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).
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).
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
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.
205
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 aniconic): 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);
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)
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);
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);
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);
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.
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.
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.
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
Megalithic monuments context I: distribution
and location
The diffusion (distribution) of megalithic monuments could be
organized in two clusters which areas eventually overlap: 1.
206
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).
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.
Megalithic monuments context II: geological
sources
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”.
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
Fig. 3. Approximate distribution of megalithic areas with strong concentration of stelae (nebulae) and location of single menhir-stelae (dots); (after
Mezzena, 1998)
207
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. 4. Approximate distribution of megalithic areas containing stelae in
alignment (2 big dots) and stelae in primary context (small dots); (after
Mezzena, 1998)
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)
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 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).
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 menhirstelae 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).
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.
208
Some of them symbolise ancestors or deities or have a
commemorative function of social feasts or battles (Barfield,
1995).
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).
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.
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 IndoEuropean 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/DIMITRIADIS
George.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.
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)
209
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-deCorleans 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. 99108.
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.
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 nordoccidentale. – 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.
210
211