A History of the Roman World

by Scullard, H. H.

  8. ETRUSCAN CULTURE

  Etruria was enclosed by the rivers Arno and Tiber and by the lower slopes of the Apennines, but differed considerably in the north and south. In the north were fertile alluvial valleys, plains and rolling hills of limestone and sandstone, where such cities as Clusium, Cortona, Perusia and Faesulae grew up and lived on through to modern times thanks to the attractiveness of their sites. Southern Etruria, on the other hand, where the earliest Etruscan cities developed, was a volcanic zone, whose tufa rock had weathered into peaks and plateaux, separated by deep valleys and gullies, while much of the wild landscape was covered by forest and macchia; here cities such as Tarquinii, Vulci, Caere and Veii are found on hills which rise where rivers or streams meet to offer protective arms. Though the Villanovans had begun to penetrate into this formidable barrier, emergent Etruscan engineering skills and the organization of labour promoted further land-reclamation, drainage, forestry and road-building. But even so, groups of settlers found themselves cut off from each other by physical barriers which hindered communications. So, like the early Greek city-states, they found intercommunication and therefore political co-operation difficult. Ancient writers might speak of an Etruscan nation, but in fact it was an aggregation of largely independent city-states. The basis of life was naturally agriculture, supplemented by hunting and fishing, but the copper and iron of the country were quickly exploited. Mineral wealth also provided building stone for cities as well as raw materials for export in exchange for foreign goods; at the same time the land was sufficiently fertile to support a large population. Only technical and administrative skills were needed to produce a rich civilization.

  The Etruscans laid out their cities in accordance with religious practices prescribed in ritual books; each city must be enclosed within a sacred boundary (pomerium) in order to ward off unseen dangers from outside. Temples had to be correctly planned and orientated, and this may have led to some symmetry in the layout of other public buildings, but the rough and hilly nature of many sites must have precluded the exact use of a careful grid system such as the Etruscans used later when founding cities on more level ground, as at Marzabotto near Bologna c. 500 BC (p. 32). This desire for symmetry may have influenced the later grid system, based on the axial crossing of two main streets (the cardo and decumanus) which the Romans used in their camps and colonies, although the Etruscan practice was rather closer to the system of alternating wider and narrower divisions which many Greek cities in the west used from c. 500 BC. For long years most of the Etruscan cities relied on the strength of their natural position, but when from c. 400 BC the power of Rome on their southern horizon began to seem threatening, they built walls of dressed stones. An Etruscan temple, squarer than Greek ones, had a wide frontage; the front half had a colonnaded portico, while the back comprised either three shrines (cellae) for three deities or one cella with two flanking wings. The main framework, which rested on stone foundations, was made of wood covered with gay multi-coloured terracotta ornamentation. Small private houses were usually rectangular, of mud-brick, laced with timber, and built on stone or pebble foundations; larger houses had upper storeys, with flat or gabled roofs. The mansions (domus) of the rich aristocracy were in internal appearance like some of the elegantly decorated stone chamber-tombs and were the predecessors of the atrium (central courtyard) type of house which the Romans later used.29 These large tombs were laid out in rows, with streets running between them, forming ‘cities of the dead’ (necropoleis); there are examples at Caere and Orvieto. A few cities, however, in northern and inland Etruria retained the practice of cremation. The contents of the larger tombs, themselves often shaped like houses, reveal the luxury and artistic tastes of the Etruscan nobles. Some of the pottery in these tombs was native bucchero ware (a black polished clay, sometimes brilliant and elegant), but they also contained vast quantities of imported Greek vases, of every type from ‘geometric’ to Attic, together with local copies: one tomb alone in Caere contained 150 excellent early Greek vases, and large numbers found at Vulci from the early nineteenth century onwards have enriched the museums of Europe. The metal work of bronze and gold was mostly of native workmanship, but of high quality. Bronze toilet-cases and mirrors with incised decorations show strong Greek influence, but the exquisite gold filigree work was less dependent on foreign models. This jewellery and metal-work was widely exported, even to Celtic lands. Two larger bronze masterpieces survive in the Capitoline wolf in Rome and the Chimera of Arezzo. Sculpture in stone was limited by the quality of the local stone (the marble quarries of Luni were not exploited until Roman times), but the Etruscans excelled in sculptured terracotta, which was brightly painted and widely used to decorate the wooden superstructure of temples and even for life-size statues, of which the Apollo of Veii survives as the work of a master. The gaily coloured wall-paintings in the tombs, especially those at Tarquinii, show great joie de vivre, but also some grim figures of demons in the underworld. Scenes of banqueting, dancing and music, horse-racing, athletics, wrestling, hunting and fishing, all throw a vivid light on Etruscan life, as well as reflecting Greek painting of the archaic school, of which nothing survives in Greece itself. However, here, as in the rest of Etruscan art, the main inspiration is Greek and oriental, but infused with an individual character all its own.30

  Of the Etruscans Livy wrote: ‘no people was ever more devoted to religious observances’. They believed that their religion had been revealed to them in early days by seers. This teaching, the Etrusca disciplina, was enshrined in a number of books of ritual, and it prescribed in minute detail how the will of the gods was to be ascertained and followed: life was dominated by fate, and the Etruscans had only ten saecula of existence granted to them. Libri fulgurales interpreted the significance of thunder and lightning, while libri haruspicini instructed professional haruspices in the art of divination based on the inspection of the livers of sacrificed animals (hepatoscopy): a model bronze liver survives which is divided into forty-four areas, marked with the names of gods and orientated to the Etruscan heaven, showing the place occupied by each deity. The Romans later often appealed to Etruscan haruspices to interpret omens which they themselves failed to understand. Other books dealt with the founding of cities, consecrating temples, matters concerning war and peace, and most aspects of public and private life. The names, though not always the precise functions, of many Etruscan deities are known, and they were soon assimilated to Greek deities: thus Tin (Zeus/Jupiter), Uni (Hera/Juno), Menvra (Athene/Minerva), Fufluns (Dionysus/Bacchus), Sethlans (Hephaestus). Etruscan religion, at least in its later phases, became gloomy and cruel, unlike most Greek and Italic cults: tomb-paintings depict the torments of the departed inflicted by demons in the underworld. To appease these demons the Etruscans appear to have offered human sacrifices. The Romans were much influenced by many aspects of Etruscan religion; their gladiatorial contests probably derived from the Etruscan practice of dispatching their victims by making them kill each other in duels.31

  The Etruscan language, which was non-Indo-European, bequeathed a few words to Latin, but in the main had remarkably little influence on it. However, both Etruscans and Romans took their alphabets from the Phoenicians via the Greeks, and if the Romans did not derive their version direct from Cumae, then the Etruscans must have acted as intermediaries. Etruscan survives in a large number of inscriptions, over 10,000 altogether, but nearly all are very short and usually late (third century BC or after). Most are epitaphs, giving the names of the deceased and of his father and mother, together with his age and any magistracy he held. Three longer inscriptions dealing with religious or legal matters survive, and two religious dedications, with a third in Punic, have recently been found at Pyrgi, the port of Caere. The language still defies complete and detailed decipherment, but the general meaning of most inscriptions can be ascertained, not least by the so-called bilingual method, which for instance, finds parallels in the religious and legal formulae of the Etruscans and those of the Latins a
nd Umbrians which can be read with accuracy.32

  The Etruscans had a considerable body of religious literature, but the extent of their secular literature is uncertain since whatever existed has all perished. However, even as late as the early Roman Empire much material about the Etruscans still survived, some at least almost certainly in Etruscan, sufficient in fact to enable the emperor Claudius to write twenty books of Etruscan history, Tyrrhenika; some of this material presumably came direct from Etruscan historical sources. Varro actually refers to Tuscae Historiae. Further, painted scenes in a tomb at Vulci depict historical episodes showing Etruscan warriors from different cities in combat with Roman warriors, among them Mastarna, who according to Etruscan sources was a king at Rome (p. 48); these scenes presuppose a historical tradition, since the painting was done c. 340–310 BC, some two hundred years after the episodes depicted. A lively interest in local history is also shown by a number of elogia, written in Latin and set up in Tarquinii: one celebrates Velthur Spurinna, who was praetor twice; during one magistracy he kept his army at home, in the other he led it across the sea to Sicily. These inscriptions were put up in the first century of the Roman Empire, which indicates the long survival of family traditions either in written histories, national or local, or less probably in oral or epigraphic sources. Thus quite a considerable body of Etruscan history seems to have existed, but unfortunately we can only speculate about its detailed nature and the ways in which the Etruscans wrote history. One other aspect, however, is important: a common literature provides a powerful element in the formation of any nation (the possession of the Homeric poems created a strong sentimental link between the scattered communities of early Greeks). Since it is generally agreed that Etruscan culture was not the product of a single racially pure ethnic unit, the possession of a religious and historical literature must have been a potent factor in creating an Etruscan ‘nation’.33

  In early days each Etruscan city was ruled by a king (lucumo), who was surrounded with great pomp. He wore a robe of purple and a golden crown, sat on an ivory seat, and was escorted by servants who carried an axe in a bundle of rods (fasces), symbols of his power to execute or scourge. Many of these trappings of office were later adopted by Roman Republican magistrates after Etruscan kings had occupied the throne at Rome. During the sixth and fifth centuries nobles began to challenge the power of the kings, some of whom tried to bolster up their waning authority by reorganizing the city’s political institutions in order to give the middle class more military and political influence to counterbalance the nobility, as occurred in Rome (see p. 50). However, gradually the kings were overthrown, and although thereafter some military adventurers may have gone on the warpath in an attempt to gain personal ascendancy, they were soon reduced to the level of their fellow nobles, and from then on the cities were administered by local aristocracies, who held such magistracies as those of zilath, maru or purthne, offices which appear normally to have been annual but whose detailed functions escape us.34

  The chief of these autonomous city-states formed a League of Twelve Cities and annually sent representatives to celebrate common cult and games at a federal sanctuary, Fanum Voltumnae near Volsinii, Voltumna being the chief god. The strength of these federal ties varied: the cities clearly developed some feelings for national unity and did on occasion act as a League, but local loyalties often proved stronger. Thus the Etruscans failed to establish an integrated political structure, inspired by unity of purpose, and this failure was later to prove fatal to them when they came into conflict with Rome, which in contrast had built up a strong confederacy.35

  The Greek and Roman sources, which are seldom favourable to the Etruscans and are often hostile and slanderous, give a general impression that Etruscan society was sharply divided between a powerful and rich aristocracy and an immense body of clients, serfs and slaves, but such a gap may have been lessened in the sixth century when the Etruscans adopted the Greek military formation of a closely-knit battle-line of heavily armed infantry (hoplites). The citizen body was formed by a gentilitian system into clans or families, with strong feeling for the family and the place of the mother, although older views of Etruscan society as matriarchal have been abandoned. Little unfortunately is known in detail about the status or conditions of the serfs and slaves who worked the land for their overlords.36

  9. THE ETRUSCAN EMPIRE

  If Cato exaggerated when he wrote that ‘almost the whole of Italy belonged to the Etruscans’, he at least emphasized the existence of a large Etruscan empire. After the rapid development of Etruscan from Villanovan culture in Etruria itself, it soon spread much further afield, and with it an uncertain measure of political control or dominance, both to the south and north.37 Some Etruscans advanced over the Tiber into Latium and occupied Rome and other centres (pp. 35–6). Others moved further southwards, advancing by land or sea, into Campania, where some Villanovan settlements had already emerged (pp. 14–15). Here they established themselves at Capua (perhaps c. 650 BC), calling their settlement Volturnum; Etruscan inscriptions have been found at Pompeii, Nola and elsewhere. They thus came face to face with Cumae and other Greek colonies, while at the same time Greek penetration into western waters was threatening the spread of Etruscan control. On the other hand, the Greek cities of southern Italy had provided the Etruscans with new markets for their metals and metalwork, and a widespread trade had been built up especially in Greek pottery (p. 21). But events took a fresh turn when the Phocaeans of Asia Minor in c. 600 BC founded Massilia (Marseilles), which in turn sent out colonies along the coast of southern Gaul and northeastern Spain. The first people to react sharply to this new challenge were the Carthaginians, who tried to keep the Phocaeans out of these western areas, but they were defeated in a naval battle which Thucydides recorded (i, 13, 6). When the Phocaeans moved closer to the shores of Etruria itself by settling at Alalia on the east coast of Corsica the Etruscans joined Carthage against the intruders; a naval battle off Alalia in 535 BC resulted in a ‘Cadmean victory’ for the Phocaeans, who ultimately settled at Elea, the home of the Eleatic philosophers. The majority of the captured crews were taken to Agylla (Caere) where they were stoned to death.38 This reference to one Etruscan city, Caere, is a reminder that very often when action by ‘the Etruscans’ is mentioned in the sources, we do not know in detail how many or precisely which cities shared in such action: indeed many of the colonial efforts may have been made by individual cities only. However, the battle of Alalia allowed the Carthaginians to control Sardinia, and the Etruscans Corsica, and either after or before the battle these two peoples entered into a formal alliance, since it is into this period that a treaty between Carthage and Etruria, which Aristotle mentions but does not date, best fits; again, who signed for the Etruscans, whether the League or individual interested cities, remains unknown.39

  Encouraged by these events, the Etruscans tried to strengthen their control in Campania by attacking Greek Cumae in 524 BC, but they were defeated by land by the Cumaeans under the leadership of Aristodemus. Before very long Etruscan influence began to weaken in Latium also and they lost control of Rome when Tarquinius was driven out. The other Latin cities were encouraged to seek freedom from the Etruscans and while resisting Etruscan counterattacks they appealed to Cumae, which sent a force by sea under Aristodemus. He routed the Etruscans under Arruns, the son of Lars Porsenna of Clusium, at Aricia c. 506 BC. Aristodemus used his success to become tyrant at Cumae, and the victorious Latins could now cut the land communications between Etruria and Campania. Some years later, in 474, Cumae, either threatened again by the Etruscans or else herself taking the initiative against them, appealed to Hiero king of Syracuse, who had recently, at the battle of Himera, smashed a Carthaginian attempt to occupy eastern Sicily. At a naval battle off Cumae the Greek allies broke Etruscan sea-power: the Greeks regained the freedom of the seas around Naples, and the Etruscan cities in Campania were now isolated by sea as well as by land.40 Thus the southern part of the Etruscan empire colla
psed, but in fact the victors did not enjoy independence in Campania for long, since Sabellian tribes began to descend from the mountains, and by 420 both Etruscan Capua and Greek Cumae had succumbed to their assault (p. 99).

  The second main line of expansion was northwards over the Apennines; it originated from the cities of the interior of Etruria and began near the end of the sixth century, a considerable time after the start of the southern expansion, and in fact when the Etruscans’ grip there was weakening. The chief colony was founded alongside the old Villanovan settlement at Bologna and was named Felsina; it soon became a prosperous city of farmers, industrialists and traders, and imported large numbers of Greek vases. These came more immediately from Spina at the head of the Adriatic, which became the chief port for Greek goods, especially Athenian vases: it was originally a Greek settlement in which the Etruscans secured a strong foothold. The third important base in the north was the Etruscan settlement at Marzabotto (probably called by them Misa or Misna), some seventeen miles south of Felsina, in a key position to control the valley leading southwards over the Apennines to Etruria itself. Its interest lies not least in the facts that it was an entirely new foundation (c. 500 BC) on virgin soil, and has not been built over since: it thus provides an outstanding example of a late Etruscan city and its street-planning. The extent of Etruscan settlement beyond the area of these three cities is uncertain, since archaeological evidence is lacking for widespread settlement in the northern plain (especially north of the Po), and the tradition that the Etruscans established a League of Twelve Cities here, as in Etruria (and allegedly in Campania), is doubtful. Etruscan trade, but only limited settlement, therefore seems to have spread northwards, where before very long it encountered opposition from Celtic tribes who were tempted to cross the Alps and try to occupy the northern plain of Italy. They may have started on a small scale earlier in the fifth century, but by the end of it they were sweeping all before them. The final attacks fell on Marzabotto and Felsina. The latter was overwhelmed c. 350; burial stones depict the horsemen of Felsina struggling against naked Gallic warriors. Thus Etruscan power north of the Apennines was gradually pushed back and then smashed; the northern plain fell to the Celts and became known to the Romans as Cisalpine Gaul. Soon it would be the turn of Rome itself to face a Gallic incursion (p. 94).41