Machicolation or cell oracular?

Mauro Peppino Zedda

In the first four decades of the last century archeology of

Sardinia was characterized by the unchallenged domination of Antonio Taramelli,

while John Lilliu was the dominus of

next sixty years. Taramelli was assisted by some talented designers

and teams of workers armed with pickaxes. While Lilliu gave birth to school

archeological Sardinian, forged in his image and likeness.

As I tried to explain in Landscape Archaeology

Nuragico (2009), I think Taramelli has expressed an archeology,

epistemologically, the daughter of his

time, while John remained Lilliu

lingered to archeology dictates of his formative years (30s

and 40). Lilliu unfortunately failed to grasp the principles of the archeology

proceedings, post procedural, cognitive procedural who claimed,

gradually, in the best of the world archeology schools starting

60s, and remained throughout his life tied to its archeology

cultural history.

Taramelli can be considered as the archaeologist who

imposed the theory of nuraghe fortress with nuraghi which were used to defend against internal enemies (nuragici

themselves) and external (Punic and Roman).

Lilliu remained anchored to the proposal until the Taramelli

mid sixties. And I still can not explain why in the excavation

the nuraghe of Barumini played the rifascio as a constructive gimmick

aimed at consolidating the nuraghe to withstand the siege engines

(Ram and others) of the Carthaginians (see Civilization of the Sardinians 1963). Actually the rifascio should go back to

Recent Bronze Age (1350-1150 BC), as well was able to make a big mistake I can not

understand it, if it was not the great archaeologist who extol his disciples

I would think it was a fool (in the excavation and reading

stratigraphy), at least relative to the times when he dug On Nuraxi

Barumini.

But back to Taramelli and let’s hear his

argument in which he tries to explain the function of the cells placed over

the entrance corridor of a particular type of nuraghe.

Taramelli wrote:

“The excavation work

pointed out another small ladder, which from the top floor

that was greater than or terrace, descended, in the opposite direction to that of

main staircase, narrow and steep, a little cell, elliptical

vaulted overhang, clearly visible in the section in Fig. 1 at the top. This

cell was practiced in the thickness of solid masonry of the dolmen, above

access corridor to the main chamber and the floor of it, that

formed precisely at the ceiling of the passageway, a hole which was practiced was

serve as a spy or as Machicolation to observe and strike from above who he was

He went beyond the threshold of the nuraghic tower door. Such a defensive measure, which

considerable importance as an element to clarify the purpose of the construction

nuragica, it was already observed in other nuraghi, such as Nuraghe Mannu at

Ozieri, but had to be fairly common in nuraghi, which explains the

frequency of the small cells, generally of small size, which are

practiced within the structure of the wall, above anolyte inlet

to the main bedroom …

 Remember

observed recently, such examples in Bonora Nuraghe, at Bulzi, and a short

away from this, in s nuraghe. Giorgio overlooking the cliff of trachitica

opposite the medieval church of that name, at Perfugas. But in the nuraghe

St. Barbara, thanks to the work of excavation, is more evident and instructive that not

all other cases this

defensive measure, which precedes the Machicolation medieval monuments.

As seen from the sharp section due to sign. Caps, from the cell

above the corridor of the scale continues until reaching the continuous scale up to

reach the main staircase; so as

that defendant had available another way out, when it was

He has been surprised or overwhelmed by the attacker. (The Nuraghe Santa Barbara,

1916). ”

I can not help but make explicit that I consider absurd the reasoning that led Taramelli to argue that the cell was a

Machicolation which would represent a defensive provision, which has considerable

importance as evidence to clarify the purpose of the nuragic construction ..

The absurd fantasies of Taramelli were taken for good by

Lilliu, which was more royalist than the King and theorized well as nuraghi trap! The

absurd explanations of Taramelli and Lilliu reigned unchallenged until 1977, ie until the demolition

the theory of nuraghe fortress that Massimo Pittau presented in the book The

Sardinia Nuragica. Following the

severe criticism of Pittau (1977), Lilliu removed from subsequent editions of the

His Civilization of the Sardinians, all the ridiculous arguments in support of a

military use, from that moment his theory became dogma rather

a clumsy scientific hypothesis.

For the cell in question Pittau speculated that it was the

place where the Pythia nuragica read the oracle, in short, a sort of cavern

the Sibyl, a Sibyl nuragica.

That in nuragico world practiced the oracle do not think

someone wants to deny, while on where and how the oracle you esplicava

It has much to do.

That is a likely hypothesis of Pittau while that of

Taramelli and Lilliu is an egregious nonsense. Argue that, with the now “nuraghe conquered”, could serve some gimmick that

someone was hiding in that little cell to break down the enemy now master

the dolmen is just one egregious nonsense.

Before the doctors in Literature Taramelli and Lilliu Ancient, the

Sardinia Nuragic was lucky enough to be studied by the geographer Alberto Ferrero La Marmora, already official

Army of the Kingdom of Sardinia, which excluded for nuraghi a function

military, it would be interesting epistemologically understand the reasons why Taramelli and Lilliu not

heed to the comments specimens of La Marmora and invented a series of unrealistic proposals

to support the hypothesis of the fortress Nuraghe.

However innocent proposals are Lilliu and Taramelli

always better than those among their disciples, imagine the space of

nuragiche wonderful domes were designed to hang the sausages.

Source Archeologia Nuragica