AUTHOR
CATEGORY
Article
LANGUAGE
English
ABSTRACT
The archaeological findings from the prehistoric settlement of Sa Osa, located in the lower Tirso Valley, central-western Sardinia, have provided new elements to the study of the human landscape of this region of the island. In particular the evidence belonging to the nuragic phase suggests the existence of a peculiar type of productive settlement, probably seasonally occupied, related to the dynamics of the river Tirso. Ceramic and lithic findings show that a number of production and craft activities were carried out in the area. The analysis of ceramics has also revealed important changes through time, which will be discussed in the text.
_______________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
In this paper I discuss my interpretation of the archaeological evidence present in the southern area of the nuragic settlement of Sa Osa, located in the lower Tirso Valley, in central-western Sardinia (39°54'51.37"N – 8°32'32.66").
THE LANDSCAPE
The archaeological site of Sa Osa is located close to the Tirso (nowadays the distance is 550 m), the most important river of western Sardinia, in the lower part of its alluvial plain, in a region called Campidano Maggiore (Fig. 1). Its distance from the sea is about 2 km – half an hour by foot - but in all likelihood it was far shorter during prehistoric phases, progressively lengthening during the historical ones (Late Iron, Roman and Middle Ages). The locale is 1,97 km (to the NW) from the Stagno di Cabras, a large semi-saline lake of about 2,228 hectares, with a maximum depth of 3 m, which has been the most important economic resource for the whole area since Neolithic times.
Fig. 1 - Geographic localization of the site of Sa Osa (yellow circle).
The site is located in a landscape dominated, from the Middle Bronze Age (MBA from now on) to the Early Iron Age (EIA), by a number rural settlements formed of sunken and earthen huts, which are linked to the economic system of the Tirso river (Fig. 2): Bidazzoni Noa and Su Sattigheddu – Zeddiani (Sebis 2009), Su Barrocu – Siamaggiore (Sebis 1998), Gribaia– Nurachi (Sebis 1998), Montegonella and Palamestia – Nuraxinieddu (Sebis 1986, 1987, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2009), Santa Vittoria – Nuraxinieddu (Sebis 1995, 2009), Su Cungiau ‘e Funta – Nuraxinieddu (Sebis 1994), Santa Maria su Claru – Nuraxinieddu (Sebis 1995), Su Mattoni - Oristano (Sebis 2009), Lisandru – Tramatza (Sebis 2009), Sant’Elia - Santa Giusta (Atzori 1992), Cuccuru de s'Arena – Oristano (Atzori 1987), Sipoi – Baratili San Pietro (Pau, Sebis cds). This evidence was first discovered in the 1980s, when a lot of surveys were carried out following indications from local farmers, but the site of Sipoi was the only one to have been excavated. For this reason, the excavation at Sa Osa represents an important juncture in our understanding of the concept of Nuragic rural settlement.
Fig. 2 – Nuragic settlements of “Campidano Maggiore” region discussed in the text: n.1, Su Mattoni; n2, Cuccuru de S’Arena; n.3, S. Vittoria; n.4, S. Maria su Claru; n.5, Su Cungiau’ e Funtà; n.6, Sa Osa; n.7, Sipoi; n.8, Palamestia; n.9, Montegonella; n.10, Gribaia; n.11, Lisandru; n.12, S.Elia; n.13, Biddazzoni Noa; n.14, Su Sattigheddu; n.15, Barrocu.
Atzori argued that these settlements, featured by the absence of any monumental structures and by the presence of sunken structures, were a new form of occupation of the habitat of the low plain in the Final Bronze, at a time when the original function and logistic value of the nuraghi had recently changed (1987). Nevertheless, the research carried out by in the Nuraxinieddu area in conjunction with a re-evaluation of Atzori’s data, suggests that these contexts were common at least since the MBA, and represent a peculiar trait of the human settlement in this region of Sardinia (Sebis 2009: 33).
The excavation and the study of the artifacts and structures from Sa Osa show the existence of a peculiar kind of settlement, rather different to that expected: it could be defined as a peripheral area in the Nuragic logistic concept of landscape. It was clearly not a simple aggregate of huts, or houses, but a zone utilised for exploitation of natural resources and production processes, in which there were probably some domestic spaces, but in all likelihood only temporary ones. Due to the proximity of the river Tirso, with its regular massive flooding, its occupation was probably seasonal.
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
In the site of Sa Osa, a total of 4900 square meters have been excavated. This amount was divided, at the beginning of the excavation, in two main areas with different topographic features and issues: the Northern Area (3000) and the Southern one (1900), separated by the modern road Oristano (NE) – Torregrande (SW).
Fig. 4 – Structures of the northern area of the site (digital elaboration by G. Castangia after Depalmas and Vidili 2011).
In the southern part of the site (Usai 2011; Castangia 2011a; Sebis 2011; Pau 2011; Serreli 2011; Soro 2011; excavation carried out by S. Sebis, P.F. Serreli, L. Pau, L. Soro, V. Chergia and G. Castangia), which is lower than the northern part, the archaeological deposit was much thicker. This is due to: (1) its position, at the bottom of the hill constituting the Northern Area – the products of the erosion of the hill have come down an filled the deposit; and (2) the locale has consistently been submerged by the floods of the river Tirso – the name Sa Osa means “flood plain” – and there are elements that allow us to argue that in prehistoric times the river was even closer (Melis and Sechi 2011). In the southern area 32 main structures were discovered, 4 of which were probably buildings or at least “covered” structures – A, R, S, Y –, 17 were holes (B, C, E1, E2, F, G1, G2, J1, J2, O, P, Q, T, W, X, BB, CC), 13 were pits or wells (D, H, I, K, L, M, N, U, V, Z, AA, DD, EE).
Fig. 8 – II Occupation phase – Final Bronze Age (digital elaboration by G. Castangia).
Fig. 9 – Aerial photo of the area – II Occupation phase of the A building (photo of G. Mancosu).
To the N of Building A another similar construction has been excavated: Structure S (Fig. 10). It is delimited by the artificial SU 99 to the N – which separates it from another space called Y filled by a dump called SU 41 – and by two rows of stones (SU 42-53 and 72-81) to the E. These have now disappeared: it has been possible to find them only thanks to the traces on the surface, little holes filled by the latter alluvial episode (SU 23). Building S was probably dismantled to re-arrange the area, which is probably why no use-related-SUs were found inside of it besides SU 40, which has been interpreted as a collapse of some structural element (Castangia 2010: 18). At the bottom a surface of burned clay was found. The original floor of this structure may be identified in the so-called SU 27, upon which a number of artefacts were found in the northwestern part of the space (SU 426, Fig.19, 20): it would mean that this SU was a former floor rather than SU 258/283.
Fig. 10 – Aerial photo of the area – Detail of the S structure (photo by G. Mancosu).
This hole, circa 2,5 m large and 1 m deep, contains alluvial latter sediment (SU 23, which filled a hole) within which a large tank (Fig. 11) and a limestone mortar (Fig. 12) were found reversed. The amount (119 units) and quality of the stone artifacts collected from structure R (SUs 257 and 258) show a high degree of specialization: many different typologies of instruments are represented (Castangia 2010: 400-401). To the N of the structure, 2 wells (U and V – excavated by P. F. Serreli) dating to the Recent Bronze Age phase - hence contemporary to the building – were found.
Fig.11 – Tank found inside of the T pit.
Fig.12 – Mortar found inside of the T pit.
STUDYING THE MATERIALS: SOME NOTES
In this paper I consider the pottery and lithics (except flint and obsidian tools, see Caruso and Zupancich 2011) that I analysed during the fieldwork I carried out for my dissertation – from SUs 3, 9, 23, 26, 32, 40, 55, 71, 90, 91, 88, 97, 257, 258, 280, 281, 282, 283, 300 from the squares X20, X21, Y20, Y21 (Structures A, S and R) – and also 30 ceramic objects from the hypothetical floor of Structure S (SU 426). In other words:
POTTERY TECHNOLOGICAL FEATURES
In order to highlight the main technological features of the pottery, I analysed all the selected potsherd by visual macroscopic examination. I also calculated the dimension of inclusions (little - diameter<1mm, medium - d ~ 1mm, large - d >1mm) and their percentage in the paste. Then I studied surface treatment, color, and any other notable feature of the selected potsherd.
Paste class A and Z2 are both very coarse, with intensively polished surfaces. In a number of cases the vessel seems to have been smudged (only on the internal surface or both on internal and external) and fire clouds are also quite common. Sections often show a black core. These features suggest relatively unstructured production conditions in which vessels would have been fired in holes or little pits, such as T hole. Temperatures inside of these structures would have not reached 900 °C.
The very coarse paste composition can be due to such firing conditions: rapidly rising heat and direct contact with fuel readily cause cracks or other kind of damage on vessels (Gibson and Woods 1990: 27). In all likelihood the clay was provided from the near fluvial deposits of the Tirso, and it was already rich of sandy quartz inclusions. Nevertheless the heterogeneous nature of the inclusions can be the result of an artificial, though coarse, selection. Paste classes A and Z2 have been utilised for manufacturing vessels belonging to all the functional categories identified. Their main features are compatible with a domestic production of pottery, with a low degree of specialization and organization of the production process.
Paste Class B often shows evidence of a complete oxidization or reduction, and the inclusions in the paste – quartzes and micas – are small-sized, arranged with a greater homogeneity degree rather than in Past Classes A and Z2. Walls are usually thinner and the surfaces are often only smoothed rather than polished. The potsherds show traces of wheel. This Paste Class represents the result of a more controlled and complex production. Technical processes ought to be different from the former paste classes: pottery was in all likelihood fired in closed ovens after a proper preparation of the temper. It has been noted that above 970° burnish will not be retained (Kelso and Thorley 1943), and since one of the most evident differences from the PCA is the rarity of burnishing, it is feasible that firing temperature was higher than in the production process of PCB.
Paste Class C lays somewhere between A and B. That is to say, although it does not show any traces of wheel it has a very homogeneous texture. On the other hand, all the potsherd are very strongly polished (PC-A-like). Firing conditions were probably similar to PC-A ones, but in all likelihood the clay was different.
Paste Class Z1, belonging to the dolii category, seems to be the result of an intense and controlled firing, because it shows a maximum degree of oxidization in all the fragments. There is evidence of the use of chamotte within the temper.
Differences between the five Past Classes do seem mostly to have a chronological value: A and Z2 are associated to pottery dated from the MBA to the first part of FBA, B and Z1 appear during the FBA, C belongs to an Eneolithic pottery tradition (Sub-Ozieri phase).
In the early 1980s, Sebis first noticed this chronological trend in the technology of pottery in the artifacts from the settlement of S.Barbara – Bauladu (Sebis 1985: 273). In the last 30 years, it has become evident how the same differences can be found in the pottery from several nuragic contexts in the Sinis region, such as Su Pallosu – San Vero Milis (Castangia 2011b), Corrighias – Cabras (Sebis 1998), Cuccuru is Arrius – Cabras (Sebis 1982), and generally in the region of the lower Tirso: Pidighi – Solarussa (Usai 1996; Usai 2000), S.Barbara – Bauladu (Sebis 1989), Nuraghe Nuracraba – Rimedio (Santoni and Sebis 1985).
Such a trend must be interpreted as a linear technological progress in pottery production from the domestic level (PCs A,C and Z2), to a more specialized production on a wider scale (PCs B and Z1). The wheel, introduced in Nuragic Sardinia during the Recent Bronze Age in the southern part of the island (Ugas et al. 2004: 402) and adopted in the central-northern area in the Final Bronze Age (Depalmas 2009), is one essential element in this development, together with a more controlled firing and preparation of the paste.
As mentioned above, in Sa Osa no structural evidence can be related to the more specialized production, except for the products themselves. This could signify that the production was more centralized during the FBA, the functional value of the site having subsequently changed.
FUNCTIONAL OBSERVATIONS ON CERAMICS
In my dissertation I defined a number of main functional categories of vessels, and, referring to the work of many scholars as such as Peroni 1994, Campus and Leonelli 2000, Recchia 1997, Henrickson and MacDonald 1983, Juhl 1995, adopted a mixed approach that considered the presence/absence and the different value of the following main parameters: Open/Close shape, Maximum Diameter/Height ratio, Maximum Diameter/Rim Diameter ratio, Rim shape (Castangia 2010: 66 – 118).
Footed cups
Prior to the Recent Bronze Age, there is most little evidence of grape processing in the Nuragic economy (Sanges 2008). Vice versa, the archaeobotanical evidence of this activity is continuous from the RBA (Badas 2000; Bakels 2002), and the context of Sa Osa shows a surprising richness in this regard (Lovicu et al. 2011).
Dolii
The secondary function is their use as structural parts of walls, well documented in Building A: here they have been located inside or at the bottom of the earthen walls (inside SU 32), or close to them to strengthen clay preparations on the floor (SU 285 e 92).
However, the primary function does not appear at Sa Osa. Here broken fragments were indeed recycled and used for the construction of new buildings or as raw material for the production of ceramics (chamotte). This behaviour is well documented among ethnographic case studies, where it can be seen how even different parts of the vessel are riutilised for different purposes (Deal 1998: 108).
Spindle whorls and other ceramic objects
Spindle whorls are very common within nuragic archaeological monumental sites, especially villages or even nuraghes. These whorls are little ceramic discs – circa 5 cm large and 1 cm thick – which give the spindle a dynamic force in its circular movement. On the spindle, they can be set in 3 different positions (Mistretta 2004): at the bottom - the movement of the spindle produces a S-twisting thread (Barber 1991), at the top - the thread is produced with a Z twisting, in the middle.
The first and the second positions can be utilised together to carry out different operations on the same thread. Weight and diameter of the spindle whorls are essential features, because they influence the kind of thread that can be produced by the spindle. Indeed, the heaviest ones (100-150g), that usually have the greatest diameters, are generally utilised to produce long fibres, while the lighter ones prodice thinner fibres (Mistretta 2004). The pieces that I was able to study from Sa Osa have mostly the same weight of 50-52g (Fig. 16 n. 1,2,5,6), only one was 25g(Fig. 16 n.3): they are quite small, and their dimensions are compatible with a production of thin fibres.
Fig. 16 -Spindle whorls: 1,2,6 from SU 23; 3,5 from SU 55, from SU 280.
It is quite difficult to find out if there has been any chronological change in this category of objects through time. The 6 exemplars that I have analysed come from the area of Structure R: SU 23, containing mixed materials dated to the RBA and FBA, and SU 55, containing materials dated to the FBA. There are little differences in the shape but this is probably for stylistic reasons (Castangia 2010). Usually the design of such objects is very conservative over space and time, especially between Bronze and Iron Age (Barber 1991). Other objects coming from structure A can probably be related to weaving processes (Fig. 17): two entire objects, parallelepiped-shaped, which could be easily interpreted as loom-weights (n. 4, 5), two oval ones with a flat base (n. 6, 7), another broken one with a circular base and a narrowing just above it (n. 3), a squared object with a 3-cm hole in the middle and a kind of cube with a hole in one of the faces (1 cm diameter, 1 cm depth, n. 1), another clay parallelepiped with a little hole on the top of one of the short sides (n.2). These objects were concentrated inside of the A Building. The presence at Sa Osa of this weaving-kit suggests the existence of some domestic space, perhaps Building A. Evidence, such as the dimensions of the internal exploitable area and the ceramics, lithics and bones on the internal floor SU 283, suggests that it may have been the only potentially domestic space of the area, at least during its I phase.
Fig. 17 – Clay objects from building A: n. 1 from SU 281/283, 2 from SU 38, 3 from SU 40, 4 from SU 23, 5,6,7 from SU 283.
Fishnet weights
Such little pierced ovoid or cylindrical clay objects represent one of the most notable features of the entire archaeological records of Sa Osa. Five of them come from the SUs I analysed during my dissertation fieldwork (Fig. 18), and can be dated to the Late and Final Bronze Age; 19 entire pieces and 11 fragments showed in Figure 17 were instead found together in a small hole close to the R Structure (SU 426, which can be interpreted as a floor, maybe contemporaneous to US 283), associated with potsherd from a little necked jar and a tray datable to the end of the Middle Bronze Age (Fig. 19, 20).
Fig. 18 – Fish net weights: 1 from SU 55; 2, 3, 5 from SU 23; 4 from SU 88; 6 from B hole; 7, 8 from K hole.
Fig. 19 – Fish net deposit SU 426, on the floor SU 27.
Fig. 20 – Fish net deposit SU 426, on the floor SU 27 (particular).
They can be interpreted as weights, tied to the fishnets to pull them underwater.
Published comparisons for this kind of object are not common, probably because there is not enough knowledge of those contexts which are located in fluvial, lagoon or coastal habitats: the same kind of object was indeed discovered in the sites of San Marco – Settimo S. Pietro (Nuvoli 1990), Cuccuru Ibba – Capoterra (Santoni 1986) and Tanca ‘e Linarbus – Elmas (Santoni 1986). These sites are located in southern Sardinia, in wetland ecosystems.
The evidence at Sa Osa testify that their use in this context was continuous at least from the Middle Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age: they come from SUs 23 (mixed materials from MBA to FBA), 55 (FBA-EIA), 88 (first part of FBA),426 (end of MBA), from B Hole (end of FBA-EIA – Pau 2011), from the D well (mixed, from Eneolithic to FBA – Usai 2011).
Furthermore, many fish remains were found in the wells N, U, V at Sa Osa, associated with nuragic pottery (Usai 2011).
LITHICS
A total of 127 lithic instruments were found in the area. I catalogued and typologised these tools in 8 main functional categories: smoothing tools, potter’s scrapers, pestles, percussors, grindstones, upper grindstones, mace-heads, whetstones.
Thirty two percent of them were made on a basalt support, 21% on pebbles, 11% on trachite, 10% on granite, 7 % on quartzite, 3% on limestone, 2% on schist, 2% on sandstone. I was not able to determine the type of stone of 12% of the tools. A number of instruments show traces of utilization, in particular two pestles (Fig. 21 and 22): the analysis of these remains is currently in process.
Fig. 21 – Pestle from SU 55.
Fig. 22 – Pestle from SU 55.
Fig. 25 – Upper grindstones and grindstone : 1 from SU 283; 2 from SU 55; 3 from SU 282.
Fig. 26 – Smoothing tools : 1, 3, 4, 7, 11 from SU 55; 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14 from SU 23.
Such a space was most probably connected to more than one craft activity, one of which was pottery-making, or at least clay manufacture. The basin could have been used as a decantation tank, the mortar inside of the T pit may have been useful in the processing of the raw material, the presence of the T pit could be linked to its utilisation in firing processes. Furthermore, elsewhere I discussed the discovery of some unworked clay lying on the floor of the structure (Castangia 2010).
CONCLUSIONS
The southern sector of the site of Sa Osa gave us essential clues to understanding both transformations that took place within the local community and the strong continuity in the occupation and exploitation of the landscape. We must consider the fact that its occupation was not short at all, and ephemeral constructions like A, R and S buildings were occupied and re-arranged for at least 2 centuries.
Unfortunately, the site is featured by a topographically discountinuous evidence that does not allow to undertake any study or discourse on the structure of the whole settlement during the various phases. Nevertheless, analysis of both pottery and lithics provides interesting account of a range of activities carried out during this period in the settlement and in its area: fishing, weaving, pottery making, and probably wine production.
Fishing in particular must have been one key factor of occupational continuity in the area, although it was naturally not the only one: archaeozoological evidence of fish bones from several wells of the southern area of the site (N,U,V) testify for the first time in a nuragic context the high degree of exploitation of this kind of resource, alongside the remains of a large amount of other habitual terrestrial fauna. Fish must have had an important strategic value in the economic system of this region, similarly to the southern part of the Campidano plain. The site of Sa Osa is located between the big “Stagno di Cabras” to the north and the Tirso river to the south, in a very convenient position for the exploitation of fish resources. Besides, about 30 km to the north, in the northern part of the region of the Sinis, are located a number of medium-sized and large salted ponds. These were undoubtedly exploited for obtaining salt during the nuragic period, an essential element in the conservation and trade of fish: many nuraghes were built around them, testifying to the interest people had in this resource.
The evidence of grape processing of at Sa Osa is also of great interest, because of its economic and social implications. The study of biological remains is now underway and will surely reveal important features of the process. Moreover, the evidence of consumption of wine is suggested by the so-called footed cups, a new vessel shape which appears in the Recent Bronze Age, becoming increasingly fine and specialised through the centuries until the geometric Early Iron Age, when we find cups with symbolic decoration and shape from Su Pallosu (Falchi 2006). This type of vessel is not widely spread in Sardinia: it is typical particularly of the central-western region (although some exemplars come from Santa Vittoria di Serri).
In spite of the strong continuity of this settlement throughout the centuries, important transformations within nuragic society during the second part of Final Bronze Age are also recognisable at Sa Osa. They are evident in the ceramic technology, the features of which indicate a deep change within the production. An initial small-scale production, carried out in spaces like the R Structure, with open and not-controlled firing, is visible in the paste classes A and Z2 and belongs to vessels from the Middle Bronze Age to the beginning of Final Bronze.
The later potsherd with B Paste Class show a finer preparation and a more controlled firing, together with traces of wheel; inside of the Sa Osa settlement there is no structural remain that can be linked to this different kind of production, which was more centralised. This phenomenon is the same in all the region of low Tirso – Sinis – high Oristanese during the Final Bronze Age, and it is an indication of the important economic and, therefore, social changes that took place at that time. This was the time when the construction of nuraghi came to a halt, and the nuragic society began deep internal transformation that has been an important matter of discussion among scholars over the last decades. At Sa Osa, it is a matter of fact that no structural evidence – buildings or huts – can be related to this period, and the pottery comes only from pits, dumps and similar contexts, testifying perhaps to a change in the functional value of the site.
NOTES
[1] Other participants in the project (excavation and laboratory analysis): Laura Pau (Indipendent Researcher); Silvia Vidili (Univerista degli Studi di Sassari); Pietro Francesco Serreli (Universita degli Studi di Cagliari); Laura Soro (Universität Wien); Valentina Chergia (Universita deli Studi di Cagliari); Rita Teresa Melis and Serafina Sechi (Universita degli Studi di Cagliari) – geoarchaeology; Marco Zedda (Universita degli Studi di Sassari) and Gabriele Carenti - zooarchaeology; Gianna Giachi (Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana) – wood treatment and analysis; Nicoletta Martinelli and Olivia Pignatelli (“Dendrodata” s.a.s., Verona) – analysis of the traces on wood; Giovanni Lovicu (Agris Sardegna - DIRARB), Gianluigi Bacchetta (Universita degli Studi di Cagliari) – study of grape seeds; Philippe Marinval (CNRS Tolosa) – seeds analysis; Marco Marchesini and Alessandra Maccioni (Universita di Ferrara) – pollen analysis; Giuseppina Sechi (Universita di Ferrara) – analysis of bone-tools; Dominique Frère (Univ. de Bretagne-Sud, Lorient), Laurent Hugot (Univ. La Rochelle) and Nicolas Garnier (“Lab. N. Garnier”, Vic-le-Comte) – gascromatographic analysis on pottery; Stefano Caruso and Andrea Zupancich (Universita di Roma ‘Sapienza’) – lithic analysis.
[2] I would like to give thanks to Salvatore Sebis for his courtesy regarding to the publication of these materials. Indeed, the wheights were found in the last campaign of 2009, at a time when I was no more involved in the excavation, and they ought be published firstly by him. For this reason, I decided not to publish drawings but just two pictures taken on the field
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am thankful for the help provided by Emily Caruso for reading and correcting my drafts. My gratitude also goes to Alessandro Usai and Salvatore Sebis for their continuous and essential support, and to Dr Simon Stoddart for his comments on the present article.
REFERENCES
Atzori, G. (1987) Le ceramiche nuragiche al tornio. In: La Sardegna nel Mediterraneo tra il secondo e il primo millennio a. C., Atti del II Convegno di studi ‘Un millennio di relazioni tra la Sardegna e i Paesi del Mediterraneo’, Selargius, 27-30 novembre 1986. Cagliari, 81-89.
Atzori, G. (1992) Il villaggio nuragico di Sant’Elia in Santa Giusta (Oristano). In: La Sardegna nel Mediterraneo tra il bronzo medio e il bronzo recente (XVI – XIII sec.a.C.), Atti del III Convegno di studi ‘Un millennio di relazioni tra la Sardegna e i paesi del Mediterraneo’, Selargius, 19 – 22 novembre 1987. Cagliari, 127-134.
Badas, U. (2000) Cereali e macine della Sardegna antica. Guida all’esposizione. Cagliari.
Bakels, C. (2002) Plant remains from Sardinia, Italy, with notes on barley and grape. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 11 (1-2), 3-8.
Barber, E.J.W. (1991) Prehistoric Textiles. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
Campus, F. and Leonelli, V. (2000) La tipologica della ceramica nuragica. Il materiale edito. Viterbo-Sassari.
Campus, F. and Leonelli, V. (2006) La Sardegna nel Mediterraneo fra l’eta del Bronzo e l’eta del Ferro. Proposta per una distinzione in fasi’, in Studi di protostoria in onore di Renato Peroni. Firenze: Il Giglio, 372-392.
Caruso, S. and Zupancich, A. (2011) Analisi degli oggetti in ossidiana del sito di Sa Osa-Cabras (OR). In: Mastino, A, Spanu, P.G., Usai, A. and Zucca, R. (eds) Tharros Felix IV. Roma: Carocci, 303-312.
Castangia, G. (2010) Analisi di alcuni contesti strutturali nell’area meridionale dell’insediamento preistorico e protostorico di Sa Osa (Cabras, OR) - Stratigrafia, materiali ceramici, ipotesi funzionali. M.A. Dissertation, Dissertation Archive Series [Electronic],
Available: https://www.archaeologicaltraces.org/index.php/2014-01-28-09-56-01/dissertations-archive/14-da0001.
Castangia, G. (2011a) L’edificio A del sito di Sa Osa-Cabras (OR). Analisi preliminare della struttura e dei materiali ceramici. In: Mastino, A, Spanu, P.G., Usai, A. and Zucca, R. (eds.) Tharros Felix IV. Roma: Carocci, 257-286.
Castangia, G. (2011b) Il deposito costiero nuragico di Su Pallosu (San Vero Milis-OR), In: Mastino, A, Spanu, P.G., Usai, A. and Zucca, R. (eds.), Tharros Felix IV. Roma: Carocci, 119-158.
Deal, M. (1998) Pottery Ethnoarchaeology in the Central Maya Highlands. University of Utah Press.
Depalmas, A. (2009) Il Bronzo finale in Sardegna. In: Atti dellla XLIV Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, “La Preistoria e la Protostoria della Sardegna”, Cagliari, Barumini, Sassari 23-38 novembre 2009, I – Relazioni generali. Firenze, 141-162.
Depalmas, A. and Vidili, S. (2011) La struttura a del settore settentrionale di Sa Osa-Cabras. Notizia preliminare’, in Mastino, A., Spanu, P.G., Usai, A. and Zucca, R. (eds) Tharros Felix IV. Roma: Carocci, 193-208.
Falchi, P. (2006) Le coppe su alto piede da Su Pallosu (San Vero Milis, Oristano). In: Mastino, A, Spanu, P.G. and Zucca, R. (eds) Tharros Felix II. Roma: Carocci.
Gibson, A. and Woods, A. (1990) Prehistoric Pottery for the Archaeologist. Leicester, London and New York: Leicester University Press.
Henrickson, E. F. and McDonald, M. M. A. (1983) Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethnographic Search and an Archeological Application. American Anthropologist, 85, 3, New Series, Sep., 630—643.
Juhl, K. (1995) The Relation between vessel form and vessel function. In: AmS-Skrifter, 14, Stavanger: Arkeologisk museum I Stavanger.
Kelso, J.L. and Thorley, J.P. (1943) The potters technique at Tell Beit Mirsim, particularly in Stratum A. Annals of the American School of Oriental Research, 3 (4), 86-119.
Lovicu, G., Labra, M., De Mattia, F., Farci, M., Bacchetta, G. and Orrù, M. (2011) Prime osservazioni sui vinaccioli rinvenuti negli scavi di Sa Osa. In: Mastino, A, Spanu, P.G., Usai, A. and Zucca, R. (eds.) Tharros Felix IV. Roma: Carocci, 249-256.
Melis, R. and Sechi, S. (2011) L’insediamento nuragico di Sa Osa-Cabras (OR). Studio geoarcheologico. In Mastino, A, Spanu, P.G., Usai, A. and Zucca, R. (eds.) Tharros Felix IV. Roma: Carocci.
Mistretta, V. (2004) Fuseruole, rocchetti e pesi da telaio di fonte tasca (archi): un contributo all'individuazione di metodi e prodotti della filatura e della tessitura nell'eta del bronzo finale. Origini, 24, 171-224.
Peroni, R. (1994) Introduzione alla Protostoria Italiana. Bari: Laterza.
Pau, L. (2011) La fossa B dell’insediamento nuragico di Sa Osa-Cabras (OR). Analisi preliminare del materiale ceramico. In: Mastino, A, Spanu, P.G., Usai, A. and Zucca, R. (eds.) Tharros Felix IV. Roma: Carocci, 287-302.
Recchia, G. (1997) L'Analisi degli Aspetti Funzionali dei Contenitori Ceramici: Un'Ipotesi di Percorso Applicata all'Eta' del Bronzo dell'Italia Meridionale. Origini, 21, 207-306.
Sanges, M. (2008) I primi abitanti della Sardegna. Darwin: Quaderni, 1, Nuoro.
Santoni, V. (1978) Il villaggio nuragico di Tharros, campagna 1977. Rivista di Studi Fenici, VI, 1, 81-96.
Santoni, V. (1986) Le stazioni nuragiche dello stagno di S. Gilla (Cagliari). In: S. Igia – capitale Giudicale. Contributi all’incontro di studio “Storia, ambiente fisico e insediamenti umani nel territorio di S. Gilla, Cagliari 3-5 novembre 1983. Pisa, 59-117.
Santoni, V. and Sebis, S. (1984) Il complesso nuragico “Madonna del Rimedio” – Oristano. Nuovo Bollettino Archeologico Sardo, 1, 97-114.
Sebis, S. (1982) Cuccuru S’Arriu. Nota preliminare di scavo (1978-79-80). Rivista di Studi Fenici, X, 1, 102-127.
Sebis, S. (1989) Villaggio nuragico di S. Barbara. Nuovo Bullettino Archeologico Sardo, 2, 271-275.
Sebis, S. (1992) Siti con ceramica “a pettine” del Campidano maggiore e rapporti con la facies di Bonnannaro B. In: La Sardegna nel Mediterraneo tra il bronzo medio e il bronzo recente (XVI – XIII sec.a.C.), Atti del III Convegno di studi ‘Un millennio di relazioni tra la Sardegna e i paesi del Mediterraneo’, Selargius, 19 – 22 novembre 1987. Cagliari, 135-144.
Sebis, S. (1994) Materiali dal villaggio nuragico di Su Cungiau ‘e Funta nel territorio di Nuraxinieddu (OR). Quaderni della Soprintendenza Archeologica per le province di Cagliari e Oristano, XI, 89-110.
Sebis, S. (1995) La ceramica nuragica del Bronzo medio (X VI-XI V sec. ) e del Bronzo Recente (XIII-XII sec.) nell ’Oristanese. In: La ceramica racconta la storia. La ceramica artistica d’uso e da costruzione nell’Oristanese dal Neolitico ai giorni nostri, Atti del I Convegno di Studi, Oristano-Cabras, 101-120.
Sebis, S. (1998) Il Sinis in era nuragica e gli aspetti della produzione ceramica. In: La ceramica racconta la storia. La ceramica artistica d’uso e da costruzione nell’Oristanese dal Neolitico ai giorni nostri, Atti del II Convegno di Studi, Oristano-Cabras, 25-26 Ottobre 1996, 107-173.
Sebis, S. (2009) Testimonianze di eta nuragica e prenuragica nel territorio di Zeddiani. In: Stiglitz, A. and Zucca, R. (eds.), Cellevane-Zeddiani. Storia di una comunita fra Evo Antico ed Eta Moderna, Zeddiani, 30-47.
Sebis, S. (2011) I saggi stratigrafici A, B e C del settore meridionale di Sa Osa-Cabras (OR). In: Mastino, A, Spanu, P.G., Usai, A. and Zucca, R. (eds.) Tharros Felix IV. Roma: Carocci, 209-218.
Serreli, P.F. (2011) Il quadrato W20 dell’insediamento di Sa Osa (Cabras – OR). Nota preliminare. In: Mastino, A, Spanu, P.G., Usai, A. and Zucca, R. (eds.), Tharros Felix IV. Roma: Carocci, 219-228.
Soro, L. (2011) Un sistema informativo geografico (GIS) in uno scavo d’emergenza: il caso di Sa Osa-Cabras (OR). In: Mastino, A, Spanu, P.G., Usai, A. and Zucca, R. (eds.) Tharros Felix IV. Roma: Carocci, 313-322.
Ugas, G. B. (1992)a Considerazioni sullo sviluppo dell’architettura e della societa nuragica. In: Tykot, R. H. and Andrews, T. K. (eds.), Sardinia in the Mediterranean: a Footprint in the Sea. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology presented to Myriam S. Balmuth, Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology, 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 221-234.
Ugas, G. B. (1992)b Nota su alcuni contesti del bronzo medio e recente della Sardegna meridionale. Il caso dell’insediamento di Monte Zara – Monastir. In: La Sardegna nel Mediterraneo tra il bronzo medio e il bronzo recente (XVI – XIII sec.a.C.), III convegno di studi ‘Un millennio di relazioni tra la Sardegna e i paesi del Mediterraneo, Selargius, 19 – 22 novembre 1987. Cagliari, 201-227.
Ugas, G.B., Lugliè, C. and Sebis, S. (2004) La Ceramica. In: Cocchi Genick, D. (ed.), L’eta del bronzo recente in Italia, Atti del Congresso Nazionale (Lido di Camaiore 26-29 ottobre 2000). Viareggio-Lucca: Mauro Baroni, 399-410.
Usai, A. (1996) Gli insediamenti nuragici nelle localita Muru Accas e Pidighi e la fonte nuragica Mitza Pidighi (Solarussa, Or), Campagne di scavo 1994-95. Quaderni della Soprintendenza Archeologica per le Province di Cagliari e Oristano, 13, 45-71.
Usai, A. (2011) L’insediamento nuragico di Sa Osa - Cabras (OR). Topografia e considerazioni generali. In: Mastino, A, Spanu, P.G., Usai, A. and Zucca, R. (eds.) Tharros Felix IV. Roma: Carocci.