Il Deposito Prelaconico Di Borgo Nuovo

ONLINE PUBLICATIONS: BOOK REVIEW
AJA
IL DEPOSITO PRELACONICO DI BORGO NUOVO
A TARANTO
BY FELICE GINO LO PORTO. PP. 80, FIGS. 31, PL. 1. GIORGIO BRETSCHNEIDER EDITORE,
ROME 2004. €70. ISBN 88-7689-186-2 (PAPER).
You have to tip your hat to Felice Gino Lo
which decline to speculate much on the mean-
Porto. One of those Italian superintendents
ing and importance of the deposit (71–4).
who fiercely protected unpublished finds
Chapter 1 brings together information
from the prying eyes of other scholars, he
on the discovery and hypotheses about the
distinguished himself from most of his con-
function of the deposit. Viola’s summary de-
temporaries by publishing a good deal of
scription spoke of a large rectangular “tomb,”
this material in retirement. Indeed, the list
excavated three meters into the limestone bed-
of publications (4–7) shows how much more
rock, with rubble in the upper part, then “pyre
productive Lo Porto was in the 25 years after
soil” and pottery in the lower parts, with a little
his retirement in 1976 than in the ﬁ rst 25 years
human bone. There was immediate skepticism
of his neatly symmetrical scholarly career (this
about the interpretation of the deposit as a
volume appeared posthumously).
tomb, since it was (and is) completely unlike
This book is about an extraordinary de-
any burial excavated in south Italy.
posit of approximately 550 ceramic vessels
The chapters detailing the approximately
discovered in 1880 during the frantic phase of
350 impasto and the approximately 200
building activity that accompanied Taranto’s
matte-painted vessels enormously expand
redevelopment as an important port city for
the number of complete vessels known from
the new Republic. The group is often referred
the Salentine peninsula for the eighth century
to as the Borgo Nuovo (“new city”) deposit,
B.C.E. The reason for this is odd: in this century
less frequently as the “pozzo d’Eredità,” after
graveyards are found throughout the Italian
the landowner, Ignazio d’Eredità. What is ex-
peninsula, except in Salento (the “heel” of
traordinary about the group is that it is made
the boot). This absence of burials corresponds
up entirely of indigenous handmade Italian
precisely with the distribution of the matte-
pottery—impasto (dark burnished ware) and
painted ceramic styles dubbed Salento Middle
matte-painted—that seems to predate the
and Late Geometric by D.G. Yntema; Taranto is
w
vie
foundation of the Laconian colony of Taras,
the westernmost outpost of these styles.
traditionally dated to 706 B.C.E.
For the impasto pottery parallels are noted
ok Re
o
A long report on the deposit by the exca-
from sites in Albania and South Italy, particu-
e of America
vator, Luigi Viola, was sent to the ministry
larly those to the north and west of Taranto.
for publication in the Notizie degli Scavi but
It is strange that so few parallels are found
Online B
was rejected as being “prolix, with too many
from Salento itself, and this is perhaps due
parentheses.” It would appear that the ideals
to the fragmentary nature of those potential
of the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei have
comparanda. A few ﬁ nds from the author’s
r
chaeology
chaeological Institut
not changed a great deal in the subsequent
excavations at Satyrion are mentioned, but
the Ar
y
120 years, since this volume, like others in the
nothing from Oria, Cavallino, or I Fani.
y 2008)
series, is relentlessly dry. It consists of four
The chapter on matte-painted pottery relies
chapters: discovery (15–7), a catalogue of
heavily on Yntema’s The Matt-Painted Pottery of
Januar
an Journal of A
impasto pottery (19–39), a catalogue of matte-
Southern Italy (Utrecht 1985). The author does
pyright © 2008 b
I12.1 (
Americ
o
C
painted pottery (41–70), and brief conclusions,
not, however, address Yntema’s proposal that

certain vessels, especially those with “a tenda”
L’Amastuola, which was only brought within
decoration (cat. nos. 95, 121, 134; also no. 189)
the chora of Taras in the ﬁ fth century.
may be imports from the Bradano district,
As to the nature of the Borgo Nuovo deposit,
to the northwest. Since none of the pottery
Lo Porto sees it as “perhaps mainly funerary”
descriptions includes Munsell readings or
(73). Yntema has recently proposed the follow-
information on inclusions, the reader is in no
ing elegant solution: since it was discovered in
position to judge the likelihood of these vessels
the area where the seventh-century B.C.E. in-
being imports.
habitants of Taranto buried their dead, perhaps
From the conclusions, one discovers that a
the Borgo Nuovo deposit was the result of the
total of 199 out of 547 vessels and fragments
ritual puriﬁ cation of a preexisting ninth/eighth
have been catalogued, with the remainder
century necropolis (BABesch 75 [2000] 19). Giv-
classed as “replicas and fragments.” One can
en the number of miniature vessels among the
almost, but not quite, recreate the deposit in
group, some might lean toward explanations
quantitative terms on the basis of the tables
involving an indigenous votive deposit, invok-
presented: 93 of the 350 impasto vessels are
ing the recent ﬁ nds at Francavilla Marittima.
classiﬁ ed simply as “various shapes.” Of the
Reburial of grave groups probably explains bet-
197 nonimpasto vessels, 26 had no painted
ter the complete absence of metal ﬁ nds, which
decoration; none of them is catalogued, and
may have been buried elsewhere or recycled
it is impossible to ﬁ nd out their shapes. More
by the putative Tarentine puriﬁ ers.
could be expected from a publication that sees
As usual for this series, the quality of paper
itself as deﬁ nitive.
and production is of the highest order, and
In the rest of the concluding chapter, ce-
typographical errors are almost completely
ramic parallels are summarized, and a date
absent. The line drawings are of high quality.
of 790–740 B.C.E. for the deposit is asserted,
Those of us who are responsible for producing
principally on the basis of the matte-painted
books will blanch at the sight of the single plate
pottery. This gives a false sense of precision in
at the back of this volume, but such extrava-
the dating of Salentine matte-painted pottery,
gance does not seem to have been passed on
and does not accurately reﬂ ect the author’s
to potential consumers, since the volume costs
own parallels. I suspect that some of the ves-
a relatively modest €70.
sels date back into the ninth century, and that
This volume, while not quite a deﬁ nitive
others may go down well into the eighth or
account of the Borgo Nuovo deposit, is a wel-
perhaps even beyond. Scholars used to expect
come addition. Its publication will presumably
a clean break in the archaeological record when
free up access to this material for scholars with
Greeks settled in Italy. Recent results from sites
further questions to ask of it.
such as Francavilla Marittima, Siris, Incoro-
nata, and Metaponto tell a different story. The
E.G.D. ROBINSON
later bellicose reputation of Laconian Taras
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY
does not have to be projected back into the
UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
eighth century. Indeed, in the current issue
SYDNEY NSW 2006
of BABesch (75 [2007] 77–114), Dutch scholars
AUSTRALIA
have revealed evidence for a mixed Greek and
TED.ROBINSON@ARTS.USYD.EDU.AU
indigenous settlement of the seventh century at
w
vie
ok Re
o
Online B
r
chaeology
an Journal of A
Americ
2