# Between the Middle Bronze Age and Final Bronze Age in Italy

Barbara Barbaro, Francesco Di Gennaro

► To cite this version:

Barbara Barbaro, Francesco Di Gennaro. Between the Middle Bronze Age and Final Bronze Age in Italy. Thibault Lachenal; Claude Mordant; Théophane Nicolas; Cécile Véber. Le Bronze moyen et l'origine du Bronze final en Europe occidentale (XVIIe-XIIIe siècle av. J.-C.). Actes du colloque international de l'APRAB, Strasbourg, 17-20 juin 2014, 1, AVAGE, pp.523-537, 2017, Mémoires d'archéologie du Grand Est, 978-2-9561936-0-9. hal-04829121

HAL Id: hal-04829121

https://hal.science/hal-04829121v1

Submitted on 10 Dec 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# BETWEEN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE AND FINAL BRONZE AGE IN ITALY

by B. Barbaro and F. di Gennaro

Unlike other areas of Europe, between the Middle Bronze Age (1700-1350 BCE) and the Final Bronze Age (1200-1000/950 BCE) in Italy a Recent Bronze Age (1350-1200 BCE) has been identified which is clearly definable for its own characteristics.

## Middle Bronze Age

The argument must be addressed starting with the Middle Bronze Age in the Italian peninsula; in the earliest phases of the Middle Bronze Age (MB1-2) there are two archaeological *facies*, *Grotta Nuova* in the centre and the *protoappenninico* (a shortened definition of the term “Protoappenninico B”: see Lo Porto 1963) in the South.

During the later Middle Bronze Age (MB3) there is a spread of the Apennine stylistic *facies*. This is characterized by a distinctive decorative style which persists for over a century, so that one could talk about “cultural uniformity”. At its greatest expansion, this stylistic aspect can be found in the Emilia-Romagna region, corresponding to the area east of the River Panaro and the whole of Central and Southern Italy. Similarities can also be found in the Milazzese phase of the Aeolian Islands.

In terms of chronology, the Apennine *facies* runs parallel to the LH IIIA and into an initial stage of the LH IIIB. It is characterised by a remarkable typological and stylistic coherence. The quest for regularity calls for a rational partition of the decorative space by adjusting individual motifs to the different forms of the vessels.

The decorative technique is characterised by using incision and engraving to form complex geometric patterns, albeit limited in number. The alternation of filled areas with blank spaces creates a photo chromic effect (Depalmas, di Gennaro 2007).

In short, the patterns can be classified as both rectilinear (including oblique ones) and curvilinear (as well as spirals). Sometimes the rational partition of the surface of the vessel is undertaken place prior to its decoration. The thin incision of a preparatory drawing (*sinopia*) is sometimes still visible on samples where the final decoration doesn't coincide perfectly with the guideline beneath (there are several examples in the Tenuta Radicicoli and via Prato La Corte in the North of Rome (Barbaro, di Gennaro 2009; Barbaro, di Gennaro 2015; D'Erme 2014) (fig. 1C).

Ugo Rellini was the first to note cultural aspects different to *terramaricoli* ones in Central and Southern Italy. This led him to deduce the presence of a phenomenon he defined as *extraterramaricolo*. He later coined the term *Appenninico* (Rellini 1916; Rellini 1932,) for those artefacts identified by their typical vascular decorations and for others used to process milk, such as milk-boilers. It was noticed that hilly open sites tended to be chosen for settlements. It should be remembered, however, that in those days the Bronze Age hadn't yet been divided into periods, so artefacts now defined as Apennine were simply attributed to the Bronze Age.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. **A**: Distribution of Apennine *facies* sites in relation to the mountain passes of the Apennine chain, from Puglisi (Puglisi 1959, fig. 1); **B**: Middle Bronze Age 3, geographical demarcation of local circles, Mid-Tyrrhenian (A), Mid-Adriatic (B), Biferno and Ofanto (C), North Campania (D), Southern Tyrrhenian (E), Apulia (F), Ionian (G) (from Cocchi Genick ed. 1995, tab. 2); **C**: Some examples of Apennine stylistic *facies*. **1-2.** Belverde di Cetona-Siena (from Calzoni 1962); **3-14.** Tenuta Radicicoli-Roma (from Barbaro, di Gennaro 2014); **15-16.** Luni sul Mignone-Viterbo (from Barbaro 2010); **17-25.** Colli delle Tre Cannelle-Roma (from Barbaro *et al.* 2012).</figcaption></figure>
The overall reconstructive scheme for the “Civiltà Appenninica” was drawn up by to Salvatore Maria Puglisi (Puglisi 1959; reviewed in Cazzella, Moscoloni 1988-89). Considering the strong similarity between material found on both the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian coasts, Puglisi suggested that the mountain passes of the Apennine chain could have been a contact area. This would have developed along an East-West axis between groups probably reliant on a prevalently rural economy, based on pastoral nomadism and seasonal movement (fig. 1A). Puglisi believed the period of development of the Apennine civilization corresponded to at least the whole of the Bronze Age, with antecedents in the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods; the whole of this period was considered shorter than as later reconstructed.

Renato Peroni was the first scholar to dedicate particular attention to chronological differences. Even before the publication of his book on the *Subappenninico* (Peroni 1959) he had identified a gap between the *Appenninico* and the *Subappenninico* in Central Italy, distinguishing two *Appenninico* groups: the Marche and the Southern Tyrrhenian (Peroni 1959).

Peroni referred to a chronologically tripartite system divided into *Appenninico*, *Subappenninico*, and *Protovillanoviano*. He observed, in later works as well, that the seasonal routes must have been short and that in most cases the groups related to the Apennine civilization were organized around permanent settlements (Peroni 1994). Moreover, settlements in the archaeological record have recently shown that the “Apennine civilization” was no more nomadic than previous or later periods, revealing a strong, progressive trend towards stabilization and permanent settlements. As early as the Middle Bronze Age the socio-political setting of the territory seems to have been characterized by the emergence of a large number of autonomous centres, defined as *polycentric* communities. In other words the territory was scattered with several villages, one of which could have been (but not necessarily) in some way pre-eminent (Peroni, di Gennaro 1986).

Following Massimo Pallottino's proposal (Pallottino 1965) Peroni, along with most other scholars, adopted the terminology Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Recent Bronze Age and Final Bronze Age (Del Fattore 2006).

Returning to the Middle Bronze 3, more recent in depth analysis of the Apennine decorative style has identified specific characteristics of its decorative language. These include Ida Macchiarola's work in 1987 (Macchiarola 1987) as part of a broader chrono-typological project studying Middle Bronze Age pottery on the Italian peninsular (Cocchi Genick ed., 1995). Working from the different styles Macchiarola managed to distinguish eight local circles. These circles lay in part in Northern Italy (essentially Emilia-Romagna), the Mid-Adriatic, Tuscany/Umbria, the Mid-Tyrrhenian (Biferno and Ofanto), north Campania, the Southern Tyrrhenian and the Ionian (Apulia-Basilicata and Calabria) (fig. 1B). In the Biferno and Ofanto group she also managed to distinguish two stylistic leanings whose main distinctive features concern two chronologically separate moments (Macchiarola 1995).

Working from the diffusion of decorative patterns Puglisi's theoretical East-West exchange route was confirmed.

## Recent Bronze Age: the *Subappenninico*

In Peroni's 1959 *opus* mentioned above the gap between the Middle Bronze Age and the Recent Bronze Age was identified. It defines the *Subappenninico* cultural aspect as a chronological phase in its own right, characterized by the spread of undecorated pottery and types of vessels with handles topped with representations of animals (fig. 2).

With the transition to what would later become known as the Recent Bronze, the classic incised Apennine decoration abruptly vanishes in some areas. Instead undecorated pottery vessels with elaborate sculptural handles spread through most of continental Italy and the northeast coast of Sicily (Damiani 2010).

The earliest *Subappenninico* ware is characterized by the prevalence of raised animal shaped handles of the following classes: straight-cylindrical (“cilindro retta”), horned, with a bilateral head, bird headed and lobed; handles
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Principal pottery types during Recent Bronze Age (Subapennine facies) in Central and Southern Italy; A: Recent Bronze Age 1; B: Recent Bronze Age 2 (reworking from Damiani 2010).</figcaption></figure>
with horned elbows. Subsequently the overall amount and number of different types of raised handles decreases, leaving the two holed handles (“bifore”) largely prevalent.

During the final stage of the MB3 some artefacts act as a prelude to the Recent Bronze Age. These include the bird-headed handles; the details obtained by engraving or incision distinguish them from later ones (Damiani 1985), as well as some types of horned handles whose strange “handlebar” appearance differs from later types (Damiani 1991). Compared to the Apennine repertoire there is a clear change in pottery production.

There is, however, a certain amount of continuity in the production of undecorated pottery. This is documented in both the Appennine and Subapennine *facies* and includes bowls with an introflexed rim, situlae, vessels with an internal ledge, mugs, some types of jars (*olle*), neck-vessels, strainers and even carinated bowls.

Contemporarily to this development a common European metallurgical *koinè* emerges, which implies a spread of specific models of weapons, ornaments and tools. This is related to a general intensification of trade involving a growing commercial network with other Mediterranean regions thanks to Mycenaean sailors (Carancini, Peroni 1997).

We well know that during the Middle Bronze Age large coastal areas of the peninsula were regurarily frequented by people from the Aegean. It's during the Recent Bronze Age that this phenomenon takes on significant proportions. There is a large scale spread of locally produced Mycenaean type wheel-thrown painted pottery made from depurated clay. There is also a singular category of uniformly grey wheel-thrown pottery, as well as large containers similar to Aegean *pithoi* (Bettelli 2004).

As has already been mentioned the trend towards a cultural unification characteristic of the Recent Bronze Age in Italy is due to the spread of Subapennine *facies* throughout the central and southern regions, including the Aeolian islands, and as far as North-East Emilia and Romagna.

The northernmost regions, between the Alps and the rivers Serio and Oglio, today's Liguria, Piedmont and Western Lombardy, are characterized by the spread of the Viverone *facies* and of the Scamozzina and Canegrate cultures. This is a territory that shows few ties and affinities with the rest of the peninsula.

The greatest expansion of palafitticoli lakeside settlements (De Marinis 2007) can be found in the subalpine and hilly areas of central northern Italy (today's Eastern Lombardy, Trentino, Veneto lowlands, Emilia and Friuli). On the Po Plain (Pianura Padana) in the provinces of Modena, Reggio Emilia, Parma and Piacenza to the South of the River Po the *Terramare* culture develops from the Middle Bronze Age onwards. It is characterised by fortified quadrangular villages, bordered by ramparts (or palisades in the earlier phases) and ditches. During the Recent Bronze Age the pottery is distinguished from that of central and southern Subapennine for its decorative style. This includes grooves, narrow furrows (*solcature*) and circular dimples (*cuppelle*) (Cardarelli 2010). Though this cultural-stylistic sphere is distinct from the pottery production of peninsular Italy, it has been demonstrated that some of the most typical tracts of the Subapennine *facies*, such as some types of handles, were absorbed by the *Terramare* culture (Damiani 2004) and vice versa. The particularly characteristic decorative taste of *Terramaricolo* RB2 went on to influence pottery styles beyond the Po Plain as far as Northern Tuscany and into Campania and Puglia (Cardarelli 2010).

Unlike the MB3, now pottery models would appear to have mainly travelled along a North-South axis. This is especially true of the final phase of this period (RB2) when there is a notable circulation northwards of southern forms and other main elements characteristic of the Subappenninico, especially along the Adriatic coast. The same can be said of northern elements penetrating the South, for example the narrow furrow decoration (*solcature*). This ties in with the intensification of commerce between the Aegean world and Continental Europe and lies at the heart of the formation of the *Metallurgical Koinè* (Peroni 1994).

The transition to the Final Bronze Age in Italy is defined on the basis of the spread of “cultural” entities. These correspond especially to archaeological *facies* especially of a funerary nature. These were previously labelled
*Protovillanoviano* (Patroni 1937), a term sometimes still used in a generic sense. The Protovillanovan *facies* are nowadays preferably dated to the Final Bronze Age. They were for a long time considered “transitional” (from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age) because of the emphasis on the fact that they seemed to lead up to the Early Iron Age *facies*.

## Final Bronze Age

The Final Bronze Age groups are characterized by pottery types that in some areas in the early stages (BF1-2) still have points in common with the Recent Bronze Age. They later (BF3) evolve into a more articulated system with an increasingly complex decorative syntax.

The Final Bronze Age runs parallel to the central part and the beginning of the final part of the Urnfield Culture (periods Hallstatt A, B1 and B2). During this period along the peninsula a progressive population growth is documented (except on the Southern Po plain which undergoes a crisis and the disappearance of the *Terramare*). There are deep social changes in the community accompanied by the spread of cremation as the funerary ritual in the northern and central regions, and more sporadically in the South.

The stylistic features of the Final Bronze Age, still generically defined *Protovillanoviano*, cover most of the Italian mainland and Northern Sicily, including the Aeolian Islands. The pottery is mainly characterized by biconical vessels (urns) and carinated forms (bowls, cups). These are decorated with grooves, clusters of narrow furrow decoration (*solcature*), dragged-comb impressions, cord-impressed lines (*cordicella*) and circular dimples (*cuppelle*), which differ over a wide range of local situations. In the North the cultural aspects of the Final Bronze Age are labelled Protogolasecca in Eastern Piedmont and Western Lombardy; in Eastern Lombardy and the Veneto as Protoveneto; in Southeastern Piedmont and Liguria as Protoligure. They represent the formative period of the future Iron Age cultures ("*Golasecchiani*", *Veneti and Liguri*).

In parts of Southern Italy (mainly Puglia and Calabria) alongside the impasto pottery with its classical decoration of grooves and circular dimples (*cuppelle*) a new production of painted pottery emerges called “Oenotrian-Iapigian Protogeometric”. It is made from depurated clay and the decoration includes Protovillanovan patterns. The painted motifs translate the groove-traced decoration typical of the Final Bronze Age (Alessandri *et al.* 2004).

The Final Bronze Age was divided by Carancini and Peroni into three phases, marked by distinct associations of metal artefacts; Phase 1 is represented by a small number of metal types and is found mainly along the Po Plain (Carancini, Peroni 1999); the other phases are well represented throughout the territory.

As already said, the earliest phase of the Final Bronze Age is characterized by its similarity to the pottery and above all the decorative assortment of the *Terramare* RB2. This phenomenon has been subject to long debate and interpreted differently by various authors. Essentially they are split between “*invasionisti*” and “*autoctonisti*”. The former include Luigi Pigorini who, basing his argument on the spread of *Urnenfelderkultur*, suggested an invasion of transalpine peoples reaching Italy from the Danube region to produce the “Terramare culture”. Later these would abandon their settlements and move South to Timmari and Taranto generating the “Villanovan culture” (Pigorini 1903).

Giovanni Patroni opposed this theory, defending instead the autochthony of the Italic peoples. He was responsible for coining of the term *Protovillanoviano* in order to emphasize the progression of the “Villanovan culture” from the Proto-villanovan (Patroni 1937).

This is not the place to expound upon the ideas of all the scholars that ensued and we will merely highlight the most recent. Particular emphasis will be placed on the close affinity of the earliest phase of the Final Bronze Age with the *Terramare* Recent Bronze Age 2.
Isabella Damiani has noted that pottery types like neck-bowls decorated with wide vertical grooves are char-
acteristic of the final stages of the Recent Bronze Age in the Po Valley, but are also present in settlements such as
Frattesina that continue into the Final Bronze Age. These decorations clearly derive from the Recent Bronze Age
tradition and therefore cannot be regarded as influenced by the Protovillanovan style of central Italy. On the contrary
they should be considered its forerunners (Damiani 2004; Damiani 2010).

Andrea Cardarelli, recently argued that the disappearance of the *Terramare* in the Late Bronze Age (probably due to a significant disparity between population growth and economic potential, aggravated by a prolonged period of drought) must have caused strong geopolitical changes in the rest of Italy during the first phase of the Final Bronze Age. The end of the *Terramare*, which had represented the most advanced expression of Middle Bronze Age and Recent Bronze Age society in Central and Northern Italy, represents the doorway to an epochal change in Italian protohistory. This event would have caused far-reaching changes including new socio-political and cultural aggregations that must have left their mark on the final centuries of the Bronze Age (Cardarelli 2010).

It has been repeatedly stressed that a part of Northern Italy, inland Tuscany, Romagna, Umbria and Northern
and Central Marche feature many elements in common with the tradition of the Po Plain especially during the
advanced Recent Bronze Age. This is particularly true of the decorative repertoire consisting of grooves, circular
dimples (*cuppelle*) and angular or wavy motifs. During the Final Bronze Age in these same areas we find a similar
pottery decoration or patterns closely derived from them. The same phenomenon is recorded, with varying degrees
of frequency, in some areas of Southern Italy and in particular in almost all of Campania and Puglia. Inspired by
the tradition of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (first book of *Roman Antiquities*) this phenomenon is interpreted as
the result of the movement of small groups that become bearers of a different kind of culture, affecting local pop-
ulations; therefore not “colonisers”, but “refugees” in a sort of *diaspora* that followed the collapse of the *Terramare*
system (Cardarelli 2010, 472 ff) (fig. 3).

A similar phenomenon of disintegration also hit the system of *palafitticoli* lakeside and river bank settlements in the North-East Po Plain. Giovanni Leonardi noted, however, that in this area the decline did not involve the system of settlements in the foothills (Leonardi 2006). As a result during the Final Bronze Age this territory would go on to become the direct heir of both the *palafitticola* and *terramaricola* cultures (Leonardi 2010, 548). This phenomenon is called “continuity in discontinuity” and is characterized by the manifestation of a wealth of pottery forms and decoration. The Final Bronze Age is a “melting pot” of *palafitticolo-terramaricoli* and foreign elements from the Urnfield area arriving via one of the metal trade routes. Anna Maria Sestieri’s hypothesis (Bietti Sestieri 1998) that the Veneto plain was subject to a Tyrrhenian colonization, in particular in the initial Final Bronze Age, would appear to be discredited. Leonardi suggests instead “connective widespread flows” both with Tuscany and with the Adriatic peninsular area, so that Recent and Final Bronze Age models would have travelled from the Venetian/Po Plain area towards the Tyrrhenian and not vice versa. Frattesina is seen as a magnet for the Tyrrhenian area as well (mentioning Cardarelli 2000). It was a point of reference for the acquisition of raw materials, their elaboration and trade for much of Northern and Central Italy.

Leonardi goes on to identify two separate metal supply lines during the Final Bronze Age, related to two separate territorial entities: one revolves around “transmission” between the Aegean, Adriatic and Alpine area, the other, on the Tyrrhenian side, has an autochthonous “self sufficient” character (Leonardi 2010).

This self-sufficiency of mid-Tyrrhenian Italy, including Southern *Etruria* and Ancient *Latium*, may even partly go back to the Recent Bronze Age. In this period the Subapennine material shows no affinities with contemporary material from the Po Plain.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. **A**: Decorative motifs typical of the Terramare during the advanced phase of the Recent Bronze Age (reworking from Cardarelli 2010); **B**: decorative motifs from the advanced phase of the Recent Bronze Age, similar in style to those in Terramare in Tuscany (reworking from Cardarelli 2010); **C**: decorative motifs from the advanced phase of the Recent Bronze Age and initial phase of the Final Bronze Age, similar in style to those in Terramare, in Campania (reworking from Cardarelli 2010); **D**: decorative motifs from the advanced phase of the Recent Bronze Age and initial phase of the Final Bronze Age, similar in style to those in Terramare, in Apulia (reworking from Cardarelli 2010); **E**: decorative motifs from the advanced phase of the Recent Bronze Age and initial phase of the Final Bronze Age, similar in style to those in Terramare, in Calabria (reworking from Cardarelli 2010) (scale 1:8).</figcaption></figure>
## Focussing the trend in South Etruria

Sticking to the Tyrrhenian area, we propose a deeper analysis of the territory of Southern Etruria (between the Tiber and the Fiora rivers). This area embraces Central-Northern Lazio, the western part of Umbria and the southern part of Tuscany.

This territory has been the subject of numerous protohistorical research projects. For the most part these were intensive fieldwalking surveys with only limited excavation (di Gennaro 1979; Pacciarelli 1979; Cardarelli et al. 1980; Pacciarelli 1982; Bietti Sestieri 1984; di Gennaro 1986; di Gennaro 1990; di Gennaro 1991-92; Mandolesi 1999; Pacciarelli 2001; Schiappelli 2008).

These have provided the circumstances for a detailed analysis of population systems, making a fundamental contribution to the debate on the origins of the ancient cities of Etruria.

By comparing the morphology of a settlement site with its chronology several scholars have proved that from the Middle Bronze Age on in Southern Etruria, next to the villages in an “open” position, on a plain or undefended outcrops, other settlements began to spring up on characteristic hilltops with a naturally “defended area” (i.e. a unified space, separated and raised above the surrounding area). Take for example the so-called *castelline*, orographic formations with a nearly flat top and overhanging edges around much of the perimeter, the result of natural erosion (di Gennaro 2006).

Already by the Middle Bronze Age, and very much so during the Recent Bronze Age, communities began to abandon many “open” positions in preference for hills and plateaus. These offered better protection through a phenomenon described as the “progressive selection and concentration of the settlement”. This consists of the consolidation of settlements within a “defended area” and culminates at the end of the Final Bronze Age.

Initially the total number of settlements is very high but there is a gradual contraction as the size of the surviving settlement sites tends to grow. The individual settlements increasingly assume a role as the centre of a territorial district. By classifying settlements based on their “defensive potential” (high-medium-low) you can clearly see that this parameter progressively increases over the long period in question (fig. 4). So, perhaps in the Recent Bronze Age, and surely in the Final Bronze Age, hilltop centres became numerically dominant (di Gennaro 1990; di Gennaro, Barbaro 2008a; di Gennaro, Barbaro 2008b).

The decision to change location noted during the Recent Bronze Age continues gradually through the course of the Final Bronze Age. In the early stages the badly defended and “open” centres were still numerous but these were gradually abandoned during the transition to the terminal phase of the Final Bronze Age. In this period almost all of these Bronze Age villages were abandoned and the mass occupation of the great “urban plateaus” takes place (Orvieto, Vulci, Bisenzo, Tarquinia, Cerveteri, Veio) (fig. 4). It has been emphasized that in the terminal phase of the Final Bronze Age we can consider the “prevalence of a balance in size and role between the major centres, before the foundation of protourban settlements” (di Gennaro 2000).

As for the archaeological record the pottery production and stylistic evidence in Southern Etruria corroborates the spread of the Apennine *facies* during MB3 and of the Subapennine *facies* during the Recent Bronze Age. It's necessary to highlight the fact that for the Final Bronze Age in this geographical area it hasn't yet been possible to determine a satisfactory distinction between BF1 and BF2 as in the rest of the peninsula, especially in the North. Unlike on the Po Plain, in Southern Etruria types of metal objects exclusive to the earliest phase of the Final Bronze Age (FB1) have not yet been identified. The Final Bronze Age has therefore been divided between the Tolfa phase (Final Bronze Age 2 = FB2), corresponding to the middle period, and the Allumiere phase, corresponding to the terminal period (Final Bronze Age 3 = FB3) (Peroni 1980). The scarce amount of Early Final Bronze Age evidence is emphasized, albeit in a different way, by scholars who have been involved in studying this territory. They refer to a FB1-2 or, more rarely (Domanico 1998; Negroni 1998), to a RB-FB1, essentially denying the autonomy of a local FB1.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Southern Etruria: distribution of settlements during Middle Bronze Age 3, Recent Bronze Age, Final Bronze Age 1-2, Final Bronze Age 3 and related diagrams of defensive potential.</figcaption></figure>
In spite of a lack of a punctual formalisation of the internal chronology of the Final Bronze Age in Southern Etruria it has been possible to delineate a gradual typological and stylistic development of the material culture, especially for the pottery (Pacciarelli 2001; Barbaro 2010).

In general it could be said that pottery decoration during the early sub-phases of the Final Bronze Age is characterised by grooves, narrow furrow decoration (*solcature*), cord-impressed lines, circular dimples (*cuppelle*) and vertical or oblique grooves, arranged mainly in linear or zigzag patterns. These are present on unarticulated biconical jars, carinated bowls/cups and large unarticolated bowls (*scodelle*) with introflexed rims. From the FB3 on there is an apparent innovation in style with a sudden increase in the number of patterns. The dragged-comb technique is strongly increased. There is an evident increase in the trend towards a standardization that culminates at the end of the period with the decorative patterns that precede the Villanovan. The decoration becomes increasingly extensive and is often organized on several bands, on vessel forms that gradually become more complex and rounded (fig. 5).

If we observe the stylistic development of the material from the Southern Etrurian Final Bronze Age we can say that the decorative schemes that emerge at the start of the period appear similar to those from the North, which, as we have noted, have already influenced other peninsular areas from RB2. Apparently it's only from the early Final Bronze Age, and not prior to this, that the territory comes into contact with a different decorative language (or with its bearer groups, if we accept the idea of the *diaspora*); this decorative style adapts to the local forms of production, sometimes still bonded to the Subapennine (for example, bird-headed handles, though stylized, are still widespread in the Final Bronze Age, as well as rigid carinated forms typical of the Recent Bronze Age).

If vessel shapes characterising the initial decades of the Final Bronze Age of Southern Etruria and of the whole of Mid-Tyrrhenian Italy can be considered directly derived from those of the local Recent Bronze Age, the same cannot be said for their decoration. In the Subapennine pottery from this territory, "drawn" decorations are rare and have different and autonomous characteristics as opposed to those elaborated in the North; they appear if anything derived from the late Apennine: take for example the urn of tomb 31 of Cavallo Morto near Anzio (Angle *et al.* 2004) and the context of Fosso Vaccina at Cerveteri (Barbaro *et al.* 2012).

It may be that the introduction of "northern" decoration happened some time after the start of the Final Bronze Age, corresponding to the Tolfa phase (FB2) and that the FB1 phase, still searching for a place on the podium, was characterized by still poorly decorated ceramics.

The impression remains, however, that the external influence concerning the decorative style, once absorbed by the local groups, was developed in a completely autonomous nature, with a strong local identity, as appears from the development of the decorative style of the more advanced stages of the FB3. This is somewhat unique compared to the rest of the peninsula, where the same level of syntactic complexity is not reached.

Local development leads directly to the ornamental Villanovan repertoire of the Early Iron Age; in some ways, and surely from a stylistic point of view, it can be argued that the FB3 in southern Etruria represents an authentic "pre-Villanovan".
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. Southern Etruria: decorative motifs typical during Final Bronze Age 1-2 (A) and during Final Bronze Age 3 (B) (from Östenberg 1967; Hellström 1975; Marcus 1984; di Gennaro 1986; Negroni 1995; Barbaro 2010, scale 1:8).</figcaption></figure>
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alessandri *et al*. 2004: Alessandri (L.), Cassetta (I.), Gatti (D.) – Il Bronzo Finale nella Calabria settentrionale, *Atti della XXXVII Riunione Scientifica dell'Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria- Preistoria e protostoria della Calabria*.

Angle et al 2004: Angle (M.), di Gennaro (F.), Guidi (A.), Tusa (S.) – La necropoli ad incinerazione di Cavallo Morto (Anzio, Roma). *In: L'età del bronzo recente in Italia (Atti Congresso Nazionale, Lido di Camaiore, 26-29 ottobre 2000)*, Città di Castello-Viareggio, 125-140.

Barbaro 2010: Barbaro (B.) – Insediamenti, aree funerarie ed entità territoriali in Etruria meridionale nel Bronzo Finale, *Grandi contesti e problemi della Protostoria italiana*, 14, Firenze.

Barbaro, di Gennaro 2009: Barbaro (B.), di Gennaro (F.) – L’abitato del Bronzo antico e medio di Radicioli Maffei (Roma), l’indagine sul campo e prima analisi della ceramica, *Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma*, 9-56.

Barbaro, di Gennaro 2015: Barbaro (B.), di Gennaro (F.) – L’abitato del Bronzo Antico e Medio di Radicicoli Maffei. 2. Lo scavo nell'area del Bronzo Medio 3 a sud del Raccordo Anulare e i nuovi materiali appenninici (Municipio III ex IV), *Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma*, CXIV, 263-275.

Barbaro *et al*. 2012: Barbaro (B), Schiappelli (A.), Trucco (F.) – Il complesso appenninico di Colli delle Tre Cannelle (Torrimpietra - Fiumicino) e il Bronzo Medio 3 nel comprensorio tirrenico-sabatino, *Atti Preistoria e Protostoria in Etruria, X*, 385-397.

Barbaro *et al* 2012: Barbaro (B.), Bettelli (M.), Damiani (I.), De Angelis (D.), Minniti (C.), Trucco (F.) – Etruria meridionale e Mediterraneo nella Tarda età del Bronzo, Le Origini degli Etruschi, Roma, 195-248.

Bettelli 2004: Bettelli (M.) – Elementi del Bronzo Recente dell’Italia continentale al di là delle Alpi e nel Mediterraneo orientale. *In: Atti del Congresso Nazionale “L’età del bronzo recente in Italia” (Lido di Camaiore 26-29 Ottobre 2000)*, Firenze, 301-311.

Bietti Sestieri 1984 (a cura di): Bietti Sestieri (A.M.) (a cura di) – *Preistoria e protostoria nel territorio di Roma, Lavori e studi di archeologia pubblicati dalla Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma*, 3, Roma.

Bietti Sestieri 1998: Bietti Sestieri (A.M.) – L’Italia in Europa nella prima età del ferro: una proposta di ricostruzione storica. *Archcl*, L, 1-67.

Calzoni 1962: Calzoni (U.) – Le stazioni preistoriche della montagna di Cetona. Belverde. II,1. La ceramica, *Quaderni di “Studi Etruschi”* serie I, vol. 2.

Carancini, Peroni 1997; Carancini (G.L.), Peroni (R.) – La koiné metallurgica. *In: Bernabò Brea (M.), Cardarelli (A.)*, Cremaschi (M.) (a cura di) – *Le Terramare. La più antica civiltà padana, Catalogo della Mostra*, Milano, 595-601.

Carancini, Peroni 1999: Carancini (G.L.), Peroni (R.) – L’età del bronzo in Italia: per una cronologia della produzione metallurgica, *Quaderni di Protostoria*, 2, Perugia.

Cardarelli 2000: Cardarelli (A.) – I passi appenninici. *In: Il Protovillanoviano al di qua e al di là dell'Appennino. Atti della giornata di Studio (Pavia 17 Giugno 1995)*, Como, 85-97.

Cardarelli 2010: Cardarelli (A.) – The collapse of the terramare culture and growth of new economic and social system during the Late Bronze Age in Italy, *Scienze dell'Antichità*, 15, 449-520.

Cardarelli *et al* 1980: Cardarelli (A.), di Gennaro (F.), Guidi (A.), Pacciarelli (M.) – Le ricerche di topografia protostorica nel Lazio, *Il Bronzo Finale in Italia (A.M.P. 1)*, Manduria-Bari, 91-103.

Cazzella, Moscoloni 1988-89: Cazzella (A.), Moscoloni (M.) – *La Civiltà Appenninica: prospettive di ricerca*, Origini XIV, 2, 399-419.

D'Erme 2014: D'Erme (L.) – Un rinvenimento dell'età del Bronzo nell'agro veientano. *Etruria in Progress. La ricerca archeologica in Etruria meridionale*, Roma, 22-23.

Damiani 1985: Damiani (I.) – Rappresentazioni zoomorfe nella tarda età del bronzo italiana, Tesi di laurea discussa nell'A.A. 1985, presso l'Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, 1985.

Damiani 1991: Damiani (I.) – Aspetti ceramici dell'età del bronzo recente in Italia peninsulare e nelle isole Eolie: la facies subappenninica a trent'anni dalla sua definizione, *Dialoghi di Archeologia*, vol. 1 e 2, 3° serie, anno 9, 5-33.

Damiani 2004: Damiani (I.) – Circolazione dei modelli e organizzazione della manifattura. *In: Cocchi Genick (D.)* (a cura di) – *L'età del bronzo recente in Italia*, Firenze, Lucca, 243-254.

Damiani 2010: Damiani (I.) – *L'età del Bronzo Recentell nell'Italia centro-meridionale. Grandi contesti e problemi della Protostoria italiana*, 12, Firenze.

Del Fattore 2006: Del Fattore (F.) – La definizione delle fasi più antiche dell'età del Bronzo in area mediotirrenica: stato della questione, *Studi in Onore di Renato Peroni*, Firenze, 723-732.

De Marinis 2007: De Marinis (R.C.) – *Studi sull'abitato dell'età del Bronzo del Lavagnone di Desenzano del Garda*, Desenzano del Garda.

Depalmas, di Gennaro 2007: Depalmas (A.), di Gennaro (F.) – Il linguaggio della decorazione appaenninica. *In: Atti del Sesto Incontro di Studi “Preistoria e Protostoria in Etruria” Miti Simboli Decorazioni*, I, Milano, 155-163.

di Gennaro 1979: di Gennaro (F.) – Topografia dell'insediamento della media età del bronzo nel Lazio, *Archeologia Laziale* II, 148-156.

di Gennaro 1986: di Gennaro (F.) – *Forme di insediamento tra Tevere e Fiora dal Bronzo finale al principio dell'età del ferro*, Firenze.
di Gennaro 1990: di Gennaro (F.) – Aspetti delle ricerche sull'as- setto territoriale dell'area mediotirrenica in età protostorica, *Gedenkschrift für J. Driehaus*, Mainz am Rhein, 203-224.

di Gennaro 1991-92: di Gennaro (F.) – Materiali da siti della Tuscia, *Rassegna di Archeologia* 10, 710-711.

di Gennaro 2000: di Gennaro (F.) – Paesaggi di potere: l'Etruria meridionale in età protostorica, Paesaggi di potere. Problemi e prospettive, *Quaderni di Evtopia*, 2, 95-119

di Gennaro 2006: di Gennaro (F.) – Individuazione, formulazione e percezione comune di caratteri significativi degli insediamen- ti protostorici, *Studi di Protostoria in onore di Renato Peroni*. Firenze, 485-494.

di Gennaro, Barbaro 2008a: di Gennaro (F.), Barbaro (B.) – Territori e paesaggi mediotirrenici nella mente dei protostorici, *Atti Preistoria e Protostoria in Etruria*, VIII, 151-156.

di Gennaro, Barbaro 2008b: di Gennaro (F.), Barbaro (B.) – Tabella riassuntiva degli insediamenti dell'età del bronzo dell'Etruria meridionale. *In: Atti Preistoria e Protostoria in Etruria*, 129-150.

Domanico 1998: Domanico (L.) – Analisi degli indicatori cro- nologici dalle necropoli del Bronzo Finale in Etruria. *In: Atti Preistoria e Protostoria in Etruria* III, 53-78.

Hellström 1975: Hellström (P.) – *The Zone of the Large Iron Age Building, Acta. Inst. Rom. R. Sueciae* XXVII (Luni sul Mignone), II, 2.

Leonardi 2006: Leonardi (G.) – L'insediamento nell'ambito collinare e montano veneto nell'età del Bronzo: il territorio Veronese e Vicentino, *Studi di Protostoria in onore di Renato Peroni*. Firenze, 435-444.

Leonardi 2010: Leonardi (G.) – Le premesse alla formazione dei centri protourbani nel Veneto, *Scienze dell'Antichità*, 15, 547- 554.

Lo Porto 1963: Lo Porto (F. G.) – La stazione preistorica di Porto Perone. *In: Notizie Scavi*, LXXXVIII, 367 et seq.

Macchiarola 1987: Macchiarola (I.) – *La ceramica appenninica decorata*, Roma.

Macchiarola 1995: Macchiarola (I.) – La facies appenninica. *In: Cocchi Genick (D.) – Aspetti culturali della media età del bronzo nell'Italia centro meridionale*, 441-463.

Malcus 1984: Malcus (B.) – Area D (Ovest), *San Giovenale. Materiali e problemi*, Stockolm, 37-47.

Mandolesi 1999: Mandolesi (A.) – *La prima Tarquinia. L'insediamento protostorico sulla Civita e nel territorio circostante, Grandi contesti e problemi della Protostoria italiana*, 2, Firenze.

Negroni 1998: Negroni Catacchio (N.) – Proposta di una scansione cronologica del Bronzo finale nel territorio tra Fiora e Albegna, *Atti Preistoria e Protostoria in Etruria III*, Firenze, 79-91.

Negroni 1995: Negroni Catacchio (N.) – *Sorgenti della Nova l'abi- tato del Bronzo Finale*, Firenze.

Östenberg 1961: Östenberg (C.E.) – Luni sul Mignone- Prima campagna di scavi. *In: Not. Sc.*, 103-124

Östenberg 1967: Östenberg (C.E.) – *Luni sul Mignone e problemi della preistoria d'Italia, Acta. Inst. Rom. R. Sueciae*, 25.

Östenberg 1969: Östenberg (C.E.) – Edificio monumentale dell'età del ferro scoperto a Luni. *In: Atti del I Simposio Int. Prot. It.*, Orvieto, 155-164.

Pacciarelli 1979: Pacciarelli (M.) – Topografia dell'insediamento dell'età del bronzo recente nel Lazio, *Archeologia Laziale* II, 161-170.

Pacciarelli 1982: Pacciarelli (M.) – Economia e organizzazione del territorio in Etruria meridionale nell'età del bronzo media e recente, *Dialoghi di Archeologia*, 4, 2, 69 et seq.

Pacciarelli 2001: Pacciarelli (M.) – *Dal villaggio alla città. La svolta protourbana del 1000 a.C. nell'Italia tirrenica. Grandi contesti e problemi della Protostoria italiana*, 4, Firenze.

Pallottino 1965: Pallottino (M.) – Proposta di una classificazione e di una terminologia delle fasi culturali del bronzo e del Ferro in Italia. *In: Atti del VI Congresso internazionale di Scienze Preistoriche e protostoriche*, II, Roma, 396-403.

Patroni 1937: Patroni (G.) – *La preistoria*, Milano.

Peroni 1959: Peroni (R.) – Per una definizione dell'aspetto culturale “subappenninico” come fase cronologica a sé stante, *Memorie Acc. Lincei*, IX, 3-253.

Peroni 1980: Peroni (R.) – Sui limiti geografici della facies medio-tirrenica del Bronzo Finale verso l'Etruria inter- na, *Annali della Fondazione per il Museo "Claudio Faina"*, I, Orvieto, 73-78.

Peroni 1994: Peroni (R.) – *Introduzione alla protostoria italiana*, Bari.

Peroni, di Gennaro 1986: Peroni (R.), di Gennaro (F.) – Aspetti regionali dello sviluppo dell'insediamento protostorico nell'Ita- lia centromeridionale alla luce dei dati archeologici ed ambien- tali, *Dialoghi di Archeologia*, III2, 193-200.

Pigorini 1903: Pigorini (L.) – Le più antiche civiltà dell'Italia, *Bulllettino Paletnologia Italiana*, 24, 202 et seq.

Puglisi 1959: Puglisi (S.M.) – *La civiltà appenninica*, Firenze.

Rellini 1916: Rellini (U.) – La caverna di Latronico e il culto delle acque salutari nell'età del bronzo, *Monumenti Antichi*, 24, 461 et seq.

Rellini 1932: Rellini (U.) – Le stazioni enee delle Marche di fase seriore e la civiltà italica, *Monumenti Antichi*, 34, 129 et seq.

Schiappelli 2008: Schiappelli (A.) – *Sviluppo storico della Teverina nell'età del bronzo e nella prima età del ferro. Grandi contesti e problemi della Protostoria italiana*, 11, Firenze.
## Auteurs

Barbara BARBARO, Archeologo MiBACT; barbarobarbara1971@gmail.com

Francesco di GENNARO, Dirigente Archeologo MiBACT; francescodig@gmail.com

## Notice catalographique

Barbaro, di Gennaro 2017 : Barbaro (B.), di Gennaro (F.) – Between the Middle Bronze Age and Final Bronze Age in Italy. In : Lachenal (T.), Mordant (C.), Nicolas (T.), Véber (C.) (dir.) – *Le Bronze moyen et l'origine du Bronze final en Europe occidentale, de la Méditerranée aux pays nordiques (xviᵉ-xiiiᵉ siècle avant notre ère)*, Colloque APRAB "Bronze 2014", Strasbourg 17 au 20 juin 2014, Strasbourg, 521-535 (Mémoires d'Archéologie du Grand-Est 1).

## Abstract

Unlike other areas of Europe, in Italy between the Middle Bronze Age (1700-1300 BC) and the Late Bronze Age (1200-1000/950 BC) there's a period known as Recent Bronze (1300-1200 BC).

During the advanced Middle Bronze, we are witnessing the spread of *apennines facies* characterized by a particular style decorative grave and hacked corresponding to a long period of "cultural" uniformity.

With the transition to the Recent Bronze Age classical, *apennines* engraved decoration tends to disappear and spreads rather a plastic taste characterized by undecorated pottery and elaborate plastic handles, spreading over a large part of the Italian mainland and beyond, from the Alps to the north-east coast of Sicily. In conjunction with this development occurs a *metallurgical koinè*, as evidenced by the spread of accurate models of weapons, ornaments, tools related to a general intensification of trade with the Mediterranean regions of which the Mycenaean navigators are central protagonists. In many regions of Italy there is also the phenomenon of "progressive concentration and settlement selection" in order to which since the Middle Bronze Age to the First Iron the systems including inhabited defended areas are consolidated, with increasingly central roles.

## Résumé

Contrairement à d'autres régions d'Europe, en Italie entre l'âge du Bronze moyen (1700-1300 av. J.-C) et l'âge du Bronze final (1200-1000/950 av. J.-C.) est présente une période correspondant au Bronze récent (1300-1200 av. J.-C).

Au cours de la dernière partie de l'âge du Bronze moyen, on assiste à la propagation du *faciès apenninique* caractérisé par un style décoratif particulier gravé et entaillé correspondant à une longue période d'uniformité "culturelle".

Avec le passage à l'âge du Bronze récent, ce choix décoratif disparaît et se propagent plutôt des ornements plastiques qui se traduisent par une poterie non décorée et par des anses complexes, souvent zoomorphes, qui s'étendent sur une grande partie de l'Italie continentale et au-delà, des Préalpes à la côte nord-est de la Sicile. En même temps que cette évolution se produit la "koinè européenne métallurgique", dont témoigne la diffusion de modèles précis d'armes, d'ornements et d'outils liés à une intensification générale du commerce avec les régions du Centre de la Méditerranée dont les protagonistes sont les marins mycéniens. Dans de nombreuses régions de l'Italie se manifeste aussi un phénomène de "concentration progressive et sélection de l'habitat": depuis l'âge du Bronze moyen jusqu'au premier âge du Fer, se consolident des systèmes comprenant des villages situés sur des aires défendues, avec des rôles de plus en plus centraux.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>