The Megalithic Monuments of South-East Italy

Author(s): Ruth D. Whitehouse

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Sep., 1967), pp. 347-365
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2798725 .
Accessed: 15/11/2012 06:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

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

THE

MEGALITHIC
MONUMENTS
SOUTH-EAST
ITALY
RUTH

D.

OF

WHITEHOUSE

New Hall, Cambridge

Ittroduction
The megalithicmonumentsof south-east
Italyhave been the objectsof antiquarianstudyfromthe i86o's onwardsand a largenumberof papershave been
publishedon thissubject.Howeverforseveralreasonsa new accountis desirable.
Firstly,
manyof theold sourcesare unreliableand difficult
to use; wrongidentifications,conflicting
descriptions
and inaccurateplans are commonplaceand
unfortunately
thishas led to errorsthathave been repeatedby otherwisereliable
authorities
whenobligedto usesecondary
sources.Furthermore,
thereisno account
of theApulianmegalithsas a whole,eitherin Italianor English.Finally,thediscoveryof two new tombsand a reconsideration
of the materialfromearlier
excavationsin the lightof recentwork elsewherehave alteredthe totalpicture
considerably.
For thesereasonsI now offera new accountof the monuments,
togetherwith a discussionof theirrelationships,
originsand chronologyin the
lightof thenew evidence.I
The distribution
of themegalithicmonuments
of south-east
Italyis limitedto
the regionof Apulia,i.e. the provincesof Foggia, Bari, Brindisi,Tarantoand
Lecce (thelasttwo of whichformthe'heel' of Italy,an areaknownas theTerra
d'Otrantoor Salentopeninsula).
The monumentscan be dividedinto two main types: standingstonesand
chambertombs.The termsmenhir
anddolmen
areuniversally
usedbyItalianauthors
forthesetwo typesof monument.The meaningof menhircan hardlybe misconstrued,
but the use of the termdolmento describeany megalithicchamber
tombis oftencriticised,
sincein manycountries
thewordis usedto definea specific
typeof tomb (Daniel I958: 40). However,theusagehas a long historyin Italy
and has theadvantageof convenience,
so I proposeto use thetermdolmenin this
generalsensehere.
The chambertombsbelongto twomaingroups,a divisionwhichwas recognised
as earlyas I9I3 by M. Gervasio(I9I3: 69) and has sincereceivedgeneralacceptance.It was emphasisedin I956 byJ. D, Evans in his discussionof the Maltese
dolmensin whichhe namedthetwo ItaliantypestheBari-Tarantogroupand the
Otrantogroup(Evans I956: 85). I shalluse thesetermshere.
A thirdtypeof tomb,consisting
of a slab-builtcistundera barrowand known
can hardlybe describedas trulymegalithic,
by theItaliannameofpiccolaspecchia,
butnonetheless
owes someof itsarchitectural
to themegalithic
tradition.
features
I shalldiscussthisgroupbriefly.
Like thedolmens,themenhirsmay be dividedinto two types:statue-menhirs
and simplestandingstones.Thereare also saidto be two alignments
of
consisting
fourand threestonesrespectively.

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

348

RUTH D. WHITEHOUSE

Thedolmens

a. TheBari-Tarantogroup
(Figs.
I, 2 andplates
themonuments
of
Ia, ib).Although
thisgrouparefarlargerandmoreimpressive
thanthoseoftheOtrantoregion,
strangely
unknown
toarchaeologists
fornearly
enoughtheyremained
forty
years
after
thefirst
Otranto
dolmens
hadbeenbrought
in theI870's.
to theirattention
theLeucaspide
dolmenwas discovered
Admittedly,
in i88o,butwas published
onlyinEnglishandin booksthatwouldnotnormally
be readby archaeologists
(RossI887: 257; I889: 99). It wasnotuntilA. Mossovisited
in i9o0
Leucaspide
was reallyaroused.Duringthisexcursion,
thatantiquarian
interest
Mossoalso
theAcetulla
dolmenandin thesameyearF. Samarelli
discovered
discovered
the
dolmenat Bisceglie.
M. Gervasio,
in I9IO, found
following
up thediscoveries

DOLhlENS_
.!

e~artzln

i - Taranto
-:.i

IbM~~~~~~~FGR
A:poe

. Ditiuino

thedomn.

i-

FIGUREI. Distributionof the dolmens.

inthesameareaandanother
moredolmens
three
nearCisternino.
Thussixtombs
oftheBari-Taranto
in I909 andI910. These,together
groupwereall discovered
withtheLeucaspide
werepublished
in I9I3, though
dolmen,
byGervasio
slightly
fuller
accounts
oftheLeucaspide
canbe foundin Mosso's
andAcetulladolmens
book(I910: 220-32). Recently,
one
two moredolmenshavebeendiscovered:
nearGiovinazzo,
foundand excavated
in I96I, has beenbriefly
published
by
isawaited;theother,
F. G. Lo Porto(I96I: 270), buta fullexcavation
near
report
dolmenat
Taviano,wasfoundandpublished
byC. Piccinni
(I962: 3). A possible
Molinello
nearViesteon thenorthern
hasbeen
coastoftheGargano
promontory
publishedby S. M. Puglisi(I950: 3o-8).

Thedistinction
between
thedolmens
oftheBari-Taranto
groupandthoseofthe
Otranto
areawasrecognised
eversince.
in I913 andhasbeenaccepted
byGervasio

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

THE

MEGALITHIC

MONUMENTS

OF SOUTH-EAST

ITALY

349

The fivebestpreservedtombs-Bisceglie,Albarosa,Corato and San Silvestroin

thenorthandLeucaspide2nearTaranto-arelargegallerygraveswithsidesformed
in one case-San Silvestro-by a stretchof dry stone
by slabs,supplemented
walling.They may be closedat both ends,like Bisceglieor Leucaspide,or segmented,like the dolmenat Corato. The gallerymay becomenarrowertowards
as at Albarosaor, to a lesserextent,Bisceglie.The lattertomb and
theentrance,
chamberor cella at one end,separated
Leucaspideare bothdividedintoa distinct
fromthemaingallery.In theverylong San Silvestrotomb,sixcapstonessurvive;

~~~I

ft

F
FIGURE 2.

Plans of Bari-Tarantodolmens: A-Bisceglie; B-Albarosa; C-Frisari;

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

elsewhereonly one or none at all. The two shortertombsof the Bani-Brindisi

region-Frisariand Cisternino-areprobablyruinedmonumentsof the same
slabsin frontof the two survivingside
type,as thereare indicationsof further
stones.The two smallertombsin the Tarantoarea-Acetulla and Taviano-are
bothsmallrectangular
chambers,
openat one end,formedofthreeslabssupporting
a capstone.If theywere everanylarger,thereis no indicationof thistoday.The
lengthof the monumentsrangesfromc. 3 m. to c. I17 m. and the heightof the
slabsfromc. 0-7m. to C.21I M. Most of thetombshave tracesat leastof earthen
with rounded
mounds,which may be oval, as at San Silvestro,or rectangular

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

350

RUTH

D.

WHITEHOUSE

ends,as at Albarosa.At Albarosathelong sidesof themoundare revettedwith

drystonewalls.
Severalfeatures
of theBari-Tarantotombsdistinguish
themfromthe Otranto
group.Firstly
thereis therectangular
slab-builtchamber,whichcontrasts
strongly
withthe Otrantogroup.Secondly,thereis theorientation:
withtwo exceptions
(San Silvestrowhich facesnorthand Acetullawhich faceswest) all the BariTaranto tombs are aligned east-westwith the entrancefacingeast. This too
contrasts
withtheOtrantogroup,wherethe orientation
appearsto be random.
The presenceof moundsmayrepresent
anotherdistinguishing
characteristic,
but,
althoughbarrowsareabsentfromthe Otrantodolmens,thismaybe an accident
of survivalratherthana structural
difference.
Humanboneshave beenfoundin fivedolmensas well as theanomaloustomb
at Molinello,wheretheymayin factbe laterthanthestructure.
Biscegliecontained
theremainsofat leastthirteen
individuals,
whichindicates
thattheriteofcollective
burialwas practised.
Most of thebonesweredisarticulated
and lyingin heaps,but
a few skeletonssurvivedintact,demonstrating
thatthebodieswere buriedin a
contracted
position.
Five of the tombshave yieldedpotteryand otherartifacts.
Of these,Corato
produced only a single sherd and the materialfrom San Silvestrois still
unpublished.
However,theotherthreesites-Bisceglie,AlbarosaandLeucaspideI propose
yieldedfindsofconsiderable
importance
and on thebasisofthismaterial,
to offer
a chronology
forthetombswhichdiffers
fromthedatinggenerally
accepted.
I shalldiscusstheindividualpieceson whichmyargument
is basedand thegeneral
chronologyin thenextsection.
The distribution
of theBari-Tarantotombsis of considerable
interest,
because
a distinctpatternemerges:all the tombsare near to the coast. The Cisternino
dolmen,at a distanceof c. iS km., is the furthest
inlandand even thisis within
in groups,thetotaldistribution
covers
sightofthesea.Althoughsitestendto cluster
a largearea,fromTaviano in the Terra d'Otrantoto Bisceglieon the Adriatic
coastnorthof Bari, and, if the structure
at Molinellois reallythe remainsof a
dolmen,even to Viesteon theGarganopromontory.
They thuscoveran area at
least i8o km. across;if we includeMolinello,thisdistanceincreasesto 260 km.
This scattereddistribution
of the
contrasts
stonglywiththe denseconcentration
tombsof theOtrantogroup,thoughit mustbe admittedthatthe dolmensin the
Biscegliearearepresent
a concentration
almostcomparableto thatof theOtranto
tombsin the Giurdignanoarea.
Chronology
oftheBari-Tarantotombs
It is generallyacceptedtodaythattheBari-Tarantotombsbelongto theLate
Bronze Age or even to theEarlyIron Age. However,a reconsideration
of the
findsfromthedolmenssuggests
an entirely
different
chronology.
Thereis certainly
Late Bronze Age materialpresentand mostof thefindsfromBisceglieand Albarosafallintothiscategory.3
The two seasonsof work at Bisceglieproducednot only humanand animal
bones,butalso two bone points,a claybead,a perforated
pyramidof limestone,
two fragments
of a flintblade,a fragmentary
obsidianblade,,partof a limestone

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

THE

MEGALITHIC

35I

ITALY

OF SOUTH-EAST

MONUMENTS

axe, halfof a sandstonehammer,a scrapof charcoal,a disc of copperor bronze

in severalplaces,five
decoratedwith a circleof pointsin reliefand perforated
amberbeads and a large quantityof pottery,includinga numberof complete
althoughnot includedin hislistof finds,a small
vessels.Gervasioalso described,
disc apparentlyof ivory and a limestonebead or spindlewhorl. Most of the
parallelson
potteryhas a decidedlylate appearance,withgeneral,if not specific,
late Apenninesitessuchas therock-cuttombsat MurgiaTimone(PatroniI898:
siteslikeSpecchiaI at Vanze (Drago I955: I7I)
4I7) nearMateraor Sub-Apennine
southof Lecce. However,one vessel,a smallcarinatedbowl withan axe handle
fromtherimand a largestrapspanningthegap betweenthecarination
projecting
and themiddleoftheaxe (fig.3, C2) can be parallelednotonlyin late,butalso in
veryearlyApennineBronzeAge contexts.Thus,whiletheclosestparallelscome

72~~~~~~~~

A
B

~~

1~~

6?*e9
~

~
4

'3

~~~~~
~~~6

c Z

FINDS

Not to Scale

dolmens:A-Leucaspide; B-Albarosa; C-Bisceglie.

FIGURE3. FindsfromBari-Taranto

fromtheLate BronzeAge or EarlyIronAge depositat Borgo Nuovo, Taranto,

(Randall-MaclverI927: 239-40) wheretheyare associatedwithApulianProtoGeometricpaintedware, very similarexamplesare known fromthe Pulo di
now place very
Molfetta(Mayer I924: 25I-72), a site which most authorities
inviewofthefactthat
nearthebeginningoftheApenninesequence.Nevertheless,
theBorgo Nuovo materialseemsto be a closedgroup,whilethatfromthePulo
di Molfettais certainly
mixed,a late dateforthispiece is likely.However,since
earliermaterialis probablypresentin the tomb and certainlyin othersof this
group(seebelow),an earlydateforthisbowl cannotbe ruledout entirely.
materialfromBiscegliecan be dividedintotwo groups,one
The non-ceramic
late.Intothefirstcategoryfallthe
thatis probablyearlyand one thatis definitely
limestoneaxe, thesandstonehammer,theflintblade and theobsidianfragment,

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

352

RUTH

D.

WHITEHOUSE

whichshouldbe Chalcolithicor EarlyBronzeAge; thefiveamberbeads,on the

otherhand,are undoubtedlyLate Bronze Age in date. The metaldisc is often
described
as Late BronzeAge,butin factboththeshapeand theuse of decoration
in reliefalso occur in Chalcolithicand Early Bronze Age contextsand in the
absenceof metalanalyses,
it is in itselfundatable.
The findsfromAlbarosaincludedhumanand animalbones,some flintfragmentsand a quantityofpottery.
Almostall thefindsfromtheoriginalexploration
were lost,but somesubsequently
collectedby Gervasioand a few of theoriginal
sherdsstillsurvive.They includesome wheel-madepaintedsherdsof Apulian
Proto-Geometric
type(fig.3, B4-7), whichare undoubtedly
of finalBronzeAge
orEarlyIronAge date.None of thematerialis definitely
early,but thereare two
elbow handleswhichcouldbe Chalcolithic
and two unperforated
tonguehandles,
whichare morecommonearlyin theApenninesequence,althoughtheydo occur
lateralso. The flinttoo would fitmoreeasilyintoan earlycontext.
It is, however,the materialfromLeucaspidethatprovidesthe basis for my
revisedchronology
fortheBari-Taranto
tombs.The findsfromthefirst
excavation
includedseveralcompletevessels.But evenin I9IO Mosso was unable
apparently
to locate thismaterial.He himself,however,collectedsome valuablesherdsas
well as humanbonesfromthespoilheapsof theearlierexcavation.This pottery,
describedby Mosso,was all darkburnished
wareand it includedseveralcarinated
cups of varioussizes with wide straphandlesfromrim to carination;another
vesselmayhavehad a handlerisingfromtherim(fig.3, As); other
largecarinated
formsrepresented
werelarge,rathercoarsedishesand a shallowpan witha wide
finds
flangedrim,describedas a tavoladi libazione
(fig.3, A4). The mostinteresting
arethehandles.Two of these(fig.3, Ai) werefairlywide curvedtonguehandles
witha triangular
and a largestrapattachedto theback. One of them
perforation
theperforation.
had grooveddecorationsurrounding
These handlesmustalmost
oftheApenninesequence;similarexamples,
certainly
belongto theverybeginning
butwiththeadditionoftwo knobsat theupperend,camefromtheossuarypitat
Crispiano(QuagliatiI920: 433), whichDr Trumpassignsto his CellinoCulture
(Trump i966: 84) and fromthe very earlyApenninesitein the city of Bari

(Gervasio I9I3: io6); a similartype with a rectangularperforationwas found in a

rock-cuttombin the San Francescoarea at Matera(Rellini I929: 29), probably

of thesamedate.A rathernarrowerhandlewitha circularperforation
camefrom
a Proto-Apenninelevel at La Staza, Ariano Irpino (Trump i963: 2I). The
closestparallelsofall comefromthreesites:anotherrock-cuttombat San Vitodei
NormanninearBrindisi(Lo Portoi964: I09) also ofDr Trump'sCellinoCulture,
in type; and Proto-Apennine
thoughperhapstrue Proto-Apennine
levels at
Scoglio del Tonno, Tarantoand Porto Perone,Leporano(Lo Porto i963: 363;
of all thesehandlesare thelargestrapattached
features
i964: I09). The diagnostic
to theback and thecurvedprofile,neitherof whichoccurslaterin theApennine
sequence.Other handlesfromLeucaspideare of a simpleundevelopedtongue
and shouldbe relatively
typewithoutperforation
earlyin theApenninesequence;
theytoo are well paralleledat Bari. The handledescribedby Mosso as an ansa
lunata(fig.3,A3) isprobablya slightly
atypicaltonguehandle.The onlydecoration
thatoccursis theoccasionalgrooving,as on one of theperforated
tonguehandles,
whichoccurson one sherdonly.It doesseemas thoughsomeofthese
and ribbing,

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

THE

MEGALITHIC

MONUMENTS

OF SOUTH-EAST

ITALY

353

findsmustbe Proto-Apennine
and none of themneedsbe laterthantheEarly
BronzeAge.
The examination
ofthematerialfromLeucaspidein thelightofrecentworkon
thedevelopment
of theApennineBronzeAge makesit clearthatthereare several
completeand fragmentary
vesselswhichwe shouldplace at theverybeginning
of the Apenninesequence,i.e. in the chalcolithicor Early Bronze Age culture
whichDr Trumphas namedafterthe siteof Cellino San Marco (Trump I966:
84-7) and whichDr F. G. Lo Porto callsProto-Apennine
(Lo Porto I963: 363).
In fact the Leucaspidematerialfallsspecifically
into the second phase of this
culture(Trump'sAltamurastyle,Lo Porto'sProto-Apennine
B). Otherartifacts
fromBari-Taranto
tombsthatappearto be earlyarethestoneobjectsand possibly
some of thepotteryfromBisceglieand Albarosa.It cannotbe denied,however,
thatmostoftheidentifiable
material
fromthetombsoftheBariareais undoubtedly
Late BronzeAge in date.The unpublished
materialfromSan Silvestro,if really
'Sub-Apennine',would also fallintothisbracket.
ReviewingtheLeucaspidematerialin thelightof themostrecentworkon the
Apennineculture,I suggestthatit is difficult
to avoid the conclusionthatthis
monumentat leastwas erectedduringtheChalcolithic
periodor theEarlyBronze
Age. The evidenceforthetombsoftheBariareais farlessconvincing,
as thereare
onlya fewsherdsand stonefragments
to suggestan earlydate,themajorityofthe
materialundoubtedlybelongingto theLate Bronze Age. However,it is hardly
necessary
to saythatone cannotdatetheconstruction
ofa tombusedforcollective
burialby the latestmaterialfromit. On the contrary,
it oughtto precedethe
earliest
material,if one excludesthe possibility
of residualscrapsfroman earlier
sitebeingincludedduringconstruction
(and where,as withmostof theApulian
dolmens,thetombis foundedon bedrock,thispossibility
is veryslightindeed).
Bearingthisin mind, the earlypieces fromBisceglieand Albarosa,takenin
conjunctionwiththe greatsimilarity
betweenthesetombsand theundoubtedly
earlyLeucaspidedolmen,shouldindicatean earlydatefortheconstruction
ofthese
tombsalso.Ifthisis correct,
it followsthatbothBisceglieandAlbarosawereeither
reopenedin theLate BronzeAge aftera periodof disuseor, as is perhapsmore
likely,were in continuoususe throughout
theBronzeAge. It is to be expected
thatthematerialof thelaterperiodof use shouldbe morefullyrepresented
than
thatof thefirst.If thetombswereused throughout
theBronzeAge, theywould
spana periodof perhaps8oo or I,000 years.This mightseemsurprising,
butit is
consistent
withevidencefrommegalithicchamnber
tombselsewherein Europe.4
I hesitateto suggesta chronologyso muchat variancewiththeacceptedview,
butin myopiniontheevidenceis hardto dispute.Moreover,as I hope to demonstratein the discussion,thisearlierdatingeliminatessome of the problemsof
inherent
in theusuallatechronology.
interpretation
b. The Otranto
group(Figs. i, 5 and plates2a, 2b). The dolmensof the Terra
d'Otrantohave been knownto Italianarchaeologists
sincetheI870'S throughthe
reportsof local antiquaries,
the most importantof whom were P. Maggiulli,
M. A. Micalella,C. De Giorgiand G. Palumbo.The mostusefulpapersarethose
ofDe Giorgi,who publisheda reasonably
fullaccountin I9I2 (GiorgiI9I2: 99) and
Palumbo,who publisheda completeandup-to-date
descriptive
list,written
in I957

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

RUTH

354

D.

WHITEHOUSE

(Palumboi956: 84). This articlealso containsa completebibliography.

It is fully
illustrated
withphotographs,
but containsno plans.In facttheonly drawingsin
existence-fivepublishedby De Giorgiand one by Micalella-are schematicand,
wheretheycan be checkedtoday,inaccurate.
Thisomissionis particularly
seriousbecause,ofthesixteendolmensofthegroup
certainly
existingin theTerrad'Otrantosouthof Lecce,onlyfivearenow extant
and one of theseis collapsedand almostdestroyed;thepossibleremainsof a sixth
monumentalso survive.5
Much of thisdestruction
has takenplacein thetenyears

0
1491

12

km

FIGURE 4.

area in I9IO and I965; 11intact dolmens;

Sketchplan of the Giurclignano
dolmens.
D-collapsed dolmens,r[] destroyed

hispaper.The reasonforthisdeplorable
stateofaffairs
sincePalumbopublished
as molta
epocasorveglianza.
wassuccinctly
ignoranza
bya localantiquary
expressed
arecompletely
whohave
Indeedthemonuments
unprotected
bytheauthorities,
neither
norexcavated
anyofthem.As theyaresmallandunimpressive,
planned
robthemto providestonesforfieldwallsand
it is littlewonderthatcontadini
area(fig.4) showsthedolmens
The sketch
as
planoftheGiurdignano
buildings.
factor
theywerein I9IO andas theyaretoday.Thereisalsoa morecomplicated
A comparison
ofearlyphotographs
to takeintoaccount.
tllansimpledestruction
or withthemonuments
of someof thetombswithlaterpictures
themselves

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

THE

MEGALITHIC

OF SOUTH-EAST

MONUMENTS

355

ITALY

suggeststhatin some casesstoneshave beenaddedand thatin otherslargerblocks

resultsfrom
by two or moresmallerones! All thisinterference
have beenreplaced
pigsties,etc. However,in the surviving
the use of the dolmensas tool-stores,
theoriginalstones.
it is usuallypossibleto distinguish
monuments

A-

D
C

metres
feet
FIGURE 5.

B-Scusi; C-Gurgulante;
Plans of Otrantodolmens:A-Quattromacine;
D-Placa.

I visitedall theextanttombsin I964 and I965 and publishheretheplansof the

well preservedto be intelligible.
fourwhichwere stillsufficiently
fromthoseof the Bariquite different
The Otrantotombsare typologically
formand
Tarantogroup.They are verymuchsmallerand lack therectangular
tombs.Insteadtheyare oval, polygonal
of thenorthern
regularslab construction

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

356

RUTH

D.

WHITEHOUSE

or sub-rectangular
in plan and are builtin whatI shallcall the blockandboulder
style.In factthesupports
forthecapstone,
whichvaryinnumberfromtwoto eight,
may be roughslabs,monolithicblocks,pillarsconsisting
of severalsuperimposed
stones,projectingblocksof bedrockor even,in one case,a sectionof drystone
walling.Thesetombsalso lack theregularorientation
of theBari-Tarantogroup;
ofthetwelvemonuments
inwhichthepositionoftheentrance
hasbeenascertained,
threehad entrances
facingroughlyeast,threesouth-east,
threesouth-west,
two
north-west
and one north-east.
They rarelymeasuremore than one metrein
heightand thelargertombsneverexceedfourmetresin length,whilethesmallest
are scarcelyhalfthatsize.No moundshave everbeenrecordedoverthesetombs,
but,as I remarkedearlier,thismay be an accidentof preservation
ratherthana
structural
feature.
Severalothercharacteristics
of the-groupare worthyof note:
Five tombswerebuiltin shallowhollowsin thebedrock.
Six tombsusedprojections
of thebedrockto supportthecapstone.
3. Two tombshad incisedgrooveson theuppersurfaceof thecapstone.
4. Two tombshad perforated
capstonesand anotherthreehad shallowerholes
on thesurfaceof thecapstone.
i.

2.

All thesefeaturesare unusualand offerhintsat leastabout the originand connexionsof thisgroup.

No findshaveeverbeenmadein anyof thetombs,withtheexceptionofsome
bone fragments
and indeterminate
potsherdsfroma possibledolmen at Vaste
(thisis not therelatively
well-knownCamllpin'a
dolmen).The surviving
examples
are eitheremptyor filledwithmodernhumus.It is notimpossiblethatthereare
stilltombsto be discovered
in themoreremoteareasoftheTerrad'Otrantowhich
mightcontainsomeportionoftheiroriginaldeposits.At present,
however,we are
dependenton comparativetypologyalone forthe datingof thesemonuments;
thisavenuewill be exploredin thediscussion.
to theBariThe distribution
ofthisgroupoftombsis ofinterest,
as,by contrast
Tarantogroup,theyare denselyconcentrated
withina verysmallarea (lessthan
roundtheGiurdignano
district.
30 km.by 20 km.) centred
Thepiccolespecchie
The piccolespecchie
are stonecairnsof up to c. io m. in diameterand c. 2 m. in
height.They occurall over Apulia southof the riverOfantoand are especially
thicklyconcentrated
on the Murge, the ApenninefoothillsinlandfromBari,
wheretheyhave escapeddestruction
The northern
by cultivation.
exampleshave
beenstudied
by A. Jatta(I904: 3; I9I4: 220)' andthosein thesouth,i.e. in the
Terrad'Otranto,are thesubjectof a fairlyrecentstudyby C. Drago (I955) which
has servedto definethefunction
and dateof thesemonuments
more clearlythan
was previously
possible.
to distinguish
The monumentsare calledpiccolespecchie
themfromthegrandi
in theTerrad'Otrantoonly;
whichare muchlargerstructures
specchie,
occurring
of cyclopeanmasonryabout whichlittleis knownexcept
theycoverstructures
infunction
thattheyappearto be non-funerary
andlaterIronAge in date.Theyare

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

THE

MEGALITHIC

MONUMENTS

OF SOUTH-EAST

ITALY

357

The latter,on theotherhand,definitely

aretombs.
to thepiccolespecchie.
unrelated
They are oftenverybadlypreserved,
but it is clearthattheoriginalformof the
monumentswas a small cairncoveringa slab-builtcist,which was sometimes
paved.The largest
precededby a shortdrystonepassage.The bottomis frequently
of thesecists,in the SpecchiaI De Giorgiat Vanze,measuresc. 2-8m. in length
smaller.Thoseexcavated
andc. IP3 m. inheight,butmanyofthemare considerably
byJattaon theMurgeBaresiproducedsherds,metalobjects,animaland human
bones,but no articulated
skeletons;the Salentotombsyieldedsimilarfinds,but
one of thoseexcavatedby Drago containeda completeskeletonin thecontracted
position.This, togetherwith the smallsize of the cists,suggeststhattheywere
fibulk
used forsingleburial.The metalobjectsincludesimplearc and serpentine
thatthemonuments
in an earlystage
of bronze,suggesting
werefirstconstructed
butthepresenceofDaunianand other
of theIronAge (tenthto eighthcenturies),
theIron Age.
paintedwaresindicatethattheycontinuedin use throughout
cannotbe classified
as truemegaliths;on theother
The piccolespecchie
certainly
to themegalithic
handtheydo undoubtedly
owe someof theirarchitectural
features
cistsand dry-walled
i.e. theslab-built
passages.The riteofsingle
buildingtradition,
burialappearsto be intrusiveinto Apulia at thisstage,collectiveburialhaving
theBronzeAge (withtheexceptionof the
been thenormalpracticethroughout
of theLate BronzeAge, whichrepresent
a
so-called'Proto-Villanovan'urnfields
smallandlocalisedintrusion)
anditis usuallysuggested
from
thatitwas introduced
Dalmatiaor Istria,as burialunderbarrowsoccursin theseareas,butis not found
tombtype
elsewherein Italy.In anycaseitis reasonableto regardit as an intrusive
of the
whichon arrivalabsorbedsome of theelementsof themegalithic
tradition
Bari-Taranto
dolmens,whichwe knowwerestillin useat thisperiod.It is possible
thatthesmallverticalstoneinterpreted
as a stelein SpecchiaFicazzano(tombi) at
a featuretakenoverfromthemegalithic
tradition;for,
Acquaricaalso represents
in thenextsection,some of the menhirsof theTerra
as I hope to demonstrate
d'Otrantoseemto have servedas stetaeto marktombpositions.
The menhirs
in theintroduction,
themenhirs
As I remarked
maybe dividedintotwo types;
and simplestandingstones.
statue-menhirs
a. Statue-menhirs
wasfoundrecently
at
(plate3a). A groupof threestatue-menhirs
Castellucciodei Sauri (AcanforaI960: 95) on the southernedge of the Foggia
plain,betweenCerignolaand Ariano.They are smallstoneslabs,one veryfragnecklacesand otherfeatures.
The breastsarein
mentary,
carvedto indicatebreasts,
reliefwithan incisedoutline,therestareincised.The largestslab(plate3a), which
seemsto be complete,is less thani m. high.A fragment
fromwhat may have
been a fourthstatue-menhir
showsa daggerwitha triangular
blade and rounded
pommel.
are not unknownelsewherein Italy-thereis a groupnearthe
Statue-menhirs
Austrianborderand anotherin north-west
Tuscany-but, althoughthereare
similarities
to these,theCastelluccioexamplesare probablyas closetypologically
to the Frenchand Corsicanstatue-menhirs.
For instance,the necklaceclosely
parallelsthesamefeatureon theFrenchmonuments.

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

358

RUTH D. WHITEHOUSE

in Apulia,oneofthemenhirs
Elsewhere
at Modugno,themonaco
di Modugno,
is oftendescribed
as anthropomorphic.
It hasa rectangular
aboutthe
projection
thickness
ofthemenhir
itself
atthetopofoneface,withhollowswhichmight
be
takento indicate
eyes.Whileitis possible,
thatit
although
byno meanscertain,
was meantto represent
a humanor divinefigure,
it clearlyhasno connection
withthetruestatue-menhirs
ofCastelluccio
deiSauri.
b.Menhirs
(fig.6 andplate3b).Theundecorated
menhirs
havea densedistribution
in theTerrad'Otranto
in Apuliatoo.Liketheothermonuandoccurelsewhere
ments
oftheTerrad'Otranto,
themenhirs
ofthisareahavebeenstudied
bylocal
antiquaries
forabouta century.
The mostusefulpaperis thatpublished
by G.
Palumbo(i955: 86) whichcontains
an almostcomplete
listanda bibliography.

MENHRS

.,

* morethan one

g,

A statue menhirs|
-

Mkm

FIGURE 6.

Distribution
ofthemenhirs,

Themenhirs
oftheBariareahavebeenpublished
byM. Gervasio
(I9I3: 339-43)
menr havebeenpublished
andU. Rellini(I925: i5i). Individual
byM. Gervasio,C. Drago(I952: 256), M. Paone(I96o: 97), L. Viola(I960: 66-7), andC.
Piccinni(I962:

6).

Todaytherearesixtymenhirs
(someofwhicharefragmentary)
in theTerra
butanother
making
d'Otranto,
forty-one
areknowntohaveexisted,
a totalofioi.
Clearlythemenhirs
oftheSalentohavefiared
no better
at thehandsofthecontadini
thanthedolmens;
perhaps
worse,infact,becauseofa persistent
beliefthat
is to be foundat theirfeet.Manyofthesurviving
treasure
stonesaredamaged:

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

THE

MEGALITHIC

MONUMENTS

OF SOUTH-EAST

ITALY

359

forinstance,
stepsare oftenhackedintothecornersto makeit possibleto climbto
thetop. Superstition
stillsurrounds
thesemenhirs:not onlyare crossescarvedon
themor setintotheirtops,but'pseudo-menhirs'
(PalumboI958: I69) areerected
in villagesquaresor open countryside
and in one case a real menhirhas been
movedc. I2 km.to thesiteofa religiousfoundation
stillbeingbuilt(itwas broken
intransit,
butonehalfhasbeensetup in concrete
in a prominent
position(plate3b)).
Theseactivities
usuallytakeplace withoutintervention
by theauthorities,
but on
two occasions,on the suggestionof a local antiquary,the Soprintendenza
alle
Antichit2
deltaPugliahasre-erected
fallenmenhirs.6
The menhirsof the Terra d'Otranto,which are known locally as pietrefitte
(singular:pietrafitta),
are narrowstonepillarsof rectangular
section,rangingin
heightfromc. 2 m. to morethan4 m. Theyaremadeofeitherthesandytufaceous
limestoneknownas carparo
or thefinerwhiteor honey-coloured
limestonecalled
pietralecesse,
bothofwhichoccurlocally.Theyarecarefully
shapedandtendto be
alignednorth-south
(i.e. withthelongersidesfacingeastand west).
in thesameareaas theOtrantodolmens,butare
The menhirsare concentrated
also foundin smallernumbersover the whole of the Terra d'Otrantosouthof
Lecce. A few north-west
of Lecce and an outliernear Taranto completethe
catalogue.In detailas well as in theirgeneraldistribution
theyappear to be
associatednotonlywiththedolmens,butalsowiththerock-cuttombsofthe'area.
is situatedabove a smalloval
Forinstance,
the San Paolo menhirat Giurdignano
of
rock-cuttomb(adaptedin thelastcenturyto forma smallshrine),presumably
orBronzeAge date; andtheVicinanzaI menhirnearthesamevillage
Chalcolithic
of a moreelaboraterock-cuttomb of Iron
standsby the entranceto the dromos
Age form.Thereareno standing
menhirs
associatedwithdolmenstoday,butboth
the Scusi and the Chiancusetombshave in theirimmediatevicinitysmallrectangularholes in the rock,of exactlythe typein whichmanyof the surviving
menhirsstand.It is difficult
to avoid the conclusionthattheseoriginallyheld
menhirs.Indeed,I thinkit is reasonableto supposethatthe menhirswere used,
and thetypologyofthetombs
sometimes
at least,as stelaeto marktombpositions,
in questionsuggeststhattheywerein use fromtheChalcolithicor EarlyBronze
Age to theIronAge.
The menhirsof theprovinceof Bari, of whichtherewere onlytwenty-eight
fromthoseof the Terra
(one at leasthas been destroyed),are ratherdifferent
d'Otranto.Theyare often,butnotalways,widerand lessregular.This,however,
maybe simplybecausetheirbuilderswereobligedto usea harderandlesstractable
shortertoo;
limestonethanthesoftstonesof the Salento.They are considerably
is 3-7m. hi'gh,mostarelessthanhalfthisheight.
di Modugno
althoughthemonaco
is thatthesenorthern
A moreimportant
difference
menhirsdo notappearto be
associatedwithtombs.Instead,two groupsat Sovereto,one offourstonesand one
thefirstc. 2 km. in length,theothermuch
of three,are saidto formalignments,
Ifthisisso,we seemto be dealingwitha ratherdifferent
shorter.
from
phenomenon
thatwhichproducedthemenhirsof theTerrad'Otranto.
associatedwithtombsand althoughtheir
Althoughtheyare not individually
occurrenceis too sparseto suggestthe close associationwe saw in the Salento,
it is worthnotingthatthesemenhirstoo are foundin thesame area as thelocal
groupof dolmens.

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

360

RUTH

D.

WHITEHOUSE

Discussion
Therearetwo pointswhicharefundamental
to anydiscussion
ofthemegalithic
monumentsof south-eastItaly and theseshould be borne in mind fromthe
beginning:
i. Apuliais theonlyareain Italywhereall thetypesofmonument
thatmakeup
the west Mediterranean'megalithiccomplex'-chamber tombs,menhirsand
statue-menhirs-occur.
2. These monuments-the dolmens, menhirsand statue-menhirs-are
of
specifically
westMediterranean
typeandtheirpresencein Apuliamarkstheeasternmostoccurrence
of thecomplexin theMediterranean
basin.

It followsfromthesetwo pointsthat,otherfactorsapart,we may reasonably

regardthetwo typesof dolmen,themenhirsand thestatue-menhirs
as a groupof
all in some way related.We may also expectto definean intrusive
monuments,
movement,presumablyfromsomewherein the west Mediterranean,
directly
to Apulia.Neitherof thetwo mainviews currently
held about thedolmenscan
be reconciledwith these general deductions.These views, furthermore,
are
in detail. The discussionwhich follows attemptsto place the
unsatisfactory
monuments
of south-east
megalithic
Italyin theirpropercontext.
The firstof thecurrent
viewsmaybe describedas the'Italian' hypothesis,
as it
was firstpropoundedby S. M. Puglisi(I959: 43) and is generallyacceptedby
Italianarchaeologists
in Apulia,
today.It holdsthatall themegalithic
monuments
includingthepiccolespecchie,
arefullor lateApenninein date; thatthe'megalithic
idea' was introducedfromthesouthof Franceto theTyrrhenian
coastnorthof
Rome, wherethe site of Pian Sultanomarksits arrival;and thatit was then
diffused
acrosstheApenninesto the Garganopromontory
and thencedown the
coast of Apulia with the Apennineculture.This view is hardto acceptforthe
followingreasons.Firstly,the small megalithiccists of Pian Sultano do not
provide a suitableprototypefor the large gallerygravesof the Bari-Taranto
group,stilllessa typological'stepping-stone'
betweenFrenchgallerygravesand
in theApenmonuments
Apulianones.Secondly,thetotalabsenceof megalithic
ninesmakesit difficult
to believethattheywere diffused
throughthemountains.
Finally,the Proto-Apennine
materialfromLeucaspideshows thatone tomb at
leastis considerably
earlierthantheso-calledprototype
at Pian Sultano.

Thesecond,
or'English'view,aspropounded
byJ.D. Evans(EvansI956: 90-3)
are
andD. H. Trump(I966: 87-9, I45-7) holdsthatthetwogroupsof dolmens

entirelyseparateand unconnected.Trump furthermaintainsthatboth groups

are intrusive
fromsomewherein thewestat widelyseparateddates.Threemain
are broughtforwardin supportof thisview:
arguments
The two groupsof dolmensare typologically
quitedifferent.
Theirdistributions
are quiteseparate.
3. They mustbe dated differently,
the Otrantodolmensbeing regardedas
Chalcolithicor EarlyBronzeAge becauseof theconnexionswithMalta and the
Bari-Tarantogroupas LateBronzeAge orEarlyIronAge becauseofthematerial
fromthem.
i.

2.

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

THE

MEGALITHIC

MONUMENTS

OF SOUTH-EAST

ITALY

36I

havenow lostmuchof theconvictiontheyonce carried.The

Thesearguments
recognition
of theProto-Apennine
dateof thepotteryfromLeucaspideas well as
possiblyearlymaterialfromothertombs,and the discoveryof anotherdolmen
oftheBari-Taranto
groupat Tavianoin theTerrad'Otranto,not30 km.fromthe
nearestOtrantotomb,seriously
2 and 3. Even thetypological
weakenarguments
difference
is not as conclusiveas is sometimesclaimed.Althoughthe general
ofthe
contrast
is a veryrealone,thedifference
betweenthelesstypicalmonuments
two groups(e.g. therathersmall,almostsquareTarantotombslikeAcetullaand
Taviano (fig.2E) and thepolygonalslab-builtPlaca tombin the Otrantogroup
(fig.5D)) is not so greatas to makesomeconnexionimpossibleor evenunlikely.
The mostimportant
factorwhichundermines
the'English'viewis theevidence
fordates.The development
out oftheAltamurastyle
ofTrump'sProto-Apennine
of theCellinoCultureis datedto betweenc. i8oo and c. i6oo B.C. and Lo Porto
givesthesamedatesto hisProto-Apennine
B. So, assumingthatthepotteryfrom
Leucaspideis not residual,the beginningof the Bari-Tarantotombsmustfall
withinthisperiod,ifnotbefore.Professor
EvanshasshownthattheOtrantodolmens have strongconnexionswith the dolmensof Malta, where the hollows
underneath
the tombs,the holes and groovesin the capstones,as well as the
general'block and boulder' styleof building,all have parallels.The Maltese
dolmensareassociatedwiththeTarxienCemeteryCulture,whichis now datedby
CI4 fromshortlyafter2000 B.C. to I500 B.C. or later(thereare no CI4 dates
forthe end of theculture(TrumpI963: 302)). The dolmens,whichareintrusive
in the TarxienCemeteryCulture,need not begin as earlyas 2000 B.C., but if
theOtrantodolmensare connectedat all, whetheras prototypes,
as Evanshoped,
or as derivatives,
or even as paralleldevelopments
froma commonsourceelsewhere,theyalso mustbeginin thegeneralperiodc. 2000-I500 B.C.
Thuswe now havea situation
inwhichthebeginning
ofbothgroupsofdolmens
mustbe datedwithinthefirsthalfof thesecondmillennium
B.C. Moreover,they
must almost certainlybelong to the same culturalbackground,as Trump's
CellinoCultureandtheProto-Apennine
whichdevelopedout ofit(i.e. Lo Porto's
Proto-Apennine
A and B) are the only culturesfoundin Apulia at thisdate (to
postulatean undiscoveredbut different
culturefor the buildersof the Otranto
dolmensis decidedlyfar-fetched).
If bothgroupsof dolmenswere constructed
at
aboutthesametimebypeopleofthesameculture,
it seemsclearthattheymustbe
closelyrelated.One ofthegroupsis certainly
intrusive,
as thetombtypeis foreign
to Italy(collectiveburialinrock-cuttombsbeingthecharacteristic
burialriteofthe
CellinoCulture),butit is askingforan unnecessary
degreeof coincidenceto suggest that bothgroupsare intrusive,especiallyas theyhave parallelsin widely
separatedareas.It is much more reasonableto suggestthatone group derived
fromtheother.This accepted,it becomesclearthatit is theBari-Tarantogroup
whichis intrusive.
The markedlycoastaldistribution
has everyappearanceof an
intrusive
groupand whileit is reasonableto supposethatthe Otrantotombtype
could have developedfromthe Bari-Tarantoform,the oppositeis out of the
question.
Convincingprototypes
fortheBari-Taranto
tombsoccurin thesouthofFrance
at thisperiod.Indeed the 'high' chronologysuggestedherebringsthe Apulian
tombsinto line with similarmonumentsin the west Mediterranean
in a most

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

RUTH

362

D.

WHITEHOUSE

satisfactory
way. It is no longernecessary
to seekan originin thelateand elaborate
gallerygravesof Sardinia,as Trump suggested.PerhapsG. Daniel's group of
gallerygravesin the Aude (Daniel I960: I46-54) providesthe bestprototypes.
suchas thePaletde Roland at Pepieux,whichis
It includesverylong monuments
tombslikeBoun Marcou,whichmeasures
morethani8 m. long,as well as shorter
4-5m. in length.They are sometimesclosedat bothends,like theBisceglieand
Leucaspidedolmens,and are sometimessegmented,
like the dolmenat Corato.
Some oftheAudetombs,suchas St.Eug;ene,havean anticella
thatnarrowstowards
as at Albarosa.Also in theAude regionarea largenumberofruined
theentrance,
rectangular
monuments,
verylike thesmallerBari-Tarantotombsin appearance
of course,may well be ruined).The Aude tombs,like gallery
(thesethemselves,
graveselsewherein France,generallyhave long barrowsover them,a feature
at Albarosaand San Silvestro,probablyelsewhere.The
whichoccursdefinitely
materialfromtheAude tombsis of southFrenchChalcolithictypeand includes
B.C.
beakers.They mustbegin earlyin the secondhalfof the thirdmillennium
allow an arrivaldatein Apuliasometimebetween2000
and so would comfortably
and 1800

B.C.

oftheTarnniightprovidetheprototypes
forthe
The neighbouring
department
ofCastellucciodeiSauri.In spiteoftheirsomewhatoutlying
statue-menhirs
position
in Apulia,it is surelymorelikelythattheybelongwiththesouthern
dolmensthan
fromnorthern
a separateintrusion
thattheyrepresent
Italy.
If the Bari-Tarantogroup is the productof an intrusionfromthe west,the
of it, or perhapsratheras
Otrantotombsmay be regardedas local derivatives
hybridsbetweenthesegallerygravesand therock-cuttombswhichwere in use
bothbeforethearrivalof thedolmensand alongsidethem.To thegallerygraves
of largestonesand perhapsthe
theyowe the basic idea of buildingmonuments
fromtheCampinadolmenis genuine.
drystonewalledpassage,iftheone reported
On the otherhand,theyare linkedto the rock-cuttombsby theirsmalloval
of therockto supportthecapstone,perhapsthe
theuse of projections
chambers,
claimthattheseoccur
hollowsin whichtheywerebuilt(thoughsomeauthorities
underthe Leucaspideand Acetullatombsof the Bari-Tarantogroup also) and,
ofall,thefactthatmenhirs
perhapsmostsignificantly
appearto be associatedwith
bothtypesof tomb.Indeedit is possibleto regardthe Otrantodolmensand the
rock-cuttombsas above- and below-groundversionsof thesame gravetype.If
thisview of theoriginof theOtrantodolmensis accepted,it becomespossibleto
regardthesetombsas the prototypesof the Maltesedolmens,as indeedEvans
hoped.The chronologyis perhapsa littletight,butif one allowsthedolmensto
arrivein Malta some timeafterthebeginningof theTarxienCemeteryCulture,
it is perfectly
practicable.Trump (I966: 88) has drawnattentionto connexions
betweensouth-east
Italyand Malta in theimmediately
precedingperiodin some
of thepotterytechniques(dottedand studdeddecoration)and in thepresenceof
bossed bone plaques (the Maltese example may be eitherTarxienTemple or
TarxienCemetery:thecontextwas notclear);andin theTarxienCemeteryperiod
too thereare ceramicconnexions(Evans I959: I79-80).
we mustlook now forreasonswhy,
It we are to pursuethisnew hypothesis,
Frenchmegalithbuildersshould come to Apulia and secondly,why
firstly,
subsequently
Apulianmegalithbuildersshouldgo to Malta. Both movements,

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

THE

MEGALITHIC

MONUMENTS

OF SOUTH-EAST

ITALY

363

I think,can be satisfactorily
explainedin thecontextof thegeneralMediterranean

tradeof thisperiod.By thefirsthalfof thesecondmillennium

B.C. Aegeanboats
musthavereachedas faras Lipari;indeedtheearliestboatsprobablyarrivedsome
centuries
earlier,thoughtheevidenceis lacking.In anycaseMiddleHelladicmatt

painted
wareat PortoPerone,Leporano(Lo PortoI963:

239)

thatthis
indicates

sailorsbyc. i800 B.C. atleast.The motive

harbourwasknownto eastMediterranean
forthearrivalof explorersfromtheeastwas providedby theexistenceof metal
oresin Italy,Sardiniaand especiallyIberia.However,thereis no reasonto believe
thatthe movementwas all in one direction.West Mediterranean
boats were
probablyresponsiblefor most of the carryingin the west Mediterranean
itself
and
andtheymaywellhavepenetrated
beyondSicilyto thecentralMediterranean
theAdriatic,particularly
if theircargoeswere ultimately
bound forAegeanharbours.Fontbouisse
wareand otherFrenchproductsin Sardiniaand beakersin both
Sardiniaand Sicilyattesttheactivityof westernsailorsat leastas fareastas Italy
had nothingto conbeforetheend of thethirdmillennium
B.C. SouthItalyitself
or finished
tributeto Mediterranean
tradein theway of raw materials
goods,but
it did have fineharbourswhichprovidedthenecessary
stoppingpointsforsmall
boatsobligedto travelmainlyalongthecoasts.It is verynoticeablehow closethe
Bari-Tarantodolmensare to thenaturalharboursof theIoniansea,Tarantoand
Gallipoli,and to the smallerharboursof theAdriaticcoast,Giovinazzoand Bisceglie,and perhapsevenVieste.If Frenchboatswere usingtheseharboursregthan
ularly-andthevoyagefromFranceto Apuliais certainly
no moreformidable
thatfromtheAegeanto Lipari-thenit is notimpossiblethatFrenchsettlers
were
placedin someofthem;and,ifthiswereso, it would be quitepossibleforFrench
ideasaboutburialtobe adopted,particularly
bypeoplewho werealreadypractising
thekindredriteof collectiveburialin rock-cuttombs.Patternsof local tradein
the middleMediterranean,
witha historyof close contactat leasta millennium
old at thisstage,musthave been responsible
fortakingthe Otrantodolmensto
Malta.
The menhirspose a ratherdifferent
problem.A local developmenthas been
suggested,with a small standingstoneon the neolithicsite of Monteverdeat
Terlizzi(Mosso & SamarelliI9IO: 3, II6) as a prototype,
butthisis unconvincing.
Their apparentassociationwith rock-cuttombsand withthe Otrantodolmens
makesit difficult
to separatethemfromthegeneralcomplexof megalithic
monumentsin thisarea.However,althoughtheirmainassociation
seemsto be withthe
Otrantogroup,thisdistribution
further
northin Apulia coincidesquite closely
withthatof theBari-Tarantodolmens.It would be satisfying
if one could confidently
suggestthattheywereintroduced
withtheBari-Taranto
tombs,butwere
adoptedwithmuchgreater
enthusiasm
bythepeopleoftheOtrantoarea.However,
simplemenhirs
arerarein thesouthof Francewherethemostsuitableprototypes
forthetombsoccur,but it is interesting
to notethatnearArlesthereis a menhir
closelyassociatedwitha chambertomb,theDolmen de Coutignuargues
(Daniel
I960:

I6I).

The alternative
isa localderivation,
perhaps
fromintroduced
statue-

menhirsratherthandubiousneolithicantecedents.
The Bari-Tarantotombswere certainlyin use untilsome late date,as Late
BronzeAge materialhas beenfoundin them.The menhirs
werealmostcertainly
stillbeingerectedat thesamedateor evenlater,as theyappearto be associatedon

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

364

RUTH

D.

WHITEHOUSE

occasionwithdevelopedrock-cuttombsofIronAge form.The Otrantodolmens

too may have been used forthe same period,althoughthereis no evidencefor
this.The long lifeof thistradition,
perhapsa thousandyearsor more,is a feature
familiarin othercountries
wheremegalithicmonumentsoccur. The megalithic
tradition
didnotdiecompletely,
evenwiththeinfluxofa newpopulation,
perhaps
fromDalmatia,at thebeginningoftheIronAge. It was,rather,
combinedwitha
new burialrite,thatof singleburialundera barrow,to producethe megalithic
cistsundercairnsknownas piccolespecchie.
Conclusions
i. The Bari-Taranto
groupof dolmenswas introducedfromthe westMediterranean
basin,probablyfromthe southof France,shortlyafterthe beginning
of thesecondmillennium
B.C. The samesourcemaybe responsible
forthestatuemenhirsof Castellucciodei Sauri.
2. The Otrantogroup of dolmensarose as a local hybridbetweenrock-cut
tombsand thegallerygravesoftheBari-Taranto
group.SeparatetradingconnexionsbetweenthisareaandthemiddleMediterranean
islandsmayhavesubsequently
introduced
thistypeof dolmento Malta.
3. Both typesof dolmenprobably,theBari-Tarantotypecertainly,
wereused
throughout
theBronzeAge and intotheIronAge, whenthemegalithic
building
traditionwas absorbedinto a new intrusiveburial riteto producethe piccole
specchie.
4. The menhirsare associatedwiththe Otrantodolmensas well as withrockcut tombs.They were perhapsintroducedwith the firstmegalithictombs,but
were undoubtedly
morepopularwiththepeople who builtthe Otrantotombs.
They also appearto have survivedintotheIronAge.
NOTES

am verygrateful
to Dr GlynDaniel,Professor
J. D. Evansand Dr David Trumpfor
readingthisarticlein manuscript
and makingmanyhelpfulsuggestions.
I am also grateful
to my husband,whosehelp has been invaluablethroughout.
A laterarticlewill includea
catalogueofthemegalithic
monuments
ofApulia.
2 I am grateful
to Dr Trumpforinformation
about and photographs
of thisimportant
tomb,whichI wasunfortunately
unableto visitmyself.
3 The surviving
findsfromthesetwo tombsare on displayin theMuseo Archeologico
at
Bari.The whereabouts
ofthematerial
fromLeucaspideis unknown.
4 The siteof MonamoreCairn(IsleofArran)hasproducedCI4 datesshowingthatit was
in use forat leasta millennium.
Some Frenchtombshaveyieldedmaterial
whichmustspan
almostthesameperiodoftime.
5 The surviving
and
dolmensare Gurgulante
and Placa near Calimera,Quattromacine
Chiancusenear Giurdignano
and Scusi near Minervino.The possibleremainsare of the
Campina dolmennear Vaste. The destroyedmonuments
are Cola-Restanear Calimera,
Sferracavalli,
Grassi,Cauda,Peschio,Orfineand GravascenearGiurdignano,
Monteculumbu
nearCocumola,andSgarraI andII nearCastro.Therearealsoreferences
to at leastfourmore
possibledolmensofthisgroup,butas theiridentification
I haveexcludedthem
is notcertain,
fromthisdiscussion.
6 Pietrafitta
Grassiat CarpignanoSalentinoandPietrafitta
Triceat MuroLeccese.
II

REFERENCES

M. 0.
Acanfora,

I960.

di Castellucciodei Sauri.Riv. Sci. preist.I5,

Le steleantropomorfe

95-I23.

builders
ofwestern
Europe.London:Hutchinson.
Daniel,GlynI958. Themegalith
chamber
tombs
ofFrance.London:Thames& Hudson.
I960. Theprehistoric

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

THE

MEGALITHIC

MONUMENTS

OF SOUTH-EAST

ITALY

365

Drago,Ciro I952. Puglia.Riv. Sci.preist.

7, 256.
ital.64, I7I-223.
I954/5. Specchiedi Puglia.Bull.Paletnol.
Evans,J. D. I956. The 'dolmens'of Maltaand theoriginsof theTarxiencemetery
culture.
Proc.prehist.Soc. 22, 85-IOI.

I959. Malta.London:Thames& Hudson.

Gervasio,
M. I9I3. I dolmen
e la civilta2
delbronzo
nellePuglie(Docum.Monogr.StoriaBari13).
Bari: Comnmissione
di Archeologia
e StoriaPatria.
Giorgi,C. de I9I2. Censimento
dei dolmensdi Terrad'Otranto.Apulia,3, 99.
Jatta,
A. I904. AvanzidellaI' etadelferronelleMurgeBaresi.Bull.Paletnol.
ital.30,32-79.
I94. La Pugliapreistorica.
(Docum. Monogr.StoriaBari 14). Bari: Commissione
di
Archeologiae StoriaPatria.
Lo Porto,F. G. I96I Notizie.Riv. Sci.preist.
i6, 270.
di Porto Perone.Notiz. Scavi
I963. Leporano(Taranto)-la stazioneprotostorica

Antich.Ser. 8,

17, 280-380.

B in Puglie.Bull.
La tombadi San Vito dei Normannie il proto-appenninico
Paletnol.
ital.73, I09-42.
Mayer,M. I924. Moifetta
e Matera.Leipzig:Hiersemann.
Milan: Treves.
Mosso,A. I9IO. Le origini
deltacivilta2
mediterranea.
& F. Samareli. I9IO. Terlizzi. Notiz. ScaviAntich.,Ser. 5,7, 3, 33-53, II6-28.
Palumbo,G. I955. Inventario
dellepietrefitte
salentine.
Riv. Sci.preist.
1O, 86-I47.
I956. Invent4riodei dolmendi Terrad'Otranto.Riv. Sci.preist.
II, 84-I08.
I958. Pseudo-pietrefitte
in Terrad'Otrantoe l'evoluzionedegli'Osanne' 0 'Sanna'.
Stud.salent.5/6,I69.
Paone,M. I960. Notiziearcheologiche.
Stud.salent.
9/10, 97.
Patroni,G. I898. Un villaggiosiculopressoMateranell'anticaApulia. Monum.antich.8,
I964.

4I7-520.

Piccinni,C. I962. Ritrovamenti

di monumenti
nelbassoSalento.Zagaglia4, 3-8.
megalitici
Puglisi,S. M. I950. Le culturedei capannicolisul promontorio
Gargano.AttiAccad.naz.

Lincei Memorie,ser. 8, 2, 3-57.

I959. La civilta'appenninica.
Firenze:Sansoni.
Quagliati,Q. I92o. Deposito sepolcralecon vasi preistorici
in CrispianopressoTaranto.

Monum.antich.
26, 433-98.
Randall-MacIver,
D. I927. Theironagein Italy.Oxford:Clarendon.
Rellini,U. I925. Notizie.Bull.Paletnol.
ital.45, 151-3.
I929. Nuove osservazioni
sulleeta eneoliticaed enea nel territorio
di Matera.Atti
Mem.Soc.magnaGrecia,I929, I29-47.
Ross,J. I887. Italiansketches.
London.
i 889. TheLandofManfred.
London.
Trump,D. H. I963a. Carbon,MaltaandtheMediterranean.
Antiquity,
37,302-3.
i963b.ExcavationatLa Starza,ArianoIrpino.Pap.Brit.Sch.Rome31, 3-27.
I966. Centraland southern
ItalybeforeRome. London: Thames & Hudson.
Viola,L. I960. Scopertadi un menhirneipressidi SoglianoCavour,Zagaglia,2, 67-8.

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

)~~~~

.u

PLATE ia.
_

..

The Leucaspidedolmen(Bari-Taranto
group).
s_s

i
t*;
.~ iszw~~~~

-4

PLATE ib.

The Tavianodolmen(Bari-Taranto
group).

6-m.

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

PLATE2a. The Scusi dolmen (Otranto group).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

||

h
t4. Casoeo
PLATE~~~~~~~~~~~z

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

:EJ
utrmcn

omnsoiggoves(tatru)

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

PLATE

ofCastelluccio
3a. Statue-menhir
dei Sauri.

\S.w

PLATE

3b. Taviano; half of

to relimenhirtransported
on Serra
giousfoundation
di CastelForte.

Aw

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