Pantalica in the Sicilian Late Bronze and Iron Ages: Excavations of the Rock-cut Chamber Tombs by Paolo Orsi from 1895 to 1910

By Robert Leighton and Rosa Maria Albanese Procelli

Pantalica is a large limestone promontory in southeast Sicily known chiefly for a series of extensive cemeteries comprising thousands of chamber tombs cut out of the rock, dating mainly between the 13th and 7th centuries BCE. A UNESCO World Heritage site and nature reserve, renowned for archaeological remains in a spectacular natural setting, the site gives its name to the Late Bronze and Iron Age “Pantalica culture”, typical of southern Sicily in the period just before Greek colonization. At the time of Greek colonization in southern Sicily (8th c BCE), however, Pantalica was still one of the main indigenous centers of the region, sometimes likened to a chiefdom, dominating a sizeable territory and subsidiary settlements. The main excavations were undertaken by Paolo Orsi between 1895 and 1910 and mainly comprise information and relatively abundant finds of pottery and bronze artefacts from about 250 chamber tombs. The material is housed in the Archaeological Museum of Syracuse and is crucial for an understanding of local cultural traditions, burial practices and international contacts between Sicily and other areas (Italy, the eastern Mediterranean) in this period. The finds are only known from a small selection published by Orsi in two articles of 1895 and 1912. More than half were never published. The main aim of this volume is to provide a comprehensive study and illustrated catalogue of all the finds from the Pantalica tombs, along with new information from Orsi’s original excavation notebooks about their original context. In addition, the authors present the results of original research on different aspects of the evidence, including topography, funerary architecture (chamber tombs), funerary practices, ceramics, metals and other finds, and chronology. This volume will be an indispensable source of hitherto unpublished information of particular interest to scholars of Mediterranean later prehistory and connections between Greek colonists and native populations in the early historical period. Some new information is also provided about remains of the classical, Hellenistic, late antique and Medieval periods.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Release date: Oct 14, 2019
• ISBN: 9781789253030

Rosa Maria Albanese Procelli

Rosa Maria Albanese Procelli (Dip. di Scienze Umanistiche, University of Catania) is the author of numerous works on the later prehistoric and early classical periods in Sicily, including studies of metal artefacts from burials and hoards

Book preview

Preface

The origins of this volume go back to the earliest research interests of both contributors, who had studied independently some of the finds from Pantalica long before they first met. In 2004, however, the opportunity arose to collaborate on a full re-publication of Paolo Orsi’s excavations of the tombs with the authorisation of the Museo Archeologico Regionale Paolo Orsi of Syracuse, where the material is located. A separation of tasks was agreed with one of us (RL) responsible for illustrating and studying the pottery and the other (RMAP) for the metal artefacts. Most of the cataloguing and recording was undertaken during various visits to the Museum between 2006 and 2010, concluding in 2017 after a gap of several years. The authors are primarily indebted, therefore, to three successive Directors of the Syracuse Museum over this period: Concetta Ciurcina, Beatrice Basile and Maria Musumeci, who kindly arranged access to the finds on display and in the storerooms as well as to Orsi’s excavation notebooks. Enrico Procelli and Maria Puglisi assisted Rosa Maria with photography and drawing, while Fulvia Lo Schiavo generously allowed reproduction of her published fibula drawings. All figures, tables and plates were produced and prepared for publication by the editor (RL).

In 2007, I also began to undertake some recording and survey work at Pantalica, with the authorisation of the regional Archaeological Superintendency, headed by Maria Musumeci, to whom I am most grateful. This was aimed primarily at producing a new site map, showing the main locations of the tombs and other prominent features. I was assisted in this enterprise by a small number of individuals, especially Tertia Barnett, who accompanied me on almost every study season or visit to the site.

The purpose of this volume, however, is not to present new fieldwork, but to provide a comprehensive, fully illustrated account of Orsi’s finds and excavations in the cemeteries of Pantalica, undertaken between 1895 and 1910, which still constitute our primary source of information for what has long been regarded as one of the key sites of later Sicilian prehistory. Renowned for his pioneering fieldwork and scholarship, Orsi kept detailed records and produced innumerable publications of very good quality considering the period in which he was working. His two long reports on Pantalica in the Monumenti Antichi dell’Accademia dei Lincei of 1899 and 1912 served scholars well for at least the first half of the 20th century. Nevertheless, a great deal of information contained in his notebooks and many finds were omitted or not illustrated in his publications.

The present volume, therefore, is designed to fill the gaps, expand the database, and to contextualise and reassess the burial evidence from Pantalica in the light of more recent research. I hope that it will help to clarify some long-standing questions surrounding one of the most spectacular and challenging archaeological sites in Sicily.

Robert Leighton

January 2019

1

A short history of research

Robert Leighton

Antiquarians and first visitors

Before outlining the history of archaeological research at Pantalica, which essentially begins with the work of Paolo Orsi (1859-1935), this chapter reviews some of the ideas of earlier writers and visitors. The site aroused considerable interest amongst a wider public for several centuries prior to the establishment of archaeology as an academic discipline in the late 19th century. This was due partly to the location of its striking archaeological remains in a place of considerable natural beauty: an imposing promontory surrounded by a dramatic gorge, with innumerable rock-cut chamber tombs and shelters, and several caves, perforating the limestone slopes and cliffs (Pl. 1). Many more people would undoubtedly have visited the site prior to the easy availability of motorised transport had they not been deterred by the hilly terrain, the rough roads and hostelries away from the more familiar coastal itinerary, which was followed, in a somewhat prescriptive manner, by most foreign tourists to Sicily. While mainly intent on viewing the famous cities and monuments of classical antiquity, a trickle of curious and intrepid visitors is attested from the late 18th century, when Sicily was sometimes included in longer Italian or Mediterranean tours.

Reachable within a day from Syracuse, about 24 km away (Fig. 1.1), Pantalica was long known to scholars before Orsi’s time, even though it lacked any obvious historical or textual references antedating the Middle Ages. One of the earliest literary references to it appears in the Opus Geographicum (Kitab nuzhat al-mushtaq, or Book of Roger) by al-Idrisi, the 12th-century Arab geographer at the court of Roger II. He mentioned what seems to be the Anapo river, rising in the vicinity of Buscemi and meeting the sea near Syracuse, as the Nahr (river) Bentargha or Buntârigah (al-Idrisi 1840, 101-2; 1880, 104; 1999, 331). Since the Anapo skirts the southern flank of Pantalica a few miles downstream from Buscemi, it is generally thought that Bentargha refers to Pantalica.

It has sometimes been assumed that a place called Pentarga or Pentargo in historical documents of the 11th century is Pantalica (e.g. Fallico and Fallico 1978). Most notably, the chronicle of the 11th-century Benedictine, Gaufredo Malaterra, describes Pentarga as a place whose Arabic inhabitants or sympathisers were crushed politically and militarily in 1092 for rebelling against the Normans (Malaterra 1928, 98). In fact, a recent English translation of Malaterra (2005, 197) translates Pentarga as Pantalica. For this reason, Orsi (1910, 69) followed Amari (1868, 180-1) in maintaining that Pantalica was still inhabited at this date. If this is correct, one might surmise that the suppression of a revolt, which was reportedly followed by executions, lead to the abandonment of the place soon afterwards.

However, no other historical or archaeological sources provide clear evidence of any significant occupation at Pantalica in the 11th century. Moreover, alternative locations for Pentarga have also been proposed, notably Sortino, Palagonia and Scordia (Fallico and Fallico 1978; Arcifa, in press). The etymology of the name has also yet to be clarified (Caracausi 1993, 1160). That it derives from an Arabic reference to the prehistoric tombs or holes in the rock, as occasionally asserted on the internet or in tourist literature, is doubtful and probably the result of confusion with a comment by the Dominican friar, Tommaso Fazello, quoted below, who identified Pantalica with the ancient town of Herbessus, a toponym which he thought referred to rock-cuttings.

Fazello visited the site in 1555, when it was deserted, and described it at some length in his voluminous De Rebus Siculis. The main passage (lib. X, cap. 2) is here quoted from the Italian translated edition of 1830:

figure

Fig. 1.1 Map of Sicily showing Pantalica and other Late Bronze Age and Iron Age sites.

Lontan da Ferula cinque miglia si trova Pantalica, città rovinata posta in una rupe, rotta intorno intorno, e tutta piena di caverne e spelonche, accerchiata di fiumi, e fortissima di sito naturale. Il significato e l’interpretazione del nome, e l’istesso luogo manifestano, che questa fusse la città d’Erbesso, la quale da Polibio e da Tito Livio è posta tra Siracusa e Leontini, e Tolomeo nelle sue tavole la mette tra Neeto e Leontino [sic], perchè questa voce Erbesso in greco latinamente vuol dire luogo pieno di spelonche. Questa città era grande e piena di caverne cavate artificiosamente, dove s’abitava, le quali ancor oggi sono maravigliose a vedere. Era disabitata anticamente questa città, siccome ella è ancor oggi, e con questo aveva anche perduto il nome per la mutazione del modo del chiamarla, e oggi essendo spento del tutto il nome antico, si chiama Pantalica, ed avea questo nome insin nel 203, come si legge nella vita di santa Sofia vergine e martire. Onde egli si desidera grandemente di sapere il suo nome antico, non ci essendo alcun vecchio scrittore che ne faccia menzione. Tutta volta io nel 1555 del mese d’agosto lo ritrovai, avendolo riconosciuto per la comparazion del sito e del luogo. Nel suo circuito non si vede altro, che una porta della città, ch’è volta verso Ferula, una fortezza rovinata e una chiesa, che si vede esser fabbricata alla moderna, la quale anch’essa è rovinata, e fuor di queste cose non si vede altro che oliveti, e una gran quantità di caverne cavate dentro a quelle rupi (Fazello 1830, 405-6).

It is surprising that Fazello makes no mention of tombs. Orsi (1899, 39) and Bernabò Brea (1994, 344) accuse him of having mistaken tombs for habitations, but this may be unfair since there are hundreds of rock-cut habitation chambers at Pantalica, many of which are cave-like. It is likely that Fazello was thinking mainly of these larger chambers, rather than tombs, when he wrote about manmade inhabited caverns. The porta della città on the Ferla side of the hill would correspond with a passage or point of access through the Filiporto ditch, also indicated in later sources (Gurciullo 1793, 48; Orsi 1899, 87; La Rosa 2004, 393), although nothing resembling a formal gateway survives today (chapter 2). The fortezza rovinata must be the robusta torre or piccolo castello noted by Gurciullo (1793, 49) and Orsi (1899, 68, 86) in the same area, which is still identifiable today, but heavily overgrown. It is curious, however, that Fazello, a man of the cloth, makes no mention of the rock-cut frescoed oratories of Pantalica (San Micidiario, San Nicolicchio and Grotta del Crocefisso), which might have been forgotten in his time, unless the chiesa rovinata refers to one of these; but his description (Aede sacra recentis structurae prostratam) suggests a different and collapsed, building, possibly the anaktoron. No other such structure is now known.

Apart from these direct observations, Fazello’s account is typical of the period for its concerns with toponymy and a semi-legendary saint, Sofia, supposedly martyred in the reign of Hadrian. She was also venerated as patron saint of nearby Sortino (Agnello 1963, 106-7). In a final passage (not quoted above) he speculates about the identity of the original inhabitants as Laestrygones or the Greeks of Iolaos. The attempt to identify Pantalica with the ancient town of Herbessus exemplifies a perennial interest in the location of ancient sites named in classical texts, several of which are unidentified to this day, including Herbessus (Orsi 1899, 88; Bejor 1989).

Fazello’s account was frequently cited over the next two centuries, more especially in connection with the whereabouts of Herbessus, which Cluverius (1619, 361) wrongly associated with modern Palazzolo Acreide (ancient Akrai). A more consistent interest in Pantalica, sometimes referred to as Pentarica, San Pantarica or Pentalica (Saint-Non 1786, 331; 1829, 462, 465) is more easily traceable from the late 18th century thanks to accounts by foreign visitors and some local scholars, most notably Andrea Gurciullo (1793), a priest of Sortino. Gurciullo’s booklet about Pantalica, few copies of which were printed, provides the most detailed account of the site before Orsi’s time and stands out for its description of monuments and for an admirable topographical plan, which includes numbered archaeological features, including the Filiporto (Fuor Porto) ditch and wall, various caves, the Christian oratories, and views of the surrounding hills (Fig. 1.2).

figure

Fig. 1.2 Prospects and plan of Pantalica and surrounding hills (Gurciullo 1793).

Foreign visitors to Sicily in the 18th and 19th centuries, who were mainly French and British, were often interested in the landscape and natural history of the island, which raised questions about the identity of its original inhabitants (Tuzet 1955). A few with wider antiquarian interests, including Richard Colt Hoare (1817) in 1790, came to see not only Mount Etna but also the man-made curiosities of the Cava d’Ispica, a winding river valley whose steep sides are peppered with rock-cut monuments of different types and periods, from the Bronze Age onwards. It has more in common with Pantalica than with the classical ruins of Agrigento or Syracuse.

Another eminent visitor was the French geologist, Déodat de Dolomieu (1750-1801), whose account of Pantalica in 1781 was incorporated into the richly illustrated Voyage Pittoresque of Richard de Saint-Non (1829, 462-7; Lacroix 1918; Leighton 1989, 190), published in various editions from 1786, which also contains an engraving of the North necropolis (Fig. 1.3). Dolomieu was less interested in toponymic controversies than the visible remains and their physical context, especially the caves in the surrounding gorge, with their stalactites and bats, whose droppings provided material for saltpetre (Saint-Non 1829, 466). He recognised that the site was remarkable chiefly for its huge number of rock-cut tombs, perfectly explicable as burials for normal human beings rather than ancient giants (Laestrygones):

Plusieurs auteurs ont voulu que ces excavations servissent autrefois d’habitations aux Lestrigons, qu’on suppose avoir été les premiers habitants de cette partie de la Sicile; mais lorsqu’on les a examinées avec attention, on se persuade qu’elles ont été des tombeaux.... Ces grottes étaient fermées par une grosse pierre enchâssée dans le rocher; plusieurs le sont encore; les autres ont été ouvertes pas les paysans des environs, dans l’espérance d’y trouver de l’argent. Dans chaque chambre, il y a un petit gradin taillé dans la pierre, avec deux creux qui marquent la place de deux têtes. [Nb: these little steps are documented in some tombs (chapter 3), but not the hollows (creux) corresponding to the location of the skulls]. Quelques unes de ces chambres sont plus grandes que les autres, quelquefois du double; elles devaient renfermer alors quatre têtes ou plus. Le nombre de ces tombeaux, qui garnissent tous les rochers des environs, doit faire supposer une immense population…. Je visitai plusieurs de ces excavations et j’y trouvai encore des ossemens et des têtes; on m’avait assuré qu’elles était d’une dimension gigantesque, mais elles ne me parurent pas au-dessus des proportions ordinaires; d’ailleurs la longueur des chambres dans lesquelles les corps étaient étendus, indique que ces anciens Lestrigons n’étaient pas au-dessus de la taille actuelle des Siciliens (Saint-Non 1829, 463-5).

figure

Fig. 1.3 Vue des Grottes de San Pantarica dans le Val de Noto près du Lieu où étoit autrefois l’antique ville d’Erbessus (Saint-Non 1786, pl. 129).

Visitors in the early 19th century include a landscape painter, Carl Gotthard Grass, who described Pantalica in his Sizilienische Reise (Grass 1815, 340-5). The famous geologist, Charles Lyell, came to Pantalica in 1828, as recorded in one of his letters. His Sicilian tour was primarily concerned with dating volcanic eruptions from stratigraphic observations as part of his wider research on the age of the earth according to geological observations (Rudwick 1969), although he was also curious about a site where a vast population once lived underground (Lyell 1881, 222). It would appear that the geologist and palaeontologist William Buckland (1784-1856) had asked him to look for fossil bones, presumably in support of his theories, expounded in Reliquiae Deluvianae, about the universal flood (Buckland 1823): Made a man dig, by Buckland’s direction, into stalactite, but the instrument was so bad, I was obliged to go away after four feet were dug into, and no signs of a bottom, or bones (Lyell 1881, 222). He comments on little else regarding the Pantalica trip, except the shabbiness of local accommodation, the terrible state of the roads and the snail’s pace of his journey from Syracuse to Pantalica, which took two days.

The British artist and writer, Edward Lear (1812-88) visited Pantalica in the spring of 1842, where he recorded his impressions in sketches (Fig. 1.4) and a letter of 5 June.

All this rock – for the space of 2 or 3 miles is perforated with artificial caves – each large enough to contain 2 or 3 persons – & cut with a raised bed or seat at one side…. There are about 3 or 4 thousand of these caves in the most inaccessible crags – & tradition calls them the houses of Troglodytes: – other antiquarians say they are tombs – & to this opinion I incline – though why they should have buried their dead in such places passes all belief.... during the persecutions of the 3rd and 4th. centuries by the Roman Emperors, – these caves were used as refuges by the early Christians – for many remains of crosses & other representations of that time character are traceable on the walls of some of these strange places (Noakes 1998, 57-8).

figure

Fig. 1.4 EdwardLear (1812-1888). Pantalica. Yale Collection for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, Record 3750124.

He was also amused by the idea of troglodytes, who appear in later sketches (1847) of the Cava d’Ispica, also noted for its large rock-cut chambers (Proby 1938).

Félix Bourquelot (1815-68) visited Pantalica from Sortino in September 1843. He had already seen grottes sépulcrales, a type of monument that was widespread in southeast Sicily but which …a été peu étudiée, malgré l’intérêt réel qu’elle présente (Bourquelot 1848, 191). Pantalica’s tombs reminded him of a giant honeycomb. Like Dolomieu, he noted the production of saltpetre in the Grotta della Bottiglieria ou de la Merveille, the stalactites of another cave, the Grotte Neuve (probably another name for the Grotta Trovata) and the inaccessibility of most tombs (Bourquelot 1848, 194). He also observed the painted frescoes of the rock-cut oratories (Grotta del Crocifisso, San Micidiario), and discussed the use of some Sicilian caves, such as those of the Cava d’Ispica. as habitations, and others as tombs.

George Dennis (Dennis of Etruria, 1814-98) made four trips to Sicily between 1847 and 1863, and produced the guide to the island for John Murray, in which Pantalica has a full entry (Dennis 1864). Recognising the primarily funerary nature of the remains, he proposed that the residential quarter was on the height at the junction of two deep and converging ravines, but he was wrong to regard all the rock-cut chambers as tombs and discount the idea of habitation chambers (Dennis 1864, 366). His account also contains some puzzling unconfirmed claims: that certain tombs contained arched niches for cinerary urns and that the Grotta della Meraviglia was also used for burial.

The Murray guide served a growing number of visitors in the later 19th century and anticipates the early 20th-century guidebooks or books about Sicily, in which the unspoilt beauty of Pantalica, picturesque in the extreme (Dennis 1864, 366), as well as its archaeological remains were deemed worth a visit despite difficulties of access. By this time, published descriptions and accounts often show a good knowledge of Orsi’s work. Between 1923 and 1956 it was also possible to make use of the local Syracuse-Vizzini railway, subsequently dismantled, in order to reach the site. This was the means of transport adopted by King Vittorio Emanuele III when he visited Pantalica in 1933, before continuing his tour on the back of a mule.

The campaigns of Paolo Orsi (1895-1910)

With the exception of padre Gurciullo, the descriptions of visitors to Pantalica were often effusive but lacking in scientific value and, inevitably, based on very superficial knowledge. The first official excavation of a tomb evidently occurred under the supervision of the honorary inspector of Antiquities at Syracuse, one E. Lo Curzio, but is poorly recorded (Fiorelli 1879). Orsi’s predecessor at the Syracuse Museum, Francesco Cavallari (1876, 283-4), had also been to Pantalica, while Orsi’s first impressions are recorded in a letter of 1889 (La Rosa 2004, 390). At the time of his first campaign in 1895, therefore, Pantalica was a known site with a certain mystique, but had never been the subject of serious or systematic study. As the first person to evaluate it from an archaeological standpoint, Orsi was well aware of the need for fieldwork, but also of the challenges that this would present, due to various factors: the enormous numbers of rock-cut monuments, which were mainly, but not all, tombs; their re-use in subsequent periods; the long history of looting, which was progressively diminishing the prospect of finding undisturbed tombs; and the many uncertainties about dating and the whereabouts of the residential zone. Nevertheless, as Director of Antiquities and the Syracuse Museum, which he was keen to enlarge and improve, and as an unusually tenacious field worker with a strong sense of mission, Orsi was not easily deterred, and Pantalica was high on his list of priorities: …un lavoro completo su Pantalica manca affatto; lavoro che naturalmente dovrebbe essere preceduto da una o più campagne di scavi regolari, non mai eseguiti in quella località, dove invece sono tutt’altro che rare le esplorazioni clandestine, che si compiono senza profitto della scienza (Orsi 1889, 169).

figure

Fig. 1.5 Paolo Orsi (1859-1935), photograph date unknown (Leighton 1986, pl. VIIIa).

Orsi realised that the best chance of finding undisturbed tombs was to look for them in areas which had been covered or partially hidden by landslips, as was already known to the contadini speculatori of the area from whom the Syracuse Museum had obtained a number of objects in the years just prior to his campaigns (Orsi 1889, 173). This material had already allowed him to establish that the site, although inhabited well into later times, dated at least from the later Bronze and early Iron Ages: … per lo meno sincrona al più arcaico periodo di Villanova, coincidente o di poco posteriore al periodo di Micene, certo quindi anteriore alla prima colonizzazione ellenica delle coste della Sicilia (Orsi 1889, 180). In his temporal division of Sicilian prehistory, the older tombs were allocated to his secondo periodo siculo (roughly Middle-Late Bronze Age in modern terms) and the later tombs to a terzo periodo, or Iron Age in contemporary terminology and coincident with the first arrival of Greek settlers in eastern Sicily. He estimated that the tombs ranged from about the 15th to the late 8th or early 7th century BC (chapter 7).

The first excavation campaign took place in June 1895 and concentrated on the North, Northwest, Cavetta and Filiporto zones, as well as the so-called anaktoron (or princely palace) and was followed by a shorter campaign in June 1897. The logistics of fieldwork at Pantalica were not much easier than in earlier times as the roads were still poor and mules the main means of transport. Distance from any town dictated sleeping on site and making use of one of the larger rock-cut chambers for accommodation. A long third campaign, from 28 November 1900 until 12 January 1901, when numerous tombs were excavated in the South cemetery, differed from the others in that the work was entrusted to his best workmen, while Orsi himself was in Naples. The published information for these excavations is somewhat reduced in detail and extent, having been extrapolated from un giornale con scrittura ideografica (gli operai erano tutti analfabeti) (Orsi 1912, 301). Orsi revisited Pantalica in October 1903 to check on the work done in his absence. One short final campaign in March 1910, at which he was not present, was also undertaken on his behalf by a few workmen, mainly in the North necropolis.

Orsi is the great pioneer of archaeological investigation in Sicily, especially of the prehistoric periods, and his achievements are widely recognised (e.g. AA.VV. 1991; La Rosa 1985). With the exception of work carried out in his absence, the documentation for Pantalica is very good by the standards of the day and has more in common with modern Archaeology than with the antiquarian speculations and lack of method that were still characteristic of the mid-19th century. His records generally contain a short description of each tomb, sometimes with an accompanying sketch, giving measurements; the approximate position and number of skeletons; an account or list of the main artefacts, sometimes noting their position with respect to the human remains. The main shortcomings, by comparison with a modern excavation, apart from the generally less rigorous and consistent approach, are the absence of osteological study and recovery, and the tendency to ignore broken items and small potsherds. For the most part, it seems that the bones, which were often in good condition, were left in the tombs where they were found, although a few specimen crania were kept (Sergi 1899-1900). This was normal practice for the period, although Orsi was interested in the age of the deceased, about which he sometimes ventured an opinion, distinguishing children from adults, based on his own observations or impressions (chapter 4).

A more critical evaluation is perhaps warranted in the case of the non-funerary contexts, most notably the anaktoron, where the excavation process showed limited awareness of stratigraphy and the majority of the finds seem to have been discarded without any formal study. This is especially unfortunate since the building, according to Orsi (1899, 75-85), had an unusually complicated history: originating in the same period as the older tombs and then being re-used, after a gap of nearly two millennia, in the Byzantine period. On a more positive note, Orsi and his talented draughtsman, R. Carta, deserve credit for producing a very good measured plan of this structure (Orsi 1899, tav. VI; Fig. 2.9). From a modern perspective, however, while the excavations of the tombs remain perfectly comprehensible and retain considerable value as data for contemporary scholarship, the same cannot really be said of the anaktoron. This is one reason why, despite later reinvestigations by L. Bernabò Brea (1990) and, most recently, by P. Militello (2017), the date and function of the building remain controversial (chapter 2).

Given the need to salvage as much as possible from the tombs, which were most vulnerable to spoliation, it is not surprising that little time remained to Orsi, who was also engaged with the exploration of many other sites during these years, to do much more than describe the topography and other visible monuments of Pantalica. The rock-cut ditch and flanking wall, which traverse the narrow point of access to the promontory at Filiporto, was never the subject of sustained investigation. Prior to very recent research by F. Buscemi, it lacked a proper plan and its date has also been contested, although some authors, including the present, agree with Orsi (1899, 87) that it most likely dates to the 4th century BC (chapter 2). The rock-cut habitation chambers, which are very numerous and of variable form, were only noted in passing and rather hastily labelled as late antique or cameroni bizantini, although Orsi (1898, 20) did provide a measured plan of an unusually elaborate example. A much earlier date of origin has been proposed recently for some of these structures (Leighton 2011; in press). Nevertheless, Pantalica clearly stimulated Orsi’s interest in Sicilian Byzantine archaeology, to which he made important contributions (Messina 1972-3, 231). More time was dedicated to the three Christian oratories (San Nicolicchio, the Grotta del Crocefisso and, more especially, San Micidiario), which were the subject of an important article (Orsi 1898), although the dating of these has also been revised in recent years (Arcidiacono, pers. comm.). Inevitably, the site was still vulnerable to looting, as indicated by the dispersion of a rich gold hoard of Byzantine date, reportedly found near the anaktoron, which he tried hard to recover (Orsi 1910, 64-70; Fallico 1975; La Rosa 2004, 389).

The two main reports on Pantalica in the Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei (Orsi 1899; 1912) are most useful for the systematic presentation of the findings, especially those from the tombs, which were described in sequential order with a selection of drawings and photographs. Orsi’s work at Pantalica is also characterised by unusual breadth of vision and consideration of a wide variety of questions, many of which anticipate those of modern archaeology. These include discussions of the topographical context and associations of the main monument types, the nature of funerary rituals with respect to belief systems and social organization, the technology of artefact production, trade and cultural contacts with nearby or more distant groups. His interpretations were usually the result of careful evaluation and argument, advanced with great clarity. As a result, his work has been regarded as authoritative not only by contemporaries but by many successors. Thanks to Orsi, Pantalica was no longer just a place for speculative theories and fantasies, but a key site for the interpretation of later Sicilian prehistory, more especially for the 500 years or so prior to Greek colonisation.

More recent work

No further work of significance is recorded at Pantalica for many years following Orsi’s campaigns. In 1954, the road was built linking Filiporto with Cavetta, intended to facilitate tourism and access, but the project was controversial due to the manner of its execution and the scant respect for the affected archaeological remains (Bernabò Brea 1990, 68; 1994, 348). The 1950s saw a renewed interest in Pantalica, however, on the part of a new generation of archaeologists, who were making rapid advances in Italian prehistoric studies, especially in the dating of key sites and assemblages.

L. Bernabò Brea (1957) refined Orsi’s chronology and promoted a new narrative for the Late Bronze Age in Sicily, which envisaged a break in the peaceful relations and commercial exchanges with the Mycenaean world of the preceding Thapsos period. The emergence of Pantalica was associated with the onset of a kind of Dark Age, involving a general shift of settlement away from the coast in favour of better defended inland locations, a reconstruction that was obviously influenced by contemporary views of developments in the Aegean after the fall of the Mycenaean palaces and also by ancient literary references to invasions of Italic peoples (Sikels, Ausonians and Morgetians) into Sicily before Greek colonisation. A number of other important sites excavated by Orsi, such as Caltagirone, Dessueri and Cassibile, were also regarded as emblematic of a newly defined Pantalica culture, divided chronologically into four phases: Pantalica I, from circa 1250 to 1000 BC; Pantalica II, from about 1000 to 850 BC; Pantalica III, from about 850 to 730 BC; and Pantalica IV, from about 730 to 650 BC, contemporary with the first phase of Greek colonisation, albeit more closely identified with the site of Finocchito than Pantalica (Bernabò Brea 1953-4; 1957, 49-69). While other chronological schemes were also put forward (e.g. Peroni 1956), this subdivision has been the most influential and widely followed (chapter 7).

Significant changes occurred in the management of the site during the 1960s, when a large portion of it was officially constituted as a state park, leading to the construction of new visitor pathways and observation points (Bernabò Brea 1990, 68; 1994, 348). Adopting Orsi’s idea that the anaktoron was originally a Late Bronze Age princely palace, Bernabò Brea (1990) opened new trenches in and around the building, which led to the discovery of additional structures nearby, although their dating was not always clear. Small-scale excavations in the Northwest cemetery were also conducted by local amateurs in 1965 in response to clandestine activity (Italia 1975-6).

The original name of the site has continued to be the subject of debate. Bernabò Brea (1968, 163) attempted to associate it with a capital of King Hyblon, named by Thucydides (VI.4.1) as an indigenous, or Sikel, ruler who allowed the Greeks to establish the new settlement of Megara Hyblaea in his territory. Although Graham (2001) has cautioned that Hyblon’s seat need not have been called Hybla, an ancient town of this name has sometimes been sought in eastern Sicily. Pantalica was certainly still an important place at the time of Greek colonisation and would have been affected by the arrival of settlers in the coastal region, more especially at Syracuse, to which it is slightly closer than Megara. However, another contender for Hyblon’s stronghold is Villasmundo, an indigenous site on the Marcellino river, just 8 km from Megara, which has conspicuous imports and imitations of Greek pottery in the 8th century BC (Albanese Procelli 2003, 142; Tréziny 2011, 500). According to another hypothesis (Palermo 1992), Pantalica could be the site of a battle, known to Thucydides (7.78.5) as the Akraion Lepas, between the Athenian and Syracusan armies at the time of the Athenian expedition to Sicily (415-413 BC).

A.M. Bietti Sestieri (1979; 1981; 1997) reviewed the chronological relationships and cultural groupings of eastern Sicily in later prehistory and placed Pantalica within an interpretative framework influenced by the New or Processual tradition of Anglo-American archaeology, with reference