DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.786#0448
chap. i,v.] AREZZO NOT THE ETRUSCAN ARRETIUM.
431
Etruscan Arretium, but of one of the Roman colonies of
the same name ;5 and as all analogy marks the town on
the Poggio di San Cornelio to be of earlier date than this
in the plain, the question turns upon that town. If it be
proved an Etruscan site,6 Arezzo may be the Arretium
Fidens ; but if the town on the heights cannot be identi-
fied with the original city, it must be the Fidens, and
Arezzo the later colony of Arretium Julium; and the site
of the Etruscan city has yet to be discovered.
5 That Arezzo occupies a site that
was once Roman is abundantly proyed
by its extant remains. The fragments
of brickwork around the higher part of
the city, may belong to the Roman
walls, which, if this be the site of the
Julian colony, are those mentioned by
Frontinus, ■— " Arretium, muro ducta
colonia lege Triumvirali."
6 It may be urged as an objection to
this being the Etruscan site, that the
masonry is of stone, whereas the ancient
walls were of brick. But we have no
positive assurance that these brick walls
were of Etruscan construction. If on
the capture of the city, a fresh town
were built, as was the case with Falerii
and Volsinii, it may have been that
which had the walls of brick; for as
nearly three centuries intervened to the
time of Vitruvius, they would have been
entitled to his designation of " ancient."
Were it even certain that Vitruvius and
Pliny refer to the Etruscan walls, it
may be that in these ruins we see but a
small portion of the ancient fortifica-
tions, and just that portion which from
the massiveness of the masonry has
escaped destruction. If the brickwork
were not strongly cemented it would
soon be pulled to pieces by the peasantry,
for the sake of the materials.
431
Etruscan Arretium, but of one of the Roman colonies of
the same name ;5 and as all analogy marks the town on
the Poggio di San Cornelio to be of earlier date than this
in the plain, the question turns upon that town. If it be
proved an Etruscan site,6 Arezzo may be the Arretium
Fidens ; but if the town on the heights cannot be identi-
fied with the original city, it must be the Fidens, and
Arezzo the later colony of Arretium Julium; and the site
of the Etruscan city has yet to be discovered.
5 That Arezzo occupies a site that
was once Roman is abundantly proyed
by its extant remains. The fragments
of brickwork around the higher part of
the city, may belong to the Roman
walls, which, if this be the site of the
Julian colony, are those mentioned by
Frontinus, ■— " Arretium, muro ducta
colonia lege Triumvirali."
6 It may be urged as an objection to
this being the Etruscan site, that the
masonry is of stone, whereas the ancient
walls were of brick. But we have no
positive assurance that these brick walls
were of Etruscan construction. If on
the capture of the city, a fresh town
were built, as was the case with Falerii
and Volsinii, it may have been that
which had the walls of brick; for as
nearly three centuries intervened to the
time of Vitruvius, they would have been
entitled to his designation of " ancient."
Were it even certain that Vitruvius and
Pliny refer to the Etruscan walls, it
may be that in these ruins we see but a
small portion of the ancient fortifica-
tions, and just that portion which from
the massiveness of the masonry has
escaped destruction. If the brickwork
were not strongly cemented it would
soon be pulled to pieces by the peasantry,
for the sake of the materials.