Early states, territories and settlements in protohistoric Central Italy: Proceedings of a specialist conference at the Groningen Institute of Archaeology of the University of Groningen, 2013 9491431994, 9789491431999

Citation preview

Early states, territories and settlements in protohistoric Central Italy Proceedings of a specialist conference at the Groningen Institute of Archaeology of the University of Groningen, 2013

Corollaria Crustumina Volume 2

Series editors P.A.J. Attema F. di Gennaro E. Jarva

Contact the Publisher and the Editorial board Barkhuis Publishing Kooiweg 38 9761 GL Eelde Tel. 050 3080936 fax 050 3080934 [email protected] www.barkhuis.nl

Early states, territories and settlements in protohistoric Central Italy Proceedings of a specialist conference at the Groningen Institute of Archaeology of the University of Groningen, 2013 Edited by

Peter Attema, Jorn Seubers and Sarah Willemsen

University of Groningen / Groningen Institute of Archaeology & Barkhuis Groningen, 2016

rijksuniversiteit

groningen

groningen institute of archaeology

This publication was made possible by:

Book design, cover design and typesetting: Siebe Boersma, Groningen Institute of Archaeology Proofreading: Annette Hansen Final editing: Remco Bronkhorst © The editors and authors, 2016 ISBN 978-94-91431-99-9 All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronical, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the copyright owners. Although all care is taken to ensure the integrity and quality of this publication and the information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the authors for any damage to property or persons as a result of operation or use of this publication and/or the information herein.

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORDVI PREFACEVII

State Formation

1 EARLY STATES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE (CA. 1000-400 BC) John Bintliff1 2 RELIGION, ART, LAW, ETHNICITY AND STATE FORMATION IN PROTOHISTORIC ITALY Alessandro Guidi 9

Studies of Crustumerium

3 THE SOUTHERN AGER OF THE ANCIENT CITY OF CRUSTUMERIUM Fabiola Fraioli17 4 EXPLORATORY TRENCHES IN THE SOUTHERN TERRITORY OF ANCIENT CRUSTUMERIUM (TENUTA INVIOLATELLA SALARIA) Andrea Di Napoli33 5 MANY RIVERS TO CROSS - REVISITING THE TERRITORY OF ANCIENT CRUSTUMERIUM WITH A COST SURFACE BASED SITE CATCHMENT ANALYSIS Jorn Seubers51

Territorial Modelling

6 HIERARCHICAL AND FEDERATIVE POLITIES IN PROTOHISTORIC LATIUM VETUS. AN ANALYSIS OF BRONZE AGE AND EARLY IRON AGE SETTLEMENT ORGANIZATION Luca Alessandri67 7 SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN SOUTH ETRURIA AND LATIUM VETUS Angelo Amoroso83 8 SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS AND EARLY LATIN CITIES (CENTRAL ITALY) Francesca Fulminante, Sergi Lozano & Luce Prignano101

Demography, Infrastructure and Architecture

9 THE TOWN AND TERRITORY OF NEPI: THE POPULATION OF THE EARLIEST NEPI Ulla Rajala111 10 EMERGING INFRASTRUCTURES AT PROTO-URBAN CENTRES IN CENTRAL TYRRHENIAN ITALY Eero Jarva & Juha Tuppi125 11 TAKING COURAGE: FROM HUTS TO HOUSES. REFLECTIONS ON CHANGES IN EARLY ARCHAIC ARCHITECTURE IN LATIUM VETUS (CENTRAL ITALY) Elisabeth van ’t Lindenhout143

V

FOREWORD In the recent past, excavations by foreign Universities and Academies have made an important contribution to the advancement of Italian archaeology. Most of this work by international partners was carried out “in concessione”, meaning that the protagonists of such excavations operated autonomously, but under (necessarily limited) control of the local institutions (“organi periferici”, i.e. Soprintendenze) of the Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo. This is not to say that there haven’t been projects in which Italians and foreigners interested in working in the Italian peninsula have had particularly close collaborations, also in the territories around Rome. At Crustumerium, instead, the responsible sector of the Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma structured the research differently from the beginning: the archaeological investigations by all parties involved were always conducted together, profiting greatly from the full integration of national and international équipes in anticipation, or in any case taking into account the signals of an imminent and severe crisis in financial investments at the national level in the realization of high quality archaeological investigations. So even though archaeological research at Crustumerium started only in 1982, late in comparison to work at other Latial settlements (seen in retrospect, this was partly due to a misbalance in funding mechanisms), it has developed quickly and strongly, notwithstanding the deep wounds left by clandestine excavations. In fact Crustumerium has become the focal point of interest of various nations at great distance from each other, of which we mention Iowa-USA, the Netherlands (Groningen), Finland (Oulu), and now also Denmark where a Copenhagen exhibition is currently being prepared. Apart from the intrinsic value of the settlement of Crustumerium and the surrounding nature reserve of the Marcigliana park, where archaeological and ecological values meet, it is perhaps the international dimension that stands out as the most important element in the current archaeological work carried out there, as this widens the debate on settlement archaeology in Central Italy. The specialist conference on Early states, settlements and territories in protohistoric Central Italy, held at the Groningen Institute of Archaeology in 2013, the proceedings of which have been collected in this second volume of the series Corollaria Crustumina, is an example of how, by taking a case study as point of departure, we can resume and deepen the debate on fundamental topics, such as the rise of states and the formation of urban entities. In Central Italy, the case of Rome is of course of prime importance and its origin is therefore often considered exceptional. However, once broadening the scope of studies we may find that its growth is in line with more general processes of settlement growth and concentration of people leading to the autonomous formation of urban centres, and that such developments may occur largely independent of exogenous influence. This volume looks at settlements, territories and state formation in Central Italy from this perspective, with specific attention for Crustumerium. Francesco di Gennaro

PREFACE BY THE EDITORS This second volume in the series Corollaria Crustumina derives from a workshop held at the Groningen Institute of Archaeology (GIA) of the University of Groningen on the 31st of January and the 1st of February of 2013 and was dedicated to urbanisation and state formation in the Italian Iron Age. The workshop was organized within the framework of the project “The People and the State. Material culture, social structure and political centralisation in Central Italy (800 - 450 BC)”, henceforward the PSP. Financed by the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research (NWO), this project was carried out in collaboration with the Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Roma (SSBAR) between 2010-2015.1 PSP’s main aim is the study of the interaction between overarching processes of early state formation and urbanisation in Central Italy on the one hand and the social and political reality of individual communities in the vicinity of Rome on the other. Research focused on the ancient Latin settlement of Crustumerium where the GIA had been active since 2006 and where, thanks to an on-going international project under the auspices of SSBAR, a wealth of data from the burial grounds, urban area and territory had already been gathered.2 One research line in the PSP concerned the ways early state formation in Central Italy, with as its main protagonist the city of Rome, would have affected the social fabric of community life in lesser order settlements. In order to study this process bottom-up, we would have to study the physical processes of urbanisation and ruralisation in the actual landscape, an approach in line with the landscape archaeological tradition developed at the GIA. As such our fieldwork complemented that of Andrea Carandini’s Suburbium project, whose researchers had covered Crustumerium and large parts of its rural territory systematically as well, the resulting data of which is now managed by Paolo Carafa (Sapienza University at Rome).3 In previous research, starting with that of Lorenzo Quilici and Stefania Quilici Gigli in the late 1970’s, it had already been established how Crustumerium, located on a plateau of ca. 60 ha, had undergone a rapid development between the Early Iron Age (second half of the 9th c. BC) and the end of the Archaic period (start of the 5th c. BC). During this period Crustumerium, and neighbouring settlements such as Fidenae, Antemnae and others, grew from modest hut settlements into more densely built up early urban centres. Surveys in the countryside of these towns also showed how rural territories developed around them over time.4 Both historical sources and archaeological evidence indicate that shortly after 500 BC Crustumerium was abandoned and its territory subjected to Rome. Crustumerium as such forms a clear case of a lower order urban settlement being incorporated in the territory of an expanding centre during a period of increasing urbanisation. One specific aim formulated in the PSP, was indeed the analysis of hierarchy in the regional settlement pattern of which Crustumerium was part. Another was to look at the anthropological problem of defining the transition of chiefdoms to an early state structure in Central Italy from the angle of settlement archaeology. This complex research task was entrusted to Jorn Seubers who wrote his doctoral thesis on the subject, thereby concentrating on Crustumerium. He also acted as the chief organiser of this workshop.5 To gather the data needed, new fieldwork was carried out by Seubers both in the urban area and in the surrounding countryside. The workshop’s main aim was to support the theoretical and methodological progress of Seubers’ doctoral thesis and to feed expert knowledge into it. Therefore specialists were asked to contribute papers that would reflect on various aspects of the themes addressed in Seubers’ PhD project on state formation and early urbanisation within the PSP. This led to thought-provoking papers on theoretical and methodological issues read at the conference itself, an ensuing lively debate, and to this, in our opinion, valuable volume. Valuable because it not only offers insights in the higher level processes of state formation and urbanisation and how to model these, but also because it shows how detailed case studies based on ‘work on the ground’ remain fundamental for our knowledge of overarching processes. This is exemplified by the contributions concerning archaeological work in the territory of Crustumerium contained in this volume that present new and important data on what was actually happening in the landscape.

1 The project was financied under NWO grant number 360-61-020. The final report of this project will appear as Corollaria Crustumina 3. 2 The collaboration between the Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Roma and the Groningen Institute of Archaeology within the framework of the research project “The People and the State” was formalized in 2010 under Convenzione 245 of the Ministero per I Beni Culturali e Ambientali for the period 2011-2015. 3 Carandini 2007: pp. 601-610; Capanna & Carafa 2009. 4 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980; Amoroso 2002. 5 The PhD thesis of Jorn Seubers will appear as a volume in the Corollaria Crustumina.

VII

The volume can be said to operate on three interrelated levels of settlement archaeology, that of the theoretical, the methodological and the casuistic. As mentioned, part of the papers have to do with Crustumerium, while others offer studies on settlements and regions elsewhere in Lazio. Themes range from fieldwork reporting to territorial analysis and from demographic analyses to domestic architecture. The volume starts out with papers of two scholars renowned for their work on early state formation in the Mediterranean world, John Bintliff and Alessandro Guidi. John Bintliff, building on evidence from Greece, Italy, Spain and Central Europe, argues that in situations where rapid urbanisation takes place, as in the case of the examples he adduces from all over Europe, class formation will arise and early states will take shape. This ties in well with the social developments we see in Central Italy starting during the later Orientalizing and Archaic periods and that developed further in the ensuing Roman Republican period, when Rome expanded its territory. Alessandro Guidi reviews evidence from Latial settlements pertaining to the ideological sphere, arguing how state system characteristics can already be discerned in the early phases of the Latial Iron Age, where we formerly thought that these were typical only of the Archaic period. The next two papers focus on ruralisation as an important aspect of urbanising landscapes and deal with the impact of the growing town of Crustumerium on its surrounding countryside from the Orientalizing period into the Imperial period. Fabiola Fraioli presents and discusses the results from her thesis that she wrote as part of the Suburbium project and which focused on the systematic survey of the southwestern part of the rural territory of Crustumerium.6 This research was carried out by her in 1996. Her contribution gives a detailed insight in the suburban area of Crustumerium next to the settlement revealing evidence for the existence of a burial ground and several rural sites that were coeval with Crustumerium’s existence. It also shows the reuse of the area during the Roman Republican period. At a later stage, in 2011, follow-up research was carried out in the same area: archaeological investigations were ordered by the SSBAR as profound landscape interventions were to affect the landscape. The interventions provided the opportunity to carry out new systematic surveys, now by GIA’s Jorn Seubers and his team, and invasive research based on the survey results by an SSBAR team led by Andrea Di Napoli. The latter was allowed to execute large scale test trenches to record any remaining subsurface archaeology in correspondence with surface scatters. The results are reported on in Di Napoli’s contribution to this volume. Reading the two papers of Fraioli and Di Napoli in combination, one realizes the immense effects past and especially recent post-depositional processes have had on the archaeological landscape around Crustumerium, and the fragility of especially the pre-Roman landscape. Also it makes us realize how important the study of site formation processes is for our understanding of surface archaeology.7 In the next paper, Jorn Seubers zooms out onto the territorial level, critically reviewing past and recent attempts at modelling the territory of Crustumerium and at the same time proposing to improve abstract geopolitical modelling by terrain-based modelling. To this end the author calculates walking distances based on cost surfaces while taking into account terrain characteristics such as slopes and river valleys. The outcome emphasizes how the territories of settlements of the order of Crustumerium would have been of moderate size, around 40 sq km. This, according to the author, would have been sufficient to feed the urban population. Less accessible areas could simply have remained uncultivated and have functioned as buffers between settlement territories. The contribution of Angelo Amoroso zooms out even further, to include the dynamics of settlement organization of ancient Lazio north and south of the Tiber, respectively South Etruria and Latium Vetus. His detailed geopolitical analysis, relying on the use of calibrated Thiessen polygons, and combined with an up-to-date knowledge of settlement archaeology of both regions, singles out major differences between the size of territories in the two regions that can maximally be assigned to single dominant settlements. South Etruria, being characterized by large settlement territories with an internally highly developed settlement hierarchy, contrasts with the small scale polities of Latium Vetus that according to Amoroso would have needed all of their accessible surrounding countryside. In this scenario, Rome, being situated in a favourable position on the Tiber, would have needed to expand at the cost of neighbouring settlements. Combining the ideas of Seubers and Amoroso, we would arrive at a model in which locational factors (Rome being situated on the Tiber at a fordable place between two urbanising regions) may have been decisive in the course of geopolitical history. At the same time, it seems unlikely that pressure on the landscape was such

6 Fraioli 1997. 7 See also Seubers & Trienen 2015.

VIII

that all of the landscape would have been claimed, even in the Archaic period. From the polemic that arises from the papers by Seubers and Amoroso, it becomes apparent that we cannot and should not equate political landscapes with landscapes of subsistence in our territorial analyses. Luca Alessandri’s paper addresses the formative phases of early states in Latium Vetus during protohistory. Based on his detailed knowledge of the settlement patterns from the early stages of the Bronze Age into the Early Iron Age, the author discusses the longue durée of settlement organization south of Rome. Overcoming the traditional divide between periods and small areas as separate objects of study, he is able to propose a complex but consistent dynamic geopolitical model for all of Latium Vetus. It is based, as in Seubers’ contribution, on terrain modelling. His resulting hypothesis postulates that different polycentric settlement systems would have existed side-by-side, one federative with settlements of the same rank, the other centralized and hierarchical. The latter were at the root of Early Iron Age state formation in Latium Vetus. Next is the paper by Fulminante et al., using network analysis for the analysis of protohistoric Latium Vetus. The authors search for an objective way of ranking settlement importance in Bronze and Iron Age Central Italy on the basis of prominence of sites in road and river networks. As the road network of Latium Vetus has been reconstructed in reasonable detail and primary centres are known, the region serves as a case study for the authors to validate their approach, which then may be applied to other regions lacking such data, in order to function as a predictive tool. For Latium Vetus the network analysis presented would confirm the growing importance for the Iron Age of good access to the road network in Central Italy where in the Late Bronze Age rivers were still of primary importance. Settlements that proved successful in the long run were those central in both the terrestrial and fluvial network. Scale of population, and land needed to sustain that population, are crucial factors if we want to establish how much pressure there actually was on a given landscape in a given period. Ulla Rajala, in her contribution on the town and territory of Nepi, approaches land use from the angle of agricultural demand in the Final Bronze and Early Iron Ages. By calculating numbers of households per hectare on the basis of excavated archaeological evidence, she concludes that the quantity of energy and food needed to feed the populations of the settlements of Il Pizzo and Nepi would have grown tenfold between the Final Bronze Age and the Orientalising period. This warranted a more urban form of settlement at Nepi to solve possible boundary clashes between the villages in the area and would be in line with the general model of nucleation for Etruria, as postulated by di Gennaro.8 The next paper is by Eero Jarva, who excavated extensively at Crustumerium, notably the ‘road trench’ cross-cutting the settlement. Jarva discusses the importance of infrastructural works as indicators of the scale of labour organization and the level of technology inherent to the urbanising society of Central Italy. Together with Juha Tuppi, who recently finished his PhD thesis on the importance and significance of ancient road infrastructure,9 he presents an admirable overview of the increasing archaeological knowledge we have on the subject. Their paper proves how ongoing field research into protohistoric settlement areas is imperative to understand the productive and organizational capacities of the proto-urban societies in Central Italy, but also how synthetic work on the topic, such as presented here, is needed to bring together the expanding knowledge about the socio-economic and political complexity of Iron Age Central Italy. The volume concludes with a contribution by Elisabeth van ’t Lindenhout who reflects on the transition from huts to houses in Latium Vetus, a topic which is traditionally seen as the ‘architectural turn’ in early urbanisation studies. She points out how our understanding of hut dwelling is biased by a romantic perception and a scarcity of data that allow sound anthropological interpretations relating to the social use of clusters of hut dwelllings. While the transition from huts to houses was probably gradual, localized and socially selective, the underlying reasons are not at all clear. Gabriele Cifani’s hunch that lush timber buildings became too expensive is an interesting economic counter argument to the presumed initial prestige of stone founded buildings. This is not to say, however, that this innovation in tandem with woodworking expertise, did not pave the way to the monumental ceremonial building practices of the Archaic urban settlements. Peter Attema, Jorn Seubers and Sarah Willemsen

8 di Gennaro 1982. 9 Tuppi 2015.

IX

Acknowledgments

The editors would like to thank all the contributors for their contributions to the workshop and the resulting papers. Many thanks are due to Annette Hansen for language editing, to Remco Bronkhorst for final editing and to Siebe Boersma for image editing and the lay-out of the volume.

Literature

Amoroso, A. 2002, “Nuovi dati per la conoscenza dell’antico centro di Crustumerium”, Archeologia Classica, vol. LIII, no. 3, pp. 287-329. Capanna, M.C. & Carafa, P. 2009, “Il progetto «Archeologia del Suburbio di Roma» per la ricostruzione dei paesaggi agrari antichi” in Suburbium II. Il suburbio di Roma dalla fine dell’eta monarchica alla nascita del sistema delle ville (V-II secolo a.C.), (eds.) V. Jolivet, C. Pavolini, M.A. Tomei & R. Volpe, pp. 27-39. Carandini, A., D’Alessio, M.T. & Di Giuseppe, H. 2007, La fattoria e la villa dell’Auditorium nel quartiere Flaminio di Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma. di Gennaro, F. 1982, “Organizzazione del territorio nell’Etruria meridionale protostorica: applicazione di un modello grafico”, Dialoghi di Archeologia, vol. 2, pp. 102-112. Fraioli, F. 1997, I Paesaggi Antichi della Campagna Romana Verifica sul terreno e ipotesi di ricostruzione nelle Tenute Malpasso, Inviolatella e Marcigliano, Thesis, Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, Roma. Quilici, L. & Quilici Gigli, S. 1980, Crustumerium, Latium Vetus III, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma. Seubers, J.F. & Trienen, T. 2015, “A hand to the plough. A GIS based cartographical analysis of changes in elevation due to terrain modification and erosion in the settlement area of ancient Crustumerium”, Archeologia e Calcolatori, vol. 26, pp. 39-58. Tuppi, J. 2015, Carving Territories, Road Cuttings as Part of Early Socio-Political and Urban Development in Central Tyrrhenian Italy with Special Reference to Crustumerium, Juvenes Print, Oulu.

X

1 EARLY STATES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE (CA . 1000-400 BC) John Bintliff

Introduction

followers and clients. The first complex scenic ceramic vases such as the Dipylon series show us competitive elite display at funerals with chariot processions, embodied in wider communal participation. Armed retainers uphold aristocratic dominance5 and luxury bronze and iron tripods are used at ceremonial feasting, where epic poems are recited which link current nobility to heroic ancestors.6 The emergence of the mature city-state or polis was created by the Archaic period of the 7th-6th centuries BC, through the infilling of polyfocal, and the expansion of lesser monofocal, nucleations, into a single urban fabric with public spaces and communal temples.7 The larger, multifocal-origin centres tend to become the dominant major cities and territorial states, the smaller monofocal the lesser and ‘normal’ city-states.8 As centres of power proliferate and their elites grow richer, interactions with more complex societies in the Eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia add gift-exchange and commerce to the traditional land-based sources of aristocratic wealth and status, and provide models for urban monumentalisation as well as elite high culture.9 The Late Archaic 6th century era witnesses conflict between urban aristocrats, and pressure from the other social classes, causing the rise of lawgivers and/or tyrants to resolve internal power-struggles. Weapons normally worn in public are abandoned for walking sticks, marking the birth of civil state society in the city-state or polis.10 Perhaps unique to Greece, the rising military power of a prosperous farmer middle class, catalyzes widespread

The French Annales School of History, with its subtle analytical structure, in which the past is created through the unpredictable interaction of historical processes operating at three nested wavelengths of time: the short, medium and long term (fig. 1), has attracted interest from a growing number of ancient historians and archaeologists.1 Not least this is because it offers a fruitful way to approach human agency and historical events in their realistic community context. Archaeologists find that their material culture most clearly reveals processes operating at the Annales’ medium term of several centuries, so before turning to human agency in Prehistory and History I want to illustrate one such wave of the medium term across Europe between ca. 1000-400 BC.

Greece

Let us take the example of Proto-polis (incipient city-state) Boeotia in Central Greece.2 The Early Iron Age landscape fills up with small rural settlements. Amongst such Early Iron Age settlements we suspect there occur houses of chieftains where feasting is believed to focus, such as on the island of Chios at Emborio, or on the island of Euboeia at Lefkandi.3 At Lefkandi a 10th century BC chieftain’s house dominates a small community where exotic prestige objects show the influence of Oriental traders on this rural society. But in different regions of Southern Greece there increasingly develop over the 9th-8th centuries BC polyfocal towns: clusters of settlements and associated cemeteries4 (fig. 2) which most probably mark proto-urban groupings of chiefs or basileis with their

5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Bintliff 1991; Bintliff 2004; Bintliff 2012; Knapp 1992; Horden & Purcell 1998; Broodbank 2013. 2 Bintliff 1994. 3 Morris 2000. 4 Morris 1991.

1

Van Wees 1998. Papalexandrou 2005. Lang 1996. Bintliff 2012. Morris 1991. Van Wees 1998.

John Bintliff

Fig. 1.  The Structural History Model of the French Annales School (from Bintliff 1991: fig. 1.2).

power-sharing with the aristocracy.11 Modular citizen houses come to represent both civil society, equality before written laws, and often also moderate democracy.12

Iberia

The Morgenroth model,13 with its various alternative trajectories, synthesizes developments here over the Iron Age, based on a thorough analysis of the regional evidence from the south of the peninsula (fig. 3). In the Late Bronze Age prestige objects may still represent the whole community, and although initially in the Early Iron Age over the 8th-7th centuries BC there is a rise of population, undifferentiated simple houses and site plans still argue for a lack of strong class divisions. By the late 7th century however, burial differentiation within clan cemetery clusters develops, especially in the Tartessian Princely Graves in the Lower Guadalquivir. Collective clan tumuli now diverge from those with elite focal burials. In the 7th century BC a wide dispersion of settlement is associated with many small units of exploitation each with its local elite. Then these models progress from villages of several clans each with a leader, to a single ancestor per village, where elite tumuli stand apart from the rest. By the 6th century BC family structure breaks down and a political landscape emerges of an aristocratic elite separate from the lower classes who now appear in a patron-client relationship. Intermarriage and treaties lead to the emergence of an elite now distinct from clan origin and apart in lifestyle, for example through feasting

Fig. 2.  Athens, 1100-700 BC. Funerary (dots) and settlement (S) evidence in and outside the 5th-century city wall (continuous line) (from Morris 1991: fig. 2).

and access to exotica. Warrior equipment in iron appears especially to be used as a symbol of power linked to the rise of fortifications as well as suggesting elite competitive warfare of an ‘heroic society’. The arising of a cross-community elite class encourages the aggregation of elites into oppida (fortified central places), which gradually take on a town infrastructure. The first expansion of such large fortified oppida in the 6th-5th centuries begins in the south of Iberia where there are not only the largest areas of fertile land, and the closest interaction to Phoenician colonies, but also the key resources for indigenous metal production. Over the following centuries central-place urbanisation spreads first to the east, where both Phoenician and Greek colonies present commercial contact opportunities, then gradually town development will cover the whole peninsula by the Roman conquest. Smaller rural sites decline in favour of agglomerations. It seems likely that later, Classical sources mentioning kings at the head of these agglomerations refer rather to temporary warleaders, whilst towns became a unit with a group of elite leaders at their head. Nonetheless the growing interactions with Phoenician and to a lesser extent Greek

11 Snodgrass 1993. 12 Jameson 1990; Bintliff 2010. 13 Morgenroth 2004.

2

Early States in the Mediterranean Iron Age (ca. 1000-400 BC)

Fig. 3.  Morgenroth’s models of Iron Age sociopolitical transformation in Southern Iberia (from Morgenroth 2004: figs. 78-81).

colonies and traders stimulate these processes rather than providing their fundamental cause.14 The initial movement of rural clans and leaders to polyfocal fortified large sites is associated with aristocrats occupying insulae with their surrounding clients, as seen for example at Puente Tablas.15 Land is now controlled by this elite class and delegated to peasants and clients who are compelled to live in the oppidum. The decline of weapons in burials and the rise of personal jewelry and banquetingsets symbolize a new civil society. A good case study for a much later stage of this same process occurring in Central Spain, is the site of Ulaca, a 60 ha oppidum which is the centre of an emerging tribal state from the 4th century BC.16 Such centres have satellite smaller foci, and internally are divided into

specialist economic areas, public spaces and both commoner and elite residences.

The Central European Early Iron Age

Following Danielisova and Marik17 and Chytráček et al.,18 in Bohemia, Czech Republic, the 8th century BC Hallstatt Iron Age sees the rise of warrior aristocrat leaders with a retinue of clients, associated with Herrenhöfe, independent fortified estate centres with their own craft production. These latter local centres are increasingly replaced by hillforts and by the end of the Hallstatt period and into the subsequent early La Tène era, exotic imports in rich tombs with local imitations are associated with the rise of new larger centres or oppida. These oppida form collective residences of in-migrating elites. These sites assume communal control of larger territories, with heightened Mediterranean imports and lifestyles. The best

14 Contra Cunliffe 1995. 15 Almagro-Gorbea 1995; Zapatero & Alvarez-Sanchez 1995; Mira 2011. 16 Zapatero 2005.

17 Danielisova & Marik 2012. 18 Chytráček et al. 2010.

3

John Bintliff

Fig. 4.  The hinterland of Zavist, an Iron Age oppidum (100 ha) in the Czech Republic. A: flatland settlements; B: tombs; C: enclosing wall (from Chytráček et al. 2010: fig. 11).

known and largest are Zavist (100 ha) (fig. 4) and Vladar (115 ha). Nonetheless the internal area of such centres, on excavation, looks like an agglomeration of rural residences with elite enclosures.

people impersonate clan ancestors, while feasts celebrated chiefs and lineages. As for land control, people all had a small personal plot but most land was communal and delegated by clan leaders, later replaced by state control of public land. Larger urban centres appear and grow in size, the product of the movement of individual rural clans into them. For example the Claudii clan were awarded their own quarter of early Rome. These internally polyfocal settlements, Terrenato argues (following Carandini), were perpetuated in the later divisions or wards of Rome: the 30 curiae which continued to possess political influence throughout the Republic. This Rome model is then compared with the large proto-urban settlements of Southern Etruria, internally appearing halfway between a dispersed and totally built-up plan, where different sectors have their associated cemeteries. All these centralplaces emerge and expand from the 9th century BC in Latium and Etruria. Later these settled foci will merge into a single agglomerated plan, and public areas will be defined in the 7th-6th centuries BC, for example the marshy Roman Forum is drained as a no-man’s land, a shared zone of urban interaction. There remain residual areas though, even in NorthCentral Italy outside of such urbanistic developments, such as at Murlo, where it is suggested that

Latium-South Etruria

I find convincing, this time for North-Central Italy, the Terrenato ‘mafia’ model for Iron Age political changes (fig. 5).19 He begins with an analysis of the development of the Latin region and neighbouring South Etruria, in relation to the gradual formation of the city-state of Early Rome. Already in the Late Bronze Age there is evidence for clan politics and gift exchange of elaborate objects. By the Early Iron Age, clans grow into large ancestral groups of hundreds to thousands of members, where clients and slaves are dependent on clan leaders. They had a territorial basis but could move between cities under their leaders. Factions linked several clans both within and between nascent towns, and these larger clans “could exist without the state and together were the rulers of the state”.20 There was ancestor worship, and elite funerals saw

19 Terrenato 2011. 20 Terrenato 2001: p. 236.

4

Early States in the Mediterranean Iron Age (ca. 1000-400 BC)

Cross-Cultural Medium-Term Waves of Social Transformation in Early Iron Age Europe

Clan n Cla

Cla n

A relevant theoretical model for all these case studies is that cross cultural historical geography and social anthropology show that agglomerations of more than 500-600 people tend to show ‘emergent complexity’ and frequently develop city-state behaviours in the direction of civil society.21 This and other shared processes can be seen to provide remarkable links between these separate developments in varied regions of Europe: Emergent complexity: as population rises throughout Europe and the Mediterranean in the Early Iron Age, we see the directly associated appearance of the corporate community-proto city-state model, the birth of civil society, and the transformation from rural clan chief to a class society Internal Transformation: is associated with population growth; clan and elite competition; the rise of a warrior society in multiple (fortified) centres of power and then the transfer of power and the elite to multifocal, aristocrat-focussed ‘towns’ Colonial-core periphery impact: this may act in combination (Etruscan, Greek and Phoenician exchange systems), in step with internal growth and social transformations We have observed a typical Moyenne Durée (Medium-Term) wave of development in the model of time and process of the Annales’ historians. In his study of six hundred years of rural life in southwest France, Les Paysans de Languedoc, Ladurie22 described such cycles of demographic and economic expansion or contraction as “the immense respiration of a social structure”.23 We have also seen the power of tracing crosscultural changes in the medium term waves of the Moyenne Durée. At the same time, as I shall now illustrate, we can trace divergences in regional trajectories due to the interplay with human agency and events, the world of événements (the ShortTerm) and mentalities. Let us return to our case study regions and pursue this level of the Annales’ scheme of history.

City-State

Cl

an

n Cla Clan

Fig. 5.  Terrenato’s model for the rise of the Roman citystate (from Terrenato 2011: fig. 12.4).

there is a chiefly palace without an associated proto town, and of course these developments generally occur later in other parts of the more central and southern parts of the Italian peninsula. Continuing with the Terrenato model, within these early urban agglomerations clan chiefs agreed to the formation of the centralised state and civil society, for instance with regard to control over the use of force, so that no weapons could be carried within the sacred urban pomerium or ritual boundary round the town. Models from Greek colonies in the south of Italy and Phoenician towns in the wider west Mediterranean may well have had influence in enhancing, but not creating the trend to urbanisation and later, city monumentalisation, in Latium and Etruria. Certainly the cultural influence of Greek colonies is acknowledged in prestige goods as cultural capital. Large Archaic and Early Republican residences detected archaeologically in and around Rome suit such very powerful family groups. They seem surrounded by large numbers of small farms, seen as belonging to subordinate clients. Pressures from elite competition and resistance from the other classes led to the appearance of kings, and especially the arrival of outsider autocrats, to resolve internal urban conflict in the later Archaic era. Clan leaders remained semi-independent within these expanding cities and this led to regular factional conflict later, after the disappearance of city-state kingship and its replacement by elite or oligarchic rule, and such disfunctionalism continued throughout the Roman Republic.

Greece

By the Archaic era (ca. 700-600 BC) social, political and economic conflict in aristocratic societies encourages the rise of tyrants and lawgivers to stabilize society.24 Dependent on local context and their own inclination they reinforce oligarchy or break the 21 22 23 24

5

Bintliff 1999a. Ladurie 1966. Ladurie 1966: p. 8. Bintliff 2006.

John Bintliff

Iberia

mould. In Athens most strikingly, the tyrants are murdered or expelled, and lawgiver Kleisthenes replaces them with a representative democracy based on demes or voting districts.

In Spain the early emergence of regional aristocratic elites in proto-urban settlements, the Tartessian sphere of the Guadalquivir Valley, in close relations with Phoenician colonies, 30 breaks down, arguably from a particular, internal political instability, but subsequently a new form of integrated elite society emerges and diffuses throughout the Iberian peninsula to create multiple tribal states by Roman incorporation, focussed around increasingly numerous urban centres. These processes are historically, non-deterministic local developments within an Iberian trajectory.

Latium-South Etruria

Here Nicola Terrenato25 has argued, in contrast, that the structure of powerful clan family-heads survives challenges to its power from dictator-kings and the people, to form the Roman Republic by the 5th century BC. And till the end of this Roman Republic (in the final 1st century BC), society remains controlled by a class of aristocrats, whom he likens to Mafia bosses.

The world of Human Agency and Events

The Central European Early Iron Age

If we thus can reinstate events and agency, through tracing divergent paths of the same medium-wave European-wide processes, are there alternative ways to comprehend their impact without returning to the unrealistic modern global capitalist ideology, where every individual is a conscious actor who can change the world on a daily basis? Stephen Jay Gould’s influential evolutionary history deploying the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium31 taught us that irregular and unexpected events can dramatically alter subsequent developments. Chaos-Complexity Theory32 likewise shows how small events (the “Butterfly Effect”), but entirely dependent on different initial starting conditions and varying local contexts, will produce startlingly divergent outcomes. These approaches suggest that historical events and personalities may have no impact, or a remarkable impact on society, dependent on their context and the previous trajectory of their communities. Effects can be carefully planned, or entirely unintentional and unanticipated – such as the operation of ‘emergent complexity’ in state and class formation we have mentioned, but the outcomes will differ even in comparable situations. These ideas resonate well with the divergent outcomes of the mediumwave changes we observed in European societies between 900-400 BC.

In Bohemia a recent paper by Chytráček et al.26 argues that at the end of La Tène A there is a transformation and in La Tène B we observe an undeniable rupture in settlement development. Clearly the centres of power lost their significance at the turn of the 5th to 4th centuries BC. The fall of regional leaders in the wider regions north of the Alps is connected to social revolution, which might parallel the removal of tyrants in the Greek city-states or the expulsion of kings from Rome. These changes in Central Europe preceded the ‘Celtic’ invasions into South and South-East Europe. Later a new series of centralised political units around oppida will re-emerge in the final centuries BC. In West-Central Europe, specifically at the Heuneburg, Bettina Arnold27 sees the short, some 200 year history of the hillfort as strikingly punctuated by “major shifts and transformations”. The building of the mudbrick fortification ca. 600 BC was “an event that transformed the social and cultural structure of the community”.28 Its violent destruction and the subsequent dramatic alterations to the settlement and associated elite burial landscape, ending in a final site destruction and abandonment, she interprets in terms of “eventful archaeology” where “event and structure come together...to produce a sociomental topography of the past…that operates on several temporal and social scales with variable effects”.29 Contested and incompletely stabilised political and settlement hierarchies are considered to be central to the multiple destructions at this Princely Seat (“Fürstensitz”).

25 26 27 28 29

Conclusion

In this paper I have argued for the continuing power of Annaliste Structural History as an organizing principle to comprehend the human past. The existence of long-term and medium-term waves of social development cross-culturally dominate the archaeological and historical record, Ladurie’s “immense

Bintliff 2006. Bintliff 2006. Arnold 2010. Arnold 2010: p. 101. Arnold 2010: p. 112.

30 Morgenroth 2004; Mira 2011. 31 Gould 1989; cf. Bintliff 1999b. 32 Lewin 1993; Bentley & Maschner 2003; Bintliff 2003; Bintliff 2004.

6

Early States in the Mediterranean Iron Age (ca. 1000-400 BC) Broodbank, C. 2013, The Making of the Middle Sea, Thames and Hudson, London. Chytráček, M., Danielisová, A., Trefný, M. & Slabina, M. 2010, “Zentralisierungsprozesse und Siedlungsdynamik in Böhmen (8. -4. Jh. v. Chr.)” in »Fürstensitze« und Zentralorte der frühen Kelten, (eds.) D. Krausse & D. Beilharz, pp. 155-173. Cunliffe, B. 1995, “Diversity in the Landscape: The geographical background to urbanism in Iberia” in Social Complexity and the Development of Towns in Iberia, (eds.) B. Cunliffe & S. Keay, pp. 5-28. Danielisová, A. & Marik, J. 2012, “From Late Iron Age Oppida to Early Medieval Stronghold. Continuity of economic system?” in Rytm Przemian Kulturowych w Pradziejach i Sredniowieczu, (eds.) B. Gediga, A. Grossman & W. Piotrowski, pp. 391-414. Gould, S.J. 1989, Wonderful Life, Hutchinson, London. Horden, P. & Purcell, N. 1998, The Corrupting Sea, Blackwell, Oxford. Jameson, M.H. 1990, “Private space and the Greek city” in The Greek City from Homer to Alexander, (eds.) O. Murray & S. Price, pp. 171-195. Knapp, A.B. (ed.) 1992, Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ladurie, E.L.R. 1966, Les Paysans de Languedoc, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris. Lang, F. 1996, Archaïsche Siedlungen in Griechenland: Struktur und Entwicklung, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. Lewin, R. 1993, Complexity. Life at the Edge of Chaos, J.M. Dent, London. Mira, I.G. 2011, “Landscape dynamics, political processes, and social strategies in the Eastern Iberian Iron Age” in Atlantic Europe in the First Millennium BC, (eds.) T. Moore & X.-L. Armada, pp. 153-170. Morgenroth, U. 2004, Southern Iberia in the Early Iron Age, British Archaeological Reports Int. Ser. 1330, Oxford. Morris, I. 1991, “The early polis as city and state” in City and Countryside in the Ancient World, (eds.) J. Rich & A. Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 25-27. Morris, I. 2000, Archaeology as Cultural History, Blackwell, Oxford. Papalexandrou, N. 2005, The Visual Poetics of Power: Warriors, Youths, and Tripods in Early Greece, Lexington Books, New York. Snodgrass, A.M. 1993, “The “Hoplite reform” revisited”, Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne, vol. 19, pp. 47-61. Terrenato, N. 2011, “The Versatile Clans: Archaic Rome and the nature of Early City-States in

respiration of a social structure”, and reveal processes that develop and arise from factors not immediately within human control, such as Emergent Complexity. When rapid urbanisation occurs, class formation arises and early states form. However events and human actors intentionally or unintentionally influence and divert these wider developments into divergent pathways.

Bibliography

Almagro-Gorbea, M. 1995, “From hillforts to Oppida in “Celtic” Iberia” in Social Complexity and the Development of Towns in Iberia, (eds.) B. Cunliffe & S. Keay, pp. 175-207. Arnold, B. 2010, “Eventful archaeology, the Heuneburg mud-brick wall and the early Iron Age of southwest Germany” in Eventful Archaeologies, (ed.) D. Bolender, pp. 176-186. Bentley, R.A. & Maschner, H.D.G. (eds.) 2003, Complex Systems and Archaeology, The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Bintliff, J.L. (ed.) 1991, The Annales School and Archaeology, Leicester University Press, Leicester. Bintliff, J.L. 1994, “Territorial behaviour and the natural history of the Greek polis” in Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums, vol. 4, (eds.) E. Olshausen & H. Sonnabend, pp. 207-249, plates 19-73. Bintliff, J.L. 1999a, “Settlement and Territory” in The Routledge Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology, (ed.) G. Barker, pp. 505-554. Bintliff, J.L. 1999b, “Structure, contingency, narrative and timelessness” in Structure and Contingency in the Evolution of Life, Human Evolution and Human History, (ed.) J.L. Bintliff, pp. 132-148. Bintliff, J.L. 2003, “Searching for structure in the Past - or was it “one damn thing after another”?” in Complex Systems and Archaeology, (eds.) R.A. Bentley & H.D.G. Maschner, pp. 79-83. Bintliff, J.L. 2004, “Time, structure and agency. The Annales, emergent complexity, and archaeology” in A Companion to Archaeology, (ed.) J.L. Bintliff, pp. 174-194. Bintliff, J.L. 2006, “Solon’s reforms: An archaeological perspective” in Solon of Athens. New Historical and Philological Approaches, (eds.) J.H. Blok & A.P.M.H. Lardinois, pp. 321-333. Bintliff, J.L. 2010, “Classical Greek urbanism: a social darwinian view” in Valuing Others in Classical Antiquity, (eds.) R.M. Rosen & I. Sluiter, pp. 15-41. Bintliff, J.L. 2012, The Complete Archaeology of Greece, from Hunter-Gatherers to the Twentieth Century AD, Blackwell-Wiley, Oxford-New York.

7

John Bintliff Central Italy” in State Formation in Italy and Greece, Questioning the Neoevolutionist Paradigm (eds.) N. Terrenato & D.C. Haggis, pp. 231-244. Van Wees, H. 1998, “Greeks bearing arms. The state, the leisure class, and the display of weapons in archaic Greece” in Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence, (eds.) N. Fisher & H. van Wees, pp. 333-378. Zapatero, G.R. 2005, Castro Ulaca Guide, Heritage Papers, vol. 3, Solosancho, Ávila. Zapatero, G.R. & Alvarez-Sanchis, J.R. 1995, “Las Cogotas: oppida and the roots of urbanism in the Spanish Meseta” in Social Complexity and the Development of Towns in Iberia, (eds.) B. Cunliffe & S. Keay, pp. 209-235.

8

2 RELIGION, ART, LAW, ETHNICITY AND STATE FORMATION IN PROTOHISTORIC ITALY Alessandro Guidi 1

Introduction

of difficulty when interpreting archaeological data to reconstruct human activities.4 A different opinion is held by Colin Renfrew,5 whose ‘socio-archaeological’ approach proposes that cult activities may be recognized in the archaeological record based on the unambiguous presence of two types of evidence, namely the “specialists” who perform religious rituals and the deities for whom these rituals are performed. Richard Bradley6 has countered this point of view and stated that ritual, as “a social strategy of a distinctive kind”,7 is not separate from other spheres of human activity. For example, at protohistoric sanctuaries like AcyRomance,8 the structural characteristics fit perfectly in those of domestic architecture. He asserted that ritual must be considered “one of the main processes that formed the archaeological record”.9 Many theoretical contributions emphasize the dichotomy between ritual (action) and belief (religion), emphasizing either the first concept, as in behavioural studies, or the second one, as in cognitive studies. A similar dialectic characterizes the difference between processual and post-processual approach in archaeology. While the first attributes a secondary role to ideology in the complex systems and subsystems of culture, the second points to the importance of these aspects for prehistoric cultures. In Italian archaeology, little attention has been given to theoretical matters; consequently, preand protohistoric cult activities have not received much consideration. Until recently, a generally accepted view has consistently disregarded the ‘primitive rituals’ of the prehistoric periods in favour of

In the long-lasting debate on urbanization and state formation in protohistoric Italy,2 scholars have focussed on discussing physical features, like settlement sizes, tomb contents or exchange patterns. It is likely that the objective value of these archaeological data and the overall difficulty in reconstructing the ideological sphere of primitive communities has played a decisive role in the underestimation of ideology in the past. A short review of the history of archaeological theories about this peculiar aspect can help us to find the roots of this prejudice. In the 19th century, Marx stated in many of his works that religion (and ideology as a whole) is a “superstructure” entirely independent from the economic and social structure. This idea was challenged by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who in Les formes èlementaires de la vie religieuse (1912) regards religion as the main experience in which single individuals feel a part of society. At the same time, he considered religion the origin of any great institution. In the following years, the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci attempted to produce a synthesis between these two apparently incompatible points of view,3 holding the opinion that ideology plays a crucial role in the creation of social structures. In fact, in Prehistoric Archaeology, the traditional idea is well expressed by the famous ‘Hawkes’ hierarchy, in which ideology is at the top of the ascending scale

1 Roma Tre University. 2 For a good synthesis on the history of the question in archaeological research in Central Italy, especially in the midTyrrhenian area, see Fulminante 2014: pp. 7-32. 3 Gramsci elaborated his theory in the manuscripts he wrote in the Fascist jails, between 1929 and 1935, that were published after the Second World War (for a recent edition see Gramsci 1994).

4 5 6 7 8 9

9

Trigger 1989: p. 392. Renfrew 1985; 1994. Bradley 2003; 2005. Bradley 2005: pp. 33-34. Lambot 1988. Bradley 2005: p. 209.

Alessandro Guidi

Fig. 1.  Plan of the sacred area on Monte Cimino summit with cult objects (after Barbaro et al. 2012).

the well-structured religion ‘imported’ from the Aegean.10 Studies and discoveries of the last 20 years have changed this view and allowed us to reconstruct this peculiar sphere within indigenous pre- and protohistoric Italian communities, without ignoring the essential question of an enduring dialectic between the different parts of the Mediterranean.11 Two “nuclear” areas (middle-Tyrrhenian and north-eastern Italy, respectively present-day Lazio and Veneto) will be discussed with respect to the emergence of the first Italian state systems in the crucial period between the Final Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. Therefore, it is very useful to examine the archaeological evidence of some of these “superstructural” aspects: religion, the first art objects, the evidence of law and ethnicity.12

excavations carried out by the University of Rome “La Sapienza” have uncovered a monumental structure dating to the end of the Bronze Age and enclosing an area of almost 100 m2. This structure contains evidence for ritual fires, suggesting the presence of some sort of federal sanctuary (fig. 1). Additional peculiar evidence comes from two sites in the central Tyrrhenian area. One is an open air cult site located at the Banditella spring near Vulci dating from as early as the Recent Bronze Age. Bone items, glass beads and miniature vases were the earliest offerings from a large votive deposit that continued to be in use well into the Archaic period.15 South of Rome, between the end of the Bronze Age or the beginning of the Early Iron Age until the 6th-5th centuries BC, hundreds of miniature vases were deposited on the shores of the small lake, Lago del Monsignore, near Satricum.16 Since both Vulci and Satricum would later develop into proto-urban centres, the ritual sites demonstrate how these locations were already perceived as focal places of the settlement system. It is generally accepted that these forms of cult places were widely used in midTyrrhenian Italy until the 8th century BC. In this period, there are many examples of “hut temples”, mainly found under the first 7th century sanctuaries (e.g. Satricum, Ardea, Velletri, Lanuvio, Orvieto, Cerveteri, and Tarquinia). A type of foundation rite that coincides with the building of the first temple

Religion

The end of the Bronze Age is a period in which we see a wide spread of open air cult sites and ritual activity in general. One such “sanctuary” was found in the excavations under the temple of Diana in Nemi, a discovery that substantiates the literary sources on the importance of the Diana woodland (in Latin nemus).13 Another recent discovery was made in Etruria on the highest peak of Monte Cimino.14 The

10 Blake 2005. 11 See for example Bettelli 1997; 2002: pp. 146-164. 12 See for a complete bibliography on these arguments, Guidi 2009; 2010; 2012; 2013a; 2014. 13 Bruni 2009; 2012. 14 Barbaro et al. 2012.

15 D’Ercole & Trucco 1995. 16 Kleibrink 2000.

10

Religion, art, law, ethnicity and state formation in protohistoric Italy

Fig. 2.  Plan of VeiiCasale del Fosso, grave 1036, with full-size ancilia (after Guidi 2009).

references to the Vestals, the priestesses who had the right to a formal burial in the city.23 In north-eastern Italy, the situation is slightly different. In the Early Iron Age, the period of formation of the first proto-urban centres, we only know of open air cult sites from the 6th century BC onwards. The 6th century BC was a period of strong progress in the transformation of these centres into true cities. We can observe the creation of a network of these cult sites around the perimeter of cities, coinciding with the main communication routes (e.g. at Este, fig. 3).24

and dates to the end of the period is known from Tarquinia17 (two holes, one containing a sort of banquet service, the other with three bronzes, a shield, an axe and a lituus-trumpet). A very similar ritual has been attested in Verucchio (the deposition of three shields in the settlement).18 Careful examination of grave goods and the fragmented written evidence on Archaic Latin religion have also enabled us to identify interesting male and female burials. These burials point to a progressive separation of leadership and ritual functions and the consequent emergence of specialized cult activities. Key find contexts include a male trench burial (without grave goods) recently discovered on the Veii acropolis of Piazza d'Armi. It had been preserved in an Early Iron Age hut, which is interpreted as a very peculiar cult site dedicated to a member of the local elite.19 Many ‘ritual’ vases from Early Iron Age burials also suggest a specific role of the deceased.20 Male cremation burials were accompanied by miniature ancilia (sacred shields) in Veii, one dating to the late 9th century BC21 and the other (full-size) dating to the late eight century BC (fig. 2). An Early Iron Age female burial in the construction of the Archaic sanctuary at Cerveteri was well preserved.22 A group of rich female burials dating to the 8th century in Latium (e.g. at Ardea, Tibur, Fidenae and Caracupa) are curiously situated within settlement contexts where normally only the children were buried. The last two cases allude to the literary

17 18 19 20 21 22

Art

Other crucial evidence of the early urban period is the appearance of an artistic production, generally with the aim to glorify the elites. The famous cult wagon from the rich female tomb of Bisenzio (fig. 4) has been defined as a sort of incunabulum of the early Etruscan aristocracy.25 The crowd of bronze figurines seems to refer to many concepts and moments of the aristocratic way of life - the house, the family, war, and to hunting activities. Michele Cupitò has recently analysed the iconography of these figurines. He interpreted the opposition between domestic and wild animals as a metaphor for different economic activities or even of the subdivision of land around the city between agricultural areas and pastures or woodlands.26 The same role of “status symbol” can be attributed to the well-known Situlenkunst (art of the situlae) in the Venetian territory in the 7th-6th century BC. Luca Zaghetto has studied the iconography of these

Bonghi Jovino 2000. Sassatelli 1996. Bartoloni 2003; 2008. Babbi 2008. De Santis 2011. Izzet 2000; Maggiani & Rizzo 2001.

23 24 25 26

11

On this argument see Fraschetti 1984. Ruta Serafini 2002. Torelli 1997. Cupitò 2003; 2005.

Alessandro Guidi

Fig. 3.  Plan of Este in 6th century BC with all the cult places (Caldevigo, Meggiaro. Morlungo, Reitia sanctuary, Dioscuri sanctuary) around the settlement (after Balista & Ruta Serafini 2008: p. 80, fig. 1).

bronze vessels. They are characterized by the representation of war, sport games, animals, geometric motifs, and other daily life features. Zaghetto proposed to break down single motifs and scenes into words (or phrases consisting of single words) to build a sort of syntax. This syntax could be used in order to create a typology of images to reinterpret famous art objects such as situlae or bronze lids depicting complex scenes of the aristocratic way of life.27

Fig. 4.  Cult wagon from Olmo Bello tomb 2, Bisenzio (from Pacciarelli in Carandini 2002: p. 305, fig. II).

of a 30-35 year-old man, whilst the careful examination of an 8 year-old child’s skeleton lacking the skull leads to the conclusion that he was beheaded.29 Analogous evidence exists from the graveyards in north-eastern Italy dating to the 6th century BC: one of them is a prone burial from Gazzo.30 A similar burial was found in the Oppeano settlement area where a 35-40 year-old man (fig. 5) was found in a comparable prone position in the fill of a big hole.31 Recently Vera Zanoni reviewed all examples of burials found in Iron Age settlements in Northern Italy,32 demonstrating that these archaeological contexts are often very much alike. It is clear that all of these case studies dealing with capital punishments suggest the existence of a corpus of laws, another typical trait of a developed Early State.

Law

The reinterpretation of old data and new discoveries from the centre of Rome allow the identification of two main examples of ritual killing and deposition of people.28 The first example includes the male, female, and child graves in the area of Equus Domitiani in the Forum, stratigraphically dated to the second half of the 8th century BC. The second example includes three similar skeletons in the Carcer Mamertinus, which were interpreted by Mario Torelli as a ritual of extermination. True capital punishments have also been documented for the late 8th century phase of the sacred area of Tarquinia. Regarding this find the profound anthropological analysis by Francesco Mallegni helps us to reconstruct the successive stages of the killing

Ethnicity

More than 50 years ago, Massimo Pallottino noted an almost perfect equivalence between the distribution map of the proto-historic cultures and of some 29 30 31 32

27 Zaghetto 2002. 28 Filippi 2008; Torelli 2008.

12

Mallegni & Lippi 2008. Salzani 2008: pp. 55-56. Guidi & Saracino 2010: pp. 50-63. Zanoni 2011; see now Saracino & Zanoni 2014.

Religion, art, law, ethnicity and state formation in protohistoric Italy

Fig. 5. The male deposited in the 6th century filling of a big hollow at Oppeano (photo author).

Conclusion

ancient languages. This later allowed other scholars like Adriano La Regina to propose reconstructions of the territory pertaining to the different Italic ethne. In fact, ethnicity is one of the main characteristics of complex societies and a real strategy of the elites of Archaic states. Ethnicity is easily detected in the archaeological record of protohistoric Italy. Based on the data gathered in the Iron Age cemeteries, Maria Rita Copersino and Vincenzo D’Ercole were able to reconstruct the territories of the ethne in the Abruzzi region.33 The definition of the ceramic shapes typical of the Volscan culture by Piercarlo Innico is another key example. The diffusion of this ware in the 7th century coincides with the later formation of urban centres of the 7th-6th century BC, southeast of the larger and older Latin city-states.34 Ethnicity allows us to individuate groups of graves with exogenous material in the Iron Age cemeteries, the archaeological correlate of real movements of people. For example, the diffusion of material pertaining to a human group coming from southern Italy was encountered in the Early Iron Age 1 phase of the Latial necropolis of Osteria dell'Osa.35 Recently I attempted to summarize many case studies of this type, such as Villanovan graves with Sardinian materials or Latin graves with Villanovan material. These case studies are interesting examples of social mobility, a further trait linked to the formation of the first state systems.36

33 34 35 36

Only in recent years, thanks to the exponential growth of the archaeological evidence, we are discovering the world of the first Italian cities. It is a complex universe of social differences, rules, and imagery that demonstrates a precocious appearance of state system characteristics that we thought typical only of the Archaic period but that have their roots in the Early Iron Age. The present paper deals only with the most “ideological” traits of this revolution that, as many other changes in history, appear to be no less important than the progress in the social and economic spheres.

Bibliography

Babbi, A. 2008, La piccola plastica fittile antropomorfa dell'Italia antica dal Bronzo finale all’Orientalizzante, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa, Roma Balista, C. & Ruta Serafini, A. 2008, “Spazi urbani e spazi sacri ad Este” in I Veneti Antichi, Novità e aggiornamenti, pp. 79-100. Barbaro, B., Cardarelli, A., Damiani, I., di Gennaro, F., Ialongo, N., Schiappelli, A. & Trucco, F. 2012, “In vetta alla Tuscia prima degli Etruschi. Testimonianze dell’età del bronzo sul Monte Cimino” in Atti del decimo incontro di studi su Preistoria e Protostoria dell'Etruria, pp. 547-552. Bartoloni, G. 2003, “Una cappella funeraria al centro del pianoro di Piazza d'Armi – Veio”, Annali di archeologia e storia antica, vol. 9-10, pp. 63-78. Bartoloni, G. 2008 “La sepoltura al centro del pianoro di Piazza d'Armi-Veio”, Scienze dell’Antichità, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 821–832. Bettelli, M. 1997, “Elementi di culto nelle terramare” in Le Terramare. La più antica civiltà padana,

Copersino & D'Ercole 2005. Innico 2006. Bietti Sestieri & De Santis 2004. Guidi 2013b.

13

Alessandro Guidi in The Fifth Conference of Italian Archaeology, Settlement and Economy, 1500 B.C.-A.D. 1500, (ed.) N. Christie, pp. 341-352. De Santis A. (ed.) 2011, Politica e leader nel Lazio ai tempi di Enea (exhibition catalogue), Roma. Filippi, D. 2008, “Dalla Domus Regia al Foro: depositi di fondazione e di obliterazione della prima età regia”, Scienze dell'Antichità, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 617–638. Fraschetti, A. 1984, “La sepoltura delle Vestali e la città” in Du châtiment dans la cité. Supplices corporels et peine de mort dans le monde antique (Collection de l’École française de Rome 79), pp. 97-128. Fulminante, F. 2014, The Urbanisation of Rome and Latium Vetus: from the Bronze Age to the Archaic Era, Cambridge University Press, New York. Gramsci, A. 1994, Letters from Prison, Columbia University Press, New York. Guidi, A. 2009, “Aspetti della religione tra la fine dell’età del bronzo e la I età del ferro” in Il Lazio dai Colli Albani ai Monti Lepini tra preistoria ed età moderna, (ed.) L. Drago, pp. 143-151. Guidi, A. 2010, “The Archaeology of Early State in Italy: New Data and Acquisitions”, Social Evolution & History, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 12-27. Guidi, A. 2012, “I tempi del sacro nel Lazio protostorico” in Antropologia e archeologia a confronto. Rappresentazioni e pratiche del sacro, (eds.) V. Nizzo & L. La Rocca, pp. 137-146. Guidi, A. 2013a, “Dai rituali ctonii alla religione "di stato": evoluzione delle manifestazioni del culto nell'Italia centrale protostorica”, Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia, vol. 85, pp. 63-70. Guidi, A. 2013b, “L’etnicità nella documentazione archeologica delle necropoli italiane dell’età del ferro” in Nuove frontiere per la storia di genere II, (eds.) L. Guidi & M.R. Pellizzari, pp. 25-35. Guidi, A. 2014, “Cult Activities among Central and Northern Italian Protohistoric Communities” in The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean, (eds.) A.B. Knapp & P. van Dommelen, pp. 635-649. Guidi, A. & Saracino, M. 2010. “Indagini archeologiche presso l’area “ex Fornace” ad Oppeano (Verona): questioni aperte” in Archeologia-storiatecnologia, (eds.) F. Candelato & C. Moratello, pp. 49-66. Innico, P. 2006, Atina, il museo archeologico. L’epoca preromana, Tip. Pietricola, Terracina. Izzet, V. 2000, “The Etruscan Sanctuary at Cerveteri, Sant'Antonio: Preliminary Report of Excavations 1995–1998”, Papers of the British School at Rome, vol. 68, pp. 321-335.

(eds.) M.B. Brea, A. Cardarelli & M. Cremaschi, pp. 720-741. Bettelli, M. 2002, Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo, All’Insegna del Giglio, Firenze. Bietti Sestieri, A.M. & De Santis, A. 2004, “Elementi per una ricostruzione storica dei rapporti fra le comunità delle regioni tirreniche centro-meridionali nella I età del ferro. Analisi di affinità e differenze di cultura materiale e sviluppo socio-politico fra la ‘cultura delle tombe a fossa’ in Calabria e Campania e la cultura laziale” in Atti XXXVII Riunione dell'Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, pp. 587-615. Blake, E. 2005, “The material expression of cult, ritual and feasting” in The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory, (eds.) E. Blake & A.B. Knapp, pp. 102-129. Bonghi Jovino, M. 2000, “Il complesso ‘sacro-istituzionale’ di Tarquinia” in Roma. Romolo, Remo e la fondazione della città (exhibition catalogue), (eds.) A. Carandini & R. Cappelli, pp. 265-267. Bradley, R. 2003, “A life less ordinary: the ritualization of the domestic sphere in later prehistoric Europe”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 5-23. Bradley, R. 2005, Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe, Routledge, London. Bruni, N. 2009, “Testimonianze protostoriche al santuario di Diana a Nemi” in Lazio e Sabina 5. Atti del Convegno – Quinto Incontro di Studi sul Lazio e Sabina (Roma 2007), (ed.) G. Ghini, pp. 305-310. Bruni, N. 2012, “Materiali protostorici dal tempio di Diana a Nemi (Roma)” in Atti del decimo incontro di studi su Preistoria e Protostoria dell'Etruria, pp. 673-676. Carandini, A. 2002, Archeologia del mito, Einaudi, Torino. Copersino, M.R. & D’Ercole, V. 2005, “Proposta di definizione degli ambiti culturali e territoriali dei popoli italici in Abruzzo nel I millennio a.C.” in Proceedings of the 6th Conference of Italian Archaeology (BAR 1452(II)), (eds.) P.A.J. Attema & A.J. Nijboer, pp. 713-719. Cupitò, M. 2003, “Il sistema figurativo del carrello di Bisenzio: iconografia del potere aristocratico e del kosmos socio-politico proto-urbano”, Antenor, vol. 4, pp. 91-118. Cupitò, M. 2005, “Addenda interpretativi sul sistema figurativo del carrello di Bisenzio” in Proceedings of the 6th Conference of Italian Archaeology (BAR 1452(II)), (eds.) P.A.J. Attema & A.J. Nijboer, pp. 739-741. D'Ercole, V. & Trucco, F. 1995, “Nuove acquisizioni sulla protostoria dell’Etruria meridionale”

14

Religion, art, law, ethnicity and state formation in protohistoric Italy Kleibrink, M. 2000, “The miniature votive pottery dedicated at the ‘Laghetto del Monsignore’ in Campoverde”, Palaeohistoria, vol. 39/40, pp. 441-512. Lambot, P. 1988, “Les bâtiments cultuel du Bronze final d’Acy-Romance (Ardennes)” in Architectures des âges des métaux: fouilles récentes, (eds.) F. Audouze & O. Buchsenschutz, pp. 39-46. Maggiani, A. & Rizzo, M.A. 2001, “II. B. Area sacra in località S. Antonio” in Veio, Cerveteri, Vulci. Città d’Etruria a confronto (exhibition catalogue), (ed.) A.M. Moretti Sgubini, pp. 143-155. Mallegni, F. & Lippi, B. 2008, “Considerazioni sugli inumati nell'area sacra dell'abitato di Tarquinia”, Scienze dell’Antichità, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 795–804. Renfrew, C. 1985, The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary of Phylakopi, Thames & Hudson, London. Renfrew, C. 1994, “The archaeology of religion” in The Ancient Minds: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, (eds.) C. Renfrew & E. Zubrow, pp. 47-54. Ruta Serafini, A. (ed.) 2002, Este preromana: una città e i suoi santuari, Canova, Treviso. Salzani, L. 2008, “Necropoli dei Veneti antichi nel territorio Veronese” in I Veneti Antichi. Novità e aggiornamenti, Atti del Convegno di Studio, Isola della Scala, 2005, Cierre Edizioni, Verona.

Saracino, M. & Zanoni, V. 2014, “The marginal people of the Iron Age in north-eastern Italy: a comparative study. i.e. The Iron Age written by the losers” in Les Celtes et le Nord de l’Italie, Actes de XXXVIe Colloque International de l’AFEAF, Verona 17–20/05/2012, (eds.) P. Barral, J.P. Guillaumet, M.J. Rouliére-Lambert, D. Vitali & M. Saracino Dijon, pp. 535-550. Sassatelli, G. 1996, “Verucchio una città etrusca di frontiera”, Ocnus, vol. 4 pp. 249–271. Torelli, M. 1997, Il rango, il rito e l’immagine. Alle origini della rappresentazione storica romana, Electa, Milano. Torelli, M. 2008, “Exterminatio”, Scienze dell'Antichità, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 805-520. Trigger, B.G. 1989, A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Zaghetto, L. 2002, “Dalla «parola» alle «frasi»: unità semplici e unità strutturate nel linguaggio delle immagini. Il caso dell’Arte delle Situle” in Iconografia 2001. Studi sull'immagine, (eds.) I. Colpo, I. Favaretto & F. Ghedini, pp. 31-43. Zanoni, V. 2011, Out of Place: Human Skeletal Remains from Non-funerary Contexts: Northern Italy During the 1st Millennium BC, BAR (IS 2306), Oxford.

15

3 THE SOUTHERN AGER OF THE ANCIENT CITY OF CRUSTUMERIUM Fabiola Fraioli

Introduction

This paper presents the results of archaeological field surveys in an area to the northeast of Rome, situated between the via Salaria (from km 13.5 to km 16) and the Tiber to the west, the via della Marcigliana to the east and north, and the fosso Malpasso to the south (fig. 1).1 The area corresponds with the Marcigliano, Inviolatella and Malpasso estates of the earliest cadastral register of the Ager Romanus, the so-called Catasto Alessandrino of 1660.2 This study formed part of a wider research project of intensive field surveys in the Suburbium of Rome, a joint venture between the Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Roma and Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, the results of which have been partially published.3 From the Early Iron Age onwards, the territory in question was under control of Crustumerium and remained so until Rome’s final conquest of the city in 500-499 BC.4 The data discussed in this paper relates to the period between the Orientalizing and the Early Republican period, from the time when Crustumerium flourished to its conquest by Rome and the subsequent transformation of the area into a suburban area.

overlying deposits of sedimentary origin. The zones lying below 40 m a.s.l. consist of fluvial/lacustrine deposits, made up of gravels, sands, and clays. The territory is characterized by the presence of numerous water sources, rivers, streams, and torrents. The branching hydrographic system has largely contributed to the erosion of the volcanic terrain, giving the present hill system its typical irregular and jagged character, particularly evident in the hills overlooking the Tiber valley.5 The territory has kept its rural function, and is mainly used for agriculture, although large areas are now covered by forest, particularly the hill slopes and valley floors. There are few substantial modern structures in the landscape. The “Roma Nord” power plant is situated on the eastern edge of the area, an artificial lake has been created immediately south of this structure and the entire area is dissected north to south by the Rome-Florence motorway, which cuts into the landscape by means of an imposing artificial cut (fig. 2). The ancient landscape has been widely changed by agricultural activities, which tend to flatten the rises and fill in the lower parts (levelling), in an attempt to gain more arable land.

The geomorphology

Research methodology and organization

1 I wish to thank prof. dr. Attema for accepting this contribution as part of the conference proceedings. 2 Scotoni 1986; 1989; Passigli 1993. 3 Carafa 2000; 2004; Carandini et al. 2007; Cupitò 2007; Capanna & Carafa 2009; Carandini 2009; Dinuzzi & Fusco 2010. 4 Liv. II.19.2.

5 For the region’s geology and morphology cf. De Angelis D’Ossat 1929-1931; Brocato 1996; Ventriglia 2002; Funiciello & Giordano 2005; Funiciello et al. 2007. 6 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980. 7 The archive of the Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Roma. I thank Francesco di Gennaro for having supported this research.

Almost the entire research area lies above 40 m a.s.l. and consists of volcanic deposits, resulting from eruptions in the Sabine mountain ranges. This takes the form of a blanket of lithoid tufas, some being tens of metres thick, mainly covered by clay soils, and

A limited amount of the data presented here comes from bibliographic6 and archival7 research, whilst most of the archaeological evidence presented comes from surveys undertaken by the author in 1996 and 1997.

17

Fabiola Fraioli

Fig. 1.  The survey area in relation to the ancient city of Crustumerium, after Amoroso 2012 (author).

Fig. 2.  Visibility map of the area (brown: very good; orange: good; light green: adequate; violet: poor; dark green: very poor; blue: zero) (author).

The territory examined covers 463.5 ha. The survey covered 350 ha, that is 75.5% of the total area. In this part, the survey was conducted in parallel transects, with 5 metres between each walker. Some sectors (23% of the total surface area) were not surveyed due to the presence of modern constructions and infrastructures. In some areas (23% of the total surface area), the investigation was effected by poor soil visibility caused by vegetation cover. The different grades of visibility were carefully documented for all the ground surfaces walked during the survey, using a specific classification (fig. 2).8

The remaining surface area (46%) presented low visibility, divided into poor (16%), very poor (7%), and zero (23%). However, if the last level is excluded, which corresponds with urbanized terrain that cannot be surveyed, the percentage of visibility rises to 70% of the surveyable terrain (cf. graph 2). Graph 2

Graph 1

The archaeological remains identified during the survey, mainly spreads of pottery and tile, have been documented using a standard form, and the area has been defined, measured and positioned on a map.9 It was decided to represent the pottery/tile spreads by delimiting the zones with the highest concentration of material, even though the areas outside of them, defined as off-site, also presented sporadic fragments.10 All of the pottery was collected, while the brick, tile, and other building materials were sampled. The collected material was quantified and studied

Graph 1 shows that the percentage of the terrain on which visibility was very good, good or adequate, represents over half of the investigated area (54%). 8 Very good visibility: ground ploughed and harrowed; good visibility: ground ploughed but not harrowed, or with crops in early stages of growth; adequate visibility: ground covered by crops in an advanced stage of growth, pasture with very low herbage; poor visibility: ground covered by dense vegetation, pasture with tall grass, forest floor; very poor visibility: scrub-land, dense forest floor; zero visibility: urbanised terrain.

9 We used the SARA Nistri map at 1:10.000 updated to January 1991 (sheets 9 and 10). 10 For concepts regarding site and off-site cf. Cambi & Terrenato 1994: pp. 168-174.

18

The southern ager of the ancient city of Crustumerium in order to reach a chronological and structural interpretation of the finds. The dating was mainly based on the typological comparison of the ceramic finds. However, in the case of unidentifiable fragments or the absence of diagnostic sherds, the dating was based on the generic chronology of the attested pottery classes. The results of this research have been compared with those published by L. Quilici and S. Quilici Gigli and the results of their study were combined with the new surveys.11 They have been taken into consideration in the reconstruction of the ancient landscape. In some cases, the sites identified by the two scholars are no longer visible, while in other circumstances they still emerge in the fields. A comparison between the two surveys in the graph below shows the consistent increase of archaeological evidence following our survey.

tomb groups12 and the site’s position on a hill directly outside the ancient city, suggests that this area was a cemetery of the city of Crustumerium.13 The nearby site 15 may have had a similar function. Traces of clandestine excavation were seen here, but no finds were recovered that could provide a chronology. It is very likely that in this period the territory was crossed by roads that also formed the main lines of communication in the following centuries, such as the route partly retraced by the modern via Marcigliana (30). The latter linked Crustumerium to Rome and made it possible to avoid the control that Fidenae exercised over the via Salaria14. Therefore, it is not coincidental that six of the thirteen sites dating to this period are close to route 30. Some of the remaining sites gravitate around the via Salaria (1), a road of fundamental importance for communication between the Sabine area and Rome and other Graph 3

The Orientalizing period

Latin centres in the lower Tiber valley.15 Route 58 branched off from the via Salaria just beyond the fosso Malpasso, travelled towards Crustumerium and from there continued on to Nomentum.

The earliest archaeological evidence found in our survey area can be dated to the Orientalizing period (7th century BC). It comprised thirteen spreads of materials and perhaps two cemetery areas (fig. 3). The territory in examination, controlled by Crustumerium, was apparently already quite intensively exploited in this period. Site 13 was probably part of a vast necropolis. The presence of pits dug by clandestine excavators, finds of 7th century BC pottery fragments from the

12 The finds are housed in the storerooms of the Museo Nazionale Romano. 13 For the cemetery areas of Crustumerium cf. Belelli Marchesini 2006; di Gennaro 2006; di Gennaro 1999; di Gennaro & Belelli Marchesini 2010; Nijboer & Attema 2010; Belelli Marchesini 2013: p. 97, fig. 1; Willemsen 2014: fig. 1.2. 14 Amoroso 2002: p. 295, fig. 5; di Gennaro et al. 2004: p. 164, fig. 11; di Gennaro et al. 2007: p. 148, fig. 8. 15 Fariselli 1992; Cifarelli & di Gennaro 2000.

11 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980.

19

Fabiola Fraioli

Fig. 3.  Map of the archaeological remains dating to the Orientalizing period (author).

Fig. 4.  Map of the archaeological remains dating to the Archaic period (author).

20

The southern ager of the ancient city of Crustumerium

Fig. 5a.  Significant pottery sherds dating to the Archaic and Early Republican period (author).

21

Fabiola Fraioli

Fig. 5b.  Significant pottery sherds dating to the Archaic and Early Republican period (author).

22

The southern ager of the ancient city of Crustumerium

Fig. 5c.  Significant pottery sherds dating to the Archaic and Early Republican period (author).

23

Fabiola Fraioli The presence of a large road cut (14.2) in the tuff bedrock should be noted. The structure may have been related to the nearby cemetery areas, aiding the climb up the nearby hill facing the southern edge of Crustumerium.16 The river Tiber itself was an important communication and trading route.17

Occupation in the Archaic period was less intense in the territories of the Latin cities south of the Alban Hills,29 between Velletri and the Torre Astura promontory. This landscape underwent heavy transformations in the modern period that deeply altered the original morphology of some of the principal settlement sites.30 If the data from this territory reflects the picture of the ancient landscape, for the Archaic period we must suggest a less intense exploitation of the countryside south of the Alban Hills compared to the northern part of Latium Vetus.31 In this case, we would be looking at extensive cultivations, mainly of cereals and some timber production. To what can the spreads of Archaic pot/tile fragments (fig. 5),32 documented in the area in question, be attributed? We know that the territories of the Archaic cities in the central Tyrrhenian area were occupied by burial grounds, sanctuaries, infrastructures (roads and water supply installations mainly cut into the tufa bedrock)33 and production sites, in particular for the quarrying and working of building materials.34 There must have been workshops for tile and architectural terracotta manufacture, that required large spaces and a production organised around the following: the presence of clay sources and collection of the raw material, clay-working involving the use of large quantities of water, firing of the products in kilns and storage of the construction materials produced.35 Rural structures are generally known from the territories of the Archaic cities of the central Tyrrhenian area. The smaller scatters of fragments could be traces of simple buildings with one or two rooms, underground rooms, footings of tufa blocks, walls made of perishable materials and tile roofs. Thanks to recent excavations, such structures are widely attested in the Ager Romanus.36 These small buildings could correspond with the casae and tuguria mentioned in the ancient literary sources.37 They may have been used for the production and conservation of perishable agricultural products such as

The Archaic period

A substantial increase in archaeological material was registered for the 6th century BC: 36 of the scatters contained Archaic material (figs. 4-5).18 This is a large number in relation to the size of the survey area (350 ha): an average distribution of one site with Archaic material every c. 10 ha was documented, representing 360% increase of occurrence compared to the preceding century.19 The majority of the settlements have one element in common, their position, on higher grounds or on hill slopes; very few spreads were found in the valley bottoms (40) or at low level (44, 64, 65, 67). In the 6th century BC, there was an explosion in the occupation of the territory on both sides of the Tiber,20 and in this regard the increase in population density in the suburban area of Crustumerium in the Archaic period finds parallels in the territory of other Latin, Sabine, and Etruscan centres that have been systematically surveyed. Examples are the territories of Nomentum,21 Fidenae,22 Marco Simone Vecchio23 and Gabii24 among the cities of northern Latium Vetus; Eretum,25 and Cures Sabini26 among the centres of Sabina Tiberina; Veii27 and Caere28 among the South Etruscan centres. 16 For the chronology of the monumental cut crossing the centre of Crustumerium cf. Jarva et al. 2013. 17 Quilici Gigli 1986; Coarelli & Patterson 2008, with references. 18 Composed of red impasto coarse ware, bucchero, common impasto coarse ware, coarse cream-ware, cooking stands, dolia, impasto architectural plaques and tiles of impasto and profiles of tile rims similar to the tiles used to close the niches of the chamber tombs of Crustumerium (for the nomenclature of the ceramics see Cascino et al. 2012: pp. 395-397). 19 For a different interpretation of archaeological data in the Archaic period in the countryside around Crustumerium see Attema et al. forthcoming. 20 For a synthesis and comparison of the data from the territories of the middle and lower Tiber valley cf. Di Giuseppe 2008: pp. 431-440, with references. 21 Pala 1976. For an up to date picture of the territory between Crustumerium, Eretum and Nomentum cf. Finocchietti 2012; Togninelli 2014. 22 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1986. 23 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1993. 24 Quilici 1974; Guaitoli 1981. 25 Quilici & Santoro 1995. 26 Muzzioli 1980. 27 Kahane et al. 1968; Cascino et al. 2012. 28 Enei 1993; 2001.

29 Attema et al. 2011; Pompilio 2009. 30 See the examples cited in Attema & De Haas 2012. 31 Attema et al. 2011. 32 Fig. 5 (a-b-c): A. Bucchero: n. 1: site 28; B. Red impasto coarse ware: n. 2: site 44; n. 3: site 19; n. 4: site 21; C. Common impasto coarse ware: n. 5-12: site 19; n. 13-14: site 20; n. 15: site 28; n. 16-17: site 44; n. 18-26: site 21; D. Internal slip ware: n. 27-29: site 21; E. Coarse cream-ware: n. 30: site 18; n. 31: site 9; n. 32-38: site 19; n. 39-40: site 21. 33 For a synthesis of the data relating to the main centers of South Etruria cf. Rendeli 1993. 34 For Rome cf. Cifani 2008: pp. 234-236, fig. 224. For Caere cf. Rendeli 1993: pp. 323-324. 35 Rendeli 1990; Cifani 2008: p. 151. 36 Amoroso et al. 2009; Buonfiglio & D’Annibale 2009. 37 Liv. 3.13.10; 3.26.9; 42.34; 5.53.8.

24

The southern ager of the ancient city of Crustumerium

Fig. 6.  Architectural plaques with parade of soldiers (a. Site 20; b. Site 21; c. Genucilia type plate (site 20) (author).

the suburbs of Fidenae, situated about 2 km east of the city.43 Sites 20 and 21 are particularly important within this picture, where the presence of specific types of terracotta fragments suggests the existence of one or more cult sites, situated about 200 m outside the south-western edge of the city (fig. 4).44 Two impasto fragments from architectural plaques are especially important. One shows part of a hoplite with a round shield, lance and helmet with long crest, as he climbs aboard his war chariot, a horse follows behind him (fig. 6a); the other shows the remains of two hooves probably from two horses standing side by side (fig. 6b). The first fragment has parallels in the plaques with scenes of processions of armed men from Veii, in particular those attributed to the cycle from the “second phase” of the oikos at Piazza d’Armi (fig. 7).45 Other fragments of architectural terracottas found in the urban area of Crustumerium have been attributed to the same cycle.46 The second fragment perhaps belongs to a different type that shows a pair of horses advancing to the left, attested at Veii in particular, close to Piazza

fruit and vegetables, of which the cities required a daily supply. We cannot exclude that some of these structures were also related to stock raising, which required large, guarded enclosures outside of the cities. Moreover, it is likely that some of these structures, found not by chance on the low hills and close to the roads, also functioned as garrisons within the territory that could warn for danger from the ransacking and military attacks. We know from the literary sources that such events were common in this territory and that it was the scene of frequent clashes between Etruscans, Sabines and Latins.38 Spreads of medium and large fragments can be interpreted as evidence for larger buildings with more complex plans. They may be similar to those found in the locality of Acqua Acetosa-Laurentina39 in southern Rome, in the territory of Fidenae40 along the via Salaria, and the farm excavated at the Auditorium close to the via Flaminia dating to the second half of the 6th century BC.41 There is no lack of evidence for buildings constructed just outside the cities. One example is phase one of the large villa on the hill of Castel Giubileo, dated to the Archaic period, at about 1 km from the north edge of the urban centre of Fidenae.42 A group of eight modest dwellings of Archaic and Early Republican date was also identified within

43 Amoroso et al. 2009. 44 As well as architectural plaque (cf. infra) site 20 also produced a fragment of a small Genucilia type plate (fig. 6c). The latter could be evidence for a cult area that was also in use during the Mid-Republican period. For the traces of the moat identified at the southern boundary of the settlement, using magnetic gradiometry cf. Attema 2013: pp. 41-45, fig. 15. 45 Winter 2009; Bartoloni et al. 2011. 46 Amoroso & Barbina 2003; Amoroso 2012.

38 For a collection of literary sources cf. Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980; 1986; 1993. 39 Bedini 1981; 1990. 40 di Gennaro et al. forthcoming. 41 Carandini et al. 2006. 42 di Gennaro et al. 2002.

25

Fabiola Fraioli

Fig. 7.  Architectural plaque from site 20. Reconstruction (author).

d’Armi.47 The presence of these plaques constitutes further evidence of the influence of the Veientine culture on the Latin city. We do not know whether the two fragments were part of the same construction or of two different buildings. However, the attribution to two different types of architectural plaques and the distance (70 m) between the two scatters of material (20 and 21), which did not appear to have suffered from hill wash or movement of the surface material, makes it likely that they pertained to two different structures. This was probably an extra-urban cult area with more than one building. Its position outside the city finds parallels in other Latin centers, in particular Gabii,48 Lavinium,49 Praeneste50 and Caprifico di Torrecchia near Cisterna di Latina.51

In most cases, the position of the spreads we found dating to this period was the same as those from the previous century. However, we registered a minimal difference: three sites disappear (5, 55, 72) and four new spreads appear (8, 39, 43, 60) (fig. 8), all relating to small settlements. As shown in graph 4, the settlement distribution in the territory examined here appears to have been only partially modified (19%) compared to the 6th century BC. The nature and position of most of the sites (81%) remains unchanged in respect of the preceding century. Graph 4

The Early Republican period (5th century BC)

There were 37 scatters of material datable to the 5th century BC: the quantity shows that the population of the area remained stable in respect of the previous century. L. Quilici and S. Quilici Gigli documented a decline, although minimal, in the number of settlements in the territory of Crustumerium,52 for the period in question. They also identified this tendency in the nearby territories of Fidenae and Ficulea.53

Conclusions

Crustumerium flourished in the 6th century BC; the significant archaeological evidence found on the plateau occupied by the city attests this.54 The increase in the amount of archaeological evidence found within its territory dating to this period, seems to indicate an intense and extensive exploitation of the ager,

47 Bartoloni et al. 2011: p. 169, fig. 15; Winter 2009: 4.D.2.e, ill. 4.6.4 and 4.D.3.d, ill. 4.7.4. 48 Ceccarelli & Marroni 2011: pp. 189-197, with references. 49 Ceccarelli & Marroni 2011: pp. 238-242, with references. 50 Terracotta plaques showing processions of chariots, drawn by winged horses, and warriors, are documented at the extra-urban sanctuary in contrada Colombella. Ceccarelli & Marroni 2011: pp. 410-412 with references. 51 Palombi 2006; 2010, in particular p. 174, p. 189, fig. 12a. 52 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980: p. 285. 53 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1986: p. 389; Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1993: p. 473.

54 Attema et al. 2013.

26

The southern ager of the ancient city of Crustumerium

Fig. 8.  Map of the archaeological remains dating to the Early Republican period (author).

which started with the areas immediately outside the city. These areas were subjected to new forms of land use and management. In the central Tyrrhenian area, in the 6th century BC, this phenomenon is associated with an increase and improvement in the infrastructures built within the territory, such as roads and complex systems for water regimentation, which were later used for the intensive exploitation of the land.55 In northern Latium Vetus, to the north of the river Aniene, this phenomenon seems even more marked. Here, the average distance between main centers (6.4 km) is much less than what is generally documented between the centres in the rest of Latium Vetus (ca. 12 km), suggesting a population density which was far greater than that registered on average in the region. The cities (Cretone, Nomentum, Crustumerium, Fidenae, Capobianco, Marco Simone Vecchio and Corniculum) that were close to each other (Crustumerium and Fidenae are less than 5 km apart; Capobianco and Marco Simone Vecchio less than 3 km apart), had a small ager at their disposal (on average less than 100 sq km), with a range of influence in some cases that was less

than 3 km.56 Particular examples are the territories of Crustumerium, Fidenae, Capobianco and Marco Simone Vecchio. This settlement system required the territories to be exploited and inhabited beginning with areas immediately outside the city, without any great distinction between suburbium and ager. Only an intense and extensive occupation of the countryside would have guaranteed autonomy of production for the individual centres and the defence of the territorial boundaries from attacks by neighbouring cities. The excessive division of the Latin ager trans Anienem rendered this settlement system unstable from the point of view of population and resource exploitation.57 The breaking up of the territory between the principal settlements constituted an intrinsic weakness. Inevitably, there were clashes between neighbouring centres. More than once the Etruscans, Sabine, Faliscans and Capenates crossed the borders into these territories until, in the 5th century BC, Rome put an end to the independence of many of the Latin centres situated trans Anienem.

56 Fulminante 2014: pp. 157-166, p. 202; Amoroso in this volume (table 3). 57 On this topic cf. in particular Bintliff 1999; 2000.

55 Cifani 2010.

27

Fabiola Fraioli The 5th century BC was a particularly delicate period for the territory in question. Rome conquered Crustumerium in 500-499 BC, for the third and final time.58 Following its conquest, the city was transformed into a centre dependant on the Urbs. How does this episode fit into a picture in which Crustumerium had already been within Rome’s orbit for some time? The definitive conquest of the Latin centre must be evaluated in relation to the political crisis that hit Rome at the beginning of the century, with the expulsion of the Tarquinii at the end of the 6th century BC and the subsequent alteration of the political equilibrium.59 Rome’s military intervention transformed the ancient city into a military outpost aimed at controlling the territory. We can alternatively interpret the conquest of Crustumerium as Rome taking a definite stand and responding with force to the military pressure that the Sabines exercised in this area according to the literary sources.60 In 495 BC, the tribus Clustumina was instituted.61 The creation of the rural tribe confirmed the definitive annexation of Crustumerium and its territory to the ager Romanus.62 The birth of the tribus Clustumina should be seen in relation to the social struggles that afflicted the Roman state in the first century of the Republic. In fact, the newly acquired territories in the ager of Crustumerium caused a new clash between the aristocracy and the rising plebeian families, which resulted in the secessio crustumerina in 494 BC.63 The territory examined in this study shows only very slight signs of the probable transformations Rome made to the pre-existing territorial organisation following the redistribution of the land in this part of the ager.

Amoroso, A. & Barbina, P. 2003, “L’istituzione della tribù Claudia e Clustumina nel Latium Vetus. Un esempio di gestione del territorio da parte di Roma nel V secolo a.C.”, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, vol. 104, pp. 19-36. Amoroso, A., Bianchini, M., di Gennaro, F., Fraioli, F. & Merlo, M. 2009, “Strutture semipogee nel territorio fidenate” in Suburbium II. Il Suburbio di Roma dalla fine dell’età monarchica alla nascita del sistema delle ville (V-II secolo a.C.), (eds.) V. Jolivet, C. Pavolini, M.A. Tomei & R. Volpe, pp. 347-367. Attema, P.A.J. & De Haas, T.C.A. 2012, “Intensive On-site Artefact Survey and Proto-urbanization. Case Studies from Central and South Italy” in Urban Landscape Survey in Italy and the Mediterranean, (eds.) F. Vermeulen, G.-J. Burgers, S. Keay & C. Corsi, pp. 1-12. Attema, P.A.J., De Haas, T.C.A. & Tol, G.W. (eds.) 2011, Between Satricum and Antium: Settlement Dynamics in a Coastal landscape in Latium Vetus, Babesch supplement 18, Peeters, Leuven. Attema, P.A.J., di Gennaro, F. & Jarva, E. (eds.) 2013, Crustumerium, Ricerche internazionali in un centro latino, Archaeology and identity of a Latin settlement near Rome, Groningen Institute of Archaeology & Barkhuis, Groningen. Attema, P.A.J., De Haas, T.C.A., Seubers, J.F. & Tol, G.W. (eds.) forthcoming, “In search of the Archaic countryside. Different scenarios for the ruralisation of Satricum and Crustumerium” in The Age of Tarquinius Superbus. A Paradigm Shift, Rome 7-9 November 2013. Bartoloni, G., Acconcia, V., Piergrossi, A., Van Kampen, I. & Ten Kortenaar, S. 2011, “Veio, Piazza d’Armi: riconsiderazioni e novità” in Tetti di terracotta. La decorazione architettonica fittile tra Etruria e Lazio in età arcaica (Atti delle giornate di studio, Roma 25 marzo e 25 ottobre 2010), Officina Etruscologia, vol. 5, pp. 116-174. Bedini, A. 1981, “Edifici di abitazione di epoca arcaica in località Acqua Acetosa Laurentina”, Archeologia laziale IV (QuadAEI, vol. 5), pp. 253-257. Bedini, A. 1990, “Laurentina-Acqua Acetosa” in La grande Roma dei Tarquini, (ed.) M. Cristofani, pp. 171-177. Belelli Marchesini, B. 2006, “Località Sasso Bianco” in Roma. Memorie dal sottosuolo. Ritrovamenti archeologici. 1980/2006 (exhibition catalogue), (ed.) M.A. Tomei, p. 223. Belelli Marchesini, B. 2013, “La necropoli di Crustumerium: bilancio delle acquisizioni e prospettive” in Crustumerium, Ricerche

Bibliography

Amoroso, A. 2002, “Nuovi dati per la conoscenza dell’antico centro di Crustumerium”, Archeologia Classica, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 287-329. Amoroso, A. 2012, “Caratteri degli insediamenti del Latium Vetus settentrionale,” Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, vol. 113, pp. 193-214.

58 Liv. 2.19.2. Crustumerium had previously been conquered by Romulus and Tarquinius Priscus (Liv. 1.11.3-4). 59 See Cornell 1995 on the substantial reliability of the annalistic tradition relating to the 5th century BC; see Di Giuseppe 2008 for an up to date interpretation of the archaeological data from the middle Tiber Valley. 60 Dion. Hal. 6.34.4; Liv. 2.64.2-3; Liv. 3.42.3-4; Dion. Hal. 11.23.4. 61 Liv. 2.21.7. 62 Amoroso & Barbina 2003. 63 Varro l.l. 5.81.

28

The southern ager of the ancient city of Crustumerium internazionali in un centro latino, Archaeology and identity of a Latin settlement near Rome, (eds.) P.A.J. Attema, F. di Gennaro & E. Jarva, pp. 95-112. Bintliff, J.L. 1999, “Settlement and Territory” in the Routledge Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology, (ed.) G. Barker, pp. 505-544. Bintliff, J.L. 2000, “Settlement and Territory: A Socio-Ecological Approach to the Evolution of Settlement System” in Human Ecodynamics, (eds.) G. Bailey, R. Charles & N. Winder, pp. 21-30. Brocato, G. 1996. “L’evoluzione del territorio” in Le origini: una storia millenaria tra cultura e ambiente, (eds.) P. Brocato & E. Melandri, pp. 24-29. Buonfiglio, M. & D’Annibale, M.L. 2009, “Le strutture di Casal Brunori” in Suburbium II. Il Suburbio di Roma dalla fine dell’età monarchica alla nascita del sistema delle ville (V-II secolo a.C.), (eds.) V. Jolivet, C. Pavolini, M.A. Tomei & R. Volpe, pp. 241-259. Cambi, F. & Terrenato, N. 1994, Introduzione all’archeologia dei paesaggi, Carocci, Roma. Capanna, M.C. & Carafa, P. 2009, “Il progetto «Archeologia del Suburbio di Roma» per la ricostruzione dei paesaggi agrari antichi” in Suburbium II. Il suburbio di Roma dalla fine dell’eta monarchica alla nascita del sistema delle ville (V-II secolo a.C.), (eds.) V. Jolivet, C. Pavolini, M.A. Tomei & R. Volpe, pp. 27-39. Carafa, P. 2000, “Una nuova analisi archeologica per il settore settentrionale del suburbio di Roma”, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma, vol. 101, pp. 185-196. Carafa, P. 2004, “Il paesaggio etrusco-italico” in Bridging the Tiber. Approaches to Regional Archaeology in the middle Tiber Valley, (ed.) H. Patterson, pp. 45-59. Carandini, A., D’Alessio, M.T. & Di Giuseppe, H. 2006, La fattoria e la villa dell’Auditorium nel quartiere Flaminio di Roma, L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma. Carandini, A. 2009, “I paesaggi del Suburbio” in Suburbium II. Il Suburbio di Roma dalla fine dell’età monarchica alla nascita del sistema delle ville (V-II secolo a.C.), (eds.) V. Jolivet, C. Pavolini, M.A. Tomei & R. Volpe, pp. 295-310. Carandini, A., Carafa, P. & Capanna, C. 2007. “Il progetto “Archeologia del Suburbio per la ricostruzione dei paesaggi agrari antichi”. Impostazione e metodologia della ricerca” in Il suburbio di Roma antica, (ed.) C. Cupitò, pp. 13-25. Cascino, R., di Giuseppe, H. & Patterson, H.L. (eds.) 2012, Veii, The Historical Topography of the Ancient City. A Restudy of John Ward-Perkins’s

Survey, Archaeological Monographs of B.S.R., vol. 19, Oxford. Ceccarelli, L. & Marroni, E. 2011, Repertorio dei santuari del Lazio, Giorgio Bretschneider, Roma. Cifani, G. 2008, Architettura romana arcaica. Edilizia e società tra Monarchia e Repubblica, L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma. Cifani, G. 2010, “Architettura e paesaggi rurali in età arcaica in area medio tirrenica” in Meetings of Cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean, XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Rome 2008, Bollettino di Archeologia online, pp. 10-16. Cifarelli, F.M. & di Gennaro, F. 2000, “La via Salaria dall’Aniene all’Allia” in La Salaria in età antica, Atti del Convegno di studi, Ascoli Piceno, Offida, Rieti 2-4 Ottobre 1997, pp. 121-144. Coarelli, F. & Patterson, H. (eds.) 2008, Mercator Placidissimus. The Tiber Valley in Antiquity. New research in the upper and middle river valley, Edizioni Quasar, Roma. Cornell, T.J. 1995, The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC), Routledge, London. Cupitò, C. 2007, Il suburbio di Roma antica. La topografia del suburbio tra la Salaria, l’Aniene, il Tevere e la c.d. Salaria vetus, Quaderni della Carta dell’Agro Romano 1, L'Erma di Bretschneider, Roma. De Angelis D’Ossat, G. 1929-1931, Storia geologica della Campagna Romana, I-IV, Roma. di Gennaro, F. (ed.) 1999, Itinerario di visita a Crustumerium, S&M Studio, Roma. di Gennaro, F. 2006, “Crustumerium e la sua necropoli” in Roma. Memorie dal sottosuolo. Ritrovamenti archeologici. 1980/2006 (exhibition catalogue), (ed.) M.A. Tomei, pp. 222-223. di Gennaro, F. 2013, “Alla ricerca dell’identità di Crustumerium” in Ricerche internazionali in un centro latino, Archaeology and identity of a Latin settlement near Rome, (eds.) P.A.J. Attema, F. di Gennaro & E. Jarva, pp. 1-20. di Gennaro, F. & Belelli Marchesini, B. 2010, “Crustumerium: Gli scavi nel sepolcreto crustumino di Monte del Bufalo” in Meetings of Cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean, XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Rome 2008, Bollettino di Archeologia online, pp. 12-22. di Gennaro, F., Amoroso, A. & Togninelli, P. 2007, “Crustumerium e Fidenae tra Etruria e Colli Albani” in Tusculum. Storia, Archeologia, Cultura e Arte di Tuscolo e del Tuscolano. Atti del primo incontro di studi (Roma, 27-28 maggio, 3 giugno 2000), (eds.) F. Arietti & A. Pasqualini, pp. 135-144.

29

Fabiola Fraioli di Gennaro, F., Amoroso, A., Belelli Marchesini, B. & Ceccarelli, L. forthcoming, “Il territorio laziale a nord dell’Aniene nell’età di Tarquinio il Superbo” in The Age of Tarquinius Superbus. A Paradigm Shift, Rome 7-9 November 2013. di Gennaro, F., Schiappelli, A. & Amoroso, A. 2004, “Un confronto tra gli organismi proto statali delle due sponde del Tevere. Le prime fasi di Veio e di Crustumerio” in Bridging the Tiber. Approaches to Regional Archaeology in the Middle Tiver Valley, (ed.) H. Patterson, pp. 147-177. di Gennaro, F., Vitti, M., Fraioli, F., Panciera, S., Biagini, S. & Malizia, A. 2002, “Roma. Via Salaria. La villa di Marco Claudio Ponzio Ponziano Marcello e la basilica di S. Michele Arcangelo sulla collina di Castel Giubileo”, Notizie degli Scavi, vol. 11-12, pp. 465-541. Di Giuseppe, H. 2008, “Assetti territoriali nella media valle del Tevere dall’epoca orientalizzante a quella repubblicana” in Mercator Placidissimus. The Tiber Valley in Antiquity, (eds.) F. Coarelli & H. Patterson, pp. 431-465. Dinuzzi, S. & Fusco, U. 2010, Il territorio tra il Tevere, l’Aniene e la Via Nomentana, Municipio II, parte 2, Quaderni della Carta dell’Agro Romano, vol. 2, L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma. Enei, F. 1993, Cerveteri. Ricognizioni archeologiche nel territorio di una città etrusca, Gruppo Archeologico Romano, Ladispoli. Enei, F. 2001, Progetto Ager Caeretanus. Il litorale di Alsium. Ricognizioni archeologiche nel territorio dei comuni di Ladispoli, Cerveteri e Fiumicino (Alsium, Caere, Ad Turres, Ceri), Ladispoli. Fariselli, A. 1992, “Sulle origini storiche della via Salaria”, Bollettino della Unione storia ed arte, vol. 35, pp. 1-9. Finocchietti, L. 2012, “Confini e organizzazione del territorio sulla sponda sinistra del Tevere tra Crustumerium, Nomentum e Roma”, Bullettino della Commmissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, vol. 113, pp. 285-297. Fulminante, F. 2014, The Urbanisation of Rome and Latium Vetus: from the Bronze Age to the Archaic Era, Cambridge University Press, New York. Funiciello, R. & Giordano, G. (eds.) 2005, Carta Geologica del Comune di Roma, Volume 1, scala 1:10.000, Roma Tre, Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche, Comune di Roma, Ufficio di Protezione Civile, APAT Dipartimento Difesa del Suolo, Roma. Funiciello, R., Cifelli, F. & Rosa, C. 2007, “I caratteri geologici dell’area romana” in Il suburbio di Roma antica, (ed.) C. Cupitò, pp. 27-35. Guaitoli M. 1981, “Gabii”, Parola del Passato, vol. 36, pp. 152-173.

Jarva, E., Kuusisto, A., Lipponen, S. & Tuppi, J. 2013, “Excavations in the road trench area of Crustumerium and future research prospects” in Ricerche internazionali in un centro latino, Archaeology and identity of a Latin settlement near Rome, (eds.) P.A.J. Attema, F. di Gennaro & E. Jarva, pp. 36-44. Kahane, A., Murray Threipland, L. & Ward-Perkins, J. 1968, “The Ager Veientanus, North and East of Rome”, Papers of the British School at Rome, vol. 36, London. Muzzioli, M.P. 1980, Cures Sabini. Forma Italiae, Regio IV, 2, L.S. Olschki, Firenze. Nijboer, A.J. & Attema, P.A.J. 2010, “Cultural Characteristics of the Ancient Community living at Crustumerium and the Excavations of the Groningen Institute of Archaeology at the Monte Del Bufalo Necropolis” in Meetings of Cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean, XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Bollettino di Archeologia online, pp. 23-37. Pala, C. 1976, Nomentum, Forma Italiae, Regio I, De Luca, Roma. Palombi, D. 2006, “Città scomparse, città ritrovate alle porte della Pianura Pontina. Il sito di Caprifico di Torrecchia”, Archeologia Classica, vol. 57, pp. 546-556. Palombi, D. (ed.) 2010, Il tempio arcaico di Caprifico di Torrecchia (Cisterna di Latina). I materiali e il contesto, Quasar, Roma. Passigli, S. 1993, “Ricostruzione cartografica e paesaggio del Catasto Alessandrino. II. Indici delle Mappe”, Archivio della Società romana di storia patria, vol. 116, pp. 243-295. Pompilio, F. 2009, Carta archeologica d’Italia. Aprilia, Università La Sapienza, Roma. Quilici Gigli S. & Santoro, P. 1995, “Eretum: ricerca topografica sull’abitato in epoca arcaica”, Archeologia laziale, vol. XII, no. 2 (QuadAEI, vol. 24), pp. 641-663. Quilici Gigli, S. 1986, “Scali e traghetti sul Tevere in epoca arcaica”, Archeologia laziale, vol. VII (QuadAEI, vol. 12), pp. 71-89. Quilici, L. 1974, Collatia, Roma. Quilici, L. & Quilici Gigli, S. 1980, Crustumerium, Latium Vetus III, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma. Quilici, L. & Quilici Gigli, S. 1986, Fidenae, Latium Vetus V, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma. Quilici, L. & Quilici Gigli, S. 1993, Ficulea, Latium Vetus VI, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma.

30

The southern ager of the ancient city of Crustumerium Togninelli P. (ed.) 2014, Tra Eretum, Nomentum e Crustumerium. Antiche modalità insediative nel territorio di Monterotondo, L'Erma di Bretschneider, Roma. Ventriglia, U. 2002, Geologia del Territorio del Comune di Roma, Amministrazione Provinciale di Roma, Roma. Willemsen, S.L. 2014, Into the Light. A Study of the Changing Burial Customs at Crustumerium in the 7th and 6th centuries BC, PhD Thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen. Winter, N.A. 2009, Symbols of Wealth and Power: Architectural Terracotta Decoration in Etruria and Central Italy, 640-510 B.C., University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Rendeli, M. 1990, “Materie prime, tecniche, tipi edilizi” in La grande Roma dei Tarquini, (ed.) M. Cristofani, pp. 138-139. Rendeli, M. 1993, Città aperte. Ambiente e paesaggio rurale organizzato nell’Etruria meridionale costiera durante l’età orientalizzante e arcaica, Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale, Roma. Scotoni, L. 1986, “Le tenute della Campagna Romana nel 1660. Saggi di ricostruzione cartografica” in Atti e Memorie della Società Tiburtina di Storia e d’Arte, vol. 59, pp. 185-262. Scotoni, L. 1989, “Trasteverina, Collina, Isola. Antichi nomi territoriali del Lazio (secoli IXXVII)” in Atti e Memorie della Società Tiburtina di Storia e d’Arte, vol. 62, pp. 54-81. Swart, P., Verlaan, T., Brandhoff, R. & Bronkhorst, R. (eds.) 2013, Unveiling Crustumerium. The excavations at Rome by the Groningen Institute of Archaeology, Barkhuis, Groningen.

31

4 EXPLORATORY TRENCHES IN THE SOUTHERN TERRITORY OF ANCIENT CRUSTUMERIUM (TENUTA INVIOLATELLA SALARIA) Andrea Di Napoli Introduction

account, which substantially complemented the archaeological map elaborated by Fabiola Fraioli and the map that was published by Lorenzo Quilici and Stefania Quilici Gigli.4 The SSBAR decided to dig 13 different trenches across areas with high concentrations of surface finds that were also located in the zones that were going to be covered up by the addition of soil. The main aim of these excavations was to map the extent of the archaeological sites and to acquire basic chronological functional information of the structures and the identified contexts (fig. 1). Overall, the trenches have had only few positive results, and traces of stable occupation have been recovered in only three areas (fig. 1, B-D): in one area the archaeological layers match perfectly with the high concentration of sherds from the topsoil, whereas in the other two areas, erosion accounts for the wide dispersion of the surface finds. In a fourth area, only marginal remains of archaeological layers could be recovered (fig. 1, A). Further archaeological evidence was found in relation to the presence of complex, supposedly more extended, drainage systems that were discovered in two trenches (fig. 1, E-F).

The Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Roma (henceforth SSBAR) conducted archaeological investigations of the Tenuta Inviolatella Salaria (henceforth the Tenuta), an area used for agricultural purposes, in 2012 by means of digging several test trenches.1 This investigation was necessary prior to raising the ground level through the addition of soil in seven different areas in order to reconstruct the original morphology of the landscape. In recent years, erosion has caused the progressive downward sloping of the topsoil towards the valleys, complicating the agricultural exploitation of the fields. The area, located a short distance from the southwestern border of the ancient city of Crustumerium, extends over 0.6 km2 and includes the hillsides that face the valley of the Malpasso stream. This area corresponds to the middle portion of the ancient Tenuta Inviolatella e Marcigliano designated by the Catasto Alessandrino.2 The plan for the test trenches took the results of recent surveys carried out by the Groningen Institute of Archaeology3 (henceforth GIA) into

Evidence from the northern part of the Tenuta

1 I am grateful to the former inspector of the SSBAR, Dr. F. di Gennaro, who started the investigation and to the present inspector of the SSBAR, Dr. P. Filippini, who followed the development of the fieldwork and has allowed me to publish the results, and to Dr. B. Belelli Marchesini for her help and for reading my text. 2 For a reconstructive plan of the ancient Tenuta, see Scotoni 1986. Nowadays the western part of the ancient Tenuta, beyond the Autostrada del Sole, corresponds to the west side of a hill where the SSBAR has investigated scarce traces of a Neolithic frequentation, a small Roman cemetery near a little water reservoir in opus coementicium, and a water drainage channel covered with tiles that is probably connected to it. These investigations took place over several years. 3 The results of recent fieldwork conducted by the GIA under the supervision of Prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema and drs. J.F. Seubers have been promptly deposited in the SSBAR’s archives. Therefore, the GIA’s density maps were available during the investigation.

The first investigated area is located north-west of the modern farm buildings (known as casale Monticelli) and corresponds to the southern part of a small hill overlooking the initial stretch of the valley of the Malpasso stream. No archaeological remains were recorded here in the 1980’s,5 but over the years many fragments were ploughed out along the eastern edge of the hill and registered both by Fabiola Fraioli (fig. 1, n. 7) and by the GIA. During 4 Fraioli in this volume; Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980. 5 Two restricted find concentrations were located in the northern part of the hill outside the borders of the Tenuta: Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980: site n. 16, p. 190.

33

Andrea di Napoli

Fig. 1.  Plan of the investigation of the Tenuta Inviolatella (numbers correspond to the sites published by Fraioli in this volume).

the investigation of the area with the highest concentration of fragments (fig. 1, A), we noticed the presence of chunks of worked yellow tuff below the topsoil, possibly indicating the presence of opus quadratum foundation walls. Unfortunately, the limited extension of our trench did not provide evidence for walls. However, it did reveal an interesting stratigraphic sequence in a slightly depressed area (fig. 2). The archaeological layer below the topsoil (US 1) was still protected by a limited part of a natural layer (USS 3, 4). In the northern edge, there were concentrations of pottery (USS 5, 7) and building materials (USS 6, 9) overlapping an incomplete and irregular L-shaped structure made of large pieces of tuff, the function of which is not certain. The structure stretched along the main axis of an elliptical pit filled up by a single layer, which has been partially investigated (US 12). In the layers we have recovered a high number of fragments, unfortunately, many of them were badly eroded. We have recorded the presence of black glaze pottery such as miniaturistic cups6 (fig. 3, n. 1), bowls7 (fig.

3, n. 2), especially with a curved lip,8 some of them belonging to the Atelier des petites estampilles9 (fig. 3, n. 4), and hemispherical cups with a decorated lip10 (fig. 3, n. 3). There were also fragments of sovra dipinto black glazed skyphoi11 and a small piattello genucilia12 (fig. 3, n. 3). Regarding coarse ware, we found several lid fragments (fig. 3, n. 11) and jars of different sizes (fig. 3, nn. 6-10), some of which very small (fig. 3, nn. 12-13), mainly with almond-shaped

8 It was possible to reconstruct only a few complete profiles. In most cases, however, they belong to low cups similar to Morel 1981: type 2784, p. 224, pl. 3 (early 3rd century BC). 9 Different types of stamps have been recovered. Two of them date to 280-260 BC (see Stanco 2005: p. 35, fig. 9, nn. 10, 16). 10 The only recovered fragment belongs to Morel 1981: type 2523, p. 176, pl. 51 (end of the 3rd century BC). 11 Several bases can be attributed to the shape, although they are rather abraded. Two lip fragments recovered in US 7, not included, still have traces of a painted decoration pattern (palmette) and probably belong to the group Ferrara T 585 dating from the middle of the 4th to the first half of the 3rd century BC (see Pianu 1982: pp. 71-ss). 12 The sample belongs to Morel 1981: type 1113, p. 81, pl. 1 (end of the 4th century BC). Even if the decoration is fading, traces of a wave, of dots and of the central star motif are visible.

6 The fragments seem to belong to the same type, similar to Morel 1981: type 2787, p. 225, pl. 73 (early 3rd century BC). 7 Similar to Morel 1981: type 2621, pp. 193-194, pl. 60 (early 3rd century BC).

34

Exploratory trenches in the southern territory of ancient Crustumerium

Fig. 2.  Area A. Plan and section of the preserved stratification.

rims.13 Finally, we found impasto chiaro sabbioso fragments, including different examples of large basins (fig. 4, nn. 1-2), jugs14 (fig. 4, n. 3), and a prob-

able wellhead fragment with a relief decoration on the upper edge15 (fig. 4, n. 6). The limited number of specific shapes and the inclusion of peculiar objects, such as the fragment that is likely to be a thymiaterion16 (fig. 4, n. 4), suggest the nearby presence of a votive context in connection to a cult place. It is highly probable that this cult place included a temple, as suggested by the find of two antepagment plaque fragments dating between the second half of the 4th and the 3rd century. The first plaque fragment belongs to a cavetto

13 Several fragments of jars belong to the Internal Slip Ware production and date to the 4th - 3rd century BC. On this production, see Cascino & Di Sarcina 2008 and Di Giuseppe 2006: pp. 394-395. For the fragments nn. 13-14 see Olcese 2003: olla type 1, pp. 78-79, tav. VII (4th - 3rd century BC). 14 Basin n. 1 does not seem to fall into the Mid-Republican common types but is similar to specimens from the territory of Veii: Murray Threypland & Torelli 1970: pp. 7879, fig. 17B. For basin n. 2 see Olcese 2003: note 13, bacini/ mortaria type 1, pp. 100-101, tav. XXXIV, 4. The jug with triangular lip instead has a large diffusion between 4th-3rd century BC, see Di Giuseppe 2006: p. 391, n. 270, tav. 30.

15 The fragment does not have exact parallels, but is similar to the truncated-conical type with mouldings. See di Gennaro & Foddai 2003. 16 It is not possible to attribute the fragment to a specific type. Generally for the shape, see Ten Kortenaar 2005.

35

Andrea di Napoli grove of Lucaria located in the Tiber valley "... inter Salariam viam et Tiberim ... ".18 Although it is difficult to identify the function of the site after the main period of use, the site survived until the Early Imperial age as suggested by the find of a jar with a triangular lip19 (fig. 3, n. 9) and a depurated ware basin from the topsoil20 (fig. 4, n. 5). The trenches have not intercepted the ancient road (fig. 1, road 22) that supposedly crossed the area now occupied by farmhouses and would have turned northeast towards the city of Crustumerium.21

Evidence from the central part of the Tenuta

The second investigated area is located south-east of the modern farm buildings and corresponds to the eastern half of an extensive hill stretching from north-west to south-east. L. and S. Quilici recorded a single site in this area, maybe a Roman imperial villa rustica, near the western border (fig. 1, n. 55), whereas F. Fraioli’s map includes more archaeological evidence (fig. 1, n. 3, n. 51-52, n. 56). The GIA mapped a considerable distribution of fragments mainly scattered along the south-eastern slope of the hill in correspondence with two transversal, rather shallow valleys. In the first trench, on top of the hill and near the western border of the Tenuta, there were no archaeological traces, neither of the first site, which probably extends outside the property, nor of the road n. 22 that should correspond to the rectilinear stretch of the modern Via dell’Inviolatella Salaria. The second trench cut the slope of the hill, with an absence of traces near the first topographical unit of F. Fraioli (n. 56). Although, there was a high concentration of sherds located immediately at the foot of the hill. This concentration was interpreted as the result of stable occupation from the 6th century BC to the 1st century AD, perhaps originating from a site once located on top of the hill and later destroyed by a modern vineyard. Not far to the south of this trench, a possible drainage channel was revealed with a length of about 12 m and a width of 0.5 m (fig. 5). It was cut into the bedrock and a few Mid-Republican pottery fragments were found in its fill. The channel, oriented north-north-east/south-south-west, was investigated in a cross-section and probably belonged to a drainage system that was constructed diagonally across the natural slopes of the deep valley (fig. 1, F). The stratigraphic section (fig. 6) shows that the

Fig. 3.  Area A. A selection of fragments from the stratification (nn. 1, 3, 8 from US 1; nn. 7, 9-12 from US 7; nn. 2, 4, 6 from US 9; n. 5 from US 12).

moulding with a row of palmettes and the second to the anthemion17 (fig. 4, n. 7). The excavated stratigraphy could have formed in a marginal area of a rural sanctuary that could still be preserved on the top of the hill, across the northern border of the Tenuta (and outside the research area). The use of the cult place may be dated to the Mid-Republican period, but the existence of a previous phase cannot be excluded. Additional chronological information will certainly be provided by a careful comparison of the material of the excavation and the surveys. The hypothetical cult area on the south-west of the ancient town of Crustumerium must have been public and can perhaps be connected to the well-known sacred

17 Fragment n. 7 comes from a layer (US 6) rich in fragments of Archaic tiles, as their technical features seems to suggest. The recurrence of Wikander type IB fragments suggest an early phase of this roof, which later underwent a restoration. For type of antepagmenta see Strazzulla 1987: pp. 165-166; there are comparisons to the plaque in several sites such as Falerii, Lavinium, Signa, Praeneste and Pyrgi. Also see Palone 2009: p. 50.

18 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980: pp. 293-294. 19 Olcese 2003: olla type 3, pp. 80-82 (2nd-1st century BC.). 20 Olcese 2003: bacini/mortaria type 11, pp. 104-105, tav. XXXIX, 4. 21 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980: site n. 22, pp. 193-195.

36

Exploratory trenches in the southern territory of ancient Crustumerium

Fig. 4.  Area A. A selection of fragments from the stratification (n. 1 from US 5; nn. 2-4 from US 1; n. 5 from US 7; n. 6 from US 12; n. 7 from US 9; n. 8 from US 6. The reconstruction drawing is taken from Enea nel Lazio, Roma 1981, D72, p. 199).

ancient valley was progressively filled up and finally levelled in modern times.22 No subsurface evidence was preserved for the site located next to the southern edge of the hilltop (n. 51), which was originally interpreted as a long-lasting rural settlement. Ploughed out opus coementicium fragments and basalt and mortar chips

do suggest that agricultural activities have already reached and destroyed the foundation level of the buildings. A pit (fig. 1, H) that was partially excavated down to the level of a clayish natural fill revealed an opus coementicium ring23 (fig. 7) that is possibly related to the surface find concentration. 23 The pit has an internal diameter of about 0.8 m and 1.2 m external diameter. The opus coementicium was built on a step cut in the hardest geological formation, it is preserved approximately to a height of 0.6 m and had to cover the pit for an estimated height of 1.5 m.

22 A similar situation was recorded in a second, but less deep transversal valley that corresponds to another find concentration registered by the GIA (fig. 1, G).

37

Andrea di Napoli

Fig. 5.  Plan and section of the drainage channel (E) found along the side of the deep valley.

Fig. 6.  Section of the modern stratification (F) found above the ancient deep valley.

The different archaeological strata inside the pit belong to a single intentional fill (USS 4-6) dating back to the 3rd century AD and include mainly plain and cover tile fragments, but also a substantial amount of amphora, table and kitchen ware fragments24 (fig. 8). The site at the foot of the southern slope (n. 52) is the result of the accumulation of washed out sherds and may be connected to the presence of structures on the east side of the pit; such structures were revealed, but not excavated further, because this was beyond the research scope of the trial trenches25 (fig. 1, B). In summary, a rectangular structure delimited by thick walls in opus reticulatum, extending over an area of about 100 m2 was uncovered in the north

of the trench. The walls seem to have been preserved for the height of more than one meter. Other walls located in the south-east with different orientations also appeared, but have been unfortunately badly damaged by ploughing. They are mainly foundations walls and associated with remains of the preparazione pavimentale (fig. 9). No meaningful fragments directly related to the structures have been recovered during our investigation. However, a few badly preserved fragments seem to confirm the date recorded during the survey of Fabiola Fraioli, placing the most intensive frequentation of the site approximately between the 2nd century BC and the 2nd century AD.26 The next investigated area corresponds to the eastern part of a long hill separated from the previous one by a shallow valley crossed by the modern Via dell’Inviolatella Salaria. The first survey of this area pointed out a single site, located on top of the hill, but outside of the Tenuta (fig. 1, n. 50). The following survey has identified three sites: one along the northern foot, one on the southern edge of the

24 For n. 1 see Olcese 2003: pentola type n. 1a, p. 74, tav. I, especially n. 4 (Augustan-Trajan period). For n. 3 see Tortorella 1981: type Ostia I, p. 223, tav. CIX, 7, (first half 3rd century AD). For n. 5 see Tortorella 1981: type Ostia I, p. 223, tav. CVIII, 14 (first half 3rd century AD). For n. 7 see Ricci 1985: ovoid glass type II/408, p. 289, tav. 9 (1st century AD). For n. 3 see Tortorella 1981: type Ostia I, p. 223, tav. CIX, 7 (first half 3rd century AD). N. 8 see Ricci 1985: ovoid glass, type I/51, p. 255, tav. LXXXI, 9. N. 9 see Ricci 1985: cit., ovoid glass, type I/38, p. 254, tav. LXXXI, 3 (end 1st century BC-Augustan period). 25 For this reason, it was only possible to remove the topsoil, revealing different structures still extensively covered by natural layers.

26 Traces of an earlier phase are represented by some black glaze cups and Internal Slip Ware rims from the surface of a layer emerging in the western side of the investigation area.

38

Exploratory trenches in the southern territory of ancient Crustumerium summit of the hill (fig. 1, n. 49), and the third at the foot of the southern slope (fig. 1, n. 44). The results of the surveys showed a wide dispersion of materials around two of the sites and a blanket of finds over the entire hill, probably due to the ploughing out and destruction of the sites. Early in our investigation of these two sites, we detected an elevated find density at the foot of the northern side of the hill, which is probably connected to the nearby site 51 (fig. 1, n. 51a). In fact, both sites originally formed part of a single area that were later separated and altered by the construction of the modern road. We were also able to document the different modern fills of the 3 meter deep valley, which divided the two sides of the hills in antiquity. Finally, along the northern side of the valley, we revealed part of a drainage channel that could be similar in function to the one previously described (fig. 1, F).

Fig. 7.  Plan and section of the pit (H).

Fig. 8.  Stratigraphical section of the pit (H) and selected fragments from its fillings.

39

Andrea di Napoli

Fig. 9.  Area B. Structures brought to light to the east of the pit, below the top soil.

The long trench of over 600 m in length that cuts into the hilltop has not provided many positive results. However, near the southern end of the trench next to the edge of the hill, remains of a small rectangular building were revealed (fig. 1, C; fig. 10). The building seems to be preserved at the foundation level (fig. 11). It is oriented to the NE, it measures 5.80 m in width and 6.20 m in length, and had a wide entrance on the northeast side of which only one of the corner blocks has been preserved. The foundation walls, of which only a single layer of rectangular blocks of greyish tuff has been preserved, are built in the opus quadratum technique, and its dimensions seem to be modular: the average length is 0.9 m, the width is 0.5 m, and the height is 0.4 m.

Inside the building, a small portion of the floor level has been preserved along the northern foundation wall (US 2). The floor level overlaps a layer of earth and bedrock chunks that was used to level the area (US 3). Underneath it, we uncovered two circular post holes at a distance of 25 cm from the western wall and aligned with it, possibly referring to an earlier phase of the building (USS 4, 5). The context was disturbed on the east side by a square pit perhaps as a result of later agricultural activities (US 6).

40

Exploratory trenches in the southern territory of ancient Crustumerium The small number of fragments of black glazed ware27 (fig. 11, nn. 1-2), impasto (fig. 11, n. 4), internal slip ware28 (fig. 11, nn. 5-6), and chiaro sabbioso29 pottery (fig. 11, n. 3) recovered from the alluvial layer that covered the area on the northwest side of this building, suggests a chronological span from the Early to the Mid-Republican period. Among the finds there is a small impasto chiaro sabbioso base with a central slight depression that may have served to fit a small statue (fig. 11, n. 7). The west side of the building, where more alluvial deposits are present, was investigated further, but has not provided any information. On the opposite side of the alluvial deposits, there is a presence of tuff blocks, hinting to another preserved structure. Finally, at the foot of the southern slope of the hill, where the centre of the site was identified (fig. 1, n. 44), we have followed the sloping bedrock to a depth of 3 m recording the presence of three more major alluvial deposits. The high concentration of pottery in the superficial deposit suggests that archaeological layers have been destroyed and that the pottery has washed down the slope of the hill.

Fig. 10.  Area C. General map of the building brought to light on the edge of the hill.

Evidence from the southern part of the Tenuta

It was not possible to provide subsurface evidence for the large and dense concentration of sherds registered by the GIA on the summit of the hill, south of the electricity plant Terna, where F. Fraioli identified site n. 33 (fig. 1). It is likely that the surface finds relate to a completely eroded feature. The presence of three furrows running towards the Malpasso stream illuminate how the sherds could have been washed away and transported to the foot of the hill, especially towards another site identified in this location 27 Bowl n. 1 is similar to Morel 1981: type 2764, p. 219, pl. 70 (around half 3rd century BC). For the stampigli see Stanco 2005: fig. 9, p. 35, fig 9.9 (280-260 BC). 28 See Cascino & Di Sarcina 2008: p. 568, fig. 2, 9-10. 29 The lip is common in many jug shapes. See as the most similar: Merlo 2005: p. 30, n. 90, tav. III.

Fig. 11. Area C. Map of building and selection of fragments from the alluvial soil.

41

Andrea di Napoli

Fig. 12.  Detail of the area to the south of the Electric Plant Terna; plan and section of the cuniculus with a selection of fragments.

by F. Fraioli (fig. 1, n. 42). The only archaeological feature is a drainage cuniculus that has been identified thanks to the partial collapse of its ceiling (fig. 1, I; fig. 12). At present, we think that this cuniculus, which is being explored by the speleologists of Roma Sotterranea, runs towards the nearby valley.

Finally, the investigation on the southern side of the Tenuta, delimited by the modern Via della Marcigliana, focused on the hilltop, where the GIA’s surveys have registered a large and dense find concentration, matching Fraioli site n. 34 (fig. 1, n. 34). Over an area of about 900 m2, the remains of a villa

42

Exploratory trenches in the southern territory of ancient Crustumerium

Fig. 13.  Area D. General map of the archaeological evidence next to the Via della Marcigliana.

rustica have been uncovered and partially investigated (fig. 13). The villa has been eroded down to the foundation level and a few remains of the preparazione pavimentale have been preserved. Despite the poor preservation, some test pits have provided enough information to elaborate a chronological sequence and to suggest the planimetric development of the villa. Dolia fragments from some of the fills and from the foundation walls prove that the area of the villa was already frequented during the Early Republican period. A silo (fig. 14, n. 1), a cistern (fig. 14, n. 5), a pit (fig. 14, n. 2), a probable discharge ditch (fig. 14, n. 6), and two unidentified small ditches (fig. 14, nn. 4-5) can be dated to the Mid-Republican phase. There are no walls from the same period, but an isolated tufa block has been preserved, which suggests not only the use of the opus quadratum

technique, but also that the older building stood in the area later occupied by other structures. We have partially excavated the pit (diameter ca. 0.8 m) dug into the volcanic clay (fig. 14, n. 2); the fill yielded small insignificant fragments. Due to safety reasons, we could only partially excavate the cistern (fig. 15), whereas it was possible to completely excavate the silo (fig. 16). The bottom of the cut within the silo had preserved its original shape and was filled with building materials and ceramic fragments30 (US 56). The later fills consist of a layer of clay containing a few fragments of pottery and

30 For the black glaze bowl, see Morel 1981: type 2534, p. 179, pl. 53 (2nd century BC).

43

Andrea di Napoli

Fig. 14.  Area D. Map of the earliest phase.

Fig. 15.  Area D. Map and section of the cistern; fragments from its filling.

44

Exploratory trenches in the southern territory of ancient Crustumerium

Fig. 16.  Area D. Plan and section of the silos and the selected fragments from its fillings.

pieces of bedrock crumbling from the walls31 (US 52), and a natural layer disturbed by ancient agricultural activities. Between the Late Republican and the Early Imperial period, a completely new organization of the open areas took place: the previous cavities were filled and a block of rooms was built. The foundations of the earliest nucleus of the building (fig. 17, A) made of large tuff chunks, have been partially uncovered. At first the building was probably strictly connected to the open areas, as the alignment of the ditch with the structures (fig. 17, US -30) demonstrated. Later, the ditch was filled (fig. 17, C) when the building was extended to the south (fig. 17, B) and a floor was added. Some of the remains of the floor were preserved (e.g. in one

of the corners (US 31)). A substantial enlargement of the villa and its arrangement into a pars rustica and a pars dominica took place in the Late Imperial period (fig. 18). In this period the western side of the complex was used for productive activities, whereas the eastern side of the complex was given a residential function and a new wing was attached that directly faced the road. South of the pars dominica, there was a rectangular space with a pit and a small rectangular (2.4 x 2 m) water reservoir (fig. 18, 4). The structure (fig. 19, A) had walls made of opus reticulatum and a floor made of opus coementicium (USR 2), part of which slipped inside the nearest pit (US 15). In the middle of its eastern side, we encountered a small rectangular niche, which was probably intended for the insertion of a pipeline from the eastern wing. The mouth of the pit was protected by a quadrangular travertine closing stone with a central hole and closed off with a travertine cap. Both of them collapsed inside the

31 For the skyphos n. 8 see Morel 1981: type 4373, p. 311, pl. 131 (end 4th-beginning 3rd century BC).

45

Andrea di Napoli

Fig. 17.  Area D. Plan of the first phase of the building.

pit as a result of the erosion of the underlying rock (fig. 19, B). The cap shows the negative trace of the metal ring-handle and preserves its lead attachment. Beside the hole on top of the closing stone, there were two rectangular cavities referring to the structure of the pulley. The collapse of the closing stone has protected the cavity of the water pit that was empty to a depth of 6.5 m, but was damaged by water erosion. It originally had a diameter of about 0.8 m. The pit was partially excavated down to the depth of 7.50 m, removing only its natural fill. The eastern wing of the whole structure has not been explored in depth, though we may deduce that it was probably divided up into different rooms.32 The presence of a partially collapsed cocciopesto floor (fig. 18, 2) and a “channel” made of cover-tiles33 suggest that the room functioned as a thermal room. The channel crosses the partition wall and runs to

the south, (fig. 18, 3) possibly reaching the small water reservoir. The room immediately to the west of the thermal room had an opus sectile floor and was richly decorated, as suggested by the several white marble hexagonal elements and the large amount of marble and painted stucco fragments collected during the excavation. The pars rustica has a square foundation provided with a small concavity, which may have housed a rotating peg. Such a device possibly stood in connection with a nearby irregular pit, which seems to have been modified several times and finally connected with a drainage channel (fig. 20). The fills included mainly fragments of cooking pottery34 and glass that date the end of productive activity and perhaps to the abandonment of the villa during the 3rd century AD. In the pars rustica of the villa, long ditches with different orientations may refer to the presence of an inner garden. Finally, a small excavation was performed to the east of the villa, where aerial photographs show clear traces of road (n. 49) identified by Quilici that crosses

32 The west perimeter wall was built in opus reticulatum probably alternating with thin bands in opus latericium, for which tile fragments were used. The use of tiles instead of lateres is documented between the Augustan and the Claudian age. 33 We found the base of a “channel” made with tiles for the length of 2 m that probably housed a fistula plumbea. The feature was covered by a layer of earth mixed with sand and minute fragments of pottery, of which only some 0.2 m was preserved in some places.

34 For n. 1 see Olcese 2003: tegame type n. 6, p. 87, tav. XV, nn. 5-6, dated 1st-2nd century AC; For n. 8 see Olcese 2003: pentola type 1a, p. 74, tav. I n.1-8, dated Augustan-Trajan age. For. n. 6 see Carandini & Tortorella 1981: p. 27, tav. XIV, 8, = Lamboglia 2b, dated second half 2nd century AC.

46

Exploratory trenches in the southern territory of ancient Crustumerium

Fig. 18.  Area D. Plan of last phase of the villa.

point out the striking consequences of intensive agricultural exploitation for the preservation of archaeological sites. In most cases, they are completely lost, causing the dispersion of sherds over vast areas along the slopes of the hills. The test trenches have allowed for the calibration or confirmation of the presence and the extent of archaeological sites that have been recorded in multiple extensive and intensive surveys. Regarding the preserved structures that were excavated, it has been possible to collect useful information for the reconstruction of the population and exploitation of this limited part of the ancient

the hills from north-northeast to south-southwest in the direction of Crustumerium.35 It has been possible to uncover the upper edges of the artificial road trench filled with alluvial layers, but the lower road levels have not been investigated.

Conclusion

The comparison between the excavated evidence and the results of the different preliminary surveys 35 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980: pp. 219-221.

47

Andrea di Napoli

Fig. 19.  Area D. Plan and section of the pit in the pars dominica.

territory of Crustumerium. The archaeological sites have not yielded evidence dating older than the Early Republican period. It has not been possible to obtain direct information on the nature of frequentation in the Archaic period, which has only been attested in a few surface finds. These finds seem to correspond to sites that have completely disappeared (nn. 52, 55, 56) or that were severely damaged (nn. 34, 44). It is important to stress that during the MidRepublican period, when other districts of the territory and the town of Crustumerium itself had been more or less abandoned,36 the investigated area seems to have been intensively occupied with small and large areas of activity and/or habitation, some of which were already in use in previous periods. The probable presence of an extra-urban cult place is of special importance, which would certainly have been significant for the local community and may have functioned as a reference point in the landscape. Regarding the Imperial period, the villa that was uncovered in the southern district of the Tenuta (fig. 1, D) highlights the progressive development

of Roman land exploitation into a complex system that is known to have involved slavery and for which farms were preferably positioned on elevated and well-connected locations.

Bibliography

AA.VV. 1981, Atlante delle forme ceramiche. I. Ceramica fine romana nel bacino mediterraneo (medio e tardo impero), Supplemento all’Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica, Roma. AA.VV. 1985, Atlante delle forme ceramiche. II. Ceramica fine romana nel bacino del mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo impero), Supplemento all’Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica, Roma. Carandini, A. & Tortorella, S. 1981, “Ceramica Africana. Terra Sigillata. Produzione A/D” in AA.VV, pp. 19-51. Cascino, R. & Di Sarcina, M.T. 2008, “L’Internal Slip Ware nella media valle del Tevere” in Mercator Placidissimus. The Tiber Valley in Antiquity. New research in the upper and middle river valley, (eds.) F. Coarelli & H. Patterson, pp. 559-585. di Gennaro, F. & Foddai, E. 2003, “Osservazioni sulle vere fittili del Lazio arcaico sulla base dei ritrovamenti di Fidenae”, Bullettino della Commissione

36 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980: pp. 289-290. See also Fraioli in this volume.

48

Exploratory trenches in the southern territory of ancient Crustumerium

Fig. 20.  Area D. Plan and section of the structures of pars rustica and fragments found into fillings.

Archeologica Comunale di Roma, vol. 104, pp. 7-18. Di Giuseppe, H. 2005, “Le classi ceramiche. Periodi 3 e 4 (fasi 1 e 2)” in La fattoria e la villa dell’Auditorium, (eds.) A. Carandini, M.T. D'Alessio & H. Di Giuseppe, pp. 375-402. Merlo, M. 2005, “Impasto Chiaro sabbioso” in Ardea. Il deposito votivo di Casarinaccio, (ed.) F. Di Mario, pp. 21-42. Morel, J.P. 1981, Céramique campanienne: les Formes, BÉFAR 244, Roma. Murray Threypland, L. & Torelli, M. 1970, “A Semisubterranean Etruscan Building in the Casale Pian Roseto (Veii) Area”, Papers of the British School of Rome, vol. 68, pp. 62-121. Olcese, G. 2003, Le ceramiche comuni a Roma e in area romana (tarda età repubblicana-prima età imperiale), SAP, Mantova. Palone, V. 2009, “Ardea, Tempio in località Colle della Noce”, Archeologia Classica, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 29-82. Pianu, G. 1982, Ceramiche etrusche sovradipinte. Materiali del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Tarquinia, Giorgio Bretschneider, Roma.

Quilici, L. & Quilici Gigli, S. 1980, Crustumerium, Latium Vetus III, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma. Ricci, A. 1985, “Ceramiche a pareti sottili” in AA.VV, pp. 231-365. Scotoni, L. 1986, “Le tenute della Campagna Romana nel 1660. Saggi di ricostruzione cartografica” in Atti e Memorie della Società Tiburtina di Storia e d’Arte, vol. 59, pp. 185-262. Stanco, E.A. 2005, “La ceramica a vernice nera della stipe di Lucus Feroniae. Analisi preliminare”, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, vol. 105, pp. 29-46. Strazzulla, M.J. 1987, Le terrecotte della Venetia Romana, L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma. Ten Kortenaar, S. 2005, “Thymiateria” in Ardea. Il deposito votivo di Casarinaccio, (ed.) F. Di Mario, pp. 46-48. Tortorella S. 1981, “Ceramica Africana. Ceramica da Cucina” in AA.VV, pp. 208-228.

49

5 MANY RIVERS TO CROSS - REVISITING THE TERRITORY OF ANCIENT CRUSTUMERIUM WITH A COST SURFACE BASED SITE CATCHMENT ANALYSIS Jorn Seubers Introduction

taken into consideration when trying to reconstruct ancient territorial boundaries. In the current paper, I will briefly regard the use of territorial models in archaeology and proceed to review several territorial reconstructions of North Latium Vetus (fig. 1). In my opinion, the increasing availability of data on Latium Vetus, both as a result of new research7 and the disclosure of legacy data,8 in combination with the incorporation of new methods and technology makes regular evaluations of archaeological interpretations not only possible, but also necessary. Although our models and theories largely remain the same,9 the underlying archaeological data and technical possibilities are subject to change. For example, the use of GIS offers a new range of interpretative possibilities for the analysis of landscapes, as it is capable of including more parameters and variables than we are able to calculate manually. In the analysis presented here, I will test an alternative to the existing geographical models in a strict ‘man-land approach’,10 with the aim to investigate the natural restrictions of the territory of Crustumerium and the logical outer limit of its expansion in a traditional site catchment analysis. I will experiment with the use of a GIS-based cost surface analysis to determine the accessibility of the landscape and to propose a logical territory based on walking time from the centre. This study is part of a more elaborate analysis that will appear in my PhD dissertation.11

The transition to the Early Iron Age is a turning point in many ways in the social organization of Central Italy.1 The process in which Final Bronze Age hamlets were abandoned to form proto-urban centres in defensible locations could indicate that territorial pressure had risen to the point of conflict. Consequently, undefended dispersed settlements had become too dangerous and larger permanent territories had to be claimed and defended by larger groups of people.2 This drastic change in settlement strategy appears to have been imminent and widespread. It led to the foundation of primary centres that would develop into city-states all over Italy.3 From a landscape archaeological perspective of site catchment analysis, we assume that these early states depended on the intensive exploitation of their direct natural environment.4 In the case of sedentary settlements, the dimensions of exploitable terrain are limited by natural and political obstacles. The food economy would have been based on agriculture, meaning that the range of exploitable terrain is restricted5 because one has to cross terrain, acquire resources and return home presumably in one day, and territorial boundaries would have been negotiated between neighbours.6 Both factors should be

1 di Gennaro & Guidi 2009; di Gennaro et al. 2004: p. 150; Nijboer 2004: p. 137; see also Amoroso in this volume. 2 The movement to defensible settlement locations may indicate conflict and the beginnings of raiding and looting; Smith 1996: p. 34; di Gennaro & Guidi 2009: p. 430. 3 Guidi 2006; 2010, Pacciarelli 2001; Cornell 2000; Torelli 2000. 4 Vita-Finzi & Higgs 1970; Roper 1979: pp. 120-121. 5 “There can be no urbanisation without agriculture due to the “tyranny of distance”. In a non-agricultural society food for an urban population would have to be carried over such distances that it would be consumed during transport by those who carried it.” Hansen 2000: p. 11, note 10. 6 Lightfoot & Martinez 1995: p. 473.

7 For example the work done on Crustumerium under supervision of dr. di Gennaro over the last 15 years; Attema et al. 2013. 8 For example the ongoing work in the Suburbium project of La Sapienza; Carandini et al. 2006: pp. 13-22. 9 Hu 2011. 10 Roper 1979: pp. 119-120. 11 Seubers (forthcoming).

51

Jorn Seubers

Fig. 1.  The location of Crustumerium in relation to water and neighbouring settlements (author).

Basic territorial modelling in archaeology

time and can be employed diachronically by visualizing how the ‘territories’ change as a result of the appearance or disappearance of certain centres.14 The only required input consists of points, which represent contemporary settlements. This means that the archaeologist needs to have extensive if not absolute knowledge of the development of a region, defining the exact longevity of primary sites and determining if they would or would not have had territories at a certain moment in time.15 Unfortunately, like many automated processes, Thiessen polygons adhere to the “garbage in, garbage out” principle. Since the input represents an interpretation in itself, the output will almost inevitably confirm what we already know. Other points of critique could be that the model treats all settlements equally, it divides all available land, and it is detached from the geomorphology of the landscape.

The aforementioned Iron Age settlements of Latium are almost exclusively referred to as city-states. State formation theorists agree that boundaries between city-states were well defined, recognizable, and naturally or artificially demarcated.12 It is even probable that the boundaries were guarded. According to this definition, territorial boundaries could very well be archaeologically or geographically traceable. They can be sought out in the geomorphology of the natural terrain and may have even left structural remains. Despite this, the most popular way to visualize territorial boundaries in Central Italy by far is not terrain based, but based on Thiessen polygons: a geographical application of the originally mathematical method of Voronoi diagrams pioneered by di Gennaro for Etruria in 1982.13 Thiessen polygons divide two-dimensional distance into parts by placing intersecting lines halfway between adjacent points. It is often used to represent a settlement distribution at a certain moment in

14 A well-illustrated example can be found on the “cronomappa” of website: http://muvilazio.com (accessed 13-2-2016). 15 This rather serious prerequisite is of course rarely met; Roper 1979: p. 125.

12 Trigger 2003: p. 94; Hansen 2000: p. 19. 13 di Gennaro 1982

52

Many rivers to cross - Revisiting the territory of ancient Crustumerium An attempt to remedy the supposed equality of sites is found in weighed or calibrated Thiessen polygons, which take settlement hierarchy into consideration when creating the range of territories. The easiest system of ranking sites is based on the idea that the size of a primary centre is proportional to its population and therefore proportional to its territory.16 Because the original extension or density of a primary settlement is not that easy to establish, this type of ranking assumes that contemporary settlements were uniform, that they had the same population density, and that they all occupied the full extension of their geomorphological setting.17 In this sense, weighed Thiessen polygons are much like hypotheses built upon hypotheses, built upon assumptions. The model does not answer a question as much as it visualizes an interpretation that is equally detached from geomorphology as standard Thiessen polygons. Most of this critique is far from new.18 The simplicity of the application of Thiessen polygons comes at the price of an oversimplification of the archaeological reality. Thiessen polygons are useful to help us say ‘something’ based on limited information. However, what do these lines on the map actually mean to us when they meant absolutely nothing to the ancient inhabitants of the territories we are trying to reconstruct? The introduction of the Xtent model offered an alternative to weighed Thiessen polygons already in 1979, incorporating the concept of variable dominance.19 The introduction of GIS added the possibility of incorporating terrain characteristics and landscape features instead of using Euclidian distance (as the crow flies) in the shape of a friction or cost surface layer. Redhouse and Stoddart recently showed how an application of Xtent on a digital elevation model (DEM) in GIS can help us visualize the hypothetical territorial development of Etruria much more dynamically than previously possible.20 A site catchment based on terrain characteristics, as proposed in the current paper, is part of a similar adaptation of an existing spatial model to the possibilities of new technology.

The site catchment method is based on an objective perception of a landscape as an area of resources acquired at the cost of crossing terrain: a point of view that has had to make room for phenomenological approaches in recent decades.21 From the definition of the city-state, we can deduce that the urban centre depended on the accessibility of its direct hinterland.22 This matches the scope of catchment analysis, which “postulates that 1-hour walk radially from a farming settlement would encompass the main resources of value to its community.”23 The basic idea of the current paper is to calculate the accessibility of the area around the settlement of Crustumerium based on a terrain model instead of simply adopting a 5 km radius.24 It is important, however, to first evaluate the existing ideas about the ancient territory of Crustumerium.

Existing models for the territory of Crustumerium

The density and chronological complexity of historically and archeologically attested centres in Central Italy creates an attractive archaeological puzzle that many have attempted to solve. As a result of all these studies, we can be sure that there is a marked difference between the territorial division of ancient Latium compared to Etruria.25 In a brief comparison of some of these studies, I will focus on the territory of Crustumerium and on how it related to the territories of its nearest neighbours according to previous work (fig. 1). As mentioned earlier, the successful application of any territorial model in archaeology depends on an almost absolute knowledge of the settlement history of a region. The exact location of several historically attested centres in the north of Latium has only been known for a few decades, mostly thanks to the pioneering topographical studies and archaeological surveys of Lorenzo Quilici and Stefania Quilici Gigli who specifically targeted this area.26 For example, the 21 As pointed out by Bintliff the ecological approach was largely discarded in favour of the emotional and symbolic meaning of landscapes. Bintliff 2008: p. 218. This paper will not address this debate. For a general overview of the phenomenologist’s opposition to GIS see Llobera 2012: pp. 498-499; Hu 2011: p. 81. 22 Hansen 2000: p. 19; also see Yoffee 2005: p. 46. 23 Bintliff 2008: p. 217. 24 Site catchments based on walking times are becoming increasingly common since GIS is incorporated in the archaeologists basic toolkit. Fulminante 2005: p. 12; Alessandri, this volume. 25 Vanzetti 2002: p. 40; di Gennaro et al. 2004: p. 162; Pacciarelli 2001: pp. 120-128; Cifani 2010: p. 64; Amoroso 2013: p. 127. 26 In order of appearance; Collatia 1976, Antemnae 1978, Crustumerium 1980, Fidenae 1986, Ficulea 1993.

16 For an example of the application see the paper of Amoroso in this book. Amoroso shows that the results of a standard application of Thiessen polygons do not match the existing ideas about settlement ranking and therefore advocates the use of Thiessen polygons that are calibrated for settlement size. 17 Vanzetti explains the latter assumption as “the assumption of unity of settlement”. Vanzetti 2002: p. 39. 18 Renfrew & Level 1979: pp. 147-149; Van Leusen 2002: 6.4, 15.7 – 15.9; Ducke & Kroefges 2007: p. 247. 19 Renfrew & Level 1979: pp. 149-152. 20 Redhouse & Stoddart 2011.

53

Jorn Seubers

Fig. 2.  A collection of terrain models mentioned in the text. A: Visualisation of the territory of Crustumerium according to Quilici & Quilici Gigli (interpretation of the author), B: Bouma & Van ‘t Lindenhout 1998: fig. 2, C: Cornell 2000: fig. 3, D: Amoroso 2002a: fig. 11, E: Amoroso 2002: fig. 23, F: Amoroso 2013: fig. 6, G: Barbina et al. 2009: fig. 2, H: Fulminante 2012: fig. 15-8a (author).

exact location of Crustumerium was only established in the 1970’s.27 The field surveys around the site covered 29 sq km and led to a description of the ancient territory following its logical natural boundaries.28 An interpretation of this description is visualized in fig. 2A and gives a territory of ca. 36 sq km.

On a larger regional scale, Pacciarelli observes that the greatest centres of Latium were distributed more or less regularly, at a distance of some 12.9 km on average, suggesting an average control radius of 6 to 7 km and districts between 100 and 150 sq km. Rome is an exception to these rules with 20 to 25 km distance to the nearest competitive centres south of the Aniene, which means it could have had a larger sphere of influence there.29 I would like to suggest that the situation north of the Aniene may have also

27 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980. 28 A detailed description estimating a territory of 30 to 35 sq km is given, mostly using streams as natural boundaries. Quilici & Quilici Gigli admit that the eastern border of the territory is quite hard to determine. Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980: pp. 287-288; Finocchietti 2008: p. 83.

29 Pacciarelli 2001: pp. 120-128.

54

Many rivers to cross - Revisiting the territory of ancient Crustumerium differed from this general picture because of the high density of centres there. The largest neighbours of Crustumerium that we know of are: Fidenae about 5 km to the southwest, Nomentum 8 km to the east, Capobianco about 7 km to the southeast and Marco Simone Vecchio 10 km in the same direction, Eretum 14 km to the northeast of Crustumerium, and Veii across the Tiber, 12 km directly west. Some 4 km south of Eretum significant archaeological remains have been found at the smaller sites of Colle Lupo and Cretone (fig. 1).30 The archaeological remains at Capobianco and Marco Simone can possibly be linked to known historical centres. It is clear that there was a substantial settlement at Marco Simone, where the Quilici couple placed Ficulea. However, recent studies of epigraphical sources might place Ficulea at the Tenuta Casa Nova instead,31 near to where others have proposed the location of ancient Cameria.32 The confusion about the area southeast of Crustumerium is clear from an analysis of the territories in North Latium published by Dutch researchers in 1998.33 Their diachronic analysis is based on traditional Thiessen polygons with some manual alterations. The territory of Crustumerium is restricted by the Tiber in the west, Nomentum in the east and Fidenae in the south, creating a triangular polygon around Crustumerium that remains more or less the same between 700 and 500 BC (fig. 2B - area A). The outer limits of Crustumerium’s triangular territory more or less match the mouth of the Fosso della Fiora in the north and the Settebagni stream in the south whilst the southeast angle possibly lies on the Fossa della Cesarina. It is rather clear that there is a power vacuum north of the Aniene, between Crustumerium, Fidenae and Nomentum, where Ficulea is missing.34 A more historically inspired division of the same area around 500 BC was reproduced by Cornell from the much earlier work of Beloch (fig. 2C).35 The model shows some similarities with Thiessen polygons – lines are placed halfway between settlements – but it has been altered considerably to illustrate the dominance of Rome in the region. Most of the territories have a more organic shape than acquired from Thiessen polygons (rectangular or round), following the course of streams in many places. Another

important difference is that Ficulea is included in this map, occupying the empty zone southeast of Crustumerium. Unfortunately, Crustumerium has been placed about 5 km north of its actual location.36 The northern border of Fidenae appears to be the Fosso della Regina, while Crustumerium is actually located south of that stream. The northern border of Crustumerium still roughly matches the Fiora. It is important to note that Crustumerium appears to have been considered dominant on the frontier with Nomentum, where it claimed more territory, but overall it is ranked much lower. The first modelled territorial analysis that focused on Crustumerium specifically was elaborated by Angelo Amoroso, partially based on his own intensive surveys of the site.37 In his analysis the presence of Marco Simone Vecchio (first mentioned as “Ficulea?”) as a primary centre limits the extension of the territories of Nomentum, Fidenae and Crustumerium (fig. 2D), but otherwise the territorial division for the period before 500 BC is very similar to the 1998 model. The important difference lies in the subsequent period. Because the disappearance of Crustumerium as a primary centre is placed exactly at 500 BC, its rural territory would have been quickly absorbed by Fidenae and Nomentum in the Early Republican period, maintaining the river Aniene as the northern border of Roman territory at that time (fig. 2E). This hypothesis contrasts with the first work on Crustumerium that saw “perfect continuity” of Crustumerium and its rural landscape between the 6th and 5th century BC.38 The new hypothesis was repeated by di Gennaro in 200639 and could have significant consequences for the interpretation of post-Archaic rural sites around Crustumerium. In more recent work, and also in this book, Amoroso has elaborated his first territorial analyses by calibrating his Thiessen polygons based on the size of his primary centres.40 In this case no territory is reserved for Capobianco, but Cretone and Montecelio are included within their respective territories (fig. 2F). After calibration, Crustumerium and Marco Simone Vecchio become the most dominant centres in the region. A large part of the territory southeast of the Settebagni stream is also attributed to Crustumerium. Amoroso now places the territory of Crustumerium at 93.9 sq km (calibrated) as one

30 Togninelli 2009: pp. 8-11. 31 Panciera & di Gennaro 2010: p. 173-176. 32 Carafa 2000: p. 341. 33 Bouma & Van ‘t Lindenhout 1998. 34 Droogsma 2011: pp. 48-51. This specific application of Thiessen was also analyzed by Van Leusen 2002: chapter 15.8. 35 Cornell 1995: p. 206, fig. 22; 2000: p. 215, fig. 3.

36 At the time of the original map of Beloch (1926) the exact location of Crustumerium was still unknown and only the Ager Crustuminus is indicated. 37 Amoroso 2002b. 38 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980: p. 287. 39 di Gennaro 2006: p. 216. 40 Amoroso 2013: p. 134, fig. 7.

55

Jorn Seubers of the top ranking settlements in this region, in stark contrast with Cornell’s overall rank of city-state territories, where Crustumerium was placed next to last just above Ficulea at a territory of 39.5 sq km41 (closer to the original estimate of Quilici and Quilici Gigli). In comparison, Cornell placed Tibur second to Rome at a staggering 351 sq km territory, while Tibur is only partially included by Amoroso with a territory of 41.9 sq km. Finally, another territorial analysis that included Crustumerium was published for Fidenae (fig. 2G).42 In this case the division of territories is based mostly on hydrography and viability. Again the northern and eastern borders of Crustumerium are borrowed from the Thiessen lines shared with Eretum and Nomentum respectively. The southern boundary is defined by the Settebagni and Ornale streams, similar to the original hypothesis of Quilici and Quilici Gigli. It is important to note that the territory of Capobianco is delimited by the Via Nomentana in this proposal, more or less placing its complete sphere of influence in an area that is controlled by Crustumerium in Amoroso’s view. More modelled approaches to territories in Latium, using a variety of GIS-based techniques, can be found in the work of Fulminante.43 Her detailed diachronic analyses focused on Rome including sites of uncertain location and chronology and clearly illustrated how these uncertainties can cause discrepancies between the applications of different models. In the case of Crustumerium, we can observe a constantly changing territory, depending on changing interpretations of the rank and chronology of the site and its neighbours or simply depending on the use of a different model (fig. 2H).44 In my opinion Fulminante successfully illustrates that reducing archaeological sites to dots on a map can actually complicate rather than simplify a straightforward interpretation of ancient territories. The presentation above serves to show that the existing analyses of the territory of Crustumerium fail to reach any real consensus because they are too sensitive to differences in the underlying assumptions. This is especially evident for the southeastern territory of Crustumerium, where the location of Ficulea is postulated. This area is treated differently in all of the models, directly illustrating the sensitivity of Thiessen polygons for uncertainty. The analysis

of existing models also shows that increasing archaeological knowledge is certainly influencing the interpretation of the territory of Crustumerium. In the latest publications, Crustumerium is attributed a more dominant role – hence a much larger territory, especially at the cost of Nomentum – and a much more rapid decline, generally supporting a story of a more spectacular rise and fall of the settlement. To my mind all of the discussed maps are useful to further archaeological interpretation and even to provoke discussion, but they are far from objective. The exact location, absence, presence, chronology and rank of certain centres are all subject to change, as archaeological knowledge increases, legacy data is reevaluated and theoretical viewpoints change. It is not difficult to see that the current general view of the settlement pattern of the whole of Latium does not sit well with the area between the Aniene and the Fiora, as was already elaborated by Ziółkowski in 2005.45 Pacciarelli and Cornell estimate average territories up to 200 sq km for Latin city-states at the end of the 6th century, which would have supported 5000 inhabitants, while territories smaller than 100 sq km probably had populations of 2000 or less.46 Following this line of thought Crustumerium and its neighbours would have been puny at best. With maximum territories of only some 40 sq km, they would have had less than 1000 inhabitants. This guestimate is very difficult to reconcile with the size of the settlements,47 the supposed density of their rural population,48 and the hypothetical carrying capacity of such small territories. A crude estimation would be that the full agricultural exploitation of 40 sq km of terrain could support a population of 4000 people at least.49 In my view, this warrants a fresh and more specific study of the region around Crustumerium.

45 Ziółkowski 2005: pp. 43-45. 46 The population estimates are given by Cornell. Cornell 2000: p. 215; Pacciarelli 2001: pp. 120-128. 47 The inhabited area is estimated at 57 ha on the basis of the latest research, Attema et al. 2014: p. 192. 48 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980: tav. CXII. 49 Estimating an average of 40% of arable land for the whole of Italy, a production of 500 kg per ha of land and consumption of 200 kg per year per person (Jongman 1988: p. 135) is mathematically the same as saying: total number of hectares = number of people. For example, a territory of 35 sq km (as estimated by Quilici) gives 1400 ha arable, which would support a population of 3500 people in Roman times (100 sq km = 10,000 hectares, gives 10,000 people). In the Iron Age the average yield may have been lower, but the percentage of arable land around Crustumerium is certainly higher than 40% and was known to be very fertile (Livy 1.11.4).

41 Cornell 2000: p. 216, fig. 4. 42 Barbina et al. 2009. 43 Fulminante 2005; 2009; 2012; 2014. 44 Fulminante applies standard Thiessen, rank-size analysis and multiplicatively weighted Voronoi diagrams amongst others; Fulminante 2009: pp. 196-200; 2014.

56

Many rivers to cross - Revisiting the territory of ancient Crustumerium

Fig. 3.  Digital Elevation Model illustrating the character of the terrain around Crustumerium (author).

A terrain based site catchment of Crustumerium Crustumerium is part of a geomorphologically articulate landscape (fig. 3). The entire region is characterized by the presence of volcanic tuff bedrock that has become deeply incised by rivers and small streams, creating a relief system with rolling hills and serrated edges that rise anywhere between 30 to 100 m above the Tiber plain. A site catchment is based on the assumption of the optimization of land use or “optimal foraging theory”, which is the exploitation of a settlement’s direct territory at the least possible cost. The time invested in reaching a certain part of the territory is reversely correlated to the time left to exploit that part of terrain. As a consequence, the intensity of land use decreases when moving further from the main settlement. The ideal territory for farming communities is estimated to lie within 1 hour walking time from the primary centre.50 For Crustumerium the influence of terrain characteristics and especially their restrictions on the speed and direction of movement is quite obvious.51 I will

discuss the technical application of the cost surface layer as briefly as possible. The relation between slope, energy expenditure and walking speed can be described numerically and there are many algorithms to do so.52 For the current analysis, I have chosen to use an adapted version of Tobler’s hiking function (graph 1).53 Tobler’s function is originally anisotropic,54 but assuming that over longer distance the negative effects of going slightly uphill are negated by the positive effects of going down the same hill, I have chosen to use the average walking speed of downhill and uphill slopes of the same degree to be able to use Tobler’s hiking function isotropically. The different values have been broken down into multiple classes of speed in meters per second, which have been multiplied to acquire integer numbers for use with ArcGIS (table 1). These numbers represent the relative cost of crossing one unit (cell) of terrain with a 52 For a good overview see Herzog 2013; Van Leusen 2002: 6.5 – 6.9. 53 One of the benefits of Tobler’s hiking function is that it is expressed by a set mathematical formula, allowing one to calculate specific values exactly; Tobler 1993. 54 Anisotropic costs are dependent on the direction of movement. Slope is anisotropic in the sense that going downhill (at a certain degree) may allow for easier and slightly faster movement, while going up the same hill slows you down. Accounting for this in a GIS environment is much more complicated than working with isotropic costs; Herzog 2010: p. 376.

50 “It is assumed that, in general, the farther one moves from an inhabited locus, the greater the amount of energy that must be expended for procurement of resources. Therefore, as one moves away from that locus, it is assumed that the intensity of exploitation of the surrounding territory decreases, eventually reaching a point beyond which exploitation is unprofitable.” Roper 1979: pp. 120-121. 51 Bintliff 1999: p. 507.

57

Jorn Seubers

Graph 1.  A plot of Tobler’s hiking function in its original anisotropic shape (author).

certain slope value. Based on this raster, GIS is capable of calculating the least cumulative cost to go from one specific cell - the centre of Crustumerium - to any other cell in the raster creating a continuous cost surface layer, which can be recalculated to the cost of reaching each cell in seconds of walking time. Streams are added to this raster separately and can be traversed at additional cost. For the eventual catchment, I have experimented with different parameters to create several scenarios.55

that have no bridges.56 Hypothetically, this would resemble a strictly “natural” landscape without human modifications: Crustumerium at the time of its foundation. The result of mapping walking times in this landscape clearly illustrates the excellent strategic location of Crustumerium (fig. 4). In the west and northwest, it is protected by the Tiber and the steep ascend from the valley. The most accessible parts of the settlement itself, in the south and southeast, look out over “corridors” in the landscape that are enclosed by streams. Here lie the most obvious routes for the first exploitation of the territory. The south and east of the hinterland of Crustumerium come across as enclosed pieces of land that were well protected and that lie within an hour reach of the centre. The range of an hour of walking time past the valleys is approximately 4 km. To the east, the hour walking time limit (white line) lies between the source of the Regina and the Ornale stream, very similar to the suggestion of Quilici and Quilici Gigli (fig. 2A).

Three scenarios for the catchment of Crustumerium Crustumerium with water barriers

All of the streams around Crustumerium have deeply incised the friable tuff bedrock, creating tremendously deep valleys. During fieldwork we found that the steep hill sides of these valleys were overgrown with dense vegetation and that they were very dangerous if not impossible to pass. It was actually easier to walk uphill around the valleys than to attempt to find a passage through the stream. In my first test, I chose to consider Crustumerium as a completely isolated settlement surrounded by impassable streams. The Tiber River and all other stream valleys are treated as hard physical barriers

Wider territory with water obstacles and bridges

We can assume that in an intensively inhabited and exploited area, bridges, roads and other works facilitating movement would have become part of the local infrastructure.57 In fact, they were surely part

55 Technically, the analysis presented below is based on two sets of cartography. For the analysis of the direct area surrounding Crustumerium I have used a high resolution DEM (2 m cell size) that has been calculated from manually digitized contour lines of the Carta Technica Regionale 2008 (Lazio). For the wider region I have used a readily available DEM of entire Lazio (20 m cell size).

56 Technically they are excluded from the cost raster, because they have a “no data” value. For the entire analysis only the streams relevant to Crustumerium, between the Aniene and the Fiora, are included. 57 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1980: p. 280.

58

Many rivers to cross - Revisiting the territory of ancient Crustumerium

Fig. 4.  Visualisation of estimated walking time in minutes from the centre of Crustumerium based on slope (2 m DEM) and streams as impassable barriers. The 1-hour walking time buffer (see legenda) is marked in black in the map (author).

of the ancient landscape around Crustumerium.58 It is clear from figure 4 that the accessibility of the south-eastern part of the area could be easily improved by constructing a bridge over the Formicola and that the Regina needed to be crossed to make use of the northern territory. In a second scenario, streams are considered obstacles instead of barriers. The crossing of streams has been set equal to the cost of climbing a very steep slope, at approximately 20 minutes (40 for the Tiber)59 and at specific places, based on landscape characteristics or modern pathways, I have created gaps in the additional cost raster to simulate crossings or bridges. The effect of treating water as an obstacle instead of a barrier is that it has much less influence on the direction of movement (fig. 5). The 1-hour catchment now reaches beyond the Settebagni and Ornale stream,

which lie around the 45 minute radius, and the opposite side of the Formicola becomes much more accessible. The area north of the Regina stream opens up as well and lies within the 1-hour radius for the most part. The 1-hour buffer in this scenario is surprisingly similar to the territory suggested by Quilici and Quilici Gigli (fig. 2A) and can be used as a working hypothesis for a naturally demarcated area of exploitation. Crossing the Regina in the north, the current Rio di Casetta is very close to the 1-hour buffer. The areas south of the Settebagni stream would have been relatively easy to reach from Crustumerium. The most obvious routes to Fidenae and Rome would be to go directly south between the Formicola and the Malpasso, which is now the via della Marcigliana, and to cross the Settebagni stream. However, beyond these natural boundaries it would be necessary to consider some territorial pressure of Fidenae and other neighbours. When zooming out of the current scenario (fig. 6) it is interesting to see that there appears to be some regularity in the spatial distribution of the settlement pattern around Crustumerium. Capobianco and Nomentum both lie just within the two-hour radius from Crustumerium, Marco Simone and Colle Lupo just within 3 hours.

58 Many artificial terrain modifications, for example to accommodate roads, are still clearly visible around Crustumerium today (Jarva & Tuppi, this volume) and cunicoli (a system of tunnels and pits) constructed to manage the local hydrology were found in the Formicola stream; see Quilici 1980: site 94. 59 These values are admittedly arbitrary. The width of streams has been set at 40 m at a cost of half a minute per meter. Crossing the Tiber is set at 1 minute per meter.

59

Jorn Seubers

Fig. 5.  Visualisation of estimated walking time in minutes from the centre of Crustumerium based on slope (20 m DEM) and considering streams as 20 minute obstacles (with bridges). Each hour of walking time (see legenda) is marked in black in the map (author).

Fig. 6.  Estimated walking time from the centre of Crustumerium in relation to the location of known settlements nearby. Neighbours in different directions can be found at surprisingly regular time intervals (author).

60

Many rivers to cross - Revisiting the territory of ancient Crustumerium

Fig. 7.  Visualisation of estimated 2 hour walking time in minutes from Crustumerium and neighbouring centres, based on slope (20 m DEM) and considering streams as 20 minute obstacles (with bridges). Each hour of walking time (see legenda) is marked in black in the map (author).

areas and frontiers. The site catchments work rather well for most of the settlements (fig. 7). The radii of 1-hour walking time overlap nicely for the closely knit communities between the Aniene and the Fiora. The chosen primary centres all have a site catchment of between 30 and 35 sq km, delimited primarily by natural boundaries. Even Capobianco and Marco Simone, which have been included especially for their proximity to one another, would have had access to a reasonably sized hinterland. Nomentum appears to have had more space; it appears less impaired, especially towards the north and the east. Remarkably, the centres that were not included in the analysis for reasons of questionable chronology or hierarchy are situated outside all of the other catchments. Even Antemnae appears to have had some space to manoeuvre before the Romans came north, since it is situated almost perfectly between the catchments of Rome and Fidenae. Other minor centres like Colle Lupo, Cretone and La Rustica would also have had the space to work as autonomous centres, but their position would have also made them very suitable as strategic “satellites” of larger settlements. The hypothetical meeting point of the territories that are central to the analysis could be argued to represent the frontier. These zones could mark areas where the interaction and competition between peer polities would be most noticeable and would be very interesting to study archaeologically. On the other hand, the analysis also reveals parts of the terrain

Eretum, Cretone and Rome could both be reached in 3.5 hours. Without bridging the Tiber, Veii falls out of the scope of the one day return. The pattern suggests some sort of hierarchy of proximity that resembles Central Place Theory, where the furthest settlements lie at market distance and the others are more or less equally spaced around a single centre.60 For the moment it seems premature to suggest that Crustumerium stood at the heart of such a network; its degree of centrality is obviously biased by the fact that we have chosen it as the centre of the model. It does, however, illustrate Crustumerium’s favourable position in the region and it may suggest that settlement locations were quite consciously chosen in relation to existing neighbours. To further investigate the spatial relation between Crustumerium and its nearest neighbours it may then be useful to test a more “polyfocal” approach, which will be discussed below.

Nearest neighbour analysis

For the third scenario, I have calculated the walking distance from all centres surrounding Crustumerium at once. This will simulate the overlap of catchments and reveal possibly (un)contested 60 A logical catchment for a regional market-town is considered 15 to 20 km or a walking radius of half a day (3 to 4 hours) to allow visiting the market and returning the same day; Bintliff 2002: pp. 212-217.

61

Jorn Seubers Table 1.  A classified and averaged isotropic version of Tobler’s hiking function used as a basis for the GIS analysis performed for the current study (author). Slope class (degrees)

AVG (in s/m) Km/h

Integer cell value (*200)

0 to 1 (and -1 to 0)

0,71

5,04

143

1 to 3 (and -3 to -1)

0,71

5,06

142

3 to 5 (and -5 to -3)

0,73

4,92

146

5 to 7 (and -7 to -5)

0,83

4,35

165

7 to 10 (and -10 to -7)

0,97

3,73

193

10 to 15 (and -15 to -10)

1,24

2,91

248

15 to 20 (and -20 to -15)

1,77

2,03

354

20 to 25 (and -25 to -20)

2,49

1,45

497

25 to 35 (and -35 to -25)

4,43

0,81

886

35 to 55 (and -55 to -35)

14,02

0,26

2805

Water (class 1)

7,5

0,48

1500

Water (class 2)

10

0,36

2000

Water (class 3)

15

0,24

3000

that were difficult to reach. In these places, territorial control of the major settlements may have been weak, if not absent, and secondary settlements could have been deployed as colonies to exploit these lands directly. An alternative explanation may be that the “quiet zones” indeed fell outside of the range of control of the city-states and that they held independent low ranking settlements still unknown to us. The largest areas that appear to fall outside of direct territorial control are found between the north of Crustumerium and the west of Nomentum and between Capobianco and Rome. In the first case it concerns a large part of the Tiber valley. The second area is isolated because it is enclosed by the Cesarina and Pratolungo stream. Even with bridges, none of the settlements are close enough to exploit this area at a low expense of travelling time.

no-man’s-land didn’t exist. From the cost optimization perspective, however, the exploitation of remote and/or contested areas required an investment of resources that may not have held sufficient revenue.62 Maximum extension would require more dispersed habitation, more travelling time, and would reduce the overall defensibility of a territory or the people in it. Would it not appear to be more sensible that the risk of farming outside of the safety of the main settlement would be kept as low as possible? In my opinion, there is an overemphasis on the numbers game played with ranks and sizes of Central Italian settlements resulting in the production of different maps and lists of territorial divisions and hierarchies for decades.63 In the meantime, none of the analyses have brought us closer to a sensible reconstruction of the ancient geographical reality of the region. Many of these studies fail to determine what all these numbers mean in terms of human interaction with the landscape. Also, the following questions are rarely asked: would a few thousand people have actually needed at least 100 sq km of land, and at what cost would they have controlled it? In fact, these models and theories seem to include the assumption of over-consumption. Alternatively

Conclusion and further work

It is clear that territory and catchment are different concepts.61 An area of direct exploitation is not the same as the area that is claimed to define the political status of a settlement. However, almost all of the existing territorial models are based on the reconstruction of maximum territories. They support a hypothesis of a greedy territorial strategy that ‘invited’ conflict because all borders were shared with neighbours and buffer zones or marginal areas of

62 In the previously presented simple equation: if 1 ha of land yields 500 kg of food, but needs more than two people (consuming more than 400 kg) to farm, protect and provide infrastructure, the investment is useless. 63 Again, this point was more elaborately made by Ziółkowski 2005.

61 Roper 1979: p. 124.

62

Many rivers to cross - Revisiting the territory of ancient Crustumerium settlement near Rome, Groningen Institute of Archaeology & Barkhuis, Groningen. Attema, P.A.J., di Gennaro, F., Seubers, J.F., Belelli Marchesini, B. & Ullrich, B. 2014, “Early urbanization at Crustumerium (9th - 5th c. B.C.)”, Journal of Roman Archaeology, supplement 97, pp. 175-196. Barbina, P., Ceccarelli, L., dell’Era, F. & di Gennaro, F. 2009, “Il territorio di Fidenae tra V e II secolo a.C.” in Suburbium II. Il Suburbio di Roma dalla fine dell’età monarchica alla nascita del sistema delle ville (V-II secolo a.C.), (eds.) V. Jolivet, C. Pavolini, M.A. Tomei & R. Volpe, pp. 325-345. Bintliff, J.L. 1999, “Settlement and Territory” in The Routledge Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology, (ed.) G. Barker, pp. 505-545. Bintliff, J.L. 2002, “Going to market in antiquity” in Zu Wasser und zu Land, (eds.) E. Olshausen & H. Sonnabend, pp. 209-250. Bintliff, J.L. 2008, “In praise of the ancestors. Catchment and territory in agricultural landscapes: revisiting the birth of a concept in the light of current research in landscape archaeology” in Dioskouroi, (eds.) C. Gallou, M. Georgiadis & G.M. Muskett, pp. 216-227. Bouma, J.W. & Van ‘t Lindenhout, E. 1997, “Light in Dark Age Latium, evidence from settlements and cult places”, Caeculus, vol. 3, pp. 91-102. Carafa, P. 2000, “Le guerre oltre l’Agro” in Roma. Romolo, Remo e la fondazione della città, (ed.) A. Carandini, pp. 340-342. Carandini, A., D’Alessio, M.T. & Di Giuseppe, H. 2006, La fattoria e la villa dell’auditorium nel quartiere Flaminio di Roma, “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, Roma. Cifani, G. 2002, “Notes on the rural landscape of central Tyrrhenian Italy in the 6th-5th c. B.C. and its social significance”, Journal of Roman Archaeology, vol. 15, pp. 247-260. Cifani, G. 2009, “Indicazioni sulla proprièta agraria nella Roma arcaicia in base all’evidenza archeologica” in Suburbium II. Il Suburbio di Roma dalla fine dell’età monarchica alla nascita del sistema delle ville (V-II secolo a.C.), (eds.) V. Jolivet, C. Pavolini, M.A. Tomei & R. Volpe, pp. 311-324. Cifani, G. 2010, “State Formation and Ethnicities from the 8th to 5th Century BC in the Tiberine Valley (Central Italy)”, Social Evolution & History, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 53-69. Claessen, H.J.M. & Skalník, P. 1978, The early state, Mouton, The Hague. Cornell, T.J. 1995, The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC), Routledge, London.

could we not suggest that “enough was enough”, at least for the initial economy of our Iron Age communities? Based on the spatial distribution of Crustumerium and its neighbours, estimates of territories larger than 40 sq km seem overly optimistic and yet we have ample historical and archaeological proof that the settlements flourished. The nearest neighbour analysis presented above shows what a more defensive strategy of territorial exploitation may have looked like. It shows that a balanced settlement system could have existed between the Aniene and the Fiora. The land could very well have been equally divided, still offering defensible territories of sufficient size for the primary settlements and still leaving space for independent smaller settlements or farms. In contrast to the Thiessen polygons, the catchments do not interfere with settlements that were not included in the analysis, which is an argument for the suitability of the approach. The fact that the modelled catchment of Crustumerium sits best with the very first ‘intuitive’ reconstruction of the territory may even suggest that we have arrived at a more phenomenological application of GIS than we could have anticipated. As such I believe that it is a line of thought that deserves to be explored further, as I intend to do in my forthcoming dissertation.64

Bibliography

Amoroso, A. 2002a, “Nuovi dati per la conoscenza dell’antico centro di Crustumerium”, Archeologia Classica, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 287-329. Amoroso, A. 2002b, “Crustumerium, da città antica a suburbium di Roma”, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, vol. 101, pp. 263-282. Amoroso, A. 2013, “Il territorio di Crustumerium e dei centri limitrofi nella Prima Età del Ferro. Dati e prospettive” in Crustumerium, Ricerche internazionali in un centro latino, Archaeology and identity of a Latin settlement near Rome, (eds.) P.A.J. Attema, F. di Gennaro & E. Jarva, pp. 127-137. Amoroso, A. & Barbina, P. 2003, “L’istituzione delle tribù Claudia e Clustumina nel Latium Vetus. Un esempio di gestione del territorio da parte di Roma nel V secolo a.C.”, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, vol. 104, pp. 19-36. Attema, P.A.J., di Gennaro, F. & Jarva, E. (eds.) 2013, Crustumerium, Ricerche internazionali in un centro latino, Archaeology and identity of a Latin 64 Seubers (forthcoming).

63

Jorn Seubers Cornell, T.J. 2000, “The City-States in Latium” in A comparative study of thirty city-state cultures: an investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre, (ed.) M.H. Hansen, pp. 209-229. di Gennaro, F. 1982, “Organizzazione del territorio nell’Etruria meridionale protostorica: applicazione di un modello grafico”, Dialoghi di Archeologia, vol. 2, pp. 102-112. di Gennaro, F. 2006, “Tra Roma e la Sabina. Il territorio di Fidenae e Crustumerium prima e dopo la conquista romana” in Roma. Memorie dal sottosuolo. Ritrovamenti archeologici 1980/2006, (ed.) M.A. Tomei, pp. 215-219. di Gennaro, F., Amoroso, A. & Togninelli, P. 2007, “Crustumerium e Fidenae tra Etruria e Colli Albani” in Tusculum, Storia Archeologia Cultura e Arte di Tusculo e del Tuscolano. Atti del primo incontro di studi (27-28 maggio e 3 giugno 2000), (eds.) F. Arietti & A. Pasqualini, pp. 135-162. di Gennaro, F. & Guidi, A. 2009, “Ragioni e regioni di un cambiamento culturale: Modi e tempi della formazione dei centri protourbani nella valle del Tevere nel Lazio Meridionale”, Scienze dell’Antichità, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 429-445. di Gennaro, F., Schiapelli, A. & Amoroso, A. 2004, “Un confronto tra gli organismi protostatali delle due sponde del Tevere: le prime fase di Veio e Crustumerio” in Bridging the Tiber: approaches to regional archaeology in the Middle Tiber Valley, (ed.) H. Patterson, pp. 147-177. Droogsma, S. 2011, Grenzen aan de Tiber, MA thesis (unpublished), Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen. Ducke, B. & Kroefges, P.C. 2007, “Identifying settlement patterns and territories” in Layers of Perception. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, (eds.) A. Posluschny, K. Lambers & I. Herzog, pp. 245-251. Finocchietti, L. 2008, “Tra Crustumerium, Nomentum e Roma: confini e organizzazione del territoria”, Bolletino di Archeologia Online. Fulminante, F. 2005, “Ager Romanis antiquus: defining the most ancient terrritory of Rome with a GIS-based approach”, Archaeological Computing Newsletter, vol. 62, pp. 7-16. Fulminante, F. 2009, “Landscapes of Power and Proto-Urban developments towards Urbanization in Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Latium Vetus” in Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean, (eds.) C. Bachhuber & G. Roberts, pp. 119-130. Fulminante, F. 2012, “Social Network Analysis and the Emergence of Central Places. A Case Study

from Bronze and Early Iron Age Central Italy”, Babesch, vol. 87, pp. 1-27. Fulminante, F. 2014, The urbanization of Rome and Latium Vetus: from the Bronze Age to the Archaic Era, Cambridge University Press, New York. Guidi, A. 2006, “The Archaeology of Early State in Italy”, Social Evolution & History, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 55-89. Guidi, A. 2010, “The Archaeology of Early State in Italy: New Data and Acquisitions”, Social Evolution & History, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 12-27. Hacigüzeller, P. 2012, “GIS, critique, representation and beyond”, Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 245-263. Hansen, M.H. 2000, A comparative study of thirty city-state cultures: an investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre, Reitzel; Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Copenhagen. Herzog, I. 2013, “Theory and Practice of Cost Functions”, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA2010), pp. 375-382. Herzog, I. & Posluschny, A. 2011, “Tilt – SlopeDependent Least Cost Path Calculations Revisited” in On the road to reconstructing the past. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference, Budapest, (eds.) E. Jerem, F. Redõ & V. Szeverényi, pp. 236. Hu, D. 2011, “Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems”, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, vol. 21, pp. 80-90. Jolivet, V., Pavolini, C., Tomei, M.A. & Volpe, R. 2009, Suburbium II. Il Suburbio di Roma dalla fine dell’età monarchica alla nascita del sistema delle ville (V-II secolo a.C.), Ecole française de Rome, Rome. Jongman, W. 1988, The economy and society of Pompeii, J.C. Gieben, Amsterdam. Lightfoot, K.G. & Martinez, A. 1995, “Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Persective”, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 24, pp. 471-492. Llobera, M. 2012, “Life on a Pixel: Challenges in the Development of Digital Methods Within an “Interpretive” Landscape Archaeology Framework”, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 19, pp. 495-509. Nijboer, A.J. 2004, “Characteristics of emerging towns in Central Italy, 900/800 to 400 BC” in Centralization, early urbanization and colonization in first millennium BC Italy and Greece, (ed.) P.A.J. Attema, pp. 137-156.

64

Many rivers to cross - Revisiting the territory of ancient Crustumerium Pacciarelli, M. 2001, Dal villaggio alla città: la svolta protourbana del 1000 a.C. nell’Italia tirrenica, All’Insegna del Giglio, Firenze. Panciera, D. & di Gennaro, F. 2010, “Ficulea: un nuovo frammento epigrafico. Problemi storici e topografici”, Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia, vol. 82, pp. 145-176. Passigli, S. 2004, “L’insediamento e l’ambiente nei possessi di San Ciriaco in Via Lata en San Silvestro in Capite presso le anse del Tevere (Secoli XII-XIII)” in Bridging the Tiber: approaches to regional archaeology in the Middle Tiber Valley, (ed.) H. Patterson, pp. 125-141. Quilici, L. & Quilici Gigli, S. 1980, Crustumerium, Latium Vetus III, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma. Redhouse, D.I. & Stoddart, S. 2011, “Mapping Etruscan state formation” in State formation in Italy and Greece. Questioning the Neoevolutionist paradigm, (eds.) N. Terrenato & D.C. Haggis, pp. 162-178. Renfrew, C. & Level, E.V. 1979, “Exploring Dominance: Predicting Polities from Centres” in Transformations. Mathematical Approaches to Culture Change, (eds.) C. Renfrew & K.L. Cooke, pp. 145-167. Roper, D.C. 1979, “The Method and Theory of Site Catchment Analysis: A Review”, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 2, pp. 119-140. Seubers, J.F. forthcoming, New light through old windows. Revisiting the urban-rural continuum of the ancient Latin city-state; Crustumerium and Rome between 850 and 300 BC, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen. Smith, C.J. 1996, Early Rome and Latium, Economy and Society c. 1000 to 500 BC, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Terrenato, N. & Haggis, D.C. (eds.) 2011, State Formation in Italy and Greece, Questioning the Neoevolutionist Paradigm, Oxbow Books, Oxford. Terrenato, N. 2011, “The Versatile Clans: Archaic Rome and the nature of Early City-States in Central Italy” in State Formation in Italy and Greece, Questioning the Neoevolutionist Paradigm, (eds.) N. Terrenato & D.C. Haggis, pp. 231-244.

Tobler, W. 1993, Three presentations on Geographical Analysis and Modeling, Technical Report, vol. 93, no. 1, University of California, Santa Barbara. Togninelli, P. 2009, “Between Crustumerium and Eretum. Observations on the First Iron Age Phases and the Finds from the Archaic Period” in New Perspectives on Etruria and Early Rome. In honor of Richard De Puma, (eds.) S. Bell & H. Nagy, pp. 3-21. Trigger, B.G. 2003, Understanding early civilizations: a comparative study, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Van Leusen, P.M. 2002, Pattern to process: methodological investigations into the formation and interpretation of spatial patterns in archaeological landscapes, PhD Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen. Vanzetti, A. 2002, “Some current approaches to Protohistoric Centralization and Urbanization in Italy” in New Developments in Italian Landscape Archaeology, (eds.) P.A.J. Attema, G.-J. Burgers, E. van Joolen, P.M. van Leusen & B. Mater, pp. 36-51. Vanzetti, A. 2004, “Risultati e problemi di alcune attuali prospettive di studio della centralizzazione e urbanizzazione di fase protostorica in Italia” in Centralization, Early Urbanization and Colonization in First Millennium BC Italy and Greece, (ed.) P.A.J. Attema, pp. 1-28. Vita-Finzi, C. & Higgs, E.S. 1970, “Prehistoric Economy in the Mount Carmel Area of Palestine: Site Catchment Analysis”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, vol. 36, pp. 1-37. Yoffee, N. 2005, Myths of the archaic state: evolution of the earliest cities, states, and civilizations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ziółkowski, A. 2005, “The Aggeres and the rise of urban communities in Early Iron Age Latium”, Archeologia, vol. 56, pp. 31-51.

65

6 HIERARCHICAL AND FEDERATIVE POLITIES IN PROTOHISTORIC LATIUM VETUS. AN ANALYSIS OF BRONZE AGE AND EARLY IRON AGE SETTLEMENT ORGANIZATION Luca Alessandri Introduction

area. If the latter is not precisely known, the walking time from the find locations. 3. The walking distance from the settlement to the boundaries of its territory is always the same in all directions. 4. Lakes, lagoons and big rivers (Tiber and Aniene) are considered insuperable (fig. 3). 5. When considering the settlement α in a hypothetical phase A (fig. 4), the territory radius or the maximum distance to which the settlement α could have deployed an effective influence is calculated in travelling time on an anisotropic surface and is called mdi. Mdi is supposed to be the average distance that allows the broadest coverage of landscape between the settlements (eventually calculated in different regions) and the minimum percentage of overlapping territories.

The aim of this article is to provide an in-depth analysis of settlement patterns in Latium Vetus (fig. 1) from the Middle Bronze Age 1/2 to the Early Iron Age phase Roma-Colli Albani III (fig. 2).1 We usually refer to this period as the protohistory. In Italy, this period coincides with the transition from relatively egalitarian horticultural societies to elite based societies with ascribed status and patron-client relationships and from tribal organization in villages to proto-urban settlements (chiefdoms) and early states.2 However, new data from recent surveys and excavations challenge this assumed linear trajectory as more complex processes come into view. While highlighting differences and discontinuities in the occupation of territories, I will show the contemporary existence of two different polycentric systems: one consisting of “federative” polities, with multiple settlements of the same rank, and one featuring centralized and hierarchical polities. The discussion will include the development of Rome.

Once the settlement territory has been reconstructed, two circumstances may occur. 1. If in the following phase (B) a new settlement (β) appears inside of α territory, their territories will merge. 2. If in the following phase (B) a new settlement (β) appears outside of α territory, and their territories overlap, the intermediate line between the settlements becomes the boundary.

Methodology

The analyses presented in this article are based on the following five principles. 1. All distances are calculated based on a reconstructed landscape model that is already available for the study area.3 2. All distances are calculated in walking time (minutes)4 from the boundary of the settled

What came before: Middle Bronze Age settlement patterns

Different settlement patterns can be detected in Latium Vetus in the Early Middle Bronze Age (MBA1/2, fig. 5). In the Alban Hills area, the settlements seem quite regularly spaced with about two hours walking distance between them and approximately one hour territories around them. However, Pian Quintino and Colle Mattia, and Casali Mancini and Tenuta della Falcognana are very close to one another (around 21 minutes apart in the first case,

1 For the absolute chronology I refer to Pacciarelli 2001 and Van der Plicht et al. 2009. 2 General works on Latium Vetus in the Bronze Age and Iron Age: Gierow 1964; Colonna 1974; Colonna 1976; Ampolo et al. 1980; Cristofani 1990; Peroni 1996; Pacciarelli 2001; Carandini 2003; Guidi 2003; 2006; 2010; Fulminante 2009; Cardarelli 2011; Alessandri 2007; 2013; Fulminante 2014. 3 Alessandri 2013. 4 Based on the works of Langmuir 1984 and Naismith 1892.

67

Luca Alessandri

Fig. 1.  Bronze Age and Early Iron Age settlements in Latium Vetus (reconstructed landscape from Alessandri 2013).

around 5 minutes apart in the second case): the distances between these settlements suggest that we are dealing with single communities. To the south, the settlements around the estuary of the Astura river are positioned about 50 minutes from each other. We are able to distinguish MBA1 and MBA2 subphases for each settlement, and it is noteworthy that the average intermediate distance does not change over time: all settlements then seem to have a territory of about 25 minutes radius. Of these, the Colle 2300-1700 BC

Middle Bronze Age 1/2

1700-1400 BC

Middle Bronze Age 3

1400-1325/1300 BC

Recent Bronze Age

1325/1300-1175/1150 BC

Final Bronze Age 1/2

1175/1150-1050 BC

Final Bronze Age 3 (Roma-Colli Albani I)

1050-950 BC

Roma-Colli Albani IIA

950-880 BC

Roma-Colli Albani IIB

880-825/800 BC

Roma Colli Albani III

825/800-725 BC

Orientalizing period

725-580 BC

Early Iron Age

Early Bronze Age

Rotondo polity appears to be polycentric. The settlements at the foot of the Lepini Mountains are similar in size to those around the estuary of the Astura river; they also have a territory of about 23 minutes radius. Finally, there are three regularly spaced settlements along the coast, between the Astura river estuary and Mount Circeo, with territories of about 53 minutes radius. In summary, there are four different kinds of polities that seem to coexist in Latium Vetus in the Early Middle Bronze Age: polycentric and mononuclear polities with territories of about 25 or 60 minutes radius (fig. 6). In the next phase (MBA3, fig. 7), the following settlement patterns can be detected. In the Alban Hills, settlements are located around the volcano, still at about 2 hours walking distance from each other. In the northern zone, a polynuclear polity of substantial size centers around Pian Quintino and Colle Mattia. The settlement pattern around the estuary of the Astura river is clearly different from the previous phase: none of the older settlements is still present in MBA3. The settlement pattern at the foot of the Monti Lepini, on the contrary, does not seem to be significantly different; the settlements still have territories of about 23 minutes radius. In the coastal area between Astura river and Mount Circeo only one settlement survives.

Fig. 2.  Latium Vetus in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Absolute chronology from Pacciarelli 2001 and Van der Plicht et al. 2009.

68

Hierarchical and federative polities in protohistoric Latium Vetus

Fig. 3.  Walking distances from the Monte Cavo settlement.

Fig. 4.  The development of territories, a simple rule.

Fig. 5.  Latium Vetus in the Middle Bronze Age 1/2.

69

Luca Alessandri

Fig. 6.  Evolution trends.

Social and economic changes during the Recent Bronze Age and the Final Bronze Age: the emerging elites

Contemporary cremation necropoleis appeared for the first time in Latium Vetus, Cavallo Morto and possibly Via Bianchi Bandinelli, while the burial cave of Grotta Vittorio Vecchi in the Monti Lepini was abandoned (fig. 9). The very low number of burials in the Bronze Age necropoleis (especially if compared with the later burials, which are far more varied and richer) suggests that only a minority of the population had the right to adopt this specific rite. Besides, the cremation rite, as opposed to the inhumation rite, projects the body of the deceased

In the Recent Bronze Age (RBA, fig. 8), the landscape appears more intensively occupied with respect to the foregoing period, especially in the Alban Hills. Here the settlement territories, still calculated based on a one-hour walking distance, never overlap and in most cases almost meet. The areas around the estuary of the Astura river and the Pontine Plain, on the contrary, seem to be thinly populated.

70

Hierarchical and federative polities in protohistoric Latium Vetus

Fig. 7.  Latium Vetus in the Middle Bronze Age 3.

Fig. 8.  Latium Vetus in the Recent Bronze Age.

in an immaterial sphere; Peroni proposed a parallel with the supernatural world where divinities are supposed to live.5 Furthermore, we notice a strong similarity between the miniature vessels found in many caves and lakes and obviously dedicated to a deity (a practice starting in the MBA) and the use (from the FBA3 onwards) to include miniaturized

objects in the funerary gifts.6 The attribution of divine faculties to the chief is indeed very common among communities with early social stratification.7 Since some infant burials were present in the necropoleis of Cavallo Morto (RBA), Via Bianchi Bandinelli (RBA?-FBA1/2) and Quadraro, Via 6 Peroni 1996: p. 404. In the study area, miniature vessels have been found in Caprolace, Alessandri 2013, and Campoverde, Kleibrink 2000; Van Loon 2009. 7 Service 1971; Earle 1997.

5 Peroni 1996: pp. 19-24

71

Luca Alessandri more intensive, or just visible, in the next phase. The existence of special activity sites, the socio-economic complexity of such a production system, and the necessity of managing surplus point to a centralized system in the form of a hierarchical polity driven by the emerging elite. In the FBA3, some important changes occur. The Alban Hills appear to be even more densely populated and, for the first time, there is no strip of land outside the control of one of the polities already identified (fig. 11). However, the older settlements were already present in RBA and about half of them in MBA3; it therefore seems as though the more ancient centres were surrounded by other villages that had been founded and abandoned within relatively short periods of time. Furthermore, the amount of settlements placed in defensible and moderately defensible positions is, for the first time, over 50%. This would suggest increased conflicts between polities, probably connected with the emergence of the new social structures, more pronounced social stratification, and perhaps a restricted mobility and access to resources.

Fig. 9.  From burial caves in the Middle Bronze Age to burial grounds in the Recent Bronze Age (Grotta Vittorio Vecchi map from Rosini 2007, Cavallo Morto tomb from Angle et al. 2004).

Lucrezia Romana (FBA3), we can assume that status was probably transmitted by inheritance.8 Furthermore, Mycenaean and Italo-Mycenaean pottery appears in RBA layers in Casale Nuovo9 and possibly slightly later in the coastal settlement of Pelliccione (fig. 6), indicating the existence of a wide-ranging network of exchanges and the presence of people interested in exotic and therefore highly symbolic artefacts. These circumstances all suggest the presence of an elite. It is possible to develop some further socio-economic considerations for the FBA1/2 (fig. 10). In the area around the estuary of the Astura river, a special kind of site appears (Le Grottacce, Pelliccione, Area Stop 4).10 These settlements are characterized by an almost complete lack of typical household vessels and the presence of a huge quantity of red impasto jar fragments. Some authors have hypothesized that the jars had been used to boil brine, probably from the near lagoon, in order to obtain salt, a production process known as briquetage.11 This hypothesis would explain the enormous amount of fragments found, since the jars needed to be broken to extract the salt. It is very likely that the vessels were produced in the vicinity and, indeed, small basins filled with depurated clay have been found in the Saracca settlement (RBA). Therefore, it is possible that salt production started in the RBA, even if it becomes

New territorial configurations in the Recent Bronze Age and the Final Bronze Age

The emergence of the elites coincides with some new territorial configurations. For the first time, we can hypothesize some enlargement of the settled area. In Rome, near the previously occupied Campidoglio, some RBA fragments have been found on the top of the Palatine (in the Tempio della Vittoria area and in the Auguratorium excavation), while other fragments come from the foot of the hill12 (fig. 12, for a Bronze Age and Iron Age development hypothesis). Later during the FBA3 in the coastal zone, both Ardea and Pratica di Mare seem to occupy the adjacent plateaus (fig. 13).13 The growth of inhabited areas therefore appears to be a process that started between the Recent Bronze Age and the Final Bronze Age. It is possible to hypothesize a hierarchical settlement system in the FBA1/2, around the Astura river. Pelliccione, Le Grottacce and Area Stop 4 would have been subordinated salt production sites and Casale Nuovo, where Mycenaean pottery has been found, may have been the central settlement. One can suggest a similar situation for the archaeological sites known around the estuary of

8 Just outside the study area, a very rich infant female burial from Le Caprine contained more than 50 miniature objects in a wooden box; Damiani et al. 1998. 9 Angle et al. 2004. 10 Attema et al. 2003; Nijboer et al. 2004; Attema & Nijboer 2007; Angle & Guidi 2007. 11 Pacciarelli 2001: p. 175; Attema et al. 2003; Alessandri 2007; Attema & Alessandri 2012.

12 Precisely some ceramic fragments from two RBA layers near the Arco di Augusto, one fibula and two other fragments respectively from a Roman sewer near the Sacra Via, from the Casa delle Vestali and from the so-called Regia di Brown. 13 Modica 2011; di Gennaro & Guidi 2000.

72

Hierarchical and federative polities in protohistoric Latium Vetus

Fig. 10.  Latium Vetus in the Final Bronze Age 1/2.

Fig. 11.  Latium Vetus in the Final Bronze Age 3 (Roma-Colli Albani I).

the Tiber River, near the Ostia lagoon. Here, Ficana would have controlled both Ostia Antica Collettore and Ostia Antica Terme di Nettuno during the RBA. The average distance between the settlements of Rome, Ficana, and Pratica di Mare is about 248 minutes, that would give a 124 minute territorial radius, which is almost double that of the previous phases (fig. 10).

Along the supposed territories’ boundaries, we find some small and short-lived settlements. In the area of Rome, for example, they are placed at an average distance of 132 minutes, Casa Calda being the nearest settlement at 128 minutes and Torre di Mezzavia being the furthest at 135 minutes; in the area of Ficana, Casale della Perna is placed at about 135 minutes and in the area of Ardea, Fosso della Bottaccia is placed at 131 minutes (fig. 10). This territorial configuration points to a hierarchical system as well.

73

Luca Alessandri

Fig. 12. Rome, development hypothesis. (modified after Alessandri 2013; contour lines every 5 m, from Terrenato 2003).

74

Hierarchical and federative polities in protohistoric Latium Vetus

Fig. 13.  The growth of inhabitated areas in Final Bronze Age 3. The arrow indicates the direction of expansion (Ardea after Morselli & Tortorici 1983; Pratica di Mare after Jaia 2007).

75

Luca Alessandri

Fig. 14.  Latium Vetus in phase Roma-Colli Albani IIA (Early Iron Age).

Social and economic changes during the Early Iron Age: the early states

phase. A minimal estimate for the settled area of Rome, based on an average settlements-necropoleis distance in Latium Vetus, is about 67 hectares, but the area may have been up to 154 hectares, considering the two necropoleis as the northernmost boundaries of the inhabited area (fig. 10).14 As far as the funerary aspects are concerned, the inhumation rite was (re)introduced and in the Osteria dell'Osa necropolis,15 the cremation rite was the prerogative of the adult men with the most important roles. According to Pacciarelli, the necropolis in RMCA IIA would ref lect a society system characterized by unequal access to rights, power, prestige and goods. In the next phase (RMCA IIB), the economic differences inside and outside family groups are much more pronounced and clearly linked to ascribed ranks. In the RMCA III phase, only a distinct section of the necropolis is used. Here, the two most ancient tombs belong to an adult female aged between 15 and 18 years and to a male of approximately 60 years, both showed clear signs of prestige. These tombs are surrounded by other burials, some of which overlap each other. Therefore, the ritual seems to emphasize the group and kinship, rather than the social role of individuals.16

With the subsequent Roma-Colli Albani IIA phase, Latium Vetus enters the Iron Age (fig. 14). The occupation of the Alban Hills and the coastal area undergoes few changes: Gabii, to the north, and Lanuvio, Cisterna, and perhaps Colli della Coedra to the south are occupied for the first time. However, the settlement pattern at the estuary of the Astura River now appears to be quite different. Here, in the previous phase (FBA), many small settlements had spread along the river and along the coastline. Since at the beginning of the Iron Age only two settlements remained, Anzio and Satricum, it is possible to hypothesize that they may have formed a true synoecism. Of course, it should be stressed that a lot of settlements are generically dated to FBA, and we are not able to decide whether they belong to the FBA1/2 or FBA3 sub-phases; therefore, our view of the landscape dynamics may change with more refined datings. In Rome, the funerary areas changed many times: during the FBA, the oldest necropoleis were placed near the Arch of Augustus and in the Forum of Caesar. At the beginning of the Iron Age, phase RMCA IIA, people were instead buried near the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina and in the Forum of Augustus; later on, during the phase RMCA IIB, in the Esquiline Hill and in the Quirinal Hill (fig. 15). Several authors have linked these shifts of the burial grounds to a further expansion of the settled area and have commonly interpreted it as the beginning of a proto-urban

14 Alessandri 2013. 15 Bietti Sestieri 1992a; 1992b. Also for an alternative point of view. 16 Pacciarelli 2001: p. 242

76

Hierarchical and federative polities in protohistoric Latium Vetus

Fig. 15.  Necropoleis in the settlement of Roma, from FBA3 to RMCA IIB (from Alessandri 2013; contour lines for every 5 m from Terrenato 2003)

Fig. 16.  Latium Vetus in phase Roma-Colli Albani IIB (Early Iron Age).

New territorial configurations in Early Iron Age

Contemporaneously, the first cultual huts, placed below the later Archaic temples, appear in Lanuvium, Ardea, Velletri and Satricum. According to Guidi, the Iron Age landscape of Latium Vetus, in RMCA III, is characterized by the appearance of early states with strong hierarchical societies.17

In the Pontine Plain at the beginning of the Iron Age (RMCA IIA), the only change is the founding of the settlement of Vado Fiume at the foot of the Monti Lepini and the abandonment of the Valvisciolo area. However, we must keep in mind that in the next phase (RMCA IIB, fig. 16), at only a short distance from Valvisciolo, we find the settlement of Monte

17 Guidi 2009; 2010.

77

Luca Alessandri

Fig. 17.  Settlements in Latium Vetus in phase Roma-Colli Albani IIB, grouped by polities (from Alessandri 2013).

Carbolino and that a large part of its habitation area has been destroyed by a quarry. Since we know with certainty that the quarry has damaged some FBA3 layers, it is possible that the hiatus between FBA3 and RMCA IIB in this area is exclusively due to the bad preservation of the remains. If this hypothesis holds true, the first indication for stable occupation of this part of the Pontine Plain should be placed in FBA3. Even if it remains problematic to calculate the size of the settlement areas in the absence of systematic and exhaustive excavations, especially in those cases where clear natural boundaries lack, it is possible to make some interesting observations about the size of settlements and their territories in phases RMCA IIB. In figure 17 the inhabited areas have been outlined and grouped by polities. If we plot the areas (ha) in a graph (fig. 18), we may note that some very large settlements, rendered on the left, fall within the same polities of a number of very small ones, rendered on the right: Rome and Acqua Acetosa Laurentina, Ardea and L’Altare, Pratica di Mare and Tredici Altari.18 Instead, a large number of settlements with an average of 13.4 hectares (excluding Antemnae) are concentrated in

the central region of the graph, sometimes belonging to the same polity. It therefore seems that, together with mononuclear settlements, two separate systems can be detected: the first is characterized by large hegemonic centres that sometimes have a number of secondary settlements surrounding them; the second is characterized by a number of settlements, which share the same characteristics. In other words, it seems that the first is a hierarchical system with a clear central settlement, and the second is a federative one with multiple settlements of the same rank. It should be noted that all the territories of the supposed hierarchical polities have approximately 132 minutes radius, instead of those belonging to the federative polities, which have about 60 minutes radius. In the next phase, RMCA III (fig. 19), the territorial configuration remains almost unchanged; the only remarkable difference is the appearance of a number of small settlements, probably subordinates, just on the border of the territory of Rome and perhaps Satricum.

Conclusions

Turning back to figure 6, it is therefore possible to detect some major trends in settlement dynamics in Latium Vetus, from the Recent Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. In fact, the emergence of the elites and the first appearance of the early states bring

18 The settled area of Tredici Altari, that should be very small, could not be precisely calculated.

78

Hierarchical and federative polities in protohistoric Latium Vetus

Fig. 18.  Hierarchical and federative polities in Latium Vetus, Roma-Colli Albani IIB (from Alessandri 2013).

about a new territorial configuration. In the case of Rome in the RBA, we are able to detect an enlargement of the settled area for the first time. This is a trend that can be followed to well beyond the Iron Age: at Ficana, the first occupation layers outside the so-called agger, date to the Orientalizing period and near Ardea the Casalazzara plateau is occupied in the Archaic Age.19 During this process, the territorial radius seems to increase from 25 minutes, observed only in the MBA, to 132 minutes, as seems the case for some settlements in the FBA and Iron Age. Polynuclear systems, with more than one village in the same polity, can be detected from MBA onwards and has been considered as federative with all the settlements sharing approximately the same characteristics. From the FBA1/2 onwards, a different settlement system can be detected: the new hierarchical polity is characterized by one larger and long-lasting central settlement and some smaller, short-lived

satellite settlements. This seems particularly clear from RMCA IIB onwards in the cases of Rome, Pratica di Mare, Ardea and perhaps Satricum. Here it is interesting to recall Earle’s hypothesis on the formation of chiefdoms and states. The author claims that their emergence relies on a bottleneck “whereby flows of currencies can be interdicted and mobilized to support and institutionalize political power.”20 Indeed, the hierarchical polities are all placed along important routes (fig. 20): in Central Tyrrhenian Lazio there are two major roads that connected Campania and Southern Etruria. The first and northernmost transverses the Sacco-Liri valley, then passes to the north of the Alban Hills, probably alongside Lake Castiglione, and then passes Rome, at one of the few fords along the Tiber River. The second more southern road runs parallel to the coast touching Ficana, also at a ford. With regard to these routes one can hypothesize that in the area north of Anzio starting from the FBA, the drastic change in

19 Morselli & Tortorici 1982.

20 Earle 2011.

79

Luca Alessandri

Fig. 19.  Latium Vetus polities in phase RomaColli Albani III (from Alessandri 2013).

Fig. 20.  Hierarchical, federative and monocentric polities with their territories; dotted black lines, major routes.

the settlement strategies is accompanied by the birth of an alternative route to the south. This is evident both from the Final Bronze Age settlements around it and from the presence of Satricum along its route in the Iron Age. The reorganization of roads is usually a strong indication of the reorganization of the networks of power: in this case, it may indicate the greater importance of the northern settlements with respect to the older sites of Colle Rotondo and Anzio.

Moreover, as we already noticed, some of the hierarchical polities placed along the coastline may have been involved in the production of salt; more importantly, saltbeds placed at the estuary of the Tiber that were controlled by the settlement of Rome, are also mentioned in later Latin sources.21

21 See Lanciani 1888.

80

Hierarchical and federative polities in protohistoric Latium Vetus di Studi sul Lazio e la Sabina, (ed.) G. Ghini, pp. 203-214. Angle, M. & Guidi, A. 2007, “L’antica e media età del Bronzo nel Lazio” in Strategie di insediamento fra Lazio e Campania in età preistorica e protostorica, Proceeding of XL Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano Preistoria e Protostoria. Roma, Napoli, Pompei 2005, pp. 147-178. Attema, P.A.J., De Haas, T.C.A & Nijboer, A.J. 2003, “The Astura Project, interim report of the 2001 and 2002 campaigns of the Groningen Institute of Archaeology along the coast between Nettuno and Torre Astura (Lazio, Italy)”, Babesch, vol. 78, pp. 107-140. Attema, P.A.J. & Nijboer, A.J. 2007, “Le Grottacce/ PIC 13” in Repertorio dei siti protostorici del Lazio - provincie di Roma, Viterbo e Frosinone, (eds.) C. Belardelli, M. Angle, F. di Gennaro & F. Trucco, pp. 219-221. Attema, P.A.J. & Alessandri, L. 2012, “Salt production on the Tyrrhenian coast in South Lazio (Italy) during the Late Bronze Age: its significance for understanding contemporary society” in Salz und Gold: die Rolle des Salzes im prähistorischen Europa / Salt and Gold: The Role of Salt in Prehistoric Europe. Akten der internationaler  Fachtagung (Humboldt-Kolleg). ProvadiaVeliko Tarnovo 2010 (Provadia), pp. 287-300. Bietti Sestieri, A.M. (ed.) 1992a, La necropoli laziale di Osteria dell’Osa, Quasar, Roma. Bietti Sestieri, A.M. 1992b, The Iron Age community of Osteria dell’Osa: a study of socio-political development in central Tyrrhenian Italy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Carandini, A. 2003, La nascita di Roma. Dei, Lari, eroi e uomini all’alba di una civiltà, Einaudi, Torino. Cardarelli, A. 2011, “L’origine delle comunità protourbane in Italia” in Dalla nascita alla morte: archeologia e antropologia a confronto. International congress. Roma 2010, (ed.) V. Nizzo, pp. 247-257. Colonna, G. 1974, “Preistoria e protostoria di Roma e del Lazio” in Popoli e civiltà dell’Italia antica II, (eds.) B. D’Agostino, P.E. Arias & G. Colonna, pp. 273-346. Colonna, G. (ed.) 1976, Civiltà del Lazio primitivo, Multigrafica Editrice, Roma. Cristofani, M. (ed.) 1990, La grande Roma dei Tarquini: Roma, Palazzo delle esposizioni, 12 giugno-30 settembre 1990 (exhibition catalogue), L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma. Daire, M.Y. 2003, Le sel des Gaulois, Errance, Paris. Damiani, I., Festuccia, S. & Guidi, A. 1998, “Le Caprine” in Atti del III incontro di studi Preistoria e Protostoria in Etruria, Protovillanoviani e/o

The link between social systems and salt production has been subject of an intensive debate22 and as Harding recently pointed out: “The case for a marked social effect brought about by salt remains unproven.”23 However, the huge amount of ceramic fragments found on the FBA specialized sites on the coast indicates an “industrial” production that certainly exceeded the needs of the single polity. Thus, it is likely that the surplus was traded and the process of commoditization enabled the emerging elites to accumulate wealth. In general, saltmaking, together with the favourable position along important routes, could have fostered more hierarchical systems as opposed to the old territorial configurations already present in the region. All these trends point to a complex development of Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement organization in Latium Vetus. Particularly, the differences between hierarchical and federative polities, if proven true, may give us a fundamental key to better explain the transition to the (proto)urban phase and to the first early states. Indeed, federative polities as opposed to hierarchical ones did not generally reach the complexity and growth typical of the later protourban settlements: the roots of these differences, in Latium Vetus at least, then seem to be placed in an early stage of the Bronze Age. Understanding these differences remains a difficult, but fascinating task.

Bibliography

Abarquero Moras, F.J., Guerra Doce, E., Delibes de Castro, G., Palomino Lázaro, A.L. & Del Val Recio, J. 2012, Arqueología de la Sal en las Lagunas de Villafáfila (Zamora): Investigaciones sobre los cocederos prehistóricos, Junta de Castilla y León, Valladolid. Alessandri, L. 2007, L’occupazione costiera protostorica del Lazio centromeridionale, British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 1592, Oxford. Alessandri, L. 2013, Latium Vetus in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age / Il Latium Vetus nell'età del Bronzo e nella prima età del Ferro, BAR, International Series, 2565, Oxford. Ampolo, C., Bietti Sestieri, A.M., Bartoloni, G. & Cataldi Dini, M. 1980, La formazione della città nel Lazio, Dialoghi di archeologia, vol. 2. Angle, M., Belardelli, C. & Bettelli, M. 2004, “...i regali ricambiati devono somigliare ai regali ricevuti. La tarda età del Bronzo nel Latium vetus. Nuovi dati” in Lazio e Sabina 2. Secondo Incontro

22 Harding 2013; Abarquero Moras et al. 2012; Daire 2003; Weller 2002; Prilaux 2000. 23 Harding 2013: p. 124.

81

Luca Alessandri Protoetruschi - Ricerche e scavi, (ed.) N. Negroni Catacchio, pp. 203-214. di Gennaro, F. & Guidi, A. 2000, “Il Bronzo finale dell’Italia centrale. Considerazioni e prospettive di indagine” in Atti della Giornata di Studio. Il protovillanoviano al di qua e al di là dell’Appennino, pp. 99-138. Earle, T. 1997, How chiefs come to power. The political economy in Prehistory, Stanford University Press, Stanford. Earle, T. 2011, “Chiefs, Chieftaincies, Chiefdoms, and Chiefly Confederacies: Power in the Evolution of Political Systems”, in Social Evolution & History, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 27-54. Fulminante, F. 2009, “Landscapes of power and proto-urban developments toward urbanization in Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Latium Vetus” in Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean, (eds.) C. Bachhuber & G. Roberts, pp. 119-130. Fulminante, F. 2014, The urbanization of Rome and Latium Vetus: from the Bronze Age to the Archaic Era, Cambridge University Press, New York. Gierow, P.G. 1964, The Iron Age culture of Latium, II, Excavations and finds, Gleerup, Lund. Guidi, A. 2003, “La presenza dell’uomo: dall’economia di sopravvivenza alla nascita dello stato” in Atlante del Lazio antico. Un approfondimento critico delle conoscenze archeologiche, (ed.) P. Sommella, pp. 27-55. Guidi, A. 2006, “The Archaeology of Early State in Italy”, Social Evolution & History, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 55-89. Guidi, A. 2009, “Aspetti della religione tra la fine dell’età del bronzo e la I età del ferro” in Il Lazio dai Colli Albani ai Monti Lepini tra preistoria ed età moderna, (ed.) L. Drago, pp. 143-151. Guidi, A. 2010, “The Archaeology of Early State in Italy: New Data and Acquisitions”, Social Evolution & History, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 12-27. Harding, A. 2013, Salt in Prehistoric Europe, Sidestone, Leiden. Jaia, A.M. 2007, “L’insediamento della ‘piccola acropoli’” in Repertorio dei siti protostorici del Lazio - provincie di Roma, Viterbo e Frosinone, (eds.) C. Belardelli, M. Angle, F. di Gennaro & F. Trucco, pp. 237-241. Kleibrink, M. 2000, “The miniature votive pottery dedicated at the ‘Laghetto del Monsignore’ in Campoverde”, Palaeohistoria, vol. 39/40, pp. 441-512. Lanciani, R. 1888, “Il Campus salinarum romanarum”, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, III serie, pp. 83-91. Langmuir, E. 1984, Mountaincraft and leadership,

The Scottish Sports Council/MLTB, Leicester. Modica, S. 2011, “La forma urbana di Ardea. Dalla protostoria all’età medio-repubblicana”, Atti dell’Accademia Lancisiana, vol. 118, pp. 279-288. Morselli, C. & Tortorici, E. 1982, Ardea, Forma Italiae Regio I, XVI, Olschki, Firenze. Morselli, C. & Tortorici, E. 1983, Ardea. Immagini di una ricerca, De Luca, Roma. Naismith, W.W. 1892. Scottish Mountaineering Club Journal, II. Nijboer, A.J., Attema, P.A.J & Van Oortmerssen, G.J.M. 2004, “Ceramics from a late Bronze age saltern on the coast near Nettuno (Rome, Italy)”, Palaeohistoria, vol. 47/48, pp. 141-205. Pacciarelli, M. 2001, Dal villaggio alla città: la svolta protourbana del 1000 a.C. nell’Italia tirrenica, All’Insegna del Giglio, Firenze. Peroni, R. 1989, Protostoria dell’Italia continentale: la penisola italiana nelle età del Bronzo e del Ferro, Popoli e civiltà dell’Italia antica, vol. 9, Biblioteca di Storia Patria, Roma. Peroni, R. 1996, L’Italia alle soglie della storia, Laterza, Bari. Prilaux, G. 2000, La production de sel à l’Age du Fer. Contribution à l’établissement d’une typologie à partir des exemples de l’autoroute A16, M. Mergoil, Montagnac. Rosini, L. 2007, “I materiali della Grotta Vittorio Vecchi (Sezze, LT)” in Strategie di insediamento fra Lazio e Campania in età preistorica e protostorica, Proceeding of XL Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano Preistoria e Protostoria. Roma, Napoli, Pompei 2005, pp. 695-703. Service, E.R. 1971, Primitive social organization, Random House, New York. Terrenato, N. 2003, “La morfologia originaria di Roma” in La nascita di Roma. Dei, Lari, eroi e uomini all’alba di una civiltà, (ed.) A. Carandini, pp. 587-594. Van der Plicht, J., Bruins, H.J. & Nijboer, A.J. 2009, “The Iron Age Around the Mediterranean: A High Chronology Perspective from the Groningen Radiocarbon Database”, Radiocarbon, vol. 51, pp. 213-242. Van Loon, T., 2009, “Ritueel als indicator van sociale veranderingen: het votiefdepot Laghetto del Monsignore (Campoverde), een casus”, Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie, vol. 42, pp. 1-8. Weller, O. (ed.) 2002, Archéologie du sel: Techniques et sociétés dans la Pré- et Protohistoire européenne, Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden/Westfalen.

82

7 SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN SOUTH ETRURIA AND LATIUM VETUS Angelo Amoroso

Introduction

This paper analyses the characteristics of the protourban centres of South Etruria and Latium Vetus in an attempt to define their territories during the Early Iron Age. Five parameters have been set in order to create reliable points of reference to compare the two regions: the geomorphology of the territory and environment, settlement location, settlement morphology, settlement size and settlement territory. These parameters have proven to be significant in highlighting notable differences between these regions.

However in both areas the proto-urban phenomenon entailed a process of the selection of well-defined areas where the greater part of the population would become concentrated. Compared with the past, this marked a sharp change in strategies of land control and management.2 This phenomenon is apparent in South Etruria already before the arrival of Greek colonists in southern Italy, which started in the mideighth century BC in the later part of the Early Iron Age 2. In fact, while Greek colonization certainly contributed to the spread of the urban model in the Italian peninsula, it was not the origin of its birth.3

The territorial context

1  The territorial geomorphology

In ancient Latium, the Early Iron Age Villanovan culture is attested on the right bank of the Tiber, while the so-called Latial culture, which had already developed in the Final Bronze Age, was well established on the left bank (fig. 1). The river Tiber is a significant feature dividing the two areas; its 405 kilometres make it the most important river in Central Italy. The respective regions under examination present diverse geomorphological characteristics (fig. 2). There is also an issue of scale. On the Tiber’s right bank, the population were gathered in the vast proto-urban centres of Veii, Caere, Tarquinia, Vulci, Orvieto, and Bisenzio in the Early Iron Age, perhaps already inhabiting these centres from as early as the Final Bronze 3 onward (fig. 1).1 These are the Villanovan central places that partially correspond with the main Etruscan cities known in the historic period. On the opposite bank (fig. 1), the Latial population was likewise concentrated in several proto-urban centres with the exception of Rome. These were all of smaller average size compared to the central places of South Etruria.

The territory that would become home to the main towns of South Etruria (Veii, Caere, Tarquinia, Vulci and Orvieto) is characterized by ancient volcanic craters in the Volsini, Cimini and Sabatini mountains, most of which became lakes: Bracciano, Martignano, Vico, Bolsena (fig. 2). The tuffaceous terrain, compact, but easily eroded and incised, gave origin to the characteristic landscape of northern Lazio profoundly marked by torrents and rivers, by the Tiber’s tributaries, and the inlets and outlets of the lakes. The streams carved out steep slopes within the surrounding small and large hill systems. The main towns in South Etruria were founded upon large, natural and defensible hill plateaux situated at the confluence of rivers. The territory of Latium Vetus is different (fig. 2) and is dominated by the vast alluvial plain of the lower Tiber and the volcanic system of the Alban hills. The latter borders on the limestone massif of the central Apennines to the East, featuring the Monti Prenestini, Monte Morra, Monti Cornicolani 2 di Gennaro 1982; 1986; Peroni 1988; 1989; 1996; 1999; 2000; Pacciarelli 2001; Guidi 2003; 2005; 2008. 3 Peroni 2000: p. 26; Vanzetti 2004: p. 9. See also Fulminante 2014.

1 Pacciarelli 2001; 2009; Barbaro 2010.

83

Angelo Amoroso

Fig. 1.  South Etruria and Latium Vetus in the Early Iron Age. Main centres. Satellite image from Google Earth.

and Monte Soratte (fig. 1). In particular, Latium Vetus lacks the formation of such large hill plateaux as found in the Etruscan landscape. Although, the Campagna Romana is in fact also furrowed by its dense network of torrents. There is evidence that the proto-urban centres of Latium Vetus were formed in a late phase of the Early Iron Age 1, corresponding with phase IIB of the Latial culture, phases 1B-1C at Veii, and phase 1B at Tarquinia (cf. table 1).4 However, we know that a number of proto-urban centres in Etruria (Orvieto, Bisenzio and in particular Vulci and Tarquinia) and in Latium Vetus (in particular

Lavinium and Rome) already have evidence for habitation in Final Bronze Age 3.

2  Settlement location South Etruria

The main proto-urban centres in South Etruria were situated in positions controlling the major river valleys (fig. 1) both inland (see: Orvieto and Veii) and close to the coast along the river valleys leading from the interior towards the Tyrrhenian Sea (see: Vulci, Tarquinia and Caere). The position of Bisenzio is an exception and is situated in the region’s interior on the shores of Lake Bolsena. The main southern Etruscan centres are situated about 25 km apart on average.5

4 For various hypotheses regarding the absolute chronologies of the early phases of the Iron Age in Italy cf. Bartoloni & Delpino 2005.

5 Pacciarelli 2001: p. 124.

84

Settlement patterns in south Etruria and Latium Vetus Table 1.  Comparative chronology for Latium Vetus, South Etruria, and Aegean / Greece (after Pacciarelli 2001, Cascino et al. 2012 and Fulminante 2014). Latium Vetus

Southern Etruria

Aegean / Greece

AGE

Period/Phase

Period/Phase

Period/Phase

Final Bronze Age 3

I

Protovillanovan

Protovillanovan

Early Iron Age 1 Early

IIA

Veii IA

Tarquinia IA

Early Iron Age 1 Late

IIB

Veii IB-IC

Tarquinia IB

Early Iron Age 2 Early

IIIA

Veii IIA-IIB

Tarquinia II

Early Iron Age 2 Late

IIIB

Veii IIC

Tarquinia II

Early Orientalizing Age

IVA1

Veii IIIA

Tarquinia IIIA

Middle Orientalizing Age

IVA2

Veii IIIB

Tarquinia IIIB

Middle Orientalizing Age

IVB

Veii IV

Tarquinia IV

Proto-Geometric

Early Geometric Middle Geometric Late Geometric Proto-Corinthian

Early Corinthian

In Latium Vetus diverse settlement types seem to coexist in regard to position and settlement size, showing both continuation and abandonment of the Early Iron Age I and Final Bronze Age settlements. The Latin proto-urban centres mainly expanded during the Early Iron Age (fig. 1). They are therefore later in date than those in South Etruria. Situated at an average of 13 km apart, they are much closer-knit than the central places of Etruria, where occupation is much more widespread over the territory.6 It has been suggested that transformations in Latium Vetus occurred at a slower pace than those in South Etruria. In the former the development of larger centres took place through gradual enlargement (this can be seen at Ardea, Lavinium and Satricum).7 Some proto-urban centres (Lavinium and Ardea) were located near the coast and probably exploited the coastal lagoons as ports (fig. 1).8 Further south, Anzio controlled the coast from a promontory on the Tyrrhenian Sea. Satricum, inland from the coast, controlled the Astura river valley. Other centres (Rome, Fidenae and Crustumerium) were situated in the lower Tiber valley, in positions controlling river fords. Gabii was a lakeside settlement situated on an important road linking Etruria to

Campania through the Sacco and Liri valleys and protected by works of defence and the crater lake itself. The strategic positions of Tibur and Praeneste are evident: the first controlled the Aniene valley and the second the lower Sacco valley. The Alban hills formed a separate system (fig. 1). This area of Latium Vetus shows the greatest settlement continuity in the Final Bronze and the beginning of the Early Iron Age.9 Monte Cavo (822 m a.s.l.) was the federal sanctuary of the Latin people. In phase IIB of the Latial culture, settlements of varying sizes are documented around the volcanic lakes. However, the largest, which did not extend beyond 30 ha in size, are documented on the slopes of the Alban hills: Tusculum, Lanuvium and Velletri (fig. 1). The occupation of the hill called Colle della Coedra (perhaps ca. 50 ha)10 also dates to the end of the Early Iron Age. It seems that the abandonment of this proto-urban centre occurred in the Archaic period, coinciding with the development of the nearby towns of Velitrae and Praeneste.11 The settlement of Caprifico near Cisterna di Latina may also have reached significant dimensions (45-50 ha)12 in the Early Iron Age (fig. 1). It is likely that already by phases IIB-III, the larger settlements had developed in the territory between the slopes of the Alban hills, the Monti

6 Pacciarelli 2001. 7 Guidi 2003: p. 48; Vanzetti 2004: p. 9. 8 Guidi 2003.

9 10 11 12

Latium Vetus

85

Alessandri 2013 with references; cf. Alessandri in this volume. Guidi 2007. Angle et al. 2004; Guidi 2007. Guidi 2007.

Angelo Amoroso

Fig. 2.  Modern Lazio. Geological map (edited by Regione Lazio and Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale)

3  Settlement morphology

Lepini and the margin of the Pontine plain. This territory was suitable for agriculture and close to the region’s main roads running between the valleys and the Liri and Sacco rivers. This inevitably reduced the importance of the Alban hills during the Iron Age.

South Etruria

The proto-urban centres of South Etruria stood on defined morphological formations, surrounded by deep river valleys on all sides and easily defensible (fig. 3). In this regard, the lake site of Bisenzio is an exception, although the defensive position of Mount Bisenzo is clear and it was occupied from the Final

86

Settlement patterns in south Etruria and Latium Vetus

Fig. 3.  South Etruria. Early Iron Age 2. Settlements in red.

Fig. 4.  Latium Vetus. Early Iron Age 2. Settlements in red.

87

Angelo Amoroso Primary centres (central places)

The dimensions of the main centres vary from 85 hectares (e.g. Orvieto and Bisenzio) to 160 hectares (e.g. Tarquinia15) to 185 hectares (e.g. Veii) (fig. 5). We could be looking at two types of settlement: one larger and the other smaller. However, some communities were attracted to tuffaceous spurs, which due to their strategic and defensive importance they were willing to forego a few hectares of living space (e.g. Orvieto-Volsinii).16 Bisenzio developed around the promontory of Mount Bisenzo, overlooking the south-west shore of Lake Bolsena (fig. 3). Though in the past the site clearly had great defensive potential, today the elements forming the natural defences near the small valleys south of Mount Bisenzo are less visible (fig. 6). The uniform scatter of surface materials found during surveys undertaken by Raddatz and Driehaus in the 1970's (fig. 6, areas red) and the positioning of Early Iron Age cemetery areas (fig. 6, areas in blue)17 show that the Early Iron Age settlement covered an area of at least 85-90 ha. The hypothetical edge of the present day lakeshore below the Bisenzo promontory should be taken into consideration. It may be suggested that in this period the lakeshore extended for another 200 m at a height of 297 m a.s.l., which corresponds with the dry level of the Gran Carro ‘Villanovan’ village18 that was submerged during the Early Iron Age when the lake waters rose (fig. 6). The Villanovan material culture at Bisenzio is local, yet presents distinctive choices in the funerary ritual19 that seem to denote an identity for Bisenzio, distinguishing it from the other principal Villanovan centres.20 They are markers of the community’s complex social stratification and of a certain level of autonomy, also on a territorial level, with respect to the great centres of Tarquinia and Vulci.21 Bisenzio falls within the category of main Villanovan central places. Its size is comparable to that of Orvieto, but it is less than half the size of

Fig. 5.  The central places extent in South Etruria (in blue) and in Latium Vetus (in red).

Bronze Age onwards;13 the lake would have offered protection against attacks over land, however, the natural defensive elements in correspondence to the southern part of Mount Bisenzo are less marked.

Latium Vetus

The proto-urban centres in this region were usually smaller than those in South Etruria, were situated in the hills, and positioned in formations providing defence. The majority of these cannot be considered ‘plateaux’ by the standards of those on which the Villanovan settlements developed (fig. 4). Even Rome, though located on a well-articulated hill system, was difficult to defend. On the other hand, its location provided undeniable advantages due to the presence of the ford across the Tiber river.

4  Settlement size 15 The archaeological data also document a complex settlement system on the nearby Monterozzi plateau in the Villanovan period indicating the occupation and control of the territory towards the sea. The central place theory is unsuitable for the structure and organization of Tarquinia and Monterozzi settlements (cf. Mandolesi et al. 2012). The Monterozzi plateau was occupied by a vast necropolis starting from the middle of the 8th century BC. 16 Pacciarelli 2001. 17 Raddatz 1982; Driehaus 1985-87; Raddatz 1988. On the size of the proto-urban centre of Bisenzio cf. also Pacciarelli 1994: pp. 236-237; 2001: pp. 131-132. 18 Persiani 2009. 19 Delpino 1977a; 1977b. 20 Iaia 1999: pp. 93-112; Pacciarelli 2001: p. 131. 21 Iaia 1999: pp. 93-112.

South Etruria

The settlement data indicates that a complex settlement hierarchy existed in the advanced phase of the Early Iron Age.14 The morphological formations on which the settlements are located vary from a few hectares to over 185 hectares (Veii) and can be divided into three ranks: primary centres, secondary centres, and satellite settlements.

13 di Gennaro 1988: pp. 38-40; Barbaro 2010. 14 Iaia & Mandolesi 2010.

88

Settlement patterns in south Etruria and Latium Vetus

Fig. 6.  Bisenzio in the Early Iron Age 2. Red areas: settlement findspots. Red line: boundary of the settlement. Blue areas: graveyards. Reconstruction: Angelo Amoroso. Table 2. South Etruria in the Early Iron Age 2. Extent of the territory controlled by the main centres. Territory calculated using: 1. Standard system of Thiessen polygons; 2. Calibrated system of Thiessen polygons; 3. Calibrated system of Thiessen polygons, adapted for use with the main rivers. Center

Extent (in ha)

Territory (1) (in sq km)

Territory (2) (in sq km)

Territory (3) (in sq km)

Veii

185

1,540

1,780

1,750

Caere

160

890

880

850

Tarquinia

150

1,120

1,240

1,210

Vulci

126

1,290

1,480

1,180

Bisenzio

90

1,350

970

1,050

Orvieto

85

670

510

820

6,860

6,860

6,860

Total

Veii, about half of Caere and Tarquinia, and smaller than Vulci by about one third. Here we also need to draw attention to the phenomenon of ‘protonecropoli’. These are documented near the ‘primary’ proto-urban centers in South Etruria and marked the boundary between settlement and burial areas from the beginning of the Iron Age. 22 The term protonecropoli denotes burial areas located in geographically distinct places outside of settlements. In most cases, they are the original nucleus of the future necropoleis

of the 8th-6th century BC. These groups of burials seem to reflect the actual social organization of Villanovan communities in terms of the location of the tombs and funerary ritual: burials are organized by extended family groups and placed together in distinct socio-political groups. 23 The separate protonecropoli placed outside of the proto-urban centers may hypothetically correspond to the curiae mentioned in the literary sources in reference to early Rome. 24

23 Pacciarelli 2010: p. 23 defines them as “gruppi corporati”. 24 Pacciarelli 1994: p. 252; 2001: p. 271.

22 Pacciarelli 1991; 2010: p. 130, fig. 72.

89

Angelo Amoroso Lake Bracciano, and perhaps Orte, that controlled the access to the Valnerina on the left bank of the Tiber, which provided communication between the Tiber Valley and the Adriatic area; in the south: Ferriera di Sutri, Monte Sant’Angelo, Castellaccio di Corchiano, Nepi and Torre di Prima Porta.

Latium Vetus

In this region settlement size varies significantly: the morphological formations on which they stood vary from a few hectares to over 80-90 ha (e.g. Gabii). They can be divided into primary ranking centres, secondary ranking centres, and satellite settlements.

Fig. 7.  Rome. Geological map of 1820 (from Brocchi 1820).

Primary centres

Secondary centres

These were medium sized settlements, between 40 and 80 ha: Gabii, Crustumerium, Colle della Coedra, Caprifico at Cisterna di Latina, Lavinium, Ardea, Satricum and Fidenae (fig. 4). Among the Latin settlements Rome was the exception. Its size (180 ha) can be compared to that of the central places of South Etruria (fig. 5).28 H. Müller Karpe suggested already in 1962 that the proto-urban centre of Rome was of considerable size, similar to that reached by the city in the 6th century BC during Etruscan rule.29 From the outset of phase IIB of the Latial culture, the abandonment of the cemetery in the Forum and the use of large protonecropoli on the Esquiline, Quirinalis and Viminalis attests to significant settlement expansion. Reconstructing the boundaries of Rome’s proto-urban center is complicated due to the fragmentary nature of archaeological research from the late 1800's and early 1900's and intensive building activity that took place in Rome from unification of Italy in 1861 onwards. There have also been radical changes to the original morphology of the hills on which the ancient settlement was founded. The soil map of Rome published in 182030 by Giovanni Battista Brocchi, well before the urban transformations that occurred when Rome became the capital of the Kingdom of Italy, is fundamental for the reconstruction of the city’s original morphology (fig. 7).31 Modern scholars do not agree on the size of Rome in Latial phase IIB. Alessandro Guidi

Narce, Capena and Falerii Veteres occupied between 30 and 50 ha and were situated in the south-eastern sector of South Etruria, which in the historical period corresponded with the Faliscan and Capenate districts (fig. 3).25 Settlements are documented in high places or plateaux with perimeters bordered by natural defenses (10 ha or larger), controlled by central places or by nearby middle-sized centres (e.g. La Banditella and Infernetto-Serpentaro, Vignale di Falerii, Nepi, Vignanello and Orte).

Satellite settlements

These settlements were between 3 and 5 ha in size and aided in controlling the territories belonging to the proto-urban centres. They are often located in the hinterland (located in high positions with natural defenses and in strategic positions) or were settlements with special functions (e.g. on the coast in order to exploit marine resources, in particular salt).26 Several satellite settlements located in strategic positions, already documented in the Final Bronze Age, were reoccupied during the Late Early Iron Age.27 The following sites are documented from north to south (fig. 3): Torba, La Banditella, Infernetto-Serpentaro, Pitigliano, Montefiascone, Castellonchio, Poggio di Sermugnano, Civita d’Arlena, Civita di Bagnoregio, Monte Piombone, Saline di Tarquinia, Torre Valdaliga, Mattonara, Acque Fresche, Poggio Garofalo, Montepizzo, Norchia, Poggio Montano, Cerracchio; Pian d’Arcione-Lastra d’Asti, Rota, Blera and San Giuliano; Casale Sant'Antonio-Monte Tosto; Tolfaccia, Tolficciola, Cibona, Ripa Cerviale, Pian Sultano and Pian Conserva in the Tolfa mountains; Trevignano near

28 29 30 31

25 Colonna 1988; 1990. 26 Iaia & Mandolesi 2010; Pacciarelli 2009. 27 Iaia & Mandolesi 2010, with references.

90

Peroni 1988; Pacciarelli 1991. Müller-Karpe 1962. Brocchi 1820. For the reconstruction of the original morphology of ancient Rome, cf.: Terrenato 1997, with updates in Carandini & Carafa 2012; Funiciello et al. 2006, with references.

Settlement patterns in south Etruria and Latium Vetus Table 3. Latium Vetus in the Early Iron Age 2. Size of the territory controlled by the main centres. Territory calculated using: 1. Standard system of Thiessen polygons; 2. Calibrated system of Thiessen polygons; 3. Calibrated system of Thiessen polygons, adapted for use with the main rivers. Center

Size (in ha)

Territory (1) (in sq km)

Territory (2) (in sq km)

Territory (3) (in sq km)

Roma

180 (?)

213

472

447

Gabii

90 (?)

161

232

188

60

57

93

94

Colle della Coedra

50 (?)

197

287

265

Caprifico

45 (?)

146

226

226

Ardea

45

178

166

157

Lavinium

43

313

205

210

40,7

43

20

43

Satricum

40

177

271

263

Anzio

24

54

32

38

Velletri

24

81

41

41

Praeneste

24

310

237

244

Marco Simone Vecchio

23

71

46

82

Tusculum

22

200

67

67

Lanuvium

20

151

65

65

Tibur

15

186

126

176

11-15

65

35

34

Cretone

12

41

32

32

Montecelio

10

53

44

34

2,697

2,697

2,697

Crustumerium

Fidenae

Nomentum

Total

suggests it covered 150 ha.32 Andrea Carandini calculates 205 ha,33 while Alberto Cazzella suggests 130 ha.34 Recently, Luca Alessandri has suggested an ex-

tension between a minimum of 67 ha and a maximum of 154 ha.35 My reconstruction proposes an extension of about 180 ha. This is derived from the archaeological data and the settlement’s geomorphological characteristics (fig. 8).36 I have excluded the Caelian hill, where no protohistoric finds are documented and which is morphologically separated from the Palatine hill. I have included the Capitoline hills with Rome’s arx where an iron working production area has recently been identified in association with an adjacent small cemetery area datable to Latial

32 Guidi 2008: p. 176 includes in the settlement the Roman Forum area and the Capitolium, Quirinalis, Palatium and Velia hills. 33 Carandini 1997; 2007 in the proto-urban settlement includes: the Palatine hill, the valley of the ancient Subura, and the Velia, Oppius, Fagutal, Cispius, Viminalis, Quirinalis and Caelius hills. Francesca Fulminante agrees with this reconstruction but does not include the Caelian hill in the settlement. She estimates an area of 202 ha (Fulminante 2014: pp. 77-79). 34 Cazzella 2001 includes in the phase IIB settlement, the Palatine and Capitoline Hills, the valleys of the forum and ancient Subura, the Velia, and Fagutal hills, part of the Oppius, Cispius and Viminalis and only the southern part of the Quirinal

35 Alessandri (2013: pp. 387-390) calculates 67 ha and includes the Palatine and Velian hills, the Forum valley, the Capitol and part of the Quirinal. 36 For my reconstruction of the high ground, I have used the cartographic model published in Carandini & Carafa 2012.

91

Angelo Amoroso

Fig. 8.  Rome in the Early Iron Age 1/2 (Latial phases IIB/IIIA). Red circles: settlement find-spots. Red line: boundary of the settlement. Blue areas: graveyards. Reconstruction: Angelo Amoroso.

periods II and III.37 The data from the Quirinalis and Viminalis allows part of these hills, as far as the area where the church of Santa Maria della Vittoria stands today, to be included in the settlement area from the Latial phase IIB onwards.38 The historical maps of Rome show that the Quirinalis and the Viminalis were offshoots of the Esquiline,39 and the large plateau was used as a burial area perhaps already as early as period IIA.40 In the Archaic period, this plateau became defended by substantial artificial defenses in conjunction with the Servian walls.41 The Fagutal, Oppius, Quirinalis and Viminalis hills were included within the urban area situated outside the core of the proto-urban centre (located on the Palatine, the Velia, the Capitol, and in the

Forum valley) and would have defended the entire centre from outside attacks, especially from the east and north. From at least phase IIB, the Esquiline plateau,42 the northern extremity of the Viminalis43 and the Quirinalis44 were used as protonecropoli, (fig. 8, areas in blue) marking the northern (the Quirinalis), north-eastern (the Viminalis) and eastern limits (the Esquiline) of the settlement area. Their location

42 Bettelli (1997: pp. 140-141) attributes 29 burials to phase IIB (10 of which to sub-phase IIB1 and 19 to sub-phase IIB2). Fulminante (2003: pp. 148, 160-168) attributes 42 burials to phase IIB (of which 17 to sub-phase IIB1 and 25 to subphase IIB2). 43 Burials have been found at the Castro Pretorio (Pinza 1905: coll. 255-256; Müller-Karpe 1962: p. 95, figs. 35, 28); viale Castro Pretorio (Nardoni 1874: p. 75, fig. I; Müller-Karpe 1962: p. 95, figs. 35, 22); via Varese (Nardoni 1874: p. 78, fig. II; Müller-Karpe 1962: p. 95, figs. 35, 18) and via Magenta (Müller-Karpe 1962: p. 95, fig. 35, 18). 44 Burials have been found in via XX settembre – largo di S. Susanna, by the Ministry of Agriculture (Vaglieri 1907: pp. 505-525; Müller-Karpe 1962: pp. 94-95, figs. 33 and 35, 27; Magagnini 2005: pp. 19-20).

37 Lugli 2001. 38 Pacciarelli 1994: p. 246. For the data regarding the burials on the Quirinal and Viminal cf. also Magagnini 2005, with previous bibliography. 39 Bartoli 1820; Pinza 1905: pls. XXV-XXVI. 40 Bettelli 1997. 41 Cifani 1998; 2008 with references.

92

Settlement patterns in south Etruria and Latium Vetus corresponded with the main access routes into the proto-urban center.45 Other protonecropoli in Latium Vetus that are known to mark the boundary between settlement and cemetery are documented at Tibur (phase IIB),46 Satricum (phase IIIA),47 Crustumerium (starting from phase IIB2),48 probably at Valvisciolo (phase IIB),49 and in relation to the proto-urban settlement located on the slopes of Mount Carbolino.50 The Latium Vetus burials, similar to those in South Etruria,51 seem to be organized by extended families,52 in turn forming socio-politically distinct groups. The separate protonecropoli placed outside of the proto-urban Latin centers could also correspond to the curiae mentioned in the literary sources with reference to Rome.

in the advanced period of the Early Iron Age (phases IIB and period III of the Latial culture).

5  Territory. The application of calibrated Thiessen polygons

The proto-urban centres controlled a significant portion of the surrounding territory and their size probably depended on the number of inhabitants. In fact, it is likely that the community’s need to exploit and control (even by force) a part of the territory was one of the reasons behind the foundation of the settlement itself. The central place, as well as being the settlement with the highest population density where complex social relationships developed, was also the centre of management and control of the territory’s resources. The central place would have also stored and redistributed these resources. The settlement’s ager became the vital space to procure resources that were indispensable for sustaining and further developing the community. The settlement’s fate depended on the community’s capacity to efficiently exploit territorial resources and defend them from external attacks. If the controlled zone did not grow in proportion to the size of the settlement, the settlement risked crisis.54 War was an alternative way of increasing a settlement’s vital space, procure enough resources to sustain the community and avoid abandoning the original settlement site. Though war with nearby settlements is a difficult choice and one of uncertain outcome, it was precisely this choice that brought Rome into its principle position. How can we calculate the extension of the territory controlled by any single centre? In the attempt to quantify this for Latium Vetus, we may turn to an important study of South Etruria begun by Francesco di Gennaro.55 He was the first to make systematic use of Thiessen polygons in the study of Italian protohistorical settlement distribution, adapting the application to the territory’s hydrography. Many scholars have since then adopted Thiessen polygons to reconstruct the boundaries of the territories controlled by Etruscan centres56 and those in Latium Vetus.57

Secondary centres

The known small to medium sized settlements (between 20 and 30 ha) are mainly concentrated north of the Aniene River (Marco Simone Vecchio, Nomentum) and in the Alban hills (Tusculum, Lanuvium and Velletri) (fig. 3). However, there are also centres of some importance that are less than 20 ha in size such as Tibur, Montecelio/Cornicolum and other settlements on the Alban hills (e.g. Prato della Corte, Monte Cavo, Colonna, Colle dei Cappuccini).53

Satellite settlements

Satellite settlements, or small outposts (between 5 and 15 ha), were usually situated at strategic positions and controlled the territories belonging to the protourban centres (e.g. Antemnae, Castel di Decima, La Rustica, and Ficana, neighbouring Rome; L’Altare, between Ardea and Satricum; Colle Rotondo between Ardea and Anzio; Corcolle between Gabii, Praeneste and Tibur). The satellite settlements arose

45 Colonna 1996. 46 Rocca Pia protonecropoli: Faccena & Fugazzola Delpino 1976; Fulminante 2003: pp. 45-49; Mari & Sperandio 2007. 47 North-west protonecropoli: Waarsenburg 1995a; 1995b. 48 Monte Del Bufalo protonecropoli: di Gennaro & Belelli Marchesini 2012; Belelli Marchesini 2013: pp. 110-111; Belelli Marchesini & Pantano 2014; Belelli Marchesini et al. forthcoming. 49 Valvisciolo protonecropoli: Bergonzi & Bartoloni 1976; Angle & Gianni 1985. 50 For this interpretation: Guidi 2007: pp. 439-440. For a synthesis of the archaeological evidence for the settlement on the slopes of Monte Carbolino and the cemetery areas of Caracupa and cf. Valvisciolo: Attema 1993: pp. 157-180; Alessandri 2013: pp. 412-415. 51 Cf. supra. 52 Bietti Sestieri 1992: p. 510. 53 Alessandri 2013: p. 65.

South Etruria anomalies

An analysis of the territories belonging to the main South Etruscan centres shows a clear anomaly:

54 55 56 57

93

Cecconi et al. 2004. di Gennaro 1982; 1986. Renfrew 1975; di Gennaro 1982; 1986. Examples in: Pini & Seripa 1986; Amoroso 2002; Capanna 2005; Carandini 2007; Fulminante 2006; Attema et al. 2011; Fulminante 2014: pp. 115-120.

Angelo Amoroso

Fig. 9.  South Etruria. Early Iron Age 2. Reconstruction of the territories controlled by the main centres, made using the calibrated polygon method, adapted to the main rivers.

Orvieto (80-85 ha) is the smallest of all the protourban centres, nevertheless it has a vast territory at its disposal (1,360 sq km), second in size only to that of Vulci (1,800 sq km). The picture ‘worsens’ if we modify Orvieto’s territory according to its hydrography. Orvieto’s territory now measures 1,688 sq km; it is even larger than that of Veii, probably the largest of the Villanovan proto-urban centres (185 hectares), which controls an ager of 1,485 sq km, probably with the support of satellite centres such as Narce and Civita Castellana in the early period of the Late Iron Age.58 Vulci (126 hectares) commands the second largest territory: 1,606 sq km, its ager being larger than that of Tarquinia, Caere and Veii. Is all of this plausible? This is probably only an apparent anomaly: let us insert the proto-urban centre of Bisenzio among the primary ranking Early Iron Age centres. Francesco di Gennaro, having an in depth knowledge of its material culture, proposed that it had a certain territorial autonomy.59 If we do so, the territorial picture tends to normalize. Bisenzio, situated in an intermediate position, obtains territory from Vulci and Orvieto. Veii controls the largest territory (1,540 sq km); Orvieto, the smallest centre, controls the smallest territory (670

sq km), but Bisenzio, also relatively small (90 ha) seems to control a territory of 1,350 sq km that is larger than those of Caere (890 sq km), Tarquinia (1,120 sq km) and Vulci (1,290 sq km) (cf. tab 2). The situation in this area would later undergo further change. Already in the Orientalising period, Bisenzio fell within Vulci’s sphere of control and the centre of Civita di Grotte di Castro developed in the Val di Lago.60 It probably lost control of the shores of Lake Bolsena to Orvieto, playing a secondary role in Etruria’s territorial structure in the historical period, so much so that it was not included in the known ‘list’ of the dodecapoli etrusca.61

Calibrated Thiessen’s polygons

Thiessen’s polygon system was conceived as an abstract geometric model.62 It presumes neighbouring centres to be of equal rank and equidistant from each other’s borders. However, the human landscape, particularly the ancient one, is distinguished by the existence of a settlement network that developed an articulated, differentiated and heterogeneous organisation of available geographical space developing distinct settlement hierarchies. Therefore, Thiessen’s

60 Pellegrini et al. 2011. 61 Torelli & Sgubini Moretti 2008, with references. 62 Macchi Janica 2009: pp. 78-84.

58 Iaia 1996. 59 di Gennaro 1982; 1986.

94

Settlement patterns in south Etruria and Latium Vetus

Fig. 10.  Latium Vetus. Early Iron Age 2. Reconstruction of the territories controlled by the main centres, made using the calibrated polygon method, adapted to the main rivers.

Calibrating Thiessen’s polygons for South Etruria

polygon method needs adjustment if it is to be applied to ancient landscapes. Borders between settlements need to be correlated with size of individual settlements and its supposed demographic potential. In order to calculate the size of the territories controlled by the centres I used the size of each settlement to calculate the extent of its territory, using the simple formula proposed by Potter,63 without modification.64 In this system the ideal line that makes up each individual polygon moves closer or further away from a particular settlement depending on the size of this settlement.65 Calibrating the distances between the major centres and taking into account their extent (in relation to their demographic potential), we may observe how many of the boundaries deriving from this relatively simple system of calculation adapt to the natural borders, particularly those constituted by rivers.

The central places appear to have controlled extensive territories.66 The system of calibrated polygons makes it possible to reconstruct extensive territories in proportion to the size of the respective settlements (see table 2): Veii, the largest Villanovan central place (185 ha), controlled the largest territory (1,780 sq km); Bisenzio, about half the size of Veii (90 ha), controlled a territory half the size (970 sq km). Orvieto, the smallest of the central places (85 ha) controlled the smallest territory (510 sq km). If we adapt the system of calibrated polygons to the main rivers of South Etruria (fig. 9), we can see that part of the Vezza torrent acts as a border between the territories of Bisenzio and Orvieto. Furthermore, the territory of Orvieto is bordered to the north by the Paglia river and to the east by the Tiber river. In the northern sector, the Albegna river marked the northern border of Vulci’s territory, while the Arrone river constituted the border between the territories of Vulci and Tarquinia. The Marangone and Mignone rivers bordered the territory between Tarquinia and Caere. The Almone river delimited the

63 Potter 1976. 64 For the application of corrective system to the standard Thiessen polygons, cf: Stoddart 1990; Redhouse & Stoddart 2011 with the application of the X-tent model; Fulminante 2014: pp. 204-215, with the application of the multiplicatively weighted Voronoi diagrams. 65 For examples of the application of the system of calibrated polygons cf. Cardosa 1993; Amoroso 2013.

66 Cf. infra.

95

Angelo Amoroso Calibrating Thiessen’s polygons for Latium Vetus

territory between Tarquinia and Caere. The territory of Veii was bordered to the east by the Tiber river, to the north its border with Orvieto was marked by the secondary rivers Rio Maggiore and Rio Ferriera that ran south of Orte. Narce, Capena and perhaps Falerii Veteres (between 30 and 50 ha) were under the political influence of Veii.67 Settlements in high positions or on plateaux with perimeters limited by natural defenses (10 ha or more), are also known. They controlled sectors under the political influence of the central places or the middle sized centres (e.g. La Banditella and Infernetto-Serpentaro, under Vulci’s control; Vignale di Falerii, Nepi, Orte, under Veii’s control). Satellite settlements were under the control of central places (fig. 9): Torba, La Banditella, Infernetto-Serpentaro were under Vulci’s control; Pitigliano and Montefiascone were perhaps under Bisenzio’s control; Castellonchio, Poggio di Sermugnano, Civita d’Arlena, Civita di Bagnoregio were under Orvieto’s control; Monte Piombone, in the territory of Orvieto, was near the boundaries with the territories of Veii and Tarquinia; Saline di Tarquinia, Torre Valdaliga, Mattonara, Acque Fresche, Poggio Garofalo, Montepizzo, Norchia, Poggio Montano, Cerracchio were under Tarquinia’s control; Pian d’Arcione-Lastra d’Asti was in Tarquinia’s territory, on the border with the territory of Vulci, corresponding with the Arrone river; Rota, Blera and San Giuliano in the territory of Tarquinia controlled the borders with the territory of Caere, corresponding with the Marangone river. Rota, Casale Sant'Antonio-Monte Tosto, Tolfaccia, Tolficciola. Cibona, Ripa Cerviale, Pian Sultano and Pian Conserva in the Tolfa Mountains were under Caere’s control; Ferrriera di Sutri, Monte ’Angelo, Castellaccio di Corchiano, Nepi and Torre di Prima Porta were under Veii’s control.

The calibrated polygons analysed in relation with the main rivers, accentuate Rome’s predominance as a central place over the other Latin settlements: now Rome controls a territory of 447 km2, which goes well beyond the limits of the Ager Romanus Antiquus (fig. 10). From as early as period III of the Latial culture, Rome may have controlled the mouth of the Tiber river. It did so with the help of satellite centres such as Ficana (13 ha) and Castel di Decima (10 ha), which is located on the border with the territory of Lavinium (fig. 10). Rome controlled its northern border formed by the Aniene river with the help of Antemnae (16 ha). The small settlement of La Rustica, on the edge of the territory of Gabii, was probably also under Rome’s dominion. The size of Gabii’s territory (only 188 sq km compared to the 80/90 ha of the settlement) was limited on account of the Aniene river. Among the small centres documented in the Alban Hills, Tusculum, Lanuvium, and Velletri seem dominant although their territories were of limited extension (under sq 100 km). In contrast, the size of the territories belonging to the other Latin centres that controlled the coast of Latium was much larger: Ardea (157 sq km), Lavinium (210 sq km), and Satricum (263 sq km). Ardea may have controlled its territory with the help of satellite centres; L’Altare (3 ha) on the border with the territory of Satricum and Colle Rotondo (7 ha) on the border with Anzio. Anzio only seemed to control the territory on the promontory where the settlement itself was situated. Large territories were probably also controlled by proto-urban centres situated on the southern slopes of the Alban Hills: Colle della Coedra (265 sq km) and Caprifico near Cisterna di Latina (226 sq km). The main centres of Latium Vetus were located on sites controlling the region’s main river valleys that were part of the international communication network linking it to South Etruria and Campania. Indeed, this territorial layout was already that of the 7th and 6th century Latin city-states. However, if the territory of South Etruria (6,800 sq km) was controlled by a few central places, from the latter part of the Early Iron Age onwards, Latium Vetus, less than half the size of South Etruria (2,700 sq km), was divided between at least 18 centres that varied greatly in size. Furthermore, in Latium Vetus, Rome (180 ha) (almost the size of Veii at 185 ha) seems to have controlled a much smaller territory (447 sq km) when compared to that dominated by the Villanovan centre (1,750 sq km). As stated, if the territory did not grow in proportion to the size and entity of the centre, the latter

Latium Vetus anomalies

According to Thiessen’s polygon system, the Latin centres controlled a relatively small territory, an average of 150 sq km. Rome, which had no other centres within a radius of about 25 km, controlled a territory of at least 200 sq km. However, some anomalies are clear: for example, Lavinium (43 ha in size) appears to have a larger territory (over 300 sq km) than that of Rome (180 ha in size); Tusculum (22 ha in size) also appears to control a larger territory (200 sq km) than that of Rome (213 sq km).

67 di Gennaro 1982; Jaia 1996; Cifani 2003; 2013. Contra: Tabolli 2013, with references.

96

Settlement patterns in south Etruria and Latium Vetus would face a crisis and risk disappearing. In order to avoid having insufficient resources for the number of inhabitants, Rome soon embarked on an expansionist policy to the detriment of its neighbours, taking goods and resources by force. According to literary tradition, this was one of the priorities taken on by Romulus, founder of the Urbs, who conquered the district of the Septem Pagi, beyond the Tiber’s right bank in the territory of Veii and later the war engulfed the centres and territories beyond the Aniene river, in the direction of the Sabina and the salinae at the Tiber’s mouth.68 However, the unstoppable process of progressive territorial expansion had probably already begun during the Early Iron Age. The territory under Rome’s dominion in the later part of the Early Iron Age (447 sq km) was larger than what was included in the ager Romanus antiquus (ca. 190 sq km), considered by some scholars to be the original nucleus of Rome’s territory in the Early Iron Age.69 Given that it ever existed in Antiquity,70 this was the sacred territory of Rome, effatus and auspicatus,71 which did not correspond, however, with the territory under its political and military control. Likewise, the pomerium of the Urbs only delimited the higher part (the Palatine) in Romulus’s Rome.72

funerario. Il caso della necropoli dell’età del Ferro di Caracupa”, Opus, vol. 4, pp. 179-216. Attema, P.A.J. 1993, An Archaeological survey in the Pontine region. A contribution to the Early Settlement History of South Lazio 900-100 BC, PhD thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen. Attema, P.A.J., De Haas, T.C.A. & Tol, G.W. (eds.) 2011, Between Satricum and Antium: Settlement Dynamics in a Coastal landscape in Latium Vetus, Babesch supplement 18, Peeters, Leuven. Attema, P.A.J., di Gennaro, F. & Jarva, E. (eds.) 2013, Crustumerium, Ricerche internazionali in un centro latino, Archaeology and identity of a Latin settlement near Rome, Groningen Institute of Archaeology & Barkhuis, Groningen. Barbaro, B. 2010, Insediamenti, aree funerarie ed entità territoriali in Etruria meridionale nel bronzo finale, Insegna del Giglio, Borgo S. Lorenzo. Bartoloni, G. & Delpino, F. (eds.) 2005, Oriente e Occidente: metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana, Atti dell’Incontro di Studio, Roma 30-31 ottobre 2003, Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, Roma. Belelli Marchesini, B. 2013, “La necropoli di Crustumerium: bilancio delle acquisizioni e prospettive” in Crustumerium, Ricerche internazionali in un centro latino, Archaeology and identity of a Latin settlement near Rome, (eds.) P.A.J. Attema, F. di Gennaro & E. Jarva, pp. 95-112. Belelli Marchesini, B., di Gennaro, F. & Nijboer, A.J. forthcoming. “Early Iron Age tombs of Crustumerium”, Palaeohistoria. Belelli Marchesini, B., & Pantano, W. 2014, “The necropolis of Crustumerium. Preliminary results from an interdisciplinary analysis of two groups of tombs”, Caeculus, vol. 8, pp. 1-33. Bergonzi, G. & Bartoloni, G. 1976, “Le tombe di Valvisciolo” in Civiltà del Lazio primitivo, (ed.) G. Colonna, pp. 350-354. Bettelli, M. 1997, Roma, la città prima della città. I tempi di una nascita. La cronologia delle sepolture ad inumazione di Roma e del Lazio nella prima età del ferro, L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma. Bietti Sestieri, A.M. (ed.) 1992, La necropoli laziale di Osteria dell’Osa, Quasar, Roma. Bintliff, J.L. 2000, “Settlement and Territory: A Socio-Ecological Approach to the Evolution of Settlement System” in Human Ecodynamics, (eds.) G. Bailey, R. Charles & N. Winder, pp. 21-30. Bintliff, J.L. 2014, “Settlement Patterns” in A Companion to Mediterranean History, (eds.) P. Horden & S. Kinoshita, pp. 203-218.

Bibliography

Alessandri, L. 2013, Latium Vetus in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age / Il Latium Vetus nell’età del Bronzo e nella prima età del Ferro, British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 2565, Oxford. Amoroso, A. 2013, “Il territorio di Crustumerium e dei centri limitrofi nella Prima Età del Ferro. Dati e prospettive” in Crustumerium, Ricerche internazionali in un centro latino, Archaeology and identity of a Latin settlement near Rome, (eds.) P.A.J. Attema, F. di Gennaro & E. Jarva, pp. 127-137. Angle, M., Bozzato, S. & Rolfo, M.F. 2004, “L’insediamento di Colle della Coedra” in Julianum - Giuliano - Giulianello. Materiali per la storia di un centro minore del Lazio meridionale, (ed.) D. Palombi, pp. 12-21. Angle, M. & Gianni, A. 1985, “La morte ineguale: dinamiche sociali riflesse nel rituale

68 Capanna 2005; Carandini 2006; 2007. 69 Colonna 1991; Carandini 1997; Capanna 2005; Carandini 2006; Fulminante 2006; 2014. 70 Smith 2008; Ziółkowski 2009. 71 Coarelli 2008. 72 Carandini 1997; 2006; 2007.

97

Angelo Amoroso Brocchi, G.B. 1820, Dello stato fisico del suolo di Roma, Roma de Romanis, Roma. Capanna, M.C. 2005, “Dall’ager Antiquus alle espansioni di Roma in età regia”, Workshop di Archeologia classica, vol. 2, pp. 173-188. Carandini, A. 2003, La nascita di Roma. Dei, Lari, eroi e uomini all’alba di una civiltà, Einaudi, Torino. Carandini, A. 2006, Remo e Romolo. Dai rioni dei Quiriti alla città dei Romani (775/750 – 700/675 a.C.), Einaudi, Torino. Carandini, A. 2007, Roma. Il primo giorno, Laterza, Roma. Carandini, A. & Carafa, P. (eds.) 2012, Atlante di Roma antica: testi e immagini, Electa, Roma. Cardosa, M. 1993, “Gli assetti territoriali protovillanoviano e villanoviano alla luce dei modelli dell'archeologia spaziale” in Preistoria e Protostoria in Etruria. La cultura di Rinaldone. Ricerche e Scavi. Atti del Primo Incontro di Studi, (ed.) N. Negroni Catacchio, pp. 261-268. Cascino, R., di Giuseppe, H. & Patterson, H.L. (eds.) 2012, Veii, The Historical Topography of the Ancient City. A Restudy of John Ward-Perkins’s Survey, Archaeological Monographs of B.S.R., vol. 19, Oxford. Cazzella, A. 2001, “Sviluppi verso l'urbanizzazione a Roma alla luce dei recenti scavi nel Giardino Romano”, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, vol. 102, pp. 265-268. Cecconi F., di Gennaro, F., Parisi, D. & Schiappelli, A. 2004, “Protostoria virtuale in Etruria meridionale: simulazione della nascita dei centri protourbani” in Preistoria e Protostoria in Etruria. Miti, Simboli, Decorazioni. Ricerche e scavi, pp. 553-560. Cifani, G. 2003, Storia di una frontiera, Istituto poligrafico e zecca dello Stato, Roma. Cifani, G. 2013, “Per una definizione dei Falisci, tra identità, cultura e territorio” in Tra Roma e l’Etruria, Cultura, identità e territorio dei Falisci, (ed.) G. Cifani, pp. 1-54. Cifani, G., Guidi, A., Jaia, A.M., Cama, A., De Giovanni, D., Di Leo, E., Nomi, F. & Peresso, G. 2013, “Colle Rotondo (Anzio, Roma): le campagne di scavo del 2010 e del 2011” in Lazio e Sabina 9. Atti del Convegno “Nono Incontro di Studi sul Lazio e la Sabina”, Roma, 27-29 marzo 2012, (ed.) G. Ghini, pp. 371-383. Coarelli, F. 2008, “Romanus antiquus ager” in Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, Suburbium V, (eds.) V. Fiocchi Nicolai, M.G. Granino Cecere & Z. Mari, pp. 17-21.

Colonna, G. 1988, “I Latini e gli altri popoli del Lazio” in Italia. Omnium Terrarum Alumna, (ed.) G. Pugliese Carratelli, pp. 409-528. Colonna, G. 1990, “Corchiano, Narce e il problema di Fescennium” in La Civiltà dei Falisci, Atti XV Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici (Civita Castellana, 28-31 maggio 1987), pp. 111-140. Colonna, G. 1991, “Acqua Acetosa Laurentina, l’ager Romanus antiquus e i santuari al I miglio”, Scienze dell’Antichità, vol. 5, pp. 209-232. Colonna, G. 1996, “Roma arcaica, i suoi sepolcreti e le vie per I Colli Albani” in Alba Longa. Mito, storia e archeologia. Atti dell’incontro di studio (Roma-Albano Laziale gennaio 1994), (ed.) A. Pasqualini, pp. 335-354. Della Fina, G.M. & Pellegrini, E. (eds.) 2013, Da Orvieto a Bolsena. Un percorso tra etruschi e romani, Pacini, Pisa. Delpino, F. 1977a, “La prima età del Ferro a Bisenzio. Aspetti della cultura villanoviana nell’Etruria meridionale interna”, Memorie dei Lincei, vol. 21, pp. 453-493. Delpino, F. 1977b, “La prima età del Ferro a Bisenzio. Divisioni in fasi ed interpretazione culturale”, Studi Etruschi, vol. 45, pp. 39-49. Demma, F. 2012, “Antiche tradizioni delle origini: la fondazione mitica di Praeneste tra storia e archeologia” in Oltre Roma. Nei Colli Albani e Prenestini al tempo del Grand Tour, (eds.) I. Salvagni & M. Fratarcangeli, pp. 127-137. di Gennaro, F. 1982, “Organizzazione del territorio nell’Etruria meridionale protostorica: applicazione di un modello grafico”, Dialoghi di Archeologia, vol. 2, pp. 102-112. di Gennaro, F. 1986, Forme di insediamento tra Tevere e Fiora dal bronzo finale al principio dell’età del ferro, Leo S. Olschki, Florence. di Gennaro, F. 1995, “La Ferriera di Sutri” in Preistoria e protostoria in Etruria 2. Tipologia delle necropoli e rituali di deposizione. Ricerche e Scavi, (ed.) N. Negroni Catacchio, pp. 277-279. di Gennaro, F. & Amoroso, A. 2010, “La bassa valle del Tevere nel Primo Ferro. Formazione degli abitati e avvicendamento degli assetti territoriali” in Preistoria e Protostoria in Etruria, vol. 9. L’alba dell’Etruria. Fenomeni di continuità e trasformazione nei secoli XII-VIII. Ricerche e Scavi, pp. 299-309. di Gennaro, F. & Belelli Marchesini, B. 2012, “Scavi 1987-2011 nel sepolcreto crustumino di Monte Del Bufalo”, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, vol. 113, pp. 229-244. di Gennaro, F., Rajala, U., Rizzo, D., Stoddart, S. & Whitehead, N. 2008, “Nepi and territory: 1200

98

Settlement patterns in south Etruria and Latium Vetus BC-400 AD)” in Mercator Placidissimus. The Tiber Valley in Antiquity. New research in the upper and middle river valley, (eds.) F. Coarelli & H. Patterson, pp. 879-888. Driehaus, J. 1985-1987, “Ricerche su un insediamento arcaico a Monte Bisenso”, Studi Etruschi, vol. 53, pp. 51-64. Faccenna, D. & Fugazzola Delpino, M.A. 1976, “Tivoli” in Civiltà del Lazio primitivo (exhibition catalogue), (ed.) G. Colonna, pp. 188-212. Fulminante, F. 2003, Le “sepolture principesche” nel Latium Vetus tra fine della prima età del Ferro e l’inizio dell’età orientalizzante, L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma. Fulminante, F. 2006, “The Ager Romanus Antiquus: defining the most ancient territory of Rome with a theoretical approach” in Studi di protostoria in onore di Renato Peroni, pp. 513-522. Fulminante, F. 2014, The urbanization of Rome and Latium Vetus: from the Bronze Age to the Archaic Era, Cambridge University Press, New York. Funiciello, R, Heiken, G., De Rita, D. & Parotto, M. (eds.) 2006, I sette colli. Guida geologica ad una Roma mai vista, Cortina Raffaello, Milano. Gatti, S. 2009, “La necropoli di Praeneste: nuovi contesti e corredi” in Atti incontro di studi Lazio & Sabina, vol. 5, pp. 159-171. Guidi, A. 2003, “La presenza dell’uomo: dall’economia di sopravvivenza alla nascita dello Stato” in Atlante del Lazio antico. Un approfondimento critico delle conoscenze archeologiche, (ed.) P. Sommella, pp. 27-55. Guidi, A. 2006, “The Archaeology of Early State in Italy”, Social Evolution & History, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 55-89. Guidi, A. 2007, “Note sulla formazione delle città nel Lazio meridionale: l’esempio di Cassino” in Casinum Oppidum. Atti della giornata di studi su Cassino preromana e romana (Cassino 8 ottobre 2004), (ed.) E. Polito, pp. 9-16. Guidi, A. 2008, “Archeologia dell’Early State: il caso di studio italiano”, Ocnus, vol. 16, pp. 175-192. Iaia, C. 1999, Simbolismo funerario e ideologia alle origini di una civiltà urbana. Forme rituali nelle sepolture “villanoviane” a Tarquinia, Vulci e nel loro entroterra, All’Insegna del Giglio, Florence. Iaia, C. & Mandolesi, A. 2010, “Comunità e territori nel Villanoviano evoluto dell’Etruria meridionale” in Preistoria e protostoria in Etruria 9. L’alba dell’Etruria. Fenomeni di continuità e trasformazione nei secoli XII-VII a.C. Ricerche e scavi, pp. 61-77. Lugli, F. 2001, “Le tombe dell’età del Ferro e l’attività metallurgica dall’età del Ferro al periodo arcaico”,

Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, vol. 102, pp. 307-317. Macchi Janica, G. 2009, Spazio e misura. Introduzione ai metodi geografici quantitativi applicati allo studio dei fenomeni sociali, Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena. Magagnini, A. 2005, “Documenti per la storia del Quirinale nella prima età del Ferro”, Bollettino dei Musei Comunali di Roma, vol. 19, pp. 5-34. Mandolesi, A. 1999, La prima Tarquinia. L’insediamento protostorico sulla Civita e nel territorio circostante, All’Insegna del Giglio, Firenze. Mandolesi, A., De Angelis, D., Antonj, M., Morandi, L. 2012, “Tarquinia - Monterozzi. Nuovi dati sulla prima età del ferro dalla Doganaccia e dalle aree limitrofe” in Preistoria e Protostoria in Etruria 10. L’Etruria dal Paleolitico al Primo Ferro. Lo stato delle ricerche, vol. II, (ed.) N. Negroni Catacchio, pp. 725-735. Müller-Karpe, H. 1962, Zur Stadtwerdung Roms, F.H. Kerle Verlag, Heidelberg. Nardoni, L. 1874, Di alcuni oggetti di epoca arcaica rinvenuti nell’interno di Roma, Roma. Pacciarelli, M. 1991, “Ricerche topographiche a Vulci. Dati e problemi relativi all’origine delle città medio-tirreniche”, Studi Etruschi, vol. 56, pp. 11-48. Pacciarelli, M. 1994, “Sviluppi verso l’urbanizzazione nell’Italia tirrenica protostorica” in La presenza etrusca nella Campania meridionale, Atti delle giornate di studio, Salerno-Pontecagnano 1990, (eds.) P. Gastaldi & G. Maetzke, pp. 227-253. Pacciarelli, M. 2001, Dal villaggio alla città: la svolta protourbana del 1000 a.C. nell’Italia tirrenica, All’Insegna del Giglio, Firenze. Pacciarelli, M. 2009, “Verso i centri protourbani: situazioni a confronto da Etruria meridionale, Campania e Calabria”, Scienze dell’Antichità, vol. 15, pp. 371-416. Pacciarelli, M. 2010, “Forme di complessità sociale nelle comunità protourbane dell’Etruria meridionale” in L’Étrurie et l’Ombrie avant Rome, cité et territoire. Actes du colloque international, Louvain-la-Neuve, Halles, 13-14 février 2004, (ed.) P. Fontaine, pp. 17-33. Pellegrini, E., Leotta, M.C., Pacetti, M.S., Rafanelli, S., Schiappelli, A., Severi, E., Falgari Zeni Buchicchio, F.T., Abbadessa, A., Martino, C., Occhiogrosso, F., Rossi, D., & Sarrocchi, F.R. 2011, “Bolsena e la Sponda occidentale della Val di Lago”, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome Antiquité, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 13-105. Peroni, R. 1988, “Comunità e insediamento in Italia fra età del Bronzo e prima età del ferro” in Storia

99

Angelo Amoroso di Roma, (eds.) A. Momigliano & A. Schiavone, pp. 7-37. Peroni, R. 1989, Protostoria dell’Italia continentale: la penisola italiana nelle età del Bronzo e del Ferro, Popoli e civiltà dell’Italia antica, vol. 9, Biblioteca di Storia Patria, Roma. Peroni, R. 1996, L’Italia alle soglie della storia, Laterza, Bari. Peroni, R. 2000, “Formazione e sviluppi dei centri protourbani medio-tirrenici” in Roma, Romolo, Remo e la fondazione della città (exhibition catalogue), (eds.) A. Carandini & R. Cappelli, pp. 26-30. Persiani, C. 2009, “Il lago di Bolsena nella preistoria” in Sul filo della corrente. La navigazione nelle acque interne in Italia centrale dalla Preistoria all’età moderna, (ed.) P. Petitti, pp. 39-82 Pini, E. & Seripa, A. 1986, “Per un tentativo di ricostruzione dei territori dei centri protostorici laziali”, Rivista di Archeologia, vol. 10, pp. 15-21. Pinza, G. 1905, “Monumenti primitivi di Roma e del Lazio”, Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei, vol. 15, pp. 5-844. Potter, T.W. 1976, A Faliscan Town in South Etruria, British School at Rome, London. Raddatz, K. 1982, “Bisenzio II, Eisenzeitliche und frühetruskische Funde aus Nekropolen von Bisenzio (Com. Capodimonte, Prov. Viterbo)”, Hamburger Beiträge zur Archäologie, vol. 9, pp. 71-169. Raddatz, K. 1988, “Tongefässe eines frühetruskischen Grabfundes aus Bisenzio (Comune Capodimonte, Provincia di Viterbo)”, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, vol. 35, pp. 187-237. Rajala, U. 2005, “From a settlement to an early state? The Role of Nepi in the local and regional settlement patterns of the Faliscan area and inner Etruria during the Iron Age” in Papers in Italian archaeology VI. Communities and Settlements from the Neolithic to the Early Medieval Period. Proceedings of the 6th Conference of Italian Archaeology held at the University of Groningen, Groningen Institute of Archaeology, April 1517, 2003, (eds.) P.A.J. Attema, A.J. Nijboer & A. Zifferero, pp. 706-712.

Redhouse, D.I. & Stoddart, S. 2011, “Mapping Etruscan state formation” in State formation in Italy and Greece. Questioning the Neoevolutionist paradigm, (eds.) N. Terrenato & D.C. Haggis, pp. 162-178. Renfrew, C. 1975, “Trade as action at a distance: questions on integration and communication” in Ancient Civilisations and Trade, (eds.) J.A. Sabloff & C.C. Lamberg-Karlowsky, pp. 3-59. Schiappelli, A. 2008, Sviluppo della Teverina nell’età del Bronzo e nella prima età del Ferro, All’Insegna del Giglio, Firenze. Smith, C.J. 2008, “Acqua Traversa and the Edges of Old Rome”, Journal of Roman Archaeology, vol. 21, pp. 426-428 Stoddart, S. 1990, “The Political Landscape of Etruria”, The Accordia Research Papers, vol. 1, pp. 39-51. Tabolli, J. 2013, Narce tra la prima età del Ferro e l’Orientalizzante antico. L’abitato, i Tufi e la Petrina, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa-Roma. Terrenato, N. 1997, “La morfologia originaria di Roma” in La nascita di Roma. Dei, lari, eroi e uomini all’alba di una civiltà, (ed.) A. Carandini, pp. 587-594. Torelli, M. & Moretti Sgubini, A.M. (eds.) 2008, Etruschi: le antiche metropoli del Lazio, Electa, Milano-Roma. Vaglieri, D. 1907, “Regione VI”, Notizie degli Scavi, 1907, pp. 504-525. Vanzetti, A. 2004, “Risultati e problemi di alcune attuali prospettive di studio della centralizzazione e urbanizzazione di fase protostorica in Italia” in Centralization, Early Urbanization and Colonization in First Millennium BC Italy and Greece, (ed.) P.A.J. Attema, pp. 1-28. Waarsenburg, D.J. 1995a, The Northwest Necropolis of Satricum: an Iron Age cemetery in Latium Vetus, Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam. Waarsenburg, D.J. 1995b, “Nuove ricerche sulla necropoli nord-ovest di Satricum”, Archeologia laziale, vol. XII, no. 2 (QuadAEI, vol. 24), pp. 583-590. Ziółkowski, A. 2009, “Frontier sanctuaries of the ager Romanus antiquus: did they exist?”, Palamedes, vol. 4, pp. 91-130.

100

8 SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS AND EARLY LATIN CITIES (CENTRAL ITALY) Francesca Fulminante1, Sergi Lozano 2 & Luce Prignano 3

Introduction

to the road network were the best predictors of the importance of a proto-urban centre. However, the application of each index separately has some drawback, such as for example the low heterogeneity in the degree centrality in the case of spatial networks. Therefore, this paper presents a more robust combined index and introduces a more refined methodology to evaluate the performance of the ranking. This approach has also resulted in a re-validation of the original hypothesis on the relative importance of fluvial routes in Bronze Age as compared to subsequent periods.

In a previous work one of the authors applied a number of Network Analysis centrality indexes (betweenness centrality, closeness centrality and degree centrality) to Latin pre- and proto-urban centres in order to explore the validity of these indexes in the study of early urban civilizations.4 In this field of study not many applications are available, but two very important simulation models have been elaborated respectively by Wilson and Rihll for Greek city states5 and by Knappett, Rivers and Evans for Bronze Age Cyclades.6 These works assume settlement size as one of the variables of the model. In our case study, on the contrary, settlement size is used as a rough proxy of the importance of the centres.7 In the previous work mentioned above, settlements predicted to be central by Network Analysis centrality indexes were compared with settlements already known to be central from historical and archaeological knowledge in order to assess the ability of those indexes to predict central places. This exploratory application of Network Analysis indexes to Latin pre- and proto-urban settlement systems reveiled that the degree centrality, and secondarily the betweenness centrality, applied

Historical Context

As is well known, the period between the Final Bronze Age and the Orientalizing Age is a time of great changes and developments in the Italian Peninsula which led to the creation of regional ethnic and political groups8 and to the formation of the first city-states in Western Europe.9 This period between the end of pre-history and the beginning of proper history has been called protohistory by Renato Peroni, because at this time the development of all more important features of later urban societies begins (namely settlement centralization, social differentiation, craft specialization, creation of central ritual places, incipient market

1 [email protected]. Dipartimento Studi Umanistici, University Roma Tre, Roma, Italy. Francesca Fulminante is grateful to the European Commission for its support through a Marie Slodowska IEF ‘PAST-PEOPLENET’ N 628818, 2014-2016. 2 [email protected]. 1.IPHES, Institut Catala de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social, 43007, Tarragona, Spain. Area de Prehistoria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), 43002, Tarragona, Spain. 3 [email protected]. 1. IPHES, Institut Catala de Paleoecolo-gia Humana i Evolució Social, 43007, Tarragona, Spain. Area de Prehistoria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), 43002, Tarragona, Spain. 4 Fulminante 2012. 5 Rihll & Wilson 1991, refined in Bevan & Wilson 2013. 6 Rivers et al. 2013 with previous references. 7 In future work we plan to apply those models to the same dataset in order to compare the results.

8 See for example the classic work by Pallottino 1991; or more recently D'Ercole et al. 2002; Bartoloni 2003; Bradley et al. 2007; Bietti Sestieri 2010; and the network approach by Blake 2013. 9 See e.g. Ampolo et al. 1980; Peroni 1989; 1994; 1996; 2000; Guidi 1982; 1998; 2006; Stoddart & Spivey 1990; Stoddart (forthcoming); Bietti Sestieri 1992; Holloway 1994; Torelli 1997 (1st ed. 1981); 2000; Bonghi Jovino & Chiaramonte Trere 1997; Bonghi Jovino 2005; Carandini 1997; 2007; Smith 1996; 2000; 2005; Pacciarelli 2001; Bartoloni 2006; Barker & Rasmussen 1998; Attema 2004; Alessandri 2007; 2013; Fulminante 2014 with further bibliography.

101

Francesca Fulminante, Sergi Lozano & Luce Prignano

Fig. 1.  Central Italy (from Bradley et al. 2007: map 1).

economy) that will be fully completed only in the Orientalizing and Archaic Age.10 In particular in middle Tyrrhenian Italy (Latium, Etruria and Campania, see fig. 1) it is possible to observe the formation of large Early Iron Age nucleated settlements (proto-urban centres) from the merging of numerous dispersed Final Bronze Age villages (pre-urban centres), converging on the same plateaux that will later be occupied by the cities of the Archaic period.11

This process happens almost emblematically and paradigmatically in southern Etruria, where the shift from small dispersed villages to big nucleated centres is rather abrupt and revolutionary, whereas it occurs more gradually and slightly later in Latium Vetus (fig. 2), where Early Iron Age proto-urban centres develop from the enlargement of smaller acropoleis.12 A study of the intra-regional organization of these settlement systems both in Etruria and Latium Vetus reveals a certain degree of hierarchy. There seems to

10 Peroni 1994; 1996; 2000. 11 Pacciarelli 1991a; 1991b; 1994; 2001.

12 Pacciarelli 1994; 2001.

102

Hierarchical and federative polities in protohistoric Latium Vetus

Fig. 2.  Latium Vetus with major Early Iron Age settlements.

be a 2-3 level hierarchy with settlements larger than 6 ha during the Bronze Age both in Etruria and Latium Vetus, likely functioning as redistribution centres and providers of central services. In the Early Iron Age, there seems to be a settlement hierarchy of 4-5 tiers with larger proto-urban centres functioning as central places.13 However, in this respect there is a clear difference between Etruria and Latium Vetus: in Etruria major settlements are generally larger than 100-200 ha; while in Latium Vetus only Rome reached similar dimensions and other primary order centres were generally between 20 and 25 ha and in some cases between 40 and 80 ha.14 As already mentioned, this case study will focus on Latium Vetus, the region south of the Tiber, but further work will be extended to include Etruria as well.

Methodology

13 di Gennaro & Barbaro 2008; Barbaro 2010 for Etruria, and Amoroso 2013 and Fulminante 2014 for Latium Vetus. 14 Pacciarelli 1994; 2001.

15 Fulminante 2012. 16 Guaitoli 1981: p. 31, fig. 5. 17 Cf. Colonna 1976: pl.1.

The dataset

As described in more detail in the previous work,15 the networks considered have been identified in the following way. Settlements directly connected by a terrestrial route or by a river have been connected in the network via a bidirectional unvalued link; to put it simply, it has been assumed that movement of goods, ideas and people would flow in both directions in an equal measure. The reconstruction of the rivers has been based on digital data provided by Regione Lazio, whilst the terrestrial routes considered were based on the reconstructions by Marcello Guaitoli for the Bronze Age16 (see fig. 3 below) and those by Stefania and Lorenzo Quilici for the Early Iron Age17 (see fig. 4 below). Although these two works are partially based

103

Francesca Fulminante, Sergi Lozano & Luce Prignano

Fig. 3.  Terrestrial routes used to model the road networks of Final Bronze Age Latial settlements (from Guaitoli 1981: p. 31, fig. 5).

on hypotheses and reconstructions, the fact that the routes aligned very well, even with settlements discovered many years after they were first proposed, convinced us of their accuracy.

additional factors derived from other centrality measures. Specifically, we use the betweenness centrality, a quantity proportional to the number of shortest paths from all sites to all others that pass through the considered node. The betweenness centrality of a node quantifies its intermediation power over the communication flows among other sites in the network. We have verified the correlation between this newly defined quantity and settlement size (an independent indicator of centrality also used in the previous exploratory analysis) through regression analysis. In order to provide a further validation of the original working hypothesis, we estimated how many centres would have been identified as primary if there was no information at all; in this way it was possible to assess the relevance of knowledge about rivers and terrestrial routes embedded in our indexes.

The unified index

Taking the degree of success of the various indexes in the previous exploratory analysis into consideration, we elaborated a new combined index starting from the degree centrality, which is defined as the number of connections that a node has. In fact, this index calculated for the road networks has proven to be the index that allows for the proper classification of the largest number of primary sites.18 We take the index as a starting point to elaborate a new, more reliable, combined index by including 18 Fulminante 2012.

104

Hierarchical and federative polities in protohistoric Latium Vetus

Fig. 4.  Terrestrial routes used to model the road networks of Early Iron Age, Orientalizing and Archaic Latial settlements (from Colonna 1976: pl.1).

Analysis

networks 20 , we started looking for a refinement of this measure. We notice that the second most reliable index is the betweenness centrality calculated, again, on the road network. Hence, our first proposal for a unified measure, for sake of simplicity, is the following one:

As already mentioned, the results obtained in the previous work of one of the authors form the starting point of this new analysis.19 In particular, we retain that it could be useful to introduce a unified measure in order to rank the settlements in the most reliable possible way, taking advantage of the information provided by different centrality indexes calculated on both river and road networks. Since the best ranking (i.e. the largest number of correctly predicted central settlements) for the present case study is obtained considering the degree centrality calculated on the road

I1 ( N i ) = K iroad + C Broad ( N i )

19 Fulminante 2012.

20 Fulminante 2012: tab. 1.

105

Francesca Fulminante, Sergi Lozano & Luce Prignano Table 1.  In black, percentages of settlements correctly predicted to be central by our indexes in comparison with settlement predicted to be central by their size. Percentages above 50 % (considered to be successful in similar analyses, Rihll & Wilson 1991: p. 73) are highlighted in grey. In the second line in each cell (dark grey), value of the correlation coefficient R2 between the settlement size and the centrality indexes. In the last line we report the percentages of the expected number of correct predictions in the null case (random) hypothesis. Final Bronze Age 1-2

Final Bronze Age 3

I3 R

Early Iron Age 1 Late

Archaic Age

50 0,490

48 0,600

62 0,623

61 0,535

60 0,371

47 0,114 42 0,041 29

39 0,172 46 0,109 33

50 0,504 50 0,468 22

52 0,624 52 0,656 23

54 0,629 54 0,592 24

61 0,531 61 0,500 30

60 0,411 63 0,364 38

This first index performs rather well, but it is still interesting to check out if it can be further improved by taking into account the river network. To this end we introduce two combined indexes, which are, respectively:

C B (N i ) C BMAX

C B (N i ) = ∑ j