Nuragic Settlement Dynamics The East Coast Of

Sardinia Cezary Namirski download

https://ebookbell.com/product/nuragic-settlement-dynamics-the-
east-coast-of-sardinia-cezary-namirski-49994566

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Nuragic Settlement Dynamics The East Coast Of Sardinia Cezary Namirski

https://ebookbell.com/product/nuragic-settlement-dynamics-the-east-
coast-of-sardinia-cezary-namirski-49994566
Nuragic Settlement
Dynamics
The east coast of Sardinia

Cezary Namirski

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 1 6 2020
Nuragic Settlement
Dynamics
The east coast of Sardinia

Cezary Namirski

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 1 6 2020
Published in 2020 by
BAR Publishing, Oxford

BAR International Series 3016

Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

isbn 978 1 4073 5766 9 paperback

isbn 978 1 4073 5767 6 e-format

doi https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407357669

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

© Cezary Namirski 2020

cover image The SW tower of nuraghe S’Omu `e S’Orcu (Castiadas).

Photo by C. Namirski.

The Author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright,

Designs and Patents Act, are hereby expressly asserted.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored,
sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted
in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

Links to third party websites are provided by BAR Publishing in good faith
and for information only. BAR Publishing disclaims any responsibility for the
materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

BAR titles are available from:

BAR Publishing
122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK
email [email protected]
phone +44 (0)1865 310431
fax +44 (0)1865 316916
www.barpublishing.com
 Of Related Interest
The Sardinian Neolithic: An Archaeology of the 6th and 5th Millennia BCE
Gary Webster
Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2019 BAR International Series 2941

Punctuated Insularity
The Archaeology of 4th and 3rd Millennium Sardinia
Gary Webster and Maud Webster
Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2017 BAR International Series 2871

Patterns of Imports in Iron Age Italy

R. N. Fletcher
Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2007 BAR International Series 1732

The Periphery in the Center

Sardinia in the ancient and medieval worlds
Robert J. Rowland, Jr.
Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2001 BAR International Series 970

For more information, or to purchase these titles, please visit www.barpublishing.com

 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Prof. Robin Skeates, Dr Robert Witcher, Prof. Chris Scarre (Durham
University) and Dr Guillaume Robin (University of Edinburgh) for their help and remarks, Michele
Castoldi and Roberto Pilia from Gruppo Archeologico di Barisardo for their help in establishing
the locations of destroyed monuments and access to archival photographic material, Dr Maria
Rosaria Manunza for access to documentation from Sarrabus gathered during field inspections
by the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici per le province di Cagliari e Oristano, Giuseppe
Floris from the Comune di Castiadas for access to unpublished materials about archaeological
sites in the municipality of Castiadas, Durham University Archaeology Services for borrowing
me their Total Station, Dr Kayt Armstrong for help in processing site plans, Dr Martin Sterry for
help in preparing the least cost pathway maps, my father Tadeusz Namirski for help in fieldwork,
Andy Burnham, Anne Tate and Patrick Lawler for their remarks, Maria Elvira Mereu for access
to Nuraghe Puliga, and Cesare Andrea for guidance to tomba di giganti Monte Zippiri.

v
 Contents

List of figures....................................................................................................................................................................... ix
List of tables....................................................................................................................................................................... xxi

1. Research aims.................................................................................................................................................................. 1

2. Nuragic settlement dynamics: an introduction............................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Early Bronze Age (c.2300–1800 bc).......................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Middle Bronze Age (c.1800–1300 bc)....................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Recent Bronze Age (c.1300–1150 bc)........................................................................................................................ 9
2.4 Final Bronze Age (c.1150–900 bc).......................................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Early Iron Age (c.900–750 bc)................................................................................................................................. 14
2.6 Late Iron Age (c.750–500 bc).................................................................................................................................. 14

3. Research methodology.................................................................................................................................................. 17
3.1 Theoretical approaches............................................................................................................................................. 17
3.2 Survey methodology................................................................................................................................................ 18
3.2.1 Architectural typology...................................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.2 Landscape location and context....................................................................................................................... 23
3.2.3 Location in relation to other sites and intervisibility........................................................................................ 24
3.2.4 Location in relation to the coastline................................................................................................................. 24
3.2.5 Location in relation to pre-Nuragic sites.......................................................................................................... 24
3.3 Geographical Information Systems (GIS)................................................................................................................ 24
3.4 Published excavation reports................................................................................................................................... 26
3.5 Identification of methodological difficulties and limitations................................................................................... 26

4. The Nuragic east coast of Sardinia: research context................................................................................................ 29

4.1 Sample areas: a geographical context...................................................................................................................... 29
4.2 Sarrabus (sample area 1): history and current state of research............................................................................... 29
4.3 Barisardo–Cardedu (sample area 2): history and current state of research.............................................................. 31
4.4 Other parts of the east coast of Sardinia.................................................................................................................. 33
4.5 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................................. 35

5. The Early and Middle Bronze Age (c.2300–1300 bc)................................................................................................. 37

5.1 The Early and Middle Bronze Age in sample area 1............................................................................................... 37
5.1.1 Settlement patterns and territoriality................................................................................................................ 40
5.1.2 Relations between domestic and funerary sites................................................................................................ 49
5.2 The Early and Middle Bronze Age in sample area 2............................................................................................... 53
5.2.1 Settlement patterns and territoriality................................................................................................................ 54
5.2.2 Relations between domestic and funerary sites................................................................................................ 59
5.3 The Early and Middle Bronze Age of the Sardinian east coast in a central Mediterranean context........................ 61
5.4 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................................. 63

6. The Recent and Final Bronze Age (c.1300–900 bc).................................................................................................... 65

6.1 The Recent and Final Bronze Age in sample area 1................................................................................................ 65
6.1.1 Settlement patterns and territoriality................................................................................................................ 65
6.1.2 Ritual and funerary sites................................................................................................................................... 71
6.2 The Recent and Final Bronze Age in sample area 2................................................................................................ 75
6.2.1 Settlement patterns........................................................................................................................................... 75
6.2.2 Relations between domestic and ritual sites..................................................................................................... 79
6.3 The Recent and Final Bronze Age of the Sardinian east coast in a central Mediterranean context......................... 81
6.4 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................................. 81

7. The Iron Age (c.900–500 bc)......................................................................................................................................... 83

vii
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

7.1 The Iron Age in sample area 1................................................................................................................................. 83

7.2 The Iron Age in sample area 2................................................................................................................................. 84
7.3 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................................. 86

8. Site biographies: selected case studies......................................................................................................................... 89

8.1 Nuraghe Cea (Loceri)............................................................................................................................................... 89
8.2 Pozzo sacro Su Presoni (Cardedu)........................................................................................................................... 92

9. East and West: a comparison....................................................................................................................................... 95

9.1 Settlement patterns and territoriality........................................................................................................................ 95
9.2 Ritual sites and their relationship with settlement sites......................................................................................... 100
9.3 Use of the coast and trade...................................................................................................................................... 101
9.4 Identity................................................................................................................................................................... 104
9.5 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................................ 105

10. Conclusions and future research prospects............................................................................................................ 107

Appendix 1. Nuragic sites in sample area 1.................................................................................................................. 109

1. Protonuraghi..............................................................................................................................................................111
2. Single towered nuraghi and nuraghi-capanne (nuracheddus)................................................................................. 134
3. Complex nuraghi...................................................................................................................................................... 163
4. Nuraghi of undefinable typology............................................................................................................................. 179
5. Settlements associated with the nuraghi.................................................................................................................. 188
6. Open settlements...................................................................................................................................................... 190
7. Tombe di giganti....................................................................................................................................................... 190
8. Undefined and negatively verified sites................................................................................................................... 196

Appendix 2. Nuragic sites in sample area 2.................................................................................................................. 197

1. Protonuraghi............................................................................................................................................................. 198
2. Mixed-type nuraghi ................................................................................................................................................. 202
3. Single-towered nuraghi............................................................................................................................................ 203
4. Complex nuraghi...................................................................................................................................................... 207
5. Settlements............................................................................................................................................................... 228
6. Fortifications............................................................................................................................................................ 231
7. Tombe di giganti....................................................................................................................................................... 232
8. Pozzi sacri................................................................................................................................................................ 234

Appendix 3. Spatial relations between pre-Nuragic and Nuragic sites in sample area 1......................................... 237
1. Probable relationship ............................................................................................................................................... 237
2. Possible relationship................................................................................................................................................ 238

Bibliography..................................................................................................................................................................... 241

viii
 List of figures

Figures created by the author unless otherwise stated.

Fig. 2.1. Protonuraghe Fronte Mola (Thiesi), a typical example of a corridor nuraghe....................................................... 4
Fig. 2.2. Plan of Protonuraghe Mene (Macomer), courtesy of A. Moravetti........................................................................ 5
Fig. 2.3. Nuraghe Corbos (Silanus), a typical example of a single-towered nuraghe.......................................................... 6
Fig. 2.4. Plan and section of Nuraghe Tittiriola (Bolotana), courtesy of A. Moravetti........................................................ 7
Fig. 2.5. Distribution of Nuragic sites on the Sinis peninsula (after Depalmas 2008)......................................................... 8
Fig. 2.6. Plan of Nuraghe Arrubiu (Orroli), courtesy of A. Pitzalis.................................................................................... 11
Fig. 2.7. Towers in the curtain wall of Nuraghe S’Uraki (San Vero Milis)........................................................................ 12
Fig. 2.8. Huts in the settlement near Nuraghe Iloi (Sedilo)................................................................................................ 12
Fig. 2.9. The sacred well (pozzo sacro) of Sa Testa (Olbia)............................................................................................... 13
Fig. 3.1. The network of Aegean sites created on the basis of the PPA method (after Knappett et al. 2008)..................... 19
Fig. 3.2. Tomba di giganti Imbertighe (Borore)—example of a tomb with stele............................................................... 22
Fig. 3.3. Tomba di giganti Madau II (Fonni)—example of a tomb with ashlar masonry................................................... 23
Fig. 4.1. Map of Sardinia (after G. Webster 1996) with extent of sample areas 1 and 2.................................................... 30
Fig. 4.2. Two examples of monuments classified as protonuraghi by Ledda, after R. Ledda (1985)................................. 31
Fig. 4.3. Nuraghe Nicola Podda (Muravera)—a single-towered nuraghe.......................................................................... 32
Fig. 4.4. Nuraghe Porceddus (Villasimius)......................................................................................................................... 32
Fig. 4.5. The main tower of Nuraghe Sellersu (Barisardo)................................................................................................. 34
Fig. 5.1. Domus de janas Monti Ferru (Muravera)............................................................................................................. 40
Fig. 5.2. Distribution of pre-Nuragic (red) an Nuragic (green) sites near Costa Rei.......................................................... 41
Fig. 5.3. Corridor of Protonuraghe Is Laccus (Castiadas).................................................................................................. 42
Fig. 5.4. Plan of Protonuraghe Comideddu (San Vito) prepared with use of Leica Total Station...................................... 42
Fig. 5.5. Protonuraghe Pispisa (Muravera)......................................................................................................................... 43
Fig. 5.6. Protonuraghe Comideddu (San Vito)—a natural outcrop used as an integral part of the Nuragic wall............... 43
Fig. 5.7. Nuraghe Domu de S’Orcu (Muravera)—an example of a single-towered nuraghe............................................. 44
Fig. 5.8. Plan of Nuraghe Domu de S’Orcu (Muravera) prepared with use of Leica Total Station................................... 45
Fig. 5.9. The entrance to Nuraghe Piras (Castiadas)—view from the south...................................................................... 45
Fig. 5.10. Hilltops with Nuraghe Monte Gruttas (to the right) and Protonuraghe Birru.................................................... 46
Fig. 5.11. Distribution of the Nuragic sites in the massif of Monti Ferru and Bruncu Perda Sub’e Pari (Muravera)........ 46
Fig. 5.12. Cyclopean wall which cuts the neck of a promontory with Nuraghe Su Tasuru I (San Vito)............................ 47
Fig. 5.13. Proximal Point Analysis (PPA) of the Nuragic sites near the massif of Bruncu Su Tidori (Muravera)............. 49
Fig. 5.14. Viewshed showing visibility from Nuraghe San Pietro...................................................................................... 50
Fig. 5.15. Viewshed showing visibility (in red) from Nuraghe Ponzianu.......................................................................... 50
Fig. 5.16. The rock shelter of Monte Manai A (Macomer), courtesy of A. Moravetti....................................................... 51
Fig. 5.17. Northern wing of the exedra in tomba di giganti Monte Zippiri (Muravera)..................................................... 52

ix
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

Fig. 5.18. Tomba di giganti Mont’ Arbu (Muravera)—the chamber seen from the north.................................................. 53
Fig. 5.19. Nuraghe Su Angedu (Cardedu)—view from the west........................................................................................ 55
Fig. 5.20. Niches in the tholos chamber of Nuraghe Moru (Barisardo)............................................................................. 56
Fig. 5.21. A corridor in Protonuraghe Serra ‘e Ladamini (Tortoli)..................................................................................... 57
Fig. 5.22. Utilization of natural rocks in Protonuraghe Serras Interazzas (Tortoli)............................................................ 57
Fig. 5.23. The Nuragic occupation in the massif of Serra ‘e Ladamini (Tortoli)............................................................... 58
Fig. 5.24. A cumulative viewshed from all the nuraghi and settlement sites on the Teccu plateau.................................... 59
Fig. 5.25. The PPA of connectivity between settlement sites on the Teccu plateau........................................................... 60
Fig. 5.26. A viewshed illustrating visibility (visible area in red) from Protonuraghe Muxieddu (Tortoli)......................... 61
Fig. 5.27. The Nuragic wall with an entrance at the top of Monte Arista (Cardedu)......................................................... 62
Fig. 5.28. The chamber of tomba di giganti Bellisceddu is trapezoidal in section............................................................. 63
Fig. 6.1. Plan of Nuraghe Baccu ‘e Gattus (Villasimius) with two hypothetical phases of construction........................... 66
Fig. 6.2. Nuraghe Asoru (San Vito) in its landscape context—view from the east............................................................ 68
Fig. 6.3. The lateral tower and the antemural of Nuraghe S’Omu ‘e S’Orcu (Castiadas).................................................. 68
Fig. 6.4. Plan of the Nuragic complex of Santoru (Muravera) with the main tower and antemural ................................. 69
Fig. 6.5. The Nuragic occupation around Senni Valley...................................................................................................... 69
Fig. 6.6. The southern part of Riu Senni Valley with a least-cost path between nuraghi S’Acqua Seccis......................... 70
Fig. 6.7. Proximal Point Analysis (PPA) of the area around the massif of Monte Cannas (Castiadas).............................. 71
Fig. 6.8. The least-cost path between Nuraghe S’Omu ‘e S’Orcu (Castiadas) and Nuraghe Monte Turno....................... 72
Fig. 6.9. Distribution of the nuraghi located in a mountain massif east of Villasimius...................................................... 72
Fig. 6.10. Viewshed illustrating visibility from Nuraghe Monti Mereu............................................................................. 73
Fig. 6.11. A circular hut in the settlement near Nuraghe Su Cunventu (Muravera)........................................................... 73
Fig. 6.12. A least-cost pathway between nuraghi Mannu and Don Giovanni Mattaciolu.................................................. 74
Fig. 6.13. A corridor in the bastion of Nuraghe Cea (Loceri)............................................................................................. 76
Fig. 6.14. The Nuragic occupation of the Teccu plateau.................................................................................................... 77
Fig. 6.15. Nuraghe Sellersu (Barisardo)—one of the largest complex nuraghi in sample area 2....................................... 78
Fig. 6.16. The atrium and entrance to the sacred well of Su Presoni (Cardedu)................................................................ 80
Fig. 7.1. The antemural of Nuraghe Puliga (Loceri)........................................................................................................... 85
Fig. 7.2. Remains of a circular hut with Nuraghe Perd’e Pera (Cardedu) in the background............................................ 87
Fig. 8.1. The entrance to the main tower of Nuraghe Cea (Loceri).................................................................................... 90
Fig. 8.2. The Nuragic pottery from stratum 1 in the bastion of Nuraghe Cea (after Cossu 1997)..................................... 91
Fig. 8.3. The tholos dome in pozzo sacro Su Presoni (Cardedu)........................................................................................ 93
Fig. 8.4. Carvings on the architrave of pozzo sacro Su Presoni (Cardedu)........................................................................ 94
Fig. 9.1. Cluster of the nuraghi around Gesico and Mandas (Trexenta)............................................................................. 96
Fig. 9.2. The Nuragic occupation of the plateau of Pranu Nuragheddus (Cabras) on the Sinis peninsula......................... 97
Fig. 9.3. Nuraghe Antigori (Sarroch), where significant quantities of Mycenaean pottery were found........................... 102
Fig. 9.4. View from Nuraghe Gibe Truttiri (Castiadas) to the bay of Cala Marina and Nuraghe Monte Turno............... 103
Fig. A1.1. Distribution of sites in the northern part of sample area 1............................................................................... 109
Fig. A1.2. Distribution of sites in the southern part of sample area 1.............................................................................. 110
Fig. A1.3. The northern wall of Protonuraghe Arrubiu (Muravera)..................................................................................111

x
 List of figures

Fig. A1.4. Protonuraghe Arrubiu in its landscape context—view from the SE................................................................ 112
Fig. A1.5. The northern part of Protonuraghe Baracca Su Entu (Muravera).................................................................... 112
Fig. A1.6. Protonuraghe Baracca Su Entu (Muravera)—view from the west.................................................................. 112
Fig. A1.7. Protonuraghe Bau Travalazzu (Castiadas)—the NE part of the structure....................................................... 112
Fig. A1.8. The hill with Protonuraghe Bau Travalazzu—view from Nuraghe Idda......................................................... 112
Fig. A1.9. The main structure of Protonuraghe Birru (Castiadas)—view from the SW................................................... 113
Fig. A1.10. The structure adjacent to the SW part of the main structure in Protonuraghe Birru...................................... 113
Fig. A1.11. Protonuraghe Brebeis (Castiadas)—view from the NE................................................................................. 114
Fig. A1.12. Protonuraghe Brebeis (Castiadas)—the outer wall-face................................................................................ 114
Fig. A1.13. Probable remains of a collapsed corridor of Protonuraghe Brebeis.............................................................. 114
Fig. A1.14. Main entrance to the cave (to the left) and the stone wall at Bruncu Brailoi................................................ 115
Fig. A1.15. Bruncu Brailoi (Muravera)—the main entrance to the cave and the wall running across it......................... 115
Fig. A1.16. Bruncu Brailoi (Muravera)—natural passage among the rocks leading to the side entrance of the cave..... 115
Fig. A1.17. The central sector of Protonuraghe Bruncu Ottixeddu (Castiadas)............................................................... 116
Fig. A1.18. The southern sector of Protonuraghe Bruncu Ottixeddu (Castiadas)............................................................ 116
Fig. A1.19. Protonuraghe Cala Sinzias (Castiadas) with its extraordinary entrance resting upon natural
rocks—view from the NE................................................................................................................................................. 116
Fig. A1.20. Protonuraghe Cala Sinzias in its landscape context—view from the NE...................................................... 117
Fig. A1.21. The northern part of the main structure of Protonuraghe Casteddu (Castiadas)............................................ 117
Fig. A1.22. The mountain with Protonuraghe Casteddu (Castiadas)—view from the NW.............................................. 118
Fig. A1.23. Small and medium-sized stone is an enlongated bastion of Protonuraghe Casteddu (Castiadas)................. 118
Fig. A1.24. The western part of Protonuraghe Comideddu (San Vito)............................................................................. 118
Fig. A1.25. The chamber of Protonuraghe Comideddu (San Vito)—view from the west................................................ 118
Fig. A1.26. The best preserved part of the cyclopean masonry in Protonuraghe Genna Spina (Castiadas)..................... 119
Fig. A1.27. A rock shelter adjacent to the walls of Protonuraghe Genna Spina (Castiadas)............................................ 119
Fig. A1.28. Protonuraghe Is Laccus (Castiadas)—view from the north........................................................................... 119
Fig. A1.29. The entrance to Protonuraghe Is Laccus (Castiadas)..................................................................................... 120
Fig. A1.30. Interior of a corridor in Protonuraghe Is Laccus (Castiadas)......................................................................... 120
Fig. A1.31. Protonuraghe Liuru Ganudu (Castiadas)—the elongated main structure...................................................... 120
Fig. A1.32. The wall located north of the main structure of Protonuraghe Liuru Ganudu............................................... 121
Fig. A1.33. View from the circular tower along the main structure of Protonuraghe Liuru Ganudu............................... 121
Fig. A1.34. The northern part of Protonuraghe Macionni (Castiadas)............................................................................. 121
Fig. A1.35. Landscape context of Protonuraghe Macionni—view from the south.......................................................... 122
Fig. A1.36. Masonry in the SE part of Protonuraghe Marongiu (Muravera).................................................................... 122
Fig. A1.37. Coursed cyclopean masonry in the western part of Protonuraghe Marongiu................................................ 122
Fig. A1.38. Entrance to Protonuraghe Monte Crobu (Castiadas)—view from NW......................................................... 123
Fig. A1.39. The entrance to Protonuraghe Monte Crobu and view towards the pre-Nuragic standing
stones of Cuili Piras.......................................................................................................................................................... 123
Fig. A1.40. Outer wall-face in the northern part of Protonuraghe Monte Nai (Muravera).............................................. 123
Fig. A1.41. Promontory with Protonuraghe Monte Nai (Muravera) seen from the south................................................ 123
Fig. A1.42. Outer wall-face in the SW part of Protonuraghe Montixeddu (Castiadas).................................................... 124

xi
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

Fig. A1.43. The entrance to Protonuraghe Montixeddu (Castiadas)................................................................................. 124

Fig. A1.44. Protonuraghe Mortus (Muravera)—the entrance to the bastion and corridor................................................ 125
Fig. A1.45. Protonuraghe Mortus (Muravera)—the western part of the main structure.................................................. 125
Fig. A1.46. The chamber inside the main structure of Protonuraghe Mortus (Muravera)............................................... 125
Fig. A1.47. Protonuraghe Nuraxeddu (Castiadas)—view from the east........................................................................... 126
Fig. A1.48. The NW part of Protonuraghe Nuraxeddu (Castiadas).................................................................................. 126
Fig. A1.49. Protonuraghe Perdiaxiu (Muravera)—view from the NE.............................................................................. 126
Fig. A1.50. Protonuraghe Perdiaxiu (Muravera) in its landscape context—view from the south.................................... 127
Fig. A1.51. Protonuraghe Pispisa (Muravera)—view from the NE.................................................................................. 127
Fig. A1.52. Protonuraghe Pispisa (Muravera)—the eastern part of the main tower......................................................... 127
Fig. A1.53. Protonuraghe Ponzianu (Muravera)—view from the NW............................................................................. 128
Fig. A1.54. Spectacular location of Protonuraghe Ponzianu (Muravera)—view from the north..................................... 128
Fig. A1.55. The main structure of Protonuraghe S’Accedda (Castiadas)—view from the SW........................................ 129
Fig. A1.56. A wall between natural rocks north of the main structure of Protonuraghe S’Accedda................................ 129
Fig. A1.57. Remains of the masonry of Protonuraghe S’Ortu (Muravera)—view from the SE...................................... 129
Fig. A1.58. The hilltop with Protonuraghe S’Ortu (Muravera)—view from the west..................................................... 130
Fig. A1.59. The NW part of Protonuraghe Sa Ridroxi (Muravera)—view from the north.............................................. 130
Fig. A1.60. Corridor of Protonuraghe Sa Ridroxi (Muravera)—view from the east........................................................ 130
Fig. A1.61. Protonuraghe Scalas (Muravera)—remains of masonry in the SW part of the protonuraghe....................... 130
Fig. A1.62. Protonuraghe Scalas (Muravera)—view from the west................................................................................. 130
Fig. A1.63. The outer wall-face of Protonuraghe Su Cannisoni (Castiadas).................................................................... 131
Fig. A1.64. Protonuraghe Su Cannisoni (Castiadas)—remains of the wall in the eastern part of the monument............ 131
Fig. A1.65. Protonuraghe Su Sciusciu I (Muravera)—view from Protonuraghe Su Sciusciu II...................................... 131
Fig. A1.66. Protonuraghe Su Sciusciu I (Muravera)—the SW part of the structure........................................................ 132
Fig. A1.67. The wall in the western part of Protonuraghe Su Sciusciu II rests upon natural rock................................... 132
Fig. A1.68. Protonuraghe Su Sciusciu II (Muravera)—view from the west..................................................................... 132
Fig. A1.69. Protonuraghe Su Tasuru I (San Vito) in its landscape context—view from the NW..................................... 133
Fig. A1.70. The entrance to Protonuraghe Su Tasuru I (San Vito)—view from the east.................................................. 133
Fig. A1.71. The western part of Protonuraghe Su Tasuru II (San Vito)............................................................................ 134
Fig. A1.72. Protonuraghe Su Tasuru II (San Vito) in its landscape context—view from Protonuraghe Comideddu....... 134
Fig. A1.73. The best preserved part of Nuraghe Arridelaxiu (San Vito)—view from the south...................................... 134
Fig. A1.74. Outer wall-face in the northern part of Nuraghe Arridelaxiu (San Vito)....................................................... 134
Fig. A1.75. Outer wall-face of Nuraghe Brabudu (Castiadas).......................................................................................... 135
Fig. A1.76. Nuraghe Brabudu seen from Nuraghe Monte S’Ollastinu (Castiadas).......................................................... 135
Fig. A1.77. The cyclopean masonry in the eastern part of Nuraghe Bruncu Campulongu (Villasimius)........................ 135
Fig. A1.78. The location of Nuraghe Bruncu Campulongu (summit to the left) seen from Nuraghe Accu Sa Pira......... 136
Fig. A1.79. Nuraghe Bruncu Su Predi (Muravera)—outer wall-face of the tower........................................................... 136
Fig. A1.80. Remains of a wall protecting the southern approach to Nuraghe Bruncu Su Predi....................................... 137
Fig. A1.81. Nuraghe Bruncu Su Predi (peak to the left) seen from Bruncu Brailoi (Muravera)...................................... 137
Fig. A1.82. Nuraghe Cerbinu (San Vito)—view from the west........................................................................................ 137

xii
 List of figures

Fig. A1.83. The collapsed interior of Nuraghe Cerbinu (San Vito).................................................................................. 137
Fig. A1.84. The northern part of Nuraghe Corrocoi (Castiadas)—view from the NW.................................................... 137
Fig. A1.85. Remains of Nuraghe Corrocoi (Castiadas)—view from the east................................................................... 137
Fig. A1.86. The northern part of Nuraghe Cruxi (Castiadas)........................................................................................... 138
Fig. A1.87. Landscape context of Nuraghe Cruxi (Castiadas)—view from the west....................................................... 138
Fig. A1.88. Nuraghe Cuili Paliu (Castiadas)—view from the north................................................................................. 138
Fig. A1.89. The eastern part of Nuraghe Cuili Paliu (Castiadas)..................................................................................... 139
Fig. A1.90. Atypical location of Nuraghe Cuili Paliu (Castiadas)—the slope of a hill.................................................... 139
Fig. A1.91. Nuraghe Cuili Senni (Muravera)—view from the NW................................................................................. 139
Fig. A1.92. Outer wall-face in the southern part of Nuraghe Cuili Senni (Muravera)..................................................... 139
Fig. A1.93. Nuraghe Domu de S’Orcu (Muravera)—view from the west....................................................................... 140
Fig. A1.94. The chamber of Nuraghe Domu de S’Orcu (Muravera)................................................................................ 140
Fig. A1.95. Nuraghe Domu de S’Orcu (Muravera)—view from the NE......................................................................... 141
Fig. A1.96. Nuraghe Forada Procaxius (San Vito)—view from the NW......................................................................... 141
Fig. A1.97. Remains of the entrance to Nuraghe Forada Procaxius (San Vito)................................................................ 141
Fig. A1.98. The tower of Nuraghe Garrabosu (Muravera)—view from the NW............................................................. 141
Fig. A1.99. The outer (NW) wall protecting the approach to Nuraghe Garrabosu........................................................... 142
Fig. A1.100. Nuraghe Garrabosu (Muravera)—view from the north............................................................................... 142
Fig. A1.101. Nuraghe Gibe Truttiri (Castiadas)—outer wall-face in the western part of the structure............................ 143
Fig. A1.102. Nuraghe Gibe Truttiri (Castiadas)—view from the NE............................................................................... 143
Fig. A1.103. Bastion and tower of Nuraghe Idda (Castiadas).......................................................................................... 143
Fig. A1.104. Chamber of the tower in Nuraghe Idda (Castiadas)..................................................................................... 144
Fig. A1.105. Nuraghe Idda (Castiadas)—the SE part of the structure.............................................................................. 144
Fig. A1.106. Remains of the outer wall-face in the northern part of Nuraghe Masone Murtas (Castiadas).................... 144
Fig. A1.107. Barely traceable remains of a chamber of Nuraghe Masone Murtas (Castiadas)........................................ 144
Fig. A1.108. Remains of a chamber in Nuraghe Meurru (Castiadas)—view from the SE............................................... 144
Fig. A1.109. Masonry in the western part of Nuraghe Meurru (Castiadas)...................................................................... 144
Fig. A1.110. The location of Nuraghe Meurru in its landscape context—view from the SE........................................... 145
Fig. A1.111. Nuraghe Monte Arrubiu (Muravera)—the SE part of the structure............................................................. 145
Fig. A1.112. The outline of the wall in the northern part of Nuraghe Monte Arrubiu (Muravera).................................. 145
Fig. A1.113. Outer wall-face in the SW part of Nuraghe Monte Gruttas (Castiadas)...................................................... 146
Fig. A1.114. The hilltop location of Nuraghe Monte Gruttas—view from the east......................................................... 146
Fig. A1.115. Nuraghe Monte Ontroxiu (Muravera)—the southern arc of the wall.......................................................... 146
Fig. A1.116. The location of Nuraghe Monte Ontroxiu seen from Nuraghe Figu Niedda............................................... 147
Fig. A1.117. Nuraghe Monte S’Ollastinu (Castiadas)—view from the NW.................................................................... 147
Fig. A1.118. The tholos chamber of Nuraghe Monte S’Ollastinu (Castiadas)................................................................. 147
Fig. A1.119. Hilltop location of Nuraghe Monte S’Ollastinu (Castiadas)........................................................................ 147
Fig. A1.120. The outer wall-face of Nuraghe Monte Turno (Castiadas).......................................................................... 148
Fig. A1.122. Nuraghe Monte Zippiri (Muravera)—NW part of the structure.................................................................. 148
Fig. A1.121. The promontory with Nuraghe Monte Turno—view from the south.......................................................... 148

xiii
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

Fig. A1.123. Outer wall-face in the eastern part of Nuraghe Monte Zippiri (Muravera)................................................. 149
Fig. A1.124. Location of Nuraghe Monte Zippiri (Muravera) seen from the west.......................................................... 149
Fig. A1.125. The eastern part of Nuraghe Moros (Castiadas).......................................................................................... 149
Fig. A1.126. View from Nuraghe Moros to the SE with coastline visible....................................................................... 149
Fig. A1.127. Nuraghe Mumosa (Muravera)—northern part of the structure.................................................................... 150
Fig. A1.128. Nuraghe Mumosa (Muravera)—southern part of the structure................................................................... 150
Fig. A1.129. The western part of Nuraghe Nicola Podda (Muravera).............................................................................. 150
Fig. A1.130. Remains of the entrance to Nuraghe Nicola Podda (Muravera).................................................................. 151
Fig. A1.131. Nuraghe Nicola Podda (Muravera) in its landscape context—view from the west..................................... 151
Fig. A1.132. The entrance to Nuraghe Nuraxeddu (Castiadas)—view from the SE........................................................ 151
Fig. A1.133. The outer wall-face in the northern part of Nuraghe Nuraxeddu (Castiadas).............................................. 152
Fig. A1.134. Nuraghe Piras (Castiadas)—view from the south........................................................................................ 152
Fig. A1.135. Cyclopean masonry in the western part of Nuraghe Piras (Castiadas)........................................................ 152
Fig. A1.136. Nuraghe Piscareddu (Muravera)—outer wall-face in the northern part of the tower.................................. 153
Fig. A1.137. Partly collapsed entrance passage of Nuraghe Piscareddu—view from the north...................................... 152
Fig. A1.138. Plan of Nuraghe Porceddus (Villasimius), prepared by me with the use of Leica Total Station................. 153
Fig. A1.139. Nuraghe Porceddus (Villasimius)—eastern part of the structure................................................................ 153
Fig. A1.140. Nuraghe Porceddus (Villasimius)—view from the north............................................................................ 154
Fig. A1.141. Nuraghe Priamo Orru (San Vito)—view from the south............................................................................. 155
Fig. A1.142. The hilltop with Nuraghe Priamo Orru—view from the NW...................................................................... 155
Fig. A1.143. Nuraghe Riu Molas (Muravera)—northern part of the structure................................................................. 156
Fig. A1.144. Nuraghe Riu Molas (Muravera)—remains of the bastion in the foreground, masonry of the
tower in the background.................................................................................................................................................... 156
Fig. A1.145. Remains of Nuraghe S’Achiloni (San Vito)................................................................................................ 156
Fig. A1.146. View from Nuraghe S’Achiloni towards San Vito to the NW..................................................................... 156
Fig. A1.147. Nuraghe S’Argalla I (Villasimius)—remains of the collapsed chamber..................................................... 156
Fig. A1.148. Nuraghe S’Argalla I (Villasimius)—view from the SE............................................................................... 157
Fig. A1.149. Nuraghe S’Argalla II (Villasimius)—masonry in the eastern part of the structure..................................... 157
Fig. A1.150. Locations of nuraghi S’Argalla I and II (Villasimius) seen from the NW................................................... 157
Fig. A1.151. The SE part of Nuraghe S’Oxiu (Villasimius)............................................................................................. 158
Fig. A1.152. Nuraghe S’Oxiu (Villasimius) seen from the NE........................................................................................ 158
Fig. A1.153. Nuraghe Sabadi (Castiadas)—view from the NW....................................................................................... 158
Fig. A1.154. Entrance to Nuraghe San Pietro (Castiadas)—view from the east.............................................................. 159
Fig. A1.155. Nuraghe San Pietro (Castiadas)—northern part of the structure................................................................. 159
Fig. A1.156. Corridor leading to the chamber of Nuraghe San Pietro (Castiadas)........................................................... 159
Fig. A1.157. Nuraghe San Priamo I (San Vito)—view from the north............................................................................ 160
Fig. A1.158. The chamber of Nuraghe San Priamo I (San Vito) is filled with debris...................................................... 160
Fig. A1.159. Nuraghe San Priamo II (San Vito)—view from the NW............................................................................. 160
Fig. A1.160. The wall protecting approach to Nuraghe San Priamo II (San Vito)........................................................... 160
Fig. A1.161. Nuraghe San Priamo II in its landscape context—view from Nuraghe San Priamo I................................. 161

xiv
 List of figures

Fig. A1.162. Nuraghe Sant’ Aleni (San Vito)—view from the south with visible entrance............................................. 161
Fig. A1.163. Outer wall-face in the western part of Nuraghe Sant’ Aleni (San Vito)...................................................... 161
Fig. A1.164. Nuraghe Su Braccu (Muravera)—view from the NW................................................................................. 162
Fig. A1.165. Remains of the bastion of Nuraghe Su Braccu (Muravera)......................................................................... 162
Fig. A1.166. Nuraghe Su Braccu (Muravera)—vitrified blocks in the central part of the tower..................................... 162
Fig. A1.167. Nuraghe Su Cunventu (Muravera)—view from the west............................................................................ 162
Fig. A1.168. Nuraghe Su Modditzi (Muravera)—outer wall-face in the eastern part of the structure............................. 163
Fig. A1.169. A wall on the northern slope of a hill with Nuraghe Su Modditzi............................................................... 164
Fig. A1.170. The NE part of Nuraghe Tersilia (Muravera)............................................................................................... 164
Fig. A1.171. Nuraghe Tersilia in its landscape context—view from the NW.................................................................. 164
Fig. A1.172. Nuraghe Asoru (San Vito)—view from the east.......................................................................................... 164
Fig. A1.173. Courtyard in front of the entrance to the main tower of Nuraghe Asoru (San Vito)................................... 165
Fig. A1.174. The main tower of Nuraghe Baccu ‘e Gattus (Villasimius)......................................................................... 165
Fig. A1.175. Entrance to the chamber of the lateral tower of Nuraghe Baccu ‘e Gattus (Villasimius)............................ 166
Fig. A1.176. The chamber of the lateral tower in Nuraghe Baccu ‘e Gattus (Villasimius).............................................. 166
Fig. A1.177. The main tower of Nuraghe Baccu Sa Figu (Castiadas)—view from the SW............................................ 166
Fig. A1.178. The western niche in the main tower of Nuraghe Baccu Sa Figu (Castiadas)............................................. 166
Fig. A1.179. The northern sector of Nuraghe Cardaxiu (San Vito).................................................................................. 167
Fig. A1.180. Nuraghe Cardaxiu (San Vito) in its landscape context—view from the south............................................ 167
Fig. A1.181. Nuraghe Corritta (Muravera)—the NE part of the main tower................................................................... 168
Fig. A1.182. Remains of the collapsed northern tower of Nuraghe Corritta.................................................................... 168
Fig. A1.183. The entrance to the main tower of Nuraghe Don Giovanni Mattaciolu (Muravera)................................... 168
Fig. A1.184. The eastern tower of Nuraghe Don Giovanni Mattaciolu with its tholos chamber..................................... 169
Fig. A1.185. Nuraghe Figu Niedda (Muravera)—the eastern part of the main tower...................................................... 169
Fig. A1.186. Hilltop with Nuraghe Figu Niedda seen from Nuraghe Monte Ontroxiu.................................................... 169
Fig. A1.187. Nuraghe Is Traias (Villasimius)—outer wall-face in eastern part of the structure...................................... 170
Fig. A1.188. Remains of the lateral tower in Nuraghe Is Traias (Villasimius)................................................................. 170
Fig. A1.189. Nuraghe Mannu (Muravera)—view from the south.................................................................................... 170
Fig. A1.190. Location of Nuraghe Mannu—the highest peak visible on the photo......................................................... 171
Fig. A1.191. The outer wall-face of the main tower in Nuraghe Manunzas (Villasimius)............................................... 171
Fig. A1.192. The chamber of Nuraghe Mont’Arbu (San Vito)—view from the NE........................................................ 172
Fig. A1.193. Remains of the entrance to the tower of Nuraghe Mont’Arbu (San Vito)................................................... 172
Fig. A1.194. The main tower of Nuraghe Monte Narbeddu (San Vito)........................................................................... 172
Fig. A1.195. Nuraghe Monte Narbeddu (San Vito)—chamber of the northern tower..................................................... 173
Fig. A1.196. Nuraghe Monti Mereu (Villasimius)—outer wall-face of the southern tower/bastion................................ 173
Fig. A1.197. Remains of the wall in the northern part of the main tower of Nuraghe Monti Mereu............................... 173
Fig. A1.198. The eastern tower of Nuraghe Murtas (Muravera)—view from the south.................................................. 174
Fig. A1.199. The main tower of Nuraghe Murtas (Muravera)—view from the east........................................................ 174
Fig. A1.200. The main tower of Nuraghe Porto Pirastu (Muravera)................................................................................ 174
Fig. A1.201. View from the main tower at the bastion or lateral tower of Nuraghe Porto Pirastu (Muravera)................ 174

xv
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

Fig. A1.202. Promontory with Nuraghe Porto Pirastu (Muravera) seen from the NE..................................................... 174
Fig. A1.203. Nuraghe S’Acqua Seccis (Muravera)—view from the NW........................................................................ 175
Fig. A1.204. Nuraghe S’Acqua Seccis (Muravera)—interior of the NW tower............................................................... 175
Fig. A1.205. Intramural staircase in the main tower of Nuraghe S’Acqua Seccis (Muravera)........................................ 176
Fig. A1.206. Hilltop with Nuraghe S’Acqua Seccis (Muravera)—view from the west................................................... 176
Fig. A1.207. The SW tower of Nuraghe S’Omu ‘e S’Orcu (Castiadas)........................................................................... 176
Fig. A1.208. The eastern wall of the bastion in Nuraghe S’Omu ‘e S’Orcu (Castiadas)................................................. 176
Fig. A1.209. The plan of Nuraghe S’Omu ‘e S’Orcu (after R. Ledda 1985)................................................................... 177
Fig. A1.210. Nuraghe Sa Spadula (Muravera) in its landscape context—view from the north....................................... 178
Fig. A1.211. The chamber of the western tower in Nuraghe Sa Spadula (Muravera)...................................................... 178
Fig. A1.212. The main tower of Nuraghe Santoru (Muravera). Plan prepared by me with the use of
Leica Total Station............................................................................................................................................................ 178
Fig. A1.213. Nuraghe Santoru (Muravera)—the main tower........................................................................................... 179
Fig. A1.214. The chamber of the main tower in Nuraghe Santoru (Muravera)................................................................ 179
Fig. A1.215. Nuraghe Santoru (Muravera) seen from the north—antemural in the foreground, main
tower in the background.................................................................................................................................................... 179
Fig. A1.216. Nuraghe Su Linnamini (San Vito)—the main tower seen from the E–NE.................................................. 180
Fig. A1.217. The main tower of Nuraghe Su Linnamini (San Vito)—view from the west.............................................. 180
Fig. A1.218. The only distinguishable sector of masonry in Nuraghe Accu Sa Pira (Villasimius).................................. 180
Fig. A1.219. The hilltop location of Nuraghe Accu Sa Pira seen from Nuraghe S’Argalla II......................................... 180
Fig. A1.220. Masonry in the NW part of Nuraghe Cann’e Frau (Muravera)................................................................... 181
Fig. A1.221. Nuraghe Cann’e Frau (Muravera)—view from the west............................................................................. 181
Fig. A1.222. Nuraghe Cuili Su Casteddu (San Vito)—view from the north.................................................................... 181
Fig. A1.223. Cuili Su Casteddu (San Vito)—remains of a fortification wall of uncertain chronology............................ 182
Fig. A1.224. Remains of masonry in the western part of Nuraghe Giordi (Muravera).................................................... 182
Fig. A1.225. Collapse and mass of debris in the eastern part of Nuraghe Giordi (Muravera)......................................... 182
Fig. A1.226. Collapsed wall in the northern part of Nuraghe Mitza Sa Granaccia (Muravera)....................................... 183
Fig. A1.227. Hilltop with Nuraghe Mitza Sa Granaccia—view from the north............................................................... 183
Fig. A1.228. The southern part of Nuraghe Monte Idda (San Vito)................................................................................. 183
Fig. A1.229. Hilltop with Nuraghe Monte Idda (San Vito) in its landscape context........................................................ 183
Fig. A1.230. Cyclopean wall in the eastern part of Nuraghe Monte Idda (Castiadas)..................................................... 184
Fig. A1.231. Landscape location of Nuraghe Monte Idda (Castiadas)—view from the east........................................... 184
Fig. A1.232. Remains of a wall in the western part of Nuraghe Monte Idda (Castiadas)................................................ 184
Fig. A1.233. Nuraghe Monti Ferru (Muravera)—view from the south............................................................................ 185
Fig. A1.234. Nuraghe Monti Ferru (Muravera) in its landscape context—view from the SE.......................................... 185
Fig. A1.235. Nuraghe Puncilioni (Muravera) is preserved as a mound of debris with little traces of masonry............... 185
Fig. A1.236. The landscape context of Nuraghe Puncilioni—view from the NW........................................................... 185
Fig. A1.237. Remains of masonry in the eastern part of Nuraghe Punta Molentis (Villasimius)..................................... 185
Fig. A1.238. Nuraghe Sa Figu (Castiadas)—view from the NW..................................................................................... 186
Fig. A1.239. Nuraghe Sa Iba de Ziu Franciscu (Muravera)—view from the north.......................................................... 186
Fig. A1.240. Remains of a wall below Nuraghe Sa Iba de Ziu Franciscu—view from the south.................................... 186

xvi
 List of figures

Fig. A1.241. The best preserved part of masonry in Nuraghe Sa Proca (Castiadas)........................................................ 187
Fig. A1.242. Debris in the central part of Nuraghe Sa Proca (Castiadas)......................................................................... 187
Fig. A1.243. Nuraghe Santa Matta (Muravera)—view from the NW.............................................................................. 187
Fig. A1.244. Boulders near Via Castello (Muravera) which—according to the local people—come from
1960s dismantling of remains of the nuraghe................................................................................................................... 188
Fig. A1.245. Remains of a wall west of Nuraghe Corritta (Muravera)............................................................................ 188
Fig. A1.246. Remains of a hut near Nuraghe Don Giovanni Mattaciolu (Muravera)...................................................... 188
Fig. A1.247. Remains of structures located east of Protonuraghe Marongiu (Muravera)................................................ 189
Fig. A1.248. Remains of a structure east of Nuraghe Monte Zippiri (Muravera)............................................................ 189
Fig. A1.249. Overgrown remains of structures near Nuraghe Sa Spadula....................................................................... 189
Fig. A1.250. Remains of a circular hut in the settlement of Su Cunventu (Muravera).................................................... 190
Fig. A1.251. Monte Antoni Peppi (Muravera)—view from the NE................................................................................. 190
Fig. A1.252. Tomba di giganti Bau S’Arena (Muravera)—remains of exedra and bruail chamber................................. 191
Fig. A1.253. A megalithic tomb, possibly another tomba di giganti or pre-Nuragic allée couverte, located
north of tomba di giganti Bau S’Arena............................................................................................................................. 191
Fig. A1.254. The burial chamber of tomba di giganti Masone Pardu (Castiadas)........................................................... 191
Fig. A1.255. The southern part of the burial chamber of tomba di giganti Masone Pardu.............................................. 192
Fig. A1.256. Remains of tomba di giganti Mitza Sa Granaccia (Muravera).................................................................... 192
Fig. A1.257. The burial chamber of tomba di giganti Mont’Arbu (Muravera)................................................................ 192
Fig. A1.258. A general view of tomba di giganti Mont’Arbu (Muravera)....................................................................... 193
Fig. A1.259. Tomba di giganti Monte Crobu I (Castiadas)—the southern wing of exedra.............................................. 193
Fig. A1.260. Tomba di giganti Monte Crobu I (Castiadas)—partly collapsed burial chamber........................................ 193
Fig. A1.261. Part of the burial chamber of tomba di giganti Monte Crobu II (Castiadas)............................................... 194
Fig. A1.262. Kerbstones in the outline of the structure of tomba di giganti Monte Crobu II.......................................... 194
Fig. A1.263. One of the heavily damaged tombs located east of tombe di giganti Monte Crobu—it could
be another tomba di giganti or a pre-Nuragic allée couverte........................................................................................... 195
Fig. A1.264. Tomba di giganti Monte Zippiri—the western part of the burial chamber.................................................. 195
Fig. A1.265. Tomba di giganti Monte Zippiri (Muravera)—the eastern part of the burial chamber................................ 195
Fig. A1.266. Stone blocks originally constituting part of destroyed tomba di giganti Sant’ Aleni (San Vito)................. 195
Fig. A2.1. Distribution of Nuragic sites in sample area 2................................................................................................. 197
Fig. A2.2. Cyclopean masonry of Protonuraghe Baccu Argiolasi (Barisardo) and view towards coastline.................... 198
Fig. A2.3. Remains of a corridor in Protonuraghe Baccu Argiolasi (Barisardo).............................................................. 198
Fig. A2.4. Protonuraghe Baccu Arzula (Tortoli)—view from the S–SE.......................................................................... 198
Fig. A2.5. Protonuraghe Baccu Arzula (Tortoli) in its landscape context—view from the east....................................... 198
Fig. A2.6. The best preserved part of the outer wall-face is located in the NE part of Protonuraghe Foxi (Barisardo)... 199
Fig. A2.7. Masonry in the northern part of Protonuraghe Foxi (Barisardo)..................................................................... 199
Fig. A2.8. Remains of the corridor in Protonuraghe Foxi (Barisardo)............................................................................. 199
Fig. A2.9. Preserved part of the corridor behind the western entrance to Protonuraghe Geperarci (Barisardo).............. 200
Fig. A2.10. Roughly N–S-oriented part of the corridor of Protonuraghe Geperarci (Barisardo)..................................... 200
Fig. A2.11. The corridor of Protonuraghe Muxieddu (Tortoli)—view from the east....................................................... 200
Fig. A2.12. Protonuraghe Muxieddu (in the centre) in its landscape context—view from the NE.................................. 201

xvii
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

Fig. A2.13. Entrance to Protonuraghe Serra ‘e Ladamini (Tortoli)—view from the south.............................................. 201
Fig. A2.14. Protonuraghe Serra ‘e Ladamini (Tortoli) and its setting on natural rock outcrops...................................... 202
Fig. A2.15. Protonuraghe Serra ‘e Ladamini—the SE wall which fills a gap between two rock outcrops...................... 202
Fig. A2.16. Protonuraghe Serras Interazzas (Tortoli) seen from the N–NE..................................................................... 202
Fig. A2.17. Protonuraghe Serras Interazzas (Tortoli)—a wall filling a gap between two rock outcrops......................... 203
Fig. A2.18. The tower of Nuraghe Murcu (Cardedu)—view from the east...................................................................... 203
Fig. A2.19. The corridor of Nuraghe Murcu (Cardedu)................................................................................................... 203
Fig. A2.20. The entrance to Protonuraghe Murcu (Cardedu)—view from the south....................................................... 204
Fig. A2.21. Nuraghe Genna Masoni (Cardedu)—view from the south............................................................................ 204
Fig. A2.22. Entrance to the collapsed tholos chamber of Nuraghe Genna Masoni.......................................................... 205
Fig. A2.23. Nuraghe Genna Masoni (Cardedu)—a niche located right of the entrance................................................... 205
Fig. A2.24. The northern part of Nuraghe Nuraxeddu (Tortoli)....................................................................................... 205
Fig. A2.25. Remains of a collapsed corridor(?) in Nuraghe Nuraxeddu (Tortoli)............................................................ 205
Fig. A2.26. Nuraghe Nurta (Elini)—view from the SW................................................................................................... 206
Fig. A2.27. The tholos chamber of Nuraghe Nurta (Elini)............................................................................................... 206
Fig. A2.28. The outer wall-face in the NE part of Nuraghe Su Ziniburu (Barisardo)...................................................... 206
Fig. A2.29. Nuraghe Su Ziniburu (Barisardo)—view from the west................................................................................ 206
Fig. A2.30. Partly preserved tholos chamber of Nuraghe Su Fraii (Cardedu)—view from the north.............................. 206
Fig. A2.31. Entrance to the chamber of Nuraghe Su Fraii (Cardedu).............................................................................. 207
Fig. A2.32. Nuraghe Trunconi (Cardedu)—a general view.............................................................................................. 207
Fig. A2.33. The eastern part of the bastion in Nuraghe Trunconi (Cardedu)................................................................... 207
Fig. A2.34. Nuraghe Arbu (Lanusei)—view from the north............................................................................................. 208
Fig. A2.35. The hilltop with Nuraghe Arbu (Lanusei)—view from the east.................................................................... 208
Fig. A2.36. Remains of a possible antemural located west of Nuraghe Arbu.................................................................. 208
Fig. A2.37. The entrance to the northern tower of Nuraghe Boschinu (Barisardo).......................................................... 209
Fig. A2.38. Courtyard between the two towers of Nuraghe Boschinu (Barisardo).......................................................... 209
Fig. A2.39. Interior of the southern part of Nuraghe Boschinu (Barisardo)..................................................................... 210
Fig. A2.40. The main tower of Nuraghe Brocca (Cardedu)—view from the north.......................................................... 210
Fig. A2.41. Remains of a bastion or lateral tower of Nuraghe Brocca (Cardedu)............................................................ 210
Fig. A2.42. Entrance to the main tower of Nuraghe Cardedu (Cardedu)......................................................................... 210
Fig. A2.43. Remains of an entrance to the bastion or lateral tower of Nuraghe Cardedu................................................ 210
Fig. A2.44. The outer wall-face in the western part of Nuraghe Cardedu (Cardedu)....................................................... 211
Fig. A2.45. Polygonal cyclopean masonry of the bastion in Nuraghe Cea (Loceri)........................................................ 211
Fig. A2.46. Corridor in the bastion of Nuraghe Cea (Loceri)........................................................................................... 211
Fig. A2.47. Corridor in the bastion of Nuraghe Corti Accas (Tortoli).............................................................................. 212
Fig. A2.48. The main tower of Nuraghe Corti Accas (Tortoli)......................................................................................... 212
Fig. A2.49. The western tower of Nuraghe Corti Accas (Tortoli).................................................................................... 212
Fig. A2.50. A rocky hilltop with Nuraghe Desfollas (Cardedu)—view from the east...................................................... 213
Fig. A2.51. Nuraghe Desfollas (Cardedu)—northern part of the chamber in the eastern tower...................................... 213
Fig. A2.52. Remains of Nuraghe Giba ‘e Scorka (Barisardo)—view from the north...................................................... 213

xviii
 List of figures

Fig. A2.53. The main tower of Nuraghe Iba Manna (Barisardo)...................................................................................... 214
Fig. A2.54. Tholos chamber in the main (northern) tower of Nuraghe Iba Manna (Barisardo)....................................... 214
Fig. A2.55. Entrance from the courtyard to the southern tower of Nuraghe Iba Manna.................................................. 215
Fig. A2.56. Nuraghe Lurcuri (Barisardo)—remains of a tholos chamber........................................................................ 215
Fig. A2.57. The SW part of the bastion in Nuraghe Lurcuri (Barisardo)—view from the west....................................... 215
Fig. A2.58. Nuraghe Mattale (Barisardo)—main tower................................................................................................... 216
Fig. A2.59. The south-eastern tower of Nuraghe Mattale (Barisardo) with an entrance to the staircase......................... 216
Fig. A2.60. Tower in the antemural of Nuraghe Mattale (Barisardo)............................................................................... 216
Fig. A2.61. The main tower of Nuraghe Mindeddu (Barisardo)—view from the SE...................................................... 217
Fig. A2.62. Remains of a chamber in the lateral tower of Nuraghe Mindeddu (Barisardo)............................................. 217
Fig. A2.63. View over the main tower of Nuraghe Mindeddu towards Nuraghe Lurcuri................................................ 217
Fig. A2.64. The intramural staircase of the main tower in Nuraghe Mindeddu............................................................... 218
Fig. A2.65. Tholos dome in the main tower of Nuraghe Moru (Barisardo)..................................................................... 218
Fig. A2.66. Remains of the tholos chamber in the NW tower of Nuraghe Moru (Barisardo).......................................... 219
Fig. A2.67. Partly collapsed intramural staircase in the main tower of Nuraghe Moru (Barisardo)................................ 219
Fig. A2.68. Wall-face of the bastion of Nuraghe Moru (Barisardo)................................................................................. 219
Fig. A2.69. The northern tower of Nuraghe Niedda Puliga (Barisardo)........................................................................... 220
Fig. A2.70. The main tower of Nuraghe Perd’e Pera (Cardedu)...................................................................................... 220
Fig. A2.71. Wall located east of the main tower of Nuraghe Perd’e Pera........................................................................ 221
Fig. A2.72. Entrance to the main tower of Nuraghe Perd’e Pera (Cardedu).................................................................... 221
Fig. A2.73. Entrance to the main tower of Nuraghe Puliga (Loceri)................................................................................ 221
Fig. A2.74. The lateral tower of Nuraghe Puliga (Loceri)................................................................................................ 222
Fig. A2.75. Nuraghe Sa Perda ‘e S’Obiga (Cardedu)—outer wall-face of the bastion.................................................... 222
Fig. A2.76. Large stones in the masonry of Nuraghe Sa Perda ‘e S’Obiga (Cardedu)..................................................... 223
Fig. A2.77. The hilltop with Nuraghe Sa Serra de Is Perdas (Osini)—view from the west............................................. 223
Fig. A2.78. The main tower of Nuraghe Sa Serra de Is Perdas (Osini)............................................................................ 223
Fig. A2.79. Tholos chamber in the main tower of Nuraghe Sellersu (Barisardo)............................................................ 224
Fig. A2.80. Nuraghe Sellersu—remains of the intramural staircase of the main tower................................................... 224
Fig. A2.81. Western tower of Nuraghe Sellersu (Barisardo)............................................................................................ 224
Fig. A2.82. Corridor inside the bastion of Nuraghe Sellersu (Barisardo)......................................................................... 225
Fig. A2.83. The best preserved part of Nuraghe Serra ‘e S’Omu (Cardedu).................................................................... 225
Fig. A2.84. Remains of a probable eastern tower in Nuraghe Serra ‘e S’Omu (Cardedu)............................................... 225
Fig. A2.85. A rocky spur near the coast which carries Nuraghe Su Angedu (Cardedu)................................................... 225
Fig. A2.86. Remains of the main tower in Nuraghe Su Angedu (Cardedu)..................................................................... 226
Fig. A2.87. Outer wall-face of the bastion of Nuraghe Su Crastu (Barisardo)................................................................. 226
Fig. A2.88. Remains of an internal space (possibly a staircase) in Nuraghe Su Crastu................................................... 226
Fig. A2.89. The tholos chamber of the main tower in Nuraghe Turuddis (Tortoli).......................................................... 227
Fig. A2.90. The main tower of Nuraghe Turuddis (Tortoli)—view from the west........................................................... 227
Fig. A2.91. Nuraghe Turuddis (Tortoli)—entrance to the tholos chamber of the main tower seen from the inside........ 228
Fig. A2.92. The main tower of Nuraghe Ursu (Lanusei).................................................................................................. 228

xix
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

Fig. A2.93. Partly preserved tholos chamber in the lateral tower of Nuraghe Ursu (Lanusei)......................................... 229
Fig. A2.94. Remains of a circular hut in the settlement of Baccu Argiolasi (Barisardo)................................................. 229
Fig. A2.95. A circular hut in the settlement of Nuraghe Moru (Barisardo)...................................................................... 229
Fig. A2.96. The NW hut in the settlement of Perd’e Pera (Cardedu)............................................................................... 230
Fig. A2.97. The NW hut in the settlement of Perd’e Pera—view from the south............................................................ 230
Fig. A2.98. Remains of a circular hut in the Nuragic settlement of Sellersu (Barisardo)................................................ 230
Fig. A2.99. Remains of an antemural in the Nuragic settlement of Sellersu (Barisardo)................................................. 230
Fig. A2.100. A circular hut in the settlement of Su Ziniburu (Barisardo)—view from the west...................................... 230
Fig. A2.101. Entrance in the Nuragic wall near the summit of Monte Arista (Cardedu)................................................. 231
Fig. A2.102. Western part of the Nuragic wall near Punta Cea (Tortoli).......................................................................... 231
Fig. A2.103. Eastern part of the Nuragic wall near Punta Cea (Tortoli)........................................................................... 231
Fig. A2.104. Tomba di giganti Bellisceddu (Barisardo)—the entrance and part of the chamber..................................... 232
Fig. A2.105. Arched vaulting of tomba di giganti Bellisceddu (Barisardo)..................................................................... 233
Fig. A2.106. Tomba di giganti Brocca (Cardedu)—remains of the burial chamber......................................................... 233
Fig. A2.107. Remains of tomba di giganti Brocca with a possible capstone in the foreground....................................... 234
Fig. A2.108. Tomba di giganti Fragori (Barisardo)—the burial chamber seen from the south........................................ 234
Fig. A2.109. Burial chamber of tomba di giganti Preda Longa (Tortoli)—view from the east....................................... 235
Fig. A2.110. The sacred well of Su Presoni (Cardedu)—entrance to the staircase.......................................................... 235
Fig. A2.111. The staircase of the sacred well of Su Presoni (Cardedu)............................................................................ 235
Fig. A2.112. A general view of the sacred well of Su Presoni with atrium and entrance to the staircase........................ 236
Fig. A3.1. The longest pre-Nuragic stone row of Cuili Piras (Muravera)........................................................................ 237
Fig. A3.2. Standing stones located west of Protonuraghe Scalas (Muravera).................................................................. 238

xx
 List of tables

Table 3.1. Duffy’s (2015) model of the six determinants of site size hierarchy................................................................. 17
Table 3.2. Number of sites recorded during the project divided into types of sites and municipalities............................. 20
Table 3.3. Chronology and architectural typology of tombe di giganti (based on Depalmas and Melis 2010)................. 22
Table 5.1. The pre-Nuragic sites in sample area 1 with the associated Nuragic sites......................................................... 38
Table 5.2. Data from the PPA of the area near the massif of Bruncu Su Tidori—number of connections for each site.... 49
Table 5.3. Quantification of the results of viewshed analysis run from selected Nuragic sites in sample areas 1 and 2... 50
Table 5.4. Data from the PPA of the Teccu plateau—number of connections for each site............................................... 60
Table 6.1. Likely Recent and Final Bronze Age sites in sample area 1.............................................................................. 67
Table 6.2. Data from the Proximal Point Analysis (PPA) in the area of Monte Cannas..................................................... 71
Table 8.1. Stratigraphic sequence from the bastion of Nuraghe Cea (Loceri) as recorded by T. Cossu ............................ 91

xxi
 1

Research aims

The Bronze Age (c.2300–900 bc) and Iron Age (c.900– types of ritual monuments. Some of its elements survived
500 bc) in the Central and Western Mediterranean saw into the Late Iron Age (c.750–500 bc) and merged with the
the emergence of a significant number of cultures which Punic culture introduced after the Carthaginian conquest
developed mostly indigenously on islands. The Bronze of the island in the late sixth century bc, resulting in the
Age Torrean culture of Corsica, the Bronze Age and emergence of a hybrid culture with both indigenous and
Early Iron Age Nuragic culture of Sardinia, and the Iron Punic characteristics.
Age Talayotic culture of Mallorca and Menorca are often
seen as local phenomena, studies of which do not offer The Nuragic culture of Sardinia remains a field of research
a significant contribution to our overall understanding of offering particularly rich opportunities for the use of
the Mediterranean later prehistory. Furthermore, many landscape archaeology, not only due to its relatively scarce
attempts to interpret the development of these cultures application (and thus unfulfilled potential) in research
(Pericot Garcia 1974; G. Webster 1996; Lilliu 1999) in this area to date, but also because of the exceptional
constitute an attempt to create a chronological model preservation of the Bronze Age cultural landscape of the
capturing the main patterns characteristic for each period. island. The rich array of settlement types (protonuraghi,
Both of these approaches deserve criticism. Despite single-towered nuraghe, complex nuraghi with villages,
their relative isolation, the prehistoric island cultures of open settlements), as well as ritual sites (megaron temples,
the Central Mediterranean have significance going well sacred wells), includes monumental architecture, which
beyond local scale. This is not only due to the cases of makes the settlement network relatively easy to identify
their contacts with other parts of the Mediterranean, but in the landscape. This monumentality, coupled with the
also due to the fact that the knowledge of processes and limited impact of modern agriculture and urbanization,
mechanisms which influenced the development of each has preserved much of the Nuragic cultural landscape,
of them can contribute to our understanding of other affording particularly wide scope for landscape
Mediterranean prehistoric island cultures. Furthermore, archaeological research. This contrasts with some areas of
an attempt to explain their emergence and development the Mediterranean, such as Sicily, where the prehistoric
through a single model based on dominant patterns often landscape is more obscured through changes which
overlooks local variability. That is certainly the case in the occurred in later periods. For example, Chalcolithic
studies of the Nuragic culture in Sardinia. Even though and Early Bronze Age sites are less visible due to post-
its architecture and material culture are relatively uniform depositional processes and the impact of agriculture (Ayala
across the island, which led to suggestions about possible 2012). As a result, our understanding of the settlement
pan-Sardinian Nuragic identity (Blake 1999), there are dynamics of these periods in Sicily is heavily influenced
significant differences in local settlement patterns and by preservation patterns since the land around rocky
distribution of ritual sites which have not been adequately hilltops is usually less cultivated (Leighton 2005). This
considered. This work is an attempt to address this problem is much less common in the case of Bronze Age
particular field of research through analysis of the Nuragic Sardinia, especially on the east coast, where the impact of
settlement dynamics (understood as patterns and processes agriculture is very limited, while the predominance of sites
shaping the development of settlement in a specific area) exhibiting megalithic architecture ensures their visibility
on the east coast of Sardinia, an area which has received in the landscape.
less attention from archaeolgists than the western part
of the island. An emphasis will be placed upon the local This work builds on my previous experience in Nuragic
patterns and placing them in a wider picture of the Nuragic archaeology, including a research project on the transition
culture in Sardinia and Central Mediterranen prehistory. from protonuraghi to tholos nuraghi in the Bronze Age
architecture of Sardinia (Namirski 2012, BA dissertation,
The Nuragic culture started to flourish in the Middle University of Reading) and a survey of the cluster of nuraghi
Bronze Age (c.1800–1300 bc), while the processes near Gesico and Mandas (Trexenta, central Sardinia), which
which lead to its emergence possibly started already in provided the basis for the analysis of Nuragic territoriality
the Early Bronze Age (c.2300–1800 bc). Subsequently in this area (Namirski 2013, MA dissertation, University
it developed and underwent changes in social structure, of Durham). Experience gained in these projects, years of
architecture and material culture in the Recent Bronze Age extensive studies of Nuragic archaeology and expertise
(c.1300–1150 bc), Final Bronze Age (c.1150–900 bc) and in landscape archaeology allowed me to identify the east
Early Iron Age (c.900–750 bc). It changed the Sardinian coast of the island as one of the most promising areas for
landscape significantly, marking it with over 7000 nuraghi research into Nuragic archaeology in Sardinia, as well as to
(conical-shaped stone towers), as well as tombe di giganti determine a suitable methodology. This part of the island
(megalithic tombs), pozzi sacri (sacred wells) and other has received little attention in comparison with the west,

1
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

primarily due to less extensive Nuragic occupation and attention paid to Nuragic settlement dynamics of the east
a smaller number of large nucleated settlements. A wide coast of Sardinia but also due to the fact that many of the
array of different settlement patterns was distinguished regional studies done in western Sardinia (Navarra 1997,
through surveys in different parts of the island—ranging Ugas 1998, Cicilloni and Migaleddu 2008) focus only on
from clusters of nuraghi with buffer zones as territorial specific aspects of Nuragic settlement, such as Recent and
boundaries around them (Sedilo; Bonzani 1992), through Final Bronze Age nucleation, territoriality or architectural
occupation of the edges of highland plateaus (Giara di development, rarely contextualizing them by presenting
Serri; Puddu 2001), to small groups of nuraghi (Pran ‘e a wider picture of Nuragic settlement, society, economy
Muru; Campus 2008) and dispersed occupation (Gallura; and ritual in the area in question. This deficiency will be
Puggioni 2009). Considering this diversity, it cannot be addressed in this project, as the discussion of the results
assumed that the Nuragic occupation near the east coast will consider how the above-mentioned issues inform us
of the island followed exactly the same patterns as in about the development of Nuragic society and economy
previously surveyed areas of Campidano (south-west) or between the Early Bronze Age and Iron Age, especially
Logudoro-Meilogu (north-west). This work is an attempt to in terms of social relations (with particular emphasis on
distinguish the Nuragic settlement patterns and dynamics degree of social differentiation), control of resources and
in the eastern part of Sardinia and to place them in a wider ritual (including the role of ritual sites in the social life of
context of Nuragic cultural landscapes by comparing the the Nuragic people).
results with our knowledge of Bronze Age and Early Iron
Age occupation in western Sardinia. Of particular importance is the need to set the results of
this research in the wider context of Nuragic settlement
The aims and methodology of this project were partly patterns in other parts of Sardinia, especially the
based upon the earlier survey project conducted by me central and western areas, which are at present the most
in the Gesico–Mandas cluster of nuraghi in Trexenta thoroughly surveyed (Trump 1990; Bonzani 1992; Canino
(Namirski 2013), which resulted in a detailed analysis 1998; Moravetti 1998a; 2000b; Melis 2007). This should
of the development of Nuragic settlement dynamics and allow us to address the imbalance of research between the
territoriality in central Sardinia. The main goals of that eastern and western parts of the island, which has resulted
project were to analyse the evidence for territoriality in a fragmentary and incomplete understanding of Nuragic
and special organization of a Nuragic territory from the settlement patterns in Sardinia. This is particularly
Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Drawing upon these goals important since the patterns of Nuragic territoriality,
and expanding them, the present research into the Nuragic settlement and land use can differ significantly even over
landscapes of the east coast of Sardinia focuses on the relatively short distances, opening up great potential for
following questions: landscape archaeology as a means of understanding the
Nuragic economy, elements of social structure manifested
1. What were the Nuragic settlement patterns like and through the distribution and architecture of domestic and
how did they change over consecutive periods? How ritual sites and symbolic aspects of the Nuragic cultural
were settlements distributed and related and what landscape.
does this tell us about social relations in the period of
development of Nuragic culture? Such an approach, which emphasizes the importance of
2. What were the patterns of land use and do they show any local patterns and differences between aspects of Nuragic
evidence for territoriality (understood as emergence settlement, social relations and economy in specific areas
of at least semi-independent territorial entities, not of Sardinia, contributes towards the understanding of
necessarily constituting sub-regional polities)? Nuragic culture which does not rely on a single model
3. What was the use and significance of the coastline, in applied to the entire island. This allows us to understand
terms of both connectivity and local economy, between the Nuragic society, its complexity and its development
the Early Bronze Age and Iron Age? more accurately, without generalizations which often
4. What were the relations between different site types, ignore the reality of local diversity.
and how did these change in consecutive periods of
development of the Nuragic culture? What can they tell
us about social relations in the Nuragic communities?
5. What are the differences and similarities between
the Nuragic settlement dynamics of the east coast of
Sardinia and those in the western part of the island?

Addressing these research questions enables us to tackle

different aspects of the problem of Nuragic settlement
dynamics on the east coast of Sardinia, allowing for a
more complete reconstruction of these and capture of the
complexity of relationships between specific elements
of the cultural landscape in the Nuragic period. Such
an attempt is important not only due to the insufficient

2
 2

Nuragic settlement dynamics: an introduction

2.1 Early Bronze Age (c.2300–1800 bc) chronology of protonuraghi and their functions. The most
convincing approach was taken by Spanedda and Camara
The period which directly preceeded the emergence of Serrano (2012), who divided protonuraghi into those with a
Nuragic culture in Sardinia is still poorly understood. The corridor and those with a corridor and a chamber. This simple
Chalcolithic settlement system of Monte Claro culture, division reflects a major architectural difference among
which included fortified settlements such as Monte protonuraghi, which might reflect progress in construction
Baranta (Olmedo) and Monte Ossoni (Castelsardo), techniques and, thus, give a meaningful insight into the
collapsed around 2300 bc, and the subsequent period is chronology and development of Nuragic architecture
apparently characterized by discontinuity (G. Webster in Sardinia. As already mentioned, protonuraghi were
2015, 12–13). The picture of cultural development over previously interpreted primarily as Early Bronze Age
the next few centuries is still far from clear, mainly due to structures associated with Bonnanaro culture (G. Webster
an insufficient numer of radiocarbon datings and a scarcity 1996, 68–9). However, recent radiocarbon datings indicate
of recognized settlement sites. The Bonnanaro culture, that the majority of them are later than originally believed,
which constitutes the major culture of Early Bronze Age belonging to the Middle Bronze Age (G. Webster 2001,
Sardinia, is known mainly from burial sites and only a 6; Depalmas and Melis 2010, 169). Thus, protonuraghi
few isolated settlements, one of them being Su Stangioni can no longer be attributed solely to the Early Bronze Age
(Portoscuso)—they indicate that large settlements of the and at least some of them are contemporary with classic
Monte Claro culture were replaced by small farmsteads of Middle Bronze Age tholos nuraghi. Nonetheless, the
single families (Perra 1997, 52), albeit there is evidence chronological distinction between protonuraghi and tholos
of occasional reuse of the Monte Claro fortified sites nuraghi does not need to be abandoned completely, as
(G. Webster 2015, 19). The Early Bronze Age sunken protonuraghi seem to fall primarily into early phases of the
hut feature has been recorded also at the site of Sas Osa Middle Bronze Age (Depalmas 2005b, 646; Depalmas and
(Cabras), later an important Nuragic settlement (A. Usai Melis 2010, 171). Furthermore, there is evidence for the
et al. 2012, 774). According to the early interpretations architectural evolution of protonuraghi into classic tholos
of Lilliu (1999, 24), based on the supposed presence of nuraghi, primarily in a form of mixed-type nuraghi such
Bonnanaro pottery, Nuraghe Trobas (Lunamatrona) was as Serra Crastula (Bonarcado) or Santu Pedru (Nurri; Ugas
an Early Bronze Age structure marking the beginnings 2005, 83), and for a chronological difference between
of the Nuragic culture—however, subsequently it was these two types of structures in specific sites. Examples are
demonstrated to be a Middle Bronze Age monument (Perra the corridor nuraghe of Cuccurada (Mogoro) which was
2014, 19). Likewise, the protonuraghi (see below), once later remodelled into a complex tholos nuraghe (Atzeni et
interpreted as Early Bronze Age structures associated with al. 2015, 25) and Nuraghe Su Mulinu (Villanovafranca),
the Bonnanaro culture, mainly on the basis of imprecise where original corridor nuraghe has been remodelled and
datings of obsydian samples from Protonuraghe Bruncu extended into a complex structure with a curtain wall with
Madugui (Gesturi; Ugas 2005, 40), are now recognized to towers (Ugas et al. 2015).
be a Middle Bronze Age development (see below). This
leaves the Early Bronze Age beginnings which eventually The architecture and distribution of protonuraghi, not
led to emergence of the Nuragic culture in the Middle less than 290 of which are known (Bagella 1998, 133–5),
Bronze Age poorly understood in the area of settlement offer evidence for the egalitarian structure of the early
dynamics. Nuragic societies with little degree of social stratification
(Depalmas 2005b, 648). There is no hierarchy between
2.2 Middle Bronze Age (c.1800–1300 bc) settlements of this type; each of them was probably a
single household (Lilliu 1988, 179), with the head of
The period after 1800 bc marks the emergence of a the family as the highest level of power. Trump (1992,
Nuragic settlement network focused around monumental 198) suggested a storage function for the protonuraghi,
structures. Nuraghi can be divided into two main types. which is very plausible with regard to their corridors,
Protonuraghi (corridor nuraghi) are relatively squat stone which could have been used to keep livestock or store
struxtures of oval (Seneghe, Suni; Corongiu Maria, Nurri), food. They are usually very narrow and low, such as the
subrectangular (Fronte Mola, Thiesi, Fig. 2.1) or irregular corridor of Protonuraghe Losa (Sindia) or the 1.50-m-high
(Mura ‘e Coga, Sindia) shape with a corridor (sometimes entrance to Protonuraghe Seriale (Bortigali; Moravetti
more than one) crossing the structure (Fig. 2.2). Detailed 1998a, 269), which does not leave much of a living space
typologies of protonuraghi have been proposed by Manca in them. However, there is evidence for the possible
Demurtas and S. Demurtas (1991), as well as Ugas (2005, existence of wooden structures on the upper terraces of
71–2), but they contribute little towards understanding the these structures—these could have been living areas. The

3
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

Fig. 2.1. Protonuraghe Fronte Mola (Thiesi), a typical example of a corridor nuraghe.

artefact assemblages recovered from the protonuraghi occupied just seasonally (G. Webster 2015, 60). Among
clearly indicate their domestic function. An example is the examples are settlements of Su Barrocu (Siamaggiore),
Protonuraghe Bruncu Madugui (Gesturi), where large Su Mattoni (Oristano) and Sa Osa (Cabras), all of them
amounts of pottery, remains of hearths, obsidian blades and located not far from river Tirso in central-western Sardinia
other objects of domestic use have been found (G. Webster (Castangia 2012, 105).
1996, 71). Notably, the distribution of protonuraghi is not
always consistent with the extent of the most fertile soils The later phase of the Middle Bronze Age saw expansion
in Sardinia (whereas such a correlation is clearly visible of Nuragic settlements into all parts of the island and
in the case of the Chalcolithic settlements of the Monte domination by the major Bronze Age architectural
Claro culture). Some of the protonuraghi (Scudu, Sedilo; form: the tholos nuraghe. It emerged as a result of
Peppe Gallu, Uri) were built in areas which were much gradual evolution from protonuraghi which involved the
more suitable for pastoralism than agriculture (Bagella creation of larger internal spaces (Manca Demurtas and
1998, 133), which implies reliance on animals in the S. Demurtas 1991, 48) and an improvement of masonry
early Nuragic economy. However, it is necessary to note walls from polygonal cyclopean to coursed cyclopean.
that many structures that have not been surveyed and are The aforementioned mixed-type nuraghi (nuraghi misti)
assumed to be single-towered nuraghi could turn out to are hybrids between corridor nuraghi and tholos nuraghi
be corridor nuraghi. Therefore, our understanding of their which illustrate this process. One of the most significant
distribution patterns and their association with the early examples is Nuraghe Crapianu (Chiaramonti), which
Nuragic economy and society might be incomplete. was studied by Dore (2010). It has a circular plan and
intramural staircase typical of the tholos nuraghi, but the
Early phases of the Middle Bronze Age saw also construction of its chamber is quite archaic, as it is not
the emergence of open settlements with circular and vaulted and the scarcement ledges within it supported
rectangular huts (Depalmas and Melis 2010, 169), some of wooden floors. Another example is Nuraghe Serra
which were semi-subterranean and built of mudbricks. It is Crastula A (Bonarcado). It includes a ruined structure with
unsure whether they were permanent settlements or were a long corridor (a typical feature of the protonuraghi), but

4
 Nuragic settlement dynamics

Fig. 2.2. Plan and section of Protonuraghe Mene (Macomer), one of many corridor nuraghi in the region of Marghine (after
Moravetti 1998a). Courtesy of A. Moravetti.

5
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

also the main tower with a typical tholos chamber (Ugas Sassari), as well as a small window (Orolo, Bortigali;
1999, 60). Furthermore, some of the protonuraghi have Crabia, Bauladu); in rare cases (Zuras, Abbasanta) two
small towers (torrette) which can be interpreted as a sign of them (Zedda 2009, 205). Although there are some very
of architectural evolution leading to the emergence of the clear regional traditions in Nuragic architecture, such as
tholos nuraghi (Lewthwaite 1986, 25), which is further the presence of two staircases and mezzanini (small rooms
evidence of the indigenous development of the Nuragic between tholos chamber, usually accessible by separate
culture in its early phases. staircase) in the nuraghi in Anglona (north-central Sardinia;
Dore 2006), or the nuraghi with two towers connected by
The nuraghi (Fig. 2.3, Fig. 2.4) reached up to 25m in a single wall (nuraghi binati) in Pran’e Muru (Campus
height, although none of them are preserved to their full and Leonelli 2008), the architecture of the nuraghi is
elevation. Their main feature is tholos chambers built fairly homogenous and shares its main features in almost
one on top of another. In the walls of the tholos chambers every part of the island. The homogeneity of architecture
there are niches, usually three which form a cross shape has been interpreted as evidence of the shared identity
(Santa Sabina, Silanus), but sometimes just two (Crasta, of the Nuragic people from different parts of the island
Santulussurgiu) or none (Santa Sofia, Guspini; Lilliu (Blake 1999), which is particularly plausible considering
2005, 154). In rare cases there is a gallery running around the limited degree of settlement hierarchy in the Middle
the perimeter of the chamber (Santu Antine, Torralba; Bronze Age. However, despite this significant degree of
Domu Beccia, Uras; Lilliu 2005, 157). The chambers are homogeneity in material culture, there are very significant
connected with an intramural staircase which opens left differences in settlement patterns and distribution of ritual
of the entrance in about 70 per cent of the towers (Tossilo sites in various parts of Sardinia—this is demonstrated
A, Macomer; Santa Sabina, Silanus; Moravetti 1998a, by different settlement patterns recorded on highland
177, 533), but sometimes right of it (Majore, Perfugas) plateaus (Lilliu et al. 1985; Puddu 2001), in mountainous
or in the tholos chamber (Nuraddeo, Suni; Moravetti areas (Gallura; Puggioni 2009) and in lowland areas in the
2000b, 275), or even a few meters above the floor level western part of the island (Sedilo; Tanda 1998), as well as
(Toroleo, Paulilatino). Over the entrance to the nuraghe differences in the distribution of ritual sites demonstrated
there is usually an architrave consisting of one large stone by Depalmas’ (2005a, 42–3) comparison between
block, occasionally shaped in the form of an arc (Barca, the areas of Abbasanta and the Sinis peninsula. This

Fig. 2.3. Nuraghe Corbos (Silanus), a typical example of a single-towered nuraghe.

6
 Nuragic settlement dynamics

Fig. 2.4. Plan and section of Nuraghe Tittiriola (Bolotana), a typical single-towered tholos nuraghe (after Moravetti 1998a).
Courtesy of A. Moravetti.

indicates different organization, subsistence strategies and nuraghi. These have been distinguished in Sedilo (Gallin
possibly beliefs of the local communities. Coupled with 1989; Bonzani 1992), Borore (G. Webster 2001) and the
the aforementioned local traditions in architecture, this Sinis peninsula (Fig. 2.5; Depalmas 2008). Around these
necessitates locally focused studies of Nuragic Sardinia in a “buffer zone” was maintained as an area where no
order to capture this variability. nuraghi were built, presumably to maintain a territorial
boundary. The cooperation needed to form these clusters
A typical single-towered nuraghe (monotorre) was was probably on the level of individual households which
probably a single farmstead occupied by one or few established loose alliances or confederations (G. Webster
families. It is clearly indicated by the repeated pattern 1996, 99), which is consistent with the lack of settlement
of domestic features and assemblages found inside hierarchy and an interpretation of the Middle Bronze
the nuraghi—examples are provided by nuraghi Duos Age societies as egalitarian ones. This does not deny the
Nuraghes A and B (Borore), which produced evidence of probability of collective effort put into construction of the
hearths (G. Webster 2001, 29, 34), and Nuraghe Pizzinnu nuraghe, perhaps under supervision of heads of families
(Posada), where domestic pottery forms (such as plates) or other people of significance (G. Webster 1991, 854).
and tools (awls) were found (Contu 1960, 240). Therefore, As A. Usai (1995, 254–5) correctly points out, we should
it is likely that the structure of Nuragic societies did not not interpret the single-towered Middle Bronze Age
undergo any significant degree of stratification in the nuraghi either as evidence of emerging hierarchical power
Middle Bronze Age. However, what we can observe is the or as projects achieved by small groups of people in
emergence of the first territories in the form of clusters of isolation.

7
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

Fig. 2.5. Distribution of Nuragic sites on the Sinis peninsula (after Depalmas 2008). Courtesy of A. Depalmas.

8
 Nuragic settlement dynamics

It is possible that the neighboring semi-independent emergence of complex nuraghi. The settlement nucleation
territories maintained peaceful relations, perhaps with some which resulted in the extension of about 30 per cent of the
degree of fluidity which could have included episodes nuraghi to complex structures (Lilliu 1996, 38) through
of warfare—as suggested by the defensive locations of the addition of bastions, courtyards and lateral towers
the nuraghi (Namirski 2012; 2013) and the emergence could have been a result of demographic development and
of buffer zones around the clusters of settlements (Gallin increasing competition for resources. The control over
1989; Bonzani 1992)—the scale of which is difficult to them made some of the families and their settlements more
determine. Possible evidence of local unrest and instability powerful than others, relegating some of the nuraghi to
in this period is found on the Sinis peninsula, where many an inferior role which ultimately led to their abandonment
of the single-towered nuraghi (presumably of Middle (an example is Nuraghe Su Nuraxi, Seulo; Perra 2012a,
Bronze Age date) were abandoned before their construction 129). It has to be considered, however, that some of
was finished. There is possible evidence of trade between the single-towered nuraghi (monotorri) still remained
different areas of the island. An example is provided by the important centres. An example is Nuraghe Sa Mandra ‘e
grinding stones found by Trump (1990, 13) in the Bonu Sa Giua (Ossi), where a large village emerged around the
Ighinu valley, made of rocks which were not of local origin. single-towered nuraghe (Rowland Jr. 2001, 39). Recent
Such contacts probably occurred within down-the-line Bronze Age pottery was obtained also from Nuraghe
exchange networks, similar to those which emerged in the Gasoru (Orroli), a single-towered structure on the Pran’e
Early Bronze Age after the collapse of Chalcolithic societies Muru plateau (Campus and Leonelli 2008, 53). Among the
and the demise of the extensive Central Mediterranean examples of complex nuraghi built in the Recent Bronze
exchange networks (Freund and Tykot 2011, 157). Age is Nuraghe Is Paras (Isili), a structure with a trilobate
bastion and the tholos dome of the main tower which is the
Not every area of Sardinia shows signs of emergence of highest preserved in any Sardinian nuraghe (Megna et al.
territoriality in the Middle Bronze Age. In Gallura (north- 2016, 201). Recent Bronze Age materials were obtained
east Sardinia) Nuragic settlement is rather dispersed also from tower B of Nuraghe La Prisgiona (Arzachena)
(Puggioni 2009), including many protonuraghi and and its surrounding large settlement (Antona 2012, 694).
mixed-type nuraghi such as Izzana (Aggius) or Laicheddu
(Calangianus). The architecture of complex nuraghi is characterized
by great variety and it is not possible to classify them
In the later phase of the Middle Bronze Age we observe typologically—the floor plans of many monuments are
emergence of the first complex nuraghi. Although unique. One of the most common forms are the nuraghi
traditionally they are interpreted as indicators of Recent a tancato (two towers connected by a courtyard, such as
Bronze Age development (which is true in many cases), Nuraghe Domu de S’Orcu, Sarroch or Nuraghe Mal di
some of them reached complex shape already in the Middle Ventre, Cabras), and a triangular-shaped nuraghe with a
Bronze Age. An example is Nuraghe Arrubiu (Orroli), main tower with the addition of a triangular bastion with
where the pentalobate bastion was constructed in the final lateral towers (Nuraghe Longu, Cuglieri; Nuraghe Orolo,
phase of the Middle Bronze Age, as indicated by pottery Bortigali). Among the most important features within the
from that period found in tower C (Perra 2018b, 112–13). Recent and Final Bronze Age villages are capanne delle
Likewise, Nuraghe Nolza (Meana Sardo) reached its riunioni (meeting huts), present in many of the largest
quadrilobate shape possibly already in the final phase of the Nuragic settlements associated with complex nuraghi. They
Middle Bronze Age (Cossu and Perra 1998, 97). This lead have traditionally been interpreted as meeting places of the
A. Usai (2014a, 38) to suggest that the beginnings of social elite where major decisions were made (Moravetti 1992,
hierarchy in Nuragic Sardinia, manifested by settlement 116; Lilliu 1999, 134). However, their ritual interpretation
nucleation and emergence of complex nuraghi as centres of is equally probable (Moravetti 1998b, 53). In capanna delle
power, began already in the Middle Bronze Age. riunioni in the Nuragic complex of Palmavera, a decorated
cylindrical seat made in sandstone was discovered, as well
A phenomenon chronology of which is yet to be established as a stone model of a nuraghe of 1m height (Moravetti
is the emergence of small circular structures known 1992, 83–5), which are objects likely to be associated
as nuracheddus (“small nuraghi”), which are massive with ritual, found also in the Nuragic sanctuaries. Most of
roundhouses rather than towers and are common in the the huts in Nuragic settlements had beams, cross beams
Sinis peninsula (Nuraghe S’Ollastu, Cabras; S’Imbucada, and wooden roofs, while stone roofs made of slabs were
Riola Sardo), but are present also in other parts of Sardinia. very rare (Depalmas and Melis 2010, 172). Some of the
According to A. Usai (2014a, 39) they can be interpreted settlements are surrounded by antemurals (curtain walls)
either as archaic structures slightly preceding typical tholos with towers (Casteddu de Fanaris, Vallermosa; Losa,
nuraghi or as Recent Bronze Age monuments built close to Abbansanta), which supports Trump’s (1992, 199–200)
the end of the period in which nuraghi were constructed. interpretation of complex nuraghi as defensive structures.
G. Webster (1996) has proposed a division of the Recent
2.3 Recent Bronze Age (c.1300–1150 bc) and Final Bronze Age settlements into three classes:

After 1300 bc single-towered nuraghi were still being Class I—these constitute over 70 per cent of all Nuragic
used, although this period is marked by the wider settlements and usually consist of a single-towered

9
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

nuraghe with up to 20 huts around it. They were inhabited of monumental sites; thus, it is possible that a significant
by an estimated 5–40 people. number of the Recent and Final Bronze Age production sites
have not yet been detected. The emergence of structures
Class II—they constitute about 28 per cent of Nuragic of specifically economic significance is observable also
settlements and consist of a complex nuraghe with 30–40 in non-specialized open settlements, including ones with
huts inhabited by an estimated 70–5 people. One of the monumental architecture. For example, in the settlement
examples is Santu Antine (Torralba). of Serra Orrios (Dorgali) there are roundhouses which are
likely to have been used exclusively for storage purposes,
Class III—only 14 Nuragic centres belong to this group. as suggested by remains of large jars found along their
These are the largest complex nuraghi with villages, which internal perimeter (Moravetti 1998b, 41). A similar pattern
could have been inhabited by a few hundred people. Some is observable in the the settlement of S’Urbale (Teti, G.
examples are Su Nuraxi (Barumuni), Arrubiu (Orroli; Fig. Webster 2015, 107).
2.6), Su Mulinu (Villanovafranca), Lugherras (Paulilatino)
and S’Uraki (San Vero Milis, Fig. 2.7). Increasing competition for resources must have led to
alternative subsistence strategies in some parts of the
While this division is somewhat arbitrary, it does reflect island. This is visible in the area of Pran’e Muru where
a significant degree of settlement hierarchy observable the palaeopalinological evidence from Nuraghe Gasoru
in Recent Bronze Age Sardinia. However, it is necessary (Orroli) has revealed that the area around the monument
to emphasize that the complexity of the phenomenon of was mostly woodland in the Recent Bronze Age (Depalmas
settlement nucleation (primarily through the growth of and Melis 2010, 175–6). Therefore, hunting and gathering
existing settlement sites rather than the emergence of new must have played a more significant role in the life of its
ones) cannot be captured solely in Webster’s classification. inhabitants than in the case of the nuraghi located on the
Large open settlements emerged also around some of the fertile plains of Campidano (south-west Sardinia). This
archaic protonuraghi, such as Bruncu Madugui (Gesturi) is supported by evidence from Duos Nuraghes, where a
and Pinnadu (Cossoine; Foddai 1995), and single- significant number of wild animal bones were discovered
towered nuraghi—among the examples are Nuraghe (G. Webster 1996, 134). These changes in economy can be
Mannu (Dorgali; Fadda 1980), Nuraghe Ola (Oniferi) and seen as a direct result of increasing competition pushing
Nuraghe Santa Cristina (Paulilatino; Moravetti 2003). part of the population out of the most economically
Nevertheless, the main settlements were complex nuraghi, suitable areas, resulting in a search for other subsistence
with villages of roundhouses around them, the largest solutions. Furthermore, in some of the complex nuraghi
of which are located in the western part of the island— we see structures of strictly economic significance, such
among them Nuraghe Palmavera (Alghero; Moravetti as cisterns and silos (outer courtyard of Nuraghe Arrubiu,
1992), Nuraghe Serucci (Gonnesa; Santoni 2010) and Orroli; Lo Schiavo and Sanges 1994, 29; Perra 2018a,
Nuraghe Su Nuraxi (Barumini; Lilliu and Zucca 2005). 89–90). The presence of the latter ones is understandable
The emergence of these settlements, which eventually in light of the environmental evidence indicating increased
grew into proto-urban centres, can be interpreted as a production of cereals in the Recent and Final Bronze
marker of the increasing social hierarchy associated with Ages (Perra 2010, 83). Another striking pattern is the
competition for resources, fitting into Carneiro’s (1970) lack of large complex nuraghi around Monte Arci, which
circumscription theory, according to which population suggests a lesser emphasis on the control of the main
pressure and increasing competition led to warfare and source of obsidian in Sardinia, which is probably related
the emergence of chiefdoms or states. The largest complex to the decreased importance of obsidian in the economy
nuraghi can be seen as centres of power controlled by the of Recent Bronze Age societies (Freund and Tykot 2011,
elite deriving its authority from military power (Camara 158).
Serrano and Spanedda 2014, 158). However, given the
wide variety of Nuragic settlement patterns in different 2.4 Final Bronze Age (c.1150–900 bc)
parts of the island, the reasons for and the degree of the
Recent Bronze Age settlement nucleation could have The final period of the Sardinian Bronze Age saw significant
varied regionally, which will be one of the problems changes in Nuragic settlement dynamics. Nucleated
addressed in this work. settlements around the nuraghi continued to develop, but
many of the nuraghi had collapsed or were abandoned.
Besides complex nuraghi and surrounding settlements, Among the examples are Nuraghe Nolza (Meana Sardo),
we have growing evidence of the development of open which was abandoned circa 1150–1100 bc (Cossu and
settlements specialized in production. One of the examples Perra 1998, 97), Nuraghe Alvu (Pozzomaggiore), where
is Sa Osa (Cabras), where evidence of wine production tower A partly collapsed between the Recent and Final
and consumption has been discovered, including Recent Bronze Ages (Boninu et al. 2013, 88), and Nuraghe
Bronze Age storage jars (dolii) with large numbers of Nastasi (Tertenia), abandoned in the early phase of the
grape and fig seeds (Castangia 2012, 112), as well as the Final Bronze Age (Perra 2012a, 129). Likewise, Nuraghe
remains of ponds which might have been used for salt Su Nuraxi (Barumini) suffered extensive damage in the
extraction (Castangia 2012, 116). The evidence of such Final Bronze Age which resulted in its rebuilding (G.
settlements in the landscape is more sparse than in the case Webster 2015, 100–1). Evidence of disruption, damage

10
 Nuragic settlement dynamics

Fig. 2.6. Plan of Nuraghe Arrubiu (Orroli), one of the largest complex nuraghi in Sardinia. Drawing by A. and R. Pitzalis,
courtesy of Anna Pitzalis.

and repairs is visible also in many other complex nuraghi of the site which was subsequently only occasionally
in the western part of Sardinia (G. Webster 2015, 111), visited in the Early Iron Age (Perra 2012a, 129).
demonstrating that the Final Bronze Age saw a significant
crisis among the Nuragic societies which lead to important However, the Final Bronze Age crisis did not lead to a
societal changes. Reasons for these events might have collapse of Nuragic societies. New settlement strategies
been both political and economical. As suggested by have been observed—collapsed nuraghi were often not
Ialongo (2018, 31), “saturation of agricultural surface rebuilt, but material from them was reused to construct
is likely to have represented an insurmountable limit to huts and further expand settlements around the nuraghi
the former expansion model”. Evidence from Nuraghe (Depalmas 2009a, 141). An example is the Nuragic
Arrubiu (Orroli) indicates that the area of the Pran’e Muru settlement of Iloi (Sedilo), which continued to be occupied
plateau was deforested to gain areas for agriculture and in the Final Bronze Age (see Fig. 2.8)—finds from
pastoralism (Perra 2009, 363), which could have led to excavated hut 3 date primarily to this period (Depalmas
degradation of the soil, crisis and eventual abandonment 2012, 869).

11
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

Fig. 2.7. Towers in the curtain wall of Nuraghe S’Uraki (San Vero Milis).

Fig. 2.8. Huts in the settlement near Nuraghe Iloi (Sedilo) which were occupied in the Recent and Final Bronze Ages.

12
 Nuragic settlement dynamics

Ritual centres became an important part of Sardinian were recovered from the bottom of the pool (Dyson and
cultural landscape, settlements around them replacing Rowland, Jr. 2007, 86). In pozzo sacro Serra Niedda
the Middle and Recent Bronze Age settlement network (Sorso) complete goat and sheep skeletons, indicating the
to some extent (Perra 2012a, 135). The earliest of them sacrificial role of deposited animals (Wilkens 2000, 263),
could have originated in the Recent Bronze Age, as in the as well as bronzes, among them a model of a quadrilobate
case of the sanctuary of Romanzesu (Bitti; Fadda and Posi nuraghe (Blake 1997, 152), were found. In many cases
2006, 46). Their main features were sacred wells (pozzi (Sant’Anastasia, Sardara; Santa Vittoria, Serri; Abini,
sacri, Fig. 2.9), such as Santa Vittoria (Serri) and Santa Teti) the well-temples have associated settlements without
Cristina (Paulilatino), and rectangular megaron temples, complex nuraghi, being surrounded by other monumental
for example Sa Carcaredda (Villagrande Strisaili) and structures of ritual function, as well as numerous huts. This
Sos Nurattolos (Ala dei Sardi) among others (Cappellini is visible especially in the Santa Vittoria complex, where
2011). They consist of an underground tholos chamber around the sacred well there are numerous huts and a large
with a staircase and an atrium on the ground level. It enclosure measuring 73 m × 50 m (Zucca 1988, 52). The
is possible that a significant portion of pozzi sacri had distribution of ritual sites is clearly divorced from that
above-ground structures built as a direct continuation of of the largest complex nuraghi—therefore, it is possible
the underground tholos chambers, perhaps even relatively that religious and secular power were separated in Final
small tower-like constructions (Contu 1999, 136). A Bronze Age Sardinia. These distribution patterns also
smaller type of monument connected with the water cult imply a possible division of the landscape into sacred and
was the Nuragic spring (fonte sacra) which consisted of domestic areas. However, it needs to be emphasized that
a small chamber and atrium, both on the ground level; there are many areas which deviate from these patterns—
one of the finest examples is Su Lumarzu (Bonorva, examples are provided by western Gallura (Puggioni
Caprara 1986, 62–5), where two benches run parallel 2009) and most of Sarrabus (Ledda 1985; 1989), where
to both walls of the atrium. The ritual function of these sanctuaries are absent. There are also local phenomena,
structures is confirmed by numerous objects deposited such as votive deposits of pottery at the Sinis peninsula
probably as votive offerings. In fonte sacra Su Tempiesu which are sometimes associated with the nuraghi (A.
(Orune) 20 votive swords were found inserted into the Usai 2014a, 51). Therefore, conclusions regarding social
masonry of the spring, while many other bronze offerings differentiation drawn from the rise of sanctuaries cannot be

Fig. 2.9. The sacred well (pozzo sacro) of Sa Testa (Olbia).

13
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

applied universally to the whole of Sardinia—it is possible positions as regional centres of power. An example is
that at least in some areas the Middle and Recent Bronze Nuraghe Genna Maria (Villanovaforru) where some of the
Age social relations with lesser degree of differentiation structures around the complex nuraghe were dismantled,
continued in the Final Bronze Age. including part of a defensive wall (Phillips 1991, 85) in
order to construct large multi-chambered buildings which
Some of the Nuragic settlements saw metallurgical activity were probably residences of the local elite (G. Webster
in the Final Bronze Age, among them Nuraghe Ortu 1996, 160). This is indicated by clear evidence of different
Comidu (Sardara; Balmuth 1994), Nuraghe Santa Barbara functions for each room, which implies these were large
(Bauladu; Gallin and Tykot 1993) and the site of Monte households with rooms for specific domestic purposes
Zuighe (Ittireddu; G. Webster 1996, 137). This corresponds rather than communal buildings. Creation of these
with an increase in the number of metal objects found, large, multi-roomed buldings, found also in settlements
among which are swords, daggers and bronze beads (Lo associated with Nuraghe Sant’Imbenia (Alghero) and
Schiavo 2005a). It is also possible that early ironworking Nuraghe Su Nuraxi (Barumini), is one of the defining
dates back to the Final Bronze Age—a piece of worked features of Early Iron Age domestic architecture (Ugas
iron was found in Nuraghe Antigori (Sarroch), and there 2009, 173). Besides the largest Nuragic settlements,
is evidence of ironworking from the south-east part of some single-towered nuraghi continued to be occupied—
Sardinia (Dyson and Rowland Jr 2007, 100). Another an example is Nuraghe Toscono (Borore; Michels and
aspect of the Final Bronze Age material culture in Sardinia Webster 1987).
is the use of amber. Beads made of this material were
found in the sanctuaries of Sa Carcaredda (Villagrande Settlements associated with sanctuaries continued to
Strisaili; Minoja 2014, 326) and Su Tempiesu (Orune; be occupied as well—among the examples is Punta
Fadda and Posi 2006, 37). Interestingly, the working of Unossi (Florinas), where Early Iron Age material was
amber artefacts differs between sites, which could imply discovered in huts around the rotonda (Derudas 2008,
the existence of local workshops (Fadda and Posi 2006, 47). Evidence of further use of ritual monuments comes
38), or the import of objects from various sources. This from the rotonda of Coroba Arrubia (Genoni), a circular
indicates involvment of Nuragic settlements in wider structure with ashlar masonry (A. Usai 2012, 859), and
trade networks. Sites such as Nuraghe Antigori and the sanctuary of Romanzesu (Bitti) with megaron temples
Nuraghe Domu de S’Orcu (Sarroch) could have seen trade (Fadda and Posi 2006, 46). The Early Iron Age also saw
between local population and Aegean merchants (Melis some of the nuraghi used as sanctuaries. An excellent
2003, 71)—Mycenanean pottery and its imitations were example is Nuraghe Nurdole (Orani), where a sacred well
found in both (Smith 1987, 98–9). Further evidence for was built inside the tower. Ritual practices are attested
contacts between Sardinia and the Eastern Mediterranean by presence of large amounts of bronze artefacts, such as
are oxhide ingots, a number of which were found within votive swords, daggers, buttons, rings and both human and
Nuragic settlements—at least some of them are of Cypriot animal figurines (Webster 2015, 195). However, with few
origin (A. Usai and Lo Schiavo 2009, 279), but some nuraghi being excavated and securely dated, full extent of
might be local imitations. However, the influence of the the phenomenon of ritual reuse of the nuraghi is yet to be
Aegean cultures on the Nuragic culture should not be understood.
overestimated. Russell (2010, 111) points out that there is
no real correlation between the distribution of the Cypriot The Early Iron Age can be characterized as a period in
finds in Sardinia and the locations of major Nuragic which social stratification of the Nuragic culture increased
centres of power, although the Cypriot material culture further, continuing the trend observable in previous
certainly did influence Nuragic metalworking—examples periods. As Camara Serrano and Spanedda (2014, 159)
are double axes and tripods of Cypriot type which were conclude, “aristocracy is most visible in the Iron Age, but
produced locally (Lo Schiavo 2005b, 313–14). As Dyson its origins are found in preceeding elites”. Much more
and Rowland Jr. (2007, 100) conclude, occasional trade significant emphasis on the individual is seen in the burial
with Aegean merchants would not have significantly record, marked by the emergence of individual burials (A.
altered the development of increasingly complex societies Usai 2014b), which, however, show little differentiation
of Final Bronze Age Sardinia. (Tronchetti 2012, 854). An argument for the hierarchical
structure of Early Iron Age societies can be derived also
2.5 Early Iron Age (c.900–750 bc) from bronze figurines (bronzetti) which might represent
members of elites (Lilliu 1966) and the monumental
The Sardinian Iron Age can be divided into two statues of Monte Prama (Tronchetti 1986).
subperiods on the basis of the material culture, mainly
pottery: the Geometric period (850–730 bc) and the 2.6 Late Iron Age (c.750–500 bc)
Orientalizing period (730–580 bc). There is no evidence
of the construction of new nuraghi, although given Although the end of the Nuragic culture is commonly
the small numer of excavated and dated towers such a placed at the close of the sixth century bc and associated
possibility cannot be excluded (G. Webster 2015, 143–4). with the Punic conquest of Sardinia, the processes which
The largest among the existing nuraghi were remodeled led to its gradual decline started a few hundred years earlier.
and settlements around them extended, reinforcing their From the seventh century onwards there is evidence of the

14
 Nuragic settlement dynamics

destruction of important Nuragic centres such as Nuraghe

Palmavera (Alghero) and Nuraghe Funtana (Ittireddu; G.
Webster 1996, 158). These violent events were probably
due to the Phoenician expansion towards the central part
of the island, as suggested by evidence from sites such
as as Pani Loriga (Santadi). However, understanding
this process as solely a military confrontation between
Nuragic communities and Phoenician colonists would
be an oversimplification, as in some cases Phoenician
settlements were founded at the sites of already abandoned
Nuragic complexes, such as Monte Sirai (Bartoloni 2004,
39). On the other hand, some of the complex nuraghi
in the western part of the island flourished well into the
Iron Age—among them are Nuraghe Casteddu de Fanaris
(Vallermosa) and Nuraghe Sant’Imbenia (Alghero, Hayne
2010). Despite this evidence of complexity and variation
in the nature of contact between the Nuragic societies and
the Phoenicians, there is little doubt that the Late Iron
Age (750–500 bc) was a period of decline for the Nuragic
culture. One illustrative example is the rapid decrease in
metalwork deposits during the Late Iron Age (Ialongo
2013, 203). A. Usai (2007, 56–7) points out that many
of the excavated Nuragic sites were abandoned in the
Orientalizing period, which might indicate a significant
demographic crisis. He argues that by the Late Iron Age
Nuragic political and social systems no longer existed.
According to Usai, resistance against the Punic invasions
did not contain any Nuragic element and can be identified
only with the forces of the Phoenician colonies, which by
that time controlled at least the most important parts of
western Sardinia.

Although A. Usai’s arguments align with our current state

of knowledge, two issues must be pointed out. First, the
situation seems to have been less dramatic in the south-
west part of the island where some of the Nuragic centres
such as Casteddu de Fanaris (Vallermosa; G. Webster
2015, 149), Tuppedili (Villanovafranca; Ugas and Lami
2015, 21–2) and Baratuli (Monastir; Balzano and Atzeni
2013) were still occupied. Second, very few nuraghi in the
central and eastern parts of the island have been excavated
so far; therefore, we cannot be sure whether the majority
of them were abandoned in the Late Iron Age. The
conflicts between the Nuragic people and the Phoenicians
probably contributed to the decline of the Nuragic culture,
but there is not enough evidence to say they finished it
off in all parts of the island. Moreover, it is necessary to
point out that the decline of the Nuragic culture could
have taken dfferent paths in specific parts of the island,
ranging from the collapse of the settlement system based
on centres of power (but with continued domination of the
Nuragic material culture), to gradual integration with the
Phoenicians and local communities, resulting in hybridized
culture, similar to the integration and hybridization after
the Punic conquest of Sardinia (van Dommelen 1998).

15
 3

Research methodology

This research project follows two previous projects and their changes over specific periods of time. The
conducted by me in Sardinia. The first one (Namirski relationship between settlement and social dynamics has
2012, BA dissertation at the University of Reading) been widely discussed in archaeological theory, which
was a study of a possible architectural transition from makes it possible to recognize both the strengths and
corridor nuraghi to tholos nuraghi and involved elements pitfalls of this approach. As Duffy (2015, 86) points out,
of landscape archaeology, such as a comparison of settlement hierarchy does not necessarily reflect political
distribution patterns of both types of monuments in the hierarchy, even though it has often been treated that
area of Bortigali (Marghine, western Sardinia). The way, for example in the case of Neolithic settlements in
second project (Namirski 2013, MA dissertation at the south-eastern Poland (Milisauskas and Kruk 1984). Duffy
University of Durham) was a study of a cluster of nuraghi (2015, 96) also points out that settlement hierarchy does
around Gesico and Mandas (Trexenta, central Sardinia) not necessarily imply the existence of chiefdoms or other
and was based on a series of site-based surveys conducted forms of organization involving social stratification. An
in this area. This resulted in a better understanding of the example is the Bronze Age settlements from the Great
phenomenon of the clusters of nuraghi that emerged in Hungarian Plain, where people inhabiting large tell sites
the western part of the island in the Middle Bronze Age, lived not much differently from the population of smaller
as well as the development of Nuragic territoriality. This hamlet sites. Thus, Duffy proposes six determinants of site
project constitutes a continuation of my research interest size hierarchy (see Table 3.1) which do not presuppose a
in Nuragic landscape archaeology, and its methodology link between settlement and political hierarchy. Many of
draws upon experiences gained primarily during the these cannot be determined without excavation and thus
Gesico–Mandas project, particularly in terms of defining the model cannot be fully applied to data obtained from
a survey area, site recording, and cooperation with local landscape surveys. Nevertheless, this concern is important
authorities—these and other methodological aspects in the wider context of Nuragic settlement archaeology in
of the project will be discussed in this chapter. Some of Sardinia, where a link between settlement distribution and
the observations made in this book were based also on political hierarchy has often been assumed (G. Webster
my numerous visits to Nuragic sites in different parts of 1996; Navarra 1997; Foddai 1998, 85–6; A. Usai 2014a,
Sardinia which were not included in this project. 38). However, some categories of evidence defined by
Duffy as evidence for determinants of site size hierarchy
3.1 Theoretical approaches (such as defensive architecture, presence of storage
features, site longevity and ritual differentiation) can often
A numer of theoretical approaches were used, most of be distinguished through landscape surveys in Sardinia.
them having already been used with success in prehistoric
archaeology of the Mediterranean. Their selection was not Another important aspect of approaches to settlement
done apriorically, but rather after consideration of specific dynamics is appropriate consideration of local variability.
circumstances present in chosen survey areas of Sardinia Contemporary settlements in closely neighbouring areas
and generally characteristic of Nuragic archaeology, as might have followed different developmental trajectories
well as studies from other parts of the Mediterranean. with different factors influencing their dynamics. For
example, Middle and Late Bronze Age settlement patterns
First, it is recognized that the study of settlement dynamics in two major centres of the Acco Plain (Western Galilee)
can inform us about the structure of prehistoric societies have been found to be significantly different. At the site

Table 3.1. Duffy’s (2015) model of the six determinants of site size hierarchy.

Determinant Evidence

Seasonal occupation Faunal remains, storage features, diversity in material culture

Long-term aggregation and dispersal Defensive architecture, trauma on skeletal remains, traces of fire

Fission through growth Variability in site longevity, depth of deposits and rebuilding episodes

Differences in productive catchment Differences in catchment resource productivity

Regional function specialization Economic and/or ritual differentiation between the sites

Regional political hierarchy Evidence of inequalities in burial sites, control of resources

17
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

of Acco and in settlements around it we see a gradual The PPA method is particularly suitable for the study of
rise in complexity during the Middle Bronze Age and Nuragic settlement networks of the east coast of Sardinia.
the continuity of that trend in the Late Bronze Age, Most of the sites in this area have not been excavated,
while in Kabri (15km away) development and decline including large complex nuraghi such as S’Acqua Seccis,
were very rapid, occurring within a relatively short time Muravera and S’Omu ‘e S’Orcu, Castiadas (Ledda 1985).
(Middle Bronze Age II), apparently without a clearly This shortage of archaeological material does not allow
distinguishable external influence (Yasur-Landau et al. us to recognize influx and outflux (including artefacts
2008, 61). Similarly, different settlement patterns and and resources) for specific sites, which makes the
development trajectories can be distinguished in Nuragic PPA analysis method more useful as it allows us to use
settlements in the western part of Sardinia, often within primarily local geography and landscape observations to
relatively short distances, even though interpretations distinguish probable connections between the sites, rather
of the development of Nuragic settlement have been than archaeological material obtainable mainly through
applied to the island as a whole, often overlooking and excavations. Moreover, I highly doubt whether the influx
not accounting for regional patterns (e.g. Araque Gonzalez and outflux between the specific Nuragic sites could be
2014, Ialongo 2018), which is why I consider the regional distinguished on a large scale anywhere in Sardinia, not
and local perspectives to be particularly important for the only because of the very limited percentage of excavated
study of Nuragic settlement dynamics. and dated nuraghi—about 100 out of 7000 (G. Webster
2015, 7)—but also due to the relative isolation of the island
Understanding interactions between known sites is one in the Bronze Age which resulted in a shared material
of the keys to understanding the nature of settlement culture with only very general regional differences
dynamics in the researched question. There are two main (in contrast to very significant regional differences in
ways to study interactions between settlement sites—study distribution patterns of settlements) such as pettine pottery
and analyse a specific dataset, and attempt to reconstruct in the north and metopale pottery in the south during the
processes leading to the emergence of settlements in Middle Bronze Age (G. Webster 2015, 44–5). This makes
order to simulate the data (Östborn and Gerding 2014). the PPA method very useful for studying Nuragic networks
My study focuses on the former. The main factor defining in other parts of the island as well.
connections between specific sites and thus the networks
which they form is movement (both influx and outflux) One of the criticisms of the PPA method was delivered
of people, resources and ideas from each site. They can by Dawson (2016, 324–5), who points out that while
be partly distinguished on the basis of archaeological this methodology might allow us to explain why the
evidence and site distribution, but usually their complete largest settlement sites emerged where they did, it fails to
assessment is impossible due to factors such as the poor capture the actual experience of interaction and meaning
preservation of certain types of resources or limited of geography as experienced by prehistoric people. This
possibilities of assessing the scale of movement of people criticism, although certainly valid, does not invalidate
between the sites. Influx is more important than outflux, the PPA method; rather it indicates the necessity of
as the importance of the outfluxing sites (i.e. the ones supplementing it with other approaches for studying
primarily sending rather than receiving people, resources settlement networks and dynamics in archaeology. Also, it
and ideas) determines the rank of the receiving site (Rivers must be kept in mind that the networks established through
et al. 2013, 128). Broodbank (2000) proposes a simpler PPA do not always reflect the actual connections which
model based upon Proximal Point Analysis (PPA) in occurred between specific sites (Brughmans 2013, 646).
analysing Bronze Age Aegean networks (see Fig. 3.1).
This model explores only the links between specific sites 3.2 Survey methodology
without recognizing differences between influx and outflux.
Despite the simplicity of this model in comparison with The core of my research is a series of site-based landscape
other methodologies employed to study Aegean networks, surveys conducted in the years 2013–15 in two selected
such as the Ariadne model (Rivers et al. 2013) or the areas of the east coast of Sardinia. The first one (sample
imperfect optimization model (Knappett et al. 2008), PPA area 1) is in Sarrabus (south-east Sardinia) and covers
can bring results which do not merely reproduce the major the municipalities of Castiadas and Muravera, as well as
geographic networks. A significant example is that of the the eastern parts of the municipalities of Villasimius and
Dodecanese Islands, which—according to Broodbank’s San Vito—in total over 240 km². The second one (sample
model—could have been relatively isolated from other area 2) is in the municipalities of Barisardo and Cardedu
parts of the Aegean networks (Knappett et al. 2008, (Ogliastra, east-central Sardinia), as well as the eastern
1019), despite the presence of important sites, such as fringes of the municipalities of Lanusei, Elini and Loceri
Rhodes, influenced by Crete since the fourth millenium bc (in total over 70 km²).
(Nowicki 2008, 202). The major advantage of this model
is that it allows us to distinguish probable connections The surveys resulted in recording 124 sites in sample area
between sites where the differentiation between the influx 1 and 50 sites in sample area 2 (see Table 3.2, Appendices
and outflux cannot be made, for example, due to lack of 1 and 2 include 138 and 57 site entries for the respective
excavation or insufficient differences in material culture areas, since settlements associated with the nuraghi
and local resources. received separate entries, and negatively verified, dubious

18
 Research methodology

Fig. 3.1. The network of Aegean sites created on the basis of the PPA method (after Knappett et al. 2008). Courtesy of
C. Knappett, T. Evans and R. Rivers.

and completely destroyed sites were included as well). The areas, such as those around Arzachena (Antona Ruju
documentation includes photographic material, accurate and Ferarese Ceruti 1992) and Dorgali (Moravetti
coordinates (in decimal degrees), description of landscape 1998b) have been relatively well studied (see Chapter
location and visibility of other sites, detailed description of 4). Neither of the selected study areas have previously
architecture and in selected cases also Total Station plans. received much archaeological attention. Although
some of the monuments have been previously recorded
The selection of sample areas for this research included (Archeosystem 1990; Nieddu 2006), very little effort
consideration of different factors. Among them were the has been made to contextualize them by analysing
following: and interpreting the Nuragic settlement patterns
around Barisardo and Muravera-Castiadas. Therefore,
1. The limited impact of urbanization and agriculture the current project not only fills a significant gap in
affecting preservation of the prehistoric landscape our knowledge of Nuragic settlement systems on a
and, thus, the possibility of reconstructing Nuragic local scale, but it also contributes to understanding
settlement patterns. Both selected sample areas similarities and differences in the Nuragic settlement
are mostly free from cultivation and have little dynamics in different parts of the island.
urbanization, which increases the likelihood of 4. The distance between both sample areas (c.40 km
more complex preservation of the original Nuragic between the northern edge of sample area 1 and the
settlement network. southern edge of sample area 2). The selection of areas
2. The presence of diverse types of landscape within a which are located some distance each other increases
sample area enabling the study of distribution patterns the likelihood of discovering different settlement
of Nuragic sites in different landscape contexts and patterns and thus offers more significant prospects for
their potential differences. a meaningful comparative study.
3. The current state of research. Whilst the east coast of
Sardinia remains largely overlooked in research on the As already mentioned, the surveys were site-based
Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Sardinia, some of its rather than extensive, similar to those done by Moravetti

19
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

Table 3.2. Number of sites recorded during the project divided into types of sites and municipalities.

Sample area 1

Comune Protonuraghi/ Open Walls Giants’ Sacred wells Total

nuraghi settlements Tombs

Castiadas 39 – – 4 – 43

Muravera 43 2 – 5 – 50

San Vito 18 1 – 1 – 20

Villasimius 11 – – – – 11

Total 111 3 – 10 – 124

Sample area 2

Comune Protonuraghi/ Open Walls Giants’ Sacred wells Total

nuraghi settlements Tombs

Barisardo 14 2 1 4 – 21

Cardedu 11 – 1 1 1 14

Elini 1 – – – – 1

Lanusei 2 – – – – 2

Loceri 2 – – – – 2

Osini 1 – – – – 1

Tortoli 7 – 1 1 – 9

Total 38 2 3 6 1 50

(1998a; 2000b, Marghine and Planargia in central-western they were very useful in locating the Nuragic sites in the
Sardinia) and Ciccilloni and Migaleddu (2008; Teulada Gesico–Mandas cluster.
in south-eastern Sardinia), which focused on recording
specific Nuragic sites in the landscape rather than more With this experience in mind, significant effort was made to
systematic coverage through fieldwalking. Successful establish contact and cooperation with the local authorities
studies of Nuragic settlement dynamics done on the from the municipalities in both sample areas. This turned
basis of site-based surveys were carried out by Puggioni out to be particularly fruitful in the Comune di Castiadas
(2009; Gallura) and Maisola (2012; Oristanense in central- (the central and southern part of sample area 1), where the
western Sardinia). The reliability of data from these unpublished materials in possession of the ufficio technico
site-based surveys is assured by the fact that the majority included not only an archaeological map of the area but
of the Nuragic sites include architectural remains and are also records of the known prehistoric sites in Castiadas,
visible in the landscape, while fieldwalking in search of some of them not mentioned in other sources, including the
pottery and lithics is unlikely to reveal any previously official archaeological archives of the Soprintendenza per
unknown sites (especially given the paucity of agricultural i Beni Archeologici per le province di Cagliari e Oristano
zones in the surveyed areas). in Cagliari. This was the case especially with the highest-
located sites within the massif of Monte Minniminni
The information about sites in both sample areas was (Nuraghe Nuraxeddu, Protonuraghe Liuru Ganudu), which
gathered from a variety of sources, including publications presumably escaped initial detection by archaeologists
(Archeosystem 1990; Valtan 2003; Nieddu 2006), IGM due to their remote location, heavy vegetation cover and
(Isituto Geografico Militare) maps and grey literature. relatively poor state of preservation.
The significance of the latter, often available only locally,
has already been proven in the Gesico–Mandas project The process of identification of sites on the basis of
(Namirski 2013). The technical offices (uffici technici) available publications, maps and grey literature was
of the municipalities of Gesico and Mandas, as well supplemented by a search for new sites based on previosuly
as most of the ones bordering it, were in possession of recognized patterns of their distribution which allowed for
archaeological maps of their areas, which often included the prediction of possible locations of unknown sites. For
sites which were not mentioned, let alone described, in example, in sample area 1 the majority (102 out of 111,
other sources. The accuracy, technical quality and design 92 per cent, see Chapter 5) of the recorded protonuraghi
of these maps varied in different municipalities, but overall and nuraghe are located on hilltops and promontories.

20
 Research methodology

Thus, such locations were the ones primarily targeted in 3.2.1 Architectural typology
the search for possible new sites. This was done through
both analysis of satellite imagery and surveys of possible Considering the shortage of excavated sites (none in
locations of new sites. This led to the discovery of an sample area 1, only one in sample area 2) the typology of
unrecorded protonuraghe at top of Monte Idda (Castiadas), monuments remains one of the main means of estimating
about 300m north-east of Protonuraghe Bruncu Ottixeddu their date and thus establishing the chronological
(see Appendix 1). The site was covered in heavy vegetation development of Nuragic networks in the various periods. In
and remains of the masonry were not visible at a distance, the case of the nuraghi, this means distinguishing between
which explains how the monument escaped previous protonuraghi (corridor nuraghi), which can be attributed
detection. Such a strategy of targeted searching for new to the Middle Bronze Age, nuraghi-capanne (simple
sites made it possible also to relocate sites which were structures constituting massive roundhouses without
incorrectly marked in available sources, or the precise tholos chambers rather than towers, the dates of which
location of which was unknown. This methodology draws can range from the early Middle to late Middle Bronze
upon the approaches of landscape surveys from adopted Age), single-towered nuraghi (Middle Bronze Age), and
parts of the Mediterranean, most notably Cyprus, where complex nuraghi (Recent Bronze Age, often with a Middle
survey results were used as predictors of settlement and Bronze Age earliest phase). The possibility of complex
cemetery locations from different phases of the Cypriot nuraghi reaching their final form already in the Middle
Bronze Age (Sneddon 2015, 153). Bronze Age, as documented in other parts of the island
(Lo Schiavo and Sanges 1994; Cossu and Perra 1998)
The surveys were conducted usually by 1–2 people, has not been overlooked. In the case of protonuraghi, the
depending on needs. The surveys with the use of the Total typologies defined by Manca Demurtas and S. Demurtas
Station were always performed by two people, since more (1991) and Ugas (2005) were not the primary criteria of
than one person is required to work with the computer assessment, as they do not say much about differences in
and prism. Occasionally help was provided by local chronology and functions of sites, with many types being
people and, in sample area 2, by members of the Gruppo distinguished rather artificially.
Archeologico di Barisardo, who provided significant help
in locating previously unrecorded monuments and the sites Furthermore, tombe di giganti can be divided into
of destroyed ones. This was the case, especially, on the distinctive types which have been dated to specific periods
plateau of Teccu (Barisardo), where the help of Roberto of the Sardinian Bronze Age (Blake 2001; Contu 2006,
Pilia and Michele Castoldi facilitated the location of the Depalmas and Melis 2010, 171; see Table 3.3). Tombs
destroyed tombe di giganti near nuraghi Iba Manna and with stele (Fig. 3.2) are in general earlier than tombs with
Niedda Puliga. The rate at which the sites were surveyed forecourt walls and those with ashlar masonry (Fig. 3.3)
ranged from 1 to 4–5 per day, depending on their state of and/or dentiled friezes (the latter ones occasionally appear
preservation (and, thus, amount of information necessary in tombs without ashlar masonry, such as Scala ‘e Zirdu,
to record), as well as their location and accessibility Abbasanta; Bittichesu 1998a, 138). The latter ones, over
(many surveyed sites are located on rocky hilltops away 130 of which are known in Sardinia (Pinna 2016, 29),
from any footpaths, which makes them more difficult were once believed to be a Recent and Final Bronze Age
and time-consuming to reach). In total, five campaigns development (G. Webster 1996, 143). However, discovery
(April 2013, October 2013, April 2014, September/ of Middle Bronze Age materials in tomba di giganti
October 2014, October 2015) were necessary to complete Iloi 2, Sedilo (Tanda et al. 2003, 100) demonstrated that
the survey. The preferred period of the year was autumn, structures with ashlar masonry were built already in
due to the less extensive vegetation creating better the Middle Bronze Age and thus are not not always an
conditions for surveying and recording sites. Nevertheless, indicator of Recent Bronze Age development. Nonetheless,
in many cases, some clearance of vegetation around the about half of tombe di giganti which produced Recent
structures was necessary for proper assessment of the Bronze Age material contained deposits exclusively from
sites and their architecture, photographic documentation that period (therefore, were presumably built in the Recent
and/or preparation of plans with the use of the Leica Total Bronze Age) and display ashlar masonry (Depalmas
Station. 2009b, 139). This suggests that in many cases this type
of burial architecture is indeed chronologically diagnostic.
The main objective of the surveys conducted in both
sample areas was to record all identifiable Nuragic sites. Ritual monuments such as sacred wells (pozzi sacri), megaron
Although covering the entirety of the study areas through temples and rotundas (circular structures with vertical walls;
walkover survey was not possible, and therefore there is Lo Schiavo 1997) are further types of Nuragic structure
a theoretical possibility that some sites with architectural which are important in terms of establishing the chronology
remains have escaped detection, the use of the measures of the research area, as these monuments developed in the
described above makes it very unlikely. The sites were Final Bronze Age and were also built in the Early Iron Age.
assessed primarily in the following aspects, partly based The difference between Final Bronze Age and Early Iron
on the 2012–13 project in Gesico and Mandas (Namirski Age ritual monuments can sometimes be recognized on the
2013), but extended and adjusted to the needs of this basis of masonry type—earlier sacred wells were built with
project: coursed cyclopean masonry, while the Iron Age ones tend to

21
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

Table 3.3. Chronology and architectural typology of tombe di giganti (based on Depalmas and Melis 2010).

Period Typology of tombs Examples

1700–1600 bc (Early Middle Bronze Age) Tombs of dolmenic construction with a stele Li Lolghi (Arzachena),
S’Ena ‘e Thomes (Dorgali)

1600–1350 bc (Late Middle Bronze Age) Tombs with portal and walled façade, tombs with Is Concias (Quartucciu), Iloi
ashlar masonry 2 (Sedilo)

1350–1150 bc (Recent Bronze Age) Tombs with ashlar masonry, tombs without exedra Sa Mandara (Guasila)

Fig. 3.2. Tomba di giganti Imbertighe (Borore)—example of a tomb with stele.

have ashlar masonry (G. Webster 1996, 181). An evaluation Age. A similar problem is observable in Scotland, where
of the typology of masonry was successfully undertaken the typological division of the Iron Age broch towers into
by Russu (1998) in studies of complex nuraghi, confirming ground-galleried and solid-based ones turned out to be
the usefulness of this method in establishing a relative not as clear-cut as originally believed, which led Harding
chronology for Nuragic monuments, but the aforementioned to conclude that “its significance should therefore not be
chronology of tombe di giganti with ashlar masonry indicates overrated” (2004, 118). However, considering that almost
a necessity for caution. none of the sites in both study areas have been excavated
and thus dated, and that the rate of preservation of pottery
The approach emphasizing typology certainly has its is very low (especially in sample area 1, where most
limitations, as it might lead to a simplistic understanding of the monuments are located on rocky hilltops where
of settlement patterns and does not always guarantee an pottery hardly survives on the surface), the emphasis on
accurate attribution of each site to a specific period. A architectural typology is necessary. To minimize the impact
good example is complex nuraghi—many of them were of problems flowing from the emphasis on typology, only
extended in the Recent Bronze Age, but some of them had those typologies which are likely to reflect chronological
already reached their final shape in the Middle Bronze differences between sites were considered. On the other

22
 Research methodology

Fig. 3.3. Tomba di giganti Madau II (Fonni)—example of a tomb with ashlar masonry.

hand, typologies unlikely to reflect any real difference in ArcMap 10.3.1, which allowed the addition of colours,
chronology and/or usage of different monuments were symbols and (if possible) the reconstruction of missing
rejected. An example is M. Demurtas and S. Demurtas’ parts of the monuments surveyed.
(1991) typology of protonuraghi, which divides them into
nine types, differences between which are in many cases 3.2.2 Landscape location and context
minor and unlikely to reflect a chronological development
of this category of structures. This aspect can shed light on the functions of the different
sites, primarily through their relationship to areas of
The form of the different monuments was recorded with economic importance (such as watercourses, springs
a Leica Total Station, which was used to prepare ground and areas of fertile soils), and the defensive potential of
plans of the selected sites. The selection of sites took place each location. This is particularly important in the case of
after much of the survey was already completed, so as complex nuraghi, as criteria for the selection of nuraghi
to choose sites most representative of the architecture of which were extended in the Recent Bronze Age can reveal
the surveyed area, and technically suitable for the Total the reasons and processes behind the settlement nucleation
Station survey (i.e. the outline of their walls was clearly which occurred in this period in Sardinia. For example,
distinguishable and they were not covered in particularly a focus on extending the nuraghi in the most defensible
dense vegetation). Among the six sites surveyed with the position could point towards military activity as the
Total Station are protonuraghi (Comideddu, San Vito; factor driving Recent and Final Bronze Age settlement
Pispisa, Muravera), single-towered nuraghi (Domu de nucleation, while an emphasis on sites near watercourses
S’Orcu, Muravera; Porceddus, Villasimius) and complex or other areas of economic significance could alternatively
nuraghi (Santoru, Muravera; Baccu ‘e Gattus, Villasimius), suggest environmental or economic factors for extending
providing an overview of the different types of Nuragic the nuraghi into complex structures. However, the role of
structures, particularly in sample area 1. In each case the the nuraghi will not be examined only in terms of their
data used to create the site plans were recorded with the utilitarian functions, but also from perspectives related to
Leica Total Station, exported in .dxf files (these included their significance as possible expressions of prestige or
raw data—points and lines), and subsequently edited in landscape markers.

23
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

3.2.3 Location in relation to other sites and of pre-Nuragic sites which are located within 200m of
intervisibility each other, and/or are located within the same topographic
feature (same valley, mountain or massif). Possible
This aspect of Nuragic settlement patterns is particularly association is attributed to those sites which are located
important in cases where there is evidence for territoriality, within 200–400m of each other, some of them also sharing
since the relationship between the sites points to their a topographic connection similar to those in the “probable
function and significance within a territory, sometimes connection” category. These criteria are to a certain extent
when architectural typology does not display a significant arbitrary; therefore, in individual cases exceptions are
difference. It can also inform us about the role of ritual made.
and religion in settlement dynamics—for example, any
possible relationship between the distribution of settlement Recognition of patterns emerging from the data obtained
and ritual sites, or a division of landscape into sacred and using this methodology makes it possible to predict where
profane, such as contrasts between landscapes of the living further, previously unrecorded, sites might be located (as
and of the dead in Early Bronze Age Britain suggested by my earlier research in Gesico and Mandas revealed, it is
the distribution of stone and timber circles (Parker Pearson still possible to discover previously unrecorded Nuragic
and Ramilisonina 2008). sites with architectural remains).

3.2.4 Location in relation to the coastline 3.3 Geographical Information Systems (GIS)

Our knowledge about the use of the coastline in the Nuragic An important prospect emerging in Sardinian archaeology
period is very limited, mainly due to an insufficient number is the possibility of using Geographical Information
of landscape surveys and the low number of sites with Systems (GIS) as a new tool to study Nuragic landscapes.
monumental architecture located directly on the coast. This potential has been used only to a limited extent
One should not rule out the significance of the coast in the so far—as Minchilli and Tedeschi (2017, 2) point out,
Nuragic economy, especially when considering evidence the use of GIS in Sardinian archaeology is limited to a
for contacts with the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age, few instances. Nevertheless, it has yielded important
representations of boats among the bronzetti suggesting results, the significance of which goes beyond landscape
the existence of three types of boats (one of which was archaeology itself. Many of the GIS studies of the
seagoing; Lilliu 1966; Melis 2003, 59) and the presence prehistoric landscape in Sardinia focus on specific areas.
of open settlements with artefacts related to fishing, such An example is provided by Cicilloni et al.’s (2015)
as fishing weights (Sa Osa, Cabras; Castangia 2012). The publication on Nuragic settlement patterns around
possibility of contributing to our knowledge of the use Mogoro (the study area was clearly defined by the Mogoro
of the coastline in the Nuragic period is one of the most River valley and two highland plateaus, Perdiana and Sa
significant potential outcomes of this project. Struvina), including viewsheds. These have revealed that
Nuraghe Puisteris offers one of the most extensive views
3.2.5 Location in relation to pre-Nuragic sites among the Nuragic sites of Mogoro. This structure was
built next to a Neolithic settlement (Cicilloni et al. 2015,
Another aspect of Nuragic sites which was taken into 156–7), which might indicate that such prominent points
account was their spatial relationship to pre-Nuragic in the landscape were selected for settlement in different
sites. This was analysed in order to find out whether the periods of Sardinian prehistory. Another example of a
distribution of Bronze Age and Iron Age sites follows GIS-based analysis of Nuragic settlement patterns is a
that from earlier periods. The main factors considered study by Angius et al. (2012) on the Nuragic settlements
were the distances to the closest pre-Nuragic site and in Gallura, which involved cost surface analysis, as well
the topographical relationship between them (e.g. being as the use of cumulative viewsheds. Regional GIS-based
located in the same mountain massif or along the same studies have also been done in regards to the pre-Nuragic
valley). The data about pre-Nuragic sites were obtained period—one of the examples is Lai’s (2010) project in the
from Ledda’s (1985) publication, as well as sources such municipality of Usini, focused primarily on Late Neolithic
as the aforementioned Piano Paesaggistico Regionale and rock-cut tombs (domus de janas).
sources obtained from uffici tecnici of local municipalities.
Most of the pre-Nuragic sites in both sample areas are GIS has not been used solely to analyse the prehistoric
Late Neolithic rock-cut tombs (domus de janas) and Late settlements of Sardinia in their local context. Some GIS
Neolithic/Chalcolithic standing stones, but also several studies have dealt with specific types of monuments rather
Late Neolithic settlements of the Ozieri culture—an than study areas—one example is the study of Neolithic
example from sample area 1 is the settlement of S’Enni dolmens and allée couverte tombs by Cicilloni and Cabras
(Muravera), which includes the remains of numerous huts (2015). It revealed that pre-Nuragic megalithic tombs were
and surface finds which included Ozieri culture pottery constructed primarily along natural trails, but decisive
and obsidian tools (Ledda 1985, 85–6). The association conclusions regarding their possible relationship with
between pre-Nuragic and Nuragic sites has been defined transhumance routes could not be established (Cicilloni
in two categories (see Appendix 3): probable and possible and Cabras 2015, 133). Some of the studies combine an
association. Probable association was asserted in the case emphasis on regional context with a focus on specific

24
 Research methodology

types of sites—for example, De Montis and Caschili from the classic tholos nuraghi (as in most of Sardinia),
(2012) studied the intervisibility of nuraghi on the Pran’e and therefore are marked as separate categories of sites.
Muru plateau, but without considering ritual and burial The term “settlement” used in the maps refers to Nuragic
sites. Viewsheds were also used recently by Cicilloni et settlements with huts, usually circular ones, some of which
al. (2020) to analyse visibility from the Nuragic sanctuary are located around the nuraghi, but they are not necessarily
of Santa Vittoria (Serri). In another significant study Soro of the same date. Thus, they are marked on the maps and
(2008) looked at sites with Mycenaean finds in Sardinia, recorded separately, as in many examples of Sardinian
analysing their connectivity using GIS and dividing them literature (Campus and Leonelli 2008; Maisola 2012).
into five classes of accessibility (Soro 2008, 536–7).
Other activities were also undertaken with the use of GIS,
The use of GIS in Nuragic studies has already advanced some of them depending on the results of the surveys.
beyond landscape archaeology. Soro (2012) worked One is the creation of viewsheds—they are employed
towards the creation of a GIS for the archaeological to investigate the distribution of Nuragic sites and their
excavation of the Nuragic settlement of Sa Osa (Cabras), location in relation to each other, which might indicate
exploring the possibility of creating vector plans on the if they were built in consideration of each other for
basis of photogrammetric coverage (Soro 2012, 1201). defensive, territorial, economic, ritual or other reasons. The
results of any possible viewsheds were compared to field
Concluding, the GIS studies have been employed in observations, as the visibility of one site from another does
Nuragic archaeology mostly on a local scale, and so far not guarantee that the structure itself is distinguishable in
have not been sufficiently contextualized by placing results the landscape. The main factor limiting the usefulness of
in a wider context of Bronze Age landscape archaeology viewsheds is lack of evidence for connections between
in Sardinia. However, significant results achieved in the sites other than intervisibility. Without such evidence
specific areas of the island warrant consideration of GIS (especially in sample area 1, dominated by single Nuragic
as a useful tool for studying Nuragic settlement dynamics farmsteads), visibility of site A from site B alone is
and networks, which might allow us to tackle important insufficient to establish a convincing connection between
questions in ongoing debates within Nuragic archaeology, them (see Chapter 5 for further discussion of this issue).
such as the chronological and spatial development of A similar problem arose in the case of least-cost pathway
territorial units, the degree and reasons behind the Recent analysis—determining a least-cost pathway between
and Final Bronze Age settlement nucleation and the two sites is not meaningful in the absence of convincing
relations between settlement and ritual sites. evidence of a possible relationship between the two sites.
An example of a study where such evidence is present is
In my project I have employed GIS in order to analyse Soro (2008), who applied a least-cost pathway analysis to
the data obtained through fieldwork. The programmes Nuragic sites that have produced Mycenanean finds—this
used were ArcMap 10 and ArcMap 10.3.1, while the data suggests that the sites could have formed part of a trade
were obtained from the SardegnaGeoportale webpage. network, which makes the analysis of least-cost paths
The data include primarily digital terrain models (DTM) between them potentially useful. Similar examples come
of the terrain in both sample areas, accurate up to 1m. The from other research areas in southern Europe, such as
maps prepared with the use of DTM illustrate the major Rissetto’s (2012) least-cost pathway analysis of possible
distribution patterns of the Nuragic settlements recorded in connections between Magdalenian sites in northern Spain
both sample areas, providing their topographic context and and the areas from which chert was obtained. In this study,
information on the relationships between sites of different macroscopic, petrographic and trace element analyses of
types. In the current project a particular emphasis is placed lithic material provided evidence of connections between
on illustrating specific case studies most representative of the sites and the areas in question, which then served
patterns occurring in the surveyed areas. as the basis and justification for the use of least-cost-
pathway analysis. No comparably convincing evidence
The design of the maps varies according to their purpose which would justify the suggestion of explicit connections
and circumstances. In some cases a black-and-white colour between the sites (and thus the significance least-cost
range is more useful for displaying the topography, in other pathway analysis) is currently available in both sample
cases a wider ranger of colours is used. Such flexibility in areas investigated in this project, which significantly
designing maps is maintained to ensure that the design of limits the usefulness of the least-cost pathway analysis
each map is optimal for displaying the pattern and area in these sample areas. This is because without evidence
in question. A similar level of flexibility was applied to of connections between specific sites on other grounds
categories used for marking the sites—in maps of sample (artefacts, distribution patterns, evidence of territoriality),
area 1 the protonuraghi and single-towered nuraghi were the least-cost pathway analysis itself cannot determine
marked as one group, because their architecture is so whether such connections existed at all. The method
similar that the typological distinction does not indicate is, then, useful primarily as an explanatory tool when
differences in their chronology or function (see Chapter providing additional information about connections which
5) and therefore does not warrant these two types of sites have already been determined. Nonetheless, considering
being treated separately in the GIS analysis. On the other that the least-cost pathway analysis has yielded interesting
hand, in sample area 2 the protonuraghi are quite distinct results in different research areas around the world, and that

25
Nuragic Settlement Dynamics

it could potentially open up future research prospects (such and remodelling of the largest existing settlements, turning
as verification of possible analysis results by searching for them into “proto-urban” centres. Among the examples are
necessary corroborating evidence of connections between the Nuragic complexes of Genna Maria (Villanovaforru)
the sites on other grounds), the method was tested and and Su Nuraxi (Barumini). In addition to these, several
used as one of the GIS tools in this project (see Chapter new sanctuaries with pozzi sacri have been identified,
6, Figs. 6.6, 6.8 and 6.12). To conclude, the use of GIS most of them built with the use of ashlar masonry. This
and its extent, as well as documentation of this work, was relatively limited Iron Age architectural activity makes it
determined largely by local circumstances. more difficult to recognize the Nuragic occupation from
this period, as in many cases the reuse of already existing
3.4 Published excavation reports monuments can only be identified through archaeological
excavation. In some areas there are ritual monuments
I previously used excavation reports and grey literature built with ashlar masonry, like the rotunda of Gutturu
to supplement the survey results in the Gesico–Mandas Caddi (Guasila) in the case of the Gesico–Mandas cluster
project. In that case the number of excavated sites (three) (Nieddu 2012, 379) or large settlements with typically
and published ones (two) was sufficient to support Iron Age multi-roomed houses, as well as surface pottery
inferences about the chronological development of the finds with geometric decorations, but in their absence
Nuragic territory gained from the surveys, particularly substantiating the extent of the Iron Age activity in a
through the specific results of excavations. surveyed area is difficult. An example of this problem is
visible in the area of Montiferru – A. Usai (2011) points
Unfortunately, in both present study areas only one site out that while evidence from the peak of development of
has been excavated—Nuraghe Cea (Loceri; Cossu 1997) the Nuragic culture is easily distinguishable, material from
in sample area 2. However, this monument is particularly its final phase is incomplete and patchy.
important, since it is a small complex nuraghe consisting
of a main tower and bastion without lateral towers. 2. The relatively minor differences in architecture
Structures of this type are very difficult to date on the between protonuraghi, single-towered nuraghi and
basis of architectural typology, as the structure consisting nuraghi-capanne in sample area 1.
of the tower and relatively limited associated additions
might have been built as a single project in the Middle As correctly pointed out by D. Usai (1990, 121)
Bronze Age, rather than in two phases (Middle Bronze differences in ground plans among many nuraghi in
Age and Recent Bronze Age) as in the case of the majority south-east Sardinia are often so minor that they cannot
of complex nuraghi. Thus, the excavation results from be treated as indicators of a different chronology or
Nuraghe Cea are helpful in establishing the chronology function of specific monuments. In several cases the
of other smaller complex nuraghi, which are common in typological classification of the structures has been rather
sample area 2 (Nuraghe Arbu, Cardedu; Nuraghe Giba ‘e arbitrary, due to either their architecture or poor state of
Scorka, Barisardo; Nuraghe Su Angedu, Cardedu). preservation (sometimes both). Therefore, although the
division between protonuraghi, single-towered nuraghi
3.5 Identification of methodological difficulties and and nuraghi-capanne (nuracheddus) in sample area 1 will
limitations be maintained in the appendices and site descriptions, in
my analysis of the Nuragic settlement patterns of this area
To complete this discussion of the methodological aspects I have treated them as one group, separating them from
of this project I will outline some of the difficulties complex nuraghi.
encountered during research in the study areas. Some of
them were expected from the outset, based on the current 3. The uncertain chronology of small complex nuraghi.
state of research and nature of the Bronze Age and Iron Age
sites preserved in the landscape, while others are peculiar Different phases of construction (the latest ones associated
to the surveyed areas. Responses to these problems are with Recent Bronze Age settlement nucleation) are
offered below. obvious in some of the largest of the complex nuraghi, and
have been proven through excavation—as in the case of
1. Difficulty in recognizing and interpreting the Iron Age Nuraghe Alvu (Pozzomaggiore; Boninu et al. 2013) and
evidence through landscape surveys. Nuraghe Cuccurada (Mogoro; Atzeni et al. 2015, 24–5).
However, complex nuraghi with smaller additions (such
This is directly connected to the fact that there is no as a bastion without lateral towers) could have been built
evidence for the construction of new nuraghi or tombe as a single project in the Middle Bronze Age rather than
di giganti after 900 bc. As G. Webster (2015, 143–4) as a result of Recent Bronze Age settlement nucleation.
points out, only a few per cent of the nuraghi have In sample area 2 this problem has been partly resolved
been excavated; therefore, we cannot rule out such a by excavation results from Nuraghe Cea (Loceri), which
possibility. Nevertheless, currently there are no means of confirm that the bastion associated with the main tower
distinguishing possible Iron Age nuraghi on the basis of is likely to be an structure built in the final phases of the
the architectural remains alone. The main focus of Iron Middle Bronze Age or in the Recent Bronze Age (Cossu
Age Nuragic architectural activity was on the extension 1997, 269). In other cases assessment of the chronology

26
 Research methodology

and possibility of different phases of construction can be

made by comparing the masonry structure of different
parts of the nuraghe (usually the main tower against the
bastion or lateral towers), as well as use of space on a
hilltop, which could indicate whether the structure was
designed as a single project.

4. The impact of changes in the landscape that have

occurred since the Nuragic period on observations
regarding the intervisibility of sites.

This problem is often pointed out in criticisms of the

phenomenological approach introduced to archaeology
by Tilley (1994; 2004), but is relevant also to other
methodological approaches in landscape archaeology
which include studies of intervisibility. This is especially
relevant since we know from palaeopalinological evidence
that significant parts of central Sardinia were covered
by forests in the Bronze Age, the majority of which
have disappeared (Depalmas and Melis 2010, 175–6).
However, the location of many of the sites on rocky
hilltops (especially in sample area 1) makes it possible that
the extent of the views from the nuraghi could have been
similarly even with vegetation, especially considering the
height of the tholos nuraghi which reached up to 15–20m
(Balmuth 1984, 25).

5. The overall incompatibility of different sources

regarding sites from both sample areas.

Some sites are marked in different locations in different

sources, and sometimes different sites are identified as
the same one. There are also several nuraghi marked on
the Istituto Geografico Militare (IGM) maps which never
existed and are probably errors of the military cartographers
(the examples from sample area 1 are Nuraghe Sinzias,
Castiadas and Nuraghe Mannu II, Muravera; see Appendix
1), but are cited frequently in later sources. Most of these
inaccuracies were verified through the landscape surveys
(see Appendices 1 and 2).

Overall, the methodology employed in this project has

been shaped in consideration of such factors as the current
state of Nuragic landscape archaeology, my previous
experience and specific local circumstances in both study
areas. This has been done in order to obtain as complete a
dataset as possible, as well as optimal methods to analyse
it.

27
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
 FOOTNOTES:
[1] A company of 200 men would appear thus:—

20 20 20 30 20 30 20 20 20
Harquebuses. Muskets. Halberds. Muskets. Harquebuses.
Archers. Pikes. Pikes. Archers.

The musket carried a ball which weighed 1/10th of a pound; and

the harquebus a ball which weighed 1/25th of a pound.
[2] The 30th, 31st, and 32nd Regiments were formed as Marine
corps in 1702, and were employed as such during the wars in the
reign of Queen Anne. The Marine corps were embarked in the
Fleet under Admiral Sir George Rooke, and were at the taking of
Gibraltar, and in its subsequent defence in 1704; they were
afterwards employed at the siege of Barcelona in 1705.
[3] The brave Sir Roger Williams, in his Discourse on War, printed
in 1590, observes:—"I persuade myself ten thousand of our
nation would beat thirty thousand of theirs (the Spaniards) out of
the field, let them be chosen where they list." Yet at this time the
Spanish infantry was allowed to be the best disciplined in Europe.
For instances of valour displayed by the British Infantry during the
Seventy Years' War, see the Historical Record of the Third Foot, or
Buffs.
[4] Vide the Historical Record of the First, or Royal Regiment of
Foot.
[5] "Under the blessing of Divine Providence, His Majesty ascribes
the successes which have attended the exertions of his troops in
Egypt to that determined bravery which is inherent in Britons; but
His Majesty desires it may be most solemnly and forcibly
impressed on the consideration of every part of the army, that it
has been a strict observance of order, discipline, and military
system, which has given the full energy to the native valour of
the troops, and has enabled them proudly to assert the
superiority of the national military character, in situations
uncommonly arduous, and under circumstances of peculiar
difficulty."—General Orders in 1801.
In the General Orders issued by Lieut.-General Sir John Hope
(afterwards Lord Hopetoun), congratulating the army upon the
successful result of the Battle of Corunna, on the 16th of January,
1809, it is stated:—"On no occasion has the undaunted valour of
British troops ever been more manifest. At the termination of a
severe and harassing march, rendered necessary by the
superiority which the enemy had acquired, and which had
materially impaired the efficiency of the troops, many
disadvantages were to be encountered. These have all been
surmounted by the conduct of the troops themselves; and the
enemy has been taught, that, whatever advantages of position or
of numbers he may possess, there is inherent in the British
officers and soldiers a bravery that knows not how to yield,—that
no circumstances can appal,—and that will ensure victory, when it
is to be obtained by the exertion of any human means."
 THE EIGHTEENTH,
OR

THE ROYAL IRISH REGIMENT OF FOOT,

BEARS ON THE REGIMENTAL COLOUR

"THE HARP AND CROWN,"

AS THE BADGES OF DISTINCTION CONNECTED WITH ITS ROYAL TITLE;

THE ARMS OF NASSAU,

WITH THE MOTTO

"VIRTUTIS NAMURCENSIS PREMIUM,"

AS A LASTING TESTIMONY OF THE GALLANTRY DISPLAYED IN THE STORMING

AND CAPTURE OF THE CASTLE OF NAMUR IN 1695 IN THE
PRESENCE OF HIS MAJESTY KING WILLIAM III.;

THE WORD "EGYPT" WITH THE "SPHINX,"

IN COMMEMORATION OF ITS DISTINGUISHED SERVICES IN THE EXPULSION OF

THE FRENCH ARMY FROM EGYPT IN THE YEAR 1801;
 AND

THE WORD "CHINA" WITH THE "DRAGON,"

FOR ITS SERVICES IN THE WAR WITH CHINA FROM 1840 TO 1842.

EIGHTEENTH,
OR

THE ROYAL IRISH REGIMENT OF FOOT.

CONTENTS
OF THE

HISTORICAL RECORD.

YEAR PAGE
1684 Formation of the regiment in Ireland 1
—— Arthur Earl of Granard appointed to be Colonel 2
1685 Decease of King Charles II. –
—— Accession of King James II. –
—— Rebellion of the Duke of Monmouth –
—— Embarkation of the regiment for England –
—— Capture and execution of the Duke of Monmouth –
—— Regiment re-embarked for Ireland –
1686 Proceedings in Ireland in favour of the Roman Catholics 3
—— Arthur Lord Forbes appointed Colonel in succession to the Earl
of Granard –
1687 Encamped on the Curragh of Kildare –
1688 Embarked for England 4
—— The Prince of Orange arrived from Holland –
—— Adhesion of a certain number of the officers and soldiers to the
Protestant cause 5
—— The Protestant officers and soldiers marched into Hertfordshire
with the regiment 6
—— The Irish Roman Catholic soldiers sent to the Isle of Wight –
1688 Lord Forbes retired from the service, and succeeded in the
Colonelcy by Sir John Edgeworth 6
—— Colonel —— Talbot, Earl Tyrconnel, appointed by King James
II. as Lord-lieutenant of Ireland –
—— The Prince of Orange elevated to the throne with the title of
King William III. –
1689 Regiment marched to Chester –
—— Sir John Edgeworth deprived of his commission, and succeeded
in the Colonelcy by Edward Earl of Meath –
—— Arrival of King James II. in Ireland, with troops from France 7
—— King William III. assembled an army at Chester –
—— Regiment marched to Highlake, and embarked for Ireland –
—— Engaged at the siege of Carrickfergus –
—— Encamped at Dundalk –
—— Quartered at Lisburn during the winter –
1690 King William III. arrived in Ireland and assumed the command
of the army –
—— Battle of the Boyne –
—— Marched to Dublin, and reviewed at Finglass 8
—— Detached against Castle-Connell –
—— Engaged in an unsuccessful assault upon Limerick –
—— Siege of Limerick raised 9
—— Marched towards Mullingar –
—— Proceeded to the relief of Birr –
—— Stationed at Mullingar during the winter –
1691 Detachment advanced towards Dunmore –
—— Quitted Mullingar, and engaged in the siege of Ballymore 10
—— Engaged in the siege of Athlone —
—— ——— at the battle of Aghrim —
—— Marched against Galway 11
—— Engaged in the siege and capture of Limerick —
—— Termination of hostilities in Ireland —
1692 Regiment embarked for England 11
—— Naval action off La Hogue, and French fleet nearly destroyed —
—— Menace of French invasion ceased 12
—— Projected expedition to the coast of France —
—— Certain regiments ordered to Flanders —
—— Regiment landed at Ostend —
—— Capture of Furnes and Dixmude —
—— Re-embarked for England —
—— Lieut.-Colonel F. Hamilton promoted to the Colonelcy in
succession to the Earl of Meath, retired —
1693 Embarked as Marines on board the fleet —
—— Disembarked and proceeded to Norwich 13
—— Marched to London, and reviewed by King William III. in Hyde
Park —
—— Embarked for Ostend —
1694 Proceeded to Louvain 14
—— Engaged in the siege of Huy —
—— Marched into winter quarters at Ghent —
—— Rank of the regiment fixed as EIGHTEENTH of the infantry of
the line 15
1695 Engaged at the siege of Namur —
—— ——— in storming the castle of Namur 16
—— King William III. conferred on the regiment the title of the
ROYAL REGIMENT OF FOOT OF IRELAND, with the HARP IN A BLUE FIELD
AND THE CROWN OVER IT, the privilege of bearing his own arms,
THE LION OF NASSAU, on its colours; with the motto Virtutis
Namurcensis Premium 17
—— Title afterwards changed to "THE ROYAL IRISH REGIMENT OF FOOT" 18
—— Surrender of the fortress of Namur —
—— Marched into winter quarters at Ghent —
1696 Served under the Prince of Vaudemont —
—— Returned to Ghent —
1697 Joined the army of Brabant under King William III. —
1697 Termination of the war, and treaty of Ryswick 19
—— Embarked at Ostend for Ireland —
—— Arrived at Cork —
1699 Marched to Waterford, thence to Dublin —
1700 Removed to Kinsale —
1701 Hostilities recommenced with France 20
—— Embarked for Holland —
—— Reviewed on Breda Heath by King William III. —
1702 Proceeded to Rosendael —
—— Engaged at the siege of Kayserswerth —
—— ——— in skirmish near Nimeguen —
—— The Earl of Marlborough assumed the command of the allied
army 21
—— Engaged in the siege of Venloo —
—— Extraordinary attack of Fort St. Michael —
—— Engaged at the siege and capture of Ruremonde 24
—— ————————————— of Liège —
—— Retired to Holland, and entered winter quarters at Huesden —
1703 Engaged at the siege and capture of Huy 25
—— ——— at the siege and capture of Limburg —
—— Marched to Breda —
1704 Proceeded from Breda to the Danube —
—— Joined the Imperial army 26
—— Battle of Schellenberg —
—— Crossed the Danube —
—— Siege and capture of Rayn —
—— Battle of Blenheim 27
—— Marshal Tallard and many officers and soldiers made prisoners —
—— Returned to Holland 28
1705 General Ingoldsby appointed to be Colonel, in the place of
General Hamilton (retired) 29
—— Marched to Maestricht —
—— Engaged in the recapture of Huy —
—— Passed the works of Helixem and Neer-Hespen —
—— Returned to winter quarters in Holland 30
1706 Advanced to Tongres —
1706 Battle of Ramilies 30
—— Surrender of Brussels, Lierre, Ghent, Bruges, &c. 31
—— ———— of Oudenarde and Antwerp —
—— Siege and surrender of Ostend —
—— Attack and surrender of the fortress of Menin —
—— Capture of the fortress of Aeth 32
—— Returned to winter quarters at Ghent —
1707 Engaged in active field-movements —
1708 Re-embarked at Ostend for England to repel invasion by the
Pretender 33
—— Returned to Flanders —
—— Recaptured Ghent and Bruges from the French —
—— Battle of Oudenarde —
—— Siege and surrender of Lisle 34
1709 ———————— of Tournay —
—— Battle of Malplaquet 35
—— Extraordinary collision between the two regiments called "Royal
Regiments of Ireland:" one in the English service, the other
in the French service, both regiments bearing the Irish Harp 36
—— Employed in the siege of Mons 37
—— Marched into winter quarters in Ghent —
1710 Engaged in forcing the lines at Pont-à-Vendin —
—— ——— at the siege of Douay —
—— ——— at the siege of Bethune —
—— ——— at the siege of Aire —
—— Returned to Ghent 38
1711 Passage of the French lines at Arleux —
—— Siege and capture of Bouchain —
—— Marched into winter quarters at Lisle 40
1712 Lieut.-Colonel Stearne promoted to be Colonel in succession to
General Ingoldsby (deceased) —
—— Marched from Lisle, and encamped beyond Bouchain —
—— Joined the army under the Duke of Ormond —
—— Suspension of hostilities —
1713 Rank of the Royal Irish Regiment as 18th regiment of foot in
the English army, directed to take date from the time of its
arrival in England, in 1688 40
—— Conclusion of the treaty of peace at Utrecht —
1714 Remained in the garrison of Ghent until the Barrier Treaty was
signed 41
—— Reception of the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough on passing
through Ghent —
1715 Returned to England on account of the rebellion of the Earl of
Mar, leaving the Lieut.-Colonel and 100 men in the castle of
Ghent —
—— Landed at Greenwich, marched to Gloucester, and thence to
Oxford —
1716 Rencontre at Oxford, in consequence of acts of disloyalty
evinced in that town —
1717 Marched to Portsmouth 42
—— Lieut.-Colonel William Cosby promoted to the Colonelcy in
succession to General Stearne, who retired —
1718 Embarked for Minorca —
1727 Detachment of 500 men proceeded from Minorca to reinforce
the garrison of Gibraltar, besieged by the Spaniards —
1732 Sir Charles Hotham, Bart., appointed to the Colonelcy in
succession to General Cosby, appointed Governor-in-Chief
of New York —
1735 Colonel John Armstrong appointed to the Colonelcy in
succession to Sir Charles Hotham —
1742 Colonel John Mordaunt appointed to the Colonelcy in
succession to General Armstrong —
—— Returned from Minorca to England —
1744 Reviewed on Hounslow Heath by Field-Marshal the Duke of
Cumberland 43
1745 Embarked for Flanders —
—— Landed at Ostend, and marched to Mons 44
1745 Re-embarked for England in consequence of Charles Edward,
son of the Pretender, having landed in Scotland 45
—— Landed at Gravesend, and embarked for Leith —
1747 Colonel John Folliott appointed to the Colonelcy in succession
to General Sir J. Mordaunt 46
1748 Returned from Scotland to England —
—— Conclusion of the treaty of peace at Aix la Chapelle —
1749 Embarked for Ireland —
1751 Royal warrant issued for regulating the clothing, colours, &c. —
1755 War recommenced with France 47
—— Embarked for England, marched to Edinburgh —
1757 Re-embarked for Ireland, and remained there during the Seven
Years' War —
1762 General Sir John Sebright, Bart., appointed to the Colonelcy in
succession to General Folliott (deceased) —
1767 Embarked from Ireland for North America —
1775 Commencement of war with America —
—— Engaged at the village of Lexington 48
—— Proceeded to destroy American stores at Concord —
—— Engaged in the battle at Bunker's Hill 49
1776 Quitted Boston and embarked for Nova Scotia —
—— Embarked for England and stationed at Dover Castle —
1778 Encamped at Coxheath —
1779 ———— at Warley 50
1780 ———— at Finchley —
1782 Termination of the American war —
—— Embarked for Jersey —
1783 Removed to Guernsey —
—— Engaged in quelling a mutiny in the 104th Regiment —
—— Received the thanks of the Lieut.-Governor and of the States of
the Island, accompanied by one hundred guineas for
distribution among the non-commissioned officers and
soldiers, for their loyal and spirited conduct 50
1783 Proceeded to Portsmouth, and embarked for Gibraltar —
1793 Embarked from Gibraltar to take possession of Toulon in aid of
the French loyalists and in the name of Louis XVII. —
—— Evacuated Toulon after destroying the shipping, arsenal, and
magazines 52
1794 Embarked for the Island of Corsica —
—— Siege and capture of the town and fortress of Calvi 53
—— General Sir James Pulteney, Bart., appointed to the Colonelcy
in succession to General Sir John Sebright, Bart., deceased 54
1796 Withdrawn from the Island of Corsica —
—— Proceeded to the Island of Elba —
—— Embarked for the coast of Italy, and took possession of
Campiglia, Castiglione, and Piombino —
—— Re-embarked for Elba 55
1797 Removed to Gibraltar —
1800 Embarked from Gibraltar for service in the Mediterranean —
—— Proceeded to Minorca —
—— Sailed to Genoa to co-operate with the Austrians —
—— Returned to Minorca —
—— Embarked on an expedition against Cadiz —
—— Sailed to Gibraltar on the design of the expedition being
relinquished —
—— Proceeded again to Minorca —
—— Sailed to Malta, and joined the armament under Lieut.-General
Sir Ralph Abercromby 56
—— Sailed to Marmorice Bay —
—— Proceeded to Alexandria, and anchored in the Bay of Aboukir —
1801 Landed at Aboukir 56
—— Advanced to Alexandria 57
—— Battle of Alexandria on the 21st of March 58
—— Death of Sir Ralph Abercromby —
—— Proceeded to Rosetta —
—— Captured Fort St. Julian —
—— Advanced up the banks of the Nile —
—— Engaged in operations at El Aft and Rahmanie 59
—— Siege and capture of the city of Cairo —
—— Surrender of Alexandria, and expulsion of the French from
Egypt —
—— Authorized to bear the Sphinx with the word Egypt —
—— Proceeded to Malta 60
1802 Treaty of Peace concluded at Amiens —
—— Embarked for Ireland —
1803 War with France recommenced —
—— Augmented to two battalions —
—— Two battalions embarked for Scotland —
—— Received a complimentary letter from the magistrates and
clergy of Haddington —
1804 Proceeded to England —
—— Landed at Ramsgate and encamped on Barham Downs 61
—— Second battalion embarked for Jersey —
1805 First battalion embarked for Jamaica —
1807 Second battalion embarked for Curaçao —
1809 First battalion embarked for St. Domingo —
—— St. Domingo surrendered by the French 62
—— First battalion returned to Jamaica —
1810 Second battalion embarked for England —
1811 —————— proceeded to Jersey —
—— General Lord Hutchinson, afterwards Earl of Donoughmore,
appointed to the Colonelcy in succession to General Sir
James Pulteney, Bart., deceased —
1814 Termination of the war with France —
—— Disbandment of the second battalion —
1817 Returned to England from Jamaica 63
1817 Proceeded to Brighton —
—— Furnished the guard of H. R. H. the Prince Regent at the
Pavilion —
1818 Marched to Gosport —
—— Embarked for Ireland —
—— Received the thanks and approbation of the public authorities
of several of the principal places in Ireland —
1820 Marched to Cork —
1821 Embarked for Malta —
1824 Embarked for the Ionian Islands 64
—— Received the testimonial of General the Marquis of Hastings —
1832 Embarked at Corfu for England 65
—— Appointment of General Lord Aylmer to the Colonelcy in
succession to General the Earl of Donoughmore, deceased —
1834 Embarked for Ireland —
1837 Formed into Six Service and Four Depôt Companies
preparatory to embarkation for Foreign Service —
—— Service companies embarked for Ceylon —
1838 Depôt companies embarked from Dublin for England —
1839 Removed from Colombo to Trincomalee —
—— Three companies embarked from Portsmouth —
1840 War commenced with China —
—— Six companies embarked from Ceylon for China 66
—— Capture of the Island of Chusan 67
—— —————— city of Ting-hae-hien —
1841 Possession taken of Hong-Kong —
—— Regiment sailed up the Canton river, and the City of Canton
surrendered 69
—— Capture of the Island and City of Amoy 70
—— —————— Island of Koolangsoo —
—— Island of Chusan again taken possession of 71
—— Capture of the City of Chinhae —
1841 Capture of the City of Ningpo 72
1842 Four companies stationed at Ningpo, and five companies at
Koolangsoo —
—— Defeat of the Tartars and Chinese in an attack upon Ningpo —
—— Capture of Tsekee, and heights of Segaon 73
—— Forced the Chankee Pass —
—— Attack and capture of the city of Chapoo —
—— Employed on an expedition up the Yangtse-Keang river 74
—— Capture of Woosung, Poonshau, and the city of Shanghae —
—— Capture of the city of Chin Keang-foo by storm —
—— Embarked for Nankin, the ancient Capital of China 75
—— Conditions of Peace agreed —
—— The word "China" and the device of the "Dragon" authorized to
be borne on the colours and appointments —
—— Proceeded from Nankin to Chusan —
1843 Head-quarters at Koolangsoo 76
—— —————— removed to Chusan —
1845 ————————— to Hong-Kong —
1847 Embarked at Hong-Kong, and engaged in operations on the
Canton River —
—— Returned to Hong-Kong —
—— Embarked for Calcutta —
1848 Arrived at Fort William, Bengal —
—— The Conclusion 77
 1848.

PLATES.

Colours of the Eighteenth, Royal Irish Regiment, to

face 1
Representation of the Battle of Blenheim, on the 13th August,
1704 28
Costume of the Regiment 80
 SUCCESSION OF COLONELS
OF THE

EIGHTEENTH, OR ROYAL IRISH REGIMENT OF FOOT.

YEAR PAGE
1684 Arthur, Viscount of Granard 81
1686 Arthur, Lord Forbes 82
1688 Sir John Edgeworth 83
1689 Edward, Earl of Meath —
1692 Frederick Hamilton 84
1705 Richard Ingoldsby 85
1712 Richard Stearne —
1717 William Cosby 87
1732 Sir Charles Hotham, Bart. —
1735 John Armstrong —
1742 Sir John Mordaunt, K.B. 88
1747 John Folliott 89
1762 Sir John Sebright, Bart. —
1794 Sir James Murray, Bart., afterwards Pulteney —
1811 John Hely, Lord Hutchinson, K.B., afterwards Earl of
Donoughmore 90
1832 Matthew, Lord Aylmer 91
 EIGHTEENTH.
ROYAL IRISH REGIMENT.
QUEEN'S COLOUR.
 REGIMENTAL COLOUR.

FOR CANNON'S MILITARY RECORDS

Madeley lith 3 Wellington St Strand
 HISTORICAL RECORD

OF

THE EIGHTEENTH,
OR THE

ROYAL IRISH REGIMENT OF FOOT.

1684

The Royal Irish Regiment of Foot existed many years, as independent

companies of pikemen and musketeers on the establishment of
Ireland, previous to the formation of the regiment in 1684; several
of these companies having been in the service of the Commonwealth
in the time of Oliver Cromwell. At the Restoration in 1660, King
Charles II. disbanded the army of the Commonwealth in England,
and embodied several new corps. Little alteration was, however,
made in the Irish forces, excepting the formation of a regiment of
foot guards, called the "Royal Regiment of Ireland," which, with
about twenty independent troops of horse and eighty companies of
foot, constituted the military force of Ireland. Towards the close of
his reign, King Charles II. took particular interest in improving the
organization of the military establishments of his dominions, and the
Irish independent troops of horse were embodied into three
regiments of cavalry; at the same time the companies of foot were
constituted seven regiments of infantry. The colonelcy of one of
these corps was conferred on Arthur Earl of Granard, by commission
dated the 1st of April, 1684; it is the only one of these ten regiments
which has continued in the service of the British crown; and it now
bears the title of the Eighteenth, or the Royal Irish Regiment of Foot.[6]

1685

On the 6th of February, 1685, King Charles II. died, and was
succeeded by his brother, James II.; and in June following James
Duke of Monmouth erected the standard of rebellion in the west of
England, and asserted his own pretensions to the throne. On this
occasion the Earl of Granard's regiment was ordered to proceed to
England: it embarked from Dublin, landed at Park Gate, and
marched to Chester. In a few days after its arrival in England the
rebel army was overthrown at Sedgemoor, and the Duke of
Monmouth was subsequently captured and beheaded; when the
regiment returned to Ireland.

1686

The King, being of the Roman Catholic persuasion, soon evinced a

determination to use his utmost endeavours to subvert the
Protestant religion and the constitution of the kingdom; commencing
in Ireland, where the Catholics were more numerous than the
Protestants. The Earl of Clarendon was nominated Lord-Lieutenant;
but "Colonel —— Talbot, a furious Papist, was empowered to model
the army, and he dismissed the greater part of the Protestant
officers, filling their places with those of his own religion. After
having performed this signal service, he came over to England,
where he was created Earl Tyrconnel and lieut.-general of the Irish
army."[7] The Earl of Granard, not approving of these proceedings,
resigned the colonelcy of the regiment in favour of his son, Arthur
Lord Forbes, whose commission as colonel was dated the 1st of
March, 1686.

1687
 In the summer of 1687, the regiment was encamped, with the
other Irish corps, on the Curragh of Kildare; and the Earl Tyrconnel
made a minute inspection of every troop and company, inquiring the
name of every man, and discharging many because they were the
descendants of men who had served Oliver Cromwell. When the
regiment went into quarters, nearly all the Protestant officers and
soldiers were dismissed from the service, a few only being retained
to discipline the recruits, and the ranks were completed with men of
the Roman Catholic religion.[8]
Colonel Lord Forbes being a spirited young nobleman of the
Protestant religion, Earl Tyrconnel paid some deference to his
Lordship, to avoid an open collision with so chivalrous an officer; and
more Protestants were retained in Lord Forbes's regiment than in any
other Irish corps.

1688

In the summer of 1688, the regiment was again encamped on the

Curragh of Kildare. Meanwhile the proceedings of the Court in favour
of Papacy and arbitrary government, had alarmed the kingdom, and
a number of noblemen and gentlemen had invited the Prince of
Orange to come to England with an army to support the Protestant
interest. On this occasion Lord Forbes's regiment was ordered to
proceed to England:[9] it landed at Chester, marched to London, and
was quartered in the borough of Southwark.
The Prince of Orange having passed Dover with a powerful
armament, the regiment was ordered to march to Salisbury, where it
joined King James's army a few days after the Prince had landed at
Torbay, and marched to Exeter. The English army, which amounted
to thirty thousand men, had not been remodelled as the Irish forces
had been, but consisted principally of Protestant officers and
soldiers, who refused to fight in the cause of Papacy and arbitrary
government, and many of them joined the Prince of Orange. Under
these circumstances, the King ordered the army to withdraw towards
London, and Lord Forbes's regiment marched to Colnbrook, where it
was quartered when King James attempted to escape to France Lord
Forbes waited on the Prince of Orange, who directed him to disband
the Roman Catholic officers and soldiers, and to keep the
Protestants to their colours: upwards of five hundred officers and
soldiers were dismissed, and about two hundred Protestants, of all
ranks, remained with the colours.
In a few days after this event, a report was circulated that the
Irish soldiers had commenced murdering the country people and
setting fire to the villages in the south of England. This proved false;
but on the first circulation of the report, Major Sir John Edgeworth,
who commanded the regiment in the absence of Colonel Lord
Forbes, who was with the Prince of Orange in London (the Lieut.-
Colonel, Lord Brittas, being a Papist, had left the regiment),
assembled the men at his quarters, and formed them on parade in
the court of Lord Oslington's house, which was walled in. "The
country people, hearing that an Irish regiment was there, came
flocking from all parts to knock us on the head; but Sir John bid
them, at their peril, not to approach, and told them we were not
Irish Papists, but true Church of England men; and seeing among
the crowd a gentleman, called to him, and desired he would send to
the minister of the parish to read prayers to us, and if the minister
did not convince them we were all of the Church of England, we
would submit to their mercy. The minister was soon sent for, and to
prayers we went, repeating the responses of the Liturgy so well and
so exactly, that the minister declared to the mob he never before
heard the responses of the Church of England prayers repeated so
distinctly and with so much devotion, upon which the mob gave a
huzza, and cried 'Long live the Prince of Orange!' and so returned
home."[10]
Soon afterwards the regiment marched to Hertfordshire, and the
Protestant officers of Hamilton's Irish regiment were added to its
numbers. The Irish Roman Catholic soldiers were sent prisoners to
the Isle of Wight, and afterwards transferred to the service of the
Emperor of Germany.
 Lord Forbes retiring from the service at this period, the Prince of
Orange conferred the colonelcy of the regiment on Major Sir John
Edgeworth, by commission dated the 31st of December, 1688: at the
same time measures were adopted to recruit its diminished
numbers.

1689

In the beginning of April, 1689, the regiment marched to Chester,

where it was stationed several weeks.
Colonel Sir John Edgeworth having been guilty of irregularity in
procuring clothing, viz., purchasing the old clothing of disbanded
Roman Catholic soldiers, from the Jews, to supply the recruits,
instead of providing new clothing, was deprived of his commission;
and on the 1st of May, 1689, the colonelcy was conferred on Edward
Earl of Meath: Major Newcomb was appointed lieut.-colonel, and
Captain Frederick Hamilton major.
Early in May the regiment marched into Wales.
Meanwhile the Prince of Orange had been elevated to the throne;
but Earl Tyrconnel, who had been nominated lord-lieutenant of
Ireland in the preceding year, had retained that country in the
Roman Catholic interest; King James had arrived there with a body
of French troops, and the whole country was subject to him,
excepting Enniskillen and Londonderry, which were defended by
Protestants. To rescue the suffering Protestants of Ireland from the
power of their enemies, King William assembled an army at Chester,
under Marshal Frederick Duke Schomberg; and the Earl of Meath's
regiment being selected for this service, marched to Highlake, where
it embarked for Ireland, and landing at White-house, near Belfast,
on the 22nd of August, joined the troops under Duke Schomberg,
who had commenced the siege of Carrickfergus, which fortress
surrendered a few days afterwards.
The regiment advanced with the army to Dundalk, where a camp
was formed on low, wet ground, which occasioned great loss of life
among the troops from disease. No action of importance occurred
during this campaign, and the regiment passed the winter in
quarters at Lisburn, where it furnished a daily guard at Duke
Schomberg's quarters: its ranks were completed by zealous
Protestants, who were eager to enrol themselves under its colours,
and it was the strongest corps in the army.

1690

In the summer of 1690, King William arrived in Ireland, and the

officers and soldiers of the regiment had the honor of serving under
the eye of their Sovereign. They took part in the memorable battle
of the Boyne, on the 1st of July, when the army of King William
forced the passage of the river in the face of the French and Irish
forces under King James, and gained a decisive victory.
From the Boyne the regiment marched with the army towards
Dublin, and at the general review at Finglass, on the 7th and 8th of
July, it mustered six hundred and seventy-eight rank and file. It
afterwards proceeded towards Limerick, where the defeated army of
King James had rallied, and was prepared to make a determined
stand. On arriving before the town, the regiment was detached, with
three other corps, against Castle-Connell, which surrendered on
being summoned.
The British battering train was destroyed by a detachment of the
enemy, before it arrived at the camp; but the King resolved to
prosecute the siege, and on the 20th of August the grenadiers of the
regiment, commanded by Captain Needham, with those of Lord
Cutts's regiment under Captain Foxon, entered the trenches to storm
one of the outworks near the south-east corner of the wall. At two
o'clock in the afternoon the signal was given, when the grenadiers
rushed forward under a heavy fire, threw a shower of hand-
grenades into the outwork, and scaling the wall with distinguished
gallantry, captured the fort, killing about fifty men, and making a
captain and twelve men prisoners: the remainder of the garrison
escaped into the town. The grenadiers maintained the post they had
captured; a sortie of the enemy was repulsed; and when the soldiers
of the regiment were relieved, they retired: as they withdrew,
Captain Needham was killed by a random shot from the town.[11]
A breach being made in the wall, and the approaches carried to
the foot of the glacis, the King ordered a general assault to be
made, on the 27th of August, by half the grenadiers of the army,
supported by seven battalions, to capture the covered way and two
towers near the breach: the Earl of Meath's regiment was one of the
corps selected for this service. The assault was made with great
gallantry; but, owing to some misapprehension of orders, the attack
failed, and the several regiments engaged were forced to retire to
the trenches, with the loss of five hundred officers and soldiers
killed, and upwards of a thousand wounded.
The regiment had Lieutenant Latham and Ensign Smith killed;
Lieut.-Colonel Newcomb died of his wounds; Colonel the Earl of
Meath, Lieutenants Blakeney and Hubblethorn, wounded; and
upwards of a hundred soldiers killed and wounded.[12]
The failure of this attack, with the approach of unfavourable
weather, occasioned His Majesty to raise the siege, when the
regiment marched with several others, under Major-General Kirke,
towards Mullingar; but afterwards proceeded to the relief of Birr,
which was besieged by a body of the enemy under Major-General
Sarsfield, who retired behind the Shannon on the approach of the
British troops.
The regiment was afterwards stationed at Mullingar, which was
one of the frontier garrisons, and was actively employed during the
winter in making incursions into the enemy's cantonments.

1691

Towards the end of April, 1691, a detachment of the regiment,

commanded by Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton, accompanied a party under
Colonel Brewer in a sudden advance towards Dunore, to surprise
two thousand armed Roman Catholic peasantry, who had taken post
near that place. At daybreak on the following morning the
detachment approached the post, and the enemy formed for battle,
but soon fled, and the soldiers pursued and killed about fifty
fugitives.
Quitting Mullingar in the early part of June, the regiment was
engaged in the operations of the army under Lieut.-General Baron
De Ghinkel, afterwards Earl of Athlone:[13] it took part in the siege
of Ballymore, which place was captured in a few days; and
afterwards appeared before Athlone, in the siege of which fortress it
had several men killed and wounded.
A strong detachment of the regiment took part in the capture of
Athlone by storm, on which occasion the assailants rushed through
the rapid stream of the Shannon, which was breast high, carried the
enemy's works in gallant style, and in less than half an hour were
masters of the town, to the surprise of General St. Ruth, who
commanded King James's army, which was encamped near the
fortress, and who was giving a public entertainment in his camp,
when the news of the loss of Athlone reached him.
After putting the captured fortress in repair, the army marched
towards the enemy, who occupied a strong position near the castle
of Aghrim, and on the 12th of July a general engagement took
place, in which the Irish forces were overpowered and driven from
the field with severe loss, including General St. Ruth, who was killed
by a cannon ball. On this occasion the regiment formed part of the
brigade under Major-General Talmash: it had seven rank and file
killed; one major, two captains, one lieutenant, one ensign, and
eight rank and file wounded.
After this victory, the army marched to Galway, which surrendered
in a few days; and the victorious English troops proceeded to
Limerick, where the remains of the defeated Irish forces had
assembled, and appeared determined to make a resolute stand, in
the hope of being reinforced from France. The regiment had the
honour to take part in the siege of Limerick; and, the army having
crossed the river Shannon and completed the investment of the
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com