"As to the first _origin_ of the _marl-earths_, it is clear that the
banquets, as you assert, are a considerable part; but there seems to
us to appear in the scoriæ, the millstones, the heaps of grain, the
palisades, the potsherds, already cited, together with the arms and
utensils of all sorts which are found in these earths, something more
than a mere meeting-place to banquet. It seems to us, if we do not
err, that there is something of settlement and duration. Man did not
meet there only to arrange and devour the feast, but to employ himself
besides in domestic avocations, in preparing implements and arms, to
sew garments, and make nets--in a word, to inhabit them; besides, to
exercise the practices of their religious worship, and, perhaps, also
to burn their dead, and all these after the fashion of barbarians,
such as the people of the _marl-beds_ must have been. These people,
according to the place and time, were fishermen, hunters, shepherds,
and even agriculturists." (B. 91, p. 83.)
These words contain the most important feature of this report. The
authors, though not absolutely free from the previous notions that
floods and inundations had something to do with the stratification
of the _débris_, distinctly recognise that the terremare must be
considered as the remains of the _habitations of the living_, and not,
as hitherto supposed, the resting-places of the dead.
Interest in the whole subject now rapidly increased, and extended to
agriculturists and local observers. Yearly excavations were carefully
scanned and even special researches were carried on in the interests
of science. Strobel, a professed naturalist with remarkably precise
and accurate habits, devoted his great energies to the elucidation
of the organic remains, especially the rich and varied products of
the peaty bed (_terra uliginosa_) at Castione, in which the piles
were detected. Pigorini, on the other hand, was an archæologist pure
and simple, but endowed with great ability and much fertility in the
correlation and generalisation of facts--qualities which have since
gained him the chair of archæology at Rome, which he now fills with so
much distinction. Thus associated these two men may be said to have
developed a new school of archæology, especially anent the terremare,
having as its primary and indispensable object the collection of
authenticated data, without which, they asserted, no deductions
however brilliant could be scientific.
In the course of researches conducted by Strobel at Castione, during
the years 1862 and 1863, he observed that the piles were placed in
a sort of basin, either natural or artificial; that they supported
transverse beams over which clay floorings had been placed; and that
they were more thickly set towards the margin, and slanting, as if to
strengthen the inner superstructures. Moreover, he proved that the
supposed peaty formation (_terra uliginosa_) had nothing in common
with true peat, but was simply a subaqueous deposit of ordinary
earth, associated with decomposed organic _débris_. Another terramara
in Parma having similar characteristics to that at Castione was
investigated in the following year by Pigorini, and thus the theory of
an occasional palafitte converted into a land-dwelling seemed to them
to be confirmed. Previous to this the stratification of the beds--one
of the most remarkable features of these deposits--had not excited any
unusual surprise, but now it began to be commented upon.
These and some other noteworthy observations here and there coming to
light induced Strobel and Pigorini to issue a second report on the
terremare of Parma. (B. 89.) But in this _brochure_, which appeared
in 1864, there does not appear to be any striking departure from the
views expressed by the authors in their previous report. They asserted
that the people who constructed and inhabited these dwellings were a
nomadic or agricultural race, belonging to the Bronze Age, and were
probably allied to the Swiss lake-dwellers; and that their habitations
varied in structural character according to the exigencies of the
site chosen. No significance was attached to the piles at Castione
and elsewhere, beyond supplying a proof that different methods of
construction had been in use, the adoption of which depended on local
conditions. The composition of the strata as "earthy beds, now ashy,
now yellowish, now reddish or black," and their peculiarly wavy
arrangement, were supposed to mark merely a variety.
The terremare now became a controversial focus between the adherents
of the old and new schools. To the former Cavedoni, Coppi, and
subsequently Crespellani, lent their influence; while the latter were
reinforced by Boni, Canestrini, Calegari, and Chierici. Amongst all
these, during the next few years, Chierici stood pre-eminent. Already
an ardent collector of the antiquities of his native country, he
found in the mysterious terremare a congenial field and a new outlet
for his love of practical research. For minute observation and lucid
exposition of the phenomena observed in explorations, Chierici had
few superiors. To him must undoubtedly be assigned the next great
contributions towards the elucidation of the terremare problem.
Observing in several instances that an earthy dyke of a rectangular
shape, with a ditch outside, surrounded the terramara mound, and
that upright beams, or traces of them, were to be seen in all parts
of the deposits, he suggested that these were normal features in
their structure. Although some of his contemporary explorers had
incidentally noticed piles in a stratum different from that in which
their original discovery was made at Castione, and even recorded
the fact (B. 407, p. 7), it remained to Chierici alone to interpret
the true significance of the discovery. In support of the theory of
universality of the palafitte system, he showed that in many cases
the piles had entirely disappeared by decomposition, and that the
only traces of their existence were the holes they had occupied. Some
of these, indeed, had subsequently become filled up by infiltrated
matter, so that on section they presented the appearance of inverted
cones. On this point he relates that in one space measuring 210 square
metres he counted no less than 124 "buche di pali." (B. 206, p. 9.)
It must be remembered that, previous to this, archæologists had no
clear notion of the order or relative position of the products of
different ages and races, and the same confusion extended to the
terremare. For instance, at Castelnuovo, Chierici seemed puzzled at
finding, underneath a Bronze Age terramara, indications of an older
period. At Campeggine, on the other hand, objects of the early Iron
Age appeared, but chiefly in the upper strata, while Etruscan remains
had been recognised in several instances.
Another point to which Chierici's attention was directed was the
frequency with which rectangular enclosures were disposed so as
to have their four sides facing the cardinal points; and this
orientation within certain limits, varying, it would seem, according
to the direction of the sunrise when the settlement was founded, he
considered also applicable to all the terramara villages. On this
point see also Helbig. (B. 308.)
In his famous theory of the structure of the terramara villages (B.
206) Chierici conceived the idea that they had been constructed over
artificial basins to which a running stream was made to flow so as to
convert the _bacino_ into a pool of water. This pool was surrounded
by an earthen dyke inside of which a wooden platform was erected on
piles and covered with a layer of clay. Huts were then erected over
this platform at regular intervals, and the refuse from them was
thrown, by means of holes here and there, into the space below. The
water entering at one side of the enclosure made its exit at the
opposite side. Thus the space below the platform was more or less
occupied with water, and the _débris_ thrown into it became arranged
into sedimentary strata, and so continued to accumulate until the
entire space was filled up. When the accumulation of _débris_ reached
this extent it became necessary to elevate their floorings, and this
was done by repeating the same process at a higher level; and in this
manner Chierici accounted for the successive platforms and palafittes
which were to be met with in the terramara beds.
Thus in the hands of Chierici almost every feature of the terramara
deposits excited fresh interest and an eagerness for further
inquiries. Piles or their traces were found almost immediately in all
the stations wherever they were carefully looked for. In 1872 Chierici
and Mantovani explored two stations, one at Monte Venere and the
other at Monte, in which were found not only the dyke surrounding
the basin and palafitte, but, in one of them, three series of piles,
one superimposed above the other, thus clearly showing that when the
spaces around the piles and underneath the platform had got filled
up with _débris_, a second palafitte had been resorted to, which in
its turn had been succeeded by a third. (B. 233 and 247.) It was on
all hands acknowledged that in many parts the peculiar stratification
of the layers in certain beds could only be accounted for on the
supposition that water had somehow to do with the sorting of their
ingredients, as floating materials, such as bits of charcoal, were
often eliminated and formed separate layers. So far Chierici's theory
might be taken as offering a complete explanation of the phenomena.
But the deposition of the higher portions of the mound remained to
be accounted for, as it was difficult to conceive of pools of water
at the requisite heights. A still more formidable objection was the
impossibility of transporting water without the intervention of a
system of hydraulics to sites placed on elevations far above the level
of any adjacent streams, and of this class several had been known,
as at Monte Venere, Roteglia, Castellaccio, etc. (B. 407, p. 9);
yet, in most cases, they also contained the palafitte and dyke. This
was the weakest part of the theory and found few supporters, but in
other respects every additional discovery only tended to confirm it.
Strobel, however, declined to believe in the universality of either
dykes or palafittes. Thus, writing in 1874 (B. 267), he says: "At the
conclusion of an article which I wrote in 1872 on shells of _Unio_
found in the marière, etc., I asserted that the terremare, those
prehistoric settlements, were terrestrial; that in some of them man
lived in pile-dwellings on dry ground, in others he dwelt in tents
or huts; and that in some of the terramara beds earthworks can be
seen, which may have been used as dykes or bulwarks, and which in all
probability were fortified with ditches." After showing how impossible
it would be for the terramaricoli of Roteglia and Castellaccio to
have pools of water at such an elevation as they had been, he goes
on to say: "And here I may be permitted to raise my voice against
those who imagine that prehistoric men, and more especially those
of the marière, and of our terremare and pile-dwellings of the
Bronze Age, always and everywhere followed constantly one uniform
and invariable order in arranging their abodes, as if they were
inferior to the animals, nay, even to the invertebrates, who modify
their constructions according to circumstances. But, in fact, there
is much less uniformity in these terremare than is often found in
the dwellings of animals; therefore I maintain logically, that even
prehistoric men changed their mode of living according to place, time,
and circumstances; and that the terramaricoli did not live solely
in pools of water, as some assert, but had settlements both in the
water and on dry land, and that the terramara beds are the results of
the latter. In some of the terrestrial settlements they probably had
pile-dwellings, while in others they lived in huts or tents. Some at
least of the land settlements were defended by dykes and ditches." (B.
119, 2nd ed., p. 402.)
Pigorini, on the other hand, looked favourably on the major portion
of Chierici's generalisations, and in the course of explorations
conducted by him at Casaroldo in 1874 (B. 266 and 297) he found
everything not only in harmony with his views but some additional
facts that seemed to strengthen that portion of his theory in which
he maintained that the palafitte was the normal method adopted in
the structure of the terremare, whatever the nature of the locality
might be in which they were constructed. Thus at Casaroldo, although
there was both a ditch and a dyke surrounding the basin containing the
palafitte, it had no peaty understratum (_terra uliginosa_), as at
Castione, but a substance precisely identical with the superimposed
deposits. Here also there were traces of piles on a higher level.
Almost coincident with the publication of Chierici's theory of the
terremare, in 1871, was the International Congress of Anthropology
and Prehistoric Archæology at Bologna, which gave an immense
impetus to such studies. Indeed, the decade which followed may be
characterised as the Augustan age in the department of prehistoric
archæology in Italy. The remarkable discoveries in the old cemeteries
of Bologna, and in Etruscan tombs elsewhere in the Circumpadana
district, together with the increasing number of prehistoric stations
in lakes, turbaries, caverns, etc., greatly widened the field of
research and added to the difficulty of deciphering, from amidst the
endless overlappings of their remains, the history of the various
civilisations which formerly characterised the country. In order to
facilitate these studies the _Bullettino Paletnologia Italiana_ was
established at the commencement of 1875, under the joint editorship of
Chierici, Pigorini, and Strobel. This periodical has done much good
and is still in a flourishing condition.