Etruscan Studies

Volume 8, Issue 1 2001 Article 1

The Process of Urbanization of Etruscan

Settlements from the Late Villanovan to the
Late Archaic Period (End of the Eighth to the
Beginning of the Fifth Century B.C.):
Presentation of a Project and Preliminary
Results
Stephan Steingräber∗

∗
Barbarano Romano (VT)

Copyright 2001
c by the authors. Etruscan Studies is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press
(bepress). http://scholarworks.umass.edu/etruscan studies
 The Process of Urbanization of
Etruscan Settlements from the
Late Villanovan to the Late Archaic
Period (End of the Eighth
to the Beginning of the Fifth
Century B.C.): Presentation of a
Project and Preliminary Results

by S t e ph a n S t e i n g r ä b e r

In memory of Nando and Sarah Cinelli

he following article is

T offered as a modest “alpnu”

(gift) in memory of two
marvelous persons, Count Nando
Cinelli and his wife Sarah, who
passed away during the first months
of 2002 and who, during the last
four decades, contributed much
energy, enthusiasm, and many
financial resources to the research
and a better understanding of
figure 1 – “Etruscan Day” in the Hispanic Society at New
Etruscan culture, especially among York in March 1999: Sarah and Nando Cinelli surrounded by
Americans and students. I am per- members of the Advisory Board of the Etruscan Foundation
sonally very grateful for their gener-
ous hospitality and stimulating encounters since 1993 in New York, Washington D.C., and
Spannocchia. The latter is the Cinelli’s beautiful Tuscan castle southwest of Siena where one
could feel still the spirit of Nando’s Etruscan ancestors, and where we gathered almost every
July in a friendly and relaxing atmosphere for a lecture on an interesting Etruscan topic, for
the meeting of the advisory board of the Etruscan Foundation, for discussions, and for a
delicious Tuscan banquet. I had the pleasure and honor to have been the speaker, once in
Washington and New York, and twice at Spannocchia, the last time in July 2001, when I pre-
sented for the first time my new research project on the process of urbanization in Etruria.
Unfortunately, Nando Cinelli was unable for health reasons to participate in this meeting.
Now, more then one year later, I would like to return to this important topic, to explain in
more detail the main reasons and aims of the project and to offer some first modest results.
It is well known that the ancient Mediterranean cultures developed mainly in cities.
The definition of “city” in the ancient world is a much discussed theoretical problem, to be
–7–
––––––––––––––––––––– U r b a n i z a t i o n o f E t r u s c a n S e t t l e m e n t s –––––––––––––––––––––

considered according to different periods and different cultural areas. In the Greek and
Roman world, “city” means mainly a community of citizens sharing a religious and cultur-
al identity, and living in a settlement characterized not only by private habitations, but by
public spaces and buildings for politics, religion, and trade. Such conditions were provided,
for example, by the Greek “polis” created between the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.
The “polis” included a kind of “urban center” and a clear division between public and pri-
vate areas and functions, consisting of the Agora, public buildings, urban sanctuaries, and a
possible city wall on the one hand, of living and working areas with private houses and
workshops on the other hand, and finally the necropoleis with the tombs generally situated
outside the city walls, often along the main roads. Generally we have to distinguish between
“gradually grown cities” (i.e., Athens and Rome) and “regularly planned cities” (mostly
colonial Greek foundations such as Megara Hyblaea and Selinus in Sicily and Metapontum
and Paestum in Southern Italy or the Latin-Roman colonial foundations such as Cosa). We
cannot transfer automatically such criteria from the Greek and Roman to the Etruscan
world. On the basis of the future results of the author’s project, we will need to define what
“city” in Etruria means and from what period and in which cases we really can speak about
“cities.” The definition of F. Kolb (Die Stadt im Altertum, 1984: 11ss.) of an ancient city
meeting six criteria may serve as a starting point:
1. topographic and administrative unity of the settlement;
2. number of population at least one or a few thousand inhabitants as a
necessary condition;
3. clear division of labor and social differentiation;
4. variety of architecture and buildings;
5. urban life style;
6. function of the settlement as a center for the surrounding territory.
There were three main reasons for choosing the present topic as a research project:
1. Particularly in the last two decades, research on ancient cities, including many
different aspects and specialists in different fields, has become a main focus of international
archaeological and historical investigation. To cite just one example, the German
Archaeological Institute (DAI) actually has fifty-eight projects in nineteen different coun-
tries, mainly in the Mediterranean and Near Eastern areas, but also beyond, concerning
“Stadtforschung” that is, research on ancient cities and urban cultures (A. Dossert, ed.,
Stadtforschung. Projekte des DAI, Berlin 2001).
2. My own studies in the preparation of an article on “Etruscan Urban Planning”
published in a reduced form in the catalogue of the recent exhibition in Venice (M. Torelli,
ed., The Etruscans, Milan, 2000: 291-311).
3. Thanks to a series of excavations, topographical investigations, and particular
studies mainly by American, British, French, German, Italian and Swedish scholars during
recent decades, our knowledge of the long neglected settlements and urban areas in Etruria
improved considerably in both quantity and quality of relevant data offering new stimula-
tion for systematic studies and searches. The XXIII Congress of the Istituto di Studi
Etruschi e Italici in October 2001 on the “dinamiche di sviluppo delle città nell’ Etruria
meridionale: Veio, Cerveteri, Tarquinia, Vulci” and the most recent Congress, Etruscans
–8–
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– S t e p h a n S t e i n g r ä b e r ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Now, held in the British Museum in

London in December 2002 are clear evi-
dence of this. Until recently one of the most
frequently encountered assertions about
the Etruscans was indeed that we know far
less about their cities, settlements, squares,
public buildings, and living areas and hous-
es than we do about their often extensive
necropoleis and magnificent tombs, the lat-
ter having been built or hewn out as if for
figure 2
eternity, and therefore much better pre-
served. This assertion, unfortunately, is still
mostly true but it has to be revised and
partly corrected. That we continue to know
far more about the world of the dead in
Etruria than we do about that of the living
can be explained easily by a number of
causes: cultural, religious, geological, and
building techniques, as well as by the histo-
ry of research itself. Etruscan tombs are
generally more massive and lasting in form
figure 3
than other buildings, which were mostly
constructed from far more precarious
materials. The Etruscans were indeed con-
spicuous among ancient peoples for the
working effort and financial resources they
were willing to invest in their tombs and
necropoleis and thus, so to speak, in what
lay beyond. Another significant factor is
that many Etruscan settlements, above all in
northern and inland Etruria (i.e., Volterra,
Arezzo, Cortona, Perugia, Chiusi,
figure 4
Orvieto), were later layered over by
Roman, medieval, and/or modern towns,
making systematic excavation and investi-

figure 2 – Ceri near Cerveteri located on a steep

tufa rock; figure 3 – Blera in the South Etruscan
rock tomb area located on a tufa rock; figure 4 –
Tuscania in the hinterland of Tarquinia: view
from the acropolis hill with mainly Roman
remains towards the Marta valley; figure 5 –
Pitigliano in the hinterland of Vulci located on a
tufa rock figure 5

–9–
––––––––––––––––––––– U r b a n i z a t i o n o f E t r u s c a n S e t t l e m e n t s –––––––––––––––––––––

gation almost impossible. Conditions are doubtless better in southern Etruria, where many
of the former settled plains (i.e., Vulci, Tarquinia, Cerveteri, Veii) have since been built over
only partially or not at all. The systematic excavation and exploration of the urban areas of
these famous south Etruscan metropoleis are just beginning and are among the most impor-
tant and fascinating tasks of modern Etruscology.
Excavations of settlements and topographical surveys in Etruria and etruscanized
areas of Italy by American, British, French, German, Italian, and Swedish scholars during
recent decades took place mainly in the following sites (in alphabetic order): Acquarossa,
Adria, Baggiovara/Case Vandelli, Bologna, Bolsena, Capua, Casalecchio di Reno, Castellina
del Marangone, Castelnuovo Berardenga, Castiglione di San Martino, Castiglion Fiorentino,
Cerveteri, Cetamura, Chiusi, Crespino/San Cassiano, Doganella, Forcello di Bagnolo
S.Vito, Ghiaccio Forte, Gravisca, Luni sul Mignone, Marzabotto, Massa Marittima/Accesa,
Montalcino/Poggio Civitella, Monte Castello di Procchio, Monterenzio/Monte Bibele,
Monteriggioni, Murlo/Poggio Civitate, Musarna, Poggio La Croce, Pontecagnano,
Populonia, Pyrgi, Roselle, San Giovenale, San Giuliano, Sant’Ilario d’Enza, Sovana, Spina,
Tarquinia, Trequanda, Veio, Verucchio, Vetulonia, Vicchio/Poggio Colla, Volterra and Vulci.
The level of our knowledge of these sites, of course, varies greatly and the settlements dif-
fer as to their importance and size, their geographic and geological situation, their chronol-
ogy and duration. Each case, therefore, has to be examined in its own right. A great quan-
tity of new documents, evidence, and perspectives, but also of new or still unresolved prob-
lems, result from these excavations and explorations, which were all done with different
techniques and sometimes with new methods as well.
The principal aim of this project is a critical collection of all possible data for the doc-
umentation of the decisive phase in the formation process of Etruscan settlements into real
“cities”: the Stadtwerdungsprozess in Etruria; the birth of the Etruscan “metropoleis” (such as
Tarquinia and Veii); the urbanistic development in Etruria, based on the archaeological remains
(including those from ongoing excavations) both in the Etruscan mainland and in the etr-
uscanized areas of the Padana and of Campania; the spatial and functional organization of the
Etruscan settlements and necropoleis. A series of questions and problems of archaeological
and historical nature, arising from this kind of critical catalogue of the archaeological data, will
have to be analyzed, particularly as they concern the structure and function of spaces
(Lebensräume) in the origin and development of public (-political), sacred religious, and pri-
vate spaces. This process of formation has to be seen, of course, in the historical and cultural
context with the Italic world, with Rome and with the Greek world, particularly with Eastern
Greek Ionia and with South Italian Magna Graecia and Sicily. Etruria has to be considered as
an important element involved in the history of ancient pre-Roman Italy, not as an isolated
phenomenon. In Etruria the process of urbanization started apparently earlier than in the areas
of other Italic cultures and was obviously conditioned also by a particular structure of society
and by a more advanced specialization and organization of labor and life. The Greek colonies
of Magna Graecia, especially those around the bay of Naples, undoubtedly contributed a lot
to the acceleration of the urbanization process in Etruria. Interesting models and comparisons
are offered by T. Hölscher in his study on the origins of public spaces in the Greek world
(Öffentliche Räume in frühen griechischen Städten, Heidelberg 1998) and by D. Mertens on
– 10 –
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– S t e p h a n S t e i n g r ä b e r ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

the genesis and development of the Greek city in Southern Italy and Sicily (A. Borbein - T.
Hölscher - P. Zanker., eds., Klassische Archäologie. Eine Einführung, Berlin, 2000: 229-250)
particularly regarding the cities of Metapontum, Paestum, Megara Hyblaea, and Selinus.
Methodologically we have to consider first of all the analysis of the archaeological
finds, but also, insofar as they exist, literary and epigraphic sources, the geophysical prospec-
tions (i.e., by the Fondazione Lerici in Tarquinia and the German Archaeological Institute in
Selinus), topographical surveys, air photos, paleo-anthropological, zoological, and botanical
finds (which can offer interesting information about the conditions of daily life). Maps and
ground plans of the cities and the main architectural complexes should be computerized true
to scale and according to the different phases of development. In the future we should also
take into consideration virtual reconstructions. The project is highly suitable for interdisci-
plinary cooperation among scholars of different fields, and is being done in close contact with
various colleagues and institutions of different nations specialized in Etruscan studies, includ-
ing universities, academies and soprintendenze and with the directors of the main settlement
excavations in Etruria. Concerning the technical aspects of the project, cooperations with the
Fondazione Lerici and some Japanese institutions are being planned.
A systematic study of the remains of Etruscan settlements with an urban structure
requires the consideration of many and various aspects, problems, and questions, among
which are:
1. the specific geographical and geological situation of the site;
2. the extension of the urban area - approximate number of inhabitants;
3. the possible existence and type of city walls, gates, fortifications and roads;
4. the duration and continuity or discontinuity of the settlement;
5. the prevailing socioeconomic character of the settlement, such as agricultural,
mineral, commercial, emporion, “potentato signorile,” etc.;
6. the type of city plan which reflects different systems of development, such as the
so-called “ancient cities irregularly grown” and the so-called “cities of a more recent foun-
dation regularly planned” (mainly situated in “colonial” areas or harbour towns and char-
acterized by orthogonal “hippodamean” models with insulae and a regular street system);
7. the relationship between built-up areas and those without buildings in the urban
area – density of built-up areas and exploitation of space;
8. the relationship between “city center,” “acropolis,” and “suburban” areas;
9. the position (and possible regularities) of public, sacred, and private spaces and
buildings in the urban area;
10. the typological, architectural, functional and social differences among the vari-
ous quarters of the urban area (i.e., craftsmen and industrial quarters);
11. the monumentalization and new techniques of architecture (i.e., clay bricks,
walls with pillars, architectural terracottas);
12. the necropoleis as partial reflections of the city concerning plan, street system,
squares, façades (i.e., in Cerveteri, Orvieto, and the south Etruscan rock necropoleis) and of
Etruscan houses;
13. the relationship between city and territory/“chora” as an expression of a dialec-
tic and dynamic process;
– 11 –
––––––––––––––––––––– U r b a n i z a t i o n o f E t r u s c a n S e t t l e m e n t s –––––––––––––––––––––

figure 6 figure 10

figure 7 figure 11

figure 8 figure 12

figure 6 – Saturnia in the hinterland of Vulci

located on a lime stone hill; figure 7 – The city
hill of Ghiaccio Forte in the hinterland of Vulci;
figure 8 – The city hill of Marsiliana d’Albegna
overlooking the Albegna valley; figure 9 – The
city hill of Populonia in a view from the San
Cerbone necropolis; figure 10 – The southern city
hill = Poggio Telegrafo of Populonia; figure 11 –
Central area of the Etruscan and Roman town of
Roselle; figure 12 – Archaic rectangular two-
room building in the central area of Roselle

figure 9

– 12

–
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– S t e p h a n S t e i n g r ä b e r ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

14. common elements and differences in the urban structure and organization
between the Etruscan cities and the Greek poleis.
Among all these aspects and problems, the question of since when and where one
can really distinguish between public(-political), sacred, and private space, and how these
spaces can be defined and characterized, arises. The distinction between the political and
sacred is particularly difficult in the earliest period, as it was emphasized by G.Sassatelli:
“...sacro e profano intrinsecamente compenetrati.” This process took place mainly between
the Late Villanovan and the Archaic period, partially under influences from the Near East
and the Greek world. For its reconstruction we have to examine especially some archaeo-
logical complexes excavated mostly during the last three decades, such as the “complesso
sacro-istituzionale” (area alpha) and the “tempio-altare” (building beta) on the urban plateau
of Tarquinia, the earliest buildings in the urban centers of Roselle and Pisa, the “acropolis”
of Veii/Piazza d’Armi and the so-called “palazzi” or “regiae” of Murlo/Poggio Civitate,
Acquarossa (building F), Cerveteri/Vigna Parrocchiale, Cerveteri-Montetosto, Rome, and
perhaps Tuscania, Poggio Buco, Castellina del Marangone, Casale Marittimo and also
Castelnuovo Berardenga. In South Latium we find parallels in Ficana, Cisterna, Velletri, and
Satricum. We also have evidence from findings of architectural terracottas, which may indi-
cate not only temples or religious buildings, but also aristocratic residences or public build-
ings. Possible models of these “palazzi”, symbols of really important innovations and aris-
tocratic seats both of public and private life, have been proposed in Cyprus (Vouni), Asia
Minor (Larisa) and Anatolia (Tell Taynat).

The future publication of this project could be structured in the following way:

Prolegomena: History of research - methods - aims

I. Critical catalogue of data concerning the archaeological finds in settlements of

Etruria and etruscanized areas of ancient Italy.
II. The geographic and geological situation and the territory context.
III. Systematic part
1. Public space
a) urban planning and street system
b) public squares
c) buildings with public(-political) character
d) city walls, gates and fortifications
e) harbors
f) water system: wells, cisterns, cuniculi
2. Sacred space: temples, sacred buildings, altars
3. Private space:
a) living houses
b) buildings for commercial, craft, trade, and industrial functions
4. Sepulcral space: the necropoleis and their relation to the city
IV. Historical and historico-cultural part: the Etruscan city in the Italic and
Mediterranean context
– 13 –
––––––––––––––––––––– U r b a n i z a t i o n o f E t r u s c a n S e t t l e m e n t s –––––––––––––––––––––

1. Foreign influences
a) from Near East
b) from Greece and Magna Graecia
2. Etruscan influences out of Etruria
3. City - necropoleis - territory
4. Economic bases - internal changes - social dynamics
V. Prospects for the postarchaic period: second half of 5th - 3rd/2nd century B.C.
VI. Summary and results - proposal for a definition of “city” in Etruria

In the following section I would like to present some summaries and preliminary
results concerning the main aspects of this project.

Dimensions and Demographics:

Whether they were naturally defended by deep gorges (as often in South Etruria) or
protected by surrounding walls (as mostly in North Etruria), the sites of Etruscan settlements
varied greatly in extent. Chief among the south Etruscan cities was Veii with 190 ha, followed
by Caere, Tarquinia and Vulci with ca. 150, 120 and 90 ha respectively. The inland cities of
Volsinii-Orvieto and Chiusi were built on sites measuring respectively 80 and 26 ha. In the
northwest, Populonia at 150 ha and Vetulonia at 100 ha were extremely large, while Roselle
was significantly smaller at 41 ha. In the inland of northern Etruria, only Volterra had a site of
over 100 ha. The northeastern towns Fiesole (30 ha), Arezzo (32 ha), Cortona (30 ha), and
Perugia (32 ha) were much smaller. It may be assumed that the larger city sites were never fully
built on and populated but used partly also for vegetable growing, pastural agriculture, stock
breeding and, in case of danger, as refuge for the population of the surrounding territory.
Population figures can certainly not be proved in absolute terms, and were in any case
subject to fluctuation over the centuries in accordance with historical developments and vary-
ing importance of the individual centers. We may, however, gain some interesting indications
as to population from the dimension of settlement, extent and density of necropoleis, certain
literary sources (and also from the capacity of theaters and amphitheaters of some Etruscan
cities in the early Roman imperial period). The remarkable population density of Cerveteri is
stressed in sources, and J. Heurgon has estimated some 25,000 inhabitants for the city at the
acme of its prosperity. That figure makes Cerveteri into a metropolis by ancient standards, at
least in the pre-Hellenistic era, with a population density of 160 to 170 inhabitants per ha. On
the basis of these various indices the following projections have been made for the most impor-
tant Etruscan cities at the peak of their power: Veii 32,000; Cerveteri and Populonia 25,000
each; Tarquinia 20,000; Vetulonia and Volterra 17,000 each; Vulci 15,000; Volsinii-Orvieto
13,000; Roselle 12,500; Perugia, Cortona and Arezzo 6,000 each; Chiusi 5,000.

Foundation and Planning:

In theory the foundation and planning of a new Etruscan city followed strictly
enjoined religious and ritual rules, which we know thanks to the Roman records of the
Etruscan Libri Rituales and Libri Tagetici. Cities were to be laid out on axes determined by
– 14 –
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– S t e p h a n S t e i n g r ä b e r ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

the augurs after observing the flight of

birds, a practice we are also familiar with
from Etruscan temple building and orienta-
tion. A furrow, the sulcus primigenius, was
ploughed in the soil to mark the confines of
the site, and interrupted at the places where
the city gates had to be placed. The ideo-
logical and religious purpose derived from
the Etruscan belief that the heavens were
divided into sectors following the coordi- figure 13
nate system, and that the same division was
reflected on earth: in other words, the geo-
metrically ordered heavenly macrocosmos
was reflected in the earthly microcosmos.
Emblematic of this order, based on religion
but also entirely rational, was the sacred
and inviolable character of all boundaries,
including those between properties, which
were marked by cippi. Special stones,
marked with a cross (decussis) to indicate
the cardinal points, were buried under the figure 14
main crossroads of a city. It must be
emphasized that such “ideal” cities, laid out
on a grid plan with rectangular insulae
according to what the Greeks recognized as
Hippodamos’s principle, were normally
built only at newly founded sites and
“colonial” settlements such as Marzabotto,
Spina, and Capua. The strict application of
this system, which the Etruscans most
probably took from the Greek poleis in
Magna Graecia, was in any case possible
figure 15
only if certain conditions were fulfilled by
the proposed site. Excavations such as those
at San Giovenale, Acquarossa, and Veii

figure 13 – Archaic Casa dell’Impluvium located

on the slope of the northern hill of Roselle; figure
14 – Remains of archaic rectangular houses at
Lago di Accesa near Massa Marittima; figure 15 –
Remains of partly archaic rectangular houses at
Doganella near Magliano Toscano;
figure 16 – Archaic houses in tufa blocks of the
so-called Borgo at San Giovenale figure 16

– 15 –
––––––––––––––––––––– U r b a n i z a t i o n o f E t r u s c a n S e t t l e m e n t s –––––––––––––––––––––

figure 17 figure 21

figure 18 figure 22

figure 19 figure 23

figure 17 – Archaic houses in tufa blocks and

sewer drain of the so-called Borgo
at San Giovenale; figure 18 – Remains of aristo-
cratic archaic multi-roomed house with well and
sewer drain of zone F at San Giovenale; figure 19
– Banquet room of an aristocratic multi-roomed
house of zone F at San Giovenale; figure 20 –
Archaic monumental complex of zone F at
Acquarossa; figure 21 – Archaic monumental
complex of zone F at Acquarossa; figure 22 –
Recent excavations of archaic building structures
in Loc. Campetti at Veii; figure 23 – Late archa-
figure 20 ic rectangular house fundaments at Marzabotto

– 16

–
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– S t e p h a n S t e i n g r ä b e r ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

have shown that the cities of the Etruscan motherland, largely created through absorption
and synoikismos of earlier Villanovan settlements around the eighth-seventh centuries B.C.,
tended to follow the typical so-called old Mediterranean plan with an irregular, not orthog-
onal, street system. Especially from the second quarter and the middle of the sixth century,
however, new urban planning trends can be identified in the area of complex F at
Acquarossa, and above all in the great necropoleis at Cerveteri and Orvieto, and also, to a
lesser extent, in the rock necropoleis of Blera, San Giuliano, and San Giovenale. These inno-
vations took the form of more rational utilization of space, stricter regulation, and a grid
street plan layout, and have to be understood as a reflection of new tendencies towards a
greater isonomia in Etruscan society. However, the necropoleis at Cerveteri and Orvieto pre-
date by at least half a century the foundation of the new “colonial” town at Marzabotto,
which provides a virtually perfect expression of the new urbanistic principles. Since the cities
of the Etruscan heartland mostly tended to undergo continuous development in the Archaic
period, the new principles no doubt were applied mostly only to the layout of single districts
or individual complexes. Even districts from the Hellenistic period, such as the one in
Vetulonia with tabernae along a street, are not uniformly laid out in the so-called
Hippodamos’s system. Recent excavations and especially geophysical research on the
“acropolis”-plateau of Piazza d’Armi at Veii have given us a lot of new information about
the urbanistic and architectural organization of this area. According to the excavators G.
Bartoloni and F. Boitani, the regular street system, with a larger main street (width 4,40-4,95
m) and smaller right-angled crossing side streets (width 2,80 m), a square (30 x 35-40 m) with
a big open oval cistern, several insulae, an oikos with roof terracottas connected with the
main street by a side street (temple or residence or perhaps a building for ancestor cult ?) and
another aristocratic building goes back to the late Orientalizing period, meaning the late sev-
enth and the first decades of the sixth century B.C. Thus it is the oldest known example of
a regular urban system in an Etruscan settlement and clearly preceding the quoted new
necropoleis of Cerveteri and Orvieto. Geophysical research by the Fondazione Lerici on the
Piano della Cività at Tarquinia suggests an approximately regular street system with a
decumanus maximus and sewer drains for the Late Archaic period. These systematic inves-
tigations on a surface of 50 ha have shown that the western part of the plateau was more
densely built on than the eastern one, and proved the existence of a series of both private and
larger probably public buildings going back to the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. Less
clear is the chronology of an orthogonal city plan at Vulci. However, the first thoroughgo-
ing applications of the so-called Hippodamos’s system, with intersecting streets (plateiai and
stenopoi) on a grid plan and regular insulae of housing, date from no earlier than the Late
Archaic period: typical instances are newly founded or “colonial” cities such as Marzabotto,
Spina, and Forcello di Bagnolo San Vito (near Mantova) in northeast Italy, harbor towns
such as Pyrgi, Regisvilla-Regae and probably also Gravisca on the southern coast of Etruria,
as well as Doganella, sited inland from the mouth of the Albegna and identified by M.
Michelucci with Kalousion. The prerequisite condition for these new developments, and for
the new definition of the urban organism in itself during the sixth century B.C., was
undoubtedly the formation and rise of a politically independent middle class. The new social
stratum, probably founded on a census system and isonomy, had its own, quite different
– 17 –
––––––––––––––––––––– U r b a n i z a t i o n o f E t r u s c a n S e t t l e m e n t s –––––––––––––––––––––

requirements, which found clear expression in the egalitarian and levelling tendencies that
can be seen in the building of both towns and necropoleis. Most of the old aristocratic san-
tuaries on the acropolis, which largely consisted of rather simple, oikos-like temple struc-
tures with no fixed typology, were now given up, while the new urban sanctuaries were
often situated within the area of the town itself. The maximum architectural effort was now
devoted to the construction of new temples and public buildings, which are distinguished
during the Late Archaic phase by particularly rich terracotta roof decoration. Examples of
such new monumental temples, mostly (in accordance with Vitruvius and Varro) of the so-
called Tuscan order, can be found at Veio (suburban temple of Portonaccio), Cerveteri (tem-
ples in Loc. S.Antonio, Vigna Parrocchiale and of Hera), Pyrgi (temple A), Vulci (big urban
temple and suburban temple in Loc. Legnisina), Orvieto (temple of Belvedere), Marzabotto
(temple C on the acropolis and the recently excavated urban temple of Tinia) and also in the
“grande Roma dei Tarquini” (temple of Capitoline Jupiter). The characteristic three-cellae
ground plan (or featuring a central cella flanked by two alae) appeared even earlier in domes-
tic (Acquarossa) and tomb (Cerveteri and hinterland) architecture.
Marzabotto, built “ex novo” in the Late Archaic period on an important through
route from Etruria into the Padana in the Apennine hills south of Bologna, provides the best
known, and to date the most carefully investigated, example of a progressive “Hippodamian”
urban plan and does not need to be dis-
cussed in detail here. The present state of
research indicates that its urban plan was
certainly not only the result of the disci-
plina etrusca, but was influenced above all
by the innovative Greek planning models.
As G. A. Mansuelli put it: “The plan of
Marzabotto may well have been a com-
promise between the Etruscan doctrine
which prescribed the intersection of cardi-
figure 24 nally orientated axes, and the experience
of Greek urban planning.” As we already
know, particularly in the Greek colonies
of Magna Graecia (i.e., Metapontum,
Poseidonia) and Sicily (i.e., Megara
Hyblaea, Selinus) the regular urban layout
of strigae predominated from the seventh
and especially in the sixth centuries B.C.
The relative uniformity of both dwellings
(courtyard-houses) and tombs at
Marzabotto points to a similar level of
figure 25 uniformity in social terms, i.e., a broad
middle class or else a young “colonial
figure 24 – Late archaic rectangular house funda- society,” distributed among specific dis-
ments and sewer drain at Marzabotto; figure 25 –
Industrial buildings in the Porcareccia area of
tricts by trade or profession. The nearby
Populonia fifth-century B.C. Etruscan city at

– 18 –
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– S t e p h a n S t e i n g r ä b e r ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Casalecchio di Reno also revealed a grid

plan, but with much simpler houses than at
Marzabotto. Another city founded ex novo
in the late sixth century B.C. and active until
the fourth/third centuries B.C. was Spina,
sited between the old course of the Po river
and the Lake of Comacchio, and inhabited
by a population which included a large por-
tion of Greeks and Veneti too. In this
instance the regular grid of streets was figure 26
replaced to a large extent by navigable
canals, as would be the case much later in
Venice. The main settlement in Valle di
Mezzano - there were other settled nuclei
beside this - covered an area of some 6 ha
and was surrounded by an agger 10-meter
broad and fortified by a palisade. It was laid
out on a grid plan. Stones with the groma
cross were also found here at important
roads. One stone with the inscription “mi
tular” may possibly have marked off a pub-
figure 27
lic domain. The houses were built mainly
from wood and opus craticium with lightly figure 26 – Industrial building in
baked clay bricks; the same techniques were the Porcareccia area of Populonia; figure 27 –
Tabernae along a paved road of the Hellenistic
used for dwellings at Forcello di Bagnolo
period at Vetulonia
San Vito on the Mincio river near Mantova,
where there was a 16 ha settlement of the
fifth century B.C. structured in much the same way as Spina. The type of settlement, and
also the necropoleis, with tombs made from simple wooden boxes but with lavish grave
goods, point to a prosperous society of merchants and seafarers.
As of the fourth century B.C., most Etruscan cities, especially those newly found-
ed, had a regular grid plan as evidenced, for example, by the cities of Ghiaccio Forte (in the
hinterland of Vulci), Musarna (in the hinterland of Tarquinia) and Bolsena. The same is true
in case of the new foundations and Latin-Roman colonies of the third/second centuries B.C.
such as Volsinii novi near Bolsena, Ferentium-Ferento near Acquarossa, Falerii novi near
Civita Castellana, and Cosa near Orbetello.

Development of Etruscan Urban Planning and Architecture: Selected Examples

The Villanovan settlements, which partly can be classified as “protourban” (such as

the one at the Calvario locality on the Monterozzi hill at Tarquinia, which included twenty-
five huts of different ground plan and size) were originally scattered in layouts with no
regard to any regular plan and quite clearly no strict functional distinction between public,
sacred, and private space and buildings, while the “oikos” was the primary status symbol of

– 19 –
––––––––––––––––––––– U r b a n i z a t i o n o f E t r u s c a n S e t t l e m e n t s –––––––––––––––––––––

the head of the family. From the mid-eighth century B.C., however, a process of synoikismos
led to the formation of larger settlements in what was to be a typical pattern for the area of
Etruria and Latium. This process can be traced very clearly at Tarquinia and Veii, where
there were originally ten Villanovan villages on a surface area of 190 ha. The main necrop-
oleis became equally concentrated at the same time, typically on the Monterozzi hill in the
case of Tarquinia and on the Banditaccia and Monte Abatone plain in the case of Cerveteri.
A parallel monumentalization of tomb architecture took place, manifesting itself in large
tumuli and chamber tombs. During the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. the process of
urbanization was completed, with the functions of public-political, religious, and private
domains clearly distinguished, the urban area demarcated by a wall or earthen rampart
(agger) and the replacement of huts with mostly rectangular, more solid structures, often
covered and decorated by roof tiles and terracottas (documented from the third quarter of
the seventh century B.C.). On the other hand at Chiusi a polycentric model with several
small settlements and necropoleis was predominating until the sixth century B.C.
Of extreme importance were the excavations of Piano di Civita at Tarquinia by M.
Bonghi Jovino during the last two decades which have shown that massive timber-framed
buildings were constructed along a 3 meter-broad street as early as the first half of the sev-
enth century B.C. Prominent among these structures was a “megaron” or “altare/tempio”
surrounded by an enclosing wall with a political and perhaps also sacred function, attested
to by the “buried” bronze implements (shield, trumpet-lituus, axe) and their powerful sym-
bolism. The origin of this “complesso sacro-istituzionale” or “area sacra / complesso mon-
umentale” (area alpha, edificio beta) goes back even to the latest Bronze age and early Iron
age. We are dealing here with the oldest complex in Etruria with a clearly not private but
obviously political-religious function showing that we have to revise at least partially our
idea of Villanovan (protourban) communities and society. This extremely instructive com-
plex was also subject to several later changes.
The site of Murlo/Poggio Civitate southwest of Siena has been excavated by
American archaeologists since the later 1960s. It is not an urban organism we are dealing
with here but a potentato signorile, that is, an aristocratic residence or palazzo/regia domi-
nating a large area of inner northern Etruria between Roselle, Volterra, Arezzo, and Chiusi.
We can distinguish two phases, the middle orientalizing period (middle of the seventh cen-
tury B.C.) and the late orientalizing period (first quarter of the sixth century B.C.). The three
known monumental buildings, a residential structure, a workshop, and a large, tri-partite
building that perhaps served a religious function, were destroyed by fire towards the end of
the seventh century B.C. and represent actually the earliest example of a grouping of relat-
ed monumental and highly visible buildings in Etruria which undoubtedly were not of sim-
ple private function. All three buildings displayed remarkably similar forms of terracotta
roof decoration. The tri-partite building is considerably older than buildings in Acquarossa
with a similar groundplan. The unique workshop consists of a large open hall (about 300
square meters) with several rows of wooden columns. It was used by craftmen producing
and working with bronzes, bones, ivories, textiles, ceramics and architectural terracottas.
Soon after their violent destruction, these older buildings were replaced by the construction
of a large new “palace” characterized by an almost square ground plan (60 x 60m) with four
– 20 –
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– S t e p h a n S t e i n g r ä b e r ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

mostly porticoed wings and a rich decoration of roof terracottas, including the so-called
“Murlo Cowboys” who most probably represented images of aristocratic ancestors, the
“imagines maiorum.” This Archaic isolated and much discussed “regia,” which belonged to
the largest buildings of its time in Italy and the whole Mediterranean and undoubtedly also
had some religious function, was ritually dismantled and “buried” during the third quarter
of the sixth century B.C. and never rebuilt. This circumstance is clear evidence of the grow-
ing power of the main Etruscan urban centres, in this particular case of Chiusi.
The Swedish excavations of the 1960s and 70s in San Giovenale brought to light the
massive remains of houses built in blocks of tufa (not only the foundations but also the
walls) and dating to the late seventh and sixth centuries B.C. Two “urban districts” could be
distinguished by urbanistic, typological, and social criteria: one, zone F, was an aristocratic
quarter on a grid plan with three impressive, multi-roomed houses including a banqueting
room and a courtyard; the other, the so-called Borgo, was a middle class district laid out on
a terraced slope with simpler, more tightly-packed houses, narrow streets without regular
plan, sewer drains, and wells.
Generally speaking, the Etruscan cities of the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. were
not as yet organized completely on an orthogonal plan, as is indicated by the more or less
haphazard distribution of buildings in several groups at such centers as Acquarossa and San
Giovenale. Only in a few more monumental districts and complexes which may clearly be
interpreted as seats of political and religious power, such as the “acropolis” area of Piazza
d’Armi at Veii, the zone F at Acquarossa, and the aristocratic quarter F at San Giovenale, can
innovative and more progressive tendencies in urban planning be made out.
The Swedish excavations of the late 1960s and 70s in the medium-sized city of
Acquarossa (barely 1 ha of the total site area of 32 ha was systematically excavated) revealed
sixteen such groups of buildings, dating from the early orientalizing until the late archaic
period and totalling some seventy “oikos-like longhouses” and more innovative “broad-
houses.” Often these were arranged around a courtyard with a well and had surface areas
of up to 120 sqm at ground level. They were built either of tufa blocks, or else timber-framed
using clay bricks or opus craticium. Beginning with the third quarter of the seventh centu-
ry B.C. their roofs were covered with terracotta tiles and could be decorated with painted
architectural terracottas. From among all the buildings a monumental complex in zone F
clearly stands out. It was built in two phases (end of seventh century and second quarter of
sixth century B.C.). The later building is characterized by two wings with a portico in front
arranged around a courtyard. The tripartite nucleus of the east wing also includes a banquet
room. The roofs of this complex were decorated by rich figural (partly mythological) terra-
cotta antefixes and friezes whose iconography can be interpreted as a typical expression of
an ideologia aristocratica. A small oikos-like temple is situated south of the palazzo/regia,
separated by a street. This kind of “palazzo” points unequivocally to the existence of a still
extremely hierarchically structured aristocratic social order, based on achievements and
virtues; such indications are reflected in some of the more or less contemporary rock tomb
façades in southern Etruria, notably in the house-formed three-chambered tomb fronted by
a portico, with impressive stone sculptures on the roof in Loc. Pian di Mola at Tuscania.
Since the 1980s G. Camporeale has led an archaeological excavation at a “mining
– 21 –
––––––––––––––––––––– U r b a n i z a t i o n o f E t r u s c a n S e t t l e m e n t s –––––––––––––––––––––

figure 28 figure 32

figure 29 figure 33

figure 30 figure 34

figure 28 – “Complesso sacro-istituzionale” (area

alpha, building beta) on the Piano della Civita at
Tarquinia; figure 29 – Detail of building beta with
technique a pilastri on the Piano della Civita at
Tarquinia; figure 30 – Monumental urban temple of
Ara della Regina on the Piano della Civita at
Tarquinia; figure 31 – Urban temple = tempio
grande along the later Roman decumanus maximus
at Vulci; figure 32 – Late archaic urban temple in
Loc. S.Antonio at Cerveteri; figure 33 – Recently
excavated Late Archaic urban temple dedicated to
Tinia at Marzabotto; figure 34 – Archaic suburban
figure 31 sanctuary of Portonaccio at Veii

– 22 –
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– S t e p h a n S t e i n g r ä b e r ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

figure 35 figure 38

figure 36 figure 39

figure 37 figure 40

figure 35 – Archaic wall of the acropolis of

Vetulonia; figure 36 – Remains of wall at Poggio
Colla/Vicchio in Mugello; figure 37 – Remains of
fortification in tufa blocks at Luni sul Mignone;
figure 38 – Remains of city wall in tufa blocks at
Sutri; figure 39 – City wall of Fiesole; figure 40 –
Seaside wall in opus polygonalis at Orbetello;
figure 41 – Northern city gate of Tarquinia

figure 41

– 23

–
––––––––––––––––––––– U r b a n i z a t i o n o f E t r u s c a n S e t t l e m e n t s –––––––––––––––––––––

figure 42 figure 45

figure 43 figure 46

figure 47

figure 42 – Remains of city wall in opus quadra-

tum with an arch at Tarquinia; figure 43 –
Etruscan road near the so-called Borgo at San
Giovenale; figure 44 – Etruscan road = Cavone
at Norchia; figure 45 – Via Clodia on the plateau
of Norchia; figure 46 – Cerveteri, Banditaccia
necropolis: area with orthogonal street system
flanked by cube tombs of sixth century B.C.; fig-
ure 47 – Orvieto, Crocifisso del Tufo necropolis:
orthogonal street system with cube tombs built in
tufa blocks of sixth century B.C.

figure 44

– 24 –
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– S t e p h a n S t e i n g r ä b e r ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

settlement” on Lake Accesa below Massa Marittima in the hinterland of Vetulonia, rich in
mineral deposits. The site, which flourished from the end of the seventh to the end of the
sixth century B.C., slopes down to the lake with four main groups of ten or so houses each
(area A, B, C and D). The houses themselves had mostly two or three rooms, entered
through a vestibulum of clay bricks. Each contrada possessed its own small necropolis. The
tombs here are not clearly separated from the living areas, which is a major exception in
Etruria. Although no uniform urban planning can be detected there are first signs of regula-
tion. Interestingly, in contrast to most centers in southern Etruria, there were no marked
social distinctions among the inhabitants, obviously mostly miners, of this settlement, as is
made clear by the relatively uniform dwellings without any terracotta roof decoration.
In Roselle, one of the few cities in northern Etruria with favorable conditions for
excavation, archaeological research carried out since the late 1950s has brought to light the
remains of Etruscan clay buildings dating from the mid-seventh century B.C. in the “city cen-
ter,” including a structure with an inner circular and an outer rectangular plan, and two recin-
ti that no doubt served some political and/or religious purpose. In the same central area, much
later covered over by the Roman Forum, was situated a rectangular two-room building dating
from the sixth century B.C. Together with the construction of a first circular wall, using clay
bricks on a masonry base, these remains point to an urbanization at Roselle already in the
Orientalizing period. The older wall represents probably the oldest example of a city wall in
Etruria. Concerning the development of Etruscan house architecture, the so-called Casa
dell’Impluvium , excavated and published by L. Donati, is particularly instructive. It is locat-
ed on the slope of the northern city hill and was built between the late seventh and the sixth
centuries B.C. This large aristocratic house is characterized by a multi-room plan including for
the first time in Etruria a kind of atrium with impluvium. Generally we can say that the north-
ern city hill of Roselle was designated mainly for private buildings and the southern hill main-
ly for industrial and craft buildings (quartiere artigianale) whereas the valley between the two
hills was occupied since the Orientalizing period by the public-political and religious center.
In the case of some monumental buildings decorated with terracottas, it is not always
easy, especially in the Orientalizing period, to distinguish clearly between “temple” and “aris-
tocratic residence” (including perhaps some religious cult functions). The oikos of Piazza
d’Armi at Veii (15.35 x 8.07 m) with two pillars, gabled roof, and architectural terracottas dat-
ing from two different phases, and with a small rectangular annex, is a striking example of this
problem: “tempio ad oikos” (reminiscent in a way of the Prinias temple) or “residenza di un
gruppo gentilizio eminente con annesso culto?” Another problematic case is represented by
the oikos-like building in a dominant position on the plateau of Poggio Buco, with a paved
square in front decorated with terracotta friezes and acroteria dating back to two different
phases (end of seventh/beginning of sixth centuries B.C. and ca. 560 B.C.). According to G.
Bartoloni it was probably a public building with some cultic function.
During the Late Archaic period large buildings with a clear public function also
appeared in Etruria as a result of changes in the Etruscan political system and society. This
is documented, for example, in the central urban area, the so-called zona monumentale, of
Cerveteri in Loc. Vigna Parrocchiale, characterized by a regular urban plan and by an oval
structure of at least 35 m in length and 15m in width (from around 480-70 B.C.) built near
– 25 –
––––––––––––––––––––– U r b a n i z a t i o n o f E t r u s c a n S e t t l e m e n t s –––––––––––––––––––––

a new temple with three cellae (18 x 25 m) over older structures (among them a large rec-
tangular structure with a central courtyard and architectural terracotta decorations inter-
preted by M. Cristofani as a “regal residence” and an expression of a previous power now
superceded). The new building, similar to a Greek ekklesiasterion, was probably used for
assemblies and performances related to the public life of the community. Possible influences
from the poleis in Magna Graecia (i.e., the ekklesiasterion at Metapontum) should be taken
into consideration. The two new monumental buildings at Cerveteri dating from the Late
Archaic period were positioned around an open space, similar to a “piazza” or “agora,” to
form part of a larger complex which has to be seen not only as an example of monumental-
ization of physical space, but also of symbolic political space, representing perhaps a kind of
“forum.”
Public squares according to the Greek agora and the Roman forum are almost
unknown in Etruria, even in the case of the best known and excavated Etruscan city,
Marzabotto. This may arise, at least in part, from the fact that most of the Etruscan cities have
been excavated only in small parts. The square with the big open cistern of Piazza d’Armi at
Veii of the Late Orientalizing period, the “piazza” of Cerveteri-Vigna Parrocchiale, and the
much later large square at Musarna of the
Hellenistic period are exceptions.
In some Etruscan cities we are able
to distinguish clearly so-called industrial
areas or buildings, particularly for metallur-
gic work or for production of ceramics.
Cerveteri (Vigna Parrocchiale), Vulci,
Castellina del Marangone, Populonia,
Marzabotto and later San Giuliano,
Vicchio/Podere Funghi and Cetamura offer
good examples.
figure 48 Our knowledge of private house
architecture, particularly of the
Orientalizing and Archaic periods, has
improved considerably thanks to several
recent excavations, namely in Veii in Loc.
Piazza d’Armi, Campetti, Macchiagrande-
Vignacce and Comunita including large tri-
partite “broadhouses.” Among other dis-
coveries should be mentioned three build-
ings in opus craticium at Sovana. During the
seventh and sixth centuries B.C. the definite
figure 49 transition from the hut to the rectangular
house, from transitory to more solid struc-
figure 48 – San Giuliano: rectangular square sur-
tures and materials including new building
rounded by rock cube tombs of sixth century
B.C.; figure 49 – San Giuliano: rectangular
techniques (roof terracottas, opus cratici-
square surrounded by rock cube tombs of sixth um, clay bricks, walls with stone pillars)
century B.C. took place. The development from the
– 26 –
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– S t e p h a n S t e i n g r ä b e r ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

“longhouse” to the “broadhouse” shows

possible influences from the Greek Prostas-
and Pastashouse.
The existence and type of city
walls in Etruria depend much on the partic-
ular geographical and geological situation.
Many of the cities in southern Etruria occu-
pied sites on high-lying rock plateaus (i.e.,
Orvieto, Cerveteri, San Giuliano, San
Giovenale), given a large measure of natural figure 50
protection by deep tufa canyons, and there-
fore had need only of short stretches of figure 50 – Tuscania, Pian di Mola: reconstruc-
tion of a monumental rock tomb in house shape
defensive walls. On the other hand, the hill
with a palace-like façade (second quarter of sixth
towns in northern and inland Etruria (i.e., century B.C.)
Roselle, Vetulonia, Populonia, Volterra,
Cortona, Perugia, Chiusi) were mostly ringed by a circuit of walls, built from materials
determined by local resources and in different techniques. The earliest walls dating back to
the seventh century B.C. in Roselle (clay brick walls on a masonry base), Tarquinia, and
Castellina del Marangone are a clear sign of urbanization already in the Orientalizing peri-
od. In the sixth century B.C. notable defense systems included the mighty circuits at
Vetulonia and Roselle (3.270 km-long limestone walls in opus pseudo-polygonalis with at
least seven city gates and one postern), as well as the acropolis walls of Populonia and Veii-
Piazza d’Armi, while the fifth century saw building at Tarquinia, Veii (over 6km in length
with at least ten gates and a broad earthen rampart in the northwest sector, isodomic mason-
ry in opus quadratum), Falerii veteres, and Capena. In Genova too, in the district of San
Silvestro, remains of the fortification of an Etruscan oppidum with a double masonry shell
have come to light, while remains of a clay brick wall have been found on the site of the
Etruscan-dominated town of Aleria on the eastern coast of Corsica. In the fourth century
B.C., during the period when the Etruscan cities were increasingly threatened by Rome and
partly by the Gauls, and in part during the third century B.C. too, defensive walls were
rebuilt and strengthened at Tarquinia (some 8 km long in opus quadratum), Roselle,
Vetulonia, Populonia, and Volterra (7.283 km in length, gates with inner chambers) while
entirely new circuits were erected at Caere, Vulci, Orbetello, Cortona, Fiesole, Perugia
(almost 3 km long with at least eleven gates), Bolsena, and Falerii novi. From the point of
view of construction technique, Arezzo proved an exception with its early Hellenistic city
wall in clay bricks. Only in exceptional cases were the walls equipped with towers, as in one
sector at Populonia and at Falerii Novi (third century B.C.). Especially in southern Etruria,
some sections were fortified by ditches and earthen ramparts (agger). The walls of the Latin
colonies such as Cosa, Pyrgi, and Saturnia were mostly built in the characteristic opus polyg-
onalis. Monumental stone-built gate complexes with arches using dressed wedge-shaped
stones and sculptural decorations were only introduced in the Hellenistic period, as in
Volterra (Porta all’Arco), Perugia (Porta Marzia, Arco d’Augusto), and Falerii Novi (Porta
Giove), and were certainly influenced by Greek and Magna Graecian models, such as the
famous fourth century B.C. Porta Rosa in Velia. In the pre-Hellenistic period gates were
– 27 –
––––––––––––––––––––– U r b a n i z a t i o n o f E t r u s c a n S e t t l e m e n t s –––––––––––––––––––––

very likely often built from timber and sometimes provided with inner chambers.
Etruscan cities usually possessed paved streets and sewers, as has been documented
by the particularly well-preserved network at Marzabotto, but also by the earlier remains
found in the so-called Borgo at San Giovenale. On the hilltop plateaus of many cities, most-
ly in Southern Etruria, underground cuniculi have survived which functioned as drains. Big,
partly open cisterns are documented, for example, in Veii-Piazza d’Armi, Cerveteri-Vigna
Parrocchiale, and Castellina del Marangone. Wells are particularly well preserved in Orvieto
and Perugia. The Etruscans’ reputation as excellent hydraulic engineers is attested to both by
the frequent mention of ancient writers and by impressive works such as the Pozzo Sorbello
in Perugia, the Ponte Sodo at Veii, and the emissaria or outlet built at Lake Albano and Nemi.
Our knowledge concerning the process of urbanization in the Etruria padana has
also improved considerably. In the most important center, namely Felsina-Bologna, the
“princeps Etruriae” of the Etruria padana, the conditions for systematic excavations and
researches are less favorable than elsewhere because of the many later strata of occupation.
Nonetheless, it has been possible to trace initially a four-part Villanovan phase with scattered
hut settlements (remains of some 500 huts), followed as early as the advanced Orientalizing
and the Archaic period by unequivocal signs of synoikismos, a hierarchically-structured
social order with magistrates and urbanization. Clear pointers to this are the monumental
additions and alterations to important streets of necropoleis, remains of houses and streets,
kilns and votive offerings, proto-Felsina stelae and the ritual complex uncovered in Via
Fondazza. The latter has two large profiled stone cylinders which were perhaps more like-
ly votive monuments than altars and whose decorations in relief with plant motifs in Late
Orientalizing style testify to a considerable level of architectural culture. Two further cippi
from Rubiera near Reggio Emilia, with relief decorations from the Late Orientalizing peri-
od and inscriptions referring to the magistrature, attest to a similar process of urbanization
in western Emilia too, and a socio-political system that Mario Torelli has defined as a
“repubblica aristocratica.” Another site worthy of note among further Etruscan settlements
in western Emilia is Sant’Ilario d’Enza. In Romagna at Verucchio, in the Apennines inland
from Rimini, the settlement at Pian del Monte della Baldissera consisted of stone-built hous-
es. The aristocratic tombs found there had very rich, sometimes almost unique grave goods,
such as ornamented wooden furniture, and attest to a process of urbanization which also can
be detected from as early as the seventh century B.C. in Romagna.

I would like to express my gratitude to the Fritz Thyssen Foundation (Cologne/Germany)

which sponsored this project from August 2001 to January 2003.

Stephan Steingräber
Barbarano Romano (VT)
[email protected]

– 28 –
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– S t e p h a n S t e i n g r ä b e r ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

General research on ancient cities, urbanism and methods (particularly in the Greek world):

Ampolo, C., ed. 1980. La città antica. Guida storica e critica.

Castagnoli, F. 1971. Orthogonal Town Planning in Antiquity.
Champion, T.C., ed. 1989. Centre and Periphery. Comparative Studies in Archaeology.
Christie, N., ed. 1995. Settlement and Economy in Italy 1500 BC to AD 1500. Papers of the
Fifth Conference of Italian Archaeology, Oxford.
D’Andria, F. and K. Mannino, eds. 1996. Ricerche sulla casa in Magna Grecia e in Sicilia.
Colloquio Lecce 1992.
Di Vita, A. 1981. “L’urbanistica piu antica delle colonie di Magna Grecia e di Sicilia: prob-
lemi e riflessioni.” ASAtene 59: 63ff.
Di Vita, A. 1985. “L’urbanistica.” In Sikanie, edited by G.Pugliese Carratelli, 359ss.
Di Vita, A. 1996. “Urban Planning in Ancient Sicily.” In The Western Greeks, edited by
G. Pugliese Carratelli, 263ff.
Greco, E. and M. Torelli. 1983. Storia dell’urbanistica. Il mondo Greco.
Greco, E. 1990. “Spazi pubblici e impianti urbani.” In Magna Grecia. Arte e artigianato,
edited by G.Pugliese Carratelli, 9ff.
Greco, E. 1996. “La città e il territorio.” In I Greci in Occidente, 263ff.
Greco, E. and P. Sommella. 1997. “Urbanistica.” in EAA Secondo Suppl. V: 894ff.
Greco, E. ed., 1999. La città greca antica - istituzioni, società e forme urbane.
Gros, P. and M. Torelli. 1988. Storia dell’urbanistica. Il mondo romano.
Gullini, G. 1983. “Urbanistica e architettura.” In Megale Hellas, edited by G.Pugliese
Carratelli 205ff.
Hölscher, T. 1998. Öffentliche Räume in frühen griechischen Städten.
Hoepfner, W. and E.L.Schwandner, eds. 1994. Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland.
Kolb, F. 1984. Die Stadt im Altertum.
Levi, M.A. 1989. La città antica. Morfologia e biografia dell’aggregazione urbana nell’anti-
chitá.
Martin, R. 1983. “L’espace civique religieux et profane dans les cités grecques de l’archaisme
à l’époque hellénistique,” Architecture et société: 9ss.
Mertens, D. and E. Greco. 1996. “Urban Planning in Magna Graecia.” In The Western
Greeks, edited by G.Pugliese Carratelli, 243ff.
Mertens, D. 2000. “Archäologische Stadtforschung.” In Klassische Archäologie. Eine
Einführung, edited by A. Borbein, T. Hölscher and P. Zanker, 229ss.
Murray, O. and S. Price, eds. 1990. The Greek City from Homer to Alexander.
Parker Pearson, M. and C. Richards, eds. 1994. Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social
Space.
Rossi, P., ed. 1987. Modelli di città. Strutture e funzioni politiche.
Schwandner, E.-L. and K. Rheidt, eds. 1999. Stadt und Umland. Neue Ergebnisse der
archäologischen Bau- und Siedlungsforschung.
Sommella, P. 1988. Italia antica. L’urbanistica romana.
Tomlinson, R. 1992. From Mycenae to Constantinople. The Evolution of the Ancient City.
– 29 –
––––––––––––––––––––– U r b a n i z a t i o n o f E t r u s c a n S e t t l e m e n t s –––––––––––––––––––––

Zaccaria Ruggiu, A. 1995. Spazio privato e spazio pubblico nella città romana.

Origins, urbanism, architecture and “ideology” of Etruscan cities:

Acquarossa I-VII. 1981-1994. Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom.

Adam, A.M., D. Briquel, and F.H. Massa-Pairault. 1997. Marzabotto. Recherches sur l’in-
sula V, 3.
Architettura etrusca nel Viterbese. Ricerche svedesi a San Giovenale e Acquarossa 1956-1986,
1986.
Barker, G. and T. Rasmussen. 1998. The Etruscans.
Bartoloni, G. 1991. “Populonium Etruscorum quodam hoc tantum in litore. Aspetti e
carattere di una comunità costiera nella prima età del ferro.” ArchCl 43: 1ss.
Bartoloni, G. 1992. “Palazzo o tempio? A proposito dell’edificio arcaico di Poggio Buco.”
AnnAStorAnt 14: 9ff.
Bartoloni, G. et al. 1994. “Veio tra IX e VI sec. a. C. Primi risultati sull’analisi comparata
delle necropoli veienti.” ArchCl 46: 1ff.
Bartoloni, G. and F. Boitani. 1996. “Prospezioni geofisiche integrate nell’area di Veio,
Piazza d’Armi.” StEtr 62: 321ff.
Bermond Montanari, G. ed. 1987. La formazione della città in Emilia Romagna.
Berti, F. 1985. “Spina: l’abitato alla luce degli ultimi scavi.” In La Romagna tra VI e IV
sec.a.C. nel quadro della protostoria dell’Italia centrale: 189ff.
Bloch, R. 1970. “Urbanisme et religion chez les Etrusques. Explication d’un passage fameux
de Servius.” AnnEconSocCiv 25: 1114ff.
Bocci Pacini, P. 1973. “Un ritrovamento arcaico presso Castelnuovo Berardenga.” StEtr 41:
121ff.
Boethius, A. 1978. Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture.
Bonghi Jovino, M. 1991. “Osservazioni sui sistemi di costruzione a Tarquinia. Tecniche
locali ed impiego del muro a pilastri fenicio.” ArchCl 43: 171ff.
Bonghi Jovino, M. 1987. Tarquinia. Ricerche, scavi e prospettive.
Bonghi Jovino, M. 1997. Tarquinia: testimonianze archeologiche e ricostruzione storica:
scavi sistematici nell’abitato, campagne 1982-1988.
Bonghi Jovino, M., ed. 1998. Archeologia della città. Quindici anni di scavo a Tarquinia. Dal
documento alla ricostruzione - appunti per un dibattito.
Bonghi Jovino, M. 2001. Tarquinia. I luoghi della città etrusca.
Broise, H. and V. Jolivet. 1986. “Musarna.” StEtr 54: 365ff.
Broise, H. and V. Jolivet. 1997. “Une colonie Étrusque en territoire tarquinien.” CRAI:
1327ss.
Bruni, S., ed. 1993. Pisa. Piazza Dante. Uno spaccato della storia pisana. La campagna di
scavo 1991.
Bruni, S. 1998. Pisa etrusca, anatomia di una città scomparsa.
Camporeale, G. 1997. L’abitato etrusco dell’Accesa. Il quartiere B.
Camporeale, G. 2000. Il parco archeologico dell’Accesa a Massa Marittima.
Colonna, G. 1985. “Le forme ideologiche della città.” In Civiltà degli Etruschi edited by
M.Cristofani: 242ff.
– 30 –
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– S t e p h a n S t e i n g r ä b e r ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Colonna, G., ed. 1985. Santuari d’Etruria.

Colonna, G., 1985. “Il santuario di Montetosto.” In Case e palazzi d’Etruria, edited by S.
Stopponi: 192ff.
Colonna, G., 1986. “Urbanistica e architettura.” In Rasenna. Storia e civiltà degli Etruschi,
edited by G. Pugliese Carratelli: 371ss.
Colonna, G. 1994. “Etrusca Arte: Urbanistica e architettura.” In EAA Secondo Suppl. II:
554ss.
Cristofani, M., F.Boitani, P. Moscati et al., 1985. Strade degli Etruschi. Vie e mezzi di comu-
nicazione nell’antica Etruria.
Cristofani, M. 1986. “Nuovi dati per la storia urbana di Caere.” BdA 71, n. 35-36: 1ss.
Cristofani, M., ed. 1990. La grande Roma dei Tarquini.
Cristofani, M. et al. 1988. Caere - 1. Il parco archeologico.
Cristofani , M. et al. 1992. Caere - 3.1. Lo scarico arcaico della Vigna Parrocchiale.
Cristofani. M. et al. 1993. Caere - 3.2. Lo scarico arcaico della Vigna Parrocchiale.
Cristofani, M. 1996. “Recenti scoperte nell’area urbana di Cerveteri.” Notiziario
dell’Università di Napoli Federico II, n.s. II.11-12: 73ff.
D’Agostino, B. 1991. “Dal palazzo alla tomba. Percorsi della imagerie etrusca arcaica.”
ArchCl 43: 223ff.
D’Agostino, B. 1995. “Considerazioni sugli inizi del processo di formazione della città in
Etruria.” In Studi in memoria di Ettore Lepore. Atti del Convegno, Anacapri 1991:
315ff.
D’Agostino, B. 1998. “La non polis degli Etruschi.” In Venticinque secoli dopo l’invenzione
della democrazia. Atti del Convegno, Paestum 1994: 125ff.
Damgard Andersen, H. 1997. “The archaeological evidence for the origin and development
of the Etruscan city in the 7th and 6th centuries B.C.” ActaHyp 7: 343ss.
De Grummond, N. 1997. “Poggio Civitate: a turning point.” Etruscan Studies 4: 23ss.
De Marinis, R. 1986. “L’abitato etrusco del Forcello di Bagnolo S.Vito.” In Gli Etruschi a
nord del Po: 140ff.
De Puma, R. and J. P. Small, eds. 1994. Murlo and the Etruscans.
Donati, L. 1994. La casa dell’Impluvium. Architettura etrusca a Roselle.
Donati, L. 2000. “Architettura civile, sacra e domestica.” In Gli Etruschi, edited by
M.Torelli: 333ss.
Edlund-Berry, I. 1991. “Power and religion: how social change affected the emergence and
collapse of power structures in central Italy.” In Papers of the Fourth Conference
of Italian Archaeology 2. The Archaeology of Power, Part 2, edited by E.Herring,
R.Whitehouse, and J.Wilkins: 161ff.
Fontaine, P. 1994. “Tarquinia. L’enceinte et la porte nord. Contribution a l’architecture mil-
itaire Étrusque.” AA: 73ff.
Forte, M. 1988-89. “Problemi storici e urbanistici nella necropoli orvietana di Crocifisso
del Tufo.” BIstOrvieto 44-45: 81ff.
Gli Etruschi, maestri di idraulica. Convegno Perugia. 1991.
Judson, S. and A. Kahane, 1963. “Underground Drainageways in Southern Etruria and in
Northern Latium.” BSR 31: 74ff.
– 31 –
––––––––––––––––––––– U r b a n i z a t i o n o f E t r u s c a n S e t t l e m e n t s –––––––––––––––––––––

Judson, S. and P. Hemphill. 1981. “Sizes of Settlements in Southern Etruria, 6th - 5th
Centuries B.C.” StEtr 49: 193ff.
“La formazione della citta preromana in Emilia Romagna.” 1988. Atti del Convegno,
Bologna-Marzabotto 1985.
La presenza etrusca nella Campania meridionale.
Atti delle Giornate di studio. Salerno-Pontecagnano 1990 (1994).
Luni sul Mignone I-II, 1967-1969.
Maggiani, A. 1997. “Volterra dalla prima età del ferro al V sec.a.C. Appunti di topografia
urbana.” In Atti XIX Convegno StEtr Volterra 1995: 43ff.
Mansuelli, G.A. 1989. “Urbanistica e architettura etrusco-italica. Prospettive di ricerca.” In
II Congresso internazionale etrusco, Firenze 1985, Vol. I: 407ff.
Miller, M. 1995. Befestigungsanlagen in Italien vom 8. bis 3.Jh.v.Chr.
Moretti Sgubini, A.M., ed. 2001. Veio, Cerveteri, Vulci. Citta d’Etruria a confronto.
Moretti Sgubini, A.M., ed. 2001. Tarquinia etrusca. Una nuova storia.
Morselli, C. and E.Tortorici, 1981. “Regisvilla porto di Vulci in loc. Le Murelle: note
topografiche e saggi di scavo.” QuadTopAnt 9: 151ff.
Moscati, P. 1985. “Studi su Falerii Veteres, 1. L’abitato.” RendLinc 40: 45ff.
Östenberg, C.E., 1975. Case etrusche di Acquarossa.
Pacciarelli, M. 2001. Dal villaggio alla città. La svolta protourbana del 1000 a.C. nell’Italia
tirrenica.
Pallottino, M. 1993. Origini e storia primitiva di Roma.
Pohl, I. 1985. “Nuovi contributi alla storia dell’abitato etrusco di San Giovenale nel perio-
do fra il 500 e il 200 a.C.” PP 40: 43ff.
Potter, T.W. 1979. The Changing Landscape of South Etruria.
Potter, T.W. 1991. “Towns and territories in southern Etruria.” In City and Country in the
Ancient World: 191ff.
Principi etruschi tra Mediterraneo e Europa. 2000.
Quilici, L. 1989. “Le antiche vie d’Etruria.” In II Congresso internazionale etrusco, Firenze
1985 Vol.I: 451ff.
Rendeli, M. 1989. “Muratori, ho fretta di erigere questa casa. Concorrenza tra formazioni
urbane dell’Italia centrale tirrenica nella costruzione di edifici di culto arcaici.” RIA
(ser.3) 12: 49ff.
Rendeli, M. 1991. “Sulla nascita delle comunità urbane in Etruria meridionale.”
AnnAStorAnt 13: 9ff.
Rendeli, M. 1993. Città aperte. Ambiente e paesaggio rurale organizzato nell’Etruria merid-
ionale costiera durante l’età orientalizzante e arcaica.
Roselle, gli scavi e la mostra. 1975.
San Giovenale I-III, 1972-1980.
San Giovenale. Materiali e problemi. Atti del Simposio all’Ist. Svedese a Roma 1983, 1984.
Sassatelli, G. 1989. La città etrusca di Marzabotto.
Sassatelli, G. 1994. “Gli scavi nella città etrusca di Marzabotto.” Ocnus 2: 247ss.
Sassatelli, G. 1996. “Verucchio, centro etrusco di frontiera.” Ocnus 4: 249ss.
– 32 –
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– S t e p h a n S t e i n g r ä b e r ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Schmiedt, G. 1970. Atlante aerofotografico delle sedi umane in Italia II. Le sedi antiche
scomparse.
Steingräber, S. 1981. Etrurien - Städte, Heiligtümer, Nekropolen.
Steingräber, S. 2000. “L’urbanistica.” In Gli Etruschi edited by M.Torelli: 311ff.
Stopponi , S. ed. 1985. Case e Palazzi d’Etruria.
Strandberg Olofsson, M. 1989. “On the reconstruction of the monumental area at
Acquarossa.” OpRom 17: 163ff.
Studi sulla città antica. Atti del Convegno di studi sulla città etrusca e italica preromana.
Bologna 1966 (1970).
Torelli, M., 1983. “Polis e palazzo. Architettura, ideologia e artigianato greco in Etruria tra
VII e VI sec.a.C.” In Architecture et société de l’archaisme grec à la fin de la
république romaine. Actes du Colloque international. Rome 1980: 471ff.
Torelli, M. 1987. La società etrusca. L’età arcaica, l’età classica: especially 40ff. 63ff. 117ff.
Torelli, M. 1993. “Regiae d’Etruria e del Lazio e immaginario figurato del potere.” In Eius
virtutis studiosi. Classical and postclassical studies in memory of F.E.Brown: 85ss.
Turfa, J.M. and A.G. Steinmayer, 1996. “The comparative structure of Greek and Etruscan
monumental buildings.” BSR 64: 1ff.
Turfa, J.M. and A.G. Steinmayer, 2002. “Interpreting early Etruscan structures: The ques-
tion of Murlo.” BSR 70: 1ff.
Warden, P.G., M.L. Thomas, and J.Galloway. 1999. “The Etruscan settlement of Poggio
Colla. 1995-98 Excavations.” JRA 12: 231ff.
Warden, P.G. and M.L. Thomas. 2000. “The 1999 Season at Poggio Colla (Vicchio di
Mugello).” Etruscan Studies 7: 133ff.
Ward Perkins, J. 1961. “Veii. The Historical Topography of the Ancient City.” BSR 29: 1ff.
Wikander, C. and O. Wikander. 1990. “The early monumental complex at Acquarossa. A
preliminary report.” OpRom 18: 189ff.

– 33 –