69PER UN’ECONOMIA DEL TERRITORIO IN LUCANIA DI IV E III A.C. …

One of the most significant and debated pieces of evidence for the processof formation of the Greek polis is the disappearing of weapons fromthe sets of grave goods between the second half and the end of the 8th

century BC. This is a striking change from the impressive focus on the militaryrole in the aristocratic male burials of the early Iron Age2. Hereafter in the“Greece of poleis”, south of Thermopylai, this custom played a quickly-decreasingrole in funerary self-representation. Any generalizations, schematism and attemptsto extend an idea of polis shaped on later evidence to this early period must beavoided3. Nevertheless this momentous innovation, which deals with one of themost deeply-felt matters, should be contextualized within the process of definitionof polis structures and the elaboration of its strong collective ideology. Theostentatious display of individual bravery, a very effective means of self-promotion, was hard to integrate and potentially dangerous. War became acollective activity, waged with hoplite tactics based on the coordinated anddisciplined action of the whole phalanx, rather than individual deeds of prowess4.The polis was in charge of the direction of war, and played the chief role in thecelebration of a victory, mainly through dedications in the city sanctuaries andin the panhellenic ones, even if individuals were also allowed personal dedications.The main and most distinguishing role of the adult male could not be that ofthe brave warrior any longer and became progressively that of active participationin the political community. Following the strict exclusion of weapons fromgrave goods, the citizen-in-arms was of course still represented and could be

FABIO COLIVICCHI

Warriors and citizens.Models of self-representation in native Basilicata1

70 FABIO COLIVICCHI

depicted in funerary monuments and artifacts, for instance on tombstones orwhite-ground lekythoi, but practically without any emphasis on the personalarête of the warrior. The citizen who fell in war was not normally depicted as atriumphant victor over the enemy5, but represented in a restrained and slightlymelancholic pose, frequently taking leave of his family to go to war and performhis duty in defense of oikos and polis6. The military role was clearly subordinateto that of the citizen, and the display of arms, other than when the communityrequired, at least in the classical period, it felt to be antithetical to the culture ofthe polis. The custom of the Ozolian Lokrians, Aetolians and Acarnanians, whowere habitually armed, was considered by Thucydides7 the vestige of anuncivilized past, when men lived always exposed to mutual aggression androbbery, a custom of barbarians, not Greeks, that the Athenians were proud tohave been the first to quit.

This attitude was shared by the Western Greek poleis too, where, in spite oftheir sometimes-innovative funerary customs, weapons, still included in the tombsof Cumean aristocracy, were strictly excluded after the late 8th century BC fromburials, with a very few rephrase exceptions8. The funerary customs of the Greekcities were thus clearly distinct from those of the native Italian peoples, whofollowed a local tradition, widely shared in Italy, where weapons were a sign ofsocial distinction and rank. A number of individuals were buried with a spear orjavelin (the usual armament of adult males), while a few, most probably chieftains,who were distinguished also by the other grave goods, were also swordsmen9.From the beginning of the 6th century BC, parts of the Greek panoply began tobe included in high-rank native tombs and soon became (besides vases, and toolsfor the consumption of wine and meat) the main distinguishing male features ofnative aristocracies10. These appeared as solemn mounted hoplites, also representedin well-known monuments such as the terracotta “Horsemen’s frieze” of Serradi Vaglio and the bronze knight of Armento. Later, during the 5th century BC,a relatively lighter cavalry seems to prevail, especially in Apulia. The adoptionof Greek arms should not make us forget that their display in funerary ritual isstrong evidence for the deep difference between the Greek culture and the nati-ve ethnic and cultural groups of southern Italy with respect to the role of theindividual in war. This issue, as noted above, is inseparably tied to the collectiveculture of the polis. For this reason the attitude of native societies to this issuecan be regarded as an especially valuable criterion to evaluate their culturalorientation and the degree of acceptance of one of the most typical features ofGreek urban culture in the period under investigation in this conference, whendramatic transformations were taking place in native Southern Italy. The apparentwaiving of the warrior role in some of the most high-ranking burials of the late5th century BC11 was a dramatic break with local tradition that entails especially

71WARRIORS AND CITIZENS. MODELS OF SELF-REPRESENTATION IN NATIVE BASILICATA

radical “hellenizing” choices and is thus an especially relevant issue. It is nowonder that such orientations were undertaken by the élites of the most developedareas of native territory, on the one hand Messapia, with the tombs of Ugentoand Cavallino12, on the other hand the Oenotrian area South of Velia, with thetombs of Rivello13, even if in the latter case the integrity of the sets is not alwayssure. Other important evidence for high development and complexity can beearly detected in these areas, such as the adoption of Greek writing to expresslocal language in both areas or the use of locally-struck coinage in the Oenotrian-Thyrrenian area. The abandonment of the traditional but, from the Greek pointof view, “barbarian” self-representation as brave warrior to unite differentexpressions of the social rank derived from the Greek world, even if not used inthe same way, is evidence that the very small native aristocracies of the fifthcentury took their models directly from their Western Greek counterparts, whichwere in this period oriented towards oligarchic regimes14. From the point ofview of a strict oligarchy, who tried to mantain class solidarity and to controlpotentially dangerous efforts of charismatic self-promotion by its mostoutstanding members, the waiving of such an important feature of local ritualand tradition can be explained and understood. In other areas of the nativeterritory the old tradition was still followed, as shown by Tomb 227 of Chiaro-monte15, contemporary of those of Rivello, but located in a much less developeddistrict, which would soon suffer the transformation processes of the so-called“Lucanization” as a dramatic break16. Between the late – 5th and the early – 4th

century BC, arms in burials increase again, as a result of the strong militaryideology of the Lucanian groups17. The strong distinction between the “worldof citizens” that was expressed in the cemeteries of Italiote poleis and the “worldof warriors” so vividly represented by native burials was thus still clear and evenmore evident than ever. Such opposition makes even more striking the exceptionsof the few tombs with arms found in Greek territory, mainly at Metapontum,but also at Taras and Herakleia18, and most probably belonging to native Italianresidents, as distinguished by the typical bronze belt19. From the average tombscontaining arms, spear and/or javelin and sometimes bronze belt, some highrank burials stand out, with more or less complete panoplies, frequentlyassociated, especially in case of well documented finds, with spurs, horse-bitsand, in some Apulian burials, even prometopidia, suggesting these elite warriorswere horsemen. In such burials, a nearly invariable association can be noted,that of arms and strigil, which most clearly shows the cultural difference betweenthose societies and the Greek poleis. Such an association is familiar at least fromthe first quarter of the 5th century BC, as documented by the tomb of Pisticci –Matina Soprano (fig. 1 a-b), dated to 470 BC ca.20. Evidence increases during thelast quarter of the 5th century21 (fig. 2 a-b) and becomes solid in the 4th century22,

72 FABIO COLIVICCHI

when one or more strigils are includedin tombs with elements of panoplywith, as a rule, few exceptions, mostlyin funerary contexts excavated byplunderers without any scientificcontrol, where unattractive and almostworthless items like strigils, frequentlymade of iron and thus badly oxidized,were most probably discarded or lost23.Strigils can be also included in sometombs with a spear/javelin and bronzebelt24, usually above the average level.Tombs with strigils and no arms areinstead very uncommon, and all ofthem are found significantly in theTyrrhenian area25. In the Greek polis,those two worlds, athletics and war,were clearly distinct, even if there wasa relationship between athletic trainingand war, especially in hoplite tactics, theformer being also from many points ofview an introduction to the latter.Greek athletics played a basic functionearly in polis society, as an opportunityof decreasing conflicts and meeting theneed for excelling, which was incontrast with its fundamentallyegalitarian ideology, and as a means ofcollective paideia, through the cityinstitution of the gymnasium26. Becauseof these functions, athletic activity wasone of the most important and long-lasting symbols of the status of politesand of the belonging to the Greek cul-ture. As regards funerary customs, it isthus no wonder that from the 6th

century on, athletics, through thesymbolic objects of strigil and aryballosand, much more rarely, discus, halteresand other athletic equipment, had an

Fig. 1. Pisticci, Matina Soprano (from Armi); A:helmet; B: strigil

A

B

73WARRIORS AND CITIZENS. MODELS OF SELF-REPRESENTATION IN NATIVE BASILICATA

important role as a means of self-representation, while weapons were strictlyexcluded from burials. The association of the two spheres in native societies,which was not just by chance but willingly pursued, as is clearly demonstratedby vast evidence, was in deep contrast to a well-established and shared Greekpractice that dealt with basic features of polis ideology. Moreover, the relationshipbetween the two spheres clearly seems to be unbalanced in favour of arms, theusual role marker of adult males. On the other hand, the strigil usually appearsin high-level contexts along with a complete panoply and weapons, as if it werejust a accessory to them. The attitude of the native cultures to the two roles ofwarrior and athlete can also be deducedfrom a comparison of two series ofItaliote red-figure vases. Scenes depictingyoung naked athletes carrying strigils,discuses and javelins, and women givingthem wreaths and fillets (fig. 3), are quitecommon in Italiote vase-painting27. Theycannot definitely be understood as scenesof daily life, since the admittance of

A B

Fig. 2. Chiaromonte, tomb 227 (from Greci, Enotri eLucani); A: helmet; B: strigil

Fig. 3. Column krater, Dolon painter (fromLCS, 535)

74 FABIO COLIVICCHI

women to the gymnasium together with men to give them the prize for victoryis surely unrealistic. As is usual in the language of Italiote vase-painting, they areallusive and symbolic scenes illustrating the relationship between the sexes.Undergoing an athletic trial, the young man shows that he has achieved physicalmaturity, and in so doing he also proves his readiness to join the community ofcitizens, and to assume the responsibility of being the head of a new oikos; thewoman, by acknowledging his victory, states that he is a suitable groom andfather of new citizens. The marriage perspective is clearly alluded to by thewinged Erotes standing beside or flying above youths and women. In Italiotepoleis, the transition from youth to adulthood is achieved through athletic featsin the city gymnasium, and the new young citizen is represented as a victoriousathlete28. In vases specially made for native purchasers, recognizable by theirshape, reproducing local ritual vases, like the so-called nestoris29, and by the co-stume of the figures, those scenes are “translated” to adapt them to the culturesof their consumers, keeping their general meaning but making some importantchanges. Women are depicted offering wreaths and wine to warriors returningfrom battle, frequently horsemen (fig. 4). Strong matrimonial and erotic meaningsare again evident in the gesture of anakalypsis by some women and the presenceof Erotes. The victory the young male has to gain is not athletic but military,and the distinguishing role is definitely that of warrior30.

A passage of Strabo31 records the annual marriage of the ten best Samniteyouths and the ten best maidens, where the bride had the unusual privilege ofbreaking the marriage if the husband were not able to maintain the standard ofexcellence. The word aristos does not refer exclusively to military excellence,but the basic importance of war in Samnite society, and the number ten, alsoused in Samnite procedures of recruitment, seem to be evidence of a strongrelationship between military role and marriage among the Osco-Sabellianpeoples of Central and Southern Italy32.

A clear allusion to military victory and its heroizing value can also be seen inthe gilded bronze wreaths mounted on two helmets found in Southern Italy33,to which a third may be added, according to an eighteenth-century record of thediscovery at Armento of a tomb of an aristocrat buried with his armor and awreath on his head34.

In native societies of Southern Italy, athletic practice was most likely wellknown and carried on in some way, as the use of strigils seems to testify, but itdoes not seem to play a role comparable to the Greek. It had no truly autonomousfunction in military practice, for which it was apparently just an introductionand complement. Its functions within the Greek poleis were completely lost,because of the deep structural differences between the two cultures.

An apparently similar association between athletics and war can be also found

75WARRIORS AND CITIZENS. MODELS OF SELF-REPRESENTATION IN NATIVE BASILICATA

in the Latin area, in the Tomb of the Warrior at Lanuvium35, dated to the firstquarter of the fifth century BC, where a gorgeous panoply, with weapons andhorse-bit, was associated with a strigil, an alabastron and an engraved discus.Actually, neither at Rome nor, as far as we know, in Etruria, was an athleticpractice developed comparable to the Greek, as regards its function as a civicinstitution, for the education of the young was not carried on in collectivestructures but in private houses, and physical training was purposely intendedfor war36. Citizens with full-right could not thus take part in athletic contests,which had to be left to professionals of low social rank, who presented them asspectacles. For this reason athletics had a very low importance as self-representation, other than, perhaps, as an introduction to more prestigious duties.At Praeneste, during the Middle Republican period, strigils were quite oftenincluded in male burials37 and gymnasium scenes played an important role inthe imagery of locally-made engraved bronzes, frequently through prestigiousmythical models, such as young Achilles training under the guidance of Chiron.Athletics is nevertheless just one complementary element in the general system,a step to master arms as the only means to gain triumph and consequent

Fig. 4. Column krater, Maplewood painter (from RVAp 9/187)

76 FABIO COLIVICCHI

heroization38. Besides many scenes depicting young men with an armed hero,their mythical model, the well-known cist 539, which has been convincinglyrelated to the male initiation cycle of the Roman calendar, is especially important.It shows the city gods surrounding a little armed figure of Mars, predicting forhim a destiny of military victory, to which the figure of Victoria holding an ivyand vine garland alludes. The small Maris is the symbolic representation of everyyoung male, as is well shown also by two Etruscan engraved mirrors with thebirth of some small Maris welcomed by the patron gods of passage fromboyhood40. In the end, in spite of the shared pre-eminent role of military victory,the affinities between Apulo-Lucanian cultures and Middle Republican Praenesteare nevertheless much less important than the differences. In the former, socialhierarchy is deeply marked and emphasized through impressive panoplies, thestrigil being just a complement, through rich sets of grave goods and in manycases through the typology of tomb as well. In the Latin city, on the other hand,tomb typology is strictly uniform, and grave goods very basic especially in maleburials, where the military role is signified just by a spear41 and the athletic justby a strigil and a “cage vase”, frequently the only objects found in the tomb.Moreover, there are male burials that are marked only by strigils, most probablybelonging to a specific age group, young men who had begun their athletictraining but had not yet been allowed to carry arms. Those are not representedin Southern Italian native cemeteries, except, possibly, in some especially advancedareas of the Tyrrhenian coast. The integration of these data with the compleximagery on cists and mirrors, ideal representations of an exemplary life cycle,allows the reconstruction of a city society that organized a juvenile paideia intowhich athletics was organically integrated to introduce the young, under theprotection of city gods and the model of mythical heroes, to the role of adultsenrolled in the classis on the ground of a basic isonomia42. The great differencebetween Apulo-Lucanian peoples and not only the Greek poleis, but also a bigcity of mid-republican Latium from the point of view of the development ofcollective structures, is thus evident.

In native Southern Italy there are, in any event, some cases of the waiving oftraditional warrior culture, in spite of its basic importance, further enhanced inthe second half of the 4th century by the prestige of the Macedonian model,especially popular among Apulian élites43, a choice that needs to be investigatedand explained. The model of Greek Italiote polis seems to cause, at least accordingto published information, the absence of weapons in the necropolis of PomaricoVecchio44, a native walled settlement with a regular urban plan, evidentlyfollowing a Greek model, that rose around the middle of the fourth centuryBC. The same most probably happened at Cozzo Presepe during its fourth-century phase. The very few published tombs45, located outside the walls, contain

77WARRIORS AND CITIZENS. MODELS OF SELF-REPRESENTATION IN NATIVE BASILICATA

extremely basic sets of grave goods, just a few items of coarse pottery, whichfind precise comparisons in tombs of the chora of Metapontum. Both of thesettlements gravitated toward Metapontum, with which they developed especiallyclose relations and even forms of deep cultural integration, which seem to haveproduced “hellenizing” choices not only in urban plan but also in burial customs.The tiny settled area, just a small part of the space enclosed within city walls, isclear evidence that the urban transformation was fostered by a very few, or justone outstanding family group who supported the effort to give the appearance,but not the substance, of a Greek city to the settlements they ruled. In the caseof Pomarico, the centre of the settled area was occupied by a large building, byfar the most imposing one, that extended over two complete blocks, to berecognized as a gentilician residence with the family cult-place in the courtyard,supplied with the base of a bronze statue, astronomically oriented, representingmost probably the ancestor and founder46.

In the second half of the 4th century, and especially in the last decades, someclear cases of change of models of funerary self-representation can be found alsoin the Lucanian area, particularly in the Tyrrhenian territory. In the last third ofthe 4th century, an urban plan similar to that of Pomarico, but on a much largerscale, was adopted at Laos47 on the Tyrrhenian coast, an area that had beenpreviously seat of a Greek colonial foundation and where cultural interactionbetween natives and Greeks was traditionally strong. It seems that the tombs ofthe settlement, which lived on until the end of the 3rd century BC, had smalland standard sets of grave goods without weapons, a custom that would be muchin keeping with a community that was developing complex forms of communityorganization. From these burials there stands out dramatically the wealthyprincely tomb at Santa Maria del Cedro48 of a married couple, with the mancharacterized as a warrior on horseback by a spur and a gorgeous panoply, onceagain completed by the almost inevitable strigils. It was also in this tomb thatthe well-known inscribed lead foil containing curses against individuals bearingthe title of magistrates, Meddikes was found .

Because of the quite unsatisfactory information on the necropolis, its horizontalstratigraphy and variability of rituals, it is hard to decide whether the tomb, in anycase located at a close distance from the city walls and amongst other burials, bothsimple standard tombs and other chamber tombs49, was a “foreign body” in the citycemetery, belonging to a family group that was still tied to traditional social andpolitical structures, fiercely opposed to the dawning city and its institutions, accordingto the interpretation of E. Greco50 or, better, it represented the highest level of asociety already oriented towards urban forms, a society that solved internal disputeswithin its political structures.

78 FABIO COLIVICCHI

The inscribed foil, because of its very use of writing and (as a typical featureof Greek urban society) the defixio51, seems to have much more to do with anaristocrat who was still tied to traditional burial customs, like self-representationas a warrior, but was, in any event, well involved in the city institutions, mostprobably with a leading role, than with indomitable opponent of the new cityculture.

More complete information is available on Paestum between late 4th and early3rd centuries, the phase just before the foundation of the Latin colony in 273 BC.The traditional funerary ritual, clearly marking social rank, gender and rolethrough grave goods, weapons in the tombs of male adults, and even completepanoplies, usually complemented by strigils in the most outstanding ones52, wasno longer followed. For this period the tombs contained a few standard items.Those of males had no weapons, but still kept strigils. The frescoes of the fewpainted tombs53, usually chamber tombs, belonging to a new and more exclusivearistocracy, which seems to have taken control of both politics and economy54,used a new language. The scenes of a warrior’s return and the hanging weaponsof the previous phase are given up, and the paintings centre on the encounterand salutation of two men, depicted on the wall opposite the entrance door.Each is followed by a procession, which continues on the side walls, and iscomposed of crowned men and women, distinguished by features that marktheir standings and roles within the family group. Great stress is laid on thecontinuity throughout the subsequent generations. The elderly family membershave the appearance of magistrates, wearing togas and golden rings, while allusionsto military success are still kept for the young adults, if in a much more allusiveand indirect way. The leading figures, who are no longer armed and do not seemto come from the battlefield, wear formal civilian dress, while the signs of warare relegated to the retinues, who are holding spears and sometimes shields. Thedistinctive bronze belt worn with the toga is clear evidence that the paintingsdate to before the Latin colony, not after, as has been proposed by D. Musti 55.Such a striking modification of the magistrates’ dress would have been absolutelyunacceptable in a Latin colony, where it was strictly prescribed in every detail.In these tombs the strigil, previously excluded from painted representations ofhanging weapons, as it was just an accessory without any special symbolicmeaning, becomes the symbol of the masculine role, and depicted just beside orabove the central scene (fig. 5), alluding to a Hellenizing urbanitas that regardedathletics, even if its practice and functions were surely different from the Greekones, as of proof of prestigious cultural belonging. Actual weapons are left outthe tomb, with the military function represented more indirectly, focusing onthe family group more than on individual’s military exploits. Italiote poleis,now in this period in serious trouble, cannot be the source of this new model,

79WARRIORS AND CITIZENS. MODELS OF SELF-REPRESENTATION IN NATIVE BASILICATA

which had not been accepted before, when they were still the main counterpartof native peoples of Southern Italy. The new ruling power in Magna Graecia,the Romans, had adopted such customs long before. In the Mid-Republicannecropoleis of Rome, as far we know from surviving evidence56, the presence ofweapons is absolutely recessive, after a striking change in burial customs, rightlyascribed to an early Greek model, that took place in the 6th and 5th century57.These small and exclusive Lucanian aristocracies, that, as is the rule in manycontexts of ancient Italy, chose a partial and selective self-Hellenization betterto suit the Roman system, would soon be admitted to the ruling class of theLatin colony of Paestum, as it is clearly shown by onomastics58.

The same evolution in funerary customs, with the abandonment of weaponsand valorization of athletics, can be noticed in the same period at Cuma, whoseSamnite ruling class seems to have followed a basically similar political and culturaltrend59.

Such a change of models of self-representation, even if less coherent, tookplace at Tortora also, another highly developed Tyrrhenian area. The identificationof male burials is here almost certain, thanks to analysis of human remains.Male tombs had been identifiable by weapons until the late 4th century, when anew and smaller aristocracy arose, using large tombs with wealthy sets of grave

Fig. 5. Paestum, Spinazzo, tomb 11, detail of the wall opposite the entrance (from Poseidonia e i Lucani)

80 FABIO COLIVICCHI

goods, a still traditional custom, but without weapons60.During this transitional phase Lucanian society seems to become more

complex and diverse, developing its traditional social and political structures,which were strongly conditioned by military organization61, to adopt in themost advanced areas some distinctive features of urban societies. The process isaccompanied by a number of archaological phenomena, more or less mutuallyrelated, that date from the mid-4th century, such as intensive settlement in thecountryside, building of a great number of fortification walls, flourishing ofcollective sanctuaries, development of an epigraphy in Oscan language, and localcoinage62. The tensions that troubled Lucanian society in this period are testified,among others, by Livy63, who, writing about the Italian expedition of Alexanderthe Molossian (334-331 BC), gives account of an aristocracy from which thethree hundred familiae inlustres sent to Epirus as hostages were taken, and ofmany Lucanian political exiles64. Two hundred of them joined Alexander andwere later ready to sell his life for the promise of their return. From theseprocesses, which should be seen in the context of the great social and economicaltransformations taking place in Italy in the same period, there eventually emergedin the last decades of the 4th century small aristocracies that in a short time werebound to turn to Rome as defender of their privileges against the internalopposition that seems to have been supported by the agrestes and by thoseexcluded from the ruling class65.

In the Lucanian area, entry into the Roman system meant a quickabandonment of the ancient and traditional exhibition of weapons in burials,and, more generally speaking, of the pre-Roman burial customs, especially whereRoman intervention was more intense. In other areas, mainly in Apulia, wherepre-Roman social and economical structures were partially preserved, morevariability can be found. At Botromagno, 3rd century chamber tombs containno weapons66, while in Daunia the local aristocracy, which early joined Romeand was rewarded with the acknowledgement of its local power, was moreconservative and kept displaying weapons and sometimes panoplies in maleburials until the Second Punic War and even later, as in the Tomb of the Gold atCanosa67, where fragments of armor and horse harness, a silver spur and a silverhorn, belonging to a type of helmet we know from vase paintings68, were found.That conservative custom is evidence for the archaic social and political structuresof Daunia under the rule of the principes, who had absolute control over politicalchoices of the community, like the Dasius who alone decided to shift Arpi fromRome to Hannibal69, or the Busa who on her own fed and supplied Roman armyafter the defeat at Cannae70. Only in the Late Republican Period would there becompletely adopted, on Roman model, the most distinctive monumental andinstitutional structures of urban societies.

81WARRIORS AND CITIZENS. MODELS OF SELF-REPRESENTATION IN NATIVE BASILICATA

NOTE

1 Special thanks to Ross Stuart Kilpatrick, whose support and friendship made my firstyear at Queen’s especially enjoyable and to Chris Carswell.

2 A.M. Snodgrass, Arms and armour of the Greeks, London 1967; A.M. Snodgrass, Thedark age of Greece, Edinburgh 1971, p. 277 sgg.; D.C. Kurtz, J. Boardman, Greek burial customs,London 1971, p. 62 sg.; on weapons in funerary rituals of early Iron Age Greece A. Marini, “elo fece bruciare con le sue armi belle”. Status del guerriero e rituale funerario nella Grecia dellaprima età del ferro. Tombe con armi nelle necropoli di Atene e Lefkandi, «RdA» XXVII 2003, pp.21-56.

3 The remarks by F. de Polignac, Rites funéraires, mariage et communauté politique.Archéologie des rites et anthropologie historique, «Metis» XI 1996, pp. 197-207, deal with wealthygrave goods, not with weapons specifically; in any case, the permanency of forms of exhibitionof high social and economic standing does not deny the significance of waiving the militaryrole, that has specific features and has a strong personal “heroic” connotation.

4 W.K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1974; P. Cartledge, Lanascita degli opliti e l’organizzazione militare, in I Greci. Storia, cultura, arte, società, II 1, Tori-no 1996, pp. 681-714; H. Van Wees, Homeric Warfare, in I. Morris, B. Powell (a cura di), A newcompanion to Homer, Leiden – New York – Köln 1997, pp. 668-693.

5 The few exceptions are monuments dating to a period of crisis of traditional polis ideology,like the stele of Dexileos, and the Albani relief, that probably belongs to a public burial.

6 On representation of warrior departure W. Wrede, Kriegers Ausfahrt in der archaisch-griechischen Kunst, «AM» XLI 1916, pp. 221-374; F. Lissarrague, Intorno al guerriero, in Lacittà delle immagini. Religione e società nella Grecia antica, Modena 1986, pp. 33-44; F.Lissarrague, L’autre guerrier, Paris-Rome 1990, especially p. 43 sgg.; A.B. Spieß, DerKriegerabscheid auf attischen Vasen der archaischen Zeit, Frankfurt a.M. 1992; C. Trombetti, Lapartenza del guerriero. Scene d’armamento e commiato nella ceramica attica, Tesi di Laurea,Perugia 2002.

7 Tucidide I, 5-6.8 A. Pontrandolfo, L’escatologia popolare e i riti funerari greci, in G. Pugliese Carratelli (a

cura di), Magna Grecia, III, Milano 1988, pp.; Polito 1996, p. 183 sgg.; Tagliamonte 2004, p.158 sg., with bibliography.

9 B. D’Agostino, Il rituale funerario nel mondo indigeno, in G. Pugliese Carratelli (a curadi), Magna Grecia, III, Milano 1988, pp. 91-114; Armi, p. 3 sgg.; S. Bianco, L’ideologia funeraria,in Greci, Enotri e Lucani, pp. 45-47; S. Bianco, La prima età del Ferro, in Storia della Basilicata,pp. 137-182, especially p. 160 sgg.

10 M. Tagliente, L’armamento oplitico: prototipi greci e realtà italiche, in Armi, p. 49 sgg.; S.Bianco, Le valli dell’Agri e del Sinni tra VII e VI secolo, in P. Bottini (a cura di), Archeologia artee storia alle sorgenti del Lao, Matera 1988, pp. 79-85, p. 81; S. Bianco, Le armi e gli strumenti, inGreci, Enotri e Lucani, pp. 109-111; E. Bottini, La panoplia difensiva, in Greci, Enotri e Lucani,p. 121; S. Bianco, Gli Enotri delle vallate dell’Agri e del Sinni tra VII e V sec. a.C., in Storia dellaBasilicata, pp. 359-390, especially p. 369 sgg., 374 sgg.; M. Tagliente, La Basilicata centro-settentrionale in età arcaica, in Storia della Basilicata, pp. 391-418, especially p. 406 sgg.

11 As noticed by A. Bottini in Armi, p. 87, and A. Bottini, Gli indigeni del V secolo, inStoria della Basilicata, pp. 419-453, p. 428 sgg., who adds to this number also the tomb ofMonte Pruno di Roscigno, with a spearhead, even if currenthy not available, and those ofMelfi-Pisciolo and Ruvo del Monte. He also stressed the relatively marginal role of militarycharacterization in other outstanding burials of native Southern Italy. See also Polito 1996,pp. 177-178.

12 F.G. Lo Porto, Tomba messapica di Ugento, «AttiMemMagnaGr» XII-XIII 1970-71, pp.99-152; F.G. Lo Porto, Bronzi, vasi attici e protoapuli inediti da tombe messapiche, «StAnt» VIII1 1995, pp. 15-31, p. 21 sgg., Ugento, tomb of via del Balzo 1969. Weapons are not included inthe archaic tomb of Cavallino, too (F. D’Andria, Tomba arcaica dalla zona Asilo, in Archeolo-

6

82 FABIO COLIVICCHI

gia dei Messapi, pp. 201-216) and seem to be absent from Messapian tombs of the 6th and 5thcentury, disgg.erently from other areas of Apulia (Mannino 2004, with bibliography; she alsocites the spurs found in two 5th century tombs (p. 701), but they can’t be regarded as arms,especially as there weren’t any weapons or parts of the panoply).

13 “Tomb of Masseria Pandolfi”, 420-400 BC (Bottini 1998, p. 61 sgg.); South cemetery,tomb 1, 420-400 BC (Lagonegrese, p. 24 sgg.); South cemetery, tomb 3, 420-400 BC (Lagonegrese,p. 28 sgg.); South cemetery, t. 4, first quarter of the 4th century (Lagonegrese, p. 30 sgg.;Bottini 1998, p. 63 sgg.).

14 M. Torelli, Le popolazioni dell’Italia antica: società e forme del potere, in Storia di Roma 1.Roma in Italia, Torino 1988, p. 63 sgg.; M. Torelli, Per un’archeologia dell’Oinotría, in Greci,Enotri e Lucani, pp. 123-131, p. 127 sg.; M. Torelli, Per un’archeologia dell’Oinotría, in Ilmondo enotrio tra VI e V sec. a.C., pp. 7-28, p. 21.

15 Armi, pp. 95 sgg.; Greci, Enotri e Lucani, pp. 162-168, 2.30 (T.C. Loprete).16 A. Bottini, Gli indigeni nel V secolo, in Storia della Basilicata, pp. 419-453, p. 432 sgg.;

M. Osanna et alii, L’insediamento indigeno di Torre di Satriano (PZ): le nuove ricerche dell’Uni-versità degli Studi della Basilicata, «Siris» III 2000-2001, pp. 233-268, p. 238; A. Bottini, GliItalici della mesogaia lucana ed il loro sistema insediativo, in Il mondo enotrio tra VI e V sec.a.C., pp. 109-116, p. 116; M. Lombardo, Enotri e Lucani: continuità e discontinuità, in Il mon-do enotrio tra VI e V sec. a.C., pp. 329-345, p. 333.

17 The southern Apulian area keeps showing some disgg.erences, as the bronze belts andthe helmets aren’t usually associated with weapons (Mannino 2004).

18 Besides the well known tomb of the St. Louis armor (F.G. Lo Porto, Una tombametapontina e l’elmo di St. Louis nel Missouri, «AttiMemMagnaGr» XVIII-XX 1977-1979, pp.171-187), see also Metapontum, West cemetery, Riccardi estate, tomb 17/71 (Armi, pp. 123-133); Metapontum, city cemetery, d’Onofrio estate, tombs 16 and 18 (Armi, pp. 181-186);Metapontum, Pantanello, tombs 106 and 315 (J. Coleman Carter et alii, The Chora of Metaponto.The Necropoleis, I-II, University of Texas, Austin, 1998, pp. 212-213, 377); (Taras, via Dante,tomb 7 (P. G. Guzzo in Armi, p. 170; Tagliamonte 1994, p. 178; Romito 1995, p. 94, nr. 319);Taras, via U. De Carolis, tomb 47 (A. Dell’Aglio, «Taras» XIV 1995, p. 151; Romito 1995, p.94, nr. 320); Taras, via G. Giovane, tomb 29 (F.G. Lo Porto, Due nuove tombe scoperte aCavallino, «StAnt» VII 1994, pp. 47-84, p. 78; Romito 1995, p. 94, nr. 318); Herakleia, Southcemetery, tomb 2 (P. G. Guzzo, in Armi, p. 170; A. De Siena in Genti in arme, p. 33); Herakleia,West cemetery, tomb 1188 (Genti in arme, pp. 33, 60, 90).

19 These tombs are usually ascribed to mercenaries, but the belt is not exclusively a pieceof military equipment and, at least in some cases, other explanations are possible (Tagliamonte2004, p. 161 sgg.).

20 Armi, p. 135 sgg.; see also Latronico – Colle dei Greci, tomb 60 (S. Bianco, La situazionetra Agri e Sinni dall’età classica alla conquista romana, in Bottini 1988, pp. 143-152, p. 145).The association is maybe found also at Laterza, where a strigil and some weapons were includedin a mixed group of object from three tombs, excavated in 1914. (A. Dell’Aglio, E. Lippolis,Ginosa e Laterza. La documentazione archeologica dal VII al III sec. a.C. Scavi 1900-1980, Cata-logo del Museo nazionale archeologico di Taranto, II, 1, Taranto 1992, cat. 49.1).

21 Rutigliano tomb 11/1976, 430-400 BC.; tomb 9/1976, end of the 5th century (E. Lippolis(a cura di), Arte e artigianato in Magna Grecia (Catalogo della mostra, Taranto 1996), Napoli1996, pp. 408 sgg.); Chiaromonte – S. Pasquale, tomb 227, 420-400 BC (Armi, pp. 95 sgg.;Greci, Enotri e Lucani, pp. 162-168, 2.30); Lavello, tomb 599-600, 420-400 BC (Forentum II).The princely tomb of Monte Pruno, dated to late 5th – early 4th century, had three strigilsand a spearhead (M. Cipriani et alii (a cura di), Poseidonia e i Lucani, Catalogo della Mostra,Paestum 1996, Napoli 1996, pp. 92-100, n. 39).

22 Conversano, tomb 10 (A.M. Chieco Bianchi Martini, Conversano (Bari). Scavi in via S.Pantaleo, «NSc» 1964, pp. 100-176, pp. 160-164; Arte e artigianato, pp. 133-134 (B. Mattioli);S. Fiorese, in Andar per mare. Puglia e Mediterraneo tra mito e storia (Catalogo della mostra,Bari 1997), Bari 1998, pp. 167-168, cat. nr. 31); Lavello, tomb 669, second burial (Forentum II);

83WARRIORS AND CITIZENS. MODELS OF SELF-REPRESENTATION IN NATIVE BASILICATA

Lavello, tomb 686 (Forentum II); Melfi – Cappuccini, tomb C (Popoli anellenici, p. 113; Civiltàantiche del medio Ofanto, Potenza 1976, pp. 23-25); Cariati (P.G. Guzzo, S. Luppino, Perun’archeologia dei Brezi. Due tombe fra Thurii e Crotone, «MEFRA» XCII 1980, pp. 821-914,pp. 823 sgg.; P. G. Guzzo, A. Taliano Grasso, Addenda all’archeologia dei Brezi, «MEFRA»CIV 1992, pp. 563-572); S. Maria del Cedro – Marcellina (E. Greco, P. G. Guzzo (a cura di),Laos II. La tomba a camera di Marcellina, Taranto 1992; G.F. La Torre, in Poseidonia e i Lucani,p. 109 sgg.); Paestum – Gaudo, tomb 2 (Pontrandolfo, Rouveret 1992, p. 380); tombs 174, 197(Poseidonia e i Lucani, p. 149 sg., p. 152 sgg.); Paestum – Andriuolo, tomb 90 (Pontrandolfo,Rouveret 1992, p. 319); Paestum – Porta Aurea, tomb 2 (Pontrandolfo, Rouveret 1992, p. 363);Roccadaspide, Tempa Rossa, tomb 3 (Poseidonia e i Lucani, p. 194 sgg.); Eboli, tomb 37(Poseidonia e i Lucani, pp. 76 sgg.). The association is also known in Southern Apulia (G.Delli Ponti, Vaste. La necropolis di fondo Aia, «StAnt» IX 1996, pp. 99-214, p. 100 sgg., Masse-ria Trappeto, tomb III, with bronze belt, helmet and two strigils).

23 This is most probably the reason for the absence of strigils among the materials fromthe most important chamber tombs of Canosa, where bronze panoplies and weapons werealso found. The 19th century diggers, or better plunderers, of the tombs of Canosa surelyselected the most valuable items and the strigils, which are frequent in scientifically excavatedtombs, were not among them.

24 For instance S. Bianco, La necropoli di contr. San Brancato di S. Arcangelo (PZ), «StAnt»VII 1994, pp. 111-136, tombs 88, 124, 126; Armi, pp. 195-200, t. 124; Mollo 2001, p. 51 sg., t.53; p. 52, t. 60; A. Pontrandolfo, Il mondo indigeno, in Alessandro il Molosso e i condottieri inMagna Grecia, Atti Taranto XLIII 2003, pp. 83-109, p. 90 sgg.; M. Gualtieri, Rituale funerariodi una aristocrazia lucana (fine V – inizio III sec. a.C.), in Italici in Magna Grecia. Lingua,insediamenti e strutture, Venosa 1990, pp. 161-213, tombs 2 and 6; Forentum II, tomb 656;Canosa, Tomb of the Wicker Objects, left burial (Principi imperatori vescovi, p. 350 sgg.; E.M.De Juliis, L’ipogeo dei vimini di Canosa, Bari 1990); Paestum – Andriuolo, tomb 90 (Pontran-dolfo, Rouveret 1992, p. 319); Paestum – Andriuolo, tomb 24 (Pontrandolfo, Rouveret 1992,p. 323); Paestum – Andriuolo, tomb 51 (Pontrandolfo, Rouveret 1992, p. 329); Paestum –Laghetto, tomb LXIV (Pontrandolfo, Rouveret 1992, p. 355); Cavallino, via Regina Margheri-ta, tomb 2 (F.G. Lo Porto, Due nuove tombe scoperte a Cavallino, «StAnt» VII 1994, pp. 47-84.

25 R. Donnarumma, L. Tomay, La necropoli di San Brancato di Tortora, in Nella terra degliEnotri, pp. 49-59, p. 54, tomb 13, 490-470 BC; S. Bianco, La necropoli di contr. San Brancato diS. Arcangelo (PZ), «StAnt» VII 1994, pp. 111-136, tomb 166, last decade of the 4th century;Bottini 1998, p. 110, Rivello – I Piani, second half of the 4th century; Mollo 2001, p. 139 sgg.,Cetraro-Treselle, tomb 9, end of the 4th century; A. Pontrandolfo, La necropoli dalla città grecaalla colonia latina, in Poseidonia-Paestum, Atti Taranto XXVII 1987, pp. 225-265, cremationburial with strigil, gold foil and miniature spur. There are also some tombs with strigil andknife, that may be a sacrificial and kitchen tool more than a weapon (Pontrandolfo, Rouveret1992, p. 323, Andriuolo tomb 24, 350 BC ca., and p. 372 sgg., Agropoli c.da vecchia tomb 11,double burial, earlier context, 360-50 BC).

26 On Greek athletics and its social functions S. Müller, Das Volk der Athleten.Untersuchungen zur Ideologie und Kritik des Sports in der griechisch-römischen Antike, Trier1995; N.B. Crowther, Athlete as a warrior in the ancient Greek games. Some reflections,«Nikephoros» XII 1999, pp. 121-130; T.F. Scanlon, Eros and Greek athletics, New York 2002;Polito 2003; N.B. Crowther, Athletika. Studies on the Olympic games and Greek athletics,Hildesheim 2004, with bibliography.

27 LCS, passim.28 Colivicchi 2004, p. 37 sgg.;29 On this shape and its function Colivicchi 2004.30 Colivicchi 2004, p. 37 sgg.; on women crowning warriors in vase painting of Cumae see

Mugione 2004, p. 748.31 Strabone, V 4, 12.32 As pointed out by Guzzo 2006, p. 59 sg. See also A. Mele, «AnnOrNapLing» XV 1993,

84 FABIO COLIVICCHI

p. 145 sgg.33 P. G. Guzzo, Oreficerie dalla Magna Grecia, Taranto 1993, p. 276 sg., nn. 14-15; P. G.

Guzzo, in Armi, p. 176; P. G. Guzzo, Corone d’agone, tra guerra e morte, in Magna Grecia, inA. La Regina (a cura di), Nike. Il gioco e la vittoria (Catalogo della Mostra, Roma), Roma2003, pp. 92-101. The explanation of wreath as an allusion to military victory seems moreappropriate than the proposed allusion to symposion, as in that occasion arms, frequentlyhung on the walls of the banquet hall, were not actually worn.

34 N. Catanuto, Accettura, Castronuovo S. Andrea, Moliterno, «ArchStorCalabria» II 1932;Masseria 2000, p. 100.

35 F. Zevi, La Tomba del guerriero di Lanuvio, in Spectacles sportifs et scéniques dans le mondeétrusco-italique (Actes de la table ronde, Rome 3-4 mai 1991), Rome 1993, pp. 409-442; A. LaRegina (a cura di), Nike. Il gioco e la vittoria (Catalogo della Mostra, Roma), Roma 2003, nr.47.

36 Polito 2003, p. 20 sgg.; Guzzo 2006, with bibliography.37 M.P. Baglione, Osservazioni sui contesti delle necropoli medio-repubblicane di Preneste, in

La necropoli di Praeneste. Periodi orientalizzante e medio repubblicano (Atti del 2° Convegno distudi archeologici, Palestrina 21-22 aprile 1990), Palestrina 1992, pp. 163-188, with bibliography.

38 On gymnasium scenes Menichetti 1995, p. 97 sgg.; Menichetti 1999.39 G. Bordenache Battaglia, A. Emiliozzi, Le ciste prenestine 1. Corpus 1, Roma 1979.40 LIMC II, 1984, s.v. Ares/Laran, nn. 19-20 (E. Simon); L.B. van der Meer, Maris’ Birth,

Life and Death on Two Etruscan Mirrors, «BABesch» LXIII 1988, pp. 115-128; Menichetti 1995,p. 89 sgg.; Menichetti 1999, p. 493.

41 The only exception is a pair of decorated cheek flaps (Roma medio-repubblicana. Aspetticulturali di Roma e del Lazio nei secoli IV e III a.C. (Catalogo della mostra, Roma maggio-giugno 1973), Roma 1973, p. 286 sgg., n. 426 a-b).

42 A much disgg.erent situation is known in the same period in Etruria, where someburials with complete panoplies, frequently including strigils, have been excavated, mainly inareas where traditional social structures were still working in the 4th century and there isevidence for a wealthy aristocracy of landowners living in the country and or the developmentof urban centres was late and partial (A. Cherici, Vasellame metallico e tombe con armi inEtruria, «REA» 97 1995, pp. 115-139; A. Cherici, Corredi con armi, guerra e società a Orvieto,«AnnFaina» VI 1999, pp. 183-221; A. Cherici, Armi e società ad Orvieto, «AnnFaina» VII2000, 185-203; A. Cherici, Tombe con armi e società a Todi, «AnnFaina» VIII 2001, pp. 179-191; A. Cherici, Per una storia sociale di Perugia etrusca. Le tombe con armi, «AnnFaina» IX2002, pp. 95-138; A. Cherici, Dinamiche sociali a Vulci. Le tombe con armi, in Dinamiche disviluppo delle città nell’Etruria meridionale. Veio, Caere, Tarquinia, Vulci (Atti del XXIII Con-vegno di studi etruschi ed italici, Roma, Veio, Cerveteri-Pyrgi, Tarquinia, Tuscania, Vulci,Viterbo, 1-6 ottobre 2001), Pisa 2005, pp. 531-549).

43 E. Polito (Polito 1996) pointed out the special significance of gorgeous panoplies,reminding those of the heroes, to stress the ultimately “Greek” origin of the custom. In anycase, as no Greek aristocracy displayed its military role as a mean of self-representation afterthe 8th century, the actual model could have been Macedon only, where Apulian elites couldfind a very attractive and suitable one, and where, by the way, we find the same association ofweapons and strigils (M. Bessios, Das antike Pydna, in Oi arcaiologoi miloun gia thn Pieria,Thessaloniki 1985, pp. 51-54; Mannino 2004, pp. 715 sg., painted panoply with strigil).

44 E. Carando, La necropoli sud orientale, in Pomarico Vecchio I, pp. 277-306.45 J.-P. Morel, Fouilles à Cozzo Presepe, près de Métaponte, «MEFRA» 1970, pp. 73-116, p. 95 sg.46 M. Barra Bagnasco, Strutture abitative a Pomarico Vecchio, in F. D’Andria, K. Mannino

(a cura di), Ricerche sulla casa in Magna Grecia e in Sicilia (Atti del colloquio di Lecce, 23-24giugno 1992), Galatina 1996, pp. 221-234, p. 229 sgg.; M. Barra Bagnasco, L’abitato, in PomaricoVecchio I. Abitato, mura, necropoli, materiali, Galatina 1997, pp. 5-44; A. De Siena in thisbook. On the interpretation of the building, a public one according to M. Barra Bagnasco, seeMasseria 2000, p. 19.

85WARRIORS AND CITIZENS. MODELS OF SELF-REPRESENTATION IN NATIVE BASILICATA

47 E. Greco, S. Luppino, A. Schnapp (a cura di), Laos I. Scavi a Marcellina 1973-1985,Taranto 1989; G.F. La Torre, Laos, in Greci Enotri e Lucani, pp. 109-111.

48 Laos II; P. G. Guzzo, L’archeologia dei Bretti tra evidenza e tradizione letteraria, in Storiadella Calabria antica II, Roma 1994, pp. 197-218, an iron horse-bite is also likely included inthe set of grave goods.

49 E. Galli, «NSc» 1932, p. 323 sgg.; A. De Franciscis, «Klearchos» 1959, pp. 76-94; A. DeFranciscis, «NSc» 1960, pp. 419-420; a summary of extant evidence by E. Greco in Laos II, pp.93-96. This is also clearly stated by P. G. Guzzo, «AnnOrNapLing» XV 1993, pp. 116-118.

50 E. Greco, in Laos II, pp. 93-96; E. Greco in «AnnOrNapLing» XV 1993, pp. 118-122,who also dates the chamber tomb earlier than the cemetery and ascribes it to a settlement inthe countryside. This assumption isn’t actually supported by extant evidence. There is nosolid reason for distinguishing this tomb from the surrounding ones and dating them all to alater phase. As there is not a clear disgg.erence between the proposed date of the tomb, about330 BC, and the earliest evidence from the city, dated between the last third of the 4th centuryand 330 BC ca., the burial and the first phase of the settlement may well be contemporary.The thesis of G. Pugliese Carratelli, in Laos II, pp. 17-19, who thinks that the text was incisedby a subject Greek, cursing his Lucanian masters, is unlikely and is not supported by linguisticevidence.

51 On the cultural implications of the Lucanian use of tabellae defixionum, from thebeginning strictly related to the communitarian and organized life of Greek polis, see especiallyP. Poccetti, Rilettura e riflessioni dopo il dibattito, in Atti della giornata di discussione su “Latabella defixionum di Laos” (Napoli, 24 febbraio 1993), «AnnOrNapLing» XV 1993 151-190,p. 190.

52 On burial customs at Paestum A. Pontrandolfo, Segni di trasformazioni sociali a Poseidoniatra la fine del V e gli inizi del III sec. a.C., «DialA» n.s. II 1979, pp. 25-50; A. Pontrandolfo, Lanecropoli dalla città greca alla colonia latina, in Poseidonia-Paestum, Atti Taranto XXVII 1987,pp. 225-265; Pontrandolfo 1992; A. Pontrandolfo, Trasformazioni nella società pestana dell’avan-zato IV secolo, in Poseidonia e i Lucani, pp. 289-292.

53 On the tombs of Spinazzo A. Pontrandolfo, A. Rouveret, Pittura funeraria in Lucania eCampania. Puntualizzazioni cronologiche e proposte di lettura, in Ricerche di pittura ellenistica,«DialA», Quaderni 1, Roma 1985, pp. 91-130; A. Pontrandolfo, La pittura funeraria, in G.Pugliese Carratelli (a cura di), Magna Grecia, IV, Milano 1990, pp. 351-390; A. Pontrandolfo,Trasformazioni nella società pestana dell’avanzato IV secolo, in Poseidonia e i Lucani, pp. 289-292; A. Pontrandolfo, L’Italia meridionale e le prime esperienze della pittura ellenistica nelleosgg.icine pestane, in L’Italie méridionale et les premières expériences de la peinture hellénistique(Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’Ecole Française de Rome, 18 février 1994), Rome1998, pp. 223-241. An interesting comparison between wall painting and vase painting inMugione 2004.

54 This could be the cause of the disappearance of rural settlements in the countryside ofPaestum, so numerous between 360 and 320 BC, that is evidence for extensive forms ofpossession and exploitment of land (E. Greco et alii (a cura di), Paestum. Città e territorio nellecolonie greche d’Occidente, 1, Taranto 1987; E. Greco, D. Theodorescu, La città e il territorionel IV sec. a.C., in Poseidonia e i Lucani, p. 192).

55 D. Musti, Strabone e la Magna Grecia, Padova 1988, pp. 259-287; D. Musti, Magna Gre-cia. Il quadro storico, Roma-Bari 2005, p. 323, fig. 35.

56 On Mid-Republican cemeteries of Rome: Roma medio-repubblicana. Aspetti culturali diRoma e del Lazio nei secoli IV e III a.C. (Catalogo della Mostra), Roma 1973, p. 188 sgg., withbibliography.

57 G. Colonna, Un aspetto oscuro del Lazio antico. Le tombe del VI-V sec. a.C., «PP» XXXII1977, pp. 131-165; G. Colonna, L’ideologia funeraria e il conflitto delle culture, in ArcheologiaLaziale IV, Roma 1981, pp. 229-232.

58 M. Torelli, Paestum romana, in Poseidonia-Paestum, Atti Taranto XXVII 1987, pp. 33-115; M. Torelli, Paestum romana, Roma 1999, pp. 8, 90 sg.; M. Gualtieri, La Lucania romana.

86 FABIO COLIVICCHI

Cultura e società nella documentazione archeologica («Quaderni di Ostraka», VIII), 2003, p. 19sgg.; M. Torelli, Un avo della domi nobilis Mineia M.F. in una nuova iscrizione lucana di Paestum,«Ostraka» XII 2003, 103-106.

59 N. Valenza Mele, La necropoli di Cuma. Il superamento della comunità primitiva, inItalici in Magna Grecia. Lingua, insediamenti e strutture, Venosa 1990, pp. 22-33.

60 Mollo 2001, p. 53 sgg.61 On the importance of military organization in the process of development of Italian

peoples Tagliamonte 1994, p. 114 sgg.; G. Tagliamonte, I Sanniti, Milano 1996, p. 235 sgg.;Tagliamonte 2004.

62 On these topics see C. Masseria, P. Poccetti, A.R. Parente in this book. On historicalsources Mele 1991; A. Mele, Le fonti storiche, in Poseidonia e i Lucani, pp. 67-70.

63 Livio VIII, 24.64 On these exiles E. Lepore, Bilancio storiografico, in P. Poccetti (a cura di), Per un’identità

culturale dei Brettii, Napoli 1989, p. 249; A. Mele, «AnnOrNapLing» XV 1993, p. 146 sgg.65 See also Livio VIII 27, 6-11, recording the opposition to the alliance with Rome from

the multitudo agrestium and some young nobles, and Livio X 18, 8, on the Roman militaryintervention called by Lucanian aristocrats against a rebellion caused a plebeiis et egentibusducibus. On these political and social struggles Mele 1991, p. 278 sgg.; A. Mele,«AnnOrNapLing» XV 1993, pp. 146 sgg.; G. Urso, Le fazioni filoromane in Magna Greciadalle guerre sannitiche alla spedizione di Pirro, in M. Sordi (a cura di), Fazioni e congiure nelmondo antico, Milano 1999, pp. 141-143; G. Coviello, Il mercenariato e i Lucani, «Anemos» II2001, pp. 189-227, 215 sgg.; Tagliamonte 2004, p. 156 sg.

66 R.G. Brooks et alii, Trial Excavations on the Site of Botromagno, Gravina di Puglia, 1966,«BSR» XXXIV 1966, pp. 131-150; J.B. Ward-Perkins et alii, Excavations at Botromagno, Gravinadi Puglia. Second Interim Report, 1967-68, «BSR» XXXVII 1969, pp. 100-157; J.d.P. Taylor etalii, Gravina di Puglia, 3. Houses and Cemetery of the Iron Age and Classical Periods, «BSR»XLV 1977, pp. 69-137; A. Ciancio, Silbìon. Una città tra Greci e indigeni, Bari 1997.

67 M. Corrente, La tomba degli Ori, in Principi imperatori vescovi, pp. 337-345; Correntein this book. Further Daunian tombs of Hellenistic age with weapons in R. Cassano, Ipogei divia Molise, in Principi imperatori vescovi, p. 491-503, tomb 1, not earlier than the late 3rdcentury BC; Mazzei 1995, p. 129, nrr. 109-113, Arpi, ipogeo della Medusa; p. 142, n. 37-38,ipogeo di Ganimede; p. 167, nn. 109-122, ipogeo delle Anfore. The presence of strigils withoutweapons in the male burials of the ipogeo dei Serpenti Piumati at Canosa, dated between late3rd and the first half of the 2nd century, is noteworthy (M. Corrente, L’ipogeo dei SerpentiPiumati, Lavello 2003).

68 Mazzei 1995, p. 14.69 Livio XXIV 45. On the history of Arpi during the war with Hannibal F. Grelle, in

Mazzei 1995, pp. 64-68.70 Livio XXII 57.7.

87WARRIORS AND CITIZENS. MODELS OF SELF-REPRESENTATION IN NATIVE BASILICATA

ABBREVIAZIONI BIBLIOGRAFICHE

Armi A. Bottini (a cura di), Armi. Gli strumenti della guerrain Lucania (Catalogo della mostra, Melfi 1993), Bari1993.

Atti Taranto Atti del Convegno di Studi della Magna Grecia, Taranto-Napoli.

Bottini 1988 P. Bottini (a cura di), Archeologia arte e storia alle sorgen-ti del Lao (Catalogo della mostra di Castelluccio), Matera1988.

Bottini 1998 P. Bottini (a cura di), Greci e indigeni tra Noce e Lao (Ca-talogo della mostra di Rivello), Lavello 1998.

Colivicchi 2005 F. Colivicchi, L’altro vino. Vino, cultura e identità nellaPuglia e Basilicata anelleniche, «Siris» V 2004, pp. 23-68.

Forentum II A. Bottini et alii, Forentum II. L’acropoli in età classica,Venosa 1991.

Genti in arme Genti in arme. Aristocrazie guerriere della Basilicata an-tica (Catalogo della mostra. Museo Barracco, 5 luglio-21 ottobre), Roma 2001.

Greci, Enotri e Lucani S. Bianco et alii (a cura di), Greci, Enotri e Lucani nellaBasilicata meridionale (Catalogo della mostra, Policoro1996), Napoli 1996.

Guzzo 2006 P. G. Guzzo, Alle origini dell’atletismo italico e romano,in A.M. Reggiani, M. Sapelli Ragni (a cura di), Eroi eatleti. L’ideale estetico nell’arte da Olimpia a Roma a To-rino 2006, Torino 2006, pp. 55-63.

Lagonegrese G. Greco (a cura di), l’Evidenza archeologica nelLagonegrese, (Catalogo della mostra, Rivello 1981),Matera 1982.

Laos II E. Greco, P. G. Guzzo (a cura di), Laos II. La tomba acamera di Marcellina, Taranto 1992.

LCS A.D. Trendall, The Red-figured Vases of Lucania,Campania and Sicily, Oxford 1967.

Mannino 2004 K. Mannino, L’iconografia del guerriero nel mondo apulo,in Alessandro il Molosso, pp. 699-725.

Masseria 2000 C. Masseria, I santuari indigeni della Basilicata. Formeinsediative e strutture del sacro («Quaderni di Ostraka»II), Napoli 2000.

Mazzei 1995 M. Mazzei, Arpi. L’ipogeo della Medusa e la necropoli,Bari 1995.

Mele 1991 A. Mele, I Lucani, in Storia del Mezzogiorno, I, Napoli1991, pp. 273-280.

Menichetti 1995 M. Menichetti, “Quoius forma virtutei parisuma fuit”.Ciste prenestine e cultura di Roma medio-repubblicana,

88 FABIO COLIVICCHI

Roma 1995.Menichetti 1999 M. Menichetti, Una città e le sue immagini. La mitolo-

gia delle ciste prenestine, in Le mith grec dans l’Italieantique. Fonction et image (Actes du colloque internatio-nal, Rome 14-16 novembre 1996), Roma 1999, pp. 485-510.

Mollo 2001 F. Mollo, Archeologia per Tortora: frammenti dal passa-to, Potenza 2001.

Mugione 2004 E. Mugione, L’iconografia del guerriero nelle produzionitirreniche, in Atti Taranto XLIII 2003, pp. 727-756.

Polito 1996 E. Polito, Sepolture di guerrieri nell’Italia meridionale fraV e IV sec. a.C. Alcune riflessioni, «RendNap» LXVI 1996,pp. 177-187.

Polito 2003 E. Polito, Competizione e vittoria: Guerra, sport e spetta-colo nel mondo classico, in A. La Regina (a cura di), Nike.Il gioco e la vittoria (Catalogo della mostra), Roma 2003,pp. 13-23.

Pomarico vecchio I M. Barra Bagnasco (a cura di), Pomarico Vecchio I. Abi-tato, mura, necropoli, materiali, Galatina 1997.

Pontrandolfo, Rouveret 1992 A. Pontrandolfo, A. Rouveret, Le tombe dipinte diPaestum, Modena 1992.

Poseidonia e i Lucani M. Cipriani et alii (a cura di), Poseidonia e i Lucani (Ca-talogo della mostra, Paestum 1996), Napoli 1996.

Romito 1995 M. Romito, I cinturoni sannitici, Napoli 1995.RVAp A.D. Trendall, The Red-figured Vases of Apulia, I-II,

Oxford 1978 – 1982.Storia della Basilicata D. Adamesteanu (a cura di), Storia della Basilicata 1. L’an-

tichità, Bari 1999.Tagliamonte 1994 G. Tagliamonte, I figli di Marte. Mobilità, mercenari e

mercenariato italici in Magna Grecia e Sicilia, Roma 1994.Tagliamonte 2004 G. Tagliamonte, Il mercenariato italico nel mondo italiota

del IV sec. a.C., in Alessandro il Molosso, pp. 135-164.