We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2013
To theorize with regard to the development of South Italy in prehistoric times is at once easy and dangerous: easy because the ascertained facts to be accounted for are few, dangerous because the chance of new and disconcerting discoveries is greatest in an unexplored territory. At the same time the theory which is at present most widely held with regard to the early iron age in South Italy is not entirely convincing. Until recently the history of South Italy in pre-Roman times was almost a complete blank, no explanation being possible because there were no facts to be explained. But the discoveries at Torre del Mordillo, Spezzano Calabrese, Piedimonte d'Alife, Cuma, Suessola, and other places have lately provided a certain basis for construction. Very few attempts, however, have been made to supply the explanation of these data; indeed archaeologists were already well employed upon the far more copious material of Northern and Central Italy. But in 1899 interest in the south of the Peninsula was heightened by Quagliati's discovery of a terramara at Tarentum. To anyone who has examined the immense mass of material from this site there can be no particle of doubt that the terramara of Scoglio del Tonno at Tarentum is exactly identical in type with the terremare of the Po valley.
page 285 note 1 Notizie degli Scavi, 1888, pp. 239, 462, 575, 648.
page 285 note 2 Not. Scav. 1902, pp. 33 sqq.
page 285 note 3 Annali dell' Istituto, 1884, p. 225.
page 285 note 4 Patroni, , Nuovi monumenti di una Cuma italica anteriore alla fondazione della colonia greca, in Bull. Pal. xxv. p. 183Google Scholar. Most of the Cuman material, now in the Naples Museum, is shortly to be published. Not. Scav. 1896, pp. 531 sqq. Bull. Pal. xxiii. pp. 44 sqq.
page 285 note 5 Not. Scav. 1878, pp. 97 sqq. and 1879, pp. 69, 187; Bullettino dell' Istituto, 1878, p. 145 and 1879, p. 141; Römische Mittheilungen, 1887, p. 235.
page 285 note 6 Not. Scav. 1900, pp. 411 sqq.
page 286 note 1 Bull. Pal. xxvi. p. 21.
page 286 note 2 Not. Scav. 1888, p. 240 and Bull. Pal. passim.
page 286 note 3 Montumenti Antichi, ix. 610, note I. For similar views expressed previous to the new discovery see Bull. Pal. xxv. 193 and xxvi. 182–3.
page 286 note 4 Mon. Ant. vol. xvi. Part I, and Not. Scav. 1900, p. 345.
page 286 note 5 Bull. Pal. xxvii. 22.
page 286 note 6 Bull. Pal. xxvii. 55, note 1.
page 286 note 7 Bull. Pal. xxvii. 24.
page 287 note 1 Allevi, G. Offida preistorica, 1889, pp. 31–32.
page 287 note 2 Bull. Pal. xxii. 289
page 288 note 1 Montelius, , La Civilisation Primitive en Italie, vol. iGoogle Scholar. tav. 38, Fig. 15, tav. 39, Figs. 11 and 16.
page 288 note 2 Bull. Pal. xxvii. 16–17.
page 288 note 3 Bull. Pal. xxvii. 17.
page 288 note 4 The map indicates the principal localities where remains of the early iron age have been found and the groups into which they fall. Those marked with some form of square are due to the Italici descending from the North; those marked with some form of circle to the original Ibero-Liguri of the neolithic age. The complete isolation of the Italici at Timmari is evident. The map also shows how the civilization of the group marked Novilara moves southwards up the river-valley, converging on Alfedena, and suggesting that it penetrated into Campania.
page 289 note 1 Brizio, in Mon. Ant. vol. vGoogle Scholar. and Mariani, in Mon. Ant. vol. xGoogle Scholar.
page 289 note 2 Brizio, in Mon. Ant. vol. vGoogle Scholar. and Mariani, in Mon. Ant. vol. xGoogle Scholar.
page 291 note 1 l.c. and Bull. Pal. xxvii. 41.
page 291 note 2 Mariani, l.c.
page 291 note 3 Mon. Ant. vol. v. pp. 296–7, Figs. 77 and 78.
page 292 note 1 Compare, Mon. Ant. x. pp. 278–282Google Scholar, Figs. 16b, 18a, 19b, 20b, 21b with Ann, 1st. 1884, tav. O, Figs. 1 and 12.
page 293 note 1 Mon. Ant. vol. ix. p. 546.
page 293 note 2 Mon. Ant. vol. viii. p. 418.
page 293 note 3 Mon. Ant. vol. ix. p. 569, Fig. 20.
page 294 note 1 E.g. at Grottaferrata. Cf. Not. Scav. 1902, pp. 135 sqq. and Mon. Ant. xv. p. 350.
page 294 note 2 Mon. Ant. vol. xv. tav. ix. Figs. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and pp. 697–8.
page 294 note 3 Bull. Pal. vol. xxvii. tav. iv. Fig. 3.
page 295 note 1 Mon. Ant. vol. x. pp. 396 sqq.
page 295 note 2 Cf. the ‘Sicilian’ pottery found in the terramara by Quagliati, now in the Museum at Tarentum and shortly to be published.
page 295 note 3 Bull. Pal. viii. p. 92.
page 296 note 1 Orsi instances the complete absence from Sicily during Period II of the bronze pins so common in the terremare and contemporary hut-settlements.
page 296 note 2 Compare the resemblances between the material, especially the bronzes, of Finocchito (Siculan Period III) and that of pre-Hellenic Campania. At the same time it is possible that the similarity is largely due to the same foreign influence acting on both districts.
