Version classiqueVersion mobile

Roccagloriosa II

 | 
Maurizio Gualtieri
, 
Helena Fracchia

Parte II. The Mingardo/Bussento catchment basin

Capitolo 2. The period 250-50 B.C. in the Mingardo/Bussento region

Texte intégral

1. The so-called ‘transitional’ sites: the problem

  • 1 On the same subject, in a more recent discussion, Torelli (1992, XVIII) addresses the historiograph (...)

1For the period from ca. 250-50 B.C. there are particular historical and theoretical problems which create difficulties in understanding both the indigenous world and its entry into the Roman sphere. To quote Torelli (1984b, 325), «Da un lato gli specialisti del mondo indigeno, per lo più archeologi, attenti alle sequenze ed alle strutture della cultura locale, hanno messo l’accento sulla natura destrutturante dell’intervento romano; dall’altro, gli studiosi del mondo romano, in genere storici, hanno insistito in prevalenza sulle forme politiche o militari assunte dalla presenza di Roma, soprattutto in relazione all’organizzazione del ‘Commonwealth’ romano... L’ottica indigena e l’ottica romana solo occasionalmente si sono, non dico coniugate, ma appena confrontate, mentre i due livelli e i tipi di documentazione, quella archeologica e quella storica, stentano a porsi in rapporto dialettico»1. More than 10 years have passed since those words were spoken and a great deal of archaeological work has been done which allows us now to consider more fully the centuries of passage from the indigenous world to the Roman world.

2The cultural distance or gap formed by the two diverse points of view-Roman versus indigenous or Magna Grecian-is caused, at least in part, not only by the biases in the interpretation of the evidence but also by the quantity (or lack) of the evidence itself. The difficulty in interpreting the settlement pattern or patterns for this century and a half, then, is caused by evidence that in comparison to the evidence from both the preceding centuries as well as from the Roman period is at best considered scanty, scarce or insufficient and not diagnostic. But this conclusion is not necessarily justified (Dyson 1992, 27-30). In our view, the years of transition between the Lucanian and Roman worlds are marked in rural areas by a clear continuity of what might be considered minor forms of settlement. What marks the difference between Lucanian and Roman in rural or marginal areas in the years of ca. 250-80 B.C. is not exclusively an abrupt change in settlement pattern but rather first a quantitative decline in all the categories of the Lucanian settlement model coupled with the arrival of new ceramic products; an example of this gradual progression is evident in the farm excavated at Pedale (site no.24, Roccagloriosa I, 187; figs. 94-95, infra) where the material from the excavation consisted of black glaze pottery forms of ca. 200 B.C. and some sherds of Italian terra sigillata. Certainly a dramatic change in settlement pattern is observable in the decline and then abandonment of the fortified oppidum inhabited largely, or so our evidence at Roccagloriosa leads us to conclude, by the elite. Less of a change in settlement pattern is found in the extra-mural areas and in the surrounding territory, where the number of settlements declines but a number of small sites, both farms and, more significantly, hamlets continue to exist. The transitional sites, then, should not be considered as either Lucanian or Roman but rather merely as sites which exist through the 2nd century B.C. in particular. The material remains are few, the architectural evidence meagre, and the sites appear to be small farmsteads, occasionally grouped together. All of the so-called transitional sites were inhabited earlier in the 3rd century B.C. as they are in many areas of Southern Italy (Yntema 1993, 223) and many continue to be inhabited through the 1st century B.C. and thereafter.

3We use the term “transitional” to indicate the few sites which chronologically bridge the period delineated above. At these sites the period is defined ceramically by the presence of the various Campana productions as well as by the presence of Graeco-Italic/Dressel transitional, and Dressel 1A type amphorae. This definition is at best loose because Campana A ware is a Roman product but the quantity found at these sites is not great. Since Campana A was not widely exported until the first half of the 2nd century B.C. its appearance in the study area should be closely tied to Buxentum or some other nearby production center such as Paestum (Morel 1969). The presence, dating, and provenience of coarse wares and/or common wares remains problematic for the time period under discussion but diagnostic pieces are listed.

Fig. 92 - Distribution map of sites dated to the 2nd and 1st century B.C. in the ‘nearer territory’.
Carta di distribuzione dei siti di II e I secolo a.C. nel territorio ‘vicino’.

4The transitional sites are found on either side of the Mt. Capitenali crest and on the flanks of Mt. Bulgheria (fig. 92). Several are positioned half-way up the slopes and provide evidence for the road network that evolved in conjunction with the colonial foundation at Buxentum.

2. Transitional sites in the territory: the evidence

5The sites are presented in the following order: 1) those within the Mingardo valley; 2) those on the flanks of Mt. Bulgheria; 3) those within the upper Bussento river valley; 4) those found on the lower Bussento river elevations (fig. 92); lastly, material from a 1977 salvage excavation conducted at Policastro Bussentino, the site of Buxentum, itself. Larger sites, possibly hamlets, are presented first within the above delineated topographical order.

6The site numbers are those used in the previous publication (Roccagloriosa I, 179-197).

2.1. Mingardo Valley

7site no. 3 Mai (Roccagloriosa I, 181)
RG N42, 45-43,55 E37,20-38
alt. 220

8evidence: Campana A black glaze base resembling Morel F113, esp. 113b 1 which is dated to the first half or middle of the 2nd century B.C.;

9Campana A drooping rim Morel F1312f: from Assoro, dated to 170-160 B.C.;

10Rouletting and palmette stamps datable to 200-100 B.C. (Fracchia et al. 1983, 376-377, nos. 23, 25);

11Base with internal grooves (Fracchia et al. 1983, 373-374, no. 12): 295-245 B.C.;

12Campana B base, like the foot of Morel F 2254 dated to the end of the 2nd or first half of the 1st century B.C. (Fracchia et al. 1983, 376-377, no. 26);

13Campana A bowl rim, dose to Morel F2823al, dated to the second half of the 3rd or early 2nd century B.C. (Fracchia et al. 1983, 376-377, no. 24);

14Campana A bowl rim Morel F1637: towards 200;

15Campana A plate resembles closely Morel 2232b dated to 270 +/-10 (Fracchia et al. 1983, 376-377, no. 22);

16Campana B type bowl, similar to Morel 2286 with date ranges of 150 +/-30 to 90 +/-20 B.C. (Fracchia et al. 1983, 376-377, no. 25);

17six wall sherds, seemingly Campana A on fabric color and wall thickness;

18Unguentarium, Forti type IV;

19Coarse ware olla, similar to type 3d found at Pompeii (Pompeii 1984, Tav. 100, 5.CE1330) dated probably to the 2nd century B.C. (fig. 93).

Fig. 93 - Coarse ware olla similar to type 3d found at Pompeii.
Olla in ceramica grezza simile al tipo 3d trovato a Pompei.

20site no. 37 Calatripeda/Laurito (Roccagloriosa I, 194-195)
RG N43, 70-44,25 E35,20-35,70
alt. 100-130

21evidence: two wall sherds of Campana A;

22unguentarium, undiagnostic fragment;

23The proximity of this site to Mai suggests some sort of connection between the two sites across the Mingardo river.

2.2. Slope of the Bulgheria

24site no. 43 Celle di Bulgheria/Morigialdo (Roccagloriosa I, 197)
RG N38,25-39 E35,36-50
alt. 310-325

25evidence: 5 fragments of Campana A ware, all undiagnostic. See extended discussion in chapter 3, infra.

26site no. 35 Colline del Bulgheria (Roccagloriosa I, 193)
RG N36,65 E37,90
alt. 480

27evidence: 4 fragments of Campana A, no distinguishable form. See also the 2nd-lst century coarse ware forms listed infra, 121 under Acquavena/Caporotta which is also not far away. Probably to be associated with the above mentioned site at Celle.

28site no. 50 Celle di Bulgheria/Fraz.. Iacolina (Velia 1990, 30, no. 29)
Camerata N37,8 E33,5
evidence: undecorated common wares dated, by analogy, to the 2nd-1st centuries B.C.

2.3. Upper Bussento Valley

29site no. 25 Mortelle (Roccagloriosa I, 189)
TO N 38,60 E 38,90
alt. 190

30evidence: Dressel 1 amphora; later coarse ware forms, 1st c. B.C.

31site no. 30 Fontana Scudiere (Roccagloriosa I, 191-192)
TO N37,95-38,80 E39,85-40,40
alt. 90-125

32evidence: large scatter containing 15-20 wall sherd fragments of Campana A;

33See also Chapter 3 on the Roman period.

34site no. 24 Pedale (Roccagloriosa I, 187-189)
TO N40,70 E41.80
alt. 60

35Partially excavated farm ca. 20m x 20m (figs. 94-95): the initial phase dates to the 4th century and includes burials of the same date. Continuity indicated by the black glaze wall sherds of Campana A, a black glaze bowl very similar to Morel form 2286 and several folded-back coarse ware rims (the coarse ware may pertain to the later period as there is also Italian terra sigillata pottery found at Pedale).

Fig. 94 - Pedale (site no. 24): the eastern room during excavation.
Pedale (sito n. 24): l’ambiente est in corso di scavo.

Fig. 95 - Pedale: the western room in the course of excavation.
Pedale: l’ambiente ovest in corso di scavo.

36site no. 16 Gammavona (Roccagloriosa I, 185)
RG N39,90 E37.85
alt. 320

37evidence: 8 fragments of Campana A, no distinguishable type but all from open forms;

38unguentarium Forti type V dated to the last quarter of the 3rd through 2nd centuries B.C. (fig. 96);

Fig. 96 - Unguentarium Forti type V, from Gammavona (site no. 16).
Unguentario tipo Forti V, da Gammavona (sito n. 16).

39rim of a heavy coarse ware form, very similar to a form in the Pompeian red ware production dated to the 1st century B.C.

40site no. 33 Contrada Acquavena/Caporotta (Roccagloriosa I, 192-193)
RG N37,50 E37,85
alt. 420

41evidence: large almond rim very like Sutri (Sutri 1965) form 38b, esp. A92 (2nd-lst century B.C.) and Cosa (Cosa 1976) CF 30 dated to the 2nd-1st century B.C.; one smaller almond rim similar to Cosa (Cosa 1976) CF 31 dated to the 2nd-1st century B.C. and a Dressel 1 amphora rim.

2.4. Lower Bussento Valley

42Policastro Bussentino, road excavation (fig. 97)
Policastro Bussentino N36,50 E44,50

Fig. 97 - Policastro Bussentino: 1977 excavation along a decumanus of the Roman colony (remains of stratified medieval constructions above the pavement).
Policastro Bussentino: scavo 1977 lungo un decumano della colonia romana (visibili i resti di costruzioni medievali nella stratificazione al disopra del basolato).

43Campana A base very close to Morel F2232e1 dated “3rd?”;

44Campana A base, dated by J. Hayes (pers. comm.) to the 2nd century B.C (fig. 98);

Fig. 98 - Policastro Bussentino: Campana A base.
Policastro Bussentino: base di Campana A.

452 Campana A wall sherds; The evidence presented here probably pertains to the original colonial foundation of Buxentum in 194 B.C.

3. Discussion and comparanda from other regions

46Before further discussion of what the character of these transitional sites actually may have been as far as we can discern from the surface retrieval, a review of the physical evidence for settlement development in other areas of Central and Southern Italy may be useful. Obviously in some areas the time frame for the initial Roman conquest and the various local levels of political, social, economic achievement are different from the time frame and levels of development in our limited study region but given that there are similarities in the pre-Roman occupation of the country side the comparison can be useful. Despite these socio-economic and chronological differences, the evidence for establishing (he immediate post-Roman conquest settlement pattern is similar in general throughout Southern Italy. It seems that in many rural areas, with the exception of the immediate area of the colonial foundations and with the exceptions of the nucleated centers, the rural pre-Roman settlement pattern was not actively destabilized. Until a local strong central authority representing the Roman state is firmly established, both the concept and process of Romanization are rather obscure.

47The following synthesis is not complete but rather is given in order to provide a synoptic OverView of the settlement situation and/or developments in various areas immediately following the Roman intrusion and presence. By no means do we intend to imply that every area is equal to every other area. The critical factors, topography, distance from Rome, pre-existing social structure and preconquest settlement pattern, are all programmatic in determining the form or forms of the initial Roman reality in any given area. The most important and the most valid areas for comparison are those indigenous areas of southern Italy with the exclusion of Campania.

48In Lucania itself the evidence for Romanization is greatly varied depending upon the particular area. On one hand, in Coastal western Lucania, for example, many sites fell within the sphere of Roman colonies such as Paestum. Here, then, the more urbanized areas rapidly acquired a more Romanised aspect, such as Eboli where tile and pottery workshops were established in the 3rd century B.C. and where an iron workshop dating to the 2nd century B.C. has been identified (Maurin 1977). In the countryside of western Lucania it seems that there were a number of cemeteries not used after the beginning of the 3rd century B.C., as is the case for Roccagloriosa, but the countryside is still occupied by both hamlets and farmsteads. In fact, the cemeteries that are no longer used are those that are associated with nucleated centres although this may be an argument ex silentio, as the rural cemeteries are usually located by destructive agricultural or construction activity in the areas. More pertinent to the Cilento is the 2nd century B.C. incorporation of pre-existing settlement at Atena Lucana (in the neighboring Vallo di Diano) into the Roman settlement network: clearly the pagus-vicus structure was sufficiently well established in that area by the 2nd century B.C. (Fraschetti 1981; Solin 1983). On the other hand, in eastern Lucania, arguably a marginal area, the rural establishments dated to the later 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. such as Banzi/Mancamasone (Leukania 1992, 30-31), Tolve/Moltone (Tocco 1990, 95-100; Russo Tagliente 1992, 173-181), San Pietro di Tolve (Di Giuseppe 1994; Terrenato et al. 1992, 35) and Monte Irsi (Small 1977; La Genière 1972, 258) would indicate considerable evidence for continuity of both hamlets and farmsteads (Gualandi et. al., 1981). Tolve/Moltone is a particularly interesting example of a Hellenistic farm, as it seems to be the most architecturally substantial of the later 3rd century establishments although the chronology is much discussed (Tocco 1990 and discussion thereto; more recently Russo Tagliente 1992, 173-181). Clearly, continuity in the context of agricultural activity was the norm in these marginal rural areas although the architectural remains of these establishments were, or continued to be, very small. The farmstead at Tolve during its first phase, dated to the end of the 4th century B.C., was ca. 24.50 m. x 16 m. (fig. 99). The second phase, dated possibly to the mid 3rd century B.C., is somewhat larger (fig. 100), ca. 24.0 m. x 24.50 m. (Russo Tagliente 1992, 155-157). At least in terms of size, Tolve, during both phases, then can be compared to the farmhouse at Pedale (fig. 101 and figs. 94-95, supra), which measured ca. 20 m. x 20 m. (Roccagloriosa I, 187-189).

Fig. 99 - Tolve (eastern Lucania): plan of the farm, phase I/end of the 4th century B.C. (from Leukania, fig. 64).
Tolve (Lucania orientale): pianta della fattoria di I fase/fine IVsecolo a.C. (da
Leukania, fig. 64).

Fig. 100 - Tolve: plan of the rural building, phase II/3rd-2nd century B.C. (from Leukania, fig. 66).
Tolve: pianta dell’edificio rurale di II fase/III-II secolo a.C. (da
Leukania, fig. 66).

Fig. 101 - Plan and section of the farm excavated at Pedale (site no. 24), in the Bussento river valley.
Pianta e sezione della fattoria scavata a Pedale (sito n. 24), lungo la valle del Bussento.

49The marginal areas reflect a very gradual transition from a Lucanian to a Roman profile. In the area of the Marmo-Platano and Melandro river valleys, the medium to small property holders continued to exist (Capano 1986a; 1986b; 1990) and in the late 2nd century B.C. there is evidence for the development of a vicus at Vietri di Potenza (Adamesteanu 1974a, 223). Marked regional differences, however, especially at this time of profound transformations in the settlement pattern are not to be overlooked, before jumping to easy generalizations.

50South-western Lucania, including the Mingardo/Bussento region, was most hit by the confiscations following the second Punic war (fig. 102), as argued by many scholars on the basis of textual evidence (especially Kahrstedt 1959).

Fig. 102 - Southern Italy in the 2nd century B.C. with the extensions of ager publicus in the Mingardo/Bussento region (adapted from Nicolet 1977).
L’Italia meridionale nel II secolo a.C., con indicazione della estensione di
ager publicus nella regione Mingardo/Bussento (adattata da Nicolet 1977).

51Although the Romanization of Daunia begins very early, in ca. 326 B.C. (Livy, 8, 25) when Arpi forms an alliance with Rome, ampie evidence suggests strongly that the settlement model was stili “piccoli insediamenti produttivi” (Mazzei/Mertens/Volpe 1990, 184). Few establishments are datable with certainty to the 4th and 3rd centuries. It is highly probable that, in this first phase of the Romanization in the late 4th and 3rd centuries B.C., the rural populations still lived largely in both the urban areas and in the vici that were sprinkled throughout the territory (Volpe 1990, 40, 48). Some of these vici certainly were in use for all of the 3rd century B.C. as were some of the farms, although the number of farms inhabited through the 3rd century B.C. is not great. The oldest farm is the one at the Mancamasone near Banzi (Bottini 1983, 462-463; Tagliente 1990) which, in the late 4th and early 3rd centuries, was quite small at least in plan: the dimensions of this farm in its earliest phase of the late 4th century B.C. are ca. 5.0 m. x 4.0 m. for the one room attributable to the original plan. The second phase, dated to the mid 3rd century B.C., consisted of 3 large rooms around a courtyard and two smaller rooms for a basic size of ca. 15.0 m. x 17.0 m. The farm excavated at Posta Crusta near Ordona is dated to the early 2nd century B.C. in its initial phase: unfortunately the evidence retrieved consisted of only a few walls. The second phase, now dated to the 2nd-mid 1st century B.C. (Volpe 1990, 130-132, no. 167), measured 20.75 m. x 19.20 m. with a number of rooms (De Boe 1975).

52In the Molise region (Barker/Lloyd/Webley 1978) the most common fine wares are the black glaze Campana B products and indicate a density of sites parallel to that found in other areas. A number of small farms dating loosely from the 3rd to the 2nd and on to the 1st centuries B.C. radiate out from Larinum, on surrounding spurs often only a few hundred meters from one another. It is observed that many smaller ‘farmsteads’ continued in use, even near Larinum.

53Unfortunately other marginal areas are not so well documented: Bruttium presents an almost total absence of documentation for the period of Gracchan colonisation in the area. Nonetheless, villas were already established by the second half of the 1st century B.C. (Guzzo 1981; Sangineto 1994) a time frame which is in accord with seaside developments in the Cilento (Sapri, infra, 139-140) and seemingly at Roccagloriosa itself (Santa Venere, infra, 131-132).

4. Hypotheses on the 3rd-1st century B.C. transformations

54From the foregoing synopsis it is clear that the situation is extremely varied in detail from region to region. Some of the major factors affecting those details include the dependency and distance from Rome itself, the degree of influence exerted on the hinterland by an implanted Roman colony and the strength of that colonial foundation, the distance from the Coastal areas, the distance from a trunk road and especially the topography of the individual and distinct areas (Torelli 1981). Still, the pattern across southern Italy, even from this synthetic presentation is evident: there were a number of small farms, both pre-existing and then contemporary with the colonial foundations, that were not impressive in architecture or rich in material finds. All of these small farms are dated to the period of the later 3rd or 2nd to early 1st centuries B.C.

55Clearly the later 3rd and 2nd centuries are not blessed with abundant evidence but it is still possible to delineate a phase in most of central and southern Italy in which residual subsistence agricultural activity is the norm until the early 1st century B.C. in Southern Italy (Frederiksen 1975).

  • 2 At the site of Celle/Morigialdo the importance of the imperial phase may have partly obscured the 3 (...)

56The Roccagloriosa transitional sites present evidence, then, for both clustered settlements, such as Mai, Fontana Scudiere and probably Celle di Bulgheria/Morigialdo2, and for isolated farms such as Pedale and Gammavona among others: this distinction is made on the basis of size, composition and quantity of the surface scatter. The transitional sites are of great importance as they provide the physical and chronological link between the Lucanian and the Roman settlement patterns and illustrate quite clearly the growing material link between the two cultures.

57The abandonment of the votive deposit in Complex A, and the fact that it was not disturbed even though a kiln was built beside it, suggests a certain carry-over of respect for the gentilicial families and their institutions during the first half of the 3rd century B.C.

58Another aspect of Romanization, in general, is the disappearance of any sort of local artisan activity or production. Normally the disappearance of local artisan production occurs early on in the Romanization process. At Roccagloriosa, the disappearance of artisan production appears to cease shortly after the departure from the nucleated centre of the elite segment of the population. The kiln on the Central Plateau is used for several decades in the second quarter of the 3rd century, seemingly to produce a limited repertoire of pottery types (see discussion supra, Part I, chapter 3). That there was an early accessibility to Roman products is evident in the presence of petites estampilles imitations, by the presence of Campana A and B products, by the appearance of new coarse ware types both at the site and in the territory at large: the most likely source for the early appearance of such pottery is Paestum (Morel 1969) although Morel (1991) does not seem to think that the quantity of pottery from the ateliers des petites estampilles found at Paestum is relevant enough to shed light on the early contacts between Rome and Paestum.

59Despite a general lack of knowledge concerning the conditions that the Romans imposed on the Lucanians, we do know that they took over one-half of the Lucanian territory. By analogy with other areas of Italy, we can further assume that the Romans took over the best land and the river valleys: this can be seen most clearly from the density of small farms in the lower river valleys in Daunia (Mazzei/Mertens/Volpe 1990, 184; Lippolis 1984; Russi V. 1987; Volpe 1990, 202-207) and the precocious presence of villas near or on terraces immediately above the Biferno river in the Molise (Barker/Lloyd/Webley 1978).

60In the study area itself, even today there are wide alluvial plains around the mouth of the Bussento river where the colony of Buxentum was established. Evidence for the initial settlement of the river valley and the surrounding Ager Buxentinus is very uncertain (Gualtieri 1996a and infra, Chapter 3).

61If the public lands or lands taken over were not given immediately to Roman citizens, then following the arguments of Gabba (1988a, 29) and Torelli (1992a) they were probably rented (advantageously) to either Roman aristocrats or to those indigenous families who were sympathetic to the Romans and who could thus establish and/or preserve their position within the new hierarchy (Torelli 1992a). That this vast extension of ager publicus throughout Lucania and central/southern Italy south and east of Campania was the basis of the future economic transformations that would occur in these areas has been amply discussed by Gabba (1988a and 1988b). While the Lucanian elite may have secured its future within colonies like Paestum, most probably the ‘hamlets’ and isolated farms that we find in the territory of Roccagloriosa would have provided a place for the remainder of the population. Both isolated farms and larger clustered settlements would surely have become passively and progressively more dependent on the colony at Buxentum.

62In many areas, a destabilization of nucleated centers was achieved by various means, destructive or otherwise. The destabilization or destructuring resulted in a consolidation of the population already located in the countryside. To speculate even further, the semi-abandonment of Buxentum, the postulated alluviation, bradysism and swampy conditions (Mello 1974, 137-145; Kahrstedt 1960, 3, n. 1) obviously would have had a significant impact in terms of increased population in the more inland areas. The placement of settlements in swampy areas was not advisable (Col. RR 1.5.6; Pliny N.H. 18.7.33; Traina 1983, 93; Calzolari 1986, 212-213 but contra, see Volpe 1990, 174-182, 384-390). The existence in the 2nd century B.C. of the ‘transitional’ sites such as Fontana Scudiere, Gammavona, and particularly at Celle di Bulgheria, is possibly connected to an unhealthy and intolerable swampy condition of the Coastal colonial site.

63The evolution of the transitional sites into the next developmental phases can be delineated. The clearest example is that of the agglomerated transitional site at Celle di Bulgheria/Morigialdo which grows into a vicus. By vicus we intend the presence of a village whose population was involved in agricultural or pastoral activity. Thus, we attach to the Roman term a slightly more general meaning than La Regina (1991, 149) does for the northern Sabellian area. Some of the “transitional” sites eventually become “villa” sites, such as Fontana Scudiere, while others remain small farms of the sort found elsewhere in Southern Italy (infra, Chapter 3). The distinction between villa and vicus sites is based on the extent, quality and relative quantity of the finds, e.g. mosaic tesserae, glass, hypocaust tiles for the villa sites while those objects are not present at the vicus sites or at the farm sites.

64The transitional sites are not necessarily shortlived. The site at Celle that develops into a vicus continues through the 5th century A.D. although the other sites which evolve into villas or small farmsteads usually die out in the 3rd century A.D. Regardless of how long they endured, the transitional sites must have been dependent, even if only passively, on Buxentum by the mid 2nd B.C. for their administrative, perhaps religious, and possibly commercial needs such as market activity even if the colony itself was initially weak and at the outset probably could not provide for all those needs (Gabba 1977, 276). This weakness probably constitutes one of the major reasons for the existence of the clustered sites in the hinterland during the ‘transitional’ period.

Notes

1 On the same subject, in a more recent discussion, Torelli (1992, XVIII) addresses the historiographical problem of the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. in Lucania.

2 At the site of Celle/Morigialdo the importance of the imperial phase may have partly obscured the 3rd-2nd century phase indicated by the black glaze pottery retrieved.

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 92 - Distribution map of sites dated to the 2nd and 1st century B.C. in the ‘nearer territory’.Carta di distribuzione dei siti di II e I secolo a.C. nel territorio ‘vicino’.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/2538/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 516k
Légende Fig. 93 - Coarse ware olla similar to type 3d found at Pompeii.Olla in ceramica grezza simile al tipo 3d trovato a Pompei.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/2538/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 20k
Légende Fig. 94 - Pedale (site no. 24): the eastern room during excavation.Pedale (sito n. 24): l’ambiente est in corso di scavo.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/2538/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 476k
Légende Fig. 95 - Pedale: the western room in the course of excavation.Pedale: l’ambiente ovest in corso di scavo.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/2538/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 352k
Légende Fig. 96 - Unguentarium Forti type V, from Gammavona (site no. 16).Unguentario tipo Forti V, da Gammavona (sito n. 16).
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/2538/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 20k
Légende Fig. 97 - Policastro Bussentino: 1977 excavation along a decumanus of the Roman colony (remains of stratified medieval constructions above the pavement).Policastro Bussentino: scavo 1977 lungo un decumano della colonia romana (visibili i resti di costruzioni medievali nella stratificazione al disopra del basolato).
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/2538/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 388k
Légende Fig. 98 - Policastro Bussentino: Campana A base.Policastro Bussentino: base di Campana A.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/2538/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 20k
Légende Fig. 99 - Tolve (eastern Lucania): plan of the farm, phase I/end of the 4th century B.C. (from Leukania, fig. 64).Tolve (Lucania orientale): pianta della fattoria di I fase/fine IVsecolo a.C. (da Leukania, fig. 64).
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/2538/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 132k
Légende Fig. 100 - Tolve: plan of the rural building, phase II/3rd-2nd century B.C. (from Leukania, fig. 66).Tolve: pianta dell’edificio rurale di II fase/III-II secolo a.C. (da Leukania, fig. 66).
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/2538/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 128k
Légende Fig. 101 - Plan and section of the farm excavated at Pedale (site no. 24), in the Bussento river valley.Pianta e sezione della fattoria scavata a Pedale (sito n. 24), lungo la valle del Bussento.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/2538/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 224k
Légende Fig. 102 - Southern Italy in the 2nd century B.C. with the extensions of ager publicus in the Mingardo/Bussento region (adapted from Nicolet 1977).L’Italia meridionale nel II secolo a.C., con indicazione della estensione di ager publicus nella regione Mingardo/Bussento (adattata da Nicolet 1977).
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/2538/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 316k

© Publications du Centre Jean Bérard, 2001

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères.
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search