Corrigendum. La Montarana: a Late Bronze Age settlement by Tarquinia (Viterbo, Italy). With Appendix on faunal remains

This Corrigendum refers to the following article: Persiani C., Alhaique F. (2024). La Montarana: a Late Bronze Age settlement by Tarquinia (Viterbo, Italy). With Appendix on faunal remains, IpoTESI di Preistoria, 17, 97-142. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-7985/20953

Corrections concern some parts of the text, as stated below:

Changes in bold

Pag. 97: Most of them from the more than one thousand collected belong to the Subapennine Late Bronze Age and the Protovillanovan Final Bronze Age.

Fig. 3. General view of Montarana southern slopes; A towards East; B towards Northwest. Photos by the Author.

Vedute panoramiche del versante meridionale della Montarana; A verso est; B verso nordovest. Foto dell’Autore.

Fig. 6. Montarana. Site topography and East-West section. Shaded areas show the approximate limits of the finding areas: a: northern edge and upper slope, b: eastern slope, c: southern edge, d: western slope; e: unauthorized building foundations.

Topografia del sito. Le aree ombreggiate mostrano i limiti approssimativi delle aree di ritrovamento. a: margine settentrionale e versante superiore, b: versante orientale, c: margine meridionale, d: versante occidentale; e: fondazioni edilizie abusive.

Pag. 102: The research reports of the time on Montarana say that most sherds were found on the southern and norther ends of the hill summit, with a surface area of some hundred square meters.

Two different teams of G.A.R. renewed the research in the years 1979-1987; in these occasions findspots were recorded; the main concentrations were seen on the northern and southern ends of the hilltop, but a small group of significant sherds was picked up also on the eastern and western slopes.

In the years 1988-1996 A. Mandolesi made more inspections (Barbaro 2010, p. 224). Other uncontrolled researches were undertaken by individual amateurs and collectors, which rarely let information leek (Vitagliano 2021).

Fig. 8. Montarana. Selection of pottery fabric. Photos by the Author.

Selezione di impasti della ceramica. Foto dell’Autore.

Fig. 9. Montarana. Selection of pottery surface colors. Photos by the Author.

Selezione di colori della ceramica. Foto dell’Autore.

Fig. 10. Montarana. Selection of pottery surface treatment (nn. 1-10) and stoves (nn. 11-15). Photos by the Author.

Selezione di esempi di trattamento superficiale della ceramica (nn. 1-10) e fornelli (nn. 11-15). Foto dell’Autore.

Tab. 1. Montarana.  Pottery categories of Recent (RBA) and Final Bronze Age (FBA).

Categorie ceramiche dell’età del Bronzo Recente e Finale.

Fig. 13 Montarana. Carinated cups with flaring or vertical side.

 Ciotole carenate con parete svasata o verticale.

Pag. 114: No lip, thickened rim: nn. 670; with horizontal notched cord on shoulder.

Pagg. 134-135: Finally, a special thank goes to Massimo Pennacchioni, who taught me how to trace a meaningful drawing from apparently anonymous pottery sherds.

Appendix: Montarana faunal remains collected in 1970, 1984 and 1987 (Francesca Alhaique)

The faunal sample collected on several occasions between 1970 and 1987 at Montarana (Tarquinia, VT) (Fig. 35) includes just over 100 finds (Tab. 3). Despite the fragmentation, the state of preservation is fair, and it was therefore possible to identify 44% of the remains at taxonomic level (NISP=48); 34.9% (NISP=38) were attributed to dimensional categories, while 21.1% (NISP=23) were completely indeterminable.

Among the mammals, the most frequent taxon in terms of number of remains are ovicaprines, among which the presence of sheep has been ascertained; for Ovis vel Capra at least two individuals have been identified: a young adult and an older adult. The second taxon is pig, whose remains belong to three different animals: a very young one, a young-adult and a senile. Cattle are in third place, with two individuals: a juvenile and an adult. A single fragment of the calcaneum attests to the presence of a dog of adult age (Fig. 35D). Reptiles are represented by a fragment of tortoise carapace. There are three mollusks, an indeterminate fragment and two valves of Glycymeris (Fig. 35A-B). Among the indeterminate mammal remains, the majority belongs to those of medium size, while large ones are less frequent, following the proportions among the identified species.

The text inside Tab. 3 has been corrected as it follows: header line: NISP, MNI; first column, fourth to last line: Medium size Mammals; first column, last line: Total. Commas have been replaced by full stop.

The fragmentation of the finds did not allow detailed osteometric analyses, but most of the individuals were relatively small. For each of the most abundant species there are different parts of the skeleton, but the small size of the sample does not allow us to evaluate the actual frequency of the anatomical parts, which was however influenced not only by past human choices but also by the greater or lesser robusticity of the individual elements, or parts of them, which affected conservation.

The bone surfaces are often damaged by the action of the roots but, in some cases, it was possible to identify traces of human or animal activity on the finds. Cut marks were found on a bovine metacarpal near the proximal epiphysis linked to disarticulation (Fig. 35H). Just over 18% of the bones are burned, some of these even calcined; this alteration, being mostly widespread over the whole specimen, is not directly linked to cooking, but more probably to discarding the bones in the hearths or to accidental contact with fire. Traces of carnivore activity were documented on five finds (4.6%) (Fig. 35C), while gnaw marks by small rodents were identified on a single fragment (0.9%).

It is interesting to note that both valves of Glycymeris appear perforated at the umbo, but only in one of the two cases the opening seems to have been produced artificially, even if on both holes there are no traces of rounding on the margin which would suggest suspension (Fig. 35A); the edges of the two shells are blunted as if they were collected among beached elements, however it cannot be ruled out that they are Pliocene (and therefore relatively "fresh") fossils recovered and possibly modified by ancient local dwellers.

The small sample of Montarana allows us to have only partial and general information on the local economy which was based on breeding, mainly ovicaprines and pigs and secondarily cattle. However, if meat yield is taken into account, the latter obviously comes first followed by pork and ovicaprines. Dogs were also present, as evidenced by one bone and the gnaw marks on the bones. The few determined ages of death do not allow us to formulate reliable hypotheses on the methods of exploitation of domestic animals even if it is probable that not only meat, but also live products (milk and wool) were the purpose of breeding. Even if there is a lack of clear evidence (cut marks, combustion), it cannot be ruled out that the tortoise was part of the diet, at least occasionally.

Fig. 35. Montarana. Faunal remains, pebble and flint findings. A: beached Glycimeris shell artificially broken at the umbo; B: Glycimeris shell with natural hole at the umbo; C: ovicaprine femur with traces of gnawing; D: Canis familiaris calcaneum; E: natural pebble, possibly used as smoother; F: object with smoothed end; G: flint flakes; H: cattle metacarpal with cut-marks. Photos Carlo Persiani and Francesca Alhaique.

Faune, oggetti di pietra e selce. A: valva spiaggiata di Glycimeris con foro intenzionale all’umbone; B: valva di Glycimeris con foro naturale all'umbone; C: femore di ovicaprino con tracce di morsi; D: calcagno di Canis familiaris; E: ciottolo naturale, eventualmente utilizzato come lisciatoio; F: oggetto con estremità smussata; G: schegge di selce; H: metacarpo di bovino con segni di taglio. Foto Carlo Persiani e Francesca Alhaique.

Note 27: In particular Silvia Panti, Paola Bellagamba and Stefano Castellani for their invaluable help and meaningful contribution throughout the fulfillment of this work.

Note 28: For this study, ovicaprines, pigs, dogs and animals of similar size are considered medium-sized mammals; while cattle, equids and species of similar size are large mammals.

Note 29: See paragraph on Montarana geological setting.

 

We apologize to our readers for the inconvenience.