DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8944#0100
198
ARTHUR J. EVANS
them filled with earth, and most probably due to a slight subsidence of the
pillar, a subsidence not shared by the upper or roof-slab, the two ends of
which rested ou the side walls of the chamber. It is further interesting to
note that these pillars, the appearance of which through the opening presents
such a striking resemblance to those of some of the Mycenaean shrines, have
the same characteristic outline tapering towards the base, which has been
shown to owe its origin to the necessities of such primitive stone structures.
We have here in their typical aspect the 'Pillars of the House,' similar to
those of the prehistoric chambered tombs and the primitive [monuments of
the Balearic Islands,1 though the shaft in this case is in one piece—a trans-
ition to the Mycenaean form.
It is impossible in this place to enter into details as to the character of
these Maltese monuments. It must be sufficient here to observe that the
view, still widely held, that they were temples built by the Phoenicians,2 is
quite opposed to the archaeological evidence. The Phoenician letters engraved
on the rock-floor of the Giganteja might (if they are genuine), give some
grounds for supposing that the later Phoenician colonists in the island
accepted and adopted a local pillar cult, which in many respects was parallel
with their own. But the remains as a whole point to a much more remote
period. The bucchero vase fragments, which abound within and arouud
these Maltese monuments,3 show both in their paste and incised and
punctuated decoration a distinct analogy with those of the Second Sikel Period
of Orsi, from the opposite coast of Sicily,4 the date of which is approximately
fixed by the imported Mycenaean relics with which they are associated.5 The
window-like openings of the side-cells at Hagiar Kim and Mnaidra have
already been compared with those of the Sicilian ' tombe a fenestra,' containing
these allied ceramic types. It may be added that the spiral reliefs carved on
some of the Sikel door-slabs from the cemetery of Castelluccio, and there recog-
nised as due to Mycenaean influence,0 find their analogy in the spirally
carved blocks of the Giganteja in Gozo. These ornamental blocks form the
threshold and side blocks of a lateral apse or chapel which contains a pillar
1 See p. 187.
2 This view is repeated in Perrot et Chipiez,
L'Art, &c. iii. p. 306. ' Knfln (ces monu-
ments) nous fournissent des types authen-
tiques sinon elegants et beaux de cette archi-
tecture religieuse des Pheniciens, dont nous
savons si peu de chose.'
3 During a careful exploration of these
monuments in 1897 I observed quantities of
fragments of this class of pottery in and
around the niegalithic buildings of Malta and
Gozo. A complete bowl of the same kind
found at Hagiar Kim with incised scrolls and
punctuations, inlaid witli chalky matter, is in
the Museum at Valletta. Many fragments
were simply adorned with punctuations like
the decoration of the stones on a small scale ;
an indication of common origin.
4 Compare especially some bucchero pottery
of this class from the cemetery of Molinello
(near Megara Hyblaea) associated in one case
with a fragment of imported Mycenaean
pottery. P. Orsi, 'Didue Sepolcreti Sictili'
(Arch. Storio Sicilian*), N.S. Anno XVIII.)
Tav. iii. and p. 14 eeqq. One of these vases
presents a double point of comparison with
the Maltese examples from its combination of
the incised linear and punctuated decoration.
5 Orsi, Bulletino di PcU&tnologia Italiana,
1889, p. 206 Tav. vii. 5, 9 : 1891, p. 121 ;
' Nccropoli sicula prcsso Siracusa con vasi e
bronzi Micenei' (Mon. Antichi, ii. 1883), &c.
" Orsi, 'La Nectopoli sicula di Castelluoio,'
Bulleitino di Paletnologia Italiana, 1892, pp.
69, 70, Tav. vi.
ARTHUR J. EVANS
them filled with earth, and most probably due to a slight subsidence of the
pillar, a subsidence not shared by the upper or roof-slab, the two ends of
which rested ou the side walls of the chamber. It is further interesting to
note that these pillars, the appearance of which through the opening presents
such a striking resemblance to those of some of the Mycenaean shrines, have
the same characteristic outline tapering towards the base, which has been
shown to owe its origin to the necessities of such primitive stone structures.
We have here in their typical aspect the 'Pillars of the House,' similar to
those of the prehistoric chambered tombs and the primitive [monuments of
the Balearic Islands,1 though the shaft in this case is in one piece—a trans-
ition to the Mycenaean form.
It is impossible in this place to enter into details as to the character of
these Maltese monuments. It must be sufficient here to observe that the
view, still widely held, that they were temples built by the Phoenicians,2 is
quite opposed to the archaeological evidence. The Phoenician letters engraved
on the rock-floor of the Giganteja might (if they are genuine), give some
grounds for supposing that the later Phoenician colonists in the island
accepted and adopted a local pillar cult, which in many respects was parallel
with their own. But the remains as a whole point to a much more remote
period. The bucchero vase fragments, which abound within and arouud
these Maltese monuments,3 show both in their paste and incised and
punctuated decoration a distinct analogy with those of the Second Sikel Period
of Orsi, from the opposite coast of Sicily,4 the date of which is approximately
fixed by the imported Mycenaean relics with which they are associated.5 The
window-like openings of the side-cells at Hagiar Kim and Mnaidra have
already been compared with those of the Sicilian ' tombe a fenestra,' containing
these allied ceramic types. It may be added that the spiral reliefs carved on
some of the Sikel door-slabs from the cemetery of Castelluccio, and there recog-
nised as due to Mycenaean influence,0 find their analogy in the spirally
carved blocks of the Giganteja in Gozo. These ornamental blocks form the
threshold and side blocks of a lateral apse or chapel which contains a pillar
1 See p. 187.
2 This view is repeated in Perrot et Chipiez,
L'Art, &c. iii. p. 306. ' Knfln (ces monu-
ments) nous fournissent des types authen-
tiques sinon elegants et beaux de cette archi-
tecture religieuse des Pheniciens, dont nous
savons si peu de chose.'
3 During a careful exploration of these
monuments in 1897 I observed quantities of
fragments of this class of pottery in and
around the niegalithic buildings of Malta and
Gozo. A complete bowl of the same kind
found at Hagiar Kim with incised scrolls and
punctuations, inlaid witli chalky matter, is in
the Museum at Valletta. Many fragments
were simply adorned with punctuations like
the decoration of the stones on a small scale ;
an indication of common origin.
4 Compare especially some bucchero pottery
of this class from the cemetery of Molinello
(near Megara Hyblaea) associated in one case
with a fragment of imported Mycenaean
pottery. P. Orsi, 'Didue Sepolcreti Sictili'
(Arch. Storio Sicilian*), N.S. Anno XVIII.)
Tav. iii. and p. 14 eeqq. One of these vases
presents a double point of comparison with
the Maltese examples from its combination of
the incised linear and punctuated decoration.
5 Orsi, Bulletino di PcU&tnologia Italiana,
1889, p. 206 Tav. vii. 5, 9 : 1891, p. 121 ;
' Nccropoli sicula prcsso Siracusa con vasi e
bronzi Micenei' (Mon. Antichi, ii. 1883), &c.
" Orsi, 'La Nectopoli sicula di Castelluoio,'
Bulleitino di Paletnologia Italiana, 1892, pp.
69, 70, Tav. vi.