South Etruria and Western Veneto: the differences.

The evidence portrayed above shows sharp differences between South Etruria and

Western Veneto within their apparently similar subsistence basis and industrial achievement. For a start, the already mentioned differences in time ranges mean that developments in Veneto were much more precocious than indicated by the relative chronology.

Differences in landscape configuration are seen as highly significant for the divergent trajectories of economic growth. First, Western Veneto’s more difficult environment did not allow subsistence diversification to the same extent as Etruria’s without substantial (and disruptive) settlement dislocation, but favoured instead the early development of internally socially strong settlement units (seen in the adoption of community demanding forms of settlement). As the review of Middle Bronze Age industrial activities reveals, the early development of apparently powerful settlements in Veneto was the response to an environmental situation and was not accompanied by the emergence of settlement hierarchies or production networks which would indicate territorial organisation and control: to all intent and purposes settlements’ production remained local. The only exception is metallurgy, where tool production and bronze frequencies show bronze was of some economic consequence. South Etruria, on the other hand, had during this period a stable and well-adapted subsistence economy, which constitutes the bulk of the economic activity: there are no indications of secondary production of any economic relevance at the time in which Veneto was starting to become actively involved in metallurgy.

During its Late Bronze Age (1400-1150 B.C.) Western Veneto’s economy starts incorporating industrial production: the number of settlements involved in some sort of local industry increases, reinforcing the idea of a series of self-sufficient communities, which are nevertheless in good communication with each other and share ideas and technology. Subsistence undergoes a process of specialisation in which agriculture acquires a dominant role. Metallurgy is during this time practised by a considerable number of settlements, and a metallurgical network is functioning for the supply of raw material and distribution of some of the finished products. In South Etruria the period between 1400 and 1150 B.C. encompasses both the Apennine Middle Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age. It is only after 1300 B.C. that a process of intensification both in the

subsistence and the technological/industrial level begins in Etruria, but the latter bears no comparison with Veneto’s: Etruria will only catch up in the Final Bronze Age. Etruria’s subsistence base, on the other hand, is enlarged by increasing exploitation of different ecozones and resources from carefully located settlements, rather than by specialisation as in Veneto. Bronze production starts to affect the economy after 1200 B.C. with the appearance of bronze tools and the general increase in bronze finds, indicative of greater circulation of the finished products, though these are still restricted to areas neighbouring metal bearing locations. A comparison of the two areas at this point in time shows that in Etruria metallurgy developed in the wake of the ongoing process of subsistence intensification, whereas in Veneto the growth of the two activities is earlier and parallel.

The Final Bronze Ages of the two areas are chronologically contemporary: 1150- 900 B.C.. In Western Veneto this period sees the emergence of a series of industrial sites, the most important of which is Frattesina. Subsistence continues to concentrate on agriculture. Finds show that secondary production played an important role in the economic life of sites, though it is really only for Frattesina that there is some evidence that the site might have been partially dependent for its subsistence on a series of satellite settlements (as suggested by the possible meat imports to the site and the impressive evidence from exotic raw materials and industrial activities, which must have implied considerable political control and the existence of full time craftsmen). Frattesina, however, represents an extreme case surrounded by industrially active but less glamorous settlements: Fondo Paviani, Mariconda, Montagnana and Montebello are the most developed (see evidence above). In these settlements secondary production (including metallurgy) is well attested, though it remains unclear the extent to which these activities dominated the economic life of the sites and configured the political landscape. What is remarkable, though, is that at this point in time these settlements have acquired a considerable degree of internal economic diversification almost proper to pre-urban groups, and yet keep a fairly similar standard of development with no indications of economic competition between the communities. Once again the impression is one of largely self-sufficient units, with a common cultural background and good communication among them. These units might have depended on Frattesina for some of their raw material or occasional specialised finished products.

A quantitative and qualitative leap for South Etruria takes place in the Final Bronze Age, particularly after 1000 B.C.. Its subsistence basis sees a further intensification, and technology and industry also undergo important developments. Bronze is present at all levels, and the indications are that it is controlled by communities with direct access to the raw material. This was not the case in Veneto, where bronze circulation was freer and reached settlements throughout the area: in Etruria, on the other hand, hoards and objects cluster around metal bearing areas and pottery styles indicate the emergence of specific local identities.

I hold this to be a major difference between the two regions: historically, Veneto’s record as a trade enclave and contact area between zones promoted a freer circulation of ideas, technology and goods: the extensive evidence detailed above on the various industrial activities present in sites throughout the region shows that ideas and goods travelled with relative ease. In Etruria, on the other hand, resources of an industrial nature seem to have been dominated by local groups. This might be a consequence of the lack of metal resources in Veneto, which seems to have prompted freer circulation of goods and exchange, and helped equal access to resources by different settlements. In Etruria, on the other hand, groups local to resources were in an advantageous position with respect to other sites. Though in Etruria the evidence for industrial activity is not as important as in Veneto, I would argue that in the former metallurgy helped the development of power relationships within the landscape, whereas in the latter it stimulated industrial activity but functioned within well established good circulation networks and did not provoke the same reaction. At around 900 B.C. there was a turn of events in both regions. In Veneto, settlements disappear and economic activity suffers a regression, for the settlements which emerge do so in a new and limited area. In Etruria, settlements also disappear but in a lesser scale, and instead we are confronted with the growth of specific sites and the emergence of clear territorial hierarchy from then on. Whereas Etruria’s path could have been predicted, Veneto’s seems to have been linked to some extent to environmental deterioration. Veneto’s topographical configuration did not allow diversification without settlement dislocation, and the socio-economic base of the groups, by then considerably influenced by industrial production, could not be maintained.