DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42778#0025
IN ETRURIA AND ELSEWHERE TO 300 B.C. 5
of Rome, the Tar quins, to whom the erection of the Temple of
Jupiter and the Cloaca Maxima (Plate IV) is ascribed, were of
Etruscan lineage. For there are no true arches1 to be found in
Etruria itself until we get to the fourth and third centuries b.c.—to
which epoch the city gates of Perugia2 (Fig. 3, Plate V), Volterra,
Falerii (Plate IV), must be attributed—while the masonry
of the sixth century b.c. in Etruria, as instanced by the walls of
Volterra and Cortona, has nothing of the technical perfection which
is to be found in even the earlier walls of Rome. South of Rome,
too, in the Volscian and Hernican mountains, we meet with nu-
merous hill towns, which still preserve imposing remains of their
“ Cyclopean ” walls of huge many-sided blocks of the native lime-
stone, some of them having gates in which the principle of the arch
is not employed. The Porta Saracinesca at Segni (Plate III) is
perhaps the best known example ; but we may also mention the
Porta dell’ Arco at Arpino, in which the principle of the inclination
of the sides is employed to an even greater extent, though a flat
lintel was used in both cases. At Alatri, on the other hand, both in
the Porta di Civita and in another minor gate there is little or no
inclination of the sides. In others, e.g. at Ferentino, the upper
part is in ashlar masonry of softer limestone, contemporary with the
rest of the wall (Plate II).
The belief, once universally held, in the high antiquity of these
constructions has long ago been given up. Recent investigations
at Norba, indeed, have shown that these walls do not go further
back than about 500 b.c., and the contrast between the exterior
and the interior of the walls of Circeii will be instructive to those
who have hitherto held that greater refinement of construction
necessarily connotes a difference in date. Choisy’s interpretation
1 The " canal on the Marta at Graviscae ” on which many writers have
relied as evidence for the development of the arch in Etruria at a very early
period is in reality a bridge of the Via Aurelia, the Roman coast road of about
180 b.c. : while recent investigations have shown that the Cloaca Maxima,
unlike its branch drains, was originally an open drain (Hulsen : Roman Forum
p. 5), and was only roofed, at the earliest, about 184 b.c. Our illustration
shows its mouth, where it is about 11 feet wide with 3 concentric rings of
voussoirs, each about 2 feet 6 inches in height.
2 It must be borne in mind that the date of this arch is much discussed,
some authorities maintaining that the upper part is Roman, though the form
of the capitals is against them. The question is closely connected with that
of the date of the Porta Marzia (PI. V), a city gate which was destroyed in
the sixteenth century of which the upper part only is preserved. The
inscription on this was probably added by Augustus.
of Rome, the Tar quins, to whom the erection of the Temple of
Jupiter and the Cloaca Maxima (Plate IV) is ascribed, were of
Etruscan lineage. For there are no true arches1 to be found in
Etruria itself until we get to the fourth and third centuries b.c.—to
which epoch the city gates of Perugia2 (Fig. 3, Plate V), Volterra,
Falerii (Plate IV), must be attributed—while the masonry
of the sixth century b.c. in Etruria, as instanced by the walls of
Volterra and Cortona, has nothing of the technical perfection which
is to be found in even the earlier walls of Rome. South of Rome,
too, in the Volscian and Hernican mountains, we meet with nu-
merous hill towns, which still preserve imposing remains of their
“ Cyclopean ” walls of huge many-sided blocks of the native lime-
stone, some of them having gates in which the principle of the arch
is not employed. The Porta Saracinesca at Segni (Plate III) is
perhaps the best known example ; but we may also mention the
Porta dell’ Arco at Arpino, in which the principle of the inclination
of the sides is employed to an even greater extent, though a flat
lintel was used in both cases. At Alatri, on the other hand, both in
the Porta di Civita and in another minor gate there is little or no
inclination of the sides. In others, e.g. at Ferentino, the upper
part is in ashlar masonry of softer limestone, contemporary with the
rest of the wall (Plate II).
The belief, once universally held, in the high antiquity of these
constructions has long ago been given up. Recent investigations
at Norba, indeed, have shown that these walls do not go further
back than about 500 b.c., and the contrast between the exterior
and the interior of the walls of Circeii will be instructive to those
who have hitherto held that greater refinement of construction
necessarily connotes a difference in date. Choisy’s interpretation
1 The " canal on the Marta at Graviscae ” on which many writers have
relied as evidence for the development of the arch in Etruria at a very early
period is in reality a bridge of the Via Aurelia, the Roman coast road of about
180 b.c. : while recent investigations have shown that the Cloaca Maxima,
unlike its branch drains, was originally an open drain (Hulsen : Roman Forum
p. 5), and was only roofed, at the earliest, about 184 b.c. Our illustration
shows its mouth, where it is about 11 feet wide with 3 concentric rings of
voussoirs, each about 2 feet 6 inches in height.
2 It must be borne in mind that the date of this arch is much discussed,
some authorities maintaining that the upper part is Roman, though the form
of the capitals is against them. The question is closely connected with that
of the date of the Porta Marzia (PI. V), a city gate which was destroyed in
the sixteenth century of which the upper part only is preserved. The
inscription on this was probably added by Augustus.