Letters and Non-alphabetic Characters on Roof Tiles from Poggio Civitate (Murlo)

Anthony Tuck and Rex Wallace

Letters and Non-Alphabetic Characters onRoof Tiles from Poggio Civitate (Murlo)

Abstract: A small number of pan and cover roofing tiles recovered at the site ofPoggio Civitate were marked either with letters or non-alphabetic characters. Innearly all cases,workers appear to have used their fingers or fingernails or a similarinstrument to incise a single siglum onto the wet clay prior to firing. Because thesemarkings do not seem to have been employed for tiles used to construct the rakingsima, the lateral sima or the ridgepoles of the site’s monumental buildings fromeither the Orientalizing or Archaic periods, it is unlikely that they represent asystem of numeration related to their intended position on the roof. Ongoingexcavations at Poggio Civitate and the communities on its immediate peripheryhave provided scholars with a better understanding of the site’s phases and thetypes ofmanufacturing that occurred there. This study suggests that the letters andnon-alphabetic characters on these pan and cover tiles could have served as ameans of tracking labor and the materials associated with the construction of thesite’s monumental architecture, with specific letters and characters reflecting theefforts and contributions of the different communities that were subordinate toPoggio Civitate’s elite rulers. As the understanding about the position of PoggioCivitate within central and inland Etruria grows more detailed, such markings onutilitarian objects provide additional evidence about the complex socio-politicaldynamics that existedduring the seventh and sixth centuriesBCE.

Keywords: Poggio Civitate (Murlo), roofing tiles, siglum (pl. sigla), Orientalizingand Archaic Etruria, manufacturing processes

Anthony Tuck: Department of Classics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA,E-Mail: [email protected]: Department of Classics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA,E-Mail: [email protected]

Introduction

Over 40 years ago Mauro Cristofani and Kyle Meredith Phillips published theresults of their pioneering study on the form and function of alphabetic and non-alphabetic characters incised on roof tiles recovered at the Etruscan site of Poggio

DOI 10.1515/etst-2013-0014 Etruscan Studies 2013; 16(2): 210–262

Authenticated | [email protected] author's copyDownload Date | 12/1/13 6:58 PM

Civitate.1 Subsequent decades of excavation at Poggio Civitate have yielded addi-tional examples of similarly inscribed tiles, permitting a much better understand-ing of the site’s phases of construction and revealing a more nuanced view of thetypes of manufacturing that occurred at the site. Although aspects of these char-acters remain puzzling, we are now in a position to offer a new hypothesis aboutthe possible function of the inscribed roof tiles from this site.2 After an overview ofPoggio Civitate and its remains, the corpus of marked tiles is described andanalyzed. The fact that sigla3 were not employed for the tiles used to construct theraking sima, the lateral sima or the buildings’ ridgepoles suggests that they do notrepresent a system of numeration related to their intended position on the roof.Rather, given what is now known about the labor and resources required toconstruct themonumental buildings that emerged on the Piano del Tesoro plateauin the early seventh century BCE, we argue that the letters and non-alphabeticcharacters on these roofing tiles served as a means for tracking the labor andmaterials associated with the construction of the site’s monumental architecture,with specific letters and characters reflecting the efforts and contributions of thedifferent communities thatwere subordinate to Poggio Civitate’s elite rulers.

Background: The Site of Poggio Civitate

The eighth through sixth centuries BCE in central Italy are years of remarkablesocial and political dynamism that resulted in the rapid formation of urbancenters within Etruria and its immediate periphery. The circumstances of thisrapid development are all the more curious given that the people of this region,the Etruscans, are the only indigenous population in Italy to participate in themovement toward urbanism experienced by the Greek world at the same time.4

1 Cristofani and Phillips 1971.2 The study of the form and function of letters and non-alphabetic characters incised on roof tilesand ceramic vessels, particularly those recovered in Italy, is now receiving the scholarly attentionit deserves. In addition to Cristofani and Phillips (1971), we note the contributions of BagnascoGianni (1996, 259–262; 2008), Bagnasco Gianni and de Grummond (forthcoming), de Grummond,Bare and Meilleur (2000), de Vita de Angelis (1968), Gobbi (2012), Maggiani (1985, 100–102), andSassatelli (1981; 1994). Work by Bagnasco Gianni, de Grummond, Gobbi, and Valtolina on acomprehensive online database of these characters in Etruscan is well underway (InternationalEtruscan Sigla Project). When the database is available online, we expect that it will advance ourability to classify and categorize these characters and better understand their role within Etruscanterracotta and ceramicmanufacturing.3 For the term siglum, see de Grummond, Bare andMeileur (2000, 25–26).4 See Riva (2010) for a recent consideration of this period in central Italy.

Letters and Non-Alphabetic Characters on Roof Tiles 211


Fig 1:Map of Central Italy (Drawing by Ida Florek, courtesy of Poggio Civitate Excavation).

However, the archaeological evidence of the physical form of most Etruscan citiesis not abundant. Areas well suited for defense and with access to sufficient watersources remained good places for habitation well past the Etruscan period. Thisresulted in many modern Italian communities throughout the region being situ-ated directly over their ancient counterparts, thus rendering them archaeologi-cally inaccessible. However, exceptions exist and one of the most important is thesite of Poggio Civitate in the central, inland region of modern-day Tuscany.

Poggio Civitate is a hill, about seven km in total area, located 25 km south ofSiena (Fig. 1). The site has been the focus of continuous archaeological excava-tion since 1966 and preserves some of the region’s best evidence of an Etruscan

212 Anthony Tuck and Rex Wallace


Fig 2: Piano del Tesoro Archaic Period Building (Digital Reconstruction by Evander Batson,courtesy of Poggio Civitate Excavation).

community in the early stages of the development that typifies central Italy fromthe ninth through the sixth centuries BCE. The hill dominates the northernreaches of the Ombrone Valley and sits at the edge of the Colline Metaliffere,Tuscany’s “Metal Bearing Hills,” making it ideally situated near abundant agri-cultural resources and mineral wealth (e.g., sources of copper, iron, silver, andtin).5

The site is perhaps best known today for its remarkable architecture con-structed during the Archaic period. In the early years of the sixth century BCE, abuilding that remains one of the largest known in the western Mediterranean forthis time period (Fig. 2) was constructed on Poggio Civitate’s western plateau, anarea of the hill known locally as Piano del Tesoro— the Plateau of the Treasure. Itconsists of 4 wings, each ca. 60 m in length. A defensive wall projecting south ofthe structure’s western face added an additional 30 m to the building’s façadealong this side, creating a southern courtyard and thus protecting access to watervia the well located in this area.6 The building’s size and high position on the hillare both remarkable in their own right, while the defensive moat to the north andits watchtowers suggest a concern with defense.

In addition, the sculptural program that adorned the building points to aninterest in iconographic visibility.7 Life-size human figures, both males and fe-males, were attached directly onto the building’s ridgepole tiles. Many wore

5 Warden 1985, 136.6 Phillips 1992, 10; Nielsen 1991, 245–246.7 Tuck 2006.



Fig 3: Piano del Tesoro Archaic Period Building Roof Reconstruction(Courtesy of Murlo Archaeological Museum).

sombrero-style peaked hats,8 while the position and sculpting of their handsindicates that they once held attributes of some form, now lost. A wide array ofanimal figures, some fantastic, were also placed on the roof. In addition, therewas a remarkably sophisticated sculptured gutter system consisting of female andfloral appliqués joined by feline waterspouts, while the cover tiles on the build-ing’s exterior terminated in antefixes in the form of gorgons.9 Finally, the build-ing’s exposed wooden beams were covered over with terracotta relief plaques(Fig. 3).10 To date, excavation has recovered examples of four different types ofplaques: a horse race, a procession scene, a banquet, and a scene of seatedfigures holding different attributes, perhaps an echo of the decoration on theroof.11

Even more surprising than the remarkable scale and decoration of the build-ing was the manner of its destruction. Available evidence suggests that sometimein the third quarter of the sixth century BCE, the building was dismantled. The

8 Edlund 1992.9 Neils 1976.10 Damgaard Andersen 1990.11 Horse Race: Root 1973. Procession Frieze: Gantz 1974. Banquet Frieze: Small 1971. SeatedFigures Frieze: Gantz 1971.



Fig 4: Piano del Tesoro Orientalizing Period Complex (Digital Reconstruction by Evander Batson,courtesy of Poggio Civitate Excavation).

various sculptural elements were removed and broken apart, the fragmentsseparated and buried around the building’s perimeter. The walls were knockedover, the wells were sealed, and the site was never re-inhabited.12

Few examples of similar structures in central Italy make it difficult to pinpointthe function of this building. However, excavation undertaken beneath its foun-dations revealed the existence of an earlier monumental building that may havehad the same function. To date, there is evidence of at least three buildings, eachimpressive in scale in their own right, all of which were destroyed in a single firethat broke out sometime near the end of the seventh century.

The buildings from this earlier phase were constructed sometime in thesecond quarter of the seventh century BCE13 and include a residential structure(OC1/Residence), a tripartite religious building (OC3/Tripartite), and an industrialcenter (OC2/Workshop) (Fig. 4).14 Unlike the Archaic structure, which appears to

12 Phillips 1992, 48–49. De Gummond (1997) questions the evidence or the deliberateness of thisphase of Poggio Civitate’s destruction and abandonment, but recently discovered additionalevidence points to a thorough and intentional depopulation of the hill during this period (seeTuck et al. 2010).13 Tuck andNielsen 2008.14 Nielsen and Tuck (2001, 36–39) provide a summary of the history of nomenclature associatedwith these structures.



have been almost entirely emptied prior to its demolition, the destruction debrisfound on the floors of each of these Orientalizing buildings offers some certaintywith respect to their various functions. In addition, they were also ornatelydecorated, although with “cut-out” akroteria stylistically earlier than the sculp-ture in the round that ornamented the Archaic building.15

One of the Orientalizing buildings was clearly a residence with foundationsmeasuring 36.2 m by 8.4–8.6 m. Hundreds of examples of banqueting equipment,most locally produced but some imported from centers in the Aegean sphere,16

were recovered from its floor. Large countersunk pithoi filled with grain were alsofound along the northern end of the building, along with a number of cookingvessels. Cosmetic equipment, gold and silver jewelry, and a number of otherhousehold items including bone, antler, and ivory fittings and inlays for furni-ture, all point to the domestic function of this building, albeit for members of thesite’s social elite.17

Immediately to the south of this residence was another building, OC3/Tripar-tite. This structure is slightly more robust but shorter than the residence, withexceptionally thick foundation walls. This feature might suggest that it wasconstructed earlier than the residence when architects and builders at the sitewere somewhat less confident in their ability to support the extremely heavydecorated terracotta roofs the buildings employed. Although much of its founda-tions are lost, OC3/Tripartite’s dimensions can be reconstructed as measuringapproximately 23.25 m by 9.2 m.

As its preserved plan (Fig. 5) makes clear, the building’s form was tripartite,with a central chamber almost exactly twice the area of the two flanking rooms.This distinctive floor plan configuration is suggestive of later forms of Etruscantemple architecture and the identification of the structure as a religious buildingis supported by the imported bucchero vessels with muluvanice-inscriptionsrecovered from the floor of the central chamber,18 and the pits excavated immedi-ately to the south of the building that were full of seeds, fragments of animal boneburned at extremely high temperatures, and high concentrations of fatty alcoholsfrom organic materials. These data all point to some sort of votive or ritualbehavior, supporting our contention that the building was an early form of theEtruscan tripartite temple.19

15 Rystedt 1983;Winter 2009, 51–55.16 Phillips 1989.17 Phillips 1992, 51–78.18 Wallace 2008.19 Nielsen and Tuck 2001. Material from the pits excavated immediately south of OC3/Tripartiteis currently under study andwill be published at a later date.



Fig 5: Piano del Tesoro Orientalizing Period Complex Plan(Courtesy of Poggio Civitate Excavation).

In the early years of exploration at Poggio Civitate, excavators recovered a largecache of unfinished antler plaques south of the area of the Tripartite building,suggesting the presence of an area on the plateau dedicated to some form of



manufacturing.20 This theory was quite dramatically proven with the discovery ofan exceptionally long building, positioned on the southeastern edge of theplateau that served as the home to numerous industrial activities. This structure,now known as OC2/Workshop, did not employ foundation walls; its preservedcolumn bases, however, indicate a length of at least 52 m and a width of 8.4–8.6 m. Thousands of specimens of partially cut bone and antler, as well asfragmentary and intact bone and antler carved objects, point to a considerableamount of energy dedicated to the manufacture of furniture or other woodenobjects such inlays would have decorated.21 Crucible fragments, small roastingovens, bellows pipes, and ingots and rivulets of bronze also indicate that a small-scale foundry, casting relatively small items, was active in the eastern end of thebuilding.22

Recent reconsideration of evidence collected over the course of this building’sexcavation now points to the importance of food production in this structure.Thousands of specimens of bone with indications of butcher marks suggest thatanimals were processed, possibly for hides as well, and converted into useablefoodstuffs. Carbonized grains, olive pits, grape seeds, and legumes found in thebuilding also indicate that agricultural products were converted into commoditiesin this location.23

Evidence for ceramic production is less direct, but numerous small lumps offired and unfired clay, many with impressions of fingerprints, suggest that claywas being kneaded and worked prior to being thrown. This, along with thehundreds of specimens of typologically unique vessels made from local clay, aregood indications that pottery was also produced here.24 In addition, the evidencesuggests that the architectural terracottas that decorated the roofs of all threeOrientalizing buildings were fashioned in this location as well. Not only was themold for the production of decorative antefixes recovered from the building’sfloor near several ribbons of unfired clay (their dimensions suggest an early formof revetment plaque),25 but the day the building burned down in what appears tohave been an accidental fire, the workers had also produced a group of semi-cylindrical cover tiles which they placed on the floor to dry under the building’sroof. When the fire broke out, the ensuing panic caused people to run throughout

20 Phillips 1967; Nielsen 1985.21 Nielsen 1995.22 Nielsen 1993.23 Evidence of animal butchery is currently under study.24 Tuck 1999.25 Nielsen 1987, 116.



the building and across the unfired clay tiles. The subsequent heat of the firepartially baked the clay, preserving a number of footprints.26

In sum, Poggio Civitate is unusual both for its remarkably well-preservedarchitecture and the range of datable materials recovered in association with bothphases of construction on the Piano del Tesoro plateau. East Greek, Laconian andCorinthian pottery found within all three buildings of the plateau’s early phase ofdevelopment can be dated to the final quarter of the seventh century BCE,suggesting the fire that destroyed this complex occurred at the end of thatcentury.27 Somewhat more problematic is the determination of a construction datefor the buildings, but fragmentary elements of highly distinctive “reliefware”bucchero found in the debris of all three structures suggest that the buildingswere standing together on the plateau by the second quarter of the seventhcentury BCE.28 The construction of the site’s Archaic building apparently occurredshortly after the conflagration mentioned above and continued until the site wasabandoned. The latest material from Piano del Tesoro—fragments of Laconian IIIpottery by the Hunt Painter—suggest that this abandonment occurred sometimeduring the third quarter of the sixth century BCE.29

Poggio Civitate’s Inscribed Terracotta Roof Tiles

According to the site’s archives, within the first weeks of excavation on the Pianodel Tesoro in the mid 1960s, markings on some terracotta tile fragments werenoticed.30 Usually lightly impressed, more often than not with a finger or lessfrequently with a thin stick or stylus, these markings included both letters andnon-alphabetic characters which were placed on the upper surfaces of pan andcover tiles. Two specimens of tiles terminating in gorgon antefixes were alsofound to contain these marks, but no other decorative elements (e.g., friezeplaques, sima elements, and sculpture) ever do.31 Also of interest is the fact thatmarked tiles are found in considerable quantities in both the seventh and sixth

26 Nielsen 1987, 92.27 Phillips 1989, 29-31.28 Tuck andNielsen 2008.29 Phillips 1989, 32.30 See Cummer 1966, 63. Find #2 in Cummer’s trench book, dated 7/27/66, is a cover tile (PC19660114 [Addendum 6A]), which was impressed with a finger-drawn alpha. See also Gantz 1966,23. Find #6 in his trench book, dated 8/4/66, is a cover tile (PC 19660298 [Addendum 6C]), whichwas impressedwith a finger-drawn phi.31 113 examples of locally produced ceramic vessels display letters and non-alphabetic charac-ters scratched onto the surface before or after firing. They sometimes preserve characters that are



century BCE phases of Poggio Civitate’s development.32 Although it is impossibleto determine to what extent roof tiles that survived the destruction of the site’searlier phase were incorporated into the later building project, our chronologicaldeterminations are based on the stratigraphic associations of the areas of recov-ery. Examples of roofing tiles displaying letters and non-alphabet charactersrecovered from the destruction debris of buildings of the plateau’s early phase aretherefore described as Orientalizing in date, while those found in deposits imme-diately to the west of Piano del Tesoro that also contained exceptionally largequantities of sculptural debris from the plateau’s Archaic phase of building aredescribed as Archaic in date.

To date, 302 examples of terracotta roof tiles inscribed with letters or non-alphabetic characters have been recovered.33 They include fragments of twoantefix terminal tiles, 142 cover tiles, and 158 pan tiles. In several cases, conserva-tors have been able to reconstruct large portions of inscribed tiles from survivingfragments, making it possible to determine their dimensions and assess theirweight (see, for example, PC 19840220 [cat. no. 24; Fig. 28a] and PC 20030155[Fig. 34, cat. no. 30]). A catalogue of all the tiles discussed below is located at theend of the article while the entire corpus is listed in the Addendum.34

never drawn on tiles, such as the alberello character incised on the base of an impasto vessel, PC20090272 (Tuck andWallace 2013, 49).32 Throughout this article we cite the inscribed tiles by their Poggio Civitate Excavation DigitalArchive ID numbers accompanied by the prefix PC. Descriptions of the artifacts and detailedcontextual information on each object, beyond what is provided in the Catalogue here, may befound in the Poggio Civitate Archaeological Archive database: http://poggiocivitate.classics.umass.edu. Follow the links to “Catalog & Research Data,” then to “Catalog Search,” and enter theartifact’s eight digital artifact ID number. A User ID and Password are not necessary to accessmostrelevant information within this digital archive. A few artifacts in our corpus are not yet in thedatabase because the finds are undocumented; they are cited by their inventory box ID numberand are located in the Comune di Murlo excavation storeroom (infra n. 34).33 16 tiles preserve impressions of animal hoof prints. Given the time required to allow tiles to dryprior to firing, it seems most likely that these impressions are unintentional by-products ofanimals wandering through the area of manufacturing during the drying process. The PoggioCivitate Excavation Digital Archive ID numbers for these roof tiles are: 19690075 [= Cristofani andPhillips 1971, 18, C. no. 2]; 19690076 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 18, C. no. 3]; 19690151 [=Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 18, B. no. 3]; 19690153 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 18, C. no. 4];19700048; 19700098; 19700332; 19710010; 19710062; 19710218; 19710230; 19710585; 19720055;19870132; 20030076; and 20100023.34 In the summer of 2010, Andrew Carroll located 14 inscribed tile fragments in the excavationstoreroom, all from undocumented contexts. We examined these artifacts during the 2011 and2012 excavation seasons. Our investigation of the materials in the storeroom yielded an additionalinscribed tile, also from an undocumented context. These tile fragments have yet to be cataloguedin the Poggio Civitate Excavation Digital Archive.



Chart 1 details the chronological distribution of the inscribed roof tiles fromPoggio Civitate; it also includes 21 examples that cannot be attributed securely toeither phase of architectural construction.

Thematerials securely attributed to theOrientalizing periodwere recovered almostentirely from the environs of OC2/Workshop. Two inscribed cover tiles were recov-ered from the environs of OC1/Residence, and two inscribed pan tiles from theenvirons of OC3/Tripartite. Although approximately two-thirds of the tiles markedwith letters and non-alphabetic characters were found in debris layers associatedwith the Archaic building, it is possible that some tiles survived the destruction oftheOrientalizing Period Complex andwere reused on theArchaic building.

Most of the roof tiles in our corpus were marked with a single letter of thealphabet or a single non-alphabetic character, referred to individually as a siglum(pl. sigla),35 but there are notable exceptions.36 PC 19850111 (cat. no. 26; Fig. 30),for example, is a pan tile with a section of its flange preserved; the tile is broken

35 Supra n. 3. We prefer a more restricted definition and do not use the term to refer toabbreviations for words.36 PC 19700121 is a fragment of a terracotta tile plaque that has been broken on all sides. Thispiece is classified in the Poggio Civitate Excavation Digital Archive as a pan tile, but the curvatureof the fragment makes this identification improbable. Two letters, a rho and an alpha, are incisedin a right-to-left direction; the very tip of two bars of a third letter is visible at the left edge of thefragment. The epigraphic possibilities are numerous. The letters are small— ca. 0.038 m in height— so it is conceivable, though in no way demonstrable, that several words were incised on the tile.The Poggio Civitate Excavation Digital Archive catalogue description also notes a short obliquebar resembling the tail of a serpentine sigma 2.7 cm above the loop of the rho. We looked at the tileseveral times during the 2011 and 2012 excavation seasons, but could not confirm traces of a fourthletter. See also Maggiani 1985, 101 and cat. no. 257, 102. Colonna (1994, 558) reads the word asraś(̣nal) “of the people,” an interesting, but ultimately unverifiable, hypothesis.



on three sides. The top portions of two letters are visible about 0.11 m below theflange. The first letter is probably a rho; it is impossible to tell whether it is the fullor half loop type. Approximately half of the vertical bar of the second letter is alsovisible; iota and lambda are possibilities. Although the spacing between theletters is generous, it does not appear to us that additional letters were inscribedto the left and so we include this item in our inventory. In addition, several tileswere inscribed with a letter that was complemented by a smaller non-alphabeticsign. Examples include PC 19670401 (cat. no. 1; Fig. 8), which was impressed withan alpha; a smaller sign, which is lunate in form and bears some resemblance to agamma, was incised below it facing to the right.37 A similar crescent-shaped signwas incised above the khi on PC 19680532 (cat. no. 5; Fig. 12), but in this case itfaces to the left.

On a majority of the tiles that have been inspected firsthand (210 of the 302 inthe corpus), a worker drew a character on the upper surface of the tile while theclay was still wet using the index finger (187 of 210 inspected).38 Sigla on 23 frag-ments were incised, again before firing, using a thin stick or stylus.39 For tilesrecovered from the Orientalizing Period Complex, the number of finger-drawncharacters is substantially greater (56/64 = 87%) than the number incised with astick or stylus (8/64 = 13%). Archaic period examples of finger-drawn sigla, againcounting only those that were inspected, are even more common statistically:124/134 (= 92.5%) finger-drawn sigla vs. 10/134 (= 7.5%) sigla incised with a stick.

As far as can be determined given the fragmentary nature of the tiles inthe corpus, the preferred location for the placement of sigla was near one ofthe finished edges, as documented by PC 19680167 (cat. no. 4; Fig. 11) andPC 19720067 (cat. no. 14; Fig. 21).40 This appears to be the case for all styles ofsigla, letters and non-alphabetic characters alike. There is one example of asiglum — an X — incised on the flange of a pan tile (PC 19800037 [cat. no. 20]).41

37 Cristofani and Phillips (1971, 15) interpret this sign as a gamma. This is possible, but the signdoes not resemble a lunate gamma in all particulars. Moreover, the lunate gamma is not found inany of the inscriptions incised on locally produced objects at Poggio Civitate.38 On 8 July 2011 we purchased two blocks of modeling clay and practiced making letters drawnwith the finger and incised with a stick on the wet surface of the clay. We now believe that theletters were made with the flat tip or the side of the index finger, the fingernail leaving a visiblegroove in the terracotta. It seems likely that the number of finger-drawn letters is higher than thenumber cited here.39 Six finger-drawn signs were drawn on tiles whose period could not be documented.40 Additional examples include PC 19670401 (Fig. 8); PC 19720135 (Addendum 7M); PC 19680187(Addendum 6F); PC 19670447 (Fig. 9); PC 19680136 (Addendum 6I); PC 19720066 (Addendum7M); PC 19720067 (Fig. 21); and PC 19720135 (Addendum 7M).41 Wehave not been able to locate and re-photograph this tile.



The orientation of signs at the edge of the tiles also varies. Alphas are generallypositioned with the apex of the letter near the edge (see Fig. 11), but there areexamples where the letters were drawn with the base in that position (see PC19870128 [cat. no. 27; Fig. 31]). Non-alphabetic characters with tails — for exam-ple, Loop with tail (PC 19710416 [cat. no. 13; Fig. 20]) and Spiral with tail (Fig. 21)— were drawn or incised with the tail at or near the edge of the tile. Although theplacement of sigla at or near the edge of a tile was preferred, they were sometimesplaced at some distance from the finished edges. An alpha, for example, wasdrawn on PC 20030155 equidistant from the finished sides of the tile toward thefront edge (see Fig. 34), while the letter khi was placed on the top of cover tile PC19840220 (see Fig. 28a) a short distance from the middle. In addition, the orienta-tion of the letters is occasionally askew, as in PC 19800201 (cat. no. 21; Fig. 25).42

We do not attach any significance to these variations in placement or orientation.

Inventory

The inventory of letters and non-alphabetic characters in Poggio Civitate’s corpusis relatively robust.

Eight, possibly nine, letters are attested, as can be seen in Table 1, where theyare listed in alphabetical order.43

Tabel 1. Inventory of Roof Tiles with Letters

Letter CatalogueNumber/Figure

Description and Discussion

Alpha Cat. no. 1 (Fig. 8)Cat. no. 4 (Fig. 11)Cat. no. 21 (Fig. 25)Cat. no. 27 (Fig. 31)Cat. no. 30 (Fig. 34)

This letter was drawn in several styles. The medial bar could behorizontal, descend to the left (the preferred direction for thoseincised on tiles from the Orientalizing period buildings), ordescend to the right (the preferred direction for those incised ontiles from the Archaic building). Most alphaswere closed, themedial bars touching both outer bars, but a few open alphas, inwhich the medial bar descends so steeply that it is not attachedto one of the outer bars, are attested.

42 Additional examples are PC 19840054 (Addendum 2C) and PC 19730010 (Addendum 6C).43 Cristofani (Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 19–20) briefly discusses the paleography of the letters.Wallace (forthcoming) offers a preliminary investigation of the forms of >A< on the roof tiles. Inaddition, a more detailed review of the style of the alphabetic characters than is presented here isin progress.



Letter CatalogueNumber/Figure


Heta Cat. no. 3 (Fig. 10) The only example in the corpus is incomplete. The top, bottom,and left side are missing. A finger-drawn vertical bar intersectedby two oblique bars is visible. It appears to be a heta in the shapeof a ladder.

Khi Cat no. 2 (Fig. 9)Cat. no. 5 (Fig. 12)Cat. no. 24(Figs. 28a–b)

Thestyle of khi inscribedon tilesof theOrientalizingphasemostoftenhasa tail. During theArchaicphase the letter is sometimeswrittenwitha tail, sometimeswithout. Themedial bar of khion tilesof theArchaicperiod is frequently longer than theobliquebars.

Lambdaor Pi

Cat. no. 11 (Fig. 18) The only example of this letter is incomplete; a portion of thevertical bar is missing. The oblique bar is attached at an angle.Unfortunately, the tile is broken off on all sides so it is notpossible to determine the orientation of the letter.

Phi Cat. no. 6 (Fig. 13)Cat. no. 9 (Fig. 16)

The standard Etruscan phi is made with a line bisecting a smallcircle, and examples of this style are attested at Poggio Civitate.But the circle can also be rather large, with the vertical bar oftenextending well beyond the top of the circle. The most distinctivestyle of phi is made with a circle that is elliptical in shape.

Rho Cat. no. 31 (Fig. 35) The rho is incomplete. We cannot determine whether it waswritten in the full-loop or the half-loop style. We cannot determinein what direction the letter faces.

Rho andIota (?)

Cat. no. 26 (Fig. 30) Both letters are incomplete; less than half survives above or,depending on the orientation, below the break in the tile. Wecannot tell whether rho is the full-loop or the half-loop variety. Allthat remains of the second letter is the vertical bar. The lettercould be iota, but this cannot be determined because the tile isbroken on all sides.

Sigma Cat. no. 7 (Fig. 14)Cat no. 10 (Fig. 17)

Two styles of sigma are attested: a serpentine sigma and a sigmawith three, possibly four, bars. The orientation of the letterscannot be determined because the tiles are broken on all sides.

Wau Cat. no. 12 (Fig. 19) Examples of this letter are from the Archaic phase of the site; theyface toward the right. The oblique strokes are sometimes quitelong, often pointing downward at a steep angle and sometimesbeing curved at the end.

Thirteen non-alphabetic characters are attested as well. Table 2 lists them inalphabetical order based on the descriptive label assigned to them.44

0 The labels for the non-alphabetic characters are based in part on those used in Cristofani andPhillips (1971), Maggiani (1985), and the Poggio Civitate Excavation Database Archive. In a few



Table 2. Inventory of Roof Tiles with Non-Alphabetic Characters

Character CatalogueNumber/Figure


Cross mark45 Cat. no. 22(Fig. 26)

The sign has the form +.46 In the case of one fragmentary pantile (e.g., PC 19850116 [Addendum 3C]), the sign has a t-likeshape as the lines do not intersect in the middle. The lengthof the lines guarantees that the sign is not a tau.

Four lines47 Cat. no. 16 Four short, parallel lines are drawn near the edge of the tile.

Hook with tail Cat. no. 17(Fig. 23)

An elongated tail ends in a fishhook design.

Line Cat. no. 23(Fig. 27)

On cover tiles, a line is drawn at an oblique angle starting atone of the lower edges of the tile and moving toward the top.On pan tiles, the line starts at one of the finished edges andfinishes near the center of the tile.

Loop with tail Cat. no. 13(Fig. 20)

An elongated tail ends in a loop. The sign bears someresemblance to a Greek rho.

Ovoid Cat. no. 25(Fig. 29)

The sign has an oval shape, sometimes closed, sometimesnearly so. It was drawn using the tip of the index finger.

Semi-circle Cat. no. 8 (Fig. 15) Some versions of this sign (see Fig. 23) appear to have beendrawn by using the thumb as the stationary leg of thecompass. The circle is finger-drawn.

Stick-drawnsemi-circle

Cat. no. 29(Fig. 33)

This sign was made by using sticks to form the legs of acompass. It is impossible to say whether or not the arcs wereleft incomplete by design.

Spiral withtail


A staff of varying length ends in a spiral flourish.

cases we have employed our own descriptive labels or have adapted the phraseology used in theDatabase Archive.1 It is tempting to think that the cross mark is the letter theta bereft of its outer circle. Indeed, thetain such a form is attested on a recently discovered “ivory” plaque from the OC1/Residence atPoggio Civitate (see Tuck and Wallace 2012). Even so, given that the cross has universal— or nearuniversal— currency as a siglum, a more likely interpretation, and the one we accept here, is thatit represents a non-alphabetic character.2 In the case of PC 19850116 (Addendum 3C), the cross mark is somewhat t-like in its shape as thelines do not intersect in themiddle. However, the lines are too long to be a tau.3 There is no photograph of this artifact in the Poggio Civitate Excavation Database Archive.



Character CatalogueNumber/Figure


Three lines Cat. no. 19(Fig. 24)

Three short, parallel lines are drawn near the edge of the tile.

Three-prongedfork


This siglum resembles the letter khi, but the base is alwaysrounded and there is no tail. It is always drawn with its threebars positioned at the edge of the tile.

Two lines48 Cat. no. 18 Two short lines, roughly parallel, are drawn in the middle ofthe tile.

X Cat. no. 20Cat. no. 28(Fig. 32)

The sign has the form X.

Chronological Comparisons

All of the letters and non-alphabetic characters in Poggio Civitate’s corpus arelisted in Table 3 by chronological period and in order of frequency. Tiles fromundocumented contexts are listed on the right, while signs whose form could notbe ascertained with any degree of certainty are counted at the bottom of the table.

Tabel 3. Chronology and Frequency

Letter/Non-AlphabeticCharacter

7th century 6th century Undocumented Total

Alpha 12 54 4 70

Khi 15 34 2 51

Phi 1 28 2 31

Spiral with tail 2 22 2 26

Semi-circle 8 10 0 18

X 12 4 0 16

48 The two lines are visible in the Database Archive’s photograph, but the latter is not of publish-able quality.



Letter/Non-AlphabeticCharacter

7th century 6th century Undocumented Total

Wau 0 13 0 13

Ovoid 11 2 0 13

Line 2 2 3 7

Three-pronged fork 0 7 0 7

Three lines 5 0 0 5

Stick-drawn semi-circle 1 0 3 4

Cross mark 2 1 0 3

Two lines 2 1 0 3

Loop with tail 0 2 0 2

Sigma 0 2 0 2

Four lines 1 1 0 2

Heta 0 1 0 1

Lambda or Pi 0 1 0 1

Rho 0 1 0 1

Hook with tail 0 1 0 1

Two letters (Rho & Iota?) 1 0 0 1

Uncertain 7 12 5 24

Total 82 199 21 302

During the Orientalizing period, three letters were drawn or incised on tiles:alpha, phi, and khi. Alpha and khi are attested with the greatest frequency whileonly a single tile was incised with phi. The inventory of letters on roof tilesexpanded during the Archaic period to include heta, lambda or pi, rho, sigma, andwau, although onlywau is attested with any frequency.

Most of the non-alphabetic characters employed as sigla on Orientalizingperiod tiles also appear on tiles from the Archaic period, but there are somedifferences. Hook with tail, Loop with tail, albeit attested in very small numbers,and Three-pronged fork are found only on tiles recovered from the Archaic period,while the sign, Three parallel lines, appears only on tiles of the Orientalizing



period. In some cases differences between the two chronological periods are interms of the frequency of attestation. For example, the X-sign is found morecommonly on tiles of the Orientalizing period than it is on tiles of the Archaicperiod. Spiral with tail, on the other hand, was employed frequently as a siglum inthe Archaic period but is attested only twice on tiles of the Orientalizing period.

Analysis

Chart 2 translates the data from Poggio Civitate’s corpus into percentages.



Although two sigla—alpha and khi—make up 40% of the total number in thecorpus, and six (e.g., alpha, khi, phi, spiral with tail, X and semi-circle) account fornearly 60% of the letters and characters on tiles, we hesitate to make too much ofthe numbers because we cannot rule out the possibility that, in part at least, theymay reflect an accident of preservation. But even if the frequencies of occurrencedo not accurately reflect reality, it seems unlikely that the preferences recordedabove are entirely accidental, although at this point we cannot say why certainletters and characters were more frequently selected to be incised on some rooftiles and not others.49 Nor can we say why some signs, e.g., semi-circle, spiralwith tail, and phi, were more frequently utilized on roof tiles recovered from theArchaic phase of the site.

In addition, the direction of the letters incised on roof tiles from the Orienta-lizing period cannot be determined. Alpha, khi, and phi, for example, provide nosecure indication of the direction of writing.50 Right-to-left direction is found forat least one letter in the Archaic period corpus, wau (cat. no. 7; see Fig. 14).51 Thedifference between the direction used to write the site’s sixth century inscriptionsand the direction of letters on roof tiles is surprising. Only one of the fiveinscriptions from the site’s Archaic phase was written from left to right (PC19660121 [cat. no. 32; Fig. 36]),52 suggesting that orthographic rules for drawingand incising letters on the tiles may have been independent of the ones employedfor incising inscriptions.53

Since the letters and characters were finger-drawn or incised on the roof tilesbefore they were fired, we assume that the craftsmen overseeing their productionwere either in charge of drawing or incising them, or these tasks were assigned tocapable assistants. Unfortunately, we cannot determine how many different“hands”were responsible for producing the sigla on Poggio Civitate’s roof tiles.54

49 It is interesting to note that the letters that are most frequently employed as sigla on tiles arethe first and last letters of the alphabet. In the Orientalizing Period, apart from one example of phi,the letters employed as sigla are just those letters, and no others.50 The direction of writing cannot be determined by the direction of a descending medial bar ofan alpha. Inscriptions on locally produced ceramic recovered from the site’s Orientalizing Periodare always written from right to left, and yet there is one alpha on a roof tile of this period whosemedial bar descends to the right.51 Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16. For additional examples, see PC 19680523, PC 19720052, andPC 19700142 (Addendum 7H).52 For the inscription, see Cristofani and Phillips (1970, 289, no. 2).53 Presumably, this would be true of letters incised on ceramic as well.54 Microphotography was used during the 2012 excavation season to examine alphabetic char-acters that we thought were morphologically similar. Unfortunately, this approach did notcontribute to the identification of charactersmade by the same “hand.”



Neither is the visual or iconographic source of the non-alphabetic charactersobvious.55 As noted above,56 some of the characters incised or drawn on roof tilesare not found as sigla on the ceramic vessels produced at Poggio Civitate, whileother motifs incised on ceramic do not appear on the tiles. It is unclear why thisshould be the case, unless the sigla on the tiles and the site’s ceramics serveddifferent functions.

The fact that letters of the alphabet were employed on tiles, moreover,presupposes at least some familiarity with the technology of reading and writingon the part of those employed in the production of roofing materials no later thanthe third quarter of the seventh century BCE. Indeed, additional evidence fromOC2/Workshop exists in the form of an inscription on a ceramic spool that maypoint to some degree of literacy on the part of an artisan employed there.57

Function

A consideration of Poggio Civitate’s corpus of sigla on roofing materials suggeststhat we should be cautious in searching for a single explanation to account for allof the extant markings. We need not and probably ought not to assume that theprocess of marking roofing tiles at the site occurred for reasons identical to thoseassociated with the employment of sigla on roofing materials at other sites, e.g.,from Veii.58 However, whatever the motivations for placing these characters onmaterials manufactured at the site, one thing is clear: manufacturing was animportant component of daily life at Poggio Civitate and the common practice ofplacing markings on roofing materials prior to firing suggests that the specific actof using siglawas probably related to broader social concerns related to industry.

In order to place the corpus of sigla from Poggio Civitate within their socialcontext, it is helpful to consider both the site itself and its immediate surround-ings. Poggio Civitate commands a view of the val d’Ombrone to the east and theval d’Arbia to the north (Fig. 6). The Ombrone river turns outside the medievaltown of Buonconvento and flows just south of the site, through the forested

55 Spiral with tail is the most ornate character in the inventory. Perhaps it was intended toresemble the lituus or staff that stood as a symbol of the political authority of the elites at the site.Compare the lituus carried by one of the seated figures in the “seated figure” frieze plaquespreserved from the Archaic Period building (see, for example, PC 19680266 and PC 19680267).56 Supra n. 31.57 See Tuck andWallace 2011.58 See de Vita de Angelis 1968. For an updated inventory of roofing materials from Veii withalphabetic characters see Colonna andMaras (2006).



Fig 6: View of Murlo and Vescovado di Murlo from Poggio Civitate (Courtesy of A. Tuck).

region of the Maremma and out past the ancient city of Roselle on the Tuscancoast, not far from modern Grosetto. Thus, the Ombrone may have been animportant conduit for goods and materials originating at Poggio Civitate andmoving out to Etruscan centers along the coast. However, the problem with thishypothesis is the fact that, given how typologically distinct a great number of thegoods and materials manufactured at Poggio Civitate are, it should be fairly easyto identify products from the site among the collections of materials recoveredfrom graves at sites along the Ombrone and the nearby Tuscan coast (e.g., atRoselle, Vetulonia, or Marsiliana d’Albegna). Nevertheless, after four decades ofconsideration of these bodies of materials as well as those from sites north andeast of Poggio Civitate, virtually nothing that can be typologically associated withthe seventh century BCE production center on the Piano del Tesoro has ever beenfound anywhere else.59 Based on the current analysis of the data, it appears thatalmost everything manufactured at Poggio Civitate remained at the site. Withrespect to sigla, especially those found on ceramics, the evidence is the same:

59 Nielsen 1985, 340–343. Only a few fragments of carved bone plaques and figurines fromQuinto Fiorentino and Castellina in Chianti seem to be products of the Poggio Civitate workshopfound anywhere other than the site itself.



Fig 7: Topographic Map of Poggio Civitate and Periphery(Map by Taylor Oshan, Courtesy of Poggio Civitate Excavation).

these materials were used locally. Thus, in order to understand how sigla func-tioned at Poggio Civitate, we must look within the social environment of the siterather than considering a hypothesis that assumes trade networks for the distribu-tion of materials manufactured at the site, as there is no evidence for the latter.

At the same time, it is important to establish that Poggio Civitate was not anisolated site. Survey operations conducted by the University of Siena have identi-fied clusters of material datable to both the seventh and sixth centuries BCE,primarily ceramics, in areas within Poggio Civitate’s immediate vicinity, e.g. atMontepescini, Murlo, San Giusto, Lupompesi, and Pompana (Fig. 7).60 Moreover,both topography and a beaten earth path dating to at least the early Medievalperiod connects the site to the settlement at Pompana and from there to the

60 Campana 2001, 276–292.



Ombrone.61 Sporadic recovery of graves dating to the seventh century BCE fromthe nearby area of Castelnouvo Tancredi are also reported in R. Bianchi Bandinel-li’s report on the area from 1926.62 More recently, excavation in the town ofVescovado di Murlo has revealed traces of settlement dating from the Archaic intothe Late Classical periods, a time frame analogous to that indicated by burialsdiscovered by chance in the 1950s in a lower area of the town.

Excavation during the 2006 season in the Colombaio neighborhood of Ves-covado di Murlo, moreover, revealed the presence of an architectural area thatconjoined residential and industrial structures, with the excavation of the floor ofa domestic space adjoining a double kiln.63 Ceramics recovered both immediatelyabove and impacted into the floor of this structure point to a date rangingbetween the late sixth/early fifth and early fourth centuries BCE.64 Although thearea available for excavation beneath this floor surface was limited, soundingrevealed the presence of high concentrations of pottery typologically consistentwith artifacts recovered from the Archaic phase of Poggio Civitate.65

Thus, while the current picture of this area is by no means complete, aconsidered view of even this limited evidence suggests that Poggio Civitate, withits monumental and highly visible architectural buildings, was probably thearistocratic center of a somewhat broader, non-nuclear population located on thehills that cluster around the site.66

Subordinate communities on Poggio Civitate’s periphery would operate with-in the socio-political system controlled by the site’s elite, lending a degree ofdemographic strength in spite of the physical separation between the commu-nities. This type of political system is roughly analogous to that of the modernComune of Murlo, which counts among its collective the geographically distinctmodern towns of Murlo, Vescovado di Murlo, Casciano di Murlo, Lupompesi, LaBefa and several other smaller clusters of habitation.

Precisely what the economic relationship between Poggio Civitate and itssatellite communities might have been is difficult to know without considerablymore detailed excavation. However, one possible model to consider would be toimagine redistributive relationships whereby these subordinate settlements pro-vided raw materials for processing and conversion into finished products withinthe industrial area of Poggio Civitate. Furthermore, we might envision a variety of

61 Campana 2001, 296.62 Bianchi Bandinelli 1926.63 Tuck et al. 2009, 216–218.64 Tuck et al. 2009, 227–231.65 Tuck et al. 2009, 230–231.66 Tuck et al. 2009, 234–235.



ways in which the benefits of this contribution to the regional industrial produc-tion would have been rewarded: these include through direct exchange of fin-ished goods for measures of raw materials, or more complex types of socialarrangements such as those managed through ritual and religious events whereinthe sacrifice of animals provided communities with opportunities to consumecooked meat, an otherwise rare activity.

This model also helps answer the question about the possible functions of thesigla on Poggio Civitate’s roofing materials. The site’s architectural developmentsduring the first half of the seventh century resulted in the construction of buildingsthat were remarkably ambitious for this time period. By way of comparison,contemporary sacred structures built in the Greek world that also represented thecollective energies of entire communities were commonly called hekatompedae—One Hundred Foot Long buildings.67 The structure known as OC1/Residence, at36 m in length, was a few feet longer than these religious buildings and served asvery different function. OC2/Workshop, at over 52 m in length, was also 50%longer than the largest structures in the Greekworldwithwhich it is contemporary.

The process of roofing a building of such considerable length with the thennovel technology of ceramic tiles would have posed several technical challenges.The use of what appears to have been a truss system, integrated into an applica-tion of traditional waddle and daub supporting elements, appears to have beenthe preferred solution. This article is not the place to challenge the prevailingassumption that such tiled roofs were invented in Corinth during the secondquarter of the seventh century BCE,68 but we nevertheless note that the roofs atPoggio Civitate are among the earliest securely dateable constructions using thistechnique. In addition, not only are they far more ambitious than contemporaryroofs in Greece but they also utilize infrastructural supporting elements drawnfrom an indigenous, Iron Age architectural koine.

Moreover, with respect to the tiles themselves, a standardized width of eachpan tile of. 54 m and the overall preserved length and width of the buildingindicate that a minimum of 940 pan and at least 920 cover tiles would have beenrequired to cover the expanse of just OC2/Workshop’s roof. Considering that eachpan tile weighs approximately 22 kg and each cover tile approximately 8 kg, thecombined weight of these roof elements totals slightly over 28,000 kg.69 Thisfigure does not account for the additional volume of clay associated with thebuilding’s sculpted lateral sima, the ridgepole tiles surmounting the apex of the

67 Dinsmoor 1947, 123.68 Winter 2009, 1–2.69 Compare to Satricum, where the pan tiles needed to create the temple roof totaled 16,000–17,000 lbs. See Rendeli (1990, 139).



roof, or the cutout akroteria attached to the latter. In addition to the arduousprocess of excavating the necessary clay, a process that appears to have exploitedsources located on Poggio Civitate itself, the collected material would haveneeded to be cleaned and levigated before heat-treated limestone temper wasadded.70 Only then could the clay be formed in molds and dried, either over aperiod of days or weeks.71 Moreover, the volume of fuel required to fire the clayused to make these various roofing elements would have been substantial. Fieldexperiments conducted in 1999 suggest that a firing time of between eight to tenhours, with sustained temperatures reaching in excess of 600° C, would havebeen necessary to fire the clay into ceramic. In sum, the energy and effort requiredto manufacture tiles to roof Poggio Civitate’s three monumental seventh centuryBCE structures would have been considerable.

78 examples of either pan or cover tiles displaying letters or non-alphabeticcharacters were recovered from the debris of OC2/Workshop’s roof. This numberaccounts for nearly all examples of marked tiles that can be securely associatedwith the Orientalizing phase of the site. In addition, a number of marked tilesrecovered in less secure contexts contained both Archaic and Orientalizingmaterials, suggesting that the process of marking tiles in this manner wascharacteristic of both periods.72 Nevertheless, these data indicate that only 5% to10% of the roofing tiles employed on the building contained these markings. Itbears noting that similarly inscribed tiles were also used on both OC1/Residenceand OC3/Tripartite, although the nature of the excavation of these buildingsmakes any precise statistical consideration of this phenomenon difficult. How-ever, even given the limitations of the available data, it is clear that only arelatively small subset of the total number of tiles needed for the OC2/Workshoproof were marked with letters or non-alphabetic characters. What, then, was thefunction of these sigla?

In Cristofani and Phillips’ 1971 study of letterforms on roofing tiles fromPoggio Civitate, the ancient motivation for the practice of marking architecturalelements was only briefly considered. The authors suggested that the letters

70 Gilstrap and Tuck 2009.71 Wikander 1993, 115.72 We cannot be certain howmany roofing tiles originally employed on roofs of the OrientalizingPeriod Complex were undamaged in that destruction and reused in the subsequent Archaic PeriodBuilding. However, two instances of marked terminal cover tiles preserve antefixes in the form ofgorgons, the decorative antefix form known to be associated with the site’s Archaic periodmonumental building (Neils 1976), thus clearly demonstrating that the practice of marking tileswith letters carried over into that period of construction (see PC 19710153 [Addendum 5B] andPC 19710031 [Addendum 5A]).



represented a system of numeration related to a given architectural element’sintended position on a roof.73 However, evidence collected through several addi-tional decades of excavation on Poggio Civitate as well as our clearer under-standing of the site’s relationship to the subordinate communities on its immedi-ate periphery argue against this hypothesis. As is outlined above, letters and non-alphabetic characters are found almost exclusively on pan and cover tiles. Terra-cotta elements of Orientalizing and Archaic period lateral simas, raking simas,ridgepole tiles, and attached sculptural elements, all of which have been recov-ered in abundance, contain no sigla on their surviving surfaces. At the same time,pan and cover tiles marked with these signs are no different typologically fromthe unmarked examples. In effect, a marked pan tile could be placed anywhereon a building’s roof other than the gutter, the rake, or the apex, the positionsoccupied by the lateral sima, the raking sima, and the ridgepole tiles. The sameapplies to the cover tiles. In short, the architectural elements that would requireforeknowledge of a specific intended position on a roof are precisely those thatare never marked with sigla, while a subset of the ones that could be placedvirtually anywhere contain markings. Cristofani also noted this problem in hiscontribution to the earlier study of these letters and non-alphabetic characters.74

Therefore, if these markings do not relate to the process of assembling the roofafter the firing process, why were they incised or drawn on a select number of panand cover tiles?75

As our brief overview of the effort and energy associated with themanufactureof roofing elements makes clear, the labor and resources required to construct theseries of buildings that emerge on the Piano del Tesoro plateau in the earlyseventh century would have been considerable. In all likelihood, whatever daily,quotidian production capacity Poggio Civitate itself might have maintained, amuch greater volume of material and manpower would have been required tomove these projects forward. In a manner perhaps distantly akin to the traditionalAmerican practice of barn raisings, the political leadership of Poggio Civitatecould have expected to draw on the human resources of its satellite communitiesto realize the monumental scale of the architecture of its seventh century BCEcomplex as well as to replace those buildings with the single, massive buildingduring the sixth century. The sigla present on tiles found on all of these buildings,therefore, may be associated with batches or production quotas of tiles, the

73 Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 21–22. See also Maggiani (1985, 100) and Bagnasco Gianni (1996,261–62).74 Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 21.75 Colonna (1994, 557) suggests that sigla were employed to mark batches of tiles, but does notspeculate as to why this might be the case.



responsibility for which fell to these different subordinate communities. Thus,alphasmight represent batches of tiles produced by the people from the settlementof Vescovado di Murlo while X-signs could reflect production contributed bymembers of the Pompana community — and so on. The reason why such batchindicators would have been necessary is because the forming, curing, and firing oftiles appears to have occurred on Poggio Civitate itself, over a period of days,weeks, or even months. If disparate communities were held responsible forcontributions of labor and materials, sigla would have been one possible way inwhich those contributions could have been tracked and recorded.76

Conclusion

Poggio Civitate is a site of many enigmas, the use of sigla on roofing elementscertainly not the least among them. Nevertheless, if our view of the relationshipsbetween Poggio Civitate and its immediate neighbors is plausible, it is reasonableto speculate on how the relationship between the area’s ruling elite and theirsubordinates might have been materially expressed. As our understanding of theposition of Poggio Civitate within its immediate region grows more detailed, wemight see these markings on utilitarian objects as evidence of the complex socio-political dynamics that existed in this Etruscan region during the seventh andsixth centuries BCE.

Catalogue of Inscribed Roof Tiles

The roof tiles referred to in the body of this article are included in this catalogue.We also include an entry for the inscription referred to in the text (see Fig. 36).77

This entry is located after those for the roof tiles. For descriptions of otherinscribed tiles in the corpus, please see the Poggio Civitate Excavation DatabaseArchive.78

The catalogue entries are in chronological order based on their PoggioCivitate artifact identification number.

76 Such an explanation does not account for the letters and non-alphabetic characters found onpottery. However, as noted above, there is no reason to assume that the motivation for markingroofing elements with such signs need be identical to that for marking pottery (see Tuck andWallace [forthcoming, 64]).77 Supra n. 52.78 Supra n. 32.



(1) CPC 19670401 (Fig. 8)Cover Tile FragmentTesoro 1ADMaster Grid: E146.12-E156.4-E155.1-E144.89,N18.6-N15.1-N12.5-N15.9Max. Pres. Length 0.152 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.070 m, Max. Pres. Thickness 0.014 mLetter Size: Max. Pres. Height 0.013 mArchaic (585–535 BCE)Description: The tile is broken on all sides, but preserves a small section of one finishededge. On the top of the tile, near the finished edge, an alphawas drawn. The medial crossbaris horizontal. The letter is positioned so that its apex is near the edge. Beneath the alphaanother sign, which has the shape of a crescent and faces to the right, was drawn.Bibliography: Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 14, A. no. 2.

Fig. 8: PC 19670401 – Cover tilefragment incised with alpha andgamma-like sign (Courtesy ofPoggio Civitate Excavation).

(2) PC 19670447 (Fig. 9)Pan Tile FragmentCivitate A 2FGrid: UnrecordedMax. Pres. Length 0.155 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.206 m, Max. Pres. Thickness 0.022 mLetter Size: Max. Pres. Height 0.073 mArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: The tile is broken on three sides; a section of one finished edge survives. Near theedge is a finger-drawn khiwith a tail. Thebottomof the letter is closest to the edgeof the tile.Bibliography: Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16, H. no. 9.

Fig. 9: PC 19670447 – Cover tilefragment incised with khi with tail(Courtesy of Poggio CivitateExcavation).



(3) PC 19670528 (Fig. 10)Pan Tile FragmentCivitate A 2CGrid: UnrecordedMax. Pres. Length 0.170 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.105 mLetter Size: UnrecordedArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: The tile fragment is broken on all sides. Part of a sign is preserved at one of thebroken edges. It appears to be a heta in the shape of a ladder. It is possible the letter had asmany as four rungs.

Fig. 10: PC19670528–Pantile fragment incisedwithheta (Courtesyof PoggioCivitate Excavation).

(4) PC 19680167 (Fig. 11)Cover Tile FragmentCivitate A2IMaster Grid: E99.4472-E99.4472,S3.31359-S3.31359Local Grid: L, 4Max. Pres. Length 0.50 m, Pres. Height 0.078–0.082 m, Pres. Width 0.15–0.18 m, Pres.Thickness 0.014–0.020 mLetter Size: UnrecordedArchaic (585–535 BCE)Description: The tile, which was pieced together from two large fragments, survives almostin its entirety. On the wide end of the tile, near the finished front edge, is a finger-drawnalpha, its apex positioned near the edge of the tile. The medial crossbar is horizontal.Bibliography: Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 14, A. no. 14.

Fig. 11: PC 19680167–Covertile fragment incisedwithapexof alphaplacedatfinishededge (CourtesyofPoggioCivitate Excavation).



(5) PC 19680532 (Fig. 12)Cover Tile FragmentCivitate A2No Grid Information RecordedMax. Pres. Length 0.202 m, Max. Pres. Width at front edge 0.128 m, Max. Pres.Thickness 0.012 mLetter Size: Max. Pres. Height 0.130 m., Max. Pres. Width 0.040 mArchaic (585–535 BCE)Description: The tile preserves one finished edge and part of one finished side. On the sideof the tile that is broken away is a portion of the letter khi, its base facing the edge of the tile.The letter was drawn with the finger. Above the top of the letter, a small lunate-shaped signwas drawn with a stick or stylus.

Fig. 12: PC19680532–Cover tilefragment incisedwith khi andgamma-likesign (CourtesyofPoggioCivitate Excavation).

(6) PC 19680541 (Fig. 13)Cover Tile FragmentCivitate A 2Grid: UnrecordedMax. Pres. Dimension 0.112 m, Max. Pres. Thickness 0.019 mLetter size: Max. Pres. height 0.084 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.054 mArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: The fragment preserves a portion of the top of the tile; it is broken on all sides.All but the top portion of a finger-drawn phi is preserved.

Fig. 13: PC 19680541–Cover tilefragment incisedwithphi (Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).



(7) PC 19680606 (Fig. 14)Pan Tile FragmentTesoro 5EGrid: UnrecordedMax. Pres. Dimension 0.110 m, Pres. Thickness 0.020–0.023 mLetter Size: UnrecordedArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: The tile is broken on all sides. On the flat upper surface is a finger-drawn sigma.The letter is serpentine in shape.

Fig. 14: PC19680606–Pan tilefragment incisedwith serpentinesigma (Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).

(8) PC 19690152 (Fig. 15)Pan Tile FragmentTesoro 9Master Grid: E208.329-E208.329,N11.8255-N11.8255Local Grid: E, 8Max. Pres. Length 0.232 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.220 m, Max. Pres. Thickness of tile 0.020 m,Max. Pres. Thickness of rim 0.032 m, Max. Pres. Height of rim 0.055 mSign Size: Max. Pres. Radius 0.080 mArchaic (580–535 BCEDescription: The tile is broken on two sides; the surviving portion is the corner of the tile,which includes part of the finished front edge and a section of a side with its flange. Near thefront edge is a semi-circle made by pivoting the finger around the thumb as a central axis.Bibliography: Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 18, B. no. 2.

Fig. 15: PC 19690152–Pan tilefragment incisedwithSemi-circle(Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).



(9) PC 19690204 (Fig. 16)Pan Tile FragmentTesoro 8Grid: UnrecordedMax. Pres. Length 0.350 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.334 m, Max. Pres. Thickness 0.017 mLetter Size: Max. Pres. Height 0.150 mArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: The tile is broken on three sides. The flat edge of the fourth side is preserved. Onthe upper surface of the tile a finger-drawn phiwas drawn. The phi has an elliptical shape.Bibliography: Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16, G. no. 5.

Fig. 16: PC19690204–Cover tilefragment incisedwith elliptical phi(Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).

(10) PC 19700026 (Fig. 17)Pan Tile FragmentCivitate A 28Master Grid: E135.747-E135.747,N29.2554-N29.2554Local Grid: GG, 5Max. Pres. Diameter 0.125 m, Max. Pres. Thickness 0.024 mLetter size: Max. Pres. Height 0.046 m; Max. Pres. Width 0.030mArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: The tile is broken on all sides. Near one of the broken edges is a character thatappears to be a three-bar sigma facing toward the right. The last bar is short and ends in aflourish.

Fig. 17: PC 19700026–Pan tilefragment incisedwithbarredsigma(Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).



(11) PC 19700041 (Fig. 18)Pan Tile FragmentCivitate A28Master Grid: E136.551-E136.551,N32.1455-N32.1455Local Grid: GG, 2Max. Pres. Length 0.088 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.077 m, Pres. Approx. Thickness 0.020 mLetter Size: Max. Pres. Height: H 0.049 m; Max. Pres. Width 0.034 mArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: The tile is broken on three sides; a small section of the floor and one finishededge remains. Near the finished edge of the tile is a finger-drawn letter in the form of alambda or a pi, depending on the orientation of the tile.

Fig. 18: PC19700041–Cover tilefragment incisedwithpi (Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).

(12) PC 19710002 (Fig. 19)Pan Tile FragmentTesoro 17Master Grid: E152.392-E152.392,N39.1338-N39.1338Local Grid: 7, JMax. Pres. Length 0.142 m, Max. Length of Pres. Edge 0.139 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.135 m,Pres. Thickness 0.023–0.027 mLetter Size: Max. Pres. Height 0.061 m; Max. Pres. Width 0.056 mArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: The fragment preserves a section of the floor of the tile. Near one of the brokenedges is a finger-drawnwau facing to the right.Bibliography: Maggiani 1985, 101, no. 245.

Fig. 19: PC19710002–Pan tilefragment incisedwithwau (Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).



(13) PC 19710416 (Fig. 20)Cover Tile FragmentTesoro 9Grid: UnrecordedMax. Pres. Length 0.249 m, Max. Pres. Height 0.068 m, Max. Pres. Width of Short Edge0.103 m,Max. Pres. Thickness 0.015 m,SignSize:Max. Pres.Height 0.118m,Max. Pres.Width0.044mArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: Most of the front end of the tile survives, reconstructed from four fragments. Onthe exterior of the tile near the front edge is a finger-drawn loop with a tail. The tail nearlyreaches the edge of the tile.Bibliography: Maggiani 1985, 101, no. 255.

Fig. 20: PC 19710416–Cover tilefragment incisedwith Loopwithtail (Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).

(14) PC 19720067 (Fig. 21)Pan Tile FragmentTesoro 19Master Grid: E178.689-E178.689,N29.4644-N29.4644Local Grid: 35, HMax. Pres. Length 0.425 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.545 m, Max. Pres. Height of lateral edge0.065 m, Max. Pres. Thickness 0.030 mSign Size: UnrecordedArchaic (585–535 BCE)Description: The pan tile fragment is reconstructed from four pieces. One finished edge ispreserved as well as portions of two lateral sides with flanges. A spiral with tail sign wasdrawn at the finished edge roughly equidistant from each side.Bibliography: Tuck andWallace 2013, 44.

Fig. 21: PC19720067–Pan tilefragment incisedwithSpiralwithtail placedat finishededge(Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).



(15) PC 19720069 (Fig. 22)Cover Tile FragmentTesoro 19Master Grid: E181.540-E181.851,N28.5302-N29.4805Local Grid: 38, H-IMax. Pres. Length 0.300m, Max. Pres. Width 0.180 m, Max. Pres. Thickness 0.020 mSign Size: UnrecordedArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: The fragment preserves the tile’s finished front and lateral edges. On the uppersurface of the exterior is a finger-drawn sign in the form of a tailless fork with three teeth.The teeth were placed at the edge of the tile.Bibliography: Nielsen and Phillips 1976, 130.

Fig. 22: PC 19720069–Covertile fragment incisedwithThree-pronged fork (CourtesyofPoggioCivitate Excavation).

(16) PC 19720381Pan Tile FragmentTesoro 19Master Grid: E175.838-E175.838,N30.3986-N30.3986Local Grid: 32, HMax. Pres. Depth of Rim 0.054 m, Max. Pres. Height of Rim 0.020 m, Pres. Thickness of Tileapproximately 0.030 m–0.034 mSign Size: UnrecordedArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: The surviving portion of the tile consists of two fragments. On the externalsurface of the tile four unevenly spaced lines were drawn parallel to the finished edge.



(17) PC 19750095 (Fig. 23)

Cover Tile FragmentTesoro Rectangle 9Master Grid: E137.827-E137.827,N3.97365-N3.97365Local Grid: 6, FMax. Pres. Length 0.170 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.134 m, Max. Pres. Thickness 0.019 mSign Size: UnrecordedArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: The tile is broken on three sides but preserves its curved profile. A section of thefinished back end of the tile survives. On the external surface near the finished edge a signin the form of a hook was drawn with a stick or stylus. The hook has a long tail.

Fig. 23: PC 19750095–Cover tilefragment incisedwithHookwithtail (Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).

(18) PC 19750097Pan Tile FragmentTesoro 18Master Grid: E171.070-E171.070,N35.1178-N35.1178Local Grid: 26, KMax. Pres. Length 0.630 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.544 m, Pres. Height of upturned edges0.055 m(average);Max.Pres. Thickness0.013 mSign Size: UnrecordedArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: The tile is preserved intact except for one corner of the back edge, which isbroken away. In the middle of the tile two lines were drawn roughly parallel to one anotherpointing toward the front edge.



(19) PC 19760032 (Fig. 24)

Cover Tile FragmentTesoro Rectangle 5Master Grid: E160.280-E160.280,N20.8012-N20.8012Local Grid: 11, GMax. Pres. Length 0.144 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.109 m, Mean Pres. Thickness of Edge 0.009–0.014 mSign Size: UnrecordedOrientalizing (before 600 BCE)Description: The tile preserves part of one finished edge; the sides are broken away but onecan still observe the tile’s curved profile. On the left side of the tile, facing the finished edge,are three finger-drawn lines running parallel to one another.

Fig. 24: PC 19760032–Covertile fragment incisedwith Threelines (Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).

(20) PC 19800037Pan Tile FragmentTesoro 23Master Grid: E203.397-E203.397,S57.9938-S57.9938Local Grid: 10, IIMax. Pres. Length 0.150 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.160 mSign Size: UnrecordedOrientalizing (before 600 BCE)Description: The tile is broken on three sides. A portion of one of the side edges with itsflange survives. On the floor of the pan, near the surviving edge, an X-sign is preserved in itsentirety as well as a portion of a second X-sign.



(21) PC 19800201 (Fig. 25)

Cover Tile FragmentTesoro 23Master Grid: E204.367-E204.367,S56.2446-S56.2446Local Grid: 10, GGMax. Pres. Length 0.275 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.143 mLetter Size: Max. Pres. Height 0.050 m; Max. Pres. Width 0.037 mOrientalizing (before 600 BCE)Description: The tile preserves the finished back edge, and one partially finished side. Onthe top of the tile is a finger-drawn alpha. Its medial bar descends to the left but does notmeet the left oblique bar. The side of the letter faces the back edge of the tile.Bibliography: Tuck andWallace 2013, 40.

Fig. 25: PC 19800201–Cover tilefragment incisedwithalphaaskew(Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).

(22) PC 19800265 (Fig. 26)Agger 11 ExtensionGrid: UnrecordedMax. Pres. Dimension 0.044 m, Max. Pres. Thickness 0.012 mSign Size: UnrecordedArchaic (580–535 BCE)Pan Tile FragmentDescription: The tile is broken on all sides. On the external surface is the central section of across mark drawn with a stick or stylus.

Fig. 26: PC 19800265–Pan tilefragment incisedwithCrossmark(Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).



(23) PC 19830088 (Fig. 27)Cover Tile FragmentTesoro 26Grid: UnrecordedMax. Pres. Length 0.149 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.107 m, Max. Pres. Thickness 0.017 mSign Size: UnrecordedOrientalizing (before 600 BCE)Description: The cover tile fragment is broken on all sides, but preserves a portion of thefinished front edge. A finger-drawn line extends across most of the width of the survivingfragment.

Fig. 27: PC 19830088–Cover tilefragment incisedwith Line (Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).

(24) PC 19840220 (Figs. 28a and 28b)Cover Tile FragmentTesoro 26Master Grid: E178.055-E178.055,S66.1061-S66.1061Local Grid: 61, WMax. Pres. Length 0.570 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.155 m, Pres. Thickness 0.012–0.015 mLetter Size: UnrecordedOrientalizing (before 600 BCE)Description: The tile was pieced together from eight fragments. The front end of the tile ispreserved as well as part of the back end. On the top of the tile, 0.220 m from the survivingfront edge, the letter khiwas drawn. The letter has no tail.

Fig. 28a: PC 19840220–Cover tilefragment incisedwith khiwithout atail (Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).

Fig. 28b: PC 19840220–Detail ofcover tile fragment incisedwith khiwithout a tail (Courtesyof PoggioCivitate Excavation).



(25) PC 19850066 (Fig. 29)Cover Tile FragmentTesoro 26Master Grid: E207.780-E207.780,S65.4417-S65.4417Local Grid: 89, MMax. Pres. Length 0.120 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.085 mSign Size: Max. Pres. Height 0.045 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.028 m, Max. Pres. Thickness ofline 0.007 mOrientalizing (before 600 BCE)Description: The tile is broken on all sides. A finger-drawn sign in the shape of an oval wasmade on the exterior surface of the tile.

Fig. 29: PC 19850066–Covertile fragment incisedwithOvoid(Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).

(26) PC 19850111 (Fig. 30)Pan Tile FragmentTesoro 26Master Grid: E206.201-E206.201,S67.0245-S67.0245Local Grid: 88, OMax. Pres. Length 0.279 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.184 m, Pres. Thickness 0.019-0.015 mLetter Size: UnrecordedOrientalizing (before 600 BCE)Description: The pan tile fragment is broken on three sides; it preserves part of the floor ofthe tile and part of one finished edge with its flange intact. The tops of two finger-drawnletters, placed approximately 0.110 m from the flange, are preserved. The letter on the right(reading from right-to-left) is probably a rho because the right bar is vertical, although analpha cannot be ruled out. The next letter, of which only part of a vertical stroke survives,could be iota or lambda.

Fig. 30: PC 19850111–Pan tilefragment incisedwith two letters,possibly rhoand iota (CourtesyofPoggioCivitate Excavation).



(27) PC 19870128 (Fig. 31)Cover Tile FragmentTesoro 26Master Grid: E206.824-E210.942,S58.8019-S65.4383Local Grid: 86–92, G-LMax. Pres. Length 0.536 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.155 m, Max. Pres. Thickness 0.013 mLetter Size: Max. Pres. Height 0.082 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.058 m, Max. Pres. Thickness ofthe lines 0.007 mOrientalizing (before 600 BCE)Description: The tile was reconstructed, nearly in its entirety, from six fragments. An alphawas drawn on the side of the tile, toward the middle. The apex of the letter faces the top ofthe tile; the letter’s feet are 0.048 m from the finished edge.

Fig. 31: PC 19870128–Pan tilefragment incisedwithbaseofalphaplacednear the finishededge (Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).

(28) PC 19880116 (Fig. 32)Cover Tile FragmentTesoro 26Master Grid: E211.885-E214.101,S59.4290-S62.2726Local Grid: 91–94, F-HMax. Pres. Length 0.273 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.090 m, Max. Pres. Thickness 0.012 mSign Size: UnrecordedOrientalizing (before 600 BCE)Description: The fragment preserves the front edge and one of the side edges of the tile. A signin the formof anXwas drawnon the side of the tile very close to the finished front edge.

Fig. 32: PC 19880116–Cover tilefragment incisedwithanX (Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).



(29) PC 19880167 (Fig. 33)Pan Tile FragmentTesoro 26Master Grid: E214.416-E214.416,S61.3236-S61.3236Local Grid: 94, GMax. Pres. Length 0.225 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.193 m, Max. Pres. Thickness 0.024 mSign Size: UnrecordedOrientalizing (before 600 BCE)Description: The tile preserves one finished edge; the other sides are broken away. On theupper surface of the tile near the finished edge is a semi-circle drawn with stick or stylus.

Fig. 33: PC 19880167–Pan tilefragment incisedwithStick-drawnSemi-circle (Courtesyof PoggioCivitate Excavation).

(30) PC 20030155 (Fig. 34)Pan Tile FragmentTesoro 28 SouthMaster Grid: E192-E198,S88-S90Max. Pres. Length 0.789 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.274 m, Max. Pres. Thickness of Pan 0.021 m,Max. Pres. Height of Flange 0.051 m, Avg. Pres. Thickness of Flange 0.021 m, Min. Pres.Thickness of Flange 0.010 mLetter Size: 0.082 m and 0.078 m for two bars and 0.044 m for the medial barArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: The pan tile is reconstructed from 18 fragments. The full length of the tile ispreserved as well as portions of two finished edges. A finger-drawn alpha was placed0.100 m from the finished front edge. The letter’s medial bar descends to the left.Bibliography: Tuck andWallace 2013, 43.

Fig. 34: PC20030155–Pan tilefragment incisedwithalpha(Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).



(31) PC 20040020 (Fig. 35)Pan Tile FragmentTesoro 30BMaster Grid: E182.62,S48.81Max. Pres. Length 0.109 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.085 m, Max. Pres. Thickness 0.026,Letter Size: Max. Pres. Height 0.066 m, Max. Pres. Width 0.032 mArchaic (580–535 BCE)Description: The fragment is part of the floor of the tile. No finished edges are preserved. Onthe upper side is a stick-drawn rho. Whether the letter is full-loop or half-loop in style cannotbe determined because the letter is not preserved in its entirety.

Fig. 35: PC20040020–Pan tilefragment incisedwith rho (Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).

(32) PC 19660121 (Fig. 36)Fragment of large impasto bowlTesoro 2FMaster Grid: E141.2-E144.8-E143-E139.2, S14.4-S14.8-S23.9-S23.2Max. Pres. Height 0.057 m, Width 0.075 m, Thickness 0.014–0.018 mLetter Size: Max. Pres. Height: 0.018-0.022 m (pi 0.017 m high, lambda 0.018 m high)Archaic (580–535 BCE)Description: This fragment is of the rim of a large impasto bowl. The inscription was writtenin left-to-right direction just beneath the bowl’s lip. An oblique stroke cuts diagonally acrossupsilon. This stroke was incised less deeply than the strokes of the upsilon, so it may beaccidental. The final letter is probably rho, of the type without a tail. If this is the case, theinscription may be segmented as follows:79 ]pliviu r[– – – ]Bibliography: Cristofani and Phillips 1970, 289, no. 2; Phillips 1966, 13, fig. 16.

Fig. 36: PC19660121–Archaicinscription incisedon rim fragmentof large impastobowl, ]pliviu r[(Courtesyof PoggioCivitateExcavation).

79 Cristofani and Phillips (1970, 289, n. 2) note that one could turn the object upside down andread ]lpiriax[ or ]lpiliax[. However, these readings are less felicitous than that the one proposed inthis article and they do not provide an interpretation for the text that is anymore intelligible.



Bibliography

Bagnasco Gianni, G. 1996.Oggetti iscritti di epoca orientalizzante in Etruria. Florence:Leo S Olszcha.

Bagnasco Gianni, G. 2008. “Rappresentazioni dello spazio ‘sacro’ nella documentazione epigra-fica etrusca di epoca orientalizzante.” In Saturnia Tellus. Definizioni dello spazio consacratoin ambiente etrusco, italico, fenicio-punico, iberico e celtico. Atti del Convegno Internazio-nale svoltosi a Roma dal 10 al 12 novembre 2004, edited by X. Dupré Raventós, S. Ribichini,and S. Verger, 267–281. Rome: CNR.

Bagnasco Gianni, G., and N. T. de Grummond. Forthcoming. “Introducing the InternationalEtruscan Sigla Project.” In Etruscan Literacy in its Social Context, edited by K. Lomas andJ. B. Wilkins. London: Accordia Research Centre, University of London.

Bianchi Bandinelli, R. 1926. “Murlo (Siena) –Monumenti archeologici del territorio.” NSc:165–170.

Campana, S. 2001. Carta archeologica della provincia di Siena. Vol 5: Murlo. Siena: NuovaImmagine.

Colonna, G. 1994. “Etrusca Arte: Urbanistica e Architettura.” In Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, clas-sica e orientale [secondo supplemento], 554–565. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana.

Colonna, G., and D. F. Maras. 2006. Corpus Inscriptionum Etruscarum. II, 1, 5 (Tituli 6325–6723),et addit. vol. II, 2, 1 (Tituli 8881-8927) (Inscriptiones Veiis et in agro veientano, nepesinosutrinoque repertae, additis illis in agro capenate et falisco inventis, quae in fasciculo CIE II,2, 1 desunt, nec non illis perpaucis in finitimis sabinis repertis). Rome: Centro di Studio perl’Archeologia Etrusco-Italica.

Cristofani, M., and K. Phillips. 1970. “REE 2.” StEtr 38: 289.———. 1971. “Poggio Civitate: Etruscan Letters and Chronological Observations.” StEtr 39: 1–22

(tav. I–IX).Cummer, S. 1966. SCI Tesoro 1E. In Poggio Civitate Trench Book Library, 1–123 poggiocivitate.

classics.umass.edu/catalog/trenchbooks/index.asp.Damgaard Andersen, H. 1990. “The feline waterspouts of the lateral sima from the Upper Building

at Poggio Civitate, Murlo.” OpRom 18: 61–98.de Grummond, N. 1997. “Poggio Civitate: A Turning Point.” EtrStud 4: 23–40.de Grummond, N.T., C. Bare, and A. Meilleur. 2000. “Etruscan sigla (‘graffiti’): prolegomena and

some cases studies.” Archaeologia Transatlantica 17: 25–38.de Vita De Angelis, G. 1968. “Contrassegni alfabetici e di altro tipo su elementi del rivestimento

fittile del tempio di Apollo a Portonaccio.” StEtr 36: 403–449.Dinsmoor, W. B. 1947. “The Hekatompedon on the Athenian Akropolis.” AJA 51: 109–151.Edlund-Berry, I. 1992. The seated and standing statue akroteria from Poggio Civitate (Murlo).

Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider.Gantz, T. 1966. TGI Poggio Civitate A. In Poggio Civitate Trench Book Library, 1–73, poggio-

civitate.classics.umass.edu/catalog/trenchbooks/index.asp.———. 1971. “Divine triads on an archaic Etruscan frieze plaque from Poggio Civitate.” StEtr 19:

3–24.———. 1974. “The procession frieze from the Etruscan sanctuary at Poggio Civitate.” RM 81: 1–14.Gilstrap, W., and A. Tuck 2009. “The Conundrum of the Workshop OR Etruscan Utilitarian

Ceramics: A Compositional Analysis.” Rasenna: Journal of the Center for Etruscan Studies 2,http://scholarworks.umass.edu/rasenna/vol2/iss1/2/.



Gobbi, A. 2012. “Oggetti iscritti e contesti in Campania.” In Quali Etruschi maestri di scrittura?Convivenze etniche e contatti di Culture. Atti del Seminario di Studi, Università degli Studi diMilano (23–24 novembre, 2009), edited by G. Bagnasco Gianni. Aristonothos. Scritti per ilMediterraneo Antico 4: 87–111.

Maggiani, A. 1985. “Tegole con lettere, segni e iscrizioni.” In Case e Palazzi d’Etruria, edited byS. Stopponi, 100–102. Milan: Electa.

Neils, J. 1976. The Terracotta Gorgoneia of Poggio Civitate (Murlo), RM 83: 1–29.Nielsen, E. 1985. “Speculations on an Ivory Workshop of the Orientalizing Period.” In Crossroads

of the Mediterranean, edited by T. Hackens, N. Holloway & R. Holloway, 333–348. Provi-dence, RI: Archaeologica Transatlantica.

———. 1987. “Some preliminary thoughts on old and new terracottas.” OpRom 16: 91–119.———. 1991. “Excavations at Poggio Civitate.” StMat 6: 245–259.———. 1993. “Further Evidence of Metal Working at Poggio Civitate.” In Antiche officine del

bronzo: materiali, strumenti, tecniche, edited by E. Formigli, 29–35. Siena: Nuova Imma-gine.

———. 1995. “Aspetti della produzione artigianale a Poggio Civitate.” In Preziosi in oro, avorio,osso e corno: arte e techniche degli artigiani etruschi, edited by E. Formigli, 19–24. Siena:Edilberto Formigli.

Nielsen, E., and K. Phillips 1976. NSc 8, 30: 130.Nielsen, E., and A. Tuck 2001. “An Orientalizing Period Complex at Poggio Civitate (Murlo):

A Preliminary View.” EtrStud 8: 35–64.Phillips, K. 1966. “Poggio Civitate (Siena) – Campagna de scavo 1966 del Bryn Mawr College in

Toscana.” NSc 8, 20: 13, fig. 16.———. 1967. “Bryn Mawr College Excavations in Tuscany, 1966.” AJA 71: 133–139.———. 1971. “Bryn Mawr College excavations in Tuscany, 1970.” AJA 75: 57, fig 4.———. 1989. “Greek Objects at Poggio Civitate.” AnalRom 17/18: 29–42.———. 1992. In the Hills of Tuscany: Recent Excavations at the Etruscan Site of Poggio Civitate

(Murlo, Italy). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology andAnthropology.

Rendeli, M. 1990. “Materie prime, techniche e tipi edilizi.” In La Grande Roma dei Tarquini,edited by M. Cristofani, 138–139. Rome: Edizioni Quasar.

Riva, C. 2010. The Urbanization of Etruria: Funerary Practices and Social Change, 700–600 BC.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rix, H. et al. 1991, Etruskische Texte. Editio minor, Bd. I. Einleitung, Konkordanz, Indices; II. Texte.Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Root, M. 1973. “An Etruscan horse race from Poggio Civitate.” AJA 77: 121–137.Rystedt, E. 1983. Acquarossa IV: Early Etruscan akroteria from Acquarossa and Poggio Civitate

(Murlo). Stockholm: Paul Astroms.Sassatelli, G. 1981/1982. “Graffiti alfabetici e contrasegni nel villanoviano Bolognese.” Emilia

preromana 9/10: 147–255.Sassatelli, G., ed. 1994. Iscrizioni e graffiti della città etrusca di Marzabotto. Bologna: University

Press Bologna.Small, J. P. 1971. “The banquet frieze from Poggio Civitate (Murlo).” StEtr 19: 25–61.Tuck, A. 1999. “Orientalizing Period Wing Handle Cups from Poggio Civitate: Ceramic Traditions

and Regional Production in Inland Etruria.” EtrStud 6: 85–108.———. 2006. “The Social and Political Context of the 7th Century Architectural Terracottas from

Poggio Civitate.” In Deliciae Fictiles III: Architectural Terracottas in Ancient Italy: New



Discoveries and Interpretations, edited by I. Edlund-Berry, I.-G. Greco, and J. Kenfield,130–135. Oxford: Oxbow.

Tuck, A., J. Brunk, T. Huntsman, and H. Tallman. 2010. “An Archaic Period Well from PoggioCivitate: Thoughts on the Final Destruction of the Site.” EtrStud 13: 93–104.

Tuck, A., and E. Nielsen. 2008. “The Chronological Implications of Reliefware Bucchero at PoggioCivitate.” EtrStud 11: 51–68.

Tuck, A., J. Bauer, T. Huntsman, K. Kreindler, S. Miller, S. Pancaldo, and C. Powell. 2009. “Centerand Periphery in Inland Etruria: Poggio Civitate and the Etruscan Settlement in Vescovado diMurlo.” EtrStud 12: 215–237.

Tuck, A., and R. Wallace. 2011. “An inscribed ‘rocchetto’ from Poggio Civitate (Murlo).”StEtr 74: 197–202.

———. 2012. “A ‘new’ inscribed plaque inscription from Poggio Civitate (Murlo).” EtrStud 15: 1–17.———. 2013. First Words. The Archaeology of Language at Poggio Civitate. Altona, Canada:

Friesens Press.———. Forthcoming. “The Social Context of Proto-Literacy in Central Italy: The Case of Poggio

Civitate.” In Etruscan Literacy in its Social Context, edited by K. Lomas and J. B. Wilkins,57–68. London: Accordia Research Centre, University of London.

Wallace, R. 2008. “Muluvanice Inscriptions at Poggio Civitate (Murlo).” AJA 112: 449–458.———. Forthcoming. “The paleography of >A< on roof tiles from Poggio Civitate (Murlo):

A preliminary view.” In Cen zic ziχuχe. Per Maristella Pandolfini, edited by P. Santoro,F. Delpino, and E. Benelli.Mediterranea 6.

Warden, P. G. 1985. The Metal Finds from Poggio Civitate (Murlo) 1966-1978. Rome: GiorgioBretschneider.

Wikander, Ö. 1993. Acquarossa Vol. VI: The Roof Tiles – Part 2. Typology and Technical Features.Stockholm: Paul Astroms.

Winter, N. 2009. Symbols of Wealth and Power: Architectural Terracotta Decoration and Etruria &Central Italy. 640–510 B.C. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Acknowledgements

We thank the participants and audience members at the conference, “Texts, Non-Texts and Contexts,” which was held at Florida State University in Tallahassee, FLon February 24–25, 2011, for comments on our presentation and especially Nancy deGrummond, whose interest in sigla was a driving force behind the conference. Weare indebted to the team of participants at the Poggio Civitate Field School whoassisted us on this project: Andrew Carroll, Brooke Norton, Jordan Miranda, BradHald, Fredrik Tobin, and Theresa Huntsman. Örjan Wikander read an earlierversion of this paper, and we thank him for his helpful comments and suggestions.Finally, we are most grateful to the Florence Archaeological Superintendency,especially Dott.esse Fulvia Lo Schiavo, Mariarosaria Barbera, Silvia Goggioli, andElena Sorgi for their constant support and advice throughout the many years ofexcavation and study synthesized in this article. Equally, we gratefully recognizeFilippo Cenni and the staff of the Museo Archeologico di Murlo for granting us



permission to locate and examine the incised roof tiles on display in the museum.Lastly, we are very grateful to the anonymous reviewers of this article for theirthoughtful and exhaustive comments and helpful suggestions for improvement.

Addendum: List of Inscribed Antefix Terminal,Pan and Cover Tiles

We refer to the inscribed tiles in the corpus by the artifact ID number in the PoggioCivitate Excavation Digital Archive. Full catalogue descriptions of all tiles, exceptthose that are from undocumented contexts (supra n. 32), are available at http://poggiocivitate.classics.umass.edu. The tiles are organized by chronological peri-od and artifact type. Letters are listed first in alphabetical order; non-alphabeticcharacters, based on the descriptive label used in this article, follow in the sameorder. Tiles whose characters cannot be determined are placed at the end of eachsection. The total number of examples of each letter and non-alphabetic sign isplaced in parentheses following the descriptive label.

Tiles listed in Cristofani and Phillips (1971) and Maggiani (1985) are cross-listed in square brackets following the PC ID number.

Orientalizing Period (82)

1. Cover tiles: OC1 (2)A. Fragment with Khi. (1)

19800264B. Fragment with 3 parallel lines. (1)

19760032

2. Cover tiles: OC2 (52)A. Fragments with Alpha. (7)

19710506; 19780194; 19800121; 19800135; 19800201; 19870119; 19870128B. Fragment with Phi. (1)

19850143C. Fragments with Khi. (11)

19840014; 19840054; 19840111; 19840132; 19840196; 19840197; 19840200;19840201; 19840215; 19840220; 19840221

D. Fragment with Cross mark. (1)19850110



E. Fragment with Four parallel lines. (1)19810161

F. Fragment with Line. (1)19830088

G. Fragments with Ovoid. (11)19830087; 19850066; 19850067; 19850128; 19850141; 19850149; 19860056;19870008; 19870106; 19870126; 19880118

H. Fragments with Two parallel lines. (2)19760115; 19850129

I. Fragments with Three parallel lines. (4)19790183; 19810183; 19850176; 19880183

J. Fragments with X. (9)19840011; 19850005; 19850112; 19850127; 19850140; 19860055; 19870127;19880116; 19880172

K. Fragments with Uncertain letter or sign. (4)19810160; 19840012; 19850015; 19850040

3. Pan Tiles: OC2 (26)A. Fragments with Alpha. (4)

19870118; 19870130; 19870133; 19870139B. Fragments with Khi. (3)

19810184; 19840001; 19950046C. Fragment with Cross mark. (1)

19850116D. Fragment with Line. (1)

19850173E. Fragments with Semi-circle (8)

19820064; 19820086; 19820087; 19850142; 19860074; 19870135; 19880126;19890166

F. Fragments with Spiral with tail. (1)19890153

G. Fragment with Stick-drawn Semi-circle (1)19880167

H. Fragment with Two letters. (1)19850111

I. Fragments with X. (3)19800037; 19880117; 20040035

J. Fragment with Uncertain letter or symbol. (3)19810162; 19850021; 19850145



4. Pan Tiles: OC3 (2)A. Fragment with Alpha. (1)

19970176B. Fragment with Spiral with tail. (1)

20080206

Archaic Period (199)

5. Antefix terminal tiles (2)A. Fragment with Wau. (1)

19710031 [=Maggiani 1985, cat. no. 244]B. Fragment with Uncertain letter or symbol. (1)

19710153

6. Cover tiles (86)A. Fragments with Alpha. (30)

19660114 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 14, A. no. 1]; 19670400 [= Cristofaniand Phillips 1971, 14, A. no. 5]; 19670401 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 14, A.no. 2 and 15, B. no. 1]; 19670440 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 15, F. no. 1];19680008 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 14, A. no. 3]; 19680167 [= Cristofaniand Phillips 1971, 14, A. no. 14]; 19680173 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 14,A. no. 8]; 19680278 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 14, A. no. 6]; 19680416 [=Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 14, A. no. 7]; 19680487 [= Cristofani and Phillips1971, 14, A. no. 4]; 19680534; 19680535; 19680536; 19690202 [= Cristofani andPhillips 1971, 14, A. no. 9]; 19690251 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 14, A.no. 11]; 19690255 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 14, A. no. 12]; 19690257 [=Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 14, A. no. 10]; 19690266 [= Cristofani and Phillips1971, 14, A. no. 13]; 19690393; 19700049; 19700056; 19700114 (could be wau);19700118; 19710007; 19710039; 19710250 [= Maggiani 1985, cat. no. 242];19710737; 19800016; 20030148; 20030149

B. Fragments with Khi. (13)19680488 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16, F. no. 2]; 19680532; 19690149 [=Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16, H. no. 1]; 19690265 [= Cristofani and Phillips1971, 16, H. no. 2]; 19700115; 19700116; 19700163; 19700386; 19710188;19710353; 19720050; 19800036 [=Maggiani 1985, cat. no. 251]; 20050076

C. Fragments with Phi. (16)19660298 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16, G. no. 1]; 19670481; 19680281 [=Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16, G. no. 2]; 19680282 [= Cristofani and Phillips1971, 16, G. no. 3]; 19680541; 19680542; 19690096 [= Cristofani and Phillips



1971, 16, G. no. 4]; 19700005; 19700113; 19700119; 19700120; 19700162;19700164; 19710507; 19730010 [= Maggiani 1985, cat. no. 249]; 19730052

D. Fragment with Hook with tail. (1)19750095

E. Fragment with Line. (1)19670399

F. Fragments with Loop with tail. (2)19680187 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 15, E. no. 3]; 19710416 [= Maggiani1985, cat. no. 255]

G. Fragments with Ovoid. (2)19680531; 19710030 [= Maggiani 1985, cat. no. 246]

H. Fragments with Semi-circle. (2)19730117 [= Maggiani 1985, cat. no. 253]; 19800021

I. Fragments with Spiral with tail. (7)19680136 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, E. no. 2]; 19690177 [= Cristofani andPhillips 1971, E. no. 1]; 19690179 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 15, E. no. 4];19700131; 19700132; 19750006; 20090038

J. Fragments with Three-pronged fork. (7)19720054; 19720062; 19720064; 19720069; 19720070; 19720071; 19720072

K. Fragments with X. (2)19680001; 19690252

L. Fragments with Uncertain letter or symbol. (3)19680533; 19710009; 19800018

7. Pan tiles (111)A. Fragments with Alpha. (24)

19680459; 19680489 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16, F. no. 3]; 19680538;19690203 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 15, A. no. 6]; 19690042 [= Cristofaniand Phillips 1971, 17, I. no. 1]; 19690258 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 14,A. no. 15]; 19690270 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 17, I. no. 2]; 19700004;19700038 [= Maggiani 1985, cat. no. 243]; 19700057; 19700065; 19700066;19700067; 19700077; 19700080; 19700185; 19710008; 19710011; 19710060;19710231; 19710352; 19720053; 19720056; Box 528-1

B. Fragment with Heta. (1)19670528

C. Fragments with Khi. (21)19670337 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16, H. no. 8]; 19670447 [= Cristofaniand Phillips 1971, 16, H. no. 9]; 19680020 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 17,J. no. 1]; 19680137 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16, H. no. 10]; 19680222 [=Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16, H. no. 5]; 19690147 [= Cristofani and Phillips



1971, 16, H. no. 3]; 19690239 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16, H. no. 7];19690254 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16, H. no. 6]; 19690269 [= Cristofaniand Phillips 1971, 16, H. no. 4]; 19690392; 19700018 [= Maggiani 1985, cat.no. 256]; 19700123; 19700432; 19710028; 19710164 [= Maggiani 1985, cat.no. 250]; 19710738; 19730122; 19740026; 19800015; 19800020; 19930010

D. Fragments with Lambda or Pi. (1)19700041

E. Fragments with Phi. (12)19660291; 19680539; 19680540; 19680543; 19690150 [= Cristofani and Phillips1971, 16, G. no. 7]; 19690204 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16, G. no. 5];19690267 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 16, G. no. 6]; 19690268 [= Cristofaniand Phillips 1971, 16, G. no. 8]; 19710063; 19720108 [= Maggiani 1985, cat.no. 248]; 19770099; 20090130

F. Fragment with Rho. (1)20040020

G. Fragments with Sigma. (2)19680606; 19700026

H. Fragments with Wau. (12)19680422 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 15, C. no. 2]; 19680523 [= Cristofaniand Phillips 1971, 15, C. no. 1]; 19680537; 19690077 [= Cristofani and Phillips1971, 15, C. no. 4]; 19690256 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 15, C. no. 5];19690289; 19700055; 19700091; 19700142; 19700186; 19710002 [= Maggiani1985, cat. no. 245]; 19720052

I. Fragments with Semi-circle. (8)19660182 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 17, B. no. 1; Maggiani 1985, cat.no. 252]; 19670496; 19690151 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 18, B. no. 3];19690152 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 18, B. no. 2]; 19700110; 19700433;19750035; 19800017

J. Fragment with Cross mark19800265

K. Fragment with Four parallel lines. (1)19720381

L. Fragment with Line. (1)19720147

M. Fragments with Spiral with tail. (15)19700219; 19710221; 19720051; 19720055; 19720060; 19720063; 19720065;19720066 [= Maggiani 1985, cat. no. 254]; 19720067; 19720068; 19720135;19750033; 20040021; 20040022; 20050093

N. Fragment with Two lines. (1)19750097



O. Fragments with X. (2)19700165; 19770084

P. Fragments with Uncertain letters or symbols. (8)19690148 [= Cristofani and Phillips 1971, 15, C. no. 3]; 19700108; 19710585;19710885; 19720061 [= Maggiani 1985, cat. no. 247]; 19800019; 19930017;20000118

Period Undocumented (21)

8. Cover tiles (2)A. Fragment with Alpha. (1)

Inventory box 352-1B. Fragment with Line. (1)

Inventory box 193-2

9. Pan Tiles (19)A. Fragments with Alpha. (3)

20030150; 20030151; 20030155.B. Fragments with Khi. (2)

Inventory box T 696-1; Inventory box 352-3C. Fragments with Phi. (2)

Inventory box 950095-1; Inventory box 950095-2D. Fragments with Line. (2)

Inventory box 528-3; 1978 Inventory box 950419-1E. Fragments with Spiral with tail. (2)

Inventory box 352-2; Inventory box T 696-2F. Fragments with Stick-drawn Semi-circle. (3)

20030152; Inventory box 528-2; 1968 Inventory box 950425-2G. Fragments with Uncertain letters and symbols. (5)

19920076; 20030153; 20030154; Inventory box 193-1; 1968 Inventory box950425-1

Total = 302



Letters and Non-alphabetic Characters on Roof Tiles from Poggio Civitate (Murlo)

Documents

Transcript of Letters and Non-alphabetic Characters on Roof Tiles from Poggio Civitate (Murlo)