Tas-Silg: the Late Neolithic megalithic sanctuary and its re-use during the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age

edizioni quasar

Scienze dell’antichità

18 – 2012

sapienza università di romadipartimento di scienze dell’antichità

ESTRATTO

dipartimento di scienze dell’antichità

Direttoreenzo lippolis

Comitato di Direzionemaria Giovanna Biga, savino di lernia, eugenia equini schneider,

Giovanna maria Forni, Gian luca Gregori, laura maria michetti, Frances pinnock, loredana sist, maurizio sonnino, eleonora tagliaferro

Comitato scientificorosa maria albanese (catania), Graeme Barker (cambridge),

corinne Bonnet (toulouse), alain Bresson (chicago), Jean-marie durand (paris), alessandro Garcea (lyon), andrea Giardina (Firenze), michel Gras (roma),

henner von hesberg (roma-dai), tonio hölscher (heidelberg), mario liverani (roma), paolo matthiae (roma), athanasios rizakis (atene), Guido vannini

(Firenze), alan Walmsley (copenhagen)

Redazionelaura maria michetti

sapienza università di roma

ESTRATTO

The excavations carried out at Tas-silġ in 2003-2011, focussed on the Prehistoric phases of the site, have helped to change our insight into the Maltese Late neolithic megalithic sanctuaries1 as regards both their specific original features and the successive transformations they underwent up to the early Iron Age2. According to the literature on the subject, the classical plan of these sanctuaries is constituted either by a single (e.g. at Borg in-nadur, Ta Hagrat, Tal-Qadi and Bu-gibba) or by a pair of ‘temples’ (i.e. Ggantija, Mnajdra, skorba and Kordin iii) beside which, in some cases, there are similar smaller buildings. These occasionally open into a common forecourt with the main ‘temples’ (i.e. the small northern ‘temple’ at Mnajdra)3. Also the prevailing orienta-tion of the ‘temple’ buildings is considered by some authors to be similar (south-east), within a certain range of variation4. This proposal, however, provides us with a simplified image of these sanctuaries, as it focuses on highlighting uniformities in their architectures rather than contem-plating the extent of variability that characterises the different solutions. In fact, there is no ‘tem-ple’ or sanctuary absolutely similar to another. What we can see, if anything, is the repetition of some architectural modules and single structural details, which are variously combined in each different site, and perhaps a general tendency to build hidden rooms beside the more widely ac-cessible ones. several factors can underlie this variability, including specific cultural choices made by the communities related to each sanctuary. Moreover, we should take into account the overall duration of use of different ‘temples’, which might have implied restoration and re-building ac-tivities, due not only to the need to prevent or mend static problems of the buildings but also to ongoing changes in the ways the cultic activities were carried out.

one of the best preserved ‘temples’ that particularly differentiates from the ‘classical’ pat-tern is the main ‘temple’ of Hagar Qim. In this case the original structure, possibly constituted

1 We use terms such as “sanctuary” and “temple” in this paper only in order to avoid more complicated expressions. However, even though we are firmly convinced that the use of terminologies that derive from Historic situations to describe Prehistoric con-texts is anachronistic and misleading to some extent, as unlike the Historic ones we still know very little of Prehistoric ideologies.

2 The results of the recent research on the Pre-historic phases at Tas-silġ have been published as preliminary reports in: Recchia 2004-05; cazzella - Recchia 2006; cazzella et al. 2012.

3 A systematic review of the Late neolithic Mal-tese sites was published in: Pace 2004.

4 VentuRa 2004.

albeRto cazzella – Giulia Recchia

TAs-sILĠ: THe LATe neoLITHIc MeGALITHIc sAncTuAry And ITs re-use durInG THe Bronze AGe And THe eArLy Iron AGe

ESTRATTO

16 A. cazzella – G. recchia Sc. Ant.

by a pair of adjoining ‘temples’ of which one had two opposite doorways, seems to have been deeply modified over the Late neolithic by adding further rooms and merging the two original buildings. The final result was a unified construction (a single ‘temple’) that maintained a main façade but with further radial entrances5. As far as it is known, there were two more smaller buildings in the Hagar Qim sanctuary: a poorly preserved structure located opposite the main façade, and a small ‘temple’ (north temple) facing the other entrance of the main ‘temple’. At Tarxien too the building scheme appears to have become increasingly complex over time, due to the addiction of the presumably later central ‘temple’ through which the pre-existing two ‘temples’ were turned into a single set provided with internal hidden passages6. even though on a much smaller scale, the Ta Hagrat ‘temple’ also seems to have been later transformed by adding a curvilinear building to the original construction7.

our research at Tas-silġ north, focussed on the Prehistoric phases, has been aimed at analysing and reconstructing the Prehistoric structures already unearthed in the ‘60s by the Ar-chaeological Italian Mission in Malta, particularly with regards to the main ‘temple’ (Temple i) which, as is well known, was transformed into the cell of a Phoenician-Punic temple dedicated to Astarte and later to the roman goddess Hera/Juno. right from the beginning of this study we pointed out that the main Late neolithic ‘temple’ (Temple i) showed several ‘anomalies’ compared to the classical scheme of the ‘temple’ buildings8. In particular, we can make refer-ence to the orientation of Temple i and the existence of a second doorway, previously unno-ticed, opposite the main one at the end of the central corridor, which is comparable only with the aforesaid main ‘temple’ of Hagar Qim. At the same time we started new excavations in the areas clear of historical buildings, which have revealed that Tas-silġ was a large sanctuary, characterized by several peculiarities and far more complicated than it could be imagined to. In fact, at least further three ‘temples’ have been identified in addition to Temple i. Moreover, we have obtained a great deal of new data about the unbroken occupation of the site during the Bronze Age and the early Iron Age, which is extremely interesting not only as regards the reconstruction of the patterns of use of this unique site but also because this has allowed us to deal with the still problematic points in Prehistoric Maltese chronology9.

the late neolithic sanctuaRy

As far as the Late neolithic period is concerned, the archaeological deposit was scarcely preserved since the long-lasting use of the buildings had resulted, in many cases, in the partial removal of the original deposit. Moreover, spoliatory activities severely affected the site, as is well known. The possibility of understanding the original use of the different spaces within the sanctuary is therefore limited. nevertheless, in some cases Late neolithic collapse layers

5 Hagar Qim: Recchia 2004-05, p. 250, fig. 22.6 Pace 2004, pp. 47-67.7 Pace 2004, pp. 149-152.8 cazzella - Recchia 2004-06.

9 The analytical edition of the Prehistoric strati-graphic sequence uneharted by the new escavation is forthcoming.

ESTRATTO

18, 2012 Tas-silġ: the Late neolithic megalithic sanctuary and its re-use 17

were never removed and we could investigate the deposits underneath which were pretty well preserved as these had been sealed up by the collapses. despite being limited, these cases have provided us with very useful data about the activities that were carried out in some areas of the sanctuary.

The Tas-silġ sanctuary (Fig. 1, tab. 1) appears to have been built during the last phase of the Temple period, namely the Tarxien phase according to the chronological sequence pro-posed by J. evans, which dates back to the first half of the 3rd millennium Bc10. By means of both the stratigraphic and building sequences at least four sub-phases have been identified within the Late neolithic occupation of the site, corresponding to principal cycles of life of the Late neolithic sanctuary. This subdivision, listed as follows, has been aimed not only at unify-ing single stratigraphic units in coherent groups but also at valuating possible differentiations within the material culture over the time-span of the Late Temple Period11.- Before the building phase, which includes all the layers predating the megalithic struc-

tures.- Building phase, which includes, besides the structures, any kind of deposit related to their

construction, such as the filling of the dug building foundation or the preparation layers for the floors.

- Use of the sanctuary phase, which includes all the layers related to the use of the sanctuary, both inside and outside the buildings.

- Collapse phase, which includes all the deposits that have yielded pieces of evidence related to collapse events that occurred during the Late neolithic period, ranging from the fall of structural megaliths to the collapse of roofing.

As regards Temple i, the complete revision of every architectural detail, carried out to-gether with the other members of the Italian Mission who are involved in the study of the Historic phases of the site, and some stratigraphic trenches in the inner part of this building, have allowed us to come to a virtual reconstruction of the ‘temple’, including the elevations (Fig. 2,a). The hypothesis that Temple i was internally divided into four apses, advanced by An-tonia ciasca12 on the basis of the structural remains, is now definitely confirmed, but, as stated above, at the end of the central corridor there is a second doorway instead of a niche. Another peculiarity of this ‘temple’ seems to be the way in which the enclosing wall was built. only the lower blocks of this wall are preserved, but rather than orthostats these are massive horizontal megalithic blocks. The reconstruction we propose is that orthostats directly overlapped these blocks, leaving their external portion exposed so as to form a sort of continuous bench along the entire perimeter (Fig. 3). This hypothesis is based mainly on the evidence that in Historical times, when the enclosing wall must have been completely preserved13, some of the blocks (on the south-west part of the wall) were partially cut off to put in place a pavement: this opera-

10 eVans 1971; Malone et al. 2009.11 coPat et al. infra.12 ciasca 1976-77.13 This assumption is supported by the evidence

that structures and facilities (like ducts) were built in Historic time around the temple taking account of its curvilinear perimeter.

ESTRATTO


Table 1 – Tas-silġ north: sequence of the Prehistoric phases; major evidence is summarised as regards each phase.

ESTRATTO


Fig. 1 – Tas-silġ, north-east area of the site: general plan of the Late neolithic structures; the lighter shade indicates the suggested reconstruction of some features.

ESTRATTO


tion could have been made with-out compromising the elevation of the wall only if the cut part of the basal blocks had been exposed and was structurally non-bearing. In other sanctuaries too, such as Mnajdra and Hagar Qim, there are continuous benches along the enclosing walls of the ‘temples’, though set against the walls and not part of them. It is possible that to some extent these benches were intended for cultic purposes.

The recent excavations have provided us with evidence that the concave western façade of Temple i continues north-westward and also constitutes the façade of a minor ‘temple’ (Temple ii), previ-ously unknown (Figs. 1 and 2,a). since Temple ii lies for the most part underneath the historical pavements, there was little possi-bility to investigate its inner part. nevertheless, we could bring to light the perimeter wall, which leans directly on the northern side of Temple i’s enclosing wall. This wall, of which only the lower part is preserved, is also constructed with rectangular horizontal blocks, although smaller than those utilized in Temple i’s enclosing wall.

Part of the perimeter wall of another minor ‘temple’ (Temple iii), presumably with a façade to the east, is recognizable to the south of Temple i (Fig. 1). scarcely preserved and partially covered by an historical floor, it consists of a curvilinear row of rectangular horizontal blocks which, despite being unearthed in the ‘60s, were not interpreted as a further Late neolithic building. unfortunately the Prehistoric inner deposits of this structure were lacking, due to its reuse in the Historical time.

The most astonishing discovery so far is that of Temple iV, similar in size to Temple i (Fig. 1). The overall plan of this ‘temple’ is not clear yet, because on one hand this spreads eastward beyond the limits of the excavation and, on the other hand, in the portion we brought to ligh original features had been transformed by the structural modifications and pillages the building underwent over time. The most recognisable elements are a pair of opposing apses (iVa and iVc) and a central corridor (iVb) that leads westward to a narrow court flanked by sub-rectangular

Fig. 2 – Tas-silġ north. A: virtual reconstruction of Temples I and II and the surrounding features (view of the western side); B: virtual reconstruction of the roofing based on the data provided by the Late neolithic collapse layers (F. Gagliardi 2011).

ESTRATTO


rooms. The way in which these spaces are arranged clearly shows that the ori-entation of Temple iV is east-west, like Temple i. Further westward the pres-ence of historic remains prevented us from extending the excavation, it is therefore difficult to figure out how the building ended in this direction. The perimeter of Temple iV also is not clear-ly recognisable so far. on the south side there is no proper enclosure wall, the boundary consisting in further rooms and structures that fill in the space be-tween Temple iV and Temple i. As for the north side, a ‘header and stretch-er’ wall bounds northwards both the north-western apses iVc and the sub-rectangular room M on the north side of

the court (Fig. 4). However, it is not certain that this wall continued westward, since the later structures profoundly modified the original arrangement in this area. A little further north-ward there is a pair of large vertically standing megaliths, arranged north-south, which form a niche adjoining a megalithic slab, possibly to be interpreted as an ‘altar’. In fact, this is pro-vided with a hole, most likely cultic, of which the rim is carefully carved and surrounded by an engraved line (Fig. 4). next to the eastern megalith of that pair there are a further two large vertically standing megaliths arranged east-west, parallel to the ‘header and stretcher’ wall. The area to the east of these megaliths had been intensely reoccupied and transformed starting from the Bronze Age, thus neither the deposit nor structures of the Late neolithic were preserved on the spot. The only evidence is a series of flat-lying stones, probably wedges to support a slab, which might have been either a pavement or the base of another orthostat re-moved during the Bronze Age. This group of megaliths is difficult to interpret. one possibil-ity is that it was a kind of ‘shrine’, including the probable ‘altar’, external to Temple iV. on the

Fig. 3 – Tas-silġ north: virtual reconstruction of Temples I and II and the surrounding features (view from the eastern side, F. Gagliardi 2011).

Fig. 4 – Tas-silġ north, Late neolithic structures: the ‘header and stretcher’ wall bounding northward cham-ber M and, on the right hand, the slab with a carefully carved hole possibly to be interpreted as an ‘altar’; the vertically standing megalith with a small window, lo-cated in chamber M, is visible on the left hand.

ESTRATTO


other hand, particularly following the hypothesis that there was another orthostat eastward, we cannot rule out this being the remains of a massive wall, which included the niche as an access to the likely altar. If this is the case, it might be the enclosing wall of Temple iV and the ‘header and stretcher’ wall an inner partition. Moreover, at the moment there are no clues of where the main entrance of Temple iV was and whether there was more than one doorway. At least two different hypotheses could be formulated in that respect:

– Temple iV could have been provided with a second pair of apses and a typical monu-mental façade eastward. The western court might also have been accessible from a second, less monumental, entrance on this side of the building. In fact, the position of Temple ii, just south-west of the possible point of access to the inner court, did not leave enough space for the construction of a concave façade in this area.

– Temple iV could have been accessible only from west, through the court. There might have been a further pair of apses in any case, but in this second hypothesis the ‘temple’ did not have a proper façade and it was somehow concealed by the other features located westward, echoing the situation of the central ‘temple’ at Tarxien.

As far as the inner part of Temple iV is concerned, the northern portion is better pre-served than the central and south ones, as it was less damaged by spoliatory activities. As regards the apses, neither of them has been completely unearthed, since their eastern portion spreads beyond the limits of the excavation. The north-west apse (iVc), where the excavation is in progress and the Late neolithic levels have not been reached yet, is quite well preserved. In fact the orthostats that form its perimeter wall are still standing and there is evidence that this was re-utilized during the Bronze Age up to the Historic period. This apse, as well as the opposite one, is separated from the corridor by a screen made of standing megaliths, one of which was partially cut off during the Late Bronze Age. The presence of screens in the apses occurs in several ‘temples’, such as Tarxien, Hagar Qim and Ggantija, yet the architectonic solution is different in each case. since in our case half the apses are still to be explored, we do not know the complete scheme of the screens at the moment and it is therefore impossible to draw a comparison between this and other situations. The screen of the south-west apse (iVa) was more extensively unearthed than the previous one, though not entirely. despite some megaliths being plundered, the fact that this stretches beyond half of the opening span may suggest that the interior of the apse was originally almost completely concealed from the cor-ridor. unfortunately in this case the perimeter wall had been almost completely plundered, nevertheless the basal blocks and the wedges intended to support the missing megaliths were preserved, allowing us to define the shape of this apse too. In this iVa apse we excavated the whole depth of the deposit till the Late neolithic floor, which was made of torba (Fig. 5). This is one of the chambers where, as mentioned above, Late neolithic layers resulting from a col-lapse event, probably caused by a fire, were preserved on the spot. Many remains of burnt wooden timber and pieces of burnt torba have been found in these collapse layers, which are to be referred to the subsiding of the original roof during the fire event. This evidence supports the hypothesis that roofs were made, at least in some cases, of perishable materials including wood rather than of stone corbel vaults. nonetheless, we cannot rule out that in other cases a mixed roofing technique might have been adopted, reducing the roof span with a stone corbel

ESTRATTO


and covering the upper part with a flat torba roof supported on beams (Fig. 2,b). The layers of collapse sealed up the remains of what were, in all likelihood, the last activities carried out in apse iVa, providing us with extraordinary evidence about the use of this space. Lying di-rectly on the floor there were three carefully smoothed small cylindrical artefacts made of globigerina limestone and ceramic vessels bro-ken on the spot, in particular some carinated bowls and at least one biconical jar, which are being restored. All these objects were arranged in a way that seems to reflect a precise scheme related to cultic activities.

of great interest is the evidence that some chambers and probably uncovered spaces have a roughly rectangular plan, unlike the more common semicircular or oval shape of the mega-lithic buildings. At Tas-silġ, in fact, a rectilinear plan characterises both the rooms that fill the space between Temples i and iV and the inner court and chambers alongside the west court of Temple iV. rectilinear spaces are very occasionally attested in other Maltese Late neolithic sanctuaries, such as Tarxien, skorba, Mnajdra and Kordin ii14, and at debdieba15, a site where there is no clear evidence of any ‘temple’ building. nevertheless, the use of rectilinear buildings in this period is clearly shown by both the stone model from Tarxien16 and the architectonic representation carved on one of the megalithic blocks of the ‘temple’ south of Mnajdra17. At Tas-silġ these rectilinear rooms did not yield any evidence related either to collateral activi-ties, such as goods storage, or differentiated use compared to the “standard” rooms. In-stead, their architectural features and the re-mains found inside them seem to be strongly related to the symbolic activities embodied in the ‘temples’.

As far as the buildings between Temples i and iV are concerned, one of the most impres-sive and uncommon features are a megalithic steps (G) which leads to a raised platform (c) supported by a rubble filling that must have been enveloped by orthostats, now missing

14 Pace 2004, pp. 49, 94; cazzella - Recchia 2004-06, p. 696.

15 Pace 2004, p. 145.

16 eVans 1971, tav. 47, 11; cazzella - Recchia 2004-06, p. 696.

17 Pace 2004, p. 137.

Fig. 5 – Tas-silġ north, south-western apse of Temple iV (apse iVa): the Late neolithic torba floor; a couple of small cylindrical artefacts made of globigerina lime-stone is visible in the centre of the apse.

Fig. 6 – Tas-silġ north, Late neolithic structures: forecourt j, megalithic steps G and raised platform c. The arrow indicates a tumbled block pertaining to megalithic steps G.

ESTRATTO


(Figs. 3, 6). Leading from the north side of the eastern entrance of Temple i, this stairway was tapering-shaped due to the curvilinear confor-mation of Temple i’s enclosure wall. The lower steps form a sort of exedra facing a forecourt (j), which is also overlooked by the raised plat-form c. The bulk of the rubble supporting the platform divides courtyard j from both Temple iV and further chambers (a & b) located west-wards along the enclosure wall of Temple i, which will be described below. The south edge of courtyard j was likely constituted by the path leading to the eastern doorway of Tem-ple i, the original conformation of which is unknown due to the modification carried out during the Bronze Age. A small torba floored room (k) was made in the space between the east side of the platform support and the south side of apse iVa, its shape being therefore irreg-ular. The negative impression of an orthostat, which was probably removed by spoliatory activities, is recognisable on the south side of the room, suggesting a partition between this room and courtyard j. some Late neolithic layers were preserved inside the room as well as a circular clay cooking platform which was in all likelihood related to cultic purposes: the finding of a clay amulet (Fig. 7.1) in the proxi-mal area provides supporting evidence.

The chambers and uncovered spaces ar-ranged alongside the west court of Temple iV are linked together and a little more complex. The court is floored with massive slabs which unfortunately have been damaged by plunder-ing. The slab located just near the entrance to corridor iVb was accurately carved to form a sort of quadrangular basin. A link with water or another kind of liquid cannot be ruled out. Two close cultic holes were carved in the central part of the next slab westwards. slight traces on the surface of the slabs indicate the original presence of standing megaliths now missing that, in all likelihood, partially enclosed the court northward and southward. The west side of the court must have been separated from a further space westwards (l), either completely or for half of its span, by at least one orthostat, of which only the negative impression and the wedges to sustain it, which have survived the plundering, were found.

To the south of the west court and probably approachable from this one, there is a kind of inner court paved with massive slabs and probably uncovered. This must have been bounded

Fig. 7 – Tas-silġ north. 1: clay amulet coming from the Late neolithic deposit (room k, su 10382 n.1); 2: bone necklace spacer decorated with incised small concen-tric circles dating back to the Borg in-nadur period, found in room M (su 11231); 3: double spiral bronze fibula, dating back to the 9th-8th century Bc (Bahrija period), found in apse iVc (su 11199).

ESTRATTO


on the west side by some orthostats, of which one is still standing. close to this surviving megalith there are accurately carved small blocks arranged in a row most likely for a symbolic purpose, as well as a couple of holes plus a smaller one that were carved on the pav-ing slab. This space gives access eastward to a small torba floored chamber (f), which was probably roofed. The curvilinear south wall of this chamber was set on the rubble supporting platform c, while the eastern wall is convex, being constituted by the outer part of the pe-rimeter wall of the iVa apse. unfortunately no deposit survived the spoliation in these areas.

To the north of the main court, opposite room f, there is a quadrangular chamber (M), torba floored, that is pretty well preserved, despite being somewhat modified during the Bronze Age, and has provided evidence of great interest. Being adjacent to the west side of the iVc apse, this is bounded northward by the abovementioned ‘header and stretcher’ wall that possibly constitutes the enclosing wall of Temple iV. The chamber was originally divided in two areas by two adjoining standing megaliths, one of which partial-ly collapsed during the Late neolithic while the other was severely damaged by plundering. An accurately carved rec-tangular block, which can be counted among the so-called altars18, fills up the eastern side of the chamber along the pe-rimeter wall of iVc apse (Fig. 8). This is more than 3m long and supported by two vertical blocks. underneath its central part there is a hole in the wall that directly connects this chamber with iVc apse; beside the long ‘altar’, on the left hand, there is a clepsydra limestone element with concave top similar to the so-called pedestalled altars or mushroom-shaped limestone altars that recur in other sanctuaries too. The vertically stand-ing megalith forming the opposite western wall of the room, unfortunately damaged by plundering, has a carefully carved small window, one of the so-called oracle holes, provided on both sides with a pair of small V-perforations doubtless in-tended to secure a screen (Figs. 4 and 9). As in apse iVa a Late neolithic deposit was preserved on the spot, mainly resulting from a collapse event probably caused by a fire that sealed

18 cfr. n. 1.

Fig. 8 – Tas-silġ north, Late neolithic structures: the long ‘altar’ on the eastern side of chamber M. on the right hand the partition wall put in place during the Borg in-nadur period is visible (black dots mark the pertaining blocks).

Fig. 9 – Tas-silġ north, Late neo-lithic structures: the vertically stand-ing megalith on the western side of chamber M with a carefully carved small window (one of the so-called oracle holes).

ESTRATTO


up the lower layers, which should be related to the last activities carried out in this room. Also in that case the collapse layers have yielded useful information about the roofing, which must have been made of torba supported on beams like the one in the iVc apse. As far as the lay-ers connected to the use of the room are concerned, the distribution of tools and facilities was quite differentiated depending on the areas, since all of them were placed in the northern part. This suggests that the use of the two areas was dissimilar, unless the objects in the southern one had been removed just before the collapse event. A circular stone hearth, filled with white ash (Fig. 10,a), was located between the partition wall and the long ‘altar’, thus the passage from one area to the other one was made difficult, perhaps to virtually enforce the separation be-tween them. close to this stone hearth there were the remains of a second one, which was broken into pieces. In the northern area, placed directly on the floor, there were several small cylindrical artefacts made of globige-rina limestone of the same kind as those found in iVa apse, though they are not strictly self-similar due to either dif-ferent patterns of use or a diverse degree of finishing19. These were variously located: some of them, small and carefully smoothed, were in the north-east corner, in front of the clepsydra limestone element. Like in iVa apse, the way they were arranged seems to reflect a precise scheme. Another, slightly larger than the previous ones but not completely finished, was placed close to the stone hearth, while two more, large and not completely finished too, were on the opposite side, in front of the megalith with the ‘oracle hole’. nearly in the same spot there was a carefully carved little clepsydra limestone element with con-cave top, which was filled with fine white ash (Fig. 10,b). In contrast to the larger one beside the long ‘altar’, this is easily moveable. Also several lithic tools were scattered on the floor but there were no ceramic vessels broken on the spot, unlike in iVa apse. All in all, it may be hypothesised that practical activities related to worship practices were carried out in the north portion of room M, while the south part might have been dedicated to rituals that did not involve any tools. The use of apse iVa seems to have been different again, as in this case the floor was almost clean, apart from the cylindrical limestone artefacts and the pottery. The detailed study of all the findings, including ecofacts, and their spatial analysis will allow us to better define the different patterns of use and the potential symbolic implications.

19 leMoRini infra.

Fig. 10 – Tas-silġ north, chamber M. A: Late neolithic circular stone hearth, on the right hand one of the small cylindrical artefacts made of globigerina limestone is visible; B: Late neolithic carefully carved little clepsydra limestone element.

ESTRATTO


There is little evidence about the space west of the court of Temple iV, since the presence of historic features prevents extending the excavation in this direction, as mentioned above. Hence we do not know whether here there was an entrance to the Temple iV or not. The area immediate-ly south of this spot (l), adjacent to the south-west corner of the court, had already been strongly transformed starting from the Bronze Age and then severely damaged by spoliatory activities. nevertheless some shreds of evidence of the original features have survived. By means of both the negative impressions of megaliths and stones used as wedges still on the spot it is possible to reconstruct the presence of a medium-sized rectangular slab flanked by standing megaliths that might be related to a threshold, giving access to a room (d) which is located between Temple ii and the inner court. This is partially floored with torba and for the rest with a stone slab. even though this room might have also been approachable from the inner court, the main entrance seems to be through the threshold in l, as this is visually related with a further, better preserved, doorway leading to rooms b & a20. A couple of tapering holes were carved on the paving slab of room d just in front of this doorway, which is characterised by the presence of some carefully carved limestone blocks similarly to the entrances of some other ‘temples’. As mentioned above, rooms b & a were made between the northern side of Temple i and the southern side of Temple iV. These are quadrangular, probably covered and torba floored. The doorway gives access to room b, which has no particular features, whereas in the adjoining room a two massive rectangular blocks are directly lying on the floor, respectively arranged along the northern and the eastern sides of the room21. despite not being as carefully carved as the abovementioned likely ‘altar’ in room M, these two blocks might be also categorised as ‘altars’. Located between them there is

a small standing megalith probably intended to sustain the roofing.

Further features of the Late neolithic sanctuary have been detected in a trench (ar-eas x & y) located 40m west of the main area of excavation, which was aimed at reassess-ing a former trench of the ‘60s. Here there is a big ovoid-shaped globigerina limestone block now leaning forward but that must have originally been vertically standing, as a kind of menhir (Fig. 11). Two smaller orthostats have been brought to light next to this, one of which is made of coralline limestone, a raw material not available in the neighbourhood of the site. These seem to form a sort of en-closure, perhaps circular, around the ‘menhir’. unfortunately no Late neolithic deposit was preserved in this area, due to subsequent oc-cupation during the Bronze Age.

20 cazzella - Recchia 2006, fig. 4. 21 cazzella - Recchia 2006, figs. 5, 6.

Fig. 11 – Tas-silġ north, area y. on the foreground: the Late neolithic big ovoid-shaped globigerina lime-stone block, possibly a ‘menhir’, and, on the right hand, the two smaller standing megaliths that could have been part of an enclosure around the ‘menhir’. on the background: the huge slab with carved concave top that was raised on supporting stones in the Tarxien cemetery period (possibly a dolmen?).

ESTRATTO


Finally, it is worth mentioning that the remains of at least one torba floored room, dat-ing back to the Late neolithic and possibly related to cultic activities, was unearthed in the southern part of the site by the excavations of the university of Malta carried out in the ’90s22. The general impression, therefore, is that the area of the sanctuary was far more extensive than previously thought and that the group of ‘temples’ i-iV was only the core of this site.

The causes and dynamics of the collapses both in chamber M and apse iVa appear to be roughly the same. Moreover, layers resulting from a collapse, which have the same characte-ristics, were also found in corridor iVb, though these have not been excavated yet. There is a strong possibility therefore that these events occurred at the same time, in any case not later than the end of the Late neolithic. Further testimonies of collapses are given by the presence of tumbled blocks, pertaining to megalithic steps G (Fig. 6), in the Late neolithic deposits of the forecourt j, and by the aforementioned collapsed megalith pertaining to the partition wall in room M. Whether these destructive events resulted from natural processes, such as an ear-thquake, of had a human origin either intentional or accidental is still an open question. As severe fires were a large component of collapses in both room M and apse iVa, the hypothesis that these had been set on purpose is tempting. nevertheless, the fact that tools, pottery and portable stone hearths were arranged on the floor as if they had been in use when the fires oc-curred suggests that these started suddenly and perhaps unexpectedly by accident, unless there was a specific symbolic reason a behind them, if not a real destructive intention. Whatever was the case, these records provide us with supporting evidence for the fact that collapse events had already started at that time and were not removed, leaving some spaces inside the buil-ding almost unserviceable for cultic activities. collapse events predating the early Bronze Age reoccupation, which were neither removed not mended, are also attested in other megalithic centres such as Tarxien23 and Xaghra24. This might imply that the Maltese societies had been experiencing an internal crisis even before the beginning of the Bronze Age, and, as a result, ‘temple’ buildings began to lose their original significance.

the sanctuaRy duRinG the eaRly bRonze aGe

not only was Tas-silġ a large megalithic sanctuary of the Late neolithic, but it also ap-pears to have maintained its importance during the whole Bronze Age up to the early Iron Age, not to mention playing a central role in Historic time. The recent excavations have provided us with a great deal of data about the Bronze Age occupation and the various transformations of the megalithic buildings. Moreover, stratigraphic sequences spanning either the Late neolithic (Tarxien period) to the Late Bronze Age (Borg in-nadur phase) or the Late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age (Bahrija phase) were unearthed. These have allowed us to deal with some of the problematic points of Maltese Bronze Age chronology25.

22 a. bonanno: lecture delivered in the Italo-Mal-tese symposium Tas-Silġ: its past, present and future, La Valletta-Kalkara, Malta, 23-24 november 2006.

23 Pace 2004, p. 69.24 stoddaRt et al. 2009, p. 116.25 Recchia - cazzella 2011; coPat et al. infra.

ESTRATTO


shortly after the collapse events that occurred in the latest phases of the Tarxien period, presumably in the 23rd century Bc, a new pottery production is attested in the site: the so-called Thermi Ware, which seems to have come into use in association with the late Tarxien pottery production rather than replacing it. According to the stratigraphic sequences unearthed at Tas-silġ, the compresence of Thermi ware and Tarxien cemetery pottery at an early stage of the early Bronze Age can be discounted. It must be said that ‘Thermi ware’ is a misleading definition, as it was assigned to this pottery style making reference to a ceramic type coming from the north-eastern Aegean and dating back to the first centuries of the 3rd millennium Bc26. Whereas, in the light of the most recent data, this Maltese ceramic style appears to be strongly linked to a peculiar pottery production characterising both the early Helladic iii and the dalmatian period of cetina, which is well attested in southern Italy and sicily too in the late 3rd millennium Bc27. At any rate, the adoption of this new pottery style in Malta testifies how the local societies were opening to external contacts with central Mediterranean cultures. This change is likely to have coincided with a period of crisis of the local traditional culture, of which collapses of the megalithic build-ings left unrestored at Tas-silġ might have been one of the outcomes. Thus the effects of this crisis and a phenomenon, which originated far away, presumably contribute to a radical change. In fact, during the second half of the 3rd millennium Bc most regions of the central Mediterranean were experiencing intense mutual relationships which likely included the movement of small groups of people from the western coasts of the Balkan peninsula and either the Peloponnese or the Ionian Islands. This phenomenon involved eastern sicily and the Maltese Islands as well. Particularly in Malta it entailed a wider opening to the adjacent regions and a marked increase in exchange activities28. At the same time noticeable ideological transformations occurred, since megalithic ‘temples’ were not built anymore. nevertheless many of the former sanctuaries were reutilised in this changed socio-ideological context, doubtless maintaining a strong symbolic significance.

At Tas-silġ there are many indications of unbroken continuity of use of the Late neolith-ic buildings. deposits dating back to the ‘Thermi ware’ period were particularly well preserved in rooms a&b and in forecourt j, while in other areas these might have been removed during subsequent occupations (Fig. 12). Moreover there is evidence that some areas of the sanctuary underwent renovations at that time, as is the case of the outside space in between the eastern doorway of Temple i and Temple iii which was completely cobbled29. It is worth mentioning that some collapse events also occurred in this period.

G.r.

From the end of the 3rd to the mid-2nd millennium Bc the culture named after the cre-mation cemetery of Tarxien arose in Malta. Presumably at the same time the capo Graziano culture30, for which new interesting data have been recently published31, developed in the

26 tRuMP 1966; L.M. ugolini suggested this com-parison in the ’30s, directly mentioning Troy (uGo-lini 1934).

27 MaRan 1998; cazzella 1999.28 cazzella et al. 2007, 2012.

29 cazzella - Recchia 2006, fig. 2.30 cazzella 1999; cazzella et al. 2007.31 MaRtinelli et al. 2010: the representation of a

boat incised on the surface of a vessel coming from Fi-lobraccio (Filicudi) is of particular interest, as it recalls

ESTRATTO


Aeolian Islands. Like the previous one, this period was strongly connected with a phenome-non of wide relationships in the central Mediterranean, or better with the movement of small groups of people coming from the Peloponnese. As far as the possibility to single out sub-phases within the Tarxien cemetery period is concerned, new evidence has arisen through the analysis of the stratigraphic sequence spanning the late Tarxien period to the early Borg in-nadur, unearthed at Tas-silġ in the adjoining areas of megalithic steps G and forecourt j32. In fact, in the upper layers of the Tarxien cemetery deposit there are some ceramic shards characterised by an orange burnished surface: a kind of production which might have been introduced only in a later phase of the period, as it is not attested in the layers below these ones.

the boats engraved on a megalithic standing block at Tarxien, presumably dating back to the early Bronze

Age (see also cazzella - Recchia 2012).32 coPat et al. infra.

Fig. 12 – Tas-silġ, north-east area of the site: plan related to the Thermi ware period; the lighter shade indicates the suggested reconstruction of some features.

ESTRATTO


Fig. 13 – Tas-silġ, north-east area of the site: plan related to the Tarxien cemetry phase; the light-er shade indicates the suggested reconstruction of some features.

The re-use of the spaces and structural interventions at Tas-silġ dating back to this Tarx-ien cemetery period are even more clearly recognisable, despite many layers of this phase hav-ing been removed in the Late Bronze Age. As mentioned above, the areas where the Tarxien cemetery strata were better preserved are forecourt j and steps G. Here, in fact, the archaeo-logical deposit, including several layers of cobbled floor, had been obliterating little by little the megalithic steps G and the ground level in forecourt j had correspondingly been rising, thus the two areas were not detached any longer33. The use of this likely outer space is not easily understandable, but it must have involved the utilisation of hearths from time to time. In upper levels of this deposit there was a very well preserved large clay cooking platform (Fig. 13), the related layers containing a certain amount of wheat grains34. during the Late Tarxien cem-etery period the eastern doorway of Temple i was reorganized by adding a row of narrow blocks to the external side of the threshold and a carefully carved rectangular block next to the

33 cazzella - Recchia 2006, fig. 10. 34 fioRentino et al. infra.

ESTRATTO


upright megalith on the left hand of the doorway35. since the level in front of this entrance had risen too, a new torba floored path leading to this was made. What is more, the fact that the en-trance was so carefully renovated supports the hypothesis that Temple i was still standing and in use. Finally, of great interest is the rearrangement of megalithic features, which was made during that period in areas x&y, located 40m west of the Temples i-iV. There, next to the pre-dating ‘menhir’, a huge slab with carved concave top, likely dating back to the Late neolithic too, was raised up and secured on supporting stones (Fig. 11). It remains difficult to figure out the purpose of this structure, since the deposit underneath the slab has not been excavated, for safety reasons. still, the hypothesis that this might be a dolmen is engaging.

We are inclined to think that the sanctuary during the early Bronze age was still used mainly for purposes entailing symbolic activities36. refurbishments and restorations especially of the eastern doorway of temple I seem to us a supporting evidence for this hypothesis.

the late bRonze aGe occuPation of the sanctuaRy

during the Borg in-nadur period, spanning almost the whole second half of the 2nd millennium Bc, all the areas of the Tas-silġ sanctuary seem to have been reoccupied. several stratigraphic sequences were preserved, which have provided us with new data to deal with the problems related to both the chronological partition of this period and the passage to the Final Bronze Age/ early Iron Age (Bahrjia period)37. By means of the analysis of the ceramic assemblages from a stratigraphic point of view, three sub-phases might be singled out38. since these do not perfectly correspond with the sequence proposed by Trump, we are inclined to term them ‘early Borg in-nadur’, ‘classic Borg in-nadur’ and ‘Late Borg in-nadur’ phases.

As far as the sanctuary during that period is concerned, in many cases the earlier deposits were removed, perhaps to make room in the chambers, especially the narrow ones. However the original floors were not always reached, as is the case of the chambers where the Late neolithic collapses were left intact, despite these being used for various purposes in the Late Bronze Age. At any rate, the systematic reoccupation of every space gives us supporting evi-dence for the hypothesis that all the megalithic buildings were still standing, though these had been partially modified (Fig. 14). Both the opposing apses iVa and iVc were re-settled, as well as corridor iVb, though leaving the Late neolithic collapse layers (or at least part of them) on the spot. The level of the predating deposit in all these spaces is roughly the same, yet it is difficult to work out whether this level was intentionally reached by the Borg in-nadur inhabitants or it was the original top of the collapse deposits. The same applies for chamber M, where the long ‘altar’ and the hole beneath this, connecting the chamber with apse iVc, were almost entirely

35 Recchia 2004-05, fig. 21.36 The subject of the re-utilisation of Tas-silġ san-

ctuary during the Bronze Age has been widely discussed in the forthcoming paper: Layers of materialised memo-ry in Malta: reutilisation of Late Neolithic monumental

centres during the Bronze Age, presented by a. cazzel-la - a. Pace - G. Recchia at the International conferen-ce Gardening Time, cambridge, september 2012.

37 tRuMP 1961; Recchia - cazzella 2011.38 coPat et al. infra.

ESTRATTO


Fig. 14 – Tas-silġ, north-east area of the site: general plan of the sanctuary related to the Borg in-nadur period; the lighter shade indicates the suggested reconstruction of some features.

ESTRATTO


visible in this period altough the original floor had not been reached. This might suggest that the use of these spaces still embodied a symbolic meaning. Therefore the hypothesis that some previous deposits were cleared on purpose seems to us more likely. chamber M was partially transformed by putting up a wall, made by three adjoining blocks, that closed the southern part of this chamber (Fig. 8). It is possible that this was also roofed again, since the Borg in-nadur deposit has yielded traces of a further collapse, characterized by the presence of many remains of daub and plaster. Also in rooms a&b some predating layers had been spared, but the topmost part of the ‘altars’ in room a were visible. Whereas, in room d, in area l and in the west court of Temple iV all the previous deposit must have been cleared, as the first Borg in-nadur level lied directly on the original paving slabs. This also happened in areas n&o, beyond the ‘header and stretcher’ wall that bounds northward chamber M, which were intensively re-occupied up to the early Iron Age and later on. The occupation of areas x and y, where the megalithic structure was raised during the Tarxien cemetery phase, was intense too, providing us with a long-lasting stratigraphic sequence. yet the use of these spaces is unclear, due to the limited extension of the excavated area so far. nonetheless, in all likelihood this was linked to some extent with symbolic purposes according to the unique architectonic features standing here (the Late neolithic oval-shaped ‘menhir’ and the Tarxien cemetery raised slab – perhaps a dolmen).

some of the findings from the Borg in-nadur deposits are of great interest, for instance a bone necklace spacer decorated with incised small concentric circles (Fig. 7,2). In fact, on one hand this decoration mirrors the one on the dagger-handle from Ghar Mirdum39, while, on the other hand, both the technique and pattern of decoration are strongly related to bone and antler craftworks widespread in Italy during the Late Bronze Age40.

the final bRonze aGe - eaRly iRon aGe occuPation of the sanctuaRy

The possibility to distinguish on a stratigraphic basis the last period of the Maltese prehi-story, which has been the subject of wide debate, represents a noteworthy outcome of the recent excavations at Tas-silġ. In fact, in more than one case the top layers of the prehistoric deposits contained typical Bahrija pottery. This provides supporting evidence for the hypothe-sis that this period is to be singled out and that is evidently subsequent to the Borg in-nadur period. The study of the ceramic assemblages from these layers is still in progress, but it will allow us to better define the period that immediately predates the Phoenician colonisation of the Maltese Islands. on that respect it is worth mentioning the finding of two different kinds of artefacts that clearly testify how strong the relationships between Malta and sicily must still have been at that time. These are some shards of plumed painted pottery and one double spiral bronze fibula (Fig. 7,3) both dating back to 10th-8th century Bc, which were found in the same layer in apse iVc.

39 skeates 2010.40 PRoVenzano 1997; Moscoloni in press; Rec-

chia 2010.

ESTRATTO


Traces of the occupation of the Tas-silġ sanctuary during the Bahrija phase were pre-served in iVc apse, in areas o and q and near the Tarxien cemetery megalithic feature (areas x & y) located 40m west of the ‘temple’ build-ings. The occurrence of building activity in the site during that period is of particular interest. This is testified, for instance, by a massive wall made by reutilising Late neolithic megalithic blocks, which was adjoined to the original Late neolithic feature (a niche or part of an enclos-ing wall) in the northern part of the excavated area (Fig. 15). It is uncertain whether this wall was intended to enclose the central area of the site, but, at any rate, it definitely divides area o, that is located just north of the ‘header and stretcher’ wall, from those northwards. consequently area o was transformed into a narrow room where specific activities, such as spinning and weaving, seem to have been carried out. Here, in fact, many loom weights, spindle whorls and clay anchors (which might

have been related to these kinds of activities too)41 were found in a series of strictly similar superimposed layers. This may well indicate how the pattern of use of this room remained the same over a certain span of time. The Bahrija deposits in apse iVc seem related to a different use, which will be defined on the basis of the integrate spatial analysis of artefacts and ecofacts.

A point that remains problematic is whether the site did or did not maintain a symbolic purpose during the long period that elapsed between the building of the Late neolithic sanc-tuary at the end of the 3rd millennium Bc and the 8th century Bc, when it was turned into a Phoenician place of worship. We are inclined to give a positive response to this question, tak-ing into account that the choice made by the Phoenicians to settle at Tas-silġ, rather than in other sites like Borg in-nadur, might have been due not only to its location overlooking the Marsaxlokk bay and the fact that Temples i and iV were still standing, but also to the existence of a deep-seated local cult. nevertheless further evidence is needed to support this hypothesis. The presence at Tas-silġ of a fragment of agate lunar crescent with cuneiform inscription, dating back to the 13th century Bc42, might represent a clue that the Tas-silġ sanctuary had a reputation that was broader than local knowledge during the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. The fragment was found as a residual object in a later layer, probably dating to the 4th-3rd century Bc43, so that we have little possibility to establish exactly when this arrived

41 tRuMP 1960.42 MayeR 2011 and infra; cazzella et al. 2012.

43 M.P. RossiGnani and n. cutajaR personal communication.

Fig. 15 – Tas-silġ north: the massive megalithic wall (white polygons mark the pertaining blocks) built dur-ing the Bahrija period between areas o and P/q (north-ern part of the excavated area) and later modified in Historical time.

ESTRATTO


in Malta. nonetheless, we cannot rule out that this happened well before the foundation of the Phoenician ‘temple’ at Tas-silġ in the late 8th century Bc. Following this supposition, the presence of this unique object in a peculiar place, such as Tas-silġ must have been in the Late Bronze Age as well as in the early Iron Age, might have not been accidental. Indeed, the agate lunar crescent might have been brought to the site on purpose because of its privileged sym-bolic value, which also drove the Phoenicians to build the temple dedicated to Astarte there44.

A.c.

Alberto cazzellaDipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità

Sapienza Università di [email protected]

Giulia recchiaUniversità di Foggia

[email protected]

references

cazzella 1999: a. cazzella, L’Egeo e il Mediterraneo centrale fra III e II millennio: una riconsiderazione, in V. la Rosa - d. PaleRMo - l. VaGnetti (eds.), Simposio Italiano di Studi Egei dedicato a L. Bernabò Brea e G. Pugliese Carratelli, roma 1999, pp. 397-404.

cazzella - Recchia 2004-06: a. cazzella - G. Recchia, Revisiting Anomalies: New Ex-cavations at Tas-Silġ and A Comparison with Other Megalithic Temples in Malta, in Accordia Research Papers 10, 2004-06, pp. 61-70.

cazzella - Recchia 2006: A. cazzella - G. Recchia, L’area sacra megalitica di Tas-Silġ (Malta): nuovi elementi per lo studio dei modelli architettonici e delle pratiche cultuali, in ScAnt 13, 2006, pp. 689-699.

cazzella - Recchia 2012: a. cazzella - G. Recchia, Malta, Sicily, Aeolian Islands and Southern Italy during the Bronze Age: The meaning of a changing relationship, in M.e. al-beRti, s. sabatini (eds.), Exchange Networks and Local Tranformations. Interactions and local change in Europe and the Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, oxford 2012, pp. 80-91.

cazzella et al. 2007: A. cazzella - a. Pace - G. Recchia, Cultural contacts and mobil-ity between the south central Mediterranean and the Aegean during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, in s. antoniadou - a. Pace (eds.), Mediterranean Crossroads, Athens 2007, pp. 243-260.

44 r. Grima (GRiMa - Mallia 2010) has discussed the possible reasons that drove the Phoenicians to

choose Tas-silġ rather than Borg in-nadur as the place to build the Astarte sanctuary.

ESTRATTO


cazzella et al. 2012: A. cazzella - a. Pace - G. Recchia, The Late Second Millennium B.C. Agate Artefact with Cuneiform Inscription from the Tas-Silġ Sanctuary in Malta: an Ar-chaeological Framework, in ScAnt 17, 2012, pp. 599-609.

ciasca 1976-77: A. ciasca, Il tempio fenicio di Tas-Silġ: una proposta di ricostruzione, in Kokalos 22-23, 1976-77, pp. 162-172.

eVans 1971: j.d. eVans, The Prehistoric Antiquities of the Maltese Islands. A Survey, Lon-don 1971.

GRiMa - Mallia 2010: r. GRiMa - J. Mallia, A tale of two ridges: topography, connectivity and use at Borg in-Nadur and Tas-Silġ, in tanasi - Vella (eds.), Site, Artefacts and Landscape. Prehistoric Borg in Nadur, Malta, Monza 2010, pp. 225-250.

Malone et al. 2009: c. Malone - s. stoddaRt - G. cook, Dating Maltese Prehistory, in c. Malone - s. stoddaRt - a. bonanno - d. tRuMP (eds., with the support of t. GoudeR and a. Pace), Mortuary Customs in Prehistoric Malta. Excavations at the Brochtorff Circle at Xa-ghra (1987-94), cambridge 2009, pp. 341-346.

MaRan 1988: j. MaRan, Kulturwandel auf dem griechischen Festland und den Kykladen im späten 3.Jt. v. Chr., Bonn 1998.

MaRtinelli et al. 2010: M.c. MaRtinelli - G. fioRentino - b. PRosdociMi - c. d’oRon-zo - s.t. leVi - G. ManGano - a. stellati - n. Wolff, Nuove ricerche nell’insediamento di Filo Braccio a Filicudi. Nota preliminare sugli scavi 2009, in Origini XXXII, 2010, pp. 285-314.

MayeR 2011: W.r. MayeR, Eine babylonische Weihgabe in Malta, in Orientalia 80, 2, pp. 141-153.

Moscoloni 2012: M. Moscoloni, L’industria su osso e corno dagli scavi in estensione 1972-75 a Coppa Nevigata, in a. cazzella - M. Moscoloni - G. Recchia, Coppa Nevigata e l’area umida alla foce del Candelaro durante l’età del Bronzo, Foggia 2012, pp. 217-224..

Pace 2004: a. Pace, The Sites, in d. cilia (ed.), Malta before History, sliema 2004, pp. 19-199.

PRoVenzano 1997: n. PRoVenzano, Produzione in osso e corno dalle terramare emiliane, in M. beRnabò bRea - a. caRdaRelli - M. cReMaschi (eds.), Le Terramare. La più antica civiltà padana, Milano 1997, pp. 524-544.

Recchia 2004-05: G. Recchia, Il tempio e l’area sacra megalitica di Tas-Silġ: le nuove sco-perte dagli scavi nei livelli del III e del II millennio a.C., in ScAnt 12, 2004-05, pp. 233-262.

Recchia 2010: G. Recchia, Distanziatore per collana, in F. Radina - G. Recchia (eds.), Am-bra per Agamennone. Indigeni e Micenei tra Adriatico, Ionio ed Egeo, Bari 2010, pp. 301-302.

Recchia - cazzella 2011: G. Recchia - a. cazzella, Maltese late prehistoric ceramic pro-ductions sequence and chronology: on-going problems, in c. saGona (ed.), Ceramics of the Phoenician-Punic World. Collected Essays (Ancient near eastern studies supplement series, 36), 2011, pp. 373-395.

skeates 2010: r. skeates, An Archaeology of the Senses: Prehistoric Malta, oxford 2010.stoddaRt et al. 2009: s. stoddaRt - c. Malone - s. Mason - b. tRuMP - d. tRuMP, The

Tarxien Phase Levels: Spatial and Stratigraphic Analysis amd Reconstruction, in c. Malone - s. stoddaRt - a. bonanno - d. tRuMP (eds., with the support of t. GoudeR and a. Pace),

ESTRATTO


Mortuary Customs in Prehistoric Malta. Excavations at the Brochtorff Circle at Xaghra (1987-94), cambridge 2009, pp. 109-205.

tRuMP 1960: d.h. tRuMP, “Pottery ‘anchors’”, in Antiquity 34, p. 295.tRuMP 1961: d.h. tRuMP, The Later Prehistory of Malta, in Proceedings of the Prehistoric

Society, 1961, pp. 253-262.tRuMP 1966: d.H. tRuMP, Skorba. Excavations carried out on Behalf of the National Mu-

seum of Malta, 1961-1963, oxford 1966.uGolini 1934: L.M. uGolini, Malta: origini della civiltà mediterranea, roma 1934.VentuRa 2004: F. VentuRa, Temple orientations, in d. cilia (ed.), Malta before History,

sliema 2004, pp. 307-325.

Riassunto

Gli scavi di interesse preistorico condotti a Tas-silġ tra il 2003 e il 2011 hanno consentito di ottenere molti nuovi dati sul santuario megalitico tardo-neolitico (il primo scavato in modo estensivo dall’ini-zio degli anni ’60) e sulle sue trasformazioni nell’età del Bronzo e agli inizi dell’età del Ferro fino alla ristrutturazione avvenuta alla fine dell’VIII secolo, in età fenicia. Al tempio megalitico già noto si sono aggiunte le testimonianze relative ad altri tre edifici analoghi, di cui uno di dimensioni presumibilmente confrontabili con quelle del primo, e a diversi spazi e ambienti accessori a pianta quadrangolare, ugual-mente di carattere simbolico. di particolare interesse sono alcuni ambienti in cui un incendio provocò il crollo della copertura lignea, permettendo la conservazione in situ dei materiali. nel corso dell’età del Bronzo e della prima età del Ferro gran parte delle strutture e delle aree aperte furono riutilizzate: ai dati sulla sequenza cronologica fra tardo III millennio e inizio del I, quindi, si affiancano quelli sulle modalità di occupazione di un contesto che probabilmente ancora aveva una valenza cultuale, sia pure in un nuo-vo contesto ideologico. sono venuti in luce anche nuovi elementi che indicano stretti collegamenti con la sicilia fra IX e VIII secolo. Tra la fine del XIII e la fine dell’VIII secolo fu presumibilmente deposto il manufatto in agata con iscrizione cuneiforme (cfr. W. Mayer in questo stesso volume), fenomeno che costituisce un indizio a favore dell’ipotesi che Tas-silġ nel corso di tale periodo svolgesse un ruolo di punto di riferimento territoriale.

ESTRATTO

edizioni quasar di severino Tognon s.r.l.via Ajaccio 41/43 – 00198 Roma

www.edizioniquasar.it

per informazioni e [email protected]

Issn 1123-5713IsBn 978-88-7140-535-3

Finito di stampare nel mese di ottobre 2013presso Global Print – Gorgonzola (MI)

ESTRATTO

Documents

Tas-Silg: the Late Neolithic megalithic sanctuary and its re-use during the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age