McDONALD INSTITUTE CONVERSATIONS Gardening time Monuments and landscape from Sardinia, Scotland and Central Europe in the very long Iron Age Edited by Simon Stoddart, Ethan D. Aines & Caroline Malone Gardening time McDONALD INSTITUTE CONVERSATIONS Gardening time Monuments and landscape from Sardinia, Scotland and Central Europe in the very long Iron Age Edited by Simon Stoddart, Ethan D. Aines & Caroline Malone with contributions from Ian Armit, John Barber, Lindsey Büster, Louisa Campbell, Giandaniele Castangia, Graeme Cavers, Anna Depalmas, Matthew Fitzjohn, Mary-Cate Garden, Andy Heald, Luca Lai, Robert Lenfert, Mary MacLeod Rivett, Hannah Malone, Phil Mason, Megan Meredith-Lobay, Mauro Perra, Ian Ralston, John Raven, David Redhouse, Tanja Romankiewicz, Niall Sharples, Alfonso Stiglitz, Dimitris Theodossopoulos, Carlo Tronchetti, Alessandro Usai, Alessandro Vanzetti, Peter Wells & Rebecca Younger Published by: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research University of Cambridge Downing Street Cambridge, UK CB2 3ER (0)(1223) 339327 eaj31@cam.ac.uk www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2021 © 2021 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Gardening time is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (International) Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ISBN: 978-1-913344-04-7 On the cover: Cut out reconstruction of a broch flanked by two reconstructed Nuraghi, reconsidered by Lottie Stoddart. Cover design by Dora Kemp, Lottie Stoddart and Ben Plumridge. Typesetting and layout by Ben Plumridge and Ethan D. Aines. Edited for the Institute by Cyprian Broodbank (Acting Series Editor). This book, and the conference upon which it was based, were funded by The ACE Foundation, The Fondazione Banco di Sardegna and the McDonald Institute. We are grateful to the British School at Rome and Magdalene College, Cambridge for their support. vContents Contributors xi Figures xiii Tables xiv Acknowledgements xv A tribute in honour of Giovanni Lilliu (1914–2012) xvii Tributes to Dr David Trump, FSA, UOM (1931–2016), and Dr Euan MacKie, FSA (1936–2020) xxi Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Simon Stoddart, Ethan D. Aines & Caroline Malone Part I Built time 5 Chapter 2 Memory in practice and the practice of memory in Caithness, northeast Scotland, and in Sardinia 7 John Barber, Graeme Cavers, Andy Heald & Dimitris Theodossopoulos Concepts and meanings: architecture and engineering 8 Dry stone building technologies 8 Canonicity and mutability: canonicity 10 Mutability 10 Scales of desired social change and of corresponding physical changes 10 The monuments: brochs 11 Nuraghi 12 Post-construction biographies of brochs 14 Post-construction biographies of Nuraghi 14 Conclusion 14 Chapter 3 Monuments and memory in the Iron Age of Caithness 17 Graeme Cavers, Andrew Heald & John Barber The broch ‘icon’: a creation of archaeological historiography or the reality of Iron Age   political geography? 17 Surveying the foundations in Caithness 19 Nybster: a study in Iron Age settlement development 20 The defences 21 Nybster: discussion 21 Thrumster broch 22 The Thrumster sequence 23 Thrumster: discussion 24 Whitegate: a warning 24 Discussion 25 Conclusion: brochs and the architecture of society 25 Monuments and memory: brochs as physical and conceptual raw material 26 Chapter 4 Materializing memories: inheritance, performance and practice at Broxmouth hillfort, southeast Scotland 27 Lindsey Büster & Ian Armit Broxmouth hillfort 27 The Late Iron Age settlement 29 Household identity 29 Structured deposition 30 House 4: a brief biography 32 Discussion 34 Conclusion 36 vi Chapter 5 Memories, monumentality and materiality in Iron Age Scotland 37 Louisa Campbell Social landscapes and memories 37 Northern landscapes in the Roman Iron Age 39 The lowland brochs 39 Lowland broch depositional trends 41 Wider settlement depositional trends 43 Discussion 43 Conclusion 45 Chapter 6 Rooted in water: the Scottish island-dwelling tradition 47 Robert Lenfert Presence in the landscape 47 A ‘wide-angle view’ of islet use in Scotland 48 Living on water – revisited 49 Deconstructing defence 49 Crannogs, prehistoric belief systems: ceramic and metalwork deposition 50 Island dwellings and the concept of monumentality 52 Island dwelling use and reuse in the archaeological record 53 Loch Olabhat, North Uist, Western Isles 53 Dun an Sticer, North Uist, Western Isles 54 Eilean na Comhairle, Islay: a prehistoric crannog fit for a medieval king 54 Buiston 56 Ederline and Loch Awe 56 Returning to (un)familiar places 57 Chapter 7 Remembering Nuraghi: memory and domestication of the past in nuragic Sardinia 59 Mauro Perra The archaeological data 59 Models of Nuraghi 60 Other votives 61 The votive context 61 Conclusion 64 Chapter 8 Revisiting Glenelg a century after Alexander O Curle: reconstructing brochs in treeless landscapes 65 Tanja Romankiewicz & Ian Ralston Curle’s excavations 65 The archaeological evidence for post holes within brochs reconsidered 67 Timber sources in deforested landscapes – the environmental record 70 Alternative reconstructions 72 From timber sources to models of social organization 73 Chapter 9 Beyond the Nuraghe: perception and reuse in Punic and Roman Sardinia 75 Alfonso Stiglitz Examples of reuse of Nuraghi 76 The archaeology of reuse 79 Who reused the Nuraghi? 81 Conclusion 82 vii Chapter 10 The Nuraghe’s life in the Iron Age 83 Carlo Tronchetti The changed use of Nuraghi in the Iron Age 83 The Nuraghe as a symbol of memory 84 Conclusion 88 Chapter 11 Monumentality and commemoration at a Late Neolithic henge site in Scotland 89 Rebecca K. Younger Monuments, memory and archaeology 89 Henge monuments in Scotland 90 Commemoration 91 Forteviot 92 Heterotopias and imagined landscapes 94 Conclusion 95 Part II Landscape time 97 Chapter 12 Walking across the land of the Nuraghi: politics of memory and movement in central-western Sardinia during the Bronze Age 99 Giandaniele Castangia Bronze Age evidence in the Sinis region 99 GIS analysis 101 Concluding remarks 105 Chapter 13 Memory as a social force: transformation, innovation and refoundation in protohistoric Sardinia 107 Anna Depalmas The funerary context 110 The religious and ceremonial context 113 Iconographic information 114 Conclusion 117 Chapter 14 Burial locations, memory and power in Bronze Age Sardinia 119 Luca Lai 14C-based evidence for the use of natural caves for burial 121 Short outline of Bronze Age burial site types by phase 124 Power, memory and burial locations 125 Conclusion 128 Chapter 15 Memory and movement in the Bronze Age and Iron Age landscape of central and southeastern Slovenia 131 Philip Mason Memory and movement in the Late Bronze Age 131 Memory and movement in the Early Iron Age landscape 134 Conclusion 136 Part III Multiple time 139 Chapter 16 The reuse of monuments in Atlantic Scotland: variation between practices in the Hebrides and Orkney 141 Niall Sharples Twentieth-century encounters with monuments 142 Landscape in the Western Isles 145 Northern landscapes 149 Conclusion 150 viii Chapter 17 The nuragic adventure: monuments, settlements and landscapes 151 Alessandro Usai Nuraghi and nuragic societies 152 Nuraghi and landscapes: colonization, exploitation and the first nuragic crisis 153 Nuragic settlements and landscapes: reorganization and consumption of resources 155 Degeneration and dissolution of the nuragic civilization 157 Conclusion 158 Chapter 18 Changing media in shaping memories: monuments, landscapes and ritual performance in Iron Age Europe 159 Peter Wells Memory 159 Memory, monuments and the performance of ritual 159 Patterns of change – Early Iron Age burial: ritual performances for individuals and their monuments   in the landscape (800–450 bc) 160 Patterns of change – community rituals and new kinds of memory: Early and Middle La Tène   (450–150 bc) 162 Patterns of change – increasing engagement with the wider world: Late La Tène (150–25 bc) 163 Interpretation 164 Conclusion 165 Chapter 19 Cultivated and constructed memory at the nineteenth-century cemetery of Cagliari 167 Hannah Malone The Bonaria cemetery of Cagliari 167 The collective memory 168 A stratigraphy of memory 169 The cemetery as expression of social change 172 Conclusion 173 Chapter 20 morentur in Domino libere et in pace: cultural identity and the remembered past in the medieval Outer Hebrides 175 John Raven & Mary MacLeod Rivett The background 175 The archaeology 177 Discussion 180 Questions 181 Conclusion 183 Chapter 21 Memory and material representation in the Lismore landscape 185 Simon Stoddart, Caroline Malone, David Redhouse, Mary-Cate Garden, Matthew Fitzjohn & Megan Meredith-Lobay Cycles of time 186 Interrogating the third cycle 187 The fourth cycle 188 The fifth cycle 189 Conclusion 189 Chapter 22 Nuragic memories: a deep-seated pervasive attitude 191 Alessandro Vanzetti Gardening time is not without counterpoints 191 Sardinia seen by a non-Sardinian anthropologist 192 Sardinian archaeology seen by a non-Sardinian archaeologist 193 Memory of ancient places of Sardinia: major medieval break 193 First millennium bc breaks 194 Modern ‘museification’ and ‘memorification’ of the Sardinian heritage 195 Conclusion 198 ix Chapter 23 Endnote: gardening time in broader perspective 201 Ethan D. Aines & Simon Stoddart Theoretical approaches to memory 202 The impact of literacy? 203 A hard-wired time depth to memory? 203 The importance of context for memory 203 Memory in archaeological studies 205 The materiality of monuments 206 The afterlife of monuments 207 Conclusion: monuments for memory 207 References 209 Index 239 xi Contributors Ethan Aines Cambridge Zero, Centre for Science and Policy, University of Cambridge, UK Email: ea402@cam.ac.uk Ian Armit Department of Archaeology, University of York, The King's Manor, York, YO1 7EP, UK Email: ian.armit@york.ac.uk John Barber AOC Archaeology Group, Edgefield Road Industrial Estate, Loanhead, Midlothian, EH20 9SY, UK Email: John.Barber@aocarchaeology.com Lindsey Büster Department of Archaeology, University of York, The King's Manor, York, YO1 7EP, UK Email: lindsey.buster@york.ac.uk Louisa Campbell University of Glasgow, Molema Building, Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK Email: Louisa.Campbell@glasgow.ac.uk Giandaniele Castangia Independent Scholar Email: gc2020@tiscali.it Graeme Cavers AOC Archaeology Group, Edgefield Road Industrial Estate, Loanhead, Midlothian, EH20 9SY, UK Email: Graeme.Cavers@aocarchaeology.com Anna Depalmas Department of Humanities and Social Sciences (DUMAS), University of Sassari, Piazza Conte di Moriana 8, 07100 Sassari – Italy Email: depalmas@uniss.it Matthew Fitzjohn, Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, 12–14 Abercromby Square, University of Liverpool, L69 7WZ, UK Email: Mpf21@liverpool.ac.uk Mary-Catherine Garden The Anglican Diocese of Ottawa (St Martin’s Anglican Church), 2120 Prince Charles Rd, Ottawa, K2A 3L3, Canada Email: mcgarden@icloud.com Andy Heald AOC Archaeology Group, Edgefield Road Industrial Estate, Loanhead, Midlothian, Scotland, EH20 9SY, UK Andy.Heald@aocarchaeology.com Luca Lai Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Barnard 225, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223-0001, USA Email: llai1@uncc.edu Robert Lenfert Robert Lenfert Archaeology, 40A Allardice St, Stonehaven, AB39 2BU, UK Email: robert.lenfert@gmail.com Mary Macleod Rivett Historic Environment Scotland, Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1SH, UK Email: mary.macleod@hes.scot Caroline Malone School of Natural and Built Environment, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, BT7 1NN, UK Email: c.malone@qub.ac.uk Hannah Malone Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen, Oude Kijk in ‘t Jatstraat 26, 9712 EK Groningen, Netherlands Email: h.o.malone@rug.nl Phil Mason Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia Email: phil.mason@zvkds.si Megan Meredith-Lobay University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada. Email: megan.lobay@ubc.ca Mauro Perra Via Filippo Corridoni, 1 - 09045, Quartu S. Elena, Cagliari Email: perramarro@gmail.com xii Ian Ralston School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9JU, UK Email: I.Ralston@ed.ac.uk John Raven Historic Environment Scotland, Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1SH, UK Email: john.raven@hes.scot David Redhouse Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ, UK Email: dir21@cam.ac.uk Tanja Romankiewicz School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, William Robertson Wing, Old Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK Email: T.Romankiewicz@ed.ac.uk Niall Sharples School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff University, John Percival Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff, CF10 3EU, UK Email: Sharples@cardiff.ac.uk Alfonso Stiglitz Independent Scholar Email: alfonsostiglitz@libero.it Simon Stoddart Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ, UK Email: ss16@cam.ac.uk Dimitris Theodossopoulos ESALA, Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh, Minto House, 20 Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JZ, UK Email: d.theodossopoulos@ed.ac.uk Carlo Tronchetti Director emeritus of the National Archeological Museum of Cagliari, via Paolo Veronese 4, Cagliari, 09121, Italy Email: ctronchetti@hotmail.com Alessandro Usai Soprintendenza Archeologia, Belle Arti e Paesaggio per la città metropolitana di Cagliari e le province di Oristano e Sud Sardegna, Piazza Indipendenza, 7, I-09124 Cagliari, Italy Email: alessandro.usai@tiscali.it Alessandro Vanzetti Scienze dell'Antichità, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, V. Sciarra, Università di Roma, La Sapienza, Italy Email: alessandro.vanzetti@uniroma1.it Peter Wells Department of Anthropology, 395 HHH Center, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55108, USA Email: wells001@umn.edu Rebecca Younger School of Humanities, University of Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK Email: Rebecca.Younger@glasgow.ac.uk xiii Figures 0.1 David Trump. xxi 0.2 Euan MacKie. xxii 1.1 The two principal areas covered in the text and the location of the two other articles. 2 2.1 Dry stone building techniques. 9 2.2 Thrumster broch skeletal chronology. 11 2.3 Broch terminology. 13 3.1 Location of Caithness and distribution of broch sites. 18 3.2 Survey of Nybster broch ‘village’. 19 3.3 Aerial view of the broch at Nybster, Auckengill, Caithness. 20 3.4 General view of the cellular building, OB2, at Nybster, during excavation. 21 3.5 General view of the Nybster rampart during excavation. 22 3.6 View of the galleries at Thrumster broch, during excavation. 23 3.7 Excavation of human and animal remains in the Whitegate mural cells. 24 4.1 The Late Iron Age settlement (Phase 6) at Broxmouth. 28 4.2 House 2, showing the (Phase 1) burial adjacent to the northern entrance post hole. 30 4.3 House 4, through its five major structural stages. 31 4.4 Paired artefactual deposits. 33 4.5 The orthostat and slab. 34 5.1 Lowland brochs with Roman material culture. 41 5.2 Querns integrated into Broxmouth hillfort. 44 6.1 The submerged causeway leading to Dun Ban, Grimsay. 50 6.2 Largely intact prehistoric pottery from the lochbed surrounding Hebridean crannogs. 51 6.3 Examples of prominent ‘monumental’ islet architecture. 52 6.4 Dun an Sticer, North Uist. 55 7.1 Alghero, Nuraghe Palmavera. 60 7.2 Sorradile, Su Monte. 60 7.3 Villasor, hoard of Su Scusorgiu. 61 7.4 San Vero Milis, Serra Is Araus: Nuraghe model. 62 7.5 Mont’e Prama, Cabras: warrior. 63 8.1 Map of Scotland showing location of Glenelg. 66 8.2 Stratigraphy of the accumulated ‘mass in the interior’. 68 8.3 Profile of the interior of Dun Troddan. 69 8.4 Curle’s photograph from 1920 compared to the situation as extant in September 2012. 70 8.5 Reconstructions of Culswick, Shetland, and Ness broch, Caithness. 72 9.1 Archaeology of reuse: map of Sardinia. 76 9.2 S’Urachi, San Vero Milis. 78 9.3 S’Urachi, clay statue of Bes. 78 9.3 S’Urachi, clay statue of a black man. 79 10.1 Discovery sites of Nuraghe models. 84 10.2 Nuraghe models. 85 10.3 Nuraghe models. 86 10.4 Nuraghe models. 87 10.5 Reconstruction of the necropolis of Cabras, Mont’e Prama. 88 11.1 Transcription of cropmarks of prehistoric monument complex at Forteviot. 93 11.2 Plan of Forteviot Henge 1. 94 11.3 Schematic diagram showing henge monuments as temporal heterotopias. 95 12.1 Nuraghe Losa of Abbasanta. 100 12.2 Sinis landscape, Sardinia. 100 12.3 Nuragic sites in Sinis. 102 12.4 Cumulative viewshed analysis results. 103 12.5 Cost-path analysis results. 104 13.1 Single tower tholos Nuraghi. 108 xiv 13.2 Plan of Su Nuraxi di Barumini, and the Nuragic village huts of Serra Orrios-Dorgali. 109 13.3 Nuragic tombs. 111 13.4 Nuragic springs, wells and models. 112 13.5 Nuragic statuary and models. 115 14.1 Map of natural caves in Sardinia yielding MBA-EIA AMS dates. 122 14.2 Chart of calibrated range of dates for Sardinian MBA-EIA cave burial contexts. 123 15.1 Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age settlements and cemeteries in central Slovenia. 132 15.2 The Late Bronze Age and Iron Age centre at Novo mesto. 133 15.3 The Iron Age centre at Vinji vrh. 134 15.4 The Late Bronze Age and Iron Age centre at Kučar near Podzemelj. 135 16.1 Chambered tomb and monumental roundhouse at Pierowall Quarry, Westray, Orkney. 142 16.2 Chambered tomb at Skelpick, Strathnaver, Sutherland. 143 16.3 Plan of the The Howe. 144 16.4 Chambered tomb and wheelhouse at Clettraval, North Uist. 145 16.5 Chambered tomb at Unival, North Uist. 146 16.6 Chambered tomb at Loch a’Bharp, South Uist. 147 16.7 A view of Loch Olibhat, North Uist. 147 16.8 The location of brochs and settlements on South Uist. 149 17.1 A simple Nuraghe: Zuras (Abbasanta). 152 17.2 A complex Nuraghe: Orolo (Bortigali). 153 17.3 An unfinished Nuraghe: Codina ‘e s’Ispreddosu (Norbello). 154 17.4 A compact nuragic settlement with the Nuraghe in the middle: Pìdighi (Solarussa). 156 17.5 A nuragic settlement made up of isolated blocks with the Nuraghe on its edge: Bruncu Màduli (Gèsturi). 157 18.1 Map of principal sites mentioned in the text. 160 18.2 Schematic plan of the Hochdorf burial chamber. 161 18.3 Schematic sketches of sites of memory-generating performances. 163 19.1 Cagliari, Bonaria cemetery, monument to Antonietta Todde Pera. 167 19.2 Map of Cagliari marking the location of ancient tombs. 169 19.3 Cagliari, Bonaria cemetery, main chapel. 170 19.4 Cagliari, Bonaria cemetery, monument to Enrico Serpieri. 171 19.5 Cagliari, Bonaria cemetery, monument to Giuseppe Todde. 172 20.1 Location map. 176 20.2 ‘Borg’ and ‘bara’ place names.. 177 20.3 Dun Mhulan and Loch na Beirghe. 178 20.4 Dun Carlabhagh (Carloway). 179 20.5 Reconstruction of Dun an Sticer. 180 21.1 Lismore: viewsheds from Neolithic cairns. 185 21.2 Aerial view of Tirefuir (Tirefour) under excavation. 186 21.3 Lismore: views from brochs. 187 21.4 Lismore: location of medieval castles. 187 21.5 Lismore: modern identity and monuments. 189 22.1 Trends in number of visitors of the main archaeological museums and sites in Sardinia. 196 22.2 Demographic trend Sardinia compared to Sassari, Macomer and the Valle dei Nuraghi municipalities. 196 22.3 Average GDP per person of Sardinia and of selected Italian regions. 197 22.4 Sardinia: municipalities with the highest and lowest average income per person. 198 Tables 5.1 Southern brochs and souterrains – depositional contexts. 42 12.1 Cumulative viewshed analysis results. 101 12.2 Cost-path analysis results. 105 14.1 AMS dates from Sardinian MBA-EIA cave burial contexts. 120 14.2 Chronological table comparing Perra (1997) and Tykot (1994) schemes. 121 xv Acknowledgements This volume is drawn from the conference Gardening Time held in Magdalene College on 21–23 September 2012. I am very grateful to the authors for their resil- ience! I am also grateful to Giandaniele Castangia for his initial advice, to Isabelle Vella Gregory for support during the conference itself, and to Ethan Aines for car- rying the publication through to its penultimate stage, and to Olivia Shelton for copy editing, particularly of the bibliography. We thank the Fondazione Banco di Sardegna, the McDonald Institute and the ACE Foundation (Staple- ford, Cambridgeshire) for their important support in holding the conference. We thank the McDonald Institute for financing a major part of the publication. We also thank the British School at Rome for allowing us to associate the conference and publication with the institution's name. Simon Stoddart xvii A tribute in honour of Giovanni Lilliu (1914–2012) Anna Depalmas Remembering Giovanni Lilliu may seem an easy task. One might think that it is only necessary to list his rich scientific bibliography and to describe his great work over the course of nearly a century, as a univer- sity professor and archaeologist. However, a simple listing of his achievements would not transmit the true importance of his work. He not only illuminated the prehistoric archaeology of Sardinia, but also used it to establish the idea of a Sardinian epic which he connected to the modern world. Prehistory was the choice of his field of study – rather than the predominant exaltation of the Roman era and classicism of the time -, and this had its origins in his study under Ugo Rellini at Rome. He gradu- ated in 1938 and worked as Rellini’s assistant until 1942, when he returned to Sardinia to take up the position of Professor of Historical Archaeology and Geography at the University of Cagliari. From 1942 to 1958, he taught various subjects – Paleoethnology, Geography and the History of Religion - and in the latter year became a Full Professor and was appointed to the Chair of Sardinian Antiquity at the University of Cagliari. From 1944 to 1955 he also worked for the Superintendency of Sardinian Antiquity. He held many posts in his long academic career. He was for a long time, and on various occasions, dean of the Faculty of Letters, Director of the Institute of Archaeology and Arts, Director of the School of Specialization in Sardinian Studies and Editor of the Journal carrying the same name (Studi Sardi), and, in 1990, he was elected a fellow of the Academy of Lincei of Rome. In his later years, he remained a very active Professor Emeritus at Cagliari University. In 1936, while he was still a student, he published his first work on Su Nuraxi di Barumini. This was his birthplace, and throughout his life he maintained a close and almost embodied connection with the vil- lage. This also led him to carry out his most important archaeological work in the landscape of his birth. Indeed, between 1951 and 1956, he worked on excavat- ing an artificial hill there, which was found to cover the nuragic complex of Su Nuraxi di Barumini. This was the first excavation conducted in Sardinia using a stratigraphic methodology to establish a time-line for the nuragic period, and it became a benchmark for later investigations and chronological research. His work at Barumini formed the basis for a series of fundamental papers on Sardinian proto-history, from I nuraghi. Torri preistoriche di Sardegna (The Nur- aghi, prehistoric towers of Sardinia) in 1962 to Civiltà nuragica (Nuragic civilization) in 1982. He was the first to study many of the themes that he investigated in depth during his long scientific career and many of these were only studied for the first time in the first half of the twentieth century. The chronology of proto-Sardinian civilization was one key field that he developed, modified and changed in the course of his long academic career. At the same time, Lilliu published a brief essay in which he attempted to identify certain constant factors in the history of Sardinian art, and this was developed in the catalogue for the exhibition of Sardinian bronzes in Venice in 1949. Following the theories of Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli on how to classify the art of the ancient world, Lilliu assessed the coexistence of the ‘anti-naturalistic’ art of the barbarian world and the ‘naturalistic’ art of the classical world within which he inserted Sardinia as a ‘land of pure expression’, and defined as anti-classical and barbaric. This line of thought became the nucleus of a theme which he studied from various angles and which helped him to define key concepts in his field of study. At the beginning of the 1960s, he published his wide-ranging synthesis of Sardinia, La civiltà dei Sardi dal Neolitico all’età dei nuraghi (1963) (Sardinian Civilization from the Neolithic period to the nuragic xviii close to the Centre-Left. In practice, he was active in actions which were designed to give greater value to Sardinian identity and culture. The ideological basis for these activities were elaborated by Giovanni Lilliu at the start of his intel- lectual life, and were made completely clear in the 1970s when he developed the concept of ‘constant Sardinian resistance’. At the beginning of the first prehistoric phase, the Sardinians were character- ized by their resistance to foreign invaders and any attempts at acculturation. This characteristic did not disappear in ancient times, but has been a constant theme of Sardinian history and ethnicity, and is still present today. In this sense, Sardinian culture is not a fossil, but rather displays an extraordinary historical continuity with the past. This is an analysis which never became an idealization of aspects of Sardinian society and behaviour, but rather provided a clear and realistic picture through also identifying its negative aspects and its limitations. Nuragic civilization in particular became a symbol of a polycentric society, always in conflict with itself, the land and foreign invaders. However, it is certainly limiting to supply a rigid definition of what Lilliu meant by nuragic civiliza- tion, given that he saw it as a dialectical relationship between its various dimensions, and worked on a reconstruction of it that was complex and multi- faceted. He proposed an interpretation of nuragic civilization that saw it not as local but Mediterranean. In this, he was greatly influenced by his direct expe- rience of excavations in the village of Ses Paisses in Majorca, where he found ethnic roots which were common to all the large islands of the West Medi- terranean, the Balearics and Corsica, although there were also differences connected to the independent developments drawing on their insularity. The fact that he found writing easy as can be seen from his some 330 publications. The last of these was in 2010, and was a detailed description of the excavation of the Giant’s Tomb of Bidistili in Fonni. It is worth saying that many of the present arguments about certain elements and problems of prehistoric and proto-historic Sardinia were originally raised by him. I would like to end this brief and partial memo- rial to Giovanni Lilliu by mentioning his work as a university professor of prehistoric and proto-historic Sardinia (and not only those subjects – with great versatility he also taught Geography and Christian archaeology). What I will personally remember is his little figure in jacket and pullover (he seldom, if ever, wore a tie), typewritten sheets in hand, and always punctual. He never postponed a lesson and was never era). This work was later reprinted, expanded and revised in various editions until 1988. Apart from incorporating the results of later research, the later editions also allowed him to reassess some of his earlier observations with a critical eye, which was always one of his great strengths as a researcher and academic. The book proposed that a single unifying thread ran through Sardinian prehistory from the Neolithic period, even starting in the Palaeolithic period, until the Phoenician conquest. It established elements of the historiography of the island using data obtained from his work as an archaeologist. Many of the principal Sardinian monuments were described in an elegant style which alternated with detailed, creative and lyrical descriptions. The book was aimed at not only archaeologists and students, but also at a wider public, and indeed the book was dedicated to ‘the shepherds of Barbagia’. Generations of archaeolo- gists have studied the manual and found themselves cited in later editions, in agreement with Lilliu’s global historiographical approach which aimed to unite past archaeological research with his experience of teaching Sardinian Antiquity in a university context. This book also gave birth to a national and popular history of prehistoric Sardinia, and expanded the work of archaeologists and their research from being only something studied in university lecture rooms and solely of interest to academics to its status as part of the common heritage of all Sardinians. This social dimension, this impact, can be clearly seen from Giovanni Lilliu’s popularity, which came from having shone a light on the national history of Sardinia and giving life to a Sardinian historiographi- cal tradition, i.e. one with a strong sense of identity. His fame led to him being consulted, even in the later years of his life, on current events in Sardinia not necessarily related to culture or archaeology and being seen as a kind of prophet or even as the ‘father of his country’. One of the many lessons that he taught us, and in which he himself was an expert, was the importance of intellectuals being able to dis- cuss, communicate and talk about complex historical themes in a way which was both comprehensible and of interest to laymen. He showed a total but clear love for his land by taking on civic responsibilities, which he fulfilled in a way which was never dull but rather vigilant and acute, despite his soft tone. As a cultured man, he worked for the Regional Council of Sardinia, drafting the Special Statute of Autonomy. He was also involved in politics, first as a member of the Christian Democrats and later as a supporter of initiatives which promoted the independence of Sardinia and of progressive positions which were xix our explanations of the monuments and he would listen with great attention as if it were his first visit, and then sometimes add some of his own memories, making it ever more clear how he was the creator of our view of prehistoric Sardinia. He really was the memory of Sardinian history. absent. As an examiner he was always courteous and understanding. But you had to be very well prepared for his exams. The end of the course every year was the moment that we all waited for. Then there were the one or two day excursions that he led us on to various parts of Sardinia. We students would present xxi Tributes to Dr David Trump, FSA, UOM (1931–2016), and Dr Euan MacKie, FSA (1936–2020) Caroline Malone & Simon Stoddart David Trump was best known for his important work on the islands of Malta (Malone 2020), but his contri- bution to the prehistory of Sardinia is also worthy of record in the context of this volume. David Hilary Trump took his first class BA in Arch and Anth at Pembroke College, Cambridge in 1955, and was a scholar of both the British School at Jerusalem, where he dug with Kathleen Kenyon, and the British School at Rome, where he excavated the key site of La Starza. After Malta, Trump held the post of Staff Tutor in Archaeology at the University’s Board of Extra- Mural Studies until retirement in 1997, when he was succeeded by Caroline Malone. He not only contrib- uted to the teaching of Mediterranean Prehistory in the Department of Archaeology, but also had a large following in the wider, continuing education com- munity, engaging mature students in all aspects of Archaeology in the region and beyond. It was during this period that he made a major contribution to the archaeology of Sardinia, uncovering once again unsus- pected phases of prehistory at Grotta Filiestru (Trump 1983) and completing the survey of Bonu Ighinu. At Grotta Filiestru, he characteristically invested all the resources he could muster into constructing an effec- tive chronology (Switsur & Trump 1983) and some of the first faunal studies undertaken in Sardinia (Levine 1983). This work was, in its way, as equally pioneering as his work on the island of Malta. The Grotta Filiestru produced a new scientifically dated sequence of Sar- dinian prehistory, identifying the fifth-millennium bc Filiestru Neolithic phase for the first time. In earlier fieldwork he also excavated the cave site of Sa ‘ucca de su Tintirriòlu (Loria & Trump 1978). His work around Bonu Ighinu (Trump 1990) is, however, closest to the theme of this volume since, in typical energetic style, Trump also provided one of the earliest studies of a nuragic landscape, once again demonstrating a pio- neering role, now followed by many others. Figure 0.1. David Trump. xxii Figure 0.2. Euan MacKie on Mousa broch in the Shetlands in 2000 at the Tall Stories conference. Euan MacKie was a central figure in the study of brochs, as is shown by the very high level of citation in this volume (Mackie 1965 ... 2008). In several ways the contribution of David Trump and Euan MacKie run in parallel, one journeying south, the other jour- neying north also from Cambridge beginnings, both Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries of London, engaged in seminal fieldwork, on a shoe string gener- ally with volunteers, providing the first chronological foundations for monuments in the landscape and addressing synthesis of the results. Both were pioneers of their generation who retained their own intellectual independence in museums (both) and in continu- ing education (Trump), rather than a department of archaeology or a heritage organization. MacKie graduated in Archaeology and Anthro- pology from St. John’s Cambridge in 1959 and took his PhD from the University of Glasgow in 1973, becoming, after a brief period at the British Museum, Keeper and Deputy Director (1986) of the University Hunterian Museum. As a graduate he took part in an expedition to British Honduras, directing the excavation of the Maya site of Xunantunich, leading to an interest in Mesoamerican archaeology throughout his life. His excavation of brochs such as Dun Mor Vaul on Tiree, published in 1975, Dun Ardtreck on Skye published in 2000 and Leckie in Stirlingshire pub- lished in 2008, were fundamental in uncovering the sequence, material culture and chronology of these monuments. He gathered information for his important three-volume compendium on brochs from his own excavations and the investigations of others, undertak- ing research well into retirement (1998), publishing the final volume in 2007. These volumes are landmarks of data on the subject, a resource which provides a platform for all broch studies. His achievements were also celebrated in his Festschrift, In the Shadow of the Brochs (2002), showing the respect shown to him by younger generations. He ventured far and wide in his more interpreta- tive work. Some of his interpretations of broch builders and their monuments are no longer widely held and the chronologies are currently being reconsidered, but his stimulating approach to ideas endures. He was passionate about many other subjects includ- ing his seminal work in prehistoric metrology and archaeoastronomy. The volume Science and Society in Prehistoric Britain (1977) was a central work for Glyn Daniel’s teaching in Cambridge, and he made the valid point that the sophistication of prehistory is not to be underestimated. His interest in ethnography, no doubt drawing on his Arch and Anth undergraduate career at Cambridge, gave him a great respect for other ways of thinking and for the architectural and political achievements of prehistoric Britain, most notably for the builders of the brochs themselves in the Iron Age. 83 It is not the intention of this chapter to discuss the function of Nuraghi in the Bronze Age, a topic that has been well covered by others (Depalmas 2009a, b, c). Coverage will be restricted to the Iron age, that is from 900 bc onwards. Excavations, mainly those car- ried out in the past ten/fifteen years, and the research that has emerged from them, have pointed out clearly that Sardinian society was going through a critical stage during this span of time (Perra 2012; Usai 2012a). The abandonment of many Nuraghi, and the change in function of some others, displayed a shift in ter- ritorial organization, most probably, that is almost certainly, in response to social and economic changes (Tronchetti 2014). The changed use of Nuraghi in the Iron Age New Nuraghi were not built in the Iron Age and their original function was no longer relevant. The defen- sive role became redundant. In some cases, the large perimeter revetments, constructed from larger stones were overthrown. The ruins were superimposed by new smaller dwelling places, sometimes of rectangular shape; sometimes new huts had their walls of small stones placed on the remains of the massive defensive walls. However, the Nuraghe, even if of changed function, retained its role as a focus of aggregation, continuing to play an important role in the life of the community. Where we can observe continuity of use, in most cases, the main structure of the Nuraghe became a place of worship. Unfortunately, many excavations occurred in the first decades of the twentieth century ad, and many data were lost. Thus we can only base our observations clearly on the finds of more recent excava- tions, and from this evidence we are able to link some pottery shapes to cult practice. By inference, we can reasonably also identify some old excavated Nuraghi as places of worship. The best data nevertheless come from the recent excavations and publications of some Nuraghi, villages and sanctuaries (Fig. 10.1). We find some common elements in Nuraghi, sanctuaries, and in the capanne delle riunioni (meeting-huts), namely large huts distin- guished by long benches along the walls. In almost all these buildings and in most sites we notice the presence of a stone model of a Nuraghe. In Nuraghe Su Mulinu (Villanovafranca) (Ugas 1989–90), there is a big and elaborate stone altar, with a large basin and a high model of a nuragic tower. The upper part is shaped in the form of the enclosure of the Nuraghe terrace. The cult place, or small shrine, in Sorradile, Su Monte, has a very similar altar (Santoni & Bacco 2008) (Fig. 10.2a). The excavators dated both altars to the Iron Age, to be precise, to the eighth century bc. It is no surprise to see such an increase of places of worship places at this time. A recent study of nuragic sanctuaries by Nicola Ialongo (Ialongo 2010) has clearly and convincingly proved that the floruit of the most important, as well as the smaller, sanctuaries began in the early Iron age. These sanctuaries were always linked to the cult of water, shown by the pit-temples in their precinct. The altars from Villanovafranca and Sorradile are actually large water basins with a model of a nuragic tower, once again demonstrating the pres- ence of a cult of water. A big hut in the sanctuary of S. Anastasia in Sardara has a stone altar of nuragic tower shape (Fig. 10.2b), another model comes from the district of San Sperate near Cagliari (Fig. 10.3b), and the sanctuary of Serra Niedda has several models of stone and one of bronze. The late sanctuary of Santa Vittoria di Serri has another stone model. The meeting huts of Nuraghe Palmavera (Alghero) and Su Nuraxi di Barumini (Fig. 10.2b) have stone models. Many others were found in other sites, but the precise context is rarely recorded. Paulilongo, San Sperate has two amazing models: the Chapter 10 The Nuraghe’s life in the Iron Age Carlo Tronchetti 84 Chapter 10 Figure 10.1. Discovery sites of Nuraghe models (except for the masts of small ships and the pottery ones): 1) Alghero, Palmavera; 2) Olmedo, Camposanto; 3) Sorso, Serra Niedda; 4) Perfugas. Predio Canopoli; 5) Nulvi, Irru; 6) Florinas, Punta 'e Onossi – Giorrè; 7) Ittireddu, Località ignota; 8) Torralba, Santu Antine; 9) Cheremule, Località ignota; 10) Oliena, Lanaitho – Sa Sedda 'e sos Carros; 11) Noragugume, Sa Tanca 'e Mesu; 12) Teti, Abini; 13) Villagrande Strisaili, S'Arcu 'e is Forros – Sa Carcaredda; 14) Norbello, Orconale; 15) Abbasanta, Losa; 16) Sorradile, Su Monte; 17) Bauladu, Santa Barbara; 18) S. Vero Milis, Pauli Crechi – Serra 'e is Araus; 19) Nurachi, Sa Manenzia; 20) Cabras, Mont’e Prama – Cann’e Vadosu – Fondo Camedda; 21) Genoni, Santu Antine; 22) Orroli, Arrubiu; 23) Serri, Santa Vittoria; 24) Barumini, Su Nuraxi; 25) Villanovafranca, Su Mulinu – Tuppedili; 26) Sardara, S. Anastasia; 27) Suelli, Piscu; 28) Vallermosa, Matzanni; 29) San Sperate, Sa Bia 'e Decimu – Paulilongo; 30) Monastir, Monte Zara. 1 2 4 5 3 6 78 9 10 11 14 15 16 12 1718 19 20 13 21 24 23 22 26 25 27 28 29 30 Stone models Bronze models first model is said to come from Nuraghe Cann’e Vadosu (Cabras), but is actually from Mont’e Prama (Fig. 10.3a); the second model came from Serra ‘e is Araus (San Vero Milis). Both are notable for the link between the architecture and the human figure. The figures on the last two are clearly linked to ritual action: in the first, we recognize a worshipper raising his arms; in the second a man is leading an unidentifiable animal to sacrifice. Furthermore, we have a few bronze models, showing a high tower presiding over a wall with four smaller towers (Fig. 10.3d). Finally small models are recognized in bronze ‘buttons’ and in the mast of some bronze small ships (navicelle) (Fig. 10.3c). Recently, Campus and Leonelli (2012) edited a book on Nuraghe models, where it is possible to find the full bibliographical references to all the models discussed. However, whereas the catalogue is compre- hensive, they make the claim that most activity ended with the Final Bronze Age. For them, Iron age Sardinia is a land without creativity. This is most emphatically shown by their chronological table which shows a gap between 900 and 720 bc, when Phoenician culture is presented as predominant and the only force on the island. This view contrasts with the archaeological data from the most recent excavations and studies, and with the well-grounded chronological data obtained from the contexts with Sardinian objects found outside Sardinia. The book is really useful as a data source but must be read with this fundamental correction. The Nuraghe as a symbol of memory Read in its proper chronological context, the Nuraghe was now a symbol of memory, a territorial focal point and an object of worship, both as a cultic object and an altar. Following the suggestion of Alessandro Usai, the Nuraghe, regarded as a cult place, is also the place where the properties of the community were collected under divine protection. In the Sardinian Iron age, we can rea- sonably argue that some large families, let us call them aristocratic families, because of their military power and pre-eminence in the religious hierarchy, played a strong political role in the late nuragic communities. In the site of Mont’e Prama (Cabras) in central west Sardinia, we have amazing remains that support this ideological hypothesis, involving the Nuraghe. Here there is an Iron age necropolis, with pit tombs. The tombs of the later phase (second half of the eighth century bc) are monumentalized with large limestone cover slabs, accompanied by big limestone statues, portraying archers, warriors and boxers covering their head with a shield, most likely people acting out sacred games (Fig. 10.5). Together with the 28 reconstructed statues there are 16 limestone models 85 The Nuraghe’s life in the Iron Age a c d Figure 10.2. Nuraghe models: a) Sorradile, Su Monte; b) Sardara, S. Anastasia; c) Sorso, Serra Niedda; d) Barumini. b 86 Chapter 10 a c d b Figure 10.3. Nuraghe models: a) Cabras, Cann’e Vadosu; b) San Sperate, Sa Bia 'e Decimu; c) Vetulonia; d) Furtei. 87 The Nuraghe’s life in the Iron Age a c d b Figure 10.4. Nuraghe models from Mont’e Prama, Cabras. 88 Chapter 10 Conclusion The Nuraghe models are located in peculiar buildings in the nuragic villages, that is in the so-called meeting huts: larger circular structures than the normal huts, with a bench along the walls and a model of Nuraghe in the centre or a niche, always in a prominent posi- tion. This is a clear reference to the symbolic social and political value of the Nuraghe within the community. The models of Nuraghe also find their place within the sanctuaries, where they are sometimes connected to tanks containing water, used in rituals. The water cult is found from the Late and Final Bronze Age in the well temples; in the Iron Age it is located in both the huts with benches and a basin, evidently linked to private and even public cult practices as shown by the structure found at Sa Sedda and sos Carros (Salis 2013). The presence of numerous models of Nuraghe in the monumental necropolis of Mont’e Prama is extremely important for understanding the meaning attributed to the models. Members of undoubtedly elite family groups symbolized in their values are buried in the tombs: political, in the ostentation of the weapons that qualify them as defenders of the com- munity; religious in the attitude of ‘boxers’ engaged in ritual games. The Nuraghe models combine both features, and, with the statues, compose a complex in which the construction of memory takes place, inserting the dead in a chain that links them to the ancestors, real or mythical. The model of Nuraghe, therefore, referred to a still easily perceived past, a symbol of ‘built memory’, whose function was to affirm and strengthen the cohe- sion of the social body around the elites who guided it (Perra 2017). The life of the Nuraghi in the Iron Age was dif- ferent from the life in the Bronze Age, but not one of declining value or force. The Nuraghe remained the very ideological, and often materialized, centre of the community, combining religious and political values, and the memory of the past times, deeply linking the current generation to the old mythical ancestors and the descent groups that connected one to the other. of Nuraghi, mostly of a high tower surrounded by a containing wall with four smaller towers (Tronchetti 2012a) (Fig. 10.4). Such an outstanding display illustrates this new ideology. The family (anthropological analysis proves that most of the deceased were members of one family group) displayed to the community their core values: military, religious, and consequently political, by means of the models of Nuraghi that combined all these values. In the necropolis, some more ancient betyls have also been found, stylistically linked to the memory of Late Bronze Age Giant’s tombs; another reference to the mythical ancestors who ruled the country and built extraordinary superhuman monuments like the Nuraghi. The Nuraghi had been transformed into mate- rialized memories, articulated through the plethora of models that represent them (Tronchetti 2012b). Figure 10.5. Reconstruction of the necropolis of Cabras, Mont’e Prama, with statues and models of nuraghe. Gardening time Gardening may seem worlds away from Nuraghi and brochs, but tending a garden is a long process involving patience, accretion and memory. Scholars argue that memories are also cultured, developed and regained. The monuments in Scotland and Sardinia are testament to the importance of memory and its role in maintaining social relations. This collection of twenty-one papers addresses the theme of memory anchored to the enduring presence of monuments, mainly from Scotland and Sardinia, but also from Central Europe and the Balkans. Editors: Simon Stoddart is a Professor in the Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge. Ethan D. Aines is a Policy Assistant at Cambridge Zero, Centre for Science and Policy at the University of Cambridge. Caroline Malone is Professor of Prehistory at Queen’s University, Belfast. Published by the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3ER, UK. The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research exists to further research by Cambridge archaeologists and their collaborators into all aspects of the human past, across time and space. It supports archaeological fieldwork, archaeological science, material culture studies, and archaeological theory in an interdisciplinary framework. The Institute is committed to supporting new perspectives and ground-breaking research in archaeology and publishes peer-reviewed books of the highest quality across a range of subjects in the form of fieldwork monographs and thematic edited volumes. Cover design by Dora Kemp, Lottie Stoddart and Ben Plumridge. ISBN: 978-1-913344-04-7 ISBN 978-1-913344-04-7 9 781913 344047