Archaic and Classical-Lucanian
farmsteads in the Sinni valley,
South Italy
Common characteristics in location and pottery assemblage
11-6-2013
Research Master Thesis Art History & Archaeology Tineke Roovers
S1612522
2
Graag wil ik iedereen bedanken die mij gesteund heeft bij het schrijven van deze scriptie. Mijn scriptiebegeleider, Peter Attema, die optimistisch en geduldig bleef als ik het even niet meer zag zitten. Martijn van Leusen voor zijn kritische vragen, waardoor ik bleef nadenken over de inhoud van het onderzoek. Frits Steenhuisen voor alle uren uitleg over bewerkingen in ArcGIS. Wieke de Neef en Kayt Armstrong voor hun feedback en het beschikbaar stellen van een logeeradres als ik langere tijd in Groningen verbleef.
3 Contents
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Background and setting ... 8
2.1. Research location ... 9
2.2. Geology and geomorphology ... 10
2.3. Climate, vegetation and anthropogenic impact ... 13
2.4. Regional habitation history ... 16
2.5. Siris and Herakleia ... 20
3. Biases and problems ... 23
3.1. Conceptual biases and problems ... 23
3.2. Visibility and research biases and problems ... 26
3.3. Other biases and problems ... 28
4. Data description and site catalogue ... 29
4.1. The data from the Carta Archeologica della Valle del Sinni ... 29
4.2. The Archaic sites ... 30
4.2.1. Farmsteads ... 30
4.2.2. Undefined habitation areas ... 33
4.2.3. Villages/settlements ... 34
4.2.4. Cult places ... 36
4.2.5. Defense or observation posts ... 37
4.3. Classical-Lucanian sites ... 37
4.3.1. Farmsteads ... 38
4.3.2. Undefined habitation areas ... 47
4.3.3. Villages/settlements ... 48
4.3.4. Cult places ... 49
4
4.4. Comparison between Archaic and Classical-Lucanian sites ... 50
5. The Pottery ... 54
5.1. Fabrics ... 56
5.2. Types and shapes ... 60
5.3. The pottery assemblage ... 68
6. GIS and location choice ... 80
6.1. Methodology ... 80
6.2. Distribution, clustering and location preferences ... 82
7. Interpretation ... 100
7.1. Location choice and socio-economic organization ... 100
7.2. Interpretation of the pottery assemblage ... 103
7.3. Relation and interaction between Siris/Herakleia and the Sinni valley ... 108
8. Conclusion and recommendations ... 110
Literature ... 114
Appendix 1: Pottery types and fabrics ... 119
5
1. Introduction
Bintliff1 started his lecture at the LAC 2012 with the following words: “In his iconic study of
six hundred years of rural life in south-west France,Le Roy Ladurie described the cycles of
demographic and economic expansion and contraction visible in the historic record as “the immense respiration of a social structure.” Landscape Archaeology is characterised by such a long-term vision of rural life, where the embeddedness of society, economy and technology, as well as worldviews and persistent ways of life, into distinctive regional landscapes allows us precious insights into the very essence of historical processes.” These words exactly
reflect the aim of what we want to know about the Archaic and Classical periods in the South of Italy. My thesis focuses on a tiny part of this ‘immense respiration of a social structure’: the small rural farms, or fattorie, in the valley of the river Sinni in the province of Basilicata in the South of Italy during the Archaic (c 600-480 BC) and Classical-Lucanian period (c 480-325 BC), with the question: “Is there a way to find and identify them in the modern
landscape?” Since Archaic, and to a lesser extent, Classical-Lucanian farmsteads are difficult to locate and classify, I tried to find a range of common characteristics, using indicators like pottery type and location preference. My information on the site location and pottery finds comes from the 8 volumes of the Carta Archeologica della Valle del Sinni.2These books are the result of a large scale investigation on archaeological and historical remains in the valley of the Sinni. This research was a cooperation between the Italian government3 and the Universities of Naples, Roma-La Sapienza, Bologna, and Lecce. 930 sites were mapped, ranging from the Neolithic to the 18th century.
My reason for choosing this subject for this thesis is that very little is known about small rural farm sites from this period, especially in the more inland regions of south Italy. The neighboring GIA research area in the valley of the Raganello river in Calabria bears almost no traces of small Archaic and Classical rural sites. This period is however represented in the graves of the Macchiabate and the temple structures on the Timpone della Motta. Since the valley of the Sinni borders the Raganello valley it will be significant for our understanding of rural life in this period, to find out why Archaic and Classical- Lucanian farmsteads can be found in the Sinni valley, what their characteristics are, and based on which criteria they are dated to this period by the Italian researchers. Instead of just focusing on pottery or location, I combined the two. Farmsteads that are dated by their pottery, are related to the soil type and
1 Bintliff 2012. 2
Quilici and Quilici-Gigli (2001-2003).
6 location preference. In this way we can find out if the pottery assemblage matches a specific agricultural use. An example is when dolium is present on locations where the soil is suitable for growing wheat or olives.
First, all sites that are mentioned in the Carta Archeologica della Valle del Sinni4
(CAVS)are inserted in a spreadsheet (appendix 2, digital version) with a time table to get an
overview of when the sites were in use. The data from the CAVS posed several problems and biases, of which the dating of the sites, the description of the pottery and the projection of the IGM maps were the worst. One of the site dating problems that occurred is that the CAVS never mentions the Classical period, but uses the term Lucanian instead for the period from 480 to 200 BC. So, I had to make a division, based on the pottery dates and the site
descriptions in the CAVS. The problem with the pottery description is that Rescigno made a typology for the pottery type and fabrics in the Sinni valley, but this typology is not used for all sites in the CAVS. The projection problem with the IGM map in volume 8 of the CAVS was a difficult one. The maps were in an old Italian coordinate system, Roma 1940 Gauss Boaga Est, but the site coordinates mentioned in the volumes 2 to 7 did not match this coordinate system. These biases and problems and how I tackled the problems are discussed in chapter 3. Based on the CAVS, I made a site catalogue with description of the Archaic and Classical sites in the Sinni valley (chapter 4). The catalogue comprises all Archaic and Classical-Lucanian sites with the exception of necropoleis and not classifiable material scatters. Subsequently I described the pottery found on the Archaic and Classical-Lucanian farm sites, using
Rescigno’s typology with additions of my own where necessary, to complete the finds
assemblage (chapter 5). I established an overview of the pottery types and the clay fabrics that were used at the Archaic and Classical-Lucanian farmsteads. Next, a GIS5 environment was created, in which the sites were plotted on various maps, and queries were made to find out if there is a relation between farms and villages, necropoleis, geology, soil type, slope side etc.
In chapter 2, I give a description of the research location, the impact of ancient and modern land use, a chronological background and an overview of the valley of the Sinni in relation with the wider region and especially with Greek Siris/Herakleia in the coastal plain.
Then the results for the pottery assemblages from the farmsteads are combined with the location preferences and joined to the historical data of the region, like the founding and destruction of Siris and the founding and expansion of Herakleia, the fights between the colonies, and the worsening hydrological conditions in the coastal plain. In this way it
4
The Carta Archeologica della Valle del Sinni will be referred to as CAVS.
7 becomes possible to understand why the farmsteads are built on the locations where they were found, what their means of subsistence were and how they fit in the Archaic and Classical-Lucanian landscape.
The value of this research lies in combining the interpretations from methodological and culture-historical research, thus achieving a result based on various perspectives. I hope that the outcome of my research helps to find a way to predict locations for Archaic and Classical-Lucanian farmsteads in the Raganello valley and recognize them when we find them, thus adding to our understanding of the rural landscape there. The mountainous hinterlands of South Italy for a long time were not a main focus of archaeological research, but especially landscape archaeology is catching up on this item. As Attema6 states: “The
potential of landscape archaeology to map this periphery of the ancient Italian social landscape will add significantly to a theory of centralization, urbanization and colonization that is not solely one of facts and figures, but takes into account the changing mentalities of the various social groups that dwelt in the landscapes of antiquity.”
8
2. Background and setting
Shanks and Hodder say: “An archaeologist may examine a potsherd, pick out certain
diagnostic traits and judge that these warrant an identification of the sherd as of a particular type: they choose an identification from various possibilities. Interpretation involves
judgement and choice: drawing sense, meaning and possibility from what began as uncertainty”.7
Interpretation of the changes that occurred from the Archaic into the Classical-Lucanian period can be placed in this perspective. There are several possible explanations for the sudden appearance of fattorie in the Sinni research area in the Classical-Lucanian period: climatic change, subsistence change, population change, economic change, or a mixture of these and other changes. The outcome depends on which aspect is stressed by the interpreter. These changes also fit into the theory of the Annales paradigm, which fits the aims of
landscape archaeology very well. Barker8 used Braudel’s time-scale for his research on settlement dynamics in the Biferno valley through the centuries.
The Sinni valley provides an excellent opportunity to examine Braudel’s time scale. Changes in the landscape played an important role in the history of the Sinni valley. The
longue dureé (long term change) is visible in changing climatic conditions, in the
sedimentation of the river valley and the coastal plain, influencing water management, while erosion of the Sant’Arcangelo basin rendered the once fertile area into a calanchi badland. The moyenne dureé (medium term change) is evident in the changes in the coastal plain when the Greeks founded Siris and later Herakleia, in the arrival of Lucanians from Campania in Oenotrian territories and in the increase of fattorie in the Classical-Lucanian period in the Sinni valley. The histoire événementielle is represented by the destruction of Siris and the war between the Italiote League and the alliance of Dyonisos I of Syracuse and the Lucanians. Another emphasis of the Annales paradigm is on the ‘people without a history’, the ordinary people that play no part in the writing of historians. These are the people that Le Roy Ladurie9 describes in his “Les paysans de Languedoc”, about the waves of expansion and decline of the rural population from the 11th until the 16th centuries AD, in the region of Languedoc in France. They are the same kind of people that lived on the farmsteads in the valley of the Sinni river, the farmers, the shepherds and their families.
7 Shanks & Hodder 1998: 72. 8
Barker 1995.
9
2.1. Research location
Fig. 2.1. South Italy with research area : Sinni valley. ArcGIS 10. Zoom in: Sinni watershed area. Source: www.adb.basilicata.it.
The valley of the Sinni river is situated in the south of the region of Basilicata (South Italy) (fig.2.1). The Sinni has its source in the Serra della Giumenta at an altitude of 1380 meters above mean sea level and flows into the Ionian Sea, and more specific into the Gulf of Taranto. The length of the main stream is approximately 94 kilometers. There are several tributaries: the Torrente Serrapotamo, the Torrente Cogliandrino, the Fiumarella
10
Fig. 2.2. Lago di Monte Cotugno. Source: www.italia.it.
2.2. Geology and geomorphology
The middle and upper part of the valley of the Sinni are part of the Apennine mountain range. The Apennines consist mostly of sedimentary rock like shale, sandstone and limestone. North of the Sinni lies the depression of the Bradano Foredeep, or Bradano Trough, filled with Plio-Pleistocene deposits from marine origin. These marine clays were deposited here when the sea level was about 200 meters higher than today.10 The same deposits fill the Sant’Arcangelo basin11, which forms a large part of the research area of the middle Sinni valley and the area to the north (fig. 2.4.: bright yellow). The Sant’Arcangelo basin is a sedimentary basin composed of 3000 meters of siliciclastic deposits varying from mudstone to conglomerates. Five allogroups (sedimentary units or layers) have been found, dating from Late Pliocene to Middle Pleistocene. During the Middle Pleistocene the Valsinni uplift (tectonic activity) divided the area in the Sant’Arcangelo basin and the Metaponto basin (fig. 2.3).12
The soils in this basin consist of conglomerates, sands, clay and loess-like soils.13
10 Folk 2011: 4.
11 Loiacono, F. In Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2003a: 75-86. 12
Zavala & Mutti 1996: 279-282; Zavala 2000: 399-416.
11
Fig. 2.3.Inferred basin and stratigraphic evolution of the Sant’Arcangelo basin during the Late Pliocene – Middle Pleistocene. Horizontal length about 50 kilometers. Source: Zavala 2000: 412, fig 12.
Although the Sant’Arcangelo basin is a tectonic depression, it is not flat. Rivers have cut deep into the clayey bedrock, creating valleys with steep slopes. Where these slopes are not
protected by dense macchia vegetation they are heavily eroded, creating calanchi badlands. Abbot describes them as follows: “Calanchi badlands are characterized by extensive
dendritic rill and gully development and are generally characteristic of the steeper slopes”.14
In the upper valley the height of the mountains ranges from 1500 to 2000 meters, mostly consisting of highly erosive calcareous formations. The landscape consists of
mountain ridges, terraced slopes, gentle slopes, glen-like valleys and braided rivers with wide riverbeds.
12
Fig. 2.4. Geological map of research area(black line). Tectonic thrust front (dark red line). ArcGIS 10
GEOLOGY/LITHOLOGY
Calcareous carbonate sedimentary rock/detritic and organic/marl
Sedimentary rock/tectonic mix
Sedimentary rock/mudstone/sandstone/calcareous marl/conglomerates
Sedimentary rock/shale
Marl/sandstone and conglomerates
Calcareous carbonate sedimentary rock/mudstone/oceanic basin deposits
Calcareous carbonate sedimentary rock/dolomitic or magnesian sedimentary rock
Calcareous carbonate sedimentary rock/dolomitic or magnesian sedimentary rock
Schist
13
2.3. Climate, vegetation and anthropogenic impact
The Mediterranean climate region lies between subtropical high pressure systems to the south, and westerly wind belts to the north. In winter these systems move towards the equator, and the Mediterranean region comes under the influence of the westerly wind belts, causing wet and mild weather conditions. In summer the weather is hot and dry.15 Although this climate has been stable for a long period of time, studies indicate a rise in temperature and decrease in average rainfall, over the period from 1886 until 1995, with a trend towards a temperature rise of about 2°C for the next 50 years.16 Fluctuations did occur during the last 3000 years in Central and South Italy. There were three cool and rainy periods: the 6th -4th centuries BC, the 5th-8th centuries AD and the 16th-19th centuries AD.17 In these periods with more rainfall there will have been an increase in the average water yield of the hydrologic systems, with an increase in sediment yield caused by upstream erosion. According to Abbot18 three mechanisms of landscape disturbance played a major part during prehistoric and historic times: cultivation, pastoralism and clearance of native vegetation for settlements and other use. The main crops were cereals, olives, grapes, figs and legumes like chick-peas, broad-beans and lentils.19 A system of intercropping, growing cereals and legumes in for example olive groves, probably was used to minimize soil erosion. Pastoralism and animal husbandry can seriously disturb the landscape by overgrazing. Sheep and especially goat eat almost everything and kill the vegetation by eating the plants too close to the ground and destroying them. Cattle can compact the surface by trampling, decreasing infiltration and increasing water run-off. Also burning of vegetation to stimulate growth of young grasses and herbs for the animals causes severe erosion. Clearing forests for timber and fuel, and removal of vegetation for habitation areas disturbed the landscape even more. Thus, the increase of sedimentation also depends on the density and type of the vegetation. Until the middle
Holocene, vegetation in the Mediterranean region consisted of closed forests, but then species like Plantago (plantain), Juglans (walnut), Olea (olive), Pistacia (pistachio), Vitis
(grapevine), Fagus (beech) and Quercus suber (cork oak) showed up in pollen records, indicating anthropic influences. Decimation of the dense forests and consequent vegetation shifts occurred not simultaneously throughout the entire Mediterranean region, indicating that
15 Harding et al. 2009: 69.
16
Based on the Fournier (river sediment yield) and USLE (Universal Soil Loss Equation) equations and the monthly rainfall time series (1886-1995) for Perugia and Rome. Dragoni & Valigi 2000: 197-208.
17 Dragoni & Valigi 2000: 201. 18
Abbot 2011: 62.
14 climatic changes played a minor role.20 Human induced changes in the vegetation are obvious when the Greeks settled in Magna Graecia: they found forests of ash, evergreen oak, laurel and myrtle.21 The trees were cut for timber, especially for shipbuilding, for fuel, and to create fields for cereal crops. A mosaic-like pattern of forest, pasture and cultivated land developed.
Today, a large part of the Sant’Arcangelo basin, consisting of conglomerates, sands and clays, is a heavily eroded calanchi badland with a semi-arid climate. Human impact played a major part in forming these badlands. The geological conditions in this region
promote Mediterranean oak and beech forests, which covered large parts of the Sinni valley as well. But only small areas of forest are present today. Most of the forests have been cleared during the last centuries, causing heavy erosion and creating the calanchi badlands where nothing can grow anymore.22 The present-day landscape (fig. 2.6) originated in medieval times and was for the greater part caused by shepherding. With the forests gone, the topsoil eroded and was flushed away by rainfall and torrents (fig. 2.5). The region of Basilicata was, and still is, heavily affected by mass movements like landslides and mudflows. These are caused by seismic action and severe storms, but also by water seeping into the ground and undermining the soil.23 What is left is bare rock partly covered with macchia vegetation.
20 Abbot 1997: 47.
21 Thirgood 1981: 3. 22
Kaufmann & Lieb 1997:128-129; Bianco 1985: 9-12.
23 Thirgood 1981: 6-85; Abbot 1997: 103.
15
Fig. 2.6. Present day land cover. Land cover map 2006. Source: www.eea.europa.eu. ArcGIS 10.
Because macchia consists of uneatable or thorny plants, this type of vegetation is best suited to withstand biotic pressure, especially from goats, since these animals eat almost anything, including young trees.24 There are however scholars that state that mainly climatic changes caused vegetation changes and degradation and erosion of soils and that human impact had
16 minor influence. Coring results in lake deposits in the Valle di Castiglione crater near Rome give an indication for a relatively warm and humid climate during the early middle Holocene and a change to more arid conditions in the late Holocene. But also short climatic fluctuations can cause problems. Although they don’t affect the vegetation they can cause changes in river or slope behavior.25
Whether human induced or climatic, there can be a huge impact on people living in such areas. Changes in coastal plains due to sedimentation may be vast, but there will also have been impact on people living in upland river valleys. As Abbot26 states “ The landscape
of Southern Italy is a terrain modified by both intentional human activity and by the
unintended consequences of that activity”. But also “…Mediterranean landscapes are often prone to erosion even without a high level of human intervention, complicating the task of correlating impact and result.”27
2.4. Regional habitation history
First, a short overview from the Bronze Age until the Hellenistic period is given of the development in habitation patterns in the valley of the Sinni (table 2.1). Also the impact of Greek colonies like Siris-Herakleia on the inland region is discussed.
PERIOD BRONZE AGE
2400-1000 BC IRON AGE 1000-600 BC ARCHAIC 600-480 BC CLASSICAL-LUCANIAN 480-325 BC EARLY HELLENISTIC LUCANIAN 325-200 BC SETTLEMENT/VILLAGE 13 6 10 8 28 FARM 0 4 7 45 213 HABITATION AREA 3 5 3 2 12 NECROPOLI/TOMB 0 16 25 49 184 CULT-PLACE 3 2 3 3 7
POTTERY PRODUCTION SITE 0 0 0 2 22
DEFENSE-LOOKOUT POST 0 1 2 0 0
UNKNOWN TYPE 17 13 4 68 218
TOTAL 36 47 54 177 684
Table 2.1. Overview of the sites from the Bronze Age until the Early Hellenistic-Lucanian period, based on the site catalogue in the Carta Archeologica della Valle del Sinni.
The dispersed pattern that existed in the Early Bronze Age had become a nucleated pattern by the Middle Bronze Age. Pastoralism was an important means of living, especially
25 See Abbot 1997, chapter 3 for various discussions and opinions on climatic versus human impact. 26
Abbot 1997: 53.
17 short transhumance with sheep and goats. Before the summer the herds were driven to the pastures up in the mountains and returned to the winter pastures in the plain just before winter.28 Evidence for this Bronze Age pastoralism is found in pollen records from Lago Forano and Fontana Manca.29During the Recent Bronze Age society became more complex with the forming of elite landownership and increasing craft specialization. By the Final Bronze Age a preference for well defendable and strategic locations had developed. From their high residences in the foothills surrounding the coastal plain, chieftain families controlled the routes from the coast to the inland and from the north to the south. Further inland larger hilltop settlements had developed. Well-defined territorial entities had developed and intercultural connections established.30Middle to Late Bronze Age village-settlements in the Sinni valley are located at Pizzo Castello (site 1), at Case Altieri (site 197), Cozzo sopra Masseria Capo d’Auro (site 227), Fosso del Ferro (site 269), Monopoli (site 388), Bosco di Seluci (site 885), and Valle Argentata (site 910). Site 204 at Cozzo del Gallo is dated from the Bronze Age into the beginning of the Iron Age, site 221 at Colobraro has been used as a village-settlement from the Bronze Age until today. At Garavina (site 674), at Grande Porta del Pollino (site 676), at Madonna del Pollino (site 677) also Bronze Age settlements were found. From the Bronze Age, 3 not specified habitation areas and 17 sites of unclear type were mapped during the survey of the Sinni Valley in the Quilici research. No tombs or
necropoleis were found.
For the Iron Age, in the Metapontino, the coastal plain between the Bradano and Basento rivers, no clearly datable pottery was found, indicating that the indigenous people did not make much use of the coastal plain for settling, but that population was concentrated at a few sites like Incoronata, close to good agricultural land.31 The same goes for the Siritide, where indigenous settlements were located at Valle Sorigliano and Santa Maria di Anglona. More inland in the Agri and Sinni valleys the Iron Age settlements of Roccanova, Alianello, Armento, Chiaromonte and Noepoli were situated.32 During the Iron Age only four of the Bronze Age village-settlements in the Sinni valley remained in use, and two new ones were founded, one very close to the Bronze Age site of Pizzo Castello, at Il Pizzo (site 1), and the other at Monte Coppolo (site 24). Five habitation areas were located, 14 necropoleis and two tombs, one lookout post, 13 unidentifiable sites. Most Iron Age villages were small and
28
Veenman 2002: 14.
29 Woldring et al.2005 : 82-89; Attema et al. 2010: 85. 30 Bietti Sestieri 1984: 59.
31
Carter 2011: 581-582.
18 consisted of four to seven wattle and daub huts. Around 680 BC the Ionian colony of Siris was founded at the location of present day Policoro at the coast near the mouth of the Sinni river. There were contacts between indigenous people and the Greeks, at first in the
settlements closest to the coastal plain, gradually intensifying during the 6th and 5th centuries BC.
In the Archaic period there is a beginning of centralization. Settlements were sometimes fortified and early 6th century houses were built from mud-brick or rubble on a stone foundation. Most houses were rectangular one or two-room structures with thatched roofs.33 In the late 6th century tiled roofs came into use in the indigenous areas. For the late 6th - early 5th centuries BC in southern Italy there is abundant information, but the second half of the Archaic/Classical period is poorly known.34 In the Sinni area two Iron Age village-settlements remained in use (sites 1 and 221) and eight new ones came into being. 19
necropoleis and six tombs were found, seven farmsteads, and three not specified habitation
areas. The cult places remained in use. Also two defense or look-out posts are known, one at the valley entrance and one up valley at the exit towards the Tyrrhenian coast. West of the
Sinni research area, at Serra la Città, in the Rivello territory, two Archaic habitation areas, a sanctuary, and two necropoleis were found. Guandalini35 calls them ‘gateway communities’. They are the result of movement of indigenous people from the inland towards the coast. These gateways connect the Tyrrhenian coast with the inland region, in this case with the Sinni valley. Through this route the Greek city of Pyxous is connected to Siris on the Ionian coast (fig.2.7), although the sea trading routes were apparently more important for the Greek colonies.
Fig. 2.7. Reconstruction of road network of Magna Grecia in the 5th century BC. In red the route from Siris to the Tyrrhenian coast. Source: De Juliis 1996: 179, fig. 171.
33 Horsnæs 2002:48.
34
Yntema 2001: 15.
19 In the next period, Lucanians coming from Campania, occupied the Sinni valley. The
Classical-Lucanian period shows a boost in agricultural activities, especially in the
Sant’Arcangelo basin, where the soil was suitable for olives, vine and cereals, that probably with the use of agricultural terraces, enabled olive cultivation on the slopes, providing a stable ecosystem.36 In Campania, between Benevento and Avellino there are small areas with the same soils as in the Sant’Arcangelo basin. Possibly the Lucanians searched for the same fertile soil type when arriving in the Sinni area (see fig. 2.8). This is soil type 9 according to the Carta Geologica d’Italia, consisting ofdetritic and organic calcareous soils, calcareous marl, mudstones, sand and conglomerates.
Fig.2.8. Geological map of Italy. Black circle: part of Campania with patches of soil type 9. Red circle: Sant’Arcangelo basin. Source: www.isprambiente.gov.it.
In this period Herakleia was founded (433 BC), and its chora became densely populated. The total amount of sites from this period in the Sinni valley tripled, with an increase in farms and
necropoleis. The farmsteads were rectangular, built on stone foundations and some of them
had a fornace (kiln) where pottery was produced. Four of the Archaic villages were abandoned, and two new ones were founded. Some of them were fortified, for example at Cersosimo. Amendolagine37 states that these fortifications probably were built as a defense against Alexander I of Epirus (Alessandro il Molosso), who came to aid the Greeks against the Lucanians, after Dyonisos I of Syracuse had formed an alliance with the Lucanians.
36
Loumou & Giourga 2003: 87-95.
20 According to Horsnæs38the fortifications can be dated earlier and they were certainly not built in haste to create a defense for a (sudden) attack. They can be dated from the late 5th to the beginning of the third century BC. In any case, it is said to be a turbulent period,39 but
strangely this is not so visible in the rest of the landscape. Wars did not prevent an increase in farmsteads. Possibly the inland areas did not suffer that much from the wars going on between colonies and Lucanians and both their allies.
During the Early Hellenistic period the Sinni valley became crowded with farms. A total amount of 684 sites have been found in the Sinni valley during the surveys, of which 213
fattorie or farmsteads. The amount of villages grew enormous, from eight to 28.
2.5. Siris and Herakleia
From the end of the 9th century BC onward Greeks visited the South Italian coast to trade and exchange. Some of them stayed and lived in the native settlements and by the end of the 8th century BC Greek settlements were founded: Sybaris and Metaponto around 720 BC, Taranto c. 700 BC and Siris c. 680 BC. By 600 BC they had become Greek poleis in which the native and Greek people had adopted a mixed culture with strong Greek influences. The indigenous people in the region were confronted with these poleis and their advanced organization level. They had conflicting interests in their need for agricultural land, but also common interests in trade and exchange. Contacts intensified during the 6th and 5th centuries BC, and by the late 4th century BC the Greek poleis as well as the numerous native settlements flourished.
21 river, as shown by the spreading of Greek pottery. At construction works in modern Policoro remains of Archaic kilns and houses were found. Also on the hill itself Archaic structures were located.42
Through the Sinni valley contacts were established with Pyxous on the Tyrrhenian coast.43 That there was a connection between the two coasts, is shown by the coins (fig.2.9) that mention both Siris and Pyxous on one and the same coin.44
Fig. 2.9. Stater of Siris and Pyxous. Ca. 550 BC. Obv. Bull head reverted ΣΙRΙΝΟΣ . Rev. incuse: bull head reverted ΡΥΧ(OEΣ) Source: www.magnagrecia.nl/coins.
In the second half of the 5th century BC Siris was conquered by Sybaris, Metaponto and Croton.45 Since these cities were Achaian colonies and Siris was founded by Ionians, this war was probably ethnic, with Siris being situated right in the middle of a vast Achaian territory along the coast of South Italy.46 Not surprisingly, Siris was reduced to a few small habitation areas and cult places and from then on fell under hegemony of Sybaris or Metaponto.
Following the destruction of Siris, Herakleia was founded around 434-433 BC, under the influence of Taranto. The city had a orthogonal plan, and there were large pottery production areas and a sanctuary for Demeter.47 According to Tagliente48influx of Lucanian people added to the reoccupation of the coastal plain (Siritide). Herakleia became the leading city of the Italiote League, an alliance of all Greek colonies on the Ionian coast to make a bold stand
42 Adamesteanu 1986: 111-115; Giardino 1998:105-123. 43 Astour 1985: 28.
44
Guandalini, F. In: Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2001d: 213-224.
45 Guzzo 1982:52 ; De Juliis 2001: 19; Adamesteanu, in: Bianco & Tagliente 1985: 93. 46 Guzzo 1982: 327.
47
Guzzo 1982: 327-330.
22 against the hostile Lucanians.49 Wonder50 claims that there have been two Italiote Leagues. The first one, formed by Croton and two other alliances in the fifth century BC, was not to oppose the Lucanian threat, but to oppose the power of Thurii and Locri who were supported by Athens and Sparta and threatened the political power of Croton and the trade on the
Tyrrhenian sea. The League that was formed at the beginning of the 4th century was to oppose the aggression of Dyonisos I of Syracuse who wanted control over the sea straits, and, around 390 BC, also to oppose the Lucanians with whom Dyonisos I of Syracuse had formed an alliance. Herakleia eventually was conquered by Alexander I of Epirus around 330-326 BC.51
In my interpretations in section 7.3. I’ll come back to the consequences of this histoire
événementielle for the settlement dynamics in the Sinni valley. The survey for the CAVS
clearly shows the increase in farmsteads, necropoleis and other site types from the Lucanian period onward. But these sites do not represent the complete infill of the Classical-Lucanian landscape of the Sinni valley. Many sites, also from other periods, are missing. This can be caused by post-depositional processes, like for example sedimentation, but also by research biases, as shown in the next chapter.
49 Adamesteanu1985: 93.
50
Wonder 2012: 128-151.
23
3. Biases and problems
Many biases and problems can occur when collecting and processing archaeological data. They can roughly be divided into conceptual biases and survey biases. Van Leusen52 defines these as follows: “ Conceptual biases are biases caused by the classification of data under
preconceived concepts. These play an important role at all scales and stages of archaeological enquiry and include the tendency to study only some geographical, typological, and chronological parts of the available archaeological record.” And:
“Visibility biases are research biases caused by regional and local variations in the visibility of the archaeological record.”
Some of these biases occur in the research concept of the Carta Archeologica della Valle del
Sinni, others are typical for the archaeology as a whole in the period under investigation, and
still others only pose a problem for my research.
3.1. Conceptual biases and problems
One bias can be the accent on one particular site type or period. The researchers that made the
CAVS however succeeded to include all periods, from the Neolithic until Medieval and
beyond, and all site types, from small material scatters to large settlements and castles. The research in the valley of the Sinni can be seen as positively influencing the over-estimation and highlighting of Greek colonial influence in South Italy and upgrading of the culture of indigenous people living in the inland regions. But some conceptual biases are present.
One of the main biases is caused by the concept used to make the CAVS. The actual surveys were carried out by many students, divided in 12 teams.53 The students had to survey the region where they grew up. In a way this makes sense because they know their
environment the best, but it becomes problematic when each student uses his own way to describe a site. Because in the CAVS there is no clear definition of the various site types used, the interpretation remains unclear. For example the term insediamento can be translated as settlement and abitato as habitation area, although Vanzetti54 translates abitato as settlement. Also the term area di insediamento is used in combination with fattoria. I solved this problem by taking in consideration the sizes of the find-scatter and boundaries of the area in which the site is located. For example a pottery scatter with a cross section of about 10 to 20 meters, marked as abitato, may very well be a small farm, whereas three or more of such scatters on a confined plateau could be seen as an insediamento. This is the case with the Marcellino area,
52 Van Leusen 2002: 4-5. 53
Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2003a: 47.
24 where various sites are defined as abitato, but together they may form a settlement, or at least a cluster of dwellings. Furthermore the terms impianto rustico, edificio rustico, villa rustica,
casa rustica and struttura rurale that are mentioned in the CAVS could very well mean a
farmhouse or fattoria and thus are marked as such in my catalogue.
There were also many variations in describing the various periods, thus the period indications had to be sorted out. For the Archaic I took steps from 600-550, 550-500, 500-480 BC, for the Classical/Lucanian period 500-480-400, 400-350, 350-325 BC, and for the Hellenistic/Lucanian period 325-300, 300-250, 250-200 BC. I used these steps because sometimes the period name was used, and sometimes a more exact date was used like for example the first half of a certain century. Later I combined them to form the period
indication ‘Archaic’ from 600 to 480 BC, and ‘Classical-Lucanian’ from 480 to 325 BC. The dating by the researchers in the CAVS was based on the pottery finds.
Another bias is posed by the period interpretation. There seems to be an overall
variation in dating the Archaic and Classical periods. For mainland Greece the Archaic period is from 750 until 480 BC. In South-Italy it runs from 750 until 480 BC for the Greek colonies and from 600 to 480 for the indigenous world. 55 The Classical period is roughly the same for all regions, 480-325 BC, but for the Salento isthmus the Archaic/Classical period is dated from 570/550 until 340/330. According to Yntema56 the problem lies in the fact that the names are the same as the period indications for Greece or Central Italy, but there can be a difference in dating and meaning. Horsnæs57 combines the Archaic and Classical period and places the transition to the Lucanian period somewhere in the (second half of the) 5th century BC. From this point of view it makes the Classical period also Oenotrian. And then Lucanians arrive, descendants of Samnites from northern regions of Italy, with their own ethnic identity. This should be visible in the way they build houses, in clothing, in burial customs, in religious activities and in the type of pottery they use. It is customary to use pottery types for the dating of, for example, building-structures. In this way a chronology for archaeological materials is established. But, as Horsnæs states: “…..pottery can rarely be absolutely dated with any
greater precision than approximately half a century.”, and “The dating of pottery is normally based on a typological sequence, and the absolute dates of each typological step are often estimated.” Only in some cases, like for example a grave context, can an absolute date be
given. For habitation areas this is much more difficult, since they have been in use for a
55 Attema et al. 2010: 60. 56
Yntema 2001: 13-15.
25 certain period of time. Multiple generations may have lived in the same house and pottery may have been used as a way of tradition.
For a long time the lack of archeological material from the period between 475 and 425 BC, the so-called Dark Age, has been attributed to a crisis caused by the invasion of Lucanians. But more and more it is thought to be a dating problem.58 In my opinion it is the Classical period that poses the problem: is it Oenotrian or Lucanian? I agree with Rescigno59 that the first part of the Classical period, from 475 to 425 BC is a transition period in which an Oenotrian community, with Greek influences, became strongly Lucanian influenced. For dividing the periods, I chose to start the Classical period at 480 BC, together with the
Lucanian period. Many of the Lucanian sites in the CAVS are described as 4th-3rd century BC. These may fall in the second part of the Classical period. There are also sites that are referred to as Hellenistic-Lucanian, but this is not my target group, since this is Early Hellenistic and not the Classical period. The Hellenistic-Lucanian period ends with the Second Punic war (218-201). Where sites in the CAVS were described as Lucanian I assumed they meant the whole period, so also the first part of the Classical period. I made an exception for sites that have pottery that can be assigned to the whole Lucanian period, but on which the only datable material was Early Hellenistic. These sites I dated Early Hellenistic-Lucanian. A huge
problem here is the fact that the CAVS never mentions a ‘Classical’ period. In Volume 2 there are descriptions of sites that have been in continuous use from the Archaic until the Late Republican period, or from the Iron Age until the Hellenistic period60, while the pottery that is described is from the Iron Age, Archaic, Early Hellenistic and/or Late Republican periods. There is no mention of a period between the Archaic and Hellenistic. Instead Rescigno uses the term ‘fase Lucana’ and refers to Torelli and Pontrandolfo who mention a transition fase from an Oenotrian to a Lucanian society in the first half of the 4th century BC.61 For the Basilicata area I will use 600 to 480 BC for the Archaic and 480 to 325 BC for the Classical period, which I will refer to as the ‘Classical-Lucanian’ period (see table 3.1). My study object, the small farmstead, is located in the inland region and therefore I will use the period indication for the indigenous world in South Italy and not the dating for the Greek colonies of the Archaic period.
58
Yntema 2001: 5.
59 Rescigno refers to Torelli 1992 and Pontrandolfo 1996. In: Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2001b: 208-214. 60 For example sites 2, 32, 35. These sites are described with an arrow between the earliest and latest period of
use. It can be assumed that this means: from....until....
26
Table 3.1. Time-table for the Archaic, Classical and Early-Hellenistic periods in South Italy and Greece.
Another bias is posed by the description of the pottery. First, the pottery finds are roughly described, followed by a more detailed description of a selection of the sherds. This means that not all of the pottery is specified. And second: in Volume 4 of the CAVS an overview of the pottery types is made by Rescigno.62 However, only Volumes 3 and 4 make consequent use of this typology coding. In the other volumes it is not used at all or just
occasionally in the notes. Most of the time the pottery descriptions in these volumes cannot be connected to a typology of Rescigno while the description of the clay or fabrics do not match. This problem was solved by adding my own codes to Rescigno’s typology (see section 5.1. and 5.2.). And third: there is the problem with the pottery of period and/or multi-functional sites. When a site consists of multiple period finds, and the pottery is not specified to individual periods, it can be very difficult to separate the ceramics, especially the kitchen ware, andallocate them to a specific period(for example site 379).Therefore I only used the multi-period sites of which the pottery is described per period, or when sherds are specifically assigned to a period.And when a site type is a combination of both habitation area and tomb or necropoli, most of the time it will be impossible to separate the pottery. The same goes for the combination of a fattoria and fornace. One cannot be sure that the pottery that was made in these kilns was not produced for funerary use.
3.2. Visibility and research biases and problems
Visibility problems within the surveyed areas caused by vegetation cover, are biases beyond influence of the researchers.63 It can become a problem when quantification of the find material is essential, but also for spatial analysis. A correction can be made based on the visibility percentage. In the research for making the CAVS however this was not considered an important issue, although bad visibility did pose a problem in some locations where it was not
62 Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2001b:157-202.
63 Other visibility factors are stoniness of the terrain, shadiness, tillage/dust amount of recent material on the
surface. For more information on post-depositional and research biases see Van Leusen 2002: chapter 4; Van Leusen & Attema 2003: 401-406; Attema et al. 2010:172-173.
PERIOD SINNI VALLEY INDIGENOUS PEOPLE SOUTH ITALY GREEK COLONIES SOUTH ITALY MAINLAND GREECE ARCHAIC 600 - 480 BC 600 - 480 BC 750 - 480 BC 750 - 480 BC CLASSICAL 480 - 325 BC (CLASSICAL-LUCANIAN) 480 - 325 BC 480 - 325 BC 480 - 325 BC
27 possible to survey thoroughly because of the crops that were grown on the site. For example on site 104 the grain growing on the field made it very difficult to survey, whereas on site 113 the visibility was bad due to the fact that the grain had been harvested but the land was still covered with stubbles.64
Visibility problems due to erosion and sedimentation are also called post-depositional biases. Effects of erosion and sedimentation on archaeological remains can be severe (see also section 2.4), especially in an area like the valley of the Sinni. Rainfall causes more or less erosion of the slopes depending on various factors. First of all the vegetation cover has an influence on the erosion as this intercepts and absorbs water. An absence of vegetation causes gullies, rills or sheet erosion. Another important factor is the soil texture and the type of bedrock. Open-structured soils permit water to percolate rapidly, whereas clayey soils don’t. Also jointed bedrock permits percolation. The third factor is soil moisture. Water saturated soils cannot absorb much additional water and cause water to runoff on the surface.65 As a consequence archaeological remains can be exposed by erosion or covered by sedimentation. Especially on higher parts of a slope and at the edge of a hilltop it can also cause down-slope dispersion of archaeological materials. A certain (small) deviation from the exact position of sites on these locations has to be taken into account.
Another post-depositional anthropological factor to consider is farming. An effect of ploughing or tilling is horizontal dispersion. This makes archaeological scatters less dense and somewhat larger. Also, each time about 5% of the artifacts in the plough zone will be
ploughed up with larger items showing op more frequently than smaller.66
Furthermore the accuracy of the surveyors is a fact to consider. This can cause observer biases, i.e. the ability of the observer to record the available finds.67 It can vary during the day when one gets tired, or with the focus of surveyors on one special type of material, for
example bright colored pottery, impasto or flint. The large amounts of Fine ware and Black Gloss on the Classical-Lucanian farm sites may very well be such an observer bias.
A research problem poses the way site positions were measured. Various techniques were used in the CAVS, ranging from triangulation and drawing on a paper map, to absolute positioning by G.P.S.68 Since the site catalogue description does not mention which technique was used, the reliability of the location coordinates cannot be one 100% and slight deviations
64
G.L.Grassigli, in: Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2001a: 32, 38
65 For more information on hydrological processes see Goldberg & Macphail 2006: 72-84. 66 Richards 2008: 555.
67
Van Leusen 2002: 4-7.
28 have to be taken into account. This causes a problem for calculating slope preferences for the farm sites when the aspect is not specifically mentioned in the site description of the CAVS (table 6.4. and 6.5.). Also a bias in making a viewshed analysis can occur (see chapter 6).
3.3. Other biases and problems
The access to a survey location can be an issue. Some areas are easily accessible, others are remote and hard, or maybe impossible, to reach.69 Many of the sites in the CAVS are next to roads or close to modern farms. Some forested areas were not surveyed, possibly because they were too densely wooded.70 But there was still another accessibility problem when surveying the Sinni valley. Sometimes the landowner gave no permission to enter the property; for example site 137 and 139 could not be surveyed, though it was known that on this location a
necropoli from the Hellenistic-Lucanian period existed and that tombs had been looted by
clandestine diggers.71 These clandestine digs by so-called tombaroli pose another problem. If a site is destroyed by robbers, it can become impossible to determine the site type. Some of these sites can only be described as area di materiali, material scatters. An example is site 286 where not even the period can be established anymore.
Also some sites have been destroyed by modern building activities and because of this the site boundaries can no longer be established (site 379).
And, last but not least, there is the problem of hear-say. Occasionally there is a story that someone found something in a remote past and claimed that it was a tomb (site 243), but these stories often are difficult to verify.
Still, despite of biases and problems, the dataset from the CAVS provides an immense amount of information to work with.
69 Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2003a: 42.
70 In volume 8 of the Carta Archeologica the survey routes are drawn visualizing the order in which the sites
were visited.
29
4. Data description and site catalogue
4.1. The data from the Carta Archeologica della Valle del Sinni
Between 1996 and 2003 a huge archaeological investigation was undertaken in the valley of the Sinni, conducted by the Italian government, the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR). It was part of CNR’s ‘Progetto Mezzogiorno’ and was, among others, aimed at promoting, guide and coordinate research activities of research institutes, and support
publication. Two professorial chairs on ancient Italian Topography were appointed: one at the Second University of Naples and the other at the University of Bologna. Other Universities involved were Roma-La Sapienza and Lecce University.72 A map was made for the middle and upper Sinni valley with the objective to make an inventory of historical and
archaeological sites under risk and to be able to protect these sites better from clandestine digs. 930 sites were located and described in 8 volumes of the Carta Archeologica della Valle
del Sinni, divided in 16 maps (fig. 4.1).
Fig. 4.1. Map division of Sinni valley. Source: Carta Archeologica della Valle del Sinni volume 8: 11
The following catalogue of Archaic and Classical-Lucanian sites is based on these data. It has a period table attached to it to visualize the period in which the site was in use (appendix 2,
30 digital version). In a spreadsheet the coordinates of the sites are imported, as well as period, site type, location, height above sea level, vicinity of springs, relation to other sites and other remarks. The Archaic sites are discussed in section 4.2. and the Classical sites in section 4.3. The interpretation of the function of a site was based on the pottery type, location,
geomorphology, and consistency of the site, and comparison of the find materials to those on other sites.73 Allocating or rejecting sites was based on the description in the CAVS. If a site was stated to be Archaic it was included in the catalogue. For the Classical-Lucanian period the problem remains that in the CAVS the term ‘Classical’ is not used. Instead they name this period Lucanian or sometimes Hellenistic-Lucanian. Since the Lucanian period runs roughly from 480 to 200 BC74, there is an overlap with the Early Hellenistic period (325-200 BC). As this is not the period I am researching, I rejected all sites that clearly mention Hellenistic-Lucanian, or where the pottery description mentions sherds dating in the last quarter of the 4th century BC. Sites that are dated in the 4th-3rd centuries BC and named Lucanian, I included in the catalogue, although there is a chance that they are partly Early Hellenistic. If there is no mention of a Hellenistic period or sherds specifically dated in this period, I assumed that the writers of the CAVS mean that the site is Lucanian from before the Hellenistic period.
4.2. The Archaic sites
In the valley of the Sinni 25 Archaic necropoli and/or tombs were located, 20 habitation locations (villages, undefined living areas and farms), three cult places, two defense or observation posts and four locations of unknown use.
4.2.1. Farmsteads
Site 32: Casino Melidoro (26402041-4444783)75
This site has been in use from the Archaic until the Late Republican Period. It is situated on the mountain side of the road leading from Valsinni to San Giorgio Lucano, and about 500 meters from the Sarmento river at an altitude of 280 meters above mean sea level (see fig.6.7). In an area with an approximate diameter of 50 meters, the following pottery sherds were found: coarse grey or (dark) orange, compact and powdery sherds. Also sherds of grayish or pinkish compact clay with many siliceous grains were found, as well as flat tiles in pink-beige
73 Quilici & Quilici-Gigili 2003a: 48. 74
Horsnæs 2002: 21-22.
31 compact clay, with many coarse siliceous inclusions. This material was dated Archaic to Late Archaic. From the Hellenistic-Lucanian period pieces of small vases in beige or yellowish depurated, compact and powdery clay were found, and of medium and large objects in pinkish, hard, compact, depurated clay with a powdery or slippery surface. Also pottery fragments from the Late Republican period were found, but as this period is not part of my research subject, I will not discuss these finds.76
Site 35: Zolinara di sopra (2643315-4444585)
Zolinara is situated along a wagon trail that follows the hill-side (see fig.6.7). At an altitude of 435 meters above mean sea level, at the highest part of the contrada Zolinara at the source of the fosso Cornalito fragments of olle (pots) are found. Their fabric is of handmade impasto, grayish brown with lots of siliceous inclusions, and pieces of hard reddish-brown impasto, with a black core, and tempered with a lot of quartz. Also wheel-made parts of vessels77 in coarse (bright)beige depurated compact clay, soft, powdery with many calcareous inclusions occurred. These fragments are dated in the Early Iron Age and the Archaic period. From the Hellenistic-Lucanian period pieces of kitchen ware in bright pink, depurated soft clay are found, also pieces of brown jugs for cooking with black insides, hard, with many inclusions, fragments of large jugs or dolia in orange clay of a coarse texture and with few large
inclusions, and flat roof tiles with quarter-circle edges in pink compact clay. Also pottery from the Early Imperial period was located. Based on the pottery the site is categorized as a farmstead.78
Site 395: Masseria Manca d’Aloia (2627601-4451374)
Next to the Masseria, on a ridge, a large area occurs with a variation of ceramics (impasto, black gloss, ceramica comune, tiles) in a low concentration. Somewhat slope upward there is a scatter with a diameter of c.10 meters with many fragments of coppe (cups) and a few pieces of tile. Down slope, right under this scatter, on the other side of a path, many fragments of black gloss and some fragments of ceramica figurata italiota were found. The site is a fattoria with burial ground from the Lucanian period, but was already in use in protohistory. In the large area, where the fattoria might have been, impasto has been found: wall fragments with a cordone, and pieces of large containers of a compact, bright orange impasto with very
76 Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2002: 63. 77
Quilici (2002 : 64) mentions ‘pezzi di grossa ceramica vascolare.’ This might be storage wear or dolium.
32 dark-red inclusions. Also Banded ware, Red Figured Italic ware, use ware and cooking ware was found.79 Unfortunately, the ceramics are not assigned to a specific period, although Banded Ware can be dated to the Archaic period. In my opinion it is very possible that there has been a farm at this location in the Archaic period, also because in the nearby Marcellino area there was a village that has been in use during the same time span.80
Site 866: Alta valle del Sinni (2601330-4436726)
Site 866 is situated in the Alta valle del Sinni in the part of the Bosco di Latronico that is named Malboschetto, a densely forested area at 680 meters above mean sea-level and about 50 meters above the Sinni river bed (see fig.6.8). It is near an ancient mulattiera, a
mountaintrail or transhumance route, that leads to Latronico. Only small fragments of pottery were found at this site, which is classified as an Archaic farmhouse.There were sherds of clear brown compact clay with small siliceous inclusions, and pieces of possible dolium made of a beige sandy clay with a grey core the fabric, and lots of small and larger pebbles. Also a base of a ciotola con piede ad anello, a bowl or drinking cup with a foot ring, was found, in a red-brown compact clay with many siliceous grains. The site is dated to the Archaic period, based on the pottery finds.81
Site 870: Alta valle del Sinni (2603016-4436562)
This farmstead is situated at Rocazza, at 618 meters above mean sea level, approximately 70 meters on the left bank of the fosso Rocazza and 130 meters from its confluence with the Sinni river (see fig.6.8). Only a few small pieces of pottery are found here: sherds of clear beige compact clay with a grey core and a tempering of many small and somewhat larger pebbles. Also a base of a bacino, a basin, of compact orange-red clay with many large
siliceous grains was found here as well as flat fragments of tiles in a hard reddish-brown clay with many large siliceous grains. The pottery was dated to the Archaic.82
Site 893: Acqua Reninella (2600060-4434149)
On the north slope of the hill of Acqua Reninella (see fig.6.6), at an altitude of 855 meters above mean sea level, in an area rich with water sources, the surveyors discovered many ceramics. Hand-made pottery was found: brown sandy impasto with a grey core, and many
79 These wares will be described with the Lucanian sites. 80 Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2001b: 137-141.
81
Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2003b: 157.
33 small inclusions; also fragments of olette (small pots) in a brown and brownish-grey colour with large siliceous grains; olle in a beige, very depurated and compact powdery clay. These finds are dated to the end of the Iron Age83 and to the Archaic period. Also pottery sherds from the Hellenistic-Lucanian to the Late Republican period are found here, but as they are not separately described it is not possible to distinguish between the two periods.84
Site 895: Rupe di Langra (2599585-4434864)
On the far eastern part of the steep cliffs of the Langra (see fig.6.6), at 900 meters above mean sea level, in a cultivated field, many crushed and crumbled pieces of pottery were found. The diameter of this site is approximately 20 meters. Fragments of olle in brown sandy clay with a grey core and tempered with many small grains were found; also in brown clay with many coarse siliceous grains; and in beige or grayish-beige compact clay with many grains. From the Hellenistic-Lucanian period the following pottery was found: fragments of brocchette (jugs) in hard, compact, warm-orange clay tempered with a few small siliceous grains; anfore and brocche in compact orange-brown or pink clay with a few small siliceous grains; hard, coarse ware pentolini da fuoco (cooking pots) in red-brown or black clay, with siliceous inclusions; a piece of a kalypter hegemon (cover tile), ribbed on the back, and pieces of flat tile with a quarter-circle edge, both in orange-brown or pink clay with many siliceous inclusions. These tiles have a hard structure, but in the same time they easily pulverize.85
4.2.2. Undefined habitation areas Site 5: Timpa del Ponto (2643130-4448463)
Timpa del Ponto is situated at the narrowest point of the valley where the Sinni runs between the Monte Coppola and the Colobraro. The valley is at most 30 meters wide here, which makes this location very strategic. It divides the valley in a downstream area towards the sea, and an upstream area, the middle and high valley. The name Ponto refers to ’punta di roccia
che segna il limite di una zona’, rock point that marks a border. An ancient mulattiera runs
along the river, and the habitation area dominates the passage. The site was used from the Middle Bronze Age until the Hellenistic-Lucanian period. At least during the 4th century BC there was a necropolis and habitation area belonging together. The site is heavily damaged by
83 During the 8th-7th centuries BC there already existed a farm at this location. See Quilici & Quilici-Gigli
2003b: 208.
84
Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2003b: 207-208.
34 quarrying activities in the recent past, of the highest part of the hill only an area of 35 x 40 meters survived. Here the archaeological remains are located. The finds show a continuity in use of the place, but there is no certainty as to the type: whether it is a village or just a strategic (border) place. It certainly is not a farmstead.86
Site 146: Masseria Vuccarone (2638750-4445450)
On 390-400 meters above mean sea level on a steep slope overlooking the Sarmento river a concentration of material is found in an area of 80 x 50 meters. The pottery scatter on this site gives an indication for habitation during the early Iron Age and in the Archaic period, as well as the presence of a farm during the late Republican period. The Archaic period is dated by the finds of brown impasto (sabbiato o meno: polished or non-polished?) mixed with many grains (granetti).87
4.2.3. Villages/settlements Site 1: Il Pizzo (2644200-4448780)
This hilltop site, at 332 meters above mean sea level and 211 meters above the left bank of the Sinni, has been in use from the middle Bronze Age until the 2nd century BC, both as a
settlement and as a sanctuary. The pottery that was found here, was dated in the Middle and Late Bronze Age, the 7th- 6th centuries BC, and the 5th to 2nd centuries BC.
Site 11: Timpa di Mezzo (2641970-4446410)
Near the confluence of Sarmento with the Sinni, on a north slope, small fragments of pottery were found, extremely dispersed by agricultural work. They were dated to an Archaic village at the crossroads of two ancient mulattiere: one coming from the Monte Coppola and the other from Valsinni along the bank of the Sarmento to its confluence with the Ragone.88
Site 13: Monte ( 2642000-4445510)
On a less steep part of a slope a pottery concentration with a diameter of 25 meters was located, spreading as far as the road from Valsinni to San Giorgio Lucano that lies 100 meters
86 Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2002: 26-29. 87
Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2001a:76-78.
35 further down slope. Handmade as well as wheel made pottery was found here, dating to an early Archaic village.89
Site 71: Cersosimo Castello (2635433-4433575)
The isolated hilltop above the town of Cersosimo has a flat top, on which dry-stone walls are found. These walls confine the area of an acropolis with two rectangular structures which were located in excavations carried out by de La Genière in 1969 and 1986. The 1986 excavation revealed habitation since the Middle Bronze Age. Finds are dated to the 15th century BC, the 6th and 5th centuries BC, the end of the 4th century BC and the mid 3rd century BC. It is uncertain if the settlement was in use during the whole period from the Middle bronze Age onward and also the date of abandonment remains unclear.90
Site 221: Colobraro (2641400-4449630)
On the top of a steep cliff, at the modern village of Colobraro, impasto sherds were found, as well as terra sigillata and medieval pottery. The site has been used from the Bronze Age until today.91
Site 396: Lardereio-Marcellino (2624045-4449200)
In this walled area on the western slope of the ridge where site 395 is situated, ceramics, tiles of bright-pink compact clay with rounded edge, and construction stones are found. Also a piece of Oenotrian painted pottery was found here. This site is part of the village of the Roccanova-Marcellino area (sites 395, 396, 39792, 398, 399, 400, 401, and 402) which has been in use from the Oenotrian Iron Age until within the Lucanian period.93
Site 398: Marcellino-Lardereio (2624090-4449150)
This part of the village with necropoli is separated from site 396 by a modern road, which has the same orientation as the ancient road excavated by de La Genière in 1967.94 Painted
Oenotrian pottery was found, Greek colonial ware (Coppa Ionica) and Black Gloss.95
89 Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2002: 41. 90 Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2002: 190-205. 91
Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2001a: 164-169.
92 Site 397 is a wall, excavated by de La Genière, as part of the excavation of the Roccanova site. 93 Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2001b: 141-142.
94
Horsnæs 2002: 166-167.
36
Site 399-400: Marcellino-Masseria Sironti (2624220-4448930)
A large amount of building materials like tiles and conglomerate blocks are found here, and also several Black Gloss pottery sherds.96
Site 787: Colle dei Greci (2609329-4437842)
This site is situated on a flat part of the isolated hilltop of the Colle dei Greci, about 924 meters above mean sea level. It represents a village that was occupied from the Archaic into the Lucanian period. Based on the finds and location of the nearby necropolis (site 795) the researchers claimed the habitation to start in the beginning of the Archaic period. The location of the site indicates control over the route from the coast to the inland.97
4.2.4. Cult places
Site 1: Il Pizzo (2644200-4448780)
On this site a fragment of a votive statue, dated in the 2nd or beginning of the 1st century BC, was found. The absence of roof-tiles assumes an open-air sanctuary. Finds are dated in the middle and late Bronze Age, the 7th -6th centuries BC and between the 5th and 2nd centuries BC. Based on the large Bronze Age dolia concentration on the top of the hill, Quilici assumes that a sanctuary already existed in this period.98
Site 30: San Nicola (2644450-4445230)
Just below the saddle that connects the Monte Coppola with the more inland mountains, a small church is built on a location that is well-protected from the winds by the mountain that lies behind it. It is a favorable, very sunny location where a rich water source surfaces, close to the mountain-pass. This location has probably been a cult place from the Middle Bronze Age onward, even up to the present day. At the time a small church occupies the area. During construction works at the site, stratigraphic layers of pottery sherds from the Bronze Age until the Imperial period were found, and also remains from the Norman period99.
96 Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2001b: 143. 97 Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2003b: 50-56. 98
Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2002: 19-20.
37
Site 524: Contrada San Pasquale (2623940-4442290)
During building activities on the south area of the slope, remains of a cult place with water source came to light. Excavation by the Soprintendenza revealed a terraced area with parallel walls, two small structures and remains of a covered portico or colonnade. The place was dedicated to a fertility goddess, probably Mefitis. Based on oral information from what is said to be a reliable source by the researcher, there have been finds of coppe ioniche, ionian type cups, and bronze phialai, round ritual vessels, indicating that the site may have been in use already from the 6th century BC.100
4.2.5. Defense or observation posts Site 9: Timpa del Molino (2641350-4446507)
Site 9 is situated on the top of a steep slope on the right of the Sarmento, close to its confluence with the Sinni. Handmade impasto was found here, together with wheel-turned fragments of closed-shaped pottery. This site is identified as an arroccamento, an
entrenchment from the Archaic, and probably in use even earlier.101
Site 904: Tempa Arena Bianca (2597361-4436353)
The Tempa Arena Bianca has an altitude of 906 meters above mean sea level and is situated close to the confluence of the Cogliandrino with the Sinni. On the south slope, at 890 meters above sea level there is a small, flat area where fragments of a handmade impasto jug together with wheel-turned depurated bright orange sherds are found. The ceramics are dated to the 8th-6th centuries BC and probably belong to an observation post to control the pass.102
4.3. Classical-Lucanian sites
From the Classical-Lucanian period (480-325 BC) 49 necropoleis, 45 farmsteads, eight villages, two pottery production sites, six habitation areas, and three cult places are known in the valley of the Sinni. There are also 68 sites that could not be assigned to one of the site types mentioned above. Of the 47 fattorie, seven are combined with a fornace or kiln. Of the two pottery production sites that are mentioned, the first one is connected to a fattoria site but
100 Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2001c: 125-126. 101
Quilici & Quilici-Gigli 2002: 37-40.
