sign in sign up
<<
Home , Anela, Bonnanaro, Dolmen, Domus de Janas, Grooves (archaeology), Luras

345

Megalithic in ()

Riccardo Cicilloni

Abr st act

On the island of Sardinia, in the western Mediterrane- but also › political ‹. In fact, these monuments could be inter- an, the megalithic phenomenon is documented at least since preted as »signs of territorial demarcation of segmentary so- the Middle Age (5th millennium BC), reaching its cieties«, according to the hypothesis already carried out by peak during the Late Neolithic and the Copper Age (first cen- Colin Renfrew, with functions of control and organisation of turies of the 4th-end of the 3rd millennium BC) and further the territory by small groups of farmers and shepherds. Re- developing until the . Indeed, Sardinia excels in cent research has highlighted close structural relationships terms of displaying quite a lot of megalithic monuments: at between the megalithic monuments of Sardinia and some ex- present, we know 226 dolmenic , about 750 , tra-insular regions, such as the , 100 -menhirs and at least twenty megalithic circles. and chiefly . We can infer that during the Prehistoric The dolmenic are particularly interesting: in terms of Age Sardinia was not a cut-off region with only scarce rela- typology, they belong to five main categories, namely simple tions with other areas, but rather it made part of the whole type, › corridor ‹ type, › side entrance ‹ type, › mixed ‹ type and western region of the , including from › allées couvertes ‹ type. Even though the size of the Sardinian a cultural perspective. This contribution intends to offer the is generally not so great, they are highly visible in the most outstanding testimonies of the megalithic phenomenon landscape: many of them are closely related to nature trails, in Sardinia, linking it to the chronological and areal corris- sometimes coinciding with canyons or valleys. These mon- pondences of the western Mediterranean region. uments should not only have a funerary or function,

Introduction

On the island of Sardinia, in the western Mediter- The first traveller-scholars who visited Sardinia at ranean, archeological investigations since 800 have re- the turn of the 19th and 20th century – such as the Scot- vealed the presence of several megalithic monuments tish archeologist Duncan Mackenzie (1910; 1913) and of prehistoric times (Fig. 1). the Irish scholar Olivier Davies (1939) – remained so

Fig. 1. Sardinia (Western Mediterranean). Distribution of main Sardinian sites mentioned in the text and the image captions: 1. Li Muri (); 2. Coddu Ecchiu (Arzach- ena); 3. Ciuledda (); 4. Sa Coveccada (Mores); 5. Su Crastu Peltuntu (); 6. Sos Furrighesos ; 7. Monte Maone (); 8. Matta Larentu (Suni); 9. Serrese (Sin- dia); 10. Perda ‘e s’Altare (Birori); 11. Boeli (Mamoia- 0 40 km da); 12. Monte Paza (Sedilo); 13. Mesu Enas (Abbasanta); 14. Macchetturu (Ruinas); 15. Cirquittus (Laconi); 16. Gen- na Arrele (Laconi); 17. Sa Domu ‘e s’Orku (Setzu); 18. Bin- gia ‘e Monti (Gonnostramatza); 19. Pranu Mutteddu (Goni); Sardinia 20. S’Incorriadroxiu (); 21. Cuili Piras (); 22. Arratzu (). 346 R. Cicilloni

Fig. 2. Megalithic circle of Li Muri-Arzachena (photo: R. Cicilloni, Photographic Archive of the Department of History, Cultural Heritage and Territory, University of ). impressed and admired by such rich »megalithic« her- In Sardinia, the megalithic phenomenon is docu- itage that they reported and described dolmens and mented at least since the Middle Neolithic Age (5th mil- menhirs, as as nuraghi and ’s tombs (monu- lennium BC), reaching its peak during the Late Neo- ments of the Bronze Age). lithic and the Copper Age (first centuries of the 4th and Numerous scholars – Italians and foreigners – later end of the 3rd millennium BC) and further developing occupied the argument (to mention only the most impor- until the Bronze Age. In fact, we know 226 dolmenic tant: Taramelli, Pallottino, Zervos, Lilliu, Contu, Atzeni, burials, about 750 menhirs, 100 statue-menhirs and at Castaldi, Tanda, Moravetti, etc.), reporting and studying least twenty megalithic circles, or cromlech (Cicillo- the various monuments as they were discovered. ni 2009; 2013).

Megh alit ic circles

Regarding the first attestations of megalithic mon- cases – they were linked to the cult (Lilliu 1988, 65). uments, we remember the phenomenon of grave cir- Among these circles, the most important is Li Muri at cles of in the North-eastern Sardinia (Puglisi Arzachena (in North-eastern Sardinia) (Fig. 2). In fact, 1942, 127 – 138; Bagella/​Depalmas 2007; Pagli- in this site there is a necropolis comprising five lithic etti 2009). We know 50 of these, in various loca- tombs, quadrangular, four of which are surround- tions (Atzeni 1981, 41 – 42). These structures are ed by circles of stones fixed vertically (Antona 2003; mostly funeral, as evidenced by the frequent presence Lugliè 2011). These circles – with a diameter varying of lithic (or coffres) and the discovery of various from 5.30 to 8.50 m – are tangent to each other, where- skeletal elements, although perhaps – at least in some by near these circles there are small menhirs. In terms Megalithic monuments in Sardinia (Italy) 347 of chronology, thanks to recent investigations on the found, this site is attributable to the final phases of the Middle Neolithic (Alba 2000, 45; An- tona 2003, 367) period, characterised by the cultural aspect of San Ciriaco of Terralba (Lugliè 2003; Usai 2009, 55 – 58). Interesting elements of chronological analysis also come from the structural convergence with analogous monuments of the near Corsica. Excavations carried out in coffres similar to the Gallura circles in Mon- te Revincu-S. Pietro di Tenda (North Corsica) have in fact given radiocarbon datings pertinent to the last centuries of the 5th millennium BC, allowing us to place chronologically the beginnings of megalithism in Corsica during the Middle Neolithic (Leandri/​De- mouche 1999 ; Leandri 2000). Jean Guilaine brings together this type of sepulchral monuments – which are also present in and southern France – speaking of »proto-mégalith- isme«, to designate a primitive evolutionary moment of the Mediterranean megalithism (Guilaine 1996, 125 – 127; 2011, 33 – 39). Accordingly, the cists of Gallu- ra – with attached small menhirs – would be the first phase of Sardinian megalithic phenomenon, before the true monolithic and trilithic megalithism. Megalithic circles are also present in other areas of Sardinia, such the cromlech of S’Incorriadroxiu at Silius (South-East- ern Sardinia) (Manunza 2008, 31 – 32). Therefore, if the Sardinian megalithic phenomenon seems to arise between the Middle Neolithic and the Fig. 3. Menhirs of Cuili Piras-Castiadas (aniconic type) Late Neolithic, only during this last period – with the (photo: R. Cicilloni, Photographic Archive of the Depart- culture (4000 – 3300 BC) – does the - ment of History, Cultural Heritage and Territory, University ism seem to know the moment of its greatest expan- of Cagliari). sion, with the spread in the whole island of menhirs of various types and numerous dolmens.

Menhirs

Regarding the menhirs, we know at least 740 exam- ples in Sardinia, including the aforementioned men- hirs of Li Muri (Merella 2009) (Figs. 3 – 4). They are found all over the island territory (with a particular concentration in central areas) and in almost all alti- tude bands. We recognise three main typological cate- gories, probably belonging to an evolutionary line: the aniconic type (the more represented), simple, with- out representations; the proto-anthropomorphic type, ogival in shape, with a flat front face and a convex rear; and finally, the anthropomorphic type, with figurative elements (such as eyes) resembling the figure. They have different measures, from the 50 cm ex- Fig. 4. Menhirs of Arratzu-Villaperuccio (proto-anthropo- ample at Pranu Mutteddu-Goni (South-East Sardinia) morphic type) (photo: R. Cicilloni, Photographic Archive of to monuments taller than 6 m, such as some menhirs the Department of History, Cultural Heritage and Territory, of Mamoiada, Orgosolo and (central-eastern University of Cagliari). 348 R. Cicilloni

Sardinia). They are single, in couples or alignments and – in some examples – with signs and symbolic el- ements, especially cup marks. We often found them associated with other prehistoric monuments such as megalithic circles, dolmens and allées couvertes, and sacred areas of various kinds, the so-called »do- mus de Janas«, literally »fairy or witches houses«. This term in indicates Neolithic artifi- cial -cut tombs. We know now about 3,500 located on the island (Tanda 2009, 67). Within the phenomenon of standing stones, two sites are particularly interesting: Pranu Muttedu at Goni and Cirquittus at Laconi (south-east Sardinia). The site of Pranu Mutteddu is characterised by numer- ous – about 60 – of the »proto-antropomor- phic« type (Atzeni/​Cocco 1989; Cicilloni 2011). They are made with local sandstone, carved with a fine and accurate processing and they range from 0.50 m to Fig. 5. Representation of a bovine protome in the Domus de 2.70 m in height. They are variously located, in pairs, janas of Sos Furrighesos VI-Anela (Photographic Archive of small groups as well as small and large alignments, the Department of History, Cultural Heritage and Territory, among which the most numerous comprises a group of University of Cagliari). twenty menhirs, while others more rarely are isolated. Some of these are associated with a particular ne- cropolis that contains different types of tombs, char- They could in fact be indicators of a sacred area and acterised by the presence of circular structures that at the same time protecting it: associated with a fu- surround the and supporting the mound that nerary , they could indicate the place of the covered the tombs. The n° II presents a small dead and protect the »sleep« of the same. They could menhir at the entrance, while tomb n° IV is charac- also indicate a transit or a sacred path, especially in terised by the presence of a triad of standing stones on the case of alignments. one side of the structure to protect the tomb. The ar- Finally, they could also have a function of territori- cheological investigations have allowed us to date the al indicators, in a conception of megalithism that will complex from the latter Neolithic period through to be developed below, speaking of the dolmenic monu- the first Copper Age. The site has been interpreted as a ments. It seems also reasonable that they themselves sacred area, in part intended for ancestor worship (as it were objects of worship, as it seems to testify the pres- seems to suggest the presence of monumental tombs), ence of cup marks of symbolic and ritual value on the partly linked to rites and ceremonies connected to ag- surface of some standing stones. A passage in a letter ricultural and fertilistic cults. of Pope St. Gregory the Great in the 6th century AD ad- Near the site of Cirquittus, at Laconi, archeolo- dressed to the bishops of Sardinia seems to be a testi- gists of the Cagliari University investigated an inter- mony of the fact that the populations of the interior of esting megalithic context of cult, centred on a kind of the island – even in the 6th century – worshipped »lig- sub-circular cromlech (major axis 37 m, minor axis na et lapides« (Lilliu 1988, 89). 25 m), constituted by great rocks and flanked by align- At an ethnological level, we also have testimony ments of proto-anthropomorphic menhirs, by proba- in Sardinia until the first half of 900 of fecundation ble burial structures just emerging on the ground and rites where the barren women rubbed their womb on by a characteristic megalithic monument of sub-quad- overthrown menhirs to achieve fertility (Ferrarese rangular plan (9.30 × 7.50 m), with probable ritual Ceruti 1976, 322; Lilliu 1988, 258 – 259). Therefore, character. In stratigraphic levels of base, the excava- this brings to cults of fertilistic type, proper of a soci- tion of this structure gave a clear context of Ozieri cul- ety with an agricultural and pastoral economy, where ture (Atzeni 2004, 241 – 245). the menhirs could be worshipped as a male element, The value and the function that the menhirs ab- stuck into the earth and as such able to make the earth solved for the prehistoric peoples who erected them fruitful, which was identified with the Mother God- are not yet fully understood. It is probable that they dess (Lilliu 1988, 88). Therefore, an identification be- took multiple meanings, depending on the context in tween the male-fertilising principle of the menhirs which they were bound. They mainly had a function and the Bull God – partner of the Great Mother – is of protection and symbolic delimitation of the spaces. probably. For many reasons, the worship of a Bull God Megalithic monuments in Sardinia (Italy) 349 seems to be attested by the numerous representations present in various domus de janas, the Neolithic rock- cut tombs (Tanda 2008; 2009) (Fig. 5). From this perspective, the recent discovery of a new from Macchètturru-Ruinas (central-west- ern Sardinia) is extremely interesting. It is a clearly zo- omorphic menhir (Fig. 6). It was originally about 3 m in height (currently it is broken transversally), finely worked and it has a sub-oval head on the top, surmount- ed by evident bull horns. The head is delineated below by a horizontal curvilinear engraving (Atzeni 2009, 230 figs. 10 – 12). For the first time, we have evidence of the association between the standing stones and the bull: the bovine animal, a symbol of wealth and power (Tan- da 2009, 216), which has become – by working animal – Fig. 6. Zoomorphic menhir of Macchètturru-Ruinas (photo: a symbol of the male fertility (Tanda 2000, 405 – 406), E. Atzeni, Photographic Archive of the Department of History, with assumedly a strong totemic value, since it is consid- Cultural Heritage and Territory, University of Cagliari). ered a companion or an adjutant with supernatural pow- ers and as such it is respected and revered. Based on its characteristics, the menhir of Macchèt- turru could also be the lithic transposition of wooden totemic poles, now disappeared, that were perhaps ob- ject of cult by the prehistoric people of Sardinia, as at- tested ethnographically even in Africa, Oceania, Asia and especially near the Australian Aborigines and some American Indians, where the tradition of to- tem poles is notoriously very diffused. In Sardinia, the memory of the totemic role of the bull may have been preserved until our days in the animalistic masks of the so-called »barbaricini carnivals« (i. e. carnivals of the central-eastern Sardinia); for example, at Ot- tana, with the masks of ox, »boes« in Sardinian lan- guage (Piquereddu 1989, 15 – 57). Fig. 7. Crastu Peltuntu-Giave (simple type) (photo: R. Cicilloni, Photographic Archive of the Department of Dlno me s History, Cultural Heritage and Territory, University of Cagliari). Regarding the Sardinian dolmens, most of them are also related to the final phases of the Neolithic. The presence of megalithic graves in Sardinia has been known since the beginning of the last century. The first scientific work concerning a Sardinian dolmen was the article published in 1906 by the archeologist Antonio Taramelli, who reported the existence of the dolmen Sa Perda ‘e S’Altare in the territory of Macom- er, the first monument of this type discovered in Sar- dinia (Taramelli 1906). Since then, the number of known dolmens has con- siderably increased: in fact, we currently know 226 dol- menic monuments of various types (Cicilloni 2009) (Fig. 7). Of these monuments, at least 30 have been destroyed, even in relatively recent times, while a large number lie in poor conditions. Fig. 8. Dolmen Sa Coveccada-Mores (photo: R. Cicilloni, The dolmens are largely situated in the cen- Photographic Archive of the Department of History, Cultural tral-northern area of the island. In the southern part Heritage and Territory, University of Cagliari). 350 R. Cicilloni of Sardinia, in fact, there are only a dozen dolmenic sector that goes from east to south is found in dolmens monuments. We can find them both on the coast (at of the Atlantic coasts, from to the Basque Dorgali, in north-eastern Sardinia, they are locat- country (Chevalier 1984), in Catalonia (Esteva Cru- ed in some cases just a few metres from the sea), and añas 1970), some departments of centre-southern above all in inland areas. The favourite morphologi- France (Chevalier 1984) and Corsica (Cesari 2001). cal environment is the plateau, followed by hilly ar- The majority of dolmens in Corsica (France) have eas, environments with a pastoral economy (Lilliu the same orientation, i. e. towards the south-east quad- 1988, 197). Even though the size of the Sardinian dol- rant, as well as those of Puglia in Southern Italy (White- mens is generally not so great (many of them are of house 1983, 46). We cannot determine with certainty small size), they are visible in the landscape. Many of the reasons for this orientation, although we believe that them are closely related to natural trails, sometimes it is probably connected to magical-sacral reasons, so coinciding with canyons or valleys. Usually these dol- the builders of these monuments chose an orientation mens appear in isolation, although in some cases they related to certain points of the horizon; for example, are grouped in , where the graves are lo- where the rises or sets at certain times of the year. cated a few metres from each other, such as the site While across the European continent many dol- of Matta-Larentu at Suni (in central-western Sar- mens are still covered by a mound of earth and stones, dinia) (Moravetti 2000, 320 – 324). Sometimes the in Sardinia there are not currently dolmens presenting dolmenic structures are associated with other prehis- a clear structure of . It is not known with cer- toric monuments. I have already mentioned the as- tainty whether the Sardinian dolmens were deprived sociation with menhirs (for instance, in the sites of of such protection – in contrast to similar monuments San Lorenzo-Berchiddeddu, Oronitta-Buddusò, Sa in other countries – or whether this is due to the ac- Corte Noa-Laconi, etc.), although they are also asso- tion of nature as well as the destructive work of man, ciated with domus de janas, as at Mariughia-Dorgali, besides the fact that other dolmenic buildings with a Mesu-Enas-Abbasanta, Montessu-Villaperuccio. mound may still be hidden under the earth. The Sardinian dolmens belong to four main cate- However, there is indirect evidence of the presence gories: simple type, »corridor« type, »side entrance« of a mound in many Sardinian dolmens: the presence type and »allées couvertes«. These latter are narrow around such dolmens of a »peristalith« – a stone ring and elongated galleries, delimited by two parallel lines that surrounded the dolmenic structure at a, intend- of aligned orthostates, on which the slabs of coverage ed to consolidate the periphery of a possible mound. lean (Joussaume 1985, 151). However, a symbolic-sacral value was also proposed for The majority of the dolmenic burials belong to the them, as they may have had the function to delimit – as simple type, followed by the allées couvertes, while an element of enclosure – the grave and then separate only few tombs are of the other kinds. the sacred world of the dead from the word of the liv- Among these structures, the dolmen Sa Coveccada in ’ ing (D A rragon 1994, 52). In this case, the peristalith Mores (north-western Sardinia) stands out for its charac- should be considered as an »element of worship«. teristics (Atzeni 1968; Cicilloni 2009, 140 – 141) (Fig. 8). In any case, in various dolmenic monuments of Sar- It is exceptional for both its size (it is in fact one of the dinia we found other certain testimonies of a few el- greatest dolmens in Sardinia) and especially the presence ements that could in some way connect to the world of a slab with a characteristic rectangular access door on of the sacred and thus have a »religious« value. First the entrance side, placed centrally at ground level: a »port of all, we record the presence of cup marks and line- de four« in French language. This type of entrance allows ar associated with dolmenic structures. Such comparing the monument with numerous continental elements appear mostly on the cover table of the dol- examples, especially in France and . mens, but sometimes they are on one of the orthos- Concerning the orientation, there are orientations tats or even in the immediate vicinity, on boulders or towards all points of the compass, although among a the surface rock. The aim of these small cavities and sample of 118 monuments (where the entrance is per- grooves may be magic-sacral, and – in the case of cup fectly preserved and it is possible to recognise the ori- marks on the upper surface of a cover plate – they entation) the majority are oriented towards the sector could serve for libations or small sacrifices. There is that goes from east to south (57 %) and especially to- no data to understand whether these elements of wor- wards south-east (46 % of the total). A good number ship were used before the construction of any mound of them also look towards south-west (13 %), whereas or if the presence of cup marks and grooves mean that the percentages related to the other orientations are in some cases the dolmenic table was not completely smaller (Cicilloni 2009, 151 – 153). covered by the mound, but it should remain open air. This is a preference often found in the dolmenic We know examples of decorations engraved on the monuments of western : orientation towards the dolmens, especially on the upper surface of the cover Megalithic monuments in Sardinia (Italy) 351 table; for example, in the monument of Serrese at Sin- Sardinian dolmens presenting this element. There is dia (in central-western Sardinia) (Cicilloni 2009, no doubt that the cut is intentional: in fact, we have 157 – 158) (Fig. 9). In this monument, on the upper sur- three examples where the »cutting« has been carefully face and the edges of the slab there are narrow inci- worked and polished. It is possible to find some exam- sions, which form – on each of the sides, except the ples of such »intentional cut« outside of Sardinia. For entrance – some figures. Two of them – on the north example, it is present in some dolmens of Puglia and it and west sides – might be anthropomorphic. The fig- is present at least a dolmen of Corsica, precisely in the ure on the south side is a rectangle, divided into four dolmen of Condutto near the modern village of Viggi- parts, connected to the figure of the west side. On the anello, about 2 km from Propriano (south-western Cor- south-west and north-east corners there are engraved sica). This dolmen is now destroyed, although there is irregular semi-circles. The engravings also extend a photography and a graphic relief, made in 1893 (De across the thickness of the slab, and they are cut by a Mortillet 1893). In fact, it is possible to see this kind further line, which runs horizontally along the thick- of artificial cut made at the entranc, along the edge of ness all around the table. There are no precise com- the cover slab, partially slipped forward. We do not parisons with other examples of in know the exact function of this »intentional cutting«. , but only very general similarities with A functional value could merely be supposed – for ex- »U« motifs and crossed lines engraved on orthostats ample, to tie the slab for transport, or to place it on the of French and English dolmens (Shee Twohig 1981). orthostats – or even we can think that it was an ele- Finally, an item of particular interest that came to ment of »cult«, some kind of »symbol« linked to the fu- light during our research is the presence on the table nerary-sacral sphere. In one case, in the dolmen Crastu of coverage of numerous Sardinian dolmens of what Covaccadu-Torralba (north-western Sardinia), on the we called »intentional cutting«, namely a clearly arti- same coverage table an »intentional cut« is present at ficial vertical cut at a right or obtuse angle, made in the a right angle, which took away the original east corner thickness of the slab, along the edge (Cicilloni 2004; of the slab. It is a very interesting incision with an offset Cicilloni 2009, 159 – 161). We know at least twenty motiv, a cup mark of irregular shape with a groove that

Fig. 9. Dolmen Serrese-Sindia, with engraved decorations (photo: R. Cicilloni, Photo- graphic Archive of the Department of History, Cultural Heritage and Territory, University of Cagliari). 0 100 352 R. Cicilloni

Fig. 10. Domus de janas called »Sa domu ‘e s’Orku« (the Ogre’s House) Setzu (photo: R. Cicilloni, Photographic Archive of the Department of History, Cultural Heritage and Territory, University of Cagliari). reaches the edge of the table (Cicilloni 2009, 68 – 69). to typical forms of this culture such as hemispherical Unfortunately, we do not have reliable data on the bowls, carinated cups, -shaped pots, a vase with funerary practices and rites relating to Sardinian dol- globular body and a fragment of a probable pyx. Two mens. The discovery of shattered skeletal remains in were associated with the . the dolmen of Motorra – at Dorgali, in north-east- Among the various elements of analysis, undoubtedly ern Sardinia (Lilliu 1968, 80 – 81) – demonstrates the the contemporary use – for a long period – of dolmen- use of inhumation, while the presence of probable el- ic burials and rock-cut tombs as funerary structures is ements of »cult« (such as engravings, cup marks and worth of attention. In fact, during the final phases of the perhaps »intentional cuts«) in some of these mon- Neolithic and the Copper Age, the most common type uments testifies some kind of spirituality of their of tomb on the island is undoubtedly the »domus de builders, which obviously practised rites and funeral janas«, about which I have written above (Fig. 10). ceremonies linked to a strong funerary religion. The Domus de janas are burial structures but also From a chronology perspective, even in the ab- monuments of funerary cult. In fact, they often have sence of , the archeological materi- decorative motifs in low relief with incisions or paint- als from recent stratigraphic investigations and those ings, representing mostly bovine heads and horns, found sporadically in some dolmens allow report- perhaps to testify the worship of the Bull God (Tan- ing the dolmenic monuments of Sardinia to a period da 2008). The domus de janas – chronologically con- of time from the Late Neolithic to (late temporary to dolmens – are located in the same areas fourth-early second millennium BC), perhaps with where these latter are placed in several instances, in- phenomena of re-use in the Bronze Age. The finds cluding not too far from these, and in some cases from stratigraphic excavations at the Ciuledda dol- there even is a structural integration between these men of Luras (north-eastern Sardinia) hold strong in- two forms of burial, such as in the dolmen of Mon- terest (D’A rragon 1999). In this dolmen, in fact, there te Maone-Benetutti (central-north Sardinia). This is a was a context referable to the Ozieri culture (Late Ne- monument partly dug into the rock and partly built olithic: from 4000 to 3300 BC), as evidenced by the nu- with irregular rows of stones, which form the upper merous ceramic finds – decorated or not – belonging part of the walls of the chamber. Therefore, the lower Megalithic monuments in Sardinia (Italy) 353 walls of the tomb are made by the rock, and at the top by a dry-stone wall that supports a pentagonal cov- erage. In short, it is a domus de janas with dolmen- ic coverage (Mackenzie 1910, 101 – 104n; Ta da 1984; Cicilloni 2009, 61 – 62). Therefore, we are faced with two types of graves – the dolmens and the domus de janas – of the same chronological phases, used by the same peoples, often in coincident areas, with cases of locational associa- tions and forms of structural integration. According- ly, why did the Neolithic and Chalcolithic peoples sometimes prefer to bury their dead in dolmenic mon- uments and not in the most diffused and common- ly-used rock-cut tombs? Fig. 11. Domus de janas Mesu Enas-Abbasanta, with mega- A plausible explanation for this phenomenon might lithic corridor (photo: R. Cicilloni, Photographic Archive of be that the dolmens (unlike the domus de janas, that the Department of History, Cultural Heritage and Territory, are essentially funerary and ritual spaces) should also University of Cagliari). be interpreted as »territorial markers«, with functions of control and organisation of the territory. Through their »hypogeic« nature, the Domus de janas can rare- sees the custom of adding – outside of about twenty do- ly assume functions of territorial demarcations, while mus de janas – a megalithic corridor in correspondence the dolmens – including for their preferential location of the entry (Stiglitz et al. 2000, 852 – 858) (Fig. 11). in areas of plateaux, then flat – may instead better de- This access structure mostly comprised orthostats that velop such a function (Cicilloni 2012, 126). supported a dolmenic coverage of slabs, found in situ Moreover, while in the domus de janas – collective only in the domus de janas of Cuccuru Craboni at Ma- tombs – the funerary ritual seems to conceal any form racalagonis (Southern Sardinia) (Atzeni 1975, 44 – 45 of social differentiation, perhaps the dolmenic tombs fig. 12 – 13). Among these domus de janas, there is also may reflect some kind of complexity (Afonso Mar- the hypogeic and dolmenic tomb of Bingia ‘e Mon- rero et al. 2010, 4): could it be the graves of one or ti at Gonnostramatza (south-western Sardinia), which more individuals who stood out from the rest of the gave archeological materials pertinent to the end of group, as leaders who the community recognised as the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age (Beaker and such? The graves of ancestors/​leaders/​heroes could in cultures). This monument is constituted by fact serve well to define and characterise the territory a probable domus de janas collapsed and later restored of the various communities. on the front with the buttressing of a megalithic en- The building and use of megalithic monuments trance, with four corner orthostats of basalt inserted in continues in the Copper Age. Regarding the dolmen- two side walls in dry stone, which supported a dolmen- ic structures, in this phase the allées couvertes seem to ic coverage with large slabs (Atzeni 2001). prevail. Perhaps this moment of Sardinian

T he statue-menhirs

During the Chalcolithic, the type of aniconic menhirs of Sardinia, especially in the area of Laconi (Atzeni continue to be used, especially in sites of Monte Claro 2004). To these regions we must add the area of Sulcis, Culture (2700 – 2200 BC); for example, we can mention the most southern zone of the island, where – in the the complex of Monte Baranta at Olmedo (north-west- territory of – a remarkable new ern Sardinia) (Moravetti 2004) and the menhirs of the example was found (Atzeni 2009, 229 – 230). sanctuary village of Biriai, at Oliena (north-eastern Sar- The interpretation of such as the final dinia) (Castaldi 1999). stage of an evolution from elementary aniconic However, without doubt the most important »meg- menhirs through the proto-anthropomorphic and alithic« expression of the Copper Age is represent- anthropomorphic menhirs is accepted by most schol- ed by the phenomenon of the statue-menhirs, which ars (Atzeni 2004). Most of the statue-menhirs are connects Sardinia to the broader phenomenon of the characterised by a clear sexual differentiation. There European prehistoric stelae (De Marinis 1994). We are few female statues, characterised by small breasts, know over 100 examples found in the central regions but especially male statues, which have symbolic 354 R. Cicilloni figures on the front (Fig.12 ). First of all, the »upside on the ventral plain of the menhirs and using as a key down figure« – interpreted as a stylised anthropomor- to interpret the sexual dimorphism of the analysed phic figure turned upside down – with the motifs of statues (Cicilloni 2008). The diversification of the trident or candelabra. This motif is linked to the fu- types seems to be linked to the distribution of the var- nerary found in some domus de janas, ious in different geographical areas, as well where the human figure turned is upside down be- as styles and artistic languages related to different hu- cause this represents a dead person in the afterlife. In man groups. these statue-menhirs, there is the so-called »double It seems possible to see a common taste among dagger« at waste level, a symbol of power. the various typological manifestations, a shared so- The interpretation of the statue-menhirs as rep- cial need that led to the erection of statue-menhirs, resentations of divinity or more probably – given the belonging in some way to an only monumental fam- connection with the anthropomorphic figures of the ily, in a religious and cultural koinè testified, over that domus de janas – as »deified« heroes or ancestors by the shape of the monolith, especially by the almost seems reasonable. Accordingly, the statue-menhirs constant presence of the representation of the facial would be interpreted as a collective religious expres- scheme in all types. sion of the people living in these territories before the Some engraved complete the picture of the meg- phase of the Bronze Age. aliths with representations. Among these momuments, Recently, we have compiled a catalogue of the men- there is the so-called »stele of Boeli«, at Mamoiada (cen- hirs published with a total of 107 examples, which we tral-eastern Sardinia) (Fig. 13), a great rock-granite stele have divided into ten typological categories, taking as decorated with cup marks and motifs of concentric cir- discriminating the symbolic representations present cles with a single radial line (Fadda 1997; Atzeni 1998;

Fig. 12. Statue-Menhir of Genna Arrele I-Laconi (photo: Fig. 13. Stele of Boeli-Mamoiada, decorated with cup E. Atzeni, Photographic Archive of the Department of History, marks and motifs of concentric circles with a single radial Cultural Heritage and Territory, University of Cagliari). line (photo: R. Cicilloni, Photographic Archive of the Department of History, Cultural Heritage and Territory, University of Cagliari). Megalithic monuments in Sardinia (Italy) 355

Manca/ ​Zirottu 1999), which have close comparisons 1996). Outside of Sardinia, these figurative motifs are with the engravings of other stele and on the trachytic found in megalithic monuments of various countries slab found in Monte-Paza Sedilo, presumably pertinent and particularly ; for example, in the megalithic to a passage tomb. There is a schematic decoration with necropolis of (Co. Meath) (Shee Twohig shells, concentric circles with a single radial line and 1981, 202 – 220), as well as the monumental standing a schematic anthropomorphic female figure Melis ( stone of Ardmore (Co. Donegal) (Mc Nally 2006, 98).

Megsm alithi in the Bronze Age

Megalithism seems to slowly disappear before northern areas of the island, built in trilithic and or- eventually almost completely vanishing in the Bronze thostatic technique, perhaps derived from the old- Age, when the building technique of cyclopean type est allées couvertes (Tanda 2003, 10); and around takes over. In the Bronze Age – characterised in Sar- 100 betili, monoliths of large and medium size, which dinia by the Nuragic civilisation – only two categories are often found near some Giants’ Tombs (Lilliu of megalithic monuments remain: the Giants’ Tombs 1995). These »betili« sometimes have small breasts and with frontal stele (Fig. 14), located in the central and hollows, or they represent the male membrum.

Fig. 14. Giants’ Tombs of Coddu Ecchiu-Arzachena, (Bronze Age) (photo: R. Cicilloni, Photographic Archive of the Department of History, Cultural Heritage and Territory, University of Cagliari). 356 R. Cicilloni

Cinonclus o s

We have to highligh that despite the new and im- of Corsica, Catalonia, Puglia and perhaps of continen- portant data analysis, various aspects of the Sardinian tal France, and finally the similar geographical envi- prehistoric megalithism remain to be investigated, in- ronment in which these dolmens were preferably built, cluding the cultural significance that the held i. e. the plateau. Likewise, regarding the standing for the people who erected and used them. The most stones and the statue-menhirs, there are remarkable probable hypothesis – at least for the dolmens – is to comparisons with various continental and insular are- see an essentially »political« role in the monuments of as of Mediterranean western Europe. Sardinia, in addition to the primary functions of burial Such relationships seem to presuppose the existence structures (Cicilloni 1999, 77; Cicilloni 2009, 184). of contacts existing between Sardinia and the mega- As previously mentioned, these monuments could be lithic horizon of western Europe during the middle and interpreted as »territorial markers of segmentary soci- final phases of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. How- eties«, according to a famous definition of Colin Ren- ever, we do not believe that we can speak of accultur- fer w (1976): during the final phase of the Neolithic, ation phenomena or population movements. The model characterised by the Ozieri culture, in a island firmly to which we must instead refer is a network, a net of and fully unified, small groups of farmers and shepherds contacts and exchanges of ideas among the individual who lived locally and were not part of a centralised so- cultures, which together form a kind of ideological and ciety in some areas may have felt the need for a first ter- cultural koinè, albeit with monumental and evolution- ritorial organisation, with monuments that could mark ary characteristics peculiar of the single regions. their territory. Even the menhirs and the statue-men- Therefore, this suggests an interaction among hirs – as well as being linked to the worship – could communities that were potentially equal, political- perhaps serve as signs of territorial possession. ly independent, the development of which cannot Another aspect worthy of further study is certainly be considered as isolated (Renfrew 1987, 506 – 508). the relationship between the megalithic monuments of There are always contacts, even only for the need to the island and those outside Sardinia. There are in fact exchange of materials or products. For example, Sar- evident relationships – from a structural perspective – dinia records contacts with extra-insular regions from between Sardinia and some areas of continental Europe, the 6th millennium BC, with the diffusion of the Mon- such as primarily the Iberian Peninsula and France, as te Arci obsidian (Lugliè/​Lo Schiavo 2009, 249), at- well as nearby Corsica. For example, regarding the dol- tested in Corsica since the Early Neolithic (Atzeni menic megalithism, there are many formal convergences 1987, 383) and in France, Spain and the Italian penin- between the Sardinian monuments and those of north- sula since the Middle Neolithic (Oddone et al. 2005). ern Spain (Catalonia in particular), the Pyrenean depart- Such diffusion becomes important with the Ozieri ments (Basses-Pyrénées, Haute-Pyrenees, Ariege, Aude, culture in the Late Neolithic. Pyrénées-Orientales) and the departments of the French We can infer that during the Prehistoric Age Sar- Midi (Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne, Lot, Aveyron, Lozére, Ar- dinia was not a »cut-off« region with only few rela- déche), Corsica and Puglia, in southern Italy. tions with other areas, but rather that it was part of the In addition to the structural similarity, the uni- whole western Mediterranean region, including from formity of orientations must be added, usually in the a cultural perspective. Therefore, the prehistoric Sar- direction of the quadrant that goes from east to south, dinia precociously adopted the megalithic phenom- as well as well the presence of the »intentional cut«, as enon, arriving at notable results that hold significant well as in some Sardinian dolmens also in monuments scientific importance.

R eferences

Afonso Marrero et al. 2010: J.A. Afonso Marrero/​J.A. Cá- Antona 2003: A. Antona, Il megalitismo funerario in Gallu- mara Serrano/​L. Spanedda, Links between megalithism ra. Alcune osservazioni sulla necropoli di Li Muri. Rivis- and hypogeism in western mediterranean Europe: an ap- ta di Scienze Preistoriche LIII, 2003, 359 – 373. proach. In: J.A. Cámara Serrano/​J.A. Afonso Marrero/​ Atzeni 1968: E. Atzeni,Il dolmen »Sa Coveccada« di Mores L. Spanedda (eds.), Links between Megalithism and Hy- e la tomba di giganti »Sa domu ‘e s’orku« di Quartucciu. pogeism in Western Mediterranean Europe. BAR inter- Studi Sardi XX (1966 – 67), 1968, 129 – 151. national series 2151 (Oxford 2010) 3 – 11. Atzeni 1975: E. Atzeni, Nuovi idoli della Sardegna prenura- Alba 2000: L. Alba, Nuovo contributo per lo studio del vil- gica (Nota preliminare). Studi Sardi XXIII (1973 – 74), laggio neolitico di San Ciriaco di Terralba (OR). Studi 1975, 3 – 52. Sardi XXXII 1999, 2000, 7 – 60. Atzeni 1981: E. Atzeni, Aspetti e sviluppi culturali del neolitico Megalithic monuments in Sardinia (Italy) 357

e della prima età dei metalli in Sardegna. In: G. Pugliese in Sardegna: aspetti cronologici ed evolutivi. In: C. Del Carratelli (ed.), Ichnussa. La Sardegna dalle origini all’età Vais (ed.), EPI OINOPA PONTON. Studi sul Mediterraneo classica. Antica madre 4 (Milano 1981) 19 – 51. antico in ricordo di Giovanni Tore (Oristano 2012) 121 – 134. Atzeni 1987: E. Atzeni,Il Neolitico della Sardegna. In: A. Reve- Cicilloni 2013: R. Cicilloni, Il Megalitismo in Sardegna. In: din (ed.), Il Neolitico in Italia, Atti della XXVI Riunione E. Blasco Ferrer/​P. Francalacci/​A. Nocentini/ ​G. Tan- Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protosto- da (eds.), Iberia e Sardegna. Legami linguistici, archeolo- ria (Firenze, 7 – 10 novembre 1985) (Firenze 1987) 383 – 400. gici e genetici dal Mesolitico all’Età del Bronzo. Atti del Atzeni 1998: E. Atzeni, Le Statue-Menhir di Piscina ‘e Sali, Convegno Internazionale »Gorosti U5b3«, Cagliari-Al- Laconi-Sardegna. In: J. Guilaine (ed.), Actes du 2.me Col- ghero, 12 – 16 giugno 2012 (Milano 2013) 250 – 270. loque International sur la Statuaire Mégalithique, Saint- Cicilloni 1999: R. Cicilloni, I Dolmen della Sardegna: anali- Pons-de-Thomieres (10 – 14 septembre 1997). Archéologie si e problematiche. Studi Sardi XXXI (1994 – 1998), 1999, en Languedoc 22 (Albi1998) 61 – 72. 51 – 110. Atzeni 2001: E. Atzeni, La tomba ipogeico-megalitica di Bin- D’Arragon 1994: B. D’Arragon, Presenza di elementi cultur- gia ‘e Monti-Gonnostramatza (OR). In: G. Serreli/​D. Vac- ali sui monumenti dolmenici del Mediterraneo centrale. ca (eds.), Aspetti del megalitismo preistorico ( Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche XLVI, 1994, 41 – 85. 2001) 5 – 8. D’Arragon 1999: B. D’Arragon, Nota preliminare sul recente Atzeni 2004: E. Atzeni, La scoperta delle Statue-Menhir. ritrovamento di materiale ceramico di tipo San Michele Trent’anni di ricerche archeologiche nel territorio di La- di Ozieri a Luras (SS). In: A. Antona (ed.), Siti di cultu- coni. University press 2 (Cagliari 2004). ra Ozieri in Gallura. Quaderni della Soprintendenza Ar- Atzeni 2009: E. Atzeni, Nuovi apporti al fenomeno della cheologica per le provincie di e Nuoro 21 (Ozieri statuaria preistorica antropomorfa. In: C. Lugliè/​R. Cicil- 1999) 133 – 174. loni (eds.), La Preistoria e la Protostoria della Sardegna, Davies 1939: O. Davies, The horned of Sardinia. Ul- Atti della XLIV Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano ster Journal of III, 1939, 158 – 169. di Preistoria e Protostoria (Cagliari, , Sassa- De Marinis 1994: R. de Marinis, Il fenomeno delle statue- ri 23 – 28 novembre 2009), Volume I – Relazioni gener- stele e stele antropomorfe dell’età del Rame in Europa. ali (Firenze 2009) 227 – 230. In: S. Casini (ed.), Le pietre degli dei. Menhir e stele Atzeni/​Cocco 1989: E. Atzeni/​D. Cocco, Nota sulla ne- dell’Età del Rame in Valcamonica e Valtellina (Brescia cropoli megalitica di Pranu Mutteddu-Goni. In: L. Det- 1994) 31 – 58. tori Campus (ed.), La cultura di Ozieri, problematiche e De Mortillet 1893: A. de Mortillet, Rapport sur les monu- nuove acquisizioni, Atti del I Convegno di studio, Ozie- ments mégalithiques de la Corse (Paris 1893). ri (Gennaio 1986-Aprile 1987) (Ozieri 1989) 201 – 216. Esteva Cruañas 1970: L. Esteva Cruañas, Sepulcros megaliti- Bagella/​Depalmas 2007: S. Bagella/​A. Depalmas, Nuove osser- cos de Las Gabarras (Gerona), III (Gerona 1970). vazioni su circoli di pietre e dolmen dell’Areale sar- Fadda 1997: M. A. Fadda, Una nuova statua menhir. Archeo- do-corso. In: G. Tanda (ed.), Patrimonio archeologico logia Viva 65, 1997, 13. ed architettonico Sardo-Corso: affinità e differenze. La Ferrarese Ceruti 1976: M.L. Ferrarese Ceruti, Notiziario- Sardegna e la Corsica in una prospettiva rotariana (Sas- Sardegna, Provincia di Nuoro, Provincia di Oristano, sari 2007) 195 – 215. Provincia di Cagliari. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche Castaldi 1999: E. Castaldi, Sa Sedda de Biriai (Oliena – XXXI, 1976, 319 – 322. Nuoro – Sardegna). Villaggi d’altura con santuario mega- Guilaine 1996: J. Guilaine, Proto-megalithisme, rites fu- litico di cultura Monte Claro (Roma 1999). neraires et mobiliers de prestige neolithiques en med- Cesari 2001: J. Cesari, Le dolmen de Figa alla Sarra (Olme- iterranee occidentale. In: M. de los Ángeles Querol/​ to, Corse-du-Sud) dans son contexte archéologique In: T. Chapa (eds.), Homenaje al profesor Manuel Fernandez- A. F. Nissardi (ed.), Architettura arte e artigianato nel Miranda (Madrid 1996) 123 – 140. Mediterraneo dalla Preistoria all’alto Medioevo, Atti del- Guilaine 2011: J. Guilaine, Méditerranée mégalithique. Dol- la Tavola Rotonda Internazionale in memoria di Giovanni mens, hypogées, sanctuaries. Collection Archéologie Tore, Cagliari 17 – 19 dicembre 1999 (Oristano 2001) 9 – 46. vivante (Lacapelle-Marival 2011). Chevalier 1984: Y. Chevalier, L’architecture des dolmens en- Joussaume 1985: R. Joussaume, Des dolmens pour les morts. tre Languedoc et Centre-Ouest de la France. Saarbrücker Les mégalithismes à travers le monde. Collection »La Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 44 (Bonn 1984). Mémoire du temps« (Paris 1985). Cicilloni 2004: R. Cicilloni, Osservazioni su un probabile ele- Leandri 2000: F. Leandri, Note sur le fouille du Monte Re- mento »cultuale« individuato sulle lastre di copertura di vincu et les prospections dans le Nebbio et les Agri- alcuni dolmens sardi. Aristeo 1, 2004, 47 – 56. ates. In: A. D’Anna (ed.), Aspect du Mégalithisme de la Cicilloni 2008: R. Cicilloni, Le statue-menhir della Sarde- Corse, recherches en cours et perspectives, Table Ronde, gna: aspetti tipologici. In: G. Tanda/​C. Lugliè, Il Seg- Casta et Saint-Florent (Haute-Corse), 21 – 22 settembre no e l’Idea, Arte Preistorica in Sardegna. University 1999 (Aix-en- 2000) 97 – 181. press 3 (Cagliari 2008) 155 – 271. Leandri/Demouche​ 1999: F. Leandri/​F. Demouche, Redécou- Cicilloni 2009: R. Cicilloni, I Dolmen della Sardegna (Mo- verts dans le désert des Agriates: les mégalithes du Monte goro 2009). Revincu. Archeologia 358, 1999, 32 – 41. Cicilloni 2011: R. Cicilloni, Goni, area archeologica di Lilliu 1968: G. Lilliu, Il dolmen di Motorra (Dorgali-Nuoro). Pranu Mutteddu. In: G. Marras (ed.), Goni, archeo- Studi Sardi XX (1966 – 67), 1968, 74 – 128. logia (Cagliari 2011) 9 – 21. Lilliu 1988: G. Lilliu, La civiltà dei Sardi dal paleolitico Cicilloni 2012: R. Cicilloni, Il megalitismo preistorico all’età dei nuraghi (Torino 19883). 358 R. Cicilloni

Lilliu 1995: G. Lilliu, Betili e betilini nelle tombe di giganti della Puglisi 1942: S. Puglisi, Villaggi sotto roccia e sepolcri mega- Sardegna. Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei VI, 1995, 422 – 507. litici della Gallura. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana Lugliè 2003: C. Lugliè, La ceramica di facies S. Ciriaco nel V-VI, 1942, 123 – 141. Neolitico superiore della Sardegna: evoluzione interna Renfrew 1976: C. Renfrew, Megaliths, territories and popu- e apporti extrainsulari. In: P. Bianchi (ed.), Le comunità lation. In: S. J. De Laet (ed.), Acculturation and Continui- della preistoria italiana. Studi e ricerche sul neolitico e ty in . Papers presented at the IV Atlantic le età dei metalli, Atti della XXXV Riunione scientifica, Colloquium, Ghent 1975. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Lipari, 2 – 7 giugno 2000, in memoria di Luigi Bernabò Gandenses 16 (Brugge 1976) 198 – 220. Brea (Firenze 2003) 723 – 733. Renfrew 1987: C. Renfrew, Progressi nell’archeologia dell’in- Lugliè 2011: C. Lugliè, Area Archeologica di Li Muri. In: G. Mar- terazione. La questione dei megaliti. Scienze dell’Anti- ras (ed.), Arzachena, Archeologia (Cagliari 2011) 15 – 24. chità. Storia archeologia antropologia 1, 1987, 497 – 512. Lugliè/Lo​ Schiavo 2009: C. Lugliè/​F. Lo Schiavo, Risorse Shee Twohig 1981: E. Shee Twohig, The Megalithic Art of e tecnologia: le rocce e i metalli. In: C. Lugliè/​R. Cicil- Western Europe (Oxford 1981). loni (eds.), La Preistoria e la Protostoria della Sardeg- Stiglitz et al. 2000: A. Stiglitz/​L. Manca Demurtas/​S. Demur- na, Atti della XLIV Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto tas, Ipogeismo e territorialità. Appunti sulla geografia Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria (Cagliari, Barumini, degli insediamenti antichi del Sinis (Sardegna centro-oc- Sassari 23 – 28 novembre 2009), Volume I – Relazioni gene- cidentale). In: G. Tanda/​A. Depalmas/​P. Melis (eds.), rali (Firenze 2009) 247 – 267. L’ipogeismo nel Mediterraneo. Origini, sviluppo, quad- Mackenzie 1910: D. Mackenzie, The dolmens, Tombs of the ri culturali, Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Sassa- Giants and Nuraghi of Sardinia. Papers of the British ri-Oristano, 23 – 28 maggio 1994 (Muros 2000) 847 – 874. School at Rome V, 1910, 87 – 137. Tanda 1984: G. Tanda, Benetutti. Loc. Maone. In: E. Ana- Mackenzie 1913: D. Mackenzie, Dolmens and nuraghi of Sar- ti (ed.), I Sardi. La Sardegna dal Paleolitico all’età roma- dinia. Papers of the British School at Rome VI, 1913, 127 – 170. na (Milano 1984) 286 – 287. Manca/Zirottu​ 1999: G. Manca/​G. Zirottu, Pietre magiche a Tanda 2000: G. Tanda, L’ipogeismo in Sardegna: arte, simbo- Mamoiada (Nuoro 1999). logia, religione. In: G. Tanda/​A. Depalmas/​P. Melis (eds.), Manunza 2008: M.R. Manunza, Funtana Coberta, tempio L’ipogeismo nel Mediterraneo. Origini, sviluppo, quad- nuragico a nel Gerrei (Cagliari 2008). ri culturali, Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Sassa- McNally 2006: K. McNally, Ireland’s Ancient Stones. A mega- ri-Oristano, 23 – 28 maggio 1994 (Muros 2000) 399 – 425. lithic Heritage (Belfast 2006). Tanda 2003: G. Tanda, La tomba di giganti 2 di Iloi (Sedi- Melis 1996: M.G. Melis, Scheda 89 (216) – Monte Paza – lo-OR) ( 2003). Tomba megalitica. In: G. Tanda (ed.), Sedilo. I monumen- Tanda 2008: G. Tanda, Il Segno e l’Idea. Le figurazioni ti. Tomo I. I monumenti situati nell’area del progetto. scolpite di bucranio nella Preistoria della Sardegna. In: Antichita sarde 3 (Villanova Monteleone 1996) 217 – 218. G. Tanda/ ​C. Lugliè, Il Segno e l’Idea, Arte Preistorica in Merella 2009: S. Merella, I menhir della Sardegna (Sassari 2009). Sardegna. University press 3 (Cagliari 2008) 97 – 141. Moravetti 2000: A. Moravetti, Ricerche archeologiche nel Mar- Tanda 2009: G. Tanda, L’arte »immobiliare« preistorica. In: ghine-Planargia, II. Sardegna archeologica 5 (Sassari 2000). C. Lugliè/​R. Cicilloni (eds.), La Preistoria e la Protosto- Moravetti 2004: A. Moravetti, Monte Baranta e la cultura di ria della Sardegna, Atti della XLIV Riunione Scientifica Monte Claro (Sassari 2004). dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria (Cagliari, Oddone et al. 2005: M. Oddone/​C. Lugliè/​S. Meloni, L’ossidi- Barumini, Sassari 23 – 28 novembre 2009), Volume I – ana del Monte Arci nel contesto delle fonti del Mediterra- Relazioni generali (Firenze 2009) 163 – 182. neo occidentale. In: C. Luglièn (ed.), L’ossidiana del Monte Taramelli 1906: A. Taramelli, Dolmen »Sa Perda e s’altare« Arci nel Mediterraneo. La ricerca archeologica e la sal- nel di Birori in provincia di Cagliari. Bullettino vaguardia del paesaggio per lo sviluppo delle zone interne di Paletnologia Italiana XXXII, 1906, 268 – 271. della Sardegna, Atti del 3° Convegno Internazionale (Pau, Usai 2009: L. Usai, Il Neolitico medio. In: C. Lugliè/​R. Cicil- 25 – 26 settembre 2004) (Mogoro 2006) 141 – 152. loni (eds.), La Preistoria e la Protostoria della Sardegna, Paglietti 2009: G. Paglietti, All’origine del megalitis- Atti della XLIV Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano mo nell’occidente mediterraneo: le tombe a circolo. In: di Preistoria e Protostoria (Cagliari, Barumini, Sassa- M. G. Melis (ed.), Uomo e territorio: dinamiche di frequen- ri 23 – 28 novembre 2009), Volume I – Relazioni gener- tazione e di sfruttamento delle risorse naturali nell’anti- ali (Firenze 2009) 49 – 58. chità, Atti del Convegno nazionale dei giovani archeologi, Whitehouse 1983: R. Whitehouse, Megaliths of Central Sassari 27 – 30 settembre 2006 (Muros 2009) 97 – 103. Mediterranean. In: C. Renfrew (ed.), The Megalithic Piquereddu 1989: P. Piquereddu, I Carnevali della Barbagia. Monuments of Western Europe: the latest evidence pre- In: M. Atzori/​L. Orrù/​P. Piquereddu/​M. M. Satta (eds.), Il sented by nine leading authorities (London 1983) 42 – 63. Carnevale in Sardegna (Cagliari 1989) 11 – 92.

Riccardo Cicilloni Department of History Cultural Heritage and Territory – University of Cagliari (Italy) Piazza Arsenale 1 – 09124 Cagliari Italy [email protected]