DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.785#0189
chap, iv.] THE SITE OF SUTRIUM. 87
similarly situated, being the other.8 Indeed, Sutrium could
have been little more than a fortress at any time,9 and as
such it seems to have been maintained to a late period, long
after the neighbouring Etruscan cities had been destroyed.
The modern town occupies the site of the ancient, and is
probably composed of the same materials. I do not mean
to assert that any of the ancient Sutria tecta are remaining^
though such a fact, as far as regards the foundations
and shell, is not impossible; but the blocks of tufo
of which the houses are constructed, may well have been
hewn by Etruscan hands. Every one who knows the
Italians, will admit that they would never cut fresh mate-
rials, when they had a quarry of ready-hewn stones under
their hands. The columns and fragments of sculpture
here and there imbedded in the walls of houses, prove
that the remains of Roman Sutrium at least were thus
applied. There are some fine fragments of the ancient
walls on the south side of the town, and not a few sewers
opening in the cliffs beneath them, similar in size and form
to that at Fidense.
As the walls of Sutri are similar to those of most of
the Etruscan cities in the southern or volcanic district
of the land, I shall describe the peculiarity of their
masonry. The blocks are arranged so as to present their
ends and sides to view in alternate courses, in the style
which is called by builders " old English bond," or
more vulgarly, "headers and stretchers;" but as this
masonry is of classic origin, I will designate it by the
more appropriate term of empledon, which was applied
by the Greeks to a similar sort of masonry in use among
them1—a term significant of the interweaving process
8 Claustra portseque Etruriae, Liv. irXoiaiav irSMv.
VI. 9 ; IX. 32. ' Vitruv. II., vm. 7. For farther
9 Plutarch (Camil.) calls it "a flourish- remarks on emplecton masonry, see
ing and wealthy town," «Mo£|Uoyo kb\ Appendix.
similarly situated, being the other.8 Indeed, Sutrium could
have been little more than a fortress at any time,9 and as
such it seems to have been maintained to a late period, long
after the neighbouring Etruscan cities had been destroyed.
The modern town occupies the site of the ancient, and is
probably composed of the same materials. I do not mean
to assert that any of the ancient Sutria tecta are remaining^
though such a fact, as far as regards the foundations
and shell, is not impossible; but the blocks of tufo
of which the houses are constructed, may well have been
hewn by Etruscan hands. Every one who knows the
Italians, will admit that they would never cut fresh mate-
rials, when they had a quarry of ready-hewn stones under
their hands. The columns and fragments of sculpture
here and there imbedded in the walls of houses, prove
that the remains of Roman Sutrium at least were thus
applied. There are some fine fragments of the ancient
walls on the south side of the town, and not a few sewers
opening in the cliffs beneath them, similar in size and form
to that at Fidense.
As the walls of Sutri are similar to those of most of
the Etruscan cities in the southern or volcanic district
of the land, I shall describe the peculiarity of their
masonry. The blocks are arranged so as to present their
ends and sides to view in alternate courses, in the style
which is called by builders " old English bond," or
more vulgarly, "headers and stretchers;" but as this
masonry is of classic origin, I will designate it by the
more appropriate term of empledon, which was applied
by the Greeks to a similar sort of masonry in use among
them1—a term significant of the interweaving process
8 Claustra portseque Etruriae, Liv. irXoiaiav irSMv.
VI. 9 ; IX. 32. ' Vitruv. II., vm. 7. For farther
9 Plutarch (Camil.) calls it "a flourish- remarks on emplecton masonry, see
ing and wealthy town," «Mo£|Uoyo kb\ Appendix.