Megalithic architecture in Malta

Abstract

Compared with the other regions of Europe being considered-Iberia, Scandinavia, even the British Isles-the Maltese islands are minute and would hardly seem to merit a chapter to themselves in a work such as this. The evidence which has survived there, however, is out of all proportion to the islands' size, and no study of megalithic architecture, particularly as regards origin and function, would be complete without them. Further, it gives the author the opportunity to contribute to this volume, and to record his profound thanks to Glyn Daniel for directing his interest towards both the Mediterranean and megaliths many happy years ago. Malta and Gozo together have a surface area of only 320 sq. km and lie nearly 100 km from the nearest other land, Cape Passero in south-east Sicily . There is unequivocal archaeological evidence throughout prehistory for contact with the larger island and beyond in the form of imported raw materials, notably a good brown flint from the Monti Iblei and obsidian, from Lipari and, to a lesser extent, Pantelleria (Cann and Renfrew 1964). But equally clear is the minimal extent of cultural dependence during the period of the temples, 4000-2500 BC; the number of sherds of foreign manufacture so far recovered in Malta is barely a score, against many millions in local wares. Although overseas influences on temple architecture cannot be excluded, there is little to suggest that they in any way explain its introduction to the islands. Closer study reinforces the argument by failing to reveal any but a few superficial details of similarity with architecture elsewhere. Some of these details are too generalized to carry much weight, others lose all significance when radiocarbon dating places them substantially earlier than their suggested prototypes. Megalithic architecture in Malta, then, is an indigenous phenomenon, and its origins and function must be sought in the purely local context. The account given here follows closely that suggested by J. D. Evans (1959, 84-134), expanded but not materially altered by details discovered subsequently. The author would freely admit that it is not the only possible interpretation of the recorded facts, but it seems easily the most convincing, given the evidence at present available.