Department of Archaeology and Ancient History

Bucchero: Forms and consumption patterns in San Giovenale

Joacim Seger

Master thesis 45 hp in Classical Archaeology and Ancient History VT 2020 Supervisors: Dominic Ingemark & Filmo Verhagen Uppsala University

Abstract

Seger, J. 2020. Bucchero: Forms and consumption patterns in San Giovenale Seger, J. 2020. Bucchero: Former och konsumtionsmönster i San Giovenale.

A Swedish excavation took place in the settlement of San Giovenale between the years 1956 to 1965 to shed further light on Etruscan settlements. During the excavation, a great amount of bucchero was uncovered at the site. This study focusses on the forms of bucchero that were uncovered in the San Giovenale area and how these vessels might be connected to a broader network of the ware. By identifying the forms of bucchero found in the area and by bringing together all the earlier publications concerned with the bucchero finds from San Giovenale, this study tries to look at the bucchero material in its totality. By locating and counting the forms and context in which the bucchero was found, together with the other finds from the area, this study attempts to contextualize and uncover the status of the bucchero ware within the settlement and how this particular ware might be connected with the Etruscan banquets. By bringing all the material together from all the areas in San Giovenale, this study hopes to paint a clearer picture of the bucchero in San Giovenale in terms of form, amount, chronology and spread of bucchero. By studying the bucchero from the settlement of San Giovenale we might greatly enhance our understanding of the bucchero ware outside of the tomb context that it is usually found within.

Keywords: Etruscan, San Giovenale, bucchero, ceramics, conspicuous consumption, feasting.

Master Thesis in Classical Archaeology and Ancient Archaeology 45 hp. Supervisors: Dominic Ingemark & Filmo Verhagen (ventilated and approved: 2020–08–28) © Joacim Seger Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Box 626, 75126 Uppsala, Sweden.

Cover illustration: Bucchero kantharos. From: San Giovenale IV:1, 63, Fig. 63, No. 19.

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to thank Fredrik Tobin who introduced me to the site of San Giovenale and the bucchero from the site during my stay in Rome 2019. I would also like to thank both Yvonne Backe-Forsberg and Lars Karlsson who has shared their expertise and extended knowledge of the site with me. Last but not least, I would like to thank both Dominic Ingemark and Filmo Verhagen who has been with me through the whole project and who has provided me with amazing support and invaluable feedback.

ABBREVATIONS c. Circa. w. With. Fig. Figure. Frg. Fragment. Frgs. Fragments. No. Number. Pl. Plate. SPBC Stratigraphic probe in the bedrock cut. Tab. Table. EBN Excavation of balk in the north. EBNE Excavation of balk in the north east. PUWSWP4 Probe under white stone west of Pozzo 4.

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Aim and purpose ...... 1 1.1.1. Question formulation ...... 2 1.1.2. San Giovenale ...... 2 1.1.3. The Swedish Excavation ...... 3 1.2. Earlier research ...... 4 1.2.1. The catalogues ...... 5 1.3. Methodological approach ...... 6 1.4. Theoretical approach ...... 7 1.4.1. Conspicuous consumption ...... 7 1.4.2. Feasting theory...... 9 2. Bucchero: shapes, techniques, and decoration ...... 10 2.1. Bucchero...... 10 2.1.1. Bucchero shapes ...... 12 2.1.2. Technique ...... 13 2.1.3. Decoration...... 14 3. Sumptous feasts and the elite ...... 15 3.1. The Etruscan elite ...... 15 3.2. The banquet ...... 16 3.3. The last supper ...... 18 4. Bucchero in San Giovenale ...... 19 4.1 Distribution...... 19 4.1.1. The Borgo ...... 20 4.1.2. Building period I (c. 650–530 BCE) ...... 22 4.1.3. Building period II (c. 530/500–430 BCE) ...... 24 4.1.4. Building period III (c. 430/410 BCE) ...... 27 4.1.5. Area B ...... 31 4.1.6. Semi-subterranean building in Area B ...... 33 4.1.7. Area E ...... 35 4.1.8. Area F East ...... 37 4.2. Summary of the colour and shapes ...... 46 4.3. Bucchero in context ...... 47 5. Discussion & Conclusions ...... 52 5.1. The distribution of bucchero in San Giovenale ...... 52 5.2. Patterns of (un)conspicuous consumption? ...... 56 5.2.1. Status, wealth, or everyday pottery? ...... 57

5.3 Conclusion ...... 58 Bibliography ...... 59 Ancient sources ...... 59 Published sources ...... 59 List of figures ...... 62 Figures ...... 62 Tables ...... 62 Annex 1...... 63

1. Introduction

One of the broadest and perhaps one of the most fundamental use of clay has been to create containers such as pottery vessels. Pottery containers may be used for carrying anything from liquids to dry substances as well as being used for heating and contain the food for eating, each use putting a different demand on the vessel.1 One way to determine the function of a vessel is by studying its context of recovery, although this becomes problematic if there are great volumes of broken pottery that has been recovered from ambiguous contexts.2 This largely seems to be the case concerning the history of the Etruscan pottery called ‘bucchero’. This pottery ware is one which history is filled with tombs and badly documented contexts, and often the find contexts or context of the vessel’s recovery is lost. A lot of the research concerning the Etruscans have traditionally involved their art and their tombs, much less focus has been spent on their pottery, which has been considered crude or imitative of the Greek originals by early scholars. The Greek originals were not only considered to be superior in quality, but also in execution and sheer skill, hence the best examples of the bucchero pottery were usually considered to be made by Greek potters – that had immigrated to the Etruscan homelands.3 Until recently, many texts that were concerning the Etruscan culture did not more than just state that bucchero was the most characteristic type of Etruscan pottery.4 Recent years have seen an increase in the information about bucchero and new excavations in Etruria brings further material that improves our understanding of bucchero, as well as the Etruscans at large. This study adds to our already expanding knowledge of bucchero by studying the bucchero from San Giovenale, focusing on the potential status of the ware and the consumption patterns of the bucchero at this site.

1.1. Aim and purpose Much of the bucchero that has been studied have had a less than satisfying recovery context, although, the archaeological materials from settlements such as Aqcuarossa, Murlo and the settlement of San Giovenale are among the exceptions. This study makes a case study of the settlement of San Giovenale. By closely examining the bucchero pottery that has been uncovered in the settlement in terms of chronology, the spread of the ware within the settlement and by pinpointing the most common forms of the bucchero at the site – this study aims to provide a better understanding on how the bucchero was perceived in terms of status, and how it was used by the inhabitants of San Giovenale. Furthermore, this thesis tries to uncover whether the bucchero vessels was considered a luxurious ware at the time of its appearance in the settlement or if it was considered a utilitarian ware used for every day. By examining the forms of bucchero uncovered within the site this study also discuss a potential connection between the use of bucchero vessels and the banqueting practices in Etruria, with the focus on the context of usage of bucchero pottery in the settlement of San Giovenale.

1 Rice 1987, 207. 2 Rice 1987, 211. 3 Izzet 2007, 224, 225 & 228. 4 De Puma 1976, 223; Jucker 1991, 143.

1 Banqueting scenes and the evidence for banqueting practices in Etruria will be discussed more extensively later on in the thesis, as there is still much to be said about the excavated material and how it compares to the banquet scenes depicted in Etruscan art.5 There are many examples of aristocratic tomb paintings in Tarquinia for example, where depictions of feasts and people who are enjoying themselves at banquet tables is a common motif.6 Of equal importance is the archaeological material that has been excavated in the Etruscan settlements. The material from the Etruscan settlements might give us another clue on how the banqueting was connected to the social activities of the inhabitants of the settlements and how the bucchero pottery might be connected to these activities. Barker and Rasmussen for example, have argued that wine was one of the obvious essentials for the elite symposium. The consumption of wine was sometimes associated with elaborate rituals, rituals that probably required prestigious and expensive drinking vessels in form of metal or in lack thereof, pottery of the highest quality.7 From literary sources, we are told by the Roman author Diodorus Siculus (c. 90–30 BCE) how the Etruscans twice a day had sumptuous tables laid and everything brought that goes with exaggerated luxury and that the Etruscans had accompanying goblets of every shape.8 Other Roman authors have condemned the Etruscans as Etruscus obesus (“fat Etruscan”).9 Is this a comment on the conspicuous consumption of the Etruscans? Whatever the case might be, there are many scholars who have followed suit in their description of the Etruscans and who in turn has described them in similar ways as the Roman authors of old.10

1.1.1. Question formulation This thesis is structured around three main questions, all of which are connected to the overlaying questions of the status and connection that the bucchero vessels potentially had to the Etruscan banqueting practices, with the focus on the settlement of San Giovenale. The questions posed are as follows: What quantity, type and forms of bucchero were present at San Giovenale? What can the context of San Giovenale tell us of the status and usage of the bucchero pottery? Was bucchero considered a luxurious item or was it considered a utilitarian ware in the context of San Giovenale?

1.1.2. San Giovenale The Etruscan settlement of San Giovenale is located some 60 km north of Rome (Fig. 1),11 and the site is situated on a mountain ridge divided by two shallow rivers that are surrounded by a ravine. This ravine functioned as a mote during medieval times and was thus protecting the medieval castle which is located on the plateau. The plateau, or acropolis is directed east-west with a gentle curve and the site does have the characteristics of a typical Etruscan acropolis.12 The site is placed in the centre of a fertile region like so many other of the Etruscan cities. The landscape is volcanic which is typical for the areas in the middle of southern Etruria, together with highlands and hills. San Giovenale also share some similarities in the topography with Monte Fortino (Luni).13 The San Giovenale plateau has been divided into several letters designating the different areas by the archaeologists who excavated the site. The west side of the acropolis has been divided into the letters D to F and in the east the area which is called the Borgo (after the medieval castle still visible on the site).

5 Pieraccini 2000, 35. 6 Barker & Rasmussen 2000, 180. 7 Barker & Rasmussen 2000, 199. 8 Diod. Sic. 5.40. 9 Catull. 39.11. 10 Barker & Rasmussen 2000, 180. 11 Forsberg 2005, 24. 12 Welin 1960, 292; San Giovenale V:1, 28–29. 13 Wetter 1960, 174 & 182; Welin 1960, 291.

2 The Borgo is a separate part of the acropolis. We do not know the actual antique name of the site of San Giovenale, and neither is the area that surrounds San Giovenale mentioned by any of the ancient authors. The site is named after a nearby church, and the site is totally uninhabited today.14 There are a lot of necropolises surrounding the plateau of San Giovenale and the majority of these have sadly been looted and plundered. Although much of the ceramics has been untouched, showing the presence of some black and grey bucchero together with some impasto ware. Most of the forms suggests that they were for the consumption of wine.15 Is the same true for the acropolis of San Giovenale?

1.1.3. The Swedish Excavation The excavation of San Giovenale was an collaboration between the Swedish Institute of Classical Studies in Rome together with the Sopritendenza alle Antichitá dell’Etruria Meridionale and took place during several seasons between the years 1956–1965.16 The fist excavation in San Giovenale was aimed at researching the graves in the necropolises to the north of the ravines of the plateau (the Grotta Tuffarina and Porzarago), to establish during which times the site of San Giovenale may have been inhabited. Seventeen graves where excavated the first year, two graves 1957 and an additional six graves were excavated the following year in 1958. One of the graves excavated 1958 had some pottery in it, which they could date to the 300 BCE, and the ceramics were vessel forms primarily for wine and cups for drinking together with some personal belongings to the deceased as weapons and jewellery. 1959, seven additional graves were investigated.17 In the end, the excavation yielded several reports that have been published for each of the recognised areas of the San Giovenale acropolis with an addition of the bridge over Pietrisco. The publications of San Giovenale are structured into six monographs together with some articles. None of the publications or the earlier research on San Giovenale has concerned the bucchero which has been uncovered at the site, and as all the publications are separated, none has taken a look at the totality of all the bucchero except for the recording of the finds. Furthermore, the excavation that was undertaken on the actual plateau has shown that there was habitation on the plateau but there is also about 200 meters between the different excavation trenches which make it troublesome to see if the area in question was coherently settled or not.18 Before the actual excavation was undertaken, the medieval ruins were still visible at the site, and on a certain spots west of the fossa, there was a lot of Iron Age ceramics still visible on the surface and to the west of the castell, there were also ceramics uncovered when the terrain had been ploughed.19 In other words, some of the areas had been disturbed early, and many times before the excavation team had even started their research on the site.

14 Forsberg 2005, 24; Welin 1960, 290. 15 Welin 1960, 297; Wetter 1960, 156. 16 Forsberg 2005, 24–25; San Giovenale V:1, 41. 17 Welin 1960, 292, 297. 18 Welin 1960, 300. 19 Welin 1960, 298.

3 1.2. Earlier research Much of the already uncovered material culture from the Etruscans ultimately derives from tomb groups which are by far the most common context.20 Recent decades have shown a steady scholarly effort that demonstrates the importance of bucchero as an indicator of Etruscan cultural influences. Collections of bucchero both public and private have been carefully studied and interpreted, and this have given us a better position to study the relevance of bucchero within the Etruscan civilization today.21 Ramage’s work Studies in Early Etruscan Bucchero represents one of the early attempts to establish a typology for the early south Etruscan bucchero called bucchero sottile. In her study she was searching for the origins of the forms in earlier periods, and especially from the eight century and onwards, but her actual study covers the period of 650–600 BCE. This is also the period in which the forms of the bucchero sottile were established and developed in southern Etruria according to Ramage.22 The earliest bucchero pottery is found together with the late Proto-Corinthian and transitional material of 650–640 BCE, and the earliest bucchero types should have begun around 650 BCE. According to Ramage this is also the time period of some of the finest examples of the bucchero vessels. This early bucchero had very thin walls, elegant decoration and a shiny deep black surface and came in a wide selection of different shapes.23 Some scholars call this early bucchero fine bucchero, which is not to be confused with bucchero sottile, which also is early. The fine and sottile bucchero is the earliest bucchero, followed by transitional and the ordinary bucchero of the sixth century BCE. The terms are used loosely by scholars and differ in meaning from one publication to the next.24 Ramage is of the opinion that the first bucchero to be produced must have come from Cerveteri,25 as this is the place which has yielded the largest quantity of fine and distinctive bucchero. The largest quantity of bucchero pottery, in both variety and shapes can be found there, as well as bucchero shapes that closely resembles the impasto and metal prototypes. The apparent lack of any bucchero in any of the early tombs that is dated in the early seventh century indicates that the technique had not yet begun, but when it did it spread quickly to the neighbouring Etruscan centres where the local potters then would have initiated their own production.26 Isolated pieces that have been found elsewhere seems to indicate that they were imported from the workshops of Cerveteri according to Ramage.27 Rasmussen echoes Ramage conclusion that the earliest bucchero must have derived from the workshops of Cerveteri, adding that the bucchero pottery that has been found in Cerveteri by far surpasses the rest of the pottery that previously has been produced in central Italy in terms of quality.28 Rasmussen did his own excellent study on the bucchero from southern Etruria which was published in 1979, and his work has since become the standard work which is commonly used when researching bucchero ceramics. It is a continuation in a sense of the work that was conducted by Ramage with some additional forms being presented. The catalogue that Rasmussen did is filled with illustrations of profile-drawn pottery forms according to archaeological context and typological order. Rasmussen has recognized that profile-drawing yields the most information.29 The work is frequently referred to in connection with possible forms of the bucchero pottery uncovered in San Giovenale by both Karlsson,30

20 Edlund-Berry 2008, 165. 21 De Puma, 2013, 986. 22 Ramage 1970, 1. 23 Ramage 1970, 2, 3. 24 Rasmussen 1979, 3. 25 Ramage 1970, 2; Del Chiaro 1966. 26 Ramage 1970, 2. 27 Ramage 1970, 35. 28 Rasmussen 1979, 157–158. 29 Rasmussen 1979, ix. 30 San Giovenale IV:1.

4 and Pohl.31 Rasmussen’s catalogue has been frequently consulted in this study as well especially in connection to the forms of bucchero that was uncovered on San Giovenale’s acropolis. Bucchero forms are generally designed for the serving and drinking of wine and other liquids and thus might have served both the living and the dead, but the latter are by no means outweighed by the former. Some examples of bucchero that have been found on Greek sites. In Sicily for example, it seems that bucchero pottery was primarily being used in funerary contexts but further east, on Ithaca and Chios, the bucchero is found in the context of votive offerings.32 In these examples the bucchero may have been seen as something strange and exotic but it does not tell us anything of how the Etruscans where perceiving or using bucchero, but it may serve as a good example that one use of the vessel does not exclude other uses for the same type of vessel. Indeed, the same type of vessel might have served different functions during its lifespan and most certainly dependant on the context in which it was usage. According to Ramage and other scholars, most of the types on which the bucchero shapes are modelled on ultimately come from metal prototypes. Early bucchero pots are frequently made with a sharp curve, which are more natural to metal than to actual pottery. Examples of the pots show that they could be covered with a thin layer of silver to enhance the metallic effect.33 The silvered surface of some of the examples indicate a metal tradition which Ramage also states is an indication that the bucchero pottery was seen to be an inexpensive facsimile of vessels made in precious metals.34 Del Chiaro on the other hand thinks that the bucchero ware was a luxury item in its own right for a brief period, before it became an extremely abundant ware which replaced the earlier impasto pottery in popularity. He has argued that the technical prototype of the Etruscan bucchero was the impasto pottery, but through the improving of the quality of the clay together with the perfecting of their methods and through the refinement of the reduction process, the bucchero ware turned into a luxury item, although as mentioned above, just for a brief time.35 The bucchero pottery might have been an economical substitute for metal vessels according to Del Chiaro who suggest that bucchero’s primarily function was as a funerary ware, as bucchero has mostly been found in funerary contexts.36 Brendel on the other hand, states that there can be no doubt that the bucchero pottery was indeed designed for the wealthy households adding that the potters had learned much from the silversmith’s work.37 It is indeed true that there are some influences from metal ware to be found in bucchero, although, even if some bucchero forms originated from metal wares does not necessarily mean that all metal shapes were copied in the bucchero.38 Indeed, according to Ramage, the development of the bucchero forms seems to be modelled on the forms that is current with the bucchero itself, whilst outdated forms of pottery never were imitated in the bucchero technique, which seems to be based more on the mid-seventh century examples.39 I believe we must pay more attention to the bucchero pottery that has been found within the Etruscan settlements and households to gain a more nuanced picture of the bucchero pottery’s usage and potential status as a pottery ware.

1.2.1. The catalogues The bucchero material from San Giovenale have been recorded in several catalogues. No extensive work has been done on the bucchero finds from San Giovenale. The catalogues that

31 San Giovenale V:2. 32 Rasmussen 1979, 158. 33 Ramage 1970, 11; Jucker 1991, 142, 143. 34 Ramage 1970, 35. 35 Del Chiaro 1966, 98–100. 36 Del Chiaro 1966, 103. 37 Brendel 1978, 80. 38 Ramage 1970, 11. 39 Ramage 1970, 10.

5 are being used for this thesis are the following: E. & K Berggren’s publication San Giovenale II:2. Excavations in Area B, 1975 – 1960; B. Olinder and I. Pohl’s publication San Giovenale II:4 The semi-subterranean building in Area B; I. Pohl’s San Giovenale III:3. The Iron age habitations in Area E and San Giovenale IV:1; C. Nylander et al San Giovenale V:1. The Borgo, Excavating an Etruscan quarter: Architecture and stratigraphy; I. Pohl’s San Giovenale and L. Karlsson’s Area F East – Huts and houses on the Acropolis. All the catalogues have had different publication strategies and none of the catalogues have the same system of recording and presenting the finds. The catalogues are varying greatly and thus making it harder to get reliable data of the site of San Giovenale and even harder still to combine all material into one single reliable database. Some data, like colour of the clay and surfaces and what type of bucchero, i.e., sotille, fine, transitional, ordinary, or grey bucchero is lacking, presenting further problems when combining the find catalogues. This is problematic to say the least, but one important side effect of this study will be the result that all the bucchero from San Giovenale which previously has been published will end up in one place. This has been achieved by collecting all the different bucchero fragments presented in the different areas into several databases, all of which will be presented later. It is important to stress that there were many other pottery types that was uncovered together with the bucchero pottery, even though only the bucchero fragments will be presented here. There are still areas of San Giovenale that that still has not received a full publication and thus the potential bucchero finds from these areas will not be considered at all. In addition, there are areas on the acropolis of San Giovenale that have not been wholly excavated, and there is in all probability still potential bucchero (among other things) that has not been uncovered at the site, meaning that we cannot speak of the totality of bucchero finds in the whole area. Nevertheless, the totality of bucchero finds documented in the catalogues can still be discussed. All the areas and data tables will have slightly different presentation of the finds in this study because of the different information available in the catalogues. Some of the catalogues, i.e., Pohl and Karlsson’s publications have references to Rasmussen’s work Bucchero pottery from southern Etruria,40 which has made it easier to compare and identify some of the bucchero forms. As mentioned earlier, the bridge close to San Giovenale will not be considered in this thesis as this is located outside of the actual plateau/acropolis of San Giovenale. The Iron Age test square in the north-eastern part of Area D did not yield any bucchero and will not be treated, even though it is a part of the San Giovenale plateau. It must be stressed that this study does not stand and fall with the exact amount of bucchero on the site. The function of the data tables is mainly to give an indication of where the bucchero has been found and in what approximately amount and which forms and types that are present. In many cases, single finds and forms will be enough to do a comparison of the bucchero in the area. The main focus of the study is to uncover the consumptions patterns of the bucchero pottery within the plateau (acropolis) of San Giovenale and to see if we can speak of a pottery ware that began, as some scholars have suggested; as a luxurious ware that then turned into a more utilitarian every day ware within the settlement of San Giovenale. If that is the case, the material of San Giovenale should be comprehensive enough to investigate this further and provide us with an understanding of how the inhabitants of San Giovenale perceived and used this particular ceramic ware.

1.3. Methodological approach To be able to interpret whether or not the bucchero was perceived as a luxurious item among the inhabitants of San Giovenale, and its potential connection to the Etruscan banquets, the first step was to collect all the documented bucchero from San Giovenale into the thesis.

40 Rasmussen’s work has since then been widely used by scholars. It is full of helpful illustrations of different bucchero forms and types.

6 The bucchero finds are spread across several different publications from San Giovenale, all of which have different approaches and styles in terms of their publication. A database has been constructed for each area in San Giovenale that considered the colour, form, fragment count and stratigraphy where possible, relying solely on the published catalogues of the site. Unfortunately, none of the bucchero of San Giovenale has been colour checked with a Munsell colour-chart by the excavators, instead they have all been described and determined by ocular observations alone by the scholars. I have not been able to investigate the physical material myself, thus I have relied on the descriptions recorded in the catalogues. There are descriptions of the colour of many of the finds and even if it is not determined by any Munsell analysis, much weight will be put on the colour descriptions and type/form of the bucchero in connection to stratigraphy and area. Much consideration will be put on forms, and the forms of the vessels might also be the best aspect for the study of use and potential status of the ware, especially in connection with other finds within the same stratum or context. For references of forms, most scholars have used Rasmussen’s study,41 on the pottery of southern Etruria and the catalogues have already identified many Rasmussen types which makes it easier.42 In addition to Rasmussen’s work I have also consulted Ramage’s study,43 on the pottery of southern Etruria. The database will be presented in the analysis chapter, and the findings will be discussed in the last chapter with above-mentioned aspects which will be interpreted in the light of the Etruscan banquet’s and Etruscan elite practices. One problem that becomes apparent immediately when confronted with the material from the settlement of San Giovenale, is that the material was excavated in the 1950– 60s and with a pretty unclear publication strategy the publications were released with considerable time between them. This does not only leave a considerable time gap between the excavation and the publication of the material; it also adds an even greater time gap between anyone else studying the material. Although, the upside of the material from San Giovenale is that unlike some other Etruscan sites, where the context can be obscure and sometimes missing, the material from San Giovenale does contain good data and recordings of (almost) all the recovery contexts for the vessels, which have been carefully documented by the excavators. Much of the bucchero discussed and catalogued ultimately derives from tomb groups but the material from San Giovenale on the other hand comes mainly from the settlement. Indeed, this is also one of the reasons that San Giovenale was chosen as the location for the Swedish excavation project, the chance to contrast much of what we knew of the Etruscans with material finds actually uncovered in the settlements and not from the tombs.

1.4. Theoretical approach This section discusses how the theoretical concept of conspicuous consumption and feasting theory might be applied to the bucchero from San Giovenale, to shed further light on how the bucchero might have been used and perceived in terms of status. Too be able to study the consumption patterns in San Giovenale and determining how the bucchero was perceived by the inhabitants of the site, this thesis combines these two existing theoretical frameworks, both of which will be discussed separately in this chapter.

1.4.1. Conspicuous consumption The first theory that is being used in the thesis is Thorstein Veblen’s pivotal work The theory of the Leisure class, which formulated the concept of ‘conspicuous consumption’. The term has been especially pervasive in economics where the term “Veblen effect” has an established

41 Rasmussen 1979. 42 All Rasmussen types presented in this thesis has been noted in the catalogues. 43 Ramage 1970.

7 place,44 and the work itself is deeply sociological in its implications.45 Conspicuous consumption is usually descriptive in the sense to referring to any non-utilitarian form of consumption or consumption that is judged extravagant, luxurious or wasteful – which can be used to suggest a distinguished consumer behaviour.46 This study is grounded in this theoretical framework, by applying the theoretical framework on the bucchero from San Giovenale. According to Veblen, the institution of a leisure class can be found in what he defines as ‘higher stages of barbarian culture’, i.e., feudal Europe (which is Veblen’s example), where the distinction between class is rigorously observed by the population and features economic significances in the class differences in the distinction. This distinction is turn maintained between the employment of the several classes. The upper classes, or the leisure class, are commonly exempt or even excluded from industrial occupations, which are reserved for the lower classes whilst the leisure class is reserved for employments which have a degree of honour attached to it. These employments with a degree of honour attached to it varies greatly but usually entail offices that are connected to occupations such as priestly services or warfare.47 The leisure class stands at the head of the social structure and their standards of life are in turn observed by the lower classes. The members of each of the different social stratum are in turn, according to Veblen, accepting as their ideal of decency the scheme of life that is in vogue in the higher stratum and focuses to live up to that perceived ideal.48 A common way to describe this phenomenon is that it is a pattern of conduct which goal is to either maintain or enhance the social position of the individual according to Campbell.49 Luxuries and the comforts of life is the lot of the leisure class, and in certain victuals and taboo as well as certain beverages may even be strictly reserved for the use of the leisure class. If the article they are consuming are costly, they are automatically perceived as also being noble and honorific.50 The leisure class then consumes the best in terms of food, drinks, services, and ornaments (to mention but a few). These goods effectively become the evidence of their wealth. If the leisure class do not consume the right quantity and quality of the goods, it becomes a mark of inferiority.51 The impulse to engage in conspicuous consumption seems to derive from a process where the individual feels the need to compare themselves with others, they receive esteem or the jealousy of others through a successful or failed act of conspicuous consumption, which is judged by the audience and if successful, they improve their social status in the eyes of others.52 Perhaps the closest concept to conspicuous consumption in the ancient vocabulary is the Greek notion of tryphé (magnificence, extravagance), which involved ostentatious luxury which was intended to impress an audience.53 Individuals thus seeks to excel in pecuniary standing and so gain the esteem or jealousy of their fellow men, and conspicuous consumption is way to improve other’s opinion of oneself. A conclusion seems to be that conspicuous consumption is an activity that is distinguished by the individual’s deliberate endeavour to achieve a particular end according to Campbell.54 As the wealth accumulates, the leisure class develops further and a differentiation within the class itself arises, and a more or less elaborate systems of rank and grades emerges. According to Veblen, there is no class of society that forgoes all customary conspicuous consumption, it is the last item that is given up except under direst necessity. Conspicuous

44 Campbell 1995, 37. 45 Veblen 2009, vii. 46 Campbell 1995, 38. 47 Veblen 2009, 7. 48 Veblen 2009, 59. 49 Campbell 1995, 38. 50 Veblen 2009, 50. 51 Veblen 2009, 53. 52 Campbell 1995, 42–43. 53 Riad 2012, 6; Becker 2016, 296. 54 Campbell 1995, 38, 39; Veblen 2009, 26.

8 consumption also claims a relatively larger portion of the income of the urban population, more so than what is the case within the rural population.55

1.4.2. Feasting theory Feasting has played a central role too most of the traditional and prehistoric societies alike and the use of feasting as a theory has in the past two decades risen in popularity, especially within archaeology.56 It was the classical archaeologists that were among the first to take notice of the archaeological evidence for feasting, accounting the abundant ceramics used for drinking together with scenes of feasting depicted on some of the ceramics and murals.57 The access to banquets also seems too have been restricted in some contexts. Scholars has explained this exclusion as a way for the emerging elite to manipulate the instruments of social and political power and legitimization.58 By excluding a part of the population, feasting does in this sense manifests the boundaries between the elite and the rest of the society.59 Although, even if there is ample of evidence and classical literature that is portraying the feasts as a part of the elite, we are never told by these texts what role it played in the broader dynamics of society as pointed out by Hayden & Villeneuve.60 Borgna has argued that in Late Helladic IIA-B (c. 1450 –c. 1430 BCE) Greece, for example, the banquets and feasts were primarily regulated and organized by the central authorities as a powerful instrument for status negotiation.61 In the ancient Near East the banqueting was accompanied with gift giving.62 Anthropological studies on traditional stratified societies have also shown that generosity is of importance for the individual or chief in ascertaining leadership, thus it would seem that leadership is highly dependent on the individuals ability of being generous.63 Hayden & Villeneuve point out that the range of motivation for the hosting of a feast can also include promotion of tangible benefits for the host of the feast.64 In small scale societies for example, the feasting and craft production seems to be supported not only by the elites themselves according to Spielmann – but by the numerous individuals. These individuals in turn are those who are fulfilling as it where the ritual obligations demanded and thus are creating and sustaining social relationships.65 Spielmann further argues that feasting in small-scale societies is a way to exchange social valuables, built prestige and to provide the wherewithal for individuals to function in small-scale societies.66 This might as well be true in an Etruscan setting, especially in a small settlement as San Giovenale. In some less distinguished Late Minoan III (c. 1420–c. 1200 BCE) graves, drinking activities are represented by elaborate and decorated ceramic dinner sets. These included shapes as the kraters, goblets, kylikes, deep bowls and cups. 67 Borgna argues that the early Cretan elite practiced conspicuous consumption of wine and food, both of which had gradually become a powerful means of competition and exclusion.68 Can the same be true in an Etruscan setting?

55 Veblen 2009, 54, 59, 61. 56 Hayden & Villeneuve 2011, 434. 57 Hayden & Villeneuve 2011, 438. 58 Hayden & Villeneuve 2011, 438; Borgna 2004, 263. 59 Ingemark 2003, 212. 60 Hayden & Villeneuve 2011, 435. 61 Borgna 2004, 267. 62 Schmandt-Besserat 2001, 394. 63 Ingemark 2003, 211. 64 Hayden & Villeneuve 2011, 442. 65 Spielmann 2002, 197. 66 Spielmann 2002, 202. 67 Borgna 2004, 268. 68 Borgna 2004, 269–270.

9 2. Bucchero: shapes, techniques, and decoration

This chapter provides an overview of bucchero pottery. The chapter is divided into several sub- sections that discuss different aspects of the bucchero in terms of forms, technique, and decoration.

2.1. Bucchero The name ‘bucchero’ is what the modern archaeologists call this particular Etruscan ceramic ware as we do not know what the Etruscans called it. The name is a derivation from the Spanish word ‘búcaro’, a name which was first applied to South American pottery which was made from a smelly black clay. The black bucchero when it was discovered in the Etruscan sphere was then compared to this Spanish ceramic ware ‘búcaro’ which had its similarities with the Etruscan bucchero ceramics, hence the name.69 Bucchero is a deeply black ceramic both on the surface and usually all the way to the core.70 It is a common feature in most of the Etruscan sites in Etruria from the archaic period. Bucchero vessels were produced in central Italy between the seventh and the fourth centuries BCE.71 Bucchero can also come in different colours which can range from a lighter greyish colour to grey and black and even if it is indeed rare the bucchero can also have painted decoration,72 but rarely in any of the lighter colours.73 The bucchero pottery has a widespread occurrence, and it appears in almost all types of deposits according to Rasmussen. There is no lack of evidence that show us of the spread of bucchero, as this particular Etruscan ceramic have been found in areas around the river Arno (in modern day Tuscany) in the north all the way down south to the river Sele (in modern day Campania), which lies a bit south of Salerno.74 The bucchero is not restricted to the Etruscan homelands, as the ware has also been found along the shores of Italy, southern France, Iberia, north Africa all the way to the islands of Corsica and Sardinia. Some examples have also been found in Greece.75 There are several different regional styles of bucchero and it might be prudent to keep in mind that bucchero, like most ceramic wares, varies enormously from period to period and from place to place.76 Many scholars believe that the earliest types of bucchero to be established was the bucchero types found within southern Etruria, with its most important centres being that of Cerveteri, Veii and Tarquinia.77 The bucchero of southern Etruria developed under the influences of the Proto-Corinthian pottery with the earlier so-called ‘bucchero impasto’ forming a potential transitional stage to bucchero ceramics. This early type of southern Etruscan bucchero is sometimes called by the name ‘sottile’ (meaning ‘thin’ bucchero) and in some cases the bucchero sottile can be as fine

69 De Puma 2013, 974; Furuhagen 1985, 26. 70 Ramage 1970, 1. 71 Perkins 2016, 224. 72 This seems to be the case with the large painted kantharos in Jucker 1991, 203, No. 268. This kantharos have motifs and circles in a faded blue green and purple colour that might have been added after the actual firing process according to Jucker. 73 Jucker 1991, 143. 74 Rasmussen 1979, 1. 75 Pallotino 1955, 76; Rendelli 2017, 174. 76 Ramage 1970, 1. 77 Rasmussen 1979, 1, 4.

10 and as thin as that of the finest type of Chinese porcelain.78 Some of the first fine examples of bucchero with a shiny black appearance appear sometime around 650 BCE, these fine examples usually have less grit in the clay than that of its predecessors and this seems to be true for all over southern Etruria.79 The manufacture of the bucchero ceramics was first centred in the southern part of Etruria and would later spread outside the centres of southern Etruria all the way to northern Etruria and especially the Etruscan centres of Chiusi and Vulci around 600 BCE. The vessels that were produced in the Etruscan centres in the north tended to be a bit larger and heavier type compared to that of their southern counterparts, with additions and reliefs modelled by freehand on the ware or by help of special moulds to achieve the desired result.80 This heavier type of bucchero is usually called by the name of bucchero ‘pesante’ (‘heavy’ bucchero), and scholars and early enthusiasts of the bucchero have considered it to be somewhat inferior to its southern counterpart in Etruria – mainly in terms of technique and execution. Although that does not mean that there are no fine examples of the bucchero pesante and the best period of this bucchero was around the sixth century BCE.81 The size of the bucchero pesante type is also important, and some of the vases made in this technique are among the largest the Etruscans ever produced according to De Puma.82 In short, bucchero pesante usually has heavier shapes and is usually heavily decorated with reliefs, whilst bucchero sottile on the other hand usually relies more on its elegant shape in its presentation.83 In addition to the sottile and pesante groups, there are two more groups which have previously been thought to be an early form of bucchero. That is the so-called ‘buccheroid’ type and the so-called ‘grey bucchero’ type which is somewhat like the bucchero. The buccheroid type is usually of a dark brown or dark grey colour with a fine and shiny polished surface which usually have thin walls and is overall small and delicate and, in many ways, similar to the bucchero pottery. The buccheroid fabric though is earlier than that of bucchero.84 I am not so sure as to dismiss the grey bucchero as being actual bucchero. Ramage states that the basic requirement for the bucchero to even be considered as such, is to have a completely reduced core.85 Yet, it would be impossible to know if the core was completely reduced unless the fabric was broken, thus revealing the core. Also, depending on the natural colour of the clay, it can be difficult to see if it was completely reduced or simply incompletely reduced. I will still take the grey bucchero into account in this thesis, as San Giovenale has revealed a lot of this distinctive bucchero type as well as fine and sottile (c. 650–630 BCE), transitional (c. 625–575 BCE), and ordinary bucchero (6th century BCE) together with the grey bucchero wares (6th century BCE).86 The production of grey bucchero might have been a conscious choice of the producers as well as variations in the clay, or simply the lack of technological firing skills. Some sites, for example in the Volsinii-Orvieto area, have shown that the grey variety of bucchero was purposely done by a less than complete reduction.87 Ramage has argued that sometime around the turn of the seventh century BCE, the fabric of the bucchero turned into a more ordinary ware with the colour and clay of the vessels still being black, but with an increased tendency towards a greyish colour in the fabric. The walls became thicker and the decoration on the vessels became crude and seems to have been applied

78 Jucker 1991, 143. 79 Ramage 1970, 2. 80 Jucker 1991, 143. 81 De Puma 1976, 227. 82 De Puma 2013, 981. 83 Rasmussen 1979, 1. 84 Ramage 1970, 3–4. 85 Ramage 1970, 3. 86 Rasmussen 1979, 3; Ramage 1970, 3. 87 De Puma 2013, 975.

11 in an almost mechanical matter.88 De Puma believes that the grey bucchero is a type of undecorated utilitarian ware.89 The bucchero type that Ramage calls ‘transitional’ bucchero will also be considered as ‘true’ bucchero pottery in this thesis. This type of bucchero has been found together with early Corinthian and Italo-Corinthian pottery from the last quarter of the seventh century and they maintain shapes and decorative motifs of an earlier type and they also tend to be less refined. This bucchero is also considered less prestigious and more utilitarian according to De Puma.90 The transitional bucchero bridges the short period between that of the bucchero sottile ware and the bucchero of the sixth century BCE.91

2.1.1. Bucchero shapes The discussion of form and function of a vessel is based on the decisions of potters, they make or modify properties of the vessel towards particular kinds of uses.92 According to Rice, the function of domestic ceramic containers can be described as taking place in three broad realms, which she defines as storage, transformation and transfer or transport. Pottery is also most likely to be preferred for carrying liquids.93 The influences of the Greek world came from the promoted and extensive trade that Etruria had with Greece, and in addition with the merchants and their goods there also came new artistic and technical influences in the form of imported pottery among many other things. New opportunities had opened in the West and may consequently have drawn trained artists overseas to the Etruscan shores and land.94 The Etruscans of Etruria received a lot of cultural and artistic influences from the Greek world, especially Ionia in the beginning and later that of Attica.95 Many of the new shapes and forms found within bucchero derives from native as well as Greek shapes, with the Corinthian ones being especially influential and which themselves are modelled on metal prototypes according to Jucker.96 In addition, concerning the shapes of the bucchero, many of the forms that had gone out of fashion in the Greek or the Etrusco-Corinthian pottery continued to appear in the bucchero pottery repertoire.97 This might indicate a change of the consumption practices as well as a result of new or changed demands on the vessels. The most common forms found among bucchero, beginning with the sottile type, are the oinochoai, bowls, kylikes and amphoras which also come in a great variation of shapes. Much the same can be said about the bucchero pesante, although, there is less variation in terms of shapes to be seen in this type of pottery, especially in comparison to its southern counterpart.98 The shapes of bucchero were imitations of earlier shapes. These shapes can be traced from Near Eastern, Greek, and Italic examples. The Near Eastern influences came mainly in two waves. The first wave, sometime in the late eight century BCE, and the second wave somewhere around the middle of the seventh century BCE. The impacts of the first wave can mainly be seen in the many new forms that appears in the impasto of the late eight century BCE, in Etruria. These new shapes inspired the bucchero forms together with the earlier forms and was adopted by the bucchero craftsmen.99 The influence and the first major impact of the Near Eastern influences was over in around 670 BCE, in Etruria, but by then the shapes had already been successfully copied and integrated in the impasto ceramics by the local craftsmen. These

88 Ramage 1970, 3. Ramage does not clarify why this is the case more than the tendency of the material, being of a greyer fabric, thicker walls, and cruder decoration on the vessels. 89 De Puma 2013, 975. 90 De Puma 2013, 976. 91 Ramage 1970, 3. 92 Rice 1987, 207. 93 Rice 1987, 208. 94 Ramage 1970, 34. 95 Pallotino 1955, 57–58. 96 Jucker 1991, 142, 143. 97 Ramage 1970, 10. 98 Del Chiaro 1966, 101. 99 Ramage 1970, 8.

12 influences and the same oriental imitation types would then in turn inspire the new bucchero forms.100 Among the oriental forms that came with the first wave of influence that was imitated in the bucchero forms and were in use in the mid-seventh century BCE, were the so-called high- necked oinochoe, the chalice which could come with and without caryatids, the pilgrim flask and the barrel-shaped askos according to Ramage. Among these above stated forms, it was just the oinochoe and chalice that were the types that continued in any number the longest.101 Ramage also noted that many of the shapes that were imitated in bucchero died out almost immediately. She argues that the reason might have been because the earlier bucchero was by far more experimental in the beginning than those that would follow and some forms were probably also considered to be way too impractical for continued use and were therefore actively dismissed from the repertoire.102

2.1.2. Technique Perkin’s paper of the preliminary findings from his project to catalogue the bucchero collection in the British Museum has provided some insight on the manufacturing techniques of the bucchero ware.103 One of his initial findings was that much of the bucchero was not as black as one might actually think. Indeed, some examples seem to have been partially or in some cases completely painted to provide a good uniform black colour of the bucchero ware – a practice that was widespread and as a result some of the earliest arrivals in the British museum’s collection have been treated with black paint. This is one of the reasons why Perkins cautions us not to put too much faith in the colour of the bucchero as a defining or descriptive characteristic, even though the colour still is a useful guide to classifying bucchero.104 It must be stressed though that this practice was certainly not practiced by the Etruscan, but by later enthusiasts and museums. In short, the painted-on black colour was a modern addition to make the bucchero appear darker in colour. Perkins also reconstructs a working sequence for the bucchero, detailing the different steps that were taken in the manufacture of each of the vessels in the British Museum’s collection. The ‘standard’ sequence of the manufacture of some of the vessel types, for example, the bowl of the cup was potted first according to Perkins, then the base which then was attached to the bowl following by the handles which were formed and attached to the vessel. The vessel was then left for drying. After the drying process, the vessel was inverted on the wheel so that the foot could be burnished, but only around the edge and the extremity of the underside. After this was done, the bowl would be burnished on a wheel. The handles of the vessel got burnished horizontally by free hand. Finally, the last step in Perkins proposed working sequence would be the adding of the grooving.105 Perkins example is based on Rasmussen’s 3b cup,106 but it is consistent with many cups, chalices and oinochoai which would suggest that there was a standardised production process according to Perkins.107 The earliest technique for burnishing the ware seems to be what Perkins calls a “freehand haphazard burning”, meaning that the finishing of the surface of the vessels was made with a burnishing tool, that where using strokes made without an apparent directionality. This stage of the manufacturing process was then followed by freehand, but with distinct directionality followed by a stage where the burnishing was made accurately horizontal while the vessel was turning on a slow-turning wheel. A developmental sequence that seems to

100 Ramage 1970, 4. 101 Ramage 1970, 8. 102 Ramage 1970, 10. 103 Perkins 2007, 30–31. 104 Perkins 2007, 28. 105 Perkins 2007, 31–32. 106 Rasmussen 1979, 200–201, Pl. 38–39. 107 Perkins 2007, 32.

13 appear in the second half of the 7th century BCE.108 The slow-turning potter’s wheel seems like it was introduced in the end of the 8th century BCE, and the vessels in turn became more and more polished as a result of this new technique.109 According to De Puma, the distinctive black sheen of the bucchero ware was not achieved due to any glaze or slip but was the result of the reduction fire process. The reduction process involved that the fire was stoked and then deprived of oxygen, by reducing the oxygen a certain chemical change occurred in the clay, the better the reduction the blacker the clay core became.110 Bucchero was fired in a reducing atmosphere which caused the black surface and core of the ware as a result of this process.111 The result of the colour through reducing was achieved by firing the bucchero ware in a low smoking heat – a technique which evolved independently in the Etruscan workshops.112 The clay contained iron oxide which turned black when fired in the reductive environment achieved in the smoky kilns. It might also have been the case that some organic matter, like wood for example, might have been artificially placed within the kilns by the potters themselves to achieve the desired blackened colour.113 The grey bucchero on the other hand, with a fabric which is usually light grey whilst the core is a little darker and which usually has a creamy slipped surface usually belong to the sixth century BCE, or later, mostly with the same shapes as ordinary bucchero but with less variety.114

2.1.3. Decoration Much of the bucchero does not have any decoration at all, and according to Brendel much of the work seem to be mere routine work.115 That said, that does not mean that bucchero was completely lacking decorations. Indeed, some of the ornaments to be found on bucchero, for example, some examples was engraved on the surface sometimes with open or closed fans and in other examples we can also find fine and thinly incised and stylized flowers and palmettes which usually surround the neck of the vessel or as in some examples, they had vertical rows of flowers made in the same technique placed on the back of the handles. Later, reliefs became the characteristic decoration of much bucchero.116 In other words, ornamentation can be found on bucchero, both the sotille and pesante variants and usually in the form of incised or impressed roulette’s or cylindrical seals.117 Decoration seen on some examples of bucchero, like the open or closed “fans” or notched patterns, were probably made with a small notched tool of wood, whilst the notched patterns were made with a roulette according to De Puma.118 Influences from the Greeks pottery production like painted decorations, scale patterns or registers of animals inspired many of the incised, relief patterns and scenes in the Etruscan bucchero production.119 Some more recent studies have demonstrated that chalky ochre or cinnabar was applied on many bucchero vessels to enhance the incised or impressed decorations on the vessel, even though the actual bucchero was rarely painted.120

108 Perkins 2007, 32. 109 Jucker 1991, 143. 110 De Puma 2013, 975. 111 Rasmussen 1979, 2. 112 Brendel 1978, 77. 113 Jucker 1991, 143; Rasmussen 1970, 2. 114 Rasmussen 1979, 3. 115 Brendel 1978, 82. 116 Brendel 1978, 79–82. 117 Jucker 1991, 143. 118 De Puma 2013, 984. 119 Del Chiaro 1966, 102–103. 120 De Puma 2013, 975.

14 3. Sumptous feasts and the elite

This chapter provides the background for the Etruscan elite and the banqueting practices in Etruria. It is divided in three sections, all of which are discussing certain aspects of the elite and the banquets before we apply the theoretical concept of conspicuous consumption and feasting theory on the bucchero from San Giovenale.

3.1. The Etruscan elite One of the defining hallmarks of the Etruscan Orientalizing period (700 BCE) was the new distinctive material forms that were used to express different aspects of the elite Etruscan’s social, economic as well as political identity. It is also during this Orientalising period that the groups in Etruria developed a self-conscious identity as “Etruscans”.121 When Rome was still a village on the southern side of the Tiber river, the Etruscan people had already began to emerge as Italy’s first great civilization. The Etruscans secured supremacy over the sea. They also began to establish a series of thriving emporia and had already developed and produced an impressive material culture.122 Their trade contacts stretched far and wide. Their commercial power had reached such extend in the sixth century BCE that Livy comments that they extended so widely on both land and sea and that their power was so great that they had given name to both the Tyrrhenian and the Adriatic Sea.123 The Etruscans themselves did not leave us with any agricultural treaties or any general thoughts about food, but luckily, the Romans did.124 It is through the Romans we get a glimpse of the Etruscan society. The fertility of for example northern Etruria even enticed the Gaul’s to occupy Etruscan territory in the 4th century BCE.125 The Roman author Livy (c. 59–17 CE),126 left us with a long list of supplies that the Etruscan cities had produced for the Roman war preparations against Carthage, thus giving us a glimpse of the potential scale of the Etruscan economic production.127 Plutarch (c. 46–120 CE), another Roman author has described the Etruscan cities as being wealthy and well equipped for productive business.128 Although we must remember that this is written when most of the Etruscan lands had been annexed by the Romans, as Barker & Rasmussen points out; we cannot assume that the Etruscan farming ever reached a Roman scale in terms of manpower and technology, and evidences suggest strongly against that being the case as well.129 Nevertheless, it gives us an idea of what we might have found in the Etruscan settlements before the Roman conquests. It is clear that Roman authors, even if they are pointing out different aspects of the wealth of the Etruscans in their various descriptions – certainly, all were impressed by the natural wealth of Etruria.

121 Neil 2016, 19, 20. 122 De Puma 1976, 220. 123 Becker 2016, 295; Livy 5.33.7–9. The Tyrrhenian sea takes its name from the Etruscans themselves whilst the Adriatic Sea is named after the Etruscan town of Adria. Both seas are named after the Etruscans according to Livy’s account. 124 Pieraccini 2013, 812. 125 Becker 2016, 294. 126 Livy. 28.45.15–16. 127 Barker & Rasmussen 2000, 180–181. 128 Becker 2016, 294; Plut. Cam. 16. 129 Barker & Rasmussen 2000, 182.

15 Indeed, the Etruscans are the only non-Greek culture to ever have established a treasury in Delphi.130 It has been argued that both olives and vines were first introduced to the Etruscans by the Greeks. Whatever the case might be, olive as well vine cultivation became an important component in the Etruscan crop husbandry according to Barker & Rasmussen.131 Wine especially seems to have held a sacred place in Etruscan life and depictions of wine and wine vessels are indeed numerous. They can be found painted in different tombs. Further, there are tens of thousands of drinking and pouring vessels that were imported from Greece as well as produced by the Etruscans,132 suggesting once again the importance of wine within the Etruscan culture. The conspicuous role of wine, especially from the area of Cerveteri and Pyrgi is interesting because of its early traffic with southern France, which according to Briggs was probably consumed and imported in quantities by the Gaul’s seventh and sixth century elite.133 An increased presence of large containers and drinking vessels would suggest that the prosperous elite was growing and was increasingly able to engage in banqueting in all its aspects.134

3.2. The banquet There is an abundance of imagery that depicts banquets in Etruria. Banquettes are represented in Etruscan art from the earliest times and the funerary banquet which was held in the honour of the dead was according to Bonfante most certainly like the banquet for the living.135 Banqueting means in short; eating and drinking together at formal parties or ceremonies and it is associated with many aspects of human life. It also served as a paramount status maker to the host as much as the participants of the banquet.136 The iconography of the Etruscan banquets has been much discussed by scholars, with the focus centred on the origins of the banquet and other aspects centred around eating and drinking.137 These images of Etruscan banquets give us an idea of the eating behaviour and practices in Etruria at the time of its composition, and the sanctuaries and tombs shows evidence that feasting and drinking were fundamental in securing social ties as well as for ceremonies and rituals. The sheer collection of banquet scenes seems to be indicating the importance of it.138 The Etruscan dining practices are usually compared to those of ancient Greece and Rome, with perhaps most focus on the Greek world. Rathje stresses that we should consider the Oriental customs too, as the Etruscan culture according to her is an amalgamation between local Iron Age culture, mixed with Greek and Oriental influences.139 A feast based on meat and wine with reclining or seated guests is a typical element of cultures further East, as well as in the Mediterranean,140 and the Oriental influences of the Etruscans were already hinted at by the Greek author Herodotus.141 In other words, the Etruscan elite of the seventh century suggests a population which included local Villanovan descent, together with a mix of Near Eastern, Greeks and perhaps other origins.142

130 Becker 2016, 294–295; Strab. 5.1.7 & 9.3.8. 131 Barker & Rasmussen 2000, 198–199. 132 Pieraccini 2013, 818. 133 Briggs 2002, 165. 134 Hostetter 1998, 77. 135 Bonfante 1986, 233. 136 Rathje 2013, 823 & 825; Baker & Rasmussen 2000, 249. 137 Pieraccini 2000, 35. 138 Rathje 2013, 826. 139 Rathje 1994, 97. 140 Rathje 2013, 825. 141 Hdt, 1.94.2; Bonfante 1986, 259–260. 142 Magness 2001, 97.

16 The Etruscans did not follow Near Eastern nor Greek models slavishly, but instead seem to use them selectively where they fit the Etruscan’s needs and it must have been a custom in archaic Etruria (600–480 BCE) to be banqueting.143 The archaeological data confirms that the banquets were a normal part of daily life of the elite Etruscans and the banquet itself could reach sizable dimensions according to Becker.144 Some of the Etruscan terms for different kind of vessel and shapes further suggests the close link between Greece, kothon (Greek) for jug is ‘qatum’ in Etruscan whilst askos (Greek) for flask is ‘aska’ in the Etruscan language.145 The Etruscans way of feasting seems to have changed when they adopted the Greek way of drinking and combined it with the splendour of the Near East, thus the feast increasingly became a display of conspicuous consumption.146 But we must remember that Etruscan borrowing of Greek terms for vases and the Greek imported material, does not automatically mean that the Etruscan where using the vessels in the same way or for the same purpose as the Greeks. The purpose may in fact also have differed greatly between the cities within Etruria itself.147 According to Hostetter, the vessels themselves could have multiple uses, for example, vessels with beaked jugs or oinochoai may have had multiple uses, being containers not only for wine but for water to serve in a Etruscan ritual ablution.148 Greek texts about banqueting usually express dismay over how the Etruscan women were seen open with men (husbands included).149 In Greek symposiums the participants were always and exclusively male. The Etruscan banquet was not a symposia in a Greek sense, but the equipment that was used were almost identical with the use of Greek-style drinking cups, jugs and bowls for the wine and garlands for the participants and an emphasis on drinking. Even some symposium games seem to have been adopted such as kottabos.150 Gift exchange was another feature that was articulated around the banquets. It was an important means by which encounters between stranger were regulated according to Briggs, and prestige artifacts with inscriptions testify to the exchange of gifts between the leading families in Etruria.151 But the elite might not have been alone in these feasts. There might have been voluntary services that were paid for with a meal. Briggs for example makes an example of Telemachus, when he pays the ship’s crew who brought him to Ithaca. It has also been argued that societies without an organized elite could through the hosting of a feast attract and employ people for more labour-intense projects. In return for their hard work they were compensated with a feast of meat and alcoholic beverages. In this way, men with good reputation for rewarding men for their work could also rely on attracting seasonal or occasional labour when he wanted.152 The feasts that is depicted in many Etruscan tombs was certainly not free of charge and servants and craftsmen had to be maintained and someone had to produce the food and drink, as well as the fine utensils for the banquet.153 This system could in a sense be likened to the patron and client system of Rome.

143 Small 1994, 87. 144 Becker 2016, 296. 145 Barker & Rasmussen 2000, 203. 146 Rathje 2013, 824. 147 Small 1994, 86. 148 Hostetter 1998, 79. 149 Edlund-Berry 2008, 166. 150 Barker & Rasmussen 2000, 249–251. 151 Briggs 2002, 156; Barker & Rasmussen 2000, 212. 152 Hom. Od. 15. 503–7.; Briggs 2002, 154, 155. 153 Barker & Rasmussen 2000, 180.

17 3.3. The last supper The funerary meal or banquet may not only be ritual but also a civic act for the wealthy Etruscans, the dining is the starting point of human social experience whilst the ritual meal is the end of the social experience.154 According to Pieraccini, honouring someone with a last meal, is an ancient concept that is well established in the Homeric literature.155 Indeed, Briggs has argued that Homer’s poems were admired in Italy and that his description of the imaginary Phaeacians156 could equally be applied to the wealthiest Etruscan households in the eight century BCE.157 For many years, scholars have assumed that a funerary feast was part of the funerary ritual, but far from everyone has agreed on where the actual feast would have taken place.158 Pieraccini for example, argues that much of the Etruscan banquet iconography has a funerary context thus the funerary rituals and the banqueting might have taken place in the actual tombs.159 The grave goods, including the banquet bronzes and pottery are usually found in the right side in the grave,160 and the inclusion of banquet accoutrements found within funerary deposits may have been caused by a change in the eating and drinking practices connected to the upper class which might in turn have been caused by the influences from the Greeks and Syrio-Phoenicians according to Pieraccini.161 For example, wealthy Caeretan funerary equipment usually consisted of special dining and cooking equipment and items that was associated with banquets. They were usually a part of the funerary deposits and demonstrated the economic and social rank of the deceased. The items ranged from plates, cups, cauldrons, and storage vases which was part of the table service the elite Etruscans of the seventh century BCE.162 Etruscan homes usually have reserved a special vestibule for banquets and other social activities and it seems that the social and sacred space is divided in tombs as well as in the Etruscan homes.163 Other houses for feasting have been found at Roselle, Acquarossa and San Giovenale, and a banquet scene from Murlo shows a social ceremony which seems to be dedicated to the exhibition of power, wealth and status – but even here it is difficult to determine if the banquet where held in a public or private sphere.164 It is also difficult to determine if the banquet was limited to an elite few as suggested by Pieraccini, we cannot even assume if the slaves were consuming the same food items as that of the aristocracy either.165 Although, the feast was a fundamental part in the creation and accumulation of wealth and the feast is something that features prominently in the conduct of elite relationships everywhere at this time according to Briggs.166 Indeed, Rathje argues that the banquets reflected the elite self-identity in the Mediterranean.167 According to Becker, it would seem that the Etruscan elite, by sponsoring an elaborate banquet could cement social ties between their larger community.168

154 Pieraccini 2000, 42. 155 Pieraccini 2000, 42. 156 Hom. Od. 8.248–9. 157 Briggs 2002, 153. 158 Pieraccini 2000, 41. 159 Pieraccini 2000, 35. 160 Hostetter 1998, 72. 161 Pieraccini 2000, 35–37. 162 Periaccini 2000, 35. 163 Pieraccini 2000, 38, 41. 164 Rathje 2013, 826. 165 Pieraccini 2013, 813. 166 Briggs 2002, 154. 167 Rathje 2007, 179. 168 Becker 2016, 301.

18 4. Bucchero in San Giovenale

This chapter presents and discusses all the different areas on the San Giovenale plateau where bucchero has been uncovered. This chapter is in turn divided into a couple of sub-sections. The first part of the chapter will be dealing with the distribution and amount of bucchero pottery found within each of the different lettered areas within the settlement of San Giovenale. The stratification, types, forms and the colour of the catalogued bucchero will be discussed in each of the separate areas to paint a clear picture of where the bucchero has been uncovered and in which colours, type, forms and approximate amount. The findings will then be compared to each other before assuming a discussion on the consumption patterns and the potential status that bucchero might have had in the context of San Giovenale.

4.1 Distribution All the data presented in the thesis is based on the publications and catalogues that are concerned with the material from San Giovenale (see Chapter 1.2.1). As mentioned earlier, all the catalogues are written by different scholars, with different approaches to the documentation and strategy of publication as well as a noticeable time-gap between the publications. Some of the data are missing from the catalogues, for example, the publication of the material from the Borgo do only occasionally present the fragment count on the different find numbers. Instead the findings and different shapes of bucchero have been treated and presented as units in the catalogue in the Borgo publication. In the other publications, for example, the publication concerned with Area B by E. & K. Berggren there have not been any real effort to describe the colours of the bucchero in any greater detail and much the same can be said about the publication concerned with the Area F East. These are some of the inherited problems concerning the publicised catalogues, the sheer difference of approaches to the same excavation and documentation of the finds makes the data semi-reliable at best. The approach I have chosen to circumvent this problem is by present the data as the catalogues presents them and by discussing each of the areas separately at first, then discuss them all together. As some catalogues do not present the fragment count but instead treat them as units I have chosen to present all the areas as units, except of Area F East where the fragment count will be treated instead.169 The focus of the thesis is not wholly dependent on the data being of the exact number of fragments and that every sherd or unit has a description of the colour. The most important aspect that the data is providing is the indication of where the material has been found, and in which context and forms, and thus it gives us an indication of what forms and colours has been found within each of the areas and in what amount. This information may give us a clue of the potential consumption patterns in San Giovenale, as well a context to try the statement given by Ramage among other scholars,170 that the bucchero began as a luxurious ware that quickly transformed to a widespread utilitarian ware and if that corresponds with what we can see in the material from the settlement of San Giovenale.

169 The sheer amount and way the material is presented in Area F East makes it very hard to count the fragments as units by just consulting the catalogue. 170 Ramage 1970; Brendel 1978; De Puma 2013; Del Chiaro 1966.

19 4.1.1. The Borgo The area of the Borgo lies to the north east off the plateau and only a small part of the Borgo has been published (Fig. 2). The excavations took place between 1956 and 1965 with an additional excavation in 1999. Several structures were uncovered, as well as a drainage canal, a terrace wall and a water cistern and some hearths that might indicate that there were some workshop activities in the area. There was also a vast amount of pottery uncovered in the area, mostly for everyday use.171 I draw heavily on Pohl’s description of the stratigraphic situation of the Borgo as the stratigraphy of the north-western slope of the Borgo is rather complicated. Thus, the author of the catalogue has divided it into two different stratigraphic systems, both of which will be presented here. The first system covers the of the overall periods of the Borgo and includes the whole area. The other system covers the individual stratigraphy of every single unit of the area. The overall stratigraphic system is divided in four phases that covers the different periods of the Borgo. The first period is the so-called pre-house strata; the second is the first building period (c. 650–530 BCE); the third is the second building period (c. 530/500–430 BCE) and the last is the third building period (c. 430/410 BCE). The pre-house strata had its lowest part on the slope and had to be heavily terraced to plane out the building and the yards with each terracing contained by a buttress wall. The wall M was the largest part of this stratum and the rest, which was built on the higher ledge of the western area was the terrace foundation of House F. The construction was dated to around the middle of the 7th century BCE according to Pohl.172 Houses A, B, C, F, the storage pit G, and the drain L were built during the first building period on the Borgo. House A had three rooms, House B had two rooms and House C two, potentially three rooms. The stratification of the first building period consisted mostly of floors and yards of the different houses, with the filling strata covering the stratification all the way to the second building period.173 The second building period was raised and re-organized in parts somewhere around the late 6th century with only the House A and House B surviving into the second building period. House C seems to have been abandoned during this period. The floors were rather similar to the preceding building period and the walls and floors were raised. A well (P1) in room (C:b) was discovered, it had been dug out either in the first or second building period with tufa blocks as its walls in the same level of the second building periods yard. The rest of the room had been completely filled in. The yards connected to the houses B and C was extended to the higher part to the front of House C, contained by a rubble wall (R1), with the space behind the wall left clear. This space was later filled at the third building period.174 House F and the storage-pit G was dismantled in the second building period. The new House D was built to the north of the dismantled house. This new building (House D) has been proposed to be a three-room building much like the building A by Pohl. The building period II could not be dated but Pohl suggests that it should have been around the 6th century BC and that the building period was certainly directly followed by the building period III.175 A new re-organization seems to have occurred in the north-western slope of the Borgo sometime around the 5th century BCE and House A and House B continued to serve in this period together with a new small house (I) which was constructed next to the cliff wall. The yards were raised as well and modifications added to the buildings, building A for example seems to have turned from a workshop to a habitation area to Pohl.176

171 San Giovenale V:1, 41. 172 San Giovenale V:2, 19. 173 San Giovenale V:2, 19. 174 San Giovenale V:2, 20. 175 San Giovenale V:2, 21. 176 San Giovenale V:2, 21, 22.

20 Tab. 1. All the different strata with examples of bucchero in the Borgo. (Adapted from: San Giovenale V:2, 228– 247).

21 The third building period seems to have ended around the 5th century when the Borgo was abandoned as a habitation quarter. The Borgo area seems to have undergone a transformation from habitation quarter to an area for the processing of vine which was cultivated on the area on the Vignale (Fig. 1).177 The stratigraphy has been abbreviated accordingly to the abbreviations of the catalogue to avoid confusions and the opportunity to check each of the stratigraphic sections individually in Pohl’s publication of the Borgo. The stratigraphy is structured around the area, the room (if any) and the corresponding stratification. For example, House A, Room B and stratum 7 is abbreviated like “A:b-7”. A full list of the stratigraphic abbreviations of the Borgo area with the corresponding periods which contains bucchero is included above (Tab. 1).

4.1.2. Building period I (c. 650–530 BCE) In building period I, the following strata contained bucchero (Fig. 3). The majority of the bucchero came from strata AP and C:a-3-4, whilst less than ten units of bucchero was uncovered in the rest of the stratigraphic units. AP, denotes the area around the well and contained examples of oinochoai, cups (both with and without carination), together with some carinated bowls/pyxides and one carinated goblet (Tab. 2). C:a-3-4, which was a mixed stratum, contained examples of jugs/amphoriskoi, oinochoe, carinated cups, a bowl together with some carinated bowls/pyxides. All the different stratigraphic units in building period I contained bucchero vessels that can be connected to the consumption or storage of liquids. The exception perhaps being strata A:b-9, L-1 (uncertain whether it was a cup or bowl) and C:a-4, which only had two uncertain fragments. There were examples of fine, transitional, ordinary, and grey bucchero in building period I, with most of the bucchero finds being of the ordinary type (c. 6th century BCE). The colour of the bucchero ranged from black clay with black lustrous surfaces to dark grey, grey clay with dark grey, grey, and black surfaces. The fine bucchero came from A:b-9, A:d-6, B/C:c, B:a-sp, C:b-3-3a, C:a-3, C:a-3-4 and the mixed stratum C:pb-mix. The bucchero from these strata had mostly a black clay with a black, sometimes glossy or even lustrous surfaces with the exception of the uncertain bucchero form that came from stratum C:b-3-3, which might be a transitional bucchero piece. The piece had a dark black-grey clay with a black slightly glossy surface. There were also examples of both carinated cups and a cup without carination, an “Ionian” cup as well as an oinochoe and a jug. There was also one example of an amphoriskos among the fine bucchero from building period I. None of the finer bucchero finds could be identified with any of Rasmussen’s types. The transitional bucchero from period I came from strata A:b-7, A:i, B:c-5-6, B:c-mix, B:c- 7, B/C:c, B:a-sp, AP, C:b-3-3a, C:a-3-4, B:c-4-8. There where examples of bucchero oinochoai, carinated cups and a cup, a carinated goblet, kantharos/kyathos, carinated bowl/pyxis, carinated bowl/cup and an amphoriskos. The colour of the vessels ranged from black clay with black surfaces to dark black-grey clay with dark grey-black dulled surfaces, with the majority of the examples consisting of black clay with black surfaces. Many of the transitional bucchero forms where of the shape of carinated cups, although it was hard to determine whether they were transitional or ordinary bucchero cups from the surviving fragments. The same can be said about the two oinochoai uncovered in B:c-5-6 as it is not sure whether they were transitional or ordinary types and only the oinochoe (No. 4)178 could be identified as probably being of Rasmussen’s oinochoe type 8a.179 The majority of the bucchero in building period I was recorded as being ordinary bucchero. The ordinary bucchero appeared in strata A:b-7, A:i, A:d-7-10, A:d-6, L2, L1, B:c-5-6, B:c- mix, B:c-7, B/C:c, AP, C:b-3-3a, C:a-3, C:a-3-4, C:a-4, B:c-4-8. The colour of the ordinary bucchero ranged from black clay and surfaces to dark grey, grey clay with dark grey-black, dark grey, grey surfaces. The majority of the forms were of carinated cups, oinochoes and there

177 San Giovenale V:2, 22–23. 178 San Giovenale V:2, 86. 179 Rasmussen 1979, 181, Pl. 19:77.

22 was also a carinated bowl or pyxis and some uncertain forms. There was also examples of an “Ionian” cup, cups, a miniature kyathos and a kyathos or kantharos, a carinated goblet, some carinated cups or bowls, cups or bowls, some small bowls, a jug or amphoriskoi, a disc-shaped object and some various vases and one lid that also was found in building period I.

Bucchero distribution in the Borgo (Building period I) 18 17 16 14 13 12 10 9 8 8 8 7 6 6 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0

Fig. 3. The distribution of bucchero in building period I (c. 650–530 BCE) in the Borgo area.

Tab. 2. The bucchero forms in building period I (c. 650–530 BCE) in the Borgo area.

23 The following Rasmussen types could be identified among the ordinary bucchero vessels. Three oinochoai came from A:b-7 (No. 16),180 AP (No. 23),181 C:a-3-4 (No. 15),182 the first of which could be a possible form like Rasmussen’s type 7.183 The second (No. 23) could be of Rasmussen’s oinochoe type 7 or 6,184 whilst the last (No. 15) could be identified with more certainty to Rasmussen’s type 7a.185 Three other oinochoai, one from A:d-7-10 (No. 3),186 and two other from B:c-5-6 (Nos. 3-4)187 could be identified as being of Rasmussen’s oinochoe type 8a.188 A carinated cup (probably a kyathos) from A:d-6 (No. 3),189 was identified as possibly being of Rasmussen’s kyathos type 1f,190 and two carinated bowls or pyxides from AP (No. 17- 18),191 which has been identified with Rasmussen’s bowl type 1.192 There were also few examples of grey bucchero in the building period I and the grey bucchero came from strata A:b-7, A:d-7-10, B/C:c, C:a-3 and C:a-4. The grey bucchero had grey, pale grey, and dark grey clays with dark grey or grey surfaces. There were four (perhaps five) grey bucchero forms uncovered, one which might have been an ordinary bucchero example. There where examples of an oinochoe, a jug, a carinated bowl or pyxis together with two uncertain forms, none of which could be identified with any of Rasmussen’s types.

4.1.3. Building period II (c. 530/500–430 BCE) In building period II, the following strata contained bucchero (Fig. 4). Most of the bucchero came from the strata R and WA. WA, which is the west area terrace-fill of House D, House E and the storage pit unit G and House H, contained examples of bucchero oinochoai, some of which might have been amphorae/jugs or even olpai, some examples of olpai and kyathos- shaped jugs, spiral amphoras, one philae, carinated cups some of which might be kantharoi or kyathoi, cups, kantharoi and kyathoi, carinated kantharoi, carinated goblets and “Ionian” cups. There was also one example of a stemmed cup, some feet’s of cups together with bowls, some of which was carinated some of which might have been pyxides; a lid or plate and a lot of uncertain fragments. Stratum R had examples of jugs, one which might be a jar, oinochoai, one which might be an amphora, some carinated cups, goblets, kantharoi and kyathoi. There were also some bowls and some bowls which might have been pyxides or cups and a few uncertain fragments. All the stratigraphic units contained some bucchero forms that suggest drinking activities, except perhaps A:dn-2-6 which only contained one bucchero bowl of uncertain diameters and also B:b-mix, which contained a fragment which is uncertain whether it was a cup or bowl (Tab. 3). There were examples of fine, transitional, ordinary, and grey bucchero in the Borgo during building period II. The majority of the bucchero fragments seems to have belonged to the ordinary type. All the finds from WA is missing a description on colour but are commented by Pohl. She describes the fine and transitional bucchero as being generally black with a black glossy surface, whilst the ordinary bucchero could be black, but mostly it had a dark grey-black colour with the surfaces being worn, greyish and dull.193 The fine bucchero was more often than not hard to distinguish if it was indeed fine or transitional bucchero.

180 San Giovenale V:2, 28. 181 San Giovenale V:2, 104. 182 San Giovenale V:2, 96. 183 Rasmussen 1979, 177–180, Pl. 15–18. 184 Rasmussen 1979, 176–180, Pl. 14–18. 185 Rasmussen 1979, 177–178, Pl. 15–16. 186 San Giovenale V:2, 36. 187 San Giovenale V:2, 86. 188 Rasmussen 1979, 180–181, Pl. 18–19. 189 San Giovenale V:2, 37. 190 Rasmussen 1979, 197, Pl. 35. 191 San Giovenale V:2, 104. 192 Rasmussen 1979, 203, Pl. 41. 193 San Giovenale V:2, 152.

24 Bucchero distribution in the Borgo (Building period II) 350 298 300

250

200 149 150

100

50 1 7 2 1 7 1 4 2 2 4 1 12 12 0

Fig. 4. The distribution of bucchero in building period II (c. 530/500–430 BCE) in the Borgo area.

Tab. 3. The bucchero forms in building period II (c. 530/500–430 BCE) in the Borgo area.

25 In some of the examples, mainly A:dn-2-6 (No. 1),194 and WA (No. 342–382195 and 598– 600),196 the bucchero might even have been of the ordinary bucchero type. The fine bucchero came from A:dn-2-6, A:c7/6, B:a-1-3, WA and K:a-2, but only the bucchero from WA (No. 549, 570 and 573–578),197 all of which has been recorded as uncertain closed forms, except (No. 549) which is a kyathos-shaped jug, is recorded as being fine bucchero. The colour is not recorded on the fine bucchero as the only certain fine bucchero from period II has been found in WA. The transitional bucchero (including the bucchero which was uncertain whether it was fine or transitional) came from A:c-7/6, B:a-4, B:a-1-3, B:c-4 (might be ordinary bucchero), B:c-1- 4, B:c-2 (uncertain whether transitional or ordinary bucchero), C:a-b-2-3, WA (some of which might be fine or ordinary bucchero) and K:a-2. The colour of the transitional bucchero was mainly of a black clay with black, sometimes glossy, or dulled surfaces and some of the examples had grey-black surfaces. The forms that has been recorded with more certainty as being transitional bucchero was two oinochoe/amphora (No. 496)198 and 518)199, an amphora or kyathos-shaped jug, a spiral amphora, cups (both with and without carination), a carinated bowls or pyxides, a carinated goblet, “Ionian” cups, a bowl and some uncertain closed forms. Three transitional bucchero units could be connected to some of Rasmussen’s types. All the potential bucchero units that could be connected to Rasmussen’s typology came from K:a-2. One oinochoe (No. 13),200 has been identified with Rasmussen’s oinochoe type 4d.201 One “Ionian” cup and a cup (Nos. 14 and 16)202 has been connected to Rasmussen’s cup type 3b,203 and potentially Rasmussen’s kantharos type 3e.204 In building period II the majority of the bucchero finds have been recorded as being of the ordinary type of bucchero. The ordinary bucchero came from strata A:dn-2-6, A:c-7/6, R, B:a- 3, B:a-1-3, B:b-mix, B:c-2-3, B:c-2-3, B:c-4, B:c-1-4, P-1, B:c-2 (might be transitional bucchero, No. 1),205 C:a-b-2-3, WA and K:a-2. The ordinary bucchero ranged in colour from grey, dark grey, grey-black clay with grey, dark grey, dark grey-black surfaces some dulled and worn to black clay with black sometimes worn, dulled or glossy surfaces. The ordinary bucchero had examples of oinochoai (some of which might be a jug, olpe or amphora), two olpe, jugs (one which might be a jar), some kyathos-shaped jugs one which might be a spiral amphora, some bell-shaped kantharoi, kantharoi (some carinated), kyathoi, strap-handles of carinated kantharoi and kyathoi, goblets (both with and without carination), one bell shaped- goblet or beaker, a lot of cups (both with and without carination some with bell-shape), three handled carinated cups, one cup or beaker, “Ionian” cups, bowls both larger and smaller (with and without carination), carinated bowls or pyxides, a lid or a plate, and uncertain forms both open and closed forms. There were some examples of the ordinary bucchero that could be connected to Rasmussen’s types. From the stratum R, there were an ordinary oinochoe (No. 155),206 that was recorded as probably being Rasmussen’s oinochoe type 9c.207 From the same stratum came a

194 San Giovenale V:2, 66. 195 San Giovenale V:2, 153. 196 San Giovenale V:2, 156. 197 San Giovenale V:2, 155, 156. 198 San Giovenale V:2, 154. 199 San Giovenale V:2, 155. 200 San Giovenale V:2, 124. 201 Rasmussen 1979, 174–175, Pl. 12–13. 202 San Giovenale V:2, 124. 203 Rasmussen 1979, 200–201, Pl. 38–39. 204 Rasmussen 1979, 193–194, Pl. 31–32. 205 San Giovenale V:2, 87. 206 San Giovenale V:2, 110. 207 Rasmussen 1979, 182, Pl. 20.

26 jug (No. 163),208 and a jug or a jar (No. 165)209 that could be of Rasmussen’s jug type 1b,210 and a variant of Rasmussen’s jug type 2.211 From WA, there were four potential units of bucchero that could be connected to Rasmussen types recorded in the catalogue. One carinated cup (No. 337),212 which might be of Rasmussen’s kyathos type 1d;213 three oinochoai (Nos. 498–500),214 which is uncertain whether they are transitional or ordinary bucchero but which might be of Rasmussen’s oinochoe type 3.215 Two additional ordinary bucchero oinochoai (Nos. 520 and 521),216 both of which might be of Rasmussen’s oinochoe type 4.217 Four kyathos- shaped jugs (No. 561–564),218 which also is uncertain whether they are transitional or ordinary bucchero, has been recorded as probably being of Rasmussen’s jug type 1b;219 one uncertain form (No. 588),220 which has been suggested by Pohl as most probably being a cup like Rasmussen’s kyathos type 4b or c.221 There were also few examples of grey bucchero in building period II. The grey bucchero came from A:c-7/6, R, B:1-1-3, C:a-b-2-3 and WA. The majority came from WA, and the colour of the grey bucchero had mainly a grey clay with pale or darker grey surfaces, many worn and mottled but some examples had smooth surfaces. There were examples of a stemmed cup, carinated cups, a miniature kyathos, two jugs (one small) and a philae, a bowl or patera, a lid of a plate and some uncertain forms both open and closed. The jug (No. 169),222 from the area south of the rubble wall (R.) has been recorded as probably being of Rasmussen’s jug type 1, which according to Pohl was a rather common form in grey bucchero.223 There was also one examples of a buff-slipped bucchero piece in building period III, this was the uncertain form (No. 224)224 from A:d-2-4. It had a grey-black clay with white-grey core with a grey-black smooth interior surface with a thick cream-buff slip on the outside. It has not been connected to any of Rasmussen’s types.

4.1.4. Building period III (c. 430/410 BCE) In building period III, the following strata contained bucchero (Fig. 5). The majority of bucchero came from A:d-2-4 followed by A:b-1 and K:a-1. A:d-2-4 contained some oinochoai, one which might be an amphora and one which might be a hydria. One breaker, two jars, one that might be a jug, three jugs with one that is uncertain whether it is a jug or an oinochoe, some cups (both with and without carination) one which might be a goblet and some that might be kantharoi and one miniature cup that might be a kyathos, a “Ionian” cup and some goblets. There were also examples of kantharoi, bowls (both with and without carination) some of which might be cups or pyxides, lids, plates, and some uncertain fragments (Tab. 4). There were examples of fine, transitional, ordinary, grey bucchero and one buff-slipped bucchero unit in building period III. The majority of the bucchero were recorded as ordinary bucchero. There were two potential units of fine bucchero, although, they have also been

208 San Giovenale V:2, 110. 209 San Giovenale V:2, 110. 210 Rasmussen 1979, 185–186, Pl. 23–24. 211 Rasmussen 1979, 187, Pl. 25. 212 San Giovenale V:2, 153. 213 Rasmussen 1979, 196, Pl. 34. 214 San Giovenale V:2, 154. 215 Rasmussen 1979, 169–172, Pl. 7–10. 216 San Giovenale V:2, 155. 217 Rasmussen 1979, 172–175, Pl. 10–13. 218 San Giovenale V:2, 155. 219 Rasmussen 1979, 185–186, Pl. 23–24. 220 San Giovenale V:2, 156. 221 San Giovenale V:2, 156; Rasmussen 1979, 198, Pl. 36. 222 San Giovenale V:2, 110. 223 San Giovenale V:2, 110. 224 San Giovenale V:2, 46.

27 recorded as potentially transitional bucchero so it is uncertain how we should classify these two. The two potential fine bucchero units came from K:a-1; a bowl (No. 7),225 and a cup or jug (No. 8)226 that came from stratum Sp. The fine or transitional bucchero had black clay with grey-black, originally glossy surface and a black worn surface. Both units could be connected to Rasmussen’s typology, one with more certainty. The bowl from K:a-1 (No. 23),227 may be a variant of Rasmussen’s cup type 2,228 and the cup or jug (No. 8) seems to be of Rasmussen’s kotyle type c.229 The transitional bucchero came from A:d-2-4, A:f, K:a-1 and Sp, two of which might be transitional bucchero (see above) and four who is not certain whether they are transitional or ordinary bucchero. The four uncertain units are the “Ionian” cup (No. 131.)230 from A:d-2-4, the kyathos-shaped jug (No. 3),231 and the oinochoe and the uncertain form (Nos. 13 and 14)232 from K:a-1. The majority of the transitional bucchero came from K:a-1. The colour of the clay of the transitional bucchero was mainly black with black dulled or slightly glossy surfaces. Some of the bucchero finds are referred to Rasmussen’s typology. The “Ionian” cup (No. 131), has been recorded as Rasmussen’s cup type 3b.233 Three other bucchero units, the bowl (No.7) from K:a-1, the oinochoe (No. 13) and the cup or jug (No. 8) from K:a-1 and Sp, has been recorded as possible a variant of Rasmussen’s cup type 2,234 Rasmussen’s oinochoe type 7a or 8a.235 As mentioned above, the clear majority of bucchero belonged to the ordinary type. The ordinary bucchero came from A:d-2-4, A+A:d-1, A:dn-1, A:b-1, A:f, C:a-1, K:a-1, O2 and Sp, with the majority of ordinary bucchero coming from A:d-2-4. The colour of the ordinary bucchero ranged from grey, dark grey clay with grey, dark grey, grey-black, dark grey-black, black surfaces (some with worn, dulled, burnished, encrusted and smooth surfaces) to a dark grey-black and black clay with dark grey, grey black, black and various shades of dark grey- black colour with dulled, worn, burnished or encrusted surfaces. From A:d-2-4, a bell-shaped kantharos (No. 79)236 was uncovered with an ‘X’ incised. Some 16 units of bucchero could be connected to Rasmussen’s types, three of which might be transitional bucchero (see above). From A:d-2-4; a bell-shaped kantharos (No. 74),237 which has been identified as Rasmussen’s kantharos type 3a;238 a carinated cup (No. 125),239 possibly of Rasmussen’s kyathos type 1f;240 four oinochoai (Nos. 199, 200a, 201 and 202),241 which has been recorded as Rasmussen’s oinochoe type 8a.242 One jug and a jug or a jar was also uncovered in A:d-2-4 which could be connected to Rasmussen’s jug type 2.243 From A:b-1, five bowls with slightly incurving rims and one bowl with a faint groove below the rim (Nos. 11– 15 and 16)244 of Rasmussen’s type 3 and 4.245

225 San Giovenale V:2, 127. 226 San Giovenale V:2, 190. 227 San Giovenale V:2, 124. 228 Rasmussen 1979, 199, Pl. 37. 229 Rasmussen 1979, 187–188, Pl. 25–26. 230 San Giovenale V:2, 43. 231 San Giovenale V:2, 126. 232 San Giovenale V:2, 127. 233 Rasmussen 1979, 200–201, Pl. 38–39. 234 Rasmussen 1979, 199, Pl. 37. 235 Rasmussen 1979, 177–178, Pl. 15–16; 180–181, Pl. 18–19. 236 San Giovenale V:2, 42. 237 San Giovenale V:2, 42. 238 Rasmussen 1979, 192, Pl. 30. 239 San Giovenale V:2, 43. 240 Rasmussen 1979, 197, Pl. 35. 241 San Giovenale V:2, 45. 242 Rasmussen 1979, 180–181, Pl. 18–19. 243 Rasmussen, 187, Pl. 25, No. 113 and 155. 244 San Giovenale V:2, 32. 245 Rasmussen 1979, 203, Pl. 41.

28 Bucchero distribution in the Borgo (Building period III) 180 163 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 17 17 20 9 8 5 5 4 3 0 A:d-2-4 A+A:d-1 A:dn-1 A:b-1 A:f C:a-1 K:a-1 O2 Sp.

Fig. 5. The distribution of bucchero in building period III (c. 430/410 BCE) in the Borgo area.

Tab. 4. The bucchero forms in building period III (c. 430/410 BCE) in the Borgo area.

One oinochoe from K:a-1 (No. 11),246 has been recorded as a possible Rasmussen type, mainly Rasmussen’s oinochoe type 7a or 8a,247 Finally, from the sporadic finds (Sp.) a kylix (No. 9)248 was uncovered of Rasmussen’s cup type 5.249

246 San Giovenale V:2, 127. 247 Rasmussen 1979, 177–178, Pl. 15–16; 180–181, Pl. 18–19. 248 San Giovenale V:2, 190. 249 Rasmussen 1979, 202, Pl. 40.

29 The grey bucchero was scarce in building period III. The grey bucchero came from A:d-2-4, A+A:d-1, A:b-1 and C:a-1. The grey bucchero had generally grey clay with two examples showing either a pale grey clay or white-grey clay with a generally compact smooth pale grey surface but also grey and dark grey surfaces. None of the grey bucchero examples has been connected to any of Rasmussen’s types. Finally, there were one example of a buff-slipped bucchero form (probably a small bowl according to the catalogue) from A:d-2-4. This is the only example of buff-slipped bucchero in the whole area. The buff-slipped bucchero had a grey-black clay with a white-grey core with grey-black smooth interior whilst the surface was thick, compact, and smooth with a cream- buff slip. The buff-slipped bucchero could not be identified in any of Rasmussen’s types.

Discussion Bucchero was a fairly common type of pottery in the Borgo area. Although it should be noted that when it came to the frequency of cups, oinochoai and olpai forms the bucchero was notably more numerous than most of the other pottery ware groups found on the Borgo.250 The sheer amount of oinochoai and cups are interesting, which also seems to be the majority of the bucchero finds. By comparison with bowls, lids, and plates there is a clear majority of the bucchero that do have forms that would suggest some kind of drinking activity. There are oinochoes, olpai and jugs for containing and pouring liquids, and there are a lot of cups (both with and without carination) and kantharoi for the consumption of liquids that suggest it. It is hard to establish whether the bowls were used for drinking on the information available in the catalogue, as many of the bowl are very fragmentary. There were examples of fine, transitional, ordinary, grey bucchero and even one example of a buff-slipped bucchero uncovered in the Borgo. The majority of all the bucchero finds came from building period II. The clear majority of the bucchero finds belonged to the ordinary type followed by transitional bucchero, which was considerably fewer in comparison. There was only one example of a buff-slipped bucchero. The colour of the bucchero ranged from all variants of grey and black but with a tendency to the grey-black than totally black colour through and through the vessel. Even if many of the bucchero units showed a grey or grey-black colour there were relatively few grey bucchero units overall. Comparing the different building periods has revealed that there was more bucchero uncovered in building period II (c. 530/500–430 BCE) than the other periods. Building period I (c. 650–530 BCE) had the fewest examples of bucchero. This would suggest that bucchero was somewhat more popular in period II, or at the least it was more widespread at the time than in the earlier and the later periods after building period II. Had bucchero become widely available in period II? Or was it a question of taste? Interestingly building period II also showed most examples of all the different types of bucchero except the single buff-slipped bucchero that came from A:d-2-4 in building period III. It is surprising that there were more examples of fine bucchero in building period II than in building period I which would make sense chronologically. One reason why there is such an increase of bucchero finds in building period II might be because of the great terrace fill (WA) and the area south of the rubble wall (R.). These two strata were not a part of the building period I and both WA and R presented the great majority of bucchero finds within the second building period. In building period III there were only two pieces of bucchero that might have been fine bucchero, although, both are uncertain whether they were fine or transitional bucchero. By this period the fine, transitional and grey bucchero examples are almost non-existent in comparison with the ordinary bucchero finds. All three building periods shows that the majority of the bucchero forms would suggest that the bucchero forms in the Borgo were designed for the

250 San Giovenale V:2, 259–260.

30 purpose of pouring and containing liquids, perhaps wine as the many oinochoai forms would suggest.

4.1.5. Area B The excavation in Area B was carried out in four successive campaigns in 1957–1960. The area is situated on the acropolis of San Giovenale, between the moat and the western facade of the medieval castle still visible on the site.251 The trial trenches in this area are designated by different letters, beginning with trial trench A, followed by B, D, K, H, J, L, M-N, F57 and F58. F57 designates the Fossa Cunicolo and a silo. The stratigraphic units with bucchero finds in Area B were the following: Test-pit A, which revealed a stone bed of small pebbles at the bottom, with a rectangular “podium” cut out of the tufa rock in the centre of the southern wall. A similar but smaller “podium” was found in the north-eastern corner with fragments of a primitive impasto cooking-stand.252 Test-pit F, which revealed a medieval stone pavement and a row of tufa blocks running in an east-western direction, with the second stratum of this trench consisting of wall blocks.253 Test-pit H revealed a circular post-hole and test-pit J had red burned tufa-sand near the northern wall and some tufa wall blocks in the southern wall. Test-pit L (Fig. 6) is where the so-called ‘Building I’ was uncovered. It had two rooms with an entrance somewhere in the eastern wall.254 Test-pit N had hollow depressions and traces of a floor or a hearth. Lastly F57 (Fig. 7) which had a cunicolo opened in the lower part of the eastern wall of the moat which runs in a straight east-western direction at first and then curves slightly.255 Like the Borgo I will present the bucchero distribution as units (the units are corresponding to the find numbers reported in the catalogue),256 as the fragment count is not included on all the find numbers in the catalogue. Thus, for the presentation of the fragment count in this area, I had to rely on the summary of the fragment count presented in E. & K. Berggren’s publication of the area. According to the summary then, there should be 106 sherds of much consumed and ordinary bucchero, most of which was reported as “scraps” (undiagnostic sherds) by the excavators and which all was recovered from Area B.257 Unfortunately there are some inconsistencies in the publication concerning the fragment count and the summary of bucchero fragments presented in the publication.258 The number of bucchero finds presented in the pottery summary does not correspond to that number of total bucchero fragments in the summary of Area B. Some of the bucchero presented in the detailed description of the excavation together with the summary of the pottery finds is not included at all in the catalogue by K. Berggren.259 This is problematic and makes the data from Area B semi-reliable. Although, enough data has been gathered to give us an idea of the forms, colour, and context of the bucchero vessels within Area B. The data tables are based on the catalogue by K. Berggren and not the summary of the bucchero finds by E. Berggren as the summary do not present any comprehensive data concerning colour, shape or form. The distribution of the bucchero can be observed in the figure below (Fig. 8). Test-pit F and H yielded most bucchero in Area B, with some variation in the stratigraphy for the finds in the test-pit H. Test-pit H yielded a trumpet-shaped foot, bottom, ribbon-handle and a carinated cup 0.15–0.30 meter below the surface level on the tufa wall, whilst an uncertain

251 San Giovenale II:2, 11. 252 San Giovenale II:2, 12–13. 253 San Giovenale II:2, 20. 254 San Giovenale II:2, 15–16, 22. 255 San Giovenale II:2, 17, 22–23. 256 San Giovenale II:2, 24–44. 257 San Giovenale II:2, 54. 258 San Giovenale II:2, 12–23. 259 San Giovenale II:2, 24–44.

31 Bucchero distribution in Area B

Test-Pit A 1

Test-Pit F 8

Test-Pit H 7

Test-Pit J 2

Test-Pit L (Building I) 3

Layer N:D 3 - D 4 1

F57 4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Fig. 8. The distribution of bucchero in Area B.

Tab. 5. The bucchero forms in Area B. bucchero scrap was found under 0.30–0.80 meter below the surface level beside the wall. Finally, a base-ring was found below the surface level below the wall. The overall forms can be seen according to area in (Tab. 5). The rest of the bucchero came from the same stratigraphic layers in the test-pits.

Discussion The bucchero in this area was far from the most common type of pottery uncovered in Area B, and interestingly no bucchero oinochoes were uncovered at all within the Area B. The bucchero was also recorded as being of the ordinary type (6th century BCE), and even though the bucchero was reported as “scraps” by the excavators, some forms could be identified. There are no examples of any fine or transitional bucchero within Area B suggesting that all the bucchero is of a late date. The goblet (No. 97),260 even if it had a lighter grey surface has not been reported as being grey bucchero. The lighter grey surface seems to confirm Ramage statement (see:

260 San Giovenale II:2, 38. Pl. 28.

32 Chapter 2.1. Bucchero) that the bucchero, at least in this case, has the tendency to be of a more greyish colour than the earlier examples of bucchero. The two cups (Nos. 116 & 117),261 with the first example having three encircling grooves in the mid-bowl and the other with traces of a groove are the only examples with homogeneous black colouring. Decoration in the form of three uneven grooves in mid-hight of the bowl can be seen in the goblet (No. 97), which have a dark-grey clay with a lighter grey surface. The kantharos (No. 20),262 found between the fixes 1 and 2 have a dark-grey clay and black slip with a notched ridge and an attachment left for a vertical ribbon-handle. The colour of the catalogued bucchero ranged from a light-grey, dark-grey to black clay, with the majority of bucchero fragments being of a greyish colour in the clay but with about as many examples with grey, dark-grey surfaces as black worn surfaces. The majority of the bucchero forms seems to suggest that they were mainly used for containing or pouring liquids. None of the bucchero could be connected to any of Rasmussen’s types.

4.1.6. Semi-subterranean building in Area B The semi-subterranean building in Area B (Figs. 9 & 10) was excavated during the campaigns in 1960 and 1961.263 The semi-subterranean building presented some of the oldest finds and the dominating portion of the finds belonged to 700 BCE according to Olinder. The semi- subterranean building has been interpreted as a sacred spring-building by Pohl, who argues that the fact that the building itself was constructed around and over a natural crevice, which might have held the waters of a spring, would suggest that the building was indeed sacred in some sense. Further, she argues that the various vase types in the dump can be compared with other known sacred deposits – indicating that the filling of the semi-subterranean building might have been a sacred dump.264 The material in the semi-subterranean building was often separated by a modest layer of clay and the fairly distinct stratigraphy of the area showed that some fragments of the same vessels sometimes were found in different parts of the room and at very different levels.265 The fragments were tiny and none of the sherds could be joined according to Pohl, and they were also too small for making a proper classification. All the bucchero, except an ordinary bucchero body sherd with a carina of an uncertain carinated form came from the upper levels below the so-called ‘Medieval filling’. All the bucchero from the fill had accumulated in the original surface layer and seems to have been later than the original dump in the building. The exception was the bucchero body sherd with carina which had a grey clay and dull dark black-grey surface which came from stratum six, below the steps that where leading down to the building itself.266 The stratigraphy varied from section to section and there was not really a continuous stratigraphy in the filling of the room according to Pohl who oversaw the publication of the pottery finds from the area. Thus, the bucchero does not have any references to the corresponding stratum directly in which it was uncovered, instead they are referenced to the box number which do correspond to the stratification (Fig. 10).267 Like the previous areas, the bucchero from semi-subterranean building in Area B will be presented as units. The stratification of the semi-subterranean building in Area B is described as follows. Stratum 2 was supposedly a thick layer of a darkish brown soil, mixed with tufa chips. The average thickness was 50 centimetre and corresponded to the height of the walls in the so-called

261 San Giovenale II:2, 35. Pl. 21. (Only No. 116 has an illustration of the two). 262 San Giovenale II:2, 41. Pl. 34. 263 San Giovenale II:4, 19. 264 San Giovenale II:4, 78, 83. 265 San Giovenale II:4, 12. 266 San Giovenale II:4, 26, 57. 267 San Giovenale II:4, 20.

33 Bucchero distribution in the semi-subterranean building in Area B

Box 42-43 str. 2. 5

Box 44-45, 60, 73 str. 3. 7

Box 73,2 str. 3b. 2

Box 74,3 str. 6. 1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Fig. 11. The distribution of bucchero in the semi-subterranean building in Area B.

Tab. 6. The bucchero forms in the semi-subterranean building in Area B.

‘Medieval room’.268 Stratum 3 was just outside the northern part of the above mentioned room and in the north eastern corner there was a concentration in the north-east corner of the trench with a soil that was mixed with clay and some burnt hard pink lumps and small tufa chips. Stratum 6 yielded a number of bones and horns and had overall a lot of finds whilst the stratification was characterised by the deep black and pure soil. Its thickness varied from about 30 centimetres to 50 centimetres going from north to south.269 The bucchero distribution in the semi-subterranean building in Area B can be seen in the figure above (Fig. 11). The majority of bucchero fragments came from stratum 3. There also seems to be mainly bucchero forms that would suggest drinking practices, as the presence of the oinochoe and carinated cup fragments suggest. Although it is hard to distinguish which type the carinated cups was in terms of Rasmussen’s types. The most common vessel types in the semi-subterranean building in Area B were cooking pots and bowls,270 whilst the bucchero consisted mostly of forms connected to the serving and

268 San Giovenale II:4, 17, 18. 269 San Giovenale II:4, 18. 270 San Giovenale II:4, 80.

34 consumption of liquids. Most of the bucchero came from the upper levels below the fill as mentioned above. The problematic stratification of this area makes it hard to connect the material to a specific stratification and context. The distribution of the recognised forms of bucchero within the area can be seen in the table above (Tab. 6). The colour of the fragments ranged from a grey and dark grey clay with dull grey-black and grey surfaces to some examples being of black clay with dulled black surfaces.

Discussion The only two examples of bucchero with black clay and black surfaces was the band-handle and one uncertain fragment (Nos. 23 & 24),271 which was also classified as being of the transitional type of bucchero and which belonged to the medieval stratum 3 (Box 58–59). The rest of the bucchero is reported as being the ordinary type of bucchero by the excavators. No examples of any fine or grey bucchero were uncovered in the area. The fact that there is no example of any fine bucchero is unexpected, as the building presented some of the earliest finds according to Olinder. The state of the bucchero finds could be another explanation why no fine bucchero was documented. Of special interest here is the two carinated cup fragments both of which were documented as ordinary bucchero (Nos. 27 & 32.).272 Both of the examples have a grey to dark-grey clay with dull grey-black surfaces and one (No. 32) have examples of decoration on the vessel. The decoration is three horizontal parallel grooves on the upper wall of the fragment and part of a carina which is visible on the same fragment. It could not be established which type the carinated cups was though, possible they had the form of a kantharos, kyathos or goblet as has been suggested by Pohl, which would further suggest that the carinated cup was indeed a cup used for drinking. The oinochoe (No. 26)273 fragment is part of a mouth with an incised line under the rim and have a dark-grey clay with a dull grey-black surface is also another indication that the bucchero forms available in this area were used in connection to drinking practices. The colours of the bucchero from this area varied greatly in colour and except the transitional bucchero which had black clay and dull black surface, all the other examples had a dark grey, grey or grey-black clay with dull dark grey, grey or grey-black surfaces and was classified as ordinary bucchero. The colour of the ordinary bucchero suggest that they were later and had a tendency to be more grey than actual black, as the transitional example. This seems to further solidifies Ramage statement about the bucchero’s tendency of becoming more greyish in later periods. It is interesting to note that the actual building has been interpreted as a sanctuary, with the majority of the ceramic finds consisting of cooking pots and bowls whilst the bucchero finds consisted of mostly cups. Was the bucchero used for cult practices within the building? Most likely they served some function in the context, even though Pohl suggests that all the bucchero was later than the original dump.274

4.1.7. Area E Area E is situated on the northwest border of the plateau of San Giovenale where a small trench was opened and later expanded upon near the edge of the hill in 1960. The area was peripheral and occupied rather late in comparison to the other houses of the San Giovenale acropolis. Remains of an oval Iron Age hut and the remains of older and later huts were uncovered in the area. Halfway between the oval hut and the later remains, part of a pebble floor was uncovered. The Area E was just a small part of the whole village which extended over most of the plateau according to Pohl.275 According to Pohl the Iron Age hut I and the older and later huts on the

271 San Giovenale II:4, 26. 272 San Giovenale II:4, 26. 273 San Giovenale II:4, 26. 274 San Giovenale II:4, 57. 275 San Giovenale III:3, 10, 96.

35 Bucchero distribution in Area E

Floor 1 2

Floor 2 2

Oval hut II (strata II) 2

Oval hut II (Strata IIb) 1

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5

Fig. 12. The distribution of bucchero in Area E.

Tab. 7. The bucchero forms in Area E. lower levels belongs to the so-called Proto-villanovan culture,276 and the latest hut (the Oval hut II) belongs to the Etruscan archaic period when Etruscan houses already had been established on both the acropolis and the Borgo.277 It was not possible to ascertain whether the floors were the floors of the huts or rather floors of Archaic Etruscan houses, Pohl believes that the floors 2 and 1 at least were part of the houses from the seventh and early sixth centuries BCE.278 The stratification is described as follows. Stratum II had a yellow-brown hard earth and was the layer covered almost the whole area of the trench, it sloped towards the north and contained poor and consumed fragments of archaic tiles and pottery ranging in date from Iron Age to the Hellenistic-Republican period. Stratum IIb consisted of somewhat darker softer earth and was only present inside the stone ring of the Oval hut II where remains of its floor were preserved.279 The floors are treated as separate entities. The distribution of the bucchero as well as the different recognized forms of bucchero is shown in the figures above (Fig. 12 & Tab. 7). The pottery uncovered within this area was very fragmented and consumed, the bucchero was scarce and too worn to determine if it was of local manufacture or imported from another Etruscan production centre. There were no examples of the very fine bucchero with decorations, but the overall fabric of the vessels was of a good quality and the bucchero was dateable to the seventh and beginning of sixth century BCE according to Pohl.280 The bucchero fragments came from the Oval hut II stratum IIb (OHII str. IIB) and from archaic Oval hut II (AHOII) stratum

276 On further information on the Proto-villanovan culture in San Giovenale see Gierow 2018. 277 San Giovenale III:3, 10. 278 San Giovenale III:3, 95. 279 San Giovenale III:3, 33. 280 San Giovenale III:3, 90.

36 II and floor 2 (Fig. 13) and 1 (Fig. 14). As the previous areas, the bucchero in this area will be presented as units instead of fragment count. According to the catalogue, there seems to have been the same amount of bucchero uncovered in all the different strata except for stratum IIB, which only presented one fragment of a bucchero handle. There were two fragments of handles present, with the exception that one is missing physically, although it is still accounted for in the catalogue. Noteworthy here are the oinochoe/olpe fragments and the cup fragments. The first oinochoe/olpe (No. 46) from Floor 2 which was a rim fragment, had black clay with partly dulled black surface same as the cup (No. 45)281 from the same stratigraphic layer. These are the only two examples that are recorded as having both black clay and surfaces whilst the rest of the bucchero in this area have grey, dark-grey clay, and grey-black and dull black surfaces. The other oinochoe/olpe (No. 12)282 came from Floor 1 and had the same dark grey clay and dull black surface as much of the other bucchero finds within the area, but of interest here is that the oinochoe/olpe fragments (four in total) which had an oblique and slightly convex shoulder with the base of the neck ring in relief and one fragment showing a slightly carinated joint of a shoulder to the body.283

Discussion The fragments presented in this area suggests that bucchero was mainly of forms connected to drinking practices and of a notably good quality of the clay.284 No description exists in the catalogue on whether the bucchero was fine, transitional or ordinary, although the dating suggested (7th to early 6th century BCE) and the description of the quality of the fabric would suggest that it is of the earlier type, perhaps transitional. Pohl argues that the Area E of the San Giovenale plateau may have been the poor sector of the Iron Age community of San Giovenale, and that these inhabitants could not afford more than the most necessary forms with their own luxury being an occasional finer piece of tableware.285 Many of the forms and decorative motives are reported as being standardized and carelessly worked. The vessels are few suggesting that the manufacture of the pottery in San Giovenale was in the experienced hands of local potters who supplied the whole community with elaborate or simpler products according to demands. Although, Pohl also states that all bucchero most probably were imported,286 so the local potters cannot have supplied the bucchero pottery. If this assumption is correct, would the occasionally finer ware and forms be made for the consumption and serving of wine? In that case, the bucchero would be a splendid candidate.

4.1.8. Area F East Area F East is situated on the south-western part of the acropolis.287 The area has been divided into several different time periods to reflect the chronological development of the area. Karlsson, the author of the publication of Area F East has divided the area into five distinct time periods, which in turn has undergone different building phases. The periods defined in Area F East by Karlsson are the following; period 1 (c. 1400–675 BCE); period 2 (c. 675–625 BCE); period 3 (c. 625–550/530 BCE); period 4 (c. 550/5530–275 BCE) and finally period 5, which represents the medieval period of San Giovenale.288 These periods correspond to the following periods on the Borgo; Period I and 2 (Pohl’s pre-house period), period 3 (Pohl’s period 1),

281 San Giovenale III:3, 78. (For both Nos. 45 & 46). 282 San Giovenale III:3, 79. 283 Unfortunately, there are no illustrations available on that piece. 284 San Giovenale III:3, 90. 285 San Giovenale III:3, 89. 286 San Giovenale III:3, 90. 287 San Giovenale IV:1, 21. 288 San Giovenale IV:1, 137, 142 ,155, 164.

37 period 4 (Pohl’s period 2, c. 530–500 BCE and period 3, c. 5th century BCE), period 4 is not applicable to Pohl’s periods and period 5 is the post-habitation period on the Borgo.289 The buildings of period 1 consists of oval huts, and in terms of bucchero finds there were only one bucchero sottile fragment (c. 675 BCE)290 which was uncovered in stratum 4A (period 1) and which will not get further treatment in this chapter. Period 2 is the period in which House I was constructed (Fig 15 and 16) and it seems that the building survived to about 625 BCE according to Karlsson, who also adds that this was probably the only house that existed in Area F East during the time. Contemporary with this house and period is the building I in Area B (see Chapter 4.1.2).291 The first building phase (also called the ‘rectangular hut’ phase), it is represented by strata 3B and 4 with the interior of the house most likely being divided in two, with the inner room furnished with beds or benches built with water-worn stones on three sides of the room. The interior of the house was cut down into the bedrock.292 Karlsson has interpreted House I as being a residence, with the river-stone beds or benches in House I representing a pre-furniture period, with measurements of the room (Room B) being comparable to that of Greek, nine klinai rooms. He further suggests that this room was used as a space for sleeping, weaving and probably for symposia and wine drinking as well, as there are large amounts of pottery connected with the pouring and consumption of liquids within the room that could be connected to contemporary banqueting services found at Ficana.293 Court A had only one mixed archaeological layer with pottery from all periods. Except in the western part of the court were several layers could be recognized, these were stratum 2A (period 4) and 2B (period 3). There are also several round holes cut into the bedrock in various sized fills the area, with the larger ones probably meant to take a dolia.294 Period 3 represent the second building phase for House I (strata 2B and 3A) and the first building phase for House II, House III and Court D (Fig 17). House II and III are architecturally bonded, which most likely makes the two houses contemporary with each other. House II has three rooms turned to the south with an enclosed portico in front. Karlsson has suggested that this was a storage or working space, as there were traces of two holes for dolia, large amounts of crushed pottery and a terracotta water conduit in Room B which empties out in Pozzo 4 in Court A.295 House III (first building phase) was probably a residence according to Karlsson, and only a small part of Court D was excavated. There were two rooms in House III and the Court D was located west of the house and the area between houses I and II has been called a street by the excavators, even though, as Karlsson points out there were little evidence to support this.296 In period 4, House I went through its building phase three (strata 1 and 2A) and houses II and III went through their second building phase. A new door was opened up from Room A towards the Court A and both House II and III seems to have been rebuilt.297 In fact, all buildings seems to have been rebuilt c. 530 BCE after the proposed earthquake and additionally, the Pozzo 1 seems to have been back-filled sometime around the 5th century BCE.298 The stratigraphic situation is somewhat complex in Area F East and thus the author of the catalogue has chosen to divide the stratigraphy into six distinct areas. The areas are the following: Pozzo 1; House I, Court A; House II; House III, Room B and House III, Room A

289 San Giovenale V:1, 12. 290 San Giovenale IV:1, 140. 291 San Giovenale IV:1, 153. 292 San Giovenale IV:1, 142, 144. 293 San Giovenale IV:1, 147. 294 San Giovenale IV:1, 154. 295 San Giovenale IV:1, 158. 296 San Giovenale IV:1, 160, 162. 297 San Giovenale IV:1, 163, 164. 298 San Giovenale IV:1, 164.

38 with Court D. Pozzo 1 was excavated 1961 and is treated as a single context, with material dating from the 6th century BCE,299 whilst the houses of Area F East was discovered 1960.300 The stratigraphy of House I that presented bucchero finds was strata 1 (surface layer), 2A (the second Archaic floor level in period 4), 2B (tufa filling and a wall fall with large amounts of broken roof tiles), 3A (floor of period 3), continues down into the rock-cuts in Room A and B with noted bucchero sherds on the floor), Room B (the stratigraphic probe in the bedrock cut) and finally in stratum 4 (the river-stone beds).301 Karlsson cautious us that there was some medieval glazed ware that had penetrated the stratums as deep as 3A. In addition, it should be noted that there were no prehistoric stratum from the area of House I and the area east and south of House I were only briefly excavated.302 There were no traces of a prehistoric stratum in Court A. Court A presented a large amount of pottery that was found with an area for a quarry first believed to be a focolare (oven for outdoor cooking of food). Karlsson has interpreted it as a small quarry proposing a 7th century date. The traces of charcoal found in the upper stratum and the discovery of a large amount of pottery for cooking may indicate a secondary use as an oven. The pavement stones in the court may have been laid at the time of the construction of House II according to Karlsson.303 Stratum 2A had very little pottery but were in the area of the oven/quarry, and 2B had larger tufa blocks with a concentration of roof tiles. House II had the following stratigraphy with bucchero pottery: Stratum 1 (the surface layer above the wall blocks), 2A (the floor of period 4 with a incorporated tile drain built in); 2B (consisting of tufa rocks and large fragment of roof-tiles), 3A (possible floor filling with some early bucchero, it forms the earliest Archaic phase and first building phase for House II period 3) and lastly the stratum 3B which was the probe under the white stone west of Pozzo 4. The main material comes from the second half of the 6th century BCE continuing down to the 4th century BCE.304 House III, together with the rooms A & B and Court D had the following stratigraphy with bucchero: 2A (compact and hardpacked earth, floor like level believed to belong to period 4); 2B (similar to above, but with somewhat looser character, filing under floor 2A); 3A (reddish loose tufa gravel, floor level of period 3 with some early bucchero found here); 3B (was considered a prehistoric stratum by the excavators, it had greasy dark earth mixed with a large amount of pottery) and finally stratum 4A (this stratum contained river-stones and was the main-hut floor level, it had a greasy soil mixed with clay and large amounts of pottery was found). All houses are said to have contained bucchero and traces of the proposed earthquake in San Giovenale in 550/530 BCE is mainly attributed to stratum 2B.305 According to Karlsson, the earliest bucchero fragments that was uncovered on the site comes from the river-stone benches or beds of House 1. With two fragments showing that House I’s rectangular hut phase (period 2) survived into the period of the early bucchero pottery.306The figures (Figs. 18 & 19) shows the distribution of the total bucchero fragments found in Area F East according to Karlsson. There should be a total of 1006 bucchero sherds uncovered in Area F East The fragments that came from stratum 1–2A could be datable to the second half of the 6th century BCE to the first half of the 5th century BCE and came from Period 4. It is not recorded

299 San Giovenale IV:1, 45. 300 San Giovenale IV:1, 21. 301 San Giovenale IV:1, 45. 302 San Giovenale IV:1, 46, 48. 303 San Giovenale IV:1, 48–49. 304 San Giovenale IV:1, 49–51. 305 San Giovenale IV:1, 51–54. 306 San Giovenale IV:1, 130.

39 Distribution of bucchero fragments according to strata in Area F East

500 458 450 400 350 300 250 206 186 200 133 150 100 20 50 2 1 0 Strata 1 Strata 2A Strata 2B Strata 3A Strata 3B Strata 4 Strata 4A

Fig. 18. The distribution of bucchero in Area F East according to Karlsson. Adapted from: San Giovenale IV:1, 118, 131, Fig 255.

Distribution of bucchero fragments according to house in Area F East 600 495 500

400

300 247

200 164

100

0 House I House II House III

Fig. 19. The distribution of bucchero in House I–III according to Karlsson. Adapted from: San Giovenale IV:1, 130. in the catalogue whether the bucchero is of fine, transitional, ordinary or grey bucchero,307 which presents some problems for the interpretation of the bucchero in this area. There is no description of the colour of the bucchero sherds (except the occasional grey piece) or any comment on the quality of the sherds. Although, according to Karlsson, all the bucchero sherds, except those that are described as being grey are in fact black, many which had a smooth and shiny surface.308 The black smooth and shiny surfaces of the fragments would indicate that much of the bucchero belongs to the earlier types rather than later. In addition, there are a few fragments which have been identified with some of Rasmussen’s types which should make it possible to identify with more certainty which types of bucchero that has been uncovered in each of the individual strata.

307 This is only true for the catalogue, as Karlsson do state that some bucchero is either sottile or ordinary bucchero in his general discussion of the pottery finds. 308 Oral information from Karlsson.

40 Pozzo 1 will not be presented with any figure for the distribution or a table for the finds as this stratum was considered mixed. The following forms of bucchero was uncovered in Pozzo 1: seven body frgs, two rim frgs, two carinated bowl frgs, four bowl frgs, one kantharos frg, one kantharos (pl. 1, no. 3), three ring-foot frgs, and 50 kylix fragments. 20 of the kylix fragments were of a lipless kylix (pl. 1, no. 2), with an additional 30 kylix fragments being of the same type. The lipless kylix has been compared with Rasmussen’s cup type 5,309 whilst the carinated bowl and kantharos has been connected to Rasmussen’s bowl type 5,310 and Rasmussen’s kantharos type 3j.311If we take a look at the different houses in Area F East, we shall see that the bucchero distribution is slightly different in all the houses in terms of forms, amount and strata. In House I most bucchero came from stratum 3A followed by stratum 2B (Fig. 20). The majority of the finds in 3A consisted of body sherds, two of which had incised lines. There was only one example of an oinochoe and two olpe within the same stratum. The most interesting strata here is stratum 2B, which contained both oinochoe and kantharos forms, and the sheer amount of kantharos forms are noteworthy by itself and would further suggests the bucchero mostly consists of forms connected to the consumption of liquids. Perhaps the finest example of an oinochoe in House I would be the oinochoe from Room B (EBNE), where the oinochoe had incised scales decorated on its surface. Equally interesting is perhaps the two carinated kyathoi with decoration and the carinated goblet with decoration. Overall, there were few fragments of bucchero uncovered in House I in comparison to both House II and III. In House II, there were more examples of bucchero than in House I but still less than house III. The majority of bucchero came from stratum 2A and stratum 1 (Fig. 21). Stratum 3B (PUWSWOP4) only had one example of one single bucchero sottile body sherd, interestingly there were no other examples of bucchero sottile within House I according to the catalogue. There were mainly body sherds in both stratum 2A and stratum 1, but there were also examples of some kantharoi, one oinochoe, chalices and miniature bowls and bowls within the stratum, all of which are forms that can be connected to the consumption or carrying of liquids. There was also one grey fragment of an uncertain form uncovered in stratum 2A, it is uncertain whether this was a piece of grey bucchero or if it is just later bucchero (perhaps ordinary) with a more greyish than black colour. Much the same can be said about stratum 1 were the majority of the finds consisted of body sherds, but even here there are some recognizable forms, many of which are connected to drinking. There are miniature bowls and bowls, kantharoi and one oinochoe. The colour of the bucchero is as mentioned above. There were a couple of fragments that could be connected to Rasmussen’s typology from House II. From stratum 1 there was a half miniature bowl fragment and one ring-foot fragment of an oinochoe which has been identified as Rasmussen’s bowl type 3,312 and Rasmussen’s oinochoe type 7f.313 Four additional Rasmussen types was identified in stratum 2A: two chalices

309 Rasmussen 1979, 202, Pl. 40. 310 Rasmussen 1979, 203, Pl. 41:249. 311 Rasmussen 1979, 195, 33:178. 312 Rasmussen 1979, 204, Pl. 42:263. 313 Rasmussen 1979, 179–180, Pls. 17–18.

41 Distribution of bucchero according to strata in House I 70 60 60

50 44 40

30 22 20 14

10 4 1 3 3 0 Room B Room B Room B Stratum 1 Stratum Stratum Stratum Stratum 4 (EBN) (EBNE) (SPBC) 2A 2B 3A

Fig. 20. The distribution of bucchero in House I according to strata.

Tab. 8. The bucchero forms in House I in Area F East.

(one ring-foot and one carina fragment) of Rasmussen’s type 4b,314 one ring-foot from an oinochoe of Rasmussen’s type 7a,315 two miniature bowl fragments (incurving rims) of Rasmussen’s miniature bowl type 3,316 and one bowl rim of Rasmussen’s bowl type 4.317 From stratum 2B there were two additional fragments that has been connected with Rasmussen’s typology, mainly two bowl fragments (a rim and a wall) of Rasmussen’s bowl type 1,318 and one rim from an oinochoe of Rasmussen’s type 7e.319 The finds from House III is divided into two separate figures that represent the distribution of the bucchero in two different rooms. Room A will be presented together with Court D (Fig. 22) and Room B will be presented alone (Fig. 23). There are also some intrusive sherds which came from strata 3B and 4A, even though they are intrusive they will still be presented here. In Room A and the Court D then, the majority of the bucchero came from stratum 2A followed by stratum 2B. There were mostly bucchero body fragments uncovered in stratum 2A and the same can be said about stratum 2B.

314 Rasmussen 1979, 191, Pl. 29:154. 315 Rasmussen 1979, 177–178, Pls. 15–16. 316 Rasmussen 1979, 204, Pl. 42:263. 317 Rasmussen 1979, 203, Pl.41:256. 318 Rasmussen 1979, 203, Pl. 41:249. 319 Rasmussen 1979, 179, Pl. 17:69.

42 Distribution of bucchero according to strata in House II

120 109

100 81 80

60 51

40

20 3 1 0 Stratum 1 Stratum 2A Stratum 2B Stratum 3A Stratum 3B (PUWSWOP4)

Fig. 21. The distribution of bucchero in House II according to strata.

Tab. 9. The bucchero forms in House II in Area F East.

There were a lot of examples of kantharoi, cups (both with and without carination) and bowls. One cup with an inscription was also uncovered in stratum 2A which will be discussed more extensively at the end of this chapter. In Room B, the majority of bucchero stratum 1 followed by stratum 2A-B (The finds from stratum 2A and 2B are presented together as 2A-B in the catalogue by Karlsson). The majority of bucchero fragments consisted of body sherds in stratum 1 and 2A-B with examples of a kantharos, a kylix, one oinochoe & a kyathos together with one bowl. There was one example of a bucchero sottile body fragment in stratum 3B, but it is also the only bucchero fragment in both the rooms in House III and the courtyard. In addition, there were also some greyish body sherds, although it is uncertain whether these bucchero fragments are of the later grey bucchero type or just ordinary bucchero with greyish colour (as mentioned earlier). Overall, the clear majority of the bucchero fragments was uncovered in House III and Court D in comparison with the other two houses. Only looking at the strata, the strata clearly shows that the majority of the bucchero came from stratum 2A in comparison with all the other strata.

Discussion This section has been concerned with the bucchero distribution and the overall forms that was uncovered within Area F East and the houses I–III. The different forms have been listed in the tables which, unlike the Borgo, Area B, the semi-subterranean building in Area B and Area E presents fragments instead of units of bucchero. The colour of the different bucchero sherds could not be established through the catalogues, although, the colour has been described by Karlsson through oral information which I have also included here. Overall, it seems that stratum 2A contained most bucchero in Area F East and a clear increase of bucchero fragments

43 can be observed between Houses I–III with the majority of bucchero fragments uncovered in House III and the least uncovered in House I. These numbers are somewhat misleading though, as the fragment count do not show us how many individual vessels there was in the houses, neither does units, but it gives us an idea of the potential forms and amount in each area. Many of the uncovered bucchero forms in House I–III were forms connected to drinking activities or the containment or pouring of liquids, which the oinochoe, kantharoi and many cups would suggest. This is true for almost all strata in House I–III as well, as many of the strata contained at the least one form of bucchero that could be identified as oinochai, olpai, kantharoi, cups (both with and without carination) or bowls. Although, the bowls are somewhat tricky, as the catalogue do not state whether they were big or small bowls and the diameters are not recorded, leaving us without the proper information to determine whether they were used for food or for drinking. This must remain unanswered as we cannot be certain. However, whether they were used for drinking or eating, the forms can be connected to the banqueting practices of Etruria, as all these forms would be something you would expect to find on a banquet, and as already noted by Karlsson; some of the pottery found within House I (Room B) could be connected to contemporary banqueting services at Ficana.320 It is noteworthy that there are so few examples in this area that could be identified as bucchero sottile, in fact, except the bucchero sottile body fragment from stratum 3B (PUWSWOP4) there were almost no other fragments that has been identified as bucchero sottile within the whole of Area F East in the catalogue. Perhaps the most interesting bucchero finds from House I–III would be the oinochoe with incised scales decorated, the very fine example of an almost complete bucchero kantharos (pl. 1, no. 19), as well as the cup with inscription (pl. 1, no. 253). The oinochoe with the incised scales decorated came from House I, Room b (EBN) and is the only example of an oinochoe with decorated scales in the area. The oinochoe consisted of one body fragment with the incised scales, unfortunately it has not been possible to connect the piece to any of Rasmussen’s types. The only example that Rasmussen has on an oinochoe with incised scales is the oinochoe type 3e,321 but that does not mean that this fragment had the same shape and form as Rasmussen’s oinochoe. Much bucchero does not have any decoration at all (see Chapter 2.1.3.), but how are we to interpret decoration on some vessels in terms of status? Does decoration imply that the ware in question is more exquisite than vessels that do not have any decoration at all? In other words, would the decorated scale on this oinochoe express the status of this oinochoe as a status ware with the additional workmanship put into it, and by extension its owner as well? In comparison with other finds of bucchero oinochoai fragments within Area F East, there are practically no other oinochoes with this type of decoration. Indeed, decoration was overall somewhat rare in Area F East. The carinated kyathos fragments (pl. 1, no. 59) and the carinated goblet fragment with decoration (pl. 1, no. 60) came from House I, stratum 4, and are two other examples of decorated vessels that has been uncovered in House I, neither which has been connected to any of Rasmussen’s types. There were three horizontal lines placed close to each other on the carinated kyathos and on the carinated goblet there were a dotted horizontal fan, a decoration that is reoccurring in some bucchero examples and which can be observed in many of Rasmussen’s types. The cup with an inscription came from the stratum 2A of House III, Room A & Court D and the cup has been identified and interpreted by Professor Colonna in the appendix of the San Giovenale IV:1 publication. The inscription is located under the bottom of the vessel (pl. 1, no. 253). The inscription proceeds in a circular direction with continuous writing with little skill according to Colonna,322 as there is a repeated sliding in the letters with many of the strokes prolonged. The letters are clearly archaic in appearance. The inscription is incomplete but can be read as: Mi v[e]nelus vefunas. The text most probably refers to the owner of the cup ‘Venel Vefunas’, which according to Colonna may have had his house (or houses) on the Acropolis

320 San Giovenale IV:1, 147 321 Rasmussen 1979, 172, Pl. 10. 322 San Giovenale IV:1, 169.

44 or/and the Borgo.323 The inscription of the cup suggests that this was an item of some prestige (it is also the only cup uncovered within Area F East that has such a complete inscription), enough so that the owner wanted his name inscribed on the object to denote his ownership. It may also have been a gift, as mentioned earlier, the exchange of gifts was another way of enhancing once social position and some banquets had accompanying gift giving (see Chapter 1.4.2), perhaps this inscribed cup is the example of such an exchange?

Distribution of bucchero according to strata in House III, Room A and Court D

250 229

200

150

100 65 49 50 14 18 1 0 Stratum 1 Stratum 2A Stratum 2B Stratum 3A Stratum 3B Stratum 4A (all intrusive) (all intrusive)

Fig. 21. The distribution of bucchero in House III, Room A, and Court D.

Distribution of bucchero according to strata in House III, Room B 60 54

50 44

40

30

20

10 7 1 0 Stratum 1 Stratum 2A-B Stratum 3A Stratum 3B

Fig. 22. The distribution of bucchero in House III, Room B according to strata.

323 San Giovenale IV:1, 169.

45 Tab. 10. The bucchero forms in House III in Area F East.

4.2. Summary of the colour and shapes In this chapter I summarize the overall colours of the pottery and surfaces of the bucchero fragments from the different areas as well as some of the most common forms and shapes that has been found within the area. We begin with the Borgo, which also presented the greatest amount of bucchero fragments ranging from fine, transitional, ordinary to grey bucchero (and one unit of buff-slipped bucchero). Of the bucchero finds in the Borgo the grey bucchero yielded lesser finds than that of the rest of the bucchero. The grey bucchero varied a little in colouration, there were examples of grey bucchero with grey clay with grey surfaces to dark grey clay with dark grey surfaces with the exception of the buff-slipped bucchero example which was of a grey-black clay with a white-grey core and smooth grey-black interior. The shapes of the grey bucchero consisted mainly of forms suggesting vessels dedicated for liquids, as the two oinochoes, the carinated cups and the miniature kyathos would suggest. Area B and the semi-subterranean building in Area B did not yield any grey bucchero examples, the only example that might be suspect is the goblet (No. 97) from Area B, which had a dark-grey clay with a lighter grey surface recorded. The bucchero from Area B were mostly of a grey to dark grey clay with varying surfaces but with the majority showing black consumed surfaces. There were only two cups (Nos. 116 & 117)324 which had a black clay and homogeneous black surface. The bucchero examples from the Area B were of the ordinary type and no examples of fine or transitional types of bucchero suggesting a later date of the bucchero. No oinochoai forms where present in Area B. The bucchero fragments from the semi-subterranean building in Area B was described as both tiny and rare and many of the fragments were too small for proper classification. The colour could still be observed, and the fragments ranged from grey, dark grey clay with dull grey-black and grey surfaces as well as examples of being of black clay with dulled black surfaces as the band-handle and the uncertain fragment (Nos. 23 & 24) have demonstrated. These two were also the only examples of transitional bucchero within the semi-subterranean building and Area B. The rest of the bucchero has been reported as being of the ordinary type. Area E did not either yield any grey bucchero nor any fine or transitional examples of bucchero, in fact, the bucchero was scarce in the area and often very worn. Even though there were no examples of fine or transitional bucchero here, the vessels themselves seemed to have ben of a fine quality and have received a suggestive dating (7th and the beginning of the 6th century BCE) by Pohl.325 The colours on the examples from Area E ranged from being of a dark-grey clay and grey-black and dull black surfaces with two examples having black clay and surfaces, these are the oinochoe (No. 46) and the cup (No. 45), both of which came from the same stratum.

324 San Giovenale II:2, 35. 325 San Giovenale III:3, 90

46 Area F East is somewhat different than the other catalogues in the sense that only occasionally the colours are described on some find numbers, but not so meticulously that every sherd have a description of the colours. According to Karlsson most of the bucchero finds had a black lustrous colour with the later bucchero tending to have a less lustrous surface.326 Overall, there is a variance in the colouring of the vessels from all the areas and none of the areas did present a homogeneous colouring of the vessels, which seems to be the case for the whole of the San Giovenale plateau.

4.3. Bucchero in context The following areas contained bucchero in San Giovenale: The Borgo, Area B, the semi- subterranean building in Area B, Area E and Area F East. A lot of different pottery vessels were uncovered in the same stratigraphy as the bucchero, and the bucchero was a fairly common pottery type uncovered on the acropolis of San Giovenale (especially in the Borgo, less so in Area F East). It should be noted that San Giovenale is considered a small urban settlement,327 and that the different areas of the San Giovenale plateau have been interpreted and identified by the excavators. Some of the interpretations of the areas have already been partially touched upon. Area F East on the acropolis of San Giovenale have evidence for habitation as early as c. 1400 BCE (period 1 c. 1400–675 BCE) and the area underwent several different building periods. The earliest stratum recognized in Area F East was a purely Proto-Villanovan layer, with evidence of huts with rock-cut channels.328 This period ended somewhere around 675 BCE when the huts presumably was destroyed by a violent fire.329 This period is followed by period 2, which is the first building period on Area F East. House I of the first building phase (period 2 c. 675–625 BCE) is a rectangular hut with a prostyle porch arrangement and the house had most likely two rooms. The inner room of House I was furnished with beds or benches made with water-worn stones on three sides of the room.330 It is argued that the function of House I was purely residential with the river-stone beds/benches providing an area for pillows and mattresses. This dry place was probably the main room of the house and provided a space for the family for activities and as a place to sleep, perhaps activities such as the symposia and/or other wine-drinking activities.331 Karlsson argues that House I might have been a dwelling for the upper-class Etruscans,332 which I also believe is the correct interpretation of House I. The special character of the inner room with the river-stone benches or beds together with the pottery indicate that this might indeed have been an aristocratic dwelling that could if needed host a smaller feast or symposia within the main room of the building.333 The accompanying Court A during phase 1 contained one mixed archaeological layer with pottery from all periods, but it is clear from the architectural remains that Court A had two major phases. There are in addition several round holes cut into the bedrock in the area of the court with the larger ones most probably being meant to take a dolia.334 The contents of the dolia can only be speculative, although there is a good chance that the dolia contained wine or olive oil. Then again, it might as well have contained dry stuff.

326 Oral information from Lars Karlsson. 327 San Giovenale V:1, 29; Welin 1960, 292. 328 San Giovenale IV:1, 142. It should also be noted that there were no complete huts uncovered in Area F East. 329 San Giovenale IV:1, 140. There were reported patches of burnt earth and charcoal together with vessels discovered that had been deformed by fire. 330 San Giovenale IV:1, 142. River-stone beds like this have been found in the inner room of Tomba della Capanna in Cerveteri as well. 331 San Giovenale IV:1, 147. 332 San Giovenale IV:1, 154. 333 San Giovenale IV:1, 142, 147. 334 San Giovenale IV:1, 154.

47 The bucchero fragments discovered in House I were mostly consisting of forms that would suggest drinking activities and was dated to the second quarter of the 7th century by Rasmussen.335 Much of the pottery that was discovered immediately above the river-stone beds or benches were early and interestingly much of the pottery were contemporary with the pre- house pottery in the Borgo area according to Karlsson.336 He argues that House I was the only house existing in Area F East when it was built, and that the only other house that dates from the same period as House I in Area F East is Building I, which was uncovered in Area B.337 Area B is also situated on the acropolis, between the moat and west of the medieval castle. The bucchero that came from Area B was recorded by the excavators as being of the ordinary type of bucchero from the 6th century BCE, and whilst there had been examples of other types of bucchero in Area F East there were no examples of any fine or transitional bucchero uncovered in Area B. Many of the examples from Area B tended to be of a more greyish rather than black colour, and the forms of the bucchero were mainly of forms that would suggest the pouring or containment of liquids (for example, carinated cups, cups, a goblet and kantharos), which is also true for Area F East. The bucchero was far from the most common type of pottery within Area B and no early types of bucchero was uncovered or recognized by the excavators. Comparing these two houses, it is clear that House I of Area F East contained more examples of bucchero than Building I in Area B. It should be noted as well that House I of Area F East contained a wider repertoire of bucchero forms than in Area B overall. Unfortunately, E & K Berggren did not produce any interpretation of the function of Building I, nor Area B overall, which leaves this place uncertain and unidentified as to the purpose and function of the building and area in connection to the wider settlement of San Giovenale. The appearance of bucchero would suggest that this house was actively in use during the period of the other houses of the Borgo and Area F East, but the function of the building remains unknown. Apart from House I there is House II and III (building phase 1) in Area F East. The two Houses II and III are architecturally bonded (this makes the two houses contemporary with each other). House II have three-rooms (A, B and C) with an enclosed portico in front. Room B have a water conduit built of cover-tiles which empties out into a pozzo in Court A. Room C have two holes, presumably for a dolia in each, and three major post holes. The contentment of the dolia can only be speculative. House II have been interpreted by the excavators as some kind of storage space or workshop, where water was involved. Thus, this space was most likely not used as a habitation space according to Karlsson.338 There were more bucchero fragments uncovered in House II than in House I, and there were one example of a single bucchero sottile fragment that was uncovered in House II. Many of the bucchero forms uncovered in House II were of forms that recollects drinking activities. The interpretation of House II as a potential storage space or workshop makes one wonder why there would be so many bucchero fragments that recollects the pouring and containment of liquids in this space? Then again, if this were a storage space it would make sense to store the bucchero (among other) vessels somewhere, and House II seems to have provided excellent space for that purpose. During the first building phase House III, which looks to be a somewhat larger and newer version of House I in Area F East was constructed. It had two rooms, one anteroom and one main chamber and it is believed by the excavators that the Court D belonged to House III.339 The two rooms in House III have been denoted as Room A and B, and it is Room B that has been interpreted to be the main chamber of the house. It is from House III that the fine example of a bucchero inscribed base ring, as well as the bucchero cup with an inscription (from stratum 3A) was discovered, together with some other pottery types. Karlsson believes that the house was most likely used as a habitation area, perhaps even an aristocratic dwelling

335 San Giovenale IV:1, 153. 336 San Giovenale IV:1, 146. 337 San Giovenale IV:1, 153. 338 San Giovenale IV:1, 158. 339 San Giovenale IV:1, 159.

48 considering the size and the fine examples of pottery discovered within. Indeed, the inscription of the fragment might even indicate the owner of this house.340 The majority of bucchero pottery uncovered in House III consisted of ordinary bucchero, from the early 6th century BCE. House III had the most bucchero fragments and Area F East is the only area which has shown any noteworthy examples of sotille bucchero as well. Although, there were examples of all types of bucchero which is evidence that the bucchero type of pottery had a life span spanning from early sottile examples all the way to the ordinary and some grey bucchero types in Area F East. Although it is noteworthy that the majority of bucchero finds consisted mostly of ordinary bucchero. This might be an indication that this rather late and more ordinary type of bucchero was more widely used than that of the earlier types which are almost exclusively found in Area F East. The excavators have seen traces of what they believe must have been an earthquake that effected San Giovenale, sometime around 530 BCE. After the earthquake, all the houses seem to have undergone a reconstruction. The western front of House I was closed during this reconstruction phase and large amounts of burnt kitchen ware pottery was discovered in room A of House III together with, a rock circle in the room that the excavators believed to be a hearth.341 The entire Area F East seems to have been much reduced sometime in the 4th century BCE when the archaeological material is much reduced.342 All the houses of Area F East (I–III) had traces of bucchero within them, albeit in varying amounts. From a chronological point of view, it is clear that the earliest bucchero in Area F East seems to have come from House I, which interestingly also had the least amount of bucchero fragments compared to the other two houses II and III. Had the bucchero already lost its status when House II and III were built? Did it even have a special status or was it a question of availability? It is a clear increase of number of bucchero fragments within House II and III compared to House I, although the two perhaps most interesting bucchero fragments came from House III, among them the chalice foot with an Etruscan inscription. If we now consider the Borgo, there were virtually no examples at all of any bucchero and very few fine and transitional bucchero fragments in comparison to the wide number of ordinary bucchero fragments in the area which also had some grey bucchero fragments. The Borgo have been identified as a habitation area by the excavators and the excavation area of the Borgo is divided into three rather independent parts which are named after the different houses which are standing there. The buildings are abbreviated as House A, Houses B and C, Houses D, E and F. The huge Drain L separates House A from House B and C. Lane K separates House B and C from House D.343 House B was first a single house with three rooms, one main room and two side rooms. Later, it was changed to be two houses, House B and C, each with two rooms and separate yards.344 The Borgo developed between the 8th and late 5th century BCE. As a result of increased population in San Giovenale, people could no longer fit on the acropolis alone, and somewhere around the 8th or early 7th century BCE people moved to the southern part of the Borgo. The Cantina G, House F and the slopes of House D and B were the first parts to be settled.345 Sometime around the 7th century BCE the Borgo underwent a drastic change. The excavators have called this the great fill project. This project which was conducted sometime in the late 7th century BCE reduced the east-western tufa slope to create a new surface. This was done in order to create space for a suitable workshop area for metallurgy and the creation of a drain which could carry away the rain. The Borgo area was thus reshaped by cutting its upper eastern parts and by terracing in the lower western and northern parts. This project might

340 San Giovenale IV:1, 159–160. 341 San Giovenale IV:1, 163–164. 342 San Giovenale IV:1, 164. 343 San Giovenale V:1, 50. 344 San Giovenale IV:1, 104. 345 San Giovenale V:1, 58.

49 be roughly contemporary with the constructions of Area F East.346 A general date has been proposed for House A, B and C to roughly late 7th century BCE.347 There were several buildings on the Borgo. House A consisted of three rooms and a work area with a yard south of the building. House B originally had three rooms with a large yard that later was divided into two. House B was also divided into two separate buildings (B and C) around the middle of the 6th century BCE. There are several signs that might confirm the proposed earthquake that hit San Giovenale sometime around 550/530 BCE in the Borgo area. The building B was rebuilt sometime after and is called House K by the excavators after the earthquake, and House D and E also seems to have been restored.348 At the end of the 5th century BCE it seems that activity on the Borgo largely ended.349 There were bucchero ranging from fine all the way to grey bucchero (with one example of a buff-slipped bucchero fragment) present on the Borgo, with the majority belonging to the later ordinary bucchero type. The clear majority of the bucchero came from the second building period, and mainly from strata R and WA. Many of the uncovered forms had forms that would recollect drinking activities and seems to have been widely available at the time, and the majority of the bucchero from the area consisted of ordinary bucchero. Other types such as the fine, transitional and the later grey bucchero were very few in comparison with the ordinary bucchero. The majority of bucchero in the Borgo came from the great terrace fill (WA) which belonged to the almost hopelessly mixed fill which belonged to the second building period according to Pohl,350 and I have treated it as such. Even if Elander is optimistic that this is not the case.351 The amount is noteworthy, and many forms uncovered were of oinochoai, kyathos- shaped jugs, carinated cups and kantharoi and kyathoi. The amount itself suggest that the bucchero was widely available at the beginning of the great fill project, and the high amount of drinking and pouring vessels during this period suggest that this was the favoured form for the bucchero pottery vessels in San Giovenale. The semi-subterranean building in Area B, which according to Olinder contained some of the oldest finds has been interpreted as a sacred spring-building. The sacred spring-building most probably hosted an organized individual cult as well as suggested by Pohl. Furthermore, she argues that the various vessel types found could be compared with other known sacred deposits, strengthening her interpretation of the building. The building has been suggested to originated sometime in around the eight century BCE.352 The bucchero from the semi-subterranean building consisted of few fragments, and notably most of the bucchero finds seems to have been later than the original dump in the building.353 There were few examples of bucchero in the area overall, but the few forms that could be identified were of carinated cups and one oinochoe among others, forms that would suggest drinking activities. There were mostly cooking pots and bowls that was uncovered in the semi- subterranean building,354 whilst the bucchero mostly was of forms connected to the serving and consumption of liquids. The bucchero was reported as being of the ordinary type of bucchero and the colours mostly grey and dark grey with dull grey-black and grey surfaces and no early examples of bucchero was uncovered in this area. If Pohl’s interpretation of the semi- subterranean building in Area B is correct, that is, that the building is a sacred spring-building with an accompanying cult, then there is a possibility that what we see in this area are the remnants of vessels that might have served in a religious banquet, religious meals or a feast.

346 San Giovenale V:1, 72, 78. 347 San Giovenale V:1, 109. 348 San Giovenale V:1, 152–153. 349 San Giovenale V:1, 147. 350 San Giovenale V:2, 138. 351 San Giovenale V.1, 136. 352 San Giovenale II:4, 78, 83 353 San Giovenale II:4, 26, 56–57. 354 San Giovenale II:4, 80.

50 There also seems to be a clear tendency that the ordinary bucchero, at the least in this instance, have a tendency to be more greyish than actual black. Area E was a peripheral and probably uncomfortable area, occupied rather late and placed on the edge of the plateau of San Giovenale. There were also remains of an oval Iron Age hut and some remains of older and later huts in the area. Pohl argues that the people who lived here most probably had rather poor economic conditions, the pottery being the main indicator that this was the case.355 There are also very few examples of bucchero, if we consider that bucchero as a more luxurious ware, or at the least, a ware that was harder to acquire, this might be one potential reason why there were fewer examples of bucchero in this area as well. It might also be the case that the inhabitants of Area E favoured other types of pottery vessels. From floor 1 and 2, which Pohl believes were part of the houses from the seventh and early sixth centuries BCE were the only two strata in Area E which presented both examples of oinochiai/olpai and a cup, although there were overall very few examples of bucchero uncovered in Area E. The bucchero was of a notably good quality and the quality might indicate that the bucchero was of an early time, perhaps 7th to early 6th which are the dates suggested by Pohl. 356 We cannot ascertain for a certainty which type of bucchero these examples were, as there is not enough information in the catalogue to do so with any certainty.

355 San Giovenale III:3, 96. 356 San Giovenale III:3, 90.

51 5. Discussion & Conclusions

This chapter is divided into several sub-sections that will discuss the overall results of the colour and forms found in San Giovenale. The following section is concerned with how the concept of conspicuous consumption and feasting theory can be applied on the bucchero material with the banquet in mind, to further discuss the potential uses and perception of the bucchero ware within the context of San Giovenale.

5.1. The distribution of bucchero in San Giovenale The bucchero was distributed on the Borgo, Area B, the semi-subterranean building within Area B, Area E and Area F East. There were examples of sottile, fine, transitional, ordinary, grey, and buff-slipped bucchero in San Giovenale, but the clear majority of the bucchero consisted of ordinary bucchero and this is true for all the areas on the acropolis. The earliest example of bucchero vessels on the acropolis seems to be the single sottile fragment from the first period on Area F East. This stratum had only one example of a sottile fragment. There were virtually no other examples of bucchero sottile outside Area F East which indicates that this type of bucchero was rare in San Giovenale even during its earliest period and not a widely distributed vessel within the settlement at the time. In fact, the sottile type of bucchero was almost non-existent even in Area F East. It is not until the first building period (period 2) that we see a selection of bucchero types and forms available within the stratigraphic units of Area F East. House I was constructed during period 2 and the building seems to have survived to the following period 3. During period 2 (represented by strata 3B and 4) there were two noteworthy bucchero fragments, both of which had decorations and with black clay and surfaces. The first (pl. 1, no. 59), a carinated kyathos which had three horizontal lines close to each other and (pl. 1, no. 60), a carinated goblet, decorated with dotted with a horizontal fan decoration. The horizontal fan decoration was rare among the bucchero in San Giovenale, in fact, all kind of decoration was sparce in the bucchero examples in San Giovenale. Karlsson also reports that there were very few bucchero vessels that had this type of decoration from the surrounding tombs of San Giovenale as well.357 The contemporary Building I in Area B did also contain bucchero examples in the form of two cups and one flat base, but there were also examples of carinated cups, a goblet and a kantharos within the other stratigraphic units of Area B, some with decorations.358 The majority of the bucchero from Area B could also be connected to forms recollecting drinking activities. There was no example of any fine or transitional bucchero within Area B and not a single oinochoe fragment was identified among the fragments. The bucchero in Area B consisted mostly of ordinary bucchero (6th century BCE) with a tendency to be of a more greyish colour than actual black. Much the same can be said about the semi-subterranean building in Area B. The building itself has been interpreted as a sacred spring-building. Many of the bucchero examples from this area was very tiny and all the bucchero is believed to be later than the original dumping. The exception was the body sherd with a decorated carina from stratum six, which had a more

357 San Giovenale IV:1, 70. 358 San Giovenale II:2, 28, 35. The cups Nos. 116 & 117 and the bowl No. 97.

52 greyish clay with a dull dark black-grey surface. The rest of the bucchero, which presumably did not belong to the original dump, mostly consisted of grey and dark grey clay with dull grey- black and grey surfaces with just a few examples of the bucchero showing a black clay with a black surface. The only two examples with black clay and surfaces was No. 23 & 24, a band- handle and one uncertain fragment both believed to have belonged to the transitional type of bucchero. The rest is recorded as being ordinary bucchero and there were mostly forms suggesting drinking practices as the oinochoe and carinated cups would suggest, few examples had any type of decoration. There were also a couple of bucchero handles among the finds. There were relatively few examples of bucchero in Area B, the semi-subterranean building in Area B and Area E in comparison with Area F East and the Borgo. There were also very few examples (if any) of fine, transitional and grey bucchero in all areas except the Borgo and Area F East, although it should be noted that even if there are examples of fine, transitional and grey bucchero in said areas, they are very few in comparison with the wide selection of ordinary bucchero examples in San Giovenale. Area E has been interpreted as a somewhat poorer section, and the earliest phase is showing traces of oval Iron Age huts as well as earlier and older huts. The archaic period, which is represented by Floor 1 and 2, were active during a period when there were buildings already well established on the rest of the acropolis. There was evidence of bucchero from the oval Iron Age huts in the form of two bucchero rims and a handle and from the floors there were traces of oinochoai, and a cup. The forms that of drinking and pouring vessels. The bucchero from Area E, even though it was scarce had a fine fabric and could be datable to the 6th century BCE according to Pohl,359 and we may presume that the bucchero was early, perhaps transitional but we may not be certain, it might as well be ordinary bucchero. There were few examples of bucchero in Area E in comparison with the other areas. Period 3 in Area F East represents the second building phase for House I represented by stratum 2B and 3A. This is also the first building phase for the architecturally bounded House II and III. This period is contemporary with Pohl’s period 1 in the Borgo area. From this period we see a wider repertoire of bucchero than we did in the first building period. From House I there were examples of ordinary bucchero in the form of oinochoai, among them one very fine and thin bucchero sottile oinochoai (pl. 1, no. 31), and a fair number of handles and body fragments. We also find a single bucchero sotille body fragment from the probe under the white stone west of Pozzo 4 from this period. House II only had two oinochoai and four bowls, the rest of the bucchero consisted of body sherds, handles and rims. In House III we see cups, bowls, and one chalice a lot of body fragments and rims once again in Room B. In Room A and the Court D there were examples of bucchero oinochoai, a kyathos, a kantharos and a bowl. The kyathos could be connected to Rasmussen’s type 2,360 and an oinochoe ring-foot, probably Rasmussen’s type 7a,361 which belonged to the 6th century BCE. Half of the body fragments that came from Room B had a greyish colour whilst the rest of the bucchero consisted of mostly black clay and surfaces. Most of the bucchero forms from this period belonged to that of drinking or pouring vessels, there were a few bucchero bowls among the other vessels, although it is hard to determine their use in their current state. If we take a look at the Borgo during the same period we can see that there were examples of some fine and transitional bucchero on the Borgo in the first building period (c. 650–530 BCE), although as already noted, in small amounts in comparison with the ordinary bucchero in the area. The fine bucchero came from the yard of building A, B, and C and some inside House B (Room A), House C (Room A and B) which was mostly black with black sometimes glossy or even lustrous surfaces. There were examples of carinated cups, a “Ionian” cup, an oinochoe and a jug together with a bucchero amphoriskos. It would seem that House A did not have any bucchero at this period.

359 San Giovenale III:3, 90. 360 Rasmussen 1979, 197, Pl 35. 361 Rasmussen 1979, 177–178, Pls. 15 & 16.

53 The transitional bucchero from the Borgo during this period came mainly from building A (Room B), building B (Room A) and C (Room A and B ), the rest came from the yard of House B and the alley behind building A, and a few examples came from the area around the well. Some oinochai, cups both with and without carinated, a carinated goblet and a kantharos/kyathos came from these areas, once again mostly consisting of drinking and pouring vessels. Although, it was hard to determine if they were transitional or rather ordinary bucchero, the colour of the examples was mainly black with black surfaces and there are no traces of a tendency of the colour of being greyish as of yet. There were very few examples that had a dark grey-black surface, and none had a grey surface or colour. The ordinary bucchero from this period were only present in House C (Room A and B), the rest of the ordinary bucchero could be found outside of the houses, on both the yard of building A and B, in the alley behind building A, around the well and in the drain L2. The majority of which were of carinated cups and oinochoai, but there were also examples of carinated bowls, a “Ionian” cup, and cups as well as a miniature kyathos and kantharos. Many of the vessels could be connected with Rasmussen’s types, for example, the oinochoai from this area (Nos. 15, 16 & 23) which most probably were of Rasmussen’s oinochoai type 7 and 7a (No. 23 may be of Rasmussen’s type 6 or 7).362 The ordinary bucchero of this period seems to tend to be of a more greyish surface than the fine and transitional bucchero of this period. There were also very few grey bucchero examples in this period, but they were present. The grey bucchero examples came from building A (Room B) and building C (Room A), the rest came from the yard of building A, B and C. This bucchero had a completely pale grey and dark grey clay with grey surfaces. The grey bucchero was scarce in this period, and there was only an example of one oinochoe, a jug, a carinated bowl or pyxis and two uncertain forms, and none could be connected to any of Rasmussen’s types. It would seem like ordinary bucchero was prevalent in this period on the Borgo, and like Area F East during the same period, the majority of the vessels were of forms that recalls pouring and drinking activities. There are still some examples of fine bucchero in the Borgo during the second building period (c. 530/500–430 BCE). We see few examples of fine bucchero within the building A (Room C), and inside House B (Room A), the rest of the examples were found in the yard of building A, the great terrace-fill and the alley between House B-C and House D. Unfortunately, none of the forms had been connect to any Rasmussen types, and the fragments were very few and once again, mainly of forms that would suggest dinking or pouring. There are kyathos- shaped jugs, oinochaoi and olpai, but there is also a lot of uncertain fragments among the fine bucchero, some of which were closed forms some of which were open. There were also examples of both transitional and ordinary bucchero within the Borgo during this period, as well as some grey bucchero, although, there were very few examples of grey bucchero in this period. The majority consisted of ordinary bucchero, which is a common pattern among the areas, but there is a lot of transitional bucchero examples in this period on the Borgo. There were examples of a transitional oinochoe, a “Ionian” cup as well as some cups and a bowl in the alley between House B-C and House D, and the majority of the transitional forms consisted of these types of forms. The ordinary bucchero consisted of carinated cups and cups, oinochoai, jugs and kyathos- shaped jugs, there were also examples of a spiral amphora from the great terrace fill. The terrace fill (WA) itself is where the majority of bucchero was discovered (Tab. 3). There sheer amount of oinochoai, amphorae, kyathos-shaped jugs, spiral amphoras and cups both with and without carination together with all the kantharoi and kyathoi is indeed noteworthy. The only other stratum that is close to the amount of bucchero discovered in the terrace fill was the area south of the rubble wall (R.), and even that amount is but half of the amount of the terrace fill. During the same period as Pohl’s period 2 in the Borgo, the Area F East underwent another building phase (period 4). This phase is represented by strata 1 and 2A. House II and III went through their second building phase and all the buildings on Area F East seems to have been

362 Rasmussen 1979, 176–180, Pls. 15–18.

54 rebuilt during this period. 363 House I few bucchero forms or types that could be established, there were bucchero fragments of body, rim, handle, and carina fragments as well as one ring foot fragment. Meanwhile we see that House II has a wide repertoire of forms, there are examples of kantharos rim fragments, chalices, oinochoe, miniature bowls and handle fragments indicating drinking or pouring vessels. The oinochoe ring-foot from stratum 2A in House II could be connected to Rasmussen’s, type 7a oinochoe, approximately dated to the 6th century BCE as well as chalice fragments (a ring foot & carina fragment) to Rasmussen’s chalice type 4b.364 House III is the most interesting house during this period of Area F East. There are one again a selection of carinated cups, chalices and kantharos fragments, but also the very fine cup with an inscription, potentially the owner of the house as suggested by Karlsson.365 The majority of the bucchero consisted of body sherds, but there are ample evidence for drinking forms but there are no fragments of any oinochoe or olpe from House III (Room A and the Court D). Fragments of an oinochoe, kyathos and a kantharos could be seen in House III (Room B) on the other hand, and some body sherds half of them which are grey in their clay and surfaces, are these greyish ordinary bucchero or grey bucchero? From their current state it is very hard to determine their form or type. In the later period of the Borgo, during building period III (c. 430/410 BCE), there were evidence for all types of bucchero in the Borgo. There were examples of fine, transitional, ordinary, grey and one buff-slipped bucchero fragment. The majority consisted of bucchero which still holds true in this period. The potentially fine bucchero came from the alley between House B-C and D and sporadic finds (SP). There were in addition few examples of transitional bucchero, the only examples coming from the yard of building A and the alley between House B-C and D as well as some sporadic finds. The colour of the transitional bucchero consisted mainly of black clay with black dulled surfaces. The ordinary bucchero on the other hand ranged from grey clay to dark-grey and black surfaces and examples of dark grey and black clay with dark grey or black surfaces. There were examples of bell-shaped kantharoi, oinochoai, jugs and bowls with incurving rims, one even with some decoration below the rim. The oinochoai that could be connected with Rasmussen’s types consisted of Rasmussen’s oinochoe type 8a.366 This period like the previous had examples of some grey bucchero, but in very small amounts and none of which has been connected to any of Rasmussen’s types. The grey bucchero mostly consisted of bowls or small bowl fragments and only one grey bucchero fragment may have belonged to an oinochoe. The grey bucchero of this period did not consist of drinking and pouring vessels in any noteworthy amount, which have been so common in the other bucchero. All areas had examples of bucchero that would recollect drinking activities, we see for example examples of bucchero in all the different houses on Area F East. In House I stratum 3A, there were evidence of an bucchero sottile oinochoe (pl. 1, no. 31), and two joining rim fragments with handle attachments of an olpe, probably of Rasmussen’s type 1.367 There was also oinochoe fragments and fragments of an ordinary bucchero kantharos, with black and fairly lustrous surface with two fine lines decorated on the outside of the rim from stratum 2B in House I as well as a nice example of a bucchero oinochoe fragment with incised scales from Room B (EBNE), somewhat like Rasmussen’s oinochoe type 3e,368 probably from around the 6th century BCE. Does this indicate that the few examples of sottile, fine and transitional bucchero, which indeed is remarkably fewer than the ordinary type, began as a luxurious type of pottery used by the few (in Area F East) and then quickly turned into a much more widespread and available

363 San Giovenale IV:1, 164. 364 Rasmussen 1979, 191, Pl 29. 365 San Giovenale IV:1, 164. 366 Rasmussen 1979, 180–181, Pls. 18 & 19. 367 Rasmussen 1979, 183–184, Pls. 21 & 22. 368 Rasmussen 1979, 172, Pl. 10.

55 type of pottery ware? Or was it that the bucchero was rare in its earlier stage in San Giovenale, but perfectly available as ordinary bucchero. The few examples of sottile and fine bucchero seems to suggest that the bucchero was rare in the beginning in the context of San Giovenale. The colour and surfaces of much of the bucchero seems to have a tendency to be more greyish in the ordinary bucchero than the fine and transitional examples and this seems to be true for all the areas which have displayed bucchero pottery.

5.2. Patterns of (un)conspicuous consumption? It is reasonably clear that the earliest bucchero on the plateau of San Giovenale, and the context in which they were found, that the earliest bucchero on San Giovenale might have been rare and thus conspicuous in its earliest appearance on San Giovenale. The early bucchero was a rarity, and the relatively few examples of sottile and fine bucchero indicate that these were rare, and they were only found in small amounts on the Borgo and in Area F East. The bucchero sottile was almost exclusively found in Area F East and the earliest bucchero sottile example was uncovered in House I, with pottery types that could be compared to banquet facilities in Ficana according to Karlsson.369 The appearance of bucchero sottile seems to confirm that the bucchero had a place with the banqueting services, and the forms of the bucchero, which consisted mainly of drinking and pouring vessels further strengthens the possibility that the bucchero was connected to the Etruscan feasts and/or banquets, at least in the context of San Giovenale. Noteworthy is that there is practically no sottile ware within any other area except Area F East, although, admittingly there were very few examples of bucchero sottile even in Area F East as well. The apparent lack of early examples of bucchero, and the relatively small sample of fine, sottile, and transitional bucchero indicate that the pottery was either rare in the beginning or not especially sought after, it might also be the case that the finest types of bucchero was destined for the afterlife and thus placed in the tombs instead. If we consider the rest of the areas of San Giovenale, it seems that the bucchero pottery began as something rare, almost exclusively found in Area F East, with some examples of fine bucchero in the Borgo, and then became an abundant type of pottery by the time that the ordinary bucchero was introduced. The fact that most of the bucchero pottery consisted of ordinary bucchero indicate that the bucchero by this time had become a widely and popular type of pottery being one of the most numerous drinking and pouring types of pottery, especially within the Borgo area. The majority of the forms consisted of drinking and pouring vessels, and this seems to have been the favoured form even in its earliest appearance in San Giovenale. The ordinary bucchero was present in all the areas discussed and was discovered in both domestic and sacral settings (Pohl’s proposed sacred-spring building) in San Giovenale. Although, it should be noted that the bucchero might have been later than the original dump which makes the bucchero discovered in Area E somewhat problematic. There were examples of some fine and transitional bucchero in the Borgo, but in a relatively small amount in comparison with the vast amounts of ordinary bucchero in the same area. There were also examples of grey bucchero in varying qualities, but the grey bucchero, even if there are some examples present, never seems to have been as popular as the ordinary bucchero and we can see a clear decline in numbers of grey bucchero examples in comparison with the ordinary bucchero. The lack of early bucchero, especially the bucchero sottile type suggest that the bucchero was something rare in its earliest appearance, but the single most conspicuous bucchero example is the inscribed cup from House III (Room A & Court D, stratum 2A). This particular cup (pl. 1, no. 253) displayed an extensive inscription at the bottom of the vessel which reads:

369 San Giovenale IV:1, 147.

56 Mi v[e]lunus vefunas,370 which Karlsson has suggested that the owner of this cup also was the owner of House III.371 The inscription is conspicuous indeed, in the sense that no other example has been found within the acropolis of San Giovenale with such an extensive inscription. The inscription was inscribed in a circular direction and with little skill according to Professor Colonna.372 The cup might have been a gift with the owner’s name inscribed on it, or the inscription was added later in an apparent amateurish way. Nevertheless, the appearance of an inscription indicate that the cup was prestigious or at the least perceived as something special, enough so that the owner felt compelled to inscribe his name on it. Although, this does not conclude whether the bucchero overall was perceived as something prestigious or luxurious in San Giovenale. The lack of finely decorated and early bucchero examples and the massive amount of ordinary bucchero in comparison with all other bucchero types in the area suggest that the bucchero was a widely used type of pottery in all the areas of San Giovenale and perhaps not so prestigious because of its wide availability. The sheer amount itself suggest that the bucchero might have been perceived as something prestigious in its early appearance, but by the time that the ordinary bucchero had spread throughout the settlement it had become all but prestigious or luxurious and the colour of the clay varied more in the ordinary bucchero than earlier examples. It is interesting though, that the cup with an inscription is not an early type of bucchero, the inscribed cup seems to be a later type of bucchero (perhaps ordinary) as this cup had a greyish colour, suggesting a later type of bucchero. The ordinary bucchero, which consisted mainly of forms that suggest drinking or pouring activities, suggests that this was the main usage of the bucchero pottery in San Giovenale. The earliest examples may have been imported examples from other Etruscan centres, or the result of gift-giving between the social elite which began as something conspicuous and rare, but then turned into a wide available ware either through increased import, or by producing their own examples to comply with the increased demand for bucchero pottery in the settlement. Whatever the case might be, it is clear that San Giovenale was not lacking examples of ordinary bucchero, nor were there a lack of drinking and pouring vessels which was the favoured form bucchero pottery in San Giovenale.

5.2.1. Status, wealth, or everyday pottery? The single strongest argument that the bucchero pottery was perceived as something prestigious seems to be the lack of early sottile or fine bucchero vessels, either suggesting that the bucchero at the earliest stage of San Giovenale was something of a rarity and in that sense also very valuable and/or prestigious, or at the least conspicuous. It could also be that the early bucchero was rare because it was something that was imported from other Etruscan centres and not until after the introduction of the first sottile or fine bucchero pottery types within the settlement of San Giovenale did the bucchero become a sought after type of pottery. But was the early bucchero something of a status ware in its earliest appearance? Perhaps, but it seems clear that the ordinary bucchero was the type that that was used by the many, and for the everyday use. The majority of all the bucchero have forms connected to the consumption or serving of liquids. There are of course examples of bucchero that is not connected to that of containing or consuming liquids. Although, there is a clear majority of oinochoai and cup forms, it would seem that in fact, bucchero was the ware of choice when it came to the consumption of liquids, or at the least, a popular choice, and this is especially true in the Borgo area were the bucchero drinking forms are especially numerous.

370 San Giovenale IV:1, 169. 371 San Giovenale IV:1, 130. 372 San Giovenale IV:1, 169.

57 5.3 Conclusion The aim and purpose of this thesis has been to establish in what quantity, types and forms of bucchero pottery that uncovered on the San Giovenale acropolis. In what context the bucchero pottery was found and an attempt to establish the usage of the bucchero pottery by pinpointing the most common forms of bucchero. Furthermore, this study has discussed whether the bucchero pottery had any connection with feasting and banqueting in Etruria and whether the bucchero pottery vessels was perceived as something luxurious or even prestigious in the context of San Giovenale. It seems clear that the bucchero pottery from San Giovenale began as a somewhat rare type of pottery within the settlement and in that capacity, it might be deemed conspicuous and even prestigious. The earliest type of bucchero pottery was the bucchero sottile, which was almost exclusive to Area F East. The earliest example of bucchero sottile came from the river-stone beds or benches in House I. The other early bucchero examples came from the Borgo, which also had examples of transitional, ordinary, and grey bucchero. The clear majority of the bucchero belonged to the ordinary type of bucchero, and the colour of the bucchero also seems to have a tendency towards greyish colours, more so in ordinary bucchero than in the earliest types uncovered in San Giovenale. Most of the bucchero forms, from the earliest to the latest type seems to be that of drinking and pouring vessels, some of which was possible to connect to Rasmussen’s typology. The sheer amount of drinking and pouring vessels suggest that the bucchero pottery was mainly used to serve those purposes and it is possible that there is a strong connection to feasting and banqueting practices and bucchero pottery vessels as the sottile fragment from the river stone-benches/beds would suggest and the apparent favoured form of the bucchero pottery, that is of drinking and pouring forms. The majority of the bucchero consisted of ordinary bucchero and by the time the grey bucchero started to appear in San Giovenale, it seems like the bucchero had lost its popularity end a heavy decline is apparent in the number of grey bucchero examples in comparison with the ordinary bucchero. Much of the bucchero was discovered in what can be classified as domestic settings, but there were also examples of bucchero in the semi-subterranean building in Area B. The semi- subterranean building in Area B has been identified as a sacred-spring building by Pohl, although the bucchero discovered in this area might not have been a part of the original dump which makes this bucchero problematic. The most prestigious bucchero vessel, or at the least, the most conspicuous bucchero vessel in San Giovenale, would be the cup with the inscription from House III. The inscription suggest that this cup was either a prestigious gift which enhanced the status of the owner, or a priced possession which the owner inscribed his name on, or both. Either way, the appearance of an inscription makes this cup stick out from the rest of the examples. This cup was especially interesting as this cup had a greyish colour and thus seems to belong to the later type of bucchero, perhaps ordinary. Even if the availability of bucchero increased in the settlement, and the quality and colour seems to have degenerated with time, it would seem like the owner of the cup still felt that this was a prestigious cup, perhaps even inspiring jealousy or gaining the esteem from others through this conspicuous vessel, and with his name inscribed on the cup, there can be no doubt of who is the owner of this fine cup.

58 Bibliography

Ancient sources Catullus. Tibullus. Pervigilium Veneris, translated by F. W. Cornish, J. P. Postgate and J. W. Mackail (Loeb), London, 1913. Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Volume III, translated by C. H. Oldfather (Loeb), London, 1939. Herodotus, The Persian Wars, translated by A. D. Godley (Loeb), London 1920. Homer, Odyssey, translated by A. T. Murrey (Loeb), London 1919. Livy, History of Rome, Volume VIII, translation by F. G. Moore (Loeb), London 1949. Plutarch, Lives, Volume II, translation by P. Bernadotte (Loeb), London 1914. Strabo, Geography, Volume I, translated by H. L. Jones (Loeb), London 1917.

Published sources Backe-Forsberg, Y. 2005. Crossing the bridge – An interpretation of the archaeological remains in the Etruscan bridge complex at San Giovenale, Etruria, Uppsala. Barker, G. & T. Rasmussen 2000. The Etruscans, Oxford. Edlund-Berry, I. 2008. ’The Etruscan Collection at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston’, Etruscan Studies 11 (1), 165–167. Becker, H. 2016. ‘Luxuria prolapse est: Etruscan Wealth and Decadence’, Companion to the Etruscans, eds. Bell, S. & A. A. Carpino, Oxford, 293–304. Berggren, E & K. Berggren. 1981. San Giovenale II:2. Excavations in Area B, 1975 – 1960 (ActaRom-4°, 26:2:2), Stockholm. Boëthius, A & Gustav VI Adolf. 1962. Etruscan Culture: Land and People: Archaeological research and studies conducted in San Giovenale and its environs by members of the Swedish Institute of Rome, New York & Malmö. Bonfante, L. 1986. ‘Daily Life and Afterlife’, Etruscan Life and Afterlife: A Handbook of Etruscan Studies, ed. Bonfante, L., Michigan. Borgna, E. 2004. ’Aegean Feasting: A Minoan Perspective’, The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 73 (2), 247–279. Brendel, O. J. 1978. Etruscan Art, Harmondsworth. Briggs, D. N. 2002. ‘Servants at a Rich Man’s Feast: Early Etruscan Household Slaves and Their Procurement’, Etruscan Studies 9 (1), 152–176. Campbell, C. 1995. ‘Conspicuous Confusion? A Critique of Veblen’s Theory of Conspicuous Consumption’, Social Theory 13 (1), 37–47. De Puma, R. D. 1976. ‘Etruscan Legacy: Early Collecting and Bucchero Pots’, Archaeology 29, 220– 228. De Puma, R. D. 2013. ‘The meanings of bucchero’, The Etruscan World, ed. Turfa, J. M., New York, 974–992. Del Chirao, M. A. 1966. ‘Etruscan Bucchero Pottery’, Archaeology 19 (2), 98–103. Hayden, B. & S. Villeneuve 2011. ‘A Century of Feasting Studies’, The Annual Review of Anthropology 40, 433–439. Hostetter, E. 1998. ‘Banquet Bronzes at Spina: The Archaeological Context’, Etruscan Studies 5 (1), 68–93. Furuhagen, F. 1985. Etrusker: Historien om ett främmande folk. Malmö.

59 Ingemark, D. 2003. Glass, alcohol and power in Roman Iron Age Scotland: A study of the Roman vessel glass from non-Roman / native sites in north Northumberland and Scotland, Lund. Izzet, V. 2007. ’Greeks Make It; Etruscans Fecit: The Stigma of Plagiarism in the Reception of Etruscan Art’, Etruscan Studies 10, 223–237. Jucker, I. & U. Avida (ed.) 1991. Italy of the Etruscans, Mainz. Karlsson, L. 2006. San Giovenale IV:1. Area F East – Huts and houses on the Acropolis (ActaRoom- 4°, 26:4:1), Stockholm. Magness, J. 2001. ‘A Near Eastern Ethnic Element Among the Etruscan Elite?’, Etruscan Studies 8 (1), 78–117. Nylander, C., Blomde B., Karlson, L., Bizzarro, A., Tilia, G., Tilia, S & A. Tilia 2013. San Giovenale V:1. The Borgo. Excavating an Etruscan quarter: Architecture and stratigraphy (ActaRom-4°, 26:5:1), Stockholm. Neil, S. 2016. ‘Materializing the Etruscans: The Expression and Negotiation of Identity during the Orientalizing, Archaic and Classical Periods’, Companion to the Etruscans, eds. Bell, S. & A. A. Carpino, Oxford. 15–27. Olinder, B. & I. Pohl. 1981. San Giovenale II:4. The semi-subterranean building in Area B (ActaRom- 4°, 26:2:4), Stockholm. Pohl, I. 2009. San Giovenale V:2, The Borgo. The Etruscan habitation quarter on the North-West slope. Stratification and materials. (ActaRom-4°, 26:5:2), Stockholm. Pohl, I. 1977. San Giovenale III:3. The Iron age habitations in Area E (ActaRom-4°, 26:3:3), Stockholm. Pallottino, M. 1955. The Etruscans, Harmondsworth. Perkins, P. 2016. ‘Bucchero in Context’. Companion to the Etruscans, ed. Bell, S. & A. A. Carpino. Wiley Blackwell, Oxford, 224 –236. Perkins, P. 2007. ‘The Collection of Bucchero in the British Museum’, Etruscan Studies 10 (1), 26– 34. Pieraccini, L. 2000. ‘Families, Feasting and Funerals: Funerary Ritual at Ancient Caere’, Etruscan Studies 7 (1), 35-49. Pieraccini, L. 2013. ‘Food and drink in the Etruscan world’, The Etruscan World, ed. Turfa, J. M., New York, 812–822. Ramage, N. H. 1970. ‘Studies in Early Etruscan Bucchero’ Paper of the British School at Rome 38, 1– 61. Rasmussen, T. B. 1979. Bucchero pottery from southern Etruria, Cambridge. Rathje, A. 2013. ‘The banquet through Etruscan history’, The Etruscan World, ed. Turfa, J.M., New York. 823–830. Rathje, A. 2007. ‘Murlo, Images and Archaeology’ Etruscan studies 10, 175–184. Rathje, A. 1994. ‘Banquet and Ideology: Some New Considerations About Banqueting at Poggio Civitate’, Murlo and the Etruscans: Art and Society in Ancient Etruria, eds. R. D. De Puma & J. P. Small, Wisconsin. Rendeli, M. 2017. ‘Sardinia’, Etruscology, ed. Naso, A, Boston/Berlin. Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis, London. Riad, S. 2014. ‘Leadership in the fluid moral economy of conspicuous consumption’, Journal of Management History 20 (1), 5–43. Schmandt-Besserat, D. 2001. ’Feasting in the Ancient Near East’, Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, Dietler, M. & B. Hayden (eds.), Tuscaloosa. Small, J. P. 1994. ‘Eat. Drink, and Be Marry: Etruscan Banquets’, Murlo and the Etruscans: Art and Society in Ancient Etruria, R. D. De Puma & J. P. Small (eds.), Wisconsin. Spielmann, K. A. 2002. ’Feasting, Craft Specialization, and the Ritual Mode of Production in Small- Scale Societies’, American Anthropologist 104 (1), 195–207. Veblen, T. & Banta, M (ed.) 2009 [1899]. The Theory of the Leisure Class, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

60 Welin, E. 1962 ‘Svenska Rominstitutets utgrävningar i San Giovenale’, San Giovenale: Etruskerna landet och folket, Svensk forskning i Etrurien, Boëthius, A & Gustav VI Adolf (eds.), New York & Malmö. Wetter, E. 1962 ‘Studier och strövtåg i södra Etrurien’, San Giovenale: Etruskerna landet och folket, Svensk forskning i Etrurien, Boëthius, A & Gustav VI Adolf (eds.), New York & Malmö.

61 List of figures

Figures Figure 1. Plan of San Giovenale and its surroundings. From: Backe-Forsberg 2005, 201, Fig. 2. Figure 2. Plan of the excavated area on the north slope of the Borgo. From: San Giovenale V:2, Pl. 114. Figure 3. The distribution of bucchero in building period I (c. 650–530 BCE) in the Borgo area. Figure 4. The distribution of bucchero in building period I (c. 530/500–430 BCE) in the Borgo area. Figure 5. The distribution of bucchero in building period III (c. 430/410 BCE) in the Borgo area. Figure 6. Test-pit L (Building I), Plan with grid-network and test-baulks. From: San Giovenale IV:1, 16, Pl. 6. Figure 7. Fossa Cunicolo. Plan. From: San Giovenale II:2, 23, Fig. 17. Figure 8. The distribution of bucchero in Area B. Figure 9. Schematic reconstruction of the stratification of the fill with the box numbers placed in correspondence to their level. From: San Giovenale II:4, 22, Fig. 16. Figure 10. Plan of the semi-subterranean building with the box numbers placed in their respective section. From: San Giovenale II:4, 23, Pl. Fig 17. Figure 11. The distribution of bucchero in the semi-subterranean building in Area B. Figure 12. The distribution of bucchero in Area E. Figure 13. Detail plan of floor 2. San Giovenale III:3, 29, Fig. 22. Figure 14. Detail plan of floor 1. San Giovenale III:3, 30, Fig. 23. Figure 15. House I. Drawing of stratigraphy. Strata 1, 2A, 3A, 3B and 4. From: San Giovenale IV:1, 47, Fig. 34. Figure 16. House I. Stone plan by M. Fahlander. From: San Giovenale IV:1, 142, Fig. 266. Figure 17. House I–III. Period 3. Restored plan by L. Karlsson. From: San Giovenale IV:1, 156, Fig. 290. Figure 18. The distribution of bucchero in Area F East according to Karlsson. Figure 19. The distribution of bucchero in House I-III according to Karlsson. Figure 20. The distribution of bucchero in House I according to strata. Figure 21. The distribution of bucchero in House II according to strata. Figure 22. The distribution of bucchero in House III, Room A, and Court D, according to strata. Figure 22. The distribution of bucchero in House III, Room B, according to strata.

Tables Table 1. All the different strata with examples of bucchero in the Borgo. Table 2. The bucchero forms in building period I (c. 650–530 BCE) in the Borgo area. Table 3. The bucchero forms in building period II (c. 530/500–430 BCE) in the Borgo area. Table 4. The bucchero forms in building period III (c. 430/410 BCE) in the Borgo area. Table 5. The bucchero forms in Area B. Table 6. The bucchero forms in the semi-subterranean building in Area B. Table 7. The bucchero forms in Area E. Table 8. The bucchero forms in House I in Area F East. Table 9. The bucchero forms in House II in Area F East. Table 10. The bucchero forms in House III in Area F East.

62

Annex 1.

ig. 2.ig.

F

Forsberg2005, 201,

-

From: Backe From:

. Plan of. Plan San andGiovenale surroundings. its Fig. 1

63

l. l. 114.

P

V:2,

San Giovenale

Plan ofPlan the excavated on area north the slope the of From: Borgo.

Fig. 2.

64 Fig. 6. Test-pit L (Building I). Plan with grid-network and test-baulks. From: San Giovenale IV:1, 16, Pl. 6.

Fig. 7. Fossa Cunicolo. Plan. From: San Giovenale II:2, 23, Fig. 17.

65 Fig. 9. Schematic reconstruction of the stratification of the fill with the box numbers placed in correspondence to their level. From: San Giovenale II:4, 22, Fig. 16.

Fig. 10. Plan of the semi-subterranean building with the box numbers placed in their respective section. From: San Giovenale II:4, 23, Pl. Fig 17.

66 Fig. 13. Detail plan of floor 2. San Giovenale III:3, 29, Fig. 22.

Fig. 14. Detail plan of floor 1. San Giovenale III:3, 30, Fig. 23.

67 Fig. 15. House I. Drawing of stratigraphy. Strata 1, 2A, 3A, 3B and 4. From: San Giovenale IV:1, 47, Fig. 34.

Fig. 16. House I. Stone plan by M. Fahlander. From: San Giovenale IV:1, 142, Fig. 266.

68 Fig. 17. House I–III. Period 3. Restored plan by L. Karlsson. From: San Giovenale IV:1, 156, Fig. 290.

69

Plate 1.

Plate 1. Bucchero. No. 59, kyathos with horizontal lines; no. 60, chalice with dotted horizontal fan; no. 19, kantharos; no. 2, lipless kylix; no. 3, lipless kantharos, no. 254, lid; no. 31, oinochoe; no. 103, bowl with grooves on top of the rim; no. 253, foot fragment with Etruscan inscription mi venelus vefunas. From: San Giovenale IV:1, 186, Pl. 12.

70