DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.785#0499
394
GRAVISCA.
[chap. xx.
the Marta being the natural emissary of the Lake of
Bolsena. This must have been one reason, added to the
all-cogent one of superior salubrity, which led the founders
of the town to select a site, not on the sea-shore, or on the
banks of the stream, but on the first convenient eminence,
though it were two miles inland. This quay, sewer, and
causeway, raise WestphaFs opinion that this was the site
of Graviscse, from mere probability almost to certainty.2
proprietor of the ground, Signor Falza-
cappa, of Corneto, is of opinion that the
arch, called by the peasantry II Pontone,
is a bridge originally crossing the Marta
itself, which has since changed its course.
But the comparatively narrow span of
the arch, the absence of all vestiges of a
former channel, and the long embank-
ment, forbid me to entertain this view.
2 I stated this opinion in Bull. Inst.
1847, p. 92, and it elicited the following
remarks from Cav. Oanina. " The re-
mains of ancient walls existing near the
mouth of the Marta, cannot have be-
longed to Gravisca, because this city is
placed in the Maritime Itinerary of
Antoninus at three miles' distance from
the said river, and at twelve from Cen-
tumcellse, i. e., very near the mouth of
the river Mignone, where remains are
extant, and which site agrees with the
distance of a little less than 180 stadia,
prescribed by Strabo as that between
Pyrgi and Gravisca. The remains men-
tioned by Mr. Dennis must have be-
longed to that castle indicated in the
Maritime Itinerary under the name of
Maltano (Maltanum), which was placed
precisely at the mouth of the said river
Marta, as may be deduced from the
agreement of the other Itineraries in
registering that station with the simple
name of Marta."
I should not have arrived at the above
opinion, could I have yielded, as the
learned Cavaliere appears to do, implicit
credence to the Itineraries. But finding
them so often widely in error, or at
variance—as a comparison of them in
this very case will attest—I cannot
accord them confidence, in the face of
the more convincing evidence of extant
remains. If Graviscse were the port of
Tarquinii, no site could be better adapted
to it than this, on the stream which
washed the walls of that city. I confess
that the agreement of the Maritime
Itinerary and the Peutingerian Table in
placing Graviscse between the Marta
and the Minio is not without weight;
yet I cannot think that it outbalances
the stronger evidence to the contrary
adduced in the text. And I cannot in
any way accord to Cavaliere Canina that
Graviscse stood near the mouth of the
Mignone. For if with him, I cite the
Maritime Itinerary in evidence, I find
Graviscse placed 12 miles ftjom Centum-
cellse (Civita Vecehia), while the Minio is
in fact but 7 or 8 miles distant; the Saline,
where Graviscse is generally supposed
to have stood, is but 10, whereas my
site is just 12J miles from that port.
And Strabo's distance of 180 stadia
from Pyrgi is much better answered in
the Saline than in the mouth of the Mig-
none ; while the Maritime Itinerary in
stating it at 27 miles, favours the site on
the right bank of the Marta. Thus these
very authorities may be made to support
my view as well as that of Cav. Canina,
but I lay no further stress on this than
GRAVISCA.
[chap. xx.
the Marta being the natural emissary of the Lake of
Bolsena. This must have been one reason, added to the
all-cogent one of superior salubrity, which led the founders
of the town to select a site, not on the sea-shore, or on the
banks of the stream, but on the first convenient eminence,
though it were two miles inland. This quay, sewer, and
causeway, raise WestphaFs opinion that this was the site
of Graviscse, from mere probability almost to certainty.2
proprietor of the ground, Signor Falza-
cappa, of Corneto, is of opinion that the
arch, called by the peasantry II Pontone,
is a bridge originally crossing the Marta
itself, which has since changed its course.
But the comparatively narrow span of
the arch, the absence of all vestiges of a
former channel, and the long embank-
ment, forbid me to entertain this view.
2 I stated this opinion in Bull. Inst.
1847, p. 92, and it elicited the following
remarks from Cav. Oanina. " The re-
mains of ancient walls existing near the
mouth of the Marta, cannot have be-
longed to Gravisca, because this city is
placed in the Maritime Itinerary of
Antoninus at three miles' distance from
the said river, and at twelve from Cen-
tumcellse, i. e., very near the mouth of
the river Mignone, where remains are
extant, and which site agrees with the
distance of a little less than 180 stadia,
prescribed by Strabo as that between
Pyrgi and Gravisca. The remains men-
tioned by Mr. Dennis must have be-
longed to that castle indicated in the
Maritime Itinerary under the name of
Maltano (Maltanum), which was placed
precisely at the mouth of the said river
Marta, as may be deduced from the
agreement of the other Itineraries in
registering that station with the simple
name of Marta."
I should not have arrived at the above
opinion, could I have yielded, as the
learned Cavaliere appears to do, implicit
credence to the Itineraries. But finding
them so often widely in error, or at
variance—as a comparison of them in
this very case will attest—I cannot
accord them confidence, in the face of
the more convincing evidence of extant
remains. If Graviscse were the port of
Tarquinii, no site could be better adapted
to it than this, on the stream which
washed the walls of that city. I confess
that the agreement of the Maritime
Itinerary and the Peutingerian Table in
placing Graviscse between the Marta
and the Minio is not without weight;
yet I cannot think that it outbalances
the stronger evidence to the contrary
adduced in the text. And I cannot in
any way accord to Cavaliere Canina that
Graviscse stood near the mouth of the
Mignone. For if with him, I cite the
Maritime Itinerary in evidence, I find
Graviscse placed 12 miles ftjom Centum-
cellse (Civita Vecehia), while the Minio is
in fact but 7 or 8 miles distant; the Saline,
where Graviscse is generally supposed
to have stood, is but 10, whereas my
site is just 12J miles from that port.
And Strabo's distance of 180 stadia
from Pyrgi is much better answered in
the Saline than in the mouth of the Mig-
none ; while the Maritime Itinerary in
stating it at 27 miles, favours the site on
the right bank of the Marta. Thus these
very authorities may be made to support
my view as well as that of Cav. Canina,
but I lay no further stress on this than