ITALY AND ITS ISLANDS
Italy cannot be called a country of megalithic monuments. In the centre
and north they do not occur, the supposed examples mentioned by Dennis
in his _Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria_ having been proved
non-existent by the Italian Ministry of Education. It is only in the
extreme south-west that megalithic structures appear. They are dolmens
of ordinary type, except that in some cases the walls are formed not of
upright slabs, but of stones roughly superposed one upon another. On the
farm of the Grassi, near Lecce, are what appear to be two small dolmens
at a distance of only 4 feet apart; they are perhaps parts of a single
corridor-tomb. In the neighbourhood of Tarentum there is a dolmen-tomb
approached by a short passage, and at Bisceglie, near Ruvo, there is an
even finer example, the discovery of which is one of the most important
events which have occurred in Italian prehistoric archæology during the
last few years. The tomb is a simple rectangular corridor 36 feet in
length, lying east and west. Only one cover-slab, that at the west end,
remains, and the exact disposition of the rest of the tomb is
uncertain. In one of the side uprights which supports this slab is a
circular hole, which, however, seems to be the work of Nature, though
its presence may have led to the choice of the stone. The tomb was
carefully excavated, and the remains of several skeletons were found,
one of which lay in the contracted position on the right side. Three of
the skulls were observed by an expert to be dolichocephalic, but their
fragile condition prevented the taking of actual measurements. Burnt
bones of animals, fragments of pottery, a terra-cotta bead, and a stone
pendant were also found, together with flint knives and a fragment of
obsidian.
These discoveries show that the heel of Italy fell under the influence
which caused the spread of the megalithic monuments, whatever that
influence may have been. The same influence may also have been
responsible for the bronze age rock-hewn tombs of Matera in the
Basilicata, each of which is surrounded by a circle of fairly large
stones.
Geographical considerations would lead one to suppose that the same
conditions existed in Sicily, and it is possible that this was the case.
Yet it is an affirmation which must be made with great reserve.
Megalithic monuments in the ordinary sense of the term are unknown in
Sicily. There are, however, four tombs in the south-east of the island
which show some affinity to megalithic work. Two of these were found by
Orsi at Monteracello. They were rectangular chambers built of squared
slabs of limestone set on edge. At one end of the finer of the two was a
small opening or window cut in the upright slab. This same grave
contained a skeleton lying on the right side with the legs slightly
contracted. These two tombs can hardly be described as dolmens; they
seem to have had no cover-slabs, and the blocks, which were small, were
let into the earth, scarcely appearing above the surface. Taken by
themselves the Monteracello tombs would hardly prove the presence of the
megalithic civilization in Sicily. However, in the valley called Cava
Lazzaro there is a rock-hewn tomb where the vertical face of the rock in
which the tomb is cut has been shaped into a curved façade, a very usual
feature of megalithic architecture. This is ornamented on each side of
the entrance of the tomb with four pilasters cut in relief in the solid
rock, each pair being connected by a semicircular arch also in relief.
On the pilasters is incised a pattern of circles and V-shaped signs. A
somewhat similar arrangement of pilasters is seen in two rock-tombs at
Cava Lavinaro in the same district. This work forcibly recalls the work
of the megalithic builders in the hypogeum of Halsaflieni in Malta (see
Chap. VII), and on the façades of the Giants' Tombs in Sardinia (see
below). It affords, at any rate, a presumption that in all three
islands we have to deal with the same civilization if not the same
people.
Such a presumption is not weakened by the fact that in Sicily the usual
form of tomb was the rock-hewn sepulchre, which, as will be seen later,
is very often a concomitant of the megalithic monument, and in many
cases is proved to be the work of the same people. In the early
neolithic period in Sicily, called by Orsi the Sicanian Period,
rock-hewn tombs seem not to have been used. It is only at the beginning
of the metal age that they begin to appear. In this period, the
so-called First Siculan, the tomb-chamber was almost always circular or
elliptical, entered by a small door or window in the face of the rock.
The dead were often seated round the wall of the chamber, evidently
engaged in a funerary feast, as is clear from the great vase set in
their midst with small cups for ladling out the liquid. A single tomb
often contained many bodies, especially in cases where the banquet
arrangement was not observed; one chamber held more than a hundred
skeletons, and it has been suggested that the bodies were only laid in
the tomb after the flesh had been removed from the bones, either
artificially or as the result of a temporary burial elsewhere. Such a
custom is not unknown in other parts of the megalithic area. With these
bodies were found large quantities of painted pottery, a few implements
of copper and many of flint. Among the ornaments which the dead
carried--for they seem to have been buried in complete costume--were
several axe-shaped pendants of polished stone, precisely similar to
those of Sardinia, Malta, and France. The most important cemeteries of
this period are those of Castelluccio, Melilli, and Monteracello. Near
this last site was also found a round hut based on a course of
orthostatic slabs of typically megalithic appearance.
In the full bronze age, called the Second Siculan Period, burial in
rock-tombs still remained the rule. The tomb-form had developed
considerably. The circular type was still usual, though beside it a
rectangular form was fast coming into favour. The main chamber often had
side-niches, and was usually preceded by a corridor which sometimes
passed through an antechamber. Occasionally we find an elaborate
open-air court outside the façade of the tomb, built very much after the
megalithic style. Large vertical surfaces of rock were carefully sought
after for tombs, and the almost inaccessible cliffs of Pantalica and
Cassibile are literally honeycombed with them. Where such surfaces of
rock were unobtainable a vertical shaft was sunk in the level rock and a
chamber was opened off the bottom of it. The tradition of the banquet of
the dead is still kept up, but the number of the skeletons in each tomb
steadily decreases. The sitting posture is still frequent, though
occasionally the body lies flat on one side with the legs slightly
contracted. Flint is now rare, but objects of bronze are plentiful. The
local painted pottery has almost entirely given place to simpler yet
better wares with occasional Mycenean importations.
It is impossible to decide whether this Sicilian civilization ought to
be included under the term megalithic. If, as seems probable, the idea
of megalithic building was brought to Europe by the immigration of a new
race it is possible that a branch of this race entered Sicily. In that
case I should prefer to think that they came not at the beginning of the
First Siculan Period as we know it, but rather earlier. Certain vases
found with neolithic burials in a cave at Villafrati and elsewhere in
Sicily resemble the pottery usually found in megalithic tombs; one of
them is in fact a bell-shaped cup, a form typical of megalithic pottery.
It is thus possible that an immigration of megalithic people into Sicily
took place during the stone age, definitely later than the period of the
earliest neolithic remains on the island, but earlier than that of such
sites as the Castelluccio cemetery. This, however, is and will perhaps
remain a mere conjecture, though it is quite possible that there are in
the interior of Sicily dolmens which have not yet come to the notice of
the archæologist; in this connection it is worth while to remember that
up to five years ago the existence of dolmens in both Sardinia and Malta
passed unnoticed.
If the inclusion of Sicily in the megalithic area is doubtful there is
fortunately no question about the island of Sardinia. Here we have one
of the chief strongholds of the megalithic civilization, where the
architecture displays its greatest variety and flexibility. The simplest
manifestation of megalithic building, the dolmen, was up till lately
thought to be absent from Sardinia, but the researches of the last few
years have brought to light several examples, of which the best known
are those of Birori, where the chamber is approximately circular in
plan.
The monuments, however, for which Sardinia is most famous are the
_nuraghi._ A _nuraghe_ is a tower-like structure of truncated conical
form, built of large stones laid in comparatively regular courses (Pl.
II, Fig. 2). The stones are often artificially squared, and set with a
clay mortar. The plan and arrangement of a simple _nuraghe_ are usually
as follows (Fig. 17): The diameter of the building is generally under 30
feet. A door of barely comfortable height even for an average man and
surmounted by a single lintel-block gives access to a narrow passage cut
through the thickness of the wall. In this passage are, to the right, a
small niche (_c_) just large enough to hold a man, and, on the left,
a winding staircase in the wall (_d_) leading to an upper storey. The
passage itself leads into the chamber (_a_), which is circular, often
with two or three side-niches (_b b_), and roofed by corbelling, i.e. by
making each of the upper courses of stones in its wall project inwards
over the last. The upper chamber, which is rarely preserved, is similar
in form to the lower.
[Illustration: Plate II Fig. 1. MNAIDRA, DOORWAY OF ROOM H]
[Illustration: Plate II Fig. 2. THE NURAGHE OF MADRONE IN SARDINIA
To face p. 82]
[Illustration: Fig. 17. Elevation, section and plan of a _nuraghe_.
(Pinza, _Monumenti Antichi_.)]
Considerable speculation has been indulged in concerning the purpose of
the _nuraghi_. For many years they were regarded as tombs, a view which
was first combated by Nissardi at the International Congress in Rome in
1903. Further exploration since that time has placed it beyond all doubt
that the _nuraghi_ were fortified dwellings. The form of the building
itself is almost conclusive. The lowness of the door would at once put
an enemy at a disadvantage in attempting to enter; it is significant
that in the _nuraghe_ of Su Cadalanu, where the doorway was over 6 feet
in height, its breadth was so much reduced that it was necessary to
enter sideways. Arrangements were made for the closing of the entrance
from inside by a heavy slab of stone, often fitted into grooves. The
niche on the right of the passage clearly served to hold a man, who
would command the passage itself and the staircase to the upper floor;
he would, moreover, be able to attack the undefended flank of an enemy
entering with his shield on his left arm. To the same effort at
impregnability we may safely ascribe the fact that the staircase leading
to the upper room did not begin on the floor-level of the passage, but
was reached through a hole high up in the wall. Many of the _nuraghi_
are surrounded by elaborate fortifications consisting of walls, towers,
and bastions, sometimes built at the same time as the dwelling itself,
sometimes added later. Those of Aiga, Losa, and s'Aspru are among the
most famous of this type. All the _nuraghi_ stand in commanding
situations overlooking large tracts of country, and the more important a
position is from the strategical point of view the stronger will be the
_nuraghe_ which defends it. All are situated close to streams and
springs of good water, and some, as for instance that of Abbameiga, are
actually built over a natural spring. At Nossiu is a building which can
only be described as a fortress. It consists of a rhomboidal enclosure
with _nuraghe_-like towers at its corners and four narrow gateways in
its walls. It is surrounded by the ruins of a village of stone huts.
There cannot be the least doubt that in time of danger the inhabitants
drove their cattle into the fortified enclosure, entered it themselves,
and then closed the gates.
Each _nuraghe_ formed the centre of a group of stone huts. Mackenzie has
described such a village at Serucci, where the circular plan of the
huts was still visible. The walls in one case stood high enough to
show, from the corbelling of their upper courses, that the huts were
roofed in the same fashion as the _nuraghi_ themselves. Another village,
that which surrounds the _nuraghe_ of Su Chiai, was protected by a wall
of huge stones.
It is thus clear that the _nuraghi_ were the fortified centres of the
various villages of Sardinia. Probably each formed the residence of the
local chieftain; that they were actually inhabited is clear from the
remains of everyday life found in them, and from the polish which
continual use has set on the side-walls of some of the staircases. In
general appearance and design the _nuraghi_ recall the modern _truddhi_,
hundreds of which dot the surface of Apulia and help to beguile the
tedium of the railway journey from Brindisi to Foggia. The _truddhi_,
however, are built in steps or terraces and have no upper chamber.
Who were the foes against whom such elaborate preparations for defence
were made? Two alternatives are possible. Either Sardinia was a
continual prey to some piratical Mediterranean people, or she was
divided against herself through the rivalry of the local chieftains.
The second explanation is perhaps the more probable. Mackenzie seems to
adopt it, and fancies that in the growth of the largest _nuraghi_ we may
trace the rise to power of some of these local dynasts at the expense of
their neighbours. He suggests that the existence of the fortified
enclosure of Nossiu, where there is no sign of a true _nuraghe_, may
mean that there were certain communities which succeeded in maintaining
their independence in the face of these powerful rulers. But here, as he
himself is the first to admit, we are in the realm of pure conjecture.
[Illustration: Fig. 18. Giant's Tomb at Muraguada, Sardinia. (Mackenzie,
_Papers of the British School of Rome_, V.)]
It is now established that in the Giants' Tombs of Sardinia we are to
see the graves of the inhabitants of the _nuraghe_ villages. Every
Giant's Tomb lies close to such a village, and almost every village has
its Giants' Tombs, one or more in number according to its size. A
Giant's Tomb consists of a long rectangular chamber of upright slabs
roofed by corbelled masonry (Fig. 18). The slab which closes one end of
the tomb is of great size, and consists of a lower rectangular half with
a small hole at the base and an upper part shaped like a rounded gable.
There is a raised border to the whole slab, and a similar band in relief
marks out the two halves. This front slab forms the centre-piece in a
curved façade of upright slabs. The chamber is covered with a coating of
ashlar masonry, which is shaped into an apsidal form at the end opposite
to the façade. Occasionally more than 50 feet in length, the Giants'
Tombs served as graves for whole families, or even for whole villages.
Mackenzie has shown that the form is derived from the simple dolmen, and
has pointed out several of the intermediate stages.
The inhabitants of Sardinia in the megalithic period also buried their
dead in rock-hewn sepulchres, of which there are numerous examples at
Anghelu Ruju. The contents of these graves make it clear that they are
the work of the same people as the Giants' Graves. Were further proof
needed it could be afforded by a grave at Molafà, where a Giant's Grave
with its façade and gabled slab has been faithfully imitated in the
solid rock. There is a similar tomb at St. George. Two natural caves in
Cape Sant' Elia on the south of the island contain burials of this same
period.
The neighbouring island of Corsica also contains important megalithic
remains. They consist of thirteen dolmens, forty-one menhirs, two
_alignements_, and a cromlech. They fall geographically into two groups,
one in the extreme north and the other in the extreme south of the
island.
The stones used are chiefly granite and gneiss. The dolmens, which are
of carefully chosen flat blocks showing no trace of work, are all
rectangular in plan, and usually consist of four side-walls and a
cover-slab. The finest of all, however, the dolmen of Fontanaccia, has
seven blocks supporting the cover, one at each short end, three in one
of the long sides, and two in the other. None of the dolmens are covered
by mounds.
Of the _alignements_, that of Caouria seems to consist, in part at
least, of two parallel lines of menhirs, the rest of the plan being
uncertain. There are still thirty-two blocks, of which six have fallen.
The other _alignement_, that of Rinaiou, consists of seven menhirs set
in a straight line. The cromlech is circular and stands on Cape Corse.
On the small island of Pianosa, near Elba, are several rock-hewn tombs
of the æneolithic period which ought perhaps to be classed with the
megalithic monuments of Sardinia and Corsica.