CHAPTER 2
Materializing the Etruscans
The Expression and Negotiation of Identity during the Orientalizing, Archaic, and Classical Periods

Skylar Neil

1. Introduction

Etruria between the eighth and fifth centuries provides one of the most dynamic and materially interesting contexts in the study of the ancient Mediterranean. The complex socioeconomic hierarchies that developed over the course of the Iron Age are suddenly and vividly illustrated with the adoption and adaption of new forms of material culture, made available to the Etruscans through their participation in a flourishing Mediterranean trade network (see further, Chapter 6). The concentration of smaller rural populations on large, strategic sites throughout the region beginning in the Late Bronze Age continued to intensify and the resulting emergence of Etruscan urban centers had a dramatic effect on the organization and exploitation of the landscape (see Chapters 4, 5 and 7). New institutions and monumental forms develop in response to the demands of a more complex political structure. The expression of identity and beliefs likewise evolves over this period, as Etruscan individuals situate themselves within the new social order. The materiality of these expressions varies across Etruria, creating a rich diversity of case studies for what it meant to be “Etruscan.” By the end of the fifth century, the urbanization process had matured, but many Etruscan cities faced additional challenges, especially new external political pressures from the expanding Roman Republic (Chapter 3).

This chapter outlines and contextualizes the cultural changes apparent in the material record over the course of the eighth through fifth centuries. The narrative will actively avoid the more problematic tradition within Etruscan studies that attributes cultural change to external influences and the “natural” result of interactions between the Etruscans and other Mediterranean peoples. It is imperative for those new to the study of the Etruscans to be aware and skeptical of the pervasive influence of this viewpoint. This chapter is divided chronologically into three periods: the Orientalizing, Archaic, and Classical periods. This terminology is modern and highly problematic, as it largely correlates to typological distinctions of style, which are, in turn, influenced by the traditional study of Greek art (the term “Orientalizing” is especially problematic: Riva and Vella 2006). Nevertheless, these periods will be used to avoid chronological confusion for readers interested in consulting other sources on the Etruscans.

2. The Orientalizing Period (700–575)

While the Orientalizing period generally corresponds to the time between 700 and 575, this chronological designation is mostly arbitrary, in that it pertains to very broad stylistic changes in material evidence rather than to specific historical events. The current consensus among prehistorians maintains that the trends and patterns involving settlement and landscape patterns seen during the seventh and sixth centuries were the product of socioeconomic developments and settlement reorganization originating in the Late Bronze Age that slowly developed through the Iron Age. The major urban centers of the later period – Veii, Tarquinia, Caere, Vulci, and Volsinii (Orvieto) – had their origins in conglomerations of Villanovan villages during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, and through the process of synoecism (communal dwelling), they became significant population centers. It is during the Orientalizing period, however, that the material representation of the underlying socioeconomic changes of these developments manifested themselves perceptibly in the archaeological record.

These changes are documented within the context of funerary evidence and the spatial organization of settlements. It must be noted that funerary evidence makes up a significant percentage of the material evidence available to scholars over the past two centuries, which accounts for the disproportionate focus on burial practice as a line of enquiry. Nevertheless, the significance of funerary evidence and burial practices to the study of a cultural context must not be downplayed. Funerary and burial rituals are suffused with significance since they not only express the identity of the deceased and his or her position in society, but they also functioned as meaningful practices for the living (see further, Tuck 2012).

Villanovan burial practices in Etruria evolved between the ninth and eighth centuries, with the inclusion of more prestigious items – such as weapons, armor, decorative ornaments, and other metal goods – within particular graves, and an increasingly unequal distribution of these items amongst a few (see Chapter 1). These practices developed further during the Orientalizing period, not only in the transition of the dominant burial form from cremation to inhumation (although this practice was not adopted uniformly across Etruria: cremation persisted in northern Etruria, sometimes alongside inhumation, most notably at Chiusi), but also in the inclusion of more numerous and distinctive burial items, especially those of foreign manufacture. Elite tombs from this period – notable examples include the Tomba di Bocchoris at Tarquinia, the Tomba dei Flabelli Bronzi at Populonia, the Circolo di Bes at Vetulonia, and the Barberini and Bernardini tombs at Praeneste – contained luxury imports from various parts of the Mediterranean: Greek ceramics, especially banqueting equipment; ivory and ostrich eggshell objects; bronze bowls, cauldrons and stands from Cyprus, Phoenicia and Syria; elaborate gold jewelry; and other distinctive goods (see Chapter 6). Orientalizing decorative motifs were also commonly seen on both imports and locally produced items. These included stylized floral and natural motifs, especially palmettes and lotuses; mythological creatures (e.g., griffins and sphinxes) as well as animal forms (e.g., bulls and lions).

The gentilicial naming system likewise emerged during this period, emphasizing the importance of ancestry, not only in terms of the veneration and remembrance of one’s forebearers, but also in the continuation of gentilicial lines and the negotiation of kin relationships within an evolving socio-economic hierarchy (see Chapter 14). The Tomb of the Five Chairs at Caere, for example, includes a secondary room off the main burial chamber that contains five rock-carved thrones on which were positioned seated terracotta figures, both male and female, interpreted as representations of ancestors (Camporeale 2009). Nearby were rock-carved altars and receptacles for offerings and liquid libations, an early testament to ancestor worship. Moreover, gentilicial relationships provided a new standard for negotiating and maintaining access to new sources of material wealth. The continued deposition of family members within chamber tombs over generations – as well as luxury funerary goods – associated displays of wealth and power with a specific kinship line.

Control over access to resources and wealth, as well to imported goods, led to a new way of materializing relationships of power and authority that is, fortunately, perceptible in the archaeological record through artifacts such as the fan, axe, and lituus (trumpet). However, most scholars believe that these relationships existed in Etruria as early as the Late Bronze Age and then continued into the Iron Age and beyond (Pacciarelli 2000; see also Chapter 1). In her comprehensive study of the emergence of Orientalizing “symbols of power” within the funerary context, Corinna Riva (2010), for example, concluded that it is not these particular symbols that convey power and authority, and it is only their understood value within their eastern point of origin that influences previous scholarly interpretations of their place within Etruscan society. Rather, Riva argues that power and relationships of authority are expressed with domestic imagery of the house or hut, which pre-dates the visual changes seen in the Orientalizing period, as seen in the existence of cremation hut urns. An example of the replication of the household interiors within monumental tombs can be seen in the Campana Tomb 1 in the Monte Abetone necropolis at Caere. There, an elaborately constructed wooden ceiling, benches, and other furniture and household equipment are all carved from the bedrock. The depiction of the domestic space, in conjunction with displays of military equipment (e.g. weapons, chariots, and spears), reiterates the kin group’s ability to defend itself from other families, and most importantly, to maintain power and authority over them.

The burial space also became more elaborate in the seventh century, creating a clear delineation of space between that of the living and the dead (see Chapter 11). In some cases, the burial structure was conspicuously elaborated above ground, such as in the construction of monumental tumuli at sites such as Caere (the Banditaccia necropolis) (see Figure 11.1) and Vetulonia (Naso 2000). These tombs served as visual reminders of the power of a particular group within the local community inscribed into the landscape. Some tumuli were located within the immediate environs of later urban centers (e.g., at Caere), but isolated examples near secondary settlements and in rural areas have also been found, such as those near Marsiliana d’Albegna and Florence (Comeana and Quinto Fiorentino, respectively), suggesting the existence of rural elite groups with power over access to local resources. The founding of two unique settlements during the Orientalizing and Early Archaic periods – Poggio Civitate at Murlo near Siena and Acquarossa near Viterbo – further strengthen the argument for the primacy of the gentilicial group and illustrate the way this was maintained outside the context of the pre-urban centers. Both sites have yielded evidence for domestic activity, workshops and, most importantly, monumental architecture. The size and durability of these buildings and their component materials are significant relative to previous forms of Etruscan architecture. The use of these qualities to commemorate a certain ideology distinguishes a structure as “monumental” in comparison with contemporary buildings (Thomas and Meyers 2012; Meyers 2013). The Archaic monumental complexes at these sites, which were preceded by smaller Orientalizing structures, were elaborately decorated with terracotta sculpture, including revetment plaques depicting scenes of processions and banqueting (see Figure 23.3). It is likely that these images served various functions, including both ritual practices and performances that reinforced local political authority (Edlund-Berry 2012; Warden 2012). During the Orientalizing and Archaic periods, the Etruscan belief system and the praxis thereof were inextricably meshed with other practices in daily life that centered on the role of elite individuals within society at large (for Poggio Civitate: Nielsen and Tuck 2001; Tuck 2006; Tuck et al. 2009; and his Chapter 8 here; for Acquarossa: Strandberg Olofsson 1989; Wikander and Wikander 1990; Winter 2013).

A number of new techniques and stylistic changes are also visible within the material record of seventh-century Etruria. However, these developments should not be quantified on a simple scale from “primitive” to “civilized,” or equated with identity per se. Rather they should be applied as a useful metric for chronological identification, and for the sake of a general familiarity with particular trends, especially for the reader new to Etruscan studies. In addition to the refinement of the traditional impasto ware, a new type of pottery, bucchero, was developed by Caeretan artisans during the Orientalizing period and subsequently spread to other Etruscan centers (e.g., Tarquinia, Veii, Vulci, and Vetulonia). These vessels were deprived of oxygen during the firing process, allowing for the production of a fabric fired throughout to either gray or black and whose surface could be burnished to a glossy finish. Bucchero was largely used in the production of tableware, and one of its earliest forms, bucchero sottile, stands out for its thin walls and fine craftsmanship (Figure 2.1). The common consensus previously held that metal vessels from Cyprus and Phoenicia primarily influenced these forms; however, recent studies suggest they result instead from the mutual stimulus for innovation amongst artisans specializing in different fabrics (Rasmussen 2006; Perkins 2007; De Puma 2013b; and Chapter 15). Orientalizing motifs enhance a great deal of the bucchero that has been recovered in Etruscan funerary and religious contexts. Early examples, such as the unique sherd with a birthing scene discovered in 2011 at Poggio Colla (Perkins 2012), contain incised and/or stamped designs, while later types display molded reliefs.

Image described by caption. — **Figure 2.1** Kantharos with impressed fan designs, c.650–600 BCE. *Bucchero sottile*. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1921 (21.88.146).
Photo: © 2015. Image copyright The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource/Scala, Florence.

Another ceramic style, known today as Etrusco-Corinthian, developed around the middle of the seventh century, in production centers located at Vulci, Caere, and Tarquinia. Its painters employed a black-figure technique to decorate the surfaces of their vases with motifs drawn both from the natural world and the standard Orientalizing repertoire (see further, Ambrosini 2013).

Perhaps the most significant development of the Orientalizing period, especially within the contexts of self-expression and constructing identity, was the adaptation of the Euboean alphabet (transmitted most likely through their apoikia (colony), Pithekoussai, which was founded around 760) and the beginnings of literacy (Agostiniani 2013; see further, Chapter 14). The earliest Etruscan inscriptions begin to appear around 700, with the majority originating in southern Etruria (Bonfante and Bonfante 2002). A miniature ivory tablet excavated from the Circolo degli Avori tomb (c.670) near Marsiliana d’Albegna and now in Florence is not only incised with all the letters, but also appears to have had an area once covered in wax where an individual could practice with a stylus (the latter was also recovered) (Figure 2.2). A category of object that is especially illustrative of this point are the ivory plaques inscribed with the names of particular individuals, which have been recovered from sites such as Poggio Civitate, Sant’Omobono (Rome), and Carthage (Wallace 2008). Scholars believe these objects recorded special relationships between two plaque-holders in distant communities. Dedicatory inscriptions likewise qualified the relationship not only between the dedicant and a specific divinity, but also between the dedicant and the object itself. Etruscan votive dedications follow a uniform convention from the perspective of the object: “I am [the object] of [dedicant]…” As Wallace and others have demonstrated, the use of a written language represents a powerful tool that not only allowed individuals to identify themselves and their specific place within their own ancestry and social history, but it also provided a means whereby the relationship between an object and its owner, or a gift-giver and a recipient, could be defined.

The hallmark of the Etruscan Orientalizing period is the emergence of new, distinctive material forms that were used to express different aspects of an elite Etruscan’s social, economic, and political identity. In particular, the development of written forms of language allowed these new ideas to be conveyed more effectively, creating, most importantly, archaeologically identifiable indicia for the presence of Etruscans not only in Italy but also throughout the Mediterranean (see further, Chapter 6). Although there is a definite continuity of population in central Italy over the course of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, it was only during the seventh and early sixth centuries that the groups developed a self-conscious and multi-faceted identity as “Etruscans.”

3. The Archaic Period (575–480)

The settlement centers of the previous period continued to draw population from the rural hinterland, creating a system of hierarchy not seen elsewhere in the Mediterranean in which the largest centers – especially the southern Etruscan sites (see Chapter 9) – were significantly larger than the next largest group of sites by an order of magnitude. As a result, there were significant developments within the sociopolitical sphere that brought about a new reference point around which Etruscan individuals could formulate a new identity: the urban center (see further, Leighton 2013).

The construction of walls represents the most significant development in the establishment of urban identity and space as a “city,” since their function was to delineate clearly the bounds of what was urban territory and what was not. Of those that have been recovered archaeologically, the earliest examples – constructed during the mid-seventh century with mudbrick – come from Roselle and Vetulonia (see further, Chapter 10). During the sixth century, the inhabitants of Caere, Populonia, Volterra, and the Piazza d’Armi plateau at Veii also built fortifications. Not only did the existence of a city wall manifest, physically, the understood boundary between urban and rural space, but the scale of the mobilization of manpower and resources necessary to undertake their construction also demonstrated the extent and power of each center (see Chapter 7). By the beginning of the fifth century, local identities were strengthened with the production of city-based coinage, modeled largely on Greek units of measurements. Populonia and Vulci each produced some of the earliest coins, further reinforcing the cohesion of these political units in expressing a discrete and individual identity.

The intensification of agricultural production in the hinterland, an important part of supplying and supporting the urban centers, likewise led to significant, permanent changes in the landscape around the urban center. Cuniculi (underground water channels) were used to both drain marshland and irrigate drier areas, thus vastly increasing their suitability for agricultural production. To facilitate movement of resources and communication, road networks were also improved over the course of the seventh and sixth centuries: the early tracks that followed natural ridgeways or valleys were replaced with roads made suitable for wheeled traffic – through cuts in the rock– and which followed easier gradients in the landscape. Many were also created through the use of cuttings, bridges and culverts, demonstrating the Etruscans’ superb engineering skills at this time (Potter 1979; and Chapter 10 here).

The emergence of the monumental sanctuary in the late sixth century may arguably be the most significant cultural development following the urbanization process. As in contemporary Greece, these religious spaces not only functioned as symbols of communal or civic identities, but also as a means by which the community’s members could participate actively in maintaining those identities through ritual practice (see further, Rafanelli 2013). Although there is evidence of ritual activity being carried out within structures as well as the more commonly sacred spaces of the previous period (e.g., the tops of hills and mountains, caves, lakes, and springs), the earlier structures lacked the permanence and regularity of the monumental complexes constructed during the Archaic period. These also created a physical delineation between sacred and profane space in the form of a precinct wall, with gates controlling both entering and exiting (Chapter 12).

Likewise, one of the forms used to build temples – what Vitruvius (4.7) called the Tuscan type – utilized steps on the facade in order to achieve the same goal. This type contrasted significantly with the Greek peripteral temple that included steps that allowed access to the interior from any side (Colonna 1985; for further elaboration on the symbolic significance of the Etruscan temple form, see Izzet 2001 and Warden 2012). Within some later urban centers, evidence for the practice of communal worship has been recovered from areas with a religious or political significance during the Archaic period. For example, on Tarquinia’s Pian di Civita (see Figure 7.5), archaeologists have found votive deposits, animal sacrifices and other offerings dating back to the tenth century in the vicinity of a natural cavity which also include the burials of a boy identified as an epileptic and several neonatal infants. Amongst the offerings recovered were a ritualistically destroyed axe, a shield, and lituus, which were buried in front of the entrance of a later seventh century structure (Building Beta) which was enclosed within a precinct wall soon after its construction and then roofed in the sixth century (Bonghi Jovino 2010; Bagnasco Gianni 2013; Chapters 7 and 18 here). Similarly, beneath the so-called oikos building on Piazza d’Armi at Veii, a politically significant structure of ambiguous purpose was decorated with architectural terracottas, and the remains of Iron Age huts and a male inhumation have also been identified (Moretti Sgubini 2001).

Just as monumental sanctuary complexes were divided internally into sacred and profane spaces, they could also could act as delineators of the limits of the urban space when they were situated near city gates or on the periphery of an urban center. The temple of Portonaccio at Veii, for example, lies just outside of the city walls along a high-traffic route into the urban center. The temple follows a typical Etruscan plan with a triple-cella layout, and there is also an adjacent piscina (pool) almost the same length as the temple. To the east an altar complex with drainage channels was located; it had an access point of two steps leading up to it from the temple in the west. Epigraphic evidence attests to the dedication of the sanctuary complex to Menerva and Aplu; the aspect of the goddess worshipped there may have been as city protector, which required sacrifice before entering the urban space. The healing and purification aspects of Aplu would also have been appropriate in a sanctuary situated outside of the city walls. Given the presence of water and its location along a key road, many scholars believe the sanctuary was intended for travelers coming into the city to be able to cleanse themselves and dedicate votive objects in a sacred context outside of the city’s boundaries (Edlund 1987; Colonna 2002; and Chapter 18 in this volume on votives).

Sanctuaries were also used to delineate the outermost extent of a city’s control during the sixth century. In his extensive study on the territories of Caere and Tarquinia, Andrea Zifferero (2002) found that a line of cult sites that ran from Punta della Vipera on the coast to Grotta Porcina inland fortified the natural boundary of the Tolfa mountains between the two centers. Although these sites were active during the Archaic period, they may have been established earlier to facilitate territorial control. In addition, following the ideas in F. de Polignac’s (1995) landmark study on the Greek temples of Sicily, Zifferero further identified the role of the frontier sanctuary as a “zona franca” along the periphery of a territory that facilitated interactions that included economic exchange. The most notable examples of this phenomenon in Etruria are the sanctuaries at the Etruscan emporia of Pyrgi (Caere) and Gravisca (Tarquinia). Exchange and interaction, including heterogeneous ritual activity, are attested at both sites, which were frequented by both local and foreign merchants. In addition, although both had previous structures dedicated to ritual practice, Pyrgi and Gravisca underwent a significant reorganization of their areae sacrae during the late sixth century. At Gravisca, the earliest evidence dates to the seventh century, but the first permanent structures used for ritual activity were constructed in the sixth century. The worship of Turan (Aphrodite) and Uni (Hera) is attested through epigraphic evidence. The provenance of the various votives associated with this period – a large amount of Greek pottery (Ionic cups, Corinthian, Laconian and Attic) along with Etruscan bucchero and perfume containers; Egyptian faience figurines of Bes and Horus; ivory reliefs; lamps; Sardinian bronze boats; bronze figurines, and other metal objects (Torelli 1990) – further attest to a multicultural worshipping population. At Pyrgi, although architectural terracottas dating to the sixth century have been recovered, the associated structure from this period has not. The extant remains indicate that the sanctuary was reorganized in 510 so that its two parts were divided by a fosso (ditch). At this time, a monumental sanctuary, which consisted of several smaller buildings and altars, was enclosed within a precinct wall, and its main temple, Temple B, was built in the traditional Greek peripteral style. Along the interior of the southeastern side of the sanctuary precinct, about 20 small rooms were constructed, in front of which were small rectangular structures, interpreted as altars (for Gravisca: Torelli 1990; Fiorini 2005; Bagnasco Gianni 2013; for Pyrgi: Pyrgi 1970; Colonna 2003; Baglione 2009, 2013).

Further emphasizing the distinction of the urban center from its hinterland is what scholars term the “ritual halo,” a pattern achieved in large part by the construction of necropoleis in the immediate vicinity of the city (for elaboration, see Riva and Stoddart 1996). During the Archaic period, there was a perceptible shift from the highly conspicuous monumental tumuli of the preceding centuries, which reigned over the landscape from strategic vantages, to smaller, more regularly organized tombs. The latter were also frequently aligned along an orthogonal plan, a form likewise used in the reorganization and ex-novo foundations of settlement centers such as Zone N at Acquarossa, Doganella, Piazza d’Armi, and Marzabotto. The Crocifisso del Tufo necropolis (Orvieto) and the Banditaccia cemetery (Caere) are the most notable examples of this phenomenon, along with the necropoleis of Peschiera and Pian di Mola (near Tuscania). At Populonia, a new tomb form – the aedicula, shaped like a small rectilinear building with a peaked roof and sometimes enhanced with antefixes and acroteria – emerges in the mid-sixth century. The burials within these tombs were largely those of aristocratic families, as the aedicula type is significantly outnumbered by the more common and much simpler cassone (chest) tombs (nevertheless, the latter could sometimes be affixed with acroteria). In the Casone necropolis near Populonia, the cassone burials were also arranged in an orthogonal pattern along two roads. Further south, at the Monterozzi necropolis near Tarquinia, rock-cut chamber tombs persist, with a limited percentage enhanced by wall frescoes detailing scenes of Etruscan life, mythological subjects, and landscapes (see further, Chapter 17).

With respect to trends in grave goods during the Archaic period, there is a noted increase in the deposition of mirrors within female burials by late in the sixth century, a phenomenon which suggests an increasing importance placed on the adornment of the body and personal identity. Decorated examples depict a wide range of mythological and allegorical scenes that allude to the lifecycle and the values and ideals of the Etruscan elite. In a period characterized by the negotiation of an individual between various levels of identities (e.g., personal, familial, civic, ethnic) as well as new social complexities, mirrors provide important insights about Etruscan beliefs and customs (van der Meer 1995; Izzet 1998; Izzet 2007: 43–86; De Puma 2013a; see further, Chapter 27).

The emergence of influential urban centers in Etruria during the Archaic period resulted in the radical reorganization of the landscape in order to maximize agricultural production that supported a growing populace, communication between the center and hinterland (as well as between centers), and control of the rural areas, especially through the use of strategic sanctuary sites in the buffer zones between territories. Secondary sites that flourished during the Orientalizing and early Archaic periods (e.g., Poggio Civitate and Acquarossa) were destroyed or abandoned by the mid-sixth century, most likely as the result of instability and pressure from the expansion of the larger urban centers (Stoddart 1990, 2010). These urban centers not only delineated themselves through the construction of fortification walls (some earlier than others), but each promoted their individual identity through the character of its production output, their participation in certain burial practices over others, and even in the production of currency.

4. The Classical Period (480–323)

The fifth century is traditionally considered to be a “crisis” period in Etruria, and although this is visible in the material record with respect to some sites, others – especially those inland and in northern Etruria – flourished. The defeat of the Etruscans off the coast of Cumae by the Syracusan navy in 474, an event recorded by Diodorus Siculus (11.51) and manifested visually in the Etruscan bronze helmets dedicated in the Sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia by the victors, resulted in the restriction of their access to Tyrrhenian sea channels (these were now controlled by Syracuse; see further, Chapter 6). Other historical factors that affected the economic livelihood of the Etruscans at this time include the occupation of Campania by the Samnites (Livy History of Rome 4.37.1), the expulsion of the last Etruscan king at Rome (Livy History of Rome 11.21.5), and the subsequent conflicts between Rome and Chiusi (Diodorus Siculus 7.3ff.; Tacitus Histories 3.72; Pliny Natural History 34.139; Livy History of Rome 2.14.8–9). However, a definitive link between these events and an economic “decline” in the southern Etruscan cities has not been sufficiently proved.

The restriction of access to shipping channels in the Tyrrhenian sea, however, had a substantial effect on these communities, as is attested by the steep decline in the importation of Attic vessels after the first quarter of the fifth century. Likewise, Gravisca was radically altered: the entrance to the sanctuary complex was moved from the south (facing the salt marshes and the sea) to the north (towards the settlement and Tarquinia) and several other buildings were constructed for storage purposes. This reorganization program was likewise accompanied by a significant decrease in Greek imports and the cessation of metallurgical activity previous associated with the sanctuary complex. Moreover, there is a perceptible shift within the votive inscriptions recovered from the names of Greek deities to Etruscan ones (Comella 1978). At Pyrgi, perhaps in deliberate contrast with the Greek-style Temple B, Temple A was constructed adjacent to the earlier one on a much larger scale and in the Tuscan style around 500. Recovered nearby, and likely dating to the same period, were the notable Pyrgi tablets, three gold leaf sheets inscribed in both Etruscan and Phoenician describing an alliance between the Caeretan Etruscans and the Carthaginians and the worship of Uni-Astarte in the name of the ruler (zilath) of Caere (see further, Chapter 14). This evidence supports the existence of the military alliances reported to have been made between the Etruscans and the Carthaginians in various naval incursions leading up to the Battle of Cumae. An enormous amount of votive material has also been associated with Temple A; it includes pottery (local and imports from Greece), loom weights, spindle whorls, spools, votive terracottas, coins (including fifth-century Greek and fourth-century Punic ones, as well as later Greek and Roman types), and miscellaneous bronze, iron, lead, and bone objects. Votive inscriptions are mostly dedicated to Uni (see further, Baglione 2013).

Also attested during this period at both Vulci and Tarquinia is a decline in Greek imports and other luxury goods in funerary environments. However, the inland and northern Etruscan cities continued to flourish. For example, although there is some evidence for settlements during the Late Bronze Age and Villanovan periods, as well as for Archaic necropoleis, the urban center of Perugia developed much later than many other Etruscan cities, with its walls constructed only during late fourth–early third centuries (della Fina 2002). Before this time, Perugia was unable to control its territory, resulting in a weakly controlled and highly permeable boundary. As a result, there was a proliferation of hilltop sanctuaries in the area from which thousands of schematic bronze figurines have been recovered. The hinterland of Perugia underwent a reorganization in the fourth–third centuries similar to that evident for other Etruscan centers 100 years before. Within the Perugian hinterland, however, territorial control was maintained through the usage of satellite settlements (e.g., Civitella d’Arna and Bettona) and fortified hilltops (Col di Marzo) (see further, Stoddart et al. 2012). Likewise along the northwestern boundary of the Vulcian territory during the fourth–third centuries, a line of similarly-fortified hilltops secured strategic passes between the Fiora and Albegna valleys (Rendeli 1993; Perkins 1999).

Boundaries were further solidified through the use of tular stones (Lambrechts 1970). The cippus perusinus, which dates to the third or second century, represents one of the most significant examples of these boundary markers. It describes an agreement over the sharing of land between the Velthina family based in Perugia and the Afuna family from Chiusi, on whose land a tomb of the Velthina family was located. The inscription covers the front and one of the side faces for a total of 46 lines, making it the second longest Etruscan inscription ever found (see Chapter 14) (Figure 2.3). Although the use of tular stones is attested from the sixth century, only their later use within northern Etruria has been documented archaeologically. In addition to examples inscribed tular spural (city boundary), one inscribed with tular rasnal was recovered at the base of the city of Cortona (TLE 632). Perhaps the latter was used to differentiate the Etruscans’ territory from that of the Umbrians to the east. Its survival, moreover, helps us better understand issues related the self-conceptualization of the Etruscans as a discrete ethnic group in central Italy.

Photos of the side view (left) and front view (right) of the inscribed cippus. — **Figure 2.3** Inscribed cippus (the so-called *cippus perusinus*), second century BCE. Travertine. From Perugia. Perugia, Museo Archeologico Nazionale dell’Umbria, inv. 366.
Photo: S. Neil.

The recent discovery at Campo della Fiera of the probable location of the Fanum Voltumnae (Stopponi 2011, 2013), where representatives of the various Etruscan cities were purported to congregate annually in the worship of Voltumna (Livy History of Rome 4.23, 25, 61; 5.17; 6.2), strengthens the argument for the self-conceptualization by the Etruscans living in the different urban centers of ethnic or perhaps cultural affinity (e.g., common interests and priorities). Indeed, there may have been physical indicia of a shared ethnicity/identity that are either undetectable in the material record or whose significance has been lost on modern observers. Like individuals today, an ancient Etruscan would have had constantly to construct, negotiate and emphasize accordingly the various facets of his or her identity – be it personal, gender, familial, socioeconomic, civic, ethnic, etc. Given the problems of the literary record, the archaeological record – from small finds, such as jewelry (Chapter 19) and textiles (Chapter 16), to monumental architecture, such as temples (Chapter 12) – remains our most reliable evidence for reconstructing those “identities.”

5. Conclusion

From the eighth to fifth centuries, the region known as Etruria underwent dynamic changes that resulted in the emergence of a highly stratified landscape focused on the emergent urban centers. Accompanying this transformation were new forms of material culture, which were used to illustrate the evolving social and political relationships during this period. The negotiation of these various facets of identity – and the material expression thereof – by the Etruscans over the course of these four centuries has created for archaeologists one of the most interesting material record case studies.

Nevertheless, to generalize excessively about the “Etruscan,” especially as a direct comparison to the Roman or Greek, is to render two-dimensional a deeply complex stratum of social history. Over the past 20 years, much progress has been made to establish the study of the Etruscans within a credible theoretical framework independent of the anachronistic biases of the written record and the typological hyper focus of the culture-historian. The pursuit of a comprehensive and contextually based approach to the Etruscans will continue to generate the most high-quality research, and allow us to gain new insights into their history and culture during four centuries of significant transformation.

REFERENCES

Agostiniani, L. 2013. “The Etruscan Language.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 457–477.
Ambrosini, L. 2013. “The Etruscan Painted Pottery.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 943–973.
Attema, P. A. J., ed. 2002. New Developments in Italian Landscape Archaeology. Oxford.
Baglione, M. P. 2009. “Culti e Culture dal Santuario dell’Area Sud di Pyrgi.” In S. Fortunelli and C. Masseria, eds., 217–232.
Baglione, M. P. 2013. “The Sanctuary of Pyrgi.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 613–631.
Bagnasco Gianni, G. 2013. “Tarquinia, Sacred Areas and Sanctuaries on the Civita Plateau and on the Coast: ‘Monumental Complex,’ Ara della Regina, Gravisca.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 594–612.
Bell, S. and H. Nagy, eds. 2009. New Perspectives on Etruria and Rome: Papers in Honor of Richard D. De Puma. Madison, WI.
Bonfante, G. and L. Bonfante. 2002. The Etruscan Language: An Introduction. Revised edn. Manchester.
Bonghi Jovino, M. 2010. “The Tarquinia Project: A Summary of 25 Years of Excavation.” American Journal of Archaeology 114: 161–180. DOI: 10.3764/aja.114.1.161.
Bradley, G. 2000. Ancient Umbria. State, Culture, and Identity in Central Italy from the Iron Age to the Augustan era. Oxford.
Bradley, G., C. Riva and E. Isayev, eds. 2007. Ancient Italy. Regions without Boundaries. Exeter.
Camporeale, G. 2009. “The Deified Deceased in Etruscan Culture.” In S. Bell and H. Nagy, eds., 220–250.
Colonna, G., ed. 1985. Santuari d’Etruria. Milan.
Colonna, G., ed. 2002. Il Santuario di Portonaccio a Veio. Vol. 1, Gli Scavi di Massimo Pallottino nella Zona dell’Altare (1939–1940). Rome.
Colonna, G. 2003. “Pyrgi.” Studi Etruschi 69: 307–336.
Comella, A. 1978. Il Materiale Votivo Tardo di Gravisca. Rome.
Cornell, T. J. and K. Lomas, eds. 1997. Gender and Ethnicity in Ancient Italy. (Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy 6.) London.
De Grummond, N. T. and I. Edlund Berry, eds. 2011. The Archaeology of Sanctuaries and Ritual in Etruria. (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 81.) Portsmouth, RI.
De Polignac, F. 1995. Cults, Territory and the Origins of the Greek City-State, transl. by J. Lloyd. Chicago.
De Puma, R. D. 2013a. “Mirrors in Art and Society.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 1041–1067.
De Puma, R. D. 2013b. “The Meanings of Bucchero.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 974–992.
Della Fina, G., ed. 2002. Perugia Etrusca: Atti del IX Convegno Internazionale di Studi sulla Storia e l’Archeologia dell’Etruria. Rome.
Edlund, I. 1987. The Gods and the Place: The Location and Function of Sanctuaries in the Countryside of Etruria and Magna Graecia (700–400 BC). Stockholm.
Edlund-Berry, I. E. M. 2012. “Afterword: Reflections.” In M. L. Thomas, and G. Meyers, eds., 166–174.
Edlund-Berry, I., J. F. Kenfield and G. Greco, eds. 2006. Deliciae Fictiles III: Architectural Terracottas in Ancient Italy: New Discoveries and Interpretations. Oxford.
Fiorini, L. 2005. Gravisca 1.1. Scavi nel Santuario Greco. Topografia Generale e Storia del Santuario. Analisi dei Contesti e delle Stratigrafie. Bari.
Fortunelli, S. and C. Masseria, eds. 2009. Ceramica Attica da Santuari della Grecia, della Ionia e dell’Italia. Venosa.
Gleba, M. and H. Becker, eds. 2009. Votives, Places and Rituals in Etruscan Religion: Studies in Honor of Jean MacIntosh Turfa. Leiden.
Isayev, E. 2007. “Introduction.” In G. Bradley, C. Riva and E. Isayev, eds., 1–20.
Izzet, V. E. 1998. “Holding a Mirror to Etruscan Gender.” In R. D. Whitehouse, ed., 209–227.
Izzet, V. E. 2001. “Form and Meaning in Etruscan Ritual Space.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11: 185–200. DOI: 10.1017/S0959774301000105.
Izzet, V. E. 2007. The Archaeology of Etruscan Society. Cambridge.
Izzet, V. E. 2007. “Etruria and the Etruscans: Recent Approaches.” In G. Bradley, C. Riva and E. Isayev, eds., 114–130.
Lambrechts, R. 1970. Les Inscriptions avec le Mot “Tular” et le Bornage Etrusques. Florence.
Leighton, R. 2013. “Urbanization in Southern Etruria from the Tenth to the Sixth Century BC: the Origins and Growth of Major Centers.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 134–150.
Meyers, G. 2013. “Approaching Monumental Architecture: Mechanics and Movement in Archaic Etruscan Palaces.” Papers from the British School at Rome 81: 39–66.
Moretti Sgubini, A. M., ed. 2001. Veio, Cerveteri, Vulci: Città d’Etruria a Confronto. Rome.
Naso, A. 2000. “The Etruscan Aristocracy in the Orientalizing Period: Culture, Economy, Relations.” In M. Torelli, ed., 111–129.
Nielsen, E. and A. Tuck. 2001. “An Orientalizing Period Complex at Poggio Civitate (Murlo): A Preliminary View.” Etruscan Studies 8: 35–64.
Pacciarelli, M. 2000. Dal Villaggio alla Città: la Svolta Protourbana dal 1000 a.C. nell’Italia Tirrenica. Florence.
Perkins, P. 1999. Etruscan Settlement, Society and Material Culture in Central Coastal Etruria. Oxford.
Perkins, P. 2007. Etruscan Bucchero in the British Museum. London.
Perkins, P. 2009. “DNA and Etruscan Identity.” In P. Perkins and J. Swaddling, eds., 95–111.
Perkins, P. 2012. “The Bucchero Childbirth Stamp on a Late Orientalizing Period Shard from Poggio Colla.” Etruscan Studies 15.2: 146–201.
Perkins, P. and J. Swaddling, eds. 2009. Etruscan by Definition: Papers in Honour of Sybille Haynes. (The British Museum Research Publications 173.) London.
Potter, T. W. 1979. The Changing Landscape of South Etruria. London.
Pyrgi . 1970. Scavi del santuario etrusco (1958–1967). Rome.
Rafanelli, S. 2013. “Archaeological Evidence for Etruscan Religious Rituals.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 566–593.
Rasmussen, T. 2006. Bucchero Pottery from Southern Etruria. Cambridge.
Rendeli, M. 1993. Città Aperte: Ambiente e Passagio Rurale Organizzato nell’Etruria Meridionale Costiera Durante l’Età Orientalizzante e Arcaica. Rome.
Riva, C. 2010. The Urbanisation of Etruria: Funerary Practices and Social Change, 700–600 BC. Cambridge.
Riva, C. and S. K. F. Stoddart. 1996. “Ritual Landscapes in Archaic Etruria.” In J. B. Wilkins, ed., 91–109.
Stoddart, S. K. F. 1990. “The Political Landscape of Etruria.” Accordia Research Papers 1: 39–51.
Stoddart, S. K. F. 2010. “Boundaries of the State in Time and Space: Transitions and Tipping Points.” Social Evolution & History 9: 28–52.
Stoddart, S. et al. 2012. “Opening the Frontier: The Gubbio-Perugia Frontier in the Course of History.” Papers of the British School at Rome 80: 257–294.
Stopponi, S. 2013. “Orvieto, Campo della Fiera – Fanum Voltumnae.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 632–654.
Strandberg Olofsson, M. 1989. “On the Reconstruction of the Monumental Area at Acquarossa.” Opuscula Romana 17: 163–183.
Thomas, M. L. and G. Meyers, eds. 2012. Monumentality in Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture: Ideology and Innovation. Austin, TX.
Torelli, M. 1990. Gravisca. Rome.
Torelli, M., ed. 2000. The Etruscans. New York.
Tuck, A. 2006. “The Social and Political Context of the Seventh Century Architectural Terracottas from Poggio Civitate (Murlo).” In I. Edlund-Berry, J. F. Kenfield and G. Greco, eds., 130–135.
Tuck, A. 2009. “Center and Periphery in Inland Etruria: Poggio Civitate and the Etruscan Settlement in Vescovado di Murlo.” Etruscan Studies 12: 215–237.
Tuck, A. 2012. “The Performance of Death. Monumentality, Burial Practice, and Community Identity in Central Italy’s Urbanizing Period.” In M. L. Thomas and G. Meyers, eds., 41–60.
Turfa, J. M., ed. 2013. The Etruscan World. London.
Wallace, R. 2008. “Etruscan Inscriptions on Ivory Objects Recovered from the Orientalizing Period Residence at Poggio Civitate (Murlo).” Etruscan Studies 11: 67–80.
Van der Meer, L. B. 1995. Interpretatio Etrusca. Greek Myths on Etruscan Mirrors. Amsterdam.
Warden, P. G. 2012. “Monumental Embodiment. Somatic Symbolism and the Tuscan Temple.” In M. L. Thomas and G. Meyers, eds., 82–110.
Whitehouse, R. D., ed. 1998. Gender and Italian Archaeology, Challenging the Stereotypes. London.
Wikander, C. and Ö. Wikander. 1990. “The Early Monumental Complex at Acquarossa. A Preliminary Report.” Opuscula Romana 18: 189–205.
Wilkins, J., ed. 1996. Approaches to the Study of Ritual: Italy and the Mediterranean. London.
Winter, N. 2013. “The Phenomenon of Terracotta: Architectural Terracottas.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 903–913.
Zifferero, A. 2002. “The Geography of Ritual Landscape in Complex Societies.” In P. A. J. Attema, ed., 246–265.

GUIDE TO FURTHER READING

Given the broad scope of this contribution, suggested readings will be limited to general treatments of Etruscan material culture and identity, suitable for introductory readers. The past five years have seen a significant boom in the publication of edited volumes on various topics related to the Etruscans: religion (Gleba and Becker 2009; de Grummond and Edlund-Berry 2011), architecture (Thomas and Meyers 2012) and material culture (Perkins and Swaddling 2009). Most recently, Turfa 2013 brings together the latest research on a range of facets of Etruscan culture, from the general development of Etruria to specific studies on art, manufacturing, religion, town planning, chariots, food, textiles, etc.

Two noteworthy monographs have also been published recently on the Etruscans. Izzet 2007 looks at changes in the surface decoration of various categories of material culture as it relates to the development of Etruscan social institutions during the Archaic period. Riva 2010 examines the transformation of burial practice in relation to the evolving social and political structures, especially the expression of power, during the seventh century.

On the topic of identity and ethnicity in protohistoric Italy, including that of the Etruscans, studies are somewhat less frequent. Cornell and Lomas 1997 remains relevant in its treatment of the study of ethnicity within an Italian context. Bradley 2000 provides a solid synthesis of archaeological data to present a nuanced conception of Umbrian identity. An excellent application of a similar approach to various groups of ancient Italian peoples can be found in the 2007 edited volume, Ancient Italy: Regions without Boundaries (see especially the introduction by Isayev and the entry on the Etruscans by Izzet). Perkins and Swaddling 2009 nominally examines Etruscan identities, to varying degrees of success; however, Perkins’s contribution on DNA and ethnicity is well-conceptualized.