Archaeology in Etruria 1985-95

Abstract

This report covers a far longer period than the last (AR 198586) but will be of shorter length. This is partly because the frenetic pace of research and publication in 1980-85 has—perhaps fortunately—not been maintained to quite the same pitch. Even so, F.R. Serra Ridgway in her Additional Bibliography in M. Brendel, Etruscan Art (2nd ed., Yale University Press 1995) 485-513 lists 404 items, most of them published after 1985; and these are books only, though she refers in passing to many articles in her introductory discussion. This treatment, far broader than one simply on 'art', updates her previous one in JRA 4 (1991) 5-27—that is to say, the discussion part is essentially the same, but the bibliography is expanded. Herein lies another reason why this report can enjoy a certain brevity: for a succinct account of developments in Etruscan studies, and especially for an account of the plethora of recent museum catalogues, exhibitions and conference proceedings, see Serra Ridgway. The aim here will not be to attempt a comprehensive account of archaeological work over a very long period, but to focus on some of the excavations and topographical studies that have achieved particularly interesting and notable results, including some that have been in progress for a long time and should perhaps have been mentioned in previous reports. Bibliographical abbreviations are given on the inside front cover. In February 1995 Massimo Pallottino, father, grandfather, godfather of modern Etruscan studies died in Rome at the age of 85. His pupils now hold many of the top archaeological chairs in Italy and beyond, and their pupils in turn are becoming eminent in the field. Tributes have appeared in the relevant journals. Among many varied gifts, Pallottino had a supreme knack of synthesis, which made his innumerable opening and closing addresses at colloquia of all kinds particularly apposite and hardly ever perfunctory. Last time around events were dominated by the Progetto Etruschi, sometimes referred to as the Year of the Etruscans —something of a misnomer for the project was to rumble on and embrace exhibitions staged over the next few years. The major publishing event of the end of the decade was the proceedings of the conference held to coincide with the exhibitions of 1985: Atti del II Congr. Intern. Etr. (Florence 1989). The rolling programme of Studi Etruschi ed Italici meetings (as regards those that are published) has in recent years rolled to Civita Castellana for the 15th convegno (CF, 1990), to Orbetello for the 16th (La coroplastica templare etrusca fra il IV e il II secolo a.C, 1992), and Chiusi for the 17th (La civilta di Chiusi e del suo territorio, 1993). Generally speaking the mainstream Italian archaeological periodicals are rather slow in keeping up with their publishing schedules. Studi Etruschi continues to be a major voice; its scavi e scoperte section has a shifting focus covering the whole peninsula, and 1992 was when it last concentrated on the heartland of Etruria. A newcomer is Bollettino di Archeologia (begun in 1990) which consists of reports from all the Italian soprintendenze. Also worth keeping an eye on are several glossy Italian monthlies, of which the best—especially for the quality of its colour pictures—is Archeo (from 1985). Full excavation reports, as Serra Ridgway notes, are rather few and far between these days, as is also the case with survey reports. Field survey, until a dozen or so years ago, tended to be the preserve of archaeologists from the English-speaking world, at best a somewhat marginal activity in Italian eyes. It has now caught on in a major way among Italian archaeologists, as is clear from the contents of G. Barker and J. Lloyd (eds.), Roman Landscapes (1992) and more recently from those of PFCIA. Survey is not a panacea, it achieves best results when thoughtfully combined with other archaeological approaches; there are questions which it can answer well and others which it cannot answer alone (G. Barker, PFCIA, 1-11). It is also necessary (and this is not always happening) in any survey to be explicit about the methods used (how the terrain was sampled, what intensity of fieldwalking was employed), about the areas that could not be examined because of vegetation, and about dating criteria (what distinguishes a 5th Ct BC site from a 4th Ct one?, and so on). Otherwise one ends up with a series of dots on maps with little idea as to how they were arrived at or whether they are intended to be the whole picture or only a representative one. The Tuscania survey was no doubt no better nor worse than many that have been conducted on Etruscan soil in recent years (G. Barker and T. Rasmussen, PBSR 56 [1988], 25-42; T. Rasmussen, in Barker and Lloyd [above], 104-114), but the large area involved was sampled in several different and complementary ways, using both formal and purely subjective criteria (on the methodology: G. Barker, A. Grant and T. Rasmussen, in P. Bogucki [ed.], Case Studies in European Prehistory (1993), 229-257). Remains of a small rural building were excavated, in use fom the 6th to the 2nd Ct BC (SE 48 [1992], 566-70). Palaeoenvironmental studies have included pollen core sampling from dry lake beds and scientific analyses of sections from the flood plain of the Marta which runs through the area (A.G. Brown and C. Ellis, PBSR 50 [1975] 45-75). Among a number of results, field-walking has shown very clearly a marked continuity of settlement between the Etruscan and Roman periods, and has also identified the first N sites in the region. The full report on Tuscania has yet to be completed. A final survey report that is about to be published, on the Albegna Valley project, should be of wide interest (see AR 1985-86, 115).