5 Sicily in Mediterranean History in the Second Millennium BC
Abstract
This chapter stresses the critical role of the major Mediterranean islands as a connecting factor in the second millennium BC, as well as in the processes of integration between Aegean and Near Eastern seafarers and indigenous communities of the central Mediterranean. The focus is on Sicily and the Aeolian islands. In the Early Bronze Age (ca. 2200–1500/1450 BC), Sicily was culturally different from both mainland Italy and the Aeolian islands. The coasts of southern Italy and Sicily, and the adjacent small islands, participated in a wide system of seaborne trade, which provided the indigenous context to the earliest systematic sailings from the Aegean. The Middle Bronze Age (ca. 1500/1450–1250 BC) is characterized by the maximum intensity of sailings from the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, and by cultural integration between the eastern seafarers and the indigenous communities. Sicily was now the territorial base for these activities, along with the Aeolian islands. The main evidence comes from the site of Thapsos. This change marked the end of the local system of coastal trade and the development of hostile relationships between the Sicilian and Aeolian groups and the indigenous communities of the southern Tyrrhenian regions. The Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age (ca. 1250–750 BC) saw the takeover of the Aeolian islands and of northeast Sicily by ‘Ausonian’ groups from continental Italy, which produced a systematic connection between Sicily and Lipari and southern Italy, and a progressive advance towards central and southern Sicily. These local developments were among the reasons for the end of the Aegean presence and activity in the central Mediterranean.
Introduction
In a paper presented in 2000 at a conference at Lipari (Bietti Sestieri 2003; see also 2009), I proposed a model relating to the general perspective and material conditions of Mediterranean east–west interaction in the second millennium BC. The starting hypothesis, verified through the analysis of archaeological and historical data, was that the major Mediterranean islands (Crete, Cyprus, Sicily, Sardinia, Euboea) had been the main strategic factor in interaction processes. Rather than on a position of geographic determinism, the model depended on a close examination of the specific resources and opportunities which may be provided by major islands – as by any other natural and sociocultural environment –and on the different ways in which these were perceived and exploited. In other words, the model was not meant to establish the major islands as a universally valid category, but it referred specifically to the Mediterranean context and to the historical contingencies of the second millennium BC, especially in its eastern and central areas.
The following features and potentialities of the major Mediterranean islands were considered as especially significant in relation to this area and period:
This chapter deals with the specific forms of Sicily’s interaction with Aegean and eastern Mediterranean groups who were consistently present and active in the central Mediterranean throughout the second millennium BC. The Aegean evidence is far more significant than eastern Mediterranean data, at least from a quantitative point of view. While the Aegean presence in mainland Italy was intensive from the seventeenth to sixteenth centuries BC, the connection with Sicily is structurally different and apparently more relevant from a strategic standpoint. In mainland Italy, especially in the southern regions, it is possible to identify a large number of localized Aegean presences from the earliest phase of systematic contact. From the Recent Bronze Age (fourteenth–thirteenth centuries BC), there is substantial evidence for the local production of Mycenaean and grey wheel-turned pottery. These were probably manufactured by Aegean artisans, whose techniques and formal models were almost completely alien to the local repertoire of handmade impasto pottery. Analyses of the whole range of pottery classes have shown that the clays used for the manufacture of local and ‘Aegean’ vessels came from different locations. It also seems that Mycenaean vessels were not perceived as prestigious exotica, and they were generally not placed in important burials. In other words, the intensive Aegean presence in coastal southern Italy had a surprisingly limited impact on indigenous culture and lifestyle. Rather, it seems to have conformed to the local model of sociopolitical organization in relatively small kinship-based autonomous communities; its main goal was the participation in local exchange networks through integration within single communities. The two main exceptions to this trend are Scoglio del Tonno (Taranto), which was probably an indigenous emporion receiving metal and artefacts from northern and central Italy (Bietti Sestieri et al. 2010), and Roca Vecchia (Lecce), which apparently hosted a substantial Aegean population and participated in the Adriatic exchange system, connecting the eastern Mediterranean and Europe (Guglielmino and Pagliara 2010).
The starting hypothesis of this chapter is accordingly that the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean approach to Sicily was based on an acknowledgement of the islands’ connectivity, i.e. of their potential as a privileged base for contact and integration, not unlike Crete and Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean from the early second millennium BC. Aegean contact in Sicily is characterized by a specific combination of archaeological elements that is quite different from that in mainland Italy. Altogether, these involved the integration of formal and functional features of Aegean and east Mediterranean origin or inspiration into the local material culture, from pottery and bronze artefacts to settlement and funerary structures. In the Middle Bronze Age, this process is particularly evident at Thapsos, possibly the most important Sicilian site in this period. There are nevertheless also indications that the Mycenaean connection involved the island as a whole.
Figure 5.13. Section drawing of a rock-cut Late Bronze Age tholos tomb in the cemetery of Sant’Angelo Muxaro (Agrigento).
However, this does not imply that the process which involved Sicily was the result of an overall, strategically organized plan. More plausibly, it was progressively shaped by different contingencies and events, and by the emergence of political and organizational forms based on the integration of indigenous communities with Aegean–eastern Mediterranean groups systematically present in this area.
Equally relevant is the situation of the central Mediterranean from at least the late third to early second millennium BC (initial Early Bronze Age in the local chronology), at the time of earliest systematic sailing from the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean (ca. seventeenth–sixteenth centuries BC). Throughout this period, a combination of elements indicates the activity of a system of coastal trade, which involved the coasts and islands of this wide region. Based on present archaeological evidence, the core of the system was concentrated between southern Italy (probably along with the opposite eastern Adriatic coast) and Sicily, and included the minor islands and archipelagos as far south as Malta and Pantelleria. The sailings probably used small vessels that did not normally engage in long open-sea voyages. These kinds of trips were relatively easy in the area from the southern Tyrrhenian to the Ionian and southern Adriatic coasts, and concentrated in particular around the Aeolian and Maltese archipelagos. The main archaeological indicators are, first, the large number of sites established along the Adriatic and Ionian coasts of southern Italy in the early second millennium BC, and, second, a measure of formal homogeneity in the material culture (pottery) of coastal sites and small islands, which would signal increased interactions. The local Early Bronze Age archaeological cultures that share significant formal features are those of Capo Graziano (Aeolian archipelago), Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga (northern Sicily and the Tropea promontory of Calabria: Figures 5.4 and 5.6) and the Tarxien Cemetery (Malta). The main features of contemporary archaeological cultures (facies) of southern Italy (Palma Campania and Protoapennine), especially on the coast, are also rather close. Shared features of impasto pottery include specific shapes such as cups and bowls on a conical stand, stands made from opposed cones, and cups with high handles and axe-shaped extensions on the rim or handle of open vessels. Decorations are either modelled or engraved patterns; painting is totally absent. There thus exists a notable difference with the Sicilian Castelluccio facies that is defined by matt-painted pottery (Figure 5.3). Goods circulating through this network may have included raw metals and metal artefacts from Tuscany and northern Italy, probably along with perishable matters and products. A possible hint of this is found in the purple working in the early Protoapennine levels (beginning of the second millennium BC) at Coppa Nevigata on the Apulian coast (Cazzella 2009). It seems likely that the earliest systematic approaches from the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean were first experimented and then consolidated through participation in local trade networks, which may be described as an open, acephalous system.
Figure 5.3. Early Bronze Age matt-painted Castelluccio pottery from the village and sanctuary of La Muculufa: a: amphora; b: cups (after Holloway et al. 1999: figs 51; 40; 43a, b, d; 44b; and 46).
Figure 5.4. Early Bronze Age Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga pottery from Sicily (a: after Leighton 1999: fig. 61) and Tropea, southern Calabria (b: after Pacciarelli and Varricchio 2004: figs 1, 3 and 4) (not to scale).
Figure 5.6. Plan of the EBA village of Capo Graziano on the island of Filicudi, Aeolian islands.
Sicily: General Geographic and Environmental Data and Archaeological Sequences
The status of Sicily in the context of the Mediterranean and European Bronze Age is somewhat controversial, as it qualifies as the largest Mediterranean island in strictly geographical terms. Because of its close proximity to the Italian peninsula, separated by just 3 km of the Strait of Messina, it has often been seen as closely connected to the mainland (e.g. Chapman 1990; Patton 1996). This assumption depends on a limited knowledge of the island’s archaeological record and associated historical processes. It is nevertheless clear that proximity to Italy was an essential factor of the fragile nature of Sicily’s insularity, which at different times was at least partially superseded by the intensification of contacts with the peninsula.
Sicily is characterized by the Peloritani, Nebrodi and Madonie mountain ranges running along the northern coast, and by some relatively high mountains in the west-central zone. Its highest elevation (3323 m) is the volcanic peak of Mount Etna, in the island’s northeastern zone. The most important plains are in the southeastern corner, around the Monti Iblei near Catania, in the southwest around Gela, and in the west, between Trapani on the northwest coast and Sciacca on the southern coast. The rest of the region is made up of hills and small plains. Erosion and karst formations are specific to the south-central section. The main rivers, from west to east, are the Belice, Platani and Salso that run towards the south coast, the Tellaro, Anapo and Simeto on the east coast, and several smaller ones in the north. Marshes and lagoons were frequent along the coasts (Figures 5.1 and 5.2).
Figure 5.1. Map of the southern Tyrrhenian area: northeastern Sicily, the southern coast of Calabria and the Aeolian archipelago.
Figure 5.2. (a) Map showing the distribution of EBA sites in Sicily and Aeolian islands (after Tusa 1999). Sites quoted in the text are: Castelluccio culture (triangles): 21. Thapsos; 23. Castelluccio; 28. Ognina; 37. Monte Sallia, Tabuto, Raci and Racello; 56. Manfria; 65. Muculufa; 66. Naro; 68. Partanna. Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga culture (open dots): 1. Vallelunga; 4. Boccadifalco; 5. Tindari; 6. Rodì; 15. Valsavoia; 100. Ciavolaro; 102. Messina-Boccetta. Capo Graziano culture (dots): 5. Tindari; 8. Filicudi Capo Graziano; 10. Salina Serro dei Cianfi; 11. Lipari Acropoli, Pignataro di Fuori, contrada Diana; 12. Panarea Punta Peppa Maria, La Calcara, Milazzese; 21. Milazzo. Moarda-bell beaker culture (squares): 17. Moarda. Map of Sicily and the Aeolian islands showing the distribution of MBA sites (after Tusa 1999). Sites quoted in the text are: Thapsos culture (triangles): 1. Thapsos; 2. Naxos; 3. Paternò; 4. Caltagirone; 5. Colle San Mauro; 6. Molinello di Augusta; 7. Buscemi; 8. Floridia; 9. Grotta Chiusazza; 10. Ognina; 11. Cozzo del Pantano; 12. Matrensa; 13. Plemmirio; 14. Grotta Calafarina; 15. Santa Croce Camarina; 20. Grotta Ticchiara; 20A. Cannatello; 21. Milena; 22. Caldare; 23. Sopracanale; 23A. Capreria; 24. Ulina; 30. Marcita; 31. Erbe Bianche; 32. Case Pietra; 33. Scirinda; 34. Madre Chiesa; 35. Siracusa Ortigia. Milazzese culture (dots): 1. Panarea Milazzese; 2. Lipari Acropoli; 4. Salina Portella; 5. Filicudi Capo Graziano (Montagnola); 6. Milazzo; 10. Ustica Faraglioni.
The main natural resources are sulphur, salt and alum in the south-central section, metals, including copper, in the Peloritani mountains, and some amber (simetite) from the east-central area. Lipari obsidian was among the most important materials circulating in the central Mediterranean throughout the Neolithic, up until the Early Bronze Age; obsidian from Pantelleria, both less abundant and of inferior quality, had a limited circulation.
Two small island groups lie within a short distance from Sicily. The Aeolian islands (including Lipari: Figure 5.1) are made up of seven small volcanic islands close to one another in the southeastern end of the Tyrrhenian sea – not far from either the west coast of Calabria and the northeastern tip of Sicily. This group might also include Ustica, which is a small, isolated volcanic island at ca. 50 km north of Palermo. Only very few traces of Bronze Age occupation are reported from the Egadi islands off the Sicilian west coast (Tusa 1999: 419). At considerable distance from the south coast lies Pantelleria that was loosely connected to Sicily during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages (Marazzi and Tusa 2005). The islands of Malta and Gozo were by contrast culturally autonomous, even if contact and trade with Sicily was frequent during the Bronze and Iron Ages.
The Sicilian and Aeolian archaeological Bronze Age sequence is markedly different from the Italian one with regard to both formal features and chronology. Since the archaeological sequence in this area matches closely onto the historical processes in the period under consideration, I follow the established local convention. The overall chronology is based on a limited number of calibrated 14C dates, stratigraphic evidence from Lipari and a few key sequences in Sicily, and on the accepted chronology of Mycenaean Late Helladic pottery (ca. 1650–1050 BC). Two recent syntheses of pre- and protohistoric Sicily have been published by Leighton (1999) and Tusa (1999).
The Sicilian Early Bronze Age (Figure 5.2a) is represented by the Naro-Partanna/Castelluccio, Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga and Moarda facies, with absolute dates ranging from ca. 2200 to 1500 BC. In the Aeolian islands, the Early Bronze Age Capo Graziano culture is divided in two phases: ca. 2200–1800 and ca. 1800–1450 BC, with the earliest Aegean imports between late MH and LH IIIA1 concentrated in the second phase. The Middle Bronze Age, with the relatively homogeneous Thapsos–Milazzese facies, is dated between ca. 1500/1450 and ca. 1250 BC, and associated with LH IIIA and IIIB imports (Figure 5.2b). The Late Bronze Age that runs into the early Iron Age without interruption is again divided between the Sicilian Pantalica culture, probably beginning in the thirteenth century BC, and the roughly contemporary Ausonian I, characterized by an archaeological facies of Subapennine mainland type at Lipari and in northeast Sicily. From the eleventh century BC until the Iron Age, the Sicilian archaeological record breaks into an intricate pattern of many distinct facies which may be formally related either to the Ausonian or the local Bronze Age tradition, or to both.
With the notable exception of the Aeolian archipelago that was systematically explored by Luigi Bernabò Brea and Madeleine Cavalier from the 1950s onwards, and of a few more or less recent excavations, the pre- and protohistoric record from Sicily suffers from an almost complete lack of systematic publications. In the east, the most important and best-known sites were excavated and readily published by Paolo Orsi more than a century ago. Large areas of the island, especially in the north, also remain virtually unexplored, although southern and western areas of Sicily have experienced a recent intensification of fieldwork, the results of which, however, have yet to be published. Past excavations of important sites like the Middle Bronze Age Thapsos–Milazzese settlements and tombs (Alberti 2004; 2006), the Late Bronze Age cemeteries of Caltagirone (Tanasi 2008b) and the Late Bronze Age/early Iron Age cemetery of Cassibile (Turco 2000) have been re-examined in recent studies. Significant effort has gone into the construction of comprehensive typo-chronological frameworks of mobile artefacts and settlement and funerary structures. Major problems remain, however, as only very few burials have been found intact, collective burials were a widespread practice and skeletal remains have rarely been analysed. It does not help that the key site of Thapsos is only known from preliminary reports.
In what follows, I will examine the archaeological sequences in Sicily and the Aeolian islands diachronically in relation to different features, specific combinations and relative incidence of the main components highlighted in the introduction, namely the more or less marked autonomy of Sicilian cultures from the Italian mainland; Sicily’s role relative to the indigenous coastal trade system, as exemplified by its relationships with the Aeolian islands and with the Calabria coast; the systematic connections with the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean, especially Cyprus; and the evidence of a steady trend of integration or, perhaps more precisely, hybridization of structural and organizational features as a result of these encounters (Knapp 2008: 57–61).
The Early Bronze Age (ca. 2200–1500/1450 BC)
Throughout this period, the cultural differences between the main island of Sicily and the minor islands of the Aeolian group and Ustica are such that they warrant separate discussion.
Sicily
In the last few decades, a pivotal assumption relating to the functioning of the Sicilian Early Bronze Age (Figure 5.2a) has been the identification of two main archaeological cultures – Castelluccio and Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga – implicitly considered as the material correlates of distinct cultural entities. However, in contrast to some hundreds of Castelluccio sites, very few complexes can be exclusively attributed to Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga. These are all located along the northern coast, and comprise the settlements of Boccadifalco, Tindari and Messina, and three burials in artificial caves (grotticelle) from Rodì. At some other sites, e.g. Serra del Palco, Ciavolaro di Ribera (Agrigento) and Vallelunga (Caltanissetta), there is instead a combination of Castelluccio and Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga pottery.
A third component, the Moarda facies, is only known from a few contexts in a limited part of western Sicily. It is usually seen as a pottery style dependent on the presence of a small Bell Beaker group during the late Copper Age. Worth mentioning are finally the systematic occurrence of Aeolian Capo Graziano pottery, especially in the northeast, and Tarxien Cemetery pottery. The latter is assumed to come from Malta, but it has recently been argued to a local production (Procelli 2004).
Castelluccio sites are distributed over the whole of Sicily, but they do not occur on the minor islands. The main concentrations are in eastern Sicily, south of Messina (around Catania, Siracusa and Ragusa), and in the south, with large groups around Gela, Licata, Caltanissetta and Enna. The archaeological facies is characterized by handmade pottery with matt-painted decoration in geometric patterns, usually black-on-red. Specific vessel types include jars with two vertical handles (anforette), biconical and ovoid jars, cups with high handles and conical cups on high stands. This pottery style is related to the local Copper Age S. Ippolito and Serraferlicchio cultures, and also bears some significant resemblance to the Middle Helladic matt-painted pottery. An early Castelluccio site, with calibrated 14C dates between 2300 and 1959 BC, is the La Muculufa complex, consisting of a village and a cult place (Holloway et al. 1990). The pottery from this site has an impressive array of geometric matt-painted decorations (Figure 5.3). The Naro-Partanna group, located in the southwestern interior and coastal areas of Sicily, is considered to be an early manifestation of the Castelluccio facies. A four-phase typo-chronological sequence of Castelluccio pottery has been proposed by Cultraro (2001).
In striking contrast to the Castelluccio facies, Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga pottery is defined by the complete absence of painted decoration and the generally grey colour and lustrous surface (Figure 5.4). Vessel shapes and functional features share some elements in common with Castelluccio ware (deep carinated cups, cylindrical cups with high handles and flaring lips), and with the Palma Campania and Protoapennine pottery of the peninsula (e.g. conical stands, shallow high-handled cups and large carinated bowls).
Contexts characterized by Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga pottery have been identified on the Tropea promontory that juts into Tyrrhenian sea off Calabria, facing northeastern Sicily and the Aeolian islands (Pacciarelli and Varricchio 2004) (Figure 5.4b). Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga features and pottery are also known on the Ionian coast of Calabria (Capo Piccolo) and on the Adriatic side of southern Apulia at Cavallino (Lecce: Pancrazzi 1979). In a recent study of the Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga facies and its distribution across the Strait of Messina, Procelli (2004) has proposed seeing it as a localized, unpainted specification of Castelluccio pottery (facies dello stretto). As a further elaboration of this hypothesis, I would suggest that Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga is the material marker of Sicily’s participation in the indigenous coastal trade system that was mainly based on the north coast.
The Castelluccio settlement system was organized by clusters of small villages: the nine huts at Manfria (Gela) represent the only village that has been fully excavated (Orlandini 1962). The sites are mainly situated in the interior, often on small hills and plateaus, as at Valsavoia on the southern Catania plain, although several are located directly on or near the coast. In the southeast, settlements made use of caves in the flanks of the steep and narrow river valleys coming down from the Hyblean mountains. On the lower slopes of the Etna and in the plain below, caves in old lava flows were heavily used for both settlement and burial (Tusa 1999: 355–56). Settlements consisted of small huts of circular or irregular plan, probably with conical roofs and supported by wooden poles; the lower part of the circular wall was built of stones. A single larger hut of oval or rectangular plan has been recorded on some sites, including Manfria. Two types of fortifications are associated with some villages. A stone wall with semi-circular towers on the outside existed at Thapsos and Timpa Dieri (Siracusa). At Monte Grande (Agrigento), not far from the southern coast, a settlement protected by circular stone enclosures was probably involved in the extraction and trade of local sulphur (Castellana 1990; 1998).
Special functions have also been identified. At the eponymous site of Castelluccio (Siracusa), on a wide plateau above the Tellaro valley, an exceptionally large oval hut, more than 20 m long, occupied the settlement’s upper terrace. The floor and the lower section of the wall were cut into the bedrock. Notable concentrations of pottery were found in two large rectangular holes dug into the floor, associated with the repeated use of fire. These have been interpreted as ritual offerings, which the excavator has suggested denote a religious function for this building (Voza 1999: 17–23, figs 13 and 14). Flint mining was carried out in the middle Ippari valley (Ragusa) by the inhabitants of sites on the surrounding hills (Sallia, Raci, Tabuto and Racello). Tunnels, initially dug into the calcareous rock to reach the rich flint deposits, were subsequently used for burial.
A votive deposit, if not a dump, has been found in the village of Ciavolaro di Ribera, Agrigento (Castellana 1990). An interesting site that has yielded most evidence for connections between Malta and Sicily in this period lies on the small headland and island of Ognina (Siracusa), where the isthmus provided a protected landing place. The key role of this site in the Early Bronze Age coastal trading system is indicated by the association of a high percentage of Tarxien Cemetery with Castelluccio, grey unpainted and Aeolian Capo Graziano pottery (see Tanasi and Vella, this volume).
The dominant funerary practice is inhumation, sometimes as single burial or more often as multiple or collective depositions of 15 to 50 individuals in natural and artificial caves (grotticelle) in exposed rock faces. Megalithic funerary structures are rare and usually associated with grotticelle. In the cemeteries of the Tellaro valley, in Sicily’s southeast corner, simple grotticelle of one or two small circular rooms alternated with a small number of spectacularly elaborated tombs. In some cases, stone slabs used to close off funeral chambers were sculpted, probably figuratively, and others were entered through a portico with columns carved from the rock.
Grave goods invariably consist of large quantities of pottery, flint blades, stone ornaments, a few beads of local amber, bone artefacts, including bossed bone plaques as known from Troy, Lerna, Apulia and Malta, and a few exotic bronzes such as scale balances, tweezers and a flat spearhead, which also find parallels in the Aegean and Anatolian world (Leighton 1999: 141–45, figs 70 and 71; Cultraro 2001).The most notable exception to the practice of collective burial is a small cemetery of Rodì- Tindari-Vallelunga facies at Messina-Torrente Boccetta, where individual inhumations had been deposited in large ceramic containers (Tusa 1999: 457).
As regards subsistence, the record from Manfria includes cereals and a high percentage of cattle (50%), along with sheep/goats, swine and horse and dog in small proportions. Local craftsmen produced a wide variety of stone artefacts from chipped flint and polished stone. Bronze artefacts, mainly flat axes and daggers, are rare.
The specific and relatively homogeneous facies which characterized Sicily throughout the Early Bronze Age marks a sharp difference from the Italian mainland, where there are no parallels for matt-painted decoration or the specific range of forms and functions of pottery. Other specifically local features include the circular huts with stone bases and the small grotticella tombs with multiple inhumations. These are clear indications that, in this period, Sicily’s insularity was not significantly biased by its proximity to mainland Italy. The clusters of small villages probably reflect the main units of social and settlement organization, and show no evidence of a hierarchical territorial system. A trend towards the emergence of more complex and centralized forms of political organization in the southeastern part of the island might be inferred from Castelluccio’s dominant position and its large cult building. The architectural and figurative features, as well as the exotic funerary goods that are exclusive to some grotticella tombs in this area, may indicate that competition among kinship groups was the social mechanism operating in this context. A key component of the overall picture of Early Bronze Age Sicily is the exchange system, which apparently functioned on two different levels: local products, such as flint, stone ornaments and simetite (local amber) circulated within the island, even if some Sicilian amber may have reached the mainland, while exotic goods, some of Aegean origin, and possibly metal, reached Sicily through its participation in the coastal trading system.
The Aeolian Islands
On Ustica, which I consider part of the Aeolian islands for present purposes, there is a small group of grotticella graves with Early Bronze Age Capo Graziano pottery, but this island was too westerly and isolated to play a significant role in the processes that unfolded in the southern Tyrrhenian during the Bronze Age. Alicudi, the smallest of the Aeolian islands, and Vulcano may also not have been involved in the local exchange system. The remaining Aeolian islands (Figure 5.1) behaved as an integrated unit throughout the Bronze Age.
The local Early Bronze Age facies is Capo Graziano, named for the most important site at Filicudi. It is divided into two phases of ca. 2200–1800 and 1800–1450 BC, and its most distinctive feature is handmade impasto pottery with a greyish-black lustrous surface. The main shapes include large containers (dolia), ovoid and biconical jars, deep biconical or rounded cups and jugs with high handles, and large carinated or conical truncated bowls. The incised decoration of zigzag and parallel lines, concentric circles or rows of dots (Figure 5.5) is barely present during phase I but becomes frequent in phase II, often covering the vessels’ whole surface. According to the reconstruction proposed by Bernabò Brea, throughout phase I, the most important Capo Graziano settlements were situated in the open plains of Piano del Porto at Filicudi and Contrada Diana at Lipari, whereas at some point in phase II the main settlements shifted to naturally defended positions such as Lipari-Acropolis and Filicudi-Capo Graziano (Figure 5.6). This was in response to a situation of growing insecurity around the mid-second millennium BC. As we shall see, these developments fit well into the overall archaeological evidence for this period.
Figure 5.5. Early Bronze Age Capo Graziano pottery: a. jugs; b. cups; c. bowls with engraved decoration (after Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980: pl. 118.2, 7, 8; pl. 124.3, 4) (not to scale).
Traces of Capo Graziano settlements are also known at Panarea, Punta Peppa Maria, Piano Quartara and La Calcara. Another important find in Lipari’s harbour near Pignataro di Fuori is the possible cargo of a boat carrying pottery from Lipari to the other islands. The Capo Graziano pottery from this site was made from Sicilian clay with local temper (Tusa 1999: 427). Other evidence comes from Salina (Serro dei Cianfi) and Stromboli. A few, probably related, elements that emerge during phase II include early Mycenaean pottery (LH I, II and IIIA), now known in considerable quantities at Lipari-Acropolis, Capo Graziano and Salina Serro dei Cianfi, the use of pottery tokens, which have been interpreted as a possible calculation device, and potters’ marks engraved on local vessels (Marazzi 1997). The villages comprise various dozen tightly packed circular or oval huts, built on a stone base (Figure 5.6). In the village of Lipari-Acropolis, a large oval hut with miniature vessels may have been used for religious functions. The only funerary evidence is a group of about 30 cremation burials on Lipari at Contrada Diana. Agriculture, sheep/goat, cattle, swine, fish and molluscs were the main subsistence resources.
The islands’ interdependence is not only shown by their shared archaeological facies but is also evident from the widespread use of Lipari obsidian. From the end of the third to the first half of the second millennium BC, the key role of the Aeolian islands in the central Mediterranean coastal trading system is indicated by two elements: their cultural autonomy from Sicily, and the wide distribution of Capo Graziano pottery, which includes the northern and eastern coasts of Sicily and the Tyrrhenian coast of mainland Italy. The local production of Capo Graziano pottery has been identified at Milazzo, whereas imported pieces come from Taureana (Calabria) and Vivara-Punta Mezzogiorno (Campania), in association with LH I–II pottery (Tusa 1999: 447), as well as Luni sul Mignone in central Italy (modern Lazio: Levi et al. 2006: 1104 and fig. 3). Lipari obsidian continued to appear in Italian contexts throughout this period. At least in the Tyrrhenian Sea, the Aeolian islands are therefore likely to have played a central role in coastal trade, which may well have extended farther south and east towards Malta, Pantelleria and the Ionian and Adriatic regions of southern Italy. The general similarities in material culture throughout this area probably point to intensive communication through this local trade system for the circulation of basic raw materials and possiblyartefacts. In the advanced phase of Capo Graziano, the shift of the main settlements to naturally defended positions and the evidence of a substantial presence of Aegean groups among the local communities of Lipari and Filicudi mark the beginning of a radical transformation of communication and trade in this area, as became clear in the subsequent period.
The Middle Bronze Age and Thapsos–Milazzese Culture (ca. 1500/1450–1250 BC)
In striking contrast to the Early Bronze Age situation, the Sicilian Middle Bronze Age is characterized by a formally homogeneous archaeological culture, the so-called Thapsos–Milazzese facies that was shared by Sicily and the Aeolian islands and that is also documented at Ustica (I Faraglioni: Holloway and Lukesh 1995; 2001), Pantelleria and on the Poro promontory of the Calabria coast. The development of this facies marks the maximum intensity of Aegean presence, consistently including an eastern Mediterranean component. This is also the period in which Sicily’s connectivity (Knapp 2008: 22–24), i.e. its potential for the integration of foreign features and groups, was fully effective. The resulting process of cultural hybridization (Knapp 2008: 57–61) is specific to the Thapsos–Milazzese groups and differs radically from the contemporary evidence of Aegean contact in southern Italy. The range of recent calibrated 14C dates from the Milazzese village at Portella di Salina is 1525–1320 BC (1σ), and 1605–1260 (2σ: Martinelli 2005: 289–97).
Thapsos–Milazzese pottery is a handmade impasto with some local differences between eastern Sicily and the Aeolian islands. The Thapsos repertoire (Figure 5.7) includes large containers (dolia), carinated bowls/jars on a high flaring stand and with a horned plate on one side (apparently ceremonial vessels), two-handled jars, narrow-necked jugs, bowls both plain and on a high stand, and deep cups with a high handle. Engraved decorations are frequent, as are schematic plastic cordons. A specific feature of the Sicilian east coast is the imitation of Aegean and Cypriot shapes, such as two-handled bowls, jars and beaked jugs, and the rendition of ‘pictorial’ Mycenaean decorations in local impasto (D’Agata 2000) (Figure 5.8). Maltese Borġ in-Nadur pottery also turns up frequently in early Thapsos contexts, in both burials and the settlement (Tanasi 2008a; Tanasi and Vella, this volume). The Milazzese repertoire of the Aeolian islands and northeastern Sicily is less sophisticated, without ceremonial shapes and Mycenaean/Cypriot imitations, and usually with plain decorations of plastic cordons. General similarities in shape and the absence of painting seem to indicate that the Thapsos–Milazzese was an elaboration of the older Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga pottery.
Figure 5.7. Middle Bronze Age Thapsos pottery: a. cups and bowls; b. basins on a high stand with decorated vertical plates (after D’Agata 2000: figs 2 and 3) (not to scale).
Figure 5.8. Middle Bronze Age handmade Thapsos pottery based on Mycenaean and Cypriot examples. The engraved decoration of the jug n. 1 is a reproduction of Mycenaean pictorial patterns. 1–3: from Thapsos; 4 and 5: Mycenaean feeding bottles from Mycenae, LH IIIA2 and Zygouries; 6–8: Cypriot White Painted Ware feeding bottles (after D’Agata 2000: fig. 4) (not to scale).
The main direct evidence of the Aegean–eastern Mediterranean connection with east Sicilian sites consists of imported Mycenaean (LH IIIA–B) pottery, Cypriot pottery, amber and faience beads, possibly of eastern origin, a fragment of an oxhide ingot from Thapsos and a cylinder seal from Siracusa (see below). Although the general distribution of Middle Bronze Age settlements in Sicily did not change significantly from the Early Bronze Age, their number was notably lower (Figure 5.2b). This is usually interpreted as a development towards a more centralized political and territorial organization. Two core areas can be identified that stand out because they combine a concentration of indigenous settlement with intensive Aegean and eastern Mediterranean contacts. They are situated on the east and south coasts at or near the modern cities of Siracusa and Agrigento.
In general, settlements are located directly on the coast, either in the plain or on small promontories, or in the interior. Along with small concentrations of settlement material, the main evidence consists of single burials and cemeteries. Huts are circular or, less frequently, rectangular, with walls built on the usual stone basis. Burials took place in simple grotticelle that are of the type already seen in the Early Bronze Age, or in more complex rock-cut structures with an antechamber and lateral niches. A new structural feature of this period is the ogival (pointed) profile of the tomb’s vault, often ending in a small circular cavity. These elements probably reproduce the specific shape of Mycenaean–Minoan tholos-type tombs (Tomasello 1995–96, 2004) (Figure 5.13). Another but rather rare funerary ritual that entailed the deposition of individual inhumations in large dolia is mostly found in a small cemetery near Thapsos on the small Magnisi peninsula ca. 10 km north of Siracusa. Other sites in east Sicily include Ognina, Cozzo Pantano, Siracusa Ortigia, Plemmirio, Matrensa (Siracusa) and Molinello di Augusta. Relevant inland sites are Grotta Chiusazza, Floridia, Buscemi, Caltagirone, Colle S.Mauro and Paternò, and in the Ippari and Dirillo valleys. Coastal sites in Sicily’s southeastern corner include Grotta Calafarina (near Cape Passero) and Santa Croce Camarina in the Gulf of Gela.
Although the final publication is still pending, the site of Thapsos is documented by a substantial body of preliminary data and recent analyses, elaborations and discussions. To sum up, in the general but not uncontested opinion, this site was an emporion or trading centre that was intensively frequented by Aegean and Cypriot/eastern Mediterranean traders (e.g. van Wijngaarden 2002: 229–36). An alternative interpretation has been proposed by D’Agata (2000), who would rather see it as the logistical centre of a territorial system based on Aegean models. In this perspective, Thapsos would be the only site where Aegean immigrants actually resided in some numbers. The main archaeological evidence for this interpretation is the large storage vessels at the site and the local production of both specific weapons, in particular the so-called Thapsos-type swords, and pottery that was handmade but with Mycenaean pottery shapes. Some vessels were decorated by engraving figurative scenes that were painted on Mycenaean pottery, which has been argued to imply the adoption of Aegean habits and functions (D’Agata 2001) (Figure 5.8: 1). The archaeological homogeneity of the Thapsos–Milazzese phase in Sicily and the Aeolian islands might moreover point to political implications, but the existing archaeological record does not allow us to explore this hypothesis any further. The overall archaeological evidence at Thapsos strongly supports the view that this site was essentially an emporion or trading centre.
The settlement of Thapsos occupied an area of 1000×300 m next to the isthmus that connects the peninsula to the Sicilian coast and between two small harbours. It may have been protected by a wall, which was recorded in the southeast of the area (Figure 5.9). Cemeteries excavated by Orsi are situated north and south of the settlement, while Voza worked in one to the south of the peninsula. The reconstruction proposed here follows the reports of the latter excavator, who proposed three main phases (Voza 1973; 1999: 23–31).
- Phase 1 (fifteenth–fourteenth centuries BC): northern settlement area, area A or 1 (Figure 5.9a). Seven circular huts with stone bases are associated with smaller rectangular structures and connected by narrow pathways. The finds from the settlement include ceremonial vessels such as jars on high stands. The funerary evidence for this phase includes the earliest grotticella burials imitating a tholos; alongside local impasto pottery, the grave goods included imported Mycenaean (LH IIIA1–2) and Cypriot (White Shaved and Base Ring II) pottery (which was probably locally made according to Karageorghis 1998), glass, faience and amber ornaments, probably also from the Aegean, and a considerable quantity of Maltese Borġ in-Nadur vessels; the latter also occurred in the settlement.
- Phase 2 (thirteenth–twelfth centuries BC, roughly corresponding to Mycenaean/LH IIIB–C): main settlement core, area B or 2 (Figure 5.9b). The settlement is organized by modules of rectangular rooms joined at right angles, with a central open space or courtyard. A few circular huts are incorporated into the rectilinear structures. This plan and spatial organization are unparalleled in Sicily and the central Mediterranean in this period, and have thus often been associated with organizational features of the Mycenaean palaces. The currently prevailing opinion is that the settlement may best be compared to rectangular rooms around a central court as seen in Late Cypriot cities such as Enkomi (Holloway 1991: 34–35; Karageorghis 1998; Knapp 2008: 216–21, figs 43b and 44).
- Phase 3 (eleventh–ninth centuries BC). The evidence for this phase does not seem to be related to the previous settlement organization. Identifiable features include Maltese pottery (late Borġ in-Nadur and Bahrija) and local bronzes of late ‘Ausonian’ and Cassibile type.
Figure 5.9. Overview map and settlement plan of the Middle Bronze Age site of Thapsos on the Magnisi peninsula of east Sicily (phase 2, after Voza 1999: figs 19 and 20).
In a recent study, Alberti (2006) produced a diachronic contextual analysis of the grave goods and funerary structures in the Thapsos cemeteries, exploring relationships between combinations of local and imported grave goods and funerary structures. He noted a marked trend of social differentiation during phase 2, when the distribution of locally produced imitations of Aegean and east Mediterranean pottery correlated well with the size and degree of elaboration of tombs. Other significant features include the display of exotica, and the occurrence of weapons and tools. Since this phase is also characterized by the ‘proto-urban’ reorganization of the settlement, Alberti (2006) has interpreted the Thapsos community of phase 2 in terms of an initial type of chiefdom.
Other east-coast sites involved in trade, even if probably on a lesser scale, are Ognina, Plemmirio, Naxos and Siracusa, where an important piece of evidence is a tomb with Thapsos, Mycenaean and Cypriot pottery and an eastern Mediterranean cylinder seal (Leighton 1999: 178)
Around Agrigento, on and just behind the coast, Thapsos settlements have been documented at Milena-Serra del Palco, Madre Chiesa, Scirinda di Ribera, Sopracanale (Sant’Angelo Muxaro) and in the Ticchiara cave. Small numbers of Aegean sherds (LH IIB–IIIA) at Monte Grande and other sites around Agrigento (Madre Chiesa and Milena) may indicate the direct involvement of southern Sicily in the earliest systematic sailings from the Aegean (Castellana 1998). For a later phase, probably from the thirteenth century BC onwards, the sites around Agrigento have repeatedly yielded bronze weapons and vessels, and perhaps pottery, with Cypriot parallels. A key site with Mediterranean trading connections in this area is Cannatello, which is a small coastal settlement that was established in an advanced phase of the Middle Bronze Age and that remained occupied into the Late Bronze Age. It consisted of circular and rectangular huts within a circular stone enclosure. Finds include Mycenaean and Cypriot pottery and a fragment of an oxhide ingot (De Miro 1999). Funerary complexes along the Platani valley include two tholos-type tombs at Milena-Monte Campanella (La Rosa 1982), which have yielded Thapsos and LH IIIB or C pottery, two swords and a dagger (tomb A). A tholos or grotticella tomb is known at Caldare-Monte S. Vincenzo, where two bronze bowls of possible Cypriot provenance and two swords were found. Similar finds plus pottery of Late Bronze Age Pantalica North type and possibly a Cypriot cup come from a cave burial at Capreria (Sant’Angelo Muxaro: Castellana 2000: 212–37). Other bronze work comes from a hoard at Valledolmo (Palermo), while Cypriot parallels for Sicilian bronzes have been noted by Lo Schiavo et al. (1985; cf. Vagnetti 1986; Graziadio 1997). In western Sicily, the main Thapsos sites are Case Pietra, Erbe Bianche, Marcita and Ulina-Monte Castellazzo, where just a few Mycenaean sherds are associated with local pottery (D’Agata 2001: 453).
The Milazzese facies is best known from the systematic excavations of several important settlements in the Aeolian islands. These are the villages of the Acropolis (Lipari), Punta Milazzese (Panarea), Portella and Serro dei Cianfi (Salina) and Montagnola di Capo Graziano (Filicudi) that continued to be inhabited from the previous phase. At San Calogero (Lipari), an ashlar building was found that is a proper tholos in architectural terms and that was connected to a thermal well and associated with Milazzese pottery (Bernabò Brea et al. 1990). An important complex, but only loosely connected with the Aeolian islands, is the Faraglioni village at Ustica (Holloway et al. 1990). The main Milazzese complex in northeast Sicily is the cemetery of Milazzo, with ca. 50 inhumations in large dolia (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1959).
Although they were fully involved in the Mycenaean connection, none of the Milazzese settlements became a real trading settlement with long-distance connections at a scale comparable to the main Sicilian sites. They are relatively small villages of 100–200 inhabitants that are mostly situated on naturally defended positions and made up of oval and rectangular huts, not unlike the earlier Bronze Age ones (Figure 5.6). In almost all aspects, they appear to be direct continuations of the advanced Capo Graziano phase within the overall process of change in the southern Tyrrhenian area. There are indications of a more effective integration among the islands, as the village of Portella di Salina, located on a steep crest on the island’s northern coast, was probably a specialized site to collect rainwater for a number of communities (Martinelli 2005: 308–10) (Figure 5.10). Another shared activity followed from the lack of good-quality potting clays on the islands and the need to import clay from Sicily (Levi et al. 2006: 1100–101). Both the supply of clay and the manufacturing and distribution of finished vessels may have become centrally organized. As regards the Aegean connection, in addition to the imported LH–Mycenaean pottery, there are some ornaments from Salina that may be Aegean imports. A final feature of the Milazzese groups worth noting are the identification marks engraved on local vessels, similar to those noted in the late Capo Graziano phase (Marazzi 1997; Martinelli 2005: 206–29). Although these marks are unsystematically associated with different types of vessels, there can be no doubt that they were meant to convey some kind of information in a conventional symbolic form, and they may therefore be considered a form of writing.
Figure 5.10. Plan of the Middle Bronze Age village of Portella on the Aeolian island of Salina. The large dolia associated with the circular huts and the location of the village on a steep crest suggest that collecting rainwater was a specialized function of this site (after Martinelli 2005: pl. xvi).
The roles of Sicily and the Aeolian archipelago changed radically in this period. In the Early Bronze Age, the Aegean approach had initially been to participate in the local coastal trading system from the main bases in the Flaegrean and Aeolian islands and on the east and south coasts of Sicily.
The gradually increasing Aegean presence probably marked a structural change in the nature and organization of the exchange system, as the Aeolian islands lost their central role in the maritime network that connected indigenous communities across the central Mediterranean and became a northward extension of Sicily. The visible effects of this new situation are the shift of settlements to naturally defended positions on the Aeolian islands, the decrease of Apennine settlement and the establishment of Milazzese groups on the Poro promontory. The occurrence of Apennine pottery in the Aeolian Milazzese contexts (Martinelli 2005: 179–84, 202–205) may also be the result of raids from the islands on the Italian coast. The overall change of the situation in this area was, on the one hand, the monopolization of trade by and its reorientation towards Sicily and the Aegean; on the other hand, it also brought an end to the generally ‘friendly’ relationships which were a specific operational feature of the local network in the Early Bronze Age.
The long-established indigenous system of long-distance supplies of raw materials and artefacts, including metals, was totally overthrown. A possible explanation for these developments could well be the superiority of Mycenaean and eastern Mediterranean naval technology, as their long-distance ships were no match for the small indigenous coastal vessels (which is not unlike what happened in other and later situations: Broodbank 2000: 21). Relations with the indigenous communities of the mainland also became increasingly hostile, and it may well be that the broken economic relationships became the background to the well-known ‘Ausonian’ invasion of the islands from the southern Tyrrhenian mainland coast some 200 years later (Cavalier 2004).
The intensified Mycenaean and Cypriot/eastern Mediterranean presence hinged on the recognition of Sicily’s potential for creating and maintaining trade activities, as it could provide an actual territorial base, unlike mainland Italy. Thapsos, and possibly some other sites on the eastern and southern coasts of Sicily, may indeed have become integrated in the much broader international Mediterranean trade system. In this new situation, the Aeolian islands probably just fulfilled the specific function of procuring metal and other resources from central and northern Italy. A group of discarded bronze artefacts from the Acropolis of Lipari that possibly represent a founder’s hoard may illustrate this well, as they include Thapsos–Milazzese and Italian Middle and Recent Bronze Ages (Peschiera-type) artefacts alongside fragments of oxhide ingots (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1968: 733–89; Moscetta 1988).
Overall, as far as Sicily is concerned, it is worth noting that instances of both cultural homogeneity and hybridization of foreign and local practices are found across the island, as is best demonstrated by the collective tholos-type tombs, despite the consistent Aegean and eastern Mediterranean focus on the east and south coasts.
The Late and Final Bronze Ages and the Early Iron Age (Thirteenth–Ninth Centuries BC)
New developments in the Late Bronze Age involved both Sicily and the Aeolian islands, and marked the end of an important element of Mediterranean east–west relationships, as the islands lost their function as a basis for the Aegean presence in the central Mediterranean. The main reason was a new connection to mainland Italy that rapidly emerged in the thirteenth century BC and that privileged eastern and central Sicily. The net result was that Sicily largely lost its role as a connecting factor in the Mediterranean.
The Late Bronze Age on Lipari and in Northeast Sicily: Ausonian I (ca. 1250–1050 BC).
The label ‘Ausonian I’ was first used by Bernabò Brea (1957) to refer to the Late Bronze Age facies at Lipari. He coined it in reference to the historical tradition of the invasion of Sicily from the Italian mainland led by Auson, son of Aeolus (Diodorus Siculus 5.7). Around the mid-thirteenth century BC, and within a rather short time span, all the Milazzese sites of the Aeolian islands were either destroyed or abandoned; only Lipari itself remained inhabited. The catastrophe extended to the Milazzese settlements in northeast Sicily (Cavalier 2004).
Archaeological evidence indicates that it was the result of a planned hostile action that originated on the Calabrian coast, even if the actual events and actions inevitably escape us. It seems nevertheless likely that the speed and focus of the movement from the Italian coast could only have been realized if a substantial number of indigenous communities in Calabria had come together to take a joint decision and see it through. Bringing together a large group of people from these communities and procuring boats to cross the Tyrrhenian were indispensable for carrying out the decision. From an indigenous mainland perspective, it is also very likely that a large gathering of politically autonomous communities contributed much to strengthen their own cultural identity and political organization.
In archaeological and stratigraphic terms, the end of the Milazzese settlement on Lipari Acropolis is defined by an extensive fire that totally destroyed the site. A new settlement, made up of the same kinds of oval and rectangular structures as before, was nevertheless created in the same area. The archaeological facies of this site – the Ausonian I – is, however, radically different from the preceding local Milazzese, as the pottery shows characteristic Subapennine features from the Italian mainland, in particular plastic protrusions on rims and handles of open forms. The presence of some imported Mycenaean pottery (LH IIIB and C) and local vessels of Sicilian Pantalica type, such as askoi and ovoid jugs (Tusa 1999: 556, fig. 2 bottom) nevertheless suggest that some of the pre-existing connections were maintained. The Ausonian I sites in northeast Sicily (Albanese Procelli 2003: 31) include a cremation cemetery at Milazzo that looks like a typical Protovillanovan urnfield in terms of both ritual and funerary outfits and that may be dated to the twelfth and eleventh centuries BC (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1959) (see Figure 5.11). In the final Ausonian I layers at Lipari, a handful of Protovillanovan pottery fragments (the successor to the Subapennine on the mainland) show that the connection with the Italian mainland was maintained, although there are also the first hints of a specifically local development, which will develop into the Ausonian II. The Ausonian I settlement at Lipari was destroyed by fire around the mid-eleventh century BC. Once again, the settlement was rebuilt in the same area.
Figure 5.11. Late Bronze Age ‘Ausonian I’ burial urns and grave goods of Italian mainland-type from the cremation cemetery of Milazzo (Messina; after Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1959: pl. xxxvi) (not to scale).
The Late Bronze Age in Sicily: The Early Pantalica Culture (Thirteenth–Eleventh Centuries BC)
During this period, radical changes emerge in the international seaborne trade system. By the thirteenth century BC, the main base of the central Mediterranean system began to move from Sicily to Sardinia, as the bulk of trading and further expansion was increasingly led by the eastern Mediterranean participants, while the Aegean role gradually faded. The most important activities also involved the Mediterranean far west and were based in Sardinia. From the end of this period, the role of Sicily in the international trade system was subordinate to that of Sardinia.
Throughout the Late Bronze Age, the Pantalica culture continued the local, long-established tradition of integration with Aegean groups who were still present and active in Sicily. The main change was a gradual shift from the east coast towards the interior, while the focus of the eastern Mediterranean connection moved from the east to the south coast.
The beginnings of Pantalica probably overlapped with the final phase of the Thapsos–Milazzese facies, as Thapsos types frequently turn up in early Pantalica contexts. There is also an overall continuity in form and possibly in function of ceremonial vessels, in the formal features of the bronze weapons and in funerary rituals and structures. The Pantalica culture is mainly documented by the excavations and publications of Paolo Orsi, which are now supplemented by some recent evidence. In east and central Sicily, the major centres of Pantalica, Caltagirone and Dessueri are all located at some distance from the coast in naturally defended positions; they control relatively small territories (Tusa 1999: 575–76). Pantalica is located on a plateau in the Anapo valley, but the only known settlement feature is the so-called anaktoron, a rectangular ashlar structure that may have included a metallurgical workshop (Bernabò Brea 1990). The main feature of the site are several large cemeteries of common Sicilian type which, as noted by Orsi and confirmed by a recent survey (Leighton 2011), included up to 5000 grotticella tombs (cemetery of Pantalica) dug into the slopes of the plateau. They date from the Late Bronze Age to the beginning of the Greek colonization (Figure 5.12). The tombs are mostly small circular rooms, but there are also some larger ones with more rooms. The majority contained multiple inhumations. The cemeteries of Caltagirone, situated in the interior between the east and south coasts, include as many as 1000 grotticelle, often with the ogival (pointed) profile imitating the tholos (Figure 5.13). The main cemetery is that of Montagna di Caltagirone (Tanasi 2008b). The third site is Monte Dessueri, set on the steep hill of Monte Maio in the Gela valley at a short distance from the coast. Around 1500 grotticelle are distributed over the three cemeteries of Monte Canalotti, Monte Dessueri and Fastucheria (Panvini 1997).
Figure 5.12. View of Late Bronze Age Pantalica, showing the entrances to a group of grotticella tombs dug in the limestone cliff of the settlement plateau (after Tusa 1988: fig. p. 76).
The funerary assemblages from the Pantalica sites are dominated by elegant red lustrous pottery, along with bronze artefacts such as fibulae of Italian types (violin-bow, stilted, arch with two knots and plain arch), mirrors, knives, razors and weapons. Gold rings, which probably marked paramount political roles, are considered to be of Mycenaean inspiration. The formal features of early Pantalica material culture show the integration of Aegean and eastern Mediterranean elements, which was a specific feature of the Thapsos culture. Although imported vessels are absent, with the possible exception of a sole LH IIIC jug from Pantalica, the overall repertoire is nevertheless close to Mycenaean IIIB and C and Cypriot shapes (Figure 5.14). The majority of early Pantalica pottery is moreover wheel-turned (Leighton 1999: 174, fig. 92; Tanasi 2005, pl. 130). The bronze weapons are generally considered to be of Aegean–Cypriot inspiration.
Figure 5.14. Late Bronze Age pottery from Pantalica (left) and Mycenaean pottery shapes (right; after Tanasi 2008: pl. 22) (not to scale).
An Aegean or Cypriot origin or model is also considered plausible for the circular mirrors, whereas the fibula series probably derived from Italian Recent and Final Bronze Ages metal production: the earliest form is the violin-bow fibula with two knots among the most popular Peschiera (Recent Bronze Age) types that was widely distributed over the entire Italian mainland, while the successive stilted type is a specific product of Final Bronze Age metallurgy from southern Etruria that is found along the central and southern Tyrrhenian coasts. A transitional violin bow–stilted arch fibula comes from the cremation cemetery of Milazzo (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1959: 33, fig. 1).
Other sites of the Pantalica facies in southern Sicily include the settlement of Sabucina in the Salso valley and the Sant’Angelo Muxaro cemetery in the Platani valley. In central and west Sicily, the site of Mokarta in the Fiume Grande valley (Salemi, Trapani) is the local version of the Pantalica facies: the settlement is divided into two areas called Cresta di Gallo in the east and Castello della Mokarta, and had first been established in the Middle Bronze Age. There are also two small cemeteries (Mannino and Spatafora 1995). The village of Scirinda (Agrigento) similarly continued to be inhabited from the Middle Bronze Age into the Pantalica phase, which is documented by rectangular buildings. In the cemetery of Anguilla in the Corno valley, chamber tombs with rounded or ogival (tholos) vaults and long corridors can largely be attributed to the local Pantalica facies (Alonghi and Gullì 2009). Grave goods include much early Pantalica material and some early Iron Age material. Tomb 15, for example, contained a four-handled jar of Caltagirone type and two gold rings. At Mokarta, a few bronzes and pottery, of Thapsos and mostly Pantalica types, are known from the Cresta di Gallo settlement area. The grotticella tombs include both the plain and the tholos types (Figure 5.13). The basic pottery and bronze forms of the Mokarta facies (Mannino and Spatafora 1995, fig. 34) are very similar to the late Thapsos–Pantalica tradition, as are the architectural features of the grotticelle and the occasional presence of gold rings.
From a diachronic perspective, the Thapsos–Milazzese period (Middle Bronze Age) was the period of maximum Aegean integration with local Sicilian and Aeolian communities on both the islands, including the whole of Sicily. It coincided with a sharp separation from the nearby mainland of south Italy and the development of hostile relationships in the southern Tyrrhenian area. In the early Pantalica period (Late Bronze Age), the Aegean–indigenous relationships resulted in a process of cultural hybridization that was even more pronounced than in the Middle Bronze Age. The regional balance was, however, altered by two factors, as the Aeolian islands and northeast Sicily were no longer included and the continuing ‘Ausonian’ advance from east to central Sicily radically changed the island’s relationship with mainland Italy.
Conclusions: The End of the Islands’ Central Role in the Mediterranean
The archaeological record for the following period of the Final Bronze Age and early Iron Age is considerably more intricate than those seen in the Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age, and it is therefore more difficult to fit it into a single coherent framework. I will briefly examine the overall fragmentation of Sicilian communities into local territorial entities with distinct types of material culture and possibly social and political organization. The initial episode of the ‘Ausonian’ takeover of Lipari and northeast Sicily in the thirteenth century BC and the continuing, if unsystematic, relationship with mainland Italy gave the fatal blow to Sicily’s fragile insularity.
The archaeological record that appeared at Lipari after the destruction of the Ausonian I settlement on the Acropolis has been labelled Ausonian II by Bernabò Brea and Cavalier (1960). It is an entirely new facies, which may be seen as the material correlate of the incorporation of local features derived from the Sicilian Pantalica culture into the ‘Ausonian’ tradition, which is itself of mainland origin. The Ausonian groups show a continuing direct connection with the Italian mainland, as well as a hostile attitude towards the local Pantalica communities. Their presence in Sicily apparently consisted of a progressive advance from the east coast to the interior and the south. The main sites at Lipari are the Acropolis settlement and the cremation cemetery of Piazza Monfalcone, which have yielded bronzes and ornaments of Italian Protovillanovan type (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1960: 97–126). In Sicily, Ausonian sites with uninterrupted continuity from the end of the Bronze Age into the early Iron Age include the coastal site of Punta Castelluzzo (Siracusa), the settlement of Metapiccola (Lentini, Siracusa), the cemetery of Molino della Badia-Madonna del Piano (Catania) and the early Iron Age settlement and cemetery of Morgantina (Enna). The main Pantalica centres were also impacted by the advance, as Caltagirone came to an end around the same time as the nearby Ausonian cemetery of Madonna del Piano came into use. Sometime later in the early Iron Age, Ausonian features also became prevalent in the sites of Pantalica, Dessueri and Scirinda (Agrigento), which led Leighton (1996) to argue that the Ausonian advance produced a general decrease in social complexity and organization of Sicilian communities from chiefdom to tribe.
In a few sites on the east coast of Sicily that mostly date to the end of the Bronze Age, there is an association between pottery of local Thapsos–Pantalica tradition and a rich ‘Ausonian’ metal industry. These are Cassibile (Turco 2000) south of Siracusa, Thapsos and Cozzo del Pantano. Continuity of local Middle Bronze Age–Late Bronze Age traditions was confined to western Sicily and the Sant’Angelo Muxaro culture (Albanese Procelli 2003). In this area, the basic pottery repertoire and tholos-type chamber tombs, as well as important social and role markers such as the gold rings, remained in use from the early Iron Age into the Archaic period.
Final Remarks
A possible reason for the continuing Ausonian advance, which apparently spanned several centuries, may be found in a clash of cultural and ethnic identities. In terms of local memories and even epics, an event so exceptional as the invasion and destruction of the Aeolian settlements by invaders from the Italian coast is likely to have produced a permanent reinforcement of the identity of the communities involved and of their self-identification as structurally opposed to the Sicilian Pantalica groups. The fact that this episode of indigenous history was repeatedly reported by Greek historians seems to confirm that it was generally perceived as an event of prime importance. The archaeological evidence shows us quite clearly that the Ausonian movement also entailed significant economic implications, probably in relation to intensive mineral exploitation in Calabria: between the Final Bronze Age and the early Iron Age, the Sicilian metal industry of the Thapsos–Pantalica tradition was fully replaced by a new ‘Ausonian’ production, which had strong Calabrian links. The new industry introduced significant technical and functional changes throughout Sicily and resulted in a considerable quantitative increase in the use of metal artefacts in both ‘Ausonian’ and ‘local’ contexts.
The Ausonian connection probably coincided with the end of the Aegean presence in Sicily and the central Mediterranean around the twelfth–eleventh centuries BC. This is obviously a general phenomenon which involved the whole area and which is usually seen as a direct consequence of the crisis of the Mycenaean palaces and the Aegean Dark Age. It is nevertheless worth considering whether the end of Sicily’s role as a territorial resource for Aegean maritime trade was among the factors that produced the crisis.