Medieval landscapes of southern Etruria: the excavations at Capalbiaccio Tricosto, 1976-2010

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]

Southern Etruria is arguably one of the regions in Italy with the most intense archaeological activity. This is particularly true for the audience of this volume, medieval archaeologists, given the seminal impact of the University of Siena’s work in this area on the development of the modello toscano (Francovich and Hodges 2003), as well as the significance of more recent archaeological projects focused on the early medieval period (e.g., the nEU-Med Project, Bianchi and Hodges 2018). Editor Michelle Hobart acknowledges the richness of the archaeological tradition along this stretch of the Tyrrhenian coast, north of Rome, while also highlighting the potential of the Etruscan and Medieval phases at Capalbiaccio to address lingering questions about Etruscan settlement patterns and medieval landscape exploitation.

The volume presents the results of archaeological research conducted at and around the castle of Tricosto di Capalbiaccio, located 6 km inland from the ancient town of Cosa, in southern Tuscany. The medieval hilltop settlement was initially investigated by a British team led by Stephen L. Dyson from 1976 to 1980, and later reinvestigated using non-invasive methodologies by Hobart’s team starting in 2009. Like many pioneering landscape projects in Italy, Dyson’s original research remained largely unpublished. Hobart and her team deserve credit for resurrecting this intriguing legacy data.

The volume is organized into four sections, comprising 17 contributions. Part I, “Genesis of the Project,” includes a general introduction by Hobart (Ch. 1) and a description of the original archaeological research from the 1970s by Dyson (Ch. 2). Part II, “Recent Research and Non-Invasive Archaeology,” shifts the focus to recent research on landscape history (Ch. 3), non-invasive investigations at Tricosto (Ch. 4), and the architectural analysis of the standing structures (Ch. 5). Barocca does an excellent job of presenting the evolution of the coastal environment over the centuries, particularly the changes in water presence following land reclamation efforts from the 16^th century onwards. Cerri and Mariotti expand the scale of analysis to the settlement level, advancing the reconstruction of the settlement’s topography through the use of magnetometry, DGPS, and UAVs. By integrating information from these various sources, the authors have integrated the 1970s settlement plan and identified unexcavated structures that, due to their orientation, predate the late medieval settlement and could therefore be attributed to the Etruscan period. Finally, Corti’s architectural analyses provide a relative chronology of the construction phases within the medieval castle, beginning in the 12^th century with a church and a tower and extending to private dwellings and a defensive wall between the 13^th and 14^th century.

Part III, “Material Culture and Survey of Post-Medieval Southern Tuscany,” is the longest section of the book. After a brief introduction to the origins of the finds (Ch. 6), this section presents catalogues and discussion of pottery (Ch. 7-10), small finds (Ch. 11), coins (Ch. 12), and zoological remains (Ch. 13). The section concludes with a presentation of a survey of post-medieval settlements in the whole province of Grosseto (Ch. 14), which possibly might have been better suited for inclusion in Part II.

Finally, Part IV, “Historical Reconstructions and Conclusions,” reassesses the Etruscan (Ch. 15) and Medieval (Ch. 16) data from the project, and, together with the concluding Ch. 17, provides a historical narrative to complement the archaeological data presented in the preceding chapters. While these chapters effectively highlight the significance of the finds at Capalbiaccio, they are at times less streamlined than one might hope, which could lead to confusion for readers unfamiliar with the complex local history.

Overall, the volume offers a comprehensive overview of a fascinating site. The combined use of stratigraphic evidence from the test trenches conducted in the 1970s and the new non-invasive research has enabled a more thorough understanding of the settlement’s structure and chronological development. Capalbiaccio appears to be closely related to the nearby Roman colony of Cosa, with the periods of activity at Capalbiaccio framing the span of occupation at Cosa.

Of the two major habitation phases identified at Capalbiaccio, the Etruscan period is the most interesting, not so much for the ceramic evidence, but for the additional information provided by magnetometry. It has been determined that buried structures extend beyond the medieval walls and cover an area of almost 4 hectares. Their orientation and layout, along with the ceramic evidence from Building J, suggest an attribution to the Etruscan period. Between the end of the 7^th and the 4^th century BC, Capalbiaccio was a minor centre, composed of various houses organized along a road leading to the hilltop and an enigmatic “ceremonial burial place” (p. 284). The pottery attributed to this phase is mostly utilitarian, with scarce imported finewares and bucchero fragments showing little variety in shape, reinforcing the impression of limited purchasing power, or at least a level below that of contemporary urban settlements (p. 95). The settlement would have occupied a dominant position in the Valle d’Oro, and the involvement of the Etruscan town of Vulci in its establishment cannot be ruled out. According to the authors, Capalbiaccio is fascinating for its divergence from other known Etruscan settlements in the Albegna Valley (p. 281-287). It is argued that nearby hilltop sites (oppida), though common, typically extend over 3-5 ha and present imposing defensive structures. Agro-towns like Doganella (Walker and Perkins 1995) or Marsiliana (Celuzza and Zifferero 2022) share some structural similarities with Capalbiaccio but are significantly larger, spanning tens of hectares. If the interpretation of the geophysical surveys is sound, Capalbiaccio would not align with either of these settlement categories. Its abandonment during the Roman period, interpreted by the author as indicative of a function opposed to that of the urban centre at Cosa, reinforces the feeling that the Etruscan history of Capalbiaccio is still far from being fully understood.

Given the available evidence, interpreting the Etruscan settlement as a rural administrative centre is reasonable, though perception of its scale and importance is still distorted by a limited archaeological dataset. First, the ceramic evidence is limited to two test pits (Building J and Pit M, p. 93). Acconcia recognised some similarities with the pottery assemblage of other hilltop sites nearby, however, the extent to which this material represents the presumed pre-Roman structures identified on the slopes of the hilltop is still uncertain. Moreover, the only evidence for some kind of proto-urban social stratification, the “ceremonial burial place,” is enigmatic and could even be a contemporary structure (p. 63). Finally, there is currently no evidence to establish the relative chronology of the various structures identified by the magnetometer, and it is possible that what has been interpreted as a single large settlement is actually a combination of different phases. This is suggested by the variety of structural plans identified in different areas, such as a row of structures in Area E (south of the hilltop) that resemble the layout of the standing medieval buildings within the compound. As Hobart acknowledges (p. 287), only further excavation can clarify the role that this unique settlement played in the Valle d’Oro and in the broader context of Etruscan geopolitics.

A similar observation applies to the interpretation of the 10^th-century evidence. The amount of pottery found in the trench near Building J (475 fragments, 7.3 kg) is remarkable considering the size of the test pit and the material culture of the period. I agree with the authors that these finds are likely linked to the presence of a community living on the hilltop before the village structure was transformed by 12^th-century stone architecture. It is also plausible that the post-hole found in Level IV might belong to post-built structures like those identified at Poggibonsi, Scarlino, and other Tuscan hilltop sites (Valenti 2008). However, since no stratigraphic investigation was undertaken during the recent archaeological revisit, it has not been possible to fully grasp the nature and scale of the 10^th-century community on the hilltop. The lack of well-preserved stratigraphy at the site (p. 37) and a contradictory reference to one or more post-holes[1] confuses the reader and raises questions about the consistency of the early medieval interpretation. This is not a trivial issue, as parts of the interpretive framework for the medieval settlement are based on specific expectations of the structure of the early medieval community. For instance, the impact of the tower and church’s appearance in the 12^th century would have differed depending on whether these were the first stone structures at the site or if “some stone structures and a defensive wall” were already present (as suggested on p. 290). The involvement of the Aldobrandeschi family at the site would also have had different implications for the community depending on the degree of social stratification before the 12^th century.

If future excavations confirm the evolution described in the volume, Capalbiaccio seems to fit well in the modello toscano, according to which informal clusters of peasant dwellings were gradually transformed into castles by aristocratic families interested in exploiting local resources. The relatively late establishment of the settlement at Capalbiaccio, compared to other early medieval settlements in Tuscany dating back to the Lombard period, can be attributed to the limited archaeological sample available and earlier use of the hilltop cannot be excluded at the moment (see Ch. 17). The ceramic and coin assemblages from Capalbiaccio paint a vivid picture of the site’s evolving economic connections across central Italy. In the 10^th century, Vaccaro identifies a strong association with northern Latium and Rome, as the analysed pottery types (Depurata, Red Painted, and Kitchen Ware) share morphological and compositional traits with ceramics circulating north of Rome. By the 12^th century, Valdambrini observes a shift towards Pisan productions, followed by a return to imports from northern Latium and Umbria in the late 13^th century. The alignment between the ceramic and numismatic evidence highlights how power dynamics and shaped development of local trading connections.

In conclusion, this volume deserves praise for engaging with a legacy archaeological dataset. “Legacy archaeology” has been growing in recent decades (e.g., the Tiber Valley Project, Patterson et alii 2020), but a shared methodology on how to approach datasets of old projects has yet to come. This volume offers a good take on the issue, combining material analyses to non-invasive methodologies. The few inaccuracies, though noticeable, do not detract from the content, which excels in its focus on the material collected at the hilltop. Thorough pottery analyses and clear material publication greatly enhance our understanding of rural settlement history. Medieval archaeologists working in the area have gained another key reference publication for the period from the 10^th to the 14^th century. The outstanding results obtained through magnetometry are another highlight of the volume, leaving the reader eager for future stratigraphic evidence from this unique site, which I hope will follow soon.

Bibliography

Bianchi, G. and Hodges, R. 2018. Origins of a new economic union (7^th-12^th centuries) Preliminary results of the nEU-Med project: October 2015-March 2017. Florence.

Celuzza, M. and Zifferero, A., 2022. Materiali per Marsiliana d’Albegna. Arcidosso.

Francovich, R. and Hodges, R., 2003. Villa to village: The transformation of the Roman countryside in Italy, C. 400-1000. London.

Patterson, H., Witcher, R., and Di Giuseppe, H. 2020. The Changing Landscapes of Rome’s Northern Hinterland: The British School at Rome’s Tiber Valley Project. Oxford.

Perkins, P. and Walker, L., 1990. Survey of an Etruscan city at Doganella, in the Albegna Valley. Papers of the British School at Rome, 58, pp.1-143.

Valenti, M., 2008. Architecture and infrastructure in the Early Medieval village: the case of Tuscany. Late Antique Archaeology 4, pp.451-489.

Authors and Titles

Part I. Genesis of the Project

1. Hobart – The Archaeology of Coastal, Southern Tuscany
2. L. Dyson – Capalbiaccio: The Initial Archaeological Campaigns (1976–1980)

Part II. Recent Research and Non-Invasive Archaeology

3. Barocca – Geo-Archaeology of Coastal Southern Tuscany
4. Cerri and E. Mariotti – Geophysical Prospecting, Topography, Thermal Camera and DEM
5. Corti – Medieval Wall Reading: The Archaeology of Architecture

Part III. Material Culture and Survey of Post Medieval Southern Tuscany

6. Hobart – Analysis of the Material Culture
7. Acconcia – Pre-Etruscan, Etruscan, and Roman Pottery
8. Vaccaro – Capalbiaccio and the Early Medieval Pottery in Southern Tuscany (900–1000)
9. Valdambrini – A Comparative Study of Pottery from Southern Tuscany and Latium (1000–1200)
10. Hobart – Medieval Pottery (1200–1400)
11. Rubegni – Small Finds
12. Rovelli – Coins
13. C. Crader – Archaeozoological Remains
14. Salvadori – Field Survey of the Post-Medieval Settlement Patterns in Southern Tuscany

Part IV. Historical Reconstructions and Conclusions

15. Hobart – Reassessing the Etruscan Valle d’Oro
16. Hobart – Builders of Landscapes: The Aldobrandeschi and the Castle of Tricosto
17. Hobart – Concluding Remarks and Open Questions

Appendix.

1. L. Dyson – Castle and Countryside: Capalbiaccio and the Changing Settlement History of the Ager Cosanus

Notes

[1] p. 89, tab. 6.2, from Dyson’s 1978 notes: “post hole”; p. 89: “Post Hole Structures”; p. 292: “post holes”. My italics.