This section is divided into two. The first subsection places the above results in context with the wider understanding of Etruscan culture. In particular, it highlights the role that the built environment and socio-cultural influences on architectural style have played in the literature and suggests how to incorporate this study with the literature.
In the second subsection, both the limits of the evidence and the suggested improvements to the research design are discussed.
As stated in section 7.1, the results of this thesis suggest that social, economic, political and technological changes deeply affected two key aspects of the Etruscan way of life: the built environment and the behaviour of individuals and groups. Conceived within a reciprocal system of causality, where causes produce effects which in turn produce further effects ad infinitum, these multifaceted stimuli transformed the behaviours of builders, forever altering the built environment and future behaviour. As a result, some of the techniques that had been used to create domestic structures in previous centuries were innovated upon, profoundly changing the appearance of buildings and the nature of construction.
Yet, how does this conception of a complex, irregular transformation in domestic architecture deepen our broader understanding of Etruscan culture? By underlining the overall constancy of building techniques through tradition and habitual innovation, this
497 thesis directly negates the theories about changing Etruscan domestic architecture that are based on the singular adoption and adaptation of foreign architectural technology and urban planning. In this manner, the evidence presented in previous chapters reinforces the growing appreciation for the demographic changes occurring between 800-500 BC.
Although demonstrative of the increasingly dynamic effects of shifting populations over the period, this thesis also supports some elements of the more traditional perspectives on architectural changes.
This section articulates how this work might be incorporated into the literature on both Etruscan architecture and, more broadly, the Etruscan culture. It is divided into two. The first subsection places the above results in context with the wider understanding of Etruscan culture. In particular, it highlights how the above conclusions on innovations and their stimuli support some previously held models of development while undermining others. In the second subsection, both the limits of the evidence and the suggested improvements to the research design are discussed.
7.2.1 The Place of this Thesis within the Scholarly Literature; The Broader Implications of Research on Building Techniques
Examining the nature and extent of changes to building techniques in Etruscan structures revealed demonstrable transitions in domestic architecture that rejects the commonly accepted, distinct transformation in building materials and technologies of the seventh century BC.
498 Although architecture and the built environment were transformed so that by the end of the sixth century Etruscan settlements looked substantially different from those 300 years prior, the typical depiction of a linear evolution of building technology by materials inaccurately presents the changes to domestic architecture. Prehistoric structures of wood, wattle and daub and thatch were not directly replaced by typically Etruscan structures made of mud brick, stone and terracotta tiles.
Despite rejecting the accepted presentation of domestic architectural changes, the evidence discussed in this thesis broadly supports the scholarly literature in terms of complex alterations in Etruscan society between 800-500 BC. The stimuli for innovative construction techniques certainly adhere to wider concepts of societal change, which suggests that the innovations presented in section 7.1 are evidence of such concepts. Therefore, it is imperative that this subsection relate the previously discussed techniques and their stimuli against the background of socio-cultural changes in the broader historical context. In so doing, it is necessary to come to terms with the division in the literature between those that favour change as the result of an alteration of traditional ritual and socio-cultural roles with those that identify the growth of urban centres as the key motivator for change.
Certainly, based upon the stimuli described above, both perspectives could be supported. In a number of cases, the development of new forms of social divisions based on economics and politics are
499 suggested. Take, for instance, the innovation of ground preparation technique in the late seventh century BC, where buildings such as the Upper Building at Poggio Civitate and the edifici monumentali at Acquarossa Zone F significantly altered the built environment by creating expansive courtyards. It is suggested both here and elsewhere (Phillips 1993; Scheffer 1990; Strandberg Olofsson 1986; Torelli 1985; Wikander and Wikander 1990) that the creation of these larger, enclosed complexes reflect growing dynamism in the projection of power in urban centres.
Discussed in greater detail in section 2.3, there are a number of influential theories on socio-political changes in central Italy. For instance, according to Torelli (1985, 2000a:196-197), changes in central Italian culture, including those to architecture, were part of a growing disparity between an emergent élite class or ‘principes’ and the rest of Etruscan society. Relying on the differentiation of material evidence, Livy and other Roman historians and earlier arguments by those such as Pallottino (1975:133), Torelli (2000a:200) proposes that in contrast with the framework of early Rome, an aristocratic oligarchy was the political organisation of the majority of Etruscan centres from 800-500 BC.
Furthermore, Torelli (2000a) suggests that, under these oligarchies, small Villanovan period villages unified into polities, similar to the city-states of Greece, by the Orientalising period. These city-states dramatically changed the former political makeup of the region, as power fell into the hands of the emergent class of élites. The emergent élites established
500 power systems reflecting the royalty of the Near East or the oligarchies of Greece, which is evident in the establishment of larger building complexes (Torelli 2000a:196-197).
Although the evidence for a century-long development of larger building complexes using innovative ground preparation techniques supports the rise of a new socio-political organisation as outlined by Torelli (2000a), some of the traditional techniques, such as the ground preparations in Foundation Types 1 and 3, could contradict this. Despite the elaboration seen in funerary evidence (see section 2.3.2), what has become less clear with time is whether or not the emergence of an élite class began in the eighth and seventh centuries BC. With the evidence at some of the important Bronze and Iron Age sites of Etruria displaying a similar social hierarchy (albeit with a peasant-agricultural economy where wealth was based on control of storage rather than on foreign luxury goods; Bonamici 2000:73-74; Hellstrửm 2001:169), it is unclear exactly whether a change in socio-political system described by Torelli occurred.
Instead, it is possible that the assertion of lateral ground preparation in multi-building complexes was a new facet of emphasising power and control through property conducted by the same class of people who had for centuries used traditional ground preparation methods.
Between the Bronze Age and innovative seventh- and sixth-century ground preparation techniques, the most significant change was to the
501 scale and scope of foundations laterally across urban spaces. The traditional techniques used in large buildings prior to the mid-seventh century (e.g. House I at San Giovenale Area F East and the Large Iron Age Building at Luni sul Mignone) dramatically altered the ground surface but in ways that did not extend much beyond the wall footings of the building. By the end of the seventh century, ground preparation included multiple buildings and open spaces beyond the layout of a single structure. In this light, it is possible to recognise elements of what Mandolesi (1999:213) describes as the reorganisation of space in eighth- and early seventh-century urban settlements, as a direct result of the increased population at urban centres and the focus of the settlements around single loci rather than the rise of a new élite class.
Indeed, Izzet’s (2007:143-164) suggestion that population growth resulted in progressively clear-cut designations of space, especially between public and private, encourages a reading of the evidence where demographics rather than socio-political change resulted in the noticeable alterations to urban centres in the seventh century BC. According to Izzet (2007:155, 157-160), the appearance of courtyards, the multiplication of interior spaces and the supremacy of rectangular-shaped ground plans were elaborations in the built environment resulting from a growing emphasis in society on separate spaces, perhaps even based on function in interior, domestic spaces (see also: Rohner 1996:128). However, Izzet (2007:152-154) points to the material-based transition in architecture and
502 indicates that changing materials resulted from the elaboration of ritual divisions in space, directly contrasting with the theme of this thesis.
In addition, the appearance of terracotta tiles has long been used as evidence for the Greek influence on the wider transformation of Etruscan culture in the seventh century (Bartoloni 2012:268; Ridgway 1988:666-667; Torelli 1985:24-25). As a means of either displaying imported styles or adopting foreign craftsmen and their crafts (e.g. Torelli 1985:25-32, 2000a:196-197), the active innovation of terracotta techniques was supposedly a choice of superior material, as well as evidence for the establishment of new power systems. However, there are two significant problems with the typical portrayal of the appearance of terracotta tiling. First, the appearance of terracotta tiles extends as far back as the early seventh century BC, nearly as early as their first use in Greece (ệ. Wikander 1993:160; see sections 5.2.1, 6.3.2). Such an early adoption of the technology belies the harkening to established, royal styles of architectural elaboration by a newly formed class of Etruscan élites.56 Second, the terracotta-tile technology was not altogether superior to thatch, either in longevity or in protection against rot (ệ. Wikander 1990; see section 6.4).
Certainly, the innovative use of terracotta tiles in roofs appears to be further evidence of a reaction to the increased density of settlements
56 Winter (2013) suggests that the western Greek influence on tiles is only apparent at the beginning of the sixth century BC. She does not clarify whether or not the Greeks influenced tile manufacture and use from before 600 BC; instead, she focuses on the native Etruscan artistic characteristics of seventh-century tiles.
503 than of a change in socio-political systems (see section 6.4). The flammability of thatch, as noted by ệ. Wikander (1990:289), was increasingly hazardous as open spaces in urban centres decreased.
Additionally, Izzet (2007:173-174) identifies the crisper nature of tiles as an example of her argument about the sharper division of spaces.
Terracotta tiling, therefore, should be considered as evidence for a seventh century alteration to the use of urban spaces, alongside the lateral expansion of property, rather than an elaboration of a new socio- political system.
Moreover, a number of other innovative building techniques provide solid evidence for the effects that the demographic shift to urban centres had on Etruscan society. Nijboer (1998) presents the centralisation of population in proto-urban and urban settlements as a key factor in the development of workshops and a new economic system driven by standardisation, centralised power and sedentary craftsmen (see section 2.3.2). This emergent economic system is evident in a number of the innovations noted above, though perhaps none so much as the habitual innovation of roof covering techniques and materials of the early sixth century BC. The lateral expansion of ground preparation also provides evidence for the increase in differentiated labour associated with workshop production. The establishment of the Borgo quarter using innovative ground preparation and wall footing techniques (not to mention the possibly innovative ashlar walling) exemplifies the necessity
504 for the extension of permanent areas of sedentary manufacture in the mid-seventh century resulting from settlement expansion at San Giovenale.
Finally, due to the attention given to building techniques here as opposed to materials, it is clear that the demographic shift toward urban centres fundamentally altered the built environment. The majority of the innovative techniques provide evidence for such changes in the built environment, as many resulted from technological solutions to the new urban landscape. For instance, the innovative ground preparation techniques in southern Etruria during the eighth century BC indicates that domestic construction was occurring beyond the optimal locations for building where easily accessible, level bedrock could be attained. Builders were required to adapt to more difficult terrain, leading to the use of Type 2 foundations at southern Etruscan sites.
The results of this thesis therefore have a substantially wider impact than suggested by the primary aim. Certainly, the rejection of the previously held notion that changes to domestic architecture were part of a singular, evolutionary transformation of building materials is the most important impact produced by this thesis. Such a rejection should encourage a more nuanced approach centred on the behavioural elements of change and the understanding of architecture in relation to behaviour and the built environment. Yet, in addition to this primary impact, the identification of domestic architectural transitions, as well as the
505 interpretations of how and why such innovations occurred, provides further evidence for the broader socio-cultural changes between 800-500 BC. This evidence certainly appears to support models where complex changes to Etruscan society ultimately resulted from demographic shifts toward centralised urban settlements over the first half of the first millennium BC.
7.2.2 Limitations of this Study
The results presented here are limited primarily by the sample. As noted throughout this thesis, in nearly every facet of research the re- examination of the predominant evidence of architectural features is hindered due to unclear terminology and varying detail in publication.
Although these limits have been discussed (e.g. sections 2.4, 5.1, 6.1), they reduce the potency of the results.
7.2.2.1 Limits of the evidence. Although by far the most representative of the building process, the evidence for foundation techniques is limited. The sample size for the earlier foundation types (i.e. Foundation Types 1, 2 and 3) is relatively small, especially when compared to the later foundation types (i.e. Foundation Types 4 and 5).
Specifically, the gap in the chronology between the archetypical Type 1 foundations from Sorgenti della Nova and those from San Giovenale and Tarquinia diminishes the clarity of the eighth-century BC transition in foundation process. The sample of permanent Iron Age domestic
506 structures is limited, particularly those that date to the ninth century BC. The sample of earlier foundation types is also limited to southern Etruria, which, in comparison to evidence from northern Etruria, favours the transition in foundation process. Therefore, the transition in foundation process is not securely dated to the eighth century, depending on the revised chronology. It could have occurred in the late ninth century and may only have occurred in southern Etruria where the geography and geology allowed for bedrock-cut foundations.
In addition, evidence for Type 2 foundations is limited. Only five examples of Type 2 foundations have been found in eighth-century BC contexts, while the remainder are from the second half of the seventh century. This chronological gap between eighth- and seventh-century examples, as in the ninth-century gap in evidence for Type 1 foundations further obscures the transition in dominant foundation process, as well as the transition in structural roof techniques.
The uncertainties of chronology and relative lack of eighth-century evidence for the earlier foundation types also affects the perception of the transition in structural roofing techniques. The ninth-century BC gap muddles the transition between the three-aisle and two-aisle roof supports in the Type 1 foundations. The inadequate eighth-century evidence, particularly for Type 2 foundations, also restricts a more specific identification of the appearance of two-aisle roof supports.
Moreover, the gap between the eighth- and seventh-century evidence
507 denies further clarification of the change away from the two-aisle type to wall-supported roofs. Without Damgaard Andersen’s (2001) supplemental, indirect evidence, it would be difficult to recognise not only when the transition in roof structure occurred but also how it affected building construction overall.
Comparatively, the evidence for the seventh- and sixth-century BC transition in dominant foundation processes is drawn from a more secure dataset. However, the weaker evidence for the earlier foundation types impedes any attempts at a fluid description of the habitual innovations in techniques over time. As techniques transitioned from Foundation Type 2 to Types 4 and 5, there are hints of the transition, particularly in the Type 2 foundations at Lago dell’Accesa. Yet, the fact that later foundations are recognisable has in part prevented more thorough recognition of the transition, as with the evidence for Type 2 foundations at San Giovenale Area F East (Karlsson 2006:138-140). Therefore, the case of the seventh- and sixth-century transition in dominant foundation process is heavily reliant on the identification of habitual enhancements of traditional foundation techniques in the later evidence.
The distinction in the sample between evidence from eighth century BC (and earlier) and evidence from seventh- and sixth-century contexts is even more distinct for walling and roofing techniques. As noted above (also section 5.1.4), the limited direct evidence for walling techniques, particularly for the eighth-century contexts, coupled with
508 confusing terminology has prevented the establishment of any significant results. In fact, in this case, the limitations found in the evidence led to the conclusion that specific interpretations of walls, even one based on a supposed evolutionary progression of materials, is misleading.
Direct evidence of roofing techniques is virtually non-existent from before the mid-seventh century BC. The lack of conclusive evidence for roof covering techniques of the first half of the seventh century and earlier confines the identification of techniques to secondary, indirect evidence (Damgaard Andersen 2001). Thatch was almost certainly the manufactured material used but, without more direct evidence, the thatching techniques used are enigmatic. The clay revetment of thatch is a good example of the limits of the evidence, with Damgaard Andersen (2001:254) and Karlsson (2006:135-136) both hinting at clay revetted thatch without definitively confirming its use.
As in the case of the roof covering techniques, there is a lack of direct evidence for structural roofing techniques. Fortunately, from the foundations and indirect evidence, the structural techniques are more visible in eighth-century structures. With the appearance of terracotta tiling, it is possible to identify the style of the roof as well as its basic structural features, following the works of Strandberg Olofsson (1989) and C. Wikander (1988), respectively.
The appearance of new roof covering materials in the last half of the seventh century BC is perhaps the most recognisable of the
509 transitions in building techniques. The well-preserved evidence from Poggio Civitate and, more importantly, Acquarossa allow for specific understanding of roofing techniques, as demonstrated by ệ. Wikander (1986, 1993). This contrasts greatly with the limitations of the evidence prior to the transition. As seen in the identification of foundation techniques, the evidence for roofing techniques after the mid-seventh century tends to overshadow that from before. It creates an unbalanced view of the transition and encourages an overly dramatic interpretation where the stimuli that influenced a change in technique were unprecedented.
Due to meagre direct evidence and the gaps in chronology, the sample allows the identification of only the most overt architectural transitions. Furthermore, the interpretations of the transitions are skewed in favour of the better-evidenced techniques, which might have led to the overambitious designation of active innovation. By interpreting some techniques as active innovations, the system for change is altered where the influencing factors and stimuli on the individual become important enough to cause a conscious choice to act contrary to habit and tradition. The interpretations of techniques and some of the resultant transitions are thus likely to be seen here as more revolutionary than they were in actuality.
7.2.2.2 Other weaknesses in the evidence. Besides the limits of the evidence, some problems derive from the descriptive reconstruction