- F. Lo Schiavo and M. Milletti –
in southern Etruria, at Tarquinia (Babbi 2002) and the Villanovan-Campanian site of
Pontecagnano (Lo Schiavo 1994). There are both ornamental items (buttons, pins, Fig.
11.4, nos. 4, 13) or those with a strong symbolic value (pendants, small bronze boats,
anthropomorphic fi gurines, Fig. 11.4, nos. 2, 3, 6, 7), and also weapons (daggers, swords,
Fig. 11.4, nos. 8, 12), tools (axes, Fig. 11.4, nos. 14–16), ceramic vases (askoid jugs, Fig.
11.4, no. 11) and metal vessels (bowls, Fig. 11.4, nos. 9–10). A close partnership would
thus seem to unite the people of Sardinia, and in particular, as mentioned above, those of the
Alghero district with those of northern Etruria, and this special relationship surely must
have been developed by sharing experiences and common interests in the exploitation of
mineral resources, metallurgy and seafaring enterprises. The diffi culties that the Greek and
Levantine products meet during the Iron Age in their diffusion into northern Etruria (Botto
2007) may indicate an attempt by the Nuragic Sardinian people to maintain a non-exclusive
but preferential channel of trade with this part of Etruria: the “conquest” of this market
by Greek ceramics in fact coincides with the crisis in the system of Sardinian-northern
Villanovan exchange, indicated by the gradual reduction in the number of materials that
testify to the exchanges between the two areas since the second half of the eighth century
bc. In contrast, in Sardinia there are reported, both in the north at Sant’Imbenia-Alghero,
and in the south of the island at Sulky-Sant’Antioco (Rendeli 2005), some of the oldest
ceramic Euboean imports known in the western Mediterranean (Ridgway 2006). These
data confi rm that the role of mediator was played by Nuragic Sardinians in limiting the
spread of these products to the upper Tyrrhenian Sea, in an attempt to maintain direct
control of the routes that connected the island with northern Etruria, passing along the
coasts of Corsica, where, before the arrival of the Phoenicians at Aleria, one can detect
the same lack of Greek and Levantine products (Milletti et al. forthcoming). Although
the recent discoveries of Gallura in Olbia might suggest early attempts in the north of
the island (D’Oriano 2010), the late-eighth century bc consolidation of the Phoenician
settlement of Sardinia, with the deduction of the fi rst “colonies” of the south, would then
lead to the disruption of this system of relations. The acculturation of the Sardinian people
occurred in a gradual manner and its timing varies from one area to another (Bernardini,
Perra eds, 2011); it thus helps to open up to the Levantine peoples and Greeks the markets
of northern Etruria, which still maintains a special relationship with the island, albeit
through agents of different cultural backgrounds.
NURAGIC OR IMITATION NURAGIC MATERIALS IN
ETRURIA: HISTORY AND DISTRIBUTIONConsolidation of relations between Sardinia and Etruria is already indicated at the end
of the Bronze Age, but a signifi cant increase in the exchange of materials would seem
to indicate that the height of contact should be placed during the transition between
Villanovan periods I and II. Most of the Nuragic products or those denoting distinctive
style or that belong to the formal repertoire with a clear Sardinian imprint actually come
from contexts dating from the late ninth and the fi rst half of the eighth century bc, while
the latest evidence are sporadic pieces limited almost exclusively to objects of the highest
prestige, kept for their strong ideological value.
Among the earliest Nuragic bronze products to arrive on the peninsula are two double
axes with converging edges found on the island of Elba and dated to the full Final Bronze
Age (Carancini 1984). A similar history might apply to some large daggers with short