One of the clearest observations which can be made is that imported
Greek figured fine wares are almost absent in the survey collection.
This is in stark contrast to the presentation of Etruscan ceramic
collections in the galleries of the world´s museums where Corinthian,
Attic red figured and black figured wares are usually prominently
displayed. The survey work in the Albegna valley clearly demonstrates
that Greek imported wares are not commonly found by field survey
in the Etruscan countryside. None were found in rural surface
scatters and none were found in the excavation of the farm site
at Podere Tartuchino (Attolini and Perkins 1992). One abraded
sherd from Doganella was tentatively identified as red figure
(Perkins and Walker 1990, fig. 26.25) and a sherd of black gloss
ware from Doganella has been published as Attic (Michelucci 1984,
383); limited excavation and publication at Doganella have not
recovered figured Greek wares (Michelucci 1984; Michelucci 1985). Greek vases
have been found in the valley but only in tombs, for example
in the necropolises of Magliano and Saturnia (Minto 1925; 1935).
The necropolises of Doganella have not been explored so it is
not possible to demonstrate that Greek pots were used in the city
cemeteries as they were so spectacularly at nearby Vulci. This
absence of Greek painted wares in the countryside seems to hold
for survey work in south Etruria too, since they are not mentioned as
a site find in the South Etruria Survey (Potter 1979, 71-2), but
then the Etruscan finds from the survey have never been fully
published. How far this pattern may be generalised to other parts
of Etruria will only become clear as more survey work is published.
It would seem that at least in the Albegna Valley/Ager Cosanus
the rural ´poor Etruscans´ did not use Greek pots as fancy table
ware (contra Vickers 1985/6).
Can this perceived absence of imported fine wares in the countryside
be taken at face value? At least in the Albegna Valley/Ager
Cosanus survey the scale of the fieldwork and the quantity of
finds, along with the fact that the plough does not discriminate
between classes of pottery, suggest that there is no systematic
bias against the collection of painted wares. We may be satisfied
that imported Greek wares were not incorporated into the archaeological
record along with other debris and the remains of buildings. But
this does not necessarily imply that Greek vases were not used
in the countryside, for it is possible that Greek vessels were
used but were not discarded at rural settlements
along with the other pottery which the survey did find. At present,
the distribution of imported Greek wares in the survey area suggests
that they were mainly deposited in tombs and only rarely discarded
at settlements. This pattern of distribution can also be seen
in other fine wares, for example Etrusco-Corinthian or thin-walled
Bucchero, both of which are almost absent from the survey finds
but have been found in tombs in the necropolises of the valley.
There is no direct evidence to explain why the imported fine wares
are preferentially found in tombs but possible explanations fall
into the following categories
Functional explanations: the vessels are largely those
associated with banqueting, that is drinking or serving vessels,
along with perfume or unguent containers. Banqueting and burial
rituals are closely entwined throughout the Etruscan period, and therefore
the banqueting vessels are those found in graves.
Value explanations: the imported vessels were considered
as intrinsically valuable due to their exotic origin, beauty and
rarity. Therefore the imported vessels are found in tombs because
they were valuable and wealth, if it is indicated by precious
metals, fine workmanship etc., is often emphasised in Etruscan
grave goods.
Site formation factors: fine wares were well cared
for during their ´life´ and even repaired if broken. They were
rarely discarded with other refuse and only finally disposed of
in tombs.
Post-depositional factors: grave goods are often found
intact because they have been protected by the tombs in which they
were deposited whereas rural settlements have usually been subject
to agricultural activity and erosion, reducing the pottery to small
fragments. Therefore the differential preservation seen in the
distribution patterns is due to post-depositional factors.
Cultural factors: the Greek nature of the pottery and/or
its iconographical content made it particularly suitable for use
as grave goods in a culture where Greek and Orientalizing influences
were strong.
This list is not exhaustive but it serves to illustrate the complexity
of the problem and the possible range of explanations for the
observed patterning in the data. The more general issue of the
importation and use of Greek pottery in Etruria has been considered
by Nigel Spivey (1991) and some of the themes listed above are
discussed in detail with examples. The evidence from the survey
allows the issue to be viewed from the angle of the rural population.
This indicates that the imported pottery did not end up on rural
middens in large quantities. Figured ware has been found at some
sites, for example Forcello (Paribeni 1986), Arteminio (Capecci 1987, 78-81), and Poggio Civitate, Murlo (Phillips 1989), but
it is unwise to generalise because so few small rural Etruscan
sites have been excavated and published in detail, and none of
the three sites listed were small rural farms. It could be argued
that fine vases did not reach rural sites, but the evidence does
not support this: Greek pots have been found in the Albegna valley
at Saturnia (Minto 1925), far from the sea, and the distribution
of other types of ceramics demonstrates that there was a well-developed
network of exchange between the city and the countryside
which could have taken imported wares into remote areas. The evidence
we do have suggests that the fine imports ended up in tombs. This
in turn implies that ritual behavior in conjunction with the factors
mentioned above determined the distribution patterns of the imported
fine wares in the survey area.