2

MUGELLO VALLEY ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT and Poggio Colla Field School Sponsored by: Southern Methodist University Franklin and Marshall College University of Pennsylvania Museum Center for the Study of Ancient Italy (wwww.CSAITX.org), U. of Texas

Field School Manual 2013 excavation season (June 29 – August 2, 2013) Copyright 2002 – 2011 and 2013 Southern Methodist University

3

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION:

2013 STAFF AND CREW………………………………………………………. 1 MISSION STATEMENT AND INTRODUCTION……………………….… 3 OVERVIEW OF EXCAVATION PROJECT………………………………… 5 FACULTY/SENIOR STAFF BIOGRAPHIES…………………………..… 9 CALENDAR AND SCHEDULES…………………….………………………… 13 LECTURES…………..…………………………………………………….………. 17 COURSE REQUIREMENTS……………………………………………………. 18

THEORY AND PRACTICE:

INTRODUCTION TO FIELDWORK TECHNIQUES…………………. 22 LABORATORY TECHNIQUES AND PRACTICES……………………. 41 ETHICS………………………………………………………………………………. 44 CHRONOLOGY…………………………………………………..……………… 45 MAPS…………………………………………………………………………………. 46 SPECIAL PROJECTS…………..………………………………………………. 50 CONCLUDING REMARKS……………………………………………………… 56

APPENDICES:

1. FORMS …………………………………………………………………………………. 58 2. CODE OF ETHICS FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS…….………………………. 64 3. MVAP CODE OF BEHAVIOR….……………………………………………….. 68 4. SMU BEHAVIOR CODE ………………………………………………………….. 69 5. BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR THE MVAP …………………………..……………… 71 6. POGGIO COLLA PROGRAM EVALUATION FORM……………………. 75 7. NOTEBOOK ASSIGNMENT …………………………………………………….. 79 8. CRISIS PLAN …………………………………………………………………………. 80

1

INTRODUCTION

2013 Staff and Crew Directors Prof. Gregory Warden, Franklin College Switzerland Dr. Michael Thomas, University of Texas at Austin Director of Research Prof. Ann Steiner, Franklin and Marshall College Director of Materials Prof. Gretchen Meyers, Franklin and Marshall College Director, NW Slope Proj. Prof. Phil Perkins, Open University (UK) Architect Jess Galloway, M.Arch., Booziotis and Co., Dallas Information Technology Prof. Kathy Windrow, Eastfield College, SMU Consulting Scholars Dr. Sara Bon-Harper, Executive Director of Ash Lawn-

Highland Prof. Alexis Castor, Franklin and Marshall College Prof. Ingrid Edlund-Berry, University of Texas at Austin

Lynn Makowsky, University of Pennsylvania Museum Prof. Stanley Mertzman, Franklin and Marshall College Prof. Jenifer Neils, Case Western Reserve University Prof. Robert Sternberg, Franklin and Marshall College

Chris White, Professional Conservator Archaeological Consultant Dr. Fiammetta Calosi, University of Florence Head Conservator Allison Lewis, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum, Berkeley Illustration JoAnn Boscarino, Professional Illustrator Operations Manager Darryl Wende Field Supervisors Dr. Kate Rask,Ohio State University

Christina McSherry, UGA Dr. Phil Perkins, Open University, UK, Director NW Slope

Field Assistant Gretchen Carlson, CUNY-Hunter Field Interns Dash Jordan, Franklin College Switzerland Samantha Owens, University of Florida Laboratory Fellows Joel Naiman, Franklin & Marshall

Matt Naiman, Oxford University Hanna Bertoldi, Franklin & Marshall Elizabeth McMahon, Franklin & Marshall Benjamin Hollenbach, Franklin & Marshall Conservation Intern Sarah Montonchaikul SMU

2

2013 Participants

2013 FIELD SCHOOL STUDENTS

Ashley Candreva, Franklin and Marshall College

Natalie Defoitis, Pomona College

Kandi Doming, SMU

Mariana Gibaldi, Franklin College Switzerland

Kenzie Kaper, Franklin College Switzerland

Danielle Kreppel, Franklin and Marshall College

Amanda Levit, Franklin and Marshall College

Sara Matey, Franklin and Marshall College

Jane Millar, University of the South

Alexandria Mirabile, SMU

Hannah Rosenberg, Franklin and Marshall College

Sophie Stone, Franklin and Marshall College

Peggy Pruitt, SMU

Erin Walter, Franklin College Switzerland

Nick Witte, Franklin College Switzerland

3

Figure 1. Robert Belenger and his crew in the Podhere Funghi.

Excavations in the Podere Funghi.

Mission

The research design of the Mugello Valley Archaeological Project and Poggio Colla Field School combines excavation, land survey, and archaeometry as part of an interdisciplinary regional landscape analysis of the Etruscan site of Poggio Colla and the surrounding area. The project seeks to contribute significantly to our understanding of Etruscan culture and to educate through a broad and innovative curriculum a new generation of archaeologists in the practice and theory of settlement archaeology. Through timely publication and a broad program of education and outreach the project will explicate and increase awareness of the ethical management of an endangered cultural heritage.

It’s not what you find, it’s what you find out.

4

Welcome to the Field School at Poggio Colla, which is sponsored by of the Southern Methodist University, Franklin & Marshall College, the Center for the Study of Ancient Italy at UT Austin, and the University of Pennsylvania Museum. We hope that this manual will explain the way that our project works, introduce you to our research goals for the coming season, and give you a sense of what to expect this summer. The goal of the Field School is threefold (see the mission statement, above): to excavate properly a very important Etruscan site, to educate the Field School participants in archaeological method and Etruscan archaeology, and to contribute to awareness of our vital cultural heritage. If you have not participated in an archaeological project before, we recommend that you read the course text on archaeological method prior to arriving at the site. That text is Kevin Greene, Archaeology. An Introduction. 4th ed., Routledge. You should familiarize yourself with archaeological technique and theory. Then, having done that, remember that the main criterion for successful archaeological fieldwork is flexibility. Every site is different, and techniques need to be adapted to the requirements (topographical, environmental, historical, legal, cultural, even budgetary) of that individual site. Our excavation is by now eighteen years old, and the excavation staff has developed and refined a set of methods and techniques that fit our unique situation and research goals. We look forward to your input at the end of the summer, both about the excavation and the Field School. An archaeological excavation can be both an exhilarating and frustrating experience. There will always be some stress, for we are engaged in an important project, an excavation that is already having significant impact on the field. If we are to be successful as an excavation and an educational experience, it is imperative that we work together. Even the best-planned systems will break down if we do not have teamwork and cooperation. Our excavation does have hierarchies, but these are hierarchies of responsibility, and these hierarchies must not get in the way of the kind of communication that is necessary for successful research. We encourage you to get to know all the staff, to keep us abreast of how the summer is going, to ask questions when things are not clear, to participate in any way that you can. Remember that you are an integral member of our excavation team. Even if you are not an experienced excavator, your observations and opinions, your concentration and dedication, are vital to this project.

“Anyone who has never gotten carried away should be carried away.”

5

Excavating kiln 4 in the Podere Funghi.

Overview of the Excavation Project

“All great truths begin as blasphemies.” George Bernard Shaw

The Poggio Colla Field School is part of a long-term project, which centers on Poggio Colla, a site in the Mugello, near the modern town of Vicchio, about twenty miles (32 kilometers) northeast of Florence. The site seems to have been inhabited by the Etruscans at least as early as the seventh century and was abandoned or destroyed in the early 2nd century BCE. In the past few decades some important habitation sites, such as Acquarossa and Murlo, have increased our knowledge of Etruscan life substantially. Still, the Etruscans are known primarily from funerary remains, and much of our knowledge of the Etruscans comes from the wealthy southern centers, Veii, Caere, and Tarquinia. One of the problems is that the Etruscans chose their sites so well that the major centers were repeatedly built upon in the Medieval and later periods. We know where the Etruscans had their major cities, places like Volterra, Orvieto, Cortona, and Fiesole, but these sites are covered over with modern towns or cities and are therefore almost impossible to excavate. Poggio Colla thus offers us an exceptional opportunity to excavate and study an important Etruscan settlement and to do so with up-to-date methods and technologies. The site of Poggio Colla has already proved singularly important for the information it has provided about Etruscan urbanization, architecture, ritual, and daily life. Also important is the study of the archaeological topography of the Mugello basin, a region at the edge of the Apennines at the northeastern periphery of Etruscan territory. This area is little known archaeologically but could provide important

6

information about Etruscan connections and trade routes with their Italic neighbors to the north and along the Adriatic coast to the east. A long-term goal of our project is an interdisciplinary regional landscape analysis of the area around Poggio Colla. Through the integrated use of geomorphology, archaeology (both survey and excavation), and history we hope to create a kind of landscape archaeology for the region. The first seasons of excavation focused on the very top of the hill, the plateau known as Poggio Colla, where we found the remains of impressive (and possibly early!) monumental architecture. In 1998 we extended excavation to a nearby site, the Podere Funghi, where there are remains of a well-built structure and a pottery manufacturing area. Our results are presented in a series of short articles in Etruscan Studies and in longer articles in the Journal of Roman Archaeology. The most recent full account of the history of the excavations to date is an article in the 2005 volume of the JRA. An important part of the mission of our project is pedagogical. If archaeology is to survive as a discipline in this new century, it will have to develop a broader base of support and will have to change its image from an elite and esoteric discipline understood by only a chosen few. Archaeological sites are endangered by pollution, construction, and human pressures that run the gamut from neglect to outright vandalism. We hope that over the years, through our field school, we will train a large number of individuals, some of whom may go on to become professional archaeologists, but most of whom, no matter what their career, will become advocates for cultural and archaeological preservation. We also hope to make our site (and our cause) known to a greater public through the use of the Internet, CD-ROMs, and an outreach program in the United States and Italy. Our project is intentionally an international one; we do not want to be perceived as an “American” excavation. We work together with Italian researchers, and we value the support of our many Italian friends. An important goal is to work with local advocates to help the people of the region of Florence understand what an exceptional resource lies at their feet.

7

Staff Organization The project is directed by Prof. Gregory Warden and Dr. Michael Thomas. Prof. Warden, Principal Investigator of the MVAP, takes responsibility for the planning of the overall project. He holds the permit to excavate in the Mugello and is ultimately the person the Soprintendenza of the Region of Tuscany holds responsible for our work and our actions at Poggio Colla. Prof. Thomas takes responsibility for all fieldwork. He provides guidance to the trench supervisors, assuring that they all understand and work towards the goals we have set for the season. Our architect, Jess Galloway, coordinates his work with the Field Director and provide support for the trench supervisors in the location of artifacts and mapping of the site and its architectural elements. Also present on the site will be various geophysicists, geologists and visiting scholars who assist the excavation in a wide variety of ways. Prof. Ann Steiner, Director of Research, and Prof. Gretchen Meyers, Director of Materials, are responsible for the laboratory where all the materials we excavate are processed, including conservation, photography, illustration and cataloguing. The conservators clean and restore the artifacts and when needed, conserve and excavate artifacts in situ. Once an artifact is conserved the Director of Materials will decide if it is to remain a find or become a catalogued object, and processes it along with the laboratory assistants. Those items that are catalogued are then photographed and illustrated. Finally, all finds, whether catalogued or not, are placed in storage. The work that goes on in the laboratory is vital to the project, for one of the most important components of any excavation is the study of material remains, their preparation for eventual publication, and their storage and preservation for future generations. All student research projects are carried out in the lab. The overall conservation program is overseen by Chris White. This program was supported for years by a generous grant from the Samuel H. Kress Foundation. More recently, the program has focused on undergraduate training. The 2013 Head Conservator will be Allison Lewis, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, Berkeley, who was one of our Kress Interns at Poggio Colla and served as one of our two Head Conservators in 2010 and as the sole Head Conservator in 2011-12. An additional member of the operations staff is our information technologist, Kathy Windrow, whose job it is to oversee the excavation website, which is updated weekly. The information technologist works with Profs. Warden and Thomas to provide a website that evolves with the unfolding of the excavation. Students, trench supervisors and various staff members provide written information to give a glimpse into daily excavation life.

8

Chris White working on a storage jar from the acropolis. 2006. One other staff members is critical to the project. Darryl Wende will function as our operations manager. He will be in charge of transportation, acquisition of tools and supplies, maintenance of equipment and assisting in the daily needs of the excavation. The manager coordinates with the senior staff to make sure the project proceeds smoothly and according to plan.

9

Working in the laboratory.

Faculty/Senior Staff Biographies Sara Bon-Harper is Executive Director of Ash Lawn-Highland, the Virginia plantation of James Monroe. Her expertise is in excavation and survey methods, including stratigraphic recording and analysis. Her recent research has focused on the perception and use of space, yards, landscapes, and the interpretation of plowzone data. Dr. Bon-Harper earned a PhD in Anthropology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a BA in Anthropology and Classics from the University of Arizona. Her dissertation research is entitled Common Wares: Approaches to a Gallo-Roman Ceramic Assemblage. It documents the products of a ceramic workshop and addresses cultural change and continuity as seen in foodways among a non-elite traditionally Celtic population. Dr. Bon-Harper has excavated in Italy (Umbria and Pompeii), France (Burgundy and the Dordogne Valley), the former Czechoslovakia, Arizona, and throughout the Southeastern/Mid-Atlantic U.S. JoAnn Boscarino has a BA from Drew University in studio art and religious studies. She has worked extensively as a draftsperson, photographer, and surveyor on several archaeological projects, including the Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima, Israel (1985-87), the site of ancient Balis, Syria (1999), and most recently at Morgantina in Sicily (2000-2009). From 1992-2001, Jo Ann served as the Assistant curator of Research Photography in the Department of Art and Archaeology at Princeton University. For the past seven years, in the footsteps of her Sicilian grandfather, JoAnn has been self-employed as Lucky Jo Carpentry & Home Repair. JoAnn has always been an artist, currently working in found-object sculpture, acrylic painting and odd furniture. Jess Galloway, BA, Southern Methodist University, MArch, University of Texas at Arlington, is a practicing architect in Dallas, Texas. He is a visiting Professor of Architecture at the University of Texas at Arlington. Besides his work at Poggio Colla, he is the site architect for the Oplontis Project, sponsored by the University of Texas at Austin, working with Drs. John Clarke and Michael Thomas. He has produced, with Dr. Gregory Warden, an interactive CD: Archaic Etruscan Tomb

10

Paintings: Five Tarquinian Tombs. In his daily practice he has been involved in the design of four museums of art, including the Jack S. Blanton Museum of Art at the University of Texas at Austin and the Margaret and Trammell Crow Collection of Asian Art. Allison Lewis holds a BA in Classics from Stanford University and an MA in Conservation from the UCLA/Getty Master’s Program in the in the Conservation of Archaeological and Ethnographic Materials. She has worked as an archaeological conservator at sites in Sicily (Monte Polizzo), Albania (Lofkënd), and Tuscany (Poggio Colla). She is currently an assistant conservator at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley. Gretchen Meyers is Associate Professor of Classics at Franklin & Marshall College. She received her BA from Duke University in Classical Studies (1992). She holds both a MA in Latin (1994) and a PhD in Classical Archaeology (2003) from the University of Texas at Austin. She has taught Classical Studies, Latin and Ancient Art and Archaeology at Rollins College and John Cabot University in Rome, Italy. Her research focuses on the relationship of Etruscan architectural and spatial traditions to early Roman urbanism and architectural design. She has lectured and published on the development of monumental architecture in Archaic Etruria, the topic of her doctoral dissertation. Currently she is researching a book about the Tiber River and the role of rivers and landscape in ancient Italic cities. Dr. Meyers has excavated in Italy at Poggio Civitate (Murlo) and Cosa. She has been at Poggio Colla since 2001 and, in addition to her other duties, is studying the site's terracotta roof tiles and evidence for textile production for publication. Jenifer Neils is the Ruth Coulter Heede Professor of Art History and Classics at Case Western Reserve University. In addition to teaching classical art and archaeology since 1980, Neils has guest-curated two major international loan exhibitions: Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (1992), and Coming of Age in Ancient Greece: Images of Childhood from the Classical Past (2003), and edited and co-authored their catalogues. Her most recent books are The Parthenon Frieze (Cambridge 2001) and The Parthenon from Antiquity to the Present (Cambridge 2005). Dr. Neils has been a visiting professor at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, a resident of the American Academy in Rome, and Fellow at the Getty Research Institute. For six years she was on the curatorial staff of the Cleveland Museum of Art, where she organized numerous exhibitions and wrote the second volume of its catalogue of Greek vases (CVA). As a field archaeologist she has excavated at Torone in northern Greece, as well as three sites (Murlo, Acquarossa, and Morgantina) in Italy. Her current research involves an examination of war monuments and the construction of memory in classical Athens. Phil Perkins, Head of Department of Classical Studies, Senior Lecturer, The Open University (UK), recently published a study of the Etruscan bucchero in the British Museum. Since the early 1980s he has been involved in archaeological field work in the Albegna Valley in southern Tuscany that has involved extensive multi-period field survey, excavation, and artifact analysis. He has worked on the Etruscan period, particularly the ceramic finds and the settlement pattern, using GIS to analyze the Etruscan settlement and burial patterns, state organization of

11

territory; population change, artifact distributions and the Etruscan economy. In 1985-6 Dr. Perkins directed the first ever excavation of an Etruscan farm site at Podere Tartuchino that remains the only Etruscan farm to be both excavated and fully published. In 1992 he co-directed a pioneering post-medieval excavation of the Villa Pigneto Sacchetti, a 17th century baroque villa in Rome. Dr. Perkins also has a long term interest in Roman economic and settlement histories, including analysis of the chronological and spatial distribution of African Red Slip ware (1st-7th century CE), and also works with the Monreale Survey, Sicily, analyzing the finds and settlements from the Roman period Ann Steiner is Shirley Watkins Steinman Professor of Classics at Franklin & Marshall College. Dr. Steiner earned her bachelor's degree from Bryn Mawr College in 1973 and received her MA (1976) and her PhD (1981), also from Bryn Mawr, in Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology and ancient Greek. She has been on the faculty at Franklin & Marshall, since 1981. She is a specialist in ancient Mediterranean ceramics and has published broadly in that field, most recently Reading Greek Vases (Cambridge University Press, 2007). She has worked at ancient Torone in Northern Greece and at ancient Corinth and has published material from both sites. Dr. Steiner has been the recipient of awards from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, the American Council of Learned Societies, the J. Paul Getty Trust, and the Samuel Kress Foundation. Her association with MVAP and the Poggio Colla Field School began in 2002 after a fortuitous reconnection with her graduate school colleague, Greg Warden, at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America.

Rob Sternberg is professor of geosciences in the Department of Earth and Environment at Franklin & Marshall College. His research involves the application of geophysical and geological methods to archaeology, especially the use of archaeomagnetism and field geophysics. He has worked in the American Southwest, Greek Macedonia, Jamaica, the eastern U.S., and now Tuscany. He earned a B.S. in engineering physics at Cornell University, and a Ph.D. in geophysics at the University of Arizona. He is also interested in the application of magnetic methods to the study of clinkers and burning coal seams in North Dakota. He is active in the professional group, the Society for Archaeological Sciences. This year he will co-supervise a Keck Geology Consortium project with Sara Bon-Harper at Poggio Colla, working with 6 geology undergraduates from different colleges.

Michael Thomas has participated at Poggio Colla since the project's first year, working as a trench supervisor and field director until he became co-director in 2001. He has a BA from Duke University, an MA from SMU, and a PhD from the University of Texas at Austin, where he is currently Director of the Center for the Study of Ancient Italy. He has held teaching positions at SMU and the University of Michigan, as well as a Mellon Postdoctoral Fellowship at Tufts University from 2004-2006. In addition to Etruscan settlement archaeology, Dr. Thomas’s teaching and research focus on the how the physical form and visual culture of the ancient city reflect issues such as social construction and political ideology. He also directs a field project near Pompeii—the Oplontis Project—which is undertaking a systematic study of the so-called “Villa of Poppaea” at Torre Annunziata. His publications include articles in the Journal of Roman Archaeology, the American

12

Journal of Numismatics, Etruscan Studies, and the Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, and a forthcoming book on the architecture at Villa A at Oplontis. He also co-edited a recent book with Gretchen Meyers on monumentality in Etruscan and early Roman architecture. Greg Warden, President, Franklin College Switzerland and formerly University Distinguished Professor of Art History and Associate Dean for Research and Academic Affairs at SMU, received his BA in Anthropology from the University of Pennsylvania and MA and PhD degrees in Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology from Bryn Mawr College. Dr. Warden has taught at the University of Texas at Arlington, Bowdoin College, the University of Pennsylvania, and SMU. His research interests include Greek archaeology (the Demeter sanctuary at Cyrene); Roman architecture (the Villa of the Papyri and the Domus Aurea); and various aspects of Etruscan archaeology, art, metallurgy, and ritual. He has served as interim Director of the Meadows Museum where he organized the exhibits, Greek Vase Painting: Form, Figure, and Narrative. Treasures of the National Archaeological Museum in Madrid and From the Temple and the Tomb: Etruscan Treasures from Tuscany. He is also the former Editor and current Executive Editor of Etruscan Studies, a journal of Etruscan and Italic art and culture, and has been elected to the Istituto di Studi Etruschi e Italici. Chris White, for many years the head conservator at Poggio Colla, has served as the project conservator for the Southwest Pottery Project at the Arizona State Museum until 2008 and was a Mellon Fellow at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (2002-2005). He works primarily on preservation of archaeological collections and is currently pursuing projects to characterize and identify organic adhesives and coatings on ceramic vessels; a research project on ceramic failure from rapid clay hydration, and the statistical interpretation of collection surveys. He earned his Masters degree in Art Conservation from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He has worked on multiple archaeological excavations in Italy, Greece and Turkey and on the conservation of archaeological collections from a variety of cultural traditions.

13

Calendar for 2013

Saturday, June 29: Group arrives Sunday, June 30: Orientation (see detailed schedule on next page) Monday July 1: Excavation Tuesday, July 2: Excavation Wednesday, July 3: Excavation Thursday, July 4: Excavation Friday, July 5: Excavation Saturday, July 6: FREE DAY Sunday, July 7: FREE DAY Monday, July 8: Excavation Tuesday, July 9: Excavation Wednesday, July 10: Excavation Thursday, July 11: Excavation Friday, July 12: FREE DAY Saturday, July 13: FREE DAY Sunday, July 14: FREE DAY Monday, July 15: Excavation Tuesday, July 16: Excavation Wednesday, July 17: Excavation Thursday, July 18: Excavation Friday, July 19: Excavation Saturday, July 20: FREE DAY Sunday, July 21: FREE DAY Monday, July 22: Excavation Tuesday, July 23: Excavation Wednesday, July 24: Excavation Thursday, July 25: Excavation Friday, July 26: Excavation Saturday, July 27: FREE DAY Sunday, July 28: FREE DAY Monday, July 29: Drawing Day Tuesday, Tuesday, July 30: Backfill Wednesday, July 31: Backfill Thursday, August 1: Closing and Farewell Dinner Friday, August 2: Departure (by 11 AM)

14

ORIENTATION WEEKEND SCHEDULE

Saturday, June 29th

5:30 PM Arrival -assigning of bedroom and roommates, unpacking of

belongings. 6:30 PM Program, 2013 season, organization and behavior code. 8:00 PM Dinner (at Vigna).

Sunday, June 30th

8:00 AM Breakfast. 8:30 AM House rules and procedures talk. 9:00 AM Why are we here? 2013 Goals. 10:00 AM Introduction to the Site. 6:30 PM Visit to Dicomano Museum. 8:00 PM Welcome dinner in Dicomano.

15

Researching ceramics in the lab. You will spend your time between excavation on the hilltop of Poggio Colla and research in the laboratories. The average excavation day on the hill is from 7:00 AM to 3:00 - 4:00 PM with a 45-minute lunch break. Departure from Vigna is at 6:45 AM each morning of excavation. As the season progresses there will be additional time spent, after excavation, processing pottery for transfer to the conservation lab. This typically takes from ½ hour to 1 hour. It is important to remember that the length of time on the hill often varies from the average, since we are affected by weather, transportation and the needs or circumstances of the excavation.

16

AFTER TRANSFERRING POTTERY TO THE CONSERVATION LAB, THE

WORK OF THE CONSERVATORS BEGINS.

ROMAN BRONZE COIN (AES GRAVE) FOUND IN 2006.

17

Lectures/Presentations/Workshops

Things always change at the last minute, but here is a tentative list of lecture and workshop titles. A weekly lecture schedule will be posted at the excavation house.

Why are we here? Eighteen seasons at Poggio Colla (Warden) An Introduction to Material Culture at Poggio Colla (Staff)

Archaeological Record Keeping: Trench notebooks, Forms, and Databases (Staff)

Cult and context at Poggio Colla (Warden) Stratigraphy (Rask)

Cataloguing/Introduction to Lab (Meyers & Lab Staff) Drawing Workshop (Boscarino) Ceramics Workshop (Steiner & Naiman) Settlement Archaeology (Meyers) Tile and Roofing Systems (Meyers and Galloway) Etruscan Architecture (Thomas) Conservation Workshop (Lewis) Archaeological Ethics (Staff) Bucchero Pottery (Perkins) The Podere Funghi and Economic Agency: Method and Theory (Thomas) Archaeological mapping (Galloway) “Romanization” and the end of Poggio Colla (Thomas) Season in Review (Staff)

18

Course Requirements for the Field School 2013 Learning Goals and Your Grade

We believe that the Poggio Colla Field School offers one of the best opportunities available to learn the theory and process of archaeological excavation. This program also introduces the student to the cultural history of the Etruscans, and the place of Poggio Colla in that culture. Every year we modify the field school, often as a result of student feedback, in the hope of improving the didactic aspects of our program. At the same time, this is a real excavation that must conform to the limits of budget and time. Therefore, as a field student you must first and foremost be a participant of this project, and as mandated by archaeological codes of ethics, the archaeological process is the number one priority. If you are taking this course for 3 or 6 undergraduate credits, your grade will be based on the criteria, outlined below, that also provide you with a percentage breakdown of how your final grade will be determined. The underlying principle is that your grade is highly dependent on your presence and participation: your attendance at both the lectures and daily fieldwork/lab-work is required, and it is critical to your learning experience and to the success of the field season. Coursework will be made up of excavation, analysis and processing of pottery and other finds, and survey experience. Your daily fieldwork schedule can vary as the demands of the excavation change.

Course textbooks

Barker, Graeme & Tom Rasmussen, The Etruscans Blackwell, Oxford, 1998. Kevin Greene, Archaeology. An Introduction. 4th Edition. Routledge 2002. We also recommend: Nigel Spivey, Etruscan Art. Thames & Hudson, 1997. Nancy T. de Grummond and Erika Simon, The Religion of the Etruscans. University of Texas Press, 2006. As a participant in the 2013 Poggio Colla Field School you are part of an elite group of students chosen from all over North America to participate in a project that combines learning and research at the highest level. You have been admitted because of your impressive academic record, passion, and dedication, and we expect you to bring those qualities to the project. We know you will take learning seriously and that you will be proactive in taking advantage of all the opportunities that are afforded you. In return for your sense of responsibility and engagement, we will take your education seriously and treat you as a respected member of our team. At Poggio Colla we structure the course as a kind of seminar where engagement and participation are paramount.

19

So, what will you learn? You can expect us to help you improve your knowledge and skills in the following areas, and we will discuss these topics with you at the end of the program to assess the progress you have made:

1. Knowledge of Etruscan history, culture, and material culture. You should leave with a good understanding of the way that material culture is used to reconstruct Etruscan history, society, and culture. You should also emerge with a sense of the various methodological approaches that can be taken in reconstructing the Etruscan past. These topics will be addressed in the evening lectures and afternoon workshops. Attendance at workshops and lectures is mandatory.

2. Excavation skills will be assessed on site by the trench and field supervisors. You will be graded on how well you learn and adapt to the physical process of excavation. In consultation with Profs. Thomas and Warden, the field supervisors will assess each student's ability and willingness to respond to instruction, work as a member of a team, and contribute to the project through her/his participation as an excavator. Attendance in the field is mandatory and can only be excused by either Profs. Thomas or Warden. Any student who feels ill or has sustained injury must immediately notify a senior staff member about his/her condition. Any unexcused absence from the field will factor into the final field grade.

3. Materials analysis skills. On days when you work off site on material from

your trench, you will have the opportunity to participate in the analysis and interpretation of artifacts in terms of site stratigraphy under the direction of trench supervisors, and Profs. Steiner, Meyers, Thomas, and Warden.

4. Ability to work in a team, enhancing your team skills. You will all work on the same laboratory research project this year, but you will also be part of a team in the lab and in the trenches, working with faculty who will expect you to work together as a unit.

5. Cultural engagement- sense of mission. The parameters of archaeological

ethics and our responsibility to the cultural heritage of Italy will be discussed in class and on site. There will be some specific reading assignments and discussion of them on these topics.

6. Notebook component. Each student is required to keep an excavation

journal, and for this assignment you will need a small field book. We suggest either a 6 ½”x 8 ½” or 5”x7” with metric grid graph paper. You can order one from either Ben Meadows at www.benmeadows.com (order the Metric Cross Section Book, 6 ½”x 8 ½”, Item #101532) or Forestry Suppliers at www.forestry-suppliers.com (order the “Rite in the Rain” metric field book, #360, bound, Item #49322 or #360F, spiral, Item #49494). This journal should summarize your archaeological work and you should discuss this journal periodically with your trench supervisor. Prof. Thomas will set this assignment and grade it.

20

7. Research methods, theory and practice, will be assessed through your final written project. During the first weeks you will receive an assignment for a project that simulates the observation and analysis that are a normal part of the process of archaeological explication and publication. You will write a paper that uses stratigraphy and material remains to construct a narrative that places your excavation area in the broader historical and theoretical context of the site. The point of the project is to present and explicate material remains in their cultural/archaeological context. Dr. Thomas will grade the filed notebooks and return them to you before your departure. Franklin and Marshall students must submit their paper electronically by August 10 to Prof. Gretchen Meyers (gretchen.meyers@fandm.edu); All other 6-hour students must send their project electronically to Prof. Warden (gwarden@fc.edu) by August 24.

THE GRADE WILL BE DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS: If you are enrolled in 3 hours of undergraduate credit:

40 % participation (lectures, discussions, field, lab)

60 % notebook component, which includes a final report that puts the trench and its finds in context and reflects diligent lab and field work

If you are enrolled in 6 hours of undergraduate credit:

30 % participation (lectures, class, discussions, field, lab)

30 % notebook component

40 % 14-16 page final report that puts the trench and its finds in context and reflects diligent lab and field work. This report requires library research and includes a specialization section where the student explores one aspect of the trench and the finds from it in more depth.

GRADUATE STUDENT REQUIREMENTS After participating successfully in the field school and participating in discussion on site, graduate students are required to produce a graduate-level research paper. The topic of the paper will be determined through consultation with program faculty and must be approved by Prof. Warden before the end of the program. The paper is due August 24, 2013.

21

“Mystery results not from lack of information, but from a lack of meaning.”

Archaeological Illustration

Introduction to Field Work Techniques The Trench Supervisor will keep a trench notebook that serves as a combination journal/laboratory record. All essential information must be included in the trench notebook that, by law, must remain in Italy (in the excavation archives) and eventually be turned over to the Archaeological Soprintendenza on completion of the excavation. Field School students contribute to this process by helping to fill out the “Context Record Form,” which is intended to supplement the information in the trench notebook. There are several terms that are common to the field of archaeology and our site in particular. It would be helpful to review a few of these at this point, so that you will better understand the discussions that follow. Trench: a vertical cut in the earth used to reveal a vertical dimension of archaeological data and to explore a horizontal dimension along one axis. Under

22

ideal conditions, a trench will be aligned with the survey grid of the site. Alas, at Poggio Colla we have less than ideal conditions: our site is heavily wooded and we are, by law, not allowed to damage the chestnut trees that cover the top of the hill. Our trenches may not always adhere to the grid system, although we work hard to adhere to the system. Locus: (pl. loci) a sub-unit or division of a trench, sometimes defined by features found in a trench. Stratum (pl. strata): the definable layers of an archaeological matrix or features revealed by excavation. The stratum is always the dominant factor. Stratification is the presence of multiple strata, caused by the layering of the soil, as a result of both natural and human activities. Strata are formed by changes in character of the material being deposited or in the conditions of deposition. Stratigraphy is the study of the sequential and chronological relationship of strata. A stratum normally represents a discrete cultural context or event. Level: an arbitrary horizontal cut (usually about ten centimeters) taken through a stratum. Feature: anything created or caused by human action; a non-portable artifact, not normally recoverable from its matrix without destroying its integrity. Artifact: an object whose characteristics result from human activity. Ecofact: natural rather than human-made evidence that may have cultural relevance. This category includes inorganic remains (rocks, soils, etc.) and organic (derived from living remains, for instance floral or faunal remains).

23

Ivo van der Graaff supervising his trench, 2006.

Archaeology is by its nature a destructive process. Even though archaeologists may be the only professionals working in the ancient world who consistently produce new primary source material, they also inevitably destroy the context of this material by excavating it. No matter how careful the archaeologist, some information will be lost. It is the duty of every archaeologist to minimize this loss. Excavation notebooks must be written in ink and observations must be detailed and timely. The trench supervisor should explain the reasons why choices are made as well as the theories prevalent at the time of excavation. Those theories and assumptions will change; some may turn out to be wrong, but the point of an excavation notebook is not to show how “good” or correct the excavator is, but to

24

record accurately and carefully the archaeological context and the methodology of the excavation. In fact, an excavation notebook in which every assumption turns out to be correct or interpretations do not change as new evidence appears, is suspicious. Our first objective is to recreate the spatial and cultural context of the artifacts we excavate. To begin excavation each season, several trenches area laid out on Poggio Colla. The location for these trenches is determined before the season begins based on the needs of the excavation and the results of previous year’s work. It is not uncommon to have to make adjustments to trench location due to unforeseen circumstances, for example when a clandestini pit was found at the beginning of the 2001 season. While the directors and trench supervisors lay out the trenches the rest of the field crew clears the site and sets up equipment. Once trench layout is complete the excavation can begin.

Excavating the gold earrings. Excavation is simply the systematic removal of earth from the area of study, the trench. Earth is removed in levels; typically 10 cm passes across the trench or locus under study. As excavation progresses the levels will eventually pass through various deposition layers or strata. With the discovery of a new stratum the level is terminated and levels (elevations) are taken to record the exact vertical location of the top of the new stratum. It is the study of these strata that we call stratigraphy. It is also in these strata that the history of the site is revealed to us. As objects are come down upon (discovered) they are removed from their context, but not before they are located, either through the use of triangulation or the Total Station. Typically they are also photographed in situ. Finally, the surrounding earth is checked for color using a Munsell color chart (a standardized

25

color comparison system). It is with this information—stratigraphy, survey, photography and color—that comparisons throughout the trench and across the site can be made.

The gold earrings after conservation.

26

Excavation: The actual act of excavation (digging) can be carried out in a wide variety of ways, from the use of a miners pick to that of a dental pick. The excavator must always be sensitive to what lies below the surface when using any tool. It is the objects not yet seen that we wish to preserve. At Poggio Colla the primary tools for excavation are the hand pick and the trowel (typically a 4 ½” or 5” bricklayer’s pointing trowel). Additionally, dental picks and small wooden potter’s tools are used for removal of delicate artifacts.

The trench supervisors will instruct you in the use of these tools so that each excavator can be as efficient as possible while still minimizing any damage to artifacts as they are discovered. It is important to realize excavating is a skill one must master, so be patient. As careful as one might be, objects will still be unearthed and removed with the dirt. To assure that no objects are thrown out, all the dirt that is removed from the trench is sifted to catch our mistakes. To further help locate an object that is found in the sifter the dirt is kept separated by excavator. This allows for at least a general location to be assigned to those items found in the sifter. As an excavator it is good to know you have this safeguard, but you should not rely on it. The objective of excavation is to discover what lies in the area being excavated and to document it as it is found.

Sifting

The Trench: The trench is by definition an independent area of excavation. Each area of the site, Poggio Colla, Podere Funghi, or the North-West Slope, is excavated in discrete units we call trenches. The ideal trench size for our excavation is 5m x 5m or one grid square. Trenches are located to achieve certain didactic goals for the season within the overall context of the project. Each trench is assigned a number (an Arabic numeral, starting with “1” in the first season and running consecutively throughout all future seasons of the project). The trench number is preceded by the area designation. We have two area designations, PC for Poggio Colla and PF for Podere Funghi; hence a trench may be numbered PC36 or PF5.

27

The trench is the first step in establishing the spatial context for artifacts found on the site. It provides the excavator or future researcher several vital pieces of information about what was found within its boundaries. First, the trench number gives the site of excavation, either Poggio Colla or Podere Funghi. Secondly, the year or years in which the object was found can be deduced by correlating the trench number with its year(s) of excavation. Finally, it can provide site coordinates, since every trench is located within the overall site grid.

An example trench plan for PC6 and a photograph of PC6 looking north.

To establish this site grid location the trench is surveyed into the overall site map. Typically, the coordinates of the trench’s southwest corner in relation to the permanent site grid designate a trench’s location. To provide the third dimension to the spatial context, elevations must be established for the trench. A single elevation point is established for each trench, called the Trench Elevation Datum (TED). All measurements of depth are taken from this datum or from

28

subsidiary elevation data established in relation to the TED. The TED must be tied to the site grid and permanent site datum, both horizontally and vertically, by use of the Total Station. All depth measurements within the trench should be recorded as meters below datum (an example would be 0.43 mbd). Typically, the TED is located in the southwest corner of the trench at ca. 0.1 meter above the surface of that corner. If the slope of the ground requires establishing a datum higher than 0.1 meter above ground level, then increments of .05 m. should be used. The location of the TED must be clearly recorded in the trench notebook. At Poggio Colla it is not unusual for the location of the datum to be modified by one of our many trees or stumps or by the topography around the trench. The trench is often divided into smaller areas called loci. Each locus provides a more manageable work area and provides points of separation for changes in vertical elevation, i.e. one locus can be excavated to a greater depth than another locus. There are often cultural contexts in a trench that would necessitate this occurrence. One instance of this might be a trench that spans both the inside and outside of a building. The trench supervisor may choose to stop excavation of the interior locus at the building floor level while allowing the exterior locus to continue deeper down the building foundation wall. The loci of a trench may be divided within the existing grid system or, as in the example above, by the context contained within the trench boundaries.

Stratigraphy: Trenches are excavated according to their natural stratigraphy. Strata are numbered with Roman numerals. The surface layer is Stratum I. Arbitrary levels are often employed in the excavation of a stratum; these levels should not be more than 10 cm. in thickness. At no time should a level intentionally include soil from more than one stratum. The arbitrary levels are numbered with Arabic numerals. The trench supervisor will summarize the findings and nature of each level after completion of that level. This summary should be part of the trench notebook. The trench supervisor will review some of these notebook entries with the students as part of the process of learning how to analyze and synthesize archaeological data. We will spend a lot of time discussing stratigraphy. The principles of stratigraphy are obvious and the theory seems simple, that strata are temporally sequential and that an individual stratum represents a singular phase or set of phases in the cultural evolution of a site. The stratigraphy of our site is extraordinarily complex, however, and the reading and interpretation of any stratigraphic sequence is as much an art as a science.

29

Deposit with bronze pitcher (Schnabelkanne) and rings (reconstruction).

30

A sample profile showing the stratigraphy from PC19 north.

As we excavate we are being exposed to the stratigraphy of the trench three dimensionally. Once excavation ends for the field season we are able to examine the walls (the profile) of the trench and see a picture of the stratigraphy excavated through the field season. The above profile, taken from PC19 during the 2001 season, shows the various strata from topsoil to bedrock. Note the large stones and roof tile fragments located in stratum 3. Examining the artifacts contained in a stratum provides a means to date it. By dating each stratum and examining layers of destruction within the strata, the archaeologist is able to recreate the chronology of the site. We gain a great deal of our understanding of the site’s context through stratigraphy. This is what makes stratigraphy so important to recognize and understand as we excavate.

Features: Features, like stratigraphy, provide an important part of the story of the site. Unlike artifacts, a feature will be left in situ or when remove will be destroyed. This makes it important to accurately document, through written description, drawings and photographs, a feature. Two features can be seen in the above profile drawing, a fire pit in the center of the photograph and to its right a wall made up of several large stone blocks. The blocks together form a wall feature while each block separately is an artifact.

31

Features within a trench are recorded as soon as they are encountered. Within each trench, an Arabic numeral consecutively designates each feature. For example, the first feature recorded in trench 6 is designated Feature 6/1. If a feature extends into more than one trench, it will retain its original designation. Feature 6/1 may also appear units 7 and 8. It is still feature 6/1. When a feature is encountered, it should be described carefully, measured, and elevations should be taken. When appropriate, a plan and a section should also be drawn. All this information should be included in the trench notebook. The kind of information that should be recorded is summarized in the “Context Record Form,” included in this field manual. Occasionally these forms will also be used for pedagogical purposes, but they are not meant to be a substitute for the proper recording of information in the trench notebook. In general, the previous level clearly should be closed out. In some cases, it may be necessary to expand the unit to expose and identify this feature. The decision to expand an excavation area is made by the field director in consultation with the trench supervisor.

Survey:

To recreate the spatial and cultural context of the artifacts we excavate, we use two systems: manual triangulation and a laser surveying station, called a Total Station, which pinpoints the location of every “find.” Both of these systems are described in the “Survey Methods” section of this manual. The decision of what constitutes a find is made by individual trench supervisors who keep a daily list of finds in their trench notebooks. A find can be anything from an architectural element to a diagnostic artifact, a cultural or natural feature, or a soil sample. Objects that are notable or diagnostic are removed to the laboratory as finds. The survey system provides records of the three-dimensional position of finds and provides trench supervisors with a daily update of the spatial position of these finds. The database created also enables the eventual analysis of the distribution of these items across the entire site. In order for the system to be effective, trench supervisors, excavators, and survey teams must work together closely. Our architect will oversee the setup of the survey map system. A limited number of survey stations will be established at the site. They will be positioned so as to have a clear sight line to each of the excavation units. Each morning the surveying team will place the Total Station at the primary surveying point (PSP), complete the initial station set-up, and verify that the set-up is correct. When the set-up is finished, the surveying team will notify each trench supervisor that they are prepared to collect data. Surveyors use their initials, the current date (in mm-dd-yy format), and an alpha character for the daily session indicator as the name of the data file. For example, if Jess Galloway is the survey supervisor on our first day of excavation, June 29, the first data file will be named JG6-21-99. At the end of each day, surveyors will transfer the data from the data collector to the excavation house computer. Following review of the data and any corrections or adjustments necessary, the surveyor will then be able to print for each trench supervisor a map of the day’s work.

32

This may sound rather complicated at first, but it will become second nature to us as the excavation progresses. The evening printout will allow each excavation team to keep abreast of what is happening in their trench. We expect each of the groups to function as a team, to work together and to remain aware of the context and importance of what is happening in the trench. If you are enrolled for undergraduate credit in the Field School, you will be asked at the end of the season to write up a group of finds, to illustrate, catalogue, and interpret them as if you were presenting those finds and their context for publication. That means that you will have to explain the significance of those finds in the greater cultural context of the site and region. You will only be able to do so successfully if you have been aware of the entire excavation process. No matter how carefully we excavate and record finds the final result is only going to be as good as our analytical processes. The first step in this process is our database, the choices that we make in the recognition and classification of material from the site. The survey system has pre-established classes and sub-classes; this system has been modified for the unique needs and challenges of our site and region. The classes and sub-classes are as follows: Class Sub-class ARCHITECTURE Wall Foundation Round Worked Block Tile Architectural terracotta Stone Mud brick ARTIFACT Clay-bucchero

Clay-coarse Clay-fine Clay-glazed

Metal-bronze Metal-iron Metal-lead Metal-silver ECOFACT Carbon Seed Bone/Shell CONTEXT Level Section Feature

33

Benchmark Temporary benchmark Datum Other sub-classes may be defined in the field. These classes and sub-classes allow us the ability to identify uniquely every piece of information collected throughout the season and across all the many seasons we will work at Poggio Colla. The information collected in our database (and onto the site map) and that recorded in the field notebooks, along with the artifacts discovered, represent the history of the previous occupants of Poggio Colla, as we know it. Eventually some of the excavated objects become finds and are included in the catalogue (which will be discussed later) for the excavation.

Tile with footprint of a child.

It is through the study of these objects and the data associated with them that we are able to establish the chronology of the site as well as the sites relationship to the rest of Etruria. It is not only the objects themselves that are important to our understanding but also the context in which they exist. The site survey map records and locates the totality of the objects and features.

Survey Methods: The purpose of survey is to locate points three dimensionally and then use these locations to perform various comparative analyses. Some of the products of the analysis are artifact distribution maps, topographic maps, three-dimensional models, and building plans. Survey is also used to link various areas of the

34

excavation to one another; an example is the Arx (the top of the Poggio Colla hill) with the Podere Funghi, two areas separated by one half of a kilometer. Two methods of survey are used in the field: manual and land. Manual survey is a method for locating points within a small area and is carried out with simple tools, i.e. a string, a string level and tape measures. This simple survey technique is used in the trench to locate diagnostic artifacts, architectural elements, soil samples, and cultural or natural features. This method is made up of two components: triangulation and levels (see definitions for these two techniques below in the definitions section of this document). Levels are also used to describe the finished plane of each pass through a locus in a trench. Triangulation and levels are standard archaeological practices that all field students should learn. These two methods provide a means to locate points in the

trench in terms of a known datum (see definitions below). With this infor-mation a researcher can compare the relative location of all the finds in any given trench. The disadvantage of this method is that finds across the site cannot have their relative positions compared without first plotting out all the individual trench information on an overall site map. To more easily accomplish the task of comparative analysis between trenches we use standard land survey practices. Modern land survey is carried out with one primary instrument, the “Total Station.” We use a Topcon 211 total station. The total station

is a Theo-dolite (a modern transit) with an integral EDM (electronic distance meter) and a small computer. The Theodolite measures both vertical and horizontal angles and the EDM measures the distance from the Theodolite to the point being surveyed. Simply put, a Theodolite is nothing more than a high powered telescope that can rotate about both its vertical and horizontal axes and the EDM is typically a low powered laser that is fired at a reflective prism located at the point being measured. The computer records the angles and distance measured and displays them on a small LCD screen that is part of the Total Station. We connect a specialized handheld computer, called a Data Collector, to the total station to facilitate the recording of information. The data collector receives the angles and distance measured from the total station and from this calculates the NEZ coordinates (see definitions below) of the point being measured. This information provides a spatial context to every point surveyed. The data collector also allows the survey team to input other pertinent data (trench number, point type, find material, etc.) associated with any given point. This information

Setting up the Total Station

35

provides a cultural context to every point surveyed. Once the information is collected and stored in the data collector it can be transferred to one of the dig computers where it can be processed further. Although this may not be clear to you at this time, once you see survey carried out in the field, the above descriptions will begin to make more sense. One of the primary objectives of using the total station is to accomplish the same task that triangulation and levels accomplish, i.e. to spatially locate diagnostic artifacts, architectural elements, etc. The use of the total station allows all surveyed points to be instantly referenced to one another across the entire site instead of only within an individual trench. This system of survey provides a means to quickly map the entire area of excavation: producing plans and topographic maps, showing artifact distribution and to tie field survey and archaeotopographic survey to the main excavation areas. In order to locate accurately the survey data and to assure its reproducibility we use two special points, called benchmarks and temporary benchmarks (see definitions below). Each season we begin surveying at one of several benchmarks on the site, either one of the three on Poggio Colla or one of the two in the Podere Funghi. From these points several temporary benchmarks are established, often called primary survey points (PSP). Each PSP is established to give a clear line of sight to the trenches. When any area of the excavation is surveyed, the total station is set up on a PSP. This allows survey to occur from a known point. The Italians who previously excavated the site from 1968 to 1972 originally established the three benchmarks on Poggio Colla. These benchmarks define the five-meter grid that is still in use on the site today. Another advantage of survey using the total station is the ability to produce and print maps of each trench or even the entire site as excavation progresses throughout the season. These maps provide quick information to field supervisors and relieve them of the need to triangulate architectural features. We still use triangulation for finds since there are times when the survey crew is off in another area of the excavation. Standard triangulation and level data can be entered manually into the computer model along with the electronic data collected. We use several computer programs to record and manipulate the data collected in the field. A program called Cogocad is used to download data from the data collector, to review its accuracy, to make corrections of errors noted in the field and to transfer the data into Autocad. Autocad R14 is used to create all the maps and models from the survey data. Each day the data is downloaded and a daily map of the data made. The daily maps are assembled into a composite plan of the season and the season composite plans assembled into the final state plan. Eventually the survey data is also incorporated into the catalogue database. In order for this system to function it requires cooperation between the survey team and each of the trench supervisors. The trench supervisors must inform the survey team in a timely manner of any survey task to be completed in their trenches. This will allow the survey team to schedule their work in a way that provides maximum benefit to the entire excavation. In a like manner the survey

36

team needs to report coordinates for points shot in any trench to the trench supervisor so they may be recorded in the trench book and on finds tags in a timely manner. Additionally, the survey team should provide the trench supervisors with regular printouts of the maps of their trenches. The accurate recording of all information, including survey data, will allow for an accurate recreation and assessment of a site that is undergoing the destructive process we call excavation. Survey Definitions: Coordinate System: The site uses an NEZ coordinate system. N is the North/South

coordinate, or Northing. E is the East/West coordinate, or Easting. Z is the elevation coordinate and is measured from mean sea level.

Benchmark: A permanent marker point used to establish a set location.

Examples of benchmarks include the 3 concrete monuments on Poggio Colla. The primary benchmark for the excavation is BM1 and has NEZ coordinates of 1000 m, 1000 m, 390 m. The northing and easting are arbitrary, chosen to keep all N and E coordinates as positive numbers. The elevation (Z) coordinate is measured from mean sea level. The elevation is always shot to the top of the benchmark.

Temporary Benchmark: A temporary point serves as a benchmark but is only used for a

season of excavation. The elevation is always shot to the top of the stake.

Elevation Point: A point surveyed to measure only elevation and not N or E

coordinates. The elevation is usually shot to grade and is not marked by any permanent or temporary point.

Datum: A special type of elevation point set for each trench, often

referred to as the Trench Elevation Datum (TED). The datum point is used in the taking of levels in the trench and allows all levels to be tied into the overall site coordinate system. The datum is a stake set outside of each trench and the elevation is shot to the top of the stake.

Station Point: A station point marks a contextual event such as a Grid Point or Traverse Point. The elevation is always shot to the top of the stake.

37

Trench Corner: The corner of each trench is set with a stake. The N and E coordinates of the stake are shot in and the elevation of grade at the stake is established.

Triangulation: Triangulation is a method for locating a point in space by

measuring the distance from two known points. The point being measured forms the third point of a triangle, hence the name.

Levels: Taking levels is the method used to locate the relative

elevation of a triangulated point (or any other point for that matter). The method for taking levels is to pull a string tight and level from the top of the TED and measure the vertical distance from the string to the point. The string is set level by means of a device known as a string level, a small bubble level that is be attached to the string (the string level should always be placed halfway between the datum and the person measuring).

Record Keeping: Accurate and complete records must be kept for all trenches. The excavators are the first persons in thousands of years to see the soils, features, and artifacts in a trench. The excavators are also the last persons to see these materials together. Reliable record keeping and observation of every step of the process are the only means of saving this data for later analysis and interpretation. The four types of information resulting from the initial process of excavation are the trench notebook, standardized forms, photographs, and scale drawings. The trench notebook must include all data (levels, drawing, color designations, find numbers, etc.) and narrative description based on observation. It is important to know what the excavators saw and thought at the time of excavation, even if these observations turn out to be off base later on. This is why we require that the notebook be written in ink, so that observations cannot be changed,

Drawing: In the field, a scale plan of each unit should be drawn whenever it becomes important to document the horizontal relationship of elements within the unit. The plan should include a scale, date, elevations, and a north arrow. Feature numbers should also be noted. Profiles or section drawings of the unit walls document the vertical relationships of strata and features. These profiles are crucial for the stratigraphic interpretation of each unit. Profile drawings should be done of all four (or more) walls of each unit. The TED should be used, when possible, for the level line of the profile. All strata should be marked on the drawing; features should also be clearly labeled. Soil descriptions should be included in the key.

38

Trench plan of T13, (note date, illustrator’s initials and north arrow in upper left corner.)

Photography: Photographs should be taken at each change in level, for each new feature, and when any significant finds are encountered. A field supervisor who oversees photography also downloads and labels the digital files on a regular basis. Laboratory photography is overseen by the lab staff. The conservation team also uses photography to document its work.

Forms: The following forms (all of which are included in this manual, see Appendix 1) are used to record information about specimens or samples: Specimen Tag: Any artifact or material brought down from the site must have one of these tags. The artifact can always be referenced back to its original find location with the information on this tag. The tag contains the following information: tag number (made up of site, trench number, locus, stratum, level), feature number (if applicable), triangulation information, date, find number (the date plus a sequential Arabic numeral), site coordinates (if shot in with the Total Station), contents (a brief description), the trench supervisor’s initials, and the trench notebook page number where the artifact is referenced. The upper right corner of the tag is reserved for a catalogue number, if one is assigned. The backside of the tag must remain blank for use by the conservation lab.

39

This manual includes the Context Record Form, Tile Count Form, Sherd Count Form, and Bag List Form. The Context Record Form includes information on general trench data, material collections (including soil and carbon), soil matrix/excavation methods, visual records, features and a place for a plan drawing. This form is not intended as a substitute for proper record keeping in the trench notebook. Although Trench Supervisors will include in their notebooks all relevant information, this form serves as an additional record and as an alternate method of examining field data. The Tile Count Form is used to record roofing tile that is deemed large enough to send to storage, although not good enough to be labeled as a find. These tiles are bagged, given a bag number, counted, weighed and the location in the trench noted. Much of the roofing tile from the site does not warrant bagging or being classified a find, this tile is simply measured and recorded in the trench notebook. It is then placed on the tile dump that is on site. The Sherd Count Form is used to record the many potsherds that do not warrant being classified as finds. These sherds still must be recorded and sent to storage. The sherds are bagged, given a bag number, classified by type (body, rim, neck, handle, base or other), the number in any given level noted and the location in the trench also noted. Often the sherds are separated by fabric type and this is also recorded on the form. This method of sorting proves useful for any researcher who is studying a ceramic fabric on the site. The Bag List is simply a compilation of all the bags from a given trench from any one season. From this list a quick overview of material found, beyond finds, can be ascertained. All these forms are critical for proper documentation on the site. And since ours is a destructive process, documentation is truly essential in assuring a successful excavation. The four forms mentioned above are reproduced here (Appendix 1), so that you can familiarize yourself with them. At times you will be asked to fill out these forms, so review them carefully.

40

Votive deposit: altar/column element and statue bases.

41

Laboratory Techniques and Practices: The processing and analysis of all material recovered from survey and excavation takes place in the laboratory. The lab at Poggio Colla has two locations: a ground floor area adjoining Guardia and a building located next to Selve. Artifacts are usually processed in consecutive stages, however the fragility or significance of the object will sometimes require one of the following stages to take precedence over the others: inventory, conservation, cataloguing and documentation and storage. Initial inventory, conservation and archaeological illustration usually take place at Guardia, while cataloguing, research, photography and storage take place at Selve. Every morning the Director of Materials and laboratory assistants begin by taking an inventory of all the material brought down from the site the previous day. Typically, this material has either been designated as a find by the trench supervisor or grouped by its fabric (black glaze, bucchero, fine ware, coarse ware, impasto, etc.) into sherd bags. The sherd bags will be inventoried in the most basic of ways, where their contents are counted and recorded. Sherd Count Forms, Tile Count Forms, and Bag List, are the responsibility of the trench supervisors, however the cataloguer does document the acquisition of the material by the lab. Finds are inventoried in a more detailed manner. They are first recorded into the Find Index (which requires the following information: Trench Number, Date, Find Number, Description and Notebook Page). Next, they are visually inspected by the Director of Materials to determine which artifacts should be catalogued and which should remain non-catalogued objects; the conservator and other directors may aid in this process. Once an artifact has been designated for catalogue status it is assigned a catalogue number. The catalogue number, which consists of the last two digits of the excavation year followed by a consecutive Arabic number, is then recorded on the Find Tag in red and in the Find Index (e.g. the first find of the 2002 season will be 02-001). It is then sent to conservation for treatment. Conservation involves the cleaning, repair, consolidation, and preservation of material remains. The conservation lab follows two basic principles: to handle an object as carefully and as minimally as possible and to practice the principle of reversibility. The latter is especially important, for it insures that any treatment applied to an object is reversible at a later date with no resulting damage or change to the object.

42

Prof. Steiner working on the ceramics. The Conservation staff at Poggio Colla work with the materials of the excavation to facilitate the interpretation of the site and ensure the preservation of archaeological data and objects for future researchers. The staff consult with archaeologists choose appropriate techniques that best suit Poggio Colla’s site and storage conditions and conform to the best ethical practices of conservation. Treatments can include the mechanical cleaning, reassembly, and careful storage of finds. Objects are stored using stable materials and in conditions that mitigate future damage from handling and environment. Objects are treated to preserve their chemical and mechanical integrity by providing supportive storage mounts and maintaining environmental conditions in storage. The volume of material that is found varies but often includes substantial amounts of ceramics. Conservators work with excavators and students to develop procedures and guidance on pottery washing. Our aim is to preserve as much information as possible from all archaeological material and requires the involvement of every excavation member. After receiving proper conservation treatments, an artifact selected for cataloguing is returned to the Director of Materials. It is at this point that the object is entered into the excavation database where it will be described in detail. The cataloguer records the artifact’s material, detailed measurements, and a precise description. The Poggio Colla catalogue provides more than descriptive information on an object; it also records the provenance of the artifact, references to the trench notebook, negative and drawing numbers, and information concerning storage. In addition, digital photographs supplement the

43

entry. It is searchable in many fields and serves as a vital tool for all research on material culture from the site.

Sample catalogue entry

Once the catalogue entry is complete, the object is documented by with both digital and black and white photography and technical illustrations. Objects are then prepared for storage. Storage preparation includes the marking of the catalogue number on the object in permanent ink, placing the artifact and find tag into an archival bag, and then assigning the object to an appropriate box. Boxes are grouped first by excavation year and then by material fabric. Storage completes the basic sequence of artifact processing. During the excavation season, all catalogued objects, with the exception of items removed and stored elsewhere due to their high value, are stored in assigned boxes in the Selve lab space. An inventory of all catalogued objects is conducted at the start and completion of each season. Only lab personnel and excavation staff should handle and remove catalogued objects from their storage location. During the remainder of the year, catalogued objects are stored in a basement facility in the Museo Beato Angelico in Vicchio. This facility also holds all non-catalogued finds and bagged ceramics, metal, ecofacts, soil samples and tile, in boxes organized according to excavation year and trench designation.

44

Pot sherd profile technical illustration.

Ethics:

As a participant in this project and a field school student, you have a certain obligation to work according to the ethical standards set by the Society of Professional Archaeology. The respect we show to the site and the community we work in is an important part of our involvement in this project. Each field school participant is expected to review and abide by the code of ethics, the guidelines and standards included in Appendix 2 of this manual.

Prof. Ingrid Edlund (U. Texas) studying Tuscan column base # 1.

45

ETRUSCAN CHRONOLOGY

VILLANOVAN PHASE 900-700 BCE This period was characterized by cremation burials, warrior culture, bronze and iron armor, and weapons, first figural representations (in a geometric style), exploitation of local mineral resources, and contact with Greeks and Phoenicians (750-700 BCE). ORIENTALIZING PERIOD 700-600 BCE Contact continued with Phoenicians, Near East, and Greek cultures resulting in an eastern or “Orientalizing” style of figural art. First Etruscan inscriptions (700-650 BC) as Etruscans borrow alphabetic writing from the Greeks and Phoenicians. Increased wealth resulted in splendid, “Princely” tomb groups that include large amounts of gold, silver, ivory, and other luxury items. ARCHAIC PERIOD 600-480 BCE There was a strong influence from the Greek world on Etruscan art of the southern and coastal regions. Large amounts of Greek pottery appear in Etruscan tombs. The first painted tombs at Tarquinia and the Rock-cut tombs of Cerveteri appear. Etruscan bronze production reaches new technical heights. The Etruscans expand north of the Arno and trading contacts are established throughout the Mediterranean. Etruscan kings are expelled from Rome (509/508 BCE). CLASSICAL PERIOD 480-300 BCE This was the beginning of Etruscan decline, politically but not artistically. Etruscans were defeated by the Greeks at the naval battle of Cumae (474 BCE). The Etruscans were expelled from Campania (ca, 420 BCE). Veii captured by Romans (396 BCE). ROMAN-ETRUSCAN 300-100 BCE This period was equivalent of the Hellenistic period in eastern Mediterranean. The conquest and assimilation of Etruscan city-states by the Romans occurred. Period of late Etruscan painting at Tarquinia: new images of the afterlife.

46

Etr

uri

a a

nd its

cit

y s

tate

s.

47

The o

ccupie

d r

egio

ns

of

Italy

duri

ng t

he t

ime o

f th

e E

trusc

ans.

48

Arc

hae

oto

po

gra

ph

ic m

ap o

f th

e ar

x o

n P

og

gio

Co

lla.

49

50

SPECIAL PROJECT: COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY The mission statement of The Mugello Valley Archaeological Project emphasizes education through “a broad and innovative curriculum” and explication and awareness of an endangered cultural heritage “through a broad program of education and outreach.” (See p. 3 of this manual.) In partnership with the Comunità Montana of the Mugello and the Gruppo Archeologico di Vicchio we have undertaken a program of archaeological education for area high school students. Under the supervision of Dr. Fiammetta Calosi groups of high school students will join us on-site every week to excavate and learn about the process of archaeological research. Most of these students will speak only rudimentary English. This will be an opportunity for you to practice your Italian and interact with members of the local community who may have a rather different sense of historical and cultural context. The Italian study guide that was developed by Dr. Calosi is reproduced in the next few pages. The Community Archaeology project has two goals: -to connect our project to the local community by teaching local students about the role of archaeological research in local cultural and historical preservation. In other words, to explain what we are doing, and why, to the people of the Mugello. -to create a legacy of cultural awareness in the region, so that after the project ends there will be a group of people in the immediate area of Poggio Colla who care about the preservation of the site.

51

SPECIAL PROJECT: THE NORTH-WEST SLOPE

A team from the United Kingdom, under the direction of Prof. Phil Perkins (The Open University, London, see page 11 for biographical information), reopened Trench PC 18 on the North-West Slope from 207- to 2009. This area is of particular interest because of the very early ceramics found here; they may indicate the presence of an Orientalizing settlement. Here is what we wrote in our 2005 report in the Journal of Roman Archaeology: “As the result of erosion due to heavy summer rains in 1999, decorated bucchero and impasto of Orientalizing date was washed out from the NW slope of Poggio Colla along one of the logging paths that leads up to the site. In order to salvage the context, we placed a small trench in the area, and excavation proceeded from 1999 to 2001. Although no structures were found, the ceramic finds included multiple examples of 7th and early 6th c. bucchero and impasto, including a 7th c. buccheroid askos in the shape of a water bird, elite pottery of remarkable quality. This area seems to have been a quarry; the present pit is carved out of the local sandstone, and there are still quarry marks on the sandstone faces. The ceramics are part of a deep and heavily burned stratum, suggesting that the quarry may have served as a midden for a nearby habitation of early date. These terraces seem an ideal location for a small settlement, as there is a natural spring nearby. Because the deep stratigraphy will protect this area for future study, work was suspended in this area after the 2001 season.”

52

SPECIAL PROJECT: THE PODERE FUNGHI Investigating Etruscan Ceramic Production at the Podere Funghi Sara Bon-Harper Monticello Department of Archaeology, PO Box 316, Charlottesville, VA 22902 USA

Introduction The Podere Funghi is a ceramic production site in the vicinity of Poggio Colla. It was discovered by MVAP archaeologists when artifacts were brought to the ground surface by deep plowing in the late 1990s. It was first explored archaeologically in 1998 (Warden 2007; Fedeli and Warden 2006; Warden et al. 2005; Gleba 2004), and several seasons of excavation by the MVAP revealed a building with four ceramic kilns, and a nearby kiln dump. Artifact scatters elsewhere in the field have also been identified, but the field itself had not been systematically sampled for other remains until the commencement of this spatial sampling project in 2006. Plow Zones The plowing of a field disturbs archaeological deposits, mixing strata vertically, and displacing artifacts horizontally. The resulting stratum that consists of sediments and artifacts blended by the plow is called a plow zone (Dunnell and Simek 1995); the interpretation of plow zones is a fundamental element of archaeological research in many parts of the world, including the Mediterranean and large parts of the United States. Retrieving Spatial Patterns It is clear that the study of plow zones can provide valid archaeological information. For some time in the mid-Atlantic U.S., scholars have advocated the extensive sampling of plowzone and the recording of artifacts at appropriate spatial scales. These studies have demonstrated that some spatial relationships between artifacts in plow zones are preserved, and that these data can be used to interpret human behavior in the past (Gibb and King 1991; Heath 2001; Neiman 1990). The work of the Monticello Department of Archaeology contributes to this field of research, combining spatial sampling and assemblage analysis to interpret past activities on plowed sites. (http://www.monticello.org/archaeology/index.html) In Italy, as in other parts of the world, actively plowed fields are often studied through surface collection. It is widely understood that there are many variables in identifying and interpreting archaeological remains through finding artifacts on agricultural surfaces, including the frequency with which artifacts cycle to the surface, the proportions of artifacts that do appear on the surface, the attributes of artifacts that affect their movement and visibility within plow zones, and artifact visibility as allowed by vegetation and other factors (Ammerman 1985; Navazo and Díaz 2008; O’Brien and Lewarch, eds. 1981; Odell and Cowan 1987; Roper 1976; Terrenato 1996; Terrenato and Ammerman 1996; Thompson 2004).

53

The Podere Funghi is no longer under cultivation, and low grass grows on it, which means that artifacts are not routinely brought to the surface in by the plow, and that surface visibility is somewhat low. In order to systematically evaluate the presence and absence of artifacts throughout the field, we use sub-surface sampling at given intervals. Our sub-surface samples are in the form of shovel test pits, or STPs, which are not often employed in the Mediterranean, where surface visibility usually allows sufficient collection. STPs are often used in regional survey the eastern United States for site detection (Lightfoot 1986). Our use of them in intra-site spatial sampling is fairly innovative. The use of STPs in the Mediterranean at all, is quite rare, if not unique to this project. STP Results at the Podere Funghi The spatial sampling project began with reconnaissance in 2006 and a brief testing season in 2007, which suggested that there is additional occupation outside the ceramic workshop, both immediately adjacent to the building, and in the southeast corner of the field. This information corroborated what had been observed in previous years, when surface scatters had been visible due to plowing and reduced surface cover. The 2008 season should complete testing in the field and provide an understanding of the extent and spatial structure of past activities on the site (for discussion of spatial structure, see O’Connell 1993; Wandsnider 1996). In addition to its stand-alone results, this sampling project may guide future excavations at the site, if areas of high interest are identified. Layering of Research Methods Geophysical survey on the site indicates that the artifact dump near the workshop may also be the locus of an additional kiln (Sternberg et al. 2008). Further research in 2008 will include student projects using a range of geoarchaeological techniques, including archaeomagnetism, downhole magnetic susceptibility, geomorphology, chemical testing, and continued magnetic survey. Together, these methods should provide a complex understanding of the Podere Funghi, the extent of occupation, and its temporal and spatial variability (O’Connell 1993; Wandsnider 1996). The site itself has great significance because it adds to a small body of knowledge about the social and economic systems of Hellenistic period ceramic production in northern Etruria. The project’s work on the surrounding landscape is also crucial, providing evidence for the local context of this ceramic production, including at least one workshop in an adjacent field to the north (Sternberg et al. 2008). Support The spatial sampling of the Podere Funghi is supported in 2008 by an Etruscan Foundation Research Fellowship awarded to Sara Bon-Harper. This research and the additional geoarchaeological work is further supported by the Keck Geology Consortium, which provides field training and independent research opportunities for undergraduates, six of whom will be conducting this work under the direction of Rob Sternberg and Sara Bon-Harper.

54

Works Cited

Ammerman, A. J. 1985. “Plow-Zone Experiments in Calabria, Italy.” Journal of Field Archaeology 12(1): 33-40. Dunnell, R. C. and J. Simek. 1995. “Artifact Size and Plowzone Process.” Journal of Field Archaeology (22) 305-319. Fedeli, L. and P. G. Warden. 2006. “Recenti Scavi a Poggio Colla (Vicchio).” Notiziario della Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana. Firenze, Soprintendenza Archeologica Toscana: 334-337. Gibb, J. G. and J. A. King. 1991 “Gender, Activity Areas, and Homelots in the 17th-Century Chesapeake Region.” Historical Archaeology 25(4): 109-131. Gleba, M. 2003. “Archaeology in Etruria 1995-2002.” Archaeological Reports (49): 89-103. Heath, B. J. and A. Bennett. 2001. “The little Spots allow'd them”: The Archaeological Study of African-American Yards. Historical Archaeology 34(2): 38-55. Lightfoot, K. G. 1986. “Regional Surveys in the Eastern United States: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Implementing Subsurface Testing Programs.” American Antiquity 51(3): 484-504. Navazo, M. and C. Díaz. 2008. “Redistribution of Archaeological Assemblages in Plowzones.” Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 23(3): 323-333. Neiman, F. D. 1990. An Evolutionary Approach to Archaeological Inference: Aspects of Architectural Variation in the 17th-Century Chesapeake. PhD Dissertation, Yale University. Nijboer, A. J. 1998. From household production to workshops; archaeological evidence for economic transformations, pre-monetary exchange and urbanisation in central Italy from 800 to 400 BC. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Groningen, 1998. [http://www.lcm.rug.nl/publications/] O’Brien, M. J. and D. E. Lewarch (editors). 1981. Plowzone Archaeology: Contributions to Theory and Technique, 27. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. O’Connell, J. F. 1993. “What Can Great Basin Archaeologists Learn from the Study of Site Structure? An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective.” Utah Archaeology: 7-26.

55

Odell, G. H. and F. Cowan. 1987. “Estimating Tillage Effects on Artifact Distributions.” American Antiquity 52(3): 456-484. Roper, D. 1976. “Lateral Displacement of Artifacts Due to Plowing.” American Antiquity 41(3): 372-375. Sternberg, Rob, S. Bon-Harper, and E. Bradley. “Intra-Site Testing Using Magnetometry and Shovel Test Pits in the Podere Funghi near Poggio Colla (Florence, Italy).” Poster presented at the 37th Annual Symposium on Archaeometry, Siena, Italy. Terrenato, N. 1996. “Field Survey Methods in Central Italy (Etruria and Umbria): Between Local Knowledge and Regional Traditions.” Archaeological Dialogues 3(2): 216-230. Terrenato, N. 2004. “Sample Size Matters! The Paradox of Global Trends and Local Surveys.” (pp. 36-48) in Alcock, S., and Cherry, J. F., eds., Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Terrenato, N. and A. J. Ammerman. 1996. “Visibility and Site Recovery in the Cecina Valley Survey, Italy.” Journal of Field Archaeology 23(1): 91-109. Thompson, S. M. 2004. “Side-by-Side and Back-to-Front: Exploring Intra-Regional Latitudinal and Longitudinal Comparability in Survey Data. Three Case Studies from Metaponto, Southern Italy.” (pp. 65-85) in Alcock, S., and Cherry, J. F., eds., Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Wandsnider, L. 1996. “Describing and Comparing Archaeological Spatial Structures.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3(4): 319-384. Warden, P. G. 2007. “Vicchio (FI). Poggio Colla: Campagna di Scavo 2006.” Notiziario della Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana. Firenze, Soprintendenza Archeologica Toscana: 38-40. Warden, P.G., M. L. Thomas, A. Steiner, and G. Meyers. 2005. “Excavations at Poggio Colla (1998-2004 excavations).” Journal of Roman Archaeology (18) 252-266.

56

SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS Greg Warden

When lecturing on Etruscan archaeology or on the excavations at Poggio

Colla, I am often asked about my methodological approach and whether I subscribe

to “post-modern” methodologies. While these new approaches have much to

offer, I believe that archaeology will always be a process of re-construction that

demands structuralist and positivist approaches. We cannot “deconstruct” when

our mission to reconstruct. Walter Burkert, the great Swiss scholar of Greek

religion, put it best in his Creation of the Sacred, Tracks of Biology in Early

Religions (Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1996, p. xii):

“Historical studies presupposes some optimism as to the existence of facts and the

possibility of correct accounts. This may sound naïve vis-à-vis modern or post-

modern tendencies to dissolve every object of study into interpretations, to be

analyzed in turn to detect their tacit preconceptions and tendentious distortions.

Those who cling to a hard core of reality may still claim company with science,

which in its most abstract constructs remains tied to empirical data. Biology is

exploring the “reality” of living organisms with growing success, from self-

replicating molecules to human consciousness. Even in the humanities,

interpretations are not just constructs but hypotheses about reality which does not

cease to make itself felt. If, for example, the language and symbolism of sacrifice

in a specific cultural context prompt a variety of interpretations, real bones

remain at the site to prove that real killing took place there. Religion is life-and-

death realistic—which keeps it close to nature.”

My own opinion is that as archaeologists and historians we construct

narratives from the evidence, the “real bones” of Burkert’s reality, and that our

work must be based on the assumption that there is such a reality. On the other

hand, a good dose of “post-modern” self-consciousness might also be salutary. We

have to be aware that the process of construction is fraught with difficulties, and

we should be humble enough in the face of these difficulties, to realize that we

57

will need to revise our narrative in light of new evidence. Archaeology is a

process.

One final quote about the construction of narrative, from Janet Malcolm, The

Crime of Sheila McGough (Vintage, New York 1999, p. 3), a book about the

construction of narrative in the legal process and the resulting reality that we call

“justice:”

“The law is the guardian of the ideal of unmediated truth, truth stripped bare of

the ornament of narration; the judge, its representative, adjudicates between

each lawyer’s attempt to use the rules of evidence to dismantle the story of the

other, while preserving the integrity of its own. The story that can best withstand

the rules of evidence is the story that wins.”

In archaeology, what matters is not the story that “wins;” our goal is to fashion

one that best explains the evidence.

58

APPENDIX 1. FORMS

TAGS

I. BAG TAGS

PC 34 DATE

ULSL BAG NUMBER

US#

MATERIAL

TOTAL COUNT TRENCH NOTEBOOK

ID

TOTAL WEIGHT [example: AS1]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. FIND TAGS

PROTOCOLS:

Always use a find tag—writing on bags disappears over time

Always use a FINE-POINT SHARPIE

Place finds daily in labeled cassetta in middle room at Guardia

NOTE: FIND NUMBERS START OVER EACH DAY AND MUST BE

NUMBERED CONSECUTIVELY

FRONT OF FIND TAG

FIND # [MO/DAY/YEAR/#]

ULSL # LEAVE BLANK

US #

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

TOTAL STATION NUMBER

N

E NOTEBOOK, PAGE #

Z [EXAMPLE: AS I P.

XX]

BACK OF FIND TAG

LEAVE BLANK FOR CONSERVATION NOTES

59

MUGELLO VALLEY ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Context Record Form

Unit Context Type US#

Locus [ ] Negative [ ] Positive Excavator

Stratum [ ] Feature [ ] Dates

Notebook

Soil Matrix/Excavation Methods

Munsell Type Tools [ ] Trowel [ ] Hand Pick [ ] Pick Axe

Munsell Title Recovery [ ] Hand-Sort [ ] .3mm Screen

Composition

Inclusions (not collected) [ ] Occasional [ ] Moderate [ ] Frequent

[ ] Pottery [ ] Tile [ ] Metal [ ] Carbon [ ] Bone [ ] Wood [ ] Glass

[ ] Stone

Comments:

___________________________________________________________________________

___

___________________________________________________________________________

___

___________________________________________________________________________

__

___________________________________________________________________________

__

Key Finds

Find# Description

Stratigraphic Relationships Covers Covered By

Cuts Cut By

Fills Filled By

Abuts Abutted By

Bonds To

Comments:

___________________________________________________________________________

___

___________________________________________________________________________

___

60

___________________________________________________________________________

___-

___________________________________________________________________________

__

Stratigraphic Elevations (cm) Top of Stratigraphic Unit (Indicate location in Plan)

1 4 7 Datum El. (mas!)

2 5 8

3 6 9

Plan of Stratigraphic Unit

Samples (Carbon, Soil, Organic) Sample Type Volume Comments

Photography Number of Exposures Direction Taken Description

61

62

63

64

Appendix 2

Code of Conduct and Standards of Research Performance

Code of Conduct

Archaeology is a profession, and the privilege of professional practice requires professional morality and

professional responsibility, as well as professional competence, on the part of each practitioner.

I. The Archaeologist's Responsibility to the Public

1.1 An archaeologist shall:

a. Recognize a commitment to represent Archaeology and its research results to the public in a

responsible manner;

b. Actively support conservation of the archaeological resource base;

c. Be sensitive to, and respect the legitimate concerns of, groups whose culture histories are the

subjects of archaeological investigations;

d. Avoid and discourage exaggerated, misleading, or unwarranted statements about

archaeological matters that might induce others to engage in unethical or illegal activity;

e. Support and comply with the terms of the UNESCO Convention on the means of prohibiting

and preventing the illicit import, export, and transfer of ownership of cultural property, as

adopted by the General Conference, 14 November 1970, Paris.

1.2 An archaeologist shall not:

f. Engage in any illegal or unethical conduct involving archaeological matters or knowingly

permit the use of his/her name in support of any illegal or unethical activity involving

archaeological matters;

g. Give a professional opinion, make a public report, or give legal testimony involving

archaeological matters without being as thoroughly informed as might reasonably be

expected;

h. Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation about

archaeological matters;

i. Undertake any research that affects the archaeological resource base for which she/he is not

qualified.

j.

II. The Archaeologist's Responsibility to Colleagues, Employees, and Students

2.1 An archaeologist shall:

a. Give appropriate credit for work done by others;

b. Stay informed and knowledgeable about developments in her/his field or fields of

specialization;

c. Accurately, and without undue delay, prepare and properly disseminate a description of

research done and its results;

d. Communicate and cooperate with colleagues having common professional interests;

e. Give due respect to colleagues' interests in, and rights to, information about sites, areas,

collections, or data where there is a mutual active or potentially active research concern;

f. Know and comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations

applicable to her/his archaeological research and activities;

g. Report knowledge of violations of this Code to proper authorities.

h. Honor and comply with the spirit and letter of the Register of Professional Archaeologist's

Disciplinary Procedures.

2.2 An archaeologist shall not:

65

i. Falsely or maliciously attempt to injure the reputation of another archaeologist;

j. Commit plagiarism in oral or written communication;

k. Undertake research that affects the archaeological resource base unless reasonably prompt,

appropriate analysis and reporting can be expected;

l. Refuse a reasonable request from a qualified colleague for research data;

m. Submit a false or misleading application for registration by the Register of Professional

Archaeologists.

n.

III. The Archaeologist's Responsibility to Employers and Clients

3.1 An archaeologist shall:

a. Respect the interests of her/his employer or client, so far as is consistent with the public

welfare and this Code and Standards;

b. Refuse to comply with any request or demand of an employer or client which conflicts with

the Code and Standards;

c. Recommend to employers or clients the employment of other archaeologists or other expert

consultants upon encountering archaeological problems beyond her/his own competence;

d. Exercise reasonable care to prevent her/his employees, colleagues, associates and others

whose services are utilized by her/him from revealing or using confidential information.

Confidential information means information of a non-archaeological nature gained in the

course of employment which the employer or client has requested be held inviolate, or the

disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to the

employer or client. Information ceases to be confidential when the employer or client so

indicates or when such information becomes publicly known.

3.2 An archaeologist shall not:

e. Reveal confidential information, unless required by law;

f. Use confidential information to the disadvantage of the client or employer;

g. Use confidential information for the advantage of herself/himself or a third person, unless the

client consents after full disclosure;

h. Accept compensation or anything of value for recommending the employment of another

archaeologist or other person, unless such compensation or thing of value is fully disclosed to

the potential employer or client;

i. Recommend or participate in any research which does not comply with the requirements of

the Standards of Research Performance.

66

Standards of Research Performance

The research archaeologist has a responsibility to attempt to design and conduct projects that will add to our

understanding of past cultures and/or that will develop better theories, methods, or techniques for interpreting

the archaeological record, while causing minimal attrition of the archaeological resource base. In the conduct of

a research project, the following minimum standards should be followed:

I. The archaeologist has a responsibility to prepare adequately for any research project, whether or not in

the field. The archaeologist must:

1.1 Assess the adequacy of her/his qualifications for the demands of the project, and minimize

inadequacies by acquiring additional expertise, by bringing in associates with the needed

qualifications, or by modifying the scope of the project;

1.2 Inform herself/himself of relevant previous research;

1.3 Develop a scientific plan of research which specifies the objectives of the project, takes

into account previous relevant research, employs a suitable methodology, and provides for

economical use of the resource base (whether such base consists of an excavation site or

of specimens) consistent with the objectives of the project;

1.4 Ensure the availability of adequate and competent staff and support facilities to carry the

project to completion, and of adequate curatorial facilities for specimens and records;

1.5 Comply with all legal requirements, including, without limitation, obtaining all necessary

governmental permits and necessary permission from landowners or other persons;

1.6 Determine whether the project is likely to interfere with the program or projects of other

scholars and, if there is such a likelihood, initiate negotiations to minimize such

interference.

II. In conducting research, the archaeologist must follow her/his scientific plan of research, except to the

extent that unforeseen circumstances warrant its modification.

III. Procedures for field survey or excavation must meet the following minimal standards:

3.1 If specimens are collected, a system for identifying and recording their proveniences must

be maintained.

3.2 Uncollected entities such as environmental or cultural features, depositional strata, and the

like, must be fully and accurately recorded by appropriate means, and their location

recorded.

3.3 The methods employed in data collection must be fully and accurately described.

Significant stratigraphic and/or associational relationships among artifacts, other

specimens, and cultural and environmental features must also be fully and accurately

recorded.

3.4 All records should be intelligible to other archaeologists. If terms lacking commonly held

referents are used, they should be clearly defined.

3.5 Insofar as possible, the interests of other researchers should be considered. For example,

upper levels of a site should be scientifically excavated and recorded whenever feasible,

even if the focus of the project is on underlying levels.

IV. During accessioning, analysis, and storage of specimens and records in the laboratory, the

archaeologist must take precautions to ensure that correlations between the specimens and the field

records are maintained, so that provenience contextual relationships and the like are not confused or

obscured.

V. Specimens and research records resulting from a project must be deposited at an institution with

permanent curatorial facilities, unless otherwise required by law.

VI. The archaeologist has responsibility for appropriate dissemination of the results of her/his research to

the appropriate constituencies with reasonable dispatch.

67

6.1 Results reviewed as significant contributions to substantive knowledge of the past or to

advancements in theory, method or technique should be disseminated to colleagues and

other interested persons by appropriate means such as publications, reports at professional

meetings, or letters to colleagues.

6.2 Requests from qualified colleagues for information on research results directly should be

honored, if consistent with the researcher's prior rights to publication and with her/his

other professional responsibilities.

6.3 Failure to complete a full scholarly report within 10 years after completion of a field

project shall be construed as a waiver of an archaeologist's right of primacy with respect to

analysis and publication of the data. Upon expiration of such 10-year period, or at such

earlier time as the archaeologist shall determine not to publish the results, such data

should be made fully accessible to other archaeologists for analysis and publication.

6.4 While contractual obligations in reporting must be respected, archaeologists should not

enter into a contract which prohibits the archaeologist from including her or his own

interpretations or conclusions in the contractual reports, or from a continuing right to use

the data after completion of the project.

6.5 Archaeologists have an obligation to accede to reasonable requests for information from

the news media.

68

APPENDIX 3

Behavior Code –The “Four Rs”

1. Respect

a. Demonstrated to care takers, and facilities.

b. Demonstrated to staff and peers.

c. Reflected in appropriate attire and behavior for field school functions:

i. No consumption of alcoholic beverages or contraband before

or during field school functions (lectures, pottery washing, field trips,

etc.).

d. Demonstrated in respect of customs and norms of host country.

i. Take note- public drunkenness is frowned upon.

2. Responsibility

a. Be punctual.

b. Perform all duties assigned.

c. Clean up after yourself (bathroom, dishes, bedroom).

3. Representation

a. Students represent MVAP and affiliated schools in an appropriate manner.

b. Students represent Professor Warden and MVAP in an appropriate manner

while in Mugello.

c. Students are “cultural ambassadors” for nationalities.

4. Reverence a. Demonstrated towards all cultural patrimony of Italy.

69

APPENDIX 4

SMU - Study Abroad Conduct Agreement

I, _________________________________, the undersigned student at Southern Methodist

University (“SMU”), voluntarily enrolled in SMU’s Study Abroad Program in ITALY, hereby

agree that I will comply with the rules, standards, and instructions concerning behavior,

including academic behavior, outlined in this Agreement, in the SMU Student Handbook, in

the written materials provided by the SMU Study Abroad Office, and those given or to be

given orally by staff members assigned to the Program here and abroad. I have fully read

and understand the written requirements and hereby agree to comply with all

requirements of the Program, including oral requirements I may be given.

I understand and agree that I will be subject to the SMU Code of Student Conduct

while in the Study Abroad Program or participating in events in any way related to my

being abroad with the Program. Further I acknowledge and agree that SMU may terminate

my participation in the Program at any time for failure to comply with Program

requirements or for any action or conduct which SMU deems to be detrimental to or

incompatible with the interests, harmony or welfare of the Program. If my participation is

terminated, I understand and agree that I will be sent home at my own expense and that

there will be no forgiveness of loans, refund of tuition, fees, travel expenses, or any other

costs related to the Program.

Further, I hereby understand and agree concerning the following:

That I will obey all laws, rules, and regulations of any foreign country in which I am

a guest during my participation in the Study Abroad Program.

That my lack of sobriety, or my possession, use or misuse, or transport of any

controlled substances at SMU or in any foreign country in which I am a guest during

my participation in the Study Abroad Program are grounds for my immediate

termination from further participation in the Study Abroad Program.

That class attendance is mandatory, as are group trips and other organized Study

Abroad Program events.

That I will neither hold nor attend parties in hotel rooms, nor will I visit fellow

students in their hotel rooms after 10 p.m. while participating in this Study Abroad

Program.

That I will keep my door closed and locked for safety while in lodgings during my

participation in the Study Abroad Program, and I will refrain from making noise

that may disturb other guests.

70

That I will respect the property of others and will not tamper with the property of

others, including, but not limited to, the property of SMU, or any person, hotel,

lodging, restaurants or sites visited during the term of this Study Abroad Program.

That I will notify SMU of any travel plans before I depart on independent trips,

including an address where I may be contacted in case of emergency. My failure to

provide accurate and truthful information about my whereabouts at anytime during

the term of this Study Abroad Program will result in my immediate termination

from the Program.

That my assigned Program housing may be changed only in the case of extreme

incompatibility on the part of both the Host Country family and me, and in that

case only with the consent of the Program Director.

Students traveling on University-sanctioned trips are representing Southern Methodist

University and are expected to make responsible decisions regarding their behavior so that

they maintain appropriate standards of conduct at all times. Students on such trips are

under the jurisdiction of the SMU Student Code of Conduct. Therefore, all provisions of

the Student Code of Conduct apply during the entire University-sanctioned trip. This

includes, but is not limited to, the prohibitions against the use of all illegal drugs and the

illegal use of alcohol. Persons under whose auspices or direction the trip is conducted

may state additional expectations and standards of conduct appropriate to the type and

venue of a particular trip. When possible and in the University’s sole discretion, SMU will

attempt to provide such additional guidelines in writing to students prior to the beginning

of the trip. Violation of such supplemental instructions is handled under the SMU Student

Code of Conduct.

I have read the terms and conditions set forth herein, agree to abide by them, and

understand that this Agreement is effective upon my acceptance into the Program.

71

APPENDIX 5 Mugello Valley Archaeological Project

Bibliography

Articles and Research Reports

1. Warden, P.G. Forthcoming. “Giving the gods their due: further evidence for ritual at the sanctuary of Poggio Colla.” With an appendix on faunal remains by Angela Trentacoste. In Studi in Onore di Francesco Nicosia.

2. Meyers, G. E. 2013. “Women and the Production of Ceremonial Textiles: A Reevaluation of Ceramic Textile Tools in Etrusco-Italic Sanctuaries,” AJA 117 (2), 247-274.

3. Weaver, I, G. E. Meyers, S. A. Mertzman, R. Sternberg and J. Didaleusky. 2012. “Geochemical Evidence for Integrated Ceramic and Roof Tile Industries at the Etruscan Site of Poggio Colla, Italy,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 13.1.

4. Perkins, P. 2012. “The Bucchero Childbirth Stamp on a Late Orientalizing Period Shard from Poggio Colla,” Etruscan Studies 15 (2), 146-201.

5. Thomas, M.L. 2012. “One Hundred Victoriati from the Sanctuary at Poggio Colla (Vicchio di Mugello): Ritual Contexts and Roman Expansion” Etruscan Studies 15(1),19–93.

6. Warden, P.G. 2012. “Monumental Embodiment: Somatic Symbolism and the Tuscan Temple.” Monumentality in Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture: Ideology and Innovation. Festschrift in Honor of Ingrid Edlund Berry, edited by M.L. Thomas and G. Meyers, pp. 82-110. The University of Texas Press, Austin.

7. Warden, P.G. 2010. “The Temple is a Living Thing: Fragmentation, Enchainment, and the Reversal of Ritual at the Acropolis Sanctuary of Poggio Colla.” In N. de Grummond and I. Edlund-Berry, eds., The Archaeology of Sanctuaries and Ritual in Etruria, JRA Supplement 81, 55-67.

8. Van der Graaff I., Vander Poppen R., and Nales T., 2010. "The advantages and limitations of coring survey: An initial assessment of the Poggio Colla Coring Project" in TRAC 2009: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, edited by Alison Moore, Geoff Taylor, Emily Harris, Peter Girdwood and Lucy Shipley. Oxford.

9. Meyers, G. E., L. M. Jackson and J. Gallaway. 2010. “The Production and Usage of Non-Decorated Etruscan Roof Tiles, based on a Case Study at Poggio Colla,” JRA 23, 303-319.

10. L. Cappuccini, C. Ducci, S. Gori, L. Paoli (eds.), Museo Archeologico Comprensoriale del Mugello e della Val di Sieve. Catalogo dell’esposizione (Aska Edizioni, 2009) 62-81. Includes entries and catalogue of Poggio Colla materials now in the Dicomano Museum, authored by Meyers, Steiner, Thomas, and Warden.

11. Warden, P.G. 2009. “Vicchio (FI). Recenti scavi (2008) a Poggio Colla,” Notiziario della Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana 4: 402-405. Firenze, Soprintendenza Archeologica Toscana, 2009.

12. Warden, P.G. 2009. “Remains of the Ritual at Poggio Colla.” In Votives, Places, Rituals in Etruscan Religion. Studies in Honour of Jean MacIntosh

72

Turfa, edited by M. Gleba and H. Becker. Religion in the Graeco-Roman World (RGRW). Brill (NL) 121-127.

13. Warden, P.G. 2008. “Vicchio (FI). Poggio Colla: Campagna di scavo 2007,” Notiziario della Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana 3: 514-518. Firenze, Soprintendenza Archeologica Toscana.

14. Warden, P.G. & M.L. Thomas. 2007 (forthcoming). “Evidenza di culto e problemi di continuità culturale al sito Etrusco di Poggio Colla (Vicchio di Mugello).” In Piana Fiorentina, Valdarno e aree limitrofe. Studi recenti e nuovi dati dalla ricerca archeologica, edited by G. Bartoloni.

15. Warden, P.G. 2007. “Vicchio (FI). Poggio Colla: Campagna di scavo 2006,”Notiziario della Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana 2: 38-40. Firenze, Soprintendenza Archeologica Toscana.

16. Fedeli, L. & P.G. Warden. 2006. “Recenti scavi a Poggio Colla (Vicchio).” Notiziario della Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana 1: 334-337. Firenze, Soprintendenza Archeologica Toscana.

17. Warden, P.G., M. L. Thomas, A. Steiner & G. Meyers. 2005. “Poggio Colla: a N Etruscan settlement of the 7th-2nd c. B.C. (1998-2004 excavations).” JRA 18: 252-266.

18. Warden, P.G., & M.L. Thomas. 2002-2003. “Sanctuary and settlement: archaeological work at Poggio Colla (Vicchio di Mugello).” Etruscan Studies 9-10: 97-108.

19. Gleba, M. 2002-2003. “Archeology in Etruria 1995-2002.” Archaeological Reports 49: 89-103;esp. 96.

20. Thomas, M.L. 2000. “An Imitative Unsealed Semis from Northern Etruria.” American Journal of Numismatics 12: 113-118.

21. Thomas, M.L. 2001.“Excavations at Poggio Colla (Vicchio di Mugello): A Report of the 2000-2002 Seasons,” Etruscan Studies 8: 119-130.

22. Warden, P.G., & M.L. Thomas. 2000. “Excavations at Poggio Colla: the 1999 Season.” Etruscan Studies 7: 133-143.

23. Thomas, M.L. 2000. “The Technology of Daily Life in a Hellenistic Etruscan Settlement.” Etruscan Studies 7: 107-108.

24. Warden, P.G., M. L. Thomas, & J. Galloway. 1999. “The Etruscan Settlement of Poggio Colla (1995-98 excavations).” JRA 12: 231-246.

25. Warden, P.G. & M.L. Thomas. 1999. “Excavations at Poggio Colla: The 1998 Season.” Etruscan Studies 6: 111-22.

26. Warden, P.G. 1998. Excavations at the Etruscan Site of Poggio Colla (Vicchio di Mugello). The 1998 Season. Philadelphia.

27. Kane, S., P.G. Warden, & N. Griffiths. 1998. “A Bronze Head of a Youth from Poggio Colla (Vicchio), Tuscany.” Etruscan Studies 5: 63-68.

28. Warden P.G. & S. Kane. 1997. “Excavations at Poggio Colla (Vicchio) 1995-1996.” Etruscan Studies 4: 159-186.

29. Warden, P.G. 1997. Southern Methodist University Excavations at the Etruscan Site of Poggio Colla (Vicchio di Mugello). The 1997 Season. Dallas and Philadelphia.

30. Warden, P.G., S. Kane, K. Vellucci, and D. White. 1996. Southern Methodist University Excavations at the Etruscan Site of Poggio Colla (Vicchio di Mugello). The 1996 Season. Dallas and Philadelphia.

31. Warden, P.G. 1995. Southern Methodist University Excavations in Tuscany, 1995. A Preliminary Report for Friends and Supporters. Dallas.

73

Conference Presentations

1. Rask, K. 2013. “The Courtyard Altar at Etruscan Poggio Colla: Animal Sacrifice and Topographic Placement,” 114th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, Seattle.

2. Steiner, A., G. E. Meyers, M. L. Thomas and G. Warden. 2012. “Defining a Sanctuary in Northern Etruria: New Evidence from Poggio Colla (Vicchio di Mugello,” 113th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, Philadelphia.

3. Meyers, G. E. 2010. “Weaving as Worship: Women and Ritual at the Etruscan Site of Poggio Colla (Vicchio), 111th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, Anaheim.

4. Warden, P.G. 2008. “New Evidence for Ritual at Poggio Colla” 109th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, Chicago, 2008.

5. Steiner, A., M. Thomas, G. Meyers, & P.G. Warden. 2007. “Sanctuary and Settlement in Northern Etruria: New Evidence from Poggio Colla (Vicchio di Mugello)” 108th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, San Diego, 2007.

6. Meyers, G., J. Galloway & L. Jackson, 2007. “Terracotta Tiles and Roof Technology at the N. Etruscan Settlement of Poggio Colla,” Archaeological Institute of America Annual Meeting, San Diego, January 2007.

7. Weaver, I.P., A.R. Steiner, S.A. Mertzman, and C. Vaden. 2006. Ceramics from the Etruscan Settlement of Poggio Colla in Tuscany: A Chemical Characterization and Provenance Study. Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, 22–25 October, 2006.

8. Warden, P.G., and M.L. Thomas. 2005. “Culto e continuità culturale a Poggio Colla (Vicchio di Mugello).” in “Piana Fiorentina, Valdarno a aree limitrofe. Studi recenti e nuovi dati dalla ricerca archeologica.” Secondo Seminario Internazionale di Studi “Città di Montefiascone.” Montefiascone, Italy, May 2005.

9. Thomas, M.L. and P.G. Warden. 2003. “The Hellenistic Habitation and Workshop at Podere Funghi (Poggio Colla).” Archaeological Institute of America Annual Meetings, New Orleans, January 6, 2003.

10. Winkler, J.J., and R.H. Tykot. 2002. “Provenance of Etruscan Pottery from Poggio Colla, Italy: A Chemical Characterization Study.” Archaeological Institute of America Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, 2002.

11. J.J. Winkler, R.H. Tykot & P.G. Warden. 2002. “Ceramic Production and Distribution in Late Iron Age Etruria: An Example from the Mugello Basin.”33rd International Symposium on Archaeometry, Amsterdam.

12. Warden, P.G. and M.L, Thomas. 2002. “Sanctuary and Settlement: Archaeological Work at Poggio Colla (Vicchio di Mugello).” Etruscans Now Conference at the British Museum, London, December 11, 2002.

13. Thomas, M.L. 2000. “Recent Excavations at Poggio Colla.” Archaeological Workshop on Recent Excavations in Tuscany: Poggio Civitate and Poggio Colla, Lugano, Switzerland. August 12, 2000.

74

14. Thomas, M.L. 1999. “Aspects of Urbanism in the Hellenistic Mugello.” Annual Meeting of the Etruscan Foundation, Spannocchia, Italy, July 28, 1999.

15. Thomas, M.L. 1999. “The Technology of Daily Life in an Hellenistic Etruscan Settlement: New Evidence from Poggio Colla.” Archaeological Institute of America Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas, 1999.

16. Warden, P.G., M. L. Thomas, and K. Vellucci. 1998. “The SMU/University of Pennsylvania Excavations at the Etruscan Site of Poggio Colla (1997-1998).” Archaeological Institute of America Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. 1998.

17. Kane, S., P.G. Warden, D. Mona, and P. Canuti. 1996. “The 1995-1996 Seasons of the SMU Excavations at Poggio Colla, Vicchio (Tuscany).” Archaeological Institute of America Annual Meeting, New York, 1996.

18. Warden, P.G. 1996. “Excavations at the Etruscan Site of Poggio Colla: Fiesole and the Cultural Geography of the Mugello Valley.” In Experientia Docet, a symposium in honor of Lucy Shoe Meritt, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 1996.

19. Kane, S. 1996. “An Archaic Tumulus: Old and New Evidence from the Poggio Colla Necropolis.” In Experientia Docet, a symposium in honor of Lucy Shoe Meritt, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 1996.

20. Berkin, J. and F. Vento. 1995. “Geoarchaeological Investigations in the Mugello Valley (Italy).” Archaeological Institute of American Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 1995.

21. Warden, P.G. 1995. Presentation of the bronze head found in 1995. Colloquium on Etruscan bronzes in honor of Emeline Hill Richardson. Archaeological Institute of American Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 1995.

22. Kane, S. and P.G. Warden. 1995. “Field Report for 1995 Season at Poggio Colla, Vicchio (Tuscany).” Archaeological Institute of American Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 1995.

75

APPENDIX 6 SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY STUDY ABROAD

POGGIO COLLA 2013 PROGRAM EVALUATION FORM

Please complete this questionnaire by answering all of the questions which apply to the program you attended. Your candid and honest response will be given careful consideration and will help improve the experience of future students. If not an SMU student, where do you attend college? ___________________________ What is your major? ___________________________ What was your classification while enrolled in this study abroad program? ___________________________ (Sophomore, Junior, Senior, other) Cumulative grade point average? ___________________________ 1. How did you first learn about SMU’s study abroad programs? _____ from a brochure mailed to your home _____ from an advertisement Where? _____ newspaper _____ study abroad publication (Peterson’s Guide, etc.) _____ other: ________________________ _____ AARO (Academic, Advising, Registration Orientation) _____ Fall Study Abroad Open House _____ Spring Open House in Hughes-Trigg _____ from a faculty member _____ from a former student _____ SMU website _____ The Study Abroad Office _____ other: ________________________________________________________ 2. Please mark the blank that best indicates the amount of influence the

following had in your decision to study abroad? Much

Little Experience different cultures: _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

76

Improvement of foreign language:_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Meet people abroad: _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Curriculum: _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Wanted to get away from home campus, yet receive credit: _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Wanted to be with friends: _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Travel opportunities: _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Thought it would be a once in a lifetime opportunity: _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 3. How would you evaluate the pre-program orientation meetings and

informational materials? Did you feel adequately and accurately informed about the program?

4. How do you feel about the number of participants in the program? Were

you comfortable with the size of the group? 5. How would you evaluate the program leadership provided by the Director: the Faculty: the Student Assistant(s), if applicable:

5. Compare the following elements of the program you participated in with those here at SMU in Dallas or on your home campus.

77

much somewhat about somewhat much better better the same worse worse Faculty: _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Availability of faculty (to discuss coursework, problems, etc.):

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Quality of courses: _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Classroom facilities: _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 7. How would you evaluate the program curriculum (i.e., the types of courses

offered)? Are there other types of courses you would like to have had offered? If so, what?

8. What is your assessment of any special program-related activities such as

guest lecturers, excursions, etc.? Any suggestions? 9. Where did you live? _____ with a family _____ in a residence hall _____ in a hotel(s) How would you evaluate your housing arrangement? 10. Would you recommend this program to a friend? _____ yes _____ not sure _____ no 11. Has your experience abroad contributed to your understanding of another

culture? If yes, how?

78

12. If you have any general comments, suggestions, ideas about this program,

please tell us. 13. What is your overall assessment of this program?

79

APPENDIX 7 2013 POGGIO COLLA FIELD NOTEBOOK ASSIGNMENT

This assignment will help you learn the practice of archaeological record keeping and field research. Trench Supervisors keep a notebook that stands as the official documentation of their trench. It records the stratigraphy, finds, and features found during the season of excavation. Plans of the trench, scaled find sketches, stratigraphical profiles, and photographic records join daily narrative descriptions as the integral records of the trench’s activities. The accurate and carefully observed trench notebook is THE primary research document; it allows future researchers to reconstruct how the trench was excavated and how its finds relate to the site as a whole. The Assignment You will keep an excavation journal which will be handed in at the end of season and graded (30% for 3 hour students or 20% for 6 hour students). The journal should be a bound notebook that is only used as your field notebook (your lecture notes and travel journals should be kept in a separate notebook). You should take the time to write a minimum of one entry per day. These entries are part of the excavation process and must be done while you are on site. Your entries should begin when are assigned a trench on Monday, July 2, 2013. Instructions for each entry are as follows: 1) Each entry should begin by noting the Date and Trench Number 2) Each morning your Trench Supervisor will update you on the trench before you start work. You should write a few introductory sentences on the status of the trench you are working in that day (what stratum you are digging in, what has been found, and any current theories of the relationship of the trench to the rest of your site, etc.). 3) One or two paragraphs of excavation narrative for that day, which includes your observations of the excavation process (including finds, stratum changes, or new features). Your narrative needs to reflect the progress of your assigned trench, and how that progress influences our understanding of the site. 4) At least 2 illustrations per day. These can be of finds, a trench plan, or stratigraphic profile. All sketches must be done to scale. 5) You should also have at least 3 “post-excavation” entries per week: These entries describe discoveries or observations you make during pottery washing, sorting, or lab work. Final Summary Your summary must include: 1) The top and bottom elevations of each Stratum. 2) A paragraph description of the soil matrix, finds, and cultural significance of each stratum 3) A stratigraphic profile drawn from one trench scarp 4) A final measured plan of your trench 5) Catalogue entries for each of the 5 most significant finds or features from your trench. 6) A final report that summarizes the significance of your trench and what it means to our knowledge of Poggio Colla. You must hand in your notebook to Professor Thomas no later than 8pm on Monday July 30.

80

APPENDIX 8

PARTICIPANT GUIDE: WHAT TO DO IN CASE OF EMERGENCIES ABROAD

This guide is intended for participants of SMU international programs. The purpose of this

document is to provide instructions for responding to health, safety and security emergencies.

ABOUT EMERGENCIES ABROAD

The safety and security of all participants in SMU international programs is of utmost

concern. It must be recognized that no response plan can ensure the absolute safety of each

participant at every moment while abroad. Program participants must understand the risks

inherent in university programs, domestic and international, and know how to act responsibly

to enhance the safety of themselves and fellow participants. One of the key ways of staying

safe in a foreign environment is to act responsibly and make good choices just as you would

at home.

Emergencies and crises occur in varying degrees of severity. Real emergencies include

natural disasters, outbreaks of violence, arrests, injuries and similar events that pose an

immediate threat to participants. Perceived emergencies, sometimes viewed more seriously

by those at home than by those in the program, result from events that are not immediately

threatening to the health and safety of participants.

Examples of Possible Crisis or Emergency Situations The following list of possible crisis/emergency situations, while not exhaustive, includes

examples of situations that have the potential to require a response:

Accident and/or injury

Illness

Sexual assault

Arrest and/or legal problems

Natural disasters

Recommendation of program suspension or cancellation by host country authorities

Specific travel warnings and other directives by the U.S. Department of State,

Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), Center for Disease Control (CDC) or

other agencies

Wide-spread contagious disease or other health-related matters

War outbreak

Kidnapping

Death

Terrorist activity at the host location

Protracted or indefinite closure of the host university or institution

Disruption of public utilities or services

Civil unrest, violence, rioting, political demonstrations, etc.

If you observe or are party to any of the above situations, contact your program coordinator

immediately with the following information: who you are, where you are, what has

happened, when it happened, and how you can be contacted.

81

ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTS

While on international programs, ALWAYS have in your possession the following:

Passport

SMU Emergency Contact Information provided by your Program Coordinator

HTH Insurance Card

Student ID Card

About the passport:

Passports need to be current and stamped when entering the country. Some countries also

issue student, tourist, or entry visas. Keep this document with your passport. Make several

copies of the info page of your passport. Keep one copy in your possession; give a copy to

your program coordinator and leave a copy at home. Keep the original passport in a safe

place while at the host location. Carry the original when changing money or crossing

national borders.

About the SMU Emergency Contact Information:

Program Coordinators will compile emergency information that you need on a card or single

piece of paper. Keep this with you at all times. You should also make copies to keep in your

luggage and at home, just in case.

About the HTH Insurance Card:

You are responsible for printing out the HTH card, signing it, and keeping it with you at all

times. Ask your program coordinator for information on local medical centers and staff

where the card is honored and you can receive treatment, if necessary.

You may seek medical attention on your own, but must report any illness or accidents to your

coordinator. Any assault, rape, drugging or other serious crime OR legal action taken against

a participant must also be reported to your coordinator immediately.

About the Student ID Card:

Students abroad often receive discounted entrance fees to cultural sites, museums,

productions and other special events by showing a valid student ID card. Carry yours with

you as it is often used as a secondary proof of identity after the passport.

EMERGENCIES: HOW YOU WILL BE CONTACTED

Once an emergency has been confirmed, participants can expect contact from their program

coordinator in one of the following ways. There are three ways you may be contacted if there

is an emergency, including:

1. Telephone call to the cell phone number you provided to the Program Coordinator

2. Text messages (SMS) sent out to all cell phones with a brief message and instructions

3. E-mail sent out to all participants with a brief message and instructions

82

If you receive an emergency message, please respond that you received the message as soon

as possible and indicate where you are located. If you are part of a communications tree (see

below), please continue the message to the next participant as assigned.

Communications Tree

1. Program Coordinator contacts the program staff and SMU Police Department.

2. Program Staff contacts the participants.

EMERGENCIES: WHERE TO GO

Designated Locations in Case of Emergency

1. Primary Location: Podere La Vigna, Vespignano

2. Secondary Location: Vicchio, 44 Corso del Popolo

For Participants On-site at the Host Program Location and an Emergency Occurs:

If you are already at the primary or secondary location identified by your program

coordinator, stay put until you receive further notice.

If you are not at the one of the identified locations, but it is safe to go there, go to the

designated location, then contact your coordinator to let your group know where you

are.

If you are not at the one of the identified locations and it is not safe to move to the

designated location, but you are in a safe location, stay put. Let your coordinator

know where you are.

If you are not in a safe location and it is not safe to move, let your coordinator know

so that plans can be made to help you.

For Participants Away from the Host Location and an Emergency Occurs:

If an incident happens while traveling with the group, report to your hotel or other

designated safe place.

If you hear that there has been an emergency at the host location, stay in your current

location and try to contact the program coordinator to let your group know where you

are.

If an incident happens in the location where you are traveling independently, contact

the program coordinator and return safely to the host location, if possible. If not

possible, your coordinator will make plans to help you.

PROGRAM-SPECIFIC EMERGENCY CONTACT NUMBERS

Email: 24/7 Phone:

Dr. Warden: gwarden@fc.edu 368-7431616

Dr. Thomas mlthomas@mail.utexas.edu 338-3597297

83

Dr. Steiner ann.steiner@fandm.edu 333-8073272

Dr. Meyers gretchen.meyers@fandm.edu 333-7105928

Program Location: Vespignano, Vicchio (Firenze) Italy

Nearest Pharmacy: Vicchio, across from the train station

Nearest Hospital: Borgo San Lorenzo

SMU EMERGENCY CONTACT NUMBERS

SMU Police 001.214.6768.3333

Dean of Students, Dr. Lisa Webb 001.214.663.9175

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE OVERSEAS EMERGENCY 001.202.647.5225

84

EMERGENCY CALLING INSTRUCTIONS

SMU INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

In the event of an emergency while you are abroad, contact the appropriate on-

site staff – SMU Program Coordinator, Resident Director, other SMU faculty,

etc.

Should you be unable to reach local staff for help or if you need further assistance, call

HTH Worldwide (available 24 hours per day). The number is listed below and on your

HTH insurance card. Tell them your name and mention that you are an SMU student

on an international program. Explain where you are and what has happened.

HTH Worldwide Services: 001.610.254.254.8771 (toll-free from outside U.S.) OR 1.800.257.4823 (toll-free from inside U.S.) Visit the HTH website for local contact information: www.hthstudents.com

Appropriate reasons to call would include serious injury/hospitalization, legal

problems, safety issues (if for any reason you feel your environment has become

unsafe), etc.

For Non-Emergency but Serious Situations: Contact SMU Education Abroad Office during SMU business hours at

001.214.768.2338.

For Extremely Urgent Situations, and after contacting HTH Worldwide: If you need further assistance from SMU and cannot reach your program coordinator,

call:

SMU Police Department: 001.214.768.3333 The SMU Police will contact the Dean

of Students who will initiate the emergency response on the SMU campus.

85

Inside back cover:

To The Etruscan Poets

By Richard Wilbur

Dream fluently, still brothers, who when young

Took with your mother’s tongue,

In which pure matrix, joining word and mind,

You strove to leave some line of verse behind

Like a fresh track across a field of snow,

Not reckoning that all could melt and go.

86

BACK COVER:

Essential Information:

Excavation House:

Podere La Vigna Via Vespignano 169

50039 Vespignano (FI) ITALY

Use this address for all mail.

Excavation house phone: (055) 8449834 (from US dial 011-39 and then the phone number)

Cellular phones:

368 7431616 Greg Warden, Director 338 3597297 Michael Thomas, Director

333 807 3272 Ann Steiner, Director of Research 333 710 5928 Gretchen Meyers, Director of Materials

(From the US dial 011-39 and then the phone number: e.g., 011-39-368-

7431616 for Dr. Warden).