Funerary Ritual and Urban Development in Archaic Central Italy. Jennifer Marilyn Evans. A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the

Transcription

1 FuneraryRitualandUrbanDevelopmentinArchaicCentralItaly By JenniferMarilynEvans Adissertationsubmittedinpartialsatisfactionofthe requirementsforthedegreeof DoctorofPhilosophy in ClassicalArchaeology inthe GraduateDivision ofthe UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley Committeeincharge: ProfessorJ.TheodorePeña,Chair ProfessorChristopherHallett ProfessorDylanSailor ProfessorNicolaTerrenato ProfessorCarlosNoreña Spring2014

2 Copyright2014,JenniferMarilynEvans

3 Abstract FuneraryRitualandUrbanDevelopmentinArchaicCentralItaly by JenniferMarilynEvans DoctorofPhilosophyinClassicalArchaeology UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley ProfessorJ.TheodorePeña,Chair ThisdissertationexaminestheevidenceforburialinarchaicRomeandLatiumwithaview tounderstandingthenatureofurbandevelopmentintheregion.inparticular,ifocuson identifyingthosesocialandpoliticalinstitutionsthatgovernedrelationsbetweencitystatesatatimewhenromewasbecomingthemostinfluentialurbancenterinthearea.i examinetheevidenceforburialgatheredprimarilyfromthepastfourdecadesorsoof archaeologicalexcavationinordertopresentfirst,asystematicaccountofthedataand second,ananalysisofthesematerials.irevealthatahighdegreeofvariationwasobserved infuneraryritualacrosssites,andsuggestthatthispointstoacomplexsystemofregional networksthatallowedforthewidespreadtravelofpeopleandideas.iviewthisas evidencefortheopennessofarchaicsocietiesinlatium,wherebypeopleandgroupsseem tohavemovedacrossregionswithwhatseemstohavebeenafairdegreeofmobility.i connectthevarietyintombconstructiontothemorewidespreadphenomenonof monumentalization,whichencouragedtheconstructioninstoneofresidences,templesand publicbuildingsacrosstheregion.iconsidertheindividualsandgroupsresponsiblefor thesetypesofconstruction,andhowtheycontributedtothedevelopmentofand interactionbetweencity states. Ibeginwithanassessmentofthehistoricalreliabilityoftheancientsourcesconcerning earlyrome,sincetheywerewrittencenturieslaterthanthetimeinquestion,yetcomment onsomeofthefeaturesinthearchaeologicalrecord.igoontoconsidertheliterary evidenceforfuneraryritualinearlyrome,inordertodeterminewhattheancientsources havetosayaboutthecustomsoftheirancestorsandwhatsignificancethishasforthe archaeologicalevidence.then,iconsiderthedocumentaryevidenceforfuneraryritual, whichcomesfromthelegislationofthetwelvetables.theprohibitionspreservedhere,if theyrepresentavaliddocument,illustratetheconcernsoflawmakerswithregardto funeraryactivityinandaroundthecityofrome.inthefollowingsectionipresentthe archaeologicalevidenceforburial,andprovideadetailedsummaryofarchaicburials accordingtosite,andofferabriefdescriptionofeachsettlementinordertobetter contextualizethedata.iconcludethissectionwithaninterpretationoftheevidence. Finally,IconcentrateonthearchaeologicalevidencefromarchaicGabii,whichresultsfrom myownparticipationontheexcavationofthesite.theresultsoftheseexcavationsallow forthestudyoftheintersectionbetweentheurbanarea,burialandlandownership. 1

4 ToRobertB.Caruthers i

5 TableofContents ChronologyofLatialCultureandtheArchaicPeriod iv ListofAbbreviations v ListofFigures vi xiii Acknowledgements xiv 1.Introduction TheAncientHistoriographicalSourcesforEarlyRomanHistory a.Introduction 2b.TheAnnalisticTradition 2c.TheAntiquarianTradition 2d.TheNarrativeTradition 2e.TheAncientDocumentarySources 2f.TheOralTradition 2g.Landmarks,MonumentsandToponyms 2h.ModernScholarshipRegardingtheHistoriographicTradition 2i.Conclusion 3.TheLiteraryEvidenceforRomanFuneraryRitualsandBurialPractices a.Introduction 3b.CremationandInhumation 3c.InfantBurial 3d.BurialintheHome 3e.NocturnalBurial 3f.Polybius 3g.Conclusion 4.TheDocumentaryEvidenceforRomanFuneraryRitual:theTwelveTables a.Introduction 4b.TransmissionandReconstructionoftheTwelveTables 4c.TheTenthTable 4d.Conclusion 5.TheArchaeologicalEvidenceforArchaicBurialinLatiumVetus a.Introduction 5b.PreviousScholarship 5c.TypesofBurial 5d.FuneraryRite 5e.ArchaeologicalSites 5f.Discussion 5g.Conclusion ii

6 6.BurialandUrbanDevelopmentinArchaicGabii a.Introduction 6b.TheAncientSourcesforArchaicGabii 6c.HistoryofExcavation 6d.TopographyandDevelopmentoftheSite 6e.TheGabiiProject 6f.TheGabiiProject AreaD 6g.Chronology 6h.FeaturesofAreaD:TheArchaicBuilding 6i.FeaturesofAreaD:TheBurials 6j.Conclusion 7.Conclusion Figures Bibliography AppendixA:AreaDHarrisMatrix2011and AppendixB:AreaDBurials iii

7 ChronologyofLatialCultureandtheArchaicPeriod 1 Pre urban LatialPhaseI c FinalBronzeAge(Protovillanovan) LatialPhaseIIA c EarlyIronAge(Villanovan) Proto urban LatialPhaseIIB c " LatialPhaseIIIA c " LatialPhaseIIIB c /20 " LatialPhaseIVA c.730/20 640/30 EarlyandMiddleOrientalizing LatialPhaseIVB c.640/ LateOrientalizing Urban Archaic c /50 1 ThesedatesarebasedonAmpoloetal.(1980)andarethemostwidely usedin scholarshipconcerningbronzeandironagelatium.ihaveadoptedthischronologyformy dissertation.however,biettisestierianddesantis(2006),onthebasisofradiocarbon datesrecoveredfromfuneraryandsettlementcontexts,suggestraisingtheconventional chronologybyabout50to100years.theevidenceiscompelling,butmayrequirefurther reviewbeforegainingwideacceptance.alldatesareb.c.e.unlessotherwisestated. iv

8 ListofAbbreviations AJP AmericanJournalofPhilology AL ArcheologiaLaziale ADRA AtlantediRomaAntica BullCom BullettinodellaCommissionearcheologicaComunalediRoma CLP CiviltàdelLazioprimitivo CVA CorpusVasorumAntiquorum GRT LagrandeRomadeiTarquini HSCP HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology ICr Inscriptionescreticae IG Inscriptionesgraecae JHS JournalofHellenicStudies LTUR Lexicontopographicumurbisromae LTURS Lexicontopographicumurbisromaesuburbium LTURSuppl. Lexicontopographicumurbisromaesupplementum NSc Notiziedegliscavidiantichità.Attidell'AccademiaNazionaledei Lincei NTDAR ANewTopographicalDictionaryofAncientRome OpRom OpusculaRomana PP Laparoladelpassato RendPontAcc AttidellaPontificiaAccademiaromanadiarcheologia RMErgh MitteilungendesDeutschenArchaeologischenInstituts,Roemische Abteiling.Ergänzungsheft Roselle Gliscavielamostra.SoprintendenzaperiBeniArcheologicidellaToscana. SE StudiEtruschi TLE Testimonialinguaeetruscae v

9 ListofFigures Chapter1 Figure1.1MapofancientLatium,showingmajorsites.AfterSmith1996,240,map1. Chapter5TheArchaeologicalEvidenceforArchaicBurialinLatiumVetus Figure5.1PlanofRomeshowinghillsandlocationofearlycemeteries.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 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. vi

10 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. vii

11 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 Figure5.46GeneralmapofcentralItaly.AfterRajala2008a,41,fig.2. Figure5.47GeneralmapofCrustumerium,includingsitesofCisternaGrande,Montedel BufaloandSassoBiancoexcavations.AfterRajala2008a,40,fig.1. Figure5.48.MapdetailoftheMonteDelBufalonecropolis,Crustumerium.AfterNijboer 2008,24,fig.2. viii

12 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. ix

13 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 Figure5.70IronAge(IIBandIII)traderoutesofancientLatium.AfterBiettiSestieri1992b, 75,fig Figure5.71MapofchambertombXXIIfromColledelForno,Eretum.AfterSantoro1983, 128,fig.27. Chapter6BurialandUrbanDevelopmentinArchaicGabii Figure6.1MapofCentralItaly,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. x

14 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 B.C.E.)atMegaraHyblaea.AfterDeAngelis 2003,29,fig.15. Figure6.14PlanofedificobetainthemiddleOrientalizingperiod(c.mid seventhcentury). AfterBonghiJovinoandTreré1997,pl 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. xi

15 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. xii

16 Figure6.39PlanoftheIronAgecemeteryatOsteriadell'Osa(c B.C.E.).Graves fromthelatestphases(iiib IVB,c B.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. xiii

17 Acknowledgements TherearemanypeopleIwouldliketothankfortheirassistanceandsupport.Myfamilyis foremostamongthese,astheyhaveunfailinglyencouragedmethroughoutmyentire career. Thisdissertationhasbenefittedfromtheinvolvementofmycommittee.TedPeñaread severaldraftsofmychaptersandfinalmanuscript.hewasatthesametimeanexacting editorandhelpfulcritic,whosequestionsandcommentscompelledmetoconsiderthe materialingreaterdepth.nicolaterrenatoprovidedtheimpetusforthisprojectandhis suggestionsgaveshapetothedissertation.earlyon,wheniknewverylittleaboutearly Rome,hiscommentswereaninvaluablesourceofinformationforthekindsofissuesI shouldtakeintoconsideration.chrishalletthaskindlyrespondedtothedissertationwith aviewtoreformulatingitasabook,andgivenfeedbackthataddresses"bigpicture" concerns.ienlistedcarlosnoreñawhenmydissertationwasdevotedtoanentirely differentsubjectmatter,andhehasgraciouslystuckwithit,despitetheconsiderableand abruptchange.dylansailorwashelpfulregardingtheancientsourcematerial,andthe approachesinmodernscholarshiptothesubject. IextendspecialthankstothevariousmembersoftheGabiiProjectfrom2009onward.In 2011,NicolaTerrenato,thedirectoroftheexcavation,andJeffreyBecker,thenfieldschool directorandsitemanager,suggestedthatiundertakethestudyofburialsinarchaiccentral Italy.Manyotherstaffandstudentshavesinceassistedinthecollectionandprocessingof findsinpreparationforthisdissertation.amongthestaff,abbycrawfordandchiarapilo datedtheceramicmaterials;jasonfarrrespondedtoquestionsaboutthetuff;kristina Killgroveaddressedthebioarchaeologicaldata;JessicaNowlindevelopedthe photogrammetrymodels;annagalloneandmarcellomogettarespondedquicklyto questionsandencouragedmyprofessionaldevelopmentinthefield;andtroysamuelswas aninvaluableassistantintheexcavationofacomplicatedarea.iwishtogivespecialthanks torachelopitz,thechieftopographerandarchiveoverseer,whohasassistedmeseveral timesoverthecourseofthisprojectinretrievingdataandcreatingmaps,evenatthelast minute. Finally,IameternallygratefulforthesupportofRobertCaruthers,whosepatienceand encouragementhaveassistedmethroughoutthisentireprocessandhelpedmeenjoymy graduateschoolexperience. xiv

18 1.Introduction ThisdissertationisacontributiontothestudyofurbanizationinearlycentralItaly.The evidencerecoveredfromfunerarycontextsinthepastseveraldecadeshassubstantially increasedourunderstandingofthepeoplethatinhabitedtheregionduringtheironage. Thesedatapointtotheemergenceofsocialhierarchiesasearlyastheninthcentury,and showevidenceforanincreasingsocialandpoliticalcomplexitythatseemstohave contributedtocity stateformationbytheendoftheseventhcentury.inthisdissertationi undertakeastudyofthefuneraryevidencefromthefollowingperiod,theurbanera,in ordertoobtainabetterunderstandingofthedynamicprocessofurbandevelopment.i focusnotsomuchontheprocessesthatledtotheformationofthecity state,butthekinds ofrelationshipsthatwerenegotiatedbetweencity statesandthepeoplelivinginand aroundthemoncethoseurbancenterswerealreadyestablished.thecreationofacityis notafixedendpoint,norisitaguaranteeofsuccessandcontinuity. ThesubjectofArchaicRomeandLatiumisaparticularlyusefulvenueforthiskindof exploration,sincetheevidencefromliteraryandarchaeologicalsourcespointtorome's rapidgrowthoverthecourseofthesixthcentury,andherexpansionandpredominancein theregionbytheendofthecentury,attheexpenseofneighboringcity states.there remainsatendencytoviewtheprocessofconquestandexpansionasinevitable,and somehowindicativeoftheculturalandpoliticalsuperiorityofthevictor.thisisespecially truewithregardtoearlyrome,astheimageofthecityasanimperialrulerofthe Mediterraneanworldloomslarge.Whatthisstudyintendstodo,however,isshedsome lightonthenatureofinteractioninarchaicromeandlatium,inordertounderstandwhat kindsofsocialandpoliticalinstitutionsgovernedrelationsbetweenpeoplesandcities. Thereadermaybedisappointedtodiscoverthatthereislittleevidencehereexplaining howromeovertooklatium,orthepreciseoutcomeofthisexpansiononneighboring cities;thearchaeologicalevidenceisoftendifficulttoreadinthisway.whatismore,such questionsmaybemorerevealingaboutthekindsofassumptionswemakeaboutthe natureofconquestandthecharacterizationofcities.thatistosay,thatconquestis unilateralandinevitableandthatcitiesaresociallyandpoliticallyunifiedcentersthat exhibitsomekindofnationalidentity.whatweknowaboutearlyromeseemstosuggest theopposite,inthattherewasahighdegreeofhorizontalsocialmobilitythroughoutthe region,andpeople,inparticularelites,seemtohavehadlittledifficultyinsuccessfully movingtoanewcity state.inaddition,theevidencefromliteraryandarchaeological sourcessuggeststhatearlylatinsocietieswerecomprisedofgroups,whosemembers wereconnectedthroughavarietyofsocial,political,economicorreligiousties.itis extremelydifficulttodeterminemorepreciselythenatureofthesegroups,orhowthey operated.however,theyseemtohavefunctionedasthefundamentalinstitutionofarchaic societies,tothepointthattheearliestlawsseemmorefocusedonthepreservationofthese groupsratherthanthecity stateasasociopoliticalentity,thoughthisisnottosaythese goalsweremutuallyexclusive. Thereisaroleforburialinallthis.Asindicatedabove,therehavebeenanumberofstudies indicatingthevalueofstudyingthearchaeologicalrecordofburialasevidenceforancient 1

19 behaviorsandsocieties.incentralitaly,theformativepublicationisbiettisestieri'swork ontheosteriadell'osacemetery,locatedwestofthecastiglionecraterintheregionof ancientgabii. 2 BiettiSestieriidentifiedpatternsinthespatialdistributionofthegraves,the typesofburial,andthegravegoodsfoundinthem,andmadesomeobservationsaboutthe developingnatureofthecommunityintheregion.shedocumentedthecemetery'suseby twoextendedfamilies,whoinitiallyseemedtocoexistpeacefullyundernocentralized authority,andtracedtheincreasinguseofthecemeterybycompetingsubgroups,likely kinship based,whoemphasizedtheirstatusandauthorityprimarilyinconnectiontothe familygroup. 3 BiettiSestieri'sworkremainsdeeplyinfluentialforscholarsofearlycentralItaly,which restsonthetheoreticalpremisethatthereissomedegreeofcorrelationbetweenfunerary practicesandsocialstructures. 4 Thisispost processualistmethodologyhasgaineda significantamountoftractioninrecentyears,anditisgenerallyaccepted,amongacertain setofscholars,myselfincluded,thatthestudyofburialsisusefulforreconstructingpast societies. 5 Tothatend,Iofferinthisdissertationastudyoftheburialevidencefrom ArchaicRomeandLatium,withaviewtounderstandingthosesocialandpolitical institutionsthatcontributedtothedevelopmentofandgovernedtheinteractionbetween city states.thedissertationisdividedintotwohalves,thefirst,consistingofchapters1 3, compriseananalysisoftheliteraryevidence;chapters5and6involveanexaminationof thearchaeologicalmaterial. Chapter2isanassessmentofthehistoricalreliabilityoftheancientsources.TheArchaic periodisatermarchaeologistsusetodesignatethesixthandearlyfifthcenturies,andthis timecorrespondsroughlywiththehistoricalaccountsconcerningthelastthreekingsand theearlydaysoftheromanrepublic.mostoftheseaccounts,however,werewritten centuriesaftertheeventsrecordedinthem,and,asaresult,itisimportanttoconsiderhow theancientsourcesmighthaveknownabouttheearliestphasesofromanhistoryand whatsourcestheyusedtoobtainthisinformation.asitturnsout,noneoftheoriginal sourcessurvive,anditseemsthatthelaterauthorsroundedouttheiraccountswithstories inspiredbygreekhistoricalnarratives.despitethis,thereislittleagreementamong modernhistoriansasregardshowbesttousetheancientaccounts.manyscholarsrely heavilyontheminordertosubstantiatethearchaeologicalmaterial.sincemuchofthe informationinthisdissertationdrawsfromthisrecentarchaeologicalresearch,itiscrucial toconsiderhowtheancientaccountscontinuetoinformmodernreconstructionsofthe past.intheend,ideterminethatitisbesttoadoptacautiousapproachtowardtheliterary sources,andevaluaterelevantepisodesonacasebycasebasis,asnecessary. 2 BiettiSestieri1992a;1992b. 3 Smith(2006,147 50)critiquesoftheseconclusions. 4 BiettiSestieri1992b,6. 5 ThemostinfluentialoftheseworksincludeSaxe(1970),Binford(1971)andMorris (1987);foracritiqueofthisapproach,seeHodder(1982). 2

20 Chapter3examinestheliteraryevidenceforfuneraryritualinearlyRome.Itaskswhat laterromansthoughttheyknewabouttheburialpracticesoftheirancestors.theevidence ispatchyandnotparticularlyinformative.theaccountsarebrief,lackingindetailand precision,andappeartobemorerevealingofattitudestowarddeathduringthelate RepublicandEmpire.Asaresult,theyprovidelittleevidenceofthekindthatmightfind supportinthearchaeologicalrecord.theyarealsoextremelyvagueregardingthetime whenacustomwasobserved,andnoteonlythatsomethingwas"veryancient"orpracticed "bytheancients."insum,theancientsourcesmakethefollowingobservationsregarding thefunerarypracticesoftheirancestors:inhumationwasthepreferredrite,burialtook placeathome,childrenwereburieddifferently,andburialtookplaceatnight.thepaucity ofinformationhereplacesspecialemphasisonthearchaeologicalmaterialasasourceof evidenceforfuneraryritual. Chapter4considerstheevidencefromthefunerarylegislationoftheTwelveTables,a seriesoflawsreportedlyenactedatromeinthemid fifthcentury.whilemostofthelaws concernissuesrelatingtoprivatelaw,thetenthtablelistsprohibitionsagainstcertain typesofbehavioratfunerals,andlimitsexpenditureonparticularitems.althoughthe originaltextdoesnotsurvive,mostscholarsacceptthetwelvetablesasamoreorless validdocumentfromthemiddleandlaterepublic,anditreatthedocumentaccordingly, thoughwithsomereservation.thetenthtableseemstobelongtoamediterranean wide traditionoflaw makinginarchaicsocieties,asitcontainsmanyallusionstoexamplesof Greekfunerarylawsthatsurviveprimarilyoninscriptions.However,thetenthtable includesstatutesthataddressspecificallyromanconcerns,andtheseincludethe prohibitiononintramuralburialandcremation,andthepermissiontoincludeinburialthe coronaandgolddentures.thestatutepertainingtothegolddenturesseemsareferenceto anetruscanpractice,whichpointstoaconsiderabledegreeofhorizontalsocialmobilityin archaiccentralitaly.ultimately,iarguethat,ifthetenthtablerepresentsavaliddocument, itrevealsthatromewasfairlyconnectedwithboththeoutsideworldanditalianinterior, andthatthefunerarylawsallowedforcommunity sanctionedformsofdisplay,usuallyin relationtothefamilyofthedeceased. Chapter5isareview,synthesisandanalysisofthearchaeologicalevidenceforburialin archaicromeandlatium.modernscholarshipinitiallyconsideredtheabsenceofgraves andgravegoodsanaspettooscuroofthearchaicperiod.thearchaeologicaldiscoveriesof recentdecades,however,haveaddedtothegrowingbodyofevidenceforburialduringthis period.here,ireviewthevalidityoftheevidencefromsomeoftheearliestexcavationsin Romeinthenineteenthcentury,sincethenatureoftheaspettooscurowasdrawnfrom thesedata.ithenreviewtheevidencefromallarchaeologicalsiteswithevidenceforburial duringthearchaicperiodandicontextualizethedatawithinformationfromrelated contexts.inadiscussionoftheevidence,iarguethatthereductioninthenumberofgraves pointslesstotherestrictionsimposedbythetwelvetables,andmoretoageneral restrictioninaccesstoburialgrounds.atthesametime,ihighlightthevarietythat characterizesarchaicburials.thespatialdistribution,form,contentsandlocationof burialsvariesacrosssitesandregions,tothepointthatitisdifficulttodetectpatterns.the evidencepointstoahighdegreeofcross culturalinteractionatlocalandregionallevels, andthismayfindsupportintheevidencefromchapter4.thereseemstohavebeena 3

21 fairlycomplexnetworkofurbanandruralsites,whosepopulationslookedbothinward andoutwardforsourcesofcontactandinspirationinfuneraryritual.iconnectthevariety intombtype,inparticular,totheevidenceformonumentalizationintheregion.overthe courseofsixthcenturies,urbancentersandruralsitesshowincreasedevidenceforstonebuiltarchitecture;iarguethattheadoptionandproliferationofthiskindofarchitecture extendedtothefunerarysphere. Chapter6isastudyofthearchaeologicalmaterialrecoveredfromthesiteofGabii,an ancientcity statelocatedsome18kmeastofrome.in2009,theuniversityofmichigan, undertheauspicesofthesoprintendenzaspecialeperibeniarcheologicidiroma (hereaftersar),launchedthegabiiproject,alarge scaleexcavationofa1haportioninthe urbanareaofthesite.ihavebeenexcavatingwiththegabiiprojectsincethebeginning; andsince2011myparticipationhasfocusedonthearchaicphasesofthesite.theevidence underdiscussioninthischaptercomesfromtheresultsoftheseexcavations.here,i explorethedevelopmentofasmallsectorofthesiteoccupiedduringthesixthandearly fifthcenturies.theareaappearstohavebeenusedfirstasthesiteofanarchaicbuilding fromtheearlytolatesixthcentury.sometimetowardtheendofthesixthcentury,the buildingfelloutofuseandtheareawasusedasaburialground.iinvestigatetheevidence todeterminetherelationshipbetweenthebuildingandtheburialground,andconsider whooccupiedthearea,whythebuildingfelloutofuse,andwhattheencroachmentof burialsindicatesabouttheurbandevelopmentofarchaicgabii.itentativelyconnectthe useofthisspacetodifferentgroups,possiblyclan based,inordertoreconstructthenature ofearlylatincities.iconsidertheevidenceforintramuralburialatthesiteinconnection withcitiesinsouthernitaly.thissuggests,ontheonehand,thatthereexistedacultural connectionbetweenbothareas,and,ontheother,thatthepresenceofintramuralburialis notjustanindicationofthecontractionandstructuraldecayofcities,butmayrevealmore complexprocessesofurbandevelopment,especiallyinlightofromanexpansioninthe area. 4

22 2.TheAncientHistoriographicalSourcesforEarlyRomanHistory 2a.Introduction ThetextualevidencefortheArchaicperiodofcentralItalyconstituteslargelyworksofthe annalisticandantiquariantraditionthatrecordtheurbanandpoliticaldevelopmentof RomefromthelaterregalperiodthroughtheearlyRepublic.Thenatureoftheseaccounts, however,ishighlyproblematic.theywerewritteninthesecondandfirstcenturies, hundredsofyearsaftertherecordedevents,andweredrawnfromavarietyofsourcesthat nolongersurvive,includingtheworksofearlierhistoriansandannalists,inscriptions, archivaldocuments,oraltraditions,andmythologyandlegends.themeagernessofsuch sourceseveninantiquityandthelaterinfluenceofgreekrhetoriconhistoriographic literaturemadeexaggerationandinventionsignificantcomponentsintheaccountsofearly Romanhistory.Asaresult,modernscholarshavefrequentlycalledintoquestiontheroleof thesetextsinthestudyofearlyrome. 6 Primaryconcernsincludethereliabilityand historicalaccuracyoftheancientsources,sincetheextenttowhichmodernhistorians considertheseaccountsdependableaffectstheirinterpretationsandreconstructionsof ancienthistory. Asecondcauseforanalysisistheincreasinglyfrequentuseofthearchaeologicalevidence asatooltoconfirmtheancientaccounts. 7 Thedegreetowhichtheliteratureand archaeologyagreeremainscentraltothecurrentdebateonearlyromanhistory.most scholarsrecognizetheimportanceofcombiningthehistoricalandarchaeologicalevidence, butthereremainsintensedisagreementregardingthevaluegiventoeachandthe questionstheycananswer. 8 Thearchaeologyandtheliteratureseemtoagree,inthatboth sourcesofferaviewofearlyromeandlatiumthatisprosperous,populatedand sophisticated.theproblemisthatthearchaeologicalevidenceisoftenusedonlyto substantiatetheclaimsmadeinthetexts,ratherthanbeingconsideredasaseparatebody ofevidencethataddstoandevenchallengestheevidencefromtheliterarysources. 9 Searchingforagreementbetweenthearchaeologicalandliterarysourcesoverlooksthe complexitiesandcontradictionsthatinevitablyarisewhenreconstructingearlyroman history.italsooverlooksthefactthatinterpretationofthematerialevidenceishighly contentious,andlikewiserequirescarefulconsideration. 10 Thedebateregardingtheagreementbetweenthesourcesisparticularlypertinentin scholarshipdevotedtounderstandingthedevelopmentofthehistoricalcityofrome. 11 If RomeemergedasthedominantcityinLatiumbytheendofthesixthcentury,thenthere 6 Raaflaub2005,1 46;Forsythe2005;Cornell2005,47 74;Cornell1995,1 30;Ogilvieand Drummond1989,1 29;andOakley1997, Raaflaub2005, Smith2005,92. 9 Smith1996,2. 10 Raaflaub2005,8. 11 Smith

23 musthaveexistedcomplexsociopoliticalinstitutionsbeforethattime.theexistenceof suchinstitutionsincreasesthepossibilitythattheromanshadsomeawarenessoftheir ownhistory.ahigherlevelofhistoricalawarenessincreasesthepossibilityfortheaccurate transmissionofearlyromanhistorythroughmyths,monuments,listsandoraltraditions. 12 ThehistoriansofthemiddleandlateRepublicdocumentedwhattheybelievedwastheir distantpast,and,consequently,anystudyinvolvingearlyromanhistorynecessitatesa carefulevaluationoftheseaccountsandathoughtfuldiscussionofthecurrentapproaches tothem.thequestion,ultimately,askswhethertheancientsourcesonearlyromanhistory preserveanyelementoftruth,andwhethertheypresentafactuallyaccuratehistory accordingtomodernscientificstandards.ifso,thenitisimportanttoconsiderwhatthese truthfulelementsare,wheretheyoriginallycamefromandinwhatformtheywerefinally preserved.ifnot,thenitisequallyimportanttoquestionthenatureofsuchafabricated history.thisinvolvesexaminingthereasonsandmotivesforinvention,thesourcesforit, anditseffectonancientandmoderninterpretationsofhistory. Whatimmediatelyfollowsisanoverviewoftheancientsources,beginningwiththe annalistic(2b)andantiquarian(2c)traditions,whichrepresenttheromans'earliest attemptsatwritinghistory.thesehistoriesarelargelylostandsurviveonlyasfragments preservedinlatertexts.littleisknownaboutmostauthors;precisedatesaregivenwhen theyareknown,otherwise,thefloruitdatesareprovided.thetraditionculminatesinthe firstcenturywiththetwomostimportantaccountsofearlyromanhistory,livy'saburbe conditaanddionysiusofhalicarnassus'antiquitatesromanae(2d).asubstantialportionof thesetextssurvivesandconstitutesthemajorityoftheliteraryevidenceforthehistoryof earlyrome.likewisedatingtothefirstcenturyarecicero'sderepublicaanddelegibus, anddiodorussiculus'bibliothecahistorica,whichcontainfragmentsrelevanttothe politicalandconstitutionalhistoryofearlyrome.theevidenceforthedocumentary(2e) andnon documentary(2fand2g)sources,whichmayhaveconstitutedtheprimary sourcesforalloftheseauthors,follows.anassessmentofthereliabilityoftheseaccounts ashistoricalsourcesensues(2h),andthechaptercloseswithadefenseoftherather skepticalviewadoptedinthisdissertation(2g). 2b.TheAnnalisticTradition Theannalistictraditionisatermusedbymodernhistorianstodesignateacategoryof literaryhistoriographythatrecordsthehistoryofromeyeartoyear.inantiquitythese textswerecalledannalesandtheirauthorsauctoresannalium;bothtermsrefertothe annalesmaximi,achroniclemaintainedbythepontifexmaximusthatrecordedall importanteventsyearbyyear,andfromwhichthisstyleofproseliteratureisderived. 13 Somedistinctioninantiquitywasmadebetweentheworksofannalistsandhistorians, 12 Smith2005, Chassignet1996,vii xix. 6

24 namelythatannaleslookedtothepastandhistoriaeinsteadtocurrentevents. 14 In contemporaryscholarship,however,thetermannalistsrefersspecificallytothoseauthors whowroteinthisyearlyfashion,althoughitfrequentlyreferstoanyhistoriographictext beforethetimeofsallustandcaesarinthelatefirstcentury. 15 TheRomanhistoriographictraditionbeganwiththeworksofsuchannalistsaroundthe year200b.c.e.fromthatperioduntilthelatefirstcentury,anumberofindividuals recordedthehistoryofromefromthefoundationofthecity:c.acilius,a.postumius Albinus,M.PorciusCato,L.CassiusHemina,L.CalpurniusPisoFrugi,C.Sempronius Tuditanus,Cn.Gellius,C.LiciniusMacer,T.PomponiusAtticus,ValeriusAntias,Q.Aelius Tubero,T.LiviusofPataviumandDionysiusofHalicarnassus.Discussionhereislimitedto thosewhowroteonrome'sregalperiod. FabiusPictorandL.CinciusAlimentusareconsideredtheearliestRomanhistorians. 16 Both authorswroteingreek,anddocumentedrome'shistoryfromthecity'smythicalpastto theirowntime.littleisknownabouteitherauthor,butitseemsthatpictorcomposedhis historyaround200b.c.e.twenty eightfragmentsofhisworksurviveinthetextsoflater authors,halfofwhichpertaintotheregalperiod. 17 WhileAlimentusseemstohavebeena contemporaryofpictor,andthescaleofhishistorysimilar,fewfragmentssurviveto informmuchonhislifeorwork. TheconsistencybetweenthesurvivingaccountsofPictorandcontemporaryauthors suggestthatthemajorityoftheinformationonearlyromanhistorywasderivedfroman earlier,well establishedandlikelyoraltradition. 18 Thesimilaritybetweenthefragmentsof theannalists,includingpictor,alimentus,andcato,andthehistoricalpoetennius,support thisconclusion. 19 DionysiusofHalicarnassus(1.6.2)recordsthatbothPictorandAlimentus treatedthehistoryofrome'sfoundationandthepunicwarsatlength,butdealtwithall othereventssummarily.q.ennius( B.C.E.),inhisnationalepicAnnales,devotes thefirstthreeofeighteenbookstotheregalperiod,andthelasttwelvetothepunicwars 14 Gell ;Serv.Adverg.aen.1.373;Isid.Orig and1.44.4;Chassignet1996,xxi.AccordingtoSemproniusAsellio(Gell ),whoseopinionsarepreservedas fragmentsingellius,annalesweresimplejournalsdocumentingtheeventsofaregionover time,whereashistoriaeweremoreconcernedwiththecausesoftheseeventsandbroad conceptssuchasmoralityandcitizenship.mostotherauthors,however,didnotmakethis distinction,inparticular,cicero(deleg.1.6 7). 15 Chassignet1996,vii viii. 16 Dion.Hal.Rom.ant ConcerningPictor,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). 18 Ungern Sternberg1988;Oakley1997, Forsythe2005,61. 7

25 onwards;theearlyrepublicwasdocumentedinonlytwobooks. 20 Accordingtoafew survivingfragmentsincorneliusnepos(3.3 4),CatotheElder( B.C.E.)wrote Rome'sfirstprosehistoryinLatin,theOrigines,inwhichhetreatedtheregalperiodinthe firstofsevenbooksandthepunicwars,inthelastfour;theextenttowhichhedocumented theearlyrepublicisunknownandcontroversial,butitappearstohavebeenverylittle. ThesecondandthirdbookslikelycontainedanethnographichistoryofItaly. 21 L.CassiusHemina,aboutwhomverylittleisknown,wroteahistorysometimeinthe secondhalfofthesecondcentury,ofwhichfortyfragmentscurrentlysurvive. 22 Hiswork seemstohavebeenlargelyoverlookedbylaterromanauthors.althoughitappearsthathe wasreadbyhisimmediatesuccessors,heisunlikelytohavebeenreadbylivy;hemay havebeenanindirectsourceforlaterhistoriographers.hishistorylikelyconsistedoffive books,thefirstofwhichseemstohavebeeninspiredbythesecondandthirdbooksof Cato'sOrigines,documentingtheoriginsofvariousLatintownsandpeoples.Italso recordedthedestructionoftroyandthearrivalofaeneasinlatium.hemina'ssecond booktreatedtheregalperiodandtheearlyandmiddlerepublic.thefourthbookmayhave documentedthesecondpunicwar,andafifththeeventsleadinguptotheauthor'spresent day,butthisishighlyspeculative.heseemslargelytohavebeeninterestedinthe mythologicalhistoryofrome,theaetiologyofcultsandotherinstitutions,andgenerally preferredreligiousaffairstomilitaryandpoliticalones. L.CalpurniusPisoFrugi,datingtothelastquarterofthesecondcentury,adoptedasimilar frameworkinhishistory,andassignedtheeventsoftheregalperiodtothefirstofsevenor eightbooksandthoseofthemiddlerepublictothelastfourorfive;heseemstohavebeen thefirsttodealwiththeearlyrepublicatgreaterlength,committingtheeventsofthis periodtothesecondandthirdbooks.fortheseheseemstohaveadoptedastrictly annalisticstyleofaccount;hemayhavebeenthelasttorecordhistoryinthisway. 23 ItispossiblethatcontemporaryandlaterauthorsconsideredPictor'saccountdefinitive andabovereproach,andthusneverofferedalternativeinterpretationsintheirhistories. 24 However,itseemsmorelikelythattheRomansofthelatethirdandearlysecondcenturies commonlysharedandacceptedthisastheirnationalhistory.giventhedesireoftheroman elitetoattainpublicprestigeandrecognitionthroughthepromotionofancestral accomplishments,itseemsunlikelythatanyearlyhistory,unlessalreadyconsidered authoritative,wouldhavesurvivedthatperiodunchanged.thefactthatittakesasimilar forminseveraldifferentaccountspointstoashared,unchallengedhistory. 25 Tracesofan oraltraditionareevidentinthelegendarynatureoftheliteraryaccounts:the 20 Skutsch Forsythe2000,4 5;Forsythe2005,61 62;Chassignet1986;Badian1966, Rawson1976, ;Scholz1989;Forsythe1990;Santini Forsythe2005,62;Forsythe1994;Rawson1976,702 13;Badian1966, Alföldi Oakley1997,

26 unidentifiabletoponyms,thebeliefinrome'senduringsupremacyandthemythicalquality ofthekings,towhomareattributedanumberofsociopoliticaldevelopments. 26 Bytheendofthesecondcentury,thelengthyandcomprehensiveworksofGreekhistorians hadinfluencedthoseoftheromans.inparticular,thehistoriaeofpolybius(c B.C.E.),whichrecordinthirty ninebooksrome'sriseandconquestofthemediterranean worldintheperiodofthepunicwars(c B.C.E.).Booksixofthisworkreportedly providedahistoryoftheregalperioddowntoabout450b.c.e.,butthisisnowlost. 27 Romanhistoriesofthisperiodwerelonger,moreexhaustive,andbelongedtooneoftwo types.thefirstcomprisedtreatmentsofindividualwars,particularlythepunicwars,and thesecond,expositionsofromanhistoryfromitsfoundationdowntotheauthors'present day. 28 TothelattergroupbelongsCn.Gellius,whowroteinthelatesecondcenturyand whosehistorycountedatleastninety sevenbooks.theregalperiodwaslikelytreatedat length,sincethereignofromuluswasdiscussedattheendofthesecondbookandthe beginningofthethird,whiletheeventsof389b.c.e.appearinthefifteenth;incontrast, Livydealswiththefourthcenturyinhissixthbook.Heconstitutedasignificantsourcefor DionysiusofHalicarnassusandLiciniusMacer. 29 Thefirstcenturywitnessedthecompositionofanumberofhistoricalaccounts,allofwhich weresourcesforlivyanddionysius.theearliestofthesebelongedtoq.claudius Quadrigarius,who,sometimeinthefirstquarterofthecentury,wroteaRomanhistory beginningwiththegallicsackofromein390b.c.e.histreatisemarksadeparturefrom, andperhapsevenaresponseto,thegreek inspired,presumablyfictionalnarrativesofthe previouscentury.accordingtoquadrigarius,allofrome'scityrecordsweredestroyed duringtheattackofthegaulsandthusallaccountsofahistorypriortothateventwere questionable. 30 TheannalistsofthelateRepublic,namelyC.LiciniusMacer,ValeriusAntiasandQ.Aelius Tubero,aboutwhomverylittleisknown,Livyaccusesofinventingfactsandexaggerating narratives(7.9.3,9.46.3, , and ). 31 Macer'sfragmentsonthe conflictofordersoftheearlyrepublicreflecthisinterestandinvolvementinthepoliticsof hisowntime:heappearstohavebeenadevotedmarianwhosoughttooverturnthe constitutionalreformsofsulla. 32 ValeriusAntiaswasthemostnotoriousfabricator,well knownforexaltingtheachievementsofthevalerianfamilyduringtheregalperiodand 26 Oakley1997,23;Ungern Sternberg1988.SeeMomigliano(1957,104 14)andCornell (1995,10 2,307 8)foradiscussionontheinfluenceofballadsonearlyRomanhistory. 27 Cornell1995,4. 28 Forsythe2005, Rawson1976,713 7;Forsythe1994,163 4,229 32;Badian1966, Forsythe2005,63;Plut.Numa1.2;Chassignet2004,xxiii xxxviiiand Forsythe2005,63 64;Wiseman1998;Ogilvie1965,7 17;Walsh1961,110 37;Badian 1966,18 24;Chassignet2004,l lxiiiand Ogilvie1965,

27 earlyrepublic. 33 LittleisknownofTuberoexceptthatheappearstohaverevisedValerius Antias'historyinaThucydideanmanner,whichmeanstosaythatheprojectedcurrent eventsintothepast,defendedthenobilityandusedarchaiclanguageandstyle. 34 2c.TheAntiquarianTradition AntiquarianscholarshipatRomearoseinthesecondandfirstcenturiesasaseparatebut paralleltraditiontothatofhistoriography. 35 Romanantiquarianswerenotconcernedwith producingchronologicalnarrativesofthedevelopmentoftheromanstate,butwere insteadinterestedinthehistoryoflegal,political,militaryandreligiousinstitutions, topography,monuments,names,rituals,socialcustoms,archaictextsandlanguage.their keeninterestinthemeaningandhistoryofwords,andtheterminologyofreligiousand legaldocumentsfromearlierperiodshassuppliedagreatdealofinformationpertainingto earlyromanhistory.verylittleoriginaltextsurvivesfromtheantiquarianliterature; similartothehistoriographictradition,theantiquarianaccountsexistprimarilyas citationsbylaterauthors. 36 Anumberofantiquarianauthorswereactiveinthesecondcentury,includingM.Fulvius Nobilior,whowroteatreatiseontheRomanreligiouscalendar;FabiusMaximus ServilianusandNumeriusFabiusPictor,whobothwroteonthelawofthepontifices;and JuniusGracchus,whowroteaboutRomancustomsandinstitutionsaswellasthepowersof thevariousmagistrates.l.aeliusstilo(c B.C.E.)mainlyinvestigatedliterarytexts, grammarsandetymologies,butwrotetwocommentariesofparticularrelevancehere.the firstconcernedthelegesduodecimtabularum,thelawofthetwelvetables,which representrome'searliestattemptatwritinglawsaroundthemid fifthcentury.stilo's secondcommentaryaddressedthearchaiclanguageofthecarmensaliare,theritualhymn ofthesalianpriests.atticus(110 32B.C.E.),acontemporaryandfriendofCicero, composedtheliberannalis,abookofchronologythatdetailedromanhistoryinasingle bookandproducedachronologythatwasadoptedbyvarro.varro'schronology,inturn, constitutedtheofficialchronologyoftheromanstate. 37 ThemostinfluentialRomanantiquarianwasM.TerentiusVarro(116 27B.C.E.). 38 Hewasa studentofl.aeliusstilo,acontemporaryofcicero,andauthorofatleastfifty fivebookson awidearrayofsubjects.accordingtoonetraditionhewrote490booksandaccordingto anotherhewrote620.ofthefifty fivethatareknownasfragmentsinlatersources,only 33 Ogilvie1965,12 6;Wiseman1979,113 39;Wiseman1998,75 98;Walsh1961,121 2; Chassignet2004,lxiii lxxvand Ogilvie1965,16 7;Wiseman1979,135 39;Chassignet2004lxxvi lxxxiand Rawson1985, Cornell1995, Forsythe2005,64 5.FortheadiscussionoftheTwelveTables,seeChapter4.Regarding Atticus,seeMünzer(1905);Perlwitz(1992). 38 Cornell1995,19;Horsfall1982;Ogilvie1966,6.ConcerningDionysius'useofVarro,see Gabba(1991). 10

28 one,dererustica,survivescompletely,butsixofthetwenty fivebooksofthedelingua latinaarepartiallyextant.varro'saccountswereusedwidelyinlaterancientscholarship, whichmayhaveinpartcontributedtohisdisappearancefromtheliteraryrecordby absorption.itneverthelessensuredhissurvival,especiallyinthetextsofplinytheelder, AulusGellius,Servius,Macrobius,Tertullian,Lactantius,ArnobiusandAugustine.He appearstohaveconstitutedaprimarysourcefortheearlybooksofdionysius,butwas notablyoverlookedbylivy. ThelastantiquarianrelevanttoearlyRomanhistoryisValeriusFlaccus,whowroteduring theaugustanperiodandwasacontemporaryoflivyanddionysius. 39 Themajorityofhis workssurviveindirectly,asfragmentsinlaterauthors.hismostrelevantworkwasthede significatuverborum,akindofdictionarythatpreservedanalphabeticalarrangementof archaiclatinwordsandphrases.theoriginaltextnolongersurvives,butanabridgement ofitwaspreservedbysextuspompeiusfestus(c.200c.e.).approximatelyhalf(sections A L)ofFestus'manuscriptwasdestroyedbyfireinthefifteenthcenturyC.E.,butitcanbe reconstructedbasedonaneighth centurysummaryoftheoriginalmadebypaulus Diaconus. 2d.TheNarrativeTradition ThenarrativetraditionofhistoricalwritingaroseinthelatefirstcenturyB.C.E.duetothe influenceofgreekhistoriographyatrome.theseaccountspreservethechronological arrangementoftheannalistictradition,butexpanduponhistoricalepisodeswithavariety oftechniquescommonlyfoundingreekhistoriography,includingthepracticeofrhetoric, theembellishmentoffactsandthecompositionofspeeches.theseelementsbroughtto Romanhistoriographywhatithadbeenpreviouslyaccusedoflacking,namely,apleasing styleanddramaticeffect. ThehistorywrittenbyTitusLivius(59B.C.E. 17C.E.),Aburbecondita,constitutesthemost significantandinfluentialsourceofearlyromanhistory.livywasbornatpatavium (modernpadovaorpadua)anddoesnotappeartohavehadapoliticalormilitarycareer; althoughhemayhavebeenarhetorician,heisknownprimarilyasawriterofroman history. 40 Livyprobablybeganwritinghishistoryaround30B.C.E.andcontinuedupuntil hisdeath. 41 Theworkcounted142booksthatbeganwiththefoundationofRomeand endedwiththeeventsoftheyear9b.c.e.onlythirty fiveofthesebooksareextant,books 1 10and21 45,butabridgedversionsfromlatercenturiesprovidesummariesofallthe books.thebookswerearrangedintogroupsoffive(pentads)orten(decades)andmay havebeenpublishedinsetsoffiveortenbooks.thefirsttentreatromanhistoryupto293 B.C.E.andbooks21 45describetheyears B.C.E.Ofthefirsttenthatnarrateearly 39 Cornell1995,20 21;Forsythe2005, AccordingtoForsythe(2005,66),allusionstoLivyintheworksofSenecatheElder (Controv ;9.2.26;10.praef.2)andQuintilian(1.5.56;1.7.24;2.5.20;8.1.3;8.2.18; ; )suggestthathewastrainedinrhetoric. 41 Walsh1961;Luce1977;Ogilvie1965;Oakley

29 Romanhistory,thefirstdocumentstheregalperiod,thefollowingfourtheEarlyRepublic uptothegallicsackofrome,andthelastfivecontinueuptothethirdsamnitewar. Livymaybeconsideredanannalist,whosegoalwastoarrangewithinaliteraryframework believablefactsregardingthehistoryofromethatweredrawnfromearliersources. 42 He didnotconductoriginalresearch,butcompared,expandedandcompiledaccountsfrom earliersources,largelywithoutcriticismorjudgmentandwithdramaticeffect.basedon structuralandverbalsimilaritiesbetweenlivy'snarrativeandthatofhispredecessors,it seemsthathewrotewithopenscrollsofthesesourcesnexttohim.heseemsnottohave beeninterestedincommunicatingaccuratehistoricaldetail,sinceheisoftenguiltyof mistranslatinggreektexts,reproducingfactualerrorsandconfusingsources.hewas insteadconcernedwithmoralandpatrioticthemes,whichheexploredthroughthe speeches,attitudes,motivesandreactionsofprominentindividualswheninvolvedin difficultsituations. Livyattributedthesuccessesandfailuresofthesefigurestotheirmoralattributesor failings.thevalueofhistoryforlivylayinitsabilitytoprovidegoodmodelsofbehaviorto followandbadonestoavoid.thiswasoftenattheexpenseofhistoricalaccuracy,however. ConcerningRome'searlyhistory,Livybelievedthattherewaslittlefactualinformation (6.1.2)andhetreatedtheeventsfromthisperiodwithtechniquesofrhetoricaltrainingin orderthattheyseemplausible,ifnotverifiable. TheAntiquitatesromanaeofDionysiusofHalicarnassus,writteninthelatefirstcentury B.C.E.toearlyfirstcenturyC.E.,constituteasecondnarrativesourceontheearlyhistoryof Rome. 43 DionysiuswasaGreekcontemporaryofLivy,whoarrivedatRomein30B.C.E.and taughtrhetoricthereduringtheaugustanperiod.hisworkwasanaccountofroman historyfromitsorigindownto264b.c.e.andwasintendedforagreekaudience. Completedby7B.C.E.,thetextoriginallyconsistedoftwentybooks;elevencompletebooks areextant,dealingwitheventsuptothemid fifthcentury,andpartsoftheremainingnine surviveasexcerptsfromlaterwriters.dionysius'historyismoredetailedandrhetorical thanlivy's.dionysius'firstbooktreatedtheoriginsofsettlementinitaly,thenextthree concernedthekings,andthefollowingeightdealtwiththefirstsixtyyearsoftherepublic, whereaslivyrecordedtheseeventsinfivebooks.oneconsequenceisthatdionysius' historyincludesmoreinformationonromancustomsandinstitutions,theparticularsof whichlivyoftenoverlooksbecauseofhisromanaudience'sfamiliaritywithsuchmatters. AlthoughitisuncertainwhetherLivyandDionysiuswerefamiliarorsaweachother's 42 Walsh(1961and1974)discussLivyandhishistory.Dorey(1971)presentscollections ofessaysonlivianscholarship.ogilvie(1965)offersacommentaryonthefirstfivebooks. Oakley(1997)includesacommentaryonbooksixaswellasancomprehensiveanalysisof Livy,hiswork,styleandsources.Luce( )discussesLivy'streatmentofearlier sources.forsythe(1999)presentslivy'shistoricalmethods.ridley(1983)documents Livy'sattitudetowardsthestruggleoftheorders.Wiseman(1981)andWoodman(1988) discussplausiblereconstructioninancienthistoriography. 43 Gabba1991;Sacks1983;andFox1996,

30 work,theyusedthesameannalisticsourcesandsothereisafairamountofagreement betweenbothaccounts. M.TulliusCicero(106 43B.C.E.),themostprominentRomanoratorandstatesman, composedanumberofphilosophicalandrhetoricaltreatisesthatcontainreferencesto earlyromanhistory.themostrelevantoftheseworkstostudiesofearlyromearedere publicaanddelegibus,bothofwhichweremodeledafterplato'stherepublicandthe Laws.Derepublicaconstitutesaworkconcerningpoliticalandconstitutionaltheory,in whichcicerorecordsanearlyhistoryofromefromthekingstothemiddleofthefifth century.delegibusisanessayaboutthelawsanidealstateshouldhave,andpreserves fragmentsofthelawsofthetwelvetables,rome'searliestlegislation. DiodoruswasaGreekwriterwhocomposedahistoryoftheancientworldfromits mythicaloriginsdownto60b.c.e.heseemstohavewrittenthisworkfrom60to30 B.C.E. 44 Originallycomprisedoffortybooks,onlybooks1 5and11 20survive;thefirstfive detailtheeventsofthefifthandfourthcenturiesandthelattersetnarratetheperiodfrom 486to302B.C.E.Diodorus,however,wasprimarilyinterestedinGreekandPersian activitiesinthemediterraneanandthusconfinesromanhistorytoafewnarrative episodesandalistofromanmagistrates.thislistprovidesthenamesofroman magistratesduringrome'searlyhistory,inwhichthereareomissionsandmistakesmade bydiodorusorlatercopyists. 45 Inadditiontothese,thereexistsignificantdifferences betweendiodorus'listofmagistratesandthoseoflivy,dionysiusandthefasticapitolini, whichhascalledintoquestionthenatureofdiodorus'sources. 46 2e.TheAncientDocumentarySources ThesurvivingaccountsofearlyRomanhistorypossessabasicframeworkthatconsistsof thefollowing:namesofannualmagistrates,militaryengagements,triumphs,treaties, alliances,expansionofromanterritory,grantsofcitizenship,legislation,constructionof templesandotherpublicbuildings,plagues,foodshortages,deathsofpriestsandavariety ofunusualoccurrences,suchaseclipsesandmonstrousbirths,thattheromansviewedas eventswithreligioussignificance.itisgenerallyacceptedthatthistypeofinformationwas drawnfromstatedocuments,sincepreservationofsuchdetailsthroughtheoraltradition isunlikely.theonlyknownexamplesofsuchrecords,however,aretheannalesmaximi, pontificalchronicles,whichdonotsurviveintheiroriginalform,butarediscussedinthe worksoflaterauthors.thus,questionsconcerningtheexistence,reliability,information, publication,useandfalsificationoftheserecordshavedominatedmodernscholarship Forsythe2005, Drummond Sacks Thebibliographyonthissubjectisextensive.Foranoverviewofearlymodern scholarshipontheannalesmaximi,seefrier(1979,10 26).Foranoverviewofthedebate onthenatureofthechronicles,seecrake1940;bauman1983,290 8;Forsythe1994,53 71;Bucher1995;Forsythe2000,6 8;Oakley1997,

31 Thereareonlythreereferencestothepontificalchronicles:Cato(fr.77),Cicero(deor )andServius(auct.Virg.Aen.i.373).AlloftheseaccountsrelatethattheAnnales maximiwererecordsmadebythepontifexmaximus,yearbyyear,ofimportantpublic matters.cato,whommodernscholarsconsidermostreliable,statesthatsuchmatters includedfaminesandeclipses;servius,whosetestimonyisconsideredlessreliablebut nonethelessplausible,statesthatthetableslistthenamesofconsulsandothermagistrates, aswellasallnotabledomesticandmilitaryaffairs.thus,itseemsthatthetables documentedsignificantpolitical,religiousandmilitaryevents. NearlyeverythingelseaboutthenatureoftheAnnalesmaximiiscontentious.Keyissues concernthemethodoftheircompositionandpublication,thedateswhentheywerefirst andlastrecorded,andtheirusebyromanannalistsandhistorians.theancientsources agreethatthenoticeswererecordedannuallyonaboard,butmodernhistoriansargue abouthowthisboardwasdisplayedtothepublicandmaintainedbythepontiffs.cicero refersalternatelytoawhitenedboard,album,onwhichthechiefpontiffwrotenoticesand atablet,tabulam,thathethenplacedinfrontofhishouseforanyonetoread;serviusrefers toawhitenedtablet,tabulamdealbatam,andaddsthattheancientsfilledeightybookswith suchnotices.cicero'salbumandtabulamlikelyrefertothesameobject,awhitenedboard, butbucherinterpretsthemasseparateobjects,thewhitenednoticeboardandabronze tablet.inhisview,thecontentsofthewhitetabletswerelatertranscribedontomore permanentbronze. 48 Atpreciselywhichpointthetablet,whateveritsmaterial,wentondisplayandforhowlong isunknown.catoandcicerostatethatthetabletwassetupinfrontofthechiefpontiff's house,inwhichcase,itmayhavebeendisplayedbeforetheregia.forwhatduration, however,isunclear.itispossiblethateitherattheendofeachyearthecontentsofthe tabulaweretransferredtoamorepermanentrecord,orthechiefpontiffkeptamore detailedrecordofeventsinbookform,someofwhichwascopiedontoatabletandsetup inpublic. 49 Manymodernhistoriansattributethecompilationofpontificalrecordsinto eightybookstop.muciusscaevolainthelatesecondcentury,butthisiserroneous,since CicerostatesonlythatScaevoladiscontinuedtheannualrecord Bucher1995.Forsythe(2005,70 1)believesBucherhasmisreadtheCiceroandascribes thevariationinterminologytocicero'sdesiretoavoidrepetitionofthesameword. 49 Cornell1995,14.This,asopposedtothepontiffskeepingstacksoftabulaeintheRegia, asaccordingtocrake(1940).oakley(1997,25)believesthecontentsofthetabletswere writteninachronicleatanearlydate. 50 Walsh(1961,110)andBadian(1966,15)conflatethetextsofCiceroandServiuswhen claimingthatscaevolafirstestablishedaneightybookchronicle.frier(1979,27 67and )proposedthatScaevolaonlystoppedpostinganannualnoticeboardandthat VerriusFlaccuspublishedtheeightybooksintheAugustanperiod.Forsythe(1994,53 71; 2000, )refutesthisview,arguingthatinterestinRomanantiquitygrewinthelate secondcenturyasaresponsetoincreasinggreekinfluence.foranoverviewofscaevola's purportedroleintheannalesmaximi,seebauman(1983,290 98). 14

32 TheextenttowhichtheannalisticandnarrativeauthorsconsultedtheAnnalesmaximiis largelyunresolved.ciceroimpliesthatthechroniclesconstitutedasourcefortheearliest Romanannalists,buthislanguageisadmittedlyunclear. 51 Hestatesthatmanyauthors, wholeftbehindbasicrecordsofdates,people,placesandaccomplishments,followedthe styleofwritingoftheannales;hedoesnotmakeexplicittheannalists'useofthechronicles asasourceofinformation.thismayinsteaddemonstratethattheannalistictraditionof writinghistorywasderivedfromthisparticularmethodofrecordkeeping.if,asforsythe believes,theannalisticmethodofhistoriographygainedpopularityintheearlysecond centuryasareactiontogreekculturalinfluence,thentheannalesmaximimayhavebeena suitabletemplate. 52 However,itisunclearwhetherthechronicleswerereadilyavailableto theannalists,andifso,howmuchinformationfromtheearlierperiodssurvived.cicero statesthatthechronicleswerekeptfromthebeginningofromanaffairsuntilthetimeofp. MuciusScaevola( B.C.E.),butitislikelythoserecordsfromthefifthandfourth centurywerenotwellpreserveddespitecontinuousrecopying. 53 Moreover,themajorityof Rome'searlyhistoricalrecordsmayhavebeendestroyedintheGallicsackof390B.C.E. ThenarrativeaccountsofLivyandDionysiusdonotmakeexplicittheuseofanyarchival sources,buttheydocontainthekindsofinformationthatmodernhistorianspresumeto havecomefromtheannalesmaximi.thisincludesthelistofannuallyelectedconsuls, militaryvictoriesandlosses,plagues,faminesandprodigies.however,thistypeof informationconstitutesasmallportionofbothhistoriesandatbestprovidesaframework fromwhichtheauthorsconstructedanarrative.itislikewisepossiblethatlivyand Dionysiusreliedinsteadupontheearlierannalisticaccounts.Whatismore,theAnnales maximimayhavecontainedlittlehistoricaldetail.thesurvivingfragmentsoftheworkson pontificallawbyn.fabiuspictorandfabiusmaximusservilianus,whichforsythebelieves closelyresembledtheannalesmaximi,containmostlyreferencestoreligiouscustoms. 54 He arguesthatitwastheannalistswhocompiledtherelevanthistoricalinformationfromthe annalesandtherewasconsequentlynoneedforsubsequenthistorianstoconsultdirectly thechronicles. 55 Asaresult,theremayhavebeennoneedforeitherLivyorDionysiusto consulttheannalesmaximiatall;itmaynothavebeenasubjectofconsideration Frier(1979,21)statesthatthepreciserelationshipbetweenthechroniclesandannalists isunclear.seealsorawson(1971),drews(1988)andforsythe(1994,53 71)fortheiruse byhistorians. 52 Forsythe1994, Forsythe2005,71.Crake(1940,382)believesthattheAnnalesmaximiwerekeptand maintainedcontinuouslyfrom400b.c.e.tothetimeofp.muciusscaevola. 54 Forsythe2005, Forsythe2005, Rawson1971;Ogilvie(1965,6),doesnotbelievethatLivyconsultedthechronicles, althoughhesuspectsthatanumberoftabulaesurvivedfromtheperiod B.C.E.He maintainsthatthesetabletscontainedmorediversematerialthanisconventionally thought,andbelievesthattheirpublicationrepresentsnotanimaginativefabricationof earlyhistory,butanattempttoreconcilevariegatedanddisparatefragmentsintoa continuousnarrative. 15

33 Anothersourceofdocumentarydatafortheancientsourcesappearstohavebeenthe inscribedtextsoftreatiesandlaws.thereisnomaterialevidencesupportingtheir existencetoday,buttheyseemtohaveexistedatthetimehistoricalauthorswerewriting. DionysiusnotesthatthetreatybetweenRomeandGabii,concludedduringthereignof TarquiniusSuperbusandinscribedonanox hideshield,waspreservedinthetempleof DiusFidiusontheQuirinal(4.58.4).CiceronotesthattheCassianTreatywiththeLatinsof 493B.C.E.existedasaninscriptionintheForum(ProBalbo53).Polybiususedthetextsof threetreatiesbetweencarthageandrometoreconstructthehistoryofthesetwostates. DionysiuswritesthatthesacredlawsofServiusTulliuspertainingtothecultofAventine Dianawerepreservedinhisdayasanarchaicinscriptiononabronzetablet(4.26).The survivalofsuchdocumentsintothemodernperiodisunlikely.bronzeandstoneareoften reusedinantiquity,whileparchment,linenandwoodarehighlyperishablein archaeologicalcontexts. ThereexistsasinglearchaicLatininscriptionthatshedslightonboththehistoryofthe periodandtheapproachesancienthistoriansmighthavetakenwithevidenceofthiskind. BeneathablackmarblepavementintheForumatRome,theso calledlapisniger,layatwo foottallblockinscribedwitharchaiclatinonitsfoursides,theso calledcippus. 57 Thestyle ofthelettersdatesthetexttoapproximately500b.c.e.,thoughthemeaningofthetextis uncertain.modernscholarsgenerallyagreeonthedefinitionoffourwords:sakros(sacred oraccursed),recei(king,whethertheromankingortherexsacrorumoftherepublic), kalatorem(herald),andiouxmenta(wagons).interpretationoftheinscriptionislargely conjecture,butseemstohavesomereligioussignificance,giventhelanguageoutlined aboveandthestone'sdiscoveryinthesamearchaeologicalcontextasanaltaranda column. 58 Ancienthistoriansandantiquarians,however,interpretedthecippusasagravestone markingtheburialofoneofthreefiguresconnectedwiththereignofromulus:faustulus, theshepherdwhoraisedromulusandremus(dion.hal );hostushostilius,the grandfatherofkingtullushostilius(dion.hal.3.1.2);orromulushimself(festus184l).it seemsthattheancientauthorsdrewtheirinformationnotfromtheinscription,butoral 57 Regardingthecippusandthelapisniger,seeNTDAR267 8;LTUR2.321, ;ADRA ForthedevelopmentoftheRomanforumingeneral,seeLTUR ;ADRA Theslabsofthelapisnigerwerenotfoundintheiroriginalposition.Theywere firstplacedinapavingrestingonalatesecondcenturybcefillandlaterraisedandreset fortheimperialpavement.inthisfinalpositionthelapisnigerdidnotcoverfullythe archaicmonumentsbeneathit.holloway(1994,81 8)describesindetailthestratigraphy ofthearchaicforum. 58 Bonidiscoveredthecippusin1899.Theinscriptionwasoriginallyseenasconfirmingthe existenceofamonarchyatrome,seemomigliano(1975,294 5),Lanciani(1901,1 30), andpais(1906,15 42).Palmer(1969)interpretsthetextasasacredlawprotectingthe areafrompollution,whiledumézil(1979,259 93)viewsitasareligiousregulation concerningtheprocessionoftherexsacrorumalongthesacravia.coarelli(1983,161 99) connectsthestonetothevolcanal,ashrineofvulcan. 16

34 traditionandpersonalimagination.inthefirstplace,therepavingoftheromanforumin about80b.c.e.buriedboththecippusandthelapisniger,renderingthesemonuments invisibletolaterwriters.second,despitedisagreementoverthefunctionofthecippusand thesignificanceofitstextinmodernscholarship,onefactonwhichscholarsagreeisthatit wasnottheburialmarkerthattheancientsourcespurported. 59 Thevariancebetween modernandancientinterpretationsofthisinscriptionbringstotheforegroundthe questionofthereliabilityoftheancientsourcesandcastsdoubtontheabilityofthe ancientsourcestointerpretsuchaspectsofrome'searlyhistory. Modernscholarspresumetheexistenceofotherdocumentaryarchivesfromwhichthe annalistsandlaterhistoriansdrewtheirmaterial.thepriestlycolleges,curiae,and plebeianslikelymaintainedtheirownrecords,andthetempleofsaturn,treasuryof AedilesontheCapitolandtheAtriumLibertatisallegedlyhousedavarietyofstate documents. 60 TheFasti,whichrecordthelistofannuallyelectedconsulsfromthelatesixth centuryonwards,appearinanumberofancientsourceswithlittlevariation. 61 Modern historiansviewsuchagreementasareasontotrustintheveracityoftheseaccounts. 62 The list,however,ismoredetailedaftertheyear300b.c.e.thanforthelatesixthandearlyfifth centuries;theunreliabilityordecayofinformationfromtheearlyrepublicmayaccount foritsgeneralabsencefromthisrecord. 63 AnotherimportantsourceofdocumentaryevidenceisthelegislationoftheTwelveTables, asetoflawspurportedlypromulgatedbythedecemvirateinthemid fifthcenturytoease theheightenedtensionbetweenthesenatorialandplebeianclassesatrome. 64 These surviveasfragmentsincicero'sdelegibus,butwereoriginallyengravedonbronzetablets anddisplayedinpublic.theprovisionsconsistprimarilyofinstructionsandprohibitionsin theareasofmarriage,divorce,inheritance,ownership,property,debtandslavery.in addition,theycontainedprovisionsoncertainjudicialandreligiousprocedures.belonging tothiscategoryaretheprovisionsofthetenthtable,whichaddressproperfuneraryrites 59 LTUR AccordingtoHolloway(1994,82),thecippusmayhavebeenvisible downtotheendoftherepublicandcouldbetheinscribedstonedescribedbydionysiusof HalicarnassusasthetombofHostilius.Currently,thelapisnigerstandsatthelevelofthe CaesareanpavementoftheComitium,butprobablybelongstoanearlierpavingofthe forumintheearlyfirstcenturyb.c.e. 60 Rawson1985, ThesurvivingportionofthislistisfoundintheCapitolineMuseumandthusisoften referredtoasthefasticapitolini.theinscriptionwascommissionedduringthereignof Augustus(31B.C.E.to14C.E.)andupdateduntil13C.E. 62 Frier1975,83 5;Cornell(1995, )discussesbrieflythediscrepanciesbetween theseveralversionsofthefastiandtheirimplicationsofourunderstandingoftraditional Romanchronology. 63 Oakley1997, Forsythe2005,201 3;Cornell1995,272 92;Crawford1996, Ungern Sternberg 2005;Toher2005;Eder

35 andexpenses. 65 Chapter4presentsacarefulconsiderationofthestatutesallegedly recordedonthetenthtable. Nearlyeveryaspectofthetablesiscontroversial,particularlythehistoricityand transmissionofthelaws.thehistoricalnarrativepertainingtotheenactmentofthelawsis wellestablished,althoughprobablyuntrue.bothlivy( )andDionysiusof Halicarnassus( )relatethestoryofhowtheRomanschargedaDecemvirate withthedevelopmentoflawsthatwouldaddressthegrievancesoftheplebeiansregarding thesupremacyofthepatricians.thedecemviratedraftedtentablesoflaws,which, followingamendment,wereratifiedbythecomitiacenturiataandpublishedonbronze tablets;twoadditionaltableswereaddedlater.althoughmuchofthestoryconcerningthe promulgationofthetablesisdenouncedasafictionalnarrativeoftheearlyfirstcentury, mostscholarsaccepttheexistenceandauthenticityofthelaws. 66 Cornellhasdemonstrated thattheformulationoflawwaspossibleinfifth centuryrome, 67 andothershavenotedthe similarityinlanguageandcontentbetweenthetablesandotherexamplesofearlylaw. 68 MostoftheprovisionsinthelawswereconsideredobsoletebyCicero'sday,butremained significantbecauseoftheinfluentialroletheyplayedintheformulationoflawinlater periods.thelawsweretheobjectofsustainedvenerationandcommentarythroughout antiquity. 69 Ciceronotesthatboyswererequiredtomemorizethelawsinschool(Deleg. 2.9and2.59),andtheworksofRomanjuristsarerepletewithreferencestotheTwelve Tables,particularlythesixth centuryc.e.digestofjustinian.itisclearthattheprovisions werenotalwaysunderstood,however,anditislikelythatsomemodernizationoccurred overtime.nevertheless,theuniformityofthefragmentsastheyappearinlateraccounts andthesurvivalofarchaicformsoflanguageinthetextsuggestthattheancientsources recordedtheprovisionsofthetwelvetablesastheywereknowninthemiddleandlate Republic. 70 Familyrecordsandtraditionsconstituteanotherpossiblesourceusefultotheannalists. RepublicanRomewasacompetitiveenvironmentinwhicharistocraticRomanfamilies 65 Cic.Deleg Ungern Sternberg2005;Smith2006;Cornell1995.Crawford(1996, )provides themostrecentandcomprehensiveanalysisofthetext. 67 Cornell(1991),arguesthatliteracyatRomewasmorewidespreadintheArchaicperiod thanpreviouslythought. 68 Ogilvie1965,452;Cornell1995,279.Crawford(1996,556)notesthesimiliaritiesin languagebetweenthepreservedfragmentsofthetwelvetablesandthelexoscatabulae Bantinae,whichlikelyrecordsthecharterofaLatincolonyc.300.Heconsidersthis evidencetosupportareconstructionofthetwelvetables. 69 Cic.Deor.1.195;Cic.Deleg.2.9,1.18;Livy Crawford(1996,569 70)notesthatby thetimeofcicero'sfloruit,thetwelvetableshaddiminishedinimportance.thereafter, referencestothelawsoccurprimarilyinantiquarianandjuristicsources.moreoftenthan not,thesereferencesattestreverenceratherthansomespecificknowledge. 70 Crawford

36 soughttomaintainandjustifytheirstatus,andtheexpositionofancestralachievements wasacentralmeansofachievingthisend.thispreoccupationismanifestinaristocratic funeraryritual,wheretheaccomplishmentsofthedeceasedwerecelebratedandthe imaginesofancestorsdisplayedandpraisedinthelaudatiofunebris. 71 Itseemsthatbythe LateRepublictheimaginesweredisplayedintheatriumandlinkedtogethertoformasort offamilytree. 72 ThissuggeststhattheRomannobilitykeptsomekindofrecordsregarding itsancestry.theconnectionbetweenthefuneraryritualandancestralrecordissupported bygellius,whowritesthatheobtainedinformationoncatoboththroughthelaudationes funebresandacommentariumonhisfamily. 73 DionysiusofHalicarnassusdiscussesthe archivesofsenatorialfamilies(1.74.5),andthroughcicero,itappearsthatatticusaccessed familyarchivestowritehistoriesofthejunii,claudiimarcelli,fabiiandaemilii(att ,22.2,24.2). Itisdifficulttoassesstheimpactofindividualfamilyhistoriesonancienthistoriography. ThereareonlytwoexplicitreferencestotheseinCicero(Brut.62)andLivy( ).Both notehowthefalseclaimsofdescentmadeinfuneraryeulogiesmanipulatedthehistorical record.thelaterepublicanannalistvaleriusantiasnotoriouslyusedhistextasaplatform fortheaggrandizementofthevalerianfamily,buttowhatextentthiswasbasedonfamily archives,asopposedtoinvention,isuncertain.theprominenceofthefabiiatnumerous pointsinromanhistorysuggestthatfabiuspictor,rome'searliesthistorian,drewsomeof hisinformationfromfabianfamilyrecords. 74 However,thereisnoclearindication whethersuchclaimswereacceptedtothepointthattheydistortedthehistoricalrecord. BothCicero(Brut.62)andLivy( )recognizedthatlaudationesfunebresoften pervertedthetruthabouttheachievementsofthedeceased.competingfamilieswere likelytochallengethefalseclaimsoftheirrivals,oftenappropriatingdistinctionsfor themselves.inorderforexaggerationofthiskindtoenterthehistoriographictradition,the annalists,whowerethemselvesfromnoblefamilies,wouldhavehadtoaccepttheseclaims asfacts.itispossiblethatsomeofthevariationsinthemagistratelistsareduetothefalse claimsoffamilies.however,theireffectonthehistoricalrecordoftherepublicisprobably minimal:thechangesmadeinfamilyrecordswerelikelytoascribeachievementsto individualsratherthanchangetheoverallnarrativeofhistoricalevents. 75 Theseexamples, althoughtheyillustratetheinherentunreliabilityoffamilyrecords,reveallessabouttheir usefulnessforannalistsandmoreaboutthefiercelycompetitivenatureoftheroman aristocracyinthelaterepublic,andtheappropriationofgenealogies,titlesand achievementsbyindividualfamilies Polybius ;concerningtheroleoflaudationesfunebresintheoraltradition,see below,pp Plin.Nat.Hist Gellius Oakley1997, Oakley1997, Wiseman

37 2f.TheOralTradition OraltraditionlikelyinformedmuchofearlyRomanhistory,especiallythoseepisodes pertainingtothefoundationofthecityandsubsequentregalperiod.thisassessmentrests onthreepoints.first,nodocumentaryevidencesurvivesfromthisperiod.second,the eventsandpersonalitiesbelongingtothistimepredatebycenturiestheearliestroman literature.third,thesesamenarrativesappeartohavebeeninfluencedbygreek,etruscan andneareasternfolktalesandmythologicaltraditions.nonetheless,itremainsimportant toexaminethehistoricalvalueoftheseoraltraditions,todeterminewhethertheypreserve alegitimateromantraditionoraretheproductsoffabricationandforeigninfluence.itis likewisecrucialtoquestionhowtheyenteredtheliteraryrecordandinwhatform. ThefragmentsofFabiusPictorillustratethatbythesecondcenturytheaccountofearly RomanhistoryfromitsoriginstothefoundationoftheRepublicwaswellestablished. 77 TheseaccountsrelateAeneas'arrivalinItalyfromTroy,theruleoftheAlbankings,the birthofromulusandremus,therapeofthesabinewomen,thedeceitoftarpeia,servius Tullius'tribalorganization,theTarquinconstructionoftheCapitolinetempleandtherape oflucretia.thisaccountappearstohavebeenwidelyacceptedbypictor'sliterary contemporariesanddescendants,sincethereislittledisagreementintheancientsources abouttheeventsfromthisperiod. Anumberoftheseepisodes,however,areconglomerationsofRomanandGreekfolktales andtraditions. 78 Thebirth,exposureandsurvivalofthetwinsRomulusandRemusisa RomanadaptationofalegendcommonintheNearEastandGreeceinwhichheroic individualsareexposedasinfants,thensavedandraisedtoadulthood. 79 Thetreacheryof TarpeiaisaRomanversionofaGreekfolktaleinwhichayoungwomanfromatownatwar fallsinlovewithamemberoftheenemy,betrayshercity,andiscommittedtodeathfor hertreason. 80 TherapeofLucretiabySextusTarquinius,thesonofthelastRomanking, mayevenbearomanversionoftheloveaffairthatbroughtabouttheexpulsionofthe PeisistratidtyrannyatAthensandthesubsequentinstitutionofCleisthenicdemocracy. 81 TowhatextenttheseaccountspreserveelementsofgenuineRomantraditionisuncertain. Theonlysolutionmodernscholarsagreeuponistostudyeachindividualstoryandits variants.evenlesscertainandlargelyimpossibletodetermineisthehistoricityofthese stories;themajorityarelikelyunhistorical. 82 Inmostcasesthereissimplynoevidenceto 77 Ungern Sternberg1988;Timpe1988;Wiseman1989;Poucet1985,65 70;Harris1990, Ungern Sternberg(1988)andTimpe(1988)offerafulldiscussiononthesubject. 79 Cornell Livy1.11;Plut.Vit.Rom.17;Poucet1985, ;Dumézil1949, Forsythe2005,77;Ogilvie1965,194 6.CompareLivy'sstoryoftherapeofLucretiaand expulsionofthetarquins( )withaccountsoftheexpulsionofthePeisistratids atathensinthucydides( )andAristotle(Ath.pol.18 20). 82 Wiseman1989;Cornell1995,11;Ungern Sternberg

38 confirmordeny,andgiventhepermeationofelementsofmythandlegendintheaccounts earlyromanhistory,itisbesttobeskepticalaboutanyhistoricalclaims. 83 AtwhatpointtheseaccountsenteredtheRomanoraltraditionandhowtheychangedover timeuptothepointwhentheyenteredtheliterarytraditionishighlycontentious.thereis, admittedly,nosimplewaytodeterminewhetherthestoriesrecordedinpictorwerethe sameonesasweretoldinthefifthcenturyorthecreationsofalaterauthor. 84 Infact,itis unlikelythatthestoriestoldinthefifthcenturywerethesameasthosetoldsubsequently, sinceoraltransmissionregularlyomitsdetailsnotrelevanttothepresentsocialcontext. Thisissueiscompounded,however,byadistinctlackofmodernscholarshipregardingthe oraltransmissionofhistoryatrome,whichisperhapssurprisinggiventheenergydevoted tothesamesubjectingreekhistory. 85 TheonlyevidencefortheoraltransmissionoftraditionatRomearereferencestodramatic performancesheldatannualfestivalsandthepoetrysungatbanquets. 86 Fromthemiddle ofthethirdcenturyonwards,romanplaywrightswerewritingandproducingplaysin formalromandressthatdramatizedcontemporaryandpastevents(fabulaepraetextae).in alargelyilliteratesociety,theseplayswereinstrumentalinthedevelopmentofroman historicaltraditions.theywouldhaveserved,inadditiontothemanytriumphs,temple dedications,funeralsandfestivals,asvisualandaudiblemeansofreworking, reinterpretingandcommunicatingancienttraditions.althoughtheearliestliteraryplays datetotherepublicanperiod,itispossiblethatdramaticperformanceswereinstitutedat festivalsinthefifthandfourthcenturies.theannualromanandplebeiangames(ludi Romaniandplebeii)werecelebratedasearlyasthefifthcenturyB.C.E.,anditispossible thatplayswereenacted(ifnotwritten)thisearly,anddevelopedintoformalwritten historicaldramasbythethirdcentury. 87 AlessconvincingandlargelydismissedtheoryclaimsthatthelaterRomanliterary traditionregardingtheregalperiodwasderivedprimarilyfromballadssungatbanquets. FirstproposedintheseventeenthcenturyC.E.byDutchscholarPerizonius,theideawas elaboratedandpromulgatedintheearlynineteenthbythegermanscholarniebuhr. 88 Niebuhrarguedthatthehistoricalepisodesoftheregalperiodsurvivedindistorted 83 Raaflaub2005;Forsythe Finley(1986,16 8)considersitimpossibletoevaluatetheoraltraditionsincethereis nothinginwritingtowhichitcanbecompared. 85 Wiseman(1989)statesthatthisabsenceisevenmoresurprising,giventhefactthatthe recordingofhomer'siliadandtheodysseyoccurredsimultaneouslywiththeappearanceof GreeksandGreekwritinginItaly. 86 Wiseman1994, Szemerényi(1975,307 19)addsthatanumberoftechnicalwordsreferringtotheater wereborrowedfrometruscan,afactwhichsuggestsanearlydatefordramatic performances.wiseman(1994,1 22)usesarchaeologicalfindstosupporthisargument thatgreekmythswereknowninarchaiccentralitaly. 88 Niebuhr ,

39 fashionintheheroicballadssungatbanquets,andthatthesewerepreservedinliterary formbyancienthistorians.centraltohisargumentwasaquotationfromcato'sorigines, preservedincicero,whichstatedthatitwascustomaryinearliertimesforguestsat banquetstosingtheachievementsoffamousmentotheaccompanimentofaflute(tusc. disp.1.3,4.3).anothercitationofcato,preservedelsewhereincicero,notesthatthiswasa traditionpracticedbytheancients(brutus75),whichsuggeststhiswasnolongeracustom incato'sday. 89 Atbest,thesestatementssuggestonlythatatonetimesongswere performedatbanquets;cato'stestimoniesneithermakeclearwhatthesesongscontained norsuggestthatheknewwhatsuchsongswere. 90 ModernscholarshiphaswidelydiscreditedNiebuhr'sthesis,onthegroundsthatthereis noevidencetoprovethattheepisodesfromearlyromanhistorywererootedinanoral traditionthatpredated300b.c.e. 91 Whatthesefragmentsmayrevealinsteadistheearly adoptionofgreeksympoticculture,whichincludedsingingandtherecitationofpoems. 92 Moregenerally,themanyelementsofGreekfolktaleandtraditionvisibleinthe historiographyoftheregalperiodpointtothesignificantinfluenceofgreekculturebyat leastthebeginningofthesecondcentury. 93 WisemanhasproposedthatRomansocietywas exposedtoandinfluencedbygreekandetruscanculturefromasearlyasthesixthcentury; thearchaeologicalremainsofgreekandetruscanoriginfoundatromepointtothe circulationofmaterialgoodsbetweenthesecultures.wisemanusesthisevidenceto suggestthatgreekmythologyandlegendwassimilarlyknownatromeduringthis period. 94 Athirdpossibilityfortheoralpreservationofearlytraditionconsistsofthefunerary eulogies,laudationesfunebres,ofdeceasedmembersofthearistocracy.thesespeeches listednotonlytheaccomplishmentsofthedeceased,butalsothoseofhisancestors. Polybiusdescribesthetraditionasacustomofthemid secondcentury,butitwaslikely older(6.53).theseeulogiesmayhavebeencommittedtowritingandstoredinfamily archives.bothcicero(brut.62)andlivy( )criticizedthelaudationesforcontaining exaggeratedorinventedclaimsandbecauseofthiswerenotreliablehistoricalsources. 95 Thiscondemnationhascreatedalasting,negativeimpressiononthevalueoffamily traditionsonthehistoriographicrecord. 96 Itoverlooksthefactthatthiskindoflorewas practicedalongsidehistoryandthatbothformsengagedinthereinterpretationand representationofpastevents.inthecaseoffamilytradition,onegroupdefinesthepast basedonitsowninterestsanddesiredstatusinthepresentsociety,whichresultsinthe 89 Momigliano1960,81;Harris1990,497,n Cornell1995, Momigliano1957;Fraccaro1957;Bridenthal Zorzetti Wiseman Wiseman1994,1 22;Wiseman1995, Forsythe2005,76;Ridley Mehl2011,

40 promotionofonefamilygroupattheexpenseandexclusionofanother.thisfitsthe politicalenvironmentofthelaterepublicinparticular,duringwhichtimemembersofthe aristocracycompetedtoachievethehighestofficesandgreatestrecognition.theyalso desiredtomakethisknowntotheromanpeople,whowere,inturn,responsiblefor electingthenobilitytooffice.suchclaimscouldbetransferredtoandmanipulatedbya differentindividualorfamily. ThehistoryofValeriusAntiasisthebestexampleillustratingtheoverlapbetweenhistory andoraltraditionwithinthepoliticalclimateoflaterepublicanrome.valeriusantiasis wellknownforattributinganumberofaccomplishmentstothevalerianfamily,andfor frequentlyinsertingvalerianancestorsintomajorhistoricalevents.incomparingsources ontwelveepisodesfromearlyromanhistory,wisemanhasshownhowtheseeventswere alteredinordertoemphasizetheroleofamemberofthevalerii. 97 Heattributesthese adjustmentstotheworkofasingleindividualwhosegoalwastheglorificationofthe Valerianfamily.Thefactthattheseversions,whichfeatureprominentlyaValerian,occurin theaccountsofdionysiusofhalicarnassus,livyandpolybius,anddemonstratetheextent towhichfamilytradition,whetherwrittenororal,influencedthehistoriographicrecord. 98 AlthoughValeriusAntiasisthemostnotoriousexampleofthisphenomenon,heisnotthe onlyone.livyaccusesanotherofhissources,licinusmacer,ofpromotingtheroleofhis ownfamilyinhishistory.likewise,thesystematicperversionoftheannalistsappearsto haveresultedintheconsistentdefamationoftheclaudiiinhistoricalaccounts. 99 Itis possiblethattheclaudiiworkedinasimilarwaytorestoretheirfamilyname,butthereis nodirectevidenceforthis. 100 ItisclearthattheRomansengagedintheadaptationandreinterpretationoftheirhistory throughfamilytraditions,dramaticproductionsand,toalesserextent,banquetsinging, andthatatvariouspointsthisenteredthehistoriographicrecord.themainconsideration isthatthisinformation,whichwasfrequentlymanipulatedinantiquity,isunreliableand potentiallyinaccurate.putsimply,thereisnowaytodetermineiftheeventshandeddown throughthevalerianfamilyareaccurateportrayals,bymodernscientificstandardsof historiography,ofhistoricalevents.moreover,itisdifficulttoassessthedegreetowhich ancienthistoriographersreliedonsuchtraditions.thisisparticularlytruefortheoral traditions,whoseinfluenceisdifficulttotraceuntilitbecomespartofthewrittenrecord. Instead,whattheseexamplesrevealarethemultipleopportunitiesthattheRomansseized inordertoengagewithandredefinetheirpast.theromanswerenotlimitedbythebinary boundariesoforaltraditionandwrittenrecordorgreekcultureandromanlegend. Instead,theyoperatedwithintheconfinesofmosmaiorumwiththeprimaryaimof promotingindividualsandclans. 97 Wiseman1998, Wiseman1998, Oakley1997,98,n.292;Wiseman1979, Oakley1997,98. 23

41 2g.Landmarks,MonumentsandToponyms Referencestostatues,paintingsandmonumentsarecommonfeaturesoftheannalisticand antiquariantraditionsofromanhistory.theconsiderationofromanmonumentsin historiographyseemstohavebegunquiteearly.thefragmentsoftheannalistscassiusand Pisocontainnumerousexamples,buttheauthorsoftentreatedthemuncriticallyand incompletely. 101 Pisoseemstohavefavoredthispracticeespecially,andascensorin120 B.C.E.helikelyhadseveralopportunitiestolearnthehistoriesofthebuildingsand monumentsthroughoutrome.duringthetimeofsulla,theantiquariancinciuscomposeda guidebookeitherofthecapitolatromeorallofrome. 102 Init,helikelyexplainedthe meaningsofinscriptions,describedancientmonuments,andrelatedthelegendsassociated withthem.theworksoflivyanddionysiusofhalicarnassusareindebtedtotheearly republicanannalistsforthispractice;theirworkscontainnumerousreferencesto monuments. 103 IntheaccountsofLivyandDionysius,atleast,thecitationsofmonumentsandstatuesstill visibleintheauthors'owntimewasameansofvalidatinglegendaryorhistoricalevents. 104 Mostreferencescomefromtheregalorveryearlyrepublicanperiodandseemintendedto verifythehistoricityofeventsfromatimeinthecity'sdistantandlegendarypast.itis unlikelythatmanyoftheoldestmonumentssurvivedintheperiodwhentherepublican annalistswerewriting.itseemsinsteadthat,asearlyasthemid Republic,monumentsof uncertainoriginwereassignedtolegendaryfigures,andthattheseassociationssurvivedin latergenerations.bythelaterepublictheywerebelievedtobethelegitimateremainsof earlierperiods.itislikelythattheearlyantiquariansattemptedtoexplainthevarious monuments,statuesandtoponyms,whoserelevancewasunclear,byconnectingthemto legendaryepisodesfromrome'searlyhistory.thelaterepublicanauthors,suchaslivy anddionysius,believingthestoriesoftheirpredecessors,usedthemonumentsasevidence ensuringthevalidityofthehistoricalepisodes. 2h.ModernScholarshipConcerningtheHistoriographicTradition Thereliabilityofthehistoriographictraditionisaprimaryconcernformodernscholarsof earlyromanhistoryattemptingtodeterminethehistoricalaccuracyoftheancient accounts.itisdifficulttoassessgiventheconstantreworkingoftheromanhistorical traditionandthelackofverifiableevidence.theliterarytraditionofthelaterepublic representsthefinalstagesinthedevelopmentofrome'searlyhistory;thistraditionbegan 101 Rawson Heurgon Oakley1997, Gabba1981,61.Oakley(1997,36,n.79)liststhestatuesthatwerereportedlysetup beforethefirstpunicwar,someofwhichwereallegedlyerectedbysuchlegendaryfigures asevanderandnuma.oakleydoubtsthehistoricityoftheseclaims.healsolistsand discussesbriefly(36 37)thetoponymsandstatuesmentionedinpassagesofLivyand DionysiusofHalicarnassus. 24

42 asearlyasthefifthcenturyandrelatedromanhistoryfromaeneas'arrivalinitalyupto thefoundationoftherepublic. Upuntilthepointwhenthesecond centuryannalistscommittedthishistorytowriting,the traditionoforaltransmissionensuredcontinualreinterpretationandreconstructionofthe past.althoughthewritingofhistoryestablishedabasicandacceptedframeworkofpast events,alterationandinventioncontinuedtofigureprominentlyintheaccountsof subsequentgenerations.theinfluenceofthegreekhistoriographictraditionandthe ambitionsofprominentfamilies,historiansincluded,mademanydetailssubjecttochange andthenarrativepronetoelaboration.complicatingthisisthefactthatmuchofthe informationpreservedinthetextsexhibitsacomplexmixtureofgreekmythologyand foundationstories,latinfolktales,romanoraltradition,andromanpoliticalandcultural beliefs. 105 Althoughitissometimespossibletodisentanglethesecomponentstothepoint thatsomeelementofindigenouslatintraditionisdetectable,itshistoricalvalidityremains impossibletodetermine. Attheheartoftheseproblems,andunderscoringanydiscussiononthehistoricityofthe ancientsources,isthefactthatthereisnoclearimpressionofwhatprimarysourceswere availabletothewritersofhistoryandhowtheseauthorsusedthem.modernscholars assume,basedonquotationsinlaterepublicantexts,thatancienthistoriansemployed somecombinationofarchivalinformationandoraltraditionwhenwritingtheir accounts. 106 Thisisareasonablejudgment,butdeterminingpreciselywhatinformation thesedocumentarysourcesandoraltraditionsrelayedislargelyconjecture.theessential factremainsthatnoneoftheprimarysourcessurvive,andinmanycasesmaynothave beenextantduringthetimewhentheannalistswerewriting.thishasseriousimplications formodernscholarship,sincetheancientaccounts,particularlyoflivyanddionysius, directlyinformourunderstandingofearlyromanhistory.iftheiraccountsareunreliable becausetheyarebasedonunverifiableprimarysourcesandaugmentedbyinventionand exaggeration,thensoarethoseofmodernscholarship,sincetheancientsourcesconstitute thebulkofourevidence.atworst,thereisnohistoricaltruthtotheseaccounts,since verificationofsucheventsbecomesimpossible.atbest,thereissometruth,butitconsists primarilyoftheso calledstructuraldatathatarepresumablyderivedfromunpreserved ancientdocumentssuchastheannalesmaximi,thefastiandthetwelvetables.the narrativesconstructedaroundthesebasicelements,ratherthanreflecthistoricaltruth, pertainlargelytothedevelopmentofromannationalidentityinthefourthcentury onwards. 105 Ogilvie1965,30 2;Heurgon1973,106 55;Scullard1980,42 77;Forsythe1994,75 244;Wiseman1994;Forsythe2005;Cornell1995,56 80and ;Ungern Sternberg 1988, ThescholarshipregardingthehistoricalaccuracyofRome'sregalperiodisextensive. SeeGalinsky1969;Cornell1975;Horsfall1979;BremmerandHorsfall1987;Gruen1992, 6 51;Wiseman1995;Raaflaub2005;Cornell2005;Forsythe

43 Partofthedifficultyinassessingthevalidityoftheancienthistoriographictraditionisthat itsaimsareinconsistentwiththoseofmodernhistorians.modernhistoriansareconcerned morewitharguments,reliableevidenceandtruthfulfacts,whereasancienthistorianswere preoccupiedwiththeexpositionofliterarystylesetinapleasingnarrative.thus,the notionofaddingembellishment(ornamenta)seemsdistastefultoamodernhistorian.the RomanannalistsoftheLateRepublic,however,reliedonornamenta,whichincludedthe embellishmentoffacts,theuseofrhetoricandtheinsertionofspeeches.theirgoalwasto produceanengagingworkofliterature,whichrequiredasignificantamountofdetail. Thus,informationwasexaggeratedforartisticpurposes,andwhenlacking,inventedwith plausibility. 107 ThepracticeamongancientRomanhistoriansofexaggeratingandinventingfacts,although itishelpfulforunderstandingthenatureofancienthistory,doesnothingtoproveits factualaccuracy.consequently,modernscholarshipisdividedonthevalueoftheancient sourcesconcerningtheregalperiod.thehypercriticalapproachthatwasembracedby scholarsoftheearlytwentiethcenturyhaslongbeenrejected.thesescholarstookahighly skepticalviewoftheancientsourcesonearlyromanhistory,tothepointofdiscarding themcompletely.themostnotableproponentofthisviewwasettorepais,whoconsidered allepisodesofromanhistorybeforethesackofthegaulsaslegendaryandmythological tales. 108 Anumberofarchaeologicaldiscoveriesdatingtotheseventhandsixthcenturies weremadesubsequently,however,andresultedinarevisionoftheregion'searlyhistory. Thearchaeologyseemedtocorrespondwithancientaccountsthatdocumentedtheurban andpoliticaldevelopmentofromeunderthemonarchyandfledglingrepublic,and attestedthecity'spreeminenceinlatiumbytheendofthesixthcentury.theevidence revealedthatsettlementsthroughoutlatiumatthistimeincreasedinsize,andcontained numerousexamplesofdefensive,sacredanddomesticarchitecture.atrome,forinstance, therewasnowmaterialevidencefortemples,elitehouses,andpublicspaces.themajority ofscholars,then,seeminglyhadnoreasontoquestiontheveracityofthesources,sincethe archaeologicalandliterarysourcesoutlinedthegradualdevelopmentofromeandthe city'seventualpreeminenceinlatium. 109 Tosomescholars,primarilythoseoftheItaliantradition,thesurgeinarchaeological evidencefromearlyromeonlyconfirmedtheaccuracyofthehistoricalaccounts.carandini isthegreatestsupporterofthehistoricityofthisperiod,andheregularlyinterpretsthe 107 Oakley1997,(3 12),notesthatCicero,intheDeoratore,appearstocondoneandeven encourageplausibleinvention:hehasantoniusstatethatahistorianshouldbetrainedin rhetoric,telltruths(veri),avoidfalsehoods(falsi),butacknowledgethenecessityofa superstructure(exaedificatio)( ).Theaimofrhetoric,then,wassimilartothatof historicalwriting,namely,thecreationofaccurateandplausiblenarrativesthatwere capableofpersuadingaudiencesoftheircredibility.thiscouldonlybehelpedbythe additionofspeeches,whichlentcredibilityaswellascharacterizedthesituationandthe speaker. 108 Pais SeethediscoverieslistedinCLPandGRT. 26

44 archaeologicaldatafromearlyromethroughthelensoftheancienthistoricalnarrative. 110 Forinstance,hearguesthathisexcavationoftheeighth centuryfortificationsonthe northernslopeofthepalatinecorroboratesrome'sfoundationstory. 111 Tacitusrecords thatromulusestablishedtheoriginalcourseofthepomerium,thesacredboundaryof Rome,andmarkeditincertainplacesaroundthePalatinewithboundarystones;inthe imperialperiod,stonescontinuedtodesignatetheoriginalplan(ann.12.24).thefactthat theearliestwallsdatetothelateeighthcenturyandthuscorrespondwiththelateryearsof Romulus'reign,accordingtothetraditionalchronology,constitutesthebasisfor Carandini'sclaim.Thediscoveryofburials,hutsandwallsonthePalatinefunctionas additionalevidencefortheemergenceofaunifiedsettlementtherebyabout725b.c.e. Carandini'ssubsequentpublicationsonthefoundationandurbandevelopmentofRome likewiseemploytheliterarysourcesasconfirmationofthearchaeologicalmaterial.he combinesarchaeological,topographical,historicalandmythologicalformsofevidenceto reconstructrome'searlyhistory. 112 Althoughthesestudieshavemadelasting contributionstoourunderstandingofearlyromanhistory,hislargelyuncriticalapproach remainscontroversial. 113 Hiscriticsdisagreemainlywithhisuseofthehistoriographic traditiontosupportthefindsmadeinthearchaeologicalrecord.however,theyarecareful toacknowledgehisroleinshapingstudiesofearlyromanhistory,sincehispublicationsof thepalatineexcavationsreinvigoratedthestudyofearlyromeandplacedthestudyofthe developmentofthecityonequalfootingwiththepoleisofthegreekworld. Currently,themajorityofscholarsoccupysomemiddleground,butthereremainsintense disagreementonwhatthesourcessay,whattheydonot,whattoexpectfromthemand howbesttousethem. 114 Thereareasmanyopinionsonthesubjectandapproachestothe problemastherearescholars.raaflaubandforsytheareamongstthemostskeptical regardingtheancientaccounts,believingthattheyaretheproductsofliterature,not historyinanymodernsense. 115 Theyinterprettheancientaccountsnotsomuchastrue storiesofpastevents,butrathercompositionsandrecompositionsofearlierhistoriesthat reflectthecontemporaryconcernsandexpectationsofhistoriography. 116 Raaflaubis especiallycriticalofmodernhistorianswhotakenofirmapproachandinsteadvacillate 110 SeethebibliographyfromCarandinifrom1990tothepresentday. 111 GRT97;Terrenato(1992)insteadconnectsthesameexcavationswiththetopography andarchaeologyofarchaicrome. 112 Seeespecially(Carandini1990,1997,2006);CarandiniandCappelli,eds.,2000.Seealso Grandazzi(1997)forasimilarapproach. 113 Forsythe(2005,84)andTerrenato(2011,232)takeissueonlywithCarandini'soverrelianceonthehistoriographictradition.Raaflaub(2005)isnotexplicitwithhiscritique, butheisskepticalbothofthehistoricalrecordsandoftheuseofarchaeologicaldatato supportthehistoricityoftheancientaccounts.smith(2005)offersacriticalanalysisof Carandini'sthesisanditsbearinguponstudiesofRomanurbanization. 114 Cornell2005;Cornell1995;Raaflaub2005;Forsythe Raaflaub2005;Forsythe Raaflaub2005;Forsythe

45 betweencompletebeliefandoutrightdistrust. 117 Tohim,scholarsofthiskinddonot understandtheeffectsofthesequestionsonallinterpretationsofhistory.neitherraaflaub norforsythe,however,rejectexplicitlytheliterarytraditionregardingearlyrome;there seemstobeatacitreluctancetodiscardthesourcescompletely. Otherscholarshavemorefaithinthecredibilityofthetexts.Themainproponentofthis viewiscornell,whoagreesthatitiscrucialtoexaminethehistoriographictradition,but doesnotbelievethattheromansengagedinthedeliberatefalsificationoftheirhistory,for literary,socialorpoliticalmotives. 118 Inhisopinion,theRomansrecordedwhatthey believedtobetrue,andthereisnoreasontoconsiderthisfalse,unlessitcanbeprovenso. However,hesimultaneouslyacknowledgesthefactthattheRomanhistorians,inthe absenceofdatafromthearchaicperiod,usedanachronisticmodelswhenattemptingto reconstructtheirearlyhistory. 119 Tohim,theancientaccountsofearlyRomanhistory remainvaluablebecausetheyrepresentromanhistoryasitwasunderstoodandrecorded bytheromans. 120 Scholarshaveappealedformethodologiestodiscerntruthfromfiction, 121 butthere remainsnosatisfactory,uniformmethodfordealingwiththehistoriography.thenatureof thesourcesissovariedandthereliabilityoftheaccountssoquestionablethat,apartfrom outrightdisbelieforcompleteconfidence,thereisnosingleapproachtothem.currently, themostcommonapproachinanglo americanscholarshipexamineseachepisodeand accountonacasebycaseanalysis. 122 Thismethodologyoftengeneratesconsiderable disagreementamongmodernhistorians,sinceanyinterpretationisentirelydependenton one'sownviewregardingthereliabilityoftheancientsourcesandtheprinciplesaccording towhichtheancientsourcesaredeterminedaccurate i.Conclusion ModernscholarsagreeonlyonthefollowingpointsaboutearlyRomanhistory:that,bythe secondandfirstcenturies,theromansconceivedofanearlyhistoryinvolvingthegrowth ofthecity,itsrulebykings,thefoundationoftherepublicandthedevelopmentofits institutions;and,thatthissamehistorybelongstothesixthandearlyfifthcenturies.most alsoacceptthatsomeinformationwasmoreorlessaccuratelypreservedfromearlyrome, andthisconsistsmainlyofsomedocumentarydata,namelythefasti,theannalesmaximi andthetwelvetables.innearlyallotheraspectsofinterpretationthereisconsiderable 117 Raaflaub(2005,6)doesnotmentionexplicitlywhothesehistoriansare. 118 Cornell1995;Cornell2005;RaaflaubonCornell(2005,24 31);Smith(1996,2006) supportsthispointofview. 119 Cornell2005, Cornell1995;Cornell Raaflaub,ed., ThemostvocalproponentisCornell(1995),alsotakenupbySmith(1996,2006). Forsythe(2005),althoughhedoesnotstatethisexplicitly,adoptsthesameapproach. 123 Forsythe2005,59. 28

46 disagreementandthereisnodefinitivemethodofusingtheancientsources.thechoices,it seems,aredeterminedskepticismoroptimisticacceptance.thetendencyisforindividual scholarstoacceptsomebasictruthsaboutthehistoriographictradition,buttodisagreeon strategiesforusingtheancientaccountsinmodernhistoricalanalyses.ultimately,itis impossibletoprovethenarrativetraditionregardingearlyromanhistorytrueorfalse. However,ifscholarsaretousethewrittenrecord,thenitisimperativetoquestionthe reliabilityoftheinformationthatinmanywaysseemslegendary,fabricatedand anachronistic. ItisbesttobeskepticaloftheancientaccountsconcerningearlyRomanhistory.The causesforconcernaretoosignificantandnumeroustoaccepttheancientnarratives outright.forinstance:thechronologicaldisparitybetweenthetimeofwritingandthetime whentheeventsallegedlytookplace;theabundanceofmythological,legendary, exaggeratedandinventeddetailscontainedintheaccounts;thegeneralabsenceof documentarysourcesthatmighthavecomprisedtheprimarysourcesoftheancient authors;thefailureoftheancientauthors,inmanycases,tounderstandmonumentsand narrativesfromtheirownpast;andthecontroversyandspeculationthatsurroundsnearly everyaspectofthesesources. Despitethis,someinformationdoesseemtohavesurvivedfromearlyRomanantiquity, namelythepreservedportionsofthefasti,theannalesmaximiandthetwelvetables. Althoughthisdocumentaryevidenceisoftenmisunderstoodbylaterwritersand embeddedinhistoricalnarrativesthatreflectcontemporaryconcernsratherthanearlier ones,itseemsthatitwaspreservedmoreorlessinitsoriginalform.thus,itispossible thattheancientaccountspreservesomeelementoftruthregardingthehistoryofthe Archaicperiod;however,theycannotbeacceptedwithoutrigorousexamination.Inthis dissertation,theyareconsideredcarefullyonanindividualbasis,asrequired,with particularattentiontotheirhistoricalcontext. 29

47 3.TheLiteraryEvidenceforRomanFuneraryRitualsandBurialPractices 3a.Introduction InRomanantiquity,theritualofthefuneralbeganimmediatelyafterthedeathofan individualandcontinueduntilthelastpost burialactivitieshadtakenplace.the appropriateritesinvolvedacombinationofpractical,religious,legalandsocialconcerns. ModernreconstructionsofRomanburialpracticesarelargelybasedonliteraryaccounts fromthelaterepublicandempireandareenrichedbythewiderangeoffunerary architectureandepigraphythatsurvivesinthearchaeologicalrecord. 124 Scholars frequentlyusetheevidencefromburialsasameansofexploringhowindividualsand groupsthroughouttheromanworldnegotiatedstatusandidentity.itisonlyrecently, however,thattheyhavequestionedtherelevanceoftheliterarysourcestothe archaeologicalevidence. 125 Themaincriticismisthattheancientsourceslackprecision whendescribingfuneraryritualandprovidelittleevidenceofthekindthatisvisibleinthe archaeologicalrecord.whatismore,theyareextremelylimitedinchronologicaland geographicalscope:writtenlargelyinthefirsttwocenturiesc.e.,thesetextsreflectthe contemporarycustomsandattitudesofthearistocraticeliteatrome.mostmodern scholarship,however,hasmisguidedlyusedthewrittenevidenceasaguidebookforall funeraryritual,assumingthatwhatthesourcessayisapplicabletoallregionsandperiods, andusingthearchaeologytosubstantiateclaimsmadeintheliteraryaccounts. Asyet,thereisnoanalysisofthewrittenevidenceforthefuneraryritualsofperiodsearlier thanthelaterepublic.thisislargelyduetothepaucityofthesourcesandtheconfusion surroundinghowbesttounderstandwhatlittleisavailable.theprimaryaimofthis chapteristorectifythisabsencebycollectingtheextantliteraryevidenceforromanburial duringthesixthandfifthcenturiesandconsideringthesenarrativesintheappropriate contexts.thiswillserveasaframeworkwithwhichtoanalyzethearcheologicalevidence ofchapters5and6,andwillallowforabetterassessmentoftheroleoftheliterarysources inearlyfunerarystudies. TheliteraryevidenceconcerningfuneraryritualsinearlyRomeisinconsistent:thesources arefewinnumber,disparateinsubjectmatterandwide ranginginchronology.inallcases, theliteraryaccountsaresubjecttothesamequestionsofreliabilityasdiscussedinchapter 3.NoneoftheaccountswerewrittenintheArchaicperiod;theearliestwerecomposedat leastfourcenturieslater,andthemajoritywerewrittenhundredsofyearsafterthat,from fourthtoseventhcenturiesc.e.theaccountsareoftenbrief,andembeddedinnarratives thatotherwisehavenothingtodowithancientfuneraryritual.whatismore,thesources areextremelyvagueregardingthetimewhenaparticularcustomwasregularlyobserved, notingonlywhetheritwasantiquissimumorpracticedapudmaiores.otherliterarysources documentcontemporarypracticesonly,andtheseoftenlackthedetailrequiredbymodern scientificstandards.modernscholars,mostnotablytoynbee,havedrawnuponthese 124 Toynbee1971;Scullard1981;Jones SeeespeciallyScheid(2008). 30

48 scatteredreferencestoreconstructageneraloverviewofromanfuneraryritual. 126 The benefitofsuchanaccountisthatprovidessomeideaofthewiderangeofactivities involvedinromanfuneraryrites,butitrunstheriskofpositinganerroneous reconstructionwithlittlespecificity.nonetheless,toynbee'saccountremainsconventional andiswidelyacceptedinmodernscholarship. 127 Whatfollowsisapresentationanddiscussionoftheliteraryevidencearrangedaccording totheissuesaddressedintheancientaccounts.thesourcesmarkedoutthefollowing customsasancient:thepreferenceforinhumationovercremation(3b),theinhumationof younginfants(3c),theburialofadultsathome(3d),andthepracticeofnocturnalburial (3e).IngeneralIamskepticaloftheinformationprovidedintheseaccounts,butIdonote onsomeoccasionswherethearchaeologicalrecordseemstoagree.ifollowwitha summaryofpolybius'accountofaromanfuneral(3f),sincethistexthasdirectlyinformed nearlyallsubsequentscholarshiponthesubjectandisthusworthrevisitinginorderto bettercontextualizethearchaeologicalmaterialpresentedinchapters5and6.iconclude thechapterwithabriefassessmentofthevalueoftheliterarysourcesforfuneraryritualin thearchaicperiod(3g). 3b.CremationandInhumation Thesourcesagreethatinhumationwastheearlierriteofdisposingofthedeceased.Cicero recordsthefollowing(deleg ): Atmihiquidemantiquissimumsepulturaegenusilludfuissevidetur,quoapud XenophontemCyrusutitur;redditurenimterraecorpusetitalocatumacsitum quasioperimentomatrisobducitur.eodemquerituineosepulcroquodhaud proculafontisaraest,regemnostrumnumamconditumaccepimus, gentemquecorneliamusqueadmemoriamnostramhacsepulturascimusesse usam.c.marisitasreliquiasapudanienemdissipariiussitsullavictor acerbioreodioincitatus,quamsitamsapiensfuisset,quamfuitvehemens.quod haudscioantimensnesuocorporipossitaccidereprimusepatriciiscorneliis ignivoluitcremari.decleratenniusdeafricano:"hicestillesitus."vere;nam sitidicunturii,quiconditisunt.nectameneorumantesepulchrumest,quam iustafactaetporcuscaesusest.etquodnunccommuniterinomnibussepultis venitusu,uthumatidicantur,ideratpropriumtuminiis,quoshumusiniecta contexerat,eumquemoremiuspontificaleconfirmat.nampriusquaminos iniectaglebaest,locusille,ubicrematumestcorpus,nihilhabetreligionis; iniectaglebatumetillishumatusest,etgleba 128 vocatur,actumdeniquemulta religiosaiuraconplectitur. 126 Toynbee Scheid(2008,7 8)statesthattherewasconsiderablevarietyinfuneraryritualduring thetimeofthelaterepublicandempire. 128 Thetexthereiscorrupt. 31

49 Itseemstomethatthemostancientmodeofburialwasthatwhich, accordingtoxenophon,cyrusused;forthebodyisreturnedtotheearthand sohasbeenplacedandarrangedjustasifitwasconcealedbyitsmother's covering.weacknowledgethatourkingnumawasburiedwiththissame ritenotfarfromthealtaroffons,andweknowthatthecornelianclanhas usedthisformofburialuptoourownday.theconquerorsulla,drivenby bitterhatred,orderedtheremainsofc.mariusbedispersedfromhistomb neartheriveranio;ifonlyhehadbeenaswiseashewasvehement.perhaps Sullafearedthatthesamemighthappentohisownbodyandsoheorderedit tobeburnedafterhisdeath;hewasthefirstamongthecorneliitodothis. EnniussaysaboutAfricanus:"Hereliesthebody."Indeed,fortheterm"lies" appliesonlytothosewhoareinterred.nevertheless,thesedonotbecome burialsuntiltheproperriteshavebeenperformedandapigslaughtered. Andnowtheterm"toinhume"isbeingappliedtoallkindsofburials,butthe termatonetimewasappropriateonlytorefertothosewhichhadbeen buriedbyacoveringoftheearth,andthepontificallawconfirmsthiscustom. Forbeforetheearthiscastoverthebones,thatplace,wherethebodyhas beencremated,hasnoreligiouscharacter;whenearthhasbeenthrownover it,itisconsideredinhumed,anditiscalledaburial,andthenmanyreligious rightsmakeitsacred. Plinynotes(Nat.Hist.7.187): IpsumcremareapudRomanosnonfuitveterisinstituti;terracondebantur.At postquamlonginquisbellisobrutoseruicognovere,tuncinstitutum.ettamen multaefamiliaepriscosservavereritus,sicutincornelianemoantesullam dictatoremtraditurcrematus,idquevoluisseveritumtalionemerutoc.mari cadavere.[sepultusverointellegiturquoquomodoconditus,humatusvero humocontectus]. ItwasnotanancientpracticeamongtheRomanstocremate;theywere buriedintheearth.butafteritbecameknownthatthebodiesburiedinfaroffwarshadbeendugup,cremationwastheninstituted.neverthelessmany familiespreservedtheancientrites,justasitisrecordedthatnooneinthe CornelianclanwascrematedbeforethedictatorSulla,andthathehad wanteditoutoffearofretaliationforhavingdugupthecorpseofgaius Marius.[Indeed,aburialisunderstoodtodenoteanymannerofburial,but aninhumationreferstoabodycoveredbyearth.] BothCiceroandPlinystatethatinhumationwasthecustomofearliertimes,addingthat somefamiliescontinuedthepracticeevenintheirownday,whencremationwasthenorm. Theyarecarefultodistinguishbetweenbothrites,butnotethatbothcanconstitutegrave sites.inhumationisdenotedwithavarietyofterms,includingcondere,humatus,andsitus, andciceroemphasizesthatwhatmakesaninhumationisthecoveringofacorpsebythe earth.cremationisdenotedwiththewordcremare;bothinterredandcrematedcorpses becomegravesorburials(sepultus,sepulturusorsepulchrum),andacquirereligious 32

50 characteroncetheproperritesareperformedandapigisslaughtered.ciceronotesthatin hisowntimeitwascustomarytorefertoallgravesasbeinghumati(laidintheearth) regardlessofrite,butpointsoutthatinantiquityhumatidesignatedonlythosecorpsesthat wereactuallyinterred,thatis,coveredbyearth. Neitherauthorseemstoknowpreciselywhencremationbecamethepreferredmodeof burial,butplinybelievesitwaswhenromebeganengagingindistantwars.despitethe acknowledgedshiftinritual,bothauthorsclaimthatinhumationpersistedintotheirown time,andciteasevidencethepracticesofthecorneliifamily.thecorneliiwereoneofthe oldestpatricianfamiliesatrome,and,assuch,theymaybeexpectedtohavepreserved ancientburialcustoms. 129 AccordingtoCicero,Sullabroughtanendtothistraditionwhen heorderedthecremationofhisbody,perhapsfearingthatitbeposthumouslyexcavated byhispoliticalenemies. 130 CiceroaddsthatSullawasresponsiblefortheexhumationand dispersementofthebodyofc.mariusandmayhavewantedtoavoidthesamefate.cicero maybeconsideredareliablesourcefortheburialpracticesofthecornelii,especiallysulla, sincehewasacontemporaryofandofficerundersullaintheearlytomid firstcentury B.C.E.HeappearscertainabouttheburialhabitsoftheCornelii(scimus),asopposedto thoseofnuma,whichhepresentsasconventionalwisdom(conditumaccepimus).pliny's accountfollowscloselythatofcicero,andheseemstohavedrawnhisinformationdirectly fromit,althoughheisnotexplicitinthisregard.plinyonlyaddsthatmanyfamilies continuedtopracticeinhumation,althoughhedoesnotstatewhom. CicerocitesasevidencefortheantiquityofinhumationatRometheburialsofNuma Pompilius( B.C.E.),thelegendarysecondkingofRome,andPubliusCornelius ScipioAfricanus(c ),forwhomEnniuswroteafuneraryepitaph.Helatercitesthe epitaphofafricanus,whichpointstocicero'sfamiliaritywiththeburialritesofthecornelii Scipiones. 131 Itispossiblethatsomememoryoftheancestralpracticeofinhumationwas preservedinfunerarymonumentsvisibleintheauthors'owntime.thetombofthe Scipiones,locatedontheViaAppiaoutsidethePortaCapenaatRome,wasdiscoveredin theearlyseventeenthcentury,andsubsequentexcavationrevealedthesarcophagiand inscriptionsofeightscipiones,rangingindatefrom298b.c.e.to176b.c.e. 132 Thetomb 129 Dyck2004, AfragmentofGraniusLicinianus(36.25),writteninthesecondcenturyC.E.,addsthat Sullaorderedhisbodynottobecremated,butitwasburnedagainsthiswishessothathis enemiescouldnotdismemberhiscorpse. 131 Sen.Ep offerstherestoftheepitaph:hicestillesituscuinemocivisnequehostis quivitprofactisreddereopispretium."hereliestheoneforwhomnocitizenorforeigner wasabletopaybackapricetomatchhisdeeds." 132 LTUR,Sepulcrum(Corneliorum)Scipionum;NTDAR (Sep.Scipionum).The earliestbelongstol.scipiobarbatus,consulin298b.c.e.andthelatestwasthatofpaulla Cornelia,c.176B.C.E.ThesarcophagusandinscriptionofBarbatusarenowhousedinthe Vaticanmuseum,aswerepartsoftheothersarcophagiandtheirinscriptions.Coarelli (1972)offersareconstructionofthetomb,alongwithstatuesofEnnius,P.ScipioAfricanus andhisbrotherlucius. 33

51 wasknowntocicero,whonoteditforitslocationandtheprominenceofthefamily associatedwithit(tusc.1.13).cicero(arch.22),pliny(nat.hist.7.114)andsuetonius(de poet.ennius8)recordthatenniuswasbelievedtobeburiedthereandastatueofhimset upbytheelderscipioafricanus.livynotesthatthemonumentincludedthetombsand statuesofthesamescipioandhisbrotherlucius( ).AlthoughthetombofNuma wasbelievedtobelocatednearthealtaroffons,thereisnoarchaeologicalevidencein supportofthis. 133 Cicero'saccountsoftheburialsofNumaandtheCorneliifeatureaspartofagreater discourseregardingtheroleofmonarchyinasuccessfulpoliticalregime.cicerobeginsthe passagebyconnectingtheriteofinhumationtoxenophon'scyrus.theworktowhich CicerorefersistheCyropaedia,afictionalizedbiographyoftheCyrusII,founderofthe Persianempireinthesixthcentury.Xenophon,historianandformerpupilofSocrates, composedthetextinthefourthcentury.cicerowasfamiliarwiththeworksofxenophon, includingtheoeconomicus,whichheclaimstohavetranslatedataveryyoungage(adoff. 2.87);hestateselsewherethatP.ScipioAfricanustheYounger(c B.C.E.)wasan admirerofxenophon'scyropaedia(q.fr andtusc.2.62). 134 TheversionofCyrus depictedinxenophonfeaturesprominentlyintheworksofcicero,oftenasanexampleofa justrulerinanautocraticformofgovernment. ThroughouttheworksofCicero,Cyrus,NumaandtheCorneliiScipionesfunctionas authoritativeexamplesofdistinguishedindividualsknownfortheircommitmenttothe wellbeingofthestateandtheirallegiancetoconservativeandmonarchicprinciplesof government.inderepublica,cyrusisthemechanismthroughwhichafricanuscritiques kingsandmonarchies( ). 135 Africanusstatesthat,eventhoughCyrusisthemostjust andwiseofthekings,monarchydoesnotconstitutethebestformofgovernmentbecause itsadministrationisatthediscretionandwhimofasingleindividual.heexplainsthat monarchyisfragileandpronetocorruption,andconsidersinevitablethedevolutionof monarchyintotyranny.foreverycapable,lovablekingsuchascyrus,thereisatyrannical Phalaris. 136 Africanusgoesontocriticizetheotherformsofgovernmentandconcludesthat thebestconstitutionisamixedone.however,whenlaelius,oneofinterlocutors,is dissatisfiedwiththisresponseandpressesafricanustochoosethebestformofsingle constitution,africanusselectsmonarchy,aboveoligarchyanddemocracy(cic.derep ).Hearguesthatmonarchyisbest,sincethekingprovidesforhiscitizenslikeafather 133 NTDAR152 3.ThereareseveralspringsontheJaniculumhill,andthearafontiscould havebeenanyoneofthese.hebelievesnuma'stombwouldhavebeenconstructed somwherealongtheridgerunningwestwardsfromthemodernportas.pancrazio.headds thatashrineoffonswasidentifiedneartheministerodellapubblicaistruzioneonviale Trastevere,whichdatesto70C.E. 134 Dyck2004, Caspar(2011)exploresinarecentpaperCicero'suseofCyrusasameansofexploring thevalueofmonarchyasasystemofgovernment. 136 Phalaris(c B.C.E.)wasatyrantofArcagus,inSicilyandwasknownforhis cruelty. 34

52 forhischildren,andcitizens,likechildren,holdtheirpatriarchinesteem.although Africanuseventuallyreturnstohisoriginalconclusionandclaimsthatthemixed constitutionisbest,hestressesthatthismustincludemonarchy(derep ),with somepowergiventoitsleadingcitizens,andotheraffairslefttothemasses.africanus considersthisthemostequalandstableformofadministration;itisalsotheformthatwas developedinantiquityandhandeddowntotheromansofafricanus'owntime.inthe secondbookofderepublica,numafunctionsasaromanexampleofthegoodking,in accordancewiththemodeldeterminedbycyrus.numaispreeminent,heisthemotherof justiceandreligionatrome,andheisthewriteroflaws. 137 SincetheRomanselectedhim tothisposition,numarepresentstheabilityofthecitizenbodytorecognizewhichqualities makekingsgood,inordertoensurethedevelopmentandwellbeingofthestate. 138 Whenthediscussionturns,inDelegibus,todevisinglawsfortheidealcity state,there mustthereforebeamonarchiccomponent.afterciceroreciteshisideallaws,hisbrother QuintusobservesthattheydonotdiffersubstantiallyfromthelawsofNuma(Cic.Deleg ).Ciceroexplainsthatthecharacterofthelawsmustreflectthecharacterof Africanus'constitution,andthatbothmustreflectthecustomsoftheirancestors.Theregal elementsurvivesincicero'slawsintheformoftheconsulship,wherebytheconsulslead, judgeanddeliberate,thoughthispowerischeckedbythesenate. 139 Together,Cyrus,Numa andthecorneliiscipionesstresstheimportanceofmonarchyingovernmentandthe importanceofupholdingancestralcustoms,and,asancientauthorityfiguresthemselves, theylendweighttothisargument.theseexamplessupportcicero'ssuggestionthatthe onlywaytosavethecurrentstateofromanaffairsafteryearsofcivilwarsandfactional strifeisareturntoanancestral,mixedconstitution. CicerousesSulla'scremationtoemphasizethechangeinthenatureofgovernmentat RomeintheLateRepublic.SullawasamemberoftheancientandillustriousCornelian clan,afamilyknownforupholdingancestralvirtuesandpractices.theyroutinelyobserved theancientriteofinhumation,untilsullabrokewithtraditionanddemandedthe cremationofhisbody.sulla'sreignanddeathseemtofunctionasturningpointsincicero's narrativeregardingthedevolutionofthestate.monarchy,asciceropointedout,functions wellprovidedthattheleaderismoderateandjust;however,kingsdevolvequicklyinto tyrantsbecausetheirpowersareunchecked.thus,theyarealwaysdangerousand threateningfiguresthatcaninitiatechangestothestructureofthestate,andleadtoits demise.sullaisonesuchfigure:appointeddictatoratromein82b.c.e.,hemassacreda numberofromansoverthecourseofacivilwar,andcontributedtotheconditionsthatled toasecondcivilwarincicero'sowntime.althoughsullamayhavebelievedhewas restoringtherepublic,hebroughtaboutitsdemise,andcicerousestheaccountofhis deathtoemphasizetheabandonmentofancestralcustomsandvirtues. 137 praestans(cic.derep.2.25);materhuicurbiiurisetreligionisfuit,quilegumetiam scriptorfuisset(cic.derep5.3). 138 Cic.Derep Cic.Deleg

53 MuchlikeCicero,Plutarchseemsmoreconcernedwiththesymbolicsignificanceof inhumationasamarkerofancestralvirtuethanthepreservationofhistoricalreality. WritinginthelatefirsttoearlysecondcenturyC.E.,PlutarchdescribesNuma'sburialtothe sameeffect.accordingtotheauthor,numaforbadethecremationofhisbodyandwas insteadburiedinoneoftwostonecoffins(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.Thepeopleswhowerebothin allianceandfriendshipwithromeassembledattheriteswithpublic offeringsandcrowns.thesenatorscarriedhisbier,thepriestsofthegods marchedtogetherandescortedittothegrave,andtherestofthecrowd, includingwomenandchildren,followedwithlamentationandweeping,not asthoughtheywereattendingthefuneralofanoldking,butasthougheach onewasburyingsomedearrelationtakenawayatthepeakofhislife.they didnotburnhisbody,since,asitissaid,heforbadeit,buttheymadetwo stonecoffinsandburiedthemunderthejaniculum.oneoftheseheldhis bodyandtheotherthesacredbooksthathehadwrittenwithhisownhand, justasthegreeklawgiversdowiththeirtablets.butwhilehewasstillliving hetaughttheprieststheircontentsandheproducedinthemtheskilland meansofknowingofthemall,andheorderedthattheybeburiedwithhis body,sincesuchmysterieswouldnotbewellobservedinlifelessdocuments. Plutarchcommentsneitherontheantiquitynorthepeculiarityofinhumation,andhis accountsuggeststhatbothinhumationandcremationwerepracticedinthetimeofnuma. AccordingtoPlutarch,Numaforbidsthecremationofhisbodyandrequestsburialfor himselfandhislawsintwostonesarcophagi.theauthorhereseemsmoreconcernedwith thechoiceofritualandtheimplicationsofthisdecision.cremationwasthedominant burialriteintheauthor'sowntime,acustomwhichtacitus,hiscontemporary,considered 36

54 theromanusmos(ann.16.6). 140 Forthemostpart,Plutarchdoesnotstatethesourcesofhis information,andusestheimpersonal"itissaid"(ὡς λέγεται)whenreferringspecificallyto Numa'srequestthathisbodybeinterred. ThisepisodeseemsmorerelevanttoPlutarch'smoralexplorationintheparallellives.The lifeofnumaispairedwiththatoflycurgus,thelegendarylawgiverofsparta,andthelives ofbothfiguresaredepictedasaseriesofoppositions.forinstance,lycurgusdispossessed hisroyalstatusinordertobecomealawgiver,whereasnumawaselectedkinginorderto becomealawgiver; 141 Lycurgusforbadethewritingoflaw,whereasNumainscribeditwith hisownhand,wasburiedwithit,andinstructedpriestsconcerningitscontents; 142 and, NumawasburiedatRome,whereasLycurguswascrematedandhisashesscatteredinto thesea. 143 Plutarchhereseemstobeconsideringtheparadoxwherebygoodactionsinjure thestateandbadactionscontributetoitswellbeing. 144 Lycurgus,althoughhedidnot commithislawstowriting,establishedasystemthatwaslonglastingandsuccessful, whereasnumacreatedaconstitution,aimedatpeaceandfriendship,whichdidnotlast afterhisdeath. 145 HadNumasucceeded,Romewouldneverhavebecometheheadofan empire. 146 TheparadoxisrelatedtoPlutarch'sownphilosophicalviews:Spartarepresents theidealrepublicbuthasnorulingphilosophicalking,whilenumarepresentstheideal king,butdoesnotpreservetheplatonicidealoftherepublic.itissignificantthatnuma's inscribedlawswereburiedwithhimbeneaththejaniculum:onewasasdeadastheother, althoughneitherwerewidelyseparated. 147 TheburialofbothNumaandhiswritingsmayalsobeconnectedtoPlutarch'sdesiretolink thelegendarykingofrometothephilosopherpythagorasandhisteachings.despitethe repeatedinsistenceofseveralancientwritersthatinteractionbetweennumaand Pythagoraswasimpossible,onthegroundsofthechronologicaldiscrepancybetween them,thelegendoftheirassociationpersistedthroughoutantiquity. 148 Plutarchwaswell awareofthisdisparity,butmaintainedtheconnectionbetweenthekingandthe philosopherbypresentingtheirsimilaritiesthroughoutthelifeofnuma. 149 Theassociation betweennumaandpythagoras,howeverincorrect,isbothimplicitandexplicitinthefinal chapterofnuma'slife.accordingtoplutarch(num ),thePythagoreansentrusted theirdoctrinestoteachingratherthanwritingonthegroundsthatnumaentrustedhis 140 ThearchaeologicalevidencesupportscremationasthedominantriteatRomefrom about400b.c.e.untilthesecondcenturyc.e.(morris1992,45 6). 141 Plut.Lyc ;Num Plut.Lyc.13.1;Num Plut.Lyc ;Num Duff1999, SvenbroexplorestheoppositionbetweenLycurgusandNuma(1988,133 4). 146 Boulet2005, vonwilamowitz Moellendorf1995, Cic.Derep ;Dion.Hal ;Livy, Cicerorecordsthattheking predatedthephilospherbyatleast140years. 149 Gruen(1990,159 60)offersafulldiscussion. 37

55 preceptstopriestsratherthanlifelessdocuments.theveryactofburialstrengthensthis connectionbetweennumaandpythagoras:numa'sprohibitionagainstthecremationof hisbodyisinaccordancewiththepythagoreanobjectiontothesamepractice. 150 Plutarch'saccountjuxtaposesthedeathandburialofNumaandhistabletswiththe subsequentexhumationofthetwocoffinsandtheburningofthetexts.accordingtothe literarytradition,whichgoesbackasfarascassiushemina,numa'scoffinswerefoundon theestateofascribein181b.c.e.,andthetabletsturnedovertothestateandburned. 151 ThecoffincontainingNuma'sbodywasempty.Theinhumationandpreservation,atleastof thetexts,allowsfortheirdiscoveryandexhumationoverfourhundredyearslater;their cremationmarksafinalactofdestruction.accordingtomodernscholarship,thesurvivalof thetextspresentedathreattoromanofficials,who,inburningthem,wereattemptingto concealthegreekrootsofromanreligionwithoutopenlycondemningtheirancestors. 152 It representedadeliberatebreakinthemeaningofthemosmaiorum,onethatcouldno longerrecognizethegreekoriginsofromancustoms.thenarrativesurroundingthe discoveryanddestructionofnuma'stextsenteredthehistoriographictraditioninthe secondcenturyasameansofnegotiatingthelevelofresgraecaeintheromanworld.the latethirdandsecondcenturieswitnessedamassiveinfluxofgreekmaterialintheroman world,broughtonbyincreasedcontact.thearistocraticeliteresentedtheomnipresenceof Greekinfluence,and,recognizingtheirinabilityandevenreluctancetoseparateGreekfrom Roman,createdthisnarrativeasameansofresolvingtheproblem. Despiteavarietyofhistoricalproblems,theancientsourcesseemtoagreeonthefollowing threepoints,asregardsinhumationandcremationinthetimepriortotheirown:first,that inhumationwasthepreferredburialriteinearlierperiods;second,thatinhumation persistedintolaterperiodsdespitethepopularityofcremation;andthird,thedecisionto practicecremationorinhumationrepresentedanindividualprerogativeorfamily tradition.noreasonsaregiventoexplaintheearlypreferenceforinhumation;onlyinthe caseofsulladofearandsuperstitionariseasmotivesforspurningthefamilytraditionof inhumation.thearchaeologicalrecordofthesixthandfifthcenturiessupportstheclaims oftheancientauthors,however,sinceinhumationburialsarefoundalmostexclusivelyat sitesinromeandlatiumatthistime. 153 Whatismore,thetwostonecoffinsinPlutarch's accountofnuma'sfuneralseemtorefertothetypeofmonolithictuffsarcophagicommon intheregionfromthearchaicperiodthroughmiddlerepublic. 3c.InfantBurial Onlytwoliterarysourcescommentspecificallyonfuneraryritualsforinfantsandchildren inearlyrome.thefirstisplutarch,whoattributestonumaalawthatrestrictsthelength ofmourningforachild(num.12.2): 150 Cumont1943, Livy, ;Pliny ;Val.Max Gruen1990, SeeChapter5forfurtherdiscussion. 38

56 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.Therewas tobenomourningforachildlessthanthreeyears,foranolderchildthere wastobenomourninglongerinmonthsthanithadlivedinyears,upuntil theageoften,buttenmonthswasthelongesttimesetformourning. ThesecondaccountcomesfromFulgentius,whowrote,sometimeinthelatefifthtoearly sixthcenturyc.e.,atextexplainingthedefinitionofvariousobsoletewords.inthisaccount Fulgentiusexpoundsatermonceusedtorefertoatypeofburialreservedforinfantsless thanfortydaysold,thesuggrundarium:(exp.serm.7): Prioritemporesuggrundariaantiquidicebantsepulchrainfantiumquinecdum quadragintadiesimplessent,quianecbustadicipoterant,quiaossaquae conburerenturnonerant,nectantainmanitascadaverisquaelocum tumisceret;undeetrutiliusgeminusinastyanacistragoediaait:'melius suggrundariummiserquererisquamsepulchrum.' Inanearliertimetheancientsusedtocallsuggrundariathetombsofinfants whohadnotyetreachedfortydays,becausetheywerenotabletobecalled busta,becausetherewerenoboneswhichcouldbeburnedandthesizeof thecorpsewasnotsogreatthatittookupmuchspace;fromthiseven RutiliusGeminussaysinthetragedyofAstyanax:"You,wretched,complain thatasuggrundariumisbetterthanasepulchrum." Thetermsuggrundariumisknownonlyfromthisaccount,andtheauthordoesnotseemto havebeenveryfamiliarwiththeword.fulgentiusmakesclearthatasuggrundariumwas aninhumationburialreservedforinfantslessthanfortydaysold,butheisunableto articulatethereasonwhysomeinfantswereburiedinthisway.tosupporthisexplanation, FulgentiusaddsafabricatedcitationfromthefictionaltragedianRutiliusGeminus.The etymologicaldefinitionofthetermsuggrundariumislikelyrelatedtothewordsuggrunda, meaning"theeavesofabuilding".gjerstad,whenreviewingthearchaeologicalmaterial fromearlyrome,understoodfulgentius'effortstoexplainthewordassignsofits authenticity,andsuggestedthetermsuggrundariumreferredtothecustomofburying infantsbelowtheeavesoftheroofofahouse. 154 Today,thetermiswidelyusedby archaeologiststodesignateaninfantburialinaceramicvesselthatislocatedinadomestic context.itremainsamatterofsomedebatewhetherthisdefinitionissuitabletoexplain thephenomenonvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecord Gjerstad1953,152,n Jarva1981a,144 5;Carroll2011,

57 Fulgentiusisextremelyvagueregardingthetimewheninfantswereburiedin suggrundaria,buthisclaimsfindsomesupportinthearchaeologicalrecordofthearchaic period.theburialofneonatesandinfantsinceramicvesselsindomesticcontextsisawell attestedphenomenonincentralitalyfromtheironagetotheendofthearchaicperiod, whenitisthoughtthattheprohibitionsofthetwelvetablesagainstintramuralburial broughtthiscustomtoanend. 156 Plutarch'snarrativeregardingtheperiodofmourning allottedchildren,however,isimpossibletoverifyinthearchaeologicalrecord. Whentakentogether,theaccountsofPlutarchandFulgentiusdemonstratethattheageofa childatdeathwasakeyfactorindeterminingtheappropriatefuneraryritesandthatthis practicewasrootedinantiquity.ahandfulofotherliterarysources,mostlywritinginthe firstandsecondcenturiesc.e.,suggestthatageatdeathcontinuedtobeadeterminantof funeraryritesinlaterperiods.plinytheelderstatesthatitistheuniversalcustomnotto cremateapersonbeforehisteethhaveerupted,whichisaroundsixmonths(nat.hist ). 157 Heexplainsthatonlyteethsurvivecremation,whichmeansthatchildren lackingteethcouldnotbereturnedtotheearthafterburning.juvenalwritesthataninfant, whoistooyoungforthefuneralpyre,iscoveredbyearth(sat ). 158 Plutarch, whenconsolinghiswifeoverthedeathoftheirtwo yearolddaughter,commentsthat childrenshouldnotbeburiedwiththesameritesasadults,inaccordancewiththelaws andcustomsoftheancients(τοῖς δὲ πατρίοις καὶ ἔθεσι καὶ νόµοις,consol.uxor11).he addsthat,whenchildrendie,oneshouldnotpourlibations,makesacrifices,lingerabout thegraveormournexcessively.heexplainsthatinfantshavenopartoftheearthorearthly affectionsandgivesashisreasonthefactthatchildrenhavenotyetbeenintegratedinto thecommunity. Scholarshaveusedtheseliteraryaccountstosuggesttheotherworldlyandmarginalstatus ofchildreninromanantiquity. 159 Somehavearguedthatthepresenceofinfantburialsin amphoraeduringtheimperialperiodrepresentsthereturnofthechildtothewombfor rebirthintoanewexistence. 160 Othersbelievethattheburialofchildrenunderthe thresholdorfoundationsofthewallofahouserepresentedtheirperipheralstatus. 161 The texts,writtenbyelitemalesexaltingrestraintandself control,arethoughttohave mirroredthegeneralattitudeofindifferencetowardschildren. 162 Theindifferenceto childrendepictedintheliterarysourcesseemstohavestruckachordwithmanymodern 156 Chapter5examinesthearchaeologicalevidenceofinfantburialsincentralItalyin greaterdetail. 157 Hominempriusquamgenitodentecremarimosgentiumnosest. 158 Terraclauditurinfansetminorignerogi. 159 ThemarginalstatusofinfantsandchildreninRomanantiquitydominatesmostofthe currentdiscourse.seemorerecently,néraudau(1984)and(1987);shaw(1991);pearce (2001);andNorman(2002). 160 Becker1995, Wiedemann1989, Russell

58 scholars,andmostdiscussionsrevolvearounddeterminingthelevelofemotional engagementexhibitedbyparentsintheburialoftheirchildren. 163 Themaincriticismisthatnearlyalltheseapproachesusetheliterarysourcesuncritically, anachronisticallyandexclusively. 164 StudiesofinfantburialsduringtheIronAgeand ArchaicperiodsrelyexcessivelyontheaccountofFulgentiusandassumethattheattitudes ofromanstowardschildrenthatarevisibleinthelateraccountsmusthavebeentrueof thearchaicperiodaswell.morebroadly,scholarsofinfantburialstendtoassumethatthe sumoftheliteraryevidence,whichrangesfromthesecondcenturyb.c.e.totheseventh centuryc.e.,representsattitudesandcustomsapplicabletoallperiods.partoftheproblem isthattherehasbeenverylittlearchaeologicalinvestigationofinfantburialsintheroman worldduringanyperiod.whilesomestudyhasbeenundertakenintheprovincesduring theromanperiod,virtuallynoneatallhasbeendoneinromanitaly. 165 Consequently, thereislittletonobasistosupportclaimsrelatingtothecarelessnessofinfantburialinthe region. Whatismore,thereislittleevidencetosuggestthatchildrenwereinanywayunlovedor consideredmarginalbytheirparents.forinstance,intheconsolationtohiswife,plutarch demonstratesquitetheopposite,andmakescleartheaffectionheandhiswifebothhadfor theirchild.themostnotablepassageisplutarch'sdescriptionofhisdaughter'scharacter: henoteshowhiswifelongedforadaughterafterfoursons,andaddsthatwhenthegirl wasborn,shewasnamedafterthemother(consol.uxor2).itisimpossibletodetermine howrepresentativeplutarch'srelationshipwithhisdaughterisofromanattitudes towardstheirchildren.topresumethatallparentswereasinvolvedasplutarchandhis wifewouldperhapspushtheevidencetoofarintheoppositedirection;thereislittletobe gainedfromarguingfromsuchlimitedevidencethatparentseithercaredlittleoragreat deal.itisworthnoting,however,thatplutarchconsistentlyrepresentshimselfandhiswife asunconventionalromanparents,emphasizingthattheycaredagreatdealfortheirchild. Plutarch'slettertohiswifefunctionssimultaneouslyasapersonaldocumentof consolation,apublicstatementonthepropermodeofgrieving,andaphilosophical discourse. 166 Plutarchmaintainsadelicatebalanceofthesethreeelementsthroughoutthe letter.headdresseshiswife'sgriefwithsensitivity,andoffersdifferentwayswithwhich shemightdealwithhergrief.heemphasizesthejoytheirdaughterbroughttothemboth: heremarksthatshewasespeciallylovedbyhimandcommentsonthepleasantnessofher age.hecommendshiswifeforherrestraintinpublicmourning,notingthatphilosophers andcitizenswouldfindnothingtocriticizeinherbehavior.hetakesaharshapproach towardwomenwhoviewchildrenasdolls,and,uponthedeathofthesechildren,care moreaboutthemselvesthanthedeceased.attheendoftheletterplutarchexpoundshis 163 EspeciallyNéraudau(1984),butthisremainsafeatureofmostcurrentdiscourse. 164 Carroll Carroll2011.Thearchaeologicalofinfantburialhasfaredbetterintheprovinces,but stillremainsunderinvestigated.seeespeciallypearce(2001)andnorman(2002). 166 Baltussen

59 philosophicalviewsmoreexplicitly.heencourageshiswifetoconsiderthesoulimmortal, aclearreferencetoplatonicideasregardingthesoul.heclosestheletterbyreferringtothe lawsandtraditionsoftheirancestors,whichdiscouragedelaborateceremoniesforthe dead.plutarch'sappealtotheauthorityoftheancientsisnotstrictlynecessary,sincehe andhiswifehaveclearlybeenobservingtheserules.however,suchexhortationsare commonfeaturesofthephilosophicaltraditionofconsolatorywritinginantiquity. 167 Althoughtheliterarysourcesindicatethatinfantsmatteredlittleandweretoreceive marginalburialrites,mostofthesestatementsarerelatedtopublicbehaviorratherthan privateactivity. 168 Mostoften,theauthorsarecriticizingpublicdisplaysofgrief.Plutarch observesthatmostmothersgivethemselvesuptogriefandfrenziedmourninguponthe deathoftheirchildren,althoughhenotesthatthisbehaviorisunwarranted(consol.uxor 6).Senecachidesafriendwhosesonhaddiedforbehavinglikeawomanandgrieving excessively(ep.mor.99).tacitus(ann.15.23)recordsthatnerowasexcessivelyupsetby thedeathofhisfour montholddaughter.youngchildrenandinfantswerealsotheleast likelytoreceivepublicformsofcommemoration.throughouttheromanempire,funerary monumentsandepitaphsofchildrenfiveyearsandyoungerarerare,whileinfantsintheir firstyearoflifeconstitutethemostunderrepresentedgroupofall. 169 However,ofthose infantsandyoungchildrenthatdoreceivecommemoration,theyareoftendescribedin affectionatetermsandtheirageatdeathisgivenemphasis.thismayreflectthe importanceofthosechildrentotheirfamilies. 170 ShawhasunderstoodthesestatisticsasanindicatorofthevaluationofchildreninRoman societyduringtheimperialperiod. 171 Hearguesthatthetombstonesignifiesthevaluation ofthesocialpersonaofthedeceased,thatistosay,thevalueofthatindividualinsociety. Thustheactofinscribingandsettingupagravemarker,whichinvolvedapublic recognitionbylivingfamilymembers,wasareflectionofthestatusheldbythedeceasedin life.overall,thereappearstohavebeenalowervaluationplacedoninfantsandyoung childrenthanolderchildrenandadults.thisisnottosaythatjuvenilesweredeniedformal burial,butrathertheformofburialreflectstheirroleinsociety.theburialofyoung childrenindomesticcontexts,then,pointstothefactthattheseindividualshadnotyet madethetransitionfromthenaturalintothehumanworld ThetraditionisgenerallythoughttohavebegunwithPlato,andprovedwidely influentialintheworksoflaterromanauthors.cicero,inthetusculandisputations, considershowtodealarangeofemotions,includinggrief. 168 Carroll2011, Garnsey1991,52.Forinstance,fromoversixteenthousandtombstonesfromRomeand Italythatrecordedagesatdeath,only1.3percentbelongedtochildrenlessthanayearold (Hopkins1983,225). 170 Carroll2011, Shaw Garnsey(1991,52 3)addsthataRomanchildwasnamedonthedieslustricus,the eighthdayafterbirthforgirlsandtheninthforboys,andaceremonyofadmissionintothe household.untilthatday,thechildwasmorelikeaplantthananimal. 42

60 ThisdistinctionisespeciallyimportantwhenconsideringthoseburialsoftheArchaic period.inthearchaeologicalrecordofthesixthandfifthcenturies,theburialsofinfants andchildrenappearalongtheperipheryofhouses.thispracticeisnotnecessarilyan indicatorofparentalneglectorcarelessness.thefactthattheyarevisibleinarchaeological contexts,atatimewhenthereisanotabledecreaseinarchaeologicallyvisibleburials, betokenstheirworth.itisthelocationoftheseburialsindomesticcontextsthatis significant.mostinfantburialsofthearchaicperiodarelocatedontheouterlimitsof households,which,attheveryleast,signalstheirsignificanceinthedomesticsphere.these burialsmayhaveservedasboundarymarkerstodefinethelimitsofthathousehold.thus, thereislittlereasontoassume,onthebasisoftheliteraryevidencealone,thatinfantsand youngchildrenweremarginalinthesensethattheywereundervalued.itisworth stressing,too,thatthepracticeofburyingchildrenatthemarginsofthehouseisa phenomenonvisibleonlyinthearchaeologicalrecord. 173 Theancientsourcessaynothing aboutthiscustom,andsoitwouldbeunwisetodrawtoomanyconclusionsregardingthe roleofchildreninthearchaicperiodbasedontheirpresumedundervaluedstatusinlater periods. 3d.BurialintheHome TwosourcesfromlateantiquityclaimthatitwascustomaryinearlierperiodsforRomans toburytheirdeadwithintheirownhomes.servius,inafourth centuryc.e.commentaryon Vergil'sAeneid,writes(adAen.5.64): Etsciendumquiaapudmaioresubiubiquisfuissetextinctus,addomumsuam referebatur. Anditshouldbeknownthatamongtheancients,whensomeonehaddied,he wasburiedathisownhouse. Serviusadds(ad.Aen.6.152): 174 Apudmaiores,utsupradiximus,omnesinsuisdomibussepeliebantur,unde ortumestutlarescolerenturindomibus. Amongtheancients,aswesaidabove,allwereburiedintheirownhouses, fromwhichitcameaboutthatthelareswereworshippedinhomes. IntheearlyseventhcenturyC.E.,Isidore,theBishopofSeville,wrotethefollowinginhis compendiumongreek,romanandchristianlearning(origines ): 173 SeeChapters5and6forfurtherdiscussion. 174 Thereseemstohavebeensomeconfusioninthetext,asdocumentedinthemostrecent editioneditedbyjeunet Mancy(2012).Alternately,undeetiamumbraslarvasvocamus,or undeetiamumbrasvocamusalaribus. 43

61 Priusautemquisqueindomosepeliebatur.Posteavetitumestlegibus,ne foetoreipsocorporaviventiumcontactainficerentur. Originally,however,everyonewasburiedinhishome.Thiswaslater prohibitedbylawssothatthebodiesofthelivingnotbeinfectedbycontact withthesmell. Theseancientsourcesmakeclearthatitwasancientcustomtoburythedeadinassociation withthehouse,butitisimpossibletodetermine,basedontheirclaims,preciselywhenthis occurred.serviusstatesonlythatitwasapudmaiores,whileisidoreseemstorefertoa timebeforethepromulgationofthetwelvetablesinthemid fifthcentury.ifthisisthe case,hedemonstratessomeconfusionoverthecontentofthelaws,whichbanned specificallyburialwithinthecity,notthehome.ofcourse,theprohibitionagainst intramuralburialwouldhavepreventedburialinthosehousesthatwereinthecity,butit remainsunclearwhetherisidoreisreferringheretothetwelvetablesoranothersetof laws.hisclaimthatthelawswereenactedtokeepthelivingawayfromthesmellrecalls Cicero'searlierexplanationoftheprohibitionagainstintramuralcremationasameansof allayingthedangersoffire(deleg.2.58).inbothcasesitseemsthatneitherauthorknew thereasonsforthebansandbasedtheirexplanationsoncontemporaryattitudesand behaviors. 175 IthasalreadybeenpointedoutthatneitherServiusnorIsidoreareinfallibleauthorities, especiallysinceserviusseemsconfusedovertheclassificationoflares,penates,lemures andlarvae;hallidayevengoessofarastosaybothsourcesarrivedattheseconclusions basedonsomefalsepremise. 176 However,modernscholarshiphasemployedthecitations ofserviusandisidoretoexplainthearchaeologicalphenomenonofsuggrundaria. 177 Neitherancientauthorexplicitlyconnectsinhumationinthehomewithchildburial, however.infact,bothserviusandisidoremakeitevidentthatitwascustomforeveryone (quis,omnesapudmaioresandquisque)inprevioustimestobeburiedathome. Inthelatenineteenthcentury,Grangerattractedasignificantamountofcriticismwhen usingthesecitationstosuggestthatburialwithindomesticcontextswasanacceptable funeraryriteinearlyrome,andthatthiscustomcontinuedaftertheprohibitionofthe TwelveTablesagainstintramuralburial. 178 WardeFowlerwashismostvocalcritic, 175 SeeChapter4forfurtherdiscussionoftheTwelveTables. 176 Halliday(1921)notesthatthevariationsinthetextforServius(adAen.6.152) demonstratesthatheregardedthemallasancestralspirits,whichtheywerenot. 177 Jarva(1981aand1981b),forinstance. 178 Granger'soriginalclaimwasratherconservative(1895,60).Hewasmerelyreporting whatserviussaidwasancientcustom,andofferedneithercommentarynoradditional evidenceonthematter.wardefowler(1896)tookthistomeanthatgrangerbelieved intramuralburialwascommoninromeaftertheconstructionoftheservianwallsand promulgationofthetwelvetables.inhisresponsetothiscriticism,grangerconcededthat 44

62 claimingthatthearchaeologicalevidenceprovedbeyondadoubtthatevenintheearliest timestheromansburiedtheirdeadoutsidethecity. 179 Accordingtohim,theprohibition againstintramuralburialandcremationintwelvetablesformalizedthistaboo.tobesure, theclaimsmadebytheancientauthorsaredoubtful.inthefirstplace,thechronological disparitybetweenthetimeofwritingandthecustomsdescribedcastsdoubtontheir assertions.however,thereisarchaeologicalevidencefromlatiumandsouthernitalythat revealsitwascustomaryduringthearchaicperiodtoburythedeadinassociationwith domesticcontextswithinthelimitsofthecity e.NocturnalBurial ThreepassagesfromServius,possiblydrawnfromthelostworksofVarro,suggestthat funeralsinearlyrometookplaceatnight. 181 Thefirstruns(ServiusadAen.1.727): FUNALIA.funaliasuntquaeintraceramsunt,dictaafunibus,quosanteusum papyriceracircumdatoshabueremaiores:undeetfuneradicuntur,quodfunes incensosmortuispraeferebant. Thetorchesarethosewhicharewithinwax,calledaftertheropesthat, beforetheuseofpapyrus,theancientsheldsurroundedwithwax:from whichevenfuneralsareso called,becausetheycarriedsheetsinflamedfor thedead. Thesecond(ServiusadAen.6.224): FACEM.defune,utVarrodicit:undeetfunusdictumest.pernoctemautem urebantur:undeetpermansitutmortuosfacesantecedant. Concerningthesheet,itisasVarrosays:fromthiseventhewordfunusis derived.however,theyusedtobeburnedatnight:andfromthisthere continuedthecustomthattorchesgobeforethedead. hebelievedintramuralburialoccurredoftenupuntilthetimeofthetwelvetables,and continuedthereafter,althoughinfrequently(grangerandwardefowler1897). 179 WardeFowler SeeChapter6forfurtherdiscussion. 181 OnlythesecondpassagecitesVarroasasource.Thesimilarityincontentandstyleof thefirstandsecondpassageshasledrose(1923,191)tobelievethatthesetwofragments comefromthesamesource.thethirdexampleisanexcerptfromalongerpassagethat goesontoattributetheauthorityfortheceremonyasvarroandverriusflaccus(sicut VarroetVerriusFlaccus). 45

63 Thethird([Servius]adAen ): sedapudromanosmorisfuitutnoctistemporeefferrenturadfunalia,unde etiamfunusdictumest,quiainreligiosacivitatecavebantneautmagistratibus occurrerentautsacerdotibus,quorumoculosnolebantalienofunereviolari. ButamongtheRomansitwascustomthattheywerecarriedoutforburial duringthenight,fromwhichthewordfunusisderived,becauseinareverent statetheyusedtotakecaresothattheyneitherranintomagistratesnor priestswhoseeyestheywereunwillingtodishonorwiththefuneraryritesof another. Theauthorofthesethreepassagesillustratestheetymologyoffunusfromfunisand connectsthistothecustomofcarryingfunaliaatfunerals,whichhemayormaynothave presumedfromthenecessityforlightinanighttimeceremony.modernscholarshave inferredfromthethirdpassageareasonwhyfuneralsoriginallytookplaceatnight. 182 Twoadditionalreferencesalludetotheancientcustomofnocturnalburial,andrefer specificallytotheburialofchildren.thefirstisfrom[servius]adaen ,already quotedinpart: etmagismorisromaniutimpuberesnoctuefferenturadfaces,nefunere immaturaesubolisdomusfunestaretur...alii,sicutvarroetverriusflaccus, dicunt:sifiliusfamiliasextraurbemdecessit,libertiamiciqueobviam proceduntetsubnocteminurbeminfertur,cereisfacibusquepraelucentibus, adcuiusexsequiasnemorogabatur. ItwastoagreaterextentaRomancustomthatthoseinchildhoodwere broughtoutforburialatnight,withtorchesathand,sothatthehousenotbe pollutedwiththefuneralofanimmatureissue...others,justasvarroand VerriusFlaccus,say:ifasonhasdepartedthehouseholdoutsidethecity, freedmenandfriendsgoouttomeethimandheiscarriedintothecityat night,withlittorchesofwax,nooneisinvitedtofuneralprocessionofthis person. AsecondpassagefromTacitus(Ann )supportsthis: noxeademnecembritannicietrogumconiunxit...festinationemexsequiarum edictocaesardefendit,itamaioribusinstitutumreferens,subtrahereoculis acerbafuneranequelaudationibusautpompaducere. ThesamenightbroughttogetherthemurderofBritannicusandthefuneral pile...caesar[nero]supportedthehasteningofthefuneralwithanedict,thus 182 Paoli1963,129;Toynbee1971,46;Walker1985,9;Bodel2000,

64 bringingbackathinginstitutedbytheancients,todrawawayfromtheeyes thegrievousfuneraryritesandnottoconductthemwitheulogiesor procession. ThebulkofthisevidenceindicatesthattherewasamongRomansoftheImperialperiod (andofthemiddleandlaterepublic,ifthefragmentsofvarroarereliable),abeliefthat thecustomofnocturnalburialwasthepracticeofthemaiores.mostmodernscholarship acceptsthevalidityoftheseclaims,addingthatthepracticewaslikelyabandonedbythe timeofthelaterepublicexceptinthecasesofchildrenandthepoor. 183 Rosehasalready demonstratedtheimprobabilityofthesurvivalofthiscustominthefuneraryritesfor childrenandthepoorinlatertimes,andseemssupportedbythemorerecentstudiesof CarrollandGraham. 184 Despitethis,theassumptionpersistsinmodernscholarshipthatfuneralswereoriginally heldatnightasawayofavoidingmagistratesandhighpriestswhomightbeafflictedby spiritualpollution. 185 Thispresumptionisimpossibletoattest,sincethereisnoevidence fromearlyromeregardingattitudestowardsdeathorthepollutionbroughtaboutbyit. Bodelclaimsthat,bythetimeoftheLateRepublic,thedisposalofthedeceasedwas motivatedprimarilybypragmaticconcerns, 186 butthereisampleevidenceindicatingthat religiousconcernswereanotherimportantfactor.accordingtoanumberofancient sources,whenanindividualdied,thehousebecamefunestaorfunestatauntilthe purificationriteswerecompleted. 187 Thisnormallyoccurredforninedaysafterthe depositionofthebody,upuntilwhichpointsignswerepostedtoalertotherswhoneeded toremainpure. 188 Itisuncleartowhomthesesymbolswereintended,butBodelmaintains thatitwaspossiblymagistratesandhighpriests,sincethewell beingofthestatewas closelyconnectedtothepurityofthesepeople f.Polybius ItisworthconsideringinbrieftheaccountofPolybiusdescribingthefuneralofanelite maleatrome(6.53 4).PolybiuswasaGreekhistorianwritingatRomeinthelatesecond andearlyfirstcenturies,andheoffersthemostdetailedaccountofromanfuneraryritual. HisaccountisnotdirectlyrelevanttotheArchaicperiod,nordoesitrepresentanything otherthantheconcernsofaverylimitedgroupinaveryspecificperiod,namely,the aristocraticeliteinlaterepublicanrome.however,thistextistheclosesttoaneyewitness accountoffuneraryritualandconsequentlyconstitutesthefoundationofmodern 183 Paoli1963,129;Toynbee1971,46;Walker1985,9;Graham2006, Rose1923,193.Graham2006,30andCarroll Bodel2000,142;Graham2006, Bodel2000, Cic.Deleg.2.55;Dig ;Gell.4.6.8;Serv.adAen.6.216, Serv.adAen.3.64;6.216;PlinyNH16.40, Bodel2000,142;Lindsay

65 reconstructionsofancientburialrites. 190 Italsoprovesusefulforcontextualizingthe writtenevidence,bysuggestingthatfuneraryritual,fromatleasttheearlythirdcentury, placedspecialemphasisonpromotingthestatusandachievementsofthegens. Polybiusrecordsthat,whenanillustriousmanhasdied,thebodyofthedeceasedis broughttotherostrainafuneraryprocession(pompa).there,thesonorsomeother relativenarratestheachievementsofthedeceasedtoanassembledcrowd(laudatio), whichelicitsthesympathyoffamilyandpublicmournersalike.aftertheburialand performanceofcustomaryceremonies,animage(imago)ofthedeceased,enclosedina woodenshrine,isplacedinthemostvisibleportionofthehouse.theimageisamaskthat representsthedeceased;attimesofpublicsacrificethemaskisputondisplay,andatthe funeralofadistinguishedfamilymember,themaskiswornbyarelativemostresembling thedeceasedinappearance.theserepresentativesweartogasinaccordancewiththerank ofthedeceased;theyrideinchariotsprecededbythefasces,axesandothersymbolsofthe rankachievedintheirlifetime.whentheprocession(pompa)reachestherostra,theyall sitinivorychairsandtheoration(laudatio)begins.accordingtopolybius,suchascene wouldinspireyoungmentoaccomplishsimilarachievementsandmaintainthegood reputationofthedeceasedandhisfamily.headdsthatthemostimportantresultisthat youngmenareinspiredtowithstandeverymannerofsufferingforthepublicgoodwith thehopeofgaininggloryinsodoing. Modernscholarshiphasdevotedasignificantamountofattentiontotheimagines,the Romanwaxportraitsofmaleancestors. 191 AccordingtoPolybiustheseweredisplayedin placeofthebodyduringthefuneralandlaterlocatedinthehouse(6.54 4).Somescholars believedthemasksderivedfromanarchaicitalictraditionandlikelyresembledterracotta masksfrometruria. 192 Suchargumentsarepurelyspeculative,however,sincethereisno directtestimonyregardingtheantiquityofthetradition,andnomaskssurviveinthe archaeologicalrecord. 193 TheAmphitryonofPlautus(458 9),composedintheearlysecond century,containstheearliestreferencestoimagines,andsomescholarsbelievethisreason tosuggesttheyweredevelopedacenturyearlier. 194 Apartfromthefuneraryprocessionandoration,theimagineshadlittleuseinthecultor commemorationofthedead.althoughthesocialandpoliticalsignificanceoftheimagines changedovertime,theywereinallperiodsdesignedforusebylivingfamilymembersand hadaclearpoliticalfunction.thesemaskswereusedinavarietyofcontextstohighlight theancestralachievementsofoffice holdingfamilies.themasks,inotherwords,wereused primarilyinthecarefulconstructionofapublicimage.inafunerarycontext,asdescribed 190 Toynbee1971;Scullard1981;Patterson2000;Jones2002;Graham SeeespeciallyFlower(1996). 192 Walbank1957,738;ColonnaandvonHase(1986),whichFlower(1996, ) discusses. 193 Flower1996, Flower1996,

66 bypolybius,suchmasksweredesignedtoberepresentationsofpastleadersandwere associatedwithtraitsofbravery,frugalityandservicetothestate. 195 Flowerarguesthattheimaginesaroseascommunity sanctionedsymbolsofprestigeafter thepromulgationofthetwelvetablesrestricteddisplaysofprivatestatusatfunerals. 196 Sheclaimsthatthelawsattemptedtopreventelitegroupsfromdeployingsymbolsof privatestatus,whichreflectedpersonalwealthandsocialconceit.consequently,funerals focusedmoreontheofficesandachievementsofthedeceasedandtheirfamilies,sincethe eliteadoptedthosesymbolsthatrepresentedastatusacquiredwithpeerapproval.this approachissomewhatteleological,anditassumesthatthelawswereprimarilysumptuary. ThereislittleindicationthatthefunerarystatutesoftheTwelveTableswereconcerned withprohibitingdisplaysofprivatestatus. 197 Thelaws,ingeneral,arelessconcernedwith restrictingobjectsthanbehaviorandexpenses.someoftheprovisionsevenguaranteethe displayofprestigeitems,irrespectiveofwhethertheyrepresentprivateorpublicsources ofwealthandstatus.theeighthstatutepermitstheburialofgolddentures,whichseemto representasignofprivatewealth,butthetenthallowsthedisplayofacrownatthe funeral,whichseemstohavebeenanobjectacquiredinservicetothestate.thefunerary legislationofthetwelvetablesdoesnotcreatemeaningfuldistinctionsbetweenpublic andprivate;bothtypesofdisplaywerepermittedandregulated.thusitseemsthatthe imaginesaroselessasaconsequenceofthefuneraryrestrictionsandrepresentmore anotherformoffuneraryritualthatallowedsimultaneouslyforthedisplayofthe individualandfamilyprestige. 3g.Conclusion Theancientsourcesbelievedthefollowingabouttheburialritesoftheirancestors: inhumationwasthedominantriteforadultsandchildren;infantsweremournedand burieddifferentlythanadults;adultswereburiedwithinthehousehold;andfuneralsfor childrenandadultsoccurredatnight.thearchaeologicalrecordofarchaicromeand Latiumconfirmsthatinhumationwasthedominantrite,andsupportsthatadultswere buriedinconnectionwithdomesticcontexts.theevidencedemonstrates,inaddition,that childrenwereburiedinassociatedwithhouses,afactnotmadeexplicitintheliterary sources.thereisnoarchaeologicalevidencethatatteststothepracticeofnocturnalburial. ThesumoftheliteraryevidenceforfuneraryritualinearlyRomeisnotgreatandlargely unreliable.mostaccountscomefromauthorswritinginthefourthtoseventhcenturiesc.e., aboutamillenniumlaterthantheperiodinquestion.thesereferencesarechronologically vague,anddonotprovideaspecifictimeforthepracticeofaparticularcustom.atbest, theymentiononlythatacertainritualwascustomaryamongtheancientsorobserved sometimeinantiquity.theancientsourcesdonotcomeclosetoaddressingfuneraryritual initsentirety;theyseemmoreconcernedwithpointingoutthoseritesthatweresomehow 195 Flower1996, Flower1996, SeeChapter4. 49

67 peculiar,outdatedordifferent.forsomesources,namelyciceroandplutarch,ancient funeraryritesfunctionassymbolsofadistantandvirtuouspast,oftenembeddedin lengthierphilosophicalnarratives.consequently,anyreconstructionoffuneraryritualasit happenedinthearchaicpastisextremelyquestionablebasedontheliterarydataalone.in thosecaseswheretheliteratureandthearchaeologyagree,theancientsourcesofferlittle explanationabouttheseancientpractices;theyseemtoreflectmorecontemporary concerns.atbest,theyofferproofthattheancientsourceshadsomeknowledgeoftheir past,andcontributestothediscussionregardingthehistoricalreliabilityoftheancient accountsasdiscussedinchapter2.however,thepaucityoftheliteraryinformationplaces specialimportanceonthestudyofthearchaeologicalmaterial.indeed,thearchaeological materialrepresentsthebestandmostreliabledataforallperiodspriortothelate Republic.InChapter5IaddressthearchaeologyofburialinRomeandLatiumduringthe Archaicperiod,althoughitisnotablethattherearenocomprehensivestudiesoffunerary archaeologyinperiodspriortothelaterepublic. 50

68 4.TheDocumentaryEvidenceforRomanFuneraryRitual:theTwelveTables 4a.Introduction TheTwelveTables,aseriesoflawsenactedatRomeinthemid fifthcentury,offerthe earliestwrittenevidenceregardingearlyromanfuneraryritual. 198 Althoughissues primarilyrelatedtothehistoricityandtransmissionofthelawsremaincontroversial, scholarsgenerallyaccepttheauthenticityofthetext.mostofthelaws,whichhavebeen givenaconventionalarrangementbymodernscholars,fallwithintherealmofprivatelaw, andconcernavarietyoftopicsincludingthefamily,marriage,property,slaveryand inheritance.thetenthtable,however,includesprovisionsrelatedonlytofuneraryactivity. Inparticular,itlistsprohibitionsagainstcertaintypesofbehaviorandlimitsexpensesat funerals.modernscholarshiphasgenerallyoverlookedthetenthtable;rarelyhasitbeen usedtoreconstructfunerarypracticesandtounderstandsocio economicconditionsin earlyrome. 199 However,thetenthtableisdeservingofmorecarefulanalysisforseveralreasons.First,it providessomeinsight,althoughlimited,intowhattheinhabitantsofromeconsidered appropriateasitpertainedtoburialsinthemid fifthcentury.theprovisionsoffer markedlydifferentinformationfromtheliterarysourcespresentedinchapter3.if authentic,theyconstitutethenearesttoacontemporarysourceforfuneraryritualin archaicrome.theydocumenttheprohibitionofcertainritualsandthelimitationofsome expensesthatdonotfigureatallinlateraccountsregardingburials.thus,astudyofthe tenthtablecontributestoabetterunderstandingofearlyromanfuneraryritual. Second,thetenthtableraisesquestionsabouttheroleoffunerarylegislationinthe developmentofurbanareasandtheformationofcivicidentity.thepromulgationoflaw presupposestheexistenceofcomplexsocial,politicalandeconomicinstitutions.thereare numerousexamplesoffunerarylegislationinthecity statesofarchaicgreecethatsuggest suchlawswerecornerstonesofurbandevelopment.atrome,theprovisionsofthetenth tableindicatethatearlyromanlawmakershadsomeideaofwhatconstitutedthephysical spacewithinandoutsideofthecity,andtheysuggestthatburialwasakeyfactorin determiningthethoseareas.areanalysisofthetenthtablewithaviewtourban developmentinvestigatestheroleofburialinthedevelopmentoftheromancityinits formativestagesandallowsforcomparisonwithothercity statesinlatium. Third,acomparisonofthetenthtablewithotherlegislativetextsfromGreece,Ioniaand ItalyallowsforabetterunderstandingofRome'spositionwithinthewiderorbitsofcentral ItalyandtheMediterraneanworld.Funerarylegislationseemstohavebeenawidespread phenomenoninthecity statesoftheeasternmediterraneanduringthesixthandfifth 198 Crawford(1996, )isaconciseandcomprehensivesourceconcerningallaspects ofthetwelvetables.thisaccountincludesadiscussionofissuesofdebate,a reconstructionofthetext,acommentaryandabibliographyofmodernscholarship. 199 SeeespeciallyColonna(1977),Ampolo(1984)andToher(2005). 51

69 centuries.thesimilaritiesbetweenthetenthtableandsomeinscriptionsfromsouthern ItalyandGreecesuggestthattheseregionsbelongedtothesameculturalkoine,andthat thissharedcultureallowedideasaboutlegislation,amongotherthings,tocirculatewidely. Eachoftheselegaltextsrevealssimilaritiesinlanguageandcontent,whichsuggeststhat thelawsborrowfromasharedformula.however,eachinscriptionusesthisformulato addressspecificallylocalconcernsthatcanonlybeunderstoodinaregionalcontext. Afinalreasontorevisitthetenthtable,whichtakesintoaccountthekindsofevidence outlinedabove,istoencourageareconsiderationofthefundamentalroletheselawshave playedinmoderndiscourseconcerningearlyromanhistory.thisisthepointwherethe evidenceforfuneraryritual,legislationandurbanizationintersect.modernscholarship regularlyassumesthatthelaws,whichwerereportedlypromulgatedin450b.c.e.atrome, wereputintoeffectinalllatincitiesunderitsinfluence,andthatthisisthoughttobe visibleinthearchaeologicalrecordoftheperiodandregion.theprohibitionagainst intramuralburialcarriesthegreatestsignificanceinthisdiscussion,sinceitisbecauseof thisprovisionthattheromansarewidelybelievednottohaveburiedtheirdeceased withinthecity.extramuralburialisthusconsideredthemarkerofaromancity,afeature ofurbandevelopmentwhichcanbeinterpretedvariouslyasasymbolofsocial,political andethnicidentity.thishasimplicationsforthearchaeologicalmethodologyof urbanization,wherebycitylimitsareoftendefinedbythepresenceorabsenceofburials. 200 Complicatingthispicture,however,isthefactthatburialsarelocatedapartfrom settlementswellbeforethepromulgationofthetwelvetables.theironagecemeteriesat Osteriadell'OsaandCasteldiDecima,tonamejusttwoexamples,areclearlylocatedapart fromtheirassociatedsettlements,althoughatosteriadell'osathelocationoftheresident communityhasnotbeenidentified. 201 Equallyasinfluentialarethelawsrestrictingthebehaviorandtypesofgravegoodsat funerals,whichscholarshavethoughtexplainthedisappearanceofgravegoodsintombs throughoutlatium.theselaws,andthephenomenonvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecord, directlyinformthediscourseconcerningthedevelopmentofromeandtheexpansionof thecity'spowerintocentralitaly.putsimply,theemptygravesoflatiumareseenasa measureoftheextentofrome'spowerinlatiumduringthearchaicperiod.thischapter, andthosethatfollow,investigatetheroleofthelegislationandthematerialremainsin determiningtherelationshipsbetweenthesecity states.itmovesawayfroman understandingofromanhistoryasoneofeitherallegianceorresistancetoaroman authority,andtowardsrecognizingthevarioussocial,politicalandethnicidentitiesthat mightbetterinformourunderstandingofthedevelopmentofandrelationsbetweenlatin communities. 200 See,inparticular,thecaseforSatricumintheso calledpost archaicperiod,discussedin Chapter Osteriadell'Osa:BiettiSestieri1992aand199b.CasteldiDecima:Holloway1994,114 20;CLP

70 Theprimarydifficultyisthatanyconclusionsdependuponthereliabilityoftheancient sourcesregardingthetwelvetables.istressattheoutsetthattheoriginaldocumentsdo notsurvive,andmodernreconstructionsofthetablesarebasedonfragmentspreservedin theworksoflaterauthors.mostscholarstrustinthevalidityofthedocument,however.i operatehereundertheunderstandingthattheancientsourcesgenerallyrecordthetwelve TablesastheywereknownintheMiddleandLateRepublic,butadmitthatitwouldbe unwisetorelytooheavilyonthisdocumentasasourceofevidence.thefragmentsare oftensodeeplyembeddedinphilosophicaltreatisesandjuristictextsthattheymaybe morerevealingaboutwhatlaterauthorsthoughtabouttheirearlyhistory.however,i considerthepromulgationofthelawswithintherealmofpossibilityinfifth centuryrome, andmaintainthattheyareworthconsidering,eveniftheyappeartobemoretheproduct ofthelaterepublic. Whatimmediatelyfollowsisanaccountofthetransmissionandreconstructionofthetext ofthetwelvetables(4b).thisisfollowedbyapresentationandtranslationofthetextof thetenthtable(4c).inthissectionicomparetheprovisionstootherexamplesoffunerary legislationfromarchaicgreeceandionia,inordertoestablishahistoricalandcultural contextforthetenthtable.then,iturninwardandanalyzethetenthtableinthecontextof archaicromeanditalyinordertounderstandtheroleoffunerarylegislationinthe developmentofthehistoricalcity.iconcludewithasummaryofmyprincipalarguments andbriefdiscussionoftheimplicationsoftheseconclusionsforthestudyofearlyrome (4d) 4b.TransmissionandReconstructionoftheTwelveTables ThetransmissionoftheTwelveTablesfromtheiroriginalformtotheirreconstructionin moderneditionsisacomplicatedissue.therearetwophasesoftransmission,thefirst fromthetextproducedin450b.c.e.totheancientsources,andthesecondfromthe ancientsourcestothemanuscriptwitnesses.inlightofthefactthattheoriginaldocument doesnotsurvive,theancientsourcesconstitutethemainbodyofevidenceforthetwelve Tables.TheancientsourceswereassuredoftheantiquityandaccuracyoftheTwelve Tables,andregardedthemwithreverence. 202 Cicerosuggestsonseveraloccasionsthat someformofthelawssurvivedintothelaterepublic(deleg.2.9,2.59;deor.1.195), 203 andtheworksofromanjurists,particularlythesixth centuryc.e.digestofjustinian, containnumerousreferencestothetwelvetables.itisclearthattheprovisionswerenot alwaysunderstood,anditislikelythatsomemodernizationoccurredtothetextover 202 Cic.Deor.1.195;Cic.Deleg.2.9,1.18;Livy Crawford(1996, )notesthat bythetimeofcicero'sfloruit,thetwelvetableshaddiminishedinimportance.thereafter, referencestothelawsoccurprimarilyinantiquarianandjuristicsources.moreoftenthan not,thesereferencesattestreverenceratherthansomespecificknowledge. 203 SeealsoCic.Deor

71 time. 204 ManyofthestatuteswereobsoletebyCicero'sday,yettheTablesretainedtheir importanceinthelaterdevelopmentofromanlaw. 205 Mostscholarstodayacceptthattheancientsourcesgenerallyrecordtheprovisionsofthe TwelveTablesastheywereknownintheMiddleandLateRepublic. 206 Theprimaryreason istheuniformityofthefragmentsastheyappearinlateraccounts.noneofthemany sourcesforthetwelvetablesofferseriouscontradictions,andtheconflictsthatdoarise arethoseexpectedinadenseliterarytradition,includingmistakesandadjustmentsin language.asecondreasonsupportingtheantiquityofthelawsisthesimilarityinlanguage andcontentofthetwelvetableswiththeso calledchartersoflatincoloniesdatingfrom themiddlerepubliconward. 207 TheLexSpoletina,LexLucerina,LexOscaBantiaandLex ColoniaeGenetivaecontainarchaicwordsandrefertoconceptsthatappearborrowedfrom thetwelvetables. 208 Crawford,whobelievesthattheselaws,orportionsofthem,canbe datedfromapproximately334b.c.e.onwards,viewsthisasevidenceforthediffusionof thetwelvetablesincentralitalybythemid tolatefourthcentury. 209 Thedatingofall theselaws,however,iscontroversial. ModernreconstructionsoftheTwelveTablesarebasedondirectquotationsandindirect referencesintheworksoflaterauthors.scholarsinthenineteenthcenturywerethefirstto assembleandarrangethesefragmentsinawaythatremainedconventionalforalong time. 210 Generally,thefragmentsweregroupedaccordingtosubjectmatterandassignedto aspecifictable.themostrecenteditionofthetwelvetables,publishedinromanstatutes inthemid nineteen nineties,hasrevisedthetraditionalorderingandomittedfromthetext thoseprovisionsdrawnfromindirectreferences. 211 Theeditorsincludeasstatutesonly thosetestimoniathattheliteraryandjuristicsourcesquotedirectly,usingipsissimaverba. Theyrejectexplicitlytheapproachesofpreviousscholarswhoincludedasprovisions 204 Coleman1996, Forsythe2005, ThisistheviewarticulatedbyCrawford(1996,556 7).Themainmonographsand volumesofthepasttwentyyearsonthesubjectofearlyrome(cornell1995;smith1996; Forsythe2005;Raflaaub2005)andtheTwelveTables(Humbert2005)donotquestionthe authenticityofthetwelvetables. 207 Crawford(2011aand2011b).RegardingtheLexOscaTabulaeBantinae:mostscholars datetheinscriptioneithertolatesecondcentury,aboutthreedecadesbeforesocialwar,or totheearlyfirstcentury,duringthesullanorpost SullanperiodatRome.Crawfordisnot explicitabouthisreasonsfordatingthelawatleastacenturyearlier. 208 LexSpoletina:NSc1937,28 36.LexLucerina:Bodel1994.LexOscaBantia:Crawford 1996, ;Chelotti,2007.LexColoniaeGenetivae:Crawford1996, Crawford Warmington1979, Crawford(1996,557)followsthemethodologyofJacoby(1923)andEdelstein(1972, xv xix),whoinsistupontheimportanceofincludingonlythosetextsdirectlyquotedby laterauthors.theyrecognizetheimportanceofstudyingattestedreferences,butmaintain thatthereislittletonoplaceinthereconstructionofabasictextforunattestedallusions. 54

72 indirectreferencestothetwelvetables,namelywordsandphrasesfoundinlaterlawthat werethoughttogobacktothetwelvetables.inmyview,thiseditionoffersthebestand mostcriticalpresentationofthetext,andistheversionusedhere. ThereremainssomedisagreementregardingthereconstructionoftheTwelveTables,and certainscholarsmaintainthatitisdifficult,ifnotimpossible,toknowwhatformthelaws originallytook. 212 Theargumentstemsfromthefactthattheancientsourcesmakevery littlementionoftheorderofthetwelvetables.onlyafewstatutescanbeattributedto specifictables,mostnotablytheprovisionsofthetenthtable,andafewotherstotablesii, IVandXI XII. 213 OntwooccasionsCiceroproduceslistsofthecontentsofportionsofthe TwelveTables(Topica26 7;Deor.1.173),andthesehavecontributedtotheconventional arrangementsofthelawsinmodernscholarship.althoughtheevidencefromciceromakes clearthatthetwelvetableshadacertainorder,itispossibletomaintainthatthisdoesnot reflecttheirarrangementatthetimeofpromulgationin450b.c.e.crawfordviewssuch argumentsasinconsistentandignorantoftheevidencegiventwiceinciceroregardingthe subjectmatter. 214 TheharshestcriticisperhapsFögen,whodenouncestheTwelveTables asaninventionofciceroandotherauthorsinthelatefirstcentury. 215 Sheusesasgrounds torejecttheentiredocumenttwointrusivestatutes,whichscholarshadalreadyconsidered spuriousandremovedfromthereconstructedtext c.TheTenthtable PresentationoftheTextandTranslation ThetenthoftheTwelveTablesdoesnotsufferfromthesameproblemsoftransmission andreconstructionassomeoftheothers,sinceitispreservedalmostcompletelyasaseries offragmentsincicero(deleg ).Thetextcontainsanumberofprohibitionsand regulationsregardingritualexpenditureandbehavioratfunerals,whichconstitutethe earliestrecordedevidenceforfuneraryritualinromeandlatium.thestatutesofthe Tenthtablefallbroadlyunderthecategoryofpubliclaw,andtheyarenotablefortheir 212 Guarino1991;Ferrary Crawford(1996,564)commentsontheseattributions.Cicero(Deleg.2.59)states clearlywhathebelieveswerethecontentsofthetenthtable.dionysiusofhalicarnassus ( )attributesthestatuteregardingthetriplesaleofasontothefourthtableand Festus(336L)designatesasthesecondprovisionofthesecondtableastatuteregarding procedure. 214 Crawford(1996,556),alsodiscountsNap'shypothesisthattheTwelveTableswere createdin225b.c.e.(1925). 215 Fögen(2005)refersspecificallytoprovisionsVI.7andXII.5.Crawford(2011)criticizes herclaims. 216 Crawford

73 religiouscharacter. 217 Whatfollowsisthemostrecentandreliablepresentationand translationofthetext,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.>>> 217 Ampolo(1984,73),whocitesthejuristGaius(2.3 4)asevidenceforthereligious characteroftombsandburials:diviniiurissuntvelutiressacraeetreligiosae.sacraesunt quaediissuperisconsecrataesunt;religiosaequaediismanibusrelictaesunt."ofdivinelaw therearesacredthingsjustasreligiousones.sacredthingsarethosewhicharededicated tothegodsabove;religiousarethosewhicharelefttothegodsbelow." 218 Crawford1996,

74 Ampoloremarksthattheprovisionsofthetenthtableareorganizedaccordingtothe followinggeneraloutline:regulationsregardingthelocationofthetombandthe preparationofthepyre(x.1 2);regulationsregardingthefuneralprocession(X.3 5);rules concerningthefunerarybanquet(x.6);instructionsforofferingstothedeceased(x.6); restrictionsregardingitemsplacedintotheburial(x.7 8);thelegalstatusofburialgrounds (X.9 10). 219 Theessentialcharacterofthelawsisrestrictiveratherthanprescriptive,thatis tosay,theylimitcertainaspectsofbehaviorratherthandescribeproperprotocolat funerals. 220 Thelawsdonotrepresenteveryaspectoffuneraryritual;instead,they documentveryspecificconcernsdirectedtowardtheproperlocationandstatusofburials, andcertaintypesofritualbehavior. TheHistoricalContextoftheTenthTable Therestrictivenatureofthetenthtableexhibitsremarkableconformitywithother examplesoffunerarylegislationfromthecity statesofarchaicgreece. 221 Theepigraphic evidenceincludesaregulationofthelabyadaitribeindelphi, 222 asecondfromioulison Keos, 223 andathird 224 andfourth 225 fromgortynoncrete,allofwhichdatefromthelate sixthtoearlyfourthcenturies.theliteraryevidenceprimarilyderivesfromthehistorical narrativeofsolonatathens,butincludestraditionsaboutanumberofotherlawmakersin city statesthroughoutarchaicgreeceandionia. Inregardtotheinscriptions,allfourcontainregulationsonfunerarybehavior.The inscriptionsfromdelphiandioulisarethemostextensive,andbothcontaintextsthatare older,whichwerepreservedonthefinalinscriptions. 226 TheIoulisinscriptionisdatedto theendofthefifthcentury;thatfromdelphidatestoabout400b.c.e.,althoughpartsofit aredatedtothesecondhalfofthesixthcentury. 227 TheinscriptionfromIoulislists restrictionsontheexpenditureofgarmentsforthedeceasedandliquidsforthefuneral, limitationsonthebehaviorofmourners(particularlyofwomen),andinstructionsfor sacrificeandpurification. 228 TheregulationsfromDelphirestricttheexpenditureforthe 219 Ampolo1984, Toher Ampolo1984;Toher1991, CIDI9;Koerner1993,no.47;Frisone2000, IGXII5.593;Koerner1993,no.60;Frisone2000, ICretIV,46B;Koerner1993,no.137;Frisone2000, ICretIV,76;Koerner1993,no.150;Frisone2000, Blok(2006,211)addsthattherewasawidespreadrevisionoflawsinGreeceattheend ofthefifthcentury.atathens,themotivationseemtohavebeenpolitical,butthisisless certainforothercity states.therevisionstotheinscriptionspresentedherearelimited largelytotheamountsofmoneynottobeexceeded,whichwerealteredtoreflectcurrent valuesincoinage. 227 Blok2006, IGXII5.593;Frisone2000,

75 garmentsburiedwiththedeceased,thelamentationduringtheprocession,andthe sacrifice. 229 ThelawsofGortyn,onCrete,datedtothemid fifthcentury,offerregulations onthetransportationofthedeceasedandonritualpurificationafterdeath. 230 AcloserinspectionofthelanguageofthetextsofthetenthtableandtheGreeklawsreveals evengreatersimilarities. 231 Thethirdprovisionofthetenthtable,whichlimitsfunerary garmentstothreeveilsandapurpletunic,andthenumberoffluteplayerstoten,finds readycomparandaintheinscriptionsfromioulisanddelphiandtheliteraryaccounts regardingthelawsofsolon.bothinscriptionsrestrictthenumberofgarments:thelaw fromioulisstatesthatthecorpseistobeburiedinpreciselythreegarments,whichareto bewhiteincolor, 232 whilethelawfromdelphirequiresthegarmentofthedeceased(here, chlainê)belightincolorandonlyonestrômabeplacedunderthecorpse. 233 Accordingto Plutarch,Solonregulatedthenumberofgarmentswornbyfemalemournersandthe deceased:neitherwastowearmorethanthreehimatia(sol.21.6).thelanguageofx.3 makesunclearwhetherthegarmentswereintendedforthedeceasedorthewomenin mourning. 234 Inallcasesthewrappingofthedeceasedinashroudseemstosuggestthat suchclothswereimportantgiftsforthedeceased. Thestatuteregardinglacerationandlamentationfoundinthetenthtable(X.4)hassome parallelsinarchaicgreeklaws.thelawofthelabyadaiindelphiprohibitswailingandthe singingofdirges(thrênein)underveryspecificcircumstances.thereistobenowailing outsidethehousebeforearrivalatthegrave,northesingingofdirgesandwailing (ototuzein)forthosealreadyburied;therewillbenolamentation(oimôzein)orwailing (ototuzein)onthefollowingdayoratthetenthyearcelebrations.thelawofioulis emphasizessilenceduringthefuneraryprocessiontothegrave, 235 whichisaprohibition Platonotesaswell(Leg.960a1 2).BasedontheinformationrecordedinCiceroand Plutarch,thelawsofSolonprohibitedthetearingofcheeksandimposedlimitationson singingandlamentation CIDI9;Frisone2000, ICretIV,46B;ICretIV, Toher2005;Blok IGXII5.593;Frisone2000,57 102;Blok2006,208, CIDI9;Frisone2000,103 26;Blok2006,206.Threeveilswereusedforthelayingout ofthecorpseingreece:theendymatheepiblêmaandthestrôma.inagreekcontext,these garmentswerelikelyusedastheshroudsforthedeceasedintheprothesis. 234 Flach(2004,220),thinksthatthereciniamustrefertoasquareclothplacedoverthe headandshoulders.hebasesthisinterpretationonstatementsoffestusandnonius,as wellasthedepictionofsuchaclothonawallpaintingfromagraveinruvo. 235 IGXII5, Blok2006,

76 AccordingtoToher,funerarylegislationisalientotheItalictradition. 237 Apartfromthe lawsofthetenthtable,therearenoexamplesoffunerarylegislationatromeuntilthetime ofthelaterepublic.eventhen,suchlawsseemtopreservethecharacterofthetenthtable. PlutarchcreditsSullawiththeintroductionoflawsrestrictingextravaganceatfunerals (Sull.35),andthesemayhaveconstitutedaportionofhissumptuarylawsof81B.C.E., aimedlargelyatcurbingextravagantentertainment. 238 ThelexColoniaeGenetivaeIuliaeseu Ursonensis,alatefirst centurycharterforthecolonyofgenetivajulia,preservesfunerary regulationsthatrestrictthelocationofburials. 239 Twootherinscriptionsfromlate republicanrome,theedictofsentiusandthelexlucerinaseemconcernedwithpreventing publicareasfrombecominglocireligiosithroughburialactivities. 240 Toherbelievesthatthe relativescarcityoffunerarylegislationinitaly,whencomparedtothenumerousexamples fromarchaicgreece,makesthegreekcharacterofthetenthtablemorestriking. 241 TheconnectionbetweenthelawsofthetenthtableandGreekfunerarylegislationwasfirst drawninthelatefirstcenturyb.c.e.,andtosomeextentthishasaffectedthecurrent debateregardingthelevelofgreekinfluenceonthelaws. 242 Theargumentstemsmainly fromcicero'sclaimthatthelawsofthetenthtablewereborrowedfromsolon(deleg.2.59, 2.64)andfindssomesupportintheinscriptionsoffunerarylawsfromarchaicGreekcitystates.CicerostatesonthreeoccasionsinDelegibusthattheprovisionsofthetenthtable weredrawnfromsolon:first,at2.59,whenhewritesthatsomeprovisionsweretranslata desolonisferelegibus; 243 second,at2.64,whenhesaysthatextravaganceinexpenditure andmourningweresolonislegesublatasunt,quamlegemeisdempropeverbisnostri decemviriindecimamtabulamconiecerunt; 244 andthird,at2.64,whenheclaimsthatthe provisionregardingthethreeveils(x.3)andmostoftherestweresolonissunt,andin regardtomourning(x.4)wereveroexpressaverbissunt. 245 Cicero'srepeatedassertionsontheSolonianoriginofthetenthtableareconfidentand seembasedonhisowncomparisonofthetwodocuments.thereisnoreasontobelieve thatheisdeliberatelymisleading. 246 However,boththeancienthistoriographicand 237 Toher(2005,272)statesthatsimilarlegislationdoesnotoccuratRomeuntilthelex Corneliain81B.C.E.,buttheselawsaresumptuaryratherthanfunerary. 238 Toher2005, Crawford1996,424,LXIII. 240 Bodel Toher2005, Wieacker1967,1971and1988;Toher2005;Eder "mostlyborrowedfromthelawsofsolon." 244 "abolishedbyalawofsolon,whichlawourdecemvirsappliedinthetenthtablewith nearlythesamewords." 245 "wereofsolon"and"werecertainlyexpressedwithhiswords." 246 Plut.Sol.21;Toher2005;Siewert1978;Ducos1978.Theearliestaccountsregardingthe creationofthetwelvetablesmakenomentionofathensoranyothergreekcityasa sourceofinfluence(diod.12.26;cic.derep.2.61.),andciceroevendisparagesgreek attemptsatlawmakingincomparisontoromanones(deor.1.197).ogilvie(1965,449 50) 59

77 modernacademictraditionsregardingsolonasahistorical,politicalandliteraryfigurein archaicathensarecomplex,andtheinterpretationofhislawsiscloselyboundwiththe studyofthetenthtable.theoriginaltextofsolon'slawsdoesnotsurvive;mostofthe referencestohisfunerarylawsappearintextswrittenatleasttwocenturiesafterhis floruit.thetwomainsourcesareciceroandplutarch,butanumberoftextsfromthefourth centuryb.c.e.uptothefifthcenturyc.e.containfragmentsofthislegislation.modern scholarsdisagreeonthereliabilityofthefragmentsofthelawssincethereareatleasttwo centuriesbetweenthetimethefigureknownassolonreportedlycodifiedthelawstothe timetheyappearinthesources. 247 ItisaseriousproblemthatthemainbodyofevidenceforboththefunerarylawsofSolon andthetenthtablecomesfromthesamesource,cicero'sdelegibus,inwhichtheauthor impliesthatbothsetsoflawsareessentiallyoneandthesame.forgreekhistorians, Cicero'sclaimshavebothallowedforandposedproblemsinreconstructionsofSolon's laws.forscholarsofearlyrome,thesameassertionshaveencouragedthestudyofthe developmentofthecitythroughthelensoftheriseoftheathenianpolis.consequently,the focusofmuchscholarshiphasfocusedonarguingtheeconomic,socialandpolitical circumstancesforthepromulgationofthetwelvetables,basedonwhatisknownabout theeconomiccrisisinsixth centuryathens.althoughtherearesomeparallelsinlanguage betweenthegreekandromanfunerarylegislation,aconnectionbetweenthetwoseemsto havebeencicero'sownidea.cicero'sreferencesareindirectonly:heneverincludesdirect quotationsofthesolonianlaws.whatismore,theseallusionsaresodeeplyembeddedin Cicero'sowndiscussionofRomanfuneraryritualthatitisdifficult,ifnotimpossible,to distinguishbetweenthegreekandromanelements. creditstheantiquariansex.aeliuspaetus,whowroteacommentaryonthetwelvetables, forbeingthefirsttopointoutthesimilaritiesbetweenearlygreeklawsandthetwelve Tables.Hisworkisnolongerextant,butitmayhaveinspiredtwoseparatetraditions,one connectingthecodificationofromanlawtohermodorusofephesus,andanothertosolon. Ogilvie(1965,450)suggeststhatL.AeliusStiloPraeconius,Cicero'smentor,first associatedthetwelvetableswiththelawsofsolon.itisprobablethatthetraditionofthe embassiestoathensandcitiesofmagnagraeciaappearedatthesametimeandwasbased ontheseinitialobservations.thesetheories,however,remainspeculativeandaremainly argumentsfromsilence(crawford1996,560). 247 Ruschenbusch(1966)isthefundamentalworkofscholarshiponSolonianlaw,whichis acollectionofthefragmentsofsolon'slaws.hiscategorizationoffragmentsasgenuineor spuriousiscontroversial(stroud1979)andhisfragmentsarenotverbatimquotations,but descriptionsinlaterauthors.nonetheless,mostscholarsacceptthereliabilityofthe traditionconcerningthelawsofsolon.formorerecentscholarshipseescafuro(2006), Blok(2006)andRhodes(2006).Blok(2006,197 9)providesabriefsummaryofthe centralissuesconcerningthereliabilityofthelawsofsolon.otherpapersfromthesame volume(blokandlardinois2006)discussthehistoricalreliabilityofsolonasapoet, lawgiverandstatesman. 60

78 TheancientnarrativeconnectingthefunerarylawsatRometothoseatAthensbelongs morebroadlytoaliterarytraditionregardingearlylawsandlawmakersthatwas particularlylivelyinthelatefirstcenturyb.c.e.thesereferencesarebriefandoftenvague, butcontaincontentsimilartotheinscriptionsandthetraditionofsolon.theindividualsto whomtheselawsarecreditedremainshadowyfigures,buttheirenactmentsaregenerally consideredareliablepartofthehistiographictradition. 248 Stobaeus,writinginthesixth centuryc.e.,reportsthatcharondasofcatana,inthesixthcentury,putforthalaw substitutinglamentationwithayearlyofferingfromtheharvest,astherequiredhonorto thedeceased. 249 CicerorecordsthatPittakosofMytilene,intheearlysixthcentury,forbade non familymembersfromattendingafuneral(deleg.2.66).diodorussiculusreportsthat atthetimeofgelon'sdeathin478therewasalawalreadyinplaceprohibitingelaborate funerals( ).DiodorusdoesnotattributetheenactmentofthelawtoGelon;it seemstohavebeeninstitutedbysomeunknownfigureinthesixthorearlyfifthcentury. 250 InarchaicSparta,Lycurgusiscreditedwiththeinstitutionoffunerarylegislationlimiting funeraryexpenditureandmourning,andencouragingburialwithintheurbanarea. 251 Itis worthnoting,however,thatlycurgusdidnotwritedowntheselaws,andheiscredited withanumberofotherinnovationsinsparta.althoughthesereferencesaremore revealingofthehistoriographictraditionconcerningearlylawsandlawmakers,they suggestthatthetraditionoffunerarylegislationwaswidespreadinarchaicsocieties. 252 CrawfordemploysinscriptionsfromRomeandsouthernItalytodrawwiderinferences abouttheroleoflawmakinginthearchaicsocietiesofthemediterraneanworld. 253 The firstexampleisalegalinscriptionfromtortorathatdatestoapproximately500b.c.e.and iswritteninanearlyitaliclanguageintheachaeanscript. 254 Theinscriptionwasfound neararoadthatsurroundedalatearchaiccemetery.thesecondexampleconstitutesthe inscriptiononthecippusofthelapisnigeratrome,whichmanyscholarsbelieverepresents sacredlaw. 255 CrawfordobservessimilaritiesinthecompositionoftheTortoraandlapis nigerinscriptions,andconnectsthemtoalegalinscriptionfromchiosorerythrai(c ),inIonia. 256 Allthreetextswereinscribedonstele,verticallyonmultiplesides,andin boustrophedon. 257 Oneachstelethebeginningofanewclauseisindicatedbyabreakinthe boustrophedon.thesesimilaritiesledcrawfordtosuggestthattheinhabitantsofrome 248 Szegedy Maszak Stobaeus Toher(1991,168)speculateswhetherDiocles,whoisknownfromDiodorus( ) forproducingalawcodeinthelatefifthcentury,wasalsoresponsibleforthelawlimiting funeraryextravagance.heconsidersthisunlikelysinceitisunclearwhatcomprised Diocles'legislation. 251 Plut.Lyc Toher1991, Crawford Crawford2011,Imagines,BlandaI. 255 Interpretationofthetextremainscontroversial.SeeChapter vaneffenterreandruzé(1994 5,I.61)presenttheChios/Erythraiinscription. 257 ThestelafromChiosorErythriahasahorizontalinscriptiononthefourthside. 61

79 andtortoralearnedhowtoinscribelaws,notdirectlyfromionia,butfromtheirionian neighborsinitaly.hearguesthattheioniancolonyofvelia,inmagnagraecia,couldhave servedasapointofaccessforthetortorainscription,whereasromecouldhavedrawn inspirationfromthegreekcolonyatcumae. ItisimpossibletoproveonthebasisofthisevidencealonewhethertheinhabitantsofItaly learnedtoinscribelegaltextsfromioniancontactsinitaly.theequallyspeciousargument hasbeenmadepointingtothegreeksofmagnagraeciaastheprimarysource. 258 However, theevidenceissuggestive,andattheveryleastrevealsthelevelofinterconnectedness betweenthecity statesofthemediterraneanworldinthefifthcentury,particularlyinthe regionsofcentralandsouthernitaly.thisconclusionappearssupportedbythe archaeologicalrecordofothercontexts. 259 AsCrawfordarticulates,thiswasaworldof borrowingapproachestocomposingandinscribinglaws,andofborrowingandmodifying alphabets. 260 Itshouldnotbesurprising,then,thatthereareparallelsincontentand languagebetweenthetwelvetablesandgreeklaws,sincethemixtureofitalic,greekand IonianelementsisalreadyattestedinanumberofinscriptionsfromItaly.Whatismore, thepresenceofsuchinscriptions,especiallythoseofalegalnature,demonstratesthatthe promulgationofthetwelvetableswaspossible,ifnotprobable,infifthcenturyrome. AlthoughtheseattemptstodiscernthelevelofGreekorIonianinfluenceonthetenthtable helptodetermineabroadhistoricalcontextforthelegislation,theytendtooverlookthat theprovisionsaddressparticularlyromanconcerns.infact,thelanguageandcontentof thetextareveryroman. 261 ThepurpletunicandthetenflautistslistedinX.3seemtobea reflectionofromanpractice. 262 TheGreeklawsrestrictspecificallywhitegarmentsand makenomentionofflautistsatfunerals;nothingisknownabouttheroleofflautistsat Romanfunerals,however. 263 Theprohibitionsagainstthepreparationofthepyre(X.2)and thecollectionofbones(x.5)havenoparallel,nordothesanctionstoincludeinburialsa crown(x.7)orteethjoinedwithgold(x.8).perhapsmostsignificantarethelaws concerningthelocationandstatusofthetombs.thegreeklawsdonotexpressthesame concernwithdefiningthespaceinwhichburialswereallowed.analysisoftheremaining provisionsofthetwelvetablesrevealsthat,whiletherearesomeparallelstogreek legislation,theyremainspecifictothesocialandeconomicconditionsatrome Wieacker1971, InChapters5and6Iarguethatthereisafairamountofarchaeologicalevidencefrom othercontextstosupportthisclaim. 260 Crawford2011, Blok(2006,214 5)makesthepointthatthetenthtableisveryRoman. 262 Blok2006,214;Dyck2004, Reiner1938,67 69.Graf(2002,117)discusseshowflutesorpipesweremore commonlyusedingreekantiquityatsacrifices. 264 Crawford(1996,560)suggeststhefollowing:III;VII.2 5,8and9;VIII Henotes, however,thatmanyoftheseclaimsarespecious.theselawsaresimilartosomeexamples ofathenianlegislationfoundinliterarysources.themajorityareconnectedtothelawsof Solon.GaiusspecificallyattributessomeprovisionstoSolon(VII.2;VIII.14 15);Festusmay 62

80 Thenatureofthetenthtableinmodernscholarship Itisclearthattheformalizationoflawmarksasignificantstepinthedevelopmentof archaicsocieties,andthatthisoccurredinseveralgreekcity statesduringthesixthand fifthcenturiesandprobablyatromeinthemid fifth. 265 Itisalsoevidentthatfunerary legislationconstitutedasignificantportionoftheseearlylaws,andmayhaveevenbeenthe mostwidespreadformoflawinarchaicsocietiesofgreekandromanantiquity. 266 The lawsrevealremarkableconformitydespitetheirgeographicandchronologicalbreadth. Thissuggestsfunerarylegislationwasawidespreadphenomenonthatrequiresan explanationapplicabletoallarchaicsocieties. 267 Thisdoesnotexcludeconsiderationof thoseimmediatelocalcircumstancesthatcontributedtoparticularprovisionsorthe promulgationoflaw,however.thedifficultyisthat,withrome,itisimpossibleto reconstructthehistoricalcircumstancesthatledtosuchlegislation. Thereisnoconsensusinmodernscholarshipconcerningthemotivationforthefunerary legislationofthetenthtable.theconventionalinterpretationofthelawsviewsthem merelyasoneaspectofsumptuarylegislation,aimedatcurbingtheexcessivedisplaysof theeliteinordertopromoteisonomyamongthearistocracyandalleviatetensionbetween eliteandnonelitegroups. 268 Lenelfirstpresentedthisnotionintheearlytwentieth century, 269 whichanumberofscholarshavesubsequentlyrestatedandmodified.wieacker addedthatthetenthtablewasenactedduringatimeofpoliticalandeconomiccrisisat Romeandwasintendedtoreducethetypesofeliteconspicuousconsumptionthat encouragedsocialconflictwiththeplebeianclass. 270 Ederarguedthatthelawsmadefew concessionstotheplebeiansandinsteadwerepromulgatedintheinterestofaristocratic self preservation. 271 Colonna,acceptingsuchargumentsinsupportofapoliticaland economicmotivationforfunerarylegislation,connectedthedocumentaryevidencetothe archaeology:hearguedthattherestrictionsofthetenthtableexplainedthedisappearance ofgravegoodsinthearchaeologicalrecordofromeandlatiumduringthearchaic period. 272 ThisunderstandingisheavilyindebtedtothescholarshipofarchaicGreeksocietiesthat connectedtheriseofluxurygoodsfromthegreekeasttothepoliticalcrisisamongthe aristocracyinthesixthcentury.thepromulgationofsumptuarylaws,ofwhichfunerary legislationconstitutedapart,wasconsideredintegraltotheresolutionofthesociopolitical havesuggestedgreekinfluenceinviii.13;vii.8findsaparallelinplato,lawsviii,844c d; SeealsoCrawford(1996,560). 265 Forsythe2005, Toher1991, Toher1991, Forinstance,Bonamente(1980). 269 Lenel1905, Wieacker1967,313.ThisviewissharedbyvanBrechem(1966,745 8). 271 Eder2005,n.69andn Colonna

81 crisisofarchaiccity states. 273 ScholarsofearlyRome,influencedbythisapproach,trusted intheancientaccountsthatunderstoodthepromulgationofthetwelvetableswithinthe contextoftheconflictoftheorders. 274 Accordingtothisnarrative,themembersofthe rulingaristocraticeliteestablishedabodyoftenmentosetupaseriesoflawsthatwould allowtheplebeians,ahithertoexcludedsocialclass,agreaterdegreeofpoliticalauthority; therecordingoflawsontwelvebronzetabletsconstitutedapermanentcodetoresolve disputesandregulatebehaviorinawaythatwasexpedientfortheboththepatricianand plebeiangroups.theregulationoffuneraryexpenditurewouldhaveservedtodecrease thoseopportunitiesofeliteostentationthatcouldinflamesocialtension.thebroadoutline betweenthegreekandromancreationoflawissosimilar,however,thatthenarrative concerningthecreationofthetwelvetablesseemsmoreaninventionofthefirstcentury thanahistoricalreality.forthecaseofrome,thereisverylittleevidencetoproveeither waythatthetwelvetableswerebornefromsociopoliticalunrest.itisequallypossible, andequallyspeculative,thattheyrepresenttherecordingoflong standingpractices. Alternately,theinstitutionoflawmayhaveprovokedpoliticaldissentwhennoneorlittle hadexistedbefore. 275 Morerecently,scholarshaveproventhatthereisverylittlereasontoviewfunerarylaws solelyasacomponentofsumptuarylawscreatedtoresolveapoliticalcrisis. 276 Sumptuary lawswereregularlyenactedinpre modernsocieties,andwereoftendirectedtoward limitingexpensesonfunerals,foodandclothing.theselimitationswerenotintendedto promotevirtuesofself restraint,astheauthorsofphilosophicaltreatisesbelieve,butwere intendedtocurbcustomsthatwerethoughttobeundesirable. 277 However,thereisno evidencefromthetenthtablethattheromansweretryingtolimitexpenditureinany meaningfulway. 278 Thelawsregulatecertainaspectsofbehavior,suchaslamentationand circumpotatio,andrestrictthevalueofsomegoodstobeplacedinthegrave,suchasgold denturesandcrowns,buttheyleaveunmentionedawholehostofotheraspectsthat providedopportunitiesforextravagantdisplay,includingsacrifice,tombsize,numberof mournersandmostgravegoods. Scholars,againlookingtowardsstudiesofarchaicGreeceforanalternativesolution, connectedtheprovisionsofthetenthtabletotheprocessofurbandevelopment. 279 Gernet firstnotedtheimportanceoffunerarylegislationinthedevelopmentofearlygreekpoleis, recognizingthatfuneraryandsumptuarylawspresupposedacentralizedauthority. 280 ScholarsofearlyRomehavesubsequentlyarguedthattheroleoffunerarylegislationwas 273 SeeespeciallyMazzarino(1947,193 4,214 6). 274 Lenel1905;Wieacker Forsythe2005, Sourvinou Inwood1983;Ampolo1984;Toher1991and Blok2006, Shapiro(1991,630 1)andBlok(2006,230)arriveatthesameconclusionsforthelaws ofsolon. 279 Ampolo1984;Cornell1995, ;Smith1996, GernetandBoulanger1932,

82 fundamentaltothedevelopmentofthehistoricalcity. 281 Funerarylawspresumethe existenceofcomplexsociopoliticalinstitutionsand,intheincreasinglysophisticatedand competitivesocietyatrome,membersofthearistocraticelitewereredirectingvisible displaysofwealthawayfromintermentingraves(wheretheybecameinvisible)andto morepubliclyvisibleformsofmonumentalconstruction,suchassanctuaries. 282 Thearena ofcompetitivedisplaythusshiftedawayfromburialandtowardscitiesandsanctuaries. 283 Thistheoryisinsomemeasuresupportedbythearchaeologicalrecord,wheregravegoods disappearandtheexamplesofmonumentalarchitectureinothercontextsincreases substantially. 284 However,thechangesinfuneraryritualpredatethepromulgationofthe laws;asdiscussedinchapter5,thisprocessbeginsasearlyastheseventhcentury. Theproblemwiththisargumentisthatitimpliesadirectrelationshipbetweenthe institutionofthetenthtable,thedisappearanceofgravegoodsandtheurbandevelopment ofromeandlatium.itsuggeststhattheromansenactedfunerarylegislationinorderto redirecttheeconomicsurplusoftheelitetowardscivicmonumentality.thereisno evidencethatthelimitsimposedbythetenthtablewouldhavediminishedtheoverallcost ofburialandleftthesurvivingfamilywithanexcessofresourcesandthatthesefamilies wouldhaveexpendedthoseresourcesonmonumentalconstruction.thistheoryalso overlooksthefactthatthewealthyatromecouldhavecontinuedtoenjoyopulentfunerals, eveniftheyabidedbytherestrictionsofthetenthtable.whatismore,ifthearenaof competitivedisplayhadshiftedtothepublicsphere,thenthetenthtablecouldbeexpected torestrictextravaganceinthoseareas,ratherthanfunerals. 285 Itisoftenremarkedthattheprovisionsofthetenthtablearereligiousinnature,butitis rarelydiscussedwhatthisactuallymeans. 286 TheInstitutionesGai,writteninthemidsecondcenturyC.E.,statethatallthingswereclassifiedaccordingtowhethertheycouldbe ownedprivatelyornot(2.1),andamongthosethingsthatcouldnotbeprivatelyowned, wereresreligiosae.resreligiosaeconsistedoftombs,sepulchers,mausolea,cenotaphsand otherlandusedforburial,butcertainconditionshadtobemetinorderforaburialground tobeclassifiedasreligiosus.thisstatementhasledanumberofscholarstointerpretthe lawsofthetenthtableasasetofreligiouslaws,sincetheypertaintomattersofburial, whichwerelaterconsideredresreligiosae. ScholarsoffunerarycustomsinarchaicGreecealreadyhavefocusedontheritualand religiousconcernsexpressedinfunerarylegislation,inanattempttomoveawayfrom 281 Ampolo Cornell1995, ;Smith1996, ThisconclusionechoesstudiesdonebyMorris(1987)inarchaicGreece,especially Athens. 284 Colonna Itisimportanttonote,however,thatthesephenomenaappearrelated,andwillbe discussedingreaterdetailinchapter Forinstance,Robinson(1975);Ampolo(1984);Toher(2005). 65

83 explanationsthatunderstandthepromulgationoffunerarylawsaspoliticallymotivated. 287 Theclaimisthatthepurposeofsuchlawsistoreducethepotentialforpollution(miasma) thatdeathcanbringtoacommunity.thus,thelawsareaimedatrestrictingthepossibility forpollutionandlimitingitsoccurrence,aswellasprovidingmeasuresforthepurification ofthosepollutedbydeaththroughparticipationinfunerals.anumberofthelawsare concernedwithkeepingawayfrompublicandprivatespacesthoseitemsinvolvedinthe funeral,andwiththepurificationofthehomeandrelativesofthedeceased.inmaking theserestrictionslaw,archaicgreekcommunitiesweredefiningandregularizingthe meansbywhichsurvivorscoulddealwiththedeadandbereincorporatedintotheworldof theliving.anypoliticalconsequencesaresecondaryeffectsofthelegislation. AlthoughthisislikelytrueforthecommunitiesofarchaicGreece,itisimpossibletomake suchaclaimintheromanworld,owingtothefactthatthereexistnocontemporary literaryaccountsorartisticrepresentationsthatcancommunicateromanattitudestoward death.whatismore,theprovisionsofthetenthtabledonotexpressanyconcernwith purification,whereasthegreeklawsfromioulisandlabyadaiexpressthisasoneofthe primaryconcerns.theonlydiscussionconcerningthesignificanceofthetenthtablein antiquitycomesfromcicero,whowaswritingcenturiesafterthetwelvetableswerefirst recorded.ciceroisinterestedinthelawsoftenthtablebecausetheirantiquityand austeritylendauthoritytohisviewofthesignificanceofreligionandmoralityinhisideal city state.inthesecondbookofdelegibus,ciceropresentsaseriesoflawstosuitthekind ofidealstateashedepictedinderepublica. 288 WhatisnotableinCicero'sdiscussionofthetenthtableisthathedoesnotconsiderthe politicalmotivationforfunerarylegislation;hisconcernsarepracticalandreligious.cicero waswellawareofthepublicdisruptionalavishfuneralcouldcauseandonmorethanone occasionhenotesthatfuneralsandtombsatromehadbecomeexcessivelyextravagant (Deleg.2.62,2.66).ToherstatesthatCicerocouldnothavebeenunawareofthepolitical purposeofthepublicfuneral,suchastheonejuliuscaesarheldforhisownfather,whohad diedsometwentyyearsearlier, 289 orevensulla,whomplutarchrecordswasburiedat publicexpense(sull.38).however,ciceronevermentionsthatfuneralsshouldbeaustere andthatfunerarylegislationshouldrestrictextravaganceforthepurposeoflimitingsocial andpoliticaldisruption.itispossiblethat,duetothenatureofhisphilosophicaltreatise, Ciceropreferrednotmentionsuchacoarsemotivationforfunerarylegislation. 290 ThetenthtableandfunerarylegislationatRome Itisclearfromtheevidenceoutlinedabovethatthelawsofthetenthtable,amongother examplesoffunerarylegislation,donotbelongsolelytoeitherofthefollowingcategories: 287 Sourvinou Inwood1983;Sourvinou Inwood Dyck2004, Toher2005,273,andn.39.ConcerningthefuneralgamesofCaesar,seeDioCass.37.8 andplinynat.hist Toher2005,

84 sumptuarylawsdesignedtoreduceconspicuousconsumption;lawsdesignedtocreate isonomybetweentheeliteand/orreducethesociopoliticaltensionbetweenthe aristocracyandthelowerclasses;religiouslawsreflectingacceptedcustomsand formalizingthedivisionbetweentheworldofthelivingandthatofthedead.thedifficulty witheachoftheseapproachesisthattheyremovethetenthtablefromthecontextofthe remainingeleventables,andattempttoexplainthemotivationsofandpurposeforthese lawsbasedonalimitedunderstandingofearlygreeklegislationandthroughthelensofa fabricatedhistoriographictradition.inordertoarriveatanyconclusionsregardingthe purposeoftheselaws,itisimportanttoevaluatethemwithinthecontextofearlyrome,by consideringpreciselywhattheyregulateandhowtheyrelatetotheremainingprovisions ofthetwelvetables. Thelawsofthetenthtableimposerestrictionsinseveralareas.First,regardingthelocation ofburialandcremation:neitheristobewithinthecity(x.1)andthebustumisnottobe withinsixtyfeetofanother'shouse(x.9).second,concerningthetypesofbehavior occurringduringfuneraryritual:womenarenottomutilatetheircheeksorholdawake (X.4);nooneisallowedtoplaceperfumedliquidonthedeceased(X.6);andcircumpotatio isforbidden(x.6).third,inregardtolateractivityattheburialsite:thebonesofthe deceasedarenotallowedtobecollectedinordertoholdalaterfuneral(x.5).fourth, regardingtheitemsinvolvedinthefuneral,whichincludeobjectsplacedinthegraveand thoseusedbythemournersinthefuneraryprocession:nomorethanthreeveils,alittle purpletunic,andtenflautistsareallowed(x.3);acrownispermittedtobeburiedaslong asitiswonbythedeceasedorhisfamilia,orgiventohimforbravery(x.7);andnogoldis tobeburiedorburned,exceptforgoldjoinedtoteeth(x.8).fifth,regardingthe preparationofthepyre:thepyreisnotallowedtobesmoothedwithatrowel(x.2).sixth, concerningthelegalstatusofgraves:thefore courtorbustumisconsideredreligiosus (X.10). Fromtheoutset,thelawsseemaimedatthemanagementofurbanspace.Thebanonburial andcremationinthecity(x.1)documentsadesireonthepartoflawmakerstoremove bothoperationsfromtheurbanarea;thismusthavebeenconsideredanexpedient decision.whetherthelawreflectsasuddenbanonpreviouslyrecurringpracticeorthe formalizationofalong standingtraditionisimpossibletodeterminebasedonthe documentaryevidencealone.however,itisconceivablethatthelocationfortheproper dispositionofthedeceasedwasamatterofpublicinterest.thedecisioncouldhavebeenin partapracticalone.bothinhumationandcremationtookplaceatthesiteofburialand involvedritualsthatprobablyconsumedaconsiderableamountoftime.acremationburial requiredtheconstructionofapyreonwhichthedeceasedandanygoodsorequipment wouldbeburned.recentestimateshavesuggestedthattheprocessofcremation, accordingtoromanmethods,wouldhavetakensevenoreighthours. 291 Itwouldhavealso involvedtheoccasionalstokingandremovalofash. 292 Itisunclearhowlonganinhumation burialwouldhavetaken,butthelengthoftimewouldhavedependeduponthetypeof 291 McKinley1989, Noy2000,

85 burialtobeconstructed.inbothcases,theperformanceofrelatedrituals,someofwhich werealsorestrictedbythetenthtable(x.4 6),wouldhaveaddedtothistime. Cicerorecordsthatthebanonintramuralcremationwasduetothedangeroffire(Deleg. 2.58),andthereisgoodevidencethat,bytheLateRepublic,thelocationofcremationwas consideredpartofthecareofthecity.achapterofthelexcoloniaegenetivaeforbidsthe constructionofnewsitesforcremation(ustrina)withinhalfamileofthesettlement,anda senatusconsultumfrom38b.c.e.forbidscremationwithintwomilesofrome. 293 Itis possiblethatthedangerposedbyfireconstitutedpartofthereasoningforthebaninthe TwelveTables,butitcouldbethatCicero'scommentrepresentsaconcernparticulartothe latefirstcentury.anotherreasontocastdoubtoncicero'sclaimisthatheoffersno explanationfortheprohibitionofintramuralburial;cicero'ssilenceheresuggestshis ignorance.robinsonclaimsthisregulationdoesnotseemtohaveemergedfromanytaboo, sincecicerotellsusthatvestalvirginsandprominentcitizenscontinuedtobeburied,or hadtherighttobeburied,withinthecity. 294 However,theseappeartohavebeen exceptionstotherule,asintramuralburialremainedarareoccurrence.individualswere onlygrantedtherightbecauseoftheirmerit,eitherbeforethelawwasenactedor thereafter,andtheprivilegewasretainedbytheirdescendants. 295 Oneconsequenceoftheprohibitionagainstcremationandburialinthecitywouldhave beentofreeupurbanspaceforotherpurposes.thefinalprovisionofthetenthtable,which preservesthereligiousstatusoftombs,givessomeindicationoftheadvantagesofmoving bothritualsoutsidethecity.thestatutestipulatesthattheforumorbustumoftheburialis tobereligiosus(x.10).accordingtofestus,forumdesignatesthefore courtofatomb(pauli Exc.74L)andbustumreferstotheplacewherethebodyisburnedandburied(PauliExc. 29L).Aresreligiosuswasatermappliedtotombs,whichwereconsecratedonlywhena bodywasburiedbysomeonewhohadarighttoburythebodythere,andthispersonwas usuallytheowner. 296 Theconventionalinterpretationofthisprovisionisderivedfrom Cicero,whostatesthattheentranceofthetomborthemoundmaynotbeacquiredby usucapio,therebyprotectingthespecialprivilegesofgraves. 297 Itispossible,then,that burials,protectedbytheirreligiousstatus,precludedtheareasinwhichtheywerelocated fromanyotheruse. 293 ForthelexcoloniaeGenetivae,CILI 2 594=ILS6087,lines61 63.Forthesenatus consultum,seecass.dio Robinson1975, Cic.Deleg.2.58,Credo,Tite,fuisseauteos,quibushocantehanclegemvirtutiscausa tributumest,policolae,uttuberto,quodeorumpoestriiuretenuerunt,auteos,siquihoc,ut C.Fabricius,virtutiscausasolutilegibusconsecutisunt. 296 Watson1992, Cic.Deleg.2.61,writes..."forum,"idestvestibulumsepulchri,"bustumveusucapi"vetat, tueturiussepulchrorum.usucapioreferstotheacquisitionofpropertythroughcontinuous ownership. 68

86 Itisclear,however,thatbytheLateRepublic,publiclandcouldnotbemadereligiosusbya privateact,meaningthatgravesfoundinapubliclocationcouldbeexhumed.cicero describesonesuchcircumstanceregardingtheconstructionofthetempleofhonoroutside thecollinegate(deleg.2.58):analtaroncestoodinthatlocation,nearwhichametalplate wasfoundbearingtheinscription"tohonor",whichgavethenametothecurrenttemple. However,thereweremanygravesinthatspot,andthesewereexcavated,sincethecollege determinedthataplacethatwaspublicproperty(locumpublicum)couldnotbecome sacred(religione)throughtheritesperformedbyprivatecitizens. TheonlyinsightCiceroprovidesregardingthemotivationfortherestrictionoflandfor burialsoccurselsewhereindelegibuswhen,drawingfromplato'slaws,hestatesthat burialsshouldbeforbiddenfromlandsalreadyundercultivationorthathavethepotential tobecultivated(cic.deleg.2.67;plat.laws12.958d E).Heexplainsthatthecareofthe deadshouldnotoutweightheconcernsoftheliving;heencouragesthemaximumuseof thekindoflandsuitableforburialsothatthereisnoharmdonetotheliving.themain pointseemstobeaneconomicone,andciceroobjectstoanyone,livingordead,bringing aboutareductionincropproductionbyinterferingwitharableland.whenhestates earlierthatnolandshouldbeconsecrated,sincealllandissacredtothegods,heexpresses reservationsthatcultivationwilldeclineifsuperstitionsariseaboutitsuseorsubjectionto theplow(cic.deleg.2.22,2.45;plat.laws12.955e 956B). AlthoughitisimpossibletodeterminebasedontheevidenceintheTwelveTableswhether earlyromanlawmakersweredesignatingthespacepreviouslyoccupiedbyburials specificallyforpublicuse,itisreasonabletosuggestthatinlocatingburialsoutsidethecity, theywereredefiningtheurbanterritory.thisincludesthespacedirectlyinthecity(in urbe)andtheregionimmediatelyoutside(extraurbem),anditsuggeststhatburialwasa primarymeansofarticulatingthisdistinction.theremainingprovisionsofthetwelve Tablesarenotexplicitregardingwhatmonuments,activitiesandpeoplewerepermittedin urbe;theyonlystatethatburialswerenot.thestatutesmakereferencetotheforum, Comitium,privateproperties,roadsandvineyards,andindicateapopulationcomprisedof familiae,vestalvirgins,slaves,beastsandforeigners.theyrevealawiderangeofactivities, includingmarriage,thesaleofpropertyandtrials.thelawsareambiguousregardingthe appropriatelocationsfortheseplaces,peopleandactivities.theymayhaveappliedonlyto whateverwasconsideredinurbe,ortheymayhaveappliedequallytotheareaswithand outsideofthecity. Thesameambiguitybetweeninurbeandextraurbemisevidentbasedonthearchaeology ofarchaicrome.theevidencesuggeststhatbothareaswerethesitesofdomestic, agriculturalandreligiousactivity. 298 ProvisionX.1createstheonlymeaningfuldistinction inaddingburialstotheextraurbanlandscape.whatismore,provisionx.9illustratesthat therewasnobasicobjectiontotheproximityofburialsandhousesinextraurbanareas. Theemphasisisontherelationshipbetweenthebustumandthepropertyofanother 298 Holloway(1994)andSmith(1996)offerageneraloverviewofthearchaeological evidenceforromeandlatiuminthearchaicperiod. 69

87 individual,whichcouldbenolessthansixtyfeetfromoneanother.cicerostatesthatthis wasanotherattemptatreducingthehazardsoffirewithinthecity(deleg.2.61). 299 This statuteseemstobelongtothatcategoryoflawsfromthetwelvetablesthatregulatethe rightsofneighbors,thedamagestopropertyandtheownershipofland. 300 Additionally, thereisnoevidencetosuggestthathygienemotivatedtheseprovisions. 301 Itissignificant, too,thatthetablespermittedburialsinassociationwithprivateproperty,providedthat thesewerelocatedoutsidethecity. AlthoughthepomeriumandtheServianWallsfunctionedasvisibleboundariesbytheLate Republic,theareasbothinsideandoutsidethecitycontinuedtobeoccupiedbythesame typesofstructures. 302 Domesticresidences,commercialinstallations,industrialbuildings, publicmonuments,andsacredstructuresareattestedbothinurbeandextraurbem. Structuresmorecommonlyfoundoutsidethecityweregardens(horti)andburials.The legalprohibitionkeptmostburialsoutsidethecity,withexceptionsgrantedtoindividuals ofmeritorfamilieswithancestralrights.therewasnoprohibitionagainstintramural horti,butmostwerelocatedoutsidethecitypresumablybecausetheyconsumedtoomuch space.thehortiwereoftencomprisedoftherichhomesofthewealthyandoccupiedlarge tractsoflandthatweredevotedlargelytopleasureandnotforprofit.bothgardensand tombswerehighlyvisiblevenuesofostentatiousdisplay,anditseemsthattheyboth functionedasmarkersofstatusontheoutskirtsofthecity.althoughthisevidenceis particulartolaterepublic,itsuggestscontinuityinancientconceptionsofrome.inboth periodsthereareknownboundaries,butthereisconsiderableoverlapregardingthetypes ofstructuresthatoccupybothspaces.inbothperiodsthereisnoinherentobjectiontothe proximityofburialstootherareasdesignatedfortheliving,norareindividualsandgroups preventedfromdisplayingachievementinburial. Anumberofstatutesinthetenthtableinvolveritualsthatareconnectedtotheburialsite, whichsuggeststhatromeextendedherlegalauthorityintotheareasextraurbem.these includex.9,whichdictatestheminimumdistancebetweenabustumandthehouseof another;x.6 8,whichlimitthenumberandtypesofgravegoodsandofferings;X.2,which involvesthepreparationofthepyre;andx.5,whichforbidsthecollectionofbonesforthe purposeofanotherfuneral.itisuncleartowhatextenttheprovisionsrelatedtotheritual processionandlamentation(x.3 4)maybelongtothiscategory.TheTablesdonotmake cleartheproperlocationfortheseactivities.theymayhavebeguninsidethecityand continuedoutwardstothelocationoftheburial,ortheymayhavebeenperformedoutside thecityonly.thelackofspecificationinthiscaseseemstoreflecttheimprecision elsewhereinthetwelvetablesregardingtheappropriatelocationforallactivities,except fortheactofburialorcremation(x.1). 299 Robinson1975, Cornell1995, Robinson1975, Goodman2007,

88 Anotherqualityofvariousprovisionsofthetenthtableisthattheyrevealaparticular concernwithbothlandedandmovableproperty.thissuggeststhatthelawsareaimedat thewealthiermembersofromansociety.severalstatuteslimititemswhichonlysuch groupscouldenjoy,especiallythoserelatingtogold(x.8),thecrown(x.7),flautistsand textiles(x.3),andprivateproperty(x.9).thisseemscharacteristicofthetwelvetablesin general;thelawsdealalmostexclusivelywithissuesconcerningtheadministrationof property,especiallythatrelatingtothehousehold(familia),andarepreoccupiedwith farmland,crops,vines,fruittreesandlivestock. 303 Thissuggeststhattheelitederivedtheir wealthprimarilyfromlandedproperty,andlikelyexpendedtheirsurplusonaccepted formsofconspicuousconsumption. Thesesameprovisions,althoughtheyseemaimedatlimitingdisplaysofwealth,alsohave thefunctionofguaranteeingthem.theseventhprovisionallowsacoronatobeburiedwith thedeceasedorhisparent,providedthatitwasawardedforbravery;presumably,thiswas amarkofprestigeforboththedeceasedandhisfamilia.althoughthereisnothingelse knownoftheuseofthecoronainearlyrome,plinyremarksthatbythetimeofthelate Republicthereexistedavarietyofcrownstodesignatevictoriousathletesandindividuals withmilitaryachievements(nat.hist.15.39). 304 Onceconferredtheownerwasalloweda numberofsocialprivileges:hewasalwaysallowedtowearit;hehadaspacereservednext tothesenate,andallsenatorsroseuponhisentrance;andhewasfreedfrompublic burdens,aswerehisfather,paternalgrandfatherandthepersontowhomhislifewas bound. 305 InboththeTwelveTablesandPliny,thecoronaisamarkofprestigeand distinctionfortheindividualawardedit.thisstatusextendedtohisfamilyandwas publiclyrecognized. ThepermissionauthorizedbytheTwelveTablestoincludeinburialacoronawonby braveryisreminiscentoftheconcessiongrantedtocertainindividualsforintramural burialrecordedincicero'sdelegibus(2.58).whenatticusasksaboutthefamousmen (clariviri)whowereburiedinthecity,ciceroacknowledgesthatsomemen,namely Poplicola,TubertusandC.Fabricius,wereawardedthisprivilegeonaccountoftheirmerit (causavirtutis).headdsthatthedescendantsofpoplicolaandtubertuslegallymaintained thisprivilegesinceitwasawardedbeforetheenactmentoftheprohibition.itseemsthen, thatbythelaterepublic,examplesofintramuralburialwererare,wellknownand permittedonlyunderexceptionalcircumstances.whatconstitutedthecausavirtutisis unknown,but,inallowingtheseindividualsandtheirfamiliestobeburiedwithinthecity, itclearlyensuredtheircontinuedrecognitionandcommemoration Cornell1995, Thereweremanydifferenttypesofcoronae,mostofwhichawardedmilitary achievementsofsomesort,butofparticularinteresthereisthecoronacivica.thecorona civicawasthecrownsecondinimportanceafterthecoronagramineaandwasparticularly difficulttoobtain. 305 Polyb.6.39;Cic.Pro.Planc.30;Plin.Nat.Hist.16.5;Aul.Gell PoplicolareferstoPubliusValeriusPoplicola,who,accordingtoLivyandPlutarch, playedakeyroleintheoverthrowofthemonarchyin509b.c.e.andintheformationofthe 71

89 TheeighthprovisionoftheTwelveTables,whichconcernsthenatureofgoldobjects permittedinburial,wouldhavealsoguaranteeddistinction.theprovisionforbidsthe burialofgoldwiththedeceased,exceptifitisgoldjoinedtoteeth.thisstatutewouldonly haveappliedtothewealthierinhabitantsofrome.theevidenceforgolddentalprosthetics inromeandlatiumisextremelyrare:itconsistsonlyofasinglegoldtooth,discoveredat thesiteofsatricumanddatedtoapproximately630b.c.e. 307 Atnotimedoesthisappearto havebeenalatincustom.inetruria,however,thereisampleevidencetosuggestthatthe useofgolddentalprostheticswasacommonpractice,especiallyamongeliteetruscan women.thisseemstohavebeenacosmeticprocedureusedbywomentoadornorreplace teeththathadbeendeliberatelyremovedorfallenout. 308 Thepracticeseemstohavefallen outofusebythelatefirstcenturyb.c.e.,atwhichpointgoldprostheticsdisappearfromthe archaeologicalrecord.scholarshaveattributedthisphenomenontothespreadofroman influenceinetruria. 309 IfgolddenturesarerepresentativeofanEtruscancustom,thestatuteoftheTwelveTables permittingtheburialofgoldonlywhenitjoinedtoteeth(x.8)mayreflectthepresenceof individualsofetruscanoriginamongtheupperclassesatrome.inparticular,itpointsto thevisibilityofstatusandwealthgrantedtoetruscanwomeninburial.althoughlater RomanauthorsaredisdainfuloftherelativefreedomandstatusenjoyedbyEtruscan women,thismaynothavebeenthecaseforearlyrome.ampoloandcornellhavealready demonstratedthatcertainetruscanshadestablishedthemselvesasmembersoftheruling classatromeoverthecourseoftheseventhandsixthcenturies. 310 AhandfulofEtruscan inscriptionsfoundonvotiveofferingsandingravesatrome,twoofwhichmaypreservea RomanformofEtruscan,suggestthattheEtruscansconstitutedanestablishedpresence amongtheromanelite. 311 Althoughalessreliablesourceofevidence,theancientliterary traditionneverthelesspreservestheaccountsofanumberofoutsiderswhooccupied prominentpositionatrome,includingthesabinenuma,etruscanmastarna,andattus Republic(Liv.1.58,2.2 16;Plut.Publ.).TubertusreferstoPubliusPostumiusTubertus,a RomanpatricianandconsulwhowasvictoriousovertheSabinesandinvolvedinthe secessionoftheplebs(liv.2.16;plut.publ.20).c.fabriciusmayrefertogaiusfabricius Luscinus,whofoughtinthewaragainstPyrrhus. 307 Waarsenburg Becker1999,2002.Studiesofthegoldteethanddentalappliancesrecoveredfrom excavationsinetruriahaveshownthatthemostcommonlyreplacedteetharethecentral incisors,whichadultsrarelyloseuntilaftertheageof70or75years.itseemsthat Etruscanwomendeliberatelyhadremovedanincisorinordertobefittedwithagoldband appliancewithareplacementorreusedtooth. 309 Becker1999, Ampolo1970 1,1976 7and1980;Cornell1995, Cornell(1995,157);Colonna(1987,58 9).Thereissomedebateregardingthenumber ofetruscaninscriptionsfoundatrome,duetothedifficultyofdeterminingthelanguagein whichthetextswerewritten. 72

90 Clausus(theRomanAppiusClaudius). 312 TheFastioftheEarlyRepubliccontainnames suggestingthatthehighestofficesatromewereheldbyforeignfamilies,someofwhom werelikelyetruscan. 313 HorizontalsocialmobilityseemstohavebeenawidespreadoccurrenceinTyrrhenianItaly duringthearchaicperiod.thesettlementsofsouthernetruriacontaininscriptionsthat pointtothepresenceofhighrankingindividualsofgreek,latinanditalicorigin. 314 Further tothesouth,thecitiesofcampaniahavepreservednumerousexamplesofetruscan materialculture,whichindicateastrongetruscanpresencefromatleasttheseventh century. 315 Theevidencesuggeststhattherewasfairdegreeofculturalconformityin centralitaly,whichfacilitatedthemovementofandintermarriagebetweenelite individualsandgroupsfromdifferentcommunities. 316 Itseemsthatarchaicsocieties valuedpersonalstatus,wealthandfamilybackgroundoverethnicorigin. Insum,itseemsthattheeighthstatuteofthetenthtablereferstoauniquelyEtruscan practice,oneobservedparticularlybywealthywomen.thisaddstotheevidencefor horizontalsocialmobilityinarchaicrome,bywhichindividualsandgroupsfromdifferent communitieswereabletomovetorome,andoperatewithinthecity'selitecircles.thefact thattheprovisionforbidstheburialofgoldexceptwhenitisattachedtoteethrevealsthat thelawprotectedtosomeextenttheinterestsofetruscanwomen.althoughitisunlikely thatgolddentalprostheticswerevisibleduringtheburialprocess,thelawnonetheless ensuredthatthedeceasedwouldmaintainthissymbolofwealthandstatusindeath.the prideofplacegiventoboththegolddenturesandthecoronasuggestthatthesewere markersofconsiderableprestige,andreferredtobothetruscanandromancustoms.itis worthnoting,however,thatthetwelvetablesmakenomentionofthevarietyofother itemsthatmayhaveconstitutedgravegoods,includingpottery,bronzeitems,jewelryand otheradornments.whatismore,golddenturesandcrownsarenotgenerallyincludedin gravesbythistime.besidesthesingleexampleofagolddenturefromsatricum,thereisno evidence,tomyknowledge,ofcrownsordenturesintheburialsofarchaicromeand Latium. 4d.Conclusion ThelawsoftheTwelveTablesconstitutetheearliestwrittenevidenceforfuneraryritualin earlyrome.theprovisionsrecordrestrictionsrelatedtobehaviorandexpensesat 312 Cornell1995,157;Ampolo Livy4.3 4recordsthespeechofClaudiusin48C.E. 313 Ampolo Cornell1995, Cornell(1995,153 4).Somesites,suchasCapuaandPontecagnano,perserveevidence foranearlyhistorythatissimilartothedevelopmentofironagesitesinetruria.bothsites haveprotovillanovanandvillanovanphasesthatgobacktotheninthcentury,andbythe lateeighthtoseventhimportedetruscanpottery,whichwasfollowedbytheproductionof imitationwares. 316 Ampolo

91 funerals,anddocumenttheproperlocationforandstatusofburialandcremation.based onthesimilaritiesbetweentheselawsandotherexamplesoffunerarylegislationfrom GreeceandIonia,itisclearthatthetablesbelongtoaMediterranean widetraditionof lawmakinginarchaicsocieties.thissuggeststhatmanycitiesinthemediterraneanbasin belongedtothesameculturalkoine,andthatthisincludedromebythemid fifthcentury. Whilethevariousexamplesoffunerarylegislationarebroadlysimilarincontentand somewhatinlanguage,theyaredistinctinaddressinglocalconcerns.thelawsofthe TwelveTablescorrespondtothispattern.Forthemostpart,onlythelawsofthetenth tabledemonstrateanyparallelswithexamplesofgreeklegislation,andthesesimilarities consistofthecommand"donot"andtherestrictionsonfunerarydressandcertainaspects ofritualbehavior.however,moststatutesofthetenthtablehavenocomparandaingreek law,andcanonlybeunderstoodwithinthecontextofearlyrome. Itseemslikelythatthetenthtablewasrelevantonlytothewealthyinhabitantsofthecity, sincemanyofitsprovisionsareconcernedwithvariousaspectsoflandedandmoveable property.thesameisbroadlytrueoftheremainingtwelvetables.thetenthtablehas traditionallybeeninterpretedasanexampleofsumptuarylegislation,butthereislittle evidencethatitlimitedtheobjectstobeburiedwiththedeceasedasgravegoods.infact, thetablesseemtoguaranteetheinclusioninburialitemsthatmayhavebeenthehighest markersofstatusandwealth,namelythecoronaandthegolddentures.thatthetables alsoallowapurpletunicandagroupofflautistsaspartofthefuneraryritesisanother indicationthatwealthandstatuswereguaranteedvisibility,eventhoughthiswasdefined inrestrictiveterms. Thestatutesconcerningtheproperlocationandstatusofburialsconstitutesomeofthe earliestevidenceforhowtheromansdefinedtheircitylimits.thetwelvetablesdonot makedistinctionsbetweenthoseareasinurbeandextraurbem,exceptinthecaseofthe tenthtable.bothareaswithinandoutsideofthecityseemtohavebeencomprisedofthe samemonuments,peopleandactivities;theonlydifferencewasthatburialsbelonged outsidethecity.bythelaterepublicitseemsthattherewereknownexceptionstothis rule,whenciceronotesindelegibusthatsomeindividualswereallowedtoburiedwithin thecity.theseexamplesillustratethattherewasnobasicobjectiontointramuralburial, andrevealthatintramuralburialwasthepreserveofafewprivilegedcitizens. ThefunerarylegislationoftheTwelveTablesseemstohavegrantedspecialprivilegesto certainindividualsinotherareas.acoronaandgoldattachedtoteethwereallowedtobe buriedwiththedeceased;apurpletunicwasalsoincluded,butitisunclearwhetherit adornedthedeceasedoramemberofthefuneraryprocession.inanycase,theseconstitute symbolsofstatusandwealththatwouldhavebeenvisibleoverthecourseofthefunerary rites,and,asaresult,itseemsthatthetwelvetablesprotectedtheseparticularformsof ostentatiousdisplayforthewealthyelite. Theseconclusions,however,restupontheassumptionthattheancientsources, particularlycicero,preservedaccuratelythecontentofthetwelvetables.inthischapteri haveinterpretedthedocumentasthoughitwereareliableone.thisisinbroadagreement withthemajorityofscholarship,whichtrustsinthehistoricalaccuracyofthetables. 74

92 However,IbelieveitunwisetodrawtoomanyconclusionsregardingearlyRoman funeraryritualbasedonthisevidencealone.iconsiderithereinordertostudyitalongside thearchaeologicalevidencepresentedinthefollowingchaptersandevaluatewhatthe documentrevealsaboutthestructuralorganizationofromeandotherlatincitiesinthe Archaicperiod. 75

93 5.TheArchaeologicalEvidenceforArchaicBurialinLatiumVetus 5a.Introduction InmypreviouschaptersIexaminedtheliteraryanddocumentaryevidenceforfunerary ritualinarchaicromeandlatium,andconcludedthattherearefewsources,ifany,of reliableevidence.inthischapter,iconsiderthearchaeologicalevidencefordeathand burial,inpartasacomparandumtothepriorchapters,butmoreasacategoryofevidence initsownright.thefieldofarchaicromeisarelativelynewone,andthevastquantitiesof archaeologicalmaterialrecoveredinthepastsixtyyearsorsohaveradicallyalteredour perceptionofthisformativeperiodofthecity.verylittleofthatmaterialhasbeen systematicallyanalyzed,however,andthischapterismycontribution.asaresult,the chapterisequalpartscatalogue,reviewandanalysis. Thischapterbuildsupontheformativeworkofafewscholarswhohavemadevarious contributionstothestudyofburialsinarchaicromeandlatium.colonnafirstidentifiedan aspettooscurointhefuneraryrecordofthesixthandfifthcenturies,notingthattherewere farfeweridentifiedgravesthaninotherperiods. 317 Heexplainedthisgaponthebasisof theabsenceofgravegoodsincludedinsuchgraves.gravegoodsareoftenusedtodatethe burialsinwhichtheyarefound,andtheirabsencefromsomemadetheminvisibletoearly archaeologists.heconnectedthisabsencetothefunerarylegislationofthetwelvetables atrome,whoserestrictionscolonnabelievedbroughttoanendthecustomofdepositing gravegoodsinburials.morerecently,rajalahasproducedanoverviewoftheburialrecord ofarchaiclatium,notingthehighdegreeoflocalandregionalvariabilityinfunerary practices. 318 HeranalysisisinformedbyherworkontheexcavationsatCrustumerium, whichuncoveredanumberofarchaicchambertombs,whichsheconnectstotheincreasing monumentalizationoftheregion.bartolonifocusesonromeandlatium,andoffersamore diachronicviewofthechangesinthefuneraryrecord. 319 BuildinguponColonna'swork, sheobservesadecreaseinthequantityofgravesandgravegoodsbeginningintheiron Age,andattributesthisphenomenontofunerarylegislationinitiatedduringRome'sregal history. Myworkdiffersfromtheseapproachesinthreekeyways.First,itismorecomprehensive inbreadthandscopethanpriorstudies.itrelieslessontheresultsoftheearlyexcavations andmoreontherecentones,althoughitquestionsthereliabilityoftheearlyevidence, especiallysincethishasformedthebasisofallsubsequentresearch.second,thischapter attemptstoidentifyandexplainmeaningfulpatternsinthearchaeologicalrecordwhich movebeyondthepreliminaryobservationsoftheseearlierstudies.thisisnotacriticismof thisscholarship,butanadditiontoit,especiallysinceirecognizethelimitationsofmyown research.third,thischapterreliesfarless(ifnotatall)onthefunerarylegislationofthe TwelveTablestoaccountforthereducedquantityofgravesandgravegoodsduringthe 317 Colonna Rajala2007;2008a;2008b. 319 Bartoloni1987;2010;Bartolonietal

94 Archaicperiod.AsnotedinChapter2,theItaliantraditionofscholarshipgivesspecial emphasistotheancientsourcesintheinterpretationofthearchaeologicalevidence,and thishasledmanyscholarstoconcentrateonwhoimposedtheselawsandwhen.these questionsareconsideredimportantsincetheyareusedasevidenceforcity state formation,whichhasrecentlybeenpreoccupiedwithdeterminingtheprecisemoment whenromebecameacity.myapproachtakestheviewthatthelaws,iftheyconstitutea reliablesource,representthedocumentationofregulationsthathadalreadybeenobserved forsometime. Ibegin(5b)withanin depthreviewandcritiqueofpreviousscholarship,whichhas focused,inmyopinion,tooheavilyontheabsenceofmaterial.thisisasubjectthatarose outofanobservationthattherewasnothing,thenstitchedtogethertomakeitseemlike something,andtherehasbeenlittleelsesince.itisasignificantproblem,too,thatmuchof thisearlierworkisbasedonnearlyincomprehensibleornonexistentarchaeological records.morerecentarchaeologicaldiscoverieshaveaddedtothebodyofarchaicburials, butthepublicationofthesematerialsisofteninconsistentandlackingindetail.partofthe reasonforthis,isuspect,isthenatureoftherecoveryofthesecontexts.manyburialswere excavatedaspartofrescueoperations,andhavereceivedlittlesystematicanalysis.thisis especiallytrueofthoseareasinandaroundmodernrome.anevengreaterproblem, however,isingainingaccesstotherecoveredmaterialsorevendeterminingwherethey wentafterexcavation.withexceptionofmyownresearchatgabii,presentedinchapter6, Ihavebeenunabletoseeanyoftheoriginalmaterialsmyself.Athirddifficultyisposedby theongoingresearchconductedbyacademicinstitutions,whichmay,understandably,be reluctanttopartwithrelevantdata.asaresult,whatispresentedinthischapterisa criticalsynthesisoftheevidenceforburialinarchaicromeandlatium,asithasbeen presentedinthepublishedreports.tomyknowledge,ihavereferencedallknown excavations,butwouldnotbesurprisediftherearemorerecentdiscoveriesthathave escapedmyknowledgeorawaitavailabilityinthepublicdomain.itismyintention, however,thatthissynthesisattheveryleastcontributesinasystematicwaytoour understandingofarchaicromeandlatium,andservesasareliablebasisforfuturestudy, particularlyalongsidethedatafromsettlementcontexts,whichstillrequirestudyintheir ownright. Ithen(5c)outlinethevarioustypesofburialencounteredinthearchaeologicalrecordof theregion.idescribethedifferenttypesofburialsandlistwheretheyaremostcommonly found.inthefourthsection(5d),idescribebrieflytheformsofburialritual,notingthe distinctpredominanceofinhumation.thereislittletobesaidregardingthepreferencefor cremationvs.inhumation,butitisworthnotinghere,sincethischangeaccompaniesother significanttransformationsinthefuneraryrecord. Thefourthpartofthischapter(5e)isacatalogueofsiteswithevidenceforarchaicburial. ForeachsiteIofferabriefdescriptionofthedevelopmentofthesiteinordertobetter contextualizethefunerarydata.icontinuebyprovidingadetailedsummaryofthearchaic burials,includingascompleteanaccountaspossible.itisdifficultinmostcasestoobtain theamountsofdetailtypicallyrequiredbymoremodernanalyses.mylanguageis occasionallyvague,andiemploytheterms"some"or"few"whenreferringtothequantity 77

95 ofburials.thisreflectsthelackofspecificityintheoriginalreports.insomecases,the excavationresultshavenotyetbeenpublished,evenfromthosethattookplacedecades ago.however,ispecifywherethereportsareunclearorlacking.forsomesites,most notablyromeandsatricum,iincludeadditionaldetailsregardingthescholarshipbehind andinterpretationofthecemeterieslocatedthere.inbothcasesthereisalonghistoryof excavationandcurrentscholarshipthatrequirescomment.ibeginthissectionwithrome, wherethe"problem"ofarchaicburialwasfirstobserved,thenmovetoitsoutskirtsto considerthesitesatlaurentina;thereafter,imoveregionally,inaclockwisedirection, throughlatium.ifollow(5f)withadiscussionofthematerial,drawingattentionbothto thevariationsandpatternsvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecord.iexplorehowthischanges ourviewofarchaicromeandlatium,focusinginparticularonthechangeinfunerary ideologyandurbandevelopment.iendwithasummaryofmymainarguments(5g). 5b.PreviousScholarship Scholarsfirstdetectedanabsenceinthearchaeologicalrecordofburialsearlyinthe twentiethcentury,whenstudyingthedatarecoveredfromtheesquilinenecropolisat Rome. 320 Sometimeinthelatenineteenthcentury,redevelopmentoftheareaformodern habitationbroughttolightasubstantialamountoffunerarymaterialthatrangedindate fromtheninthtofirstcenturiesb.c.e. 321 Theseresultsinitiallypointedtothecontinuous useoftheesquilineasaburialgroundthroughoutantiquity.somedecadeslater,italian archaeologistgiovannipinzawaschargedwiththesystematicreexaminationand reorganizationoftherecordsandmaterialsrecoveredfromthesite.itwasoverthecourse ofthisprojectthatpinzanoticedacompleteabsenceofevidencebelongingtotheperiodof thesixthandearlyfifthcenturies. 322 Heconsidereditlikelythattombsfromthisperiodhad beendiscovered,butnotidentified,sincetheywereindistinguishableinformandcontent fromtombsbelongingtoearlierperiods.pinzahypothesizedthattherewerenostylistic developmentsinthetypesofvasesthatwereusedasgravegoodsinthesixthandearly fifthcenturies,andasaresult,theceramicassemblagesfromarchaicburialsappeared identicaltothosefromearliertimes BullCom1875,190.TheprecisedatesoftheexcavationoftheEsquilinenecropolisare unknown.theexcavationtookplacesometimeaftertheinstitutionofromeasthecapital cityofreunifieditalyin LTURSuppl.II.1:38 46;Holloway1994,22 3.Theearlyexcavations,werenot,strictly speaking,archaeologicalinvestigations;theywerecollectionsofarchaeologicalmaterials recoveredoverthecourseofthelatenineteenth centuryurbandevelopmentofthecity. Seebelowforfurtherdiscussionregardingtheearlyexcavations. 322 BullCom1912, PinzaadvancedachronologybasedonthepotteryfromthetombsintheForumand EsquilineatRome.Hecreatedtwoperiods:PeriodI,beforetheappearanceoflight ground pottery,greekimportsandimitations,andperiodii,characterizedbytheappearanceof light groundpotteryandimports.periodicorrespondsroughlytoc /20and PeriodIIto730/ Althoughhischronologyremainsvalid,itwassubsequently subdividedandrevisedintoaseriesoflatialperiods(i IVB). 78

96 Basedontheseconclusions,Pinzaadvancedacontroversiallistofthirty nineburialsthat hebelievedbelongedtothearchaicperiod. 324 VonDuhnfirstimpugnedthelistonthe groundsthatanumberofthetombscontainedearlymaterial;hesuggestedalternatelythat thearchaicgraveswerelocatedonanotherportionoftheesquiline,asyetunexcavated. 325 Inthenineteen forties,rybergrightlypointedouttheabsenceofanyscientific methodologyinpinza'swork,observingthathehadestablishednoreliablecriteriafor reclassifyingthegraves. 326 ShewasinagreementwithPinza,however,inbelievingthatthe tombsfromthearchaicperiodremainedunidentifiedbecausetheywereindistinguishable fromthoseofearlierperiods. 327 Ryberg,too,notedthattherewasremarkablehomogeneity inthetypesofceramicsrecoveredfromtheearlyburials.infact,therewasnoapparent changeinthestyleofvasesuntilthefourthcentury.theproblemwascompounded, however,bytheextremelypoorstateofdocumentationandpreservationfromthe Esquilineexcavations.Recordswerenotconsistentlymaintained,andgravegoodswere unorganized,stolenandlost.inthenineteen fifties,gjerstadreviewedallthe archaeologicalandwrittenevidencefromearlyrome,includingtheburialsfromthe Esquilinenecropolis. 328 RelyingheavilyonPinza'saccountsandtheoriginalrecordsfrom theesquilineexcavations,gjerstadofferedsomerevisionstotheburialmaterial.usingonly thosetombshebelievedhadareliablecontext,determinabledateandgravegoods,he assignedthreetombstothearchaicperiod,althoughonlyone,hebelieved,with certainty. 329 Thequestionregardingtheidentificationofarchaicgravesremainedlargelyunexamined untilthenineteen seventies,whenrenewedarchaeologicalactivityinromeandlatium broughttolightsomefivehundredtombsthatdatedtosometimebeforethethird century. 330 Whenreviewingtheresultsoftheseexcavations,Colonnaobservedthatnoneof theburialscontaineditemsdatabletothesixthandfifthcenturies,aso calledaspetto oscuro.theabsenceprovedevenmorestrikingwhencomparedtothewealthof archaeologicalmaterialrecoveredfromthegravesofearlierperiods.anumberof prominentcemeterieshadbeenidentifiedatrome,tivoli,ardea,satricum,caracupaand thealbanhills,allofwhichcontainedburialsthatwererichingravegoodsduringthe eighthandseventhcenturies. 331 Bytheendoftheseventhcenturyandthebeginningofthe 324 Pinza(BullCom1912,25,n.2)providesthelistoftombsandoutlinesbrieflyhis methodology.pinza(monant1905)containsacatalogueofthesetombs. 325 vonduhn1924, Ryberg1940, Ryberg1940, Gjerstad1956, Gjerstad1956, CLP.ThemostprominentsitesincludeCasteldiDecima,Lavinium,Osteriadell'Osa,La RusticaandFicana. 331 Colonna(1977,131 2),notesthatintotal,therewereapproximately800burialsin ancientlatiumdatabletosometimebeforethethirdcentury.mostofthesebelongedtothe EarlyIronAgeandOrientalizingperiods,fromtheninthtotheendofthesixthcenturies. 79

97 sixth,however,therewasamarkeddecreaseinthenumberofgravesatthesesamesites, andlittletonoevidenceforgravegoods. Believingthatthedeclineinarchaeologicallyvisiblegravesandgravegoodsreflecteda historicalreality,colonnaadvancedfourdifferenthypothesestoexplaintheirabsence duringthesixthandfifthcenturies:1.theyhadnotyetbeenfound;2.theyweredestroyed orspoliated;3.theyhadneverexisted;and4.archaeologistswereunabletorecognize them. 332 Thesetheorieswereallechoesofpriorscholarship,andColonnaimmediately discreditedthefirstthree.hefirstchallengedvonduhn'sworkthatclaimedthegravesof thearchaicperiodhadnotyetbeenfound.althoughcolonnaacknowledgedthatitwas possiblefortheburialsofthisperiodtohaveremainedundiscovered,hebelievedthiswas atoddswiththeremainingevidencefromtheesquilinenecropolis.thecemetery containedawiderangeofburialsfromtheeighthcenturyb.c.e.tothefirstcenturyc.e.and thusseemedtoconstitutearepresentativesampleofburialactivitythroughtime.colonna consideredsignificantthegapinthearchaeologicalrecordofthesixthandfifthcenturies: therewasevidenceofburialbeforeandafterthatperiod,butnoneatallduring.he mentionedthepossibilitythattheareawasabandonedasaburialgroundforabouttwo centuriesandlaterreoccupied. TheevidencefromtheEsquilinenecropolisallowedColonnatorepudiatethesecond theory,whichpositedthattheburialsofthearchaicperiodhadbeendestroyedorrobbed sometimeinantiquityorinthemodernera.thesheerquantityofwealthygravesattested inromeandlatiumduringearlierandlaterperiodssuggestedthattherewasnoreasonto believethattheburialsofthesixthandfifthcenturiesweresystematicallyoraccidentally targetedfordestruction.theabundanceofarchaeologicalevidenceinturnservedto invalidatecolonna'sthirdtheory,suggestingthatarchaicburialsdidnotexist.the excavationsofthenineteen sixtiesand seventieshadvastlyimprovedthearchaeological recordofthearchaicperiod;therewasnowampleevidencepointingtotheexistenceof substantialsettlementsandsanctuaries.therewasnoreasontobelievethattherewereno burials.infact,itstoodtoreasonthatburialsshouldbeequallyvisibleinthearchaeological record. Colonnaonlyagreedinpartwiththefourthproposition,whichexplainedtheabsenceof sixth andfifth centuryburialsastheresultofarchaeologists'inabilitytorecognizethem onthebasisofgravegoods. 333 IntheyearssincePinzahadanalyzedtheEsquilinegraves anddeterminedthattherewerenochangesinthepotteryfoundinthemuntilthethird century,thewealthofarchaeologicalmaterialfromromeandlatiumhadservedto establisharelativechronologyrevealingaseriesofstylisticdevelopmentsovertime. 334 On 332 Colonna1977, Colonna1977,136 7;BullCom, Müller Karpe(1960)andPeroni(1960)revisedPinza'sworkandtheirchronologies remaininusetoday.biettisestieri's(1992a)publicationofthefindsatosteriadell'osawas formative.holloway(1994,37 50)providesasummaryregardingthedevelopmentofa chronologyforancientlatium. 80

98 thebasisofthisnewceramictypology,colonnawasabletoreexaminethepotteryfrom severalburialsatromeanddateafewofthemtothesixthandfifthcenturies.inparticular, hestudiedthegravegoodsassociatedwithagroupofthreemonolithicsarcophagi recoveredfromthe1876excavationsinthepiazzamagnanapoli.thetombs,whichwere initiallydatedtothefourthandthirdcenturies,colonnanowassignedtothesixthandfifth, basedonceramicmaterialsfoundinornearthem. 335 Headdedtothiscategoryseveral othersarcophagifoundthroughoutrome,onthegroundsthattheycontainedafewgrave goodsthatweredatabletothesixthandfifthcenturiesor,intheabsenceofgravegoods, borestylisticsimilaritiesbetweentheromansarcophagiandexamplesfromspina,caere andthegreekworld.outsideofrome,heconsideredasbelongingtothisperiodafew tombsfrompraeneste,tivoli,lanuviumandlarustica. Colonna'sstudiesledhimtoconcludethatburialinLatiumvetusduringthesixthandfifth centurieswascharacterizedbyapronouncedreductionortotalabsenceofgravegoods. 336 Asaconsequenceofthislackofmateriality,archaeologistshadoverlooked,ignoredor misinterpretedtheevidence.colonnaattributedthechangeinfunerarycustomtoachange inideologythatrequiredarestrictioninthenumberofgravesandgravegoods.henoted thatthetransitionseemedtooccursimultaneouslyandrapidlyincentersthroughout Latium,whilethereturnofgravesandgravegoodsinthefourthcenturywasequally widespreadandabrupt.heconsideredeconomicdownturnanunlikelyexplanationinlight ofthearchaeologicalevidencefromothercontextsthatpointedtothegeneralprosperityof theregion. Colonnaconnectedthedecreaseingravesandgravegoodstothepromulgationofthe TwelveTables,aseriesoflawstheancientsourcesclaimwerewrittenbythedecemvirate inthemid fifthcenturyatrome. 337 Accordingtohim,thepaucityofgravegoodsinarchaic contextscouldbecreditedtothefuneraryrestrictionsofthetwelvetables.thestatutesof thetenthtablelimitedthetypeofclothinganditemstobedepositedinthegrave,and restrictedcertainritualbehaviors.colonnatrustedtheaccountsofcicerothatconnected thetablestothesumptuarylawsofsolonatathens,believingthatbothtextswerecreated topromoteisonomiabetweenprominentindividualsandpreventthekindofpublic disruptionbroughtaboutbypublicfunerals.colonna,however,observedachronological discrepancybetweenthetimeofthepromulgationofthelawsc.450b.c.e.andthe visibilityofthephenomenoninthearchaeologicalrecordoveracenturyearlier.inorderto accountforthisgap,colonnaofferedamodificationtothetraditionalnarrativeandposited thatitwasserviustullius,notthedecemvirate,thatinitiatedthesefuneraryrestrictions. 338 ServiusTulliusseemedalogicalchoice:hewasacontemporaryofSolon,knownfor numerousculturalandreligiousreformsatrome,and,accordingtothetraditional 335 Colonna1977,137 9;BullCom1876,124;NSc1876, Colonna1977, Colonna1977, IdiscusstheTwelveTablesinChapter Momigliano(1967,357 8)hadprevioulyremarkedonthisdiscrepancy.Hestatedthat, hadthedecemviratevisitedathensc.450b.c.e.,theromanswouldhavemetwithperikles, whowouldhavegiventhemsomethingmorecurrentthanthelawsofsolon. 81

99 chronology,hisreignalignedwellwiththedevelopmentsinthearchaeologicalrecord. Consequently,ColonnareasonedthattheRomanshadbeenobservingsuchfunerarylaws sincethetimeofserviustullius,andthedecemvirate,bythemid fifthcentury,hadmerely recordedwhathadalreadybeeninpractice.colonnafurtheredthisargumentbyexplaining thattheadoptionofthefunerarylawsofsolonrepresentedthedeliberateopeningupof LatiumvetustotheworldofGreekcultureandinfluenceandacorrespondingclosingoffto thatofetruria. BoththreadsofColonna'sargument,namely,thedegreeofopennessofLatiumtoGreek influenceandtherelationshipbetweenthetwelvetablesandthedecreaseinthefunerary archaeologyoflatium,werepickedupbyscholarsinthefollowingdecade.ampolo believedthatthefuneraryrestrictionsimposedbythetenthtablerepresentedthewriting ofcustomsthathadbeeninplaceearlier,andthatthesecustomsmarkedachangein funeraryideology. 339 Heunderstoodtheimplementationoffunerarylegislationandthe decreaseofburialevidenceinthearchaeologicalrecordastwinphenomena,andexamined themthroughthelensofurbandevelopmentingreekpoleis.inhisview,theregulationof funeraryexpenditurerepresentedtheinterferenceofanorganizedcommunity,thecivitas, infuneraryritual.thecommunityhadbeguntoseparateformallythelivingfromthedead, andwasredirectingtheresourcesofprominentindividualsandtheirfamiliesintothe community.thewealthofthesefamilieswenttowardsspacesusedbytheliving,namely publicplaces,sanctuariesandprivatehouses. Bartolonibuiltupontheconclusionsofherpredecessorsinresearchthatexploredthe connectionbetweencemeteriesandsacredspacesinarchaiclatium. 340 Shearguedthatthe sametypesofmaterialsthatappearedingravesfromtheorientalizingperiodwere appearinginthesacredspacesofthearchaicperiod.shereturnedtotheevidencefromthe Esquilinenecropolisandadvancedthehypothesisthat,duringtheArchaicperiod,the cemeterybegantobeorientedaroundaroadlinkingthecitytoitsterritory.sheaddedthat theromancustomofburyingthedeceasedalongprominentroads,whichiswellattested forlaterperiods,mighthavebeguninthesixthcentury. BothBartoloniandNasoarguedthatthedisappearanceofgravegoodsthroughoutarchaic Latium,especiallyinRome'simmediatehinterland,wasasignofRome'sincreasing authorityintheregion. 341 Bartoloniobservedthatanumberofchambertombslocated withintheagerromanusantiquuscontainedanumberofgravegoodsfromtheseventhand fourthcenturies,butnonethatcouldbedatedtothesixthandfifth.incontrast,theburials ofsomesettlements,mostnotablyatfidenae,ardea,praenesteandlanuvium,remained richingravegoods. 342 ShesuggestedthatthegraveslocatedinthevicinityofRomelacked 339 Ampolo Bartoloni Bartoloni1987,157;NasoinGRT Fidenae:GRTn.10.4;Ardea:8.4,MinistroperiBeniCulturalieAmbientali, SoprintendenzaArcheologiaperilLazio,SoprintendenzaArcheologicaperlaToscana 1983;Praeneste:GRT262 4;Lanuvium:GRT

100 gravegoodsduringthearchaicperiodbecausetheyweresubjecttothefunerary restrictionsofthetenthtableandthusunderrome'spoliticalcontrol.bythissame reasoning,thosesettlementsthatproducedevidenceforrichburialsthroughtimethusdid notcomeunderromanjurisdiction.bartolonipostulatedthatpraeneste,inparticular,was abletocontinueburyingthedeadwithelaborategravegoodsbecauseitmaintaineda certainautonomyanditsownfunerarylegislation,evenafterthesettlement'sabsorption intorome'sorbit. 343 Ataboutthesametime,ToherdenouncedanyconnectionbetweenthelawsoftheTwelve Tablesandthearchaeologicalrecord. 344 HebelievedthefunerarylawsoftheTwelveTables wereinfluencedbygreeklegislativetexts,butinnowaycouldthepromulgationof funerarylawsatromehavebeenconnectedtotheabsenceofgravesandgravegoodsin thearchaeologicalrecordoflatium.hismainargumentwasthatthemajorityofthe restrictionsofthetenthtablehavenothingatalltodowiththekindsofthingsthatare depositedingraves.onlytheseventhprovision,whichpermitstheburialofawreath,and theeighthprovision,whichprohibitstheburialofgoldexceptgoldteeth,concernitems thatmaybeplacedinagrave.theremainingprohibitionsconcernprimarilythetypesof behaviorallowedatfunerals,theamountofexpenditureallowedforcertainactivities,and thelegalstatusandpermittedlocationofgraves.noneoftheserestrictions,savethose concerningthelocationofthegrave,wouldhavebeenvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecord. Thus,TohersawnoevidencesupportingaconnectionbetweentheTwelveTablesandthe archaeologicalrecordofthearchaicperiod.hedidagree,however,thatthepromulgation offormallawssuchasthetwelvetablespresupposedtheexistenceofacomplexcity state, andthatthedearthinthearchaeologicalrecordofburialsmayreflectthedesireofthe communitytoinvestinpublicasopposedtoprivatespaces. Scholarshiphasremainedlargelysilentonthesubjectofuntilrecently,whenrenewed archaeologicalactivityinromeandlatiumbroughttolightanumberofsixth andfifthcenturyburials. 345 Thediscoveryofseveralarchaicchambertombsintheregionofancient Crustumeriumconsiderablybroadenedthescopeofthetopic.Therewereafewknown chambertombsinlatiumpriortothesefindings;themajoritywereconstructedsometime intheseventhcenturyandshowedsignsofuseuntilthefourth. 346 Whethertheywere abandonedinthesixthandreusedinthefourth,orusedcontinuouslythroughoutthe Archaicperiodintothefourthcenturywasunclear,basedonthelackofmaterialevidence thatwouldmakedatingpossible.thecrustumeriumexcavations,however,demonstrated thatthistypeoftombwasindeedcommoninarchaiclatium,andpromptedan investigationintothedevelopmentofthisstyleofburialintheregion. 343 Bartoloni1987, Toher Cornell(1995,105 8)andSmith(1996,186 7)makebriefstatementsregardingthe paucityofgravesandgravegoodsinarchaiclatium. 346 Bartoloni(1987)discussestheselimitedexamples. 83

101 Rajala,inaseriesofpublications,examinedtheresultsofthenecropolisofCisternaGrande, inancientcrustumerium,toexplorehowthesechambertombswereusedasobjectsto articulateidentitiesonlocalandregionallevels. 347 Shedrawsattentiontothegapinthe funeraryrecordofearlyromeandlatiumbyexposingthearchaeologicalbiasthatfavored theexcavationofearlierorlatertombs.tombsthatareconsideredricharemorelikelyto beexcavated,bothbecauseofthevalueoftheirobjectsforacademicstudyandbecause theyhaveahighriskofbeingrobbed.consequently,thosegravesthataredevoidofgrave goodsareconsideredpoor,andnotapriorityofexcavation. Inherearliestarticle,RajalatracedthechangesinfunerarycustominLatiumoverthe courseoftheorientalizingandarchaicperiods. 348 Shenoticedthatatransformationin tombtypeaccompaniedthedepletionofgravegoods.intheorientalizingperiod,themost commonformofburialconsistedofatrenchtomb,whichtypicallycontainedanumberof gravegoods.bytheendoftheseventhcenturytothebeginningofthesixth,anewformof burial,themonumentalchambertomb,appearedinlatium.thisdevelopmentoccurredat thesametimeasgravegoodsweredisappearingfromfunerarycontexts.whatismore,the numberofidentifiableburialswasgreatlyreduced;thereweresimplyfarfewergraves fromthearchaicperiodthanthepriororientalizingperiod.itappearedthattheriseinthe monumentalityofgravescorrespondedtoadecreaseinthenumberofgravesandgrave goods.shewascarefultonotethatthereappearedtobeconsiderablevariabilityintomb types:notonlydidchambertombsthemselvesvaryconsiderablyinshape,size,depth, dimension,orientationanddesign,butavarietyofdifferenttypesoftombs,suchas trenchesandsarcophagi,continuedtoappearthroughoutlatium. Rajala'sworkonthecemeteryatCisternaGrandecalledtoattentiontheneedforincreased systematicexcavationandstudyofarchaicburials. 349 Mostofthetombsthathadbeen recoveredelsewhereweretheproductofrescueexcavationratherthanthesubjectof targetedresearch.themonumentality,variabilityandpaucityoftombsthroughoutlatium duringthesixthandfifthcenturiesrequiredanexplanationthattookintoaccount economic,religious,political,socialandculturalchanges.accordingtorajala,itisnolonger sufficienttoexplainthearchaeologicalinvisibilityofgravesandgravegoodsastheresultof enforcedfunerarylegislation;whilethismayhavebeenacontributingfactor,itwasnot likelytheonlyone. Mostrecently,Bartolonirevisitedthetopicofarchaicburials,offeringanewinvestigation intothereasonsforthechangeinfunerarycustom. 350 Inanarticleco writtenwithnizzo andtaloni,bartoloniadoptedadiachronicviewinordertoexaminethedisappearanceof gravegoodsintombsthroughoutlatium. 351 Theauthorsstudiedtheburialsofsouthern EtruriaandLatiumduringtheOrientalizingandArchaicperiods,andnotedthattherewas 347 Rajala2007;2008a;2008b. 348 Rajala Rajala(2007,2008a,2008b)statesthisinallherpapers. 350 Bartolonietal.2009;Bartoloni Bartolonietal

102 adeclineinboththenumberofgravesandgravesgoodsinbothregionsovertime.they observed,however,thatorientalizingburialsoftencontainedvesselsinvolvedwiththe funerarybanquet,whichsuggeststhatfuneraryritualatthetimewasconnectedtothe performanceofritualsassociatedwiththesegoods. 352 Itseemsthattheseritualswere abandonedbythetimeofthearchaicperiod,whensuchvesselshadcompletely disappeared,followingagradualdecline,fromfunerarycontexts. Theauthorsmaintainedthatthisphenomenonwasdirectlyrelatedtoacentralpower,an authoritythat,inthetraditionofgreektyrants,issuedaseriesoflawsaimedatcurbingthe conspicuousconsumptionofthearistocraticelite.theyviewedtheturnofthelateseventh toearlysixthcenturyasatimecharacterizedbyconflictbetweenaristocraticelitegroups, whichwastemperedbythepromulgationofsumptuarylaws. 353 Thelawswere antiaristocraticinnature,eveniftheywerewrittenbyaristocrats,andweredirectedatthe restrictingthebehaviorandmanneroffuneraryritual.theauthorsaddthatthelawswere promulgatedsometimeintheseventhcenturyduringthereignofthetarquins,andwere institutedonlyinthoseterritoriesconqueredbyrome;thisexcludedlavinium,ardea, LanuviumandPraeneste. Thelastcenturyofresearchhasproducedmixedresults.Withoutadoubt,themost importantdevelopmentsinvolvetheidentificationanddiscoveryofarchaicburialsinthe archaeologicalrecord.pinzaandcolonna'scontributionsbroughttolightanewcategoryof archaeologicaldata.itwaspinzawhofirstobservedtheabsenceofburialevidenceatrome fromthesixthandfifthcenturies,andheattributedthisgaptoarchaeologists'inabilityto distinguishthegravesofthisperiodfromthoseofearliertimes.itwascolonna'swork, however,thatmadearchaicgravestrulyvisible.buildingonpinza'shypothesis,colonna arguedthatarchaicburialswereunrecognizablebecausetheycontainednoitemswith whichtodatethem.heattributedthereductionorabsenceofgravegoodstoachangein funerarypractice,andemphasizedthesocial,politicalandideologicalreasonsthatmight accountforthischange.atthetime,colonnawasonlyabletodrawhisconclusionsfroma fairlylimitedpoolofevidencethatconsistedprimarilyoftheresultsoftheesquiline excavationsandafewotherprominentsitesinsouthernetruriaandlatium.themany archaeologicalexcavationsconductedinromeandlatiumfromthenineteen seventies onwardhaveaddedconsiderablytothispoolofdata.inadditiontoradicallytransforming ourunderstandingofearlyromeandlatium,theseinvestigationsuncoveredanumberof burialsthatcouldbedatedtothearchaicperiodonthebasisofstratigraphicexcavation. Thisworkcontinueseventoday,andarchaeologistsarewellequippedtoidentifyarchaic 352 Riva(2010,141 76)drawssimilarconclusionsinherstudyofthe"princely"burialsof Etruria. 353 Inasecond,subsequentarticle,Bartoloni(2010)considerstheevidenceforarchaic burialatrome,andconcludesthattheburialsontheesquilinenecropolisaredividedinto smallgroupsthatperhapsrepresenttheburialgroundsofdifferentgentes. 85

103 tombsonthebasisofmoderntechniquesofstratigraphicexcavation,andanunderstanding thatarchaictombscontainlittletonogravegoods. 354 Despitetheseadvances,someproblemspersistintheinterpretationofthedata.Themost pervasiveisscholars'overrelianceontheancientsourcestoexplainphenomenainthe archaeologicalrecordofthearchaicperiod.thetwelvetables,andtheaccountsrelating totheirpromulgation,loomlargeinthisdiscussion.colonnafirstconnectedthenearor completeabsenceofgravegoodsinarchaicburialstothefuneraryrestrictionsofthe TwelveTables,andscholarsalmostunfailinglyhavecontinuedtoacceptthisinterpretation. Thechronologicaldiscrepancybetweenthepromulgationofthelawsandthechangeinthe archaeologicalrecorddonotevenpresentaproblemtomostscholars,whosuggestthatthe TwelveTablesrepresenttheformalizationinwritingoflawsorcustomsthatwere enforcedbyeithertarquiniuspriscusorserviustullius.underscoringthisclaimisthe debateconcerningthehistoricityoftheaccountsregardingearlyrome,whichcallsinto questionthereliabilityoftheaccountsconcerningthetwelvetablesandtheromankings. AlthoughIacceptthatitispossiblefortheRomanstohavepromulgatedsuchlaws, whetherornottheywerebasedonalongstandingtradition,ibelieveitunwisetodrawtoo manyconclusionsbasedontheancientaccounts.iconsideritunsoundtoconnecta phenomenoninthearchaeologicalrecordtoahistoricaleventofdubioushistoricitythat occurredoveracenturylater.itisinsteadmorefruitfultoexaminethearchaeological materialsforevidenceofachangeinfuneraryideology,andconsiderthisinthecontextof themanyothersignificantstructuralchangesthatwerehappeningatthetime. 5c.TypesofBurial InthissectionIoutlinethevarioustypesoftombsthathavebeenrecoveredthroughout RomeandLatium.Ihaveorganizedtheseintofourmaincategories,butnotevariationsthat occurineach.thefirstthreetypesoftombsreferalmostexclusivelytoadultburials;the lastpertainstothegravesofinfantsandchildren. i.trenchtombs Trenchtombs,otherwiseknownastombeafossa,arerectangulargravescutintovolcanic tuff.initssimplestform,thefossatombisarectangulartrenchdesignedforasingle inhumation,butitmayhaveaniche(loculus)carvedintooneormoreofitssidestohold anotherburialand/orgravegoods.duringthearchaicperiod,mosttrenchtombsconsist onlyofonetrenchcontainingasingleinhumation.ingeneral,theyincludeverylittleinthe wayofgravegoods,exceptatsatricum,wherefunerarykits(corredi)areoftenpresent. 354 Althoughitispossiblethatgeochronometrictechniquesassistinthedatingofrecently discoveredtombs,thesearenotwidelyimplementedatarchaeologicalsites.whatismore, thecostoftheseanalysesmaybeprohibitiveandunnecessaryinlightofstratigraphic excavationandceramictypologies.chronologyisnotsomuchanissueforthetombsmore recentlyexcavated,butthoserecoveredinthelatenineteenthandearlytwentieth centuries.inthiscase,obtainingthecorrectmaterialsnecessaryfordatingisunlikely. 86

104 TrenchtombscomprisethemostcommonformofburialduringtheEarlyIronAgeand OrientalizingperiodofcentralItaly.TheyaregenerallylesscommonintheArchaicperiod, althoughtheycontinuetoappearinhighnumbersatcertainsites.theyconstitutethe predominantformofburialatsatricum, 355 wheretheyareusedalmostexclusively,andare wellattestedinromeanditsenvirons.excavationsin2002ontheesquilinehillatrome uncoveredseveralexamples. 356 InthesouthernregionofmodernRome,theLaurentina districthasrevealedparticularlyhighconcentrationsoftrenchtombs:atcasalemassimait constitutesthemainformofburial,andseveralexampleswerediscoveredattorde' Cenci. 357 BeyondRomanterritory,trenchtombsareattested,althoughinfewernumbers.Asingle examplewasdiscoveredatardea,atthesiteofcampodelfico; 358 atfidenae,anespecially richtrenchtomb,belongingtoawoman,wasdiscovered. 359 AtFicana,ArdeaandGabii, trenchtombsareoftenusedfortheburialofchildren,withorwithoutgravegoods. 360 Thesechildren'strenchtombsoftenappearinhabitationareas,alongsidejuvenileburials injars. 361 ii.sarcophagi Monolithicsarcophagi,carvedfromtuff,constituteasecondcategoryofburialinRomeand LatiumduringtheArchaicperiod. 362 Theyweredepositedintrenchesdugintotheground or,onoccasion,placedinchambertombs.thesarcophagiareoftencoveredwitha monolithicslabofthesametuff,whichisplacedhorizontallyoverthetomb.insomecases thesarcophagusmaybecoveredinsteadwithtilesorwoodenplanks.althoughmost sarcophagiremainunadorned,somereceivefurtherrefinement,andhavepanelscarved intotheirsidesorarecoveredbygabledlids.forthemostpart,thesarcophagiheldsingle inhumations,butoneexamplefromtheoldexcavationsontheesquilinecontaineda marblecremationurn. 363 Ingeneraltheycontainlittletonogravegoods.Thistypeofburial continuedtobeusedinthefourthandthirdcenturies,whichhascausedproblemsfor scholarstryingtodatethetombsrecoveredinoldexcavations.intheabsenceofgrave 355 Gnade1992;2002;Ginge Barberaetal.2005;AsorRosaetal CasaleMassima:Bedini1980;Torde'Cenci:Bedini CrescenziandTortorici digennaro Ficana:Jarva1981a;1981b;CataldiDini1980.Ardea:CrescenziandTortorici1983. Gabii:seeChapter Jarva1981a;1981b. 362 Manysarcophagiaremadeofpeperinotuff,agreytuffgenerallyquarriedfromtheAlban Hills.ItwascommonlyusedinconstructionduringtheArchaicperiod.Thetufffrommany sarcophagihavenotbeenidentifiedorsampled,however,anditisimpossible,atpresent, todeterminetheirorigin. 363 Colonna1977,

105 goodsorreliablestratigraphy,thesegravescannotbeaccuratelydated.thedimensionsof thesarcophagiareremarkablyconsistentthroughouttheentireregion.thesixsarcophagi thathavebeenwelldocumentedpreservedimensionsrangingfrom1.96to2.14min length,by0.76to0.82minwidth,by0.60to0.64minwidth.eventhosesarcophagithat comefromtheolderexcavationsaresimilarinsize. SarcophagiaremostcommonlyattestedatRome,and,alongwithtrenchtombs,comprise thedominantmodeofburialthere.themajorityofthesarcophagihavebeenfoundonthe EsquilineHill.OnthebasisofstylisticcomparisonswithexamplesinsouthEtruriaand potteryfoundnearthetombs,colonnadatedtothearchaicperiodseveralsarcophagithat wererecoveredintheoldexcavationsofthenecropolis. 364 Inthenineteen twenties,colini discoveredadditionalsarcophagiontheesquiline;althoughitispossiblethattheybelong tothearchaicperiod,theyhavebeendatedtothefourthcentury. 365 Morereliabledata haveemergedfromthe2002excavationsontheesquiline,whichhaverevealedthree additionalexamples. 366 MovingnorthwesttotheQuirinalHill,threesarcophagihave recentlybeenfoundonthemodernviagoito.archaeologistshavetentativelydatedthese fromthefourthtosecondcenturies,butacknowledgethattheymaygobackasfarasthe sixthcentury. 367 Amoreprecisedatecouldnotbedeterminedsincethetombshadbeen lootedandthestratigraphyprovedunreliable.despitetheinconsistentqualityofthe Esquilinedata,themonolithicsarcophagusoftuffseemstohavebeenacommontypein thecemetery. OutsideofRome,sarcophagihavebeendiscoveredprimarilyineasternLatiumatLa Rustica,Tibur,GabiiandCorcolle. 368 Theywereallconstructedoflocaltuff,withexception ofoneexamplefromtiburthatwascarvedfromlimestoneandwascoveredbyatravertine lid. 369 AtTiburthesarcophagiwerelocatedwithinacemetery,atGabiiwithintwodistinct intramuralburialgroupsandatcorcolle,inachambertomb. 370 Colonnaconsideredthe sarcophagifromlarusticaandtiburasarchaicindate,buttheevidencecomesfromold excavationswhoseresultsareinconclusive. 371 TothesouthofRome,atLanuvium,thesocalledTomboftheWarriorwascontainedinasarcophagus Colonna1977, Colini Barberaetal.2005;AsorRosaetal Menghietal ItisunclearfromReggianietal.1998,whetherthesearearchaicsarcophagi. 369 LaRustica:CLP153 65;Tibur:Faccenna1957;Gabii:seeChapter6.Ihavenotincluded LaRusticaamongthelistofsitespresentedheresincethereportsprovidenearlyno informationregardingtheseburials.theclpnotesonlythatsomeoftheburialsinthe cemeteraymayhavebelongedtothearchaicperiod,butdoesnotspecifywhichones. 370 Reggianietal Colonna1977, Inbothcases,thesarcophagiarelocatedwithinnecropoleis containingburialsrangingindatefromthesevenththroughthirdcentury.inthecaseofthe tombattivoli,colonnaredateditbasedonthepresenceoflate archaicandproto classical Etruscanbronzemirrors.WithregardtoLaRustica,thepublishedreports(CLP153 65), 88

106 Colonnaidentifiedasubcategoryofsarcophagiwhenreviewingthematerialfromthe Esquiline.Theseweresmallstonecoffins(casse)andpeperinourns,whichhebelieved belongedtothearchaicperiod. 373 Thecassewereundecoratedandcontainedsingle inhumations.gravegoodsweregenerallyabsent,butinsomecasestherewereafewitems, suchasaloomweight,afragmentofaesrude,ormirror.theurns,exceptforoneexample inmarble,weregenerallymadeoftuff,andcontainedcrematedremains.mostofthese weresmoothandhadnodecoration,butthereareafewexamplesbearingtracesof painting,wallmirrorsandarchitecturalfeatures.colonnadatestheseurnstothesixthand fifthcenturiesbasedonstylisticsimilaritiesbetweentheseexamplesandothersfromspina andcaere,buttheseconclusions,asisthecasewithmuchoftheevidencefromthe Esquilinecemetery,areextremelyunreliable. iii.chambertombs ChambertombsemergedinLatiumvetusattheendoftheseventhcentury,andduringthe Archaicperiodbecamecommonthroughouttheregion.Thereisconsiderablevarietyinthe styleandlocationofchambertombsbothatthelocalandregionallevels.ingeneral, however,thesetombswerecutintothelocaltuffandweredesignedtoaccommodateone ormoreinhumationburials.theyarecomprisedoftwobasicfeatures,thechamberandthe entrancecorridor(dromos).thechamberisrectangularandhasnichescarvedintoits wallsorabedcarvedintothetuff;tilesorwoodenplanksoccasionallyclosedofftheniches. Thedromos,whichconstitutestheformalentrancetothetomb,isoftenlongandnarrow, andcoveredattheentrancebystoneslabs.thedimensionsofboththechamberandthe dromosvarytremendouslyaccordingtotombandsite.chambertombsoccupiedmany differentpositionsinthelandscape.theyareattestedinisolation,smallgroupsand cemeteries,andareoftenlocatedalongroadsoratcitylimits.occasionally,theyarelocated withintheagerofthecity.mostchambertombsdonotcontaingravegoods,althoughsome inhumationsarefoundwithpersonalaccoutrements,suchasfibulaeandpins. Mostchambertombshavebeendiscoveredwithinthelastfiftyyearsand,asaresult,have benefittedfromthemethodologyandtechniquesofmodernexcavation.archaeologists havereliablydatedmostchambertombsbasedonthecontentsofthefillandstratigraphic sequence.however,manyburialswereexcavatedaspartofrescueoperationsratherthan researchprojectsandareoftenmissingsomeformsofdocumentation,including photographs,plans,dimensionsandanthropologicaldata. indicatethatseveralsarcophagi,someofwhichhadsidenichesorwerecoveredwithtiles, weredevoidofgravegoods.onthesegroundscolonnaassignedthesetombstothearchaic period.however,theonlytombspublishedinanydetailareahandfuloforientalizing tombswithsubstantialcorredi.theallegedlyarchaicburialsreceivednodiscussionother thanthiscursoryobservation. 372 GRT Colonna1977,

107 ChambertombshavebeenfoundatanumberofsitesthroughoutancientLatium,someof whichdisplayregionalsimilarities.inthelaurentinadistrictofrome,twochambertombs areattestedatthesiteofacquaacetosalaurentina, 374 agroupoftenatthesiteoftorde' Cenci, 375 andtwomoreatthesiteoftorrino. 376 TheburialsatAcquaAcetosaLaurentina andtorde'cencihaveincommonashortdromos,andnarrow,rectangularchamberthat hasanicheononeofitslongsides. 377 AtTorrino,thedromoiarelongandnarrow,andthe individualchambersareoblongandcontainoneortwoloculi.oneofthesechambertombs wasinusefromtheorientalizingthrougharchaicperiodsandcontainsseparatechambers, someofwhichcontainedmultipleinhumations. Themostsubstantialgroupofchambertombshascomefromtheexcavationsatancient Crustumerium,atthesiteofCisternaGrande. 378 Onelateorientalizingandfivearchaic chambertombswerediscoveredherethathaddifferentshapes,sizes,depths,orientations, designsandfinishing.thedromoivariedinlengthandwidth,whilesomewereclosedby singlestoneslabsandotherswithpilesofstones.theredoesnotseemtohavebeena standardtombtype,sincesomechambershadoneormoreloculithatcontainedadditional burialsincoffins,trunks,orfunerarybeds.mostofthetombsincludealimitedquantityof gravegoods,whichsetsthemapartfrommostarchaicburialsinlatium.examplesofgrave goodsincludejewelry,arms,metalobjects,potteryandfibulae.someofthetombsfrom thissiteshowevidenceofreuse;itseemsthatolderburialsweredisarticulatedand removedtomakenewspacefornewerinhumations. EastofRomechambertombshavebeenidentifiedatCorcolle 379 andgabii. 380 Thetwelve recoveredatcorcolleconstituteanecropolisalongwithseveraltrenchtombs.the chambertombsareallcharacterizedbynichesorientedaroundacentralchamber,butvary innearlyeveryotherrespect.oneoftheoldesttombs,datingtothesecondquarterofthe sixthcentury,containedafunerarykitthatconsistedmostlyofceramicvessels.atgabii,a variantofthechambertomb,knownasthesemi chamber(semicamera),appearswithin theurbanareaofthecity. 381 Insomerespectstheyresemblealargetrenchtomb:cut verticallyintothetuff,theylacktheformalentrance,ordromos,ofatypicalchambertomb. Theplanofthesetombs,however,isquadrangularandthedimensionsmuchgreaterthana standardtrench.atgabii,thegravesreachadepthof1.95mrangeandrangebetween minlengthandwidth.Bothtombshadloculiontwoorthreesides,andinsomecases,a funerarybedwascarvedintothenicheinordertosupportthedepositionofthedeceased onawoodenbier.thesetombsmusthavebeenenteredbymeansofsomemechanism,but 374 Bedini Bedini Bedini Rajala2007,47;2008a, Rajala2007,2008a,2008b. 379 Reggianietal SeeChapter TheearliestchambertombcomesfromthesiteofOsteriadell'Osaanddatestothelate Orientalizingperiod(DeSantis1992;BiettiSestieri1992a;1992b,Tomb62). 90

108 thereisnoevidenceforthisatgabii;noristhereanyevidenceforwhatmighthavecovered themainchamberofthetomb,ifanything.alonechambertombhasalsobeenrecoveredat Lavinium,whichwasnoteditsgravegoods. iv.childandinfantburials ThefuneraryritualsaccordedtochildrenandinfantsinarchaicLatiumweredifferentthan thosereservedforadults. 382 Beginningsometimearoundthelateninthandearlyeighth centuriesandcontinuingthroughthefifth,infantsandchildrenwereburiedinclose associationwithinhabitedareas(i.e.hutsandhouses).theseburialstookseveraldifferent forms,primarilyintrenches,ceramicvesselsandtiles,andthereareanumberofterms usedinmodernscholarshiptocharacterizethisbasicphenomenon.asuggrundarium generallyreferstotheburialofaninfant,typicallytwoyearsofageorless,beneaththe floorsandalongthewallsofhutsandhouses. 383 Themostcommonformofthistypeof burialwasinajar,typicallyadolium,whichwasclosedatthemoutheitherbyflattiles, slabsofstoneorasecondjar,andthendepositedhorizontallyintheground.occasionally thevesselswereleftopenordepositedvertically.thetermenchytrismosissometimesused toreferspecificallytoinfantburialsinjars;whatdistinguishesasuggrundariumfroman enchytrismosistheconnectionwithahouseorhut. Infantsandchildrenwereoftenburiedintrenches,similartothosereservedforadultsbut constructedonasmallerscale.theymaybelocatedinacemeteryreservedspecificallyfor childrenorinaburialgroundsharedwithadults.insomecases,childrenappeartohave beenburiedwithadultsinthesamegrave;sometimestheyarelocatedinaseparate,but connected,loculus.thistypeofburialisalsofoundinassociationwithdomesticcontexts; althoughthisisnotasuggrundariuminthestrictsense,itappearstoservethesame function.alesscommontypeofinfantburial,acoppi,referstoindividualsthatwereplaced betweentiles.thesegenerallyconsistedoftwocoveringtiles,closedatoneorbothends withaflattile;piecesoftuff,ceramicfragmentsortileweresometimesusedassupport alongthesides.burialsacoppigenerallycontainedinfantsthatdiedatbirthorwithinthe firstfewmonthsoflife. InfantburialsarewellattestedinthearchaeologicalrecordofarchaicRomeandLatium, althoughtheyexperiencethesamedeclineinnumberandgravegoodsasadultburials.in theironage,childandinfantburialswereoftenaccompaniedbyrelativelyrichgrave goods,butbythearchaicperiod,therearefrequentlynoneatall.ifgravegoodsare present,theyconsistlargelyofasingleminiatureceramicvessel,afibulaorabulla. SuggrundariainparticulararewellattestedbothatRomeandGabiiintheArchaicperiod; 382 Chapter3presentstheliteraryevidenceforchildandinfantburial. 383 ThedefinitionofthewordisderivedfromaworkofFulgentius(Expositiosermonum antiquorum7),asixthcenturyc.e.writer,whostatedthattheancientsusedtheword suggrundariumtodenotetheburialsofinfantslessthanfortydaysold.gjerstad(1953, 152 4,especiallyn.3)describestheuseoftheterminancientandmodernscholarship.See alsochapter3regardingtheuseofthewordintheancientliterarysources. 91

109 atrometheseoccurinjars, 384 whileatgabiitheyoccurbothinjarsandintrenches. 385 At thesiteofancientficanawerediscoveredseveninfantburialsacoppi,inwhatmayhave constitutedaninfantnecropolis. 386 AtFicanathereisevidencefortheincreasingagerestrictionsplacedonchildburials.IntheEarlyIronAge,childrenofuptotenyearsofage wererecovered.duringtheseventhcentury,theagelimitappearstobetwoorthreeyears, andbythesixthcentury,noinfantswererecoveredovertwomonths d.FuneraryRite ThepredominantfuneraryriteinRomeandLatiumduringtheArchaicperiodwas inhumation.cremationwasmorecommonlypracticedduringtheironage;bythefourth century,ithadbecomethepreferredriteoncemore.theonlyknowncremationburialsof thesixthandfifthcenturiescomefromafewurnsrecoveredinthesarcophagifromtheold excavationsoftheesquilinenecropolisatromeandasingleurninthechambertombat Lavinium.Inhumationburialsappearinafewbasictypes,namely,trenches,chamber tombsandsarcophagi.gravesintrenchesandsarcophagiusuallycontainedsingle inhumations;chambertombsoftenheldtwoormoreindividuals.thebodyofthedeceased couldbeplaceddirectlyintothegraveoronawoodenplankthatwasloweredintothe tomb. Itisunclearwhyinhumationsupersededcremationbythebeginningofthesixthcentury, butitmaybeconnectedtotheotherradicalchangesinfunerarycustomatthistime, includingtheincreaseinthemonumentalityofburialsandthereductionofgravegoods. Economicmotivationsmayhavebeenafactorinthedecisionwhethertoinhumeor cremate,butthisisdifficulttodetermine.studiesofthefuneraryrecordoflaterperiods suggestthatinhumationwasthelessexpensiverite,whichscholarsclaimwaswidelytaken upbythelesswealthymembersofthepopulation. 388 Theentireprocessmayhavetakenup toeighthours,andrequiredtheinvolvementofspecialistsandthepreparationofapyre. 389 Inthislight,theadoptionofinhumationduringtheArchaicperiodmayreflectthedecrease inexpenditureonfuneraryritualobservedintheabsenceofgravegoodsandthelawsof thetwelvetables.however,theswitchtoinhumationmayequallyrepresentachangeof fashioninfuneraryritual,chosenperhapsforitsnovelty.wheninhumationreturnsasthe dominantriteinthethirdcenturyc.e.,thereislittleevidencetosuggestthetransitionwas broughtaboutbyeconomicorreligiousmotivations. 390 Instead,thepracticeseemstohave 384 Gjerstad1956,146 9;Gusberti( )providesausefulsummaryofburialsin associationwithinhabitedareasintheeighthandseventhcenturies. 385 SeeChapter Jarva1981aand1981b. 387 Jarva1981a. 388 Morris1992;Graham2006, McKinley Nock1972;Morris1992,42 69.Morrisinterpretsthechangefromcremationto inhumationasadiffusionofthecultureofthegreekeastintothelatinwestandexplains 92

110 beentakenupfirstinwealthyand/orelitecircles,suggestingthattheshiftinfuneraryrite waslargelyachangeoffashion,onethatperhapsallowedfornewopportunitiesof ostentation. 5e.ArchaeologicalSites ThissectionoffersacriticaloverviewofthearchaeologicalevidenceforburialinRomeand LatiumduringtheArchaicperiod.Manyofthesitesarenamedaftermodernlocations, whileothersarereferredtobythenameoftheancientcity.iprovideasmuchgeographical informationaspossible,foreaseofreference.iorganizethesitesaccordingtoregion, beginningwithromeandmovingintothenorth,east,westandsouthregionsoflatium.i includeaspartofromethosesitesthatfallwithinandjustbeyondthelimitsofthemodern city.forcitiessuchasromeandsatricum,whichhavebeenextensivelyexcavated,i documentthediscoveriesfoundatindividualsitesinthoseareas.inallcases,iofferabrief descriptionofthesiteswherearchaicburialshavebeenidentifiedandpresentanaccount oftheevidence. i.rome(center) PiazzaMagnanapoli In1876R.LancianidiscoveredthreemonolithicsarcophagiinthePiazzaMagnanapoli, nearthechurchofs.caterinadasiena(fig.5.1). 391 Therecordsregardingtheexcavation arevagueandimprecise,butindicatethatthethreetombswerefoundtogetherinasmall pitdugintotheearth.nearthetombgroupwasfoundasmallatticamphoradecoratedin blackfigure,whichcolonna,acenturylater,datedto500b.c.e.onstylisticgrounds. 392 Due toitspositionoutsidethesarcophagibutincludedinthesamepit,colonnasuggestedthat thisvesselwasafuneraryofferingmadetothedeceased,andconsequentlydatedtheentire tombgrouptothelatesixthandearlyfifthcenturies. 393 Originally,however,theburials weredatedtothefourthandthirdcenturies,basedonstylisticanalysesofthegrave goods. 394 thatitwaslikelytakenupfirstbytheelite,butwithinthespanoftwoorthreedecades,had trickleddowntothelowerclasses. 391 Theresultsofthisexcavationarerecordedintwodifferentpublicationsfromthesame year:bullcom(1876,123 6)andNSc(1876,185).Theinformationcontainedinboth reportsismostlyconsistent,butsomedataisomittedfromthenotiziedegliscaviaccount. Thedescriptionpresentedhereiscompiledfrombothreports. 392 Colonna1977,138 9.Pinza,inBullCom(1876,124)andNSc(1876,185),offerstwo differentreportsregardingthelocationoftheamphoretta,nearthefirstsarcophagus (BullCom1876,124)andnearthesecond(NSc1876,185).Ineithercasetheyareoutside ofandinassociationwiththetombgroup. 393 Colonna1977, vonduhn1924,487;ryberg1940,88. 93

111 Regardingthesarcophagithemselves,Lancianirecordsthattheywererectangularin shape,althoughvaryinginsize,andmadeofstonesimilartothatfromthelatincityof Gabii.Thefirstidentifiedsarcophagushadastonelidandwaswithoutgravegoods;the secondmeasured2.20by0.90mandcontainedanalabastron,abonepinandawreath withgildedboneberries;andthethirdwasclosedwithalidofgabledstoneslabsand containedninegildedbeadsofboneintheshapeofpomegranatesandpinecones.allthree sarcophagicontainedinhumationsoffragmentarynature,althoughananalysisofthe survivingteethbelongingtothesecondburialindicatedthatthisindividualwas25to30 yearsold.lancianisuggestedthetombgroupwasestablishedinconnectionwithan ancientcity gate,basedonhisobservationsthatasecondgroupofburialshadbeen discoverednearthearchontheesquiline. 395 BartolonilatersuggestedthiswasthePorta Fontinalis,butthishypothesisisdoubtful,sincetheoriginallocationofthisgateremains controversial. 396 EsquilineNecropolis ThecemeteryontheEsquilineHillwasexcavatedoverthecourseoftheeighteenseventies,whentheareawasbeingredevelopedformodernhabitation(fig.5.1). 397 The stateofrecordkeepingfromtheexcavationsisnotoriouslyabysmal:anumberoftombs wererecoveredduringtheconstructionofstreetsandpublicplaces,butthereisverylittle documentationrelatedtoanyoftheseactivities.basedontherecords,itseemsthe necropoliswasdividedintotwogroups,thefirstalongthestreetsofviagiovannilanza andtheviadellostatuto,andtheotheraroundthepiazzavittorioemmanuele(fig.5.2). Burialslocatedoutsideoftheseareasdemonstratethatthecemeteryextendedbotheast andwest,butthepreciselimitsareunknown. Followingtheseexcavationsthereweremanyattemptstoorganizethedata,theearliestof whichwereunsuccessful.recordswerekeptontheobjectsfoundinthetombs,andboth therecordsandartifactswereinitiallyheldinstorageontheesquiline.atsomelaterdate, theobjectswereremovedtoanotherfacility.noinventorywasmaintained,however,andit becamelargelyimpossibletoconnecttheartifactswiththeirtombs,exceptinafew circumstances.therenewedexcavationsintheeighteen eightiesfollowedbettermethods ofdocumentationandpreservation. 395 Itisuncleartowhichgroupofburialsherefers.Thesearepossiblythefourth century tombsholloway(1994,96 99)mentionswerefoundinsidetheServianWalls. 396 Bartoloni(2010,170)callsitthePortaFortunalis.Thegateisknownonlyfroma handfulofancientsourcesandinscriptions.itwasthoughttohavecomprisedpartofthe Servianwall,andthoughthereissomedisputeamongstmodernscholarsregardingthe preciselocationofthegate,mostagreewithlivy'saccountthatplacesthegateonthe northeastsideofthecapitolinehill,wheretheremainsarevisibleinfrontofthemuseodel Risorgimento.Foramorecompleteaccount,seeNTDAR303;LTUR MonAnt(1905,44 50)andGjerstad(1956,162 6)providesummariesofthehistoryof excavationsontheesquiline. 94

112 Ingeneral,thepoorstateofrecordkeepingandconservationofmaterialsfromthesite makethesedataratherunreliable,inspiteoftheadmirableattemptsinthelastcenturyto sortthroughthem.pinza,intheearlytwentiethcentury,wasfirstresponsiblefor organizingandpublishingtheresultsoftheesquilineexcavations. 398 Hedividedtheburials intothreecategoriesbasedonthedegreeofscientificmethodologyappliedtothe excavationofthetombsandthepreservationoftheircontents. 399 Thefirstcategory includestombs1 94,whichwereexcavatedin1884.Thiscategoryrepresentsthemost reliabledata,meaningthattombgroupsandtheircontentswererecordedandpreserved together.thesecondcategorycomprisestombs95 128,excavatedbetween1882and 1884.Theseareconsideredlessreliable,meaningthatthereissomeconfusioninwhich objectsbelongtowhichtombgroups.thethirdcategoryconsistsoftombs ,those recoveredbefore1882.thesearetheleastreliable,anditisimpossibletoascertainwhich objectsbelongtowhichtombs.itisimportanttonote,here,thatpinzadocumentedthe contentsoftombgroupsandnotnecessarilyindividualtombs.tombgroupsoften consistedofmultipleburials,thecontentsofwhicharedistinguishedinvaguetermsornot atall. Inthenineteen seventies,colonnaconsultedpinza'saccountofthenecropolisand identifiedafewburialsthatheattributedtothearchaicperiod. 400 Thefirstwasthesocalledtomb89,originallydiscoveredin1876intheareaofthedestroyedchurchofS. Giuliano,onthewesternsideofthePiazzadiVittorioEmanuele. 401 Theburialconsistedofa monolithicsarcophagusofpeperinotuff,inwhichtherewasasmallatticpelikewithredfiguredecoration(figs.5.3and5.4).accordingtoearlierreportstherewereanumberof otherceramicvesselsincludedinthistombgroup,whichgjerstadhaddatedtothelatial phaseiib. 402 Pinzainitiallydatedthevesselandthusthetombtothefourthandthird centuries,butcolonnalaterrevisedthis,postulatingadateattheendofthefifthcentury. 403 Asecondburialwastomb193,discoveredin1888nearthegatesofthenorthernsideof thepiazza,betweentheviaricasoliandvialamarmora. 404 Thisburialwasasmall pozzetto,builtofblocksoftuff,atthebottomofwhichwasanurnofpeperino.theurnwas intheshapeofahousewithagabledroof,andwasdecoratedwithrectangularpanelson theoutsidewalls;thelidhadslopingsides(figs.5.5and5.6).withinthisurnwasanother cineraryurn,madeofwhitemarbleandcoveredbyagabledroofthatwaspaintedonboth sides(figs.5.7and5.8).basedonthestylisticsimilaritiesbetweenthismarbleurnand anotherexamplefromelsewhereinitaly,colonnawasabletodatethistombfromthelate 398 Pinzadidthisintwomainpublicationsappearingin1905and1914.Theearlier publicationconstitutesthemainbodyofevidence,thelaterwasintendedassupplementary material. 399 MonAnt1905, BullCom1914;Colonna1977, BullCom1914, MonAnt1905,141;Gjerstad1956, Colonna1977, ,fig BullCom1914,162;NSc1888,132;Colonna1977,

113 sixthtoearlyfifthcentury. 405 Althoughtherewerenogravegoodsinthistomb,Colonna believedtheburialbelongedtoahigh rankingindividual. 406 Theattributionoftheurnsfromtomb193ledColonnatoidentifyasarchaicseveralother urnsfromtheesquilinenecropolis.hebasedhisconclusionsonastylisticcomparisonof theurnsandtheabsenceofanygravegoodsfromtheseburials. 407 Colonna'sfirstexample wasapaintedurn,largerinsizethanthatfromtomb193,whichwasnotassociatedwith anygravegoods(figs.5.9and5.10). 408 Heclaimstheurnwasprobablylocatedintomb5, butitsprovenanceseemsuncertain.fromnearbytombs4and6werediscoveredtwo paintedcineraryurnsandasarcophagus,allenclosedwithinachambertomb. 409 Both PinzaandColonnaarguedtheurnsresembledtheexamplefromtomb5.Colonnaaddedto thislistanurnknownonlyfromadrawingbylanciani(fig.5.11). 410 Anothercomesfrom tomb178,whichhaspanelsonitssidesandiswithoutgravegoods. 411 Twomoreurns werefoundintombs172and177,whichwerenearlyidenticalinstyleanddimensions. Bothweremadeofsmooth,unfinishedgabinestoneandwerewithoutgravegoods. 412 They bothmeasured0.58mlong,between0.25and0.26mwide,andwere0.23mhigh.there arenoimagesofthesetombs. ColonnaalsoassignsanumberofunfinishedstonesarcophagitotheArchaicperiodonthe groundsthattheyhaveveryfewtonogravegoods.theexamplesarenumerous,and Colonnalistsonlythosefoundwithafewgravegoods:tombs83,84and148,whichhad loomweights;tombs56 58,oneofwhichincludedapieceofbronze;tomb116,which containedalumpofaesrude;andtomb17,inwhichabronzemirrorandmetalpinwere found. Colonna'sattempttoidentifyarchaicburialsfromthelatenineteenth centuryexcavations atromeisbothadmirableandinfluential,butmustbeapproachedwithasignificant degreeofcaution.thoseburialsassociatedwithmaterialsthatcanbesecurelydatedtothe sixthandfifthcenturiesconstitutethemostreliablebodyofevidence;theseincludethe sarcophagifromthepiazzamagnanapoli,andtombs89and193fromtheesquiline.itis importanttoacknowledge,however,thatwithoutknowingthestratigraphicsequencefrom eitherofthesesites,itisimpossibletobeabsolutelypositiveabouttheirchronology. EspeciallyuncertainarethemyriadofsarcophagiandurnsfromtheEsquilinethatColonna attributestothearchaicperiodbasedsolelyontheirstylisticresemblancetotombs89, 193andthePiazzaMagnanapolisarcophagi,andthelimitedpresenceorcompleteabsence ofgravegoods.thereisverylittlereasontoaccepttheseexamplesasreliableevidence, 405 Colonna1977, Colonna1977, Colonna1977, MonAnt1905,186,fig BullCom1914, Mariani1895,21,fig.2;BullCom191238,fig.13;Colonna1977, BullCom1914,158;Colonna1977, BullCom1914,

114 since,forthemostpart,colonnahasbasedhisconclusionsonthedescriptionscompiled fromtheoldsitereports.inmanycases,therearenoimagesoftheseurnsandsarcophagi, onlydescriptions.itis,ultimately,difficulttodrawanymeaningfulconclusionsbasedupon thesurvivingevidence.atbest,whatthemajorityofcolonnaandpinza'sinformation demonstratesisthatstonesarcophagiandurnswereacommonformofburialonthe Esquilineoverthecourseofseveralcenturies,includingtheArchaicperiod. 413 InhisownreanalysisoftheEsquilinetombsinthenineteen fifties,gjerstadattributedonly threetombstothearchaicperiod. 414 Gjerstad,too,reliedontheworkaccomplishedby Pinza,butincludedonlythoseburialsthathebelievedhadareliablecontextand determinabledate.consequently,heaccountedforonlythosetomb groupscontaining datablepotteryandothernon ceramicobjects. 415 Thefirstistomb118,aboutwhich nothingatallisknown,exceptthatitcontainedthreeexamplesitalo Corinthianpottery, whichgjerstaddatedtothesixthcentury. 416 Thesecondwastomb125,achambertomb thatgjerstadclaimsistheonlyexampleofitskindthatcandefinitivelybedatedtothe Archaicperiod. 417 Theobjectsfoundinthistomb,whicharenumerousandincludea fragmentinscribedwithktektou,indicatethecontinueduseofthespace,sincetheycanbe datedfromthesixththroughthirdcenturies.thethirdexampleistomb128,wasatrench burialthatcontainedseveralvessels. 418 ThemaindifficultywithGjerstad'sclaimsisthat hischronologyhasbeenproventoolate.whatheattributedtothearchaicperiodinfact belongstotheorientalizingphase. ThenextseriesofexcavationsontheEsquilineHillwereundertakenbyColiniandPinzain thelatenineteen twentiesandwereaimedatdiscoveringadditionalburials(fig.5.12). 419 ArchaeologicalinvestigationcenteredonfourareasinandaroundthePiazzaVittorio Emanuele,butonlyinoneareawasthereanyevidenceforancientfuneraryactivity. 420 In thegarden,neartheentrancetotheviadellostatuto,archaeologistsdiscoverednine tombs.colinimadeonlygeneralobservationsabouttheseburials.allcontained inhumationsand,withoneexception,hadasoutheast northwestorientation.threetypes ofburialwereidentified:rectangulartrenchtombscoveredbylidsoftuffortiles; monolithictuffsarcophagicoveredbylidsoftuff;andrectangulartrenchesinwhichthe inhumationswerecoveredbytilesarrangedallacappuccina.therewasverylittleinthe wayofgravegoods,exceptforafewfragmentsofaesrudeintwoofthetombs.onlyone burialcontainedasignificantamountofgoods,tombsix,whichhadbronzecoins,afibula, anastragalus,miniaturebowlsandtwosmallvessels.ironandcoppernailswerealso recoveredandidentifiedasgravegoods,butitseemsmorelikelythatthesewerethe 413 Colini Gjerstad Gjerstad(1956,163 6)clarifieshisapproach. 416 Gjerstad1956, Gjerstad1956,259 61;MonAnt, Gjerstad1956,261 2;MonAnt, Colini Therewaslittleintheothertwoareasexceptvirginsoil. 97

115 remnantsofwoodenbiers.onthebasisofthegravegoodsfromtomb6andthetwo examplesofaesrude,colinidatedtheburialsfromthelatefourthtothirdcenturies.he suggestedthatthetombswithoutgravegoodsweretheearliest,andattributedthepoverty ofthegravestothesumptuaryrestrictionsofthetwelvetables. InrecentdecadesrenewedarchaeologicalactivityontheEsquilineHillhasbroughttolight newinformationregardingthearchaicoccupationoftheareawhichcallsintoquestionthe conclusionsofcolini'sinvestigations.theexcavationofsomefifteentombsinthepiazza VittorioEmanuelein2002constitutesasignificantcontributiontothearchaeological recordoftheesquilinenecropolis(fig.5.12). 421 Themajorityoftheburialswerefoundon theshortsideofpiazza,inthedirectionoftheviadellostatutoandtheviacarloalberto (fig.5.13).alltombsdatetothesixthandfifthcenturies.onlytwoofthetwelveburials containedanyevidenceofgravegoods(fig.5.14):tomb3hadaminiatureamphora(fig. 5.15)andasmallcupinthefill,andtomb12hadtwominiatureamphoraeandasmallcup. (fig.5.16).archaeologistsdistinguishedfourtombtypes:trenchescoveredbylidsoftuff; trenchescoveredbytiles;trencheswithaside loculusthatwasclosedbyverticallydepositedtiles;andmonolithictuffsarcophagicoveredbylidsoftuff(fig.5.17). 422 Onthe basisofthefewrecoveredgravegoods,archaeologistswereabledatethegravesgenerally tothesixthandearlyfifthcenturies,andobservedthatburialscoveredbyslabsoftuff predatedthosecoveredbytile. 423 ThedataseemedtoconformtothosepresentedbyPinza nearlyacenturybefore,whonotedthesoutheast/northwestorientationofalltheexplored tombs.thetypeoftombalsoconformstothoseexcavatedbycolini,suggestingthatcolini's tombsmaybelongtoanearlierperiodthanoriginallythought. Althoughthetombsfromthisexcavationrepresentafairlyhomogeneousgroup,Barberaet al.observeddistinctionsinthetypeandlocationoftombthatpointtothepresenceoftomb groups. 424 Theburialswithsideloculiarealllocatedincloseproximitytooneanother, whichthearchaeologistssuggestrepresentsburialsfromasinglefamilygroup.the appearanceofthistypeofburialatothersitesinrome,namelyacquaacetosalaurentina andlarustica,aswellasintheancientsiteofcrustumerium,mayreflectculturaltieswith thoseareas.itmayevenconnecttheseareastoveiiandtheagerfaliscus,wherethiswasa commontypeofarchaicburial.archaeologistsidentifiedasecondtombgrouponthe groundsthattheburialswereclusteredtogetherinsuchawaythatpointedtothe methodicaluseofthespace. BetweentheViadelMonteOppioandtheViadelleTermediTraiano,archaeologists discoveredacircularstructureofoperaquadrata,inthemiddleofwhichwasavotive deposit(fig.5.18). 425 Theyassociatedwiththistwootherfeatureslocatednearby:a 421 Barberaetal.2005;AsorRosaetal Barberaetal.(2005,315)wereunabletoclassifytomb2andnotethatthedateswere uncertainfortomb Barberaetal.2005, Barberaetal.2005, Cordischi

116 pavementoftuffwithacippus,foundimmediatelyeastofthecircularwall,andasecond votivedeposit,locatedsome12.5msouthwestofthesameprecinct.archaeologistsinitially interpretedthesiteasasacredareathatremainedinusefromtheseventhcenturyb.c.e.to thesecondcenturyc.e.thevotivedepositsrepresentedtheearliestphasesofoccupation: thefirstcontainedmaterials,mostlybronzefigurinesandminiaturevases,datingfromthe endoftheseventhcenturytotheendofthesixth;thesecondcontainedmostlythymiateria andloomweightsthatbelongedtothefourthandthirdcenturies.thecircularwallwasin usefromthethirdcenturyb.c.e.tothelatefirstcenturyb.c.e.orearlyfirstcenturyc.e., whilethepavementandcippus,interpretedasasacredarea,wasoccupiedfromthethird centuryb.c.e.tothesecondcenturyc.e. Coarelli,however,hasreinterpretedthedataasevidenceforthetombandhouseofServius Tullius,whomtheancientsourcesstateruledRomeduringthesixthcentury(c B.C.E.). 426 Hearguesthatthecircularwallisinfacttheprecinctwallofatomb,belongingto atypeofburialcommonmainlyintheregionofmodernabruzzo,andinlatium,attested onlyattibur. 427 Heisnotdissuadedbytheabsenceofaburialoranyfeaturesthatcouldbe associatedwithfuneraryactivity,claimingthatsuchevidencewaslikelydestroyedbymore recentlootingandconstructionactivities.bartoloniaddsthatatombacassonewithout gravegoodscouldhavebeenplacedhere. 428 Coarelliexpressesdoubtsconcerningtheoriginaldatingofthewall,andstatesthatthe cappellacciotufffromthefirstthreecoursesofthestructurepointtothefirstphaseofthe monument'sconstructioninthesixthcentury.hethenadvancesthehypothesisthatthis tombmusthavebelongedtoanotablefigurebecause,accordingtohisobservations,itis locatedwithintheromanpomerium.althoughthelawsofthetwelvetablesprohibited intramuralburial,exceptionsweremadeforindividualswhohadretainedtherightor earnedsomedistinction.coarelliidentifiesthisindividualasserviustulliusonthe followinggrounds:first,thatthetombtypefoundatromebelongstoatypecommonly foundattibur,inaregionofeastlatiumwherelivyrecordsserviustulliuswasborn; 429 second,thatthechronologyoftheking'sdeathandthearchaeologicalevidencefortheuse oftheareacorrespond;third,thatthetombissolarge,atapproximately16m,thatitcould onlyhavebelongedtoanotablefigure;andfourth,thatthetombwasfoundwithinthe wallsofromeatatimewhenintramuralburialwaslargelyprohibited.thevotivedeposits andnearbysacredareaheclaimswerelaterdeposits,madesometimeafterthetombhad acquiredcultstatus.alternately,bartolonisuggeststhatthevotivedepositsareofferings, madeatthemomentofthefuneraryceremony. 430 TheinterpretationofthisareaoftheEsquilineHillasaburialgroundisunconvincing.In thefirstplace,thereisnoevidenceinthearchaeologicalrecordforfuneraryactivity.the 426 Coarelli Abruzzo:d'Ercole1988,401 21,esp Tivoli:CLP Bartoloni2010, Livy Bartoloni2001,

117 claimthattheareamightoncehaveheldaburialisanargumentfromsilenceandcannotbe supportedbyanyrelevantevidence.thecircularenclosuresfromtivoliandabruzzo,to whichcoarellicomparesthecircularwallfromtheesquiline,allcontainburialseither withinorjustoutsidetheirlimits.itstandstoreason,then,thatthefeatureontheesquiline shouldcontainaburial,whichitdoesnot.whatismore,thearchaeologicalevidencethat doessurvivepointstoacompletelydifferentuseofthespace.theonlymaterialsrecovered fromthetrenchesarevotivedeposits,whoseexistencebothcoarelliandbartoloniattest. Coarelli,too,arguesfromsilencewhenclaimingthecappellacciowallsmayhavebelonged tothesixthcentury.althoughheclaimsthatthestratigraphicsequencewasnotmade entirelyclear, 431 theoriginalpublicationsoftheexcavationsindicatethatthephasesofthe wallweredatablebasedoninsitufindsrecoveredinthepavementassociatedwiththe wall. 432 ViaSacra GjerstadidentifiedfourarchaicsuggrundariafromBoni'slateeighteenth century excavationsintheviasacra(fig.5.1). 433 Thesewerealldiscoveredunderneaththefloors andalongthewallsofthehousesthatwereoccupiedfromabout575to450b.c.e.allwere depositedhorizontallyindoliaandhadtheirmouthsclosedbytiles;onlyinonecasedid thesuggrundariumconsistoftwojarsarrangedmouthtomouth.thedoliaweresimilarin size,ranginginheightbetween29.5and44cmand cmindiameteratthemouth ofthejar.suggrundariume(fig.5.19)comprisedthetwodoliaandcontainedtheskeletal remainsofachildaged20 24months,depositedinthefetalposition.Theremainshad gonemissingatthetimeofgjerstad'sanalysis,butheseemedconfidentintheosteological report.suggrundariumf(fig.5.20)containedtheburialofa3monthold;fragmentsof potteryandarchaeobotanicalremains(suchasgrainsandcharcoal)werediscovered within.suggrundariumll(fig.5.21)containedafoetusof7 8months,while SuggrundariumNN(fig.5.22)containedaneonate.Afewbonesofacattleandsheepwere foundinthejar,inadditiontocarbonizedgrainsofwheatandsomefishbones. QuirinalHill ElsewhereinRome,excavationsontheQuirinalHillhaverecentlybroughttolightthree stonesarcophagithatmaybelongtothearchaicperiod. 434 LocatedinthemodernViaGoito 431 Coarelli2001, Astolfietal.1990,177 8;Astolfietal , Boni(NSc1903,165)identifiesEandFassuggrundaria,butconnectsLLandNN(184 ff)withfbasedonthesimilarityofthetilesusedtoclosethedolia.gjerstad(1953,152 4; 1956,146 9)considersthemallsuggrundaria. 434 BothMenghietal.(2005,359,n.2)andBartoloni(2010,169)citeasrelatedevidence thediscoveryoftwomonolithicsarcophagifromtheearlyexcavationsonthequirinalhill. Theoriginalreports,however,providelittletonoinformationthatcanjustifytheseclaims. ThefirstexamplewasfoundintheViaGoitoin1873,whichPinzadocumented(BullCom 1905,254).Hementionedonlythatitwasanarchaictombthatcontainedafibula;hesaid 100

118 (fig5.23),allthreeappeartohaveconstitutedasingletombgroup.theabsenceofgrave goodsandthepoorstateofpreservationofoneofthesetombshasrenderedthemdifficult todate.twoofthetombsappeartohavebeenrobbedinantiquityandtheotherwas partiallydamagedbymodernconstructioninthearea.however,thesetombsare analogoustothesarcophagifromtheesquilinehill.allthreearemonolithictuffsarcophagi (fig.5.24);twoofthesepreservecompletelyorpartiallyalidoftuff,whilethecoveringof thethirdiscompletelymissing.theirorientationsarediverse:twoareorientedn/sand anothere/w.theresemblanceofthesarcophagitothosefoundontheesquilinesuggests thattheymaydatetothearchaicperiod.thestratigraphicsequence,however,revealsthat thesetombsmaybelongtothemiddlerepublic,sometimebetweenthefourthandsecond centuries.immediatelycoveringthetombswasalayerofglareateroadthatceramic inclusionsindicatewasconstructedsometimeinthesecondcentury;theabsenceofany layerofabandonmentbetweenthetombsandtheroadsuggeststhatthetombs immediatelyprecededtheroad. ViaLatina Fromthenineteenth centuryexcavationsatromecometwofinaltombsthatcolonnaand BartolonihaverecentlyclaimedbelongtotheArchaicperiod.However,thisattributionis highlyquestionable,sincevirtuallynothingsurvivesfromthemexceptforafewbrief detailspublishedintheinitialexcavationreports. 435 Archaeologistsin1836discovered whatappearstohavebeenachambertomblocatedwithinalatercolumbariumjustoutside theportalatinaoftheaurelianwalls. 436 Accordingtotheoriginalreport,thetombwasdug intothetuffandcontainedacorredoofseveralvasesofblackfabricthatweredecorated withanimalsandornamentsintheetruscanstyle;oneofthesevesselscontainedburned humanremainsandashes.colonnabelievesthesevesselsweremadeofbucchero(arefined formofimpastopottery,usuallywheel madeandfiredbrown,whichdatesgenerallyfrom theseventhtofifthcenturies)andweremostlikelysimilarinstyletothosecommonatveii inthesixthcentury. 437 Heconsiderssignificantthepresenceofvesselsinscribedwith animalfigures,sincethisstylebelongstoacategoryofdecorationcommoninetruriabut otherwiseunknowninlatium.evenmoreremarkabletohimistherarityofchamber tombsinromeandlatiumduringthisperiod;theonlyotherattestedexampleatromeis tomb125fromtheesquilinenecropolis,whichdatestotheorientalizingperiod.although itisprobablethatthischambertombwasearly,itisimpossibletodeterminemore preciselyitschronology.thereisnootherdescriptionofthetombotherthanwhatis nothingaboutthetypeoftomb.bartoloni(2010,170),however,statesthattheburial belongstolatialphaseiiioriv.thesecondtombwasrecoveredatthejunctionofthevia XXSettembreandViaCastelfidardointheearlytwentiethcentury.ThecitationsfromPinza andlanciani(bullcom1877,311)areextremelyvague,butaccordingtomenghietal.2005 wasdatedtothearchaicperiod. 435 Colonna(1996, )attributesbothofthesetwotheArchaicperiod. 436 Panofka1836,103 4;Ashby1907, Colonna1996,

119 providedintheinitialaccounts,andthewhereaboutsofitsobjectsremainsunknown.on thesegroundsalone,theportalatinatombisahighlydoubtfulsourceofinformation. ThesecondexampleconcernsachariotrecoveredduringtheexcavationsofRomaVecchia intheeighteenthcentury. 438 BothBartoloniandColonnastatethatthechariotwas recoveredinatomb,butthereisunfortunatelynoevidencefortheprovenanceofthis item. 439 Infact,theresultsfromRomaVecchiaexcavationsareextremelyunreliable: preciselywheretheytookplaceandwhatwasrecoveredinthemaremattersof considerableuncertaintyandconfusion. 440 Earlyarchaeologistsvariouslyusedtheterm RomaVecchiatodesignateanynumberofexcavationsoccurringintheregionsoutheastof Rome,betweenthecityandtheAlbanHills.Thetombinquestioncomesfromanyoneof theseexcavationsinthisgeneralarea;itsexactprovenanceremainsunknown. 441 Itseems thatbothauthorsthoughtthechariottohavecomefromatombbasedontheearly archaeologicalreportsandtheclaimsofancientauthors.theybelievedthatthechariot wasfoundintheregionoffossecluiliae,nearthevilladeiquintili,oneoftheregionsofthe oldromavecchiaexcavations,andaregionwherelivy(1.25)recordstheexistenceofa numberoftumulicontainingthegravesofmythologicalcombatants. Basedonwhatsurvivesfromthechariot,modernscholarshavedatedtheburialtothe sixthcenturyorshortlythereafter.theextantportionsofthechariotaremorelimitedthan theearlyreportssuggested. 442 Inadditiontoanumberofbronzefragments,whatsurvives aretwopairsofuprightsforthebits;asmallcylinderwithagorgoneion,usedtodecoratea pinonthehelm;adamagedfigureofsol/usilonthefrontofthechariot;andthebossesof thewheels.thelatestanalysesattributethechariotandthetombtosomewherearound thesixthcenturyoralittlelater.althoughthechariotiscertainlyindicativeofillustrious andwealthyowners,itisunclearwhetherthisrepresentsanarchaicburial. ii.rome(south) LocatedwithinthesouthernmostdistrictsofmodernRome,andatthelimitsoftheager romanusantiquus,areanumberofsiteswithevidenceforarchaicburial.a.bedini excavatedthemajorityofthesefromthenineteen seventiesthrough nineties,whenthe 438 ThemostcurrentanalysisofthechariotexistsinEmiliozzi(1997, ). 439 Colonna1996,346 50;Bartoloni2010, Colonna(1996,346,n.47),discussesthecontroversy.Ashby(1907,90 6)attemptsto makesenseofthediscoveriesattributedtoromavecchiaandtoclarifythelocationofthe RomaVecchiainvestigations.ItseemsthatRomaVecchiarefersgenerallytotheViaLatina anditsimmediateneighborhood.however,archaeologistsworkingintheeighteenth centurywereunawareofthissignificance,and,intheirconfusion,attributedto"roma Vecchia"anumberofdiscoveriesfromexcavationsundertakenindiverseareasalongthe roadsleadingfromromeandtowardsthealbanhills,namelytheviapraenestina,via LatinaandViaAppia. 441 Pinza1924,185;Dennis1878,vol.2, Pinza(1924,185)wasespeciallygenerous. 102

120 areawasbeingdevelopedformodernhabitation.theareasunderinvestigationinclude AcquaAcetosaLaurentina,CasaleMassima,Torrino,CasaleBrunoriandTorde'Cenci. AcquaAcetosaLaurentina ThesiteofAcquaAcetosaLaurentinaislocatedwestofthejunctureofthemodernVia LaurentinaandViaAcquaAcetosaOstiense.Themaintopographicalfeaturesincludean IronAgenecropolisandsettlement,locatedimmediatelywestoftheViaLaurentina.The cemeteryiscomprisedofatleast175tombsthatdatefromtheendoftheninthtothe beginningofthesixthcentury(fig.5.25). 443 Beginninginthelateeighthcenturytherewasa changeinthespatialorganizationofthecemetery,wheretombgroupsemergedconsisting ofacentralconspicuousgravesurroundedbyanumberofothers.thistransformationmay pointtotheemergenceoffamilygroupsinthecemetery. TheevidencefortheArchaicphaseofoccupationcomesfromtwodiscretelocationstothe northandwestofthenecropolisandprotohistoricsettlement.oneofthemostsubstantial discoveriesissituatedjustnorthofthedefensivesystemoftheprotohistoricsettlement, wherebediniuncoveredtwotombsinconnectionwiththeremainsofadomesticbuilding, allofwhichdatetothearchaicperiod(fig.5.26). 444 Thebuildingswerelocatedinthree areas,numberedv,viandvii.vwaslocatedtowardthewest,andviandviiweresituated totheeast;acanal,whichwaslaterfilledandusedasaroad,separatedvfromviandvii. InareaV,therewasevidenceforthreestructuresthatwereidentifiedashousesbasedon theirassociationwithfeaturesindicativeofdomesticuse,includingahearth,cisternand pits.oneofthebuildingscontainedasuggrundarium.foundinthelayersofoccupation werefragmentsofatticredfigure(oretruscanorcampanian)potterythataredatableto thesecondhalfofthesixthcenturytothebeginningofthefifth.thecomplexdoesnot appeartohavebeeninuseforlong:immediatelyfollowingthebeatenpavementofthe occupationphaseisathicklayerofcollapse.inbuildingviithereisevidencethatthe constructionofgraveseithercontributedtooroccurredimmediatelyafterthedestruction oftheresidence. Bothachamberandsemi chambertomb,databletothefirsthalfofthefifthcentury,were discoveredinthepost abandonmentphasesofthisstructure.thechambertomb(no.3) preservedane SE/W NWorientationandhadadromosmeasuring5.25x0.88m.The entranceatthedoormeasures0.50mwide,1.60mhighand0.42mdeep.themain chamberwastrapezoidalinshapeandwasabout mlong.Ontherightsidethere wasaniche,situated0.80mfromtheground;thenichemeasure0.68x1.86mandhada heightof0.50m.therewereveryfewskeletalremains,butwhatwasextantsuggeststhat theheadwasdepositedtowardtheentrance.thetombcontainednogravegoodsexcept forasingleglassbead,recoveredinasmallloculuslocatedinthewallneartheentranceof thedromos,whichdatesthetombtothefifthcentury. 443 Bedini1980,1981b;GRT171 3, Bedini1981b,257,n.24;1983,36 37,tombs3and4. 103

121 Thesecondchambertomb(no.4)preservesaNE/SWorientation(fig.5.28).Thedromosis 2.8x0.9m;atadistanceof1.10mfromtheentranceofthetombisasidenichethatwas coveredwithtiles.thenicheislocated0.55mfromtheground,measures0.55x2mandis mhigh.Thedeceasedwasarrangedwiththeheadtothenortheast.Therewereno gravegoods.onthebasisoftheabsenceofgravegoodsandacomparisonofthistombwith examplesfromcasalemassima(seebelow),thisgravewasdatedtotheendofthesixthor earlyfifthcentury. Asecondlocusofarchaicfuneraryactivitycomesfromasmallhillsituatedjustnorthofthe ViaAcquaAcetosaOstiense,whereBedinidiscoveredtwochambertombs. 445 Theburials arelocatedapproximatelyfivemetersapartandpreserveanorientationthatismoreor lessne/sw,withtheentranceofeachtombfacingthewest.thefirsttomb(figs.5.29and 5.30,tomba1)preservesadromosthatmeasures1.7mx3.4mandslopestowardthe entranceofthetombtoadepthof0.9m.theframewascarvedalongthesidesofthedoor, approximately12 15cmwideand2 3cmdeep.Theupperportionofthedoorwasnot covered;itwasdiscoveredopenandonlyonestone,foundnearthebottomofthedromos mighthaveconstitutedpartofthedoor.afewpiecesoftile,recoverednearthedoor,may havealsoclosedtheentranceofthetomb.themainchamberisquadrangularinplanand measuresabout2x2m.thewallsshowclearsignsofworking,andontherightsideofthe mainchamber,about0.95mfromthegroundisasingleloculus.theloculuspreserves dimensionsof minwidthand1.9minlength.Thereonlytracesofaskeletonwerea fewfragmentsofbonesfoundonthefloorofthemainchamber.apillowcarvedatthefront endofthenicheindicatesthattheheadofthedeceasedwasplacedtowardtheentrance.no gravegoodswerediscoveredinthetomb. Thesecondtomb(figs.5.29and5.30,tomba2)issmallerthanthefirst,andhasadromos about1mwideandextendstowardthedoorofthemainchamber.thedoorwas discoveredinsite,andcomprisedlargeblocksoftuffthatare60x50x28cminsize.five oftheseblockswerearrangedoneontopoftheothertoreachaheightof1.6m.themain chambermeasures1.75x0.8mandseemsmoreacontinuationofthedromosthanatrue cella.atthebackofthetombisthetraceofadoorthatwasnotcompleted.anicheis locatedontherightsideofthechamber,approximately0.8mfromthefloor;thenicheis 0.6mwideand0.4mhigh.Therewerenotracesofthedeceasedoranygravegoods. Thereisnoevidencethatthetombswererobbed,eitherinantiquityorinmoderntimes.It seemsthatthetombshadpartiallydeterioratedsometimeinantiquity,asfragmentsoftuff fromtheceilingofbothchambershadcrumbledandmixedwiththefillofthetomb. Ceramicfragmentsrecoveredinthefilloftomb1datetheburialfromthelatesixth throughfifthcenturies;comparablefindswerediscoveredinthelayersabovebothtombs. Bediniassignsthesecondtombtothesamedatealthoughnodiagnosticmaterialsseemto havebeenfoundinassociationwithit. 446 Heconnectsthesetombstothesettlementat Laurentina. 445 Bedini Bedini1983,

122 CasaleMassima ImmediatelynorthofAcquaAcetosaLaurentina,thesiteofCasaleMassimaoccupiesaplain ofthesamenameandpreservesanecropoliscomprisedofaboutfortytombs(fig.5.31). 447 Theareawasusedcontinuouslyasaburialgroundfromtheeighthtothefourthcenturies, butoverhalfofthepreservedburialsbelongtothesixthandearlyfifth.thearchaicburials belongtooneoffourtombtypes:trenches,trencheswithloculi(fig.5.32),trencheswith tilesandchambers;childrenwerefoundinsuggrundaria.theburialsweregenerally devoidofgravegoods;onlythreetombscontainedpersonalobjects,includingbeadsand pendantsofglassandamber. 448 Bedinibelievedthesetombsdatednoearlierthanthefifth century,onthebasisofastylisticanalysisoftheseitems.thetrenchburialswithtilecoveredloculicanonlybedatedmoregenerallytothesixthandfifthcenturies,sincethe tilesusedintheseburialsaremadeofimpastorosso,acoarsestyleofpottery,firedtoa reddishcolor,thatwasproducedfromtheninthtothefifthcenturies. Bedinidescribesthetwochambertombsingreaterdetail. 449 Thefirstchambertomb(n.1, fig.5.33)hasanne/ssworientationwiththeentrancelocatedatthessw.thedromos, whichcutintoanearliertrenchgrave,is0.6mwideand2.1mlong,andhasapronounced slopeinthedirectionofthedoor.thedoortothemainchamberis0.6mwide.although thedoorwasdiscoveredclosedandlargelyintact,theupperportionhadpartially collapsed.thedoorwasconstructedofslabsoftuffandreachedaheightofabout1.65m. Themainchamberprobablyhadanarchedceiling,butwaspartiallydestroyedbythe constructionofalatergrave.nevertheless,itseemsthattheheightofthechamberreached 1.8m.Themainchamberfeaturestwoloculi,onecarvedintotherightwallfromthe entranceandasecondattheback.thenicheswerecarvedinanirregularfashion;both werelocatedabout1mfromtheground,andpreservedimensionsofabout0.65x1.7m.in thechamberalongtherightwall,askeletonwasfoundarrangedwiththeheadoriented towardthesouth,towardtheentrance;inthechamberalongthebackwall,thedeceased wasarrangedwiththeheadtotheeast.thewallsshowclearsignsofworking.asmall olletta(fig.5.34)wasfoundatthebottomofthedromosandwasperhapsintendedasa gravegood.thisobject,togetherwiththeseveralfragmentsoftile,vasesanddolia,datethe tombtothesixthandfifthcenturies. Thesecondchambertomb(fig.5.33)islocated2.5mwestofthefirstandthewesternlimit ofthistombcutsanearliergravethatpreservesasubstantialcorredobelongingtothe seventhcentury. 450 Thedromosis mwideand2.75mlongandhastwosteps descendingintothemainchamber.ontherightsideofthechamberisanichethatisraised 0.46mfromthefloor.Thenichemeasures0.65minwidth,1.8minlengthand m inheight.thenichewasclosedbyfourtiles,andincludedapentolina(fig.5.35). 447 Bedini ThesearetombsIX,XandXIIinBedini(1980,60 3). 449 ThetombsarefirstmentionedinBedini(1980,62 3)andlaterdescribedinBedini (1983,33 6). 450 Bedini1983,

123 Thetwovasesandthetilesusedtoclosethenichesaretheonlydiagnosticelementsthat canbeusedfordatingtheburials.basedonthematerials,thetombsdatetothelatesixth toearlyfifthcentury.thischronologyfindssupportinthechambertombsfromacqua AcetosaLaurentina,whicharesimilarinfindsandconstruction. Torrino Approximately3.5kmwestofAcquaAcetosaLaurentina,betweenthemodernVia CristoforoColomboandViadelMare,isthesiteofTorrino,wherethereisevidencefor settlementandfuneraryactivityfromthebronzeagethroughtheimperialperiod (5.36). 451 Theevidencefortheearliestphasesofoccupationconsistsofasingletomb belongingtotheneolithicorbronzeageandafewfindsrecoveredintheimmediatearea thatrangeindatefromtheeighthtotheendofthesixthcentury.duringthelate OrientalizingandArchaicperiods,however,settlementandfuneraryactivityintensifies andtakesamonumentalaspect.tothelastquarteroftheseventhcenturybelongtwo adjacentchambertombsthatarecarvedintothebedrockandcontainmultiple inhumations(fig.5.37).thegravegoodassemblagesofthevariousburialsdemonstrates thatthesetombswereusedinsuccessiveperiods,butthesecondandlargestofthetwois theonlyonewithevidenceofuseinthearchaicperiod(fig.5.38). Thissecondchambertombconsistsofacentralcorridorwithtwonichescarvedintoeach sideandoneattheback.itcontainedelevenburials:twoineachofthenichesontheleft, oneinthenicheclosesttotheentranceontherightside,threeinthesecondnicheonthe right,andthreeinthenicheatthebackofthecentralroom.mostofthegravegoodswere founddepositedwiththethreeburialsinthesecondnicheontheright,whichsuggeststhat alltheburialswereredepositedtomakeroomfornewerones.withexceptionoftheburial inthefirstnicheontheleft,andoneoftheburialsinthebackniche,noneoftheremaining burialshadcorredi.bediniconsidersitprobablethatthetombwasconstructedattheend oftheseventhcenturyandremainedinusethroughthesixth,whichaccountsforthe absenceofgravegoodsinmanyofthegraves. 452 Bedinidoesnotnote,however,the presenceofanyfindsdatingtothearchaicperiodfromthefillofthetomb;inthisabsence, onemustacceptthepossibilitythatthistombmayhavebeenusedonlyintheorientalizing period. 451 Bedini1981a. 452 Bedini1981,63.Thedistinctionsinthefillofthevariousnichesandthecentral chamberprovidesadditionalsupportforthereuseofthetombovertime.afragmentofa buccherokantharoswasfoundwithinthebackniche,whichjoinedtoothergragments foundinthecentralentrance;thisfilldifferedfromthoseenclosingtheotherburialsinthat backniche. 106

124 CasaleBrunori BediniextendedhisarchaeologicalinvestigationsinthesoutherndistrictsofRometothe regionimmediatelysouthofthegranderaccordoannulare(gra).atthesiteofcasale Brunori(fig.5.39),situatedsouthoftheGRAbetweentheViaCristoforoColomboandthe ViaPontina,BedinidiscoveredanumberofchambertombsdatingtotheOrientalizingand Archaicperiods,andaseriesofroadsandbuildingsdatingtotheArchaicperiod(fig. 5.40). 453 Theearliestorientalizingburialsinchambertombsseemcontemporarywiththe limitedevidenceforhuts;inthearchaicperiod,thehutswerereplacedbymorepermanent stonestructures.somesuggrundariawerefoundinassociationwiththemonumentalphase ofoccupation,althoughtheirprecisedateandnumberareleftunstated.bedinibelieves thesejuvenileburialsconfirmthedomesticfunctionofthestonebuildings,addingthatthe clusterofbuildingsrepresentsasmallvillage. Intheareanorthwestofthearchaicstructureswasfoundagroupoffivechambertombsin associationwitharoadcutintothebedrock.thetombswereconstructedwithoneortwo loculi,astylecommoninthegravesoftheregionsouthofrome.thegeneralabsenceof gravegoodsfromthechambertombssuggeststhattheywereconstructedinthesixthand fifthcenturies.thepresenceoffourth andthird centurymaterialsinsomeoftheburials suggeststhatsometombscontinuedtobeusedintherepublicanperiod.theexcavation reportsdonotmakeclear,however,whichtombswerereused,nordotheyspecifythe contentsofeachtomb.thereissomegeneralinformationregardingtheinhumations, whichrevealthattherewerefifteentotal,mostofwhichbelongedtoadultsbetweenthe agesof20and35.itwaspossibletodeterminethesexofnineskeletons,mostofwhich weremale. 454 Analysisofstressmarksandcariespreservedinthedentalremainssuggests thatthedeceasedindividualsdidnothaveahighstandardoflife;itseemsthattheirlives werepunctuatedbyepisodesofstressandproblemsrelatedtopoornutrition.thisisnot necessarilyamarkeroflowstatus,however;ireturntothisinchapter6. Torde'Cenci IntheareaofTorde'Cenci,Bediniexcavatedwhathebelievedwasanextraurban compitum,acrossroadsthatinromanantiquitywasalocationofreligiousimportance(fig. 5.41). 455 Atthejunctureofthecrossroadswerediscoveredtwogroupsoftombs,rangingin datefromthelateeighthcenturyb.c.e.tothesecondcenturyc.e.thefirstgroupofburials, locatedtothesoutheastofthecrossroads,consistedoftentombsafossa(fig.5.42).the gravesappearedtobeorganizedinacircle,themajorityorientedaroundtwotombsatthe center,whichpreservedveryrichcorredi.althoughthetwocentraltombscanbedatedto theeighthcenturyb.c.e.onthebasisoftheirgravegoods,therestofthetombsaredifficult todatebecausetheywerecutbylaterpitsandmodificationstotheroad.inclose 453 Bedini Bedini1991, Bedini1990.TheancientsourcesrecordthatthefestivaloftheCompitaliawascelebrate atcrossroads,inhonorofthethecultofthelares.plinynh34.7,dion.hal.rom.ant

125 associationwiththiscircleoftombs,however,wasachambertombthatmaybelongtothe Archaicperiod.Thetomb(n.12),carvedintothebedrock,openedontotheroadtowards thenorthwest.ashortrampleadstowardthedoorofthetomb,whichconsistedoftwo largeblocksoftuff,about70x53x30cminsize.themainchambermeasures2.18mlong and0.9mwideand1.5minheight.twodepositionswereplacedinasideniche,raised about0.55mfromthefloor.thischambertombissimilarinstyleandcontentstothoseat TorrinoandAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.Thefactthattherewerenogravegoodsfoundin theburialsuggestsasixthtofifthcenturydate,butthisattributioniscomplicatedbythe constructionoftombsinlaterphases.thelaterburialscutdirectlyintothelayersofthe chambertombandmixedthestratigraphybelongingtoarchaicperiodwiththatfrom earlierandlatersequences. Thesecondburialgroup,locatedtothenortheastofthecrossroads,containedthreetombs afossaandeightchambertombsthatcanbedatedtothesixthandfifthcenturies,basedon theirtypologyandanabsenceofgravegoods(fig.5.43). 456 Twoofthetrenchtombs(nos. 13and14)hadapreserveddepthof0.6m.Thewallsofthesegraveswerelinedwithlarge blocks,perhapstoprotectawoodencoffin.stoneslabslikelywouldhavecoveredthetopof thetrenches,inamannerattestedatironagecemeterieselsewherethroughoutlatium. 457 Therewerenotracesofthewoodencoffins,however.Thethirdtrenchtomb(n.27) containedasideloculusthatwasenclosedbytilesofimpastorossoinamannerattestedat FicanaandLaurentinaduringthesixthandfifthcenturies. 458 Theeightchambertombspreserveatypologysimilartochambertombn.12:allhaveone loculusontherightsideoftheentrance,whichheldaskeletonwiththeheadplacednear theentrance.onlyonetomb(n.19)containstwosideniches,andbasedonthenumberof vesselsdatingtothefourthandthirdcenturiesfoundinside,bedinisuggeststhatitwas eitherreusedintherepublicanperiodororiginallyconstructedatthattime. 459 Otherwise, thechambertombsaredevoidofgravegoods.onlyoneburialpreservesavaseinthefill thatdatestothesixthandfifthcenturies;thisisasmallpentolafromtomb16(fig.5.44). 460 Somethirtytrenchtombswerediscoveredinthesamearea,buttheselargelydatetothe secondcenturyc.e. iii.latium:north Fidenae TheancientcityofFidenaeislocatedapproximately12kmnorthofRomealongthe modernviasalaria(fig.1.1).althoughtherearesometracesofhumanactivityatthesite 456 Bedini(1990,125),tombs13,14and Forinstance,Bedini(1990,126)citesthetrenchtombscoveredwithslabsoftuffortile fromlarustica,laurentinaandcasteldidecima,andficana. 458 Tomb Bedini(1990,126),tomb Bedini(1990,126),tomb

126 duringthebronzeage,thereislittleevidenceofpermanentoccupationuntiltheeighth century. 461 Belongingtothislaterphaseisahut,discoveredjustnorthofthesettlement. Thesettlementseemstohavedevelopedrapidlyoverthecourseoftheseventhcenturyand achievedthepeakofitsdensityandprosperityinthesixthandearlyfifth.occupation appearstohaveconcentratedontwohills,oneofwhichmayhavebeenthelocusofa sanctuary.therearesignsthatfidenae'sterritorywasaggressivelycultivatedduringthe Archaicperiod,sincedomesticbuildingsandburialsarecommoninthecity'shinterland. Themainburialevidenceatthesitecomesfromaseventhcenturynecropolis,whichhas nowmostlybeendestroyedbytheurbanexpansionofmodernrome. Onetomb,however,isnotableforitscontentsandarchaicdate. 462 Theburialwaslocated inthenorthernpartofthefidenaeplain,justwithintheboundariesofthesettlement,and alongtheroadleadingtoandfromthecity.itconsistedofasarcophagusofgreytuff,which hadbeendepositedinatrenchdugintothesoil.circularholescarvedatthebottomofeach cornerofthesarcophagussuggestthattombsupportedawoodenbier.theskeletal remainsindicatedthatthebodywasdepositedinthesupineposition,andrevealedthatthe deceasedwasawoman,approximately20 25yearsoldatthetimeofdeath.Theburial containedanumberofgravegoods,mostlyitemsofjewelry.theseincludedapairofgold earrings,agoldnecklace,asilverfibula,andseveralbeadsofglassandamber,someof whichwereassociatedwiththenecklace(fig.5.45).therewerealsoobjectsrelatedto personalornament,namely,amirror,alumpofaesrudeandtracesofredpigment.some componentsofthejewelryaresimilartoetruscanexamples,especiallyfromthetombsat Vulci.Basedonthetechnicalandstylisticanalysisoftheseitems,theburialcanbedatedto theendofthesixthcentury. 463 Crustumerium AncientCrustumeriumwassituatedapproximately16kmnorthofRome,pasttheAniene riverandnearthenorthborderoflatinterritory. 464 Thesitehasnotbeensubstantially occupiedinthemodernera,asituationthathasfacilitatedarchaeologicalinvestigationof theareainrecentyears.quiliciandgigliquiliciundertookanarchaeologicalfieldsurveyof theurbancenterinthenineteen sixtiesand seventies;in1982and1998workcontinued there. 465 TheresultsoftheirsurveyrevealedthatancientCrustumeriumwasconcentrated onanetworkofhillsthatstoodatacrucialjuncturebetweenlatin,sabineandetruscan territories(fig.5.46).thesettlementemergedintheninthandeighthcenturiesandwas comprisedofseparatespacesdesignatedforagriculturaluse.occupationbecamemore concentratedinthesixthcentury,whenthecityreachedthenaturallimitsofthehilland 461 GRT GRT digennaro(grt260 2)notesthatitisdifficulttodeterminetheprecisedate,since mostoftheetruscancomparandaaredevoidofarchaeologicalcontext. 464 digennaroetal QuiliciandQuiliciGigli

127 thesurroundingterritorywasmoreintensivelydevelopedforagriculturalproduction.by thefourthcentury,however,thetownseemstohavedisappearedaltogether. 466 In1987archaeologicalexcavationwasundertakenintwoorientalizingcemeteries.The firstwaslocatedatthesiteofsassobianco,situatednorthoftheancientsettlement,and thesecondatmontedelbufalo,locatedjustoutsidethesoutheasternlimitofthecity(fig. 5.47). 467 TheburialswereespeciallyrichanddemonstrateconnectionswiththeEtruscan, SabineandCapenateworlds.Althoughthemajorityofthetombsaretrenches,thereisa clearevolutionintheselectionoftombtype.intheeighthcentury,thetombsaregenerally rectangularpitscarvedintotuff,andoverthecourseoftheseventhsideloculiareadded forthedepositionofadditionalbodiesorgravegoods(fig.5.48).chambertombsemergeat theendoftheseventhcenturyandsubsequentlybecomethepredominanttombtype;they areoftenfoundalongroadsandsuperimposedonearlierburials.theearliestofthese chambertombsdatestothemid seventhcenturyandislocatedapproximately1km southeastofthesettlementontheancientroadtogabii.itwasconstructedwithan entranceshaftinsteadofadromosandcontainedthreeinhumationswithafewgrave goods. 468 Afewchambertombsdatedtotheendoftheseventhcenturyandbeginningof thesixthandcontainedfewgravegoods. 469 Acremationburial,datingtothesixthcentury, wasdiscoveredamongtheinhumations,whichdigennarointerpretedasasignofstatus thatplacedspecialimportanceonthefamily'saristocraticlineage. 470 Between2004and2008archaeologicalresearchfocusedontheexcavationofanarchaic necropolisatthesiteofcisternagrande. 471 Thecemeteryislocatedonahillsideeastofthe city,oneithersideofthetrenchofanancientroad(fig.5.49).archaeologistsuncovered sevenchambertombs:twobelongedtotheorientalizingperiodandfivetothearchaic period.thetombsrevealedconsiderablevariationindimension,orientationand techniquesofconstruction.thedromoiwerealldifferentinlength,widthanddepth.stone slabs,discoveredinsitu,blockedtheentranceintomosttombs,andpilesofstoneswere usuallyfounddepositedbeforethedoor.insomecasesasinglestoneslabconstitutedthe door,infrontofwhichwereplacedstonesofdifferentcolors.rajalaspeculatesthatthe differentiationintombtypereflectsthedifferenceeconomicandsocialstatusesoffamilies orindividualsburiedhere. 472 Thefirsttypeofchambertombconsistsoflargerectangularchamberswithoneormore loculialongthewalls(fig.5.50).theseoftencontainedmultipleburialsincoffins,trunksor funerarybiersplacedonthefloor.thedromoiofthesetombsareoftenlongerthanthoseof othertypes.oneofthesetombspreservesaceiling,butexcavationwashaltedforsafety 466 Amoroso2000;diGennaro1999;QuiliciandQuiliciGigli DiGennaro Paolini digennaro digennaro Rajala2007;2008a;Rajala2008b. 472 Rajala2008a,

128 reasons.thesecondtypeofchambertombhasasmaller,semi circularchamber,alow ceiling,twoirregularloculionoppositesides,andashortandnarrowdromos(fig.5.51). Toolmarksarevisibleonthesurfaceofthiskindoftomb,whichsuggeststheir constructionrequiredfewermanualresources.rajalaobservesthatthegravegoodsinthe firstcategoryofchambertombaremoreelaboratethanthosediscoveredintombsofthe secondtype. 473 Thisleadshertosuggestthatthefirsttombtypebelongedtothemore affluentandelitemembersofcrustumerium,whereasthelesswell off,perhapsartisans andfreetowndwellers,occupiedthesecondtype.sheaddsthattheywereclearlynotthe tombsofthearistocraticelite. Althoughthearchaictombscontainedfewergravegoodsthanthosefromearlierperiods, mostcontainedexamplesofjewelry,armsormetalobjects.onlyfiveburialslackedcorredi, mostofwhichwerefromredepositedorlaterburials.twoburials,onefromeachtomb type,preservedanentireceramicvessel.therichestburialscontainedbronzefibulae decoratedwithbeads,pendantsorironweapons;otherswereburiedwithironfibulaeor anassortmentofironobjectsthatthereportsdonotmakespecific.someloculiwereclosed withtiles,whichrajalainterpretsasasignofwealtheventhoughtheywerediscoveredin bothtombtypes.inotherburials,stonesormudbricksclosedtheloculus,whileinothers therewasnoevidenceforaformalenclosureandthedeceasedwasonlywrappedina shroud.onetombpreservedtheremainsofahollowedtrunk,whileotherburials containedcoffinsorwoodenbiers. Therearetwoexamplesoftombreuseandtheredepositionofbodies.Twoloculiin differentchambersindifferenttombtypescontainedmorethanoneindividual,andinboth casestheprimaryburialwasmovedasidetomakeroomforthesecondaryone.inanother burial,itseemsthataskeletonwasredepositedafterthefleshhadalreadydecayed.athird examplerevealsalaterburialinthecollapseddromosofanarchaicburial;thissuggests eitherafamilyconnectiontothetomborperhapsaconvenientlocationforburial. ThenatureofthelocalbedrockrenderedthetombsatCisternaGrandepronetocollapse. 474 Thebedrockconsistedofseveralthinlayersofvolcanictuffthatcouldnotadequately supporttheweightofthetombceilings.boththechambersandtheloculiwerecutthrough alayerofbrecciatufacea,ageologicalmixtureofpumice,stonesandintovolcanicclay.the ceilings,whichgenerallycomprisedalayerofsuperimposedtufogiallo(yellowtuff)and cappellaccio(afriable,greytuff),werelikewisevulnerable.thevarietiesoftuffand volcanicclayaresoftmaterials,and,althoughtheyfacilitateconstruction,donotofferany longtermstability.asaresult,mostofthetombsatcisternagrandehavecollapsed.in somecases,thecollapseofthetomboccurredduringorimmediatelyafteritsperiodof use Rajala2008a, Rajala2008b, Rajala2008b,83 4,Tombs12and

129 Inoneexample,thedeteriorationofthetombappearstohaveinfluencedtheritual behavioroflivingrelativesandmembersofthecommunity. 476 Archaeologistsdiscoveredin thefallendromosofoneofthelargerchambertombs,asecondaryburialthatconsistedofa skeletonandafewgravegoods.thebronzefibulaeandbullaethatcomprisedthecorredo datetheburialtothearchaicperiod.althoughtrenchtombsarecommonincentralitaly duringthearchaicperiod,theconstructionofaburialinthecollapsedfillofadromosis unattestedelsewhere.itispossibletointerprettheevidenceintwoways:eitherastheloss ofthememoryoftheearlierburial,orasadeliberatecommemorativeact. AtMontedelBufalo,diGennaroobservedthatoneportionofthecemeteryseemed restrictedforusebyasinglefamily. 477 Agroupoftombsofvaryingtypes(trench,trench withloculusandchamber)werediscovereddenselyarrangedandsuperimposed.oneof thechambertombscutintotwoearliertrenchtombs,andadditionalburialswereoriented aroundthese.itispossiblethateachburialsimultaneouslyrepresentedadeliberateactof commemorationandreflectedthepreservationofone(ormore)family'sburialrightsin thecemetery.however,theconstructionoflaterburialsintoearlieronesmaysignifyanact ofdestructionthatmaybedeliberateorpointtotheabsenceofmemoriesortiesassociated withtheburialgrounds.rajalainterpretstheexceptionalcharacterofthesecondaryburial intomb17asevidenceforafamilyplot. 478 Theearliestburialsinthetombdatetotheend oftheorientalizingperiod,butthecollapseofthedromoswouldhaveprohibitedfurther useofthetomb.theintermentofaskeletonandgravegoodsintheruinsofthechamber tomblikelyrepresentedtheintentionalcommemorationandaffiliationwiththeearlier burials. iv.latium:east Gabii Adetailedaccountofthehistory,developmentandarchaeologyofGabiifollowsinChapter 6. Corcolle ThesiteofCorcolleislocatedintheLatininterior,inatriangleformedbyTiburtothe northeast,praenestetothesoutheastandgabiitothesouthwest(fig.5.52).archaeological investigationoftheareainthenineteen sixtiesuncoveredevidenceforanarchaic settlementsituatedonanelongatedplateauthatisflankedbytwotrenchesknowntodayas themoledipanceandthemoledicorcolle. 479 Basedoncomparisonsdrawnbetweenthe topographyoftheregionandtheancientsources,thesitehasbeenidentifiedasthe 476 Rajala2008b,84 5,Tomb digennaro1999, Rajala2008b, Reggianietal

130 oppidumofquerquetulaniorpedum. 480 AttheendoftheOrientalizingperiod,urban developmentconcentratedonthewestendofthehill,whichmayhavefunctionedasan acropolis.stonestructuresappearedinthefollowingperiod.thesestructureshavebeen interpretedashouses,basedontheirconstructioninstoneandtheceramicmaterials foundinthemthatpointtodomesticuse.morerecentexcavationsundertakenbythe SoprintendenzaatRomehavediscoveredamid tolaterepublicancultlocationwith relatedvotivedeposit.architectonicterracottafragmentswererecoveredhere,inaddition totheso calledaltarofcorcolle,whichbearsalatininscriptiondatingtothebeginningof thefifthcentury. Excavationinthenineteen ninetiesconcentratedinthesoutheastsectoroftheplateauand broughttolightaburialgroundthatextendedacrossthesummitandslopesofthehill.on thesidesofthehillwereidentifiedtwelvechambertombs,threeofwhichweredatedtothe Archaicperiod.Thetombswereallorientedaroundasmallroad,asortofviasepolcrale, thatwascarvedintothebanksoftuff.thedromoiofmostofthesetombsopenedontothe road.thereportsdonotaccountforthedetailsofeverytomb,butindicatethattheymore orlessconformedtothesameplanconsistingofamainchamberwithloculionthesides andsometimesattheback.amonolithicblockofstoneoftencoveredtheentrywaystothe tombs.thethreearchaicchambertombsweresimilarinconstructionandplan,although twoofthemwerenotorientedtowardstheroad.thecorredirecoveredinthesetombs datedtheburialstoabout B.C.E.Objectsincludedseveralvesselsofbucchero(a calice,kantharosandoinochoe),vasesandbalsamariofetrusco Corinthianimport,and, aboveall,aseriesofollaeofimpastobruno,someofwhichborepainteddecoration.the closestcomparandafortheollaecomesfromtiburandafewsabinecentersintheregion. Therewasevidencethatthesetombswerereusedandevenrestructuredearlyinthe Hellenisticperiod. Tibur(modernTivoli) Tiburisknownlargelyforanecropolisthatcontainsburialsfromthetenthtoearlysixth century. 481 Theinhumationburialsinthisregionaredistinctfromothersthroughout Latium,andareroutinelyenclosedbycirclesofstones.Inthenineteen fiftiesasmallburial groundconsistingofeighttombswasexcavatedintheregionofmoderntivoli. 482 Archaeologistsdistinguishedtwotypesofburial:tuffsarcophagiandtombeafossacovered byatravertinelid.thetwotrenchtombsweretheonlygravescontaininggravegoods, consistingofamirrorinoneandanecklaceintheother.faccennadatedtheseitemstothe fifthandfourthcenturiesonstylisticgrounds.hebelievedthatthetuffsarcophagi belongedtothisgeneralperiod,althoughheacknowledgedthecontinueduseofthistomb typeintothethirdcentury.thesarcophagirangeinsizefrom1.69and1.90minlength, althoughmostarebetween1.84and1.90;between0.45and0.65minwidth;and0.7and 1.2minheight.AlthoughColonnaacceptstheseasexamplesofarchaicburial,thereports 480 Plin.Nat.Hist ;Dion.Hal.5.51and61,8.19;Liv.2.39, CLP NSc1957,

131 donotprovideenoughevidencetostatethisforcertain. 483 Atbest,theevidenceconfirms theuseoftuffsarcophagiattheeasternlimitsoflatium,aregionthatismorewell known foritscircularburials. v.latium:west/coast Ficana ThesiteofFicanaissituatedonthehillofMonteCugno,approximately19kmsouthwestof RomealongtheleftbankoftheTiberriver.Excavationsundertakeninthenineteenseventiesdiscoveredamodestcity statethatdisplayedsignsofcontinuousoccupation fromthebronzeagetotheendoftheimperialperiod. 484 Themostsubstantivediscoveries belongtotheironageandarchaicperiods,andconsistprimarilyofdomesticstructures andtombs.theburialslocatedoutsidethesettlementareexclusivelyseventh century trenchtombs,butwithintheurbanareaareanumberofsixth andfifth centuryjuvenile burials(fig.5.53). 485 Threeoftheburialsaresuggrundaria,locatedinassociationwithwhatislikelyahouse. 486 Fragmentsofpotteryrecoveredfromalayerabovethefloorofthehousedatetheuseof thebuildingfromtheendoftheseventhcenturytotheendofthesixth,andperhapseven thefifth. 487 Althoughthesuggrundariaseemtobecontemporaneouswiththephaseof occupationofthehouse,thestratigraphicsequenceofoneoftheburialssuggeststhatthey mayhavebeenburiedoncethebuildinghadfallenoutofuse.regardingthetypologyofthe vases,theoriginalreportsareunclear.jarvastatesthatthevesselsusedasburialjarsat FicanafindcomparisonwithvesselsfoundatS.Omobono. 488 Thesecomparandaareollae, andalthoughjarvanevermakestheconnectionclear,theevidencesuggeststheficana burialsweredepositedinollae. Locatedinanareajustsouthofthishouseweretwoadditionaljuvenileburials. 489 Although theyarenotsuggrundariainthestrictsense,theydoseemtomaintainaconnectionwith thenearbybuilding.oneofthesewasdepositedinanollacoveredbyabowl;thesecond wasburiedinavesselsimilartoanolla Colonna1977, CLP250 1;GRT178 81;Rathje1980;Jarva1981aand1981b;Holloway1994, Jarva1981aand1981b. 486 Jarva(1981b,269),burialsVII,XandXI. 487 Jarva(1981b,269)statesthatitisdifficulttodeterminepreciselythedateofthe constructionofthebuildingandtherangeoftimeitwasinuse. 488 Jarva1981b,270,n Jarva(1981b,270),burialsVIIIandIX. 490 Jarva(1981b,270,n.10)isagainunclearaboutwhatkindofjarconstitutedtheburial. HenotesthatitdoesnotfindcomparisonwiththeS.Omobonomaterials,butresemblesan olla. 114

132 Northofthecomplexwererecoveredsevenarchaicinfantburials. 491 Theinfantswere placedeitherinvasesorbetweentiles,andweregenerallynoolderthantwomonths.the mostcommontypeofburialvesselwasanolla,althoughoneinfantwasburiedinan amphora.oneoftheburialsbetweentilescontainedachildagedtwotofouryears.only twoburialscontainedanygravegoods:oneollacontainedinadditionanotherollaanda bronzegrater,whiletheamphoragraveincludedanolla. Archaeologistsinitiallythoughtthenumberofburialstoohightorepresenttheburial activitiesofasinglefamily,andconsequentlyarguedtheareawasanecropolisusedbythe entirecommunityfortheburialofchildren. 492 Themoreorlesscontemporaneousdates assignedtoallburialsseemedtosupportthisclaim.however,jarvarightlypointedoutthat thereisnoevidencetosuggestthatthesetheburialsrepresentaninfantnecropolis. AlthoughtheyallbelongtotheArchaicperiod,theyrepresentatimespanofaboutone hundredyears,andcouldjustaseasilyrepresenttheburialactivitiesofdifferent generationsofthesamefamilyorevendifferentfamilies.whatismore,infantburialsare attestedinearlierandlaterperiodselsewhereatficanainassociationwithdomestic contexts,whichsuggeststhatthisphenomenonisnotrestrictedtothearchaicperiod. Lavinium(modernPraticadiMare) ThesiteofLaviniumislocatedapproximately30kmsouthofRomealongtheTyrrhenian coastinmodernpraticadimare.althoughitismostwidelyregardedasareligiouscenter beginninginaboutthesixthcentury,thereisevidenceofuninterruptedsettlementfrom thetenthcenturyonward. 493 Archaeologicalinvestigationoftheareabeganin1957and focusedontheexcavationoftheshrineofthethirteenaltars(c.mid sixthtoearlythird century)inthesuburbanareaofthesite. 494 Approximately100msouthofthealtars,ina subsequentphaseofexcavation,theso calledheroonofaeneaswasdiscovered,which consistedofafourthcenturytumulusbuiltoveraseventhcenturyburial. 495 TheearliestevidenceatthesiteconsistsofIronAgeburials;fromtheeighthcentury onwardtherearehuts,potterykilnsandpossiblyfortifications,alllocatedinwhatlater becametheurbanarea.inthemid seventhcenturyvotivedepositsappearinvarious locations:intheurbanareaonedepositwasfoundcontainingover30,000miniaturevases whichdatedfrom B.C.E.Ataboutthistimethefirstdepositsweremadein sanctuariestotheeastandnortheastofthecityandatthethirteenaltars.fortificationand habitationcontinuedinthesixthcenturyandtookmonumentalform.stonehousesappear atthispointinthearchaeologicalrecord,whichcontinuetobeusedandmodifiedintothe thirdcentury Jarva(1981b,270 1),burialsI VIandXII. 492 Fischer Hansen1978, CLP ;Fenelli Castagnoli1972, Sommella Guaitoli1981c. 115

133 In1993,plowingactivityuncoveredachambertombintheareajustoutsidetheboundary oftheancientcity(fig.5.54). 497 Onlypartofthechambertombwasexcavated,butit probablyconsistedofatleasttwochambersthatwerelocatedunderasingletumulus. 498 Theexcavatedchamberwasquadrangularinshapeandcarvedintothelocalbankoftuff (fig.5.55).thewallswerelinedwithblocksofcappellaccio,whichcurvedprogressivelyto formavaultedroof;bythetimeofexcavationtheroofhadcollapsed.adoor,whichtapered towardsthetop,openedintoasecondchamberthatappearedearlierthanthefirst.the excavatedchambercontainedfourburialsthatrangedindatefromthesecondquarterof thesixthcenturytothesecondhalfofthefourth. Thefirstwasacremationburial,theremainsofwhichwereplacedinacappellacciourn (fig.5.56). 499 Theurnwasconstructedintheshapeofahouse(acassa)withwindows carvedintothesides,feetintheshapeoflion'spaws,andalidintheshapeofaroof.grave goodswerelocatedontheroofoftheurn,someinsitu,crushedbythecollapse,while othershadfallentotheside.foremostamongtheseisatyrrhenianamphorathatdepicts theamazonomachywithheraclesandiolaus,amonganumberofotherhoplitesand cavalrymen(fig.5.57). 500 Asecondamphora,ofbucchero,boreinciseddecorationandan Etruscangraffito(fig.5.58)thatissimilartoanexamplefromthesanctuaryofPortonacci atveii. 501 Abronzesitulaandseveralbronzesheetswerefoundontopoftheurn,although anumberofbronzefragmentshadfallentothesides.anironbladewasfoundatits.all materialsseemedtodatetothesecondquarterofthesixthcentury,c.570b.c.e. Thethreeremainingburialsareallinhumationsinmonolithicstonesarcophagi.Thefirstof thesehadpanelscarvedintothesidesandaslopinglid;therewereonlyafewbones preservedinside,suggestingthetombwasrobbedinantiquity. 502 Locatedjustoutsidethis tomb,andinrelationtoit,wasanatticredfigurestamnosdepictinganarmedyouthand beardedadult(fig.5.59).thevesselwasdatedtoabout480b.c.e.thesecondsarcophagus hadmirrorscarvedintoitssidesandamonolithicstonelid;itcontainedaninhumation burialandafunerarykitconsistingofanatticredfigurekylixandanoinochoeofpurified clay. 503 Lyingonthebodywerefragmentsofgoldthreadthatbelongedtotheclothingof thedeceased;theseitemsdatedtheburialtothethirdquarterofthefifthcentury.thelast 497 Guaitoli Theoutlineofthetumuluswasvisiblefromaerialphotographs. 499 Guaitoli1995,burial ThedipintionthisvasevaseattesttonamesalreadyknowninEtruriaandSatricum,and comparetosomeetruscaninscriptionsfromrome. 501 TheinscriptionfromLaviniumislocatedbelowtheshoulderofthevesselandrecords: minim[ulu]vanicemamar.ce:a.puniie(guaitoli1995,558).thegraffitofromveiirecords onthehandleofabuccherovessel:minimuluvanicemamarce:apunievenala(tle34;nsc , ).Thiswasinterpretedasadedicatoryinscriptioncomprisedofthe praenomenmamarce,thetwogensnominaapuniieandvena,andthepatronymicla. 502 Guaitoli1995,burial Guaitoli1995,burial

134 burialcomprisesaninhumationinasarcophagusofpeperinotuff.theburialcontainedthe remainsofthedeceasedandanoinochoeidentifiedasbelongingtothesokragroup;on thesegroundsthetombwasdatedtothesecondhalfofthefourthcentury. 504 Thepresenceofgravegoods,especiallyinthosetombsbelongingtothesixthandfifth centuries,hasalreadymarkedtheseburialsasunusualwithinthecontextofarchaic Latium. 505 Guaitolisuggestedthattheinclusionofcorredirepresentsthepreferenceofthe ownerofthetombortheprivilegeofagentilicialgroupinthearea.headdedthatthe locationandarchitectureofthetomb,inadditiontothequalityofmaterialsassociatedwith itsconstructionanduse,supporttheidentificationofthisburialastheproductofalocal andpowerfulgens.thetomb,whichisbuiltinthetumulustype,occupiesaprominent positionjustoutsidethegatesofthecity,nearthecrossroadsthatleadtoardeaandthe AlbanHills(fig.5.60).Bothroadsleadtoprominentsanctuaries,includingthattoLatial Jupiter,Minerva,theThirteenAltarsandSolIndiges.Thistumulusissimilartothatbeneath theheroonofaeneas;bothseemtocompriseaseriesofmonumentaltombsinprominent locationsalongroads.hebelievesthatthechambertombcontainstheburialsof particularlyhighstatusindividualsfromoneparticularhousehold,sinceeachofthe depositionsoccurredatchronologicallydiscretemomentsspanningtwocenturiesfrom 570B.C.E.toabout300B.C.E. Lanuvium(modernLanuvio) In1934,archaeologistsdiscoveredtheso calledtombofthewarrior(tombadelguerriero dilanuvio). 506 Theburialcomprisedasarcophagusofpeperinotuffdepositedinan undergroundchamberofquadrangularplan,madeaccessiblebyadromos.the sarcophaguswasapproximately2.12mlong,andwascoveredbyaridgedlid.the receptaclecontainedtheremainsofthedeceasedwithawidearrayofarmsandarmoras gravegoods;theburialwasnamedafterthesefinds.thecorredodatestheburialtothe secondquarterofthefifthcenturyandconsistsofacuirassdecoratedwithanatomical detail,ameshbeltofbronze(fig.5.61),anetruscanhelmet,andanumberofironweapons. Thehelmetwasadornedwithatriplecrestanddecoratedwiththedetailsofahumanface onthefront,includingeyesofivoryandeyebrowsappliedinsilver(fig.4.62).theiron armsincludealongswordwithacurvedblade,anaxe,alanceandtwojavelins.the corredoincludedanumberofobjectsrelatedtoathleticactivity:abronzediscuswith incisedfiguraldecoration,oneortwoironstrigils,abronzesandpouch,andthreecomplete alabastra.theburialwasdatedtoabout470b.c.e.onthebasisofstylisticcomparisonof thefindswithexamplesfromarchaicetruriaandgreece. TheTomboftheWarriorisuniqueinLatiumonaccountitscontents;itonlyfinds comparisonwiththewealthyburialatfidenae.whatismissingfromthegrave,however,is amoreconventionalcorredothatcomprisesceramicvessels.theonlyobjectsincludedin 504 Guaitoli1995,burial Guaitoli1995, GRT

135 thegraveincludearmsandobjectsofpersonaluse,whichscholarsbelievedbelongedtothe deceasedindividual. 507 Theysuggesttheheroicandathleticattributesofthisburialrecall theidealsofeducationandcitizenshipinthegreekworld.somescholars,however, believedthearmorrepresentedthatofacavalryman,whileothersbelievedthequalityof theseobjectsmoreindicativeofageneral,onewhomighthavefoughtatthebattleoflake Regillus. 508 Theseclaimsaredoubtful,however;thetombseemsmorerepresentativeofthe so calledtombeprincipescheofthelateorientalizingperiodinetruriaandlatium. Interpretationofthesetombsiscontroversial,andtheyareconventionallythoughtto representthewealthyburialsoftheelite,whoassociatetheirstatusinfuneraryritualwith theattributesofthewarrior. 509 AlthoughtheburialisuniqueintheLatintraditionforthe typeandquantityofobjects,thetuffsarcophagusiscomparabletothoseexamplesfrom Rome. Ardea(modernArdea) ThesiteofancientArdeaislocatedapproximately40kmsouthofRomeintheplainof Civitavecchiaandisbestknownforitssacredarchitecture.DuringtheArchaicperiod,there isarchaeologicalevidenceforatleasttwotemples,oneontheacropolisandanotherinthe Civitavecchiaplain;athirdislocatedjustoutsidethecityatthesiteofColledellaNoce. 510 Twobronzehoardscontributetothereligiousactivityatthesite:onebelongstothetenth centuryandtheothertoeighth.thefirstfortificationsemergedintheseventhcentury,and developedintoamorecomplexsystemduringthesixthandfifth.otheraspectsofthesite arelesswellknown.thereisevidenceforatleastfourdwellingsduringtheseventh century,butthereisverylittledetailregardingthese.theevidenceforburialduringall periodsisalsoscarce. IntheterritoryofancientArdea,atthesiteofCampodelFico,aretwoarchaicburials. 511 Bothtombswereconstructedafossaandsituatedinassociationwiththreeearlierburials ofthesametype.tomb5containedtwoinhumationburialsinassociationwithanumber gravesgoodsthatrangedindatefromtheseventhcenturytothethirdquarterofthesixth (fig.5.63).theearliestmaterials,includinganollawithstampeddecorationinimpasto rosso,datetolatialperiodiv,whileothers,includingacupandpyxis,datedtothethird quarterofthesixthcentury.thepublishedreportsoffernofurtherdetailregardingthe burialsortheircontents. 507 GRT Colonna1977,150 5;GRT Riva(2010),addressesthesetombsinEtruria;Waarsenburg(1995)considerstherole oftheprincipesinsatricum. 510 Tortorici1981;MorselliandTortorici1982.Thetempleontheacropolisis conventionallyattributedtojuno;thesecondatcivitavecchiamaybelongtoherculesor Aphrodite;andthethirdatColledellaNocetotheDioscuri.Theancientsourcesattestto additionallocationsofcultactivityandsanctuariesatardea. 511 CrescenziandTortorici1983,

136 vi.latium:south(satricum,modernborgoleferriere) Some32kmsoutheastofRomeand28kmeastofTyrrheniancoastliesthesitecommonly identifiedasancientsatricum. 512 Thesettlementislocatedatanimportantcrossroads:it sitsalongtherouteleadingfromthecoasttothehinterland,whichconnectsantiumto Palestrina,throughVelitrae,andalongtheroadtravelingnorthtosouth,whichrunsfrom CaeretoCapua,throughFicana,CasteldiDecima,LaviniumandArdea(fig.5.64).Although thereareafewtracesofactivityduringthebronzeage,thesitedoesnotappeartohave beensubstantiallyoccupieduntilthelateninthcentury.thearchaeologicalevidencefor thisperiodconsistsofhutsontheacropolisandburialsinthenorthwestareaofthe settlement.duringtheseventhcenturythehutsincreasedinsize,andinthelateseventh andearlysixth,werereplacedbythefirststonehouses.bytheendofthesixthcentury habitationontheacropoliscametoanendandtheresidentialareasofthecityshiftedto another,unknown,area.theacropoliswasdominatedbyasanctuary,probablytomater Matuta,whoseconstructionbegansometimeinthesecondhalfofthesixthcenturyand continuedintothefifth.followingasecondphaseoftempleconstruction,thebuildingwas destroyedintheearlyfifthcenturyandthecharacteroftheacropolissubsequently changed.theareanorthwestoftheformertemplewasreservedforvotivedeposits,which exhibititemsrangingfromthefifthtothethirdcentury.intheregionsoutheastofthe temple,asmallnecropolisemergedaround500b.c.e.,andconstitutestheonlyevidence forsecularactivityontheacropolisatthistime. 513 NorthwestNecropolis TheearliestnecropolisatSatricumistheso callednorthwestnecropolis,whichislocated justoutsidethewesternlimitoftheagersystem(fig.5.65). 514 Thenecropolisunderwent twophasesofexcavation,firstin andagainin Theresultsofthese earlycampaignsremainedunpublisheduntil1996,afterarchaeologistsfromthedutch InstituteatRomediscoveredthelongforgottenfieldjournalsandfindsinthestorerooms ofthevillagiulia.thedatarecoveredarelimited,andconsistprimarilyoffieldrecords, whichareoftenlackingindetail,andartifacts.onlyonemapsurvives,anditdoesnot documentalltheexcavatedtombs;therearenodrawingsorphotographs. Basedontheextantrecords,however,itispossibletodrawsomeconclusionsregarding theuseoftheburialgroundsinantiquity.thenecropoliscontainedmostlyburialsdating fromtheninthtothesixthcenturies,andthereareatleastthree,andperhapstwomore, thatdatetothearchaicperiod.thepreciselocationofmanyofthesetombsisunknown, 512 Thearchaeologistwhofirstexcavatedtherein1896,H.Graillot,gavethenametothe site,believingthesettlementtobethesamesatricummentionedintheancientliterary sources.scholarscontinuetocallthesitesatricum,althoughthereremainssomedoubt overthisattribution. 513 Thisnecropolisremainsunexplored(Ginge1996,17). 514 Ginge(1996,17 71). 119

137 butallseemtohavebeendiscoveredintheareaofsantalucia. 515 Theburialsrepresenta widearrayoftombtypes.onetombwasprobablylocatedinatumulusthatcompriseda numberofironagegraves.thiswasdatedfrom B.C.E.andwasthoughttohave containedacremationburial.ofthesamedatewasasecondburial,achambertombthat containedanumberofironweaponsandfragmentsofpotterythatdatethegravefrom B.C.E. 516 Theoriginalreportsspecifythatthreemoreburialswerefoundnearby,althoughtheydo notmentionpreciselywhere.archaeologistsbelievedtheybelongedtothearchaicperiod onthebasisofthegravegoodsfoundinthetombs.theyreportthatthefirstburialwasa trenchtomb,thesecondawoodencoffin,butrecordnothingaboutthetypologyofthe third. 517 Gravegoodswerefoundwithallthreeburialsandconsistedmostlyofceramic vesselssuchasollaeandoinochoe.twooftheburialswereassignedasexandagebasedon extremelylimitedskeletaldata.fragmentsofaskeletonfromthewoodencoffinreportedly preservedtheremainsofawoman,aged40 50years,whileteethrecoveredinthetrench tombwerethoughttobethoseofaman,aged18 20.The1996publicationssexedthe remainingburialsonthebasisofthegravegoodassemblages,butitwouldbeunwiseto relytooheavilyonsuchassumptions.theskeletaldataisentirelyunreliable,sinceinall casesthereisverylittlepreservedatall. SouthwestNecropolis ThesecondidentifiedburialgroundatSatricumistheso calledsouthwestnecropolis, namedafteritslocationinthesouthwesternregionofthesettlement(fig.5.66). 518 Ateam ofdutcharchaeologistsexcavatedtheareafrom1981to1986.thecemeteryislocated withintheboundaryofthesixth centuryagerandcontainsovertwohundredfifth century burials. 519 Thetombsareallthetrenchtypeandcontaintheinhumationburialsofadults andchildren,alongwithanassortmentofgravegoods.manyburialshaveledgesonthe longsidesofthefloor,butthepurposeofsuchshelvesremainsunclear. 520 Somegraves havenichescarvedintooneofthelongwallsforthedepositionofgravegoods. 521 Afew burialshavepitscutintothefourcornersofthefloor,probablytoaccommodatethelegsof awoodencoffin. 522 Thegravesvaryinsize,althoughmostarebetween2.00and2.30m 515 Ginge(1996),Tomb14,waslocatedinthetumulus.Tombs15,24and26wereprobably foundintheareaoflucia,buttheirlocationsarenotrecordedontheexcavationmap. 516 Ginge1996,Tombsn Ginge1996,Tomb26(trench);Tomb24(woodencoffin);Tomb15(unknown). 518 Gnade Gnade(1992,9 13)statesthat210graveswereidentified,200plottedand167 excavated;excavationsremainsunfinished. 520 Approximatelyseventytombshadledges(Gnade1992,23 4). 521 Gnade(1992,24 6)recordstwelvegraveswithniches. 522 Sixty sixgravescontaintraceevidenceofwoodencoffins(gnade1992,31).fifty five hadtracesofthewoodencoffin,fivehadwoodennails,andsixothershadbothnailsand coffintraces;onlyonegravecontainedtheremainsofwood. 120

138 longand0.70and0.90mwide. 523 Thedimensionsofthegravesseemtocorrespondtothe sizeofthedeceased;dentalremainsrecoveredfromthesmallestgravesrevealthatthese belongedtochildren,whilethelargestgravecontainedtracesofalargeindividualandofa coffin.somegravesheldmultipleburials,inwhichtheremainsoftwoorthreeindividuals andtheirgravegoodsweresuperimposed. 524 Inmostcases,achildburialwasplacedatop thatofanadult;thereisoneexampleofagravewithtwochildrenandanotherwithtwo adultsandachild. Themajorityofthetombscontainedcorredicomprisedofpottery. 525 Themostcommon formsofvesselsarethoseassociatedwithdiningandfoodprocessing,namely,storagejars, cookingpots,bowls,cupsandjugs.personalornamentsarecomparativelyrareandconsist offibulae,pendants,beadednecklaces,pins,weapons,spindlewhorlsandloomweights.the gravegoodsaregenerallymodestinquantityandquality,andmostburialshaveanywhere fromonetosixvessels.onlyonegraveisexceptionalforitswealth:itcontained24vases andavarietyofpersonalobjectssuchasfibulae,amulets,pins,necklacesandweapons. 526 Themajorityofthepotterycomprisedlocallymadewarescommonindomesticcontexts; veryfewgravescontainedimportedvessels.itisuncertainwhetherthegravegoods representthepersonalbelongingsoforgiftstothedeceased.intheabsenceofpreserved osteologicalremains,thecorrediweresometimesusedtodeterminethegenderofthe deceased. 527 Althoughthismethodologyisgenerallyunreliable,intheexcavationsofthe southwestnecropolis,thoseitemstypicallyconsideredgendered,suchasweaponsformen andloomweightsforwomen,werecross referencedwiththeskeletaldataandproven reliable.therewasevidenceforgender relatedgravegoodsinonlynineteengraves. Childrenappeartohavereceivedthesametreatmentinburialasadults. 528 Thereis evidenceforthirty threechildinhumations,althoughonlyinfourteencasesisthis identificationcertainonthebasisofskeletaldata.childburialsareotherwiseinferred basedonthesmalldimensionsofthegraveandthenatureofthegravegoods.children wereburiedontheirownandwithadults,inwoodencoffinsortrenches.inthosegraves wheremultipleinhumationsoccur,itisdifficulttodeterminetherelationshipbetweenthe deceased.thisistrueevenofburialsthatcontainbothachildandanadult.itiseasyto assumethattheyrepresentmotherandchild,butultimatelyimpossibletoprovebasedon 523 Thelargestis2.70mlongand0.95mwide;thesmallestis1.15mlongand0.50mwide (Gnade1992,27 9). 524 Gnade1992, Gnade1992,35 41.Potterywasincludedin68%oftheburials,andinmostcaseswas depositedneartheheadorfeetofthedeceased.inotherinstances,thepotterywas arrangedalongthesidesofthecorpse,alongthewallorontheledge.thereareafew exampleswherepotterywasplacedatthetopcornersofthecoffin;insomegraves,the potteryappearedinvariouslayersofthefillsuggestingthattheywereoriginallyplaced atopthecoffin,butslidintothegraveafterthedecompositionofthewoodenlid. 526 Gnade1992,Grave Gnade2002, Gnade1992,

139 theextantremains.thechildburialswerecarefulnottodisturbtheadultinhumations below,whichsuggestsbothindividualswereburiedatthesametime.thereiseven evidencethatchildrenweredepositedonthelidsofwoodencoffinscontainingadults.the corrediofchildrenconsistprimarilyofminiatureorsmallobjects,butincluderegularsized objects.ingeneral,thegravesofchildrenhadonlytwoorthreevases,butitisnotablethat thewealthiestgrave,whichcontained24vessels,belongedtoachild. Gnadeobservedsomepatternsinthefuneraryrecordthatledhertocommentonthe statusandidentityofthecommunitythatoccupiedthesouthwestnecropolis. 529 The burialsrevealedahighdegreeofvariabilityinnearlyeveryaspect,whichshesuggests reflectsthesocialstratificationofancientsatricum.shestatesthatthenearorcomplete absenceofgravegoodsinsomeburialsrepresentsthepoorerorlowerrankingmembersof society,whilethoseburialswithgreatercorredirepresentthewealthierandhigherranking individuals.thegraveswhichgnadeconsiderspooreitherlackedgravegoodsentirely,or containedasinglevessel,usuallyastoragejar.thesewereconcentratedinthe northeasternportionofthenecropolis.thegravesconsideredrichcontainedsixormore vases,whichoftenincludedimportedwares,andthesetombswerelocatedinthecentraleasternsectionofthecemetery.gnadeconsidersasmarkersofstatusthoseburialswith cornerpitsandniches,onthegroundsthattheyarerare.sheleavesoutofthediscussion themajorityofthegravesthatfallsomewherebetweenrichandpoor,tombscontaining onetosixvessels. Thereareafewproblemswiththisparticularapproach.First,thediversityoftomb featuresmaysimplyreflectthewiderangeoffunerarycustomspracticedbythe communityatonetime. 530 TheburialrecordofarchaicLatiumisnotablydiverse,and, althoughregionalandlocalpatternsarevisible,thetombsusedbyanygivencommunity areofteninconsistentintypeanddimensions.second,itisequallypossiblethatthehigh degreeofvariationingravegoodsillustratesthechangesinfunerarypracticeatthe Satricannecropolisoverthecourseofthefifthcentury. 531 AlthoughGnadesuggeststhat mostofthegravegoodsdatetothefirsthalfofthefifthcentury,sheadmitsthatmany cannotbedatedmoreprecisely.third,itisunwisetopresumeadirectcorrelationbetween thepovertyofgravegoodsandtheeconomicstatusofthedeceased,especiallyinthe contextofarchaiclatium.burialsthroughoutlatiumareregularlydevoidofgravegoods,a factthathasconvincinglybeenarguednottoconstituteamarkerofpoverty. 532 Gnademaintainsthatcertainportionsofthecemeterywerereservedforindividualsor groupsofacertainclassortimeperiod.inparticular,shebelievesthatthecemeterywas occupiedbyanon Latinpeople,namelytheVolsci,whomtheancientliterarysourcesclaim 529 Gnade1992, Gnade(1992,45)concedesthispoint. 531 Gnade1992, Colonna(1977),seeabove. 122

140 invadedandsettledsatricumin Thegravesfromthesouthwestnecropolisare notablydifferentfromtheotherexamplesthroughoutlatium.inthefirstplace,the cemeteryisthelargestandmostdenselypopulatedofanyothernecropolisintheregion duringthearchaicperiod.mostotherburialgroundsconsistoffewerthantwenty excavatedgraves.second,thewidespreaddepositionofgravegoodsintombsmarksa breakwiththelatintradition,wherethemajorityofburialscontainlittletonothinginthe wayofcorredi.third,thecemeteryexhibitsremarkableconformityintombtype, consistingentirelyoftrenchtombs.somegravesincludeledgesorniches,buttheyall adheretothesamebasicstructure.fourth,childrenarepresentinthesameburialground asadults,whereasinlatium,childrenaretypicallyburiedinassociationwithdomestic contexts. Gnadeemphasizesthefollowingtopointsasevidencefortheoccupationofthecemetery byanon Latingroup:itslocationwithintheagerandthepresenceofimportedgrave goods,inparticularanaxeheadbearinganarchaicinscription.accordingtothestipulations ofthetwelvetablesatrome,burialswereprohibitedfromcitylimits.mostscholars acceptthehistoricityofthedocument,andassumethelawswereappliedinalllatin settlementsthatfellwithinrome'sorbit.thelocationofanecropoliswithinthecity boundaryatsatricum,then,suggeststognadethateitherthelimitsofthecityhad contractedbythetimeofthefifthcenturyand/oranewlyresidentpopulationoccupiedthe necropolis.thisnewpopulationeitherfelloutsideofrome'ssphereofinfluenceoractively resistedromanauthorityandoccupation. Acropolis Complicatingthispictureistheevidencefromathirdburialground,identifiedonthe Satricanacropolis,justsouthwestofthesanctuaryalongtheancientViaSacra. Archaeologistsfirstdiscoveredburialsinthisareawhenconductingsoundingsin1909, andexcavatedthreeinassociationwithahutfeature(fig.5.67). 534 Theoriginalfield recordsdonotdocumenttheirpreciselocation,butadescriptionoftheburialsandtheir contentssuggeststhattheyconstitutepartoftheburialgroundtothesouthoftempleii, excavatedbetween Arecentstudyofthefieldnotesandexcavationmaterials revealsthatallthreeburialswereinhumationsafossaandcontainedfewtonograve goods.twooftheburialspreservedrecognizablehumanremainsthatidentifiedthe deceasedasa50 year oldwomananda20 year oldyouth.thegravegoodsconsisted primarilyofceramicvesselssuchasollae,whichdatetheburialstoapproximately500 B.C.E. 533 AccordingtoLivy(2.39.1),aVolscianarmyledbyC.MarciusCoriolanustookpossession ofsatricumin488,andthecityremainedapartofvolscianterritoryuntil385( ), whenromeestablishedacolonythere.seealsodion.hal andGnade1992; Ginge1996,

141 Whenexcavationresumedin1985,archaeologistsnotedthepresenceofatleast35 additionalgraves,ofwhichelevenadultinhumationswereexcavated. 535 Themajorityof thegravesweregroupedtogetherintheareaimmediatelysouthofthearchaicroadthat passesbeforethetempleinasoutheasterndirection.theburialsaredividedintotwo groupsbasedontheirorientations.thefirstgroupcomprisesfourburialswithane/sw orientation,whilethesecondgrouphassevenwithase/nworientation.thegravesare rectangularinshape,andmeasureapproximately2.0mlongandbetween0.45and0.85m wide.thissizeisconsistentwiththoseexcavatedinthesouthwestnecropolis.the deceasedwereplacedonthefloorofthegraveinasupinepositionwiththelimbs adducted.anumberofthegravescutthroughportionsofanearliersettlement,whose layerscontainedfragmentsofpotteryandtiledatingtothelateseventhandearlysixth centuries.theburialspreservecorrediwithvasessimilarintype,arrangementand number.eachgravecontainedanaverageoffourcookingjarsorbowls,whichwereusually placedatthehead,orfeetofthedeceased.onoccasiontheindividualwasburiedwitha personalitemofbronze,ironorglass;noweaponswerepositivelyidentified. 536 Onegrave containedeitheradoubleburialortwosimultaneouslyexcavatedgraves.theremainsofa childanditsassociatedgravegoodswereplacedabovetheburialofanadultandits corredo. 537 Archaeologistsexcavatingtheacropoliscemeteryinthenineteen eightiesobserveda markeddifferencebetweentheburialsfromthisareaandthosefromthesouthwest necropolis. 538 Theacropolisgravesappearedpoorer,sincetheycontainedfewergrave goodsandhadnoevidenceforthewoodencoffinsorbierspresentinseveralgravesinthe southwestcemetery.therewaslessvarietyinthetypeofgravegoodontheacropolis,and therewasnoevidenceforimporteditemsorobjectsofvalue.forthemostpart,the acropolisgravescontainedbowlsandpotsmadeofimpasto,whilethosetothesouthwest containedceramicsmadefromagreatervarietyoffabricsandshapes.maaskant Kleibrink observedthattheacropolisburialsmarkedabreakwithearlierfunerarytraditionsand usesofurbanspace. 539 Thegravespresentedajuxtapositionofsecularandsacredactivities notseenelsewhereinlatium.theywerelocatedontheacropolis,intheruinsofanearlier templeandinproximitytocontemporaneousvotivedeposits.accordingtomaaskant Kleibrink,thispatterncouldeitherrepresentthecustomsofadifferentpopulation,namely thevolsci,whomtheancientsourcesrecordinvadedthecityintheearlyfifthcentury,ora disruptioninthecustomsofthesamelatinpopulation. 535 Beijer1987;Maaskant Kleibrink1992, Maaskant Kleibrink(1992,101)recordsthatalongpieceofironwasfoundatopa child'sgrave,buttheobjectcouldnotbeidentified. 537 Maaskant Kleibrink1992,103,Grave Maaskant Kleibrink1992, Maaskant Kleibrink1992,

142 PoggiodeiCavallari Afourthnecropoliswasdiscoveredjustnorthofanarchaicroadinthelowersettlement areaofancientsatricum,knowntodayaspoggiodeicavallari(fig.5.68).theuniversityof Amsterdamexcavatedtheareainthreephases:followingabriefrescueoperationin1984, theuniversityresumedinvestigationin onwhatisnowconsideredthewestern portionoftheroadandcemetery;excavationfrom2003untilthepresentdayhas expandedexplorationofbothareasfurthereast. 540 Excavationuncoveredtheremainsofa roadnetworkinassociationwithacemetery,whichdocumentthecontinuedoccupationof thesitefromthesixththroughthethirdcenturies.themostsignificantfeaturewasaw/e runningroadthatwasfirstconstructedinthelastquarterofthesixthcenturyoverthe remainsofanearlierroadphase.onthebasisofthesizeandmonumentalityoftheroad,it seemstohavefunctionedasthemainrouteofsatricum,runningw/eandconnectingthe lowersettlementwiththeacropolis.branchingofftheroadtowardthesoutheastweretwo sideroadsthatleadintotheurbanarea.onthesouthsideofthesamemainroadtwo buildingswerediscovered.tothenorthoftheroad,andinitspost abandonmentphases, werenearlyfortytombsthatcanonlybedatedgenerallytothefifthandfourth centuries. 541 Gnadehasreconstructedthechronologicalsequenceofthearea.Themonumental constructionoftheroadfirstoccurredinthelastquarterofthesixthcentury.thelevelof theroadwasraised,sidewallsoftuffwereconstructedalongitsnorthernandsouthern limits,andtwobuildingsofundeterminedfunctionwereconstructedjustoffthesouthside. ItislikelythatthisoccurredatthesametimeasthereconstructionofTempleIIonthe acropolis,allduringthelatearchaicphaseofsatricum.itappearsthatboththeroadand TempleIIweredestroyedatthesametime,about500/480B.C.E.,aneventthatGnade attributestothevolscianinvasion.theroadwasrebuiltinthesubsequentpost Archaic phase,probablyinthefirsthalfofthefifthcentury,moreorlessalongthesamelines.the onlysignificantchangewasthat,insteadoftwosidewalls,onlyasinglewallwaserected alongthenorthernedgeoftheroad.certainfeaturesintheconstructionofthewallled Gnadetosuggestthatitfunctionedasadefensivestructure,butitmaysimplyhavebeena sidewall,similartowhatexistedpreviously.itisunclearpreciselywhen,butsometimein thethirdquarterofthefifthcenturythisroadfelloutofuseandtheareawasusedasa burialground,whichremainedtheprimaryfunctionoftheareawellintothefourth century.mostofthegravesfrompoggiodeicavallariarefourthcenturyburialsthatwere cutintothesurfaceofthisroadorlocatedalongsideit.theearliestburialsarelocatedin thewesternportionofthecemetery,somethreetoeightmetersfromtheroad,andcanbe datedtothefifthcentury.itisunclear,however,whethertheyrepresentactivity contemporaneouswiththeuseofthepost archaicroad,orweredugafterits abandonment. 540 Gnade2003,2004,2006,2007and Gnade2002,

143 Althoughonlyfifteengraveshavebeenpublishedinanydetail,enoughinformationis availablefrominterimsitereportstomakegeneralobservationsabouttheentire necropolis. 542 Allthegraveswereconstructedafossa,arrangedalongaNW/SEorientation andcontainedinhumationburialswithcorredi.somegraveshadbenchescarvedintothe sides,andotherscontainedthetracesofwoodencoffins.gravegoodsconsistedmainlyof vesselsusedfordrinkingandfoodpreparationandafewpersonalornaments,suchas fibulae.theskeletalremainsaregenerallynotverywellpreserved,butthegravesfirst excavatedhaveproducedsomeresults.fromthefifth centuryburialsdiscoveredinthe westernportionofthecemetery,onebelongstoagirloffifteentoeighteenyearsofageand anothertoaninfantaged0 1years. 543 Thereareahighproportionofburialsofinfants, childrenandyouthsintheeasternportionofthecemetery.thedatahavenotbeen completelypublished,butthusfar,thereisevidenceforachildaged3 5years,amonga numberofotheryouthsandinfants. 544 Basedontheaveragesizeofgravesknownfromthe westernhalfofthecemetery,andthedatafromthesouthwestnecropolis,itislikelythat thenecropolisaccommodatedbothchildandadultinhumations. 545 Therearesomedifferencesbetweenthewesternandeasternhalvesofthecemetery.The burialsfromthewesternportionofthenecropolisaretheearliest,arefewerinnumberand containfewergravegoodsthanthosetotheeast.theyalsohavealessdefinedrelationship totheroad.thegravesintheeasternportionofthecemetery,however,aregreaterin number,aremoredenselyarrangedandoftensuperimposed,andcontainmoregrave goods. 546 Whatismore,theirrelationshipwiththeroadseemsclear.Althoughsomegraves arelocatedalongsidethepost Archaicroad,othersweredugdirectlyintoitssurface, demonstratingthattheroadmusthavefallenoutofusebythetimethegravesweredug. Onthebasisofthegravegoodsandmaterialsfromtheroadsurface,thiseventdatestothe lastquarterofthefifthcentury;however,mostgravesbelongtothefourthcentury. 547 Somefortygraveshavebeenidentified,manyofwhicharesuperimposed.Theburialsfrom thisareahavealsoproducedagreaternumberofgravegoods. 542 ThepublishedgravesaretombsI XV,excavatedfrom TheonlineFastioffer themostup to dateinformationregardingtheremainder,astheyawaitmoreformal publication Gnade(2002,94 5).ThegravesarenumberedST1 5.ThegirlisST2andtheinfantis ST1;ST3wasalmostcompletelydestroyed;neitherST4norST5wereexcavatedasof Gnade(2009,365 8),thechildof3 5yearsisbasedondentalanalysis.Gnadeotherwise notesthattheosteologicalremainsfromgravesv VII,XandXIII XIVrepresentmostly youths,andafewinfants. 545 Gnade(2002,94 5)recordsthat,inthewesternpartofthenecropolis,theexcavated gravesrangedinsizefrom1.10to1.90mlongand0.35mto0.70mwide. 546 Gnade2009,365 8.ThesegravesarenumberedI XV. 547 Gnade2009,365 8.TombsI V,VIII X,XII XVwerediscoveredintheroadsurface,and tombsvi,viiandxiwerefoundtothenorthoftheroad. 126

144 GnadeseeshomogeneityinthegravesfromPoggiodeiCavallari,theacropolisandthe southwestnecropolisandarguesthattheyareallrepresentativeofthevolscian communityinfifth centurysatricum. 548 Thegravesareallafossa,someofwhichhave benchesandtracesofwoodencoffins,andtheycontaintheinhumationburialsofboth adultsandchildren.thefindsfromthegravesaresimilarinstyleandnumber,includinga widerangeofvesselsusedfordrinkingandfoodpreparation,anditemsofpersonal adornmentsuchasfibulae.allthreecemeteriesoccupythesamepositioninassociation witharoad.thenecropolisatpoggiodeicavallariissituatedjustnorthofaroadrunning W/E,possiblyfromAntiumuptotheSatricanacropolis;thesouthwestnecropolisis flankedonitseasternsidebywhatislikelythemainroadleadingintosatricumfromthe south;theacropolisnecropolisislocatedalongtheeasternsideofaroadthatrunsthrough theplateau. Gnadebelievesthatthelocationofthesecemeteriesalongsideroadsreinforcesbeliefs regardingtheseparationofthedeadfromtheliving. 549 Itissignificantthatatleasttwo,and possiblyallthreeburialgroundsarelocatedwithinthecitylimitsofancientsatricum,and probablyinthevicinityofzonesofhabitation. 550 Thecemeteryontheacropolisandthe southwestnecropolisareclearlylocatedwithintheancientager,buttheintraorextra murallocationofthenecropolisatpoggiodeicavallariismoreuncertain.inaphaseof reconstructionthatdatesgenerallytothepost Archaicperiod,awallwasconstructed alongthenorthernedgeoftheroad.thewallrunsw/e,followingthedirectionoftheroad, andprobablyfunctionedasasidewalltothisartery.certainaspectsofthewall's constructionledgnadetosuggestthatitfunctionedasadefensivefeaturesimilartoa rampart. 551 Shenotesthatthelocationofthewallisunusual,sinceitissituatedinuneven terrain,addingthatamoresuitablelocationwouldhavebeenafewhundredmeterstothe north.however,awallconstructedfurthernorthwouldhaveenclosedthecemeterywithin theurbanarea.consequently,shesuggeststhatthelocationofthewallwasmotivatedbya desiretoseparate,insymbolicandactualterms,theworldofthelivingfromthedead. 5f.Discussion ThearchaeologicalevidenceforarchaicburialinRomeandLatium,aspresentedabove, revealsthefollowingpoints:1.thereisagreatdealofvariationintombtypeonlocaland regionallevels;2.atthesametime,therearedistinctregionalpatterns;3.gravegoods, althoughtheyaregenerallyfewinnumber,remainacomponentoffuneraryritualin certainregionsandtypesofburial;and4.thereisagreatdealofvariationasregardsthe locationoftheseburials,althoughtheyaregenerallylocatedinsmallburialgrounds.iwill 548 Gnade2002, Gnade2002, Gnade2002, Nodomesticstructureshavebeenidentifiedorexcavatedinthe lowersettlementareaofsatricum,butsurveyintheregionandtheexcavationofadump revealedevidenceforbuildingdebris.thetypeofmaterialsdiscoveredcanbeconnectedto dwellingsthatwereinhabitedasearlyasthesixthcentury. 551 Gnade2002,

145 expanduponeachoftheseobservations,andconsidertheimplicationsthesehaveforour currentunderstandingofarchaicburialandwhattheevidencesuggestsaboutthenatureof city statesinthearchaicperiod. Insection5cIoutlinedthefourbasictombtypesandtheirvariants,andpointedoutthe siteswhereeachhasbeenmostcommonlyfound.followinganoverviewofthevarious siteswithfuneraryevidence(5d),however,itisclearthatawidevarietyoftombtypes wereusedthroughouttheregion,andthatthisstandsinmarkedcontrastwiththefunerary evidencefromearlierperiods.intheearlyironage,therewereonlytwomaingravetypes, fosseandpozzetti,whichchangedonlyinthelateorientalizingperiodwiththeappearance ofchambertomb.suggrundariaarealsoattestedduringthisperiod.duringthearchaic period,however,thereisevidenceforfosse,fossewithloculi,chambertombs,semichambertombs,sarcophagi,suggrundariaandurns;manyoftheseoccurwithinthesame regionsandevenburialgrounds.thus,itappearsthatawidearrayofmodesofburialwere knowntotheinhabitantsofarchaicromeandlatium. Thefactthatthesevarioustombtypesare,ingeneral,widelydistributedthroughout Latium,suggeststherewasafairlycomplexsystemofnetworksthatencouragedcrossculturalinteractionwithintheregion.Forexample,thegreatestconcentrationofvariation intombtypeoccursinthezoneboundedbyrome,gabiiandlaurentina.alltombtypes andtheirvariantsarerepresentedinthisarea:tuffsarcophagi;trenchtombs,bothwith andwithoutloculi,aswellaswithlidsoftuffortile;chambertombsandsemi chamber tombsforbothmultipleandsingleinhumation;suggrundaria;andpossiblyurns,ifwe acceptthedatafromtheesquilinenecropolis.itispossiblethatthecentrallocationofthese citiesinlatium,andthemultiplepointsofaccessconnectingthesecenterswithother settlementsintheimmediateterritory,suggeststhatthiszonewasawell interconnected areathatallowedforthetransmissionofideas,people,andgoods(figs.5.69and5.70). ThereasonsfortheconcentrationofthisactivityincentralLatiummaypartlybeduetothe geographyandtopographyoftheregion.althoughtomyknowledgetherehasbeenno positiveidentificationofaroadconnectingrometolaurentina,itislikelythatthesitesin thisdistrictwereknownandaccessibletorome,astheywerelocatedabout7kmsouthof theaurelianwalls.whatismore,theabandonmentoftheareabythebeginningofthefifth centuryistakenasindicationoftheincorporationoftheareaintotheagerromanus.the sitesatacquaacetosa,torde'cenci,torrino,casalemassimaandcasalebrunoriwere almostcertainlyknowntooneanother,astheywerelocatedwithina5kmradius.the roadsuncoveredattheso calledcompitumattorde'cenci,whichmaybearchaic,seemto runintwodirections:thefirst,towardthemodernviaostiense;thesecond,towardthe FossodiMalafedeinthedirectionofCastelPorziano. 552 AtGabii,thereisevidenceofaroad connectingthecitytorome,possiblytheviagabina,whichcontinuedinanortheast directiontowardtibur. 553 ThepredominanceofmonolithictuffsarcophagiinRome,Gabii andtibursupportstheeastwardmovementoftheseitemsinthisarea.therewasalso 552 Bedini SeeChapter6. 128

146 potentialforcommunicationstemmingfromgabiiinthedirectionofpraeneste,alongthe latersiteoftheviapraenestina. 554 Inadditiontotheseroadwaysarethetwotributariesof thefossodell'osaandthefossodisangiuliano,whichfedtheanieneriver;theaniene,in turn,wasatributaryofthetiber. 555 ThatthisnetworkalsolookedoutwardintootherareasofItalyandtheMediterranean, seemssupportedbythewidespreadadoptionofcertaintombtypes,especiallythechamber tomb.chambertombsappearinlatiumattheendoftheseventhcentury,probablyasa resultofcontactwiththeetruscanworld,andremaininuseuntilaboutthemid fifth.they arethepredominanttypeincrustumerium,andappearinhighnumbersatthesitesinthe LaurentinadistrictofRomeandCorcolle.AtGabiiandLaviniumtherearesolitary examples. 556 Thislevelofconnectivitymayalsofindsupportintheseeminglyrandomand isolateddistributionofespeciallywealthyburials.boththetombofthewarriorat LanuviumandthetombofthewomanatFidenaehaveahighconcentrationofgravegoods thatpointtocontactwiththeetruscanandgreekworlds.thisisnotmeanttobe understoodasanindicationofethnicidentity,onlyasanindicatorthatatsomepoint,the individualsburiedinthistombwereexposedtoideas,goodsandritualsofexternalorigin. TheconcentrationofchambertombsinthoseareasnortheastofRomeandclosetoSabine territorypointstotheextentofregionalcontactandinfluence.themortuaryrecordat CrustumeriumshowsabreakwiththeLatintradition,andseemstohavemoreincommon withsitestothenorthandeast.thesechambertombsresemblecloselyinstyle, dimensions,locationandcontents,thosefromeretum,anancientsettlementlocatedabout 12kmnortheastofCrustumeriumfollowingtheTiberriver.AtthesiteofColledelForno,is acemeterycomprisedentirelyofchambertombs.thetombsarealllocatedalongthe slopesofahill,adheretothesamequadrangularplan,andcontainrichcorredi(fig.5.71). 557 Santoroobservedthattheseburialsbelongtoadistinctfalisco capenatecategoryof funeraryarchitecturethatconsistsofamainchamberthatissquareinshape,andhasloculi carvedintothetwosidewallsandsometimesathirdattheback.onoccasion,additional nichesarecutforthedepositionofgravegoods. ThereareclearsimilaritiesbetweentheburialsofCrustumeriumandEretum, 558 whichis perhapsunsurprisinggivenitslocation.theearliestsurveyevidencerevealedthat CrustumeriumwaslocatedonanetworkofhillsinthemiddleofLatin,Sabine,Faliscan, CapenateandEtruscanterritories. 559 Thefunerarydatasuggestthattherewerecloseties betweentheseregions,andissupportedbyasharedmaterialcultureinothercontexts ViaPraenestina,LTURS4: BiettiSestieri1992b, InadditiontothisistheLateOrientalizingchambertomb62fromOsteriadell'Osa, BiettiSesiteri(1992a). 557 Santoro digennaro QuiliciandQuiliciGigli NijboerandAttema

147 ThematerialsrecoveredintheCrustumeriumchambertombsarerevealing:whilethe corrediarenotlarge,theycompriseseveralceramicvesselsofalocalredandwhitestyleof pottery,andsomemetalobjects.however,thegravegoodsfromcrustumeriumremain fewerinquantitythanthosefromeretum,suggestingthatthiscommunityobservedto somedegreethelatincustomofrestraintinburialpractices. AttheoppositeendofLatinterritory,thesiteofSatricumhasadistinctburialtradition. ThefifthcenturyburialsatSatricumallconformtoasingletype,thetrenchtomb,and containcorrediconsistingoflocallymadeceramicwares.bothfeaturesarenotconsistent withlatinburialsofthesameperiod,andmaypointtoacloserculturalandgeographical connectiontothepeoplesoftheapennines.indeed,thefuneraryrecordatsatricumduring allperiodsshowslittleevidenceofcorrespondingtolatincustoms. 561 AtmostLatinsites, inhumationreplacedcremationasthepreferredburialritebytheeighthcentury,whereas atsatricum,cremationremainsthenormthroughoutthistime,thoughinhumationsoccur simultaneously.inthetumuluscchambertombofthenorthwestnecropolis,therecords fromtheoldexcavationsindicatethatthewealthierburialswereassociatedwith cremationsintheeighthandinhumationsintheseventh. 562 Thisisunusualgiventhat inhumationsaretheritetypicallyassociatedwithchambertombsinlatiumandetruriaat thistime. Evenmorecuriousisthatnoburialsatallhavebeenidentifiedforthesixthcenturyat Satricum;gravesdisappearfromthesitewiththeclosingofthelasttumulusofthe northwestnecropolisattheendofseventhcentury,andreappearinthefosseofthe southwestnecropolis,acropolisandpoggiodeicavallariatthebeginningofthefifth. Satricumseemstohavebeenasuccessfulcityinthesixthcentury,asindicatedbythe evidencefromthesettlementandtempletomatermatuta.inthisregard,theabsenceof sixth centuryburialsatsatricummaybeinterpretedaspartofthesamephenomenonthat witnessedareductioninthenumberofburialsthroughoutlatium.archaeologistshave notedthattheintensiveagriculturalactivitiesintheareadestroyedanumberoftombs, whichmayhaveincludedthoseofthesixthcentury. 563 Thisisnotaconvincingargumentto explaintheabsenceofsixth centuryburials,however.itismorelikelythatsatricum, duringthesixthcentury,wasinfluencedbywhateverprocesswashappeningintherestof theregionthatresultedinthediminutionofburials.whatismore,thoseburialsonthe acropolis,whichcontainfewtonogravegoods(atbestafewollae),mayrepresentan adherence,atleastinpart,tolatinmodesofburial.acomparisonofthearchaeological recordofsatricumwithsitesintheapenninesandcampaniawouldgosomewayin clarifyingtherelationshipofthissitewiththoseinneighboringterritories. AlthoughtheburialsatCrustumeriumandSatricumreveal,intheirconsistencywithtypes fromadjacentregions,thatcloseregionalcontactsweresignificantforfuneraryritual,itis difficulttodeterminewhatfactorscontributedtotheuseofcertaintombtypesintherest 561 Smith2006, Waarsenburg Gnade

148 oflatium.aspreviouslynoted,thesitesofromeandlatiumexhibitaconsiderableamount ofvariationintombtype,tothepointthatmostsiteshaveevidenceofatleasttwo,and manymorehaveseveral.rome,gabiiandthesitesoflaurentinaarethebestexamplesto demonstratethelevelofvariability,sincemoreorlessallburialtypesarerepresentedat thesesites,evenwithinthesameburialgroup.atcasalemassima,therearetrenches, trencheswithloculi,andchambertombsinthesamecemetery.atgabiitherearesemichambertombsandasarcophagusinonegroup,andtwosarcophagi,achambertomband twotrenchesinanother. 564 Theburialsfromthe2002excavationsontheEsquilineat Romerevealevidencefortrenchescoveredbylidsoftuff,trenchescoveredbytiles, trencheswithloculi,andtuffsarcophagi. Thereislittleevidencetosuggestwhattheuseofdifferenttombtypeswithinthesame burialgroundrevealsaboutthespecificrelationshipsbetweenthedeceased.whileit possibletoarguethatthepresenceofdifferenttombtypeswithinthesamecemeteries representsthepracticesofdistinctsubgroups,thisisverydifficulttoproveinpractice.the decisionregardinghowtobeburiedmayhaveinvolvedanycombinationoffactors, includingpersonalpreference,ancestralcustom,orregionalandethnicties.complicating thispictureisthefactthatthereislittleevidencesuggestinghowthemembersofthese groupswererelatedtooneanother.whilednaanalysisoftheosteologicalmaterialwould gosomewayinprovingwhetherornotthereweregenetictiesbetweenthedeceased,it cannotaccountforthosekindsoftiesthatarenotblood related. 565 Itispossiblethatsome othersocial,economic,politicalorreligioustiesconnectedtheoccupantsofthesetombs. Thesegroupsmaybeconnectednotsomuchbytheiruseofparticulartombtypesasby theirsharedaccessoftheburialground.itappearsthat,beginningintheseventhcentury, useofburialgroundsforvisibleformsofburialbecameincreasinglyrestricted,asthereisa gradualreductioninthenumberofarchaeologicallyvisibleburials.thistrendcontinuedin thesixthandfifthcenturies,tothepointthatthereareveryfewburialsinthe archaeologicalrecordcomparedtotheevidencefromotherperiods.thisobservationis basedonmorris'studyofthekerameikosburialsatathens,whoobservesthatareduction inthequantityofgravesrelativetoestimatesofthelivingpopulationpointstoarestriction intheaccessgiventovisibleformsofburial,andthataccesstothiswasaccordedbasedon rank. 566 ExcludingSatricumfromthetotalbodycount,sincethehighnumberofburials thereisanomalous,thenumberofrecoveredburialsfromromeandlatiumoverthe courseofthesixthtomid fifthcenturyisaboutonehundred.thisisaroughestimate, 564 Thelatterremainunpublished.Onlythechambertombisdatedwithanycertaintyto thearchaicperiod.itsassociationwiththetombgroup,however,illustratesthesame point. 565 Suchanalyseshavebeenrarelyapplied,ifever,totheskeletalremainsofarchaic burials.thisislikelyduetothecostandperhapseventhepoorlypreservedremainsof manycontexts. 566 Morris1987.SeeChapter6foranapplicationofthismodeltothemortuaryevidence fromgabii. 131

149 basedonthenumbersnotedfromthepublishedreports. 567 Thislownumberisstriking, especiallyincomparisonwiththeburialevidencefromironagecemeteryatosteria dell'osa,whichhassixhundredburialsoveraboutthreecenturies(mostofwhichbelongto thefirsttwocenturies),andthatatcasteldidecima,hasaboutthreehundredburialsover twocenturies. 568 ItisextremelyunlikelythatthelownumberofburialsinarchaicLatiumis representativeofthelivingpopulation.inademographicstudybasedonthe palaeobotanicaldatarecoveredfromthesitesintheregion,ampoloprovidesareasonable estimateforromeinthelowtensofthousands,andthelatincitiesanywherebetween Onthisbasis,itseemsreasonabletoexpectthattherightofburialwas restrictedtocertainmembersofthepopulation,onthebasisofrank,howeverculturally defined. Oneofthegreatestindicatorsofstatusandwealthinarchaeologyisthepresenceofgrave goodsinburials,andtheabsenceorlowquantityofthesefrommostcontextsseverely complicatesourunderstandingofwhowaspermittedformalburialandonwhatgrounds. Scholarsalmostunanimouslyattributearchaicburialstothearistocraticelite,basedona varietyoffactors.theseincludethemonumentalityofthetombs,theirarchitectural refinement,theirassociationwithothermonumentalstructures,andthequantityand qualityofgravegoods,iftheyexist.forinstance,bedinisuggeststhechambertombsof Torrinorepresenttheburialsofsmallfamilygroups,wholikelybelongedtothearistocratic elitewholivedsomewhereintheimmediatearea. 570 Rajalaconsidersthechambertombs ofcrustumeriumasthosebelongingtoelitegroups,althoughshenotesthemorepoorly carvedburialswerelikelythegravesoflowerclasspersons. 571 Thewealthyburialsofthe TomboftheWarrioratLanuviumandthewomanatFidenaeareconsideredeliteonthe basisoftheirrichcorredi. 572 AtSatricum,Gnademakesdistinctionsbetweenwhatshe believesarepoorandrichburials,basedonthequalityintheconstructionofthegraves andthetypeandquantityofgravegoods. 573 AtGabii,thesmallburialgroundinareaD, whichidiscussinchapter6,istentativelyattributedtoaristocraticeliteactivity,basedon theassociationofthetombswithanarchaicbuilding(alsoconsideredelite),andthedegree oflaborrequiredfortheirconstruction Thisisnotentirelyaccurate,sincemanyofthereportsindicatethatthereare"about twenty","some"or"afew"burials.ihaveincludedinthistotaltheburialsfromtheold Esquilineexcavations.Thetruenumbermaybesomewhatless. 568 BiettiSestieri1992a;1992b(Osteriadell'Osa).Holloway1994,114 6(Casteldi Decima). 569 Ampolo1977.Raaflaub(2005,21 2)discussestheapproachesofotherscholarsin calculatingthepopulationofrome.ampolo'shypothesisseemsthemostsound. 570 Bedini1981a. 571 Rajala2008a. 572 GRT265 9(Lanuvium).GRT260 2(Fidenae). 573 Gnade MogettaandBecker

150 Eventhoughmodernscholarshipwidelyacceptstheidentificationoftheseburialsaselite, thisdoesnotfullyaddresstheproblemofwhatwemeanbytheterm,andhowthisapplies specificallytotheburialsinarchaicromeandlatium.mostscholarsareawarethatthereis adifferencebetweensocialstatusandwealth,althoughtheterm"aristocraticelite"seems torefertothosegroupsthatenjoyboth.presumably,thesegroupshadtheeconomic resources(wealth)andtheauthority(socialstatus)toallowthemtocontrolthelandscape andcommissionelaborateformsofburial.whatisoftenunstated,however,isthenatureof bothstatusandwealth.itisimportanttoconsiderhowstatuswasachieved,maintained andemployed,andhowthatmayconnecttowealth.thesameappliestowealth:onemust considerhowitwasquantified,fromwhatsourcesitwasderived,andhowitcontributed tostatus. TheancientaccountsoffersomeinsightintothesocialhierarchyofearlyRome,and indicatethatearlyromansocietywasorganizedaroundclan basedmembership.theclan, orgens,comprisedthecentralsocialinstitution,wherebyvariousindividualsandgroups wereconnectedundertheauthorityofasingleclanleader,thepater,byacombinationof familial,economic,social,politicalorreligiousties.thesamesourcesrevealthatthepater controlledtheexploitationoftheland,allottingvarioustractstogroupsbelongingtothe gens.thesegroupswerenotnecessarilyblood related,butprobablyhadavarietyofsocial, economicorpoliticalconnections.itappearsthatthesegroups,inreturn,made contributionsofvaryingkindstotheclanleader,includingmilitaryandpoliticalsupport,as wellassharesofcropsandlabor.modernscholarshipisdividedonmostissuesrelatingto thegens,andcertainlythehistoricityoftheaccountsregardingthisgroupistheissuemost susceptibletocriticism. 575 However,ifweacceptforthemomenttheconventional interpretation,itispossibletomakesometentativeargumentsaboutthenatureofthe archaicburialgrounds. If,asthesourcesindicate,theclanleadercontrolledlandandaccesstoit,itisconceivable thatthisauthorityextendedtocemeteries.thetenthtableclearlyrevealsaconcern regardingtheproperrelationshipbetweenlandedpropertyandburial.theninthstatute declaresthatthebustumcouldnotbelocatedwithinsixtyfeetofthepropertyofanother (X.9).ThissuggeststhatearlyRomanlandowners,whomayhavebeentheseclanleaders, werepermittedtoburyontheirownproperty,butatthesametimewererequiredto maintainalevelofseparationfromthatofanother.theremainingtwelvetables demonstrateapreoccupationwithissuesoflandedandmoveableproperty,including marriage,slaveryandinheritance;inlightofx.9ofthetenthtable,itseemsthatthis includedburial.theclanleader,astheindividualwholikelycontrolledthelandandaccess toit,mayhavegovernedtheuseofburialgrounds. Whethertheclanleaderrestrictedthisusetohisownfamilyorextendedaccesstothe burialgroundtodifferentmembersofthegensremainsunclear.giventhathedistributed landtoclanmembersanddesignateditsuse,itispossibletosuggestthathedidthesame forburialgrounds.inwhichcase,itisstilldifficulttodeterminejusthowmuchcontrolthe 575 Smith(2006)offersarecentaccountofthegens. 133

151 clanleader,orthegensasanentity,exercisedoveritsmembersconcerningothermatters relatedtoburial,includingtombtype.thepresenceofvarioustombtypeswithinthesame burialgroundsuggeststhatthiswasnotanissuethatrequiredclan basedsanction.forthe mostpart,thetenthtableimposesrestrictionsonbehavior,ratherthanthematerial attributesinvolvedinburial.whateverthecase,thishypotheticalexplanationdoesnot fullyaddresswhowasburiedinthesecemeteriesandwhy.atbest,itonlysuggeststhatthe individualswhoownedtheburialgroundsweretheelite,andcontrolledaccesstothe cemetery;thisaccessmayhavebeengrantedtoanyonewithintheclannetwork,regardless ofsocioeconomicstanding.asdiscussedinchapter4,thetenthtableseemstohave alloweddistinctionsforindividualsthatperformedsomeservicetothestate(x.8),but, again,thisdoesnotemphasizethatindividual'sstandinginthesocialhierarchy. Thisargumentiseasilycriticizedonthegroundsthatitismakingtoomuchoutoftoolittle reliableevidence,andthatitstilldoesnotexplainthevarietyoftombtypesthatappear throughoutarchaiclatium.wemayhaveatenuousideaofwhowasburiedinacemetery, buthavelittleindicationofwhatkindsofdecisionspeoplemadewhenitcametoburial. Thetruthis,wemayneverknow,andcanonlydrawconclusionsbasedontheavailable evidence.asitstands,thearchaeologicalrecordrevealsthatthepeopleofarchaiclatium onlyobservedtwofuneraryritualswithanydegreeofconsistency:theriteofinhumation andthedepositionoffewornogravegoods.althoughthereareexceptionstotheserules, namely,theurnsoftheesquilineandthewealthygravesoflanuviumandfidenae,these statementsseemgenerallytrue.moredifficulttodetermine,however,iswhythe inhabitantsofromeandlatiumobservedthesetworituals,yetatthesametimeexhibited greaterlicenseintombtypes. Theincreaseinthevarietyoftombtypesmaybebetterunderstoodinlightoftherapid monumentalizationoftheregion. 576 Thesixthcenturyiswidelyacknowledgedasatimeof urbandevelopmentinromeandlatium,wherepopulationdensityrose,andurbanand rurallandscapesbecameincreasinglyfilledwithexamplesofstonebuiltarchitecture.this kindofconstructiontookplaceinavarietyofcontexts:therearetemples,residences, altars,andwalls,amonganumberofothermonumentalfeaturesthroughoutthe settlementsoftheregion.itispossiblethatthesedevelopmentsextendedtothefunerary sphere,andencouragedtheconstructionofawiderangeoftombtypes,especiallyones builtofstone.theproliferationofthechambertombinlatiumisgenerallyunderstoodin thiscontext,asitrepresentsamonumentalformofburialonparwiththeexamplesof temples,residences,wallsandsoonthatappearintheurbanandruralareasofthe region. 577 Itispossibletoviewthemonolithicstonetuffsarcophagiandsemi chamber tombsinthesamelight.bothsignalthequarryinganduseofstoneforconstruction purposes,whetheritistheenormousblockofthesarcophagus,orthedeepcarvinginto bedrockofthesemi chambertomb.theshallowertrenchtombsfitlesseasilyintothis category,however.theymayrepresentamoretraditionalmodeofburial,andcertainlythe 576 IreturntoadiscussionofmonumentalizationinChapter6,focusingontheuseofthe terminmodernscholarshipconcerningancientetruriaandrome. 577 Ampolo1984;Rajala2007;2008a.Seeabovefordiscussion. 134

152 mostcommon,astheyappearatmostsitesinsomefashion.thosewhichhaveniches closedwithtilesmayreferencethetilesusedforstonebuiltstructures. ThemonumentalizationofRomeandLatiumduringthesixthcenturyisthoughttoexplain theabsenceofgravegoodsintombsofthesameperiod.itwouldappearthatwealthwas beingredirectedawayfromgravesandintomonumentalformsofarchitecture. 578 Although thereisprobablysometruthtothis,theargumentitmissesthemarkinafewways.first,it overlookstheevidencedemonstratingthatthereductioningravegoods,particularly ceramics,wastheresultofamoregradualprocess,beginninginthelateorientalizing period. 579 Second,itreliesheavilyonthefuneraryregulationsoftheTwelveTables,which, asalreadydiscussed,seemtohavehadverylittletodowiththeitemsdepositedingraves. Third,itsuggeststhatburialbecamealessviablemodeofthekindsofconspicuous consumptionusedtomakedemonstrationsofpowerandwealth.althoughiwouldnot connectoutrightallburialswithelitegroups,itseemsunlikelythattheimportanceof burialasaritualbecamelesssignificantasasymbolofwealthand/orstatus.itseems insteadthattombsbecameincreasinglymonumentalatthesametimeasotherformsof architecture,andallofthesemonuments,andtheareastheyoccupied,heldequalpotential fordemonstrationsofwealthand/orstatus. 580 Withregardtotheabsencegravegoods,Colonna'sinitialobservationremainsgenerally true.mostburialsinromeandlatiumhavenocorredi,andwhentheydo,theyconsistonly ofafewobjects.thedeclineingravegoods,however,appearstohavebeenmoregradual andwidespreadthanheoncethought.asnotedabove,recentstudieshavedemonstrated thatthetombsofsouthetruriaandlatiumrevealevidenceofdecreasedcorredibeginning inthemid tolateseventhcentury. 581 Thissuggeststhattheabsenceordeclineofgrave goodscannotbeattributedtoanysortoffunerarylegislation,suchasthetwelvetables, andisinsteadindicativeofawidespreadchangeinfuneraryideologythatplacedless emphasisontheinclusionofobjectswithinthegrave.althoughthischangeisbroadly visibleatsitesinsouthetruriaandlatium,itisexpressedmorerigorouslyinthelatter. Whatismore,areviewofthegravegoodsthatdoappearsuggeststheissueoftheir absenceissomewhatoverstated.thedistributionofgravegoodsincemeteriesisirregular: atmostsites,onlyahandfulofburialsincludegravegoods.theexceptionstothisruleare thetombsatcrustumeriumandsatricum,wherethemajoritycontainsarelativelyhigh degreeofgravegoods,thoughthismayindicatenonlatinpractice.atcrustumerium,most chambertombscontainedjewelry,armsormetalobjects.fivelackedcorredientirely,while twopreservedanentireceramicvessel.therichestburialscontainedbronzefibulae decoratedwithbeads,pendantsorironweapons;otherswereburiedwithironfibulaeor anassortmentofironobjectsthatthereportsdonotmakespecific.atsatricum,theburials 578 Smith1996;Cornell1995.Seeabovefordiscussion. 579 Bartolonietal Riva2010;BiettiSestieri1992b;Rajala2007;2008a.Thechambertombisoftenviewed asatestamenttocontrolandauthorityoverthelandscape. 581 Bartolonietal

153 ofthesouthwestnecropolistendedtoincludeceramicvessels,whereasfibulae,pendants, beadednecklaces,weapons,pins,spindlewhorlsandloomweightswerecomparatively rare.ingeneral,gravegoodshereweremodestinquantityandquality,withmostburials containinganywherefromonetosixvessels. 582 Themajorityofthepotterycomprised locallymadewarescommonindomesticcontexts;veryfewgravescontainedimported vessels.theseburialshavebeennotedalready,however,fortheirsingularity. OthergravesnotablefortheirwealthincludetheTomboftheWarrioratLanuviumandthe tombofawomanatfidenae.bothoftheseburialsarelocatedinisolation;thereisno comparativefuneraryevidencefromthesurroundingarea.bothareburialsintuff sarcophagiandareremarkableforthewealthofthegravegoodsdepositedinthem,which isgenerallyconsideredunusualforthetimeandregion.thetombofthewarriorat Lanuviumincludesthearmsofapresumedcavalryman,alongwithahostofotheritems includingstrigils,adiscusandalabastra.thisgraveisofteninterpretedasoneofthetombe principeschethatweremorecommonlyfoundintheorientalizingperiod. 583 Thetombof thewomanatfidenaecontainedawidearrayofitems,includinggoldearrings,agold necklace,asilverfibula,beadsofglassandamber,amirror,alumpofaesrudeandred pigment.thequantityofmetalobjectsfoundinhertombsuggestsasharedfunerary ideologywiththeetruscanworld.althoughherburialistheonlyarchaicgraverecovered thusfaratfidenae,thewealthfromthisburialisinalignmentwiththehigher concentrationofgravegoodsfoundincontextsinnortheastlatium,particularlyat Crustumerium. Thefewwealthygraveshavethetendencytoobscurethefactthatthepredominantgrave goodtype,forbothadultsandchildreninromeandlatiumareceramicvesselsrelatedto dining,andfoodstorageandpreparation.miniatureollae,pentolinae,coppetteandanforae arethemostcommonlyattestedtypesofgravegoodsthroughoutallofromeandlatium, withexceptionofthosesitesinthenorth.atrome,miniatureamphoraeandcupswere discoveredinthreeoftheburialsfromthe2002excavationsontheesquiline.colini's excavationstherein1932revealedfragmentsofaesrudeandbronzeandironnailsinboth tombsafossaandsarcophagi.thesarcophagifromthepiazzamagnanapoliareuniquefor theirfinds,whichincludeanunguentarium,apin,adiadem,gildedbonebeadsandanattic RedFigurepelike.AtLaurentina,glassbeadsappeartobethemorecommontypeofgrave good,althougholleandpentolinearepresentinthechambertombsofcasalemassimaand Torde'Cenci.ThelonetrenchtombatArdeacontainsanolla,acupandapyxis.Mostofthe childburialsatficanacontainatleastoneolla;intwoburialsthesejarswereclosedatthe mouthbybasins;oneburialincludedabronzegrater.atsatricum,allthenecropoleishave evidenceforavarietyjars,pots,bowlsandcups;theburialsoftheacropolis,however, includedonlyollae.finally,atgabii,ollaeareattestedinthetrenchburialofachild. Overall,importsarerare,butareattestedinoneofthePiazzaMagnanapolisarcophagiat Rome,whichholdstheAtticRedFigurepelike,andthevariousburialsinthechambertomb atlavinium,whichcontainsanatticredfigurestamnos,ared figurekylix,andone 582 Gnade(1992),Grave Riva(2010)challengesconventionalinterpretationsofthetombeprincipesche. 136

154 oinochoe.ingeneral,thepotteryconsistsoflocalorimitationwares.itseemsthatthere remainedinburialsomerepresentationofthefunerarybanquet,asindicatedbythe presenceofpotteryrelatedtodininganddrinking. Thearchaicburialsappearinavarietyoflocations,includingcemeteriesorinisolation,at crossroadsoronhillsides,andintheremainsofbuildings.innearlyallcircumstancesthese arethoughttorepresenteliteclaimsoflandownership.intheregionoflaurentina,bedini connectsnearlyallburialsgroundswithnearbysettlements,whichheclaimswere inhabitedbyelitegroups;inparticular,hesuggeststhechambertombsattorrinobelong toaprominentfamilythatlivednearby. 584 Approximately220msouthwestofthetombs hediscoveredtheremainsofcappellacciowalls,whichhereconstructedasacolonnaded courtyardbuildingwithroomsontwosides. 585 Onthebasisofceramicremainshedated thebuildingtothesixthandfifthcenturies.atacquaacetosa,thechambertombswere constructedintheremainsofacomplexofstonestructures,whichbediniconsidered partlyresidential. 586 Boththetombsandthefinalphasesofthebuildingdatetothefirst halfofthefifthcentury,andonthesegrounds,hesuggeststheindividualsburiedthere wereestablishingand/ormaintaining,indeath,aconnectionnotjusttotheagricultural landscape,buttoamonumentalstructurewithinthatlandscape.thesituationatacqua AcetosabearsclosesemblancetothatatGabii,whereaseriesoftombsappeartohavebeen constructedintheremainsofabuilding.iwillrevisitthisinchapter6. Thechambertombisthecategoryofburialmostoftenidentifiedwithelitedemonstrations ofstatusandauthority.inarecentstudyofurbanizationineighth centuryetruria,riva arguesthatmonumentalandmultidepositionalformsofburial,suchaschambertombs, functionasthebasisfortheinstitutionalizationofeliteritualactivities,andthe transformationoftheirsocialprestigeintopoliticalauthority. 587 Inherview,thelocationof tombsalongstrategicroutesorlocationsensuresthepoliticalcontrolofthatlandscapeand simultaneouslyactsasachoreographicspaceforthearticulationofpoliticalauthority. BiettiSestieriunderstandsthechambertombatOsteriadell'Osainasimilarway,and suggeststhattheindividualsburiedinthetombwerelikelytherulingeliteatgabii,who strengthenedtheirpositioninthelocalhierarchybypreservingaconnectionwiththeir areaoforiginandreassertingtheirclaimstolandownershipandterritorialcontrol. 588 RajalainterpretsthechambertombsatCrustumeriumaselitedemonstrationsofstatus andauthorityintheimmediatearea. 589 Theirprominentpositiononthehillsidesatthe junctureoflatin,sabineandetruscanterritorieswouldhavebeenclearsignsofterritorial control.onecouldeasilymakethesamecaseforthechambertombsatthesitesof Laurentina:here,therearetwoinahillsideatAcquaAcetosa,afewinacemeteryatCasale 584 Bedini1981a. 585 Bedini Bedini1981b, Riva2009, BiettiSestieri1992b, Riva(2009,108 40)suggeststhiswasthefunctionofsomegroupsofchambertombsin Etruria. 137

155 Massima,fivenearabuildingatCasaleBrunori,andseveralintwogroupsatacrossroads attorde'cenci. 590 Theprominentsizeandpositionofmanyofthesetombscertainlymakesthemstrong visualmarkers,andtheydoindeedseemtohavefunctionedasstatementsofterritorial control,insofarastheyoccupiedprominentpositionsinlandthatseemstohavebeen routinelyregulatedandnegotiated.thetombsatcrustumerium,corcolleandtorde'cenci seemtomakethestrongeststatement.atcrustumerium,thetombsoccupytheslopesof hillsatanimportantjuncturebetweenneighboringregions;itispossibletoseethisasthe attemptofprominentgroupstocreatevisualsignsoftheirauthorityinthearea,especially inrelationtoadjacentterritories.whatleadsrajala,isuspect,tointerprettheseasthe burialsoftherulinggroupisthattheywerethemostlikelypeopletohavetheabilityto occupythisspaceandmobilizetheresourcesfortheconstructionofthesemonuments.at Corcolle,thetombsoccupyasimilarpositioninthecountryside,althoughinalocation furthersouth;it,too,sitsattheboundaryoflatinandsabineregions.thetwoburial groupsatthecrossroadsoftorde'cenci,whiletheymaynothaverepresentedacompitum, werecertainlyprominent;theymayhavefunctionedasboundarymarkersofsomesort. ThepresenceofseveralotherchambertombsattheothersitesofLaurentinarevealsjust howdifficultitistoassociatechambertombsspecificallywiththeburialsoftheruling group,asopposedtooneofmanygroupswhowereallowedaccesstovisibleformsof burial.thoselocatedincemeteriesalongsideotherburials,orthoselocatedinassociation withacomplexmaynotnecessarilybetheleadinggroupinthecity.iprefertoviewthese moreasthemonumentsofdifferentgroups,wholikelyusedburial,alongwithotherforms ofarchitecture,inordertomakeavarietyofstatements,whetherstatus,wealth,territory orancestry.thisalsoallowsforthepossibilitythatindividualsotherthantheuppertierof elitesreceivedthesemodesofburial. Whiletheassociationofmanyoftheseburialstoelitegroupsisdebatable,itseemstrue that,forthemostpart,archaicburialsarelocatedingroups,whethertheyaresmallburial groundsorlargercemeteries.atcrustumerium,theburialsarelocatedontheslopesofa hill. 591 AtCasaleMassimathereisacemeteryofsome40gravesthatrangeindatefromthe eighthtothethirdcenturies;abouthalfoftheseburialsbelongtothearchaicperiod. 592 At Torde'Cenci,thechambertombsatthecrossroadsareclusteredintotwoburialgroups.In bothcasesthechambertombsseemorientedaroundearlierburials. 593 AtCasaleBrunori, fivechambertombswerediscoveredtogetheralongaroad. 594 AtSatricummostofthe burialsareconcentratedinthelargercemeteriestothesouthwestandatpoggiodei Cavallari;ontheacropolistherearefarfewerburials. 595 AtRome,thesituationismore difficulttodeterminesincethelimitsoftheesquilinenecropolishavenotbeencompletely 590 Bedini1980;1990; Rajala2007;2008a. 592 Bedini Bedini Bedini Gnade1992;2003;2004;2006;2007;

156 identified.inaddition,thepoorrecordsoftheoldexcavationsandthepresenceofmodern occupationmakeitextremelydifficulttodiscerndistinctionsinburialgroupsinthearea. DespitetheisolatedoccurrenceoftheTomboftheWarriorandLanuviumandtherich tombofawomanatfidenae,andthesmallgroupsoftwoorthreeburialsatacquaacetosa, itseemsthat,forthemostpart,theseburialsarearrangedinmoremodestburialgrounds. Thismaybetakenasevidencefortheoccupationoftheseburialgroundsbymembersofa gentilicialgroup,buttherecouldbeotherconnections.generally,thesecemeteriesare thoughttorepresenttheburialgroundsofkinshipgroups,possiblyagens,althoughsome otherkindofassociationispossible.onlyinthecaseoflargecemeteries,wherethereis betterproofthatthenumberofburialsisrepresentativeofthelivingpopulation,canthese beseenasburialgroundsusedbytheentirecommunity. Theburialsofchildrenandinfantsoccurintwodifferentcontexts.Manyappear,as suggrundaria,inthefoundationsoralongsidethewallsofbuildings.thereisevidenceof thispracticeatromeandthesitesoflaurentinainparticular,and,asiillustrateinchapter 6,atGabii.AtRome,therearethefourtombsoftheSacraVia,whichareallconnectedto thearchaichabitation. 596 Thesesuggrundariacompriseinfantburialsinjarsplacedeither belowthefloorsoralongthewallsofthemonumentalstructures.tothesouthofrome, suggrundariahavebeenidentifiedatacquaacetosalaurentinaandcasalebrunori,ina contextrelatedtosixth andfifth centurybuildings.atgabii,eachsuggrundariumis situatedalongwhatappearstobetheouterlimitsoftheelitecompound.itshouldbenoted thatthetwodolia,tothenorthandsouthofthebuilding,haveanundetermineddate.that tothenorthmaydateanywherefromthebeginningoftheseventhtotheendofthesixth century,whilethattothesouthremainsundated.theevidencesuggeststhatthefunerary ideologyregardingchildrenwasboundtothephysicallimitsoftheresidence,apattern thathaditsoriginintheearlyironage. Thearchaeologicalvisibilityofinfantsandchildrenisofteninterpretedasasignofgrowing socialcomplexity,butthelocationofthesegravesinassociationwithhousespointstotheir tiestothesestructures.inthearchaicperiod,juvenilegravesarelocated,quiteliterally,in thefoundationsandatthelimitsofhouses.itseemsthatchildrenandinfantswere connectedindeathwiththephysicallimitsofthehouse.itispossibletosuggestthatthese burialsandthechildrenaresymbolicrepresentationsofthefoundationandboundariesof thehouse,andbyextension,thehousehold.theydemonstrateacareonbehalfofthe survivingfamiliestomaintainarelationshipbetweenfamily,house,andterritorythatin manywaysechoestheconcernsofthegentes,asindicatedbythehistoricalsources. ThisisperhapsbestillustratedatFicana,wherejuvenileburialsoccuratthelimitsofa buildingandinaseparateburialgroundjustnorthofthesamecomplex.northofthe complexwererecoveredsevenarchaicinfantburials. 597 Whiletheburialsinthebuilding weresuggrundaria,thosenorthofthestructureweredepositedinvasesorbetweentiles. Archaeologistsinterpretedtheburialgroundasarepresentativeoftheburialactivitiesofa 596 Gjerstad(1956,146 9),TombsE,F,LLandNN. 597 Jarva(1981b,270 1),burialsI VIandXII. 139

157 singlefamily,sincethenumberofgraveswastoolow,andthetimespantoogreat(some tenburialsoveronehundredyears),tohavefunctionedasacommunitycemetery g.Conclusion Inconclusion,thereislittlehomogeneityinthearchaeologicalevidenceforburialinRome andlatiumduringthearchaicperiod.theevidenceleavesfewcleartracesofethnic, cultural,social,politicalorlinguisticdivisions,whichsuggeststherewasconsiderable diversityamongthepeoplesinhabitingtheregion.atthesametime,thisistheperiod whenmostcity statesintheregionarethoughttohavebeenmostprosperous.the evidencerecoveredfromthesesitesrevealsburialgroundsoccupiedbymixedandmobile populations,whohadawidearrayoffunerarytraditionstodrawfrom.thegreatestdegree ofcross culturalinteractionseemstohaveoccurredbetweenadjacentcity states.thus,for instance,crustumeriumexhibitsculturalcharacteristicssharedwiththeetruscan,sabine andcapenateworlds, 599 andthesitesinromeandthelatininteriorseemmosttobe participatinginsharedbehaviorsandrituals.theseconclusionsfindsupportinearlier studiesthatunderstandsocietyinarchaicromeandsouthetruriaasanopenone, characterizedbyahighdegreeofhorizontalmobility. 600 Theoverallpaucityofburialsat sitessuggeststhatvisibleformsofburialwererestricted,aswasaccesstoburialgrounds; itispossiblethatclansandtheirleaderscontrolledtheuseofandaccesstocemeteries. Thissuggeststhattheseclanleadersexercisedconsiderableauthorityinburial. 598 Fischer Hansen1978, Nijboeretal EspeciallyAmpolo

158 6.ArchaicGabii:theEvidenceforSettlementandBurial 6a.Introduction ThesiteofGabiiislocatedapproximately18kmeastofRomealongtheancientVia Prenestina(fig.6.1).Itiswellattestedintheancientsourcesandrecentlyhasbeensubject tolargescaleexcavationsthathaveaddedconsiderablytoourunderstandingofurbanism incentralitaly.inthischapteriundertakeapresentationandanalysisofthearchaic phasesofoccupationfromasectorofthecitycurrentlyunderexcavationbythegabii Project.Ifocusontheevidenceforanarchaicbuildingandtheburialgroundestablishedin theareaafterthebuildinghadfallenoutofuse.icontextualizethesedatawiththeburial evidencefromtheironagecemeteryatosteriadell'osa(fig.6.2),locatedsome1.5kmwest oftheurbancenterofarchaicgabii,inordertoexaminetheevidenceforthekindsofsocial andpoliticalcomplexitythatcontributedtourbandevelopmentintheregion. IbeginbyrecountingbrieflytheancientliterarysourcesconcerningarchaicGabii(6b).The literaryevidencesuggestsacloserelationshipbetweenromeandgabiithatmayhelp contextualizetheevidencefromthearchaeologicalrecord.ithenrecountthehistoryof excavationatthesite(6c),notingthevariousentitiesthathaveconductedarchaeological investigationintheareasincetheeighteenthcentury.anaccountconcerningthe topographyandchronologicaldevelopmentofthesitefollows(6d),inordertoprovidea frameworkforthearchaicmaterials.thenextsection(6e)relatesbrieflytheaimsofthe GabiiProjectandthediscoveriesmadeinrecentyears,beforefocusingspecificallyonthe evidencerecoveredfromthearchaicphasesofthesite(6f).foreasyreference,ipresenta briefdescriptionofthechronologyofthesiteofthegabiiproject'saread(6g).theni describethefeaturesassociatedwiththearchaicphasesofoccupation,focusingonthe archaicbuilding(6h)andtheburials(6i),anddiscussthesignificanceofthesefinds.iclose thechapterwithabriefsummaryofmyconclusions(6j). 6b.TheAncientSourcesforArchaicGabii TheancientliterarysourcesconcerningGabiidocumenttheoriginsanddevelopmentofthe cityduringtheregalperiodofromanhistory,andtraceitsgradualdeclinebytheendof thelaterepublic. 601 Theseaccountsarelargelyproductsofthenarrativetraditionofthe secondandfirstcenturies,whoseauthorsdrewheavilyfromtheworksofgreekhistorians tosubstantiatetheinformationavailableintheromanannals. 602 Theepisodesrelatingto Gabii'searlyhistoryareespeciallysuspect,astheyarethefarthestremoved chronologicallyfromthetimeofwriting,and,moreoftenthannot,areclearlyderivedfrom agreeksource.consequently,theancientliteraryaccountsarenotareliablesourceforthe earlyhistoryofgabii,anditwouldbeunwisetodrawtoomanyconclusionsbasedonthese narratives.atbest,theyrevealtheprideofplacegiventothecitybythehistoriansofthe LateRepublic,whichmayhavesomebasisinfact,butthisisultimatelyimpossibleto 601 AlmagroBasch(1958)compilestheliteraryevidenceregardingancientGabii. 602 SeeChapter2forafulltreatmentofthissubject. 141

159 determine.itisworthnoting,too,thattheliteraturedepictsgabii'sriseanddeclineina mannerconsistentwiththeearlyhistoryofotherlatincities.theseaccountsarethought tocorrespondwiththeevidencefromthearchaeologicalrecord,whichpointstoafloruitin thearchaicperiod,andagradualdeclinethereafter. 603 GabiifeaturesprominentlyandfavorablyinthetraditionconcerningRome'searlyhistory. FoundedbyAlbaLonga, 604 itisthecitywhereromulusandremusweresentaschildrento beraisedandeducatedinletters,musicandarms. 605 Thecityplayedanimportantroleat theendofthemonarchyandthebeginningoftherepublic.tarquiniussuperbus,unableto capturegabiibymilitaryassault,senthissonsextustotakecontrolofthetownbymeans ofdeceitandtrickery. 606 InanepisodethatcombinestheHerodoteanaccountsconcerning ZopyrusandthecaptureofBabylon(3.154)andtheinterchangebetweenThrasybulusand Periander(5.92.6),SextusTarquinpersuadedtherulingeliteatGabiitomakehimthemost powerfulmaninthecity;hethenkilledthemostprominentinhabitantsandhandedthe cityovertohisfather. 607 DionysiusofHalicarnassusrecordsthat,followingthisvictory, TarquiniusSuperbusreturnedGabiitoitsinhabitants,allowingthemtokeeptheir propertyandgrantingthemtherightsofromancitizens(rom.ant.4.58).superbusthen establishedwithgabiiwhatisconsideredtheearliestknowntreaty,thefoedusgabinum, andhadthetermsinscribedonawoodenshieldcoveredwithanox hide.dionysius recordsthattheshieldwasvisibleinhisday,sometimeinthelatefirstcentury,inthe TempleofSemoSancus/DiusFidiusinRome(Rom.Ant.4.58). 608 Afterthefallofthe monarchy,livy(1.60)reportsthatsextusfledtogabii,wherehewaskilledonaccountof hispreviousactions. ItisgenerallythoughtthattheBattleofLakeRegillus,TarquiniusSuperbus'finalattempt toreclaimthethroneaftertheinstitutionoftheromanrepublic,wasfoughtnearby. 609 The preciselocationofthebattleremainsthesubjectofsomedebate,andisbasedlargelyon theassumptionthatthelocationofthelakeindicatesthelocationofthelegendarybattle. TheancientsourcesdonotexplicitlyconnectLakeRegilluswiththeterritoryofGabii,but notethatthebattleoccurredsomewherebetweenromeandtusculum.hollowaystates thelakewaslocatedatthesouthendofthemarshyplainofpantanoborghese,andthatit wasdrainedintheseventeenthcentury. 610 FollowingtheRomanvictoryatBattleofLake Regillus,GabiiwaslikelyincludedasamemberoftheLatinLeagueinthefoedusCassianum, atreatythatbroughttoanendthewarbetweenromeandtheleague. 611 Afterthispoint, 603 Smith1996,2;Cornell Verg.Aen Dion.Hal.Ant.Rom.1.84,4.53;Plut.Mor.Defort.Rom.8;Vit.Rom.6;Ampolo Liv ;Dion.Hal.Ant.Rom Ogilvie1965, LTUR4.264and5.288(SemoSancus);5.163(DiusFidius).Dion.Hal.Ant.Rom Liv ;Dion.Hal Livydatesthebattleto499B.C.E.,Dionysiusof Halicarnassusto496B.C.E.andCornell(1995,216)to493B.C.E. 610 Holloway1994, Dion.Hal

160 Gabiiisrarelymentionedinahistoricalcontextuntil382B.C.E.,whenthecityassistedin thewaragainstpraeneste. 612 TheancientaccountsadditionallydocumentGabii'scontributionstosocialandreligious lifeatrome.manysourcesclaimthatthecinctusgabinuswasthecustomarystyleofdress wornbyselectofficialsonanumberofsolemnoccasions. 613 Theseincludethefounderofa cityorcolonyattheriteofsulcusprimigenius;theconsulwhenclosingtheiugumianiupon thedeclarationofwar;ageneralforthedevotioonthebattlefield;andparticipantsinthe processionoftheamburbia. 614 Varro(Ling.5.33)recordsthattheagerGabinuswasgranted specialstatus,possiblyasextensionofthefoedusgabinum,whichallowedroman magistratestoconsidervalidtheauspiciasingulariaundertakenatgabii. 6c.HistoryofExcavation ArchaeologicalinvestigationatGabiihastakenplaceinseveraldistinctphases,andconsists largelyofoneextensivesurfacesurvey,ahandfulofsmall scaleexcavationsandfewlargescaleoperations(figs.6.2and6.3). 615 Explorationoftheareabeganin1792whenthe ScottishantiquarianGavinHamiltonundertookexcavationsinasectoroftheurbanareahe identifiedastheforum.hamilton'sactivitiesweresopoorlydocumentedthattheprecise locationoftheseoperationsisunknown. 616 Overthecourseoftheexcavations,however,he uncoveredsome200statuesandseveralinscriptions,allinassociationwithaseriesof buildingsorientedaroundamaineast westroad,possiblytheviaprenestina. 617 SystematicarchaeologicalfieldworkonlybeganatGabiiinthemiddleofthetwentieth century,andwasundertakenbyanumberofacademicinstitutions.thespanishschoolat Romeconcentrated,inthemid twentiethcentury( ,1960,1962,1965and 1967),ontheexcavationoftheso calledtempletojuno. 618 Theretheydiscovered evidenceforironagehuts,archaicvotives,andarepublicanshrinetofortuna,allbefore theconstructionofthetempleinthemid secondcentury. 619 In the SoprintendenzaSpecialeperiBeniArcheologicidiRoma(hereafterSAR)identifieda secondsanctuarystructureoutsidetheeasternwallsofthecity,theso calledsantuario Orientale. 620 Theshrinerevealsevidencefromthesevenththroughsecondcenturies Livy3.8.7, Serv.adAen.7.612;Liv Dubourdieu(1986)compilesallreferencestothecinctusgabinus. 615 ThismirrorsthecurrentstatusofdatacollectionfortherestofearlycentralItaly, accordingto(smith1996;beckeretal.2009). 616 Visconti(1797)sketchedaplanoftheareabeforeitwasbackfilled. 617 Beckeretal.2009;Smith1901, AlmagroBasch AlmagroGorbea,ed.1982;LeGlay GuaitoliandZaccagni1977;Zaccagni1978;Guaitoli1981a,50 1;1981b,

161 Atthesametimeasthesanctuarywasbeingexcavated,Guaitoliundertookanextensive surfacesurveyoftheregionofgabii,revealingawiderangeofevidenceforthe developmentoftheareafromthebronzeagethroughtheimperialperiod. 622 Mostofhis hypothesesregardingtheurbandevelopmentofthecityaresupportedbytheresultsof morerecentexcavations. From and ,theSARconcentratedonthesustainedexcavationofthe IronAgenecropolisatOsteriadell'Osa,acemeterylocatedalongthewesternedgeofthe Castiglionecrater(fig.6.2). 623 Theresultsoftheseexcavationshavebeendeeplyinfluential inthefieldofitalianprehistory,bothforthequantityofmaterialandthequalityof publication.theosteriadell'osacemeteryisthelargest(andmostsystematically) excavatednecropolisincentralitaly,withsome600tombsthatrangeindatefromthe EarlyIronAge(LatialphaseIIA)totheLateOrientalizingperiod(LatialphaseIVB).The SARexcavatedasecondnecropolisontheoppositesideofthecrater,approximately1.8km eastofosteriadell'osa. 624 ThisistheCastiglionecemetery,whichcontainedsomesixty tombsoftheearlyironageandislocatedinproximitytotheironagehutclusters.the Osteriadell'Osacemeterywasthefocusofmorein depthanalysis,however,andremains themoreprominentofthetwositesinsecondaryliterature. Inthefollowingdecades,theSARcontinuedarchaeologicalworkintheCastiglioneregion, butthishasgenerallyconsistedofsporadicandsmall scaleexcavations.theresultsof theseinitiativesremainlargelyunpublished,butareknowntohavebroughttolighta monumentalbuilding(theso calledregia),aroad,somehousesandtombs. 625 In2007,the UniversityofMichigan,undertheauspicesoftheSAR,beganintensiveexplorationofthe urbanarea.aninitialseasonofmagnetometrysurveyandcoresamplinginthearea revealedasectorofthecitythatwasorganizedaccordingtoanorthogonallayout. 626 This becamethefocusofalarge scaleexcavationbeginningin2009,whichhassinceuncovered evidenceofoccupationfromthelateironagetoimperialperiod.theexcavationisstill ongoing,andmuchoftheevidencepresentedinthischapterpertainstotheexcavated archaicphasesofthesite. 621 GraninoCecere1986.ThesiteisthelocusofarenewedseriesofexcavationsbytheSAR (ManciniandPilo2006),theUniversityofRomeTorVergataandtheUniversityof Basilicata(Beckeretal.2009). 622 Guaitoli1981a;1981b. 623 BiettiSestieri1992a;1992b. 624 BiettiSestieri Musco1997;MajariniandMusco2001.ApreliminaryreportoftheRegiacanbefound attherepubblicanewspaperwebsite( regia deltiranno dei tarquini nellantica citta laziale di gabii/ ). 626 Beckeretal

162 6d.TopographyandDevelopmentoftheSite ThemaintopographicalfeatureintheregionofGabiiisthenowextinctvolcaniccraterof Castiglione,whichisflankedonthewestandeastsidesbytworivers,thefossodell'Osaand thefossodis.giuliano,respectively.thecraterisoftencalledthelagodicastiglionein secondaryliterature,indicatingthatthisfeaturewasatsometimefilledwithwater.itis unknowntowhatextenttheareawas,infact,alakeinantiquity,sincesomeoftheearliest evidenceforhutscomesfromthebasin.documentsfromthemid nineteenthcentury, however,indicatethatthecratercontainedwaterbyatleasttheseventeenthcentury,as theyreportthattheborghesefamilywasresponsiblefordrainingthecraterofwaterand transformingtheareafromamarshtoarableland. 627 Tothisday,thecraterremainsazone ofagriculturalactivity. Theedgesofthecraterrestatapproximately79mabovesealevel,wherethevolcanic bedrockoutcropsandslopesgraduallydownwardinalldirections.insomeareas,the naturalmorphologyofthebedrockwastruncatedbyhumanactivity.theareaexcavated bythegabiiprojectissituatedsoutheastofthecrater,atapproximately62mabovesea level.here,thetopsoilcoversthestratigraphyatadepthofabout0.7m;mostofthe preservedarchaeologyliesbetween1mand2.8mbelowthesurface. 628 Coresamples takenfromthesoutheastlimitoftheexcavationrevealasequenceofnaturallayers, comprisedmostlyofvolcanicsandandclayeylevels,locatedabovethebedrock.these colluvialdepositsrestimmediatelybeneaththetopsoilandseemtohavebeenheavily disturbedbymodernplowing. InallperiodssettlementatGabiihasconcentratedaroundtheCastiglionecrater.The evidenceforthebronzeageoccupationofthesiteislimited,andconsistsmostlyofceramic fragmentsrecoveredbyarchaeologicalsurveyontheeastsideofthecrater. 629 Itisdifficult tomakespecificstatementsregardingthenatureoftheoccupationatthistime,butthe densityandchronologicalconsistencyofthesurfacescattersuggestthattherewasa relativelystablepopulationduringthemiddleandlatebronzeages. 630 ThesamesurveyidentifiedseveralIronAgesitesalongthesouthandeastsidesofthe craterandatvariouspointsalongthes.giulianotributary.theceramicmaterialsindicate thepresenceofeitherhutsorisolatedburials;mostoftheseitemsbelongtotheearlyiron Age(LatialIIphase).Thedistributionofthesefindssuggeststhatsmallvillagesorclusters ofhutsratherthanlargecenterscharacterizedsettlementinthearea. Roughlycontemporary(c B.C.E.)withthesettlementevidencearetheburials fromthecastiglionecemetery,andtheearliestgravesfromthenecropolisofosteria 627 Blewitt1850, Beckeretal.2009, Guaitoli1981a;BiettiSestieri MogettaandBecker

163 dell'osa. 631 Comparisonbetweenthetwocemeteriesdemonstratedasignificantdegreeof localvariabilityinthespatialdistributionofgraves,themodeoffuneraryritualandthe typesofgravegoods.however,bothcemeteriesrepresentedpopulationswithashared socialandculturalbackground.itseemsthateachcemeterybelongedtoaseparate community,possiblyavillage,oneithersideofthecrater.analysisofbothnecropoleis revealedtheemergenceofasocialhierarchyasearlyastheninthcentury.althoughno contemporarysettlementevidencehasbeenrecoveredforthelaterironageburialsat Osteriadell'Osa,thelowquantityofseventh centuryburialsinthecemeteryseemsto correspondwiththeincreasedevidenceforsettlementintheregionofgabii,onthe southeastsidesofthecrater. Theevidenceforthearchaiccityisprimarilyderivedfromtwosources,anextensivefield surveyconductedinthenineteen seventies,andthelargescaleexcavationsundertakenby theuniversityofmichiganinrecentyears.guatoli'sinitialsurveyofthegabineregion revealedsignsofdenseoccupationduringthesixthcenturyintheareasouthofthe Castiglionecrater. 632 Highconcentrationsofceramicmaterials,primarilytilesofimpasto rossoandsabbiatochiaro(alightfabricimpasto,inuseprimarilyduringthesixthandfifth centuries),inadditiontonumerousexamplesofcommonwaresandbucchero,were discoveredalongsideblocksoftuffandcappellacciothatwereprobablytheremainsof buildings.theuniversityofmichigan'sexcavationsintheurbanareaconstitutethemain bodyofevidenceforthearchaicsettlementatgabii,whichisexaminedindetailbelow. ThematerialsfromGuatoli'ssurfacesurveywereconcentratedintheareaenclosedwithin alineoffortificationsvisibleinaerialphotographsofthearea.theexcavationsofthe SantuarioOrientalein1977mayhaveuncoveredasmalltractofthesewallsalongthe northeasternboundaryofthecity. 633 Thewallswereconstructedfromblocksofreddish tuffandreinforcedwithpiecesoftravertine;thesameredtuffappearsexclusivelyinthe archaicphasesofconstructionofthesanctuary.althoughnomaterialswererecoveredthat mightdatethecitywallsmoreprecisely,theuseofredtuffatboththesanctuaryandthe wallspointstoacontemporaneousdateofconstruction,sometimeduringthesixthand fifthcenturies.guaitoliidentifiedseveralblocksofthesamesizeandmaterialthroughout theplainandnotedtheiralignmentwithmoundsandditchesvisibleinthelandscape.the distributionoftheseblocksrevealstheextentofthewallatthesouthandeast.thecrater seemstohaveformedtheboundaryofthecitytothewest,andaditchtothenorth.the resultsoftheexcavationsperformedmorerecentlybyseveralrome basedinstitutionsat variouspointsalongtheperimetersupportthis. 634 Usingthenaturallimitsofthecraterand thefossodell'osaandfossodis.giuliano,andtheremainsofthewalls,asboundariesofthe archaiccity,itseemsthatgabii,duringthearchaicperiod,coveredanareaofabout54km BiettiSestieri1992b. 632 Guaitoli1981a, Guaitoli1981a, Beckeretal.2009,636.ThemagnetometrysurveyledbytheUniversityofMichigan mayhaveidentifiedanothersectorofthecitywallsinthenortheasternregionofthecity. 146

164 Onthebasisofpalaeobotanicaldata,Ampolocalculatesamaximumpopulationof2500for theterritoryofarchaicgabii. 635 ThereisevidenceofcultactivityduringtheArchaicperiodinthelocationsoftheSantuario OrientaleandtheTempleofJuno.TheshrineattheSantuarioOrientaleseemstohavebeen inusefromthelateseventhtosecondcentury. 636 Bothsurveyandexcavationrecovered votivesinthearea,themajorityofwhichdatetothesixthcentury.theseconsistprimarily ofbronzes,ceramicmaterials(includingcorinthianimitation,italo Geometric,and bucchero),wholeminiaturevasesandterracottaarchitecturaldecoration.asecondvotive depositwasdiscoveredabout100mawayfromtheeasternsanctuaryandwaspossibly relatedtoit;thedepositcontainedmaterialsidenticaltothosediscoveredinthesanctuary. AttheTempleofJunothereislimitedevidenceforearlycultactivity,whichconsistsofan archaicantefix,anetruscanscarabandanassortmentofceramicmaterialsthatinclude impasto,buccheroandetrusco Corinthianwares,aswellasCorinthianandAtticimports. 637 ThemonumentalstructurerecentlyexcavatedbytheSARfrom onthe southeastrimofthecraterrepresentsasignificantphaseintheoccupationofarchaic Gabii. 638 Thebuildingconsistsofthreeadjacentquadrangularroomsthatopentothewest: thecentralroomisthelargestofthethreeandhasacentrallylocatedentrance;thetwo sidesroomsareslightlysmallerandhavedecentralizedentryways.thewallswerebuiltof slabsoftuffandhaveapreservedheightofabout2m.room1,thesouthernmostroom,has fourcircularpitsdugintothetuffbedrock,onelocatedineachofthefourcorners.thepit inthesouthwestcorneroftheroomcontainstheburialofaneonateinanolla,whilethatin thenorthwestcornercontainsfragmentsofasecondollaperhapsintentionallybrokenas partofthefuneraryritualassociatedwiththeinfantburial.thenorth andsoutheastern pitshavetracesofburning,whicharchaeologistsconnectedtofoodpreparation.the secondroomisthecentralone,andisthelargestofthethree.twoollettewereinserted intothewalls;thereisnoclearexplanationforthis.inthesouthcornerofthisroomisa secondinfantburial,aneonateinanolla,likelydepositedinthefloorofthepreviousphase oftheroom.inthethirdroomwerediscoveredthreemoreinfantburialsrightabovethe flooroftheearlierphase,inthesamelayerasthepreparationforthesubsequentfloor surface.theinfantsrangedinagefromneonatestochildrenofsixandsevenmonths,and seemtorepresenttheintentionaldepositionofchildrenthatdiednaturally(asopposedto sacrifice).althoughtheseburialsseemtorepresentsuggrundaria,theinitialpublication doesnotmakethisclear.inthecenterofthethirdroomisastonebase,onwhichabroken doliumwasfound. Archaeologistsdiscoveredintheseroomsartifactstheyassociatedwithceremonial activities,particularlyanarchitecturalterracottathatmayhavefunctionedaspartofthe decorationofthebuilding.theterracottabearstheimageoftheminotaur,whichthe 635 Ampolo Guaitoli1981a, AlmagroGorbea Fabbrietal

165 archaeologistsconnecttoasimilarexamplefoundattheregiaatrome.thisseemstohave formed,atleastinpart,thebasisfortheidentificationofthebuildingatgabiiasaregia. TheystatethattheRegiaatRomefunctionedasthehouseofServiusTullius,who,asa meansoflegitimatinghisroleinthefoundationofrome,adoptedfromathenstheimagery associatedwiththemythsoftheseusasthefounderofthecity. 639 Theysuggestthatthe TarquinsemployedthesameimageryatGabii,who,followingtheexpulsionofSextusfrom Rome,werethelikelyoccupantsofthisbuilding.Thebuildingwasabandonedtowardthe endofthesixthcenturyandatumulusconstructedoveritsremains. DuringtheEarlyandMiddleRepublicanperiods,theurbanareashowssignsofdense occupationandsubstantialreorganization.theoriginalsurfacesurveysconductedinthe nineteen seventiesrevealedapatternofoccupationbroadlyconsistentwiththatobserved forthearchaicperiod:thecitylimitsremainedthesameandtheurbanpopulationwas concentratedwithintheseboundaries. 640 Guaitolinotedthatsomeareaswereleftopenand empty,whichheinterpretedasasignofpopulationdecrease. Themorerecentexcavations intheareaurbanahaveaddedtothispicture. 641 Theyrevealthewidespread implementationofaneworthogonalsystemoflanddivisioninthefifthcentury.thislayout replacedthepreviousorientationandorganizationofthecityandwaslikelytheinitiative ofacentralizedauthority.boththemagnetometrysurveyandsubsequentexcavations broughttolightamajorthoroughfarethatcrossestheentiresiteinanortheast southwest direction(fig.6.4). 642 Followingthemorphologyofthecrater,theroadconnectsGabiito Rome,andheadsnortheasttowardstheSantuarioOrientale,inthegeneraldirectionof ancienttibur.itjoinswiththeviacollatinaatcorcolle,andcontinuestowardtheaniene RiveratPonteLucano. 643 Branchingoffthismainarteryatrightanglesisaseriesofsmall streetsthatruninanorthwest southeastdirectionandconformtotheslopingshapeofthe crater. 644 Theseregular,parallelstreetslikelyrepresentagridofcityblocksthatwereall 639 ThearchitecturalterracottasareinCristofani,ed.(1987,95 120).Smith(1996,174 5) explainsthatthereisgoodreasontodoubttheattributionofthedecorationonthese terracottastothemythoftheseusandtheminotaur.themotifiscommoninthefriezesof centralitaly,especiallyatthepalacesofrome,murloandacquarossa.suchscenesmay lackthesignificanceofthemyth,ortheymayrepresentanindigenousbeliefthatnolonger survives. 640 Guaitoli1981a. 641 MogettaandBecker2014, Beckeretal ThisroadmaybetheViaGabinamentionedintheancientsources.SeeLTURS3:9 10 (Gabina,Via).TheViaGabinamayhavebeenanarchaic(orearlier)roadlinkingRomeand Gabii,whichhadfallenoutofuseandabandonedinfavoroftheViaPrenestina.Conversely, itmayhavebeenanearliernameforwhatlaterbecametheviaprenestina.noarchaicroad hasbeenidentified,butguaitoli(1981a,49 55)hypothesizedthatoneexistedalongthe modernviapolense,whichcrossedthetributaryandheadedtowardstiburandcorcolle. TheSARexcavationsintheSantuarioOrientaleuncoveredapebbledsurfacepredatingthe glareateroadsoftherepublicanperiod,butnosecuredatewasprovided. 644 MogettaandBecker

166 orientedalongthemainroad.thedimensionsofthegridadheretothemorphologyofthe craterandtopographyoftheterrain,sothateachblockwidensfollowingthesouthward slope.thesarhasfoundevidenceforthissamelayoutfromtheirexcavationsatthe temple theatercomplexofjuno. 645 TheRepublicanbuildingsexcavatedintheareaurbana bytheuniversityofmichiganwerefoundtohaveadheredtothelimitsofthenew orthogonalcityplan. 646 Thereislittleindicationasyetregardingwhowasresponsiblefor thisnewlayoutorwhatthecitylookedlikeintheperiodleadingtoitsconstruction. ThereissomefuneraryevidencefortheEarlyandMiddleRepublicanperiods.Three chambertombswithlongdromoiwereexcavatedin1976ontheslopesofahilltotheeast ofthecity. 647 ThesewereinitiallydatedtotheMid Republicanperiod,andarelocatedon theslopesofthehilleastofthecity.thesetombshavenotbeenpublishedandtheir locationisunknown.lancianidiscoveredotherexamplesofchambertombstothewestof thefossodell'osa. 648 Asubstantialdecreaseinthequantityandqualityofsurfacescatterindicatethat,bythe timeofthelaterepublic,thecityhadcontractedtothemorecentralareasaroundthevia Prenestina,probablyataboutthesametimethecitywallswereabandoned. 649 Indeed,the majorityoftheexcavatedevidencefromtheareaurbanapointstosignificantchangesin thenatureofoccupationbyaboutthesecondcentury.theso calledtempletojunowas constructedatthesoutheastedgeofthecrater,followingtheabandonmentofthelocation fortheearliercult. 650 Inthelatethirdorearlysecondcentury,thestreetsofthecitygrid wererepaired,andinsomecasespavedwithbasaltslabs,whileothersectionswere reinforcedwithsidewalls. 651 Immediatelyfollowingtherenewalofthesestreetswasa phaseofconstruction,primarilyofdomesticbuildings,atthebeginningofthesecond century. 652 ThetwocourtyardbuildingsexcavatedbytheUniversityofMichiganinthe urbanareawereinitiallyconstructedandoccupiedduringthisperiod. 645 Beckeretal MogettaandBecker Guaitoli(1981a,48)suggeststhatthecitywallswereabandonedatthistime.He speculatesthattheirdestructionwasbroughtaboutbyhannibal'smilitaryoperationsin thearea,butthisisinconclusive.hedoesnotprovidethepreciselocationofthetombs. 648 Guaitoli1981a,48n Guaitoli1981a, Guaitoli1981a,50 2;AlmagroBasch1958;AlmagroGorbea MogettaandBecker2014.Thesestreetshadundergoneanearlierphaseof reconstructionasearlyasthefifthcentury;inbothinstancestheoriginalalignmentsofthe orthogonallayoutwereobservedoverthecourseofrepairs. 652 MogettaandBecker2014.Itseemsthatthesebuildingsactivitiescoveredordestroyed theearlierevidenceofoccupationinthefifthandfourthcenturies.thesecondcentury buildingsconsistofcourtyardbuildingsthatwereconstructedinaccordancewiththe limitsimposedbythestreetgrid. 149

167 Atthesametime,however,portionsoftheurbanareawererepurposedforthequarrying ofpeperinotuff,inpartfortheconstructionofmonumentalpublicbuildings. 653 Overthe courseofthelaterepublicanperiod,theseactivitiesseemtohaveconsumedthe northernmostareasofthesite.theintensificationofquarryingduringtheimperialperiod seemstohavebroughtaboutorsignaledthedeclineofthecity.thelocationsforquarrying extendedfurthersouthintoareasthatwereformerlysitesofoccupation.perhapsmarking theendofthecitywastheemergenceofasmallcemeterysometimeinthemid latefirst centuryc.e.,inanareaformerlyoccupiedbyoneofthecourtyardbuildingsofthe Republicanperiod e.TheGabiiProject In2007,theUniversityofMichigan,undertheauspicesoftheSAR,begantheGabiiProject withtheaimofconductingthelargescaleexcavationofamajorurbancenterincentral Italy.Thesitewaschosenforavarietyofpractical,archaeologicalandhistoricalreasons. Gabiiiswellknownintheancientliterarysourcesasanearlyculturalcenter,onparwith thecitiesofsouthetruriaandrome.thesitehasalsoneverbeensubstantiallyoccupied followingitsabandonmentinthesecondtothirdcenturiesc.e.,whichallowsforan excavationunhinderedbymodernsettlement.whatismore,thecity'sdeclinebythelate RepublicanperiodhasleftbehindfewtracesofImperialoccupationthatmightimpedethe explorationofearlierphases. In2007and2008,geophysicalsurveyofabout40haoftheurbanarearevealeda previouslyunknownorthogonallayoutoftheancientcity(fig.6.4).thiscomprisedthe majorroadthatfollowsthecurveofthecastiglionecraterinanortheast southwest direction,offofwhichareanumberofperpendicularsidestreets.recognizingtheimport ofthisdiscoveryfortheunderstandingofurbanplanninginearlyromanitaly,theproject designateda1hasectorforlarge scaleopenexcavation(fig.6.5).excavationsbroughtto lightevidenceofoccupationfromtheorientalizingperiodthroughthesecondorthird centuriesc.e. In2009,thesitewassubdividedinto3areasofexcavation:areasA,BandC.In2011,areas DandEwereadded;areaFfollowedin2013(figs.6.6and6.7).AreaAislocatedinthe northportionofthesite,neartheedgeofthecrater,andwasheavilydisturbedbynatural erosionandmodernplowingactivities.excavationquicklyexposedavastbedrocksurface thatwascutbyhundredsofanthropicfeatures.thepoorstateofpreservationinthisarea rendersitdifficulttodiscernareliablestratigraphicsequence.however,itisclearthatthe majorityofthesecutsarerelatedtothequarryingactivitiesinthelaterepublicanand Imperialperiod.TwoOrientalizingburialsafossaattesttotheuseofthisareaasaburial groundintheseventhcentury;postholesfoundnearbymayberelatedtoacontemporary hutfeature. 655 AreaBcontinuessouthofAreaA,westofasidestreetthatcontinuestothe 653 Guaitoli1981a, MogettaandBecker BeckerandNowlin

168 areaurbana.thisareacontainedevidenceforresidentialarchitecturedatingtothethird andsecondcenturies,butduringtheimperialperiodmostofthesestructureswere destroyedbythequarryingactivitiesinareaa.followingtheabandonmentofthebuilding, theareawasusedasasmallnecropolisfromthefirsttofifthcenturiesc.e.tothewestof areasaandbisthenewlyopenedareaf,whichsofarhasrevealedevidencefor monumentalstonearchitecturedatingtothefourthorthirdcentury.identificationofthe functionofthebuildingremainsundeterminedandawaitsfurtherexcavation. LocatedintheeasternhalfofthesiteareAreasC,DandE.AreaCisboundedtothewest andeastbysidestreetsthatcorrespondwiththeorthogonallayoutofthecity.thisarea, muchlikeb,preservesresidentialarchitecturedatingtothethirdandsecondcenturies.by theendofthesecondcenturythehousewasabandonedandthearearedevelopedfor industrialpurposes.aseriesofdrainagechannelsandwells,aswellasavarietyof pigmentsfoundinthestratigraphicdeposits,suggestthebuildingwasusedatthistimeasa fullonica.immediatelytothewestofcisaread,whichpreservesthearchaicphasesof occupationatthesite.inthisareawerediscoveredtheremainsofastonebuiltstructure, and,inthepost abandonmentphasesofthisbuilding,aseriesofrock cuttombs.although thisareawasincludedinthelaterorthogonallayoutofthecity,thereisnoevidencethatit wasdevelopedinlaterperiods.ontheothersideofareac,totheeast,isareae;aside streetthatbelongstotheurbangridseparatesbothareas.areaeconsistsofasectionof thecityblock,andsofar,excavationhasonlyuncoveredthepost abandonmentphasesof occupation. 6f.TheGabiiProject AreaD AreaDpreservesthearchaiccontextsofthesite,whichconsistprimarilyofarchitectural andburialremainsdatingtothesixthandfifthcenturies(figs.6.8and6.9).theevidence presentedherewasdiscoveredoverthecourseoftheuniversityofmichigan'sexcavations intheurbanareaduringthe seasons.Ihavebeeninvolvedwiththeexcavation oftheareaduringallthistime,firstin2009asavolunteer,in2010asafieldassistant,in 2011asanassistanttotheareasupervisor,andin2012and2013astheareasupervisor. Excavationofthelatestphasesoccurredin2011,andincludedthediscoveryoftheburials andthepost abandonmentremainsofthebuilding.in2012and2013,excavationfocused onthephasesofoccupationofthebuilding,withaviewtodeterminingthestratigraphic relationshipbetweenthedifferentphasesofthestructureanditsassociatedfeatures,the tombsandthemid republicanstreet.inthefollowsectionsireferfrequentlytothe excavatedstratigraphicunits(hereafter,su),andreferthereadertotheharrismatrixin AppendixA. 151

169 GeneralDescriptionoftheExcavationoftheArea( ) Anearly1mthicklayerofcolluvialsiltcoveredallofthearchitecturalandfunerary featuresinthearea. 656 ThefirstvisibleremainsinareaDwerediscoveredin2009,after excavationinwhatwasthenthewesternhalfofareacuncoveredaportionofacurved wallabout5mlong(su2219),whichhassincebeenidentifiedasaportionofaprecinct wall.excavationin2010broughttolightthefirstoftherock cuttombs(tomb25),located approximately6msouthwestofcurvedwall2219.theburialcontainedtheinhumation burialsofanadultfemaleinamonolithictuffsarcophagusandamaleinasideniche. In2011theareawasreorganized,andthiswesternportionofareaC(fig.6.10)becamethe centerofthenewlycreatedaread.theareawasthenexpandedtothenorthandsouthto includeanareaofapproximately30x20m.priortoexcavationthatyearabulldozer removedthesamelayerofcolluvialsiltaswasremovedmanuallyin2009,andrevealeda numberoflinear,stonebuiltfeatures(sus3014,3015,3029,3030,3031,3095and3096). Excavationbytrowelandpickaxeresumeduponthisdiscovery,andalayerofcleaning(SU 3000)andalargeaccumulateddepositofmostlysilt(SU3004)wereremoved subsequentlytodefinetheupperlimitsofthesestructures.tomyknowledgethebulldozer didnodamagetothestonefeaturesorthepreservedstratigraphy.theinitialcolluvial layer,removedbybulldozerin2011,andbyhandin2009,wasdiscoveredinbothseasons tobelargelysterile.thefirstcleaninglayer(su3000)wasatidyingoftheworkleftbythe bulldozerandcontainednosignificantdiagnosticmaterials;noneoftheseitemswere retained.thesecondlayer(su3004)wasmoreinformative,andcontainedavarietyof ancientmaterialsrangingindatefrom900b.c.e.to100c.e.itisworthnotingthatthe majorityoftheceramicmaterialsfromthisdepositcanbedatedtotheorientalizingand Archaicperiods,withasignificantportionbelongingtothefifthcentury.Theseconsist primarilyoffragmentsofimpasto. Thelinearstonefeaturesdiscoveredin2011weresubsequentlyidentifiedasthewallsof Rooms1(SUs3014and3015)and2(SUs3029,3030/3095,3031/3096).Theremovalofa layerofcollapsedstonesattheeasternlimitsofthearearevealedanotherportionofa stonewallthatseemedcontemporarywiththerest(su3067)andwasconnectedtocurved wall2219,possiblyaspartofanenclosurewall.thewallsofrooms1and2,alongwith walls2219and3067,werethoughttobelongtothesamephaseonthebasisoftheir locationbeneaththesamedepositofcolluvium,theirconsistentelevation,andthe similarityofthetechniquesusedintheirconstruction.thisevidencealsosuggestedthat 656 Thisdepositseemstohaveresultedfromthegradualaccumulationofsilt,washeddown overthecourseofmanycenturies,fromthetopofthecastiglionecraterintothesectorof theurbanareaexcavatedbythegabiiproject.thislayercontainsrelativelyfewmaterials, althoughwhatsurvivesrerpesentsawidechronologicalrange,fromthearchaicperiodto themodernera.thereisnoindicationthattherewereoncestraigraphicunitsthatwere laterdisturbed.eventoday,amoderaterainfallcoverstheareain5 10cmofsilt.Thishasa tendencytocomplicatethestratigraphy,anditisclearthatmanylayersblendintoothers inaccordancewiththeslopingmorphologyoftheterrain. 152

170 thesefeaturesbelongedtothesamebuilding.excavationin2012and2013foundthe layersbeneaththewallstobeconsistentincompositionand/orfinds;onthebasisof ceramicmaterialsfoundintheselayers,thecontemporaneityofthewallswasconfirmed. Theremovalofcolluvialdepositsacrossthesitebroughttolighttwoburialsinclose associationwiththewalls.thefirstwasaninfantburialinadolium(tomb30),deposited inacutinthebedrocknorthofwall2219;thesefeaturesbearnodirectstratigraphic relationship.thesecondwassemi chambertomb1(containingtombs38,39and40), whichconsistedofarock cuttrenchlocatedimmediatelywestofroom1.thenortheast cornerofsemi chambertomb1truncatesthepartialcollapseofwall2219. Theremovalofthecollapsedstonesattheeasternedgeofthesitethatbroughttolightwall 3067alsouncoveredtwosuccessivelayersofcompactedgravelandclay(SUs3049and 3053).Theseprobablyrepresentunpavedroadsurfaces,astheypreserveadistinctN/S orientationandhavecleareasternandwesternlimits.indeed,theiralignmentand dimensionssupporttheresultsofthemagnetometersurveythatrevealedtheorthogonal layoutofthecity. 657 Onthebasisofceramicfragmentscollectedfromtheroadsurfaces, thesefeaturescanbedatedtothelatefifthorearlyfourthcentury. 658 Thesedataare significantinthattheyprovideaterminuspostquemforthereorganizationofthecity. Whatismore,thesesurfacesconfirmtheonlystratigraphicrelationshipbetweenthe archaicandrepublicanlevelsofoccupationatthesite. 659 Beneaththelowestcourseofroad preparation(su3053)wasthefillofthesecondsemi chambertomb.thereisnodirect relationshipbetweenwall3067andtheroadsurfaces,althoughbothfeaturesseemto preservethesameorientation.thissuggeststhattheconstructionoftheroadobservedthe archaicwall.whethertherepublicanroadorwall3067followanearlierorientationis unknownandawaitsfurtherexcavationonsite. In2012,thesouthlimitsoftheexcavationwereextendedby10m.Abulldozerremoved thesamelevelofcolluvialsiltasinpreviousseasonsanduncoveredaseriesoffeatures,all ofwhichawaitfurtherexcavation.inthesoutheastcorneroftheareawasarobberpit 657 MogettaandBecker2014;Beckeretal MogettaandBecker2014,179.Theevidenceforthedatingofthestreetsystemcomes fromroad1,then/sroadbetweenareascandd.duringtheearliestphasesofits construction,theroadwascutintothebedrockinordertocompensateforthesloping terrain;thesecutstruncateearlierdeposits,which,onthebasisofimpastopottery recoveredintheselayers,datetothesixthcenturyb.c.e.wheelrutsvisibleonthebedrock surfaceindicatethattheroadwasunpavedatthisstage.oncetheserutshadbecometoo deep,thesurfacewasraisedbypackingsuccessivelayersofgravelandclay.theselayers containceramicmaterialsdatingasearlyasthefifthandfourthcenturies;inparticular, theycontainfragmentsofvernicerossaopaca,adiagnosticcategoryofmaterialcommonin thelatefifthandearlyfourthcentury.inaread,thebestevidenceforthedateisthefillof thesecondchambertomb,whichpredatestheroad,andincludesmaterials,mostly impasto,datedtothemid fifthcentury(personalcommunicationwithmarcellomoggetta). 659 MogettaandBecker

171 datedfrom140to200c.e.inthesamecorner,tothewestoftherobberpitwasdiscovered asecondchildburialafossa(tomb48).thestratigraphicrelationshipofthesefeaturesto therestofareadisatthemomentunclear.inthesouthwestcornerwasdiscoveredawall immediatelybeneaththelayerofcolluvium(su3237).itbearsanorthwest/southeast orientation;immediatelysouthofthiswallisathirdjuvenileburial(tomb49),aninfantin adolium.thesefeatures,too,awaitexcavation.overall,excavationin2011and2012 concentratedonthephasesofoccupationinandaroundrooms1and2ofthebuilding.by theendof2013excavationhadreachedthelateorientalizingphasesofthesite,and,while excavationofthesephasescontinuedin2013,theywillnotbeunderdiscussionhere. 6g.Chronology Thematerialsrecoveredoverthecourseoffiveseasonsofstratigraphicexcavationdatethe occupationofareadsecurelytothearchaicperiod.onthebasisofthesefindsitispossible toestablishageneralchronologicalsequence.whatfollowsarethemainphasesandthe keyfeaturesassociatedwiththem. 1.Lateseventhtoearlysixthcentury:possiblyTomb30(infantindolium) Earlytomid sixthcentury:firstphaseofstoneconstructioninaread.earliestphaseof Room2ofthearchaicbuilding(walls3029,3030and3031).Circularfeature3064 constructed.evidenceforburningactivityinareaofroom1(butbeforetheconstructionof thewalls). 4.Mid tolatesixthcentury:masonryconstructionreachesgreatestextent.secondphaseof constructioninroom2;northandeastwallsinroom2rebuilt(3095and3096);northand westwallsofroom1constructed(3014and3015);curvedwall2219andwall3067 constructed;circularfeature3064reconstructed;circularfeature3076constructed.bythe endofthisphase,theentirebuildingwasabandonedordestroyed. 5.Latesixthtomid fifthcentury:theareaisusedasaburialground.adultinhumation burialsappearinnorthernhalfofsite,includingtombs25(tuffsarcophagus),andtombs 38 41(semi chambertombs1and2).atleastonejuvenileburial(tomb48). 6.Latefifthtoearlyfourthcentury:constructionofroadorsidestreetineasternportionof thearea,probablyaspartofreorganizationofthecity;roadcoverssemi chambertomb2. 6h.FeaturesofAreaD:TheArchaicBuilding InthefollowingsectionIpresentadetaileddescriptionofthevariousarchitectural featuresinaread,andofferinterpretationsoftheevidence. 660 Thisis,strictlyspeakingtheLateOrientalizingperiod,whichisstillbeingexcavated, withplanstotocontinuein2014.mogettaandbecker(2014)speculatethattomb30was associatedwiththisphase,butitisequallypossiblethatitisassociatedwithlaterphasesof occupation. 154

172 Room1 Room1referstothenorthernmost"room"inareaD.TheboundariesofRoom1are delimitedtothenorthandwestbywallsoftuff.thefirstwall(3014)hasaw/e orientation,andmeasures2.7mx0.42m,whilethesecond(3015)runsn/sandmeasures 3.33x0.56m.ThereisnoevidencethatthisstructureconnectedtoRoom2;theabsenceof wallsalongthesouthandeastsidessuggeststhattheroomwasopeninboththese directions. 661 Itispossible,however,thatwalls(whetherofstoneorsomeotherperishable material)existedalongthesesidesbutweresubsequentlyremovedordecomposed.the stratigraphicsequenceofthearchaicperiodintheeasternandsouthernportionsofthe roomrevealsaseriesoflayersthatseemtoobservesomelinearboundarythatisnolonger extant.thisisperhapsbestindicatedbyabeatenearthfloorsurface(su3044)ofroom1, whichcorrespondsroughlytotheareadelimitedbytheroom(seebelow).areconstruction oftheroom,usingwalls3014and3015asthenorthandwestboundaries,andthelimits suggestedbythedepositsalongtheeastandsouthsides,suggestthatroom1had dimensionsofapproximately5x6m. Atthesametimeasthesewallswereconstructed,asquareblockofworkedtuffwasplaced inthecenteroftheroom,andmayhavefunctionedasthefoundationforapostsupporting aroof.thispilasterpreservesanotablealignmentwiththelimitsofbothwalls.itis roughlyinalignmentwiththeeasternlimitofwall3014andcorrespondspreciselytoagap inwall3015.itispossiblethatthisgaprepresentsanentrance,andthepilasterisinthe lineofsightofthisentryway.itisequallypossible,however,thataportionofwall3015is missing. Acompactlayerofredsilt(3044)abuttingbothwallsofRoom1andthepilasterconnects thesefeaturestothesamephaseofoccupation.thislayerlikelyrepresentsabeatenearth floor,anditcorrespondstothearearoughlydelimitedbyroom1.theceramicmaterials recoveredinthislayerdatetheconstructionofthefloorandthewallsofroom1fromthe mid tolatesixthcentury. Thestratigraphicsequencebeneaththelayersassociatedwiththemonumental constructionofroom1suggeststhattheareawasthesiteofapreexistingstructure,orat leastthelocusofsomeactivity,perhapsinassociationwiththeearlierphasesofroom2. Althoughmanyoftheselayersaredifficulttointerpret,theyclearlyadheretothesame boundariesassuggestedbythewallsofroom1,especiallytowardtheeast.thissuggests thattherewasanearlierstructurethathadaneastwallmoreorlesswheretheeastwallof Room1mayhavebeen(iftherewasone),andanorthwallthatcorrespondstothenorth wall(3014)ofroom1.thereisgoodindicationthatmanyofthesedepositsarerelatedto burningactivity.aftertheremovaloffloor3044,twosiltylayersofaccumulation(sus 3063and3070)wereexcavated;theeasternextentofthesedepositswaslinear,suggesting thatsomefeature,nolongerextant,delimitedboththeselayers.notable,too,isthefactthat thesedepositsdisappearedbeneaththewalls3014and3015,althoughtowhatextentis 661 MogettaandBecker2014,

173 unknownsincetheremovalofthewallsisnotpermittedbythesar.beneaththesetwo depositsweresus3139,3140and3141,threeidenticalredsiltylayersthatpreserveda concentrationofdisintegratedwattleanddaub;someoftheceramicfragmentsfromthese layersseemtohavebeenburnedbyfire.anevenhigherconcentrationofburnedmaterial wasfoundinalayerdirectlybelowsu3139,andpossiblyrepresentedafirepit.thispit (SU3142)containedsomeburnedbonesandceramics.Inthecenterofthedepositwasa truncatedvesselwhosesideswereexposedtofire;thisvesselseemstohavebeenreused asacookingstand,andthedepositmaybeahearth.theceramicmaterialsrecoveredfrom thesedepositsdatethisburningactivityanywherefrom B.C.E.,buttheirposition beneaththefloorsroom1indicatesaphaseofactivitypriortotheroom'sconstruction, possiblyinthefirsthalfofthesixthcentury. Room2 So calledroom2representstheearliestphasesofmonumentalconstructionrecovered thusfarinaread. 662 Theroomisdefinedbythreelinearwalls.Thewesternwall(3029) preservesan/sorientation,andmeasures3.03x0.56m.thenorthernwall(3030)hasa W/Ealignment,andmeasures3.78x0.54m.Theeasternwall(3031)hasaN/Sorientation andmeasures1.78x0.62m.thesouthlimitsoftheroomhavenotbeenidentified;the southernportionofthewestwallappearstobemissing,whilethesameportionofthe easternwallwastruncatedbyamoderndrainagechannel(su3173).thisdrainage channelseemstohaveobscuredthesouthernlimitsoftherestoftheroom. AseriesofbeatenearthfloorswereexcavatedinthenorthernhalfofRoom2,whichmay beassociatedwiththisinitialphaseofstoneconstruction.theremainsaredifficultto interpret,however,asonlysomesurfacesbearadirectrelationshipwiththewalls.the mainsurfaceappearstobeayellowpavementlocatedinthenorthernhalfofroom2(su 3136);thelimitsofthesurfacedonotabutthewall.Thepavementsinksinthecenter, possiblyfollowinganaturaldepressioninthissectorofthearea.thisyellowsurfacecovers slightlyasecondfloorinthenortheastcorneroftheroom.thissurface,ared,clayey deposit,continuesbeneaththewallsofthesecondphase,sus3095and3096.although 3144representsaneventseparatefromandpriorto3136,thedirectstratigraphic relationshipbetweenthemandtheconsistencyoftheceramicmaterialsrecoveredfrom them(mostlyimpasto),suggestthattheyareroughlycontemporary.theceramicmaterials recoveredfromtheyellowpavement3136datefrom B.C.E.;thoseinthepavement 3144datefrom B.C.E.Thatfloor3144continuesbeneathwalls3095and3096 suggeststhatwhenroom2wasfirstconstructed,thelimitsinthenortheastcorner differedfromthoseestablishedduringthesubsequentphaseofconstruction. ThewallsandsurfacesofRoom2underwentasecondphaseofconstructionthatwas probablycontemporaneouswiththeconstructionofroom1.thenorthandeastwalls 662 Room2hasevidenceforanearlierphaseofoccupationthatpredatesthemonumental constructionofthecomplex.theresultsareinpartpublishedinmogettaandbecker (2014),buttheareaalsoawaitsfurtherexcavation. 156

174 seemtohavebeenaddedinthenortheastcorneroftheroom.thenorthwall(3095)hasan E/Worientationandabutswall3030.Itmeasures1.26x0.55m.Theeastwall(3096) preservesan/salignment,andisseparatedfrom3031byasmallgapthatmayhavebeen causedbynaturalerosion.theextantstructuremeasures2.34x0.82m.theroominthis phasemayhavereachedanextentof6x8m,basedonthealignmentofthewestwallswith acircularpitlocatedfurthertothesouth,tobediscussedbelow. 663 Thefloorsurfacesrelatedtothislaterphaseofoccupationdemonstratethesamecomplex relationshipasinthepreviousphase.threeredclayeydeposits(sus3074,3075and3094) abutthelaterphasesofthewalls,andlikelyrepresentthesameconstructionevent.su 3094islocatedinthenorthwestcornerandbearsadirectrelationshiptowalls3029and 3030;itcoverstheearlierpavement(3136).Floors3074and3075bearadirect relationshiptothewallsbelongingofthelaterphasesofconstructioninroom2:3074 abutsboth3095and3096,while3075abuts3096. Acentralyellowpavement(SU3092)mayalsobeconnectedwiththisphase.Thesurface bearsnodirectrelationshiptothelatestcoursesofthewallsofroom2(3095and3096), butitdoesabutbothwalls3029and3031.itislocateddirectlybeneath3094,which suggeststhatthepavementmaypredateslightlytheredsurfacesaddedinthecornersof theroom.theceramicsrecoveredfromthesesurfaces,however,indicateadateof occupationforthisphaseoftheroominthemid tolatesixthcentury. InSU3094,inthenorthwestcorneroftheroom,asmallvesselwasdiscoveredvertically depositedintothefloorsurface(fig.6.11).thejarwasmadeofimpastoanddiscoveredcut inhalfhorizontally,perhapsbywhateverforcesrazedthebuilding.theextantlowerhalf containedtheskeletalremainsofaturtleandaspindlewhorl.thevesselseemstohave functionedasaritualdepositinassociationwiththemonumentalconstructionofthe building.theplacementofthisjarinthecornerofroom2isclearlyintentional,andlikely symbolicoftheconstructionactivitiesthattookplacehere.theintentionaldepositionof jarsinconnectionwiththefoundationorreconstructionofresidentialcontextsisattested atotherarchaicsites,especiallyintheetruscanworld. 664 Inthesecontexts,thematerial findsaregenerallyconnectedtothefunctionsintherealmofwomen,consistingmostlyof loomweightsandspindlewhorls.thisisthoughttoindicatethecontrolofwomenoverthe domesticsphereanditsrelatedactivities. Hearth Asmall,circularpitislocatedinthesouthwestcorneroftheareaandmayhavefunctioned asahearth(3064).thepitislinedwithverticallyalignedslabsoftuff,andmeasures1.2x 1.26m,withadepthof0.4m.Theinteriorsidesoftheslabsoftuffshowtracesofburning. ThefilloftheareaDfeature,however,producednodiagnosticfinds. 663 MogettaandBecker, MogettaandBecker2014,177;Baglioneetal.2010;Gusberti ,

175 ThisfeaturemayprovideasuitableboundaryforthesouthernportionofRoom2,inthe absenceofanywallsbelongingtothesouthernportionofthebuilding. 665 Thisisbased largelyonthealignmentofthepitwiththewesternwallofroom2,andthesimilar elevationsofbothfeatures(3064hasaminimum/maximumelevationof61.040/61.131; 3029preserves61.34/61.35).Thefeatureseemstohavebeeninuseduringbothphasesof theoccupationofthebuilding.thelowestlayersabuttingthestructurerangeindatefrom B.C.E,suggestingthepitwasfirstconstructedalongwithRoom2.Thestructure appearstohavebeenpartiallyreconstructedinthesecondphaseofconstruction;some stoneswereaddedatthistime.theoriginalconstructionofthefeaturemayevenpredate thatofroom2. Semi CircularFeature WestofRooms1and2isasemi circularfeature,consistingofacutintothesoillinedwith rubbleandslabsoftuff(3076).thefillofthepitcontainedseveralirregularslabsoftuff thatlikelyrepresenttheremainsofthepartialcollapseofthestructure.thefunctionofthis pitisundetermined,butiscontemporarywiththelaterphaseofoccupationofbothrooms. Thematerialsrecoveredfromthefillarefewandoffernoindicationregardingtheuseof thisfeature.thematerialsareratherundatable,andofferonlyarangeof B.C.E.for thedateofthestructure.thestructuresharesasimilaralignmenttothewallsinroom1, andmayhavebeencontemporary. EnclosureWall ThecurvedwalltothenorthofRoom1(2219)isthoughttocorrespondtoasecondwall alongtheeasternlimitofthearea(3067),andtogetherthesewallsarebelievedto representatypeofprecinctorretainingwallthatenclosesrooms1and This conclusionisbasedprimarilyonthefactthattheprecinctwallsandtheroomsare arrangedalongthesamealignment,andallfeatureswerebuiltusingthesametechniques ofconstruction.however,thereisnodirectstratigraphicrelationshiptoconfirmthe connectionbetweenwalls2219and3067,noristhereanydirectevidencethateitherof thesewallscanbeconnectedtotherooms. Wall2219iscurvedandhasaW/Eorientation;itmeasures6minlength.Wall3067hasa N/Sorientationandmeasures4.87x0.6m.Bothwallsareconstructedofirregularslabsof tuffwithsomemortar,similartotheotherarchaicfeaturesonsite.twolayerscontinue beneathwall2219,butthematerialsfoundwithinthemwereprovidenoreliabledate;the secondoftheselayerssitsatopthebedrockthatdominatesthenorthernhalfofthesite. Theeasternlimitofwall3067sharesaboundarywiththewesternlimitofthecutofsemichambertomb2.Theconstructionofthetombdidnotdestroythewall,butseemstohave beenconstructedinclosealignmentwithit.thewesternnicheofthechambertombwas 665 MogettaandBecker2014, MogettaandBecker2014,

176 carvedintothebedrockdirectlybeneaththewall,effectivelyunderminingthestabilityof bothfeatures.overthecourseoftheexcavationofthetomb,aportionofthewallhadtobe removed,asitwasonthevergeofsubsidingintothefillofthetomb.itwasnotpossibleto determineastratigraphicrelationshipbetween3067andthesemi chambertomb. TomyknowledgethereisnoevidenceforthiskindofcurvingenclosurewallinRomeor Latium.TheclosestcomparandumcomesfromtheIronAgestructuresatOroposinGreece, wheretherearetheremainsofa28mlongapsidalwall(fig.6.12). 667 Thewallislargely rectilinear,followingan/sdirection,andatthenorthendcurveswestintoanapse,where itcomestoanend.mazarakis Ainianwasunabletodeterminewhetherthiswallcouldbe associatedwithabuilding,sincethepresumedwesternportionofthewallwasnot identified.hesuggestsitmayhavebeeninsteadaretainingwallthatborderedthewest sideofastreetorriverbed.initaly,theextantexamplesofenclosurewallsarerectangular inplanandassociatedwithbuildingsofvariousfunctions.atmegarahyblaeainsicily, enclosurewallsoftendelimitpropertiesduringtheseventhcentury(fig.6.13). 668 The nearestexamplegeographicallycomesfromthebuildingknownasedificobetafromthe siteofpiandicivitaintarquinia. 669 Inthemid seventhcentury,precinctwallsofstone wereaddedaroundthepreexistingstructure;theenclosuremeasuresapproximately15x 25m(fig.6.14).Archaeologistsbelievetheconstructionoftheprecinctwallmarksthe sacredorinstitutionalizedcharacterofthebuilding;itisnotidentifiedasaresidential building. 670 AsecondEtruscanexamplecomesfromthesiteofRoselle,andconsistsofarectangular structureandenclosurewallfoundbeneaththeremainsofthelaterromanforum. 671 The buildingdatestothesecondquarteroftheseventhcentury.ithasastonefoundationthat probablysupportedmudbrickwallsandathachedroof.theinteriorofthebuildingwas circular,withplasterwallsandbeaten earthfloors.arectangularenclosureofmudbrick surroundedtheentirebuildingandwasdividedintotwopartsatthefrontandback.the functionofthebuildingisunknown.materialsassociatedwithdomesticcontexts,including fragmentsofpottery,loomweights,spindlewhorlsandanimalbones,werefoundin associationwithboththebuildingandtheenclosure,whichsuggestthebuildingwasused asaresidence.however,somescholarsbelievethelargeenclosurepointstothebuilding's publicfunctionandsuggestitmayhavebeenasanctuaryorcultsite. 672 Theabsenceofa hearthwithinthebuildingandthepresenceofoneintherearenclosuremaypointtothe sacredfunctionofthebuilding.however,theevidenceisinconclusive,andtheentire 667 PersonalcommunicationwithMarcelloMogetta.MazarakisAinian(1997,47 8)dates theapsidalwallatoroposfromtheninthtotheseventhcenturies. 668 DeAngelis2003, BonghiJovinoandTreré,eds.1997, BonghiJovinoandTreré,eds.1997,220.Thisphaseofthebuildingmaybeconnectedto richvotivedepositsthatpointtothekindofritualbehaviorassociatedwithcultactivity. 671 DamgaardAndersen1997,363 5;Canocchi1980;Roselle EspeciallyColonna1985,53 7;Izzet(2007,127 8)providesarecentsummaryofthe evidence. 159

177 compoundappearstohavebeendestroyedbyfireinthelastquarteroftheseventh century. Interpretation Rooms1and2arethoughttorepresentthearchitecturalremainsofanarchaicbuilding, surroundedbyenclosurewalls2219and Thisinterpretationisbasedonseveral factors.first,theapplicationofthesametypeoftechniqueofstonemasonryinthe constructionofthewalls.thisinvolvedarrangingslabsorblocksoftuffintoirregular courseswithsomemortar.second,theconsistentne/sworientationofrooms1,2andthe precinctwalls.thisalignmentisespeciallyapparentwhencontrastedwiththemore strictlyn/sorientationimposedbytheorthogonalgridinthelatefifthorearlyfourth century.third,theconsistencyintypeanddateoftheceramicmaterialsrecoveredfrom thelayersofoccupationassociatedwiththesestructures. Itappearsthatthebuildingunderwenttwophasesofconstructionoverthecourseofthe Archaicperiod.Thefirstphasetookplaceintheearlytomid sixthcenturywiththe constructionofroom2;walls3029,3030and3031representtheearliestsequenceof stoneconstruction.thesecondphaseoccurredinthemid tolatesixthcenturyand witnessedthereconstructionofroom2(walls3095and3096wereaddedto3030and 3031,respectively),andtheconstructionofRoom1(walls3014and3015)andthe enclosurewalls(2219and3067).oneoftwocircularfeatures(3064)wasinitially constructedandprobablyfunctionedasahearth;itappearstohavebeenreusedand reconstructedinthesecondphaseoftheoccupationofthebuilding.thesecondcircular feature(su3076)isofundeterminedfunctionandisassociatedwiththesecondphaseof thebuilding. Towardtheendofthesixthcenturyandthebeginningofthefifth,thebuildingfelloutof use.thereisevidencethroughoutthesitethatsomeofthewallshadpartiallycollapsed, includingwalls2219and3067.thecollapseofwall2219(su3012)abutswall3014andis cutinthesoutheastcornerbytheconstructionofsemi chambertomb1.basedonthe directionoftheslopeofthelayer,thedistributionofthedeposit,andthesizeoftheslabsof tuff,thislayerseemstorepresentthecollapsedmaterialof2219asopposedto3014.a secondlayerofcollapse(su3054),locatedbeneaththefirst(su3012),hasnoconnection tothetombcutandseemstorepresentanearlierphaseofthedisintegrationofthewall, whichpredatestheconstructionofthetomb.thematerialsrecoveredfromboththese layersincludemostlyfragmentsofimpasto,whichcanonlygenerallydatetheseevents from B.C.E. Wall3067wasdiscoveredpartiallycoveredalongitswesternlimitbyalayeroftuffstones thatseemtorepresentthedisruptionofthewall(su3022).thislayerofcollapsebearsno relationshiptothesecondchambertomb,constructedinclosealignmentwiththeeastern limitofwall3067.thematerialsrecoveredfromthelayersofcollapsedwalls,andfrom 673 MogettaandBecker2014,

178 thosedepositscoveringthecollapse,donotprovideaprecisedateforthefallofthe building.thesedataconsistmainlyoffragmentsimpastopottery,largestoragevesselsand bucchero,whichofferonlyawiderangeofdates,fromabout B.C.E.Itisworth noting,however,thatthedatablematerialsfromthesecontextsbelongedtotheendofthe sixthcentury.onthesegrounds,andwiththesupportofthestratigraphicsequence,itis possibletosuggestthatthebuildingfelloutofusetowardtheendofthesixthcentury,and wasdestroyedorcollapsedshortlythereafter. Theorganizationofthebuildingseemstohavemimickedthelayoutofanearlierhut;the evidenceforthehutphaseofoccupationispreliminary,however,andawaitsfurther excavationinthe2014season.attheveryleast,thispointstocontinuityintheuseofthe area,whichfindscomparisonwithothersitesatromeandlatium(seebelowforfurther discussion). Reconstruction TheextantportionsofthewallsinareaDdonotstandveryhigh,consistingonlyofafew coursesofstonethatwereprobablyquarriedfromnearby.itispossiblethattherewere onceadditionalcoursesofstones,whichweresubsequentlyremoved,destroyedorleftto decayandcollapse.inseveralcasesthereisevidencethatthewallsweregreaterthantheir extantheight.thevariouslayersofcollapseallcontaintuffslabsthatarethesametypeand sizeasusedintheconstructionofthewalls.inthecaseofthecollapseofwall3031,thetuff slabswerediscoveredverticallydepositedintheground,suggestingtheyhadfallenfrom someheight.itisdifficulttodetermineonthebasisoftheseremainshowtallthewalls wereoriginally.theso calledregiaexcavatedbythesarontheacropolisatgabii preservesabuildingwithseveralcoursesofstonemasonry,whichindicatesthiswas withintherealmofpossibilityfortheinhabitantsofaread. 674 Itseemsmorelikely, however,thatthestonesoftheareadbuildingservedasafoundationforasuperstructure ofclay.thisseemsparticularlytrueoftheearliestphaseofthebuilding.immediately outsidethenortheastcorner,beneaththereconstructedportionofthenorthwallofroom2 (wall3095),wasadepositcontaininghighconcentrationsofburntmaterial,including wattleanddaub.alternately,thestonefoundationsmayhavesupportedasuperstructure ofwoodenbeamswitharubblefilling,butthereisnogoodevidenceforthis. 675 The absenceoftilesfromthiscontextsupportsthehypothesisthatthefirstphaseofthe buildingwasconstructedlargelyofimpermanentmaterials. Theroofismoredifficulttoreconstruct.Someofthedepositsidentifiedasthecollapsed remainsofwallscontainfragmentsoftileofthekindthatmayhavebeenusedforroofing duringthesecondphaseofthebuilding.thefrequencyoftiledepositsinallcontexts associatedwiththewalls,however,awaitsfurtherstudy.atthemomentitispossibleto suggesttentativelythattheroofwasconstructedoftile,butitisequallylikelythatit 674 Fabbrietal Cifani1995, BothtypesofconstructionareattestedatRomeandLatiumduring theseventhandsixthcenturies. 161

179 consistedofimpermanentmaterials,suchasthatching. 676 Theabsenceoftilesindeposits associatedwiththeearlierphasesofthebuildingsuggeststhestructureatthistime supportedathatchedroof. Insomecasesitseemsthattheextantportionsofthewallswerevisibleatthetimethe tombswereconstructedinthelatesixthtomid fifthcenturies.inthenorthernhalfofthe area,thecutofsemi chambertomb1truncateslayersofcollapseassociatedwithwalls 2219,3014and3015,revealingthatthesewallshadpartiallyfallenbeforetheconstruction ofthetomb.inallcasesthesewerecovereddirectlybycleaninglayer3004,suggestingthat thetombconstructionwasthefinaleventtooccurinthearea,andthisdeposit,inaddition tothethicklayeroftopsoilaboveit,contributedtothepreservationofthewalls.itisnot possibletodeterminethevisibilityofenclosurewall3067atthetimeoftheconstructionof semi chambertomb2.althoughthewallwascoveredbyalayerofcollapseprobably belongingtothesamewall,thisdeposithasnodirectrelationshiptothetombcut.boththe collapseandwall3067werecoveredby3004,whilethefillofthesemi chambertombwas coveredbytheroadconstructedinthelatefifthorearlyfourthcentury.thisstratigraphic sequence,inadditiontothesituationwithsemi chambertomb1,makesitpossibleto suggestthatallthewallshadpartiallyfallenataboutthesametime,andthatafterthis,the tombswereconstructed.theceramicmaterialsrecoveredfromthelayersofcollapseare notespeciallyinformativewithregardtodating,astheydatefrom B.C.E.The materialsfromthefillofthetombrangeanywherefrom B.C.E.,suggestingthatthe constructionofthetombspost datestheoccupationofthebuilding;determiningthe precisesequencebetweenthecollapseoftheremainingwallsofthebuildingandthe constructionofthetombs,atleastinthecaseofsemi chambertomb2andthemonolithic sarcophagus,isdifficult. Discussion TheareaDbuildingaddstothebodyofevidenceforstone builtarchitectureinthearchaic period.themethodusedforbuildingthewallsfromslabsoftuffisattestedinromeand Latiumbeginningintheseventhcentury,althoughexamplesaremorecommonlyidentified inthesixth. 677 AtRome,thistypeofmasonryisfoundinthesecondphaseofthe fortificationwallonthepalatine(c.700/ B.C.E.). 678 Itismorecommonlyattested, however,inseveralsixth centurybuildingsidentifiedasresidences,includingthefirst phaseoftheauditorium, 679 Torrino, 680 AcquaAcetosaLaurentina, 681 Lavinium 682 and Satricum. 683 Arelatedformofstonemasonry,operaquadrata,consistsofconstructionof 676 Cifani1995,190 2;Gjerstad1953,139,fig Cifani1995;1998; Carandini1990, Terrenato Bedini Bedini Guaitoli1981c, Maaskant Kleibrink1987,

180 squaredstoneblocks,andappearsatthesametimeintheconstructionofanumberof buildingsthroughoutthearea.thistechniqueisusedinthesecondphaseoftheregia, 684 andthebuildingnearthetempleofantoninusandfaustina. 685 Overthecourseofthesixth century,operaquadrataisappliedtotheconstructionofso calledpublicbuildings,ina thirdphaseofthewallonthepalatine, 686 intheearlyphasesofthetempleats. Omobono, 687 thetempleofcapitolinejupiter 688 andthetempleofthedioscuri; 689 in Latium,examplesincludethecircuitwallsatLavinium. 690 Thesixthcenturyalsowitnessed theuseofoperaquadratainwhathavebeenidentifiedasdomesticcontexts.thearchaic residencefromthesacraviaatromeisonesuchexample. 691 Whileitisdifficulttoquantifythecostassociatedwithstonearchitecture,itispossibleto obtainageneralideaoftheresourcesrequiredforthiskindofconstruction.allstagesin theconstructionofsuchbuildingsinvolvedaseriesofspecialiststhatsuggestssomesortof organizedsystemofhumanlabor. 692 Theprocessbeganwiththeextractionofmaterials. Thequarryingoftuff,whichoftenoccurredlocally,mayhaveinvolvedtwotothree individualsandasystemofleversandrollers.beastsofburdenandplanksorboatsmay havebeenrequiredforthetransportationofthesematerialsfromthesourcetothelocation ofconstruction.ifclaywasrequired,aswasoftenthecaseforthemudbrick superstructuresofmanylatinhouses,itwouldalsoneedtobecollected,and,dependingon itsquality,furtherprocessedbytheadditionofstraworothermaterials.theclaywould thenbedriedintobricksthattypicallyrangedinsizefrom4to20kgperm 3 ;thebricks wouldthenneedtobedried. ModernscholarsconnecttheadoptionofstonebuiltarchitectureinRomeandLatiumto themorewidespreadphenomenonofmonumentalizationincentralitaly.scholarsof Etruscanantiquityhavedocumentedtheadoptionofmonumentalformsofconstructionin settlementandfunerarycontextsduringtheorientalizingperiod;inromeandlatiumthe processappearstohavebegunbytheendoftheseventhcentury,andbecomemorediffuse overthecourseofthesixth.asaresult,ourunderstandingoftheprocessthatledtotheuse ofstonemasonryinromeandlatiumisheavilyindebtedtostudiesofetruscancontexts. ScholarsofEtruscanantiquityusethetermmonumentalization,andrelatedterminology, includingmonumentalandmonumentality,torefertotheprocesswherebystructuresare constructedonalargescale,makeuseofdurablematerialsandhaveelaboratedecorative 684 Brown1974, Gjerstad1953,133,fig Carandini1990, Colonna Gjerstad1960, NielsenandPoulsen,eds.1992, Guaitoli1984, GRT4.2, Cifani2008,

181 programs. 693 Inmorebluntterms,thetermmonumentalisappliedtothosestructuresthat arebuiltofstone,areconsiderablylargerthancontemporaryexamples,andcontainsome evidenceofpainteddecoration,usuallyintheformofarchitecturalterracottas.thetermis primarilyappliedtothetumulustombsoftheorientalizingperiod,suchasthoseat Cerveteri, 694 andtheso calledpalazzi(monumentalcomplexes)oftheorientalizingand Archaicperiods,suchasZoneFatAcquarossa(fig.6.15)andthearchaiccomplexatMurlo (6.16). 695 Thechambertombsarecarvedintostone,mayhavemorethanonechamber,are sometimessurmountedbyatumulus,areoftenadornedwithpainteddecorationand usuallyincludearichsetofgravegoods.bothbuildingsatacquarossaandmurlohavea centralcourtyardwithatleasttwowingsofrooms,stonefoundationsandtiledroofs,a largesizeincomparisontoothercontemporaneousstructuresandelaboratedecorative programs. Themonumentalconstructionofboththetumuliandpalazziiswidelythoughttobethe initiativeofthearistocraticelite.inthefirstplace,thisgroupseemsthemostcapableof controllingtheeconomicandhumanresourcesrequiredforstoneconstructionin preindustrialsocieties. 696 InEtruscancontexts,itisdifficulttodeterminepreciselywho thesearistocraticelitewere,butmanyscholarsaccept,onthebasisoftheevidencefrom thegravesandresidences,thattheywerepettykingsortheleaderofsomekindofgenslikegroup. 697 Thishasledtotheidentificationofmanytumuliasso calledprincelytombs (tombeprincipesche),andthebuildingsasthepalaces(orpalazzi)oftherulingelite. 698 Theconnectionbetweenelitepatronageandmonumentalresidencesrestsonmultiple linesofevidence. 699 First,theuseofstonemasonryintheconstructionofthesebuildings marksasignificantdeparturefromthedwellingsofearlierperiods.atbothacquarossaand Murlothereisevidenceforearlierstructuresofmoremodestmeans.Theredevelopmentof thesespacesonagranderscaleatteststotheuseoftechnicalinnovation.second,theuseof decorativeprogramsisthoughttocommemoratethesourceofpowerorinfluenceofthe ownerorresidentsoftheproperty.bothsiteshaveevidenceofrichdecoration,including acroterialsculptures,friezeplaques,andarchitecturalantefixesandsimas. 700 Third,the combinedaspectsofsize,masonryanddecorationlikelyensuredthecontinuedvisibilityof 693 Meyers2012;Izzet2007, Linington Auditorium:Carandinietal.1997.Acquarossa:Östenberg1975.Murlo:Phillips Thismayfindsupportinethnographicstudies.Colantoni(2012)appliesthis methodologyinheranalysisofthetransitionofimpermanenthutstostonehousesat Satricum. 697 Riva(2010,1 10)summarizestheconcensusinmodernscholarshipregardingthesocial andpoliticalorganizationofironageetruriaandcriticizesthisview. 698 Riva(2010)mostrecentlychallengestheprincelyinterpretationofthewealthytumulus burialsoftheorientalizingperiod.smith(2006,150 3)pointsouttheproblemswith Waarsenburg's(1995)interpretationofthetumuliatSatricumasprincelyburials. 699 Meyers Murlo:Phillips1985.Acquarossa:Östenberg

182 thesebuildings.thisvisibilitymayhavehadacommemorativefunction,tocommunicate thestatusofthepatronsofthebuildingmorewidelythroughoutetruscansociety.inother words,thebuildings,whichwerelocatedinsettlements,mayhavereachedabroader audiencethantombs,whichweresituatedinmoredistantcemeteries.thesebuildings, then,areconsideredmonumentalsincetheymakeuseofdurability,visibilityand commemorationinsuchawaythatreinventstheuseandexperienceofcontemporary architecture. 701 Consequently,theclosestcomparandafortheearliestarchaeologicaldiscoveriesofstone architectureinromeandlatiumweretheseexamplesofelitearchitectureinetruria.the appearanceofstone builtcircuitwalls,temples,publicbuildingsandprivateresidencesby theendoftheseventhcenturyinromeandlatiumseemedtosuggestthatthelocalelites werebehavinginamannersimilartotheiretruscanneighbors,andadoptedmethodsof stonemasonryintheconstructionofanumberofprominentbuildings.atrome,however, monumentalizationtookonaparticularlycivicaspect,asthemajorityofstonebuildings seemtohavebeendesignedforpublicbenefit,suchastemplesandwalls,ratherthan residentialuse. 702 Asaresult,monumentalizationinRomeiscloselytiedtourbanization, wherebytheconstructionofthesestonebuildingsisseenasahallmarkofthefoundationof anddevelopmentofthecity. 703 Thisfindssomesupportintheancientaccounts,which documentthephysicalandinstitutionaldevelopmentsatromeduringtheregalperiod. Consequently,manyoftheexamplesofpublicarchitecture,includingthecircuitwallsand temples,aregenerallyattributedtothebuildingprojectsofthetarquinsandservius Tullius. 704 Withregardtotheso calledresidentialstructuresofromeandlatium,these generallyremainassociatedwiththearistocraticelite,probablyonthebasisofcomparison withexamplesinetruria.whotheseeliteswereisrarelyexplicitlystated,unlessin connectionwithsomequasi historical(orpurelymythologicalorlegendary)figure. 705 Theinterpretation,inparticular,oftheso calledeliteresidencesinetruriahashad considerablebearingonourunderstandingofsimilarkindsofstructuresinromeand Latium.OnthenorthernslopesofthePalatineHillareaseriesofstructuresthatCarandini hasidentifiedastheremainsofanarchaichouse(fig.6.17). 706 Areconstructionofthe building,basedoncomparisonswithdwellingsandchambertombsfrometruria,suggests thearchaichouseconsistsofaseriesofrectangularroomsarrangedaroundacentral courtyard.thematerialremainsdatethebuildingtoabout530/20;atthistimethe foundationsofthebuildingseemtohaveencompassedanareaof785m 2,152ofwhich constituteanhortus.thisreconstructionhasalreadybeencriticizedformakingtoomuch outoftoolittlematerial,butremainsnonethelesscitedasevidenceforthearistocratic 701 Meyers2012, ThereisstillsomedebateregardingthefunctionoftheEtruscanpalazzi(Meyers,2012, 6). 703 SeeSmith(2005)forthelatestsummaryoftheevidence. 704 Cifani Consider,forinstance,theconnectionbetweentheTarquinsattheRegiaatGabii. 706 Carandini

183 controlofthecity. 707 Asecondbuildingthatmayserveasanexampleofelitearchitecture comesfromtheauditoriumsite,locatedapproximately1.5kmfromtheaurelianwallsat Rome(fig.6.18). 708 Here,thereisevidenceforthecontinueduseandredevelopmentofthe sitefromthearchaicthroughtheimperialperiods.theearliestphaseofthebuildingdates tothemid sixthcentury,and,asreconstructed,likelyhasdimensionsofapproximately300 m 2.Thecomplexconsistsofaseriesofroomsorientedaroundarectangularcourtyard; manyoftheseroomshaveevidenceofbeatenearthfloors.aroundthebeginningofthefifth century,however,thebuildingundergoessubstantialrenovation,reachingproportions thatitretainedwellintotheimperialperiod.althoughterrenatointerpretsthissecond phaseastheclearestsignofelitearchitecture,hemaintainsthatitispossibletotracethe eliteoccupationoftheareabackintothearchaicperiod,basedonthecontinuityintheuse ofthesite. 709 Insomerespects,however,theEtruscanandRomanevidenceforresidentialarchitecture maynotbewell suitedforcomparison. 710 Asurveyofthearchaeologicalevidencefor stone builtbuildingsinarchaicromeandlatiumrevealsthatthesestructuresaremuch smallerinsize,havefarlessevidenceofdecorationorluxury,andhavemorevariedlayouts thantheiretruscancounterparts. 711 Inafieldsurveyconductedwithinthelimitsofthe ancientagerromanusantiquus,roughlya15kmradiusoutsidethewallsofrome,cifani discoveredanumberofstonestructuresthatheidentifiedasruralsettlements. 712 Hebased thisconclusiononacomparisonwithsimilarpatternsofsettlementdistributioninsouth Etruria.Cifaniclassifiedthebuildingsintothreetypes,basedontheirsize,techniqueof constructionandassociatedfinds.thefirsttypeincludessmallbuildingsthatrangeinsize from20 50m 2.Theseareusuallyfoundclusteredtogether,madeofperishablematerials andcomprisedofonlyoneroom.scattersofpotterywereoccasionallyfoundinassociation withthesestructures.cifanicharacterizesthemasruralhovels;anexampleofthistype maybetheso calledarchaichutattorrino. 713 Thesecondclassofbuildingincludesthosethathavewallsmadeofstoneandroofsoftile. Thewallsmayonlybepartiallymadeofstoneblocks:inmanycasesthestonescomprise 707 Smith(1996,178)callsthereconstruction"imaginative." 708 Carandinietal.1997;Terrenato Terrenato(2001,15)hasmadethesameobservationwithregardtothelayoutofthe Murlocomplexandtheso calledarchaicfarmsteads.thesecondphaseoftheauditorium sitehebelievescomparabletotheetruscanpalaces. 710 Terrenato(2001,15)hasalreadymadethiscricitism.TheEtruscancomplexesdate earlierandhaveashorterlifespan(fromtheseventhtomid sixthcenturies),whilethe Archaicbuildingsaremuchsmallerandrangeanywhereindatefromthesixththrough thirdcenturies,althoughinsomecasestheycontinueevenlater. 711 Cifani Cifani Bedini1984.ThisisthefirstoftwotypesofbuildingsBediniobservedatTorrino.These structuresweresmall,clusteredtogetherandhadanellipticalplan(inthemannerofhuts); theyappearedtobecoveredwitharoofsoftile.thesewerealsolocatednearawell. 166

184 thefoundationsthatsupportsuperstructuresofmudbrick.insomecasestheupper portionsofthewallsareconstructedofwoodenbeamsfilledwithrubbleandclay. Buildingsofthistypeconsistofthreetofiveadjacentroomsarrangedaccordingtoa rectilinearplan;theycoverasurfaceareaanywherefrom120to300m 2.Notableexamples ofthistypeincludethelatearchaicbuildingattorrino(fig6.19),thestructureatacqua AcetosaLaurentina(fig.6.20),thefirstphaseoftheAuditoriumvilla(fig.6.18)and probablythefirstphaseatgrottarossa(fig.6.21). 714 Cifanicharacterizesthesestructures asfarmsteads. 715 Thethirdcategoryincludesthelargestbuildings,whichcompriseasurfaceareaof600to 1500m 2.Thesestructuresconsistofseveralroomsarrangedaroundacentralcourtyard. Thetechniqueofconstructionisoperaquadrataandtheroofsareoftenadornedwith architecturalrevetments.thebestexampleofthistypeforthearchaicperiodisthesecond phaseoftheauditoriumvilla. 716 Onthebasisofcomparisonwithexamplesinsouth Etruria,Cifanibelievesthesebuildingsfunctionedascollectioncentersforthestorage and/orprocessingofagriculturalgoodscollectedfromtheruralsettlements. Inlightofthisevidence,itseemsthattheareaDbuildingcorrespondstoCifani'ssecond type,althoughamoreskepticalinterpretationoftheevidencemayreferittothefirst.a generousreconstructionofthebuildingduringitssecondphaseofoccupationsuggeststhe structurecoveredanareaof380m Thisreconstructiontakeswall2219asthe northernlimitandhearth3064asthesouthernone,onthegroundsthatthisfeaturemay havemarkedthesouthwestcornerofthestructure;thewesternlimitisdefinedbythe semi circularfeature3076andtheeasternlimitisenclosurewall3067.theentire compoundwouldhavethenhaddimensionsof24x16m.amoreconservativeestimate,on thebasisofthedimensionsofthetworooms,whichmeasure5x6mand6x8m,suggests thebuildingcoveredanextentofabout150m 2.Thisinterpretationoftheevidence suggeststhebuildingfitscomfortablyincifani'ssecondtype.itispossibletotakeamore rigidviewoftheevidence,however,astheroomsdonotconnectandneitherexceedsan areaof50m 2.Thisseemsaratherskepticalviewoftheevidence,however,sincethe structures,atleasttomymind,seemconnected. Theidentificationofthebuildingasatypeofdwellingisplausible,sinceitexhibitsseveral featurestypicallyassociatedwithresidentialarchitecture,includingbeatenearthfloors,a hearth(possiblytwo),andpotteryoftenassociatedwithdomesticcontexts(vesselsfor storage,drinking,dining,foodpreparation,andloomweightsandspindlewhorls).although thisrangeofmaterialmaybefoundinothercontexts,theabsenceofthetypesofmaterials 714 AcquaAcetosaLaurentina:Bedini1981.Torrino:Bedini1984.Auditorium:Terrenato 2001.Grottarossa:NSc1947,107;Cifani1998, Cifani1998, Terrenato2001.Cifani(1998,54)notesthattwootherbuildingsbelongtothistype,the secondphasesofthestructuresatgrottarossaandalongtheviagabina,butthesebelongto themiddlerepublicanperiod. 717 Thisisbasedinpartonthereconstructionofrooms1and2asproposedinMogettaand Becker(2014,177),whotakethesouthernlimitofthebuildingashearth

185 foundinsanctuaries,cemeteriesorcentersofindustry,suggestthatthefunctionofthearea Dbuildingwaslargelyresidential.Thisdoesnotprecludetheoccurrenceofproductive, religious,orindustrialactivitiesinthearea,itonlysuggeststhattheprimaryfunctionofthe buildingwasforresidence.indeed,complexesofthistypeseemtohaveallowedfora varietyoffunctions,includinghabitation,farming,textileandpotteryproduction,and votiveoffering.therearenotalwaysseparatespacesfortheseactivities,andoftenasingle roomhasevidenceformultiplefunctions.theareadbuildinghasevidenceforallthese typesofuse,exceptfarming;onlythehearthsseemtohavebeendefinedasarchitecturally distinctfeatures.itcanbearguedthatthesecharacteristicsarenotenoughtosignify residentialactivity,andthisiscertainlyaproblemarchaeologistsconsistentlyfacewhen interpretingambiguous,oftenmulti purposecontexts. DespitemyownclassificationoftheareaDbuildingasamoremodesttypeofstructure,it hasrecentlybeeninterpretedasan"elitecontext". 718 Thisconclusionisbasedonthesizeof thebuilding,thetypeofstonemasonryusedinitsconstruction,andassociatedfinds.the dimensionsofthebuildingseemonparwithmostexamplesofresidentialarchitecturein archaicromeandlatium;thesestructures,withexceptionperhapsofthesacraviahouses andthefirstphaseoftheauditoriumvilla,bearlittleresemblancetotheexamplesofsocalledaristocraticarchitecturefoundmainlyinetruria.indeed,thesmaller,lessstable,less adornedbuildingsofarchaicromeandlatiumseemtorepresentthenormfortheregion; theabsenceofluxuryitemsinresidentialcontextsmaywellmirrortheabsenceofgrave goodsfromgraves,pointingtoamorewidespreadphenomenon.tomyknowledge,there arenofindsfromtheareadbuildingthatmightpointtoitselitepatronage,suchas importeditemsorarchitecturaldecoration.themajorityoftheceramicmaterialsfrom areadarefragmentsofimpasto;buccheroislesscommon,althoughbynomeansrare; importsandetrusco Corinthianimitationwaresareveryrare.Therearenometals,besides afewindeterminatefragmentsofbronzeoriron.ofcourse,itisstillpossibletoarguethat thesebuildingsrepresenteliteactivity,basedonthefactthattheyaremorevisibleand moredurablethanthepreviousandpresumablycontemporarystructures.thislineof thoughtseemsinfluencedbythestudiesofetruscanresidences,inwhichstone constructionanddecorationareequatedwithmonumentalityandaristocraticactivity. Whatismore,thebuildinginareaDissituatedinanurbancontext,whichsetsitapartfrom muchofthecomparableevidencethatcomesprimarilyfromruralsites. Underscoringthisdiscussion,however,isanabsenceofanyconsiderationofwhatwemean byelite,towhomthisrefers,andwhattheconnectionisbetweenthisgroupandstone built architecture.whatismore,thefocusonunderstandingtheseelitegroupsoftenprecludesa discussionoftheremainingnon elitepopulation.thisis,inmanyways,aninsoluble probleminarchaeology.inprehistoriccontexts,itiscommontoconnectarchaeological visibilitytoaristocraticprivilege.partoftheappealofcifani'sapproachtotherural settlementsofromeisthattheclassificationofthebuildingsintotypes,howeverartificial, allowsfortherepresentationofwhatwaspresumablytheentirecommunity.cifani speculatesthatthedistributionofthethreetypesofbuildingsrepresentsacomplexsystem 718 MogettaandBecker

186 oflandownership,basedontheagriculturalexploitationofrome'shinterland. 719 He believesthissystemishierarchical,andcharacterizedbyasmallclassofowners(or, perhaps,whathecallssimpleholders),whooccupythesmallandmedium sizedstructures ofthefirstandsecondtypes. 720 Thesestructuresheidentifiedassmall scale"hovels"and farmsteads.heconnectsthelargerbuildingsofthethirdtypetoagentilicialclassof owners,whodrewtheirpowerfromtheirextensivelandholdingsintheimmediate territoryofrome.thesebuildingsmayhavefunctionedasprocessingorstoragecenters forthegoodscollectedfromtheirterritory.thisconclusionfindssomesupportinarecent assessmentofthetwelvetables,whichsuggeststheeconomyofarchaicromewaslargely agricultural. 721 Whatismore,ifthepopulationoftheRomanagerwasabout35,000,asthe morerecentestimatesindicate,itstandstoreasonthatsomeofthesepeoplewerelivingin thesestonebuildings,eliteorotherwise. 722 Thefactremainsthatthesearchaicstructures leaveuswithverylittletogoon,sincetheylackmanyoftheconventionalfeaturesthatare connectedwitharistocraticpatronage. ThearchaeologicalevidenceofeliteactivityinarchaicLatiumismostcloselytiedtothe evidenceintheliterarysourcesforgentilicialstructures. 723 Thereisgoodindicationfrom thehistoricalaccountsregardingearlyromethatthearistocraticeliteconstitutesthemost likelygrouptohavehadtheeconomicmeansandsocialauthoritytoundertakeinitiatives relatedtopoliticalandterritorialcontrol.asdiscussedinchapter5,itseemsthat,inthe Archaicperiod,landwasconcentratedinthehandsofdifferentgroupsofgentes,whose leaderswereresponsibleforitsdistributionanduse. 724 Thearchaeologicalrecordof archaicromeandlatiumseemstosupportthisorganization.cifani'smorerecentsurvey hasrevealedalandscapedenselysettledwithsmallfarms,asdiscussedabove. 725 Terrenato hasalreadyconnectedthismodelofgens basedlandownershipanddistributiontothe archaeologicalevidenceforeliteresidentialarchitectureattheauditoriumsiteinrome. 726 Here,hetakesassupportofthegensthepresenceofaneliteresidencesurroundedby smallfarms,whichseemstoindicatetheauthoritythearistocraticeliteexercisedoverthe immediaterurallandscape,andpointtothereciprocal(ordependent)relationship betweenthesmallfarmsandthemainresidence.althoughthisappliesmorespecificallyto hisinterpretationofthesecondphaseofthevilla,itispossiblethatthisorganization extendedearlierintothearchaicperiod,basedonthecontinuityintheuseofthesite.one problemisthatthismethodologydoesnotfullyaddresstheissueofhowwedistinguishthe 719 Cifani1998, Cifani(1998,55)referstotheoccupantsofthesebuildingsasproprietariorsemplici possessori,althoughitisuncleartomepreciselywhathemeansbythesetwoterms. 721 Cornell1995, Cifani1998,55.Cornell(1995,204 8)discussesthevariouscalculationsofRome's territoryandpopulation.cifanibaseshisconclusionsonampolo's(1980)calculuation. 723 Smith(2006)providesarecentaccountofthearchaeologicalandliteraryevidencefor thegens. 724 CapogrossiColognesi Terrenato2001, Terrenato

187 rulingclassesfromtheruled(andthevaryingdegreesinbetween)inthearchaeological record,itgoessomewayinunderstandingthearchaeologicalandliteraryevidence. Ifwearetoaccepttheconventionalinterpretationoflandownership,thenitispossibleto suggestthatagensownedthelandonwhichtheareadbuildingwasconstructed,andthat theleaderofthatgensdesignateditsuse.thisdoesnotentirelyclarifywhocommissioned theconstructionofthebuilding,however.thetuffstonesusedintheconstructionofthe buildingwerequarriedfromnearby,whichmakessenseeconomically,regardlessofwho constructedthebuilding.however,itstandstoreasonthatonlyanindividualorgroupwith somewealthandstatushadtheabilitytomobilizetheresourcesfortheconstructionof suchabuildinginthemiddleofthearchaiccity.however,itwouldbeunwisetoruleout completelythepossibilitythatthisactivityfellwithinthepurviewofvariousmembersof thegens.itisimpossibletodeterminefromthearchaeologicalrecordwhattheprecise relationshipisbetweentheoccupantsofthebuilding,theindividualsresponsibleforits construction,andtheownersoftheland.althoughitseemsmostlikelythatthegens leaderswereresponsibleforthisinitiative,thereisnotenoughevidenceregardingthe socialhierarchybetweengentes,clientes,tenantsandfreefarmerstoaddressthis completely. IfthegenteswereindeedtheprimarylandownersinarchaiccentralItaly,andtheywere responsiblefordeterminingtheuseofthatland,thenitispossibletosuggestthat,inthe caseofarchaicgabii,thisauthorityextendedtotheurbansphere.mostoftheevidencefor residentialarchitecture,whethereliteorotherwise,comesfromruralsitesinrome's hinterland,whichofferssomeindicationofthedensesystemofagriculturally based landownershipattheoutskirtsofromanterritory.theareadbuildingshiftsthelocusof thisactivitytothecity,andofferssomeinsightwithregardtohowvariousgentesandtheir leaderscontrolledtractsoflandwithintheurbanarea.forthemoment,thismostlyraises newquestionsregardinghowthesevariouselitegroupscontrolledcivicspace.itsuggests thatthegenteswereequallyasconcernedwithregulatingcivicspaceastheywerewith agriculturalareas.withoutfurtherexcavationatgabii,however,itisdifficulttodetermine morepreciselyhowelitecontrolofcitiesrelatedtoboththedevelopmentofthecityand theagriculturallandscape. TheevidencefromarchaicSatricummayshedlightsomelightonthenatureofthisprocess, however. 727 Overthecourseoftheeighthtosixthcenturies,theacropolisrevealsevidence forthreemainphasesofoccupationthatpointtocontinuityintheuseoftheareaandof specificstructureswithinthatarea. 728 Inthefirstphase,duringtheeighthcentury,there weretwoseparategroupsofstructures,comprisedofovalhutsandsmallcircularbuildings thathavebeenidentifiedascooksheds(fig.6.22). 729 Inthesecondphase,duringthelate 727 Colantoni2012.FortheoriginalreportsregardingSatricum,seeMaaskant Kleibrink (1991;1992). 728 Maaskant Kleibrink1991, Itisdifficulttoidentifythefunctionofmosthuts,butasColantonipointsout(2012,31), itdoesnotseemunreasonablethatdifferentbuildingshaddifferentiatedfunctions. 170

188 eighthtoseventhcentury,thesestructureswerereplacedbylargerovalhuts,squarehuts andmorecooksheds(fig.6.23).inthethirdphase,duringthesixthcentury,courtyardstylehousesreplacedthehutsinbothclusters:thesehouseswereconstructedofstone foundationswithwallsmadeofclaypackingandroofsoftile(6.24).theyconsistedoftwo rectangularbuildings,comprisedofadjacentsquareorrectangularroomsthatflankeda centralopenspace.ataboutthistimeweretheearlierphasesofthetempleofmater Matuta,whichwasconstructednearthehouses. 730 Colantonisuggeststhateachsuccessive redevelopmentoftheacropolismaintainedthesamebasicarrangement,wherebytwo groupsofhutswerereplacedbytwogroupsofstone builtbuildings. 731 Shesuggests,too, thateachphasehousedthesamerangeofinhabitants:onthebasisofethnographicdata, shepositsthatfamilies(nuclearorextended)werespreadoutamongclustersofhuts,with eachhutbeinginhabitedbyonlyoneortwoindividuals. 732 Theconstructionofhouseswith stonefoundationsinthesixthcenturyunifiedthefunctionofthehutsandthepeopleliving inthemintotworelatedstructures. 733 Thesmallroomsmimickedthepresumably differentiatedfunctionofthehutsandmaintainedaccesstotheoutsideareabycreating accesstoacentralcourtyard. Colantoniagainturnstoethnographicdatatocommentonthesocialandpoliticalstatusof theinhabitantsofthesatricanacropolisinthesixthcentury.inthesettlementofthe BamangwatotribeinBotswana,foreigntradersandmissionariesintroducedEuropean stylehousesinthe1800s,whichgraduallyreplacedthetraditionalhutsusedbythe tribe. 734 Theconstructionofthemud hutsrequireslittlecapitalandcanoftenbe undertakenbythepeoplewholiveinthem.thisstandsincontrastwiththeexpensiveand rarematerials,andspecializedlaborusedintheconstructionofeuropeanhouses.adesire toemulatethepoliticallydominanteuropeansbroughtabouttheconstructionofmore housesofthisnewtype,likelymotivatedbythedesiretomodernizeandacquirethestatus associatedwiththesehousesassymbolsofauthority.colantoniinterpretsthestonebuilt structuresofromeandlatiumfromthisperspective,suggestingthattheconstructionof thesebuildingsrequiredspecializedhumanlaborandeconomicresources,andassuch, functionedassymbolsofaccumulatedwealthandstatusinawaythathutssimplycould not.asaresult,sheclaimsthesearelikelythebuildingsoftheelite,andsupportsher Maaskant Kleibrinkidentifiedthecookhutsonthebasisofthecharredlayerscontaining animalbones,cookingstandsandvesselsdesignedforfoodpreparation(1991,69 72). 730 Maaskant Kleibrink1987;Gnade2007,102 4, Colantoni2012, Colantoni2012,27 33.Shedrawsherconclusionsfromananthropologicalstudy(Naroll 1962)thatcalculatedtheamountoflivingspaceusedbyonepersonfromavarietyof settlementsaroundtheworld.narollestimated10m 2 wasthespaceusedbyoneperson. Althoughmanyofhisconclusionsaredebated,Colantoniusesthisfiguretocalculate,on thebasisofthesizeofthehutsofthepalatine(17m 2 ),thatonetotwopeopleoccupied thesestructuresatagiventime. 733 Colantoni2012,32.Thisissometimesreferedtoasthe"hutstohouses"phenomenon, asdocumentedbybrown(1976)andholloway(1994,51 67). 734 Colantoni2012,

189 conclusionbycitingtheprominentlocationoftheresidencesonthepalatineatromeand acropolisatsatricum. AlthoughitiseasytocriticizeColantoni'smethodologyonthegroundsthatsheseemsto presumethesestonestructuresare,inthefirstplace,houses,and,inthesecond,thehouses oftheelite,herobservationsraisesomeinterestingpointsaboutthedevelopmentofspace withinsettlementareas.giventhelaborrequiredfortheredevelopmentoftheareawith buildingswithstonefoundations,itislikelythatsomecentralizedauthority,whetheran individualorgroup,wasresponsibleforthedeploymentofthisactivity.if,asseemstobe thecase,thesixth centurybuildingsmimictheorientationandfunctionoftheearlier houses,itseemsthattheagent(s)responsibleweredeliberatelymaintainingtheearlieruse ofthesite.whatisdifficulttodetermine,however,iswhethertheinhabitantsofthe acropoliswerethesamegroupsofpeopleinallphases;althoughthisseemstobethecase, onecannotdiscountthepossibilitythatcompetitionandconflictoftenencourage monumentalconstruction. 735 TheadditionofthetempletoMaterMatutaontheacropolis inproximitytotheprobableresidencesissignificantsinceitsuggestsalevelof developmentontheacropolisthatcanbeunderstoodwithinthecontextofurbanization. 736 Inthiscase,itseemsthattheareaoftheacropolismarksalevelofsocialandpolitical sophisticationandorganizationrequiredbyoneormoregroups. WithregardtothebuildinginareaD,itisdifficulttointerpretwhythestructurefelloutof useinthelatesixthcentury.thebuildingseemstohavebeenoccupiedforonlyashort timefollowingtherenovationofthestructuretoincluderoom1andtheenclosurewalls. Therearenoconventionalsignsofwholesaledestruction,suchasfireorlooting.However, theelevationofthewallsthroughouttheareaisremarkablyconsistent,andcorrespondsto theelevationsofthefloorsfromthemid republicanstructuresinadjacentareac.this suggeststhatthewallsweredeliberatelyanduniformlyleveledtoaheightthatmatchesthe occupationphasesofthemiddlerepublic.thiseventmayhavecontributedtothedeposits ofcollapseassociatedwithmanyofthewalls,intowhichthefirstchambertombwascut. Alternately,thewallsmayhavedeterioratedwithouthumanintervention.Whateverthe case,theconstructionofthefirstsemi chambertombinthecollapsedremainsofenclosure wall2219suggeststhatthecollapseofthewallspredatestheuseoftheareaasaburial ground.accordingtothestratigraphicsequence,thecollapseofallwallsseemstohave predatedtheconstructionofthetombs;however,thereisnoclearrelationshipbetween thecollapseandsemi chambertomb2andthemonolithicsarcophagus.asaresult,only wall2219mayhavefallenbeforetheconstructionofsemi chambertomb1.theuseofthe areaasasmallcemeteryseemstohaveoccurredshortlyafterthebuildingwasnolonger operational,asthefirstadultinhumationsmayhavebeendugasearlyasthelatesixth century.amoreprecisechronologyfortheburialsisdifficulttodetermine,andtheydate generallyfromabout B.C.E. 735 ParkerPearson(1999,156 7)considersthisinrelationtofunerarymonuments. 736 Theproximityofthetempletotheso calledresidencesalsocallsintoquestionthe identificationofthesebuildingsasdwellings. 172

190 6i.FeaturesofAreaD:TheBurials OncethebuildinginareaDhadfallenoutofuse,theareawasusedasaburialgroundfora seriesofadultinhumationburials.inthefollowingsection,ipresenttheevidenceforthese burials,beginningwiththewesternmosttombandmovingeast.then,ipresentthe evidenceforthechildandinfantburialsatthesite,whichmaybelongtothephasesofthe occupationofthebuilding,althoughthedatesarethusfarinconclusive. Tomb25 Tomb25islocatedalongthewesternmarginsoftheareaandbearsnodirectrelationship tothearchaicbuilding.thetombconsistsofarock cuttrenchwithanichecarvedintothe eastside(figs.6.25and6.26).themainshaftmeasures2.5x1.2m(su2086)and containedtheinhumationburialofanadultfemale(su2088)inamonolithictuff sarcophagus(sus2087and2089).thesarcophaguswasmadeoftufolionato,areddish browntuffthatistypicallyassociatedwiththealbanhills.thetuffusedforthe constructionoftomb25wasprobablyquarriedlocally,however,evenwithin200mofthe burialsite. 737 Thelidfracturedatsomepointinantiquityandwasremovedin2009intwo segments.thenichemeasures2x0.5mandcontainedtheinhumedremainsofayoung adultmale(su2091).thisnichewascarvedafteraninitialattemptonthewestsidefailed duetothepartialcollapseofthewall.thedimensionsofthesarcophagusareconsistent withotherexamplesatgabiiandrome:thisexampleis2.08minlength,0.73minwidth, 0.75minheight;thethicknessofwallsis0.08mandthereisaninteriordepthof0.6m. BothburialswereorientedN/S,withtheheadlocatedatthesouth.AfragmentofAtticRed Figurepotteryfoundinthefilldatestheclosingofthetombtotheearlyfifthcenturyor later.therearenogravegoodsassociatedwiththeseburials. Atsomelaterdate,acircularpitwasaddedtotheareasouthofthemaintrench,cutting intothesouthernlimitofthetomb.theconsistencyofthefillandthedepthofthepit,at approximately1.59m,indicatethisfeaturewasusedasawell.theceramicmaterials consistprimarilyoffragmentsofimpasto,withsomecommonware,finewareandbucchero. Thesematerialsarenotespeciallyusefulfordatingthefill,andrangeanywherefrom B.C.E.ThisfeaturemayhavebeeninuseduringthelaterphasesofoccupationatGabii, followingtheestablishmentofthenewstreetplan. Osteologicalanalysisofthetwoskeletonsofferssomeinformationregardingthe demographiccompositionofarchaicgabii.thelongbonesoftheadultfemaleindicatethat shewasprobablyaround162cm(or5'4")inheight,whichmakeshertallerthanthe averagewomanfromtheimperialperiod. 738 Mostofherbonesarenotwellpreserved,but showsignsofarthritisorsomeotherage relateddegeneration.herteethshowsignsof averagewear.musculoskeletalmarkersonherfemurindicatethatsheengagedinafair 737 PersonalcommunicationwithJasonFarr,whosampledthemainbodyofthe sarcophagus,butnotthelid. 738 Killgrove2010,dissertation(killgrove.org). 173

191 amountofwalking,althoughthereisgenerallylittleevidencethatshehadadifficultlifeor engagedinstrenuousactivities. 739 Shewaslikelyinherthirtieswhenshedied. Themaleyouthinthesidenichewasnotableforhisexceptionallylargebones,andthehigh numberofskeletalpathologiesthatindicatehehadastressfullifebeforedyingat17 19 yearsofage.thedimensionsofhislongbonessuggestanestimatedheightofabout172cm (5'8"),whichisrathertallforaRomanmaleduringtheImperialperiod,approximately5 cmtallerthanaverage.hisvertebraerevealedevidenceofdischerniation,apathology probablybroughtonbycarryingheavyloadsorabnormallyflexinghisback. 740 Signsof wearonthebonesofhisshouldersuggesthewasregularlyinvolvedindemandingupper bodyactivitiessuchasliftingorthrowing.heexhibitsthesamesignsofwearonhislong bonesasthewoman,pointingtoahighdegreeofrunningorwalking.histeethshowsigns ofadvancedwear,typicalofanindividualabouttentofifteenyearsolder.itseemsthathe subsistedonadietcomprisedofgrittyfoodssuchasunrefinedgrainsorshellfish. Pathologiesvisibleonhiscanineteethindicateheunderwenttwoepisodesofstressasa child:thefirst,from2years9monthsto3years3months,andthesecondaroundfour yearsofage.thesemaybesignsofweaning,disease,orsomedifficultpartofchildhood. Atpresent,itisdifficulttodeterminetheroleorsociopoliticalstatusoftheseindividualson thebasisoftheosteologicalremains,asthereisinsufficientcomparativedatafromthe Archaicperiod. 741 Thepurposeofbioarchaeologyistoplacetheindividualwithinthe contextofapopulationcomprisedofseveralindividuals;withoutarepresentative population,thereisnowaytodeterminewhatisnormalaccordingtothebiologyand culture.tomyknowledge,therearenolargescaleosteologicalstudiesforarchaiccentral Italy. 742 However,itispossibletodrawsomegeneralconclusionsastowhetheraperson wasanomalouswithinaspecifictimeandplace.whencomparedtoosteologicaldatafrom 739 Thisparticularpathology,amusculoskeltalmarker(MSM),appearsonindividualswho werelikelytravelinglongdistancesorrepeatedlyonfoot. 740 ThistypeofpathologyisreferredtoasSchmorl'snodes.Inmodernteenagers,these symptomsareconnectedtoparticipationincontactsports. 741 SeeParkerPearson(1999,80 3)notesthatstress relatedlesionscanbereadintwo ways,eitherasamarkerofthepoorstatusanddietofapopulation,orasatestamenttothe abilityofthepopulationtosurvivestressanddisease.he,andknudsonandstojanowski (2008),commentmorebroadlyoncurrentapproachestothefunctionofbioarchaeologyin determiningidentityandstatus. 742 BediniprovidessomeskeletalinformationfromtheburialsexcavatedatCasaleBrunori (1991)andTorrino(1981),butthesecomefromRepublicanandOrientalizingperiods respectively.thecontributionofrubinietal.ingnade(2002,162 84)analyzesthe bioarchaeologicaldatafrom82individualsfromthesouthwestnecropolisatsatricum. Here,therewere61adults(24males,18femalesand25individualsofundeterminedsex) and12children.themalesareonaverage170cm,whichistallerthanmostmalesin centralitaly;thefemalesareaveragecomparedtoothers.theteethofthesatricumsample showedsimilarsignsofstressasthoseatgabii;theirbones,however,didnot,indicating thatthesatricanpopulationdidnottakeonparticularlystressfulphysicalactivities. 174

192 theimperialperiod,thereisnothingunusualabouttheremainsoftheyoungman. 743 He wascertainlytallerandmorerobustthanaverage,andhisteethandbonesshowedsignsof stress.however,thecausesforthestressonhisteethmayhavebeentheresultofavariety offactorsincludingweaning,poordietorgenetics.thepathologiesonhisbonesonly indicatethathewasactiveandoccasionallyengagedinheavylifting;thereisnoevidence tosuggestthathewasstressedinanywaytowardtheendofhislife.insum,thebones cannotatthispointoffermuchinformationconcerninghissociopoliticalstatus. 744 Theosteologicalanalysisoffersnoindicationofhowthesetwoindividualsdied,orwhy theywereburiedtogether.itispossiblethatthewomanwasthebiologicalmotherofthe youth;adnaanalysiscouldconfirmafamilialrelationship,butthisstudyawaitsfurther on siteresearch. Althoughitseemslikelythatbothburialsweremadeatthesametime,thisisdifficultto determine.atthetimeofexcavationsomedistinctionwasmadebetweenthefillofthe maintombandthetwosideniches,butthesewerelaterbelievedtorepresentthesame deposit(su2085).alayerofrubbleandsiltbeneaththesarcophaguswasdistinguished andrecordedseparatelyassu2090,buttherecordsindicatethatthisbottomfillwaspart ofthesamedepositinthemainportionofthetomb,whichhadfiltereddownbetweenthe sarcophagusandthebottomlevelofthecut.theconsistencyofthefillsuggeststhatboth individualswereburiedatthesametime.inthiscase,itseemslikelythatthemalewas buriedfirstinthesideniche,andthewomansecondinthetuffsarcophagus.thereisno indicationofhowtheseindividualswereloweredintothetomb.thepresenceofironnails fromothertombssuggeststheburialswereloweredintothetrenchonwoodenbiers,but thereisnosuchevidencehere.thetrenchisnotespeciallydeep,atabout0.8m,makingit possiblethatthemale,atleast,wasmanuallydepositedinthetomb. MonolithictuffsarcophagiareattestedelsewhereatGabii:theSARuncoveredtwo examplesintheirexcavationsofasmallburialgrouplocatedsouthofthetempleofjuno. Theburialgroupalsoincludedtombsafossaandonesingle inhumationchambertomb. Theresultsofthesediscoveriesremainunpublished,andthedatesoftheseburialsare generallyunknown.personalcommunication,however,hasconfirmedthatthechamber tombisarchaic. Tombs38,39and40(Semi Chamber1) AdjacenttothenorthwestcornerofRoom1isthefirstoftwosemi chambertombs(figs. 6.27and6.28).Thenortheastcornerofthetomb(SU3024)cutsdirectlyintothecollapsed remainsofcurvedwall2219(su3012),revealingthatconstructionofthetomboccurred sometimeafterthearchaicbuildingfelloutofuse.theeasternedgeofthetombcutisin 743 PersonalcommunicationwithKristinaKillgrove. 744 Catalano,inBedini(1991,107),makessimilarremarksregardingthedatarecovered fromcasalebrunori.althoughthechambertombspointtothehighstatusofthedeceased, thewearonthebonesandteethoftheseindividualssuggestalowqualityoflife. 175

193 closealignmentwiththen/sorientationofwall3015,andthesouthernedgewiththew/e orientationofwall3014.thatthesoutheastcornerofthetombseemstocorrespond closelywiththeouterlimitofthenorthwestcornerofthewallssupportsthisconclusion. Thetombconsistsofasquareshaftcutintothebedrocktuff,andpreservesdimensionsof 2.5x2.5m,andadepthof1.95m. Thefillofthemainchamberwasconsistent,andcontainedseveraltuffinclusions,including awidearrayoffragmentaryceramicmaterials.theseceramicsconsistprimarilyof impasto,butconcentrationsofbucchero,commonware,largestoragecontainers,impasto chiarosabbiosoandimpastorossowerealsoidentified.theseobjectsrangeindatefrom B.C.E.,butbasedonthestratigraphicsequenceatthesite,thefillcanbedated from B.C.E.Organicinclusions,suchasanimalbonesandcharcoal,wererare.Six ironnailswererecoveredinthefill,suggestingthedeceasedwereloweredintothetomb onwoodenplanks.trackscarvedintotheoutersurfacesoftheniches(onthesidewallsof thetomb)suggestthatwoodenplankscoveredtheentranceoftheniches.inbothcases, therearenotracesofthesewoodenplanks.alargeslaboftufffoundatthebottomofthe mainchambermayhaveclosedoneofthetombs,butitwasnotfoundinsitu.theother notablefindsfromthislayerincludeastylusandtwoimpastospools;theseawaitfurther studyon site.afragmentofbronzewasalsoidentifiedinthefill,butitistoodeteriorated todetermineitsuse. Atthebottomofthemaintrench,threenicheswerecarvedalongthewest,northandeast sides,allranginginsizefrom2x0.5m,withaheightofabout0.95m.duringthe excavation,nodistinctionwasobservedbetweenthefillofthenichesandthatofthemain chamber,sincetherewasnomeaningfuldistinctioninsoilcompositionorinclusions. However,distinctionsinthefindsrecoveredineachnichewererecorded.Afunerarybed wascarvedintothefloorofeachoftheseniches;thesebedssupportedtheinhumed remainsofthreeadultindividuals.eachnichecontainedarelativelywell preserved skeleton,allofwhichawaitanalysisbybiologicalanthropologistk.killgroveinthe2014 season. Theconsistencyofthefillofthemainchamberandthethreeloculisuggeststhatallthree burialsweremadeatthesametime.however,itisalsopossiblethatthefillrepresentsthe eventimmediatelyfollowingthefinaldeposition.inanycase,theceramicmaterials recoveredfromthisdepositdatethetombgenerallyfromthelatesixthtomid fifthcentury. Thearchaeologydoesnotindicatehowthebodieswereplacedintothetomb;basedonthe presenceofironnailsinthefill,however,itseemsthattheywereloweredintothemain chamberbeforebeingarrangedintheniche.entranceintothetombwouldhaverequired somemechanism,whetheraladderorasystemoflevers.theonlywayintothetombis fromthetop,andatombdepthofnearly2mwouldhaverequiredmechanicalassistance. Thereisnoevidencethatanykindofstructurecoveredthemainentrancetothetomb, whetherawoodenplankortumulus.itseemsthatthetombwasbackfilledatsomepoint followingthedepositionofthefinalburial,butwhetherthathappenedshortlyafterthe inhumationorseveralyearslaterisunclear.itispossiblethatthewoodenplanksplaced overthenichesmeantthatthemainchamberwasleftopenuntilallburialshadbeen 176

194 deposited;thissuggeststhefillwasmadeoraccumulatedatthesametime,followingthe lastoftheburials. Theeastniche(SU3039,Tomb38)measures1.37x0.6m,and0.96minheight,and containstheinhumationburialofanadolescentofundeterminedsex(fig.6.29).thebody wasarrangedinthesupinepositionandlikelydepositedonawoodenplankpriorto depositioninthetomb.theskeletonwasorientedn/swiththeheadsituatedatthesouth. Afunerarybedwascarvedintotheflooroftheniche,atalevelapproximately10cmhigher thanthefloorofthemainchamber.thisbedconsistsofthreesurfacesseparatedbytwo channelsthatwerepossiblycuttoaccommodatethefeetofawoodenbier.thecentral surfaceisthelargest,measuringapproximately0.75minlength;itlikelysupportedthe bodyofthedeceased.theremainingtwosurfaceswerelocatedattheheadandfeetof skeleton(thesouthandnorthendsoftheniche),andmeasuredabout15 20cm.These wereseparatedfromthecentralplatformbyachannelmeasuringapproximately12 15cm. Initialobservationsrecordeduponexcavationoftheskeletonindicatethatthebones belongedtoanadolescentofundeterminedageandsex,andtheseawaitfurtherresearch on site. ThisburialcontainedthemostnotablefindsofalltheareaDtombs.Theremainsofa necklace(specialfinds356,hereafter,sf),comprisedofspoolsandstripsofworkedbone, werediscoveredonthechestofthedeceased(fig.6.30).thesespoolsrangeinsizefrom1.2 to1.8cminlengthandfrom0.8to1.2cminwidth.thebonestripsrangeinsizefrom3to 6.1cminlengthand0.3to1cminwidth.Severalmorestripsandspoolsofworkedbone wererecoveredinthefilloftheniche,andmayhavebelongedtothesameornament.the stripsofworkedbone(sf354)rangeinsizefrom2.0to6.0cminlengthand0.5to1.2cm inwidth;thespools(sfs351,353and355)rangeinsizefrom1.2to1.5cminlengthand 0.8to1.2cminwidth.Theseitemsdonotrepresentacorredointhestrictsense;rather, theyarethepersonaladornmentsofthedeceased. Thenorthniche(SU3040,Tomb39)measures1.88x0.6mand0.92minheight,and containsasingleadultinhumationburial(fig.6.31).thebodywasdepositedinthesupine positionaccordingtoaw/eorientationwiththeheadatthewest.afunerarybedwas carvedintothefloorofthisniche,which,basedonthearrangementoftheskeletonupon excavationandthepresenceofseveralironnailsinthefill,likelysupportedawooden plankatthetimeoftheinhumation.thisfunerarybedconsistsofasinglesurfacecarved intothecenteroftheniche.achannelapproximately20cmlongseparatesthecentral surfacefromthewallsofthenicheatthewestandeastlimits.theplatformwas approximately5 10cminheight.Theskeletonwasdiscoveredslopingsouthwardtoward entranceoftheniche.theskeletondidnotexceedthelimitsoftheniche,suggestingthata woodenplankoncecoveredtheentranceofthisloculusandpreventedtheburialfrom slidingoutintothemainchamberofthetomb.neitherthesexnorageofthisindividualhas beendetermined.theonlyitemofsignificancefoundinassociationwiththisburialwasan unidentifiedobjectofworkedbone(sf359). Thewestniche(SU3041,Tomb40)measures1.06x0.76mandis0.98minheightandis theleastwellpreservedoftheadultinhumationburials(fig.6.32).thebodywasarranged 177

195 inthesupineposition,accordingtoan/sorientationwiththeheadatthesouth.initial observationsregardingtheskeletonuponexcavationsuggestthedeceasedwasanadult maleofunknownage.thefunerarybedbelongingtothisnichecomprised,liketheother two,acentralplatformcarvedintotheflooroftheniche.unliketheotherexamples, however,thisbedwasnotaraisedlevelsurface:instead,itslopeddownwardtowardthe east,sothattheeasternlimitofthebedslopedinto,andwasevenwith,thefloorofthe mainchamber.asmallpillowwascarvedatthesouthlimittosupportthehead.several nailsfoundinthefillofthisnichesuggestthatbodywasplacedonawoodenplankand thendepositedinthetomb.asecondpossibilityisthatawoodenplankcoveredthe entranceoftheniche.theroofofthenichehadpartiallycollapsedoverthecourseof excavation. Tombs41and42(Semi Chamber2) Thesecondsemi chambertomb(fig.6.33)islocatedoutsidetheeasternperipheryofthe archaiccomplex,justeastof,andinalignmentwith,theeasternlimitofwhatmaybea portionoftheenclosurewallofthebuilding(3067).thecutofthetomb(su3081)does notinterferewiththewall,thoughthewesternedgeofthetombalignsalmostprecisely withtheeasternlimitofthewall.thistombissimilarinsizeandconstructiontothefirst semi chamber,andconsistsofalargesquareshaftcutintothebedrock.themainchamber measuresabout2.5x1.8m,andis1.5mdeep.nichescarvedintothewestandeastsidesat thebottomofthemainshaftcontaintheinhumationburialsoftwoadultindividuals.the nichesareapproximately1.5x0.5m,andarecarvedinamoreroundedandlessrectilinear fashionthanthoseinsemi chambertomb1. Therewasnodiscernabledistinctioninthefillofthemainchamberandtheloculi,although thedocumentationkeptrecordsofthenotablefindsfromeachniche.theconsistencyof thefillofthetomb(su3066)andthatoftheloculisuggestsbothburialsweremadeatthe sametime.alternately,thetombmayhavebeenleftopenuntilbothburialsweredeposited andthefillaccumulatedorwasdeposited.ceramicfragmentsfoundinthefilldatethe tombfromthelatesixthtoearlyfifthcentury.asinglebronzepin,measuring5x0.2cm, comprisestheonlynon ceramicmaterialtoberecoveredfromthetomb,otherthanafew nailsfoundinassociationthewestniche(sf466).nogravegoodswerefoundwitheither burial. Thewesternniche(SU3082,Tomb41)measures2.1x0.6m,withaheightof0.7m(fig. 6.34).Thecutwasoriginallyrectilinear,butsometimeafterthedepositionofthebody,the bedrockceilingofthecutcollapsed.thiswaspossiblycausedbytheconstructionofroad 3057inthelatefifthorearlyfourthcentury.Thestabilityofthenichewaslikely underminedduetoitspositiondirectlybeneaththewall3067.overthecourseof excavation,aportionofthiswallhadtoberemovedtopreventitfromfallingintothefillof themainchamber.thebottomofthecutofthisnichewasraisedabovethelevelofthecut ofthemainchamber(su3081),creatingaraisedbedonwhichthebodywasdeposited. ThedeceasedwasarrangedinasupinepositionandthebodyorientedN/Swiththehead atthesouth.initialobservationssuggestthebodybelongedtoanadultmale,aged45 50 years.threeironnailsrecoveredinthefillofthisnichesuggestthedeceasedwasburied 178

196 lyingonawoodenbier;alternately,thenailsmayrepresentawoodenplankthatcovered theentrancetotheniche.organicmaterialsofthiskind,however,haveleftnotraceinthe archaeologicalrecord. Theeasternniche(SU3083,Tomb42)measures2.1x0.6m,withaheightof0.6m(fig. 6.35).Thenichecontainstheremainsofasingleinhumationburial.Theskeletonappears tohavebelongedtoawoman,aged35yearsatdeath.thebodywasplacedinthetombin thesupineposition,andalongan/sorientationwiththeheadatthesouth.thepositionof herbodyinthetombwassomewhatunusual:theskeletonwasplacedagainstthebackof thewall,anddoesnotappeartohavemovedafterthisdeposition.thissuggeststhatthe bodybelongedtolargerindividual,whowaswedgedintotheavailablespace.ironnails foundinassociationwithnichesuggestthatthebodywasdepositedonawoodenbier and/orawoodenplankcoveredtheentrancetotheniche.unlikealltheotherburialsinthe semi chambertombs,thistombdidnotfeatureafunerarybedcarvedintothefloorofthe niche. Asisthecasewithsemi chambertomb1,thereisnoevidencethatanythingcoveredthe entranceofthetomb.itispossiblethatawoodenplankortumulusmarkedtheburial,but thisisimpossibletodetermine.ifacoveringhadexisted,andremainedvisibleintotheend ofthefifthcentury,itmayhavebeendestroyedbytheconstructionoftheroadsurface(sus 3049and3053).Theroad,constructedduringthecity'sreorganizationinthelatefifthor earlyfourthcentury,completelycoveredthistomb,andmayhavecontributedtothepartial collapseofthewesternniche. Tomb30 Tomb30(fig.6.36)istheburialofaninfantinadolium,locatedimmediatelyoutsidethe northernextentofthecurvedwall(2219).thedolium(su3006)wasdepositedinacutin thebedrockandarrangedinaw/eorientation,withthemouthofthejaratthewest.aslab oftuffcoveredthelidofthevessel.thedoliumwasmadeofimpastorossoanddiscovered partiallycollapsed.muchofthejarsurvives,however,andmeasuresabout38cminheight and30cmindiameteratthemouth.thebonesoftheinfantwerefounddisarticulatedand awaitfurtherstudyinthe2014season.thisburialisdifficulttodate,sincethistypeof doliumwasinusefrom B.C.E.,andnodiagnosticfragmentsofpotterywere discoveredinassociationwiththeburial.ithasbeensuggestedthatthetombdatestothe lateseventhandearlysixthcenturies,onthegroundsthatitislocatedinacutinthe bedrockthatappearsrelatedtoanearlierphaseofoccupation. 745 Thiscannotbe determinedonthebasisofthestratigraphyoroftheceramicmaterials,however.thistype ofburialiscommoninlatiumintheironageandarchaicperiods,andcouldeasilybelong toeitherperiod.thesetypesofburialsaregenerallyassociatedwithdomesticcontexts, and,assuch,thisburialcouldjustasreadilybeassociatedwiththeconstructionofwall 2219oreventheearlierphaseofthebuilding.Thisconclusionmaybeemendedafter continuedexcavationofthelateorientalizinglayersofthesite. 745 MogettaandBecker2014,

197 Tomb48 Tomb48isajuvenileburialafossa,situatedinthesoutheastcornerofareaD(fig.6.37). Thepreciserelationshipofthisburialtothearchaicbuildingisuncertain,asthereisno directstratigraphicrelationshipbetweenthem.however,theburialconformstothe generalpatternwherebytombsarelocatedalongtheperipheryofthebuilding. Thedimensionsofthetrenchare1.91x0.61m,withadepthof0.37m(SU3149).The skeletonwasdepositedinthesupineposition,inan/sorientationwiththeheadatthe south.preliminaryosteologicalanalysissuggeststheinhumedwasachild,aged1 2years. Thisburialisnotableforthepresenceofgravegoods:twoolleweredepositedinthegrave, oneatthehead,andanotheratthefeetoftheburial.thefirstjar,ofgreybucchero,was foundneartheskullinthesoutheastcornerofthetombanddatesfrom B.C.E.(SU 3156);thesecond,ofimpasto,wasfoundatthefeetofthedeceasedanddatesfrom B.C.E.(SU3157).Anironfibulawasdiscoverednearthejawbone,andrepresentsthe personalaccoutrementsofthedeceased(su3160).imagesoftheseitemsarecurrently unavailable;thepotsareawaitingresidueanalysisandthebotanicalanalysisoftheir contents.apaintedblackandredtilewasarrangedasagravemarkeratthetopofthe tombfill.therestofthefilldatesfrom ,B.C.E.,andthetombprobablydatesfrom thelastquarterofthesixthcenturytothemid fifth. Tomb49 Tomb49containstheinhumationofaninfant,possiblyafoetusorneonate,inadolium(fig. 6.38).Thejar(SU3232)wasdepositedhorizontallyintheground,inalignmentwithawall thatrunsinanorthwest southeastdirection(su3237).therelationshipbetweenthiswall andthearchaiccomplexiscurrentlyundeterminedandawaitsfurtherexcavation.thejar wastruncatedhorizontallypriortoexcavation.themouthofthejarwasopenatthewest andclosedbysmallstones.thevesselmeasures25cminlengthand22cmindiameterat themouth.theskeletalremainsweredisarticulatedatthetimeofdiscovery,butitremains clearthattheskullwasdepositedattheeatthefootofthevessel.thebonesawait osteologicalanalysis.thefilloftheburialandthedoliumdatethelayeranywherefrom B.C.E. Discussion ItispossibletomakeafewgeneralobservationsabouttheburialsinareaD.First,itisclear thattheburialsweremadesometimeafterthearchaicbuildinghadfallenoutofusearound theendofthesixthcenturyandbeforethereorganizationofthecityinthelatefifth.thisis suggestedbytheconstructionoftheroadattheendofthefifthorbeginningofthefourth century,andissupportedbytheceramicmaterialsfromthefillofthetombs,whichdateno laterthan400b.c.e.itisdifficulttodeterminepreciselyhowlongthebuildingremained unusedbeforetheareawasfirstusedasaburialground,butitseemsthatithadundergone somedegreeofdecay.thestratigraphicsequenceindicatesthatthebuildinghadpartially collapsedbeforetheconstruction,atleastofsemi chambertomb1,butpossiblytheother tombsaswell.atanyrate,itseemsthatthewallsofthebuildingwerevisibleatthetimeof 180

198 tombconstruction,asthetombs,thetoplevelsofthewalls,andthecollapsewerecovered bythesamelayerofcolluvialsilt. Second,allofthetombscontainingadultburialswereconstructedbycuttingdeeptrenches intothevolcanicbedrock;afterthis,twobasictombtypesareattested,themonolithic sarcophagusandthesemi chambertomb.thesarcophagusfindsclosecomparisoninsize andmaterialswithexamplesprimarilyinrome;thesemi chambertombs,however,are uniquefortheirdimensionsandtype.tomyknowledge,therearenootherattested examplesofsemi chambertombsincentralitalyduringthearchaicperiod.thetwo examplesatgabiirepresentacombinationoftombtypes:theyhavenicheswithfunerary bedsinamannersimilartochambertombs,butareconstructedinamannersimilarto trenchtombs,wherebyapitisdugintothebedrock.thegabiisemi chambersaremuch largeranddeeperthantrenchtombsattestedelsewhereinthetimeandregion.atgabii, thesemi chambertombscontainthemajority(five)oftheadultinhumations. Thethirdandfourthpointsconcerntheorientationofthedeceasedandthespatial distributionofthetombs.alloftheadultinhumationsandthechildburialafossa(t.48) werearrangedinan/sorientation,withtheheadlocatedatthesouth.withregardtothe burials,allarelocatedwithinthepresumedlimitsofthearchaiccity;ifthelimitsofgabii didnotcontractattheendofthesixthcentury,thenitseemsthattheareadburialsattest tothepracticeofintramuralburial. Finally,itisworthnotingthattheareaDburialsconformtotheevidenceforfuneraryritual inarchaicromeandlatium,asdocumentedinchapter5.theyarefewinnumberand containnogravegoods;notable,too,istheabsenceofburialatgabiifromthefirsthalfof thearchaicperiod,c B.C.E. Thespatialdistributionoftheadultinhumationburialsappearsinassociationwiththe remainsofthearchaicbuilding.allthetombsareclusteredinandaroundthenorthernhalf oftheremainsofthestructure.semi chambertomb1islocatedbetweenenclosurewall 2219andwall3014ofroom1.Thesoutheastcornerofthemaincutofthischamberaligns withtheouternorthwestcorneroftheroom.theeastniche(t.38)isevencutbeneaththe limitofwall3014.semi chamber2wasestablishedalongthesamelimitastheouter, easternedgeofenclosurewall3067.thewesternniche(t.41)undercutthewalltothe pointthat,overthecourseofexcavation,portionsofthewallwereatriskofsubsidinginto thefillofthetombandwereconsequentlyremoved.thereisnodirectrelationship betweentheremainsofthebuildingandt.25,themonolithicsarcophagus,however. Althoughitislocatedonlyabout1mwestofsemi chambertomb1,thetombcutcannotbe associatedwithanypreexistingarchitecturalfeatureinthearea. ThespatialdistributionofthetombsinareaDcanbeinterpretedinoneoftwoways.Itis possiblethattheirarrangementandconstructionwashaphazard,perhapstheresultof squattersmovingintotheareaafterthebuildinghadfallenoutofuse.thevisiblestructural featuresmayhavefunctionedassomekindofstructuralsupportfortheconstructionofthe tombs,orservedasafunerarymarkerwithoutanyparticularsymbolicsignificance.inthe absenceofanyevidenceforacovering,thewallsmayhavebeentheonlymeansof 181

199 identifyingthetombs.thishypothesisrestsontheassumptionthattherewasnothought putintotheorganizationanduseoftheareaasaburialground.thissituationimpliesthat thecityunderwentsomestageofdecaytowardtheendofthefifthcenturythatallowedfor theuseoftheareaasanadhoccemetery.theencroachmentoftombsinurbanareasis oftenunderstoodasasignofthecollapseofsociopoliticalinstitutionsandtakenas evidenceforthecontractionofcities.inthiscase,thetransformationofareadintoaburial groundinthelatesixthtomid fifthcenturymayrepresentaphaseofdeurbanizationat Gabii,whichcametoanendwiththereorganizationofthecityinthelatefifthcentury.I returntothisbelow. However,thereisevidencetosuggestthattheuseofareaDasaburialgroundwas deliberate,planned,andtheresultofsomeauthorityorgroupeffort.inthefirstplace,all thetombsareconstructedinmoreorlessthesamemanner,involvingdeeptrenchescut intothebedrock.whatismore,thetwosemi chambertombsconsistofaquadrangular mainchamberthatisaccessiblefromthetopsurfaceonlyandcontainsseveralnicheswith funerarybedscarvedintothefloor.inbothcasesthereisevidencethatwoodenplanks coveredtheentrancestotheniches;thesamewerelikelyusedinordertodepositthe bodiesintothetombs.theorientationofalltheburialsinareadisconsistent,with exceptionofthetwosuggrundaria(t.30and49),whichpointstosomeacknowledged groupcustom.thisfindssomecomparisonwiththeburialsatsatricum,wheretheburials ontheacropolis,southwestnecropolisandatpoggiodeicavallariarethoughttorepresent distinctburialgroupsand/orlocalpractices. 746 ThesituationatGabiimayfindsupportintherelationshipbetweenaresidenceandburials atacquaacetosalaurentina. 747 Here,onechamberandonesemi chambertombwere constructedinthecollapsedremainsofacomplexofstonebuildings.thestructural remainsweredividedintotwogroupsbyacanalorroad. 748 Inoneofthesegroups(V), Bedinidiscoveredanumberoffeaturesassociatedwithdomesticuse,whichallowedhim tointerprettheremainingstructuresaspartofadomesticcomplex.thepresenceofa suggrundariumandfragmentsofpotteryseemedconsistentwiththisinterpretation.the twoburialswerelocatedinthepost abandonmentphasesofoneofthestructuresonthe othersideofthecanal(vii).itisunclearwhethertheconstructionofthegraves contributedtooroccurredshortlyafterthecollapseofthebuilding,butthereisadirect relationshipbetweentheconstructionofthetombandtheabandonmentoftheresidence. AllfeaturesbelongtotheArchaicperiod,althoughthetombsaredatedmorepreciselyto thefirsthalfofthefifthcentury.whatevertheprecisesequenceofevents,thereisaclear connectionbetweenthecomplexandthetombs,whichbedinisuggestsmarksthedesireof theburialgroupstoestablishand/ormaintainaconnectionnotjusttotheagricultural landscape,buttoamonumentalstructurewithinthatlandscape.hestatesthatthe building,duringitstimeofoccupation,wouldhavebeenacommandingfeatureinthe region,onethatlikelymarkeditsoccupantsasindividualsofconsiderablewealthand 746 SeetheabovediscussionaboutSatricuminChapter Bedini(1981b,1983). 748 Bediniisunclearregardingthetimewhenthecanalwasfilledupandusedasaroad. 182

200 status.thetransformationofthisareaintoasmallburialgroundmayhavehada commemorativefunctionthattiedtheoccupantsofthetombtothoseofthebuilding. ItispossibletointerprettheareaDbuildinginthislightandsuggestthattheremainsof thestructureretainedsomesymbolicsignificanceforthegroup(orgroups)buriedthere later.post processualistarchaeologicaltheoryplacesspecialimportanceonthelocationof thedeadasoneofthemostvisiblecomponentsoffuneraryritual,asameansthrough whichsocietiesmoldedtheirrelationshipstotheirancestors,thelandandtheliving. 749 Thus,thedecisionofwheretoburythedeadisnotdeterminedsolelyonthebasisof efficiency,butisgovernedbytheperceivedrelationshipbetweenthedeceased,thefamily, theareaandthepeoplelivinginit.althoughthedecisiontoconstructtombsintheremains ofthebuildinginareadmayhavebeendesignedtoexpresssuchideas,itisdifficultto determinetheprecisenatureoftheconnectionbetweenthedeceased,thebuildingandthe area.thetombsmayrepresentkingroupswhoclaimeddescentfromtheoccupantsofthe housesormarkthereappropriationoftheareabyothergroupsnotpartofthislineage. 750 BothRenfrewandHodderclaimthatburialsandritualsarelinkedtoasociety'sconcern withlegitimizingthecontroloverresources. 751 Inthisview,thereisacloserelationship betweenhouses,burialandlandownership.burialmaybeawayofmaintainingcontrol overtheland;ifthematerialsusedfortheconstructionofhousescanbefoundnearby, thereisnoreasonfortombsnottobeeither.regardlessofwhethertheareadbuildingcan beinterpretedasaresidence,thereiscertainlyacloserelationshipbetweenthestructure, itsmasonryandthetombs.thetuffusedintheconstructionofthebuilding,lapisgabinus, wascertainlyquarriednearby,perhapsintheimmediateareaofthecomplex;thetombs, fortheirpart,aredugintothesamebedrockintheremainsofthebuilding.inthisway,the tombsofareadarenotsimplyaplacetodepositthedead,butarepresentationofthe group'scontrolovereconomicandhumanresources. Metaphoricalconnectionsbetweenhousesandtombsarecommoninmodernscholarship, wherebytombsareperceivedasthehousesofthedead. 752 Thisistheprevailingviewofthe chambertombsofetruria,whosearchitectureisthoughttoreplicatethehousesofthe living. 753 Morerecently,Rivahasunderstoodthemonumental,multiburialtombsasalink betweenthehouse,thefamilygroupandlandownership.shearguesthat,duringthe Orientalizingperiod,thehouse,thefamilyandthelandbecamethesymboliclanguage throughwhichpoliticalauthoritywasexpressed,andthatthiswasarticulatedbythe widespreadadoptionofthechambertombandgravegoodspertainingtothefunerary 749 ParkerPearson1999, Foracomparativestudy,seeParkerPearsonontheBronzeAgeMinoantombsinCrete (1999,129 30). 751 Renfrew1984;Hodder ParkerPearson1999, Riva(2009,109)offersabriefreviewofthescholarship.SeePrayon(1989)forthe conventionalinterpretationandnaso(2001,35)forabriefcriticism. 183

201 banquet. 754 WithregardtoLatium,itispossibletoconnectthehuturntoasimilar phenomenon.thehuturnisaceramicvesselmadeintheimageofahut,witharoofanda door,andisdesignedtoholdthecrematedremainsofthedeceased.itisconsidereda markeroflatialcultureduringtheironage,aregionalvariantofthebiconicalurnsused bythevillanovanculture.huturnsarethoughttorepresentmoreorlessaccuratelythe IronAgedwellingsofcentralItaly, 755 andinthegravesoftheironagecemeteryatosteria dell'osa,arethoughttobemarkershighstatus. 756 Colantonievensuggeststhatthehut representsasingledeceasedindividual,insupportofherargumentthathutswere occupiedbyoneortwoindividuals; 757 inthecaseofosteriadell'osa,alloftheseburials weremale. ThattheterritoryoccupiedbyareaDandthestructuresinitweresomehowsignificantis suggestedbytheabsenceofoccupationintheareaduringthelaterphasesofdevelopment atgabii.duringthereorganizationofthecityinthelatefifthorearlyfourthcentury,the areaseemstohavebeenincorporatedintothenewurbangrid,butneversubstantially reoccupied.aseriesofn/srunningroadswereestablishedatregularintervalsaspartof theneworthogonallayout.road2(fig.6.7),whichcoverssemi chambertomb2,marksthe boundarybetweenareascandd;similarthoroughfareshavebeenidentifiedacrossthe site,whichseemtodesignatecity blocks.areasbandcaredelimitedbytwosuchroads, and,around200b.c.e.,revealevidenceforwidespreadconstruction,probablyofcourtyard houses(figs.6.6and6.10). 758 Therearenoplanscurrentlytoexcavatebeneaththefloorsof thesesurfacesinordertoinvestigatethelayerslikelyassociatedwiththelatefifththrough thirdcenturies.inareaf,however,thereisevidenceformonumentalconstructionduring thisotherwiseundocumentedperiodonsite:excavationin uncovereda buildingofconsiderableproportionsthatdatesfromabout B.C.E.Interpretationof thestructureanditsrelationshiptotheotherphasesofoccupationatgabiiawaitsfurther excavationandanalysis.nevertheless,itisstrikingthatareadshowsnoevidenceof constructionatallintheseperiodsofwidespreadbuildingactivity.evenguaitolimadethe observationinhissurveyatgabiithat,despitetheevidencefordenseoccupationinthe urbanareaduringtheearlyandmiddlerepublicanperiods,certainareasseemtohave beenleftopenandempty. 759 Itseemsthatthatthisareawassetapartfromtherest,and deliberatelywithdrawnfromthoseareasofthecitywhereconstructionwasallowedto takeplace. 754 Riva(2009,72 140).TheearliestchambertombsincentralItalyappearatEtruscan sitesintheeighthcentury.theywerealsotherichest,suggestingthatthistombtypewas theprerogativeoftheelite.bytheseventhcenturyitbecomesthemostcommontypeof burialinsouthetruria;inthenorth,theuseofthechambertombisneverfullyrealized. 755 Bartolonietal BiettiSestieri1992b, Colantoni2012, MogettaandBecker2014, Guaitoli1981a. 184

202 WithregardtothestatusandrankoftheindividualsburiedinareaD,itispossibleto suggesttheywerefairlyhighrankingmembersofthecommunity. 760 Therock cuttrenches thatconstitutethebasisforallthreetombsrequiresignificanthumanandeconomic resources.theabsenceofanysurveythatquantifiesthecostoftombconstructioninthis periodmakesprecisecalculationdifficult,butitispossibletomakesomegeneral observations.thelaborrequiredintheconstructionofthesetombsisinsomeways comparabletothatinvolvedintheconstructionofstonebuildings,asoutlinedabove. Constructionwouldhavelikelytakenseveraldays.Itcertainlyinvolvedthecuttingofdeep trenchesintothebedrock;thetuffwouldhavetoberemovedandtransported(possibly reused)elsewhere.theconstructionoffunerarybedsinbothchambertombspointstothe workofspecialists,asdoesthepreparationofwoodenplanksfordepositingthedeceased, enclosingtheniches,andpossiblycoveringtheentrancetothetomb.themonolithic sarcophaguswouldalsohaverequiredspecialistlabor,anditsresemblancetoexamples elsewhereinlatiumandromesuggeststhatthiswasacommonlyproducedformofburial. Whetherthesetombscamefromthesamesourcehasnotyetbeendetermined;tomy knowledge,nosamplinghasbeenconductedonthetuffsarcophagitodeterminetheir source.inallcases,thedepositionofthedeceasedandthesarcophagusintothetombs wouldhaveinvolvedasystemofleversandrollers. TheabsenceofgravegoodsfromtheareaDburialsisinkeepingwiththefunerary practicesofarchaicromeandlatium.asdiscussedinchapter5,theburialsfromthistime andregionarecharacterizedbythelownumberofgravesanddearthofgravegoods. 761 Thereductioninmaterialisoftenunderstoodwithinthecontextofthefunerarylegislation ofthetwelvetables,whichregulatedandrestrictedbehavioratfunerals.mostscholars believetheselawswereestablishedwithaviewtoreducingostentatiousdisplaysofwealth amongtheeliteandencouragingisopoliteia.althoughiconsideritunlikelythatthe patternsvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecordcanbeexplainedbytheimpositionoffunerary legislation,itneverthelessseemsthatthesetombsaretheburialsofthearistocraticelite. ThegravesatGabiiarehardlyrepresentativeoftheresidentpopulation.Thethreetombs inareadhavesevenburialsbetweenthemandcoveramaximumtimespanof75years. Thiscannothaverepresentedtheprobablenumberofdeathsexperiencedbyapopulation ofabout2500inthesixthandmid fifthcenturies,ascalculatedbyampolo. 762 Theabsenceofaburialgroundrepresentativeofthecommunitysuggeststhatthemajority ofthepopulationatgabiiweredeniedsuchformsofvisibleofburial.thisconclusionis drawnfrommorris'analysisoftheburialplotsfromathens,inwhichhearguesthatthe decreaseinthearchaeologicalvisibilityofburialspointstotheexclusionofthemajorityof thepopulationfromformalburial,andthataccesstoformalburialwasdeterminedonthe basisofrank. 763 TheevidencefromGabiiseemstocorrespondtothecriteriaMorris proposes,whichstipulatethatdifferentiationofthedeceasedislimitedwhenarestricted 760 MogettaandBecker2014, SeeChapter Ampolo Morris

203 numberofgroupsarepermittedparticipationinfuneraryritual.thisseemsbroadlytrueof thegabiiburials,whichshowlittlevariation:mostcontainadultinhumationsintombs designedformultipleburials,andhavenogravegoods. ThisconclusionfindssomesupportintheburialevidencefromtherestofarchaicLatium, whichisnotableforthereducedquantityofgravesandthenearlycompleteabsenceof gravegoods.thistheoryquicklyfallsapart,however,whentakingintoaccountthevariety oftombtypesemployedintheareaatthetime,andthefewexamplesofexceptionally wealthyburials.ifanything,thisdemonstratesthedifficultyofidentifyingsociopolitical structuresbasedonthearchaeologicalevidence,anddiscouragesthewidespread applicationofsuchmodels.however,thefundamentalcomponentofthishypothesisseems true,namelythatonlycertainmembersatgabiiwerepermittedformaltypesofburial, specificallythosekindspermittedintheurbanarea.withregardtotherestofthe population,itseemstheyreceivedinformalorinvisibletypesofburial.thereisno evidencefromgabiiofwhatcomprisedthismodeofburial,butmorris,whenconsidering thesameproblem,suggestedexposure,massburialsinpitsandcasualcremation,onthe basisofevidencerecoveredfromotherethnographic,archaeologicalandhistorical evidence. 764 Otherwise,itisdifficulttodeterminewheretherestofthepopulationwas buried,sincethereissimplynoevidence.notable,too,istheabsenceforanyburialatgabii fortheperiodof B.C.E.;itisequallydifficulttospeculatewhatwashappeningat thistime. Therearetwolinesofevidenceatourdisposaltoobtainsomeidea,howeverhypothetical, ofwhowasburiedinaread.inbothcases,itseemsthatconnectionstodescentgroupsand landownershipwereimportantfactorsindeterminingaccesstotheburialground.thefirst lineofevidencecomesfromtheliterarysourcesregardingthesocialorganizationofearly RomeandLatium.Thisconcernsthegens,which,asnotedabove,mayhaveextendedits authorityoverlandownershiptotheuseofburialgrounds.asregardsthearchaeological evidencefortheemergenceofgentilicialstructures,thesubjectisopentowidelyvarying interpretations. 765 However,theevidencefromthesiteofOsteriadell'Osa,anIronAge cemeterylocatedsome1.5kmnorthwestofgabii,mayprovidesomeinsightrelatingtothe structuralorganizationofthearchaiccity(fig.6.3).theevidencefromtheironage necropolisrevealstheemergenceofacomplexsocietythat,overthecourseoftheninth throughseventhcenturies,demonstratesanincreasingtendencytowarddisplaysofgroup identity. 766 TheearliestphasesofthecemeterycorrespondtoLatialphasesIIAandIIB(c B.C.E.)andrevealtheemergenceoftwodistinctburialgroups,theso callednorthand Southgroups(fig.6.39). 767 BiettiSestiericlaimsthesegroupsrepresenttheburialactivities 764 Morris1987, SeetherecentsummaryinSmith(2006,144 63),forinstance. 766 Smith(2006)providesarecentaccountofthearchaeologicalandliteraryevidencefor thegens. 767 BiettiSestieri1992b. 186

204 oftwoextendedfamilies,eachwiththeirownfunerarytraditions.basedonthespatial distributionoftheburials,andthegravegoodsfoundinthem,itseemsthatindividual distinctionswereaccordedonthebasisofgenderandage,althougheachgroupexpressed thesedifferently.inbothgroups,thegraveswereorientedaroundapairofmalecremation burialsthatareconsideredhigh statusonthebasisoftheircentrallocationandthe presenceofauniquesetofgravegoods,includinghut urns,miniatureweaponsandknives. Theseobjectsseemtofunctionasindicatorsofprestige,roleandstatus,whichemphasize thepatriarchalandpatrilinealdescentofeachburialgroup.otherwise,thetypesofgrave goodsincludedintheburialswereconsistent,andeachgrouphaditsownpreferences, thusmaintaininggroupidentity.asregardsthesocialstructureofthesettlement,bietti Sestiericoncludesthattheproximityofbothgroupsandtheabsenceofanykindofvisible boundarybetweenthempointstotheabsenceofastrong,centralizedauthority,and revealsthatuseofthecemeterywasbasedlargelyonthecooperationofthesefamily groups. 768 DuringthefollowingperiodIII(c /20B.C.E.),changesinthedistributionofgraves andgravegoodssignalashiftintheemphasisoffuneraryritualfromtheindividualtothe group(fig.6.40). 769 AtthebeginningofLatialphaseIIIA(c B.C.E.),anewgrave clusteremergessome50mawayfromthefirsttwogroups.alltheburialswithinthis clusterarearrangedaroundacentralpairofmale femaleburialsthatseemstofunctionas thefocusofthegroup'sspatialorganization.theconcentrationofthetombsinarestricted areapointstoanemphasisonthegroup,andadesiretomaintainconnectionswiththe otherindividualsburiedthere.overthecourseofphaseiiib(c /20B.C.E.), however,thereisadramaticreductioninthenumberofgravesandanincreaseinthe clusteringofburialsingroupscomprisedoftwotothreeunits.thesesmallerburial clustersarefoundinlocationssuperimposedonoradjacenttoearlierburials,or interspersedamongdenserareas.allthewhile,theymaintainaspatialdistributionthat connectsthemtothecentralmale femalepairfromlatialphaseiiia.overthecourseofthe entireperiodthereislittleconsistencyinthetypesofgravegoodsgivenaccordingtoage andsex.itappearsasthoughindividualdistinctionhasdiminished,seeminglyreplacedby anemphasisongroupidentity. DuringLatialphasesIVAandIVB(c.730/20 580B.C.E.)theevidencepointstothe increasinglyrestricteduseofthecemeterybysmallgroups(fig.6.39). 770 Thereisa dramaticdiminutioninthenumberofgraves,anirregularpatternofspatialdistribution, andananomalousdistributionofgenderandagegroups.inaperiodspanningabout150 years,thereareonlyseventyburials,whichcannotberepresentativeoftheresident population.theseburialsarefoundlooselyscatteredoverthecemetery,eitherinisolation, orinplotsthataresharplydefinedandconsistoftwotofourgraves.theonlyexceptionis 768 BiettiSestieri1992b,160.Smith(2006,147 50)hasrecentlychallengedthisview.He adoptsmorris'model(1987),asidohere,andbelievesthattheearlyironageburialsat Osteriadell'Osarepresentnotthegravesanegalitariansociety,butonealreadystratified. 769 BiettiSestieri1992b, BiettiSestieri1992b,

205 thelateorientalizingchambertomb(t.62,fig.6.41),whichcontainedtheburialsofat leastthirteenindividuals.mostburialsinthecemeterywereofadultsandmatureadults, andmostofthesegravescontainedahighnumberofprestigeitems.thesecharacteristics appearinthecemeteryatthesametimeassettlementconcentratesalongthesoutheast slopesofthecastiglionecrater,intheareathatlaterbecomestheurbancenterofarchaic Gabii. ThepatternsobservedintheuseofthecemeteryatOsteriadell'Osaseemdetectableinthe areadburialgroundofarchaicgabii.first,thereisgoodevidencethataccesstotheuseof theareawasrestricted,asthereareonlysevenadultinhumationsrecordedoveraseventyfiveyeartimespan.thisseemsinkeepingwiththedecreasingnumberofgravesatosteria dell'osafromtheeighthcenturyonward.second,theburialsatgabiidemonstrateadesire tomaintaingroupidentityonseverallevels.eachofthetombgroupsatgabiicontains multipleinhumations,whichsuggeststhatthereexistssomerelationshipbetweenthe individualsinthetomb.thetypeofevidenceprovidedfromadnaanalysiswould determinewhetherornotthesewerefamilialconnections,butintheabsenceofthis information,itisimportanttoconsiderthattheymayhavealsobeenanycombinationof social,economicorreligiousrelationships.whatismore,thetombgroupsseemconnected tooneanotherbytheirshareduseofareadasaburialground.althoughitistechnically possiblethatwall3067obscuredtheburialsinsemi chambertomb2fromthoseinsemichambertomb1andtomb25,ifinditunlikelythattheburialsweremadeatrandom.the consistentuseofrock cuttrenchesintheconstructionoftheseburials,thepresenceoftwo semi chambertombsandthedepositionofallburialsinan/sorientationsuggeststhat burialinthisareawastheresultofsomecoordinated,groupeffort.theclusteringofthese tombsinthenorthhalfofareadmayrecallthesituationatosteriadell'osa,wherethefew burialsoftheorientalizingphaseareclusteredintosmallgroups,mostofwhicharelocated inthepreviouslyoccupiedportionsofthecemetery.third,theburialsatgabiiseemto establishaconnectionwiththearchaicbuilding,asthecentralfeatureofthearea.the spatialdistributionofthesetombgroupsrecallstheevidencefromosteriadell'osa, wherebytheburialsinallphases(thoughthisisespeciallytrueofphasesiiandiii),are orientedaroundacentralfeature,typicallyacentralpairofburials. BiettiSestiericonnectstheemergenceofgroupsandsubgroupsinthecemeterytotherise ofgentilicialsocietyintheeighthcentury. 771 ShesuggeststhatthetransitionfromLatial phaseiibtoiiiaatosteriadell'osawasaperiodcharacterizedbythedeclineofthetwofamilysystemandtheriseofanewsocialstructuremadeupofseveraldistinctdescent groups.thesenewlineageswereincompetitionwithoneanother,andthosethatwonthe strugglebecamethegentes,thenewaristocrats,whilethedefeatedlinesbecamethe clientes.althoughthereismuchtobedebatedhere,particularlybiettisestieri'sargument regardingthestrugglebetweengentesandclientes,theidentificationoftheseburialgroups asevidenceforthedevelopmentofcomplexsocialstructuresiscompelling. 772 The 771 BiettiSestieri1992b, BiettiSestieri's(1992b,241)conclusionsregardingtheconflictbetweenthegentesand clientesarederivedfromherobservationsofthedisparityinwealthandstatusfromthe 188

206 archaeologicalevidencefortherapidmonumentalizationofromeandlatiumpointstothe existenceofsuchsophisticatedsociopoliticalinstitutionsasthegens.bothurbanandrural sitesrevealevidenceforstonebuiltstructuresasearlyasthelateseventhcentury,andthis constructionactivityintensifiesoverthecourseofthesixth,tothepointthatmostcities duringthisperiodhaveacquiredmanyofthearchitecturalcharacteristicsofurban centers. 773 Thissuggeststhat,bythebeginningofthesixthcentury,thereexistedinthe citiesoflatiumalevelsociopoliticalorganizationcapableofmobilizingtheeconomic resourcesforlarge scaleconstruction.consequently,ifthelegalandhistoricalsourcesare correctincharacterizingthegensasanearlyformofsocialorganization,basedonadeeply intertwinedandcomplexgroupstructurethatvariedinnatureandcohesion,onecan tentativelysuggestthatthisisvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecordatgabii. Thisisahighlydebatableconclusion,andperhapsevenaquestionableuseoftheevidence, butitisworthconsideringbrieflytheevidenceforthegensatgabii,sincethistypeof discussionoffersoneofthefewmeansofunderstandingthecompositionanddevelopment ofearlyromansocieties.ihavearguedthusfarthattheevidencefromareadrevealsa significanttractoflandthatwitnessedtwophasesofuseduringthearchaicperiod,firstas alocusofstoneconstruction,possiblyofaresidence,thenasaburialground.if landownershipwastheprerogativeofthegens,whoseleaderscontrolledaccesstothe land,thenitispossiblethatthelandrepresentedbyareadwascontrolledbyonesuch group(ordifferentgroupsovertime).thisisnottosaythattheclanleadersphysically occupiedthespaceduringeitherphasesofuse,onlythattheydictatedwhowasgranted accesstothisspace,whetherforresidentialorfuneraryactivity. Inthiscase,thepreoccupationwithissuesrelatedtoinheritanceandthesignificance attachedtothepreservationofthegroupmayofferinsightintotheburialpatternsofthe area.theburialsinareadarefewinnumber,whichiclaimpointstotherestricteduseof thisspace,probablybyelitegroups(ordifferentbranchesofoneelitegroup),thoughthis identificationisnotnecessary.eachofthesetombgroupsseemstofosteragroupidentity onseveraldifferentlevels:first,inrelationtotheotherinhumationsinthetomb;second,in relationtotheothertombgroupsinthearea;andthird,inrelationtotheremainsofthe previouslyoccupiedarchaicbuilding.whatismore,theconsistentn/sorientationofthe inhumationsandthesamemethodofconstructionusedforalltombspointstosomekind ofcoordinatedgroupeffort.theemphasisongroupidentityinareadfindscomparisonin periodiiiburials.accordingtoher,thegenteswererepresentedbythoseburialsthat containedgravegoods,andtheclientesbythosethatdidnotcontaingravegoods.thishas beencriticizedelsewheresmith(2006,147 50).Herviewregardingtheevidenceforthe genscanbecontrastedwithwaarsenburg'sstudyofsatricum(1995). 773 Smith(2005)demonstrateshowmuchofthediscourseconcerningurbandevelopment inearlyromefocusesonidentifyingthemomentwhenromebecomesurban.thatisto say,whenromerevealsevidenceforthekindsofcharacteristicsindicativeofacity.that "urbanmoment",ashecallsit,isdirectlytiedtothetypeandnumberofmonumental structuresthatappearinthearchaeologicalrecord.terrenatoandmotta(2006),too,weigh inonthenatureofthisdebate. 189

207 thearchaeologicalevidencefromthecemeteryatosteriadell'osa,wherethereis increasingevidence,beginningintheeighthcentury,fortheemergenceofdistinct subgroups.smallnumbersofburialsseemtobeincreasinglyclusteredtogether,and occupylocationsinrelationtosome(possibly)ancestralgrouporburialground;allof thesefeaturesarethoughttorevealtheshiftintheemphasisoffuneraryritualawayfrom theindividualandtowardthegroup. 774 Ifthiscanbetakenasevidenceforagentilicialsociety,whoseleaderscontrolledthe allotmentofland,includingthatinaread,thenitseemsthattheseauthoritiesexertedafair degreeofautonomyincontrollingtheurbanlayoutofarchaicgabii.gens basedland distributionhasbeenarguedatthemorerurallocationoftheauditoriumsite,northof Rome,wherethereisevidenceforthecontinualoccupationofaneliteresidentialbuilding fromthearchaicthroughtheimperialperiod. 775 Terrenatohasrecentlyarguedthatthe cooperationofandconflictbetweenvariousgentescontributeddirectlytotheriseofthe Romanstate. 776 Thesegroupsrealizeditwastotheiradvantagetosetasidemutually accessibleareasofinteraction(i.e.thecity)soasbesttopreservetheirpropertyand ensurethesuccessofthegroup.thisfarfromprecludedconflictbetweengentilicial groups,whichtheancientsourcesindicateoccurredonaregularbasiswellintothe Republicanperiod.Whatthissuggests,fromadifferentperspective,istherolegensleaders playedindeterminingthelayoutofthecity,asthelikelyownersoflandandtheauthorities behinditsdistribution. TheEvidenceforIntramuralBurial ThelocationoftheareaDburialswithinthelimitsofarchaicGabiicanbeinterpretedin oneoftwoways:asevidenceforthecontractionofthecityorasevidenceforintramural burial.theformerfollowsaconventionallineofinterpretation,whichunderstandsthe presenceofburialsinpreviouslyoccupiedurbanareasasindicationsofthestructural breakdownofthecommunityandthedeurbanizationofthecity. 777 Inthisscenario,graves continuetobelocatedoutsidethecity,andtheirlocationreflectsthenewboundariesofthe 774 ElsewhereatGabii,justsouthoftheTempleofJuno,recentexcavationsbytheSARhave uncoveredanothersmallburialground,characterizedbyaclusteroftombs,includingtwo tuffsarcophagi,twotrenchtombs,andonechambertomb.unfortunately,theresultsof theseexcavationsareunpublished,butpersonalcommunicationatthetimeofexcavation revealedthatthechambertombdatedtothearchaicperiod.thisconfirmsthepresenceof atleastoneotherburialwithinthelimitsofthearchaiccity.althoughthechambertombis clearlyassociatedwiththeotherburials,ihavenotbeenabletodeterminethedateof thosetombs. 775 Terrenato Terrenato ThisisespeciallytrueinstudiesconcerningofRomeinlateantiquity,wherethe appearanceofintramuralburialisthoughttosignalthespreadofchristianityandthe destabilizationofromanimperialpoliticalorganization.see,forinstance,thepapersin BrogioloandWard Perkins(1999). 190

208 settlement.gnadeappliesthislineofthinkingtoherinterpretationofsatricuminthelate sixthandfifthcenturies.followingthedestructionofthetempletomatermatutaonthe acropolis,burialsappearthereandatvariousotherpointswithinthelimitsofthearchaic city.shesuggeststhisreflectstheinvasionandoccupationofthesitebythevolsci,whom theancientaccountsstatedefeatedsatricumintheearlyfifthcentury. 778 ItispossibletounderstandthedevelopmentsatGabiiinthesamelight.Inthiscase,the abandonmentordestructionofthebuildinginthelatesixthcentury,andthesubsequent reoccupationoftheareaasaburialground,maypointtothecontractionofthecityasa resultofsomedisruptiontoitsstructuralorganization.thecorrespondingnarrativefrom theliterarysourcesconcernsthefallofthemonarchyin509b.c.e.,andthevictoryofthe RomansovertheLatinLeagueattheBattleofLakeRegillusatthebeginningofthefifth century. 779 FollowingtheexpulsionofTarquiniusSuperbusfromRome,theformerking mobilizedthesupportofthelatinstatesandledtheminarevoltagainstrome.the rebellioncametoanendatthebattleoflakeregillus,foughtintheneighborhoodofgabii, somewherebetweenromeandtusculum.althoughsomeofthecharactersareclearlythe productofmythandlegend,thedatesarecorrupt,andthenarrativeseemsaromanticized accountofpoliticalrevolt,thebroadoutlineoftheaccountseemstofitthehistorical narrativeregardingthefoundationoftheromanrepublicandthesubsequentroman conquestoflatium. 780 Romandominanceattheendofthesixthcenturymayexplainthe abandonmentordestructionofthearchaicbuildinginaread,aswellasthedestructionof the"regia"atgabii;thismayalsoaccountfortheabandonmentofthebuildingatacqua AcetosaLaurentina.Itisequallypossiblethatsomeinternalconflict,perhapsbetweenrival gentes,contributedtothesedevelopments,butthereislittleindependentevidenceforthis. WhateverledtotheabandonmentordestructionofthebuildingsatGabii,itneednotsignal thecontractionofthecitynorprecludethepresenceofintramuralburial.inthefirstplace, thereisnoevidence,otherthantheburialsthemselves,thatthelimitsofgabiichanged fromthesixthtofourthcenturies.itiscommonpracticeinromanarchaeologytodefine citylimitsaccordingtothepresenceorabsenceofburials,oftenintheabsenceofmore reliableindicatorssuchascircuitwalls.thisisbasedlargelyontheprohibitionagainst intramuralburialandcremationinthetwelvetables,which,whenappliedtothe archaeologicalrecord,aretakentomeanthatburialsmustalwaysbeoutsidethecity. ThereisnoreasontoapplythisconventionalapproachtoGabii,however,sincethereis goodevidencethatthecitywallsremainedinuseuntilsometimeinthethirdcentury Gnade Seep.2,n Cornell(1995,215 41),treatsfullytheaccountsregardingthefoundationoftheRoman Republic,andsummarizesthedivergentopinionsinmodernscholarship.SeealsoOgilvie (1965,285 7). 781 Seeabove,n

209 Whatismore,evenCiceroacknowledgesthat,onoccasion,exceptionsweregranted,and burialswerepermittedwithinthelimitsofthecity. 782 Thisprivilegewasreportedlygiven toindividualswhohaddonesomeserviceforstateortothosewhohadobservedthe practiceofintramuralburialbeforethepromulgationofthelaws.asnotedabove,the burialsinaread,andperhapstheremainingstructuresofthebuilding,werepartially incorporatedintothereorganizationofthecityinthelatefifthcentury.areadwent virtuallyunoccupiedinlaterperiods,asopposedtoareasb,candf,whichallreveal evidenceofextensiveconstructionactivityfromthefourththroughsecondcenturies.the onlyevidenceforredevelopmentinareadistheroadthatcoversthesecondsemi chamber tomb.thedestructionofthegravemayhavebeenanintentional,althoughitisunclearwhy theremainingtwograveswouldhaveremaineduntouched.itispossiblethatonlythe individualsassociatedwiththosetombswereallowedcontinuedcommemoration;thismay suggestthattheindividualsburiedhereweresignificantandpotentiallyhigh ranking. 783 ThereisincreasingarchaeologicalevidencefromRome,whichsuggeststhatintramural burialwaspracticedasearlyastheseventhcentury,thoughrarely. 784 Ontheslopesofthe Palatine,fourseventh centuryinhumationburials(threeadultsafossaandaninfant enchytrismos)werediscoveredinanenclosedarea,inthesamesectorofthehillthatwas occupiedintheeighthcenturybyaportionoffortificationwalls.theidentificationofthe wallseemscertain,asitcorrespondsinmasonryandorientationwithothertractsofthe circuitwallonthepalatine.theportionofthewallunderexcavationstoodforashort periodoftime,perhapscorrespondingtoasinglegeneration,beforeitwasabandonedand destroyed.shortlyafterthisevent,thefourburialsweremadeintheimmediatearea;one ofthegraveswassituateddirectlyabovethedestructionlayerofthefoundationofthewall. Immediatelyaftertheburialsweremade,theareawasdelimitedbyasortofenclosurewall constructedofvertically depositedslabsofcappellacciotuff;aportionofthiswallwasalso locatedabovetheremainsoftheeighth centurycircuitwall.thereisevidencethatthearea underwentadditionalreorganizationatthistime,asaglareateroad,leadingtothetopof thehill,appearstohavebeenconstructed.afifthburial,dugshortlythereafter,truncated thesouthlimitoftheenclosurewall,andwassuperimposedononeoftheearliertombs.on thebasisofthematerialsfoundintheircorredi,thesegravesweredatedbetween725and B.C.E.Inthesecondquarteroftheseventhcentury,andpossiblyoverlappingwith thetimeofthedepositionoftheburials,thecircuitwallwasrebuiltfurtherdownslopeto includeagreaterportionofthehill.thusitseemsthattheseburialswerelocatedwithinin anareathat,intheseventhcentury,wassituatedwithinthecitywalls. Thedirectrelationshipbetweenthedestructionofthewallandtheconstructionofthe tombsissignificant,andfindscomparisonwithevidencefromotherironagesitesinrome. InheranalysisofthestratigraphicsequencefromthePalatine,Galloneclaimsthatthereis 782 Cic.Deleg SeeChapter MogettaandBecker2014, Gallone ;Gusberti Anumberofotherpapersfromthesame volume(bartoloniandbenedettini )presenttheevidenceforburialamongthe livinginironagemediterraneancontexts. 192

210 anundeniableconnectionbetweenthecircuitwallandtheburials,sincethelatterwere constructeddirectlyinthelevelsofthedestructionandobliterationofthewall. 785 She suggeststhattheburialsweremadeaspartofaritualofferinginatonementforthe destructionofasacredstructure.thisritualmayhavebeenconnectedtothe reconstructionofthewallfurtherdownslope,whichseemstohaveoccurredataboutthe sametime.sheconsidersasanalternateexplanationthepracticeofintramuralburial, althoughthesetwohypothesesneednotbemutuallyexclusive.inarelatedstudyofiron AgeburialsatRome,Gusberticlaimsthattombs,particularlythoseofchildrenandinfants, arelocatedinassociationwithbuildingsofsomesignificance. 786 Shecitesasevidencethe discoveryofchildandinfantburialsinthefoundation,destructionandreconstruction levelsofthebuildingidentifiedastheregia,aswellasthefourburialsonthepalatine discussedbygallone.thepresenceofthreeadultinhumationburialsinconnectionwith thedestructionofaportionofthecircuitwall,gusbertibelieveshighlightsthespecial statusofthedeceased;sheconsidersthemsacrificesmadeinordertoatoneforthe violationofthesanctityofthewall.althoughiamdoubtfuloftheidentificationofthese burialsassacrifices,itseemsclearthattheymarkthesignificanceofthewallandits destruction. ThesamephenomenonisvisibleinthearchaiccontextsatGabiiandAcquaAcetosa Laurentina,wherethereisevidenceforadultinhumationburialintheremainsof architecturalfeatures. 787 Onthebasisoftheevidenceoutlinedabove,thisrelationship suggeststhatboththedeceasedandthebuildingweresomehowsignificant.important,too, isthetentativeidentificationofboththesebuildingsasresidences.inthesamepaper, Gusberticlaimsthatjuvenileburialsappearinassociationwithhousesassymbolic markersoftheauthorityofthefamily. 788 Shebelievesthelocationofchildandinfant burialsalongthelimitsofhousesfunctionasevidenceforthedesireofaristocraticfamily groupstodelimittheirareasofhabitation,whichpresumablyfunctionedastheseatof theirauthority.itispossiblethatadultburials,foundinthedestructionlevelsofhouses, mayhaveheldasimilarsignificance.bedini,forhispart,claimedtheburialsatacqua AcetosaLaurentinasignaledthedesireofcertaingroupstoestablishaconnectiontothe areaandthebuilding. 789 AtGabii,atleastoneoftheburialsisbuiltinthecollapsedremains ofthenorthernmostwallsofthebuilding,anditseemslikely,inlightoftheevidence,that theremaininggraveswereconstructedinrelationtothebuilding.thismayevenbewhat 785 Gallone , Gusberti SeeChapter Gusberti Shementionsbrieflythediscoveryofadultinhumationburialsin associationwithhouses,andnotesthattheycontainfewtonogravegoods(gusberti ,640).Althoughshedoesnotdiscussthesefurther,itseemsthatthereisacorrelation, beginningintheironage,betweenalackofgravegoodsandintramuralburial.the implicationsofthisdiscoveryrequirefurtherresearch,however. 789 Bedini1981b;

211 ServiusandIsidoremeantwhentheyclaimeditwascustomamongtheancientstoburythe deceasedathome. 790 Whatremainsunclear,however,isthepreciserelationshipbetweenthedeceasedandthe structures.itispossibletosuggestthatthedeceasedwerethesamegroupastheoccupants ofthebuilding,inthesamemannerasthechildandinfantburials.however,itwouldbe unwisetoruleoutthepossibilitythatthesetombsbelongedtoothergroupsestablishing theirnewclaimtothearea,sincemonumentalformsofburialareoftenconnectedto periodsofconflictorsociopoliticalunrest. 791 Ifthisisthecase,theburialsatGabiimaybe understoodwithinthecontextofthecity'sabsorptionintoromanterritorytowardtheend ofthesixthcentury.thedestructionofthehousemayrepresentthefalloftherulingelite, andtheburialsanattempttoreassertthatauthorityintheadventofromanrule.the Romans,fortheirpart,mayhaverecognizedtheimportanceofthisgroupandallowedthe burialstoremainmostlyintactduringthereorganizationofthecityinthelatefifthcentury. AlthoughthepracticeofburyingadultsathomeandwithincitiesisrareinRomeand Latium,andperhapsconnectedtoritual,theproblemmaybebettercontextualizedwith theevidencefromsouthernitaly.intramuralburialiscommonlyattestedatsites throughouttheregionfromtheseventhtothirdcenturies,andmayevenreflectthe indigenousburialpracticesofthesecommunities.amongthesitesinthemodernregionof Puglia,intramuralburialisanearuniversalfeature. 792 AtthesiteofBotromagno,nearthe moderntownofgravina,buildingsandadultburialsoccupythesettlementareafromthe mid sixththroughearlythirdcenturies(6.42).inaseriesofexcavationsundertakenonthe hilltop,inanareaidentifiedassiteh,theconstructionphasesofatleastthreebuildingsare locatedindirectstratigraphicrelationshipwithburials(fig.6.43). 793 Here,fifthcentury tombstruncateearlierphasesofabuildingthatdatefromthelatesixthtoearlyfifth century;thesamebuildingundergoesasecondandthirdphaseofconstructionintheearly fourthcenturyandtheninthelatefourthtoearlythird.sometimeinthelatefourthtoearly thirdcenturythewallsofthebuildingwererazedtothelowestcourseabovethe foundationlevel,andtheareaincludedinaformalfuneraryenclosure.thesamekindsof superimpositionofphasesofconstructionarevisibleintheothertwobuildingsatthesite. Elsewhere,burialsaremorecommonlyfoundclusteredtogetherinsmallburialgrounds withinthelimitsofthesettlement.thisphenomenonisattestedatanotherexcavated portionofbotrogmagno,sitef,wherethecustomappearsbytheendoftheseventh century,andoccurssimultaneouslywiththepracticeofburyingadultsinassociationwith houses. 794 AtMonteSannace,intramuralburialsappearinmonumentalformswithrich 790 SeeChapter3,sectiond. 791 ParkerPearson1992, Marchi Whitehouseetal.2009, Ciancio1990,239;Small1992,7 9.Onenotablediscoverywasalatethirdcentury courtyardbuilding,constructedoversomemid fourth centurysemi chambertombs.the semi chambertombsatbotromagnoaredifferentfromthoseatgabii.atbotromagnothese 194

212 corrediatthesametimeasthecityadoptsanurbancharacteratthebeginningofthesixth century. 795 Overthecourseofthesixthandfifthcenturies,thecityacquiredthe architecturalfeaturesandspacescommonlyassociatedwithurbancenters,including publicandprivatespacesandbuildings.thisphaseincludedthedevelopmentofcemetery areas,whichappearalongsideresidentialzoneswithinthewallsofthecity.inthefourth andthirdcenturies,whenthecityreacheditsfloruit,theacropoliswasrestructuredto functionasalocusforpublicbuildingsandelaboratefunerarymonuments;otherareasof thesettlementfeaturehousesmixedwithburials. 796 AtCeglie,RuvoandTimmari,burials areallfoundwithinthelimitsofthecityfromthesixthcenturytothelatethirdorearly second;attimmari,theburialsarenotablysuperimposedonphasesofearlierresidential buildings. 797 TherelationshipbetweenthecitiesofsouthernItalyandLatiumrequiresfurther exploration,butforthemomenttheevidenceatleastraisesthepossibilityofintramural burialinlatincontexts,andrevealsacertainconnectionbetweenburialsandbuildings, especiallyhouses.italsosuggeststhatthepresenceofintramuralburialisnotindicativeof thecollapseofthesociopoliticalorganizationofthecity,butinsteadmayhavefunctioned aspartoftheurbanfabric.attheveryleast,thesitesinsouthernitalypresentadifferent modelforunderstandingintramuralburialinromeandlatium,wherebyburialmayhave, atleastinsomecases,playedaroleinthedevelopmentofthecity. 6j.Conclusion InthischapterIpresentedthearchaeologicalevidenceforthearchaicphasesofoccupation recoveredoverthecourseofrecentexcavationsintheurbanareaatgabii.asamemberof thegabiiprojectsince2009ihaveparticipatedinandeventuallyledtheexcavationofthe area.afterpresentingageneraloverviewofthesiteandahistoryofexcavationinthearea, Iofferedadetaileddescriptionofthesite'smainfeaturesandthesequencesrelatedtotheir development.areadrevealstwodistinctphasesofoccupationinthearchaicperiod:first, asanareacharacterizedbyarchitecturalremainsthatihaveinterpretedlooselyasan archaicbuilding.thisbuildingunderwenttwophasesofmonumentalconstruction beginninginthefirsthalfofthesixthcenturyandagaininthemid latesixth.elsewhere, thebuildingistentativelyinterpretedasanelitecomplex,andiconsidertheevidencefor andagainsttheidentificationofthisbuildingasanexampleofelitearchitecture.next, Ipresenttheevidenceforburials,whichrepresentsthearea'ssecondmajorphaseof occupation.ithendiscussthedatawithaviewtounderstandingwhowasburiedinthis areaandwhy.theresultsareinmanywaysinconclusive,but,inanattempttounderstand tombswerebuiltofsquare cutslabsofstoneclosedbylargercutstoneblocks.someof thesesemi chambertombsborepainteddecorationonthewallsofthestructure.the chambertombsalsodifferedfromotherexamplesinlatium,andwasmadeofcutstone blocksandcoveredbyapitchedroof. 795 Marchi2009, Ciancio1990,237, Marchi2009,

213 thearchaeologicalevidence,iinterprettheburialsinlightoftheexistenceofgentilicial structures,whichhavebeenarguedinnearbycemeterycontexts.ialsoconsiderthe evidenceforintramuralburial,highlightingthecross culturalinfluencebetweenareasin centralandsouthernitaly. 196

214 7.Conclusion Atitscore,thisdissertationisastudyoftheevidenceforburialandfuneraryritualinRome andlatiumduringthesixthandearlyfifthcenturiesb.c.e.theevidencecomesfromawide arrayofsources,includingliteraryaccounts,legaltextsandarchaeologicalmaterial.the emphasis,however,isdistinctlyarchaeological,inpartbecauseoftheinconsistentnature oftheancientsourcematerial,andinpartbecausethearchaeologyoffersaconsiderable bodyofevidencethathasneverbeenthesubjectofsystematicanalysis.tothisend,ihave organizedthedissertationintofivechapters.thefirstthreedealwiththeliteraryandlegal sources:afteranassessmentofthereliabilityoftheancientaccountsinchapter2,i continuewithaninvestigationoftheliteraryevidenceconcerningfunerarypracticesin archaicromeinchapter3,andtheniassessthemostrelevanthistoricalsourceregarding earlyfuneraryritualinchapter4,thefunerarylegislationofthetwelvetables.chapter5 consistsfirstofareviewofthearchaeologicalsitesinromeandlatiumwithevidencefor burialduringthearchaicperiod,andconcludeswithmyinterpretationofthisevidence.in Chapter6ItakeacloserlookatthearchaeologicalevidencefromtheancientsiteofGabii, sincemycontinuedparticipationintheexcavationstherehaveservedsimultaneouslyasa sourceofinspirationforthisdissertation,andasanespeciallyrichsourceofevidence. Ihaveundertakenthisprojectwithaviewtosheddingsomelightonthekindsofsocialand politicalinstitutionsthatcontributedtotheurbandevelopmentoftheregion.inother words,iwanttoknowwhowasresponsibleforcity stateformation,howtheysetoutto achievethisandwhy,whatwasthenatureoftheirinteractionwithothermembersofthe community,andwhatwastheextentandnatureoftheirinteractionwithpopulations furtherafield?iamalsoconcernedwithquestioninghowhistoriansconceiveofand archaeologistsidentifycity states.theanswer,isuspect,isnotclear cut,astheprocessof urbandevelopmentisadynamicone,withthestructureofthesettlementchanging accordingtothecircumstancesofdifferentsubsetsofthepopulation.theroleofburialin allthisistobeabletotakeaconsiderablebodyofevidenceandobservewithinitpatterns ofhumanbehaviorthatarchaeologistscanusetoreconstructthepast.burialsareuseful forthiskindofstudybecausetheyconstituteoneofthemostabundantcategoriesof archaeologicaldata.inaddition,theybenefitfromalonghistoryofstudyinmodern scholarship,whichprovidesabettertheoreticalandanalyticalframework. TheArchaicperiodofRomeandLatiumisnotaneasysubjectofstudy.Othershavepointed outbeforemethedifficultiesinvolvedwiththislineofresearch,emphasizingthatalmost everypointofviewisopentoreadycriticism. 798 Theprimaryreasonforthisisthatarchaic Romestraddlesthelinebetweenhistoryandprehistory:archaeologistswidelyrecognize thesixthcenturyasthebeginningoftheurbanphaseofdevelopment,whenromeand manysettlementsinlatiumshow,forthefirsttime,evidenceforthoseattributes commonlyassociatedwithcity states;anditispreciselythisperiodthatcorrespondstothe regalperiodknownfromtheancientaccounts.complicatingthispicture,however,isthe 798 ThispointofviewisarticulatedinsomeformorotherinCornell(1995);Smith(1996); Raaflaub(2005);Cornell(2005);Forsythe(2005);Smith(2006). 197

215 natureoftheevidencefromthehistoricalsources,namely,thattheaccountsconcerning Rome'searlyhistorywerewrittencenturiesaftertherecordedeventsandcontainmaterial thatisclearlytheproductofinventionandexaggeration,drivenbygreeknarratives.the problemarises,then,ofhowtointerpretbothtypesofmaterial:awholesalerejectionof theaccountsseemspremature,especiallysincetheyindicateanincreasingsociopolitical complexitythatseemssupportedbysomeofthearchaeologicalevidence.however,thereis goodindicationthatmuchofwhattheancientsourcesreportisfalseorfabricated. InthisdissertationIhaveadoptedafairlyskepticalapproachtowardtheancientsources, but,likemanyarchaeologiststryingtomakethebestofwhattheyhave,consultthesource materialinordertocontextualizethematerialdata.insuchcasesmyconclusionsare tentativeand,bymyownadmission,speculative.however,therearemanyinstances wheretheancientaccountscannotbeoverlooked,becausetheyofferdirectcommentary onsomeoftheissuesraisedbythearchaeologicalmaterial.forinstance,itisimpossibleto fullyunderstandthedevelopmentofarchaicgabiiwithoutconsideringfirstthevarious pointswhenthecity'shistoryintersectswiththatofrome.someoftheevidencefrom Gabiipointstotheabandonmentofcertainareasofthecitybytheendofthefifthcentury; itispossibletoseeinthissomesupportforthehistoricalsourcesregardingtheroman conquestoflatiumataboutthattime.itisequallypossible,thatthereisnoconnection betweenthetwophenomena,asisoftenthecasewithcomparisonsofarchaeologicaland literaryevidence.nevertheless,ifwearetounderstandthehistoryofthisregionatall,we mustconsiderasmanyalternativesaspossible. Thearchaeologicalmaterialpresentssomeveryinterestingpatterns.Idemonstratein Chapter5,thattheburialrecordofarchaicRomeandLatiumischaracterized,aboveall,by variety.varietyintombarchitecture,locationandgravegoods;onlytwositesseemtohave evidenceforconsistencyandconformityinfuneraryritual,whichmaybetakenasevidence fornon Latincustoms.Thishighdegreeofvarietyoccursatlocalandregionallevels; thoughsomeregionsseemtoindicateapreferenceforacertaintype,analysisofspecific burialgroundsrevealsamultiplicityoftombtypes,ofteningroupsthatseemclustered together.ihavearguedthatthisdegreeofvarietypointstotheconnectivityofthe settlementsofcentralitaly,whichseemsbothinwardandoutwardlooking.thereseemto havebeenmultiplepointsofcontactbetweentheinhabitantsofancientlatiumandthe outsideworld,whichwaslikelyfacilitatedbytheconstructionofroadwaysandthe exploitationofnaturalfeaturesinthetopography.thiscreationofthesekindsofnetworks seemstohavebeenencouragedbythegrowthandencroachmentofvariouspopulations, whoseemtohaveenjoyedafairamountofhorizontalsocialmobility.theevidencefor Etruscan andgreek inspiredmodesofburialsuggeststhatthereremainedinthearchaic periodcloseconnectionsbetweentheseareasandlatium.whiletheadoptionofsuch foreignsymbolsmaybeconsideredanactofculturalresistance,itseemsmoreareflection ofthedegreeofregionalcontactandinfluencethatseemstohavespreadthroughoutthe area. MostmodernscholarshipdwellsonthepaucityofgravesandgravegoodsoftheArchaic period.whiletheevidenceihavegatheredrevealsthatthisstillholdstrue,thisdearthhas beenoverstatedattheexpenseofmorefruitfulformsofanalysis.muchofthesecondary 198

216 literatureisconcernedwithconnectingtheabsenceofgravegoodsingravestothe funerarylegislationofthetwelvetables,orsomeregalpredecessor.althoughi acknowledgethatthetwelvetablesmaybeavalidhistoricaldocument,ibelieveitreflects morethecircumstancesatromeinthemiddleandlaterepublic.thismaybeareflection ofearlierpractices,thatin450b.c.e.orlaterweredraftedintolaw.idonotconsiderthis goodevidence,however,toaccountforthephenomenonvisibleinthearchaeological record.rather,itseemsthatthisreductionoccurredgradually,atthesametimeasother significanttransformationsinthesocialstructureofromansociety,suchasagrowing complexityofsocialhierarchy,andsettlementnucleationandmonumentalization. Itismyintentionthattheevidencegatheredherecontributestoagrowingbodyofstudies concerningurbanizationinitaly,andofferabetterunderstandingofthesociopolitical structureofearlyromansociety.thesetypesofstudiesareimportantbecausetheyoffer someperspectiveontheprocessesinvolvedintheformationnotonlyofromeasthecitystateparexcellence,butofthosecitiesthatgraduallyseemtohavefallenwithinrome's orbit.thearchaicperiodisacrucialtimeforthedevelopmentthelatincity statesin relationtorome;thearchaeologicalevidencefromthesesitessuggeststheyachievedtheir peakofprosperityinthesixthcentury,beforeshrinkingordisappearance.thisisoften understoodinlightofrome'sgrowingdominanceinthearea,andhere,too,the archaeologicalevidencepointstorome'scontrolovermuchoflatiumbytheendofthe sixthcentury.whattheevidencecollectedherehopestoaddressishowthathappenedand whatformsofnegotiationorconflicttookplacebetweenindividuals,groupsandcities.we maybefairlycertainoftheendresult,buthavelittleindicationofhowthatcameabout. Thisdissertationgoessomewayintoinvestigatingthisdynamicandpoorlyunderstood process. 199

217 Figures Figure1.1MapofancientLatium,showingmajorsites. AfterSmith1996,240,map1. 200

218 Figure5.1PlanofRomeshowinghillsandlocationofearlycemeteries.Lanciani's excavationsareindicatedjustnorthofthevelia.afterholloway1994,24,fig

219 Figure5.2PlanoftheEsquilinenecropolisaccordingtoPinza.AfterBullCom1914,pl.V VI. 202

220 Figure5.3AtticRedFigurepelikefromtomb89ontheEsquilinenecropolis. AfterColonna1977,140,fig.3/A. Figure5.4AtticRedFigurepelikefromtomb89ontheEsquilinenecropolis. AfterColonna1977,141,fig.3/B. 203

221 Figure5.5Containerofpeperinooftomb193fromtheEsquilinenecropolis. AfterColonna1977,142,fig

222 Figure5.6Containerofpeperinooftomb193fromtheEsquilinenecropolis. AfterHolloway1994,26,fig

223 Figure5.7Marbleurnoftomb193fromtheEsquilinenecropolis. AfterColonna1977,143,fig.5/A. Figure5.8Marbleurnoftomb193oftheEsquilinenecropolis. AfterHolloway1994,26,fig

224 Figure5.9Drawingofurn,probablyfromtomb5fromtheEsquilinenecropolis. AfterColonna1977,148,fig.7. Figure5.10Urn,probablyfromtomb5fromtheEsquilinenecropolis. AfterMonAnt1905,186,fig

225 Figure5.11UrnfromunknowntombasdrawnbyLanciani. AfterBullCom1912,38,fig.13. Figure5.12PlanshowinglocationofearlycemeteriesnearthePiazzaVittorioEmanueleII. TrianglesindicatethetombsexcavatedbyPinza;theblackrectanglesarethetombs excavatedbyasoretal.2009;thegreyrectanglesarethetombsexcavatedbycolini1932. AfterAsorRosaetal.2009,76,fig

226 Figure5.13Generalplanofexcavationin2002inthePiazzaVittorioEmanueleII. AfterBarberaetal.2005,303,fig.38. Figure5.14Generalplanofexcavationin2002inPiazzaVittorioEmanueleII. AfterBarberaetal.2005,307,fig

227 Figure5.15Amphorafromtomb3in2002excavationsinPiazzaVittorioEmanueleII. AfterBarberaetal.2005,310,fig.46. Figure5.16Gravegoodsfromtomb12in2002excavationsinPiazzaVittorioEmanueleII. AfterBarberaetal.2005,315,fig.59. Figure5.17Sarcophagusoftuff,tomb12from2002excavationsinPiazzaVittorio EmanueleII.AfterBarberaetal.2005,315,fig

228 Figure5.18GeneralplanoftheexcavationbetweentheVialedelMonteOppioandtheVia delletermeditraiano,rome.aftercoarelli200111,fig.4. Figure5.19SuggrundariumEfromViaSacra,Rome.AfterGjerstad1953,147,fig

229 Figure5.20SuggrundariumFfromViaSacra.AfterGjerstad1953,147,fig.142. Figure5.21SuggrundariumLLfromViaSacra.AfterGjerstad1953,148,fig

230 Figure5.22SuggrundariumNNfromViaSacra.AfterGjerstad1953,148,fig.144. Figure5.23MapofRomeindicatingthelocationoftheexcavationontheViaGoito.After Menghietal.2005,352,fig

231 Figure5.24SarcophagifromViaGoito,Rome.AfterMenghietal.2005,356,fig.106. Figure5.25MapshowinglocationofAcquaAcetosaLaurentina. AfterBedini1983,29,fig

232 Figure5.26PlanofbuildingatAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterBedini1981b,255,fig.4. Figure5.27Planofchambertomb3atAcquaAcetosaLaurentina. AfterBedini1983,32,fig

233 Figure5.28Planofchambertomb4atAcquaAcetosaLaurentina. AfterBedini1983,36,fig

234 Figure5.29Planofchambertombs1and2atAcquaAcetosaLaurentina. AfterBedini1983,30,fig.2. Figure5.30Sectionplanofchambertombs1and2atAcquaAcetosaLaurentina. AfterBedini1983,30,fig

235 Figure5.31PlanofcemeteryatCasaleMassima.AfterBedini1980,59,fig.1. Figure5.32PlanofatrenchtombfromCasaleMassima.AfterBedini1980,60,fig

236 Figure5.33Planofchambertombs1and2fromCasaleMassima.Chambertomb1isonthe left,chambertomb2isontheright.afterbedini1983,34,fig

237 Figure5.34Profiledrawingofollettafromchambertomb1atCasaleMassima. AfterBedini1980,62,fig.4,n.2. Figure5.35Profiledrawingofpentolinafromchambertomb2atCasaleMassima. AfterBedini1980,62,fig.4,n

238 Figure5.36GeneralplanofTorrino.AfterBedini1981,57,fig.1. Figure5.37Chambertombs1(left)and2(right)fromTorrino.AfterBedini1981,58,fig

239 Figure5.38Chamber2fromTorrino.AfterBedini1981,62,fig.6. Figure5.39PlanofareaofexcavationatCasaleBrunori.AfterBedini1991,100,fig

240 Figure5.40AerialviewofchambertombsatCasaleBrunori.AfterBedini1991,105,fig.11. Figure5.41GeneralplanofexcavationatTorde'Cenci.AfterBedini1990,123,fig

241 Figure5.42AerialviewoffirstcircleofchambertombsatTorde'Cenci. AfterBedini1990,124,fig.4. Figure5.43AerialviewofsecondcircleofchambertombsatTorde'Cenci. AfterBedini1990,125,fig

242 Figure5.44Pentolafromchambertomb16atTorde'Cenci.AfterBedini1990,127,fig.7. Figure5.45BeadsofthenecklacebelongingtothewomanburiedatFidenae. AfterGRT260,no

243 Figure5.46GeneralmapofsitesinLatiumVetus.AfterRajala2008a,41,fig.2. Figure5.47GeneralmapofCrustumerium,includingsitesofCisternaGrande,Montedel BufaloandSassoBiancoexcavations.AfterRajala2008a,40,fig

244 Figure5.48.MapdetailoftheMonteDelBufalonecropolis,Crustumerium. AfterNijboer2008,24,fig.2. Figure5.49MapdetailoftombsexcavatedatCisternaGrande,Crustumerium. AfterRajala2008a,44,fig

245 Figure5.50ChambertombatCisternaGrande,Crustumerium. AfterRajala2008a,44.fig.5,A. Figure5.51ChambertombatCisternaGrande,Crustumerium. AfterRajala2008a,44.fig.5,B. 228

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

247 Figure5.53PlanshowinglocationofchildandinfantburialsatFicana. AfterJarva1981b,270,fig

248 Figure5.54PlanofthechambertombatLavinium.AfterGuaitoli1995,556,fig

249 Figure5.55ChambertombatLavinium.AfterGuaitoli1995,557,fig.8. Figure5.56UrnofcappellacciofromchambertombatLavinium. AfterGuaitoli1995,558,fig

250 Figure5.57TyrrhenianamphorafromchambertombatLavinium. AfterGuaitoli1995,559,fig.11. Figure5.58AmphoraofbuccherofromchambertombatLavinium. AfterGuaitoli1995,559,fig

251 Figure5.59AtticRedFigurestamnosfromchambertombatLavinium. AfterGuaitoli1995,559,fig.15. Figure5.60PlanofLaviniumshowinglocationoftumuli.AfterGuaitoli1995,561,fig

252 Figure5.61BronzecuirassfromtheTomboftheWarrior,Lanuvium. AfterColonna1977,152,8/A. Figure5.62HelmetfromtheTomboftheWarrior,Lanuvium. AfterColonna1977,150,fig.8/A. 235

253 Figure5.63Tomb5fromthesiteofCampodelFico,Corcolle. AfterCrescenziandTortorici1983,47,fig.21. Figure5.64GeneralplanshowingexcavationareasatSatricum. AfterGnade2002,215,fig

254 Figure5.65Mapoftopographyandexcavatedfeaturesofthenorthwestnecropolisand acropolis,partofoldexcavationsatsatricum.afterwaarsenburg1995,43,pl.8. Figure5.66GeneralplanofthesouthwestnecropolisatSatricum. AfterGnade2002,227,fig

255 Figure5.67Hypotheticalreconstructionoftheareaexcavatedin1909ontheacropolisat Satricum,includinglargesquarehutandAcropolisTombs1 3. AfterGinge,1996,126,fig

256 Figure5.68MapofexcavationareasatPoggiodeiCavallari,Satricum. AfterGnade2002,217,fig

257 Figure5.69FinalBronzeandEarlyIronAgetraderoutesofancientLatium. AfterBiettiSestieri1992b,74,fig Figure5.70IronAge(IIBandIII)traderoutesofancientLatium. AfterBiettiSestieri1992b,75,fig

258 Figure5.71MapofchambertombXXIIfromColledelForno,Eretum. AfterSantoro1983,128,fig.27. Figure6.1MapofCentralItaly,showinglocationofGabii. CourtesyofUniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill,AncientWorldMappingCenter. 241

259 Figure6.2GeneralmapofCastiglionecrater.1:MiddleandLateBronzeAge,EarlyIronAge settlement.2 18:EarlyIronAgesettlementunits.19:CemeteryofOsteriadell'Osa.20: CemeteryofCastiglione.Thethicklinealongthesoutheasternedgeofthecraterdelimits theurbanareaofarchaicgabii.afterbiettisestieri1992b,77,fig

260 Figure6.3GeneralmapofGabiiindicatingthemainareasofexcavation. ModifiedafterBiettiSestieri1992b,77,fig.4.1. Figure6.4PlanofGabiishowingtheinterpretedresultsofthemagnetometrysurvey.The redlinesindicateapositivelinearfeature.afterbeckeretal2009,635,fig

261 Figure6.5Aerialphotoshowingtheresultsofthemagnetometrysurveyandthelocations ofseveralfeatures.1.thegabiiprojectareaofexcavation,2.theareaurbana,3.the possiblelocationofhamilton'sforum,and4.thetempleofjuno. AfterMogettaandBecker2014,173,fig.2. Figure6.6AerialphotoofthesiteexcavatedbytheGabiiProject,indicatingareasof excavation.courtesyofthegabiiproject. 244

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

263 Figure6.8AerialphotoofareaDoftheGabiiProject,takenfromthenorth. CourtesyoftheGabiiProject. 246

264 Figure6.9PlanofareaDoftheGabiiProject."T"indicatesatomb. DrawingbyRachelOpitz.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject. 247

265 Figure 6.10 Aerial photo of areas D, C and E (left to right) of the Gabii Project, taken from the south. Courtesy of the Gabii Project. 248

266 Figure6.11Vesselcontainingturtle,intentionaldepositioninnorthwestcornerofRoom2. CourtesyoftheGabiiProject. Figure6.12PlanofareaofWall34(apsidalwall)atOropos. AfterMazarakisAinian1997,fig

267 Figure6.13Planofhouse63.2(c B.C.E.)atMegaraHyblaea. AfterDeAngelis2003,29,fig.15. Figure6.14PlanofedificobetainthemiddleOrientalizingperiod(c.mid seventhcentury). AfterBonghiJovinoandTreré1997,pl

268 Figure6.15PlanofarchaicresidenceinzoneFatAcquarossa.AfterÖstegard1975,140. Figure6.16PlanofthearchaiccomplexfromMurlo(PoggioCivitate). AfterPhillips1993,11,fig

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

270 Figure6.18Planofphase1(archaic)oftheAuditorumsite. AfterCarandini1997,121,fig.2. Figure6.19PlanofarchaicbuildingatTorrino.AfterBedini1984,86,fig

271 Figure6.20PlanofarchaicbuildingatAcquaAcetosaLaurentina.AfterGRT,

272 Figure6.21PlanofthebuildingatGrottarossa.AfterNSc1945,54,fig

273 Figure6.22ReconstructionofthesettlementontheacropolisatSatricumintheeighth century.thecirclesdelimittheclustersofhuts.aftermaaskant Kleibrink1991,73,fig.10; modifiedbycolantoni2012,25,fig.2.2. Figure6.23ReconstructionofthesettlementontheacropolisatSatricuminthelateeighth andseventhcenturies.circlesdelimittheclustersofhuts. AfterMaaskant Kleibrink1991,79,fig.15;modifiedbyColantoni2012,26,fig

274 Figure6.24ReconstructionofthesettlementontheacropolisatSatricuminthesixth century.aftermaaskant Kleibrink1991,93,fig.22b. 257

275 Figure6.25Tomb25inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject. Figure6.26PhotomodelreconstructionofTomb25inareaDatGabii. CourtesyoftheGabiiProject. 258

276 Figure6.27Semi chambertomb1inareadatgabii.courtesyofthegabiiproject. Figure6.28Photomodelreconstructionofsemi chambertomb1inareadatgabii. CourtesyoftheGabiiProject. 259

277 Figure6.29Eastniche(Tomb38)ofsemi chambertomb1inareadatgabii. CourtesyoftheGabiiProject. Figure6.30Spoolsandstripofworkedbone(nos.1 15),eastniche(Tomb38)ofsemichambertomb1inareaDatGabii.CourtesyoftheGabiiProject. 260

278 Figure 6.31 North niche (Tomb 39) of semi chamber tomb 1 in area D at Gabii. Courtesy of the Gabii Project. Figure 6.32 West niche (Tomb 40) of semi chamber tomb 1 in area D at Gabii. Courtesy of the Gabii Project. 261

279 Figure 6.33 Semi chamber tomb 2 in area D at Gabii (Tombs 41 and 42 to the left and right). Courtesy of the Gabii Project. Figure 6.34 West niche (Tomb 41) in semi chamber tomb 2 in area D at Gabii. Courtesy of the Gabii Project. 262

280 Figure 6.35 East niche (Tomb 42) in semi chamber tomb 2 in area D at Gabii. Courtesy of the Gabii Project.. Figure 6.36 Tomb 30 in area D at Gabii, infant burial in a dolium, from the east. Courtesy of the Gabii Project. 263

281 Figure 6.37 Tomb 48 in area D at Gabii, child burial a fossa. Courtesy of the Gabii Project. Figure 6.38 Tomb 49 in area D at Gabii, infant burial in a dolium. Courtesy of the Gabii Project. 264

282 Figure6.39PlanoftheIronAgecemeteryatOsteriadell'Osa(c B.C.E.).Graves fromthelatestphases(iiib IVB,c B.C.E.)areshaded. AfterBiettiSestieri1992a,80,fig.4.2. Figure6.40PlanoftheIronAgecemeteryatOsteriadell'OsaduringPeriodsIIandIIIA, showingthedivisionofclusters.afterbiettisestieri1992a,142,fig

283 Figure6.41Osteriadell'Osa:planofTomb62(chambertomb). AfterBiettiSestieri1992b,pl.50. Figure6.42PlanofBotromagnoshowingexcavatedsites. AfterWhitehouseetal.2000,2,fig

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