excavations at edited by john - university of cambridge · per il periodo storico, la ceramica...

Bova Marina

Archaeological

Project:

Survey and

Excavations

at

Umbro

Preliminary

Report,

1999

Season

edited by John

Robb with contributions by Marina

Ciaraldi, Lin Foxhall, Doortje

Van Hove, and David Yoon

Department of Archaeology

University of Southampton

Southampton SO17 1BJ

United Kingdom

tel. 00-44-23-80592247

fax 00-44-23-80593032

email [email protected]

Bova Marina Archaeological Project 1999

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dottoressa Elena Lattanzi, Soprintendente, and Dottoressa Emilia Andronico,

Ispettrice, of the Soprintendenza Archeologica della Calabria, for their help and guidance in this research. As in

past years, we are grateful to Sebastiano Stranges and to Luigi Saccà for their help, advice, and friendship; to

Brian McConnell and Laura Maniscalco for archaeological advice; to our landlords, Antonino and Silvana

Scordo, and to our cooks, Mariella Catalano and Annunziata Caracciolo. Mary Anne Tafuri translated the

project summary and Fiona Coward helped assemble the final documentation. Finally, I would like to thank the

field staff (David Yoon, Lin Foxhall, Paula Lazrus, Keri Brown and Starr Farr) and post-excavation staff and

analysts (Umberto Albarella, Marina Ciaraldi, Sonia Collins, Kathryn Knowles, Doortje Van Hove, Jayne Watts,

and David Williams) for their expertise, and all the crew members listed below for their hard work and

enthusiasm.

We gratefully acknowledge funding from the British Academy (Excavation Grant A-AN4798/APN7493

Supplementary post-excavation funding), the Arts and Humanities Research Board (Research Grant AHRB/RG-

AN4798/APN8592), the Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, and the School of

Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester.

BOVA MARINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT: CREW, 1999 SEASON

Director John Robb

Survey Co-Director David Yoon

Survey Co-Director Lin Foxhall

Field Supervisor Keri Brown

Field Supervisor Paula Kay Lazrus

Lab Manager Starr Farr

Artist (Southampton) Kathryn Knowles

Computing (Southampton) Doortje Van Hove

Faunal analysis (Birmingham) Umberto Albarella

Paleobotany (Birmingham) Marina Ciaraldi

Cook Mariella Catalano

Cook Annunziata Caracciolo

Crew Members Siân Anthony

Francesca Binyon

Rebecca Crowson-Towers

Glenn Dunaway

Lauren Dumford

Mark Ellis

Anne Forbes

Helen Forbes

Janet Forbes

Lucy Heaver

Alex Hopson

Jenny House

Charlotte John

Claire Rees

Kathryn Simms

Barney Skinner

Jayne Watts

Matthew Wortley

Child Johanna Farr

Infant Nicholas Robb


3

RIASSUNTO ITALIANO

Nel 1999, il Progetto Archeologico Bova Marina ha intrapreso la sua terza campagna di scavo. Le

finalità principali della ricerca includevano l’attività di ricognizione di varie zone intorno al comune di Bova

Marina e lo scavo del sito preistorico di Umbro. Tali attività hanno avuto luogo dal 29 agosto al 26 settembre

1999, con un gruppo di 25 persone. I responsabili dello scavo erano John Robb (scavo preistorico e

amministrazione generale), David Yoon (ricognizione di superficie, archeologia Romana) e Lin Foxhall

(ricognizione di superficie, archeologia Greca).

Ricognizione di superficie

Finalità e metodi. Lo scopo principale dell’attività di ricognizione era rivolto alla comprensione dello

sviluppo, avvenuto nel corso della preistoria ed in epoca storica, dei modelli insediamentali legati al territorio di

Bova Marina. Si è continuato quanto intrapreso nel 1997 e 1998. Il metodo utilizzato consiste nel systematic

transect walking, mediante il quale gruppi di 4-5 persone, poste ad intervalli di 10 m., camminano su territori

delimitati registrandone le caratteristiche storiche e geografiche. Nel 1999, il nostro gruppo di ricognitori ha

coperto una superficie di 102 ettari, portanto l’area totale finora esplorata sistematicamente a 274 ettari. Le zone

ricognite comprendono due grossi appezzamenti contigui (intorno ad Umbro e nella zona costiera di San

Pasquale), e numerose porzioni di territorio sparse intorno al comune. I lavori del 1997 e 1998 si erano

concentrati prevalentemente nei territori di Umbro e San Pasquale. Nel 1999, la direzione della ricerca era

rivolta ad estendere la porzione di territorio ispezionato ad ambienti nuovi come colline e pianori interni.

Tutti i ritrovamenti sono stati catalogati e datati per quanto possibile. E’ da tenere presente tuttavia che

la sequenza cronologia della ceramica presente in questa regione è piuttosto variegata. Alcuni siti preistorici,

chiaramente Neolitici, possono essere facilmente individuati grazie alle decorazioni presenti sui frammenti

ceramici. Tuttavia altri periodi, quali l’Eneolitico e l’età del Bronzo, sono caratterizzati da ceramica inornata la

cui identificazione si basa, per la maggior parte dei casi, sulla forma del vaso, rendendo quindi molto difficile la

lettura di frammenti di piccole dimensioni. Per il periodo storico, la ceramica Greca e Romana è facilmente

identificabile, tuttavia, pochi dati si posseggono sulla ceramica medievale di questa regione, forse a causa dello

scarso numero di siti medievali individuati.

Risultati. Fino ad oggi sono stati identificati 37 siti che variano da una piccola concentrazione di

frammenti preistorici non databili a grandi villagi di epoca Greca e Romana con complessa articolazione interna.

I siti sono elencati e descritti al paragrafo 2.1.4. E’ da tenere presente che tale elenco aggiorna quello

precedenemente fornito in quanto alcuni siti scoperti nel passato sono stati successivamente ridatati.

Nel considerare i siti in ordine cronologico, fino ad oggi, non si ha traccia di attività Paleolitica o

Mesolitica. I siti di epoca Neolitica sono manifestati in una numerosa varietà che comprende terrazzi costieri,

basse colline prospicenti valli fluviali e pianori interni. Non si sono evidenziati insediamenti riferibili

all’Eneolitico o all’età del Bronzo (benché tracce di frequentazione di età del Bronzo sono state messe in

evidenza durante gli scavi ad Umbro, cfr. più avanti); tale aspetto può essere riferibile in parte a problemi di

datazione dei pezzi raccolti durante l’attività di ricognizione (vedi sopra). Le testimonianze di epoca Greca

includono un grande villaggio (Mazza, cfr. più avanti), e numerosi piccoli cascinali interni (siti 18 e 33). Molti

sono situati su alti terrazzi. In epoca Romana si hanno per la prima volta tracce di siti su fondo valle, che

suggeriscono il passaggio a forme di agricoltura intensiva. I resti ceramici di epoca Greca e Romana mostrano

due apici: uno che va dal periodo Tardo Arcaico a quello Classico (VI-V secolo a.C.) e l’altro in epoca

Imperiale (III-V sec d.C.). Gli insediamenti più tardi sembrano occupare gli stessi territori, ma in minore

consistenza, fino all’VIII sec. circa. L’epoca Medievale rimane oscura tuttavia nel XIX sec. si registrano di

nuovo numerosi insediamenti a carattere rurale.

Oltre all’attività di ricognizione sono state portate a termine numerose indagini secondarie rivolte allo

studio dell’uso del territorio. Esse comprendono il riconoscimento, in ambito geologico, di quelle materie prime

che possono essere state utili in epoca preistorica (da continuare nel 2000), e il GIS (Geographical Information

System) computer modelling volto alla ricostruzione delle antiche dinamiche di sfruttamento del territorio in

termini di esigenze relative ai diversi modelli economici preistorici.

Raccolta di superficie intensiva dal sito di Mazza. Si è intrapresa una raccolta di superficie intensiva

sul sito Greco di Mazza. Questo ampio villaggio ha finora restituito le uniche ceramice Greche di imporazione

del periodo arcaico/classico, un possibile frammento Attico ed un possibile frammento Laconico. Le finalità

della raccolta intensiva erano di determinare i limiti geografici, l’intervallo cronologico e la distribuzione

spaziale interna del sito. Come prima cosa è stata stabilita una griglia di punti di riferimento su tutto il sito e

sono stati collocati punti di raccolta ogni 30 metri all’interno della stessa. Si è poi proceduto alla raccolta di tutti

i manufatti presenti in un’area di 10 metri quadrati per ogni punto di raccolta. I risultati potranno essere


4

analizzati quantitativamente. L’analisi dei dati provenienti dal sito di Mazza è ancora in corso, tuttavia alcune

considerazioni sono già possibili. Il sito sembra possedere una componente Romana preponderante che si

aggiunge alle evidenze di epoca Greca. Un considerevole numero di tegole di epoca Romana, insieme a tegole di

epoca Greca, è stato ritrovato nella parte alta del sito. Tegole di epoca Greca sono state ritrovate in piccole

quantità sul resto della zona superiore del sito e sul fianco sud-est della collina. La ceramica fine Greca

comprende una considerevole quantità di tazze di fattura locale e forme a cratere. Gli affioramenti rocciosi

presenti nella parte centrale del sito somigliano a quelli utilizzati nelle fondazioni di Locri Epizephyrii, e

possono essere aver avuto lo stesso scopo. L’insediamento si estende con minore densità su tutto il pianoro di

Mazza. Il limite meridionale del sito potrebbe essere stato, in antico, una zona industriale, come testimonia l’alta

concentrazione di resti di fusione e lavorazione dei metalli. Resti di concotto e scorie di fornace sono stati

raccolti e sono attualmente in corso di analisi presso l’Univesità di Leicester.

Il sito di Mazza è stato abitato lungo un ampio arco cronologico durante il periodo classico. I materiali

raccolti hanno indicato la presenza sia di abitazioni che di attività industrali nonché di un probabile grande

edificio in prossimità della sommità del sito. Si è accertata inoltre la presenza di ceramica preistorica. Studi

futuri sul sito si concentreranno sulla relazione tra lo stesso e le città di Reggio e Locri Epizephyrii e sulle

problematiche relative all’occupazione indigena della zona. L’individuazione, nell’area studiata, di una serie di

piccoli insediamenti rurali Greci e la considerevole distanza da qualsiasi città Greca rappresentano un

interessante aspetto da analizzare nella comprensione della colonizzazione Greca e dell’occupazione di territori

rurali a scopo coloniale. In genere, gli studi sulla colonizzazione Greca si sono concentrati su informazioni

provenienti da siti urbani come Locri e dalle zone circostanti come Metaponto. Le datazioni antiche di alcuni siti

provenienti dalla ricognizione di Bova sono sorprendenti, esse potrebbero indicare che l’insediamento Greco si

sia diffuso ampiamente sul territorio coloniale nell’arco di poche generazioni, o che le popolazioni indigene si

siano, almeno in parte, ellenizzate piuttosto rapidamente. La funzione di questi siti, e la loro relazione con le

città Greche rimane piuttosto incerta, non si hanno inoltre informazioni circa una occupazione autoctona che sia

essa contemporanea o leggermente più antica. Lo scavo di un insediamento Greco di piccole dimensioni come il

sito 18 (Umbro) potrebbe fornire dati da mettere in relazione con siti urbani come Locri o ‘cascinali’ presenti su

territorio Greco, allo scopo di risolvere alcune questioni.

Note su siti soggetti a minaccia. Benché numerosi degli insediamenti presenti nel comune di Bova

Marina siano stati danneggiati dall’erosione o da processi geomorfologici, alcuni dei siti osservati sono risultati

soggetti ad azioni distruttive provocate dall’uomo quali, ad esempio, l’attività edilizia. Tutti i siti minacciati sono

a conoscenza della Soprintendenza; questi includono principalmente la villa Romana o cascinale di Panaghia,

San Pasquale, in corso di danneggiamento da attività di costruzione e attualmente vincolato, e la villa Romana o

insediamento urbano di Torrente Siderone (Amigdala), sotto la SS 106 presso la città moderna di Bova Marina,

attualmente in corso di scavo da parte della Soprintendenza.

Scavi ad Umbro

Umbro appare come un complesso sito a più fasi, posto a circa 4 km nell’entroterra, in prossimità

dell’antico confine tra i comuni di Bova Marina e Bova Superiore. Scoperto nel 1990 da S. Stranges e L. Saccà,

il sito è stato soggetto a ripetute attività di raccolta di superficie e, nel 1998, ad una nostra prima campagna di

scavo. Lo scavo del 1998 stabilì che l’insediamento consisteva di una piccola area, alla base di un dirupo

intensamente occupato durante il Neolitico, e di numerose concentrazioni di materiale, alla sommità dello stesso,

probabilmente di età del Bronzo. L’insediamento Neolitico principale ha restituito una datazione al

radiocarbonio che va dalla metà del VI millennio BC alla metà del V millennio BC (Stentinello). E’ inoltre

attestata l’occupazione durante la facies di Diana e, probabilmente in maniera sporadica, durante l’età del Rame.

Nel 1999, i lavori si sono concentrati in tre trincee: la Trincea 1, la Trincea 6 e la Trincea 7.

Trincea 1: l’area Neolitica. Tale trincea fu iniziata sottoforma di sondaggio stratigrafico nel 1998 ed

esteso allo scopo di comprendere la zona centrale del sito di epoca Neolitica posto alla base del dirupo. Essa

comprendeva una trincea di un metro per sei metri, con una piccola estensione laterale al centro. Gli scavi sono

proceduti in aree di un metro quadrato con tagli arbitrari di 10 cm.; il terreno rimosso è stato setacciato in griglie

di 5 mm. Gli scavi sono proceduti fino ad arrivare alla base rocciosa nella parte meridionale della trincea; nel

margine settentrionale della stessa lo scavo si è interrotto ad 1,5 m. dal piano di calpestio; il materiale antropico

presente a questa profondità era considerevolmente diminuito.

La Trincea 1 ha restituito numerosi manufatti Neolitici, ma nessuna evidenza di strutture abitative quali

capanne. E’ evidente che il sito consisteva in un’area ristretta (con uno spazio abitativo di forse 20 metri

quadrati), occupata da piccoli gruppi di persone lungo il corso di diversi millenni. Tutti i manufatti erano

considerevolmente frammentati. Sono stati identificati in tutto cinque strati. Lo Strato I consisteva di 5-10 cm. di

terreno di superficie inquinato. Lo Strato II era formato da uno spesso livello di sedimento bruno chiaro con


5

abbondante presenza di materiale roccioso di crollo, probabilmente disturbato sian in epoca recente che in

antico. Gli Strati I e II contenevano manufatti di tutti i periodi. Lo Strato III, di sedimento chiaro giallognolo,

conteneva materiale roccioso di crollo di diverse dimensioni e una serie di lenti sabbiose apparentemente

derivate dal disgregamento dei frammenti rocciosi. Il materiale ceramico presente è riferibile alle facies di

Stentinello e Diana, e sembra essere riferibile a fasi di Diana con presenza di intrusioni di epoche precedenti; ciò

non sorprende visto che l’area Neolitica è posta sul fondo di un bacino roccioso. Lo Strato IV consiste di un

terreno più denso e compatto di colore bruno. Esso contiene prevalentemente ceramica di tipo Stentinello ed è

databile al V millennio BC. In ultimo, lo Strato V è alla base dell’area scavata e contiene terreno argilloso di

colore bruno scruro con presenza di ceramica Stentinello databile al VI millennio BC. I manufatti Neolitici

raccolti comprendono ceramica tipica degli stili di Stentinello e Diana, alcuni esempi di ceramia Neolitica di

altro tipo, quali ceramica a pittura rossa, ed alcuni probabili frammenti di epoca Eneolitica (prevalentemente

dagli Strati II e III). L’industria litica era ricca di ossidiana ed includeva numerose piccole schegge e lamelle.

Sono state ritrovate un’ascia in anfibolite ed una piccola riproduzione di ascia in fillite, si è attestata inoltre la

presenza di numerosi ciottoli in pietra metamorfica di importazione, alcune macine e alcuni frammenti di

concotto e di ocra rossa. I resti faunistici non sono ancora stati studiati, tuttavia è già evidente la preponderanza

degli ovini e dei caprini, con presenza di maiale; i bovini sono scarsamente rappesentati e l’ittiofauna è assente.

Sono stati conservati campioni di flottazione provenienti da ogni Strato. L’analisi dei semi e dei resti vegetali

carbonizzati mostrano che la coltura di alcune specie era praticata; i resti vegetali includono la veccia, il

Triticum aestivum s.l., il Triticum dicoccum, e l’orzo.

La Trincea 6: l’area di età del Bronzo. Nel 1999 si iniziata la pulitura del profilo della rupe dal quale la

ceramica dilavava dal bordo accanto alla strada che attraversa il sito. Dal fianco del dirupo è emerso un vaso

intero, si è così deciso di aprire una trincea per effettuare ulteriori indagini. Nel complesso si è messa in

evidenza la deposizione di un gruppo di tre vasi comprendenti due tazzine attingitoio con ansa soprelevata ed

una grande olla dotata di tre anse orizzontali poste vicino all’orlo. I vasi erano affiancati e posti su uno stesso

piano di calpestio distinguibile da quella di riempimento sopra per la grandezza e l’orientamento delle pietre. Si

è attestata la presenza di piccoli frammenti di concotto e carbone. Subito sotto il gruppo di vasi è stato ritrovato

un inusuale frammento di corno fittile. Sulla superficie del battuto si è attestata la presenza di un crollo con

pietre di medie e grandi dimensioni (fino a 30 cm. ca.). Il crollo sembrava di maggiore volume ed intensità ad est

del gruppo di vasi. Non è chiaramente comprensibile se ci si trovi di fronte ad un fenomeno erosivo naturale o al

crollo di qualche strutture abitativa. In termini di datazione, i vasi sono chiaramente riferibile al Bronzo Antico

ed il corno fittile è tipico dello stile Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga. In stretto accordo con quanto suggerito dallo stile

ceramico, la datazione al radiocarbonio, fornita da un frammento di carbone proveniente dal piano di posa del

gruppo dei vasi, è riferibile al 1720-1580 BC (cal.)(intervallo 2-sigma).

Il gruppo ceramico della Trincea 6 potrebbe rappresentare quanto rimane del crollo di una capanna,

benchè sono scarsi i resti di frequentazione domestica all’interno della trincea e segni di strutture tipiche dell’età

del Bronzo quali capanne con soglie in pietra. Una seconda possibilità potrebbe essere rituale: i vasi potrebbero

rappresentare una qualche deposizione rituale idiosincratica. Una terza possibilità è rappresentata da una

eventuale deposizione funeraria. Confronti effettuati con contesti della Sicilia orientale hanno messo in evidenza

la presenza ricorrente, durante il Bronzo Antico, di sepolture situate lungo margini scoscesi di pietra calcarea o

di altro tipo, così come appare essere Umbro. Si tratta in genere di piccole camere artificiali raramente più

grandi dei di 2 metri di diametro e 1,5 metri di altezza, spesso raggiungibili attraverso uno stretto passaggio. In

diversi casi, inoltre, gli archeologi hanno messo in luce aree livellate o piattaforme che contenevano gruppi di

vasi rappresentanti il corredo funerario volontariamente posto all’esterno della tomba piuttosto che all’interno di

essa (es. Santa Febronia, Maniscalco, 1996).

Trincea 7. La Trincea 7 consiste di un piccolo (un metro per un metro) pozzetto scavato

immediatamento al di sotto del margine del dirupo, lungo il limite meridionale del bacino che racchiude il sito

Neolitico. Si è sperato di recuperare in questa area materiale di epoca preistorica. Tuttavia, pochi resti sono stati

ritrovati, e ad una profondità di 1,5 metri lo scavo della trincea è risultato impraticabile.

Sondaggi di Scavo a San Pasquale

Nel 1999 è stato sondato il sito Neolitico di San Pasqule, situato su di un basso terrazzo lungo il

margine orientale della valle di S. Pasquale. Si è sperato di verificare la presenza di un “villaggio” Neolitico, per

il quale la zona offriva le caratteritiche tipiche. Due pozzetti di un metro per un metro sono stati scavati in una

zona situata lungo il margine occidentale del sito, dove in superficie emergevano frammenti di ceramica

preistorica. I risultati si sono rivelati piuttosto scoraggianti. Entrambi i sondaggi hanno evidenziato che non

esistevano depositi archeologici al di sotto dello strato superficiale; il terreno si è rapidamente trasformato in uno

strato di sabbia sterile. Appare evidente che il materiale ceramico di epoca preistorica proviente dal “sito” deriva


6

dal dilavamento della collina posta a nord-est di esso, in parte coltivata ed in parte coperta da una fitta macchia

mediterranea. Indagini future potrebbero concentrarsi sull’individuazione del sito originario.

Indagini Future

La campagna di scavo del 1999 ha aperto la strada a nuove prospettive di ricerca.

Ricognizione. Nelle campagne future, speriamo di poter continuare ed incrementare l’attività di

ricognizione, che stà fornendo nuove informazioni sull’utilizzazione del territorio. Allo stesso tempo speriamo di

indagare due problemi metodologici.

Ricognizioni di altura a Bova Superiore. Sia le indagini storiche che la nostra ricostruzione informatica

al GIS hanno dimostrato l’importanza, in diversi periodi, degli insediamenti d’altura in zone interne. Un

sondaggio basato solo sull’indagine di zone costiere sarebbe inevitabilmente incompleto e non potrebbe fornire

l’intera consistenza e l’evoluzione delle dinamiche insediamentali del territorio di Bova Marina; questo potrebbe

spiegare inoltre la scarsa presenza di siti di età del Ferro o di epoca Medievale. Nel continuare i sondaggi a Bova

Marina, speriamo inoltre di poterci estendere al comune di Bova Superiore e di completare il quadro delle

conoscenze sulle strategie insediamentali antiche, investigando un completa serie di diversi ambienti.

Sondaggi di scavo in siti di superficie non datati. Sono inoltre stati ritrovati una serie di siti non datati

che potrebbero rappresentare i nosti “periodi mancanti”. L’unico modo per indagare gli stessi consiste nello

scavo programmato di sondaggi di un metro quadrato, in grado di fornire materiale datante meno danneggiato,

campioni per datazioni assolute al radiocarbonio, ed informazioni sullo stato di conservazione del sito.

Nell’immediato futuro ci auguriamo di poter sondare due aree entro un raggio di 200-300 metri dallo scavo di

Umbro: Limaca, dove una concentrazione di materiale potrebbe rappresentare una successiva occupazione di età

del Bronzo (si è ottenuto un permesso nel 1999 che è però arrivato troppo tardi perché si potesse praticamente

procedere allo scavo); e una zona a circa 200 metri a sud-ovest di Umbro dove due concentrazioni di frammenti

di epoca preistorica sono visibili in superficie. Quest’ultima potrebbe rappresentare un villaggio Neolitico

all’aperto; si considera critica una eventuale verifica che possa permettere di comprendere le dinamiche

insediamentali del territorio di Umbro.

Lo scavo ad Umbro: Ci auguriamo di poter continuare gli scavi sia del sito Neolitico che di quello di

età del Bronzo dell’area di Umbro. Gli scavi saranno limitati nelle finalità e si concentreranno sulla

individuazione della base della stratigrafia, sulla verifica dell’esistenza di eventuali frequentazioni pre-

Neolitiche e sul recupero di un maggior numero di campioni per analisi, per esempio, di tipo paleobotanico.

Nell’area di età del Bronzo Antico (Trincea 6), speriamo di poter verificare la natura del gruppo ceramico,

ovvero se formi o meno parte di una sepoltura.

Altre attività di scavo: Come già accennato, l’area di Umbro è ricca di piccole concentrazioni di

materiale archeologico. In alcune di esse ci auguriamo di poter effettuare dei sondaggi esplorativi (vedi sopra).

Un ulteriore sito da indagare è rappresentato dal piccolo insediamento Greco posto a circa 200 meri a sud di

Umbro. La presenza di piccoli insediamenti interni di epoca greca, come il cascinale di Umbro, si sono rivelati

una scoperta sorprendente e potrebbero risultare di notevole importanza nella comprensione del processo di

colonizzazione di questa zona.

Note sull’organizzazione della documentazione

La documentazione relativa alla campagna del 1999 risulta divisa in due parti. La prima parte (questo

volume) consiste in un rapporto descrittivo illustrato. La seconda parte è formata dalla compilazione di dati di

appendice per il progetto e per gli archivi della Soprintendenza. Sono inclusi cataloghi degli oggetti suddivisi

per provenienza e categoria di oggetto, disegni di tutti i frammenti diagnostici, il giornale di scavo e schede

standard per siti, unità stratigrafiche e frammenti ceramici.


7

CONTENTS

Riassunto Italiano 3

1. Introduction 8

2. Field Survey and Landscape Studies 9

2.1. Field Survey (David Yoon) 9

2.2. Intensive collections at Mazza (Lin Foxhall) 19

2.3. Geological reconnaissance 20

2.4. GIS analysis of land use (Doortje Van Hove) 21

3. The Excavations at Umbro 24

3.1. Introduction: previous work, goals and methods for this season 24

3.2. Description of 1999 Trenches 25

3.3. Other areas explored 30

4. Umbro Excavations: Description of Finds 32

4.1. Ceramics 32

4.2. Lithics 34

4.3. Other Artifacts: daub, worked shell and bone, ground and polished stone, and ochre 35

4.4. Faunal Remains and Human Remains 37

4.5. Paleobotanical Remains (Marina Ciaraldi) 38

5. Test Excavations at San Pasquale 41

6. Conclusions and Future Research Directions 43

6.1. Umbro: dating, stratigraphy, and site function 43

6.2. The Landscape of Bova Marina from Neolithic through Recent Times 43

6.3. Future Work 43

Bibliography 45

Figures and Tables 47

NOTE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

Description of the 1999 field season is presented in two parts. This report, which comprises the first part,

presents a self-contained, synthetic description of the survey, excavations and finds. The second part presents

detailed records of various kinds for archive purposes: catalogs of finds inventoried within each artifact bag and

listed by kind of artifact, ceramic inventories and drawings of all diagnostic sherds, the excavation diary, and so

on.


8

1. INTRODUCTION

1999 was the third year of the Bova

Marina Archaeological Project. In 1997, a small

crew of 5 Southampton students led by John Robb

carried out field survey in the comune of Bova

Marina. In 1998, a larger crew of 10 Southampton

students and about 5 staff, directed by John Robb

and David Yoon, surveyed further areas, and

excavated numerous exploratory trenches at the

Neolithic site of Umbro.

These campaigns are described in the

1997 and 1998 preliminary reports (Robb 1997;

1998), which also detail the circumstances in which

fieldwork was carried out and the geography,

geology, and archaeology of the region. To avoid

repetition, these topics will not be extensively

described here.

In 1999, we had the largest field season to

date, with 18 (10 from Southampton and 8 from

Leicester) crew members and 10 staff or

contributing specialists, directed by John Robb,

David Yoon and Lin Foxhall. We worked in Bova

Marina from August 29 through September 25. The

season had three major goals:

(1) to carry out extensive excavations in

the Neolithic area of Umbro, with particular

attention to economic and contextual information

about the Neolithic habitation there;

(2) to carry out test excavations in the

Neolithic site of San Pasquale, in order to assess its

potential for large-scale excavations;

(3) to continue the field survey, extending

it to new areas, particularly inland; the overall

survey goal is to understand the evolution of

settlement in the area of Bova Marina throughout

both prehistoric and historic times.

In addition, we aimed to carry out a number of

complementary minor projects such as GIS

environmental modelling, geological raw materials

survey, and intensive gridded collection at the

Greek site of Mazza with the goal of clarifying its

internal organization and evolution.

The 1999 field season ran smoothly, with

no major hitches, and these goals were

accomplished. In some cases the results were

disappointing, as in the San Pasquale test

excavations, but in other cases surprises emerged,

as in the Bronze Age ritual deposition discovered at

Umbro. The purpose of this report is to describe the

methods and results of this field season in detail,

and to interpret their significance for both the

archaeology of the region and the development of

future fieldwork.


9

2. FIELD SURVEY AND LANDSCAPE STUDIES

2.1. Field Survey (David Yoon)

2.1.1. Background

The overall goal of the BMAP field survey

is to understand how people used different areas of

the Calabrian landscape for various purposes such

as habitation, farming, herding, foraging,

specialized production, and so on, in all periods

from the Paleolithic through modern times. As

detailed in previous reports, the local landscape is

both very rugged, with very little level ground, and

highly varied, with very diverse environments

located close to each other. The contrast between

narrow coastal strips and valley bottoms and

mountainous interior is especially marked.

Historically, there appear to have been oscillations

between coast-oriented settlement such as in

Roman times and inland settlement as in medieval

times. As also detailed previously, a number of

landscape features make archaeological field survey

challenging and its results sometimes problematic.

These include heavy erosion on slopes and deep

alluviation on valley bottoms, intensive and

destructive historical land use, the rapid

proliferation of fenced-in non-surveyable areas, and

the fact that pottery fragments from many periods

are not particularly diagnostic.

In 1997, a strategy of visiting previously

known sites and systematically walking a variety of

small areas provided an efficient introduction to the

local archaeological sequence and also provided

useful experience for adapting survey methods to

local conditions. In 1998, the same survey strategy

was continued, together with an effort to assemble

larger contiguous tracts of systematically surveyed

territory, especially around Umbro and San

Pasquale.

The work in 1997 and 1998 raised a

number of questions which we hoped to address in

1999. Some periods (Paleolithic, Copper Age, Iron

Age, Medieval) were absent or nearly absent from

our collections. Does this represent an actual

scarcity of occupation in those periods or did it

instead reflect poor recognition of artifacts by us or

poor choice of survey areas? The recognition of

several small Greek sites of early date raised many

questions about the process of Greek colonization

in the region, and how pre-existing native

communities interacted with the Greek presence.

The differences observed so far in Greek and

Roman site locations (Greek sites on hills, Roman

sites in valleys), despite similarities of technology

and social organization, should be associated with

important differences in land use and economic

organization.

In the 1999 survey, co-directed by David

Yoon and Lin Foxhall, we therefore sought in 1999

to improve the quality of our evidence as it relates

to these questions, by:

• doing more survey of hilltops and high-

elevation areas

• continuing to build up larger blocks of

completely surveyed territory

• obtaining more detailed information about the

locations and internal organization of Greek

and Roman sites

Survey of hilltops and high-elevation areas was

intended to improve the representation of these in

our sample, and particularly to see whether the

missing time periods would be located in these

places. Larger contiguous blocks of surveyed

territory enable better understanding of the relative

placement of contemporary sites, which is

important for interpreting the organization of local

communities of any period. Because Greek and

Roman village sites are relatively large and

complex, they are difficult to interpret through

ordinary fieldwalking methods. The controlled

surface collections at Deri (Site 9, San Pasquale) in

1997 provided some information on the internal

structure of one large Roman site. We decided in

1999 to do similar controlled surface collections at

Mazza, the largest known Greek site in the study

area, to get comparable information for that period.

2.1.2. Procedures

The methods used in 1999 were essentially

the same as in previous years. We worked in crews

consisting either of one of the co-directors and

three to four students or (more rarely) both co-

directors and six to eight students. All survey was

carried out within defined “areas,” zones .1-2 ha in

size whose boundaries, location, and geology and

land use were recorded systematically, All areas

without previously identified sites were walked in

parallel transects with the crew members spaced 10

meters apart (in some locations, where it was

difficult to maintain this interval due to steep slopes

or thick vegetation, we were able only to

approximate it). Previously identified sites were

collected more intensively, using either a systematic

grid of 10 m2 collection areas or nonsystematic

collection of any artifacts observed on the site. In

1997 and 1998 some areas with previously reported


10

sites were surveyed less systematically, but we

attempted for the sake of comparability to use

systematic methods for all areas in 1999.

The 1999 survey was conducted from 29

August to 17 September. This included 2 days of

fieldwalking with two crews, 5 days of fieldwalking

with one crew, 0.5 days of fieldwalking with a

double-size crew, and 3.5 days of intensive surface

collection with a large crew at Mazza. In all this

represents 73 person-days of work, of which 45.5

were used for fieldwalking and 27.5 for intensive

collection at Mazza.

The fieldwalking survey in 1999 covered a

total of 102.0 ha, of which 5.8 ha had been

surveyed in previous years and 96.2 ha were new.

In all, excluding repeat visits to the same area, we

have surveyed a total of 274.5 ha in the three years

of the project so far. We defined 53 new survey

areas in 1999, numbered 102 through 154. Some of

these (Areas 102, 103, 130, 131, 133, and 134) may

overlap to some degree with areas from previous

years. All new areas were surveyed using

systematic transect walking except Areas 150

through 154, which were areas at Mazza surveyed

using a systematic grid of collection areas instead

(see below).

The survey work of the past three years

has been concentrated in several locations. The two

largest clusters are around Umbro (Figure 1, Figure

2) and in the lower part of the San Pasquale valley.

In each of these places numerous survey areas make

up almost a square kilometer of contiguous

coverage. Most of this was done in 1997 and 1998,

but a few areas were added at Umbro in 1999,

especially to the northeast. A third cluster of survey

areas is located in the middle part of the San

Pasquale valley, but in this case it consists of

several disconnected fragments, due to difficulties

of access. A few of these areas were done in 1997

and 1998, but most were done in 1999. Several

smaller clusters have been selected to represent

particular types of location: Mazza (Figure 3) and

Capo Crisafi for coastal hills (1997, plus the

controlled collections in 1999), M. Rotonda and M.

Vunemo for high inland hills (both newly done in

1999), and M. Silipone to compare the valley of the

Torrente Sideroni with the San Pasquale valley

(mostly done in 1998, plus two small areas in

1999). Several small isolated patches occur as well,

mostly to investigate known sites or to survey small

patches of accessible land near the modern town of

Bova Marina; a few of these have been done each

year.

2.1.3. Ceramics and chronology

One of the biggest problems for survey in

the past was the lack of a well-defined local

ceramic sequence which would be used to date sites

found on survey. During 1999, considerable

progress was made at identification of the pottery

from the survey. We were able to work several days

in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Reggio di

Calabria before the field season, restudying some of

our 1997 and 1998 collections and also comparing

them to excavated materials from the Roman site at

San Pasquale (Deri). We are grateful to Dssa.

Emilia Andronico and the staff of the museum for

their assistance with this work.

Based on this research, a new provisional

ceramic classification was set up before the field

season (and modified slightly during the field

season), which was used for classification of the

1999 survey finds. This system will require

additional modification as our knowledge of the

regional pottery improves, but it has improved our

ability to recognize chronological information in

our surface collections, by enabling us to associate

the better-known wares with changes in the local

productions.

Of the remaining problems in this ceramic

chronology, the most important is the prehistoric

period. Prehistoric pottery can usually be

distinguished from that of later periods, but that is

often the limit of our resolution so far. The standard

chronological types for prehistoric pottery in

southern Italy, based on whole vessels from burials,

make use of both form and decoration. For some

periods, such as the Neolithic, surface decoration is

often useful, but after the Neolithic, most vessels

were probably undecorated and vessel form is the

most distinctive criterion. Unfortunately, the small

eroded fragments in our surface collections have

little evidence for either, but especially for vessel

form. Traces of impressed decoration sometimes

survive, making the Neolithic period more visible

than other portions of prehistory, while post-

Neolithic periods are far less easy to identify. It is

likely that some very broad divisions should be

possible on the basis of fabric and surface

treatment, although these are not likely to be as

precise as the existing categories. Of our prehistoric

sites, some have been dated by chance survival of a

diagnostic element or two, some have a suggested

date based on a subjective assessment of similarity

to the excavated assemblage from Umbro, and

some remain undated.

The chronology of the Greek period is

founded on the black-gloss finewares which,

although mostly of regional manufacture, reflect

stylistic trends common throughout the Greek

world. These are associated with reddish brown


11

sandy coarseware, beige plainwares, large and

coarse storage jars, and sandy beige transport

amphoras of Greek-derived form. Roof tile appears

for the first time in the Greek period as well,

predominantly in a sandy, light-colored fabric and

taking the form of flat tile (tegula) with wide

flanges and cover tile (imbrex) with a flat top and

angular sides.

The assemblages of the

Hellenistic/Republican and early Imperial periods

remain ill-defined, because very few imports of

well-dated types have been found to confirm dates

in this range. The assemblages of local

commonwares seem to show a gradual changing

mixture, however, of the sandy brown cooking ware

and fine plainware of the Greek period and the

gritty light-colored wares of the later Roman

period. An orange variant of the Greek cooking

ware is likely to belong to this period.

The late Roman period is well defined by

the presence of imports, including African Red Slip

ware, plainwares, and amphoras from North Africa,

as well as small quantities of Late Roman C ware

and Late Roman amphoras from the eastern

Mediterranean. The types and quantities found in

Bova Marina suggest a peak of imports between the

late 2nd or early 3rd and late 5th centuries AD. The

associated local wares include light-colored

coarseware and amphoras tempered with well-

sorted grit (around 1 mm in size) and light-colored

fine plainware. Roman roof tile, compared to

Greek, tends to be in grittier fabrics and to have

slightly different forms, with thinner flanges on the

tegulae and a curved shape to the imbrices.

Probably at the later end of the sequence of Roman

coarsewares is a brown fabric tempered with

abundant grit, mica, and sometimes chunks of

schist. The precision of dates within the Roman

period is limited so far, however, because the sites

appear in most cases to have been occupied for

quite long periods, several centuries in the case of

Sites 9 and 22.

There is a large, ill-defined gap between

the end of the Roman period and the recent

assemblage associated with farmhouses of the 19th

and 20th centuries. It is not clear how much of this

results from an actual scarcity of settlement and

how much from poor recognition of the pottery of

those periods. Judging from the few available

reports, from the 9th to 11th centuries, ceramic

assemblages in Calabria seem to consist of coarse

cooking wares, semi-fine or finely sandy wares with

red painted decoration, and Italian-Byzantine

amphoras. All of these are continuations from Late

Antiquity, although the details may vary. In

addition, occasional lead-glazed pottery begins by

the 9th century, either with a thick green glaze or

with a sparse glaze overall but large patches and

streaks of thick glaze. In the 11th century the first

tin-glazed wares with green and brown decoration

appear. Very little has been published on late

medieval pottery in Calabria, but based on other

parts of southern Italy one would expect tin-glazed

protomaiolica decorated in various colors, sgraffito

wares, lead-glazed cooking wares, and unglazed

semi-fine wares with red painted decoration

(narrower, finer painting than on the early medieval

version). Until a better sense of the local

productions can be obtained, it may be possible for

early medieval pottery to be mistaken for late

ancient, and for late medieval pottery to be

mistaken for early modern.

There is a clearly modern assemblage,

often associated with abandoned farmhouses,

including large beige water jars, red casseroles with

a very thin green glaze, beige plates, bowls, and

jars with a thin greenish or brownish glaze,

earthenwares with decorated opaque glazes, and

hard, well-fired, usually dark red curved roof tiles.

This assemblage probably dates to the late 19th and

20th centuries. Some of our collections resemble

this assemblage in some respects but also differ

substantially. These collections may be associated

with visible ruins, as at Site 10 (Torre Crisafi), but

often are not. Characteristics include red casseroles

decorated with white slip under a yellow glaze, jars

in a hard, finely granular reddish fabric, and curved

roof tile in a soft brown fabric containing large

chunks of gneiss and schist. In some cases, such as

Torre Crisafi, there is good reason to assign this

material to the early modern period, but in most

cases there is no evidence for an absolute date, and

some of it may extend back to the late Middle

Ages. Comparison with better-dated assemblages

from elsewhere will therefore be important for

establishing the chronological ranges of these types.

2.1.4. Results to date: sites found

We assigned eight new site numbers in

1999, bringing the total to 37 (Figure 1). We

recognize, however, that not all of these site

numbers represent comparable entities. They range

from a few scattered artifacts in a field all the way

to a large and dense concentration of finds such as

Mazza (Site 12). The issue is further complicated

by the different levels of material culture typical of

different periods: a thin scatter of artifacts which

would define a full-fledged prehistoric site might be

less than the general off-site “background” scatter

of artifacts in areas of intensive Roman land use.

As a first approximation toward a more

useful classification, we have divided them into two

categories: "sites", meaning locations where the


12

artifact concentration is sufficiently obvious that

one can define its extent, and "scatters", meaning

areas or locations where artifacts are more

abundant than usual, but not abundant enough to

form a definite concentration.

The list here reviews all 37 locations to

which we have given site numbers so far. Note that,

for the sites defined in 1997 and 1998, it

incorporates updated information where available

from revisiting the location or restudying the

collections. Some sites have been redated or

reinterpreted, and hence this information

supersedes earlier descriptions.

Site 1 (Canturatta A, Area 2). Site, ca. 1

ha? Neolithic. This site, reported to us by S.

Stranges and L. Saccà , is located on the eastern

edge of the S. Pasquale valley, on the slopes just

below a steep ridge. It is in a field with some vines

and almond trees, and evidence for more extensive

vine cultivation in the past. The 1997 collections

from this area produced one Impressed Ware or

Stentinello sherd, and Stranges reports having

found several Stentinello sherds there. Test

excavations in 1999, described in detail elsewhere

in this report, failed to demonstrate the existence of

significant subsurface archaeological deposits.

Site 2 (Canturatta B, Areas 2, 50). Site, ca.

2 ha? Roman. This site is located on the mild slopes

on the eastern edge of the lower S. Pasquale valley,

just below a steep ridge. Abundant fragments of

Roman commonwares and tile were found,

especially in the northeastern corner of Area 50.

The collections need to be reexamined, but no

clearly datable diagnostics have been noted so far.

Site 3 (Pisciotta A, Area 5). Site, ca. 0.5

ha. Bronze Age. This site consists of a scatter of

impasto sherds found on a steep rocky hillside at

the eastern edge of the S. Pasquale valley. The

artifacts appear to be associated with a particular

level near the base of the hillside, are highly

localized, and include fairly large pieces of vessels.

This implies that the site is located on the slope

itself rather than consisting of slopewash from

above. The pottery includes pieces with carination,

high raised strap handles, or horizontal lug handles,

suggesting a Bronze Age date.

Site 4 (Pisciotta B, Area 6). Scatter.

Roman? This area is located near the southern end

of the top of the ridge overlooking the eastern side

of the S. Pasquale valley. A scatter of ancient tile

and pottery fragments, possibly Roman, was found

in this area, in contrast to adjoining areas, but the

quantity of material found is small enough that it

may be background scatter associated with a site

elsewhere.

Site 5 (Pisciotta C, Area 7). Site, 0.4 ha.

Bronze Age? This site, reported to us by S.

Stranges and L. Saccà, is located on a rocky hill

along the ridge to the east of the S. Pasquale valley.

A scatter of prehistoric pottery was found on the

peak of the hill and just below it on the western

side. Most of this pottery was nondiagnostic, but

one rim would be compatible with a Bronze Age or

Iron Age date, and previous collections described

by Saccà would support a Bronze Age date. If so,

like Site 3, it may be worth further investigation to

see how similar it is to recently discovered BA

deposits at the base of a rocky bank at Umbro (see

below).

Site 6 (Deri A, Areas 9, 10, 83). Site, ca. 4

ha. Roman. This site is just above the east bank of

the Fiumara di S. Pasquale near the sea. A rescue

excavation in advance of partially completed

highway construction several years ago found a

Late Roman synagogue as well as other structures

and some burials (Costamagna 1991). The principal

data from our survey consist of a series of 15

irregularly placed 10 m2 collection units in the field

just north of the intended highway bridge (Area 10)

as well as collections from transect-walking in

adjoining areas. In addition, a few diagnostic pieces

were selected from the disturbed area around the

construction. There is at least a thin scatter of

artifactual material throughout the entire field, but a

dense concentration only in the southwestern half

of Area 10. The pottery appears to cover a time

range at least from the 1st century BC to the 5th

century AD. Dated sherds include two rims of a

form resembling Campana A Lamboglia 36 with a

grayish brown slip (2nd to 1st century BC), a

fragment of a thin-walled cup decorated with

barbotine dots (late 1st century BC to early 2nd

century AD), Eastern Sigillata B Hayes 60 (80-150

AD), African Red Slip (ARS) Hayes 8A (75/90-

180/200 AD), ARS cookware Hayes 23B (150-220

AD), African amphora Keay 27B (300-450 AD),

ARS Hayes 50B (350-400+ AD), ARS Hayes 67

(350-450 AD), and ARS Hayes 84 small (440-500

AD). Additional finds include Campanian (black

sand) amphora, Late Roman Amphora 2, and a

marble mosaic tessera.

Site 7 (Deri B, Areas 9, 84). Site, ca. 1 ha.

Prehistoric. This site, which overlaps the northern

part of the Roman site at Deri, is a sparse scatter of

prehistoric artifacts in a cultivated field in the

bottom of the S. Pasquale valley. The finds include

a small amount of prehistoric impasto, and one

fragment of obsidian. There was also a piece of

worked flint nearby in Area 10. The only diagnostic

artifact was a horizontal lug handle. This site is

noteworthy for being a prehistoric site in a valley

bottom location, suggesting that landscape

alteration in the valleys has not been so total as to


13

preclude all possibility of finding sites. It may be

the one erroneously called “Torre Varata” in Tinè

(1992).

Site 8 (Pisciotta D, Area 13). Scatter.

Historic. This is a sparse scatter of pottery found in

a small area about 30 meters in diameter on a

recently reforested slope. The artifacts are not

prehistoric, but have yet to be reexamined to

determine their date.

Site 9 (Umbro A, Area 16; Figure 2)).

Site, < 0.1 ha. Neolithic, Copper Age?, Bronze

Age, Roman. This site has been the principal focus

of the excavations in 1998 and 1999 and is

discussed in detail in elsewhere in this report. To

summarize briefly, this site, previously explored by

S. Stranges and briefly examined by Tinè (1992),

is located on a plateau near the border between

Bova Marina and Bova Superiore, where the

bedrock of calcareous sandstone projects out to

form steep cliffs. At the foot of one of the cliffs was

found a dense scatter of Neolithic pottery and

obsidian; this area was excavated in both 1998 and

1999. Two areas on top of this same cliff where

undated prehistoric pottery had been found on the

surface were also excavated, one in 1998 yielding a

poorly dated assemblage, possibly post-Neolithic,

and the other in 1999 yielding an assemblage

including parts of some Early Bronze Age whole

vessels. Abundant small pieces of human bone were

found partway up the cliff; although associated with

Neolithic pottery and obsidian, these were

subsequently dated by radiocarbon to the late

Roman period. The presence of Roman burials at

this location is somewhat enigmatic, because the

nearest site found as yet which may possibly have

Roman occupation is Site 33, about half a kilometer

away. However, Area 130, located about 250

meters to the southwest, yielded one fragment of

Italian sigillata, so there is some other evidence for

Roman activity in the area.

Site 10 (Torre Crisafi, Area 26). Site, ca.

0.5 ha. Modern. This site occupies the peak of the

promontory above Capo S. Giovanni. The central

part of the peak is now occupied by the shrine of

the Madonna del Mare. However, around the edges

of the peak and around the ruined coastal

watchtower, abundant pottery and tile fragments

were collected. Although this site was originally

considered both Classical and medieval in date,

part of the collection was reexamined in 1999 and

the site has been redated. It appears to be modern,

but probably earlier than the assemblage associated

with recent abandoned farms in Bova Marina. It

might be useful to compare this assemblage with

late medieval pottery as well. It is worth noting that

the tower at this point dates to the 16th

-17th

centuries.

Site 11 (Cimitero, Areas 28, 29). Site?

Historic. A large amount of pottery was found on

the slope west of the modern Cimitero S. Pietro,

overlooking the modern town of Bova Marina. A

small amount was also found at the top of the hill.

The artifacts are not prehistoric, but have yet to be

reexamined to determine their date.

Site 12 (Mazza, Areas 30-37, 102, 103,

150-153; Figure 3)). Site, ca. 8 ha. This site,

reported to us by S. Stranges and L. Saccà and the

location several years ago of a small test excavation

by L. Costamagna for the Soprintendenza

Archeologica della Calabria, was partially surveyed

in 1997. At that time the presence of a substantial

Greek site, presumably a village, was confirmed.

Restudy of the collections in 1999 showed the

presence of prehistoric and Late Roman pottery in

addition to a wide range of Greek pottery, from

early Archaic to Hellenistic. Greek pottery included

the base of an early Archaic cup with bichrome

decoration, numerous cup and krater pieces of the

6th to 5th centuries BC, Italiote transport amphoras

of the 5th to 4th centuries BC, and a possible

Corinthian “frying pan” of the Hellenistic period.

Late Roman material identified in the 1997

collections includes ARS Hayes 91C/D (6th to 7th

century AD), ARS Hayes 105 (late 6th to 7th

century AD), and Late Roman C Hayes 3C/D (late

5th century AD). In 1999, we did a small amount of

new fieldwalking (Areas 102 and 103) and

conducted intensive surface collections on a regular

grid over all the parts of the site to which we could

obtain access. These intensive collections are

reported in detail below. It should also be noted

that the site probably continues to the east, and

possibly to the north as well, but that access to that

area was blocked by fences in both 1997 and 1999.

Site 13 (Pisciotta E, Area 47). Site, ca. 0.5

ha. Roman. This site was reported to us as a

possible Roman kiln site by S. Stranges and L.

Saccà . It is located in a small ravine cut into a

slope on the eastern edge of the S. Pasquale valley.

On the slope north of the ravine, abundant tile and

commonware sherds were found. A drystone wall

foundation, possibly of a small rectangular

building, was observed in the eroding hillside. Two

rounded depressions in the bottom of the ravine

may be the features suggested to have been kilns.

Full reexamination of the collection remains to be

done, but a brief inspection showed a small but

diverse assemblage of Roman (and possibly also

Greek or medieval) commonwares, including a

fragment of African amphora. Surface collections

contain no evidence of pottery production such as

misfired wasters or a predominance of one or two

fabrics. Thus, it may be best interpreted as a typical

small Roman site, probably a farm. The round


14

features of unknown date and function may or may

not be associated.

Site 14 (Panaghia A, Areas 51, 55). Site,

ca. 0.5 ha? Roman. This site, reported to us by S.

Stranges and L. Saccà , is located on the western

side of the middle part of the San Pasquale valley.

Collections from Area 51, done in 1997, include a

variety of Roman commonwares and tile, probably

predominantly early imperial, and a fragment of a

fineware with a bright orange slip (possibly either

ARS chiara A or Eastern Sigillata B). When the

site was revisited in 1998, a trench had been dug in

the site, apparently for construction, which had cut

through a Roman structure with tile roof, brick

walls, and opus signinum (cocciopesto) floor before

being halted. In the disturbed ground around this

trench we collected more Roman artifacts,

including the base of an ARS bowl (chiara D

fabric) with feather-rouletting on the interior, dating

to the 5th or 6th century AD. We made a series of

controlled collections in the field extending north

of this trench (Area 55). For the most part these

collections produced little or no Roman material,

except for a low-density scatter about 100 meters

away from the structure. Thus, the site is apparently

fairly small, probably a single farm. The area to the

east is inaccessible, being fenced-off orange groves,

but it may be worthwhile to investigate how far the

artifact scatter extends to the southwest.

Site 15 (Agrillei, Area 52). Site, < 1 ha.

Prehistoric. This site is located on a small

promontory at the southern end of the Agrillei ridge

near the border between Bova Marina and Palizzi

Marina, overlooking the sea. The presence of a

prehistoric site here was reported to us by L. Saccà.

Collections in 1997 and 1998 produced a

significant quantity of prehistoric impasto sherds,

mostly from the southern face of the hill, just below

the crest. None of the fragments appear to be useful

chronological indicators. The presence of a flat area

at the summit and buried terrace walls eroding out

of the slope suggests modern earth-moving, so the

finds may not be in their original context. Several

probably Greek or Roman sherds indicate the

possibility of a Greek or Roman component as well,

but the quantity is not enough to rule out their being

background scatter.

Site 16 (Umbro B, Area 58). Site, ca. 0.4

ha. Prehistoric. This site is on a hill about 150

meters north of Site 9 at Umbro. The main

concentration of artifacts is on a small saddle of

land along the top of the hill and along the upper

northern face of the hill. Collections in 1998

produced a large quantity of prehistoric impasto;

the assemblage differs somewhat from the Neolithic

pottery at Site 9, particularly in the presence of a

slip on many fragments, but no obvious

chronological diagnostics were found. It is likely

that the assemblage is post-Neolithic, but

excavation may be needed to determine a more

specific date.

Site 17 (Limaca, Area 66). Scatter.

Prehistoric. On the northern slope of a rounded hill

east of Umbro we collected one impasto sherd and

one piece of worked flint. The quantity is too small

to demonstrate the existence of any concentration

that could be called a site, but ground visibility was

poor, so it may be that additional items were

missed.

Site 18 (Umbro C, Areas 24, 68, 130).

Site, 0.2 ha. Greek. The main concentration of finds

is in Area 24, which is the sloping top of a small

rocky outcrop. A less dense scatter of artifacts

occurs also in the adjoining areas. The finds include

black-gloss pottery, probably of the late 6th to early

5th century BC, as well as Greek commonwares

and tile. The small but fairly dense sherd scatter

suggests something like a small single farm site. A

few Roman sherds have been found in nearby areas

as well; it is not clear whether these relate to reuse

of this location or to some other, as yet unidentified

site.

Site 19 (Penitenzeria, Area 72). Scatter.

Prehistoric?, Greek. This area is a large, gently

sloping field on the large plateau extending west

and south from the rock outcrops at Umbro. A

small scatter of artifacts was collected from the

southern edge of Area 72. This included four

probable fragments of prehistoric impasto, all

nondiagnostic, as well as a fragment of Greek

black-gloss and some Greek or Roman

commonwares. This location should be revisited to

assess whether there is a significant artifact

concentration, and if so to determine its extent and

obtain more evidence of its date.

Site 20 (Buccisa A, Area 76). Scatter.

Greek/Roman? This area is an olive grove on the

south face of M. Buccisa. At the southern edge, a

dense concentration of Greek or Roman tile was

found. No definitely ancient pottery was found in

association with this tile. Thus, it is uncertain

whether this tile scatter is the result of an ancient

structure in this location or of reuse for building

modern terrace walls. Even in the latter case,

however, it is likely that the site the tile came from

should be nearby.

Site 21 (Buccisa B, Area 79). Scatter.

Prehistoric. In a small, level area at the foot of the

southwest end of M. Buccisa, a small scatter of

pottery was found in a cultivated field. Most was

modern, but three fragments of prehistoric impasto,

all nondiagnostic, were also present. This is unusual

for such a small area, and although this small


15

quantity could be background scatter, it is also

possible that there is a prehistoric site in this

location or nearby.

Site 22 (Sideroni/Amigdala, Areas 88, 89).

Site, > 1.5 ha. Prehistoric?, Roman, Medieval. The

site is located on the eastern bank of the Torrente

Sideroni, amidst the built-up area of modern Bova

Marina. Much of Area 88 is directly under a

highway overpass. Collections were made from

vacant lots in Area 89 and the northern part of Area

88 and from disturbed areas under the highway

overpass and near recent construction in Area 88.

These disturbed areas produced very abundant

finds in good condition; the vacant lots, despite

poor visibility due to grassy ground cover,

produced moderately abundant finds as well. The

total size of the site is impossible to estimate,

because only a few places are not currently built

over. No clear evidence was found regarding

whether the site should be considered as a village

or as a villa. The site was under excavation by the

Soprintendenza Archeologica della Calabria in

1999; it is hoped that their investigation will enable

better interpretation of the nature of the site's

occupation. The earliest well-dated sherds were a

fragment of a thin-walled cup, perhaps of the 1st

century AD, and the rim of a bowl in a gray fabric

covered with a dark gray slip, possibly a Sardinian

or Sicilian imitation of Campanian ware of the 2nd

or 1st century BC. The principal concentration of

finds ranges from the 2nd to the 5th century AD.

ARS forms include Hayes 23, Hayes 32/58, Hayes

52B, Hayes 196, Hayes 59, Hayes 61, Lamboglia

52B, and a small fragment of a decorated lamp.

Several pieces of African amphora were found,

including an Africana II spike and a Keay 62a rim.

Identified eastern Mediterranean imports include

Late Roman Amphoras 2 and 3. Some red-painted

commonware sherds of late ancient or early

medieval date were found. Early medieval

occupation was demonstrated by the presence of a

lamp of the so-called lucerna a ciabatta type, dated

approximately to the 8th century AD (Garcea and

Williams 1987; Ceci 1992). Four possibly

prehistoric impasto sherds were found in the

northern part of the site (Area 89), but they were

nondiagnostic.

Site 23 (Carusena, Area 91). Scatter. Two

prehistoric sherds were found in this small area in

1998. Given the size and location of the area this

was unexpected, so a site number was given to this

scatter. In 1999 part of the ridge just above Area 91

was walked (Area 148), yielding no prehistoric

artifacts. Although part could not be done at the

time, it is likely that there is no concentrated

prehistoric site in the vicinity, and that the minor

scatter in Area 91 is as much as will be found.

Although one of the sherds found in 1998 was a

rim, it did not appear to be chronologically

diagnostic.

Site 24 (Zaccaria, Area 96). Scatter.

Roman. This area is on the middle part of the slope

of M. Silipone, overlooking the valley of the

Torrente Sideroni. This part of the slope yielded

several fragments of ancient pottery and tile,

probably Roman. There was no clear concentration

anywhere, but the quantity is much greater than in

the surrounding areas. The quantity is not enough to

rule out being background scatter related to an as

yet unlocated site, but because the area is located

on a soft clay slope, it is also possible that a small

site here has been largely obscured by

geomorphological processes.

Site 25 (Sant'Aniceto, Area 98). Site, ca.

0.6 ha. Prehistoric (Final Bronze Age or Iron

Age?), Roman/Medieval?, Modern. This site is

located at the top of a very steep hill overlooking

the valley of the Torrente Vena. The presence of a

medieval church on this hill was reported to us by

S. Stranges and L. Saccà. A difficult and time-

consuming climb is required to get to the top of the

hill. The most obvious feature at the top is a small

ruined church built of mortared stone masonry,

approximately 9-10 meters square with an apse on

the eastern side. Some other traces of wall

foundations are visible several meters to the north.

The predominant finds include red straw-tempered

roof tile, red earthenware with a thick green glaze,

light-colored plainware with reddish sherd temper,

and light-colored to orange-brown gritty

coarseware. The last of these resembles Roman

coarsewares, but no datable finewares or imports

were found. The others are unusual in our

collections and appear most likely to be early

modern, or possibly late medieval, although no

recognizably medieval types were found. On the

present evidence the church is most likely to be

modern, although an earlier date cannot be ruled

out. In the eroding slope just west of the church a

somewhat different pottery assemblage was found,

consisting mostly of impasto, probably of

protohistoric date. Three decorated pieces of coarse

pottery were found, one with a wide band of dark

brown paint and two with finger-impressed applied

cordons; these could be of either protohistoric (Iron

Age?) or medieval date.

Site 26 (Climarda, Area 99). Site,

unknown extent. Greek?, Roman. This area consists

of the fields at the foot of the south end of the hill

on which Site 25 is located, as well as the banks of

the Torrente Vena running through these fields.

Most of the finds in this area were modern,

probably related to an abandoned farmhouse at the

foot of the hill. In the eroding river banks, however,

and archaeological stratum could be seen about 1 to


16

1.5 meters below the present ground surface. From

the banks and the stream bed, and also in small

quantities from the fields, we recovered numerous

fragments of ancient pottery and tile, including

black-gloss (Greek or Republican), ARS form

Hayes 96 (early 6th century AD), and the spike of a

Late Roman African amphora. It is not clear from

the small collection made in 1998 whether the

apparent hiatus between the Greek/Republican

occupation and the Late Roman is real or not. Due

to the depth of the overburden it is difficult to

determine the extent of the site from the surface

evidence, but the depth of the deposit also suggests

that this may be a rare site with relatively

undisturbed archaeological contexts. Thus, it may

merit further archaeological testing, at least to the

extent of cleaning the bank profiles.

Site 27 (Vadicamo, Area 100). Site, < 0.01

ha. Roman/Medieval. Area 100 is a long, badly

eroded ridge of fine clay partially reforested with

eucalyptus trees. At the northwest end of the ridge,

a small gravely patch that looked like a possible

relict deflation surface had a concentration of ten

sherds of late Roman or early Medieval

commonware and one fragment of Roman tile. The

sherds all appear to be of the same vessel, a jar of a

form known from other late Roman and early

Medieval sites. This unusual concentration in such

a small area, and especially the combination of tile

with the remains of what may have been a whole

vessel, suggests that this may have been a late

Roman or early Medieval burial. If so, however, it

has entirely eroded away, because the artifacts were

all found resting on the apparent deflation surface.

Site 28 (Papagallo, Area 101). Site, < 1

ha? Prehistoric, Greek/Roman. Area 101 is located

in an eroding badlands formation on the east slope

of a clay ridge near the border between Bova

Marina and Condofuri Marina. From the relatively

small area of this slope that we investigated, we

collected several fragments of prehistoric impasto

and Greek or Roman commonware. The prehistoric

pottery appeared to be later than the Neolithic

assemblage at Umbro, but did not include any clear

chronological diagnostics. The Greek or Roman

pottery needs to be reexamined to determine its

date. This area should be revisited to determine the

extent of the site and to see whether contexts can be

identified in the eroding banks from which the

artifacts are eroding.

Site 29 (Pisciotta F, Areas 8, 80, 81, 82,

87). Scatter. Roman. The fields on the mildly

sloping eastern side of the S. Pasquale valley, just

to the east of the Torrente Turdari, contain a higher

than usual frequency of Roman pottery. There does

not appear to be a clear concentration anywhere

within these areas, however, so it may all be a

diffuse scatter associated with Site 2 or 13.

Site 30 (Umbro D, Area 130). Site, ca. 0.6

ha. Neolithic?, Bronze Age? This site, reported to

us by S. Stranges, is located on the edge of an area

at Umbro partially surveyed in 1998. It is a long,

narrow scatter of artifacts along the southern edge

of a plateau area at Umbro, where the slope begins

to become broken and steeper. The finds are mostly

nondiagnostic fragments of prehistoric pottery,

along with one fragment of worked flint. The

majority of the pottery resembles the Neolithic

pottery from the excavations at Umbro in fabric,

and one fragment appears to have impressed

decoration, but some are somewhat finer and may

be later. One of these may be a fragment of a horn-

shaped handle or some similar projecting element.

Another rim, though of coarse fabric, appears to

have the attachment for a strap handle projecting

above the rim.

Site 31 (Umbro E, Area 131). Site, ca.

0.25 ha. Neolithic? This site is located on the

central plateau at Umbro, in an area not surveyed

previously. It is at the southern edge of the central

plateau, at the top of some low cliffs overlooking

the field containing Site 30. A scatter of prehistoric

pottery (plus one piece of obsidian) was found

along the top of the cliff. No useful diagnostic

fragments were found, but the fabrics generally

resemble the Neolithic pottery from the excavations

at Umbro. That, together with the obsidian, makes a

Neolithic date most likely for this site.

Site 32 (Marcasita, Areas 136, 137). Site,

ca. 0.8 ha. Neolithic?, Roman. This site is at the

end of a low hill projecting into the eastern side of

the S. Pasquale valley, overlooking the floodplain.

It is located directly across the river bottom from

Site 14 (Panaghia). It comprises a fairly dense and

well-defined scatter of brick, tile, and pottery in

two clusters on the northeast and southwest sides of

the ridge. Some of the brick and tile are modern,

related to an abandoned farmhouse just to the west,

but some are clearly Roman. Roman imports

include one fragment of Campanian (black sand)

amphora and several nondiagnostic fragments of

African Red Slip ware, African plainware, and

African amphora. The Roman assemblage does not

contain anything that can be dated very closely but

would support a date range from the 1st century AD

(possibly somewhat earlier) to the 4th century AD

or later. The size and density of the Roman

component conform to what would be expected of a

single farm site. The site also yielded a fair amount

of prehistoric pottery, in fabrics resembling the

Neolithic impasto and figulina from the

excavations at Umbro. One fragment may have

traces of impressed decoration. Thus, the


17

prehistoric assemblage may be of Neolithic date.

The prehistoric pottery is less eroded than usual for

surface assemblages in Bova Marina, which may

mean that plowing has recently cut into or is

currently cutting into the archaeological levels.

Site 33 (Cromidi, Area 117). Site, < 1 ha?

Greek, Roman? A small cluster of ancient pottery

and tile, including one fragment of Greek black-

gloss. It is located about 500 meters northeast of

the Neolithic site at Umbro, in the valley by the

foot of the cliffs of M. Buccisa, near some springs.

The surrounding parts of Area 117 also yielded two

fragments of African Red Slip ware, as well as a

fair amount of Greek and Roman tile. Thus, it is

likely that there was a small occupation, possibly a

farm or a seasonal fieldhouse, used in both Greek

and Roman periods.

Site 34 (Vunemo, Area 123). Site, < 0.1

ha? Roman? A small, fairly level area of vines and

fruit trees was the only part of Area 123 to yield

artifacts in any quantity. A concentration of

artifacts in this one location included Greek or

Roman coarse pottery and tile. No obvious

chronological diagnostics were found, but the

overall character of the assemblage may suggest an

early Roman date.

Site 35 (Cecilia, Area 104). Scatter.

Roman. This consists of a small quantity of artifacts

found during fieldwalking on the north face of a hill

along the border between Bova Marina and Palizzi

Marina. A large piece of Roman tegula was found

on the slope below the crest, and a few scraps of

pottery, some of which may be Roman, were found

near the top. A stone weight for an olive press,

possibly Late Roman or later in date, was found

built into the wall of a recent fieldhouse at the base

of the hill to the north.

Site 36 (Panaghia B, Area 143). Scatter.

Roman. This area, on the terraces of the western

side of the S. Pasquale valley, produced a diffuse

scatter of Roman pottery and tile, none of it clearly

diagnostic. There is no clear concentration here or

in the slopes above this area, so although it could

be a small, low-density site, it is at least as likely to

be dense background scatter, possibly related to the

Roman site at Panaghia (Site 14).

Site 37 (Panaghia C, Area 145). Scatter.

Greek, Roman? This area, on a slope overlooking

the western side of the S. Pasquale valley, produced

a diffuse scatter of pottery and tile, mostly modern

(related to an abandoned farmhouse at the upper

end of the area) but also including a few pieces of

Greek or Roman coarseware and tile. No

concentration of ancient artifacts was observed, so

this is likely to be background scatter related to a

site located elsewhere, possibly the Roman site at

Panaghia (Site 14).

2.1.4. Discussion of survey results

It may be useful at this point to give a

brief review of what we have learned so far from

our survey.

We have not yet found any evidence of

Paleolithic activity. Given sporadic Paleolithic

finds elsewhere in the area (at Torre Mozza and

Gunì in Palizzi Marina, for instance; S. Stranges

and L. Saccà, pers. comm.) it is unlikely that Bova

Marina was simply uninhabited before the

Neolithic. Paleolithic settlements are likely to be

archaeologically unobtrusive, and coastal sites are

probably now under water due to rising sea levels at

the beginning of the Holocene. However, the lack

of Paleolithic sites may also be the result of

geomorphological processes having eliminated

older ground surfaces in the study area. It is also

possible that we have failed to recognize them

adequately: our survey has recovered very few

chipped stone artifacts so far, possibly due to our

reliance on inexperienced crews. As the number of

later prehistoric sites grows, our understanding of

site location improves.

Neolithic sites seem to occur in a wide

variety of settings, including coastal valley terrace

(Site 1), low hill overlooking a river valley (Site

32), and inland plateau (Sites 9 and 31). Later

prehistoric periods are more difficult to distinguish

(see discussion of ceramic chronology above), but a

similar diversity is likely.

In the Classical periods, Greek settlement

includes a large village (Site 12) as well as small

farmsteads (Sites 18 and 33). As with the

prehistoric sites, however, most are located on high

ground, although some exceptions occur (Site 33).

In the Roman period for the first time numerous

sites are known from valley locations (Sites 2, 6,

14, 22, and 26), suggesting a shift toward more

intensive agricultural use of valley bottoms. The

ceramic evidence for the Greek and Roman periods

shows two peaks: one in late Archaic to Classical

times (6th to 5th centuries BC) and one in late

imperial times (3rd to 5th centuries AD). Late

ancient settlement seems to continue in diminishing

abundance but in the same locations as Roman

settlement, to the 8th century or so (Site 22). After

that, medieval settlement remains obscure, but by

the 19th century abundant rural settlement again

existed throughout Bova Marina, like in Greek and

Roman times.

In relation to the goals we had set for the

1999 season, we made reasonable progress given


18

the constraints of such a short field season. The

detailed evidence from Mazza is not only likely to

be important for understanding Greek settlement

patterns in the region, it also revealed significant

prehistoric and Roman occupations, adding to our

knowledge of those periods. The size of this site

compared to others, however, and the anomalously

high artifact density at the highest part of the hill,

raises many questions about the internal structure of

the site. Geophysical prospection, for example by

resistivity/conductivity or magnetometer survey,

may help explain the differences in Greek and

Roman settlement patterns, by allowing us to

compare sites in terms of number and arrangement

of recognizable structures.

The recognition of a number of small,

rural Greek sites in the study area, a considerable

distance from any Greek town, is a valuable

addition to the understanding of Greek colonization

derived from the study of urban sites such as Locri

and their immediate surroundings as at Metaponto.

The early date of some of these sites is somewhat

surprising; it indicates that Greek settlement spread

very widely through the colonial areas within a few

generations. What remains unclear is the function

of these sites, and their relationship on the one hand

to the towns and on the other to the native

population. Excavation at a small, early Greek site

such as Site 18 may provide evidence that can be

compared to that from urban sites such as Locri in

order to address such questions.

The additional evidence from higher,

interior locations (M. Rotonda, M. Vunemo) is a

valuable complement to our evidence from Umbro.

In particular, it shows two things. First, Umbro is

unusual among the higher locations in Bova

Marina, in the amount of prehistoric settlement to

be found there. Although both M. Rotonda and M.

Vunemo produced some archaeological evidence,

nothing like the cluster of prehistoric sites at

Umbro was found. Second, even in highland areas

that appear fairly barren at present, Greek and

Roman settlement and activity were present to some

degree. This suggests a problem with the present

definition of our survey. In early modern times,

Bova Superiore and Bova Marina formed a single

unit, and it is likely that agricultural practices of the

time made use of land at all elevations within this

extended territory. There is no reason to suppose

that the prehistoric, Greek, and Roman periods

were different; interior areas in Bova Superiore

were probably used by the same people using parts

of Bova Marina, for cultivation of grain or other

crops in the lower parts, for haying or pasture at

higher altitudes, and even higher places could have

been used for other purposes such as hunting,

wood-cutting, charcoal-burning, or mineral

extraction. Moreover, since we know that the

principal focus of medieval settlement in the region

was the interior town of Bova, the apparent absence

of medieval settlement from our survey may be a

result of working too near the coast. For these

reasons, a survey concentrated entirely on the lower

areas within the borders of modern Bova Marina is

incomplete, and runs the danger of missing

important parts of past settlement systems. This

danger is greatest for the warmer periods of the

past, when arable cultivation could have extended

higher than in recent times; such periods may

include important parts of the Bronze Age and the

Middle Ages.

The problems with the chronological

sequence remain worrisome. It appears likely that a

combination of continued survey and statistical

seriation of our assemblages will improve the

resolution for the Greek and Roman periods,

already the best-known part of the sequence.

Expanding the survey to higher areas near Bova

Superiore or Amendolea Vecchia may improve our

knowledge of the medieval part of the sequence.

The problems with the prehistoric sequence will

require a different approach, however. Apart from

chance finds of freshly disturbed prehistoric sites,

an unlikely occurrence, survey is not likely to

produce assemblages in good enough condition to

allow systematic comparison of the attributes used

in traditional classifications with those more readily

visible in our surface collections, such as paste,

surface treatment, and firing. Surface collections

also lack secure archaeological contexts, so one

does not know whether they represent an umixed

assemblage and one cannot associate them with

absolute dates. What may be required, instead, is a

program of small test excavations at selected

prehistoric sites, to obtain samples of less eroded

artifacts from better-defined contexts, possibly in

association with materials suitable for radiocarbon

dating. Such excavations, carefully targeted at sites

likely to have intact deposits of enigmatic date,

would not only enable the excavated sites to be

dated, but would improve the precision of the

dating of our survey in general.

Finally, we were asked by the

Soprintendenza Archeologica della Calabria to

watch for archaeological sites at imminent risk of

destruction due to human activity. While numerous

sites are subject to destructive geomorphological

processes such as erosion and human practices such

as plowing, we observed only two sites actually

threatened by active construction. One of these is

Panaghia, an inland Roman villa or farmstead site

where digging foundations for new houses had

destroyed part of the site already. Construction has

now been stopped at Panaghia following legal

action by the Soprintendenza. The other site is

Siderone/ Amigdala, located beneath the SS106


19

overpass on the eastern side of the modern town of

Bova Marina. This Roman villa or village site has

been largely covered by modern building, and parts

still preserved in gardens are currently being built

upon. Again, the Soprintendenza has taken legal

action to halt building and has also begun rescue

excavations.

2.2. Intensive Collections at Mazza (Lin

Foxhall)

Controlled surface collections were

carried out over four days on site 12, Mazza, to

determine the geographical limits, the

chronological range and patterning, and the internal

spatial organisation of this large and complex

historic-period site.

A baseline was established along the fence

near the summit of the site. Using a compass, tapes

and ranging rods, a grid oriented along cardinal

points was plotted over the accessible areas of the

site with stations marked with chaining pins every

30 m. Each station was assigned a number and a

letter designating its position within the grid, and

each was then used as the centre point for a circle

10m2 in area. Circles were demarcated using two

attached to a piece of string 1.78 m in length. One

nail was held at the station point while the other

was used to inscribe the circumference of a circle

with a 1.78 m radius. All artefacts were collected

from within each of these areas. Part of the site,

near the (probably) early modern-modern structures

previously identified as a ‘temple’, is fenced off so

it was not possible to include this area in our

intensive systematic survey. However, the intensive

survey area did cover the section of the site with

modern (19th century?) farmhouse buildings, just

south of the summit. A total of 105 small

collections were made (Figure 3, Figure 4).

Spatial data is summarized in a set of

distribution maps of selected artifact categories.

Each map depicts the number of fragments of that

category collected at each location; collection units

with no items of that category are left blank. These

numbers are based on preliminary sorting in 1999

and may be subject to revision. A few problems

with the data which are relevant to reading these

maps should be noted. First, one bag, from

collection H8, became separated from its contents

while the finds were being washed. These artifacts

presumably became mixed with those of one or

more other bags. Second, an assortment of pottery

and tile became mixed with the contents of a

different bag, which originally contained samples

of metal-smelting debris. This group of pottery and

tile fragments is shown in the circle in the lower

part of each map. The quantity and types resemble

those of the units around H8, but it is not known

whether these are in fact some or all of the missing

finds. Finally, several units (L6 to L12) were

incorrectly placed too far to the east. These were

redone once the error was noted, but the initial

mistaken collections are included on the maps

between K and L.

Preliminary analysis of the material

suggests that temporal and spatial patterns are

discernable in the controlled surface collections.

Very large amounts of ancient roof tile were found

at the highest part of the site, smaller quantities on

the rest of the upper areas and the SE slopes, and

much less around the edges. Natural rock outcrops

in the central portion of the site S and SW of the

summit (Area 151), look similar to those used for

house foundations at Locri Epizephyrii, and might

perhaps have served the same purpose. The

northern slopes of the site showed low level artefact

scatter almost to the gully. On the southern and

southeastern slopes artifact scatter continued as far

as we could survey to the edges of the steep slopes,

though density levels decreased dramatically

toward the edges. The southern end of the site

appears to have a concentration of smelting/metal

working remains. Burnt daub and furnace slag were

collected and a large piece of probably furnace slag

too large to collect was photographed. Slag samples

were taken to Leicester University for analysis.

Ceramic data has not yet been fully

analysed, but preliminary results suggest a

preponderance among the Greek fine-wares of cups

and krater-like shapes. Pottery is most abundant on

the eastern, southern, and southwestern parts of the

plateau, as well as on the southeastern terrace

below; an area of at least 8 hectares in all. The

artifact scatter is variable in density, but the only

major anomaly is the dense concentration of tile at

the summit. Greek pottery, as represented by black-

gloss wares, occurs throughout this area. Roman

pottery, as represented by African imports, occurs

mostly in the eastern and southeastern parts of the

site. Prehistoric pottery is most abundant in the

southern and southwestern parts of the site, which

is also the area where the metal-smelting evidence

occurred.

To conclude, intensive collection at Mazza

has showed that there is both chronological

patterning within the site, with Greek remains

everywhere and an unsuspected Roman component

concentrated near the highest part of the site. It has

also shown that there is functional differentiation

within the site, with possible residential and

industrial areas identifiable. Further analysis of this

data should clarify these patterns.


20

2.3. Geological Reconnaissance

Prehistoric people made use of a range of

geological raw materials; archaeologically

demonstrable examples include clay, flint, obsidian,

fossil shark teeth, hard stones for polished axes, and

stone for querns, mills and other ground stone tools.

The sources of some of these are known. Obsidian

used at Umbro generally came from Lipari (R.

Tykot, pers. comm.) and some grey flint came from

outcrops in the Saracena area of Condofuri Marina.

The polished stone axe found at Umbro in 1999

(see below) was made from amphibolite from the

Sila (P. Barrier, pers. comm.), and the miniature

axe replica was made from a softer phyllite schist

available locally. The source of other materials

remains unknown. Petrographic analysis has shown

that pots probably made at Umbro were not made

from clay from the two sources nearest to the site

(see below), and we have little idea where the red,

brown, and yellow flint used at Umbro came from.

Hard stone for making axes has been the

object of a number of sourcing studies. Throughout

Southern Italy and Sicily, prehistoric people used

granite, diorites, serpentine and other greenstones,

amphibolite, and other stones for axes, adzes, and

similar tools. Often greenstones transported from

long distances were used for smaller or finer tools,

particularly amulets, while amphibolite and diorite

were used for less fine axes and more resistant and

commoner stones such as granite were used large

pebble tools (Leighton 1999; O’Hare 1990). These

studies make clear both that hard stones were

transported over considerable distances, with some

coming ultimately from the Alps, and that materials

were often carefully matched with a tool’s intended

form and use. It is also probable that the trade in

stone and axes not only carried on to supply useful

tools but was socially and symbolically important

as well.

With these considerations in mind, we

decided to investigate the availability of hard stones

in the Bova Marina region. If appropriate raw

materials were available, could they have been an

economic resource for local axe production or for

trade? If raw materials were not available locally,

were they available inland in the highlands of

Aspromonte? If so, what were the implications for

trade? If raw materials were available and were not

used, why would this have been so?

The geology of Aspromonte is highly

varied, but the potential sources of polishable hard

stone seem limited. The territory of Bova Marina

itself, like much of the coastal strip, consists of

harder and softer sedimentary stones (limestones,

sandstones, clays, shales) and of metamorphic

rocks including predominantly phyllites, schists and

gneisses. The latter are often too soft or too riven

by cleavage planes to be used for tools. Harder and

finer grained metamorphic and igneous stones

occur at higher altitudes 10-20 km inland; these

include granites, diorites, and possibly other stones

(Servizio Geologico dell’Italia 1970; 1976).

Given this, hard stones could have been

available locally in two ways. First, fragments

could have washed down from the highlands in

river valleys. Secondly, a band of relatively soft

sandstone conglomerate stretches across the

territory at about 3-6 km inland. As road cuts in the

Fiumara di Amendolea valley, Monte Bucissa, and

alnog the Bova Superiore road show, this

conglomerate contains strata dense with cobbles of

varied stones which must have originally come

from older strata higher inland. A cursory

inspection on Monte Bucissa showed that most of

these were granites and gneisses, but they also

contain some unidentified close-grained stones

which may have been suitable for tool-making. The

only crystalline material was a coarse-grained and

fault-ridden quartzite. These conglomerate strata

would have provided another potential source of

stone for tools.

The logical strategy for assessing raw

material availability, therefore, was through

surveying river valleys where both recently

transported stone and cobbles eroding from

conglomerates would be available. In addition to

recording raw materials present, we hoped to

collect data on how much stone of each type was

available, to assess the “richness” of potential

source zones quantitatively. As a pilot experiment,

we recorded stone resources at tweve locations

along the Fiumara di Amendolea. These were

spaced approximately a kilometer apart, extending

inland from the coast to above the ancient castle of

Amendolea. At each point, the crew laid out a

circle enclosing ten square meters, and collected all

cobbles larger than 15 cm long by 10 cm high by 5

cm wide. They then matched these to a type

collection they carried with them and tallied how

many cobbles of each type of stone were present.

When a new type of stone was found, a fragment

was added to the collection. Although cumbersome,

this procedure allowed survey to be carried out

without a trained geologist present on the crew and

without collecting and transporting hundreds of

kilos of cobbles. The type collection was retained

for later identification of samples by a trained

petrologist.

Results are pending at this time. However,

it is clear from this exercise that plentiful cobbles

of an appropriate size and shape are available in the

major river valleys, and at least some of them are


21

hard, potentially usable stones. It is also clear that

different points in river valleys varied in their raw

material “richness;” this may have had implications

for landscape use and social rights of access.

2.4. GIS Analysis of Prehistoric Land Use

(Doortje Van Hove)

Much archaeological research focuses

upon human settlements, ceremonial sites, and the

material that is found within them rather than on the

spaces in between. This is because ‘off-site

archaeology’ (Foley 1981) provides poorly studied

material to work with and immense methodological

difficulties. However, humans live in a world

composed of many different kinds of places, so

restricting our view of prehistoric people to discrete

sites will inevitably and unnecessarily narrow our

understanding of how they lived. In emphasising

the fuller landscape, this research highlights human

usage of land, one of the key means by which

humans categorise and lay claim to their

surroundings.

This research is aimed at understanding

how people used the landscape in prehistoric

Southern Italy through the use of computer GIS

(Geographical Information Systems). The overall

goal is to create a simulated environment

representing one possible situation in which

Southern Italians could have lived throughout the

different periods of human occupation of the area.

Particular attention is paid to land use and resource

exploitation within the possible economies of each

period, and the possible cultural categorisation and

social use of off-site areas.

To investigate the scope of the research, a

pilot study was done which focussed on a very

limited area during the Neolithic period. This

preliminary research has drawn together elements

of archaeology, human psychology, geography and

simulation modelling to provide novel insights into

human-landscape relations. The research simulated

environments and human land uses around three

Neolithic sites: Castello Bova Superiore, Umbro

and San Pasquale (see Figure 5). The quantities of

archaeological and environmental data and the

spatial dimensions of the area examined were very

limited. This prototype allowed developments to

be made in the techniques and interpretative

frameworks, before applying the methodology on a

larger scale.

GIS modelling, based upon relevant data

from IGM (Istituto Geografico Militare)

topographic and geological maps, and limited field

survey site distributions from the Bova Marina

Archaeological Project, was used. Environmental

relations were modelled using current and historical

Mediterranean geographical and ecological

information, and comparative studies from

Mediterranean prehistory. In the broader area

around Umbro, incorporation of different kinds of

environments allowed us to model the travel

distances and sizes of specific activity-zones of the

Neolithic cultures in the region.

As basis for the analysis, topographic and

geological maps were digitised. The base map used

was the IGM 1:25000 map quadrant for Bova

Marina. Eight categories of environment were

defined on the basis of the elevation, slope, river

and geology maps. For this purpose, parameters

were established on the basis of literature,

assumptions and observations of the terrain in order

to represent and evaluate the present and past

landscape. General map algebra was used, which

involves calculations with different categories of

various maps to generate a new map, which can

give novel insights into a newly generated

environment. The eight different environments are

coastal plain, river channel, river valley, clay

terrace, sedimentary plateau, sedimentary hill,

metamorphic plateau and metamorphic hill.

To evaluate the potential usefulness of

each zone on the map and its possible utility for

humans, a combination of yield values and

accessibility had to be attributed to each

environmental niche. Thus, the environment

reconstruction map was reclassified to hold

estimated resource yield values. These valued were

estimated based on the usefulness of each

environmental zone to a specific kind of Neolithic

economy. Four kinds of possible economy in the

Neolithic have been selected for the analysis:

foraging, mixed foraging-farming, subsistence

horticulture and intensive pastoralism.

In assessing how people will use their

environment, not only the qualitative yield but also

the accessibility of the area plays a significant role.

For each site, a cost-surface model was built to

assess the possible access to areas around the

different sites. Therefore, a friction surface was

created based upon a valid and plausible

assumption of the cost traversing a sloping

landscape. The area is quite hilly, and therefore it

was considered that a given distance will be

traversed with different time and effort costs on

level or on sloping ground. In addition, walking

uphill or downhill will affect time-intervals as well.

It becomes increasingly more difficult and time

consuming as the slope increases. To understand

the values of the cost-surface model, a calibration

was made, based on a plausible assumption about

the landscape. Five classes of ‘distance’ or ‘cost’

were defined to calculate what it takes to get from


22

each site to the different environmental zones

defined earlier.

Combining yield and accessibility values,

three kinds of dynamic simulations were run on a

fixed population-size (50 people) for purposes of

simplicity. Each simulation can be considered as a

sequence of events. The first simulation shows how

far people need to travel before reaching enough

land for their particular economies. The assessment

of the size of land needed per population and

economy was based on literature, especially the

work of Susan Gregg (Gregg 1988). The value of

specific land use and its land size desired will

depend on the economy used. Farmland will be

more important in the horticulturalist and mixed

farming-foraging economies than in the pastoralist

and forager ones. For foraging a larger territory is

required, although it does not have the same impact

on the land. For herding, a slightly larger terrain

will also be necessary as animal husbandry is more

mobile than farming. This will have an effect on

the time and distance needed to cover to achieve

the suitable land size for the amount of people

concerned.

A second kind of simulation is

vegetational growth. One starts from a set of empty

maps, which all grow a particular kind of

vegetation during a fixed time period. After the

vegetation has iterated for a particular amount of

time, the simulation stops and assumptions can be

made about when a vegetation type reaches its

climax state as each type grows at its own rate. It

was assumed that wet plants will grow faster than

plants on heavy soil, depending on the soil texture,

temperature and precipitation. Beach vegetation is

conditioned to withstand a lot of extreme climatic

and edaphic conditions and will grow at an average

rate. Varied plants were given a rate of growth in

between the other types of vegetation.

For the purpose of simplicity, both

previous simulations were combined. First, the

natural vegetation grows for a fixed amount of

years until it is mature enough to let people use it

for their specific purposes. Humans then use the

land for farming, herding or foraging for a certain

period, after which these are abandoned and the

natural vegetation can grow back slowly. Because

of the different impacts that foraging, farming and

herding can have on the environment, different

parameters were used in the regeneration of the

vegetation. This is because land that has been used

for herding and agriculture is a lot more degraded

than when it was used for foraging and it will take

longer for natural vegetation to grow back. Hunter-

gatherers tend not to exhaust their environments in

order to reserve the possibility of returning to them

after several seasons. The result is a total of 36

maps, defining land use per site, economy and

specific type of impact on the environment. Some

examples are displayed as Figure 5.

When simulating these land use maps,

some basic assumptions were used, which applied

to the yield and accessibility. For people to use a

particular landscape zone, the yield has to be

sufficiently high in order to be selected. In

addition, it is assumed that foraging people will

travel further than those herding and farming.

Therefore the cost assumptions are different per

specific land use. This will influence the land use

maps and is interesting in comparative studies. It

was also moderately based upon literature about

site catchment analysis (Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1972:

27-36; Jarman, Bailey and Jarman 1982: 26-46).

The analysis thus resulted in maps

illustrating anthropogenic environmental impact

and potential spatial dimensions of the cultural

world that humans lived in. These results have two

basic implications. One is economic and ecological:

human landscape use and environmental impact can

be examined in a systematic way, in contrast to

isolated single site-based studies. The second is

cultural: humans use the landscape, including ‘off-

site’ areas for many other non-economic uses.

Many of these uses are conditioned by the existent

human use of those areas.

In this regard, it is interesting to observe

that sites are preferably ecotonally located,

enabling the exploitation of two or even three

resource zones: cultivation on a plateau, some

pasture for grazing and a possibility for hunting and

gathering in wooded alluvial margins.

The primary result of the GIS study to date

is to underline the importance of non-farming land

uses for site distribution. Instead of the commonly

held view that competition for farmland was of

greatest importance in farming societies, the

simulation showed that even in these, human

interaction was probably structured by non-farming

uses such as the needs of foraging and pasture. The

sizes of the different specific land uses such as for

foraging, mixed foraging-farming, farming and

herding show a different picture. In the region

under consideration, farmland is stretched out in

small patches around the sites, while foraging and

herding zones are continuous and large. Neolithic

groups were probably more mobile, using bigger

territories and moving frequently within them, than

is usually assumed (e.g. (Higgs and Vita-Finzi

1972). This means that the distribution of sites,

even in mountainous areas like Calabria, should

not be limited to available farmland. Observing the

contacts between the areas of human impact

associated with different sites enables inference of

possible elements of South Italian social and


23

cultural behaviour. These might include exchange

and competition.

GIS study of prehistoric land use in

Calabria will be continued as part of an ongoing

PhD thesis. Future developments include

comparisons with actual land use at each site, as

indicated by archaeological data, which could

further support studies of site potential and the

development of an environmental and economical

site-type model for Southern Italy. Other future

possible adaptations of the analysis and approach

will seek to highlight a more pluralistic view on

Neolithic land use. These would implement a

higher level of detail and environmental data such

as water resources, soil types and economic

resource needs (biomass, nutritional components of

animals and plants). An expanded site database

would also be introduced. In addition, different

parameters considering human resource needs can

be implemented and compared to see whether they

make a significant difference in land use around

each of the analysed sites. Finally, ongoing research

will address current problems representing the

temporal dimension in modelling. In part, it will

examine population shifts across the landscape in

response to resource exhaustion and the differences

of human land use during the whole period of

occupation of this area.


24

3. THE EXCAVATIONS AT UMBRO

3.1. Introduction: previous work, goals and

methods for this season

Umbro is one of several names for a

calcareous sandstone and limestone plateau about a

kilometer in diameter located along the unpaved

Bova Marina – Bova Superiore road just south of

the border between the two comunes (Figure 7).

The plateau consists of sloping fields between 360

and 400 meters above sea level, surrounded on all

sides by sporadic, interrupted cliffs 10-20 meters

high. On some sides, the cliffs were probably

penetrated by shallow caves in the past; in other

zones they afford vertical sheltering walls. To the

east and south underlying, impermeable clay beds

are exposed, and there may have been springs at the

foot of the cliffs here in the past.

The prehistoric site at Umbro is located

along the east margin of the plateau (Figure 6,

Figure 7). It has been the subject of about a decade

of investigation before the work described here (see

Robb 1997; 1998; Stranges 1992; Stranges and

Saccà 1994; Tinè 1992). Stranges, Saccà and co-

workers have made periodic informal surface

collections since their original discovery of the

Neolithic site in the early 1990s. Tinè conducted a

walkover of the site in 1992, and dug a shallow,

.5m square test pit, unfortunately in a sterile area of

the site. The site was re-surveyed by the Bova

Marina Archaeological Project in 1997 and 1998.

Finally, the only excavations at the site were

conducted in 1998 by the Bova Marina

Archaeological Project. These excavations put a

one by two meter sondage in the main Neolithic

area (Trench 1), excavated a one by one meter

sondage along the south slopes of the cliffs (Trench

3) and on the valley floor just below Trench 1

(Trench 5), and an area excavation atop the cliffs

which revealed post-Neolithic, probably Bronze

Age deposits.

These researches established several basic

facts about the prehistoric use of the site:

• The general area of Umbro was occupied in the

Neolithic and in at least one phase of the

Bronze Age, possibly the Middle Bronze Age

(Tinè 1992).

• Occupation was patchy; for instance, the

Neolithic area, though rich in archaeological

materials, was restricted to a small area below

the main cliffs at the site.

• Human bone at the Neolithic site was actually

of Late Roman date, though no other Roman

remains to speak of were found here. The

origins of this deposit remain a puzzle.

• The main Neolithic area was dated

radiometrically to the mid-6th

and mid-5th

millennia (both Stentinello periods). It was

probably also occupied later in the Late

Neolithic (Diana) and possibly in the Copper

Age as well.

• The depositional sequence at the main

Neolithic area is complex and difficult to

interpret, particularly in the upper levels; in

contrast, other areas such as the Bronze Age

area in Trench 4 typically have shallow and

simple stratigraphies.

We approached the 1999 excavations with

a number of research questions in mind:

(1) one basic goal was to clarify and

elaborate the dating of Neolithic sequence in

Trench 1.

(2) the Trench 1 Neolithic sondage was

undertaken primarily to explore the cultural

sequence and the potential for further investigation.

In 1999 we hoped to excavate a much broader area

to yield substantial data on Neolithic economy,

settlement and culture.

(3) investigations in other parts of the site

were intended to clarify the presence or absence of

any further Neolithic deposits, for instance on the

clifftops above Trench 1 and the fields atop the

plateau. They were also intended to provide further

dating material for the post-Neolithic but poorly

dated area located in Trench 4.

The basic methods remained unchanged

from those used in 1998 (see Robb 1998 for

description). To summarize, all excavations were

located within an overall site grid whose datum was

off the edge of the site to the east. For each trench a

local trench datum was established from which

depths could be measured and converted to

absolute depths. For Trenches 1 and 7, all soil was

removed in 10 cm arbitrary levels; records were

kept of how these related to the sometimes clear,

sometimes fuzzy natural soil units. Trench 6 was

excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels except for the

removal of large rock fall along the east side of the

trench, where this was impractical. All deposits

removed were sifted in 5 mm screens. Finds were

bagged separately for each level and 1x1 meter

square. When features such as pits or postholes

were encountered, they were excavated and finds

bagged separately as separate contexts. Carbon


25

samples were photographed in situ and removed

with metal tools only to foil envelopes. Flotation

samples were also removed from selected levels as

detailed below. Following excavation, all trenches

were mapped, profiled and photographed.

3.2. Description of 1999 Trenches

3.2.1. Trench 1 (continued excavation)

Trench 1 was located just below the cliffs

in the densest area of Neolithic artifacts (Figure

10). It was dug into sediments more than 2 meters

deep, which had accumulated on top of large

boulders which had fallen from the rock face before

the Neolithic period, creating a small talus cone

about 3 meters high at the base of the cliffs.

Excavations in Trench 5, at the base of these

boulders, in 1998 had established that these

boulders lie directly upon sterile clay and thus

predate any human occupation of the site.

In 1999 we opened a long narrow trench

extending six meters north-south by one meter east-

west. After excavating the top 10-20 centimeters in

four of these six squares, we changed strategy and

excavated one of them (-8n/-36e) and the adjacent

square to the west (-8n/-37e) as a deep sondage.

Thus at the beginning of the 1999 season Trench 1

essentially consisted of a one by two meter

sondage. The goal of the 1999 season was to finish

excavating all six meters of the original north-south

trench down to bedrock or sterile soil (Figure 8).

By the end of the season, this goal was

largely accomplished through work with trowels,

handpicks and pick. The only major difficulty was

the removal of excavated soil, since there was little

unexcavated area atop the talus for a backdirt heap,

while shipping soil down to the base of the slope

with buckets and ropes was very hard work and

unsafe. In the end, we devised a system by which

soil was poured down a plastic pipe about 20 cm in

diameter and three meters long which dumped it

directly in a screen hung from a tripod. Finds were

then passed back up to the trench to be bagged

inside small plastic containers. This system may

have resulted in slight micro-damage in transit to a

few delicate finds, but allowed excavation to

continue rapidly without undue crew fatigue. The

problem of ultimately carrying the soil back up the

three meter drop to the trench to fill the trench back

in remains unresolved.

In the northernmost two squares of the

trench (-6n/-36e and –7n/-36e), we stopped at the

end of the season in sediments which, though still

including sporadic Neolithic material, were

increasingly sterile. In –8n/-36e, most of the

sediments had been removed in the previous year’s

work, but we excavated a further 10-20 cm. At the

bottom, about half the square consisted of bedrock

and open, air-filled fissures were gaping between

buried boulders along the east side of the pit.

Deposits in the next three squares to the south (-

9n/-36e, -10n) were relatively shallower, as the

underlying bedrock sloped upward. Excavation in

these squares finished when bedrock was reached.

We also excavated another 30-40 cm in the

westward extension square (-8n/-37e) which

reached a depth of about 280 cm below the trench

datum.

Unexcavated deposits remain at the base

of the northern half of the square, at the bottom of

the westward extension, and below a large boulder

just northeast of the trench. It is clear that the

underlying boulders slope sharply downwards as

they approached the cliff, and the ultimate depth of

deposits close to the cliff face remains unknown.

The stratigraphy was described in terms of

five strata, as in the 1998 sondage (Figure 9; Table

1). These were more or less found throughout the

new, larger excavated area, with some ambiguity at

times.

Stratum I. This stratum consisted of a

layer of topsoil 5-10 cm thick, with an irregular

conformation and extensively disturbed by erosion,

soil washing in, and vegetation. A loam containing

sand, silt and clay, it was a light brownish color

(Munsell color 10YR 4/2 dry). It contained cultural

finds from all periods within the Neolithic.

Stratum II. This stratum consisted of the

same basic sediment as Stratum I, but was less

disturbed with less vegetation. It was slightly

sandier in places, probably due to the

decomposition of sandstone slabs, and consisted of

a mixed sandy loam (Munsell color 10YR 5/3 dry).

It contained some rock fall, particularly small rocks

20-40 mm in diameter, and much penetration by

small roots. Stratum II varied greatly in thickness,

from about 20 cm up to about 60 cm. While its top

surface was irregular, its bottom surface was far

closer to horizontal. It contained cultural finds from

all periods within the Neolithic as well as almost all

the possible Copper Age sherds.

Stratum III. This stratum consisted of

light, yellowish, gritty sediments similar to those in

Stratum II (sandy loam, Munsell color 10YR 5/4

dry), and in places the distinction between the two

strata was not particularly clear. It contained more

rock fall of all sizes. Rocks generally lay roughly

horizontal, suggesting gradual rather than

catastrophic accumulation. The differences between

Statum II and Stratum III may be due in part to less

root penetration in Stratum III, which might leave

larger, undecomposed rocks while Stratum II was


26

slightly sandier. The north end of the trench

contained considerable rock fall in this stratum with

accompanying sandy lenses. Stratum III was a

relatively horizontal level between 30 and 50 cm

thick. It contained both Stentinello wares and

abundant Diana wares (see below for further

discussion).

Stratum IV. This stratum was clearly

distinguishable from Stratum III in section. It was a

denser, browner, and more compact sandy clay with

much less rock fall in it (Munsell color 10YR 4/4,

dry). The rocks in this layer lay more or less

horizontal. In the northern end of the trench,

Stratum IV formed a homogeneous layer between

30 and 40 cm thick. In the southern half of the

trench, Stratum IV was less thick and overlay rising

bedrock. It contained Stentinello pottery.

Stratum V. This stratum made up the

bottom 20-30 cm of excavated deposits in the

northern end of the square. Although bedrock

underlay this sediment directly in –8n/-36e, its

depth at the northern end of the trench is unknown.

It consisted of a dark brown (Munsell color 10YR

4/4, dry) dense, compact, clayey sediment with

little rock fall in it. It contained small flecks of

charcoal and disintegrated animal bone, resembling

midden deposits. It contained Stentinello pottery.

This definition of the stratigraphy is based

upon the six-meter north-south strip of squares in –

36e. In the westward extension square (-8n/-37e) all

strata appear to slope downward sharply as one

approaches the cliff face. This clearly has

implications for both dating the site and

interpreting the living area available at any one

time. Clarifying the depth of the stratigraphy close

to the cliff wall is a major goal of future excavation

seasons.

Nowhere in the excavated area did we

encounter clear evidence of structures. Several

faint, possible pits or post-holes all turned

unconvincing upon full excavation, and may easily

have been due to ancient disturbances by rodents or

roots. Concentrations of small, dispersed, lightly

fired fragments of daub were noted in certain

levels, notably in Stratum III. Here the fragments

consisted of flattish pieces ca. 5 cm thick, smoothed

on both sides and with occasional impressions of

sticks up to 3 cm in diameter. These may be

evidence of a house, wall, or shed; alternatively,

they may be from a non-habitation structure such as

a wall or daub-lined pit. When found, they were

scattered in the soil at a consistent depth but

without contextual position or orientation.

Likewise, few features were found, and

none which were unequivocally interpretible.

Several large sand lenses were encountered. One, in

the far southwestern corner of the pit, contained

almost pure brownish sand ca. 25 cm deep in a

neatly delimited area about 25 cm in area. The

source of such sand is not clear as it does not occur

on the site, nor in most geological contexts. Hence

it may have been transported to the site for a

specific purpose. In contrast, several sand lenses in

–9n/-36e, -8n/-36e, and –6n/-36e were clearly

derived from decomposing bedrock. They consisted

of yellowish sand in broad, flat, generally

horizontal lenses, diffusely bounded. The sand was

very similar to that demonstrably freed from

dissolving tabular sandstone fragments in the upper

levels of the north end of the pit, and they

contained virtually no cultural material.

The only feature showing the cultural use

of fire consisted of a small area about 15 cm in

diameter and about 10 cm deep, running into the

west wall of the trench deep in the westward

extension (-8n/-37e). This feature contained

abundant charcoal and ash, but no really associated

artifacts. It is very similar to one encountered in the

1998 excavations of Trench 5 (Robb 1998). Its

form suggests it is not natural burning and it may

represent a small fire area used for cooking or for a

special purpose.

The form of the site has evolved

substantially during its use. The earliest levels

excavated so far consist of Early Neolithic deposits

on top of sloping boulders in the north half of the

trench; in this period, the site would have afforded

at most about six square meters of approximately

level area. Only after enough sediments

accumulated to cover bedrock to the south and

make it more or less level was this area also

occupied. Even so, level area for occupation

consisted of at most ca. 15 square meters. This

implies that the site was never used by very large

groups, particularly during the earlier Neolithic,

and that certain functions would have required the

use of off-site areas. For instance, the herding of

animals could have been carried out conveniently in

the basin enclosed by rocky arms of the cliffs just

below the site.

Radiocarbon dating and stratigraphic

interpretation. Radiocarbon dates for Trench 1

from the 1998 excavations placed Stratum V in the

6th

millennium BC and Stratum IV in the 5th

millennium BC, with a date of ca. 3000 BC in

Stratum III probably representing an intrusive or

sporadic Copper Age occupation (Table 6).

Following the 1999 season, we obtained two further

dates for Trench 1. One was for the transition

between Strata II and III, and dated it to 4945-4615

BC (Umbro-13, Table 6). The other was for the

center of Stratum III, and dated it to 5660-5485 BC

(Umbro-15, Table 6).


27

These dates are incompatible to some

extent with the chronostratigraphic interpretation

established in 1998, and there are four possible

interpretations.

(1) One is a “high” chronology in which

Strata III-V all date to the 6th

millennium BC,

Stratum II/III date to the 5th

millennium BC. To

argue this, one needs to argue that Diana wares

were in use for most of the 5th

millennium BC at the

same time as Stentinello wares, and to discount one

date, Umbro-4, as intrusive into an earlier stratum.

(2) A second is a “low” chronology in

which Stratum V belongs to the 6th

millennium,

Stratum IV belongs to the 5th

millennium, and

Stratum III is a Diana ware level undated but later

than Stentinello times. To argue this, one needs to

discount two dates (Umbro-13 and Umbro-15) as

based upon earlier material remixed into later

strata.

(3) A third is a “middle” chronology in

which Stratum V belongs to the 6th

millennium,

Stratum IV is undated but dates to between the 6th

and 5th

millennia, and Stratum III dates to the 5th

millennium. To argue this, one needs to argue that

Stentinello and Diana wares were used together

during the 5th

millennium, and to discount one date,

Umbro-15, as based upon earlier material remixed

into a later level.

(4) The final possibility is that the

stratigraphy is completely mixed and no sense can

be made of it.

Of these, the last possibility can be readily

discounted. Sediment profiles show a distinct

difference at least between Strata II/III and Strata

IV/V, a difference which wholesale mixing would

obliterate. Moreover, Strata IV/V contain no Diana

wares, while Stratum II/III contain both Diana

wares. Again, wholesale mixing of levels would

obliterate this difference. The first possibility can

probably also be discounted on archaeological

grounds. Stratum III contains abundant Diana

pottery, and while we might imagine an early Diana

date in the earlier 5th

millennium BC (cf. Leighton

1999), dating a Diana stratum to the earlier 6th

millennium would place it far earlier than any other

known Diana site (Skeates 1994) and must be an

error.

This leaves the “low” chronology and the

“middle” chronology as possible interpretations.

Both are plausible archaeologically. Given the

shape of the site, with Trench 1 intensively

occupied and lying below steep slopes to the south,

it is clear that the stratigraphy was not sealed in

each period but was accumulative. In other words,

early levels contain only early ceramics, charcoal,

and other materials, but later levels contain both

later materials and earlier material washed in or

mixed in. This provides grounds for understanding

Stentinello pottery mixed in the upper part of the

stratigraphy and early dates from upper levels, and

is consistent with both the “low” or “medium”

interpretation.

Here it is worth noting some conclusions

which both views point towards, and some

unresolved issues.

• In both scenarios, Stratum V is a Stentinello

level dating to the 6th

millennium BC, and

Stratum IV is a Stentinello level dating to

sometime between the 6th

and 5th

millennium.

• In both scenarios, Stratum III is a Diana level.

• In both scenarios, Stratum II may be a Copper

Age level with substantial mixing of earlier

material, as most of the few possible Copper

Age sherds are found in it along with

Stentinello and Diana wares.

• One key unresolved issue is the chronology of

Stratum IV, which may date to anywhere

between the 6th

and 5th

millennium BC. More

radiocarbon dates from Stratum IV may help

resolve this.

• A second key unresolved issue is the dating of

the Diana level, Stratum III, and the related

issue of whether Diana and Stentinello wares

were in use simultaneously or whether their

association in Stratum III represents mixing of

earlier and later material. The chronological

issue may be resolvable through further

radiocarbon dates for Stratum III. The ceramic

question may be impossible to resolve with

archaeological evidence from Umbro.

Lest we despair, it should be pointed out that these

problems are normal rather than exceptional.

Virtually every site explored from this period has

similar difficulties. For instance, the regional

cornerstone, the Lipari chronology based upon the

Lipari Acropolis, Contrada Diana, and Castellaro

Vecchio (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1956; 1960;

1980), achieved a clear periodization by

discounting numerous sherds in “mixed” levels.

This method assumed in advance of the data that

the ceramics seriate into short, clearly-bounded

periods and that any finds to the contrary are

merely contingent errors of site preservation which

should be ignored. If one allows other possibilities

such as the contemporary use of several styles for

long periods, quite different interpretations are

possible.


28

3.2.2. Trench 6

Trench 6 proved one of the most

interesting surprises of the 1999 field season. We

began investigating this area simply to understand

what archaeological deposits existed on the west

side of the site. At this point, prehistoric sherds

were visible eroding out of a bank about a meter

high, about three meters east of the Bova-Marina-

Bova Superior road.

The first effort was to cut a vertical profile

along the face of this bank; we expected to find

archaeological material tumbled out of context at

the base of the rocky peak here, but wanted to

check this. A profile about three meters long was

cleaned and mapped, running generally north-south

(Figure 11). As this work was completed, it was

clear that most of the sherds were localized at one

point where large fragments of a single vessel were

visible in the profile. We then decided to cut a

trench back from the profile to explore further. A

two meter by two meter trench was laid out,

anchored on the site grid. Because the profile cut

across the grid at an angle, the actual trench

excavated was a trapezoid including one complete

one meter square and parts of two others. Finally,

an extension of half a meter thick was opened up on

the eastern and southern margins of the trench; this

was excavated only to the upper zones of the rock

fall in Stratum II (Figure 12, Figure 15). Trench 6

was excavated by grid squares in 10-cm levels and

all soil was screened in 5 mm mesh.

Five strata were defined in Trench 6

(Figure 13).

Stratum I. This consisted of topsoil 5-10

cm thick, a clayey loam (Munsell color 10YR 3/2

dry) with much root penetration and very little

archaeological material.

Stratum II. The basic sediment was the

same as in Stratum I though slightly darker in color

(clayey loam, Munsell color 10YR 5/2 dry). It

contained far less vegetation but much rock fall.

Rocks included both large tumbled stones and

many smaller irregular rocks, tightly packed

together. Overall, the stratum was between thirty

and fifty centimeters thick. Archaeological material

was infrequent. This stratum contained two

fragments of a ground stone quern (see below),

possibly in secondary context.

Stratum III. This level included a

prehistoric floor or surface. The basic soil

continued to be a sandy, clayey loam (Munsell

10YR 4/2 dry). There was no sign of plaster or

paving, but the soil was compacter than above;

there were fewer large rocks but a dense

concentration of small stones; many small stones

were lying flat; and most of the few sherds found

scattered through the level were lying flat. This

level was about fifteen centimeters thick. It was

excavated away only in the westernmost part of the

Trench, and left in situ for further excavation in the

eastern areas. The radiocarbon samples for Trench

6 came from this stratum.

Stratum IV. This stratum was visible only

at the western edge of the pit where erosion and

excavation had exposed it. It appears to be a

whitish, sterile soil of variable thickness (a greyish-

white concreted sand and clay, Munsell color 10YR

5/2). It appears to contain a few pieces of

archaeological material but may be the top of sterile

sediments derived from decomposing bedrock.

Stratum V. Bedrock.

Pot deposition and other features. As we

excavated Trench 6, the vessel appearing in the

profile turned out to be part of a group of three pots

(Figure 14, Figure 16). The pot visible in the

profile was a basin between thirty and forty

centimeters in maximum diameter, apparently

undecorated on the surface but with three

horizontal handles under the rim. Its overall form is

yet to be understood as it was extensively crushed.

The other two pots consisted of small attingitoi or

cup-dippers with tall upraised handles. One was

relatively thin-walled, the other cruder and thicker.

The three pots were placed close together, with

their walls almost touching. Their bases rested on

the same plane at 70 cm below trench datum, a

place corresponding with the floor level defined in

Stratum III. As these pots were excavated, they

were mapped and photographed, and their fill was

collected completely as a series of flotation samples

(see below). Under the two attingitoi, we found a

fragment of a fourth pot, which consisted only of

one horn of a horned bowl.

Large and small rock fall covered the

entire area including the pot deposition group, but

grew thicker to the east. Larger stones were more

common in the southeastern corner of the square.

No order was visible in the rock fall. No other

possible features or structures were visible, though

the bedrock at the southwestern corner of the trench

may have been artificially shaped to some extent.

Dating. Both the vessel styles and absolute

datations agree in assigning the deposition to the

Early Bronze Age. While analysis of the large bowl

must await its reconstruction, the form of the

attingitoi is very similar to ones from Mursia,

Pantelleria, varied Rodi-Tindari-Vallelunga sites

such as Ciavolaro in Sicily, and S. Domenico

Ricadi in Calabria. The ceramic horn is distinctive

of the Rodì-Tindari-Vallelunga style (Tusa 1993;


29

Castellana 1996). A radiocarbon sample from

charcoal on the surface below the vessel group gave

a date of 3390 +/- 60 BP (1780-1520 BC

calibrated).

Because of the limited excavations carried

out at this location to date, it is not entirely clear

what kind of deposition this group of pots

represents. They may represent the remnant of a

house context. The daub fragments associated with

them may argue in favor of this, but the finds from

the trench are far sparser than one would expect

from a domestic context, including virtually no

animal bone or lithics, and there is yet no sign of

any structure such as the typically substantial stone-

footed Bronze Age huts known from eastern Sicily

and Lipari. A second possibility is ritual: the pots

may represent an idiosyncratic ritual deposition of

some kind, though no comparable sites have been

published. At this point, burial seems an equally

plausible possibility. In eastern Sicily, EBA burials

are commonly found in cemeteries of small rock-

cut tombs, located along elevated ridges or cliffs of

limestone or other calcareous stone. Umbro is in

just such a location, and the vessel group lies 2-3

meters from an outcropping, low bedrock ridge,

now buried. Furthermore, in several cases, outside

rock-cut tombs archaeologists excavated leveled

areas or platforms which contained groups of

pottery vessels, interpreted as grave offerings

deposited outside tombs rather than inside (see for

instance Santa Febronia, Maniscalco 1996). Pottery

vessels used as grave goods in the Bronze Age

often consisted of groups including a bowl or basin

and several cups or dippers, interpreted as a

complete pottery service used for ritual functions

(Maniscalco 1999). This is precisely the

composition of the Umbro pot group. It is possible

that there are rock-cut tombs in the rocky bank just

behind the pottery group, and that the pots

represent external grave goods for such tombs, with

the rock fall representing remnants of a wall closing

the tombs (B. McConnell and L. Maniscalco, pers.

comm.). Needless to say, we hope to excavate

further in this area, to ascertain the actual nature of

the site.

3.2.3. Trench 7

Trench 7 continues the exploration of

outlying parts of the site already begun with Area 2,

Trench 3, Trench 4 and Trench 5.

The trench consisted of an exploratory one

meter square pit (Figure 17, Figure 19). It was

located on a small (ca. 4 meters in either direction)

level area at the very crest of the southern slope

below the cliffs, just below the small field

described below and next to the “south slope

profile” (see Robb 1998). The “cliffs” above it

were only about two meters tall, consisting of very

irregularly sloping bedrock outcrops. It was located

about six meters southeast of Trench 3. This level

patch, one of very few on the hillside, had been

used in the previous year for a backdirt heap for

Trench 3, and some soil remaining after Trench 3

was backfilled was removed without screening. By

these means, the terrace was cleared to a uniform

surface, except for a low, flat boulder in its center.

Beyond a few historic sherds clearly in secondary

context, no artifacts were evident either in this soil

removal or in the surface thus cleared. Once the

working ground was cleared, before laying out the

trench, we cleaned away some lose, irregular soil

adhering to the cliff wall directly above where we

wished to place the trench; this was to prevent this

soil from falling into the trench later. About half a

cubic meter of soil was removed in this way,

leaving a vertical surface. Again, only a few

historic sherds out of context were found.

Trench 7 was located directly against the

rocky wall rather than in the center of the level,

open area. Trench 3 had shown that such level

pockets adhering to steep slopes could contain

considerable depth of soil, but that they were often

stratigraphically complex. Moreover, there were no

indications on the surface of the level area of

underground deposits here. A primary

consideration, however, was that of caves. The

shelving, angled bedrock at this point creates the

possibility of small pocket caves in the cliff wall.

With increasing evidence that the cliff-tops

immediately above were not settled, and that the

hillslope deposits such as in Trench 3 and Area 2

are not in original context, we wondered whether

prehistoric hillside deposits might originally have

been in small caves or shelters, now buried or

collapsed, high along the rocky walls of the basin.

Trench 7 was excavated using the same

methods as elsewhere: excavation with trowel,

handpick, and pick proceeded in 10 cm arbitrary

levels, and all soil was screened in 5 mm mesh. A

trench datum was set up using the cleft in the large

flat boulder north of the trench to lodge a datum

spike; this was the only secure point available from

which depths could be practically measured.

Excavation continued to a total depth of 150 cm

below trench datum, or ca. 110 cm below the

cleared ground surface.

Two strata were defined in the pit, both of

extremely irregular dimensions (Figure 18). The

upper one was a very loose loam containing sand,

silt and clay. It contained stones of all dimensions

jumbled without consistent orientation, and was

much disturbed by rootlets. The maximum depth

was about 120 cm below trench datum, or close to


30

the bottom of the pit. This sediment clearly

represents soil filtering in among the rocks of the

cliffs, a process visible everywhere on the cliff

slopes. It did not appear internally stratified in any

sense, and it is not clear when it was deposited or

formed. It contained a few sherds from all dates

including prehistoric, medieval and modern. The

second, lower stratum was very similar in its basic

substance, but was slightly less loose in texture,

slightly browner. Again, it contained both

prehistoric and historic sherds. It thus seems to be

an ancient version of soil and rocky infill of

irregularities in the cliffs.

Trench 7 finds included only ceramics.

The density of finds was very low and three levels

produced no artifacts at all. Prehistoric and historic

sherds were mixed down to the bottom of the

trench, suggesting that all the fill excavated was

mixed and of recent date.

We stopped excavating Trench 7 because

the field season ended, and because it was not clear

how to continue excavating safely in a small trench

more than a meter deep in loose deposits partially

below a rocky overhang. There was no indication

how deep soil deposits ultimately run here on the

cliff-side; if we assume that the cliffs were

originally vertical all around the sides of the basin

enclosing the Neolithic site, and that the current

slopes of approximately forty-five degrees have

been formed by millennia of rock fall and soil infill,

there could potentially be twenty meters of deposits

here.

With this in mind, we need to return to the

question of how to check for possible cave deposits

in the rocky walls of the basin. Figuring out how to

investigate this safely and practically remains a

challenge for the future.

3.3. Other Areas Explored

With the discovery of distinct

archaeological areas on the west side of the site

above the cliffs, and with continued questioning

about the nature of the upper stratigraphy of Trench

1 below the cliffs, we decided it was important to

re-check whether there were any archaeological

deposits in the intervening parts of the site – the

highest peak of the rocky cliffs. In particular, we

were concerned to know whether there was any

possibility that the artifacts in Trench 1 and

elsewhere below the cliffs had fallen there from

cliff-top deposits, and whether the newly-found

Bronze Age deposits in Trench 6 were in situ, as

they seemed to be, or could have eroded from

deposits higher on the peak.

We had, of course, thoroughly examined

the entire ground surface of these peaks in previous

years, and we did so again. Perhaps half the surface

consists of irregular, shelving bedrock outcrops;

between these are pockets of soil of varying depths,

and the whole area is sparsely covered in scrubby

vegetation. Ground visibility was thus patchy but

reasonable in places. All previous examinations had

failed to find any archaeological material of any

date.

This season, we decided to check for

possible archaeological deposits below the surface

(for instance, surviving in bedrock crevices). Since

there were no known archaeological deposits in this

area, and since the soil covering the area consisted

of thin, irregular pockets, we excavated it

informally by cleaning the bedrock off with a

shovel. A team of L. Saccà and a student carried

out the work. Most of the soil removed was

screened, but not all was, as it rapidly became

apparent that the sediments were entirely sterile and

that the team could monitor it adequately in the

process of removing it. This strategy carried the

risk of damaging real archaeological deposits

through loosely controlled excavation, but we felt

that any deposits encountered could be recognized

rapidly enough to stop, grid, and excavate in a

controlled way with only limited damage;

meanwhile, we needed rapid information without

committing ourselves for a full-scale excavation in

an area of patchy, sterile soil and bedrock. All

cleaned areas were backfilled when finished. In the

event, this strategy was justified.

We cleaned the bedrock in five areas,

three on the high area of the cliff-top, one along the

cliff edge above Trench 3, and one to the southeast

above Trench 7. In all of them, the soil consisted of

a loose, dark loam with much organic material.

Atop the cliffs, the northernmost area

consisted of the largest pocket of soil close to the

actual cliff edge which could be safely worked at. It

lay directly above Trench 1, about three meters in

from the actual lip of the cliff. The soil filled a

shallow trough about two meters east-west and

perhaps .75 meters north-south. The deepest part of

the excavation was about 40 cm deep. The other

two areas cleared atop the cliffs were located

southwest of here, on the very highest point of the

hill. These consisted of two parallel troughs about

four meters long and less than a meter wide, each

filling in a v-shaped recess created by shelving

bedrock (Figure 20). The maximum soil depth in

both was 30 cm. None of these trenches contained

any artifacts.

Along the cliff edge above Trench 3, we

cleared a thin covering of loose topsoil from


31

bedrock in a series of small pockets. None

contained any cultural material.

Southeast of the rocky peak, there is a

small level field which lies above the southern

slope of the basin between the cliffs. The profile

just below this field was cleaned and recorded in

1998 (“South slope profile”, Robb 1998), and

Trench 7 was excavated just below it in 1999. If

archaeological material was washing into the basin

from somewhere high on the southern slopes, this

seemed one candidate for a source area. We did not

clean this area down to bedrock, as the soil was of

unknown depth and we were reluctant to intervene

here substantially without setting up a formal

excavation area. However, we cleared the ground

vegetation and removed the top 10 cm of soil using

the same techniques as above. The only finds

included a number of sherds from a single modern

vessel. This confirms the generally sterile nature of

this part of the site inferred from the south slope

profile and from Trench 7.

These exercises were very useful in

understanding the site. It seems virtually certain

that the Trench 1 deposits and the south slope

deposits in the area of Trench 3 were probably

originally deposited below the cliffs; it is difficult

to imagine substantial enough deposits above the

cliffs which would not leave at least some residual

archaeological material up above. Likewise, the

Bronze Age deposits in Trench 6 seem localized

and in their original location. The presence of an

elevated, archaeologically empty area between the

Neolithic and Bronze Age areas confirms the

separation of these deposits.

While on the topic of other areas

investigated, it is worth illlustrating some of the

1998 trenches briefly; these trenches were

described in the previous preliminary report (Robb

1998) but no photographic docmentation was then

available. Figure 21 shows Area 2, a zone on the

southern slope of the basin where we cleaned a

profile within a cleft between tumbled boulders but

found only redeposited material in secondary

position. Figure 22 shows Trench 3, a one meter by

one meter test pit further up the same slope, and

Figure 24 depicts Trench 5, a three square meter

trench located below Trench 1 in the very bottom

of the basin. The boulders looming over the trench

are those underlying Trench 1. Finally, Figure 23

depicts Trench 4, a broad, shallow four by five

meter pit located on a rocky outcrop above the

cliffs. It yielded no structures or architecture, but a

small assemblage of post-Neolithic pottery which is

probably Bronze Age in date.


32

4. UMBRO EXCAVATIONS: DESCRIPTION OF FINDS

In this section, finds from the Umbro

excavations are discussed. Note that this discussion

includes both new finds from the 1999 excavations

and previously described finds from the 1998

excavations; the reason is that our understanding of

earlier finds has often changed as research has

progressed.

4.1. Ceramics

4.1.1. Neolithic and Copper Age wares: Trench 1.

The typical wares found in the Neolithic

area of Umbro have already been described (Robb

1998), and pending statistical analysis, little

additional comment can be made. They will only be

briefly presented here. Pottery styles found in the

area below the cliffs at Umbro include Stentinello

coarse wares and finewares, Diana wares, and

possible Copper Age sherds.

Stentinello coarse wares (Figure 25) are

often thick-walled and relatively crudely made,

executed in dark brown, light brown, red and

orange fabrics. Some vessels in this category may

have been bowls or cooking pots, while others

appear to have been large storage vessels. They

were decorated with a range of impressed designs,

including “stab and drag” punctuation, shell and

rocker impressions, and arrays of short parallel

lines, often arranged vertically. They are similar not

only to coarse wares at other Stentinello sites such

as Acconia and Capo Alfiere, but to coarser

Impressed Ware vessels in general.

Stentinello finewares (Figure 25) are

usually thinner-walled, with dark, glossy burnished

surfaces apparently intended to highlight the

impressions filled with yellow, red or white pastes.

Decoration was by impression, with geometrical

arrays of small motifs forming elaborate design

schemes. The most common motifs were “v”

impressions, small straight lines and fine grids of

diagonal lines. These were recombined in bands

below the rim of a vessel, with vertically “hanging”

strips of decoration or further banding below.

Decoration also occurred elsewhere on vessels, as

shown by a small handle with an elaborate strip of

impressions down its back. Many of these vessels

appear to have been small open bowls, probably for

serving food and drink.

Diana wares (Figure 26) include both

coarse and fine fabrics, though the coarse fabrics

can be difficult to distinguish from other Neolithic

wares. The Umbro Diana finewares include many

shallow carinated bowls with reddish, brownish or

buff fabrics, highly burnished, occasionally slipped

with a red slip, and usually undecorated save for a

thin line below the rim and for the famous trumpet

handles attached horizontally below the rim.

In addition to Diana and Stentinello wares,

other Neolithic wares included a few red-painted

sherds on a buff fabric, including some from

relatively deep in Stratum IV.

A few sherds unusual for Neolithic wares

(though not entirely unparalleled) and with generic

Copper Age parallels were found in the 1998

excavations (Figure 27). These included several

body sherds with large circular bosses, and several

large horizontal handles lacking the typical Diana

flaring. More such sherds were found in 1999, and

the greater extent of excavation allowed us to

define their stratigraphic level as Stratum II. These

included several large, thick body sherds with a

double band of finger-pinched cordoned

decoration, perhaps from the same vessel. Another

sherd was incised with a series of evenly-spaced

vertical lines ending in spirals at the top. An

especially unusual fragment was decorated with a

broad, shallow groove interrupted by a pair of

protuberances. Finally, several sherds bore incised

designs consisting of two parallel zig-zag lines, the

space between which was filled with rough

hatching (cf. Cocchi Genick 1996 for parallels from

the Southern Italian Copper Age).

4.1.2. Stampini and other ceramic-production

related implements

The Umbro excavations have yielded six

stampini, or small ceramic punches, to date (Figure

29). They consist of small fired clay cylinders with

simple geometrical motifs in raised clay at the end

or on the side. These small tools were used to

impress unfired vessels to create the stereotypical

Stentinello pottery designs. At Umbro, they have

been found in all strata of Trench 1. Examples

include:

• a complete stampino with a v-motif at one end;

the edges of the v are finely ticked (Bag 1021;

length 70 mm).

• a fragmentary handle of a stampino (Bag

1035).


33

• a fragmentary stampino, approximately 48 mm

long and 10 mm in diameter and slightly

broken; the end was flared but the exact motif

was eroded and indistinct (Bag 1152).

• a fragmentary stampino, whose end had broken

off. The surviving end appears to have been

triangular, suggesting that the motif on the end

was originally a “v” (Bag 1170).

• a fragmentary stampino ending in an eroded

but distinct “v” impression (Bag 1195).

• a fragmentary stampino with a cylindrical

body. Unusually, this fragment bore a raised

motif for impressing clay on the side of the

body rather than the end. The motif consisted

of a thin ridge of clay forming a straight line

with tick marks along its edge (Bag 1225).

These numerous tools for making pots suggest that

ceramic production was a common activity at

Umbro in the Stentinello period. This impression is

reinforced by the presence of other implements

which could have been used for forming or

decorating pots, including a shark’s tooth, a

smoothed bone, several small marine shells with

worked edges. Finally, one large, reddish sherd had

two edges worn round rounded and smoothed by

protracted use in smoothing or polishing some

material (Figure 29). All of these could have been

used in forming, decorating or burnishing pots prior

to firing them.

4.1.3. Thin section analysis of prehistoric ceramics

Fifteen sherds were transported to the

University of Southampton for thin section analysis

(we are grateful to the Soprintendenza

Archeological della Calabria for permission to

carry out this work). These sherds represented a

variety of prehistoric wares in use at the site,

including Stentinello coarse wares (sample 4) and

decorated (2, 3, 9, 11) and undecorated (7, 8, 15)

fine wares, Diana vessels (10, 13, 14), Early

Bronze Age vessels, possible Copper Age vessels

(6, 12), and red-painted wares (1) which were

considered possible imports. A piece of daub was

also examined (5). Finally, samples of clay from

two clay sources were examined. One clay sample

was from the field directly east of the site at a

distance of 10 meters east of the site datum point.

The other was taken from a pure clay bank in the

Bova-Bova Superiore road cut just south of the

Umbro plateau where the road begins to rise

steeply, about 500 m south of the Neolithic site.

The thin-section analysis was carried out

by Sonya Collins and Jayne Watts under the

supervision of Dr. David Williams; we are grateful

to these researchers for their work, discussed here

and reproduced in the attached documentation. All

sherds were impregnated with a consolidating glue

and then thin-sectioned. Sherd 1 proved too soft

and crumbly to thin-section, but was

macroscopically described and illustrated. The clay

samples were worked into lumps, fired,

impregnated with consolidating glue and thin-

sectioned.

Thin section analyses, while preliminary,

suggest a number of trends.

First, virtually all the sherds had the same

composition. Common mineral inclusions in the

pastes include mica, quartz, and feldspar, with

possible metamorphic rock sources including gneiss

and micaschist. All of these are consistent with the

kinds of minerals to be found locally resulting from

the decomposition of metamorphic rocks common

in Aspromonte at altitudes of 500 meters and

above. Hence, these minerals are available, for

instance, in the form of sand in river valleys, and by

crushing up parent rock from nearby outcrops. The

only exceptions were the daub sample (5) and a rim

(14). The daub contained similar mineral inclusions

but included more of them and larger grains.

Sample 14, a small, fine greyish Diana rim with the

characteristic tubular handle, contained an unusual

base clay with abundant foraminifera fossils and

contained mica, quartz, and black iron grains.

Given the high mica content, it seems likely that it,

too, came from some area of Aspromonte, but it

may have been made in a different area, from

different raw clay, or using different temper.

The fact that all the other sherds had a

common composition suggests that they were all

locally made, even when they are made in very

different styles such as red-painted wares,

originally thought to be a potential import from

Northern Calabria. This emphasis on local

production is a common finding in prehistoric

Italian thin-section studies (for instance, Skeates

1992).

The second surprising finding emerged

from comparison of the pottery with clay sources

near the site. Both clay sources near the site

contained high levels of organic elements in the

form of microfossils. They were clearly

distinguishable from the clays used in all the sherds

except for sample 14 (discussed above) and to a

lesser extent sample 15. This suggests that,

although there is strong evidence that people were

making pottery at Umbro (see below), and although

large quantities of apparently suitable clay are

available within a few meters of the site, people

preferred to transport clay from somewhere else to

make pots. This is especially interesting as regards

the daub sample, as one would expect a bulky

material such as daub to have been made from the


34

closest available clay to save work. It may be that

the potters of Umbro knew the qualities of the local

clays intimately and preferred to choose the most

suitable for a particular task even if they were not

the closest to hand.

These investigations require further

samples and further contextualization in the local

geology and should be considered preliminary

indications only.

4.1.4. Bronze Age wares: Trench 6.

Ceramics from Trench 6 were completely

different from the Neolithic wares found elsewhere

on the site. The general paste was soft, coarse and

light, ranging from orange to brown in color and

usually with a black oxidation stripe in the center of

the fabric. There was no surface decoration evident

beyond an occasional groove or ticking along a rim.

The repertory of vessel forms was also distinct,

with everted rims, thick, beaded lips, ring bases,

and tall raised strap handles. These wares closely

resembled pottery found in Trench 4, and the two

probably date to the same period, the Early Bronze

Age.

In addition to these wares, a few sherds of

a very different style were found, of a black fabric

with a very glossy highly burnished surface. These

sherds represented at least two vessels. Two sherds

were decorated with broad, shallow grooves. These

wares may be similar to Apennine pottery, although

the grooves are not excised. Alternatively, they may

be the wares which Tinè (1992) considered similar

to Maltese Borg-in-Nadur wares.

The pottery deposition from Trench 6

contained three vessels and a fragment of a fourth.

These vessels are currently under restoration by

conservators of the Museo Nazionale di Reggio

Calabria.

• Vessel 1 (Figure 28) was a small, thin-walled

cup-dipper (attingitoio). The fabric was a soft

buff/orange inside and outside, with fine grit

temper and a thin oxidation stripe. There was

no surface decoration. The lip was everted, and

a tall handle was raised directly from the lip.

Both this cup and Vessel 2 resemble in form,

though not necessarily in fabric or surface

treatment, contemporary vessels from Mursia

(Pantelleria), Capo Graziano, Rodi-Tindari-

Vallelunga sites, and S. Domenico Ricadi

(Tropea)(Bernabò Brea 1957; Castellana 1996;

Tusa 1993).

• Vessel 2 (Figure 28) was a small, thick-walled

cup-dipper (attingitoio). The fabric was dark

brown externally and orange-brown internally,

with a black oxidation stripe and small grit

inclusions. The surface showed occasional

signs of having been burnished, but is now

eroded. There was a shallow groove the

outside surface under the rim.

• Vessel 3 was a large impasto bowl, executed in

a soft orange-brown fabric. There was no

observable surface decoration, though the

surface was eroded and in places covered with

a tenacious concretion. The precise form of the

vessel is not yet known, as it is still under

reconstruction, but it measured 20-25 cm in

diameter at the mouth, 10-15 cm in diameter at

the base, and was 15-20 cm tall. Below the rim

there were three horizontal strap handles.

• Below these was found a fragment of a fourth

vessel, a ceramic horn. This was made of a

dark brown, burnished fabric. The concave

side was flattish, while the convex side of the

horn was rounded. This cross-section makes it

resemble more closely the horns from the

Rodi-Tindari-Vallelunga style horned cups

(see Castellana 1996) than the later Ausonian

wares.

4.2. Lithics

Lithics in 1999 were found only in Trench

1. One flake was found in Trench 6, but it was a

crude quartzite flake and may be natural rather than

humanly manufactured. The large number of lithics

found in Trench 1 brings the total lithic assemblage

there to 401 items (Table 3). Of these, 17 (4.2%)

were made from flint; 384 (95.8%) were made from

obsidian. This overwhelming use of obsidian is

typical of Stentinello sites in southern Calabria,

eastern Sicily and Lipari (see Ammerman 1987),

though obsidian use falls to about 50% in the

further margins of Stentinello culture area (e.g.

Stentinello, Orsi 1890; Capo Alfiere, Morter 1992).

To date, only a small sample of about

twenty pieces has been examined by a lithics

analyst (G. Marshall, see Robb 1998); the finds

from the 1999 season do not appear to change the

conclusions of this analysis. A full analysis will

take place during the 2001 study season. Marshall’s

analysis showed that obsidian probably entered

Umbro in the form of small blade cores, which

were then used to produce blades until they were

too small, at which point they were were crushed

using bipolar percussion to create small flakes for

expedient use.

Obsidian provenience analysis in progress

at the University of South Florida has shown that

all samples examined from Umbro came from

Lipari (R. Tykot, pers. comm.). Flint came from a

variety of sources, as at least five distinct colors of


35

raw material are known (grey, brown, yellow, red,

and pink). While grey flint of poor quality is found

at Saracena in the hinterlands of Condofuri Marina,

the sources of the other varieties are unknown. As

elsewhere in Calabria, Sicily and Lipari, obsidian

was used primarily for bladelets and unmodified

flakes; flint was used disproportionately for formal

tools and modified flakes, probably for tasks which

required its somewhat tougher cutting edge.

4.3. Other Artifacts

4.3.1. Daub

Daub, or intonaco, is a common Neolithic

technology. To date, 1172 daub fragments have

been recovered at Umbro (Table 4). Of these, 3

came from Trench 3, 5 from Trench 4, 4 from

Trench 5, and 46 from Trench 6. These serve to

document the use of daub at least in the Trench 6

area. The vast majority of fragments (1142) come

from Trench 1, the Neolithic area of the site.

Almost all of the daub fragments

recovered consist of tiny fragments less than a

centimeter or so in maximum dimension. Only

about 80 pieces are larger. The largest fragment

found is about 10 cm. No daub fragments were

found in original position; all were scattered

through the soil, though there were slightly greater

concentrations between 150-180 cm below datum

(in the lower part of Stratum II and in Stratum III)

in the central part of the trench.

All fragments found were burnt to some

degree, usually only lightly but intensely in a few

cases. This does not necessarily imply that burning

was part of the use of daub here; rather, burning

probably helped preserve daub and daub fragments

which were not burned at some point simply

disintegrated and were not preserved. However,

some burning clearly happened before the daub was

completely fragmented and quite possibly during its

use-life; this is suggested by a number of flat

fragments consistently burned on one side only (see

below).

A handful of fragments display

impressions of sticks or reeds; the largest

impression is of a stick about four centimeters in

diameter, but impressions between one and two

centimeters are more common.

Between twenty and thirty fragments

appear to come from a single artifact or structure.

These fragments are flat Running cross-wise

through these fragments in places are impressions

of three reeds or sticks about one centimeter in

diameter, laid edge to edge. The daub thus formed a

flattish sheet about five centimeters thick, enclosing

on a framework of three parallel reeds with about a

centimeter to spare on the inside and outside. One

side was smoothed, and occasionally betrays

possible plank impressions or smoothing marks.

The other side is roughened. The rough side was

consistently burned to a blackish color; the

smoothed side was burned far less intensely, and at

most shows some reddening.

Daub is stereotypically interpreted as

having been used for house construction. However,

sites of Neolithic houses built in daub often yield

very large amounts of it (Shaffer 1985; Tozzi and

Tasca 1989). There is no signs of such large

quantities of daub at Umbro, nor is it clear that

there would have been room for a house even 3-4

meters square in the constricted area below the

cliffs at Trench 1. Rather, the daub may have been

used in some other kind of artifact or facility. The

group of flat daub fragments may belong to some

feature such as a partition, daub-lined storage pit, a

large clay-daubed storage basket, or even a clay-

lined oven or hearth. It is possible that refitting

these daub fragments may shed some light on the

original structure they formed part of.

4.3.2. Shell, Worked Bone and other utilized

Fauna

Several kinds of organic materials were

utilized to make tools. As noted previously (Robb

1998), a small fossil shark’s tooth from Trench 3

may have been kept as a curiosity or used as a tool

for some purpose such as incising unfired pottery.

Similarly, two fragments of boar’s tusk from the

upper strata of Trench 1 may have been used for

tools or ornaments rather than simply representing

culinary debris; one may be artifically smoothed at

the end.

One small marine shell, from a clam-like

bivalve, was found in Stratum II of Trench 1. Its

edges were artificially smoothed and rounded all

around, and a small hole at its apex may have been

naturally or artificially created. This example

closely resembles a worked shell found in 1998 in

the same stratum, as well as an unworked shell from

the same stratum and a burnt shell fragment from

Stratum IV. As these show, small marine shells

were probably commonly used as tools for

smoothing or scraping soft materials.

One worked bone implement was found

(Figure 29). This was a long bone, probably a

radius or metapodial from a sheep-sized animal,

which had been split lengthwise and smoothed all

around. The non-articular end was sharpened to a

point, now broken, and the edges of the fragment

were rounded. The result was a small awl of a type

common in Neolithic sites. Its overall dimensions

were 37 mm long by 10 mm wide by 8 mm thick.


36

4.3.3. Ground and Polished Stone

Excavations to date have found between

ten and twenty artifacts of ground and polished

stone. The exact number is difficult to determine,

since some pieces are clearly modified by humans,

while others pieces consist of stone not found

naturally on the site but do not display clear traces

of working or shaping. It should also be noted that

many of these are difficult for excavators to identify

and a certain number of ground stone artifacts,

particularly fragments or ones not obviously

modified, may have been discarded accidentally

during excavation.

Non-flaked stone artifacts fall into several

categories:

• polished stone axes and other tools, and

possible fragments from working or damaging

them

• fragments of large grinding stones, of

limestone or sandstone, with clearly worn

surfaces

• fragments of large metamorphic or igneous

pebbles, sometimes showing worked facets or

surfaces

• small pebbles of unusual stone without any

clear signs of human modification

Polished stone axes and other tools. To

date, two polished stone axes from Umbro have

been found. The first was a broken fragment from

the pointed (butt) end of a small, greenish-black

axe or adze tool which was found in Stratum II of

Trench I in 1998 (see Robb 1998 for further detail).

Excavations in 1999 uncovered a polished

stone axe in Stratum II of Trench I (-10n/-

36e)(Figure 30). Because of its position close to the

surface (120-130 cm below datum, 10-20 cm

below surface, in loose, sloping sediments), it is

almost sure not to be in original depositional

context. The axe is made of blackish amphibolite

originally from the Sila (P. Barrier, pers. comm.). It

measures 85 mm long by 47 mm high by 36 mm

wide, and weighs 254 grams. The axe has an

unusually round, stocky or barrel-shaped form

which is unlike most published examples of

prehistoric axes from this region. Most of the body

is highly polished and glossy. However, the small

(butt) end is blunted with post-polishing damage of

some kind, and the large (blade) end is in the

process of being reworked. The blade end has been

broken off flat to form a cylindrical end; a diagonal

spall has been flaked off this flat surface and

partially smoothed, possibly as a beginning of re-

fashioning a point to it; and in a band around the

end on the sides of the axe the polished surface has

been removed by pecking with a hard stone. The

most likely interpretation seems that this piece was

originally a much larger axe which was in the

process of being remodelled into a smaller axe

when it was discarded. The thickness, too great for

a small axe, and the highly polished surface remain

from the larger axe, which has been trimmed to a

new, shorter length and was just starting to be

thinned and re-pointed.

Both of these axes are reasonably similar

to other axes known from the area, for instance the

three from loc. Cavalli near Bova Superiore in the

Bruno Casile collection (examined in 1997 by kind

permission of Sig. B. Casile). Unfortunately, such

axes could have been used in any period from the

Early Neolithic through the Bronze Age, and the

relatively high stratigraphic positions of both

Umbro examples does little to resolve their dating

(see above). Polished stone axe manufacture may

also be evident in the form of occasional thin spalls

of hard stones alien to the site, whether worked or

not.

A more unusual polished stone artifact was

the replica stone axe (Figure 30). Found close to

the surface in Trench 1 (-10n/-36e, surface to 120

cm), it cannot be considered in a secure

stratigraphic context. It consists of a small, shaped

and polished axe made of a locally available,

streaky white, black and brown phyllite with mica

(P. Barrier, pers. comm.). The surface is uniformly

smooth except where small areas are broken away.

The blade end is sharpened, but displays no use

damage. The axe measures 4.5 mm thick, 10 mm

high, and at least 17 mm long (part is missing). The

stone is soft and has strong cleavage planes, which

would rule out the possibility of using it as a chisel

or other small hand tool. Rather, it appears to be

simply a replica axe, perhaps for use as a toy or

amulet. Tiny replica axes or adzes are not unknown

in the Southern Italian Neolithic, though most

reported examples seem to be greenstone.

Large grinding stones. Several stone

fragments represent large querns or grinding stones

made from relatively soft sedimentary rock. One

flat chunk of sandstone (135 x 112 x 48 mm, from

Stratum II in the north end of Trench 1) had been

shaped into an oval form; one flat face of it had

been ground very smooth, while the other face and

the side had been left rough. This fragment is

probably a large piece of a two-handed rubber or

mano. A second flat piece of sandstone with one

very well-worn side (41 x 35 x 31, from the same

general context) is probably part of a similar tool.

Large querns are known from Umbro from

only two fragments. This is a piece of a limestone

slab 120 mm by 110 mm and 41 mm thick. One


37

edge of the fragment is raised with a lip ca. 1 cm

high, so that the piece forms part of a very shallow

basin. The top surface is smoothed. This piece

probably formed part of a large flat quern or metate

of a type common in Italian Neolithic villages. A

second flat limestone fragment without a lip but of

similar dimensions (90 x 85 x 27) and smoothness

probably comes from the same or a similar quern.

Note that these two fragments were found

in Trench 6, in an Early Bronze Age context. Two

granite pebbles were also found in this context, one

of which had a smooth facet and the other of which

had possible ochre stains. It is possible that these

are genuine EBA querns and grinding stones

deposited in either a ritual or a domestic context;

alternatively, they may be Neolithic tools re-used as

building stone during the Bronze Age.

Raw materials for these tools could have

come from the site of Umbro itself, for limestone,

or from nearby sandstone outcrops.

Large pebbles. A third class of ground

stone tools consisted of pebbles of granite and other

non-local rock. These tools were identifiable in

some cases by their raw material, and in other cases

by evident modification. A total of eight were

collected, two from Trench 6 and six from Trench

1.

• granite pebble with two grinding facets (86 x

46 x 31 mm, broken; Bag 1066)

• granite pebble with one side ground smooth

(88 x 88 x 44 mm, broken; Bag 1121)

• granite pebble with several smooth grinding

facets and a slight pink/red stain, perhaps from

ochre (60 x 41 x 45 mm, broken; Bag 1134)

• pebble of unidentified metamorphic stone with

several oblique grinding facets (76 x 58 x 37

mm, broken; Bag 1135)

• granite pebble with one side probably

artificially smoothed (57 x 40 x 37 mm,

broken; Bag 1149)

• pebble of unidentified stone with one side

probably artificially smoothed (69 x 58 x 39

mm, broken; Bag 1149)

• granite pebble with smoothed surfaces (79 x 58

x 35 mm; Bag 1160, from Trench 6)

• granite pebble without visibly smoothed facets

but with possible ochre stain (68 x 56 x 45

mm; Bag 1150, from Trench 6)

It is likely that other examples were discarded

inadvertently by excavators.

The raw material for these pebble tools

most probably came from the sandstone/

conglomerate outcrops 200 meters north of Umbro.

Their function was clearly grinding, as

demonstrated by the flat facets worn on many of

their surfaces, and they were evidently curated and

reused for some time, to judge from the multiple

grinding facets many display. They may not have

been the normal tools for grinding grain, and at

least some may have been used to crush and grind

ochre pigments, as several display reddish stains. It

is not clear why most of them were broken; perhaps

they were also used as hammerstones.

Small pebbles. Finally, a number of small

pebbles were found which were imported into the

site and probably used as expedient tools. These

include six examples from Trench 1 (Bag 1010;

Bag 1136, 2 examples; Bag 1161; Bag 1211; Bag

1216). Only one shows a possible smoothed facet

(Bag 1211); the rest are identified solely by their

non-local raw material. Other examples have

probably been discarded by excavators. These

pebbles are usually found unbroken and their

maximum dimension is usually less than 50 mm.

They may have been used for some purpose such as

smoothing and burnishing unfired vessels.

4.3.4. Ochre

To date, eight small fragments of ochre

have been found. All come from Trench 1, where

they are found throughout the stratigraphy in all

levels. The largest fragment is 21 mm in diameter,

but most are smaller than 5 mm. They display no

form or wear facets, but have clearly been imported

to the site by humans for use as a pigment. This

interpretation is corroborated by ochre stains on

grinding stones (see above) and the use of red

pigment to color impressions in vessels.

It is worth noting that several levels in

Trench 1 displayed slight concentrations of small,

chalklike nodules. These were not collected, as they

were soft, disintegrating, and at times difficult to

recognize. Such white lumps may represent a

natural soil concretion, but they may also represent

the remnants of materials used to make a white

paste for encrusting impressed pottery.

4.4. Faunal Remains and Human Remains

Faunal Remains. The 1999 excavations

recovered 892 fragments of animal bone; of these,

5 came from Trench 6, 3 from Trench 7, and all the

rest from Trench 1. Counting material from the

1998 excavations, this brings the total faunal

remains from Trench 1 to 1340 pieces (Table 2).

This body of material will be studied by a trained

faunal analyst following the 2000 field season. The

following preliminary comments should be


38

understood as based on rapid impressions in the

field by people untrained in animal bone

identification.

Taphonomically, the animal bone from

Umbro is remarkable for its poor preservation.

Most pieces are less than one centimeter in

maximum dimension and are probably not

identifiable. The most common identifiable pieces

will almost certainly be tooth fragments. This

marked degradation is not typical of extensive

Neolithic village sites, in my experience, and serves

to underscore the particular nature of Umbro. It

probably derives from a very long-term use of a

very restricted habitation area. It may also have

something to do with the particular use of animal

resources or food preparation or consumption at the

site.

Between one third and one quarter of all

fragments are burnt, usually to a shade between

black and white. Burning is found on bones from

all strata of Trench 1 down to the earliest levels.

This indicates exposure to extreme heat, as opposed

to a brownish color which can indicate exposure to

lesser temperatures. Intense burning on a par with

cremation seems hardly compatible with thermal

alteration in the process of cooking. Instead, it

suggests that the sediments around Umbro were

intensely heated periodically or repeatedly. Such

intense burning no doubt contributed to the high

fragmentation of the faunal remains.

As an informal impression, the commonest

kind of animal at the site seems to have been a

small herbivore, most likely sheep and/or goat,

though at this stage deer cannot be excluded.

Several bones from very young individuals

(lambs?) were found; these may prove informative

on the season of occupation of the site. Pig has

been identified as definitely present from several

pieces submitted to faunal analysts (U. Albarella,

pers. comm.; D. Serjeantson, pers. comm.), and

teeth resembling pig are moderately common. It is

unclear whether the pig would have been

domesticated, wild boar, or feral. Cattle are

probably represented by several fragments, but

seem very uncommon. One fragment of cattle bone

appears to be a nearly complete metapodial with

numerous cut marks.

Other animals present include bird of

some kind, snake and rodents. It is likely that some

snake and rodent bones are intrusive modern

specimens, especially as at least snakes now inhabit

the site. Fish bones appear to be completely absent.

Human Remains. In contrast to the 1998

excavations which yielded a large assemblage of

disarticulated bone from Trench 3 (which later

proved to be probably Roman in date), the 1999

excavations yielded only three human skeletal

fragments. All came from Stratum II in Trench 1.

One consisted of a proximal pedal phalange

fragment. The other two consisted of small cranial

vault fragments whose precise location on the skull

could not be determined. Like the four fragments of

human bones and teeth found in Trench 1 in 1998,

these seem to be isolated fragments probably

transported in from deposits higher up the southern

slopes of the site and without any particular

significance for the function of this part of the site.

Supporting this interpretation is the fact that all

seven fragments were found in Stratum II, a

relatively high stratum probably representing mixed

deposits.

4.5. Paleobotanical Remains (Marina Ciaraldi)

In 1999, we began a flotation program.

Flotation samples were collected from all the

features in Trench 6, for which the entire fill was

bagged. This yielded four samples (one each from

the three pots and one from the surrounding soil

matrix). Samples were also taken from four

representative levels in Trench 1, for which 20 liter

samples were collected. For consistency, all Trench

1 samples were taken from the same grid square (-

7n/-36e); one sample was taken from each of strata

II-V. Finally, one sample was taken from a feature

in Stratum IV of Trench 1 (–8n/-36e). Flotation

samples were first sifted in 5 mm mesh, like all

excavated soil, and the finds were recorded and

reunited with other finds from the bag. The samples

were then floated by hand using basins and hand

strainers. The coarse fraction was collected using 1

mm nylon mesh, and the fine fraction was collected

using a .5 mm nylon mesh. These fractions were

then dried in fine mesh bags. The residue and the

flotation (fine) fraction were both sorted and

identified for seed and charcoal analysis by Dr.

Marina Ciaraldi (Birmingham University Field

Archaeological Unit). In the case of the flotation

fraction, a standard low power stereomicroscope

was used. Identifications were made using a

reference collection of modern material and various

identification atlases.

None of the four samples from the Trench

6 (Early Bronze Age) pots and feature fill

contained organic remains. This is unsurprising as

most of these samples were less than a liter in

volume, and the largest was less than five liters.

The remaining five samples all yielded

botanical remains (Table 5). Sample 9 represents

Stratum II, possibly mixed later Neolithic deposits;

Sample 7 represents Stratum III (Diana); and

Samples 5, 8, and 6 represent Stentinello deposits


39

from Stratum IV, Stratum V and a feature

respectively.

Many modern rootlets and some modern

seeds were observed in sample 9 and, to a minor

degree, in sample 7. The remaining three samples

presented a very similar sandy matrix. All the

samples contained some charcoal (although in very

small quantity) and all samples but N.6 contains

some small bones. The general preservation of the

charred plant remains was generally poor. The

cereal grains had clearly undergone carbonization

under intense heat and they presented a damaged

surface and numerous holes. The same applied to

some of the chaff elements. The identification to

species level was therefore difficult and in many

cases impossible. Most of the cereal grains

recovered were fragmented and distorted and they

were assigned to the wide category of cereals.

In some cases it was possible to attribute

some of the grains to barley (Hordeum vulgare L.).

However, even in these cases it was impossible to

observe details such as the symmetry of the

embryo, the presence of hull on the surface of the

grain or eventual signs of germination. It was

therefore impossible to establish whether these

grains belonged to the six-row or to the two-row

variety. In two cases some barley grains were

identified simply as Hordeum sp. because they

were rather small and they could have been either

tail grains (underdeveloped grains) of cultivated

barley or a species of barley.

Only two wheat grains were found and

only one was identified as bread wheat (Triticum

aestivum s.l.). The diagnostic features used to

identify this grain were its roundness and its curved

bottom profile. Most of the charred chaff found was

damaged too and although the presence of emmer

(Triticum dicoccum Schank.) was confirmed by the

identification of some of the better preserved glume

bases and forks, it was impossible to establish with

certainty the presence of einkorn (Triticum

monococcum L.).

None of the weed seeds found is particular

informative in the interpretation of the assemblage

mainly because they could not be identified to

species level. One possible olive pit was recovered

from a good Early Neolithic context and identified

in the field (identification by L. Foxhall); however,

this did not form part of the material available for

identification by a trained paleobotanist, and the

identification must be considered tentative. If it is

indeed an olive pit, it is likely to represent wild

olive and may have been used for animal fodder (L.

Foxhall, pers. comm.).

The paucity of the plant remains recovered

does not allow to make any general statment on the

economy of the site. However, considering the

general dearth of data from the Neolithic of the

area, the plant material from Umbro provides an

important contribution to the more general

reconstruction of the Neolithic economy of

Calabria.

Overall the plant assemblage from Umbro

represents a typical assemblage from a Southern

Italian Neolithic site, with the simultaneous

presence of three different cereals: barley, emmer

(and einkorn?) and a free-threshing wheat. This

group of cereals represents the typical Neolithic

“package” of Southern Europe (Zohary and Hopf

1993). The absence of pulses from the plant

assemblage may be the consequence of the

generally poor preservation of the plant material.

The agricultural component of the economy may

also be attested by the common finds of grinding

stone fragments (see above).

There are only two Neolithic sites of the

Stentinello facies from Calabria whose plant

assemblage has been studied: Capo Alfiere,

Crotone (CZ) (Costantini 1988) on the Ionic coast

and Acconia area C, Curingia (CZ) (Ammerman

1987) on the Tyrrenic coast. The information on the

plant assemblage from Acconia is very limited and

it only attests the presence of barley (Costantini and

Stancanelli 1994). For the plant assemblage from

Capo Alfiere we only have a preliminarily report

but there is evidence of a higher number of species.

The plant assemblage from Capo Alfiere reflects

closely the findings from Umbro although there is

no reference to the presence of chaff at Capo

Alfiere (Costantini and Stancanelli 1994).

The presence of grains, chaff and a few

weeds (possibly associated with the cereal crops) is

an important indication that part of the crop

processing took place on site. The crop processing

may have happened at different levels. It could

have taken place as a large-scale crop cleaning

directly on site or it may just have taken place as

daily cleaning of cereals to be eaten. A higher

density of charred plant remains was recovered

from the feature fill (Sample 6, T1 8n.36e –230-

240). Its composition was very similar to the rest of

the plant assemblage. This could perhaps be

interpreted as evidence of the fact that crop

cleaning took place on a daily basis and that the

plant assemblage recovered from the feature fill

reflects this activity.

It is evident from the data that there is no

clear differentiation between the assemblages from

the different strata and occupational periods. If in

some cases this can be due to a certain degree of re-

mixing of the layers (especially for Stratum II and

III), on the other hand this might be interpreted as a

sign of continuation between the Stentinello and


40

Diana occupation levels. This seems in agreement

with the hypothesis that these two kinds of ware

might have been in use at the same time over a

certain number of centuries (Whitehouse 1986).

However the data are too scarce to be used with

confidence in confirming this statement.


41

5. TEST EXCAVATIONS AT SAN PASQUALE

San Pasquale is a Neolithic site located on

a natural clay terrace at the eastern margin of the

San Pasquale valley. It was found by S. Stranges

and L. Saccà and first surveyed by the Bova Marina

Archaeological Project in 1997 (see survey site

catalog, above, in which it is referred to as

Canturatta A, Area 2). Both Stranges and Saccà and

our survey have found pottery to include mostly

small, highly eroded fragments with a few

diagnostic impressed or Stentinello pieces; there

are also some fragments which may be later

prehistoric and some apparently Roman fragments

which may be associated with Site 2.

The natural setting of the site would have

been quite attractive for Neolithic settlement. It is

located about 100 m from the present day coastline

and about 30 m above sea level, overlooking the

broad, level valley of the Torrente di S. Pasquale.

The terrace itself consists of pure clayey and sandy

deposits, as its eroding margins show. A deep

ravine divides it into an eastern and a western part.

Like most such terraces, it has now been built up

with a cascade of small agricultural terraces, but it

seems likely that this reflects the underlying shape

of the hill substantially. In prehistoric times, the

torrente may have had marshy areas at its mouth,

and the valley would have probably been wooded.

Plenty of level ground would have been available

for building and farming, as well as marine

resources and a variety of montane resources from

the Agrillei ridge just behind the site. The ridge

would have also sheltered the site from northern

and eastern winds. In addition, there may well have

been springs available at points around the base of

the Agrillei ridge; a large clump of reeds near the

eastern end of the terrace suggests some ground

moisture, and a spring is still extant at a similar

stratigraphic level below the ridge on the western

side of the valley.

Such a location – on a low terrace

commanding ecotonal resources – is often

considered virtually stereotypical of Neolithic

villages, based on areas such as the Materano and

the Tavoliere (Jarman and Webley 1975; Jones

1987; Tinè 1983). Hence, if we suppose that the

Calabrian Neolithic was based around large villages

as in other areas, San Pasquale seems an obvious

area to look for one. Thus, we were especially

interested in test-excavating San Pasquale to

investigate sites complementary to Umbro, which is

clearly not a large, open village.

At present, the area of the site is used for

several kinds of agricultural production. On the

western part, the terrace is in derelict scrub, and

had recently been burnt over at the time of

excavation; hence surface visibility was excellent.

Across the ravine on the broader eastern part, there

was an active and fenced vineyard and, further east,

a grove of olive and almond trees with some

scrubby vegetation between them.

As a preliminary to test excavations, we

examined current ground surfaces as well as

interviewing past surveyors (especially D. Yoon

and L. Saccà) as to the location of artifact

concentrations. It is clear that some cultural

materials are found throughout the terrace, but that

there are at least two distinct concentrations. One is

located in the center of the western part of the

terrace. Here we found, for instance, scattered

prehistoric and historic sherds, all small eroded

fragments. A second is located along the southern

margin of the center of the eastern plateau, between

a large outcropping boulder (collected as “Location

B”) and the nearby olive trees (collected as

“Location A”). Finds here seemed to be

predominantly Roman or modern, though at least

one flake of obsidian suggests prehistoric

occupation.

We decided to excavate test pits on the

western part of the terrace in the center of the

concentration of sherds there (Figure 31). Two one

by one meter test pits were excavated, Trench 1 and

Trench 2 (Figure 32, Figure 33). The two pits were

aligned to a hypothetical north-south grid and

spaced 16 meters apart. They were excavated in ten

centimeter arbitrary levels. Work was carried out

with a crew of 8 on September 9th

.

The results were disappointing, but at least

they were clear. In both pits, the ground surface

was littered with small, tabular gravel, consisting

largely of schist fragments evidently originating

from the slopes of Agrillei just 40-60 meters to the

northeast. When this was removed, the soil rapidly

turned to a brownish sandy clay which contained

virtually no archaeological materials. As the

trenches grew deeper, the soil grew yellower and

both stones and bulbs and roots from surface

vegetation became fewer and fewer. Both trenches

were stopped between 40 and 50 cm deep, when it

was clear that the soil below the surface was

essentially sterile and was rapidly turning identical

to the 20+ meter thick deposit of clay visible in the

eroding banks of the terrace. Both trenches were

backfilled.


42

While these excavations were taking

place, three crew cleaned profiles in eroding places

at four locations around the edges of the terrace. In

all four places, with profiles up to three meters

deep, we encountered stratigraphy identical to that

in the test trenches: a litter of stone fragments on

the surface, followed by a thin transition to sterile

geological deposits.

The main, and apparently indisputable,

conclusion is that the archaeological deposits in this

particular place are entirely superficial. A

suggestion was made by L. Saccà that farmers

earlier in the century, to improve the quality of land

for vines, dumped gravel into the field; few remains

were visible on the surface because the real site lay

buried a meter or more deep. However, this concept

does not account for a number of facts: some

artifacts are indeed found on the surface, the scatter

of stones is entirely superficial rather than a thick

stratum well mixed with the soil; and nowhere in

exposed sections is there any evidence of a buried

site outcropping at any depth.

Instead, the most likely interpretation is

that both the sheet of thin schist fragments and the

scatter of artifacts identified as the site have washed

in from the ridge to the northeast. This is the

geological source of the schist, which has nothing

to do with the soft sedimentary deposits of the

terrace. It would account for the apparent mixing of

the fragments, and would also explain their highly

fragmented and eroded state, which is so severe that

virtually none of them retains its original surface.

The concentration of both stones and sherds on the

surface of the field where we excavated can be

explained through repeated cycles of alluviation

and deflation.

We thus concluded that there is a genuine

Neolithic site somewhere in the vicinity of the area

excavated, probably at no great distance. Although

some of the relevant areas have been fieldwalked

and do indeed yield low-level concentrations of

both prehistoric and historic material, it is unclear

whether these represent the real site or are also

slopewash. The task for the future is to walk and re-

walk all areas in the environs, including some steep

and thickly brushy areas, to check where the site

may have been.


43

6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

6.1. Umbro: Dating, Stratigraphy, and Site

Function

The dating and stratigraphy of Umbro are

gradually becoming clearer, thanks to numerous

small test excavations and radiocarbon dates. The

site was first occupied in the early 6th

millennium

BC by people using Stentinello wares. The area

occupied then consisted of a small zone in the

shelter of low, east-facing cliffs. Stentinello

occupation appears to have continued, continuously

or intermittently, at least through the middle of the

5th

millennium BC and likely for longer, as Late

Neolithic Diana wares are common. There also

appears to have been some Copper Age occupation,

although this is poorly defined. Following a lapse

of perhaps a thousand years, the site was reutilized

in the Early Bronze Age by people using ceramics

akin to the Eastern Sicilian Rodi-Tindari-

Vallelunga wares. Nothing is known of later Bronze

Age or Iron Age use of the site, but a small Greek

farmstead was occupied from Archaic times

onward.

The nature of occupation in each period is

less clear and more interesting. In the Neolithic,

Umbro was a very small site, which could have

been occupied by perhaps five to ten people at

most. Influenced by areas such as Puglia, the

Materano, the Adriatic coastal strip and eastern

Sicily, archaeologists have usually understood

Neolithic settlement as centered around villages

housing many families. If this settlement pattern

was found in Calabria as well, then Umbro must be

understood as a special function site of some kind.

It would have been occupied by a fraction of

society performing some combination of

specialized tasks such as hunting, herding, making

pottery, or conducting rituals. Such a group may

have been a nuclear family, or it may have been

recruited along age, gender, ritual or other lines.

However, we must also consider the possibility that

Neolithic settlement in Calabria did not follow the

pattern established elsewhere; it could have been

decentralized, without fixed, aggregated villages

(cf. Whittle 1996). Evidence from Trench 1 gives

some idea of the nature of activities carried on at

the site. Pots were made, probably in the dry

season; cereals were prepared for consumption;

domestic animals were eaten; exotic materials were

fashioned into axes and cutting tools.

The function of Umbro in the Early

Bronze Age is currently equally ambiguous; as

known from limited preliminary excavations, it may

have been a burial site, a ritual site or a domestic

site.

The function of Umbro is inextricably

linked to use of the surrounding landscape. For

both the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age,

understanding the function of the site depends on

understanding other sites in the neighborhood –

whether Neolithic villages existed nearby, and

whether there were domestic or funerary Bronze

Age sites nearby.

6.2. The Landscape of Bova Marina from

Neolithic through Recent Times

General trends in settlement as known

from the field survey have been discussed above

and are only briefly summarized here. Prehistoric

settlement is theoretically poorly understood for the

Neolithic and not known for later periods.

However, survey data shows early settlement by

Greeks, or acculturation of native populations to

Greek customs. Surprisingly, hellenization occurred

early even at small, inland farmsteads as well as in

cities such as Rhegion. Probably the densest

settlement in antiquity took place in the later

Roman period, between the second and fifth

centuries A.D., when intensive occupation of

coastal plains and river valleys probably reflects

villa-based intensive agriculture. Little is known of

the following early medieval period until the

foundation of inland hilltop towns such as Bova

Superiore. Population rose again in historic times,

with dense peasant land use bespoken by numerous

now-abandoned farmhouses. Perhaps the final turn

in recent settlement history is a general shift in the

last century back to the coastlands with the gradual

abandonment of traditional mountain villages.

6.3 Future Work

Future work includes several logical

developments of this season’s researches.

Our field survey plans include three

primary objectives:

(1) to continue survey in the comune of

Bova Marina, exploring especially inland

territories.

(2) to expand survey inland to the comune

of Bova Superiore, in order to understand

settlement in the entire range of environmental

zones locally available and used in historical times.


44

Areas to target specifically include the hills

between Umbro and Bova Superiore, the immediate

surroundings of Bova Superiore, and the Campi di

Bova, a small highland plain traditionally used as

pastures for people based at Bova.

(3) to begin a program of small test

excavations in undated prehistoric sites, to check

the presence of periods such as the Copper and

Bronze Ages which are very difficult to identify

from survey materials and to verify the presence of

Neolithic sites in the surroundings of Umbro. The

targets for 2000 include a probable Bronze Age site

at Limaca, about 200 meters north of Umbro, and

two undated ceramic scatters about 300 meters

southwest of Umbro.

The excavation goals are straightforward.

We hope to continue excavations in the Neolithic

area, though on a limited scale. The specific goals

will be to further define the chronology of the site,

to ascertain the beginning of occupation at the base

of the sequence near the cliff, and to recover further

scientific samples (for example, for flotation). We

hope to conduct substantial excavations in the Early

Bronze Age area, primarily to understand the nature

of the site and, if it turns out a burial site, to learn

about EBA funerary ritual. Finally, we hope to

conduct test excavations in the Greek site about

200 meters south of Umbro. As noted earlier,

excavation of a small, early inland Greek farmstead

has the potential to yield much new information

about social processes of acculturation in the early

colonial period.


45

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ammerman, A.

1987 Ricenti contributi sul neolitico della

Calabria. Atti, Riunione Scientifica

dell'I.I.P.P. 26:333-349.

Bernabò Brea, L.

1957 Sicily before the Greeks. Thames and

Hudson, London.

Bernabò Brea, L., and M. Cavalier

1956 Civiltà preistoriche delle Isole Eolie e

del territorio del Milazzo. Bullettino di

Paletnologia Italiana 66:7-98.

1960 Meligunìs Lipára. Volume I: La

stazione preistorica della contrada Diana e

la necropoli preistorica di Lipari.

Pubblicazioni del Museo Eoliano di Lipari.

S. F. Flaccovio, Palermo.

1980 Meligunìs Lipára, Volume IV:

l'acropoli di Lipari nella preistoria.

Publications of the Museo Eolio. Flaccovio,

Palermo.

Castellana, G.

1996 La stipe votiva del Ciavolaro nel

quadro del Bronzo Antico Siciliano.

Assessorato regionale beni culturali

ambieltali e pubblica istruzione, Agrigento.

Ceci, M.

1992 Note sulla circolazione delle lucerne

a Roma nell'VIII secolo: i contesti della

Crypta Balbi. Archeologia Medievale

19:749-766.

Cocchi Genick, D.

1996 Manuale di Preistoria. III. Età del

Rame. Octavo, Firenze.

Costamagna, L.

1991 La sinagoga di Bova Marina nel

quadro degli insediamenti tardoantichi della

costa jonica meridionale della Calabria.

Mèlanges de l'école française di Rome 2.

Costantini, L.

1988 Cereali e legumi del sito neolitico di

Capo Alfiere, Unpublished manuscript.

Costantini, L., and M. Stancanelli

1994 La preistoria agricola dell' Italia

centro-meridionale: il contributo delle

indagini archeobotaniche. Origini 18:149-

243.

Foley, R.

1981 A model of regional archaeological

structure. Proceedings of the Prehistoric

Society 47:1-17.

Garcea, F., and D. Williams

1987 Appunti sulla produzione e

circolazione delle lucerne nel napoletano tra

VII e VIII secolo. Archeologia Medievale

14:537-545.

Gregg, S.

1988 Foragers and farmers: population

interaction and agricultural expansion in

prehistoric Europe. University of Chicago

Press, Chicago.

Higgs, E., and C. Vita-Finzi

1972 Prehistoric economies: a territorial

approach. In Papers in economic

prehistory, edited by E. Higgs, pp. 27-36.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jarman, M., and D. Webley

1975 Settlement and land use in

Capitanata, Italy. In Palaeoeconomy, edited

by E. Higgs, pp. 177-231. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Jarman, M. G., G. Bailey, and H. Jarman

1982 Early European agriculture.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jones, G.B.D.

1987 Apulia. Society of Antiquaries,

London.

Leighton, R.

1999 Sicily before history. Duckworth,

London.

Maniscalco, L.

1996 Early Bronze Age funerary ritual and

architecture: monumnetal tombs at Santa

Febronia. In Early Societies in Sicily, edited

by R. Leighton, pp. 81-87. Accordia

Research Centre, London.

1999 The Sicilian Bronze Age pottery

service. In Social Dynamics of the

Prehistoric Central Mediterranean, edited

by R. H. Tykot, J. Morter, and J. E. Robb,

pp. 185-194. Accordia Research Centre,

London.


46

Morter, J.

1992 Capo Alfiere and the Middle

Neolithic period in eastern Calabria,

Southern Italy. Unpublished Ph.D.

Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

O'Hare, G.

1990 A preliminary study of polished stone

artefacts in prehistoric southern Italy.

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society

56:123-152.

Orsi, P.

1890 Stazione neolitica di Stentinello.

Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 16:177-

200.

Robb, J.

1997 Bova Marina Field Survey:

Preliminary Report, 1997 Season.

Department of Archaeology, University of

Southampton, Southampton.

Robb, J. E.

1998 Bova Marina Archaeological

Project: Survey and Excavations at Umbro.

Department of Archaeology, University of

Southampton, Southampton.

Servizio Geologico dell'Italia

1970 Carta Geologica dell'Italia. Cassa

per il Mezzogiorno. 1:25000.

1976 Carta Geologica dell'Italia. IGM.

1:500000.

Shaffer, G.

1985 Architectural resources and their

effect on certain neolithic settlements in

Southern Italy. In Papers in Italian

Archaeology IV: the Cambridge

conference, edited by C. Malone, and S.

Stoddart, pp. 101-117. BAR International

Series, 245. British Archaeological Reports,

Oxford.

Skeates, R.

1992 Thin-section analysis of Italian

neolithic pottery. In Papers of the Fourth

Conference of Italian Archaeology. Volume

3: New developments in Italian

archaeology, edited by E. Herring, R.

Whitehouse, and J. Wilkins, pp. 29-34.

Accordia Research Center, London.

1994 A radiocarbon date-list for prehistoric

Italy (c. 46,400 BP - 2450 BP/400 cal. BC).

In Radiocarbon dating and Italian

prehistory, edited by R. Skeates, and R.

Whitehouse, pp. 147-288. Accordia

Specialist Studies on Italy, 3. Accordia

Research Center, London.

Stranges, S.

1992 Importante ritrovamento

stentinelliano a Bova Marina. Calabria

Sconosciuta 15:51-52.

Stranges, S., and L. Saccà

1994 Nuove acquisizioni sulla preistoria

nella Jonica Reggina. Calabria Sconosciuta

17:19-22.

Tinè, S.

1983 Passo di Corvo e la civiltà neolitica

del Tavoliere. Sagep, Genova.

1992 Bova Survey 1992. Istituto Italiano di

Archeologia Sperimentale, Genova.

Tozzi, C., and G. Tasca

1989 Ripa Tetta. Atti Convegno Nazionale

sulla Preistoria, Protostoria e Storia della

Daunia 11:39-54.

Tusa, S.

1993 La Sicilia nella preistoria. 2nd ed.

Sellerio, Palermo.

Whitehouse, R.

1986 Siticulosa Apulia revisited. Antiquity

60:36-44.

Whittle, A.

1996 Neolithic Europe: the creation of new

worlds. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Zohary, D., and M. Hopf

1993 Domestication of plants in the Old

World. Clarendon, Oxford.


47

FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures

1. Map of areas surveyed and sites found, 1997-1999.

2. Map of areas surveyed in the Umbro area.

3. Map of areas surveyed in the Mazza area.

4. Map of grid collection units at Mazza.

5. GIS reconstruction of prehistoric land use.

6. Umbro: site map.

7. Umbro: general view of cliffs with Neolithic site below, Bronze Age site above (from north).

8. Trench 1 plan.

9. Trench 1 section.

10. Trench 1 general view at end of excavations.

11. Trench 6 profile of road cut before excavation of trench.

12. Trench 6 plan of excavations.

13. Trench 6 profile of excavations.

14. Trench 6 plan of pot group.

15. Trench 6 general view of Bronze Age surface and rock fall.

16. Trench 6 Bronze Age pots in situ.

17. Trench 7 plan.

18. Trench 7 profile.

19. Trench 7 general view.

20. Clearing bedrock near peak of site.

21. Area 2 general view (1998 excavations).

22. Trench 3 general view (1998 excavations).



25. Umbro: Stentinello pottery.

26. Umbro: Diana pottery.

27. Umbro: Other prehistoric pottery.

28. Umbro: Early Bronze Age vessels from Trench 6 deposition.

29. Umbro: miscellaneous tools: (a) stampini, (b) worked bone, (c) worked shell.

30. Umbro: ground stone (a) axe, (b) miniature replica axe.

31. San Pasquale general view of location of test pits.

32. San Pasquale Trench 1 test pit.



48

Tables

Table 1. Trench 1 finds and taphonomic characteristics by depth.

Table 2. Summary of faunal assemblage from Trench 1.

Table 3. Summary of lithic assemblage from Trench 1.

Table 4. Summary of daub frequencies in Trench 1.

Table 5. Paleobotanical samples.

Table 6. Radiocarbon dates.


49

1. Map of areas surveyed and sites found, 1997-1999.


50

2. Map of areas surveyed in the Umbro area.


51

3. Map of areas surveyed in the Mazza area.


52

4. Map of grid collection units at Mazza.


53

5. GIS reconstruction of prehistoric land use.


54

6. Umbro: site map.


55

7. Umbro: general view of cliffs with Neolithic site below, Bronze Age site above (from north).


56

8. Trench 1 plan.


57

9. Trench 1 section.


58

10. Trench 1 general view at end of excavations.


59

11. Trench 6 profile of road cut before excavation of trench.


60

12. Trench 6 plan of excavations.


61

13. Trench 6 profile of excavations.


62

14. Trench 6 plan of pot group.


63

15. Trench 6 general view of Bronze Age surface and rock fall.


64

16. Trench 6 Bronze Age pots in situ.


65

17. Trench 7 plan.


66

18. Trench 7 profile.


67

19. Trench 7 general view.


68

20. Clearing bedrock near peak of site.


69

21. Area 2 general view (1998 excavations).


70



71



72



73

25. Umbro: Stentinello pottery.


74

26. Umbro: Diana pottery.


75

27. Umbro: Other prehistoric pottery.


76

28. Umbro: Early Bronze Age vessels from Trench 6 deposition.


77

29. Umbro: miscellaneous tools: (a) stampini, (b) worked bone, (c) worked sherd.


78

30. Umbro: ground stone (a) axe, (b) miniature replica axe.


79

31. San Pasquale general view of location of test pits.


80



81



82

Table 1. Trench 1 finds and taphonomic characteristics by depth.

Stratum Depth Ceramics Obsidian Flint Fauna Daub Ground

stone

% Fauna

burnt

sherd

diameter

(mean)

obsidian

length

(mean)

I 0-130 528 59 2 186 54 1 37 29.7 15.7

II 130-160 1172 110 6 329 269 10 29 33.9 19.9

III 160-190 710 106 7 338 361 8 19 32.6 17.2

IV 190-230 388 71 2 343 330 0 17 32.6 19.0

V* 230-250 99 28 0 135 80 1 20 26.1 17.7


83

Table 2. Summary of faunal assemblage from Trench 1.

stratum depth unburned

fragments

burned

fragments

1 0-100 44 13

1 0-120 8 6

1 0-130 2 1

1 0-147 3 1

1 100-110 22 40

1 110-120 16 7

1 120-130 18

1 135-150 4 1

2 110-120 21 22

2 120-130 27 9

2 130-140 47 14

2 140-150 50 26

2 150-160 77 18

2 160-170 13 5

3 160-170 62 28

3 170-180 82 18

3 180-190 74 13

3 190-200 49 3

3 200-210 7 2

4 200-210 69 17

4 210-220 76 11

4 220-230 83 12

4 230-240 25 13

4 240-250 30 7

5 240-250 67 3

5 250-260 24 19

5 260-270 16 2

5 270-280 1 3


84

Table 3. Summary of lithic assemblage from Trench 1.

stratum raw

mat.

blade blade

fragment

chunk core flake tool

1 f 1 1

1 o 4 5 5 1 42 2

2 f 1 4 1

2 o 3 12 12 4 72 7

3 f 1 1 4 1

3 o 3 20 12 1 63 7

4 f 1 1

4 o 3 10 7 1 48 2

5 o 5 2 20 1


85

Table 4. Summary of daub frequencies from Trench 1.

stratum depth Total

fragments/level

Average

fragments/

square

1 0-100 8 2.66

1 0-120 5 5

1 0-147 3 3

1 100-110 13 6.5

1 110-120 9 9

1 120-130 7 7

1 135-150 9 9

2 110-120 9 2.25

2 120-130 9 2.25

2 130-140 36 7.2

2 140-150 58 5.8

2 150-160 128 11.64

2 160-170 29 29

3 160-170 107 11.89

3 170-180 91 10.11

3 180-190 46 5.11

3 190-200 76 12.67

3 200-210 41 41

4 200-210 129 16.13

4 210-220 116 16.57

4 220-230 40 10

4 230-240 39 9.75

4 240-250 6 3

5 240-250 46 15.33

5 250-260 34 17


86

Table 5. Paleobotanical samples.

Sample N. 9 7 5 8 6

Feature/Context T1 7n-36e

(160-170)

str.II

T1 7n.36e

str.III

T1 7n.36e

(230-240)

Str IV

T1 7n.36e

(250-260)

str.V

T1 8n.37e

(230-240)

Sample vol. 20 20 20 20 2.5

Seed/Litre

flot/res f f f f f

Type of context stratum stratum stratum stratum feature fill

Period/phase Neol Neol Neol Neol Neol

common

name

Taxon body

part

pres.

cereals Cerealia gr carb 4 6 10 6 6

cereals Cerealia c.n. carb 1

barley Hordeum cf.

vulgare

gr carb 6 1 2 4 3

(wild?)

barley

Hordeum sp. gr carb 1 1

heinkorn/

emmer

Triticum

monococcum/

dicoccum

gl.b. carb 3 2 3 1 1

heinkorn/

emmer

Triticum

monococcum/

dicoccum

f carb 1 1 1

emmer Triticum

dicoccum

gl.b. carb 1 1 1 2

emmer Triticum

dicoccum

f carb 1

bread

wheat

Triticum aestivum

s.l.

gr carb 1

wheat Triticum sp. gr carb 1

wheat Triticum sp. r.in. carb 1 3 2

Atriplex sp. s carb 1

vetch Vicia/Lathyrus s carb 1

Trifolium/Medica

go/ Melilotus

s carb 1

grape Vitis vinifera s mo 1

grasses Gramineae (Poa

type)

s carb 1 1

grasses Gramineae s carb 1

modern

seeds

Charcoal carb 5fr 3fr 10fr 15fr 15fr

eggs/coprolites carb x 3

cyst 2 1 2

small bones x x x x


87

Table 6. Radiocarbon dates.

Sample Material Trench Level ID Uncal.

Date

Calibrated

date*

Notes

Umbro-1 Charcoal 3 210-220

cm

Beta-

122935

1770 +/-

60 BP

AD 120 -

415 (AD

250)

Late

Roman

Umbro-2 Charcoal 3 220-230

cm

-- -- -- sample

not

analyzed

Umbro-3 Charcoal 1 (-8n/-

37e)

181 cm,

sublocus 1

(Stratum

3)

Beta-

122937

4330 +/-

50 BP

3045 -

2880 BC

(2910

BC)

Copper

Age


37e)

210-220

cm (Base

of Stratum

3)

Beta-

122938

5790 +/-

50 BP

4780 -

4515 BC

(4680

BC)

Middle

Neolithic


36e)

250-260

cm

(Stratum

5)

Beta-

122939

6750 +/-

50 BP

5685 -

5565 BC

(5600

BC)

Early

Neolithic

Umbro-6 Animal

bone

4 Stratum I Beta-

122940

modern modern AMS

date; no

valid

result

Umbro-7 Human

bone

3 180-190

cm

Beta-

125061

1600 +/-

40 BP

AD 395-

560 (AD

440)

AMS

date; Late

Roman


36e)

160-170

cm (Strata

II/III)

Beta-

135146

5930 +/-

70 BP

4945-

4615 BC

(4785

BC)

AMS date


36e)

180-190

cm (top of

Stratum

III)

Beta-

135147

6620 +/-

60 BP

5660-

5485 BC

(5610

BC)

AMS date


6e)

60-70 (III:

same level

as base of

pot scatter

Beta-

135150

3390 +/-

60 BP

1865-

1520 BC

(1680

BC)

AMS date

* calibrated date is 2 sigma, 95% probability range with intersection of radiocarbon age with calibration curve in

parentheses

**Umbro-8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 20 are charcoal samples archived and not dated.

excavations at edited by john - university of cambridge · per il periodo storico, la ceramica...

Documents