Sardinian Bronze Figurines

Ralph Araque Gonzalez, Sardinian bronze figurines in their Mediterranean setting 83

I. Abhandlungen

Ralph Araque Gonzalez

Sardinian bronze figurines in their Mediterraneansetting*

Abstract: Sardiniens Bronzefiguren (Bronzetti) und Stein-skulpturen der Spätbronze- und frühen Eisenzeit gehörenzu den wichtigsten archäologischen Zeugnissen der Inselund den beeindruckendsten Bildwerken der westeuropäi-schen Vorgeschichte. Sie stellen die Forschung noch im-mer vor Probleme, Chronologie und Bedeutung der Bilderwerden kontrovers diskutiert.

Dieser Beitrag behandelt die Ikonografie der Bronze-figurinen und -miniaturen mit ihren Archetypen. Die zweigroßen, klar unterscheidbaren Stilgruppen der Bronzettiwerden auf Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten un-tersucht. Die Identifikation von Werkstattgruppen undKünstlern spielt eine wichtige Rolle für das Verständnisder Chronologie. Die mögliche Funktion der Figuren anderen wichtigsten Fundstätten, den sardischen Heiligtü-mern, wird ebenfalls erläutert.

Da Sardinien in ein weit gespanntes Netz von Seerou-ten zwischen Ost und West eingebunden war, muss auchdie Ikonografie in einen größeren, mediterranen Kontextgesetzt werden. Dazu werden Vergleiche mit Bildwerkender wichtigsten Kontaktregionen gesucht, die durch denGüter- und Ideenaustausch der Spätbronze- und Frühei-senzeit eng mit der Insel verbunden waren. Dies liefert,vor allem durch überregional anzutreffende Archetypen,weitere Hinweise auf Bedeutung, Funktion und Chronolo-gie der Bilder.

Zahlreiche Innovationen und politische Veränderun-gen prägten das Kulturgefüge des Mittelmeerraumes abca. 1200 v. Chr. Der phönizische Handel ab ca. 800 v. Chr.hat wiederum neue Entwicklungen im Westen zur Folge,und auch die Ikonografie wandelt sich deutlich. Unter die-sen Gesichtspunkten werden Hypothesen zur religiösen,politischen und sozialen Bedeutung der Bildwerke sowiederen Entstehung im Kontext von Kulturkontakten wie

* This paper has been written as an initial contribution to the project“Pictorial art and social change in the Western Mediterranean fromthe LBA to the EIA (c. 1200–500 BC)” at the Universität Freiburg,Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften, Abteilung Urgeschicht-liche Archäologie, funded by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemein-schaft), No. HU 974/7–1.

Migration, Kolonisierung und Fernhandel betrachtet. Da-bei spielt das Verhältnis von staatlich organisierten Ge-sellschaften zu nicht-staatlichen eine besondere Rolle.

Keywords: Sardinien; westlicher Mittelmeerraum; späteBronzezeit; frühe Eisenzeit; Bronzefiguren; darstellendeKunst; kulturelle Kontakte; sozialer Wandel.

Abstract: Les figurines en bronze de Sardaigne (Bronzetti)et les sculptures en pierre du Bronze final et du début del’âge du Fer figurent parmi les témoignages archéologi-ques les plus importants de l’île et les sculptures les plusimpressionnantes de la préhistoire de l’Europe occiden-tale. Elles ne cessent de poser des problèmes aux cher-cheurs qui restent divisés sur la chronologie et la significa-tion de ces représentations.

Cet article traite de l’iconographie des figurines et mi-niatures en bronze avec leurs archétypes. On y examineles différences et similitudes de deux grands groupes sty-listiques de «Bronzetti», faciles à distinguer. L’identifica-tion de groupes d’ateliers et d’artistes joue un rôle impor-tant dans la compréhension de la chronologie. On yexplique également la fonction envisageable des figurinessur leurs sites les plus importants, les sanctuaires sardes.

La Sardaigne étant alors intégrée dans un vaste ré-seau de voies maritimes reliant l’Ouest et l’Est, il fautreplacer l’iconographie dans un contexte méditerranéenplus large. Pour ce faire, on recherche des parallèles dansles régions qui, par les échanges de marchandises etd’idées, entretenaient des liens étroits avec la Sardaigneau Bronze final et au début de l’âge du Fer. On obtientainsi, surtout par l’intermédiaire d’archétypes interrégio-naux, des indications supplémentaires sur les significa-tion, fonction et chronologie des œuvres.

Dès 1200 av. J.-C., de nombreuses innovations et mu-tations politiques ont marqué la structure culturelle dubassin méditerranéen. Le commerce phénicien provoquedès 800 av. J.-C. de nouveaux changements en Occidentet l’iconographie change aussi de manière significative.C’est sous cet angle que l’on aborde diverses hypothè-ses sur la signification religieuse, politique et sociale des

DOI 10.1515/pz-2012-0005 Praehistorische Zeitschrift 2012; 87(1): 83–109

84 Ralph Araque Gonzalez, Sardinian bronze figurines in their Mediterranean setting

sculptures et sur leur genèse à travers des contacts cultu-rels tels que migration, colonisation et commerce à longuedistance. Le rapport entre sociétés organisées en Etat etcelles qui ne le sont pas y joue un rôle particulier.

Keywords: Sardaigne; Méditerranée occidentale; Bronzefinal; âge du Fer précoce; figurines en bronze; art pictural;contacts culturels; mutations sociales.

Abstract: Sardinian bronze figurines (‘bronzetti’) andstone sculptures of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Ageare among the most important archaeological evidenceof the island and the most impressive pictorial represen-tations of West European prehistory. Despite this, how-ever, their meaning and chronology are not fully under-stood and continue to be a matter of debate.

The article examines the iconography of the bronzefigurines and miniatures with their archetypes. The twolarge, clearly distinguishable stylistic groups of the bron-zetti are analysed in terms of their differences and similar-ities. The identification of workshops and artists playsan important role in understanding the chronology. Thepossible function of the figurines at their most importantfind sites, the Sardinian sanctuaries, is also discussed.

Sardinia was part of a wide network of sea routes be-tween the East and the West, so the iconography has tobe viewed in a larger, Mediterranean context. To this end,comparisons are made with pictorial art from the mostimportant contact regions which had close connectionswith the island during the Late Bronze Age and Early IronAge through the exchange of goods and ideas. This givesfurther insight into the meaning, function and chrono-logy of the images, especially by means of archetypes fromother regions.

Numerous innovations and political changes werecharacteristic of Mediterranean culture starting around1200 BC. The Phoenician trade beginning around 800 BCled to new developments in the West, and the ico-nography changed markedly as well. Against this back-ground, the article considers hypotheses on the religious,political and social significance of the pictorial represen-tations and their origination in the context of culture con-tact, such as migration, colonisation and long-distancetrade. The relationship of hierarchical societies and non-hierarchical ones plays a special role in this regard.

Keywords: Sardinia; Western Mediterranean; Late BronzeAge; Early Iron Age; bronze figurines; pictorial art; culturecontact; social change.

Ralph Araque Gonzalez: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i. Br.,Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften,Abteilung für Urgeschichtliche Archäologie, Belfortstrasse 22,D-79098 Freiburg i. Breisgau. E-Mail: [email protected];[email protected]

1. Introduction

Sardinian bronze figurines (‘bronzetti’) and statuary areamong the most important iconographic evidence fromthe prehistoric Mediterranean. Despite this, however,their meaning and chronology are not fully understoodand continue to be a matter of debate1. Furthermore, theyhave not yet been analysed in the context of the well-known system of interregional exchange that has shapedthe Mediterranean from the LBA onwards2.

For the purpose of this study, 264 anthropomorphicfigurines3, 216 zoomorphic representations4, 146 boatshaped models or navicelle5 and three nuraghe-bronzetti6

as well as 25 statues and 13 nuraghe-models of lime-stone from Monti Prama7 have been taken into account.A number of bronze object- and weapon miniatures fromSardinia can not be discussed here.

Following Lo Schiavo’s chronological sequence forSardinia8, the Late Bronze Age (LBA) covers the timespanfrom the 13th to the mid-10th century BC, the Early Iron Age(EIA) the mid 10th to the 8th and, in its later, “orientalizing”phase to the end of the 6th century BC. This correspondsto the last phases of Sardinia’s unique Nuragic culture,named after their massive cyclopic tower-buildings, the‘nuraghi’9. These buildings (the actual function of whichis not clear yet10), the figurines, as well as the elabor-ate sanctuaries are the most characteristic material ex-pressions of Sardinian LBA and EIA society before thePunic conquest of large parts of Sardinia around 525 BC11.The first simple nuraghi were constructed around 1800BC, but from the 14th century BC their level of architectoni-

1 E.g. Bernardini 2010b; Lo Schiavo 2007.2 Mederos 1999; Knapp 2008; Stampolidis 2003.3 Lilliu 1966; Fadda 2006a; Rovina 2001.4 Foddai 2008.5 Depalmas 2005.6 Lilliu 1966, Rovina 2001.7 Rendeli 2010; Tronchetti/Van Dommelen 20058 Lo Schiavo 2007, 226.9 Blake 1998; Lilliu 1982.10 Cf. Burgess 2001.11 Bernardini 2010a; Webster 1996.


cal complexity increased remarkably12. Thus, the LBA inSardinia is a period of manifold technical innovations inthe fields of architecture and metallurgy, as well as one ofintensified culture contact.

Sardinia (fig. 1), as an island, is a circumscribed terri-tory, which developed in a distinguished and unique way.Despite this, however, it has never been isolated, and itsculture was part of dynamic exchange with most Mediter-ranean regions. Knapp13 discussed the concept of the con-nectivity of “islandscapes” – and the ways in which thisresulted in connectivity in various forms of culture contactsuch as migration, acculturation as well as colonization.Nuragic society, along with its pictorial expressions suchas the bronzetti must be understood within the context ofthis culture contact. Such a study promises insights notonly into the meaning and function of the figurines, butalso into their chronology.

2. Method: Archetypes and styleTo explore the function and meaning of the pictorial rep-resentations, it is essential to check the figurines for com-mon traits and features. Repetitive schemes point to theuse of archetypical representations which are believed tocommunicate certain meanings and thus must necessarilybe easily recognizable. Although individuals may be rep-resented in an archetypical manner in later periods, mainlyto indicate status, this is not the case for figurines of pre-historic provenance.

In each pictorial representation, it is possible to dis-tinguish basic information which is transmitted by certainattributes. Such information is expressed in the visiblefeatures of sex, dress, weaponry or other attributes foranthropomorphic figurines14, species, sex, posture andfurther attributes for zoomorphic representations, and soon. These features, by means of their specific combi-nations, render the meaning of the figurines decipherable.The same combination of features in several figurines sug-gests a common meaning.

An archetype is a character specified by attributeswhich must be displayed conventionally by all artists toassure the possibility of identification. Archetypes com-municate ideas from the realms of religion (a divine en-tity and associated natural forces and myth) and ideology(a key role in society in its idealized form) as opposed to

12 Lilliu 1982; Ugas 2005; Webster 1996.13 Knapp 2008, 22–61.14 Hulin 1989, 130–132.

representing individuals. The archetypical image is also ameans to directly address a divine being which was be-lieved to be essentially present in it15.

An archetype may be known and have similar mean-ings over a vast geographical area and is understood be-cause of its main attributes, while its regional depictionvaries by means of technique and style. The style itselfconsists of additional, decorative elements, each one

15 Walls 2005.

Fig. 1: Map of Sardinia with findspots of bronzetti and sites men-tioned in the text: 1. Abini-Teti; 2. Santa Vittoria-Serri; 3. Domu deOrgia-Esterzili; 4. S’Arcu ’e is Forros-Villagrande Strisaili; 5. SaSedda ’e sos Carros; 6. Sórgono; 7. Lanusei; 8. Su Tempiesu-Orune;9. Nurdole-Orani; 10. Urzulei-Sa Domu de S’Orku; 11. NuraghePizzinu-Posada; 12. La Rotonda-Genoni; 13. Serra Niedda-Sorso;14. Monte S. Antonio-Siligo; 15. Camposanto-Olmedo; 16. Su Pedrig-hinosu-Ala dei Sardi; 17. Mulino-Bonorva; 18. Santa Cristina-Pauli-latino; 19. Aidomaggiore; 20. Adòni-Villanova Tulo; 21. Sa Mandra ’esa Giua-Ossi; 22. Nuraghe Orku-Nulvi; 23. Flumenelongu-Alghero;24. Cabu Abbas-Riu Mulinu; 25. Nuraghe Albúcciu-Arzachena;26. Santa Lulla-Orune; 27. Nuraghe Cummossariu-Furtei; 28. Antas;29. Monte Prama; 30. Monte Sirai; 31. Decimoputzu; 32. Monte Arco-su-Uta; 33. Funtana Coperta-Ballao; 34. Sardara


bearing different points of information16. These elementsinclude valuable information for the archaeologist, forexample on regional fashion and equipment which canhelp to establish chronology, as well as on technical andcognitive abilities evident in the means of representation(e.g. petroglyph, sculpture, statuary).

3. The Bronzetti

3.1 Uta Abini: The “old school”

There are two identifiable groups of bronzetti which arerecognisably different, both stylistically and iconographi-cally17. One group is named after two characteristic findspots, Uta-Abini, also known as “geometric” style. Thisstyle is characterized by detailed, geometric represen-tations, decorative elements, stiff posture and big figu-rines (up to 39 cm). 80 % of anthropomorphic represen-tations in this group seem to be male. Hermaphrodites orithyphallic representations do not exist. Much emphasiseis put on the depiction of equipment, dress and haircut,and no figurine is naked. Statuettes have appliances to befixed on stone bases for permanent display at sanctuariesand boats have rings to be hung up.

These bronzetti form the bigger group, containing 200(75 %) anthropomorphic which are known to the author,and 17318 (80 %) zoomorphic representations, as well asall 146 boats. Furthermore, the nuraghe- and object-minia-tures can also be attributed to this style. Taking into ac-count the number, the average figurine-size of this groupof bronzes and the countless fragments remaining, whichindicate indicate a much higher number than that knowntoday, considerable amounts of raw material and timewere employed on their production.

3.2 Mediterraneizzante: The “new school”

As the denomination already alludes, the mediterraneiz-zante fit into the iconographical tradition of the “oriental-izing” EIA Mediterranean if compared to Iron Age Iberian,Etruscan and Italian bronzetti (see below). This groupconsists of schematic and roundish smaller figurines withlittle to no details or decoration, and often with a dynamicposture which serves to give them an expressionistic ap-pearance.

16 Hulin 1989, 130–132.17 Lilliu 1966; Foddai 2008, 124.18 Foddai 2008, 126.

Apart from the fixture for permanent installation,base plates which would enable movement of the statu-ettes are common. Less time and material went into themaking of the figurines of this group, as they are smallerand numerically fewer: 67 (25 %) anthropomorphic whichare known to the author, and between 17 and 4319 (8 % or20 %) zoomorphic representations. Their often crude ac-complishment and lack of details means that time wassaved on decoration, hinting that it was only deemednecessary that the essentials should be depicted.

3.3 Anthropomorphic representations

Uta Abini (Fig. 2–4)

The iconography of this group seems to follow a clear,repetitive code of representation. Most of the figurines(54 %) depict warriors and archers (fig. 2,a–f; 3; 4,a–c.g),and among them, horned headdresses prevail. Theweaponry nearly always consists of a sword and roundshield, while only a single warrior carries a spear (fig. 7,f).Nine figurines of warriors which were found in Abini-Tetihave each four arms and eyes with each carrying twoshields and two swords. The important features of afighter are enhanced in these representations: extra eye-sight, extra strength and extra armament (fig. 2,b).

Together with a “minotaur” from the group of uniquefigurines (fig. 2,v) they clearly refer to the supernaturalworld. Raising a hand in a benedictory pose, a trait oftenobserved on Near Eastern cult figurines20, is a frequentgestus among all archetypes and persists in the followingmediterraneizzante style.

Female figurines can be identified by breasts, longcloaks and headdresses, as well as often holding smallvessels such as bowls or “incense burners” (fig. 2,j–l).Three women are depicted with a small man on their foldand raising a blessing hand (fig. 2,s–t). The offerentes fi-gurines are represented carrying round objects, vessels,animal hides in one hand, as well as goats on theirshoulders (fig. 2,g–i). One group of bronzetti wearingpointed hats and cloaks (fig. 2,m–o) may representspecialists of divination if compared to later images ofEtruscan haruspices (fig. 16,d.e) and the related deity ofdivination, ‘Tages’.

Another group consisting of the biggest figurines onaverage (19.3 to 39 cm), represent a male with a staff,

19 Ibid.20 Negbi 1976, 86; 116–117; Bernardini 1989, 121.


Fig. 2: Examples for archetypes 1. (a–c); 2. (d–f); 3. (g–i); 4. (j–l); 5. (m–o); 6. (p–r); 7. (s–t); 8 (u) and 10. (v) of the Uta-Abini style. Not to scale


Fig. 3: Figurines of the “horned archer artist”, artist No. 4 (tab. 3). From Abini-Teti (a–c) and Funtana Coperta (d). Not to scale

Fig. 4: Figurines of the “round eye artist”, artist No. 6 (tab. 3). From Usellus (a); Senorbí (b); Gonone (d); Vulci (e); Abini-Teti (g) and unknownprovenance (c; f). Not to scale


gamma-hilted dagger and a cloak, and in one case witha sword (fig. 2,p–r). These are mostly termed capotribu(chief), but should not be interpreted as representationsof a social rank (see below). Alongside these figurines aretwo pairs of “wrestlers” from Uta (fig. 2,u) and a shield car-rier with a raised fist, a depiction also prominent in theiconography of Monte Prama statuary (fig. 4,d).

The anthropomorphic figurines range in size from5.5–39 cm, with an average of 15.6 cm. The head of a bron-zetto of the “horned archer artist” (see below, fig. 3,d) wasrecently excavated in LBA strata of Funtana Coperta-Bal-lao21. To ascertain chronological details relating to the fi-gurines in question, the equipment shown on the often de-tailed and realistic sculptures has to be compared todatable finds of those objects to obtain a terminus postquem for their production. I propose that artefacts dis-played on the bronzetti were known to and therefore con-temporary to the artists, which does not exclude the factthat some artefacts, especially ritual objects, were in usefor a long time. Four artefacts that can clearly be recog-nized on the figurines are:

1. Pistilliform swords: In Sardinia, this type has beenfound in Siniscola-Oroè, dating to the 11th century BC, andthree figurines of the Uta-artist (see below, fig. 2,a.r) ob-viously shoulder these swords22. These swords represent a

21 Manunza 2008, 250–257.22 See also Lo Schiavo 1990a, 219–220.

type common to the Atlantic Bronze Age, and the Black-moor/Braud/Huelva-Phase would be the last phase whenpistilliform swords were still in use but already “bastanteextraordinario”, which means they are mostly earlier than1050–930 cal. BC23.

2. Votive swords: The first original Sardinian swordsare purely symbolic weapons since their size and alloymake them extremely fragile and therefore unusable inactual fighting24. Those artefacts were often fixed on theroof-tops and “tables of offerings” of sanctuaries and aretherefore associated to their construction. In the Albuc-ciu-Arzachena hoard, votive sword fragments were foundwith pieces of Cypriot oxhide ingots in a Nuragic pot of theLBA, 1300–1150 BC25. The fixing of bronzetti to the pointsof votive swords (fig. 3,a; 7,c), as well as the fact thatsome warrior bronzetti also carry votive swords (fig. 4,b.g)underline the cultic and chronological connection of bothobjects26.

3. Gamma-hilted daggers: Many males (no recogniz-able females), of all archetypes except archetype Nr. 5(table 1), carry a gamma-hilted dagger on their chest. Thefew full-size daggers are sometimes made of votive swordfragments27, rendering them fragile, and are also too small

23 Brandherm 2007, 143.24 Lo Schiavo 2007.25 Ibid.26 Ibid.27 Ibid. 233.

Fig. 5: Statuary from Monte Prama, Shield bearers (a); archer (b); warrior with shield (c); nuraghe-model (d). Not to scale


to be a dangerous weapon. This type of dagger has ex-clusively been found on Sardinia. By far the majority ofexamples are miniatures, most likely designed as amu-lets to be worn around the neck. Everything about thesedaggers points to them having a high symbolic valuerather than being a usable object. Usai and Lo Schiavo28

report gamma-daggers in the Pirosu-Su Benatzu cave-sanctuary where ritual activity is documented from theMBA, with a main phase in the LBA, to the EIA. A C14-datefor a fireplace in the cave, 820+/-60 BC was published byUgas29.

4. “Philistine crown”: Only one figurine by the Utaartist wears this headdress30 which is known from the “seapeople”, mostly Peleset (Philistines) on the Medinet Haburelief, dated to 1176 BC31. There is archaeological evidencefor the presence of Philistines in the Gulf of Oristano32.

Mediterraneizzante (Fig. 6)

The iconography of this group is less repetitive, but sex isan obvious theme. Contrary to the former group, phallicrepresentations, hermaphrodites and nudes are present.Warriors are partly nude, ithyphallic, and are never de-picted with horned headgear. All of the defining symbolsof the Uta-Abini group, such as the gamma-hilted daggersand clearly defined swords, along with the emphasizedhaircuts and dress, have been abandoned. A heavy rup-ture in iconography is obvious. The figurine size in thisgroup has also diminished (4.5–17.3 cm, average 10 cm).

28 Usai/Lo Schiavo 2005.29 Ugas 2005, 43.30 Lilliu 1966, No. 44.31 Bernardini 2010a, fig. 39; 41.32 Ibid. 20–21.

Sardinian EIA imagery, centred around fertility andsexuality, fits in with the iconography of figurativebronzes evolving in Iberia (fig. 15), the alpine region, andItaly (fig. 16; 17) during the “orientalizing” period33. Whilethe Uta-Abini style is self-consciously Sardinian and em-ploys typical Western-Mediterranean elements rooted inLBA iconography alongside many unique Sardinian char-acteristics, the mediterraneizzante style is connected tothe Italian mainland and a rather uniform Mediterraneanstyle and iconography, emerging at a time of intensePhoenician trade. This would suggest an origination in the9th century (confirmed by dating of the Antas bronzetto34,fig. 6,i), a climax of production in the 8th–6th centuries BCwith some late examples in the 5th. No artefact types canbe recognized due to the strong abstraction present in thisstyle.

33 Babbi 2008; Huth 2003; Kossack 1999.34 Ugas/Lucia 1987.

Tab. 1: Uta-Abini archetypes

Archetype Description Total No. % Fig.

1 Warrior with sword and shield 6-0

30 2a–c; 4b,c,g; 5c

2 Archer 38 19 2d–f; 3; 4a, 5b3 Offerente 32 16 2g–i4 Woman with vessel 26 13 2j–l5 Man with conical hat 9 4.5 2m–o; 4e6 Man with staff 6 3 2p–r7 Seated woman with man on fold 3 1.5 2s–t8 “Wrestlers”, two groups of two figurines 4 2 2u9 Shield bearer with raised fist 2 1 4d; 5a10 Uniques (Minotaur, seated worker, special dress figurine) 3 1.5 2v; 4fFragment Warrior’s or archer’s head with horned headgear 12 6 –Fragment Unidentified 5 2.5 –

Tab. 2: Mediterraneizzante archetypes

Archetype Description Total No. % Fig.

1 Offerente 31 146.2 6a–c2 Nude (male/hermaphrodite) 37 10.4 6d–e3 Male with staff 37 10.4 6f–h4 Warrior 35 17.5 6i–k5 Female 35 17.5 6l–o6 Musician 33 14.5 6p–r7 Bull-rider 32 13 6s8 Scenes of 2–3 figures 32 13 6t–u9 Unique figurines 35 17.5 6v–x


Fig. 6: Archetypes 1. (a–c); 2. (d–e); 3. (f–h); 4. (i–k); 5. (l–o); 6. (p–q); 7. (s); 8. (t, u) and 9. (v–x) of the Mediterraneizzante-style. Not to scale


3.4 Zoomorphic

Bull (Fig. 7,a.b)

The bull appears as bronzetto in both Uta-Abini andMediterraneizzante style, stone sculpture at sanctuaries(St. Vittoria-Serri, St. Anastasia-Sardara), and on drinkingjugs and vessels (fig. 7,b). Its image is often used as fig-urehead or in ploughing scenes on the navicelle (fig.8,a.b.c.e). The symbolism of the bull is also present in thebronzetti with horned headgear. Altogether, it is the mostrepresented animal not only in Sardinia, but in the Medi-terranean as a whole.

Caprines: Ram, mouflon, capricorn (fig. 7,d–f)

Ram and mouflon are depicted in both styles of bronzetti.An anthropomorphic figure, represented with what maybe goat’s horns on the helmet, holds a ram on a leash(fig. 7,f). At the Serra Niedda sanctuary, where this figurinewas found, most zoomorphic bronzetti are caprines35. Atthe sanctuaries of Sa Sedda e’ sos Carros-Oliena (fig. 7,e)and Villagrande-Strisaili, ram’s heads are present as lime-stone-waterspouts and sculptures36. It is used as figure-head or on board of some bronze boats. Occasionally, itappears on Sardinian vessels, from as far back as the chal-colithic era.

35 Rovina 2001.36 Fadda 2006a.

Fig. 7: Animal motifs from Predio Canòpolo-Perfugas (a); Sa Sedda e Sos Carros (b, e); Uta (c) and Camposanto-Olmedo (d). Not to scale


Deer (fig. 3a, 7c), dogs and pigs37

The deer, as the third horned land animal in Sardinian ico-nography seems to fit in with the bull and goat in the LBA,since as yet there is no evidence for earlier depiction. Nodeer can be attributed to the Mediterraneizzante style.Deer bronzetti are mostly placed on top of votive swords(fig. 3a, 7c) and as figureheads on bronze boats (they arenever shown on board). Deer and dogs have a tendency toappear together. On some deer-headed boats dogs are on

37 Lilliu 1966, No. 230–240.

board (fig. 8,c.d), and the two are depicted together ina hunting context. One example from Domus de Orgia-Esterzili depicts a deer with a biting dog attached38. Anarcher on top of two deer is shown on a votive swordat Abini-Teti (fig. 3,a). Dogs and pigs are relatively rareamong the bronzetti and are mostly represented as pas-sengers on boats.

38 Fadda 2006a, 73.

Fig. 8: Navicelle from Pipizu-Orroli (a); Mores (b); Vetulonia (c); Bulteí (d); unknown provenance (e). Not to scale


Birds39

Depictions of birds are numerous especially on the na-vicelle, but there are few bird bronzetti per se stante. Dep-almas40 has already remarked that birds are a most im-portant element in the art of central European Urnfieldculture as well as on the Italian peninsula, and could thussignify a common idea in Sardinian and continental sym-bolism. A bird is shown sitting on the roof of a buildingnext to a nuraghe (fig. 9,b) as well as on top of figureheadsof two boats41. On another bull’s head there is a cock, andanother bull figurine from St. Vittoria-Serri also has a birdon its head42. On the navicelle’s figureheads, represen-tations of bulls with water-birds’ features suggest a chim-aera of the two (fig. 8,b), another element that is frequentin mainland LBA iconography43.

39 Lilliu 1966, No. 241–247.40 Depalmas 2005, 197–198.41 Ibid. No. 61; 93.42 Lilliu 1966, No. 212; 312.43 Kossack 1999.

3.5 Boats (fig. 8)

Depalmas, who wrote an outstanding monograph on thisgroup of artefacts44, places them chronologically in theLBA (12th–11th century BC) and the EIA (10th–8th centuryBC). The iconographic complex involves: The boat with ahorned land animal’s head, the plough, land animals onboard, the nuraghe, and birds. Apart from the latter, boatsexclusively transport symbols of on-shore life. Stylisti-cally, they are all of the Uta-Abini school.

The figurehead of the bronze boats is always a hornedland animal45, that is: a bull, occasionally incorporatingwater-bird features, a deer or a goat. Scenes with a repre-sentation of two bulls on a yoke, moving in the oppositedirection as the bow, can be found. In one case, a bull islead by its horns by an anthropomorphic figure, which isthe only human passenger known so far (fig. 8,e). Domes-ticated land animals, dogs and pigs, are often on board.Birds are frequently sitting on the mast, the railing or on

44 Depalmas 2005.45 See also Lo Schiavo 2006.

Fig. 9: Nuraghe-models in bronze from Camposanto-Olmedo (a); Ittireddu (b) and limestone from Su Mulinu-Villanovafranca (c);Palmavera-Alghero (d). Not to scale


nuraghe towers, which also frequently appear on boats(fig. 8,a.c). An exotic exception is one depiction of a boatwith a monkey46.

A number of crude clay boat-miniatures, some withzoomorphic figureheads, has been found mostly in nur-aghi. Burnt on the inside, they appear to have been usedas lamps or incense-burners, though the same functioncannot be assumed for the bronze versions that do notshow traces of exposure to fire47. Clay models of boatsfrom the LBA are also known from Crete, Cyprus, Lípariand the Levant48. In particular the Cypriot examples canbe seen to have animal figureheads of bulls and birds49. Abig difference with these examples is that Cypriot pas-sengers are always humans and not animals. The Bybloshoard (c. 1500–1200 BC) contains several bronze boats,one of which is steered by a monkey50.

The symbolic complex present on the navicelle, in-cluding the protagonist-animals of Sardinian iconographyin general, as well as the monkey, but not the nuraghi, ap-pear in EIA Italy, worked into a mediterraneizzante style.The cult-wagon from Lucera51 and the kettle of Bisenzio-Olmo Bello involve most of these symbols, and both in-clude a ploughing scene (fig. 17). Human representationson both of these resemble Sardinian EIA figurines.

3.6 Nuraghe-models (fig. 9)

Three bronze models of complex nuraghi are known sofar. Nuraghi are also represented on navicelle and bronzebuttons. As well as these, 13 multi-tower models made oflimestone were found in Monte Prama52 (fig. 5,d). Nuragheshaped altars have been found in Su Monte-Sorradileand Su Mulinu-Villanovafranca (fig. 9,c), and single towermodels were used as the centres of meeting huts in Palma-vera-Alghero (fig. 9,d) and Sardara Sant’ Anastasia. Thenuraghe seems to be a strong symbol of the community –or its ancestors who constructed it, and in the context ofthe meeting huts it seems to represent the centre of com-munity itself53.

46 Depalmas 2005, No. 3.47 Ibid. 184–188.48 Ibid. 188–200.49 Ibid. 191.50 Seeden 1980, Plate 123; 125.51 Kossack 1999, Abb. 13.52 Rendeli 2010.53 See also Blake 1997; 1998.

3.7 Workshops

Regarding their long period of use, bronzetti were appar-ently produced by relatively few artists and workshops.Analyses of the alloys used indicate a sophisticated metal-lurgy, optimized for figurine production54. It seems thatafter including decisive features, the decoration of a figu-rine was left to the artist. It has to be made clear that actualbronzetti workshops cannot yet be localized in the archae-ological record. This is due to their casting in the lost-waxprocess. Nevertheless, it is possible to form groups of figu-rines in both styles, which could have stemmed from thesame artist, which appears to be the case when they aremore or less stylistically identical (fig. 3; 4; 6,d.e.r). Aworkshop is assumed if groups of bronzetti which are gen-erally in the same decorative style show minor dissimilar-ities, suggesting several artists producing work in a com-mon scheme, which results in more variety of decoration.The eyes of the figurines, for example, provide clues as towhich workshop made them (fig. 3; 4), and once they aregrouped together, further similarities become evident.

The homogeneity of the groups in Table 3 suggestsproduction by a single workshop, in some cases individ-ual artists, which indicates that their casting took placeduring a relatively short period. Nevertheless, the use ofthe statuettes in the sanctuaries throughout several cen-turies is possible.

3.8 Implications for Monti Prama statuary(fig. 5)

The “round eye artist” (No. 6; fig. 4) is especially interest-ing: The masons who created the Monti Prama statuary(featuring round eyes, shield carriers, “fishbone” decor-ated greaves, trenches, pointed dress, low hanging “pec-toral”) were obviously inspired by this artist. Sardinianover-sized stone sculptures from Monte Prama55 represent15 people holding shields over their heads, three war-riors with sword and shield, and and seven archers withtrenches and horned headgear. 13 nuraghe models oflimestone were found alongside these at the same site.

33 single cist graves in a row without grave-goods,reminiscent of a tomba dei giganti corridor tomb with se-parées, were discovered underneath the destroyed statues.Unfortunately, the site is neither fully published yet, norhave further excavations been taken out to clarify the many

54 Atzeni et al. 2005.55 See Rendeli 2010; Tronchetti 1986.


questions of chronology and context. Many statues may bemissing, making an analysis of iconography difficult.

A scaraboid, estimated to be from the 8th century BC56

and found in the fill of tomb 25, is the only datable ob-ject that provides an ante quem for the construction of thegrave complex. The statues themselves were violently de-stroyed in the 4th century BC57.

The inspiration for the statues must be the bronzetti,and more specifically those made by the “round eye” art-ist. Unfortunately, we cannot say if both were sculpted atthe same time and, if not, how much earlier the bronzeswere cast. On the other hand, the “round eye” artist’s fi-gurines were already in existence by the 9th century, asproven by the example from Vulci (fig. 4,e, see below). Thestatuary of Monte Prama was probably erected betweenthe 9th and 8th centuries BC and might represent a last ex-pression of Sardinian traditional LBA sculpture, before itwas displaced by EIA Mediterranean iconography.

56 Rendeli 2010, 59.57 Ibid. 59–60.

4. Contexts4.1 Sanctuaries

Unfortunately, only about 50 % of the bronzetti are docu-mented in their original archaeological context. How-ever, it is clear that the most common use of figurativebronzetti was their visible and enduring exposureat sanctuaries dating from the LBA to the EIA, wherethey were fixed on stone bases with lead (fig. 10,b). 87 %of the anthropomorphic and 46.2 % of the zoomorphicfigurines from known contexts come from sacred struc-tures.

Both styles – Uta-Abini and mediterraneizzante – canbe found together at sanctuaries. It has to be taken into ac-count that older bronzetti have been removed, probablyfor metal-recycling, in many cases. They were obviouslycut off at their feet, which often remained with the at-tached lead-fixing in the stone. A splendid example is the“altar”-fragment from Nurdole, where a figurine of “orien-talizing” style is placed very close to the remaining feet ofan Uta-Abini bronzetto (fig. 10,b, centre).

Tab. 3: Uta-Abini producers of anthropomorphic figurines with propositions for chronology

Tab. 4: Mediterraneizzante-workshops with propositions for chronology

No. Artist/Workshop Productive phase(century BC)

No. figurines Hints on chronology

1 Uta-artist 12th–11th 15 Pistilliforme swords, philistine crown, gamma dagger2 Eyebrow-workshop (Aidomaggiore) 11th (?) 18 Gamma dagger3 Esterzili-workshop 11th–10th (?) 23 Gamma dagger, “Assyrian” (?) harness4 Horned archer artist 12th–11th 18 Votive sword, gamma dagger, fragment in LBA context5 Almond eye workshop 10th–9th (?) 18 No gamma dagger6 Round eye artist Before end 9th No gamma dagger, inspired Monte Prama statuary7 Long neck artist 11th–10th (?) 14 Gamma dagger8 Blanket artist 11th–10th (?) 16 Gamma dagger9 Globular eye workshop 12th–10th 23 Gamma dagger rare, boar tusk helmet10 Trench artist (?) 15 –11 Teti artist 1 10th–9th (?) 12 Gamma dagger rare, crude12 Teti artist 2 10th–9th (?) No gamma daggers, crude13 Transition workshop 9th (?) 15 Gamma dagger rare, crude, Mediterraneizzante-touch14 Votive sword artist 12th–11th 12 Votive swords, gamma daggers15 Unidentified 18

No. Artist/workshop Productive phase(century BC)

No. figurines Hints on chronology

1 Skirt workshop 9th–7th 292 Round figure workshop 7th–5th 10 Confronts in Etruria and Iberia3 Sulcis artist 6th 12 Phoenician tomb4 Paulilatino workshop 9th–7th (?) 145 Unidentified 19


Fig. 10: Plan of the federal sanctuary at Santa Vittoria-Serri, western part (a) and “altar-stone” with bronzetti from Nurdole-Orani (b).Not to scale


While votive swords and bronzetti were producednearly exclusively for display at sanctuaries, most of theSardinian bronze-work and imports from the LBA and EIAwere also found there58. This shows that the accumulationof precious metal objects was an important element of cultand social practices. No valuable bronze objects from Nu-ragic times, apart two EIA exceptions mentioned below,are found in contexts (i.e. tombs, houses) which wouldallow them to be associated with individuals, i.e. repre-senting personal wealth.

The Nuragic sanctuaries are constructions unique tothe island of Sardinia. Complex sanctuaries were used byseveral communities and can take huge dimensions withmanifold structures, such as subterranean holy wells,megaron buildings, water basins or pools, and big openspaces (fig. 10,a). Ashlar architecture was employed morefrequently in Sardinian sacred architecture than at Myce-nae, for example59. Zoomorphic limestone sculpture, ofbull’s heads in Santa Vittoria-Serri and Sant’ Anastasia-Sardara60 and ram’s heads waterspouts at Sa Sedda ’eSos Carros-Oliena (fig. 7,e) are further outstanding compo-nents.

The sanctuaries feature water in the form of wells orfountains, which implies that this resource may have beenregulated at the sacred spaces to avoid usurpation by asingle community. The well is usually subterranean orover-built, which hints that religion had a chthonic as-pect, which is also evident by the use of cult caves like Pi-rosu-Su Benatzu.

The complex sanctuaries, which are characterizedby their capacity to host hundreds of people, and whichnearly always include buildings which are believed tobe places of political discourse, i.e. the ‘capanne degliriunione’ (meeting huts, fig. 9,d), must have been publicspaces where inter-communal affairs were settled. Thesize of the meeting huts, often 10 m or more in diameter61,suggests the participation of big groups of people in deci-sion making and dispels the idea of a small aristocracy.Ciotole (bowls) and askoi (jugs) point towards ritual feast-ing that could enhance social cohesion. Sardinian sanctu-aries were thus far more than merely places of cult prac-tices, and they might, in fact, have been the base of LBAand EIA political and economic life.

58 Burgess 2001; Lo Schiavo 1990b; 1998; 2007.59 Burgess 2001; Burgess/Veåligaj 2007; Fadda 2006b; Fadda/Posi2006; Lo Schiavo 1990b.60 Taramelli 1918.61 E.g. Moravetti 2003, 30–31.

4.2 Tombs and other contexts

Three statuettes were found in Sardinian single graves:One representation of a mediterraneizzante warrior atAntas62 and two of Uta-Abini archers at Sardara63, withboth tombs dating to the EIA. It has to be mentioned thatsingle graves from the EIA are extremely rare, and apartfrom the two examples mentioned above, they have onlybeen found at the Monte Prama site, where they do notcontain grave-goods. In later periods, navicelle also endedup in a Punic and even a Roman tomb64.

Some bronzetti, especially navicelle, have been foundin Villanovian and Etruscan religious contexts (tombs anda sanctuary hoard) on the Italian peninsula, e.g. anUta-Abini anthropomorphic figurine and two miniaturevessels in a tomb from the second half of the 9th century BCin Cav.alupo di Vulci65 (fig. 4,e).

The grave-good bronzetti from Sardinia and the exportswere used in a private (tomb) instead of a public (sanctu-ary) setting, and were thus used in a completely differ-ent manner than they were originally. The bronzetti wouldhave arrived on the mainland after the practice of expos-ing them at sanctuaries was in decline or ended, renderingthem objects available for gift exchange. It does not seemthat this exchange would have been possible at times whenUta-Abini sculpture was still treasured at the sanctuarieswhich constituted a fundamental pillar of society and thebronzes represented the divine sphere which protected it.

The only possibility to remove bronzetti from sanctu-aries and use them for trade was the change of bronzettiproduction and practice of the mediterraneizzante cultwith its new iconography, whose figurines could havebeen deemed more pleasant for those they were dedicatedto. This indicates that by the end of the 9th century, thebronzetti cult had altered significantly. Consequently, theexamples found in the Sardinian tombs as personal gravegoods could reflect these changes on the island itself. Thismeans that they may well have been re-used in tombs afterdecades of primary use at sanctuaries. Occasionally, bron-zetti also occur in nuraghi, some of which were re-used assanctuaries like Nurdole-Orani66, or the possible hoard ofMonte Arcosu-Uta67.

62 Ugas/Lucia 1987.63 Bernardini 2010b.64 Depalmas 2005, 183.65 Bernardini 2002; Depalmas 2005, 221–229; Foddai 2008,155–164; Lo Schiavo 2002.66 Fadda 1991.67 Circumstances and context of this find are rather unclear, seeSpano 1857.


5. FunctionBronzetti are often seen as votive offerings donated bymembers of a stratified society at the sanctuaries, wherethe status of the donator would determine motive (in asense of self-representation) and quality of the figurine68.This implies that they are a major expression of social in-equality. Tronchetti and Van Dommelen accordingly seethem as artefacts of the elite69. I prefer to see them as com-municative artefacts70, a more neutral category, as theirmain use for society is to communicate religious and ideo-logical concepts.

“However, there are artefacts that are not producedfor mechanical use (…), but rather are designed exclus-ively for human communication; that is, to be perceivedand to signify (to refer to entities, imaginary or not). (…)As such, they can be classified as ‘means of production’ inhuman communication and learning.”71

The four-armed warriors and the chimaera mentionedabove are not the only references to supernatural spheres.In their context at the sanctuaries and in their Mediterra-nean setting, the bronzetti are cult images. As observedabove, the horned warrior and the horned archer are themost frequent motifs of the Uta-Abini bronzetti. Therefore,the archetype of the horned warrior will be compared toboth the artwork and communicative artefacts of some ofSardinia’s contact regions. Shared iconography can be aresult of culture contact and can help in the establishmentof the chronological framework in which it emerged andwas used in a defined area. For the moment, the followingobservations in this chapter are the current working-hy-pothesis and further research will be necessary to confirmthe ideas expressed on the obvious similarities of Mediter-ranean LBA and EIA imagery.

5.1 Horned warriors in the LBA West

In the LBA of the Western Mediterranean, depictions ofwarriors with horned headgear are well known from Ibe-rian stelae72 (fig. 11,a–c) and horned-warrior statue men-hirs from Corsica73 (fig. 12).

68 Bernardini 1989; 2010, 34; Contu 1998; Lilliu 1966.69 Tronchetti/Van Dommelen 2005, 194–195.70 Micó 2005, 279–281.71 Ibid. 280.72 Brandherm 2007; Celestino 2001; Diáz-Guardamino 2010; Harri-son 2004.73 Cesari/Leandri 2010.

Iconography is strikingly similar in Sardinia and Ibe-ria, where the warrior is equipped with a sword, roundshield and sometimes a bow. Differences in equipment in-clude the spear and wagon, both of which are frequent inIberia, but extremely rare to absent in Sardinia. Both re-gions developed distinguishing pictorial art in the LBA,using techniques and picture carriers according to re-gional preferences, but sharing the iconography of thehorned warrior. The so-called diademada-stelae, whichappear to constitute a female company of the Iberian war-rior (fig. 11,b.d), might cautiously be seen in relationshipto the female entities of the bronzetti.

Iberia and Sardinia were in close contact during theLBA and EIA, exchanging metal objects and techniques74.Pistilliform and carp’s tongue swords were in use in bothregions contemporaneously. Comparing the typologicallyanalogous finds from both regions in their respective con-texts helps to confirm the dating of objects. Brandherm, inhis monograph on the Iberian swords of the Bronce Final,analysed the types depicted on the stelae75, with the chro-nological result that the types in use from the 12th, like thepistilliform, to the 9th century BC carp’s tongue blades arerepresented. More recent types are hardly identifiable.

Noteworthy are also the representation of an ox-hideingot on an Iberian stelae (fig. 11,a), an ox-hide ingotshaped altar in Iberia76, Cypriot artefacts that have beendiscovered in Iberian LBA contexts77, all of which suggesta connection via Sardinia. In Huelva, nuragic pottery andbronze artefacts confirm traffic for the end of the LBA andthe EIA78.

The Corsican statue menhirs, which include hornedswordsmen, recognizable through cavities on the menhirhead that served to allow the insertion of bulls horns (fig.12,a), are chronologically placed in the Bronze Moyen/Bronze Final79. A strong connection between the statue-menhirs and water can be detected, especially at foun-tains and the confluences of rivers80. Water was a keyfeature of Sardinian sanctuaries, which contained ico-nography, as well. Another outstanding feature is thephallic appearance of the backside of many statue-men-hirs (fig. 12,c). Female representations are so far unknownfrom LBA Corsica.

74 Lo Schiavo 1990a, 213–219; 2005a, 344–351.75 Brandherm 2007, 134–155.76 Bernardini 2010a, 62.77 Mederos 1999.78 Bernardini 2010a, 70.79 Cesari/Leandri 2010, 378.80 Ibid. 379.


5.2 Horned warriors in the LBA East

The Atlantic and the Mediterranean were connected bysteady traffic as well as the exchange of goods and people,and the island of Sardinia seems to have played a leadingrole in this network. Its most important partner to the Eastseems to have been Cyprus. Cypriot ox-hide copper ingotsfound on Sardinia are part of the rise of LBA metallurgy,trade and close contact between the two islands81.

The Eastern Mediterranean is the only region that canbe compared to Sardinia for both the general use of bronze

81 Archaeometallurgy 2005; Lo Schiavo 1998; 2003; 2005a; LoSchiavo/Vagnetti 1989; Lo Schiavo et al. 2009.

sculpture as a means of representation, and the quantityof figurines. Cyprus revealed few bronze statuettes, whichdate to the 12th century BC82 (fig. 14,a–d), while Sardinianproduction is topped only by the Levant and Anatolia(fig. 13) in showing evidence of a long-lasting tradition ofsculpture83.

The Eastern representations were cult-images84, andthe horned warrior is understood to have been a protag-onist (fig. 13; 14,a.c). Horned headdresses are reserved forgods, although they are not obligatory in designating a

82 Negbi 1976, 38–41; Hulin 1989, 130; Knapp 2008, 179–186.83 Seeden 1980.84 Negbi 1976; Seeden 1980; Walls 2005.

Fig. 11: Iberian stelae from Cerro Muriano 1 (a); Almadèn de la Plata 2 (b); Ecija 5/Berraco (c); Capilla I (d). Not to scale

Fig. 12: Corsican statue-menhirs from Filitosa (a); Cauria, Cargèse and Nebbiu (b); Cauria (c). Not to scale


Fig. 13: Near Eastern bronze figurines from Anatolia (a, b) and Byblos (e); cylinder seals from the Levant,inscription identifying the god as Nergal (c); stele of Baal from Ugarit (d). Not to scale

Fig. 14: Cypriot bronze figurines from Enkomi (a–d) and Danish figurine from Grevensvaenge (e). Not to scale


deity. Kristiansen85 stated: “It is obvious that in the East-ern Mediterranean, Asia Minor and the Near East hornedanthropomorphic beings or those with horned helmetsrepresented divinities.” He wrote this with respect to abronze statuette from Grevensvaenge, Denmark, c. 1000BC (fig. 14,e). So it seems that the idea might have travelledas far north as Scandinavia”.

Pictorial representations of human warriors wearinghorned headgear are known from the Eastern Mediterra-nean. In Egypt, on the Medinet Habu Relief of Ramses III,which has been dated to 1176 BC, some of the ‘seapeople’86, especially the Shardana, are characterized by it.On the Mycenaean ‘warrior vase’, dated to LH III B–C (c.1200 BC), a procession of warriors with horned headgearis shown, also involving the symbolism of the bull itself inthe vessel’s handles87. Thus, there most likely were war-riors in the 12th century BC Mediterranean who actuallydid wear horned helmets in combat, which is hardly a sur-prise, since such a headdress would directly refer to thehorned divinity with the evident martial aspect, and mighthave served to invoke the protection of the latter.

The most famous horned warrior-deity of the East isthe so-called ‘storm god’88. In Anatolia, he was believed tohave been the ruler of the ‘subterranean ocean’ and wasvenerated at holy wells, fountains and sanctuaries. Thisis due to geological conditions in large parts of Anatolia,where water is mostly present in the subterranean streamsof the karst regions89. The same geological features arepresent in Sardinia. In the Levant, the ‘storm god’ wasmore associated with the rainstorms, which constitute themost important source of live-giving water in the region90.Thus, it seems that each region adapted the archetype toits own situation, but the essence remained the same: The‘storm god’ was a god of fertility, weather, water and war,sometimes a divine hunter91. All these associations appearto be evident in the Western Mediterranean horned war-rior images.

85 Kristiansen/Larsson 2005, 333.86 Further discussion of the ‘sea people’ has to be ommitted here.On similarities between the equipment of Shardana/Sardinian war-rior figurines, see e.g. Sandars 1978; Ugas 2005; Bernardini 2010a.87 Orthmann 1975, Nr. 463.88 Green 2003.89 Ibid. 283.90 Ibid. 283.91 Ibid. 286.

5.3 Meanings of the Horned Warrior

The symbolism of a deity usually includes a level of mean-ing which corresponds to the natural force which it con-trols, a level which corresponds to a social function it pro-tects and a level where it manifests in sacred animals orplants whose life-cycles might depend on its good-will. Theidea behind creating the image of a deity is to make it ap-proachable, to gain influence on the forces controlled by it.

Once the decision is taken to visualize a divine entity,it can be venerated and approached in the image of itssacred animal, and, once people take the step to personifya deity, in its anthropomorphic image92, a chimaera of thesacred animal and the human form may emerge, with at-tributes such as the horns of a bull serving to highlight thesupernatural nature of the image.

The deity’s attributes symbolize its various aspects: aweather-god may be armed, bringing to mind the destruc-tive forces of weather, such as thunderstorms. Ithyphallicor otherwise sexualized representations may refer to fertil-ity or pleasure. In Sardinia, every archetype of the bron-zetti would embody an entity related to a certain aspect ofnature and/or social life.

I would like to argue that similar divine forces werevenerated nearly everywhere in the LBA Mediterranean,and were represented in zoomorphic and anthropomor-phic images. The archetypes of the deities, which mostlikely had different names and different connotationsfrom region to region, were understood by everyone wholived in the area of culture contact through common at-tributes, at least to the extent that the natural force whichwas being addressed in the image was always clear. Basi-cally, all of the pictorial representations mentioned abovecommunicated similar religious ideas.

5.4 Change: Arrival of the ithyphallics

The images of ‘horned warriors’ were all but extinct inthe West during the period called “orientalization”93

(800–600 BC). In Italy, where bronze sculpture onlybegan its career in the EIA, and in the iconography ofthe Iberian bronzetti94, the ‘horned warrior’ was never amotif, while the image of the bull remained important.Instead, representations of warriors and other male figu-rines of the 8th–5th centuries BC from Sardinia, Iberia and

92 Ibid. 283; 287–290.93 See Riva/Vella 2006.94 Koch 1998.


Italy are mostly naked and phallic, while females are oftennaked or, as in Iberia, wear long dresses (fig. 6; 15–17).Hermaphroditic representations appear everywhere.

While the essence of the warrior archetype mightbe unchanged, its iconography changes radically in thesense that attributes which express regional identity areno longer displayed anymore, as was the case with typi-cal weapon types or dress in the LBA imagery. Fertility at-tributes are expressed instead. In the LBA, it is only thephallic Corsican statue menhirs which explicitly show thisaspect. The fact that regional identity is not put into sceneanymore points towards changes in the socio-politicalrealm. Furthermore, imports of or locally produced figu-rines of clearly oriental and Egyptian gods spread in theWestern Mediterranean via the Phoenicians.

5.5 Symbolism of some other archetypes

The bull can be said to be the most important animal inSardinian and Mediterranean iconography. In the East, itis connected to the ‘storm god’ and to Ishtar, later to the

Greek ‘storm god’ Zeus. In Iberia, the bull’s image appearsfirst in conjunction with the horned warriors of the LBA/EIA stelae, and then becomes a common motif in Iberianart. The animals appearing in Italian and Etruscan im-agery of the EIA are strikingly similar to the Sardinian ani-mal-bronzes95 (fig. 17).

The vessel-bearing female (fig. 2,j–l; 6,l–n; 14,d; 15,f;16a; 17) is a popular figure in the art of the EIA Hallstattregions and Italy96. Looking to the East, Negbi includedsome LBA figurines of this type from the Near East in herSyro-Egyptian group97. The Sardinian statuettes might beamong the oldest preserved representations of a femaledivinity associated with ritual drinking in Western Eu-rope. The offerentes carry mostly round objects, vessels oranimal hides in one hand or goats on their shoulders, andcould represent divinities of agriculture or pastoralism of-fering their gifts.

95 Kossack 1999.96 Huth 2003.97 Negbi 1976, 88 Nr. 1633–1636.

Fig. 15: Iberian bronzetti from Jaen (a–c, e, g–l), unknown provenience (d); La Quéjola (f). Not to scale


The iconography of a mediterraneizzante ithyphallic,possibly hermaphroditic nude holding a dove in one hand(fig. 6,d) has a direct parallel in an Etruscan 6th century BCfigurine from the Fonte Venezia sanctuary, who is holdingan egg in the other hand (fig. 16,c). In Iberia, women hold-ing doves appear in the 6th century (fig. 15,f.g.i), and onenaked and belted girl (fig. 15,i) holds the same dove-and-egg combination as the Etruscan piece. The dove wassacred to the Etruscan Earth Goddess Cel, as is proven byan inscribed bronzetto from the 2nd century BC98. A com-mon archetypical deity could be the reason for the nearlyidentical iconography of figurines from Iberia, Sardiniaand Italy.

6. OriginsThis chapter is again to be seen as a working-hypothesisthat has to be supported by further research: an emergingpicture from the study of the socio-political situation inthe Mediterranean in the LBA and EIA. Metallurgy reacheda remarkably high level in Sardinia in the 14th century BC,when a rupture between Middle Bronze Age (MBA) metal-lurgy and the LBA “bronze boom” is evident99. The use ofCypriot metal-working tools100, as well as the use of Iron inthe LBA101, as sophisticated technologies known in Sardi-nia straight from the LBA, imply that knowledge arrivedfrom the Atlantic and the Eastern Mediterranean at thattime and was integrated quickly in Nuragic society.

98 Colonna 1985, 34 No. 1.17.99 Archaeometallurgy 2005; Webster 1996.100 Lo Schiavo 2005a.101 Lo Schiavo 2005b.

Of the metal forms, Cypriot types dominate tools forworking metal, and these are further developed by Sar-dinians. Other tools, especially axes, as well as mostweapon types, are clearly derived from peninsular, Ibe-rian or Atlantic types, such as pistilliform and carp’stongue swords and spearheads. The only items of in-disputable Sardinian origin are the votive swords andgamma-hilted daggers, both symbolic weapons. Cypriotshapes are used for ritual objects like tripods and for toiletequipment. The most distinguishing Sardinian ritual ob-jects are the bronzetti. Objects of ornament are rare andnearly always imports, except for the dress-pins which re-sisted the introduction of fibulae until the EIA102.

The Sardinian population integrated all profanemetal objects which had proven useful elsewhere intotheir own tool-production during the space of a relativelyshort time. This leads to the question of whether or nota significant number of people, among them many craft-speople, from the contact regions may have stayed on theisland for extended periods, or immigrated for good. Theproduction of large amounts of communicative artefacts(also votive swords and gamma daggers are communi-cative artefacts), underlining identity, emerged indepen-dently on the island.

Major changes took place in the whole Mediterraneanaround 1200 BC, most notably crisis and decline of the ar-chaic states of the East103. Facing the violent destructionof their homesteads104, many people fled to regions that

102 Lo Schiavo 1998; 2005a.103 Snodgrass 2000; Hattler 2008.104 Jung 2009.

Fig. 16: Etruscan bronzetti from unknown provenance (a, e); Fiesole (b); Fonte Veneziana (c) and Siena (g). Not to scaleFig. 16: Etruscan bronzetti from unknown provenance (a, e); Fiesole (b); Fonte Veneziana (c) and Siena (g). Not to scale


seemed safer at this time, like Cyprus105, or the West106,where Sardinia was known to sailors due to sea routes andtrade. Thus, a situation of permanent culture contact wascreated on the island. Innovation and improvisation aremore intense in zones of culture contact and “hybrid cul-tures” resulting from the latter, be it due to migration, col-onisation or “entanglement”, can bring about the devel-opment of entirely new social and material creations107.

The bronzetti are a part of this phenomenon, beingclearly of Sardinian origin, but incorporating archetypesand symbolism which are a part of a general Mediterra-nean religious ideology. Cypriot figurines have been as-sumed to have inspired Sardinians108. But they are not sty-listically similar and figurine-output is much higher inSardinia. New casting techniques and the idea of using

105 Knapp 2008.106 Bisi 1986.107 Knapp 2008, 58.108 Bisi 1986.

bronze for sculpture were essential for the onset of bron-zetti fabrication. But both the iconography, and the ideasbehind it, already existed, and were ready to be expressedusing the new techniques. While technical innovationswere integrated into the island culture and further devel-oped, political elements like state foundation were ref-used. External political influences seem to have been com-pletely eschewed until the Carthaginian conquering ofSouthern Sardinia after the battle of Alalia.

Nuragic culture, although changing considerably ontechnological and social complexity levels during the LBA,was eager to maintain its distinctive identity and to displaythis through its monuments and communicative bronze ar-tefacts, reflecting tradition from both the MBA and the LBA.Massive figurine production is a distinguishing elementwhich had its foundation in newly formed Sardinian socio-political and religious thinking. A self-conscious, but seem-ingly inexclusive attitude was taken by Nuragic society, andall those who became part of it throughout the LBA. Immi-gration could have been a most important factor for the fastdevelopment of Nuragic metalworking in the LBA.

Fig. 17: Kettle from Bisenzio-Olmo Bello, with scenes of bronze figurines. Not to scale


7. ConclusionsThe chronological evidence from Sardinia, supportedfirmly by the find of Uta-Abini bronzetti fragments in LBAstrata at Funtana Coperta-Ballao109 and the datable ob-jects depicted, suggest a LBA date or the 12th/11th centuryBC for the start of production. Uta-Abini figurines wereproduced by a rather moderate number of workshops.They are still found in EIA contexts, and were displayedfor long periods at the sanctuaries. Only from the 9th cen-tury BC onwards did they arrive on the Italian peninsula,which means that they were not frequently used – prob-ably never in early times – for gift-exchange.

By the 9th century BC, their cult was slowly changedand replaced, with the mediterraneizzante figurines tak-ing their place at the sanctuaries. A transition phase in the9th century BC is probable. From the end of the 9th cen-tury onwards, production of bronzetti with Uta-Abini at-tributes is no longer seen. By the end of the 6th century BCthe cult changed again and traditional Sardinian bronzetticeased to be cast.

The earlier Uta-Abini style has a repetitive ico-nography, which fits into the overall imagery of the LBAMediterranean of horned warriors and (vessel bearing) fe-males, but it is distinguished by high quality, quantity andmany unique characters of Sardinian sculpture. Bulls, ca-prines and deer form a trias of horned land animals thatseem, together with birds, to be the most important zoo-morphic symbols of prehistoric Sardinia. The figurinesrepresent neither individuals nor social classes, but divineentities which, apart from their transcendental symbol-ism, may be idealizations of social roles. Uta-Abini bron-zetti communicate religious information, reaffirm localidentity by typical Sardinian design and motifs, as well assignify massive investment in raw material and workforce.

The specific image of an armed, mostly horned, an-thropomorphic entity associated with the bull, constitutesan archetype of a divine being, whose basic connotationswere well known from Iberia to the Levantine coast andmaybe as far as Scandinavia. Apart from the horned head-gear, his panoply is different in the West and East. This isa matter of local preference and does not devaluate thepresence of warrior attributes as a common aspect.

The clearly “orientalizing” EIA mediterraneizzante fi-gurines again do not represent individuals, but religiousand mythical concepts. If idealizing actual social taskswas an issue in the Uta-Abini iconography, it can hardly berecognized in this group. Reduction of information to the

109 Manunza 2008.

bare essentials, without displaying regional or commu-nity identity through symbolic features (gamma-hilteddagger, dress, haircut), is evident. Mediterraneizzantebronzetti communicate religious information, reaffirmparticipation in a Mediterranean community by typicaldesign and motifs, while adapting iconography and aes-thetics that spread along the Phoenician trade routes,as well as signifying a stop of excessive consumption ofmetal on cult figurines.

As of the 13th century BC more and more immigrantswith different cultural backgrounds mixed with the Nu-ragic people of Sardinia, and technological innovationswould have been a logical result. Craftspeople from theWestern and Eastern Mediterranean, and probably Iberiaand the Atlantic region, could develop their achievementsin the absence of centralized control. Non-hierarchical in-teraction served as an excellent basis for the exchangeof ideas and team-working. This atmosphere might havebeen attractive for many people and a factor which madethem stay in Sardinia, perhaps with those from the Easttrying to escape working conditions in a tribute-demand-ing state. Social relations had to be negotiated within theisland, but remained stable, which would have been thebasis for a flourishing society.

LBA/EIA inhabitants of Sardinia (regardless their cul-tural background) deliberately distinguished themselvesby means of their material culture from the hierarchic so-cieties they were in contact with or came from, and theirideas of social organisation were seemingly incompatiblewith the idea of the state. Wealth was accumulated anddisplayed at the sanctuaries which were meeting points oflocal communities.

Finally, it can be stated that Sardinian bronzetti– begin to be produced in the LBA and undergo ico-

nographical and quantitative changes in the “orientaliz-ing” EIA from the 9th century;

– do not represent individuals or refer to socialclasses, but to divine entities;

– do not refer to individuals or private property intheir original context;

– are exposed at public spaces where they constitutea great portion of communities material wealth;

– are Sardinia’s way to participate in the rising ico-nographical world of the LBA/EIA Mediterranean: thehorned warrior with connections to water, fertility and/orthe subterranean world is omnipresent, often in femalecompany.


AcknowledgementsI would like to thank everybody at the Soprintendenza dibeni archeologici della Sardegna Cagliari and the Soprin-tendenza di beni archeologici di Sassari e Nuoro for theircollaboration, as well as Christoph Huth, Joyce Mattu,Marco Rendeli and Laura Soro. Special thanks to IanLynch for the English correction of this paper.

ReferencesAlba 2005: E. Alba, La Donna Nuragica. Studio della Bronzistica Figu-

rata (Sassari 2005).Archaeometallurgy 2005: F. Lo Schiavo/A. Giumlia-Mair/U. Sanna/

R. Valera (eds), Archaeometallurgy in Sardinia from the origin tothe Early Iron Age (Montagnac 2005).

Atzeni et al. 2005: C. Atzeni/L. Massima/U. Sanna, I Bronze figurines(bronzetti). Archaeometallurgy 2005, 156–157.

Babbi 2008: A. Babbi, La piccola plastica fittile antropomorfedell’Italia antica dal bronzo finale all’orientalizzante (Pisa2008).

Barreca 1986: F. Barreca, Phoenicians in Sardinia: The Bronze Figu-rines. In: M. Balmuth (ed.), Studies in Sardinian Archaeology,II (Oxford 1986) 131–143.

Bernardini 1989: P. Bernardini, Osservazioni sulla bronzistica figu-rata sarda. Nuovo Bull. Arch. Sardo II – 1985 (Sassari 1989)119–166.

– 2002: –, I bronzi sardi di Cavalupo di Vulci e i rapporti tra laSardegna e l’area tirrenica nei secoli IX–VI a.C. Una rilettura. In:Sardegna e Etruria 2002, 421–432.

– 2010a: –, Le Torri, i Metalli, il Mare: Storie antiche di un’isolamediterranea (Sassari 2010).

– 2010b: –, Necropoli della prima Età del Ferro in Sardegna. Unariflessione su alcune secoli perduti o, meglio, perduti di vista.In: A. Mastino/P. G. Spanu/A. Usai/R. Zucca (eds), TharrosFelix 4 (Pisa 2010) 351–386.

Bisi 1986: A. M. Bisi, Bronzi vicino-orientali in Sardegna: Import-azioni ed Influssi. In: M. Balmuth (ed.), Studies in SardinianArchaeology, II. (Oxford 1986) 225–245.

Blake 1997: E. Blake, Strategic Symbolism: Miniature Nuraghi of Sar-dinia. Journal of Mediterranean Arch. 10.2, 1997, 151–164.

– 1998: –, Sardinia’s nraghi: four millenia of becoming. WorldArch. 30,1, 1998, 59–71.

Borchhardt 1972: J. Borchhardt, Homerische Helme (Mainz 1972).Brandherm 2007: D. Brandherm, Las espadas del Bronce Final en la

península Ibérica y Baleares (Stuttgart 2007).Burgess 2001: C. Burgess, Problems in the Bronze Age Archaeology

of Sardinia: seeing the nuragic wood for the trees. In: W. H.Metz/J. J. Butler (eds), Patina: essays presented to Jay JordanButler on occasion of his 80th birthday (Groningen 2001)169–194.

Burgess/Veåligaj 2007: C. Burgess/N. Veåligaj, Ritual architecture,ashlar Masonry and Water in the Late Bronze Age of Sardinia:A View from Monte Sant’ Antonio (Siligo-SS). In: C. Burgess/P. Topping/F. Lynch (eds), Beyond Stonehenge: Essays onthe Bronze Age in honour of Colin Burgess (Oxford 2007)215–224.

Celestino 2001: S. Celestino Pérez, Estelas de guerrero y EstelasDiademadas. La precolonización y formación del mundo Tar-tésico (Barcelona 2001).

Cesari/Leandri 2010: J. Cesari/F. Leandri, Le mégalithisme de laCorse: aspects et problèmes. In: X. Delestre/H. Marchesi (eds),Archéologie des rivages méditerranéens: 50 ans de recherche:actes du colloque d’Arles (Bouches-du-Rhône) 28–29–30 oct-obre 2009 (Paris 2010) 391–405.

Colonna 1985: G. Colonna (ed.), Santuari d’Etruria (Milano 1985).Contu 1998: E. Contu, Datazione e significato della scultura in pietra

e dei bronzetti figurati della Sardegna nuragica. In: M. S. Bal-muth/R. H. Tykot (eds), Sardinian and Aegean Chronology.Towards the Resolution of Relative and Absolute Dating in theMediterranean (Oxford 1998) 203–216.

Depalmas 2005: A. Depalmas, Le navicelle di bronzo della Sardegnanuragica (Cagliari 2005).

Díaz-Guardamino 2009: M. Diáz-Guardamino Uribe, Las Estelas dec-oradas en la Prehistoria de la Península Ibérica (Madrid 2009).

Etruria e Sardegna 2002: O. Paoletti/L. P. Perna, Etruria e Sardegnacentro-settentrionale tra l’Età del Bronzo Finale e l’Arcaismo(Pisa, Roma 2002)

Fadda 1991: M. A. Fadda, Nurdole. Un tempio nuragico in Barbagia.Punto d’incontro nel Mediterraneo. Rivista di stud. Fenici XIX,1991, 107–129.

– 2006a: –, Il Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Nuoro. Guide eitinerari 17 (Sassari 2006).

– 2006b: –, Oliena (Nuoro). Il complesso nuragico Sa Sedda ’ESos Carros di Oliena. Le nuove scoperte. Riflessioni sull’archi-tettura religiosa del periodo nuragico. Sardinia, Corsica et Bale-ares Ant. An Internat. Journal Arch. IV, 2006, 77–88.

Fadda/Posi 2006: M. A. Fadda/F. Posi, Il Villaggio Santuario diRomanzesu. Guide e Itinerari 39 (Sassari 2006).

Foddai 2008: L. Foddai, Sculture Zoomorfe: Studi sulla bronzisticafigurata nuragica (Milano 2008).

García Sanjuán et al.: L. García Sanjuán/D. W. Wheatley/P. FábregaÁlvarez/M. J. Hernández Arredo/Á. Polvorinos del Río, Las este-las de guerrero de Almadén de la Plata (Sevilla). Morfología,technologiá y contexto. Trabajos de Prehist. 63,2, Julio–Di-ciembre 2006, 135–152.

Green 2003: A. R. W. Green, The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East(Indiana 2003).

Grummond/Simon 2006: N. T. de Grummond/E. Simon (eds), TheReligion of the Etruscans (Austin 2006).

Harrison 2004: R. J. Harrison, Symbols and Warriors: Images of theEuropean Bronze Age (Bristol 2004).

Hattler 2008: C. Hattler, Zeit der Helden: die “dunklen Jahrhunderte”Griechenlands 1200–700 v. Chr. (Karlsruhe 2008).

Hulin 1989: L. C. Hulin, The identification of Cypriot cult figurinesthrough cross-cultural comparison: Some problems. In: E. Pel-tenburg (ed.), Early society in Cyprus (Edinburgh 1989) 127–139.

Huth 2003: C. Huth, Menschenbilder und Menschenbild. Anthropo-morphe Bildwerke der frühen Eisenzeit (Berlin 2003).

Jung 2009: R. Jung, “Sie vernichteten sie, als ob sie niemals existierthätten” – Was blieb von den Zerstörungen der Seevölker? In:H. Meller (ed.), Schlachtfeldarchäologie/Battlefield Archaeol-ogy. 1. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 09. bis 11. Oktober2008 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen Landesmus. Vorgesch. Halle, 2(Halle [Saale] 2009) 32–48.

Knapp 2008: B. Knapp, Protohistoric Cyprus: identitity, insularityand connectivity (Oxford 2008).


Koch 1998: M. Koch (ed.), Die Iberer (Paris 1998).Kossack 1999: G. Kossack, Religiöses Denken in dinglicher und bild-

licher Überlieferung Alteuropas aus der Spätbronze- und frühenEisenzeit (9.–6. Jh. v. Chr. Geb.) (München 1999).

Kristiansen/Larsson 2005: K. Kristiansen/T. B. Larsson, The Rise ofBronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Trans-formations (Cambridge 2005).

Lilliu 1966: G. Lilliu, Sculture della Sardegna Nuragica (Verona 1966)– 1982: –, La civiltà nuragica (Sassari 1982).Lo Schiavo 1986: F. Lo Schiavo, Il Museo Sanna in Sassari (Milano

1986).– 1990a: –, La Sardaigne et ses Relations avec le Bronze Final

Atlantique. In: C. Chevillot/A. Coffyn (eds), L’Age du BronzeAtlantique (Beynac-et-Cazenac 1990) 213–224.

– 1990b: –, Per un Studio sulle Offerte nei Santuari della Sar-degna Nuragica. Scienze dell’Ant., Storia-Arch.-Antrop. 3–4,1989–1990, 535–549.

– 1998: –, Zur Herstellung und Distribution bronzezeitlicherMetallgegenstände im nuraghischen Sardinien. In: B. Hänsel(ed.), Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas/Man andEnvironment in Bronze Age Europe (Kiel 1998) 193–216.

– 2002: –, Osservazioni sul Problema dei Rapporti fra Sardignaed Etruria in Età Nuragica – II. In: Etruria e Sardegna 2002,51–71.

– 2003: –, Sardinia between East and West: Interconnections inthe Mediterranean. In: N. C. Stampolidis (ed.), Sea Routes …From Sidon to Huelva: Interconnections in the Mediterranean16th–6th c. BC (Athens 2003).

– 2005a: –, Bronze Weapons, Tools, Figurines from Nuragic Sardi-nia. Archaeometallurgy 2005, 343–358.

– 2005b: –, The first Iron in Sardinia. Archaeometallurgy 2005,401–406.

– 2006: –, Ancora sulle navicelle nuragiche. In: B. Adembri (ed.),AEIMNHSTOS Miscellanea di Studi per Mauro Cristofani. I(Firenze 2006) 192–209.

– 2007: –, Votive Swords in Gallura: An Example of NuragicWeapon Worship. In: C. Burgess/P. Topping/F. Lynch (eds),Beyond Stonehenge: essays on the Bronze Age in honour ofColin Burgess (Oxford 2007) 225–236.

Lo Schiavo/Vagnetti 1989: F. Lo Schiavo/L. Vagnetti, Late Bronze Agelong distance trade in the Mediterranean: the role of theCypriots. In: E. Peltenburg (ed.), Early Society in Cyprus (Edin-burgh 1989) 217–243.

Lo Schiavo et al. 2009: F. Lo Schiavo/J. D. Muhly/R. Maddin/A. Gium-lia-Mair (eds), Oxhide ingots: Archaeometallurgy and archaeol-ogy. Biblioteca di Antichità Cipriote 8 (Roma 2009).

Manunza 2008: M. R. Manunza (ed.), Funtana Coberta: Tempionuragico a Ballao nel Gerrei (Cagliari 2008).

Micó 2005: R. Micó Pérez, Towards a definition of politico-ideologicalpractices in the prehistory of Minorca (the Balearic islands): Thewooden carvings from Mussol Cave. Journal of Social Arch. 5,2005, 276–299.

Mederos 1999: A. Mederos Martín, Ex occidente lux. El commercioMicénico en el Mediterráneo Central y Occidental (1625–1100AC). Complutum 10, 1999, 229–266.

Moravetti 2003: A. Moravetti, Il Santuario Nuragico di Santa Cristina.Guide e Itinerari 32 (Sassari 2003).

Murillo et al. 2005: J. F. Murillo Redondo/J. A. Morena López/D. RuizLara, Nuevas estelas de guerrero procedentes de las provinciasde Córdoba y de Ciudad Real. Romula 4, 2005, 7–46.

Negbi 1976: O. Negbi, Canaanite Gods in Metal. An archaeologicalstudy of ancient Syro-Palestine figurines (Tel Aviv 1976).

Orthmann 1975: W. Orthmann (ed.), Der Alte Orient. Propyläen derKunstgeschichte 14 (Berlin 1975).

Rendeli 2010: M. Rendeli, Monte ’e Prama: 4875 punti interrogativi.Boll. Arch. Online I 2010/Volume speciale D/D/7, www.archeo-logia.beniculturali.it/pages/pubblicazioni.html, 58–72.

Richardson 1970: E. Richardson, The Etruscans. Their Art and Civili-zation (Chicago, London 1970).

Riva/Vella 2006: C. Riva/N. Vella (eds), Debating Orientalization.Multidisciplinary Approaches to change in the Ancient Mediter-ranean. Monogr. Mediterranean Arch. 9 (Wiltshire 2006).

Rovina 2001: D. Rovina (ed.), Il Santuario Nuragico di Serra Nedda aSorso (Sorso 2001).

Säflund 1993: G. Säflund, Etruscan imagery. Symbol and meaning(Jonsered 1993).

Sandars 1978: N. K. Sandars, The Sea Peoples. Warriors of theAncient Mediterranean 1250–1150 BC (London 1978).

Seeden 1980: H. Seeden, The Standing Armed Figurines in the Lev-ant. PBF I,1 (München 1980).

Snodgrass 2000: A. M. Snodgrass, The Dark Age of Greece. AnArchaeological survey of the eleventh to the eighth centuries BC(Edinburgh 2000).

Spano 1857: G. Spano, Antico Larario Sardo di Uta. Bull. Arch.Sardo III, 1857. Ristampa a cura di A. Mastino/P. Ruggeri (Nùoro1999) 186–189.

Stampolidis 2003: N. C. Stampolidis (ed.), Sea Routes … From Sidonto Huelva. Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th–6thc. BC (Athens 2003).

Taramelli 1918: A. Taramelli, Il Tempio nuragico di s. Anastasia inSardara (Prov. di Cagliari). Mon. Ant. Lincei, Vol. XXV, 1918,6–130.

Tronchetti 1986: C. Tronchetti, Nuragic Statuary from Monte Prama.In: M. Balmuth (ed.), Studies in Sardinian Archaeology, II, 1986,41–60.

Tronchetti/Van Dommelen 2005: C. Tronchetti/P. Van Dommelen,Entangled Objects and Hybrid Practices: Colonial Contacts andElite Connections at Monte Prama, Sardinia. Journal Mediterra-nean Arch. 18.2, 2005, 183–208.

Ugas 2005: G. Ugas, L’Alba dei Nuraghi (Cagliari 2005).Ugas/Lucia 1987: G. Ugas/G. Lucia, Primi scavi nel sepolcreto

nuragico di Antas. In: E. Atzeni/P. Bernardini/G. Tore (eds), LaSardegna nel Mediterraneo tra il secondo e il primo millennioa.C. Atti del 2° convegno Un millennio di relazioni fra la Sar-degna e i paesi del Mediterraneo (Cagliari 1987) 255–278.

Usai/Lo Schiavo 2005: L. Usai/F. Lo Schiavo, Archaeological file 19:Santadi (Cagliari), Pirosu-Su Benatzu. Archaeometallurgy 2005,209–210.

Walls 2005: N. H. Walls (ed.), Cult image and divine representation inthe Ancient Near East (Boston 2005).

Webster 1996: G. S. Webster, A Prehistory of Sardinia 2300–500 BC(Sheffield 1996).


FiguresFig. 1: Map by Michael Kinski and Ralph Araque; Fig. 2,a–m.o–u:Lilliu 1966; Fig. 2,n: photo Laura Soro; Fig. 2,v: By courtesy of theSoprintendenza per i beni archeologici della Sardegna Cagliari; Fig.3,a–c: Lilliu 1966; Fig. 3,d: Manunza 2008, 142 fig. 195; Fig. 4,a–g:Lilliu 1966; Fig. 5,a–c: photos Ralph Araque Gonzalez; Fig. 5,d: MarcoRendeli; Fig. 6,a–h.j–m.o.p.r.s: Lilliu 1966; Fig. 6,i: Ugas/Lucia 1987,276, Tavola V,2; Fig. 6,n: photo Ralph Araque Gonzalez; Fig. 6,q: Bar-reca 1986, fig. 10,3; Fig. 6,t: Alba 2005, Nr. 32; Fig. 6,u: Fadda 2006a,69 fig. 76; Fig. 6,v: Barreca 1986, fig. 10,1; Fig. 6,w: Barreca 1986,fig. 10,5; Fig. 6,x: Barreca 1986, fig. 10,4; Fig. 7,a: By courtesy of theSoprintendenza per i beni archeologici per le province di Sassari eNuoro; Fig. 7,b: Fadda 2006a, 53 fig. 54; Fig. 7,c: By courtesy of theSoprintendenza per i beni archeologici della Sardegna Cagliari;Fig. 7,d: Lilliu 1966; Fig. 7,e: Lo Schiavo 1998, 210 Abb. 17; Fig. 7,f:By courtesy of the Soprintendenza per i beni archeologici per le prov-ince di Sassari e Nuoro; Fig. 8 a: By courtesy of the Soprintendenzaper i beni archeologici della Sardegna Cagliari; Fig. 8,b: By courtesy

of the Soprintendenza per i beni archeologici per le province di Sas-sari e Nuoro; Fig. 8,c: By courtesy of Marco Rendeli; Fig. 8,d: Lilliu1966; Fig. 8,e: Lo Schiavo 2006, 198 n. 6; Fig. 9,a.b: Lilliu 1966;Fig. 9,c: photo Ralph Araque Gonzalez; Fig. 9,d: Lo Schiavo 1986: 82Nr. 107; Fig. 10,a: Archaeometallurgy 2005, 103 fig 1; Fig. 10,b: photoRalph Araque, courtesy of the Soprintendenza per i beni archeologiciper le province di Sassari e Nuoro; Fig. 11,a: Murillo et al. 2005,19 Nr. 103; Fig. 11,b: García Sanjuán et al. 2006, 139, fig. 5; Fig. 11,c:Harrison 2004, 296, C78; Fig. 11,d: Harrison 2004, 243, C38; Fig.12,a.c: photos Ralph Araque Gonzalez; Fig. 12,b: By courtesy ofFranck Leandri; Fig. 13,a: Orthmann 1975, Nr. 333a; Fig. 13,b: Seeden1980, Nr. 1831; Fig. 13,c: Seeden 1980, Plate 138 No. 8, 9; Fig. 13,d:Seeden 1980, Plate 136 No. 1; Fig. 13,e: Seeden 1980, Nr. 1661;Fig. 14,a: Orthmann 1975, Nr. 468a; Fig. 14,b: Orthmann 1975,Nr. 473c; Fig. 14,c: Orthmann 1975, Nr. 468b; Fig. 14,e: Borchhardt1972, Tafel 14,4; Fig. 15,a–l: Koch 1998; Fig. 16,a: Richardson 1970,Plate V,b; Fig. 16,b: Colonna 1985, 169, 9.4.1; Fig. 16,c: Colonna 1985,178, 10. 2. 13; Fig. 16,d: Säflund 1993, 33 fig. 20,a; Fig. 16,e: Grum-mond/Simon 2006, 37, III.11; Fig. 17: Kossack 1999, Abb. 25.

Documents

Sardinian Bronze Figurines