UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date:______

I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:

It is entitled:

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: ______

The Role of Malta in Prehistoric Mediterranean Exchange Networks

A thesis submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences

2007

by Natalie Abell B.A., Indiana University, 2003

Committee: Jack L. Davis, Chair Gisela Walberg

ABSTRACT

The Maltese archipelago, made up of five small islands, is located almost exactly in the middle of the Mediterranean. From the Phoenician period to the modern day, Malta, because of its central location and excellent harbors, has been integral to pan-Mediterranean exchange, communication, and military endeavors. However, the earliest long-distance Mediterranean trade networks between east and west barely reached these islands. This thesis investigates long- term trends in prehistoric Maltese exchange networks in order to illuminate how and why the

Maltese did not participate more actively in early exchange networks. It also explores the nature of Bronze Age exchange networks between the eastern and central Mediterranean from the often overlooked perspective of the periphery.

i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I offer many thanks to Jack Davis for his guidance and input throughout my thesis-writing experience, and to Gisela Walberg for her comments and encouragement. I am indebted to

Reuben Grima, Katya Stroud, and the staff of Heritage Malta and the National Museum of

Archaeology in Valletta, who welcomed me without hesitation, and who went above and beyond the call of duty to assist me. Many thanks are also due to Anthony Pace and Anthony Bonanno for sharing their research and thoughts with me.

I am grateful to the Department of Classics, whose generous financial support enabled me to complete this project, and to the English Speaking Union of Cincinnati, whose summer travel fellowship allowed me to visit Malta for the first time. The assistance of the staff of the Classics

Library has also been invaluable in helping me to complete this research.

For their unwavering support, I thank my parents, my siblings, and Scott.

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract i

Acknowledgements ii

List of Figures iv

Preface vii

Introduction 1

Chapter 1. Malta in a Mediterranean Context: Early Views 4

Chapter 2. Chronology 29

Chapter 3. Evidence for Maltese Exchange Networks 63

Chapter 4. The Central Mediterranean and the Aegean 92

Chapter 5. The Role of Malta in Prehistoric Mediterranean Exchange Networks: A Reconsideration 116

Figures 134

Bibliography 182

iii LIST OF FIGURES

1. The Mediterranean.

2. Major prehistoric sites of Malta.

3. Plan of Trump’s excavations at Barija (Trump 1961, 257, figure 4).

4. Plan of Neolithic temple at Bor in-Nadur (Trump 2002, 140).

5. Plan of Bronze Age remains at Bor in-Nadur (Trump 2002, 288).

6. Plan of gantija (Trump 2002, 171).

7. Plan of aar Qim (Trump 2002, 143).

8. Porthole doorway to southwestern apse at aar Qim.

9. Female figures from aar Qim (Pace 2004b, 124-5).

10. Plan of al Saflieni Hypogeum by Nicola Vassallo in 1907, immediately after excavation by Father Emmanuel Magri (Pace 2004c, 6).

11. The “Sleeping Lady” from the al Saflieni Hypogeum. Length, 11.7 cm (Trump 2002, 100).

12. Carved facade within the al Saflieni Hypogeum (Trump 2002, 131).

13. Plan of Mnajdra (Trump 2002, 149).

14. Temple Period remains and the Red Skorba Shrine at Skorba (Trump 2002, 157).

15. Plan of Ta’ arat (Trump 2002, 154).

16. Plan of Ta’ ammut (Evans 1956b, 86, figure 1).

17. Plan of Tarxien (Trump 2002, 121).

18. Southeastern apse of Tarxien South, showing replica of animal relief in front and replica of colossal female figure at the back (Pace 2004b, 54).

19. Altar with hollow, hidden by a stone plug carved in spiral relief (Trump 2002, 123).

20. Location of Bronze Age cremation cemetery at Tarxien (Trump 2002, 287).

21. Plan of excavated area at Tas-Sil (Bonanno and Frendo 2000, 72, figure 2).

iv

22. Plan of Xag ra Circle (Stoddart et. al. 1993, 8, figure 3).

23. Plan of tombs at ebbu (Baldacchino and Evans 1954, 3, 5, figures 2 and 3).

24. “Statue-menhir” from ebbu tomb 5, three views (Baldacchino and Evans 1954, plate III).

25. Houel’s engraving of aar Qim (Grima 2004, 15).

26. Brochtorff’s representation of Xag ra Circle (Grima 2004, 93).

27. Plans of Kordin I (left) and II (right) by Caruana (Caruana 1896b, 29, 31).

28. Snake pillar from gantija (Trump 2002, 115).

29. Drawing by Charles Zammit of the stratigraphy of Tarxien on the basis of Themistocles Zammit’s excavation notes (Trump 2004, 233).

30. Plan of Kordin III (Trump 2002, 136).

31. Maltese chronological schemes, before radiocarbon dates were available (Caruana 1882; 1886; 1896b; Evans 1953; 1959; Zammit 1930; 1995).

32. Capo Graziano phase vessels (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980, plate CXXIV, numbers 3-4, plate CXXXI, number 1).

33. Tarxien Cemetery (above left, Evans 1959, plates 88-90), Moarda (above right, Bernabò Brea 1966, plates 26 and 27), and Castelluccio phase wares (below, Bernabò Brea 1966b, plates 29- 29, 38-40).

34. Bor in-Nadur phase vessels and Ba rija phase vessels (Trump 2004, 267).

35. Two tilted figurine heads from al Saflieni Hypogeum, actual size (Evans 1959, 141, figure 21).

36. Prehistoric Maltese cultural phases, with suggested absolute dates.

37. G ar Dalam phase pottery shapes (Trump 1966, 21, figure 18) and typical fragments (Trump 2004, 252).

38. Examples of Stentinello phase pottery (Bernabò Brea 1966, 41, figure 4, plates 6-9).

39. Animal protomes from Sicily (left, Bernabò Brea 1966, plate 10) and Malta (right).

40. Grey Skorba phase shapes (Trump 1966, 27, figure 23) and fragments (Trump 2004, 252). 41. Red Skorba phase shapes (Trump 1966, 30, figure 27) and vessels (Trump 2004, 253).

v

42. ebbu phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 33) and vessels (Trump 2004, 255).

43. Marr phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 34) and vessels (Trump 2004, 256).

44. gantija phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 35) and vessels (Trump 2004, 257).

45. Saflieni phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 36) and vessels (Trump 2004, 259).

46. Tarxien phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 37) and vessels (Trump 2004, 260-1).

47. Tarxien Cemetery phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 39) and vessels (Trump 2004, 266).

48. Plan of Cairn I at Wied Moqbol (Evans 1956b, 87, figure 2).

49. Bor in-Nadur phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 40).

50. Barija phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 41).

51. Radiocarbon data for Maltese prehistory.

52. Comparative general chronology of Malta, Sicily and the Aeolian islands (Leighton 1996; 1999), and the Aegean (Cullen 2001).

53. Imported Trefontane sherds (Trump 2004, 246).

54. Bossed bone plaque from Malta (Pace 2004b, 71).

55. “Thermi ware” pedestal bowl from Tarxien (Pace 2004b, 212).

56. Stone bead, Tarxien ware sherd, and stone pendant with symbol (Evans 1959, plate 84).

57. Plan of Otranto area dolmens. A: Quattromacine; B: Scusi; C: Gurgulante; D: Placa (Whitehouse 1967, 353).

58. Mycenaean sherd from Bor in-Nadur (Trump 2002, 212).

59. Fortification wall at Bor in-Nadur. The smaller stones are a result of modern restoration.

60. The central Mediterranean.

vi PREFACE

GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY1

The Maltese archipelago consists of five islands. Two of the islands have been inhabited since

the Neolithic – Malta and Gozo. Malta, the larger of the two islands, gives its name to the entire

archipelago, and is separated from Gozo by a stretch of water approximately five km wide.

Malta is located approximately 90 km south of Sicily, approximately 290 km east of Tunisia, and

approximately 350 km north of Libya (Figure 1). The total landmass of the islands is about 316

km2 (Figure 2). The islands of Malta are rather hilly, but do not contain any true mountains. The

islands tilt from the southeast, where the altitude is scarcely one meter above sea level, to the

northwest. The highest point on Malta is the Rabat plateau, which reaches 253 meters above sea

level, while the highest point on Gozo, on the Ta’ Dbiei plateau, is approximately 200 meters

above sea level. Both islands contain several harbors, although much of the coast is rocky.

The islands are made up of five major geologic layers, which all appear to have been formed in

the Miocene. The bottom layer is lower coralline limestone which formed through coral

deposits. Above this is globigerina limestone, which is deposited under a layer of blue clay. The blue clay is under a layer of greensand, which is under a layer of upper coralline limestone. The thickness and exposure of these layers varies across the islands. Because much of the island is made of limestone, there are many natural caves, most of which are small. Both upper coralline limestone and globigerina limestone have been exploited as building material since the Neolithic.

1 Ashby et. al. 1913; Borg 2004; Evans 1971, 1-3; Grima 2004; Trump 2000.

vii PRONOUNCIATION GUIDE

Sites in this text will be referenced by their Maltese names. Some of the Maltese consonants are

unfamiliar to English-speakers, so I include here a brief pronunciation guide. Syllables which

have been marked in boldface type in the examples are stressed.

-j- = ‘y,’ like ‘yes’ or ‘aye.’ For example, Mnajdra = ‘muhn-aye-druh.’

-- = ‘tch,’ like ‘church’ or ‘porch.’ For example, Ta awla = ‘tah tchow-lah.’

-g- = hard ‘g,’ like ‘guff’ or ‘gravy.’

-- = soft ‘zh,’ like ‘giant’ or ‘jot.’ For example, gantija = ‘zhi-gan-tee-yuh.’

-g- = unpronounced. For example, G ar Dalam = ‘ar dal-am.’

-h- = unpronounced.

-- = aspirated ‘h,’ like hot or hollow. For example, Ta a rat = ‘tah hazh-rat.’

-q- = glottal stop, like between syllables in ‘uh-uh.’ For example, a ar Qim = ‘hazh-ar eem.’

-x- = ‘sh,’ like ‘hush’ or ‘sham.’ For example, Tarxien = ‘tar-sheen.’

-z- = ‘ts,’ like ‘tsar’ or ‘bits.’ For example, Kun izzioni = ‘koon-tchi-tsee-oh-nee.’

-- = ‘z,’ like ‘zoo’ or ‘zany.’ For example, ebbu = ‘zeh-boozh.’

viii KEY MALTESE SITES2

Barija

The latest phase of the Bronze Age is named for Barija,3 the only excavated site of that phase.

The site was excavated by T. Eric Peet in 1909 and by Trump in 1959. While rich ceramic

deposits were discovered, neither project uncovered much architecture besides traces of torba

flooring and a gray layer made up of disintegrated wattle and daub as well as clay bricks (Figure

3). The site, near the southwest coast of Malta, is located on a steep plateau and is only easily

accessible via a neck of rock to the south. No trace of a defensive wall remains, but it has been

postulated that a wall like the one at Bor in-Nadur once was built across this access point.

Many sherds of both the Bor in-Nadur and Barija phases were found across the plateau; this may suggest that, like Bor in-Nadur, Barija was the site of a large village. About 40 rock-cut bell-shaped cavities dug into the bedrock were discovered at the site; these may have served as water cisterns or grain storage areas. Standing megaliths at two points on the site might suggest that it was occupied during the Neolithic as well as the Bronze Age; this hypothesis has never been tested through excavation.

Bor in-Nadur

As the best-known site of the middle Bronze Age, Bor in-Nadur4 is also the name for that

phase. The site, near the temples of Tas-Sil and Xrobb il-Gain, is located in the southeastern

2 References in this section are to key summaries of the sites. Primary publications are referred to as appropriate in subsequent chapters.

3 Evans 1971, 105-7; Trump 1961; 2002, 290-1.

4 Evans 1971, 6-18; Pace 2004b, 105-7; Trump 1961; 2002, 140-1, 288-9.

ix corner of Malta. Built on a flat-topped spur overlooking St. George’s Bay, the site has been recognized as ancient for centuries. The Bronze Age fortification wall has been visible since at least the 17th century, when it was mentioned by travelers like Giovanfrancesco Abela, Count

Giovanni Anton Ciantar, and Jean Houel. Antonio Annetto Caruana excavated some parts of the site in 1881 and Margaret Murray cleared most of a Neolithic temple there in the 1920s (Figure

4). In 1959, Trump excavated two Bronze Age huts near the fortification wall (Figure 5). The badly preserved Neolithic temple was built on the lower part of the plateau. The plan was unusual for Neolithic temples – a four-apsed structure opened onto a large ovoid court bounded by a megalithic wall. The Neolithic floor deposits had been heavily disturbed by middle Bronze

Age use deposits, but the frequency of advanced Tarxien phase pottery suggested that the megalithic structure had been built late in the Temple Period. A structure to the east of the ovoid court is not connected to the main temple. Although difficult to interpret due to bad preservation, the ruin seems to consist of two curved chambers and an external surrounding wall.

While only a few fragments of early Bronze Age Tarxien Cemetery phase pottery were found at

Bor in-Nadur, the large quantity of middle Bronze Age pottery, including one Mycenaean sherd, suggested that the site had been heavily reused during that phase. The remains of a large fortification wall and a D-shaped bastion extend around the northeastern area of the site. Pottery of this phase was scattered across the whole plateau, which might suggest the existence of a large village site. However, only a few huts have been excavated. These were built with ovoid stone foundations and mudbrick superstructures. They had crushed limestone torba floors and open hearths. Stratigraphy within the huts showed some stratigraphical overlap between Tarxien

Cemetery phase pottery and the earliest type of Bronze Age Bor in-Nadur phase pottery.

x gantija

The large gantija5 temple complex is located in central Gozo, near both the Santa Verna temple

and the burial facility at Xagra Circle. The first mention of the site was by Giovanfrancesco

Abela in 1647, and excavations were first initiated in 1827 by the governor of Gozo, John Otto

Bayer. Few objects were preserved, and no publication of the results was attempted. Many

descriptions and drawings of the site exist from the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, but

systematic excavations of the site did not begin again until John D. Evans’ small-scale project

there in 1954.

The site consists of a larger five-apsed temple to the south and a smaller four-apsed temple with

a rear niche to the north (Figure 6). The two temples are structurally independent from each

other. Both are enclosed with an exterior wall, and are entered from a common open court area.

The court area, a man-made raised platform, was constructed after the temples had been built,

during the Tarxien phase. The southern temple was constructed early in the phase named after

this site – the first in which Maltese megalithic temples were built. Fallen fragments of plaster

painted with red ocher, probably from the walls, were found in the temple. The northern temple,

also constructed in the gantija phase, contained fewer decorated megaliths than the southern temple. A cave 50 m to the north of the temples contained many smashed Tarxien phase bowls

that were perhaps once used within the temples, since no neighboring settlement is known.

5 Evans 1971, 172-85; Pace 2004b, 168-83; Trump 2002, 170-5.

xi Gar Dalam

Gar Dalam6 is a limestone cave located in the southeastern quadrant of Malta, near Marsaxlokk

Bay. It was excavated in 1865 and 1892, with continuing excavations throughout much of the

20th century. The site contains well-stratified deposits of Pleistocene animals, including pygmy elephants and hippopotami, deer, and small mammals. The upper layers contain mixed deposits of Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Phoenician pottery, as well as modern refuse. It was the first site at which the earliest Neolithic pottery, subsequently named after the site, was found.

aar Qim

Located on the southern coast of Malta, aar Qim7 and neighboring Mnajdra were subject to

some of the earliest archaeological investigations in Malta, during 1839 and 1840. Excavations

continued under Themistocles Zammit’s direction in the early 20th century, and additional test

trenches were dug throughout the late 20th century. Some of the large upright megalithic stones

of aar Qim have been visible since at least the late 18th century, when they were drawn by

Jean Houel. The site had an unusual plan and apparently consisted of only one temple unit

(Figure 7). The temple complex is walled by upright megaliths, and is entered from a large

forecourt. The main doorway faces southeast onto the forecourt, but additional doors give access

to the temple from the south, west, and northwest. The main temple resembles one of the four-

apse type, although a doorway has been added at the back where a niche might be expected. The

northwestern apse is more corridor than apse, giving access to several other ovoid rooms within

the exterior temple wall. The two southern apses are entered through porthole doorways (Figure

8), and the northeastern apse is blocked by a low wall. A niche was built into the eastern facade

6 Evans 1971, 18-21.

7 Evans 1971, 80-95; Pace 2004b, 111-25; Trump 2002, 142-147.

xii wall, and has been interpreted as a shrine. The northwestern corridor gives access to a southern

room which has a niche and an apse, and was entered through a small flight of stairs. Under the

flight of stairs a cache of statues of seated female figures was found by the Museum Department

during restoration of areas of the site (Figure 9). These were similar to the great number of female figurines that had been found during previous excavations. The northwestern corridor also allows access to two oval chambers in the west that have external doorways. The northern oval chamber opens into another two-apsed room with a niche at the back. The temple was

probably built during the gantija phase, although its plan seems to have undergone alteration

over time. Thirty meters to the north of the main temple lie the remains of a badly preserved

five-apse temple. The floor levels of this temple suggest that it too was constructed during the

Tarxien phase. A small building to the southeast has an unusual plan, but its function is

unknown. Postholes around the site indicate that additional structures built of wood may once

have stood nearby.

al Saflieni Hypogeum

The al Saflieni Hypogeum8 is located in northeastern Malta, in the area of Paola. It is a three-

level underground burial facility carved from the living rock by the Neolithic inhabitants of

Malta (Figure 10). The chambers appear to have first been used in the ebbu period and

continued in use until the Tarxien phase. Most of the pottery dates to the Tarxien phase, which

suggests that the later phase of use of the site is contemporary with the development of the

neighboring temple site of Tarxien. The majority of the site was excavated by Father Emmanuel

Magri in 1906, with additional work carried out by Zammit in 1907-1911 and the Museums

Department in the early 1990s. In addition to pottery sherds, excavation revealed personal

8 Evans 1971, 44-67; Pace 2000; 2004b, 76-92; 2004c; Trump 2002, 128-135; Zammit 1935.

xiii ornaments like beads and amulets, sometimes in the shape of miniature greenstone axes. Other finds included clay, shell, and stone figurines of animals and birds, as well as larger anthropomorphic figurines, including the “Sleeping Lady” (Figure 11). In addition to small oval chambers that were presumably used for burial, some larger chambers may have served a communal and/or ritual purpose. The walls of some chambers are painted with red, black, and white details. Others have been carved out to resemble the architectural features of the megalithic temples, with curving facades, corbelled roofs, and doorways in the shape of a temple trilithon entrance (Figure 12).

Mnajdra

The Mnajdra temple complex9 lies about 500 m west of aar Qim. The site was first excavated in 1840, with additional excavations in 1913 and 1954. The complex is made up of three temple units arranged around a semi-circular courtyard (Figure 13). A bench runs along the facade of the southwestern temple. The two large western temples are structurally interdependent – the platform on which the northern temple rests is supported by the external wall of the southern temple. The small trefoil eastern temple is structurally independent. To the east and north of the small trefoil temple are the remains of additional structures, although their function and chronology are unknown. The small eastern temple was probably constructed in the gantija phase. Its simple trefoil shape and an abundance of gantija phase pottery suggest that it is the earliest temple on the site. The southwestern temple may have been constructed in that phase as well, but a large amount of Tarxien phase pottery was also found within it. The northwestern temple seems to have been the last building constructed at the site, probably during the Tarxien

9 Evans 1971, 95-104; Pace 2004b, 127-41; Trump 2002, 148-51.

xiv phase. Fragments of ebbu and Marr phase pottery found at the site may suggest that, like

Skorba, the temples were constructed in or near an existing settlement. Both stone and clay figurines were found in the temples. Those figurines that could be identified as representing a specific gender were female.

Skorba

Within a short distance of Ta arat lies the badly preserved Skorba temple (Figure 14).10 The site was excavated by David Trump from 1961 to 1963. Trump’s excavation provided much new information about both the Temple Period and earlier phases of Maltese prehistory, because the project sought types of data that had not been collected during the excavation of other temple sites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Skorba was first settled during the G ar Dalam phase, which is represented on the site by scattered pottery, a wall, and a small hut. Careful examination of the pottery sequence revealed two phases of Neolithic pottery that had not been recognized at other sites – Grey Skorba and Red Skorba. Grey Skorba phase pottery could only be associated with one wall. A group of two, unconnected rooms and a stone-paved courtyard belonged to the Red Skorba phase. Finds of goat skulls and terracotta figurines within the two rooms, as well as the lack of hearths or doorways, suggested that this area might have been used for ritual – the rooms are now called the Red Skorba Shrine. Floors of huts belonging to the

ebbu, Marr, and gantija phases were also discovered. One hut of the gantija phase, the

Hut of the Querns, contained 11 querns of local coralline limestone. During the gantija phase, a trefoil temple was constructed over earlier village remains. Later, a second temple, abutting the first, was built to the east. The second temple was built with four apses arranged around a

10 Evans 1971, 36-9; Pace 2004b, 153-6; Trump 1966; 2002, 58-9, 156-9.

xv central corridor which led back from the entrance to a niche at the rear of the temple. During the

Tarxien Cemetery phase and after the temples had gone out of use, the western temple was reused as a habitation site.

Ta’ arat

The small temples of Ta arat, also called Marr, were excavated by Zammit in 1925 (Figure

15).11 Both Evans and Trump excavated additional test pits here in the 1950s and 1960s. There are two temples, neither of which employed monumental decorated blocks. The dating of the temples has been much debated, although neither appears to have been constructed before the

gantija phase. The four-lobed western temple, on the basis of both its style of architecture and the type of pottery discovered within it, is probably the older of the two temples. When the larger, trefoil, eastern temple was constructed, probably during the Tarxien phase, the eastern lobe was left open to allow access to the western temple. Many sherds of Neolithic pottery from pre-Temple Period phases were found beneath the temples, a fact which could suggest that this temple, like its neighbor Skorba, was constructed above an earlier settlement. Among the finds within the temples were a clay cow figurine, three small stone cones or phalli, and a small limestone temple model.

Ta’ ammut

One dolmen at Ta’ ammut12 on the northeast coast of Malta was excavated by Evans in 1955.

It was the first dolmen excavated on Malta that contained a pure cultural deposit. The pottery found within the dolmen all dated to the Tarxien Cemetery phase of the early Bronze Age. The

11 Evans 1971, 29-35; Pace 2004b, 149-52; Trump 2002, 154-5; Zammit 1930b.

12 Evans 1956b; 1971, 194-5.

xvi dolmen is made up of several rough slabs and boulders set up in a rough circle (Figure 16). The

slabs were covered by a large capstone that was held around 60 cm above bedrock. The bedrock

had been hollowed out to create a shallow pit below the capstone. The absence of bones and the

small size of the chamber might suggest that this structure was used for a cremation burial. The

dolmen was part of a group of at least two, and perhaps seven, others.

Tarxien

Tarxien,13 located near the
al Saflieni Hypogeum in northeastern Malta, was excavated by

Themistocles Zammit from 1915 to 1919. Small scale excavations to clarify chronology of the site were undertaken by Thomas Ashby in 1929, Evans in 1954, Trump in 1958, and the

Museums Department in 1997 and 2001. Tarxien is the most elaborate and highly decorated

temple site yet known on Malta. The site is home to a complex of four temples and several

smaller buildings. All of the buildings date to the last phase of the Temple Period, called the

Tarxien phase after this site (Figure 17). The four temples are named Tarxien South, Tarxien

Central, Tarxien East and Tarxien Far East. Tarxien South was surrounded by a U-shaped

enclosure wall; an incurving façade wall on either side of the trilithon doorway closed off the

open end of the U. This temple probably originally had four apses and a niche at the back. In a

later phase, the northeastern apse was modified to allow access to Tarxien Central. A colossal

female statue that probably originally stood over two meters high (Figure 18), as well as an altar

and several elaborately carved low-lying stones, were found in the southeastern apse. The altar had been hollowed out, perhaps for ritual purposes. The hollow contained sheep, ox, and other animal bones, marine shells, a bone spatula, thirteen flint knives, and pottery fragments. These

13 Evans 1971, 116-49; Pace 2004b, 46-75; Trump 2002, 121-7; Zammit 1930a.

xvii were sealed inside the altar by a stone plug decorated in relief spirals identical to those along the

front of the altar (Figure 19).

In addition to the entrance from Tarxien South, Tarxien Central was accessible from doorways in both its southwestern and southeastern apses, and connected with Tarxien East. Tarxien Central

is the only six-apsed temple known on Malta. A chamber to the right of the main entrance of

Tarxien Central contained large relief carvings of bulls and a sow with piglets, while a chamber

to the left of that entrance contained many animal bones and horn cores. A hearth was built

between the two southernmost apses, while a second hearth was constructed between the second pair of apses (as one walks northward from the entrance). Tarxien East appears to have been a typical five-apse temple, but the northwestern apse was destroyed by a Roman cellar. This temple was accessible from the southeastern-most apse of Tarxien Central, as well as through an

entrance on the forecourt. A square court separates Tarxien East from Tarxien Far East. Tarxien

Far East was probably also a five-apse temple, although it is smaller than the other temples in the complex and very badly preserved. gantija phase sherds in the area may point to a construction date during an earlier phase of the Temple period than the other temples on site.

Tarxien Cemetery

In the course of his excavations at Tarxien, Zammit discovered a level of Bronze Age funerary

remains14 over much of Tarxien South and the entranceway to Tarxien Central (Figure 20). The

Tarxien Cemetery levels, which contained pottery from the early Bronze Age, were gray and

ashy. Although Zammit described it as a homogenous deposit, his notebooks suggest that the

14 Evans 1971, 149-66; Pace 2004b, 68-71; Trump 2002, 245-52; Zammit 1930a.

xviii cemetery was made up of several different burial spots. The cemetery deposit was separated from the floor of the temple by a sterile layer of soil which did not appear in other areas of the site. Zammit interpreted this layer of soil as accumulation after a long abandonment of the site.

However, it could also have been a surface put down to prepare the site for burials by the Bronze

Age inhabitants of the area. Some of the hollows that contained burials might have been provided with floors. At least one hundred large cremation jars were identified in the pottery fragments. The jars were filled with the burnt bones and ashes of the deceased. Other objects buried with the dead included clay anthropomorphic figurines; clay discoid figurines; stone, shell, clay, and faience beads; bronze awls; pumice; copper axes and daggers; small, elaborately decorated vessels; and the burnt remains of wheat, beans, and peas.

Tas-Sil

Tas-Sil15 is primarily known for the Phoenician temple that was found there. The Phoenician temple was built on top of a megalithic temple, of which lower courses of one apse are still preserved (Figure 21). Prehistoric remains found at the site include pottery from the Neolithic and Bronze Age, as well as a fragment of an anthropomorphic statue. A fragment of a

Mycenaean vessel was also found at this site, although its authenticity is disputed.16

15 Pace 2004b, 101; Trump 2002, 138-9.

16 Blakolmer 2005, 658.

xix Xagra Circle

Located near gantija, Xagra Circle17 is an underground burial facility that consists partially of

natural caves and partially of carved-out chambers like those of the Hypogeum (Figure 22). It

was partially cleared by Bayer in 1824, and was the subject of several of Charles Frederick de

Brochtorff’s watercolors, which depict the site immediately after excavation. Work at the site

was resumed in 1987 through a joint project of the Universities of Bristol, Cambridge, and

Malta. Excavation has shown that the site was first used for burial in the ebbu phase, and

continued in use throughout the Saflieni and gantija phases. Monumental elements, including

the circle of megaliths, were added in the Tarxien phase. The central part of the site collapsed

during the Tarxien phase, and probably became a habitation site during the Tarxien Cemetery

phase. Although the final report is not yet published, the excavation at Xagra Circle will offer

for the first time vital information on burial customs during the Temple Period and early Bronze

Age, as well as data on the health and size of a prehistoric Maltese population.

ebbu

A group of five rock-cut tombs were excavated at ebbu18 in 1947 by John G. Baldacchino and

Charles Zammit. It was the first site at which one type of pottery, later designated as the earliest

type of the Temple Period, was found. This phase was named after the site.

The ebbu tombs consisted of cavities cut into bedrock (Figure 23). Floors were paved with roughly worked slabs. Most tombs contained pottery including jars, cups, and bowls, while

17 Bonanno et. al. 1990; Malone et. al. 1995; Pace 2004b, 184-95; Stoddart et. al. 1993.

18 Baldacchino and Evans 1954; Evans 1971, 166-9.

xx some also contained beads, shells, ocher, and stone tools (mainly blades). Tomb 5 also contained a “statue-menhir,” a stylized human head carved from a flat piece of local globigerina limestone (Figure 24).

xxi INTRODUCTION

The geographic centrality of Malta in the Mediterranean, a body of water in which seafaring has

been practiced since the Paleolithic,19 could suggest that Malta was a good potential candidate

for a leading role within early maritime trade networks. It is sufficiently near to Sicily to be

reached within two days of sailing,20 and was an important stop on Phoenician trade routes by the 7th century B.C.21 Indeed, Malta has been seen as a strategic location for pan-Mediterranean

trade and military endeavors for much of the historic period.22 During the Neolithic and Bronze

Age, however, archaeological evidence points to a much different reality, one in which Malta existed on the outer edges of both local and long-distance trade and communication within the central Mediterranean. An exploration of reasons for the peripherality of Malta in central

Mediterranean trade networks illuminates not only purely Maltese phenomena, but also provides insight into the nature of east-west trade networks from an often overlooked perspective – the fringe.

Although current evidence suggests that Malta was peripheral to exchange networks of the prehistoric Mediterranean, its central location and unique architecture have inspired a number of studies that have attempted to relate its people to cultures in other areas of the Mediterranean.

Many early scholars of Aegean prehistory, like Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann, were convinced that there was a relationship between Aegean people and the Maltese. Most often,

19 Broodbank 2000, 110-7; Cherry 1990, 193.

20 Based on a 40-50 km daily range for longboats, as suggested by Broodbank (2000, table 3). Malta cannot, however, be seen from neighboring landmasses, although the peak of Mount Etna is visible from Malta.

21 Bonanno 2005.

22 Gambin 2004; Trump 2000, 23-5; Zammit 1929.

1 this relationship was reconstructed through diffusionist frameworks, which ascribed the

megalithic culture of Malta to the people and ideas of the east, particularly the Aegean.

However, many theories of Maltese interaction with far-away people were proved impossible by

the radiocarbon revolution of the mid-20th century. The temples were shown to predate by over

1000 years the Late Helladic culture that was supposed to have inspired them. New studies of the interaction between east and west were focused not on Malta, but on Italy, where datable eastern ceramics were found in great numbers. On the other hand, research on Malta began to emphasize the isolation of the archipelago, especially during the Temple Period. Studies of the

Maltese Bronze Age, although rare, began to emphasize the possibility of Aegean inspiration for certain artistic and architectural styles of this period.

This study addresses the old question of the role of Malta in prehistoric exchange networks in a new way. Evidence for Maltese trade in all periods is discussed, in order to identify long-term trends in Maltese exchange networks. The data is evaluated and synthesized to suggest that

Malta was a peripheral player in central Mediterranean exchange throughout most of prehistory, and that definitive evidence for direct Mycenaean contact with the Maltese is almost entirely nonexistent. Potential reasons for the marginal status of the archipelago are offered, with emphases on the effects of the physical and geographical situation of this particular island environment, on the choices of the Maltese themselves, and on the nature and scale of the east- west trade network.

Chapter 1 summarizes the history of scholarship on prehistoric Malta and how early studies worked within diffusionist frameworks. Chapter 2 elaborates on the currently accepted relative

2 and absolute chronologies of the islands, and compares Maltese dates and cultures with those of neighboring areas. Chapter 3 summarizes the evidence for contact and exchange between the

Maltese and other cultures. Chapter 4 contrasts the evidence from Malta with data from southern

Italy, Sicily, and the southern Tyrrhenian islands, where archaeological remains suggest regular contact between natives and easterners. Chapter 5 examines possible reasons for the peripheral role of Malta in early Mediterranean exchange networks, and considers some implications of that role for the nature of Bronze Age trade networks.

3 CHAPTER 1. MALTA IN A MEDITERRANEAN CONTEXT: EARLY VIEWS

Despite Malta’s small size, tourists and scholars have been fascinated by the antiquities of the

islands for centuries. For many years, this interest focused on megalithic structures normally

described as temples, like gantija and aar Qim.23 The megalithic temple architecture has no

direct parallels outside of Malta. Other large-scale stone structures, including the dolmens

scattered throughout the island and the massive fortifications of Bor in-Nadur, have also

garnered scholarly attention. Several early studies of the Maltese megaliths considered them to

be Phoenician in origin. However, by the beginning of the 20th century, they were almost

universally recognized as prehistoric. During the first half of the 20th century, evaluation of

Maltese prehistory became integral within increasingly popular diffusionist theories of

Mediterranean and European prehistory. Maltese prehistoric remains were interpreted as a link

between east and west, incorporating Aegean elements like spirals and animal friezes with the

western phenomenon of megalithic structures. Before radiocarbon revolutionized prehistoric

chronology, the importance of Malta within cultural patterns of the greater Mediterranean was

undoubted and often emphasized. This chapter will summarize early archaeological work on

Malta and theories of the role of these islands in pan-Mediterranean cultural systems. Although chronological refinements have rendered many of these theories untenable, it is necessary to consider them and their impact on modern interpretations before a new assessment of the role of

Malta in the prehistoric Mediterranean can be attempted.

23 No study has yet demonstrated a purely religious use for these megalithic structures, despite their categorization as temples.

4 ARCHAEOLOGISTS IN MALTA

In 1536, Quintinus Haeduus mentioned the ruins of a Phoenician temple of Herakles near

Marsaxlokk Harbor.24 Although there is no known temple of Herakles in that area, the ruins of

Bronze Age fortifications at Bor in-Nadur and perhaps the collapsed Phoenician temple at Tas-

Sil may have been visible.25 If Quintinus Haeduus was referring to the fortification wall at

Bor in-Nadur, his description would be the first literary reference to the prehistoric remains of

Malta.

Within a discussion of the antiquities of Malta published in 1647, Commendatore

Giovanfrancesco Abela briefly described the temples – he considered them to be Phoenician.26

In 1787, Jean Houel published a text with illustrations of many Maltese monuments, including visible megalithic constructions.27 His engravings are probably the earliest representations of these buildings. Houel’s representations are the only evidence of what some sites looked like before excavation, including, for example, aar Qim (Figure 25).28 The detailed drawings and watercolors of gantija and Xagra Circle by Charles Frederick de Brochtorff in 1827 are the first record of archaeological investigations in the islands. They depict the remains of both sites

24 Quintinus Haeduus 1-2.110-111.

25 Evans 1971, 3; Pace 2004b, 105; Trump 2002, 6.

26 Abela 1647.

27 Houel 1787.

28 Grima 2004, 13.

5 almost immediately after they were cleared under the direction of John Otto Bayer, governor of

Gozo in the 1820s (Figure 26).29

Bayer’s were the first in a series of excavations of prehistoric temple sites in the early 1800s.

None of the early excavations produced archaeological reports or substantial documentation.30

In addition to Bayer’s work at gantija and Xagra Circle from 1820 to 1822, aar Qim was partially cleared in 1839, as was Mnajdra in 1840.31 If excavation notebooks for any of these

projects were kept, they have been lost, and nearly all of the pottery, bone, shell, and other

artifacts were discarded.

Antonio Annetto Caruana, a Maltese archaeologist working in the latter decades of the 19th century, was the first to publish some results from his excavations systematically. Although he did not leave records of his excavations of Bor in-Nadur,32 he produced reports for subsequent

projects. These included a second series of excavations at aar Qim and an investigation of the

temples at Kordin. He published his results from both sites with accompanying plans (Figure

27).33 Caruana also described some of the menhirs and dolmens on the islands, although he did

not excavate them.34

29 Grima 2004, 16, 20.

30 Grima 2004, 16-8. The excavations attracted visitors who published brief descriptions, but Brochtorff’s representations are the most comprehensive.

31 For aar Qim and Mnajdra, see Evans 1971, 3. For gantija, see Grima 2004, 16.

32 Murray 1925, 19.

33 For aar Qim, see Caruana 1882; 1886. For Kordin, see Caruana 1896b. The plans of Kordin are now particularly valuable as the sites have been nearly destroyed by erosion and urban development (see Trump 2002, 188).

34 Caruana 1896a.

6

Caruana believed the megalithic temples were built by the Phoenicians, a not uncommon view

for this period. Following arguments first proposed by James Fergusson,35 Caruana suggested that the temples belonged to the period of the Trojan War, approximately 1200 B.C.E. He suggested that the first colonists of the island had probably arrived not long before that, in 1500

B.C.E.36 Although he recognized that some northern European megalithic sites were probably

built in a prehistoric phase, he thought Malta lacked any evidence for prehistoric occupation,

saying, “No flint tools or arms...like those discovered in the Danish and other Continental finds

have hitherto been met with in our natural caverns; the islands of Malta, consequently, have not

as yet a claim upon the existence of man in prehistoric ages.”37 Caruana thought that the

megalithic stones showed signs of being worked with metal instead of stone – he took this as

further proof of a Phoenician date for the monuments.38 Several supposedly Phoenician

inscriptions (see below), two carved on megaliths at gantija and one from a votive pillar found near Bor in-Nadur, were cited by Caruana as direct evidence for Phoenician construction of the monuments.39 The architectural similarities of the other temples to gantija led Caruana to

presume that all the megalithic buildings belonged to the Phoenician period.40 This attribution

35 Fergusson 1872, 427.

36 Caruana 1896b, 33. Caruana, following the trends of the day, relied on the accounts of ancient historians to date the arrival of the Phoenicians in the central and western Mediterranean (Caruana 1882, 4). According to both Herodotus (2.44) and Justin (18.3), the Phoenicians had arrived in the west before the end of the Trojan War, so Caruana had no trouble reconciling the “historic” date of the Trojan War and the presence of Phoenicians on Malta.

37 Caruana 1896b, 35.

38 Caruana 1896b, 35. Evans also suggested that the carving on some stones had been done with metal tools (Evans 1953, 53 note 2).

39 Caruana 1896b, 41-2.

40 Caruana 1896b, 42-5.

7 allowed him to speculate about artifacts from other megalithic sites. For example, he thought

seven anthropomorphic figurines from aar Qim represented the seven Cabiri of the

Phoenicians.41 Additional evidence for Caruana’s position was provided by the use of

inhumation burials amongst both temple builders and the Phoenicians. He also suggested that

representations of serpents and eggs (Figure 28) in the temples were related to “generative power

in the religious tenets of the Phoenicians.”42 References made by both Quintinus Haeduus and

Ptolemy about Phoenician temples in Malta further supported Caruana’s argument.

Caruana’s work was soon followed by the publications of Albert Mayr. Mayr didn’t excavate,

but described and drew plans of gantija, aar Qim, Mnajdra, and Kordin. He reinterpreted the temple material as prehistoric rather than Phoenician, and countered the argument for a

Phoenician origin of the temples with several points.43 He noted that the lobed Maltese temples

with open forecourts did not resemble rectangular Phoenician temples, usually organized around a central court. Nor did he see any resemblance to Phoenician types among the sculptural and

ceramic remains from the temples. Mayr believed that the temples had developed from funerary

architecture, in a sequence beginning with simple rock-cut tombs. He thought that the form of

the tombs was elaborated in later stages of the process through the construction of megalithic

dolmens. The form of megalithic dolmens served, in the final stage, as the basis for temple

architecture, although the temples were no longer used for funerary purposes. He suggested that

the existence of this kind of architectural development was indicative of the indigenous origins

41 Caruana 1896b, 43.

42 Caruana 1896b, 43.

43 Mayr 1908, 90-1.

8 of the temples, rather than an architectural imposition by Phoenicians, who would already have had fully-formed architectural traditions when they arrived on the islands. Finally, Mayr called into question the Phoenician inscriptions which had been the most direct evidence for Caruana’s theory. Mayr examined the stones at gantija described by Caruana, but found only one inscription instead of two. This inscription, he noted, proved nothing except that the temples had still been visible and in some form of use during the Phoenician period.44 He also pointed out

that the final inscription, supposedly from Bor in-Nadur, was actually of doubtful provenance.

Since the earliest reference to the inscription described its findspot only by the broad region of its

recovery, it may not have come from anywhere near the prehistoric remains.45

Mayr suggested that, instead of having been built by Phoenician colonists, the temples were the

product of an indigenous development that was linked to the older cultures of the eastern

Mediterranean. He thought that the earliest Maltese temples began to develop before the

Mycenaean period of the Aegean, and that the later temples were contemporary with the end of

the Mycenaean age. His views conformed to popular diffusionist models of the 19th and early

20th centuries.

Themistocles Zammit, excavating at Tarxien in the 1910s, was the first to publish a clear

stratigraphy for a Maltese temple. He demonstrated that the construction levels of the Tarxien

temple contained no metal and, thus, had probably been built during the Neolithic (Figure 29).

44 Phoenician use of prehistoric sites is not unknown on Malta. Excavations in the 1960s revealed that the architects of the Phoenician temple at Tas-Sil had incorporated the apse of a Neolithic temple into their building (Cagiano de Azevedo et. al. 1967), and a similar phenomenon may have happened at the poorly preserved site of Ras ir-Raeb (Pace 2004b, 202). The authenticity of the gantija inscription is doubted by Bonanno (2005, 81-2) and Pace (2004b, 175).

45 Mayr 1908, 83. Murray did not describe the inscription in her discussion of the site (Murray 1923; 1925; 1929).

9

In the upper levels of one area of the temple, Zammit found a thick, gray, ashy layer which

contained Bronze Age pottery, burnt human bones, metal implements, personal ornaments, and

figurines. The cremation cemetery occupied about a fourth of the temple, and was located at a

level approximately one meter above the pavement of the temple. The cemetery remains were

separated from the pavement by a sterile, sandy layer of soil.46 The one meter thickness of the

sterile layer of soil led Zammit to suggest that the Tarxien Cemetery people began to use the

Tarxien site 1000 years after the temple had gone out of use.47 Having reconstructed a long

period of abandonment between the Tarxien and the Tarxien Cemetery phase, Zammit postulated

that the Bronze Age people were newcomers to the islands, unrelated to and ethnically different

from the Neolithic population. He cited different types of pottery and figurines, the move from

inhumation to cremation burial, and the change he saw from short-headed Neolithic skulls to long-headed Bronze Age skulls, as evidence for this theory.48 This suggestion was accepted by

many subsequent scholars, including Margaret Murray, John Evans, and David Trump.49

As director of the Museums Department, Zammit organized several other excavations as well.

From 1907 until 1911, he completed work at the
al Saflieni Hypogeum, begun by Father

Emmanuel Magri in 1906.50 There, he revealed the full three-story plan of the underground burial facility. He published a description of the site, as well as a report on the small finds and

46 Zammit 1915-16, 135.

47 Zammit 1915-16, 136; 1930a, 45.

48 Zammit 1930a, 121.

49 Evans 1959, 168; Murray 1925, 31; Trump 2002, 245.

50 Zammit 1935.

10 some skulls with T. Eric Peet and Robert Noël Bradley. He also encouraged Napoleone

Tagliaferro to classify and publish its pottery.51 In addition to working at Tarxien and the al

Saflieni Hypogeum, Zammit was the first excavator of Ta’ arat, where he uncovered a small

temple complex.52

In the early decades of the 20th century, a number of other excavations, in addition to those directed by Zammit, took place. Archaeologists including Father Emmanuel Magri, Thomas

Ashby, T. Eric Peet, and Margaret Murray investigated part or all of nearly every major prehistoric site which is now known.

Magri excavated the scanty remains of the Xewkija temple in 1904, which he published almost immediately.53 He excavated the majority of the al Saflieni Hypogeum during 1906, but died

before he was able to publish his finds. His notebooks are now lost.

Peet excavated at Barija in 1909, where he found evidence for the floors of two or more huts.54

Peet considered the pottery of the site more advanced than the Neolithic pottery from aar Qim or Mnajdra, although he did not commit to dating it in the Bronze Age.55

51 The report on the small finds and skulls was published as an appendix in Zammit’s publication of the site (Zammit 1935). The pottery was published in Tagliaferro 1910.

52 Zammit 1930b.

53 Magri 1906.

54 Peet 1910, 151-3.

55 Peet 1910, 161-3.

11 In 1913, Ashby, Peet, Bradley, and Tagliaferro published the results from several excavations

throughout the Maltese islands. They re-investigated the buildings that had been discovered by

Caruana at Kordin and identified a new group of ruins to the south, now called Kordin III.56

Although they were not able to identify any undisturbed floor deposits in the ruins, at Kordin III, they discovered the only known example in Malta of a multiple trough or quern located at the entrance between a paved court and a side chamber (Figure 30).57 In the same publication, the

authors described their results from new excavations at aar Qim and Mnajdra, where they were able to recover pottery and other artifacts which had been discarded during previous excavations, and to investigate some unexcavated areas. They showed that the pottery from the two temples was very similar to the pottery from the al Saflieni Hypogeum; they suggested that this was because the sites were contemporary. The authors also excavated the badly preserved remains of Santa Verna, located near Xagra Circle in Gozo. At Santa Verna, they found a few standing megaliths and torba floors associated with Neolithic pottery, which they interpreted as evidence for another Neolithic temple site.58 Ashby later excavated at the cave of Gar Dalam,

although both his excavations and the continuation by Gertrude Caton Thompson, focused more

on the Pleistocene faunal remains than the fragmentary Neolithic pottery deposits.59

Margaret Murray targeted her excavations from 1921 to 1923 on the Neolithic temple at Bor in-

Nadur. The temple was located slightly to the southeast of Bronze Age fortifications which had

been long exposed. She found large quantities of Bronze Age Tarxien Cemetery and Bor in-

56 Ashby et. al. 1913, 34.

57 Ashby et. al. 1913, 42-3.

58 Ashby et. al. 1913, 105-13.

59 Ashby and Zammit 1916; Ashby, Zammit, and Despott 1916; Caton Thompson 1923; 1925.

12 Nadur phase pottery in the upper levels, with Neolithic pottery and flint near the floors.60

Murray also published a corpus of the Bronze Age pottery, primarily comprised of material from

the Tarxien Cemetery, Bor in-Nadur, and Barija.61

From the 1950s to the 1970s, Maltese prehistoric archaeology was dominated by John Evans and

David Trump. Evans and Trump directed excavations that incorporated improved methodologies that had been developed within the field of archaeology since the early 20th century. The work

of both men resulted in a relative ceramic sequence that was supported by archaeological

stratigraphy.

In 1952, Evans began work on a survey of the prehistoric remains of Malta. His study included

both architecture that had been exposed and the material remains that had accumulated in the

National Museum over decades of excavation.62 Within a year, he had created a pottery

sequence based on available accounts of stratigraphy as well as stylistic analysis.63 Although

Tagliaferro had created a stylistic categorization of the mixed pottery deposits from the al

Saflieni Hypogeum, Evans’ work was the first to systematically define chronological phases in

Malta on the basis of pottery types. In 1955, Evans conducted the first excavation of a Maltese dolmen that uncovered a datable cultural deposit. In that excavation, at Ta’ ammut, Evans

found a pure deposit of Tarxien Cemetery phase pottery. Although Maltese dolmens that had

been investigated previously had contained no datable pottery, most scholars before Evans had

60 Murray 1923; 1925, 22, plate VIII; 1929.

61 Murray 1934.

62 Final results were published in Evans 1971.

63 Evans 1953.

13 dated them to the early Neolithic. However, Evans suggested that if Ta’ ammut could be dated to the early Bronze Age, then the rest of the Maltese dolmens probably belonged to the same phase.64 His theory is now widely accepted.

Evans’ work on chronology was supplemented by the results of Trump’s excavation at Skorba.65

From 1961 until 1963, Trump unearthed a gantija phase temple complex, a possible ritual area of the Red Skorba phase, and several hut floors from various phases of the Neolithic (see

Preface). The hut floors at Skorba constituted the first evidence for Neolithic domestic buildings on Malta. Unlike previous excavations, which primarily aimed to uncover the monuments themselves, a major goal of Trump’s campaign was the clarification of the chronological sequence through careful stratigraphic excavation. He supplemented his data from Skorba with test trenches at other temple sites, namely Ta’ arat, Kordin III, and Santa Verna. His results showed Evans’ relative ceramic sequence to be nearly correct, apart from the reversal of the

ebbu and Marr phases. Trump also revealed for the first time two of the earliest phases of the Neolithic, called Grey Skorba and Red Skorba, that fell between the G ar Dalam and ebbu phases. Trump’s excavations were also the first to provide radiocarbon dates, which fundamentally changed the absolute dating for Maltese prehistory.

Recognizing the lack of attention paid to Maltese Bronze Age remains, Trump sought to clarify the sequence of the later Maltese Bronze Age through excavations at Bor in-Nadur and

64 Evans 1956b.

65 Trump 1966.

14 Barija.66 At Bor in-Nadur, he uncovered two Bronze Age huts, of slightly different phases in

the Bor in-Nadur period. Earlier levels at the same site revealed habitation levels that contained

mixed late Tarxien Cemetery wares and early Bor in-Nadur wares. At Barija, Trump

discovered that all styles of Barija pottery were found throughout the later Bronze Age levels,

so he suggested that subgroups of Barija phase pottery had no chronological significance,

unlike the sub-phases of Bor in-Nadur wares. Barija ware was also found in the same levels as

late Bor in-Nadur ware, suggesting that the two may have been in use simultaneously for some

time.67

The study of Maltese prehistory in the past thirty years has been dominated primarily by British,

Maltese, and Italian scholars, including Colin Renfrew, Simon Stoddart, Caroline Malone, John

Robb, Anthony Pace, Reuben Grima, Daniel Cilia, Anthony Bonanno, and Alberto Cazzella.

These and other scholars have focused on reinterpreting the material remains from early

excavations within new theoretical and chronological frameworks. In addition, two major

excavations of prehistoric sites have provided new data for the interpretation of Maltese

prehistory. A consortium of British and Maltese universities and the Maltese Museums

Department excavated Xagra Circle from 1987 to 1995; it was the first large-scale excavation

of a prehistoric site since Skorba. A final publication has not yet appeared.68 The Italian

Missione Archeologica has also begun work on clarifying the prehistoric remains at the

66 Trump 1961.

67 Trump 1961, 258-9.

68 Preliminary results are available in Bonanno et. al. 1990; Malone et. al. 1995; and Stoddart et. al. 1993.

15 Phoenician temple site of Tas-Sil, excavation of which is ongoing.69 A University of Malta

project excavated both prehistoric and historic levels outside the temple at Tas-Sil during the

1990s.70

ESTABLISHING A RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY

Because the earliest excavations of prehistoric sites failed to keep the majority of artifacts or

publish detailed reports, the relative chronological sequence on Malta remained extremely vague

for decades. Zammit’s excavations at Tarxien revealed the first clear stratigraphic sequence for

any of the prehistoric sites and showed that the origins of the temples went back to the Neolithic.

However, he did not discuss any phases which might have occurred within either the Neolithic or

the Bronze Age.

Tagliaferro published a description of the unstratified pottery from the al Saflieni Hypogeum.

He divided the pottery by the type of decoration employed, in order that it might “serve as a basis for the exact determination of the age, not only of the al-Saflieni Hypogeum, but also of the other megalithic monuments of the Maltese Islands.”71 A chronology based on Tagliaferro’s types did not emerge, however, and Evans did not use Tagliaferro’s types for his evaluation of the pottery sequence.

69 No final report has appeared. Preliminary results are available in Bonello et. al. 1964; Bozzi et. al. 1968; Busuttil et. al. 1969; Cagiano de Azevedo 1973; Cagiano de Azevedo et. al. 1965; 1966; 1967; 1972.

70 Bonanno and Frendo 2000; Mommsen et. al. 2006.

71 Tagliaferro 1910, 6.

16 Even before Evans had clarified the ceramic sequence, architectural developments had been used

to create a chronology for Maltese prehistory. The dolmens were considered by Mayr and most

subsequent scholars until Evans as the architectural predecessors of the temples, belonging to the

earliest phases of the Neolithic.72 Mayr saw the altars in the apses of the temples as a direct

architectural allusion to the earlier dolmens.73 The temples were arranged in a chronological

sequence based on increasing size and complexity.74 That is, smaller temples with one or two lobes, like Kordin III East, were considered earlier than medium-sized temples with three or four lobes, like Ta’ arat West. These temples were seen as earlier than the highly elaborate six- lobed Tarxien Central temple. Evans tried to correlate the pottery sequence to the typology that had been developed for the temples, using what information he could find about where certain types of pottery had been found during early excavations. He found that, in general, the pottery that appeared stylistically earlier had been more abundant at sites considered architecturally simpler, such as Ta’ arat, whereas pottery that he considered advanced was more common at the larger, complex sites like aar Qim and Tarxien. However, Evans realized that the correlation of the purely typological temple sequence to the pottery phases was not completely accurate, since some of the typologically ‘early’ temples like those at Kordin contained large quantities of later pottery. On the basis of this observation, he suggested that the early temples may have continued in use or even continued to be constructed into the later periods.75

72 Mayr 1908, 56; Zammit 1930b, 59.

73 Mayr 1908, 54.

74 This idea goes back at least to Fergusson (1872, 421).

75 Evans 1953, 57.

17 Evans’ Neolithic pottery sequence can be seen in Figure 31. The information that Trump

gathered during the Skorba expedition modified this relative sequence, but only slightly. Trump

showed that the Marr phase followed the ebbu, and that the G ar Dalam phase was followed by two additional early Neolithic phases, Grey Skorba and Red Skorba. He also separated out the Saflieni style into its own chronological phase immediately preceding the Tarxien period.

The rest of Evans’ Neolithic sequence was confirmed by the stratigraphy Trump revealed at

Skorba, Kordin, Santa Verna, and Ta’ arat. Trump’s excavations also showed that the earliest pottery associated with temple building phases was from the gantija phase.76

There is no sign of widespread destruction at the temple sites at the end of the Neolithic, but the

stratigraphy of Tarxien revealed a clear change in culture. The first occurrence of metal on the

islands corresponded to a change in burial types from inhumation to cremation. In addition,

people began to use the temples in new ways – the eastern temple at Skorba was used as a

habitation site, while Tarxien and perhaps also Tal-Qadi were used as cemeteries.77 Neither

early archaeologists like Zammit and Murray, nor Evans saw any similarity between the pottery

or material culture of the Tarxien Cemetery period and the preceding Neolithic periods.78 The

prevailing opinion was that the Tarxien Cemetery people were invaders or new colonists,

although their origin was unclear. Both Zammit and Murray noted that Tarxien Cemetery

material shared similarities to the eastern Mediterranean, especially the Cyclades, but neither

went so far as to suggest colonization by easterners (Figure 20).79 Evans thought that Tarxien

76 Trump 1962.

77 Pace 1992, 24; 2004b, 218.

78 Zammit 1930a, 135; Murray 1923, 31; Evans 1953, 65.

79 Murray 1925, 31-2; 1934, 2. Zammit 1930a, 121-2.

18 Cemetery represented an early Bronze Age culture which had migrated to Malta from

northeastern Sicily.80 He based this suggestion on similarities in shapes and styles to the Capo

Graziano phase of the Aeolian islands (Figure 32), which he assumed fell into a northeastern

Sicilian cultural sphere. He also saw similarities in decoration between the Tarxien Cemetery phase pottery and the Moarda and Castelluccio styles (Figure 33). He noted that the seemingly eastern Mediterranean influences on figurines and faience beads could have arrived with this

Sicilian culture when they came to Malta, since excavations at sites in the Aeolian islands and

Sicily had discovered imports from the east.81

When Zammit discovered it, he noted that Tarxien Cemetery pottery did not resemble ceramics

either from the Neolithic or the Bronze Age as represented at Bor in-Nadur.82 Murray suggested that the Tarxien Cemetery pottery was imported, but Bor in-Nadur and Barija wares were local, implying that these types were chronologically contemporary.83 Evans, however, suggested that the Bor in-Nadur style was temporally later than the Tarxien Cemetery phase, representing a second invasion that wiped out the Tarxien Cemetery population.84 Trump’s

excavations showed that the Bor in-Nadur style was chronologically later than Tarxien

Cemetery style, but that the two periods overlapped slightly. The overlap suggested some level

80 Evans 1953, 63.

81 Evans 1953, 86.

82 Zammit 1915-16, 134-5.

83 Murray 1934, 2.

84 Evans 1953, 87.

19 of continuity between the two phases.85 His excavations also demonstrated that the two stylistic phases of Bor in-Nadur corresponded to changes over time.

While Peet had not proposed that the Barija population was temporally later than Neolithic populations, Evans suggested that it followed the Bor-in Nadur phase, particularly because of the similarities in ceramic decoration between the two styles (Figure 34).86 Trump’s excavations at Barija showed that this was the latest phase of the Bronze Age, although it overlapped with the later phases of Bor in-Nadur as well. The appearance of Barija pottery with early

Phoenician deposits suggested that this phase was the last of Maltese prehistory.87

Attempts to relate the Maltese relative prehistoric sequence to an absolute chronological standard for the Mediterranean required comparisons with other areas, since there were no written records on Malta. There were no direct imports from Egypt or the Near East that could relate the

Maltese sequence with the chronology fixed by written records in those areas. There were, however, architectural and stylistic similarities as well as imports that suggested connections with the Aegean, itself dated through contacts with the Near East and Egypt.

The reconstruction of a chronological relationship with other areas of the Mediterranean varied by author, particularly based on which material connections with the east were emphasized

(Figure 31). For example, Mayr, although he didn’t suggest precise absolute dates, saw the

85 Trump 1961, 259-60.

86 Evans 1953, 90-1.

87 Evans 1953, 91.

20 anthropomorphic female figures from aar Qim as related to Neolithic and Early Bronze Age figurines from Crete. 88 Because these could be dated through Egyptian imports on Crete, a

slightly later chronological period was implied for the Maltese figures. Zammit also noted the similarities between the Neolithic Maltese figures and Neolithic and Early Bronze Age figurines from the Aegean, although he thought those from Thessaly showed the closest similarities to the

Maltese examples.89 Since the transition from Neolithic to Bronze Age in the Aegean was

commonly dated to around 3000 B.C.E., he could date the Tarxien phase to that same time. In

addition, he had compared the Tarxien Cemetery metal objects with Aegean types from the end

of the Aegean Middle Bronze Age, around 2000 B.C.E.90 This dating scheme matched well

with his proposed 1000-year period of island-wide abandonment between the Tarxien and

Tarxien Cemetery phases.

Evans used comparisons with Sicily, the Aeolian islands, and southern Italy as well as with the

Aegean to create a full absolute chronology for Malta, to complement his relative chronology.

Evans’ absolute chronology was the most comprehensive until Trump’s sequence, which was

based on radiocarbon dates.

Evans suggested that the first colonists of the islands in the Gar Dalam phase were members of

an early stage of the Stentinello culture of Sicily, because Gar Dalam impressed wares were

nearly identical to those of Stentinello. Since the beginning of the Stentinello culture was dated

88 Mayr 1908, 83.

89 Zammit and Singer 1924, 77-8.

90 Zammit 1929, 70.

21 to around 3000 B.C.E., Evans dated the beginning of the Gar Dalam phase to around 2500

B.C.E.91 He considered the Marr phase to belong to the end of the second millennium and that

the ebbu phase began around 2000 B.C.E., although he had little evidence for the clear dating of either apart from their continued similarities to Sicilian wares.92

Evans’ interpretation of the period of Maltese contact with the Aegean differed greatly from

Mayr’s and Zammit’s. He considered the gantija phase to be the first in which influence from the east was particularly strong. In particular, he saw parallels between Maltese Neolithic figurines with tilted heads and Early Cycladic figurines (Figure 35). Therefore, he dated the

gantija phase to the same time as the Aegean Early Bronze Age, which he suggested was a time of frequent Cycladic trading voyages to the western Mediterranean.93 Evans thought that the

styles of the Tarxien period had been heavily influenced by contact with Aegean culture,

especially due to the increasing precision in decoration and technique of pottery manufacture, the

sudden appearance of spiral motives, and the occurrence of animal representations in both

pottery and architectural carving. He cited the similarities between running spirals of Tarxien and those of the Mycenaean shaft graves as evidence for dating the Tarxien period at least in part to the 16th century B.C.E.94

Similarities between Tarxien Cemetery ware and pottery of both the Capo Graziano culture in

the Aeolian islands and the Castelluccio culture of northern Sicily led Evans to suggest that the

91 Evans 1959, 46.

92 Evans 1953, 77-8; 1959, 66.

93 Evans 1953, 82-3.

94 Evans 1953, 82.

22 earliest Bronze Age inhabitants of Malta had originated in northeastern Sicily.95 He assumed

that some time had elapsed between the arrival of the Capo Graziano people in the Aeolian

islands (around 1550 B.C.E.96) and the arrival of the Tarxien Cemetery people on Malta. He

assigned the arrival of the Tarxien Cemetery people to around 1400 B.C.E. The date was based on the level of advancement he saw in Tarxien Cemetery phase pottery over Capo Graziano

phase pottery; he proposed that the more advanced Tarxien Cemetery style had developed over

the course of 150 years in a hypothetical ancestral homeland.97 Blue faience beads from Tarxien

Cemetery contexts were cited by Evans as evidence that the early Bronze Age inhabitants of

Malta had been in contact with Mycenaean traders through at least part of the 14th century B.C.E.

Since he could date the Tarxien Cemetery phase to some part of the 14th century B.C.E., he could also narrow the range of possible dates for the arrival of the Bor in-Nadur population, whom he also considered to be invaders.98 Dating of this phase was also clarified by a Mycenaean Late

Helladic IIIA2 or IIIB sherd, dated to the 13th century B.C.E., that had been found in an

unstratified context at Bor in-Nadur. On the basis of these two pieces of information, Evans

dated the arrival of the Bor in-Nadur population to an undetermined time in the 14th century.99

He considered the meander patterns and painted sherds of Barija pottery to be parallel to the

95 Evans 1953, 86. By 1959, he had changed his mind, and suggested that the Tarxien Cemetery population had originated somewhere in southern Italy (Evans 1959, 179). He seems to have reconsidered his criteria for the origins of the population after the 1956 article in which he suggested that the Maltese dolmens belonged to the Tarxien Cemetery period. Because dolmens also occur in the early Bronze Age of southern Italy, he thought that the Tarxien Cemetery people were likely to have originated somewhere in that area, and considered the ceramic similarities to the Aeolian islands and northern Sicily less convincing than the architectural similarities to Apulia.

96 Evans 1959, 178. This date was based on stratified Aegean pottery from the acropolis of Lipari.

97 Evans 1959, 178-9.

98 Evans 1959, 180.

99 Evans 1959, 181.

23 late Bronze Age and early Iron Age of Sicily and southern Italy, and so dated the beginning of the Ba
rija phase to slightly before 1000 B.C.E.100

THE ROLE OF MALTA IN DIFFUSIONIST FRAMEWORKS

As evidence for Maltese prehistory increased, the relative and absolute chronologies discussed

above were used to put Malta into a pan-Mediterranean context, defined by the diffusionist

outlook of the early 20th century.

Geographically, Malta is at nearly the halfway point of the Mediterranean, both north to south

and east to west. Culturally, it also quickly became interpreted as a halfway point in the spread

of people and ideas across the Mediterranean. Although the direction of movement was debated

briefly, the prevailing opinion soon became that eastern culture and people had spread westward,

inspiring cultural development in places like Iberia, Malta, and northern Europe.101

The Maltese megaliths were considered to be part of a western Mediterranean translation of

eastern Mediterranean architecture. The general theory, according to V. Gordon Childe, Glynn

Daniel, and others, was that the eastern Mediterranean custom of communal built or rock-cut

tombs began to move westward, either by the movement of people (as Fergusson suggested) or

100 Evans 1959, 188.

101 Childe (1925, 101) wouldn’t pick a side in the argument of whether Malta was influenced by western people moving eastward or eastern people moving westward, saying that there was not enough evidence to support either theory. However, in 1957, he suggested that the ideology was eastern and the architecture was western – the view that became the standard about “megalith builders.”

24 through the slow spread of cultural forms (as Childe suggested).102 The custom of communal

stone-built tombs was accompanied by a “mother goddess” cult, exemplified by representations

of the female form found in many areas of the western Mediterranean and northern Europe.103 In

the central and western Mediterranean, this “mother goddess” cult gained expression in ever

more elaborate tombs, eventually constructed with megaliths. In Malta, the megalithic

elaboration of the “mother goddess” cult was further developed in the Neolithic temples, which

were assumed to be conceptually derived from the original rock-cut tombs where the “mother

goddess” had been worshipped.104

Although the megalithic tombs and temples were generally considered to be of indigenous

origin, certain stylistic affinities indicated that the western Mediterranean was in regular contact

with traders from the east throughout the later Neolithic and Bronze Age. The prevailing theory

was that these traders went westward looking for metals and other goods for market.105 Arthur

Evans suggested that Malta fulfilled a role for these prehistoric traders much like it later did for

Phoenician and Punic traders; that is, he thought that the island was a convenient halfway point

for eastern traders on their way to Iberia and southern France.106

102 Childe 1925; Daniel 1958; Fergusson 1872. See Renfrew (1979a, 20-47) for an overview and brief history of scholarship.

103 Childe 1958, 118-9, 130.

104 Childe 1958, 119.

105 Childe 1958 116-23; Daniel 1958, 127; Zammit 1930a, 120, 123.

106 Arthur J. Evans 1928, 182.

25 Specialists of Maltese archaeology such as Mayr, Zammit, and John Evans, followed this model

with few variations. As evident from the development of Maltese archaeology during the 19th

and early 20th centuries, investigations into Maltese prehistory increasingly aimed not just toward the definition of sites and material culture, but also toward the clarification of the degree and

regularity of contact with other parts of the Mediterranean over time. This process involved refining chronology in order to support those contacts and defining the ethnicity of the people

who comprised the Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures.

The early participation of the Maltese in prehistoric trade, colonization, and cultural diffusion

was undoubted until the 1960s and 1970s, when radiocarbon dating proved that cultural

analogies between Neolithic Malta and the Bronze Age civilizations of both the Aegean and the

western Mediterranean were impossible.

Although stylistic and architectural affinities had been considered clear proof of the close contact

between Maltese and Aegean populations, radiocarbon dating showed that such similarities must

have been coincidental. The Maltese motives supposedly derived from Aegean prototypes were

datable to a period substantially earlier on Malta than in the Aegean, particularly under Evans’

chronology. New studies of imports throughout the central Mediterranean showed that there was

no extensive contact between the central and eastern Mediterranean until the beginning of the

Mycenaean period.107

107 For example: Harding 1984, Taylour 1958. Taylour included several sherds which are matt-painted Middle Helladic III in style, but Late Helladic I in date. Evidence for Mycenaean contact with the central Mediterranean will be discussed in more detail in Chapters 3 and 4.

26 Following the changes in the absolute chronology of Malta and the rest of the central

Mediterranean, studies emphasized with increasing frequency the contrast between the

“isolation” of late Neolithic Malta and the burst of international contacts at the beginning of the

Bronze Age.108 The evaluation of the role of Malta in prehistoric Mediterranean exchange

networks was limited to close stylistic comparisons with nearby cultures, like the Capo Graziano

phase in the Aeolian islands, and a discussion of the few imports occurring in Neolithic and

Bronze Age contexts. However, because Malta could no longer be conceived as a key player in

pan-Mediterranean exchange networks during prehistory, its role within those networks

remained rather ill-defined. Recent studies in Sicily, the Aeolian islands, and southern Italy have

shown that these areas were, at least during the Bronze Age, in regular contact with the Aegean.

Malta, only a few kilometers to the south, is almost completely devoid of such evidence. In the

following chapters, I will discuss the evidence (or lack thereof) for the role of Malta in the

prehistoric Mediterranean, and I will address some factors that might have led to its participation in or exclusion from certain networks of communication and exchange.

The first step toward reconstructing the role of Malta in the broader Mediterranean is to clarify both the chronological sequence of the islands themselves and how those phases correspond to the culture sequences outside these islands. Trump’s revisions of Evans’ relative pottery sequence, as discussed above, are still the standard for Maltese studies. However, radiocarbon analysis has provided a number of absolute dates that show that Malta’s prehistory spanned far longer than once suspected, beginning with the first colonization of the islands in the early 5th

millennium B.C.E., and ending with the arrival of the Phoenicians in the seventh century B.C.E.

108 For example: Trump 2002; Cilia 2004.

27 Chapter 2 will provide an overview of the relative and absolute chronologies currently accepted for the study of Maltese prehistory.

28 CHAPTER 2. CHRONOLOGY

The sequence and duration of prehistoric Maltese cultural phases has been addressed by scholars

since the beginning of the 20th century. However, it was not until the work of Evans and Trump

in the 1950s and 1960s that a refined chronology was established, one based on both pottery

styles and radiocarbon dates. Although the relative sequence has remained unchanged since

Trump’s publication of Skorba, the increased number and better calibration of radiocarbon dates

has clarified how the relative phases of Maltese prehistory fit into Mediterranean absolute

chronology. This chapter discusses both the relative cultural sequence and the most recent

absolute dates for Maltese prehistory, within the context of central and eastern Mediterranean

chronologies.

TERMINOLOGY

The cultural phases of Maltese prehistory are named by the type site at which characteristic

pottery was first identified (Figure 36). Furthermore, the terms “Neolithic,” “Copper Age,”

“Temple Period” and “Bronze Age” have all been used to describe larger groupings of Maltese

prehistoric phases. No metal has been found at pre-Bronze Age Maltese sites, and the

misleading use of “Copper Age” to describe the later Neolithic phases stems from a desire to relate Maltese terminology to that of Sicilian and southern Italian prehistory.109 I will avoid use

of the term in this chapter, as it carries little meaning for Malta itself. Although the technology

from the G
ar Dalam to Tarxien phases is that of stone rather than metal tools, the latter part of

109 One possible exception exists – a small stone cylinder with gold inlay from a disturbed layer at Tarxien (Evans 1971, 145; Trump 2002, 233).

29 the Neolithic age is often called the “Temple Period,” to designate the era in which the

megalithic temples were built (ebbu to Tarxien).110 That convention will be followed here,

although it will be necessary in later chapters to refer to the “Copper Age” of Sicily and Italy,

which corresponds generally with the Temple Period of Malta. I will use “Neolithic” to indicate

both the phases before the Temple Period (G ar Dalam to Red Skorba) and the Temple Period

itself. “Bronze Age” will be used for the subsequent period in which metal implements were

used (Tarxien Cemetery to Ba rija).

RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY

The first phase of the Neolithic is named G ar Dalam after the cave in which the first deposit of

the pottery of this period was found. Fragments of pottery from this phase appear in small

amounts at sites such as G ar Dalam, Ta’ arat, Xewkija, and Santa Verna.111 However, large deposits were found stratified in the lowest levels at Skorba; it is from these that most information about the G ar Dalam phase comes.112 Trump noted that the two most frequent

G ar Dalam phase shapes that can be reconstructed at Skorba were the globular jar with a

vertical or insloping neck and a small deep bowl with vertical or insloping walls.113 There are also a few open tronco-conic vessels and deep nearly straight-sided bowls, which appear more

110 There is no evidence that temples were constructed before the gantija phase. However, the large burial facilities of al Saflieni and Xag ra Circle were first used during the ebbu phase, and pottery of both the ebbu and Marr phases is common at temple sites. Therefore, they are conventionally considered to be part of the Temple Period.

111 Evans 1971, 208.

112 Trump 1966, 21-24; Evans 1971, 208.

113 Trump 1966, 21.

30 often in a coarser fabric (Figure 37). The fabric can be fine or coarse, but it is always gray and

rather gritty.114 Vessels are generally decorated with impressed lines or chevrons that may once

have been filled with white paste. Impressed decoration is often centered at the lip or the base of the neck.115 This practice is clearly related to that employed for the impressed wares of the

Stentinello culture in Sicily, although some variations exist (Figure 38).116 The most notable

difference is the lack of true cardial decoration in G
ar Dalam phase pottery, despite its relatively frequent occurrence in Stentinello phase pottery.117 In addition to similarities in

pottery styles, the existence of two protomes from G
ar Dalam that closely resemble a group of

animal figures from Stentinello suggest a close connection between the G
ar Dalam phase and

Stentinello culture (Figure 39).118

Trump revealed a wall and part of a hut dating to the G
ar Dalam phase at Skorba, but additional

architectural or clear settlement evidence has not yet been identified. Scattered sherds from both

open and cave sites suggest that members of the G
ar Dalam phase population frequented both types of areas. The similarities to Stentinello pottery noted above seem to indicate that the earliest inhabitants of Malta probably were immigrants from villages of the Stentinello culture in

Sicily, with which the G
ar Dalam phase population maintained some level of contact over

114 Trump 1966, 21, 23.

115 Trump 2004, 251.

116 Leighton 1999, 61-2; Trump 2004, 251.

117 Evans 1984, 491.

118 Evans 1953, 45.

31 time.119 Imported objects suggest that they were in contact with other areas of the central

Mediterranean as well. Imports include two types of obsidian that probably originated in the

Aeolian islands and Pantelleria,120 and flint from Sicily.121 Organic remains included bones of

sheep or goat, cow, pig, and dog, as well as carbonized grains of barley, wheat, and lentils.122

Other artifacts included two bone awls; seashells, one of which was pierced; and a quern cut

from local coralline limestone.123

As noted in Chapter 1, Grey Skorba ware was first identified in the lower levels of Skorba, the

only site where it is found in any quantity.124 The dark-gray fabric is characterized by numerous

small white inclusions, and surfaces are generally highly burnished.125 The majority of sherds seem to belong to two types of bowl (Figure 40). The first type is a straight-sided tronco-conic variety occasionally having large handles, while the second is a deeper bowl with a slight S- curve to its wall. A necked, ovoid jar also appears in this phase, but is quite uncommon.126

119 Evans 1953, 76. It is clear that an immigrant population need not bring with them the unaltered pottery traditions of their homeland. The earliest Neolithic settlers on Crete, for example, had a pottery style that has been linked to groups in Anatolia, Cilicia, and the Levant, but which is not clearly derived from any of those areas. The lack of direct correlation between material culture of an island population and the group from which it originated (the “founder effect”) may be a result of several factors. It is possible that the founding population was very small, or was isolated from the mainland once they arrived on the island (Cherry 1981, 61-2). On the other hand, the similarity of Maltese and Sicilian ceramics probably reflects continuing contact between people in both areas after the first permanent settlers arrived in Malta.

120 Trump 1966, 24.

121 Evans 1971, 209.

122 Gandert 1966, 24; Trump 1966, 53.

123 Trump 1966, 24.

124 Evans 1971, 209.

125 Trump 1966, 24-5.

126 Trump 1966, 25.

32 Decoration is far less common on Grey Skorba ware than on G
ar Dalam ware, although a few

sherds from transitional levels between pure G
ar Dalam phase and Grey Skorba phase deposits have scratched designs.127 Although there are some differences in shape and decoration, Grey

Skorba ware seems to demonstrate a direct stylistic development from that of G
ar Dalam.128

Grey Skorba phase pottery has some similarities in form to Diana phase pottery from Sicily, but

the style and particularly the fabric are distinctly Maltese.129

Although a wall was found associated with Grey Skorba phase pottery at Skorba, there was little

else with it that could provide a more complete picture of the culture of this phase. As in the

G
ar Dalam phase, the population continued to import obsidian from Pantelleria and the Aeolian

islands, although less was discovered in Grey Skorba levels than in those of the G
ar Dalam

phase. The Grey Skorba population also imported flint from Sicily, greenstone from an unknown locale, and lava, perhaps from Etna.130 Local artifacts included a few bone tools and

pieces of shell jewelry, many chert flakes, and rounded stones that were made from both

globigerina limestone (24) and flint (2).131 Trump called these objects slingstones. Apart from

Skorba, no examples of pure Grey Skorba phase contexts, either domestic or funerary, are

known.

127 Trump 1966, 27.

128 Trump 1966, 20.

129 Evans 1984, 492.

130 Trump 1966, 28-30.

131 Evans 1971, 210; Trump 1966, 30.

33 Red Skorba ware, like Grey Skorba ware, has been found almost exclusively in the lower levels

at Skorba.132 The fabric, like that of the Grey Skorba phase, is dark gray with many large white

inclusions. The shapes are very similar to Grey Skorba forms.133 Unlike Grey Skorba ware, Red

Skorba vessels regularly bear some incised decoration and the surface is slipped – usually red,

but sometimes black or multi-colored.134 There are more shapes than in Grey Skorba ware, but

they generally fall into three types – carinated dishes, straight-walled vessels, and biconical

and/or necked jars (Figure 41).135 The most frequent shape, the carinated dish, is unique to

Malta, although it may be related to S-profile bowls that appear in Diana ware of Sicily and the

Aeolian islands; the Diana culture is generally dated to the Late Neolithic in those areas.136 The application of bright red slip, new in Maltese pottery during the Red Skorba phase, is probably influenced by contact with people who used the frequently red-slipped Diana ware.137 Vertical

trumpet lug handles, similar to horizontal examples in Diana ware, also appear in this phase, but

other types of handles, decoration, and shapes develop directly from Grey Skorba ware and have

no parallels outside Malta.138

Trump, after he excavated the Red Skorba shrine to the east of the later megalithic temple at

Skorba (see Preface), concluded that the Red Skorba phase was the first in which large scale,

132 Evans 1971, 209.

133 Evans 1971, 210.

134 Trump 1966, 30.

135 Trump 1966, 30-2.

136 Evans 1984, 492.

137 Evans 1971, 211; Leighton 1999, 65.

138 Evans 1984, 493.

34 public architecture was used.139 Trump pointed out that the ritual connotations of some of the

artifacts, the irregular floors, and the lack of a hearth might suggest that this was a building in

which votive offerings were made.140 Even if the building had a ritual function, however, it is

difficult to distinguish whether it was a public or a private space.141 There are unfortunately no other excavated domestic or funerary contexts of this phase which might help us to understand the people who used this building.

The next phase, ebbu, is typically described as the first phase of the Temple Period, although no deposits of this phase have yet been found associated with construction trenches in the temples. This phase is characterized by pottery first found in a closed deposit in the rock-cut tombs at ebbu.142 ebbu ware also occurs at Skorba, Ta’ arat, Kordin III, Xrobb l-

G ain, Tal-Qadi, Mnajdra, Tarxien, gantija, and Santa Verna.143 It appears in funerary

contexts at ebbu itself, Buqana, the al Saflieni Hypogeum, and Xag ra Circle.144

ebbu pottery does not have the dark gray fabric with white inclusions that is common in the

Grey and Red Skorba phases. Vessels instead tend to have thin walls of gray/black or yellow fabric. ebbu vessels come in a wider variety of shapes than are found in previous phases, including jars, bowls, cups, and a basin (Figure 42), as well as clay spoons. Incised decoration is

139 Trump 1966, 11-4.

140 Trump 1966, 14.

141 Stoddart et. al. 1993, 7.

142 Evans 1953, 48.

143 Evans 1971, 212; Pace 1992, table II.

144 Pace 1992, table IV.

35 common, in both rectilinear and curvilinear designs, some of which seem to represent the human

form. Vessels with a yellow surface sometimes had incised decoration filled with red ochre.

Others were painted with red designs.145 Both Evans and Trump compared the shapes of the shouldered bowl with a high strap handle and small ovoid jar of the ebbu phase with the

pottery from the San Cono-Piano Notaro phase of Sicily. They also saw the arrangement of

decoration (one to four parallel lines bordered by dots, wavy lines, and dot-filled bands) as

related to some aspects of San Cono-Piano Notaro pottery.146 Several of the Maltese shapes and

decorative elements, however, do not appear in San Cono-Piano Notaro wares.147

The ebbu tombs were the first excavated graves of the Maltese Neolithic. They were small chamber tombs cut into relatively soft globigerina limestone, much like those that appear in the

Early Copper Age of Sicily.148 While the Sicilian examples usually contained only one or two

burials, the Maltese tombs were used for inhumations of three or more individuals.149 A ebbu

phase burial containing 65 individuals was excavated at Xagra Circle. It is likely that the

people buried in these collective graves were members of a single kinship group.150

145 Evans 1971, 212-3.

146 Evans 1953, 78; Trump 1966, 36.

147 McConnell 1985, 53.

148 Leighton 1999, 93-5.

149 Evans 1984, 493; Whitehouse 1981, 107. Burials with three or more individuals are also known from southern Italy (Cipolloni Sampò 1992, 359-60).

150 Malone et. al. 1995.

36 At Skorba, Trump found traces of huts with curved walls, hearths, and packed clay floors that

dated to the ebbu phase.151 ebbu levels contained Lipari152 obsidian and flint, two axes of

igneous stone, a non-local metamorphic rock described as a hone, many coralline limestone

querns, and two spindle whorls.153

Marr pottery is almost always mixed with ebbu and/or gantija pottery. A single pure Marr deposit at Skorba allowed Trump to propose that the relative chronological position of the Marr phase should lie between ebbu and gantija.154 Apart from Skorba, Marr phase pottery is found at Xrobb l’G ain, Ta’ arat, Tal-Qadi, Kordin I, II, III, aar Qim, Mnajdra, Tarxien,

gantija, Santa Verna, G ar Dalam, and G ar in-Nag a. Like ebbu phase pottery, Marr wares were not associated with construction phases of temples at these sites.155 Marr phase

pottery has also been found in funerary contexts at Buqana, the al Saflieni Hypogeum, and

Xemxija.156 Although there are a few sherds with a yellowish surface, Marr pottery tends to be

dark gray or black with a highly polished surface. Reconstructable vases are rare, but there seem

to have been fewer shapes than in the ebbu phase (Figure 43). Shapes include squat neckless

jars and deep bowls, as well as jars with conical necks, hemispherical bowls, circular dishes, and

151 Trump 1966, 14.

152 Lipari is the largest of the Aeolian islands. The whole island chain is often referred to as Lipari or the Lipari islands, and the three terms are used interchangeably in this thesis.

153 Trump 1966, 36-8.

154 Evans 1971, 214; Trump 1966, 38. Before Trump’s discovery of the pure Marr deposit, Evans had proposed that this phase preceded the ebbu phase (See Chapter 1).

155 Pace 1992, table II.

156 Pace 1992, table IV.

37 globular jars with upturned lips.157 Surfaces were decorated with broad cut-out bands that were filled with white paste;158 sometimes these were covered with a wash of red ochre.159 The cut-

out lines often form curvilinear rather than rectilinear patterns.160

Because Marr levels are so scarce, the quantity of other cultural material that can be assigned to this phase is slight. Trump identified a subrectangular hut from Skorba that belongs to the Marr phase,161 but in it found little noteworthy apart from two pebble grinders and a rectangular tray

of globigerina limestone.162 A shark’s tooth, a small hammer, and obsidian imported from Lipari

were associated with Marr material at Ta’ arat.163 The quantities of Marr pottery are relatively small compared to phases like ebbu and gantija, and since pure deposits of this phase have been seldom found, both Evans and Trump suggested that it was transitional.164

The gantija phase is the first which can clearly be associated with the construction of

megalithic temples. gantija ware is associated with construction levels at Xrobb l-G ain, Ta’

arat, Skorba, Tal-Qadi, Kordin I, II, III, aar Qim, Mnajdra, Tarxien, gantija, and Santa

Verna. It has been found in burial contexts at Buqana, Busbesija, Bur Mg ez, the al Saflieni

157 Evans 1971, 215.

158 Evans 1971, 214.

159 Trump 1966, 38.

160 Evans 1971, 214.

161 Trump 1966, 14-5.

162 Trump 1966, 38.

163 Evans 1971, 215.

164 Evans 1971, 215; Trump 2004, 256.

38 Hypogeum, Nadur, Xemxija, the gantija North Cave, Xagra Circle, and Xagra.165 Pottery from the gantija phase is more widespread throughout Malta and Gozo than wares of previous phases.166 Pottery from this phase is generally dark gray/black, brown, or mottled with orange

and yellow.167 The fabric is the same as that from the Marr phase.168 There are some new

shapes, although most are closely related to those from the previous phase (Figure 44).169 These

include large deep bowls, shallower bowls with turned-out rims, jars with tronco-conic necks,

ovoid neckless jars, shallow dishes and platters, and shouldered cups and bowls with V-shaped

handles. Trump described the cups and bowls in particular as having more standardized shapes

and sizes than those of previous phases.170 Some shapes only appeared in the Xemxija tombs,

including an open bowl and a carinated hole-mouth bowl much like those of the later Saflieni

phase. Unlike the Marr phase pottery, decoration was not cut-out before firing, but consists of

incised lines that were scratched in to the vessel after firing and then covered with a red ochre

wash.171

Two sherds of gray ware with dot-filled incised decoration came from a field at Skorba that

contained no finds that could be dated later than the gantija phase. Although Trump called

165 Pace 1992, table II, table IV.

166 Although not from construction levels, gantija wares have also been discovered at Tas-Sil (Bonanno and Frendo 2000, 85), Id-Debdieba, al inwi, Marziena, Gar Dalam, Gar in-Naga, Gar ta’ Giejzu, and Pergla (Pace 1992, table II, table IV).

167 Evans 1971, 215.

168 Trump 2004, 258.

169 Evans 1971, 216-7.

170 Trump 2004, 258.

171 Evans 1971, 215-6.

39 these sherds “Thermi ware,” and suggested that they were imported, their exact origin is

unknown.172 Additional “Thermi ware” is found in secure contexts in the next phase of the

Temple Period, as well as the first phase of the Bronze Age. “Thermi ware” is so-named on the basis of similarities to contemporary dot-filled incised ceramics with a thickened lip from the northeastern Aegean at sites like Thermi on Lesbos and Troy. One “Thermi ware” sherd from

Bronze Age levels at Tas-Sil was subjected to neutron activation analysis and proved to be

made of local clays.173 This could suggest that some or all of the Maltese “Thermi ware,” at least

in later phases, was not imported, but locally produced. This type of pottery will be discussed in

more detail in Chapter 3.

Several megalithic temples, including gantija itself, were constructed in this phase. Trump identified two huts belonging to this phase at Skorba – the Hut of the Querns, and the Hut of the

Hollow.174 The Hut of the Querns, like the ebbu hut, seems to have been built of mudbrick.

No permanent hearth was found in it. A large amount of charcoal and pottery and 11 coralline

limestone querns were found on the floor of the hut. The exposed area of the Hut of the Hollow

consisted of little more than a fraction of the total area of the floor; there was a clay-lined

depression in the floor and a few artifacts on the floor. While the Hut of the Querns was buried

when outbuildings associated with the western temple were built, the Hut of the Hollow seems to

have continued in use until the eastern temple was constructed.175 Two fragments of figurines

172 Trump 1966, 46.

173 Mommsen et. al. 2006. However, the geology of Malta and southeastern Sicily are very similar, which could mean that clays from both locations would have similar signatures. Analyses of additional sherds of “Thermi ware” from all Maltese phases and from Sicily are necessary before it will be possible to draw firmer conclusions.

174 Trump 1966, 15-6.

175 Trump 1966, 15.

40 from gantija levels at Skorba were made of Red Skorba ware, while two spindle whorls were

nearly indistinguishable from those of the ebbu phase.176 A few bone awls, obsidian, flint,

chert, and shell were also found. A strip of five successive torba hut floors from Gajnsielem in

Gozo seems to date to this or the subsequent phase. The floors contained mixed gantija and

Saflieni phase sherds, a carved ocher object, obsidian, flint, chert, shell, and pumice.177

Although ceramic decoration is different from that of the ebbu phase, there is nothing to

suggest that any innovations were not of purely local development.178 The lack of resemblance between gantija phase ceramics and other central Mediterranean pottery styles may suggest that

Malta was in less frequent contact with other areas during this phase. However, obsidian, flint,

and other direct imports are evidence that trade with the rest of the central Mediterranean

continued in both this and succeeding phases.

Like Marr ceramics, Saflieni phase pottery has seldom been discovered in pure levels179 and is

much less common than both gantija and Tarxien phase pottery.180 It is probable that like

Marr, Saflieni represents a transitional phase. Shapes are similar to both gantija and Tarxien ware shapes, although rather more limited. They include an open-splayed bowl, a splayed dish,

176 Evans 1971, 218.

177 Malone, Stoddart, and Trump 1988.

178 Evans 1971, 218.

179 Evans 1971, 218.

180 Trump 2004, 258.

41 and a carinated bowl (Figure 45). After firing, vessels were decorated with incision filled with

red ocher, as in the gantija phase.181

No buildings of the Saflieni phase are known (except perhaps the hut at Gajnsielem), and there

is little other than pottery that can be associated with it.182 Trump noted that the Saflieni phase

marked the first appearance of a gray-buff flint, which he thought had originated in the vicinity

of Mount Iblei in Sicily.183 This flint was usually made into finely worked scrapers, a practice

which continued into the Tarxien phase. The gray-buff flint supplanted other types of flint and

displaced local chert almost entirely.184 No Maltese site has yet produced evidence, in either the

Saflieni or the Tarxien phase, of local people working gray-buff flint. This, and the extensive

remains of chipping floors around Mount Iblei itself, might suggest that gray-buff flint objects

were imported to Malta already finished.185

The Tarxien phase is the last phase of the Temple Period. Tarxien ware has been discovered in temple construction deposits at Bor in-Nadur, Xrobb l-Gain, Ta’ arat, Skorba, Tal-Qadi,

Kordin I, II, III, aar Qim, Mnajdra, Buibba, Tarxien, gantija, and Santa Verna.186 Less common at burial sites than gantija phase pottery, Tarxien ware was also found at Bur Mgez,

181 Evans 1971, 218.

182 Evans 1971, 219.

183 Trump 1966, 42.

184 Trump 1966, 42.

185 Evans 1984, 494.

186 Pace 1992, table II. Tarxien wares are also found at Id-Debdieba, al inwi, Marziena, Gar Dalam, Gar in- Naga, Pergla, and Calypso’s Cave.

42 the
al Saflieni Hypogeum, Xemxija, and Xagra Circle.187 Tarxien ware is fine, often with a

gray, black, red, or yellow slip, and is highly polished. Carinated cups or bowls are the most

common shape (Figure 46).188 There is a variety of jar types as well. Decoration continued to

consist primarily of designs scratched into the surface of the vessel after firing, although the

range of patterns is much broader than in preceding phases.189 There are also more vessels with

incised representations of animals and people. New decorative techniques were also used: e.g., studded decoration, applied scales (particularly on large storage jars), and the application of plastic animal or human figures.190

Much unstratified cultural material from early excavations has been assigned to the Tarxien

phase; the variety of objects associated with the Tarxien levels at Skorba seemed to support that

attribution.191 At Skorba, Trump found terracotta figurines, spindle whorls, bone awls, scrapers

in gray-buff flint, some chert scrapers, a smoothed globigerina limestone plaque with two

engraved drawings of temple façades, a large globigerina bowl, a small stone phallic-shaped

object, some rough globigerina cups and bowls, and a large number of querns and rubbers made

of coralline limestone.192 Other sites have produced similar items – carved stone animal and

human figures, vessels, and architectural sculpture. The most elaborate temple structures seem

187 Pace 1992, table IV.

188 Trump 2004, 264.

189 Evans 1971, 219-20.

190 Evans 1971, 220.

191 Evans 1971, 221.

192 Trump 1966, 43.

43 to date from this phase.193 No settlements have been excavated, but a probable hut wall at Ta-

awla can be dated to this phase. The pottery at the site was not as frequently decorated as

Tarxien phase pottery found in the temples, and no bowls (usually assumed to be for ritual use) were found. The differences between the Tarxien phase pottery at temples and at Ta-awla suggest that certain pottery types were used for ritual, while others were only deemed

194 appropriate for domestic purposes.

The Tarxien Cemetery phase was the first of the Maltese Bronze Age, and is named for the

cremation cemetery that Zammit found in an upper level during his excavations at Tarxien. The

amount of time separating it from the Tarxien phase is unclear, although as noted in Chapter 1,

this phase was long thought to have followed a period in which the islands were abandoned.195 It

is equally possible, however, that changes in material culture were due to internal social changes,

rather than the result of a population replacement.196

Tarxien Cemetery phase pottery is thicker and grittier than Tarxien phase pottery. The surface is burnished, but less smoothly than in the Neolithic.197 Shapes primarily consist of globular bowls

and vases or jars, generally with a short, everted lip (Figure 47), and are often decorated with

rectilinear incised patterns.198 This style does not seem to develop directly from the Tarxien

193 Evans 1971, 222.

194 Trump 2002, 207.

195 Evans 1971, 224-5; Trump 2002, 245; Zammit 1930a, 121.

196 Bonanno et. al. 1990; Pace 1992, 52-60.

197 Trump 2004, 265.

198 Evans 1971, 224; Trump 2004, 265.

44 phase ceramic tradition and has marked similarities to the incised Early Bronze Age pottery from

the Capo Graziano culture of the Aeolian islands. Tarxien Cemetery wares, however, have more

elaborate decoration and a wider range of shapes than Capo Graziano phase pottery.199 The use

of stylized clay figurines is also an innovation of the Tarxien Cemetery phase but not the Capo

Graziano phase.200 Although Trump suggested that the phase was of long duration, he noted no

visible development in the pottery styles.201

Megalithic temples were no longer built during this phase. However, many Neolithic sites continued to be used, perhaps for different purposes, by the Bronze Age population.202 Tarxien

Cemetery wares have been found at Xrobb l’G ain, Ta’ arat, Skorba, Tal-Qadi, Kordin III,

aar Qim, Mnajdra, Buibba, Tarxien, gantija, Santa Verna, Id-Debdieba, al inwi, G ar

Dalam, and G ar in-Nag a.203 Tarxien Cemetery wares are also found at the funerary sites at

Bur Mg e, the al Saflieni Hypogeum, and Xag ra Circle.204

The Neolithic practice of inhumation was replaced by a tradition of cremation burial in the

Tarxien Cemetery phase. Cremations were sometimes placed in urn cemeteries, like that at

199 Bernabò Brea 1966b, 100; Evans 1971, 224; Leighton 1999, 113, 134.

200 Evans 1971, 224.

201 Trump 2004, 264.

202 Ritual activity does not seem to have continued at the temples during this phase, but it remains unclear how the Bronze Age population used temple spaces. It is possible that some, like Skorba, were put to domestic use, although the paucity of Tarxien Cemetery sherds at most temple sites might preclude such an interpretation for all of the temples. (Trump 2002, 250-1).

203 Pace 1992, table II.

204 Pace 1992, table IV.

45 Tarxien Cemetery itself. Megalithic dolmens and cairns were probably also used for cremation

burials. Evans’ discoveries at Ta’ ammut (see Chapter 1) suggested that the majority of

dolmens on the island belong to this phase.205 Although no osteological remains were found at

Ta’ ammut, the Maltese dolmens are interpreted as funerary monuments due to their

resemblance to burial dolmens in Sicily and southern Italy.206 The Wied Moqbol cairns may also

have served as funerary monuments of the Tarxien Cemetery phase and are the only example

other than dolmens of large-scale built tombs during this phase. The group has been dated by

small quantities of Tarxien Cemetery phase pottery in Cairn I.207 The monument consisted of a

small rhomboidal cairn of stones to the south of an oval chamber. It was surrounded on three

sides by a retaining wall of larger stones, while the wall of the oval chamber bordered it to the

north. A forecourt may have been formed by a line of stones extending out from the eastern and

western sides of the oval chamber (Figure 48).208

Although most Tarxien Cemetery ware comes from funerary or undefined contexts, it has been discovered in probable domestic contexts at three sites. Trump discovered two strata of Tarxien

Cemetery wares below Bor in-Nadur phase hut floors at Bor in-Nadur itself. The upper strata were mixed with early Bor in-Nadur wares, a fact which suggests continuity between the two phases.209 The inner apse of the eastern temple at Skorba was modified during the Tarxien

Cemetery phase, perhaps for domestic purposes. The lack of any hearth and a Tarxien Cemetery

205 Evans 1956b.

206 Trump 2002, 260-1.

207 Evans 1956b, 88-9.

208 Evans 1956b, 87-9; 1971, 193-4.

209 Trump 1961.

46 phase figurine fragment, however, might be evidence of ritual, rather than domestic, use.210 In

two areas of Xagra Circle, gray deposits with numerous Tarxien Cemetery phase sherds probably represent decomposed mudbrick architecture. However, no buildings of this phase have survived intact at the site.211

Some imported vessels found at Ognina in Sicily may be Maltese Tarxien Cemetery ware (see

Chapter 3). However, the imports are also similar to “Thermi ware,” which is of uncertain

origin.212

The Bor in-Nadur phase is named for the site where characteristic pottery has been found in

greatest quantity. Bor in-Nadur ware is also found at Xrobb l’Gain, Ta’ arat, Skorba, Tal-

Qadi, Kordin III, Mnajdra, gantija, Santa Verna, Id-Debdieba, Gar Dalam, and Gar in-

Naga.213 It has not, however, been noted at any of the Neolithic funerary sites.214 Fortified

hilltop sites of the Bor in-Nadur phase have been identified at Bor in-Nadur itself, Ras il-

ebel,215 Il Qortin,216 and Wardija ta S. or217 in Malta and In-Nuffara in Gozo.218

210 Trump 2002, 158.

211 Trump 2002, 251.

212 Bernabò Brea 1966a; Trump 2004, 246.

213 Pace 1992, table II.

214 Pace 1992, table IV.

215 Evans 1971, 36.

216 Evans 1971, 232.

217 Evans 1971, 116.

218 Evans 1971, 171.

47

Bor in-Nadur phase pottery typically consists of a coarse, handmade buff ware covered in red

slip, or a brittle dark matt ware. It exists in a wide range of shapes (Figures 34 and 49): bowls

and basins, chalices, cups, large storage jars, high-footed dishes, and a two-handled bottle.219

Decoration usually consists of incised, parallel lines. Throughout this phase, gray wares increasingly superseded red-slipped buff wares, and in its final stage, fine wares were almost

entirely black with brown or red blotches. In the last stage there is also painted ware, in which

red slip was used to create lines or dots on the interiors of shallow bowls.220 Temples and tombs

from this phase are unknown. Settlements were often located on fortified hill-tops, especially in

the Rabat-Dingli area in the western part of Malta island.221 Bor in-Nadur ware sherd scatters

at flat sites like Ta’ awhar and the southern slope of Tas-Sil suggest that open settlements might also have been common. Non-ceramic finds come primarily from Bor in-Nadur itself, as well as from Barija. These include clay spindle whorls and loomweights; clay anchors which may also have had a function related to weaving; some fragments of metal; and a mould for a ridged bronze disk (now lost).222 Two Mycenaean sherds have been found in deposits of this

period, one from Bor in-Nadur and the other from Tas-Sil. Bor in-Nadur phase pottery

appears in stratified levels outside Malta, particularly at Thapsos in Sicily.223

219 Evans 1971, 225.

220 Evans 1971, 226.

221 Pace 1992, 39.

222 Evans 1971, 226.

223 Voza 1973; 1976-7; 1980-1.

48 Bor in-Nadur phase pottery is found rather frequently in the islands, apart from a few stray

sherds elsewhere (e.g., at Gar Dalam, Bor in-Nadur, Ta’ arat, and Tal-Qadi). Pottery from the Barija phase, however, is confined primarily to the type site.224 Trump demonstrated that

Barija phase pottery was contemporary with the third phase of Bor in-Nadur ware at

Barija.225 Most vessels of Barija ware are quite fragmentary, but among the shapes that can be

reconstructed are shallow bowls, angular bowls, jugs, conical cups, globular jars, a rectangular

box-like vessel, and “cheese-strainers” (Figures 34 and 50). Vessels are usually dark gray or

black and covered with a shiny black slip; they are decorated with cut-out geometric patterns,

including zigzags, triangles, and meanders.226 At Barija, Trump also found a bronze needle and finger-ring, clay loomweights, spindle whorls, and clay anchors that belong to this phase.227

While the relative chronology of the Maltese phases is well established, the absolute chronology is less reliable. Furthermore, imports and exports that might be employed to establish an absolute chronology by drawing on synchronisms are scarce. Therefore, scientific dating, particularly 14C analysis, is the only way forward.

224 Evans, 1971, 227; Trump 2004, 265.

225 Trump 1961, 258.

226 Evans 1971, 227.

227 Trump 1961, 262, plate VI.

49 RADIOCARBON DATA

Between 1966 and the present, 30 samples of organic material from prehistoric Maltese sites

have been submitted to radiocarbon dating.228 These samples come from contexts representative

of nearly all the Neolithic pottery phases, except Grey Skorba and Saflieni. The Tarxien

Cemetery phase is the only Bronze Age phase for which samples have been submitted for

radiocarbon analysis. Fourteen of the 30 total samples were analyzed at the British Museum

Research Laboratory; the remaining sixteen, primarily from Xagra Circle, were examined by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) at the Oxford Research Laboratory.

In 1995-1996, Trump published a list of 28 radiocarbon dates for Malta, which he had recalibrated.229 He did not, however, specify the program or calibration curve used to recalibrate

the dates. Since his publication, two additional radiocarbon dates have been published, and a

new calibration curve has been made public: IntCal04, an updated version of the internationally

accepted calibration curve IntCal98.230 All 30 dates in this chapter have been recalibrated by me

with OxCal 4.0 software that employs the IntCal04 calibration curve (Figure 51). My

recalibrated dates are reported with a 2
error range, the standard output of the OxCal 4.0

software.231

228 Trump 1995-6, 173.

229 Trump 1995-6, 176-7.

230 Reimer et. al. 2004.

231 References to OxCal dates are standardly given as “R_Date Sample#.” This convention will be followed throughout the chapter.

50 Two samples of wood charcoal (BM-216 and BM-378) were associated with a Gar Dalam wall

at Skorba. 232 Recalibrated dates for these samples range from 5207-4237 cal. B.C.233 and 5467-

4719 cal. B.C.234 The absolute dates are early in relation to the earliest ebbu dates, but are

possible within the context of current dating for the Stentinello culture in Sicily (ca. 6000 B.C.E.

– 4000 B.C.E). The earliest settlers in Malta likely emigrated from this culture (see above).

A piece of wood charcoal from a stratified Red Skorba context outside the temple at Skorba,

BM-148 has a recalibrated date ranging from 4330-3695 cal. B.C.235 This date falls early in the

cluster of dates that comprise the ebbu phase, although stratigraphically it seems to be slightly

earlier than that phase.

Seven samples from ebbu phase contexts have been analyzed, two by chemical radiocarbon

analysis and five through AMS. Samples BM-145 and BM-147 were both wood charcoal

fragments from ebbu contexts outside the temple at Skorba,236 and date to 4321-3652 cal.

B.C.237 and 4228-3382 cal. B.C.,238 respectively. The five samples analyzed through AMS were

232 Trump 1995-6, 176.

233 R_Date BM-216; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date was originally calibrated to 3810 cal. B.C. (Barker, Burleigh, and Meeks 1969, 291).

234 R_Date BM-378; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date was originally calibrated to 4190 cal. B.C. (Barker, Burleigh, and Meeks 1969, 291).

235 R_Date BM-148; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date was originally calibrated to 3225 cal. B.C. (Barker and Mackey 1968, 6).

236 Barker and Mackey 1968, 5.

237 R_Date BM-145; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date was originally calibrated to 3190 cal. B.C. (Barker and Mackey 1968, 5).

238 R_Date BM-147; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date was originally calibrated to 3050 cal. B.C. (Barker and Mackey 1968, 5).

51 fragments of human bone excavated from tombs during the recent excavations at Xag ra

Circle.239 The calibrated dates for these samples range from 4349-3098 cal. B.C.240 Although

the dating of bone can be unreliable, all of these dates of bone fit with the few conventional dates

based on charcoal samples from Skorba.

Only one sample, BM-100, came from an Marr context, a wood charcoal fragment from under

the floor of the East Temple at Ta’ arat. It was originally dated to 2710 cal. B.C.,241 but now should be dated to 3710-2930 cal. B.C.242 This falls late in the cluster of ebbu dates. Ceramic

evidence discussed above suggests that the Marr phase is transitional between the ebbu and

gantija phases. Some overlap between Marr and ebbu phase absolute dates is therefore

expected.

Two samples came from a gantija context, BM-142 and BM-712; both are fragments of wood

charcoal from the floor of the Hut of the Querns at Skorba.243 BM-142 can be recalibrated to

4353-3712 cal. B.C.244 The stratigraphical relationship of the gantija to the Marr and ebbu

phases suggests that this date is too early, since it falls near the beginning of the cluster of

ebbu phase dates. Only one other sample from a gantija context has been analyzed, BM-

239 Trump 1995-6, 176-7.

240 R_Date OxA-3566, R_Date OxA-3567, R_Date OxA-3568, R_Date OxA-5038, R_Date OxA-5039; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Dates were originally calibrated to 4373-3100 cal. B.C. (Trump 1995-6, 176-7).

241 Barker and Mackey 1963, 107.

242 R_Date BM-100; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001.

243 Barker and Mackey 1968, 5; Burleigh, Hewson, and Meeks 1977, 154.

244 R_Date BM-142; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date originally calibrated to 3290 cal. B.C. (Barker and Mackey 1968, 5).

52 712, which dates to 3360-2941 cal. B.C.245 When considered with the dates for the Marr and

ebbu phases the more recent date seems more likely to be correct.

Tarxien phase contexts have provided the most samples for radiocarbon, nine in all. One of

these, a human bone designated OxA-3572 from Xagra Circle and dated to 4348-4044 cal.

B.C.,246 falls well outside the group formed by the other samples; it probably was contaminated.

The other samples cluster together in a series of younger dates. Sample BM-143 is a fragment of

wood charcoal from a Tarxien phase floor deposit from the West Temple at Skorba. It is dated

to 3501-2620 cal. B.C.247 The remaining seven samples were human bones, and are dated from

3265- 2476 cal. B.C.248 As noted in the case of the samples from the ebbu phase, the AMS

dates of bone from Tarxien phases seem to correspond well with the date yielded from the one

charcoal sample that has been analyzed. This fact suggests that the AMS dates, although derived

from bone samples, are as reliable as older radiocarbon dates of charcoal.

Six samples from Tarxien Cemetery contexts have been analyzed. Their dates are problematic,

particularly if one tries to use them to define a period of abandonment between the Tarxien and

Tarxien Cemetery phases at Tarxien. One date from a wood charcoal sample, BM-101, is much

245 R_Date BM-712; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date originally calibrated to 2528 cal. B.C. (Burleigh, Hewson, and Meeks 1977, 154).

246 R_Date OxA-3572; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date originally calibrated to 4360-4006 cal. B.C. (Trump 1995-6, 176).

247 R_Date BM-143; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date originally calibrated to 2430 cal. B.C. (Barker and Mackey 1968, 5).

248 R_Date OxA-3569, R_Date OxA-3570, R_Date OxA-3571, R_Date OxA-3573, R_Date OxA-3574, R_Date 3575, R_Date OxA-8165; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Dates originally calibrated to between 3088-2470 cal. B.C. (Bronk Ramsey et. al. 1999, 422; Skeates 1999-2000, 185; Trump 1995-6, 177).

53 earlier than the others. It is calibrated to 3634-2874 cal. B.C.,249 a date near the beginning of the cluster of Tarxien phase dates, rather than near other Tarxien Cemetery phase dates. The date for sample BM-141, comprised of carbonized seeds from a cinerary urn within the Tarxien

Cemetery, is also very early in light of other Tarxien Cemetery phase dates. It is calibrated to

2864-1949 cal. B.C.250 The large standard deviations associated with this date, (a date range of

+/- 150 years), suggest that the sample was problematic and that its date should not figure in further discussions concerning the nature of the Tarxien Cemetery phase. In contrast, three other

Tarxien Cemetery phase samples have much shorter error bars and form a tight cluster between

2000 and 1500 cal. B.C. OxA-3750 was an animal bone from a Tarxien Cemetery level at

Xag
ra Circle, dated to 2140-1740 cal. B.C.251 BM-710 and BM-711 were samples of carbonized 6-row barley and horse beans; both came from the cremation cemetery at Tarxien.

Sample BM-710 is dated to 1740-1427 cal. B.C.,252 and sample BM-711 is calibrated to 1877-

1461 cal. B.C.253 One final sample, a fragment of animal bone, was analyzed from a Tarxien

Cemetery level at Xag
ra Circle using AMS. This sample, OxA-3751, provided a date far too

249 R_Date BM-101; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date originally calibrated to 2535 cal. B.C. (Barker and Mackey 1963, 107).

250 R_Date BM-141; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date originally calibrated to 1930 cal. B.C. (Barker and Mackey 1968, 4).

251 Trump 1995-6, 177. My recalibration produced the same result as the original calibration of the date published by Trump.

252 R_Date BM-710; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date originally calibrated to 1336 cal. B.C. (Burleigh, Hewson, and Meeks 1977, 154.

253 R_Date BM-711; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date originally calibrated to 1404 cal. B.C. (Burleigh, Hewson, and Meeks 1977, 154).

54 late (427-661 cal. A.D.)254 to be assigned to the Tarxien Cemetery phase. The sample may have been out of context or contaminated.

Two samples from unclear contexts are not particularly useful for dating the cultural phases of the islands. They are reported here only for the sake of completeness. The first was a sample of human tooth from the al Saflieni Hypogeum and was dated using AMS. The range of dates

(2873-2580 cal. B.C.)255 for this sample, OxA-8197, falls within the same range as the samples from Tarxien phase contexts. The second sample without a clear context, a fragment of animal bone from Qala Pellegrin, BM-808, provided a date range (2570-2205 cal. B.C.)256 that falls either in the cluster of Tarxien or Tarxien Cemetery dates.

AN ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY

New calibrations do not contradict the accepted relative chronology for prehistoric Malta. Both the originally published dates and restatement of these dates, employing the most accurate C-14 curve now available, confirm the general order of the phases of Maltese prehistory that have been observed in stratigraphic excavation. The date clusters for both the ebbu and Tarxien phases represent a reasonable range of dates for each period, and there is no reason to doubt the dates provided by the two Gar Dalam samples. Since there does not appear to be any break in

254 R_Date OxA-3751; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date originally calibrated to 420-670 cal. A.D. (Trump 1995-6, 177).

255 R_Date OxA-8197; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date originally calibrated to 2879-2501 cal. B.C. (Bronk Ramsey et. al. 1999, 422; Skeates 1999-2000, 185).

256 R_Date BM-808; see Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2001. Date originally calibrated to 1962 cal. B.C. (Burleigh, Hewson, and Meeks 1977, 154).

55 the cultural sequence of the Neolithic, the chronology of the other phases (Grey and Red Skorba,

Marr, gantija, and Saflieni) can be estimated on the basis of the firmer dates of the Gar

Dalam, ebbu, and Tarxien phases. The result is the scheme presented in Figure 36. It is clear,

however, that more dates are now sorely needed to test this tentative chronology.

My own Neolithic chronology differs both from that of Pace and of Trump,257 particularly in

regards to the length of time allotted to the phases of the Temple Period. Both authors allow a

much longer span of time for the gantija phase than I have done. They set the beginning of that

phase in the early- to mid-4th millennium. However, the only reliable date from a gantija context, BM-712, dates to 3360-2941 cal. B.C. and it has a narrow error range (+/- 56 years).

Since there are no datable synchronisms between Malta and Sicily or the Aeolian islands after the ebbu period, any attempt to demonstrate an early date for the gantija phase through comparison with other parts of the Mediterranean is impossible. Therefore, I have placed the start of the gantija phase later than both authors. Additionally, I have lengthened the ebbu

period to continue into the second half of the 4th millennium B.C.E. This measure seems

warranted since several of the ebbu date ranges extend late in the 4th millennium. Although

two of those date ranges (OxA-3567, OxA-3566) were produced from analysis of bone, there is

no reason to doubt their accuracy: the majority of AMS dates of bone from Xagra Circle

compare favorably to dates of charcoal. Marr and Saflieni wares seem to be transitional; they

are few in number and have a limited distribution. Therefore, I have assigned short durations to

both the Marr and Saflieni phases. It should be noted, however, that stratigraphical evidence

suggests that the Marr phase probably overlapped the late ebbu and early gantija phases,

257 Pace 2004a, 18; Trump 2004, 230.

56 while the Saflieni phase seems to have overlapped the late gantija and early Tarxien phases for

an indeterminable length of time.258

The dates I have suggested for Bronze Age phases are highly speculative, but conform to generally accepted chronologies for prehistoric Malta. There are no radiocarbon dates for the

Bor in-Nadur or Barija phases, and the few from Tarxien Cemetery phase contexts do not

provide a clear picture of the chronology of that period. Fortunately, for the Bor in-Nadur

phase, the exchange of ceramics between Malta and other parts of the central Mediterranean

allows the creation of a chronology on the basis of cultural synchronisms. Nevertheless, the

need for more scientifically dated samples of Bronze Age samples is dire, especially given the

likely length of these phases, a lack of clarity about the relationship of Neolithic to Bronze Age

cultures, and confusion about the relative chronology of subphases of the Bronze Age.

THE CHRONOLOGY OF MALTA IN CONTEXT

Throughout the prehistory of Malta, proximity to Sicily encouraged regular interaction and

cultural exchanges. Both imports and stylistic similarities with artifacts from Sicily and other

southern Italian islands, particularly the Aeolian islands, suggest that over the long prehistoric

period, the Maltese were aware of, and in contact with, their neighbors. This awareness is

unsurprising, given that the first Neolithic settlers on Malta probably sailed from one of the Early

Neolithic Stentinello phase sites on Sicily. Pottery from other phases also resembles that of

Sicily and the Aeolian islands, as already discussed. This section will consider how well stylistic

258 Trump 1966, 49.

57 similarities between Malta, Sicily, and the Aeolian islands fit the absolute dating schemes

emerging in those areas.259

Unfortunately, the absolute dating of Sicilian and Aeolian prehistory is as spotty as that of Malta.

There are radiocarbon dates, but most are clustered in a few periods; the entire range of prehistoric phases is not covered.260 For example, there are no dates from a Stentinello context on Sicily. However, dates from pre-Stentinello contexts on Sicily (5750-4840 cal. B.C.261) and

Stentinello contexts in Calabria (5740-4400 cal. B.C.262) indicate that the dating of the G
ar

Dalam phase to the end of the 6th or the start of the 5th millennium B.C.E. is certainly possible.

Red Skorba pottery is covered with red slip and vessels often have trumpet handles near the lip,

much like Diana ware in Sicily, the Aeolian islands, and southern Italy. Although Trump cited

dates from Grotta del Cavallo (6th millennium cal. B.C.) as evidence that these two styles could

not be related,263 two other dates for the Diana phase, both from the Aeolian islands, date it to

4320-3360 cal. B.C.264 Robert Leighton has suggested that the Diana phase may have lasted

longer in southern Italy, where dates fall consistently in the earlier part of the 5th millennium

259 Because all of these dates were recalibrated in 1994, they have not been recalibrated here. Recalibration of all the 14C dates of Italy and Sicily is beyond the scope of this project, and is not necessary in order to make general comparisons with the Maltese sequence.

260 Skeates 1994, 259-69, 276; Trump 1995-6 174.

261 Skeates 1994, 276.

262 Skeates 1994, 276.

263 Trump 1995-6, 174.

264 Skeates 1994, 261.

58 B.C.E.265 The only radiocarbon date for the Red Skorba phase on Malta is 4330-3695 cal. B.C.,

well within the range of the Aeolian dates for the Diana phase. It is thus reasonable to suggest

that the two pottery styles were related in some way, and that the people who made this pottery

were in contact.

ebbu pottery has been compared to that of the San Cono-Piano Notaro phase of Sicily. Only two radiocarbon dates for this phase exist, both from the Grotta del Cavallo.266 Their range

(3950-3360 cal. B.C.,267) seems late, considering that ebbu date ranges begin at 4349 cal. B.C.

However, if the ebbu phase does continue into the second half of the 4th millennium B.C.E. as

suggested above, then the Grotta del Cavallo and ebbu phases probably would have

overlapped considerably. Unless earlier dates from Sicily come to light, however, the theory that

ebbu styles originated in Sicily is unsupportable. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suppose that

the phases are related.

While the Marr phase develops directly from the ebbu phase, there is little basis for relating

it independently to other areas of the central Mediterranean. Nor can clear synchronisms

between pottery of the gantija or Tarxien phases be established on the basis of stylistic similarities or imports and exports. Sicilian Late Copper Age Piano Quartara pottery has been found at Xagra Circle in a Tarxien context,268 which suggests that these two phases overlapped.

Unfortunately, no radiocarbon dates for this phase from Sicily are available.

265 Leighton 1999, 65.

266 Leighton 1999, 93.

267 Skeates 1994, 263.

268 Leighton 1999, 93; Trump 2002, 212.

59

There are clear similarities between Tarxien Cemetery phase pottery and that of the Early Bronze

Age Capo Graziano culture of the Aeolian islands. Although there are no radiocarbon dates

from the Capo Graziano phase, the Castelluccio phase in southern Sicily appears to have been

contemporary with it and has produced radiocarbon dates that range between 3080 and 1420 cal.

B.C.269 One date (A-3957) is aberrant; if it is removed from consideration, the Castelluccio

culture would range somewhere between 2862 and 1420 cal. B.C.270 This range corresponds well with that of Tarxien Cemetery radiocarbon date ranges (2864-1461 cal. B.C.).271

The most significant evidence for dating the Bor in-Nadur phase consists of two Late Helladic

IIIA2-IIIB sherds, one from Bor in-Nadur and one from Tas-Sil; Bor in-Nadur wares have

also been found in Thapsos phase contexts in Sicily. In turn, contexts of the Thapsos phase on

Sicily contain Mycenaean pottery covering the entirety of the Late Helladic III period.272 There

are no radiocarbon dates from the Thapsos phase at the site of Thapsos itself, but levels there

should be dated to the 14th – 11th centuries B.C.E. on the basis of the Mycenaean imports. At

Thapsos itself, Bor in-Nadur ware assigned by Trump to the beginning of Bor in-Nadur phase two,273 was found in the same tomb as Late Helladic IIIB vessels of the 13th c. B.C.E.274

269 Skeates 1994, 276. These dates are primarily from a series at La Muculufa, Agrigento (Skeates 1994, 259-60).

270 Skeates 1994, 259.

271 Trump 1995-6, 175.

272 Leighton 1999, 148.

273 Trump 1961, 261.

274 Trump 1995-6, 176.

60 Trump has suggested that the square meander and zigzag patterns of one class of Barija pottery is closely related to decoration on pottery from the Fossa Grave culture of Calabria, which he dated around the 9th century.275

The earliest evidence for a Phoenician presence on the islands is the Phoenician modification of the Tas-Sil temple at the end of the 8th century B.C.E.276 However, it is unclear how long the native inhabitants of Malta continued to manufacture pottery in indigenous styles before adopting those of the Phoenicians.277

In general, the cultural phases of Malta mirror styles and technologies in Sicily and the Aeolian islands and show similar patterns of change. This fact demonstrates that the inhabitants of prehistoric Malta were integrated within a larger central Mediterranean cultural sphere; they did not, however, belong consistently to the same cultural koiné in all periods of the past. Whether changes in cultural contacts with areas outside the Maltese islands indicate changes in the makeup of the Maltese population over time is unclear. Such differences might also be explained as reflections of changes in taste or in the structure of exchange networks. What is clear from stylistic similarities and the presence of regional imports is that Malta participated in the broader cultural networks of the central Mediterranean to a limited extent throughout the

Neolithic and Bronze Age (Figure 52).

275 Trump 2004, 247.

276 Bonanno 2005, 22-3.

277 Bonanno 2005, 29-30.

61 In the course of the central Mediterranean Copper and Bronze Ages, Sicily and southern Italy

became part of a wide network of cultural interaction that increasingly included the eastern

Mediterranean. Malta, however, remained relatively unaffected and continued to participate primarily in local, rather than long-distance, exchange networks. In Chapter 3, I examine in greater detail the relationship of Malta to the rest of the central Mediterranean, as well as the scanty evidence for contact with the Aegean. Then, in Chapter 4, I contrast the Maltese situation more explicitly to that of Sicily and southern Italy.

62 CHAPTER 3. EVIDENCE FOR MALTESE EXCHANGE NETWORKS

As noted in the previous chapters, Malta had connections with Sicily from the beginning of the

Neolithic, throughout all of its prehistory. Other areas in contact with prehistoric Malta include

parts of southern Italy, the Aeolian islands, and to a limited extent, the Aegean. There are three

major types of archaeological evidence on Malta which suggest contact between the Maltese and

their neighbors. The first is imported goods, such as obsidian, flint, and occasional pottery. The second type of evidence consists of similarities which exist during some phases between Maltese material culture and that of Sicily, the Aeolian islands, and southern Italy. The third category is made up of similarities in cultural forms, like settlement types or funerary traditions. Through

the examination of these three types of evidence, this chapter will summarize the types of contact

between Malta and other areas of the Mediterranean during prehistory.

DATA278

Neolithic

Because G
ar Dalam represents the first phase of settlement on Malta during the Neolithic, all

cultural material associated with this phase, at least at its beginning, must have been imported.

While G
ar Dalam pottery is found at several sites, the only non-ceramic cultural material found

in association with this pottery comes from Skorba. In G
ar Dalam levels at Skorba, Trump

found evidence for domesticated lentil (Lens esculenta), an unidentifiable type of barley, and

278 Evans (1971) listed all finds that could be associated with prehistoric Maltese sites, including imports like flint and obsidian, but in many cases it is impossible to relate these objects to a particular stratigraphical phase. Here, I only include information on imports that I could associate with a specific phase of Maltese prehistory.

63 both emmer (Triticum dicoccum) and club wheat (Triticum compactum).279 While no wild

animal bones were identified, Trump discovered domesticated sheep or goat, cow, pig, and a

small canid (dog, fox, or jackal) associated with this phase.280 The absence of transitional forms

implies that plants and animals native to the islands were not domesticated. It seems more likely

that the domesticated animals and plants represented at Skorba were brought to the islands by the

first Neolithic inhabitants. These settlers probably came from Sicily, where the same plants and

animals were in use,281 and where the pottery closely resembled this first phase of pottery on

Malta. Additional imports included 99 fragments of translucent grey obsidian, probably from

Lipari, flint from Sicily, and 21 fragments of obsidian from Pantelleria.282 Lipari and Pantelleria

obsidian were also being imported to Sicily at this time.283 Lipari obsidian is more frequent in

Sicily than Pantelleria obsidian, much like the situation in Malta.284

Like the G
ar Dalam phase, the Grey Skorba phase is best represented at Skorba itself. While

the number of stone tools made of local material increased in this phase, imported obsidian and flint tools were as few as during the G
ar Dalam phase.285 Two large cores of obsidian were

discovered, one from Lipari and one from Pantelleria. Fragments of both Lipari and Pantelleria

obsidian were fewer than in G
ar Dalam levels – only 29 fragments of obsidian from Lipari, and

279 Helbaek 1966.

280 Gandert 1966; Trump 1966, 24.

281 Leighton 1999, 51-2.

282 Trump 1966, 24, 50, table IV.

283 Leighton 1999, 74-6.

284 Leighton 1999, 76.

285 Trump 1966, 28.

64 11 fragments from Pantelleria.286 The decrease in imported obsidian corresponds to increasing quantities of worked local chert.287 Flint from Grey Skorba contexts was probably imported

from Sicily, as were perhaps green metamorphic stones used for amulets.288 It is possible that

fragments of lava were imported from Sicily as well.289 The ceramic imports in this phase

consist of five sherds, probably from Trefontane in Sicily. Three of these were found at Skorba

and two were found at Santa Verna, all in Grey Skorba phase contexts.290 They are characterized by finely incised cross-hatched decoration (Figure 53).

Red Skorba levels at Skorba contained imports of similar types to those found in Grey Skorba levels. Of the 71 fragments of obsidian, 70 came from Lipari while only one came from

Pantelleria.291 Objects of flint, probably from Sicily, were also scarce.292 A fragment of pumice

that Trump suggested had originated in Lipari was also found. It is possible that this was

deliberately brought to Malta, but it also could have floated there.293 As discussed in Chapter 2,

Red Skorba ware is similar in decoration, particularly in the application of red slip, to Diana

286 Trump 1966, 50, table IV.

287 Trump 1966, 29.

288 Trump 1966, 29.

289 Trump 1966, 30.

290 Trump 1966, 45.

291 Trump 1966, 50, table IV.

292 Trump 1966, 34.

293 Trump 1966, 35.

65 ware from eastern Sicily and the Aeolian islands. One sherd of imported Diana ware has also

been identified in Malta.294

Settlement and funerary evidence for these phases in Malta is minimal. However, there is no

reason to suspect that the Maltese types were drastically different from those of Sicily and the

other islands. The exception to this is the Red Skorba shrine (see Preface), which consists of two

buildings with irregular floors and unusual artifactual material. If indeed ritual in nature, this

shrine was unlike contemporary ritual facilities in southern Italy and Sicily, which were located

in difficult to reach, restricted, “secret” locations, but not within settlements.295 It is only in

respect to the Red Skorba shrine that Malta could be said to differ substantially from neighboring

areas in cultural forms.

During the earlier Neolithic, Malta seems to have been part of a cultural koiné that included

Sicily, southern Italy, and the surrounding islands. However, minor variations in material culture

on Malta, such as the unique shrine at Skorba and idiosyncrasies of Maltese pottery styles (see

Chapter 2), might reflect that, to some extent, the Maltese thought of themselves as distinct from

neighboring cultures, even in these early phases.296 Since Malta is an island archipelago, and

therefore physically bounded from surrounding landmasses, it is not unexpected that the people

living on the islands would also see themselves as distinct from nearby groups of people.

294 Trump 2004, 246.

295 Malone, Stoddart, and Whitehouse 1994, 186; Whitehouse 1992.

296 It is also possible that microregionality is simply a reflection of a self-contained ceramic industry, whereby Maltese potters learned their craft on Malta, rather than in neighboring areas. See Herbich (1987) for ethnographic evidence of this phenomenon.

66 Temple Period

Contacts with the south-central Mediterranean continued during the Temple Period, although

there is some evidence near the end of this period for wider-reaching links. Two axes and a hone

of non-local, metamorphic stone were found in ebbu levels at Skorba, although the origin of these stones is unknown.297 Analyses of stone axes and stone axe pendants from Xagra Circle have suggested that 80% of the examples of this object type at the site are non-local.298 The

greenstone examples were probably imported from sources in both southern and northern Italy,

although they may have come to Malta through Sicily, where greenstone axes and axe pendants

were also widely used. Some basaltic axes and axe pendants from Xagra Circle may be from

sources near Mount Etna and Mount Iblei in Sicily, or perhaps from Pantelleria.299 Obsidian

from Lipari (23 fragments) and Pantelleria (three fragments) were found associated with ebbu

levels at Skorba.300 Two blades and two flakes of obsidian were found in the ebbu phase tomb

at Xagra Circle. Flint, probably from Sicily, was found in small quantities at Skorba,301 ebbu itself (four pieces),302 and Xagra Circle (seven pieces).303 The red ocher used in tombs, like

those at ebbu304 and at Xagra Circle,305 is not native to Malta. Sicily is the nearest source of

ocher.306

297 Trump 1966, 36-7.

298 Five of six axe pendants and nine of 13 axes were imported (Malone et. al. 1995, 325-9).

299 Malone et. al. 1995, 326.

300 Trump 1966, 50, table IV.

301 Trump 1966, 37. The exact number of flakes was not reported.

302 Baldacchino and Evans 1954, 4, 10, 13.

303 Malone et. al. 1995, 323.

304 Baldacchino and Evans 1954, 1.

67

Similarities in vessel shapes and decoration between the Sicilian San Cono-Piano Notaro wares

and ebbu phase pottery might suggest that ocher on Malta also came from Sicily. It has been

suggested that ocher was transported in San Cono-Piano Notaro pottery, which, in turn, inspired

ebbu style pottery.307 However, no imports of San Cono-Piano Notaro wares have been found

on Malta. Furthermore, the ebbu phase seems to predate the San Cono-Piano Notaro phase

(see Chapter 2). Therefore the ebbu style of pottery is unlikely to be directly based on San

Cono-Piano Notaro wares.

The ebbu chamber tombs are the first example of funerary practices of the Maltese Neolithic.

Chamber tombs used for inhumation burials were common to much of the central Mediterranean during the late Neolithic.308 The ebbu tombs have been compared most often to chamber

tombs of the San Cono-Piano Notaro phase of Sicily, although ebbu phase tombs contain far

more burials than Sicilian examples (see Chapter 2). The use of ocher in ebbu phase tombs

may correspond to the use of ocher in tombs and other ritual contexts in Sicily.309 This might

reflect a common outlook within both Sicilian and Maltese society on the proper use and

meaning of ocher.

305 Malone et. al. 1995, 335.

306 Holloway 1991, 17.

307 Maniscalco 1989, 541.

308 Whitehouse 1972, 276; 1981, 108.

309 Castellana 1995; Maniscalco 1989, 540.

68 As discussed in the previous chapter, Marr is a transitional phase and is seldom represented in

isolated deposits. Therefore, there is little evidence for trade in this phase. However, ocher, as

in the previous phases, was imported for use as a decorative wash for ceramics.310 An Marr phase context at Skorba produced two fragments of obsidian from Lipari.311

Although gantija phase pottery is frequently found throughout Malta, the only site at which

these ceramics have been associated with imported items is Skorba.312 Flint from Sicily was

found in small quantities, as in earlier phases. Thirty-three fragments of obsidian from Lipari

and four fragments of obsidian from Pantelleria were found associated with deposits of this

phase at Skorba.313

The temples themselves are unlike any architectural forms in neighboring areas. Settlement data

are too sparse to compare. However, the underground burial facility at al Saflieni which was

first used extensively during this phase is somewhat similar to some subterranean tomb facilities

in Sicily, such as those at Ribera, Calaforno, and Malpasso.314

310 Trump 1966, 38.

311 Trump 1966, 50, table IV.

312 Evans 1953, 57; Trump 1966, 38-40.

313 Trump 1966, 50, table IV.

314 Leighton 1999, 93, 95.

69 Saflieni levels at Skorba contained seven fragments of obsidian from Lipari and one fragment of

Pantelleria obsidian.315 For the first time, a gray-buff flint, perhaps from Mount Iblei in Sicily, began to appear.316 Ocher continued to be imported for use in ceramic decoration.

Gray-buff flint became more common in Tarxien phase levels at Skorba, while only eight

fragments of obsidian from Lipari were found.317 Zammit also found flint and obsidian,

including a large core, at Tarxien.318 While exact numbers are unavailable for Tarxien, evidence

from Skorba suggests that imported flint tools may have outnumbered tools of local chert during

this phase.319 At Skorba, Trump discovered one axe amulet made of an imported green stone, 320

while similar stone amulets of gray, green, and bluish black were found at Tarxien and the
al

Saflieni Hypogeum.321 These stones may have come from northeastern Sicily or southern

Calabria.322 Alabaster was imported for a figurine head at Tarxien,323 as well as two standing

315 Trump 1966, 50, table IV.

316 Trump 1966, 42. The number of flint objects was not reported.

317 Trump 1966, 43, 50, table IV. Over twelve gray-buff flint scrapers were identified.

318 Zammit 1930a, 91. Zammit did not quantify the stones. Evans (1971, 147) reported one core, twenty flakes, and one knife.

319 Trump 1966, 43.

320 Trump 1966, 43.

321 Zammit 1930a, 92. The
al Saflieni Hypogeum was at the peak of use during the Tarxien phase. Nevertheless, it is possible that the stones could belong to one of the other phases of the Temple Period, since the Hypogeum was in use for the entirety of that time span. Evans (1971, 64-6, 145-6) reported at least 15 pendants from Tarxien and over 100 pendants of various shapes from the Hypogeum. Exact numbers for imported versus local stones for the Hypogeum are not available.

322 Trump 2004, 239.

323 Zammit 1930a, 82.

70 anthropomorphic figurines and perhaps one animal figurine from the
al Saflieni Hypogeum.324

The nearest alabaster source is on the southern coast of Sicily.325 Other imported stones at

Tarxien included an oval, white, striated stone bead;326 a gray stone mace head;327 querns and

grinders made of volcanic stone;328 stone rubbers;329 fine-grained gray granite hammer stones and hammer stones of other heavy foreign stones.330 Imported ocher was used to paint the

outside of a cylindrical stone vessel from Tarxien.331 Ocher was also used for wall paintings at

the
al Saflieni Hypogeum.332 A bossed bone plaque shows similarities to later plaques from the

Castelluccio period on Sicily, as well as to plaques from Greece and Troy (Figure 54).333 The wide distribution of these plaques in Sicily (17 examples) compared with the sparse distribution elsewhere might suggest that they were of Sicilian manufacture.334 Evans has argued that the

324 Evans 1971, 62, 64. As mentioned above, the dating of objects from the
al Saflieni Hypogeum is difficult. Since the
al Saflieni figurines are stylistically similar to other limestone figurines securely associated with Tarxien phase contexts, the
al Saflieni examples are usually dated to that phase as well.

325 Holloway 1991, 18.

326 Zammit 1930a, 81-2.

327 Zammit 1930a, 83.

328 Zammit 1930a, 85.

329 Zammit 1930a, 90.

330 Zammit 1930a, 91.

331 Zammit 1930a, 89.

332 Pace 2004c, 39-40; Zammit 1935. The ocher is likely, but not certainly, from the Tarxien phase (see above).

333 Evans 1956a; 1956b, 99. One plaque has been found at Lerna and probably dates to Early Helladic III – Middle Helladic I (Caskey 1954, 22, plate 9, g). Four plaques were found at Troy, in levels of Troy III (Schliemann 1881, 514, number 983; 1972, 116, number 41; Dörpfeld 1902, 391-2, figure 376; Blegen et. al. 1950, 363, figure 365, 35- 528). The Greek and Trojan examples, however, are different from the Sicilian examples in being undecorated apart from bosses and in having a flat rather than U-shaped base (Evans 1956a, 86-90).

334 Holloway 1991, 27; Leighton 1999, 144.

71 Maltese example dates from the Tarxien Cemetery phase rather than the Tarxien phase.335 This

would make more sense with regard to the more numerous examples with a better context from

Castelluccio phase levels in Sicily.

Evans noted particular features of Tarxien phase pottery which were similar to other areas. He

saw plastic and studded decoration as reminiscent of ceramic features in southeastern Italy, while

he thought that the style of high triangular handles was imported from Sicily. Evans also

suggested that tunnel handles in Sardinia were modeled on earlier Maltese examples.336 Three

Sicilian Piano Quartara style sherds, found in a Tarxien phase context at Xagra Circle, are the only clear examples of imported pottery in this phase.337

Another type of pottery, which both Trump and Evans considered to be foreign, appeared in

Tarxien phase contexts at Skorba and Tarxien.338 It is characterized by a gray fabric, a thickened

lip, and dot-filled incised decoration.339 While a number of “Thermi ware” sherds have been

found, only one vase, a pedestal bowl, is reconstructable (Figure 55). This was discovered in a

secure Tarxien phase context at Tarxien itself.340 Trump labeled this pottery type as “Thermi ware,” because he saw its closest parallels in the thickened-lip bowls found in Early Bronze Age

335 Evans 1971, 86.

336 Evans 1971, 222-3.

337 Leighton 1999, 93.

338 Evans 1971, 217; Trump 1966, 46. “Thermi ware” may also appear in a gantija phase context at Skorba (see Chapter 2).

339 Trump 1966, 46.

340 Evans 1971, 221.

72 levels at Thermi on Lesbos and in Troy I.341 However, while the sherds at Thermi and at Troy

show incised decoration filled with white paste, the patterns are not identical to Maltese “Thermi

ware,” nor were pedestal bowls common in this period at either Aegean site.342 It seems unlikely

then, that this pottery was directly imported from the northeastern Aegean. Furthermore, as

discussed in Chapter 2, the only piece of “Thermi ware” that has been subject to neutron

activation analysis was composed of local Maltese clays. While that sherd was from a Tarxien

Cemetery phase context, its local clay composition raises doubts about the “exotic” origin of

other examples of “Thermi ware.” Although Maltese “Thermi ware” vessels may not have been

imports from the east, it is possible that they were derived from northeastern Aegean types.

However, they may be more closely related to the abundant examples of thickened-rim bowls

with incised decoration from the western Balkans, including the west coast of Greece.343

Examples of “Thermi ware” appear in late Copper Age and early Bronze Age contexts in Sicily, at Castelluccio and Ognina.344 Comparable decoration is common in later Capo Graziano phase

ceramics from the Aeolian islands.345 Since “Thermi ware” is also extremely similar to Tarxien

341 Trump 1966, 46.

342 Blegen et. al. 1950, plates 223-67; Lamb 1936, figures 26, 29, plates IX-XI, XIII-XVI, XXXV-XXXVII. From Troy I, there are two bowl shapes, A7 and A13, that have a tall foot, but neither has the same large proportion of base size to bowl size as the Maltese “Thermi ware” example from Tarxien. Similarly, vessels with a tall foot from Thermi, like bowl shapes A2, A3 (Lamb 1936, figure 26), and the pedestal cup (Lamb 1936, figure 29), do not have similar proportions to the “Thermi ware” pedestal bowl from Malta.

343 Cazzella 2003, 560, 562; Cazzella, Pace, and Recchia, forthcoming, 244-5.

344 Bernabò Brea 1966b, 109-10; Cazzella, Pace and Recchia, forthcoming, 244-6, figure 2. Bernabò Brea described this type of pottery as Tarxien Cemetery ware, and thought that it had been deposited at Ognina by Maltese colonists. However, after a re-examination of the pottery, Evans (1984, 496-7) discovered that most of the pottery Bernabò Brea described as Tarxien Cemetery ware was actually “Thermi ware.”

345 Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980, plate CXXXI for dot-filled incised triangles filled with white paste, and plate CXXXIII for examples of that motif on pedestal cups.

73 Cemetery phase pottery, Trump has suggested that Tarxien Cemetery wares may imitate it.346

Early central Mediterranean examples of “Thermi ware” may point to increasing contact between the central and eastern Mediterranean before the Bronze Age, when Aegean pottery was first imported to Lipari in large quantities. 347 The existence of early “Thermi ware” sherds in Tarxien

and perhaps gantija phase contexts on Malta suggests that the Maltese were also participating

in these early long-distance exchange networks. However, the relative infrequency of eastern

imports in comparison with later periods (see Chapter 4) might suggest that objects moved over

great distances via interconnected local exchange networks, rather than through the agency of

long-distance merchants. It is therefore unlikely that the Maltese during this phase ever had

direct contact with people from the east.

Bronze Age

Most archaeological remains of the Tarxien Cemetery phase come from funerary contexts in the

Tarxien Cemetery itself and from Xagra Circle. At Tarxien Cemetery, Zammit found many

metal objects. No metal resources exist on Malta, so the raw materials for these objects must

have been imported. Since no moulds or other metal-working implements have been found in

Tarxien Cemetery phase contexts, it is probable that the objects themselves, not just the raw

materials, were imported from abroad. Metal objects from the Tarxien Cemetery included a thin

sheet of silver, a biconical silver bead, a cylindrical mass of lead, eight copper daggers, eight

346 Trump 2004, 247.

347 See Chapter 4. Frequent trade between the central and eastern Mediterranean did not begin until the central Mediterranean early Bronze Age, which was contemporary with the eastern Mediterranean Late Bronze Age (Figure 52).

74 copper chisels, and copper awls with bone handles.348 Zammit also found several crystalline

masses of sulphur, which must have been imported from one of the nearby volcanic islands,

perhaps Sicily.349 Pumice, too, might have been imported, although it could have washed up on

Malta.350 He also found several beads made of imported hard stones, including alabaster, as well as six flakes of obsidian and at least six flint tools.351

As discussed above, Trump suggested that the incised ceramic decoration of the Tarxien

Cemetery period might imitate “Thermi ware” that appeared in small quantities in previous

phases.352 The incised decoration and shapes of Tarxien Cemetery ware are also very similar to

the Capo Graziano ware of the Aeolian islands, while the incised designs resemble the painted

styles of Castelluccio ware in Sicily.353 Actual “Thermi ware” also appeared in Tarxien

Cemetery phase contexts, but as mentioned above, at least some of it was produced locally.

Thousands of faience and ostrich shell beads were found in the Tarxien Cemetery.354 The ostrich

shell was almost certainly imported, probably from Africa or the Middle East.355 The beads are

348 Zammit 1930a, 60-2.

349 Zammit 1930a, 59-60. Leighton (1999, 141) noted that there is some evidence for local extraction of sulphur in Sicily during this phase.

350 Zammit 1930a, 62.

351 Evans 1971, 162-4.

352 Trump 2004, 247.

353 Evans 1953, 85.

354 Pace 2004b, 214-5.

355 Reese 1985, 378.

75 similar to eastern examples,356 but it is also possible that the Tarxien Cemetery types were locally made.357 A bossed bone plaque from Tarxien may belong to the Tarxien Cemetery phase

(see above). The plaque, stylistically related to examples throughout the central and eastern

Mediterranean, is significant because it, like the ostrich shell and perhaps the beads,

demonstrates that central Mediterranean exchange networks in this phase was beginning to reach

more distant regions.

Some attempts have been made to link the Tarxien Cemetery phase culture to contemporary

Aegean cultures of the Early and Middle Bronze Age of the eastern Mediterranean (Figure 52).

Pottery analyses that describe general similarities between Tarxien Cemetery wares and Early

and Middle Helladic wares have been published.358 Evans thought that Tarxien Cemetery ware had affinities to both Early Cypriot and Trojan wares as well.359 The aim of these comparisons

was to identify the origin of what was seen as an intrusive culture in the central

Mediterranean.360 However, while it is possible that Aegean styles might have influenced central

Mediterranean wares, the infrequency of eastern imports in Malta at the end of the Temple

Period might suggest that such influence moved, like the bossed bone plaques or early “Thermi

ware,” through a series of small, interconnected exchange networks, at least at the beginning of

the phase.

356 Harding 1984, 92-3; Stone 1971, 236.

357 Renfrew and Whitehouse 1974, 361.

358 Bernabò Brea 1966b, 100-1; Evans 1953, 85-6; 1959, 180.

359 Evans 1953, 85-6.

360 Bernabò Brea 1966b, 100-1; Evans 1956b, 95-7.

76 In addition to the possibility that ostrich shell, faience, or bossed bone plaques were imported from the east, a peculiar symbol found on three Maltese objects has sometimes been interpreted as deriving from Minoan Linear A script.361 The symbol was identified on a Tarxien ware sherd,

a pierced and polished stone, and a cylindrical gold-inlaid bead (Figure 56).362 The dating of the

stone and the bead is uncertain, but the symbol is usually interpreted as belonging to the Tarxien

Cemetery phase. However, the Tarxien ware sherd must have been produced during the later

Temple Period, presumably by a Maltese potter.363 However, as discussed above, it is unlikely

that the Maltese and the Minoans ever came into direct contact with each other during this

period. Therefore, the symbol must either represent a local imitation of Linear A script, or it

must be unrelated to Aegean scripts. Since the Maltese symbol does not closely resemble any

symbol in either Linear A or Linear B script, nor is either script known from other central

Mediterranean contexts,364 it seems most likely that this symbol was an independent creation of the local population. Furthermore, if the currently accepted chronology is correct (Figure 52), the Tarxien phase example would be chronologically earlier than the first example of Linear A on Crete, from the Aegean Middle Bronze Age.365

The latter portion of the Tarxien Cemetery phase probably overlapped with the earliest stages of

regular exchange between the Aegean and the central Mediterranean. This exchange was

focused primarily in the southern Tyrrhenian islands, particularly Vivara and Lipari, as well as

361 Bonanno 1999, 99-100; Evans 1959, 163-4.

362 All three objects are from Tarxien.

363 It is possible that the symbol was scratched into the surface of the sherd later, but evidence from photos suggests that it was incised before firing. A first-hand examination of the sherd would be necessary to resolve the matter.

364 Owens 1999.

365 Dickinson 1994, 193-6.

77 Monte Grande in southwestern Sicily (see Chapter 4). These are the only areas in which eastern

goods, including Late Helladic I and Late Helladic II wares, have been found in large numbers in the central Mediterranean during this phase. The Maltese seem to have been in relatively frequent contact with the Aeolian islands during this phase, at least based on the similarities of their ceramic styles. Contact with the Aeolian islands would have enabled the Maltese to obtain eastern goods, yet no eastern ceramic imports are known. The dating of other imported goods, like faience and beads, is too general to clarify whether they were imported before or after trade between the central and eastern Mediterranean became frequent.

Architecture in the Tarxien Cemetery phase has parallels with Sicily and southern Italy. Evans’ excavation of Ta’ ammut, the only Maltese dolmen yet discovered with datable ceramics still in situ, demonstrated that this architectural style belonged to the Tarxien Cemetery phase.366

Maltese dolmens are similar to a few tombs in Sicily, as well as to dolmens in Apulia around

Otranto (see below). The dolmen at Ta’ ammut is constructed of an irregular capstone held about 50 cm above bedrock by several rough slabs and boulders (Figure 16). A cavity had been cut into the rock beneath the capstone.367 Other dolmens throughout Malta were constructed in

similar fashion, with a large capstone held low above the bedrock and supported by several slabs

or boulders.368 While most capstones were undecorated, some, like those at Misra Sinjura and

Wied nuber, were carved with grooves or cup-shaped hollows, while others had a hole drilled

all the way through, like those at Safi and Bidni.369

366 Evans 1956b.

367 Evans 1956b, 86-7.

368 Evans 1971, 195-8.

369 Evans 1971, 193.

78

The megalithic tombs in the Otranto area of Apulia are oval, polygonal, or sub-rectangular, and

are constructed with a capstone above two to eight supports that were made of rough slabs, monolithic blocks, or pillars composed of smaller stones, projecting bedrock, or dry-stone walling (Figure 57). Some examples have a hollow in the bedrock below the capstone, and the capstones themselves, like those on Malta, are sometimes perforated or have incised grooves or shallow holes.370 These tombs have been dated to the same period as the Tarxien Cemetery culture on the basis of their similarities to the Maltese examples, but they contained no datable cultural material.371

Several dolmen-like tombs also exist in Sicily. Two cist tombs found near Monte Racello were

made of upright stone slabs, and were perhaps covered by a tumulus.372 One example, near

Petraro, was composed of a large capstone supported by smaller stones, much like the Maltese

dolmens.373 Circular tombs formed by slabs and perhaps roofed or covered with mounds were

also found at Cava dei Servi and Polizzello. No datable material was associated with these

tombs, but Castelluccio pottery was reported in the vicinity of both tombs.374

370 Whitehouse 1981, 110-11.

371 Whitehouse 1981, 111.

372 Orsi 1898, 201-3.

373 Recami, Mignosa, and Baldini 1983, 71, 75.

374 Leighton 1999, 125.

79 There is no evidence that Maltese dolmens were covered with earthen mounds, and they seem

more similar to the examples from Apulia than those from Sicily. Whitehouse considered the

Apulian examples to be derived from a local tradition of rock-cut tombs, but noted that whether

they are considered to be local or a result of ideological diffusion is largely a matter of personal

preference, since no concrete evidence exists for either interpretation.375 The Maltese and

Apulian examples are, however, not identical, a fact which may suggest that the Maltese tradition was not introduced by Apulian immigrants, as Evans suggested.376 The Maltese

tradition may, instead, reflect a local development of rock-cut tombs that was influenced by

contact with populations in Apulia and perhaps also in Sicily.

The practice of cremation (not always associated with dolmens) was adopted in isolated

cemeteries in Sicily, as well as in the Aeolian islands and southern Italy.377 In this respect as

well, the inhabitants of Malta seem to have participated in a local, central Mediterranean cultural

koiné. Nevertheless, aspects of Tarxien Cemetery material culture were not identical to those of

other areas. As in previous periods, these minor material differences might reflect that the

Maltese considered themselves to be culturally distinct from their neighbors.

The Tarxien Cemetery phase culture has been identified as intrusive and foreign itself, on the

basis of extreme differences in architecture, artistic styles, and funerary customs between the

Tarxien and the Tarxien Cemetery phases. However, there is also some evidence for continuity.

375 Whitehouse 1981, 112, 122-3.

376 Evans 1959, 179.

377 Malone, Stoddart, and Whitehouse 1994, 188.

80 Tarxien Cemetery phase wares have been found at nearly every Tarxien phase site, and several megalithic sites were modified and reused by the Tarxien Cemetery population (see Chapter 2).

The construction of megalithic dolmens and menhirs might point to a conceptual continuity in beliefs regarding the appropriate monumentalization of ritual and/or funerary space, between the

Tarxien and Tarxien Cemetery phases. “Thermi ware,” found first in the Tarxien phase, was imitated by the Tarxien Cemetery population, and imported axe amulets continued to be used.378

As in previous phases, imports during the Tarxien Cemetery phase almost never included foreign pottery.

By the Bor in-Nadur phase, settlements began to be founded in new areas, and burials were no longer made in megalithic structures. In the course of her excavations at the fortified hill site of

Bor in-Nadur, Margaret Murray found a few pieces of bronze. These included a small flat disc with a square hole, two annular objects, a small bronze rod, a piece of lead, and a formless bronze fragment.379 Both annular objects were gilded.380 Trump found an additional bronze rivet in the course of his 1959 excavation at the same site.381 The source of the bronze and lead is unknown. Murray also found a small limestone mould with concentric circles and hollows sunk into one face.382 From the mould, it is clear that bronze was being worked locally during this phase. Murray also discovered 15 fragments of clay anchors, which could be associated

378 Evans 1971, 162. Since Tarxien Cemetery phase axe amulets are very similar to Temple Period axe amulets, Evans thought the Tarxien Cemetery people had found Temple Period examples and reused them.

379 Murray 1923, 43; Evans 1971, 17.

380 Evans 1971, 17.

381 Trump 1961, 256.

382 Murray 1929, plates VIII, 3, and XIX, 1.

81 with similar finds at sites in both the central and eastern Mediterranean. These include

contemporary Milazzese in the Aeolian islands,383 an Iron Age context at Torre Castelluccia near

Taranto in southern Italy,384 and Early Bronze Age levels at many sites throughout northern and southern Greece.385 Evans thought that the Maltese clay anchors might date to the Tarxien

Cemetery phase rather than the Bor in-Nadur phase, since Tarxien Cemetery phase pottery was

also found at Bor in-Nadur.386 There is little to support his argument however, since the

Milazzese example would be contemporary with the Bor in-Nadur phase, while the existence of

an Iron Age example in southern Italy and Early Bronze Age examples throughout Greece suggest a long period of use for this type of object. Although the function of the clay anchors is unknown, suggestions of their function include use as figurines, amulets, hangers, or implements for weaving.387

Bor in-Nadur phase pottery at Thapsos in Sicily is the first example in which Maltese ceramics

can be identified securely in a non-Maltese context.388 In tomb D at Thapsos, Bor in-Nadur phase pottery, primarily cups and some jars, was found alongside several Mycenaean vessels

383 Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1956, 62, figure 40f.

384 Evans 1956b, 99.

385 See Banks (1967, 635-7) and Evans (1956b, 99) for sites and further references.

386 Evans 1956b, 100-1.

387 See Banks (1967, 634) for an overview of arguments and bibliography.

388 Trump 2004, 247. Leighton (1999, 174) suggested that at least some of these may not be imports, but might reflect a style shared between Malta and Sicily. The use of pedestal bowls, in particular, is common in Sicily throughout the Bronze Age (Maniscalco 1999, 185). Bernabò Brea (1966a) thought that most of the pottery from Ognina was Maltese, but this has been disputed (see above).

82 dated to Late Helladic IIIA-IIIB, as well as Cypriot base ring II ware and white shaved ware.389

Additional pieces of Bor in-Nadur ware were found throughout the settlement area.390 Bor in-

Nadur phase pottery has also been found at other sites in the area of the bay of Syracuse, including the cemeteries at Chiusazza (one cup)391 and Cozzo del Pantano (a “fruit bowl” and

tronco-conic bowls).392 Fragments of Bor in-Nadur phase vases have also been found at

Ognina.393 For the first time, it seems that Maltese ceramics were valued enough by neighboring

populations to be placed in rich tombs. These vessels are also the first concrete example of a

commodity that the Maltese could have traded for metals and other imports. Since the shapes

found are primarily cups, bowls, and occasional jugs, it is most likely that the ceramic object

itself was desired, since cups and bowls are not transport containers.

While Mycenaean pottery became increasingly frequent in other central Mediterranean contexts

during the Maltese Bor in-Nadur phase, only two fragments have been found on Malta itself.

One, from Tas-Sil, remains unpublished. The other, a sherd from a Late Helladic IIIA2 or IIIB

kylix, is from an unstratified context at Bor in-Nadur (Figure 58).394 The Mycenaean sherd

belongs to approximately the same period as the Mycenaean vessels found with Bor in-Nadur

phase pottery at Thapsos.

389 Voza 1973, 31. Cypriot ceramics are not as plentiful in the western Mediterranean as Mycenaean ceramics, but some Cypriot vessels have been discovered, primarily in Sicily and Sardinia (Vagnetti 2001).

390 Voza 1973, 44-5; 1976-7, 565-8.

391 Tiné 1965, 235-7.

392 Tusa 1983, 407.

393 Bernabò Brea 1966a.

394 Evans 1953, 90, plate XIV, numbers 1-2; Taylour 1958, 80.

83 The Bor in-Nadur phase is characterized by fortified hilltop settlements, particularly in the

Rabat-Dingli area of west-central Malta.395 While no site but Bor in-Nadur has been excavated,

several others have been identified from the presence of fortification walls and Bor in-Nadur

phase sherd scatters. On the basis of this type of evidence, Bor in-Nadur phase sites are

suspected to have existed at Ras il-ebel,396 Il Qortin,397 and Wardija ta S. or398 in Malta and

In-Nuffara in Gozo.399 The fortification at Bor in-Nadur itself is the best preserved of these

walls (Figure 59). The wall, comprised of drystone masonry using large stones, has been

compared to Mycenaean ashlar and cyclopean masonry.400 However, the almost total lack of

Mycenaean imports on the islands suggests that in this phase as well, direct contact between the

Maltese and eastern traders was unlikely. Furthermore, Malta has huge resources of soft and

easy to cut limestone, in addition to a long tradition of local large-scale stoneworking. It is

therefore unlikely that the Maltese in the Bor in-Nadur phase would have required any external

assistance to create such walls.

The trend towards coastal fortified sites and inland hilltop sites which appears in Malta during

the Bor in-Nadur phase is similar to the contemporary settlement patterns in the rest of the

south-central Mediterranean. From the beginning of the Bronze Age, people in the Aeolian

islands and Sicily intentionally founded settlements that could be defended, either naturally or

395 Pace 1992, 39.

396 Evans 1971, 36.

397 Evans 1971, 232.

398 Evans 1971, 116.

399 Evans 1971, 171.

400 Evans 1959, 185.

84 through the construction of defensive walls.401 Stone walls and bastions appear at Branco

Grande on the southeast coast of Sicily,402 Timpa Dieri on the east coast,403 and at both

Thapsos404 and Ognina405 near Syracuse. Many sites of this phase in the Aeolian islands, like

Montagnola, and the Lipari acropolis, were also located in difficult to access areas.406 This trend

continued throughout the Bronze Age, although sites on Sicily seem to have moved closer to the

coast during the Middle Bronze Age.407 Along both the Ionian and Adriatic coasts of Apulia,

Middle and Late Bronze Age fortified coastal settlements are commonly associated with ports, and inland settlements are typically located on promontories or hills.408

The major material evidence for the Barija phase comes from Barija itself. During his excavation, Trump discovered many fragments of bronze, including a needle and a decorated finger ring.409 Peet noted three pieces of pumice and an unworked piece of black flint, perhaps

imported from Sicily.410 Barija, like Bor in-Nadur was located in a defensible area. There is

no evidence that it had a fortification wall, but it was surrounded almost entirely by cliffs.411

401 Malone, Stoddart, and Whitehouse 1994, 172-8.

402 Orsi 1907, 1910.

403 Malone, Stoddart, and Whitehouse 1994, 173.

404 Voza 1976-7; 1980-1.

405 Bernabò Brea 1966a.

406 Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980, 701-2.

407 Malone, Stoddart, and Whitehouse 1994, 175-178.

408 Malone, Stoddart, and Whitehouse 1994, 171-2.

409 Trump 1961, 262.

410 Peet 1910, 154.

411 Trump 1961, 257.

85 Ceramic evidence indicates that Barija phase pottery was contemporary with the final Bor in-

Nadur ceramic phase.412 Some Barija ceramics appeared in the latest phase of the settlement at

Thapsos.413 Evans pointed out that some of these ceramics are similar to those of the Fossa

Grave culture in Calabria,414 which in turn resemble Ausonian wares on Lipari and at a few sites in Sicily.415 Since most ceramics in Sicily during this period were painted wares rather than incised, the distribution of these incised wares might suggest that the Bronze Age cultures of

Malta and the Aeolian islands were more closely linked to the Italian mainland than to Sicily.416

INTERPRETATION AND OBSERVATIONS

Throughout prehistory, the Maltese were in contact with their neighbors, although imports in most phases were few. During the Neolithic and the early phases of the Temple Period, the major imported items appear to have been employed for practical uses – stone tools for work too delicate for the local chert, or ocher for funerary rites. Not until later periods, particularly the end of the Temple Period and the subsequent Bronze Age, does there appear to have been an emphasis on importing luxury goods or prestige items.

412 Trump 1961, 261-2.

413 Voza 1973, 33; 1976-7.

414 Evans 1971, 227.

415 Leighton 1999, 188. Leighton also considered Sicilian Ausonian wares to be related to Calabrian wares (Leighton 1999, 215-6).

416 Malone, Stoddart, and Whitehouse 1994, 186.

86 The construction of the megalithic temples, the increasingly limited access to these ritual structures, and the construction of elaborate burial grounds for some members of the community are evidence that, over the course of the Temple period, a social hierarchy, perhaps one dominated by ritual specialists, had developed. It is possible that elite members of society, who could harness community resources for large-scale construction projects and restrict access to certain ritual activities, also began to control access to overseas trade.

Unique forms of architecture, sculpture, and ceramics in the gantija and Tarxien phases have led scholars to suggest a new level of cultural insularity in the Maltese islands during the later

Temple Period.417 However, the number of imports is too substantial to dismiss the conclusion that regular contact continued between at least some members of the Maltese community and groups elsewhere in the central Mediterranean. It is difficult to draw conclusions about the distribution of imported objects in the later phases of the Temple Period, since the best- documented sites are temples and the burial complexes associated with them. Only a few additional tombs and even fewer domestic sites belonging to these phases have been identified

(See Chapter 2). Within tombs that were not associated with the temples, as well as within domestic contexts, a few imports have been found, including objects of flint, obsidian, and greenstone.418 Although not as numerous as in earlier phases, these are the same types of goods that were found in tombs and huts of the Neolithic and early Temple Period. However, most imports of the gantija and, particularly, Tarxien phases have been discovered in temple contexts. Imported stones like flint, obsidian, greenstone, and alabaster, were far more common at temples and associated burial complexes than at non-temple sites like Gajnsielem or Buqana.

417 Bonanno et. al. 1990; Malone et. al. 1995; Robb 2001; Stoddart et. al. 1993.

418 See above and Chapter 2. Lists of finds associated with most sites can also be found in Evans 1971.

87 The fact that imports have been found more frequently in temple contexts could suggest that

Maltese elites, perhaps employing imported objects to raise their status, controlled the frequency and nature of contact between Malta and other areas in the later Temple Period. With little evidence available for the lives of non-elites in Malta during this phase, however, such a hypothesis remains untestable. Despite the larger numbers of imports in this period, differences from other central Mediterranean cultures in architecture, sculpture, and religious ritual suggest that some members of Maltese society, probably also elites, were active participants in the creation of a unique Maltese identity, expressed through these original architectural and artistic forms. This does not necessarily mean that they thought of themselves as isolated from their neighbors, just different from them.

It seems likely that the Maltese had considered themselves to be distinct from their neighbors in previous phases as well. Although some styles and shapes were common between Maltese and

Sicilian or Aeolian ceramics, in every phase of the Neolithic and early Temple Period, certain characteristics were common only to Maltese pottery (see Chapter 2). Low numbers of imports over the phases of the Neolithic and early Temple Period suggest that contact (at least for trade) between Malta and other areas was rather infrequent, until the Tarxien and perhaps gantija phases. The Maltese must have interacted with their neighbors somewhat regularly, since

Maltese pottery in most phases resembles pottery from Sicily and the Aeolian islands. However, similarity of ceramic styles alone is not sufficient to suggest that each person using those ceramic styles believed himself to be part of a broad cultural group and, conversely, that diversification of ceramic decoration or shape is indicative of a sharp cultural or ideological break from that wider group.

88

The architectural and artistic trends of the later Temple Period are extremely different than those

from other central Mediterranean cultures, yet trade between at least elite members of Maltese

society and neighboring cultures increased during the same time. More imports from more

varied types of material were brought to the islands. Objects obtained through long-distance

trade also began to arrive on the islands during these phases. In the later phases of the Temple

Period, it is clear that a great deal of effort went toward the creation of uniquely Maltese styles of

art and architecture. However, the concentration of imported objects within the temples and

associated burial complexes suggests that Maltese elites had also begun to value foreign objects

(and presumably the ability to obtain them) much more highly than in previous periods. Whether

originally intended that way or not, the creation of uniquely Maltese styles would also have

served to emphasize how foreign imported objects and styles were, perhaps providing them with

even greater cultural value.

Imports may have come to Malta primarily through Sicily, a route reconstructed by Leighton.419

This is particularly likely for the Neolithic and early phases of the Temple Period, since ceramics in both Malta and the Aeolian islands closely resembled those of Sicily. In the later phases of the Temple Period and the Bronze Age, however, it is possible that some Maltese trade may have passed through the Aeolian islands directly, since the incised pottery of the two areas was very similar, and contrasted with the painted wares of Sicily.420 During the central Mediterranean

Early Bronze Age, the Aeolian islands seem to have assumed a leading role in trade not only

419 Leighton 1999, 75.

420 However, the patterns of Sicilian painted wares often resemble the incised patterns of Maltese and Aeolian pottery.

89 with Malta, but with other areas of the central Mediterranean and the Aegean as well.421 The

extent to which their increasing role in central Mediterranean trade was due to their links with

Aegean merchants during the central Mediterranean Early Bronze Age remains unclear (Figure

52). It is probable that eastern traders took advantage of an existing central Mediterranean trade

network rather than establishing a new one. If a major central Mediterranean trade network

centered on Lipari, it would be logical for Lipari to show the first clear signs of contact with the

Aegean, as, in fact, it does. It seems clear that Malta had strong ties to the Aeolian islands, based

on ceramic similarities throughout the Bronze Age. During the Tarxien Cemetery phase, or the

central Mediterranean Early Bronze Age, at least, Lipari probably assumed a role equal or

greater to that of Sicily in the importation of foreign objects to Malta. Nevertheless, despite

evidence for frequent trade between the Aegean and the Aeolian islands during the later Tarxien

Cemetery phase, there are very few eastern imports on Malta. The Maltese of this phase were

either uninterested or unable to participate extensively in this new long-distance trade, and

remained peripheral to it. By the Bor in-Nadur phase, trade between central and eastern

Mediterranean populations had shifted in focus from the southern Tyrrhenian islands to a few

coastal sites in Sicily and southern Italy. It is possible that Maltese exchange also focused on

Sicily in this phase, but continued similarities to Aeolian ceramic styles suggest ongoing contact with Lipari as well.

It is probable that the two Mycenaean sherds found in Bor in-Nadur phase contexts arrived there through local trade networks from either Lipari or Sicily. Since there are only two

Mycenaean sherds on Malta, and no Maltese wares have been found in the Aegean, it is improbable that Mycenaeans, or eastern traders carrying Mycenaean goods, ever went directly to

421 Bietti Sestieri 1985.

90 Malta. The discovery of Maltese pottery alongside Mycenaean and local wares in Sicilian tombs

could suggest that Maltese and eastern traders occasionally encountered each other at Sicilian

trade centers, like Thapsos (see Chapter 4).

While much of this chapter has been devoted to discussion of the imports and ceramic and

architectural similarities with other central Mediterranean cultures, it must be noted that the total

number of imports in any period of Maltese prehistory was never very high, especially when

considered in relation to sites like Thapsos or those in the Aeolian islands. As mentioned above, architecture and ceramics in every phase of Maltese prehistory exhibited idiosyncrasies that differentiated them from other central Mediterranean types. Actual ceramic imports are remarkably few – probably fewer than 50 sherds – for the whole 5000 years or so of Maltese prehistory.422 Although the Maltese were clearly in contact with their neighbors throughout

prehistory, to varying degrees, the material manifestation of that contact was always quite

limited. This might suggest that the Maltese maintained a tradition of self-sufficiency outside

the cultural koiné that seems to have developed throughout much of the south-central

Mediterranean during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. This idea will be explored further in

Chapter 5. Chapter 4 will provide a summary of evidence for contact between the eastern and central Mediterranean, and compare the Maltese situation to that in areas of Sicily, the southern

Tyrrhenian islands, and southern Italy.

422 The publication of Mommsen et. al. (2006) is the only chemical analysis of Maltese pottery. Further studies are required before this statistic can be more solidly supported.

91 CHAPTER 4. THE CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN AND THE AEGEAN

As discussed in the previous chapter, Malta maintained regional contacts within the central

Mediterranean throughout Neolithic and Bronze Age. Maltese later prehistory is dominated by the same sort of local trade that was common in the earlier phases of prehistory, with little evidence for contacts with the east. However, it is obvious from the number of imports that other parts of the central Mediterranean were in relatively frequent contact with people and goods from the Aegean from the beginning of the central Mediterranean Bronze Age (roughly equivalent to Late Helladic I, see Figure 52). In order to explore a more regional perspective on trade and cultural networks during the later prehistory of Malta, this chapter gives an overview of evidence for contact between the central and eastern Mediterranean.

Evidence for trade between the eastern and central Mediterranean (Figure 60) during the Copper

Age of Sicily and Italy points to occasional interaction between people in the two regions.

Bronze Age remains, however, suggest far more regular contact and fall into three major phases.423 These phases will serve as the subdivisions for the following discussion. This chapter will use the terminology common for discussion of central Mediterranean prehistory as a whole rather than terminology specific to Malta. Thus, I will refer to the Copper Age (equivalent to the

Maltese Temple Period, or the Early Bronze Age of the Aegean), the Bronze Age (equivalent to the Maltese Bronze Age, or the Middle and Late Bronze Age of the Aegean), and the Iron Age

(which encompasses the latter Bor in-Nadur and Barija phases on Malta, or the Iron Age in the

423 Vagnetti 1993, 145.

92 Aegean). Specific cultural groups will continue to be named by their ceramic style (such as

Castelluccio or Capo Graziano).

EVIDENCE FOR CONTACT IN THE COPPER AGE

It is clear that areas of the central Mediterranean were in regular contact with the Aegean from

the beginning of the Bronze Age. Indications of the nature of interaction between the two

regions before the Bronze Age are less obvious. Although Lord William Taylour identified a

few sherds of possibly Middle Helladic pottery from the Aegean in the Aeolian islands,424 several scholars have expressed reservations about the early dating of these sherds and prefer to see them as Late Helladic I or later.425 If they are Late Helladic I, they belong not to the central

Mediterranean Copper Age, but to the early Bronze Age.

Although there are no clear ceramic imports in the central Mediterranean from the Aegean during the Copper Age, there is some evidence for the exchange of other types of material. As

noted in Chapter 3, certain elements, particularly the thickened rim vessels described as “Thermi

ware” on Malta, or the bossed bone plaques which appear occasionally in both central and

eastern Mediterranean contexts, might reflect the earliest stages of interaction between these two

regions.426 “Thermi ware” in the central Mediterranean may be distantly related to similar styles

in the northeastern Aegean. However, it might be more directly linked to the abundant examples

424 Taylour 1958, 13-4, 16.

425 Cavalier and Vagnetti 1983; 1984; 1986; Dickinson 1977, 104. Van Wijngaarden (2002, 209) suggested that this pottery may be as late as Late Helladic IIIA.

426 Cazzella, Pace, and Recchia, forthcoming, 245.

93 of thickened-rim bowls with incised decoration from the Balkans, particularly those found at sites along the Adriatic coast, or to similar vessels from the west coast of Greece.427 While bossed bone plaques from the central Mediterranean generally have elaborate incised decoration on and around the bosses and a U-shaped base, similar plaques from the eastern Mediterranean are plain or have simpler incised decoration around the bosses, as well as a flat base.428 There are only a couple of exceptions to this general trend. One example from Troy looks more like central Mediterranean examples, and one from Altamura in Apulia resembles plaques from the eastern Mediterranean. However, the general similarities of these presumably prestige objects throughout the Mediterranean might indicate that long-distance interaction occurred at least occasionally during this period.

R. Ross Holloway has suggested that similarities in form between Italian and Aegean or

Anatolian ceramics in this period may be a result of the derivation of both Italian and Aegean ceramic shapes from metal vessels.429 While metal vessels are known from the Aegean and from

Anatolia, none has yet, however, been found in a central Mediterranean context.430 Nevertheless,

Holloway theorized that a trade in luxury goods, including metal vessels and other metal objects, is what first linked the central and eastern Mediterranean.431 Renfrew and Whitehouse, on the other hand, have suggested that similarities in shape, particularly the adoption of closed shapes and one-handled cups in both the Aegean and in the central Mediterranean, could have been

427 Cazzella 2003, 560, 562. Cazzella, Pace, and Recchia, forthcoming, 244-5.

428 Evans 1956a, 89-90.

429 Holloway 1981, 29-34.

430 Harding 1984, 106-11; Holloway 1981, 30.

431 Holloway 1981, 42, 54.

94 independent developments in each region in response to increasing production of olive oil and

wine.432

The appearance of flint daggers in Italy that are similar in shape to copper daggers from Crete

could indicate that the Italian daggers were based on Minoan prototypes. However, no flint

daggers are known from the Aegean and no Minoan copper daggers are known from Italy.433

Two silver daggers from Koumasa (Early Minoan I or II) have been identified as Italian.434

However, because silver (particularly formed into daggers) is uncommon in Italy, and daggers of this shape are only slightly more common in Italy than in Crete, the daggers may not be imports from the central Mediterranean.435 The similar forms of daggers in both Italy and Crete, however, could suggest that metalsmiths in both locations were working with a common skill set and stylistic tradition. A common tradition in metalworking would also point to at least occasional interaction between peoples of these two regions.

Evidence for contact between the central and eastern Mediterranean during the Copper Age is sparse. However, the appearance of similar forms in ceramics and weaponry (despite differences in raw material), as well as prestige items, particularly the bossed bone plaques, seems to indicate that, over the course of the Copper Age, peoples of the central and eastern

Mediterranean were in at least occasional contact. During the Bronze Age, however, this

432 Renfrew and Whitehouse 1974, 366.

433 Renfrew and Whitehouse 1974, 365.

434 Branigan 1966, 103-105.

435 Renfrew and Whitehouse 1974, 369-70. Lead-isotope analysis of these daggers has been inconclusive (Stos-Gale and Macdonald 1991, 271).

95 interaction seems to have become more regular and focused on specific areas of the central

Mediterranean during three major phases.

PHASE I

Phase I comprises the earliest demonstrable imported Aegean objects to the central

Mediterranean.436 It corresponds to Late Helladic I and II in the Aegean, or the early Bronze

Age of Sicily and Italy (Figure 52).437 Until recently, concentrations of Mycenaean wares during

this period were thought to occur exclusively in the islands of the southern Tyrrhenian Sea,438

particularly Lipari in the Aeolian islands,439 and at Vivara in the Bay of Naples.440 However, recent investigations have uncovered thousands of Late Helladic I-II Aegean and Near Eastern- type sherds at the Castelluccio phase site of Monte Grande in southwestern Sicily.441 Most of the pottery fragments belonged to closed, coarse ware storage or transport jars, although a few open, fineware vessels were also present. Preliminary petrological analysis suggests that most of these wares, both coarse and fine, came from the Peloponnese and Cyprus. There was also one

436 See Vianello (2005) for the most recent inventory of Aegean and Aegean-type pottery in the central Mediterranean.

437 Vagnetti 1993, 145.

438 Taylour 1958; Vagnetti 1993, 145.

439 Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1956, 52-4.

440 Marazzi 1993; Tusa 1993.

441 Castellana 1998, 92-109, 224-315.

96 Canaanite sherd from the Near East.442 Scattered fragments of eastern Mediterranean wares have

been found in Italy along the eastern Apulian coast (21) and the Ionian coast (10).443

The relatively close geographical proximity of Apulia and the Peloponnese might suggest that these should have been the first areas of contact.444 However, the first imported Mycenaean

pottery in the central Mediterranean were not concentrated in Apulia, but in the islands of the

southern Tyrrhenian Sea. It seems then, although likely that people from southern Italy and

Greece were aware of neighboring landmasses, and perhaps interacted with people living there,

that the first major expeditions for trading purposes between the central and eastern

Mediterranean were either targeted at the southern Tyrrhenian islands and southwestern Sicily,

or, perhaps more likely, that they were initiated by people living in these areas.

Bronze Age ceramic finds from the Capo Graziano phase settlement at Lipari were widely

distributed across the site, and were rarely concentrated in particular areas or houses. This

probably indicates that Mycenaean ceramics, both dinner and storage vessels, were available to

people of different strata within Lipari society.445 The most popular Late Helladic I and II

shapes found in the Aeolian islands are cups, although there were also some jars.446 Cups were probably not used to transport other goods from the Aegean to the Aeolian islands, but were

442 Castellana 1998, 96-8; Vianello 2005, 135-8. A more comprehensive study of the pottery sources, using atomic absorption spectrometry, instrumental neutron activation analysis, and inductively-coupled plasma emission spectrometry, should be published soon (Jones, Levi, and Bettelli 2005, 539, note 2).

443 Vianello 2005, 213, table 15.

444 Cazzella, Pace, and Recchia forthcoming, 248-9.

445 van Wijngaarden 2002, 212, 214.

446 van Wijngaarden 2002, 215.

97 presumably obtained for their aesthetic or exotic value. Jars could have been used for transport,

but there is no indication what they might have contained. Although imports from Italy and

Sicily also appeared in Lipari during the Capo Graziano phase, Aegean vessels were in the clear majority.447 In the later Milazzese phase, there were more Italian and Sicilian imports in Lipari

than in the Capo Graziano phase, but Mycenaean wares (of predominantly Late Helladic IIIA-

IIIB,448 or Phase II in Lucia Vagnetti’s scheme) continued to be prominent.449 At Vivara, fine

painted Mycenaean wares were found, while surface survey and excavation at major sites also

revealed a significant number of imported plain and coarse wares.450 Many of the fragments

belonged to closed vessels, and may have been used as transport containers for agricultural

products, or for the storage of water and food during maritime travel.451

Anthony F. Harding considered the glass and faience bead industries of southern Italy, Sicily,

and Malta during this phase to be derived from techniques first developed in the eastern

Mediterranean, although he suggested that some beads found in the central Mediterranean could

have been of local manufacture.452 Such beads were discovered in Castelluccio contexts on

Sicily453 and from the Tarxien Cemetery on Malta (see Chapter 3).454

447 van Wijngaarden 2002, 224.

448 van Wijngaarden 2002, 212, table 15.3.

449 van Wijngaarden 2002, 226.

450 Re 1993. Petrological analysis on the coarse and plain sherds from Vivara has not yet demonstrated whether these wares were produced locally or in the eastern Mediterranean (Jones, Levi, and Vagnetti 2002; Vianello 2005, 174).

451 Re 1993, 331.

452 Harding 1984, 87-103.

453 Orsi 1902a, 114, 117; 1902b, 187.

98 PHASE II

Phase II includes Late Helladic IIIA-B, or the middle and late Bronze Age of Italy and Sicily.

Vagnetti has described Phase II as the peak of Aegean-Italian interaction.455 Throughout Phase

II, Mycenaean ceramics were concentrated in southern Italy, Sicily, and the southern Tyrrhenian islands, although occasional sherds appeared in central and northern Italy and in Sardinia.

Within southern Italy and Sicily, Aegean pottery types are found in large numbers at only a few sites. 198 fragmentary vessels, sherds from 500 to 1000 other vessels, and two figurine fragments of Late Helladic IIIB type, were found at Scoglio del Tonno near Taranto.456 The site has produced by far the most Aegean-type decorated pottery yet found in the central

Mediterranean,457 but some of it was locally manufactured.458 Some of the pottery from Scoglio del Tonno is more closely related to styles from Rhodes and Cyprus than from mainland

Greece.459

There were concentrations of imported pottery at Thapsos in Sicily, as well as at Lipari and

Vivara, during the early part of Phase II.460 Five sherds of imported wares were found at

454 Zammit 1930a, 56-7.

455 Vagnetti 1993, 145.

456 Quagliati 1900; Vianello 2005, 150-1.

457 Monte Grande, on the other hand, produced the most undecorated Aegean-type pottery.

458 Jones, Levi, and Vagnetti 2002; Vianello 2005, 150-1.

459 Taylour 1958, 81-137.

460 van Wijngaarden 2002, 379-86, catalogues VIII, IX.

99 Ischia,461 and a few possible Late Helladic IIIA sherds were found at Zambrone on the

Tyrrhenian coast.462 In central Italy, one Late Helladic IIIA2-IIIB and three LH IIIB sherds have been found at inland sites.463 Scattered sherds of Mycenaean wares were also found at sites along the Apulian and Ionian coasts, and in Sicily.464 On Sardinia, two Late Helladic IIIB sherds were found at Orroli, and a few of the twelve Late Helladic IIIB style sherds at Orosei may have been imported from the northeastern Peloponnese. The remainder were likely locally-made.465

Several hundred sherds of both Late Helladic IIIB and IIIC, mostly of local manufacture, were discovered at Nuraghe Antigori.466 Most of the imported sherds from Antigori come from the northeastern Peloponnese and western and central Crete, although there was also one large

Cypriot pithos.467

Based on the size of the settlements and the large number of imported sherds at Scoglio del

Tonno and Thapsos, these sites may have served as major centers of interaction between peoples from the eastern and central Mediterranean during Phase II.468 They may also have acted as marketplaces through which Aegean goods were acquired by indigenous people (see below),

461 Taylour 1958, 7; Vianello 2005, 126.

462 Vianello 2005, 175.

463 Vagnetti 1980, 151-2.

464 Vianello 2005, 217, table 21.

465 Jones and Day 1987, 267; Vagnetti 1980, 161.

466 Ferrarese Ceruti, Vagnetti, and Lo Schiavo 1987, 14-25; Webster 1996, 140.

467 Jones and Day 1987, 262-3.

468 Holloway 1981, 55.

100 since most other sites do not seem to have had such high numbers of imported eastern

Mediterranean artifacts.

While some sites in Sicily and the Aeolian islands produced a significant amount of Mycenaean

imported pottery dating to Late Helladic IIIA, most sites on these islands contained far less Late

Helladic IIIB or IIIC pottery.469 However, the settlement at Thapsos produced pottery dating

from Late Helladic IIIA-IIIC.470 Some architectural features of the settlement at Thapsos may

also reflect the influence of eastern people or ideas. The majority of buildings on the site are

circular huts, identical to vernacular domestic architecture throughout Sicily.471 However, a

complex of rectangular rooms associated with open-air paved areas within the settlement more closely resembles Mycenaean architecture than Sicilian. Its function is unclear, but more local than Mycenaean pottery was found within it, perhaps suggesting that indigenous people built and used it.472

During Phase I (Late Helladic I and II) in Lipari and Vivara, Mycenaean ceramics were widely

distributed across the sites. However, at certain sites of Phase II, like Milazzese, Canatello,

Broglio di Trebisacce, and at Lipari in Ausonian levels, Mycenaean pottery seems restricted in

its distribution, and has been found only in one or two buildings.473 In the Thapsos cemetery,

Mycenaean vessels occurred in tombs of all architectural types, although generally in the larger

469 Leighton 1999, 149; Taylour 1980; Vagnetti 1993, 151; van Wijngaarden 2002, 233, n. 25.

470 Leighton 1999, 152.

471 Leighton 1999, 116-21.

472 Leighton 1999, 152; Vagnetti 1980, 158; 1993, 152; Voza 1973, 32-3; 1976-7, plate CI.

473 van Wijngaarden 2002, 255.

101 and richer examples. With a few exceptions, there were only one or two Mycenaean vessels per

tomb, and tombs that had Aegean-type vessels often also had other precious items like gold,

bronze jewelry and weaponry, or glass beads. The most common vessels were piriform jars and

alabastra that could have contained organic substances, perhaps also imported.474 Mycenaean

vessels were not common in the Thapsos settlement.475 The distribution of imported eastern

Mediterranean goods during this phase suggests that access to expensive and imported objects

was restricted to certain members of society.476 Such limitations might be signs of an emerging

elite that used Mycenaean products as an expression of high-status identity.

While the highest concentration of Mycenaean pottery in Late Helladic IIIA is in the Aeolian

islands and southern Sicily, in Late Helladic IIIB there is more Mycenaean-style pottery in

Apulia and southern Sardinia and little in the Aeolian islands or Sicily.477 During the Late

Helladic IIIB period, people in the central Mediterranean began to produce imitation Mycenaean wares in local fabrics, a practice which continued into Late Helladic IIIC.478 Chemical analysis

indicates that in LH IIIA, sites like Scoglio del Tonno near Taranto contained only imported

Aegean pottery.479 On the other hand, most Late Helladic IIIB pottery at Broglio di Trebisacce

and Termitito is chemically indistinguishable from local ceramics, suggesting that it was

474 van Wijngaarden 2002, 233-4; Vianello 2005, 51, table 11.

475 van Wijngaarden 2002, 235; Voza 1973, 1976-7.

476 van Wijngaarden 2002, 256.

477 Vagnetti 1993, 149; van Wijngaarden 308-11, map 4, 5.

478 Jones and Vagnetti 1991, 131-3.

479 Jones 1986, 207.

102 produced locally in Aegean style.480 A few locally-made Aegean-type vessels also appear at

Vivara,481 and in Sardinia at Nuraghe Antigori.482 Some vessels from Broglio di Trebisacce may have closer affinities to Minoan than Mycenaean ceramic styles.483

Mycenaean prestige objects also appear in the central Mediterranean during Phase II, albeit

rarely.484 One example is an ivory fragment of a warrior’s head with a boar’s tusk helmet from

Sardinia.485 Glass paste and faience beads, perhaps of eastern Mediterranean sources or

influence,486 appear in contexts of this phase on Salina in the Aeolian islands,487 at Thapsos,488

and at Plemmyrion in Sicily.489 Although not technically a prestige object, the tholos structure at

San Calogero on Lipari might be an imitation of Mycenaean architecture.490

It is possible that the long swords (or rapiers) from tombs of the Thapsos phase in Sicily could be

related to Mycenaean rapiers.491 A fragment of a Sandars type F sword492 from Surbo in Apulia

480 Jones and Vagnetti 1991, 131-2.

481 Jones and Vagnetti 1991, 131.

482 Jones and Vagnetti 1991, 133.

483 Vagnetti 1985, 826-8.

484 Vagnetti 1993, 151.

485 Ferrarese Ceruti, Vagnetti, and Lo Schiavo 1987, 12-3, 15, figure 2.3.

486 Harding 1984, 92-3; Stone and Thomas 1956, 84.

487 Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1968, 167, pl. LXXXV.

488 Orsi 1895, 133-4; Voza 1973, 40, 44.

489 Orsi 1899, 31-2.

490 Bernabò Brea, Cavalier, and Belli 1990.

491 Harding 1984, 155.

103 is perhaps an import from the Aegean.493 Four bronze basins from Caldare and Milena near

Agrigento in Sicily may be imported from Cyprus.494 Copper ox-hide ingots from Sardinia point

to contact between that island and the eastern Mediterranean during Phase II.495

Examples of gray, burnished ware from Khania and Kommos on Crete may be related to

Subapennine ceramics from southern Italy.496 At Kommos, both wheel-made and hand-made

examples were found,497 while only hand-made types appeared at Khania.498 Since both

Kommos and Khania seem to have been active in trade, Birgitta Pålsson Hallager has suggested

that Italian traders settled there, bringing their coarse wares with them.499 However, since

examples from Kommos were both hand- and wheel-made and span the period from Late

Helladic IIIA1 to Late Helladic IIIB, Joseph Shaw has interpreted their appearance as a result of trade over a long period of sustained contact rather than the permanent settlement of Italian

traders in Crete.500 Vagnetti has noted that the sherds from Kommos are more similar to

Sardinian ceramics, while those from Khania are more like types from peninsular Italy.501

492 Sandars 1963, 133-4.

493 Harding 1984, 160; MacNamara 1970, 241-5.

494 Vagnetti 1968; 1980, 157.

495 Begemann, Schmitt-Strecker, Pernicka, and Lo Schiavo 2001; Gale 1999; 2001.

496 Hallager 1983, 115; Shaw 1984, 278.

497 Shaw 1984, 278.

498 Hallager 1983, 115.

499 Hallager 1983, 116.

500 Shaw 1984, 278.

501 Vagnetti 1993, 152.

104

A mould for a winged axe from the House of the Oil Merchant at Mycenae may be related to

Italian types, and could represent an import from the central Mediterranean, although no axes of

this type have yet been found in the Aegean.502

During Phase II, there is evidence for relatively frequent contact between the central and eastern

Mediterranean in both Aegean and central Mediterranean contexts. Imports in the central

Mediterranean derive from the Peloponnese and Crete, as well as perhaps Cyprus and Rhodes,

while imported Italic objects in the Aegean come from both Sardinia and peninsular Italy. The

trade networks in which these two areas participated must have been widespread, especially in

view of the artifacts recovered from the Uluburun shipwreck off the coast of Turkey, which

included possible Italian, Aegean, Balkan, Baltic, and Near Eastern objects.503 However, the

actual points of contact in the central Mediterranean seem to have been a few large coastal sites

which contained a large number of imports. By the end of Phase II, the number of imports was

drastically reduced, and local production of Aegean-type objects was prevalent.

PHASE III

Phase III corresponds to Late Helladic IIIC or the Late Bronze Age of Italy and Sicily.504 Most of the pottery of this phase in Italian contexts is locally made, and there is far less evidence for

502 Bietti Sestieri 1973, 390; Harding 1984, 128.

503 Pulak 1998. The cargo included swords of possibly southern Italian or Sicilian manufacture (Pulak 1998, 208).

504 Vagnetti 1993, 151.

105 imports. A few eastern imports appeared at sites that produced many locally made Aegean-type

wares. A stirrup jar, probably from Rhodes, was found in a level at Scoglio del Tonno that dated

to this phase.505 There were also a few imported Mycenaean sherds at Broglio di Trebisacce and

a conical bowl at Nuraghe Antigori, that can be dated in a general way to LH IIIB-IIIC.506

True eastern imports at other sites were also few in number. A Late Helladic IIIC jug from

Pantalica and a few sherds from Morgantina can also be identified as imports on Sicily during

Phase III. Five sherds from Avetrana507 and two Late Helladic IIIB sherds from Cozzo Marziotta

might be Aegean,508 but have not been chemically analyzed. Three sherds from Otranto may

also be Aegean.509 Two sherds from Paestum (perhaps Cypriot rather than Mycenaean) and a sherd from the Polla cave in Campania can be assigned to the Late Helladic IIIC period.510

Three sherds of true Late Helladic IIIC wares have been found in central Italy, one at San

Giovenale and two at Luni sul Mignone.511 On Sardinia, in addition to the Late Helladic IIIC

sherds at Antigori (see above), a few possibly Aegean sherds were found at Nuraghe Domu

s’Orku.512

505 Taylour 1958, 106.

506 Vagnetti 1993, 151.

507 Vianello 2005, 107.

508 Gorgoglione 1986, 23.

509 Cinquepalmi and Radina 1998; Vianello 2005, 141.

510 Vagnetti 1980, 160.

511 Vagnetti 1980, 151-2.

512 Ferrarese Ceruti, Antona, and Lo Schiavo 1997, 400; Jones and Day 1987:257-70. A few additional sites produced small numbers of local imitations of Aegean wares (Re 1998; Vianello 2005, 215, table 18).

106 The local production of Aegean-type wares continued in this phase. Over 200 sherds

representing at least 30 Aegean-type vessels were found at Termitito on the Ionian coast;513

Richard E. Jones has shown them to be of local fabrics.514 A large number of Late Helladic

IIIB2-IIIC Aegean-type wares were found at Broglio di Trebisacce (approximately 536 vessels,

most locally made) on the Ionian coast.515 Fifty sherds of Aegean-type pottery have been found

at Coppa Nevigata in northeastern Apulia.516 Thirty sherds representing about 20 Aegean-type

vessels were found at Eboli in western Italy south of the Bay of Naples517 and 300 Aegean-type

sherds representing 29 shapes were found at Punta Meliso on the east coast of Italy.518

Some vessel shapes and the “barbarian ware” of Late Helladic IIIC and later in the Aegean could

be related to Italian pottery traditions. For example, carinated cups with a high handle from

Lefkandi are similar to examples from Coppa Nevigata and Termitito.519 However, the most

characteristic Italian vessel forms are not found in the Aegean: e.g., elaborate handles, biconical vases, low hemispherical cups, and incised decoration.520

513 De Siena 1986; Vianello 2005, 161-2.

514 Jones 1986, 207.

515 Betelli 2002, 113-116, 165-250; Jones 1986, 207; Vagnetti 1984, 164-84; Vianello 2005, 108-9.

516 Belardelli 1993; Mosso 1909, 310-39; Vianello 2005, 116-7.

517 Schnapp Gourbeillon 1986, 175-8; Vianello 2005, 119-20.

518 Benzi and Graziadio 1996a; 1996b; Vianello 2005, 156.

519 Harding 1984, 221; Popham and Milburn 1971, 338.

520 Harding 1984, 221; Rutter 1975, 25-6.

107 A central Italian hoard of this period, at Piediluco/Contigliano, contained bronze tripods of

Cypriot type.521 Probably also from the hoard were a four-spoked wheel, perhaps part of a

Cypriot wheeled stand,522 and a fragment of a cauldron with a circular handle of Aegean type.523

Some knives found in Late Helladic IIIC contexts at Phaistos, Knossos, the Dictaean Cave, and

Corfu may be imports from Italy or the Alps, based on the existence of a stop-ridge at the butt end of the knife.524 Harding has suggested that occasional finds in the Aegean of violin-bow fibulae and Peschiera flange-hilted daggers, very similar to Italian types, should betray a

“community of bronze-working methods and forms in Italy and Greece” during Late Helladic

IIIB and IIIC.525

Imports of Aegean ceramics are much fewer in Phase III than preceding phases, and imported copper seems to come primarily from Cyprus.526 Nevertheless, Aegean-type objects continued to be made locally and in large numbers at several sites.

521 Vagnetti 1974, 658-60. For eastern parallels, see Catling 1964, 190-223, particularly numbers 10-13, plates 28- 29.

522 Vagnetti 1974, 660-1. Although fragmentary, the wheel is similar to those found in the Enkomi foundry hoard (Catling 1964, 278-81, plate 36, f and g).

523 Vagnetti 1974, 661-3. The handle shows some similarity to an example from Archanes (Sakellarakis and Sakellarakis 1997, 593, figure 614) and from Zapher Papoura (Vagnetti 1974, 662, figure 4) on Crete.

524 Harding 1984, 132.

525 Harding 1984, 129.

526 Gale 1999.

108 DISCUSSION

Since diffusionist theories were first promulgated in the early 20th century, the earliest contact between the east and central Mediterranean has been ascribed to the need of easterners for raw materials, particularly metals, found in the west.527 It has been suggested that exploitation of tin

or copper was what brought people from the east to Italy, although there are no bronzes in Italy

during the earliest phases of the Aegean Bronze Age.528 If people in Italy were involved in the

early exportation of a mineral used to create bronze in the Aegean, it seems odd that no bronze would appear on any Italian Copper Age sites. In later prehistory, Sardinia, a rich source of metals in the central Mediterranean, does not seem to have been exploited by people from the

Aegean, since most copper ox-hide ingots from Bronze Age Sardinia that have been subjected to lead isotope analysis seem to have a Cypriot provenance.529 Because people in Sardinia were

importing copper in order to produce bronze artifacts locally, it seems unlikely that the island

would have served as a source for copper among people in the eastern Mediterranean.

Nevertheless, it is possible that the trade in metals did play some role in the increasing frequency

of exchange between the eastern and central Mediterranean. Few alternative explanations for the

driving force behind early trade between the central Mediterranean exist. Holloway has

suggested that people from the central Mediterranean sought prestige objects from the eastern

Mediterranean and offered in return unspecified raw materials,530 while Andrea Vianello has argued that a major impetus for contact was not metals, but perhaps trade in spices.531

527 Childe 1925, 136-7.

528 Renfrew and Whitehouse 1974, 378.

529 Begemann, Schmitt-Strecker, Pernicka, and Lo Schiavo 2001, 69-71; Gale 1999; 2001.

530 Holloway 1981, 17-54.

109

Whatever the original purpose and date of trade between the Aegean and the central

Mediterranean, it is clear from the concentration of imports at a few sites in Phases I, II, and III

that interaction between east and west occurred frequently but at few locations. Furthermore,

these sites are all coastal and are concentrated (except for Sardinia in Phase III) in the Aeolian

islands, Sicily, and the Ionian and Adriatic coasts of southern Italy. It is likely that some or all

imported eastern materials may have been distributed to other parts of the central Mediterranean

through this core area. In Renfrew’s scheme, these sites would be best described as ports of

trade, although his definition assumes a level of organization that may not have been present

among the Italic groups.532 Although the large sites have also been called colonies (or community colonies),533 the abundance of local material culture in settlements and tombs might

suggest that there was no true Mycenaean “colonization” of the west.534 The best interpretive

model for the nature of these sites seems to be that of “gateway communities,” which are

generally defined as centers of trade that develop along transportation routes and that can control

the flow of goods between two regions.535 Such sites are usually located at the border between

two zones of different resources, technologies, or levels of socio-economic complexity. At sites

like the Lipari acropolis or Thapsos, the presence of both local and foreign artifacts, the probable difference in socio-economic complexity from eastern society, and their coastal locations might

531 Vianello 2005, 95.

532 Renfrew 1975.

533 Bietti Sestieri 1985; Marazzi, Tusa, and Vagnetti 1986, 441-65; Smith 1987.

534 Vagnetti 1993, 152.

535 Burghardt 1971; Hirth 1978.

110 be suggestive of such a situation. If this model is accurate for the central Mediterranean, then

people at these sites mediated east-west trade, particularly by providing access to resources that

eastern traders did not or could not access on their own. It has been suggested that the

community at Lipari was vital in managing eastern access to mineral resources along the

Tyrrhenian coast since Lipari is strategically located directly on the route to those resources from

the east.536 Coastal Sicilian and southern Italian communities would have been able to facilitate

trade in resources available inland.

As in northern Italy and in Malta, there has been only sporadic evidence for a direct Mycenaean

presence in northern Africa.537 However, recent excavations at Marsa Matruh in western Egypt suggest that the extent of contact between some coastal areas of northern Africa and the central and eastern Mediterranean has been underestimated. Both Aegean and Cypriot Late Bronze Age ceramics were found there.538 While the site is in the eastern Mediterranean, it is located outside

the sphere of Egyptian centers of trade, and its existence could imply the presence of additional

coastal sites in northern Africa that may have been involved in east-west networks of exchange.

A. Bernard Knapp and Emma Blake have pointed out that the apparent lack of Bronze Age sites

in areas of northern Africa further west may reflect the fact that research projects there generally

have focused solely on nomadic populations, or have been concerned entirely with historical

settlements.539 Further investigation of coastal regions in modern-day Tunisia, Morocco, and

536 Bietti Sestieri 1985.

537 Knapp 1981. A single Mycenaean vase (Late Helladic IIIA or IIIB) has been found in Carthage, but is now lost (Vegas 1996).

538 Hulin 2002; Russell 2002; White 2003.

539 Knapp and Blake 2005, 4-5.

111 western Libya is necessary to verify the nature of Bronze Age settlement and land use in this region, and to determine if there was indeed no contact between it and other parts of the central and eastern Mediterranean.

Trade and communication between the Aegean and the central Mediterranean lasted throughout the central Mediterranean Bronze Age. Coarse and undecorated wares seem to have been imported to central Mediterranean sites only during Phase I, while pattern-decorated wares and a few examples of pictorial pottery were imported until Late Helladic IIIC.540 While ceramic evidence in the central Mediterranean suggests that contact with the East was frequent, it is relatively infrequent in comparison with the high quantities of Aegean material found at certain sites in the eastern Mediterranean. For example, while less than 2000 vessels of Aegean fine decorated wares are known from the entire central Mediterranean, about 1500 vessels of Aegean pottery were found at Enkomi on Cyprus,541 and over 1000 were found at Ugarit.542 The significantly higher quantities of Aegean imports in the Near East than in the central

Mediterranean might suggest that the eastern trade network was of greater importance to the

Mycenaeans than the western network.

Exchange networks between the Aegean and other areas of the eastern Mediterranean were well- established during the Aegean Early and particularly Middle Bronze Age543 (or the central

540 Vianello 2005, 31-2.

541 van Wijngaarden 2002, 346-74.

542 van Wijngaarden 2002, 330-42.

543 Broodbank 2000; Dickinson 1994, 239-56.

112 Mediterranean late Copper Age) and continued to operate throughout Late Helladic IIIB.544

Plentiful imports in the central Mediterranean are only found in contexts that span the period from Late Helladic I to early in Late Helladic IIIB; in late Late Helladic IIIB, almost all Aegean- type pottery was made locally. In the eastern Mediterranean, particularly in Late Helladic IIIC, a similar shift toward locally producing Aegean styles took place. In both areas, the switch may have been related to the decline of the Mycenaean palatial system.

It is clear that, within the central Mediterranean, trade routes, and perhaps the nature of trade as well, changed over time. The earliest trade network linking the central and eastern

Mediterranean seems to have been centered on Lipari and Vivara, as well as Monte Grande in southwestern Sicily. Vivara and Monte Grande are the only central Mediterranean sites to have produced large quantities of imported plain and coarse wares in addition to decorated wares, until imitation of Aegean wares began in the later Late Helladic IIIB and IIIC periods. Available evidence indicates that, although eastern products, particularly pottery, were probably valuable, they were not restricted to use by certain social classes and were widespread in settlements. It is possible that natural disaster or warfare ended the frequent contact between the Aegean and the southern Tyrrhenian islands.545 Vivara was an active volcano in antiquity and the island seems to have been abandoned by Late Helladic IIIA1, perhaps to escape natural disaster.546 Several

544 Cadogan 2005; Gunneweg 1999; Niemeier 2005. As in the central Mediterranean, there is little evidence in the Near East, Cyprus, and Egypt for imported Late Helladic IIIC wares.

545 Bietti Sestieri 1985; Vianello 2005, 84.

546 Vianello 2005, 83-4

113 sites in the Aeolian islands, including Milazzese itself and Portella on Salina, were destroyed by

fire during that phase (corresponding to Late Helladic III).547

In the next phase, trading relations between the central and eastern Mediterranean seem to have

been focused on a few key sites in eastern Sicily and along the Ionian coast of southern Italy.

This is the phase to which the two Mycenaean sherds on Malta belong. When seen in

conjunction with the pattern of contact between the eastern and central Mediterranean in this

phase, Maltese settlements may be viewed as similar to a large number of sites throughout the

central Mediterranean which have produced only a few imported Mycenaean sherds. These sites

contrast with a few major sites that have yielded many imports (e.g., Thapsos or Scoglio del

Tonno) and can be seen as fringe participants in the east-west exchange network.

By the latter half of this phase, Aegean-type ceramics were being locally produced, and appeared

most frequently at sites on the Adriatic and Ionian coasts of southern Italy, rather than in Sicily.

In both the latter part of Phase II as well as in Phase III, there is increasing evidence for restricted

distribution of Aegean-type pottery in large central buildings or the largest, most elaborate

tombs. This may indicate that an emerging local elite began to use Aegean goods as prestige

objects. However, it seems that prestige was not necessarily attached to the foreign aspect of the

eastern objects, but more to their eastern appearance, since, by the end of the phase, the majority

of “Aegean” objects were locally-made.

547 Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1968, 50-8, 144-7.

114 By the final phase of interaction between the eastern and central Mediterranean, there is little evidence for direct contact as represented by imports. Infrequent imports and similarities in ceramic and metallurgical styles probably indicate, however, that some interaction continued between people in these two regions. The fact that Late Helladic IIIC style pottery continued to be made into the Iron Age might suggest that elites in the central Mediterranean viewed Aegean and Aegean-type objects as prestige items long after the destruction of the Mycenaean palatial system and the concomitant reduction in long-distance trade.

115 CHAPTER 5. THE ROLE OF MALTA IN PREHISTORIC EXCHANGE NETWORKS: A

RECONSIDERATION

Although the location of Malta, at nearly the center of the Mediterranean, could suggest that the

Maltese were good candidates for a leading role within early maritime exchange networks, the previous chapters have demonstrated that instead, Malta existed on the fringes of trade and communication during central Mediterranean prehistory. Nonetheless, Malta was never isolated

from its neighbors, and participated in local trade networks with Sicily, Lipari, and to some

extent southern Italy during the Neolithic, Temple Period, and Bronze Age. Despite somewhat

regular contact with nearby populations, the Maltese also maintained unique cultural forms

throughout prehistory. One idiosyncratic manifestation of Maltese society is the megalithic

construction of the Temple Period. Pottery styles and architectural forms in other periods also

show differences from neighboring areas of the central Mediterranean, as discussed in Chapter 3.

During the Bronze Age, when trade contacts between the eastern and central Mediterranean

became frequent, Malta did not act as a key location in the movement of people or goods. On

the other hand, in Chapter 4 it was demonstrated that sites in both Lipari and Sicily, regions with

which Malta had strong contacts throughout prehistory, were centers of long-distance trade in the

Bronze Age. This chapter explores some of the factors which may have contributed to Malta’s

tangential role in central Mediterranean exchange networks, particularly those of the Bronze

Age.

116 RESOURCES FOR TRADE

The number of imports in Maltese prehistory was never very high in comparison with other

central Mediterranean sites, but archaeologically identifiable exports from Malta are even more

rare. It is therefore unclear what the Maltese would have exchanged for foreign goods during

any phase of prehistory. The only known exports from Malta are a few vessels found in Sicily,

particularly at Thapsos, in Bronze Age contexts (see Chapter 3). In Sicilian contexts, imported

Maltese vessels comprise primarily open shapes, which suggests that they were imported for

their appearance and exotic nature rather than for anything they could have carried overseas.

They were found in the richest tombs on the site, which also contained Mycenaean and Cypriot

wares (dated to Late Helladic IIIA and IIIB). The inclusion of Maltese pots with other imported

vessels from the east implies that people at Thapsos viewed owning or displaying Maltese

pottery as prestigious. However, Maltese pottery never became a significant part of the long-

distance trade network and never appears in the Aeolian islands, southern Italy, or the Aegean.

Groups of people who considered Maltese vessels as prestigious commodities, therefore, seem

limited to those who resided at a very few Bronze Age sites in Sicily.

Unlike Sicily and the Aeolian islands, Malta does not have any appreciable mineral resources, such as obsidian, flint, ocher, or alabaster.548 Since the Maltese could not exploit a naturally occurring resource for trade, whatever was exchanged for imported goods must have been produced by the population of the islands. Additionally, because no traces survive of what the

Maltese may have offered in exchange for imports, it is likely that organic goods made up the

548 Obsidian is found on Lipari. Flint, ocher and alabaster are found in Sicily (see Chapter 3).

117 largest part of the Maltese exchange base. What these organic goods would have been is unclear,

however. One hypothesis is that the tradition of weaving that made Malta famous in later

periods of history may have begun at an early stage in prehistory.549 The existence of ovicaprids

in the earliest Neolithic levels on Malta could support this proposal, although there is little

evidence for intensive use of spinning and weaving technology in either the Neolithic or the

Bronze Age before the Ba
rija phase,550 particularly in comparison with the number of spindle

whorls and loomweights represented at Sicilian sites.551

Malta is large enough to have been relatively self-sufficient in grain production, although organic

imports, usually undetectable in the archaeological record, may have supplemented Maltese food

resources.552 There is little evidence for long-distance grain trade in prehistory,553 but it is possible that in bad harvests, Malta could have obtained vital foodstuffs from neighboring areas.

Other organics may have been more desirable as regular trade items, products such as spices,554

fruit, nuts, drinks, drugs, medicines,555 baskets, or fiber bags.556 Ethnographic studies have

549 Holloway 1991, 18; McConnell 1985; Trump 1961, 262.

550 Trump 1961.

551 Leighton 1999, 208-9.

552 Robb and Farr 2005, 31.

553 The earliest evidence for trade in organics suggests that grain was less frequently traded than spices, oil, or nuts, although in later periods, grain was an important commodity (Alcock 2006; Dalby 2003; Wilkins and Hill 2006). Evidence from the Late Bronze Age Uluburun shipwreck suggests that even during later prehistory, grain may have been transported over significant distances in the Mediterranean, although the remains of grain on the Uluburun shipwreck may represent only the shipboard diet (Haldane 1993).

554 Vianello 2005. Thus far, there has been no archaeobotanical study that might suggest what types of spices were native to prehistoric Malta.

555 Skeates 1993.

556 Robb and Farr 2005, 31. The Uluburun shipwreck contained coriander, safflower, sumac, cumin, pine nuts, almonds, acorns, pine cones, pine nuts, pistachio nutlets, olives and olive stones, pomegranate and fig seeds and fruit

118 shown that trade between modern islands regularly centers on commodities which are seldom

found in the archaeological record, like dung traded by the islanders of Arwad off the coast of

Syria.557

Since there is little physical evidence for Maltese exports in the central Mediterranean, it is likely

that a combination of archaeologically invisible commodities were exchanged by the prehistoric

Maltese for imports during both the Neolithic and the Bronze Age. Bor in-Nadur and Barija phase ceramics probably supplemented these exports in the later Bronze Age. However, despite the lack of clarity regarding the nature and frequency of Maltese exports, the occurrence of imports in the later Maltese Neolithic and Bronze Age is less frequent than in Sicily or Lipari.

The disparity might suggest that Malta was a less active participant in central Mediterranean trade networks than other areas.

The absence of mineral resources on Malta may be one explanation for its minimal role in regional trade in comparison with Lipari or Sicily, islands that were able to exploit naturally occurring commodities like obsidian and ocher for local use and for trade.558 The lack of such resources on Malta does not, however, fully explain why Malta would not have participated more

fragments, and grape seeds (Haldane 1993). Although not indicative of Neolithic or early Bronze Age Mediterranean trade, the presence of these goods on a Late Bronze Age trading vessel suggests that organics were viable commodities in later prehistory.

557 Broodbank 2000, 272.

558 Although an area is rich in natural resources, like obsidian, the people living in that area do not necessarily control the resource. For example, Melian obsidian in both the Neolithic and Bronze Age may have been directly procured by off-islanders, rather than being distributed by the population living on Melos (Torrence 1986). In the central Mediterranean, direct procurement seems to have been the normal mode of acquiring obsidian from Pantelleria (Stoddart 1997-8, 65). At Lipari, on the other hand, the first settlement was located adjacent to the major obsidian source, perhaps suggesting that the inhabitants of Lipari could control the procurement and export of obsidian, at least in the early Neolithic (Stoddart 1997-8, 65). The extent to which local communities controlled mineral resources in Sicily is unclear (Leighton 1999).

119 actively in Bronze Age trade networks linking the eastern and central Mediterranean. The few

Sicilian and Aeolian sites that seem to have been in frequent contact with the east during the

Bronze Age were not those with the most natural resources. These sites seem rather to have

acted as distribution centers for eastern goods in the central Mediterranean, and also to have

supplied eastern traders with central Mediterranean goods. Lipari exported obsidian during the

Neolithic, but it was not a product that was traded extensively in the Bronze Age. Sicilian sites like Thapsos and Monte Grande are not located at deposits of copper or other mineral resources, and so presumably did not exercise direct control over the procurement and production of such resources. Nevertheless, they were integral points of exchange between indigenous people and easterners, perhaps acting as gateway communities. The focus of the Mycenaean trade network with the central Mediterranean shifted over time, from the southern Tyrrhenian islands, to Sicily, and finally to southern Italy, but it never included Maltese sites. However, the mere lack of mineral resources cannot have been the only explanation for the fringe role of Malta in Bronze

Age exchange networks, since the ability to control local natural resources, based on the examples mentioned above, seems to have been a relatively insignificant factor for the development of Bronze Age central Mediterranean trade centers.

TRADE, CONTACT, AND “ISOLATION”

If the presence of mineral resources was not integral to the establishment and persistence of a trade center, then additional factors must have been responsible for the lack of Maltese participation in long-distance trade in the Bronze Age. As discussed in Chapter 3, trade patterns on Malta during the Bronze Age closely resembled those of the Neolithic. That is, external

120 Maltese exchange networks were highly local and almost entirely limited to Sicily and the

Aeolian islands. There is no evidence that the Maltese participated directly in long-distance trade, or that Mycenaeans ever visited Malta. Trade between Malta and other areas of the central

Mediterranean was more common, but Maltese sites have not yielded nearly as many imports as some Aeolian or Sicilian sites.

It is important to distinguish between the level of trade linking Malta and other areas of the

Mediterranean and the intensity of contact between the Maltese and their neighbors. Imports and exports can be a useful guide to identifying the frequency of communication between two places, but are not the only indicators. The similarities of ceramic styles to other areas of the central

Mediterranean in almost every phase of Maltese prehistory suggests that while the Maltese were not frequent importers of foreign goods, they were in regular contact with other groups of people. The areas with which the Maltese seem to have had strongest connections changed over time. The closest connections in the earliest Neolithic were with southeastern Sicily, while during the later Neolithic and Bronze Age they seem to have been with the Aeolian islands.

Malta also probably had connections with southern Italy in the Bronze Age. It is clear that the

Maltese were never truly isolated from surrounding groups of people.

The circumstances promoting contact with other parts of the central Mediterranean, if not based in trade, are unclear. The possibility of regular trade in organic goods was mentioned above, but there were probably additional reasons that the Maltese interacted with their neighbors. For example, it is possible that the Maltese practiced exogamous marriage, at least in some phases of prehistory. This practice would necessarily have served to keep the islanders in relatively

121 frequent contact with their neighbors. Additionally, if pottery was typically made by non-

specialist women, the practice of exogamous marriage could help explain the process by which

foreign styles reached Malta. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that could illuminate the

nature of Maltese pottery production. The lack of kilns or wheel technology could suggest that

pottery production remained unspecialized throughout much of prehistory, although levels of

ceramic specialization are difficult to identify in prehistoric contexts, particularly in the absence

of physical workshops. Women are often reconstructed as primary pottery producers within

“household use” unspecialized production systems. However, even in modern ethnographic

studies, this type of division of labor by sex is not always observed.559 Although it is possible

that Maltese pottery was made by women, foreign in some cases, the hypothesis cannot be tested

until additional data become available.

Another reason that the Maltese may have had for staying in contact with some of their

neighbors may have been related to risk management strategies, since exchange can be a vital

buffer to offset the effects of a bad year.560 Although it is likely that, at the household level, the

Maltese themselves produced a “normal surplus” of foodstuffs to offset bad harvests,561 in cases of extended drought or famine across the islands, some of the Maltese may have needed to seek off-island supplies of food. Neighboring groups of people in Sicily and the Aeolian islands, who probably also produced small surpluses as part of similar risk management strategies, could have been a natural focus for exchange or raiding by the Maltese in such cases. While little is known

559 Rice 1987, 180-91.

560 Colson 1979; Halstead and O’Shea 1989.

561 See Halstead (1989), Forbes (1989), and Forbes and Foxhall (1995) for examples of similar behaviors in ancient and modern Greek peasant societies.

122 of the yearly possibility for drought in the ancient central Mediterranean, it is doubtful that this would have been a frequent enough problem to account for the regular contact which seems to have existed between Malta and other areas. Therefore, while trading or raiding in times of insufficient supplies may have contributed to some contact between the Maltese and their neighbors, it is unlikely to have been the major reason for those interactions over time. It is possible, however, that one reason for Maltese to maintain trading contacts with other parts of the central Mediterranean was to ensure and predict access to foreign food supplies or places of refuge in times of famine.562

Although the Maltese incorporated aspects of foreign styles and architectural conventions into local traditions, in no phase of prehistory (including the earliest G
ar Dalam phase) did Maltese pottery or architecture mirror exactly what existed in other areas of the central Mediterranean.

The uniqueness of certain aspects of Maltese material culture throughout the Neolithic and

Bronze Age suggests that for most of the prehistory of the islands, the Maltese both desired and were able to create and maintain their own distinctly Maltese identity.

INSULAR CHOICES

Malta was far enough away from other populations that it was probably possible for the islanders

(or powerful people among the islanders) to exercise some control over the amount of contact and trade between Malta and other areas if they so desired.563 It has been suggested that areas

562 Colson 1979, 23.

563 See Broodbank (2000) for Cycladic examples of the same phenomenon.

123 most likely to become involved in trade are those in marginal environments, where people would

have had to develop exchange strategies in addition to cultivation in order to survive.564

However, in the case of Malta, the island probably was large enough to produce sufficient food to sustain its population, except in times of drought or bad harvests. Furthermore, since Malta had no obvious natural resources that other people might have wanted to exploit, it may have been relatively easy for the Maltese to manage interaction with foreigners on their own terms.

The limited distribution on Malta of imported objects during the Temple Period suggests that during this period, contact with neighboring areas was probably controlled by a restricted group of islanders.565 The widespread distribution of small numbers of imports in both the earlier

Neolithic and in the Bronze Age may reflect a different situation, one in which cross-cultural

relations were managed on a more individual level. Nevertheless, in all phases, the

idiosyncrasies of Maltese ceramics and architectural styles suggest that although the Maltese

interacted with other people of the central Mediterranean, they considered themselves somewhat

different from those other people. If the Maltese conceived of themselves as different from other

central Mediterranean populations, it is possible that they made conscious choices in the

production of ceramics and other objects purposefully to distinguish themselves from their

neighbors.

564 Irwin 1978; Rathje 1978.

565 Further excavation both of non-temple and non-funerary contexts (especially for the Tarxien phase) is needed in order to support the hypothesis of a restricted number of islanders who controlled cross-cultural contacts during the Temple Period. However, the low numbers of imports from the gantija phase Hut of the Querns and Hut of the Hollows at Skorba (Trump 1966), and the hut at Ghajnsielem (Malone, Stoddart, and Trump 1988) suggest that the majority of imported and prestige objects during this phase may have been deposited in temples or in elaborate graves.

124 Unlike, for example, Cycladic artistic representations, in Maltese art there is little focus on the sea and seafaring. One engraving from Tarxien may represent ships, but it is the only depiction of sea craft on Malta, except for a crescent-shaped object surrounded by incised stars on a stone from Tal-Qadi.566 Fish appear on one of the reliefs from Buibba, but terrestrial animals like cows, ovicaprids, or pigs are more commonly represented.567 There are few indications of the nature of the cult that was practiced in the megalithic temples, but the reproduction of a temple facade within the al Saflieni Hypogeum may imply that the cult had chthonic associations.

There is no evidence that the sea held the same ideological significance in Malta that it seems to have held in the Cyclades.568 While the risks of sea travel must have been much the same in the two areas, it is not clear that the Maltese afforded increased prestige to members of its society who engaged in long-distance travel, while there is some indication that this may have occurred in certain Cycladic island societies.569 If the Maltese did not consider sea travel to be an activity that would promote individual status or that was imperative for the well-being of their communities, they may not have afforded a substantially higher value to those goods, like obsidian or flint, that were brought from abroad. Such an outlook on seafaring may be an additional factor which could have contributed to the lack of substantial numbers of imports on

Malta in most phases of prehistory. By not valuing imported objects and styles over native forms, the Maltese would also have been able to construct individual identities which were not

566 Pace 2004b, 72-4, with additional references for the debate over dating of the ship graffiti to either the later Temple Period or the earlier Bronze Age.

567 Cilia 2004; Evans 1971.

568 Broodbank 2000, 251.

569 Broodbank 2000, 249.

125 reliant on overseas connections, but which could exist with or without foreign objects or

influence.

CENTRALITY

An additional factor, unrelated to the Maltese people themselves, may also have led to the near-

exclusion of Malta from long-distance Bronze Age trade. The distribution of Mycenaean pottery

in the central Mediterranean is centered on the southern Tyrrhenian islands, Sicily, southern

Italy, and Sardinia. Scattered finds of Mycenaean pottery have been found in central and

northern Italy, but almost no Mycenaean pottery is known from coastal areas of Libya or

Tunisia,570 or from Pantelleria and the other south-central Mediterranean islands.571 Only two sherds have been discovered further west than the central Mediterranean, in Spain.572 The

western Mycenaean trade network seems to have focused almost exclusively on the central

Mediterranean, but on the northern part of that region.573 Whether eastern or central

Mediterranean traders were responsible for this phenomenon, the centers of east-west trade were consistently located further north than Malta. If a major reason that easterners came to the

central Mediterranean to trade were the mineral and metal resources of the Italian peninsula, a

northerly focus in the exchange network would be understandable. In the same light, an apparent

570 Aegean objects in northern Africa include a fragment of a Mycenaean vessel without a secure context but found at Carthage (Vegas 1996) and a few objects of doubtful origin or period (Knapp 1981, 270-1).

571 Vianello 2005, figure 19.

572 Martín de la Cruz 1988, 86. The two sherds in Spain likely arrived there through interconnected local exchange networks, rather than direct contact between the population there and Mycenaeans.

573 As noted in Chapter 4, far more data is needed from sites of the Bronze Age in northern Africa before this hypothesis can be argued for convincingly.

126 lack of resources of interest to easterners on the northern African coast or in southern islands

may also have precluded the development of a trade network centered on Malta, despite its

geographically central location in the Mediterranean.

Not until the Phoenicians founded sites along both the north and south coasts of the western

Mediterranean did the location of Malta become central in relation to that of other sites. The

foundation of Phoenician settlements on Malta during this period is probably directly related to

this new centrality of the island in relation to other trade centers.

While I do not mean to imply that it was inevitable that Malta become a center for pan-

Mediterranean exchange, its geographical situation made it an excellent candidate for such a

role. If the Mycenaean trade network did go further west than the central Mediterranean, there

should be evidence for some trade center or gateway community further south and west than the

Sicilian sites, but thus far, no such evidence exists, on Malta or elsewhere.

CONCLUSIONS

Lord William Taylour wrote in 1958:574

“It has always been surprising that no Mycenaean finds have previously turned up in

Malta, when it is recalled that the culture of that island gives definite hints of Aegean

influence, particularly as regards the architecture (corbelling technique), stone figurines

and friezes, and spiraliform designs carved in stone. By its central position in the

574 Taylour 1958, 80.

127 Mediterranean it must have been known to the Mycenaeans in their voyages to the West.

It is not so distant from Sicily where there is already plenty of evidence of Mycenaean

contacts, and relations between Malta and Sicily were always close... It is to be hoped

that excavation...will be able to add to our exiguous knowledge of Mycenaean influence

on that island.”

Taylour encapsulated the status of the debate over the relationship between Malta and the

Aegean before additional excavation and better chronological frameworks necessitated new approaches to the problem. As discussed in Chapter 1, early work on Maltese prehistory assumed connections between the Maltese and the Aegean world on the basis of stylistic and architectural similarities. Although details about the nature and meaning of Maltese-Mycenaean interaction were argued, the fact of frequent contact was seldom doubted, particularly for the

Temple Period.

The development of radiocarbon dating sparked a change in approach. The Temple Period was far too early to be related to the Aegean Late Bronze Age. Focus on the role of Malta in local networks was emphasized, and great effort was put into the development of an accurate relative dating system that was supported by radiocarbon dates. The redating of Maltese, central

Mediterranean, and Aegean prehistory allowed more accurate reconstructions of what types of cross-cultural interaction would have been possible in different phases. Comparison between

Maltese material culture and that of other regions, especially Sicily and the Aeolian islands, showed that Maltese ceramic types were closely linked with neighboring styles. Malta seems to have participated in a central Mediterranean koiné to some extent throughout most of the

128 Neolithic and Bronze Age, although pottery and architectural styles show some differences from

examples in other areas.

Since the Temple Period could not have been influenced by the Aegean, it was interpreted as a time of increasing cultural insularity, despite the frequent imports of the phase. However, the almost exclusive distribution of those imports in temples and burial complexes associated with temples suggests that the ability to obtain foreign commodities began to play an important role

for the emerging elite who presumably commanded the resources to build such structures.

The nature of the transition between the Temple Period and the early Bronze Age remains

unclear. While it is possible that the Temple Period culture was obliterated by foreign invaders

who brought a foreign culture to the islands, some evidence points to internal social change

among the Maltese. Monumentality remained important in the Bronze Age, in the form of

dolmens. “Thermi ware” occurred in both Temple Period and Bronze Age contexts, and other

types of objects, like pendants, were used in both periods. Evidence from imports in the Bronze

Age suggests that trade was rather infrequent, much as it had been in non-temple contexts in

previous phases.

Stylistic arguments between Aegean and Maltese styles were used as evidence of eastern

influence on the Maltese Bronze Age, despite the infrequency of eastern imports in Malta. The

few eastern imports from the Temple Period and early Bronze Age suggest that long-distance

trade between the eastern and central Mediterranean began at this time. However, although other

areas of the Central Mediterranean, particularly sites in the Aeolian islands, Sicily, and southern

129 Italy became centers of frequent exchange with easterners, the level of imports (and presumably

foreign contacts) in Malta continued much as in previous phases. That is, while the Maltese

continued to participate somewhat regularly in local central Mediterranean trade networks, they do not seem to have been directly involved in the exchange between easterners and westerners.

In the central Mediterranean, exchange between people from the eastern and central

Mediterranean seems to have focused on a few key sites. These may have acted as gateway communities, providing a location for eastern traders to obtain natural resources that they could not easily obtain without the help of people in coastal trading centers. Lipari, for example, could have provided access to mineral resources that were located far away, along the central and northern Tyrrhenian coast. Coastal sites in Sicily and Italy could have provided an opportunity for eastern traders to obtain resources from difficult to access inland areas. While every trading center need not have acted in the exact same way, this model seems to work well for most of the central Mediterranean sites.

An exploration of reasons for the peripherality of Malta in central Mediterranean trade networks is important to pursue for several reasons. Such investigation illuminates not only purely

Maltese phenomena, but also provides insight into the nature of east-west trade networks from a perspective outside that of clear trade centers.

Examination of Maltese exchange networks demonstrates the applicability of analytical models of island archaeology, particularly those that emphasize biogeographical factors like island location and size in addition to active cultural choice, as factors leading toward cultural insularity

130 or assimilation into a wider culture area. Malta was located near enough to neighboring

landmasses that it could be reached within a few days of sailing, but was far enough away that frequent sailing was unlikely. Its size was probably large enough to allow a small population to

be self-sufficient, and a general lack of mineral or other natural resources may have prevented

economic interest in the islands among neighboring populations. While these factors created a

situation that could support cultural autonomy and insularity, it was the Maltese themselves who consistently chose to participate at the periphery of central Mediterranean exchange networks

and to maintain a degree of cultural distinctness from their neighbors.

The case of Malta offers insight into aspects of Mediterranean exchange that are not obvious

from the examination solely of localities which are highly involved in trade. Study of the

remains of Maltese prehistory reveals clearly that trade was not the only type of contact between

people of the Mediterranean, and that evidence for trade need not be the overriding factor in

assuming interaction between different population groups.

Finally, analysis of Maltese participation in the east-west trade network illuminates facets of the

network that are difficult to address in a study that focuses only on centers of exchange. The

lack of Maltese participation in this network, and the paucity of eastern objects from the southern

and western areas, suggest that eastern traders were focused on more northerly locations. Such a

focus implies that easterners came to the west for resources that they could obtain from the

northern rather than the southern Mediterranean. It remains unclear whether eastern traders

focused northward because they did not know of resources in northern Africa and the southern

131 islands, because there were no populations in those areas who attempted to exploit natural resources for maritime trade, or because more desirable resources were located to the north.

If the model of gateway communities is accurate for most central Mediterranean trade centers, then the fact that Malta did not act as one might suggest that the eastern trade network never went further west, particularly since the role of Malta in later trade networks that did extend westward, like the Phoenician, was far more central. Pan-Mediterranean trade made Malta a strategic location, because of its good harbors and central location in the Mediterranean. On the other hand, Malta may have remained peripheral to long-distance Bronze Age exchange networks because those networks did not extend further west.

The Maltese situation is a key to reconstructing the extent of eastern intent in the west. The diffusionists of the early 20th century saw influence of the Aegean world in Maltese material culture as indicative of an emerging pan-Mediterranean migration or exchange network, with

Malta as a key player in east-west interaction. A re-evaluation of chronology shows that such a situation was not possible during the Maltese Temple Period. Analysis of the Bronze Age remains demonstrates that Malta did not participate extensively in long-distance trade, nor is it likely that the Maltese had much direct contact with easterners. The lack of evidence for such contact, in addition to the lack of eastern trade centers further west, might be an indication that eastern traders had little interest in traveling beyond the central Mediterranean. In reconstructing

Mediterranean prehistory, the diffusionists may have been right to place expectations on Malta as a strategic location for the pan-Mediterranean diffusion and trade network that they envisioned.

While new interpretations of the data have demonstrated that prehistoric Malta was never a

132 center for an advance of eastern culture to the west, the role of Malta within prehistoric exchange networks continues to inform reconstructions of the nature of east-west interaction in the Bronze

Age.

133 FIGURES

Figure 1. The Mediterranean.

134

Major Sites Minor Sites 1 Barija 15 Bidni 32 Misra Sinjura 2 Bor in-Nadur 16 Bu ibba 33 Nadur 3 gantija 17 Busbesija 34 Pergla 4 Gar Dalam 18 Buqana 35 Qala Pellegrin 5 a ar Qim 19 Bur Mge 36 Ras ir-Raeb 6 al Saflieni 20 Calypso's Cave 37 Ras il- ebel 7 Mnajdra 21 gantija North Cave 38 Safi 8 Skorba 22 Gajn Qajjet 39 Santa Verna 9 Ta' a rat (M arr) 23 Gajnsielem 40 Ta - awla 10 Ta' ammut 24 Gar in-Naga 41 Ta' awar 11 Tarxien 25 Gar ta' Gie u 42 Tal-Qadi 12 Tas-Sil 26 al inwi 43 Wardija ta' San or 13 Xagra Circle 27 Id-Debdieba 44 Wied Moqbol 14 ebbu 28 Il Qortin 45 Wied nuber 29 In-Nuffara 46 Xagra 30 Kordin 47 Xemxija 31 Mar iena 48 Xewkija 49 Xrobb l'Ga in Figure 2. Major prehistoric sites of Malta.

135

Figure 3. Plan of Trump’s excavations at Ba
rija (Trump 1961, 257, figure 4).

136

Figure 4. Plan of Neolithic temple at Bor in-Nadur (Trump 2002, 140).

Figure 5. Plan of Bronze Age remains at Bor in-Nadur (Trump 2002, 288).

137

Figure 6. Plan of gantija (Trump 2002, 171).

External shrine?

Forecourt

Figure 7. Plan of aar Qim (after Trump 2002, 143).

138

Figure 8. Porthole doorway to southwestern apse at aar Qim.

Figure 9. Female figures from aar Qim (after Pace 2004b, 124-5).

139

Figure 10. Plan of
al Saflieni Hypogeum drawn by Nicola Vassallo in 1907 (after Pace 2004c, 6).

Figure 11. The “Sleeping Lady” from the
al Saflieni Hypogeum. Length, 11.7 cm (Trump 2002, 100).

140

Figure 12. Carved facade within the
al Saflieni Hypogeum (Trump 2002, 131).

Figure 13. Plan of Mnajdra (Trump 2002, 149).

141

Red Skorba Shrine

Figure 14. Temple Period remains and the Red Skorba Shrine at Skorba (after Trump 2002, 157).

Figure 15. Plan of Ta’ arat (Trump 2002, 154).

142

Figure 16. Plan of Ta’
ammut (Evans 1956b, 86, figure 1).

Tarxien Central

Tarxien South

Tarxien East

Tarxien Far East

Figure 17. Plan of Tarxien (after Trump 2002, 121).

143 Colossal female figure

Animal relief, probably representing sheep or goats

Figure 18. Southeastern apse of Tarxien South, showing replica of animal relief in front and replica of colossal female figure at the back (after Pace 2004b, 54).

144

Figure 19. Altar with hollow, hidden by a stone plug carved in spiral relief (Trump 2002, 123).

Figure 20. Location of Bronze Age cremation cemetery at Tarxien (Trump 2002, 287).

145 Neolithic apse

Figure 21. Plan of excavated area at Tas-Sil (after Bonanno and Frendo 2000, 72, figure 2).

146

Figure 22. Plan of Xag
ra Circle (Stoddart et. al. 1993, 8, figure 3).

147

Figure 23. Plan of tombs at ebbu (Baldacchino and Evans 1954, 3, 5, figures 2 and 3).

148

Figure 24. “Statue-menhir” from ebbu tomb 5, three views (Baldacchino and Evans 1954, plate III).

149

Figure 25. Houel’s engraving of aar Qim (Grima 2004, 15).

150

Figure 26. Brochtorff’s representation of Xag
ra Circle (Grima 2004, 93).

151

Figure 27. Plans of Kordin I (left) and II (right) by Caruana (Caruana 1896b, 29, 31).

152

Figure 28. Snake pillar from gantija (Trump 2002, 115).

153

Figure 29. Drawing by Charles Zammit of the stratigraphy of Tarxien on the basis of Themistocles Zammit’s excavation notes (Trump 2004, 233).

154 Multiple quern

Figure 30. Plan of Kordin III (after Trump 2002, 136).

Zammit's Phase Type Site Monuments Evans' Dates Dates Caruana's Dates Gar Dalam c. 2500 B.C.E. Marr Trefoil temples c. 1500 B.C.E. Neolithic ebbu Trefoil temples, c. 2000 B.C.E. rock tombs gantija Trefoil temples, c. 1200 B.C.E. first temples with two sets of apses Tarxien c. 1600 B.C.E. c. 3000 B.C.E.

Tarxien Cremation c. 1400 B.C.E. c. 2000 B.C.E. Cemetery cemetery, dolmens Bronze Age Bor in-Nadur Fortified village c. 1300 B.C.E. Barija Fortified village c. 1100 B.C.E. Figure 31. Maltese chronological schemes, before radiocarbon dates were available (Caruana 1882; 1886; 1896b; Evans 1953; 1959; Zammit 1930; 1995).

155

Figure 32. Capo Graziano phase vessels (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980, plate CXXIV, numbers 3-4, plate CXXXI, number 1).

156

Figure 33. Tarxien Cemetery (above left, Evans 1959, plates 88-90), Moarda (above right, Bernabò Brea 1966, plates 26 and 27), and Castelluccio phase wares (below, Bernabò Brea 1966b, plates 29-29, 38-40).

157

Figure 34. Bor in-Nadur phase vessels and Barija phase vessels (Trump 2004, 267).

158

Figure 35. Two tilted figurine heads from al Saflieni Hypogeum, actual size (Evans 1959, 141, figure 21).

Period Phase Date G ar Dalam 5200-4500 B.C.E. Neolithic Grey Skorba 4500-4400 B.C.E. Red Skorba 4400-4200 B.C.E.

ebbu 4200-3500 B.C.E. Marr 3500-3400 B.C.E. Temple Period gantija 3400-3100 B.C.E. Saflieni 3100-3000 B.C.E. Tarxien 3000-2500 B.C.E.

Tarxien Cemetery 2500-1500 B.C.E. Bronze Age Bor in-Nadur 1500-700 B.C.E. Ba rija 800-700 B.C.E.

Phoenician Period 700+ B.C.E. Figure 36. Prehistoric Maltese cultural phases, with suggested absolute dates.

159

Figure 37. G
ar Dalam phase pottery shapes (after Trump 1966, 21, figure 18) and typical fragments (after Trump 2004, 252).

160

Figure 38. Examples of Stentinello phase pottery (after Bernabò Brea 1966, 41, figure 4, plates 6-9).

161

Figure 39. Animal protomes from Sicily (left, after Bernabò Brea 1966, plate 10) and Malta (right).

Figure 40. Grey Skorba phase shapes (after Trump 1966, 27, figure 23) and fragments (after Trump 2004, 252).

162

Figure 41. Red Skorba phase shapes (after Trump 1966, 30, figure 27) and vessels (after Trump 2004, 253).

163

Figure 42. ebbu phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 33) and vessels (after Trump 2004, 255).

164

Figure 43. Marr phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 34) and vessels (after Trump 2004, 256).

165

Figure 44. gantija phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 35) and vessels (after Trump 2004, 257).

166

Figure 45. Saflieni phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 36) and vessels (after Trump 2004, 259).

167

Figure 46. Tarxien phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 37) and vessels (after Trump 2004, 260-1).

168

Figure 47. Tarxien Cemetery phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 39) and vessels (after Trump 2004, 266).

169

Figure 48. Plan of Cairn I at Wied Moqbol (Evans 1956b, 87, figure 2).

170

Figure 49. Bor in-Nadur phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 40).

Figure 50. Barija phase shapes (Evans 1971, figure 41).

171 Uncalibrated Calibrated Reference Phase of Radiocarbon Original Date via Oxcal Number Site Context Age Published Date 4.0 (2
) Dating Method BM-216 Skorba G ar 5760 +/- 200 3810 cal. B.C. 5207-4237 cal. Radiochemical Dalam B.C. Analysis BM-378 Skorba G ar 6140 +/- 160 4190 cal. B.C. 5467-4719 cal. Radiochemical Dalam B.C. Analysis BM-148 Skorba Red 5175 +/- 150 3225 cal. B.C. 4330-3695 cal. Radiochemical Skorba B.C. Analysis OxA-3566 Xag ra ebbu 4600 +/- 65 3600-3100 cal. 3625-3098 cal. AMS Circle B.C. B.C. OxA-3567 Xag ra ebbu 4860 +/- 65 3780-3388 cal. 3794-3385 cal. AMS Circle B.C. B.C. BM-147 Skorba ebbu 5000 +/- 150 3050 cal. B.C. 4228-3382 cal. Radiochemical B.C. Analysis OxA-3568 Xag ra ebbu 5170 +/- 65 4222-3813 cal. 4228-3796 cal. AMS Circle B.C. B.C. BM-145 Skorba ebbu 5140 +/- 150 3190 cal. B.C. 4321-3652 cal. Radiochemical B.C. Analysis OxA-5039 Xag ra ebbu 5170 +/- 130 4317-3704 cal. 4323-3704 cal. AMS Circle B.C. B.C. OxA-5038 Xag ra ebbu 5330 +/- 100 4373-3966 cal. 4349-3966 cal. AMS Circle B.C. B.C. BM-100 Ta a rat M arr 4640 +/- 150 2710 cal. B.C. 3710-2930 cal. Radiochemical B.C. Analysis BM-712 Skorba gantija 4478 +/- 56 2528 cal. B.C. 3360-2941 cal. Radiochemical B.C. Analysis BM-142 Skorba gantija 5240 +/- 150 3290 cal. B.C. 4353-3712 cal. Radiochemical B.C. Analysis OxA-3571 Xag ra Tarxien 4080 +/- 65 2884-2470 cal. 2872-2476 cal. AMS Circle B.C. B.C. OxA-3573 Xag ra Tarxien 4170 +/- 65 2920-2580 cal. 2896-2579 cal. AMS Circle B.C. B.C. OxA-3575 Xag ra Tarxien 4225 +/- 70 3022-2612 cal. 3010-2581 cal. AMS Circle B.C. B.C. OxA-3569 Xag ra Tarxien 4250 +/- 65 3029-2625 cal. 3022-2630 cal. AMS Circle B.C. B.C. OxA-3574 Xag ra Tarxien 4260 +/- 60 3029-2667 cal. 3077-2638 cal. AMS Circle B.C. B.C. OxA-3570 Xag ra Tarxien 4300 +/- 60 3080-2705 cal. 3097-2698 cal. AMS Circle B.C. B.C. OxA-8165 Bur Mg e Tarxien 4305 +/- 65 3088-2706 cal. 3265-2679 cal. AMS B.C. B.C. BM-143 Skorba Tarxien 4380 +/- 150 2430 cal. B.C. 3501-2620 cal. Radiochemical B.C. Analysis OxA-3572 Xag ra Tarxien 5380 +/- 70 4360-4006 cal. 4348-4044 cal. AMS Circle B.C. B.C. BM-710 Tarxien Tarxien 3286 +/- 72 1336 cal. B.C. 1740-1427 cal. Radiochemical Cemetery B.C. Analysis BM-711 Tarxien Tarxien 3354 +/- 76 1404 cal. B.C. 1877-1461 cal. Radiochemical Cemetery B.C. Analysis OxA-3750 Xag ra Tarxien 3580 +/- 75 2140-1740 cal. 2140-1740 cal. AMS Circle Cemetery B.C. B.C.

172 BM-141 Tarxien Tarxien 3880 +/- 150 1930 cal. B.C. 2864-1949 cal. Radiochemical Cemetery B.C. Analysis BM-101 Tarxien Tarxien 4485 +/- 150 2535 cal. B.C. 3634-2874 cal. Radiochemical Cemetery B.C. Analysis OxA-3751 Xagra Tarxien 1480 +/- 70 420-670 cal. B.C. 427-661 cal. AMS Circle Cemetery A.D. BM-808 Qala ?? 3912 +/- 64 1962 cal. B.C. 2570-2205 cal. Radiochemical Pellegrin B.C. Analysis OxA-8197
al Saflieni ?? 4130 +/- 45 2879-2501 cal. 2873-2580 cal. AMS Hypogeum B.C. B.C. Figure 51. Radiocarbon data for Maltese prehistory.

Malta Sicily Aeolian Islands Aegean

7000 B.C.E.

Early Neolithic (6700/6500-5800/5600 B.C.E.) Early Neolithic Impressed ware/ 6000 Stentinello Castellaro Vecchio B.C.E. (6000-5000 B.C.E.) (6000-5000 B.C.E.)

Middle Neolithic (5800/5600-5400/5300 B.C.E.) 5500 B.C.E.

Late Neolithic (5400/5300-4700/4500 B.C.E.) Neolithic Gar Dalam (5200-4500 B.C.E.) Middle Neolithic Stentinello/ Trichrome/ Trichrome/ 5000 Serra d'Alto Serra d'Alto B.C.E. (5000-4000 B.C.E.) (5000-4000 B.C.E.)

Final Neolithic (4700/4500-3300/3100 B.C.E.) 4500 Grey Skorba B.C.E. (4500-4400 B.C.E.) Red Skorba (4400-4200 B.C.E.)

173 Temple Period ebbu (4200-3500 B.C.E.) Late Neolithic 4000 Diana Diana/ Spatarella B.C.E. (4000-3500 B.C.E.) (4000-3500 B.C.E.)

Early Copper Age San Cono/ Piano 3500 Marr Notaro/ Piano Vento Piano Conte B.C.E. (3500-3400 B.C.E.) (3500-2500 B.C.E.) (3500-2500 B.C.E.) gantija (3400-3100 B.C.E.) Saflieni (3100-3000 B.C.E.) Early Bronze Age Early Helladic/Minoan I (3100/3000-2650 B.C.E.) Late Copper Age Serraferlicchio/ Conca D'Oro/ 3000 Tarxien Malpasso/ Beaker Piano Quartara B.C.E. (3000-2500 B.C.E.) (3000-2000 B.C.E.) (3000-2000 B.C.E.) Early Helladic II (2650-2200/2150 B.C.E.)/ Early Minoan II (2500-2200 B.C.E.) Early Bronze Age Bronze Age Naro/ La Muculufa/ 2500 Tarxien Cemetery Castelluccio/ Beaker B.C.E. (2500-1500 B.C.E.) (2500-1430 B.C.E.)

Early Helladic III (2200/2150-2050/2000 B.C.E.)/ Early Minoan III (2200-2100 B.C.E.) Middle Bronze Age Middle Helladic I (2050/2000-1950/1900 B.C.E.)/ Middle Minoan IA (2100-1900 B.C.E.) Castelluccio/ Rodi- 2000 Tindari-Vallelunga Capo Graziano B.C.E. (2000-1430 B.C.E.) (2000-1430 B.C.E.) Middle Helladic II (1950/1900-1750/1720 B.C.E.)/ Middle Minoan IB-II (1900-1750 B.C.E.)

174 Middle Helladic III (1750/1720-1680 B.C.E.)/ Middle Minoan III (1750-1700 B.C.E.) Late Bronze Age Late Helladic I (1680-1600/1580 B.C.E.)/ Late Minoan I (1700-1490 B.C.E.) Late Helladic IIA (1600/1580-1520/1480 B.C.E.) Late Helladic IIB (1520/1480-1445/1415 B.C.E.)/ 1500 Bor in-Nadur Late Minoan II B.C.E. (1500-700 B.C.E.) (1490-1430 B.C.E.) Late Helladic IIIA Middle Bronze Age (1415/1390-1310/1300 B.C.E.)/ Thapsos/ Canatello Milazzese Late Minoan IIIA (1430-1250 B.C.E.) (1430-1250 B.C.E.) (1430-1320 B.C.E.) Late Helladic IIIB (1310/1300-1190/1180 B.C.E.)/ Late Minoan IIIB (1320-1200 B.C.E.) Late Bronze Age Pantalica North/ Caltagirone Ausonian 1-2 (1250-733 B.C.E.) (1250-733 B.C.E.) Late Helladic IIIC (1190/1180-1065 B.C.E.)/ Late Minoan IIIC (1200-1100 B.C.E.) Subminoan (1100-1000/975 B.C.E.) 1000 B.C.E. Early Iron Age Mulino della Badia/ Cassibile/ Morgantina Ausonian 2 (900-733 B.C.E.) (900-733 B.C.E.)

Barija (800-700 B.C.E.)

Figure 52. Comparative general chronology of Malta, Sicily and the Aeolian Islands (Leighton 1996; 1999), and the Aegean (Cullen 2001).

175

Figure 53. Imported Trefontane sherds (Trump 2004, 246).

Figure 54. Bossed bone plaque from Malta (after Pace 2004b, 71).

176

Figure 55. “Thermi ware” pedestal bowl from Tarxien (after Pace 2004b, 212).

177

Figure 56. Stone bead, Tarxien ware sherd, and stone pendant with symbol (after Evans 1959, plate 84).

178

Figure 57. Plan of Otranto area dolmens. A: Quattromacine; B: Scusi; C: Gurgulante; D: Placa (Whitehouse 1967, 355, figure 5).

Figure 58. Mycenaean sherd from Bor in-Nadur (Pace 2004, 212).

179

Figure 59. Fortification wall at Bor in-Nadur. The smaller stones are a result of modern restoration.

180

Italy Aeolian Islands Sicily 1 Avetrana 18 Alicudi 27 Agrigento 41 Morgantina 2 Broglio di Trebisacce 19 Filicudi. Capo Graziano, 28 Branco Grande 42 Ognina Montagnola 3 Contigliano 20 Lipari. Lipari Acropolis, Piano 29 Calaforno 43 Pantalica Conte 4 Coppa Nevigata 21 Panarea. Piano Quartara, 30 Caldare 44 Petraro Milazzese 5 Cozzo Manziotta 22 Salina. Portella 31 Canatello 45 Piano Notaro 6 Eboli 23 Stromboli 32 Castelluccio 46 Plemmyrion 7 Grotta Polla 24 Volcano 33 Chiusazza 47 Polizzello 8 Luni sul Mignone 34 Cozzo del Pantano 48 Ribera 9 Otranto 25 Ischia 35 La Muculufa 49 San Cono 10 Paestum 26 Vivara 36 Malpasso 50 Stentinello 11 San Giovenale 37 Milena 51 Thapsos 12 Scoglio del Tonno 38 Moarda 52 Timpa Dieri 13 Surbo 39 Monte Grande 53 Trefontane 14 Taranto 40 Monte Racello 54 Valsavoia 15 Termitito 16 Torre Castelluccia 17 Zambrone

Figure 60. The central Mediterranean.

181 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abela, Giovanfrancesco. 1647. Della Descrittione di Malta, Isola nel mare Siciliano, con le sue Antichita ed altre Notizie. Malta: P. Bonacota.

Alcock, Joan P. 2006. Food in the Ancient World. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Ambers, Janet. 1994. “Radiocarbon and calendar chronologies: some practical difficulties in the use of 14C in archaeology.” In Radiocarbon Dating and Italian Prehistory, edited by Robin Skeates and Ruth Whitehouse, 7-14. London: The British School at Rome and Accordia Research Centre.

Ashby, Thomas, Robert Noel Bradley, T. Eric Peet, and Napoleone Tagliaferro. 1913. “Excavations in 1908-11 in Various Megalithic Buildings in Malta and Gozo.” PBSR 6:1-126.

Ashby, Thomas and Themistocles Zammit. 1916. “Excavations in Malta in 1914.” Man 16:1-6.

Ashby, Thomas, Themistocles Zammit, and Giuseppe Despott. “Excavations in Malta in 1914.” Man 16:17-22.

Baldacchino, John G. and John D. Evans. 1954. “Prehistoric Tombs Near Zebbug, Malta.” PBSR 22:1-21.

Banks, Elizabeth Courtney. 1967. “The Early and Middle Helladic Small Objects from Lerna.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cincinnati.

Barker, Graeme and Elizabeth Slater. 1971. “The First Metallurgy in Italy in Light of the Metal Analyses From the Pigorini Museum.” BPI 22:183-212.

Barker, Harold, Richard Burleigh, and Nigel Meeks. 1969. “British Museum Natural Radiocarbon Measurements VI.” Radiocarbon 11.2:278-94.

Barker, Harold and John Mackey. 1963. “British Museum Natural Radiocarbon Measurements IV.” Radiocarbon 5:104-8.

Barker, Harold and John Mackey. 1968. “British Museum Natural Radiocarbon Measurements V.” Radiocarbon 10:1-7.

Begemann, Friedrich, Sigrid Schmitt-Strecker, Ernst Pernicka, and Fulvia Lo Schiavo. 2001. “Chemical Composition and Lead Isotopy of Copper and Bronze from Nuragic Sardinia.” EJA 4.1:43-85.

Belardelli, Clarissa. 1993. “Aegean-Type Pottery from Coppa Nevigata, Apulia.” In Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by Carol Zerner, Peter Zerner, and John Winder, 347-52. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

182 Benzi, Mario and Giampaolo Graziadio. 1996a. “Late Mycenaean Pottery from Punta Meliso (Santa Maria di Leuca).” In Atti e memorie del secondo congresso internazionale di micenologia 3, edited by Ernesto De Miro, Louis Godart, and Anna Sacconi, 1523-9. Rome: Gruppo editoriale internazionale.

Benzi, Mario and Giampaolo Graziadio. 1996b. “The Last Mycenaeans in Italy? Late LH IIIC Pottery from Punta Meliso, Leuca.” SMEA 38:95-138.

Bernabò Brea, Luigi. 1966a. “Abitato neolitico e insediamento maltese dell’età del bronzo nell’isola di Ognina (Siracusa) e i rapporti fra la Sicilia e Malta dal XVI al XIII sec. a.C.” Kokalos 12:40-69.

Bernabò Brea, Luigi. 1966b. Sicily before the Greeks. London: Thames and Hudson.

Bernabò Brea, Luigi. 1994. Lipari. Museo archeologico eoliano. Palermo: Edizioni Novecento.

Bernabò Brea, Luigi and Madeleine Cavalier. 1956. “Civiltà preistoriche delle isole eolie.” BPI 10:7-99.

Bernabò Brea, Luigi and Madeleine Cavalier. 1968. Meligunìs Lipára III: Stazioni preistoriche delle isole Panarea, Salina e Stromboli. Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio.

Bernabò Brea, Luigi and Madeleine Cavalier. 1980. Meligunìs Lipára IV: L’Acropoli di Lipari nella preistoria. Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio.

Bernabò Brea, Luigi, Madeleine Cavalier, and P. Belli. 1990. “La tholos termale di San Calogero nell’isola di Lipari.” SMEA 28:7-78.

Bettelli, Marco. 2002. Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo. Ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana. Firenze: Edizioni all’Insegna del Giglio.

Bietti Sestieri, Anna Maria. 1973. “The Metal Industry of Continental Italy, 13th to the 11th Century B.C., and its Connections with the Aegean.” PPS 39:383-424.

Bietti Sestieri, Anna Maria. 1985. “Contact, Exchange and Conflict in the Italian Bronze Age: The Mycenaeans on the Tyrrhenian Coasts and Islands.” In Papers in Italian Archaeology IV. Part iii: Patterns in Protohistory, edited by Caroline Malone and Simon Stoddart, 305-37. BAR- IS 245. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Blakolmer, Fritz. 2005. “Relations between Prehistoric Malta and the Aegean: Myth and Reality.” In Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004. Aegaeum 25, edited by Robert Laffineur and Emanuele Greco, 653-62. Liège: Université de Liège.

183 Blegen, Carl W. 1963. Troy and the Trojans. London: Thames and Hudson.

Blegen, Carl W., John L. Caskey, Marion Rawson, and Jerome Sperling. 1950. Troy. General Introduction. The First and Second Settlements. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bonanno, Anthony. 1999. “Malta tra Africa e Sicilia: indizi dei contatti marittimi nel II millennio.” In Culture marinare nel Mediterraneo centrale e occidentale fra il XVII e il XV secolo A.C., edited by Claudio Giardino, 97-107. Rome: Bagatto Libri.

Bonanno, Anthony. 2005. Malta: Phoenician, Punic, and Roman. Malta: Midsea Books, Ltd.

Bonanno, Anthony and Anthony J. Frendo. 2000. “Excavations at Tas-Silg, Malta. A Preliminary Report on the 1996-1998 Campaigns Conducted by the Department of Classics and Archaeology of the University of Malta.” MeditArch 13:67-114.

Bonanno, Anthony, Tancred Gouder, Caroline Malone, and Simon Stoddart. 1990. “Monuments in an island society: the Maltese context.” WorldArch 22.2:190-205.

Bonello, Vincenzo, Vincenzo Borg, Michelangelo Cagiano de Azevedo, Antonia Ciasca, Edoardo Coleiro, Alberto Davico, Giovanni Garbini, Sabatino Moscati, Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti, Bice Pugliese, and Valnea Scrinari. 1964. Missione archeologica italiana a Malta. Rapporto preliminare della Campagna 1963. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

Borg, John J. 2004. “The Geology of the Maltese Archipelago.” In Malta: Roots of a Nation. The Development of Malta from an Island People to an Island Nation, edited by Kenneth Gambin, 3-12. Malta: Midsea Books Ltd.

Bozzi, Clara, Michelangelo Cagiano de Azevedo, Caterina Caprino, Antonia Ciasca, Alberto Davico, Rosanna del Monaco, Giovanni Garbini, Bice Pugliese, and Maria Pia Rossignani. 1968. Missione archeologica italiana a Malta. Rapporto preliminare della Campagna 1967. Roma: Istituto di studi del vicino oriente - Università.

Branigan, Keith. 1966. “Prehistoric Relations Between Italy and the Aegean.” BPI 17:97-110.

Branigan, Keith. 1972. “The Surbo Bronzes – Some Observations.” PPS 38:276-85.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. “Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: The OxCal program.” Radiocarbon 37.2:425-30.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. “Development of the radiocarbon calibration program OxCal.” Radiocarbon 43.2A:355-63.

Bronk Ramsey, C., P. B. Pettitt, R.E.M. Hedges, G.W.L. Hodgins, and D.C. Owen. 1999. “Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 28.” Archaeometry 41.2:421-31.

184 Broodbank, Cyprian. 1992. “The spirit is willing.” Antiquity 66:542-6.

Broodbank, Cyprian. 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burghardt, A.F. 1971. “A Hypothesis about Gateway Cities.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 61.2:269-85.

Burleigh, Richard, Andrew Hewson, and Nigel Meeks. 1977. “British Museum Natural Radiocarbon Measurements IX.” Radiocarbon 19.2:143-60.

Busuttil, Guiseppe, Michelangelo Cagiano de Azevedo, Antonia Ciasca, Francesco D’Andria, Rosanna del Monaco, Maria Giulia Guzzo Amadasi, Bice Olivieri Pugliese, and Maria Pia Rossignani. 1969. Missione archeologica italiana a Malta. Rapporto preliminare della Campagna 1968. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

Cadogan, Gerald. 2005. “The Aegean and Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age: It Takes Two to Tango.” In Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25), edited by Robert Laffineur and Emanuele Greco, 313-21. Liège: Université de Liège.

Cagiano de Azevedo, Michelangelo. 1973. Missione archeologica italiana a Malta. Rapporto preliminare della Campagna 1970. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

Cagiano de Azevedo, Michelangelo, Caterina Caprino, Antonia Ciasca, Edoardo Coleiro, Alberto Davico, Giovanni Garbini, Sabatino Moscati, Bice Pugliese, Maria Pia Rossignani, and Anna Maria Tamassia. 1967. Missione archeologica italiana a Malta. Rapporto preliminare della Campagna 1966. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

Cagiano de Azevedo, Michelangelo, Caterina Caprino, Antonia Ciasca, Edoardo Coleiro, Alberto Davico, Giovanni Garbini, Francesco Saverio Mallia, Gian Paolo Marchi, Paolo Minganti, Sabatino Moscati, Enrico Paribeni, Bice Pugliese, Maria Pia Rossignani, Valnea Santa Maria Scrinari, and Arturo Stenico. 1965. Missione archeologica italiana a Malta. Rapporto preliminare della Campagna 1964. Roma: Centro di Studi Semitici.

Cagiano de Azevedo, Michelangelo, Caterina Caprino, Antonia Ciasca, Edoardo Coleiro, Alberto Davico, Giovanni Garbini, Francesco Saverio Mallia, Sabatino Moscati, Bice Pugliese, Maria Pia Rossignani, and Anna Maria Tamassia. 1966. Missione archeologica italiana a Malta. Rapporto preliminare della Campagna 1965. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

Cagiano de Azevedo, Michelangelo, Caterina Caprino, Antonia Ciasca, Francesco D’Andria, Alberto Davico, Cristiano Grottanelli, Maria Giulia Guzzo Amadasi, Tea Martinelli Coco, and Maria Pia Rossignani. 1972. Missione archeologica italiana a Malta. Rapporto preliminare della Campagna 1969. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

185 Caruana, Antonio Annetto. 1882. Report on the Phoenician and Roman Antiquities in the group of the Islands of Malta. Malta: Government Printing Office.

Caruana, Antonio Annetto. 1886. Recent Further Excavations of the Megalithic Antiquities of Hagiar-Kim, Malta. Malta: Government Printing Office.

Caruana, Antonio Annetto. 1896a. “Further great Stones, Gozo, explored in 1893.” ArchJ 53:140-43.

Caruana, Antonio Annetto. 1896b. “Further Megalithic Discoveries and Explorations in the Islands of Malta during 1892 and 1893, under the Governorship of Sir Henry A. Smyth, K.C.M.G.” ArchJ 53:26-45.

Caskey, John L. 1954. “Excavations at Lerna, 1952-1953.” Hesperia 23.1:3-30.

Castellana, Guiseppe. 1995. La necropoli protoeneolitica di Piano Vento nel territorio di Palma di Montechiaro. Regione Siciliana: Assessorato Beni Culturali ed Ambientali e della Pubblica Istruzione.

Castellana, Giuseppe. 1998. Il santuario castellucciano di Monte Grande e l’approvvigionamento dello zolfo nel Mediterraneo nell’ eta del bronzo. Palermo: Regione Sicilia, Assessorato Beni Culturali ed Ambientali e della Pubblica Istruzione.

Catling, H.W. 1964. Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Caton Thompson, Gertrude. 1923. “Chapter I. Ghar Dalam: Excavations. Report on the Vertebrate Remains.” In Excavations in Malta I, by Margaret A. Murray, 6-13. London: B. Quaritch.

Caton Thompson, Gertrude. 1925. “Chapter I. Ghar Dalam.” In Excavations in Malta II, by Margaret A. Murray, 1-18. London: B. Quaritch.

Cavalier, Madeleine and Lucia Vagnetti. 1983. “Frammenti di ceramica ‹‹matt-painted›› policroma da Filicudi (Isole Eolie).” MÉFRA 95.1:335-344.

Cavalier, Madeleine and Lucia Vagnetti. 1984. “Materiali Micenei vecchi e nuovi dall’Acropoli di Lipari.” SMEA 25:143-54.

Cavalier, Madeleine and Lucia Vagnetti. 1986. “Arcipelago Eoliano.” In Traffici Micenei nel Mediterraneo: Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo (11-12 maggio e 3-6 dicembre 1984), edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa, and L. Vagnetti, 141-45. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia.

Cazzella, Alberto. 1999. “L’Egeo e il Mediterraneo centrale fra III e II millennio: una riconsiderazione.” In Atti del Simposio Italiano di Studi Egei, edited by V. La Rosa, D. Palermo, and L. Vagnetti, 397-404. Roma: Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene.

186

Cazzella, Alberto. 2003. “Conelle di Arcevia nel panorama culturale della preistoria del Mediterraneo centro-orientale e della penisola balcanica tra quarto e terzo millennio.” In Conelle di Arcevia II. Tecnologia e contatti culturali nel Mediterraneo centrale fra IV e III millennio A.C., edited by A. Cazzella, M. Moscoloni, and G. Recchia, 541-68. Roma: Casa Editrice Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza.

Cazzella, Alberto, Anthony Pace, and Giulia Recchia. Forthcoming. “Cultural contacts and mobility between the south central Mediterranean and the Aegean during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC.” In Mediterranean Crossroads, edited by Sophia Antoniadou and Anthony Pace, 241-58. Cyprus: Pierides Foundation.

Cherry, John F. 1981. “Pattern and Process in the Earliest Colonization of the Mediterranean Islands.” PPS 47:41-68.

Cherry, John F. 1990. “The First Colonization of the Mediterranean Islands: A Review of Recent Research.” JMA 3.2:145-222.

Childe, V. Gordon. 1925. The Dawn of European Civilization. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Childe, V. Gordon. 1957. The Dawn of European Civilization. Sixth Edition. London: Routledge.

Childe, V. Gordon. 1958. The Prehistory of European Society. London and Tonbridge: The Whitefriars Press Ltd.

Cilia, Daniel, ed. 2004. Malta Before History. The World’s Oldest Free-Standing Stone Architecture. Sliema, Malta: Miranda Publishers.

Cinquepalmi, Angela and Francesca Radina, eds. 1998. Documenti dell’età del bronzo: ricerche lungo il versante adriatico pugliese. Fasano di Brindisi: Schena.

Cipolloni Sampò, Mirella. 1992. “Il Neolitico nell’Italia meridionale e in Sicilia.” In Italia preistorica, edited by Alessandro Guidi and Marcello Piperno, 334-65. Roma-Bari: Editori Laterza.

Colson, Elizabeth. 1979. “In Good Years and in Bad: Food Strategies of Self-Reliant Societies.” Journal of Anthropological Research 35.1:18-29.

Cullen, Tracey, ed. 2001. Aegean Prehistory. A Review. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.

Dalby, Andrew. 2003. Food in the Ancient World From A to Z. London: Routledge.

Daniel, Glyn. 1958. The Megalith Builders of Western Europe. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.

187 De Siena, Antonio. 1986. “Termitito.” In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa, and L. Vagnetti, 41-54. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia.

Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1977. The Origins of Mycenaean Civilisation. SIMA 49. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.

Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1986. “Early Mycenaean Greece and the Mediterranean.” In Traffici Micenei nel Mediterraneo: Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo (11-12 maggio e 3-6 dicembre 1984), edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa, and L. Vagnetti, 271-6. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia.

Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1994. The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dörpfeld, Wilhelm. 1902. Troja und Ilion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in den Vorhistorischen und Historichen Schichten von Ilion 1870-1894. Athen: Beck & Barth.

Evans, Arthur J. 1901. The Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult and its Mediterranean Relations. London: Macmilland and Co., Limited.

Evans, Arthur J. 1928. The Palace of Minos at Knossos II, Part 1. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited.

Evans, John D. 1953. “The Prehistoric Culture-Sequence in the Maltese Archipelago.” PPS 19:41-94.

Evans, John D. 1956a. “Bossed Bone Plaques of the Second Millennium.” Antiquity 30:80-93.

Evans, John D. 1956b. “The ‘Dolmens’ of Malta and the Origins of the Tarxien Cemetery Culture.” PPS 22:85-101.

Evans, John D. 1959. Malta. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.

Evans, John D. 1971. The Prehistoric Antiquities of the Maltese Islands: A Survey. London: Athlone Press.

Evans, John D. 1984. “Maltese Prehistory – A Reapraisal.” BAR 229:489-97.

Ferrarese Ceruti, Maria Luisa, Angela Antona, and Fulvia Lo Schiavo. 1997. Archeologia della Sardegna preistorica e protostorica. Nuoro: Poliedro.

Ferrarese Ceruti, Maria Luisa, Lucia Vagnetti, and Fulvia Lo Schiavo. 1987. “Minoici, Micenei e Ciprioti in Sardegna nella seconda metà del II millennio a.C.” In Nuragic Sardinia and the Mycenaean World (BAR-IS 387), edited by Miriam S. Balmuth, 7-37. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

188 Fergusson, James. 1872. Rude Stone Monuments in all Countries: their Age and Uses. London: Murray.

Forbes, Hamish. 1989. “Of grandfathers and grand theories: the hierarchised ordering of responses to hazard in a Greek rural community.” In Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty, edited by Paul Halstead and John O’Shea, 87-97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Forbes, Hamish and Lin Foxhall. 1995. “Ethnoarchaeology and Storage in the Ancient Mediterranean: Beyond Risk and Survival.” In Food in Antiquity, edited by John Wilkins, David Harvey, and Mike Dobson, 69-86. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.

French, Elizabeth. 1986. “Mycenaean Greece and the Mediterranean World in LH III.” In Traffici Micenei nel Mediterraneo: Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo (11-12 maggio e 3-6 dicembre 1984), edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa, and L. Vagnetti, 277-82. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia.

Gale, Noel H. 1999. “Lead Isotope Characterization of the Ore Deposits of Cyprus and Sardinia and its Application to the Discovery of the Sources of Copper for Late Bronze Age Oxhide Ingots.” In Metals in Antiquity (BAR-IS 792), edited by Suzanne M.M. Young, A. Mark Pollard, Paul Budd, and Robert A. Ixer, 110-21. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Gale, Noel H. 2001. “Archaeology, science-based archaeology and the Mediterranean Bronze Age metals trade: a contribution to the debate.” EJA 4.1:113-30.

Gambin, Kenneth, ed. 2004. Malta: Roots of a Nation. The Development of Malta from an Island People to an Island Nation. Malta: Midsea Books Limited.

Gandert, O.-F. 1966. “Preliminary Report on the Animal Bones.” In Skorba, by David H. Trump, 53. London: Oxford University Press.

Gorgoglione, Maria Antonietta. 1986. “L’insediamento dell’età del bronzo di Cozzo Marziotta, Palagiano, Taranto. Presenza di Ceramica Micenea.” In Traffici Micenei nel Mediterraneo: Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Atti del convegno di Palermo (11-12 maggio e 3-6 dicembre 1984), edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa, and L. Vagnetti, 23-5. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia.

Grima, Reuben. 2004. The archaeological drawings of Charles Frederick de Brochtorff. Malta: Midsea Books.

Gunneweg, J. 1999. “Does the Different Layout of the Late Bronze Age Tombs at Laish/Dan and Akko in Northern Canaan Reflect Different Trade Relations? An Instrumental Neutron Activation Study on Mycenaean Pottery.” JAS 26:989-95.

Haldane, Cheryl. 1993. “Direct Evidence for Organic Cargoes in the Late Bronze Age.” WorldArch 24.3:348-60.

189

Hallager, Birgitta Pålsson. 1983. “A new social class in Late Bronze Age Crete: foreign traders in Khania.” In Minoan Society. Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981, edited by O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon, 111-20. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.

Hallager, Birgitta Pålsson. 1985. “Crete and Italy in the Late Bronze Age III Period.” AJA 89.2:293-305.

Halstead, Paul. 1989. “The economy has a normal surplus: economic stability and social change among early farming communities of Thessaly, Greece.” In Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty, edited by Paul Halstead and John O’Shea, 68-80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Halstead, Paul and John O’Shea. 1989. “Introduction: cultural responses to risk and uncertainty.” In Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty, edited by Paul Halstead and John O’Shea, 1-7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harding, A.F. 1984. The Mycenaeans and Europe. London: Academic Press.

Helbaek, H. 1966. “Report on Carbonized Grain from AF5 (G
D. Phase).” In Skorba, by David H. Trump, 53. London: Oxford University Press.

Herbich, Ingrid. 1987. “Learning patterns, potter interaction, and ceramic style among the Luo of Kenya.” The African Archaeological Review 5:193-204.

Hirth, Kenneth G. 1978. “Interregional Trade and the Formation of Prehistoric Gateway Communities.” AmerAnt 43.1:35-45.

Holloway, R. Ross. 1981. Italy and the Aegean 3000-700 B.C. Louvain-la-Neuve: Art and Archaeology Publications, Collège Erasme.

Holloway, R. Ross. 1991. The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily. London and New York: Routledge.

Houel, Jean. 1787. Voyages pittoresque des isles de Sicile, de Malte et de Lipari, où l’on traite des antiquités qui s’y trouvent encore; des principaux phénomès que la nature y offre; du costume des habitants et de quelques usages. Paris: Imprimerie de Monsieur.

Hulin, Linda. 2002. “Chapter 8. Bronze Age Plain Pottery: Egyptian, Canaanite, and Cypriot.” In Marsa Matruh II: The Objects, by Donald White, 17-53. Philadelphia: The Institute for Aegean Prehistory Academic Press.

Irwin, G.J. 1978. “Pots and Entrepots: A Study of Settlement, Trade and the Development of Economic Specialization in Papuan Prehistory.” WorldArch 9.3:299-319.

Jones, Richard E. 1986. “Chemical Analysis of Aegean-Type Late Bronze Age Pottery Found in Italy.” In Traffici Micenei nel Mediterraneo: Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica.

190 Atti del convegno di Palermo (11-12 maggio e 3-6 dicembre 1984), edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa, and L. Vagnetti, 205-14. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia.

Jones, Richard E. and Peter Day. 1987. “Aegean-type Pottery on Sardinia: Identification of Imports and Local Imitations by Chemical Analysis.” In Nuragic Sardinia and the Mycenaean World (BAR-IS 387), edited by Miriam S. Balmuth, 257-70. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Jones, Richard E., Sara Tiziana Levi, and Marco Bettelli. 2005. “Mycenaean Pottery in the Central Mediterranean: Imports, Imitations, and Derivatives.” In Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Agean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25), edited by Robert Laffineur and Emanuele Greco, 539-45. Liège: Université de Liège.

Jones, Richard E., Sara Tiziana Levi, and Lucia Vagnetti. 2002. “Connections between the Aegean and Italy in the Later Bronze Age: The Ceramic Evidence.” In Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics (BAR-IS 1011), edited by V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein, Y. Maniatis,171-84. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Jones, Richard E. and Lucia Vagnetti. 1991. “Traders and Craftsmen in the Central Mediterranean: Archaeological evidence and archaeometric research.” In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, edited by N.H. Gale, 127-47. SIMA 90. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag.

Karageorghis, Vassos. 1976. Kition. Mycenaean and Phoenician Discoveries in Cyprus. London: Thames and Hudson.

Knapp, A. Bernard. 1981. “The Thera Frescoes and the Question of Aegean Contact with Libya During the Late Bronze Age.” Journal of Mediterranean Anthropology and Archaeology 1.2:249-79.

Knapp, A. Bernard and Emma Blake. 2005. “Prehistory in the Mediterranean: The Connecting and Corrupting Sea.” In The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory, edited by Emma Blake and A. Bernard Knapp, 1-23. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Lamb, Winifred. 1936. Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leighton, Robert. 1996. “Research traditions, chronology and current issues: an introduction.” In Early Societies in Sicily: new developments in archaeological research, edited by Robert Leigton, 1-19. London: Accordia Research Center.

Leighton, Robert. 1999. Sicily Before History. An Archaeological Survey from the Palaeolithic to the Iron Age. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

MacNamara, Ellen. 1970. “A group of bronzes from Surbo, Italy: new evidence for Aegean contacts with Apulia during Mycenaean IIIB and C.” PPS 36:241-60.

191

Magri, Emmanuel. 1906. Ruins of a Megalithic Temple at Xeuchia (Shewkiyah), Gozo, Malta. First Report. Malta: Government Printing Office.

Mallia, F.S. 1970. “The prehistoric fortified sites of Malta and Gozo.” In Proceedings of the VIII Scientific Meeting (April 1968), 59-61. Technical Chamber of Greece.

Malone, Caroline, Simon Stoddart, Anthony Bonanno, Tancred Gouder, and David Trump. 1995. “Mortuary ritual of 4th millennium BC Malta: the Zebbug period chambered tomb from the Brochtorff Circle at Xaghra (Gozo).” PPS 61:303-45.

Malone, Caroline, Simon Stoddart, and David Trump. 1988. “A house for the temple builders: recent investigations on Gozo, Malta.” Antiquity 62:297-301.

Malone, Caroline, Simon Stoddart, and Ruth Whitehouse. 1994. “The Bronze Age of Southern Italy, Sicily and Malta c. 2000-800 B.C.” In Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, edited by Clay Mathers and Simon Stoddart, 167-94. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications.

Maniscalco, Laura. 1989. “Ocher Containers and Trade in the Central Mediterranean Copper Age.” AJA 93:537-41.

Maniscalco, Laura. 1999. “The Sicilian Bronze Age Pottery Service.” In Social Dynamics of the Prehistoric Central Mediterranean, edited by Robert H. Tykot, Jonathan Morter, and John E. Robb, 185-94. London: Accordia Research Institute and University of London.

Marazzi, Massimliano. 1993. “The Early Aegean-Mycenaean Presence in the Gulf of Naples: Past and Recent Discoveries.” In Wace and Blegen. Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 2-3, 1989, edited by Carol Zerner, Peter Zerner, and John Winder, 335-42. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

Marazzi, Massimiliano, Sebastiano Tusa, and Lucia Vagnetti, eds. 1986. Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo. Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia.

Martín de la Cruz, José Clemente. 1988. “Mykenische Keramik aus Bronzezeitlichen Siedlungsschichten von Montoro am Guadalquivir.” MM 29:77-92.

Mayr, Albert. 1908. The Prehistoric Remains of Malta. Printed for Private Circulation.

Mayr, Albert. 1909. Die Insel Malta im Altertum. München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

McConnell, B.E. 1985. “San Cono-Piano Notaro-Grotta Zubbia Ceramics in Sicilian Prehistory.” Ph.D. dissertation, Brown University.

192

Mommsen, H., A. Bonanno, K. Chetcuti Bonavita, I. Kakoulli, M. Musumeci, C. Sagona, A. Schwedt, N.C. Vella, and N. Zacharias. 2006. “Characterization of Maltese pottery of the Late Neolithic, Bronze Age and Punic Period by neutron activation analysis.” In Geomaterials in Cultural Heritage, edited by Marino Maggetti and Bruno Messiga, 81-9. London: The Geological Society.

Mosso, A. 1909. “Stazione preistorica di Copa Nevigata presso Manfredonia.” MonAnt 19:306- 95.

Murray, Margaret A. 1923. Excavations in Malta I. London: B. Quaritch.

Murray, Margaret A. 1925. Excavations in Malta II. London: B. Quaritch.

Murray, Margaret A. 1929. Excavations in Malta III. London: B. Quaritch.

Murray, Margaret A. 1934. Corpus of the Bronze-Age Pottery of Malta. London: B. Quaritch.

Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich. 2005. “The Minoans and Mycenaeans in Western Asia Minor: Settlement, Emporia or Acculturation.” In Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25), edited by Robert Laffineur and Emanuele Greco, 199-204. Liège: Université de Liège.

Orsi, P. 1895. “Thapsos.” MonAnt 6:90-150.

Orsi, P. 1898. “Miniere di selce e sepolcri eneolitici a Monte Tabuto e Monte Racello presso Comiso (Siracusa).” BPI 24:165-206.

Orsi, P. 1899. “Sicilia.” NSc 7:26-42.

Orsi, P. 1902a. “La necropoli di Valsavoia.” BPI 28:103-19.

Orsi, P. 1902b. “Sepolcreto di Cava Cana Barbara (Siracusa).” BPI 28:184-90.

Orsi, P. 1907. “Villaggio siculo sulla spiaggia di Camarina.” BPI 33:45.

Orsi, P. 1910. “Due villaggi del primo periodo siculo.” BPI 36:158-93.

Owens, Gareth. 1999. “Linear A in the Aegean: The Further Travels of the Minoan Script. A Study of the 30+ Extra-Cretan Minoan Inscriptions.” In Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year II, edited by Philip P. Betancourt, Vassos Karageorghis, Robert Laffineur, and Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, 583-99. Aegaeum 20. Liège: Université de Liège.

193 Pace, Anthony. 1992. “The Development of Megalithic Structures, Mortuary Facilities and Site Location Patterning During the Maltese Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Some Reconsiderations.” M.Phil. thesis, Cambridge University.

Pace, Anthony. 2000. The
al Saflieni Hypogeum 4000 BC – 2000 AD. Malta: National Museum of Archaeology.

Pace, Anthony. 2004a. “The Building of Megalithic Malta.” In Malta Before History. The World’s Oldest Free-Standing Stone Architecture, edited by Daniel Cilia, 18-41. Sliema, Malta: Miranda Publishers.

Pace, Anthony. 2004b. “Section 2: The Sites.” In Malta Before History. The World’s Oldest Free-Standing Stone Architecture, edited by Daniel Cilia, 42-227. Sliema, Malta: Miranda Publishers.

Pace, Anthony. 2004c. The
al Saflieni Hypogeum. Malta: Heritage Books.

Peet, T. Eric. 1910. “Contributions to the Study of the Prehistoric Period in Malta.” PBSR 5:139- 64.

Popham, Mervyn and Elizabeth Milburn. 1971. “The Late Helladic IIIC Pottery of Xeropolis (Lefkandi), a Summary.” BSA 66:333-52.

Pulak, Cemal. 1998. “The Uluburun shipwreck: an overview.” IJNA 27.3:188-224.

Quagliati, Quintino. 1900. “Prodotti industriali micenei sullo Scoglio del Tonno in Taranto.” BPI 26:285-88.

Quintinus Haeduus. 1723. “Descriptio insulae melitae.” In Thesaurus antiquitatum et historiarum Siciliae, by Joannes Georgius Graevius, volume XV, column 2. Lugduni Batavorum: P. Vander Aa.

Rathje, W.L. 1978. “Melanesian and Australian Exchange Systems: A View from Mesoamerica.” Mankind 11:165-74.

Re, Licia. 1993. “Early Mycenaean Plain and Coarse Ware from Italy.” In Wace and Blegen. Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 2-3, 1989, edited by Carol Zerner, Peter Zerner, and John Winder, 331-4. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

Re, Licia. 1998. “A Catalog of Aegean Finds in Sardinia.” In Sardinian and Aegean Chronology, edited by Miriam S. Balmuth and Robert H. Tykot, 287-90. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Recami, Erasmo, Carmelo Mignosa, and L. Roberta Baldini. 1983. “Nuovo contributo sulla preistoria della Sicilia.” SicArch 52.3:45-82.

194

Reese, D.S. 1985. “Appendix VIII: Shells, Ostrich Eggshells and Other Exotic Faunal Remains from Kition.” In Excavations at Kition V. The Pre-Phoenician Levels II, by Vassos Karageorghis, 340-415. Cyprus: Department of Antiquities.

Reimer, Paula J., Mike G.L. Baillie, Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J. Warren Beck, Chanda J.H. Bertrand, Paul G. Blackwell, Caitlin E. Buck, George S. Burr, Kirsten B. Cutler, Paul E. Damon, R. Lawrence Edwards, Richard G. Fairbanks, Michael Friedrich, Thomas P. Guilderson, Alan G. Hogg, Konrad A. Hughen, Bernd Kromer, Gerry McCormac, Sturt Manning, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Ron W. Reimer, Sabine Remmele, John R. Southon, Minze Stuiver, Sahra Talamo, F.W. Taylor, Johannes van der Plicht, and Constanze E. Weyhenmeyer. 2004. “IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 Cal Kyr BP.” Radiocarbon 46.3:1029-58.

Renfrew, Colin. 1975. “Trade as Action at a Distance.” In Ancient Civilization and Trade, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, 3-59. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Renfrew, Colin. 1979a. Before Civilization. The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Renfrew, Colin. 1979b. Problems in European Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Renfrew, Colin and Ruth Whitehouse. 1974. “The Copper Age of Peninsular Italy and the Aegean.” BSA 69:343-90.

Rice, Prudence M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Robb, John E. 2001. “Island Identities: Ritual, Travel and the Creation of Difference in Neolithic Malta.” EJA 4.2:175-202.

Robb, John E. and Helen Farr. 2005. “Substances in Motion: Neolithic Mediterranean ‘Trade.’” In The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory, edited by Emma Blake and A. Bernard Knapp, 24-45. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Rutter, Jeremy B. 1975. “Ceramic Evidence for Northern Intruders in Southern Greece at the Beginning of the Late Helladic IIIC Period.” AJA 79.1:17-32.

Russell, Pamela. 2002. “Chapter 7: Aegean Pottery and Selected Cypriot Pottery.” In Marsa Matruh II: The Objects, by Donald White, 1-16. Philadelphia: The Institute for Aegean Prehistory Academic Press.

Sakellarakis, Yannis and Efi Sapouna-Sakellarakis. 1997. Archanes. Minoan Crete in a New Light. Athens: Ammos Publications.

Sandars, N.K. 1963. “Later Aegean Bronze Swords.” AJA 67.2:117-53.

195

Schliemann, Henry. 1881. Ilios: The City and Country of the Trojans. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Schliemann, Henry. 1972. Troja: Results of the Latest Researches and Discoveries on the site of Homer’s Troy. Chicheley: Paul P.B. Minet. Original Edition, London: John Muny, 1884.

Schnapp Gourbeillon, A. 1986. “Ceramica di tipo miceneo a Montedoro di Eboli.” In Traffici micenei nel mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica, edited by M. Marazzi, S. Tusa, and L. Vagnetti, 175-82. Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia.

Shaw, Joseph W. 1984. “Excavations at Kommos (Crete) during 1982-1983.” Hesperia 53.2:251-87.

Skeates, Robin. 1993. “Neolithic Exchange in Central and Southern Italy.” In Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe, edited by C. Scarre and F. Healy, 109-14. Oxford: The Prehistoric Society.

Skeates, Robin. 1994. “A radiocarbon date-list for prehistoric Italy (c. 46,400 BP – 2450 BP/400 cal. BC).” In Radiocarbon Dating and Italian Prehistory, edited by Robin Skeates and Ruth Whitehouse, 147-288. London: British School at Rome, Accordia Research Centre.

Skeates, Robin. 1999-2000. “New radiocarbon dates for prehistoric Italy and Malta. Supplementary list 4.” Accordia Research Papers 8:165-85.

Smith, Thyrza R. 1987. Mycenaean Trade and Interaction in the West Central Mediterranean 1600-1000 B.C. (BAR-IS 371). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Stoddart, Simon. 1997-8. “Contrasting political strategies in the islands of the southern central Mediterranean.” Accordia Research Papers 7:59-73.

Stoddart, Simon, Anthony Bonanno, Tancred Gouder, Caroline Malone, and David Trump. 1993. “Cult in an Island Society: Prehistoric Malta in the Tarxien Period.” CAJ 3.1:3-19.

Stone, J.F.S. 1971. “Faience Beads from the Tarxien Cemetery.” In The Prehistoric Antiquities of the Maltese Islands, by John D. Evans, 235-6. London: The Athlone Press.

Stone, J.F.S. and L.C. Thomas. 1956. “The Use and Distribution of Faience in the Ancient East and Prehistoric Europe.” PPS 22:37-84.

Stos-Gale, Z.A. and C.F. Macdonald. 1991. “Sources of Metals and Trade in the Bronze Age Aegean.” In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (SIMA 90), edited by N.H. Gale, 249-88. Jonsered: Paul ströms Förlag.

196 Tagliaferro, Napoleone. 1910. “The Prehistoric Pottery found in the Hypogeum at Hal-Saflieni, Casal Paula, Malta.” AnnLiv 3:1-21.

Taylour, William. 1958. Mycenaean Pottery in Italy and Adjacent Areas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylour, William. 1980. “Appendice III: Aegean Sherds Found at Lipari.” In Meligunìs Lipára IV: L’acropoli di Lipari nella preistoria, by Luigi Bernabò Brea and Madaleine Cavalier, 793- 817. Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio.

Tiné, Santo. 1965. “Gli scavi nella Grotta della Chiusazza.” BPI 74:123-286.

Torrence, Robin. 1986. Production and exchange of stone tools: prehistoric obsidian in the Aegean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Trump, David H. 1961. “The Later Prehistory of Malta.” PPS 27:253-62.

Trump, David H. 1962. “The Origin of the Maltese Temples.” Antiquity 36:59-60.

Trump, David H. 1966. Skorba. London: Oxford University Press.

Trump, David H. 1995-6. “Radiocarbon dates from Malta.” Accordia Research Papers 6:173-8.

Trump, David H. 2000. Malta. An Archaeological Guide. Third Edition. Valletta, Malta: Progress Press Co. Ltd.

Trump, David H. 2002. Malta. Prehistory and Temples. Malta: Midsea Books Ltd.

Trump, David H. 2004. “Section 3: The Data.” In Malta Before History. The World’s Oldest Free-Standing Stone Architecture, edited by Daniel Cilia, 228-67. Sliema, Malta: Miranda Publishers.

Tusa, Sebastiano. 1983. La Sicilia nella preistoria. Palermo: Sellerio editore.

Tusa, Sebastiano. 1993. “The Bronze Age Settlements at Vivara (Naples): The Local Context.” In Wace and Blegen. Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 2-3, 1989, edited by Carol Zerner, Peter Zerner, and John Winder, 343-5. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

Tusa, Sebastiano. 1994. “Cronologia assoluta e sequenza culturale nella paletnologia siciliana.” In Radiocarbon Dating and Italian Prehistory, edited by Robin Skeates and Ruth Whitehouse, 99-114. London: British School at Rome, Accordia Research Centre.

Ugolini, Luigi M. 1934. Malta: Origini della civiltà mediterranea. Roma: La libreria dello stato.

197 Vagnetti, Lucia. 1968. “I bacili di bronzo di Caldare sono ciprioti?” SMEA 7:129-40.

Vagnetti, Lucia. 1974. “Appunti sui bronzi egei e ciprioti del ripostiglio di Contigliano. MÉFRA 86:657-71.

Vagnetti, Lucia. 1980. “Appendix II: Mycenaean Imports in Central Italy.” In Mycenaeans in Early Latium, by Emilio Peruzzi, 151-68. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo & Bizzarri.

Vagnetti, Lucia. 1984. “Ceramica micenea e ceramica dipinta dell’età del bronzo.” In Ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide 3, edited by Renato Peroni, 164-84. Roma: Paleani Editrice.

Vagnetti, Lucia. 1985. “Ceramiche del tardo minoico III rinvenute in Italia.” In Studi di paletnologia in onore di Salvatore M. Puglisi, edited by Mario Liverani, Alba Palmieri, and Renato Peroni, 825-31. Rome: Universitatà di Roma La Sapienza.

Vagnetti, Lucia. 1993. “Mycenaean Pottery in Italy: Fifty Years of Study.” In Wace and Blegen. Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 2-3, 1989, edited by Carol Zerner, Peter Zerner, and John Winder, 143-154. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

Vagnetti, Lucia. 2001. “Some Observations on Late Cypriot Pottery from the Central Mediterranean.” In Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity: 1500-450 BC, edited by Larissa Bonfante and Vassos Karageorghis, 77-96. Nikosia: The Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.

van Wijngaarden, Gert Jan. 2002. Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (1600-1200 BC). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Vegas, Mercédes. 1996. “Une trouvaille mycénienne à Carthage.” CEDAC Carthage Bulletin 15:54-5.

Vianello, Andrea. 2005. Late Bronze Age Mycenaean and Italic Products in the West Mediterranean: A social and economic analysis (BAR-IS 1439). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Voza, G. 1973. “Thapsos.” In Archeologia nella Sicilia sud-orientale, edited by P. Pelagatti and G. Voza, 30-52. Napoli: Centre Jean Bérard.

Voza, G. 1976-7. “Thapsos.” Kokalos 22-3:562-8.

Voza, G. 1980-1. “Thapsos.” Kokalos 26-7:675-80.

Webster, Gary S. 1996. A prehistory of Sardinia, 2300-500 BC. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

White, Donald. 2003. “Multum in Parvo: Bates’s Island on the NW Coast of Egypt.” In Ploes...Sea Routes...Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th-6th c. BC, edited by Nicholas

198 Chr. Stampolidis and Vassos Karageorghis, 71-82. Athens: University of Crete and the A.G. Leventis Foundation.

Whitehouse, Ruth. 1967. “The megalithic monuments of south-east Italy.” Man 2:347-365.

Whitehouse, Ruth. 1972. “The rock-cut tombs of the central Mediterranean.” Antiquity 46:275- 81.

Whitehouse, Ruth. 1981. “Megaliths of the Central Mediterranean.” In Antiquity and Man: Essays in Honour of Glyn Daniel, edited by John D. Evans, Barry Cunliffe, and Colin Renfrew, 106-27. London: Thames and Hudson.

Whitehouse, Ruth. 1992. Underground Religion: Cult and Culture in Prehistoric Italy. London: Accordia Research Centre.

Wilkins, John M. and Shaun Hill. 2006. Food in the Ancient World. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Zammit, Themistocles. 1915-16. “The Hal-Tarxien Neolithic Temple, Malta.” Archaeologia 67:127-44.

Zammit, Themistocles. 1916-1917. “Second Report on the Hal-Tarxien Excavations, Malta.” Archaeologia 68:263-84.

Zammit, Themistocles. 1929. Malta. The Islands and their History. Second Edition. Valletta, Malta: Malta Herald.

Zammit, Themistocles. 1930a. Prehistoric Malta. The Tarxien Temples. London: Oxford University Press.

Zammit, Themistocles. 1930b. “The Prehistoric Remains of the Maltese Islands.” Antiquity 4:50- 79.

Zammit, Themistocles. 1935. The Hal-Saflieni Hypogeum, Casal Paula, Malta. A short description with plan and illustrations. Third Edition. Malta: Empire Press.

Zammit, Themistocles. 2000. The Prehistoric Temples of Malta and Gozo. Third edition. Malta: S. Masterson.

Zammit, Themistocles and Charles Singer. 1924. “Neolithic Representations of the Human Form from the Islands of Malta and Gozo.” JRAI 54:67-100.

199