Contribution Of Archaeology To Medieval And Modern Sardinia 291
monastery inserted itself into an already settled area, where the establishment
of a religious settlement could have contributed to the redefinition of the as-
sets of the local population, whose relations were now with new, ecclesiasti-
cal masters (the abbess), no longer secular ones. If the local community was
affected by the appearance of a monastic settlement, it would have been due
to the rise in population and the expansion of a villa at the site or next to the
domo, formerly a lay property. Archaeological studies intended to evaluate of
the site of Silki have identified the remains of a well preserved village that was
abandoned in the fourteenth century (Fig. 11.6). The medieval village of Silki
(at least in its final phase) seems to have inhabited an area within a larger, an-
cient settlement, established by the second and first centuries BC—due to the
fertility of the terrain and its extraordinary access to springs—and in existence
until at least the fourth or fifth centuries AD. As for the spatial organization
of the village-monastery poles, archaeological studies reveal, on the basis of
surface markers, that in Silki, as in Orria Pithinna and Salvennor, a spatial dis-
tinction existed between the monastery and the villa, despite their proximity.
Archaeological research on sites designated “monastery” or “village” must
first confront the disparity between the archaeologically based chronology of
the village and that of the monastery, and then compare this information with
the written documents. In the case of the monasteries and villages of Taniga
and Nurki, given their late appearance in written sources, the general archae-
ological picture that recognizes prominent settlements in their area from
the Roman period, suggests caution when approaching the hypothesis that
rural populations aggregated around monastic establishments to form new
villages.75 However, this picture strongly supports the claim that even these
two monasteries arose in long-exploited territories with great economic po-
tential. Therefore, monastic initiatives did not sprout up in uncultivated areas,
but in situations that were already guaranteed to generate income, that is, in
sites with the potential for production and the establishment of permanent
settlement—a situation that can also be seen at Orria Pithinna, where the sites
of the village and medieval monastery were but slightly removed from those of
the Roman settlement.76
Archaeology has become a fundamental tool, as described in the case of Orria
Pithinna, in the investigation of the combination of monastery and village. It
not only it clarifies the dating of the settlements’ life, it also provides elements
for understanding their spatial organization, building techniques, economic
resources, and other areas of research that are traditionally more in keeping
75 On Nurki, see Giovanni Azzena and Alessandro Soddu, “Il monastero di San Pietro di
Nurki. Scelte insediative e persistenze,” in Pani Ermini, Committenza, scelte insediative.
76 Cherchi, Marras e Padua, fig. 15.