FuneraryRitualandUrbanDevelopmentinArchaicCentralItalyBy

JenniferMarilynEvans

Adissertationsubmittedinpartialsatisfactionofthe

requirementsforthedegreeof

DoctorofPhilosophyin

ClassicalArchaeology

inthe

GraduateDivision

ofthe

UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

Committeeincharge:

ProfessorJ.TheodorePeña,ChairProfessorChristopherHallett

ProfessorDylanSailorProfessorNicolaTerrenatoProfessorCarlosNoreña

Spring2014

Copyright2014,JenniferMarilynEvans

1

Abstract

FuneraryRitualandUrbanDevelopmentinArchaicCentralItalyby

JenniferMarilynEvans

DoctorofPhilosophyinClassicalArchaeology

UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

ProfessorJ.TheodorePeña,ChairThisdissertationexaminestheevidenceforburialinarchaicRomeandLatiumwithaviewtounderstandingthenatureofurbandevelopmentintheregion.Inparticular,Ifocusonidentifyingthosesocialandpoliticalinstitutionsthatgovernedrelationsbetweencity‐statesatatimewhenRomewasbecomingthemostinfluentialurbancenterinthearea.Iexaminetheevidenceforburialgatheredprimarilyfromthepastfourdecadesorsoofarchaeologicalexcavationinordertopresentfirst,asystematicaccountofthedataandsecond,ananalysisofthesematerials.Irevealthatahighdegreeofvariationwasobservedinfuneraryritualacrosssites,andsuggestthatthispointstoacomplexsystemofregionalnetworksthatallowedforthewidespreadtravelofpeopleandideas.IviewthisasevidencefortheopennessofarchaicsocietiesinLatium,wherebypeopleandgroupsseemtohavemovedacrossregionswithwhatseemstohavebeenafairdegreeofmobility.Iconnectthevarietyintombconstructiontothemorewidespreadphenomenonofmonumentalization,whichencouragedtheconstructioninstoneofresidences,templesandpublicbuildingsacrosstheregion.Iconsidertheindividualsandgroupsresponsibleforthesetypesofconstruction,andhowtheycontributedtothedevelopmentofandinteractionbetweencity‐states.IbeginwithanassessmentofthehistoricalreliabilityoftheancientsourcesconcerningearlyRome,sincetheywerewrittencenturieslaterthanthetimeinquestion,yetcommentonsomeofthefeaturesinthearchaeologicalrecord.IgoontoconsidertheliteraryevidenceforfuneraryritualinearlyRome,inordertodeterminewhattheancientsourceshavetosayaboutthecustomsoftheirancestorsandwhatsignificancethishasforthearchaeologicalevidence.Then,Iconsiderthedocumentaryevidenceforfuneraryritual,whichcomesfromthelegislationoftheTwelveTables.Theprohibitionspreservedhere,iftheyrepresentavaliddocument,illustratetheconcernsoflawmakerswithregardtofuneraryactivityinandaroundthecityofRome.InthefollowingsectionIpresentthearchaeologicalevidenceforburial,andprovideadetailedsummaryofarchaicburialsaccordingtosite,andofferabriefdescriptionofeachsettlementinordertobettercontextualizethedata.Iconcludethissectionwithaninterpretationoftheevidence.Finally,IconcentrateonthearchaeologicalevidencefromarchaicGabii,whichresultsfrommyownparticipationontheexcavationofthesite.Theresultsoftheseexcavationsallowforthestudyoftheintersectionbetweentheurbanarea,burialandlandownership.

i

ToRobertB.Caruthers

ii

TableofContents

ChronologyofLatialCultureandtheArchaicPeriod ivListofAbbreviations vListofFigures vi‐xiiiAcknowledgements xiv1.Introduction 1‐42.TheAncientHistoriographicalSourcesforEarlyRomanHistory 5‐29 2a.Introduction 2b.TheAnnalisticTradition 2c.TheAntiquarianTradition 2d.TheNarrativeTradition 2e.TheAncientDocumentarySources 2f.TheOralTradition 2g.Landmarks,MonumentsandToponyms 2h.ModernScholarshipRegardingtheHistoriographicTradition 2i.Conclusion3.TheLiteraryEvidenceforRomanFuneraryRitualsandBurialPractices 30‐50 3a.Introduction 3b.CremationandInhumation 3c.InfantBurial 3d.BurialintheHome 3e.NocturnalBurial 3f.Polybius 3g.Conclusion4.TheDocumentaryEvidenceforRomanFuneraryRitual:theTwelveTables 51‐75 4a.Introduction 4b.TransmissionandReconstructionoftheTwelveTables 4c.TheTenthTable 4d.Conclusion5.TheArchaeologicalEvidenceforArchaicBurialinLatiumVetus 76‐140 5a.Introduction 5b.PreviousScholarship 5c.TypesofBurial 5d.FuneraryRite 5e.ArchaeologicalSites 5f.Discussion 5g.Conclusion

iii

6.BurialandUrbanDevelopmentinArchaicGabii 141‐196 6a.Introduction 6b.TheAncientSourcesforArchaicGabii 6c.HistoryofExcavation 6d.TopographyandDevelopmentoftheSite 6e.TheGabiiProject 6f.TheGabiiProject‐AreaD 6g.Chronology 6h.FeaturesofAreaD:TheArchaicBuilding 6i.FeaturesofAreaD:TheBurials 6j.Conclusion7.Conclusion 197‐199Figures 200‐267 Bibliography 268‐295AppendixA:AreaDHarrisMatrix2011and2012 296 AppendixB:AreaDBurials 297‐299

iv

ChronologyofLatialCultureandtheArchaicPeriod1

Pre‐urbanLatialPhaseI c.1000‐900 FinalBronzeAge(Protovillanovan)LatialPhaseIIA c.900‐830 EarlyIronAge(Villanovan)Proto‐urbanLatialPhaseIIB c.830‐770 "LatialPhaseIIIA c.770‐740 "LatialPhaseIIIB c.740‐730/20 "LatialPhaseIVA c.730/20‐640/30 EarlyandMiddleOrientalizing LatialPhaseIVB c.640/30‐580 LateOrientalizingUrbanArchaic c.580‐480/50

1ThesedatesarebasedonAmpoloetal.(1980)andarethemostwidely‐usedinscholarshipconcerningBronzeandIronAgeLatium.Ihaveadoptedthischronologyformydissertation.However,BiettiSestieriandDeSantis(2006),onthebasisofradiocarbondatesrecoveredfromfuneraryandsettlementcontexts,suggestraisingtheconventionalchronologybyabout50to100years.Theevidenceiscompelling,butmayrequirefurtherreviewbeforegainingwideacceptance.AlldatesareB.C.E.unlessotherwisestated.

v

ListofAbbreviations

AJP AmericanJournalofPhilologyAL ArcheologiaLazialeADRA AtlantediRomaAnticaBullCom BullettinodellaCommissionearcheologicaComunalediRomaCLP CiviltàdelLazioprimitivoCVA CorpusVasorumAntiquorumGRT LagrandeRomadeiTarquiniHSCP HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilologyICr Inscriptionescreticae IG InscriptionesgraecaeJHS JournalofHellenicStudiesLTUR LexicontopographicumurbisromaeLTURS LexicontopographicumurbisromaesuburbiumLTURSuppl. LexicontopographicumurbisromaesupplementumNSc Notiziedegliscavidiantichità.Attidell'AccademiaNazionaledei LinceiNTDAR ANewTopographicalDictionaryofAncientRomeOpRom OpusculaRomanaPP LaparoladelpassatoRendPontAcc AttidellaPontificiaAccademiaromanadiarcheologiaRMErgh MitteilungendesDeutschenArchaeologischenInstituts,Roemische Abteiling.ErgänzungsheftRoselle Gliscavielamostra.SoprintendenzaperiBeniArcheologicidellaToscana.SE StudiEtruschiTLE Testimonialinguaeetruscae

vi

ListofFigures

Chapter1Figure1.1MapofancientLatium,showingmajorsites.AfterSmith1996,240,map1.Chapter5TheArchaeologicalEvidenceforArchaicBurialinLatiumVetusFigure5.1PlanofRomeshowinghillsandlocationofearlycemeteries.Lanciani's excavationsareindicatedjustnorthoftheVelia.AfterHolloway1994,24,fig.2.1.Figure5.2PlanoftheEsquilinenecropolisaccordingtoPinza.AfterBullCom1914,pl.V‐VI.Figure5.3AtticRedFigurepelikefromtomb89ontheEsquilinenecropolis.AfterColonna 1977,140,fig.3/A.Figure5.4AtticRedFigurepelikefromtomb89ontheEsquilinenecropolis.AfterColonna 1977,141,fig.3/B.

Figure5.5Containerofpeperinooftomb193fromtheEsquilinenecropolis.AfterColonna 1977,142,fig.4.

Figure5.6Containerofpeperinooftomb193fromtheEsquilinenecropolis.AfterHolloway 1994,26,fig.2.4.Figure5.7Marbleurnoftomb193fromtheEsquilinenecropolis.AfterColonna1977,143, fig.5/A.Figure5.8Marbleurnoftomb193oftheEsquilinenecropolis.AfterHolloway1994,26,fig. 2.3.Figure5.9Drawingofurn,probablyfromtomb5fromtheEsquilinenecropolis.After Colonna1977,148,fig.7.Figure5.10Urn,probablyfromtomb5fromtheEsquilinenecropolis.AfterMonAnt1905, 186,fig.78.Figure5.11UrnfromunknowntombasdrawnbyLanciani.AfterBullCom1912,38,fig.13.

Figure5.12PlanshowinglocationofearlycemeteriesnearthePiazzaVittorioEmanueleII. TrianglesindicatethetombsexcavatedbyPinza;theblackrectanglesarethetombs excavatedbyAsoretal.2009;thegreyrectanglesarethetombsexcavatedbyColini 1932.AfterAsorRosaetal.2009,76,fig.11.

vii

Figure5.13Generalplanofexcavationin2002inthePiazzaVittorioEmanueleII.After Barberaetal.2005,303,fig.38.Figure5.14Generalplanofexcavationin2002inPiazzaVittorioEmanueleII.AfterBarbera etal.2005,307,fig.41.Figure5.15Amphorafromtomb3in2002excavationsinPiazzaVittorioEmanueleII.After Barberaetal.2005,310,fig.46.Figure5.16Gravegoodsfromtomb12in2002excavationsinPiazzaVittorioEmanueleII. AfterBarberaetal.2005,315,fig.59.Figure5.17Sarcophagusoftuff,tomb12from2002excavationsinPiazzaVittorio EmanueleII.AfterBarberaetal.2005,315,fig.57.Figure5.18GeneralplanoftheexcavationbetweentheVialedelMonteOppioandtheVia delleTermediTraiano,Rome.AfterCoarelli200111,fig.4.Figure5.19SuggrundariumEfromViaSacra,Rome.AfterGjerstad1953,147,fig.141.Figure5.20SuggrundariumFfromViaSacra.AfterGjerstad1953,147,fig.142.Figure5.21SuggrundariumLLfromViaSacra.AfterGjerstad1953,148,fig.143.Figure5.22SuggrundariumNNfromViaSacra.AfterGjerstad1953,148,fig.144.Figure5.23Figure5.23MapofRomeindicatingthelocationoftheexcavationontheVia Goito.AfterMenghietal.2005,352,fig.97.Figure5.24SarcophagifromViaGoito,Rome.AfterMenghietal.2005,356,fig.106.Figure5.25MapshowinglocationofAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterBedini1983,29,fig. 1.Figure5.26PlanofbuildingatAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterBedini1981b,255,fig.4.Figure5.27Planofchambertomb3atAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterBedini1983,32,fig. 10.Figure5.28Planofchambertomb4atAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterBedini1983,36,fig. 11.Figure5.29Planofchambertombs1and2atAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterBedini1983, 30,fig.2.

viii

Figure5.30Sectionplanofchambertombs1and2atAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.After Bedini1983,30,fig.2.Figure5.31PlanofcemeteryatCasaleMassima.AfterBedini1980,59,fig.1.Figure5.32PlanofatrenchtombfromCasaleMassima.AfterBedini1980,60,fig.2.Figure5.33Planofchambertombs1and2fromCasaleMassima.Chambertomb1isonthe left,chambertomb2isontheright.AfterBedini1983,34,fig.9.Figure5.34Profiledrawingofollettafromchambertomb1atCasaleMassima.AfterBedini 1980,62,fig.4,n.2.Figure5.35Profiledrawingofpentolinafromchambertomb2atCasaleMassima.After Bedini1980,62,fig.4,n.4.Figure5.36GeneralplanofTorrino.AfterBedini1981,57,fig.1.Figure5.37Chambertombs1(left)and2(right)fromTorrino.AfterBedini1981,58,fig.3.Figure5.38Chamber2fromTorrino.AfterBedini1981,62,fig.6.Figure5.39PlanofareaofexcavationatCasaleBrunori.AfterBedini1991,100,fig.3.Figure5.40AerialviewofchambertombsatCasaleBrunori.AfterBedini1991,105,fig.11.Figure5.41GeneralplanofexcavationatTorde'Cenci.AfterBedini1990,123,fig.2.Figure5.42AerialviewoffirstcircleofchambertombsatTorde'Cenci.AfterBedini1990, 124,fig.4.Figure5.43AerialviewofsecondcircleofchambertombsatTorde'Cenci.AfterBedini 1990,125,fig.5.Figure5.44Pentolafromchambertomb16atTorde'Cenci.AfterBedini1990,127,fig.7.Figure5.45BeadsofthenecklacebelongingtothewomanburiedatFidenae.AfterGRT 260,no.10.4.4.Figure5.46GeneralmapofcentralItaly.AfterRajala2008a,41,fig.2.Figure5.47GeneralmapofCrustumerium,includingsitesofCisternaGrande,Montedel BufaloandSassoBiancoexcavations.AfterRajala2008a,40,fig.1.Figure5.48.MapdetailoftheMonteDelBufalonecropolis,Crustumerium.AfterNijboer 2008,24,fig.2.

ix

Figure5.49MapdetailoftombsexcavatedatCisternaGrande,Crustumerium.AfterRajala 2008a,44,fig.4.Figure5.50ChambertombatCisternaGrande,Crustumerium.AfterRajala2008a,44.fig.5, A.Figure5.51ChambertombatCisternaGrande,Crustumerium.AfterRajala2008a,44.fig.5, B.Figure5.52AerialphotoofchambertombsatCorcolle.AfterReggianietal.1998,122,fig. 2.Figure5.53PlanshowinglocationofchildandinfantburialsatFicana.AfterJarva1981b, 270,fig.1.Figure5.54PlanofthechambertombatLavinium.AfterGuaitoli1995,556,fig.7.Figure5.55ChambertombatLavinium.AfterGuaitoli1995,557,fig.8.Figure5.56UrnofcappellacciofromchambertombatLavinium.AfterGuaitoli1995,558, fig.9.Figure5.57TyrrhenianamphorafromchambertombatLavinium.AfterGuaitoli1995,559, fig.11.Figure5.58AmphoraofbuccherofromchambertombatLavinium.AfterGuaitoli1995, 559,fig.14.Figure5.59AtticRedFigurestamnosfromchambertombatLavinium.AfterGuaitoli1995, 559,fig.15.Figure5.60PlanofLaviniumshowinglocationoftumuli.AfterGuaitoli1995,561,fig.16.Figure5.61BronzecuirassfromtheTomboftheWarrior,Lanuvium.AfterColonna1977, 152,8/A.Figure5.62HelmetfromtheTomboftheWarrior,Lanuvium.AfterColonna1977,150,fig. 8/A.Figure5.63Tomb5fromthesiteofCampodelFico,Corcolle.AfterCrescenziandTortorici 1983,47,fig.21.Figure5.64GeneralplanshowingexcavationareasatSatricum.AfterGnade2002,215,fig. 1.

x

Figure5.65Mapoftopographyandexcavatedfeaturesofthenorthwestnecropolisand acropolis,partofoldexcavationsatSatricum.AfterWaarsenburg1995,43,pl.8.Figure5.66GeneralplanofthesouthwestnecropolisatSatricum.AfterGnade2002,227, fig.18.Figure5.67Hypotheticalreconstructionoftheareaexcavatedin1909ontheacropolisat Satricum,includinglargesquarehutandAcropolisTombs1‐3.AfterGinge,1996, 126,fig.37.Figure5.68MapofexcavationareasatPoggiodeiCavallari,Satricum.AfterGnade2002, 217,fig.3.Figure5.69FinalBronzeandEarlyIronAgetraderoutesofancientLatium.AfterBietti Sestieri1992b,74,fig.3.17.Figure5.70IronAge(IIBandIII)traderoutesofancientLatium.AfterBiettiSestieri1992b, 75,fig.3.17.Figure5.71MapofchambertombXXIIfromColledelForno,Eretum.AfterSantoro1983, 128,fig.27.Chapter6BurialandUrbanDevelopmentinArchaicGabiiFigure6.1MapofCentralItaly,showinglocationofGabii.CourtesyofUniversityofNorth CarolinaatChapelHill,AncientWorldMappingCenter.Figure6.2GeneralmapofCastiglionecrater.AfterBiettiSestieri1992b,77,fig.4.1.Figure6.3GeneralmapofGabiiindicatingthemainareasofexcavation.Modifiedafter BiettiSestieri1992b,77,fig.4.1.Figure6.4PlanofGabiishowingtheinterpretedresultsofthemagnetometrysurvey.The redlinesindicateapositivelinearfeature.AfterBeckeretal2009,635,fig.5.Figure6.5Aerialphotoshowingtheresultsofthemagnetometrysurveyandthelocations ofseveralfeatures.1.theGabiiProjectareaofexcavation,2.theAreaUrbana,3.the possiblelocationofHamilton'sForum,and4.theTempleofJuno.AfterMogettaand Becker2014,173,fig.2.Figure6.6AerialphotoofthesiteexcavatedbytheGabiiProject,indicatingareasof excavation.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

xi

Figure6.7PlanoftheareaexcavatedbytheGabiiProjectfrom2009to2011.DrawingbyR. Opitz.AfterMogettaandBecker2014,175,fig.5.Figure6.8AerialphotoofAreaDoftheGabiiProject,takenfromthenorth.Courtesyofthe GabiiProject.Figure6.9PlanofAreaDoftheGabiiProject."T"indicatesatomb.DrawingbyRachel Opitz.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.Figure6.10AerialphotoofAreasD,CandE(lefttoright)oftheGabiiProject,takenfrom thesouth.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.Figure6.11Vesselcontainingturtle,intentionaldepositioninnorthwestcornerofRoom2. CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.Figure6.12PlanofareaofWall34(apsidalwall)atOropos.AfterMazarakisAinian1997, fig.75.Figure6.13Planofhouse63.2(c.650‐600B.C.E.)atMegaraHyblaea.AfterDeAngelis 2003,29,fig.15.Figure6.14PlanofedificobetainthemiddleOrientalizingperiod(c.mid‐seventhcentury). AfterBonghiJovinoandTreré1997,pl.145.1.Figure6.15PlanofarchaicresidenceinzoneFatAcquarossa.AfterÖstegard1975,140.Figure6.16PlanofthearchaiccomplexfromMurlo(PoggioCivitate).AfterPhillips1993, 11,fig.8.Figure6.17PlanoftheatriumhouseontheSacraVia.Archaicphasesshowninblack.After GRT98,no.4.2.Figure6.18Planofphase1(archaic)ofthetheAuditorumsite.AfterCarandini1997,121, fig.2.Figure6.19PlanofarchaicbuildingatTorrino.AfterBedini1984,86,fig.2.Figure6.20PlanofarchaicbuildingatAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterGRT171.Figure6.21PlanofthebuildingatGrottarossa.AfterNSc1945,54,fig.4.Figure6.22ReconstructionofthesettlementontheacropolisatSatricumintheeighth century.Thecirclesdelimittheclustersofhuts.AfterMaaskant‐Kleibrink1991,73, fig.10;modifiedbyColantoni2012,25,fig.2.2.

xii

Figure6.23ReconstructionofthesettlementontheacropolisatSatricuminthelateeighth andseventhcenturies.Circlesdelimittheclustersofhuts.AfterMaaskant‐Kleibrink 1991,79,fig.15;modifiedbyColantoni2012,26,fig.2.3.Figure6.24ReconstructionofthesettlementontheacropolisatSatricuminthesixth century.AfterMaaskant‐Kleibrink1991,93,fig.22b.Figure6.25Tomb25inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.Figure6.26PhotomodelreconstructionofTomb25inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabii Project.Figure6.27Semi‐chambertomb1inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.Figure6.28Photomodelreconstructionofsemi‐chambertomb1inareaDatGabii. CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.Figure6.29Eastniche(Tomb38)ofsemi‐chambertomb1inareaDatGabii.Courtesyof theGabiiProject. Figure6.30Spoolsandstripofworkedbone(nos.1‐15),eastniche(Tomb38)ofsemi‐ chambertomb1inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

Figure6.31Northniche(Tomb39)ofsemi‐chambertomb1inareaDatGabii.Courtesyof theGabiiProject.Figure6.32Westniche(Tomb40)ofsemi‐chambertomb1inareaDatGabii.Courtesyof theGabiiProject.Figure6.33Semi‐chambertomb2inareaDatGabii(Tombs41and42totheleftand right).CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.Figure6.34Westniche(Tomb41)insemi‐chambertomb2inareaDatGabii.Courtesyof theGabiiProject.Figure6.35Eastniche(Tomb42)insemi‐chambertomb2inareaDatGabii.Courtesyof theGabiiProject.Figure6.36Tomb30inareaDatGabii,infantburialinadolium,fromtheeast.Courtesyof theGabiiProject.Figure6.37Tomb48inareaDatGabii,childburialafossa.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.Figure6.38Tomb49inareaDatGabii,infantburialindolium.CourtesyoftheGabii Project.

xiii

Figure6.39PlanoftheIronAgecemeteryatOsteriadell'Osa(c.900‐580B.C.E.).Graves fromthelatestphases(IIIB‐IVB,c.740‐580B.C.E.)areshaded.AfterBiettiSestieri 1992a,80,fig.4.2.Figure6.40PlanoftheIronAgecemeteryatOsteriadell'OsaduringPeriodsIIandIIIA, showingthedivisionofclusters.AfterBiettiSestieri1992a,142,fig.7.1.Figure6.41Osteriadell'Osa:planofTomb62(chambertomb).AfterBiettiSestieri1992b, pl.50.Figure6.42PlanofBotromagnoshowingexcavatedsites.AfterWhitehouseetal.2000,2, fig.1.Figure6.43PlanofSiteHatBotromagnoshowingbuildings,tombsandaroad.After Whitehouseetal.2000,5,fig.3.

xiv

AcknowledgementsTherearemanypeopleIwouldliketothankfortheirassistanceandsupport.Myfamilyisforemostamongthese,astheyhaveunfailinglyencouragedmethroughoutmyentirecareer.Thisdissertationhasbenefittedfromtheinvolvementofmycommittee.TedPeñareadseveraldraftsofmychaptersandfinalmanuscript.Hewasatthesametimeanexactingeditorandhelpfulcritic,whosequestionsandcommentscompelledmetoconsiderthematerialingreaterdepth.NicolaTerrenatoprovidedtheimpetusforthisprojectandhissuggestionsgaveshapetothedissertation.Earlyon,whenIknewverylittleaboutearlyRome,hiscommentswereaninvaluablesourceofinformationforthekindsofissuesIshouldtakeintoconsideration.ChrisHalletthaskindlyrespondedtothedissertationwithaviewtoreformulatingitasabook,andgivenfeedbackthataddresses"bigpicture"concerns.IenlistedCarlosNoreñawhenmydissertationwasdevotedtoanentirelydifferentsubjectmatter,andhehasgraciouslystuckwithit,despitetheconsiderableandabruptchange.DylanSailorwashelpfulregardingtheancientsourcematerial,andtheapproachesinmodernscholarshiptothesubject.IextendspecialthankstothevariousmembersoftheGabiiProjectfrom2009onward.In2011,NicolaTerrenato,thedirectoroftheexcavation,andJeffreyBecker,thenfieldschooldirectorandsitemanager,suggestedthatIundertakethestudyofburialsinarchaiccentralItaly.Manyotherstaffandstudentshavesinceassistedinthecollectionandprocessingoffindsinpreparationforthisdissertation.Amongthestaff,AbbyCrawfordandChiaraPilodatedtheceramicmaterials;JasonFarrrespondedtoquestionsaboutthetuff;KristinaKillgroveaddressedthebioarchaeologicaldata;JessicaNowlindevelopedthephotogrammetrymodels;AnnaGalloneandMarcelloMogettarespondedquicklytoquestionsandencouragedmyprofessionaldevelopmentinthefield;andTroySamuelswasaninvaluableassistantintheexcavationofacomplicatedarea.IwishtogivespecialthankstoRachelOpitz,thechieftopographerandarchiveoverseer,whohasassistedmeseveraltimesoverthecourseofthisprojectinretrievingdataandcreatingmaps,evenatthelastminute.Finally,IameternallygratefulforthesupportofRobertCaruthers,whosepatienceandencouragementhaveassistedmethroughoutthisentireprocessandhelpedmeenjoymygraduateschoolexperience.

1

1.IntroductionThisdissertationisacontributiontothestudyofurbanizationinearlycentralItaly.TheevidencerecoveredfromfunerarycontextsinthepastseveraldecadeshassubstantiallyincreasedourunderstandingofthepeoplethatinhabitedtheregionduringtheIronAge.Thesedatapointtotheemergenceofsocialhierarchiesasearlyastheninthcentury,andshowevidenceforanincreasingsocialandpoliticalcomplexitythatseemstohavecontributedtocity‐stateformationbytheendoftheseventhcentury.InthisdissertationIundertakeastudyofthefuneraryevidencefromthefollowingperiod,theurbanera,inordertoobtainabetterunderstandingofthedynamicprocessofurbandevelopment.Ifocusnotsomuchontheprocessesthatledtotheformationofthecity‐state,butthekindsofrelationshipsthatwerenegotiatedbetweencity‐statesandthepeoplelivinginandaroundthemoncethoseurbancenterswerealreadyestablished.Thecreationofacityisnotafixedendpoint,norisitaguaranteeofsuccessandcontinuity.ThesubjectofArchaicRomeandLatiumisaparticularlyusefulvenueforthiskindofexploration,sincetheevidencefromliteraryandarchaeologicalsourcespointtoRome'srapidgrowthoverthecourseofthesixthcentury,andherexpansionandpredominanceintheregionbytheendofthecentury,attheexpenseofneighboringcity‐states.Thereremainsatendencytoviewtheprocessofconquestandexpansionasinevitable,andsomehowindicativeoftheculturalandpoliticalsuperiorityofthevictor.ThisisespeciallytruewithregardtoearlyRome,astheimageofthecityasanimperialruleroftheMediterraneanworldloomslarge.Whatthisstudyintendstodo,however,isshedsomelightonthenatureofinteractioninarchaicRomeandLatium,inordertounderstandwhatkindsofsocialandpoliticalinstitutionsgovernedrelationsbetweenpeoplesandcities.ThereadermaybedisappointedtodiscoverthatthereislittleevidencehereexplaininghowRomeovertookLatium,orthepreciseoutcomeofthisexpansiononneighboringcities;thearchaeologicalevidenceisoftendifficulttoreadinthisway.Whatismore,suchquestionsmaybemorerevealingaboutthekindsofassumptionswemakeaboutthenatureofconquestandthecharacterizationofcities.Thatistosay,thatconquestisunilateralandinevitableandthatcitiesaresociallyandpoliticallyunifiedcentersthatexhibitsomekindofnationalidentity.WhatweknowaboutearlyRomeseemstosuggesttheopposite,inthattherewasahighdegreeofhorizontalsocialmobilitythroughouttheregion,andpeople,inparticularelites,seemtohavehadlittledifficultyinsuccessfullymovingtoanewcity‐state.Inaddition,theevidencefromliteraryandarchaeologicalsourcessuggeststhatearlyLatinsocietieswerecomprisedofgroups,whosememberswereconnectedthroughavarietyofsocial,political,economicorreligiousties.Itisextremelydifficulttodeterminemorepreciselythenatureofthesegroups,orhowtheyoperated.However,theyseemtohavefunctionedasthefundamentalinstitutionofarchaicsocieties,tothepointthattheearliestlawsseemmorefocusedonthepreservationofthesegroupsratherthanthecity‐stateasasociopoliticalentity,thoughthisisnottosaythesegoalsweremutuallyexclusive.Thereisaroleforburialinallthis.Asindicatedabove,therehavebeenanumberofstudiesindicatingthevalueofstudyingthearchaeologicalrecordofburialasevidenceforancient

2

behaviorsandsocieties.IncentralItaly,theformativepublicationisBiettiSestieri'sworkontheOsteriadell'Osacemetery,locatedwestoftheCastiglionecraterintheregionofancientGabii.2BiettiSestieriidentifiedpatternsinthespatialdistributionofthegraves,thetypesofburial,andthegravegoodsfoundinthem,andmadesomeobservationsaboutthedevelopingnatureofthecommunityintheregion.Shedocumentedthecemetery'susebytwoextendedfamilies,whoinitiallyseemedtocoexistpeacefullyundernocentralizedauthority,andtracedtheincreasinguseofthecemeterybycompetingsubgroups,likelykinship‐based,whoemphasizedtheirstatusandauthorityprimarilyinconnectiontothefamilygroup.3BiettiSestieri'sworkremainsdeeplyinfluentialforscholarsofearlycentralItaly,whichrestsonthetheoreticalpremisethatthereissomedegreeofcorrelationbetweenfunerarypracticesandsocialstructures.4Thisispost‐processualistmethodologyhasgainedasignificantamountoftractioninrecentyears,anditisgenerallyaccepted,amongacertainsetofscholars,myselfincluded,thatthestudyofburialsisusefulforreconstructingpastsocieties.5Tothatend,IofferinthisdissertationastudyoftheburialevidencefromArchaicRomeandLatium,withaviewtounderstandingthosesocialandpoliticalinstitutionsthatcontributedtothedevelopmentofandgovernedtheinteractionbetweencity‐states.Thedissertationisdividedintotwohalves,thefirst,consistingofChapters1‐3,compriseananalysisoftheliteraryevidence;Chapters5and6involveanexaminationofthearchaeologicalmaterial.Chapter2isanassessmentofthehistoricalreliabilityoftheancientsources.TheArchaicperiodisatermarchaeologistsusetodesignatethesixthandearlyfifthcenturies,andthistimecorrespondsroughlywiththehistoricalaccountsconcerningthelastthreekingsandtheearlydaysoftheRomanRepublic.Mostoftheseaccounts,however,werewrittencenturiesaftertheeventsrecordedinthem,and,asaresult,itisimportanttoconsiderhowtheancientsourcesmighthaveknownabouttheearliestphasesofRomanhistoryandwhatsourcestheyusedtoobtainthisinformation.Asitturnsout,noneoftheoriginalsourcessurvive,anditseemsthatthelaterauthorsroundedouttheiraccountswithstoriesinspiredbyGreekhistoricalnarratives.Despitethis,thereislittleagreementamongmodernhistoriansasregardshowbesttousetheancientaccounts.Manyscholarsrelyheavilyontheminordertosubstantiatethearchaeologicalmaterial.Sincemuchoftheinformationinthisdissertationdrawsfromthisrecentarchaeologicalresearch,itiscrucialtoconsiderhowtheancientaccountscontinuetoinformmodernreconstructionsofthepast.Intheend,Ideterminethatitisbesttoadoptacautiousapproachtowardtheliterarysources,andevaluaterelevantepisodesonacasebycasebasis,asnecessary.

2BiettiSestieri1992a;1992b.3Smith(2006,147‐50)critiquesoftheseconclusions.4BiettiSestieri1992b,6.5ThemostinfluentialoftheseworksincludeSaxe(1970),Binford(1971)andMorris(1987);foracritiqueofthisapproach,seeHodder(1982).

3

Chapter3examinestheliteraryevidenceforfuneraryritualinearlyRome.ItaskswhatlaterRomansthoughttheyknewabouttheburialpracticesoftheirancestors.Theevidenceispatchyandnotparticularlyinformative.Theaccountsarebrief,lackingindetailandprecision,andappeartobemorerevealingofattitudestowarddeathduringtheLateRepublicandEmpire.Asaresult,theyprovidelittleevidenceofthekindthatmightfindsupportinthearchaeologicalrecord.Theyarealsoextremelyvagueregardingthetimewhenacustomwasobserved,andnoteonlythatsomethingwas"veryancient"orpracticed"bytheancients."Insum,theancientsourcesmakethefollowingobservationsregardingthefunerarypracticesoftheirancestors:inhumationwasthepreferredrite,burialtookplaceathome,childrenwereburieddifferently,andburialtookplaceatnight.Thepaucityofinformationhereplacesspecialemphasisonthearchaeologicalmaterialasasourceofevidenceforfuneraryritual.Chapter4considerstheevidencefromthefunerarylegislationoftheTwelveTables,aseriesoflawsreportedlyenactedatRomeinthemid‐fifthcentury.Whilemostofthelawsconcernissuesrelatingtoprivatelaw,thetenthtablelistsprohibitionsagainstcertaintypesofbehavioratfunerals,andlimitsexpenditureonparticularitems.Althoughtheoriginaltextdoesnotsurvive,mostscholarsaccepttheTwelveTablesasamoreorlessvaliddocumentfromtheMiddleandLateRepublic,andItreatthedocumentaccordingly,thoughwithsomereservation.ThetenthtableseemstobelongtoaMediterranean‐widetraditionoflaw‐makinginarchaicsocieties,asitcontainsmanyallusionstoexamplesofGreekfunerarylawsthatsurviveprimarilyoninscriptions.However,thetenthtableincludesstatutesthataddressspecificallyRomanconcerns,andtheseincludetheprohibitiononintramuralburialandcremation,andthepermissiontoincludeinburialthecoronaandgolddentures.ThestatutepertainingtothegolddenturesseemsareferencetoanEtruscanpractice,whichpointstoaconsiderabledegreeofhorizontalsocialmobilityinarchaiccentralItaly.Ultimately,Iarguethat,ifthetenthtablerepresentsavaliddocument,itrevealsthatRomewasfairlyconnectedwithboththeoutsideworldandItalianinterior,andthatthefunerarylawsallowedforcommunity‐sanctionedformsofdisplay,usuallyinrelationtothefamilyofthedeceased.Chapter5isareview,synthesisandanalysisofthearchaeologicalevidenceforburialinarchaicRomeandLatium.ModernscholarshipinitiallyconsideredtheabsenceofgravesandgravegoodsanaspettooscurooftheArchaicperiod.Thearchaeologicaldiscoveriesofrecentdecades,however,haveaddedtothegrowingbodyofevidenceforburialduringthisperiod.Here,IreviewthevalidityoftheevidencefromsomeoftheearliestexcavationsinRomeinthenineteenthcentury,sincethenatureoftheaspettooscurowasdrawnfromthesedata.IthenreviewtheevidencefromallarchaeologicalsiteswithevidenceforburialduringthearchaicperiodandIcontextualizethedatawithinformationfromrelatedcontexts.Inadiscussionoftheevidence,IarguethatthereductioninthenumberofgravespointslesstotherestrictionsimposedbytheTwelveTables,andmoretoageneralrestrictioninaccesstoburialgrounds.Atthesametime,IhighlightthevarietythatcharacterizesArchaicburials.Thespatialdistribution,form,contentsandlocationofburialsvariesacrosssitesandregions,tothepointthatitisdifficulttodetectpatterns.Theevidencepointstoahighdegreeofcross‐culturalinteractionatlocalandregionallevels,andthismayfindsupportintheevidencefromChapter4.Thereseemstohavebeena

4

fairlycomplexnetworkofurbanandruralsites,whosepopulationslookedbothinwardandoutwardforsourcesofcontactandinspirationinfuneraryritual.Iconnectthevarietyintombtype,inparticular,totheevidenceformonumentalizationintheregion.Overthecourseofsixthcenturies,urbancentersandruralsitesshowincreasedevidenceforstone‐builtarchitecture;Iarguethattheadoptionandproliferationofthiskindofarchitectureextendedtothefunerarysphere.Chapter6isastudyofthearchaeologicalmaterialrecoveredfromthesiteofGabii,anancientcity‐statelocatedsome18kmeastofRome.In2009,theUniversityofMichigan,undertheauspicesoftheSoprintendenzaSpecialeperiBeniArcheologicidiRoma(hereafterSAR),launchedtheGabiiProject,alarge‐scaleexcavationofa1haportionintheurbanareaofthesite.IhavebeenexcavatingwiththeGabiiprojectsincethebeginning;andsince2011myparticipationhasfocusedonthearchaicphasesofthesite.Theevidenceunderdiscussioninthischaptercomesfromtheresultsoftheseexcavations.Here,Iexplorethedevelopmentofasmallsectorofthesiteoccupiedduringthesixthandearlyfifthcenturies.Theareaappearstohavebeenusedfirstasthesiteofanarchaicbuildingfromtheearlytolatesixthcentury.Sometimetowardtheendofthesixthcentury,thebuildingfelloutofuseandtheareawasusedasaburialground.Iinvestigatetheevidencetodeterminetherelationshipbetweenthebuildingandtheburialground,andconsiderwhooccupiedthearea,whythebuildingfelloutofuse,andwhattheencroachmentofburialsindicatesabouttheurbandevelopmentofarchaicGabii.Itentativelyconnecttheuseofthisspacetodifferentgroups,possiblyclan‐based,inordertoreconstructthenatureofearlyLatincities.IconsidertheevidenceforintramuralburialatthesiteinconnectionwithcitiesinsouthernItaly.Thissuggests,ontheonehand,thatthereexistedaculturalconnectionbetweenbothareas,and,ontheother,thatthepresenceofintramuralburialisnotjustanindicationofthecontractionandstructuraldecayofcities,butmayrevealmorecomplexprocessesofurbandevelopment,especiallyinlightofRomanexpansioninthearea.

5

2.TheAncientHistoriographicalSourcesforEarlyRomanHistory2a.IntroductionThetextualevidencefortheArchaicperiodofcentralItalyconstituteslargelyworksoftheannalisticandantiquariantraditionthatrecordtheurbanandpoliticaldevelopmentofRomefromthelaterregalperiodthroughtheearlyRepublic.Thenatureoftheseaccounts,however,ishighlyproblematic.Theywerewritteninthesecondandfirstcenturies,hundredsofyearsaftertherecordedevents,andweredrawnfromavarietyofsourcesthatnolongersurvive,includingtheworksofearlierhistoriansandannalists,inscriptions,archivaldocuments,oraltraditions,andmythologyandlegends.ThemeagernessofsuchsourceseveninantiquityandthelaterinfluenceofGreekrhetoriconhistoriographicliteraturemadeexaggerationandinventionsignificantcomponentsintheaccountsofearlyRomanhistory.Asaresult,modernscholarshavefrequentlycalledintoquestiontheroleofthesetextsinthestudyofearlyRome.6Primaryconcernsincludethereliabilityandhistoricalaccuracyoftheancientsources,sincetheextenttowhichmodernhistoriansconsidertheseaccountsdependableaffectstheirinterpretationsandreconstructionsofancienthistory. Asecondcauseforanalysisistheincreasinglyfrequentuseofthearchaeologicalevidenceasatooltoconfirmtheancientaccounts.7ThedegreetowhichtheliteratureandarchaeologyagreeremainscentraltothecurrentdebateonearlyRomanhistory.Mostscholarsrecognizetheimportanceofcombiningthehistoricalandarchaeologicalevidence,butthereremainsintensedisagreementregardingthevaluegiventoeachandthequestionstheycananswer.8Thearchaeologyandtheliteratureseemtoagree,inthatbothsourcesofferaviewofearlyRomeandLatiumthatisprosperous,populatedandsophisticated.Theproblemisthatthearchaeologicalevidenceisoftenusedonlytosubstantiatetheclaimsmadeinthetexts,ratherthanbeingconsideredasaseparatebodyofevidencethataddstoandevenchallengestheevidencefromtheliterarysources.9SearchingforagreementbetweenthearchaeologicalandliterarysourcesoverlooksthecomplexitiesandcontradictionsthatinevitablyarisewhenreconstructingearlyRomanhistory.Italsooverlooksthefactthatinterpretationofthematerialevidenceishighlycontentious,andlikewiserequirescarefulconsideration.10 ThedebateregardingtheagreementbetweenthesourcesisparticularlypertinentinscholarshipdevotedtounderstandingthedevelopmentofthehistoricalcityofRome.11IfRomeemergedasthedominantcityinLatiumbytheendofthesixthcentury,thenthere

6Raaflaub2005,1‐46;Forsythe2005;Cornell2005,47‐74;Cornell1995,1‐30;OgilvieandDrummond1989,1‐29;andOakley1997,3‐108.7Raaflaub2005,6‐9.8Smith2005,92.9Smith1996,2.10Raaflaub2005,8.11Smith2005.

6

musthaveexistedcomplexsociopoliticalinstitutionsbeforethattime.TheexistenceofsuchinstitutionsincreasesthepossibilitythattheRomanshadsomeawarenessoftheirownhistory.AhigherlevelofhistoricalawarenessincreasesthepossibilityfortheaccuratetransmissionofearlyRomanhistorythroughmyths,monuments,listsandoraltraditions.12 ThehistoriansofthemiddleandlateRepublicdocumentedwhattheybelievedwastheirdistantpast,and,consequently,anystudyinvolvingearlyRomanhistorynecessitatesacarefulevaluationoftheseaccountsandathoughtfuldiscussionofthecurrentapproachestothem.Thequestion,ultimately,askswhethertheancientsourcesonearlyRomanhistorypreserveanyelementoftruth,andwhethertheypresentafactuallyaccuratehistoryaccordingtomodernscientificstandards.Ifso,thenitisimportanttoconsiderwhatthesetruthfulelementsare,wheretheyoriginallycamefromandinwhatformtheywerefinallypreserved.Ifnot,thenitisequallyimportanttoquestionthenatureofsuchafabricatedhistory.Thisinvolvesexaminingthereasonsandmotivesforinvention,thesourcesforit,anditseffectonancientandmoderninterpretationsofhistory. Whatimmediatelyfollowsisanoverviewoftheancientsources,beginningwiththeannalistic(2b)andantiquarian(2c)traditions,whichrepresenttheRomans'earliestattemptsatwritinghistory.Thesehistoriesarelargelylostandsurviveonlyasfragmentspreservedinlatertexts.Littleisknownaboutmostauthors;precisedatesaregivenwhentheyareknown,otherwise,thefloruitdatesareprovided.ThetraditionculminatesinthefirstcenturywiththetwomostimportantaccountsofearlyRomanhistory,Livy'sAburbeconditaandDionysiusofHalicarnassus'Antiquitatesromanae(2d).AsubstantialportionofthesetextssurvivesandconstitutesthemajorityoftheliteraryevidenceforthehistoryofearlyRome.LikewisedatingtothefirstcenturyareCicero'sDerepublicaandDelegibus,andDiodorusSiculus'Bibliothecahistorica,whichcontainfragmentsrelevanttothepoliticalandconstitutionalhistoryofearlyRome.Theevidenceforthedocumentary(2e)andnon‐documentary(2fand2g)sources,whichmayhaveconstitutedtheprimarysourcesforalloftheseauthors,follows.Anassessmentofthereliabilityoftheseaccountsashistoricalsourcesensues(2h),andthechaptercloseswithadefenseoftheratherskepticalviewadoptedinthisdissertation(2g).2b.TheAnnalisticTraditionTheannalistictraditionisatermusedbymodernhistorianstodesignateacategoryofliteraryhistoriographythatrecordsthehistoryofRomeyeartoyear.Inantiquitythesetextswerecalledannalesandtheirauthorsauctoresannalium;bothtermsrefertotheannalesmaximi,achroniclemaintainedbythepontifexmaximusthatrecordedallimportanteventsyearbyyear,andfromwhichthisstyleofproseliteratureisderived.13Somedistinctioninantiquitywasmadebetweentheworksofannalistsandhistorians,

12Smith2005,91‐3.13Chassignet1996,vii‐xix.

7

namelythatannaleslookedtothepastandhistoriaeinsteadtocurrentevents.14Incontemporaryscholarship,however,thetermannalistsrefersspecificallytothoseauthorswhowroteinthisyearlyfashion,althoughitfrequentlyreferstoanyhistoriographictextbeforethetimeofSallustandCaesarinthelatefirstcentury.15 TheRomanhistoriographictraditionbeganwiththeworksofsuchannalistsaroundtheyear200B.C.E.Fromthatperioduntilthelatefirstcentury,anumberofindividualsrecordedthehistoryofRomefromthefoundationofthecity:C.Acilius,A.PostumiusAlbinus,M.PorciusCato,L.CassiusHemina,L.CalpurniusPisoFrugi,C.SemproniusTuditanus,Cn.Gellius,C.LiciniusMacer,T.PomponiusAtticus,ValeriusAntias,Q.AeliusTubero,T.LiviusofPataviumandDionysiusofHalicarnassus.DiscussionhereislimitedtothosewhowroteonRome'sregalperiod. FabiusPictorandL.CinciusAlimentusareconsideredtheearliestRomanhistorians.16BothauthorswroteinGreek,anddocumentedRome'shistoryfromthecity'smythicalpasttotheirowntime.Littleisknownabouteitherauthor,butitseemsthatPictorcomposedhishistoryaround200B.C.E.Twenty‐eightfragmentsofhisworksurviveinthetextsoflaterauthors,halfofwhichpertaintotheregalperiod.17WhileAlimentusseemstohavebeenacontemporaryofPictor,andthescaleofhishistorysimilar,fewfragmentssurvivetoinformmuchonhislifeorwork. TheconsistencybetweenthesurvivingaccountsofPictorandcontemporaryauthorssuggestthatthemajorityoftheinformationonearlyRomanhistorywasderivedfromanearlier,well‐establishedandlikelyoraltradition.18Thesimilaritybetweenthefragmentsoftheannalists,includingPictor,Alimentus,andCato,andthehistoricalpoetEnnius,supportthisconclusion.19DionysiusofHalicarnassus(1.6.2)recordsthatbothPictorandAlimentustreatedthehistoryofRome'sfoundationandthePunicWarsatlength,butdealtwithallothereventssummarily.Q.Ennius(239‐169B.C.E.),inhisnationalepicAnnales,devotesthefirstthreeofeighteenbookstotheregalperiod,andthelasttwelvetothePunicWars

14Gell.5.18.1‐2;Serv.Adverg.aen.1.373;Isid.Orig.1.41.1and1.44.4;Chassignet1996,x‐xi.AccordingtoSemproniusAsellio(Gell.5.18.8‐9),whoseopinionsarepreservedasfragmentsinGellius,annalesweresimplejournalsdocumentingtheeventsofaregionovertime,whereashistoriaeweremoreconcernedwiththecausesoftheseeventsandbroadconceptssuchasmoralityandcitizenship.Mostotherauthors,however,didnotmakethisdistinction,inparticular,Cicero(Deleg.1.6‐7).15Chassignet1996,vii‐viii.16Dion.Hal.Rom.ant.1.6.2.17ConcerningPictor,seeChassignet(1996,liv‐lxiii);Oakley(1997,22‐4);Frier(1979,227‐84);Momigliano(1990,80‐108);Forsythe(2000,1‐3);Timpe(1972);Badian(1966,2‐6).RegardingAlimentus,seeChassignet(1996,lxiii‐lxxix);Verbrugghe(1982);Badian(1966,6).18Ungern‐Sternberg1988;Oakley1997,22.19Forsythe2005,61.

8

onwards;theearlyRepublicwasdocumentedinonlytwobooks.20AccordingtoafewsurvivingfragmentsinCorneliusNepos(3.3‐4),CatotheElder(234‐149B.C.E.)wroteRome'sfirstprosehistoryinLatin,theOrigines,inwhichhetreatedtheregalperiodinthefirstofsevenbooksandthePunicWars,inthelastfour;theextenttowhichhedocumentedtheEarlyRepublicisunknownandcontroversial,butitappearstohavebeenverylittle.ThesecondandthirdbookslikelycontainedanethnographichistoryofItaly.21 L.CassiusHemina,aboutwhomverylittleisknown,wroteahistorysometimeinthesecondhalfofthesecondcentury,ofwhichfortyfragmentscurrentlysurvive.22HisworkseemstohavebeenlargelyoverlookedbylaterRomanauthors.Althoughitappearsthathewasreadbyhisimmediatesuccessors,heisunlikelytohavebeenreadbyLivy;hemayhavebeenanindirectsourceforlaterhistoriographers.Hishistorylikelyconsistedoffivebooks,thefirstofwhichseemstohavebeeninspiredbythesecondandthirdbooksofCato'sOrigines,documentingtheoriginsofvariousLatintownsandpeoples.ItalsorecordedthedestructionofTroyandthearrivalofAeneasinLatium.Hemina'ssecondbooktreatedtheregalperiodandtheEarlyandMiddleRepublic.ThefourthbookmayhavedocumentedtheSecondPunicWar,andafifththeeventsleadinguptotheauthor'spresentday,butthisishighlyspeculative.HeseemslargelytohavebeeninterestedinthemythologicalhistoryofRome,theaetiologyofcultsandotherinstitutions,andgenerallypreferredreligiousaffairstomilitaryandpoliticalones. L.CalpurniusPisoFrugi,datingtothelastquarterofthesecondcentury,adoptedasimilarframeworkinhishistory,andassignedtheeventsoftheregalperiodtothefirstofsevenoreightbooksandthoseoftheMiddleRepublictothelastfourorfive;heseemstohavebeenthefirsttodealwiththeEarlyRepublicatgreaterlength,committingtheeventsofthisperiodtothesecondandthirdbooks.Fortheseheseemstohaveadoptedastrictlyannalisticstyleofaccount;hemayhavebeenthelasttorecordhistoryinthisway.23 ItispossiblethatcontemporaryandlaterauthorsconsideredPictor'saccountdefinitiveandabovereproach,andthusneverofferedalternativeinterpretationsintheirhistories.24However,itseemsmorelikelythattheRomansofthelatethirdandearlysecondcenturiescommonlysharedandacceptedthisastheirnationalhistory.GiventhedesireoftheRomanelitetoattainpublicprestigeandrecognitionthroughthepromotionofancestralaccomplishments,itseemsunlikelythatanyearlyhistory,unlessalreadyconsideredauthoritative,wouldhavesurvivedthatperiodunchanged.Thefactthatittakesasimilarforminseveraldifferentaccountspointstoashared,unchallengedhistory.25Tracesofanoraltraditionareevidentinthelegendarynatureoftheliteraryaccounts:the

20Skutsch1985.21Forsythe2000,4‐5;Forsythe2005,61‐62;Chassignet1986;Badian1966,7‐11.22Rawson1976,690‐702;Scholz1989;Forsythe1990;Santini1995.23Forsythe2005,62;Forsythe1994;Rawson1976,702‐13;Badian1966,11‐3.24Alföldi1965.25Oakley1997,22‐3.

9

unidentifiabletoponyms,thebeliefinRome'senduringsupremacyandthemythicalqualityofthekings,towhomareattributedanumberofsociopoliticaldevelopments.26 Bytheendofthesecondcentury,thelengthyandcomprehensiveworksofGreekhistorianshadinfluencedthoseoftheRomans.Inparticular,theHistoriaeofPolybius(c.200‐188B.C.E.),whichrecordinthirty‐ninebooksRome'sriseandconquestoftheMediterraneanworldintheperiodofthePunicWars(c.246‐146B.C.E.).Booksixofthisworkreportedlyprovidedahistoryoftheregalperioddowntoabout450B.C.E.,butthisisnowlost.27Romanhistoriesofthisperiodwerelonger,moreexhaustive,andbelongedtooneoftwotypes.Thefirstcomprisedtreatmentsofindividualwars,particularlythePunicWars,andthesecond,expositionsofRomanhistoryfromitsfoundationdowntotheauthors'presentday.28TothelattergroupbelongsCn.Gellius,whowroteinthelatesecondcenturyandwhosehistorycountedatleastninety‐sevenbooks.Theregalperiodwaslikelytreatedatlength,sincethereignofRomuluswasdiscussedattheendofthesecondbookandthebeginningofthethird,whiletheeventsof389B.C.E.appearinthefifteenth;incontrast,Livydealswiththefourthcenturyinhissixthbook.HeconstitutedasignificantsourceforDionysiusofHalicarnassusandLiciniusMacer.29 Thefirstcenturywitnessedthecompositionofanumberofhistoricalaccounts,allofwhichweresourcesforLivyandDionysius.TheearliestofthesebelongedtoQ.ClaudiusQuadrigarius,who,sometimeinthefirstquarterofthecentury,wroteaRomanhistorybeginningwiththeGallicsackofRomein390B.C.E.Histreatisemarksadeparturefrom,andperhapsevenaresponseto,theGreek‐inspired,presumablyfictionalnarrativesofthepreviouscentury.AccordingtoQuadrigarius,allofRome'scityrecordsweredestroyedduringtheattackoftheGaulsandthusallaccountsofahistorypriortothateventwerequestionable.30 TheannalistsofthelateRepublic,namelyC.LiciniusMacer,ValeriusAntiasandQ.AeliusTubero,aboutwhomverylittleisknown,Livyaccusesofinventingfactsandexaggeratingnarratives(7.9.3,9.46.3,10.9.7‐13,10.11.9and3.5.12‐13).31Macer'sfragmentsontheconflictofordersoftheearlyRepublicreflecthisinterestandinvolvementinthepoliticsofhisowntime:heappearstohavebeenadevotedMarianwhosoughttooverturntheconstitutionalreformsofSulla.32ValeriusAntiaswasthemostnotoriousfabricator,wellknownforexaltingtheachievementsoftheValerianfamilyduringtheregalperiodand

26Oakley1997,23;Ungern‐Sternberg1988.SeeMomigliano(1957,104‐14)andCornell(1995,10‐2,307‐8)foradiscussionontheinfluenceofballadsonearlyRomanhistory.27Cornell1995,4.28Forsythe2005,62‐3.29Rawson1976,713‐7;Forsythe1994,163‐4,229‐32;Badian1966,11‐3.30Forsythe2005,63;Plut.Numa1.2;Chassignet2004,xxiii‐xxxviiiand14‐49.31Forsythe2005,63‐64;Wiseman1998;Ogilvie1965,7‐17;Walsh1961,110‐37;Badian1966,18‐24;Chassignet2004,l‐lxiiiand88‐103.32Ogilvie1965,7‐12.

10

earlyrepublic.33LittleisknownofTuberoexceptthatheappearstohaverevisedValeriusAntias'historyinaThucydideanmanner,whichmeanstosaythatheprojectedcurrenteventsintothepast,defendedthenobilityandusedarchaiclanguageandstyle.34 2c.TheAntiquarianTraditionAntiquarianscholarshipatRomearoseinthesecondandfirstcenturiesasaseparatebutparalleltraditiontothatofhistoriography.35RomanantiquarianswerenotconcernedwithproducingchronologicalnarrativesofthedevelopmentoftheRomanstate,butwereinsteadinterestedinthehistoryoflegal,political,militaryandreligiousinstitutions,topography,monuments,names,rituals,socialcustoms,archaictextsandlanguage.Theirkeeninterestinthemeaningandhistoryofwords,andtheterminologyofreligiousandlegaldocumentsfromearlierperiodshassuppliedagreatdealofinformationpertainingtoearlyRomanhistory.Verylittleoriginaltextsurvivesfromtheantiquarianliterature;similartothehistoriographictradition,theantiquarianaccountsexistprimarilyascitationsbylaterauthors.36 Anumberofantiquarianauthorswereactiveinthesecondcentury,includingM.FulviusNobilior,whowroteatreatiseontheRomanreligiouscalendar;FabiusMaximusServilianusandNumeriusFabiusPictor,whobothwroteonthelawofthepontifices;andJuniusGracchus,whowroteaboutRomancustomsandinstitutionsaswellasthepowersofthevariousmagistrates.L.AeliusStilo(c.150‐80B.C.E.)mainlyinvestigatedliterarytexts,grammarsandetymologies,butwrotetwocommentariesofparticularrelevancehere.ThefirstconcernedtheLegesduodecimtabularum,theLawoftheTwelveTables,whichrepresentRome'searliestattemptatwritinglawsaroundthemid‐fifthcentury.Stilo'ssecondcommentaryaddressedthearchaiclanguageofthecarmensaliare,theritualhymnoftheSalianpriests.Atticus(110‐32B.C.E.),acontemporaryandfriendofCicero,composedtheLiberannalis,abookofchronologythatdetailedRomanhistoryinasinglebookandproducedachronologythatwasadoptedbyVarro.Varro'schronology,inturn,constitutedtheofficialchronologyoftheRomanstate.37 ThemostinfluentialRomanantiquarianwasM.TerentiusVarro(116‐27B.C.E.).38HewasastudentofL.AeliusStilo,acontemporaryofCicero,andauthorofatleastfifty‐fivebooksonawidearrayofsubjects.Accordingtoonetraditionhewrote490booksandaccordingtoanotherhewrote620.Ofthefifty‐fivethatareknownasfragmentsinlatersources,only

33Ogilvie1965,12‐6;Wiseman1979,113‐39;Wiseman1998,75‐98;Walsh1961,121‐2;Chassignet2004,lxiii‐lxxvand103‐50.34Ogilvie1965,16‐7;Wiseman1979,135‐39;Chassignet2004lxxvi‐lxxxiand150‐6.35Rawson1985,233‐49.36Cornell1995,18‐26.37Forsythe2005,64‐5.FortheadiscussionoftheTwelveTables,seeChapter4.RegardingAtticus,seeMünzer(1905);Perlwitz(1992).38Cornell1995,19;Horsfall1982;Ogilvie1966,6.ConcerningDionysius'useofVarro,seeGabba(1991).

11

one,Dererustica,survivescompletely,butsixofthetwenty‐fivebooksoftheDelingualatinaarepartiallyextant.Varro'saccountswereusedwidelyinlaterancientscholarship,whichmayhaveinpartcontributedtohisdisappearancefromtheliteraryrecordbyabsorption.Itneverthelessensuredhissurvival,especiallyinthetextsofPlinytheElder,AulusGellius,Servius,Macrobius,Tertullian,Lactantius,ArnobiusandAugustine.HeappearstohaveconstitutedaprimarysourcefortheearlybooksofDionysius,butwasnotablyoverlookedbyLivy. ThelastantiquarianrelevanttoearlyRomanhistoryisValeriusFlaccus,whowroteduringtheAugustanperiodandwasacontemporaryofLivyandDionysius.39Themajorityofhisworkssurviveindirectly,asfragmentsinlaterauthors.HismostrelevantworkwastheDesignificatuverborum,akindofdictionarythatpreservedanalphabeticalarrangementofarchaicLatinwordsandphrases.Theoriginaltextnolongersurvives,butanabridgementofitwaspreservedbySextusPompeiusFestus(c.200C.E.).Approximatelyhalf(sectionsA‐L)ofFestus'manuscriptwasdestroyedbyfireinthefifteenthcenturyC.E.,butitcanbereconstructedbasedonaneighth‐centurysummaryoftheoriginalmadebyPaulusDiaconus.2d.TheNarrativeTraditionThenarrativetraditionofhistoricalwritingaroseinthelatefirstcenturyB.C.E.duetotheinfluenceofGreekhistoriographyatRome.Theseaccountspreservethechronologicalarrangementoftheannalistictradition,butexpanduponhistoricalepisodeswithavarietyoftechniquescommonlyfoundinGreekhistoriography,includingthepracticeofrhetoric,theembellishmentoffactsandthecompositionofspeeches.TheseelementsbroughttoRomanhistoriographywhatithadbeenpreviouslyaccusedoflacking,namely,apleasingstyleanddramaticeffect. ThehistorywrittenbyTitusLivius(59B.C.E.‐17C.E.),Aburbecondita,constitutesthemostsignificantandinfluentialsourceofearlyRomanhistory.LivywasbornatPatavium(modernPadovaorPadua)anddoesnotappeartohavehadapoliticalormilitarycareer;althoughhemayhavebeenarhetorician,heisknownprimarilyasawriterofRomanhistory.40Livyprobablybeganwritinghishistoryaround30B.C.E.andcontinuedupuntilhisdeath.41Theworkcounted142booksthatbeganwiththefoundationofRomeandendedwiththeeventsoftheyear9B.C.E.Onlythirty‐fiveofthesebooksareextant,books1‐10and21‐45,butabridgedversionsfromlatercenturiesprovidesummariesofallthebooks.Thebookswerearrangedintogroupsoffive(pentads)orten(decades)andmayhavebeenpublishedinsetsoffiveortenbooks.ThefirsttentreatRomanhistoryupto293B.C.E.andbooks21‐45describetheyears218‐167B.C.E.Ofthefirsttenthatnarrateearly

39Cornell1995,20‐21;Forsythe2005,65.40AccordingtoForsythe(2005,66),allusionstoLivyintheworksofSenecatheElder(Controv.9.1.14;9.2.26;10.praef.2)andQuintilian(1.5.56;1.7.24;2.5.20;8.1.3;8.2.18;10.1.39;10.1.101)suggestthathewastrainedinrhetoric.41Walsh1961;Luce1977;Ogilvie1965;Oakley1997.

12

Romanhistory,thefirstdocumentstheregalperiod,thefollowingfourtheEarlyRepublicuptotheGallicsackofRome,andthelastfivecontinueuptotheThirdSamniteWar. Livymaybeconsideredanannalist,whosegoalwastoarrangewithinaliteraryframeworkbelievablefactsregardingthehistoryofRomethatweredrawnfromearliersources.42Hedidnotconductoriginalresearch,butcompared,expandedandcompiledaccountsfromearliersources,largelywithoutcriticismorjudgmentandwithdramaticeffect.BasedonstructuralandverbalsimilaritiesbetweenLivy'snarrativeandthatofhispredecessors,itseemsthathewrotewithopenscrollsofthesesourcesnexttohim.Heseemsnottohavebeeninterestedincommunicatingaccuratehistoricaldetail,sinceheisoftenguiltyofmistranslatingGreektexts,reproducingfactualerrorsandconfusingsources.Hewasinsteadconcernedwithmoralandpatrioticthemes,whichheexploredthroughthespeeches,attitudes,motivesandreactionsofprominentindividualswheninvolvedindifficultsituations.Livyattributedthesuccessesandfailuresofthesefigurestotheirmoralattributesorfailings.ThevalueofhistoryforLivylayinitsabilitytoprovidegoodmodelsofbehaviortofollowandbadonestoavoid.Thiswasoftenattheexpenseofhistoricalaccuracy,however.ConcerningRome'searlyhistory,Livybelievedthattherewaslittlefactualinformation(6.1.2)andhetreatedtheeventsfromthisperiodwithtechniquesofrhetoricaltraininginorderthattheyseemplausible,ifnotverifiable. TheAntiquitatesromanaeofDionysiusofHalicarnassus,writteninthelatefirstcenturyB.C.E.toearlyfirstcenturyC.E.,constituteasecondnarrativesourceontheearlyhistoryofRome.43DionysiuswasaGreekcontemporaryofLivy,whoarrivedatRomein30B.C.E.andtaughtrhetoricthereduringtheAugustanperiod.HisworkwasanaccountofRomanhistoryfromitsorigindownto264B.C.E.andwasintendedforaGreekaudience.Completedby7B.C.E.,thetextoriginallyconsistedoftwentybooks;elevencompletebooksareextant,dealingwitheventsuptothemid‐fifthcentury,andpartsoftheremainingninesurviveasexcerptsfromlaterwriters.Dionysius'historyismoredetailedandrhetoricalthanLivy's.Dionysius'firstbooktreatedtheoriginsofsettlementinItaly,thenextthreeconcernedthekings,andthefollowingeightdealtwiththefirstsixtyyearsoftherepublic,whereasLivyrecordedtheseeventsinfivebooks.OneconsequenceisthatDionysius'historyincludesmoreinformationonRomancustomsandinstitutions,theparticularsofwhichLivyoftenoverlooksbecauseofhisRomanaudience'sfamiliaritywithsuchmatters.AlthoughitisuncertainwhetherLivyandDionysiuswerefamiliarorsaweachother's

42Walsh(1961and1974)discussLivyandhishistory.Dorey(1971)presentscollectionsofessaysonLivianscholarship.Ogilvie(1965)offersacommentaryonthefirstfivebooks.Oakley(1997)includesacommentaryonbooksixaswellasancomprehensiveanalysisofLivy,hiswork,styleandsources.Luce(1977139‐297)discussesLivy'streatmentofearliersources.Forsythe(1999)presentsLivy'shistoricalmethods.Ridley(1983)documentsLivy'sattitudetowardsthestruggleoftheorders.Wiseman(1981)andWoodman(1988)discussplausiblereconstructioninancienthistoriography.43Gabba1991;Sacks1983;andFox1996,49‐95.

13

work,theyusedthesameannalisticsourcesandsothereisafairamountofagreementbetweenbothaccounts. M.TulliusCicero(106‐43B.C.E.),themostprominentRomanoratorandstatesman,composedanumberofphilosophicalandrhetoricaltreatisesthatcontainreferencestoearlyRomanhistory.ThemostrelevantoftheseworkstostudiesofearlyRomeareDerepublicaandDelegibus,bothofwhichweremodeledafterPlato'sTheRepublicandTheLaws.Derepublicaconstitutesaworkconcerningpoliticalandconstitutionaltheory,inwhichCicerorecordsanearlyhistoryofRomefromthekingstothemiddleofthefifthcentury.Delegibusisanessayaboutthelawsanidealstateshouldhave,andpreservesfragmentsofthelawsoftheTwelveTables,Rome'searliestlegislation. DiodoruswasaGreekwriterwhocomposedahistoryoftheancientworldfromitsmythicaloriginsdownto60B.C.E.Heseemstohavewrittenthisworkfrom60to30B.C.E.44Originallycomprisedoffortybooks,onlybooks1‐5and11‐20survive;thefirstfivedetailtheeventsofthefifthandfourthcenturiesandthelattersetnarratetheperiodfrom486to302B.C.E.Diodorus,however,wasprimarilyinterestedinGreekandPersianactivitiesintheMediterraneanandthusconfinesRomanhistorytoafewnarrativeepisodesandalistofRomanmagistrates.ThislistprovidesthenamesofRomanmagistratesduringRome'searlyhistory,inwhichthereareomissionsandmistakesmadebyDiodorusorlatercopyists.45Inadditiontothese,thereexistsignificantdifferencesbetweenDiodorus'listofmagistratesandthoseofLivy,DionysiusandtheFasticapitolini,whichhascalledintoquestionthenatureofDiodorus'sources.462e.TheAncientDocumentarySourcesThesurvivingaccountsofearlyRomanhistorypossessabasicframeworkthatconsistsofthefollowing:namesofannualmagistrates,militaryengagements,triumphs,treaties,alliances,expansionofRomanterritory,grantsofcitizenship,legislation,constructionoftemplesandotherpublicbuildings,plagues,foodshortages,deathsofpriestsandavarietyofunusualoccurrences,suchaseclipsesandmonstrousbirths,thattheRomansviewedaseventswithreligioussignificance.Itisgenerallyacceptedthatthistypeofinformationwasdrawnfromstatedocuments,sincepreservationofsuchdetailsthroughtheoraltraditionisunlikely.Theonlyknownexamplesofsuchrecords,however,aretheAnnalesmaximi,pontificalchronicles,whichdonotsurviveintheiroriginalform,butarediscussedintheworksoflaterauthors.Thus,questionsconcerningtheexistence,reliability,information,publication,useandfalsificationoftheserecordshavedominatedmodernscholarship.47

44Forsythe2005,68‐9.45Drummond1980.46Sacks1990.47Thebibliographyonthissubjectisextensive.ForanoverviewofearlymodernscholarshipontheAnnalesmaximi,seeFrier(1979,10‐26).Foranoverviewofthedebateonthenatureofthechronicles,seeCrake1940;Bauman1983,290‐8;Forsythe1994,53‐71;Bucher1995;Forsythe2000,6‐8;Oakley1997,24‐27.

14

Thereareonlythreereferencestothepontificalchronicles:Cato(fr.77),Cicero(deor.2.52‐53)andServius(auct.Virg.Aen.i.373).AlloftheseaccountsrelatethattheAnnalesmaximiwererecordsmadebythepontifexmaximus,yearbyyear,ofimportantpublicmatters.Cato,whommodernscholarsconsidermostreliable,statesthatsuchmattersincludedfaminesandeclipses;Servius,whosetestimonyisconsideredlessreliablebutnonethelessplausible,statesthatthetableslistthenamesofconsulsandothermagistrates,aswellasallnotabledomesticandmilitaryaffairs.Thus,itseemsthatthetablesdocumentedsignificantpolitical,religiousandmilitaryevents. NearlyeverythingelseaboutthenatureoftheAnnalesmaximiiscontentious.Keyissuesconcernthemethodoftheircompositionandpublication,thedateswhentheywerefirstandlastrecorded,andtheirusebyRomanannalistsandhistorians.Theancientsourcesagreethatthenoticeswererecordedannuallyonaboard,butmodernhistoriansargueabouthowthisboardwasdisplayedtothepublicandmaintainedbythepontiffs.Cicerorefersalternatelytoawhitenedboard,album,onwhichthechiefpontiffwrotenoticesandatablet,tabulam,thathethenplacedinfrontofhishouseforanyonetoread;Serviusreferstoawhitenedtablet,tabulamdealbatam,andaddsthattheancientsfilledeightybookswithsuchnotices.Cicero'salbumandtabulamlikelyrefertothesameobject,awhitenedboard,butBucherinterpretsthemasseparateobjects,thewhitenednoticeboardandabronzetablet.Inhisview,thecontentsofthewhitetabletswerelatertranscribedontomorepermanentbronze.48 Atpreciselywhichpointthetablet,whateveritsmaterial,wentondisplayandforhowlongisunknown.CatoandCicerostatethatthetabletwassetupinfrontofthechiefpontiff'shouse,inwhichcase,itmayhavebeendisplayedbeforetheRegia.Forwhatduration,however,isunclear.Itispossiblethateitherattheendofeachyearthecontentsofthetabulaweretransferredtoamorepermanentrecord,orthechiefpontiffkeptamoredetailedrecordofeventsinbookform,someofwhichwascopiedontoatabletandsetupinpublic.49ManymodernhistoriansattributethecompilationofpontificalrecordsintoeightybookstoP.MuciusScaevolainthelatesecondcentury,butthisiserroneous,sinceCicerostatesonlythatScaevoladiscontinuedtheannualrecord.50

48Bucher1995.Forsythe(2005,70‐1)believesBucherhasmisreadtheCiceroandascribesthevariationinterminologytoCicero'sdesiretoavoidrepetitionofthesameword.49Cornell1995,14.This,asopposedtothepontiffskeepingstacksoftabulaeintheRegia,asaccordingtoCrake(1940).Oakley(1997,25)believesthecontentsofthetabletswerewritteninachronicleatanearlydate.50Walsh(1961,110)andBadian(1966,15)conflatethetextsofCiceroandServiuswhenclaimingthatScaevolafirstestablishedaneightybookchronicle.Frier(1979,27‐67and192‐200)proposedthatScaevolaonlystoppedpostinganannualnoticeboardandthatVerriusFlaccuspublishedtheeightybooksintheAugustanperiod.Forsythe(1994,53‐71;2000,192‐200)refutesthisview,arguingthatinterestinRomanantiquitygrewinthelatesecondcenturyasaresponsetoincreasingGreekinfluence.ForanoverviewofScaevola'spurportedroleintheAnnalesmaximi,seeBauman(1983,290‐98).

15

TheextenttowhichtheannalisticandnarrativeauthorsconsultedtheAnnalesmaximiislargelyunresolved.CiceroimpliesthatthechroniclesconstitutedasourcefortheearliestRomanannalists,buthislanguageisadmittedlyunclear.51Hestatesthatmanyauthors,wholeftbehindbasicrecordsofdates,people,placesandaccomplishments,followedthestyleofwritingoftheannales;hedoesnotmakeexplicittheannalists'useofthechroniclesasasourceofinformation.Thismayinsteaddemonstratethattheannalistictraditionofwritinghistorywasderivedfromthisparticularmethodofrecordkeeping.If,asForsythebelieves,theannalisticmethodofhistoriographygainedpopularityintheearlysecondcenturyasareactiontoGreekculturalinfluence,thentheAnnalesmaximimayhavebeenasuitabletemplate.52However,itisunclearwhetherthechronicleswerereadilyavailabletotheannalists,andifso,howmuchinformationfromtheearlierperiodssurvived.CicerostatesthatthechronicleswerekeptfromthebeginningofRomanaffairsuntilthetimeofP.MuciusScaevola(130‐115B.C.E.),butitislikelythoserecordsfromthefifthandfourthcenturywerenotwellpreserveddespitecontinuousrecopying.53Moreover,themajorityofRome'searlyhistoricalrecordsmayhavebeendestroyedintheGallicsackof390B.C.E. ThenarrativeaccountsofLivyandDionysiusdonotmakeexplicittheuseofanyarchivalsources,buttheydocontainthekindsofinformationthatmodernhistorianspresumetohavecomefromtheAnnalesmaximi.Thisincludesthelistofannuallyelectedconsuls,militaryvictoriesandlosses,plagues,faminesandprodigies.However,thistypeofinformationconstitutesasmallportionofbothhistoriesandatbestprovidesaframeworkfromwhichtheauthorsconstructedanarrative.ItislikewisepossiblethatLivyandDionysiusreliedinsteadupontheearlierannalisticaccounts.Whatismore,theAnnalesmaximimayhavecontainedlittlehistoricaldetail.ThesurvivingfragmentsoftheworksonpontificallawbyN.FabiusPictorandFabiusMaximusServilianus,whichForsythebelievescloselyresembledtheAnnalesmaximi,containmostlyreferencestoreligiouscustoms.54Hearguesthatitwastheannalistswhocompiledtherelevanthistoricalinformationfromtheannalesandtherewasconsequentlynoneedforsubsequenthistorianstoconsultdirectlythechronicles.55Asaresult,theremayhavebeennoneedforeitherLivyorDionysiustoconsulttheAnnalesmaximiatall;itmaynothavebeenasubjectofconsideration.56

51Frier(1979,21)statesthatthepreciserelationshipbetweenthechroniclesandannalistsisunclear.SeealsoRawson(1971),Drews(1988)andForsythe(1994,53‐71)fortheirusebyhistorians.52Forsythe1994,53‐71.53Forsythe2005,71.Crake(1940,382)believesthattheAnnalesmaximiwerekeptandmaintainedcontinuouslyfrom400B.C.E.tothetimeofP.MuciusScaevola.54Forsythe2005,71‐2.55Forsythe2005,72.56Rawson1971;Ogilvie(1965,6),doesnotbelievethatLivyconsultedthechronicles,althoughhesuspectsthatanumberoftabulaesurvivedfromtheperiod509‐390B.C.E.Hemaintainsthatthesetabletscontainedmorediversematerialthanisconventionallythought,andbelievesthattheirpublicationrepresentsnotanimaginativefabricationofearlyhistory,butanattempttoreconcilevariegatedanddisparatefragmentsintoacontinuousnarrative.

16

Anothersourceofdocumentarydatafortheancientsourcesappearstohavebeentheinscribedtextsoftreatiesandlaws.Thereisnomaterialevidencesupportingtheirexistencetoday,buttheyseemtohaveexistedatthetimehistoricalauthorswerewriting.DionysiusnotesthatthetreatybetweenRomeandGabii,concludedduringthereignofTarquiniusSuperbusandinscribedonanox‐hideshield,waspreservedinthetempleofDiusFidiusontheQuirinal(4.58.4).CiceronotesthattheCassianTreatywiththeLatinsof493B.C.E.existedasaninscriptionintheForum(ProBalbo53).PolybiususedthetextsofthreetreatiesbetweenCarthageandRometoreconstructthehistoryofthesetwostates.DionysiuswritesthatthesacredlawsofServiusTulliuspertainingtothecultofAventineDianawerepreservedinhisdayasanarchaicinscriptiononabronzetablet(4.26).Thesurvivalofsuchdocumentsintothemodernperiodisunlikely.Bronzeandstoneareoftenreusedinantiquity,whileparchment,linenandwoodarehighlyperishableinarchaeologicalcontexts. ThereexistsasinglearchaicLatininscriptionthatshedslightonboththehistoryoftheperiodandtheapproachesancienthistoriansmighthavetakenwithevidenceofthiskind.BeneathablackmarblepavementintheForumatRome,theso‐calledlapisniger,layatwofoottallblockinscribedwitharchaicLatinonitsfoursides,theso‐calledcippus.57Thestyleofthelettersdatesthetexttoapproximately500B.C.E.,thoughthemeaningofthetextisuncertain.Modernscholarsgenerallyagreeonthedefinitionoffourwords:sakros(sacredoraccursed),recei(king,whethertheRomankingortherexsacrorumoftherepublic),kalatorem(herald),andiouxmenta(wagons).Interpretationoftheinscriptionislargelyconjecture,butseemstohavesomereligioussignificance,giventhelanguageoutlinedaboveandthestone'sdiscoveryinthesamearchaeologicalcontextasanaltarandacolumn.58 Ancienthistoriansandantiquarians,however,interpretedthecippusasagravestonemarkingtheburialofoneofthreefiguresconnectedwiththereignofRomulus:Faustulus,theshepherdwhoraisedRomulusandRemus(Dion.Hal.1.87.2);HostusHostilius,thegrandfatherofkingTullusHostilius(Dion.Hal.3.1.2);orRomulushimself(Festus184L).Itseemsthattheancientauthorsdrewtheirinformationnotfromtheinscription,butoral

57Regardingthecippusandthelapisniger,seeNTDAR267‐8;LTUR2.321,4.295‐296;ADRA2.3.1‐2.5.ForthedevelopmentoftheRomanforumingeneral,seeLTUR2.313‐336;ADRA2.1‐2.11.Theslabsofthelapisnigerwerenotfoundintheiroriginalposition.TheywerefirstplacedinapavingrestingonalatesecondcenturyBCEfillandlaterraisedandresetfortheImperialpavement.Inthisfinalpositionthelapisnigerdidnotcoverfullythearchaicmonumentsbeneathit.Holloway(1994,81‐8)describesindetailthestratigraphyofthearchaicforum.58Bonidiscoveredthecippusin1899.TheinscriptionwasoriginallyseenasconfirmingtheexistenceofamonarchyatRome,seeMomigliano(1975,294‐5),Lanciani(1901,1‐30),andPais(1906,15‐42).Palmer(1969)interpretsthetextasasacredlawprotectingtheareafrompollution,whileDumézil(1979,259‐93)viewsitasareligiousregulationconcerningtheprocessionoftherexsacrorumalongtheSacraVia.Coarelli(1983,161‐99)connectsthestonetotheVolcanal,ashrineofVulcan.

17

traditionandpersonalimagination.Inthefirstplace,therepavingoftheRomanforuminabout80B.C.E.buriedboththecippusandthelapisniger,renderingthesemonumentsinvisibletolaterwriters.Second,despitedisagreementoverthefunctionofthecippusandthesignificanceofitstextinmodernscholarship,onefactonwhichscholarsagreeisthatitwasnottheburialmarkerthattheancientsourcespurported.59ThevariancebetweenmodernandancientinterpretationsofthisinscriptionbringstotheforegroundthequestionofthereliabilityoftheancientsourcesandcastsdoubtontheabilityoftheancientsourcestointerpretsuchaspectsofRome'searlyhistory. Modernscholarspresumetheexistenceofotherdocumentaryarchivesfromwhichtheannalistsandlaterhistoriansdrewtheirmaterial.Thepriestlycolleges,curiae,andplebeianslikelymaintainedtheirownrecords,andthetempleofSaturn,TreasuryofAedilesontheCapitolandtheAtriumLibertatisallegedlyhousedavarietyofstatedocuments.60TheFasti,whichrecordthelistofannuallyelectedconsulsfromthelatesixthcenturyonwards,appearinanumberofancientsourceswithlittlevariation.61Modernhistoriansviewsuchagreementasareasontotrustintheveracityoftheseaccounts.62Thelist,however,ismoredetailedaftertheyear300B.C.E.thanforthelatesixthandearlyfifthcenturies;theunreliabilityordecayofinformationfromtheEarlyRepublicmayaccountforitsgeneralabsencefromthisrecord.63 AnotherimportantsourceofdocumentaryevidenceisthelegislationoftheTwelveTables,asetoflawspurportedlypromulgatedbytheDecemvirateinthemid‐fifthcenturytoeasetheheightenedtensionbetweenthesenatorialandplebeianclassesatRome.64ThesesurviveasfragmentsinCicero'sDelegibus,butwereoriginallyengravedonbronzetabletsanddisplayedinpublic.Theprovisionsconsistprimarilyofinstructionsandprohibitionsintheareasofmarriage,divorce,inheritance,ownership,property,debtandslavery.Inaddition,theycontainedprovisionsoncertainjudicialandreligiousprocedures.Belongingtothiscategoryaretheprovisionsofthetenthtable,whichaddressproperfuneraryrites

59LTUR4.295‐296.AccordingtoHolloway(1994,82),thecippusmayhavebeenvisibledowntotheendoftheRepublicandcouldbetheinscribedstonedescribedbyDionysiusofHalicarnassusasthetombofHostilius.Currently,thelapisnigerstandsattheleveloftheCaesareanpavementoftheComitium,butprobablybelongstoanearlierpavingoftheforumintheearlyfirstcenturyB.C.E.60Rawson1985,238‐9.61ThesurvivingportionofthislistisfoundintheCapitolineMuseumandthusisoftenreferredtoastheFastiCapitolini.TheinscriptionwascommissionedduringthereignofAugustus(31B.C.E.to14C.E.)andupdateduntil13C.E.62Frier1975,83‐5;Cornell(1995,399‐401)discussesbrieflythediscrepanciesbetweentheseveralversionsoftheFastiandtheirimplicationsofourunderstandingoftraditionalRomanchronology.63Oakley1997,39‐40.64Forsythe2005,201‐3;Cornell1995,272‐92;Crawford1996,555‐721.Ungern‐Sternberg2005;Toher2005;Eder2005.

18

andexpenses.65Chapter4presentsacarefulconsiderationofthestatutesallegedlyrecordedonthetenthtable. Nearlyeveryaspectofthetablesiscontroversial,particularlythehistoricityandtransmissionofthelaws.Thehistoricalnarrativepertainingtotheenactmentofthelawsiswellestablished,althoughprobablyuntrue.BothLivy(3.33‐55)andDionysiusofHalicarnassus(10.56‐11.44)relatethestoryofhowtheRomanschargedaDecemviratewiththedevelopmentoflawsthatwouldaddressthegrievancesoftheplebeiansregardingthesupremacyofthepatricians.TheDecemviratedraftedtentablesoflaws,which,followingamendment,wereratifiedbythecomitiacenturiataandpublishedonbronzetablets;twoadditionaltableswereaddedlater.Althoughmuchofthestoryconcerningthepromulgationofthetablesisdenouncedasafictionalnarrativeoftheearlyfirstcentury,mostscholarsaccepttheexistenceandauthenticityofthelaws.66Cornellhasdemonstratedthattheformulationoflawwaspossibleinfifth‐centuryRome,67andothershavenotedthesimilarityinlanguageandcontentbetweenthetablesandotherexamplesofearlylaw.68 MostoftheprovisionsinthelawswereconsideredobsoletebyCicero'sday,butremainedsignificantbecauseoftheinfluentialroletheyplayedintheformulationoflawinlaterperiods.Thelawsweretheobjectofsustainedvenerationandcommentarythroughoutantiquity.69Ciceronotesthatboyswererequiredtomemorizethelawsinschool(Deleg.2.9and2.59),andtheworksofRomanjuristsarerepletewithreferencestotheTwelveTables,particularlythesixth‐centuryC.E.DigestofJustinian.Itisclearthattheprovisionswerenotalwaysunderstood,however,anditislikelythatsomemodernizationoccurredovertime.Nevertheless,theuniformityofthefragmentsastheyappearinlateraccountsandthesurvivalofarchaicformsoflanguageinthetextsuggestthattheancientsourcesrecordedtheprovisionsoftheTwelveTablesastheywereknowninthemiddleandlateRepublic.70 Familyrecordsandtraditionsconstituteanotherpossiblesourceusefultotheannalists.RepublicanRomewasacompetitiveenvironmentinwhicharistocraticRomanfamilies

65Cic.Deleg.2.58‐69.66Ungern‐Sternberg2005;Smith2006;Cornell1995.Crawford(1996,555‐721)providesthemostrecentandcomprehensiveanalysisofthetext.67Cornell(1991),arguesthatliteracyatRomewasmorewidespreadintheArchaicperiodthanpreviouslythought.68Ogilvie1965,452;Cornell1995,279.Crawford(1996,556)notesthesimiliaritiesinlanguagebetweenthepreservedfragmentsoftheTwelveTablesandtheLexOscaTabulaeBantinae,whichlikelyrecordsthecharterofaLatincolonyc.300.HeconsidersthisevidencetosupportareconstructionoftheTwelveTables.69Cic.Deor.1.195;Cic.Deleg.2.9,1.18;Livy3.34.6.Crawford(1996,569‐70)notesthatbythetimeofCicero'sfloruit,theTwelveTableshaddiminishedinimportance.Thereafter,referencestothelawsoccurprimarilyinantiquarianandjuristicsources.Moreoftenthannot,thesereferencesattestreverenceratherthansomespecificknowledge.70Crawford1996.

19

soughttomaintainandjustifytheirstatus,andtheexpositionofancestralachievementswasacentralmeansofachievingthisend.Thispreoccupationismanifestinaristocraticfuneraryritual,wheretheaccomplishmentsofthedeceasedwerecelebratedandtheimaginesofancestorsdisplayedandpraisedinthelaudatiofunebris.71ItseemsthatbytheLateRepublictheimaginesweredisplayedintheatriumandlinkedtogethertoformasortoffamilytree.72ThissuggeststhattheRomannobilitykeptsomekindofrecordsregardingitsancestry.TheconnectionbetweenthefuneraryritualandancestralrecordissupportedbyGellius,whowritesthatheobtainedinformationonCatoboththroughthelaudationesfunebresandacommentariumonhisfamily.73DionysiusofHalicarnassusdiscussesthearchivesofsenatorialfamilies(1.74.5),andthroughCicero,itappearsthatAtticusaccessedfamilyarchivestowritehistoriesoftheJunii,ClaudiiMarcelli,FabiiandAemilii(Att.12.20.2,22.2,24.2). Itisdifficulttoassesstheimpactofindividualfamilyhistoriesonancienthistoriography.ThereareonlytwoexplicitreferencestotheseinCicero(Brut.62)andLivy(8.40.4‐5).Bothnotehowthefalseclaimsofdescentmadeinfuneraryeulogiesmanipulatedthehistoricalrecord.ThelaterepublicanannalistValeriusAntiasnotoriouslyusedhistextasaplatformfortheaggrandizementoftheValerianfamily,buttowhatextentthiswasbasedonfamilyarchives,asopposedtoinvention,isuncertain.TheprominenceoftheFabiiatnumerouspointsinRomanhistorysuggestthatFabiusPictor,Rome'searliesthistorian,drewsomeofhisinformationfromFabianfamilyrecords.74However,thereisnoclearindicationwhethersuchclaimswereacceptedtothepointthattheydistortedthehistoricalrecord.BothCicero(Brut.62)andLivy(8.40.3‐5)recognizedthatlaudationesfunebresoftenpervertedthetruthabouttheachievementsofthedeceased.Competingfamilieswerelikelytochallengethefalseclaimsoftheirrivals,oftenappropriatingdistinctionsforthemselves.Inorderforexaggerationofthiskindtoenterthehistoriographictradition,theannalists,whowerethemselvesfromnoblefamilies,wouldhavehadtoaccepttheseclaimsasfacts.Itispossiblethatsomeofthevariationsinthemagistratelistsareduetothefalseclaimsoffamilies.However,theireffectonthehistoricalrecordoftheRepublicisprobablyminimal:thechangesmadeinfamilyrecordswerelikelytoascribeachievementstoindividualsratherthanchangetheoverallnarrativeofhistoricalevents.75Theseexamples,althoughtheyillustratetheinherentunreliabilityoffamilyrecords,reveallessabouttheirusefulnessforannalistsandmoreaboutthefiercelycompetitivenatureoftheRomanaristocracyinthelateRepublic,andtheappropriationofgenealogies,titlesandachievementsbyindividualfamilies.76

71Polybius6.53.8‐54.2;concerningtheroleoflaudationesfunebresintheoraltradition,seebelow,pp.22.72Plin.Nat.Hist.35.6‐7.73Gellius12.20.17.74Oakley1997,29‐30.75Oakley1997,30‐1.76Wiseman1974.

20

2f.TheOralTraditionOraltraditionlikelyinformedmuchofearlyRomanhistory,especiallythoseepisodespertainingtothefoundationofthecityandsubsequentregalperiod.Thisassessmentrestsonthreepoints.First,nodocumentaryevidencesurvivesfromthisperiod.Second,theeventsandpersonalitiesbelongingtothistimepredatebycenturiestheearliestRomanliterature.Third,thesesamenarrativesappeartohavebeeninfluencedbyGreek,EtruscanandNearEasternfolktalesandmythologicaltraditions.Nonetheless,itremainsimportanttoexaminethehistoricalvalueoftheseoraltraditions,todeterminewhethertheypreservealegitimateRomantraditionoraretheproductsoffabricationandforeigninfluence.Itislikewisecrucialtoquestionhowtheyenteredtheliteraryrecordandinwhatform. ThefragmentsofFabiusPictorillustratethatbythesecondcenturytheaccountofearlyRomanhistoryfromitsoriginstothefoundationoftheRepublicwaswellestablished.77TheseaccountsrelateAeneas'arrivalinItalyfromTroy,theruleoftheAlbankings,thebirthofRomulusandRemus,therapeoftheSabinewomen,thedeceitofTarpeia,ServiusTullius'tribalorganization,theTarquinconstructionoftheCapitolinetempleandtherapeofLucretia.ThisaccountappearstohavebeenwidelyacceptedbyPictor'sliterarycontemporariesanddescendants,sincethereislittledisagreementintheancientsourcesabouttheeventsfromthisperiod. Anumberoftheseepisodes,however,areconglomerationsofRomanandGreekfolktalesandtraditions.78Thebirth,exposureandsurvivalofthetwinsRomulusandRemusisaRomanadaptationofalegendcommonintheNearEastandGreeceinwhichheroicindividualsareexposedasinfants,thensavedandraisedtoadulthood.79ThetreacheryofTarpeiaisaRomanversionofaGreekfolktaleinwhichayoungwomanfromatownatwarfallsinlovewithamemberoftheenemy,betrayshercity,andiscommittedtodeathforhertreason.80TherapeofLucretiabySextusTarquinius,thesonofthelastRomanking,mayevenbeaRomanversionoftheloveaffairthatbroughtabouttheexpulsionofthePeisistratidtyrannyatAthensandthesubsequentinstitutionofCleisthenicdemocracy.81 TowhatextenttheseaccountspreserveelementsofgenuineRomantraditionisuncertain.Theonlysolutionmodernscholarsagreeuponistostudyeachindividualstoryanditsvariants.Evenlesscertainandlargelyimpossibletodetermineisthehistoricityofthesestories;themajorityarelikelyunhistorical.82Inmostcasesthereissimplynoevidenceto

77Ungern‐Sternberg1988;Timpe1988;Wiseman1989;Poucet1985,65‐70;Harris1990,496.78Ungern‐Sternberg(1988)andTimpe(1988)offerafulldiscussiononthesubject.79Cornell1975.80Livy1.11;Plut.Vit.Rom.17;Poucet1985,227‐232;Dumézil1949,279‐287.81Forsythe2005,77;Ogilvie1965,194‐6.CompareLivy'sstoryoftherapeofLucretiaandexpulsionoftheTarquins(1.57.6‐1.60.4)withaccountsoftheexpulsionofthePeisistratidsatAthensinThucydides(6.54‐6.59)andAristotle(Ath.pol.18‐20).82Wiseman1989;Cornell1995,11;Ungern‐Sternberg1988.

21

confirmordeny,andgiventhepermeationofelementsofmythandlegendintheaccountsearlyRomanhistory,itisbesttobeskepticalaboutanyhistoricalclaims.83 AtwhatpointtheseaccountsenteredtheRomanoraltraditionandhowtheychangedovertimeuptothepointwhentheyenteredtheliterarytraditionishighlycontentious.Thereis,admittedly,nosimplewaytodeterminewhetherthestoriesrecordedinPictorwerethesameonesasweretoldinthefifthcenturyorthecreationsofalaterauthor.84Infact,itisunlikelythatthestoriestoldinthefifthcenturywerethesameasthosetoldsubsequently,sinceoraltransmissionregularlyomitsdetailsnotrelevanttothepresentsocialcontext.Thisissueiscompounded,however,byadistinctlackofmodernscholarshipregardingtheoraltransmissionofhistoryatRome,whichisperhapssurprisinggiventheenergydevotedtothesamesubjectinGreekhistory.85 TheonlyevidencefortheoraltransmissionoftraditionatRomearereferencestodramaticperformancesheldatannualfestivalsandthepoetrysungatbanquets.86Fromthemiddleofthethirdcenturyonwards,RomanplaywrightswerewritingandproducingplaysinformalRomandressthatdramatizedcontemporaryandpastevents(fabulaepraetextae).Inalargelyilliteratesociety,theseplayswereinstrumentalinthedevelopmentofRomanhistoricaltraditions.Theywouldhaveserved,inadditiontothemanytriumphs,templededications,funeralsandfestivals,asvisualandaudiblemeansofreworking,reinterpretingandcommunicatingancienttraditions.AlthoughtheearliestliteraryplaysdatetotheRepublicanperiod,itispossiblethatdramaticperformanceswereinstitutedatfestivalsinthefifthandfourthcenturies.TheannualRomanandplebeiangames(ludiRomaniandplebeii)werecelebratedasearlyasthefifthcenturyB.C.E.,anditispossiblethatplayswereenacted(ifnotwritten)thisearly,anddevelopedintoformalwrittenhistoricaldramasbythethirdcentury.87 AlessconvincingandlargelydismissedtheoryclaimsthatthelaterRomanliterarytraditionregardingtheregalperiodwasderivedprimarilyfromballadssungatbanquets.FirstproposedintheseventeenthcenturyC.E.byDutchscholarPerizonius,theideawaselaboratedandpromulgatedintheearlynineteenthbytheGermanscholarNiebuhr.88Niebuhrarguedthatthehistoricalepisodesoftheregalperiodsurvivedindistorted

83Raaflaub2005;Forsythe2005.84Finley(1986,16‐8)considersitimpossibletoevaluatetheoraltraditionsincethereisnothinginwritingtowhichitcanbecompared.85Wiseman(1989)statesthatthisabsenceisevenmoresurprising,giventhefactthattherecordingofHomer'sIliadandtheOdysseyoccurredsimultaneouslywiththeappearanceofGreeksandGreekwritinginItaly.86Wiseman1994,1‐22.87Szemerényi(1975,307‐19)addsthatanumberoftechnicalwordsreferringtotheaterwereborrowedfromEtruscan,afactwhichsuggestsanearlydatefordramaticperformances.Wiseman(1994,1‐22)usesarchaeologicalfindstosupporthisargumentthatGreekmythswereknowninarchaiccentralItaly.88Niebuhr1837‐42,188‐191.

22

fashionintheheroicballadssungatbanquets,andthatthesewerepreservedinliteraryformbyancienthistorians.CentraltohisargumentwasaquotationfromCato'sOrigines,preservedinCicero,whichstatedthatitwascustomaryinearliertimesforguestsatbanquetstosingtheachievementsoffamousmentotheaccompanimentofaflute(Tusc.disp.1.3,4.3).AnothercitationofCato,preservedelsewhereinCicero,notesthatthiswasatraditionpracticedbytheancients(Brutus75),whichsuggeststhiswasnolongeracustominCato'sday.89Atbest,thesestatementssuggestonlythatatonetimesongswereperformedatbanquets;Cato'stestimoniesneithermakeclearwhatthesesongscontainednorsuggestthatheknewwhatsuchsongswere.90 ModernscholarshiphaswidelydiscreditedNiebuhr'sthesis,onthegroundsthatthereisnoevidencetoprovethattheepisodesfromearlyRomanhistorywererootedinanoraltraditionthatpredated300B.C.E.91WhatthesefragmentsmayrevealinsteadistheearlyadoptionofGreeksympoticculture,whichincludedsingingandtherecitationofpoems.92Moregenerally,themanyelementsofGreekfolktaleandtraditionvisibleinthehistoriographyoftheregalperiodpointtothesignificantinfluenceofGreekculturebyatleastthebeginningofthesecondcentury.93WisemanhasproposedthatRomansocietywasexposedtoandinfluencedbyGreekandEtruscanculturefromasearlyasthesixthcentury;thearchaeologicalremainsofGreekandEtruscanoriginfoundatRomepointtothecirculationofmaterialgoodsbetweenthesecultures.WisemanusesthisevidencetosuggestthatGreekmythologyandlegendwassimilarlyknownatRomeduringthisperiod.94 Athirdpossibilityfortheoralpreservationofearlytraditionconsistsofthefuneraryeulogies,laudationesfunebres,ofdeceasedmembersofthearistocracy.Thesespeecheslistednotonlytheaccomplishmentsofthedeceased,butalsothoseofhisancestors.Polybiusdescribesthetraditionasacustomofthemid‐secondcentury,butitwaslikelyolder(6.53).Theseeulogiesmayhavebeencommittedtowritingandstoredinfamilyarchives.BothCicero(Brut.62)andLivy(8.40.3‐5)criticizedthelaudationesforcontainingexaggeratedorinventedclaimsandbecauseofthiswerenotreliablehistoricalsources.95 Thiscondemnationhascreatedalasting,negativeimpressiononthevalueoffamilytraditionsonthehistoriographicrecord.96Itoverlooksthefactthatthiskindoflorewaspracticedalongsidehistoryandthatbothformsengagedinthereinterpretationandrepresentationofpastevents.Inthecaseoffamilytradition,onegroupdefinesthepastbasedonitsowninterestsanddesiredstatusinthepresentsociety,whichresultsinthe

89Momigliano1960,81;Harris1990,497,n.12.90Cornell1995,12.91Momigliano1957;Fraccaro1957;Bridenthal1972.92Zorzetti1990.93Wiseman1989.94Wiseman1994,1‐22;Wiseman1995,126‐43.95Forsythe2005,76;Ridley1983.96Mehl2011,33‐7.

23

promotionofonefamilygroupattheexpenseandexclusionofanother.ThisfitsthepoliticalenvironmentoftheLateRepublicinparticular,duringwhichtimemembersofthearistocracycompetedtoachievethehighestofficesandgreatestrecognition.TheyalsodesiredtomakethisknowntotheRomanpeople,whowere,inturn,responsibleforelectingthenobilitytooffice.Suchclaimscouldbetransferredtoandmanipulatedbyadifferentindividualorfamily. ThehistoryofValeriusAntiasisthebestexampleillustratingtheoverlapbetweenhistoryandoraltraditionwithinthepoliticalclimateoflaterepublicanRome.ValeriusAntiasiswellknownforattributinganumberofaccomplishmentstotheValerianfamily,andforfrequentlyinsertingValerianancestorsintomajorhistoricalevents.IncomparingsourcesontwelveepisodesfromearlyRomanhistory,WisemanhasshownhowtheseeventswerealteredinordertoemphasizetheroleofamemberoftheValerii.97HeattributestheseadjustmentstotheworkofasingleindividualwhosegoalwastheglorificationoftheValerianfamily.Thefactthattheseversions,whichfeatureprominentlyaValerian,occurintheaccountsofDionysiusofHalicarnassus,LivyandPolybius,anddemonstratetheextenttowhichfamilytradition,whetherwrittenororal,influencedthehistoriographicrecord.98AlthoughValeriusAntiasisthemostnotoriousexampleofthisphenomenon,heisnottheonlyone.Livyaccusesanotherofhissources,LicinusMacer,ofpromotingtheroleofhisownfamilyinhishistory.Likewise,thesystematicperversionoftheannalistsappearstohaveresultedintheconsistentdefamationoftheClaudiiinhistoricalaccounts.99ItispossiblethattheClaudiiworkedinasimilarwaytorestoretheirfamilyname,butthereisnodirectevidenceforthis.100 ItisclearthattheRomansengagedintheadaptationandreinterpretationoftheirhistorythroughfamilytraditions,dramaticproductionsand,toalesserextent,banquetsinging,andthatatvariouspointsthisenteredthehistoriographicrecord.Themainconsiderationisthatthisinformation,whichwasfrequentlymanipulatedinantiquity,isunreliableandpotentiallyinaccurate.Putsimply,thereisnowaytodetermineiftheeventshandeddownthroughtheValerianfamilyareaccurateportrayals,bymodernscientificstandardsofhistoriography,ofhistoricalevents.Moreover,itisdifficulttoassessthedegreetowhichancienthistoriographersreliedonsuchtraditions.Thisisparticularlytruefortheoraltraditions,whoseinfluenceisdifficulttotraceuntilitbecomespartofthewrittenrecord.Instead,whattheseexamplesrevealarethemultipleopportunitiesthattheRomansseizedinordertoengagewithandredefinetheirpast.TheRomanswerenotlimitedbythebinaryboundariesoforaltraditionandwrittenrecordorGreekcultureandRomanlegend.Instead,theyoperatedwithintheconfinesofmosmaiorumwiththeprimaryaimofpromotingindividualsandclans.

97Wiseman1998,75‐89.98Wiseman1998,75‐89.99Oakley1997,98,n.292;Wiseman1979,57‐103.100Oakley1997,98.

24

2g.Landmarks,MonumentsandToponymsReferencestostatues,paintingsandmonumentsarecommonfeaturesoftheannalisticandantiquariantraditionsofRomanhistory.TheconsiderationofRomanmonumentsinhistoriographyseemstohavebegunquiteearly.ThefragmentsoftheannalistsCassiusandPisocontainnumerousexamples,buttheauthorsoftentreatedthemuncriticallyandincompletely.101Pisoseemstohavefavoredthispracticeespecially,andascensorin120B.C.E.helikelyhadseveralopportunitiestolearnthehistoriesofthebuildingsandmonumentsthroughoutRome.DuringthetimeofSulla,theantiquarianCinciuscomposedaguidebookeitheroftheCapitolatRomeorallofRome.102Init,helikelyexplainedthemeaningsofinscriptions,describedancientmonuments,andrelatedthelegendsassociatedwiththem.TheworksofLivyandDionysiusofHalicarnassusareindebtedtotheearlyrepublicanannalistsforthispractice;theirworkscontainnumerousreferencestomonuments.103 IntheaccountsofLivyandDionysius,atleast,thecitationsofmonumentsandstatuesstillvisibleintheauthors'owntimewasameansofvalidatinglegendaryorhistoricalevents.104Mostreferencescomefromtheregalorveryearlyrepublicanperiodandseemintendedtoverifythehistoricityofeventsfromatimeinthecity'sdistantandlegendarypast.Itisunlikelythatmanyoftheoldestmonumentssurvivedintheperiodwhentherepublicanannalistswerewriting.Itseemsinsteadthat,asearlyasthemid‐Republic,monumentsofuncertainoriginwereassignedtolegendaryfigures,andthattheseassociationssurvivedinlatergenerations.BytheLateRepublictheywerebelievedtobethelegitimateremainsofearlierperiods.Itislikelythattheearlyantiquariansattemptedtoexplainthevariousmonuments,statuesandtoponyms,whoserelevancewasunclear,byconnectingthemtolegendaryepisodesfromRome'searlyhistory.Thelaterepublicanauthors,suchasLivyandDionysius,believingthestoriesoftheirpredecessors,usedthemonumentsasevidenceensuringthevalidityofthehistoricalepisodes.2h.ModernScholarshipConcerningtheHistoriographicTraditionThereliabilityofthehistoriographictraditionisaprimaryconcernformodernscholarsofearlyRomanhistoryattemptingtodeterminethehistoricalaccuracyoftheancientaccounts.ItisdifficulttoassessgiventheconstantreworkingoftheRomanhistoricaltraditionandthelackofverifiableevidence.TheliterarytraditionofthelateRepublicrepresentsthefinalstagesinthedevelopmentofRome'searlyhistory;thistraditionbegan

101Rawson1976.102Heurgon1964.103Oakley1997,35.104Gabba1981,61.Oakley(1997,36,n.79)liststhestatuesthatwerereportedlysetupbeforetheFirstPunicWar,someofwhichwereallegedlyerectedbysuchlegendaryfiguresasEvanderandNuma.Oakleydoubtsthehistoricityoftheseclaims.Healsolistsanddiscussesbriefly(36‐37)thetoponymsandstatuesmentionedinpassagesofLivyandDionysiusofHalicarnassus.

25

asearlyasthefifthcenturyandrelatedRomanhistoryfromAeneas'arrivalinItalyuptothefoundationoftheRepublic.Upuntilthepointwhenthesecond‐centuryannalistscommittedthishistorytowriting,thetraditionoforaltransmissionensuredcontinualreinterpretationandreconstructionofthepast.Althoughthewritingofhistoryestablishedabasicandacceptedframeworkofpastevents,alterationandinventioncontinuedtofigureprominentlyintheaccountsofsubsequentgenerations.TheinfluenceoftheGreekhistoriographictraditionandtheambitionsofprominentfamilies,historiansincluded,mademanydetailssubjecttochangeandthenarrativepronetoelaboration.ComplicatingthisisthefactthatmuchoftheinformationpreservedinthetextsexhibitsacomplexmixtureofGreekmythologyandfoundationstories,Latinfolktales,Romanoraltradition,andRomanpoliticalandculturalbeliefs.105AlthoughitissometimespossibletodisentanglethesecomponentstothepointthatsomeelementofindigenousLatintraditionisdetectable,itshistoricalvalidityremainsimpossibletodetermine. Attheheartoftheseproblems,andunderscoringanydiscussiononthehistoricityoftheancientsources,isthefactthatthereisnoclearimpressionofwhatprimarysourceswereavailabletothewritersofhistoryandhowtheseauthorsusedthem.Modernscholarsassume,basedonquotationsinlaterepublicantexts,thatancienthistoriansemployedsomecombinationofarchivalinformationandoraltraditionwhenwritingtheiraccounts.106Thisisareasonablejudgment,butdeterminingpreciselywhatinformationthesedocumentarysourcesandoraltraditionsrelayedislargelyconjecture.Theessentialfactremainsthatnoneoftheprimarysourcessurvive,andinmanycasesmaynothavebeenextantduringthetimewhentheannalistswerewriting.Thishasseriousimplicationsformodernscholarship,sincetheancientaccounts,particularlyofLivyandDionysius,directlyinformourunderstandingofearlyRomanhistory.Iftheiraccountsareunreliablebecausetheyarebasedonunverifiableprimarysourcesandaugmentedbyinventionandexaggeration,thensoarethoseofmodernscholarship,sincetheancientsourcesconstitutethebulkofourevidence.Atworst,thereisnohistoricaltruthtotheseaccounts,sinceverificationofsucheventsbecomesimpossible.Atbest,thereissometruth,butitconsistsprimarilyoftheso‐calledstructuraldatathatarepresumablyderivedfromunpreservedancientdocumentssuchastheAnnalesmaximi,theFastiandtheTwelveTables.Thenarrativesconstructedaroundthesebasicelements,ratherthanreflecthistoricaltruth,pertainlargelytothedevelopmentofRomannationalidentityinthefourthcenturyonwards.

105Ogilvie1965,30‐2;Heurgon1973,106‐55;Scullard1980,42‐77;Forsythe1994,75‐244;Wiseman1994;Forsythe2005;Cornell1995,56‐80and114‐214;Ungern‐Sternberg1988,237‐65.106ThescholarshipregardingthehistoricalaccuracyofRome'sregalperiodisextensive.SeeGalinsky1969;Cornell1975;Horsfall1979;BremmerandHorsfall1987;Gruen1992,6‐51;Wiseman1995;Raaflaub2005;Cornell2005;Forsythe2005.

26

Partofthedifficultyinassessingthevalidityoftheancienthistoriographictraditionisthatitsaimsareinconsistentwiththoseofmodernhistorians.Modernhistoriansareconcernedmorewitharguments,reliableevidenceandtruthfulfacts,whereasancienthistorianswerepreoccupiedwiththeexpositionofliterarystylesetinapleasingnarrative.Thus,thenotionofaddingembellishment(ornamenta)seemsdistastefultoamodernhistorian.TheRomanannalistsoftheLateRepublic,however,reliedonornamenta,whichincludedtheembellishmentoffacts,theuseofrhetoricandtheinsertionofspeeches.Theirgoalwastoproduceanengagingworkofliterature,whichrequiredasignificantamountofdetail.Thus,informationwasexaggeratedforartisticpurposes,andwhenlacking,inventedwithplausibility.107ThepracticeamongancientRomanhistoriansofexaggeratingandinventingfacts,althoughitishelpfulforunderstandingthenatureofancienthistory,doesnothingtoproveitsfactualaccuracy.Consequently,modernscholarshipisdividedonthevalueoftheancientsourcesconcerningtheregalperiod.Thehypercriticalapproachthatwasembracedbyscholarsoftheearlytwentiethcenturyhaslongbeenrejected.ThesescholarstookahighlyskepticalviewoftheancientsourcesonearlyRomanhistory,tothepointofdiscardingthemcompletely.ThemostnotableproponentofthisviewwasEttorePais,whoconsideredallepisodesofRomanhistorybeforethesackoftheGaulsaslegendaryandmythologicaltales.108Anumberofarchaeologicaldiscoveriesdatingtotheseventhandsixthcenturiesweremadesubsequently,however,andresultedinarevisionoftheregion'searlyhistory.ThearchaeologyseemedtocorrespondwithancientaccountsthatdocumentedtheurbanandpoliticaldevelopmentofRomeunderthemonarchyandfledglingRepublic,andattestedthecity'spreeminenceinLatiumbytheendofthesixthcentury.TheevidencerevealedthatsettlementsthroughoutLatiumatthistimeincreasedinsize,andcontainednumerousexamplesofdefensive,sacredanddomesticarchitecture.AtRome,forinstance,therewasnowmaterialevidencefortemples,elitehouses,andpublicspaces.Themajorityofscholars,then,seeminglyhadnoreasontoquestiontheveracityofthesources,sincethearchaeologicalandliterarysourcesoutlinedthegradualdevelopmentofRomeandthecity'seventualpreeminenceinLatium.109Tosomescholars,primarilythoseoftheItaliantradition,thesurgeinarchaeologicalevidencefromearlyRomeonlyconfirmedtheaccuracyofthehistoricalaccounts.Carandiniisthegreatestsupporterofthehistoricityofthisperiod,andheregularlyinterpretsthe

107Oakley1997,(3‐12),notesthatCicero,intheDeoratore,appearstocondoneandevenencourageplausibleinvention:hehasAntoniusstatethatahistorianshouldbetrainedinrhetoric,telltruths(veri),avoidfalsehoods(falsi),butacknowledgethenecessityofasuperstructure(exaedificatio)(2.62‐64).Theaimofrhetoric,then,wassimilartothatofhistoricalwriting,namely,thecreationofaccurateandplausiblenarrativesthatwerecapableofpersuadingaudiencesoftheircredibility.Thiscouldonlybehelpedbytheadditionofspeeches,whichlentcredibilityaswellascharacterizedthesituationandthespeaker.108Pais1906.109SeethediscoverieslistedinCLPandGRT.

27

archaeologicaldatafromearlyRomethroughthelensoftheancienthistoricalnarrative.110Forinstance,hearguesthathisexcavationoftheeighth‐centuryfortificationsonthenorthernslopeofthePalatinecorroboratesRome'sfoundationstory.111TacitusrecordsthatRomulusestablishedtheoriginalcourseofthepomerium,thesacredboundaryofRome,andmarkeditincertainplacesaroundthePalatinewithboundarystones;intheimperialperiod,stonescontinuedtodesignatetheoriginalplan(Ann.12.24).ThefactthattheearliestwallsdatetothelateeighthcenturyandthuscorrespondwiththelateryearsofRomulus'reign,accordingtothetraditionalchronology,constitutesthebasisforCarandini'sclaim.Thediscoveryofburials,hutsandwallsonthePalatinefunctionasadditionalevidencefortheemergenceofaunifiedsettlementtherebyabout725B.C.E. Carandini'ssubsequentpublicationsonthefoundationandurbandevelopmentofRomelikewiseemploytheliterarysourcesasconfirmationofthearchaeologicalmaterial.Hecombinesarchaeological,topographical,historicalandmythologicalformsofevidencetoreconstructRome'searlyhistory.112AlthoughthesestudieshavemadelastingcontributionstoourunderstandingofearlyRomanhistory,hislargelyuncriticalapproachremainscontroversial.113Hiscriticsdisagreemainlywithhisuseofthehistoriographictraditiontosupportthefindsmadeinthearchaeologicalrecord.However,theyarecarefultoacknowledgehisroleinshapingstudiesofearlyRomanhistory,sincehispublicationsofthePalatineexcavationsreinvigoratedthestudyofearlyRomeandplacedthestudyofthedevelopmentofthecityonequalfootingwiththepoleisoftheGreekworld. Currently,themajorityofscholarsoccupysomemiddleground,butthereremainsintensedisagreementonwhatthesourcessay,whattheydonot,whattoexpectfromthemandhowbesttousethem.114Thereareasmanyopinionsonthesubjectandapproachestotheproblemastherearescholars.RaaflaubandForsytheareamongstthemostskepticalregardingtheancientaccounts,believingthattheyaretheproductsofliterature,nothistoryinanymodernsense.115Theyinterprettheancientaccountsnotsomuchastruestoriesofpastevents,butrathercompositionsandrecompositionsofearlierhistoriesthatreflectthecontemporaryconcernsandexpectationsofhistoriography.116Raaflaubisespeciallycriticalofmodernhistorianswhotakenofirmapproachandinsteadvacillate

110SeethebibliographyfromCarandinifrom1990tothepresentday.111GRT97;Terrenato(1992)insteadconnectsthesameexcavationswiththetopographyandarchaeologyofarchaicRome.112Seeespecially(Carandini1990,1997,2006);CarandiniandCappelli,eds.,2000.SeealsoGrandazzi(1997)forasimilarapproach.113Forsythe(2005,84)andTerrenato(2011,232)takeissueonlywithCarandini'sover‐relianceonthehistoriographictradition.Raaflaub(2005)isnotexplicitwithhiscritique,butheisskepticalbothofthehistoricalrecordsandoftheuseofarchaeologicaldatatosupportthehistoricityoftheancientaccounts.Smith(2005)offersacriticalanalysisofCarandini'sthesisanditsbearinguponstudiesofRomanurbanization.114Cornell2005;Cornell1995;Raaflaub2005;Forsythe2005.115Raaflaub2005;Forsythe2005.116Raaflaub2005;Forsythe2005.

28

betweencompletebeliefandoutrightdistrust.117Tohim,scholarsofthiskinddonotunderstandtheeffectsofthesequestionsonallinterpretationsofhistory.NeitherRaaflaubnorForsythe,however,rejectexplicitlytheliterarytraditionregardingearlyRome;thereseemstobeatacitreluctancetodiscardthesourcescompletely. Otherscholarshavemorefaithinthecredibilityofthetexts.ThemainproponentofthisviewisCornell,whoagreesthatitiscrucialtoexaminethehistoriographictradition,butdoesnotbelievethattheRomansengagedinthedeliberatefalsificationoftheirhistory,forliterary,socialorpoliticalmotives.118Inhisopinion,theRomansrecordedwhattheybelievedtobetrue,andthereisnoreasontoconsiderthisfalse,unlessitcanbeprovenso.However,hesimultaneouslyacknowledgesthefactthattheRomanhistorians,intheabsenceofdatafromtheArchaicperiod,usedanachronisticmodelswhenattemptingtoreconstructtheirearlyhistory.119Tohim,theancientaccountsofearlyRomanhistoryremainvaluablebecausetheyrepresentRomanhistoryasitwasunderstoodandrecordedbytheRomans.120 Scholarshaveappealedformethodologiestodiscerntruthfromfiction,121butthereremainsnosatisfactory,uniformmethodfordealingwiththehistoriography.Thenatureofthesourcesissovariedandthereliabilityoftheaccountssoquestionablethat,apartfromoutrightdisbelieforcompleteconfidence,thereisnosingleapproachtothem.Currently,themostcommonapproachinanglo‐americanscholarshipexamineseachepisodeandaccountonacasebycaseanalysis.122Thismethodologyoftengeneratesconsiderabledisagreementamongmodernhistorians,sinceanyinterpretationisentirelydependentonone'sownviewregardingthereliabilityoftheancientsourcesandtheprinciplesaccordingtowhichtheancientsourcesaredeterminedaccurate.1232i.ConclusionModernscholarsagreeonlyonthefollowingpointsaboutearlyRomanhistory:that,bythesecondandfirstcenturies,theRomansconceivedofanearlyhistoryinvolvingthegrowthofthecity,itsrulebykings,thefoundationoftheRepublicandthedevelopmentofitsinstitutions;and,thatthissamehistorybelongstothesixthandearlyfifthcenturies.MostalsoacceptthatsomeinformationwasmoreorlessaccuratelypreservedfromearlyRome,andthisconsistsmainlyofsomedocumentarydata,namelytheFasti,theAnnalesmaximiandtheTwelveTables.Innearlyallotheraspectsofinterpretationthereisconsiderable

117Raaflaub(2005,6)doesnotmentionexplicitlywhothesehistoriansare.118Cornell1995;Cornell2005;RaaflaubonCornell(2005,24‐31);Smith(1996,2006)supportsthispointofview.119Cornell2005,63.120Cornell1995;Cornell2005.121Raaflaub,ed.,2005.122ThemostvocalproponentisCornell(1995),alsotakenupbySmith(1996,2006).Forsythe(2005),althoughhedoesnotstatethisexplicitly,adoptsthesameapproach.123Forsythe2005,59.

29

disagreementandthereisnodefinitivemethodofusingtheancientsources.Thechoices,itseems,aredeterminedskepticismoroptimisticacceptance.Thetendencyisforindividualscholarstoacceptsomebasictruthsaboutthehistoriographictradition,buttodisagreeonstrategiesforusingtheancientaccountsinmodernhistoricalanalyses.Ultimately,itisimpossibletoprovethenarrativetraditionregardingearlyRomanhistorytrueorfalse.However,ifscholarsaretousethewrittenrecord,thenitisimperativetoquestionthereliabilityoftheinformationthatinmanywaysseemslegendary,fabricatedandanachronistic. ItisbesttobeskepticaloftheancientaccountsconcerningearlyRomanhistory.Thecausesforconcernaretoosignificantandnumeroustoaccepttheancientnarrativesoutright.Forinstance:thechronologicaldisparitybetweenthetimeofwritingandthetimewhentheeventsallegedlytookplace;theabundanceofmythological,legendary,exaggeratedandinventeddetailscontainedintheaccounts;thegeneralabsenceofdocumentarysourcesthatmighthavecomprisedtheprimarysourcesoftheancientauthors;thefailureoftheancientauthors,inmanycases,tounderstandmonumentsandnarrativesfromtheirownpast;andthecontroversyandspeculationthatsurroundsnearlyeveryaspectofthesesources.Despitethis,someinformationdoesseemtohavesurvivedfromearlyRomanantiquity,namelythepreservedportionsoftheFasti,theAnnalesmaximiandtheTwelveTables.Althoughthisdocumentaryevidenceisoftenmisunderstoodbylaterwritersandembeddedinhistoricalnarrativesthatreflectcontemporaryconcernsratherthanearlierones,itseemsthatitwaspreservedmoreorlessinitsoriginalform.Thus,itispossiblethattheancientaccountspreservesomeelementoftruthregardingthehistoryoftheArchaicperiod;however,theycannotbeacceptedwithoutrigorousexamination.Inthisdissertation,theyareconsideredcarefullyonanindividualbasis,asrequired,withparticularattentiontotheirhistoricalcontext.

30

3.TheLiteraryEvidenceforRomanFuneraryRitualsandBurialPractices3a.Introduction InRomanantiquity,theritualofthefuneralbeganimmediatelyafterthedeathofanindividualandcontinueduntilthelastpost‐burialactivitieshadtakenplace.Theappropriateritesinvolvedacombinationofpractical,religious,legalandsocialconcerns.ModernreconstructionsofRomanburialpracticesarelargelybasedonliteraryaccountsfromtheLateRepublicandEmpireandareenrichedbythewiderangeoffuneraryarchitectureandepigraphythatsurvivesinthearchaeologicalrecord.124ScholarsfrequentlyusetheevidencefromburialsasameansofexploringhowindividualsandgroupsthroughouttheRomanworldnegotiatedstatusandidentity.Itisonlyrecently,however,thattheyhavequestionedtherelevanceoftheliterarysourcestothearchaeologicalevidence.125Themaincriticismisthattheancientsourceslackprecisionwhendescribingfuneraryritualandprovidelittleevidenceofthekindthatisvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecord.Whatismore,theyareextremelylimitedinchronologicalandgeographicalscope:writtenlargelyinthefirsttwocenturiesC.E.,thesetextsreflectthecontemporarycustomsandattitudesofthearistocraticeliteatRome.Mostmodernscholarship,however,hasmisguidedlyusedthewrittenevidenceasaguidebookforallfuneraryritual,assumingthatwhatthesourcessayisapplicabletoallregionsandperiods,andusingthearchaeologytosubstantiateclaimsmadeintheliteraryaccounts. Asyet,thereisnoanalysisofthewrittenevidenceforthefuneraryritualsofperiodsearlierthantheLateRepublic.Thisislargelyduetothepaucityofthesourcesandtheconfusionsurroundinghowbesttounderstandwhatlittleisavailable.TheprimaryaimofthischapteristorectifythisabsencebycollectingtheextantliteraryevidenceforRomanburialduringthesixthandfifthcenturiesandconsideringthesenarrativesintheappropriatecontexts.ThiswillserveasaframeworkwithwhichtoanalyzethearcheologicalevidenceofChapters5and6,andwillallowforabetterassessmentoftheroleoftheliterarysourcesinearlyfunerarystudies. TheliteraryevidenceconcerningfuneraryritualsinearlyRomeisinconsistent:thesourcesarefewinnumber,disparateinsubjectmatterandwide‐ranginginchronology.Inallcases,theliteraryaccountsaresubjecttothesamequestionsofreliabilityasdiscussedinChapter3.NoneoftheaccountswerewrittenintheArchaicperiod;theearliestwerecomposedatleastfourcenturieslater,andthemajoritywerewrittenhundredsofyearsafterthat,fromfourthtoseventhcenturiesC.E.Theaccountsareoftenbrief,andembeddedinnarrativesthatotherwisehavenothingtodowithancientfuneraryritual.Whatismore,thesourcesareextremelyvagueregardingthetimewhenaparticularcustomwasregularlyobserved,notingonlywhetheritwasantiquissimumorpracticedapudmaiores.Otherliterarysourcesdocumentcontemporarypracticesonly,andtheseoftenlackthedetailrequiredbymodernscientificstandards.Modernscholars,mostnotablyToynbee,havedrawnuponthese

124Toynbee1971;Scullard1981;Jones2002.125SeeespeciallyScheid(2008).

31

scatteredreferencestoreconstructageneraloverviewofRomanfuneraryritual.126ThebenefitofsuchanaccountisthatprovidessomeideaofthewiderangeofactivitiesinvolvedinRomanfuneraryrites,butitrunstheriskofpositinganerroneousreconstructionwithlittlespecificity.Nonetheless,Toynbee'saccountremainsconventionalandiswidelyacceptedinmodernscholarship.127 Whatfollowsisapresentationanddiscussionoftheliteraryevidencearrangedaccordingtotheissuesaddressedintheancientaccounts.Thesourcesmarkedoutthefollowingcustomsasancient:thepreferenceforinhumationovercremation(3b),theinhumationofyounginfants(3c),theburialofadultsathome(3d),andthepracticeofnocturnalburial(3e).IngeneralIamskepticaloftheinformationprovidedintheseaccounts,butIdonoteonsomeoccasionswherethearchaeologicalrecordseemstoagree.IfollowwithasummaryofPolybius'accountofaRomanfuneral(3f),sincethistexthasdirectlyinformednearlyallsubsequentscholarshiponthesubjectandisthusworthrevisitinginordertobettercontextualizethearchaeologicalmaterialpresentedinChapters5and6.IconcludethechapterwithabriefassessmentofthevalueoftheliterarysourcesforfuneraryritualintheArchaicperiod(3g).3b.CremationandInhumationThesourcesagreethatinhumationwastheearlierriteofdisposingofthedeceased.Cicerorecordsthefollowing(Deleg.2.22.56‐57):

Atmihiquidemantiquissimumsepulturaegenusilludfuissevidetur,quoapudXenophontemCyrusutitur;redditurenimterraecorpusetitalocatumacsitumquasioperimentomatrisobducitur.EodemquerituineosepulcroquodhaudproculaFontisaraest,regemnostrumNumamconditumaccepimus,gentemqueCorneliamusqueadmemoriamnostramhacsepulturascimusesseusam.C.MarisitasreliquiasapudAnienemdissipariiussitSullavictoracerbioreodioincitatus,quamsitamsapiensfuisset,quamfuitvehemens.QuodhaudscioantimensnesuocorporipossitaccidereprimusepatriciisCorneliisignivoluitcremari.DecleratEnniusdeAfricano:"Hicestillesitus."Vere;namsitidicunturii,quiconditisunt.Nectameneorumantesepulchrumest,quamiustafactaetporcuscaesusest.Etquodnunccommuniterinomnibussepultisvenitusu,uthumatidicantur,ideratpropriumtuminiis,quoshumusiniectacontexerat,eumquemoremiuspontificaleconfirmat.Nampriusquaminosiniectaglebaest,locusille,ubicrematumestcorpus,nihilhabetreligionis;iniectaglebatumetillishumatusest,etgleba128vocatur,actumdeniquemultareligiosaiuraconplectitur.

126Toynbee1971.127Scheid(2008,7‐8)statesthattherewasconsiderablevarietyinfuneraryritualduringthetimeoftheLateRepublicandEmpire.128Thetexthereiscorrupt.

32

Itseemstomethatthemostancientmodeofburialwasthatwhich,accordingtoXenophon,Cyrusused;forthebodyisreturnedtotheearthandsohasbeenplacedandarrangedjustasifitwasconcealedbyitsmother'scovering.WeacknowledgethatourkingNumawasburiedwiththissameritenotfarfromthealtarofFons,andweknowthattheCornelianclanhasusedthisformofburialuptoourownday.TheconquerorSulla,drivenbybitterhatred,orderedtheremainsofC.MariusbedispersedfromhistombneartheriverAnio;ifonlyhehadbeenaswiseashewasvehement.PerhapsSullafearedthatthesamemighthappentohisownbodyandsoheorderedittobeburnedafterhisdeath;hewasthefirstamongtheCorneliitodothis.EnniussaysaboutAfricanus:"Hereliesthebody."Indeed,fortheterm"lies"appliesonlytothosewhoareinterred.Nevertheless,thesedonotbecomeburialsuntiltheproperriteshavebeenperformedandapigslaughtered.Andnowtheterm"toinhume"isbeingappliedtoallkindsofburials,butthetermatonetimewasappropriateonlytorefertothosewhichhadbeenburiedbyacoveringoftheearth,andthepontificallawconfirmsthiscustom.Forbeforetheearthiscastoverthebones,thatplace,wherethebodyhasbeencremated,hasnoreligiouscharacter;whenearthhasbeenthrownoverit,itisconsideredinhumed,anditiscalledaburial,andthenmanyreligiousrightsmakeitsacred.

Plinynotes(Nat.Hist.7.187):

IpsumcremareapudRomanosnonfuitveterisinstituti;terracondebantur.Atpostquamlonginquisbellisobrutoseruicognovere,tuncinstitutum.Ettamenmultaefamiliaepriscosservavereritus,sicutinCornelianemoanteSullamdictatoremtraditurcrematus,idquevoluisseveritumtalionemerutoC.Maricadavere.[sepultusverointellegiturquoquomodoconditus,humatusverohumocontectus].ItwasnotanancientpracticeamongtheRomanstocremate;theywereburiedintheearth.Butafteritbecameknownthatthebodiesburiedinfar‐offwarshadbeendugup,cremationwastheninstituted.Neverthelessmanyfamiliespreservedtheancientrites,justasitisrecordedthatnooneintheCornelianclanwascrematedbeforethedictatorSulla,andthathehadwanteditoutoffearofretaliationforhavingdugupthecorpseofGaiusMarius.[Indeed,aburialisunderstoodtodenoteanymannerofburial,butaninhumationreferstoabodycoveredbyearth.]

BothCiceroandPlinystatethatinhumationwasthecustomofearliertimes,addingthatsomefamiliescontinuedthepracticeevenintheirownday,whencremationwasthenorm.Theyarecarefultodistinguishbetweenbothrites,butnotethatbothcanconstitutegravesites.Inhumationisdenotedwithavarietyofterms,includingcondere,humatus,andsitus,andCiceroemphasizesthatwhatmakesaninhumationisthecoveringofacorpsebytheearth.Cremationisdenotedwiththewordcremare;bothinterredandcrematedcorpsesbecomegravesorburials(sepultus,sepulturusorsepulchrum),andacquirereligious

33

characteroncetheproperritesareperformedandapigisslaughtered.Ciceronotesthatinhisowntimeitwascustomarytorefertoallgravesasbeinghumati(laidintheearth)regardlessofrite,butpointsoutthatinantiquityhumatidesignatedonlythosecorpsesthatwereactuallyinterred,thatis,coveredbyearth. Neitherauthorseemstoknowpreciselywhencremationbecamethepreferredmodeofburial,butPlinybelievesitwaswhenRomebeganengagingindistantwars.Despitetheacknowledgedshiftinritual,bothauthorsclaimthatinhumationpersistedintotheirowntime,andciteasevidencethepracticesoftheCorneliifamily.TheCorneliiwereoneoftheoldestpatricianfamiliesatRome,and,assuch,theymaybeexpectedtohavepreservedancientburialcustoms.129AccordingtoCicero,Sullabroughtanendtothistraditionwhenheorderedthecremationofhisbody,perhapsfearingthatitbeposthumouslyexcavatedbyhispoliticalenemies.130CiceroaddsthatSullawasresponsiblefortheexhumationanddispersementofthebodyofC.Mariusandmayhavewantedtoavoidthesamefate.CiceromaybeconsideredareliablesourcefortheburialpracticesoftheCornelii,especiallySulla,sincehewasacontemporaryofandofficerunderSullaintheearlytomid‐firstcenturyB.C.E.HeappearscertainabouttheburialhabitsoftheCornelii(scimus),asopposedtothoseofNuma,whichhepresentsasconventionalwisdom(conditumaccepimus).Pliny'saccountfollowscloselythatofCicero,andheseemstohavedrawnhisinformationdirectlyfromit,althoughheisnotexplicitinthisregard.Plinyonlyaddsthatmanyfamiliescontinuedtopracticeinhumation,althoughhedoesnotstatewhom. CicerocitesasevidencefortheantiquityofinhumationatRometheburialsofNumaPompilius(716‐674B.C.E.),thelegendarysecondkingofRome,andPubliusCorneliusScipioAfricanus(c.236‐183),forwhomEnniuswroteafuneraryepitaph.HelatercitestheepitaphofAfricanus,whichpointstoCicero'sfamiliaritywiththeburialritesoftheCorneliiScipiones.131Itispossiblethatsomememoryoftheancestralpracticeofinhumationwaspreservedinfunerarymonumentsvisibleintheauthors'owntime.ThetomboftheScipiones,locatedontheViaAppiaoutsidethePortaCapenaatRome,wasdiscoveredintheearlyseventeenthcentury,andsubsequentexcavationrevealedthesarcophagiandinscriptionsofeightScipiones,rangingindatefrom298B.C.E.to176B.C.E.132Thetomb

129Dyck2004,396.130AfragmentofGraniusLicinianus(36.25),writteninthesecondcenturyC.E.,addsthatSullaorderedhisbodynottobecremated,butitwasburnedagainsthiswishessothathisenemiescouldnotdismemberhiscorpse.131Sen.Ep.108.33offerstherestoftheepitaph:hicestillesituscuinemocivisnequehostisquivitprofactisreddereopispretium."Hereliestheoneforwhomnocitizenorforeignerwasabletopaybackapricetomatchhisdeeds."132LTUR,Sepulcrum(Corneliorum)Scipionum;NTDAR359‐360(Sep.Scipionum).TheearliestbelongstoL.ScipioBarbatus,consulin298B.C.E.andthelatestwasthatofPaullaCornelia,c.176B.C.E.ThesarcophagusandinscriptionofBarbatusarenowhousedintheVaticanmuseum,aswerepartsoftheothersarcophagiandtheirinscriptions.Coarelli(1972)offersareconstructionofthetomb,alongwithstatuesofEnnius,P.ScipioAfricanusandhisbrotherLucius.

34

wasknowntoCicero,whonoteditforitslocationandtheprominenceofthefamilyassociatedwithit(Tusc.1.13).Cicero(Arch.22),Pliny(Nat.Hist.7.114)andSuetonius(Depoet.Ennius8)recordthatEnniuswasbelievedtobeburiedthereandastatueofhimsetupbytheelderScipioAfricanus.LivynotesthatthemonumentincludedthetombsandstatuesofthesameScipioandhisbrotherLucius(38.56.2‐4).AlthoughthetombofNumawasbelievedtobelocatednearthealtarofFons,thereisnoarchaeologicalevidenceinsupportofthis.133 Cicero'saccountsoftheburialsofNumaandtheCorneliifeatureaspartofagreaterdiscourseregardingtheroleofmonarchyinasuccessfulpoliticalregime.CicerobeginsthepassagebyconnectingtheriteofinhumationtoXenophon'sCyrus.TheworktowhichCicerorefersistheCyropaedia,afictionalizedbiographyoftheCyrusII,founderofthePersianempireinthesixthcentury.Xenophon,historianandformerpupilofSocrates,composedthetextinthefourthcentury.CicerowasfamiliarwiththeworksofXenophon,includingtheOeconomicus,whichheclaimstohavetranslatedataveryyoungage(Adoff.2.87);hestateselsewherethatP.ScipioAfricanustheYounger(c.185‐129B.C.E.)wasanadmirerofXenophon'sCyropaedia(Q.fr.1.1.23andTusc.2.62).134TheversionofCyrusdepictedinXenophonfeaturesprominentlyintheworksofCicero,oftenasanexampleofajustrulerinanautocraticformofgovernment. ThroughouttheworksofCicero,Cyrus,NumaandtheCorneliiScipionesfunctionasauthoritativeexamplesofdistinguishedindividualsknownfortheircommitmenttothewellbeingofthestateandtheirallegiancetoconservativeandmonarchicprinciplesofgovernment.InDerepublica,CyrusisthemechanismthroughwhichAfricanuscritiqueskingsandmonarchies(1.43‐44).135Africanusstatesthat,eventhoughCyrusisthemostjustandwiseofthekings,monarchydoesnotconstitutethebestformofgovernmentbecauseitsadministrationisatthediscretionandwhimofasingleindividual.Heexplainsthatmonarchyisfragileandpronetocorruption,andconsidersinevitablethedevolutionofmonarchyintotyranny.Foreverycapable,lovablekingsuchasCyrus,thereisatyrannicalPhalaris.136Africanusgoesontocriticizetheotherformsofgovernmentandconcludesthatthebestconstitutionisamixedone.However,whenLaelius,oneofinterlocutors,isdissatisfiedwiththisresponseandpressesAfricanustochoosethebestformofsingleconstitution,Africanusselectsmonarchy,aboveoligarchyanddemocracy(Cic.Derep.1.54‐55).Hearguesthatmonarchyisbest,sincethekingprovidesforhiscitizenslikeafather

133NTDAR152‐3.ThereareseveralspringsontheJaniculumhill,andthearafontiscouldhavebeenanyoneofthese.HebelievesNuma'stombwouldhavebeenconstructedsomwherealongtheridgerunningwestwardsfromthemodernPortaS.Pancrazio.HeaddsthatashrineofFonswasidentifiedneartheMinisterodellaPubblicaIstruzioneonVialeTrastevere,whichdatesto70C.E.134Dyck2004,395.135Caspar(2011)exploresinarecentpaperCicero'suseofCyrusasameansofexploringthevalueofmonarchyasasystemofgovernment.136Phalaris(c.570‐549B.C.E.)wasatyrantofArcagus,inSicilyandwasknownforhiscruelty.

35

forhischildren,andcitizens,likechildren,holdtheirpatriarchinesteem.AlthoughAfricanuseventuallyreturnstohisoriginalconclusionandclaimsthatthemixedconstitutionisbest,hestressesthatthismustincludemonarchy(Derep.1.69‐70),withsomepowergiventoitsleadingcitizens,andotheraffairslefttothemasses.Africanusconsidersthisthemostequalandstableformofadministration;itisalsotheformthatwasdevelopedinantiquityandhandeddowntotheRomansofAfricanus'owntime.InthesecondbookofDerepublica,NumafunctionsasaRomanexampleofthegoodking,inaccordancewiththemodeldeterminedbyCyrus.Numaispreeminent,heisthemotherofjusticeandreligionatRome,andheisthewriteroflaws.137SincetheRomanselectedhimtothisposition,Numarepresentstheabilityofthecitizenbodytorecognizewhichqualitiesmakekingsgood,inordertoensurethedevelopmentandwellbeingofthestate.138 Whenthediscussionturns,inDelegibus,todevisinglawsfortheidealcity‐state,theremustthereforebeamonarchiccomponent.AfterCiceroreciteshisideallaws,hisbrotherQuintusobservesthattheydonotdiffersubstantiallyfromthelawsofNuma(Cic.Deleg.2.19‐24).CiceroexplainsthatthecharacterofthelawsmustreflectthecharacterofAfricanus'constitution,andthatbothmustreflectthecustomsoftheirancestors.TheregalelementsurvivesinCicero'slawsintheformoftheconsulship,wherebytheconsulslead,judgeanddeliberate,thoughthispowerischeckedbytheSenate.139Together,Cyrus,NumaandtheCorneliiScipionesstresstheimportanceofmonarchyingovernmentandtheimportanceofupholdingancestralcustoms,and,asancientauthorityfiguresthemselves,theylendweighttothisargument.TheseexamplessupportCicero'ssuggestionthattheonlywaytosavethecurrentstateofRomanaffairsafteryearsofcivilwarsandfactionalstrifeisareturntoanancestral,mixedconstitution. CicerousesSulla'scremationtoemphasizethechangeinthenatureofgovernmentatRomeintheLateRepublic.SullawasamemberoftheancientandillustriousCornelianclan,afamilyknownforupholdingancestralvirtuesandpractices.Theyroutinelyobservedtheancientriteofinhumation,untilSullabrokewithtraditionanddemandedthecremationofhisbody.Sulla'sreignanddeathseemtofunctionasturningpointsinCicero'snarrativeregardingthedevolutionofthestate.Monarchy,asCiceropointedout,functionswellprovidedthattheleaderismoderateandjust;however,kingsdevolvequicklyintotyrantsbecausetheirpowersareunchecked.Thus,theyarealwaysdangerousandthreateningfiguresthatcaninitiatechangestothestructureofthestate,andleadtoitsdemise.Sullaisonesuchfigure:appointeddictatoratRomein82B.C.E.,hemassacredanumberofRomansoverthecourseofacivilwar,andcontributedtotheconditionsthatledtoasecondcivilwarinCicero'sowntime.AlthoughSullamayhavebelievedhewasrestoringtheRepublic,hebroughtaboutitsdemise,andCicerousestheaccountofhisdeathtoemphasizetheabandonmentofancestralcustomsandvirtues.

137praestans(Cic.Derep.2.25);materhuicurbiiurisetreligionisfuit,quilegumetiamscriptorfuisset(Cic.Derep5.3).138Cic.Derep.2.25.139Cic.Deleg.3.8.

36

MuchlikeCicero,Plutarchseemsmoreconcernedwiththesymbolicsignificanceofinhumationasamarkerofancestralvirtuethanthepreservationofhistoricalreality.WritinginthelatefirsttoearlysecondcenturyC.E.,PlutarchdescribesNuma'sburialtothesameeffect.Accordingtotheauthor,Numaforbadethecremationofhisbodyandwasinsteadburiedinoneoftwostonecoffins(Num.22):

ζηλωτὸν δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ τάφῳ τὸν βίον ἐποίησαν οἵ τε σύµµαχοι καὶ φίλοι δῆµοι, συνελθόντες ἐπὶ τὰς ταφὰς ἅµα δηµοσίαις ἐπιφοραις καὶ στεφάνοις, οἳ τε πατρίκιοι τὸ λέχος ἀράµενοι, καὶ συµπαρόντες οἱ τῶν θεῶν ἱερεῖς καὶ παραπέµποντες, ὁ δ᾽ἄλλος ὅµιλος ἀναµεµιγµένων καὶ γυναικῶν καὶ παίδων οὐχ ὡς βασιλέως ταφαῖς γηραιοῦ παρόντες, ἀλλ᾽ὥς τινα τῶν φιλτάτων ἕκαστος ἐν ἀκµῇ βίου ποθούµενον θάπτων, µετ᾽οἰµωγῆς καὶ κλαυθµῶν ἑπόµενοι. πυρὶ µὲν οὖν οὐκ ἔδοσαν τὸν νεκρὸν αὐτοῦ κωλύσαντος, ὡς λέγεται, δύο δὲ ποιησάµενοι λιθίνας σοροὺς ὑπὸ τὸ Ἰανοκλον ἔθηκαν, τὴν µὲν ἑτἐραν ἔχουσαν τὸ σῶµα, τὴν δὲ ἑτέραν τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους ἃς ἐγράψατο µὲν αὐτός, ὥσπερ οἱ τῶν Ἑλλήνων νοµοθέται τοὺς κύρβεις, ἐκδιδάξας δὲ τοὺς ἱερεῖς ἔτι ζῶν τὰ γεγραµµένα καὶ πάντων ἕξιν τε καὶ γνώµην ἐνεργασάµενος αὐτοῖς, ἐκέλευσε συνταφῆναι µετὰ τοῦ σώµατος, ὡς οὐ καλῶς ἐν ἀψύχοις γράµµασι φρουρουµένων τῶν ἀπορρήτων Hislifewaspraisedeveninhisfuneraryrites.ThepeopleswhowerebothinallianceandfriendshipwithRomeassembledattheriteswithpublicofferingsandcrowns.Thesenatorscarriedhisbier,thepriestsofthegodsmarchedtogetherandescortedittothegrave,andtherestofthecrowd,includingwomenandchildren,followedwithlamentationandweeping,notasthoughtheywereattendingthefuneralofanoldking,butasthougheachonewasburyingsomedearrelationtakenawayatthepeakofhislife.Theydidnotburnhisbody,since,asitissaid,heforbadeit,buttheymadetwostonecoffinsandburiedthemundertheJaniculum.Oneoftheseheldhisbodyandtheotherthesacredbooksthathehadwrittenwithhisownhand,justastheGreeklawgiversdowiththeirtablets.Butwhilehewasstilllivinghetaughttheprieststheircontentsandheproducedinthemtheskillandmeansofknowingofthemall,andheorderedthattheybeburiedwithhisbody,sincesuchmysterieswouldnotbewellobservedinlifelessdocuments.

Plutarchcommentsneitherontheantiquitynorthepeculiarityofinhumation,andhisaccountsuggeststhatbothinhumationandcremationwerepracticedinthetimeofNuma.AccordingtoPlutarch,Numaforbidsthecremationofhisbodyandrequestsburialforhimselfandhislawsintwostonesarcophagi.Theauthorhereseemsmoreconcernedwiththechoiceofritualandtheimplicationsofthisdecision.Cremationwasthedominantburialriteintheauthor'sowntime,acustomwhichTacitus,hiscontemporary,considered

37

theromanusmos(Ann.16.6).140Forthemostpart,Plutarchdoesnotstatethesourcesofhisinformation,andusestheimpersonal"itissaid"(ὡς λέγεται)whenreferringspecificallytoNuma'srequestthathisbodybeinterred.ThisepisodeseemsmorerelevanttoPlutarch'smoralexplorationintheparallellives.ThelifeofNumaispairedwiththatofLycurgus,thelegendarylawgiverofSparta,andthelivesofbothfiguresaredepictedasaseriesofoppositions.Forinstance,Lycurgusdispossessedhisroyalstatusinordertobecomealawgiver,whereasNumawaselectedkinginordertobecomealawgiver;141Lycurgusforbadethewritingoflaw,whereasNumainscribeditwithhisownhand,wasburiedwithit,andinstructedpriestsconcerningitscontents;142and,NumawasburiedatRome,whereasLycurguswascrematedandhisashesscatteredintothesea.143Plutarchhereseemstobeconsideringtheparadoxwherebygoodactionsinjurethestateandbadactionscontributetoitswellbeing.144Lycurgus,althoughhedidnotcommithislawstowriting,establishedasystemthatwaslonglastingandsuccessful,whereasNumacreatedaconstitution,aimedatpeaceandfriendship,whichdidnotlastafterhisdeath.145HadNumasucceeded,Romewouldneverhavebecometheheadofanempire.146TheparadoxisrelatedtoPlutarch'sownphilosophicalviews:Spartarepresentstheidealrepublicbuthasnorulingphilosophicalking,whileNumarepresentstheidealking,butdoesnotpreservetheplatonicidealoftherepublic.ItissignificantthatNuma'sinscribedlawswereburiedwithhimbeneaththeJaniculum:onewasasdeadastheother,althoughneitherwerewidelyseparated.147 TheburialofbothNumaandhiswritingsmayalsobeconnectedtoPlutarch'sdesiretolinkthelegendarykingofRometothephilosopherPythagorasandhisteachings.DespitetherepeatedinsistenceofseveralancientwritersthatinteractionbetweenNumaandPythagoraswasimpossible,onthegroundsofthechronologicaldiscrepancybetweenthem,thelegendoftheirassociationpersistedthroughoutantiquity.148Plutarchwaswellawareofthisdisparity,butmaintainedtheconnectionbetweenthekingandthephilosopherbypresentingtheirsimilaritiesthroughouttheLifeofNuma.149TheassociationbetweenNumaandPythagoras,howeverincorrect,isbothimplicitandexplicitinthefinalchapterofNuma'sLife.AccordingtoPlutarch(Num.22.2‐4),thePythagoreansentrustedtheirdoctrinestoteachingratherthanwritingonthegroundsthatNumaentrustedhis

140ThearchaeologicalevidencesupportscremationasthedominantriteatRomefromabout400B.C.E.untilthesecondcenturyC.E.(Morris1992,45‐6).141Plut.Lyc.3.5‐5.3;Num23.3‐5.142Plut.Lyc.13.1;Num22.2143Plut.Lyc.31.4‐5;Num.22.1‐2.144Duff1999,264.145SvenbroexplorestheoppositionbetweenLycurgusandNuma(1988,133‐4).146Boulet2005,251‐2.147vonWilamowitz‐Moellendorf1995,61.148Cic.Derep.2.28‐9;Dion.Hal.2.59.1‐2;Livy,1.18.1‐3.Cicerorecordsthatthekingpredatedthephilospherbyatleast140years.149Gruen(1990,159‐60)offersafulldiscussion.

38

preceptstopriestsratherthanlifelessdocuments.TheveryactofburialstrengthensthisconnectionbetweenNumaandPythagoras:Numa'sprohibitionagainstthecremationofhisbodyisinaccordancewiththePythagoreanobjectiontothesamepractice.150 Plutarch'saccountjuxtaposesthedeathandburialofNumaandhistabletswiththesubsequentexhumationofthetwocoffinsandtheburningofthetexts.Accordingtotheliterarytradition,whichgoesbackasfarasCassiusHemina,Numa'scoffinswerefoundontheestateofascribein181B.C.E.,andthetabletsturnedovertothestateandburned.151ThecoffincontainingNuma'sbodywasempty.Theinhumationandpreservation,atleastofthetexts,allowsfortheirdiscoveryandexhumationoverfourhundredyearslater;theircremationmarksafinalactofdestruction.Accordingtomodernscholarship,thesurvivalofthetextspresentedathreattoRomanofficials,who,inburningthem,wereattemptingtoconcealtheGreekrootsofRomanreligionwithoutopenlycondemningtheirancestors.152Itrepresentedadeliberatebreakinthemeaningofthemosmaiorum,onethatcouldnolongerrecognizetheGreekoriginsofRomancustoms.ThenarrativesurroundingthediscoveryanddestructionofNuma'stextsenteredthehistoriographictraditioninthesecondcenturyasameansofnegotiatingthelevelofresGraecaeintheRomanworld.ThelatethirdandsecondcenturieswitnessedamassiveinfluxofGreekmaterialintheRomanworld,broughtonbyincreasedcontact.ThearistocraticeliteresentedtheomnipresenceofGreekinfluence,and,recognizingtheirinabilityandevenreluctancetoseparateGreekfromRoman,createdthisnarrativeasameansofresolvingtheproblem. Despiteavarietyofhistoricalproblems,theancientsourcesseemtoagreeonthefollowingthreepoints,asregardsinhumationandcremationinthetimepriortotheirown:first,thatinhumationwasthepreferredburialriteinearlierperiods;second,thatinhumationpersistedintolaterperiodsdespitethepopularityofcremation;andthird,thedecisiontopracticecremationorinhumationrepresentedanindividualprerogativeorfamilytradition.Noreasonsaregiventoexplaintheearlypreferenceforinhumation;onlyinthecaseofSulladofearandsuperstitionariseasmotivesforspurningthefamilytraditionofinhumation.Thearchaeologicalrecordofthesixthandfifthcenturiessupportstheclaimsoftheancientauthors,however,sinceinhumationburialsarefoundalmostexclusivelyatsitesinRomeandLatiumatthistime.153Whatismore,thetwostonecoffinsinPlutarch'saccountofNuma'sfuneralseemtorefertothetypeofmonolithictuffsarcophagicommonintheregionfromtheArchaicperiodthroughMiddleRepublic.3c.InfantBurialOnlytwoliterarysourcescommentspecificallyonfuneraryritualsforinfantsandchildreninearlyRome.ThefirstisPlutarch,whoattributestoNumaalawthatrestrictsthelengthofmourningforachild(Num.12.2):

150Cumont1943,114.151Livy,40.29.2‐14;Pliny13.84‐88;Val.Max1.1.12.152Gruen1990,168.153SeeChapter5forfurtherdiscussion.

39

αὐτὸς δὲ καὶ τὰ πένθη καθ᾽ἡλικίας καὶ χρόνους ἔταξεν οἵον παῖδα µὴ πενθεῖν νεώτερον τριετοῦς, µηδὲ πρεσβύτερον πλείονας µῆνας ὧν ἐβίωσεν ἐνιαυτῶν µέχρι τῶν δέκα, καὶ περαιτέρω µηδεµίαν ἡλικίαν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ µακροτάτου πένθους χρόνον εἴναι δεκαµηνιαῖον.

Numahimselfrestrictedthetimeformourningaccordingtoage.Therewastobenomourningforachildlessthanthreeyears,foranolderchildtherewastobenomourninglongerinmonthsthanithadlivedinyears,upuntiltheageoften,buttenmonthswasthelongesttimesetformourning.

ThesecondaccountcomesfromFulgentius,whowrote,sometimeinthelatefifthtoearlysixthcenturyC.E.,atextexplainingthedefinitionofvariousobsoletewords.InthisaccountFulgentiusexpoundsatermonceusedtorefertoatypeofburialreservedforinfantslessthanfortydaysold,thesuggrundarium:(Exp.serm.7):

Prioritemporesuggrundariaantiquidicebantsepulchrainfantiumquinecdumquadragintadiesimplessent,quianecbustadicipoterant,quiaossaquaeconburerenturnonerant,nectantainmanitascadaverisquaelocumtumisceret;undeetRutiliusGeminusinAstyanacistragoediaait:'Meliussuggrundariummiserquererisquamsepulchrum.'Inanearliertimetheancientsusedtocallsuggrundariathetombsofinfantswhohadnotyetreachedfortydays,becausetheywerenotabletobecalledbusta,becausetherewerenoboneswhichcouldbeburnedandthesizeofthecorpsewasnotsogreatthatittookupmuchspace;fromthisevenRutiliusGeminussaysinthetragedyofAstyanax:"You,wretched,complainthatasuggrundariumisbetterthanasepulchrum."

Thetermsuggrundariumisknownonlyfromthisaccount,andtheauthordoesnotseemtohavebeenveryfamiliarwiththeword.Fulgentiusmakesclearthatasuggrundariumwasaninhumationburialreservedforinfantslessthanfortydaysold,butheisunabletoarticulatethereasonwhysomeinfantswereburiedinthisway.Tosupporthisexplanation,FulgentiusaddsafabricatedcitationfromthefictionaltragedianRutiliusGeminus.Theetymologicaldefinitionofthetermsuggrundariumislikelyrelatedtothewordsuggrunda,meaning"theeavesofabuilding".Gjerstad,whenreviewingthearchaeologicalmaterialfromearlyRome,understoodFulgentius'effortstoexplainthewordassignsofitsauthenticity,andsuggestedthetermsuggrundariumreferredtothecustomofburyinginfantsbelowtheeavesoftheroofofahouse.154Today,thetermiswidelyusedbyarchaeologiststodesignateaninfantburialinaceramicvesselthatislocatedinadomesticcontext.Itremainsamatterofsomedebatewhetherthisdefinitionissuitabletoexplainthephenomenonvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecord.155

154Gjerstad1953,152,n.2.155Jarva1981a,144‐5;Carroll2011,110.

40

Fulgentiusisextremelyvagueregardingthetimewheninfantswereburiedinsuggrundaria,buthisclaimsfindsomesupportinthearchaeologicalrecordoftheArchaicperiod.TheburialofneonatesandinfantsinceramicvesselsindomesticcontextsisawellattestedphenomenonincentralItalyfromtheIronAgetotheendoftheArchaicperiod,whenitisthoughtthattheprohibitionsoftheTwelveTablesagainstintramuralburialbroughtthiscustomtoanend.156Plutarch'snarrativeregardingtheperiodofmourningallottedchildren,however,isimpossibletoverifyinthearchaeologicalrecord. Whentakentogether,theaccountsofPlutarchandFulgentiusdemonstratethattheageofachildatdeathwasakeyfactorindeterminingtheappropriatefuneraryritesandthatthispracticewasrootedinantiquity.Ahandfulofotherliterarysources,mostlywritinginthefirstandsecondcenturiesC.E.,suggestthatageatdeathcontinuedtobeadeterminantoffuneraryritesinlaterperiods.PlinytheElderstatesthatitistheuniversalcustomnottocremateapersonbeforehisteethhaveerupted,whichisaroundsixmonths(Nat.Hist.7.15.72).157Heexplainsthatonlyteethsurvivecremation,whichmeansthatchildrenlackingteethcouldnotbereturnedtotheearthafterburning.Juvenalwritesthataninfant,whoistooyoungforthefuneralpyre,iscoveredbyearth(Sat.15.138‐140).158Plutarch,whenconsolinghiswifeoverthedeathoftheirtwo‐yearolddaughter,commentsthatchildrenshouldnotbeburiedwiththesameritesasadults,inaccordancewiththelawsandcustomsoftheancients(τοῖς δὲ πατρίοις καὶ ἔθεσι καὶ νόµοις,Consol.uxor11).Headdsthat,whenchildrendie,oneshouldnotpourlibations,makesacrifices,lingeraboutthegraveormournexcessively.Heexplainsthatinfantshavenopartoftheearthorearthlyaffectionsandgivesashisreasonthefactthatchildrenhavenotyetbeenintegratedintothecommunity. ScholarshaveusedtheseliteraryaccountstosuggesttheotherworldlyandmarginalstatusofchildreninRomanantiquity.159SomehavearguedthatthepresenceofinfantburialsinamphoraeduringtheImperialperiodrepresentsthereturnofthechildtothewombforrebirthintoanewexistence.160Othersbelievethattheburialofchildrenunderthethresholdorfoundationsofthewallofahouserepresentedtheirperipheralstatus.161Thetexts,writtenbyelitemalesexaltingrestraintandself‐control,arethoughttohavemirroredthegeneralattitudeofindifferencetowardschildren.162Theindifferencetochildrendepictedintheliterarysourcesseemstohavestruckachordwithmanymodern

156Chapter5examinesthearchaeologicalevidenceofinfantburialsincentralItalyingreaterdetail.157Hominempriusquamgenitodentecremarimosgentiumnosest.158Terraclauditurinfansetminorignerogi.159ThemarginalstatusofinfantsandchildreninRomanantiquitydominatesmostofthecurrentdiscourse.Seemorerecently,Néraudau(1984)and(1987);Shaw(1991);Pearce(2001);andNorman(2002).160Becker1995,24.161Wiedemann1989,179.162Russell1985.

41

scholars,andmostdiscussionsrevolvearounddeterminingthelevelofemotionalengagementexhibitedbyparentsintheburialoftheirchildren.163 Themaincriticismisthatnearlyalltheseapproachesusetheliterarysourcesuncritically,anachronisticallyandexclusively.164StudiesofinfantburialsduringtheIronAgeandArchaicperiodsrelyexcessivelyontheaccountofFulgentiusandassumethattheattitudesofRomanstowardschildrenthatarevisibleinthelateraccountsmusthavebeentrueoftheArchaicperiodaswell.Morebroadly,scholarsofinfantburialstendtoassumethatthesumoftheliteraryevidence,whichrangesfromthesecondcenturyB.C.E.totheseventhcenturyC.E.,representsattitudesandcustomsapplicabletoallperiods.PartoftheproblemisthattherehasbeenverylittlearchaeologicalinvestigationofinfantburialsintheRomanworldduringanyperiod.WhilesomestudyhasbeenundertakenintheprovincesduringtheRomanperiod,virtuallynoneatallhasbeendoneinRomanItaly.165Consequently,thereislittletonobasistosupportclaimsrelatingtothecarelessnessofinfantburialintheregion. Whatismore,thereislittleevidencetosuggestthatchildrenwereinanywayunlovedorconsideredmarginalbytheirparents.Forinstance,intheconsolationtohiswife,Plutarchdemonstratesquitetheopposite,andmakescleartheaffectionheandhiswifebothhadfortheirchild.ThemostnotablepassageisPlutarch'sdescriptionofhisdaughter'scharacter:henoteshowhiswifelongedforadaughterafterfoursons,andaddsthatwhenthegirlwasborn,shewasnamedafterthemother(Consol.uxor2).ItisimpossibletodeterminehowrepresentativePlutarch'srelationshipwithhisdaughterisofRomanattitudestowardstheirchildren.TopresumethatallparentswereasinvolvedasPlutarchandhiswifewouldperhapspushtheevidencetoofarintheoppositedirection;thereislittletobegainedfromarguingfromsuchlimitedevidencethatparentseithercaredlittleoragreatdeal.Itisworthnoting,however,thatPlutarchconsistentlyrepresentshimselfandhiswifeasunconventionalRomanparents,emphasizingthattheycaredagreatdealfortheirchild. Plutarch'slettertohiswifefunctionssimultaneouslyasapersonaldocumentofconsolation,apublicstatementonthepropermodeofgrieving,andaphilosophicaldiscourse.166Plutarchmaintainsadelicatebalanceofthesethreeelementsthroughouttheletter.Headdresseshiswife'sgriefwithsensitivity,andoffersdifferentwayswithwhichshemightdealwithhergrief.Heemphasizesthejoytheirdaughterbroughttothemboth:heremarksthatshewasespeciallylovedbyhimandcommentsonthepleasantnessofherage.Hecommendshiswifeforherrestraintinpublicmourning,notingthatphilosophersandcitizenswouldfindnothingtocriticizeinherbehavior.Hetakesaharshapproachtowardwomenwhoviewchildrenasdolls,and,uponthedeathofthesechildren,caremoreaboutthemselvesthanthedeceased.AttheendoftheletterPlutarchexpoundshis

163EspeciallyNéraudau(1984),butthisremainsafeatureofmostcurrentdiscourse.164Carroll2011.165Carroll2011.Thearchaeologicalofinfantburialhasfaredbetterintheprovinces,butstillremainsunderinvestigated.SeeespeciallyPearce(2001)andNorman(2002).166Baltussen2009.

42

philosophicalviewsmoreexplicitly.Heencourageshiswifetoconsiderthesoulimmortal,aclearreferencetoplatonicideasregardingthesoul.Heclosestheletterbyreferringtothelawsandtraditionsoftheirancestors,whichdiscouragedelaborateceremoniesforthedead.Plutarch'sappealtotheauthorityoftheancientsisnotstrictlynecessary,sinceheandhiswifehaveclearlybeenobservingtheserules.However,suchexhortationsarecommonfeaturesofthephilosophicaltraditionofconsolatorywritinginantiquity.167 Althoughtheliterarysourcesindicatethatinfantsmatteredlittleandweretoreceivemarginalburialrites,mostofthesestatementsarerelatedtopublicbehaviorratherthanprivateactivity.168Mostoften,theauthorsarecriticizingpublicdisplaysofgrief.Plutarchobservesthatmostmothersgivethemselvesuptogriefandfrenziedmourninguponthedeathoftheirchildren,althoughhenotesthatthisbehaviorisunwarranted(Consol.uxor6).Senecachidesafriendwhosesonhaddiedforbehavinglikeawomanandgrievingexcessively(Ep.Mor.99).Tacitus(Ann.15.23)recordsthatNerowasexcessivelyupsetbythedeathofhisfour‐montholddaughter.Youngchildrenandinfantswerealsotheleastlikelytoreceivepublicformsofcommemoration.ThroughouttheRomanEmpire,funerarymonumentsandepitaphsofchildrenfiveyearsandyoungerarerare,whileinfantsintheirfirstyearoflifeconstitutethemostunderrepresentedgroupofall.169However,ofthoseinfantsandyoungchildrenthatdoreceivecommemoration,theyareoftendescribedinaffectionatetermsandtheirageatdeathisgivenemphasis.Thismayreflecttheimportanceofthosechildrentotheirfamilies.170 ShawhasunderstoodthesestatisticsasanindicatorofthevaluationofchildreninRomansocietyduringtheImperialperiod.171Hearguesthatthetombstonesignifiesthevaluationofthesocialpersonaofthedeceased,thatistosay,thevalueofthatindividualinsociety.Thustheactofinscribingandsettingupagravemarker,whichinvolvedapublicrecognitionbylivingfamilymembers,wasareflectionofthestatusheldbythedeceasedinlife.Overall,thereappearstohavebeenalowervaluationplacedoninfantsandyoungchildrenthanolderchildrenandadults.Thisisnottosaythatjuvenilesweredeniedformalburial,butrathertheformofburialreflectstheirroleinsociety.Theburialofyoungchildrenindomesticcontexts,then,pointstothefactthattheseindividualshadnotyetmadethetransitionfromthenaturalintothehumanworld.172

167ThetraditionisgenerallythoughttohavebegunwithPlato,andprovedwidelyinfluentialintheworksoflaterRomanauthors.Cicero,intheTusculanDisputations,considershowtodealarangeofemotions,includinggrief.168Carroll2011,100.169Garnsey1991,52.Forinstance,fromoversixteenthousandtombstonesfromRomeandItalythatrecordedagesatdeath,only1.3percentbelongedtochildrenlessthanayearold(Hopkins1983,225).170Carroll2011,112.171Shaw1991.172Garnsey(1991,52‐3)addsthataRomanchildwasnamedonthedieslustricus,theeighthdayafterbirthforgirlsandtheninthforboys,andaceremonyofadmissionintothehousehold.Untilthatday,thechildwasmorelikeaplantthananimal.

43

ThisdistinctionisespeciallyimportantwhenconsideringthoseburialsoftheArchaicperiod.Inthearchaeologicalrecordofthesixthandfifthcenturies,theburialsofinfantsandchildrenappearalongtheperipheryofhouses.Thispracticeisnotnecessarilyanindicatorofparentalneglectorcarelessness.Thefactthattheyarevisibleinarchaeologicalcontexts,atatimewhenthereisanotabledecreaseinarchaeologicallyvisibleburials,betokenstheirworth.Itisthelocationoftheseburialsindomesticcontextsthatissignificant.MostinfantburialsoftheArchaicperiodarelocatedontheouterlimitsofhouseholds,which,attheveryleast,signalstheirsignificanceinthedomesticsphere.Theseburialsmayhaveservedasboundarymarkerstodefinethelimitsofthathousehold.Thus,thereislittlereasontoassume,onthebasisoftheliteraryevidencealone,thatinfantsandyoungchildrenweremarginalinthesensethattheywereundervalued.Itisworthstressing,too,thatthepracticeofburyingchildrenatthemarginsofthehouseisaphenomenonvisibleonlyinthearchaeologicalrecord.173Theancientsourcessaynothingaboutthiscustom,andsoitwouldbeunwisetodrawtoomanyconclusionsregardingtheroleofchildrenintheArchaicperiodbasedontheirpresumedundervaluedstatusinlaterperiods.3d.BurialintheHomeTwosourcesfromlateantiquityclaimthatitwascustomaryinearlierperiodsforRomanstoburytheirdeadwithintheirownhomes.Servius,inafourth‐centuryC.E.commentaryonVergil'sAeneid,writes(adAen.5.64):

Etsciendumquiaapudmaioresubiubiquisfuissetextinctus,addomumsuamreferebatur.Anditshouldbeknownthatamongtheancients,whensomeonehaddied,hewasburiedathisownhouse.

Serviusadds(ad.Aen.6.152):174

Apudmaiores,utsupradiximus,omnesinsuisdomibussepeliebantur,undeortumestutlarescolerenturindomibus. Amongtheancients,aswesaidabove,allwereburiedintheirownhouses,fromwhichitcameaboutthatthelareswereworshippedinhomes.

IntheearlyseventhcenturyC.E.,Isidore,theBishopofSeville,wrotethefollowinginhiscompendiumonGreek,RomanandChristianlearning(Origines15.11.1):

173SeeChapters5and6forfurtherdiscussion.174Thereseemstohavebeensomeconfusioninthetext,asdocumentedinthemostrecenteditioneditedbyJeunet‐Mancy(2012).Alternately,undeetiamumbraslarvasvocamus,orundeetiamumbrasvocamusalaribus.

44

Priusautemquisqueindomosepeliebatur.Posteavetitumestlegibus,nefoetoreipsocorporaviventiumcontactainficerentur.Originally,however,everyonewasburiedinhishome.Thiswaslaterprohibitedbylawssothatthebodiesofthelivingnotbeinfectedbycontactwiththesmell.

Theseancientsourcesmakeclearthatitwasancientcustomtoburythedeadinassociationwiththehouse,butitisimpossibletodetermine,basedontheirclaims,preciselywhenthisoccurred.Serviusstatesonlythatitwasapudmaiores,whileIsidoreseemstorefertoatimebeforethepromulgationoftheTwelveTablesinthemid‐fifthcentury.Ifthisisthecase,hedemonstratessomeconfusionoverthecontentofthelaws,whichbannedspecificallyburialwithinthecity,notthehome.Ofcourse,theprohibitionagainstintramuralburialwouldhavepreventedburialinthosehousesthatwereinthecity,butitremainsunclearwhetherIsidoreisreferringheretotheTwelveTablesoranothersetoflaws.HisclaimthatthelawswereenactedtokeepthelivingawayfromthesmellrecallsCicero'searlierexplanationoftheprohibitionagainstintramuralcremationasameansofallayingthedangersoffire(Deleg.2.58).Inbothcasesitseemsthatneitherauthorknewthereasonsforthebansandbasedtheirexplanationsoncontemporaryattitudesandbehaviors.175 IthasalreadybeenpointedoutthatneitherServiusnorIsidoreareinfallibleauthorities,especiallysinceServiusseemsconfusedovertheclassificationoflares,penates,lemuresandlarvae;Hallidayevengoessofarastosaybothsourcesarrivedattheseconclusionsbasedonsomefalsepremise.176However,modernscholarshiphasemployedthecitationsofServiusandIsidoretoexplainthearchaeologicalphenomenonofsuggrundaria.177Neitherancientauthorexplicitlyconnectsinhumationinthehomewithchildburial,however.Infact,bothServiusandIsidoremakeitevidentthatitwascustomforeveryone(quis,omnesapudmaioresandquisque)inprevioustimestobeburiedathome. Inthelatenineteenthcentury,GrangerattractedasignificantamountofcriticismwhenusingthesecitationstosuggestthatburialwithindomesticcontextswasanacceptablefuneraryriteinearlyRome,andthatthiscustomcontinuedaftertheprohibitionoftheTwelveTablesagainstintramuralburial.178WardeFowlerwashismostvocalcritic,

175SeeChapter4forfurtherdiscussionoftheTwelveTables.176Halliday(1921)notesthatthevariationsinthetextforServius(adAen.6.152)demonstratesthatheregardedthemallasancestralspirits,whichtheywerenot.177Jarva(1981aand1981b),forinstance.178Granger'soriginalclaimwasratherconservative(1895,60).HewasmerelyreportingwhatServiussaidwasancientcustom,andofferedneithercommentarynoradditionalevidenceonthematter.WardeFowler(1896)tookthistomeanthatGrangerbelievedintramuralburialwascommoninRomeaftertheconstructionoftheServianWallsandpromulgationoftheTwelveTables.Inhisresponsetothiscriticism,Grangerconcededthat

45

claimingthatthearchaeologicalevidenceprovedbeyondadoubtthatevenintheearliesttimestheRomansburiedtheirdeadoutsidethecity.179Accordingtohim,theprohibitionagainstintramuralburialandcremationinTwelveTablesformalizedthistaboo.Tobesure,theclaimsmadebytheancientauthorsaredoubtful.Inthefirstplace,thechronologicaldisparitybetweenthetimeofwritingandthecustomsdescribedcastsdoubtontheirassertions.However,thereisarchaeologicalevidencefromLatiumandsouthernItalythatrevealsitwascustomaryduringtheArchaicperiodtoburythedeadinassociationwithdomesticcontextswithinthelimitsofthecity.1803e.NocturnalBurialThreepassagesfromServius,possiblydrawnfromthelostworksofVarro,suggestthatfuneralsinearlyRometookplaceatnight.181Thefirstruns(ServiusadAen.1.727):

FUNALIA.funaliasuntquaeintraceramsunt,dictaafunibus,quosanteusumpapyriceracircumdatoshabueremaiores:undeetfuneradicuntur,quodfunesincensosmortuispraeferebant.Thetorchesarethosewhicharewithinwax,calledaftertheropesthat,beforetheuseofpapyrus,theancientsheldsurroundedwithwax:fromwhichevenfuneralsareso‐called,becausetheycarriedsheetsinflamedforthedead.

Thesecond(ServiusadAen.6.224):

FACEM.defune,utVarrodicit:undeetfunusdictumest.pernoctemautemurebantur:undeetpermansitutmortuosfacesantecedant.Concerningthesheet,itisasVarrosays:fromthiseventhewordfunusisderived.However,theyusedtobeburnedatnight:andfromthistherecontinuedthecustomthattorchesgobeforethedead.

hebelievedintramuralburialoccurredoftenupuntilthetimeoftheTwelveTables,andcontinuedthereafter,althoughinfrequently(GrangerandWardeFowler1897).179WardeFowler1896.180SeeChapter6forfurtherdiscussion.181OnlythesecondpassagecitesVarroasasource.ThesimilarityincontentandstyleofthefirstandsecondpassageshasledRose(1923,191)tobelievethatthesetwofragmentscomefromthesamesource.ThethirdexampleisanexcerptfromalongerpassagethatgoesontoattributetheauthorityfortheceremonyasVarroandVerriusFlaccus(sicutVarroetVerriusFlaccus).

46

Thethird([Servius]adAen.11.143):sedapudRomanosmorisfuitutnoctistemporeefferrenturadfunalia,undeetiamfunusdictumest,quiainreligiosacivitatecavebantneautmagistratibusoccurrerentautsacerdotibus,quorumoculosnolebantalienofunereviolari.ButamongtheRomansitwascustomthattheywerecarriedoutforburialduringthenight,fromwhichthewordfunusisderived,becauseinareverentstatetheyusedtotakecaresothattheyneitherranintomagistratesnorpriestswhoseeyestheywereunwillingtodishonorwiththefuneraryritesofanother.

Theauthorofthesethreepassagesillustratestheetymologyoffunusfromfunisandconnectsthistothecustomofcarryingfunaliaatfunerals,whichhemayormaynothavepresumedfromthenecessityforlightinanighttimeceremony.Modernscholarshaveinferredfromthethirdpassageareasonwhyfuneralsoriginallytookplaceatnight.182 Twoadditionalreferencesalludetotheancientcustomofnocturnalburial,andreferspecificallytotheburialofchildren.Thefirstisfrom[Servius]adAen.11.143,alreadyquotedinpart:

etmagismorisRomaniutimpuberesnoctuefferenturadfaces,nefunereimmaturaesubolisdomusfunestaretur...alii,sicutVarroetVerriusFlaccus,dicunt:sifiliusfamiliasextraurbemdecessit,libertiamiciqueobviamproceduntetsubnocteminurbeminfertur,cereisfacibusquepraelucentibus,adcuiusexsequiasnemorogabatur.ItwastoagreaterextentaRomancustomthatthoseinchildhoodwerebroughtoutforburialatnight,withtorchesathand,sothatthehousenotbepollutedwiththefuneralofanimmatureissue...others,justasVarroandVerriusFlaccus,say:ifasonhasdepartedthehouseholdoutsidethecity,freedmenandfriendsgoouttomeethimandheiscarriedintothecityatnight,withlittorchesofwax,nooneisinvitedtofuneralprocessionofthisperson.

AsecondpassagefromTacitus(Ann.13.17.1‐4)supportsthis:

noxeademnecemBritannicietrogumconiunxit...festinationemexsequiarumedictoCaesardefendit,itamaioribusinstitutumreferens,subtrahereoculisacerbafuneranequelaudationibusautpompaducere.ThesamenightbroughttogetherthemurderofBritannicusandthefuneralpile...Caesar[Nero]supportedthehasteningofthefuneralwithanedict,thus

182Paoli1963,129;Toynbee1971,46;Walker1985,9;Bodel2000,142.

47

bringingbackathinginstitutedbytheancients,todrawawayfromtheeyesthegrievousfuneraryritesandnottoconductthemwitheulogiesorprocession.

ThebulkofthisevidenceindicatesthattherewasamongRomansoftheImperialperiod(andoftheMiddleandLateRepublic,ifthefragmentsofVarroarereliable),abeliefthatthecustomofnocturnalburialwasthepracticeofthemaiores.Mostmodernscholarshipacceptsthevalidityoftheseclaims,addingthatthepracticewaslikelyabandonedbythetimeoftheLateRepublicexceptinthecasesofchildrenandthepoor.183Rosehasalreadydemonstratedtheimprobabilityofthesurvivalofthiscustominthefuneraryritesforchildrenandthepoorinlatertimes,andseemssupportedbythemorerecentstudiesofCarrollandGraham.184 Despitethis,theassumptionpersistsinmodernscholarshipthatfuneralswereoriginallyheldatnightasawayofavoidingmagistratesandhighpriestswhomightbeafflictedbyspiritualpollution.185Thispresumptionisimpossibletoattest,sincethereisnoevidencefromearlyRomeregardingattitudestowardsdeathorthepollutionbroughtaboutbyit.Bodelclaimsthat,bythetimeoftheLateRepublic,thedisposalofthedeceasedwasmotivatedprimarilybypragmaticconcerns,186butthereisampleevidenceindicatingthatreligiousconcernswereanotherimportantfactor.Accordingtoanumberofancientsources,whenanindividualdied,thehousebecamefunestaorfunestatauntilthepurificationriteswerecompleted.187Thisnormallyoccurredforninedaysafterthedepositionofthebody,upuntilwhichpointsignswerepostedtoalertotherswhoneededtoremainpure.188Itisuncleartowhomthesesymbolswereintended,butBodelmaintainsthatitwaspossiblymagistratesandhighpriests,sincethewell‐beingofthestatewascloselyconnectedtothepurityofthesepeople.1893f.PolybiusItisworthconsideringinbrieftheaccountofPolybiusdescribingthefuneralofanelitemaleatRome(6.53‐4).PolybiuswasaGreekhistorianwritingatRomeinthelatesecondandearlyfirstcenturies,andheoffersthemostdetailedaccountofRomanfuneraryritual.HisaccountisnotdirectlyrelevanttotheArchaicperiod,nordoesitrepresentanythingotherthantheconcernsofaverylimitedgroupinaveryspecificperiod,namely,thearistocraticeliteinlaterepublicanRome.However,thistextistheclosesttoaneyewitnessaccountoffuneraryritualandconsequentlyconstitutesthefoundationofmodern

183Paoli1963,129;Toynbee1971,46;Walker1985,9;Graham2006,30‐1.184Rose1923,193.Graham2006,30andCarroll2011.185Bodel2000,142;Graham2006,30.186Bodel2000,134.187Cic.Deleg.2.55;Dig.45.3.28.4;Gell.4.6.8;Serv.adAen.6.216,364.188Serv.adAen.3.64;6.216;PlinyNH16.40,139.189Bodel2000,142;Lindsay2000.

48

reconstructionsofancientburialrites.190Italsoprovesusefulforcontextualizingthewrittenevidence,bysuggestingthatfuneraryritual,fromatleasttheearlythirdcentury,placedspecialemphasisonpromotingthestatusandachievementsofthegens. Polybiusrecordsthat,whenanillustriousmanhasdied,thebodyofthedeceasedisbroughttotheRostrainafuneraryprocession(pompa).There,thesonorsomeotherrelativenarratestheachievementsofthedeceasedtoanassembledcrowd(laudatio),whichelicitsthesympathyoffamilyandpublicmournersalike.Aftertheburialandperformanceofcustomaryceremonies,animage(imago)ofthedeceased,enclosedinawoodenshrine,isplacedinthemostvisibleportionofthehouse.Theimageisamaskthatrepresentsthedeceased;attimesofpublicsacrificethemaskisputondisplay,andatthefuneralofadistinguishedfamilymember,themaskiswornbyarelativemostresemblingthedeceasedinappearance.Theserepresentativesweartogasinaccordancewiththerankofthedeceased;theyrideinchariotsprecededbythefasces,axesandothersymbolsoftherankachievedintheirlifetime.Whentheprocession(pompa)reachestheRostra,theyallsitinivorychairsandtheoration(laudatio)begins.AccordingtoPolybius,suchascenewouldinspireyoungmentoaccomplishsimilarachievementsandmaintainthegoodreputationofthedeceasedandhisfamily.Headdsthatthemostimportantresultisthatyoungmenareinspiredtowithstandeverymannerofsufferingforthepublicgoodwiththehopeofgaininggloryinsodoing. Modernscholarshiphasdevotedasignificantamountofattentiontotheimagines,theRomanwaxportraitsofmaleancestors.191AccordingtoPolybiustheseweredisplayedinplaceofthebodyduringthefuneralandlaterlocatedinthehouse(6.54‐4).SomescholarsbelievedthemasksderivedfromanarchaicItalictraditionandlikelyresembledterracottamasksfromEtruria.192Suchargumentsarepurelyspeculative,however,sincethereisnodirecttestimonyregardingtheantiquityofthetradition,andnomaskssurviveinthearchaeologicalrecord.193TheAmphitryonofPlautus(458‐9),composedintheearlysecondcentury,containstheearliestreferencestoimagines,andsomescholarsbelievethisreasontosuggesttheyweredevelopedacenturyearlier.194 Apartfromthefuneraryprocessionandoration,theimagineshadlittleuseinthecultorcommemorationofthedead.Althoughthesocialandpoliticalsignificanceoftheimagineschangedovertime,theywereinallperiodsdesignedforusebylivingfamilymembersandhadaclearpoliticalfunction.Thesemaskswereusedinavarietyofcontextstohighlighttheancestralachievementsofoffice‐holdingfamilies.Themasks,inotherwords,wereusedprimarilyinthecarefulconstructionofapublicimage.Inafunerarycontext,asdescribed

190Toynbee1971;Scullard1981;Patterson2000;Jones2002;Graham2006.191SeeespeciallyFlower(1996).192Walbank1957,738;ColonnaandvonHase(1986),whichFlower(1996,339‐351)discusses.193Flower1996,36.194Flower1996,341.

49

byPolybius,suchmasksweredesignedtoberepresentationsofpastleadersandwereassociatedwithtraitsofbravery,frugalityandservicetothestate.195 Flowerarguesthattheimaginesaroseascommunity‐sanctionedsymbolsofprestigeafterthepromulgationoftheTwelveTablesrestricteddisplaysofprivatestatusatfunerals.196Sheclaimsthatthelawsattemptedtopreventelitegroupsfromdeployingsymbolsofprivatestatus,whichreflectedpersonalwealthandsocialconceit.Consequently,funeralsfocusedmoreontheofficesandachievementsofthedeceasedandtheirfamilies,sincetheeliteadoptedthosesymbolsthatrepresentedastatusacquiredwithpeerapproval.Thisapproachissomewhatteleological,anditassumesthatthelawswereprimarilysumptuary.ThereislittleindicationthatthefunerarystatutesoftheTwelveTableswereconcernedwithprohibitingdisplaysofprivatestatus.197Thelaws,ingeneral,arelessconcernedwithrestrictingobjectsthanbehaviorandexpenses.Someoftheprovisionsevenguaranteethedisplayofprestigeitems,irrespectiveofwhethertheyrepresentprivateorpublicsourcesofwealthandstatus.Theeighthstatutepermitstheburialofgolddentures,whichseemtorepresentasignofprivatewealth,butthetenthallowsthedisplayofacrownatthefuneral,whichseemstohavebeenanobjectacquiredinservicetothestate.ThefunerarylegislationoftheTwelveTablesdoesnotcreatemeaningfuldistinctionsbetweenpublicandprivate;bothtypesofdisplaywerepermittedandregulated.Thusitseemsthattheimaginesaroselessasaconsequenceofthefuneraryrestrictionsandrepresentmoreanotherformoffuneraryritualthatallowedsimultaneouslyforthedisplayoftheindividualandfamilyprestige.3g.ConclusionTheancientsourcesbelievedthefollowingabouttheburialritesoftheirancestors:inhumationwasthedominantriteforadultsandchildren;infantsweremournedandburieddifferentlythanadults;adultswereburiedwithinthehousehold;andfuneralsforchildrenandadultsoccurredatnight.ThearchaeologicalrecordofarchaicRomeandLatiumconfirmsthatinhumationwasthedominantrite,andsupportsthatadultswereburiedinconnectionwithdomesticcontexts.Theevidencedemonstrates,inaddition,thatchildrenwereburiedinassociatedwithhouses,afactnotmadeexplicitintheliterarysources.Thereisnoarchaeologicalevidencethatatteststothepracticeofnocturnalburial.ThesumoftheliteraryevidenceforfuneraryritualinearlyRomeisnotgreatandlargelyunreliable.MostaccountscomefromauthorswritinginthefourthtoseventhcenturiesC.E.,aboutamillenniumlaterthantheperiodinquestion.Thesereferencesarechronologicallyvague,anddonotprovideaspecifictimeforthepracticeofaparticularcustom.Atbest,theymentiononlythatacertainritualwascustomaryamongtheancientsorobservedsometimeinantiquity.Theancientsourcesdonotcomeclosetoaddressingfuneraryritualinitsentirety;theyseemmoreconcernedwithpointingoutthoseritesthatweresomehow

195Flower1996,341.196Flower1996,120.197SeeChapter4.

50

peculiar,outdatedordifferent.Forsomesources,namelyCiceroandPlutarch,ancientfuneraryritesfunctionassymbolsofadistantandvirtuouspast,oftenembeddedinlengthierphilosophicalnarratives.Consequently,anyreconstructionoffuneraryritualasithappenedinthearchaicpastisextremelyquestionablebasedontheliterarydataalone.Inthosecaseswheretheliteratureandthearchaeologyagree,theancientsourcesofferlittleexplanationabouttheseancientpractices;theyseemtoreflectmorecontemporaryconcerns.Atbest,theyofferproofthattheancientsourceshadsomeknowledgeoftheirpast,andcontributestothediscussionregardingthehistoricalreliabilityoftheancientaccountsasdiscussedinChapter2.However,thepaucityoftheliteraryinformationplacesspecialimportanceonthestudyofthearchaeologicalmaterial.Indeed,thearchaeologicalmaterialrepresentsthebestandmostreliabledataforallperiodspriortotheLateRepublic.InChapter5IaddressthearchaeologyofburialinRomeandLatiumduringtheArchaicperiod,althoughitisnotablethattherearenocomprehensivestudiesoffuneraryarchaeologyinperiodspriortotheLateRepublic.

51

4.TheDocumentaryEvidenceforRomanFuneraryRitual:theTwelveTables4a.IntroductionTheTwelveTables,aseriesoflawsenactedatRomeinthemid‐fifthcentury,offertheearliestwrittenevidenceregardingearlyRomanfuneraryritual.198Althoughissuesprimarilyrelatedtothehistoricityandtransmissionofthelawsremaincontroversial,scholarsgenerallyaccepttheauthenticityofthetext.Mostofthelaws,whichhavebeengivenaconventionalarrangementbymodernscholars,fallwithintherealmofprivatelaw,andconcernavarietyoftopicsincludingthefamily,marriage,property,slaveryandinheritance.Thetenthtable,however,includesprovisionsrelatedonlytofuneraryactivity.Inparticular,itlistsprohibitionsagainstcertaintypesofbehaviorandlimitsexpensesatfunerals.Modernscholarshiphasgenerallyoverlookedthetenthtable;rarelyhasitbeenusedtoreconstructfunerarypracticesandtounderstandsocio‐economicconditionsinearlyRome.199 However,thetenthtableisdeservingofmorecarefulanalysisforseveralreasons.First,itprovidessomeinsight,althoughlimited,intowhattheinhabitantsofRomeconsideredappropriateasitpertainedtoburialsinthemid‐fifthcentury.TheprovisionsoffermarkedlydifferentinformationfromtheliterarysourcespresentedinChapter3.Ifauthentic,theyconstitutethenearesttoacontemporarysourceforfuneraryritualinarchaicRome.Theydocumenttheprohibitionofcertainritualsandthelimitationofsomeexpensesthatdonotfigureatallinlateraccountsregardingburials.Thus,astudyofthetenthtablecontributestoabetterunderstandingofearlyRomanfuneraryritual.Second,thetenthtableraisesquestionsabouttheroleoffunerarylegislationinthedevelopmentofurbanareasandtheformationofcivicidentity.Thepromulgationoflawpresupposestheexistenceofcomplexsocial,politicalandeconomicinstitutions.Therearenumerousexamplesoffunerarylegislationinthecity‐statesofarchaicGreecethatsuggestsuchlawswerecornerstonesofurbandevelopment.AtRome,theprovisionsofthetenthtableindicatethatearlyRomanlawmakershadsomeideaofwhatconstitutedthephysicalspacewithinandoutsideofthecity,andtheysuggestthatburialwasakeyfactorindeterminingthethoseareas.AreanalysisofthetenthtablewithaviewtourbandevelopmentinvestigatestheroleofburialinthedevelopmentoftheRomancityinitsformativestagesandallowsforcomparisonwithothercity‐statesinLatium. Third,acomparisonofthetenthtablewithotherlegislativetextsfromGreece,IoniaandItalyallowsforabetterunderstandingofRome'spositionwithinthewiderorbitsofcentralItalyandtheMediterraneanworld.Funerarylegislationseemstohavebeenawidespreadphenomenoninthecity‐statesoftheeasternMediterraneanduringthesixthandfifth

198Crawford(1996,555‐721)isaconciseandcomprehensivesourceconcerningallaspectsoftheTwelveTables.Thisaccountincludesadiscussionofissuesofdebate,areconstructionofthetext,acommentaryandabibliographyofmodernscholarship.199SeeespeciallyColonna(1977),Ampolo(1984)andToher(2005).

52

centuries.ThesimilaritiesbetweenthetenthtableandsomeinscriptionsfromsouthernItalyandGreecesuggestthattheseregionsbelongedtothesameculturalkoine,andthatthissharedcultureallowedideasaboutlegislation,amongotherthings,tocirculatewidely.Eachoftheselegaltextsrevealssimilaritiesinlanguageandcontent,whichsuggeststhatthelawsborrowfromasharedformula.However,eachinscriptionusesthisformulatoaddressspecificallylocalconcernsthatcanonlybeunderstoodinaregionalcontext. Afinalreasontorevisitthetenthtable,whichtakesintoaccountthekindsofevidenceoutlinedabove,istoencourageareconsiderationofthefundamentalroletheselawshaveplayedinmoderndiscourseconcerningearlyRomanhistory.Thisisthepointwheretheevidenceforfuneraryritual,legislationandurbanizationintersect.Modernscholarshipregularlyassumesthatthelaws,whichwerereportedlypromulgatedin450B.C.E.atRome,wereputintoeffectinallLatincitiesunderitsinfluence,andthatthisisthoughttobevisibleinthearchaeologicalrecordoftheperiodandregion.Theprohibitionagainstintramuralburialcarriesthegreatestsignificanceinthisdiscussion,sinceitisbecauseofthisprovisionthattheRomansarewidelybelievednottohaveburiedtheirdeceasedwithinthecity.ExtramuralburialisthusconsideredthemarkerofaRomancity,afeatureofurbandevelopmentwhichcanbeinterpretedvariouslyasasymbolofsocial,politicalandethnicidentity.Thishasimplicationsforthearchaeologicalmethodologyofurbanization,wherebycitylimitsareoftendefinedbythepresenceorabsenceofburials.200Complicatingthispicture,however,isthefactthatburialsarelocatedapartfromsettlementswellbeforethepromulgationoftheTwelveTables.TheIronAgecemeteriesatOsteriadell'OsaandCasteldiDecima,tonamejusttwoexamples,areclearlylocatedapartfromtheirassociatedsettlements,althoughatOsteriadell'Osathelocationoftheresidentcommunityhasnotbeenidentified.201Equallyasinfluentialarethelawsrestrictingthebehaviorandtypesofgravegoodsatfunerals,whichscholarshavethoughtexplainthedisappearanceofgravegoodsintombsthroughoutLatium.Theselaws,andthephenomenonvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecord,directlyinformthediscourseconcerningthedevelopmentofRomeandtheexpansionofthecity'spowerintocentralItaly.Putsimply,theemptygravesofLatiumareseenasameasureoftheextentofRome'spowerinLatiumduringtheArchaicperiod.Thischapter,andthosethatfollow,investigatetheroleofthelegislationandthematerialremainsindeterminingtherelationshipsbetweenthesecity‐states.ItmovesawayfromanunderstandingofRomanhistoryasoneofeitherallegianceorresistancetoaRomanauthority,andtowardsrecognizingthevarioussocial,politicalandethnicidentitiesthatmightbetterinformourunderstandingofthedevelopmentofandrelationsbetweenLatincommunities.

200See,inparticular,thecaseforSatricumintheso‐calledpost‐archaicperiod,discussedinChapter5.201Osteriadell'Osa:BiettiSestieri1992aand199b.CasteldiDecima:Holloway1994,114‐20;CLP252‐90.

53

TheprimarydifficultyisthatanyconclusionsdependuponthereliabilityoftheancientsourcesregardingtheTwelveTables.Istressattheoutsetthattheoriginaldocumentsdonotsurvive,andmodernreconstructionsoftheTablesarebasedonfragmentspreservedintheworksoflaterauthors.Mostscholarstrustinthevalidityofthedocument,however.IoperatehereundertheunderstandingthattheancientsourcesgenerallyrecordtheTwelveTablesastheywereknownintheMiddleandLateRepublic,butadmitthatitwouldbeunwisetorelytooheavilyonthisdocumentasasourceofevidence.Thefragmentsareoftensodeeplyembeddedinphilosophicaltreatisesandjuristictextsthattheymaybemorerevealingaboutwhatlaterauthorsthoughtabouttheirearlyhistory.However,Iconsiderthepromulgationofthelawswithintherealmofpossibilityinfifth‐centuryRome,andmaintainthattheyareworthconsidering,eveniftheyappeartobemoretheproductoftheLateRepublic. WhatimmediatelyfollowsisanaccountofthetransmissionandreconstructionofthetextoftheTwelveTables(4b).Thisisfollowedbyapresentationandtranslationofthetextofthetenthtable(4c).InthissectionIcomparetheprovisionstootherexamplesoffunerarylegislationfromarchaicGreeceandIonia,inordertoestablishahistoricalandculturalcontextforthetenthtable.Then,IturninwardandanalyzetheTenthtableinthecontextofarchaicRomeandItalyinordertounderstandtheroleoffunerarylegislationinthedevelopmentofthehistoricalcity.IconcludewithasummaryofmyprincipalargumentsandbriefdiscussionoftheimplicationsoftheseconclusionsforthestudyofearlyRome(4d)4b.TransmissionandReconstructionoftheTwelveTablesThetransmissionoftheTwelveTablesfromtheiroriginalformtotheirreconstructioninmoderneditionsisacomplicatedissue.Therearetwophasesoftransmission,thefirstfromthetextproducedin450B.C.E.totheancientsources,andthesecondfromtheancientsourcestothemanuscriptwitnesses.Inlightofthefactthattheoriginaldocumentdoesnotsurvive,theancientsourcesconstitutethemainbodyofevidencefortheTwelveTables.TheancientsourceswereassuredoftheantiquityandaccuracyoftheTwelveTables,andregardedthemwithreverence.202CicerosuggestsonseveraloccasionsthatsomeformofthelawssurvivedintotheLateRepublic(Deleg.2.9,2.59;Deor.1.195),203andtheworksofRomanjurists,particularlythesixth‐centuryC.E.DigestofJustinian,containnumerousreferencestotheTwelveTables.Itisclearthattheprovisionswerenotalwaysunderstood,anditislikelythatsomemodernizationoccurredtothetextover

202Cic.Deor.1.195;Cic.Deleg.2.9,1.18;Livy3.34.6.Crawford(1996,569‐570)notesthatbythetimeofCicero'sfloruit,theTwelveTableshaddiminishedinimportance.Thereafter,referencestothelawsoccurprimarilyinantiquarianandjuristicsources.Moreoftenthannot,thesereferencesattestreverenceratherthansomespecificknowledge.203SeealsoCic.Deor.1.195.

54

time.204ManyofthestatuteswereobsoletebyCicero'sday,yettheTablesretainedtheirimportanceinthelaterdevelopmentofRomanlaw.205MostscholarstodayacceptthattheancientsourcesgenerallyrecordtheprovisionsoftheTwelveTablesastheywereknownintheMiddleandLateRepublic.206Theprimaryreasonistheuniformityofthefragmentsastheyappearinlateraccounts.NoneofthemanysourcesfortheTwelveTablesofferseriouscontradictions,andtheconflictsthatdoarisearethoseexpectedinadenseliterarytradition,includingmistakesandadjustmentsinlanguage.AsecondreasonsupportingtheantiquityofthelawsisthesimilarityinlanguageandcontentoftheTwelveTableswiththeso‐calledchartersofLatincoloniesdatingfromtheMiddleRepubliconward.207TheLexSpoletina,LexLucerina,LexOscaBantiaandLexColoniaeGenetivaecontainarchaicwordsandrefertoconceptsthatappearborrowedfromtheTwelveTables.208Crawford,whobelievesthattheselaws,orportionsofthem,canbedatedfromapproximately334B.C.E.onwards,viewsthisasevidenceforthediffusionoftheTwelveTablesincentralItalybythemid‐tolatefourthcentury.209Thedatingofalltheselaws,however,iscontroversial. ModernreconstructionsoftheTwelveTablesarebasedondirectquotationsandindirectreferencesintheworksoflaterauthors.Scholarsinthenineteenthcenturywerethefirsttoassembleandarrangethesefragmentsinawaythatremainedconventionalforalongtime.210Generally,thefragmentsweregroupedaccordingtosubjectmatterandassignedtoaspecifictable.ThemostrecenteditionoftheTwelveTables,publishedinRomanStatutesinthemid‐nineteen‐nineties,hasrevisedthetraditionalorderingandomittedfromthetextthoseprovisionsdrawnfromindirectreferences.211Theeditorsincludeasstatutesonlythosetestimoniathattheliteraryandjuristicsourcesquotedirectly,usingipsissimaverba.Theyrejectexplicitlytheapproachesofpreviousscholarswhoincludedasprovisions

204Coleman1996,571.205Forsythe2005,201.206ThisistheviewarticulatedbyCrawford(1996,556‐7).ThemainmonographsandvolumesofthepasttwentyyearsonthesubjectofearlyRome(Cornell1995;Smith1996;Forsythe2005;Raflaaub2005)andtheTwelveTables(Humbert2005)donotquestiontheauthenticityoftheTwelveTables.207Crawford(2011aand2011b).RegardingtheLexOscaTabulaeBantinae:mostscholarsdatetheinscriptioneithertolatesecondcentury,aboutthreedecadesbeforeSocialWar,ortotheearlyfirstcentury,duringtheSullanorpost‐SullanperiodatRome.Crawfordisnotexplicitabouthisreasonsfordatingthelawatleastacenturyearlier.208LexSpoletina:NSc1937,28‐36.LexLucerina:Bodel1994.LexOscaBantia:Crawford1996,271‐292;Chelotti,2007.LexColoniaeGenetivae:Crawford1996,393‐454.209Crawford2011.210Warmington1979,424‐515.211Crawford(1996,557)followsthemethodologyofJacoby(1923)andEdelstein(1972,xv‐xix),whoinsistupontheimportanceofincludingonlythosetextsdirectlyquotedbylaterauthors.Theyrecognizetheimportanceofstudyingattestedreferences,butmaintainthatthereislittletonoplaceinthereconstructionofabasictextforunattestedallusions.

55

indirectreferencestotheTwelveTables,namelywordsandphrasesfoundinlaterlawthatwerethoughttogobacktotheTwelveTables.Inmyview,thiseditionoffersthebestandmostcriticalpresentationofthetext,andistheversionusedhere. ThereremainssomedisagreementregardingthereconstructionoftheTwelveTables,andcertainscholarsmaintainthatitisdifficult,ifnotimpossible,toknowwhatformthelawsoriginallytook.212TheargumentstemsfromthefactthattheancientsourcesmakeverylittlementionoftheorderoftheTwelveTables.Onlyafewstatutescanbeattributedtospecifictables,mostnotablytheprovisionsoftheTenthtable,andafewotherstoTablesII,IVandXI‐XII.213OntwooccasionsCiceroproduceslistsofthecontentsofportionsoftheTwelveTables(Topica26‐7;Deor.1.173),andthesehavecontributedtotheconventionalarrangementsofthelawsinmodernscholarship.AlthoughtheevidencefromCiceromakesclearthattheTwelveTableshadacertainorder,itispossibletomaintainthatthisdoesnotreflecttheirarrangementatthetimeofpromulgationin450B.C.E.CrawfordviewssuchargumentsasinconsistentandignorantoftheevidencegiventwiceinCiceroregardingthesubjectmatter.214TheharshestcriticisperhapsFögen,whodenouncestheTwelveTablesasaninventionofCiceroandotherauthorsinthelatefirstcentury.215Sheusesasgroundstorejecttheentiredocumenttwointrusivestatutes,whichscholarshadalreadyconsideredspuriousandremovedfromthereconstructedtext.216 4c.TheTenthtablePresentationoftheTextandTranslationThetenthoftheTwelveTablesdoesnotsufferfromthesameproblemsoftransmissionandreconstructionassomeoftheothers,sinceitispreservedalmostcompletelyasaseriesoffragmentsinCicero(Deleg.2.59‐2.62).Thetextcontainsanumberofprohibitionsandregulationsregardingritualexpenditureandbehavioratfunerals,whichconstitutetheearliestrecordedevidenceforfuneraryritualinRomeandLatium.ThestatutesoftheTenthtablefallbroadlyunderthecategoryofpubliclaw,andtheyarenotablefortheir

212Guarino1991;Ferrary2005.213Crawford(1996,564)commentsontheseattributions.Cicero(Deleg.2.59)statesclearlywhathebelieveswerethecontentsofthetenthtable.DionysiusofHalicarnassus(2.27.3‐4)attributesthestatuteregardingthetriplesaleofasontothefourthtableandFestus(336L)designatesasthesecondprovisionofthesecondtableastatuteregardingprocedure.214Crawford(1996,556),alsodiscountsNap'shypothesisthattheTwelveTableswerecreatedin225B.C.E.(1925).215Fögen(2005)refersspecificallytoprovisionsVI.7andXII.5.Crawford(2011)criticizesherclaims.216Crawford2011.

56

religiouscharacter.217Whatfollowsisthemostrecentandreliablepresentationandtranslationofthetext,asrecordedinRomanStatutes:218

X.1hominemmortuuminurbenesepelitoneueurito. X.2hocplusnefacito:rogumasceanepolito X.3...<triaricinia>...tuniculapurpurea...decem<tibicines>... X.4mulieresgenasneraduntoneuelessumfunerisergohabento. X.5hominimortuoneossalegito,quopostfunusfaciat,<at...> X.6<hominimortuomurratampotionemneindato.>(Prohibitionof circumpotatio.)<rogum???uinoneplusrespargito.> X.7quicoronamparitipse<familia>ueeiusuirtutisueergoduiturei, <asteiparentiueeiusmortuoimponitur,sefraudeesto.>...<acerras> ... X.8...neueaurumaddito,<at>cuiaurodentesiunctiess<i>nt,astim cumillosepelieturetue,sefraudeesto. X.9<<<bustumpropiusaedesalienassexagintapedesneadicito.>>> X.10<<<forumbustumuereligiosumesto.>>> X.1Heisnottoburyorburnadeadmaninthecity. X.2Heisnottodomorethanthis:heisnottosmooththepyrewitha trowel. X.3...<threeveils>...alittlepurpletunic...ten<flautists>... X.4Womenarenottomutilatetheircheeksorholdawakeforthe purposesofholdingafuneral. X.5Heisnottocollectthebonesofadeadman,inordertoholda funeralafterwards,<but...> X.6<Heisnottoplaceperfumedliquidonadeadman.>(Prohibition ofcircumpotatio.)<Heistoscatterapyrewithnotmorethan??? wine.> X.7Whoeverwinacrownhimselforhis<familia>,oritbegivento himforhisbravery,<anditisplacedonhimorhisparentwhendead, itistobewithoutliability.>...<incensealtars>... X.8...norishetoaddgold,<but>forwhomsoevertheteetharejoined withgold,andifheshallburyorburnitwithhim,itistobewithout liability. X.9<<<Heisnottoplaceabustumwithinsixtyfeetofanother's house.>>> X.10<<<Afore‐courtorbustumistobereligiosus.>>>

217Ampolo(1984,73),whocitesthejuristGaius(2.3‐4)asevidenceforthereligiouscharacteroftombsandburials:Diviniiurissuntvelutiressacraeetreligiosae.Sacraesuntquaediissuperisconsecrataesunt;religiosaequaediisManibusrelictaesunt."Ofdivinelawtherearesacredthingsjustasreligiousones.Sacredthingsarethosewhicharededicatedtothegodsabove;religiousarethosewhicharelefttothegodsbelow."218Crawford1996,582‐3.

57

Ampoloremarksthattheprovisionsofthetenthtableareorganizedaccordingtothefollowinggeneraloutline:regulationsregardingthelocationofthetombandthepreparationofthepyre(X.1‐2);regulationsregardingthefuneralprocession(X.3‐5);rulesconcerningthefunerarybanquet(X.6);instructionsforofferingstothedeceased(X.6);restrictionsregardingitemsplacedintotheburial(X.7‐8);thelegalstatusofburialgrounds(X.9‐10).219Theessentialcharacterofthelawsisrestrictiveratherthanprescriptive,thatistosay,theylimitcertainaspectsofbehaviorratherthandescribeproperprotocolatfunerals.220Thelawsdonotrepresenteveryaspectoffuneraryritual;instead,theydocumentveryspecificconcernsdirectedtowardtheproperlocationandstatusofburials,andcertaintypesofritualbehavior.TheHistoricalContextoftheTenthTableTherestrictivenatureofthetenthtableexhibitsremarkableconformitywithotherexamplesoffunerarylegislationfromthecity‐statesofarchaicGreece.221TheepigraphicevidenceincludesaregulationoftheLabyadaitribeinDelphi,222asecondfromIoulisonKeos,223andathird224andfourth225fromGortynonCrete,allofwhichdatefromthelatesixthtoearlyfourthcenturies.TheliteraryevidenceprimarilyderivesfromthehistoricalnarrativeofSolonatAthens,butincludestraditionsaboutanumberofotherlawmakersincity‐statesthroughoutarchaicGreeceandIonia. Inregardtotheinscriptions,allfourcontainregulationsonfunerarybehavior.TheinscriptionsfromDelphiandIoulisarethemostextensive,andbothcontaintextsthatareolder,whichwerepreservedonthefinalinscriptions.226TheIoulisinscriptionisdatedtotheendofthefifthcentury;thatfromDelphidatestoabout400B.C.E.,althoughpartsofitaredatedtothesecondhalfofthesixthcentury.227TheinscriptionfromIoulislistsrestrictionsontheexpenditureofgarmentsforthedeceasedandliquidsforthefuneral,limitationsonthebehaviorofmourners(particularlyofwomen),andinstructionsforsacrificeandpurification.228TheregulationsfromDelphirestricttheexpenditureforthe

219Ampolo1984,92.220Toher1991.221Ampolo1984;Toher1991,169.222CIDI9;Koerner1993,no.47;Frisone2000,103‐126.223IGXII5.593;Koerner1993,no.60;Frisone2000,57‐102.224ICretIV,46B;Koerner1993,no.137;Frisone2000,25‐30.225ICretIV,76;Koerner1993,no.150;Frisone2000,30‐35.226Blok(2006,211)addsthattherewasawidespreadrevisionoflawsinGreeceattheendofthefifthcentury.AtAthens,themotivationseemtohavebeenpolitical,butthisislesscertainforothercity‐states.Therevisionstotheinscriptionspresentedherearelimitedlargelytotheamountsofmoneynottobeexceeded,whichwerealteredtoreflectcurrentvaluesincoinage.227Blok2006,212.228IGXII5.593;Frisone2000,57‐102.

58

garmentsburiedwiththedeceased,thelamentationduringtheprocession,andthesacrifice.229ThelawsofGortyn,onCrete,datedtothemid‐fifthcentury,offerregulationsonthetransportationofthedeceasedandonritualpurificationafterdeath.230 AcloserinspectionofthelanguageofthetextsofthetenthtableandtheGreeklawsrevealsevengreatersimilarities.231Thethirdprovisionofthetenthtable,whichlimitsfunerarygarmentstothreeveilsandapurpletunic,andthenumberoffluteplayerstoten,findsreadycomparandaintheinscriptionsfromIoulisandDelphiandtheliteraryaccountsregardingthelawsofSolon.Bothinscriptionsrestrictthenumberofgarments:thelawfromIoulisstatesthatthecorpseistobeburiedinpreciselythreegarments,whicharetobewhiteincolor,232whilethelawfromDelphirequiresthegarmentofthedeceased(here,chlainê)belightincolorandonlyonestrômabeplacedunderthecorpse.233AccordingtoPlutarch,Solonregulatedthenumberofgarmentswornbyfemalemournersandthedeceased:neitherwastowearmorethanthreehimatia(Sol.21.6).ThelanguageofX.3makesunclearwhetherthegarmentswereintendedforthedeceasedorthewomeninmourning.234Inallcasesthewrappingofthedeceasedinashroudseemstosuggestthatsuchclothswereimportantgiftsforthedeceased. Thestatuteregardinglacerationandlamentationfoundinthetenthtable(X.4)hassomeparallelsinarchaicGreeklaws.ThelawoftheLabyadaiinDelphiprohibitswailingandthesingingofdirges(thrênein)underveryspecificcircumstances.Thereistobenowailingoutsidethehousebeforearrivalatthegrave,northesingingofdirgesandwailing(ototuzein)forthosealreadyburied;therewillbenolamentation(oimôzein)orwailing(ototuzein)onthefollowingdayoratthetenthyearcelebrations.ThelawofIoulisemphasizessilenceduringthefuneraryprocessiontothegrave,235whichisaprohibitionPlatonotesaswell(Leg.960a1‐2).BasedontheinformationrecordedinCiceroandPlutarch,thelawsofSolonprohibitedthetearingofcheeksandimposedlimitationsonsingingandlamentation.236

229CIDI9;Frisone2000,103‐26.230ICretIV,46B;ICretIV,76.231Toher2005;Blok2006.232IGXII5.593;Frisone2000,57‐102;Blok2006,208,214.233CIDI9;Frisone2000,103‐26;Blok2006,206.ThreeveilswereusedforthelayingoutofthecorpseinGreece:theendymatheepiblêmaandthestrôma.InaGreekcontext,thesegarmentswerelikelyusedastheshroudsforthedeceasedintheprothesis.234Flach(2004,220),thinksthatthereciniamustrefertoasquareclothplacedovertheheadandshoulders.HebasesthisinterpretationonstatementsofFestusandNonius,aswellasthedepictionofsuchaclothonawallpaintingfromagraveinRuvo.235IGXII5,593.236Blok2006,215‐8.

59

AccordingtoToher,funerarylegislationisalientotheItalictradition.237Apartfromthelawsofthetenthtable,therearenoexamplesoffunerarylegislationatRomeuntilthetimeoftheLateRepublic.Eventhen,suchlawsseemtopreservethecharacterofthetenthtable.PlutarchcreditsSullawiththeintroductionoflawsrestrictingextravaganceatfunerals(Sull.35),andthesemayhaveconstitutedaportionofhissumptuarylawsof81B.C.E.,aimedlargelyatcurbingextravagantentertainment.238ThelexColoniaeGenetivaeIuliaeseuUrsonensis,alatefirst‐centurycharterforthecolonyofGenetivaJulia,preservesfuneraryregulationsthatrestrictthelocationofburials.239TwootherinscriptionsfromlaterepublicanRome,theEdictofSentiusandthelexLucerinaseemconcernedwithpreventingpublicareasfrombecominglocireligiosithroughburialactivities.240ToherbelievesthattherelativescarcityoffunerarylegislationinItaly,whencomparedtothenumerousexamplesfromarchaicGreece,makestheGreekcharacterofthetenthtablemorestriking.241 TheconnectionbetweenthelawsofthetenthtableandGreekfunerarylegislationwasfirstdrawninthelatefirstcenturyB.C.E.,andtosomeextentthishasaffectedthecurrentdebateregardingthelevelofGreekinfluenceonthelaws.242TheargumentstemsmainlyfromCicero'sclaimthatthelawsofthetenthtablewereborrowedfromSolon(Deleg.2.59,2.64)andfindssomesupportintheinscriptionsoffunerarylawsfromarchaicGreekcity‐states.CicerostatesonthreeoccasionsinDelegibusthattheprovisionsofthetenthtableweredrawnfromSolon:first,at2.59,whenhewritesthatsomeprovisionsweretranslatadeSolonisferelegibus;243second,at2.64,whenhesaysthatextravaganceinexpenditureandmourningwereSolonislegesublatasunt,quamlegemeisdempropeverbisnostridecemviriindecimamtabulamconiecerunt;244andthird,at2.64,whenheclaimsthattheprovisionregardingthethreeveils(X.3)andmostoftherestwereSolonissunt,andinregardtomourning(X.4)wereveroexpressaverbissunt.245 Cicero'srepeatedassertionsontheSolonianoriginofthetenthtableareconfidentandseembasedonhisowncomparisonofthetwodocuments.Thereisnoreasontobelievethatheisdeliberatelymisleading.246However,boththeancienthistoriographicand

237Toher(2005,272)statesthatsimilarlegislationdoesnotoccuratRomeuntilthelexCorneliain81B.C.E.,buttheselawsaresumptuaryratherthanfunerary.238Toher2005,272.239Crawford1996,424,LXIII.240Bodel1994.241Toher2005,272.242Wieacker1967,1971and1988;Toher2005;Eder2005.243"mostlyborrowedfromthelawsofSolon."244"abolishedbyalawofSolon,whichlawourdecemvirsappliedinthetenthtablewithnearlythesamewords."245"wereofSolon"and"werecertainlyexpressedwithhiswords."246Plut.Sol.21;Toher2005;Siewert1978;Ducos1978.TheearliestaccountsregardingthecreationoftheTwelveTablesmakenomentionofAthensoranyotherGreekcityasasourceofinfluence(Diod.12.26;Cic.Derep.2.61.),andCiceroevendisparagesGreekattemptsatlawmakingincomparisontoRomanones(Deor.1.197).Ogilvie(1965,449‐50)

60

modernacademictraditionsregardingSolonasahistorical,politicalandliteraryfigureinarchaicAthensarecomplex,andtheinterpretationofhislawsiscloselyboundwiththestudyofthetenthtable.TheoriginaltextofSolon'slawsdoesnotsurvive;mostofthereferencestohisfunerarylawsappearintextswrittenatleasttwocenturiesafterhisfloruit.ThetwomainsourcesareCiceroandPlutarch,butanumberoftextsfromthefourthcenturyB.C.E.uptothefifthcenturyC.E.containfragmentsofthislegislation.ModernscholarsdisagreeonthereliabilityofthefragmentsofthelawssincethereareatleasttwocenturiesbetweenthetimethefigureknownasSolonreportedlycodifiedthelawstothetimetheyappearinthesources.247 ItisaseriousproblemthatthemainbodyofevidenceforboththefunerarylawsofSolonandthetenthtablecomesfromthesamesource,Cicero'sDelegibus,inwhichtheauthorimpliesthatbothsetsoflawsareessentiallyoneandthesame.ForGreekhistorians,Cicero'sclaimshavebothallowedforandposedproblemsinreconstructionsofSolon'slaws.ForscholarsofearlyRome,thesameassertionshaveencouragedthestudyofthedevelopmentofthecitythroughthelensoftheriseoftheAthenianpolis.Consequently,thefocusofmuchscholarshiphasfocusedonarguingtheeconomic,socialandpoliticalcircumstancesforthepromulgationoftheTwelveTables,basedonwhatisknownabouttheeconomiccrisisinsixth‐centuryAthens.AlthoughtherearesomeparallelsinlanguagebetweentheGreekandRomanfunerarylegislation,aconnectionbetweenthetwoseemstohavebeenCicero'sownidea.Cicero'sreferencesareindirectonly:heneverincludesdirectquotationsoftheSolonianlaws.Whatismore,theseallusionsaresodeeplyembeddedinCicero'sowndiscussionofRomanfuneraryritualthatitisdifficult,ifnotimpossible,todistinguishbetweentheGreekandRomanelements.

creditstheantiquarianSex.AeliusPaetus,whowroteacommentaryontheTwelveTables,forbeingthefirsttopointoutthesimilaritiesbetweenearlyGreeklawsandtheTwelveTables.Hisworkisnolongerextant,butitmayhaveinspiredtwoseparatetraditions,oneconnectingthecodificationofRomanlawtoHermodorusofEphesus,andanothertoSolon.Ogilvie(1965,450)suggeststhatL.AeliusStiloPraeconius,Cicero'smentor,firstassociatedtheTwelveTableswiththelawsofSolon.ItisprobablethatthetraditionoftheembassiestoAthensandcitiesofMagnaGraeciaappearedatthesametimeandwasbasedontheseinitialobservations.Thesetheories,however,remainspeculativeandaremainlyargumentsfromsilence(Crawford1996,560).247Ruschenbusch(1966)isthefundamentalworkofscholarshiponSolonianlaw,whichisacollectionofthefragmentsofSolon'slaws.Hiscategorizationoffragmentsasgenuineorspuriousiscontroversial(Stroud1979)andhisfragmentsarenotverbatimquotations,butdescriptionsinlaterauthors.Nonetheless,mostscholarsacceptthereliabilityofthetraditionconcerningthelawsofSolon.FormorerecentscholarshipseeScafuro(2006),Blok(2006)andRhodes(2006).Blok(2006,197‐9)providesabriefsummaryofthecentralissuesconcerningthereliabilityofthelawsofSolon.Otherpapersfromthesamevolume(BlokandLardinois2006)discussthehistoricalreliabilityofSolonasapoet,lawgiverandstatesman.

61

TheancientnarrativeconnectingthefunerarylawsatRometothoseatAthensbelongsmorebroadlytoaliterarytraditionregardingearlylawsandlawmakersthatwasparticularlylivelyinthelatefirstcenturyB.C.E.Thesereferencesarebriefandoftenvague,butcontaincontentsimilartotheinscriptionsandthetraditionofSolon.Theindividualstowhomtheselawsarecreditedremainshadowyfigures,buttheirenactmentsaregenerallyconsideredareliablepartofthehistiographictradition.248Stobaeus,writinginthesixthcenturyC.E.,reportsthatCharondasofCatana,inthesixthcentury,putforthalawsubstitutinglamentationwithayearlyofferingfromtheharvest,astherequiredhonortothedeceased.249CicerorecordsthatPittakosofMytilene,intheearlysixthcentury,forbadenon‐familymembersfromattendingafuneral(Deleg.2.66).DiodorusSiculusreportsthatatthetimeofGelon'sdeathin478therewasalawalreadyinplaceprohibitingelaboratefunerals(11.38.1‐5).DiodorusdoesnotattributetheenactmentofthelawtoGelon;itseemstohavebeeninstitutedbysomeunknownfigureinthesixthorearlyfifthcentury.250InarchaicSparta,Lycurgusiscreditedwiththeinstitutionoffunerarylegislationlimitingfuneraryexpenditureandmourning,andencouragingburialwithintheurbanarea.251Itisworthnoting,however,thatLycurgusdidnotwritedowntheselaws,andheiscreditedwithanumberofotherinnovationsinSparta.Althoughthesereferencesaremorerevealingofthehistoriographictraditionconcerningearlylawsandlawmakers,theysuggestthatthetraditionoffunerarylegislationwaswidespreadinarchaicsocieties.252 CrawfordemploysinscriptionsfromRomeandsouthernItalytodrawwiderinferencesabouttheroleoflawmakinginthearchaicsocietiesoftheMediterraneanworld.253ThefirstexampleisalegalinscriptionfromTortorathatdatestoapproximately500B.C.E.andiswritteninanearlyItaliclanguageintheAchaeanscript.254Theinscriptionwasfoundneararoadthatsurroundedalatearchaiccemetery.ThesecondexampleconstitutestheinscriptiononthecippusofthelapisnigeratRome,whichmanyscholarsbelieverepresentssacredlaw.255CrawfordobservessimilaritiesinthecompositionoftheTortoraandlapisnigerinscriptions,andconnectsthemtoalegalinscriptionfromChiosorErythrai(c.575‐550),inIonia.256Allthreetextswereinscribedonstele,verticallyonmultiplesides,andinboustrophedon.257Oneachstelethebeginningofanewclauseisindicatedbyabreakintheboustrophedon.ThesesimilaritiesledCrawfordtosuggestthattheinhabitantsofRome

248Szegedy‐Maszak1978.249Stobaeus44.40.250Toher(1991,168)speculateswhetherDiocles,whoisknownfromDiodorus(13.35.3)forproducingalawcodeinthelatefifthcentury,wasalsoresponsibleforthelawlimitingfuneraryextravagance.HeconsidersthisunlikelysinceitisunclearwhatcomprisedDiocles'legislation.251Plut.Lyc.27.1‐2.252Toher1991,168.253Crawford2011.254Crawford2011,Imagines,BlandaI.255Interpretationofthetextremainscontroversial.SeeChapter2.256vanEffenterreandRuzé(1994‐5,I.61)presenttheChios/Erythraiinscription.257ThestelafromChiosorErythriahasahorizontalinscriptiononthefourthside.

62

andTortoralearnedhowtoinscribelaws,notdirectlyfromIonia,butfromtheirIonianneighborsinItaly.HearguesthattheIoniancolonyofVelia,inMagnaGraecia,couldhaveservedasapointofaccessfortheTortorainscription,whereasRomecouldhavedrawninspirationfromtheGreekcolonyatCumae. ItisimpossibletoproveonthebasisofthisevidencealonewhethertheinhabitantsofItalylearnedtoinscribelegaltextsfromIoniancontactsinItaly.TheequallyspeciousargumenthasbeenmadepointingtotheGreeksofMagnaGraeciaastheprimarysource.258However,theevidenceissuggestive,andattheveryleastrevealsthelevelofinterconnectednessbetweenthecity‐statesoftheMediterraneanworldinthefifthcentury,particularlyintheregionsofcentralandsouthernItaly.Thisconclusionappearssupportedbythearchaeologicalrecordofothercontexts.259AsCrawfordarticulates,thiswasaworldofborrowingapproachestocomposingandinscribinglaws,andofborrowingandmodifyingalphabets.260Itshouldnotbesurprising,then,thatthereareparallelsincontentandlanguagebetweentheTwelveTablesandGreeklaws,sincethemixtureofItalic,GreekandIonianelementsisalreadyattestedinanumberofinscriptionsfromItaly.Whatismore,thepresenceofsuchinscriptions,especiallythoseofalegalnature,demonstratesthatthepromulgationoftheTwelveTableswaspossible,ifnotprobable,infifthcenturyRome. AlthoughtheseattemptstodiscernthelevelofGreekorIonianinfluenceonthetenthtablehelptodetermineabroadhistoricalcontextforthelegislation,theytendtooverlookthattheprovisionsaddressparticularlyRomanconcerns.Infact,thelanguageandcontentofthetextareveryRoman.261ThepurpletunicandthetenflautistslistedinX.3seemtobeareflectionofRomanpractice.262TheGreeklawsrestrictspecificallywhitegarmentsandmakenomentionofflautistsatfunerals;nothingisknownabouttheroleofflautistsatRomanfunerals,however.263Theprohibitionsagainstthepreparationofthepyre(X.2)andthecollectionofbones(X.5)havenoparallel,nordothesanctionstoincludeinburialsacrown(X.7)orteethjoinedwithgold(X.8).Perhapsmostsignificantarethelawsconcerningthelocationandstatusofthetombs.TheGreeklawsdonotexpressthesameconcernwithdefiningthespaceinwhichburialswereallowed.AnalysisoftheremainingprovisionsoftheTwelveTablesrevealsthat,whiletherearesomeparallelstoGreeklegislation,theyremainspecifictothesocialandeconomicconditionsatRome.264

258Wieacker1971,757‐84.259InChapters5and6Iarguethatthereisafairamountofarchaeologicalevidencefromothercontextstosupportthisclaim.260Crawford2011,158‐9.261Blok(2006,214‐5)makesthepointthatthetenthtableisveryRoman.262Blok2006,214;Dyck2004,404.263Reiner1938,67‐69.Graf(2002,117)discusseshowflutesorpipesweremorecommonlyusedinGreekantiquityatsacrifices.264Crawford(1996,560)suggeststhefollowing:III;VII.2‐5,8and9;VIII.13‐15.Henotes,however,thatmanyoftheseclaimsarespecious.TheselawsaresimilartosomeexamplesofAthenianlegislationfoundinliterarysources.ThemajorityareconnectedtothelawsofSolon.GaiusspecificallyattributessomeprovisionstoSolon(VII.2;VIII.14‐15);Festusmay

63

ThenatureofthetenthtableinmodernscholarshipItisclearthattheformalizationoflawmarksasignificantstepinthedevelopmentofarchaicsocieties,andthatthisoccurredinseveralGreekcity‐statesduringthesixthandfifthcenturiesandprobablyatRomeinthemid‐fifth.265Itisalsoevidentthatfunerarylegislationconstitutedasignificantportionoftheseearlylaws,andmayhaveevenbeenthemostwidespreadformoflawinarchaicsocietiesofGreekandRomanantiquity.266Thelawsrevealremarkableconformitydespitetheirgeographicandchronologicalbreadth.Thissuggestsfunerarylegislationwasawidespreadphenomenonthatrequiresanexplanationapplicabletoallarchaicsocieties.267Thisdoesnotexcludeconsiderationofthoseimmediatelocalcircumstancesthatcontributedtoparticularprovisionsorthepromulgationoflaw,however.Thedifficultyisthat,withRome,itisimpossibletoreconstructthehistoricalcircumstancesthatledtosuchlegislation. Thereisnoconsensusinmodernscholarshipconcerningthemotivationforthefunerarylegislationofthetenthtable.Theconventionalinterpretationofthelawsviewsthemmerelyasoneaspectofsumptuarylegislation,aimedatcurbingtheexcessivedisplaysoftheeliteinordertopromoteisonomyamongthearistocracyandalleviatetensionbetweeneliteandnonelitegroups.268Lenelfirstpresentedthisnotionintheearlytwentiethcentury,269whichanumberofscholarshavesubsequentlyrestatedandmodified.WieackeraddedthatthetenthtablewasenactedduringatimeofpoliticalandeconomiccrisisatRomeandwasintendedtoreducethetypesofeliteconspicuousconsumptionthatencouragedsocialconflictwiththeplebeianclass.270Ederarguedthatthelawsmadefewconcessionstotheplebeiansandinsteadwerepromulgatedintheinterestofaristocraticself‐preservation.271Colonna,acceptingsuchargumentsinsupportofapoliticalandeconomicmotivationforfunerarylegislation,connectedthedocumentaryevidencetothearchaeology:hearguedthattherestrictionsofthetenthtableexplainedthedisappearanceofgravegoodsinthearchaeologicalrecordofRomeandLatiumduringtheArchaicperiod.272 ThisunderstandingisheavilyindebtedtothescholarshipofarchaicGreeksocietiesthatconnectedtheriseofluxurygoodsfromtheGreekeasttothepoliticalcrisisamongthearistocracyinthesixthcentury.Thepromulgationofsumptuarylaws,ofwhichfunerarylegislationconstitutedapart,wasconsideredintegraltotheresolutionofthesociopolitical

havesuggestedGreekinfluenceinVIII.13;VII.8findsaparallelinPlato,LawsVIII,844c‐d;SeealsoCrawford(1996,560).265Forsythe2005,202‐3.266Toher1991,160.267Toher1991,169.268Forinstance,Bonamente(1980).269Lenel1905,516‐7.270Wieacker1967,313.ThisviewissharedbyvanBrechem(1966,745‐8).271Eder2005,n.69andn.79.272Colonna1977.

64

crisisofarchaiccity‐states.273ScholarsofearlyRome,influencedbythisapproach,trustedintheancientaccountsthatunderstoodthepromulgationoftheTwelveTableswithinthecontextoftheConflictoftheOrders.274Accordingtothisnarrative,themembersoftherulingaristocraticeliteestablishedabodyoftenmentosetupaseriesoflawsthatwouldallowtheplebeians,ahithertoexcludedsocialclass,agreaterdegreeofpoliticalauthority;therecordingoflawsontwelvebronzetabletsconstitutedapermanentcodetoresolvedisputesandregulatebehaviorinawaythatwasexpedientfortheboththepatricianandplebeiangroups.Theregulationoffuneraryexpenditurewouldhaveservedtodecreasethoseopportunitiesofeliteostentationthatcouldinflamesocialtension.ThebroadoutlinebetweentheGreekandRomancreationoflawissosimilar,however,thatthenarrativeconcerningthecreationoftheTwelveTablesseemsmoreaninventionofthefirstcenturythanahistoricalreality.ForthecaseofRome,thereisverylittleevidencetoproveeitherwaythattheTwelveTableswerebornefromsociopoliticalunrest.Itisequallypossible,andequallyspeculative,thattheyrepresenttherecordingoflong‐standingpractices.Alternately,theinstitutionoflawmayhaveprovokedpoliticaldissentwhennoneorlittlehadexistedbefore.275 Morerecently,scholarshaveproventhatthereisverylittlereasontoviewfunerarylawssolelyasacomponentofsumptuarylawscreatedtoresolveapoliticalcrisis.276Sumptuarylawswereregularlyenactedinpre‐modernsocieties,andwereoftendirectedtowardlimitingexpensesonfunerals,foodandclothing.Theselimitationswerenotintendedtopromotevirtuesofself‐restraint,astheauthorsofphilosophicaltreatisesbelieve,butwereintendedtocurbcustomsthatwerethoughttobeundesirable.277However,thereisnoevidencefromthetenthtablethattheRomansweretryingtolimitexpenditureinanymeaningfulway.278Thelawsregulatecertainaspectsofbehavior,suchaslamentationandcircumpotatio,andrestrictthevalueofsomegoodstobeplacedinthegrave,suchasgolddenturesandcrowns,buttheyleaveunmentionedawholehostofotheraspectsthatprovidedopportunitiesforextravagantdisplay,includingsacrifice,tombsize,numberofmournersandmostgravegoods. Scholars,againlookingtowardsstudiesofarchaicGreeceforanalternativesolution,connectedtheprovisionsofthetenthtabletotheprocessofurbandevelopment.279GernetfirstnotedtheimportanceoffunerarylegislationinthedevelopmentofearlyGreekpoleis,recognizingthatfuneraryandsumptuarylawspresupposedacentralizedauthority.280ScholarsofearlyRomehavesubsequentlyarguedthattheroleoffunerarylegislationwas

273SeeespeciallyMazzarino(1947,193‐4,214‐6).274Lenel1905;Wieacker1967.275Forsythe2005,203.276Sourvinou‐Inwood1983;Ampolo1984;Toher1991and2005.277Blok2006,229‐30.278Shapiro(1991,630‐1)andBlok(2006,230)arriveatthesameconclusionsforthelawsofSolon.279Ampolo1984;Cornell1995,105‐108;Smith1996,185‐8.280GernetandBoulanger1932,160.

65

fundamentaltothedevelopmentofthehistoricalcity.281Funerarylawspresumetheexistenceofcomplexsociopoliticalinstitutionsand,intheincreasinglysophisticatedandcompetitivesocietyatRome,membersofthearistocraticelitewereredirectingvisibledisplaysofwealthawayfromintermentingraves(wheretheybecameinvisible)andtomorepubliclyvisibleformsofmonumentalconstruction,suchassanctuaries.282Thearenaofcompetitivedisplaythusshiftedawayfromburialandtowardscitiesandsanctuaries.283Thistheoryisinsomemeasuresupportedbythearchaeologicalrecord,wheregravegoodsdisappearandtheexamplesofmonumentalarchitectureinothercontextsincreasessubstantially.284However,thechangesinfuneraryritualpredatethepromulgationofthelaws;asdiscussedinChapter5,thisprocessbeginsasearlyastheseventhcentury. Theproblemwiththisargumentisthatitimpliesadirectrelationshipbetweentheinstitutionofthetenthtable,thedisappearanceofgravegoodsandtheurbandevelopmentofRomeandLatium.ItsuggeststhattheRomansenactedfunerarylegislationinordertoredirecttheeconomicsurplusoftheelitetowardscivicmonumentality.Thereisnoevidencethatthelimitsimposedbythetenthtablewouldhavediminishedtheoverallcostofburialandleftthesurvivingfamilywithanexcessofresourcesandthatthesefamilieswouldhaveexpendedthoseresourcesonmonumentalconstruction.ThistheoryalsooverlooksthefactthatthewealthyatRomecouldhavecontinuedtoenjoyopulentfunerals,eveniftheyabidedbytherestrictionsofthetenthtable.Whatismore,ifthearenaofcompetitivedisplayhadshiftedtothepublicsphere,thenthetenthtablecouldbeexpectedtorestrictextravaganceinthoseareas,ratherthanfunerals.285 Itisoftenremarkedthattheprovisionsofthetenthtablearereligiousinnature,butitisrarelydiscussedwhatthisactuallymeans.286TheInstitutionesGai,writteninthemid‐secondcenturyC.E.,statethatallthingswereclassifiedaccordingtowhethertheycouldbeownedprivatelyornot(2.1),andamongthosethingsthatcouldnotbeprivatelyowned,wereresreligiosae.Resreligiosaeconsistedoftombs,sepulchers,mausolea,cenotaphsandotherlandusedforburial,butcertainconditionshadtobemetinorderforaburialgroundtobeclassifiedasreligiosus.Thisstatementhasledanumberofscholarstointerpretthelawsofthetenthtableasasetofreligiouslaws,sincetheypertaintomattersofburial,whichwerelaterconsideredresreligiosae. ScholarsoffunerarycustomsinarchaicGreecealreadyhavefocusedontheritualandreligiousconcernsexpressedinfunerarylegislation,inanattempttomoveawayfrom

281Ampolo1984.282Cornell1995,105‐108;Smith1996,185‐8.283ThisconclusionechoesstudiesdonebyMorris(1987)inarchaicGreece,especiallyAthens.284Colonna1977.285Itisimportanttonote,however,thatthesephenomenaappearrelated,andwillbediscussedingreaterdetailinChapter5.286Forinstance,Robinson(1975);Ampolo(1984);Toher(2005).

66

explanationsthatunderstandthepromulgationoffunerarylawsaspoliticallymotivated.287Theclaimisthatthepurposeofsuchlawsistoreducethepotentialforpollution(miasma)thatdeathcanbringtoacommunity.Thus,thelawsareaimedatrestrictingthepossibilityforpollutionandlimitingitsoccurrence,aswellasprovidingmeasuresforthepurificationofthosepollutedbydeaththroughparticipationinfunerals.Anumberofthelawsareconcernedwithkeepingawayfrompublicandprivatespacesthoseitemsinvolvedinthefuneral,andwiththepurificationofthehomeandrelativesofthedeceased.Inmakingtheserestrictionslaw,archaicGreekcommunitiesweredefiningandregularizingthemeansbywhichsurvivorscoulddealwiththedeadandbereincorporatedintotheworldoftheliving.Anypoliticalconsequencesaresecondaryeffectsofthelegislation. AlthoughthisislikelytrueforthecommunitiesofarchaicGreece,itisimpossibletomakesuchaclaimintheRomanworld,owingtothefactthatthereexistnocontemporaryliteraryaccountsorartisticrepresentationsthatcancommunicateRomanattitudestowarddeath.Whatismore,theprovisionsofthetenthtabledonotexpressanyconcernwithpurification,whereastheGreeklawsfromIoulisandLabyadaiexpressthisasoneoftheprimaryconcerns.TheonlydiscussionconcerningthesignificanceofthetenthtableinantiquitycomesfromCicero,whowaswritingcenturiesaftertheTwelveTableswerefirstrecorded.Ciceroisinterestedinthelawsoftenthtablebecausetheirantiquityandausteritylendauthoritytohisviewofthesignificanceofreligionandmoralityinhisidealcity‐state.InthesecondbookofDelegibus,CiceropresentsaseriesoflawstosuitthekindofidealstateashedepictedinDerepublica.288 WhatisnotableinCicero'sdiscussionofthetenthtableisthathedoesnotconsiderthepoliticalmotivationforfunerarylegislation;hisconcernsarepracticalandreligious.CicerowaswellawareofthepublicdisruptionalavishfuneralcouldcauseandonmorethanoneoccasionhenotesthatfuneralsandtombsatRomehadbecomeexcessivelyextravagant(Deleg.2.62,2.66).ToherstatesthatCicerocouldnothavebeenunawareofthepoliticalpurposeofthepublicfuneral,suchastheoneJuliusCaesarheldforhisownfather,whohaddiedsometwentyyearsearlier,289orevenSulla,whomPlutarchrecordswasburiedatpublicexpense(Sull.38).However,Ciceronevermentionsthatfuneralsshouldbeaustereandthatfunerarylegislationshouldrestrictextravaganceforthepurposeoflimitingsocialandpoliticaldisruption.Itispossiblethat,duetothenatureofhisphilosophicaltreatise,Ciceropreferrednotmentionsuchacoarsemotivationforfunerarylegislation.290ThetenthtableandfunerarylegislationatRome Itisclearfromtheevidenceoutlinedabovethatthelawsofthetenthtable,amongotherexamplesoffunerarylegislation,donotbelongsolelytoeitherofthefollowingcategories:

287Sourvinou‐Inwood1983;Sourvinou‐Inwood1995.288Dyck2004,238‐239.289Toher2005,273,andn.39.ConcerningthefuneralgamesofCaesar,seeDioCass.37.8andPlinyNat.Hist.33.53.290Toher2005,275.

67

sumptuarylawsdesignedtoreduceconspicuousconsumption;lawsdesignedtocreateisonomybetweentheeliteand/orreducethesociopoliticaltensionbetweenthearistocracyandthelowerclasses;religiouslawsreflectingacceptedcustomsandformalizingthedivisionbetweentheworldofthelivingandthatofthedead.Thedifficultywitheachoftheseapproachesisthattheyremovethetenthtablefromthecontextoftheremainingeleventables,andattempttoexplainthemotivationsofandpurposefortheselawsbasedonalimitedunderstandingofearlyGreeklegislationandthroughthelensofafabricatedhistoriographictradition.Inordertoarriveatanyconclusionsregardingthepurposeoftheselaws,itisimportanttoevaluatethemwithinthecontextofearlyRome,byconsideringpreciselywhattheyregulateandhowtheyrelatetotheremainingprovisionsoftheTwelveTables. Thelawsofthetenthtableimposerestrictionsinseveralareas.First,regardingthelocationofburialandcremation:neitheristobewithinthecity(X.1)andthebustumisnottobewithinsixtyfeetofanother'shouse(X.9).Second,concerningthetypesofbehavioroccurringduringfuneraryritual:womenarenottomutilatetheircheeksorholdawake(X.4);nooneisallowedtoplaceperfumedliquidonthedeceased(X.6);andcircumpotatioisforbidden(X.6).Third,inregardtolateractivityattheburialsite:thebonesofthedeceasedarenotallowedtobecollectedinordertoholdalaterfuneral(X.5).Fourth,regardingtheitemsinvolvedinthefuneral,whichincludeobjectsplacedinthegraveandthoseusedbythemournersinthefuneraryprocession:nomorethanthreeveils,alittlepurpletunic,andtenflautistsareallowed(X.3);acrownispermittedtobeburiedaslongasitiswonbythedeceasedorhisfamilia,orgiventohimforbravery(X.7);andnogoldistobeburiedorburned,exceptforgoldjoinedtoteeth(X.8).Fifth,regardingthepreparationofthepyre:thepyreisnotallowedtobesmoothedwithatrowel(X.2).Sixth,concerningthelegalstatusofgraves:thefore‐courtorbustumisconsideredreligiosus(X.10). Fromtheoutset,thelawsseemaimedatthemanagementofurbanspace.Thebanonburialandcremationinthecity(X.1)documentsadesireonthepartoflawmakerstoremovebothoperationsfromtheurbanarea;thismusthavebeenconsideredanexpedientdecision.Whetherthelawreflectsasuddenbanonpreviouslyrecurringpracticeortheformalizationofalong‐standingtraditionisimpossibletodeterminebasedonthedocumentaryevidencealone.However,itisconceivablethatthelocationfortheproperdispositionofthedeceasedwasamatterofpublicinterest.Thedecisioncouldhavebeeninpartapracticalone.Bothinhumationandcremationtookplaceatthesiteofburialandinvolvedritualsthatprobablyconsumedaconsiderableamountoftime.Acremationburialrequiredtheconstructionofapyreonwhichthedeceasedandanygoodsorequipmentwouldbeburned.Recentestimateshavesuggestedthattheprocessofcremation,accordingtoRomanmethods,wouldhavetakensevenoreighthours.291Itwouldhavealsoinvolvedtheoccasionalstokingandremovalofash.292Itisunclearhowlonganinhumationburialwouldhavetaken,butthelengthoftimewouldhavedependeduponthetypeof

291McKinley1989,73.292Noy2000,187.

68

burialtobeconstructed.Inbothcases,theperformanceofrelatedrituals,someofwhichwerealsorestrictedbythetenthtable(X.4‐6),wouldhaveaddedtothistime. Cicerorecordsthatthebanonintramuralcremationwasduetothedangeroffire(Deleg.2.58),andthereisgoodevidencethat,bytheLateRepublic,thelocationofcremationwasconsideredpartofthecareofthecity.AchapterofthelexcoloniaeGenetivaeforbidstheconstructionofnewsitesforcremation(ustrina)withinhalfamileofthesettlement,andasenatusconsultumfrom38B.C.E.forbidscremationwithintwomilesofRome.293ItispossiblethatthedangerposedbyfireconstitutedpartofthereasoningforthebanintheTwelveTables,butitcouldbethatCicero'scommentrepresentsaconcernparticulartothelatefirstcentury.AnotherreasontocastdoubtonCicero'sclaimisthatheoffersnoexplanationfortheprohibitionofintramuralburial;Cicero'ssilenceheresuggestshisignorance.Robinsonclaimsthisregulationdoesnotseemtohaveemergedfromanytaboo,sinceCicerotellsusthatVestalVirginsandprominentcitizenscontinuedtobeburied,orhadtherighttobeburied,withinthecity.294However,theseappeartohavebeenexceptionstotherule,asintramuralburialremainedarareoccurrence.Individualswereonlygrantedtherightbecauseoftheirmerit,eitherbeforethelawwasenactedorthereafter,andtheprivilegewasretainedbytheirdescendants.295 Oneconsequenceoftheprohibitionagainstcremationandburialinthecitywouldhavebeentofreeupurbanspaceforotherpurposes.Thefinalprovisionofthetenthtable,whichpreservesthereligiousstatusoftombs,givessomeindicationoftheadvantagesofmovingbothritualsoutsidethecity.Thestatutestipulatesthattheforumorbustumoftheburialistobereligiosus(X.10).AccordingtoFestus,forumdesignatesthefore‐courtofatomb(PauliExc.74L)andbustumreferstotheplacewherethebodyisburnedandburied(PauliExc.29L).Aresreligiosuswasatermappliedtotombs,whichwereconsecratedonlywhenabodywasburiedbysomeonewhohadarighttoburythebodythere,andthispersonwasusuallytheowner.296TheconventionalinterpretationofthisprovisionisderivedfromCicero,whostatesthattheentranceofthetomborthemoundmaynotbeacquiredbyusucapio,therebyprotectingthespecialprivilegesofgraves.297Itispossible,then,thatburials,protectedbytheirreligiousstatus,precludedtheareasinwhichtheywerelocatedfromanyotheruse.

293ForthelexcoloniaeGenetivae,CILI2594=ILS6087,lines61‐63.Forthesenatusconsultum,seeCass.Dio48.43.3.294Robinson1975,176.295Cic.Deleg.2.58,Credo,Tite,fuisseauteos,quibushocantehanclegemvirtutiscausatributumest,Policolae,utTuberto,quodeorumpoestriiuretenuerunt,auteos,siquihoc,utC.Fabricius,virtutiscausasolutilegibusconsecutisunt.296Watson1992,56‐7.297Cic.Deleg.2.61,writes..."forum,"idestvestibulumsepulchri,"bustumveusucapi"vetat,tueturiussepulchrorum.Usucapioreferstotheacquisitionofpropertythroughcontinuousownership.

69

Itisclear,however,thatbytheLateRepublic,publiclandcouldnotbemadereligiosusbyaprivateact,meaningthatgravesfoundinapubliclocationcouldbeexhumed.CicerodescribesonesuchcircumstanceregardingtheconstructionofthetempleofHonoroutsidetheCollinegate(Deleg.2.58):analtaroncestoodinthatlocation,nearwhichametalplatewasfoundbearingtheinscription"ToHonor",whichgavethenametothecurrenttemple.However,thereweremanygravesinthatspot,andthesewereexcavated,sincethecollegedeterminedthataplacethatwaspublicproperty(locumpublicum)couldnotbecomesacred(religione)throughtheritesperformedbyprivatecitizens.TheonlyinsightCiceroprovidesregardingthemotivationfortherestrictionoflandforburialsoccurselsewhereinDelegibuswhen,drawingfromPlato'sLaws,hestatesthatburialsshouldbeforbiddenfromlandsalreadyundercultivationorthathavethepotentialtobecultivated(Cic.Deleg.2.67;Plat.Laws12.958D‐E).Heexplainsthatthecareofthedeadshouldnotoutweightheconcernsoftheliving;heencouragesthemaximumuseofthekindoflandsuitableforburialsothatthereisnoharmdonetotheliving.Themainpointseemstobeaneconomicone,andCiceroobjectstoanyone,livingordead,bringingaboutareductionincropproductionbyinterferingwitharableland.Whenhestatesearlierthatnolandshouldbeconsecrated,sincealllandissacredtothegods,heexpressesreservationsthatcultivationwilldeclineifsuperstitionsariseaboutitsuseorsubjectiontotheplow(Cic.Deleg.2.22,2.45;Plat.Laws12.955E‐956B). AlthoughitisimpossibletodeterminebasedontheevidenceintheTwelveTableswhetherearlyRomanlawmakersweredesignatingthespacepreviouslyoccupiedbyburialsspecificallyforpublicuse,itisreasonabletosuggestthatinlocatingburialsoutsidethecity,theywereredefiningtheurbanterritory.Thisincludesthespacedirectlyinthecity(inurbe)andtheregionimmediatelyoutside(extraurbem),anditsuggeststhatburialwasaprimarymeansofarticulatingthisdistinction.TheremainingprovisionsoftheTwelveTablesarenotexplicitregardingwhatmonuments,activitiesandpeoplewerepermittedinurbe;theyonlystatethatburialswerenot.ThestatutesmakereferencetotheForum,Comitium,privateproperties,roadsandvineyards,andindicateapopulationcomprisedoffamiliae,VestalVirgins,slaves,beastsandforeigners.Theyrevealawiderangeofactivities,includingmarriage,thesaleofpropertyandtrials.Thelawsareambiguousregardingtheappropriatelocationsfortheseplaces,peopleandactivities.Theymayhaveappliedonlytowhateverwasconsideredinurbe,ortheymayhaveappliedequallytotheareaswithandoutsideofthecity.ThesameambiguitybetweeninurbeandextraurbemisevidentbasedonthearchaeologyofarchaicRome.Theevidencesuggeststhatbothareaswerethesitesofdomestic,agriculturalandreligiousactivity.298ProvisionX.1createstheonlymeaningfuldistinctioninaddingburialstotheextraurbanlandscape.Whatismore,provisionX.9illustratesthattherewasnobasicobjectiontotheproximityofburialsandhousesinextraurbanareas.Theemphasisisontherelationshipbetweenthebustumandthepropertyofanother

298Holloway(1994)andSmith(1996)offerageneraloverviewofthearchaeologicalevidenceforRomeandLatiumintheArchaicperiod.

70

individual,whichcouldbenolessthansixtyfeetfromoneanother.Cicerostatesthatthiswasanotherattemptatreducingthehazardsoffirewithinthecity(Deleg.2.61).299ThisstatuteseemstobelongtothatcategoryoflawsfromtheTwelveTablesthatregulatetherightsofneighbors,thedamagestopropertyandtheownershipofland.300Additionally,thereisnoevidencetosuggestthathygienemotivatedtheseprovisions.301Itissignificant,too,thattheTablespermittedburialsinassociationwithprivateproperty,providedthatthesewerelocatedoutsidethecity. AlthoughthepomeriumandtheServianWallsfunctionedasvisibleboundariesbytheLateRepublic,theareasbothinsideandoutsidethecitycontinuedtobeoccupiedbythesametypesofstructures.302Domesticresidences,commercialinstallations,industrialbuildings,publicmonuments,andsacredstructuresareattestedbothinurbeandextraurbem.Structuresmorecommonlyfoundoutsidethecityweregardens(horti)andburials.Thelegalprohibitionkeptmostburialsoutsidethecity,withexceptionsgrantedtoindividualsofmeritorfamilieswithancestralrights.Therewasnoprohibitionagainstintramuralhorti,butmostwerelocatedoutsidethecitypresumablybecausetheyconsumedtoomuchspace.Thehortiwereoftencomprisedoftherichhomesofthewealthyandoccupiedlargetractsoflandthatweredevotedlargelytopleasureandnotforprofit.Bothgardensandtombswerehighlyvisiblevenuesofostentatiousdisplay,anditseemsthattheybothfunctionedasmarkersofstatusontheoutskirtsofthecity.AlthoughthisevidenceisparticulartoLateRepublic,itsuggestscontinuityinancientconceptionsofRome.Inbothperiodsthereareknownboundaries,butthereisconsiderableoverlapregardingthetypesofstructuresthatoccupybothspaces.Inbothperiodsthereisnoinherentobjectiontotheproximityofburialstootherareasdesignatedfortheliving,norareindividualsandgroupspreventedfromdisplayingachievementinburial. Anumberofstatutesinthetenthtableinvolveritualsthatareconnectedtotheburialsite,whichsuggeststhatRomeextendedherlegalauthorityintotheareasextraurbem.TheseincludeX.9,whichdictatestheminimumdistancebetweenabustumandthehouseofanother;X.6‐8,whichlimitthenumberandtypesofgravegoodsandofferings;X.2,whichinvolvesthepreparationofthepyre;andX.5,whichforbidsthecollectionofbonesforthepurposeofanotherfuneral.Itisuncleartowhatextenttheprovisionsrelatedtotheritualprocessionandlamentation(X.3‐4)maybelongtothiscategory.TheTablesdonotmakecleartheproperlocationfortheseactivities.Theymayhavebeguninsidethecityandcontinuedoutwardstothelocationoftheburial,ortheymayhavebeenperformedoutsidethecityonly.ThelackofspecificationinthiscaseseemstoreflecttheimprecisionelsewhereintheTwelveTablesregardingtheappropriatelocationforallactivities,exceptfortheactofburialorcremation(X.1).

299Robinson1975,176.300Cornell1995,287‐8.301Robinson1975,176.302Goodman2007,39‐59.

71

Anotherqualityofvariousprovisionsofthetenthtableisthattheyrevealaparticularconcernwithbothlandedandmovableproperty.ThissuggeststhatthelawsareaimedatthewealthiermembersofRomansociety.Severalstatuteslimititemswhichonlysuchgroupscouldenjoy,especiallythoserelatingtogold(X.8),thecrown(X.7),flautistsandtextiles(X.3),andprivateproperty(X.9).ThisseemscharacteristicoftheTwelveTablesingeneral;thelawsdealalmostexclusivelywithissuesconcerningtheadministrationofproperty,especiallythatrelatingtothehousehold(familia),andarepreoccupiedwithfarmland,crops,vines,fruittreesandlivestock.303Thissuggeststhattheelitederivedtheirwealthprimarilyfromlandedproperty,andlikelyexpendedtheirsurplusonacceptedformsofconspicuousconsumption.Thesesameprovisions,althoughtheyseemaimedatlimitingdisplaysofwealth,alsohavethefunctionofguaranteeingthem.Theseventhprovisionallowsacoronatobeburiedwiththedeceasedorhisparent,providedthatitwasawardedforbravery;presumably,thiswasamarkofprestigeforboththedeceasedandhisfamilia.AlthoughthereisnothingelseknownoftheuseofthecoronainearlyRome,PlinyremarksthatbythetimeoftheLateRepublicthereexistedavarietyofcrownstodesignatevictoriousathletesandindividualswithmilitaryachievements(Nat.Hist.15.39).304Onceconferredtheownerwasallowedanumberofsocialprivileges:hewasalwaysallowedtowearit;hehadaspacereservednexttothesenate,andallsenatorsroseuponhisentrance;andhewasfreedfrompublicburdens,aswerehisfather,paternalgrandfatherandthepersontowhomhislifewasbound.305InboththeTwelveTablesandPliny,thecoronaisamarkofprestigeanddistinctionfortheindividualawardedit.Thisstatusextendedtohisfamilyandwaspubliclyrecognized. ThepermissionauthorizedbytheTwelveTablestoincludeinburialacoronawonbybraveryisreminiscentoftheconcessiongrantedtocertainindividualsforintramuralburialrecordedinCicero'sDelegibus(2.58).WhenAtticusasksaboutthefamousmen(clariviri)whowereburiedinthecity,Ciceroacknowledgesthatsomemen,namelyPoplicola,TubertusandC.Fabricius,wereawardedthisprivilegeonaccountoftheirmerit(causavirtutis).HeaddsthatthedescendantsofPoplicolaandTubertuslegallymaintainedthisprivilegesinceitwasawardedbeforetheenactmentoftheprohibition.Itseemsthen,thatbytheLateRepublic,examplesofintramuralburialwererare,wellknownandpermittedonlyunderexceptionalcircumstances.Whatconstitutedthecausavirtutisisunknown,but,inallowingtheseindividualsandtheirfamiliestobeburiedwithinthecity,itclearlyensuredtheircontinuedrecognitionandcommemoration.306

303Cornell1995,284‐8.304Thereweremanydifferenttypesofcoronae,mostofwhichawardedmilitaryachievementsofsomesort,butofparticularinteresthereisthecoronacivica.Thecoronacivicawasthecrownsecondinimportanceafterthecoronagramineaandwasparticularlydifficulttoobtain.305Polyb.6.39;Cic.Pro.Planc.30;Plin.Nat.Hist.16.5;Aul.Gell.5.6.306PoplicolareferstoPubliusValeriusPoplicola,who,accordingtoLivyandPlutarch,playedakeyroleintheoverthrowofthemonarchyin509B.C.E.andintheformationofthe

72

TheeighthprovisionoftheTwelveTables,whichconcernsthenatureofgoldobjectspermittedinburial,wouldhavealsoguaranteeddistinction.Theprovisionforbidstheburialofgoldwiththedeceased,exceptifitisgoldjoinedtoteeth.ThisstatutewouldonlyhaveappliedtothewealthierinhabitantsofRome.TheevidenceforgolddentalprostheticsinRomeandLatiumisextremelyrare:itconsistsonlyofasinglegoldtooth,discoveredatthesiteofSatricumanddatedtoapproximately630B.C.E.307AtnotimedoesthisappeartohavebeenaLatincustom.InEtruria,however,thereisampleevidencetosuggestthattheuseofgolddentalprostheticswasacommonpractice,especiallyamongeliteEtruscanwomen.Thisseemstohavebeenacosmeticprocedureusedbywomentoadornorreplaceteeththathadbeendeliberatelyremovedorfallenout.308ThepracticeseemstohavefallenoutofusebythelatefirstcenturyB.C.E.,atwhichpointgoldprostheticsdisappearfromthearchaeologicalrecord.ScholarshaveattributedthisphenomenontothespreadofRomaninfluenceinEtruria.309 IfgolddenturesarerepresentativeofanEtruscancustom,thestatuteoftheTwelveTablespermittingtheburialofgoldonlywhenitjoinedtoteeth(X.8)mayreflectthepresenceofindividualsofEtruscanoriginamongtheupperclassesatRome.Inparticular,itpointstothevisibilityofstatusandwealthgrantedtoEtruscanwomeninburial.AlthoughlaterRomanauthorsaredisdainfuloftherelativefreedomandstatusenjoyedbyEtruscanwomen,thismaynothavebeenthecaseforearlyRome.AmpoloandCornellhavealreadydemonstratedthatcertainEtruscanshadestablishedthemselvesasmembersoftherulingclassatRomeoverthecourseoftheseventhandsixthcenturies.310AhandfulofEtruscaninscriptionsfoundonvotiveofferingsandingravesatRome,twoofwhichmaypreserveaRomanformofEtruscan,suggestthattheEtruscansconstitutedanestablishedpresenceamongtheRomanelite.311Althoughalessreliablesourceofevidence,theancientliterarytraditionneverthelesspreservestheaccountsofanumberofoutsiderswhooccupiedprominentpositionatRome,includingtheSabineNuma,EtruscanMastarna,andAttus

Republic(Liv.1.58,2.2‐16;Plut.Publ.).TubertusreferstoPubliusPostumiusTubertus,aRomanpatricianandconsulwhowasvictoriousovertheSabinesandinvolvedinthesecessionoftheplebs(Liv.2.16;Plut.Publ.20).C.FabriciusmayrefertoGaiusFabriciusLuscinus,whofoughtinthewaragainstPyrrhus.307Waarsenburg1991.308Becker1999,2002.StudiesofthegoldteethanddentalappliancesrecoveredfromexcavationsinEtruriahaveshownthatthemostcommonlyreplacedteetharethecentralincisors,whichadultsrarelyloseuntilaftertheageof70or75years.ItseemsthatEtruscanwomendeliberatelyhadremovedanincisorinordertobefittedwithagoldbandappliancewithareplacementorreusedtooth.309Becker1999,2002.310Ampolo1970‐1,1976‐7and1980;Cornell1995,151‐72.311Cornell(1995,157);Colonna(1987,58‐9).ThereissomedebateregardingthenumberofEtruscaninscriptionsfoundatRome,duetothedifficultyofdeterminingthelanguageinwhichthetextswerewritten.

73

Clausus(theRomanAppiusClaudius).312TheFastioftheEarlyRepubliccontainnamessuggestingthatthehighestofficesatRomewereheldbyforeignfamilies,someofwhomwerelikelyEtruscan.313 HorizontalsocialmobilityseemstohavebeenawidespreadoccurrenceinTyrrhenianItalyduringtheArchaicperiod.ThesettlementsofsouthernEtruriacontaininscriptionsthatpointtothepresenceofhighrankingindividualsofGreek,LatinandItalicorigin.314Furthertothesouth,thecitiesofCampaniahavepreservednumerousexamplesofEtruscanmaterialculture,whichindicateastrongEtruscanpresencefromatleasttheseventhcentury.315TheevidencesuggeststhattherewasfairdegreeofculturalconformityincentralItaly,whichfacilitatedthemovementofandintermarriagebetweeneliteindividualsandgroupsfromdifferentcommunities.316Itseemsthatarchaicsocietiesvaluedpersonalstatus,wealthandfamilybackgroundoverethnicorigin. Insum,itseemsthattheeighthstatuteofthetenthtablereferstoauniquelyEtruscanpractice,oneobservedparticularlybywealthywomen.ThisaddstotheevidenceforhorizontalsocialmobilityinarchaicRome,bywhichindividualsandgroupsfromdifferentcommunitieswereabletomovetoRome,andoperatewithinthecity'selitecircles.ThefactthattheprovisionforbidstheburialofgoldexceptwhenitisattachedtoteethrevealsthatthelawprotectedtosomeextenttheinterestsofEtruscanwomen.Althoughitisunlikelythatgolddentalprostheticswerevisibleduringtheburialprocess,thelawnonethelessensuredthatthedeceasedwouldmaintainthissymbolofwealthandstatusindeath.Theprideofplacegiventoboththegolddenturesandthecoronasuggestthattheseweremarkersofconsiderableprestige,andreferredtobothEtruscanandRomancustoms.Itisworthnoting,however,thattheTwelveTablesmakenomentionofthevarietyofotheritemsthatmayhaveconstitutedgravegoods,includingpottery,bronzeitems,jewelryandotheradornments.Whatismore,golddenturesandcrownsarenotgenerallyincludedingravesbythistime.BesidesthesingleexampleofagolddenturefromSatricum,thereisnoevidence,tomyknowledge,ofcrownsordenturesintheburialsofarchaicRomeandLatium.4d.ConclusionThelawsoftheTwelveTablesconstitutetheearliestwrittenevidenceforfuneraryritualinearlyRome.Theprovisionsrecordrestrictionsrelatedtobehaviorandexpensesat

312Cornell1995,157;Ampolo1970‐1.Livy4.3‐4recordsthespeechofClaudiusin48C.E.313Ampolo1980.314Cornell1995,158.315Cornell(1995,153‐4).Somesites,suchasCapuaandPontecagnano,perserveevidenceforanearlyhistorythatissimilartothedevelopmentofIronAgesitesinEtruria.BothsiteshaveProtovillanovanandVillanovanphasesthatgobacktotheninthcentury,andbythelateeighthtoseventhimportedEtruscanpottery,whichwasfollowedbytheproductionofimitationwares.316Ampolo1976‐7.

74

funerals,anddocumenttheproperlocationforandstatusofburialandcremation.BasedonthesimilaritiesbetweentheselawsandotherexamplesoffunerarylegislationfromGreeceandIonia,itisclearthatthetablesbelongtoaMediterranean‐widetraditionoflawmakinginarchaicsocieties.ThissuggeststhatmanycitiesintheMediterraneanbasinbelongedtothesameculturalkoine,andthatthisincludedRomebythemid‐fifthcentury.Whilethevariousexamplesoffunerarylegislationarebroadlysimilarincontentandsomewhatinlanguage,theyaredistinctinaddressinglocalconcerns.ThelawsoftheTwelveTablescorrespondtothispattern.Forthemostpart,onlythelawsofthetenthtabledemonstrateanyparallelswithexamplesofGreeklegislation,andthesesimilaritiesconsistofthecommand"donot"andtherestrictionsonfunerarydressandcertainaspectsofritualbehavior.However,moststatutesofthetenthtablehavenocomparandainGreeklaw,andcanonlybeunderstoodwithinthecontextofearlyRome. Itseemslikelythatthetenthtablewasrelevantonlytothewealthyinhabitantsofthecity,sincemanyofitsprovisionsareconcernedwithvariousaspectsoflandedandmoveableproperty.ThesameisbroadlytrueoftheremainingTwelveTables.Thetenthtablehastraditionallybeeninterpretedasanexampleofsumptuarylegislation,butthereislittleevidencethatitlimitedtheobjectstobeburiedwiththedeceasedasgravegoods.Infact,theTablesseemtoguaranteetheinclusioninburialitemsthatmayhavebeenthehighestmarkersofstatusandwealth,namelythecoronaandthegolddentures.ThattheTablesalsoallowapurpletunicandagroupofflautistsaspartofthefuneraryritesisanotherindicationthatwealthandstatuswereguaranteedvisibility,eventhoughthiswasdefinedinrestrictiveterms.ThestatutesconcerningtheproperlocationandstatusofburialsconstitutesomeoftheearliestevidenceforhowtheRomansdefinedtheircitylimits.TheTwelveTablesdonotmakedistinctionsbetweenthoseareasinurbeandextraurbem,exceptinthecaseofthetenthtable.Bothareaswithinandoutsideofthecityseemtohavebeencomprisedofthesamemonuments,peopleandactivities;theonlydifferencewasthatburialsbelongedoutsidethecity.BytheLateRepublicitseemsthattherewereknownexceptionstothisrule,whenCiceronotesinDelegibusthatsomeindividualswereallowedtoburiedwithinthecity.Theseexamplesillustratethattherewasnobasicobjectiontointramuralburial,andrevealthatintramuralburialwasthepreserveofafewprivilegedcitizens.ThefunerarylegislationoftheTwelveTablesseemstohavegrantedspecialprivilegestocertainindividualsinotherareas.Acoronaandgoldattachedtoteethwereallowedtobeburiedwiththedeceased;apurpletunicwasalsoincluded,butitisunclearwhetheritadornedthedeceasedoramemberofthefuneraryprocession.Inanycase,theseconstitutesymbolsofstatusandwealththatwouldhavebeenvisibleoverthecourseofthefuneraryrites,and,asaresult,itseemsthattheTwelveTablesprotectedtheseparticularformsofostentatiousdisplayforthewealthyelite. Theseconclusions,however,restupontheassumptionthattheancientsources,particularlyCicero,preservedaccuratelythecontentoftheTwelveTables.InthischapterIhaveinterpretedthedocumentasthoughitwereareliableone.Thisisinbroadagreementwiththemajorityofscholarship,whichtrustsinthehistoricalaccuracyoftheTables.

75

However,IbelieveitunwisetodrawtoomanyconclusionsregardingearlyRomanfuneraryritualbasedonthisevidencealone.IconsiderithereinordertostudyitalongsidethearchaeologicalevidencepresentedinthefollowingchaptersandevaluatewhatthedocumentrevealsaboutthestructuralorganizationofRomeandotherLatincitiesintheArchaicperiod.

76

5.TheArchaeologicalEvidenceforArchaicBurialinLatiumVetus

5a.IntroductionInmypreviouschaptersIexaminedtheliteraryanddocumentaryevidenceforfuneraryritualinarchaicRomeandLatium,andconcludedthattherearefewsources,ifany,ofreliableevidence.Inthischapter,Iconsiderthearchaeologicalevidencefordeathandburial,inpartasacomparandumtothepriorchapters,butmoreasacategoryofevidenceinitsownright.ThefieldofarchaicRomeisarelativelynewone,andthevastquantitiesofarchaeologicalmaterialrecoveredinthepastsixtyyearsorsohaveradicallyalteredourperceptionofthisformativeperiodofthecity.Verylittleofthatmaterialhasbeensystematicallyanalyzed,however,andthischapterismycontribution.Asaresult,thechapterisequalpartscatalogue,reviewandanalysis.ThischapterbuildsupontheformativeworkofafewscholarswhohavemadevariouscontributionstothestudyofburialsinarchaicRomeandLatium.Colonnafirstidentifiedanaspettooscurointhefuneraryrecordofthesixthandfifthcenturies,notingthattherewerefarfeweridentifiedgravesthaninotherperiods.317Heexplainedthisgaponthebasisoftheabsenceofgravegoodsincludedinsuchgraves.Gravegoodsareoftenusedtodatetheburialsinwhichtheyarefound,andtheirabsencefromsomemadetheminvisibletoearlyarchaeologists.HeconnectedthisabsencetothefunerarylegislationoftheTwelveTablesatRome,whoserestrictionsColonnabelievedbroughttoanendthecustomofdepositinggravegoodsinburials.Morerecently,RajalahasproducedanoverviewoftheburialrecordofarchaicLatium,notingthehighdegreeoflocalandregionalvariabilityinfunerarypractices.318HeranalysisisinformedbyherworkontheexcavationsatCrustumerium,whichuncoveredanumberofarchaicchambertombs,whichsheconnectstotheincreasingmonumentalizationoftheregion.BartolonifocusesonRomeandLatium,andoffersamorediachronicviewofthechangesinthefuneraryrecord.319BuildinguponColonna'swork,sheobservesadecreaseinthequantityofgravesandgravegoodsbeginningintheIronAge,andattributesthisphenomenontofunerarylegislationinitiatedduringRome'sregalhistory.Myworkdiffersfromtheseapproachesinthreekeyways.First,itismorecomprehensiveinbreadthandscopethanpriorstudies.Itrelieslessontheresultsoftheearlyexcavationsandmoreontherecentones,althoughitquestionsthereliabilityoftheearlyevidence,especiallysincethishasformedthebasisofallsubsequentresearch.Second,thischapterattemptstoidentifyandexplainmeaningfulpatternsinthearchaeologicalrecordwhichmovebeyondthepreliminaryobservationsoftheseearlierstudies.Thisisnotacriticismofthisscholarship,butanadditiontoit,especiallysinceIrecognizethelimitationsofmyownresearch.Third,thischapterreliesfarless(ifnotatall)onthefunerarylegislationoftheTwelveTablestoaccountforthereducedquantityofgravesandgravegoodsduringthe

317Colonna1977.318Rajala2007;2008a;2008b.319Bartoloni1987;2010;Bartolonietal.2009.

77

Archaicperiod.AsnotedinChapter2,theItaliantraditionofscholarshipgivesspecialemphasistotheancientsourcesintheinterpretationofthearchaeologicalevidence,andthishasledmanyscholarstoconcentrateonwhoimposedtheselawsandwhen.Thesequestionsareconsideredimportantsincetheyareusedasevidenceforcity‐stateformation,whichhasrecentlybeenpreoccupiedwithdeterminingtheprecisemomentwhenRomebecameacity.Myapproachtakestheviewthatthelaws,iftheyconstituteareliablesource,representthedocumentationofregulationsthathadalreadybeenobservedforsometime.Ibegin(5b)withanin‐depthreviewandcritiqueofpreviousscholarship,whichhasfocused,inmyopinion,tooheavilyontheabsenceofmaterial.Thisisasubjectthataroseoutofanobservationthattherewasnothing,thenstitchedtogethertomakeitseemlikesomething,andtherehasbeenlittleelsesince.Itisasignificantproblem,too,thatmuchofthisearlierworkisbasedonnearlyincomprehensibleornonexistentarchaeologicalrecords.Morerecentarchaeologicaldiscoverieshaveaddedtothebodyofarchaicburials,butthepublicationofthesematerialsisofteninconsistentandlackingindetail.Partofthereasonforthis,Isuspect,isthenatureoftherecoveryofthesecontexts.Manyburialswereexcavatedaspartofrescueoperations,andhavereceivedlittlesystematicanalysis.ThisisespeciallytrueofthoseareasinandaroundmodernRome.Anevengreaterproblem,however,isingainingaccesstotherecoveredmaterialsorevendeterminingwheretheywentafterexcavation.WithexceptionofmyownresearchatGabii,presentedinChapter6,Ihavebeenunabletoseeanyoftheoriginalmaterialsmyself.Athirddifficultyisposedbytheongoingresearchconductedbyacademicinstitutions,whichmay,understandably,bereluctanttopartwithrelevantdata.Asaresult,whatispresentedinthischapterisacriticalsynthesisoftheevidenceforburialinarchaicRomeandLatium,asithasbeenpresentedinthepublishedreports.Tomyknowledge,Ihavereferencedallknownexcavations,butwouldnotbesurprisediftherearemorerecentdiscoveriesthathaveescapedmyknowledgeorawaitavailabilityinthepublicdomain.Itismyintention,however,thatthissynthesisattheveryleastcontributesinasystematicwaytoourunderstandingofarchaicRomeandLatium,andservesasareliablebasisforfuturestudy,particularlyalongsidethedatafromsettlementcontexts,whichstillrequirestudyintheirownright.Ithen(5c)outlinethevarioustypesofburialencounteredinthearchaeologicalrecordoftheregion.Idescribethedifferenttypesofburialsandlistwheretheyaremostcommonlyfound.Inthefourthsection(5d),Idescribebrieflytheformsofburialritual,notingthedistinctpredominanceofinhumation.Thereislittletobesaidregardingthepreferenceforcremationvs.inhumation,butitisworthnotinghere,sincethischangeaccompaniesothersignificanttransformationsinthefuneraryrecord.Thefourthpartofthischapter(5e)isacatalogueofsiteswithevidenceforarchaicburial.ForeachsiteIofferabriefdescriptionofthedevelopmentofthesiteinordertobettercontextualizethefunerarydata.Icontinuebyprovidingadetailedsummaryofthearchaicburials,includingascompleteanaccountaspossible.Itisdifficultinmostcasestoobtaintheamountsofdetailtypicallyrequiredbymoremodernanalyses.Mylanguageisoccasionallyvague,andIemploytheterms"some"or"few"whenreferringtothequantity

78

ofburials.Thisreflectsthelackofspecificityintheoriginalreports.Insomecases,theexcavationresultshavenotyetbeenpublished,evenfromthosethattookplacedecadesago.However,Ispecifywherethereportsareunclearorlacking.Forsomesites,mostnotablyRomeandSatricum,Iincludeadditionaldetailsregardingthescholarshipbehindandinterpretationofthecemeterieslocatedthere.Inbothcasesthereisalonghistoryofexcavationandcurrentscholarshipthatrequirescomment.IbeginthissectionwithRome,wherethe"problem"ofarchaicburialwasfirstobserved,thenmovetoitsoutskirtstoconsiderthesitesatLaurentina;thereafter,Imoveregionally,inaclockwisedirection,throughLatium.Ifollow(5f)withadiscussionofthematerial,drawingattentionbothtothevariationsandpatternsvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecord.IexplorehowthischangesourviewofarchaicRomeandLatium,focusinginparticularonthechangeinfuneraryideologyandurbandevelopment.Iendwithasummaryofmymainarguments(5g).5b.PreviousScholarshipScholarsfirstdetectedanabsenceinthearchaeologicalrecordofburialsearlyinthetwentiethcentury,whenstudyingthedatarecoveredfromtheEsquilinenecropolisatRome.320Sometimeinthelatenineteenthcentury,redevelopmentoftheareaformodernhabitationbroughttolightasubstantialamountoffunerarymaterialthatrangedindatefromtheninthtofirstcenturiesB.C.E.321TheseresultsinitiallypointedtothecontinuoususeoftheEsquilineasaburialgroundthroughoutantiquity.Somedecadeslater,ItalianarchaeologistGiovanniPinzawaschargedwiththesystematicreexaminationandreorganizationoftherecordsandmaterialsrecoveredfromthesite.ItwasoverthecourseofthisprojectthatPinzanoticedacompleteabsenceofevidencebelongingtotheperiodofthesixthandearlyfifthcenturies.322Heconsidereditlikelythattombsfromthisperiodhadbeendiscovered,butnotidentified,sincetheywereindistinguishableinformandcontentfromtombsbelongingtoearlierperiods.Pinzahypothesizedthattherewerenostylisticdevelopmentsinthetypesofvasesthatwereusedasgravegoodsinthesixthandearlyfifthcenturies,andasaresult,theceramicassemblagesfromarchaicburialsappearedidenticaltothosefromearliertimes.323

320BullCom1875,190.TheprecisedatesoftheexcavationoftheEsquilinenecropolisareunknown.TheexcavationtookplacesometimeaftertheinstitutionofRomeasthecapitalcityofreunifiedItalyin1870.321LTURSuppl.II.1:38‐46;Holloway1994,22‐3.Theearlyexcavations,werenot,strictlyspeaking,archaeologicalinvestigations;theywerecollectionsofarchaeologicalmaterialsrecoveredoverthecourseofthelatenineteenth‐centuryurbandevelopmentofthecity.Seebelowforfurtherdiscussionregardingtheearlyexcavations.322BullCom1912,24‐6.323PinzaadvancedachronologybasedonthepotteryfromthetombsintheForumandEsquilineatRome.Hecreatedtwoperiods:PeriodI,beforetheappearanceoflight‐groundpottery,Greekimportsandimitations,andPeriodII,characterizedbytheappearanceoflight‐groundpotteryandimports.PeriodIcorrespondsroughlytoc.1000‐730/20andPeriodIIto730/20‐580.Althoughhischronologyremainsvalid,itwassubsequentlysubdividedandrevisedintoaseriesofLatialPeriods(I‐IVB).

79

Basedontheseconclusions,Pinzaadvancedacontroversiallistofthirty‐nineburialsthathebelievedbelongedtotheArchaicperiod.324VonDuhnfirstimpugnedthelistonthegroundsthatanumberofthetombscontainedearlymaterial;hesuggestedalternatelythatthearchaicgraveswerelocatedonanotherportionoftheEsquiline,asyetunexcavated.325Inthenineteen‐forties,RybergrightlypointedouttheabsenceofanyscientificmethodologyinPinza'swork,observingthathehadestablishednoreliablecriteriaforreclassifyingthegraves.326ShewasinagreementwithPinza,however,inbelievingthatthetombsfromtheArchaicperiodremainedunidentifiedbecausetheywereindistinguishablefromthoseofearlierperiods.327Ryberg,too,notedthattherewasremarkablehomogeneityinthetypesofceramicsrecoveredfromtheearlyburials.Infact,therewasnoapparentchangeinthestyleofvasesuntilthefourthcentury.Theproblemwascompounded,however,bytheextremelypoorstateofdocumentationandpreservationfromtheEsquilineexcavations.Recordswerenotconsistentlymaintained,andgravegoodswereunorganized,stolenandlost.Inthenineteen‐fifties,GjerstadreviewedallthearchaeologicalandwrittenevidencefromearlyRome,includingtheburialsfromtheEsquilinenecropolis.328RelyingheavilyonPinza'saccountsandtheoriginalrecordsfromtheEsquilineexcavations,Gjerstadofferedsomerevisionstotheburialmaterial.Usingonlythosetombshebelievedhadareliablecontext,determinabledateandgravegoods,heassignedthreetombstotheArchaicperiod,althoughonlyone,hebelieved,withcertainty.329 Thequestionregardingtheidentificationofarchaicgravesremainedlargelyunexamineduntilthenineteen‐seventies,whenrenewedarchaeologicalactivityinRomeandLatiumbroughttolightsomefivehundredtombsthatdatedtosometimebeforethethirdcentury.330Whenreviewingtheresultsoftheseexcavations,Colonnaobservedthatnoneoftheburialscontaineditemsdatabletothesixthandfifthcenturies,aso‐calledaspettooscuro.Theabsenceprovedevenmorestrikingwhencomparedtothewealthofarchaeologicalmaterialrecoveredfromthegravesofearlierperiods.AnumberofprominentcemeterieshadbeenidentifiedatRome,Tivoli,Ardea,Satricum,CaracupaandtheAlbanHills,allofwhichcontainedburialsthatwererichingravegoodsduringtheeighthandseventhcenturies.331Bytheendoftheseventhcenturyandthebeginningofthe

324Pinza(BullCom1912,25,n.2)providesthelistoftombsandoutlinesbrieflyhismethodology.Pinza(MonAnt1905)containsacatalogueofthesetombs.325vonDuhn1924,480‐1.326Ryberg1940,3.327Ryberg1940,51.328Gjerstad1956,162‐266.329Gjerstad1956,258‐62.330CLP.ThemostprominentsitesincludeCasteldiDecima,Lavinium,Osteriadell'Osa,LaRusticaandFicana.331Colonna(1977,131‐2),notesthatintotal,therewereapproximately800burialsinancientLatiumdatabletosometimebeforethethirdcentury.MostofthesebelongedtotheEarlyIronAgeandOrientalizingperiods,fromtheninthtotheendofthesixthcenturies.

80

sixth,however,therewasamarkeddecreaseinthenumberofgravesatthesesamesites,andlittletonoevidenceforgravegoods. Believingthatthedeclineinarchaeologicallyvisiblegravesandgravegoodsreflectedahistoricalreality,Colonnaadvancedfourdifferenthypothesestoexplaintheirabsenceduringthesixthandfifthcenturies:1.theyhadnotyetbeenfound;2.theyweredestroyedorspoliated;3.theyhadneverexisted;and4.archaeologistswereunabletorecognizethem.332Thesetheorieswereallechoesofpriorscholarship,andColonnaimmediatelydiscreditedthefirstthree.HefirstchallengedvonDuhn'sworkthatclaimedthegravesoftheArchaicperiodhadnotyetbeenfound.AlthoughColonnaacknowledgedthatitwaspossiblefortheburialsofthisperiodtohaveremainedundiscovered,hebelievedthiswasatoddswiththeremainingevidencefromtheEsquilinenecropolis.ThecemeterycontainedawiderangeofburialsfromtheeighthcenturyB.C.E.tothefirstcenturyC.E.andthusseemedtoconstitutearepresentativesampleofburialactivitythroughtime.Colonnaconsideredsignificantthegapinthearchaeologicalrecordofthesixthandfifthcenturies:therewasevidenceofburialbeforeandafterthatperiod,butnoneatallduring.Hementionedthepossibilitythattheareawasabandonedasaburialgroundforabouttwocenturiesandlaterreoccupied. TheevidencefromtheEsquilinenecropolisallowedColonnatorepudiatethesecondtheory,whichpositedthattheburialsoftheArchaicperiodhadbeendestroyedorrobbedsometimeinantiquityorinthemodernera.ThesheerquantityofwealthygravesattestedinRomeandLatiumduringearlierandlaterperiodssuggestedthattherewasnoreasontobelievethattheburialsofthesixthandfifthcenturiesweresystematicallyoraccidentallytargetedfordestruction.TheabundanceofarchaeologicalevidenceinturnservedtoinvalidateColonna'sthirdtheory,suggestingthatarchaicburialsdidnotexist.Theexcavationsofthenineteen‐sixtiesand‐seventieshadvastlyimprovedthearchaeologicalrecordoftheArchaicperiod;therewasnowampleevidencepointingtotheexistenceofsubstantialsettlementsandsanctuaries.Therewasnoreasontobelievethattherewerenoburials.Infact,itstoodtoreasonthatburialsshouldbeequallyvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecord. Colonnaonlyagreedinpartwiththefourthproposition,whichexplainedtheabsenceofsixth‐andfifth‐centuryburialsastheresultofarchaeologists'inabilitytorecognizethemonthebasisofgravegoods.333IntheyearssincePinzahadanalyzedtheEsquilinegravesanddeterminedthattherewerenochangesinthepotteryfoundinthemuntilthethirdcentury,thewealthofarchaeologicalmaterialfromRomeandLatiumhadservedtoestablisharelativechronologyrevealingaseriesofstylisticdevelopmentsovertime.334On

332Colonna1977,133‐7.333Colonna1977,136‐7;BullCom,24‐6.334Müller‐Karpe(1960)andPeroni(1960)revisedPinza'sworkandtheirchronologiesremaininusetoday.BiettiSestieri's(1992a)publicationofthefindsatOsteriadell'Osawasformative.Holloway(1994,37‐50)providesasummaryregardingthedevelopmentofachronologyforancientLatium.

81

thebasisofthisnewceramictypology,ColonnawasabletoreexaminethepotteryfromseveralburialsatRomeanddateafewofthemtothesixthandfifthcenturies.Inparticular,hestudiedthegravegoodsassociatedwithagroupofthreemonolithicsarcophagirecoveredfromthe1876excavationsinthePiazzaMagnanapoli.Thetombs,whichwereinitiallydatedtothefourthandthirdcenturies,Colonnanowassignedtothesixthandfifth,basedonceramicmaterialsfoundinornearthem.335HeaddedtothiscategoryseveralothersarcophagifoundthroughoutRome,onthegroundsthattheycontainedafewgravegoodsthatweredatabletothesixthandfifthcenturiesor,intheabsenceofgravegoods,borestylisticsimilaritiesbetweentheRomansarcophagiandexamplesfromSpina,CaereandtheGreekworld.OutsideofRome,heconsideredasbelongingtothisperiodafewtombsfromPraeneste,Tivoli,LanuviumandLaRustica. Colonna'sstudiesledhimtoconcludethatburialinLatiumvetusduringthesixthandfifthcenturieswascharacterizedbyapronouncedreductionortotalabsenceofgravegoods.336Asaconsequenceofthislackofmateriality,archaeologistshadoverlooked,ignoredormisinterpretedtheevidence.Colonnaattributedthechangeinfunerarycustomtoachangeinideologythatrequiredarestrictioninthenumberofgravesandgravegoods.HenotedthatthetransitionseemedtooccursimultaneouslyandrapidlyincentersthroughoutLatium,whilethereturnofgravesandgravegoodsinthefourthcenturywasequallywidespreadandabrupt.Heconsideredeconomicdownturnanunlikelyexplanationinlightofthearchaeologicalevidencefromothercontextsthatpointedtothegeneralprosperityoftheregion. ColonnaconnectedthedecreaseingravesandgravegoodstothepromulgationoftheTwelveTables,aseriesoflawstheancientsourcesclaimwerewrittenbythedecemvirateinthemid‐fifthcenturyatRome.337Accordingtohim,thepaucityofgravegoodsinarchaiccontextscouldbecreditedtothefuneraryrestrictionsoftheTwelveTables.Thestatutesofthetenthtablelimitedthetypeofclothinganditemstobedepositedinthegrave,andrestrictedcertainritualbehaviors.ColonnatrustedtheaccountsofCicerothatconnectedtheTablestothesumptuarylawsofSolonatAthens,believingthatbothtextswerecreatedtopromoteisonomiabetweenprominentindividualsandpreventthekindofpublicdisruptionbroughtaboutbypublicfunerals.Colonna,however,observedachronologicaldiscrepancybetweenthetimeofthepromulgationofthelawsc.450B.C.E.andthevisibilityofthephenomenoninthearchaeologicalrecordoveracenturyearlier.Inordertoaccountforthisgap,ColonnaofferedamodificationtothetraditionalnarrativeandpositedthatitwasServiusTullius,notthedecemvirate,thatinitiatedthesefuneraryrestrictions.338ServiusTulliusseemedalogicalchoice:hewasacontemporaryofSolon,knownfornumerousculturalandreligiousreformsatRome,and,accordingtothetraditional

335Colonna1977,137‐9;BullCom1876,124;NSc1876,185.336Colonna1977,156‐8.337Colonna1977,158‐65.IdiscusstheTwelveTablesinChapter4.338Momigliano(1967,357‐8)hadprevioulyremarkedonthisdiscrepancy.Hestatedthat,hadthedecemviratevisitedAthensc.450B.C.E.,theRomanswouldhavemetwithPerikles,whowouldhavegiventhemsomethingmorecurrentthanthelawsofSolon.

82

chronology,hisreignalignedwellwiththedevelopmentsinthearchaeologicalrecord.Consequently,ColonnareasonedthattheRomanshadbeenobservingsuchfunerarylawssincethetimeofServiusTullius,andthedecemvirate,bythemid‐fifthcentury,hadmerelyrecordedwhathadalreadybeeninpractice.ColonnafurtheredthisargumentbyexplainingthattheadoptionofthefunerarylawsofSolonrepresentedthedeliberateopeningupofLatiumvetustotheworldofGreekcultureandinfluenceandacorrespondingclosingofftothatofEtruria. BoththreadsofColonna'sargument,namely,thedegreeofopennessofLatiumtoGreekinfluenceandtherelationshipbetweentheTwelveTablesandthedecreaseinthefuneraryarchaeologyofLatium,werepickedupbyscholarsinthefollowingdecade.Ampolobelievedthatthefuneraryrestrictionsimposedbythetenthtablerepresentedthewritingofcustomsthathadbeeninplaceearlier,andthatthesecustomsmarkedachangeinfuneraryideology.339Heunderstoodtheimplementationoffunerarylegislationandthedecreaseofburialevidenceinthearchaeologicalrecordastwinphenomena,andexaminedthemthroughthelensofurbandevelopmentinGreekpoleis.Inhisview,theregulationoffuneraryexpenditurerepresentedtheinterferenceofanorganizedcommunity,thecivitas,infuneraryritual.Thecommunityhadbeguntoseparateformallythelivingfromthedead,andwasredirectingtheresourcesofprominentindividualsandtheirfamiliesintothecommunity.Thewealthofthesefamilieswenttowardsspacesusedbytheliving,namelypublicplaces,sanctuariesandprivatehouses. BartolonibuiltupontheconclusionsofherpredecessorsinresearchthatexploredtheconnectionbetweencemeteriesandsacredspacesinarchaicLatium.340ShearguedthatthesametypesofmaterialsthatappearedingravesfromtheOrientalizingperiodwereappearinginthesacredspacesoftheArchaicperiod.ShereturnedtotheevidencefromtheEsquilinenecropolisandadvancedthehypothesisthat,duringtheArchaicperiod,thecemeterybegantobeorientedaroundaroadlinkingthecitytoitsterritory.SheaddedthattheRomancustomofburyingthedeceasedalongprominentroads,whichiswellattestedforlaterperiods,mighthavebeguninthesixthcentury. BothBartoloniandNasoarguedthatthedisappearanceofgravegoodsthroughoutarchaicLatium,especiallyinRome'simmediatehinterland,wasasignofRome'sincreasingauthorityintheregion.341BartoloniobservedthatanumberofchambertombslocatedwithintheagerRomanusantiquuscontainedanumberofgravegoodsfromtheseventhandfourthcenturies,butnonethatcouldbedatedtothesixthandfifth.Incontrast,theburialsofsomesettlements,mostnotablyatFidenae,Ardea,PraenesteandLanuvium,remainedrichingravegoods.342ShesuggestedthatthegraveslocatedinthevicinityofRomelacked

339Ampolo1984.340Bartoloni1987.341Bartoloni1987,157;NasoinGRT249‐51.342Fidenae:GRTn.10.4;Ardea:8.4,MinistroperiBeniCulturalieAmbientali,SoprintendenzaArcheologiaperilLazio,SoprintendenzaArcheologicaperlaToscana1983;Praeneste:GRT262‐4;Lanuvium:GRT264‐9.

83

gravegoodsduringtheArchaicperiodbecausetheyweresubjecttothefuneraryrestrictionsofthetenthtableandthusunderRome'spoliticalcontrol.Bythissamereasoning,thosesettlementsthatproducedevidenceforrichburialsthroughtimethusdidnotcomeunderRomanjurisdiction.BartolonipostulatedthatPraeneste,inparticular,wasabletocontinueburyingthedeadwithelaborategravegoodsbecauseitmaintainedacertainautonomyanditsownfunerarylegislation,evenafterthesettlement'sabsorptionintoRome'sorbit.343 Ataboutthesametime,ToherdenouncedanyconnectionbetweenthelawsoftheTwelveTablesandthearchaeologicalrecord.344HebelievedthefunerarylawsoftheTwelveTableswereinfluencedbyGreeklegislativetexts,butinnowaycouldthepromulgationoffunerarylawsatRomehavebeenconnectedtotheabsenceofgravesandgravegoodsinthearchaeologicalrecordofLatium.Hismainargumentwasthatthemajorityoftherestrictionsofthetenthtablehavenothingatalltodowiththekindsofthingsthataredepositedingraves.Onlytheseventhprovision,whichpermitstheburialofawreath,andtheeighthprovision,whichprohibitstheburialofgoldexceptgoldteeth,concernitemsthatmaybeplacedinagrave.Theremainingprohibitionsconcernprimarilythetypesofbehaviorallowedatfunerals,theamountofexpenditureallowedforcertainactivities,andthelegalstatusandpermittedlocationofgraves.Noneoftheserestrictions,savethoseconcerningthelocationofthegrave,wouldhavebeenvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecord.Thus,TohersawnoevidencesupportingaconnectionbetweentheTwelveTablesandthearchaeologicalrecordoftheArchaicperiod.Hedidagree,however,thatthepromulgationofformallawssuchastheTwelveTablespresupposedtheexistenceofacomplexcity‐state,andthatthedearthinthearchaeologicalrecordofburialsmayreflectthedesireofthecommunitytoinvestinpublicasopposedtoprivatespaces. Scholarshiphasremainedlargelysilentonthesubjectofuntilrecently,whenrenewedarchaeologicalactivityinRomeandLatiumbroughttolightanumberofsixth‐andfifth‐centuryburials.345ThediscoveryofseveralarchaicchambertombsintheregionofancientCrustumeriumconsiderablybroadenedthescopeofthetopic.TherewereafewknownchambertombsinLatiumpriortothesefindings;themajoritywereconstructedsometimeintheseventhcenturyandshowedsignsofuseuntilthefourth.346Whethertheywereabandonedinthesixthandreusedinthefourth,orusedcontinuouslythroughouttheArchaicperiodintothefourthcenturywasunclear,basedonthelackofmaterialevidencethatwouldmakedatingpossible.TheCrustumeriumexcavations,however,demonstratedthatthistypeoftombwasindeedcommoninarchaicLatium,andpromptedaninvestigationintothedevelopmentofthisstyleofburialintheregion.

343Bartoloni1987,157.344Toher2005.345Cornell(1995,105‐8)andSmith(1996,186‐7)makebriefstatementsregardingthepaucityofgravesandgravegoodsinarchaicLatium.346Bartoloni(1987)discussestheselimitedexamples.

84

Rajala,inaseriesofpublications,examinedtheresultsofthenecropolisofCisternaGrande,inancientCrustumerium,toexplorehowthesechambertombswereusedasobjectstoarticulateidentitiesonlocalandregionallevels.347ShedrawsattentiontothegapinthefuneraryrecordofearlyRomeandLatiumbyexposingthearchaeologicalbiasthatfavoredtheexcavationofearlierorlatertombs.Tombsthatareconsideredricharemorelikelytobeexcavated,bothbecauseofthevalueoftheirobjectsforacademicstudyandbecausetheyhaveahighriskofbeingrobbed.Consequently,thosegravesthataredevoidofgravegoodsareconsideredpoor,andnotapriorityofexcavation. Inherearliestarticle,RajalatracedthechangesinfunerarycustominLatiumoverthecourseoftheOrientalizingandArchaicperiods.348Shenoticedthatatransformationintombtypeaccompaniedthedepletionofgravegoods.IntheOrientalizingperiod,themostcommonformofburialconsistedofatrenchtomb,whichtypicallycontainedanumberofgravegoods.Bytheendoftheseventhcenturytothebeginningofthesixth,anewformofburial,themonumentalchambertomb,appearedinLatium.Thisdevelopmentoccurredatthesametimeasgravegoodsweredisappearingfromfunerarycontexts.Whatismore,thenumberofidentifiableburialswasgreatlyreduced;thereweresimplyfarfewergravesfromtheArchaicperiodthanthepriorOrientalizingperiod.Itappearedthattheriseinthemonumentalityofgravescorrespondedtoadecreaseinthenumberofgravesandgravegoods.Shewascarefultonotethatthereappearedtobeconsiderablevariabilityintombtypes:notonlydidchambertombsthemselvesvaryconsiderablyinshape,size,depth,dimension,orientationanddesign,butavarietyofdifferenttypesoftombs,suchastrenchesandsarcophagi,continuedtoappearthroughoutLatium. Rajala'sworkonthecemeteryatCisternaGrandecalledtoattentiontheneedforincreasedsystematicexcavationandstudyofarchaicburials.349Mostofthetombsthathadbeenrecoveredelsewhereweretheproductofrescueexcavationratherthanthesubjectoftargetedresearch.Themonumentality,variabilityandpaucityoftombsthroughoutLatiumduringthesixthandfifthcenturiesrequiredanexplanationthattookintoaccounteconomic,religious,political,socialandculturalchanges.AccordingtoRajala,itisnolongersufficienttoexplainthearchaeologicalinvisibilityofgravesandgravegoodsastheresultofenforcedfunerarylegislation;whilethismayhavebeenacontributingfactor,itwasnotlikelytheonlyone. Mostrecently,Bartolonirevisitedthetopicofarchaicburials,offeringanewinvestigationintothereasonsforthechangeinfunerarycustom.350Inanarticleco‐writtenwithNizzoandTaloni,BartoloniadoptedadiachronicviewinordertoexaminethedisappearanceofgravegoodsintombsthroughoutLatium.351TheauthorsstudiedtheburialsofsouthernEtruriaandLatiumduringtheOrientalizingandArchaicperiods,andnotedthattherewas

347Rajala2007;2008a;2008b.348Rajala2007.349Rajala(2007,2008a,2008b)statesthisinallherpapers.350Bartolonietal.2009;Bartoloni2010.351Bartolonietal.2009.

85

adeclineinboththenumberofgravesandgravesgoodsinbothregionsovertime.Theyobserved,however,thatOrientalizingburialsoftencontainedvesselsinvolvedwiththefunerarybanquet,whichsuggeststhatfuneraryritualatthetimewasconnectedtotheperformanceofritualsassociatedwiththesegoods.352ItseemsthattheseritualswereabandonedbythetimeoftheArchaicperiod,whensuchvesselshadcompletelydisappeared,followingagradualdecline,fromfunerarycontexts. Theauthorsmaintainedthatthisphenomenonwasdirectlyrelatedtoacentralpower,anauthoritythat,inthetraditionofGreektyrants,issuedaseriesoflawsaimedatcurbingtheconspicuousconsumptionofthearistocraticelite.Theyviewedtheturnofthelateseventhtoearlysixthcenturyasatimecharacterizedbyconflictbetweenaristocraticelitegroups,whichwastemperedbythepromulgationofsumptuarylaws.353Thelawswereantiaristocraticinnature,eveniftheywerewrittenbyaristocrats,andweredirectedattherestrictingthebehaviorandmanneroffuneraryritual.TheauthorsaddthatthelawswerepromulgatedsometimeintheseventhcenturyduringthereignoftheTarquins,andwereinstitutedonlyinthoseterritoriesconqueredbyRome;thisexcludedLavinium,Ardea,LanuviumandPraeneste. Thelastcenturyofresearchhasproducedmixedresults.Withoutadoubt,themostimportantdevelopmentsinvolvetheidentificationanddiscoveryofarchaicburialsinthearchaeologicalrecord.PinzaandColonna'scontributionsbroughttolightanewcategoryofarchaeologicaldata.ItwasPinzawhofirstobservedtheabsenceofburialevidenceatRomefromthesixthandfifthcenturies,andheattributedthisgaptoarchaeologists'inabilitytodistinguishthegravesofthisperiodfromthoseofearliertimes.ItwasColonna'swork,however,thatmadearchaicgravestrulyvisible.BuildingonPinza'shypothesis,Colonnaarguedthatarchaicburialswereunrecognizablebecausetheycontainednoitemswithwhichtodatethem.Heattributedthereductionorabsenceofgravegoodstoachangeinfunerarypractice,andemphasizedthesocial,politicalandideologicalreasonsthatmightaccountforthischange.Atthetime,ColonnawasonlyabletodrawhisconclusionsfromafairlylimitedpoolofevidencethatconsistedprimarilyoftheresultsoftheEsquilineexcavationsandafewotherprominentsitesinsouthernEtruriaandLatium.ThemanyarchaeologicalexcavationsconductedinRomeandLatiumfromthenineteen‐seventiesonwardhaveaddedconsiderablytothispoolofdata.InadditiontoradicallytransformingourunderstandingofearlyRomeandLatium,theseinvestigationsuncoveredanumberofburialsthatcouldbedatedtotheArchaicperiodonthebasisofstratigraphicexcavation.Thisworkcontinueseventoday,andarchaeologistsarewellequippedtoidentifyarchaic

352Riva(2010,141‐76)drawssimilarconclusionsinherstudyofthe"princely"burialsofEtruria.353Inasecond,subsequentarticle,Bartoloni(2010)considerstheevidenceforarchaicburialatRome,andconcludesthattheburialsontheEsquilinenecropolisaredividedintosmallgroupsthatperhapsrepresenttheburialgroundsofdifferentgentes.

86

tombsonthebasisofmoderntechniquesofstratigraphicexcavation,andanunderstandingthatarchaictombscontainlittletonogravegoods.354 Despitetheseadvances,someproblemspersistintheinterpretationofthedata.Themostpervasiveisscholars'overrelianceontheancientsourcestoexplainphenomenainthearchaeologicalrecordoftheArchaicperiod.TheTwelveTables,andtheaccountsrelatingtotheirpromulgation,loomlargeinthisdiscussion.ColonnafirstconnectedthenearorcompleteabsenceofgravegoodsinarchaicburialstothefuneraryrestrictionsoftheTwelveTables,andscholarsalmostunfailinglyhavecontinuedtoacceptthisinterpretation.Thechronologicaldiscrepancybetweenthepromulgationofthelawsandthechangeinthearchaeologicalrecorddonotevenpresentaproblemtomostscholars,whosuggestthattheTwelveTablesrepresenttheformalizationinwritingoflawsorcustomsthatwereenforcedbyeitherTarquiniusPriscusorServiusTullius.UnderscoringthisclaimisthedebateconcerningthehistoricityoftheaccountsregardingearlyRome,whichcallsintoquestionthereliabilityoftheaccountsconcerningtheTwelveTablesandtheRomankings.AlthoughIacceptthatitispossiblefortheRomanstohavepromulgatedsuchlaws,whetherornottheywerebasedonalongstandingtradition,Ibelieveitunwisetodrawtoomanyconclusionsbasedontheancientaccounts.Iconsideritunsoundtoconnectaphenomenoninthearchaeologicalrecordtoahistoricaleventofdubioushistoricitythatoccurredoveracenturylater.Itisinsteadmorefruitfultoexaminethearchaeologicalmaterialsforevidenceofachangeinfuneraryideology,andconsiderthisinthecontextofthemanyothersignificantstructuralchangesthatwerehappeningatthetime.5c.TypesofBurialInthissectionIoutlinethevarioustypesoftombsthathavebeenrecoveredthroughoutRomeandLatium.Ihaveorganizedtheseintofourmaincategories,butnotevariationsthatoccurineach.Thefirstthreetypesoftombsreferalmostexclusivelytoadultburials;thelastpertainstothegravesofinfantsandchildren.i.TrenchTombsTrenchtombs,otherwiseknownastombeafossa,arerectangulargravescutintovolcanictuff.Initssimplestform,thefossatombisarectangulartrenchdesignedforasingleinhumation,butitmayhaveaniche(loculus)carvedintooneormoreofitssidestoholdanotherburialand/orgravegoods.DuringtheArchaicperiod,mosttrenchtombsconsistonlyofonetrenchcontainingasingleinhumation.Ingeneral,theyincludeverylittleinthewayofgravegoods,exceptatSatricum,wherefunerarykits(corredi)areoftenpresent.

354Althoughitispossiblethatgeochronometrictechniquesassistinthedatingofrecentlydiscoveredtombs,thesearenotwidelyimplementedatarchaeologicalsites.Whatismore,thecostoftheseanalysesmaybeprohibitiveandunnecessaryinlightofstratigraphicexcavationandceramictypologies.Chronologyisnotsomuchanissueforthetombsmorerecentlyexcavated,butthoserecoveredinthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies.Inthiscase,obtainingthecorrectmaterialsnecessaryfordatingisunlikely.

87

TrenchtombscomprisethemostcommonformofburialduringtheEarlyIronAgeandOrientalizingperiodofcentralItaly.TheyaregenerallylesscommonintheArchaicperiod,althoughtheycontinuetoappearinhighnumbersatcertainsites.TheyconstitutethepredominantformofburialatSatricum,355wheretheyareusedalmostexclusively,andarewellattestedinRomeanditsenvirons.Excavationsin2002ontheEsquilineHillatRomeuncoveredseveralexamples.356InthesouthernregionofmodernRome,theLaurentinadistricthasrevealedparticularlyhighconcentrationsoftrenchtombs:atCasaleMassimaitconstitutesthemainformofburial,andseveralexampleswerediscoveredatTorde'Cenci.357BeyondRomanterritory,trenchtombsareattested,althoughinfewernumbers.AsingleexamplewasdiscoveredatArdea,atthesiteofCampodelFico;358atFidenae,anespeciallyrichtrenchtomb,belongingtoawoman,wasdiscovered.359AtFicana,ArdeaandGabii,trenchtombsareoftenusedfortheburialofchildren,withorwithoutgravegoods.360Thesechildren'strenchtombsoftenappearinhabitationareas,alongsidejuvenileburialsinjars.361ii.SarcophagiMonolithicsarcophagi,carvedfromtuff,constituteasecondcategoryofburialinRomeandLatiumduringtheArchaicperiod.362Theyweredepositedintrenchesdugintothegroundor,onoccasion,placedinchambertombs.Thesarcophagiareoftencoveredwithamonolithicslabofthesametuff,whichisplacedhorizontallyoverthetomb.Insomecasesthesarcophagusmaybecoveredinsteadwithtilesorwoodenplanks.Althoughmostsarcophagiremainunadorned,somereceivefurtherrefinement,andhavepanelscarvedintotheirsidesorarecoveredbygabledlids.Forthemostpart,thesarcophagiheldsingleinhumations,butoneexamplefromtheoldexcavationsontheEsquilinecontainedamarblecremationurn.363Ingeneraltheycontainlittletonogravegoods.Thistypeofburialcontinuedtobeusedinthefourthandthirdcenturies,whichhascausedproblemsforscholarstryingtodatethetombsrecoveredinoldexcavations.Intheabsenceofgrave

355Gnade1992;2002;Ginge1996.356Barberaetal.2005;AsorRosaetal.2009.357CasaleMassima:Bedini1980;Torde'Cenci:Bedini1990.358CrescenziandTortorici1983.359diGennaro1990.360Ficana:Jarva1981a;1981b;CataldiDini1980.Ardea:CrescenziandTortorici1983.Gabii:seeChapter6.361Jarva1981a;1981b.362Manysarcophagiaremadeofpeperinotuff,agreytuffgenerallyquarriedfromtheAlbanHills.ItwascommonlyusedinconstructionduringtheArchaicperiod.Thetufffrommanysarcophagihavenotbeenidentifiedorsampled,however,anditisimpossible,atpresent,todeterminetheirorigin.363Colonna1977,136‐50.

88

goodsorreliablestratigraphy,thesegravescannotbeaccuratelydated.Thedimensionsofthesarcophagiareremarkablyconsistentthroughouttheentireregion.Thesixsarcophagithathavebeenwelldocumentedpreservedimensionsrangingfrom1.96to2.14minlength,by0.76to0.82minwidth,by0.60to0.64minwidth.Eventhosesarcophagithatcomefromtheolderexcavationsaresimilarinsize. SarcophagiaremostcommonlyattestedatRome,and,alongwithtrenchtombs,comprisethedominantmodeofburialthere.ThemajorityofthesarcophagihavebeenfoundontheEsquilineHill.OnthebasisofstylisticcomparisonswithexamplesinsouthEtruriaandpotteryfoundnearthetombs,ColonnadatedtotheArchaicperiodseveralsarcophagithatwererecoveredintheoldexcavationsofthenecropolis.364Inthenineteen‐twenties,ColinidiscoveredadditionalsarcophagiontheEsquiline;althoughitispossiblethattheybelongtotheArchaicperiod,theyhavebeendatedtothefourthcentury.365Morereliabledatahaveemergedfromthe2002excavationsontheEsquiline,whichhaverevealedthreeadditionalexamples.366MovingnorthwesttotheQuirinalHill,threesarcophagihaverecentlybeenfoundonthemodernViaGoito.Archaeologistshavetentativelydatedthesefromthefourthtosecondcenturies,butacknowledgethattheymaygobackasfarasthesixthcentury.367Amoreprecisedatecouldnotbedeterminedsincethetombshadbeenlootedandthestratigraphyprovedunreliable.DespitetheinconsistentqualityoftheEsquilinedata,themonolithicsarcophagusoftuffseemstohavebeenacommontypeinthecemetery. OutsideofRome,sarcophagihavebeendiscoveredprimarilyineasternLatiumatLaRustica,Tibur,GabiiandCorcolle.368Theywereallconstructedoflocaltuff,withexceptionofoneexamplefromTiburthatwascarvedfromlimestoneandwascoveredbyatravertinelid.369AtTiburthesarcophagiwerelocatedwithinacemetery,atGabiiwithintwodistinctintramuralburialgroupsandatCorcolle,inachambertomb.370ColonnaconsideredthesarcophagifromLaRusticaandTiburasarchaicindate,buttheevidencecomesfromoldexcavationswhoseresultsareinconclusive.371TothesouthofRome,atLanuvium,theso‐calledTomboftheWarriorwascontainedinasarcophagus.372

364Colonna1977,136‐50.365Colini1932.366Barberaetal.2005;AsorRosaetal.2009.367Menghietal.2005.368ItisunclearfromReggianietal.1998,whetherthesearearchaicsarcophagi.369LaRustica:CLP153‐65;Tibur:Faccenna1957;Gabii:seeChapter6.IhavenotincludedLaRusticaamongthelistofsitespresentedheresincethereportsprovidenearlynoinformationregardingtheseburials.TheCLPnotesonlythatsomeoftheburialsinthecemeteraymayhavebelongedtotheArchaicperiod,butdoesnotspecifywhichones.370Reggianietal.1998.371Colonna1977,149‐55.Inbothcases,thesarcophagiarelocatedwithinnecropoleiscontainingburialsrangingindatefromthesevenththroughthirdcentury.InthecaseofthetombatTivoli,Colonnaredateditbasedonthepresenceoflate‐archaicandproto‐classicalEtruscanbronzemirrors.WithregardtoLaRustica,thepublishedreports(CLP153‐65),

89

ColonnaidentifiedasubcategoryofsarcophagiwhenreviewingthematerialfromtheEsquiline.Theseweresmallstonecoffins(casse)andpeperinourns,whichhebelievedbelongedtotheArchaicperiod.373Thecassewereundecoratedandcontainedsingleinhumations.Gravegoodsweregenerallyabsent,butinsomecasestherewereafewitems,suchasaloomweight,afragmentofaesrude,ormirror.Theurns,exceptforoneexampleinmarble,weregenerallymadeoftuff,andcontainedcrematedremains.Mostoftheseweresmoothandhadnodecoration,butthereareafewexamplesbearingtracesofpainting,wallmirrorsandarchitecturalfeatures.ColonnadatestheseurnstothesixthandfifthcenturiesbasedonstylisticsimilaritiesbetweentheseexamplesandothersfromSpinaandCaere,buttheseconclusions,asisthecasewithmuchoftheevidencefromtheEsquilinecemetery,areextremelyunreliable.iii.ChamberTombsChambertombsemergedinLatiumvetusattheendoftheseventhcentury,andduringtheArchaicperiodbecamecommonthroughouttheregion.Thereisconsiderablevarietyinthestyleandlocationofchambertombsbothatthelocalandregionallevels.Ingeneral,however,thesetombswerecutintothelocaltuffandweredesignedtoaccommodateoneormoreinhumationburials.Theyarecomprisedoftwobasicfeatures,thechamberandtheentrancecorridor(dromos).Thechamberisrectangularandhasnichescarvedintoitswallsorabedcarvedintothetuff;tilesorwoodenplanksoccasionallyclosedofftheniches.Thedromos,whichconstitutestheformalentrancetothetomb,isoftenlongandnarrow,andcoveredattheentrancebystoneslabs.Thedimensionsofboththechamberandthedromosvarytremendouslyaccordingtotombandsite.Chambertombsoccupiedmanydifferentpositionsinthelandscape.Theyareattestedinisolation,smallgroupsandcemeteries,andareoftenlocatedalongroadsoratcitylimits.Occasionally,theyarelocatedwithintheagerofthecity.Mostchambertombsdonotcontaingravegoods,althoughsomeinhumationsarefoundwithpersonalaccoutrements,suchasfibulaeandpins. Mostchambertombshavebeendiscoveredwithinthelastfiftyyearsand,asaresult,havebenefittedfromthemethodologyandtechniquesofmodernexcavation.Archaeologistshavereliablydatedmostchambertombsbasedonthecontentsofthefillandstratigraphicsequence.However,manyburialswereexcavatedaspartofrescueoperationsratherthanresearchprojectsandareoftenmissingsomeformsofdocumentation,includingphotographs,plans,dimensionsandanthropologicaldata.

indicatethatseveralsarcophagi,someofwhichhadsidenichesorwerecoveredwithtiles,weredevoidofgravegoods.OnthesegroundsColonnaassignedthesetombstotheArchaicperiod.However,theonlytombspublishedinanydetailareahandfulofOrientalizingtombswithsubstantialcorredi.Theallegedlyarchaicburialsreceivednodiscussionotherthanthiscursoryobservation.372GRT264‐9.373Colonna1977,137‐49.

90

ChambertombshavebeenfoundatanumberofsitesthroughoutancientLatium,someofwhichdisplayregionalsimilarities.IntheLaurentinadistrictofRome,twochambertombsareattestedatthesiteofAcquaAcetosaLaurentina,374agroupoftenatthesiteofTorde'Cenci,375andtwomoreatthesiteofTorrino.376TheburialsatAcquaAcetosaLaurentinaandTorde'Cencihaveincommonashortdromos,andnarrow,rectangularchamberthathasanicheononeofitslongsides.377AtTorrino,thedromoiarelongandnarrow,andtheindividualchambersareoblongandcontainoneortwoloculi.OneofthesechambertombswasinusefromtheOrientalizingthroughArchaicperiodsandcontainsseparatechambers,someofwhichcontainedmultipleinhumations. ThemostsubstantialgroupofchambertombshascomefromtheexcavationsatancientCrustumerium,atthesiteofCisternaGrande.378Onelateorientalizingandfivearchaicchambertombswerediscoveredherethathaddifferentshapes,sizes,depths,orientations,designsandfinishing.Thedromoivariedinlengthandwidth,whilesomewereclosedbysinglestoneslabsandotherswithpilesofstones.Theredoesnotseemtohavebeenastandardtombtype,sincesomechambershadoneormoreloculithatcontainedadditionalburialsincoffins,trunks,orfunerarybeds.Mostofthetombsincludealimitedquantityofgravegoods,whichsetsthemapartfrommostarchaicburialsinLatium.Examplesofgravegoodsincludejewelry,arms,metalobjects,potteryandfibulae.Someofthetombsfromthissiteshowevidenceofreuse;itseemsthatolderburialsweredisarticulatedandremovedtomakenewspacefornewerinhumations. EastofRomechambertombshavebeenidentifiedatCorcolle379andGabii.380ThetwelverecoveredatCorcolleconstituteanecropolisalongwithseveraltrenchtombs.Thechambertombsareallcharacterizedbynichesorientedaroundacentralchamber,butvaryinnearlyeveryotherrespect.Oneoftheoldesttombs,datingtothesecondquarterofthesixthcentury,containedafunerarykitthatconsistedmostlyofceramicvessels.AtGabii,avariantofthechambertomb,knownasthesemi‐chamber(semicamera),appearswithintheurbanareaofthecity.381Insomerespectstheyresemblealargetrenchtomb:cutverticallyintothetuff,theylacktheformalentrance,ordromos,ofatypicalchambertomb.Theplanofthesetombs,however,isquadrangularandthedimensionsmuchgreaterthanastandardtrench.AtGabii,thegravesreachadepthof1.95mrangeandrangebetween2.0‐2.5minlengthandwidth.Bothtombshadloculiontwoorthreesides,andinsomecases,afunerarybedwascarvedintothenicheinordertosupportthedepositionofthedeceasedonawoodenbier.Thesetombsmusthavebeenenteredbymeansofsomemechanism,but

374Bedini1983.375Bedini1990.376Bedini1981.377Rajala2007,47;2008a,41.378Rajala2007,2008a,2008b.379Reggianietal.1998.380SeeChapter6.381TheearliestchambertombcomesfromthesiteofOsteriadell'OsaanddatestothelateOrientalizingperiod(DeSantis1992;BiettiSestieri1992a;1992b,Tomb62).

91

thereisnoevidenceforthisatGabii;noristhereanyevidenceforwhatmighthavecoveredthemainchamberofthetomb,ifanything.AlonechambertombhasalsobeenrecoveredatLavinium,whichwasnoteditsgravegoods. iv.ChildandInfantBurialsThefuneraryritualsaccordedtochildrenandinfantsinarchaicLatiumweredifferentthanthosereservedforadults.382Beginningsometimearoundthelateninthandearlyeighthcenturiesandcontinuingthroughthefifth,infantsandchildrenwereburiedincloseassociationwithinhabitedareas(i.e.hutsandhouses).Theseburialstookseveraldifferentforms,primarilyintrenches,ceramicvesselsandtiles,andthereareanumberoftermsusedinmodernscholarshiptocharacterizethisbasicphenomenon.Asuggrundariumgenerallyreferstotheburialofaninfant,typicallytwoyearsofageorless,beneaththefloorsandalongthewallsofhutsandhouses.383Themostcommonformofthistypeofburialwasinajar,typicallyadolium,whichwasclosedatthemoutheitherbyflattiles,slabsofstoneorasecondjar,andthendepositedhorizontallyintheground.Occasionallythevesselswereleftopenordepositedvertically.Thetermenchytrismosissometimesusedtoreferspecificallytoinfantburialsinjars;whatdistinguishesasuggrundariumfromanenchytrismosistheconnectionwithahouseorhut.Infantsandchildrenwereoftenburiedintrenches,similartothosereservedforadultsbutconstructedonasmallerscale.Theymaybelocatedinacemeteryreservedspecificallyforchildrenorinaburialgroundsharedwithadults.Insomecases,childrenappeartohavebeenburiedwithadultsinthesamegrave;sometimestheyarelocatedinaseparate,butconnected,loculus.Thistypeofburialisalsofoundinassociationwithdomesticcontexts;althoughthisisnotasuggrundariuminthestrictsense,itappearstoservethesamefunction.Alesscommontypeofinfantburial,acoppi,referstoindividualsthatwereplacedbetweentiles.Thesegenerallyconsistedoftwocoveringtiles,closedatoneorbothendswithaflattile;piecesoftuff,ceramicfragmentsortileweresometimesusedassupportalongthesides.Burialsacoppigenerallycontainedinfantsthatdiedatbirthorwithinthefirstfewmonthsoflife.InfantburialsarewellattestedinthearchaeologicalrecordofarchaicRomeandLatium,althoughtheyexperiencethesamedeclineinnumberandgravegoodsasadultburials.IntheIronAge,childandinfantburialswereoftenaccompaniedbyrelativelyrichgravegoods,butbytheArchaicperiod,therearefrequentlynoneatall.Ifgravegoodsarepresent,theyconsistlargelyofasingleminiatureceramicvessel,afibulaorabulla.SuggrundariainparticulararewellattestedbothatRomeandGabiiintheArchaicperiod;

382Chapter3presentstheliteraryevidenceforchildandinfantburial.383ThedefinitionofthewordisderivedfromaworkofFulgentius(Expositiosermonumantiquorum7),asixthcenturyC.E.writer,whostatedthattheancientsusedthewordsuggrundariumtodenotetheburialsofinfantslessthanfortydaysold.Gjerstad(1953,152‐4,especiallyn.3)describestheuseoftheterminancientandmodernscholarship.SeealsoChapter3regardingtheuseofthewordintheancientliterarysources.

92

atRometheseoccurinjars,384whileatGabiitheyoccurbothinjarsandintrenches.385AtthesiteofancientFicanawerediscoveredseveninfantburialsacoppi,inwhatmayhaveconstitutedaninfantnecropolis.386AtFicanathereisevidencefortheincreasingage‐restrictionsplacedonchildburials.IntheEarlyIronAge,childrenofuptotenyearsofagewererecovered.Duringtheseventhcentury,theagelimitappearstobetwoorthreeyears,andbythesixthcentury,noinfantswererecoveredovertwomonths.387 5d.FuneraryRiteThepredominantfuneraryriteinRomeandLatiumduringtheArchaicperiodwasinhumation.CremationwasmorecommonlypracticedduringtheIronAge;bythefourthcentury,ithadbecomethepreferredriteoncemore.TheonlyknowncremationburialsofthesixthandfifthcenturiescomefromafewurnsrecoveredinthesarcophagifromtheoldexcavationsoftheEsquilinenecropolisatRomeandasingleurninthechambertombatLavinium.Inhumationburialsappearinafewbasictypes,namely,trenches,chambertombsandsarcophagi.Gravesintrenchesandsarcophagiusuallycontainedsingleinhumations;chambertombsoftenheldtwoormoreindividuals.Thebodyofthedeceasedcouldbeplaceddirectlyintothegraveoronawoodenplankthatwasloweredintothetomb. Itisunclearwhyinhumationsupersededcremationbythebeginningofthesixthcentury,butitmaybeconnectedtotheotherradicalchangesinfunerarycustomatthistime,includingtheincreaseinthemonumentalityofburialsandthereductionofgravegoods.Economicmotivationsmayhavebeenafactorinthedecisionwhethertoinhumeorcremate,butthisisdifficulttodetermine.Studiesofthefuneraryrecordoflaterperiodssuggestthatinhumationwasthelessexpensiverite,whichscholarsclaimwaswidelytakenupbythelesswealthymembersofthepopulation.388Theentireprocessmayhavetakenuptoeighthours,andrequiredtheinvolvementofspecialistsandthepreparationofapyre.389Inthislight,theadoptionofinhumationduringtheArchaicperiodmayreflectthedecreaseinexpenditureonfuneraryritualobservedintheabsenceofgravegoodsandthelawsoftheTwelveTables.However,theswitchtoinhumationmayequallyrepresentachangeoffashioninfuneraryritual,chosenperhapsforitsnovelty.WheninhumationreturnsasthedominantriteinthethirdcenturyC.E.,thereislittleevidencetosuggestthetransitionwasbroughtaboutbyeconomicorreligiousmotivations.390Instead,thepracticeseemstohave

384Gjerstad1956,146‐9;Gusberti(2007‐2008)providesausefulsummaryofburialsinassociationwithinhabitedareasintheeighthandseventhcenturies.385SeeChapter6.386Jarva1981aand1981b.387Jarva1981a.388Morris1992;Graham2006,31‐4.389McKinley1989.390Nock1972;Morris1992,42‐69.MorrisinterpretsthechangefromcremationtoinhumationasadiffusionofthecultureoftheGreekEastintotheLatinWestandexplains

93

beentakenupfirstinwealthyand/orelitecircles,suggestingthattheshiftinfuneraryritewaslargelyachangeoffashion,onethatperhapsallowedfornewopportunitiesofostentation.5e.ArchaeologicalSitesThissectionoffersacriticaloverviewofthearchaeologicalevidenceforburialinRomeandLatiumduringtheArchaicperiod.Manyofthesitesarenamedaftermodernlocations,whileothersarereferredtobythenameoftheancientcity.Iprovideasmuchgeographicalinformationaspossible,foreaseofreference.Iorganizethesitesaccordingtoregion,beginningwithRomeandmovingintothenorth,east,westandsouthregionsofLatium.IincludeaspartofRomethosesitesthatfallwithinandjustbeyondthelimitsofthemoderncity.ForcitiessuchasRomeandSatricum,whichhavebeenextensivelyexcavated,Idocumentthediscoveriesfoundatindividualsitesinthoseareas.Inallcases,Iofferabriefdescriptionofthesiteswherearchaicburialshavebeenidentifiedandpresentanaccountoftheevidence.i.Rome(Center)PiazzaMagnanapoliIn1876R.LancianidiscoveredthreemonolithicsarcophagiinthePiazzaMagnanapoli,nearthechurchofS.CaterinadaSiena(fig.5.1).391Therecordsregardingtheexcavationarevagueandimprecise,butindicatethatthethreetombswerefoundtogetherinasmallpitdugintotheearth.Nearthetombgroupwasfoundasmallatticamphoradecoratedinblackfigure,whichColonna,acenturylater,datedto500B.C.E.onstylisticgrounds.392Duetoitspositionoutsidethesarcophagibutincludedinthesamepit,Colonnasuggestedthatthisvesselwasafuneraryofferingmadetothedeceased,andconsequentlydatedtheentiretombgrouptothelatesixthandearlyfifthcenturies.393Originally,however,theburialsweredatedtothefourthandthirdcenturies,basedonstylisticanalysesofthegravegoods.394

thatitwaslikelytakenupfirstbytheelite,butwithinthespanoftwoorthreedecades,hadtrickleddowntothelowerclasses.391Theresultsofthisexcavationarerecordedintwodifferentpublicationsfromthesameyear:BullCom(1876,123‐6)andNSc(1876,185).Theinformationcontainedinbothreportsismostlyconsistent,butsomedataisomittedfromtheNotiziedegliScaviaccount.Thedescriptionpresentedhereiscompiledfrombothreports.392Colonna1977,138‐9.Pinza,inBullCom(1876,124)andNSc(1876,185),offerstwodifferentreportsregardingthelocationoftheamphoretta,nearthefirstsarcophagus(BullCom1876,124)andnearthesecond(NSc1876,185).Ineithercasetheyareoutsideofandinassociationwiththetombgroup.393Colonna1977,138.394vonDuhn1924,487;Ryberg1940,88.

94

Regardingthesarcophagithemselves,Lancianirecordsthattheywererectangularinshape,althoughvaryinginsize,andmadeofstonesimilartothatfromtheLatincityofGabii.Thefirstidentifiedsarcophagushadastonelidandwaswithoutgravegoods;thesecondmeasured2.20by0.90mandcontainedanalabastron,abonepinandawreathwithgildedboneberries;andthethirdwasclosedwithalidofgabledstoneslabsandcontainedninegildedbeadsofboneintheshapeofpomegranatesandpinecones.Allthreesarcophagicontainedinhumationsoffragmentarynature,althoughananalysisofthesurvivingteethbelongingtothesecondburialindicatedthatthisindividualwas25to30yearsold.Lancianisuggestedthetombgroupwasestablishedinconnectionwithanancientcity‐gate,basedonhisobservationsthatasecondgroupofburialshadbeendiscoverednearthearchontheEsquiline.395BartolonilatersuggestedthiswasthePortaFontinalis,butthishypothesisisdoubtful,sincetheoriginallocationofthisgateremainscontroversial.396 EsquilineNecropolisThecemeteryontheEsquilineHillwasexcavatedoverthecourseoftheeighteen‐seventies,whentheareawasbeingredevelopedformodernhabitation(fig.5.1).397Thestateofrecordkeepingfromtheexcavationsisnotoriouslyabysmal:anumberoftombswererecoveredduringtheconstructionofstreetsandpublicplaces,butthereisverylittledocumentationrelatedtoanyoftheseactivities.Basedontherecords,itseemsthenecropoliswasdividedintotwogroups,thefirstalongthestreetsofViaGiovanniLanzaandtheViadelloStatuto,andtheotheraroundthePiazzaVittorioEmmanuele(fig.5.2).Burialslocatedoutsideoftheseareasdemonstratethatthecemeteryextendedbotheastandwest,butthepreciselimitsareunknown. Followingtheseexcavationsthereweremanyattemptstoorganizethedata,theearliestofwhichwereunsuccessful.Recordswerekeptontheobjectsfoundinthetombs,andboththerecordsandartifactswereinitiallyheldinstorageontheEsquiline.Atsomelaterdate,theobjectswereremovedtoanotherfacility.Noinventorywasmaintained,however,anditbecamelargelyimpossibletoconnecttheartifactswiththeirtombs,exceptinafewcircumstances.Therenewedexcavationsintheeighteen‐eightiesfollowedbettermethodsofdocumentationandpreservation.

395Itisuncleartowhichgroupofburialsherefers.Thesearepossiblythefourth‐centurytombsHolloway(1994,96‐99)mentionswerefoundinsidetheServianWalls.396Bartoloni(2010,170)callsitthePortaFortunalis.Thegateisknownonlyfromahandfulofancientsourcesandinscriptions.ItwasthoughttohavecomprisedpartoftheServianwall,andthoughthereissomedisputeamongstmodernscholarsregardingthepreciselocationofthegate,mostagreewithLivy'saccountthatplacesthegateonthenortheastsideoftheCapitolineHill,wheretheremainsarevisibleinfrontoftheMuseodelRisorgimento.Foramorecompleteaccount,seeNTDAR303;LTUR3.328‐9.397MonAnt(1905,44‐50)andGjerstad(1956,162‐6)providesummariesofthehistoryofexcavationsontheEsquiline.

95

Ingeneral,thepoorstateofrecordkeepingandconservationofmaterialsfromthesitemakethesedataratherunreliable,inspiteoftheadmirableattemptsinthelastcenturytosortthroughthem.Pinza,intheearlytwentiethcentury,wasfirstresponsiblefororganizingandpublishingtheresultsoftheEsquilineexcavations.398Hedividedtheburialsintothreecategoriesbasedonthedegreeofscientificmethodologyappliedtotheexcavationofthetombsandthepreservationoftheircontents.399Thefirstcategoryincludestombs1‐94,whichwereexcavatedin1884.Thiscategoryrepresentsthemostreliabledata,meaningthattombgroupsandtheircontentswererecordedandpreservedtogether.Thesecondcategorycomprisestombs95‐128,excavatedbetween1882and1884.Theseareconsideredlessreliable,meaningthatthereissomeconfusioninwhichobjectsbelongtowhichtombgroups.Thethirdcategoryconsistsoftombs129‐164,thoserecoveredbefore1882.Thesearetheleastreliable,anditisimpossibletoascertainwhichobjectsbelongtowhichtombs.Itisimportanttonote,here,thatPinzadocumentedthecontentsoftombgroupsandnotnecessarilyindividualtombs.Tombgroupsoftenconsistedofmultipleburials,thecontentsofwhicharedistinguishedinvaguetermsornotatall. Inthenineteen‐seventies,ColonnaconsultedPinza'saccountofthenecropolisandidentifiedafewburialsthatheattributedtotheArchaicperiod.400Thefirstwastheso‐calledtomb89,originallydiscoveredin1876intheareaofthedestroyedchurchofS.Giuliano,onthewesternsideofthePiazzadiVittorioEmanuele.401Theburialconsistedofamonolithicsarcophagusofpeperinotuff,inwhichtherewasasmallAtticpelikewithred‐figuredecoration(figs.5.3and5.4).Accordingtoearlierreportstherewereanumberofotherceramicvesselsincludedinthistombgroup,whichGjerstadhaddatedtotheLatialphaseIIB.402Pinzainitiallydatedthevesselandthusthetombtothefourthandthirdcenturies,butColonnalaterrevisedthis,postulatingadateattheendofthefifthcentury.403Asecondburialwastomb193,discoveredin1888nearthegatesofthenorthernsideofthepiazza,betweentheViaRicasoliandViaLamarmora.404Thisburialwasasmallpozzetto,builtofblocksoftuff,atthebottomofwhichwasanurnofpeperino.Theurnwasintheshapeofahousewithagabledroof,andwasdecoratedwithrectangularpanelsontheoutsidewalls;thelidhadslopingsides(figs.5.5and5.6).Withinthisurnwasanothercineraryurn,madeofwhitemarbleandcoveredbyagabledroofthatwaspaintedonbothsides(figs.5.7and5.8).BasedonthestylisticsimilaritiesbetweenthismarbleurnandanotherexamplefromelsewhereinItaly,Colonnawasabletodatethistombfromthelate

398Pinzadidthisintwomainpublicationsappearingin1905and1914.Theearlierpublicationconstitutesthemainbodyofevidence,thelaterwasintendedassupplementarymaterial.399MonAnt1905,43‐50.400BullCom1914;Colonna1977,139‐49.401BullCom1914,138.402MonAnt1905,141;Gjerstad1956,230‐2.403Colonna1977,139‐140,fig.3.404BullCom1914,162;NSc1888,132;Colonna1977,140‐1.

96

sixthtoearlyfifthcentury.405Althoughtherewerenogravegoodsinthistomb,Colonnabelievedtheburialbelongedtoahigh‐rankingindividual.406 Theattributionoftheurnsfromtomb193ledColonnatoidentifyasarchaicseveralotherurnsfromtheEsquilinenecropolis.Hebasedhisconclusionsonastylisticcomparisonoftheurnsandtheabsenceofanygravegoodsfromtheseburials.407Colonna'sfirstexamplewasapaintedurn,largerinsizethanthatfromtomb193,whichwasnotassociatedwithanygravegoods(figs.5.9and5.10).408Heclaimstheurnwasprobablylocatedintomb5,butitsprovenanceseemsuncertain.Fromnearbytombs4and6werediscoveredtwopaintedcineraryurnsandasarcophagus,allenclosedwithinachambertomb.409BothPinzaandColonnaarguedtheurnsresembledtheexamplefromtomb5.ColonnaaddedtothislistanurnknownonlyfromadrawingbyLanciani(fig.5.11).410Anothercomesfromtomb178,whichhaspanelsonitssidesandiswithoutgravegoods.411Twomoreurnswerefoundintombs172and177,whichwerenearlyidenticalinstyleanddimensions.Bothweremadeofsmooth,unfinishedgabinestoneandwerewithoutgravegoods.412Theybothmeasured0.58mlong,between0.25and0.26mwide,andwere0.23mhigh.Therearenoimagesofthesetombs. ColonnaalsoassignsanumberofunfinishedstonesarcophagitotheArchaicperiodonthegroundsthattheyhaveveryfewtonogravegoods.Theexamplesarenumerous,andColonnalistsonlythosefoundwithafewgravegoods:tombs83,84and148,whichhadloomweights;tombs56‐58,oneofwhichincludedapieceofbronze;tomb116,whichcontainedalumpofaesrude;andtomb17,inwhichabronzemirrorandmetalpinwerefound. Colonna'sattempttoidentifyarchaicburialsfromthelatenineteenth‐centuryexcavationsatRomeisbothadmirableandinfluential,butmustbeapproachedwithasignificantdegreeofcaution.Thoseburialsassociatedwithmaterialsthatcanbesecurelydatedtothesixthandfifthcenturiesconstitutethemostreliablebodyofevidence;theseincludethesarcophagifromthePiazzaMagnanapoli,andtombs89and193fromtheEsquiline.Itisimportanttoacknowledge,however,thatwithoutknowingthestratigraphicsequencefromeitherofthesesites,itisimpossibletobeabsolutelypositiveabouttheirchronology.EspeciallyuncertainarethemyriadofsarcophagiandurnsfromtheEsquilinethatColonnaattributestotheArchaicperiodbasedsolelyontheirstylisticresemblancetotombs89,193andthePiazzaMagnanapolisarcophagi,andthelimitedpresenceorcompleteabsenceofgravegoods.Thereisverylittlereasontoaccepttheseexamplesasreliableevidence,

405Colonna1977,139‐46.406Colonna1977,146.407Colonna1977,146‐9.408MonAnt1905,186,fig.78.409BullCom1914,123.410Mariani1895,21,fig.2;BullCom191238,fig.13;Colonna1977,148.411BullCom1914,158;Colonna1977,148.412BullCom1914,157‐8.

97

since,forthemostpart,Colonnahasbasedhisconclusionsonthedescriptionscompiledfromtheoldsitereports.Inmanycases,therearenoimagesoftheseurnsandsarcophagi,onlydescriptions.Itis,ultimately,difficulttodrawanymeaningfulconclusionsbaseduponthesurvivingevidence.Atbest,whatthemajorityofColonnaandPinza'sinformationdemonstratesisthatstonesarcophagiandurnswereacommonformofburialontheEsquilineoverthecourseofseveralcenturies,includingtheArchaicperiod.413 InhisownreanalysisoftheEsquilinetombsinthenineteen‐fifties,GjerstadattributedonlythreetombstotheArchaicperiod.414Gjerstad,too,reliedontheworkaccomplishedbyPinza,butincludedonlythoseburialsthathebelievedhadareliablecontextanddeterminabledate.Consequently,heaccountedforonlythosetomb‐groupscontainingdatablepotteryandothernon‐ceramicobjects.415Thefirstistomb118,aboutwhichnothingatallisknown,exceptthatitcontainedthreeexamplesItalo‐Corinthianpottery,whichGjerstaddatedtothesixthcentury.416Thesecondwastomb125,achambertombthatGjerstadclaimsistheonlyexampleofitskindthatcandefinitivelybedatedtotheArchaicperiod.417Theobjectsfoundinthistomb,whicharenumerousandincludeafragmentinscribedwithktektou,indicatethecontinueduseofthespace,sincetheycanbedatedfromthesixththroughthirdcenturies.Thethirdexampleistomb128,wasatrenchburialthatcontainedseveralvessels.418ThemaindifficultywithGjerstad'sclaimsisthathischronologyhasbeenproventoolate.WhatheattributedtotheArchaicperiodinfactbelongstotheOrientalizingphase.

ThenextseriesofexcavationsontheEsquilineHillwereundertakenbyColiniandPinzainthelatenineteen‐twentiesandwereaimedatdiscoveringadditionalburials(fig.5.12).419ArchaeologicalinvestigationcenteredonfourareasinandaroundthePiazzaVittorioEmanuele,butonlyinoneareawasthereanyevidenceforancientfuneraryactivity.420Inthegarden,neartheentrancetotheViadelloStatuto,archaeologistsdiscoveredninetombs.Colinimadeonlygeneralobservationsabouttheseburials.Allcontainedinhumationsand,withoneexception,hadasoutheast‐northwestorientation.Threetypesofburialwereidentified:rectangulartrenchtombscoveredbylidsoftuffortiles;monolithictuffsarcophagicoveredbylidsoftuff;andrectangulartrenchesinwhichtheinhumationswerecoveredbytilesarrangedallacappuccina.Therewasverylittleinthewayofgravegoods,exceptforafewfragmentsofaesrudeintwoofthetombs.Onlyoneburialcontainedasignificantamountofgoods,tombsix,whichhadbronzecoins,afibula,anastragalus,miniaturebowlsandtwosmallvessels.Ironandcoppernailswerealsorecoveredandidentifiedasgravegoods,butitseemsmorelikelythatthesewerethe

413Colini1932.414Gjerstad1956.415Gjerstad(1956,163‐6)clarifieshisapproach.416Gjerstad1956,258.417Gjerstad1956,259‐61;MonAnt,194‐5.418Gjerstad1956,261‐2;MonAnt,198‐201.419Colini1932.420Therewaslittleintheothertwoareasexceptvirginsoil.

98

remnantsofwoodenbiers.Onthebasisofthegravegoodsfromtomb6andthetwoexamplesofaesrude,Colinidatedtheburialsfromthelatefourthtothirdcenturies.Hesuggestedthatthetombswithoutgravegoodsweretheearliest,andattributedthepovertyofthegravestothesumptuaryrestrictionsoftheTwelveTables.

InrecentdecadesrenewedarchaeologicalactivityontheEsquilineHillhasbroughttolightnewinformationregardingthearchaicoccupationoftheareawhichcallsintoquestiontheconclusionsofColini'sinvestigations.TheexcavationofsomefifteentombsinthePiazzaVittorioEmanuelein2002constitutesasignificantcontributiontothearchaeologicalrecordoftheEsquilinenecropolis(fig.5.12).421Themajorityoftheburialswerefoundontheshortsideofpiazza,inthedirectionoftheViadelloStatutoandtheViaCarloAlberto(fig.5.13).Alltombsdatetothesixthandfifthcenturies.Onlytwoofthetwelveburialscontainedanyevidenceofgravegoods(fig.5.14):tomb3hadaminiatureamphora(fig.5.15)andasmallcupinthefill,andtomb12hadtwominiatureamphoraeandasmallcup.(fig.5.16).Archaeologistsdistinguishedfourtombtypes:trenchescoveredbylidsoftuff;trenchescoveredbytiles;trencheswithaside‐loculusthatwasclosedbyvertically‐depositedtiles;andmonolithictuffsarcophagicoveredbylidsoftuff(fig.5.17).422Onthebasisofthefewrecoveredgravegoods,archaeologistswereabledatethegravesgenerallytothesixthandearlyfifthcenturies,andobservedthatburialscoveredbyslabsoftuffpredatedthosecoveredbytile.423ThedataseemedtoconformtothosepresentedbyPinzanearlyacenturybefore,whonotedthesoutheast/northwestorientationofalltheexploredtombs.ThetypeoftombalsoconformstothoseexcavatedbyColini,suggestingthatColini'stombsmaybelongtoanearlierperiodthanoriginallythought. Althoughthetombsfromthisexcavationrepresentafairlyhomogeneousgroup,Barberaetal.observeddistinctionsinthetypeandlocationoftombthatpointtothepresenceoftombgroups.424Theburialswithsideloculiarealllocatedincloseproximitytooneanother,whichthearchaeologistssuggestrepresentsburialsfromasinglefamilygroup.TheappearanceofthistypeofburialatothersitesinRome,namelyAcquaAcetosaLaurentinaandLaRustica,aswellasintheancientsiteofCrustumerium,mayreflectculturaltieswiththoseareas.ItmayevenconnecttheseareastoVeiiandtheagerfaliscus,wherethiswasacommontypeofarchaicburial.Archaeologistsidentifiedasecondtombgrouponthegroundsthattheburialswereclusteredtogetherinsuchawaythatpointedtothemethodicaluseofthespace. BetweentheViadelMonteOppioandtheViadelleTermediTraiano,archaeologistsdiscoveredacircularstructureofoperaquadrata,inthemiddleofwhichwasavotivedeposit(fig.5.18).425Theyassociatedwiththistwootherfeatureslocatednearby:a

421Barberaetal.2005;AsorRosaetal.2009.422Barberaetal.(2005,315)wereunabletoclassifytomb2andnotethatthedateswereuncertainfortomb10.423Barberaetal.2005,315.424Barberaetal.2005,316.425Cordischi1993.

99

pavementoftuffwithacippus,foundimmediatelyeastofthecircularwall,andasecondvotivedeposit,locatedsome12.5msouthwestofthesameprecinct.ArchaeologistsinitiallyinterpretedthesiteasasacredareathatremainedinusefromtheseventhcenturyB.C.E.tothesecondcenturyC.E.Thevotivedepositsrepresentedtheearliestphasesofoccupation:thefirstcontainedmaterials,mostlybronzefigurinesandminiaturevases,datingfromtheendoftheseventhcenturytotheendofthesixth;thesecondcontainedmostlythymiateriaandloomweightsthatbelongedtothefourthandthirdcenturies.ThecircularwallwasinusefromthethirdcenturyB.C.E.tothelatefirstcenturyB.C.E.orearlyfirstcenturyC.E.,whilethepavementandcippus,interpretedasasacredarea,wasoccupiedfromthethirdcenturyB.C.E.tothesecondcenturyC.E. Coarelli,however,hasreinterpretedthedataasevidenceforthetombandhouseofServiusTullius,whomtheancientsourcesstateruledRomeduringthesixthcentury(c.578‐534B.C.E.).426Hearguesthatthecircularwallisinfacttheprecinctwallofatomb,belongingtoatypeofburialcommonmainlyintheregionofmodernAbruzzo,andinLatium,attestedonlyatTibur.427Heisnotdissuadedbytheabsenceofaburialoranyfeaturesthatcouldbeassociatedwithfuneraryactivity,claimingthatsuchevidencewaslikelydestroyedbymorerecentlootingandconstructionactivities.Bartoloniaddsthatatombacassonewithoutgravegoodscouldhavebeenplacedhere.428Coarelliexpressesdoubtsconcerningtheoriginaldatingofthewall,andstatesthatthecappellacciotufffromthefirstthreecoursesofthestructurepointtothefirstphaseofthemonument'sconstructioninthesixthcentury.Hethenadvancesthehypothesisthatthistombmusthavebelongedtoanotablefigurebecause,accordingtohisobservations,itislocatedwithintheRomanpomerium.AlthoughthelawsoftheTwelveTablesprohibitedintramuralburial,exceptionsweremadeforindividualswhohadretainedtherightorearnedsomedistinction.CoarelliidentifiesthisindividualasServiusTulliusonthefollowinggrounds:first,thatthetombtypefoundatRomebelongstoatypecommonlyfoundatTibur,inaregionofeastLatiumwhereLivyrecordsServiusTulliuswasborn;429second,thatthechronologyoftheking'sdeathandthearchaeologicalevidencefortheuseoftheareacorrespond;third,thatthetombissolarge,atapproximately16m,thatitcouldonlyhavebelongedtoanotablefigure;andfourth,thatthetombwasfoundwithinthewallsofRomeatatimewhenintramuralburialwaslargelyprohibited.Thevotivedepositsandnearbysacredareaheclaimswerelaterdeposits,madesometimeafterthetombhadacquiredcultstatus.Alternately,Bartolonisuggeststhatthevotivedepositsareofferings,madeatthemomentofthefuneraryceremony.430 TheinterpretationofthisareaoftheEsquilineHillasaburialgroundisunconvincing.Inthefirstplace,thereisnoevidenceinthearchaeologicalrecordforfuneraryactivity.The

426Coarelli2001.427Abruzzo:d'Ercole1988,401‐21,esp.411‐6.Tivoli:CLP188‐212.428Bartoloni2010,166.429Livy1.39.430Bartoloni2001,166.

100

claimthattheareamightoncehaveheldaburialisanargumentfromsilenceandcannotbesupportedbyanyrelevantevidence.ThecircularenclosuresfromTivoliandAbruzzo,towhichCoarellicomparesthecircularwallfromtheEsquiline,allcontainburialseitherwithinorjustoutsidetheirlimits.Itstandstoreason,then,thatthefeatureontheEsquilineshouldcontainaburial,whichitdoesnot.Whatismore,thearchaeologicalevidencethatdoessurvivepointstoacompletelydifferentuseofthespace.Theonlymaterialsrecoveredfromthetrenchesarevotivedeposits,whoseexistencebothCoarelliandBartoloniattest.Coarelli,too,arguesfromsilencewhenclaimingthecappellacciowallsmayhavebelongedtothesixthcentury.Althoughheclaimsthatthestratigraphicsequencewasnotmadeentirelyclear,431theoriginalpublicationsoftheexcavationsindicatethatthephasesofthewallweredatablebasedoninsitufindsrecoveredinthepavementassociatedwiththewall.432ViaSacraGjerstadidentifiedfourarchaicsuggrundariafromBoni'slateeighteenth‐centuryexcavationsintheViaSacra(fig.5.1).433Thesewerealldiscoveredunderneaththefloorsandalongthewallsofthehousesthatwereoccupiedfromabout575to450B.C.E.Allweredepositedhorizontallyindoliaandhadtheirmouthsclosedbytiles;onlyinonecasedidthesuggrundariumconsistoftwojarsarrangedmouthtomouth.Thedoliaweresimilarinsize,ranginginheightbetween29.5and44cmand29.5‐39.5cmindiameteratthemouthofthejar.SuggrundariumE(fig.5.19)comprisedthetwodoliaandcontainedtheskeletalremainsofachildaged20‐24months,depositedinthefetalposition.TheremainshadgonemissingatthetimeofGjerstad'sanalysis,butheseemedconfidentintheosteologicalreport.SuggrundariumF(fig.5.20)containedtheburialofa3monthold;fragmentsofpotteryandarchaeobotanicalremains(suchasgrainsandcharcoal)werediscoveredwithin.SuggrundariumLL(fig.5.21)containedafoetusof7‐8months,whileSuggrundariumNN(fig.5.22)containedaneonate.Afewbonesofacattleandsheepwerefoundinthejar,inadditiontocarbonizedgrainsofwheatandsomefishbones. QuirinalHillElsewhereinRome,excavationsontheQuirinalHillhaverecentlybroughttolightthreestonesarcophagithatmaybelongtotheArchaicperiod.434LocatedinthemodernViaGoito

431Coarelli2001,13‐4.432Astolfietal.1990,177‐8;Astolfietal.1989‐1990,59‐60.433Boni(NSc1903,165)identifiesEandFassuggrundaria,butconnectsLLandNN(184ff)withFbasedonthesimilarityofthetilesusedtoclosethedolia.Gjerstad(1953,152‐4;1956,146‐9)considersthemallsuggrundaria.434BothMenghietal.(2005,359,n.2)andBartoloni(2010,169)citeasrelatedevidencethediscoveryoftwomonolithicsarcophagifromtheearlyexcavationsontheQuirinalHill.Theoriginalreports,however,providelittletonoinformationthatcanjustifytheseclaims.ThefirstexamplewasfoundintheViaGoitoin1873,whichPinzadocumented(BullCom1905,254).Hementionedonlythatitwasanarchaictombthatcontainedafibula;hesaid

101

(fig5.23),allthreeappeartohaveconstitutedasingletombgroup.Theabsenceofgravegoodsandthepoorstateofpreservationofoneofthesetombshasrenderedthemdifficulttodate.Twoofthetombsappeartohavebeenrobbedinantiquityandtheotherwaspartiallydamagedbymodernconstructioninthearea.However,thesetombsareanalogoustothesarcophagifromtheEsquilineHill.Allthreearemonolithictuffsarcophagi(fig.5.24);twoofthesepreservecompletelyorpartiallyalidoftuff,whilethecoveringofthethirdiscompletelymissing.Theirorientationsarediverse:twoareorientedN/SandanotherE/W.TheresemblanceofthesarcophagitothosefoundontheEsquilinesuggeststhattheymaydatetotheArchaicperiod.Thestratigraphicsequence,however,revealsthatthesetombsmaybelongtotheMiddleRepublic,sometimebetweenthefourthandsecondcenturies.Immediatelycoveringthetombswasalayerofglareateroadthatceramicinclusionsindicatewasconstructedsometimeinthesecondcentury;theabsenceofanylayerofabandonmentbetweenthetombsandtheroadsuggeststhatthetombsimmediatelyprecededtheroad. ViaLatinaFromthenineteenth‐centuryexcavationsatRomecometwofinaltombsthatColonnaandBartolonihaverecentlyclaimedbelongtotheArchaicperiod.However,thisattributionishighlyquestionable,sincevirtuallynothingsurvivesfromthemexceptforafewbriefdetailspublishedintheinitialexcavationreports.435Archaeologistsin1836discoveredwhatappearstohavebeenachambertomblocatedwithinalatercolumbariumjustoutsidethePortaLatinaoftheAurelianwalls.436Accordingtotheoriginalreport,thetombwasdugintothetuffandcontainedacorredoofseveralvasesofblackfabricthatweredecoratedwithanimalsandornamentsintheEtruscanstyle;oneofthesevesselscontainedburnedhumanremainsandashes.Colonnabelievesthesevesselsweremadeofbucchero(arefinedformofimpastopottery,usuallywheel‐madeandfiredbrown,whichdatesgenerallyfromtheseventhtofifthcenturies)andweremostlikelysimilarinstyletothosecommonatVeiiinthesixthcentury.437Heconsiderssignificantthepresenceofvesselsinscribedwithanimalfigures,sincethisstylebelongstoacategoryofdecorationcommoninEtruriabutotherwiseunknowninLatium.EvenmoreremarkabletohimistherarityofchambertombsinRomeandLatiumduringthisperiod;theonlyotherattestedexampleatRomeistomb125fromtheEsquilinenecropolis,whichdatestotheOrientalizingperiod.Althoughitisprobablethatthischambertombwasearly,itisimpossibletodeterminemorepreciselyitschronology.Thereisnootherdescriptionofthetombotherthanwhatis

nothingaboutthetypeoftomb.Bartoloni(2010,170),however,statesthattheburialbelongstoLatialphaseIIIorIV.ThesecondtombwasrecoveredatthejunctionoftheViaXXSettembreandViaCastelfidardointheearlytwentiethcentury.ThecitationsfromPinzaandLanciani(BullCom1877,311)areextremelyvague,butaccordingtoMenghietal.2005wasdatedtotheArchaicperiod.435Colonna(1996,344‐350)attributesbothofthesetwotheArchaicperiod.436Panofka1836,103‐4;Ashby1907,18.437Colonna1996,345.

102

providedintheinitialaccounts,andthewhereaboutsofitsobjectsremainsunknown.Onthesegroundsalone,thePortaLatinatombisahighlydoubtfulsourceofinformation. ThesecondexampleconcernsachariotrecoveredduringtheexcavationsofRomaVecchiaintheeighteenthcentury.438BothBartoloniandColonnastatethatthechariotwasrecoveredinatomb,butthereisunfortunatelynoevidencefortheprovenanceofthisitem.439Infact,theresultsfromRomaVecchiaexcavationsareextremelyunreliable:preciselywheretheytookplaceandwhatwasrecoveredinthemaremattersofconsiderableuncertaintyandconfusion.440EarlyarchaeologistsvariouslyusedthetermRomaVecchiatodesignateanynumberofexcavationsoccurringintheregionsoutheastofRome,betweenthecityandtheAlbanHills.Thetombinquestioncomesfromanyoneoftheseexcavationsinthisgeneralarea;itsexactprovenanceremainsunknown.441Itseemsthatbothauthorsthoughtthechariottohavecomefromatombbasedontheearlyarchaeologicalreportsandtheclaimsofancientauthors.TheybelievedthatthechariotwasfoundintheregionofFosseCluiliae,neartheVilladeiQuintili,oneoftheregionsoftheoldRomaVecchiaexcavations,andaregionwhereLivy(1.25)recordstheexistenceofanumberoftumulicontainingthegravesofmythologicalcombatants. Basedonwhatsurvivesfromthechariot,modernscholarshavedatedtheburialtothesixthcenturyorshortlythereafter.Theextantportionsofthechariotaremorelimitedthantheearlyreportssuggested.442Inadditiontoanumberofbronzefragments,whatsurvivesaretwopairsofuprightsforthebits;asmallcylinderwithagorgoneion,usedtodecorateapinonthehelm;adamagedfigureofSol/Usilonthefrontofthechariot;andthebossesofthewheels.Thelatestanalysesattributethechariotandthetombtosomewherearoundthesixthcenturyoralittlelater.Althoughthechariotiscertainlyindicativeofillustriousandwealthyowners,itisunclearwhetherthisrepresentsanarchaicburial. ii.Rome(South)LocatedwithinthesouthernmostdistrictsofmodernRome,andatthelimitsoftheagerromanusantiquus,areanumberofsiteswithevidenceforarchaicburial.A.Bediniexcavatedthemajorityofthesefromthenineteen‐seventiesthrough‐nineties,whenthe

438ThemostcurrentanalysisofthechariotexistsinEmiliozzi(1997,191‐202).439Colonna1996,346‐50;Bartoloni2010,172.440Colonna(1996,346,n.47),discussesthecontroversy.Ashby(1907,90‐6)attemptstomakesenseofthediscoveriesattributedtoRomaVecchiaandtoclarifythelocationoftheRomaVecchiainvestigations.ItseemsthatRomaVecchiarefersgenerallytotheViaLatinaanditsimmediateneighborhood.However,archaeologistsworkingintheeighteenthcenturywereunawareofthissignificance,and,intheirconfusion,attributedto"RomaVecchia"anumberofdiscoveriesfromexcavationsundertakenindiverseareasalongtheroadsleadingfromRomeandtowardstheAlbanHills,namelytheViaPraenestina,ViaLatinaandViaAppia.441Pinza1924,185;Dennis1878,vol.2,481.442Pinza(1924,185)wasespeciallygenerous.

103

areawasbeingdevelopedformodernhabitation.TheareasunderinvestigationincludeAcquaAcetosaLaurentina,CasaleMassima,Torrino,CasaleBrunoriandTorde'Cenci.AcquaAcetosaLaurentinaThesiteofAcquaAcetosaLaurentinaislocatedwestofthejunctureofthemodernViaLaurentinaandViaAcquaAcetosaOstiense.ThemaintopographicalfeaturesincludeanIronAgenecropolisandsettlement,locatedimmediatelywestoftheViaLaurentina.Thecemeteryiscomprisedofatleast175tombsthatdatefromtheendoftheninthtothebeginningofthesixthcentury(fig.5.25).443Beginninginthelateeighthcenturytherewasachangeinthespatialorganizationofthecemetery,wheretombgroupsemergedconsistingofacentralconspicuousgravesurroundedbyanumberofothers.Thistransformationmaypointtotheemergenceoffamilygroupsinthecemetery.TheevidencefortheArchaicphaseofoccupationcomesfromtwodiscretelocationstothenorthandwestofthenecropolisandprotohistoricsettlement.Oneofthemostsubstantialdiscoveriesissituatedjustnorthofthedefensivesystemoftheprotohistoricsettlement,whereBediniuncoveredtwotombsinconnectionwiththeremainsofadomesticbuilding,allofwhichdatetotheArchaicperiod(fig.5.26).444Thebuildingswerelocatedinthreeareas,numberedV,VIandVII.Vwaslocatedtowardthewest,andVIandVIIweresituatedtotheeast;acanal,whichwaslaterfilledandusedasaroad,separatedVfromVIandVII.InareaV,therewasevidenceforthreestructuresthatwereidentifiedashousesbasedontheirassociationwithfeaturesindicativeofdomesticuse,includingahearth,cisternandpits.Oneofthebuildingscontainedasuggrundarium.FoundinthelayersofoccupationwerefragmentsofAtticredfigure(orEtruscanorCampanian)potterythataredatabletothesecondhalfofthesixthcenturytothebeginningofthefifth.Thecomplexdoesnotappeartohavebeeninuseforlong:immediatelyfollowingthebeatenpavementoftheoccupationphaseisathicklayerofcollapse.InbuildingVIIthereisevidencethattheconstructionofgraveseithercontributedtooroccurredimmediatelyafterthedestructionoftheresidence.Bothachamberandsemi‐chambertomb,databletothefirsthalfofthefifthcentury,werediscoveredinthepost‐abandonmentphasesofthisstructure.Thechambertomb(no.3)preservedanE‐SE/W‐NWorientationandhadadromosmeasuring5.25x0.88m.Theentranceatthedoormeasures0.50mwide,1.60mhighand0.42mdeep.Themainchamberwastrapezoidalinshapeandwasabout1.5‐2.0mlong.Ontherightsidetherewasaniche,situated0.80mfromtheground;thenichemeasure0.68x1.86mandhadaheightof0.50m.Therewereveryfewskeletalremains,butwhatwasextantsuggeststhattheheadwasdepositedtowardtheentrance.Thetombcontainednogravegoodsexceptforasingleglassbead,recoveredinasmallloculuslocatedinthewallneartheentranceofthedromos,whichdatesthetombtothefifthcentury.

443Bedini1980,1981b;GRT171‐3,255‐60.444Bedini1981b,257,n.24;1983,36‐37,tombs3and4.

104

Thesecondchambertomb(no.4)preservesaNE/SWorientation(fig.5.28).Thedromosis2.8x0.9m;atadistanceof1.10mfromtheentranceofthetombisasidenichethatwascoveredwithtiles.Thenicheislocated0.55mfromtheground,measures0.55x2mandis0.40‐50mhigh.Thedeceasedwasarrangedwiththeheadtothenortheast.Therewerenogravegoods.OnthebasisoftheabsenceofgravegoodsandacomparisonofthistombwithexamplesfromCasaleMassima(seebelow),thisgravewasdatedtotheendofthesixthorearlyfifthcentury.

AsecondlocusofarchaicfuneraryactivitycomesfromasmallhillsituatedjustnorthoftheViaAcquaAcetosaOstiense,whereBedinidiscoveredtwochambertombs.445TheburialsarelocatedapproximatelyfivemetersapartandpreserveanorientationthatismoreorlessNE/SW,withtheentranceofeachtombfacingthewest.Thefirsttomb(figs.5.29and5.30,tomba1)preservesadromosthatmeasures1.7mx3.4mandslopestowardtheentranceofthetombtoadepthof0.9m.Theframewascarvedalongthesidesofthedoor,approximately12‐15cmwideand2‐3cmdeep.Theupperportionofthedoorwasnotcovered;itwasdiscoveredopenandonlyonestone,foundnearthebottomofthedromosmighthaveconstitutedpartofthedoor.Afewpiecesoftile,recoverednearthedoor,mayhavealsoclosedtheentranceofthetomb.Themainchamberisquadrangularinplanandmeasuresabout2x2m.Thewallsshowclearsignsofworking,andontherightsideofthemainchamber,about0.95mfromthegroundisasingleloculus.Theloculuspreservesdimensionsof0.6‐0.7minwidthand1.9minlength.Thereonlytracesofaskeletonwereafewfragmentsofbonesfoundonthefloorofthemainchamber.Apillowcarvedatthefrontendofthenicheindicatesthattheheadofthedeceasedwasplacedtowardtheentrance.Nogravegoodswerediscoveredinthetomb.Thesecondtomb(figs.5.29and5.30,tomba2)issmallerthanthefirst,andhasadromosabout1mwideandextendstowardthedoorofthemainchamber.Thedoorwasdiscoveredinsite,andcomprisedlargeblocksoftuffthatare60x50x28cminsize.Fiveoftheseblockswerearrangedoneontopoftheothertoreachaheightof1.6m.Themainchambermeasures1.75x0.8mandseemsmoreacontinuationofthedromosthanatruecella.Atthebackofthetombisthetraceofadoorthatwasnotcompleted.Anicheislocatedontherightsideofthechamber,approximately0.8mfromthefloor;thenicheis0.6mwideand0.4mhigh.Therewerenotracesofthedeceasedoranygravegoods.Thereisnoevidencethatthetombswererobbed,eitherinantiquityorinmoderntimes.Itseemsthatthetombshadpartiallydeterioratedsometimeinantiquity,asfragmentsoftufffromtheceilingofbothchambershadcrumbledandmixedwiththefillofthetomb.Ceramicfragmentsrecoveredinthefilloftomb1datetheburialfromthelatesixththroughfifthcenturies;comparablefindswerediscoveredinthelayersabovebothtombs.Bediniassignsthesecondtombtothesamedatealthoughnodiagnosticmaterialsseemtohavebeenfoundinassociationwithit.446HeconnectsthesetombstothesettlementatLaurentina.

445Bedini1983.446Bedini1983,29‐31.

105

CasaleMassima

ImmediatelynorthofAcquaAcetosaLaurentina,thesiteofCasaleMassimaoccupiesaplainofthesamenameandpreservesanecropoliscomprisedofaboutfortytombs(fig.5.31).447Theareawasusedcontinuouslyasaburialgroundfromtheeighthtothefourthcenturies,butoverhalfofthepreservedburialsbelongtothesixthandearlyfifth.Thearchaicburialsbelongtooneoffourtombtypes:trenches,trencheswithloculi(fig.5.32),trencheswithtilesandchambers;childrenwerefoundinsuggrundaria.Theburialsweregenerallydevoidofgravegoods;onlythreetombscontainedpersonalobjects,includingbeadsandpendantsofglassandamber.448Bedinibelievedthesetombsdatednoearlierthanthefifthcentury,onthebasisofastylisticanalysisoftheseitems.Thetrenchburialswithtile‐coveredloculicanonlybedatedmoregenerallytothesixthandfifthcenturies,sincethetilesusedintheseburialsaremadeofimpastorosso,acoarsestyleofpottery,firedtoareddishcolor,thatwasproducedfromtheninthtothefifthcenturies.Bedinidescribesthetwochambertombsingreaterdetail.449Thefirstchambertomb(n.1,fig.5.33)hasaNNE/SSWorientationwiththeentrancelocatedattheSSW.Thedromos,whichcutintoanearliertrenchgrave,is0.6mwideand2.1mlong,andhasapronouncedslopeinthedirectionofthedoor.Thedoortothemainchamberis0.6mwide.Althoughthedoorwasdiscoveredclosedandlargelyintact,theupperportionhadpartiallycollapsed.Thedoorwasconstructedofslabsoftuffandreachedaheightofabout1.65m.Themainchamberprobablyhadanarchedceiling,butwaspartiallydestroyedbytheconstructionofalatergrave.Nevertheless,itseemsthattheheightofthechamberreached1.8m.Themainchamberfeaturestwoloculi,onecarvedintotherightwallfromtheentranceandasecondattheback.Thenicheswerecarvedinanirregularfashion;bothwerelocatedabout1mfromtheground,andpreservedimensionsofabout0.65x1.7m.Inthechamberalongtherightwall,askeletonwasfoundarrangedwiththeheadorientedtowardthesouth,towardtheentrance;inthechamberalongthebackwall,thedeceasedwasarrangedwiththeheadtotheeast.Thewallsshowclearsignsofworking.Asmallolletta(fig.5.34)wasfoundatthebottomofthedromosandwasperhapsintendedasagravegood.Thisobject,togetherwiththeseveralfragmentsoftile,vasesanddolia,datethetombtothesixthandfifthcenturies.Thesecondchambertomb(fig.5.33)islocated2.5mwestofthefirstandthewesternlimitofthistombcutsanearliergravethatpreservesasubstantialcorredobelongingtotheseventhcentury.450Thedromosis0.6‐0.65mwideand2.75mlongandhastwostepsdescendingintothemainchamber.Ontherightsideofthechamberisanichethatisraised0.46mfromthefloor.Thenichemeasures0.65minwidth,1.8minlengthand0.30‐0.40minheight.Thenichewasclosedbyfourtiles,andincludedapentolina(fig.5.35).

447Bedini1980.448ThesearetombsIX,XandXIIinBedini(1980,60‐3).449ThetombsarefirstmentionedinBedini(1980,62‐3)andlaterdescribedinBedini(1983,33‐6).450Bedini1983,34‐6.

106

Thetwovasesandthetilesusedtoclosethenichesaretheonlydiagnosticelementsthatcanbeusedfordatingtheburials.Basedonthematerials,thetombsdatetothelatesixthtoearlyfifthcentury.ThischronologyfindssupportinthechambertombsfromAcquaAcetosaLaurentina,whicharesimilarinfindsandconstruction.TorrinoApproximately3.5kmwestofAcquaAcetosaLaurentina,betweenthemodernViaCristoforoColomboandViadelMare,isthesiteofTorrino,wherethereisevidenceforsettlementandfuneraryactivityfromtheBronzeAgethroughtheImperialperiod(5.36).451TheevidencefortheearliestphasesofoccupationconsistsofasingletombbelongingtotheNeolithicorBronzeAgeandafewfindsrecoveredintheimmediateareathatrangeindatefromtheeighthtotheendofthesixthcentury.DuringthelateOrientalizingandArchaicperiods,however,settlementandfuneraryactivityintensifiesandtakesamonumentalaspect.Tothelastquarteroftheseventhcenturybelongtwoadjacentchambertombsthatarecarvedintothebedrockandcontainmultipleinhumations(fig.5.37).Thegravegoodassemblagesofthevariousburialsdemonstratesthatthesetombswereusedinsuccessiveperiods,butthesecondandlargestofthetwoistheonlyonewithevidenceofuseintheArchaicperiod(fig.5.38). Thissecondchambertombconsistsofacentralcorridorwithtwonichescarvedintoeachsideandoneattheback.Itcontainedelevenburials:twoineachofthenichesontheleft,oneinthenicheclosesttotheentranceontherightside,threeinthesecondnicheontheright,andthreeinthenicheatthebackofthecentralroom.Mostofthegravegoodswerefounddepositedwiththethreeburialsinthesecondnicheontheright,whichsuggeststhatalltheburialswereredepositedtomakeroomfornewerones.Withexceptionoftheburialinthefirstnicheontheleft,andoneoftheburialsinthebackniche,noneoftheremainingburialshadcorredi.Bediniconsidersitprobablethatthetombwasconstructedattheendoftheseventhcenturyandremainedinusethroughthesixth,whichaccountsfortheabsenceofgravegoodsinmanyofthegraves.452Bedinidoesnotnote,however,thepresenceofanyfindsdatingtotheArchaicperiodfromthefillofthetomb;inthisabsence,onemustacceptthepossibilitythatthistombmayhavebeenusedonlyintheOrientalizingperiod.

451Bedini1981a.452Bedini1981,63.Thedistinctionsinthefillofthevariousnichesandthecentralchamberprovidesadditionalsupportforthereuseofthetombovertime.Afragmentofabuccherokantharoswasfoundwithinthebackniche,whichjoinedtoothergragmentsfoundinthecentralentrance;thisfilldifferedfromthoseenclosingtheotherburialsinthatbackniche.

107

CasaleBrunoriBediniextendedhisarchaeologicalinvestigationsinthesoutherndistrictsofRometotheregionimmediatelysouthoftheGrandeRaccordoAnnulare(GRA).AtthesiteofCasaleBrunori(fig.5.39),situatedsouthoftheGRAbetweentheViaCristoforoColomboandtheViaPontina,BedinidiscoveredanumberofchambertombsdatingtotheOrientalizingandArchaicperiods,andaseriesofroadsandbuildingsdatingtotheArchaicperiod(fig.5.40).453Theearliestorientalizingburialsinchambertombsseemcontemporarywiththelimitedevidenceforhuts;intheArchaicperiod,thehutswerereplacedbymorepermanentstonestructures.Somesuggrundariawerefoundinassociationwiththemonumentalphaseofoccupation,althoughtheirprecisedateandnumberareleftunstated.Bedinibelievesthesejuvenileburialsconfirmthedomesticfunctionofthestonebuildings,addingthattheclusterofbuildingsrepresentsasmallvillage. Intheareanorthwestofthearchaicstructureswasfoundagroupoffivechambertombsinassociationwitharoadcutintothebedrock.Thetombswereconstructedwithoneortwoloculi,astylecommoninthegravesoftheregionsouthofRome.Thegeneralabsenceofgravegoodsfromthechambertombssuggeststhattheywereconstructedinthesixthandfifthcenturies.Thepresenceoffourth‐andthird‐centurymaterialsinsomeoftheburialssuggeststhatsometombscontinuedtobeusedintheRepublicanperiod.Theexcavationreportsdonotmakeclear,however,whichtombswerereused,nordotheyspecifythecontentsofeachtomb.Thereissomegeneralinformationregardingtheinhumations,whichrevealthattherewerefifteentotal,mostofwhichbelongedtoadultsbetweentheagesof20and35.Itwaspossibletodeterminethesexofnineskeletons,mostofwhichweremale.454Analysisofstressmarksandcariespreservedinthedentalremainssuggeststhatthedeceasedindividualsdidnothaveahighstandardoflife;itseemsthattheirliveswerepunctuatedbyepisodesofstressandproblemsrelatedtopoornutrition.Thisisnotnecessarilyamarkeroflowstatus,however;IreturntothisinChapter6. Torde'CenciIntheareaofTorde'Cenci,Bediniexcavatedwhathebelievedwasanextraurbancompitum,acrossroadsthatinRomanantiquitywasalocationofreligiousimportance(fig.5.41).455Atthejunctureofthecrossroadswerediscoveredtwogroupsoftombs,rangingindatefromthelateeighthcenturyB.C.E.tothesecondcenturyC.E.Thefirstgroupofburials,locatedtothesoutheastofthecrossroads,consistedoftentombsafossa(fig.5.42).Thegravesappearedtobeorganizedinacircle,themajorityorientedaroundtwotombsatthecenter,whichpreservedveryrichcorredi.AlthoughthetwocentraltombscanbedatedtotheeighthcenturyB.C.E.onthebasisoftheirgravegoods,therestofthetombsaredifficulttodatebecausetheywerecutbylaterpitsandmodificationstotheroad.Inclose

453Bedini1991.454Bedini1991,106.455Bedini1990.TheancientsourcesrecordthatthefestivaloftheCompitaliawascelebrateatcrossroads,inhonorofthethecultoftheLares.PlinyNH34.7,Dion.Hal.Rom.Ant.4.14.

108

associationwiththiscircleoftombs,however,wasachambertombthatmaybelongtotheArchaicperiod.Thetomb(n.12),carvedintothebedrock,openedontotheroadtowardsthenorthwest.Ashortrampleadstowardthedoorofthetomb,whichconsistedoftwolargeblocksoftuff,about70x53x30cminsize.Themainchambermeasures2.18mlongand0.9mwideand1.5minheight.Twodepositionswereplacedinasideniche,raisedabout0.55mfromthefloor.ThischambertombissimilarinstyleandcontentstothoseatTorrinoandAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.Thefactthattherewerenogravegoodsfoundintheburialsuggestsasixthtofifthcenturydate,butthisattributioniscomplicatedbytheconstructionoftombsinlaterphases.ThelaterburialscutdirectlyintothelayersofthechambertombandmixedthestratigraphybelongingtoArchaicperiodwiththatfromearlierandlatersequences. Thesecondburialgroup,locatedtothenortheastofthecrossroads,containedthreetombsafossaandeightchambertombsthatcanbedatedtothesixthandfifthcenturies,basedontheirtypologyandanabsenceofgravegoods(fig.5.43).456Twoofthetrenchtombs(nos.13and14)hadapreserveddepthof0.6m.Thewallsofthesegraveswerelinedwithlargeblocks,perhapstoprotectawoodencoffin.Stoneslabslikelywouldhavecoveredthetopofthetrenches,inamannerattestedatIronAgecemeterieselsewherethroughoutLatium.457Therewerenotracesofthewoodencoffins,however.Thethirdtrenchtomb(n.27)containedasideloculusthatwasenclosedbytilesofimpastorossoinamannerattestedatFicanaandLaurentinaduringthesixthandfifthcenturies.458Theeightchambertombspreserveatypologysimilartochambertombn.12:allhaveoneloculusontherightsideoftheentrance,whichheldaskeletonwiththeheadplacedneartheentrance.Onlyonetomb(n.19)containstwosideniches,andbasedonthenumberofvesselsdatingtothefourthandthirdcenturiesfoundinside,BedinisuggeststhatitwaseitherreusedintheRepublicanperiodororiginallyconstructedatthattime.459Otherwise,thechambertombsaredevoidofgravegoods.Onlyoneburialpreservesavaseinthefillthatdatestothesixthandfifthcenturies;thisisasmallpentolafromtomb16(fig.5.44).460Somethirtytrenchtombswerediscoveredinthesamearea,buttheselargelydatetothesecondcenturyC.E.iii.Latium:NorthFidenaeTheancientcityofFidenaeislocatedapproximately12kmnorthofRomealongthemodernViaSalaria(fig.1.1).Althoughtherearesometracesofhumanactivityatthesite

456Bedini(1990,125),tombs13,14and27.457Forinstance,Bedini(1990,126)citesthetrenchtombscoveredwithslabsoftuffortilefromLaRustica,LaurentinaandCasteldiDecima,andFicana.458Tomb27.459Bedini(1990,126),tomb19.460Bedini(1990,126),tomb16.

109

duringtheBronzeAge,thereislittleevidenceofpermanentoccupationuntiltheeighthcentury.461Belongingtothislaterphaseisahut,discoveredjustnorthofthesettlement.Thesettlementseemstohavedevelopedrapidlyoverthecourseoftheseventhcenturyandachievedthepeakofitsdensityandprosperityinthesixthandearlyfifth.Occupationappearstohaveconcentratedontwohills,oneofwhichmayhavebeenthelocusofasanctuary.TherearesignsthatFidenae'sterritorywasaggressivelycultivatedduringtheArchaicperiod,sincedomesticbuildingsandburialsarecommoninthecity'shinterland.Themainburialevidenceatthesitecomesfromaseventhcenturynecropolis,whichhasnowmostlybeendestroyedbytheurbanexpansionofmodernRome. Onetomb,however,isnotableforitscontentsandarchaicdate.462TheburialwaslocatedinthenorthernpartoftheFidenaeplain,justwithintheboundariesofthesettlement,andalongtheroadleadingtoandfromthecity.Itconsistedofasarcophagusofgreytuff,whichhadbeendepositedinatrenchdugintothesoil.Circularholescarvedatthebottomofeachcornerofthesarcophagussuggestthattombsupportedawoodenbier.Theskeletalremainsindicatedthatthebodywasdepositedinthesupineposition,andrevealedthatthedeceasedwasawoman,approximately20‐25yearsoldatthetimeofdeath.Theburialcontainedanumberofgravegoods,mostlyitemsofjewelry.Theseincludedapairofgoldearrings,agoldnecklace,asilverfibula,andseveralbeadsofglassandamber,someofwhichwereassociatedwiththenecklace(fig.5.45).Therewerealsoobjectsrelatedtopersonalornament,namely,amirror,alumpofaesrudeandtracesofredpigment.SomecomponentsofthejewelryaresimilartoEtruscanexamples,especiallyfromthetombsatVulci.Basedonthetechnicalandstylisticanalysisoftheseitems,theburialcanbedatedtotheendofthesixthcentury.463CrustumeriumAncientCrustumeriumwassituatedapproximately16kmnorthofRome,pasttheAnieneriverandnearthenorthborderofLatinterritory.464Thesitehasnotbeensubstantiallyoccupiedinthemodernera,asituationthathasfacilitatedarchaeologicalinvestigationoftheareainrecentyears.QuiliciandGigliQuiliciundertookanarchaeologicalfieldsurveyoftheurbancenterinthenineteen‐sixtiesand‐seventies;in1982and1998workcontinuedthere.465TheresultsoftheirsurveyrevealedthatancientCrustumeriumwasconcentratedonanetworkofhillsthatstoodatacrucialjuncturebetweenLatin,SabineandEtruscanterritories(fig.5.46).Thesettlementemergedintheninthandeighthcenturiesandwascomprisedofseparatespacesdesignatedforagriculturaluse.Occupationbecamemoreconcentratedinthesixthcentury,whenthecityreachedthenaturallimitsofthehilland

461GRT155‐8.462GRT260‐2.463diGennaro(GRT260‐2)notesthatitisdifficulttodeterminetheprecisedate,sincemostoftheEtruscancomparandaaredevoidofarchaeologicalcontext.464diGennaroetal2002.465QuiliciandQuiliciGigli1980.

110

thesurroundingterritorywasmoreintensivelydevelopedforagriculturalproduction.Bythefourthcentury,however,thetownseemstohavedisappearedaltogether.466 In1987archaeologicalexcavationwasundertakenintwoorientalizingcemeteries.ThefirstwaslocatedatthesiteofSassoBianco,situatednorthoftheancientsettlement,andthesecondatMontedelBufalo,locatedjustoutsidethesoutheasternlimitofthecity(fig.5.47).467TheburialswereespeciallyrichanddemonstrateconnectionswiththeEtruscan,SabineandCapenateworlds.Althoughthemajorityofthetombsaretrenches,thereisaclearevolutionintheselectionoftombtype.Intheeighthcentury,thetombsaregenerallyrectangularpitscarvedintotuff,andoverthecourseoftheseventhsideloculiareaddedforthedepositionofadditionalbodiesorgravegoods(fig.5.48).Chambertombsemergeattheendoftheseventhcenturyandsubsequentlybecomethepredominanttombtype;theyareoftenfoundalongroadsandsuperimposedonearlierburials.Theearliestofthesechambertombsdatestothemid‐seventhcenturyandislocatedapproximately1kmsoutheastofthesettlementontheancientroadtoGabii.Itwasconstructedwithanentranceshaftinsteadofadromosandcontainedthreeinhumationswithafewgravegoods.468Afewchambertombsdatedtotheendoftheseventhcenturyandbeginningofthesixthandcontainedfewgravegoods.469Acremationburial,datingtothesixthcentury,wasdiscoveredamongtheinhumations,whichdiGennarointerpretedasasignofstatusthatplacedspecialimportanceonthefamily'saristocraticlineage.470 Between2004and2008archaeologicalresearchfocusedontheexcavationofanarchaicnecropolisatthesiteofCisternaGrande.471Thecemeteryislocatedonahillsideeastofthecity,oneithersideofthetrenchofanancientroad(fig.5.49).Archaeologistsuncoveredsevenchambertombs:twobelongedtotheOrientalizingperiodandfivetotheArchaicperiod.Thetombsrevealedconsiderablevariationindimension,orientationandtechniquesofconstruction.Thedromoiwerealldifferentinlength,widthanddepth.Stoneslabs,discoveredinsitu,blockedtheentranceintomosttombs,andpilesofstoneswereusuallyfounddepositedbeforethedoor.Insomecasesasinglestoneslabconstitutedthedoor,infrontofwhichwereplacedstonesofdifferentcolors.Rajalaspeculatesthatthedifferentiationintombtypereflectsthedifferenceeconomicandsocialstatusesoffamiliesorindividualsburiedhere.472 Thefirsttypeofchambertombconsistsoflargerectangularchamberswithoneormoreloculialongthewalls(fig.5.50).Theseoftencontainedmultipleburialsincoffins,trunksorfunerarybiersplacedonthefloor.Thedromoiofthesetombsareoftenlongerthanthoseofothertypes.Oneofthesetombspreservesaceiling,butexcavationwashaltedforsafety

466Amoroso2000;diGennaro1999;QuiliciandQuiliciGigli1980.467DiGennaro1988.468Paolini1990.469diGennaro1999.470diGennaro2006.471Rajala2007;2008a;Rajala2008b.472Rajala2008a,44.

111

reasons.Thesecondtypeofchambertombhasasmaller,semi‐circularchamber,alowceiling,twoirregularloculionoppositesides,andashortandnarrowdromos(fig.5.51).Toolmarksarevisibleonthesurfaceofthiskindoftomb,whichsuggeststheirconstructionrequiredfewermanualresources.Rajalaobservesthatthegravegoodsinthefirstcategoryofchambertombaremoreelaboratethanthosediscoveredintombsofthesecondtype.473ThisleadshertosuggestthatthefirsttombtypebelongedtothemoreaffluentandelitemembersofCrustumerium,whereasthelesswell‐off,perhapsartisansandfreetowndwellers,occupiedthesecondtype.Sheaddsthattheywereclearlynotthetombsofthearistocraticelite. Althoughthearchaictombscontainedfewergravegoodsthanthosefromearlierperiods,mostcontainedexamplesofjewelry,armsormetalobjects.Onlyfiveburialslackedcorredi,mostofwhichwerefromredepositedorlaterburials.Twoburials,onefromeachtombtype,preservedanentireceramicvessel.Therichestburialscontainedbronzefibulaedecoratedwithbeads,pendantsorironweapons;otherswereburiedwithironfibulaeoranassortmentofironobjectsthatthereportsdonotmakespecific.Someloculiwereclosedwithtiles,whichRajalainterpretsasasignofwealtheventhoughtheywerediscoveredinbothtombtypes.Inotherburials,stonesormudbricksclosedtheloculus,whileinotherstherewasnoevidenceforaformalenclosureandthedeceasedwasonlywrappedinashroud.Onetombpreservedtheremainsofahollowedtrunk,whileotherburialscontainedcoffinsorwoodenbiers. Therearetwoexamplesoftombreuseandtheredepositionofbodies.Twoloculiindifferentchambersindifferenttombtypescontainedmorethanoneindividual,andinbothcasestheprimaryburialwasmovedasidetomakeroomforthesecondaryone.Inanotherburial,itseemsthataskeletonwasredepositedafterthefleshhadalreadydecayed.AthirdexamplerevealsalaterburialinthecollapseddromosofanArchaicburial;thissuggestseitherafamilyconnectiontothetomborperhapsaconvenientlocationforburial. ThenatureofthelocalbedrockrenderedthetombsatCisternaGrandepronetocollapse.474Thebedrockconsistedofseveralthinlayersofvolcanictuffthatcouldnotadequatelysupporttheweightofthetombceilings.Boththechambersandtheloculiwerecutthroughalayerofbrecciatufacea,ageologicalmixtureofpumice,stonesandintovolcanicclay.Theceilings,whichgenerallycomprisedalayerofsuperimposedtufogiallo(yellowtuff)andcappellaccio(afriable,greytuff),werelikewisevulnerable.Thevarietiesoftuffandvolcanicclayaresoftmaterials,and,althoughtheyfacilitateconstruction,donotofferanylongtermstability.Asaresult,mostofthetombsatCisternaGrandehavecollapsed.Insomecases,thecollapseofthetomboccurredduringorimmediatelyafteritsperiodofuse.475

473Rajala2008a,45.474Rajala2008b,81.475Rajala2008b,83‐4,Tombs12and17.

112

Inoneexample,thedeteriorationofthetombappearstohaveinfluencedtheritualbehavioroflivingrelativesandmembersofthecommunity.476Archaeologistsdiscoveredinthefallendromosofoneofthelargerchambertombs,asecondaryburialthatconsistedofaskeletonandafewgravegoods.ThebronzefibulaeandbullaethatcomprisedthecorredodatetheburialtotheArchaicperiod.AlthoughtrenchtombsarecommonincentralItalyduringtheArchaicperiod,theconstructionofaburialinthecollapsedfillofadromosisunattestedelsewhere.Itispossibletointerprettheevidenceintwoways:eitherasthelossofthememoryoftheearlierburial,orasadeliberatecommemorativeact. AtMontedelBufalo,diGennaroobservedthatoneportionofthecemeteryseemedrestrictedforusebyasinglefamily.477Agroupoftombsofvaryingtypes(trench,trenchwithloculusandchamber)werediscovereddenselyarrangedandsuperimposed.Oneofthechambertombscutintotwoearliertrenchtombs,andadditionalburialswereorientedaroundthese.Itispossiblethateachburialsimultaneouslyrepresentedadeliberateactofcommemorationandreflectedthepreservationofone(ormore)family'sburialrightsinthecemetery.However,theconstructionoflaterburialsintoearlieronesmaysignifyanactofdestructionthatmaybedeliberateorpointtotheabsenceofmemoriesortiesassociatedwiththeburialgrounds.RajalainterpretstheexceptionalcharacterofthesecondaryburialinTomb17asevidenceforafamilyplot.478TheearliestburialsinthetombdatetotheendoftheOrientalizingperiod,butthecollapseofthedromoswouldhaveprohibitedfurtheruseofthetomb.Theintermentofaskeletonandgravegoodsintheruinsofthechambertomblikelyrepresentedtheintentionalcommemorationandaffiliationwiththeearlierburials.iv.Latium:EastGabiiAdetailedaccountofthehistory,developmentandarchaeologyofGabiifollowsinChapter6.CorcolleThesiteofCorcolleislocatedintheLatininterior,inatriangleformedbyTiburtothenortheast,PraenestetothesoutheastandGabiitothesouthwest(fig.5.52).Archaeologicalinvestigationoftheareainthenineteen‐sixtiesuncoveredevidenceforanarchaicsettlementsituatedonanelongatedplateauthatisflankedbytwotrenchesknowntodayastheMolediPanceandtheMolediCorcolle.479Basedoncomparisonsdrawnbetweenthetopographyoftheregionandtheancientsources,thesitehasbeenidentifiedasthe

476Rajala2008b,84‐5,Tomb17.477diGennaro1999,17‐8.478Rajala2008b,85.479Reggianietal.1998.

113

oppidumofQuerquetulaniorPedum.480AttheendoftheOrientalizingperiod,urbandevelopmentconcentratedonthewestendofthehill,whichmayhavefunctionedasanacropolis.Stonestructuresappearedinthefollowingperiod.Thesestructureshavebeeninterpretedashouses,basedontheirconstructioninstoneandtheceramicmaterialsfoundinthemthatpointtodomesticuse.MorerecentexcavationsundertakenbytheSoprintendenzaatRomehavediscoveredamid‐tolaterepublicancultlocationwithrelatedvotivedeposit.Architectonicterracottafragmentswererecoveredhere,inadditiontotheso‐calledAltarofCorcolle,whichbearsaLatininscriptiondatingtothebeginningofthefifthcentury.Excavationinthenineteen‐ninetiesconcentratedinthesoutheastsectoroftheplateauandbroughttolightaburialgroundthatextendedacrossthesummitandslopesofthehill.Onthesidesofthehillwereidentifiedtwelvechambertombs,threeofwhichweredatedtotheArchaicperiod.Thetombswereallorientedaroundasmallroad,asortofviasepolcrale,thatwascarvedintothebanksoftuff.Thedromoiofmostofthesetombsopenedontotheroad.Thereportsdonotaccountforthedetailsofeverytomb,butindicatethattheymoreorlessconformedtothesameplanconsistingofamainchamberwithloculionthesidesandsometimesattheback.Amonolithicblockofstoneoftencoveredtheentrywaystothetombs.Thethreearchaicchambertombsweresimilarinconstructionandplan,althoughtwoofthemwerenotorientedtowardstheroad.Thecorredirecoveredinthesetombsdatedtheburialstoabout575‐550B.C.E.Objectsincludedseveralvesselsofbucchero(acalice,kantharosandoinochoe),vasesandbalsamariofEtrusco‐Corinthianimport,and,aboveall,aseriesofollaeofimpastobruno,someofwhichborepainteddecoration.TheclosestcomparandafortheollaecomesfromTiburandafewSabinecentersintheregion.TherewasevidencethatthesetombswerereusedandevenrestructuredearlyintheHellenisticperiod.Tibur(modernTivoli)Tiburisknownlargelyforanecropolisthatcontainsburialsfromthetenthtoearlysixthcentury.481TheinhumationburialsinthisregionaredistinctfromothersthroughoutLatium,andareroutinelyenclosedbycirclesofstones.Inthenineteen‐fiftiesasmallburialgroundconsistingofeighttombswasexcavatedintheregionofmodernTivoli.482Archaeologistsdistinguishedtwotypesofburial:tuffsarcophagiandtombeafossacoveredbyatravertinelid.Thetwotrenchtombsweretheonlygravescontaininggravegoods,consistingofamirrorinoneandanecklaceintheother.Faccennadatedtheseitemstothefifthandfourthcenturiesonstylisticgrounds.Hebelievedthatthetuffsarcophagibelongedtothisgeneralperiod,althoughheacknowledgedthecontinueduseofthistombtypeintothethirdcentury.Thesarcophagirangeinsizefrom1.69and1.90minlength,althoughmostarebetween1.84and1.90;between0.45and0.65minwidth;and0.7and1.2minheight.AlthoughColonnaacceptstheseasexamplesofarchaicburial,thereports

480Plin.Nat.Hist.3.68‐9;Dion.Hal.5.51and61,8.19;Liv.2.39,8.12.481CLP188‐212.482NSc1957,123‐33.

114

donotprovideenoughevidencetostatethisforcertain.483Atbest,theevidenceconfirmstheuseoftuffsarcophagiattheeasternlimitsofLatium,aregionthatismorewell‐knownforitscircularburials.v.Latium:West/CoastFicanaThesiteofFicanaissituatedonthehillofMonteCugno,approximately19kmsouthwestofRomealongtheleftbankoftheTiberriver.Excavationsundertakeninthenineteen‐seventiesdiscoveredamodestcity‐statethatdisplayedsignsofcontinuousoccupationfromtheBronzeAgetotheendoftheImperialperiod.484ThemostsubstantivediscoveriesbelongtotheIronAgeandArchaicperiods,andconsistprimarilyofdomesticstructuresandtombs.Theburialslocatedoutsidethesettlementareexclusivelyseventh‐centurytrenchtombs,butwithintheurbanareaareanumberofsixth‐andfifth‐centuryjuvenileburials(fig.5.53).485 Threeoftheburialsaresuggrundaria,locatedinassociationwithwhatislikelyahouse.486Fragmentsofpotteryrecoveredfromalayerabovethefloorofthehousedatetheuseofthebuildingfromtheendoftheseventhcenturytotheendofthesixth,andperhapseventhefifth.487Althoughthesuggrundariaseemtobecontemporaneouswiththephaseofoccupationofthehouse,thestratigraphicsequenceofoneoftheburialssuggeststhattheymayhavebeenburiedoncethebuildinghadfallenoutofuse.Regardingthetypologyofthevases,theoriginalreportsareunclear.JarvastatesthatthevesselsusedasburialjarsatFicanafindcomparisonwithvesselsfoundatS.Omobono.488Thesecomparandaareollae,andalthoughJarvanevermakestheconnectionclear,theevidencesuggeststheFicanaburialsweredepositedinollae.Locatedinanareajustsouthofthishouseweretwoadditionaljuvenileburials.489Althoughtheyarenotsuggrundariainthestrictsense,theydoseemtomaintainaconnectionwiththenearbybuilding.Oneofthesewasdepositedinanollacoveredbyabowl;thesecondwasburiedinavesselsimilartoanolla.490

483Colonna1977,150‐1.484CLP250‐1;GRT178‐81;Rathje1980;Jarva1981aand1981b;Holloway1994,123‐4.485Jarva1981aand1981b.486Jarva(1981b,269),burialsVII,XandXI.487Jarva(1981b,269)statesthatitisdifficulttodeterminepreciselythedateoftheconstructionofthebuildingandtherangeoftimeitwasinuse.488Jarva1981b,270,n.9.489Jarva(1981b,270),burialsVIIIandIX.490Jarva(1981b,270,n.10)isagainunclearaboutwhatkindofjarconstitutedtheburial.HenotesthatitdoesnotfindcomparisonwiththeS.Omobonomaterials,butresemblesanolla.

115

Northofthecomplexwererecoveredsevenarchaicinfantburials.491Theinfantswereplacedeitherinvasesorbetweentiles,andweregenerallynoolderthantwomonths.Themostcommontypeofburialvesselwasanolla,althoughoneinfantwasburiedinanamphora.Oneoftheburialsbetweentilescontainedachildagedtwotofouryears.Onlytwoburialscontainedanygravegoods:oneollacontainedinadditionanotherollaandabronzegrater,whiletheamphoragraveincludedanolla. Archaeologistsinitiallythoughtthenumberofburialstoohightorepresenttheburialactivitiesofasinglefamily,andconsequentlyarguedtheareawasanecropolisusedbytheentirecommunityfortheburialofchildren.492Themoreorlesscontemporaneousdatesassignedtoallburialsseemedtosupportthisclaim.However,Jarvarightlypointedoutthatthereisnoevidencetosuggestthatthesetheburialsrepresentaninfantnecropolis.AlthoughtheyallbelongtotheArchaicperiod,theyrepresentatimespanofaboutonehundredyears,andcouldjustaseasilyrepresenttheburialactivitiesofdifferentgenerationsofthesamefamilyorevendifferentfamilies.Whatismore,infantburialsareattestedinearlierandlaterperiodselsewhereatFicanainassociationwithdomesticcontexts,whichsuggeststhatthisphenomenonisnotrestrictedtotheArchaicperiod.Lavinium(modernPraticadiMare)ThesiteofLaviniumislocatedapproximately30kmsouthofRomealongtheTyrrheniancoastinmodernPraticadiMare.Althoughitismostwidelyregardedasareligiouscenterbeginninginaboutthesixthcentury,thereisevidenceofuninterruptedsettlementfromthetenthcenturyonward.493Archaeologicalinvestigationoftheareabeganin1957andfocusedontheexcavationoftheshrineoftheThirteenAltars(c.mid‐sixthtoearlythirdcentury)inthesuburbanareaofthesite.494Approximately100msouthofthealtars,inasubsequentphaseofexcavation,theso‐calledheroonofAeneaswasdiscovered,whichconsistedofafourthcenturytumulusbuiltoveraseventhcenturyburial.495 TheearliestevidenceatthesiteconsistsofIronAgeburials;fromtheeighthcenturyonwardtherearehuts,potterykilnsandpossiblyfortifications,alllocatedinwhatlaterbecametheurbanarea.Inthemid‐seventhcenturyvotivedepositsappearinvariouslocations:intheurbanareaonedepositwasfoundcontainingover30,000miniaturevaseswhichdatedfrom650‐600B.C.E.AtaboutthistimethefirstdepositsweremadeinsanctuariestotheeastandnortheastofthecityandattheThirteenAltars.Fortificationandhabitationcontinuedinthesixthcenturyandtookmonumentalform.Stonehousesappearatthispointinthearchaeologicalrecord,whichcontinuetobeusedandmodifiedintothethirdcentury.496

491Jarva(1981b,270‐1),burialsI‐VIandXII.492Fischer‐Hansen1978,38.493CLP291‐311;Fenelli1998.494Castagnoli1972,1975.495Sommella1971‐1972.496Guaitoli1981c.

116

In1993,plowingactivityuncoveredachambertombintheareajustoutsidetheboundaryoftheancientcity(fig.5.54).497Onlypartofthechambertombwasexcavated,butitprobablyconsistedofatleasttwochambersthatwerelocatedunderasingletumulus.498Theexcavatedchamberwasquadrangularinshapeandcarvedintothelocalbankoftuff(fig.5.55).Thewallswerelinedwithblocksofcappellaccio,whichcurvedprogressivelytoformavaultedroof;bythetimeofexcavationtheroofhadcollapsed.Adoor,whichtaperedtowardsthetop,openedintoasecondchamberthatappearedearlierthanthefirst.Theexcavatedchambercontainedfourburialsthatrangedindatefromthesecondquarterofthesixthcenturytothesecondhalfofthefourth. Thefirstwasacremationburial,theremainsofwhichwereplacedinacappellacciourn(fig.5.56).499Theurnwasconstructedintheshapeofahouse(acassa)withwindowscarvedintothesides,feetintheshapeoflion'spaws,andalidintheshapeofaroof.Gravegoodswerelocatedontheroofoftheurn,someinsitu,crushedbythecollapse,whileothershadfallentotheside.ForemostamongtheseisaTyrrhenianamphorathatdepictstheamazonomachywithHeraclesandIolaus,amonganumberofotherhoplitesandcavalrymen(fig.5.57).500Asecondamphora,ofbucchero,boreinciseddecorationandanEtruscangraffito(fig.5.58)thatissimilartoanexamplefromthesanctuaryofPortonacciatVeii.501Abronzesitulaandseveralbronzesheetswerefoundontopoftheurn,althoughanumberofbronzefragmentshadfallentothesides.Anironbladewasfoundatits.Allmaterialsseemedtodatetothesecondquarterofthesixthcentury,c.570B.C.E. Thethreeremainingburialsareallinhumationsinmonolithicstonesarcophagi.Thefirstofthesehadpanelscarvedintothesidesandaslopinglid;therewereonlyafewbonespreservedinside,suggestingthetombwasrobbedinantiquity.502Locatedjustoutsidethistomb,andinrelationtoit,wasanAtticredfigurestamnosdepictinganarmedyouthandbeardedadult(fig.5.59).Thevesselwasdatedtoabout480B.C.E.Thesecondsarcophagushadmirrorscarvedintoitssidesandamonolithicstonelid;itcontainedaninhumationburialandafunerarykitconsistingofanAtticRedFigurekylixandanoinochoeofpurifiedclay.503Lyingonthebodywerefragmentsofgoldthreadthatbelongedtotheclothingofthedeceased;theseitemsdatedtheburialtothethirdquarterofthefifthcentury.Thelast

497Guaitoli1995.498Theoutlineofthetumuluswasvisiblefromaerialphotographs.499Guaitoli1995,burial6.1.500ThedipintionthisvasevaseattesttonamesalreadyknowninEtruriaandSatricum,andcomparetosomeEtruscaninscriptionsfromRome.501TheinscriptionfromLaviniumislocatedbelowtheshoulderofthevesselandrecords:minim[ulu]vanicemamar.ce:a.puniie(Guaitoli1995,558).ThegraffitofromVeiirecordsonthehandleofabuccherovessel:minimuluvanicemamarce:apunievenala(TLE34;NSc1930306,324‐325).ThiswasinterpretedasadedicatoryinscriptioncomprisedofthepraenomenMamarce,thetwogensnominaApuniieandVena,andthepatronymicLa.502Guaitoli1995,burial6.2.503Guaitoli1995,burial6.3.

117

burialcomprisesaninhumationinasarcophagusofpeperinotuff.TheburialcontainedtheremainsofthedeceasedandanoinochoeidentifiedasbelongingtotheSokragroup;onthesegroundsthetombwasdatedtothesecondhalfofthefourthcentury.504 Thepresenceofgravegoods,especiallyinthosetombsbelongingtothesixthandfifthcenturies,hasalreadymarkedtheseburialsasunusualwithinthecontextofarchaicLatium.505Guaitolisuggestedthattheinclusionofcorredirepresentsthepreferenceoftheownerofthetombortheprivilegeofagentilicialgroupinthearea.Headdedthatthelocationandarchitectureofthetomb,inadditiontothequalityofmaterialsassociatedwithitsconstructionanduse,supporttheidentificationofthisburialastheproductofalocalandpowerfulgens.Thetomb,whichisbuiltinthetumulustype,occupiesaprominentpositionjustoutsidethegatesofthecity,nearthecrossroadsthatleadtoArdeaandtheAlbanHills(fig.5.60).Bothroadsleadtoprominentsanctuaries,includingthattoLatialJupiter,Minerva,theThirteenAltarsandSolIndiges.ThistumulusissimilartothatbeneaththeHeroonofAeneas;bothseemtocompriseaseriesofmonumentaltombsinprominentlocationsalongroads.Hebelievesthatthechambertombcontainstheburialsofparticularlyhighstatusindividualsfromoneparticularhousehold,sinceeachofthedepositionsoccurredatchronologicallydiscretemomentsspanningtwocenturiesfrom570B.C.E.toabout300B.C.E.Lanuvium(modernLanuvio)In1934,archaeologistsdiscoveredtheso‐calledTomboftheWarrior(tombadelGuerrierodiLanuvio).506Theburialcomprisedasarcophagusofpeperinotuffdepositedinanundergroundchamberofquadrangularplan,madeaccessiblebyadromos.Thesarcophaguswasapproximately2.12mlong,andwascoveredbyaridgedlid.Thereceptaclecontainedtheremainsofthedeceasedwithawidearrayofarmsandarmorasgravegoods;theburialwasnamedafterthesefinds.Thecorredodatestheburialtothesecondquarterofthefifthcenturyandconsistsofacuirassdecoratedwithanatomicaldetail,ameshbeltofbronze(fig.5.61),anEtruscanhelmet,andanumberofironweapons.Thehelmetwasadornedwithatriplecrestanddecoratedwiththedetailsofahumanfaceonthefront,includingeyesofivoryandeyebrowsappliedinsilver(fig.4.62).Theironarmsincludealongswordwithacurvedblade,anaxe,alanceandtwojavelins.Thecorredoincludedanumberofobjectsrelatedtoathleticactivity:abronzediscuswithincisedfiguraldecoration,oneortwoironstrigils,abronzesandpouch,andthreecompletealabastra.Theburialwasdatedtoabout470B.C.E.onthebasisofstylisticcomparisonofthefindswithexamplesfromarchaicEtruriaandGreece.TheTomboftheWarriorisuniqueinLatiumonaccountitscontents;itonlyfindscomparisonwiththewealthyburialatFidenae.Whatismissingfromthegrave,however,isamoreconventionalcorredothatcomprisesceramicvessels.Theonlyobjectsincludedin

504Guaitoli1995,burial6.4.505Guaitoli1995,560.506GRT264‐9.

118

thegraveincludearmsandobjectsofpersonaluse,whichscholarsbelievedbelongedtothedeceasedindividual.507TheysuggesttheheroicandathleticattributesofthisburialrecalltheidealsofeducationandcitizenshipintheGreekworld.Somescholars,however,believedthearmorrepresentedthatofacavalryman,whileothersbelievedthequalityoftheseobjectsmoreindicativeofageneral,onewhomighthavefoughtattheBattleofLakeRegillus.508Theseclaimsaredoubtful,however;thetombseemsmorerepresentativeoftheso‐calledtombeprincipescheoftheLateOrientalizingperiodinEtruriaandLatium.Interpretationofthesetombsiscontroversial,andtheyareconventionallythoughttorepresentthewealthyburialsoftheelite,whoassociatetheirstatusinfuneraryritualwiththeattributesofthewarrior.509AlthoughtheburialisuniqueintheLatintraditionforthetypeandquantityofobjects,thetuffsarcophagusiscomparabletothoseexamplesfromRome.Ardea(modernArdea)ThesiteofancientArdeaislocatedapproximately40kmsouthofRomeintheplainofCivitavecchiaandisbestknownforitssacredarchitecture.DuringtheArchaicperiod,thereisarchaeologicalevidenceforatleasttwotemples,oneontheacropolisandanotherintheCivitavecchiaplain;athirdislocatedjustoutsidethecityatthesiteofColledellaNoce.510Twobronzehoardscontributetothereligiousactivityatthesite:onebelongstothetenthcenturyandtheothertoeighth.Thefirstfortificationsemergedintheseventhcentury,anddevelopedintoamorecomplexsystemduringthesixthandfifth.Otheraspectsofthesitearelesswellknown.Thereisevidenceforatleastfourdwellingsduringtheseventhcentury,butthereisverylittledetailregardingthese.Theevidenceforburialduringallperiodsisalsoscarce. IntheterritoryofancientArdea,atthesiteofCampodelFico,aretwoarchaicburials.511Bothtombswereconstructedafossaandsituatedinassociationwiththreeearlierburialsofthesametype.Tomb5containedtwoinhumationburialsinassociationwithanumbergravesgoodsthatrangedindatefromtheseventhcenturytothethirdquarterofthesixth(fig.5.63).Theearliestmaterials,includinganollawithstampeddecorationinimpastorosso,datetoLatialperiodIV,whileothers,includingacupandpyxis,datedtothethirdquarterofthesixthcentury.Thepublishedreportsoffernofurtherdetailregardingtheburialsortheircontents.

507GRT267.508Colonna1977,150‐5;GRT269.509Riva(2010),addressesthesetombsinEtruria;Waarsenburg(1995)considerstheroleoftheprincipesinSatricum.510Tortorici1981;MorselliandTortorici1982.ThetempleontheacropolisisconventionallyattributedtoJuno;thesecondatCivitavecchiamaybelongtoHerculesorAphrodite;andthethirdatColledellaNocetotheDioscuri.TheancientsourcesattesttoadditionallocationsofcultactivityandsanctuariesatArdea.511CrescenziandTortorici1983,46‐7.

119

vi.Latium:South(Satricum,modernBorgoLeFerriere) Some32kmsoutheastofRomeand28kmeastofTyrrheniancoastliesthesitecommonlyidentifiedasancientSatricum.512Thesettlementislocatedatanimportantcrossroads:itsitsalongtherouteleadingfromthecoasttothehinterland,whichconnectsAntiumtoPalestrina,throughVelitrae,andalongtheroadtravelingnorthtosouth,whichrunsfromCaeretoCapua,throughFicana,CasteldiDecima,LaviniumandArdea(fig.5.64).AlthoughthereareafewtracesofactivityduringtheBronzeAge,thesitedoesnotappeartohavebeensubstantiallyoccupieduntilthelateninthcentury.Thearchaeologicalevidenceforthisperiodconsistsofhutsontheacropolisandburialsinthenorthwestareaofthesettlement.Duringtheseventhcenturythehutsincreasedinsize,andinthelateseventhandearlysixth,werereplacedbythefirststonehouses.Bytheendofthesixthcenturyhabitationontheacropoliscametoanendandtheresidentialareasofthecityshiftedtoanother,unknown,area.Theacropoliswasdominatedbyasanctuary,probablytoMaterMatuta,whoseconstructionbegansometimeinthesecondhalfofthesixthcenturyandcontinuedintothefifth.Followingasecondphaseoftempleconstruction,thebuildingwasdestroyedintheearlyfifthcenturyandthecharacteroftheacropolissubsequentlychanged.Theareanorthwestoftheformertemplewasreservedforvotivedeposits,whichexhibititemsrangingfromthefifthtothethirdcentury.Intheregionsoutheastofthetemple,asmallnecropolisemergedaround500B.C.E.,andconstitutestheonlyevidenceforsecularactivityontheacropolisatthistime.513NorthwestNecropolisTheearliestnecropolisatSatricumistheso‐callednorthwestnecropolis,whichislocatedjustoutsidethewesternlimitoftheagersystem(fig.5.65).514Thenecropolisunderwenttwophasesofexcavation,firstin1896‐1898andagainin1907‐1910.Theresultsoftheseearlycampaignsremainedunpublisheduntil1996,afterarchaeologistsfromtheDutchInstituteatRomediscoveredthelongforgottenfieldjournalsandfindsinthestoreroomsoftheVillaGiulia.Thedatarecoveredarelimited,andconsistprimarilyoffieldrecords,whichareoftenlackingindetail,andartifacts.Onlyonemapsurvives,anditdoesnotdocumentalltheexcavatedtombs;therearenodrawingsorphotographs. Basedontheextantrecords,however,itispossibletodrawsomeconclusionsregardingtheuseoftheburialgroundsinantiquity.Thenecropoliscontainedmostlyburialsdatingfromtheninthtothesixthcenturies,andthereareatleastthree,andperhapstwomore,thatdatetotheArchaicperiod.Thepreciselocationofmanyofthesetombsisunknown,

512Thearchaeologistwhofirstexcavatedtherein1896,H.Graillot,gavethenametothesite,believingthesettlementtobethesameSatricummentionedintheancientliterarysources.ScholarscontinuetocallthesiteSatricum,althoughthereremainssomedoubtoverthisattribution.513Thisnecropolisremainsunexplored(Ginge1996,17).514Ginge(1996,17‐71).

120

butallseemtohavebeendiscoveredintheareaofSantaLucia.515Theburialsrepresentawidearrayoftombtypes.OnetombwasprobablylocatedinatumulusthatcomprisedanumberofIronAgegraves.Thiswasdatedfrom625‐575B.C.E.andwasthoughttohavecontainedacremationburial.Ofthesamedatewasasecondburial,achambertombthatcontainedanumberofironweaponsandfragmentsofpotterythatdatethegravefrom625‐575B.C.E.516 Theoriginalreportsspecifythatthreemoreburialswerefoundnearby,althoughtheydonotmentionpreciselywhere.ArchaeologistsbelievedtheybelongedtotheArchaicperiodonthebasisofthegravegoodsfoundinthetombs.Theyreportthatthefirstburialwasatrenchtomb,thesecondawoodencoffin,butrecordnothingaboutthetypologyofthethird.517Gravegoodswerefoundwithallthreeburialsandconsistedmostlyofceramicvesselssuchasollaeandoinochoe.Twooftheburialswereassignedasexandagebasedonextremelylimitedskeletaldata.Fragmentsofaskeletonfromthewoodencoffinreportedlypreservedtheremainsofawoman,aged40‐50years,whileteethrecoveredinthetrenchtombwerethoughttobethoseofaman,aged18‐20.The1996publicationssexedtheremainingburialsonthebasisofthegravegoodassemblages,butitwouldbeunwisetorelytooheavilyonsuchassumptions.Theskeletaldataisentirelyunreliable,sinceinallcasesthereisverylittlepreservedatall.SouthwestNecropolisThesecondidentifiedburialgroundatSatricumistheso‐calledsouthwestnecropolis,namedafteritslocationinthesouthwesternregionofthesettlement(fig.5.66).518AteamofDutcharchaeologistsexcavatedtheareafrom1981to1986.Thecemeteryislocatedwithintheboundaryofthesixth‐centuryagerandcontainsovertwohundredfifth‐centuryburials.519Thetombsareallthetrenchtypeandcontaintheinhumationburialsofadultsandchildren,alongwithanassortmentofgravegoods.Manyburialshaveledgesonthelongsidesofthefloor,butthepurposeofsuchshelvesremainsunclear.520Somegraveshavenichescarvedintooneofthelongwallsforthedepositionofgravegoods.521Afewburialshavepitscutintothefourcornersofthefloor,probablytoaccommodatethelegsofawoodencoffin.522Thegravesvaryinsize,althoughmostarebetween2.00and2.30m

515Ginge(1996),Tomb14,waslocatedinthetumulus.Tombs15,24and26wereprobablyfoundintheareaofLucia,buttheirlocationsarenotrecordedontheexcavationmap.516Ginge1996,Tombsn1.517Ginge1996,Tomb26(trench);Tomb24(woodencoffin);Tomb15(unknown).518Gnade1992.519Gnade(1992,9‐13)statesthat210graveswereidentified,200plottedand167excavated;excavationsremainsunfinished.520Approximatelyseventytombshadledges(Gnade1992,23‐4).521Gnade(1992,24‐6)recordstwelvegraveswithniches.522Sixty‐sixgravescontaintraceevidenceofwoodencoffins(Gnade1992,31).Fifty‐fivehadtracesofthewoodencoffin,fivehadwoodennails,andsixothershadbothnailsandcoffintraces;onlyonegravecontainedtheremainsofwood.

121

longand0.70and0.90mwide.523Thedimensionsofthegravesseemtocorrespondtothesizeofthedeceased;dentalremainsrecoveredfromthesmallestgravesrevealthatthesebelongedtochildren,whilethelargestgravecontainedtracesofalargeindividualandofacoffin.Somegravesheldmultipleburials,inwhichtheremainsoftwoorthreeindividualsandtheirgravegoodsweresuperimposed.524Inmostcases,achildburialwasplacedatopthatofanadult;thereisoneexampleofagravewithtwochildrenandanotherwithtwoadultsandachild. Themajorityofthetombscontainedcorredicomprisedofpottery.525Themostcommonformsofvesselsarethoseassociatedwithdiningandfoodprocessing,namely,storagejars,cookingpots,bowls,cupsandjugs.Personalornamentsarecomparativelyrareandconsistoffibulae,pendants,beadednecklaces,pins,weapons,spindlewhorlsandloomweights.Thegravegoodsaregenerallymodestinquantityandquality,andmostburialshaveanywherefromonetosixvessels.Onlyonegraveisexceptionalforitswealth:itcontained24vasesandavarietyofpersonalobjectssuchasfibulae,amulets,pins,necklacesandweapons.526Themajorityofthepotterycomprisedlocallymadewarescommonindomesticcontexts;veryfewgravescontainedimportedvessels.Itisuncertainwhetherthegravegoodsrepresentthepersonalbelongingsoforgiftstothedeceased.Intheabsenceofpreservedosteologicalremains,thecorrediweresometimesusedtodeterminethegenderofthedeceased.527Althoughthismethodologyisgenerallyunreliable,intheexcavationsofthesouthwestnecropolis,thoseitemstypicallyconsideredgendered,suchasweaponsformenandloomweightsforwomen,werecross‐referencedwiththeskeletaldataandprovenreliable.Therewasevidenceforgender‐relatedgravegoodsinonlynineteengraves. Childrenappeartohavereceivedthesametreatmentinburialasadults.528Thereisevidenceforthirty‐threechildinhumations,althoughonlyinfourteencasesisthisidentificationcertainonthebasisofskeletaldata.Childburialsareotherwiseinferredbasedonthesmalldimensionsofthegraveandthenatureofthegravegoods.Childrenwereburiedontheirownandwithadults,inwoodencoffinsortrenches.Inthosegraveswheremultipleinhumationsoccur,itisdifficulttodeterminetherelationshipbetweenthedeceased.Thisistrueevenofburialsthatcontainbothachildandanadult.Itiseasytoassumethattheyrepresentmotherandchild,butultimatelyimpossibletoprovebasedon

523Thelargestis2.70mlongand0.95mwide;thesmallestis1.15mlongand0.50mwide(Gnade1992,27‐9).524Gnade1992,34‐5.525Gnade1992,35‐41.Potterywasincludedin68%oftheburials,andinmostcaseswasdepositedneartheheadorfeetofthedeceased.Inotherinstances,thepotterywasarrangedalongthesidesofthecorpse,alongthewallorontheledge.Thereareafewexampleswherepotterywasplacedatthetopcornersofthecoffin;insomegraves,thepotteryappearedinvariouslayersofthefillsuggestingthattheywereoriginallyplacedatopthecoffin,butslidintothegraveafterthedecompositionofthewoodenlid.526Gnade1992,Grave62.527Gnade2002,134.528Gnade1992,42‐4.

122

theextantremains.Thechildburialswerecarefulnottodisturbtheadultinhumationsbelow,whichsuggestsbothindividualswereburiedatthesametime.Thereisevenevidencethatchildrenweredepositedonthelidsofwoodencoffinscontainingadults.Thecorrediofchildrenconsistprimarilyofminiatureorsmallobjects,butincluderegularsizedobjects.Ingeneral,thegravesofchildrenhadonlytwoorthreevases,butitisnotablethatthewealthiestgrave,whichcontained24vessels,belongedtoachild. Gnadeobservedsomepatternsinthefuneraryrecordthatledhertocommentonthestatusandidentityofthecommunitythatoccupiedthesouthwestnecropolis.529Theburialsrevealedahighdegreeofvariabilityinnearlyeveryaspect,whichshesuggestsreflectsthesocialstratificationofancientSatricum.Shestatesthatthenearorcompleteabsenceofgravegoodsinsomeburialsrepresentsthepoorerorlowerrankingmembersofsociety,whilethoseburialswithgreatercorredirepresentthewealthierandhigherrankingindividuals.ThegraveswhichGnadeconsiderspooreitherlackedgravegoodsentirely,orcontainedasinglevessel,usuallyastoragejar.Thesewereconcentratedinthenortheasternportionofthenecropolis.Thegravesconsideredrichcontainedsixormorevases,whichoftenincludedimportedwares,andthesetombswerelocatedinthecentral‐easternsectionofthecemetery.Gnadeconsidersasmarkersofstatusthoseburialswithcornerpitsandniches,onthegroundsthattheyarerare.Sheleavesoutofthediscussionthemajorityofthegravesthatfallsomewherebetweenrichandpoor,tombscontainingonetosixvessels. Thereareafewproblemswiththisparticularapproach.First,thediversityoftombfeaturesmaysimplyreflectthewiderangeoffunerarycustomspracticedbythecommunityatonetime.530TheburialrecordofarchaicLatiumisnotablydiverse,and,althoughregionalandlocalpatternsarevisible,thetombsusedbyanygivencommunityareofteninconsistentintypeanddimensions.Second,itisequallypossiblethatthehighdegreeofvariationingravegoodsillustratesthechangesinfunerarypracticeattheSatricannecropolisoverthecourseofthefifthcentury.531AlthoughGnadesuggeststhatmostofthegravegoodsdatetothefirsthalfofthefifthcentury,sheadmitsthatmanycannotbedatedmoreprecisely.Third,itisunwisetopresumeadirectcorrelationbetweenthepovertyofgravegoodsandtheeconomicstatusofthedeceased,especiallyinthecontextofarchaicLatium.BurialsthroughoutLatiumareregularlydevoidofgravegoods,afactthathasconvincinglybeenarguednottoconstituteamarkerofpoverty.532 Gnademaintainsthatcertainportionsofthecemeterywerereservedforindividualsorgroupsofacertainclassortimeperiod.Inparticular,shebelievesthatthecemeterywasoccupiedbyanon‐Latinpeople,namelytheVolsci,whomtheancientliterarysourcesclaim

529Gnade1992,45.530Gnade(1992,45)concedesthispoint.531Gnade1992,45.532Colonna(1977),seeabove.

123

invadedandsettledSatricumin488.533ThegravesfromthesouthwestnecropolisarenotablydifferentfromtheotherexamplesthroughoutLatium.Inthefirstplace,thecemeteryisthelargestandmostdenselypopulatedofanyothernecropolisintheregionduringtheArchaicperiod.Mostotherburialgroundsconsistoffewerthantwentyexcavatedgraves.Second,thewidespreaddepositionofgravegoodsintombsmarksabreakwiththeLatintradition,wherethemajorityofburialscontainlittletonothinginthewayofcorredi.Third,thecemeteryexhibitsremarkableconformityintombtype,consistingentirelyoftrenchtombs.Somegravesincludeledgesorniches,buttheyalladheretothesamebasicstructure.Fourth,childrenarepresentinthesameburialgroundasadults,whereasinLatium,childrenaretypicallyburiedinassociationwithdomesticcontexts. Gnadeemphasizesthefollowingtopointsasevidencefortheoccupationofthecemeterybyanon‐Latingroup:itslocationwithintheagerandthepresenceofimportedgravegoods,inparticularanaxeheadbearinganarchaicinscription.AccordingtothestipulationsoftheTwelveTablesatRome,burialswereprohibitedfromcitylimits.Mostscholarsacceptthehistoricityofthedocument,andassumethelawswereappliedinallLatinsettlementsthatfellwithinRome'sorbit.ThelocationofanecropoliswithinthecityboundaryatSatricum,then,suggeststoGnadethateitherthelimitsofthecityhadcontractedbythetimeofthefifthcenturyand/oranewlyresidentpopulationoccupiedthenecropolis.ThisnewpopulationeitherfelloutsideofRome'ssphereofinfluenceoractivelyresistedRomanauthorityandoccupation.AcropolisComplicatingthispictureistheevidencefromathirdburialground,identifiedontheSatricanacropolis,justsouthwestofthesanctuaryalongtheancientViaSacra.Archaeologistsfirstdiscoveredburialsinthisareawhenconductingsoundingsin1909,andexcavatedthreeinassociationwithahutfeature(fig.5.67).534Theoriginalfieldrecordsdonotdocumenttheirpreciselocation,butadescriptionoftheburialsandtheircontentssuggeststhattheyconstitutepartoftheburialgroundtothesouthofTempleII,excavatedbetween1985‐1991.Arecentstudyofthefieldnotesandexcavationmaterialsrevealsthatallthreeburialswereinhumationsafossaandcontainedfewtonogravegoods.Twooftheburialspreservedrecognizablehumanremainsthatidentifiedthedeceasedasa50‐year‐oldwomananda20‐year‐oldyouth.Thegravegoodsconsistedprimarilyofceramicvesselssuchasollae,whichdatetheburialstoapproximately500B.C.E.

533AccordingtoLivy(2.39.1),aVolscianarmyledbyC.MarciusCoriolanustookpossessionofSatricumin488,andthecityremainedapartofVolscianterritoryuntil385(6.16.5‐8),whenRomeestablishedacolonythere.SeealsoDion.Hal.8.36.1‐2andGnade1992;2002.534Ginge1996,123‐57.

124

Whenexcavationresumedin1985,archaeologistsnotedthepresenceofatleast35additionalgraves,ofwhichelevenadultinhumationswereexcavated.535ThemajorityofthegravesweregroupedtogetherintheareaimmediatelysouthoftheArchaicroadthatpassesbeforethetempleinasoutheasterndirection.Theburialsaredividedintotwogroupsbasedontheirorientations.ThefirstgroupcomprisesfourburialswithaNE/SWorientation,whilethesecondgrouphassevenwithaSE/NWorientation.Thegravesarerectangularinshape,andmeasureapproximately2.0mlongandbetween0.45and0.85mwide.Thissizeisconsistentwiththoseexcavatedinthesouthwestnecropolis.Thedeceasedwereplacedonthefloorofthegraveinasupinepositionwiththelimbsadducted.Anumberofthegravescutthroughportionsofanearliersettlement,whoselayerscontainedfragmentsofpotteryandtiledatingtothelateseventhandearlysixthcenturies.Theburialspreservecorrediwithvasessimilarintype,arrangementandnumber.Eachgravecontainedanaverageoffourcookingjarsorbowls,whichwereusuallyplacedatthehead,orfeetofthedeceased.Onoccasiontheindividualwasburiedwithapersonalitemofbronze,ironorglass;noweaponswerepositivelyidentified.536Onegravecontainedeitheradoubleburialortwosimultaneouslyexcavatedgraves.Theremainsofachildanditsassociatedgravegoodswereplacedabovetheburialofanadultanditscorredo.537 Archaeologistsexcavatingtheacropoliscemeteryinthenineteen‐eightiesobservedamarkeddifferencebetweentheburialsfromthisareaandthosefromthesouthwestnecropolis.538Theacropolisgravesappearedpoorer,sincetheycontainedfewergravegoodsandhadnoevidenceforthewoodencoffinsorbierspresentinseveralgravesinthesouthwestcemetery.Therewaslessvarietyinthetypeofgravegoodontheacropolis,andtherewasnoevidenceforimporteditemsorobjectsofvalue.Forthemostpart,theacropolisgravescontainedbowlsandpotsmadeofimpasto,whilethosetothesouthwestcontainedceramicsmadefromagreatervarietyoffabricsandshapes.Maaskant‐Kleibrinkobservedthattheacropolisburialsmarkedabreakwithearlierfunerarytraditionsandusesofurbanspace.539ThegravespresentedajuxtapositionofsecularandsacredactivitiesnotseenelsewhereinLatium.Theywerelocatedontheacropolis,intheruinsofanearliertempleandinproximitytocontemporaneousvotivedeposits.AccordingtoMaaskant‐Kleibrink,thispatterncouldeitherrepresentthecustomsofadifferentpopulation,namelytheVolsci,whomtheancientsourcesrecordinvadedthecityintheearlyfifthcentury,oradisruptioninthecustomsofthesameLatinpopulation.

535Beijer1987;Maaskant‐Kleibrink1992,101‐5.536Maaskant‐Kleibrink(1992,101)recordsthatalongpieceofironwasfoundatopachild'sgrave,buttheobjectcouldnotbeidentified.537Maaskant‐Kleibrink1992,103,Grave9.538Maaskant‐Kleibrink1992,104.539Maaskant‐Kleibrink1992,143‐4.

125

PoggiodeiCavallariAfourthnecropoliswasdiscoveredjustnorthofanarchaicroadinthelowersettlementareaofancientSatricum,knowntodayasPoggiodeiCavallari(fig.5.68).TheUniversityofAmsterdamexcavatedtheareainthreephases:followingabriefrescueoperationin1984,theuniversityresumedinvestigationin1996‐1997onwhatisnowconsideredthewesternportionoftheroadandcemetery;excavationfrom2003untilthepresentdayhasexpandedexplorationofbothareasfurthereast.540Excavationuncoveredtheremainsofaroadnetworkinassociationwithacemetery,whichdocumentthecontinuedoccupationofthesitefromthesixththroughthethirdcenturies.ThemostsignificantfeaturewasaW/Erunningroadthatwasfirstconstructedinthelastquarterofthesixthcenturyovertheremainsofanearlierroadphase.Onthebasisofthesizeandmonumentalityoftheroad,itseemstohavefunctionedasthemainrouteofSatricum,runningW/Eandconnectingthelowersettlementwiththeacropolis.Branchingofftheroadtowardthesoutheastweretwosideroadsthatleadintotheurbanarea.Onthesouthsideofthesamemainroadtwobuildingswerediscovered.Tothenorthoftheroad,andinitspost‐abandonmentphases,werenearlyfortytombsthatcanonlybedatedgenerallytothefifthandfourthcenturies.541 Gnadehasreconstructedthechronologicalsequenceofthearea.Themonumentalconstructionoftheroadfirstoccurredinthelastquarterofthesixthcentury.Theleveloftheroadwasraised,sidewallsoftuffwereconstructedalongitsnorthernandsouthernlimits,andtwobuildingsofundeterminedfunctionwereconstructedjustoffthesouthside.ItislikelythatthisoccurredatthesametimeasthereconstructionofTempleIIontheacropolis,allduringtheLateArchaicphaseofSatricum.ItappearsthatboththeroadandTempleIIweredestroyedatthesametime,about500/480B.C.E.,aneventthatGnadeattributestotheVolscianinvasion.TheroadwasrebuiltinthesubsequentPost‐Archaicphase,probablyinthefirsthalfofthefifthcentury,moreorlessalongthesamelines.Theonlysignificantchangewasthat,insteadoftwosidewalls,onlyasinglewallwaserectedalongthenorthernedgeoftheroad.CertainfeaturesintheconstructionofthewallledGnadetosuggestthatitfunctionedasadefensivestructure,butitmaysimplyhavebeenasidewall,similartowhatexistedpreviously.Itisunclearpreciselywhen,butsometimeinthethirdquarterofthefifthcenturythisroadfelloutofuseandtheareawasusedasaburialground,whichremainedtheprimaryfunctionoftheareawellintothefourthcentury.MostofthegravesfromPoggiodeiCavallariarefourthcenturyburialsthatwerecutintothesurfaceofthisroadorlocatedalongsideit.Theearliestburialsarelocatedinthewesternportionofthecemetery,somethreetoeightmetersfromtheroad,andcanbedatedtothefifthcentury.Itisunclear,however,whethertheyrepresentactivitycontemporaneouswiththeuseofthepost‐archaicroad,orweredugafteritsabandonment.

540Gnade2003,2004,2006,2007and2009.541Gnade2002,51‐101.

126

Althoughonlyfifteengraveshavebeenpublishedinanydetail,enoughinformationisavailablefrominterimsitereportstomakegeneralobservationsabouttheentirenecropolis.542Allthegraveswereconstructedafossa,arrangedalongaNW/SEorientationandcontainedinhumationburialswithcorredi.Somegraveshadbenchescarvedintothesides,andotherscontainedthetracesofwoodencoffins.Gravegoodsconsistedmainlyofvesselsusedfordrinkingandfoodpreparationandafewpersonalornaments,suchasfibulae.Theskeletalremainsaregenerallynotverywellpreserved,butthegravesfirstexcavatedhaveproducedsomeresults.Fromthefifth‐centuryburialsdiscoveredinthewesternportionofthecemetery,onebelongstoagirloffifteentoeighteenyearsofageandanothertoaninfantaged0‐1years.543Thereareahighproportionofburialsofinfants,childrenandyouthsintheeasternportionofthecemetery.Thedatahavenotbeencompletelypublished,butthusfar,thereisevidenceforachildaged3‐5years,amonganumberofotheryouthsandinfants.544Basedontheaveragesizeofgravesknownfromthewesternhalfofthecemetery,andthedatafromthesouthwestnecropolis,itislikelythatthenecropolisaccommodatedbothchildandadultinhumations.545 Therearesomedifferencesbetweenthewesternandeasternhalvesofthecemetery.Theburialsfromthewesternportionofthenecropolisaretheearliest,arefewerinnumberandcontainfewergravegoodsthanthosetotheeast.Theyalsohavealessdefinedrelationshiptotheroad.Thegravesintheeasternportionofthecemetery,however,aregreaterinnumber,aremoredenselyarrangedandoftensuperimposed,andcontainmoregravegoods.546Whatismore,theirrelationshipwiththeroadseemsclear.AlthoughsomegravesarelocatedalongsidethePost‐Archaicroad,othersweredugdirectlyintoitssurface,demonstratingthattheroadmusthavefallenoutofusebythetimethegravesweredug.Onthebasisofthegravegoodsandmaterialsfromtheroadsurface,thiseventdatestothelastquarterofthefifthcentury;however,mostgravesbelongtothefourthcentury.547Somefortygraveshavebeenidentified,manyofwhicharesuperimposed.Theburialsfromthisareahavealsoproducedagreaternumberofgravegoods.

542ThepublishedgravesaretombsI‐XV,excavatedfrom2003‐2007.TheonlineFastiofferthemostup‐to‐dateinformationregardingtheremainder,astheyawaitmoreformalpublication.www.fastionline.org.543Gnade(2002,94‐5).ThegravesarenumberedST1‐5.ThegirlisST2andtheinfantisST1;ST3wasalmostcompletelydestroyed;neitherST4norST5wereexcavatedasof2002.544Gnade(2009,365‐8),thechildof3‐5yearsisbasedondentalanalysis.GnadeotherwisenotesthattheosteologicalremainsfromgravesV‐VII,XandXIII‐XIVrepresentmostlyyouths,andafewinfants.545Gnade(2002,94‐5)recordsthat,inthewesternpartofthenecropolis,theexcavatedgravesrangedinsizefrom1.10to1.90mlongand0.35mto0.70mwide.546Gnade2009,365‐8.ThesegravesarenumberedI‐XV.547Gnade2009,365‐8.TombsI‐V,VIII‐X,XII‐XVwerediscoveredintheroadsurface,andtombsVI,VIIandXIwerefoundtothenorthoftheroad.

127

GnadeseeshomogeneityinthegravesfromPoggiodeiCavallari,theacropolisandthesouthwestnecropolisandarguesthattheyareallrepresentativeoftheVolsciancommunityinfifth‐centurySatricum.548Thegravesareallafossa,someofwhichhavebenchesandtracesofwoodencoffins,andtheycontaintheinhumationburialsofbothadultsandchildren.Thefindsfromthegravesaresimilarinstyleandnumber,includingawiderangeofvesselsusedfordrinkingandfoodpreparation,anditemsofpersonaladornmentsuchasfibulae.Allthreecemeteriesoccupythesamepositioninassociationwitharoad.ThenecropolisatPoggiodeiCavallariissituatedjustnorthofaroadrunningW/E,possiblyfromAntiumuptotheSatricanacropolis;thesouthwestnecropolisisflankedonitseasternsidebywhatislikelythemainroadleadingintoSatricumfromthesouth;theacropolisnecropolisislocatedalongtheeasternsideofaroadthatrunsthroughtheplateau. Gnadebelievesthatthelocationofthesecemeteriesalongsideroadsreinforcesbeliefsregardingtheseparationofthedeadfromtheliving.549Itissignificantthatatleasttwo,andpossiblyallthreeburialgroundsarelocatedwithinthecitylimitsofancientSatricum,andprobablyinthevicinityofzonesofhabitation.550Thecemeteryontheacropolisandthesouthwestnecropolisareclearlylocatedwithintheancientager,buttheintraorextramurallocationofthenecropolisatPoggiodeiCavallariismoreuncertain.InaphaseofreconstructionthatdatesgenerallytothePost‐Archaicperiod,awallwasconstructedalongthenorthernedgeoftheroad.ThewallrunsW/E,followingthedirectionoftheroad,andprobablyfunctionedasasidewalltothisartery.Certainaspectsofthewall'sconstructionledGnadetosuggestthatitfunctionedasadefensivefeaturesimilartoarampart.551Shenotesthatthelocationofthewallisunusual,sinceitissituatedinuneventerrain,addingthatamoresuitablelocationwouldhavebeenafewhundredmeterstothenorth.However,awallconstructedfurthernorthwouldhaveenclosedthecemeterywithintheurbanarea.Consequently,shesuggeststhatthelocationofthewallwasmotivatedbyadesiretoseparate,insymbolicandactualterms,theworldofthelivingfromthedead.5f.DiscussionThearchaeologicalevidenceforarchaicburialinRomeandLatium,aspresentedabove,revealsthefollowingpoints:1.thereisagreatdealofvariationintombtypeonlocalandregionallevels;2.atthesametime,therearedistinctregionalpatterns;3.gravegoods,althoughtheyaregenerallyfewinnumber,remainacomponentoffuneraryritualincertainregionsandtypesofburial;and4.thereisagreatdealofvariationasregardsthelocationoftheseburials,althoughtheyaregenerallylocatedinsmallburialgrounds.Iwill

548Gnade2002,97.549Gnade2002,100‐1.550Gnade2002,99‐100.NodomesticstructureshavebeenidentifiedorexcavatedinthelowersettlementareaofSatricum,butsurveyintheregionandtheexcavationofadumprevealedevidenceforbuildingdebris.Thetypeofmaterialsdiscoveredcanbeconnectedtodwellingsthatwereinhabitedasearlyasthesixthcentury.551Gnade2002,74.

128

expanduponeachoftheseobservations,andconsidertheimplicationsthesehaveforourcurrentunderstandingofarchaicburialandwhattheevidencesuggestsaboutthenatureofcity‐statesintheArchaicperiod.Insection5cIoutlinedthefourbasictombtypesandtheirvariants,andpointedoutthesiteswhereeachhasbeenmostcommonlyfound.Followinganoverviewofthevarioussiteswithfuneraryevidence(5d),however,itisclearthatawidevarietyoftombtypeswereusedthroughouttheregion,andthatthisstandsinmarkedcontrastwiththefuneraryevidencefromearlierperiods.IntheEarlyIronAge,therewereonlytwomaingravetypes,fosseandpozzetti,whichchangedonlyinthelateOrientalizingperiodwiththeappearanceofchambertomb.Suggrundariaarealsoattestedduringthisperiod.DuringtheArchaicperiod,however,thereisevidenceforfosse,fossewithloculi,chambertombs,semi‐chambertombs,sarcophagi,suggrundariaandurns;manyoftheseoccurwithinthesameregionsandevenburialgrounds.Thus,itappearsthatawidearrayofmodesofburialwereknowntotheinhabitantsofarchaicRomeandLatium.Thefactthatthesevarioustombtypesare,ingeneral,widelydistributedthroughoutLatium,suggeststherewasafairlycomplexsystemofnetworksthatencouragedcross‐culturalinteractionwithintheregion.Forexample,thegreatestconcentrationofvariationintombtypeoccursinthezoneboundedbyRome,GabiiandLaurentina.Alltombtypesandtheirvariantsarerepresentedinthisarea:tuffsarcophagi;trenchtombs,bothwithandwithoutloculi,aswellaswithlidsoftuffortile;chambertombsandsemi‐chambertombsforbothmultipleandsingleinhumation;suggrundaria;andpossiblyurns,ifweacceptthedatafromtheEsquilinenecropolis.ItispossiblethatthecentrallocationofthesecitiesinLatium,andthemultiplepointsofaccessconnectingthesecenterswithothersettlementsintheimmediateterritory,suggeststhatthiszonewasawell‐interconnectedareathatallowedforthetransmissionofideas,people,andgoods(figs.5.69and5.70).ThereasonsfortheconcentrationofthisactivityincentralLatiummaypartlybeduetothegeographyandtopographyoftheregion.AlthoughtomyknowledgetherehasbeennopositiveidentificationofaroadconnectingRometoLaurentina,itislikelythatthesitesinthisdistrictwereknownandaccessibletoRome,astheywerelocatedabout7kmsouthoftheAurelianWalls.Whatismore,theabandonmentoftheareabythebeginningofthefifthcenturyistakenasindicationoftheincorporationoftheareaintotheagerromanus.ThesitesatAcquaAcetosa,Torde'Cenci,Torrino,CasaleMassimaandCasaleBrunoriwerealmostcertainlyknowntooneanother,astheywerelocatedwithina5kmradius.Theroadsuncoveredattheso‐calledcompitumatTorde'Cenci,whichmaybearchaic,seemtorunintwodirections:thefirst,towardthemodernViaOstiense;thesecond,towardtheFossodiMalafedeinthedirectionofCastelPorziano.552AtGabii,thereisevidenceofaroadconnectingthecitytoRome,possiblytheViaGabina,whichcontinuedinanortheastdirectiontowardTibur.553ThepredominanceofmonolithictuffsarcophagiinRome,GabiiandTibursupportstheeastwardmovementoftheseitemsinthisarea.Therewasalso

552Bedini1990.553SeeChapter6.

129

potentialforcommunicationstemmingfromGabiiinthedirectionofPraeneste,alongthelatersiteoftheViaPraenestina.554InadditiontotheseroadwaysarethetwotributariesoftheFossodell'OsaandtheFossodiSanGiuliano,whichfedtheAnieneriver;theAniene,inturn,wasatributaryoftheTiber.555ThatthisnetworkalsolookedoutwardintootherareasofItalyandtheMediterranean,seemssupportedbythewidespreadadoptionofcertaintombtypes,especiallythechambertomb.ChambertombsappearinLatiumattheendoftheseventhcentury,probablyasaresultofcontactwiththeEtruscanworld,andremaininuseuntilaboutthemid‐fifth.TheyarethepredominanttypeinCrustumerium,andappearinhighnumbersatthesitesintheLaurentinadistrictofRomeandCorcolle.AtGabiiandLaviniumtherearesolitaryexamples.556Thislevelofconnectivitymayalsofindsupportintheseeminglyrandomandisolateddistributionofespeciallywealthyburials.BoththeTomboftheWarrioratLanuviumandthetombofthewomanatFidenaehaveahighconcentrationofgravegoodsthatpointtocontactwiththeEtruscanandGreekworlds.Thisisnotmeanttobeunderstoodasanindicationofethnicidentity,onlyasanindicatorthatatsomepoint,theindividualsburiedinthistombwereexposedtoideas,goodsandritualsofexternalorigin.TheconcentrationofchambertombsinthoseareasnortheastofRomeandclosetoSabineterritorypointstotheextentofregionalcontactandinfluence.ThemortuaryrecordatCrustumeriumshowsabreakwiththeLatintradition,andseemstohavemoreincommonwithsitestothenorthandeast.Thesechambertombsresemblecloselyinstyle,dimensions,locationandcontents,thosefromEretum,anancientsettlementlocatedabout12kmnortheastofCrustumeriumfollowingtheTiberriver.AtthesiteofColledelForno,isacemeterycomprisedentirelyofchambertombs.Thetombsarealllocatedalongtheslopesofahill,adheretothesamequadrangularplan,andcontainrichcorredi(fig.5.71).557Santoroobservedthattheseburialsbelongtoadistinctfalisco‐capenatecategoryoffuneraryarchitecturethatconsistsofamainchamberthatissquareinshape,andhasloculicarvedintothetwosidewallsandsometimesathirdattheback.Onoccasion,additionalnichesarecutforthedepositionofgravegoods.ThereareclearsimilaritiesbetweentheburialsofCrustumeriumandEretum,558whichisperhapsunsurprisinggivenitslocation.TheearliestsurveyevidencerevealedthatCrustumeriumwaslocatedonanetworkofhillsinthemiddleofLatin,Sabine,Faliscan,CapenateandEtruscanterritories.559Thefunerarydatasuggestthattherewereclosetiesbetweentheseregions,andissupportedbyasharedmaterialcultureinothercontexts.560

554ViaPraenestina,LTURS4:249.555BiettiSestieri1992b,76.556InadditiontothisistheLateOrientalizingchambertomb62fromOsteriadell'Osa,BiettiSesiteri(1992a).557Santoro1977.558diGennaro1988.559QuiliciandQuiliciGigli1980.560NijboerandAttema2008.

130

ThematerialsrecoveredintheCrustumeriumchambertombsarerevealing:whilethecorrediarenotlarge,theycompriseseveralceramicvesselsofalocalredandwhitestyleofpottery,andsomemetalobjects.However,thegravegoodsfromCrustumeriumremainfewerinquantitythanthosefromEretum,suggestingthatthiscommunityobservedtosomedegreetheLatincustomofrestraintinburialpractices.AttheoppositeendofLatinterritory,thesiteofSatricumhasadistinctburialtradition.ThefifthcenturyburialsatSatricumallconformtoasingletype,thetrenchtomb,andcontaincorrediconsistingoflocallymadeceramicwares.BothfeaturesarenotconsistentwithLatinburialsofthesameperiod,andmaypointtoacloserculturalandgeographicalconnectiontothepeoplesoftheApennines.Indeed,thefuneraryrecordatSatricumduringallperiodsshowslittleevidenceofcorrespondingtoLatincustoms.561AtmostLatinsites,inhumationreplacedcremationasthepreferredburialritebytheeighthcentury,whereasatSatricum,cremationremainsthenormthroughoutthistime,thoughinhumationsoccursimultaneously.IntheTumulusCchambertombofthenorthwestnecropolis,therecordsfromtheoldexcavationsindicatethatthewealthierburialswereassociatedwithcremationsintheeighthandinhumationsintheseventh.562ThisisunusualgiventhatinhumationsaretheritetypicallyassociatedwithchambertombsinLatiumandEtruriaatthistime.EvenmorecuriousisthatnoburialsatallhavebeenidentifiedforthesixthcenturyatSatricum;gravesdisappearfromthesitewiththeclosingofthelasttumulusofthenorthwestnecropolisattheendofseventhcentury,andreappearinthefosseofthesouthwestnecropolis,acropolisandPoggiodeiCavallariatthebeginningofthefifth.Satricumseemstohavebeenasuccessfulcityinthesixthcentury,asindicatedbytheevidencefromthesettlementandtempletoMaterMatuta.Inthisregard,theabsenceofsixth‐centuryburialsatSatricummaybeinterpretedaspartofthesamephenomenonthatwitnessedareductioninthenumberofburialsthroughoutLatium.Archaeologistshavenotedthattheintensiveagriculturalactivitiesintheareadestroyedanumberoftombs,whichmayhaveincludedthoseofthesixthcentury.563Thisisnotaconvincingargumenttoexplaintheabsenceofsixth‐centuryburials,however.ItismorelikelythatSatricum,duringthesixthcentury,wasinfluencedbywhateverprocesswashappeningintherestoftheregionthatresultedinthediminutionofburials.Whatismore,thoseburialsontheacropolis,whichcontainfewtonogravegoods(atbestafewollae),mayrepresentanadherence,atleastinpart,toLatinmodesofburial.AcomparisonofthearchaeologicalrecordofSatricumwithsitesintheApenninesandCampaniawouldgosomewayinclarifyingtherelationshipofthissitewiththoseinneighboringterritories.AlthoughtheburialsatCrustumeriumandSatricumreveal,intheirconsistencywithtypesfromadjacentregions,thatcloseregionalcontactsweresignificantforfuneraryritual,itisdifficulttodeterminewhatfactorscontributedtotheuseofcertaintombtypesintherest

561Smith2006,150‐3.562Waarsenburg1995.563Gnade1992.

131

ofLatium.Aspreviouslynoted,thesitesofRomeandLatiumexhibitaconsiderableamountofvariationintombtype,tothepointthatmostsiteshaveevidenceofatleasttwo,andmanymorehaveseveral.Rome,GabiiandthesitesofLaurentinaarethebestexamplestodemonstratethelevelofvariability,sincemoreorlessallburialtypesarerepresentedatthesesites,evenwithinthesameburialgroup.AtCasaleMassima,therearetrenches,trencheswithloculi,andchambertombsinthesamecemetery.AtGabiitherearesemi‐chambertombsandasarcophagusinonegroup,andtwosarcophagi,achambertombandtwotrenchesinanother.564Theburialsfromthe2002excavationsontheEsquilineatRomerevealevidencefortrenchescoveredbylidsoftuff,trenchescoveredbytiles,trencheswithloculi,andtuffsarcophagi.Thereislittleevidencetosuggestwhattheuseofdifferenttombtypeswithinthesameburialgroundrevealsaboutthespecificrelationshipsbetweenthedeceased.Whileitpossibletoarguethatthepresenceofdifferenttombtypeswithinthesamecemeteriesrepresentsthepracticesofdistinctsubgroups,thisisverydifficulttoproveinpractice.Thedecisionregardinghowtobeburiedmayhaveinvolvedanycombinationoffactors,includingpersonalpreference,ancestralcustom,orregionalandethnicties.Complicatingthispictureisthefactthatthereislittleevidencesuggestinghowthemembersofthesegroupswererelatedtooneanother.WhileDNAanalysisoftheosteologicalmaterialwouldgosomewayinprovingwhetherornotthereweregenetictiesbetweenthedeceased,itcannotaccountforthosekindsoftiesthatarenotblood‐related.565Itispossiblethatsomeothersocial,economic,politicalorreligioustiesconnectedtheoccupantsofthesetombs.Thesegroupsmaybeconnectednotsomuchbytheiruseofparticulartombtypesasbytheirsharedaccessoftheburialground.Itappearsthat,beginningintheseventhcentury,useofburialgroundsforvisibleformsofburialbecameincreasinglyrestricted,asthereisagradualreductioninthenumberofarchaeologicallyvisibleburials.Thistrendcontinuedinthesixthandfifthcenturies,tothepointthatthereareveryfewburialsinthearchaeologicalrecordcomparedtotheevidencefromotherperiods.ThisobservationisbasedonMorris'studyoftheKerameikosburialsatAthens,whoobservesthatareductioninthequantityofgravesrelativetoestimatesofthelivingpopulationpointstoarestrictionintheaccessgiventovisibleformsofburial,andthataccesstothiswasaccordedbasedonrank.566ExcludingSatricumfromthetotalbodycount,sincethehighnumberofburialsthereisanomalous,thenumberofrecoveredburialsfromRomeandLatiumoverthecourseofthesixthtomid‐fifthcenturyisaboutonehundred.Thisisaroughestimate,

564Thelatterremainunpublished.OnlythechambertombisdatedwithanycertaintytotheArchaicperiod.Itsassociationwiththetombgroup,however,illustratesthesamepoint.565Suchanalyseshavebeenrarelyapplied,ifever,totheskeletalremainsofarchaicburials.Thisislikelyduetothecostandperhapseventhepoorlypreservedremainsofmanycontexts.566Morris1987.SeeChapter6foranapplicationofthismodeltothemortuaryevidencefromGabii.

132

basedonthenumbersnotedfromthepublishedreports.567Thislownumberisstriking,especiallyincomparisonwiththeburialevidencefromIronAgecemeteryatOsteriadell'Osa,whichhassixhundredburialsoveraboutthreecenturies(mostofwhichbelongtothefirsttwocenturies),andthatatCasteldiDecima,hasaboutthreehundredburialsovertwocenturies.568ItisextremelyunlikelythatthelownumberofburialsinarchaicLatiumisrepresentativeofthelivingpopulation.Inademographicstudybasedonthepalaeobotanicaldatarecoveredfromthesitesintheregion,AmpoloprovidesareasonableestimateforRomeinthelowtensofthousands,andtheLatincitiesanywherebetween1500‐3000.569Onthisbasis,itseemsreasonabletoexpectthattherightofburialwasrestrictedtocertainmembersofthepopulation,onthebasisofrank,howeverculturallydefined.Oneofthegreatestindicatorsofstatusandwealthinarchaeologyisthepresenceofgravegoodsinburials,andtheabsenceorlowquantityofthesefrommostcontextsseverelycomplicatesourunderstandingofwhowaspermittedformalburialandonwhatgrounds.Scholarsalmostunanimouslyattributearchaicburialstothearistocraticelite,basedonavarietyoffactors.Theseincludethemonumentalityofthetombs,theirarchitecturalrefinement,theirassociationwithothermonumentalstructures,andthequantityandqualityofgravegoods,iftheyexist.Forinstance,BedinisuggeststhechambertombsofTorrinorepresenttheburialsofsmallfamilygroups,wholikelybelongedtothearistocraticelitewholivedsomewhereintheimmediatearea.570RajalaconsidersthechambertombsofCrustumeriumasthosebelongingtoelitegroups,althoughshenotesthemorepoorlycarvedburialswerelikelythegravesoflowerclasspersons.571ThewealthyburialsoftheTomboftheWarrioratLanuviumandthewomanatFidenaeareconsideredeliteonthebasisoftheirrichcorredi.572AtSatricum,Gnademakesdistinctionsbetweenwhatshebelievesarepoorandrichburials,basedonthequalityintheconstructionofthegravesandthetypeandquantityofgravegoods.573AtGabii,thesmallburialgroundinareaD,whichIdiscussinChapter6,istentativelyattributedtoaristocraticeliteactivity,basedontheassociationofthetombswithanarchaicbuilding(alsoconsideredelite),andthedegreeoflaborrequiredfortheirconstruction.574

567Thisisnotentirelyaccurate,sincemanyofthereportsindicatethatthereare"abouttwenty","some"or"afew"burials.IhaveincludedinthistotaltheburialsfromtheoldEsquilineexcavations.Thetruenumbermaybesomewhatless.568BiettiSestieri1992a;1992b(Osteriadell'Osa).Holloway1994,114‐6(CasteldiDecima).569Ampolo1977.Raaflaub(2005,21‐2)discussestheapproachesofotherscholarsincalculatingthepopulationofRome.Ampolo'shypothesisseemsthemostsound.570Bedini1981a.571Rajala2008a.572GRT265‐9(Lanuvium).GRT260‐2(Fidenae).573Gnade1992.574MogettaandBecker2014.

133

Eventhoughmodernscholarshipwidelyacceptstheidentificationoftheseburialsaselite,thisdoesnotfullyaddresstheproblemofwhatwemeanbytheterm,andhowthisappliesspecificallytotheburialsinarchaicRomeandLatium.Mostscholarsareawarethatthereisadifferencebetweensocialstatusandwealth,althoughtheterm"aristocraticelite"seemstorefertothosegroupsthatenjoyboth.Presumably,thesegroupshadtheeconomicresources(wealth)andtheauthority(socialstatus)toallowthemtocontrolthelandscapeandcommissionelaborateformsofburial.Whatisoftenunstated,however,isthenatureofbothstatusandwealth.Itisimportanttoconsiderhowstatuswasachieved,maintainedandemployed,andhowthatmayconnecttowealth.Thesameappliestowealth:onemustconsiderhowitwasquantified,fromwhatsourcesitwasderived,andhowitcontributedtostatus.TheancientaccountsoffersomeinsightintothesocialhierarchyofearlyRome,andindicatethatearlyRomansocietywasorganizedaroundclan‐basedmembership.Theclan,orgens,comprisedthecentralsocialinstitution,wherebyvariousindividualsandgroupswereconnectedundertheauthorityofasingleclanleader,thepater,byacombinationoffamilial,economic,social,politicalorreligiousties.Thesamesourcesrevealthatthepatercontrolledtheexploitationoftheland,allottingvarioustractstogroupsbelongingtothegens.Thesegroupswerenotnecessarilyblood‐related,butprobablyhadavarietyofsocial,economicorpoliticalconnections.Itappearsthatthesegroups,inreturn,madecontributionsofvaryingkindstotheclanleader,includingmilitaryandpoliticalsupport,aswellassharesofcropsandlabor.Modernscholarshipisdividedonmostissuesrelatingtothegens,andcertainlythehistoricityoftheaccountsregardingthisgroupistheissuemostsusceptibletocriticism.575However,ifweacceptforthemomenttheconventionalinterpretation,itispossibletomakesometentativeargumentsaboutthenatureofthearchaicburialgrounds.If,asthesourcesindicate,theclanleadercontrolledlandandaccesstoit,itisconceivablethatthisauthorityextendedtocemeteries.Thetenthtableclearlyrevealsaconcernregardingtheproperrelationshipbetweenlandedpropertyandburial.Theninthstatutedeclaresthatthebustumcouldnotbelocatedwithinsixtyfeetofthepropertyofanother(X.9).ThissuggeststhatearlyRomanlandowners,whomayhavebeentheseclanleaders,werepermittedtoburyontheirownproperty,butatthesametimewererequiredtomaintainalevelofseparationfromthatofanother.TheremainingTwelveTablesdemonstrateapreoccupationwithissuesoflandedandmoveableproperty,includingmarriage,slaveryandinheritance;inlightofX.9oftheTenthtable,itseemsthatthisincludedburial.Theclanleader,astheindividualwholikelycontrolledthelandandaccesstoit,mayhavegovernedtheuseofburialgrounds.Whethertheclanleaderrestrictedthisusetohisownfamilyorextendedaccesstotheburialgroundtodifferentmembersofthegensremainsunclear.Giventhathedistributedlandtoclanmembersanddesignateditsuse,itispossibletosuggestthathedidthesameforburialgrounds.Inwhichcase,itisstilldifficulttodeterminejusthowmuchcontrolthe

575Smith(2006)offersarecentaccountofthegens.

134

clanleader,orthegensasanentity,exercisedoveritsmembersconcerningothermattersrelatedtoburial,includingtombtype.Thepresenceofvarioustombtypeswithinthesameburialgroundsuggeststhatthiswasnotanissuethatrequiredclan‐basedsanction.Forthemostpart,thetenthtableimposesrestrictionsonbehavior,ratherthanthematerialattributesinvolvedinburial.Whateverthecase,thishypotheticalexplanationdoesnotfullyaddresswhowasburiedinthesecemeteriesandwhy.Atbest,itonlysuggeststhattheindividualswhoownedtheburialgroundsweretheelite,andcontrolledaccesstothecemetery;thisaccessmayhavebeengrantedtoanyonewithintheclannetwork,regardlessofsocioeconomicstanding.AsdiscussedinChapter4,thetenthtableseemstohavealloweddistinctionsforindividualsthatperformedsomeservicetothestate(X.8),but,again,thisdoesnotemphasizethatindividual'sstandinginthesocialhierarchy.Thisargumentiseasilycriticizedonthegroundsthatitismakingtoomuchoutoftoolittlereliableevidence,andthatitstilldoesnotexplainthevarietyoftombtypesthatappearthroughoutarchaicLatium.Wemayhaveatenuousideaofwhowasburiedinacemetery,buthavelittleindicationofwhatkindsofdecisionspeoplemadewhenitcametoburial.Thetruthis,wemayneverknow,andcanonlydrawconclusionsbasedontheavailableevidence.Asitstands,thearchaeologicalrecordrevealsthatthepeopleofarchaicLatiumonlyobservedtwofuneraryritualswithanydegreeofconsistency:theriteofinhumationandthedepositionoffewornogravegoods.Althoughthereareexceptionstotheserules,namely,theurnsoftheEsquilineandthewealthygravesofLanuviumandFidenae,thesestatementsseemgenerallytrue.Moredifficulttodetermine,however,iswhytheinhabitantsofRomeandLatiumobservedthesetworituals,yetatthesametimeexhibitedgreaterlicenseintombtypes.Theincreaseinthevarietyoftombtypesmaybebetterunderstoodinlightoftherapidmonumentalizationoftheregion.576ThesixthcenturyiswidelyacknowledgedasatimeofurbandevelopmentinRomeandLatium,wherepopulationdensityrose,andurbanandrurallandscapesbecameincreasinglyfilledwithexamplesofstonebuiltarchitecture.Thiskindofconstructiontookplaceinavarietyofcontexts:therearetemples,residences,altars,andwalls,amonganumberofothermonumentalfeaturesthroughoutthesettlementsoftheregion.Itispossiblethatthesedevelopmentsextendedtothefunerarysphere,andencouragedtheconstructionofawiderangeoftombtypes,especiallyonesbuiltofstone.TheproliferationofthechambertombinLatiumisgenerallyunderstoodinthiscontext,asitrepresentsamonumentalformofburialonparwiththeexamplesoftemples,residences,wallsandsoonthatappearintheurbanandruralareasoftheregion.577Itispossibletoviewthemonolithicstonetuffsarcophagiandsemi‐chambertombsinthesamelight.Bothsignalthequarryinganduseofstoneforconstructionpurposes,whetheritistheenormousblockofthesarcophagus,orthedeepcarvingintobedrockofthesemi‐chambertomb.Theshallowertrenchtombsfitlesseasilyintothiscategory,however.Theymayrepresentamoretraditionalmodeofburial,andcertainlythe

576IreturntoadiscussionofmonumentalizationinChapter6,focusingontheuseoftheterminmodernscholarshipconcerningancientEtruriaandRome.577Ampolo1984;Rajala2007;2008a.Seeabovefordiscussion.

135

mostcommon,astheyappearatmostsitesinsomefashion.Thosewhichhavenichesclosedwithtilesmayreferencethetilesusedforstonebuiltstructures.ThemonumentalizationofRomeandLatiumduringthesixthcenturyisthoughttoexplaintheabsenceofgravegoodsintombsofthesameperiod.Itwouldappearthatwealthwasbeingredirectedawayfromgravesandintomonumentalformsofarchitecture.578Althoughthereisprobablysometruthtothis,theargumentitmissesthemarkinafewways.First,itoverlookstheevidencedemonstratingthatthereductioningravegoods,particularlyceramics,wastheresultofamoregradualprocess,beginningintheLateOrientalizingperiod.579Second,itreliesheavilyonthefuneraryregulationsoftheTwelveTables,which,asalreadydiscussed,seemtohavehadverylittletodowiththeitemsdepositedingraves.Third,itsuggeststhatburialbecamealessviablemodeofthekindsofconspicuousconsumptionusedtomakedemonstrationsofpowerandwealth.AlthoughIwouldnotconnectoutrightallburialswithelitegroups,itseemsunlikelythattheimportanceofburialasaritualbecamelesssignificantasasymbolofwealthand/orstatus.Itseemsinsteadthattombsbecameincreasinglymonumentalatthesametimeasotherformsofarchitecture,andallofthesemonuments,andtheareastheyoccupied,heldequalpotentialfordemonstrationsofwealthand/orstatus.580Withregardtotheabsencegravegoods,Colonna'sinitialobservationremainsgenerallytrue.MostburialsinRomeandLatiumhavenocorredi,andwhentheydo,theyconsistonlyofafewobjects.Thedeclineingravegoods,however,appearstohavebeenmoregradualandwidespreadthanheoncethought.Asnotedabove,recentstudieshavedemonstratedthatthetombsofsouthEtruriaandLatiumrevealevidenceofdecreasedcorredibeginninginthemid‐tolateseventhcentury.581Thissuggeststhattheabsenceordeclineofgravegoodscannotbeattributedtoanysortoffunerarylegislation,suchastheTwelveTables,andisinsteadindicativeofawidespreadchangeinfuneraryideologythatplacedlessemphasisontheinclusionofobjectswithinthegrave.AlthoughthischangeisbroadlyvisibleatsitesinsouthEtruriaandLatium,itisexpressedmorerigorouslyinthelatter.Whatismore,areviewofthegravegoodsthatdoappearsuggeststheissueoftheirabsenceissomewhatoverstated.Thedistributionofgravegoodsincemeteriesisirregular:atmostsites,onlyahandfulofburialsincludegravegoods.TheexceptionstothisrulearethetombsatCrustumeriumandSatricum,wherethemajoritycontainsarelativelyhighdegreeofgravegoods,thoughthismayindicatenonLatinpractice.AtCrustumerium,mostchambertombscontainedjewelry,armsormetalobjects.Fivelackedcorredientirely,whiletwopreservedanentireceramicvessel.Therichestburialscontainedbronzefibulaedecoratedwithbeads,pendantsorironweapons;otherswereburiedwithironfibulaeoranassortmentofironobjectsthatthereportsdonotmakespecific.AtSatricum,theburials

578Smith1996;Cornell1995.Seeabovefordiscussion.579Bartolonietal.2009.580Riva2010;BiettiSestieri1992b;Rajala2007;2008a.Thechambertombisoftenviewedasatestamenttocontrolandauthorityoverthelandscape.581Bartolonietal.2009.

136

ofthesouthwestnecropolistendedtoincludeceramicvessels,whereasfibulae,pendants,beadednecklaces,weapons,pins,spindlewhorlsandloomweightswerecomparativelyrare.Ingeneral,gravegoodshereweremodestinquantityandquality,withmostburialscontaininganywherefromonetosixvessels.582Themajorityofthepotterycomprisedlocallymadewarescommonindomesticcontexts;veryfewgravescontainedimportedvessels.Theseburialshavebeennotedalready,however,fortheirsingularity.OthergravesnotablefortheirwealthincludetheTomboftheWarrioratLanuviumandthetombofawomanatFidenae.Bothoftheseburialsarelocatedinisolation;thereisnocomparativefuneraryevidencefromthesurroundingarea.Bothareburialsintuffsarcophagiandareremarkableforthewealthofthegravegoodsdepositedinthem,whichisgenerallyconsideredunusualforthetimeandregion.TheTomboftheWarrioratLanuviumincludesthearmsofapresumedcavalryman,alongwithahostofotheritemsincludingstrigils,adiscusandalabastra.ThisgraveisofteninterpretedasoneofthetombeprincipeschethatweremorecommonlyfoundintheOrientalizingperiod.583ThetombofthewomanatFidenaecontainedawidearrayofitems,includinggoldearrings,agoldnecklace,asilverfibula,beadsofglassandamber,amirror,alumpofaesrudeandredpigment.ThequantityofmetalobjectsfoundinhertombsuggestsasharedfuneraryideologywiththeEtruscanworld.AlthoughherburialistheonlyarchaicgraverecoveredthusfaratFidenae,thewealthfromthisburialisinalignmentwiththehigherconcentrationofgravegoodsfoundincontextsinnortheastLatium,particularlyatCrustumerium.Thefewwealthygraveshavethetendencytoobscurethefactthatthepredominantgravegoodtype,forbothadultsandchildreninRomeandLatiumareceramicvesselsrelatedtodining,andfoodstorageandpreparation.Miniatureollae,pentolinae,coppetteandanforaearethemostcommonlyattestedtypesofgravegoodsthroughoutallofRomeandLatium,withexceptionofthosesitesinthenorth.AtRome,miniatureamphoraeandcupswerediscoveredinthreeoftheburialsfromthe2002excavationsontheEsquiline.Colini'sexcavationstherein1932revealedfragmentsofaesrudeandbronzeandironnailsinbothtombsafossaandsarcophagi.ThesarcophagifromthePiazzaMagnanapoliareuniquefortheirfinds,whichincludeanunguentarium,apin,adiadem,gildedbonebeadsandanAtticRedFigurepelike.AtLaurentina,glassbeadsappeartobethemorecommontypeofgravegood,althougholleandpentolinearepresentinthechambertombsofCasaleMassimaandTorde'Cenci.ThelonetrenchtombatArdeacontainsanolla,acupandapyxis.MostofthechildburialsatFicanacontainatleastoneolla;intwoburialsthesejarswereclosedatthemouthbybasins;oneburialincludedabronzegrater.AtSatricum,allthenecropoleishaveevidenceforavarietyjars,pots,bowlsandcups;theburialsoftheacropolis,however,includedonlyollae.Finally,atGabii,ollaeareattestedinthetrenchburialofachild.Overall,importsarerare,butareattestedinoneofthePiazzaMagnanapolisarcophagiatRome,whichholdstheAtticRedFigurepelike,andthevariousburialsinthechambertombatLavinium,whichcontainsanAtticRedFigurestamnos,ared‐figurekylix,andone

582Gnade(1992),Grave62.583Riva(2010)challengesconventionalinterpretationsofthetombeprincipesche.

137

oinochoe.Ingeneral,thepotteryconsistsoflocalorimitationwares.Itseemsthatthereremainedinburialsomerepresentationofthefunerarybanquet,asindicatedbythepresenceofpotteryrelatedtodininganddrinking.Thearchaicburialsappearinavarietyoflocations,includingcemeteriesorinisolation,atcrossroadsoronhillsides,andintheremainsofbuildings.Innearlyallcircumstancesthesearethoughttorepresenteliteclaimsoflandownership.IntheregionofLaurentina,Bediniconnectsnearlyallburialsgroundswithnearbysettlements,whichheclaimswereinhabitedbyelitegroups;inparticular,hesuggeststhechambertombsatTorrinobelongtoaprominentfamilythatlivednearby.584Approximately220msouthwestofthetombshediscoveredtheremainsofcappellacciowalls,whichhereconstructedasacolonnadedcourtyardbuildingwithroomsontwosides.585Onthebasisofceramicremainshedatedthebuildingtothesixthandfifthcenturies.AtAcquaAcetosa,thechambertombswereconstructedintheremainsofacomplexofstonestructures,whichBediniconsideredpartlyresidential.586Boththetombsandthefinalphasesofthebuildingdatetothefirsthalfofthefifthcentury,andonthesegrounds,hesuggeststheindividualsburiedtherewereestablishingand/ormaintaining,indeath,aconnectionnotjusttotheagriculturallandscape,buttoamonumentalstructurewithinthatlandscape.ThesituationatAcquaAcetosabearsclosesemblancetothatatGabii,whereaseriesoftombsappeartohavebeenconstructedintheremainsofabuilding.IwillrevisitthisinChapter6.Thechambertombisthecategoryofburialmostoftenidentifiedwithelitedemonstrationsofstatusandauthority.Inarecentstudyofurbanizationineighth‐centuryEtruria,Rivaarguesthatmonumentalandmultidepositionalformsofburial,suchaschambertombs,functionasthebasisfortheinstitutionalizationofeliteritualactivities,andthetransformationoftheirsocialprestigeintopoliticalauthority.587Inherview,thelocationoftombsalongstrategicroutesorlocationsensuresthepoliticalcontrolofthatlandscapeandsimultaneouslyactsasachoreographicspaceforthearticulationofpoliticalauthority.BiettiSestieriunderstandsthechambertombatOsteriadell'Osainasimilarway,andsuggeststhattheindividualsburiedinthetombwerelikelytherulingeliteatGabii,whostrengthenedtheirpositioninthelocalhierarchybypreservingaconnectionwiththeirareaoforiginandreassertingtheirclaimstolandownershipandterritorialcontrol.588RajalainterpretsthechambertombsatCrustumeriumaselitedemonstrationsofstatusandauthorityintheimmediatearea.589TheirprominentpositiononthehillsidesatthejunctureofLatin,SabineandEtruscanterritorieswouldhavebeenclearsignsofterritorialcontrol.OnecouldeasilymakethesamecaseforthechambertombsatthesitesofLaurentina:here,therearetwoinahillsideatAcquaAcetosa,afewinacemeteryatCasale

584Bedini1981a.585Bedini1984.586Bedini1981b,1983.587Riva2009,42.588BiettiSestieri1992b,211.589Riva(2009,108‐40)suggeststhiswasthefunctionofsomegroupsofchambertombsinEtruria.

138

Massima,fivenearabuildingatCasaleBrunori,andseveralintwogroupsatacrossroadsatTorde'Cenci.590Theprominentsizeandpositionofmanyofthesetombscertainlymakesthemstrongvisualmarkers,andtheydoindeedseemtohavefunctionedasstatementsofterritorialcontrol,insofarastheyoccupiedprominentpositionsinlandthatseemstohavebeenroutinelyregulatedandnegotiated.ThetombsatCrustumerium,CorcolleandTorde'Cenciseemtomakethestrongeststatement.AtCrustumerium,thetombsoccupytheslopesofhillsatanimportantjuncturebetweenneighboringregions;itispossibletoseethisastheattemptofprominentgroupstocreatevisualsignsoftheirauthorityinthearea,especiallyinrelationtoadjacentterritories.WhatleadsRajala,Isuspect,tointerprettheseastheburialsoftherulinggroupisthattheywerethemostlikelypeopletohavetheabilitytooccupythisspaceandmobilizetheresourcesfortheconstructionofthesemonuments.AtCorcolle,thetombsoccupyasimilarpositioninthecountryside,althoughinalocationfurthersouth;it,too,sitsattheboundaryofLatinandSabineregions.ThetwoburialgroupsatthecrossroadsofTorde'Cenci,whiletheymaynothaverepresentedacompitum,werecertainlyprominent;theymayhavefunctionedasboundarymarkersofsomesort.ThepresenceofseveralotherchambertombsattheothersitesofLaurentinarevealsjusthowdifficultitistoassociatechambertombsspecificallywiththeburialsoftherulinggroup,asopposedtooneofmanygroupswhowereallowedaccesstovisibleformsofburial.Thoselocatedincemeteriesalongsideotherburials,orthoselocatedinassociationwithacomplexmaynotnecessarilybetheleadinggroupinthecity.Iprefertoviewthesemoreasthemonumentsofdifferentgroups,wholikelyusedburial,alongwithotherformsofarchitecture,inordertomakeavarietyofstatements,whetherstatus,wealth,territoryorancestry.Thisalsoallowsforthepossibilitythatindividualsotherthantheuppertierofelitesreceivedthesemodesofburial.Whiletheassociationofmanyoftheseburialstoelitegroupsisdebatable,itseemstruethat,forthemostpart,archaicburialsarelocatedingroups,whethertheyaresmallburialgroundsorlargercemeteries.AtCrustumerium,theburialsarelocatedontheslopesofahill.591AtCasaleMassimathereisacemeteryofsome40gravesthatrangeindatefromtheeighthtothethirdcenturies;abouthalfoftheseburialsbelongtotheArchaicperiod.592AtTorde'Cenci,thechambertombsatthecrossroadsareclusteredintotwoburialgroups.Inbothcasesthechambertombsseemorientedaroundearlierburials.593AtCasaleBrunori,fivechambertombswerediscoveredtogetheralongaroad.594AtSatricummostoftheburialsareconcentratedinthelargercemeteriestothesouthwestandatPoggiodeiCavallari;ontheacropolistherearefarfewerburials.595AtRome,thesituationismoredifficulttodeterminesincethelimitsoftheEsquilinenecropolishavenotbeencompletely

590Bedini1980;1990;1991.591Rajala2007;2008a.592Bedini1980.593Bedini1990.594Bedini1991.595Gnade1992;2003;2004;2006;2007;2009.

139

identified.Inaddition,thepoorrecordsoftheoldexcavationsandthepresenceofmodernoccupationmakeitextremelydifficulttodiscerndistinctionsinburialgroupsinthearea.DespitetheisolatedoccurrenceoftheTomboftheWarriorandLanuviumandtherichtombofawomanatFidenae,andthesmallgroupsoftwoorthreeburialsatAcquaAcetosa,itseemsthat,forthemostpart,theseburialsarearrangedinmoremodestburialgrounds.Thismaybetakenasevidencefortheoccupationoftheseburialgroundsbymembersofagentilicialgroup,buttherecouldbeotherconnections.Generally,thesecemeteriesarethoughttorepresenttheburialgroundsofkinshipgroups,possiblyagens,althoughsomeotherkindofassociationispossible.Onlyinthecaseoflargecemeteries,wherethereisbetterproofthatthenumberofburialsisrepresentativeofthelivingpopulation,canthesebeseenasburialgroundsusedbytheentirecommunity.Theburialsofchildrenandinfantsoccurintwodifferentcontexts.Manyappear,assuggrundaria,inthefoundationsoralongsidethewallsofbuildings.ThereisevidenceofthispracticeatRomeandthesitesofLaurentinainparticular,and,asIillustrateinChapter6,atGabii.AtRome,therearethefourtombsoftheSacraVia,whichareallconnectedtothearchaichabitation.596Thesesuggrundariacompriseinfantburialsinjarsplacedeitherbelowthefloorsoralongthewallsofthemonumentalstructures.TothesouthofRome,suggrundariahavebeenidentifiedatAcquaAcetosaLaurentinaandCasaleBrunori,inacontextrelatedtosixth‐andfifth‐centurybuildings.AtGabii,eachsuggrundariumissituatedalongwhatappearstobetheouterlimitsoftheelitecompound.Itshouldbenotedthatthetwodolia,tothenorthandsouthofthebuilding,haveanundetermineddate.Thattothenorthmaydateanywherefromthebeginningoftheseventhtotheendofthesixthcentury,whilethattothesouthremainsundated.Theevidencesuggeststhatthefuneraryideologyregardingchildrenwasboundtothephysicallimitsoftheresidence,apatternthathaditsoriginintheearlyIronAge.Thearchaeologicalvisibilityofinfantsandchildrenisofteninterpretedasasignofgrowingsocialcomplexity,butthelocationofthesegravesinassociationwithhousespointstotheirtiestothesestructures.IntheArchaicperiod,juvenilegravesarelocated,quiteliterally,inthefoundationsandatthelimitsofhouses.Itseemsthatchildrenandinfantswereconnectedindeathwiththephysicallimitsofthehouse.Itispossibletosuggestthattheseburialsandthechildrenaresymbolicrepresentationsofthefoundationandboundariesofthehouse,andbyextension,thehousehold.Theydemonstrateacareonbehalfofthesurvivingfamiliestomaintainarelationshipbetweenfamily,house,andterritorythatinmanywaysechoestheconcernsofthegentes,asindicatedbythehistoricalsources.ThisisperhapsbestillustratedatFicana,wherejuvenileburialsoccuratthelimitsofabuildingandinaseparateburialgroundjustnorthofthesamecomplex.Northofthecomplexwererecoveredsevenarchaicinfantburials.597Whiletheburialsinthebuildingweresuggrundaria,thosenorthofthestructureweredepositedinvasesorbetweentiles.Archaeologistsinterpretedtheburialgroundasarepresentativeoftheburialactivitiesofa

596Gjerstad(1956,146‐9),TombsE,F,LLandNN.597Jarva(1981b,270‐1),burialsI‐VIandXII.

140

singlefamily,sincethenumberofgraveswastoolow,andthetimespantoogreat(sometenburialsoveronehundredyears),tohavefunctionedasacommunitycemetery.5985g.ConclusionInconclusion,thereislittlehomogeneityinthearchaeologicalevidenceforburialinRomeandLatiumduringtheArchaicperiod.Theevidenceleavesfewcleartracesofethnic,cultural,social,politicalorlinguisticdivisions,whichsuggeststherewasconsiderablediversityamongthepeoplesinhabitingtheregion.Atthesametime,thisistheperiodwhenmostcity‐statesintheregionarethoughttohavebeenmostprosperous.Theevidencerecoveredfromthesesitesrevealsburialgroundsoccupiedbymixedandmobilepopulations,whohadawidearrayoffunerarytraditionstodrawfrom.Thegreatestdegreeofcross‐culturalinteractionseemstohaveoccurredbetweenadjacentcity‐states.Thus,forinstance,CrustumeriumexhibitsculturalcharacteristicssharedwiththeEtruscan,SabineandCapenateworlds,599andthesitesinRomeandtheLatininteriorseemmosttobeparticipatinginsharedbehaviorsandrituals.TheseconclusionsfindsupportinearlierstudiesthatunderstandsocietyinarchaicRomeandsouthEtruriaasanopenone,characterizedbyahighdegreeofhorizontalmobility.600Theoverallpaucityofburialsatsitessuggeststhatvisibleformsofburialwererestricted,aswasaccesstoburialgrounds;itispossiblethatclansandtheirleaderscontrolledtheuseofandaccesstocemeteries.Thissuggeststhattheseclanleadersexercisedconsiderableauthorityinburial.

598Fischer‐Hansen1978,38.599Nijboeretal.2008.600EspeciallyAmpolo1976‐1977.

141

6.ArchaicGabii:theEvidenceforSettlementandBurial6a.IntroductionThesiteofGabiiislocatedapproximately18kmeastofRomealongtheancientViaPrenestina(fig.6.1).ItiswellattestedintheancientsourcesandrecentlyhasbeensubjecttolargescaleexcavationsthathaveaddedconsiderablytoourunderstandingofurbanismincentralItaly.InthischapterIundertakeapresentationandanalysisofthearchaicphasesofoccupationfromasectorofthecitycurrentlyunderexcavationbytheGabiiProject.Ifocusontheevidenceforanarchaicbuildingandtheburialgroundestablishedintheareaafterthebuildinghadfallenoutofuse.IcontextualizethesedatawiththeburialevidencefromtheIronAgecemeteryatOsteriadell'Osa(fig.6.2),locatedsome1.5kmwestoftheurbancenterofarchaicGabii,inordertoexaminetheevidenceforthekindsofsocialandpoliticalcomplexitythatcontributedtourbandevelopmentintheregion.IbeginbyrecountingbrieflytheancientliterarysourcesconcerningarchaicGabii(6b).TheliteraryevidencesuggestsacloserelationshipbetweenRomeandGabiithatmayhelpcontextualizetheevidencefromthearchaeologicalrecord.Ithenrecountthehistoryofexcavationatthesite(6c),notingthevariousentitiesthathaveconductedarchaeologicalinvestigationintheareasincetheeighteenthcentury.Anaccountconcerningthetopographyandchronologicaldevelopmentofthesitefollows(6d),inordertoprovideaframeworkforthearchaicmaterials.Thenextsection(6e)relatesbrieflytheaimsoftheGabiiProjectandthediscoveriesmadeinrecentyears,beforefocusingspecificallyontheevidencerecoveredfromthearchaicphasesofthesite(6f).Foreasyreference,IpresentabriefdescriptionofthechronologyofthesiteoftheGabiiProject'sareaD(6g).ThenIdescribethefeaturesassociatedwiththearchaicphasesofoccupation,focusingonthearchaicbuilding(6h)andtheburials(6i),anddiscussthesignificanceofthesefinds.Iclosethechapterwithabriefsummaryofmyconclusions(6j).6b.TheAncientSourcesforArchaicGabiiTheancientliterarysourcesconcerningGabiidocumenttheoriginsanddevelopmentofthecityduringtheregalperiodofRomanhistory,andtraceitsgradualdeclinebytheendoftheLateRepublic.601Theseaccountsarelargelyproductsofthenarrativetraditionofthesecondandfirstcenturies,whoseauthorsdrewheavilyfromtheworksofGreekhistorianstosubstantiatetheinformationavailableintheRomanannals.602TheepisodesrelatingtoGabii'searlyhistoryareespeciallysuspect,astheyarethefarthestremovedchronologicallyfromthetimeofwriting,and,moreoftenthannot,areclearlyderivedfromaGreeksource.Consequently,theancientliteraryaccountsarenotareliablesourcefortheearlyhistoryofGabii,anditwouldbeunwisetodrawtoomanyconclusionsbasedonthesenarratives.Atbest,theyrevealtheprideofplacegiventothecitybythehistoriansoftheLateRepublic,whichmayhavesomebasisinfact,butthisisultimatelyimpossibleto

601AlmagroBasch(1958)compilestheliteraryevidenceregardingancientGabii.602SeeChapter2forafulltreatmentofthissubject.

142

determine.Itisworthnoting,too,thattheliteraturedepictsGabii'sriseanddeclineinamannerconsistentwiththeearlyhistoryofotherLatincities.Theseaccountsarethoughttocorrespondwiththeevidencefromthearchaeologicalrecord,whichpointstoafloruitintheArchaicperiod,andagradualdeclinethereafter.603GabiifeaturesprominentlyandfavorablyinthetraditionconcerningRome'searlyhistory.FoundedbyAlbaLonga,604itisthecitywhereRomulusandRemusweresentaschildrentoberaisedandeducatedinletters,musicandarms.605ThecityplayedanimportantroleattheendofthemonarchyandthebeginningoftheRepublic.TarquiniusSuperbus,unabletocaptureGabiibymilitaryassault,senthissonSextustotakecontrolofthetownbymeansofdeceitandtrickery.606InanepisodethatcombinestheHerodoteanaccountsconcerningZopyrusandthecaptureofBabylon(3.154)andtheinterchangebetweenThrasybulusandPeriander(5.92.6),SextusTarquinpersuadedtherulingeliteatGabiitomakehimthemostpowerfulmaninthecity;hethenkilledthemostprominentinhabitantsandhandedthecityovertohisfather.607DionysiusofHalicarnassusrecordsthat,followingthisvictory,TarquiniusSuperbusreturnedGabiitoitsinhabitants,allowingthemtokeeptheirpropertyandgrantingthemtherightsofRomancitizens(Rom.Ant.4.58).SuperbusthenestablishedwithGabiiwhatisconsideredtheearliestknowntreaty,thefoedusGabinum,andhadthetermsinscribedonawoodenshieldcoveredwithanox‐hide.Dionysiusrecordsthattheshieldwasvisibleinhisday,sometimeinthelatefirstcentury,intheTempleofSemoSancus/DiusFidiusinRome(Rom.Ant.4.58).608Afterthefallofthemonarchy,Livy(1.60)reportsthatSextusfledtoGabii,wherehewaskilledonaccountofhispreviousactions.ItisgenerallythoughtthattheBattleofLakeRegillus,TarquiniusSuperbus'finalattempttoreclaimthethroneaftertheinstitutionoftheRomanRepublic,wasfoughtnearby.609Thepreciselocationofthebattleremainsthesubjectofsomedebate,andisbasedlargelyontheassumptionthatthelocationofthelakeindicatesthelocationofthelegendarybattle.TheancientsourcesdonotexplicitlyconnectLakeRegilluswiththeterritoryofGabii,butnotethatthebattleoccurredsomewherebetweenRomeandTusculum.HollowaystatesthelakewaslocatedatthesouthendofthemarshyplainofPantanoBorghese,andthatitwasdrainedintheseventeenthcentury.610FollowingtheRomanvictoryatBattleofLakeRegillus,GabiiwaslikelyincludedasamemberoftheLatinLeagueinthefoedusCassianum,atreatythatbroughttoanendthewarbetweenRomeandtheLeague.611Afterthispoint,

603Smith1996,2;Cornell2005.604Verg.Aen.6.773.605Dion.Hal.Ant.Rom.1.84,4.53;Plut.Mor.Defort.Rom.8;Vit.Rom.6;Ampolo1997.606Liv.1.53‐54;Dion.Hal.Ant.Rom.4.54‐58.607Ogilvie1965,205‐6.608LTUR4.264and5.288(SemoSancus);5.163(DiusFidius).Dion.Hal.Ant.Rom.4.54‐58.609Liv.2.19‐22;Dion.Hal.6.4‐13.Livydatesthebattleto499B.C.E.,DionysiusofHalicarnassusto496B.C.E.andCornell(1995,216)to493B.C.E.610Holloway1994,104.611Dion.Hal.6.95.

143

Gabiiisrarelymentionedinahistoricalcontextuntil382B.C.E.,whenthecityassistedinthewaragainstPraeneste.612TheancientaccountsadditionallydocumentGabii'scontributionstosocialandreligiouslifeatRome.ManysourcesclaimthatthecinctusGabinuswasthecustomarystyleofdresswornbyselectofficialsonanumberofsolemnoccasions.613Theseincludethefounderofacityorcolonyattheriteofsulcusprimigenius;theconsulwhenclosingtheiugumIaniuponthedeclarationofwar;ageneralforthedevotioonthebattlefield;andparticipantsintheprocessionoftheamburbia.614Varro(Ling.5.33)recordsthattheagerGabinuswasgrantedspecialstatus,possiblyasextensionofthefoedusGabinum,whichallowedRomanmagistratestoconsidervalidtheauspiciasingulariaundertakenatGabii.6c.HistoryofExcavationArchaeologicalinvestigationatGabiihastakenplaceinseveraldistinctphases,andconsistslargelyofoneextensivesurfacesurvey,ahandfulofsmall‐scaleexcavationsandfewlarge‐scaleoperations(figs.6.2and6.3).615Explorationoftheareabeganin1792whentheScottishantiquarianGavinHamiltonundertookexcavationsinasectoroftheurbanareaheidentifiedastheforum.Hamilton'sactivitiesweresopoorlydocumentedthatthepreciselocationoftheseoperationsisunknown.616Overthecourseoftheexcavations,however,heuncoveredsome200statuesandseveralinscriptions,allinassociationwithaseriesofbuildingsorientedaroundamaineast‐westroad,possiblytheViaPrenestina.617SystematicarchaeologicalfieldworkonlybeganatGabiiinthemiddleofthetwentiethcentury,andwasundertakenbyanumberofacademicinstitutions.TheSpanishSchoolatRomeconcentrated,inthemid‐twentiethcentury(1956‐1958,1960,1962,1965and1967),ontheexcavationoftheso‐calledTempletoJuno.618TheretheydiscoveredevidenceforIronAgehuts,archaicvotives,andaRepublicanshrinetoFortuna,allbeforetheconstructionofthetempleinthemid‐secondcentury.619In1976‐1977theSoprintendenzaSpecialeperiBeniArcheologicidiRoma(hereafterSAR)identifiedasecondsanctuarystructureoutsidetheeasternwallsofthecity,theso‐calledSantuarioOrientale.620Theshrinerevealsevidencefromthesevenththroughsecondcenturies.621

612Livy3.8.7,6.31.6‐7.613Serv.adAen.7.612;Liv.5.46.614Dubourdieu(1986)compilesallreferencestothecinctusgabinus.615ThismirrorsthecurrentstatusofdatacollectionfortherestofearlycentralItaly,accordingto(Smith1996;Beckeretal.2009).616Visconti(1797)sketchedaplanoftheareabeforeitwasbackfilled.617Beckeretal.2009;Smith1901,318.618AlmagroBasch1958.619AlmagroGorbea,ed.1982;LeGlay1985.620GuaitoliandZaccagni1977;Zaccagni1978;Guaitoli1981a,50‐1;1981b,161‐73.

144

Atthesametimeasthesanctuarywasbeingexcavated,GuaitoliundertookanextensivesurfacesurveyoftheregionofGabii,revealingawiderangeofevidenceforthedevelopmentoftheareafromtheBronzeAgethroughtheImperialperiod.622Mostofhishypothesesregardingtheurbandevelopmentofthecityaresupportedbytheresultsofmorerecentexcavations.From1971‐1976and1978‐1986,theSARconcentratedonthesustainedexcavationoftheIronAgenecropolisatOsteriadell'Osa,acemeterylocatedalongthewesternedgeoftheCastiglionecrater(fig.6.2).623TheresultsoftheseexcavationshavebeendeeplyinfluentialinthefieldofItalianprehistory,bothforthequantityofmaterialandthequalityofpublication.TheOsteriadell'Osacemeteryisthelargest(andmostsystematically)excavatednecropolisincentralItaly,withsome600tombsthatrangeindatefromtheEarlyIronAge(LatialphaseIIA)totheLateOrientalizingperiod(LatialphaseIVB).TheSARexcavatedasecondnecropolisontheoppositesideofthecrater,approximately1.8kmeastofOsteriadell'Osa.624ThisistheCastiglionecemetery,whichcontainedsomesixtytombsoftheEarlyIronAgeandislocatedinproximitytotheIronAgehutclusters.TheOsteriadell'Osacemeterywasthefocusofmorein‐depthanalysis,however,andremainsthemoreprominentofthetwositesinsecondaryliterature.Inthefollowingdecades,theSARcontinuedarchaeologicalworkintheCastiglioneregion,butthishasgenerallyconsistedofsporadicandsmall‐scaleexcavations.Theresultsoftheseinitiativesremainlargelyunpublished,butareknowntohavebroughttolightamonumentalbuilding(theso‐calledRegia),aroad,somehousesandtombs.625In2007,theUniversityofMichigan,undertheauspicesoftheSAR,beganintensiveexplorationoftheurbanarea.Aninitialseasonofmagnetometrysurveyandcoresamplinginthearearevealedasectorofthecitythatwasorganizedaccordingtoanorthogonallayout.626Thisbecamethefocusofalarge‐scaleexcavationbeginningin2009,whichhassinceuncoveredevidenceofoccupationfromthelateIronAgetoImperialperiod.Theexcavationisstillongoing,andmuchoftheevidencepresentedinthischapterpertainstotheexcavatedarchaicphasesofthesite.

621GraninoCecere1986.ThesiteisthelocusofarenewedseriesofexcavationsbytheSAR(ManciniandPilo2006),theUniversityofRomeTorVergataandtheUniversityofBasilicata(Beckeretal.2009).622Guaitoli1981a;1981b.623BiettiSestieri1992a;1992b.624BiettiSestieri1984.625Musco1997;MajariniandMusco2001.ApreliminaryreportoftheRegiacanbefoundattheRepubblicanewspaperwebsite(http://roma.repubblica.it/dettaglio/la‐regia‐del‐tiranno‐dei‐tarquini‐nellantica‐citta‐laziale‐di‐gabii/1870552).626Beckeretal.2009.

145

6d.TopographyandDevelopmentoftheSiteThemaintopographicalfeatureintheregionofGabiiisthenowextinctvolcaniccraterofCastiglione,whichisflankedonthewestandeastsidesbytworivers,thefossodell'OsaandthefossodiS.Giuliano,respectively.ThecraterisoftencalledtheLagodiCastiglioneinsecondaryliterature,indicatingthatthisfeaturewasatsometimefilledwithwater.Itisunknowntowhatextenttheareawas,infact,alakeinantiquity,sincesomeoftheearliestevidenceforhutscomesfromthebasin.Documentsfromthemid‐nineteenthcentury,however,indicatethatthecratercontainedwaterbyatleasttheseventeenthcentury,astheyreportthattheBorghesefamilywasresponsiblefordrainingthecraterofwaterandtransformingtheareafromamarshtoarableland.627Tothisday,thecraterremainsazoneofagriculturalactivity.Theedgesofthecraterrestatapproximately79mabovesealevel,wherethevolcanicbedrockoutcropsandslopesgraduallydownwardinalldirections.Insomeareas,thenaturalmorphologyofthebedrockwastruncatedbyhumanactivity.TheareaexcavatedbytheGabiiProjectissituatedsoutheastofthecrater,atapproximately62mabovesealevel.Here,thetopsoilcoversthestratigraphyatadepthofabout0.7m;mostofthepreservedarchaeologyliesbetween1mand2.8mbelowthesurface.628Coresamplestakenfromthesoutheastlimitoftheexcavationrevealasequenceofnaturallayers,comprisedmostlyofvolcanicsandandclayeylevels,locatedabovethebedrock.Thesecolluvialdepositsrestimmediatelybeneaththetopsoilandseemtohavebeenheavilydisturbedbymodernplowing.InallperiodssettlementatGabiihasconcentratedaroundtheCastiglionecrater.TheevidencefortheBronzeAgeoccupationofthesiteislimited,andconsistsmostlyofceramicfragmentsrecoveredbyarchaeologicalsurveyontheeastsideofthecrater.629Itisdifficulttomakespecificstatementsregardingthenatureoftheoccupationatthistime,butthedensityandchronologicalconsistencyofthesurfacescattersuggestthattherewasarelativelystablepopulationduringtheMiddleandLateBronzeAges.630ThesamesurveyidentifiedseveralIronAgesitesalongthesouthandeastsidesofthecraterandatvariouspointsalongtheS.Giulianotributary.Theceramicmaterialsindicatethepresenceofeitherhutsorisolatedburials;mostoftheseitemsbelongtotheEarlyIronAge(LatialIIphase).Thedistributionofthesefindssuggeststhatsmallvillagesorclustersofhutsratherthanlargecenterscharacterizedsettlementinthearea.Roughlycontemporary(c.900‐830B.C.E.)withthesettlementevidencearetheburialsfromtheCastiglionecemetery,andtheearliestgravesfromthenecropolisofOsteria

627Blewitt1850,583‐5.628Beckeretal.2009,637.629Guaitoli1981a;BiettiSestieri1984.630MogettaandBecker2014.

146

dell'Osa.631Comparisonbetweenthetwocemeteriesdemonstratedasignificantdegreeoflocalvariabilityinthespatialdistributionofgraves,themodeoffuneraryritualandthetypesofgravegoods.However,bothcemeteriesrepresentedpopulationswithasharedsocialandculturalbackground.Itseemsthateachcemeterybelongedtoaseparatecommunity,possiblyavillage,oneithersideofthecrater.Analysisofbothnecropoleisrevealedtheemergenceofasocialhierarchyasearlyastheninthcentury.AlthoughnocontemporarysettlementevidencehasbeenrecoveredforthelaterIronAgeburialsatOsteriadell'Osa,thelowquantityofseventh‐centuryburialsinthecemeteryseemstocorrespondwiththeincreasedevidenceforsettlementintheregionofGabii,onthesoutheastsidesofthecrater.Theevidenceforthearchaiccityisprimarilyderivedfromtwosources,anextensivefieldsurveyconductedinthenineteen‐seventies,andthelargescaleexcavationsundertakenbytheUniversityofMichiganinrecentyears.Guatoli'sinitialsurveyoftheGabineregionrevealedsignsofdenseoccupationduringthesixthcenturyintheareasouthoftheCastiglionecrater.632Highconcentrationsofceramicmaterials,primarilytilesofimpastorossoandsabbiatochiaro(alightfabricimpasto,inuseprimarilyduringthesixthandfifthcenturies),inadditiontonumerousexamplesofcommonwaresandbucchero,werediscoveredalongsideblocksoftuffandcappellacciothatwereprobablytheremainsofbuildings.TheUniversityofMichigan'sexcavationsintheurbanareaconstitutethemainbodyofevidenceforthearchaicsettlementatGabii,whichisexaminedindetailbelow.ThematerialsfromGuatoli'ssurfacesurveywereconcentratedintheareaenclosedwithinalineoffortificationsvisibleinaerialphotographsofthearea.TheexcavationsoftheSantuarioOrientalein1977mayhaveuncoveredasmalltractofthesewallsalongthenortheasternboundaryofthecity.633Thewallswereconstructedfromblocksofreddishtuffandreinforcedwithpiecesoftravertine;thesameredtuffappearsexclusivelyinthearchaicphasesofconstructionofthesanctuary.Althoughnomaterialswererecoveredthatmightdatethecitywallsmoreprecisely,theuseofredtuffatboththesanctuaryandthewallspointstoacontemporaneousdateofconstruction,sometimeduringthesixthandfifthcenturies.Guaitoliidentifiedseveralblocksofthesamesizeandmaterialthroughouttheplainandnotedtheiralignmentwithmoundsandditchesvisibleinthelandscape.Thedistributionoftheseblocksrevealstheextentofthewallatthesouthandeast.Thecraterseemstohaveformedtheboundaryofthecitytothewest,andaditchtothenorth.TheresultsoftheexcavationsperformedmorerecentlybyseveralRome‐basedinstitutionsatvariouspointsalongtheperimetersupportthis.634Usingthenaturallimitsofthecraterandthefossodell'OsaandfossodiS.Giuliano,andtheremainsofthewalls,asboundariesofthearchaiccity,itseemsthatGabii,duringtheArchaicperiod,coveredanareaofabout54km2.

631BiettiSestieri1992b.632Guaitoli1981a,44‐50.633Guaitoli1981a,45.634Beckeretal.2009,636.ThemagnetometrysurveyledbytheUniversityofMichiganmayhaveidentifiedanothersectorofthecitywallsinthenortheasternregionofthecity.

147

Onthebasisofpalaeobotanicaldata,Ampolocalculatesamaximumpopulationof2500fortheterritoryofarchaicGabii.635ThereisevidenceofcultactivityduringtheArchaicperiodinthelocationsoftheSantuarioOrientaleandtheTempleofJuno.TheshrineattheSantuarioOrientaleseemstohavebeeninusefromthelateseventhtosecondcentury.636Bothsurveyandexcavationrecoveredvotivesinthearea,themajorityofwhichdatetothesixthcentury.Theseconsistprimarilyofbronzes,ceramicmaterials(includingCorinthianimitation,Italo‐Geometric,andbucchero),wholeminiaturevasesandterracottaarchitecturaldecoration.Asecondvotivedepositwasdiscoveredabout100mawayfromtheeasternsanctuaryandwaspossiblyrelatedtoit;thedepositcontainedmaterialsidenticaltothosediscoveredinthesanctuary.AttheTempleofJunothereislimitedevidenceforearlycultactivity,whichconsistsofanarchaicantefix,anEtruscanscarabandanassortmentofceramicmaterialsthatincludeimpasto,buccheroandEtrusco‐Corinthianwares,aswellasCorinthianandAtticimports.637ThemonumentalstructurerecentlyexcavatedbytheSARfrom2007‐2011onthesoutheastrimofthecraterrepresentsasignificantphaseintheoccupationofarchaicGabii.638Thebuildingconsistsofthreeadjacentquadrangularroomsthatopentothewest:thecentralroomisthelargestofthethreeandhasacentrallylocatedentrance;thetwosidesroomsareslightlysmallerandhavedecentralizedentryways.Thewallswerebuiltofslabsoftuffandhaveapreservedheightofabout2m.Room1,thesouthernmostroom,hasfourcircularpitsdugintothetuffbedrock,onelocatedineachofthefourcorners.Thepitinthesouthwestcorneroftheroomcontainstheburialofaneonateinanolla,whilethatinthenorthwestcornercontainsfragmentsofasecondollaperhapsintentionallybrokenaspartofthefuneraryritualassociatedwiththeinfantburial.Thenorth‐andsoutheasternpitshavetracesofburning,whicharchaeologistsconnectedtofoodpreparation.Thesecondroomisthecentralone,andisthelargestofthethree.Twoollettewereinsertedintothewalls;thereisnoclearexplanationforthis.Inthesouthcornerofthisroomisasecondinfantburial,aneonateinanolla,likelydepositedinthefloorofthepreviousphaseoftheroom.Inthethirdroomwerediscoveredthreemoreinfantburialsrightabovetheflooroftheearlierphase,inthesamelayerasthepreparationforthesubsequentfloorsurface.Theinfantsrangedinagefromneonatestochildrenofsixandsevenmonths,andseemtorepresenttheintentionaldepositionofchildrenthatdiednaturally(asopposedtosacrifice).Althoughtheseburialsseemtorepresentsuggrundaria,theinitialpublicationdoesnotmakethisclear.Inthecenterofthethirdroomisastonebase,onwhichabrokendoliumwasfound.Archaeologistsdiscoveredintheseroomsartifactstheyassociatedwithceremonialactivities,particularlyanarchitecturalterracottathatmayhavefunctionedaspartofthedecorationofthebuilding.TheterracottabearstheimageoftheMinotaur,whichthe

635Ampolo1977.636Guaitoli1981a,50.637AlmagroGorbea1981.638Fabbrietal2010.

148

archaeologistsconnecttoasimilarexamplefoundattheRegiaatRome.Thisseemstohaveformed,atleastinpart,thebasisfortheidentificationofthebuildingatGabiiasaRegia.TheystatethattheRegiaatRomefunctionedasthehouseofServiusTullius,who,asameansoflegitimatinghisroleinthefoundationofRome,adoptedfromAthenstheimageryassociatedwiththemythsofTheseusasthefounderofthecity.639TheysuggestthattheTarquinsemployedthesameimageryatGabii,who,followingtheexpulsionofSextusfromRome,werethelikelyoccupantsofthisbuilding.Thebuildingwasabandonedtowardtheendofthesixthcenturyandatumulusconstructedoveritsremains.DuringtheEarlyandMiddleRepublicanperiods,theurbanareashowssignsofdenseoccupationandsubstantialreorganization.Theoriginalsurfacesurveysconductedinthenineteen‐seventiesrevealedapatternofoccupationbroadlyconsistentwiththatobservedfortheArchaicperiod:thecitylimitsremainedthesameandtheurbanpopulationwasconcentratedwithintheseboundaries.640Guaitolinotedthatsomeareaswereleftopenandempty,whichheinterpretedasasignofpopulationdecrease.Themorerecentexcavationsintheareaurbanahaveaddedtothispicture.641Theyrevealthewidespreadimplementationofaneworthogonalsystemoflanddivisioninthefifthcentury.Thislayoutreplacedthepreviousorientationandorganizationofthecityandwaslikelytheinitiativeofacentralizedauthority.Boththemagnetometrysurveyandsubsequentexcavationsbroughttolightamajorthoroughfarethatcrossestheentiresiteinanortheast‐southwestdirection(fig.6.4).642Followingthemorphologyofthecrater,theroadconnectsGabiitoRome,andheadsnortheasttowardstheSantuarioOrientale,inthegeneraldirectionofancientTibur.ItjoinswiththeViaCollatinaatCorcolle,andcontinuestowardtheAnieneRiveratPonteLucano.643Branchingoffthismainarteryatrightanglesisaseriesofsmallstreetsthatruninanorthwest‐southeastdirectionandconformtotheslopingshapeofthecrater.644Theseregular,parallelstreetslikelyrepresentagridofcityblocksthatwereall

639ThearchitecturalterracottasareinCristofani,ed.(1987,95‐120).Smith(1996,174‐5)explainsthatthereisgoodreasontodoubttheattributionofthedecorationontheseterracottastothemythofTheseusandtheMinotaur.ThemotifiscommoninthefriezesofcentralItaly,especiallyatthepalacesofRome,MurloandAcquarossa.Suchscenesmaylackthesignificanceofthemyth,ortheymayrepresentanindigenousbeliefthatnolongersurvives.640Guaitoli1981a.641MogettaandBecker2014,178‐81.642Beckeretal.2009.643ThisroadmaybetheViaGabinamentionedintheancientsources.SeeLTURS3:9‐10(Gabina,Via).TheViaGabinamayhavebeenanarchaic(orearlier)roadlinkingRomeandGabii,whichhadfallenoutofuseandabandonedinfavoroftheViaPrenestina.Conversely,itmayhavebeenanearliernameforwhatlaterbecametheViaPrenestina.Noarchaicroadhasbeenidentified,butGuaitoli(1981a,49‐55)hypothesizedthatoneexistedalongthemodernViaPolense,whichcrossedthetributaryandheadedtowardsTiburandCorcolle.TheSARexcavationsintheSantuarioOrientaleuncoveredapebbledsurfacepredatingtheglareateroadsoftheRepublicanperiod,butnosecuredatewasprovided.644MogettaandBecker2014.

149

orientedalongthemainroad.Thedimensionsofthegridadheretothemorphologyofthecraterandtopographyoftheterrain,sothateachblockwidensfollowingthesouthwardslope.TheSARhasfoundevidenceforthissamelayoutfromtheirexcavationsatthetemple‐theatercomplexofJuno.645TheRepublicanbuildingsexcavatedintheareaurbanabytheUniversityofMichiganwerefoundtohaveadheredtothelimitsoftheneworthogonalcityplan.646Thereislittleindicationasyetregardingwhowasresponsibleforthisnewlayoutorwhatthecitylookedlikeintheperiodleadingtoitsconstruction.ThereissomefuneraryevidencefortheEarlyandMiddleRepublicanperiods.Threechambertombswithlongdromoiwereexcavatedin1976ontheslopesofahilltotheeastofthecity.647ThesewereinitiallydatedtotheMid‐Republicanperiod,andarelocatedontheslopesofthehilleastofthecity.Thesetombshavenotbeenpublishedandtheirlocationisunknown.Lancianidiscoveredotherexamplesofchambertombstothewestofthefossodell'Osa.648Asubstantialdecreaseinthequantityandqualityofsurfacescatterindicatethat,bythetimeoftheLateRepublic,thecityhadcontractedtothemorecentralareasaroundtheViaPrenestina,probablyataboutthesametimethecitywallswereabandoned.649Indeed,themajorityoftheexcavatedevidencefromtheareaurbanapointstosignificantchangesinthenatureofoccupationbyaboutthesecondcentury.Theso‐calledTempletoJunowasconstructedatthesoutheastedgeofthecrater,followingtheabandonmentofthelocationfortheearliercult.650Inthelatethirdorearlysecondcentury,thestreetsofthecitygridwererepaired,andinsomecasespavedwithbasaltslabs,whileothersectionswerereinforcedwithsidewalls.651Immediatelyfollowingtherenewalofthesestreetswasaphaseofconstruction,primarilyofdomesticbuildings,atthebeginningofthesecondcentury.652ThetwocourtyardbuildingsexcavatedbytheUniversityofMichiganintheurbanareawereinitiallyconstructedandoccupiedduringthisperiod.

645Beckeretal.2009.646MogettaandBecker2014.647Guaitoli(1981a,48)suggeststhatthecitywallswereabandonedatthistime.HespeculatesthattheirdestructionwasbroughtaboutbyHannibal'smilitaryoperationsinthearea,butthisisinconclusive.Hedoesnotprovidethepreciselocationofthetombs.648Guaitoli1981a,48n.110.649Guaitoli1981a,50‐2.650Guaitoli1981a,50‐2;AlmagroBasch1958;AlmagroGorbea1982.651MogettaandBecker2014.Thesestreetshadundergoneanearlierphaseofreconstructionasearlyasthefifthcentury;inbothinstancestheoriginalalignmentsoftheorthogonallayoutwereobservedoverthecourseofrepairs.652MogettaandBecker2014.Itseemsthatthesebuildingsactivitiescoveredordestroyedtheearlierevidenceofoccupationinthefifthandfourthcenturies.Thesecondcenturybuildingsconsistofcourtyardbuildingsthatwereconstructedinaccordancewiththelimitsimposedbythestreetgrid.

150

Atthesametime,however,portionsoftheurbanareawererepurposedforthequarryingofpeperinotuff,inpartfortheconstructionofmonumentalpublicbuildings.653OverthecourseoftheLateRepublicanperiod,theseactivitiesseemtohaveconsumedthenorthernmostareasofthesite.TheintensificationofquarryingduringtheImperialperiodseemstohavebroughtaboutorsignaledthedeclineofthecity.Thelocationsforquarryingextendedfurthersouthintoareasthatwereformerlysitesofoccupation.Perhapsmarkingtheendofthecitywastheemergenceofasmallcemeterysometimeinthemid‐latefirstcenturyC.E.,inanareaformerlyoccupiedbyoneofthecourtyardbuildingsoftheRepublicanperiod.6546e.TheGabiiProjectIn2007,theUniversityofMichigan,undertheauspicesoftheSAR,begantheGabiiProjectwiththeaimofconductingthelargescaleexcavationofamajorurbancenterincentralItaly.Thesitewaschosenforavarietyofpractical,archaeologicalandhistoricalreasons.Gabiiiswellknownintheancientliterarysourcesasanearlyculturalcenter,onparwiththecitiesofsouthEtruriaandRome.ThesitehasalsoneverbeensubstantiallyoccupiedfollowingitsabandonmentinthesecondtothirdcenturiesC.E.,whichallowsforanexcavationunhinderedbymodernsettlement.Whatismore,thecity'sdeclinebytheLateRepublicanperiodhasleftbehindfewtracesofImperialoccupationthatmightimpedetheexplorationofearlierphases.In2007and2008,geophysicalsurveyofabout40haoftheurbanarearevealedapreviouslyunknownorthogonallayoutoftheancientcity(fig.6.4).ThiscomprisedthemajorroadthatfollowsthecurveoftheCastiglionecraterinanortheast‐southwestdirection,offofwhichareanumberofperpendicularsidestreets.RecognizingtheimportofthisdiscoveryfortheunderstandingofurbanplanninginearlyRomanItaly,theprojectdesignateda1hasectorforlarge‐scaleopenexcavation(fig.6.5).ExcavationsbroughttolightevidenceofoccupationfromtheOrientalizingperiodthroughthesecondorthirdcenturiesC.E.In2009,thesitewassubdividedinto3areasofexcavation:areasA,BandC.In2011,areasDandEwereadded;areaFfollowedin2013(figs.6.6and6.7).AreaAislocatedinthenorthportionofthesite,neartheedgeofthecrater,andwasheavilydisturbedbynaturalerosionandmodernplowingactivities.Excavationquicklyexposedavastbedrocksurfacethatwascutbyhundredsofanthropicfeatures.Thepoorstateofpreservationinthisarearendersitdifficulttodiscernareliablestratigraphicsequence.However,itisclearthatthemajorityofthesecutsarerelatedtothequarryingactivitiesintheLateRepublicanandImperialperiod.TwoOrientalizingburialsafossaattesttotheuseofthisareaasaburialgroundintheseventhcentury;postholesfoundnearbymayberelatedtoacontemporaryhutfeature.655AreaBcontinuessouthofAreaA,westofasidestreetthatcontinuestothe

653Guaitoli1981a,50‐4.654MogettaandBecker2014.655BeckerandNowlin2011.

151

areaurbana.Thisareacontainedevidenceforresidentialarchitecturedatingtothethirdandsecondcenturies,butduringtheImperialperiodmostofthesestructuresweredestroyedbythequarryingactivitiesinAreaA.Followingtheabandonmentofthebuilding,theareawasusedasasmallnecropolisfromthefirsttofifthcenturiesC.E.TothewestofareasAandBisthenewlyopenedareaF,whichsofarhasrevealedevidenceformonumentalstonearchitecturedatingtothefourthorthirdcentury.Identificationofthefunctionofthebuildingremainsundeterminedandawaitsfurtherexcavation.LocatedintheeasternhalfofthesiteareAreasC,DandE.AreaCisboundedtothewestandeastbysidestreetsthatcorrespondwiththeorthogonallayoutofthecity.Thisarea,muchlikeB,preservesresidentialarchitecturedatingtothethirdandsecondcenturies.Bytheendofthesecondcenturythehousewasabandonedandthearearedevelopedforindustrialpurposes.Aseriesofdrainagechannelsandwells,aswellasavarietyofpigmentsfoundinthestratigraphicdeposits,suggestthebuildingwasusedatthistimeasafullonica.ImmediatelytothewestofCisareaD,whichpreservesthearchaicphasesofoccupationatthesite.Inthisareawerediscoveredtheremainsofastonebuiltstructure,and,inthepost‐abandonmentphasesofthisbuilding,aseriesofrock‐cuttombs.Althoughthisareawasincludedinthelaterorthogonallayoutofthecity,thereisnoevidencethatitwasdevelopedinlaterperiods.OntheothersideofareaC,totheeast,isareaE;asidestreetthatbelongstotheurbangridseparatesbothareas.AreaEconsistsofasectionofthecityblock,andsofar,excavationhasonlyuncoveredthepost‐abandonmentphasesofoccupation.6f.TheGabiiProject‐AreaDAreaDpreservesthearchaiccontextsofthesite,whichconsistprimarilyofarchitecturalandburialremainsdatingtothesixthandfifthcenturies(figs.6.8and6.9).TheevidencepresentedherewasdiscoveredoverthecourseoftheUniversityofMichigan'sexcavationsintheurbanareaduringthe2009‐2013seasons.Ihavebeeninvolvedwiththeexcavationoftheareaduringallthistime,firstin2009asavolunteer,in2010asafieldassistant,in2011asanassistanttotheareasupervisor,andin2012and2013astheareasupervisor.Excavationofthelatestphasesoccurredin2011,andincludedthediscoveryoftheburialsandthepost‐abandonmentremainsofthebuilding.In2012and2013,excavationfocusedonthephasesofoccupationofthebuilding,withaviewtodeterminingthestratigraphicrelationshipbetweenthedifferentphasesofthestructureanditsassociatedfeatures,thetombsandthemid‐republicanstreet.InthefollowsectionsIreferfrequentlytotheexcavatedstratigraphicunits(hereafter,SU),andreferthereadertotheHarrisMatrixinAppendixA.

152

GeneralDescriptionoftheExcavationoftheArea(2009­2013)Anearly1mthicklayerofcolluvialsiltcoveredallofthearchitecturalandfuneraryfeaturesinthearea.656ThefirstvisibleremainsinareaDwerediscoveredin2009,afterexcavationinwhatwasthenthewesternhalfofareaCuncoveredaportionofacurvedwallabout5mlong(SU2219),whichhassincebeenidentifiedasaportionofaprecinctwall.Excavationin2010broughttolightthefirstoftherock‐cuttombs(Tomb25),locatedapproximately6msouthwestofcurvedwall2219.Theburialcontainedtheinhumationburialsofanadultfemaleinamonolithictuffsarcophagusandamaleinasideniche.In2011theareawasreorganized,andthiswesternportionofareaC(fig.6.10)becamethecenterofthenewlycreatedareaD.Theareawasthenexpandedtothenorthandsouthtoincludeanareaofapproximately30x20m.Priortoexcavationthatyearabulldozerremovedthesamelayerofcolluvialsiltaswasremovedmanuallyin2009,andrevealedanumberoflinear,stonebuiltfeatures(SUs3014,3015,3029,3030,3031,3095and3096).Excavationbytrowelandpickaxeresumeduponthisdiscovery,andalayerofcleaning(SU3000)andalargeaccumulateddepositofmostlysilt(SU3004)wereremovedsubsequentlytodefinetheupperlimitsofthesestructures.Tomyknowledgethebulldozerdidnodamagetothestonefeaturesorthepreservedstratigraphy.Theinitialcolluviallayer,removedbybulldozerin2011,andbyhandin2009,wasdiscoveredinbothseasonstobelargelysterile.Thefirstcleaninglayer(SU3000)wasatidyingoftheworkleftbythebulldozerandcontainednosignificantdiagnosticmaterials;noneoftheseitemswereretained.Thesecondlayer(SU3004)wasmoreinformative,andcontainedavarietyofancientmaterialsrangingindatefrom900B.C.E.to100C.E.ItisworthnotingthatthemajorityoftheceramicmaterialsfromthisdepositcanbedatedtotheOrientalizingandArchaicperiods,withasignificantportionbelongingtothefifthcentury.Theseconsistprimarilyoffragmentsofimpasto.Thelinearstonefeaturesdiscoveredin2011weresubsequentlyidentifiedasthewallsofRooms1(SUs3014and3015)and2(SUs3029,3030/3095,3031/3096).Theremovalofalayerofcollapsedstonesattheeasternlimitsofthearearevealedanotherportionofastonewallthatseemedcontemporarywiththerest(SU3067)andwasconnectedtocurvedwall2219,possiblyaspartofanenclosurewall.ThewallsofRooms1and2,alongwithwalls2219and3067,werethoughttobelongtothesamephaseonthebasisoftheirlocationbeneaththesamedepositofcolluvium,theirconsistentelevation,andthesimilarityofthetechniquesusedintheirconstruction.Thisevidencealsosuggestedthat

656Thisdepositseemstohaveresultedfromthegradualaccumulationofsilt,washeddownoverthecourseofmanycenturies,fromthetopoftheCastiglionecraterintothesectoroftheurbanareaexcavatedbytheGabiiProject.Thislayercontainsrelativelyfewmaterials,althoughwhatsurvivesrerpesentsawidechronologicalrange,fromtheArchaicperiodtothemodernera.Thereisnoindicationthattherewereoncestraigraphicunitsthatwerelaterdisturbed.Eventoday,amoderaterainfallcoverstheareain5‐10cmofsilt.Thishasatendencytocomplicatethestratigraphy,anditisclearthatmanylayersblendintoothersinaccordancewiththeslopingmorphologyoftheterrain.

153

thesefeaturesbelongedtothesamebuilding.Excavationin2012and2013foundthelayersbeneaththewallstobeconsistentincompositionand/orfinds;onthebasisofceramicmaterialsfoundintheselayers,thecontemporaneityofthewallswasconfirmed.Theremovalofcolluvialdepositsacrossthesitebroughttolighttwoburialsincloseassociationwiththewalls.Thefirstwasaninfantburialinadolium(Tomb30),depositedinacutinthebedrocknorthofwall2219;thesefeaturesbearnodirectstratigraphicrelationship.Thesecondwassemi‐chambertomb1(containingTombs38,39and40),whichconsistedofarock‐cuttrenchlocatedimmediatelywestofRoom1.Thenortheastcornerofsemi‐chambertomb1truncatesthepartialcollapseofwall2219.Theremovalofthecollapsedstonesattheeasternedgeofthesitethatbroughttolightwall3067alsouncoveredtwosuccessivelayersofcompactedgravelandclay(SUs3049and3053).Theseprobablyrepresentunpavedroadsurfaces,astheypreserveadistinctN/Sorientationandhavecleareasternandwesternlimits.Indeed,theiralignmentanddimensionssupporttheresultsofthemagnetometersurveythatrevealedtheorthogonallayoutofthecity.657Onthebasisofceramicfragmentscollectedfromtheroadsurfaces,thesefeaturescanbedatedtothelatefifthorearlyfourthcentury.658Thesedataaresignificantinthattheyprovideaterminuspostquemforthereorganizationofthecity.Whatismore,thesesurfacesconfirmtheonlystratigraphicrelationshipbetweenthearchaicandrepublicanlevelsofoccupationatthesite.659Beneaththelowestcourseofroadpreparation(SU3053)wasthefillofthesecondsemi‐chambertomb.Thereisnodirectrelationshipbetweenwall3067andtheroadsurfaces,althoughbothfeaturesseemtopreservethesameorientation.Thissuggeststhattheconstructionoftheroadobservedthearchaicwall.Whethertherepublicanroadorwall3067followanearlierorientationisunknownandawaitsfurtherexcavationonsite.In2012,thesouthlimitsoftheexcavationwereextendedby10m.Abulldozerremovedthesamelevelofcolluvialsiltasinpreviousseasonsanduncoveredaseriesoffeatures,allofwhichawaitfurtherexcavation.Inthesoutheastcorneroftheareawasarobberpit

657MogettaandBecker2014;Beckeretal.2011.658MogettaandBecker2014,179.TheevidenceforthedatingofthestreetsystemcomesfromRoad1,theN/SroadbetweenareasCandD.Duringtheearliestphasesofitsconstruction,theroadwascutintothebedrockinordertocompensatefortheslopingterrain;thesecutstruncateearlierdeposits,which,onthebasisofimpastopotteryrecoveredintheselayers,datetothesixthcenturyB.C.E.Wheelrutsvisibleonthebedrocksurfaceindicatethattheroadwasunpavedatthisstage.Oncetheserutshadbecometoodeep,thesurfacewasraisedbypackingsuccessivelayersofgravelandclay.Theselayerscontainceramicmaterialsdatingasearlyasthefifthandfourthcenturies;inparticular,theycontainfragmentsofvernicerossaopaca,adiagnosticcategoryofmaterialcommoninthelatefifthandearlyfourthcentury.InareaD,thebestevidenceforthedateisthefillofthesecondchambertomb,whichpredatestheroad,andincludesmaterials,mostlyimpasto,datedtothemid‐fifthcentury(personalcommunicationwithMarcelloMoggetta).659MogettaandBecker2014.

154

datedfrom140to200C.E.Inthesamecorner,tothewestoftherobberpitwasdiscoveredasecondchildburialafossa(Tomb48).ThestratigraphicrelationshipofthesefeaturestotherestofareaDisatthemomentunclear.Inthesouthwestcornerwasdiscoveredawallimmediatelybeneaththelayerofcolluvium(SU3237).Itbearsanorthwest/southeastorientation;immediatelysouthofthiswallisathirdjuvenileburial(Tomb49),aninfantinadolium.Thesefeatures,too,awaitexcavation.Overall,excavationin2011and2012concentratedonthephasesofoccupationinandaroundRooms1and2ofthebuilding.Bytheendof2013excavationhadreachedtheLateOrientalizingphasesofthesite,and,whileexcavationofthesephasescontinuedin2013,theywillnotbeunderdiscussionhere.6g.ChronologyThematerialsrecoveredoverthecourseoffiveseasonsofstratigraphicexcavationdatetheoccupationofareaDsecurelytotheArchaicperiod.Onthebasisofthesefindsitispossibletoestablishageneralchronologicalsequence.Whatfollowsarethemainphasesandthekeyfeaturesassociatedwiththem.1.Lateseventhtoearlysixthcentury:possiblyTomb30(infantindolium).6602.Earlytomid‐sixthcentury:firstphaseofstoneconstructioninareaD.EarliestphaseofRoom2ofthearchaicbuilding(walls3029,3030and3031).Circularfeature3064constructed.EvidenceforburningactivityinareaofRoom1(butbeforetheconstructionofthewalls).4.Mid‐tolatesixthcentury:masonryconstructionreachesgreatestextent.SecondphaseofconstructioninRoom2;northandeastwallsinRoom2rebuilt(3095and3096);northandwestwallsofRoom1constructed(3014and3015);curvedwall2219andwall3067constructed;circularfeature3064reconstructed;circularfeature3076constructed.Bytheendofthisphase,theentirebuildingwasabandonedordestroyed.5.Latesixthtomid‐fifthcentury:theareaisusedasaburialground.Adultinhumationburialsappearinnorthernhalfofsite,includingTombs25(tuffsarcophagus),andTombs38‐41(semi‐chambertombs1and2).Atleastonejuvenileburial(Tomb48).6.Latefifthtoearlyfourthcentury:constructionofroadorsidestreetineasternportionofthearea,probablyaspartofreorganizationofthecity;roadcoverssemi‐chambertomb2.6h.FeaturesofAreaD:TheArchaicBuildingInthefollowingsectionIpresentadetaileddescriptionofthevariousarchitecturalfeaturesinareaD,andofferinterpretationsoftheevidence.

660Thisis,strictlyspeakingtheLateOrientalizingperiod,whichisstillbeingexcavated,withplanstotocontinuein2014.MogettaandBecker(2014)speculatethatTomb30wasassociatedwiththisphase,butitisequallypossiblethatitisassociatedwithlaterphasesofoccupation.

155

Room1Room1referstothenorthernmost"room"inareaD.TheboundariesofRoom1aredelimitedtothenorthandwestbywallsoftuff.Thefirstwall(3014)hasaW/Eorientation,andmeasures2.7mx0.42m,whilethesecond(3015)runsN/Sandmeasures3.33x0.56m.ThereisnoevidencethatthisstructureconnectedtoRoom2;theabsenceofwallsalongthesouthandeastsidessuggeststhattheroomwasopeninboththesedirections.661Itispossible,however,thatwalls(whetherofstoneorsomeotherperishablematerial)existedalongthesesidesbutweresubsequentlyremovedordecomposed.ThestratigraphicsequenceoftheArchaicperiodintheeasternandsouthernportionsoftheroomrevealsaseriesoflayersthatseemtoobservesomelinearboundarythatisnolongerextant.Thisisperhapsbestindicatedbyabeatenearthfloorsurface(SU3044)ofRoom1,whichcorrespondsroughlytotheareadelimitedbytheroom(seebelow).Areconstructionoftheroom,usingwalls3014and3015asthenorthandwestboundaries,andthelimitssuggestedbythedepositsalongtheeastandsouthsides,suggestthatRoom1haddimensionsofapproximately5x6m.Atthesametimeasthesewallswereconstructed,asquareblockofworkedtuffwasplacedinthecenteroftheroom,andmayhavefunctionedasthefoundationforapostsupportingaroof.Thispilasterpreservesanotablealignmentwiththelimitsofbothwalls.Itisroughlyinalignmentwiththeeasternlimitofwall3014andcorrespondspreciselytoagapinwall3015.Itispossiblethatthisgaprepresentsanentrance,andthepilasterisinthelineofsightofthisentryway.Itisequallypossible,however,thataportionofwall3015ismissing.Acompactlayerofredsilt(3044)abuttingbothwallsofRoom1andthepilasterconnectsthesefeaturestothesamephaseofoccupation.Thislayerlikelyrepresentsabeatenearthfloor,anditcorrespondstothearearoughlydelimitedbyRoom1.TheceramicmaterialsrecoveredinthislayerdatetheconstructionofthefloorandthewallsofRoom1fromthemid‐tolatesixthcentury.ThestratigraphicsequencebeneaththelayersassociatedwiththemonumentalconstructionofRoom1suggeststhattheareawasthesiteofapreexistingstructure,oratleastthelocusofsomeactivity,perhapsinassociationwiththeearlierphasesofRoom2.Althoughmanyoftheselayersaredifficulttointerpret,theyclearlyadheretothesameboundariesassuggestedbythewallsofRoom1,especiallytowardtheeast.ThissuggeststhattherewasanearlierstructurethathadaneastwallmoreorlesswheretheeastwallofRoom1mayhavebeen(iftherewasone),andanorthwallthatcorrespondstothenorthwall(3014)ofRoom1.Thereisgoodindicationthatmanyofthesedepositsarerelatedtoburningactivity.Aftertheremovaloffloor3044,twosiltylayersofaccumulation(SUs3063and3070)wereexcavated;theeasternextentofthesedepositswaslinear,suggestingthatsomefeature,nolongerextant,delimitedboththeselayers.Notable,too,isthefactthatthesedepositsdisappearedbeneaththewalls3014and3015,althoughtowhatextentis

661MogettaandBecker2014,177.

156

unknownsincetheremovalofthewallsisnotpermittedbytheSAR.BeneaththesetwodepositswereSUs3139,3140and3141,threeidenticalredsiltylayersthatpreservedaconcentrationofdisintegratedwattleanddaub;someoftheceramicfragmentsfromtheselayersseemtohavebeenburnedbyfire.AnevenhigherconcentrationofburnedmaterialwasfoundinalayerdirectlybelowSU3139,andpossiblyrepresentedafirepit.Thispit(SU3142)containedsomeburnedbonesandceramics.Inthecenterofthedepositwasatruncatedvesselwhosesideswereexposedtofire;thisvesselseemstohavebeenreusedasacookingstand,andthedepositmaybeahearth.Theceramicmaterialsrecoveredfromthesedepositsdatethisburningactivityanywherefrom600‐500B.C.E.,buttheirpositionbeneaththefloorsRoom1indicatesaphaseofactivitypriortotheroom'sconstruction,possiblyinthefirsthalfofthesixthcentury.Room2So‐calledRoom2representstheearliestphasesofmonumentalconstructionrecoveredthusfarinareaD.662Theroomisdefinedbythreelinearwalls.Thewesternwall(3029)preservesaN/Sorientation,andmeasures3.03x0.56m.Thenorthernwall(3030)hasaW/Ealignment,andmeasures3.78x0.54m.Theeasternwall(3031)hasaN/Sorientationandmeasures1.78x0.62m.Thesouthlimitsoftheroomhavenotbeenidentified;thesouthernportionofthewestwallappearstobemissing,whilethesameportionoftheeasternwallwastruncatedbyamoderndrainagechannel(SU3173).Thisdrainagechannelseemstohaveobscuredthesouthernlimitsoftherestoftheroom.AseriesofbeatenearthfloorswereexcavatedinthenorthernhalfofRoom2,whichmaybeassociatedwiththisinitialphaseofstoneconstruction.Theremainsaredifficulttointerpret,however,asonlysomesurfacesbearadirectrelationshipwiththewalls.ThemainsurfaceappearstobeayellowpavementlocatedinthenorthernhalfofRoom2(SU3136);thelimitsofthesurfacedonotabutthewall.Thepavementsinksinthecenter,possiblyfollowinganaturaldepressioninthissectorofthearea.Thisyellowsurfacecoversslightlyasecondfloorinthenortheastcorneroftheroom.Thissurface,ared,clayeydeposit,continuesbeneaththewallsofthesecondphase,SUs3095and3096.Although3144representsaneventseparatefromandpriorto3136,thedirectstratigraphicrelationshipbetweenthemandtheconsistencyoftheceramicmaterialsrecoveredfromthem(mostlyimpasto),suggestthattheyareroughlycontemporary.Theceramicmaterialsrecoveredfromtheyellowpavement3136datefrom600‐550B.C.E.;thoseinthepavement3144datefrom650‐550B.C.E.Thatfloor3144continuesbeneathwalls3095and3096suggeststhatwhenRoom2wasfirstconstructed,thelimitsinthenortheastcornerdifferedfromthoseestablishedduringthesubsequentphaseofconstruction.ThewallsandsurfacesofRoom2underwentasecondphaseofconstructionthatwasprobablycontemporaneouswiththeconstructionofRoom1.Thenorthandeastwalls

662Room2hasevidenceforanearlierphaseofoccupationthatpredatesthemonumentalconstructionofthecomplex.TheresultsareinpartpublishedinMogettaandBecker(2014),buttheareaalsoawaitsfurtherexcavation.

157

seemtohavebeenaddedinthenortheastcorneroftheroom.Thenorthwall(3095)hasanE/Worientationandabutswall3030.Itmeasures1.26x0.55m.Theeastwall(3096)preservesaN/Salignment,andisseparatedfrom3031byasmallgapthatmayhavebeencausedbynaturalerosion.Theextantstructuremeasures2.34x0.82m.Theroominthisphasemayhavereachedanextentof6x8m,basedonthealignmentofthewestwallswithacircularpitlocatedfurthertothesouth,tobediscussedbelow.663Thefloorsurfacesrelatedtothislaterphaseofoccupationdemonstratethesamecomplexrelationshipasinthepreviousphase.Threeredclayeydeposits(SUs3074,3075and3094)abutthelaterphasesofthewalls,andlikelyrepresentthesameconstructionevent.SU3094islocatedinthenorthwestcornerandbearsadirectrelationshiptowalls3029and3030;itcoverstheearlierpavement(3136).Floors3074and3075bearadirectrelationshiptothewallsbelongingofthelaterphasesofconstructioninRoom2:3074abutsboth3095and3096,while3075abuts3096.Acentralyellowpavement(SU3092)mayalsobeconnectedwiththisphase.ThesurfacebearsnodirectrelationshiptothelatestcoursesofthewallsofRoom2(3095and3096),butitdoesabutbothwalls3029and3031.Itislocateddirectlybeneath3094,whichsuggeststhatthepavementmaypredateslightlytheredsurfacesaddedinthecornersoftheroom.Theceramicsrecoveredfromthesesurfaces,however,indicateadateofoccupationforthisphaseoftheroominthemid‐tolatesixthcentury.InSU3094,inthenorthwestcorneroftheroom,asmallvesselwasdiscoveredverticallydepositedintothefloorsurface(fig.6.11).Thejarwasmadeofimpastoanddiscoveredcutinhalfhorizontally,perhapsbywhateverforcesrazedthebuilding.Theextantlowerhalfcontainedtheskeletalremainsofaturtleandaspindlewhorl.Thevesselseemstohavefunctionedasaritualdepositinassociationwiththemonumentalconstructionofthebuilding.TheplacementofthisjarinthecornerofRoom2isclearlyintentional,andlikelysymbolicoftheconstructionactivitiesthattookplacehere.Theintentionaldepositionofjarsinconnectionwiththefoundationorreconstructionofresidentialcontextsisattestedatotherarchaicsites,especiallyintheEtruscanworld.664Inthesecontexts,thematerialfindsaregenerallyconnectedtothefunctionsintherealmofwomen,consistingmostlyofloomweightsandspindlewhorls.Thisisthoughttoindicatethecontrolofwomenoverthedomesticsphereanditsrelatedactivities.HearthAsmall,circularpitislocatedinthesouthwestcorneroftheareaandmayhavefunctionedasahearth(3064).Thepitislinedwithverticallyalignedslabsoftuff,andmeasures1.2x1.26m,withadepthof0.4m.Theinteriorsidesoftheslabsoftuffshowtracesofburning.ThefilloftheareaDfeature,however,producednodiagnosticfinds.

663MogettaandBecker,2014.664MogettaandBecker2014,177;Baglioneetal.2010;Gusberti2007‐2008,648.

158

ThisfeaturemayprovideasuitableboundaryforthesouthernportionofRoom2,intheabsenceofanywallsbelongingtothesouthernportionofthebuilding.665ThisisbasedlargelyonthealignmentofthepitwiththewesternwallofRoom2,andthesimilarelevationsofbothfeatures(3064hasaminimum/maximumelevationof61.040/61.131;3029preserves61.34/61.35).Thefeatureseemstohavebeeninuseduringbothphasesoftheoccupationofthebuilding.Thelowestlayersabuttingthestructurerangeindatefrom729‐550B.C.E,suggestingthepitwasfirstconstructedalongwithRoom2.Thestructureappearstohavebeenpartiallyreconstructedinthesecondphaseofconstruction;somestoneswereaddedatthistime.TheoriginalconstructionofthefeaturemayevenpredatethatofRoom2.Semi­CircularFeatureWestofRooms1and2isasemi‐circularfeature,consistingofacutintothesoillinedwithrubbleandslabsoftuff(3076).Thefillofthepitcontainedseveralirregularslabsoftuffthatlikelyrepresenttheremainsofthepartialcollapseofthestructure.Thefunctionofthispitisundetermined,butiscontemporarywiththelaterphaseofoccupationofbothrooms.Thematerialsrecoveredfromthefillarefewandoffernoindicationregardingtheuseofthisfeature.Thematerialsareratherundatable,andofferonlyarangeof800‐500B.C.E.forthedateofthestructure.ThestructuresharesasimilaralignmenttothewallsinRoom1,andmayhavebeencontemporary.EnclosureWallThecurvedwalltothenorthofRoom1(2219)isthoughttocorrespondtoasecondwallalongtheeasternlimitofthearea(3067),andtogetherthesewallsarebelievedtorepresentatypeofprecinctorretainingwallthatenclosesRooms1and2.666Thisconclusionisbasedprimarilyonthefactthattheprecinctwallsandtheroomsarearrangedalongthesamealignment,andallfeatureswerebuiltusingthesametechniquesofconstruction.However,thereisnodirectstratigraphicrelationshiptoconfirmtheconnectionbetweenwalls2219and3067,noristhereanydirectevidencethateitherofthesewallscanbeconnectedtotherooms.Wall2219iscurvedandhasaW/Eorientation;itmeasures6minlength.Wall3067hasaN/Sorientationandmeasures4.87x0.6m.Bothwallsareconstructedofirregularslabsoftuffwithsomemortar,similartotheotherarchaicfeaturesonsite.Twolayerscontinuebeneathwall2219,butthematerialsfoundwithinthemwereprovidenoreliabledate;thesecondoftheselayerssitsatopthebedrockthatdominatesthenorthernhalfofthesite.Theeasternlimitofwall3067sharesaboundarywiththewesternlimitofthecutofsemi‐chambertomb2.Theconstructionofthetombdidnotdestroythewall,butseemstohavebeenconstructedinclosealignmentwithit.Thewesternnicheofthechambertombwas

665MogettaandBecker2014,177.666MogettaandBecker2014,177.

159

carvedintothebedrockdirectlybeneaththewall,effectivelyunderminingthestabilityofbothfeatures.Overthecourseoftheexcavationofthetomb,aportionofthewallhadtoberemoved,asitwasonthevergeofsubsidingintothefillofthetomb.Itwasnotpossibletodetermineastratigraphicrelationshipbetween3067andthesemi‐chambertomb.TomyknowledgethereisnoevidenceforthiskindofcurvingenclosurewallinRomeorLatium.TheclosestcomparandumcomesfromtheIronAgestructuresatOroposinGreece,wheretherearetheremainsofa28mlongapsidalwall(fig.6.12).667Thewallislargelyrectilinear,followingaN/Sdirection,andatthenorthendcurveswestintoanapse,whereitcomestoanend.Mazarakis‐Ainianwasunabletodeterminewhetherthiswallcouldbeassociatedwithabuilding,sincethepresumedwesternportionofthewallwasnotidentified.Hesuggestsitmayhavebeeninsteadaretainingwallthatborderedthewestsideofastreetorriverbed.InItaly,theextantexamplesofenclosurewallsarerectangularinplanandassociatedwithbuildingsofvariousfunctions.AtMegaraHyblaeainSicily,enclosurewallsoftendelimitpropertiesduringtheseventhcentury(fig.6.13).668ThenearestexamplegeographicallycomesfromthebuildingknownasedificobetafromthesiteofPiandiCivitainTarquinia.669Inthemid‐seventhcentury,precinctwallsofstonewereaddedaroundthepreexistingstructure;theenclosuremeasuresapproximately15x25m(fig.6.14).Archaeologistsbelievetheconstructionoftheprecinctwallmarksthesacredorinstitutionalizedcharacterofthebuilding;itisnotidentifiedasaresidentialbuilding.670AsecondEtruscanexamplecomesfromthesiteofRoselle,andconsistsofarectangularstructureandenclosurewallfoundbeneaththeremainsofthelaterRomanForum.671Thebuildingdatestothesecondquarteroftheseventhcentury.Ithasastonefoundationthatprobablysupportedmudbrickwallsandathachedroof.Theinteriorofthebuildingwascircular,withplasterwallsandbeaten‐earthfloors.Arectangularenclosureofmudbricksurroundedtheentirebuildingandwasdividedintotwopartsatthefrontandback.Thefunctionofthebuildingisunknown.Materialsassociatedwithdomesticcontexts,includingfragmentsofpottery,loomweights,spindlewhorlsandanimalbones,werefoundinassociationwithboththebuildingandtheenclosure,whichsuggestthebuildingwasusedasaresidence.However,somescholarsbelievethelargeenclosurepointstothebuilding'spublicfunctionandsuggestitmayhavebeenasanctuaryorcultsite.672Theabsenceofahearthwithinthebuildingandthepresenceofoneintherearenclosuremaypointtothesacredfunctionofthebuilding.However,theevidenceisinconclusive,andtheentire

667PersonalcommunicationwithMarcelloMogetta.MazarakisAinian(1997,47‐8)datestheapsidalwallatOroposfromtheninthtotheseventhcenturies.668DeAngelis2003,17‐39.669BonghiJovinoandTreré,eds.1997,179‐81.670BonghiJovinoandTreré,eds.1997,220.Thisphaseofthebuildingmaybeconnectedtorichvotivedepositsthatpointtothekindofritualbehaviorassociatedwithcultactivity.671DamgaardAndersen1997,363‐5;Canocchi1980;Roselle21‐33.672EspeciallyColonna1985,53‐7;Izzet(2007,127‐8)providesarecentsummaryoftheevidence.

160

compoundappearstohavebeendestroyedbyfireinthelastquarteroftheseventhcentury.InterpretationRooms1and2arethoughttorepresentthearchitecturalremainsofanarchaicbuilding,surroundedbyenclosurewalls2219and3067.673Thisinterpretationisbasedonseveralfactors.First,theapplicationofthesametypeoftechniqueofstonemasonryintheconstructionofthewalls.Thisinvolvedarrangingslabsorblocksoftuffintoirregularcourseswithsomemortar.Second,theconsistentNE/SWorientationofRooms1,2andtheprecinctwalls.ThisalignmentisespeciallyapparentwhencontrastedwiththemorestrictlyN/Sorientationimposedbytheorthogonalgridinthelatefifthorearlyfourthcentury.Third,theconsistencyintypeanddateoftheceramicmaterialsrecoveredfromthelayersofoccupationassociatedwiththesestructures.ItappearsthatthebuildingunderwenttwophasesofconstructionoverthecourseoftheArchaicperiod.Thefirstphasetookplaceintheearlytomid‐sixthcenturywiththeconstructionofRoom2;walls3029,3030and3031representtheearliestsequenceofstoneconstruction.Thesecondphaseoccurredinthemid‐tolatesixthcenturyandwitnessedthereconstructionofRoom2(walls3095and3096wereaddedto3030and3031,respectively),andtheconstructionofRoom1(walls3014and3015)andtheenclosurewalls(2219and3067).Oneoftwocircularfeatures(3064)wasinitiallyconstructedandprobablyfunctionedasahearth;itappearstohavebeenreusedandreconstructedinthesecondphaseoftheoccupationofthebuilding.Thesecondcircularfeature(SU3076)isofundeterminedfunctionandisassociatedwiththesecondphaseofthebuilding.Towardtheendofthesixthcenturyandthebeginningofthefifth,thebuildingfelloutofuse.Thereisevidencethroughoutthesitethatsomeofthewallshadpartiallycollapsed,includingwalls2219and3067.Thecollapseofwall2219(SU3012)abutswall3014andiscutinthesoutheastcornerbytheconstructionofsemi‐chambertomb1.Basedonthedirectionoftheslopeofthelayer,thedistributionofthedeposit,andthesizeoftheslabsoftuff,thislayerseemstorepresentthecollapsedmaterialof2219asopposedto3014.Asecondlayerofcollapse(SU3054),locatedbeneaththefirst(SU3012),hasnoconnectiontothetombcutandseemstorepresentanearlierphaseofthedisintegrationofthewall,whichpredatestheconstructionofthetomb.Thematerialsrecoveredfromboththeselayersincludemostlyfragmentsofimpasto,whichcanonlygenerallydatetheseeventsfrom900‐500B.C.E.Wall3067wasdiscoveredpartiallycoveredalongitswesternlimitbyalayeroftuffstonesthatseemtorepresentthedisruptionofthewall(SU3022).Thislayerofcollapsebearsnorelationshiptothesecondchambertomb,constructedinclosealignmentwiththeeasternlimitofwall3067.Thematerialsrecoveredfromthelayersofcollapsedwalls,andfrom

673MogettaandBecker2014,177.

161

thosedepositscoveringthecollapse,donotprovideaprecisedateforthefallofthebuilding.Thesedataconsistmainlyoffragmentsimpastopottery,largestoragevesselsandbucchero,whichofferonlyawiderangeofdates,fromabout900‐500B.C.E.Itisworthnoting,however,thatthedatablematerialsfromthesecontextsbelongedtotheendofthesixthcentury.Onthesegrounds,andwiththesupportofthestratigraphicsequence,itispossibletosuggestthatthebuildingfelloutofusetowardtheendofthesixthcentury,andwasdestroyedorcollapsedshortlythereafter.Theorganizationofthebuildingseemstohavemimickedthelayoutofanearlierhut;theevidenceforthehutphaseofoccupationispreliminary,however,andawaitsfurtherexcavationinthe2014season.Attheveryleast,thispointstocontinuityintheuseofthearea,whichfindscomparisonwithothersitesatRomeandLatium(seebelowforfurtherdiscussion).ReconstructionTheextantportionsofthewallsinareaDdonotstandveryhigh,consistingonlyofafewcoursesofstonethatwereprobablyquarriedfromnearby.Itispossiblethattherewereonceadditionalcoursesofstones,whichweresubsequentlyremoved,destroyedorlefttodecayandcollapse.Inseveralcasesthereisevidencethatthewallsweregreaterthantheirextantheight.Thevariouslayersofcollapseallcontaintuffslabsthatarethesametypeandsizeasusedintheconstructionofthewalls.Inthecaseofthecollapseofwall3031,thetuffslabswerediscoveredverticallydepositedintheground,suggestingtheyhadfallenfromsomeheight.Itisdifficulttodetermineonthebasisoftheseremainshowtallthewallswereoriginally.Theso‐calledRegiaexcavatedbytheSARontheacropolisatGabiipreservesabuildingwithseveralcoursesofstonemasonry,whichindicatesthiswaswithintherealmofpossibilityfortheinhabitantsofareaD.674Itseemsmorelikely,however,thatthestonesoftheareaDbuildingservedasafoundationforasuperstructureofclay.Thisseemsparticularlytrueoftheearliestphaseofthebuilding.Immediatelyoutsidethenortheastcorner,beneaththereconstructedportionofthenorthwallofroom2(wall3095),wasadepositcontaininghighconcentrationsofburntmaterial,includingwattleanddaub.Alternately,thestonefoundationsmayhavesupportedasuperstructureofwoodenbeamswitharubblefilling,butthereisnogoodevidenceforthis.675Theabsenceoftilesfromthiscontextsupportsthehypothesisthatthefirstphaseofthebuildingwasconstructedlargelyofimpermanentmaterials.Theroofismoredifficulttoreconstruct.Someofthedepositsidentifiedasthecollapsedremainsofwallscontainfragmentsoftileofthekindthatmayhavebeenusedforroofingduringthesecondphaseofthebuilding.Thefrequencyoftiledepositsinallcontextsassociatedwiththewalls,however,awaitsfurtherstudy.Atthemomentitispossibletosuggesttentativelythattheroofwasconstructedoftile,butitisequallylikelythatit

674Fabbrietal.2010.675Cifani1995,186‐90.BothtypesofconstructionareattestedatRomeandLatiumduringtheseventhandsixthcenturies.

162

consistedofimpermanentmaterials,suchasthatching.676Theabsenceoftilesindepositsassociatedwiththeearlierphasesofthebuildingsuggeststhestructureatthistimesupportedathatchedroof.Insomecasesitseemsthattheextantportionsofthewallswerevisibleatthetimethetombswereconstructedinthelatesixthtomid‐fifthcenturies.Inthenorthernhalfofthearea,thecutofsemi‐chambertomb1truncateslayersofcollapseassociatedwithwalls2219,3014and3015,revealingthatthesewallshadpartiallyfallenbeforetheconstructionofthetomb.Inallcasesthesewerecovereddirectlybycleaninglayer3004,suggestingthatthetombconstructionwasthefinaleventtooccurinthearea,andthisdeposit,inadditiontothethicklayeroftopsoilaboveit,contributedtothepreservationofthewalls.Itisnotpossibletodeterminethevisibilityofenclosurewall3067atthetimeoftheconstructionofsemi‐chambertomb2.Althoughthewallwascoveredbyalayerofcollapseprobablybelongingtothesamewall,thisdeposithasnodirectrelationshiptothetombcut.Boththecollapseandwall3067werecoveredby3004,whilethefillofthesemi‐chambertombwascoveredbytheroadconstructedinthelatefifthorearlyfourthcentury.Thisstratigraphicsequence,inadditiontothesituationwithsemi‐chambertomb1,makesitpossibletosuggestthatallthewallshadpartiallyfallenataboutthesametime,andthatafterthis,thetombswereconstructed.Theceramicmaterialsrecoveredfromthelayersofcollapsearenotespeciallyinformativewithregardtodating,astheydatefrom900‐500B.C.E.Thematerialsfromthefillofthetombrangeanywherefrom900‐400B.C.E.,suggestingthattheconstructionofthetombspost‐datestheoccupationofthebuilding;determiningtheprecisesequencebetweenthecollapseoftheremainingwallsofthebuildingandtheconstructionofthetombs,atleastinthecaseofsemi‐chambertomb2andthemonolithicsarcophagus,isdifficult.DiscussionTheareaDbuildingaddstothebodyofevidenceforstone‐builtarchitectureintheArchaicperiod.ThemethodusedforbuildingthewallsfromslabsoftuffisattestedinRomeandLatiumbeginningintheseventhcentury,althoughexamplesaremorecommonlyidentifiedinthesixth.677AtRome,thistypeofmasonryisfoundinthesecondphaseofthefortificationwallonthePalatine(c.700/675‐580B.C.E.).678Itismorecommonlyattested,however,inseveralsixth‐centurybuildingsidentifiedasresidences,includingthefirstphaseoftheAuditorium,679Torrino,680AcquaAcetosaLaurentina,681Lavinium682andSatricum.683Arelatedformofstonemasonry,operaquadrata,consistsofconstructionof

676Cifani1995,190‐2;Gjerstad1953,139,fig.130.677Cifani1995;1998;2008.678Carandini1990,161.679Terrenato2001.680Bedini1984.681Bedini1981.682Guaitoli1981c,287.683Maaskant‐Kleibrink1987,105.

163

squaredstoneblocks,andappearsatthesametimeintheconstructionofanumberofbuildingsthroughoutthearea.ThistechniqueisusedinthesecondphaseoftheRegia,684andthebuildingnearthetempleofAntoninusandFaustina.685Overthecourseofthesixthcentury,operaquadrataisappliedtotheconstructionofso‐calledpublicbuildings,inathirdphaseofthewallonthePalatine,686intheearlyphasesofthetempleatS.Omobono,687thetempleofCapitolineJupiter688andthetempleoftheDioscuri;689inLatium,examplesincludethecircuitwallsatLavinium.690Thesixthcenturyalsowitnessedtheuseofoperaquadratainwhathavebeenidentifiedasdomesticcontexts.ThearchaicresidencefromtheSacraViaatRomeisonesuchexample.691Whileitisdifficulttoquantifythecostassociatedwithstonearchitecture,itispossibletoobtainageneralideaoftheresourcesrequiredforthiskindofconstruction.Allstagesintheconstructionofsuchbuildingsinvolvedaseriesofspecialiststhatsuggestssomesortoforganizedsystemofhumanlabor.692Theprocessbeganwiththeextractionofmaterials.Thequarryingoftuff,whichoftenoccurredlocally,mayhaveinvolvedtwotothreeindividualsandasystemofleversandrollers.Beastsofburdenandplanksorboatsmayhavebeenrequiredforthetransportationofthesematerialsfromthesourcetothelocationofconstruction.Ifclaywasrequired,aswasoftenthecaseforthemudbricksuperstructuresofmanyLatinhouses,itwouldalsoneedtobecollected,and,dependingonitsquality,furtherprocessedbytheadditionofstraworothermaterials.Theclaywouldthenbedriedintobricksthattypicallyrangedinsizefrom4to20kgperm3;thebrickswouldthenneedtobedried.ModernscholarsconnecttheadoptionofstonebuiltarchitectureinRomeandLatiumtothemorewidespreadphenomenonofmonumentalizationincentralItaly.ScholarsofEtruscanantiquityhavedocumentedtheadoptionofmonumentalformsofconstructioninsettlementandfunerarycontextsduringtheOrientalizingperiod;inRomeandLatiumtheprocessappearstohavebegunbytheendoftheseventhcentury,andbecomemorediffuseoverthecourseofthesixth.Asaresult,ourunderstandingoftheprocessthatledtotheuseofstonemasonryinRomeandLatiumisheavilyindebtedtostudiesofEtruscancontexts.ScholarsofEtruscanantiquityusethetermmonumentalization,andrelatedterminology,includingmonumentalandmonumentality,torefertotheprocesswherebystructuresareconstructedonalargescale,makeuseofdurablematerialsandhaveelaboratedecorative

684Brown1974,21‐6.685Gjerstad1953,133,fig.129.686Carandini1990,161.687Colonna1991.688Gjerstad1960,168.689NielsenandPoulsen,eds.1992,61.690Guaitoli1984,370.691GRT4.2,97‐99.692Cifani2008,240‐5.

164

programs.693Inmorebluntterms,thetermmonumentalisappliedtothosestructuresthatarebuiltofstone,areconsiderablylargerthancontemporaryexamples,andcontainsomeevidenceofpainteddecoration,usuallyintheformofarchitecturalterracottas.ThetermisprimarilyappliedtothetumulustombsoftheOrientalizingperiod,suchasthoseatCerveteri,694andtheso‐calledpalazzi(monumentalcomplexes)oftheOrientalizingandArchaicperiods,suchasZoneFatAcquarossa(fig.6.15)andthearchaiccomplexatMurlo(6.16).695Thechambertombsarecarvedintostone,mayhavemorethanonechamber,aresometimessurmountedbyatumulus,areoftenadornedwithpainteddecorationandusuallyincludearichsetofgravegoods.BothbuildingsatAcquarossaandMurlohaveacentralcourtyardwithatleasttwowingsofrooms,stonefoundationsandtiledroofs,alargesizeincomparisontoothercontemporaneousstructuresandelaboratedecorativeprograms.Themonumentalconstructionofboththetumuliandpalazziiswidelythoughttobetheinitiativeofthearistocraticelite.Inthefirstplace,thisgroupseemsthemostcapableofcontrollingtheeconomicandhumanresourcesrequiredforstoneconstructioninpreindustrialsocieties.696InEtruscancontexts,itisdifficulttodeterminepreciselywhothesearistocraticelitewere,butmanyscholarsaccept,onthebasisoftheevidencefromthegravesandresidences,thattheywerepettykingsortheleaderofsomekindofgens‐likegroup.697Thishasledtotheidentificationofmanytumuliasso‐calledprincelytombs(tombeprincipesche),andthebuildingsasthepalaces(orpalazzi)oftherulingelite.698Theconnectionbetweenelitepatronageandmonumentalresidencesrestsonmultiplelinesofevidence.699First,theuseofstonemasonryintheconstructionofthesebuildingsmarksasignificantdeparturefromthedwellingsofearlierperiods.AtbothAcquarossaandMurlothereisevidenceforearlierstructuresofmoremodestmeans.Theredevelopmentofthesespacesonagranderscaleatteststotheuseoftechnicalinnovation.Second,theuseofdecorativeprogramsisthoughttocommemoratethesourceofpowerorinfluenceoftheownerorresidentsoftheproperty.Bothsiteshaveevidenceofrichdecoration,includingacroterialsculptures,friezeplaques,andarchitecturalantefixesandsimas.700Third,thecombinedaspectsofsize,masonryanddecorationlikelyensuredthecontinuedvisibilityof

693Meyers2012;Izzet2007,143‐64.694Linington1980.695Auditorium:Carandinietal.1997.Acquarossa:Östenberg1975.Murlo:Phillips1993.696Thismayfindsupportinethnographicstudies.Colantoni(2012)appliesthismethodologyinheranalysisofthetransitionofimpermanenthutstostonehousesatSatricum.697Riva(2010,1‐10)summarizestheconcensusinmodernscholarshipregardingthesocialandpoliticalorganizationofIronageEtruriaandcriticizesthisview.698Riva(2010)mostrecentlychallengestheprincelyinterpretationofthewealthytumulusburialsoftheOrientalizingperiod.Smith(2006,150‐3)pointsouttheproblemswithWaarsenburg's(1995)interpretationofthetumuliatSatricumasprincelyburials.699Meyers2012.700Murlo:Phillips1985.Acquarossa:Östenberg1975.

165

thesebuildings.Thisvisibilitymayhavehadacommemorativefunction,tocommunicatethestatusofthepatronsofthebuildingmorewidelythroughoutEtruscansociety.Inotherwords,thebuildings,whichwerelocatedinsettlements,mayhavereachedabroaderaudiencethantombs,whichweresituatedinmoredistantcemeteries.Thesebuildings,then,areconsideredmonumentalsincetheymakeuseofdurability,visibilityandcommemorationinsuchawaythatreinventstheuseandexperienceofcontemporaryarchitecture.701Consequently,theclosestcomparandafortheearliestarchaeologicaldiscoveriesofstonearchitectureinRomeandLatiumweretheseexamplesofelitearchitectureinEtruria.Theappearanceofstone‐builtcircuitwalls,temples,publicbuildingsandprivateresidencesbytheendoftheseventhcenturyinRomeandLatiumseemedtosuggestthatthelocaleliteswerebehavinginamannersimilartotheirEtruscanneighbors,andadoptedmethodsofstonemasonryintheconstructionofanumberofprominentbuildings.AtRome,however,monumentalizationtookonaparticularlycivicaspect,asthemajorityofstonebuildingsseemtohavebeendesignedforpublicbenefit,suchastemplesandwalls,ratherthanresidentialuse.702Asaresult,monumentalizationinRomeiscloselytiedtourbanization,wherebytheconstructionofthesestonebuildingsisseenasahallmarkofthefoundationofanddevelopmentofthecity.703Thisfindssomesupportintheancientaccounts,whichdocumentthephysicalandinstitutionaldevelopmentsatRomeduringtheregalperiod.Consequently,manyoftheexamplesofpublicarchitecture,includingthecircuitwallsandtemples,aregenerallyattributedtothebuildingprojectsoftheTarquinsandServiusTullius.704Withregardtotheso‐calledresidentialstructuresofRomeandLatium,thesegenerallyremainassociatedwiththearistocraticelite,probablyonthebasisofcomparisonwithexamplesinEtruria.Whotheseeliteswereisrarelyexplicitlystated,unlessinconnectionwithsomequasi‐historical(orpurelymythologicalorlegendary)figure.705Theinterpretation,inparticular,oftheso‐calledeliteresidencesinEtruriahashadconsiderablebearingonourunderstandingofsimilarkindsofstructuresinRomeandLatium.OnthenorthernslopesofthePalatineHillareaseriesofstructuresthatCarandinihasidentifiedastheremainsofanarchaichouse(fig.6.17).706Areconstructionofthebuilding,basedoncomparisonswithdwellingsandchambertombsfromEtruria,suggeststhearchaichouseconsistsofaseriesofrectangularroomsarrangedaroundacentralcourtyard.Thematerialremainsdatethebuildingtoabout530/20;atthistimethefoundationsofthebuildingseemtohaveencompassedanareaof785m2,152ofwhichconstituteanhortus.Thisreconstructionhasalreadybeencriticizedformakingtoomuchoutoftoolittlematerial,butremainsnonethelesscitedasevidenceforthearistocratic

701Meyers2012,14.702ThereisstillsomedebateregardingthefunctionoftheEtruscanpalazzi(Meyers,2012,6).703SeeSmith(2005)forthelatestsummaryoftheevidence.704Cifani1995.705Consider,forinstance,theconnectionbetweentheTarquinsattheRegiaatGabii.706Carandini1990.

166

controlofthecity.707AsecondbuildingthatmayserveasanexampleofelitearchitecturecomesfromtheAuditoriumsite,locatedapproximately1.5kmfromtheAurelianwallsatRome(fig.6.18).708Here,thereisevidenceforthecontinueduseandredevelopmentofthesitefromtheArchaicthroughtheImperialperiods.Theearliestphaseofthebuildingdatestothemid‐sixthcentury,and,asreconstructed,likelyhasdimensionsofapproximately300m2.Thecomplexconsistsofaseriesofroomsorientedaroundarectangularcourtyard;manyoftheseroomshaveevidenceofbeatenearthfloors.Aroundthebeginningofthefifthcentury,however,thebuildingundergoessubstantialrenovation,reachingproportionsthatitretainedwellintotheImperialperiod.AlthoughTerrenatointerpretsthissecondphaseastheclearestsignofelitearchitecture,hemaintainsthatitispossibletotracetheeliteoccupationoftheareabackintotheArchaicperiod,basedonthecontinuityintheuseofthesite.709

Insomerespects,however,theEtruscanandRomanevidenceforresidentialarchitecturemaynotbewell‐suitedforcomparison.710Asurveyofthearchaeologicalevidenceforstone‐builtbuildingsinarchaicRomeandLatiumrevealsthatthesestructuresaremuchsmallerinsize,havefarlessevidenceofdecorationorluxury,andhavemorevariedlayoutsthantheirEtruscancounterparts.711Inafieldsurveyconductedwithinthelimitsoftheancientagerromanusantiquus,roughlya15kmradiusoutsidethewallsofRome,Cifanidiscoveredanumberofstonestructuresthatheidentifiedasruralsettlements.712HebasedthisconclusiononacomparisonwithsimilarpatternsofsettlementdistributioninsouthEtruria.Cifaniclassifiedthebuildingsintothreetypes,basedontheirsize,techniqueofconstructionandassociatedfinds.Thefirsttypeincludessmallbuildingsthatrangeinsizefrom20‐50m2.Theseareusuallyfoundclusteredtogether,madeofperishablematerialsandcomprisedofonlyoneroom.Scattersofpotterywereoccasionallyfoundinassociationwiththesestructures.Cifanicharacterizesthemasruralhovels;anexampleofthistypemaybetheso‐calledarchaichutatTorrino.713

Thesecondclassofbuildingincludesthosethathavewallsmadeofstoneandroofsoftile.Thewallsmayonlybepartiallymadeofstoneblocks:inmanycasesthestonescomprise

707Smith(1996,178)callsthereconstruction"imaginative."708Carandinietal.1997;Terrenato2001.709Terrenato(2001,15)hasmadethesameobservationwithregardtothelayoutoftheMurlocomplexandtheso‐calledarchaicfarmsteads.ThesecondphaseoftheAuditoriumsitehebelievescomparabletotheEtruscanpalaces.710Terrenato(2001,15)hasalreadymadethiscricitism.TheEtruscancomplexesdateearlierandhaveashorterlifespan(fromtheseventhtomid‐sixthcenturies),whiletheArchaicbuildingsaremuchsmallerandrangeanywhereindatefromthesixththroughthirdcenturies,althoughinsomecasestheycontinueevenlater.711Cifani1998.712Cifani1998.713Bedini1984.ThisisthefirstoftwotypesofbuildingsBediniobservedatTorrino.Thesestructuresweresmall,clusteredtogetherandhadanellipticalplan(inthemannerofhuts);theyappearedtobecoveredwitharoofsoftile.Thesewerealsolocatednearawell.

167

thefoundationsthatsupportsuperstructuresofmudbrick.Insomecasestheupperportionsofthewallsareconstructedofwoodenbeamsfilledwithrubbleandclay.Buildingsofthistypeconsistofthreetofiveadjacentroomsarrangedaccordingtoarectilinearplan;theycoverasurfaceareaanywherefrom120to300m2.NotableexamplesofthistypeincludethelatearchaicbuildingatTorrino(fig6.19),thestructureatAcquaAcetosaLaurentina(fig.6.20),thefirstphaseoftheAuditoriumvilla(fig.6.18)andprobablythefirstphaseatGrottarossa(fig.6.21).714Cifanicharacterizesthesestructuresasfarmsteads.715

Thethirdcategoryincludesthelargestbuildings,whichcompriseasurfaceareaof600to1500m2.Thesestructuresconsistofseveralroomsarrangedaroundacentralcourtyard.Thetechniqueofconstructionisoperaquadrataandtheroofsareoftenadornedwitharchitecturalrevetments.ThebestexampleofthistypefortheArchaicperiodisthesecondphaseoftheAuditoriumvilla.716OnthebasisofcomparisonwithexamplesinsouthEtruria,Cifanibelievesthesebuildingsfunctionedascollectioncentersforthestorageand/orprocessingofagriculturalgoodscollectedfromtheruralsettlements.

Inlightofthisevidence,itseemsthattheareaDbuildingcorrespondstoCifani'ssecondtype,althoughamoreskepticalinterpretationoftheevidencemayreferittothefirst.Agenerousreconstructionofthebuildingduringitssecondphaseofoccupationsuggeststhestructurecoveredanareaof380m2.717Thisreconstructiontakeswall2219asthenorthernlimitandhearth3064asthesouthernone,onthegroundsthatthisfeaturemayhavemarkedthesouthwestcornerofthestructure;thewesternlimitisdefinedbythesemi‐circularfeature3076andtheeasternlimitisenclosurewall3067.Theentirecompoundwouldhavethenhaddimensionsof24x16m.Amoreconservativeestimate,onthebasisofthedimensionsofthetworooms,whichmeasure5x6mand6x8m,suggeststhebuildingcoveredanextentofabout150m2.ThisinterpretationoftheevidencesuggeststhebuildingfitscomfortablyinCifani'ssecondtype.Itispossibletotakeamorerigidviewoftheevidence,however,astheroomsdonotconnectandneitherexceedsanareaof50m2.Thisseemsaratherskepticalviewoftheevidence,however,sincethestructures,atleasttomymind,seemconnected.

Theidentificationofthebuildingasatypeofdwellingisplausible,sinceitexhibitsseveralfeaturestypicallyassociatedwithresidentialarchitecture,includingbeatenearthfloors,ahearth(possiblytwo),andpotteryoftenassociatedwithdomesticcontexts(vesselsforstorage,drinking,dining,foodpreparation,andloomweightsandspindlewhorls).Althoughthisrangeofmaterialmaybefoundinothercontexts,theabsenceofthetypesofmaterials

714AcquaAcetosaLaurentina:Bedini1981.Torrino:Bedini1984.Auditorium:Terrenato2001.Grottarossa:NSc1947,107;Cifani1998,54.715Cifani1998,54.716Terrenato2001.Cifani(1998,54)notesthattwootherbuildingsbelongtothistype,thesecondphasesofthestructuresatGrottarossaandalongtheviaGabina,butthesebelongtotheMiddleRepublicanperiod.717Thisisbasedinpartonthereconstructionofrooms1and2asproposedinMogettaandBecker(2014,177),whotakethesouthernlimitofthebuildingashearth3064.

168

foundinsanctuaries,cemeteriesorcentersofindustry,suggestthatthefunctionoftheareaDbuildingwaslargelyresidential.Thisdoesnotprecludetheoccurrenceofproductive,religious,orindustrialactivitiesinthearea,itonlysuggeststhattheprimaryfunctionofthebuildingwasforresidence.Indeed,complexesofthistypeseemtohaveallowedforavarietyoffunctions,includinghabitation,farming,textileandpotteryproduction,andvotiveoffering.Therearenotalwaysseparatespacesfortheseactivities,andoftenasingleroomhasevidenceformultiplefunctions.TheareaDbuildinghasevidenceforallthesetypesofuse,exceptfarming;onlythehearthsseemtohavebeendefinedasarchitecturallydistinctfeatures.Itcanbearguedthatthesecharacteristicsarenotenoughtosignifyresidentialactivity,andthisiscertainlyaproblemarchaeologistsconsistentlyfacewheninterpretingambiguous,oftenmulti‐purposecontexts.DespitemyownclassificationoftheareaDbuildingasamoremodesttypeofstructure,ithasrecentlybeeninterpretedasan"elitecontext".718Thisconclusionisbasedonthesizeofthebuilding,thetypeofstonemasonryusedinitsconstruction,andassociatedfinds.ThedimensionsofthebuildingseemonparwithmostexamplesofresidentialarchitectureinarchaicRomeandLatium;thesestructures,withexceptionperhapsoftheSacraViahousesandthefirstphaseoftheAuditoriumvilla,bearlittleresemblancetotheexamplesofso‐calledaristocraticarchitecturefoundmainlyinEtruria.Indeed,thesmaller,lessstable,lessadornedbuildingsofarchaicRomeandLatiumseemtorepresentthenormfortheregion;theabsenceofluxuryitemsinresidentialcontextsmaywellmirrortheabsenceofgravegoodsfromgraves,pointingtoamorewidespreadphenomenon.Tomyknowledge,therearenofindsfromtheareaDbuildingthatmightpointtoitselitepatronage,suchasimporteditemsorarchitecturaldecoration.ThemajorityoftheceramicmaterialsfromareaDarefragmentsofimpasto;buccheroislesscommon,althoughbynomeansrare;importsandEtrusco‐Corinthianimitationwaresareveryrare.Therearenometals,besidesafewindeterminatefragmentsofbronzeoriron.Ofcourse,itisstillpossibletoarguethatthesebuildingsrepresenteliteactivity,basedonthefactthattheyaremorevisibleandmoredurablethanthepreviousandpresumablycontemporarystructures.ThislineofthoughtseemsinfluencedbythestudiesofEtruscanresidences,inwhichstoneconstructionanddecorationareequatedwithmonumentalityandaristocraticactivity.Whatismore,thebuildinginareaDissituatedinanurbancontext,whichsetsitapartfrommuchofthecomparableevidencethatcomesprimarilyfromruralsites.Underscoringthisdiscussion,however,isanabsenceofanyconsiderationofwhatwemeanbyelite,towhomthisrefers,andwhattheconnectionisbetweenthisgroupandstone‐builtarchitecture.Whatismore,thefocusonunderstandingtheseelitegroupsoftenprecludesadiscussionoftheremainingnon‐elitepopulation.Thisis,inmanyways,aninsolubleprobleminarchaeology.Inprehistoriccontexts,itiscommontoconnectarchaeologicalvisibilitytoaristocraticprivilege.PartoftheappealofCifani'sapproachtotheruralsettlementsofRomeisthattheclassificationofthebuildingsintotypes,howeverartificial,allowsfortherepresentationofwhatwaspresumablytheentirecommunity.Cifanispeculatesthatthedistributionofthethreetypesofbuildingsrepresentsacomplexsystem

718MogettaandBecker2014.

169

oflandownership,basedontheagriculturalexploitationofRome'shinterland.719Hebelievesthissystemishierarchical,andcharacterizedbyasmallclassofowners(or,perhaps,whathecallssimpleholders),whooccupythesmallandmedium‐sizedstructuresofthefirstandsecondtypes.720Thesestructuresheidentifiedassmall‐scale"hovels"andfarmsteads.Heconnectsthelargerbuildingsofthethirdtypetoagentilicialclassofowners,whodrewtheirpowerfromtheirextensivelandholdingsintheimmediateterritoryofRome.Thesebuildingsmayhavefunctionedasprocessingorstoragecentersforthegoodscollectedfromtheirterritory.ThisconclusionfindssomesupportinarecentassessmentoftheTwelveTables,whichsuggeststheeconomyofarchaicRomewaslargelyagricultural.721Whatismore,ifthepopulationoftheRomanagerwasabout35,000,asthemorerecentestimatesindicate,itstandstoreasonthatsomeofthesepeoplewerelivinginthesestonebuildings,eliteorotherwise.722Thefactremainsthatthesearchaicstructuresleaveuswithverylittletogoon,sincetheylackmanyoftheconventionalfeaturesthatareconnectedwitharistocraticpatronage.ThearchaeologicalevidenceofeliteactivityinarchaicLatiumismostcloselytiedtotheevidenceintheliterarysourcesforgentilicialstructures.723ThereisgoodindicationfromthehistoricalaccountsregardingearlyRomethatthearistocraticeliteconstitutesthemostlikelygrouptohavehadtheeconomicmeansandsocialauthoritytoundertakeinitiativesrelatedtopoliticalandterritorialcontrol.AsdiscussedinChapter5,itseemsthat,intheArchaicperiod,landwasconcentratedinthehandsofdifferentgroupsofgentes,whoseleaderswereresponsibleforitsdistributionanduse.724ThearchaeologicalrecordofarchaicRomeandLatiumseemstosupportthisorganization.Cifani'smorerecentsurveyhasrevealedalandscapedenselysettledwithsmallfarms,asdiscussedabove.725Terrenatohasalreadyconnectedthismodelofgens‐basedlandownershipanddistributiontothearchaeologicalevidenceforeliteresidentialarchitectureattheAuditoriumsiteinRome.726Here,hetakesassupportofthegensthepresenceofaneliteresidencesurroundedbysmallfarms,whichseemstoindicatetheauthoritythearistocraticeliteexercisedovertheimmediaterurallandscape,andpointtothereciprocal(ordependent)relationshipbetweenthesmallfarmsandthemainresidence.Althoughthisappliesmorespecificallytohisinterpretationofthesecondphaseofthevilla,itispossiblethatthisorganizationextendedearlierintotheArchaicperiod,basedonthecontinuityintheuseofthesite.Oneproblemisthatthismethodologydoesnotfullyaddresstheissueofhowwedistinguishthe

719Cifani1998,55.720Cifani(1998,55)referstotheoccupantsofthesebuildingsasproprietariorsemplicipossessori,althoughitisuncleartomepreciselywhathemeansbythesetwoterms.721Cornell1995,287.722Cifani1998,55.Cornell(1995,204‐8)discussesthevariouscalculationsofRome'sterritoryandpopulation.CifanibaseshisconclusionsonAmpolo's(1980)calculuation.723Smith(2006)providesarecentaccountofthearchaeologicalandliteraryevidenceforthegens.724CapogrossiColognesi1988.725Terrenato2001,16.726Terrenato2011.

170

rulingclassesfromtheruled(andthevaryingdegreesinbetween)inthearchaeologicalrecord,itgoessomewayinunderstandingthearchaeologicalandliteraryevidence.Ifwearetoaccepttheconventionalinterpretationoflandownership,thenitispossibletosuggestthatagensownedthelandonwhichtheareaDbuildingwasconstructed,andthattheleaderofthatgensdesignateditsuse.Thisdoesnotentirelyclarifywhocommissionedtheconstructionofthebuilding,however.Thetuffstonesusedintheconstructionofthebuildingwerequarriedfromnearby,whichmakessenseeconomically,regardlessofwhoconstructedthebuilding.However,itstandstoreasonthatonlyanindividualorgroupwithsomewealthandstatushadtheabilitytomobilizetheresourcesfortheconstructionofsuchabuildinginthemiddleofthearchaiccity.However,itwouldbeunwisetoruleoutcompletelythepossibilitythatthisactivityfellwithinthepurviewofvariousmembersofthegens.Itisimpossibletodeterminefromthearchaeologicalrecordwhatthepreciserelationshipisbetweentheoccupantsofthebuilding,theindividualsresponsibleforitsconstruction,andtheownersoftheland.Althoughitseemsmostlikelythatthegensleaderswereresponsibleforthisinitiative,thereisnotenoughevidenceregardingthesocialhierarchybetweengentes,clientes,tenantsandfreefarmerstoaddressthiscompletely.IfthegenteswereindeedtheprimarylandownersinarchaiccentralItaly,andtheywereresponsiblefordeterminingtheuseofthatland,thenitispossibletosuggestthat,inthecaseofarchaicGabii,thisauthorityextendedtotheurbansphere.Mostoftheevidenceforresidentialarchitecture,whethereliteorotherwise,comesfromruralsitesinRome'shinterland,whichofferssomeindicationofthedensesystemofagriculturally‐basedlandownershipattheoutskirtsofRomanterritory.TheareaDbuildingshiftsthelocusofthisactivitytothecity,andofferssomeinsightwithregardtohowvariousgentesandtheirleaderscontrolledtractsoflandwithintheurbanarea.Forthemoment,thismostlyraisesnewquestionsregardinghowthesevariouselitegroupscontrolledcivicspace.Itsuggeststhatthegenteswereequallyasconcernedwithregulatingcivicspaceastheywerewithagriculturalareas.WithoutfurtherexcavationatGabii,however,itisdifficulttodeterminemorepreciselyhowelitecontrolofcitiesrelatedtoboththedevelopmentofthecityandtheagriculturallandscape.TheevidencefromarchaicSatricummayshedlightsomelightonthenatureofthisprocess,however.727Overthecourseoftheeighthtosixthcenturies,theacropolisrevealsevidenceforthreemainphasesofoccupationthatpointtocontinuityintheuseoftheareaandofspecificstructureswithinthatarea.728Inthefirstphase,duringtheeighthcentury,thereweretwoseparategroupsofstructures,comprisedofovalhutsandsmallcircularbuildingsthathavebeenidentifiedascooksheds(fig.6.22).729Inthesecondphase,duringthelate

727Colantoni2012.FortheoriginalreportsregardingSatricum,seeMaaskant‐Kleibrink(1991;1992).728Maaskant‐Kleibrink1991,68‐100.729Itisdifficulttoidentifythefunctionofmosthuts,butasColantonipointsout(2012,31),itdoesnotseemunreasonablethatdifferentbuildingshaddifferentiatedfunctions.

171

eighthtoseventhcentury,thesestructureswerereplacedbylargerovalhuts,squarehutsandmorecooksheds(fig.6.23).Inthethirdphase,duringthesixthcentury,courtyard‐stylehousesreplacedthehutsinbothclusters:thesehouseswereconstructedofstonefoundationswithwallsmadeofclaypackingandroofsoftile(6.24).Theyconsistedoftworectangularbuildings,comprisedofadjacentsquareorrectangularroomsthatflankedacentralopenspace.AtaboutthistimeweretheearlierphasesoftheTempleofMaterMatuta,whichwasconstructednearthehouses.730Colantonisuggeststhateachsuccessiveredevelopmentoftheacropolismaintainedthesamebasicarrangement,wherebytwogroupsofhutswerereplacedbytwogroupsofstone‐builtbuildings.731Shesuggests,too,thateachphasehousedthesamerangeofinhabitants:onthebasisofethnographicdata,shepositsthatfamilies(nuclearorextended)werespreadoutamongclustersofhuts,witheachhutbeinginhabitedbyonlyoneortwoindividuals.732Theconstructionofhouseswithstonefoundationsinthesixthcenturyunifiedthefunctionofthehutsandthepeoplelivinginthemintotworelatedstructures.733Thesmallroomsmimickedthepresumablydifferentiatedfunctionofthehutsandmaintainedaccesstotheoutsideareabycreatingaccesstoacentralcourtyard.ColantoniagainturnstoethnographicdatatocommentonthesocialandpoliticalstatusoftheinhabitantsoftheSatricanacropolisinthesixthcentury.InthesettlementoftheBamangwatotribeinBotswana,foreigntradersandmissionariesintroducedEuropeanstylehousesinthe1800s,whichgraduallyreplacedthetraditionalhutsusedbythetribe.734Theconstructionofthemud‐hutsrequireslittlecapitalandcanoftenbeundertakenbythepeoplewholiveinthem.Thisstandsincontrastwiththeexpensiveandrarematerials,andspecializedlaborusedintheconstructionofEuropeanhouses.AdesiretoemulatethepoliticallydominantEuropeansbroughtabouttheconstructionofmorehousesofthisnewtype,likelymotivatedbythedesiretomodernizeandacquirethestatusassociatedwiththesehousesassymbolsofauthority.ColantoniinterpretsthestonebuiltstructuresofRomeandLatiumfromthisperspective,suggestingthattheconstructionofthesebuildingsrequiredspecializedhumanlaborandeconomicresources,andassuch,functionedassymbolsofaccumulatedwealthandstatusinawaythathutssimplycouldnot.Asaresult,sheclaimsthesearelikelythebuildingsoftheelite,andsupportsher

Maaskant‐Kleibrinkidentifiedthecookhutsonthebasisofthecharredlayerscontaininganimalbones,cookingstandsandvesselsdesignedforfoodpreparation(1991,69‐72).730Maaskant‐Kleibrink1987;Gnade2007,102‐4,123‐4.731Colantoni2012,31.732Colantoni2012,27‐33.Shedrawsherconclusionsfromananthropologicalstudy(Naroll1962)thatcalculatedtheamountoflivingspaceusedbyonepersonfromavarietyofsettlementsaroundtheworld.Narollestimated10m2wasthespaceusedbyoneperson.Althoughmanyofhisconclusionsaredebated,Colantoniusesthisfiguretocalculate,onthebasisofthesizeofthehutsofthePalatine(17m2),thatonetotwopeopleoccupiedthesestructuresatagiventime.733Colantoni2012,32.Thisissometimesreferedtoasthe"hutstohouses"phenomenon,asdocumentedbyBrown(1976)andHolloway(1994,51‐67).734Colantoni2012,33‐4.

172

conclusionbycitingtheprominentlocationoftheresidencesonthePalatineatRomeandacropolisatSatricum.AlthoughitiseasytocriticizeColantoni'smethodologyonthegroundsthatsheseemstopresumethesestonestructuresare,inthefirstplace,houses,and,inthesecond,thehousesoftheelite,herobservationsraisesomeinterestingpointsaboutthedevelopmentofspacewithinsettlementareas.Giventhelaborrequiredfortheredevelopmentoftheareawithbuildingswithstonefoundations,itislikelythatsomecentralizedauthority,whetheranindividualorgroup,wasresponsibleforthedeploymentofthisactivity.If,asseemstobethecase,thesixth‐centurybuildingsmimictheorientationandfunctionoftheearlierhouses,itseemsthattheagent(s)responsibleweredeliberatelymaintainingtheearlieruseofthesite.Whatisdifficulttodetermine,however,iswhethertheinhabitantsoftheacropoliswerethesamegroupsofpeopleinallphases;althoughthisseemstobethecase,onecannotdiscountthepossibilitythatcompetitionandconflictoftenencouragemonumentalconstruction.735TheadditionofthetempletoMaterMatutaontheacropolisinproximitytotheprobableresidencesissignificantsinceitsuggestsalevelofdevelopmentontheacropolisthatcanbeunderstoodwithinthecontextofurbanization.736Inthiscase,itseemsthattheareaoftheacropolismarksalevelofsocialandpoliticalsophisticationandorganizationrequiredbyoneormoregroups.WithregardtothebuildinginareaD,itisdifficulttointerpretwhythestructurefelloutofuseinthelatesixthcentury.ThebuildingseemstohavebeenoccupiedforonlyashorttimefollowingtherenovationofthestructuretoincludeRoom1andtheenclosurewalls.Therearenoconventionalsignsofwholesaledestruction,suchasfireorlooting.However,theelevationofthewallsthroughouttheareaisremarkablyconsistent,andcorrespondstotheelevationsofthefloorsfromthemid‐republicanstructuresinadjacentareaC.ThissuggeststhatthewallsweredeliberatelyanduniformlyleveledtoaheightthatmatchestheoccupationphasesoftheMiddleRepublic.Thiseventmayhavecontributedtothedepositsofcollapseassociatedwithmanyofthewalls,intowhichthefirstchambertombwascut.Alternately,thewallsmayhavedeterioratedwithouthumanintervention.Whateverthecase,theconstructionofthefirstsemi‐chambertombinthecollapsedremainsofenclosurewall2219suggeststhatthecollapseofthewallspredatestheuseoftheareaasaburialground.Accordingtothestratigraphicsequence,thecollapseofallwallsseemstohavepredatedtheconstructionofthetombs;however,thereisnoclearrelationshipbetweenthecollapseandsemi‐chambertomb2andthemonolithicsarcophagus.Asaresult,onlywall2219mayhavefallenbeforetheconstructionofsemi‐chambertomb1.Theuseoftheareaasasmallcemeteryseemstohaveoccurredshortlyafterthebuildingwasnolongeroperational,asthefirstadultinhumationsmayhavebeendugasearlyasthelatesixthcentury.Amoreprecisechronologyfortheburialsisdifficulttodetermine,andtheydategenerallyfromabout525‐450B.C.E.

735ParkerPearson(1999,156‐7)considersthisinrelationtofunerarymonuments.736Theproximityofthetempletotheso‐calledresidencesalsocallsintoquestiontheidentificationofthesebuildingsasdwellings.

173

6i.FeaturesofAreaD:TheBurialsOncethebuildinginareaDhadfallenoutofuse,theareawasusedasaburialgroundforaseriesofadultinhumationburials.Inthefollowingsection,Ipresenttheevidencefortheseburials,beginningwiththewesternmosttombandmovingeast.Then,Ipresenttheevidenceforthechildandinfantburialsatthesite,whichmaybelongtothephasesoftheoccupationofthebuilding,althoughthedatesarethusfarinconclusive.Tomb25Tomb25islocatedalongthewesternmarginsoftheareaandbearsnodirectrelationshiptothearchaicbuilding.Thetombconsistsofarock‐cuttrenchwithanichecarvedintotheeastside(figs.6.25and6.26).Themainshaftmeasures2.5x1.2m(SU2086)andcontainedtheinhumationburialofanadultfemale(SU2088)inamonolithictuffsarcophagus(SUs2087and2089).Thesarcophaguswasmadeoftufolionato,areddishbrowntuffthatistypicallyassociatedwiththeAlbanHills.ThetuffusedfortheconstructionofTomb25wasprobablyquarriedlocally,however,evenwithin200moftheburialsite.737Thelidfracturedatsomepointinantiquityandwasremovedin2009intwosegments.Thenichemeasures2x0.5mandcontainedtheinhumedremainsofayoungadultmale(SU2091).Thisnichewascarvedafteraninitialattemptonthewestsidefailedduetothepartialcollapseofthewall.ThedimensionsofthesarcophagusareconsistentwithotherexamplesatGabiiandRome:thisexampleis2.08minlength,0.73minwidth,0.75minheight;thethicknessofwallsis0.08mandthereisaninteriordepthof0.6m.BothburialswereorientedN/S,withtheheadlocatedatthesouth.AfragmentofAtticRedFigurepotteryfoundinthefilldatestheclosingofthetombtotheearlyfifthcenturyorlater.Therearenogravegoodsassociatedwiththeseburials.Atsomelaterdate,acircularpitwasaddedtotheareasouthofthemaintrench,cuttingintothesouthernlimitofthetomb.Theconsistencyofthefillandthedepthofthepit,atapproximately1.59m,indicatethisfeaturewasusedasawell.Theceramicmaterialsconsistprimarilyoffragmentsofimpasto,withsomecommonware,finewareandbucchero.Thesematerialsarenotespeciallyusefulfordatingthefill,andrangeanywherefrom900‐200B.C.E.ThisfeaturemayhavebeeninuseduringthelaterphasesofoccupationatGabii,followingtheestablishmentofthenewstreetplan.OsteologicalanalysisofthetwoskeletonsofferssomeinformationregardingthedemographiccompositionofarchaicGabii.Thelongbonesoftheadultfemaleindicatethatshewasprobablyaround162cm(or5'4")inheight,whichmakeshertallerthantheaveragewomanfromtheImperialperiod.738Mostofherbonesarenotwellpreserved,butshowsignsofarthritisorsomeotherage‐relateddegeneration.Herteethshowsignsofaveragewear.Musculoskeletalmarkersonherfemurindicatethatsheengagedinafair

737PersonalcommunicationwithJasonFarr,whosampledthemainbodyofthesarcophagus,butnotthelid.738Killgrove2010,dissertation(killgrove.org).

174

amountofwalking,althoughthereisgenerallylittleevidencethatshehadadifficultlifeorengagedinstrenuousactivities.739Shewaslikelyinherthirtieswhenshedied.Themaleyouthinthesidenichewasnotableforhisexceptionallylargebones,andthehighnumberofskeletalpathologiesthatindicatehehadastressfullifebeforedyingat17‐19yearsofage.Thedimensionsofhislongbonessuggestanestimatedheightofabout172cm(5'8"),whichisrathertallforaRomanmaleduringtheImperialperiod,approximately5cmtallerthanaverage.Hisvertebraerevealedevidenceofdischerniation,apathologyprobablybroughtonbycarryingheavyloadsorabnormallyflexinghisback.740Signsofwearonthebonesofhisshouldersuggesthewasregularlyinvolvedindemandingupperbodyactivitiessuchasliftingorthrowing.Heexhibitsthesamesignsofwearonhislongbonesasthewoman,pointingtoahighdegreeofrunningorwalking.Histeethshowsignsofadvancedwear,typicalofanindividualabouttentofifteenyearsolder.Itseemsthathesubsistedonadietcomprisedofgrittyfoodssuchasunrefinedgrainsorshellfish.Pathologiesvisibleonhiscanineteethindicateheunderwenttwoepisodesofstressasachild:thefirst,from2years9monthsto3years3months,andthesecondaroundfouryearsofage.Thesemaybesignsofweaning,disease,orsomedifficultpartofchildhood.Atpresent,itisdifficulttodeterminetheroleorsociopoliticalstatusoftheseindividualsonthebasisoftheosteologicalremains,asthereisinsufficientcomparativedatafromtheArchaicperiod.741Thepurposeofbioarchaeologyistoplacetheindividualwithinthecontextofapopulationcomprisedofseveralindividuals;withoutarepresentativepopulation,thereisnowaytodeterminewhatisnormalaccordingtothebiologyandculture.Tomyknowledge,therearenolargescaleosteologicalstudiesforarchaiccentralItaly.742However,itispossibletodrawsomegeneralconclusionsastowhetherapersonwasanomalouswithinaspecifictimeandplace.Whencomparedtoosteologicaldatafrom

739Thisparticularpathology,amusculoskeltalmarker(MSM),appearsonindividualswhowerelikelytravelinglongdistancesorrepeatedlyonfoot.740ThistypeofpathologyisreferredtoasSchmorl'snodes.Inmodernteenagers,thesesymptomsareconnectedtoparticipationincontactsports.741SeeParkerPearson(1999,80‐3)notesthatstress‐relatedlesionscanbereadintwoways,eitherasamarkerofthepoorstatusanddietofapopulation,orasatestamenttotheabilityofthepopulationtosurvivestressanddisease.He,andKnudsonandStojanowski(2008),commentmorebroadlyoncurrentapproachestothefunctionofbioarchaeologyindeterminingidentityandstatus.742BediniprovidessomeskeletalinformationfromtheburialsexcavatedatCasaleBrunori(1991)andTorrino(1981),butthesecomefromRepublicanandOrientalizingperiodsrespectively.ThecontributionofRubinietal.inGnade(2002,162‐84)analyzesthebioarchaeologicaldatafrom82individualsfromthesouthwestnecropolisatSatricum.Here,therewere61adults(24males,18femalesand25individualsofundeterminedsex)and12children.Themalesareonaverage170cm,whichistallerthanmostmalesincentralItaly;thefemalesareaveragecomparedtoothers.TheteethoftheSatricumsampleshowedsimilarsignsofstressasthoseatGabii;theirbones,however,didnot,indicatingthattheSatricanpopulationdidnottakeonparticularlystressfulphysicalactivities.

175

theImperialperiod,thereisnothingunusualabouttheremainsoftheyoungman.743Hewascertainlytallerandmorerobustthanaverage,andhisteethandbonesshowedsignsofstress.However,thecausesforthestressonhisteethmayhavebeentheresultofavarietyoffactorsincludingweaning,poordietorgenetics.Thepathologiesonhisbonesonlyindicatethathewasactiveandoccasionallyengagedinheavylifting;thereisnoevidencetosuggestthathewasstressedinanywaytowardtheendofhislife.Insum,thebonescannotatthispointoffermuchinformationconcerninghissociopoliticalstatus.744Theosteologicalanalysisoffersnoindicationofhowthesetwoindividualsdied,orwhytheywereburiedtogether.Itispossiblethatthewomanwasthebiologicalmotheroftheyouth;aDNAanalysiscouldconfirmafamilialrelationship,butthisstudyawaitsfurtheron‐siteresearch.Althoughitseemslikelythatbothburialsweremadeatthesametime,thisisdifficulttodetermine.Atthetimeofexcavationsomedistinctionwasmadebetweenthefillofthemaintombandthetwosideniches,butthesewerelaterbelievedtorepresentthesamedeposit(SU2085).AlayerofrubbleandsiltbeneaththesarcophaguswasdistinguishedandrecordedseparatelyasSU2090,buttherecordsindicatethatthisbottomfillwaspartofthesamedepositinthemainportionofthetomb,whichhadfiltereddownbetweenthesarcophagusandthebottomlevelofthecut.Theconsistencyofthefillsuggeststhatbothindividualswereburiedatthesametime.Inthiscase,itseemslikelythatthemalewasburiedfirstinthesideniche,andthewomansecondinthetuffsarcophagus.Thereisnoindicationofhowtheseindividualswereloweredintothetomb.Thepresenceofironnailsfromothertombssuggeststheburialswereloweredintothetrenchonwoodenbiers,butthereisnosuchevidencehere.Thetrenchisnotespeciallydeep,atabout0.8m,makingitpossiblethatthemale,atleast,wasmanuallydepositedinthetomb.MonolithictuffsarcophagiareattestedelsewhereatGabii:theSARuncoveredtwoexamplesintheirexcavationsofasmallburialgrouplocatedsouthoftheTempleofJuno.Theburialgroupalsoincludedtombsafossaandonesingle‐inhumationchambertomb.Theresultsofthesediscoveriesremainunpublished,andthedatesoftheseburialsaregenerallyunknown.Personalcommunication,however,hasconfirmedthatthechambertombisarchaic.Tombs38,39and40(Semi­Chamber1)AdjacenttothenorthwestcornerofRoom1isthefirstoftwosemi‐chambertombs(figs.6.27and6.28).Thenortheastcornerofthetomb(SU3024)cutsdirectlyintothecollapsedremainsofcurvedwall2219(SU3012),revealingthatconstructionofthetomboccurredsometimeafterthearchaicbuildingfelloutofuse.Theeasternedgeofthetombcutisin

743PersonalcommunicationwithKristinaKillgrove.744Catalano,inBedini(1991,107),makessimilarremarksregardingthedatarecoveredfromCasaleBrunori.Althoughthechambertombspointtothehighstatusofthedeceased,thewearonthebonesandteethoftheseindividualssuggestalowqualityoflife.

176

closealignmentwiththeN/Sorientationofwall3015,andthesouthernedgewiththeW/Eorientationofwall3014.Thatthesoutheastcornerofthetombseemstocorrespondcloselywiththeouterlimitofthenorthwestcornerofthewallssupportsthisconclusion.Thetombconsistsofasquareshaftcutintothebedrocktuff,andpreservesdimensionsof2.5x2.5m,andadepthof1.95m.Thefillofthemainchamberwasconsistent,andcontainedseveraltuffinclusions,includingawidearrayoffragmentaryceramicmaterials.Theseceramicsconsistprimarilyofimpasto,butconcentrationsofbucchero,commonware,largestoragecontainers,impastochiarosabbiosoandimpastorossowerealsoidentified.Theseobjectsrangeindatefrom900‐400B.C.E.,butbasedonthestratigraphicsequenceatthesite,thefillcanbedatedfrom525‐450B.C.E.Organicinclusions,suchasanimalbonesandcharcoal,wererare.Sixironnailswererecoveredinthefill,suggestingthedeceasedwereloweredintothetombonwoodenplanks.Trackscarvedintotheoutersurfacesoftheniches(onthesidewallsofthetomb)suggestthatwoodenplankscoveredtheentranceoftheniches.Inbothcases,therearenotracesofthesewoodenplanks.Alargeslaboftufffoundatthebottomofthemainchambermayhaveclosedoneofthetombs,butitwasnotfoundinsitu.Theothernotablefindsfromthislayerincludeastylusandtwoimpastospools;theseawaitfurtherstudyon‐site.Afragmentofbronzewasalsoidentifiedinthefill,butitistoodeterioratedtodetermineitsuse.Atthebottomofthemaintrench,threenicheswerecarvedalongthewest,northandeastsides,allranginginsizefrom2x0.5m,withaheightofabout0.95m.Duringtheexcavation,nodistinctionwasobservedbetweenthefillofthenichesandthatofthemainchamber,sincetherewasnomeaningfuldistinctioninsoilcompositionorinclusions.However,distinctionsinthefindsrecoveredineachnichewererecorded.Afunerarybedwascarvedintothefloorofeachoftheseniches;thesebedssupportedtheinhumedremainsofthreeadultindividuals.Eachnichecontainedarelativelywell‐preservedskeleton,allofwhichawaitanalysisbybiologicalanthropologistK.Killgroveinthe2014season.Theconsistencyofthefillofthemainchamberandthethreeloculisuggeststhatallthreeburialsweremadeatthesametime.However,itisalsopossiblethatthefillrepresentstheeventimmediatelyfollowingthefinaldeposition.Inanycase,theceramicmaterialsrecoveredfromthisdepositdatethetombgenerallyfromthelatesixthtomid‐fifthcentury.Thearchaeologydoesnotindicatehowthebodieswereplacedintothetomb;basedonthepresenceofironnailsinthefill,however,itseemsthattheywereloweredintothemainchamberbeforebeingarrangedintheniche.Entranceintothetombwouldhaverequiredsomemechanism,whetheraladderorasystemoflevers.Theonlywayintothetombisfromthetop,andatombdepthofnearly2mwouldhaverequiredmechanicalassistance.Thereisnoevidencethatanykindofstructurecoveredthemainentrancetothetomb,whetherawoodenplankortumulus.Itseemsthatthetombwasbackfilledatsomepointfollowingthedepositionofthefinalburial,butwhetherthathappenedshortlyaftertheinhumationorseveralyearslaterisunclear.Itispossiblethatthewoodenplanksplacedoverthenichesmeantthatthemainchamberwasleftopenuntilallburialshadbeen

177

deposited;thissuggeststhefillwasmadeoraccumulatedatthesametime,followingthelastoftheburials.Theeastniche(SU3039,Tomb38)measures1.37x0.6m,and0.96minheight,andcontainstheinhumationburialofanadolescentofundeterminedsex(fig.6.29).Thebodywasarrangedinthesupinepositionandlikelydepositedonawoodenplankpriortodepositioninthetomb.TheskeletonwasorientedN/Swiththeheadsituatedatthesouth.Afunerarybedwascarvedintotheflooroftheniche,atalevelapproximately10cmhigherthanthefloorofthemainchamber.Thisbedconsistsofthreesurfacesseparatedbytwochannelsthatwerepossiblycuttoaccommodatethefeetofawoodenbier.Thecentralsurfaceisthelargest,measuringapproximately0.75minlength;itlikelysupportedthebodyofthedeceased.Theremainingtwosurfaceswerelocatedattheheadandfeetofskeleton(thesouthandnorthendsoftheniche),andmeasuredabout15‐20cm.Thesewereseparatedfromthecentralplatformbyachannelmeasuringapproximately12‐15cm.Initialobservationsrecordeduponexcavationoftheskeletonindicatethatthebonesbelongedtoanadolescentofundeterminedageandsex,andtheseawaitfurtherresearchon‐site.ThisburialcontainedthemostnotablefindsofalltheareaDtombs.Theremainsofanecklace(SpecialFinds356,hereafter,SF),comprisedofspoolsandstripsofworkedbone,werediscoveredonthechestofthedeceased(fig.6.30).Thesespoolsrangeinsizefrom1.2to1.8cminlengthandfrom0.8to1.2cminwidth.Thebonestripsrangeinsizefrom3to6.1cminlengthand0.3to1cminwidth.Severalmorestripsandspoolsofworkedbonewererecoveredinthefilloftheniche,andmayhavebelongedtothesameornament.Thestripsofworkedbone(SF354)rangeinsizefrom2.0to6.0cminlengthand0.5to1.2cminwidth;thespools(SFs351,353and355)rangeinsizefrom1.2to1.5cminlengthand0.8to1.2cminwidth.Theseitemsdonotrepresentacorredointhestrictsense;rather,theyarethepersonaladornmentsofthedeceased.Thenorthniche(SU3040,Tomb39)measures1.88x0.6mand0.92minheight,andcontainsasingleadultinhumationburial(fig.6.31).ThebodywasdepositedinthesupinepositionaccordingtoaW/Eorientationwiththeheadatthewest.Afunerarybedwascarvedintothefloorofthisniche,which,basedonthearrangementoftheskeletonuponexcavationandthepresenceofseveralironnailsinthefill,likelysupportedawoodenplankatthetimeoftheinhumation.Thisfunerarybedconsistsofasinglesurfacecarvedintothecenteroftheniche.Achannelapproximately20cmlongseparatesthecentralsurfacefromthewallsofthenicheatthewestandeastlimits.Theplatformwasapproximately5‐10cminheight.Theskeletonwasdiscoveredslopingsouthwardtowardentranceoftheniche.Theskeletondidnotexceedthelimitsoftheniche,suggestingthatawoodenplankoncecoveredtheentranceofthisloculusandpreventedtheburialfromslidingoutintothemainchamberofthetomb.Neitherthesexnorageofthisindividualhasbeendetermined.Theonlyitemofsignificancefoundinassociationwiththisburialwasanunidentifiedobjectofworkedbone(SF359).Thewestniche(SU3041,Tomb40)measures1.06x0.76mandis0.98minheightandistheleastwellpreservedoftheadultinhumationburials(fig.6.32).Thebodywasarranged

178

inthesupineposition,accordingtoaN/Sorientationwiththeheadatthesouth.Initialobservationsregardingtheskeletonuponexcavationsuggestthedeceasedwasanadultmaleofunknownage.Thefunerarybedbelongingtothisnichecomprised,liketheothertwo,acentralplatformcarvedintotheflooroftheniche.Unliketheotherexamples,however,thisbedwasnotaraisedlevelsurface:instead,itslopeddownwardtowardtheeast,sothattheeasternlimitofthebedslopedinto,andwasevenwith,thefloorofthemainchamber.Asmallpillowwascarvedatthesouthlimittosupportthehead.Severalnailsfoundinthefillofthisnichesuggestthatbodywasplacedonawoodenplankandthendepositedinthetomb.Asecondpossibilityisthatawoodenplankcoveredtheentranceoftheniche.Theroofofthenichehadpartiallycollapsedoverthecourseofexcavation.Tombs41and42(Semi­Chamber2)Thesecondsemi‐chambertomb(fig.6.33)islocatedoutsidetheeasternperipheryofthearchaiccomplex,justeastof,andinalignmentwith,theeasternlimitofwhatmaybeaportionoftheenclosurewallofthebuilding(3067).Thecutofthetomb(SU3081)doesnotinterferewiththewall,thoughthewesternedgeofthetombalignsalmostpreciselywiththeeasternlimitofthewall.Thistombissimilarinsizeandconstructiontothefirstsemi‐chamber,andconsistsofalargesquareshaftcutintothebedrock.Themainchambermeasuresabout2.5x1.8m,andis1.5mdeep.Nichescarvedintothewestandeastsidesatthebottomofthemainshaftcontaintheinhumationburialsoftwoadultindividuals.Thenichesareapproximately1.5x0.5m,andarecarvedinamoreroundedandlessrectilinearfashionthanthoseinsemi‐chambertomb1.Therewasnodiscernabledistinctioninthefillofthemainchamberandtheloculi,althoughthedocumentationkeptrecordsofthenotablefindsfromeachniche.Theconsistencyofthefillofthetomb(SU3066)andthatoftheloculisuggestsbothburialsweremadeatthesametime.Alternately,thetombmayhavebeenleftopenuntilbothburialsweredepositedandthefillaccumulatedorwasdeposited.Ceramicfragmentsfoundinthefilldatethetombfromthelatesixthtoearlyfifthcentury.Asinglebronzepin,measuring5x0.2cm,comprisestheonlynon‐ceramicmaterialtoberecoveredfromthetomb,otherthanafewnailsfoundinassociationthewestniche(SF466).Nogravegoodswerefoundwitheitherburial.Thewesternniche(SU3082,Tomb41)measures2.1x0.6m,withaheightof0.7m(fig.6.34).Thecutwasoriginallyrectilinear,butsometimeafterthedepositionofthebody,thebedrockceilingofthecutcollapsed.Thiswaspossiblycausedbytheconstructionofroad3057inthelatefifthorearlyfourthcentury.Thestabilityofthenichewaslikelyunderminedduetoitspositiondirectlybeneaththewall3067.Overthecourseofexcavation,aportionofthiswallhadtoberemovedtopreventitfromfallingintothefillofthemainchamber.Thebottomofthecutofthisnichewasraisedabovethelevelofthecutofthemainchamber(SU3081),creatingaraisedbedonwhichthebodywasdeposited.ThedeceasedwasarrangedinasupinepositionandthebodyorientedN/Swiththeheadatthesouth.Initialobservationssuggestthebodybelongedtoanadultmale,aged45‐50years.Threeironnailsrecoveredinthefillofthisnichesuggestthedeceasedwasburied

179

lyingonawoodenbier;alternately,thenailsmayrepresentawoodenplankthatcoveredtheentrancetotheniche.Organicmaterialsofthiskind,however,haveleftnotraceinthearchaeologicalrecord.Theeasternniche(SU3083,Tomb42)measures2.1x0.6m,withaheightof0.6m(fig.6.35).Thenichecontainstheremainsofasingleinhumationburial.Theskeletonappearstohavebelongedtoawoman,aged35yearsatdeath.Thebodywasplacedinthetombinthesupineposition,andalongaN/Sorientationwiththeheadatthesouth.Thepositionofherbodyinthetombwassomewhatunusual:theskeletonwasplacedagainstthebackofthewall,anddoesnotappeartohavemovedafterthisdeposition.Thissuggeststhatthebodybelongedtolargerindividual,whowaswedgedintotheavailablespace.Ironnailsfoundinassociationwithnichesuggestthatthebodywasdepositedonawoodenbierand/orawoodenplankcoveredtheentrancetotheniche.Unlikealltheotherburialsinthesemi‐chambertombs,thistombdidnotfeatureafunerarybedcarvedintotheflooroftheniche.Asisthecasewithsemi‐chambertomb1,thereisnoevidencethatanythingcoveredtheentranceofthetomb.Itispossiblethatawoodenplankortumulusmarkedtheburial,butthisisimpossibletodetermine.Ifacoveringhadexisted,andremainedvisibleintotheendofthefifthcentury,itmayhavebeendestroyedbytheconstructionoftheroadsurface(SUs3049and3053).Theroad,constructedduringthecity'sreorganizationinthelatefifthorearlyfourthcentury,completelycoveredthistomb,andmayhavecontributedtothepartialcollapseofthewesternniche.Tomb30Tomb30(fig.6.36)istheburialofaninfantinadolium,locatedimmediatelyoutsidethenorthernextentofthecurvedwall(2219).Thedolium(SU3006)wasdepositedinacutinthebedrockandarrangedinaW/Eorientation,withthemouthofthejaratthewest.Aslaboftuffcoveredthelidofthevessel.Thedoliumwasmadeofimpastorossoanddiscoveredpartiallycollapsed.Muchofthejarsurvives,however,andmeasuresabout38cminheightand30cmindiameteratthemouth.Thebonesoftheinfantwerefounddisarticulatedandawaitfurtherstudyinthe2014season.Thisburialisdifficulttodate,sincethistypeofdoliumwasinusefrom900‐500B.C.E.,andnodiagnosticfragmentsofpotterywerediscoveredinassociationwiththeburial.Ithasbeensuggestedthatthetombdatestothelateseventhandearlysixthcenturies,onthegroundsthatitislocatedinacutinthebedrockthatappearsrelatedtoanearlierphaseofoccupation.745Thiscannotbedeterminedonthebasisofthestratigraphyoroftheceramicmaterials,however.ThistypeofburialiscommoninLatiumintheIronAgeandArchaicperiods,andcouldeasilybelongtoeitherperiod.Thesetypesofburialsaregenerallyassociatedwithdomesticcontexts,and,assuch,thisburialcouldjustasreadilybeassociatedwiththeconstructionofwall2219oreventheearlierphaseofthebuilding.ThisconclusionmaybeemendedaftercontinuedexcavationoftheLateOrientalizinglayersofthesite.

745MogettaandBecker2014,178.

180

Tomb48Tomb48isajuvenileburialafossa,situatedinthesoutheastcornerofareaD(fig.6.37).Thepreciserelationshipofthisburialtothearchaicbuildingisuncertain,asthereisnodirectstratigraphicrelationshipbetweenthem.However,theburialconformstothegeneralpatternwherebytombsarelocatedalongtheperipheryofthebuilding.Thedimensionsofthetrenchare1.91x0.61m,withadepthof0.37m(SU3149).Theskeletonwasdepositedinthesupineposition,inaN/Sorientationwiththeheadatthesouth.Preliminaryosteologicalanalysissuggeststheinhumedwasachild,aged1‐2years.Thisburialisnotableforthepresenceofgravegoods:twoolleweredepositedinthegrave,oneatthehead,andanotheratthefeetoftheburial.Thefirstjar,ofgreybucchero,wasfoundneartheskullinthesoutheastcornerofthetombanddatesfrom525‐475B.C.E.(SU3156);thesecond,ofimpasto,wasfoundatthefeetofthedeceasedanddatesfrom525‐425B.C.E.(SU3157).Anironfibulawasdiscoverednearthejawbone,andrepresentsthepersonalaccoutrementsofthedeceased(SU3160).Imagesoftheseitemsarecurrentlyunavailable;thepotsareawaitingresidueanalysisandthebotanicalanalysisoftheircontents.Apaintedblackandredtilewasarrangedasagravemarkeratthetopofthetombfill.Therestofthefilldatesfrom500‐450,B.C.E.,andthetombprobablydatesfromthelastquarterofthesixthcenturytothemid‐fifth.Tomb49Tomb49containstheinhumationofaninfant,possiblyafoetusorneonate,inadolium(fig.6.38).Thejar(SU3232)wasdepositedhorizontallyintheground,inalignmentwithawallthatrunsinanorthwest‐southeastdirection(SU3237).Therelationshipbetweenthiswallandthearchaiccomplexiscurrentlyundeterminedandawaitsfurtherexcavation.Thejarwastruncatedhorizontallypriortoexcavation.Themouthofthejarwasopenatthewestandclosedbysmallstones.Thevesselmeasures25cminlengthand22cmindiameteratthemouth.Theskeletalremainsweredisarticulatedatthetimeofdiscovery,butitremainsclearthattheskullwasdepositedattheEatthefootofthevessel.Thebonesawaitosteologicalanalysis.Thefilloftheburialandthedoliumdatethelayeranywherefrom700‐500B.C.E.DiscussionItispossibletomakeafewgeneralobservationsabouttheburialsinareaD.First,itisclearthattheburialsweremadesometimeafterthearchaicbuildinghadfallenoutofusearoundtheendofthesixthcenturyandbeforethereorganizationofthecityinthelatefifth.Thisissuggestedbytheconstructionoftheroadattheendofthefifthorbeginningofthefourthcentury,andissupportedbytheceramicmaterialsfromthefillofthetombs,whichdatenolaterthan400B.C.E.Itisdifficulttodeterminepreciselyhowlongthebuildingremainedunusedbeforetheareawasfirstusedasaburialground,butitseemsthatithadundergonesomedegreeofdecay.Thestratigraphicsequenceindicatesthatthebuildinghadpartiallycollapsedbeforetheconstruction,atleastofsemi‐chambertomb1,butpossiblytheothertombsaswell.Atanyrate,itseemsthatthewallsofthebuildingwerevisibleatthetimeof

181

tombconstruction,asthetombs,thetoplevelsofthewalls,andthecollapsewerecoveredbythesamelayerofcolluvialsilt.Second,allofthetombscontainingadultburialswereconstructedbycuttingdeeptrenchesintothevolcanicbedrock;afterthis,twobasictombtypesareattested,themonolithicsarcophagusandthesemi‐chambertomb.ThesarcophagusfindsclosecomparisoninsizeandmaterialswithexamplesprimarilyinRome;thesemi‐chambertombs,however,areuniquefortheirdimensionsandtype.Tomyknowledge,therearenootherattestedexamplesofsemi‐chambertombsincentralItalyduringtheArchaicperiod.ThetwoexamplesatGabiirepresentacombinationoftombtypes:theyhavenicheswithfunerarybedsinamannersimilartochambertombs,butareconstructedinamannersimilartotrenchtombs,wherebyapitisdugintothebedrock.TheGabiisemi‐chambersaremuchlargeranddeeperthantrenchtombsattestedelsewhereinthetimeandregion.AtGabii,thesemi‐chambertombscontainthemajority(five)oftheadultinhumations.Thethirdandfourthpointsconcerntheorientationofthedeceasedandthespatialdistributionofthetombs.Alloftheadultinhumationsandthechildburialafossa(T.48)werearrangedinaN/Sorientation,withtheheadlocatedatthesouth.Withregardtotheburials,allarelocatedwithinthepresumedlimitsofthearchaiccity;ifthelimitsofGabiididnotcontractattheendofthesixthcentury,thenitseemsthattheareaDburialsattesttothepracticeofintramuralburial.Finally,itisworthnotingthattheareaDburialsconformtotheevidenceforfuneraryritualinarchaicRomeandLatium,asdocumentedinChapter5.Theyarefewinnumberandcontainnogravegoods;notable,too,istheabsenceofburialatGabiifromthefirsthalfoftheArchaicperiod,c.580‐525B.C.E.Thespatialdistributionoftheadultinhumationburialsappearsinassociationwiththeremainsofthearchaicbuilding.Allthetombsareclusteredinandaroundthenorthernhalfoftheremainsofthestructure.Semi‐chambertomb1islocatedbetweenenclosurewall2219andwall3014ofroom1.Thesoutheastcornerofthemaincutofthischamberalignswiththeouternorthwestcorneroftheroom.Theeastniche(T.38)isevencutbeneaththelimitofwall3014.Semi‐chamber2wasestablishedalongthesamelimitastheouter,easternedgeofenclosurewall3067.Thewesternniche(T.41)undercutthewalltothepointthat,overthecourseofexcavation,portionsofthewallwereatriskofsubsidingintothefillofthetombandwereconsequentlyremoved.ThereisnodirectrelationshipbetweentheremainsofthebuildingandT.25,themonolithicsarcophagus,however.Althoughitislocatedonlyabout1mwestofsemi‐chambertomb1,thetombcutcannotbeassociatedwithanypreexistingarchitecturalfeatureinthearea.ThespatialdistributionofthetombsinareaDcanbeinterpretedinoneoftwoways.Itispossiblethattheirarrangementandconstructionwashaphazard,perhapstheresultofsquattersmovingintotheareaafterthebuildinghadfallenoutofuse.Thevisiblestructuralfeaturesmayhavefunctionedassomekindofstructuralsupportfortheconstructionofthetombs,orservedasafunerarymarkerwithoutanyparticularsymbolicsignificance.Intheabsenceofanyevidenceforacovering,thewallsmayhavebeentheonlymeansof

182

identifyingthetombs.Thishypothesisrestsontheassumptionthattherewasnothoughtputintotheorganizationanduseoftheareaasaburialground.Thissituationimpliesthatthecityunderwentsomestageofdecaytowardtheendofthefifthcenturythatallowedfortheuseoftheareaasanadhoccemetery.Theencroachmentoftombsinurbanareasisoftenunderstoodasasignofthecollapseofsociopoliticalinstitutionsandtakenasevidenceforthecontractionofcities.Inthiscase,thetransformationofareaDintoaburialgroundinthelatesixthtomid‐fifthcenturymayrepresentaphaseofdeurbanizationatGabii,whichcametoanendwiththereorganizationofthecityinthelatefifthcentury.Ireturntothisbelow.However,thereisevidencetosuggestthattheuseofareaDasaburialgroundwasdeliberate,planned,andtheresultofsomeauthorityorgroupeffort.Inthefirstplace,allthetombsareconstructedinmoreorlessthesamemanner,involvingdeeptrenchescutintothebedrock.Whatismore,thetwosemi‐chambertombsconsistofaquadrangularmainchamberthatisaccessiblefromthetopsurfaceonlyandcontainsseveralnicheswithfunerarybedscarvedintothefloor.Inbothcasesthereisevidencethatwoodenplankscoveredtheentrancestotheniches;thesamewerelikelyusedinordertodepositthebodiesintothetombs.TheorientationofalltheburialsinareaDisconsistent,withexceptionofthetwosuggrundaria(T.30and49),whichpointstosomeacknowledgedgroupcustom.ThisfindssomecomparisonwiththeburialsatSatricum,wheretheburialsontheacropolis,southwestnecropolisandatPoggiodeiCavallariarethoughttorepresentdistinctburialgroupsand/orlocalpractices.746ThesituationatGabiimayfindsupportintherelationshipbetweenaresidenceandburialsatAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.747Here,onechamberandonesemi‐chambertombwereconstructedinthecollapsedremainsofacomplexofstonebuildings.Thestructuralremainsweredividedintotwogroupsbyacanalorroad.748Inoneofthesegroups(V),Bedinidiscoveredanumberoffeaturesassociatedwithdomesticuse,whichallowedhimtointerprettheremainingstructuresaspartofadomesticcomplex.Thepresenceofasuggrundariumandfragmentsofpotteryseemedconsistentwiththisinterpretation.Thetwoburialswerelocatedinthepost‐abandonmentphasesofoneofthestructuresontheothersideofthecanal(VII).Itisunclearwhethertheconstructionofthegravescontributedtooroccurredshortlyafterthecollapseofthebuilding,butthereisadirectrelationshipbetweentheconstructionofthetombandtheabandonmentoftheresidence.AllfeaturesbelongtotheArchaicperiod,althoughthetombsaredatedmorepreciselytothefirsthalfofthefifthcentury.Whatevertheprecisesequenceofevents,thereisaclearconnectionbetweenthecomplexandthetombs,whichBedinisuggestsmarksthedesireoftheburialgroupstoestablishand/ormaintainaconnectionnotjusttotheagriculturallandscape,buttoamonumentalstructurewithinthatlandscape.Hestatesthatthebuilding,duringitstimeofoccupation,wouldhavebeenacommandingfeatureintheregion,onethatlikelymarkeditsoccupantsasindividualsofconsiderablewealthand

746SeetheabovediscussionaboutSatricuminChapter5.747Bedini(1981b,1983).748Bediniisunclearregardingthetimewhenthecanalwasfilledupandusedasaroad.

183

status.Thetransformationofthisareaintoasmallburialgroundmayhavehadacommemorativefunctionthattiedtheoccupantsofthetombtothoseofthebuilding.ItispossibletointerprettheareaDbuildinginthislightandsuggestthattheremainsofthestructureretainedsomesymbolicsignificanceforthegroup(orgroups)buriedtherelater.Post‐processualistarchaeologicaltheoryplacesspecialimportanceonthelocationofthedeadasoneofthemostvisiblecomponentsoffuneraryritual,asameansthroughwhichsocietiesmoldedtheirrelationshipstotheirancestors,thelandandtheliving.749Thus,thedecisionofwheretoburythedeadisnotdeterminedsolelyonthebasisofefficiency,butisgovernedbytheperceivedrelationshipbetweenthedeceased,thefamily,theareaandthepeoplelivinginit.AlthoughthedecisiontoconstructtombsintheremainsofthebuildinginareaDmayhavebeendesignedtoexpresssuchideas,itisdifficulttodeterminetheprecisenatureoftheconnectionbetweenthedeceased,thebuildingandthearea.Thetombsmayrepresentkingroupswhoclaimeddescentfromtheoccupantsofthehousesormarkthereappropriationoftheareabyothergroupsnotpartofthislineage.750BothRenfrewandHodderclaimthatburialsandritualsarelinkedtoasociety'sconcernwithlegitimizingthecontroloverresources.751Inthisview,thereisacloserelationshipbetweenhouses,burialandlandownership.Burialmaybeawayofmaintainingcontrolovertheland;ifthematerialsusedfortheconstructionofhousescanbefoundnearby,thereisnoreasonfortombsnottobeeither.RegardlessofwhethertheareaDbuildingcanbeinterpretedasaresidence,thereiscertainlyacloserelationshipbetweenthestructure,itsmasonryandthetombs.Thetuffusedintheconstructionofthebuilding,lapisGabinus,wascertainlyquarriednearby,perhapsintheimmediateareaofthecomplex;thetombs,fortheirpart,aredugintothesamebedrockintheremainsofthebuilding.Inthisway,thetombsofareaDarenotsimplyaplacetodepositthedead,butarepresentationofthegroup'scontrolovereconomicandhumanresources.Metaphoricalconnectionsbetweenhousesandtombsarecommoninmodernscholarship,wherebytombsareperceivedasthehousesofthedead.752ThisistheprevailingviewofthechambertombsofEtruria,whosearchitectureisthoughttoreplicatethehousesoftheliving.753Morerecently,Rivahasunderstoodthemonumental,multiburialtombsasalinkbetweenthehouse,thefamilygroupandlandownership.Shearguesthat,duringtheOrientalizingperiod,thehouse,thefamilyandthelandbecamethesymboliclanguagethroughwhichpoliticalauthoritywasexpressed,andthatthiswasarticulatedbythewidespreadadoptionofthechambertombandgravegoodspertainingtothefunerary

749ParkerPearson1999,124‐41.750Foracomparativestudy,seeParkerPearsonontheBronzeAgeMinoantombsinCrete(1999,129‐30).751Renfrew1984;Hodder1982.752ParkerPearson1999,195‐7.753Riva(2009,109)offersabriefreviewofthescholarship.SeePrayon(1989)fortheconventionalinterpretationandNaso(2001,35)forabriefcriticism.

184

banquet.754WithregardtoLatium,itispossibletoconnectthehuturntoasimilarphenomenon.Thehuturnisaceramicvesselmadeintheimageofahut,witharoofandadoor,andisdesignedtoholdthecrematedremainsofthedeceased.ItisconsideredamarkerofLatialCultureduringtheIronAge,aregionalvariantofthebiconicalurnsusedbytheVillanovanculture.HuturnsarethoughttorepresentmoreorlessaccuratelytheIronAgedwellingsofcentralItaly,755andinthegravesoftheIronAgecemeteryatOsteriadell'Osa,arethoughttobemarkershighstatus.756Colantonievensuggeststhatthehutrepresentsasingledeceasedindividual,insupportofherargumentthathutswereoccupiedbyoneortwoindividuals;757inthecaseofOsteriadell'Osa,alloftheseburialsweremale.ThattheterritoryoccupiedbyareaDandthestructuresinitweresomehowsignificantissuggestedbytheabsenceofoccupationintheareaduringthelaterphasesofdevelopmentatGabii.Duringthereorganizationofthecityinthelatefifthorearlyfourthcentury,theareaseemstohavebeenincorporatedintothenewurbangrid,butneversubstantiallyreoccupied.AseriesofN/Srunningroadswereestablishedatregularintervalsaspartoftheneworthogonallayout.Road2(fig.6.7),whichcoverssemi‐chambertomb2,markstheboundarybetweenareasCandD;similarthoroughfareshavebeenidentifiedacrossthesite,whichseemtodesignatecity‐blocks.AreasBandCaredelimitedbytwosuchroads,and,around200B.C.E.,revealevidenceforwidespreadconstruction,probablyofcourtyardhouses(figs.6.6and6.10).758Therearenoplanscurrentlytoexcavatebeneaththefloorsofthesesurfacesinordertoinvestigatethelayerslikelyassociatedwiththelatefifththroughthirdcenturies.InareaF,however,thereisevidenceformonumentalconstructionduringthisotherwiseundocumentedperiodonsite:excavationin2012‐2013uncoveredabuildingofconsiderableproportionsthatdatesfromabout350‐250B.C.E.InterpretationofthestructureanditsrelationshiptotheotherphasesofoccupationatGabiiawaitsfurtherexcavationandanalysis.Nevertheless,itisstrikingthatareaDshowsnoevidenceofconstructionatallintheseperiodsofwidespreadbuildingactivity.EvenGuaitolimadetheobservationinhissurveyatGabiithat,despitetheevidencefordenseoccupationintheurbanareaduringtheEarlyandMiddleRepublicanperiods,certainareasseemtohavebeenleftopenandempty.759Itseemsthatthatthisareawassetapartfromtherest,anddeliberatelywithdrawnfromthoseareasofthecitywhereconstructionwasallowedtotakeplace.

754Riva(2009,72‐140).TheearliestchambertombsincentralItalyappearatEtruscansitesintheeighthcentury.Theywerealsotherichest,suggestingthatthistombtypewastheprerogativeoftheelite.BytheseventhcenturyitbecomesthemostcommontypeofburialinsouthEtruria;inthenorth,theuseofthechambertombisneverfullyrealized.755Bartolonietal.1987.756BiettiSestieri1992b,141‐61.757Colantoni2012,32.758MogettaandBecker2014,179‐81.759Guaitoli1981a.

185

WithregardtothestatusandrankoftheindividualsburiedinareaD,itispossibletosuggesttheywerefairlyhighrankingmembersofthecommunity.760Therock‐cuttrenchesthatconstitutethebasisforallthreetombsrequiresignificanthumanandeconomicresources.Theabsenceofanysurveythatquantifiesthecostoftombconstructioninthisperiodmakesprecisecalculationdifficult,butitispossibletomakesomegeneralobservations.Thelaborrequiredintheconstructionofthesetombsisinsomewayscomparabletothatinvolvedintheconstructionofstonebuildings,asoutlinedabove.Constructionwouldhavelikelytakenseveraldays.Itcertainlyinvolvedthecuttingofdeeptrenchesintothebedrock;thetuffwouldhavetoberemovedandtransported(possiblyreused)elsewhere.Theconstructionoffunerarybedsinbothchambertombspointstotheworkofspecialists,asdoesthepreparationofwoodenplanksfordepositingthedeceased,enclosingtheniches,andpossiblycoveringtheentrancetothetomb.Themonolithicsarcophaguswouldalsohaverequiredspecialistlabor,anditsresemblancetoexampleselsewhereinLatiumandRomesuggeststhatthiswasacommonlyproducedformofburial.Whetherthesetombscamefromthesamesourcehasnotyetbeendetermined;tomyknowledge,nosamplinghasbeenconductedonthetuffsarcophagitodeterminetheirsource.Inallcases,thedepositionofthedeceasedandthesarcophagusintothetombswouldhaveinvolvedasystemofleversandrollers.TheabsenceofgravegoodsfromtheareaDburialsisinkeepingwiththefunerarypracticesofarchaicRomeandLatium.AsdiscussedinChapter5,theburialsfromthistimeandregionarecharacterizedbythelownumberofgravesanddearthofgravegoods.761ThereductioninmaterialisoftenunderstoodwithinthecontextofthefunerarylegislationoftheTwelveTables,whichregulatedandrestrictedbehavioratfunerals.Mostscholarsbelievetheselawswereestablishedwithaviewtoreducingostentatiousdisplaysofwealthamongtheeliteandencouragingisopoliteia.AlthoughIconsideritunlikelythatthepatternsvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecordcanbeexplainedbytheimpositionoffunerarylegislation,itneverthelessseemsthatthesetombsaretheburialsofthearistocraticelite.ThegravesatGabiiarehardlyrepresentativeoftheresidentpopulation.ThethreetombsinareaDhavesevenburialsbetweenthemandcoveramaximumtimespanof75years.Thiscannothaverepresentedtheprobablenumberofdeathsexperiencedbyapopulationofabout2500inthesixthandmid‐fifthcenturies,ascalculatedbyAmpolo.762TheabsenceofaburialgroundrepresentativeofthecommunitysuggeststhatthemajorityofthepopulationatGabiiweredeniedsuchformsofvisibleofburial.ThisconclusionisdrawnfromMorris'analysisoftheburialplotsfromAthens,inwhichhearguesthatthedecreaseinthearchaeologicalvisibilityofburialspointstotheexclusionofthemajorityofthepopulationfromformalburial,andthataccesstoformalburialwasdeterminedonthebasisofrank.763TheevidencefromGabiiseemstocorrespondtothecriteriaMorrisproposes,whichstipulatethatdifferentiationofthedeceasedislimitedwhenarestricted

760MogettaandBecker2014,178.761SeeChapter5.762Ampolo1977.763Morris1987.

186

numberofgroupsarepermittedparticipationinfuneraryritual.ThisseemsbroadlytrueoftheGabiiburials,whichshowlittlevariation:mostcontainadultinhumationsintombsdesignedformultipleburials,andhavenogravegoods.ThisconclusionfindssomesupportintheburialevidencefromtherestofarchaicLatium,whichisnotableforthereducedquantityofgravesandthenearlycompleteabsenceofgravegoods.Thistheoryquicklyfallsapart,however,whentakingintoaccountthevarietyoftombtypesemployedintheareaatthetime,andthefewexamplesofexceptionallywealthyburials.Ifanything,thisdemonstratesthedifficultyofidentifyingsociopoliticalstructuresbasedonthearchaeologicalevidence,anddiscouragesthewidespreadapplicationofsuchmodels.However,thefundamentalcomponentofthishypothesisseemstrue,namelythatonlycertainmembersatGabiiwerepermittedformaltypesofburial,specificallythosekindspermittedintheurbanarea.Withregardtotherestofthepopulation,itseemstheyreceivedinformalorinvisibletypesofburial.ThereisnoevidencefromGabiiofwhatcomprisedthismodeofburial,butMorris,whenconsideringthesameproblem,suggestedexposure,massburialsinpitsandcasualcremation,onthebasisofevidencerecoveredfromotherethnographic,archaeologicalandhistoricalevidence.764Otherwise,itisdifficulttodeterminewheretherestofthepopulationwasburied,sincethereissimplynoevidence.Notable,too,istheabsenceforanyburialatGabiifortheperiodof580‐525B.C.E.;itisequallydifficulttospeculatewhatwashappeningatthistime.Therearetwolinesofevidenceatourdisposaltoobtainsomeidea,howeverhypothetical,ofwhowasburiedinareaD.Inbothcases,itseemsthatconnectionstodescentgroupsandlandownershipwereimportantfactorsindeterminingaccesstotheburialground.ThefirstlineofevidencecomesfromtheliterarysourcesregardingthesocialorganizationofearlyRomeandLatium.Thisconcernsthegens,which,asnotedabove,mayhaveextendeditsauthorityoverlandownershiptotheuseofburialgrounds.Asregardsthearchaeologicalevidencefortheemergenceofgentilicialstructures,thesubjectisopentowidelyvaryinginterpretations.765However,theevidencefromthesiteofOsteriadell'Osa,anIronAgecemeterylocatedsome1.5kmnorthwestofGabii,mayprovidesomeinsightrelatingtothestructuralorganizationofthearchaiccity(fig.6.3).TheevidencefromtheIronAgenecropolisrevealstheemergenceofacomplexsocietythat,overthecourseoftheninththroughseventhcenturies,demonstratesanincreasingtendencytowarddisplaysofgroupidentity.766TheearliestphasesofthecemeterycorrespondtoLatialphasesIIAandIIB(c.900‐770B.C.E.)andrevealtheemergenceoftwodistinctburialgroups,theso‐calledNorthandSouthgroups(fig.6.39).767BiettiSestiericlaimsthesegroupsrepresenttheburialactivities

764Morris1987,105.765SeetherecentsummaryinSmith(2006,144‐63),forinstance.766Smith(2006)providesarecentaccountofthearchaeologicalandliteraryevidenceforthegens.767BiettiSestieri1992b.

187

oftwoextendedfamilies,eachwiththeirownfunerarytraditions.Basedonthespatialdistributionoftheburials,andthegravegoodsfoundinthem,itseemsthatindividualdistinctionswereaccordedonthebasisofgenderandage,althougheachgroupexpressedthesedifferently.Inbothgroups,thegraveswereorientedaroundapairofmalecremationburialsthatareconsideredhigh‐statusonthebasisoftheircentrallocationandthepresenceofauniquesetofgravegoods,includinghut‐urns,miniatureweaponsandknives.Theseobjectsseemtofunctionasindicatorsofprestige,roleandstatus,whichemphasizethepatriarchalandpatrilinealdescentofeachburialgroup.Otherwise,thetypesofgravegoodsincludedintheburialswereconsistent,andeachgrouphaditsownpreferences,thusmaintaininggroupidentity.Asregardsthesocialstructureofthesettlement,BiettiSestiericoncludesthattheproximityofbothgroupsandtheabsenceofanykindofvisibleboundarybetweenthempointstotheabsenceofastrong,centralizedauthority,andrevealsthatuseofthecemeterywasbasedlargelyonthecooperationofthesefamilygroups.768DuringthefollowingperiodIII(c.770‐730/20B.C.E.),changesinthedistributionofgravesandgravegoodssignalashiftintheemphasisoffuneraryritualfromtheindividualtothegroup(fig.6.40).769AtthebeginningofLatialphaseIIIA(c.770‐740B.C.E.),anewgraveclusteremergessome50mawayfromthefirsttwogroups.Alltheburialswithinthisclusterarearrangedaroundacentralpairofmale‐femaleburialsthatseemstofunctionasthefocusofthegroup'sspatialorganization.Theconcentrationofthetombsinarestrictedareapointstoanemphasisonthegroup,andadesiretomaintainconnectionswiththeotherindividualsburiedthere.OverthecourseofphaseIIIB(c.740‐730/20B.C.E.),however,thereisadramaticreductioninthenumberofgravesandanincreaseintheclusteringofburialsingroupscomprisedoftwotothreeunits.Thesesmallerburialclustersarefoundinlocationssuperimposedonoradjacenttoearlierburials,orinterspersedamongdenserareas.Allthewhile,theymaintainaspatialdistributionthatconnectsthemtothecentralmale‐femalepairfromLatialphaseIIIA.Overthecourseoftheentireperiodthereislittleconsistencyinthetypesofgravegoodsgivenaccordingtoageandsex.Itappearsasthoughindividualdistinctionhasdiminished,seeminglyreplacedbyanemphasisongroupidentity.DuringLatialphasesIVAandIVB(c.730/20‐580B.C.E.)theevidencepointstotheincreasinglyrestricteduseofthecemeterybysmallgroups(fig.6.39).770Thereisadramaticdiminutioninthenumberofgraves,anirregularpatternofspatialdistribution,andananomalousdistributionofgenderandagegroups.Inaperiodspanningabout150years,thereareonlyseventyburials,whichcannotberepresentativeoftheresidentpopulation.Theseburialsarefoundlooselyscatteredoverthecemetery,eitherinisolation,orinplotsthataresharplydefinedandconsistoftwotofourgraves.Theonlyexceptionis

768BiettiSestieri1992b,160.Smith(2006,147‐50)hasrecentlychallengedthisview.HeadoptsMorris'model(1987),asIdohere,andbelievesthattheEarlyIronAgeburialsatOsteriadell'Osarepresentnotthegravesanegalitariansociety,butonealreadystratified.769BiettiSestieri1992b,199‐211.770BiettiSestieri1992b,206‐11.

188

theLateOrientalizingchambertomb(T.62,fig.6.41),whichcontainedtheburialsofatleastthirteenindividuals.Mostburialsinthecemeterywereofadultsandmatureadults,andmostofthesegravescontainedahighnumberofprestigeitems.ThesecharacteristicsappearinthecemeteryatthesametimeassettlementconcentratesalongthesoutheastslopesoftheCastiglionecrater,intheareathatlaterbecomestheurbancenterofarchaicGabii.ThepatternsobservedintheuseofthecemeteryatOsteriadell'OsaseemdetectableintheareaDburialgroundofarchaicGabii.First,thereisgoodevidencethataccesstotheuseoftheareawasrestricted,asthereareonlysevenadultinhumationsrecordedoveraseventy‐fiveyeartimespan.ThisseemsinkeepingwiththedecreasingnumberofgravesatOsteriadell'Osafromtheeighthcenturyonward.Second,theburialsatGabiidemonstrateadesiretomaintaingroupidentityonseverallevels.EachofthetombgroupsatGabiicontainsmultipleinhumations,whichsuggeststhatthereexistssomerelationshipbetweentheindividualsinthetomb.ThetypeofevidenceprovidedfromaDNAanalysiswoulddeterminewhetherornotthesewerefamilialconnections,butintheabsenceofthisinformation,itisimportanttoconsiderthattheymayhavealsobeenanycombinationofsocial,economicorreligiousrelationships.Whatismore,thetombgroupsseemconnectedtooneanotherbytheirshareduseofareaDasaburialground.Althoughitistechnicallypossiblethatwall3067obscuredtheburialsinsemi‐chambertomb2fromthoseinsemi‐chambertomb1andTomb25,Ifinditunlikelythattheburialsweremadeatrandom.Theconsistentuseofrock‐cuttrenchesintheconstructionoftheseburials,thepresenceoftwosemi‐chambertombsandthedepositionofallburialsinaN/Sorientationsuggeststhatburialinthisareawastheresultofsomecoordinated,groupeffort.TheclusteringofthesetombsinthenorthhalfofareaDmayrecallthesituationatOsteriadell'Osa,wherethefewburialsoftheOrientalizingphaseareclusteredintosmallgroups,mostofwhicharelocatedinthepreviouslyoccupiedportionsofthecemetery.Third,theburialsatGabiiseemtoestablishaconnectionwiththearchaicbuilding,asthecentralfeatureofthearea.ThespatialdistributionofthesetombgroupsrecallstheevidencefromOsteriadell'Osa,wherebytheburialsinallphases(thoughthisisespeciallytrueofphasesIIandIII),areorientedaroundacentralfeature,typicallyacentralpairofburials.BiettiSestiericonnectstheemergenceofgroupsandsubgroupsinthecemeterytotheriseofgentilicialsocietyintheeighthcentury.771ShesuggeststhatthetransitionfromLatialphaseIIBtoIIIAatOsteriadell'Osawasaperiodcharacterizedbythedeclineofthetwo‐familysystemandtheriseofanewsocialstructuremadeupofseveraldistinctdescentgroups.Thesenewlineageswereincompetitionwithoneanother,andthosethatwonthestrugglebecamethegentes,thenewaristocrats,whilethedefeatedlinesbecametheclientes.Althoughthereismuchtobedebatedhere,particularlyBiettiSestieri'sargumentregardingthestrugglebetweengentesandclientes,theidentificationoftheseburialgroupsasevidenceforthedevelopmentofcomplexsocialstructuresiscompelling.772The

771BiettiSestieri1992b,241.772BiettiSestieri's(1992b,241)conclusionsregardingtheconflictbetweenthegentesandclientesarederivedfromherobservationsofthedisparityinwealthandstatusfromthe

189

archaeologicalevidencefortherapidmonumentalizationofRomeandLatiumpointstotheexistenceofsuchsophisticatedsociopoliticalinstitutionsasthegens.Bothurbanandruralsitesrevealevidenceforstonebuiltstructuresasearlyasthelateseventhcentury,andthisconstructionactivityintensifiesoverthecourseofthesixth,tothepointthatmostcitiesduringthisperiodhaveacquiredmanyofthearchitecturalcharacteristicsofurbancenters.773Thissuggeststhat,bythebeginningofthesixthcentury,thereexistedinthecitiesofLatiumalevelsociopoliticalorganizationcapableofmobilizingtheeconomicresourcesforlarge‐scaleconstruction.Consequently,ifthelegalandhistoricalsourcesarecorrectincharacterizingthegensasanearlyformofsocialorganization,basedonadeeplyintertwinedandcomplexgroupstructurethatvariedinnatureandcohesion,onecantentativelysuggestthatthisisvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecordatGabii.Thisisahighlydebatableconclusion,andperhapsevenaquestionableuseoftheevidence,butitisworthconsideringbrieflytheevidenceforthegensatGabii,sincethistypeofdiscussionoffersoneofthefewmeansofunderstandingthecompositionanddevelopmentofearlyRomansocieties.IhavearguedthusfarthattheevidencefromareaDrevealsasignificanttractoflandthatwitnessedtwophasesofuseduringtheArchaicperiod,firstasalocusofstoneconstruction,possiblyofaresidence,thenasaburialground.Iflandownershipwastheprerogativeofthegens,whoseleaderscontrolledaccesstotheland,thenitispossiblethatthelandrepresentedbyareaDwascontrolledbyonesuchgroup(ordifferentgroupsovertime).Thisisnottosaythattheclanleadersphysicallyoccupiedthespaceduringeitherphasesofuse,onlythattheydictatedwhowasgrantedaccesstothisspace,whetherforresidentialorfuneraryactivity.Inthiscase,thepreoccupationwithissuesrelatedtoinheritanceandthesignificanceattachedtothepreservationofthegroupmayofferinsightintotheburialpatternsofthearea.TheburialsinareaDarefewinnumber,whichIclaimpointstotherestricteduseofthisspace,probablybyelitegroups(ordifferentbranchesofoneelitegroup),thoughthisidentificationisnotnecessary.Eachofthesetombgroupsseemstofosteragroupidentityonseveraldifferentlevels:first,inrelationtotheotherinhumationsinthetomb;second,inrelationtotheothertombgroupsinthearea;andthird,inrelationtotheremainsofthepreviouslyoccupiedarchaicbuilding.Whatismore,theconsistentN/Sorientationoftheinhumationsandthesamemethodofconstructionusedforalltombspointstosomekindofcoordinatedgroupeffort.TheemphasisongroupidentityinareaDfindscomparisonin

periodIIIburials.Accordingtoher,thegenteswererepresentedbythoseburialsthatcontainedgravegoods,andtheclientesbythosethatdidnotcontaingravegoods.ThishasbeencriticizedelsewhereSmith(2006,147‐50).HerviewregardingtheevidenceforthegenscanbecontrastedwithWaarsenburg'sstudyofSatricum(1995).773Smith(2005)demonstrateshowmuchofthediscourseconcerningurbandevelopmentinearlyRomefocusesonidentifyingthemomentwhenRomebecomesurban.Thatistosay,whenRomerevealsevidenceforthekindsofcharacteristicsindicativeofacity.That"urbanmoment",ashecallsit,isdirectlytiedtothetypeandnumberofmonumentalstructuresthatappearinthearchaeologicalrecord.TerrenatoandMotta(2006),too,weighinonthenatureofthisdebate.

190

thearchaeologicalevidencefromthecemeteryatOsteriadell'Osa,wherethereisincreasingevidence,beginningintheeighthcentury,fortheemergenceofdistinctsubgroups.Smallnumbersofburialsseemtobeincreasinglyclusteredtogether,andoccupylocationsinrelationtosome(possibly)ancestralgrouporburialground;allofthesefeaturesarethoughttorevealtheshiftintheemphasisoffuneraryritualawayfromtheindividualandtowardthegroup.774Ifthiscanbetakenasevidenceforagentilicialsociety,whoseleaderscontrolledtheallotmentofland,includingthatinareaD,thenitseemsthattheseauthoritiesexertedafairdegreeofautonomyincontrollingtheurbanlayoutofarchaicGabii.Gens‐basedlanddistributionhasbeenarguedatthemorerurallocationoftheAuditoriumsite,northofRome,wherethereisevidenceforthecontinualoccupationofaneliteresidentialbuildingfromtheArchaicthroughtheImperialperiod.775TerrenatohasrecentlyarguedthatthecooperationofandconflictbetweenvariousgentescontributeddirectlytotheriseoftheRomanstate.776Thesegroupsrealizeditwastotheiradvantagetosetasidemutuallyaccessibleareasofinteraction(i.e.thecity)soasbesttopreservetheirpropertyandensurethesuccessofthegroup.Thisfarfromprecludedconflictbetweengentilicialgroups,whichtheancientsourcesindicateoccurredonaregularbasiswellintotheRepublicanperiod.Whatthissuggests,fromadifferentperspective,istherolegensleadersplayedindeterminingthelayoutofthecity,asthelikelyownersoflandandtheauthoritiesbehinditsdistribution.TheEvidenceforIntramuralBurialThelocationoftheareaDburialswithinthelimitsofarchaicGabiicanbeinterpretedinoneoftwoways:asevidenceforthecontractionofthecityorasevidenceforintramuralburial.Theformerfollowsaconventionallineofinterpretation,whichunderstandsthepresenceofburialsinpreviouslyoccupiedurbanareasasindicationsofthestructuralbreakdownofthecommunityandthedeurbanizationofthecity.777Inthisscenario,gravescontinuetobelocatedoutsidethecity,andtheirlocationreflectsthenewboundariesofthe

774ElsewhereatGabii,justsouthoftheTempleofJuno,recentexcavationsbytheSARhaveuncoveredanothersmallburialground,characterizedbyaclusteroftombs,includingtwotuffsarcophagi,twotrenchtombs,andonechambertomb.Unfortunately,theresultsoftheseexcavationsareunpublished,butpersonalcommunicationatthetimeofexcavationrevealedthatthechambertombdatedtotheArchaicperiod.Thisconfirmsthepresenceofatleastoneotherburialwithinthelimitsofthearchaiccity.Althoughthechambertombisclearlyassociatedwiththeotherburials,Ihavenotbeenabletodeterminethedateofthosetombs.775Terrenato2001.776Terrenato2011.777ThisisespeciallytrueinstudiesconcerningofRomeinlateantiquity,wheretheappearanceofintramuralburialisthoughttosignalthespreadofChristianityandthedestabilizationofRomanimperialpoliticalorganization.See,forinstance,thepapersinBrogioloandWard‐Perkins(1999).

191

settlement.GnadeappliesthislineofthinkingtoherinterpretationofSatricuminthelatesixthandfifthcenturies.FollowingthedestructionoftheTempletoMaterMatutaontheacropolis,burialsappearthereandatvariousotherpointswithinthelimitsofthearchaiccity.ShesuggeststhisreflectstheinvasionandoccupationofthesitebytheVolsci,whomtheancientaccountsstatedefeatedSatricumintheearlyfifthcentury.778ItispossibletounderstandthedevelopmentsatGabiiinthesamelight.Inthiscase,theabandonmentordestructionofthebuildinginthelatesixthcentury,andthesubsequentreoccupationoftheareaasaburialground,maypointtothecontractionofthecityasaresultofsomedisruptiontoitsstructuralorganization.Thecorrespondingnarrativefromtheliterarysourcesconcernsthefallofthemonarchyin509B.C.E.,andthevictoryoftheRomansovertheLatinLeagueattheBattleofLakeRegillusatthebeginningofthefifthcentury.779FollowingtheexpulsionofTarquiniusSuperbusfromRome,theformerkingmobilizedthesupportoftheLatinstatesandledtheminarevoltagainstRome.TherebellioncametoanendattheBattleofLakeRegillus,foughtintheneighborhoodofGabii,somewherebetweenRomeandTusculum.Althoughsomeofthecharactersareclearlytheproductofmythandlegend,thedatesarecorrupt,andthenarrativeseemsaromanticizedaccountofpoliticalrevolt,thebroadoutlineoftheaccountseemstofitthehistoricalnarrativeregardingthefoundationoftheRomanRepublicandthesubsequentRomanconquestofLatium.780RomandominanceattheendofthesixthcenturymayexplaintheabandonmentordestructionofthearchaicbuildinginareaD,aswellasthedestructionofthe"Regia"atGabii;thismayalsoaccountfortheabandonmentofthebuildingatAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.Itisequallypossiblethatsomeinternalconflict,perhapsbetweenrivalgentes,contributedtothesedevelopments,butthereislittleindependentevidenceforthis.WhateverledtotheabandonmentordestructionofthebuildingsatGabii,itneednotsignalthecontractionofthecitynorprecludethepresenceofintramuralburial.Inthefirstplace,thereisnoevidence,otherthantheburialsthemselves,thatthelimitsofGabiichangedfromthesixthtofourthcenturies.ItiscommonpracticeinRomanarchaeologytodefinecitylimitsaccordingtothepresenceorabsenceofburials,oftenintheabsenceofmorereliableindicatorssuchascircuitwalls.ThisisbasedlargelyontheprohibitionagainstintramuralburialandcremationintheTwelveTables,which,whenappliedtothearchaeologicalrecord,aretakentomeanthatburialsmustalwaysbeoutsidethecity.ThereisnoreasontoapplythisconventionalapproachtoGabii,however,sincethereisgoodevidencethatthecitywallsremainedinuseuntilsometimeinthethirdcentury.781

778Gnade1992.779Seep.2,n.9.780Cornell(1995,215‐41),treatsfullytheaccountsregardingthefoundationoftheRomanRepublic,andsummarizesthedivergentopinionsinmodernscholarship.SeealsoOgilvie(1965,285‐7).781Seeabove,n.644.

192

Whatismore,evenCiceroacknowledgesthat,onoccasion,exceptionsweregranted,andburialswerepermittedwithinthelimitsofthecity.782Thisprivilegewasreportedlygiventoindividualswhohaddonesomeserviceforstateortothosewhohadobservedthepracticeofintramuralburialbeforethepromulgationofthelaws.Asnotedabove,theburialsinareaD,andperhapstheremainingstructuresofthebuilding,werepartiallyincorporatedintothereorganizationofthecityinthelatefifthcentury.AreaDwentvirtuallyunoccupiedinlaterperiods,asopposedtoareasB,CandF,whichallrevealevidenceofextensiveconstructionactivityfromthefourththroughsecondcenturies.TheonlyevidenceforredevelopmentinareaDistheroadthatcoversthesecondsemi‐chambertomb.Thedestructionofthegravemayhavebeenanintentional,althoughitisunclearwhytheremainingtwograveswouldhaveremaineduntouched.Itispossiblethatonlytheindividualsassociatedwiththosetombswereallowedcontinuedcommemoration;thismaysuggestthattheindividualsburiedhereweresignificantandpotentiallyhigh‐ranking.783ThereisincreasingarchaeologicalevidencefromRome,whichsuggeststhatintramuralburialwaspracticedasearlyastheseventhcentury,thoughrarely.784OntheslopesofthePalatine,fourseventh‐centuryinhumationburials(threeadultsafossaandaninfantenchytrismos)werediscoveredinanenclosedarea,inthesamesectorofthehillthatwasoccupiedintheeighthcenturybyaportionoffortificationwalls.Theidentificationofthewallseemscertain,asitcorrespondsinmasonryandorientationwithothertractsofthecircuitwallonthePalatine.Theportionofthewallunderexcavationstoodforashortperiodoftime,perhapscorrespondingtoasinglegeneration,beforeitwasabandonedanddestroyed.Shortlyafterthisevent,thefourburialsweremadeintheimmediatearea;oneofthegraveswassituateddirectlyabovethedestructionlayerofthefoundationofthewall.Immediatelyaftertheburialsweremade,theareawasdelimitedbyasortofenclosurewallconstructedofvertically‐depositedslabsofcappellacciotuff;aportionofthiswallwasalsolocatedabovetheremainsoftheeighth‐centurycircuitwall.Thereisevidencethattheareaunderwentadditionalreorganizationatthistime,asaglareateroad,leadingtothetopofthehill,appearstohavebeenconstructed.Afifthburial,dugshortlythereafter,truncatedthesouthlimitoftheenclosurewall,andwassuperimposedononeoftheearliertombs.Onthebasisofthematerialsfoundintheircorredi,thesegravesweredatedbetween725and675‐650B.C.E.Inthesecondquarteroftheseventhcentury,andpossiblyoverlappingwiththetimeofthedepositionoftheburials,thecircuitwallwasrebuiltfurtherdownslopetoincludeagreaterportionofthehill.Thusitseemsthattheseburialswerelocatedwithininanareathat,intheseventhcentury,wassituatedwithinthecitywalls.Thedirectrelationshipbetweenthedestructionofthewallandtheconstructionofthetombsissignificant,andfindscomparisonwithevidencefromotherIronAgesitesinRome.InheranalysisofthestratigraphicsequencefromthePalatine,Galloneclaimsthatthereis

782Cic.Deleg.2.58‐2.62.SeeChapter4.783MogettaandBecker2014,178.784Gallone2007‐2008;Gusberti2007‐2008.Anumberofotherpapersfromthesamevolume(BartoloniandBenedettini2007‐2008)presenttheevidenceforburialamongthelivinginIronAgeMediterraneancontexts.

193

anundeniableconnectionbetweenthecircuitwallandtheburials,sincethelatterwereconstructeddirectlyinthelevelsofthedestructionandobliterationofthewall.785Shesuggeststhattheburialsweremadeaspartofaritualofferinginatonementforthedestructionofasacredstructure.Thisritualmayhavebeenconnectedtothereconstructionofthewallfurtherdownslope,whichseemstohaveoccurredataboutthesametime.Sheconsidersasanalternateexplanationthepracticeofintramuralburial,althoughthesetwohypothesesneednotbemutuallyexclusive.InarelatedstudyofIronAgeburialsatRome,Gusberticlaimsthattombs,particularlythoseofchildrenandinfants,arelocatedinassociationwithbuildingsofsomesignificance.786Shecitesasevidencethediscoveryofchildandinfantburialsinthefoundation,destructionandreconstructionlevelsofthebuildingidentifiedastheRegia,aswellasthefourburialsonthePalatinediscussedbyGallone.Thepresenceofthreeadultinhumationburialsinconnectionwiththedestructionofaportionofthecircuitwall,Gusbertibelieveshighlightsthespecialstatusofthedeceased;sheconsidersthemsacrificesmadeinordertoatonefortheviolationofthesanctityofthewall.AlthoughIamdoubtfuloftheidentificationoftheseburialsassacrifices,itseemsclearthattheymarkthesignificanceofthewallanditsdestruction.ThesamephenomenonisvisibleinthearchaiccontextsatGabiiandAcquaAcetosaLaurentina,wherethereisevidenceforadultinhumationburialintheremainsofarchitecturalfeatures.787Onthebasisoftheevidenceoutlinedabove,thisrelationshipsuggeststhatboththedeceasedandthebuildingweresomehowsignificant.Important,too,isthetentativeidentificationofboththesebuildingsasresidences.Inthesamepaper,Gusberticlaimsthatjuvenileburialsappearinassociationwithhousesassymbolicmarkersoftheauthorityofthefamily.788Shebelievesthelocationofchildandinfantburialsalongthelimitsofhousesfunctionasevidenceforthedesireofaristocraticfamilygroupstodelimittheirareasofhabitation,whichpresumablyfunctionedastheseatoftheirauthority.Itispossiblethatadultburials,foundinthedestructionlevelsofhouses,mayhaveheldasimilarsignificance.Bedini,forhispart,claimedtheburialsatAcquaAcetosaLaurentinasignaledthedesireofcertaingroupstoestablishaconnectiontotheareaandthebuilding.789AtGabii,atleastoneoftheburialsisbuiltinthecollapsedremainsofthenorthernmostwallsofthebuilding,anditseemslikely,inlightoftheevidence,thattheremaininggraveswereconstructedinrelationtothebuilding.Thismayevenbewhat

785Gallone2007‐2008,661‐2.786Gusberti2007‐2008.787SeeChapter5.788Gusberti2007‐2008.Shementionsbrieflythediscoveryofadultinhumationburialsinassociationwithhouses,andnotesthattheycontainfewtonogravegoods(Gusberti2007‐2008,640).Althoughshedoesnotdiscussthesefurther,itseemsthatthereisacorrelation,beginningintheIronAge,betweenalackofgravegoodsandintramuralburial.Theimplicationsofthisdiscoveryrequirefurtherresearch,however.789Bedini1981b;1983.

194

ServiusandIsidoremeantwhentheyclaimeditwascustomamongtheancientstoburythedeceasedathome.790Whatremainsunclear,however,isthepreciserelationshipbetweenthedeceasedandthestructures.Itispossibletosuggestthatthedeceasedwerethesamegroupastheoccupantsofthebuilding,inthesamemannerasthechildandinfantburials.However,itwouldbeunwisetoruleoutthepossibilitythatthesetombsbelongedtoothergroupsestablishingtheirnewclaimtothearea,sincemonumentalformsofburialareoftenconnectedtoperiodsofconflictorsociopoliticalunrest.791Ifthisisthecase,theburialsatGabiimaybeunderstoodwithinthecontextofthecity'sabsorptionintoRomanterritorytowardtheendofthesixthcentury.Thedestructionofthehousemayrepresentthefalloftherulingelite,andtheburialsanattempttoreassertthatauthorityintheadventofRomanrule.TheRomans,fortheirpart,mayhaverecognizedtheimportanceofthisgroupandallowedtheburialstoremainmostlyintactduringthereorganizationofthecityinthelatefifthcentury.AlthoughthepracticeofburyingadultsathomeandwithincitiesisrareinRomeandLatium,andperhapsconnectedtoritual,theproblemmaybebettercontextualizedwiththeevidencefromsouthernItaly.Intramuralburialiscommonlyattestedatsitesthroughouttheregionfromtheseventhtothirdcenturies,andmayevenreflecttheindigenousburialpracticesofthesecommunities.AmongthesitesinthemodernregionofPuglia,intramuralburialisanearuniversalfeature.792AtthesiteofBotromagno,nearthemoderntownofGravina,buildingsandadultburialsoccupythesettlementareafromthemid‐sixththroughearlythirdcenturies(6.42).Inaseriesofexcavationsundertakenonthehilltop,inanareaidentifiedasSiteH,theconstructionphasesofatleastthreebuildingsarelocatedindirectstratigraphicrelationshipwithburials(fig.6.43).793Here,fifthcenturytombstruncateearlierphasesofabuildingthatdatefromthelatesixthtoearlyfifthcentury;thesamebuildingundergoesasecondandthirdphaseofconstructionintheearlyfourthcenturyandtheninthelatefourthtoearlythird.Sometimeinthelatefourthtoearlythirdcenturythewallsofthebuildingwererazedtothelowestcourseabovethefoundationlevel,andtheareaincludedinaformalfuneraryenclosure.Thesamekindsofsuperimpositionofphasesofconstructionarevisibleintheothertwobuildingsatthesite.Elsewhere,burialsaremorecommonlyfoundclusteredtogetherinsmallburialgroundswithinthelimitsofthesettlement.ThisphenomenonisattestedatanotherexcavatedportionofBotrogmagno,SiteF,wherethecustomappearsbytheendoftheseventhcentury,andoccurssimultaneouslywiththepracticeofburyingadultsinassociationwithhouses.794AtMonteSannace,intramuralburialsappearinmonumentalformswithrich

790SeeChapter3,sectiond.791ParkerPearson1992,87.792Marchi2009.793Whitehouseetal.2009,233‐58.794Ciancio1990,239;Small1992,7‐9.Onenotablediscoverywasalatethirdcenturycourtyardbuilding,constructedoversomemid‐fourth‐centurysemi‐chambertombs.Thesemi‐chambertombsatBotromagnoaredifferentfromthoseatGabii.AtBotromagnothese

195

corrediatthesametimeasthecityadoptsanurbancharacteratthebeginningofthesixthcentury.795Overthecourseofthesixthandfifthcenturies,thecityacquiredthearchitecturalfeaturesandspacescommonlyassociatedwithurbancenters,includingpublicandprivatespacesandbuildings.Thisphaseincludedthedevelopmentofcemeteryareas,whichappearalongsideresidentialzoneswithinthewallsofthecity.Inthefourthandthirdcenturies,whenthecityreacheditsfloruit,theacropoliswasrestructuredtofunctionasalocusforpublicbuildingsandelaboratefunerarymonuments;otherareasofthesettlementfeaturehousesmixedwithburials.796AtCeglie,RuvoandTimmari,burialsareallfoundwithinthelimitsofthecityfromthesixthcenturytothelatethirdorearlysecond;atTimmari,theburialsarenotablysuperimposedonphasesofearlierresidentialbuildings.797TherelationshipbetweenthecitiesofsouthernItalyandLatiumrequiresfurtherexploration,butforthemomenttheevidenceatleastraisesthepossibilityofintramuralburialinLatincontexts,andrevealsacertainconnectionbetweenburialsandbuildings,especiallyhouses.Italsosuggeststhatthepresenceofintramuralburialisnotindicativeofthecollapseofthesociopoliticalorganizationofthecity,butinsteadmayhavefunctionedaspartoftheurbanfabric.Attheveryleast,thesitesinsouthernItalypresentadifferentmodelforunderstandingintramuralburialinRomeandLatium,wherebyburialmayhave,atleastinsomecases,playedaroleinthedevelopmentofthecity.6j.ConclusionInthischapterIpresentedthearchaeologicalevidenceforthearchaicphasesofoccupationrecoveredoverthecourseofrecentexcavationsintheurbanareaatGabii.AsamemberoftheGabiiProjectsince2009Ihaveparticipatedinandeventuallyledtheexcavationofthearea.Afterpresentingageneraloverviewofthesiteandahistoryofexcavationinthearea,Iofferedadetaileddescriptionofthesite'smainfeaturesandthesequencesrelatedtotheirdevelopment.AreaDrevealstwodistinctphasesofoccupationintheArchaicperiod:first,asanareacharacterizedbyarchitecturalremainsthatIhaveinterpretedlooselyasanarchaicbuilding.Thisbuildingunderwenttwophasesofmonumentalconstructionbeginninginthefirsthalfofthesixthcenturyandagaininthemid‐latesixth.Elsewhere,thebuildingistentativelyinterpretedasanelitecomplex,andIconsidertheevidenceforandagainsttheidentificationofthisbuildingasanexampleofelitearchitecture.Next,Ipresenttheevidenceforburials,whichrepresentsthearea'ssecondmajorphaseofoccupation.Ithendiscussthedatawithaviewtounderstandingwhowasburiedinthisareaandwhy.Theresultsareinmanywaysinconclusive,but,inanattempttounderstand

tombswerebuiltofsquare‐cutslabsofstoneclosedbylargercutstoneblocks.Someofthesesemi‐chambertombsborepainteddecorationonthewallsofthestructure.ThechambertombsalsodifferedfromotherexamplesinLatium,andwasmadeofcutstoneblocksandcoveredbyapitchedroof.795Marchi2009,22‐24.796Ciancio1990,237,239.797Marchi2009,26‐9.

196

thearchaeologicalevidence,Iinterprettheburialsinlightoftheexistenceofgentilicialstructures,whichhavebeenarguedinnearbycemeterycontexts.Ialsoconsidertheevidenceforintramuralburial,highlightingthecross‐culturalinfluencebetweenareasincentralandsouthernItaly.

197

7.Conclusion

Atitscore,thisdissertationisastudyoftheevidenceforburialandfuneraryritualinRomeandLatiumduringthesixthandearlyfifthcenturiesB.C.E.Theevidencecomesfromawidearrayofsources,includingliteraryaccounts,legaltextsandarchaeologicalmaterial.Theemphasis,however,isdistinctlyarchaeological,inpartbecauseoftheinconsistentnatureoftheancientsourcematerial,andinpartbecausethearchaeologyoffersaconsiderablebodyofevidencethathasneverbeenthesubjectofsystematicanalysis.Tothisend,Ihaveorganizedthedissertationintofivechapters.Thefirstthreedealwiththeliteraryandlegalsources:afteranassessmentofthereliabilityoftheancientaccountsinChapter2,IcontinuewithaninvestigationoftheliteraryevidenceconcerningfunerarypracticesinarchaicRomeinChapter3,andthenIassessthemostrelevanthistoricalsourceregardingearlyfuneraryritualinChapter4,thefunerarylegislationoftheTwelveTables.Chapter5consistsfirstofareviewofthearchaeologicalsitesinRomeandLatiumwithevidenceforburialduringtheArchaicperiod,andconcludeswithmyinterpretationofthisevidence.InChapter6ItakeacloserlookatthearchaeologicalevidencefromtheancientsiteofGabii,sincemycontinuedparticipationintheexcavationstherehaveservedsimultaneouslyasasourceofinspirationforthisdissertation,andasanespeciallyrichsourceofevidence.Ihaveundertakenthisprojectwithaviewtosheddingsomelightonthekindsofsocialandpoliticalinstitutionsthatcontributedtotheurbandevelopmentoftheregion.Inotherwords,Iwanttoknowwhowasresponsibleforcity‐stateformation,howtheysetouttoachievethisandwhy,whatwasthenatureoftheirinteractionwithothermembersofthecommunity,andwhatwastheextentandnatureoftheirinteractionwithpopulationsfurtherafield?Iamalsoconcernedwithquestioninghowhistoriansconceiveofandarchaeologistsidentifycity‐states.Theanswer,Isuspect,isnotclear‐cut,astheprocessofurbandevelopmentisadynamicone,withthestructureofthesettlementchangingaccordingtothecircumstancesofdifferentsubsetsofthepopulation.Theroleofburialinallthisistobeabletotakeaconsiderablebodyofevidenceandobservewithinitpatternsofhumanbehaviorthatarchaeologistscanusetoreconstructthepast.Burialsareusefulforthiskindofstudybecausetheyconstituteoneofthemostabundantcategoriesofarchaeologicaldata.Inaddition,theybenefitfromalonghistoryofstudyinmodernscholarship,whichprovidesabettertheoreticalandanalyticalframework.TheArchaicperiodofRomeandLatiumisnotaneasysubjectofstudy.Othershavepointedoutbeforemethedifficultiesinvolvedwiththislineofresearch,emphasizingthatalmosteverypointofviewisopentoreadycriticism.798TheprimaryreasonforthisisthatarchaicRomestraddlesthelinebetweenhistoryandprehistory:archaeologistswidelyrecognizethesixthcenturyasthebeginningoftheurbanphaseofdevelopment,whenRomeandmanysettlementsinLatiumshow,forthefirsttime,evidenceforthoseattributescommonlyassociatedwithcity‐states;anditispreciselythisperiodthatcorrespondstotheregalperiodknownfromtheancientaccounts.Complicatingthispicture,however,isthe

798ThispointofviewisarticulatedinsomeformorotherinCornell(1995);Smith(1996);Raaflaub(2005);Cornell(2005);Forsythe(2005);Smith(2006).

198

natureoftheevidencefromthehistoricalsources,namely,thattheaccountsconcerningRome'searlyhistorywerewrittencenturiesaftertherecordedeventsandcontainmaterialthatisclearlytheproductofinventionandexaggeration,drivenbyGreeknarratives.Theproblemarises,then,ofhowtointerpretbothtypesofmaterial:awholesalerejectionoftheaccountsseemspremature,especiallysincetheyindicateanincreasingsociopoliticalcomplexitythatseemssupportedbysomeofthearchaeologicalevidence.However,thereisgoodindicationthatmuchofwhattheancientsourcesreportisfalseorfabricated.InthisdissertationIhaveadoptedafairlyskepticalapproachtowardtheancientsources,but,likemanyarchaeologiststryingtomakethebestofwhattheyhave,consultthesourcematerialinordertocontextualizethematerialdata.Insuchcasesmyconclusionsaretentativeand,bymyownadmission,speculative.However,therearemanyinstanceswheretheancientaccountscannotbeoverlooked,becausetheyofferdirectcommentaryonsomeoftheissuesraisedbythearchaeologicalmaterial.Forinstance,itisimpossibletofullyunderstandthedevelopmentofarchaicGabiiwithoutconsideringfirstthevariouspointswhenthecity'shistoryintersectswiththatofRome.SomeoftheevidencefromGabiipointstotheabandonmentofcertainareasofthecitybytheendofthefifthcentury;itispossibletoseeinthissomesupportforthehistoricalsourcesregardingtheRomanconquestofLatiumataboutthattime.Itisequallypossible,thatthereisnoconnectionbetweenthetwophenomena,asisoftenthecasewithcomparisonsofarchaeologicalandliteraryevidence.Nevertheless,ifwearetounderstandthehistoryofthisregionatall,wemustconsiderasmanyalternativesaspossible.Thearchaeologicalmaterialpresentssomeveryinterestingpatterns.IdemonstrateinChapter5,thattheburialrecordofarchaicRomeandLatiumischaracterized,aboveall,byvariety.Varietyintombarchitecture,locationandgravegoods;onlytwositesseemtohaveevidenceforconsistencyandconformityinfuneraryritual,whichmaybetakenasevidencefornon‐Latincustoms.Thishighdegreeofvarietyoccursatlocalandregionallevels;thoughsomeregionsseemtoindicateapreferenceforacertaintype,analysisofspecificburialgroundsrevealsamultiplicityoftombtypes,ofteningroupsthatseemclusteredtogether.IhavearguedthatthisdegreeofvarietypointstotheconnectivityofthesettlementsofcentralItaly,whichseemsbothinwardandoutwardlooking.ThereseemtohavebeenmultiplepointsofcontactbetweentheinhabitantsofancientLatiumandtheoutsideworld,whichwaslikelyfacilitatedbytheconstructionofroadwaysandtheexploitationofnaturalfeaturesinthetopography.Thiscreationofthesekindsofnetworksseemstohavebeenencouragedbythegrowthandencroachmentofvariouspopulations,whoseemtohaveenjoyedafairamountofhorizontalsocialmobility.TheevidenceforEtruscan‐andGreek‐inspiredmodesofburialsuggeststhatthereremainedintheArchaicperiodcloseconnectionsbetweentheseareasandLatium.Whiletheadoptionofsuchforeignsymbolsmaybeconsideredanactofculturalresistance,itseemsmoreareflectionofthedegreeofregionalcontactandinfluencethatseemstohavespreadthroughoutthearea.MostmodernscholarshipdwellsonthepaucityofgravesandgravegoodsoftheArchaicperiod.WhiletheevidenceIhavegatheredrevealsthatthisstillholdstrue,thisdearthhasbeenoverstatedattheexpenseofmorefruitfulformsofanalysis.Muchofthesecondary

199

literatureisconcernedwithconnectingtheabsenceofgravegoodsingravestothefunerarylegislationoftheTwelveTables,orsomeregalpredecessor.AlthoughIacknowledgethattheTwelveTablesmaybeavalidhistoricaldocument,IbelieveitreflectsmorethecircumstancesatRomeintheMiddleandLateRepublic.Thismaybeareflectionofearlierpractices,thatin450B.C.E.orlaterweredraftedintolaw.Idonotconsiderthisgoodevidence,however,toaccountforthephenomenonvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecord.Rather,itseemsthatthisreductionoccurredgradually,atthesametimeasothersignificanttransformationsinthesocialstructureofRomansociety,suchasagrowingcomplexityofsocialhierarchy,andsettlementnucleationandmonumentalization.ItismyintentionthattheevidencegatheredherecontributestoagrowingbodyofstudiesconcerningurbanizationinItaly,andofferabetterunderstandingofthesociopoliticalstructureofearlyRomansociety.ThesetypesofstudiesareimportantbecausetheyoffersomeperspectiveontheprocessesinvolvedintheformationnotonlyofRomeasthecity‐stateparexcellence,butofthosecitiesthatgraduallyseemtohavefallenwithinRome'sorbit.TheArchaicperiodisacrucialtimeforthedevelopmenttheLatincity‐statesinrelationtoRome;thearchaeologicalevidencefromthesesitessuggeststheyachievedtheirpeakofprosperityinthesixthcentury,beforeshrinkingordisappearance.ThisisoftenunderstoodinlightofRome'sgrowingdominanceinthearea,andhere,too,thearchaeologicalevidencepointstoRome'scontrolovermuchofLatiumbytheendofthesixthcentury.Whattheevidencecollectedherehopestoaddressishowthathappenedandwhatformsofnegotiationorconflicttookplacebetweenindividuals,groupsandcities.Wemaybefairlycertainoftheendresult,buthavelittleindicationofhowthatcameabout.Thisdissertationgoessomewayintoinvestigatingthisdynamicandpoorlyunderstoodprocess.

200

Figures

Figure1.1MapofancientLatium,showingmajorsites.AfterSmith1996,240,map1.

201

Figure5.1PlanofRomeshowinghillsandlocationofearlycemeteries.Lanciani'sexcavationsareindicatedjustnorthoftheVelia.AfterHolloway1994,24,fig.2.1.

202

Figure5.2PlanoftheEsquilinenecropolisaccordingtoPinza.AfterBullCom1914,pl.V‐VI.

203

Figure5.3AtticRedFigurepelikefromtomb89ontheEsquilinenecropolis.AfterColonna1977,140,fig.3/A.

Figure5.4AtticRedFigurepelikefromtomb89ontheEsquilinenecropolis.AfterColonna1977,141,fig.3/B.

204

Figure5.5Containerofpeperinooftomb193fromtheEsquilinenecropolis.AfterColonna1977,142,fig.4.

205

Figure5.6Containerofpeperinooftomb193fromtheEsquilinenecropolis.AfterHolloway1994,26,fig.2.4.

206

Figure5.7Marbleurnoftomb193fromtheEsquilinenecropolis.AfterColonna1977,143,fig.5/A.

Figure5.8Marbleurnoftomb193oftheEsquilinenecropolis.AfterHolloway1994,26,fig.2.3.

207

Figure5.9Drawingofurn,probablyfromtomb5fromtheEsquilinenecropolis.

AfterColonna1977,148,fig.7.

Figure5.10Urn,probablyfromtomb5fromtheEsquilinenecropolis.

AfterMonAnt1905,186,fig.78.

208

Figure5.11UrnfromunknowntombasdrawnbyLanciani.AfterBullCom1912,38,fig.13.

Figure5.12PlanshowinglocationofearlycemeteriesnearthePiazzaVittorioEmanueleII.TrianglesindicatethetombsexcavatedbyPinza;theblackrectanglesarethetombs

excavatedbyAsoretal.2009;thegreyrectanglesarethetombsexcavatedbyColini1932.AfterAsorRosaetal.2009,76,fig.11.

209

Figure5.13Generalplanofexcavationin2002inthePiazzaVittorioEmanueleII.AfterBarberaetal.2005,303,fig.38.

Figure5.14Generalplanofexcavationin2002inPiazzaVittorioEmanueleII.AfterBarberaetal.2005,307,fig.41.

210

Figure5.15Amphorafromtomb3in2002excavationsinPiazzaVittorioEmanueleII.AfterBarberaetal.2005,310,fig.46.

Figure5.16Gravegoodsfromtomb12in2002excavationsinPiazzaVittorioEmanueleII. AfterBarberaetal.2005,315,fig.59.

Figure5.17Sarcophagusoftuff,tomb12from2002excavationsinPiazzaVittorio EmanueleII.AfterBarberaetal.2005,315,fig.57.

211

Figure5.18GeneralplanoftheexcavationbetweentheVialedelMonteOppioandtheVia delleTermediTraiano,Rome.AfterCoarelli200111,fig.4.

Figure5.19SuggrundariumEfromViaSacra,Rome.AfterGjerstad1953,147,fig.141.

212

Figure5.20SuggrundariumFfromViaSacra.AfterGjerstad1953,147,fig.142.

Figure5.21SuggrundariumLLfromViaSacra.AfterGjerstad1953,148,fig.143.

213

Figure5.22SuggrundariumNNfromViaSacra.AfterGjerstad1953,148,fig.144.

Figure5.23MapofRomeindicatingthelocationoftheexcavationontheViaGoito.AfterMenghietal.2005,352,fig.97.

214

Figure5.24SarcophagifromViaGoito,Rome.AfterMenghietal.2005,356,fig.106.

Figure5.25MapshowinglocationofAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterBedini1983,29,fig.1.

215

Figure5.26PlanofbuildingatAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterBedini1981b,255,fig.4.

Figure5.27Planofchambertomb3atAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterBedini1983,32,fig.10.

216

Figure5.28Planofchambertomb4atAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterBedini1983,36,fig.11.

217

Figure5.29Planofchambertombs1and2atAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterBedini1983,30,fig.2.

Figure5.30Sectionplanofchambertombs1and2atAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterBedini1983,30,fig.2.

218

Figure5.31PlanofcemeteryatCasaleMassima.AfterBedini1980,59,fig.1.

Figure5.32PlanofatrenchtombfromCasaleMassima.AfterBedini1980,60,fig.2.

219

Figure5.33Planofchambertombs1and2fromCasaleMassima.Chambertomb1isonthe left,chambertomb2isontheright.AfterBedini1983,34,fig.9.

220

Figure5.34Profiledrawingofollettafromchambertomb1atCasaleMassima.AfterBedini1980,62,fig.4,n.2.

Figure5.35Profiledrawingofpentolinafromchambertomb2atCasaleMassima.AfterBedini1980,62,fig.4,n.4.

221

Figure5.36GeneralplanofTorrino.AfterBedini1981,57,fig.1.

Figure5.37Chambertombs1(left)and2(right)fromTorrino.AfterBedini1981,58,fig.3.

222

Figure5.38Chamber2fromTorrino.AfterBedini1981,62,fig.6.

Figure5.39PlanofareaofexcavationatCasaleBrunori.AfterBedini1991,100,fig.3.

223

Figure5.40AerialviewofchambertombsatCasaleBrunori.AfterBedini1991,105,fig.11.

Figure5.41GeneralplanofexcavationatTorde'Cenci.AfterBedini1990,123,fig.2.

224

Figure5.42AerialviewoffirstcircleofchambertombsatTorde'Cenci.AfterBedini1990,124,fig.4.

Figure5.43AerialviewofsecondcircleofchambertombsatTorde'Cenci.AfterBedini1990,125,fig.5.

225

Figure5.44Pentolafromchambertomb16atTorde'Cenci.AfterBedini1990,127,fig.7.

Figure5.45BeadsofthenecklacebelongingtothewomanburiedatFidenae.AfterGRT260,no.10.4.4.

226

Figure5.46GeneralmapofsitesinLatiumVetus.AfterRajala2008a,41,fig.2.

Figure5.47GeneralmapofCrustumerium,includingsitesofCisternaGrande,Montedel BufaloandSassoBiancoexcavations.AfterRajala2008a,40,fig.1.

227

Figure5.48.MapdetailoftheMonteDelBufalonecropolis,Crustumerium.AfterNijboer2008,24,fig.2.

Figure5.49MapdetailoftombsexcavatedatCisternaGrande,Crustumerium.AfterRajala2008a,44,fig.4.

228

Figure5.50ChambertombatCisternaGrande,Crustumerium.AfterRajala2008a,44.fig.5,A.

Figure5.51ChambertombatCisternaGrande,Crustumerium.AfterRajala2008a,44.fig.5,B.

229

Figure5.52AerialphotoofchambertombsatCorcolle.AfterReggianietal.1998,122,fig.2.

230

Figure5.53PlanshowinglocationofchildandinfantburialsatFicana.AfterJarva1981b,270,fig.1.

231

Figure5.54PlanofthechambertombatLavinium.AfterGuaitoli1995,556,fig.7.

232

Figure5.55ChambertombatLavinium.AfterGuaitoli1995,557,fig.8.

Figure5.56UrnofcappellacciofromchambertombatLavinium.AfterGuaitoli1995,558,fig.9.

233

Figure5.57TyrrhenianamphorafromchambertombatLavinium.AfterGuaitoli1995,559,fig.11.

Figure5.58AmphoraofbuccherofromchambertombatLavinium.AfterGuaitoli1995,559,fig.14.

234

Figure5.59AtticRedFigurestamnosfromchambertombatLavinium.AfterGuaitoli1995,559,fig.15.

Figure5.60PlanofLaviniumshowinglocationoftumuli.AfterGuaitoli1995,561,fig.16.

235

Figure5.61BronzecuirassfromtheTomboftheWarrior,Lanuvium.AfterColonna1977,152,8/A.

Figure5.62HelmetfromtheTomboftheWarrior,Lanuvium.AfterColonna1977,150,fig.8/A.

236

Figure5.63Tomb5fromthesiteofCampodelFico,Corcolle.AfterCrescenziandTortorici1983,47,fig.21.

Figure5.64GeneralplanshowingexcavationareasatSatricum.AfterGnade2002,215,fig.1.

237

Figure5.65Mapoftopographyandexcavatedfeaturesofthenorthwestnecropolisand acropolis,partofoldexcavationsatSatricum.AfterWaarsenburg1995,43,pl.8.

Figure5.66GeneralplanofthesouthwestnecropolisatSatricum.AfterGnade2002,227,fig.18.

238

Figure5.67Hypotheticalreconstructionoftheareaexcavatedin1909ontheacropolisat Satricum,includinglargesquarehutandAcropolisTombs1‐3.

AfterGinge,1996,126,fig.37.

239

Figure5.68MapofexcavationareasatPoggiodeiCavallari,Satricum.

AfterGnade2002,217,fig.3.

240

Figure5.69FinalBronzeandEarlyIronAgetraderoutesofancientLatium.AfterBiettiSestieri1992b,74,fig.3.17.

Figure5.70IronAge(IIBandIII)traderoutesofancientLatium.AfterBiettiSestieri1992b,75,fig.3.17.

241

Figure5.71MapofchambertombXXIIfromColledelForno,Eretum.AfterSantoro1983,128,fig.27.

Figure6.1MapofCentralItaly,showinglocationofGabii.CourtesyofUniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill,AncientWorldMappingCenter.

242

Figure6.2GeneralmapofCastiglionecrater.1:MiddleandLateBronzeAge,EarlyIronAgesettlement.2‐18:EarlyIronAgesettlementunits.19:CemeteryofOsteriadell'Osa.20:CemeteryofCastiglione.Thethicklinealongthesoutheasternedgeofthecraterdelimits

theurbanareaofarchaicGabii.AfterBiettiSestieri1992b,77,fig.4.1.

243

Figure6.3GeneralmapofGabiiindicatingthemainareasofexcavation.ModifiedafterBiettiSestieri1992b,77,fig.4.1.

Figure6.4PlanofGabiishowingtheinterpretedresultsofthemagnetometrysurvey.Theredlinesindicateapositivelinearfeature.AfterBeckeretal2009,635,fig.5.

244

Figure6.5Aerialphotoshowingtheresultsofthemagnetometrysurveyandthelocationsofseveralfeatures.1.theGabiiProjectareaofexcavation,2.theAreaUrbana,3.the

possiblelocationofHamilton'sForum,and4.theTempleofJuno.AfterMogettaandBecker2014,173,fig.2.

Figure6.6AerialphotoofthesiteexcavatedbytheGabiiProject,indicatingareasofexcavation.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

245

Figure6.7PlanoftheareaexcavatedbytheGabiiProjectfrom2009to2011.DrawingbyR.Opitz.AfterMogettaandBecker2014,175,fig.5.

246

Figure6.8AerialphotoofareaDoftheGabiiProject,takenfromthenorth.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

247

Figure6.9PlanofareaDoftheGabiiProject."T"indicatesatomb.DrawingbyRachelOpitz.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

248

Figure6.10AerialphotoofareasD,CandE(lefttoright)oftheGabiiProject,takenfromthesouth.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

249

Figure6.11Vesselcontainingturtle,intentionaldepositioninnorthwestcornerofRoom2.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

Figure6.12PlanofareaofWall34(apsidalwall)atOropos.AfterMazarakisAinian1997,fig.75.

250

Figure6.13Planofhouse63.2(c.650‐600B.C.E.)atMegaraHyblaea.AfterDeAngelis2003,29,fig.15.

Figure6.14PlanofedificobetainthemiddleOrientalizingperiod(c.mid‐seventhcentury).AfterBonghiJovinoandTreré1997,pl.145.1.

251

Figure6.15PlanofarchaicresidenceinzoneFatAcquarossa.AfterÖstegard1975,140.

Figure6.16PlanofthearchaiccomplexfromMurlo(PoggioCivitate).AfterPhillips1993,11,fig.8.

252

Figure6.17PlanoftheatriumhouseontheSacraVia.Archaicphasesshowninblack.AfterGRT,98,no.4.2.

253

Figure6.18Planofphase1(archaic)oftheAuditorumsite.AfterCarandini1997,121,fig.2.

Figure6.19PlanofarchaicbuildingatTorrino.AfterBedini1984,86,fig.2.

254

Figure6.20PlanofarchaicbuildingatAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterGRT,171.

255

Figure6.21PlanofthebuildingatGrottarossa.AfterNSc1945,54,fig.4.

256

Figure6.22ReconstructionofthesettlementontheacropolisatSatricumintheeighthcentury.Thecirclesdelimittheclustersofhuts.AfterMaaskant‐Kleibrink1991,73,fig.10;

modifiedbyColantoni2012,25,fig.2.2.

Figure6.23ReconstructionofthesettlementontheacropolisatSatricuminthelateeighthandseventhcenturies.Circlesdelimittheclustersofhuts.

AfterMaaskant‐Kleibrink1991,79,fig.15;modifiedbyColantoni2012,26,fig.2.3.

257

Figure6.24ReconstructionofthesettlementontheacropolisatSatricuminthesixthcentury.AfterMaaskant‐Kleibrink1991,93,fig.22b.

258

Figure6.25Tomb25inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

Figure6.26PhotomodelreconstructionofTomb25inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

259

Figure6.27Semi‐chambertomb1inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

Figure6.28Photomodelreconstructionofsemi‐chambertomb1inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

260

Figure6.29Eastniche(Tomb38)ofsemi‐chambertomb1inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

Figure6.30Spoolsandstripofworkedbone(nos.1‐15),eastniche(Tomb38)ofsemi‐chambertomb1inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

261

Figure6.31Northniche(Tomb39)ofsemi‐chambertomb1inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

Figure6.32Westniche(Tomb40)ofsemi‐chambertomb1inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

262

Figure6.33Semi‐chambertomb2inareaDatGabii(Tombs41and42totheleftandright).CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

Figure6.34Westniche(Tomb41)insemi‐chambertomb2inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

263

Figure6.35Eastniche(Tomb42)insemi‐chambertomb2inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

.

Figure6.36Tomb30inareaDatGabii,infantburialinadolium,fromtheeast.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

264

Figure6.37Tomb48inareaDatGabii,childburialafossa.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

Figure6.38Tomb49inareaDatGabii,infantburialinadolium.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject.

265

Figure6.39PlanoftheIronAgecemeteryatOsteriadell'Osa(c.900‐580B.C.E.).Graves fromthelatestphases(IIIB‐IVB,c.740‐580B.C.E.)areshaded.

AfterBiettiSestieri1992a,80,fig.4.2.

Figure6.40PlanoftheIronAgecemeteryatOsteriadell'OsaduringPeriodsIIandIIIA, showingthedivisionofclusters.AfterBiettiSestieri1992a,142,fig.7.1.

266

Figure6.41Osteriadell'Osa:planofTomb62(chambertomb).AfterBiettiSestieri1992b,pl.50.

Figure6.42PlanofBotromagnoshowingexcavatedsites.AfterWhitehouseetal.2000,2,fig.1.

267

Figure6.43PlanofSiteHatBotromagnoshowingbuildings,tombsandaroad.AfterWhitehouseetal.2000,5,fig.3.

268

BibliographyAlföldi,A.1965.EarlyRomeandtheLatins.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.AlmagroBasch1958.ExcavacionesespañolasenGabii."CuadernosdeTrabajosdelaEsacuelaEspañoladeHistoriayArqueologíaenRoma10:7‐27.Almagro‐Gorbea,M.1980."IltempiocosidettodiGiunoneGabina:situazioneattualedellostudio."AL3:168‐171._____.1981."L'areadeltempiodiGiunoneGabinanelVI‐Vsecoloa.C."AL4:297‐304.AlmagroGorbea,M.,ed.1982.ElSantuariodeJunoenGabii.BibliotecaItálica17.Rome:EscuelaEspañoladeHistoriayArqueologíaenRoma.Ammerman,A.J.1990."OntheOriginsoftheForumRomanum."AJA94:627‐45._____.1991."TwomostreandcataloguesonearlyRome.JRA4:200‐205.Amoroso,A.2000."Crustumerium,dacittàarcaicaasuburbiumdiRoma.BullettinoComunale101:263‐82.Ampolo,C.1970‐1."SualcunimutamentisocialinelLaziotral'VIIIsec.eilIV.sec."DdA4‐5:37‐68._____.1976‐77."Demarato:osservazionisullamobilitàsocialearcaica."DdA9‐10:333‐45._____.1977."Lecondizionimaterialidellaproduzione.Agricolturaepaesaggioagrario."DialArchn.s.,2:15‐46._____.1980."IgruppietniciinRomaarcaica:posizionedelprobelemaefonti."InGlietruschieRoma:attidell'incontrodistudioinonorediMassimoPallottino,Roma,11­13,dicembre1979,45‐70.Rome:G.Bretschneider._____.1984."Illussofunerarioelacittàarcaica."AION6:71‐102._____.1988."La'grandeRomadeiTarquini'revisitata."InAlleoriginidiRoma,editedbyE.Campanile,77‐87.Pisa:GiardiniEditori.Ampolo,C.,G.Bartoloni,A.Bedini,G.Bergonzi,A.M.BiettiSestieri,M.CataldiDini,andF.Cordano.1980"LaformazionedellacittànelLazio."DialArch1‐2.Ashby,T.1902."TheClassicalTopographyoftheRomanCampagna.PartI."PBSR1:127‐285.

269

_____.1907."TheClassicalTopographyoftheRomanCampagna.III.(TheViaLatina).SectionI."PBSR4:1‐159.AsorRosa,L.,M.Barbera,M.Munzi,M.PentiricciandG.Schingo.2009."PiazzaVittorioEmanueleII:daunepisodiodiriqualificazioneurbanaallarealizzazionediunGISstorico‐archeologico."InSuburbiumII.IlsuburbiodiRomadalladinedell'etàmonarchicaallanascitasistemadelleville(V­IIsecoloa.C.),editedbyV.Jolivet,C.Pavolini,M.A.Tomei,andR.Volpe,69‐79.Rome:ÉcoleFrançaisedeRome.Astolfi,F.,L.Cordischi,andL.Attilia.1989‐1990."VialedelMonteOppio‐viadelleTermediTraiano.Communicazionipreliminari."BullCom103:59‐68.Astolfi,F.,L.Cordischi,andS.Ferdinandi.1990."ColleOppio.ViadelMonteOppio‐ViadelleTermediTraiano."BolArc1‐2:176‐184.Badian,E.1966."TheEarlyHistorians."InLatinHistorians,editedbyT.A.Dorey,1‐38.NewYork:BasicBooks,Inc.Baglione,M.P.,B.BelelliMarchesini,C.Carlucci,andL.M.Michetti.2010."RecentiindagininelcomprensorioarcheologicodiPyrgi(2009‐2010)."ScAnt16:541‐60.Baltussen,H.2009."PersonalGriefandPublicMourninginPlutarch'sConsolationtoHisWife."AJP130:67‐98.Barbera,M.,M.Pentiricci,G.Schingo,L.AsorRosa,andM.Munzi.2005."RitrovamentiarcheologiciinpiazzaVittorioEmanueleII."BullCom106:302‐337.Bartoloni,G.1987."EsibizionediricchezzaaRomanelVIeVsecolo:donivotiviecorredifunerari."ScAnt1:143‐159._____.2010."Ilcambiamentodellepratichefunerarienell'etàdeiTarquini."AnnFaina17:159‐185.Bartoloni,G.andM.G.Benedettini,eds.2007‐2008.Sepoltitraivivi.Evidenzaedinterpretazionediconestifunerariinabitato,convegnointernationale(Roma,26­29aprile2006).Scienzedell'Antichità14.Rome:EdizioniQuasar.Bartoloni,G.,F.Buranelli,V.D'Altri,andA.DeSantis.1987.LeurneacapannarinvenuteinItalia.Rome:Bretschneider.Bartoloni,G.,V.Nizzo,andM.Taloni.2009."Dall'esibizionealrigore:analisideisepolcretilazialitraVIIeVIsec.a.C."InTraEtruria,LazioeMagnaGrecia:indaginisullenecropoli,editedbyR.Bonaudo,L.CerchiaiandC.Pellegrino,65‐86.Paestum:Pandemos.Bauman,R.A.1983.LawyersinRepublicanRome:AStudyoftheRomanJuristsintheirPoliticalSetting,316­82BC.Munich:C.H.Beck'scheVerlagsbuchnandlung.

270

Becker,J.A.,Mogetta,M.andN.Terrenato.1999."ANewPlanforanAncientItalianCity:GabiiRevealed."AJA113(4):629‐642.Becker,M.J.1994."SuggrundariaandRomanvillas:anoteonaninfant'sburialatSatricum,Lazio,Italy."OWAN17:7‐10._____.1995."Infanticide,childsacrificeandinfantmortalityrates:directarchaeologicalevidenceasinterpretedbyhumanskeletalanalysis."OWAN18:24‐31._____.1999."EtruscanGoldDentalAppliances:ThreeNewly"Discovered"Examples."AJA103:103‐111._____.2002."Etruscangolddentalappliances."InMolecularandStructuralArchaeology:CosmeticandTherapeuticChemicals,editedbyG.TsoucarisandJ.Lipkowski,11‐27.Norwell,MA:KluwerAcademicPublishers.Bedini,A.1980."AbitatoprotostoricoinlocalitàLaurentinaAcquaAcetosa.AL3:58‐64._____.1981."ContributoallaconoscenzadelterritorioasuddiRomainepocaprotostorica."AL4:57‐68._____.1983."Duenuovetombeacamerapressol'abitatodellaLaurentina:notasualcunitipidisepolturenelVIeVsecoloa.C."AL5:28‐37._____.1984."ScavialTorrino."AL6:84‐90._____.1990."UncompitumprotostoricoaTorde'Cenci."AL10:121‐133._____.1991."InsediamentoarcaicoaCasalBrunori."AL9:99‐107.Beijer,A.J.1987."ScaviaLeFerriere("Satricum")1983‐1985."AL8:278‐84.Beloch,K.J.1926.RömischeGeschichtebiszumBeginnderPunischenKriege.Berlin:WalterdeGruyter&Co.BenelliE.,andP.Santoro.2006."NuovescopertenellanecropolisabinadiColledelForno(Montelibreti,Roma).InLazioeSabina3:97‐106.BianchiBandinelli,R.1966.Sculturemunicipalidell'areasabellicafral'etàdiCesareequelladiNerone.Roma:DeLuca.BiettiSestieri,A.1984.,ed.PrestoriaeProtostorianelTerritoriodiRoma.Rome:DeLuca._____.1992a.LanecropolilazialediOsteriadell'Osa.3vols.Rome:EdizioniQuasar.

271

_____.1992b.TheIronAgeCemeteryofOsteriadell’Osa(Rome)­AStudyofsocio­politicaldevelopmentincentralTyrrhenianItaly.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.BiettiSestieri,A.M.andA.DeSantis.2006."RelativeandAbsoluteChronologyofLatiumVetusfromtheLateBronzeAgetotheTransitiontotheOrientalizingPeriod."InANewDawnfortheDarkAge?ShiftingParadigmsinMediterraneanIronAgeChronology,editedbyD.BrandhermandM.Trachsel,119‐33.Oxford:Archaeopress.Binford,L.R.1972."ArchaeologyasAnthropology."InAnArchaeologicalPerspective,editedbyL.R.Binford,20‐32.NewYork:SeminarPress.Blewitt,O.1850."ExcursionsfromRome:Gabii".Ahand­bookfortravellersincentralItaly;includingthePapalstates,Rome,andthecitiesofEtruria.London:J.Murray.Blok,J.H.2006."Solon'sFuneraryLaws:QuesionsofAuthenticityandFunction."InSolonofAthens:NewHistoricalandPhilologicalApproaches,editedbyJ.H.BlokandA.P.M.H.Lardinois,197‐247.Boston:Brill.Blok,J.H.andA.P.M.H.Lardinois,eds.2006.SolonofAthens:NewHistoricalandPhilologicalApproaches.Boston:Brill.Bodel,J.1994."GraveyardsandGroves:AStudyoftheLexLucerina."AJAH7:1‐133._____.2000."DealingwiththeDead:Undertakers,ExecutionersandPotter'sFieldsinAncientRome."InDeathandDiseaseintheAncientCity,editedbyV.M.HopeandE.Marshall,104‐127.NewYork:Routledge.Boesch,F.1893.DeXIItabularumlegeaGraecispetitaquaestionesphilologicae.Diss.Gottingen.Bonamente,M.1980."Leggesuntuarieeloromotivazioni."In,TraGreciaeRoma:temiantichiemetodologiemoderne,67‐92.Roma:IstitutodellaEnciclopediaItaliana.Bonaudo,R.,L.CerchiaiandC.Pellegrino,eds.2010.TraEtruria,LazioeMagnaGrecia:indaginisullenecropoli.Paestum:Pandemos.Bonfante,L.andH.vonHeintze,eds.1976.InMemoriamOttoJ.Brendel:EssaysinArchaeologyandtheHumanities.Mainz:vonZabern.BonghiJovino,M.andC.C.Treré,eds.1997.Tarquinia.Testimonianzearcheologicheericostruzionestoricascavisistematicinell'abitato,campagne1982­1988.Rome:L'ErmadiBretschneider.Boulet,B.2005."IsNumatheGenuinePhilosopherKing?"In,TheStatesmaninPlutarch'sWorks.ProceedingsoftheSixthInternationalConferenceoftheInternationalPlutarch

272

Societiy,Nijmege/CastleHernen,May1­5,2002,vol.2,editedbyL.deBlois,J.Bons,T.Kessels,andD.M.Schenkeveld,245‐256.Boston:Brill.Brandherm,D.andM.Trachsel,eds.2006.ANewDawnfortheDarkAge?ShiftingParadigmsinMediterraneanIronAgeChronology.Oxford:Archaeopress.Brandt,J.R.andL.Karlsson,eds.FromHutstoHouses.TransformationsofAncientSocieties.ProceedingsofanInternationalSeminarOrganizedbytheNorwegianandSwedishInstitutesinRome,21­24September1997.Stockholm:PaulAströmsFörlag.Brechem,vanD.1966."Romeetlemondegrec."In,Mélangesd'archéologieetd'histoireoffertsàAndréPiganiol,editedbyR.Chevallier,739‐748.Paris:SEVPEN.Bremmer,J.M.andN.M.Horsfall.1987.RomanMythandMythography.London:InstituteofClassicalStudies.Bridenthal,R.1972."WasThereaRomanHomer?Niebuhr'sThesisanditsCritics."HistoryandTheory11:193‐213.Brogiolo,G.P.andB.Ward‐Perkins,eds.1999.IdeaandIdealoftheTownBetweenLateAntiquityandtheEarlyMiddleAges.Boston:Brill.Brown,F.E.1967."NewSoundingsintheRegia:TheEvidencefortheEarlyRepublic."InLesoriginesdelaRépubliqueromaine.EntretiensdelaFondationHardt,editedbyE.Gjerstad,47‐60.Geneva:FondationHardt._____.1974."LaprotostoriadellaRegia."RendPontAcc47:15‐36._____.1976."OfHutsandHouses."InInMemoriamOttoJ.Brendel:EssaysinArchaeologyandtheHumanities,editedbyL.BonfanteandH.vonHeintze,5‐12.Mainz:vonZabern.Brunn,C.,ed.2000.TheRomanMiddleRepublic:Politics,Religion,andHistoriographyc.400­133B.C.Rome:InstitutumRomanumFinlandiae.Bucher,G.S.1995."TheAnnalesMaximiintheLightofRomanMethodsofKeepingRecords."AJAH12:2‐61.Buranelli,F.,ed.1987.LaTombaFrançoisdiVulci.Rome:Quasar.Buranelli,F.,andA.Emiliozzi.1997."IlcarrodiRoma(Rep.36)dallaTenutadiRomaVecchiasull'AppiaAntica."InCarridaguerraeprincipiEtruschi,editedbyA.Emiliozzi,191‐202.Rome:"L'Erma"diBretschneider.Campanile,E.,ed.1988.AlleoriginidiRoma.Pisa:GiardiniEditori.Canocchi,D.1980."Osservazionesull'abitatoorientalizzanteaRoselle."SE48:31‐50.

273

CapogrossiColognesi,L.1988."Lacittàelasuaterra."InStoriadiRoma.Volumeprimo,editedbyA.MomiglianoandA.Schiavone,263‐89.Rome:Giulioeditore.Carandini,A.1990."Palatino,campagnediscavodellependicisettentrionale(1985‐1988)."BollArch1‐2:159‐65._____.1997.LanascitadiRoma.Dei,Lari,eroieuominiall’albadiunacivilta.Turin:Einaudi._____.2006.RemoeRomolo.Turin:Einaudi.Carandini,A,andR.Cappelli,eds.2000.Roma.Romolo,Remoelafondazionedellacitta.Roma:Electa.Carandini,A.andG.Ricci,M.T.D'Alessio,C.deDavide.,andN.Terrenato.1997."Lavilladell'Auditoriumdall'etàarcaicaall'etàimperiale."RömMitt:117‐48.Carroll,M.2011."InfantDeathandBurialinRomanItaly."JRA24:99‐120.Caspar,T.2011."TheImageofaJustRuler:Cicero,Monarchy,andXenophon'sCyropaedia."PaperreadattheAPSA2011AnnuamMeeting,1‐4September2011,Seattle.Castagnoli,F.1972.LaviniumI.Rome:DeLuca._____.1975.LaviniumII:letrediciare.Rome:DeLuca.CataldiDini,M.1980."Necropolen:Ficana.InFicana­enmilestenpåveieintilRoma,editedV.S.M.Scrinari,129‐139.Copenhagen:IkommisjonhosMuseumTusculanum.Chassignet,M.1986.Caton.LesOrigines(fragments).Paris:Sociétéd'édition"lesbelleslettres."_____.1996.L'annalistiqueromaine,tomeI,lesannalesdespontifesetl'annalistiqueancienne(fragments).Paris:LesBellesLettres.____.2004.Lannalistiqueromaine,tome3,l'annalistiquerécente.L'Autobiographiepolitique(fragments).Paris:LesBellesLettres.Chelotti,M.2007."LatribùdeicittadiniromanidiBastia."EpigrafiaeTerritorio.PoliticaeSocietà7:137‐47.Chevallier,R.1966.,ed.Mélangesd'archéologieetd'histoireoffertsàAndréPiganiol.Paris:SEVPEN.Ciancio,A.1990."L'areapeuceta."InBasilicata:l'espansionismoromanonelsud­estd'Italia,ilquadroarcheologico.AttidelconvegnoVenosa,23­25aprile1987,editedbyM.Salvatore,237‐50.Venosa:OssanaEdizioni.

274

Cifani,G.1995."Aspettidell'ediliziaromanaarcaica."SE60:185‐226._____.1998."Caratteridegliinsediamentiruralinell'AgerRomanustraVIeIIIsecoloa.C."InPapersfromtheEAAThirdAnnualMeetingatRavennaVolumeII:ClassicalandMedieval,editedbyM.PearceandM.Tosi,53‐64.Oxford:Archaeopress.Clausell,W.V.andE.J.Kenney,ed.1982.TheCambridgeHistoryofClassicalLiteratureII.2.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Coarelli,F.1972."IlsepolcrodegliScipioni."DialArch6:36‐106._____.1983.IlForoRomanoI:periodoarcaico.Rome:Quasar._____.1988.IlForoBoario:dalleoriginiallafinedellarepubblica.Rome:Quasar._____.2001."IlsepolcroelacasadiServioTullio."Eutopia1:7‐43.Colantoni,E.2012."TransitionsinBuildingPracticesandSocietyinProtohistoricLatium."InMonumentalityinEtruscanandEarlyRomanArchitecture,editedbyM.L.ThomasandG.E.Myers,21‐40.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.Coleman,R.1996."ConditionalClausesintheTwelveTables."InAspectsofLatin:PapersfromtheSeventhInternationalColloquiumonLatinLinguistics,Jerusalem,April1993,editedbyH.Rosén,403‐22.Innsbruck:InstitutfürSprachwissenschaftderUniversitätInnsbruck.Coleman‐Norton,P.R.1950."Cicero'sContributiontotheTextoftheTwelveTables."CJ46:127‐34.Colini,A.M.1932."Irisultatidell'esplorazionedellanecropoliesquilina."AttiCStR1:114‐119.Colonna,G.ed.1976.CiviltàdelLazioprimitivo.Rome:Multigrafica._____.1977."UnaspettooscurodelLazioantico:LetombedelVI‐Vsecoloa.C."PP32:131‐165._____.1985.Santuarid'Etruria.Milan:Electa._____.1987."EtruriaeLazionell'etàdeiTarquini."InEtruriaeLazioarcaico:attidell'incontrodistudio(10­11novembre1986),editedbyM.Cristofani,55‐66.Rome:Consiglionazionaledellricerche._____.1990."LeduefasideltempioarcaicodiS.Omobono."InStipsVotiva.PaperspresentedtoC.M.Stibbe,editedbyM.Gnade,51‐9.Amsterdam:AllardPiersonMuseum,UniversityofAmsterdam.

275

_____.1996."Romaarcaica,isuoisepolcretielevieperiColliAlbani."InAlbaLonga:mito,storia,archeologia,editedbyA.Pasqualini,335‐354.Rome:IstutitoItalianoperlastoriaantica.Colonna,G.andF.W.VonHase.1986."Alleoriginidellastatuariaetrusca:latombadellestatuepressoCeri."SE52:13‐59.Cordischi,L.1993."Nuoveacquisizionisuun'areadicultoalColleOppio."AL11:39‐44.Cornell,T.J.1975."AeneasandtheTwins:thedevelopmentoftheRomanfoundationlegend."PCPhS21:1‐32._____.1995.ThebeginningsofRome.ItalyandRomefromtheBronzeAgetothePunicWars(c.1000­264B.C.).NewYork:Routledge._____.2005."TheValueoftheLiteraryTraditionConcerningArchaicRome."InSocialStrugglesinArchaicRome.NewPerspectivesontheConflictoftheOrders,editedbyK.A.Raaflaub,47‐74.Malden,MA:Blackwell.Coulston,J.andH.Dodge,eds.2000.AncientRome:TheArchaeologyoftheEternalCity.Oxford:OxbowBooks.Crake,J.E.A.1940."TheAnnalsofthePontifexMaximus."CP35:375‐86.Crawford,M.H.2010.ReviewofLedodicitavole,editedbyM.Humbert.JRS90:255‐6._____.2011."FromIoniatotheTwelveTables."InRömischeJurisprudenz­Dogmatik,Überlieferung,Rezeption:festschriftfürDetlefLiebszum75geburtstag,editedbyD.LiebsandK.Muscheler,153‐159.Berlin:Duncker&Humblot.Crawford,M.H.,ed.1996.RomanStatutes.London:InstituteofClassicalStudies._____.2011a.ImaginesItalicae.ACorpusofItalicInscriptions.3vols.London:InstituteofClassicalStudies,UniversityofLondon._____.2011b."FromIoniatotheTwelveTables."InRömischeJurisprudenz­Dogmatik,Überlieferung,Rezeption:FestschriftfürDetlefLiebszum75.Gebertstag,editedbyK.Muscheler,153‐9.Berlin:Duncker&Humblot.Crescenzi,L.andE.Tortorici.1983."ScaviadArdea."AL5:38‐47.Cristofani,M.1967."RicerchesullepitturedellatombaFrançoisdiVulci.Ifregidecorativi."DdA1,186‐219.

276

Cristofani,M.,ed.1987.EtruriaeLazioarcaico:attidell'incontrodistudio(10­11novembre1986).Rome:Consiglionazionaledellricerche._____.1990.LagrandeRomadeiTarquini.Rome:L'ErmadiBretschneider.Cumont,F.1943."AproposdesdernièresparolesdeSocrates."CRAI112‐126.DamgaardAndersen,H.,ed.1997.UrbanizationintheMediterraneanintheNinthtoSixthcenturiesBC.Copenhagen:MuseumTusculanumPress.DamgaardAndersen,H.1997."TheArchaeologicalEvidencefortheOriginandDevelopmentoftheEtruscanCityinthe7thto6thCenturiesBC."InUrbanizationintheMediterraneanintheNinthtoSixthcenturiesBC,editedbyH.DamgaardAndersen,343‐82.Copenhagen:MuseumTusculanumPress.DeAngelis,F.2003.MegaraHyblaiaandSelinous.ThedevelopmentofTwoGreekCity­StatesinArchaicSicily.Oxford:OxfordUniversitySchoolofArchaeology.deBlois,L.andJ.Bons,T.Kessels,andD.M.Schenkeveld,eds.2005.TheStatesmaninPlutarch'sWorks.ProceedingsoftheSixthInternationalConferenceoftheInternationalPlutarchSocietiy,Nijmege/CastleHernen,May1­5,2002,vol.2.Boston:Brill.DeGrassi,A.1954.FastiCapitolini.Turin:SocietàperAzioniG.B.Paravia&C._____.1963.InscriptionesItaliaeXIII.Rome:Libreriadellostato.Dennis,G.1878.TheCitiesandCemeteriesofEtruria.London:J.Murray.DePuma,R.D.andJ.P.Small,eds.1994.MurloandtheEtruscans:ArtandSocietyinAncientEtruria.Madison:TheUniversityofWisconsinPress.d'Ercole,V.1988."Scaviescoperte.Abruzzo."SE53:401‐421.DeSantis,A.1992."IlIIeIVperiodo."InLanecropolilazialediOsteriadell'Osa,editedbyA.M.BiettiSestieri,815‐874.Roma:EdizioniQuasar.diGennaro,F.1988."PrimirisultatidegliscavinellanecropolidiCrustumerium.TrecomplessifuneraridellafaseIVA."AL9:113‐123.diGennaro,F.,ed.1999.ItinerariodivisitaaCrustumerium.Roma:SoprintendenzaArcheologicadiRoma.diGennaro,F.,P.Togninelli,andR.DePuma.2002."Crustumeriumel'Etruria."EtruscanStudies9:45‐62.Dorey,T.A.,ed.1966.LatinHistorians.NewYork:BasicBooks,Inc.

277

_____.1971.Livy.London:RoutledgeandK.Paul.DragoTroccoli,L.1997."Letombe419e426delsepolcretodiGrottaGramicciaaVeio.ContributoallaconoscenzadistrutturetombalieideologiafunerariaaVeiotrailVIeilVsecoloa.C."InEtruscaeItalica.ScrittiinricordodiMassimoPallottino.Volumeprimo,editedbyG.NardiandM.Pandolfini,239‐280.Rome:IstitutiEditorialiePoligraficiInternazionali.DragoTroccoli,L.,ed.1998.Scaviericerchearcheologichedell'universitàdiRoma"LaSapienza."Rome:L'ermadiBretschneider.Drummond,A.1980."ConsularTribunesinLivyandDiodorus."Athenaeum58:57‐72.Dubourdieu,A.1986."CinctusGabinus."Latomus45:3‐20.Ducos,M.1978.L'influencegrecquesurlaloidesdouzetables.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance.Duff,T.1999.Plutarch'sLives.ExploringVirtueandVice.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Dumézil,G.1947.Tarpeia:essaisdephilologiecomparativeindo­européenne.Paris:Gallimard._____.1966.ArchaicRomanReligion.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress._____.1979.Marriagesindo­européenàRome.Paris:Payot.Dyck,A.R.2004.ACommentaryonCicero,DeLegibus."AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.Edelstein,LandI.G.Kidd,eds.1972.Posidonius.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Eder,W.2005."ThePoliticalSignificanceoftheCodificationofLawinArchaicSocieties:AnUnconventionalHypothesis."InSocialStrugglesinArchaicRome.NewPerspectivesontheConflictoftheOrders,editedbyK.A.Raaflaub,239‐67.Malden,MA:Blackwell.Emiliozzi,A.,ed.1997.CarridaguerraeprincipiEtruschi.Rome:"L'Erma"diBretschneider.Fabbri,M.,S.Musco,andM.Osanna.2010."SurlestracesdesTarquinsàGabies.Unedécouverteexeptionelle."LesDossiersd'Archéologie339:62‐5.Faccenna,D.1957."RegioneI(LatiumetCampania)."NSc11:123‐152.Fahlander,F.andT.Oestigaard,eds.2008.MaterialityofDeath.Bodies,burials,beliefs.BARInternationalSeries1768.Oxford:BAR.Fenelli,M.1998."Lavinium."InScaviericerchearcheologichedell'universitàdiRoma"LaSapienza,"editedbyL.DragoTroccoli,109‐118.Rome:L'ermadiBretschneider.

278

Ferrary,J.‐L.2005."SaggiodistoriadellapalingenesidelleDodiciTavole."InLedodicitavole.Daidecemviriagliumanisti,editedbyM.Humbert,503‐556.Pavia:IUSSPress.Filippi,F.,ed.2001.ArcheologiaeGiubileo:GliinterventiaRomaenelLazionelpianoperilGrandeGiubileodel2000.Naples:ElectaNapoli.Finley,M.I.1986.AncientHistory:EvidenceandModels.NewYork:VikingPenguinInc.Fischer‐Hansen,T.1978."Ficana."AL1:35‐41.Flach,D.2004.DasZwölftafelgesetz.LegesXIITabularum.Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft.Flower,H.1996.AncestorMasksandAristocraticPowerinRomanCulture.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Flower,M.A.andM.Toher,eds.1991.Georgica.GreekStudiesinHonourofGeorgeCawkwell.London:InstituteofClassicalStudies.Fögen,M.T.2005."DasrömischeZwölftafelgesetz.EineimaginierteWirklichkeit."InKodifizierungundLegitimierungdesRechtsinderAntikeundimAltenOrient,editedbyM.Witteetal.,45‐70.Wiesbaden:OttoHarrassowitz.Forsythe,G.1990."SomeNotesontheHistoryofCassiusHemina."Phoenix44:326‐44._____.1994.TheHistorianL.CalpurniusPisoFrugiandtheRomanAnnalisticTradition.NewYork:UniversityPressofAmerica,Inc._____.1999.LivyandEarlyRome:AStudyinHistoricalMethodandJudgment._____.2000."TheRomanHistoriansoftheSecondCenturyB.C."InTheRomanMiddleRepublic:Politics,Religion,andHistoriographyc.400­133B.C.,editedbyC.Brunn,1‐11.Rome:InstitutumRomanumFinlandiae._____.2005.ACriticalHistoryofEarlyRomefromPrehistorytotheFirstPunicWar.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Fox,M.1996.RomanHistoricalMyths:TheRegalPeriodinAugustanLiterature.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Fraccaro,P.1957."TheHistoryofRomeintheRegalPeriod."JRS47:59‐65.Frederiksen,M.W.1979."TheEtruscansinCampania."InItalyBeforetheRomans:TheIronAge,OrientalizingandEtruscanPeriods,editedbyD.RidgwayandF.R.Ridgway,277‐311.NewYork:AcademicPress.

279

_____.1984.Campania.London:BritishSchoolatRome.Frier,B.W.1975."LiciniusMacerandtheConsulesSuffectiof444B.C."TAPA105:79‐97._____.1979.LibriAnnalesPontificumMaximorum,TheOriginsoftheAnnalisticTradition.AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress.Frisone,F.2000.Leggiregolamentifunerarinelmondogreco.Lefontiepigrafiche.Lecce:CongedoEditore.Gabba,E.1981."TrueHistoryandFalseHistoryinClassicalAntiquity."JRS71:50‐62._____.1991.DionysiusandtheHistoryofArchaicRome.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Galinsky,K.1969.Aeneas,SicilyandRome.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Gallone,A.2007‐2008."SepoltitralemuradellaprimaRoma.Ilcasodelletombesullapendicepalatina."InScienzedell'Antichità14,2007­2008.Attidelconvegnointernazionale"Sepoltitraivivi.Evidenzaedinterpretazionedicontestifunerariinabitato.UniversitàdegliStudidiRoma"LaSapienza"26­29Aprile2006,editedbyG.BartoloniandM.G.Benedettini,653‐65.Rome:EdizioniQuasar.Garnsey,P.1991."ChildRearinginAncientItaly."InTheFamilyinItalyfromAntiquitytothePresent,editedbyD.I.KertzerandR.P.Saller,48‐65.NewHaven:YalyUniversityPress.Gernet,L.andA.Boulanger.1932.Legéniegrecdanslareligion.Paris:A.Michel.Gjerstad,E.1953.EarlyRomeI:StratigraphicalResearchesintheForumRomanumandalongtheViaSacra.Lund:C.W.K.Gleerup._____.1956.EarlyRomeII:TheTombs.Lund:C.W.K.Gleerup._____.1960.EarlyRomeIII:Fortifications,DomesticArchitecture,Sanctuaries,StratigraphicExcavations.Lund:C.W.K.Gleerup.Gjerstad,E.andF.E.Brown,eds.1967.InLesoriginesdelarépubliqueromaine.Vandoeuvres‐Geneva:FoundationHardt.Ginge,B.1996.ExcavationsatSatricum(BorgoleFerriere)1907­1910:NorthwestNecropolis,SouthwestSanctuaryandAcropolis.Amsterdam:Thesis.Gusberti,E.2007‐2008."SepoltureinabitatoaRomatraVIIIeVIIsecoloa.C."InSepoltitraivivi.Evidenzaedinterpretazionediconestifunerariinabitato,convegnointernationale

280

(Roma,26­29aprile2006),editedbyG.BartoloniandM.G.Benedettini,639‐51.Scienzedell'Antichità14.Rome:EdizioniQuasar.Gnade,M.,ed.1991.StipsVotiva:PaperspresentedtoC.M.Stibbe.Amsterdam:AllardPiersonMuseum,UniversityofAmsterdam._____.1992.TheSouthwestNecropolisofSatricum.Excavations1981­1986.Amsterdam:Thesis._____.2002.SaricuminthePost­ArchaicPeriod:ACaseStudyoftheInterpretationofArchaeologicalRemainsasIndicatorsofEthno­CulturalIdentity.Dudley,MA:Peeters._____.2003."Satricum:laprosecuzionedellericerche."Lazio&Sabina1:213‐20._____.2004."ResocontodegliscaviolandesiaSatricumnel2002."Lazio&Sabina2:265‐72._____.2006."LaventottesimacampagnadiricercaaSatricumdell'UniversitàdiAmsterdamnel2004."Lazio&Sabina3:255‐60._____.2007."Irisultatidellacampagnadiscavi2005e2006aSatricum."Lazio&Sabina4:191‐200._____.2009."LaricercaaSatricumdell'UniversitàdiAmsterdamnel2007."Lazio&Sabina5:363‐8.Goodman,P.2007.TheRomanCityanditsPeriphery.NewYork:Routledge.Graf,F.2002."WhatisnewaboutGreekSacrifice?"InKykeon.StudiesinHonourofH.S.Versnel,editedbyH.F.J.Horstmanshof,H.W.Singor,F.T.vanStratenandJ.H.M.Strubbe,113‐126.Boston:Brill.Graham,E.‐J.2006.TheBurialoftheUrbanPoorinItalyintheLateRomanRepublicandEarlyEmpire.BARInt.Series1565.Oxford:Archaeopress.Grandazzi,A.1997.TheFoundationofRome:MythandHistory.TranslatedbyJ.M.Todd.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.Granger,F.1895.TheWorshipoftheRomans,ViewedinRelationtotheRomanTemperament.London:Methuen&Co.Granger,F.andW.WardeFowler.1897."RomanBurial."CR11:32‐35.GraninoCecere1986."ApolloindueiscrizionidiGabii."InDecimamiscellaneagrecaeromana,editedbyU.Spigo,265‐88.Rome:IstitutoItalianoperlaStoriaAntica.Gruen,E.S.1990.StudiesinGreekCultureandRomanPolicy.NewYork:Brill.

281

_____.1992.CultureandNationalIdentityinRepublicanRome.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.Guaitoli,M.1981a."Gabii:osservazionisullefasidisviluppodell'abitato."InRicognizionearcheologica:NuovericerchenelLazio,23‐57.QITA9.Florence:LeoS.Olschki.____.1981b."Gabii."PP36:152‐73._____.1981c."Lavinium."AL4:287‐292._____.1984."Urbanistica."AL6:84‐90._____.1995."Lavinium:nuovidatidallenecropoli."AL12:551‐562._____.2003.LosguardodiIcaro:Lecollezionidell'Aerofototecanazionaleperlaconoscenzadelterritorio.Rome:Campisano.Guaitoli,M.andP.Zaccagni.1977."Gabii(Com.diRoma)."SE45:434‐6.Guarducci,M.1976‐1977."Un'epigrafegrecaarcaicaaRoma."RendPontAcc49:85‐92.Guarino,A.1991."UnapalingenesidelleXIITavole?"Index9:225‐32.Gusberti,E.2007‐2008."SepoltureinabitatoaRomatraVIIIeVIIsecoloa.C."ScAnt14:639‐651.Hägg,R.,ed.1983.TheGreekRenaissanceoftheEighthCenturyB.C.Stockholm:SvenskaInstitutetiAthen.Halliday,W.R.1921."RomanBurial."CR35:154‐155.Harris,W.V.1990."RomanWarfareintheEconomicandSocialContextoftheFourthCenturyBC."InStaatundStaatlichkeitinderfrühenrõmischenRepublik,editedbyW.Eder,494‐510.Stuttgart:FranzSteiner.Haselgrove,C.2006.Celtesetgaulois,l'archéologiefaceàl'histoire4:lesmutationsdelafindel'âgeduFer.Glux‐en‐Glenne:Bibracte.Herring,E.R.WhitehouseandJ.Wilkins,eds.1992.PapersoftheFourthConferenceofItalianArchaeologyIV.London:AccordiaResearchCenter.Heurgon,J.1964."L.Cinciusetlaloiduclauusannalis."Athenaeum42:432‐7._____.1973.TheRiseofRometo264BC.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

282

Hinard,F.,ed.1987.Lamort,lesmortsetl'au­delàdanslemonderomain:ActesducolloquedeCaen,20­22novembre1985.Caen:centredePublicationsdel'UniversitédeCaen.Hodder,I.1982.SymbolsinAction.EthnoarchaeologicalStudiesofMaterialCulture.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Hölkeskamp,K.J.1992."WrittenLawinArchaicGreece."PCPS38:87‐117.Holland,L.A.1933‐1934."VasesfromArdeainPennsylvaniaMuseum."BStM4:5‐9.Holloway,R.1994.TheArchaeologyofEarlyRomeandLatium.NewYork,NY:Routledge.Hope,V.M.andE.Marshall,eds.2000.DeathandDiseaseintheAncientCity.NewYork:Routledge.Hopkins,K.1966."OntheProbablyAgeStructureoftheRomanPopulation."PopulationStudies20:245‐264._____.1983.DeathandRenewal:SociologicalStudiesinRomanHistory.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress._____.1987."GraveyardsforHistorians."InLamort,lesmortsetl'au­delàdanslemonderoman:ActesducolloquedeCaen,20­22novembre1985,editedbyF.Hinard,113‐126.Caen:centredePublicationsdel'UniversitédeCaen.Horsfall,N.1979."SomeProblemsintheAeneasLegend."CQ29:372‐390._____.1982."ProseandMime."InTheCambridgeHistoryofClassicalLiteratureII.2,editedbyW.V.ClausellandE.J.Kenney,112‐20.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Horstmanshof,H.F.J.,H.W.Singor,F.T.vanStratenandJ.H.M.Strubbe,eds.2002.Kykeon.StudiesinHonourofH.S.Versnel.Boston:Brill.Humbert,M.2005."Lacodificazionedecemvirale:tentativod'interpretazione."InLeDodiciTavole:DaiDecemviriagliUmanisti,editedbyM.Humbert,1‐50.Pavia:IUSSPress.Humbert,M.,ed.2005.Ledodicitavole.Daidecemviriagliumanisti.Pavia:IUSSPress.Izzet,V.2007.TheArchaeologyofEtruscanSociety.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Jacoby,F.1923.FragmentedergriechischenHistoriker.Leiden:Brill.Jarva,E.1981a."TombeinfantilinelLazioeaFicananell'etàdelferroeinepocaarcaica."In,Ficana:unapietramiliaresullastradaperRoma,mostraitinerantedegliscaviitalo­nordiciaFicana(Acilia),1975­1980,editedbytheSoprintendenzaarcheologicadiOstia,141‐147.Roma:LibreriaEditrice.

283

_____.1981b."AreaditombeinfantiliaFicana."AL6:269‐273.Jeunet‐Mancy,E.2012.Servius:Commentairesurl'ÉnéidedeVirgile.Paris:LesBellesLettres.Jolivet,V.,C.Pavolini,M.A.Tomei,andR.Volpe,eds.2009.SuburbiumII.IlsuburbiodiRomadalladinedell'etàmonarchicaallanascitasistemadelleville(V­IIsecoloa.C.).Rome:ÉcoleFrançaisedeRome.Jones,R.2002."BurialCustomsofRomeandtheProvinces."InTheRomanWorld,editedbyJ.Wacher,812‐837.NewYork:Routledge.Kertzer,D.I.andR.P.Saller,eds.1991.TheFamilyinItalyfromAntiquitytothePresent.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.KillgroveK.2010.MigrationandmobilityinImperialRome.PhDdissertation,UniversityofNorthCarolina,ChapelHill.Knudson,K.J.andC.M.Stojanowski.2008."NewDirectionsinBioarchaeology:RecentContributionstotheStudyofHumanSocialIdentities."JournalofArchaeologicalResearch16(4):397‐432.Koerner,R.1993.InschriftlicheGesetztextederfrühengrieschenPolis.AusdemNachlassvonReinhardKoerner.Cologne:Böhlau.Lanciani,R.1901.NewTalesofOldRome.London:RodolfoLancianiandHoughton,MifflinandCo.LeGlay,M.1985."LesOpiidePraenesteàGabies."ZPE58:204‐6.Lenel,O.1905."Literatur".ZRG:498‐524.Liebs,D.andK.Muscheler,eds.2011. RömischeJurisprudenz­Dogmatik,Überlieferung,Rezeption:festschriftfürDetlefLiebszum75geburtstag.Berlin:Duncker&Humblot.Lindsay,H.2000."Death‐pollutionandfuneralsinthecityofRome."InDeathandDiseaseintheAncientCity,editedbyV.M.HopeandE.Marshall,152‐173.NewYork:Routledge.Linington,R.E.1980.LoscavonellazonalaghettodellanecropolidellaBanditacciaaCerveteri.Milan:CivicoMuseoArcheologico.Luce,T.J.1977.Livy,TheCompositionofHisHistory.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Maaskant‐Kleibrink,M.1987.SettlementExcavationsatBorgoLeFerriere<Satricum>,I.TheCampaigns1979,1980and1981.Groningen:EgbertForsten.

284

_____.1991."EarlyLatinSettlementPlansatBorgoLeFerriere(Satricum)."BABesch66:51‐114._____.1992.SettlementExcavationsatBorgoLeFerriere<Satricum>.VolumeII(TheCampaigns1983,1985and1987).Groningen:EgbertForsten.Maetzke,G.1989.Atti.SecondoCongressoInternazionaleEtruscoFirenze26maggio­2giungo1985.SupplementodiStudiEtruschi.Rome:Bretschneider.Majarini,V.andS.Musco.2001."Gabii:Indaginiarcheologiche.Areaurbana,areadellachiesadiS.Primitivoeareadelsantuarioextraurbanoorientale."InArcheologiaeGiubileo:GliinterventiaRomaenelLazionelpianoperilGrandeGiubileodel2000,editedbyF.Filippi,490‐99.Naples:ElectaNapoli.Mancini,A.andC.Pilo.2006."MaterialivotiviedoggettiritualidalSantuarioOrientalediGabii."Siris7:85‐126.Marchi,M.L.2010."LaPeucezia.Inquadramentostorico‐topografico."IICongressodiNumismatica."LamonetazionedellaPeucezia.LamonetzionesvevanelregnodiSicilia,Bari13‐14novembre2009,39‐45.Taranto.Mariani,L.1896."IrestidiRomaprimitiva."BullCom24:5‐60.MazarakisAinian,A.1997.FromRulers'DwellingstoTemples.Architecture,ReligionandSocietyinEarlyIronAgeGreece(1100­700B.C.).Jonsered:PaulÅströmsFörlag.Mazzarino,S.1947.FraOrienteeOccidente:ricerchedistoriagrecaarcaica.Florence:LaNuovaItalia.McKinley,J.1989."Cremations:expectations,methodologiesandrealities."InBurialArchaeology.CurrentResearch,MethodsandDevelopments,editedbyC.A.Roberts,F.LeeandJ.Bintliff,65‐76.Oxford:BAR.Mehl,A.2011.RomanHistoriography:AnIntroductiontoitsBasicAspectsandDevelopment.Malden,MA:Wiley‐Blackwell.Menghi,O.,M.Pales,andM.diBernardini.2005."Un'areadinecropoliaviaGoito."BullCom106:350‐361.Meyer,E.2004.LegitimacyandLawintheRomanWorld:TabulaeinRomanBeliefandPractice.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Meyers,G.E.2012."TheExperienceofMonumentalityinEtruscanandEarlyRomanArchitecture."InMonumentalityinEtruscanandEarlyRomanArchitecture,editedbyM.L.ThomasandG.E.Myers,1‐20.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.

285

Miller,D.andC.Tilley,eds.1984.Ideology,PowerandPrehistory.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.MinistroperiBeniCulturalieAmbientali,SoprintendenzaArcheologiaperilLazio,SoprintendenzaArcheologicaperlaToscana.1983.Ardea:immaginidiunaricerca.Roma:DeLuca.Mogetta,M.andJ.A.Becker.2014."ArchaeologicalResearchatGabii,Italy:TheGabiiProjectExcavations,2009‐2011."AJA118(1):171‐188.Momigliano,A.1957."Perizonius,Niebuhr,andtheCharacterofEarlyRomanTradition."JRS47:104‐14._____.1960.Secondocontributoallastoriadeglistudiclassici.Rome:Edizionidistoriaeletteratura._____.1967."DieXIITafelninihremJahrhundert.Discussion."InLesOriginesdelarépubliqueromaine,357‐362.Geneva:FondationHardt._____.1975.Contributiallastoriadeglistudiclassici(edelmondoantico).QuintoContributo.Rome:Edizionidistoriaeletteratura._____.1990.TheClassicalFoundationsofModernHistoriography.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Momigliano,A.andA.Schiavone,eds.1988.StoriadiRomaI:RomainItalia.Turin:GiulioEinaudi.Mommsen,T.1864.TheHistoryofRome.TranslatedbyW.P.Dickson.NewYork:TheMacmillanCompany.1901.Morris,I.1987.BurialandAncientSociety.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress._____.1992.Death­RitualandSocialStructureinClassicalAntiquity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress._____.1992‐3."Law,CultureandFuneraryArtinAthens,600‐300B.C."Hephaistos11/12:35‐50.Morselli,C.andE.Tortorici.1982.Ardea.Florence:LeoS.OlschkiEditore.Müller‐Karpe,H.1960.ZurStadtwerdungRoms.RMErgh.8.Münzer,F.1905."AtticusalsGeschichtsschreiber."Hermes40:50‐100.Murray,O.,ed.1990.Sympotica:ASymposiumontheSymposion.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

286

MuraSommella,A.2000."LerecentiscopertesulCampidoglioelafondazionedeltempiodiGioveCapitolini."RendPontAc70:57‐79.Musco,S.1997."AgerGabinus:noteditopografiastorica."AL12:275‐92.Muscheler,K.,ed.2011.RömischeJurisprudenz­Dogmatik,Überlieferung,Rezeption:FestschriftfürDetlefLiebszum75.Gebertstag.Berlin:Duncker&Humblot.Nap,J.M.1925.DierömischeRepublikumdasJ.225v.Chr.Leiden:Sijthoff.Nardi,G.andM.Pandolfini,eds.1997.EtruscaeItalica.ScrittiinricordodiMassimoPallottino.Volumeprimo.Rome:IstitutiEditorialiePoligraficiInternazionali.Naroll,R.1962."FloorAreaandSettlementPopulation."AmerAnt27:587‐89.Naso,A.1990.“L’ideologiafuneraria.”InLaGrandeRomadeiTarquini.Roma,Palazzodelleesposizioni,12giugno­30settembre1990,249–251.Roma:L’ErmadiBretschneider._____.2001."Dallacapannaallacasa:riflessinell'architetturafunerariaetrusca."InFromHutstoHouses.TransformationsofAncientSocieties.ProceedingsofanInternationalSeminarOrganizedbytheNorwegianandSwedishInstitutesinRome,21­24September1997,editedbyJ.R.BrandtandL.Karlsson,29‐39.Stockholm:PaulAströmsFörlag.Néraudau,J.‐P.1984.EtreenfantàRome.Paris:BellesLettres._____.1987."Laloi,lacoutume,etlechagrin.Réflexionssurlamortdesenfants."InLamort,lesmortsetl'au­delàdanslemonderomain:ActesducolloquedeCaen,20­22novembre1985,editedbyF.Hinard,195‐207.Caen:CentredePublicationsdel'UniversitédeCaen.Niebuhr,B.G.1837‐42.TheHistoryofRome.London:Taylor,WaltonandMaberly.Nielsen,I.andB.Poulsen,eds.1992.TheTempleofCastorandPollux.Rome:DeLuca.Nijboer,A.J.andP.A.J.Attema.2008."CulturalCharacteristicsoftheAncientCommunityLivingatCrustumeriumandtheExcavationsoftheGroningenInstituteofArchaeologyattheMonteDelBufaloNecropolis."BollettinodiArcheologiaOnlineF/F6/3:23‐38.Nock,A.D.1972.EssaysonReligionandtheAncientWorld.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Norman,N.J.2002."DeathandBurialofRomanChildren:TheCaseoftheYasminaCemeteryatCarthage‐PartI,SettingtheStage.Mortality7.3:302‐323.Noy,D.2000."Half‐BurntonanEmergencyPyre:RomanCremationsWhichWentWrong."GreeceandRome47:186‐96.

287

Oakley,S.P.1997.ACommentaryonLivyBooksVI­X.Vol.1,IntroductionandBookVI.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Ogilvie,R.M.andA.Drummond.1989."ThesourcesforearlyRomanhistory."CAH7.2,1‐29.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Ogilvie,R.M.1965.ACommentaryonLivyBooks1­5.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Osborne,R.andB.Cunliffe.2005.MediterraneanUrbanization800­600BC.PBSAR126.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Östenberg,C.E.1975.CaseEtruschediAcquarossa.Rome:MultigrafiaEditrice.Pais,E.1906AncientLegendsofRomanHistory.London:SwanSchonnenscein.Palmer,R.E.A.1969.TheKingandtheComitium.Wiesbaden:F.SteinerVerlag.Panofka,M.T.1836."Iscavi:sepolcroetrusco‐rmoanopressoPortalatina."BdI1836:103‐104.Paoli,U.G.1963.Rome­ItsPeople,LifeandCustoms.London:Longmans.ParkerPearson,M.1999.TheArchaeologyofDeathandBurial.CollegeStation:TexasA&MUniversityPress.Pasquali,G.1936."LagrandeRomadeiTarquini."LaNuovaAntologia:405‐16.Pasqualini,A.,ed.1996.AlbaLonga:mito,storia,archeologia.Rome:IstutitoItalianoperlastoriaantica.Patterson,J.2000."LivingandDyingintheCityofRome:HousesandTombs."InAncientRome:TheArchaeologyoftheEternalCity,editedbyJ.CoulstonandH.Dodge,259‐289.Oxford:OxbowBooks.Pearce,J.2001."Infants,CemeteriesandCommunitiesintheRomanProvinces."InTRAC2000:ProceedingsoftheTenthAnnualTheoreticalRomanArchaeologyConference,editedbyG.Davies,A.GardnerandK.Lockyear,125‐142.Oxford:Oxbow.Pearce,M.andM.Tosi.1998.PapersfromtheEAAThirdAnnualMeetingatRavennaVolumeII:ClassicalandMedieval.Oxford:Archaeopress.Pensabene,P.1986."NecropolidiPraeneste.Storiadegliscaviecircostanzedirinvenimentodeicippiapignaedeibustifunerari."ArchCl35:228‐282.Perlwitz,O.1992.T.PomponiusAtticus:UntersuchungenzurPersoneineseinflussreichenRittersinderausgehendenrömischenRepublik.Stuttgart:F.SteinerVerlag.

288

Peroni,R.1960."PerunanuovacronologiadelsepolcretoarcaicodelForo.Sequenzaculturaleesignificatostorico."InCiviltàdelFerro,editedbyR.Peroni,463‐499.Bologna:ArnaldoForniEditore._____.1988."ComunitàeinsediamentoinItaliafraEtàdelbronzoeprimeEtàdelferro."InStoriadiRomaI:RomainItalia,editedbyA.MomiglianoandA.Schiavone,7‐37.Turin:GiulioEinaudi._____.2000.Formazioneesviluppideicentriprotourbanimedio‐tirrenici."InRoma:Romolo,Remoelafondazionedellacittà,editedbyA.Carandini,26‐30.Rome:Electa.Peroni,R.ed.1960.CiviltàdelFerro.Bologna:ArnaldoForniEditore.Phillips,K.M.1993.IntheHillsofTuscany:RecentExcavationsattheEtruscanSiteofPoggioCivitate(Murlo,Siena).Philadelphia:TheUniversityMuseum,UniversityofPennsylvania.Poucet,J.1985.LesoriginesdeRome:traditionethistoire.Brussels:FacultésuniversitairesSaint‐Louis.Pinza,G.1924.StoriadellaciviltàLatina.Rome:PontificaaccademiaRomanadiarcheologia.Platner,S.B.andT.Ashby,eds.1929.ATopographicalDictionaryofAncientRome.London:OxfordUniversityPress.Prayon,F.1975.Frühetruskischegrab­undhausarchitektur.RM22.Heidelberg:F.H.Kerle._____.1989."L'architetturafunerariaetrusca.Lasituazioneattualedellericercheeproblemiaperti."InAtti.SecondoCongressoInternazionaleEtruscoFirenze26maggio­2giungo1985.SupplementodiStudiEtruschi,editedbyG.Maetzke,441‐9.Rome:Bretschneider.Quilici,L.andS.QuiliciGigli.1980.LatiumVetusIII.Crustumerium.Rome:CNR.Raaflaub,K.A.,ed.2005.SocialStrugglesinArchaicRome.NewPerspectivesontheConflictoftheOrders.Malden,MA:Blackwell.Rajala,U.2007.“Archaicchambertombsasmaterialobjects:thematerialityofburialplacesanditseffectonmodernresearchagendasandinterpretations.”ArchaeologicalReviewfromCabridge22.1:43–57._____.2008a.“TheexcavationsinthecemeteryofCisternaGrande(Crustumerium,Rome,Italy):Archaicburialsandfuneraryidentities.”Bolletinodiarcheologiaonline17._____.2008b.“RitualandRemembranceatarchaicCrustumerium.ThetransformationofpastandmodernmaterialitiesinthecemeteryofCisternaGrande(Rome,Italy).”In

289

MaterialityofDeath.Bodies,burials,beliefs.,editedby,F.FahlanderandT.Oestigaard,79–88.BARInternationalSeries1768.Oxford:BAR.Rathje,A.1980."Ficana:unacittàdell'anticoLazio."MondoArcheologico48:10‐13.Rawson,E.1971."ProdigyListsandtheUseoftheAnnalesmaximi."CQ21:158‐169._____.1976."TheFirstLatinannalists."Latomus35:689‐717._____.1985.IntellectualLifeintheLateRomanRepublic.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.Reggiani,A.,B.Adembri,F.Zevi,M.G.Benedettini,andZ.Mari.1998."Corcolle."Scaviericerchearcheologichedell'universitàdiRoma"LaSapienza"96:120‐124.Reiner,E.1938.DierituelleTotenklagederGriechen.Berlin:Stuttgart.Renfrew,C.1984.ApproachestoSocialArchaeology.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Rhodes,P.J.2006."TheReformsandLawsofSolon:AnOptimisticView."InSolonofAthens:NewHistoricalandPhilologicalApproaches,editedbyJ.H.BlokandA.P.M.H.Lardinois,248‐60.Boston:Brill.Ridgway,D.andF.R.Ridgway,eds.1979.ItalyBeforetheRomans:TheIronAge,OrientalizingandEtruscanPeriods.NewYork:AcademicPress.Ridley,R.T.1983."Falsitriumphi,pluresconsulatus."Latomus42:372‐82.Riva,C.2010.TheUrbanisationofEtruria:FuneraryPracticesandSocialChange,700­600BC.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Roberts,C.A.,F.LeeandJ.Bintliff,eds.1989.BurialArchaeology.CurrentResearch,MethodsandDevelopments.Oxford:BAR.Robinson,O.1975."TheRomanLawonBurialsandBurialGrounds."TheIrishJurist10:175‐186.Rose,H.J.1923."NocturnalFuneralsatRome."CQ17:191‐194.Rosén,H.,ed.1996.AspectsofLatin:PapersfromtheSeventhInternationalColloquiumonLatinLinguistics,Jerusalem,April1993.Innsbruck:InstitutfürSprachwissenschaftderUniversitätInnsbruck.Ruschenbusch,E.1966.Solonosnomoi.DieFragmentedesSolonischenGesetzwerkesmiteinerText­undÜberlieferungsgeschichte.Wiesbaden:FranzSteinerVerlagBMBH.

290

Russell,J.C.1985.TheControlofLateAncientandMedievalPopulation.Philadelphia,PA:TheAmericanPhilosophicalSociety.Ryberg,I.S.1940.AnArchaeologicalRecordofRomefromtheSeventhtotheSecondCenturyB.C.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.Sacks,K.1983."HistoriographyintheRhetoricalWorksofDionysiusofHalicarnassus."Athenaeum61:65‐87._____.1990.DiodorusSiculusandtheFirstCentury.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Santini,C.1995.IFrammentidiL.CassioEmina:Introduzione,Testo,TraduzioneeCommento.Pisa:EdizioniETS.Santoro,P.1977."ColledelForno(Roma).Loc.Montelibretti.Relazionediscavosullecampagne1971‐1974nellanecropoli."NSc31:213‐198._____.1983."ColledelForno(Roma).Loc.Montelibretti.Relazionepreliminarediscavodellacampagnasettembre‐ottobre1979nellanecropoli."NSc37:105‐140._____.1985."SequenzaculturaledellanecropolidiColledelFornoinSabina."SE51:13‐37.Saxe,A.A.1970.SocialDimensionsofMortuaryPractices.PhDDissertation,UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor.Scafuro,A.C.2006."IdentifyingSolonianLaws."InSolonofAthens:NewHistoricalandPhilologicalApproaches,editedbyJ.H.BlokandA.P.M.H.Lardinois,175‐196.Boston:Brill.Scardigli,B.,ed.1995.EssaysonPlutarch'sLives.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Scheid,J.2008."Enguisedeprologue:del'utilisationcorrectedessourcesécritesdansl'étudedesritesfunéraires."InPourunearchéologiedurite:nouvellesperspectivesdel'archéologiefunéraire,editedbyJ.Scheid,5‐8.Rome:ÉcolefrançaisedeRome.Scheid,J.,ed.2008.Pourunearchéologiedurite:nouvellesperspectivesdel'archéologiefunéraire.Rome:ÉcolefrançaisedeRome.Scholz,U.W.1989."ZuL.CassiusHemina."Hermes117:167‐81.Schuller,W.1993.Livius:AspekteseinesWerkes.Konstanz:UniversitätsverlagKonstanz.Scrinari,V.S.M.,ed.1981.Ficana:unapietramiliaresullastradaperRoma:mostraitinerantedegliscaviitalo­nordiciaFicana(Acilia),1975­1980.Roma:Viella.Scrinari,V.S.M.1980.Ficana­enmilestenpåveieintilRomaCopenhagen:IkommisjonhosMuseumTusculanum.

291

Scullard,H.H.1980.AHistoryoftheRomanWorld.NewYork:Routledge._____.1981.FestivalsandCeremoniesoftheRomanRepublic.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.Sewell,J.2010.TheFormationofRomanUrbanism,338­200B.C.:BetweenContemporaryForeignInfluenceandRomanTradition.JRASuppl.79.Portsmouth,R.I.:JournalofRomanArchaeology.Shapiro,H.A.1991."TheIconographyofMourninginAthenianArt."AJA95:629‐656.Shaw,B.D.1991."TheCulturalMeaningofDeath:AgeandGenderintheRomanFamily."InTheFamilyinItalyfromAntiquitytothePresent,editedbyD.I.KertzerandR.P.Saller,66‐90.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.Siewert,P.1978."DieangeblicheÜbernahmesolonischerGesetzeindieZwolftafeln.UrsprungundAusgestaltungeinerLegende."Chiron8:331‐44.Skutsch,O.1985.TheAnnalsofQuintusEnnius.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Small,A.M.,ed.1992.AnIronAgeandRomanRepublicanSettlementonBotromagno,GravinadiPuglia.Excavationsof1965­1974.VolumeI.TheSite.London:BritishSchoolatRome.Smith,A.H.1901."GavinHamilton'sLetterstoCharlesTownley."JHS21:306‐21.Smith,C.J.1996.EarlyRomeandLatium.Oxford:ClarendonPress._____.2005."TheBeginningsofRomanUrbanization."InMediterraneanUrbanization800­600BC,editedbyR.OsborneandB.Cunliffe,91‐111.PBSAR126.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress._____.2006.TheRomanClan.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Sommella,P.1971‐1972."HeroondiEneaaLavinium.RecentiscaviaPraticadiMare."RendPontAcc44:47‐74.Sourvinou‐Inwood,C.1983."ATraumainFlux:Deathinthe8thcenturyandafter."InTheGreekRenaissanceoftheEighthCenturyBC.EditedbyR.Hägg,33‐48.Stockholm:SvenskaInstitutetiAthen._____.1995."Reading"GreekDeath:TotheEndoftheClassicalPeriod.NewYork:ClarendonPress.Spigo,U.,ed.1986.Decimamiscellaneagrecaeromana.Rome:IstitutoItalianoperlaStoriaAntica.

292

Steinby,E.M.,ed.1999.LexiconTopographicumUrbisRomae.Rome:EdizioniQuasar.Stewart,Z.,ed.1972.A.D.Nock,EssaysonReligionandtheAncientWorld(vol.I).Oxford:ClarendonPress.Strong,D.E.1961.RomanImperialSculpture.London:A.Tiranti.Stroud,R.1979.TheAxonesandKyrbeisofDrakonandSolon.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Svenbro,J.1988.Phrasikleia:AnthropologiedelalectureenGrèceancienne.Paris:EditionsLaDécouverte.Sydenham,E.A.1975.TheCoinageoftheRomanRepublic.NewYork:ArnoPress.Szegedy‐Maszak,A.1978."LegendsoftheGreekLawgivers."GRBS19:199‐210.Szemeré,O.1975."TheOriginsofRomanDramaandGreekTragedy."Hermes103:300‐32.Szemerényi,O.1975."TheOriginsofRomanDramaandGreekTragedy."Hermes103:300‐32.Terrenato,N.1992."VeliaandCarinae:someobservationsonanareaofarchaicRome."InPapersoftheFourthConferenceofItalianArchaeologyIV,editedbyE.Herring,R.WhitehouseandJ.Wilkins,31‐47.London:AccordiaResearchCenter._____.2001."TheAuditoriumSiteinRomeandtheOriginsoftheVilla."JRA14:5‐32._____.2011."TheVersatileClans:ArchaicRomeandtheNatureofEarlyCity‐StatesinCentralItaly."InStateFormationinItalyandGreece:QuestioningtheNeoevolutionistParadigmeditedbyN.TerrenatoandD.C.Haggis,231‐244.Oxford:OxbowBooks.Terrenato,N.andD.C.Haggis,ed.2011.StateFormationinItalyandGreece:QuestioningtheNeoevolutionistParadigm.Oxford:OxbowBooks.Terrenato,N.andL.Motta.2006."TheOriginsoftheStateparexcellence.PowerandSocietyinIronAgeRome."InCeltesetgaulois,l'archéologiefaceàl'histoire4:lesmutationsdelafindel'âgeduFer,editedbyC.Haselgrove,225‐34.Glux‐en‐Glenne:Bibracte.Thomas,M.L.andG.E.Myers,eds.2012.MonumentalityinEtruscanandEarlyRomanArchitecture.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.Timpe,D.1972."FabiusPictorunddieAnfängederrömischenHistoriographie."ANRW1.2:928‐69.

293

_____.1988."MündlichkeitundSchriftlichkeitalsBasisderfrührömischenÜberlieferung."InVergangenheitinmündlicherÜberlieferung,editedbyJ.vonUngern‐SternbergandH.Reinau,266‐286.Stuttgart:B.G.Teubner.Toher,M.1991."GreekFuneraryLegislationandtheTwoSpartanFunerals."InGeorgica:GreekStudiesinHonurofGeorgeCawkwell.EditedbyM.A.FlowerandM.Toher,159‐175.London:InstituteofClassicalStudies._____.2005."TheTenthTableandtheConflictoftheOrders."InSocialStrugglesinArchaicRome:ANewPerspectiveontheConflictoftheOrders.EditedbyK.A.Raaflaub,268‐92.Malden,MA:Blackwell.Tortorici,E.1981."Ardea."AL4:293‐6.Toynbee,J.M.C.1971.DeathandBurialintheRomanWorld.Baltimore:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.Tsoucaris,G.andJ.Lipkowski.2002.MolecularandStructuralArchaeology:CosmeticandTherapeuticChemicals.Norwell,MA:KluwerAcademicPublishers.Ungern‐Sternberg,J.von.1988."ÜberlungenzurfrühenrömischenÜberlieferungimLichtederOral‐Tradition‐Forschung."InVergangenheitinmündlicherÜberlieferung,editedbyJ.vonUngern‐SternbergandH.Reinau,237‐65.Stuttgart:B.G.Teubner._____.2005."TheFormationofthe'AnnalisticTradition':TheExampleoftheDecemvirate."InSocialStrugglesinArchaicRome.NewPerspectivesontheConflictoftheOrders,editedbyK.A.Raaflaub,75‐97.Malden,MA:Blackwell.Ungern‐SternbergandH.Reinau,eds.1988.VergangenheitinmündlicherÜberlieferung.Stuttgart:B.G.Teubner.VanDerVliet,E.C.L.1990."EarlyRomeandtheEarlyState.InStaatundStaatlichkeitinderfrühenrömischenRepublik,editedbyW.Eder,233‐57.Stuttgart:FranzSteinerVerlag.vanEffenterre,H.andF.Ruzé,eds.1994‐5.Nomima:receuild'inscriptionspolitiqueetjuridiquesdel'archaïsmegrec.Rome:EcolefrançaisedeRome.Verbugghe,G.P.1982."L.CinciusAlimentus‐HisPlaceinRomanHistoriography."Philologus126:316‐23.Visconti,E.1797.MonumentiGabinidellaVillaPinciana.Milan.SocietaTopofraficadeClassiciItaliani.vonDuhn,F.1924.ItalischeGräberkunde.Heidelberg:CarlWinter'sUniversitätsbuchhandlung.

294

vonWilamowitz‐Moellendorf,U.1995."PlutarchasBiographer."InEssaysonPlutarch'sLives,editedbyB.Scardigli,47‐74.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Waarsenburg,D.J.1991."Aurodentesiuncti.AninquiryintotheStudyoftheEtruscanDentalProthesis."InStipsvotiva:PaperspresentedtoC.M.Stibbe,editedbyM.Gnade,241‐248.Amsterdam:AllardPiersonMuseum,UniversityofAmsterdam._____.1995.TheNorthwestNecropolisofSatricum.AnIronAgeCemeteryinLatiumVetus.Amsterdam:ThesisPublishers.Wacher,J.,ed.2002.TheRomanWorld.NewYork:Routledge.Walbank,F.W.1957.AHistoricalCommentaryonPolybius.Vol.1.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Walker,S.1985.MemorialstotheRomanDead.London:BritishMuseumPublications,Ltd.Walsh,P.G.1961.Livy,HisHistoricalAimsandMethods.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress._____.1974.Livy.Oxford:ClarendonPress.WardeFowler,W.1896."Granger's'WorshipoftheRomans.'"CR10:394‐395.Warmington,E.H.1979.RemainsofOldLatin.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Watson,A.1992.TheState,LawandReligion.PaganRome.Athens:UniversityofGeorgiaPress.Wieacker,F.1967."DieXIITafelninihremJahrhundert."InLesoriginesdelarépubliqueromaine,editedbyE.GjerstadandF.E.Brown,291‐359.Vandoeuvres‐Geneva:FoundationHardt._____.1971."SolonunddieXIITafeln."InStudiinonorediEdoardoVolterra,vol.3,757‐84.Milan:A.Giuffrè._____.1988.RömischeRechtsgeschichte:Quellenkunde,Rechtsbildung,JurisprudenzundRechtsliteratur.Munich:C.H.Beck'scheVerlagbuchhandlung.Wiedemann,T.1989.AdultsandChildrenintheRomanWorld.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.Willetts,R.F.1967.TheLawCodeofGortyn.Berlin:deGruyter.Wiseman,T.P.1974."LegendaryGenealogiesinLate‐RepublicanRome."GaR21:153‐64.

295

_____.1979.Clio'sCosmetics:ThreeStudiesinGreco­RomanLiterature.RowmanandLittfield:LeicesterUniversityPress._____.1981."TheoryandPracticeinRomanHistoriography."History66:375‐93._____.1989."RomanLegendandOralTradition."JRS79:129‐37._____.1994.HistoriographyandImagination.Exeter:UniversityofExeterPress._____.1995.Remus:ARomanMyth.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress._____.1998.RomanDramaandRomanHistory.Exeter:UniversityofExeterPress.Wissowa,G.1902.ReligionundKulturderRömer.Munich:C.H.Beck.Witte,M.,etal.eds.2005.KodifizierungundLegitimierungdesRechtsinderAntikeundimAltenOrient.Wiesbaden:OttoHarrassowitzVerlag.Woodman,A.J.1988.Rhetoricinclassicalhistoriography.London:CroomHelm.Zaccagni,P.1978."Gabii‐Lacittàanticaedilterritorio."AL1:42‐6.Zorzetti,N.1990."TheCarminaConvivalia."InSympotica:ASymposiumontheSymposion,editedbyO.Murray,289‐307.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

296

AppendixA:AreaDHarrisMatrix2011and2012

297

AppendixB:AreaDBurials

AdultBurialsTombID25 Type:monolithictuffsarcophaguswithasidenicheDimensions:sarcophagus(L:2.08m,W:0.73m,H0.75m,T:0.08m,D0.60m);sarcophaguslid(L:2.12m,W:0.74,T:0.21m)NumberofInhumations:2Orientation:N/S,headatSSex:Finsarcophagus,MinnicheAge:30sinsarcophagus,teensinnicheSpecialFinds:noDate:525‐450B.C.E.SUs:2085(filloftomb);2086(tombcut);2087(sarcophaguslid);2088(skeletonofF);2089(tuffsarcophagus);2090(fillbeneathsarcophagus);2091(skeletonofM)TombID38,39,and40Type:semi‐chamberDimensions:mainchamber(L:2.5m,W:2.5m,D:1.95m),eastniche(L:1.37m,W:0.60m,H:0.96m),northniche(L:1.88m,W:0.60m,H:0.92m),westniche(L:1.06m,W:0.76m,H:0.98m)NumberofInhumations:3Orientation:eastniche(N/S,headatS),northniche(W/E,headatW),westniche(N/S,headatS)Sex:eastniche(unknown),northniche(unknown),westniche(M)Age:eastniche(adolescent,ageunknown),northniche(unknown),westniche(adult,ageunknown)SpecialFinds:341/342(unidentifiedbronzefragments,mainchamber),345/346/348/349/350/352(ironnails,probablywithwestniche),351/353/355(miniaturespoolsofworkedbone,eastniche),354(unidentifiedworkedbone,eastniche),365(necklaceofspoolsandstripsofworkedbone,eastniche),359(unknownobjectofworkedbone,northniche),westnicheDate:525‐450B.C.E.SUs:3021(fillofsemi‐chambertomb),3024(cutofmainchamber),3032(skeletonineastniche,T.38),3033(skeletoninnorthniche,T.39),3034(skeletoninwestniche,T.40),3035(=SF356),3036(eastniche,fillbelowT.38),3037(northniche,fillbelowT.39),3038(westniche,fillbelowT.40),3039(cutofeastniche),3040(cutofnorthniche),3041(cutofwestniche)

298

TombID41and42Type:semi‐chamberDimensions:mainchamber(L:2.5m,W:1.8m,D:1.5m),westniche(L:2.1m,W,0.6m,H:0.70m),eastniche(L:2.1m,W:0.6m,H:0.6m)NumberofInhumations:2Orientation:westniche(N/S,headatS),eastniche(N/S,headatS)Sex:westniche(M),eastniche(F)Age:westniche(45‐50),eastniche(35)SpecialFinds:466(bronzepin,mainfill),468(ironnail,eastniche),469(ironnail,westniche),470(ironnail,westniche),480(ironnail,westniche)Date:525‐450B.C.E.SUs:3066(fillofmainchamber),3079(skeletoninwestniche,T.41),3080(skeletonineastniche,T.42),3081(cutofmainchamber),3082(cutofwestniche),3083(cutofeastniche)InfantandChildBurialsTombID30Type:indoliumDimensions:vessel(H:38cm,Di:30cm)NumberofInhumations:1Orientation:W/E,mouthofvesselateastSex:unknownAge:unknownSpecialFinds:N/ADate:late7thtoearly6th(?)SUs:3005(fillindolium),3006(dolium),3007(collapseofdolium),3008(fillindolium,beneathcollapse),3009(cutinbedrockthatcontainsdolium),3010,fillbeneathdoliumandcut3009)TombID48Type:afossaDimensions:L:1.91m,W:0.61m,D:0.37mNumberofInhumations:1Orientation:N/S,headatSSex:unknownAge:1‐2SpecialFinds:Date:525‐425B.C.E.SUs:3148(filloftomb),3149(cutoftomb),3156(olla),3157(olla),3159(filloftomb),3160(ironfibula),3161(skeleton)

299

TombID49Type:indoliumDimensions:dolium(L:25cm,Di:22cm)NumberofInhumations:1Orientation:W/E,mouthfacingwestSex:unknownAge:unknownSpecialFinds:N/ADate:unknown,possibly700‐500B.C.E.SUs:3231(filloftomb),3232(dolium),3233(collapseofstonesthatcovermouthofjar),3234(fillbeneathcollapseof3233),3253(cutoftomb),LegendL=lengthW=widthH=heightT=thicknessofwallsD=depthF=femaleM=maleDi=diameteratmouth