DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.786#0326
chap, xlix.] WALLS OF POLYGONAL MASONRY. 309
In three spots only could I perceive remains of the
original walls. The finest portion is on the south, beneath
the ruined castle, and hard by the village. Here is a gate-
way, called Porta Romana, whether from the direction in
which it opens, or from its evident antiquity, matters not.
On either hand of it is polygonal masonry, precisely like
that of Cosa in its smooth surface and the close " kissing "
of its joints ; but whether topt in the same way with hori-
zontal courses cannot be determined, the loftiest fragment
not rising above twelve feet.4 The gateway, though now
arched over with the work of the middle ages, is mani-
festly coeval with these walls, for the masonry here running
into horizontal forms as usual at angles, terminates
abruptly in doorposts;5 and there are no traces of an
ancient arch, the gate having been spanned, like those at
Cosa and kindred sites, by a horizontal lintel of stone or
wood. The pavement of the old Roman road still runs
through the gate into the city.
In the eastern wall, at a spot called II Marrucatone, just
above the Campo Santo, is.another fragment of polygonal
masonry. Only two courses are now standing, and there
may be about twenty blocks in all; and these show more
tendency to regularity and horizontality than the portion
at the Porta Romana,
On the opposite side of the city is a third fragment, in
4 The blocks here are not of great he had not given the date of his visit
size. Two of the largest I found to be I should have doubted that he had ever
respectively—5 ft. 7 in. in length, by been at Saturnia. It is surprising that
4 ft. 7 in. high ; and 4 ft. 7 in. long, by the peculiar character of this masonry, so
3 ft. 2 in. high. A view of this frag- decidedly polygonal, could have escaped
ment of the walls of Saturnia is given his eye. His inaccuracy in describing it
in Ann. Inst. 1831, tav. d' Agg. E. as macigno must also be attributed to
6 It must have been the horizontality want of observation ; and his opinion
in the doorposts that led Repetti to that it is "rather Roman than Etrus-
speak of this masonry as composed " of can," can therefore have little weight,
great blocks of squared macigno." If See Repetti, V. p. 206.
In three spots only could I perceive remains of the
original walls. The finest portion is on the south, beneath
the ruined castle, and hard by the village. Here is a gate-
way, called Porta Romana, whether from the direction in
which it opens, or from its evident antiquity, matters not.
On either hand of it is polygonal masonry, precisely like
that of Cosa in its smooth surface and the close " kissing "
of its joints ; but whether topt in the same way with hori-
zontal courses cannot be determined, the loftiest fragment
not rising above twelve feet.4 The gateway, though now
arched over with the work of the middle ages, is mani-
festly coeval with these walls, for the masonry here running
into horizontal forms as usual at angles, terminates
abruptly in doorposts;5 and there are no traces of an
ancient arch, the gate having been spanned, like those at
Cosa and kindred sites, by a horizontal lintel of stone or
wood. The pavement of the old Roman road still runs
through the gate into the city.
In the eastern wall, at a spot called II Marrucatone, just
above the Campo Santo, is.another fragment of polygonal
masonry. Only two courses are now standing, and there
may be about twenty blocks in all; and these show more
tendency to regularity and horizontality than the portion
at the Porta Romana,
On the opposite side of the city is a third fragment, in
4 The blocks here are not of great he had not given the date of his visit
size. Two of the largest I found to be I should have doubted that he had ever
respectively—5 ft. 7 in. in length, by been at Saturnia. It is surprising that
4 ft. 7 in. high ; and 4 ft. 7 in. long, by the peculiar character of this masonry, so
3 ft. 2 in. high. A view of this frag- decidedly polygonal, could have escaped
ment of the walls of Saturnia is given his eye. His inaccuracy in describing it
in Ann. Inst. 1831, tav. d' Agg. E. as macigno must also be attributed to
6 It must have been the horizontality want of observation ; and his opinion
in the doorposts that led Repetti to that it is "rather Roman than Etrus-
speak of this masonry as composed " of can," can therefore have little weight,
great blocks of squared macigno." If See Repetti, V. p. 206.