Carlo Delfino editore

Paolo Melis

The nuragiccivilization

5

Contents

The origins........................................................ 7

Protonuraghi ..................................................... 9

Tholos nuraghi .................................................. 10

The settlements.................................................. 25

The giants’ tombs.............................................. 29

Temples and other religious sites ....................... 38

Art ................................................................. 44Stone objects .............................................. 47Bronze objects ............................................ 52Pottery ....................................................... 61

Society and economy ....................................... 63

Decline of the nuragic civilization ..................... 71

Bibliography ..................................................... 75

Glossary ........................................................... 83

Sources of illustrations ...................................... 95

1700-1500 Middle 1 Nuragic IA Sa Turricula(Bonnanaro III)

1500 – 1350 Middle 2 Nuragic IB San Cosimo,chessboard pottery

1350 – 1200Bronze Age

Late Nuragic II combed pottery,grey pottery

1200 – 900 Final Nuragic III pre-geometricpottery

900 – 730 I Iron 1 Nuragic IVA Geometric pottery

730 – 600Iron Age

I Iron 2 Nuragic IVB Middle-Eastern influence

600 – 510 I Iron 3 Nuragic IVC Archaic

510 – 238 II Iron Nuragic VA Punic

238 BC – 476 AD Historical Age Nuragic VB Roman

CHRONOLOGY OF THE NURAGIC CIVILIZATION

The origins

The nuragic civilization arose in the Early Bronze Age, in approxi-mately the 18th century BC; the name derives from its most charac-teristic monument: the ‘nuraghe’. We have no idea of how the peo-ple who lived in those times referred to themselves since no writtenevidence has come down to us and it is thought that they had nowritten language. References to the people of Sardinia by otherpeoples (mostly the Romans) all date from much later times and areof little help. They are composite citations, perhaps based on ancientlegends handed down from generation to generation, and compiledwhen the nuragic civilization and its characteristic features hadceased to exist for several centuries.

On the origins of the nuragic peoples, scholars appear to bein fairly good agreement in believing that these peoples did notcome from abroad but were the indigenous Sardinians who had inprevious ages (the Neolithic and Chalcolithic) created the greatprenuragic cultures and who now, following the social and eco-nomic transformations made possible by the discovery and use ofmetals, especially bronze, had evolved towards more complexforms of social organization which led to the creation of an originalform of architecture: it is the period which in Western and Mediter-ranean Europe is known as ‘proto-history’.

Already in the Chalcolithic, or Copper, Age, at the time of the‘Monte Claro’ culture (around the middle of the 3rd millennium BC)the need to protect settlements had arisen, especially in northernSardinia.

They were thus built on rugged highlands and defended ontheir weakest sides by huge megalithic walls; in some cases, smallturreted walls were built as well. These were sometimes semicircular(Monte Baranta, Olmedo) or squared-off (Fraigata, Bortigiadas)with entrances. They enclosed the areas on the edges of plateausand represented a sort of last line of defence. It was perhaps fromthis type of building that the idea of the ‘nuraghe’ evolved in latercenturies.

The nuragic civilization proper began developing in the final pe-riod of the so-called ‘Bonnannaro Phase’, the cultural aspect of the ear-

7

liest Bronze Age (in the first half of the 2nd millennium BC) mostly char-acterized by the development of megalithic graves. It was this periodthat saw the ancient dolmens of the end of the Neolithic evolve first in-to ‘gallery dolmens’ (or allée couverte), and then into the typical nurag-ic megalithic grave: the ‘tomba di giganti’, or ‘giants’ tomb’.

The first phase, known as Nuragic I (1700-1500 BC), saw theemerging of the main features of this civilization; between the endof the Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the Middle BronzeAge (18th-15th centuries BC) the first proto-nuraghi, also known as‘corridor nuraghi’, were built.

8

The origins

Figure 1Plans of protonuraghi: a– Cùnculu, Scano Montif-erru (OR); b – Peppe Gal-lu, Uri (SS); c – Corongiu‘e Maria, Nurri (NU); d –Conchedda, Ghilarza(OR); e – Serbassèi,Sadali (NU); f – Scalorza,Sedilo (OR); g – Friorosu,Mogorella (OR); h –Sèneghe, Suni (NU); i –Tùsari, Bortigali (NU); l –Aidu Arbu, Bortigali (NU);m – Serra Crastula,Bonàrcado (OR); n – Mu-lineddu, Sagama (NU); o– Lighedu, Suni (NU); p –Izzana, Tempio Pausania(SS); q – Budas – TempioPausania (SS); r – TancaManna, Tempio Pausania(SS); s – Fronte Mola,Thiesi (SS).

Protonuraghi

Proto-nuraghi differ significantly from classic nuraghi: more squatand usually with an irregular floor plan, on the inside we do not findthe large circular chamber typical of nuraghi, but one or more cor-ridors and rarely small cells with a corbelled roof. Proto-nuraghi ap-pear not to have risen to more than ten metres in height (comparedto the more than twenty metres of some tholos nuraghi). On the oth-er hand, the area they enclose is almost always far greater than thatof classic nuraghi (an average of 245 square metres found in theMarghine-Planargia region, while the tower of a tholos nuragherarely covers more than 100 square metres).

In these constructions, characterized by massive walls exploit-ed only minimally, with few and small spaces within, the most func-

tional part must have been the terrace at the top where dwellings,some with wooden roofs, could be erected.

The entire proto-nuraghe was often crossed by a long corri-dor covered with horizontal slabs laid side by side which ended ata secondary entrance (proto-nuraghi with a ‘through corridor’). Themost widespread type was, however, characterized by a closed cor-ridor which could have niches along it or be intersected by one or

9

Protonuraghi

Figure 2Brunku Màduguiprotonuraghe,Gesturi (CA).

more transverse corridors, and along which there was also accessto the stairway leading to the top of the building. In some cases,there were small, corbelled chambers (tholos) and in some proto-nuraghi (Friarosu, Mogorella in the province of Oristano) the wallsdid not contain corridors but only small cells with independent en-trances.

One variation of the latter proto-nuraghi is represented by akind of building in which the corridor, after an initial narrow, lowpart with a flat roof, widens and becomes higher with an archedroof with the typical ‘mule’s back’ or upside-down keel shape (pro-to-nuraghe with ‘keel-shaped chamber’). This is the prelude to thebuilding of corbelled (tholos) chambers which were to characterizethe nuraghe proper.

The number of proto-nuraghi ascertained up to now is aboutthree hundred. A decidedly low number when compared to theoverall number of more than six thousand five hundred monuments(including proto- and tholos nuraghi), although others could be in-cluded among the many buildings mentioned generically as‘nuraghi’ but which have not yet been investigated.

Proto-nuraghi were probably still in use, perhaps for specialpurposes, when the more sophisticated architecture of the tholosnuraghe was already widespread.

Tholos nuraghi

In the Middle Bronze Age, around the 16th-15th centuries BC (in theso-called ‘Nuragic IB’ phase), the tholos nuraghe or nuraghe toutcourt made its appearance.

As mentioned previously, recent estimates place the number ofnuraghi that have been reported to date at approximately six thou-sand five hundred.

Most are in ruins and many have disappeared altogether, es-pecially in the last one hundred and fifty years due to two causes:the ‘Enclosure Law’ passed in the middle of the 19th century, whichled to the dismantling of many nuraghi to use the stones to enclosepastures, and the development of the road network (starting with themain ‘Carlo Felice’ highway between Cagliari and Sassari) which

10

Tholos nuraghi

saw the demolition of many nuragic towers, here too for reuse of thestones in the roadbed.

What is a nuraghe? In its simplest form, it is a flat-topped con-ical tower built with stones of varying size laid without grout (drywalls). The masonry consists of courses of stones laid in more or lessorderly fashion. In many cases the stones were laid as they were,but more often they were dressed to facilitate their laying: in the up-per part of the towers – the part most exposed to wear – the stonesare usually dressed with care (in the characteristic ‘tail’ and ‘T’shapes) to ensure a perfect fit between the different elements andthus improve stability.

The presence of stone corbels, in some cases found still inplace on the walls, but more often where they had fallen, and mostof all the numerous extant stone and bronze figures representingnuragic towers, lend weight to the hypothesis that the nuraghi (but

11

Tholos nuraghi

Figure 3Plans of simple nuraghi(or keeps of complexnuraghi): 1 – Orrùbiu,Arzana (NU); 2 –S’Iscala ‘e Pedra,Seméstene (SS); 3 –Baiolu, Osilo (SS); 4 –Mindeddu, Barisardo(NU); 5 – Genna Masoni,Gairo (NU); 6 – SaDomo ‘e s’Orku,Ittireddu (SS); 7 –Nuraddéo, Suni (NU); 8– Marosini, Tertenia(NU); 9 – Muru de saFigu, Santulussurgiu(OR); 10 - S’Attentu,Orani (NU); 11 –Molafà, Sassari; 12 -S’Omu ‘e s’Orku, SanBasilio (CA); 13 –Karcina, Orroli (NU); 14– Gurti Aqua, Nurri(NU); 15 – Sa PedraLonga, Nuoro; 16 – SuFraìle, Burgos (SS); 17 –Giannas, Flussìo (NU); 18– Madrone o Orolìo,Silanus (NU); 19 –Tittirriola, Bolotana (NU);20 – Abbaùddi, ScanoMontiferru (OR); 21 - SaFigu Rànchida, ScanoMontiferru (OR); 22 – SaCuguttada, Mores (SS);23 – Murartu, Silanus(NU); 24 – Leortinas,Sennariolo (OR); 25 -Santu Antine, Torralba(SS).

also the proto-nuraghi) terminated at the top with a terrace and anoverhanging parapet walk, the outer edge of which was perpendi-cular to the base of the tower.

Inside the simple nuragic tower there were one or more su-perimposed chambers with corbelled (or ‘tholos’) ceilings formed by

laying each successive course of stones so as to oversail those be-low until a small opening remained, which was covered by a singlecapstone.

The stones thus laid were stable thanks to the weight andthrust of the walls on the mass that did not overhang. In general, thetwo sides of the walls were faced with large stones. Smaller stoneswere used to fill in the gaps between the larger ones.

The term ‘tholos’ stands for a beehive-shaped chamber with acorbelled roof and refers to similar buildings in the Aegean area,especially to the large Mycenaean graves (for example the famous‘Treasure of Atreus’) of which, however, the nuraghe shares thebuilding technique only partly: in the case of Mycenaean ‘tholoi’,

12

Tholos nuraghi

Figure 4Nuraghe Succoronis,Macomer (NU).

they were erected inside a tumulus of earth or an artificial hill, whilenuraghi are entirely above ground (subaerial).

Access to the tower is almost always through an entrance atground level, but in some cases it is slightly raised; no traces ofdoors, which were supposedly wooden (but some believe they mighthave been of stone), have ever been found. On entering, one is ina more or less long passage leading to the ground-floor chamber:in one of the walls (usually the one on the left) we find the beginningof the spiral stairway within the wall (Santu Antine nuraghe, Torral-ba, Province of Sassari) leading up to the terrace or the upperchambers. However, in a large number of nuraghi (those consideredto be the oldest ones), instead of starting from the passage at the en-trance, the stairway originates inside a chamber (Su Nuraxinuraghe, Barumini, Province of Cagliari), and almost never starts atground level. In some cases it is raised six metres (Is Paras nuraghe,Isili, Province of Nuoro), thus we must suppose that a wooden lad-der was used to reach it.

There are nuraghi, even quite imposing ones, in which the in-ternal stairway appears to be totally lacking (nuraghe Arrubiu, Or-roli, Province of Nuoro, nuraghe Piscu, Suelli, Province of Cagliari).In these cases we must imagine that access to the upper parts fromthe outside must have been by means of wooden ladders or, rarely,

13

Tholos nuraghi

Figure 5 Nuraghe Arrubiu, Orroli(NU); tholos of centraltower.

Figure 6Nuraghe Santu Antine,Torralba (SS); spiralstairway of keep.

by means of beams inserted in holes in the walls at short intervals.Besides the actual chambers, inside a nuragic tower we can

find many other kinds of spaces. Around the circumference of themain chambers other smaller spaces, called niches, were often left.These could even extend laterally to form ring-like passages aroundthe main chamber: in the Santu Antine nuraghe at Torralba, such apassage communicates with the chamber through three differentdoorways. In the entrance corridor, in most cases facing the stair-way, we often find another niche which, owing to its position withrespect to the entrance, has often been improperly called the ‘sentrybox’: in some nuraghi with stairways originating in the chamberthere is a second niche in front of the so-called ‘sentry box’.

Other cells are sometimes found within the walls, often abovethe entranceway and communicating with it by means of shafts oracoustic channels within the walls. These cells could be reached bymeans of narrow stairs originating in the ground floor chamber(from a niche or directly from a raised opening in the wall of thechamber) or from the upstairs chamber, in which case the cell wasreached directly – by means of a wooden ladder – through a small

15

Tholos nuraghi

Figure 7Nuraghe Santu Antine,Torralba (SS); spiralstairway of keep.

window opening onto the inside chamber, as in the Santu Antinenuraghe at Torralba.

In some nuraghi, wells or silos for storing liquids or foodstuffswere dug in the floors of chambers; other smaller places for storagewere sometimes built into the masonry, usually in the floor of the ter-race or an upper floor, but sometimes even along the stairways. Be-sides these, there were many other architectonic solutions open toand used by nuragic peoples in building their towers to satisfy theneed to create as much space as possible: solutions for which theonly limit was represented by the technical possibility of increasingthe number of empty spaces within the mass of masonry withoutcompromising the stability of the building.

When a nuraghe had more than one floor (up to a maximumof three, including the ground floor), the upper chambers usually be-came progressively smaller since the diameter of the tower de-

16

Tholos nuraghi

Figure 8Nuraghe Santa Barbara,Macomer (NU); detail offaçade with first-floorwindow.

creased with its height; the stairway, whether it starts from the en-trance or from the ground-floor chamber, finishes with a landing,usually in correspondence with the underlying entranceway (but thisis often not the case, as in the Nuraddeo nuraghe at Suni, Provinceof Nuoro), which is illuminated by a large window and which pro-vides access to the upper chamber. These chambers could also con-tain niches and other secondary spaces: in the Santu Antinenuraghe we find exceptionally in the chamber above the groundfloor a bench at the base of the walls, perhaps having the same pur-pose as the bench to be found in the ‘meeting huts’ in the villages(more about this later): this detail is found on the ground floor ofmany nuraghi, but at Santu Antine the presence of the entrances tothe ring corridor in the large ground floor chamber made it practi-cally impossible to place the bench there and so it was built on theupper floor.

Besides from the door and windows in correspondence to theentrances to the upper chambers, the nuraghe could also receivelight from other small apertures, conventionally known as ‘embra-sures’: small rectangular openings formed by leaving a space be-tween two stones in the same course. They usually communicate withthe stairway or a subsidiary space (cell or silo) and only in excep-tional cases with a niche in a chamber.

What we have described thus far is a typical simple, or sin-gle-tower, tholos nuraghe as perhaps were the earliest ones. At alater time, presumably in Nuragic Phase II-III (Late and Final BronzeAge, between the 14th and 9th centuries BC), the extant single-tow-er nuraghi were reinforced with the addition of other towers aroundthem. They were joined together by curtain walls to form a bastion:these additions became more and more elaborate and imposingwith the passing of time. However, in many cases it can be supposedthat the building of complex nuraghi was planned as a single proj-ect, with no lapse of time between the erection of the main tower,known as the ‘keep’, a term borrowed from medieval castle archi-tecture, and that of the other structures.

The degree of complexity of nuragic constructions variedgreatly, probably depending on the function and importance of thebuildings within the territorial system; it goes from the addition of asingle small lateral tower to the creation of a regular fortress with a

17

Tholos nuraghi

18

Figure 9Nuraghe Santu Antine,Torralba (SS); aerialview.

Figure 10Nuraghe Su Nuraxi,Barumini (CA); aerialview.

bastion having towers at the corners (three at Santu Antine andLosa, four at Su Nuraxi and Santa Barbara and even five at Arru-biu), often provided with an internal courtyard containing a well forthe supplying of water.

The bastion towers were in communication with the courtyard(or directly with the entranceway) and with one another by meansof long corridors; in some cases they had independent entrancesfrom the outside, usually quite narrow, perhaps used as escaperoutes (as the ‘posterns’ of the citadels of Mycenae and Tiryns). Both

19

Tholos nuraghi

Figure 11Nuraghe Losa,Abbasanta (OR);aerial view.

the towers and, in some cases, the connecting corridors, were pro-vided with high-up embrasures giving air and light, which in theopinion of some were also loopholes for archers, but this appearsrather unlikely.

Even in the thickness of the walls of the bastions small sub-

sidiary spaces were created: raised niches opening directly on thecourtyard, silos and storage rooms accessible from the tower battle-ments and terraces, small niches along the stairways and so on. Inthe Su Nuraxi nuraghe at Barumini, the secondary towers of thebastion had a wooden intermediate floor within the ground-floortholos: an expedient also used in the main tower of a small numberof nuraghi, in which the intermediate floor was supported by offsetsin the walls of the chamber (Oes nuraghe, Giave, Province of Sas-sari) or beams inserted in holes left in the walls for this purpose.

In some cases other walls further outside, the so-called ‘ante-murals’, sometimes with turrets, surrounded the bastions and formed

20

Tholos nuraghi

Figure 12Nuraghe Arrubiu,Orroli (NU);embrasures in a towerof the bastion.

an advanced line of defence. When the antemurals were placed ata short distance from the profile of the fortress walls, the space thusformed could be divided into different courtyards: in rare cases theantemurals walled in quite large areas around the nuraghe (Losa atAbbasanta, Province of Oristano). Besides defending complex bas-tions, the antemurals, with or without turrets, were also erected todefend simple, single-tower nuraghi.

What is the function of these constructions? After a long seriesof hypotheses, advanced for the most part in the 19th century and atthe beginning of the 20th (it is to be kept in mind that at that time ar-chaeology was in its infancy and little or nothing was known about

21

Tholos nuraghi

Figure 13Plans of complexnuraghi: a – Giba ‘eSkorka, Barisardo (NU);b – Su Nuraxi di Sisini,Senorbì (CA); c – SuCòvunu, Gesico (CA); d –Su Sensu, Turri (CA); e –Monte s’Orku Tuèri,Perdasdefogu (CA); f –Su Sensu di Pompu,Simala (OR); g –Nàrgius, Bonarcado(OR); h – Palmavera –Alghero (SS); i – Frida,Illorai (SS); l – Sa Mura‘e Mazzala, ScanoMontiferru (OR); m –Attentu, Ploaghe (SS); n– Nuracce Deu, Gèsturi(CA); o – Su Konkali,Tertenia (NU); p –Mudegu, Mògoro (OR); q– Santa Sofia, Gùspini(CA); r – Noddùle,Nuoro.

22

Tholos nuraghi

Figure 14Plans of complexnuraghi: a – Asoru, SanVito (CA); b – Is Paras,Isili (NU); c - Longu,Cùglieri (OR); d – PranuNuracci, Siris (OR); e –Nuraddeo, Suni (NU); f –Losa, Abbasanta (OR); g– Lugherras, Paulilatino(OR); h – Coa Perdosa,Sèneghe (OR); i – SantaBarbara, Macomer (NU);l – Su Nuraxi, Barumini(CA); m – Santu Antine– Torralba; n – Arrubiu,Orroli (NU).

the nuragic civilization), archaeologists now agree that nuraghiwere buildings of a civil and military nature, destined in particularfor the control and defence of the land and the resources on it. Theycertainly had different functions, as can be seen from the differingcomplexity of their plans and where they were built. From the tow-er placed at the top of an isolated hill, a simple lookout tower on the

23

Tholos nuraghi

Figure 15Nuraghe Losa,Abbasanta (OR);overall planwith antemural.

tribal boundary (the so-called ‘canton’: later we shall speak of thesocial and political organization of the nuragic peoples) or in de-fence of strategic positions (entrances to valleys, paths leading up toplateaus, water courses, fords, springs and so on), we arrive at thecomplex monuments consisting of up to seventeen towers (Arrubiunuraghe, Orroli, Province of Nuoro) with walls several metres thick,located at the centre of the area of common interest and undoubt-edly the fortified residences of political, civil and military (probablyalso religious) authorities of the region.

Other theories continue to be advanced even today by someauthors (especially by those who consider nuraghi to be religiousbuildings) totally outside the sphere of archaeological research us-

24

Tholos nuraghi

Figure 16Reconstructionof Nuraghe Santu Antine,Torralba (SS).

ing methodologies for the most part sketchy and sometimes decid-edly unscientific. In some cases they are encouraged by publisherswho are often indifferent to the content of the works they publish.

On the origins of nuraghi, it is to be stated that they are notpresent in any other area of the Mediterranean, except for more orless far-removed cousins like the Mycenaean tholoi or the CorsicanTorre, the Talajots of the Balearic Isles, the Sesi of Pantelleria, theBrochs of Scotland and so on. These are usually simpler constructionsand are even later than the nuraghi – perhaps with the sole exceptionof the Corsican torre – and it is therefore quite probable that their cre-ation was influenced by the nuraghi: in other cases (the Balearic Isles)the opposite may have taken place. All these architectural forms havetheir origins from a common cultural matrix widespread in theMediterranean, but in Sardinia there was an original and grandiosedevelopment that is not to be found elsewhere.

The settlements

Every nuragic community conducted its life within the confines of itsown cantonal lands, which were guarded and defended by a close-knit system of nuraghi against the raids or perhaps the ‘expansion-

25

The settlements

Figure 17Talajot de Trepucò,Mahon (Minorca).

istic aims’ of neighbouring tribes. However, relations with othergroups must have been fairly close, not only because of issues con-nected with trade and the circulation of goods (especially metals),but also for religious reasons, as we shall see later on while dealingwith ‘sanctuary villages’.

Except for the nuraghi, which were used by a few hegemon-ic families within the community in the case of the more or less largeand important fortresses, depending on the social class of the occu-pants, or by families having specific duties (lookouts, custodians ofstores and so on), most nuragic people lived in the villages of moreor less simple and numerous huts: in some cases, up to several hun-dred, but the very few nuragic settlements excavated up to now (SuNuraxi, Barumini, Province of Cagliari, Palmavera, Alghero,Province of Sassari to mention two) give us the erroneous idea thatthey were of fairly modest size owing to the partial nature of the ex-cavations and the total destruction of large areas over the centuries.

Daily life took place within the huts: these were modestdwellings made of stone with a roof usually made of trunks andbranches. The walls inside were often plastered with mud or clay and

26

The settlements

Figure 18Su Nuraxi nuragicsettlement,Barumini (CA);overall plan.

sometimes insulated with cork. There was usually a hearth at the cen-tre (but not always) and along the walls were the beds and areas forattending to household chores, sometimes marked by stone slabsfixed in the ground. When the thickness of the walls allowed, nicheswere left, sometimes above floor level; foodstuffs (cereals, but alsowater and other liquids) were often stored in large vases buried in thefloor with just the lips showing and covered with a stone slab.

The final stages of the nuragic civilization saw the develop-

ment of a more sophisticated type of hut which was indicative of agreater variety of activities: these are the so-called ‘sector huts’,which sometimes reach the size of a regular block, that is, a com-plex of small rooms opening onto a courtyard and often providedwith an oven for baking bread. A special area often found insidethese sector huts, consisting of a small circular room (the so-called‘rotunda’) built with great care and containing a bench against thewall and a stone basin in the centre, was surely set aside for do-mestic religious rites.

Within the village, the huts are arranged haphazardly and nolarge public square (an agora) or any sort of common area has everbeen found. At most there could have been a sort of ‘patio’ for thedwellings of a single family group or clan. There are no main or sec-

27

The settlements

Figure 19Palmavera nuragicsettlement, Alghero (SS);reconstructionof the ‘meeting hut’.

ondary streets, but simply the paths leading to the houses, oftenmade tortuous by the haphazard proliferation of the dwellings; nocommon wells or springs, no watering troughs or gutters have beenfound, with the exception of those belonging to the final stage,which Giovanni Lilliu has defined as ‘post-nuragic’; each hut had aspace for animals, although in some villages we cannot exclude thepresence of a common pen, perhaps used for trading.

The only ‘public’ buildings characterizing the villages (withthe exception of the ‘sanctuary villages’ about which we shall speaklater) were the nuraghi themselves and the so-called ‘meeting huts’.Besides being the residence of the village authorities, nuraghi, veryoften present in the village (usually not in the centre, but there aremany cases of villages without nuraghi), must also have been theseat of public activities connected with the exercise of political, ad-ministrative, juridical, military and certainly also religious authority.However, many of these activities must also have taken place withinlarge huts, usually with a bench against the walls, which have beeninterpreted as ‘meeting huts’ where it is supposed that meetings ofthe heads of families or with the chiefs of neighbouring tribes tookplace, and where in general, during solemn assemblies, importantdecisions concerning the community were made.

28

Figure 20Su Nuraxi nuragicsettlement,Barumini (CA); detailof a ‘rotunda’in sector hut no. 20.

These huts almost always contain a stone basin placedagainst the wall which certainly contained the water used in the pu-rification rites that must have preceded both civil and religious meet-ings. The meeting hut was also where symbolic objects, like the ‘tow-er-betyls’, about which we shall speak further on in discussingnuragic sculpture, were kept.

The giants’ tombs

Mortuary architecture is represented by the megalithic corridorgraves, better known as ‘giants’ tombs’, which are uniformly spreadthroughout Sardinia, albeit with some differences, but they arestrongly concentrated in the centre of the island. No other kinds of

29

The giants’ tombs

Figure 21Palmavera nuragicsettlement,Alghero (SS);the ‘meeting hut’.

graves are known in the nuragic period, with the exception of buri-als in Gallura’s tafoni, in some unique single tombs such as thosenear the Antas temple (Fluminimaggiore, Province of Cagliari), inthe monumental tomb of Monti Prama (Cabras, Province of Oris-tano) and in a few corridor graves quite different from the giants’graves proper (‘polyandrous’ or collective burials) and the hypoge-ic version of the giants’ tombs themselves (the so-called ‘domus withan architectonic façade’).

The giants’ tomb (this is the name assigned to it by the com-mon people and now conventionally used in archaeology) owes itsname most of all to the noteworthy size of its body (27 metres at LiLolghi, Arzachena, Province of Sassari) and burial chamber (about18 metres in Goronna tomb I, Paulilatino, Province of Oristano).Such dimensions were determined by the fact that giants’ tombs

30

The giants’ tombs

Figure 22Plans of giants’ tombs: a– Coddu Vecchiu,Arzachena (SS); b – LiLolghi, Arzachena (SS); c– Su Monte de s’Ape,Olbia (SS); d – Goronna,Paulilatino (OR); e – LiMizzani, Palau (SS); f –Lassia, Birori (NU); g -Noddule, Nuoro; h – SosOzzastros, Abbasanta(OR); i – Biristeddi,Dorgali (NU); l – PedrasDoladas, ScanoMontiferru (OR); m –S’Omu ‘e Nannis,Esterzili (NU); n – Domus’Orku, Siddi (CA); o –Muraguada, Paulilatino(OR); p – Is Concias,Quartu S. Elena (CA).

were undoubtedly collective graves capable of containing severaldozen, and in some cases several hundred, corpses.

A giants’ tomb is composed of an elongated burial chambermade of stone slabs set vertically in the ground (in the oldest, or‘dolmenic’ type), or by courses of stones laid in orderly fashion likethe corridors in nuraghi; the cover is also analogous, sometimes‘tabular’, with horizontal slabs, or with corbelled walls. Betweenthose of the oldest kind with a dolmenic corridor and the later oneswith walls made of perfectly dressed stones with the face in viewand slanted (the Madau tomb, Fonni, Province of Nuoro), there is avariety of intermediate types marking a progressive evolution. Insome cases, at the end of the burial corridor there is a bench for theplacing of votive offerings, while along the side walls there may besome niches (from one to four), perhaps for the same purpose.

The chamber was enclosed within a sort of elongated tumu-lus, which on the outside must have appeared as a mound with itshighest point at the entrance and lowest point at the back: the latterwas almost always curved to form a sort of ‘apse’. At the front, thetomb body opened into two curving wings delimiting a semicirculararea: this is the so-called ‘exedra’ or forecourt, an element of great

31

The giants’ tombs

Figure 23Giants’ tomb at S’Ena ‘eThomes, Dorgali (NU);detail of burial corridor.

importance in rituals connected with the tomb. The two wings werecomposed of upright stones (in the type with a stele rounded at thetop) or courses of stones, the height of which decreased from thecentre to the sides. The forecourt was often provided with a stoneseat at the base of the wall, and in some cases the area could becompletely enclosed with a low curving wall starting from the endsof the two wings.

Here took place the complex funerary rites in honour of thedeceased, which probably occured not only at the time of burial, butwhich were repeated at determined times or anniversaries: indeed,in nuragic religious beliefs great importance was attached to the cultof ancestors, transformed into heroes and gods, as reported by sev-eral classic authors of antiquity who mentioned the Sardinian cus-tom of sleeping near the graves of their ancestors for magical andtherapeutic reasons. It was in the forecourt of the giants’ tombs thatwe find the place where these ritual incubations were practiced.

The front of many tombs (especially in the centre north of theisland) often has a long slab of dressed and modelled stone: the so-

32

The giants’ tombs

Figure 24Reconstruction of agiants’ tomb.

called ‘arched stele’ with its characteristic rounded form with a basrelief frame and a listel in the middle dividing rounded top from rec-tangular bottom, in which the narrow port-hole entrance to the tombwas cut. Concerning the symbolism of the motif sculpted on thearched stele much has been said and much is still being said, butthe most reliable hypothesis is the one that sees in it a representa-tion of the door to the netherworld, heir to the tradition of the ‘falseentrances’ which in prenuragic hypogeic tombs (the domus dejanas) must have symbolized the entrance to the world of the dead.

In a fairly significant group of tombs, equally widespread in thecentre-north of the island (the tombs at Iloi, Sedilo, Province of Oris-tano, Seleni and Lanusei, Province of Nuoro and others), in place ofthe rounded stele the façade presented courses of stones topped by aspecial trapezoidal stone (the so-called ‘dentiled ashlar’) with threenotches (or three holes) in which small stone betyls were placed, per-haps to symbolize a trinity of divinities, or a divine principle repeatedto reach a number full of magical and religious significance. In thesouth of the island the prevalent type of tomb is the one with a façademade of courses of stones apparently without the dentiled ashlar (IsConcias, Quartucciu and Domu ‘e S’Orku, Siddi, Province of Cagliari;Muraguada, Paulilatino, Province of Oristano and so on).

The arched stele, the entire façade (including forecourt andbench) and the extrados of the giants’ tombs in the nuragic periodwere also sculpted in the live rock in correspondence to the openingof the hypogeic tombs similar to the neolithic domus de janas, butusually composed of a single more or less elongated cell. Not sel-dom, to save work, the old domus de janas, appropriately reworkedon the inside to enlarge some rooms, were reutilized.

These tombs, first called ‘nuragic domus’ and later ‘hypogeictombs with an architectonic façade’, are today more correctly de-fined as ‘rock-cut giants’ tombs’; their diffusion is limited to north-western Sardinia (the regions of Sassari and Logudoro, with spo-radic appearances in Goceano), in an area where megalithic gi-ants’ tombs are certainly rare, but not entirely absent.

Three holes, perhaps for the placing of small betyls, werecommonly hollowed out in the tumulus immediately behind the up-per edge of the arched stele, exactly like in the megalithic giants’tombs with dentiled ashlars, while this datum singularly appears to

33

The giants’ tombs

Figure 25Giants’ tomb at CodduVecchiu, Arzachena (SS);detail of two-stonearched stele.

Figure 26Dentiled ashlar in thegiants’ tomb atS’Ena ‘e s’Olomo,Sindia (NU):

Figure 27Giants’ tombat Muraguada,Paulilatino (OR).

be rare in tombs with arched steles, the model of which is evensculpted in the rock of hypogeic ones. It is possible, however, that ingiants’ tombs with steles the three small betyls may have beenplaced in niches in the façade just behind the monolithic slab: thedisappearance of the upper covering of the burial tumulus (whichleaves in the open the tall stone slab, thus giving the erroneous im-pression of a stele erected above the grave (thus its name) hascaused the disappearance of all traces of this element.

Medium and large betyls (one to two metres in height) havebeen found near many giants’ tombs, especially in central-westernSardinia (Marghine, Planargia and the northern Oristano regions):they sometimes show mammary bosses (or cavities) and are oftenfound together with other betyls with male attributes, perhaps rep-resenting the partner of the Mother Goddess (the Tamuli giants’tomb, Macomer, Province of Nuoro). Betyls are stones vaguely con-ical or cylindrical in shape with rounded tops which were placed

36

The giants’ tombs

Figure 28Hypogeic tomb with‘architectural façade’ atCampu Lontanu,Florinas (SS).

vertically in the ground; they are the heirs to the older menhirs (andin some giants’ tombs, especially in the forecourt, we find smallmenhirs rather than betyls). Conceptually, they should have had thefunction of small altars, a meeting place between the divinity andthe devout (beth-el in Hebrew means in fact ‘House of the Lord’), butwe cannot exclude the possibility that for the nuragic peoples thiswas an attempt to represent the divinity itself in an iconic image.

Because of the profanation of the tombs at all times, it is ratherdifficult to find intact graves and so even today the ritual followed inlaying the dead to rest is still a matter of debate. However, the sec-ondary type of burial is considered the most likely: the bodies werefirst stripped of flesh by means of long exposure in the open in cere-monial areas (perhaps the forecourt itself) and then the bones wereplaced in the tomb. The hypothesis of primary deposition of the bodyin its entirety (inhumation) cannot, however, be completely ignored.

Who was buried in the giants’ tombs?

37

The giants’ tombs

Figure 29Female betyl near theTamuli giants’ tomb,Macomer (NU).

The answer to this question is still being debated by scholars.The traditional hypothesis is that the giants’ tombs were collectivegraves for all members of the community, without social distinctionand without there being any attempt at ostentation in grave goods.This may very well be true of the oldest tombs, which not by acci-dent were the largest and capable of containing many bodies; how-ever, it is reasonable to believe that in the course of their evolutionthe nuragic peoples saw the emergence of some family groupsabove the others in the tribe (aristocracies ante litteram), for whomwe certainly cannot imagine the custom of an indistinct collectiveburial ritual: in these cases it is likely that the giants’ tombs becamefamily or clan mausoleums, even though the doubt then arises as towhere the common people were buried.

The other kinds of tombs that we mentioned at the beginningrepresent exceptions and are isolated, either geographically orchronologically. The ‘tafone graves’ are those found in small natu-ral recesses (tafoni) formed by the natural erosion of granite, andare for the most part limited to the area of northern Gallura (main-ly Arzachena and Santa Teresa di Gallura). The individual (monò-some) tombs discovered near the temple of Antas, like those of Mon-ti Prama, are instead graves dating from more recent times, in thefull Iron Age (9th – 6th centuries BC), at a time when it is perhaps ar-bitrary to continue speaking of a ‘nuragic civilization’.

Temples andother religious sites

As stated before, one of the main aspects of the nuragic religion wasthe cult of the dead and beliefs connected with life in the nether-world. However, religious architecture is represented mostly by sa-cred wells and springs: constructions connected with the animisticcult of water, an element at one and the same time precious for sur-vival and pregnant with religious implications.

The structural elements of these constructions, in accordancewith an architectural module rigidly codified into a canonical design(as is to be expected with a temple), are at least three:

1) a vestibule, or atrium: a room that is generally rectangular

38

Temples and other religious sites

preceding the stairway or access to the spring, with stone benchesat the sides where the devout left their offerings and performed theirrites. Under the floor of the atrium there was often a small channelto gather any spilt water and lead it back into the well;

2) a stairway leading down to the floor of the tholos: this is trueonly of sacred wells; sacred springs, which emerged at ground lev-el, obviously required no stairway, or at the most only a few steps;

3) a chamber covered with a corbelled roof of the kind found innuraghi (tholos); most of these were underground to protect the vein ofthe spring. In some rare cases (Cuccuru Nuraxi, Settimo San Pietro andFontana Coperta, Ballao, Province of Cagliari), the vein of water was

39

Temples and other religious sites

Figure 30Nuragic sanctuary atSanta Cristina diPaulilatino (OR); aerialview.

collected in a deep well the mouth of which was in the chamber.Another element present in a large number of sacred wells

(but also in other religious buildings), was a sacred enclosure de-limiting the area of worship around the temple (like the tèmenos ofGreek sanctuaries).

On the special water cult, some classical writers report that inthe waters of some springs in Sardinia a sort of ordeal, or divinejudgement, was performed: those accused of theft (usually livestock)became blind on contact with the water if they were guilty and if in-nocent came out with their sight improved.

In any case, water was venerated mostly as a precious liquidflowing from Mother Earth, the mother of all living creatures, nolonger portrayed in the form of a woman as in prenuragic times, butstill strongly present in the beliefs of nuragic peoples.

Another mention of this female divinity, creator and wet nurse,can be seen in the betyls with mammalian bosses (or cavities), aboutwhich we spoke in connection with the giants’ tombs.

The devotion of nuragic peoples to the water god is borne wit-ness to by the large number of bronze statuettes (the well-known‘bronzetti nuragici’: see below) which have been found in andaround the temples where this divinity was worshipped: with thesevotive statuettes, worshippers thanked the gods for favours receivedor tried to ingratiate them before undertaking a difficult task or in acrucial moment of their existence (an illness, a bad harvest and soon). Thus the warrior donated a statuette with four eyes, four armsand two shields to have the maximum power in battle, and thehunter gave a swordstick with the statuette of a deer or mouflon em-bedded in it to gain the favour of an abundance of game.

It was most of all in the vicinity of sacred wells that we find themain nuragic sanctuaries, often defined as ‘pansardi’ because it isthought that in some cases people gathered there from all parts ofthe island: this is the case of Santa Vittoria, Serri, Province of Nuoro

40

Temples and other religious sites

Figure 31Plans and sections of sacred wells: a – Santa Anastasia, Sardara (CA); b – Milis, Golfo Aranci (SS); c – FuntanaCoperta, Ballao (CA); d – Cuccuru Nuraxi, Settimo San Pietro (Cagliari); e – Su Putzu, Orroli (NU); f – Sa Testa,Olbia (SS); g – Predio Canopoli, Perfugas (SS); h – Santa Vittoria, Serri (NU). Plans and sections of sacred springs:i – Su Lumarzu, Bonorva (SS); l - Noddule, Nuoro; m – Su Tempiesu, Orune (NU).

41

Temples and other religious sites

Figure 32Sacred spring at SuTempiesu, Orune (NU),detail of atrium.

and Santa Cristina, Paulilatino, Province of Oristano. In these placesthere were religious celebrations that lasted several days and, underthe aegis of the divinity of the sanctuary, the different tribes, puttingaside for the moment their disputes and resentments, met for reli-gious celebrations, but also to reach important political agreementsand exchange goods.

Around these religious buildings fairly large settlements de-veloped in which, side by side with huts used as homes for families,it is possible to recognize many other buildings connected with thesanctuary; among these the ‘meeting hut’ was especially important:the one in the village of Santa Vittoria, Serri, defined by Taramellias a ‘curia’ or ‘hut for federal assemblies’, is quite large. Still at San-ta Vittoria, Taramelli recognized a ‘founders’ hut’, a ‘kitchen’, the‘chief’s hut’ and especially the ‘enclosure for feasts’: a space bor-dered by huts, arcades where pilgrims could rest, small rooms withbenches for the sale of goods or beverages.

Other nuragic religious buildings, not as numerous as thewells and springs but still present throughout the island, are the so-called ‘in antis temples’ or ‘megaron temples’ composed of a rec-tangular structure, sometimes divided internally into different roomsand characterized by the projection of the side walls beyond thefront, and in some cases the back, walls. These temples could be iso-

43

Temples and other religious sites

Figure 33Village and sanctuaryat Santa Vittoria di Serri(NU), overall plan.

lated or found together with other religious buildings (wells andsprings among others); a unique case is represented by the Ro-manzesu sanctuary at Bitti in the Province of Nuoro, where at thesame site we find, besides a singular sacred spring adjoined by asort of small amphitheatre (perhaps for the reciting of religiousplays, but more probably terraces for collective ritual ablutions),three or four megaron temples. In the Serra Orrios village at Dor-gali in the Province of Nuoro, there are two temples (a large oneand a smaller one with a large enclosure farther from the centre,perhaps reserved to pilgrims passing through) which represent thegathering places for an ample and complex settlement. In some cas-es there is evidence of rites connected with the water cult even wherethe association with a sacred spring is lacking: in such cases the liq-uid was contained in jars buried under the floor (S’Arcu de is For-ros, Villagrande Strisaili, Province of Nuoro).

A third kind of religious edifice, identified by scholars onlyfollowing research performed in recent years, is composed of cir-cular sacella, similar to the small rotundas already known fortheir presence in ‘sector’ huts of numerous nuragic villages whereit is supposed that domestic rites were performed. In this case,however, the dimensions are much larger and, in one such build-ing (Sa Sedda ‘e Sos Carros, Oliena, Province of Nuoro) we find,besides the bench at the base of the walls, a basin (twice as largeas those found in the ‘rotundas’) which caught the water comingfrom gutters under drip spouts having the form of animals. In theother round sacella identified thus far the basin was not found,but we cannot exclude the presence of an altar or other object ofworship in its place.

Art

The artistic manifestations (or high-quality handicraft products) ex-pressed by the nuragic civilization are closely connected with thecomplex sphere of religion and its symbolism – as is normal in pre-historic and proto-historic societies. Two main kinds of artistic arte-facts have come down to us: sculpture, stone and bronze (the latteronly small in size), and the designs on pottery or, in rare cases, on

44

Art

other objects such as the pintadera, a kind of stamp for the decora-tion of ritual bread (but they may also have been used in tattooing).

45

Art

Figure 34Plans of small megarontemples: a – Domu deOrgia, Esterzili (NU); b –S’Arcu de is Forros, Villa-grande Strisaili (NU); c -Sos Nurattolos, Alà deiSardi (SS); d - Malchittu,Arzachena (SS); e – Ser-ra Orrios A, Dorgali(NU); f – Serra Orrios B,Dorgali (NU); g – Gre-manu, Fonni (NU); h –Romanzesu, Bitti (NU).

46

Figure 35Temple B at Serra Orrios,Dorgali (NU).

Figure 36Small megaron temple atS’Arcu de is Forros, Villa-grande Stisaili (NU); de-tail of inside.

say with the use of finely worked ashlars, often with notches andmoulding or other ornamental elements. Among other objectswith decorations, thus having artistic value, many – such as ra-zors, fibulas (a sort of safety pin for clothing), swords with richlydecorated hilts and even blades – are the fruit of imports from theTyrrhenian area (Villanovian and later Etruscan); others are in-stead typical of nuragic production: this is the case of bronzebracelets with herring-bone decorations, or bronze buttons coni-cal in shape (quite similar to those still in use with traditional Sar-dinian costumes) and often with miniature nuraghi or animals atthe summit.

Stone objects

Stone statues, not very numerous, but spread throughout the island,are closely connected with nuragic religious beliefs: for the most part

‘Artistic’ merit must also be accorded to some architecturalsolutions, especially in the final nuragic period (mostly sacredwells and springs, but also giants’ tombs and other religious ed-ifices built using the technique defined as ‘isodomum’: which is to

47

Art

Figure 37Detail of circularsacellum atSa Sedda ‘e Sos Carros,Oliena (NU).

they come from the sanctuaries and usually portray animal protomes,especially the bull, perhaps a continuation of the cult of the male

48

Art

Figure 38Stone pintadera (stamp)from NuragheSantu Antine,Torralba (SS).

Figure 39Decorated ashlars fromNuraghe Nurdole,Orani (NU).

partner of the Mother Goddess who was worshipped in prenuragictimes: the goddess herself on the contrary is not represented and canonly be hinted at by the betyls with breasts in relief (or as bosses)which we spoke about in connection with the giants’ tombs.

Another subject that is often portrayed in medium-sized aswell as very small statues is the nuraghe itself, prevalently the singletower, consisting of a small pillar (this explains the frequent refer-ence to them as ‘betyl-towers’, also in connection with the fact thatthey were habitually placed inside the ‘meeting huts’, almost always

at the centre on a support on the floor): a kind of altar (thus a betyl)from which the divinity looked on and acted as guarantor for the de-cisions and agreements reached during the meetings.

But there is no lack of representations, even partial, and alsoin small bronze statuettes, of complex nuraghi with a realistic rep-resentation of the keep rising above the turreted bastion, of the ter-races on the corbels which crowned the top of the walls, and some-times even the embrasures at the bottom.

These figures are for us of the utmost importance since they

49

Art

Figure 40Bronze bracelet with herring-bonedecoration from Nuraghe Palmavera, Alghero (SS).

help us to understand how the nuragic towers appeared originally.Today all of them have lost their upper part.

In the final stage of its development, which carried over intothe Iron Age, the nuragic civilization also succeeded in producing alarge anthropomorphous statue, an isolated case to be found inlandof Tharros (in the funerary sanctuary of Monti Prama near Cabrasin the Province of Oristano, which we mentioned while describingthe graves), perhaps in a period in which the ‘Sardinian-Phoeni-cian’ aristocracies were developing and the splendour of the nurag-ic civilization was nothing more than a myth. The large statues

50

Art

Figure 41Stone model of anuraghe, fromNoragugume (NU).

found at Monti Prama, which substantially reproduce the warriorsportrayed in the bronze statuettes, with their bows, horned helmets,shields, gloves and other pieces of armour to protect the limbs andbody, would appear to refer to the myth of these ancestors, now el-evated to the level of heroes and divinities.

Still in stone, we can mention some figures with meanings thatare sometimes clear, such as the stool in the Palmavera meeting hut,perhaps a sort of small ‘throne’, but often uncertain. There are also

51

Art

Figure 42Stone model of acomplex nuraghe, fromSan Sperate (CA).

many stone slabs richly engraved with geometric patterns the mag-ic and religious meaning of which we do not know today, but whichsurely must have adorned the façades of religious buildings.

Bronze objects

Bronze statuettes – perhaps inspired by those coming from the Mid-dle East, which were in circulation in Sardinia already in the 9th cen-tury BC – constitute one of the characteristic and most visible ele-ments not only of nuragic art, but more in general of the entire civ-ilization: quite popular and appreciated by a vast public, they areon exhibition in many museums all over the world, starting from theprestigious British Museum in London.

52

Art

Figure 43Bronze model of aquadrilobate nuraghe,from Olmedo (SS).

53

Art

Figure 44Sandstone head ofnuragic warrior, fromMonti Prama, Cabras(OR).

They are for the most part statuettes of different sizes (from afew centimetres up to a maximum of 39 centimetres) prevalently rep-resenting men (the large majority) and women, animals, boat mod-els, models of nuraghi, imaginary beings and small-scale repro-ductions of objects and furnishings. There are also ritual objects,such as insignia for processions and votive trophies, which aremade of bronze. They were made using the lost-wax process: a fig-

ure was modelled with wax or tallow and then placed in a claymould with a hole drilled at top and bottom; the molten metal waspoured into the upper hole and took the place of the wax whichmelted and came out of the bottom hole. After removing the statuettefrom the mould, burrs were removed and details were finished.

The bronzetti were generally employed as votive offerings: of-fers that the devout took to the sanctuary to be exhibited there(sometimes attaching them to a stone base with lead) for the pur-pose of currying the favour of the god before a difficult undertaking(for victory in battle but also for an abundant harvest) or in a timeof crisis (an illness, a bad harvest) or in thanksgiving for a benefit

54

Art

Figure 45Sandstone ‘seat’, fromthe ‘meeting hut’ of thePalmavera nuragicsettlement, Alghero (SS).

received. Not seldom the bronze figure represents the offerer in per-son who has himself portrayed by the artist in the act of carrying hisoffer (a loaf of bread, an animal for sacrifice, hides or other objectshe has made and so on) to the sanctuary; in other cases the reasonfor the request (a mother with her sick child in her lap) or thanks-giving (a lame person who offers a crutch – if it really is a crutch -after being cured) is quite explicit.

Among the men, warriors are particularly numerous. Theirweaponry varies, perhaps in connection with the beginnings of so-cial differentiation; the chiefs, or the most authoritative persons (theelders?) are usually easily recognizable, not only because of their

55

Art

Figure 46Nuragic bronze statuetteson a stone base, fromthe archaeologicalmuseum in Nuoro.

particularly rich clothing but also for the presence of a sceptre intheir hands. Among the warriors, we find a great many archers, of-ten in the act of shooting. Their bows differ in size but, rather thanindicating a different use as has been supposed, it is more logicalto imagine that this difference is due to the liberties that the makersof these statues took in their work.

Almost all the soldiers, no matter how they are armed, havethe typical nuragic dagger (or stiletto) with a gamma-shaped hilt toprotect the back of the hand, hung around their necks: such dag-gers, which have actually been found during excavations, were car-ried ostentatiously and perhaps indicated hierarchical position or

social status, or more simply the reaching of adulthood. Small mod-els of them were also produced and hung from or sewn onto cloth-ing, perhaps in substitution for the real ones, the offensive effective-ness of which remains in doubt.

Some figures representing imaginary beings (a man with thebody of a quadruped, a warrior with four arms and four legs andso on) may in reality be representations of demons or creatures ofa divine nature.

Animals are quite common subjects in bronze statuettes: besidesthe statuettes devoted to them alone, they are also present in many oth-ers together with human beings (individuals riding on the back of ox-en and in one case perhaps a horse, shepherds with lambs on theirshoulders, an offerer leading a fox on a leash to the sanctuary as thevictim of a sacrifice), we also find them on vessels (especially birds),embedded in the staffs of standards (the so-called hoplolatric or cult ofweapons insignia) and trophies connected with ‘magic hunting rituals’.

There are animals connected both with the agricultural anddomestic world (cattle, sheep and goats, pigs, dogs) and wild ani-mals (foxes, wild boars, mouflon, deer); in one absolutely unique

56

Art

Figure 47Bronze statuetterepresenting twowrestlers, from Uta (CA).

case there is even a monkey (an animal not found in Sardinia)aboard a nuragic vessel.

57

Art

Figure 48Bronze statuette ofarcher poised to shoot,with a Middle-Eastern-type skirt, from Sàrdara(CA).

Sea-going craft represent one of the most interesting sub-jects to be found among nuragic bronze statuettes: there aresome one hundred and twenty of what we could call scale mod-els of boats produced in Sardinia up to the 6th century BC. Theyare found not only in Sardinia, but also on mainland Italy, preva-lently in areas populated by the Etruscans and together with oth-

58

Art

Figure 49Bronze statuetterepresenting a demonwith four eyes and fourarms, from Abini, Teti(NU).

er statuettes. They were almost certainly used as oil lamps sinceall but a few of them have a ring to allow their suspension fromsomething.

The debate as to whether or not these small nuragic bronzevessels (or barchette – small boats) represent real sea-going crafthas led most scholars to consider favourably the hypothesis of theexistence of a nuragic navy equipped with at least two kinds oflarge craft (plus a third type consisting of small boats for sailingon lagoons similar to fassonis, the rush boats still to be seen to-day in the Cabras lagoon): one with a flat bottom for navigatingon inland waters (in the two variations of straight or convexsides), and the other probably with a convex keel for carryingcargo similar to the Phoenician hippos.

The presence of ships especially designed for war, character-

59

Art

Figure 50Bronze statuette of amouflon, from Olmedo(SS).

Figura 51Bronzetto raffigurante un bue, daLaerru (SS).

ized by rostrums and tiers of oarsmen can apparently be excluded:in nuragic craft not only are the former lacking but there is hardlyany indication of means for steerage, with the exception of the mastfor a sail.

60

Art

Figure 52Bronze vessel withbovine protome, fromOrroli (NU).

Figure 53Bronze vessel withdeer-like protome,from Bultei (SS).

Pottery

In pottery, the skill and taste of the nuragic craftsmen come to the forein decorating the surfaces of the pottery that was used during complexrituals; perhaps in some cases it was destined to be shattered at theend of the rite, like the pitchers found at the bottom of sacred wells.

The most ancient nuragic pottery to be decorated, which datesback to the first stage of the Middle Bronze Age, are the large con-tainers with lids decorated with alternating squares – a sort of chess-board pattern (metopale decoration): ‘pyxides’, used to hold pre-cious objects or, more probably, ritual offerings which were oftenfound among grave goods. At a later stage, between the Middleand Late Bronze Ages, the decorations, engraved and pressed into

61

Art

Figure 54Nuragic vessel known asthe ‘Sun King’s Boat’,from Padria (SS).

the fresh clay in repeated rows of dots with the use of a toothed ob-ject (from which comes the term ‘combed ornament’) were concen-trated mostly on the inner surfaces (sides and bottom) in low pans,baking pans and plates: all kitchenware for use in the preparationof bread rolls or ritual bread; the complex symbols engraved on thesides of the containers were thus impressed on the bread.

Towards the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron

Age, through frequent contacts with peoples in the Tyrrhenian area, thepottery is instead characterized by decorations of a geometric nature,fairly embellished rich and refined, created through the impressing ofconcentric circles and the engraving of thin lines. The pottery thus dec-orated, which was made with fine clay and had sides smoothed to alucid reddish finish, was used for the transportation and pouring of liq-uids: pitchers, in the two pear-shaped forms, with two or four handles,and the single-handled ‘askos’ with mouth off-centre and curvingdownward, sometimes with an actual ‘beak’ to facilitate pouring.

These are two containers closely connected with water wor-ship rites which took place at the sacred springs and wells or whichwere used for sacred libations.

62

Art

Figure 55Pan with combdecoration from NuragheChesseddu di Uri (SS).

Society and economy

The peoples of nuragic society, as stated in the premise, did notleave written records.

Thus it is impossible to reconstruct their political and econom-ic organization on the basis of documented evidence; we musttherefore rely on indirect sources represented mainly (but not exclu-

63

Society and economy

Figure 56Askoid pitcher fromMonte Cao, Sorso (SS).

Figure 57Pear-shaped pots withgeometric decoration,from the Santa Anastasiasacred well, Sardara(CA).

sively) by what remains of their material culture found in the courseof archaeological excavations, by careful examination of their ar-chitecture, by the figures represented in the bronze statuettes andstone sculptures and on a territorial analysis of their settlements.

It is fairly plausible to believe that the nuragic society was or-ganized as a chiefdom: a society in which the hegemony of a fewfamilies within the community had become consolidated and pow-er, initially attributed to an elected chief only in times of need (aprimus inter pares, like the power that Agamemnon received fromthe other Greek kings during the expedition against Troy), had be-come stable and hereditary.

This is borne witness to by the nuraghi themselves: as was ob-served in describing the villages, at least the large complex fortress-es would appear to be the place where power was exercised andthus the residence of the tribal chiefs.

The nuraghe itself, especially when it assumes the dimensionsof a complex fortress, is to be considered the result of the collectiveeffort of an entire community: an effort requiring close coordinationthat only a chief could provide.

Furthermore, some giants’ tombs of special architectural ex-cellence would appear to indicate their being commissioned by per-sons of prestige and great authority; we must not neglect the prob-lem of the building and management of the large sanctuaries andthe fine religious edifices, which certainly presupposed someone ofhigh lineage.

The bronze statuettes offer a wide range of figures, amongwhich it is possible to note significant differences: together with theranks of simple ‘hoplites’ (soldiers with extremely simple weapons)we find warriors with rich and complex weaponry; together withsupplicants dressed in a modest loincloth we find personages ele-gantly dressed and in a solemn and hieratic attitude, who are oftenidentified as ‘tribal chiefs, not lastly because they often carry a scep-tre as a symbol of command.

The position of women within nuragic society must not havebeen a minor one: indeed, they are undoubtedly present among thebronze statuettes with figures of a certain prestige, rightly or wrong-ly often defined as ‘priestesses’, as well as a statuette of a maternalfigure embracing a young warrior, perhaps wounded or dead (the

64

Society and economy

Figure 58Giants’ tomb no. 1 atMadau, Fonni (NU);detail of burial corridorbuilt with the isodomumtechnique.

Madre dell’ucciso (mother of the killed) from the name of a famousstatue by the sculptor Ciusa) for whom the mother – and not the fa-ther as would be expected in a patriarchal society – pleads with thedivinity for vengeance, or at least this is one of the meanings thatcan be given to the ‘vow’ connected with the donation of this uniquestatuette.

Once again, we cannot overlook the fact that the presence ofstatuettes of women making votive offerings at the sanctuary showsthat women had, at least in this case (and considering that the do-

66

Society and economy

Figure 59Bronze statuette of tribalchief, from Monti Arcosu,Uta (CA).

nation of a bronze statuette, at least in that period, must have rep-resented a large expense for the family), equal rights with men.

As concerns the economic organization, although the nurag-ic society was substantially based on agriculture and animal hus-bandry, we can also see signs of specialization in the arts andcrafts, represented primarily by the works that have come down tous. The construction of nuraghi and other civil, funerary and reli-gious buildings required workers skilled in dressing and layingstones as well as carpenters capable of erecting the necessary scaf-folding.

Nuragic carpenters, whose bronze tools have been un-earthed, were capable of building ships and wagons for transport-ing goods as can be seen from the subjects of the bronze statuettes.

These statuettes offer us a picture of a range of activities andcrafts: besides the warriors, we can also see musicians, tanners, butmost of all farmers and shepherds.

As concerns farming, the main crops were wheat, barley, dif-

67

Society and economy

Figure 60Bronze statuette knownas ‘the mother of theslain’, from Urzulei(NU).

ferent legumes (known since the Neolithic) such as broad beans,peas and lentils; moreover, archaeological evidence has revealedthe appearance for the first time of the grape and the almond, butacorns were certainly important as food.

Among the domestic animals raised there was obviously aprevalence of pigs and cattle; the latter were also used for a longperiod of time as means of transportation, since the introduction ofthe horse (the presence of which is shown by the finding during ex-cavations of bones and bronze harnesses and perhaps also by astatuette) is to be considered a late development.

One activity connected with animal husbandry was that of theworking and commerce of hides, which are clearly portrayed in abronze statuette found in the sanctuary at Serri. But hunting contin-ued to play an important role in the economy: from remains foundand the statuettes we know that deer, hare, wild boar, fallow deer,mouflon, foxes and so on were hunted.

The nuragic peoples must also have been skilled in weavingvegetable fibres and tanning hides, from which they made clothingbut also shields and armature for the warriors: clothing was, how-ever, prevalently woven with wool, felt and linen. Women’s tunics,as we can see from the statuettes, went down to the ankles whilethose of the menfolk stopped above the knee.

The production of pottery in the nuragic period, with the par-tial introduction of the potter’s wheel, is fairly rich and complex: to-gether with the normal containers for foods, liquids and for cooking,we have the appearance of special forms such as warming pans,cookers, pots for distilling alcoholic beverages, etc.

Among the most flourishing activities we must not forget theproduction of metals, especially the mining and commerce of cop-per, a basic ingredient in the production of bronze. Copper ingots,both in the form of lenticular pigs and in the characteristic ox-hideshape, widespread throughout the Mediterranean, Cyprus and inthe Aegean area, have been found in many different Sardinian lo-calities.

It was in fact the trade in precious metals, which were abun-dant in Sardinia, that brought the nuragic peoples in contact withother Mediterranean civilizations, starting with the Mycenaean inthe 14th and 13th centuries BC and continuing with the Phoenicians

68

Society and economy

and Carthaginians (perhaps as early as the 11th and 10th cen-turies), the Villanovians and the Etruscans, those of the Aegeanarea and so on.

Some even advance the hypothesis that the first smelterscame from Cyprus to teach the nuragic peoples the art of smelting

69

Society and economy

Figure 61Bronze statuettesdepicting three bulls anda sow, from NuragheNurdole at Orani (NU).

Figure 62Jar with one handle(‘milk warmer’) on stonebrazier, from thePalmavera nuragicsettlement, Alghero (SS).

bronze: on some ox-hide ingots found in Sardinia some letters ofthe ancient Aegean alphabet appear, perhaps indicating the unitof measurement.

70

Society and economy

Figure 63‘Milk-warming’ pot (stillfor alcoholoc drinks?)from Nuraghe Nastasi,Tertenia (NU).

Figure 64 Axes, bracelets and pigsof copper, from thestore-room of NuragheFlumenlongu, Alghero(SS).

Decline of the nuragiccivilization

The Mycenaeans, at the height of their power and dominion overthe Mediterranean basin, established one of their bases in the Gulfof Cagliari (near the town of Sarrok, on the rock where we find theAntigori nuraghe: it was a sort of agency perfectly inserted in anuragic settlement, perhaps for the bartering of goods produced in

Sardinia (especially metals) with manufactured goods. Perhaps Sar-dinians (‘Shardana’) and Mycenaeans (or ‘Achaeans’) fought to-gether in the ranks of the so-called ‘Peoples of the Sea’ who in the13th century BC fought many battles against Egypt.

It was at the time of its maximum social and cultural develop-ment that the nuragic civilization received a devastating blow, withthe conquest of the island by the Carthaginians (second half of the6th century BC); there is, however, debate concerning what societythe Punic conquerors found on their arrival in Sardinia. It now ap-pears certain that the political and military organization based onthe nuraghe had come to an end a long time before: the nuraghi,

71

Decline of the nuragic civilization

Figure 65 Copper ox-hide ingot,with signs of the Aegeanalphabet, from Nuragus(NU).

or what remained of them, were incorporated in the villages in thefinal period, and the walls still standing were used as a support inthe building of new huts; some fortresses underwent a radical trans-formation, becoming sanctuaries ((Nurdole nuraghe, Orani,Province of Nuoro) destined to last into the Phoenician-Punic (Gen-na Maria nuraghe, Villanovaforru, Province of Cagliari) and Romanperiods (Lugherras nuraghe, Paulilatino, Province of Oristano).

The two Carthaginian expeditions to Sardinia (the first endedin a defeat, the second with the conquest) were conducted notagainst the nuragic Sardinians proper, but against Phoenician Sar-dinians or in any case indigenous peoples by then integrated into asystem of relations with the Phoenician towns along the coasts.

72

Decline of the nuragic civilization

Figure 66 Mycenaean pottery from the Antigori nuragic settlement, Sarrok (CA).

Some nuragic communities probably continued to enjoy inde-pendence, especially in the mountainous centre of the island knownas Barbagia, but at the survival level which G. Lilliu identified withthe Nuragic V phase. But by then, the cultural, social and politicalinstitutions of a people which some, rightly or wrongly, do not hes-itate to call the ‘nuragic nation’, had disappeared.

73

Decline of the nuragic civilization

Bibliography

VARIOUS AUTHORS, Nur. La misteriosa civiltà dei Sardi, Cariplo, Milano,1980.

VARIOUS AUTHORS, Ichnussa, Scheiwiller/Garzanti, Milano, 1981.VARIOUS AUTHORS, I Sardi. La Sardegna dal Paleolitico all’età dei

nuraghi, Jaca Book, 1984, Milano.VARIOUS AUTHORS, Arte militare e architettura nuragica. Nuragic Archi-

tecture in its Military, Territorial and Socio-economic Context,“Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on NuragicArchitecture at the Swedish Institute in Rome, 7-9 December1989”, “Acta Instituti Regni Sueciae”, series IN 4°, XLVIII.

VARIOUS AUTHORS, La Civiltà Nuragica, Electa, Milano, 1990.VARIOUS AUTHORS, Il nuraghe Losa di Abbasanta. I, “Quaderni della So-

printendenza Archeologica di Cagliari e Oristano”, n.10/1993, supplemento, STEF, Cagliari.

A. ANTONA RUJU Il nuraghe Majori di Tempio, in “Nuovo BullettinoArcheologico Sardo”, vol. III (1986), Sassari, 1990, pp. 9-18.

A. ANTONA RUJU, M. L. FERRARESE CERUTI, Il nuraghe Albucciu e i monu-menti di Arzachena, “Sardegna archeologica. Guide e itinera-ri”, 19, Sassari, 1992.

P. BERNARDINI, Osservazioni sulla bronzistica figurata sarda, in “NuovoBullettino Archeologico Sardo”, II, 1985, pp. 119-166.

C. BITTICHESU, La tomba di Bùsoro e l’architettura funeraria nuragica,Lorziana editrice, Sassari, 1989.

P. BRANDIS, I fattori geografici nella distribuzione dei nuraghi nellaSardegna nord-occidentale, “Atti della XXII Riunione Scientificadell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria nella Sardegnacentro-settentrionale (21-27 ottobre 1978)”, Firenze, 1980, pp.359-428.

F. CAMPUS, V. LEONELLI, La tipologia della ceramica nuragica. Il materi-ale edito, Viterbo, 2000.

E. CASTALDI, Tombe di Giganti nel Sassarese, “Origini”, III, Roma,1968, pp. 119-274.

E. CASTALDI, Domus nuragiche, De Luca, Roma, 1975.E. CONTU, Argomenti di cronologia a proposito delle tombe a polian-

dro di Ena ‘e Muros (Ossi-Sassari) e Motrox ‘e Bois (Usellus-

77

Bibliography

Cagliari), in “Studi Sardi”, XIV-XV, Sassari, 1958, pp. 129-196. E. CONTU, I più antichi nuraghi e l’esplorazione del Nuraghe Peppe

Gallu (Uri-Sassari), in “Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche”, XIV,1959, pp. 59-121.

E. CONTU, Considerazioni su un saggio di scavo al Nuraghe LaPrisciona di Arzachena, in “Studi Sardi”, XIX, 1964-65, Sassari,1966.

E. CONTU, La Sardegna dell’Età Nuragica, in “Popoli e civiltà dell’Italiaantica”, Roma, 1974, vol. III, pp. 141-203

E. CONTU, Il significato della “stele” nelle tombe di giganti, “QuaderniSopr. Archeol. Sassari e Nuoro”, n. 8, Sassari, 1978.

E. CONTU, L’architettura nuragica, in Various authors., Ichnussa, Schei-willer, Milano, 1981, pp. 1-178.

E. CONTU, Il Nuraghe S. Antine, “Sardegna Archeologica, Guide e Itin-erari”, n. 6, Carlo Delfino editore, Sassari, 1988.

E. CONTU, Il nuraghe, in Various authors., La civiltà nuragica, Milano,1990, pp. 35-99.

E. CONTU, La Sardegna preistorica e nuragica, voll. I e II, Chiarella,Sassari, 1998.

M. A. FADDA, Il nuraghe Monte Idda di Posada e la ceramica a pettinein Sardegna, in “The Deya Conference of Prehistory: Early Set-tlement in the western Mediterranean Islands and peripheral Ar-eas”, “British Archaeological Report” International Series 229,1984, pp. 671-701.

M. A. FADDA, La fonte sacra di Su Tempiesu, “Sardegna Archeologica,Guide e Itinerari”, n. 8, Carlo Delfino editore, Sassari, 1988.

M. A. FADDA, Il villaggio, in Various authors., La Civiltà Nuragica, Elec-ta, Milano, 19902, pp. 102-119.

M. L. FERRARESE CERUTI, Nota preliminare alla I e II campagna di scavonel nuraghe Albucciu (Arzachena-Sassari), in “Rivista di Scien-ze Preistoriche”, XVII, fasc. 1-4, 1962, pp. 161-204, tavv. I-XI-II.

M. L. FERRARESE CERUTI, Tombe in tafoni della Gallura, in “Bullettino diPaletnologia Italiana”, n.s. XIX, vol. 77, Roma, 1968, pp. 93-165, figg. 1-23.

M. L. FERRARESE CERUTI, F. LO SCHIAVO, La Sardegna, Atti del Congresso“L’Età del Bronzo in Italia nei secoli dal XVI al XIV a.C. (Viareg-gio, 26-30 ottobre 1989)”, in “Rassegna di Archeologia”, 10

78

Bibliography

(1991-1992), pp. 123-141.P. FILIGHEDDU, Navicelle bronzee della Sardegna nuragica: prime an-

notazioni per uno studio delle attitudini e funzionalità nautiche,“Nuovo Bullettino Archeologico Sardo”, IV (1987-92), Sassari,1994, pp. 65-115.

F. GERMANÀ, L’uomo in Sardegna dal Paleolitico all’Età nuragica, Sas-sari 1995.

G. LILLIU, Il nuraghe di Barumini e la stratigrafia nuragica, in “Studi Sar-di”, vol. XII-XIII, 1955.

G. LILLIU, Nuovi templi a pozzo della Sardegna nuragica, in “Studi Sar-di”, vol. XIV-XV, 1958, pp. 197-288.

G. LILLIU, I nuraghi. Torri preistoriche della Sardegna, La Zattera,Cagliari, 1962.

G. LILLIU, L’architettura nuragica, in “Atti del XIII congresso di storia del-l’architettura (Sardegna), Cagliari 6-12 aprile 1963”, Roma,1966, pp. 17-92;

G. LILLIU, Sculture della Sardegna nuragica, La Zattera, Cagliari, 1966.G. LILLIU, Dal betilo aniconico alla statuaria nuragica, in “Studi Sardi”,

XXIX, 1975-77, pp. 3-74.G. LILLIU, Bronzetti e statuaria nella civiltà nuragica, in Various authors.,

Ichnussa, Scheiwiller, Milano 1981, pp. 179-251.G. LILLIU, La civiltà nuragica, Carlo Delfino editore, Sassari 1982.G. LILLIU, La civiltà dei Sardi dal Paleolitico alla fine dell’età nuragica,

ERI, Torino 1988. G. LILLIU, Betili e betilini nelle tombe di giganti della Sardegna, “Atti Ac-

cademia dei Lincei. Memorie Sc. Mor. Stor. Filol.”, ser. IX, vol. VI,1995, pp. 421-507.

G. LILLIU, La grande statuaria nella Sardegna nuragica, “Atti Accade-mia dei Lincei. Memorie Sc. Mor. Stor. Filol.”, ser. IX, vol. IX,1997, pp. 281-385.

G. LILLIU, R. ZUCCA, Su Nuraxi di Barumini, “Sardegna Archeologica,Guide e Itinerari”, n. 9, Carlo Delfino editore, Sassari, 1988.

F. LO SCHIAVO, Economia e società dell’Età dei Nuraghi, in Various au-thors., Ichnussa, Scheiwiller, Milano 1981, pp. 253-347.

F. LO SCHIAVO, Appunti sull’evoluzione culturale della Sardegna nell’etàdei metalli, in “Nuovo Bullettino Archeologico Sardo”, I, 1984,pp. 21-40.

F. LO SCHIAVO, M. SANGES, Il Nuraghe Arrubiu di Orroli, “Sardegna

79

Bibliography

Archeologica, Guide e Itinerari”, 22, Carlo Delfino editore, Sas-sari, 1994.

L. MANCA DEMURTAS, S. DEMURTAS, Protonuraghi a camera naviforme, inVarious authors., La Sardegna nel Mediterraneo tra il Bronzomedio e il Bronzo recente (XVI-XIII sec. a.C.), Atti del III Con-vegno di studi “Un millennio di relazioni fra la Sardegna e i Pae-si del Mediterraneo”, Selargius-Cagliari 19-22 novembre 1987,Cagliari 1992, pp. 107-125;

L. MANCA DEMURTAS, S. DEMURTAS, Tipologie nuragiche: i protonuraghicon corridoio passante, in R.H TYKOT. e T.K ANDREWS eds., Sar-dinia in the Mediterranean: a Footprint in the Sea, Studies inSardinian Archaeology presented to M.S. Balmuth, Sheffield1992, pp. 176-184;

E. MELIS, Carta dei nuraghi della Sardegna, Spoleto 1967.P. MELIS, New data regarding “Architectonic Prospect Domus” of the

Bronze Age in Sardinia, in “Paper from the E.A.A. Third Annu-al Meeting at Ravenna”, Vol. III: Sardinia (Ed. A. MORAVETTI),British Archaeological Report International Series 719, HadrianBooks, Oxford 1998, pp. 57-66.

A. MORAVETTI, Nuove scoperte nel villaggio nuragico di Palmavera, in“Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche”, XXXII, 1977, pp. 277-81.

A. MORAVETTI, Nuovi modellini di torri nuragiche, in “Bollettino d’Arte”,7, Poligrafico dello Stato, Roma 1980.

A. MORAVETTI, La tomba di giganti di Palatu (Birori), “Nuovo BullettinoArcheologico Sardo”, vol. 1, Sassari, 1984, pp. 41-68.

A. MORAVETTI, Nota preliminare agli scavi del Nuraghe S. Barbara diMacomer, “Nuovo Bullettino Archeologico Sardo”, vol. 3(1986), Sassari, pp. 49-113.

A. MORAVETTI (ed.), Il Nuraghe S. Antine nel Logudoro-Meilogu, CarloDelfino editore, Sassari 1988.

A. MORAVETTI, Le tombe e l’ideologia funeraria, in Various authors., LaCiviltà Nuragica, Electa, Milano 19902, pp. 120-168.

A. MORAVETTI, Il complesso nuragico di Palmavera, “Sardegna Arche-ologica - Guide e Itinerari”, vol. 20, Carlo Delfino editore, Sas-sari 1992.

A. MORAVETTI, Sui protonuraghi del Marghine-Planargia, in R.H. TYKOT

and T.K. ANDREWS (ed.), Sardinia in the Mediterranean: a Foot-print in the Sea, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1992, pp.

80

Bibliography

185-197.A. MORAVETTI, Serra Orrios e i monumenti archeologici di Dorgali,

“Sardegna Archeologica, Guide e Itinerari”, n. 26, Carlo Delfi-no editore, Sassari, 1998.

A. MORAVETTI, Ricerche archeologiche nel Marghine-Planargia,“Sardegna Archeologica, Studi e Monumenti”, n. 5, voll. I e II,Carlo Delfino editore, Sassari, 1998-2000.

V. SANTONI, Tharros. Il villaggio nuragico di Su Muru Mannu, “Rivistadi Studi Fenici”, XIII-1, 1985, pp. 33-140.

V. SANTONI, I templi di età nuragica, in Various authors., La CiviltàNuragica, Electa, Milano 19902, pp. 169-193.

V. SANTONI, Il nuraghe Losa di Abbasanta, Soprintendenza Archeo-logica per le Provincie di Cagliari e Oristano, Quaderni didatti-ci, n. 4/1990, STEF, Cagliari.

M. SEQUI, Nuraghi, Multigrafic, Como, 1985.G. TANDA, Il carro in età nuragica, in “Atti del II Convegno di Studi di

Selargius: La Sardegna nel Mediterraneo tra il II e il I millennioa.C.”, Cagliari, 1987, pp. 63-80.

A. TARAMELLI, Il nuraghe Palmavera presso Alghero, in “Monumenti An-tichi dei Lincei”, XIX, 1909, pp. 225-304.

A. TARAMELLI, Il tempio nuragico ed i monumenti primitivi di Santa Vit-toria di Serri (Cagliari), in “Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei”, vol.XXIII, 1914, coll. 313-440.

A. TARAMELLI, Il tempio nuragico di S. Anastasia di Sardara (Prov. diCagliari), “Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei”, XXV, 1918, coll. 36-136.

A. TARAMELLI, Nuove ricerche nel santuario nuragico di Santa Vittoria diSerri, “Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei”, XXXIV, 1931, coll. 5-122.

A. TARAMELLI, Santu Antine in territorio di Torralba (Sassari), in “Monu-menti Antichi dei Lincei”, vol. XXXVIII, 1939, coll. 9-70.

D. TRUMP, Nuraghe Noeddos and the Bonu Ighinu Valley. Excavationand Survey in Sardinia, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 1990.

G. UGAS, La tomba megalitica di S. Cosimo-Gonosfanadiga, “Arche-ologia Sarda”, 1, Cagliari 1981, pp. 7-20.

G. UGAS, Archittetura e cultura materiale nuragico: il tempo dei Pro-tonuraghi, SarEdit, Cagliari, 1999.

R. ZUCCA, Il santuario nuragico di S. Vittoria di Serri, “SardegnaArcheologica. Guide e Itinerari”, n. 7, Carlo Delfino editore,1988.

81

Bibliography

Glossary

Polyandrous (tomb) A Bronze Age collective tomb char-acterized by a long gallery or corri-dor of stones set upright. Similar tothe giants’ tomb, but without theexedra or mound destined to coverthe burial chamber.

Acoustic shaft In a nuraghe, a vertical shaft left inwalls to allow communication be-tween upper and lower floors.

Antemural The outer wall of nuragic fortifica-tions enclosing the keep and thebastion.

Apsidal In nuragic architecture, the adjectiveindicates the curvature of the outerwall of the final part of a giants’tomb or other buildings.

Arched stele In giants’ tombs, a large slab (a sin-gle stone, but sometimes composedof two) which stands at the front of agrave at the centre of the exedra. Itis characterized by an ogival uppersection (‘lunette’) and a square orrectangular bottom section. The twosections are divided by a horizontalslab. It is also found sculpted on thefaçade of the ‘architectonic domus’.

Architectonic façade See ‘Domus with architectonic(hypogeic tomb having a) façade’.

Ashlar A stone dressed for use in erectingwalls.

85

Glossary

Askoid Vase with a closed form (pitcher) im-itating an askos (see).

Askos Pitcher for pouring a liquid from aspout or narrow neck, the latter usu-ally off-centre with respect to thebody of the pitcher.

Bastion In complex nuraghi, this term indi-cates the complex of towers andcourtyards adjacent to the main tow-er.

Betyl A stone, usually dressed, having theform of a cone with the point cut off,placed upright and held to be the‘home of the god’.

Bonnanaro (Culture of) A culture that characterizes the Ear-ly Bronze Age in Sardinia (1800-1500 BC).

Bronze Age Period in prehistory that follows theChalcolithic. In Sardinia it corre-sponds to the second and first mil-lennia BC.

Bronzetto Synonym for ‘bronze statuette’.

Chacolithic Age The prehistoric period, also knownas the Copper Age, following theNeolithic; in Sardinia it correspondsto the third and second millenniaBC.

‘Combed’ pottery Nuragic pottery of the Middle andLate Bronze Age, the decoration ofwhich is characterized by geometricpatterns impressed with a toothed in-strument (‘comb’) on the fresh clay.

86

Glossary

Corbels Also called mensoloni (corbelpieces), in nuraghi these are the pro-truding stones at the top of the con-struction supporting the overhang ofthe terraces of the towers and cur-tain walls.

Curtain wall In nuragic bastions, the wall con-necting two secondary towers.

Dentiled ashlar In some giants’ tombs, a trapezoidalcrowning stone with notches (usuallythree) alternating with dentils; onplacing it adjacent to another ashlar,the three notches become holes forthe placing of small betyls.

Dolmenic Referring to a megalithic chambertomb with walls made of stone slabsplaced vertically and covered byone or more slabs laid horizontally.In giants’ tombs, the burial corridorwith vertical walls and a flat archroof is referred to as ‘dolmenic’.

Domus de janas Literally ‘homes of the fairies’, thisterm is applied to Neolithic andCopper Age rock-cut tombs. Theyoften consist of two or more commu-nicating cells.

Domus with A hypogeic tomb with a bas relief architectonic façade sculpted on the outside depicting the

typical elements of giants’ tombs: anarched stele and exedra, or fore-court.

Embrasure A narrow, vertical aperture in a wallwhich in nuraghi widens towards theinside; its purpose was to provide

87

Glossary

light and air for corridors, chambersand so on. It could also be used indefence of the nuraghe.

Exedra In giants’ tombs, this is the semicir-cular area (delimited by uprightstone slabs or walls) in front of thetomb. The curving walls or uprightslabs start on both sides of the en-trance to the tomb. The form of theexedra, or forecourt, is sculpted inthe rock of the so-called domus withan architectonic façade.

Extrados The upper, outside part of an archedroof. In the domus with an architec-tonic façade it is synonymous with a‘mound in the rock’.

False entrance In the domus de janas, a door framesculpted in relief (or engraved orpainted) on the walls of some cere-monial cells in imitation of a realdoor. It probably represented theentrance to the world of the dead.

Flat arch (roof with) In nuragic architecture, the roof ofprotonuraghe corridors, nuraghiand giants’ tombs consisting of hor-izontal flat slabs laid side by side.

Giants’ tomb Typical megalithic tomb of thenuragic period. It consists of a longburial chamber (formed by uprightstone slabs or courses of stones) withthe back rounded (apsidal) and pre-ceded in the front by a semicircularceremonial area (exedra) at the cen-tre of which could be erected a highrising slab of semi-ogival stone: the

88

Glossary

so-called ‘arched stele’.

Hoplolatrous Relating to the cult of arms.

Hypogeum An underground chamber. It is oftenused as a synomym for domus dejanas.

Isodomum In nuragic architecture, this term isapplied to a building erected withcarefully-laid, well-dressed stones.

Keep In nuragic architecture this indicatesthe central tower of a complexnuraghe. It usually rises above thesurrounding bastion.

Lunette This stands for the arched (a cèntina)upper part of an arched stele, sepa-rated from the usually rectangularbase by a horizontal slab.

Machicolation A shaft left in the wall of the nuragheallowing communication betweentwo chambers placed one over theother. It is similar to the acousticshaft but is larger in diameter.

Megaron A rectangular building consisting ofa main chamber preceded by avestibule. This kind of building ap-peared in Greece during the Ne-olithic.

Menhir A monolith that assumes differentshapes, often elongated, and stuckin the round vertically. It has a reli-gious or funerary purpose. Sardin-ian menhirs are pre-nuragic.

89

Glossary

Metopale (decoration) A decoration characteristic ofnuragic pottery of the MiddleBronze Age consisting of squaresscratched on the surface with solidlines or strokes and alternativelyfilled in like a chessboard.

Monolithic Consisting of a single block of stone.

Monosome Relating to tombs for the burial of a (lit. ‘single body’) single person.

Monte Claro (Culture of) The culture characterizing the finalphase of the Chalcolithic in Sar-dinia.

Neolithic Literally, ‘New Stone Age’. It marksthe passage from an economybased on hunting and gathering toone of production: its characteristicfeatures are the birth of agricultureand animal husbandry, the workingof stone and the production of pot-tery. In Sardinia the Neolithic datesfrom the VI to the III millennia BC.

Niche A small space in the walls of a larg-er room. It is quite common in bothprenuragic (domus de janas) andnuragic architecture (chambers andcorridors of nuraghi, huts, giants’tombs and so on).

Nuraghe An edifice characteristic of Sardinia.In its simplest form it consists of a flat-topped conical tower with circularchambers (tholos) arranged oneabove the other and covered with acorbelled roof obtained by placingthe stones in courses that partially

90

Glossary

over-sail the courses below them. Inthe most highly developed form, thechambers communicate by means ofa spiral stairway within the walls. Themost complex nuraghi are composedof a series of towers (from two to five)placed around a simple tower (keep)and joined to one another by straightor concave-convex curtain walls.

Ordeal God’s judgement invoked by meansof fire or water.

Overhang A system for roofing a tholos by lay-ing each subsequent course ofstones closer to the centre so thatthey oversail the lower courses.

Ox-hide (ingots) Copper ingots weighing about 30kg used in the Mediterranean duringthe Bronze Age. Their shape, withconcave sides and protruding ex-tremities appears to have been in-spired by the tanned and stretchedhide of an ox.

Pintadera A terracotta stamp used in decorat-ing ceremonial bread.

Postern It is a secondary entrance to anuraghe or castle, usually smallerthan the main entrance.

Prenuragic Relating to the period in Sardiniapreceding the nuragic period: itgoes from the Early Neolithic to Ear-ly Bronze I.

Protonuraghe A building consisting mainly of vari-ously laid out corridors, often cov-

91

Glossary

ered with horizontally laid stoneslabs placed side by side. There arealso niches and small rooms, some-times covered with a flat arch. Asynonym for ‘corridor nuraghe’.

Pyxis Jar with lid, normally used to containprecious objects. In Middle BronzeAge nuragic pottery, pyxides werepots with the lip turned inwards anddecorated with a chessboard pat-tern. They have often (but not al-ways) been found in burial contexts.

Ring corridor In nuraghi, a corridor surrounding acell.

Rotunda In nuragic villages, a small, circularroom with a bench around a cen-trally-placed stone basin, usually in-side a ‘sector hut’ (see).

Sacred spring A nuragic religious edifice, similarto the sacred well, from which it dif-fers in lacking a stairway, sincesprings are normally found atground level.

Sacred well Also called ‘water temple’. It is anuragic construction for use in thewater cult composed of an atrium, astairway and an undergroundchamber often covered with anoverhang.

Sector hut In nuragic villages, a building hav-ing different rooms opening onto asmall, unroofed central courtyardwhere there is an entrance from theoutside.

92

Glossary

Sentry box This term (which indicates the struc-ture protecting a sentry) is some-times used to define, incorrectly, theniche that is often found near the en-trance to a nuraghe.

Single-tower Nuraghe made up of a single tower.A synonym for simple nuraghe.

Small in antis temples A nuragic religious edifice charac-terized by a rectangular floor planand the extension of the side wallsbeyond the façade (in antis) andsometimes also beyond the rear(doubly in antis). A synonym for a‘megaron temple’ (see).

Tafone A term of Corsican origin indicatinga natural cavity sculpted in graniteby erosion.

Tèmenos Wall surrounding the temple divid-ing the sacred from the lay area.

Tholos Chamber or construction with a roofconsisting of a corbelled roof or‘false cupola’ obtained by the layingof successive stone courses so thateach course overhangs the previousone and is thus smaller in diameter.

Tower betyl A pillar of stone sculpted in such away as to resemble a nuragic tower.It is thought to have the same func-tion as the betyl.

Tumulus A heap of earth and stone, oftenheld together with a course of largestones (peristalite), which coveredmegalithic tombs at ground level

93

Glossary

(dolmens, allées couvertes, etc.)forming a low hill. In giants’ tombs itindicates the roof of the burial room:it was often reproduced in the rockabove the bank in the ‘architectonicdomus’ (what is defined as a‘mound in the rock’).

94

Glossary

Paolo Melis: 2, 12, 17, 22 (lucido Lavinia Foddai), 28, 31, 34, 36, 37, 58.Lavinia Foddai: 1, 13, 14.ESIT Nuoro: 29.

From the volumesA. MORAVETTI, Il complesso nuragico di Palmavera, 1992: 19, 40.G. LILLIU, La Civiltà Nuragica, 1982: 3, 11, 15, 21, 24, 26, 27, 30, 33,

42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 65,66.

F. LO SCHIAVO, M. SANGES, Il nuraghe Arrubiu di Orroli, 1994: 5.E. CONTU, Il nuraghe Santu Antine, 1988: 6, 9, 16.G. LILLIU, R. ZUCCA, Il nuraghe Su Nuraxi di Barumini, 1988: 7, 10, 18, 20.A. MORAVETTI, Serra Orrios e i monumenti di Dorgali, 1998: 23, 35.A. MORAVETTI, Ricerche archeologiche nel Marghine-Planargia, 1998: 4, 8.A. ANTONA, M.L. FERRARESE CERUTI, Il nuraghe Albucciu e i monumenti di

Arzachena, 1992: 25.M.A. FADDA, La fonte sacra di Su Tempiesu, 1988: 32.A. MORAVETTI, Il nuraghe Santu Antine nel Logudoro-Mejlogu, 1988: 38.M.A. FADDA, Il museo speleo-archeologico di Nuoro, 1991: 39, 41, 46,

61.F. LO SCHIAVO, Il museo archeologico “G.A. Sanna” di Sassari, 1991: 54,

64.

95

Sources of Illustrations

Printed in may 2007presso Litograf Editor s.r.l., Città di Castello