CHAPTER 11
Rock Tombs and the World of the Etruscan Necropoleis
Recent Discoveries, Research, and Interpretations

Stephan Steingräber

1. Introduction

Modern-day Tuscany and northern Latium are the homeland of Etruscan civilization, which developed during the first millennium BCE between Florence and Rome and between the Tyrrhenian sea and the Tiber river in the western part of central Italy (Torelli 1980; Steingräber 1981; Haynes 2000; Martinelli and Paolucci 2006). Today, these areas are full of ancient Etruscan cemeteries and tombs that have attracted the interest, fantasy, and greed of travelers, scholars, and tomb-robbers for centuries (Torelli 1982). These tombs, which date mainly from the seventh to the second century, are constructed with stone blocks or slabs (as mostly in northern Etruria) or hewn out from the soft volcanic tufa rock (as mostly in southern Etruria) as if for eternity.¹ As a consequence, they are much better preserved than the cities, villages, sanctuaries, temples, public buildings, houses, and huts of the Etruscans (Åkerström 1934; Demus Quatember 1958; Prayon 1975; Boethius 1978; Oleson 1982; Colonna 1986; Prayon 1986; Prayon 1989; Colonna 1994; Nardi 1999; Bartoloni 2000; Prayon 2000; Steingräber 2010; Bartoloni 2012a; Steingräber 2013). That we continue to know far more about the world of the dead in Etruria than we do that of the living is the result of several causes: cultural, religious, geological, and architectural, along with the history of research itself. Etruscan tombs are generally more massive and lasting in form than other building types, which were mostly constructed from more impermanent materials. Indeed, the Etruscans were conspicuous among ancient Mediterranean peoples for the labor and financial resources they were willing to invest in their cemeteries (necropoleis) and tombs; their tomb monuments, paintings, sculptures and reliefs; the rich burial gifts and cult ceremonies in honor of the dead and ancestors; and thus, so to speak, to the afterlife (Steingräber 1997, 2000a, and 2002; Steiner 2004; Prayon 2006).

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, travelers, artists and scholars rediscovered, visited, described, drew and studied these unique Etruscan cemeteries and tombs distributed all over central Italy and on the outskirts of Cerveteri, Tarquinia, Vulci, Vetulonia, Populonia, Volterra, Chiusi, and Orvieto (see Map 1). They remained fascinated by their splendidly elaborate architecture, their colorful and lively wall paintings, their luxurious and artistic burial gifts (as far as they were still preserved), and, especially, their harmony with the beautiful landscape and nature of Tuscany and northern Latium (Orioli 1826; Canina 1846–51; Origo Crea 1984). In 1848 the British diplomat, scholar and author George Dennis published his memorable and still-useful book on the Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria. His work is the product of his many visits to most of the Etruscan sites and reflects the importance and uniqueness of these tombs in the age of Romanticism (Dennis 1848).

Today, some Etruscan cemeteries and tombs are situated in archaeological parks, some are still located in the virgin wildness and nature of Etruria, and others are now used as stalls, storerooms and wine cellars. Every year new tombs are discovered by regular excavations (as well as by tomb robbers), contributing to a better understanding of the Etruscan world of the dead. In September of 2013, for example, an almost intact chamber tomb dating from the late Orientalizing period was discovered and opened in the Doganaccia locality close to the Tumulo della Regina at Tarquinia; it contained rich burial gifts that belonged to an aristocratic female (Mandolesi 2008). Many Etruscan cemeteries and tombs still await systematic study and publication, as is seen in the case of the large necropoleis of Cerveteri.

A visit to the Banditaccia Necropolis of Cisra/Caere/Cerveteri in Southern Etruria near the Tyrrhenian coast gives one the best sense of a large, monumental Etruscan cemetery dating from the ninth to the second centuries (Pallottino 1971; Drago Troccoli 2006). Such a visit also provides one with an idea of the great richness and power of the Etruscan metropolis of Cerveteri, particularly during the seventh and sixth centuries when it was in close cultural and economic contact with the Greek and Near Eastern world. These factors made it one of the most important cities of the Mediterranean. The necropolis was excavated and restored during the first decades of the twentieth century, mainly by R. Mengarelli, and is now situated in a beautiful archaeological park (Ricci 1955; Moretti 1977). It consists of thousands of tombs, mainly chambers hewn out from the reddish tufa rock and covered partly by huge and smaller tumuli (mounds) (seventh and early sixth century), or by rectangular cubes (from the middle of the sixth century) (Figure 11.1, Plate Section). These funerary monuments are arranged in a system of burial roads and squares (sometimes one can see still the tracks of the burial cart wheels) representing thus a kind of “city of the dead” (from the Greek “necropolis”).

Image described by caption. — **Figure 11.1** Tumulus tomb, seventh century. From the Banditaccia necropolis, Caere.
Photo: S. Steingräber.

There is a rich typological variety of tombs at Cerveteri, especially from the beginning of the seventh to the beginning of the fifth century. F. Prayon (1975) divided them into six main types (A–F). Several are also documented in other parts of southern Etruria too. Normally a dromos (corridor) leads down to the tomb that consists mostly of several rooms and includes many interesting architectural details. These details clearly imitate the (almost lost) Etruscan wooden house architecture (Naso 2001), such as doors and windows with frames, ledges, ceilings with beams, coffers and pediments, columns and pillars with decorated capitals, beds, thrones and chairs (e.g., the Tomb of Shields and Seats) (Steingräber 1979). Some of these architectural details are stuccoed and/or painted (e.g., the Tomb of the Painted Animals 1) (Naso 1991, 1995, 1996a). The dead were buried on the stone beds or in stone or wooden sarcophagi and surrounded by burial gifts, often very rich ones, such as furniture, vases, weapons, jewelry and other personal belongings in clay, terracotta, precious metals (bronze, silver, gold), ivory, wood, and textiles (especially in case of the leading aristocratic families which dominated Etruscan society). In this way, the tomb reflects the idea of a “house of the dead” from which the deceased would begin his or her last journey to the next world. The ramps and staircases in stone demonstrate that priests and family members could climb up onto the mounds and cubes for special ceremonies in honor of the dead ancestors (Prayon 1975; Zamarchi Grassi 1993; Steingräber 1997; Prayon 2006: 24–26); special tomb chambers with altars and sacrificial tables were also used for burial rites (e.g., the Tomb of the Five Chairs and the Campana Tomb 1) (Prayon 1975; 2006: 32–44). Walking on a hot summer day along the ancient burial roads between the impressive, monumental tumuli and the rows of cube-like tombs, now overgrown and surrounded by old trees and bushes, one feels closer to the Etruscans and can understand better their predilection for the ancestor cult and, moreover, the world of the dead.

2. The Rock Tombs of Southern Etruria

The so-called “rock tombs” in the southern Etruscan inland zone constitute an especially characteristic and impressive group for which there is no parallel in Italy in terms of quantity, monumentality, or variety of types (Colonna 1967). On the other hand, the phenomenon of rock tomb architecture was quite common in several other ancient cultures in the Mediterranean. Thus, while extraordinary within their Italian context, Etruscan rock tombs do not constitute a completely isolated case in antiquity (Steingräber 1996).

The geographical and geological situation, of course, is the fundamental precondition for the origin of rock tombs. Normally they occur in landscapes of volcanic origin with deep ravines and steep cliffs. The distribution of rock tombs in the central and eastern Mediterranean tells us that such conditions occur elsewhere outside of southern Etruria, namely in several regions of Asia Minor (Lycia, Caria and Paphlagonia), in the Palestinian and Nabatean regions, and in Cyrenaica. Rock tombs were also hewn out in Eastern Anatolian Urartu, in the Kurdish border area between Iran and Iraq, in the surroundings of Persian Persepolis, in the Saudi Arabian Hegra and in Egyptian Beni Hassan. A characteristic rock architecture can also be found in areas with cultures completely different from the Etruscans, such as in Afghanistan, India, and China, but normally those monuments belong to sacral rather than sepulchral architecture.

The chronological range of these kinds of tombs in the Mediterranean extends from the Egyptian Middle Kingdom (Dynasty XII in Beni Hassan) to the Roman Imperial period. Before the sixth century only relatively few examples (e.g., in Urartu and Phrygia) can be found. During the fourth century the phenomenon increased markedly and then reached its high point in the Hellenistic and early Roman Imperial periods (Steingräber 1996).

In their typology, size, equipment, and decoration, rock tombs demonstrate a wide spectrum of characteristics. On the other hand, we also encounter several characteristics that are common to different regions. This phenomenon was particularly marked in the so-called “peripheral” cultures, which often, in a relatively short period, had a strong economic upturn and became very rich, mostly as the result of trade. A. Schmidt-Colinet formulated this fact succinctly about Nabatean rock tomb architecture, about which he writes that: “one can perceive, behind all these cities of the dead in the rock effort to grant to the houses of the dead, quite clearly in contrast to the houses of the living – as far as we can understand these things at all archaeologically – permanence and monumentality” (Schmidt-Colinet 1980: 229 especially).

In general one can say that the main emphasis in rock tomb architecture was laid on the outward appearance, i.e. on the monument and not so much on the tomb chamber or the deathbed or the burial gifts. Obviously the owners of these tombs wanted to be noticed by their contemporaries and descendants. Therefore the “ideology” of most of these monuments expresses not only material prosperity and need for admiration, but also a particular social pretension.

The Etruscan rock tombs are concentrated in the southern Etruscan interior (Colonna di Paolo 1978; Steingräber 1985; Romanelli 1986; Moscatelli and Mazzuoli 2008; Steingräber 2009a). This landscape of pastoral character is still quite intact and is especially distinctive for its volcanic tufa stone, its deep canyon-like valleys, its plateaux with naturally defended settlements, and its several crater lakes. The distribution of rock tombs extends from the edges of the eastern Tolfa around Stigliano in the south to southwestern Tuscany around Sovana in the north, with the main centers in Blera (Koch, von Mercklin, and Weickert 1915; Quilici Gigli 1976), San Giuliano (Gargana 1931; Steingräber 2009b), Tuscania (Quilici Gigli 1970; Steingräber 1996: 84–91), Norchia (Colonna di Paolo and Colonna 1978), Castel d’Asso (Colonna di Paolo and Colonna 1970), and Sovana (Maggiani 1994; Barbieri 2010).

The beginnings of southern Etruscan rock tomb architecture go back to the second quarter of the sixth century. The most recent examples date from the late third and early second century. This phenomenon had its high point in the later Archaic period (second half of the sixth century and beginning of the fifth century) and in the early Hellenistic period (end of the fourth and first half of the third century). During the first period of its effloresence, the most numerous and complex rock tombs were situated largely in the south around Blera (Figure 11.2) and San Giuliano (an area that belongs to the sphere of political and cultural influence of Cerveteri) and Tuscania (which is in the hinterland of Tarquinia). The most important rock tombs of the second high period are more to be found in the north, at Norchia, Castel d’Asso, and Sovana (i.e., in the areas of influence, respectively, of Tarquinia and Vulci). During the Etruscan Classical period, the phenomenon of rock tombs was less important. This shift probably resulted from, on the one hand, an evident economic crisis in this area and, on the other, a stronger social leveling of the population structure.

Agriculture, primarily the production of wine, olive oil, and grain was certainly the main economic basis of the southern Etruscan rock tomb area, but also domestic trade and, in part, the utilization of the nearby metal deposits could have contributed to the region’s prosperity. In addition, during the Romanization of Etruria, Roman political forces supported the smaller inland centers at the expense of the larger coastal centers (see Chapter 3). This fact is reflected also in the building of the Via Clodia. From after the middle of the second century, a general decline in southern Etruria is undeniable.

One can divide the research on southern Etruscan rock tombs into three main periods. The Englishmen Samuel James Ainsley and George Dennis are to be regarded as the real discoverers of these tombs in the middle of the nineteenth century (Dennis 1848; Origo Crea 1984). The Italians L. Canina (Canina 1846–51) and F. Orioli (Orioli 1826) and the Frenchmen H. Labrouste and A. Lenoir rendered outstanding service, mostly for their illustrations of these monuments. In the period between the First and Second World Wars, intensive excavations and research activities were carried out by the Germans H. Koch, E. von Mercklin, and C. Weickert in Blera (Koch et al. 1915), and by the Italians R. Bianchi Bandinelli in Sovana (Bianchi Bandinelli 1929), A. Gargana in San Giuliano (Gargana 1931), and G. Rosi on southern Etruscan rock tomb architecture generally (Rosi 1925, 1927). Only during the 1960s did a third period of lively research activity start again, represented mainly by the Swedish excavations under King Gustav VI Adolf at San Giovenale and Luni sul Mignone (Boethius 1962), by the Etruscologist couple E. and G. Colonna at Castel d’Asso and Norchia (Colonna di Paolo and Colonna 1970, 1978), by S. Quilici on the topography of Blera and Tuscania (Quilici Gigli 1970, 1976), by A. Maggiani at Sovana (Maggiani 1994), by J.P. Oleson in a fundamental study on late southern Etruscan rock tomb architecture (Oleson 1982), and finally by R. Romanelli in a general study of the southern Etruscan rock tomb area (Romanelli 1986). The systematic series of publications of all relevant Etruscan rock tomb necropoleis initiated and edited by the Consiglio Nazionale di Ricerche (CNR) in Rome unfortunately came to a standstill several years ago. The most recent discoveries in Tuscania, in particular, make perfectly clear to scholars the necessity for the continuation of these publications and for an intensive analysis of this unique phenomenon (Steingräber 2012: 90–92). In October 2010, S. Steingräber and F. Ceci organized an international Congress on the southern Etruscan rock tomb area at Barbarano Romano and Blera (Steingräber and Ceci 2014). This important event and other recent publications have helped greatly to revive interest in and stimulate research on Etruscan rock necropoleis and tombs.

Types and Variants of Southern Etruscan Rock Tombs

One can divide southern Etruscan rock tombs into several types and variants according to geographic distribution, chronology, and size. The spectrum ranges from simple chambers, loculi, or niches cut into the tufa rock without elaborated façades to complex, temple-shaped rock monuments. The so-called “cube tomb” (tomba a dado) is the most common type from the Archaic to the Hellenistic periods. Among the other types to be mentioned are the house tomb (sixth to third centuries with the best examples appearing in Tuscania and Blera), the Archaic porticus tomb (second half of the sixth century; only in San Giuliano), the Hellenistic temple- and porticus tomb (Norchia, Sovana), the Hellenistic aedicula tomb and the Hellenistic tholos tomb (both in Sovana).

It is characteristic of the development of Etruscan rock tomb architecture that, in the course of time, the façade gained in importance as a tomb monument at the expense of the tomb chamber or burial, which since the fourth century was transferred to beneath the façade and was less precisely articulated. The tomb façades – or their details, at least – were originally painted (Figure 11.3), while inscriptions and reliefs are relatively rare. One of the most characteristic elements, especially of the cube tombs, is the so-called porta dorica, which in the older period still forms the real entrance to the tomb chamber. During the fourth century, it becomes a mere false door, probably assuming symbolic significance (see further, Chapter 17).

Image described by caption and surrounding text. — **Figure 11.3** Reconstruction of the façade of the Hildebrand temple tomb at Sovana, first half of the third century BCE. Archaeological Museum of Sovana.
Photo: S. Steingräber.

Some elements of rock tombs, such as the platforms with moldings and the lateral stairs on cube tombs, clearly only served ceremonies associated with the cult of the dead. These platforms are formally and functionally comparable to monumental altars and could serve also as supports for cippi of different forms and sizes. The so-called sottofacciata rooms, with stone benches partly in front of the façades, of Hellenistic cube tombs in Norchia and Castel d’Asso, were probably intended for funeral banquets (Steingräber 1997; Prayon 2006: 24–26).

Normally the rock tombs were carved out of the tufa faces, starting at the top. Sometimes individual structures were also built of stone blocks (e.g., see the Archaic porticus tomb in Tuscania-Pian di Mola: Steingräber 1996: 84–91). Fixed measurements were apparently not used. During the most flourishing periods of rock tomb architecture, we have to postulate a large number of simple stonemasons, and also specialized sculptors who articulated the details, most likely with reference to models or graphic drawings.

Among the different tomb types and their decoration, we can detect both local Etruscan and foreign innovative elements. The cube tomb, with its several variants, is a characteristic Etruscan type. On the other hand, the monumental and expensive temple- and porticus tombs of the Hellenistic period are inconceivable without foreign models and influences. In their general conception, these tombs remind us primarily of the mausoleum and heroon traditions in Asia Minor (e.g., see the Mausolea of Halikarnassos and Belevi and the Archokrateion of Rhodos discussed by J.P. Oleson (1982: 49–61, 63–71, 88–96) and J. Fedak (1990: 65–101, 295–331), whereas with regard to the details of the decoration and reliefs we can ascertain prototypes especially from Southern Italy and Apulia.

Topographical arrangement and organization of the larger rock tomb necropoleis are not accidental but an expression of an intended rational use of space and of new urbanistic tendencies. The rock tombs often are arranged in rows side by side and on terraces on top of each other, connected by paths and stairs. They concentrate particularly on the areas along the main entry and exit roads of the ancient city, or are situated around rectangular squares. Similar tendencies are reflected in the rectangular system of cube tomb streets in the necropoleis of Cerveteri (Banditaccia) and Orvieto (Crocifisso del Tufo), which date from the second half of the sixth century, and in the “Hippodamian” town system of Marzabotto (and most recently documented for the late Archaic period in Prato-Gonfienti too), which dates to around 500 (Steingräber 2001: especially 14–19).

Only a certain number of types, ground plans, and details of rock tombs are borrowed from Etruscan house architecture: e.g., the house-shaped type, the ground plan of the transverse house with two or three rooms side by side (= tomb types D and E in Cerveteri according to Prayon 1975), or individual elements, such as the saddle roof or beds (klinai). Generally the discrepancy between tomb and house architecture becomes still more obvious in the later rock tombs of the Hellenistic period.

From the beginning, the phenomenon of southern Etruscan rock tomb architecture certainly was not only determined by geological factors but also was aimed at scenographic and prestigious effects. This fact is reflected not least by the typical orientation of the tomb façades toward the city so as to establish a permanent visual link between the area of the living and the area of the dead. Already at the beginning of rock tomb architecture, the façade was especially emphasized but the relation between the external architecture and the tomb chamber was still appropriate and functional. However, from the fourth century on this relationship utterly changed in favor of a pure and often very expensive false façade architecture, which neglected the subterranean, relatively disguised tomb chamber. This emphasis on the tomb monument and its exterior appearance doubtlessly expresses the intention of the social ruling classes – a kind of landed gentry – to stand out in public and permanently to recall themselves to the minds of their descendants.

The numerous burials – in the latest period, up to 70 per tomb – and burial gifts dating from several generations prove that most of these rock tombs constitute family complexes used for several generations. Of course, only exceptionally do we find tomb inventories still intact; this makes the dating of many tombs more difficult.

3. Case Study: The Rock Tombs at Pian di Mola in Tuscania

The origin of Archaic Etruscan rock tomb architecture in Etruria remains unclear in all its respects and is still disputed amongst scholars. Of particular interest in this regard is a large rock tomb area on the western slope of Pian di Mola in Tuscania (Figure 11.4). It was excavated by the Soprintendenza of Southern Etruria from 1984 to 1989, and more recently partly restored (Sgubini Moretti 1991: 14–24; Steingräber 1996: 84–91 and 2012: 90–92). This area contains several rock tombs situated along a funeral road and oriented toward the Peschiera necropolis, on the opposite side, and toward part of the ancient city.

In the center of the area, there is a large house tomb carved almost entirely into the tufa, both front and rear. The portico in front is mostly constructed from blocks and slabs of tufa and peperino in different colors with chromatic effects. The quality of the stone masonry is excellent. The house tomb is 9.4 meters in length and 8.5 meters in depth. On and also partly beside the columen of the roof, which is decorated with two lateral pediments, there were five rectangular bases, several house- and omphalos-shaped cippi, and a number of sculptures, among which two sphinxes and a lion are still preserved. The pediments are characterized by the molded ends of the longitudinal beams, a central vertical pillar, and a molded architrave. Both ends of the columen are decorated with disk-shaped acroteria, which were originally painted. The tomb façade stands out due to the central entrance door and two lateral false doors (subdivided into four panels, all in the porta dorica type), a profiled base, and a profiled upper zone with “owl’s beak” (becco di civetta), fascie and torus. The central entrance originally was closed by stone blocks, which also imitate the structure of a paneled door. The portico consists of two antae with profiled bases and four Tuscan columns, among which we can still see the bases with their rich moldings. An entablature of Ionian type, which probably carried a flat roof with imitation of wooden beams on the underside, had an incline in front. Small sculptures of reclining lions were probably arranged on top of the entablature of the portico. A staircase on the left led to the portico roof, which doubtlessly served as a platform for cult ceremonies (as did the platforms on top of many rock cube tombs). Inside the house cube we find three chambers arranged side by side with ground plans that are not perfectly rectangular. The central chamber is characterized by a horizontal ceiling with beams and, in front of the rear wall, a bed (kline) with turned legs and two heads. The side chambers have three rather simple stone beds and a ceiling with a small angle of inclination. Fragments of Etruscan and Greek ceramics and faience, and a bronze lion statuette (from a cauldron) found in the tomb testify that its use dates from the second quarter until the end of the sixth century; that is, for about three generations.

North of this tomb and especially to the south we find several simpler house and cube tombs without any porticus. They can be dated to the second and third quarters of the sixth century due to fragmentary burial gifts. A little older than the main tomb is a small pozzo or well tomb in which an Attic krater functioned as an urn. This tomb was topped by a well-articulated house-shaped cippus with disk-shaped acroteria and traces of paint. This kind of cippus reflects the form of the house tombs in miniature.

The house tomb with porticus at Pian di Mola and the annexed group of monumental rock tombs doubtlessly belonged to one of the aristocratic clans that dominated Tuscania politically and economically in the Archaic period. Unfortunately, we do not know the name of this family but probably there was intended a precise genealogical and “ideological” relationship between, on the one side, the cremation burial in the (not much older) pozzo tomb, containing the Attic krater and the house-shaped cippus, and on the other, the main inhumation burial in the house tomb with porticus. Even at this early point we can ascertain an intended demonstration of social status in the tomb architecture of the southern Etruscan inland because greater emphasis was placed on the façades than on the interiors of the tombs there. This tendency will increase significantly in later periods.

The porticus tomb in Tuscania generally belongs to among the oldest rock tombs in the Mediterranean area, even though it is not a pure rock tomb with regard to its structure. Older rock tombs or rock monuments, for example those in Urartu and Phrygia, cannot be considered prototypes for typological reasons. The oldest carved porticus tombs outside Etruria, such as those in Persia, Cyrenaica (Barka) and Paphlagonia, have to be dated at least several decades later. Definitely later, too, are the oldest house tombs of Lycia, which also are not comparable in typological respects to the Etruscan examples. Still later are the Lycian and Carian temple tombs (Steingräber 1996: 75–76, 90). Therefore we have to assume that our monumental rock tomb in Tuscania was influenced mainly by the architecture of the Etruscan house and palace and not by that of the temple nor by foreign tombs.

On the other hand, we must also question whether the phenomenon of rock tombs, which had been deeply rooted in some parts of Asia Minor since early periods, could not have given some impulse to the genesis of Etruscan rock tomb architecture – not so much in specific typology but in a more general conceptual way. It could also speak well for this hypothesis that the oldest Etruscan rock tombs of the second quarter of the sixth century were not the result of a long local development but appeared suddenly, completely developed and monumentalized. There were manifold relations between the coastal centers of Etruria and several regions of Eastern Greece and Asia Minor as early as the eighth and especially in the seventh century. From this point of view, we have to see possible influences from Asia Minor in the architecture of the monumental tumuli that started quite suddenly during the first decades of the seventh century, particularly in Cerveteri. Both F. Prayon (1995) and A. Naso (1996b, 1998) have drawn our attention to this fact by reminding us, for example, of the big Lydian tumuli with partly carved chamber tombs and interior painted decoration. As has been clearly proved, eastern influence, especially from northern Syria, was decisive for the monumentalization of Etruscan funerary sculpture in the early seventh century. G. Colonna and F. W. von Hase (1984) illustrated this very well in the Tomb of the Statues at Ceri, which dates from the first quarter of the seventh century BCE.

4. Hellenistic Period Barrel-Vaulted Tombs in Etruria

Concerning the late Etruscan period (the end of the fourth to the second century BCE) the barrel-vaulted (or so-called Macedonian) type is of particular interest. We find the oldest examples of the early Hellenistic period in South Etruria (Cerveteri and Orvieto), whereas the more recent and numerous examples of the middle Hellenistic period are located in central and northeastern Etruria (the areas of Chiusi, Cortona and Perugia) (Oleson 1982: 30–39, 71–88, 97–106; Steingräber 1993: 180–182; Benassai 2011). Doubtlessly we have to deal here with an innovative tomb type of foreign origin. The tombs are mostly built in stone blocks – only the Tassinaia Tomb at Chiusi is hewn out of the soft local sandstone – and are characterized by a rectangular ground plan, a ledge, benches and/or niches and the barrel vault built precisely in single stones without any mortar. The vault of the so-called Tanella di Pitagora at Cortona (Figure 11.5) is erected in huge monolithic blocks in the longitudinal axis. The Ipogeo di San Manno near Perugia has two small barrel-vaulted side chambers too. The oldest and most impressive example, the Tomb of the Demons, is located in Greppe Sant’Angelo at Cerveteri and characterized by a large open space, a facade with sculptural decorations (including a figure of the demon Charun) and a huge chamber with a double barrel vault in single stone blocks and plastered walls. It can be dated still toward the end of the fourth century and is clearly influenced by Macedonian models of the second half of the fourth century. Those influences were probably transmitted by northern Apulia/Daunia and Campania to southern Etruria and later northwards. In Daunia we find monumental barrel-vaulted tombs mainly in Arpi near Foggia – the most important example is the Ipogeo della Medusa (Figure 11.6) – in Campania in Naples (Ipogeo Cristallini, Ipogeo Santa Maria La Nova), Capua, Cuma, Teano, Cales and Atripalda (Mazzei 1995; Steingräber 2000b: 1–60, 114). In the early Hellenistic period the new leading Mediterranean power that was Macedonia attracted the leading aristocratic classes both in southern Italy and in Etruria in ideological and cultural sense and so Macedonian models became reflected in the palace and house architecture as in tomb architecture in Italy too.

5. Conclusions

In this chapter, it has been possible only to touch upon and discuss a small selection of Etruscan necropoleis and tombs – mainly those of Cerveteri, the volcanic inland area of southern Etruria, and the special group of the barrel-vaulted tombs from the Hellenistic period. There are, of course, many different approaches to this extremely complex and interesting topic which often reflect historic, economic and social changes as well. As demonstrated by numerous publications over the last decades, these include emphases on technical–architectural aspects, art history, religion, social concerns, to name just a few. Of special interest are also the history of discoveries and research; the organization and topography of the necropoleis; the influences from house, palace and temple architecture; the distinction between local Etruscan and imported foreign elements; the elements for the ancestor cult; the funeral incriptions, cippi (Steingräber 1991) and tomb sculptures and the composition and character of the burial gifts. The main desiderata for future studies should be greater international cooperation; the creation of valid and helpful databases; the still-missing comprehensive publication of several important necropoleis; more paleoanthropological, paleozoological, and paleobotanical research for the reconstruction of general living conditions in Etruria (Becker, Turfa, and Algee-Hewitt 2009); and, finally, the preparation and publication of a well-organized handbook/manual on all Etruscan necropoleis, tombs and tomb architecture, including the most recent excavations, discoveries and interpretations.

REFERENCES

Åkerström, A. 1934. Studien über die etruskischen Gräber. Uppsala.
Barbieri, G., ed. 2010. La Tomba dei Demoni alati di Sovana. Un capolavoro dell’architettura rupestre in Etruria. Siena.
Bartoloni, G. 1972. Le tombe da Poggio Buco nel Museo Archeologico di Firenze. Florence.
Bartoloni, G. 2000. La tomba, in Principi etruschi tra Mediterraneo ed Europa. Comune di Bologna, Museo Civico Archeologico. Venice.
Bartoloni, G. 2003. Le società dell’Italia primitiva. Lo studio delle necropoli e la nascita delle aristocrazie. Rome.
Bartoloni, G. 2012a. “L’architettura.” In G. Bartoloni, ed., 253–308.
Bartoloni, G., ed. 2012b. Introduzione all’Etruscologia. Milan.
Becker, M. J., J. M. Turfa, and B. Algee-Hewitt. 2009. Human Remains from Etruscan and Italic Tomb Groups in the University of Pennsylvania Museum. Pisa.
Benassai, R. 2011. “Le tombe a camera con volta a botte in Campania: riflessi nell’architettura funeraria ellenistica in Etruria.” In G. Camporeale, ed., 315–329.
Bianchi Bandinelli, R. 1925. “Chiusi.” Monumenti Antichi 30: 210–551.
Bianchi Bandinelli, R. 1929. Sovana. Florence.
Blanck, H. and G. Proietti. 1986. La Tomba dei Rilievi di Cerveteri. Rome.
Boethius, A., et al. 1962. Etruscan Culture – Land and People. New York.
Boethius, A. 1978. Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture. Harmondsworth.
Bonamici, M., S. Stopponi and P. Tamburini. 1994. Orvieto. La necropoli di Cannicella. Rome.
Camporeale, G. 1968. La tomba del Duce. Florence.
Camporeale, G., ed. 2011. Gli Etruschi e la Campania settentrionale. Atti del XXVI Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici, Caserta 11-15 Novembre 2007. Pisa.
Canina, L. 1846–51. L’antica Etruria Marittima I-II. Rome.
Colonna, G. 1967. “L’Etruria meridionale interna dal villanoviano alle tombe rupestri.” Studi Etruschi 35: 3–30.
Colonna, G. 1986. “Urbanistica e architettura, in Rasenna. Storia e civiltà degli Etruschi.” In G. Pugliese Carratelli, ed., 369–530.
Colonna, G. 1994. “Etrusca Arte: Urbanistica e Architettura.” Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica 2.2: 554–565.
Colonna, G. and F. W. von Hase. 1984. “Alle origini della statuaria etrusca: la Tomba delle Statue presso Ceri.” Studi Etruschi 52: 13–59.
Colonna di Paolo, E. 1978. Necropoli rupestri del Viterbese. Novara.
Colonna di Paolo, E. and G. Colonna. 1970. Castel d’Asso I-II. Florence.
Colonna di Paolo, E. and G. Colonna. 1978. Norchia I. Florence.
Cristofani, M. 1965. La Tomba delle Iscrizioni a Cerveteri. Florence.
Cristofani, M. 1969. Le tombe da Monte Michele al Museo Archeologico di Firenze. Florence.
Cristofani, M., ed. 1999. Dizionario della civiltà etrusca. Florence.
D’Agostino, B. 1977. “Tombe ‘principesche’ dell’orientaizzante antico da Pontecagnano.” Monumenti Antichi Misc. 2: 1.
De Maria, S. and V. Fortunati, eds. 2010. Monumento e Memoria. Dall’Antichità al Contemporaneo. Atti del Convegno, Bologna, 11-13 ottobre 2006. Bologna.
Demus-Quatember, M. 1958. Etruskische Grabarchitektur. Baden-Baden.
Dennis, G. 1848. The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria. London.
Donati, L. 1989. Le tombe da Saturnia nel Museo Archeologico di Firenze. Florence.
Drago Troccoli, L. 2006. Cerveteri. Rome.
Falchi, I. 1891. Vetulonia e la sua necropoli antichissima. Florence.
Fedak, J. 1990. Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age: A Study of Selected Tombs from the Pre-Classical to the Early Imperial Era. Toronto.
Gargana, A. 1931. “La necropoli rupestre di San Giuliano.” Monumenti Antichi 33: 297–468.
Gaugler, W. M. 2002. The Tomb of Lars Porsenna at Clusium and its Religious and Political Implications. Bangor.
Gaultier, F. and D. Briquel, eds. 1997. Les Etrusques: les plus religieux des hommes. Etat de la recherche sur la religion étrusque. Actes du colloque international, Paris 1992. Paris.
Haynes, S. 2000. Etruscan Civilization. A Cultural History. London.
Izzet, V. 2007. The Archaeology of Etruscan Society. Cambridge.
Koch, H., E. von Mercklin and C. Weickert. 1915. “Bieda.” Römische Mitteilungen 30: 161–310.
Laneri, N., ed. 2007. Performing Death. Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean. Chicago.
Maetzke, G., ed. 1989. Atti del II Congresso Internaz. Etrusco (Firenze 1985). Rome.
Maetzke, G., ed. 1993. La civiltà di Chiusi e del suo territorio. Atti del XVII Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici, Chianciano Terme 1989. Florence.
Maggiani, A. 1994. “Tombe con prospetto architettonico nelle necropoli rupestri d’Etruria.” In M. Martelli, ed., 119–159.
Mandolesi, A. 2008. “Ricerca sui tumuli principeschi orientalizzanti di Tarquinia. Prime indagini nell’area della Doganaccia.” Orizzonti 9: 11–25.
Martelli, M., ed. 1994. Tyrrhenoi Philotechnoi. Atti della giornata di studio, Viterbo 1990. Rome.
Martinelli, M. and G. Paolucci. 2006. Luoghi Etruschi. Florence.
Mazzei, M. 1995. Arpi. L’Ipogeo della Medusa e la necropoli. Bari.
Messerschmidt, F. and A. von Gerkan. 1930. Nekropolen von Vulci. Berlin.
Minto, A. 1922. Populonia. La necropoli arcaica. Florence.
Moretti, M. 1977. Cerveteri. Novara.
Moscatelli, G. and G. Mazzuoli. 2008. Le necropoli rupestri della Tuscia. Grotte di Castro.
Munk Hojte, J., ed. 2002. Images of Ancestors. Aarhus.
Nardi, G. 1999. “Tomba.” In M. Cristofani, ed., 298–303.
Naso, A. 1991. La Tomba dei Denti di Lupo a Cerveteri. Pisa.
Naso, A. 1995. “Alle origini della pittura etrusca: decorazione parietale e architettura funeraria in Etruria meridionale nel VII secolo a.C.” Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 37: 439–499.
Naso, A. 1996a. Architetture dipinte: Decorazioni parietali non figurate nelle tombe a camera dell’Etruria meridionale (VII – V secolo a.C.). Rome.
Naso, A. 1996b. “Osservazioni sull’origine dei tumuli monumentali nell’Italia centrale.” Opuscula Romana 20: 69–85.
Naso, A. 1998. “Tumuli monumentali in Etruria meridionale: caratteri propri e possibili ascendenze orientali.” In P. Schauer, ed., 117–157.
Naso, A. 2001. “Dalla capanna alla casa: riflessi nell’architettura funeraria etrusca.” In J. Rasmus Brandt and L. Karlsson, eds., 29–39.
Naso, A. 2007. “The Etruscan Style of Dying. Funerary Architecture, Tomb Groups and Social Range at Caere and Its Hinterland during the Seventh–Sixth Centuries B.C.” In N. Laneri, ed., 141–162.
Nati, D. 2008. Le necropoli di Perugia. Città di Castello.
Nicosia, F. 1966. Il Tumulo di Montefortini e la Tomba dei Boschetti a Comeana. Florence.
Oleson, J. P. 1982. The Sources of Innovation in Later Etruscan Tomb Design (ca. 350-100 B.C.). Rome.
Origo Crea, B., ed. 1984. Etruria svelata. I disegni di Samuel James Ainsley nel British Museum. Rome.
Orioli, F. 1826. Dei sepolcrali edifizi dell’Etruria media e in generale dell’architettura tuscanica. Fiesole.
Pallottino, M. 1937. “Tarquinia.” Monumenti Antichi 36.
Pallottino, M. 1971. La Necropoli di Cerveteri. Rome.
Pareti, L. 1947. La Tomba Regolini Galassi. Vatican City.
Pellegrini, E. 1989. La Necropoli di Poggio Buco. Nuovi dati per lo studio di un centro dell’Etruria interna nei periodi orientalizzante e arcaico. Florence.
Pohl, I. 1972. The Iron Age Necropolis of Sorbo at Cerveteri. Stockholm.
Prayon, F. 1975. Frühetruskische Grab- und Hausarchitektur. Heidelberg.
Prayon, F. 1986. “Architecture.” In L. Bonfante, ed., 174–202.
Prayon, F. 1989. “L’architettura funeraria etrusca. La situazione attuale delle ricerche e problemi aperti.” In G. Maetzke, ed., 441–450.
Prayon, F. 1995. “Ostmediterrane Einflüsse auf den Beginn der Monumentalarchitektur in Etrurien.” Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 37: 501–519.
Prayon, F. 2000. “Tomb Architecture.” In M. Torelli, ed., 334–343.
Prayon, F. 2006. Die Etrusker. Jenseitsvorstellungen und Ahnenkult. Mainz.
Quilici Gigli, S. 1970. Tuscana. Rome.
Quilici Gigli, S. 1976. Blera. Mainz.
Rasmus Brandt, J. and L. Karlsson, eds. 2001. From Huts to Houses. Transformations of Ancient Societies. Proceedings of an International Seminar organized by the Norwegian and Swedish Institutes in Rome, September 1997. Stockholm.
Ricci, G. 1955. “Caere.” Monumenti Antichi 42.
Riva, C. 2010. The Urbanisation of Etruria – Funerary Practices and Social Change, 700–600 BC. Cambridge.
Romanelli, R. 1986. Necropoli dell’Etruria rupestre. Architettura. Viterbo.
Romualdi, A., ed. 1992. Populonia in età ellenistica. I materiali dalle necropoli. Atti del Seminario, Firenze 30 giugno 1986. Florence.
Rosi, G. 1925. “Sepulchral Architecture as Illustrated by the Rock Façades of Central Etruria. Part 1.” Journal of Roman Studies 15: 1–59.
Rosi, G. 1927. “Sepulchral Architecture as Illustrated by the Rock Façades of Central Etruria. Part 2.” Journal of Roman Studies 17: 59–96.
Schauer, P., ed. 1998. Archäologische Untersuchungen zu den Beziehungen zwischen Altitalien und der Zone nordwärts der Alpen während der frühen Eisenzeit Alteuropas. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums in Regensburg. 3-5 Nov. 1994. Regensburg.
Schmidt-Colinet, A. 1980. “Nabatäische Felsgrabarchitektur.” Bonner Jahrbücher 180: 189–229.
Sgubini Moretti, A. M. 1991. Tuscania – Il Museo Archeologico. Rome.
Steiner, D. 2004. Jenseitsreise und Unterwelt bei den Etruskern. Untersuchungen zu Ikonographie und Bedeutung. Munich.
Steingräber, S. 1979. Etruskische Möbel. Rome.
Steingräber, S. 1981. Etrurien, Städte, Heiligtümer, Nekropolen. Munich.
Steingräber, S. 1985. “Felsgrabarchitektur in Etrurien.” Antike Welt 16.2: 19–40.
Steingräber, S. 1991. “Etruskische Monumentalcippi.” Archeologia Classica 43: 1079–1102.
Steingräber, S. 1993. “L’architettura funeraria chiusina.” In G. Maetzke, ed., 171–182.
Steingräber, S. 1996. “New Discoveries and Research in Southern Etruscan Rock Tombs.” Etruscan Studies 3: 75–104.
Steingräber, S. 1997. “Le culte des morts et les monuments de pierre des nécropoles étrusques.” In F. Gaultier and D. Briquel, eds., 97–116.
Steingräber, S., ed. 2000a. Investing in the Afterlife – Royal and Aristocratic Tombs in Ancient Etruria, Southern Italy, Macedonia and Thrace. Exhibition Catalogue, The University of Tokyo Museum. Tokyo.
Steingräber, S. 2000b. Arpi – Apulien – Makedonien. Studien zum unteritalischen Grabwesen in hellenistischer Zeit. Mainz.
Steingräber, S. 2001. “The Process of Urbanization of Etruscan Settlements from the Late Villanovan to the Late Archaic Period.” Etruscan Studies 8: 7–33.
Steingräber, S. 2002. “Ahnenkult und bildliche Darstellungen von Ahnen in etruskischen und unteritalischen Grabgemälden aus vorrömischer Zeit.” In J. Munk Hojte, ed., 127–158.
Steingräber, S. 2009a. “Etruscan Rock-cut Chamber Tombs: Origins, Characteristics, Local and Foreign Elements, in Etruscan by Definition.” In J. Swaddling and P. Perkins, eds., 64–68.
Steingräber, S. 2009b. La necropoli etrusca di San Giuliano e il Museo delle necropoli rupestri di Barbarano Romano. Grotte di Castro.
Steingräber, S. 2010. “Il monumento funerario etrusco dal VII al III secolo a.C.: genesi, sviluppo, significato.” In S. De Maria and V. Fortunati, eds., 7–15.
Steingräber, S. 2012. Tarquinia. Stadt und Umland von den Etruskern bis in die Neuzeit. Darmstadt.
Steingräber, S. 2013. “Worshipping with the Dead: New Approaches to Etruscan Necropoleis.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 655–671.
Steingräber, S. and F. Prayon. 2011. Monumenti rupestri etrusco-romani fra la Valle del Tevere e i Monti Cimini. Grotte di Castro.
Steingräber, S. and F. Ceci, eds. 2014. L’Etruria meridionale interna rupestre dalla protostoria al medioevo. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Barbarano Romano – Blera, ottobre 2010. Rome.
Swaddling, J. and P. Perkins, eds. 2009. Etruscan by Definition: Papers in Honour of Sybille Haynes. London.
Torelli, M. 1980. Etruria. Rome.
Torelli, M. 1982. Necropoli dell’Italia antica. Milan.
Torelli, M., ed. 2000. The Etruscans. Milan.
Turfa, J. M., ed. 2013. The Etruscan World. London.
Zamarchi Grassi, P. 1993. La Cortona dei Principes. Catalogo della Mostra. Cortona.
Zifferero, A., ed. 2000. L’architettura funeraria a Populonia tra IX e VI secolo a.C. Atti del Convegno, Populonia 30-31 ottobre 1997. Florence.

GUIDE TO FURTHER READING

Special articles on Etruscan necropoleis, tombs, and tomb architecture can be found in journals such as Studi Etruschi, Notizie degli Scavi and Etruscan Studies. Important “handbooks” of a more general and partly topographic character were published by Dennis 1848, Åkerström 1934, Prayon 1975, Boethius 1978, Steingräber 1981, Oleson 1982, and Haynes 2000. Short summaries we owe mainly to Bartoloni 2000 and 2012a; Colonna 1986 and 1994; Prayon 1986, 1989, and 2000; Steingräber 2010; and Torelli 1982. For a more social-historical approach see Bartoloni 2003, Naso 2007, Izzet 2007, and especially Riva 2010. For the important aspect of ancestral cult and Etruscan afterlife see Prayon 2006 and Steiner 2004. The best summary on the necropoleis of Cerveteri is published by Drago Troccoli 2006. For the Etruscan rock tombs and rock monuments see mainly Colonna di Paolo 1978, Romanelli 1986, Steingräber 1996 and 2009a, and Steingräber and Prayon 2011. The most recent publication on the barrel-vaulted tombs in Etruria and Southern Italy we owe to Benassai 2011. For the necropoleis of Cerveteri see Pohl 1972 and Ricci 1955; Chiusi: Bianchi Bandinelli 1925; Orvieto: Bonamici, Stopponi and Tamburini 1994; Perugia: Nati 2008; Poggio Buco: Bartoloni 1972 and Pellegrini 1989; Pontecagnano: D’Agostino 1977; Populonia: Minto 1922, Romualdi 1992 and Zifferero 2000; Saturnia: Donati 1989; Tarquinia: Pallottino 1937; Vetulonia: Falchi 1891; and Vulci: Messerschmidt and von Gerkan 1930. For famous single tombs or tomb monuments in Etruria see Blanck and Proietti 1986, Camporeale 1968, Cristofani 1965 and 1969; Gaugler 2002, Nicosia 1966 and Pareti 1947.