205

Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy (Eds. R. I. Kostov, B. Gaydarska, M. Gurova). 2008. Proceedings of the International Conference, 29-30 October 2008 Sofia, Publishing House “St. Ivan Rilski”, Sofia, 205-210.

LOOKING FOR METALS: MEGALITHIC MONUMENTS BETWEEN REALITY AND MYTHOLOGY George Dimitriadis DiSA-Anthropological Sciences, University of Genoa, 16126 Genoa, Italy; giorgio.dimitriadis@cheapnet.it

ABSTRACT. Homo Sapiens Sapiens was stimulated by the environment geomorphology and consequently defined from an ecological viewpoint as a troglodyte. Humans from the very beginning of their origin as merely culture oriented animals became constructor of lithic instruments, ceramic artefacts and dwell structures. Such process of technological development was transmitted in time throughout mythology. The present paper focuses on the distribution pattern of the European megalithic monuments (menhir-statues and/or stone circles) in relation to the distribution of metal sources, which in its turn overlaps with the Greek mythological narrative about the heroic gestures of Hercules and Jason.

Introduction Homo Sapiens Sapiens since his first explorative steps was stimulated by the environment geomorphology and consequently was defined as troglodyte or troglophilo from a human palaeo-ecology viewpoint (cf. Ruffo, 1960; Vandel, 1964; Bini, 1972) because of the caves and the rock-shelters used for habititation (cf. for Italy: Fedele, 1972b; Maggi, 2004) and/or mortuary depositions (Mezzena, Palma di Cesnola, 1972) and because of the exploration of natural and mineral resources. Of course, human engagement with raw materials (ochre, pebbles, etc.) includes not only survival necessities but an aesthetic and communicative appreciation is also claimed. Humans from the very beginning as merely culture oriented animal became constructor of lithic instruments, ceramic artefacts and dwell structures. Such process of technological development was transmitted in time throughout mythology. The present paper is focussed on the distribution pattern of the European megalithic monuments (menhir-statues and /or stone circles) in relation to the distribution pattern of the metal sources. In this case a reference should be made to the prospective way of dynamic system relations (cf. Von Bertalanffy, 1950) between humans and palaeo-environment, which in its turn conflates at present into human ecology studies (Fedele, 1974). A concise model which links human communities and their living spacescape (including environment resources) is given below (Fig. 1). In fact, human ecosystems are strongly constrained by the environments archived as a first cognitive level of human perception. It is quite probable that the geomorphology of the different ecosystems could influence the distribution of prehistoric human groups. Outcrops and geological phenomena could stimulate human curiosity and set the

Fig. 1. A concise human eco-system (after Fedele, 1974)

beginning of the mineral and metal extraction process from the Early Neolithic, passed through a strong environment pressure during EBA and later, till today. An explicit case is the rock-art of Philippi, Greece, where quartzite outcrops become the attractive point for production of engravings (Dimitriadis et al., 2007; Fig. 2a-b).

Methodology Two methodological tools are used in the present work: 1. Archaeo-mythology defined as interdisciplinary approach (which compares/implements/combines mythological narratives and archaeological evidences) to megalithic iconography.

206

Fig. 2. a (sx.) – SΦ-Mana R.1; b (dx.) – SΦ-Mana. R.4. Philippi in North Macedonia, Greece; both cliffs include exotic outcrops that attract metal oriented social groups who are also the producers of the rock-art (photo G. Dimitriadis)

A preliminary overview of the archaeological material which comes out of the iconographic comparison and the rock-art studies demonstrates that different or affiliated social groups share conceptually common cognitive and psychological patterns (Anati, 1990; Mezzena, 1998; Pedrotti, 2000). In the same time illiterate and tribal societies make use of myth and mythological tales not only as narratives but also as living reality. In this sense mythology is the base of culture (cf. Malinowski, 1926; Kerényi, Jung, 1941). Primitive and tribal societies make use of mythology and mythological tales not only for narrative although as shared living reality (Dimitriadis, 2008); 2. Space Syntax Analysis studies (SSA) as guidelines for a cognitive approach to the environment (landscape and geology; cf. Dimitriadis, 2008a) where megalithic monuments are located. The general idea in SSA is that spaces can be broken down into components, analysed as networks of choices, and then represented as maps and graphs that describe the relative connectivity and integration of those spaces. Therefore, such network of choices implies cognitive patterns in superimposition to the myth narratives. The aim of SSA is exactly to understand and explain certain aspects of human behaviour and their relation to the environment which the people have built and dwelled in. Regarding the nomenclature and the definition problems of the megalithic monuments, especially in connection to the menhirs-stelae, the problem is not going to be discussed here since it falls out of the aims of the present paper. Anati (1990), Mezzena (1998) and Fedele (2004) are refered to.

Megalithic monuments context I: distribution and location The diffusion (distribution) of megalithic monuments could be organized in two clusters which areas eventually overlap: 1.

Megalithic tombs: from the Near East (Palestine and Cyprus) extend to the North around the Black Sea area (Crimea and ancient Thrace – present day Romania, Bulgaria and Northern Greece); to the West Italian Peninsula (Aosta), Sardinia and Corsica, Spain, British Isles and to the North-West (Denmark, South Sweden) and 2a. Proto-menhir: Near East (Har-Harkom) and Lepenski-Vir area. 2b. Menhir-stelae (iconic and an-iconic): from the Near East (Troia), to the North-East (along the Black Sea – Crimea and Dneper, as well as the Danube area) to North Greece (Thassos), North Italy (Aosta, Val Camonica, Lunigiana), to Central (Bologna stelae) and South Italy (Daunia), France (Alpis Graia, Bretagne) and to Malta and Sardinia. In our case I focus only on the menhir-stelae monuments which chronological frame is between the Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age. Few basic operative criteria (crt.) should be mentioned as both clusters could be detected by the application of SSA models: Crt. 1. Spatial cognition is mainly based on correlation between environment and human movement (Penn, 2001). There is a territorial gradient that governs the social role of space in a given cultural context (cf. Robinson, 2001); Crt. 2. Spatial logic of movement: according to theorems of space syntax, more integrated spaces are statistically associated with higher densities of movement. The relationship between human collectives and space is mediated through the device which enables us to overcome the discreteness of bodies as well as of places: the morphology of movements. SSA is used to predict the flows and helps to formulate alternative scenarios to fit development sites into their surroundings (Peponis, 2001); Crt. 3. Mental spaces: human activity which means interaction (explicit and/or implicit) takes place in space. So, humans need concepts of space in order to act effectively. The first critical level for human behaviour is the management of the space. At present, the way materiality is deformed around us is called landmark (Tversky, 2001); Crt. 4. Intelligibility, imageability and legibility: the quality of an environment as being comprehendible and easily navigable is recognised as “intelligibility”. Such definition concerns the relationship between the local visual cues (e.g. the connectivity of a space) and the global properties of a space within the system. Imageability is the quality of a physical object to give a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer (cf. Dalton, Bafna, 2003). According to Lynch (1960) legibility is a significant quality of spaces and is the ease with which parts can be recognised and can be organized into a coherent pattern. According to the criteria expressed above it is possible to recognise the location of the menhir-stelae culture along specific geographic features. The first pattern (Fig. 3) is developed along the principal fluvial corridors (Dnieper and Danube) and the secondary fluvial corridors, as for example, in Italy along the palaeo-river bed of Isarco (Aosta), Oglio (Lombardy), Dora Baltea (Piemont). Indeed, such pattern satisfies Crt. 1 and 2 from a global prospective and could be compared to the Bell-Beaker distribution pattern. Probably both

207

cultural phenomena have or share a common cognitive background (i.e. Indo-Europeans; cf. Gimbutas, 1989; Anati, 1990; Mallory, 1995; Marler, 2001). A second pattern (Fig. 4) from a local viewpoint and in respect of Crt. 3 and 4 could be recognised. Indeed, megalithic monument compositions are found in primary and/or secondary deposition respecting a spatial logic of precise structural organization (cf. Ossimo, Cauria-Sartène).

Megalithic monuments context II: geological sources

An analysis of Figure 4 can help us to identify the areas where social groups were probably motivated to search and exploit various mineral resources (silver, gold, copper, green stones etc.). Therefore, segmentary societies model their environment and throughout the creation of a ceremonial plateau produce mental spaces. Such locations could be defined as nodal points (cf. Howell, 1988; Mezzena, 1998; Dimitriadis, 2006) and remind of the rit

uals foundation in EBA period. In the specific case of Val d’Aosta in Northeast Italy the archaeological context is surrounded by a deeply ploughed area. Further evidence for comparison is attested by the plough scenes carved on the monumental surfaces in Val Camonica, North-Central Italy (cf. Fig. 5). An interesting information is coming from the study of Manerba, a Copper Age funerary site located along the seashore of Garda Lake in Northern Italy. Barfield (2004) notices that several post holes and cremation pits located near burned burial deposits could be explained by the assumption of wooden stelae and funerary timbers presence: “an assumption that many statue-stelae in Southern Europe may have been of wood rather than stone is perhaps supported by the nature of the intermittent distribution of these figures across northern Italy and the South of France where the use of stones for statues, as with megaliths, is only possible in areas where suitable stone for making these is found”.

Fig. 3. Approximate distribution of megalithic areas with strong concentration of stelae (nebulae) and location of single menhir-stelae (dots); (after Mezzena, 1998)

208

Fig. 4. Approximate distribution of megalithic areas containing stelae in alignment (2 big dots) and stelae in primary context (small dots); (after Mezzena, 1998)

Fig. 5. Val Camonica: Bagnolo 2 menhir-stelae relief; a plough scene occupies the central location in the monument iconography. Swords, two different types of halberds, double spiral pendant and circle “solar” motif implement narratives (photo CCSP)

Megalithic monuments context III: the rock-art iconography Rock-art is a kind of animate language, made by shadows, crayon and natural glues to communicate emotions and thoughts. If we assume rock-art as a fine register of past mentality, ideology and everyday life – where this is possible -, it is quite obvious that the iconography impressed on menhir-stelae or on the crude rocky surfaces could help us to understand the social history of megalithic monuments (regardless whether they were found in primary or secondary deposition context).

Rock-art operates as cultural deposit of social activity and during III mill. BC which was technologically characterized by metallurgy the representation of weapons (axes, halberds, Fig. 6; swords, Fig. 7; etc.), solar/lunar/star motifs, plough scenes and concentric discs, single and/or double spirals, cup-marks or cup-rings-marks were highly frequent.

Fig. 6 (sx). Valcamonica: Montecchio, Corni Freschi; Copper Age halberds engraved on Verucano Lombardo (local red sandstone), displaced in two rows and oriented in diametrical opposite way (photo G. Dimitriadis)

Fig. 7 (dx). Valcamonica: Foppe di Nadro, R.23. Two typologicaly different swords. The big upper one is pure Remedello culture type that is dated between 2800-2400 BC (photo G. Dimitriadis)

Megalithic monuments context IV: mythological narratives and epic tales Various and curious mythological tales, registered by religion historians and ethnographers. In Lithuania standing stones were erected nearby the river banners, called deives, until 1836 (Gimbutas, 1958). In South Britain and Gales narratives talk about menhirs’ dancing and singing performance: Bretons believe that menhir-stelae complete three turns around themselves when they hear an owl crow Armstrong (1958). Ethnographic parallels for menhir-statues abound. There is a strong analogy between the human body and the shape of the stone. On the stelae are carved weapons and power attributes.

209

Some of them symbolise ancestors or deities or have a commemorative function of social feasts or battles (Barfield, 1995). In our case there are two specific Greek narratives strictly linked to the menhir-stelae and the menhir circles. The first is the Hercules epic labours and legends. As founder and coloniser, the hero built the famous “Hercules Columns” during his travel around Europe (Fig. 8). Indeed, Tacit and Strabo indicate that “Hercules Columns” were present not only in Gibraltar but were also spread along the rivers of Dneper, Dnester and Danube. Such areas were already densely packed by a high concentration of megalithic monuments, dated between IV and III mill. BC.

Fig. 8. Approximate itinerary according to the Hercules epic narrative; (after Mezzena, 1998)

The second one talks about Jason and his Argonauts adventure. During his travel to the Black Sea (Fig. 9) and in proximity to the place where the gold fleece was kept he spread “dragon teeth”. The archaeological evidence from the megalithic site of Sion in Aosta documents exactly such a myth: a huge number of teeth were found by the excavators inside the plough area.

Fig. 9. Approximate itinerary according to the heroic tasks of Jason and the Argonauts; after Mezzena, 1998)

Discussion Scholars till today analyse only the megalithic material culture and the iconographic evidence without taking into account that the menhir-stelae “wave” probably could be manifestation of a particular culture-facies. The mere typological classification (van Berg, Cauwe, 1995) and iconographic genealogy (Arcà, 2004; Sansoni, 2004) may clarify local cultural networks but do not explain events in a large scale. Environmental studies could address new questions and new perspectives. A techno-economic point is very important and useful in order to understand the movement of past people in relation to natural sources. Their movement on the ground was coordinated in function with the natural sources for his sustenance: the resources were accepted as knots in space. Basically, we can accept the idea that in rural societies the “land” concept was strictly connected with the possibility and capacity of territory utilization (cf. Dimitriadis, 2005). The aim of the present paper isn’t to make the point of the state of the research on megalithic culture but rather to put in evidence the urgent to proceed with data analysis and new models. Space syntax models have the capacity to combine date of different quality in order to decifrate different culture phenomena and facies.

References Anati, E. 1990. The Alpine menhir-statues and the Indo-

European problem. – Boll. Centro Camuno Studi Preistorici, Edizioni del Centro, 25-26, 13-44.

Arcà, A. 2004. Valcamonica, Dos Cüi, le fasi neolitiche e calcolitiche: cronologia, temi ed interpretazioni. – Notizie Archeologiche Bergomensi, 12, 279-299.

Armstrong, A. E. 1958. The Folklore of Birds. Collins, London. Barfield, L. 2004. The use of wood in the Copper Age funerary

monuments at manerba of Garda and its use in contemporary ritual monuments. – Notizie Archeologiche Bergomensi, 12, 39-47.

Barfield, L. 1995. The context of statue-menhirs. – Notizie Archeologiche Bergomensi, 3, 11-17

van Berg, P.-L., N. Cauwe. 1995. Figures humaines mégalithiques: histoire, style et sens. – Notizie Archeologiche Bergomensi, 3, 21-66.

Dalton, R. C., S. Banfa. 2003. The syntactical image of the city: a reciprocal definition of spatial elements and spatial syntaxes. – 4th Intern. Space Syntax Symposium, London, 59.1-59.22.

Dimitriadis, G. 2005. Rock art, binary logic and archaeoastronomy. – In: Lights and Shadows in Cultural Astronomy (Eds. M. P. Zedda, J. A. Belmonte). SEAC 2005 Conference, Isili-Sardinia, 257-263.

Dimitriadis, G. 2006. Ecology of prehistoric art: a cultural landscape manifest. – Forum UNESCO University and Heritage. 10th Intern. Seminar “Cultural Landscapes in the 21st Century”, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; http://www.ncl.ac.uk/unescolandscapes/files/DIMITRIADISGeorge.pdf

Dimitriadis, G. et al. 2007. Post Palaeolithic engravings at Philippi in Eastern Macedonia, Greece: rock-art in the land of the Hedones. – Antiquity, 81, 311.

210

Dimitriadis, G. 2008. Space syntax analysis as cognitive approach to prehistoric mentality. – In: Coimbra, F., G. Dimitriadis. Cognitive Archaeology as Symbolic Archaeology. BAR Intern. Series, 1737.

Dimitriadis, G. 2008a. The bull horn symbolism in Dionysus cult as coming out form the prehistoric rock-art iconography. – In: Coimbra, F., L. Dubal. Symbolism in Rock-Art. BAR Intern. Series, 1793.

Fedele, F. 1974. Antropospeleologia: definizione della materia, ricerche 1970-74, e le sue prospettive. Atti XII Congresso Nazionale di Speleologia. Rassegna Speleologica Italiana, Memoria XII.

Fedele, F. 2004. Monoliths and hum skeletal remains: ritual manipulation at the Anvòia ceremonial site, Ossimo (Val Camonica,Italy). – Notizie Archeologiche Bergomensi, 12, 49-66.

Gimbutas, M. 1958. Ancient Symbolism in Lituanian Folk Art. Memories of the American Folklore Society, Philadelfia, 49, 95.

Howell, J. M. 1988. Gli inizi dell’agricoltura nell’Europa nord-occidentale. – Le Scienze, 40, 55, 78-85.

Kerényi, K., C. G. Jung. 1941. Einführung in das Wesen Mythologie. Amsterdam, Querido.

Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

Maggi, R. 2004. I monti sun eggi: the meaking of the Ligurian landscape in prehistory. – In: Balzaretti, R., M. Pearce, Ch. Watkins. 2004. Ligurian Landscape, 10, 71-82.

Malinowski, B. 1926. Myth in Primitive Psychology. Norton, London.

Marler, J. 2001. L’eredità di Marija Gimbutas: una ricerca archeomitologica sulel radici dell civiltà europea. – In: Ceruti, M., G. Bocchi. 2001. Le radici prime dell’Europa. Mondatori, Milano, 89-115.

Mezzena, F., A. Palma di Cesnola. 1972. Scoperta di una sepoltura gravettiana nelal Grotta di Pagliacci (Foggia). –Rivista Scienze Preistoriche, 27, 211-24.

Mezzena, F. 1998. Le stele antropomorfe in Europa. – In: Dei di pietra. Skira, Milano, 14-16.

Mezzena, F. 2000. Il sito megalitico di Saint-Martin-de-Corleans e riferimenti nell’arco alpino italiano. – In: Dei nella pietra. Quaderni di Archeologia Lombarda, 63-84.

Pedrotti, A. L. 2000. Uomini di pietra dell’area Atesina. – In: Dei nella pietra. Quaderni di Archeologia Lombarda. 99-108.

Penn, A. 2001. Space syntax and spatial cognition. 3rd Intern. Space Syntax Symposium Atlanta, 11.1-11.16.

Peponis, J. 2001. Interacting questions and descriptions. – 3rd Intern. Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta, xiii-xxvi.

Robinson, W. J. 2001. Instituional space, domestic space, and power relations: revisiting territoriality with space syntax. – 3rd Intern. Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta, s2.1-s2.10.

Sansoni, U. 2004. Il Calcolitico su superficie affiorante: le nuove scene di aratura di Campanine e Foppe di nadro. Note sul sito di Campolungo e il frammento di Nadro. – Notizie Archeologiche Bergomensi, 12:219-233.

Tversky, B. 2001. Structures of mental spaces. – 3rd Intern. Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta, 12.1-12.5.

Von Bertalanffy, L. 1950. An outline of general system theory. – British J. Philosophy of Science, 1, 139-164.

211