Even today, after 3000 years of their construction, no one knows exactly the true function of Nuraghes.
Some argue that they are temples (Pittau), others that are astronomical, and others (wrongly in my opinion, at least in most cases) watch-towers, forts and ramparts. Among our most distinguished professors there who has elevated them to role-holding forts (Ugas), or fortified settlements (Lilliu).
Some people then, as our Prime Minister, who thought they were silos, warehouses and banks, once again confirming the strictly materialistic view of those who have established.
Sui Nuraghi (o Nuragi/Nurachi/Norachi/Noraxi/Nuraghes ecc) si sono costruite le teorie più assurde e fantasiose.
Da chi li vede come porte spazio/dimensionali (stargates!) a basi di atterraggio per gli Ufo (!) sino a chi li reputa costruiti da innominati giganti senza nome (non me ne voglia chi crede realmente a tutte queste ipotesi).
Rimanendo con i piedi per terra, c'è chi ha pronunciato teorie più "realistiche" ma non meno assurde di quelle sopraelencate.
Vista la brevità della trattazione non mi soffermerò sulle ipotesi (perchè in fin dei conti certezze ve ne son poche) sull'edificazione, modifica e sviluppo del "modello" del Nuraghe, accettando come base di studio il nuraghe monotorre truncated cone at a Tholos, or, exceptionally, two tholoi overlapping. Why
these incredible buildings and still escape with a rating? Why you can not understand their role, or at least the reason that prompted our primitive ancestors to their building?
theory Nuraghi-forts today is outdated, although it is still in vogue among some scholars and, of course dished up to the layman as "the most truthful" (if not the only one).
Il Nuraghe (at least in its simplest form) can not be a fortress.
Someone watching nuraghi bring them back immediately to the coastal towers, or castles of the Middle Ages. Nothing more
wrong. The Nuraghe
has no feature in common with these buildings if you do not (very distantly) in the form.
The notorious loopholes, described by archaeologists as "useful for the crossfire," or the "barrage" (words from the Second World War are more likely ...!) vents, light sources, or often willingly and some type of bond that still has to be analyzed archaeoastronomical case .
The small interior spaces (stairs, mezzanines, tholoi, niches) do not, often, more than a certain number of people to move freely without bumping into each other all the time. The lack of port makes
inutile il Nuraghe da un punto di vista difensivo, la posizione delle feritoie le rende assolutamente inutili per l'uso dell'arco, la ridottezza dello spazio non permette l'accumulo di grosse quantità di derrate alimentari, necessarie ad un gruppo umano stabile (nucleo familiare o guarnigione che sia) specialmente se sottoposto ad un assedio.
Il ridotto volume della struttura fà si che essa sia difficilmente difendibile da un attacco su più direzioni, senza contare che nel caso in cui i difensori avessero deciso di chiudersi nella "fortezza" per difenderla, le possibilità stesse di morire per fame, affumicamento o asfissia sarebbero state notevoli.
L'uso stesso delle murature, spesso ciclopiche (almeno alla base) non trova finding a possible use as a defensive tool of the Nuraghe. Two points
play against him:
1) The enormity of the effort to erect a similar structure
2) The time required to do so
The Supreme Nuraghic architecture developed construction of sublime grandeur, aimed towards the sky, but the Nuraghi are not just " piles of stones" (eresia!) as some have tried to translate the word "Nur" ... inside of them because, incredibly, there is a vacuum!
buildings are so advanced as to be able to continue to stand up even if, due to natural causes (fracturing the stone lodge of the roots of plants ... etc.) come down the wall, but a good half of it (with all due respect to those who continue to support the theory arc orizzonatale).
The use of such advanced architecture makes no sense in a model that includes the use of the same structure as "defensive" (from what?).
sixty or eighty years it was assumed that these were the massive walls to resist water hammer of the Phoenician-Punic invaders (and still talking about the fall of civilization Nuragica concurrently with this).
Nuraghi Today we know that were built around 1700-1200 BC or even 2000 BC ( Webster - Duos Nuraghes of Boroughbridge ). The period
Iron (I and II) and the more specifically "historical" in the Mediterranean dispute between Phoenicians and Greeks (with the Etruscans and Romans to follow) is already very late. As early as 1200 BC Nuraghi no longer build, change, perhaps even taken down to build villages set against the towers!
So to be clear, the so-called "Nuraghic" Understanding the Lilliu as unique and uniform over a thousand years (!) Has never existed.
To make a visual comparison, it is clear to all, the culture that has developed the statues of bronze and fine Monti Parma "Nuraghe" can no longer be considered contemporary building structures "Nuraghe" as such (unless you do not want to backdate bronzes and statues, as some are already planning to do).
The same people? Maybe. The same culture? Maybe not. The same "civilization of the stone towers"? Probably.
Sebra fact there is a continuity between the builders of the towers and their successors (but also interesting signs of discontinuity). It is not unusual to note the fact they are lavished to portray in bronze and betili a form that certainly was sacred to these people.
Nuraghe same.
End of the first part
0 comments:
Post a Comment