COMMUNITY TERRITORIES: 
THE VALUE OF COOPERATION

The exhibition explores the deep connection between landscape and community, highlighting how the territory was not only shaped for practical reasons but also for symbolic and social purposes. 

MEMORY IN THE LANDSCAPE

During the Early Bronze Age, the upper Friulian plain was dotted with dozens of burial mounds, distributed over a ~10-km-wide strip of land, between the Torre and Tagliamento rivers, and a few fortified settlements (hillforts or ‘castellieri’).

The burial mounds are artificial earthworks 25-30 metres in diameter and about 6.5-7 metres high, which are now preserved in limited numbers. They housed the remains of prominent members of Early Bronze Age communities and date back to the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, i.e. to a time before the hillforts were built. In some cases, these burial mounds maintained their relevance for centuries, taking on different meanings and functions: between the 19th and 13th centuries BC, in addition to their funerary role, they represented symbols of territorial control by the communities that had erected them; a function that would later be taken over by the fortified settlements. They were also places of congregation and celebration, lookouts and landmarks in exchange routes.

CONNECTIONS

Based on archaeological findings, the protohistoric settlement of Udine extended south and west of the Castle hill, from the present-day via Mercatovecchio to the former civil hospital and from via Manin to the Chiesa di San Francesco.

The structures that emerged include refuse pits, post holes, and pits of different size and function, together with materials such as pottery, spindle whorls, loom weights, the remains of wattle-and-daub walls and burnt clay floors, which yield clues about ancient domestic life. Two dwellings have been identified so far: a house from the Recent Bronze Age, under Palazzo Mantica, with a rectangular floor plan, wooden walls and a hearth that has been renovated several times; another in Piazza Venerio, with an underground storage room for food supplies, destroyed by fire in the 6th- early 5th century BC. A craft area for recasting small bronze objects, active from the Middle Bronze Age to the early Iron Age, was found beneath Palazzo Dorta. No necropolis has been identified with certainty, but some objects - two fibulae from Piazza I Maggio and Planis and an axe found in Viale Ungheria - seem to refer to Iron Age burial contexts that are now lost.

A short section of the original rampart, preserved to a height of 80 to 120 centimetres, was found underneath Palazzo Mantica on the south-eastern slope of the Castle hill. Although the available data is limited, the defensive wall of Udine must have been a monumental task at the transition between the Middle and Recent Bronze Ages (14th-13th centuries BC). The archaeological excavation revealed three distinct construction phases of the rampart, all characterised by considerable technical expertise. The original core of the wall was first extended using the technique of 'reinforced earth' (it. ‘terra armata’) where wooden structures filled with gravel, clayey silt, and pebbles were arranged in a chequerboard pattern on several levels, sometimes with smaller elements rotated by 45°. The internal wooden structures acted as stabilising barriers and provided solidity and cohesion to the entire construction.

The Castle hill, visible from every corner of the city, rises in the centre of Udine: this is an imposing and isolated presence, some 30 metres high and with a base 200 metres in diameter.

The review of the most recent geo-archaeological data concerning the Udine Castle hill highlighted the most relevant aspects of an extraordinarily planned project, the implementation of which required the organised cooperation of an entire community.
Between 400,000 and 450,000 cubic metres of sediment were moved to shape this imposing upland - a structure in the shape of a truncated cone with terraced sides - mainly taken from the area where Piazza I Maggio is today. The monumental size and complexity of the work provide evidence of a careful planning of the construction phases, the use of established techniques, and the presence of specialised labour engaged over a long period. According to current estimates, with the dedicated labour of 100 workers, the construction would have taken about 10-12 years; with 300 workers 3-4 years; while with 500 workers it could have been completed in just over 2 years (between 26 and 30 months).

Given the small size of Friuli's Bronze Age communities - each consisting of a few hundred people - it is plausible that the construction of Udine's Castle hill required the contribution of labour from neighbouring settlements. In a pre-industrial society, equipped only with tools made of wood and horn, and simple baskets, it is estimated that each worker could have moved around 1 cubic metre of soil per day. This theoretical figure is supported by more recent data: in 1700, during the reclamation of the pond that occupied what is now Piazza I Maggio (then known as Giardin Grande), 48 workers equipped with metal shovels took 32 days to remove 1,500 cubic metres of soil, an average daily rate per person surprisingly similar to that estimated for the protohistoric age.

THE ALTRUISM DILEMMA.
WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF ALTRUISM IN NATURE?

For human beings, altruism is a concept that brings with it ethical implications and philosophical questions: an action is altruistic if it is carried out with the conscious intention of helping someone else.

Altruism can be an effective choice with many benefits and it is by no means a prerogative of the human species. On the contrary, mammals, birds, fish, even invertebrates and microorganisms also “know” how to be altruistic.

STRUGGLE OR COOPERATION?

What is the difference between a lone wolf and a wolf living in a pack?

We tend to think of species with complex social behaviour as somehow being more highly evolved.  It is not by chance that we consider ourselves to be the triumph of evolution! In reality, social life involves many costs. Animals living in groups must compete with their peers for space, food and partners and are more exposed to the risk of epidemics.

FIRST AID

Matabele ants (Megaponera analis) rescue their wounded comrades on the “battlefield”. They transport them to the safety of the anthill where they treat them by lengthy licking. The treatment is reserved for ants with a good chance of survival.

When the species involved in the interaction benefit equally from the relationship, we speak of “mutualism”. A classic example is the alliance between plants and the insects that guarantee pollination as they feed on the nectar produced by the flowers. But inter-species solidarity can take the most varied forms, with each species contributing its own strong points to the life of the community. The alarm calls of birds that reptiles have learned to recognise. 

The joint ventures of predators, each with their own hunting technique. Skin parasites as annoying to pachyderms as they are delicious for cleaner birds. The huge bodies of sharks that act as taxis for harmless pilot fish.

The network of more or less opportunistic, more or less advantageous, exchanges between living beings is part of the great interconnected system known as ecology.

JOINT VENTURE

A cooperative hunting coalition between the celestial grouper (Cephalopholis argus) and the whitemouth moray (Gymnothorax meleagris). To engage the moray in joint hunting, groupers employ visual signals: they call the morays from their burrows by shaking their heads until the morays follow. When hunting together on the reef, the two species combine their complementary techniques: the grouper positions itself near an opening to block the prey’s escape route, while the moray eel moves inward. In this way, the prey is effectively trapped, and both species benefit from increased hunting success.

When we look at altruism in the animal world through a human lens, we risk anthropomorphising animal behaviour, attributing it with moral significance.

A biologist, however, weighs behaviour differently: an action is considered truly altruistic only if its costs outweigh its benefits. In some species, individuals appear to make radical choices, such as giving up reproduction or even sacrificing their own lives. Why do they do this? It is the same question Charles Darwin asked when reflecting on the distinct social roles within insect colonies, roles that shape the lives and destinies of individual members:

‘This difficulty, though appearing insuperable, is lessened, or, as I believe, disappears, when it is remembered that selection may be applied to the family, as well as to the individual, and may thus gain the desired end.’

C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1859

But is it possible to extend the concept of family to groups of individuals who are not closely related by kinship but are nonetheless cohesive?

If we imagine a situation in which, within a species, many groups compete with each other for resources, it is advantageous within the group to be altruistic, to cooperate and to help one another. This theory, known as group selection, is able to explain the most radical forms of altruism, those expressed beyond the family.

HELPERS IN THE NEST

In many species of birds and mammals, some individuals forgo reproduction or delay it by a few years to help their parents raise their siblings, providing food and protecting the young from predators. The decision whether or not to become a helper can depend on the availability of quality habitat or reproductive partners. If these are scarce, it may be advantageous to ensure the survival of one’s siblings, with whom an individual shares 50% of their genetic makeup.

Scientists have sought new evolutionary explanations that interpret natural selection in a more complex way, analysing multiple factors. One of these that helps explain the significance of altruistic behaviour is empathy, an emotional involvement that drives social animals to go beyond the cold cost-benefit calculation of their actions and that can also manifest itself between individuals of different species.

In some animals, empathy - the ability of an individual to recognise the moods of others and put itself “in their shoes” - gives rise to acts of selfless altruism that are no longer the prerogative of humans alone. Helping those in distress, consoling those going through a difficult time, even mourning their dead as do elephants, are all documented behaviours in the animal kingdom. 

These reactions to the plight of fellow beings might seem mysterious or inexplicable, were it not for the fact that they mirror exactly what happens amongst us humans.

Rats suffer stress when they see their companion imprisoned. Laboratory experiments on the empathic nature of their behaviour have shown that these rodents prefer to free their fellow rats and share a bar of chocolate with them, rather than selfishly keep all the food for themselves, with a “lump in their throat”.

After a conflict between two chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), the other members of the group often decide to console the one who has had the worst of it with kisses and caresses. It is still not entirely clear why they do not decide to flatter the winner instead, a choice they might find more advantageous.  At the end of the fight, the protagonists also often seek reconciliation by exchanging similar gestures of affection. When they fail to do so spontaneously, a female mediates. These behaviours restore harmony and contribute to the well-being of the whole group.

Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) defend animals of other species from attacks by killer whales (Orcinus orca) by interfering with their hunting manoeuvres. It is unclear why they risk injury and waste so much energy protecting other cetaceans, pinnipeds and even sunfish. Or perhaps their aim is just to harm one of their most bitter enemies? Killer whale attacks are unlikely to bring down the huge adult humpback whale, but may, in fact, be fatal to their offspring.

An exhibition is an opportunity to explore new themes and stimulate curiosity. But it does not stop there.

It is also a unique opportunity to delve deeper. It can become an essential tool for collecting verifiable and up-to-date data and, finally, it can help develop new knowledge, involving - thanks to books and popular articles and videos - readers of all ages and levels of knowledge. In this process, the Museum naturally plays a key role and, in collaboration with people engaged in research and its dissemination, can offer valuable insights. Reading and reflecting are indeed simple acts, but they can produce major changes, since knowledge grows when it is shared.