Whitehouse SE Italy

The Megalithic Monuments of South-East ItalyAuthor(s): Ruth D. WhitehouseReviewed work(s):Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Sep., 1967), pp. 347-365Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2798725 .

Accessed: 15/11/2012 06:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.205 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:52:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2798725?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE MEGALITHIC MONUMENTS OF SOUTH-EAST ITALY

RUTH D. WHITEHOUSE

New Hall, Cambridge Ittroduction

The megalithic monuments of south-east Italy have been the objects of antiquarian study from the i86o's onwards and a large number of papers have been published on this subject. However for several reasons a new account is desirable. Firstly, many of the old sources are unreliable and difficult to use; wrong identi- fications, conflicting descriptions and inaccurate plans are commonplace and unfortunately this has led to errors that have been repeated by otherwise reliable authorities when obliged to use secondary sources. Furthermore, there is no account of the Apulian megaliths as a whole, either in Italian or English. Finally, the discovery of two new tombs and a reconsideration of the material from earlier excavations in the light of recent work elsewhere have altered the total picture considerably. For these reasons I now offer a new account of the monuments, together with a discussion of their relationships, origins and chronology in the light of the new evidence.I

The distribution of the megalithic monuments of south-east Italy is limited to the region of Apulia, i.e. the provinces of Foggia, Bari, Brindisi, Taranto and Lecce (the last two of which form the 'heel' of Italy, an area known as the Terra d'Otranto or Salento peninsula).

The monuments can be divided into two main types: standing stones and chamber tombs. The terms menhir and dolmen are universally used by Italian authors for these two types of monument. The meaning of menhir can hardly be mis- construed, but the use of the term dolmen to describe any megalithic chamber tomb is often criticised, since in many countries the word is used to define a specific type of tomb (Daniel I958: 40). However, the usage has a long history in Italy and has the advantage of convenience, so I propose to use the term dolmen in this general sense here.

The chamber tombs belong to two main groups, a division which was recognised as early as I9I3 by M. Gervasio (I9I3: 69) and has since received general acceptance. It was emphasised in I956 by J. D, Evans in his discussion of the Maltese dolmens in which he named the two Italian types the Bari-Taranto group and the Otranto group (Evans I956: 85). I shall use these terms here.

A third type of tomb, consisting of a slab-built cist under a barrow and known by the Italian name of piccola specchia, can hardly be described as truly megalithic, but nonetheless owes some of its architectural features to the megalithic tradition. I shall discuss this group briefly.

Like the dolmens, the menhirs may be divided into two types: statue-menhirs and simple standing stones. There are also said to be two alignments consisting of four and three stones respectively.



348 RUTH D. WHITEHOUSE

The dolmens a. TheBari-Tarantogroup (Figs. I, 2 and plates Ia, ib) .Although the monuments of

this group are far larger and more impressive than those of the Otranto region, strangely enough they remained unknown to archaeologists for nearly forty years after the first Otranto dolmens had been brought to their attention in the I870's. Admittedly, the Leucaspide dolmen was discovered in i88o, but was published only in English and in books that would not normally be read by archaeologists (Ross I887: 257; I889: 99). It was not until A. Mosso visited Leucaspide in i9o0 that antiquarian interest was really aroused. During this excursion, Mosso also discovered the Acetulla dolmen and in the same year F. Samarelli discovered the dolmen at Bisceglie. M. Gervasio, following up the discoveries in I9IO, found

~~~~~~~FGR . Ditiuino the domn.

DOLhlENS_ .! e~artzln i - Taranto -:.i

A:poe IbM i-

FIGURE I. Distribution of the dolmens.

three more dolmens in the same area and another near Cisternino. Thus six tombs of the Bari-Taranto group were all discovered in I909 and I910. These, together with the Leucaspide dolmen, were published by Gervasio in I9I3, though slightly fuller accounts of the Leucaspide and Acetulla dolmens can be found in Mosso's book (I910: 220-32). Recently, two more dolmens have been discovered: one near Giovinazzo, found and excavated in I96I, has been briefly published by F. G. Lo Porto (I96I: 270), but a full excavation report is awaited; the other, near Taviano, was found and published by C. Piccinni (I962: 3). A possible dolmen at Molinello near Vieste on the northern coast of the Gargano promontory has been published by S. M. Puglisi (I950: 3o-8).

The distinction between the dolmens of the Bari-Taranto group and those of the Otranto area was recognised by Gervasio in I913 and has been accepted ever since.



THE MEGALITHIC MONUMENTS OF SOUTH-EAST ITALY 349

The five best preserved tombs-Bisceglie, Albarosa, Corato and San Silvestro in the north and Leucaspide2 near Taranto-are large gallery graves with sides formed by slabs, supplemented in one case-San Silvestro-by a stretch of dry stone walling. They may be closed at both ends, like Bisceglie or Leucaspide, or segmented, like the dolmen at Corato. The gallery may become narrower towards the entrance, as at Albarosa or, to a lesser extent, Bisceglie. The latter tomb and Leucaspide are both divided into a distinct chamber or cella at one end, separated from the main gallery. In the very long San Silvestro tomb, six capstones survive;

~~~I

ft

F FIGURE 2. Plans of Bari-Taranto dolmens: A-Bisceglie; B-Albarosa; C-Frisari;

D-Corato; E-Taviano; F-Cisternino.

elsewhere only one or none at all. The two shorter tombs of the Bani-Brindisi region-Frisari and Cisternino-are probably ruined monuments of the same type, as there are indications of further slabs in front of the two surviving side stones. The two smaller tombs in the Taranto area-Acetulla and Taviano-are both small rectangular chambers, open at one end, formed of three slabs supporting a capstone. If they were ever any larger, there is no indication of this today. The length of the monuments ranges from c. 3 m. to c. I17 m. and the height of the slabs from c. 0-7 m. to C. 21I M. Most of the tombs have traces at least of earthen mounds, which may be oval, as at San Silvestro, or rectangular with rounded




ends, as at Albarosa. At Albarosa the long sides of the mound are revetted with dry stone walls.

Several features of the Bari-Taranto tombs distinguish them from the Otranto group. Firstly there is the rectangular slab-built chamber, which contrasts strongly with the Otranto group. Secondly, there is the orientation: with two exceptions (San Silvestro which faces north and Acetulla which faces west) all the Bari- Taranto tombs are aligned east-west with the entrance facing east. This too contrasts with the Otranto group, where the orientation appears to be random. The presence of mounds may represent another distinguishing characteristic, but, although barrows are absent from the Otranto dolmens, this may be an accident of survival rather than a structural difference.

Human bones have been found in five dolmens as well as the anomalous tomb at Molinello, where they may in fact be later than the structure. Bisceglie contained the remains of at least thirteen individuals, which indicates that the rite of collective burial was practised. Most of the bones were disarticulated and lying in heaps, but a few skeletons survived intact, demonstrating that the bodies were buried in a contracted position.

Five of the tombs have yielded pottery and other artifacts. Of these, Corato produced only a single sherd and the material from San Silvestro is still unpublished. However, the other three sites-Bisceglie, Albarosa and Leucaspide- yielded finds of considerable importance and on the basis of this material, I propose to offer a chronology for the tombs which differs from the dating generally accepted. I shall discuss the individual pieces on which my argument is based and the general chronology in the next section.

The distribution of the Bari-Taranto tombs is of considerable interest, because a distinct pattern emerges: all the tombs are near to the coast. The Cisternino dolmen, at a distance of c. iS km., is the furthest inland and even this is within sight of the sea. Although sites tend to cluster in groups, the total distribution covers a large area, from Taviano in the Terra d'Otranto to Bisceglie on the Adriatic coast north of Bari, and, if the structure at Molinello is really the remains of a dolmen, even to Vieste on the Gargano promontory. They thus cover an area at least i8o km. across; if we include Molinello, this distance increases to 260 km. This scattered distribution contrasts stongly with the dense concentration of the tombs of the Otranto group, though it must be admitted that the dolmens in the Bisceglie area represent a concentration almost comparable to that of the Otranto tombs in the Giurdignano area.

Chronology of the Bari- Taranto tombs It is generally accepted today that the Bari-Taranto tombs belong to the Late

Bronze Age or even to the Early Iron Age. However, a reconsideration of the finds from the dolmens suggests an entirely different chronology. There is certainly Late Bronze Age material present and most of the finds from Bisceglie and Al- barosa fall into this category.3

The two seasons of work at Bisceglie produced not only human and animal bones, but also two bone points, a clay bead, a perforated pyramid of limestone, two fragments of a flint blade, a fragmentary obsidian blade,, part of a limestone



THE MEGALITHIC MONUMENTS OF SOUTH-EAST ITALY 35I

axe, half of a sandstone hammer, a scrap of charcoal, a disc of copper or bronze decorated with a circle of points in relief and perforated in several places, five amber beads and a large quantity of pottery, including a number of complete vessels. Gervasio also described, although not included in his list of finds, a small disc apparently of ivory and a limestone bead or spindle whorl. Most of the pottery has a decidedly late appearance, with general, if not specific, parallels on late Apennine sites such as the rock-cut tombs at Murgia Timone (Patroni I898: 4I7) near Matera or Sub-Apennine sites like Specchia I at Vanze (Drago I955: I7I) south of Lecce. However, one vessel, a small carinated bowl with an axe handle projecting from the rim and a large strap spanning the gap between the carination and the middle of the axe (fig. 3, C2) can be paralleled not only in late, but also in very early Apennine Bronze Age contexts. Thus, while the closest parallels come

A 72~~~~~~~~

1~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ 6?*e9

B '3

4 5 ~~~6 7

3

I FINDS c Z 7 a Not to Scale

FIGURE 3. Finds from Bari-Taranto dolmens: A-Leucaspide; B-Albarosa; C-Bisceglie.

from the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age deposit at Borgo Nuovo, Taranto, (Randall-Maclver I927: 239-40) where they are associated with Apulian Proto- Geometric painted ware, very similar examples are known from the Pulo di Molfetta (Mayer I924: 25I-72), a site which most authorities now place very near the beginning of the Apennine sequence. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the Borgo Nuovo material seems to be a closed group, while that from the Pulo di Molfetta is certainly mixed, a late date for this piece is likely. However, since earlier material is probably present in the tomb and certainly in others of this group (see below), an early date for this bowl cannot be ruled out entirely.

The non-ceramic material from Bisceglie can be divided into two groups, one that is probably early and one that is definitely late. Into the first category fall the limestone axe, the sandstone hammer, the flint blade and the obsidian fragment,




which should be Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age; the five amber beads, on the other hand, are undoubtedly Late Bronze Age in date. The metal disc is often described as Late Bronze Age, but in fact both the shape and the use of decoration in relief also occur in Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age contexts and in the absence of metal analyses, it is in itself undatable.

The finds from Albarosa included human and animal bones, some flint fragments and a quantity of pottery. Almost all the finds from the original exploration were lost, but some subsequently collected by Gervasio and a few of the original sherds still survive. They include some wheel-made painted sherds of Apulian Proto-Geometric type (fig. 3, B4-7), which are undoubtedly of final Bronze Age or Early Iron Age date. None of the material is definitely early, but there are two elbow handles which could be Chalcolithic and two unperforated tongue handles, which are more common early in the Apennine sequence, although they do occur later also. The flint too would fit more easily into an early context.

It is, however, the material from Leucaspide that provides the basis for my revised chronology for the Bari-Taranto tombs. The finds from the first excavation apparently included several complete vessels. But even in I9IO Mosso was unable to locate this material. He himself, however, collected some valuable sherds as well as human bones from the spoil heaps of the earlier excavation. This pottery, described by Mosso, was all dark burnished ware and it included several carinated cups of various sizes with wide strap handles from rim to carination; another large carinated vessel may have had a handle rising from the rim (fig. 3, As); other forms represented were large, rather coarse dishes and a shallow pan with a wide flanged rim, described as a tavola di libazione (fig. 3, A4). The most interesting finds are the handles. Two of these (fig. 3, Ai) were fairly wide curved tongue handles with a triangular perforation and a large strap attached to the back. One of them had grooved decoration surrounding the perforation. These handles must almost certainly belong to the very beginning of the Apennine sequence; similar examples, but with the addition of two knobs at the upper end, came from the ossuary pit at Crispiano (Quagliati I920: 433), which Dr Trump assigns to his Cellino Culture (Trump i966: 84) and from the very early Apennine site in the city of Bari (Gervasio I9I3: io6); a similar type with a rectangular perforation was found in a rock-cut tomb in the San Francesco area at Matera (Rellini I929: 29), probably of the same date. A rather narrower handle with a circular perforation came from a Proto-Apennine level at La Staza, Ariano Irpino (Trump i963: 2I). The closest parallels of all come from three sites: another rock-cut tomb at San Vito dei Normanni near Brindisi (Lo Porto i964: I09) also of Dr Trump's Cellino Culture, though perhaps true Proto-Apennine in type; and Proto-Apennine levels at Scoglio del Tonno, Taranto and Porto Perone, Leporano (Lo Porto i963: 363; i964: I09). The diagnostic features of all these handles are the large strap attached to the back and the curved profile, neither of which occurs later in the Apennine sequence. Other handles from Leucaspide are of a simple undeveloped tongue type without perforation and should be relatively early in the Apennine sequence; they too are well paralleled at Bari. The handle described by Mosso as an ansa lunata (fig. 3, A3) is probably a slightly atypical tongue handle. The only decoration that occurs is the occasional grooving, as on one of the perforated tongue handles, and ribbing, which occurs on one sherd only. It does seem as though some of these




finds must be Proto-Apennine and none of them needs be later than the Early Bronze Age.

The examination of the material from Leucaspide in the light of recent work on the development of the Apennine Bronze Age makes it clear that there are several complete and fragmentary vessels which we should place at the very beginning of the Apennine sequence, i.e. in the chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age culture which Dr Trump has named after the site of Cellino San Marco (Trump I966: 84-7) and which Dr F. G. Lo Porto calls Proto-Apennine (Lo Porto I963: 363). In fact the Leucaspide material falls specifically into the second phase of this culture (Trump's Altamura style, Lo Porto's Proto-Apennine B). Other artifacts from Bari-Taranto tombs that appear to be early are the stone objects and possibly some of the pottery from Bisceglie and Albarosa. It cannot be denied, however, that most of the identifiable material from the tombs of the Bari area is undoubtedly Late Bronze Age in date. The unpublished material from San Silvestro, if really 'Sub-Apennine', would also fall into this bracket.

Reviewing the Leucaspide material in the light of the most recent work on the Apennine culture, I suggest that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this monument at least was erected during the Chalcolithic period or the Early Bronze Age. The evidence for the tombs of the Bari area is far less convincing, as there are only a few sherds and stone fragments to suggest an early date, the majority of the material undoubtedly belonging to the Late Bronze Age. However, it is hardly necessary to say that one cannot date the construction of a tomb used for collective burial by the latest material from it. On the contrary, it ought to precede the earliest material, if one excludes the possibility of residual scraps from an earlier site being included during construction (and where, as with most of the Apulian dolmens, the tomb is founded on bedrock, this possibility is very slight indeed). Bearing this in mind, the early pieces from Bisceglie and Albarosa, taken in conjunction with the great similarity between these tombs and the undoubtedly early Leucaspide dolmen, should indicate an early date for the construction of these tombs also. If this is correct, it follows that both Bisceglie and Albarosa were either reopened in the Late Bronze Age after a period of disuse or, as is perhaps more likely, were in continuous use throughout the Bronze Age. It is to be expected that the material of the later period of use should be more fully represented than that of the first. If the tombs were used throughout the Bronze Age, they would span a period of perhaps 8oo or I,000 years. This might seem surprising, but it is consistent with evidence from megalithic chamnber tombs elsewhere in Europe.4

I hesitate to suggest a chronology so much at variance with the accepted view, but in my opinion the evidence is hard to dispute. Moreover, as I hope to demonstrate in the discussion, this earlier dating eliminates some of the problems of interpretation inherent in the usual late chronology.

b. The Otranto group (Figs. i, 5 and plates 2a, 2b). The dolmens of the Terra d'Otranto have been known to Italian archaeologists since the I870'S through the reports of local antiquaries, the most important of whom were P. Maggiulli, M. A. Micalella, C. De Giorgi and G. Palumbo. The most useful papers are those of De Giorgi, who published a reasonably full account in I9I2 (Giorgi I9I2: 99) and Palumbo, who published a complete and up-to-date descriptive list, written in I957




(Palumbo i956: 84). This article also contains a complete bibliography. It is fully illustrated with photographs, but contains no plans. In fact the only drawings in existence-five published by De Giorgi and one by Micalella-are schematic and, where they can be checked today, inaccurate.

This omission is particularly serious because, of the sixteen dolmens of the group certainly existing in the Terra d'Otranto south of Lecce, only five are now extant and one of these is collapsed and almost destroyed; the possible remains of a sixth monument also survive.5 Much of this destruction has taken place in the ten years

14 91 0 12 + i

O 1 2 3 4 5

km FIGURE 4. Sketch plan of the Giurclignano area in I9IO and I965; 11intact dolmens;

D-collapsed dolmens, r[] destroyed dolmens.

since Palumbo published his paper. The reason for this deplorable state of affairs was succinctly expressed by a local antiquary as molta ignoranza e poca sorveglianza. Indeed the monuments are completely unprotected by the authorities, who have neither planned nor excavated any of them. As they are small and unimpressive, it is little wonder that contadini rob them to provide stones for field walls and buildings. The sketch plan of the Giurdignano area (fig. 4) shows the dolmens as they were in I9IO and as they are today. There is also a more complicated factor tllan simple destruction to take into account. A comparison of early photographs of some of the tombs with later pictures or with the monuments themselves




suggests that in some cases stones have been added and that in others larger blocks have been replaced by two or more smaller ones! All this interference results from the use of the dolmens as tool-stores, pigsties, etc. However, in the surviving monuments it is usually possible to distinguish the original stones.

A

B

A-

D

C 1 I

metres feet

FIGURE 5. Plans of Otranto dolmens: A-Quattromacine; B-Scusi; C-Gurgulante; D-Placa.

I visited all the extant tombs in I964 and I965 and publish here the plans of the four which were still sufficiently well preserved to be intelligible.

The Otranto tombs are typologically quite different from those of the Bari- Taranto group. They are very much smaller and lack the rectangular form and regular slab construction of the northern tombs. Instead they are oval, polygonal




or sub-rectangular in plan and are built in what I shall call the block and boulder style. In fact the supports for the capstone, which vary in number from two to eight, may be rough slabs, monolithic blocks, pillars consisting of several superimposed stones, projecting blocks of bedrock or even, in one case, a section of dry stone walling. These tombs also lack the regular orientation of the Bari-Taranto group; of the twelve monuments in which the position of the entrance has been ascertained, three had entrances facing roughly east, three south-east, three south-west, two north-west and one north-east. They rarely measure more than one metre in height and the larger tombs never exceed four metres in length, while the smallest are scarcely half that size. No mounds have ever been recorded over these tombs, but, as I remarked earlier, this may be an accident of preservation rather than a structural feature.

Several other characteristics of the- group are worthy of note:

i. Five tombs were built in shallow hollows in the bedrock. 2. Six tombs used projections of the bedrock to support the capstone. 3. Two tombs had incised grooves on the upper surface of the capstone. 4. Two tombs had perforated capstones and another three had shallower holes

on the surface of the capstone.

All these features are unusual and offer hints at least about the origin and connexions of this group.

No finds have ever been made in any of the tombs, with the exception of some bone fragments and indeterminate potsherds from a possible dolmen at Vaste (this is not the relatively well-known Camllpin'a dolmen). The surviving examples are either empty or filled with modern humus. It is not impossible that there are still tombs to be discovered in the more remote areas of the Terra d'Otranto which might contain some portion of their original deposits. At present, however, we are dependent on comparative typology alone for the dating of these monuments; this avenue will be explored in the discussion.

The distribution of this group of tombs is of interest, as, by contrast to the Bari- Taranto group, they are densely concentrated within a very small area (less than 30 km. by 20 km.) centred round the Giurdignano district.

The piccole specchie The piccole specchie are stone cairns of up to c. io m. in diameter and c. 2 m. in

height. They occur all over Apulia south of the river Ofanto and are especially thickly concentrated on the Murge, the Apennine foothills inland from Bari, where they have escaped destruction by cultivation. The northern examples have been studied by A. Jatta (I904: 3; I9I4: 220)' and those in the south, i.e. in the Terra d'Otranto, are the subject of a fairly recent study by C. Drago (I955) which has served to define the function and date of these monuments more clearly than was previously possible.

The monuments are called piccole specchie to distinguish them from the grandi specchie, which are much larger structures occurring in the Terra d'Otranto only; they cover structures of cyclopean masonry about which little is known except that they appear to be non-funerary in function and later Iron Age in date. They are




unrelated to the piccole specchie. The latter, on the other hand, definitely are tombs. They are often very badly preserved, but it is clear that the original form of the monuments was a small cairn covering a slab-built cist, which was sometimes preceded by a short dry stone passage. The bottom is frequently paved. The largest of these cists, in the Specchia I De Giorgi at Vanze, measures c. 2-8 m. in length and c. IP3 m. in height, but many of them are considerably smaller. Those excavated by Jatta on the Murge Baresi produced sherds, metal objects, animal and human bones, but no articulated skeletons; the Salento tombs yielded similar finds, but one of those excavated by Drago contained a complete skeleton in the contracted position. This, together with the small size of the cists, suggests that they were used for single burial. The metal objects include simple arc and serpentine fibulk of bronze, suggesting that the monuments were first constructed in an early stage of the Iron Age (tenth to eighth centuries), but the presence of Daunian and other painted wares indicate that they continued in use throughout the Iron Age.

The piccole specchie certainly cannot be classified as true megaliths; on the other hand they do undoubtedly owe some of their architectural features to the megalithic building tradition, i.e. the slab-built cists and dry-walled passages. The rite of single burial appears to be intrusive into Apulia at this stage, collective burial having been the normal practice throughout the Bronze Age (with the exception of the so-called 'Proto-Villanovan' urnfields of the Late Bronze Age, which represent a small and localised intrusion) and it is usually suggested that it was introduced from Dalmatia or Istria, as burial under barrows occurs in these areas, but is not found elsewhere in Italy. In any case it is reasonable to regard it as an intrusive tomb type which on arrival absorbed some of the elements of the megalithic tradition of the Bari-Taranto dolmens, which we know were still in use at this period. It is possible that the small vertical stone interpreted as a stele in Specchia Ficazzano (tomb i) at Acquarica also represents a feature taken over from the megalithic tradition; for, as I hope to demonstrate in the next section, some of the menhirs of the Terra d'Otranto seem to have served as stetae to mark tomb positions.

The menhirs As I remarked in the introduction, the menhirs may be divided into two types;

statue-menhirs and simple standing stones.

a. Statue-menhirs (plate 3 a). A group of three statue-menhirs was found recently at Castelluccio dei Sauri (Acanfora I960: 95) on the southern edge of the Foggia plain, between Cerignola and Ariano. They are small stone slabs, one very fragmentary, carved to indicate breasts, necklaces and other features. The breasts are in relief with an incised outline, the rest are incised. The largest slab (plate 3a), which seems to be complete, is less than i m. high. A fragment from what may have been a fourth statue-menhir shows a dagger with a triangular blade and rounded pommel.

Statue-menhirs are not unknown elsewhere in Italy-there is a group near the Austrian border and another in north-west Tuscany-but, although there are similarities to these, the Castelluccio examples are probably as close typologically to the French and Corsican statue-menhirs. For instance, the necklace closely parallels the same feature on the French monuments.




Elsewhere in Apulia, one of the menhirs at Modugno, the monaco di Modugno, is often described as anthropomorphic. It has a rectangular projection about the thickness of the menhir itself at the top of one face, with hollows which might be taken to indicate eyes. While it is possible, although by no means certain, that it was meant to represent a human or divine figure, it clearly has no connection with the true statue-menhirs of Castelluccio dei Sauri.

b. Menhirs (fig. 6 and plate 3b). The undecorated menhirs have a dense distribution in the Terra d'Otranto and occur elsewhere in Apulia too. Like the other monuments of the Terra d'Otranto, the menhirs of this area have been studied by local antiquaries for about a century. The most useful paper is that published by G. Palumbo (i955: 86) which contains an almost complete list and a bibliography.

MENHRS .,

* more than one g,

A statue menhirs| - Mkm

FIGURE 6. Distribution of the menhirs,

The menhirs of the Bari area have been published by M. Gervasio (I9I3: 339-43) and U. Rellini (I925: i5i). Individual menr have been published by M. Ger- vasio, C. Drago (I952: 256), M. Paone (I96o: 97), L. Viola (I960: 66-7), and C. Piccinni (I962: 6).

Today there are sixty menhirs (some of which are fragmentary) in the Terra d'Otranto, but another forty-one are known to have existed, making a total of ioi. Clearly the menhirs of the Salento have fiared no better at the hands of the contadini than the dolmens; perhaps worse, in fact, because of a persistent belief that treasure is to be found at their feet. Many of the surviving stones are damaged:




for instance, steps are often hacked into the corners to make it possible to climb to the top. Superstition still surrounds these menhirs: not only are crosses carved on them or set into their tops, but 'pseudo-menhirs' (Palumbo I958: I69) are erected in village squares or open countryside and in one case a real menhir has been moved c. I2 km. to the site of a religious foundation still being built (it was broken in transit, but one half has been set up in concrete in a prominent position (plate 3b)). These activities usually take place without intervention by the authorities, but on two occasions, on the suggestion of a local antiquary, the Soprintendenza alle Antichit2 delta Puglia has re-erected fallen menhirs.6

The menhirs of the Terra d'Otranto, which are known locally as pietrefitte (singular: pietrafitta), are narrow stone pillars of rectangular section, ranging in height from c. 2 m. to more than 4 m. They are made of either the sandy tufaceous limestone known as carparo or the finer white or honey-coloured limestone called pietra lecesse, both of which occur locally. They are carefully shaped and tend to be aligned north-south (i.e. with the longer sides facing east and west).

The menhirs are concentrated in the same area as the Otranto dolmens, but are also found in smaller numbers over the whole of the Terra d'Otranto south of Lecce. A few north-west of Lecce and an outlier near Taranto complete the catalogue. In detail as well as in their general distribution they appear to be associated not only with the dolmens, but also with the rock-cut tombs of the'area. For instance, the San Paolo menhir at Giurdignano is situated above a small oval rock-cut tomb (adapted in the last century to form a small shrine), presumably of Chalcolithic or Bronze Age date; and the Vicinanza I menhir near the same village stands by the entrance to the dromos of a more elaborate rock-cut tomb of Iron Age form. There are no standing menhirs associated with dolmens today, but both the Scusi and the Chiancuse tombs have in their immediate vicinity small rectangular holes in the rock, of exactly the type in which many of the surviving menhirs stand. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that these originally held menhirs. Indeed, I think it is reasonable to suppose that the menhirs were used, sometimes at least, as stelae to mark tomb positions, and the typology of the tombs in question suggests that they were in use from the Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age to the Iron Age.

The menhirs of the province of Bari, of which there were only twenty-eight (one at least has been destroyed), are rather different from those of the Terra d'Otranto. They are often, but not always, wider and less regular. This, however, may be simply because their builders were obliged to use a harder and less tractable limestone than the soft stones of the Salento. They are considerably shorter too; although the monaco di Modugno is 3-7 m. hi'gh, most are less than half this height. A more important difference is that these northern menhirs do not appear to be associated with tombs. Instead, two groups at Sovereto, one of four stones and one of three, are said to form alignments, the first c. 2 km. in length, the other much shorter. If this is so, we seem to be dealing with a rather different phenomenon from that which produced the menhirs of the Terra d'Otranto.

Although they are not individually associated with tombs and although their occurrence is too sparse to suggest the close association we saw in the Salento, it is worth noting that these menhirs too are found in the same area as the local group of dolmens.




Discussion There are two points which are fundamental to any discussion of the megalithic

monuments of south-east Italy and these should be borne in mind from the beginning:

i. Apulia is the only area in Italy where all the types of monument that make up the west Mediterranean 'megalithic complex'-chamber tombs, menhirs and statue-menhirs-occur.

2. These monuments-the dolmens, menhirs and statue-menhirs-are of specifically west Mediterranean type and their presence in Apulia marks the eastern- most occurrence of the complex in the Mediterranean basin.

It follows from these two points that, other factors apart, we may reasonably regard the two types of dolmen, the menhirs and the statue-menhirs as a group of monuments, all in some way related. We may also expect to define an intrusive movement, presumably from somewhere in the west Mediterranean, directly to Apulia. Neither of the two main views currently held about the dolmens can be reconciled with these general deductions. These views, furthermore, are unsatisfactory in detail. The discussion which follows attempts to place the megalithic monuments of south-east Italy in their proper context.

The first of the current views may be described as the 'Italian' hypothesis, as it was first propounded by S. M. Puglisi (I959: 43) and is generally accepted by Italian archaeologists today. It holds that all the megalithic monuments in Apulia, including the piccole specchie, are full or late Apennine in date; that the 'megalithic idea' was introduced from the south of France to the Tyrrhenian coast north of Rome, where the site of Pian Sultano marks its arrival; and that it was then diffused across the Apennines to the Gargano promontory and thence down the coast of Apulia with the Apennine culture. This view is hard to accept for the following reasons. Firstly, the small megalithic cists of Pian Sultano do not provide a suitable prototype for the large gallery graves of the Bari-Taranto group, still less a typological 'stepping-stone' between French gallery graves and Apulian ones. Secondly, the total absence of megalithic monuments in the Apen- nines makes it difficult to believe that they were diffused through the mountains. Finally, the Proto-Apennine material from Leucaspide shows that one tomb at least is considerably earlier than the so-called prototype at Pian Sultano.

The second, or 'English' view, as propounded byJ. D. Evans (Evans I956: 90-3)

and D. H. Trump (I966: 87-9, I45-7) holds that the two groups of dolmens are entirely separate and unconnected. Trump further maintains that both groups are intrusive from somewhere in the west at widely separated dates. Three main arguments are brought forward in support of this view:

i. The two groups of dolmens are typologically quite different. 2. Their distributions are quite separate. 3. They must be dated differently, the Otranto dolmens being regarded as

Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age because of the connexions with Malta and the Bari-Taranto group as Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age because of the material from them.



THE MEGALITHIC MONUMENTS OF SOUTH-EAST ITALY 36I

These arguments have now lost much of the conviction they once carried. The recognition of the Proto-Apennine date of the pottery from Leucaspide as well as possibly early material from other tombs, and the discovery of another dolmen of the Bari-Taranto group at Taviano in the Terra d'Otranto, not 30 km. from the nearest Otranto tomb, seriously weaken arguments 2 and 3. Even the typological difference is not as conclusive as is sometimes claimed. Although the general contrast is a very real one, the difference between the less typical monuments of the two groups (e.g. the rather small, almost square Taranto tombs like Acetulla and Taviano (fig. 2E) and the polygonal slab-built Placa tomb in the Otranto group (fig. 5D)) is not so great as to make some connexion impossible or even unlikely.

The most important factor which undermines the 'English' view is the evidence for dates. The development of Trump's Proto-Apennine out of the Altamura style of the Cellino Culture is dated to between c. i8oo and c. i6oo B.C. and Lo Porto gives the same dates to his Proto-Apennine B. So, assuming that the pottery from Leucaspide is not residual, the beginning of the Bari-Taranto tombs must fall within this period, if not before. Professor Evans has shown that the Otranto dolmens have strong connexions with the dolmens of Malta, where the hollows underneath the tombs, the holes and grooves in the capstones, as well as the general 'block and boulder' style of building, all have parallels. The Maltese dolmens are associated with the Tarxien Cemetery Culture, which is now dated by CI4 from shortly after 2000 B.C. to I500 B.C. or later (there are no CI4 dates for the end of the culture (Trump I963: 302)). The dolmens, which are intrusive in the Tarxien Cemetery Culture, need not begin as early as 2000 B.C., but if the Otranto dolmens are connected at all, whether as prototypes, as Evans hoped, or as derivatives, or even as parallel developments from a common source elsewhere, they also must begin in the general period c. 2000-I500 B.C.

Thus we now have a situation in which the beginning of both groups of dolmens must be dated within the first half of the second millennium B.C. Moreover, they must almost certainly belong to the same cultural background, as Trump's Cellino Culture and the Proto-Apennine which developed out of it (i.e. Lo Porto's Proto-Apennine A and B) are the only cultures found in Apulia at this date (to postulate an undiscovered but different culture for the builders of the Otranto dolmens is decidedly far-fetched). If both groups of dolmens were constructed at about the same time by people of the same culture, it seems clear that they must be closely related. One of the groups is certainly intrusive, as the tomb type is foreign to Italy (collective burial in rock-cut tombs being the characteristic burial rite of the Cellino Culture), but it is asking for an unnecessary degree of coincidence to suggest that both groups are intrusive, especially as they have parallels in widely separated areas. It is much more reasonable to suggest that one group derived from the other. This accepted, it becomes clear that it is the Bari-Taranto group which is intrusive. The markedly coastal distribution has every appearance of an intrusive group and while it is reasonable to suppose that the Otranto tomb type could have developed from the Bari-Taranto form, the opposite is out of the question.

Convincing prototypes for the Bari-Taranto tombs occur in the south of France at this period. Indeed the 'high' chronology suggested here brings the Apulian tombs into line with similar monuments in the west Mediterranean in a most




satisfactory way. It is no longer necessary to seek an origin in the late and elaborate gallery graves of Sardinia, as Trump suggested. Perhaps G. Daniel's group of gallery graves in the Aude (Daniel I960: I46-54) provides the best prototypes. It includes very long monuments such as the Palet de Roland at Pepieux, which is more than i8 m. long, as well as shorter tombs like Boun Marcou, which measures 4-5 m. in length. They are sometimes closed at both ends, like the Bisceglie and Leucaspide dolmens, and are sometimes segmented, like the dolmen at Corato. Some of the Aude tombs, such as St. Eug;ene, have an anticella that narrows towards the entrance, as at Albarosa. Also in the Aude region are a large number of ruined rectangular monuments, very like the smaller Bari-Taranto tombs in appearance (these themselves, of course, may well be ruined). The Aude tombs, like gallery graves elsewhere in France, generally have long barrows over them, a feature which occurs definitely at Albarosa and San Silvestro, probably elsewhere. The material from the Aude tombs is of south French Chalcolithic type and includes beakers. They must begin early in the second half of the third millennium B.C.

and so would comfortably allow an arrival date in Apulia some time between 2000 and 1800 B.C.

The neighbouring department of the Tarn niight provide the prototypes for the statue-menhirs of Castelluccio dei Sauri. In spite of their somewhat outlying position in Apulia, it is surely more likely that they belong with the southern dolmens than that they represent a separate intrusion from northern Italy.

If the Bari-Taranto group is the product of an intrusion from the west, the Otranto tombs may be regarded as local derivatives of it, or perhaps rather as hybrids between these gallery graves and the rock-cut tombs which were in use both before the arrival of the dolmens and alongside them. To the gallery graves they owe the basic idea of building monuments of large stones and perhaps the dry stone walled passage, if the one reported from the Campina dolmen is genuine. On the other hand, they are linked to the rock-cut tombs by their small oval chambers, the use of projections of the rock to support the capstone, perhaps the hollows in which they were built (though some authorities claim that these occur under the Leucaspide and Acetulla tombs of the Bari-Taranto group also) and, perhaps most significantly of all, the fact that menhirs appear to be associated with both types of tomb. Indeed it is possible to regard the Otranto dolmens and the rock-cut tombs as above- and below-ground versions of the same grave type. If this view of the origin of the Otranto dolmens is accepted, it becomes possible to regard these tombs as the prototypes of the Maltese dolmens, as indeed Evans hoped. The chronology is perhaps a little tight, but if one allows the dolmens to arrive in Malta some time after the beginning of the Tarxien Cemetery Culture, it is perfectly practicable. Trump (I966: 88) has drawn attention to connexions between south-east Italy and Malta in the immediately preceding period in some of the pottery techniques (dotted and studded decoration) and in the presence of bossed bone plaques (the Maltese example may be either Tarxien Temple or Tarxien Cemetery: the context was not clear); and in the Tarxien Cemetery period too there are ceramic connexions (Evans I959: I79-80).

It we are to pursue this new hypothesis, we must look now for reasons why, firstly, French megalith builders should come to Apulia and secondly, why subsequently Apulian megalith builders should go to Malta. Both movements,




I think, can be satisfactorily explained in the context of the general Mediterranean trade of this period. By the first half of the second millennium B.C. Aegean boats must have reached as far as Lipari; indeed the earliest boats probably arrived some centuries earlier, though the evidence is lacking. In any case Middle Helladic matt painted ware at Porto Perone, Leporano (Lo Porto I963: 239) indicates that this harbour was known to east Mediterranean sailors by c. i800 B.C. at least. The motive for the arrival of explorers from the east was provided by the existence of metal ores in Italy, Sardinia and especially Iberia. However, there is no reason to believe that the movement was all in one direction. West Mediterranean boats were probably responsible for most of the carrying in the west Mediterranean itself and they may well have penetrated beyond Sicily to the central Mediterranean and the Adriatic, particularly if their cargoes were ultimately bound for Aegean harbours. Fontbouisse ware and other French products in Sardinia and beakers in both Sardinia and Sicily attest the activity of western sailors at least as far east as Italy before the end of the third millennium B.C. South Italy itself had nothing to con- tribute to Mediterranean trade in the way of raw materials or finished goods, but it did have fine harbours which provided the necessary stopping points for small boats obliged to travel mainly along the coasts. It is very noticeable how close the Bari-Taranto dolmens are to the natural harbours of the Ionian sea, Taranto and Gallipoli, and to the smaller harbours of the Adriatic coast, Giovinazzo and Bi- sceglie, and perhaps even Vieste. If French boats were using these harbours reg- ularly-and the voyage from France to Apulia is certainly no more formidable than that from the Aegean to Lipari-then it is not impossible that French settlers were placed in some of them; and, if this were so, it would be quite possible for French ideas about burial to be adopted, particularly by people who were already practising the kindred rite of collective burial in rock-cut tombs. Patterns of local trade in the middle Mediterranean, with a history of close contact at least a millennium old at this stage, must have been responsible for taking the Otranto dolmens to Malta.

The menhirs pose a rather different problem. A local development has been suggested, with a small standing stone on the neolithic site of Monteverde at Terlizzi (Mosso & Samarelli I9IO: 3, II6) as a prototype, but this is unconvincing. Their apparent association with rock-cut tombs and with the Otranto dolmens makes it difficult to separate them from the general complex of megalithic monuments in this area. However, although their main association seems to be with the Otranto group, this distribution further north in Apulia coincides quite closely with that of the Bari-Taranto dolmens. It would be satisfying if one could con- fidently suggest that they were introduced with the Bari-Taranto tombs, but were adopted with much greater enthusiasm by the people of the Otranto area. However, simple menhirs are rare in the south of France where the most suitable prototypes for the tombs occur, but it is interesting to note that near Arles there is a menhir closely associated with a chamber tomb, the Dolmen de Coutignuargues (Daniel I960: I6I). The alternative is a local derivation, perhaps from introduced statue- menhirs rather than dubious neolithic antecedents.

The Bari-Taranto tombs were certainly in use until some late date, as Late Bronze Age material has been found in them. The menhirs were almost certainly still being erected at the same date or even later, as they appear to be associated on




occasion with developed rock-cut tombs of Iron Age form. The Otranto dolmens too may have been used for the same period, although there is no evidence for this. The long life of this tradition, perhaps a thousand years or more, is a feature familiar in other countries where megalithic monuments occur. The megalithic tradition did not die completely, even with the influx of a new population, perhaps from Dalmatia, at the beginning of the Iron Age. It was, rather, combined with a new burial rite, that of single burial under a barrow, to produce the megalithic cists under cairns known as piccole specchie.

Conclusions i. The Bari-Taranto group of dolmens was introduced from the west Medi-

terranean basin, probably from the south of France, shortly after the beginning of the second millennium B.C. The same source may be responsible for the statue- menhirs of Castelluccio dei Sauri.

2. The Otranto group of dolmens arose as a local hybrid between rock-cut tombs and the gallery graves of the Bari-Taranto group. Separate trading connexions between this area and the middle Mediterranean islands may have subsequently introduced this type of dolmen to Malta.

3. Both types of dolmen probably, the Bari-Taranto type certainly, were used throughout the Bronze Age and into the Iron Age, when the megalithic building tradition was absorbed into a new intrusive burial rite to produce the piccole specchie.

4. The menhirs are associated with the Otranto dolmens as well as with rock- cut tombs. They were perhaps introduced with the first megalithic tombs, but were undoubtedly more popular with the people who built the Otranto tombs. They also appear to have survived into the Iron Age.

NOTES

II am very grateful to Dr Glyn Daniel, Professor J. D. Evans and Dr David Trump for reading this article in manuscript and making many helpful suggestions. I am also grateful to my husband, whose help has been invaluable throughout. A later article will include a catalogue of the megalithic monuments of Apulia.

2 I am grateful to Dr Trump for information about and photographs of this important tomb, which I was unfortunately unable to visit myself.

3 The surviving finds from these two tombs are on display in the Museo Archeologico at Bari. The whereabouts of the material from Leucaspide is unknown.

4 The site of Monamore Cairn (Isle of Arran) has produced CI4 dates showing that it was in use for at least a millennium. Some French tombs have yielded material which must span almost the same period of time.

5 The surviving dolmens are Gurgulante and Placa near Calimera, Quattromacine and Chiancuse near Giurdignano and Scusi near Minervino. The possible remains are of the Campina dolmen near Vaste. The destroyed monuments are Cola-Resta near Calimera, Sferracavalli, Grassi, Cauda, Peschio, Orfine and Gravasce near Giurdignano, Monteculumbu near Cocumola, and Sgarra I and II near Castro. There are also references to at least four more possible dolmens of this group, but as their identification is not certain, I have excluded them from this discussion.

6 Pietrafitta Grassi at Carpignano Salentino and Pietrafitta Trice at Muro Leccese.

REFERENCES

Acanfora, M. 0. I960. Le stele antropomorfe di Castelluccio dei Sauri. Riv. Sci. preist. I5,

95-I23. Daniel, Glyn I958. The megalith builders of western Europe. London: Hutchinson.

I960. The prehistoric chamber tombs of France. London: Thames & Hudson.



THE MEGALITHIC MONUMENTS OF SOUTH-EAST ITALY 365 Drago, Ciro I952. Puglia. Riv. Sci. preist. 7, 256.

I954/5. Specchie di Puglia. Bull. Paletnol. ital. 64, I7I-223. Evans, J. D. I956. The 'dolmens' of Malta and the origins of the Tarxien cemetery culture.

Proc. prehist. Soc. 22, 85-IOI. I959. Malta. London: Thames & Hudson.

Gervasio, M. I9I3. I dolmen e la civilta2 del bronzo nelle Puglie (Docum. Monogr. Storia Bari 13). Bari: Comnmissione di Archeologia e Storia Patria.

Giorgi, C. de I9I2. Censimento dei dolmens di Terra d'Otranto. Apulia, 3, 99. Jatta, A. I904. Avanzi della I' eta del ferro nelle Murge Baresi. Bull. Paletnol. ital. 30, 32-79.

- I94. La Puglia preistorica. (Docum. Monogr. Storia Bari 14). Bari: Commissione di Archeologia e Storia Patria.

Lo Porto, F. G. I96I Notizie. Riv. Sci. preist. i6, 270. I963. Leporano (Taranto)-la stazione protostorica di Porto Perone. Notiz. Scavi

Antich. Ser. 8, 17, 280-380. I964. La tomba di San Vito dei Normanni e il proto-appenninico B in Puglie. Bull.

Paletnol. ital. 73, I09-42. Mayer, M. I924. Moifetta e Matera. Leipzig: Hiersemann. Mosso, A. I9IO. Le origini delta civilta2 mediterranea. Milan: Treves.

& F. Samareli. I9IO. Terlizzi. Notiz. Scavi Antich., Ser. 5, 7, 3, 33-53, II6-28. Palumbo, G. I955. Inventario delle pietrefitte salentine. Riv. Sci. preist. 1O, 86-I47.

I956. Invent4rio dei dolmen di Terra d'Otranto. Riv. Sci. preist. II, 84-I08. I958. Pseudo-pietrefitte in Terra d'Otranto e l'evoluzione degli 'Osanne' 0 'Sanna'.

Stud. salent. 5/6, I69. Paone, M. I960. Notizie archeologiche. Stud. salent. 9/10, 97. Patroni, G. I898. Un villaggio siculo presso Matera nell'antica Apulia. Monum. antich. 8,

4I7-520. Piccinni, C. I962. Ritrovamenti di monumenti megalitici nel basso Salento. Zagaglia 4, 3-8. Puglisi, S. M. I950. Le culture dei capannicoli sul promontorio Gargano. Atti Accad. naz.

Lincei Memorie, ser. 8, 2, 3-57. I959. La civilta' appenninica. Firenze: Sansoni.

Quagliati, Q. I92o. Deposito sepolcrale con vasi preistorici in Crispiano presso Taranto. Monum. antich. 26, 433-98.

Randall-MacIver, D. I927. The iron age in Italy. Oxford: Clarendon. Rellini, U. I925. Notizie. Bull. Paletnol. ital. 45, 151-3.

I929. Nuove osservazioni sulle eta eneolitica ed enea nel territorio di Matera. Atti Mem. Soc. magna Grecia, I929, I29-47.

Ross, J. I887. Italian sketches. London. i 889. The Land of Manfred. London.

Trump, D. H. I963a. Carbon, Malta and the Mediterranean. Antiquity, 37, 302-3. i963b. Excavation at La Starza, Ariano Irpino. Pap. Brit. Sch. Rome 31, 3-27. I966. Central and southern Italy before Rome. London: Thames & Hudson.

Viola, L. I960. Scoperta di un menhir nei pressi di Sogliano Cavour, Zagaglia, 2, 67-8.



PLATE ia. The Leucaspide dolmen (Bari-Taranto group).

)~~~~ .u

_ L .. s_s i t*; iszw~~~~ .~

-4 -

PLATE ib. The Taviano dolmen (Bari-Taranto group). 6-m.



PLATE 2a. The Scusi dolmen (Otranto group).

| | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. _

I - _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i

:EJ PLATE~~~~~~~~~~~z t4. Casoeo h utrmcn omnsoiggoves(tatru)



PLATE 3a. Statue-menhir of Castelluccio dei Sauri.

\S.w

PLATE 3b. Taviano; half of menhir transported to religious foundation on Serra

di Castel Forte. Aw



Documents

Whitehouse SE Italy