco Vázquez
11. he megalithic architecture of Huelva (Spain): typology, construction and technical traditions
in eastern Andévalo
Jose Antonio Linares Catela
12. he clustering of megalithic monuments around the causewayed enclosures at Sarup on Funen, Denmark
Niels H. Andersen
13. Two types of megaliths and an unusual dolmen at Lønt, Denmark
Anne Birgitte Gebauer
14. Common motivation, diferent intentions? A multiscalar approach to the megalithic architecture of
the Funnel Beaker North Group
Franziska Hage, Georg Schaferer and Martin Hinz
vi
101
111
127
137
145
Contents
vii
SECTION 3: CHRONOLOGIES AND CONTEXT
15. Between east and west: megaliths in the centre of the Iberian Peninsula
Primitiva Bueno Ramírez, Rosa Barroso Bermejo and Rodrigo de Balbín Behrmann
16. Megalithic hollows: rock-cut tombs between the Tagus and the Guadiana
Leonor Rocha
17. Houses of the dead and natural rocks: new evidence from western France
Philippe Gouézin
18. he stone rows of Hoedic (Morbihan) and the construction of alignments in western France
Jean-Marc Large and Emmanuel Mens
19. Decorative techniques in Breton megalithic tombs (France): the role of paintings
Primitiva Bueno Ramírez, Rodrigo de Balbín Behrmann, Luc Laporte, Philippe Gouézin,
Rosa Barroso Bermejo, Philippe Gouézin, Florian Cousseau, Antonio Hernanz Gismero and
Mercedes Iriarte Cela
20. Stability in a changing world: insights from settlement intensity patterns and archaeobotany
Martin Hinz and Wiebke Kirleis
157
167
175
183
197
207
SECTION 4: CONCLUSIONS
21. Ostentation, power, and megaliths: the example of Easter Island
Nicolas Cauwe
22. A southern viewpoint
Luc Laporte and Primitiva Bueno Ramírez
23. A northern viewpoint
Chris Scarre and Torben Dehn
219
227
235
1
Menga (Andalusia, Spain): biography of an
exceptional megalithic monument
Leonardo García Sanjuán and José Antonio Lozano Rodríguez
Abstract
Menga was discovered for modern science in the 1840s, when
Rafael Mitjana carried out excavations that he reported in his
Memoria. he booklet soon circulated internationally, giving
this great megalith an early fame. Yet, as written accounts
dating to the 16th through 18th centuries AD and other pieces
of evidence attest, Menga had never been really ‘forgotten’.
Archaeological excavations carried out in the late 20th and
early 21st centuries have provided evidence suggesting that,
since its construction in the Neolithic period, and during
later prehistory, Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Menga was
used as a sacred building and burial ground. his paper brings
together, for the irst time, some of the evidence available in
order to understand Menga’s outstanding biography, spanning
almost 6000 years. he archaeological data currently available
is fragmentary and largely unpublished, but taken together,
it tells a remarkable story about the inception, design, and
long life of what possibly is the most fascinating megalithic
monument of Iberia.
Keywords: Neolithic, Copper Age, Bronze Age, Antiquity,
Middle Ages, megalith, burial, landscape
Introduction
Located in the plain of Antequera (Málaga), on the northern
side of the Baetic mountain range, Menga is possibly the
most famous megalithic monument in Iberia. As SánchezCuenca López (2012) showed in his historiographic review,
following its discovery for archaeology as a scientiic
discipline by Mitjana (1847), Menga became a reference
for the study of the megalithic phenomenon worldwide
throughout the 19th century. here is no doubt that its
exceptional size and architectural features played a major
part in its early fame within contemporary archaeological
knowledge (Figs 1.1 and 1.2).
Writing a biography of Menga is a very complex task.
Firstly, it has been the target of a signiicant number of
interventions since it was irst discovered, the more recent
and extensive of which remain largely unpublished (Fig. 1.3).1
Secondly, numerous indications suggest that Menga has been
visited, frequented and used, on a practically continuous
basis since it was irst built. It was never buried underground,
away from human interest and curiosity, as so many other
prehistoric monuments were. In addition, the history of
Menga is inherently linked to the other two large monuments
that form the megalithic complex of Antequera – Viera and
El Romeral – as well as other important prehistoric sites in the
surrounding area, the most noteworthy being La Peña de los
Enamorados. Combined, these factors make its biography a
fascinating, albeit particularly diicult, case study.
his paper is a condensed English version of a larger work
dedicated to the biography of Menga, to be published in
Spanish, and is based on a thorough examination of published
data, various unpublished reports and information obtained
directly from excavators (García Sanjuán and Lozano
Rodríguez, forthcoming).
Before Menga
Excavations conducted over the last three decades found
evidence suggesting prior occupation on the hill on which
Menga and Viera are located. Details of what this activity
consisted of are not known, as the irst task the builders of
Menga undertook was the levelling of the entire construction
area (Ferrer Palma et al. 2004, 187–189). here are three
pieces of evidence for this occupation: (i) the lithic and
ceramic artefacts found within the ill used for the Viera and
Menga tumuli, which came from deposits of a previously
existing settlement (Marqués Merelo et al. 2004a, 184); (ii) the
negative structures detected outside Menga (Carrión Méndez
et al. 2006a, 23); and (iii) the single inhumation found in the
south-western quadrant of Menga’s mound (Carrión Méndez
et al. 2006a, 22–23). Unfortunately, attempts to radiocarbon
date the very poorly preserved human remains of this single
inhumation have been fruitless due to a lack of collagen.
When was Menga built? here are currently three
radiocarbon dates for this monument that fall within the
late prehistoric period (Table 1.1), all obtained from charred
material. Two were obtained from samples collected inside a
pit located in the monument’s atrium that contained carbon
remains and three fragments of handmade pottery, including
a rim (Navarrete Pendón 2005, 16–17). he dates were
3790–3690 cal BC and 3760–3530 cal BC (all calibrated
dates quoted to 2σ) (Table 1.1). he third radiocarbon date
was obtained from a sample retrieved from the base of the
tumulus in Sector D of the excavation undertaken by the
University of Granada in 2005–2006. he age of this sample
4
Leonardo García Sanjuán and José Antonio Lozano Rodríguez
Fig. 1.1: Menga from the northeast. Photo: Leonardo García Sanjuán.
Fig. 1.2: Interior of Menga, looking inwards from the entrance. Photo: Miguel Ángel Blanco de la Rubia.
1. Menga (Andalusia, Spain)
5
Table 1.1: Radiocarbon dates available for Menga and Viera
is 3639–3384 cal BC (Table 1.1): it is broadly contemporary
with the two other samples.
he biological nature of the dated carbonised organic
matter has not been established in any of the three cases. If
they are wood, the samples could be older than the contexts
or events supposedly dated. Nevertheless, the chronology
of these dates quite consistently places them in the second
quarter of the 4th millennium cal BC (c. 3800–3400 cal BC),
within what could be considered an early stage of megalith
construction in southern Spain. All three dates (especially
that from the tumulus) constitute post quem chronological
evidence for the building of Menga. Given that samples taken
from the trenches or foundation pits of the orthostats or
pillars have not been dated, there is no direct data that would
enable us to establish when construction started, or how long
it lasted (if this was a process that extended over time).
Indirect evidence regarding the date of construction of
Menga comes from one of the three currently available C14
dates for Viera (GrN-16067). he tumulus of the latter lies
adjacent to that of Menga and gave a calibrated age of 3650–
2900 cal BC (Table 1.1). According to the excavators, this
sample dates a surface that existed before the construction of
the mound: therefore, again, the date only has a post quem
value in relation to the construction of Viera (Ferrer Palma
1997a, 135). Moreover, in this particular case, the value of
the date for interpreting the construction of the monument
is limited by its high standard deviation. What seems clear
is that this date points to a later chronological horizon than
that relected by Menga’s three dates. his is consistent with
the observation that, from a mechanical standpoint, the space
occupied by Viera was needed to construct Menga, as it is the
natural entry point from the quarry area for its stone blocks
(Lozano Rodríguez et al. 2014). Collectively, this suggests
that Menga was built before Viera.
he radiocarbon data currently available are of little help
with regard to how long the construction process of Menga
took. However, architectural analysis yields three interesting
indications: (i) the orthostats are supported one on top of another,
with an identical angle of around 4°; (ii) the capstones overlap
one another; and (iii) the tumulus does not show any lateral
Fig. 1.3: General plan of Menga and its mound showing excavations by the University of Málaga (1988‐1991), V. Navarrete Pendón (Spring 2005) and University of Granada (2005‐2006).
Source: Courtesy of José Ramón Menéndez de Luarca and Pau Soler
1. Menga (Andalusia, Spain)
change of construction phases. Taken together, these indications
suggest that Menga was the result of a single architectural
project, carried out over a period of time that we are currently
unable to determine. However, as part of its long biography, it
is possible that some external orthostats, corresponding to the
atrium, were removed at some unspeciied point in time (García
Sanjuán and Lozano Rodríguez, forthcoming). he architectural
remains found in the atrium, particularly the wall that projects
the southern hemisphere of the monument several metres to the
east, could indicate the existence of “additions” to the original
project but, unfortunately, the data currently available do not
enable us to be more speciic.
An extraordinary design
Menga stands out as an exceptional megalithic monument in
both the scale of its construction and its design. It is basically
the largest and heaviest megalithic monument on the Iberian
Peninsula, comparable only to Anta Grande de Zambujeiro
(Évora, Portugal). Its dimensions are remarkable, with a total
length of the inner space plus atrium of 27.5m, a height that
rises from 2.7m at the entrance to 3.5m at the top, and a
width of 6m at its widest point inside (Marqués Merelo et
al. 2004, 174; Márquez Romero and Fernández Ruiz 2009,
139). Menga’s mound is almost 50m across and contains
approximately 3000m3 of earth and stones, carefully placed
in alternating layers (Ferrer Palma 1997b, 359).
But what makes Menga extraordinary is the size and weight
of its stones, including 24 orthostats, three pillars and ive
capstones. he total combined weight of orthostats, pillars
and capstones is 835.7 tonnes, with the capstones weighing
44, 51, 68, 87 and 149 tonnes (Carrión Méndez et al. 2006b,
132). Although this type of estimate is virtually non-existent
for other Iberian megaliths, capstone 5 of Menga with its
dimensions of 6.05m wide, 7.20m long and 1.72m at its
thickest, and weighing at least 150 metric tonnes, is possibly
the largest and heaviest stone ever moved in later prehistoric
Iberia within the context of the megalithic phenomenon.
Another exceptional element of Menga’s architecture is the
shaft discovered at the back of the chamber in 2005. However, in
light of the diiculties in establishing its chronology, for now it is
impossible to know whether this element was designed and built
as part of the original construction plan of Menga or whether it
was added at a later date. Given the complexity of the discussion
needed to evaluate the diferent sources of indirect evidence that
could help to establish its chronology, the Menga shaft is not
dealt with in this work – a detailed discussion is available in
García Sanjuán and Lozano Rodríguez (forthcoming).
Altogether, it appears that the creators of Menga set out
to make a special and enduring work that would live on in
the memory of generations to come. In its dimensions and
scale, it was conceived as a monument that would surpass
all that was previously known. Its culmination must have
been a memorable event, not only socially and ideologically,
7
but technically and architecturally, too. Menga surely left
a recognisable mark on the collective imagination of the
Neolithic inhabitants of the region, and perhaps further
aield. In this regard, the aim of those who built Menga, to
create something unrepeatable and famous, is so obvious that
it seems diicult to avoid the explanation that the Antequera
plains already had an earlier special signiicance. his leads us
to the implications of Menga’s landscape setting.
An extraordinary event?
Interesting indications in relation to the genesis of Menga
can be drawn from another of its architectural features: its
axial orientation. Menga was not oriented to sunrise, as is
the case with 95% of the megalithic monuments in southern
Iberia (Hoskin 2001, 92–93). Rather it is slightly to the
north of the summer solstice (speciically at 45°), towards La
Peña de los Enamorados, a mountain that stands out in the
Antequera plain. Survey work has demonstrated that Menga’s
axial orientation is speciically directed to the north face of
La Peña de los Enamorados, where there is a clif with an
almost perfectly vertical drop of almost 100m. At the foot of
this impressive clif there was a noteworthy area of activity
at the end of the Neolithic. his included the small shelter
of Matacabras, with schematic-style rock art, and the Piedras
Blancas I activity area, associated with a scatter of microliths
(García Sanjuán and Wheatley 2009; 2010; García Sanjuán et
al. 2011b). Although the functional nature and chronology
of this sector of La Peña de los Enamorados still needs to
be established more accurately, as yet unpublished studies
suggest that the site of Piedras Blancas I may have been
monumentalised during the Neolithic period (Fig. 1.4).
It seems implausible that a feature with such a powerful
symbolic weight – the orientation – was left to chance:
therefore in orienting Menga towards the Piedras Blancas I
and Matacabras sector of La Peña de los Enamorados, the
architects commemorated a site that already had a very special
ideological and symbolic signiicance before the dolmen was
built. Such signiicance prevailed over the solar orientation
usually applied to megalithic monuments in Neolithic
Iberia. Menga was therefore conigured as a compass that
not only pointed towards space but also to time, to a place
with an ancestral importance for those who built it. In this
regard, the physical design of Menga itself has a mnemonic
purpose, suggesting that its biography started long before its
construction (García Sanjuán and Wheatley 2010, 27–31).
his can also be connected with the data regarding the previous
occupation of the hill on which it was built, discussed above.
It is possible that one of the reasons for Menga’s exceptional
design was that there was an older tradition that made the
Antequera region, or some speciic site within it (perhaps La
Peña de los Enamorados), a well-known social and ideological
focus whose importance and fame needed to be matched. We
must also consider the fact that the Antequera plain was (as
8
Leonardo García Sanjuán and José Antonio Lozano Rodríguez
Fig. 1.4: Monolith at Piedras Blancas I, at the foot of the northern clif
of La Peña de los Enamorados, showing (left) Leonor Rocha and (right)
the late Pedro Alvim, University of Évora (Portugal), March 2009.
Photo: Leonardo García Sanjuán.
it is today) a strategic transit point or crossroads in southern
Iberia, between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, between
the Guadalquivir river basin and the heart of the Baetic
mountain range. Today, Antequera is the midpoint between
Sevilla and Granada and between Málaga and Córdoba.
It is therefore possible to take a fresh look at recent
geological research, which indicates that a massive earthquake
may have hit the Málaga region between the late 5th and early
4th millennia cal BC. Evidence of this event has been found in
the speleothem records of the El Aguadero sinkhole (Periana,
Málaga), located 50km to the east of Antequera (Clavero
Toledo 2010). Speciically, the radiocarbon date obtained from
a stalactite (Beta-222473) places this earthquake in or shortly
after 5110±70 BP, i.e. 4045–3713 cal BC (Clavero Toledo
2010, 136). he chronology of this earthquake is interesting
when related to the radiocarbon dates of Menga and Viera, and
particularly in relation to the Neolithic occupation of El Toro
cave, which, lying just 8km to the south of Menga, is one of the
oldest Neolithic settlements in southern Iberia (Fig. 1.5).
Of the 29 radiocarbon dates published for El Toro cave,
the oldest 24 are chronologically compact. hey represent
its probably uninterrupted occupation from the mid-6th
to the very end of the 5th, or start of the 4th millennium
cal BC. Of the ive remaining dates, the standard deviation
of one is too large while the other four fall within the mid4th, 3rd, and 2nd millennia BC, clearly representing a very
diferent – more sporadic – usage pattern from that seen
in the Neolithic period. his radiocarbon series seems to
demonstrate a discontinuity in the very late 5th or early 4th
millennium, precisely when the above-mentioned earthquake
may have occurred. In addition, the excavators of El Toro cave
noted a dramatic change in the topographic conditions and
habitability of the cave, including the lasting blockage of the
main entrance to the cavity, and attributed it to an earthquake
(Cámalich Massieu et al. 2004, 297). he precise date of the
collapse and blocking of the entrance to El Toro is, however,
unknown. Since no absolute date for the earthquake was
available when the results of the excavation were published by
Camalich Massieu et al. (2004), the excavators suggested that
the earthquake that caused the blocking could have occurred in
the 3rd millennium BC. It was only later that the publication
of the El Aguadero sinkhole date and its comparison with the
El Toro C14 sequence led us to suggest that the date of that
event may in fact have been considerably earlier.
If the apparent match between the discontinuity in the use
of El Toro seen in the C14 dates and the possible date of the El
Aguadero earthquake holds true, it could have some bearing
on Menga’s biography. A catastrophic event of such magnitude
must have had a severe impact on the community occupying
El Toro cave, and maybe other Neolithic communities in
the region, leading to changes in their living conditions and
land occupation strategies – perhaps also afecting the Piedras
Blancas I area of activity at La Peña de los Enamorados.
Later prehistory
As Menga seems to have been an “open” monument
throughout its entire life history, the vestiges of its use
during the Neolithic, the Chalcolithic, and the Bronze Age
seem to have been almost completely erased by the actions
of subsequent visitors and users. In his Memoria, Mitjana
reported that, contrary to his expectations, there were no
Fig. 1.5: Summed distributions of the radiocarbon dates available for
Cueva del Toro, Menga and Viera. Total number of dates in brackets.
In red: distribution of date Beta-222473 from one stalactite in the El
Aguadero sinkhole. Diagram by David W. Wheatley and Leonardo
García Sanjuán.
1. Menga (Andalusia, Spain)
9
Fig. 1.6: Artefacts attributed to Menga in the
Málaga museum. Photo: Leonardo García
Sanjuán.
remains of “cadavers” or “urns” (Mitjana 1847, 19) suggesting
that he saw no evidence of prehistoric funerary activity
at Menga. he excavations undertaken by the University
of Málaga at the end of the 20th century led to the same
conclusion (Marqués Merelo et al. 2004a, 181–182).
he only prehistoric materials oicially attributed to
Menga are now in the Málaga museum, donated by Manuel
Gómez Moreno in 1945. hese consist of a polished axe-head,
three blades, and two retouched lint lakes (Figs 1.6 and 1.7).
Georg and Vera Leisner (1943, pl. 58) attributed a polished
adze and axe-head to Menga, although, due to the schematic
nature of their drawing, the axe-head cannot be linked
with the one housed in the Málaga museum with certainty.
However, a recent review has identiied some ambiguities and
problems with the attributions of the materials in those old
museum collections (Aranda Jiménez et al. 2013, 239). In any
case, the inds are not necessarily of Neolithic date: according
to their morphology and characteristics they could also be
from the Chalcolithic.
here is only indirect evidence on the use of Menga in
the Chalcolithic, a period of intense occupation in the
surrounding Antequera plain, as exempliied at Cerro de
Marimacho, a mere 200m to the east of Menga and Viera
(Leiva Riojano and Ruiz González, 1977; Ferrer Palma et
al. 1987a; Marqués Merelo et al. 2004b, 242), and at other
nearby sites. Further indirect evidence comes from Viera, in
particular from a C14 date (Aranda Jiménez et al. 2013), and
from the 8cm long copper awl or punch attributed to this
dolmen.2
Similarly, there is no direct evidence of how Menga was
used during the Bronze Age. Nevertheless, in the province of
Málaga, and in the neighbouring province of Granada, there
is clear evidence of megalithic sites being intensely reused
during this period (Ferrer Palma et al. 1987b; Fernández Ruiz
et al. 1997; Fernández Ruiz 2004; Márquez Romero 2009,
214–218; Márquez Romero et al. 2009; Aranda Jiménez
Fig. 1.7: Artefacts attributed to Menga by the Leisners. Source: Leisner
& Leisner, 1943: Plate 58.
10
Leonardo García Sanjuán and José Antonio Lozano Rodríguez
Fig. 1.8: Roman inhumation tombs discovered in 1988 by the
University of Málaga near the Antequera-Archidona road, at
the edge of the archaeological enclosure surrounding the dolmens
of Antequera. Photo: Rafael Atencia Páez.
Fig. 1.9: Roman ‘ossuary’ discovered in 1991 in the tumulus
of Menga by the University of Málaga. Photograph: Ignacio
Marqués Merelo.
1. Menga (Andalusia, Spain)
2013), including Viera itself (Aranda Jiménez et al. 2013). It
therefore seems highly unlikely that Menga was not used as a
sacred and/or burial site by the local Bronze Age populations,
although we do not have direct proof at present.
he publications available for the University of Málaga’s
excavations in the 1980s and 1990s report no Iron Age
materials in Menga. However, the unpublished reports of the
2005–2006 excavations mention fragments of orientalisingstyle pottery (Navarrete Pendón 2005, 20), as well as numerous
Late Iron Age pre-Roman pottery fragments (Carrión Méndez
et al. 2006a, 44). he practices that took place in the area
surrounding Menga in the Iron Age are unknown.
Roman times
he excavations carried out in the late 1980s and early 1990s
identiied several Roman graves in the surroundings of the
Menga and Viera tumuli (Ferrer Palma 1997a, 143; 1997b,
356; Marqués Merelo et al. 2004a, 184; Ferrer Palma et al.
2004, 207) (Fig. 1.8). In 1991, a Roman grave was found at
the southwestern edge of the Menga mound, practically in
the contact area with the Viera mound (Fig. 1.9). his grave,
embedded in the mound’s stone illing, had a cover made of
large ceramic tiles that protected a small ossuary. Numerous
fragments of wheel-thrown pottery were found very close by,
including several remains of terra sigillata and a small piece of
Roman glass.
he excavations accompanying the restoration of Viera
in 2003 also revealed evidence of its use in Roman times,
including a burial surrounded by bricks in the right hand
side of its atrium (as one enters) which remains unexcavated
and in situ (Fernández Rodríguez et al. 2006, 97; Fernández
Rodríguez and Romero Pérez 2007, 416). In addition,
some grooves were identiied in the irst capstone of Viera
that, in the excavators’ opinion, might have been caused
Fig. 1.10: Excavation of medieval
inhumation no.1 in the atrium at Menga
(2005). Photo: Juan Moreno.
11
by Roman quarrying, perhaps contributing to the partial
dismantling of the monument (Fernández Rodríguez et al.
2006, 95).
How can this information on the use of the spaces
surrounding Menga and Viera in Roman times be interpreted?
First of all, it must be noted that just a short distance away
(some 500m to the south-east) there is a Roman rural
settlement known as Carnicería de los Moros (Ferrer Palma
1997a, 136; Marqués Merelo et al. 2004a, 184; Fernández
Rodríguez and Romero Pérez 2007, 416). Remains of walls
and a hydraulic structure with opus signinum that could have
formed part of this rural settlement have been found near
Viera. It seems possible that the Roman graves found around
the perimeter of the dolmens could be connected with the
inhabitants or occupiers of this suburban villa. he University
of Málaga team dated these funerary contexts to between the
late 5th and 6th centuries AD (Ferrer Palma 1997a, 136).
hey emphasised the fact that those buried had no grave
goods, interpreting it to mean that the people buried there
were low class, perhaps servants of the villa (Marqués Merelo
et al. 2004a, 184).
Middle Ages
he excavations conducted in the atrium of Menga in
the spring of 2005 revealed two human skeletons: the
arrangement and context suggested that these burials were
medieval (Navarrete Pendón 2005, 24–25) (Fig. 1.10).
Both individuals were interred in simple, single graves in a
prone position, with the upper and lower limbs extended,
and hands at the pelvis. Neither individual was buried with
any grave goods, nor was any type of funerary architecture
found apart from the grave pit. Two subsequent
radiocarbon dates demonstrate that those two individuals
died between the 8th and 11th centuries AD (Díaz-Zorita
12
Leonardo García Sanjuán and José Antonio Lozano Rodríguez
Fig. 1.11: Visualisation of the legend of La Peña de los Enamorados published in Basel in 1610 in Cosmographia Universalis (irst edition 1507).
Bonilla and García Sanjuán 2012, 244–245). Both bodies
were approximately aligned with the axial symmetry of
the dolmen (in other words, “in line” with the chamber),
suggesting those who buried them wanted to place them
in that exact position, acknowledging their awareness of
the existence of the megalithic monument (and perhaps
its great age).
No other cases have been identiied of megalithic sites (or
prehistoric burial places in general) in the Antequera region
being reused in the Middle Ages. he only other possible
testimony is found in the schematic rock art complex of Peñas
de Cabrera (Casabermeja, Málaga) located 30km south-east
of Antequera. Engraved cruciform igures were found at
this site, alongside an important series of schematic motifs,
suggesting it was used as a sanctuary by Mozarab communities
(Maura Mijares 2010, 119). he continuity of use of Peñas
de Cabrera into the Middle Ages raises the question of the
calvario (Christian cross) carved into the third orthostat of
Menga (on the left as you enter). As noted by Bueno Ramírez
et al. (forthcoming), this calvario was carved with a diferent
technique from that used for the other motifs carved on that
particular upright. Its speciic chronology, however, remains a
matter of conjecture.
he excavations carried out in the atrium of Menga in the
spring of 2005 also discovered “medieval” pottery as well as
“some resealed 8-maravedíes3 coins” (Navarrete Pendón 2005,
20–21). Similarly, Hispano-Muslim materials were recorded
in Viera, inside the “tunnel” (considered to have been made
by “plunderers”) located at the back of the passage’s orthostats,
dated to the 14th and 15th centuries AD, coinciding with the
Nasrid dynasty.
Modern and contemporary times
Menga appears to have played a sacred and/or funerary role
as an ancestral site from its foundation up until some point
in the late 1st or early 2nd millennium AD. his religious
and/or funerary signiicance seems to decline with the abrupt
cultural shift brought about by the Castilian conquest of
the region between AD 1410 and 1462 and the subsequent
Christianisation. However, there is consistent evidence that
between the 16th and 18th centuries it was known and
surrounded in a shroud of mystery and legend.
1. Menga (Andalusia, Spain)
In 1587, the prebendary of Granada Cathedral, Agustín de
Tejada Páez, wrote a manuscript entitled Discursos Históricos de
Antequera. In an account of “some antiquities and curiosities”
in his city, he referred to “a cave which is called Menga, and
another besides which (not long ago) has been discovered,
and they are on the outskirts of the city as you leave towards
Granada”. Tejada Páez claimed that these “caves” (the second
could be Viera) were “made by hand and must have been
nocturnal temples where gentiles came at night to perform
sacriices”. In the late 16th century, therefore, there was a
clear awareness of the existence and age of Menga (and most
likely the Viera dolmen also), its construction and purpose
attributed to non-Christian cults on whose behalf “sacriices”
were performed. In the mid-17th century, in his History of
Antequera, Francisco de Tejada y Nava (nephew of Tejada
Páez) considered Menga to be the “… work of supernatural
beings in which men performed sacriices or demonic rituals”
(Sánchez-Cuenca López 2011, 15).
La Peña de los Enamorados was also famous in the 16th
century AD as a “natural monument”, suggested by the fact
that it features in an engraving in the German edition of
the Universalis Cosmographia dated to 1610 (although irst
published in 1507), providing a pictorial version of the legend
to which the mountain owes its name (Fig. 1.11). Diferent
13
versions of this late medieval legend tell the story of a Muslim
man and a Christian woman (or vice versa) who decide to
run away together when their relationship is rejected by their
families. hey are chased as they try to escape and seek refuge
on La Peña de los Enamorados but, cornered by their pursuers,
they jump to their deaths of the north face precipice, where
they are later buried (Jiménez Aguilera 2006).
It is likely that Menga was used as a refuge, dwelling,
or even animal pen during these centuries. Many of the
publications and reports consulted in writing this paper
make reference to the existence of “modern” materials in the
excavated zones of the interior and exterior areas of Menga
although, once again, these materials have never been the
subject of any detailed study. he geoarchaeological survey
conducted by the University of Granada concluded that
the visible wear on the lower third of several orthostats and
(most notably) pillars was caused by animals rubbing against
them, suggesting Menga was used as a stable at some point
in its history (Carrión Méndez et al. 2006, 178). he two
radiocarbon dates, obtained from animal bones found in the
upper part of the shaft illing (Riquelme Cantal 2012, 232),
fall between the late 17th and irst half of the 20th century
AD (Table 1.1).
Rafael Mitjana y Ardison stated that he irst saw the
Fig. 1.12: Watercolour by A. Wallace Rimington picturing Menga as a dwelling, published in Edward Hutton he Cities of Spain (Methuen &
Co., London, 1906) Source: Archive Conjunto Arqueológico Dólmenes de Antequera.
14
Leonardo García Sanjuán and José Antonio Lozano Rodríguez
Fig. 1.13: Fired bullets discovered in Trench 21 of the University of Málaga 1991 excavations at Menga, currently held at the Málaga museum.
Photo: Leonardo García Sanjuán.
“Cave of Mengal” on 17 April 1842, and that he visited
the monument on 25 occasions between this date and the
publication of his Memoria in 1847. He was aware of the
scientiic importance of the monument, which had never
been recognised before, and so ordered that it be cleaned and
the entrance closed of with a fence (Rodríguez Marín 2006,
124). If a fence was necessary, that implies that the site was
known and frequented. Mitjana’s Memoria spread around
the world very quickly: when British traveller Louisa Tenison
travelled through southern Spain in 1852, she made her way
to Antequera especially to visit the already famous megalithic
monument of Menga (Tenison 1853). In early 1885, Alfonso
XII, the King of Spain, was touring the province of Málaga
visiting those afected by the serious earthquake that occurred
on 25 December 1884: he also visited Menga. Impressed
by the dolmen, he ordered that it be declared a National
Monument: this came to pass on 1 June 1886, following the
issuing of a Royal Order (Ruiz González 2009, 20). In 1896,
Blanco y Negro magazine published the irst photograph of
Menga on its cover (taken by the photographer Juan Barrera)
with the title “Old Spain”, commenting that “although the
Cave of Menga was declared a national monument some
years ago, nothing has been done to restore it and now it is
in a complete state of abandonment” (Sánchez-Cuenca López
2011, 66). A watercolour included in a British publication
of 1926 (the sixth edition of the 1906 book he Cities of
Spain, by Alexander Wallace Rimington) depicts Menga as a
picturesque traditional dwelling (Fig. 1.12). It is not known
whether this watercolour was painted at the site, or if it is a
fanciful recreation based on 19th-century clichés spread by
European travellers about Spain and Andalusia.
here is one inal episode in the biography of Menga that
is worth mentioning. Both during the University of Malaga
excavations, and during those of spring 2005, numerous
bullets with clear signs of impact were identiied (Fig. 1.13).
Many of these ired bullets are held in the Málaga museum: in
all likelihood they were left behind after summary executions
performed after General Franco’s uprising against the Spanish
Republic in July 1936. heir study may some day provide
further details on what would appear to be the saddest episode
in the millenary biography of Menga.
Corollary
Menga exempliies a wider cultural phenomenon that is well
documented throughout Iberia: namely the permanence
and changing roles of megalithic monuments through later
prehistory, Antiquity and the Middle Ages (García Sanjuán et
al. 2007; 2008; García Sanjuán and Díaz-Guardamino 2015).
Due to its ‘aura’ and exceptional material properties, namely
its large scale and durability, Menga has been a constant
feature in its surrounding landscape, acting as a focus for
complex social interactions, and providing the arena for the
negotiation of cultural traditions and identities.
Acknowledgements: We owe a debt of gratitude to several
colleagues who generously provided us with invaluable
unpublished data, and dedicate a special acknowledgement
to all of them.
Notes
1
We refer to those carried out by the University of Málaga in
1986, 1988, 1991 and 1995 (Marqués Merelo et al. 2004a; Ferrer
Palma, 1997a), the intervention carried out in 2005 to support the
installation of a new electrical system (Navarrete Pendón, 2005),
and those conducted subsequently between 2005 and 2006 by the
University of Granada (Carrión Méndez et al. 2006a; 2006b).
2
his copper punch or awl is part of the small collection of
objects from Viera held in the Málaga museum (Aranda Jiménez
et al. 2013), and was already published in the summary of G. and
V. Leisner (1943, pp. 182–185 and pl. 58). According to its shape,
it can be dated to the Chalcolithic, which its well with the set of
materials that accompany it, especially the lithic materials. However,
it is not possible to rule out an Early Bronze Age date, when this type
of tool was very common and in which, as a C14 date has pointed
out (Aranda Jiménez et al. 2013), Viera was also in use.
1. Menga (Andalusia, Spain)
he maravedí coin was used between the 11th and 14th
centuries AD.
3
References
Aranda Jiménez, G. 2013. Against uniformity cultural diversity:
the ‘others’ in Argaric societies. In: Cruz Berrocal, M., García
Sanjuán, L. and Gilman, A. (eds) he Prehistory of Iberia: debating
early social stratiication and the state. Routledge: New York, pp.
99–118.
Aranda Jiménez, G., García Sanjuán, L., Lozano Medina, A. and
Costa Caramé, M. E. 2013. Nuevas dataciones radiométricas del
dolmen de Viera (Antequera, Málaga). La Colección GómezMoreno. Menga. Journal of Andalusian Prehistory 4, pp. 235–248.
Bueno Ramírez, P., de Balbín Behrmann, R., Barroso Bermejo, R.
and Vázquez Cuesta, A. forthcoming. Los símbolos de la muerte
en los dólmenes antequeranos y sus referencias en el paisaje de la
Prehistoria Reciente de Tierras de Antequera. In: García Sanjuán,
L. (ed.) Antequera Milenaria. La Prehistoria de las Tierras de
Antequera. Junta de Andalucía: Seville.
Cámalich Massieu, M. D., Martín Socas, D. and González Quintero,
P. 2004. Conclusiones. In: Martín Socas, D., Cámalich Massieu,
M. D. and González Quintero, P. (eds) La Cueva del Toro (Sierra
del Torcal, Antequera, Málaga). Un Modelo de Ocupación Ganadera
en el Territorio Andaluz entre el VI y II Milenios ANE. Junta de
Andalucía: Seville, pp. 297–323.
Carrión Méndez, F., Muñiz López, T., García González, D., Lozano
Rodríguez, J. A., Félix, P. and López Rodríguez, C. F. 2006a.
Intervención en el Conjunto Megalítico de Menga y Viera (Antequera,
Málaga). Unpublished Report. University of Granada: Granada.
Carrión Méndez, F., Lozano Rodríguez, J. A., García González,
D., Muñiz López, T., Félix, P., Esquivel Guerrero, J. A. and
Mellado García, I. 2006b. Estudio Geoarqueológico de los Sepulcros
Megalíticos de Cueva de Menga y Viera y El Romeral (Antequera,
Málaga). Unpublished Report. University of Granada: Granada.
Clavero Toledo, J. L. 2010. Investigación sísmica en simas de la alta
Axarquía (Málaga): Comportamiento de la falla que originó el
terremoto de 1884. Jábega 102, pp. 130–140.
Díaz-Zorita Bonilla, M. and García Sanjuán, L. 2012. Las
inhumaciones medievales del atrio del dolmen de Menga
(Antequera, Málaga): estudio antropológico y cronología
absoluta. Menga. Journal of Andalusian Prehistory 3, pp. 237–250.
Fernández Rodríguez, L. E., Romero Pérez, M. and Ruiz de la Linde,
R. 2006. Resultados preliminares del control arqueológico de
los trabajos de consolidación del sepulcro megalítico de Viera,
Antequera. Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía/2003, Tomo III.
Actividades de Urgencia. Junta de Andalucía: Seville, pp. 89–99.
Fernández Rodríguez, L. E. and Romero Pérez, M. 2007. Las
necrópolis en el entorno de Antikaria y Singilia Barba. Bases para
su estudio sistemático. Mainake 29, pp. 401–432.
Fernández Ruiz, J. 2004. Uso de estructuras megalíticas por parte
de grupos de la Edad del Bronce en el marco de Río Grande
(Málaga). Mainake 26. Monográico Los Enterramientos en la
Península Ibérica durante la Prehistoria Reciente, pp. 273–229.
Fernández Ruiz, J., Marqués Merelo, I., Ferrer Palma, J. E. and
Baldomero Navarro, A. 1997. Los enterramientos colectivos de
El Tardón (Antequera, Málaga). In: de Balbín Berhmann, R.
and Bueno Ramírez, P. (eds) Actas del II Congreso de Arqueología
Peninsular (Zamora, Septiembre de 1996), Volume II. Fundación
Rei Afonso Henriques: Zamora, pp. 371–380.
Ferrer Palma, J. E. 1997a. Proyecto de reconstrucción arquitectónica
y paleoambiental en la necrópolis megalítica de Antequera
(1985–1991): aspectos metodológicos. In: Martín Ruiz, J. M.,
Martín Ruiz, J. A. and Sánchez Bandera, P. J. (eds) Arqueología a la
15
Carta. Relaciones entre Teoría y Método en la Práctica Arqueológica.
Diputación Provincial de Málaga: Málaga, pp. 119–144.
Ferrer Palma, J. E. 1997b. La necrópolis megalítica de Antequera.
Proceso de recuperación arqueológica de un paisaje holocénico en
los alrededores de Antequera, Málaga. Baetica 19, pp. 351–370.
Ferrer Palma, J. E., Baldomero Navarro, A. and Garrido Luque, A.
1987a. El Cerro de Marimacho (Antequera, Málaga). Baetica 10,
pp. 179–188.
Ferrer Palma, J. E., Fernández Ruiz, J. and Marqués Merelo, I.
1987b. Excavaciones en la necrópolis campaniforme de El
Tardón (Antequera, Málaga), 1985. Anuario Arqueológico de
Andalucía/1985 III. Actuaciones de Urgencia. Junta de Andalucía:
Seville, pp. 240–243.
Ferrer Palma, J. E., Marqués Merelo, I., Baldomero Navarro, A.
and Aguado Mancha, T. 2004. Estructuras tumulares y procesos
de construcción en los sepulcros megalíticos de la provincia de
Málaga: la necrópolis megalítica de Antequera. Mainake 26.
Monográico Los Enterramientos en la Península Ibérica durante la
Prehistoria Reciente, pp. 117–210.
García Sanjuán, L. and Wheatley, D. 2009. El marco territorial
de los dólmenes de Antequera: valoración preliminar de las
primeras investigaciones. En Ruiz González, B. (ed.) Dólmenes de
Antequera. Tutela y Valorización Hoy. Junta de Andalucía: Seville,
pp. 128–143.
García Sanjuán, L. and Wheatley, D. 2010. Natural substances,
landscape forms, symbols and funerary monuments: elements of
cultural memory among the Neolithic and Copper Age societies
of Southern Spain. In: Lillios, K. and Tsamis, V. (eds.): Material
Mnemonics. Everyday Memory in Prehistoric Europe. Oxbow
Books: Oxford, pp. 10–39.
García Sanjuán, L. and Lozano Rodríguez, J. A. forthcoming. Menga:
biografía de un monumento neolítico excepcional. In: García
Sanjuán, L. (ed.) Antequera Milenaria. La Prehistoria de las Tierras de
Antequera. Junta de Andalucía: Seville.
García Sanjuán, L. and Díaz-Guardamino Uribe, M. 2015. he
outstanding biographies of prehistoric monuments in Iron Age,
Roman and Medieval Iberia. In: Díaz-Guardamino Uribe, M.,
García Sanjuán, L. and Wheatley, D. (eds) he Lives of Prehistoric
Monuments in Iron Age, Roman and Medieval Europe. Oxford
University Press: Oxford, 183–204.
García Sanjuán, L., Garrido González, P. and Lozano Gómez, F.
2007. Las piedras de la memoria (II). El uso en época romana
de espacios y monumentos sagrados prehistóricos del Sur de la
Península Ibérica. Complutum 18, pp. 109–130.
García Sanjuán, L., Garrido González, P. and Lozano Gómez, F.
2008. he use of prehistoric ritual and funerary sites in Roman
Spain: discussing tradition, memory and identity in Roman society.
In: Fenwick, C., Wiggins, M. and Wythe, D. (eds) TRAC 2007.
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual heoretical Roman Archaeology
Conference (UCL and Birbeck College, University of London, 29
March–1 April 2007). Oxbow Books: Oxford, pp. 1–14.
García Sanjuán, L., Moreno Escobar, M. C., Márquez Pérez, J. and
Wheatley, D. W. forthcoming. La Prehistoria Reciente de las
Tierras de Antequera (VI–I milenios cal ANE): una perspectiva
territorial. In: García Sanjuán, L. (ed.) Antequera Milenaria. La
Prehistoria de las Tierras de Antequera. Junta de Andalucía: Seville.
García Sanjuán, L., Wheatley, D. W., and Costa Caramé, M. E.
2011a. he numerical chronology of the megalithic phenomenon
in southern Spain: progress and problems. In: García Sanjuán, L.,
Scarre, C. and Wheatley, D. W. (eds) Exploring Time and Matter
in Prehistoric Monuments: Absolute Chronology and Rare Rocks in
European Megaliths. Proceedings of the 2nd European Megalithic
Studies Group Meeting (Seville, Spain, November 2008). Menga:
Journal of Andalusian Prehistory, Monograph 1. Junta de Andalucía:
16
Leonardo García Sanjuán and José Antonio Lozano Rodríguez
Seville, pp. 121–157.
García Sanjuán, L., Wheatley, D. W. and Costa Caramé, M.
E. 2011b. Prospección de supericie en Antequera, Málaga:
campaña de 2006. Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía/2006. Junta
de Andalucía: Seville, pp. 3716–3737.
Hoskin, M. 2001. Tombs, Temples and heir Orientations: a new
perspective on Mediterranean prehistory. Ocarina Books: Oxford.
Jiménez Aguilera, F. 2006. Archidona. La leyenda de la Peña de
los Enamorados. Rayya. Revista Cultural de la Comarca Norte de
Málaga 2, pp. 11–28.
Leisner, G. and Leisner, V. 1943. Die Megalithgräber der Iberischen
Halbinsel. Der Süden. Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 1.
Verlag Von Walter de Gruyter and Co: Berlin.
Leiva Riojano, J. A. and Ruiz González, B. 1977. Materiales
arqueológicos del Cerro de Antequera. Jábega 19, pp. 15–18.
Lozano Rodríguez, J. A., Ruiz-Puertas, G., Hódar Correa, M.,
Pérez-Valera, F. and Morgado, A. 2014. Prehistoric engineering
and astronomy of the great Menga Dolmen (Málaga, Spain): A
geometric and geoarchaeological analysis. Journal of Archaeological
Science 41, pp. 759–771.
Marqués Merelo, I., Ferrer Palma, J. E., Aguado Mancha, T. and
Baldomero Navarro, A. 2004a. La necrópolis megalítica de
Antequera (Málaga): historiografía y actuaciones recientes.
Baetica 26, pp. 173–190.
Marqués Merelo, I., Aguado Mancha, T., Baldomero Navarro, A.
and Ferrer Palma, J. E. 2004b. Proyectos sobre la Edad del Cobre
en Antequera, Málaga. Actas de los Simposios de Prehistoria de la
Cueva de Nerja. La Problemática del Neolítico en Andalucía. Las
Primeras Sociedades Metalúrgicas en Andalucía. Fundación Cueva
de Nerja: Nerja, pp. 238–260.
Márquez Romero, J. E. 2009. Málaga. In: García Sanjuán, L. and
Ruiz González, B. (eds) he Large Stones of Prehistory: megalithic
sites and landscapes of Andalusia. Junta de Andalucía: Seville, pp.
198–227.
Márquez Romero, J. E. and Fernández Ruiz, J. 2009. he Dolmens of
Antequera. Oicial Guide to the Archaeological Complex. Junta de
Andalucía: Antequera.
Márquez Romero, J. E., Fernández Ruiz, J. and Rodríguez Vinceiro,
F. 2009. Cronología del sepulcro megalítico del Tesorillo de la
Llaná. In: Márquez Romero, J. E., Fernández Ruiz, J. and Mata
Vivar, E. (eds) El Sepulcro Megalítico del Tesorillo de la Llaná,
Alozaina (Málaga). Una Estructura Funeraria Singular en la
Cuenca Media de Río Grande. University of Málaga: Málaga, pp.
81–88.
Maura Mijares, R. 2010. Guía del Enclave Arqueológico de Peñas de
Cabrera. Junta de Andalucía: Seville.
Mergelina, C. de 1922. La necrópolis tartesia de Antequera. Actas
y Memorias de la Sociedad Española de Antropología, Etnología y
Prehistoria 1, pp. 37–90.
Mitjana y Ardison, R. 1847. Memoria sobre el Templo Druida Hallado
en las Cercanías de la Ciudad de Antequera. Imprenta de José
Martínez de Aguilar: Málaga.
Navarrete Pendón, V. 2005. Memoria de los Trabajos en el Control de
Movimientos de Tierras para el Acondicionamiento de Iluminación
y Accesos al Sepulcro Megalítico de Menga. Unpublished report.
Riquelme Cantal, J. A. 2012. Estudio de los restos óseos animales
recuperados en la parte superior del relleno del pozo de Menga
(Antequera, Málaga) en la intervención arqueológica de 2005.
Menga. Journal of Andalusian Prehistory 3, pp. 221–236.
Rodríguez Marín, F. J. 2006. Rafael Mitjana y Ardison. Arquitecto
Malagueño (1795–1849). Baetica 28, pp. 109–144.
Ruiz González, B. 2009. El proyecto de tutela y valorización de los
dólmenes de Antequera. In: Ruiz González, B. (ed.) Dólmenes de
Antequera. Tutela y Valorización Hoy. Junta de Andalucía: Seville,
pp. 12–37.
Sánchez-Cuenca López, J. 2012. Menga in the Nineteenth Century:
‘he Most Beautiful and Perfect of the Known Dolmens’. Menga:
Journal of Andalusian Prehistory Monograph 2. Junta de
Andalucía: Seville.
Tenison, L. 1853: Castile and Andalucia. Richard Bentley: London.
Walker, M. J. 1995. El sureste, Micenas y Wessex. La cuestión de los
adornos óseos de vara y puño. Verdolay 7, pp. 117–125.