Page:History of Art in Sardinia, Judæa, Syria and Asia Minor Vol 1.djvu/54

36 more or less vague reports. Our reason for thinking this hypothesis unsound is the fact that nothing in the plans of núraghs discloses nook or corner where a sepulchre could have been placed. If núraghs were tombs, why those super-imposed chambers and flight of steps leading to the platform on the top? Are there traces indicative of rites or "cultus" in honour of the dead? Far from it; but they are found in abundance in the monuments known as giants' tombs in the proximity of núraghs, leaving no doubt as to their purpose. Since popular instinct, or rather tradition, is right in the name of these tombs, save that they are not gigantic, why ascribe a similar destination to núraghs? Is it likely that two classes of structure so diametrically different should have been created for one and the same end, and that núraghs should have served as fortresses as well as burial grounds, when edifices answering this purpose were in existence? On the other hand, both types of constructions belong to tribes closely related to each other—evinced in the building, which is always of large uncemented stones, whilst the objects found in these tombs are of the same description as those recovered in and about núraghs. If people were buried in the latter, it was the exception, not the rule, and must have occurred at a posterior epoch, when a dense population used every available spot for their dead. Vaults are said to exist under núraghs; but before we reconsider the question at issue, we should like to see them, to be sure that they formed part of the primitive plan. Until such proofs are forthcoming, we may be excused if we refuse to recognize sepulchres other than those mentioned above. Nor will the hypothesis that núraghs were temples stand before the objection of thousands of sanctuaries having been required by the few semi-barbarous tribes credited with the erection of these buildings. A temple is a public edifice constructed for and used by the whole population on stated days to celebrate religious ceremonies. Therefore it is not easy to explain the presence of fifty, of two hundred temples on so small an area, for this would have provided every family, almost every individual, with a sanctuary apiece. But is not this contrary to past and present experience? Has not the temple been at all times the meeting-house, the moral link which keeps the tribe together? Were these structures, moreover, conceived