The ‘island of silver veins’: an overview of the earliest metal and metalworking in Sardinia Mark Pearce Keywords Sardinia; early metallurgy; copper; silver; lead Abstract are not fully published, though of course it does not re- solve matters for multi-phase contexts with insecure as- This paper presents a review of our knowledge of the sociations; unfortunately, her conclusions are difficult to earliest phases of metal use and working in Sardinia, verify from the limited supporting evidence she publish- based where possible on radiocarbon chronology. It es, which is problematic when she disagrees with other covers the cultural periods from the late Neolithic Ozie- scholars’ dating. ri to the Copper Age Monte Claro phase. I suggest that Until very recently a secure radiocarbon chronology in contrast to continental Italy, the earliest metalwork in did not exist for Sardinia (and indeed radiometric dates Sardinia seems to be used for display. It is striking that for material found in multiple burials are sometimes of metal use and working seems to emerge in Sardinia lat- doubtful worth, since they likely date nothing other than er than in mainland Italy, despite the island’s rich metal the object that was determined), but an increase in the resources. number of available dates means that we can now be- gin to understand the relationships between the various cultures of the late Neolithic and Copper Age and their Introduction chronology. Most recently, Melis (2013) has collated published determinations for the fourth and third mil- The earliest metallurgy in Sardinia has been the subject lennia cal BC, but unfortunately she follows a restrictive of a number of syntheses (e.g. in particular: Lo Schiavo, criterion suggested by Martinelli and Valzogher (2011, 1989; Usai, 2005a). As we shall see, although the island p.37) and does not report all those dates with a stand- is rich in ores, evidence for early metallurgy and metal- ard deviation greater than ±100 years, an arbitrary cut- work is relatively rare in the archaeological record, in- off which she applies as a ‘chronometric hygiene pro- deed they do not become widespread until the Bronze tocol’ (sensu Spriggs, 1989). In her paper, Melis (2013, Age. Much of our archaeological evidence for the later fig.2) suggests that the classic Ozieri phase (which she Neolithic and Copper Age comes from multiple burials calls Ozieri 1) should be dated to around 4000-3400 cal in rock-cut tombs, which are locally known as domus BC, and sub-Ozieri (her Ozieri 2) to around 3600-2800 de janas, and in megalithic tombs and cairns, so that cal BC; in the north of the island, Ozieri is followed by it has been difficult for archaeologists to work out the the Filigosa (about 3000-2400 cal BC) and Abealzu (c. material culture sequence. Tombs with multiple burials 2600-2200 cal BC) phases, in the south the Monte Claro were regularly used into the Bronze Age, with previous phase appears around 2900 cal BC, lasting until around interments being cleared out or moved to make room 2100 cal BC. There are no radiocarbon dates for Monte for new burials and their grave goods, so that it is often Claro contexts in the north of the island (Melis, 2013, difficult to be sure about the chronological relationships p.205), where it appears later. While much of this gen- among the material found in these tombs, and indeed eral scheme appears acceptable on present evidence, it their contents may only date to the final period of their should be noted that there are in fact fifth millennium cal use (Tanda, 2009, pp.67-68). Maria Grazia Melis (2000) BC dates for contexts described as Ozieri from Grotta di has proposed a ceramic chrono-typology using a table Filiestru (Mara SS) and Contraguda (Perfugas SS) (Table of associations, which is helpful since many of the sites 1 and Figure 1), which Melis ignores in her 2013 publica- Metalla Nr. 23.2 / 2017, 91–111 91 Figure 1. Fifth millennium cal BC radiocarbon dates for the classic Ozieri phase (calibrated with OxCal ver.4.3.2: Bronk Ramsey, 2009; Reimer, et al., 2013). Source: Costaguda (Perfugas SS) – Boschian, et al., 2001, p.256; Grotta di Filiestru (Mara SS) – Switsur and Trump, 1983, p.460; Trump, 1983, tab. 9. quarter of the fifth millennium cal BC. Table 2 summa- tion. In an earlier paper, Melis, et al. (2007, p.191; tab.II) rises the chronological framework that I am therefore did take these earlier dates into consideration and dated adopting in this paper. the beginning of the Ozieri phase to around 4300 cal BC, In this paper, in line with my usual practice, I re- though noting the presence of material with affinities port the commune and province for all sites mentioned with the San Ciriaco phase, which precedes Ozieri, in (Pearce, 2007, p.109); this convention allows those un- the layer at Contraguda with the earliest date (layer 4 – familiar with the geography of the island to locate them OZC-966: 5243±47, 4358-4075 cal BC; Boschian, et al., easily. I have chosen to use the traditional division of 2001, pp.256, 272, 285). It should be stressed, however, Sardinia into four provinces (Sassari, Nuoro, Oristano that the excavators themselves believe that Contraguda and Cagliari, abbreviated as SS, NU, OR and CA) rather begins in an initial moment of the Ozieri phase (Boschi- than the eight provinces into which the island was briefly an, et al., 2001, pp.272, 285). Although the samples from divided between 2005 and 2016, when the new provinces Contraguda are charcoal, and the exact cultural affinities of Olbia-Tempio, Medio Campidano, Ogliastra and Car- of the context of the earliest date from Contraguda can bonia-Iglesias were in existence, or the 2016 administra- only be verified when the site is fully published, on the tive division into Sassari, Nuoro, Oristano, Sud Sardegna basis of the dates from Contraguda and Grotta di Fil- and the Area metropolitana di Cagliari, as the traditional iestru (Table 1 and Figure 1) it seems most likely that division is that most common in the archaeological liter- the Ozieri phase does in fact begin no later than the last Table 1. Fifth millennium cal BC radiocarbon dates for the classic Ozieri phase (calibrated with OxCal ver.4.3.2: Bronk Ramsey, 2009; Reimer, et al., 2013). Source: Costaguda (Perfugas SS) – Boschian, et al., 2001, p.256; Grotta di Filiestru (Mara SS) – Switsur and Trump, 1983, p.460; Trump, 1983, tab. 9. Site Context Laboratory code Determination bp cal BC (95.4% probability) Contraguda Area 4, q.L12, layer 4, spit 12 OZC-966 5423±47 4358-4075 Contraguda Area 3, q.V16, structure 200 OZC-965 5369±51 4332-4054 Area 19, q.FF2, structure Contraguda GrA-13478 5310±40 4258-4001 1901, layer B1 Filiestru Trench B, layer 7 Q-3027 5250±60 4237-3963 92 Metalla Nr. 23.2 / 2017, 91–111 Table 2. Chronological framework for the earliest phases of metal use and working in Sardinia Ozieri c. 4200-3400 cal BC Sub-Ozieri c. 3600-2800 cal BC Filigosa c. 3000-2400 cal BC Abealzu c. 2600-2200 cal BC Monte Claro c. 2900-2100 cal BC ature, and it allows the reader to understand the rough geographical location of sites mentioned, Sassari corre- sponding to the north, Oristano the centre-west, Nuoro the centre-east and Cagliari the south of the island. A useful outline of the mineral resources of the is- land is given by Valera and Valera (2005) and by Valera, Valera and Rivoldini (2005), which are revisions of ear- lier papers (Valera and Valera, 2003; Valera, Valera and Rivoldini, 2003). Briefer syntheses are also provided by Arca and Tuveri (1993) and Giardino (1995, pp.140- 150; 308-309). When reading modern ore geologies, it must be borne in mind that they often concentrate on outcrops considered to be of present-day economic in- terest and that deep mineralisations might not have been detectable or easily accessible in prehistoric times. Small Figure 2. Ore resources in Sardinia. Open circles: lead and sil- outcrops of easily winnable ore are likely to have been ver, closed circles: copper. 1. Argentiera (Sassari SS); 2. Cala- bona (Alghero SS); 3. Val Barisone (Torpé NU); 4. Sos Enattos much more important in the past than they are in today’s and Guzzurra (Lula NU); 5. Correboi (Villagrande Strisaili economic conditions (Pearce, 2007, p.54). NU); 6. Funtana Raminosa (Gadoni NU); 7. Montevecchio The most important metal resources available in Sar- (Guspini CA); 8. Monte Nieddu (Esterzili and Orroli NU); 9. dinia (Figure 2) are its outcrops of argentiferous lead ore, Talentino (Tertenia NU); 10. Monteponi (Iglesias CA); 11. Sa Duchessa (Domusnovas CA); 12. Baccu Locci (Villaputzu CA); found in particular in the Iglesiente in the south west: 13. Rosas, Sa Marchesa and Barisonis (Narcao CA). the Cambrian ‘Metalliferous Ring’ focused on Monte- poni (Iglesias CA) (Valera and Valera, 2005, p.38; Valera, Valera and Rivoldini, 2005, pp.60, 85). The other main outcrops of lead and hence silver are found at Montevec- In considering the source of the silver found in the chio (Guspini CA) in the south west, at Baccu Locci (Vil- archaeological record from the earliest phases of met- laputzu CA) and the ‘Sarrabus silver lode’ in the south allurgy in Sardinia onwards, it is worth thinking about east (though this latter may not have been easily accessi- the nature of a galena (PbS) ore body: as we have seen, ble at the surface), at Correboi (Villagrande Strisaili NU) lead ores predominate in Sardinia (Valera and Valera in the Barbagia, at Sos Enattos and perhaps Guzzurra 2005, p.38).