CHAPTER 20
Luxuria prolapsa est
Etruscan Wealth and Decadence

Hilary Becker

1. Introduction

Pliny the Elder wrote that the tomb of Lars Porsenna was an insane folly (vesana dementia) and that the expense entailed in building it exhausted the resources of the kingdom of Chiusi (Natural History 36.19.93). While his description is moralizing and part of a larger value judgment about extravagant tombs around the Mediterranean, Pliny’s characterization of Porsenna’s tomb is in line with other treatments of the wealth of the Etruscans in both Greek and Roman sources. This story incorporates two of the ethnographic topoi that are frequently associated with the Etruscans on the part of Greek and Roman authors. The first is the extreme wealth of the Etruscans. The second topos is an ethnographic stereotype, which is that the Etruscans’ wealth contributed to opulent spending, as was abundantly demonstrated by Porsenna’s tomb, and even to a largely degenerate lifestyle (see further, Chapter 22). This chapter reviews the evidence for both of these topoi in the ancient sources, with the aim of understanding better these Etruscan stereotypes and the extent to which they reflected Etruscan cultural realities, or Greek and Roman fears and misunderstandings of the Etruscan “other.”

2. Etruscan Wealth

Etruria, a wealthy land (χώρα εὐδαίμων), was known for its rich fields (opulenta Etruriae arva) (Strabo Geography 5.2.2; Livy 9.36.11). Both Varro and Pliny note that certain areas were able to produce grain at a higher yield than elsewhere, while the fields of Veii were considered to be more fertile (uberior) than those of nearby Rome (Varro On Agriculture 1.44.1; Pliny Natural History 18.20.87; Livy 5.24.5). Varro considers Etruscan soil to be emblematic of what the best soil could be like: “in rich soil, as in Etruria, it is allowed to see productive and perennially cultivated grain fields and abundant trees, and all of it without moss” (On Agriculture 1.9.5–6). Similarly, Dionysius of Halicarnassus recorded that Etruscan vines could be worked with the least amount of labor (Roman Antiquities 1.37.2). Indeed, all of the natural environs of Etruria were seen by many Greek and Roman writers to be similarly fertile and even over-productive. Polybius (12.4.8) stated that one Etruscan swine could produce 1,000 offspring in a lifetime, a sentiment Strabo (Geography 5.2.9) shared in his claim that even the “large and many” Etruscan lakes teemed with fish and birds.

While every area of Etruria was fertile, northern Etruria received particular attention for its fecundity. Livy, for example, wrote, “the fertile region was among the first regions of Italy, the Etruscan fields, which lie between Faesulae and Arretium, are rich with an abundance of grain, sheep, and of all things” (23.3.3). The fertility of northern Etruria is so noticeable that it even enticed the Gauls to attempt to occupy Etruscan territory in the early fourth century BCE, since they reputedly claimed that the Etruscans could not cultivate all of the land and that they should share it.1 Whether this account is accurate or not, it reveals a perception of the Etruscans as having a great wealth of land, far more than they could tend.

Various ancient authors praise the wealth and resources of Etruria and its individual cities: Plutarch, for example, writes that Etruscan cities are “fully equipped both for productive business and a sumptuous lifestyle” (Life of Camillus 16).2 The wealth of these cities individually, and collectively, is perhaps best exemplified by Livy’s account of Scipio Africanus Elder in 205 BCE, when he sought supplies for his campaign against the Carthaginians during the Second Punic War (Livy 28.45). Each city promised resources that it could best supply, with materials ranging from grain to wood for shipbuilding, and linen. The offered stores even included the unworked ores and worked metal of Populonia and Arezzo.

Thus, to these ancient authors, the Etruscan lands not only offered fertile land for farming and animal husbandry but also abundant metal resources. In fact, almost all of the metals that were in use in the ancient world could be found in Etruria (Craddock 1984: 212). This wealth of metals, which was recognized early on, brought foreigners to Etruria in order to purvey the metal and mineral resources along the Tyrrhenian coast (Becker Forthcoming, 2016a). The metals of Etruria, and in particular those found on the island of Elba, enjoyed a special repute. Not only did Pliny (Natural History 37.77; 34.41) write that no country produced more gold, copper, or iron than Italy, but also that the island of Elba was still producing iron in the first century CE. Indeed, the iron at Elba was so abundant (Diodorus Siculus Library of History 5.13) that it was thought to be inexhaustible (Virgil Aeneid 10.174; Servius 10.174). An anonymous Roman author also describes how the copper mined at Elba came to be exhausted and then, after a time, how iron again appeared in the mine (De mirabilibus auscultationibus 92).3 Strabo (Geography 5.2.6) also observed that the miraculous mines at Elba were filled up again after they had been mined.

The nearly magical properties of the mines at Elba helped explain to foreigners one of the reasons for the prosperity of at least some Etruscans. The wealth of the Elban mines was one of the factors that contributed to the monumental elite tombs filled with rich funerary assemblages built during the seventh to fourth centuries BCE in the necropoleis of S. Cerbone and Porcareccia of Populonia (Minto 1954: 307; Martelli 1981: 160; Craddock 1984: 215; Becker Forthcoming, 2016b). Ironically, the tombs that mineral wealth helped to build initially would, in time, come to be covered up by iron slag during the third to first centuries BCE. These tombs were located adjacent to the Gulf of Baratti, Populonia’s port, and iron workers used this same funerary space to dump the nearly two million tons of slag that resulted from the processing of Elban ore.

The highly productive nature of the Elban mines and subsequent iron processing are then exemplified by the reappropriation of the area of once-prized tombs of earlier generations at Populonia. Repurposing for industrial use land that was once dedicated for something as important to the community as elite tombs reveals the continued productivity of the Elban mines (and Populonia’s role in the production of iron). The legend surrounding Elban mines is certainly not without foundation. Importantly, it is clear that both Greek and Roman authors were impressed by the natural wealth of Etruria, from the abundant metal resources to the very bountiful lands and flocks.

Thus, a number of ancient authors point out different aspects of the wealth of the Etruscans, which, in general, are not an exaggeration. But one might consider why so many authors discuss this topic at all and how many of them had first-hand knowledge of Etruria. On the one hand, while a few merchants may have travelled to Etruscan shores for trading purposes, even more foreigners abroad probably imported Etruscan products such as grain or wine. To such international consumers, information about Etruria and its environment would be of interest. To approach Etruscan international visibility from another angle (see further, Chapter 6), the Etruscans are the only non-Greek culture to have established treasuries in Delphi. These structures are likely to have incited further curiosity about the Etruscans and their economy (Strabo Geography 5.1.7; 9.3.8; Pliny Natural History 3.120).

3. Etruscan Dominance

Another topos attached to the Etruscans looks back to the time of the acme of Etruscan commercial power in the sixth century BCE (Pallottino 1984: 124–127; Liébert 2006: 151–153). Livy, writing over 500 years later, acknowledged that, “before the Roman empire, the power of the Etruscans extended widely on land and sea” (5.33.7). Indeed, he continues that their power was so great that they gave a name to both the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Adriatic Sea (the latter named after the town of Adria). Cato the Elder also considered this time to be one when “almost all of Italy was under the dominion of the Etruscans” (Servius 11.567).

Archaeological data have shown, moreover, that Archaic Rome, just across the Tiber, was but a small and local settlement in terms of reach, when the cities of Etruria flourished. As Larissa Bonfante (2003: 90) explains, “Latin literature still reflects the experience, in the archaic period of Roman history, of finding themselves across the river from one of the richest people in the Mediterranean.” In spite of the monumentalization of the nascent civic center of Rome of the sixth century BCE, which according to legend was led by three kings of Etruscan descent, we can still observe that some Roman accounts look across the Tiber to admire the fields that were perceived to be more fertile than their own (Livy 5.24.5). While the ager Romanus is separated from Etruscan territories by a mere riverine boundary, nevertheless it would seem that, based at least upon the posturing of Roman authors centuries later, they wanted their readers to perceive an enormous gulf separating the Roman culture from the Etruscan one.

4. Etruscan Opulence and Decadence

Etruscan wealth, according to other ancient authors, inevitably led to conspicuous display, and purportedly immoral decadence. Posidonius, as preserved in the history of Diodorus Siculus, presents the association between wealth and an immoderate lifestyle best. He first explains that Etruscan land provides for every crop, even beyond what was needed for sustenance. This excess allows for the Etruscans to have banquets twice daily with elaborate and expensive furnishings and vessels (even silver drinking cups), as well as a large number of slaves as attendants (Library of History 5.40.3). Posidonius then proceeds to explain that the Etruscans are not like their ancestors, who were strong and powerful in war. Instead, Etruscans devoted themselves to “spending their lives in drinking and unmanly entertainments” (5.40.4). Posidonius’s description finds parallels in other Greek sources, which partly seek to explain how the Etruscans, who were so dominant through the sixth century BCE, came to lose their international trading and political prominence (Flower 1994: 190–191). For these authors, the loss of dominance that followed the Etruscan defeat at the Battle of Cumae, and the waning presence of the Etruscans on the Tyrrhenian Sea and in central and southern Italy, were not the desired explanations behind the Etruscans’ diminished stature. Instead, the Etruscans lost their international prestige because of their excessive luxury, Posidonius’s τρυϕή [truphé], and the moral degeneracy that this entailed.

While Posidonius offers an ethnographic account to explain how wealth led the Etruscans to engage in degenerate behavior in their daily life, other authors use this topos to explain an important historical event. The city of Volsinii (see further, Chapter 9) was wealthy (opulenta) and even well-ordered in terms of its customs and laws, but it “fell into decline because of luxury” (luxuria prolapsa est) and “swerved into an abyss of wrongs and indecencies” (Valerius Maximus 9.1 ext.2). Both the anonymous author of De viris illustribus (36) and Paulus Orosius, in his History against the Pagans (4.5), make note that Volsinii “was nearly destroyed because of excessive indulgence.”

While different authors describe the factors that would lead to the downfall of Volsinii in 264 BCE, only Cassius Dio provides a cause: he says that its leaders became lazy to the point that they let their own slaves both govern the city and carry out military campaigns (Roman History 10.42). The degeneracy of the men of Volsinii even allows these slaves to marry the wives of their masters. Just as in Posidonius’s account, these Etruscans are no longer interested in warfare. These men, now without power, choose to seek the help of the Romans – who decide, in turn, to raze the city. The negligence and indolence of the city’s rulers, along with their inability to help themselves, finds parallels with the degeneracy described by Posidonius. To these authors, therefore, luxury caused the leading men of Volsinii to become soft and effete, so much so that they could not serve in the military or control their own slaves. Just as luxury was thought to have undermined the dominance of the Etruscans in general, here the negative effects of τρυϕή are offered up as leading to the last days of Volsinii.

Another text that treats Etruscan τρυϕή is that of Athenaeus, which preserves the fourth century BCE work of Theopompus of Chios. A number of scholars have pointed out that this account, along with other Greek ones from the fourth century BCE, fully developed the association between the Etruscans and τρυϕή, upon which later authors, like Posidonius, expounded (e.g., Harris 1971: 14–15, 20–22; Farney 2007: 134–138). It seems likely that the later authors relied far more on the written work of authors like Theopompus than on any direct knowledge about the Etruscans and their culture.

In expressing his views about how the deleterious effects of luxury had a negative impact on the Etruscans, Theopompus writes:

Further, they [the Etruscan women] dine, not with their own husbands, but with any men who happen to be present, and they pledge with wine any whom they wish. They are also terribly bibulous and are very good-looking … When they get together for companionship or family parties they do as follows: first of all, after they have stopped drinking and are ready to go to bed, the servants bring in to them, the lamps still being lighted, sometimes female prostitutes, sometimes very beautiful boys, sometimes also their wives; and when they have enjoyed these, the servants then introduce to them lusty young men who in their turn consort with them … Now they consort very eagerly, to be sure, with women; much more, however, do they enjoy consorting with boys and striplings. For in their country these latter are very good looking, because they live in luxury and keep their bodies smooth (Theopompus quoted in Athenaeus The Learned Banqueters 12.517d–518a (translation from Gulick 1933)).

While there was exaggeration in Theopompus’s account, some points are in keeping with elements of Etruscan reality (Heurgon 1964: 34; Flower 1994: 176; Cornelius Nepos Alcibiades 11= F288; Plutarch F 333). Archaeological data confirm that banquets were not only a part of normal daily life but also that they could reach sizable dimensions. Two structures dated to the seventh century BCE – the building at Poggio Civitate (Murlo) known as OC1/Residence (see further, Chapter 8) and a house located in northern Latium at Ficana – could have accommodated at least 20 to 30 banqueters, respectively (Rathje 1983; Berkin 2003: 121). In addition, Berkin points out that the banquet service from Poggio Civitate could have accommodated up to 59 people if some of the diners used bucchero cups and others Attic ones. Similarly, the Golini I tomb of Orvieto (Volsinii), which dates to the middle of the fourth century BCE, and is thus contemporaneous to Theopompus, offers scenes of a banquet being prepared, with multiple slaves preparing the food and setting out vessels (Steingräber 1985: 278 n. 32). Given the absence of an Etruscan literary or historical record, such archaeological evidence provides a useful check against Greek and Roman sources, and in this case, the tradition of the Etruscan banquet is real.

But Theopompus censures the very open sexuality that he says occurred among the Etruscans, wherein husbands mated with wives, or prostitutes, or young boys. Michael Flower (1994: 190) addresses these statements, when he writes that, “although it is not impossible that some members of the Etruscan aristocracy were capable of giving an orgy of such dimensions (the capacity for decadence among the idle rich should never be underestimated), Theopompus claims that all Etruscans lived in the described manner.” Livy also invokes the loose reputation of Etruscan women at the end of his first book, when the daughters-in-law of Tarquinius Superbus are seen enjoying a luxurious banquet (much like the women in Theopompus’s account), while the quintessentially Roman wife Lucretia spins wool by lamplight (Livy 1.52.9; Bonfante Warren 1973a: 95). With such a story, Livy contrasts the simple lifestyle of a Roman matron with the degenerate Etruscan lifestyle of the king’s daughters-in-law, thereby using alleged Etruscan decadence as a foil for Roman moderation (see also Chapter 21).

Another aspect of Theopompus’s account that stands out is the freedom that elite Etruscan women enjoyed in their domestic lives. Unlike women of the same status in the Greek world who dined in gender-segregated settings (see Goldberg 1999: 142; Lysias 1.9.3; Cicero Verrines 2.1.66), high-ranking women not only joined their husbands at banquets but this fact was also celebrated in the iconography of a select number of tomb paintings from the sixth to the fourth centuries BCE (Bonfante Warren 1973b) as well as in the creation of the sposi sarcophagus type, which remained popular from the sixth to the first centuries BCE (see images in Chapters 22 and 24). Decorative terracotta panels depicted banquets, such as the surviving examples from the Archaic building complex at Poggio Civitate (Murlo) (see Figure 23.3). Thus, Theopompus’s description of the presence of Etruscan women at banquets certainly represents an historical reality, albeit one very different from the custom of the symposium that he viewed as the norm.

From Posidonius’s unmanly Etruscans to the degenerate leaders of Volsinii and the unruly women described by both Livy and Theopompus, Greek and Roman authors constructed and presented a consistent cultural stereotype of the Etruscans. This stereotype can also be found in the labels that Catullus and Virgil give them: the obesus Etruscus, “the plump Etruscan” and the pinguis Tyrrhenus, “the fat Etruscan” (Catullus Carmen 39.11; Virgil Georgics 2.193; see Chapters 13 and 22). All of these descriptions further serve to make the Etruscans appear to be “other” than the Greeks and Romans, as well as foreigners, despite being Italic natives.

Indeed, the contrast between Lucretia and the Etruscan princesses reveals a perceived difference in the normative standards for each culture. The τρυϕή and cultural softness of the Etruscans finds the best parallel in the cultural stereotypes the Greeks and Romans regularly assigned to the cultures of the eastern Mediterranean, as well as others famous for their “excessive” tendencies. For example, the Sybarites of southern Italy, who personified luxurious living in the mindset of their colonial Greek neighbors, were said to prefer the Etruscans because of the similarities in their “excessive, luxurious lifestyles.”4

The connection these authors make between the wealth of the Etruscans and the reasons they cite for their decline is one that Cyrus the Great, Persian king of the sixth century BCE, could have made. According to Herodotus, Cyrus the Great believed that “soft” places made men soft: he is credited with saying that, “the same land cannot yield both wonderful crops and men who are noble and courageous in war” (Herodotus 9.122). To Greeks intellectuals, such “soft” places were often located in the east. Airs, Waters, and Places, a late-fifth-century BCE work in the Hippocratic corpus, also connects the environment to cultural dispositions. The treatise discusses Asia in terms of its mild climate; it is a place where everything grows in abundance, that is large and beautiful, and where the cattle are plentiful. The description of this bountiful environment corresponds with the very qualities of the Etruscan landscape that were celebrated by ancient authors such as Strabo and Livy. But the effect of such an idyllic environment is not favorable, the treatise explains, for, under such conditions, manliness and industry cannot occur in either the natives or the immigrants who live there (Hippocrates Airs, Waters, and Places 12). It is perhaps for this reason that authors such as Posidonius (as quoted by Diodorus Siculus) believed that similar circumstances had caused the Etruscans’ decline, dooming them to lose not only cities like Volsinii but even control of “almost all of Italy” (according to Servius’s description).

Not only did Etruscan wealth and conspicuous consumption evoke eastern parallels but Herodotus (1.94) even went so far as to suggest that the Etruscans descended from an eastern people, the Lydians (see further, Chapters 13 and 14). The association between the Etruscans and a purported foreign and eastern origin is in keeping with some of the cultural stereotypes that various ancient Greek and Roman authors perpetuated about them. This can also be detected in the account of Herodotus: the Lydian progenitors of the Etruscans were inventors of dice games, a pursuit that is synonymous with idleness.

5. Etruscan Wealth at War

The perceived Etruscan preference for conspicuous display apparently could even be traced into the field of war, as different historical accounts relate. According to Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Gaius Mucius, who comes to acquire the cognomen Scaevola, famously infiltrated the camp of the late sixth century BCE Etruscan king, Lars Porsenna, with the aim of killing him. But when Mucius entered the camp, he could not determine for sure who Porsenna was and so he killed Porsenna’s scribe by mistake. The latter was sitting upon a raised platform and wearing a purple garment, which was nearly identical to the costume of the king (scriba cum rege sedens pari fere ornatu).5 In this narrative, Mucius represents the comparative austerity of the Romans, and his misapprehension of Etruscan dress seems to be a mistake that any contemporary Roman might well have made (Colonna 1976). This mistake represents an attempt by these authors to set the ostentation of Etruscan culture against Roman standards. Interestingly, a parallel can be found in Herodotus’s account of the Spartan general, Pausanias, who had both a Persian meal (along with fine furnishings) and a Spartan meal prepared in order to contrast the lifestyles and priorities of each culture (Herodotus 9.82; Vasunia 2009: 1836). Livy and Dionysius further emphasize the comparative opulence of the Etruscans in the descriptions of the elaborate Etruscan camp, which is arranged like a city with public and private buildings, and well-stocked with provisions (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 5.34.4; Livy 2.14.3).

Apparently, the Etruscan preference for luxury followed them on other campaigns, for, in the early fifth century BCE, when Lucius Aemilius took over the military camp of Veii, the Romans found a wealth of spoils greater than any previous battle, consisting of tents, beasts of burden, and slaves. Dionysius of Halicarnassus explains these spoils, which seemed frivolous to him given their military context, with a familiar refrain: “for the Tyrrhenians were a people of dainty and expensive tastes, both at home and in the field carrying about with them, besides the necessities, costly and artistic articles of all kinds designed for pleasure and luxury” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 9.16, trans. Cary 1945). The opulent camps of the Veientines and that of Lars Porsenna himself recall an eastern precedent and, in particular, the camp of the Persian king Xerxes. (Herodotus 9.70; 9.82; this tent was given by Xerxes to the Persian commander Mardonius). Similarly, when the Romans again fight against Etruscans at Sutrium (Sutri) in 310 BCE, Livy (9.35.8) writes that they confiscated a camp “with huge spoils” (cum praeda ingenti).

Can three separate instances of conspicuously elaborate Etruscan military camps be accidental? It is possible that the Etruscans favored elaborate military camps and that these camps stood in stark contrast to the comparatively austere camps of the Romans. The hope of such well-stocked camps would, indeed, have inspired Roman soldiers to fight more aggressively so that they could eventually take part in those spoils. But at the same time, these camps could simply be a construction of ancient authors that served to reinforce existing cultural stereotypes about the Etruscans. Because our only source of evidence for Etruscan camps is literary, it is impossible to investigate their original contexts and evaluate their presumed opulence. In this case, the resemblance between these camps and the camp of Xerxes associates the Etruscans with eastern precedents of soft and degenerate behavior, in the same way as the aforementioned banqueting scenes.

6. Lars Porsenna and Conspicuous Consumption

Having surveyed various categories of Etruscan excess and opulence as described by both Greek and Roman authors, it is clear not only that certain stereotypes frequently occur but also that the idea of the sheer quantity of Etruscan wealth served as an attractive literary trope. In this light, Pliny’s discussion of the Tomb of Lars Porsenna at Chiusi proves to be especially enlightening. Pliny (Natural History 36.19.91–93) begins his description of this massive, labyrinthine tomb by comparing it with tombs built by eastern kings. But in the case of Lars Porsenna’s tomb, Pliny says that Porsenna’s vanity, which is revealed by his excessive building and expense, surpassed even their creations. According to Pliny’s account, the Tomb of Porsenna was a massive square monument, each side measuring 300 feet; it was also 50 feet high and topped by five massive pyramids, which were, in turn, surmounted by four additional pyramids. Inside the monument there was a labyrinth that required a ball of thread to navigate. Porsenna’s tomb did not survive to Pliny’s time, but many scholars in subsequent centuries have searched for it, trying to imagine its form and appearance (Figure 20.1).

Image described by caption and surrounding text.

Figure 20.1 Reconstruction of the tomb of Lars Porsenna, 1791.

Drawing: Fabrizi 1987: fig. 39.

While archaeologists have yet to discover the Tomb of Porsenna, the wealth he is purported to have expended on it does not seem out of place among the tombs of the late Archaic and Classical periods still visible outside of Chiusi and neighboring Chianciano Terme. For example, the Tomb of the Monkey (c.480 BCE) is a massive four-chambered tomb with a ceiling soaring to over 10.5 feet in height (Steingräber 1996: 273).

What is also of interest here is Pliny’s ultimate statement about Porsenna’s tomb: he describes its construction as an “insane folly, as it was to have courted fame by spending for the benefit of none and to have exhausted furthermore the resources of a kingdom” (Natural History 36.19.93). Pliny finds the excess of Lars Porsenna to be deplorable because he spent so much for no apparent benefit. Just as Greek and Roman authors derided wanton spending on personal banquets, now the cause for censure is spending so much on a personal tomb. For Romans contemporary to Lars Porsenna, spending so much on a tomb was not socially or even legally permissible. In addition, during the fifth-century BCE, concerns about extravagant funerary practices led to the inclusion of sumptuary laws in the Twelve Tables (Colonna 1981: 229). For example, a funeral could use not more than three veils, one small purple tunic, ten flute players, and no festoons or incense boxes (Table X.3 and 6). Wealthy Romans were encouraged to spend their money publicly, on their cities and sanctuaries, rather than on their tombs (Ampolo 1984: 469; Smith 1996: 186–187). This viewpoint is later exemplified by Cicero, who states that, according to Roman ideals, “the Roman people hate private luxury and prefer public grandeur” (odit populus Romanus privatam luxuriam, publicam magnificentiam diligit (Pro Murena 36.76).

Thus, for Pliny, the colossal scale of this tomb and its embellishments (e.g., the layers of pyramids) represent a clear instance of conspicuous consumption that may well have shocked the sensibility of archaic Roman patricians, who we can safely assume were conditioned to adopt mores similar to those invoked by Cicero in the above passage, a fact that is clearly demonstrated by the archaic elites who financed the Forum landfill project and the monumentalization of Rome’s Capitolium while seemingly eschewing monuments dedicated to personal glory. This stark contrast in terms of elite behavior further highlights the cultural gulf that separated Roman elites from their Etruscan peers, with each group tending to deploy their resources so as to reinforce the social prerogatives of their kinship group. Pliny, removed in time from Porsenna’s day, nonetheless may relate to the accounts of Porsenna’s legendary tomb in the way that he does since he has been witness to sumptuous building programs of the first century CE, some of which serve the public aims in the spirit of Cicero’s message, while others, notably the notorious program of Nero, tended toward private luxury. Thus, for Pliny, the Tomb of Lars Porsenna functioned as a cautionary example, a warning against excess, since Porsenna’s wealth did not serve the community.

The huge expense represented by Lars Porsenna’s tomb, and Pliny’s reaction to it, are, therefore, in keeping with other negative commentary associated with Etruscans and their wealth. Porsenna’s choice to spend so much on a tomb falls along the same continuum of personal, conspicuous consumption as Etruscan banquets. Surely some aspect of Pliny’s account must be credible; it is reasonable to hypothesize that such a ruler would have been buried in a large tomb constructed in the manner favored by his contemporaries – even if the scale and design described by Pliny does not correspond with Etruscan architectural conventions. By elaborating on the excessiveness of the Tomb of Porsenna, Pliny aims to dissuade his contemporaries from thinking about the standards of living that once supported Etruscan elites and their lavish lifestyles, thereby reinforcing upper class Roman standards.

7. Conclusion

A review of this collection of assertions and statements made by Greek and Roman authors about Etruscan wealth enables us to grasp, from the Greco-Roman point of view, the foreign and distorted impressions of not only Etruscan daily life but also of the Etruscan economy in general. And while the ancient commentary on the natural resources of Etruria that allowed for the accrual of a large part of Etruscan wealth is “factual,” it is also tinged with exaggeration, as in the case of the mines at Elba. Beyond just the list of natural resources, discussions about Etruscan displays of wealth, especially concerning their elaborate banquets and the Tomb of Porsenna, may also prove to be informative about the socio-economic realities of the Etruscan world. Certainly, Etruscan banqueting did occur, and massive tombs were built in and around Chiusi at the time when Lars Porsenna is believed to have lived. Thus some of the Greek and Roman authors’ statements are not just cultural constructions manufactured out of whole cloth, even if they do not always reflect accurate, first-hand observation. While Theopompus and Posidonius are interested in critiquing the moral and ethical consequences of a sumptuous and degenerate lifestyle, they are not interested in understanding the reasons why the Etruscan elite spent so much outright on banquets or elaborate tombs. These accounts were written without an interest in the socioeconomic conditions that endowed these Etruscan traditions with sociocultural valence. For the Etruscan elite, sponsoring an elaborate banquet cemented social ties between their larger community, and such a banquet would be reciprocated in time by others (see further, Chapter 8 on the evidence at Poggio Civitate). Elaborate tombs provided for the display not only of the resources of the deceased, but also of their surviving family; these shared memories were thus preserved by means of the monument. And if the Tomb of Lars Porsenna did, in fact, exist, it probably also would have served ritual purposes for funerary rites and the ancestor cult (Steingräber 2013 and his Chapter 11 here).

Pliny, however, does not focus on these aspects of the Etruscans’ culture: he is not interested in the reasons why Porsenna built that tomb, save for a dismissive attribution to vanity. Instead, this Roman author is concerned about the level of conspicuous consumption and the disposal of wealth. This is a behavior that good Romans should scrupulously (and explicitly) avoid. Similarly, Theopompus presents Etruscan banquets, banqueters, and daily life in general by emphasizing the supposed excesses of these Etruscan behaviors, behaviors that were different than, and therefore potentially threatening to, Greek norms. The account of Posidonius, as well as the stories surrounding the fall of Volsinii, also served moral purposes insofar as they provided explanations for what might happen to those who adopted soft and immoderate lifestyles.

As much as these accounts center upon the Etruscans, they served to exemplify and problematize behaviors that Greeks and Romans found less desirable in a broader sense. By exploring these traits through the medium of often hostile accounts of the Etruscans, Greek and Latin authors are interested in projecting and thereby reinforcing the social conventions that they found to be acceptable in their respective cultures. Thus these accounts not only reflect (even as they occasionally distort) aspects of Etruscan culture but also, importantly, they reveal much about what the Greeks and Romans decided they definitely did not want to be.

REFERENCES

  1. Allison, P. M., ed. 1999. The Archaeology of Household Activities. London.
  2. Ampolo, C. 1984. “Il lusso nelle società archaiche. Note preliminari sulla posizione del problema.” Opus 3: 469–476.
  3. Becker, H. Forthcoming, 2016a. “Economy in the Archaic and Classical Periods, 580–450 BCE.” In A. Naso, ed.
  4. Becker, H. Forthcoming, 2016b. “Economy in the Late Classical and Hellenistic Periods, 450–250 BCE.” In A. Naso, ed.
  5. Berkin, J. 2003. The Orientalizing Bucchero from the Lower Building at Poggio Civitate (Murlo). Boston.
  6. Bonfante Warren, L. 1973a. “The Women of Etruria.” Arethusa 6: 91–101.
  7. Bonfante Warren, L. 1973b. “Etruscan Women: A Question of Interpretation.” Archaeology 26: 242–249.
  8. Bonfante, L. 2003. Etruscan Dress. Baltimore.
  9. Buonamici, G. 1939. Fonti di storia etrusca. Tratte dagli autori classici. Florence.
  10. Cary, E., trans. 1945. The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, volume 5. Cambridge, MA.
  11. Capdeville, G. 1993. “Porsenna, re del Labirinto.” In G. Maetzke and L. Tamagna Perna, eds., 53–71.
  12. Colonna, G. 1976. “‘Scriba cum rege sedens’.” In L’Italie, 187–195.
  13. Colonna, G. 1981. “L’ideologia funeraria e il conflitto delle culture.” Archeologia laziale IV: 229–232.
  14. Corretti, A. and N. Taddei. 2001. “Le antiche risorse: ferro e granito.” In R. Rosolani and M. Ferrari, eds., 249–263.
  15. Craddock, P. T. 1984. “The Metallurgy and Composition of Etruscan Bronze.” Studi Etruschi 52: 211–271.
  16. Cristofani, M., ed. 1981. Gli etruschi in Maremma: popolamento e attività produttive. Milan.
  17. Fabrizi, F. 1987. Chiusi: Il Labirinto di Porsenna. Leggenda e Realtà. Cortona.
  18. Farney, G. 2007. Ethnic Identity and Aristocratic Competition in Republican Rome. Cambridge.
  19. Flower, M. 1994. Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century BC. Oxford.
  20. Goldberg, M. 1999. “Spatial and Behavioral Negotiation in Classical Athenian City Houses.” In P. Allison, ed., 142–161.
  21. Gulick, B., transl. 1933. The Deipnosophists. Cambridge, MA.
  22. Harris, W. V. 1971. Rome in Etruria and Umbria. Oxford.
  23. Herodotus, R. B. Strassler transl., and A. L. Purvis, ed. 2009. The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories. New York.
  24. Heurgon, J. 1964. Daily Life of the Etruscans. London.
  25. Isaac, B. H. 2004. The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton.
  26. Liébert, Y. 2006. Regards sur la truphè étrusque. Limoges.
  27. L'Italie préromaine et la Rome républicaine. Mélanges offerts à Jacques Heurgon. 1976. Rome.
  28. Maetzke, G. and L. Tamagna Perna, eds. 1993. La Civiltà di Chiusi e del suo territorio. Atti del XVII Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici. Chianciano Terme 28 maggio-1 giugno 1988. Florence.
  29. Martelli, M. 1981. “Populonia.” In M. Cristofani, ed., 153–174.
  30. Minto, A. 1954. “L’antica industria mineraria in Etruria ed il porto di Populonia.” Studi Etruschi 23: 291–319.
  31. Murray, O. and M. Tecusan, eds. 1995. In Vino Veritas. Oxford.
  32. Naso, A., ed. Forthcoming, 2016. Etruscology. Berlin.
  33. Pallottino, M. 1984. Etruscologia. Milan.
  34. Rallo, A. 1989. Le Donne in Etruria. Rome.
  35. Rathje, A. 1983. “A Banquet Service from the Latin City of Ficana.” Analecta Romana Institute Danici 12: 7–29.
  36. Rathje, A. 1995. “Il banchetto in Italia centrale: quale stile di vita?” In O. Murray and M. Tecusan, eds., 167–175.
  37. Rosolani, R. and M. Ferrari, eds. 2001. Elba. Territorio e Civiltà di un’isola. Genoa.
  38. Smith, C. 1996. Early Rome and Latium: Economy and Society c. 1000 to 500 BC. Oxford.
  39. Steingräber, S. 1985. Etruscan Painting: Catalogue Raisonné of Etruscan Wall Paintings. New York.
  40. Steingräber, S. 1996. “New Discoveries and Research in Southern Etruscan Rock Tombs.” Etruscan Studies 3: 75–104.
  41. Steingräber, S. 2013. “Worshiping with the Dead: New Approaches to the Etruscan Necropolis.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 655–671.
  42. Tuplin, C. 1996. Achaemenid Studies. Stuttgart.
  43. Turfa, J. M., ed. 2013. The Etruscan World. New York.
  44. Vasunia, P. 2009. “Herodotus and the Greco-Persian Wars.” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 124: 1834–1837.
  45. Zaccaria Ruggiu, A. 2003. More regio vivere: il banchetto aristocratico e la casa romana di età arcaica. Rome.

GUIDE TO FURTHER READING

Few modern resources exist dedicated to the Etruscan economy per se, but references to different aspects of industry such as agriculture and mining can be found in the text. Studies of elite display at the Etruscan banquet and, indeed the tradition of the banquet in central Italy, should begin with Rathje 1995 and Zaccaria Ruggiu 2003. Rathje 1983 and Berkin 2003 provide valuable discussions of banqueting services found in situ at Ficana and Poggio Civitate (Murlo). For Etruscan women at banquets and their role in daily life, consult Bonfante Warren 1973a and 1973b as well as Rallo 1989, a collection of 11 chapters on women on subjects ranging from women’s tombs, women in art, women’s domestic work, and other topics. For further readings of Greek and Latin authors who mention Etruria and Etruscan topics, Buonamici 1939 is indispensable. While this collection comprises a great amount of sources, it does not offer commentary and only provides the ancient sources in Italian. For an examination of the topos of Etruscan luxury in ancient Greek and Roman literature, see, most recently, Liébert 2006.

NOTES