The Etruscans: Setting New Agendas

Journal of Archaeological Research https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-021-09169-x The Etruscans: Setting New Agendas Charlotte R. Potts1 · Christopher J. Smith2 Accepted: 24 April 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract The Etruscans, who dominated central Italy for much of the first half of the first millennium BC, are ripe for new analysis: the quantity of data for their culture is now substantial, wide ranging, and qualifies for large-scale comparison. In this paper, we survey how research in the last decade has affected our understanding of settlements, of changing models of the transfer of ideas, and of Etruscan religious behavior, among other topics. We place them into complex spatial, architectural, and economic narratives to show that the interplay between microhistorical case studies and macrohistorical trends has now achieved what ought to be a paradigmatic status. Despite the continuous flow of specialist publications and an industry of exhibitions, however, the Etruscans have not broken through into mainstream archaeological awareness. We argue that this could be achieved if future research becomes more thematic and agenda driven and embraces comparative study. Keywords Etruscan · Etruria · Urbanization · Knowledge exchange · Religion · Literacy · Architecture · Dissemination Introduction The Etruscans occupied a region of central Italy between the Apennine Mountains and the Tyrrhenian Sea (Fig. 1). Their most characteristic presence was in the area roughly between Rome and Florence, a fertile area also characterized by significant mineral resources. A more or less distinctive linguistic and cultural community can be identified from around the beginning of the first millennium BC, and they expanded significantly into northern Italy and south into Campania. The latter * Christopher J. Smith Charlotte R. Potts 1 Ioannou Centre for Classical and Byzantine Studies, University of Oxford, 66 St Giles’, Oxford OX1 3LU, UK 2 School of Classics, University of St Andrews, Fife KY16 9AL, Scotland, UK 13 Vol.:(0123456789) Journal of Archaeological Research Fig. 1  Sites mentioned in the text. expansion was curtailed in the fifth century BC by Greek settlers in the area, and Roman imperial growth in the third and second centuries BC restricted Etruscan political independence. By the end of the first millennium BC, the Etruscan language was largely extinguished, their literature lost and decreasingly known, and their culture substantially transformed into the general Roman model. The Etruscans, thus, are the most significant example of an Italic grouping that flourished, and indeed for a while eclipsed Rome, before fading from view, until they were recovered through early modern antiquarian interest and more modern archaeology. 13 Journal of Archaeological Research This is a good moment for reconsidering the Etruscans. The quantity of data is now substantial across all ranges of material and qualifies for large-scale comparison. This is especially true when we consider the understanding of settlements and settlement dynamics. As we start to think increasingly seriously about how to understand the transfer of ideas, in the context of decolonized curricula and reanimating the agency of all players across globalized landscapes of connectivity, the changing models of “Orientalization” in central Italy offer new models. Interest in ritual and religion in societies with limited literacy, or where such evidence has not survived, is a topic of general interest in archaeology and anthropology. Etruscan religious behavior is of central significance to an understanding of their society, and analysis has reached a high degree of sophistication. We can also insert these narratives into more complex spatial, architectural, and economic analyses and see that the interplay that is now possible between microhistorical case studies and macrohistorical trends has achieved what ought to be a paradigmatic status. However, despite the continuous flow of specialist publications and an industry of exhibitions, the Etruscans have not quite broken through into mainstream archaeological awareness, and that is partly to be laid at the feet of a scholarly tradition that has tended to isolate itself from wider theoretical and comparative trends. Much scholarship remains concerned with typologies, iconographies, and the exposition of detail. This article seeks to continue the work of drawing attention to the Etruscans by adopting a more thematic and agenda-driven organization and, thereby, to show how tackling the largest questions at a local and regional level can illustrate the potential for comparative study. The Etruscans have been the focus of study for centuries; already in the Renaissance, they were a specific and distinctive part of the revival of interest in the classical past, and they have been continually deployed in complex arguments over autochthony, distinctiveness from Rome, and originality (Riva 2018). Contemporary study of the Etruscans, however, differs significantly from that undertaken in previous centuries. Even the remit of the subject has changed. In the 19th century, in comparison with the difficult site of Rome and the almost unknown world of Latium, material from Etruria was relatively abundant, which meant that Etruscology once held prime significance in the study of early Italy (Della Fina 2011; Haack and Miller 2015). Now the physical and cultural boundaries of the discipline are being increasingly challenged. More and more the Etruscans are seen within wider and nonhierarchical accounts of the peoples of Italy (Bradley and Farney 2017); for example, the journal Etruscan Studies has been renamed Etruscan and Italic Studies. The extent of new material from Rome has given that city an identity progressively separated from that of its Etruscan neighbors; for instance, the beginnings of “Roman” architecture have now been moved back into the Archaic period, instead of being regarded as purely derivative (Cifani 2008; Hopkins 2016). The range of scientific tools used to study the Etruscans has also grown. The fascinating and unusual Etruscan language has always been of interest, but our tools are arguably better now than ever before (e.g., Wallace 2008, cf. Bellelli and Benelli 2018). Closer work with archaeological sciences such as zooarchaeology, archaeobotany, dendrochronology, and petrography, particularly in the study of periods with little or no textual evidence, is expanding the field in ways comparable to the introduction of 13 Journal of Archaeological Research landscape surveys in the 1950s. Research on topics such as archaeozoology and palaeobotany (Trentacoste 2016; Trentacoste et al. 2020; Trentacoste and Russ 2021), DNA (Perkins 2017), textiles (see below), and technological capacity (e.g., Amicone et al. 2020; Ceccarelli et al. 2020; Weaver et al. 2013) has likewise pushed the subject beyond its historic focus on typology, individual sites, and indi (...truncated)