Latial culture

The Latial culture ranged approximately over ancient Old Latium. The Apennine culture of Latium transitioned smoothly into the Latial with no evidence of an intrusive population movement. The population generally abandoned sites of purely economic advantage in favor of defensible sites which later became cities. The term pre-urban is used for this era. The population movement to more defensible sites may indicate an increase in marauding.^[1] The Iron Age Latial culture is associated with the processes of formation of the Latins, the culture was likely therefore to represent a phase of the socio-political self-consciousness of the Latin tribe, during the period of the kings of Alba Longa and the foundation of the Roman Kingdom.

Latial culture is identified by their hut-shaped burial urns. Urns of the Proto-Villanovan culture are plain and biconical and were buried in a deep shaft. The hut urn is a round or square model of a hut with a peaked roof. The interior is accessed by a door on one of its sides. Cremation was practiced as well as burial. The style is distinctive. The hut urns were miniature versions of the huts in which the population lived, although during this period they also developed the use of stone for temples and other public buildings.^[2][3]

The standard periodization based on pottery is accepted as standard with little variation; however, a tolerance of ±25 years is implied.^{[3][6][7][8][9]} More recent work based on dendrochronology has indicated a need to revise some periodization, with preserved timbers indicating that the traditional chronology may be some fifty years later out of sync with the rest of Europe; this raises some difficulty inasmuch as the timbers' dates disagree with pottery's dates.^[10]

The first period of the Latial culture correspond with the remains of the Proto-Villanovan culture in archaeological sites in most of the Italian peninsula.^[11] The Latial culture during period I is unique amongst other, contemporary Italian cultures for its usage of particular funerary ritual in which the deceased were cremated and buried with miniaturized mortuary goods.^[12] Based on a set of such cremation burials from Rome, the approximate time period of the first Latial period can be carbon dated to the 11th-10th centuries BCE.^[13] From Latial I–II, inhumation gradually replaced cremation as the main funerary rite.^[14] Carbon dating of period II inhumation burials from Rome suggests that the second Latial period dates from the 10th-9th centuries BCE.^[15] Most of the graves from the cemetery of Gabii can be assigned to the Latial culture IIA1 and IIB2 based on their grave goods and, moreover, carbon dating suggests that they belonged to the 9th-century BCE.^[16]

The second and third periods correspond with the Villanovan culture in Etruria. They are characterised by simple and undecorated potteries and cremation as the main funerary rite.^[11] The beginning of the Latial period III is often dated to around 770 BCE. However, this chronological assessment is contradicted by the results of the carbon dating samples from the hut at Fidene.^[17] The material culture of this hut prompts an identification with the end of the Latial period IIB or the beginning of period III,^[17] although the results of carbon dating indicate that it could not be dated after 820 BCE.^[18] Additional evidence from Satricum corroborates the dating of the early Latial III period to late 9th and early 8th centuries BCE.^[19] Two huts at the site which include pottery generally associated with the Latial period III also both contain charcoal samples that—based on carbon dating—allow the assignment of one hut to the 9th-century BCE and another hut to the period between 830-790 BCE.^[20]

Material remains of early Latial houses indicate a lack of masonry construction techniques; instead, oval wattle and daub huts with diameters rarely greater than 20 feet (6.1 m) with thatched roofs were common. Pottery of the period was produced likely at the household level using coil techniques, as the pottery wheel was not introduced until the eighth century BC. Due to the lack of kilns, soft clay of the period also was heated in open flame, leading to a black and sooty appearance. Specialized skills other than metal working were non-existent. The early Latial period is characterized by small villages, with populations likely less than a few hundred.^[14] However, during the Latial period IIA, and continuing into period IIB, proto-urban centers began to develop.^[25]

During the early 9th-century BCE, three types of Latial settlement can be recognized: Proto-cities that were larger than 40-50 hectares,^[26] secondary settlements that ranged between 20-30 hectares, and smaller settlements that were always smaller than 15-20 hectares and were situated around the larger proto-cities.^[27][28] According to the archaeologist Luca Alessandri, this system may have developed earlier—perhaps around the Final Bronze Age period 1/2.^[29] Alessandri cites the presence of smaller settlements situated around Rome and Ficana during this period.^[30] Moreover, Alessandri notes that the settlements of Pelliccione and Le Grottacce likely produced salt through briquetage, probably utilizing pottery manufactured in, and thus imported from, a different community. Alessandri argues that these towns were likely organized around this hypothetical production center, which he identifies with Casale Nuovo, an area that contained Mycenaean pottery imports.^[31] This system, according to Alessandri, attests to a hierarchical arrangement in which larger settlements held authority of smaller ones.^[5] The states dominated by this political structure were all located around trade routes, possibly because the influx of currency to a specific area provided a financial basis for the consolidation of power.^[29] Other Latial settlements were organized into groups of similar-sized communities located in close proximity to each other. According to Alessandri, this layout suggests that these towns were organized into collective leagues of settlements in which each individual community held a roughly equal rank.^[5][29]

The archaeologist Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri argues that—during the first period—the settlement of Osteria likely lacked a centralized administrative body and was instead governed by multiple autonomous kinship groups. Sestieri premises her analysis upon the distinctions in the material culture of each group, indicating that—although they maintained a broadly similar identity—they expressed a certain degree independence.^[32] Moreover, these grave clusters are spatially separated from each other, further corroborating the notion that they bore a sense of sovereignty.^[33][34] Although this period of Latial history can be characterized as somewhat "egalitarian," there was still likely a certain level of social differentiation and hierarchy within each kinship group, as evidenced by the existence of wealthier burials marked by more ostentatious burial goods.^[34]

The archaeologists Matthew Naglak and Nic Terrenato argue that the prohibition of intramural adult burials following the 9th-century BCE was likely the first instance of a societal or political action enacted collective by entire Latial settlements. According to Naglak and Terrenato, such a decision would require the mutual cooperation of all individual house groups to actively obey the new regulations on burials, indicating the beginnings of community-wide decision-making. These same scholars propose that the origin of communal decision-making in Latium was likely related to concerns regarding the safety of the settlement. They argue that Latial clans were incentivized to unify into a single proto-urban center to provide themselves with protection from the intertribal raiding commonplace throughout Bronze Age Latium. The formation of the first proto-urban sites would have necessitated a shared agreement regarding the demarcation of the territory, a decision that possibly—according to Naglak and Terrenato—related to the territorial prescriptions concerning intramural inhumation. Naglak and Terrenato note that the territory suitable for adult inhumations and the land reserved for infant burials is similar to the boundary upon which defensive fortifications were later established around cities, perhaps indicating that the origins of communal decision-making in Latium were related to concerns regarding the protection of the settlement.^[35]

Grave goods from Latial necropolises indicate that, during periods II and III, Latial society was generally impoverished. Goods gradually became more developed over time, but within any one time were relatively uniform, indicating relatively low levels of wealth inequality.^[36] Nevertheless, the classicist Gary Forsythe argues that this economic development, however incremental, may still have motivated the concurrent social shifts during the third Latial period.^[37] Amongst the Latial III burials from Osteria, there is a grave situated within the center of a funerary cluster that belongs to an older male who was entombed with a life-sized—not miniature—weapon. The inclusion of an older male in such a prominent role contrasts with the prior periods at Osteria, during which time the powerful or prestigious positions were largely reserved for young adult men, perhaps as older or younger individuals were considered physically unfit. It is possible that this aberrance reflects a shift in the political system of Latial society, as physical prowess may have no longer constituted a necessary prerequisite for authority.^[34][38] Expansion of metallurgy also is indicated by bronze hoards; the introduction of the pottery wheel also replaces coiled vessels. By this time the population also starts to disperse, bringing more lands under agriculture and increased surpluses, fueling the lifestyles of local elites.^[39]

Social stratification became more apparent in the archaeological record by the end of the 8th-century and during the 7th-century BCE, at which time new types of "princely" burials appeared that were characterized by lavish accoutrements.^[40] Trade with other Mediterranean cultures prompted the rising visibility of hierarchy within the archaeological record, as these "princely" tombs often included imported materials from the Eastern Mediterranean.^[40] For instance, the Barberini and Bernardini tombs,^[41] discovered in 1855 and 1876 respectively, contained large numbers of gold and silver objects along with interior artwork inspired by the Near East. Some of the objects were likely imported from Egypt or Phoenicia: one silver bowl contains a Phoenician inscription while depicting an Egyptian pharaoh in battle.^[37] The archaeologists Marcello Molgetta and Jefferey Becker argue that Latial aristocrats sought to showcase their status and wealth via the deposition of ornate goods within burials.^[42] In the past, it was believed that these tombs in Latium reflected an Etruscan domination but further evidence from across Italy indicates that princely tombs of this sort were common on the peninsula and likely reflected common trends during the Orientalizing period across the peninsula's cultures.^[43][40] Fulminante argues that Orientalizing trade possibly motivated social and economic development in the Latial culture, as Latial aristocrats may have aimed to expand material production to further enmesh themselves in pan-Meditteranean trade networks.^[44]

Norwegian archaeologist Rasmus Brandt proposes that, by the end of the 8th-century and the beginning of the 7th-century BCE, the social differentiation exemplified by these tombs—alongside agricultural developments and the creation of fortified settlements—helped spark the onset of new socioeconomic conditions in Latial society. According to Brandt, this new economic situation itself contributed to a shift in Latial domestic pottery production from the earlier style—which Brant believes to have primarily fulfilled personal, private needs—to the newer style, which Brandt believes to have acquired financial motivations (i.e. the creation of ceramic wares for sale).^[44] Pottery production underwent significant systematization across both Etruria and Old Latium during the 700s and 600s BCE, resulting in a greater degree of homogeneity amongst pottery shapes. Moreover, manufacturers began creating larger quantities of specialized pottery types—such as cotylai, which were used for measurements, or oinochoai, which were utilized as wine containers.^[45]

The archaeologist Albert J. Nijboer notes that the complex and meticulously crafted impasto pottery of earlier Latial periods was not suitable for production utilizing a potter's wheel and such impasto pottery,^[46][47] as well as early Latial bucchero pottery, was often produced utilizing a time-consuming and resource-expensive combination of crafting techniques.^[48] Collectively, these constraints hindered any manufacturer dedicated to the production of such vessels, as they were easily outcompeted by craftsmen dedicated to the production of Italo-Geometric pottery,^[49] a style imitative of contemporary Greek pottery that relied upon the usage of refined clay on a potter's wheel and kilns with separate chambers for firing.^[50] Consequently, during the 7th-century, a new system of standardized production emerged that allowed for pottery producers to economically compete with the Italo-Geometric artisans.^[49][51] However, Fulminante argues that the growth of pottery manufacturing in Latial society likely occurred earlier than Brandt and Nijboer suggest.^[52] Fulminante notes that, during the Latial period III—around the late 800s and early 700s BCE—at Osteria, the diversity of vessel types had decreased significantly,^[53] itself indicative of standardized production.^[52] Prior to the 6th-century BCE, Latial and Etruscan pottery workshops were typically situated within the centers of developing urban settlements, which attests to a possible relationship between urban growth and industrialization within the Latial economy.^[54] Nijboer argues that population growth may have further stimulated industrial expansion,^[55] as an increasing population intensified demand for ceramic materials and construction supplies, resources that ceramic manufacturers could provide.^[54]

Nijboer proposes that the proliferation of metalworking during the 8th and 7th centuries BCE may have predicated later economic developments.^[56] Increasing production during the 8th-century BCE is reflected in the bronze fibulae of this time, which began to be created via a serialized production method.^[54][57][58] New metallurgical technologies were introduced around this period, such as carburization and quenching—which first reached Central Italy during the 700s BCE—and granulation,^[59] which arrived in Italy by the late 8th and early 7th centuries BCE.^[60] Enhanced metalworking techniques allowed for the manufacture of more substances forged from iron,^[56] which—by the 7th-century BCE—had emerged as the preeminent metal in the Latial culture.^[54][61][62] The shift to iron began in the 8th-century BCE with the production of iron knives, which are the first iron materials found in Latial sites. Nijboer notes that, in Osteria, all knives dated after 770 BCE are forged from iron, whereas in previous periods such knives were restricted to more high-status burials.^[58] Excavations at Satricum reveal multiple clusters of iron slags—themselves traces of metal-production—that are dated from the 7th-4th centuries BCE, although the majority belong to the 7th or the 6th century BCE.^[63]

From around 650 BC onwards, huts started to be replaced with masonry on stone foundations with tiled roofing. Grave goods also started to disappear across Italy, which likely reflects the close of an Orientalizing period from c. 580 BC. Monumental temples started to be constructed, including the Temple of Minerva at Lavinium and the Temple of Mater Matuta at Satricum. These shifts likely reflected the creation of city-states under Greek influence, along with the development of metalworking and ceramics joined with population growth and higher levels of agricultural production. By this time, local elites had consolidated social status organized around political and religious authority. Latium, however, still remained poorer than Etruria to the north due to its lack of major mineral deposits, which left it less connected than the Etruscans to pan-Mediterranean trade networks.^[41]

Cremation was the only burial ritual used during the Late Bronze Age throughout the Latial culture,^[64] including the cemetery at Osteria.^[65] The practice was generally restricted to burials of male individuals aged between 17 and 45 at their time of death.^[36] Cremation burials are typically found at the center of burial clusters,^[66] possibly indicating that the deceased was the head of a household or family, or, alternatively, possibly a local community figurehead.^[67] Rossenberg argues that the ritual may have carried domestic connotations in the Latial culture,^[67] as the remains of the deceased were often stored in hut-shaped urns, some of which were characterized by ovoid shapes topped by conical lids likely representative of a hut roof. These urns were often themselves stored within either stone containers or a pottery vessel called a "dolium," likely for the purpose of safeguarding the remains. The urns were interred within a type of cylindrical pit that varied between 0.5-1 meter deep and was typically around 1 meter wide.^[64] Common ceramic funerary goods for cremation burials during the Latial period II included corded jars, small braziers, and jars with a retaining rim.^[68]

Miniature versions of standard funerary goods were frequently included within cremation burials.^[65] Sets of miniature spearheads and figurines were typically placed first within the burial, often at the bottom of the larger container storing the smaller cinerary urn within. These burial objects were thus placed outside the container, whereas other funerary goods—often miniature knives, razors, and swords—were included within the vessel.^[69] Sestieri argues that the miniaturization of the grave goods likely derived from fears regarding the spirits of the deceased, which members of the Latial culture—according to Sestieri—sought to protect themselves from by depriving the dead of real weapons.^[70] However, the archaeologist Lisa Cougle argues that miniature goods may have been employed in cremation rituals as the usage of real materials would require the burial and consequent loss of said items, thereby wasting potentially valuable resources.^[71] Alternatively, the Italian archaeologist Renato Peroni proposes the cremation ritual held religious significance. Peroni notes that miniaturized burial goods are similar to the Latial offerings left in caves and lakes, which likely were dedicated to deities. Furthermore, Peroni argues that the act of cremation necessitates the transfer of the deceased into a more incorporeal state, which itself may reflect the inherently supernatural realm of gods.^[72] Among the rare example of cremation burials for women at Osteria, it is common for the deceased to be entombed with life-sized burial goods rather than miniatures.^[73]

Cremation tombs remained in use during the Latial period II,^[64] although inhumation became more frequent.^[68] The most common type of inhumation technique in the Latial Period II involved the interment of the deceased in a rectangular pit referred to as a "fossa." In some tombs, the corpse was laid within a coffin or only on a wooden board.^[68] It is possible that the shift from cremation to inhumation burials during the transition from the first to the second Latial period was motivated by external influence from southern Italy, as the new type of fossa burials resemble similar fossa from Campania or Calabria.^[74] Another burial type referred to as the "tombe a loculo" utilized a loculus to entomb both the deceased and their funerary goods.^[75] Inhumation burials during this period did not necessarily contain exclusively one corpse: double burials, burials containing two individuals, became more prevalent following the 9th-century BCE.^[76][77] These burials usually contained one male and one female, although several examples of burials containing same-sex pairs are known.^[78] Loculi tombs were largely reserved for single burials, although rare examples of double loculi burials have been uncovered, which themselves were usually exclusive to a male and female couple or a mother and a child.^[79]

Evidence from the cemetery at Osteria dell'Osa attests to post-mortem tampering with the skeleton of the deceased, which Sestieri argues may constitute instances of secondary burial.^[80] In the majority of graves, the skull was separated from its mandible and turned around and—in some graves—the skull was relocated towards the feet. Certain burials also contained skeletons whose long bones were reorganized into parallel pairs.^[78] Due to the poor preservation of necropolises in Old Latium, it is unclear whether such customs were pervasive throughout the Latial culture or restricted to the cemetery at Osteria. Even amongst the skeletons in Osteria, it is indeterminable whether all corpses within the cemetery were subject to such tampering. Sestieri suggests that, following the interment of the deceased, the grave was left uncovered for a period of time, possibly until the deceased's muscle and had decomposed. Following the completion of these rites,^[81] the bones could be displaced, and the grave could then be covered with soil or stone.^[82]

Around the 6th-century BCE, the site of Crustumerium began to include chamber tombs,^[84] a new type of burial in which the deceased were housed within rectangular room carved from tuff. There are at least two, possibly three, types of chamber tomb discernable in the archaeological record at Cisterna Grande within Crustumerium. One type consists of a small semicircular room with loculi on opposing walls that was entered via a short, narrow dromos and constructed from uneven stone surfaces with visible incisions. The other type consisted of a larger chamber that was entered via a large and deep dromos and could contain numerous loculi and additional coffin or trunk burials. It was common amongst both burial types for the entrance of the tomb to be obstructed in some manner although the method varied across each burial: Some chambers were only blocked by a single large slab whereas others utilized a heap of stones. Dromoi and loculi were absent from earlier chamber tombs; they only began to appear in such tombs by the end of the 7th-century BCE, or perhaps at the beginning of the 6th-century BCE.^[79] Crustumerium is unique amongst Latial settlements for its prolific usage of chamber tombs during the 6th-century BCE, whereas other contemporary Latial communities rarely contain such tombs.^[83] It is unclear precisely why Crustumerium adopted these distinct cultural customs, although it may relate to influence from the neighboring Faliscan-Capenate or Sabine cultures, who are known to have utilized chamber tombs during the 6th-century BCE.^[85]

During the Latial period II, the corpses of the deceased—or their cremated remains—began to be interred within the large necropolises containing hundreds or thousands of burials that first emerged during this time. Fulminante suggests that the creation of necropolises may connect to the concurrent urbanization of this period. Fulminante argues that, alongside the growth of the first urban centers, the notion of distinct areas for the living and the dead emerged.^[86] Certain Latial communities—such as the settlement near Castello di Decima—likely made use of only one necropolis situated nearby the area, whereas other Latial settlements—such as the site of Crustumerium—utilized multiple cemetery areas.^[64] Other corpses, particularly those of children,^[87] were buried within the boundaries of the communities themselves, often in close proximity to homes.^[78] In Rome, the Sepulcretum—the necropolis located near the site of the later Temple of Antoninus and Faustina—although replete with adult burials prior to the 9th-century BCE, was reserved for infant burials in the following period, whereas adult burials shifted towards extramural areas—particularly at the Esquiline.^[87] Several graves placed within the confines of the local community have been identified as belonging to individuals of high social status due to the presence of prestigious burial goods within the tomb. For instance, the archaeological site of Valvisciolo contains a set of four double burials, all of which belong to female individuals, that are located near a votive pit and include numerous important burial goods such as ritualistic knives and various ornaments.^[78]

Burials at Osteria during the Latial period II were often organized into clusters of related graves that likely represented a social unit within Latial society. Sestieri further notes that the individuality of each grave was conserved; the Latial culture, during this period, largely ensured that each burial remained spatially distinct and untouched and undamaged by other graves.^[88] However, by the Latial period III—at Osteria—graves sites were placed more closely together and burials often intruded upon the space of other burials.^[88][89] The compacted layout of the burials likely did not exclusively derive from any limitations on the area for inhumation, as the grave clusters are separated from each other by unoccupied space, indicating that the burials were intentionally assigned to a specific burial group.^[90] Sestieri argues that the intentional congregation of these burials within each group reflects a desire to subdivide the cluster into multiple branches, each of which functioned as a component of the whole.^[88] These graves were organized around a set of two, central burials,^[91] one of which belonged to an elderly man with a life-sized bronze javelin-head and the other belonged to a younger female individual.^[92][93] According to Sestieri, it is likely that each burial group represented a family branch and that all the individuals interred within each site belonged to the same broader lineage.^[88][94]

The aforementioned system in which familial groups were valued greatly may have predicated the development of the Roman gentes, which were clans of individuals with shared kinship.^[97] However, the archaeologist Christopher Smith criticizes the possible relation between these burial groups and the gentes, as the clusters contain an insufficient number of burials to reflect the massive size of an entire family lineage extending for numerous generations.^[98][84] Nijboer accepts Smith's line of reasoning, although he adds that the larger necropolises located outside of community areas were sizeable enough to reflect a gens-like kinship group.^[84] Nijboer cites the presence of a burial ground outside of Crustumerium that covered 2000 square meters and included at least 88 tombs dated over a time frame of 250-300 years.^[84] According to Nijboer, it is likely that multiple, individual family units were included within this larger burial compound, as there were seven chamber tombs placed within the area between the 7th and 6th-centuries BCE.^[99] Furthermore, Nijboer notes that several large burial areas existed outside of Crustumerium, indicating that individuals were selected for a specific mortuary ground over the others for a particular reason, a reason that Nijboer suggests may have been their family associations.^[84]

Few female burials are attested during the Latial period I, with only five female and two probably female burials of a sample of thirty from the cemetery at Osteria dell’Osa.^[65] However, Early Iron Age burials from the same cemetery reveal 250 female burials compared to 188 male burials.^[100][101] The sex ratio amongst graves in Osteria is most skewed towards women during phase II, during which time cremation burials largely disappeared. By the Latial period III, alongside increasing social stratification, female and male graves began to appear in more equal quantities at Osteria.^[102] Likewise, the cemetery at Crustumerium contains disproportionately more female graves than male graves during the period from 750 and 600 BCE.^[103][104] Archaeologists Albert J. Nijboer and Sarah Willemsen suggest that, at least at the cemetery of Crustumerium, various groups were excluded from interment within the local necropolis.^[103] Nijboer and Willemsen note that, alongside the scarcity of male graves at the cemetery, there are few infant or child burials despite the high rates of infant and child mortality during this time period.^[103]

Based on the heavily skewed funerary sample from Crustumerium, Nijboer and Willemsen suggest that between 50-75% of the local population may not have been interred within the local necropolis.^[103] Fulminante proposes that infant burials only constituted 15-20% of burials dated from the Latial period IIA-IIB,^[105] under 20% of Latial period III-IVA burials, although around 30% of burials dated to the IVB period.^[106] Finnish archaeologist Sanna Lipkin postulates that the absence of infant burials may be explicable if children were not recognized as full members of the community, warranting burial within a separate cemetery.^[107] Infant burials during the Latial periods II and III typically lacked indicators of role or position within a social hierarchy. It was more common, although still rare, during both periods, for objects denoting sex—such as male serpentine fibulae or female weaving equipment—to be placed in child burials.^[108]

Excavations in the Latial sites of Rome, Ardea, Lavinium, and Ficana revealed numerous infant burials, usually dated between the Latial period III and IV, that were located beneath the eaves of houses.^[109] It is possible that these burials relate to the "subgrundaria" mentioned by Pliny the Elder, which were infant tombs situated near Roman houses.^[110] Francesca Roncoroni, an Italian archaeologist, suggests that the custom of interring deceased infants nearby domestic areas may relate to the Roman worship of the Lares and Penates, both of which were types of guardian deity.^[107][111] Infant burials are often situated, more specifically, near wealthier houses with high-status objects.^[109] For instance, the settlement at Lavinium contains infant burials located near a set of unusually large huts on the highest hill of the area.^[112] Sestieri argues that such placement may reflect an attempt by local aristocrats to mark their family territory through the location of infant burials.^[112]

Venderbos notes that—during the Latial period I—certain burial items are largely exclusive to either male or female graves. In particular, objects such as arch-shaped fibulae, combs, spindles, spools, and spindle whorls are characteristic of female graves. In contrast, objects such as miniature weapons, razors, and serpent-shaped fibulae were associated with male burials.^[113] Venderbos suggests that, during the Latial Period I, the Latial culture distinguished a type of "Warrior" burial exclusive to biologically male individuals and a type of "Weaver" burial reserved for biologically female burials.^[114] Whereas archaeologists such as Sestieri argue that socially expressed gender in the Latial culture ought to conform to biological sex,^[115] Venderbos proposes a third, gender-neutral type of burial outfit she labels the "master of the household," which Venderbos suggests violated the gender distinction between male and female burials.^[116]

In Osteria, it was common for a set of spools and spindle whorls to be interred alongside a set of two jugs and a cup within female burials, primarily young adult women or young girls. Sestieri argues that this phenomenon indicates that weaving was primarily performed by women who had not assumed child-rearing responsibilities.^[118] Out of a total of 41 "weaver" burials in Osteria, the relative majority—a total of 18 graves—belong to individuals between the ages of 11 and 19.^[119] "Weaver" burials throughout the Latial culture often included items related to the maintenance of physical appearance, particularly hair-related objects such as combs, tweezers, and hair-spirals.^[120] In Osteria, graves of younger women—with ages ranging from infant to young adult—typically contain a type of faience bead.^[121]

During period II, "weaver" burials included distinct types of spindle whorl, which Sestieri argues were variously defined by unique features and functions. One class of spindle whorl, the faceted whorl, was the predominant type of whorl within period II female burials. Usually, only one sample of the faceted whorl was present in a grave, often near the head of the corpse. These whorls were often accompanied by several spindles, leading Sestieri to suggest that they may have borne connections to spinning and possibly reflected a type of "spinner" burial distinct from the "weaver" burials.^[122] The archaeologist Margarita Gleba rejects this analysis, arguing that the presence of a single whorl only served to mark the deceased as female.^[123] According to Gleba, the spindle whorl had become a symbolic representation of the female gender in Iron Age Italy due to its connections with a traditionally feminine activity.^[124]

Sestieri proposes that weaving activities were connected with biconical decorated spindle whorls, as they were often associated with multiple spools and other faceted spindle whorls. This type of whorl appears throughout Latial period II female infant or child burials at Osteria, leading Sestieri to suggest that it may have functioned as a gift offered to children when they had had first began performing whatever activity was signified by the item.^[122] Furthermore, it was common for sets of pots, particularly—during the later parts of period II—a cup, a globular jug, and a biconical jug, to accompany biconical whorls in burials.^[122] Gleba argues that the inclusion of multiple spindle whorls likely signified that—in addition to being female—the deceased was a skilled textile worker.^[124]

Female gravesites of all ages at Osteria dell'Osa unanimously contain items that were likely considered feminine within Latial society, many of which are seemingly personal accoutrements. Fibulae are among the most common feminine ornaments for all age groups in Osteria, although children's fibulae are typically smaller than fibulae uncovered in adult burials.^[121] Arch fibulae, specifically, are associated with female burials across multiple Latial sites, such as Tivoli, Ardea, and Osteria.^[126] However, in Rome, arch fibulae appear almost evenly distributed across male and female burials, perhaps indicating that the item was not associated with any particular gender.^[126] Moreover, arch fibulae samples occur alongside both textile tools, a typically feminine burial good, and helmets or razors, which were usually masculine funerary items. Cecilie Brøns, a classical archaeologist, doubts whether fibulae-type was directly related to gender in Latial culture, citing the cooccurrence of arch fibulae with both male and female burial objects.^[125]

During the Latial period II, at Osteria, finger rings were common throughout the funerary outfits of female individuals aged around 19-40.^[127] According to Lisa Cougle-Jose, these rings may have been associated with kinship groups or clans, as certain types of rings appear most frequently within specific burial clusters. For instance, a type of broad strap ring is most common within the eastern burial group, whereas a type of spiral ring is most prevalent within the northern burial cluster. Cougle suggests that the few burials containing this type of spiral ring that are not located within the northern cluster may have belonged to individuals who, although initially of that family group, married into a different clan.^[117]

Latial period II female graves almost exclusively contained 1-2 fibulae, which were often attached to rings that were suspended from the pins of the fibulae.^[128] During the Latial period II, these fibulae, and thus their associated suspension rings, were often placed on the breasts,^[129] although they could also appear by the skull.^[130][131] By the Latial IIB2 and III periods, it remained common for suspension rings to be placed near the chest of the deceased.^[129][131] Rings during the Latial period IVA were often placed near the pelvis of the deceased, which the archaeologist Gilda Bartoloni interprets as evidence that these rings may have borne reproductive connotations.^[132] The archaeologist Cristiano Iaia further extends the possibility of reproductive associations to other types of Latial rings, noting that the period II rings situated by the breasts could also be interpreted as related to reproduction.^[132] Moreover, Iaia notes the presence of a specific type of Latial period II ornament consisting of fibulae, alongside their related suspension rings, attached to a set of beads and pendants that were themselves hung from a single, central bead itself situated by the abdomen or the pelvis. Iaia argues that the proximity of this grave good to the pelvis indicates that it was connected to reproduction.^[128] In Osteria, this type of ornament was included within a type of funerary set common to the graves of young women that comprised suspension rings, 1-3 fibulae, and a necklace.^[133]

Rings also progressively increased in size during the transition from the Latial period II to the IIB and III periods: Latial period IIA rings had an average width of 2-4 centimeters; Latial period IIB rings were, on average, 3-6 centimeters wide; and Latial period III graves could include up to ten rings, with a diameter ranging from 5-21 centimeters. This evolution culminated in the Latial period IVA, during which time graves began to include only a single, large suspension ring with a diameter of up to 40-45 centimeters and impressed or incised decorations.^[132] Throughout Latial history, larger rings primarily appeared in the graves of adult women. However, smaller rings—although still primarily associated with adult women—also appeared with some frequency in the graves of subadult women during the first Latial periods and in adult or preadult male burials during the later periods.^[134] Archaeologists Francesca Fulminante and Giulia Pedrucci propose that the provision of rings to subadult women may not reflect any social function they held during life, but instead their potential to hold these roles once they matured.^[135] Bartoloni suggests that larger rings were connected with wealthier, more prominent women—perhaps with some relationship to motherhood.^[136] Fulminante and Pedrucci affirm this analysis, citing the tendency for larger rings to appear in wealthier burials during the Latial periods III and IV.^[137] Moreover, they note that—during periods II, III, and IV in Osteria—larger suspension rings typically appear in funerary groups with multiple preadult burials.^[137] However, Fulminante and Pedrucci extend the relationship between suspension rings, wealth, and motherhood to smaller rings, which are also found in connection with wealthier burials and funerary groups containing more preadult graves.^[137]

The deposition of burial rings was a phenomenon almost entirely unique to the Latial culture,^[138] although they appear in small numbers across Umbria and Sabina.^[139] Samples of suspension rings have also been excavated at the Villanovan site of Caere, which Iaia suggests is likely due to the presence of Latial immigrants.^[140] Iaia argues that the rings likely functioned as markers of ethnic affiliation for the Latial people, noting that the tradition persisted throughout Latial sites such as Capena despite heavy influence from foreign cultures such as the Villanovan or Etruscan civilizations.^[141] Iaia suggests that, as the Latial culture oriented its social structure around kinship groups, it likely placed significant importance on intermarriage between ethnic or family groups, such as marriage between Latial women and Etruscan men. Thus, according to Iaia, the possible ethnic connotations of the rings may have developed in relation to the traditions of Latial marriage practices. Iaia further connects this burial custom to the rape of the Sabine women, a mythical event in early Roman history during which the Romans kidnapped the Sabine women for marriage.^[142]

Analysis of the Latial sites of Osteria and Gabii indicate that infant female burials dated to the Latial period II usually contain more ornaments and more luxurious burial goods than male infant burials.^[105] Fulminante suggests that the disproportionate allotment of more opulent materials to infant female burials may indicate that the Latial culture viewed women as inherently deserving of a particular social status from birth, whereas men were expected to acquire rank and were thus denied such funerary goods during infanthood.^[143] Sestieri argues that many Latial culture ornaments served to enhance personal pleasure or prestige rather than to mark a formal or political status.^[120] Instead, Sestieri proposes an additional function, suggesting that the provision of personal cosmetics to young girls in Osteria may have helped to advance the marriage strategies envisioned by their family groups.^[127]

During the Latial Period IIIA, female graves began to include more lavish burial goods such as beads, pendants of amber or glass, spindle-whorls, and 2-6 fibulae. This trend continued during the Latial period IIIB, during which female burials in Osteria contained larger quantities of personal adornments.^[145] Other Latial period III cemeteries contained female burials with hair-rings made of precious metals and as many as 25 fibulae, which were usually accompanied by several suspension rings.^[82] Suspension rings persisted as a female burial good into the Latial period IVA, by which time they had become markers of social status were largely restricted to the graves of wealthy, prominent women.^[146] During the early periods of Latial chronology, imported objects predominately appeared in female burials, although—during the later periods—imported goods more frequently surfaced in male burials. Fulminante argues that this trend indicates that items from foreign cultures were absorbed into Latial society via female-dominated aspects of Latial society, perhaps through intercultural marriages.^[147]

Fulminante notes that, in Osteria, female burials overall contained more ostentatious funerary goods than male burials, perhaps indicative of a tendency for women in Latial society to—on average—maintain higher levels of wealth than men.^[148] If the analysis exclusively factors the sex-identification of the graves, then the wealth distribution is significantly more even—albeit still unequal—than if only graves containing individuals gendered as masculine (i. e, individuals with masculine burial goods). Fulminante explains this phenomenon as stemming from a possible desire of higher-status males to avoid conveying their rank in their burial or to showcase a collective group identity.^[149]

Lozenge-shaped belts were a type of clothing generally associated with aristocratic,^[150] female burials that may have originated in Etruria before spreading throughout Tyrrhenian Italy.^[151] Belts of this type dated between the Latial IIB and IIIA periods have been uncovered in Tivoli.^[152] Rectangular belts have also appeared in a Latial period III tomb from Praeneste and a period IIIB tomb from La Rustica, alongside their occurrences in Villanovan sites.^[153] According to Lipkin, they may have constituted an upper-class, ceremonial ornament that typically belonged to female individuals.^[153] The belts were usually tied together via one clasp hook, although—in some graves—multiple hooks have been found. Hooks were attached to one end of the belt and inserted through a leather or textile loop on the opposite end. When placed in female burials, the hooks were often deposited on the sides of the corpse, perhaps—according to Lipkin—indicating that the deceased had fastened the belt on that side or had not worn the clothing in life.^[154] One upper-class female burial dated to the Latial period IVA2 from Crustumerium contains three hooks situated beneath the waist and another possibly female Latial period IV burial from Osteria contains a clasp also located by the waist. However, a separate possibly female burial—also from the Latial period IV in Osteria—contains a clasp situated by the left femur.^[155]'

During the Latial period II, female gravesites typically contained a larger quantity of pottery than male burials, and the pottery in female burials is usually of higher-quality modeling or more ostentatious decorations than the vessels of male gravesites.^[118] Although, in one funerary group, male burials contain an average of 4.2 pottery vessels per grave—29.4% of which are decorated—compared to an average of 4 vessels per grave in female burials—29.1% of which are decorated.^[118] Sestieri argues that the distribution of food was likely performed by older family members, regardless of gender, as the vessels responsible for storing liquid—such as two-handed jars and amphorae—are present in the burials of both men and women, although restricted to the gravesites of adult individuals.^[118][122] One type of pottery, a small cup with a grooved handle—which was likely used to store food or liquids—typically appears in the gravesites of adult or elderly women.^[119] Another type of pottery, a large liquid container restricted to the graves of mature women, may have indicated marital status. This vessel is common throughout period I and II "weaver" burials belonging to individuals aged 11-19.^[156] The pottery dated to the Latial period II at Osteria dell'Osa was likely handmade and produced within individual family units, resulting in variation in the manufacturing process across different vessels.^[118] Sestieri argues that the responsibility of pottery production in the Latial culture likely primarily fell upon women.^[119]

According to Sestieri, amongst the Early Iron Age burials, six male burials contain a sword as a grave good and five contain a knife, whereas only two female burials contain a knife and none contain a sword. If only graves containing burial goods indicative of high social status are considered, then the male-to-female ratios for the Early Iron Age and the Latial period I burials are similar. Henceforth, Sestieri argues that it is likely that—during Latial period I—only individuals of sociocultural importance were buried, most of whom were male.^[100] Knives were possibly associated with religious and cult practices in the Latial culture, perhaps due to a connection with ritual sacrifice. Thus, as knives are the primary high-status burial good incorporated within female graves, the primary high-status social positions offered to women may have been religious in nature.^[100] Only two adult women at Osteria dell'Osa were buried with knives, both of whom buried with a central position in the cemetery and had lavish burial goods.^[157] Two types of Early Iron Age ritual artifacts uncovered at Osteria dell'Osa are unique to female burials: a set of double amphorae and a type of decorated hollow sphere with a handle.^[158]

One burial belonging to a girl younger than six years old contains a set of double amphorae decorated with depictions of birds, which Sestieri argues may indicate that girl was predestined for a religious role from a particularly young age.^[73] Other graves contain religious equipment which may further indicate that women could be tasked with religious roles from youth: One grave from San Lorenzo Vecchio belonging to a young girl around the age of twelve contains a hut urn and a statuette that itself is possibly posed as if it were performing a religious offering. This grave in particular may indicate that women could play an active role in religious rituals from a young age.^[100] Another grave from Guidonia contains an infant burial in which the deceased was entombed with a knife, a set of decorative ornaments, a spindle, spools, spindle whorls, and a distaff. Sestieri argues that the knife likely functioned as cult imagery, although the archaeologist Isabella Damiani instead interprets the object merely as another piece of weaving equipment.^[159]

Amongst the 18 examples of knives as burial goods in inhumations at Osteria, 13 were placed by the feet or the lower part of the body while five were placed by the upper part. Archaeologist Erik van Rossenberg argues that the knives were likely associated with ritual eating practices, as ceramic vessels and spits—other objects associated with food—were also often placed by the lower body. Burials containing more than three spindle whorls at Osteria contain a collective total of 248 whorls, 51% of which (126 whorls) were placed by the upper part of the body and 42% of which (106 whorls) were placed by the lower part, with the remaining 7% (18 items) appearing by the central part. The placement of spindle whorls in graves containing a higher quantity of the item is more varied than in graves containing fewer. Out of the 147 spindle whorls from graves containing only one example of the item, 86% (126 whorls) appear by the upper part while 11% (4 items) appear by the lower part and 3% (4) items appear by the central part. In Osteria, of the 14 examples of razors as burial goods, 13 were placed by the upper body and one was placed by the lower body. This ritual is incongruent with the distribution of razors in the Iron Age necropolis of Fossa in Abruzzo, in which—of the 12 razors—five were located by the central parts of the body and seven were located by the lower parts.^[69]

"Warrior" burials dated to the Latial period I unanimously—with the exception of the settlement at Tenuta Quadraro—contained miniaturized versions of weapons or armor, which often included swords, spears, greaves, lances, or shields. Alongside miniaturized weapons, "warrior" graves often included razors, knives, and other cosmetic adornments.^[160] The archaeologists Anna Sestieri and Anna De Santis propose that the miniature funerary items were indicative of local "chiefs" belonging to social elite. However, Iaia suggests that these graves more likely reflected a cultural ideal rather than a specific social stratum, as—according to Iaia—they are too numerous to represent an exclusive class of prominent individuals.^[161] Sestieri and De Santis further postulate that men, during the Latial period I, likely could assume high-status roles in religious, military, and political hierarchies, as male burials during this period often included both objects associated with political or military prestige (i.e. swords) and objects associated with religious significance (i.e. knives).^[162]

The presence of military equipment in male burials may indicate a perceived connection between war and masculinity within the Latial culture, although Venderbos suggests that such bellicose imagery may possess more metaphorical symbolism beyond a literal connection to warfare.^[160] For instance, Venderbos notes that—in other cultures—weapons may hold a prominent position within rituals or ceremonial garb, especially as—according to Venderbos—ornately decorated weaponry can highlight personal prestige. Venderbos further suggests that weapons may also often serve as symbolic representations of power or authority.^[163] Venderbos proposes a connection between the military equipment of the Late Bronze Age Latial culture with the ritualistic weapons of the Salian priests, an ancient Roman order of priests.^[164] The "double shields" found in Latial period I tombs,^[165] which consist of two to three interlocking discs, may connect to the ancilia, a type of shield that held ceremonial significance in ancient Rome and was involved in the rituals of the Salii.^[163]

Venderbos suggests that personal beauty may have been significant for males in the Latial culture,^[159] as "warrior" burials during the Latial period I often contain cosmetic ornaments such as jewelry, including a type of snake-shaped fibula that is exclusively present in weapon-containing burials and always absent from weaponless burials.^[166] During the Latial period IIIA, male graves from Osteria often included more serpent-shaped fibulae, whereas weapons—such as swords or spear-heads—appeared infrequently throughout male burials.^[145] Serpentine fibulae are characteristic of male burials within the Latial culture, though every site containing male burials marked by such fibulae also contains female burials incorporating the same object.^[125] In Sala Consilina, only 80% of graves containing serpentine fibulae were male burials and—in Rome and Pontecagnano—only 60% of burials containing such fibulae belonged to male individuals.^[125] The Latial period II graves at Osteria and the graves of the Le Rose necropolis in Tarquinia are organized into clusters of burials centered around male graves, indicating a patriarchal family structure.^[167]

The archaeologist Ilona Venderbos proposes that in addition to the standard "warrior" and "weaver" type burials, the Latial culture—during the Late Bronze Age—utilized a third, gender-neutral burial category referred to as the "master of the household."^[120] Venderbos cites the presence of hut-shaped funerary urns within cremation burials, arguing that the urns symbolically represented new homes for the deceased. She compares the Latial traditions to a similar practice in the Etruscan culture, in which leadership over an oikos (a type of family unity) may have been represented within burials via the deposition of miniature huts, which themselves often took the form of hut-urns.^[168] Thus, Venderbos suggests that the hut-urns in the Latial culture likely also signified that the deceased held a prominent domestic role during their lifetimes. Furthermore, Venderbos relates the hut-urns to the miniature furniture prevalent in Latial period I tombs, arguing that the latter objects may have functioned as banqueting equipment.^[169] This banqueting equipment, according to Venderbos, may have itself been largely reserved for more elite individuals within Latial society—the same kind of prominent persons selected for hut-urn burials.^[113]

Tombs dated to the Latial period IIA contain grave goods whose gender associations in the Latial period I are incongruent with the biological sex of the deceased. One tomb from the Forum of Caesar contains a biologically female individual buried with arch fibulae, a hair rang, necklaces and a serpentine fibula and another grave from the Forum Romanum that likely contained a female individual also includes a serpentine fibula. The necropolis at the Forum Romanum also contains a grave belonging to a male individual that itself includes a spindle whorl as a burial good.^[170] One grave from Osteria likely contains the skeleton of a biologically male individual who was interred alongside a necklace, a spindle whorl, hair rings, and an arch bow fibula. The presence of traditionally feminine ornaments within the burial of a likely biologically male individual compelled the archaeologist Lisa Cougle to suggest that the deceased was transgender, although the archaeologist Cecilie Brøns suggests that the individual may have been viewed as more feminine as their death occurred prior to reaching adulthood.^[130] The cemetery at Osteria may reveal two other transgender burials, as two separate possibly male individuals appear entombed with arch bow fibulae and spindle whorls. However, the sex determinations of these skeletons may be unreliable, as the sex of one skeleton can only be ascertained via analysis of their tooth size, whereas the sex of the second skeleton can only discerned based upon several fragments of their crania.^[130]

Moreover, several male burials from Osteria contain fused or suspension rings situated near the skull that are otherwise associated with female burials, perhaps indicating that these male individuals—although perhaps not transgender—may have expressed a more feminine gender identity.^[130] Cougle notes that the long bones of these skeletons were typically slender, possibly indicating that their slenderness was considered feminine, thus prompting their burial with more feminine objects.^[117][171] According to Cougle, the expression of this particular type of more feminine gender identity may not have been viewed as shameful or disreputable, as one male burial marked by the same gracile bones is situated near other important burials in the central burial cluster within their group.^[117]

Venderbos disputes the association between femininity and gracility, noting that these rings were absent from other tombs containing slender males, indicating that the Latial culture did not necessarily perceive slimness in males as effeminate, and therefore they did not include these rings within all burials belonging to such men.^[172] Venderbos further suggests that these rings may have merely constituted a new type of ornament within Latial culture male fashion, perhaps representing a breakdown in gender norms as the typically feminine item became accessible to men.^[172] It is also possible that several instances of these rings within the archaeological record may have actually acted as components to other objects, such as fibulae. Thus, Venderbos suggests that traditionally feminine objects—such as fibulae—may have become incorporated into the masculine coiffure.^[172]

Numerous graves dated to the Latial period II lack fibulae, which were otherwise the most common grave good and—according to Cougle—the most heavily gendered. The majority of the graves that lack fibulae are infant burials, leading Cougle to argue that the infants may not have yet been assigned a gender identity, thereby negating the need for a gender-signifying object.^[173] Out of a sample of Latial period IIA and IIB subadult graves gathered by Venderbos, only 40% of the burials included objects suggestive of any gender identity. According to Venderbos, the majority of these children were gendered as women, usually via the presence of hair rings, arch bow fibulae, or a necklace.^[174] Sestieri notes that, in Osteria, the graves of nearly all girls younger than 12 years of age contain gendered items, whereas the graves of boys from the same age groups almost entirely lack markers of gender roles.^[156] Moreover, Sestieri argues that the presence of cult-related objects in the graves of subadult women indicates that these individuals received these ritual roles in youth.^[73]

The distinction between "warrior" and "weaver" burials also weakened during the Latial period II. "Warrior" type burials persisted into the IIA period, although they generally contained fewer miniature weapons, often only containing a spear and a lance. Although razors were almost always included in male burials dated to the Latial period I, there were few razors present in Latial period IIA1 male burials. However, the "warrior" type completely dissipated from the funerary record by the Latial period IIA2. Regular-sized razors and serpentine fibulae continued to appear in male burials, although weapons, corded jars, and miniature braziers largely vanished from such tombs.^[175] All female burials from the Latial period II and onwards contain a spindle whorl, perhaps indicating that the spindle whorl had come to merely signify that the deceased was female, rather than to convey any more complex gender identity or role in life.^[176]

Sestieri argues that, by the Latial period III, the representation of the different gender roles within the funerary record at Osteria had largely dissipated.^[177] However, knives remained prevalent in female burials at Osteria, which may represent either the cult-related function ascribed the knives from early periods, or—as Sestieri argues—they may signify that women were responsible for the cutting and distribution of meat.^[178] Gender identity continued to be expressed in the funerary record through the interment of certain gender-specific articles of clothing. Female burials in Castel di Decima were marked by the presence of hair rings, a headdress with amber or glass-paste beads, and new types of fibulae—such as the boat fibulae, leech fibulae, or fibulae with an amber bow. Likewise, in Osteria and Caracupa, female burials are differentiated by the inclusion of hair rings and arch bow, leech, or boat fibulae.^[179] Men from Castel di Decima were often entombed with a short-sleeved tunic, an iron lance, a sword, and a mantle fastened to either the chest or the right shoulder by 1-2 serpentine fibulae. Some male burials from this cemetary contain buckles or hooks that Venderbos interprets as the remains of decayed belts.^[177] Male tombs from Osteria and Caracupa were marked by the inclusion of serpentine or dragon fibulae and the presence of weaponry.^[179]

Latial period III graves from the Esquiline necropolis often include both objects considered feminine and objects considered masculine in other Latial cemeteries. For instance, multiple Esquiline tombs contain both spinning tools and weapons while other graves contain both the feminine boat or leech fibulae and the masculine serpentine or dragon fibulae.^[180] Other tombs include axe or arrowhead-shaped pendants, combining the pendant—a traditionally feminine ornament—and weaponry, which were traditionally masculine objects within Latial society. Although Venderbos argues that these ambiguous burials reflect the breakdown in gender norms, the archaeologist Einar Nilson Gjerstad suggests that some Esquiline tombs may have merely functioned as double burials for men and women, thus explaining their combination of objects belonging to separate gender identities.^[181] The irregular deposition of fibulae in the Esquiline necropolis may also be explained if fibulae were not as strongly associated with gender specifically within the Esquiline cemetery.^[179] Likewise, it is possible that the pendants from Osteria lost their gendered connotations or had become status symbols that were allottable to both male and female graves. Other gender-ambiguous graves from Osteria have also been interpreted as burials of high-status individuals. One female grave situated in a central position within their burial group contains arrow-shaped pendants alongside numerous other lavish ornaments.^[181] Another female tomb also located in the center of their burial group, this one belonging to a 60-year-old individual, contains a bronze spearhead and serpentine fibulae.^[182] Possible associations between arrow or axe-shaped pendants and high-status may be reinforced by the more certain function of arrowheads and axes as signifiers of social status.^[183] Anthropologist Bettina Arnold suggests that that women in these high-status female graves with masculine burial items may have constituted "honorary males"—women who are treated as males due to their assumption of traditionally masculine roles. However, Venderbos disputes this analysis, arguing that no such "honorary male" burials have been identified in Iron Age Italy and—since it is impossible the confirm the biological sex of many of the individuals interred within these tombs—it is impossible to prove that these individuals were, in fact, women buried as men.^[184]

Grave goods from the earlier Latial culture indicate contact with populations from Southern Italy, contact which likely continued during the later phases as graves from such periods include goods from Campania or the colonies of Magna Graecia.^[187] Evidence of Greek influence appears in a Latial period IIB double burial from Osteria that contains an inhumed male and a cremated female,^[188][189] likely a romantic couple in life.^[188] This burial includes a globular flask that has, inscribed by a metal point, text in a Euboean script.^[185][39] It is unclear precisely what the text reads, although it is most often interpreted as containing the letters "ΕΥΛΙΝ" ("Eulin").^[39][190] Further interpretation of the text is likewise unclear, although it may have been a noun or name related to the Ancient Greek term "εὔλινος" ("eúlinos," "spinning well"), a word that may have been chosen to connect to the weaving themes within the female burials of the Latial culture.^[188] The term is otherwise interpreted as the Latin phrase "ni lue" ("do not untie [me]") or the Greek term "εὐοῖ" ("euoî"), a chant used in the cult of Dionysus.^[191] Excavations at a non-Latial cemetery in Carinaro, a town in Campania, unearthed a grave contemporaneous with the Latial period I that contained miniaturized burial goods and urns topped by roof-shaped lids, features which are reminiscent of Latial burial practices. Sestieri and De Santis suggest that these correspondences provide further attestation of contact between Latium and southern Italy.^[162]

Fulminante argues that the Latial culture likely had contact with Spain during its earliest periods, noting the presence of a Latial period IIB2 grave containing an iron serpentine fibula that likely originated in Spain in Osteria,^[192] the appearance of multiple Latial period II objects from Spain in Gabii,^[193] and a Latial period IVA2 object from Spain in Acqua Acetosa Laurentina.^[194] Moreover, Fulminante cites the presence of Latial artifacts in Spain as further proof of trade links between the two regions.^[195]

Cosmetic items, such as perfume jars or amulets,^[196] and banqueting materials constituted the majority of imported materials during the Latial period III.^[196] The importance of banqueting items may have evolved due to the influence of the customs of various Eastern Mediterranean peoples, such as the significance of the Semitic practice of Marzēaḥ or the Ancient Greek symposium.^[196][197] Various tombs from Castel di Decima contain Levantine artifacts, such as one high-status female burial dated to around 850 BCE that includes a type of Levantine bowl.^[198] Two other Latial period III graves and another Latial period IVA tomb from the site included Levantine burial goods and various other tombs from the area contained Phoenician transport amphorae.^[199] The presence of such materials attests to potential connections between Decima and the Levant or with Phoenician–Punic Sardinia.^[186]

It is impossible to ascertain the precise means by which these goods arrived in Latium, as the contemporaneous Orientalizing trade was conducted via pan-Meditteranean networks of commerce that allowed for such materials to pass through multiple merchants before reaching their destination.^[200] However, the presence of Eastern Mediterranean imports at coastal sites such as Castel di Decima or Satricum allows for the possibility of importation without Etruscan intermediaries.^[201] Nijboer concedes that it the ethnicity of the traders cannot be confidently determined, although he argues that direct trade between Phoenicians and Decima is evidenced by the long history of Near Eastern commerce across multiple periods at the site and the presence of Phoenician transport amphorae.^[199] Goods may also have been introduced into Central Italy from sites in Southern Italy via a Latial intermediary.^[201]

Graves at Castel di Decima, located on the via Ostiensis 10 miles (16 km) south of Rome date to Latial IV and show much more substantial dispersion in grave goods. Most inhumations were simple with no goods at all, but some of the wealthiest graves dated to the seventh century contained women dressed in rich garments adorned with amber and glass bead, gold and silvery fibulae, and ornamental silver wire.^[202] Occurrences of Etruscan material at Latial sites increase during the IVA period, a phenomenon which the archaeologist Francesca Fulminante connects to the reigns of Tarquinius Priscus and Tarquinius Superbus, two legendary Roman kings who—according to Roman mythology—were Etruscan.^[187] The exact time period of their reigns is controversial, although it may be dated to the Latial period IVB.^[192]

During the Final Bronze Age, open-air spaces—such as pits, rivers, springs, or lakes—supplanted the caverns of previous periods as the primary locus for cult sites.^[204][205] According to the Classical archaeologist Marianne Kleibrink, it is likely that worship of the numina—a type of spirit in Roman mythology—originated with these Latial cult sites. Kleibrink further connects these practices with Roman worship of water-deities, such as sacred spring of the nymph Egeria or the worship of Juturna.^[206] Following the Early Iron Age,^[204] Latial religious activities largely shifted from open-air natural sites towards open-air intramural sites located within villages, on the boundaries of settlements, or by necropolises.^[207] These civic sanctuaries often served as the basis for later temples,^[204] which began to emerge around the 600s or 500s BCE. For instance, the temples of Satricum and Velletri were constructed atop the remains ancient Latial huts and votive deposits from the Capitoline Hill include objects dated to the 8th-century BCE.^[208] Based on the application of Thiessen polygons to the mapping of cult sites, the archaeologists Elisabeth van't Lindenhout and Jelle Bouma conclude that, although—during the 7th-century BCE—sacred sites were primarily situated within Latial communities, following the 7th-century BCE, Latial sanctuary sites shifted towards the borders between the larger territories of multiple Latial towns. Bouma and Lindenhout connect this development to the broader trend of increased territorial markers throughout the Latial culture, such as the increased building of settlement defenses (i.e. walls, ditches).^[209]

One natural open-air deposit—dated between the 10th-5th centuries BCE—was uncovered in 1968 at the Laghetto del Monsignore,^[210][211] a small lake centered around a spring that is located near Campoverde.^[212] Large quantities of votive objects were abandoned in the lake and, given that limonite had formed on some of the items, it is likely they remained submersed for an extended period of time.^[212] Ceramics composed over 97% of the votive dedications at the site, although—amongst the total 11,401 items from the area—other amber, glass, or faience beads and bronze fibulae or sheets have also been uncovered.^[211][213] The samples of pottery from the lake include types of miniaturized biconical jars dated to the 10th-century BCE and miniature corded jars dated to the 9th-century BCE.^[212] Kleibrink notes that these miniaturized vessels were often modeled after standard-sized Latial pottery, leading her to argue that the specific ritual function of these votive objects was likely related to the vessel which they had imitated.^[214] Most of the material is dated to around the Late Orientalizing period—during the late 7th or early 6th centuries BCE—likely due to the increasing importation of Etrusco-Corinthian or bucchero objects, which were utilized in aristocratic banquets.^[213] Politically, the cult site at Monsignore likely fell under the influence of the sanctuary in the acropolis of Satricum by the 7th-century BCE. During this time, the pottery at Laghetto increasingly borrowed decoration patterns from styles found at Satricum, indicating a closer bond between the two sites than in previous periods.^[215]

According to Kleibrink, the site may have acquired cult significance due to its marshiness, an attribute to which Kleibrink assigns a degree of "liminality."^[212] Alternatively, the archaeologists Tanja von Loon and Tymon de Haas proposes that the site may have functioned as a central gathering point for various disparate pastoralist communities in Early Latium,^[216] as it is situated near multiple roads connected to grazing land and could have provided livestock with fresh water.^[217] Moreover, the pottery at Laghetto del Monsignore is similar to the pottery of other Latial sites, such as Satricum,^[218] which may attest to a shared cultural identity between these regions and, consequently, close links between the Monsignore cult site and other Latial areas.^[216] According to the archaeologist Alessandro Guidi, it is possible that the cult site of Monsignore may have influenced the eventual establishment of the nearby settlement of Satricum, as hundreds of artifacts from the lake deposited during the Bronze Age indicate the area already maintained a level of sociocultural significance to Latial settlers prior to the creation of Satricum.^[219] Von Loon and de Haas argue that the shared cultural significance of sanctuaries allowed them to function as hubs for communal activity, and consequently to contribute to urban development in the region.^[220] Thus, Von Loon and de Haas conclude that the urbanization of the Early Iron Age, and the subsequent shift from open-air natural sites towards open-air sites located by villages,^[212] was simultaneously caused by and a cause of the civic sanctuaries.^[204]

• Brandt, J. Rasmus (2001). From Craftsman to Specialist: The Formation of Occupations in Late Iron Age Latium. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Rom.
• Attema, Peter; Burgers, Gert-Jan; Van Joolen, Ester; Van Leusen, Martijn; Mater, Benoît (2002). New Developments in Italian Landscape Archaeology: Theory and methodology of field survey Land evaluation and landscape perception Pottery production and distribution. Proceedings of a three-day conference held at the University of Groningen, April 13-15, 2000. BAR Publishing. doi:10.30861/9781841714691. ISBN 978-1-84171-469-1.

• "Room 1: Hut-shaped urn". Vatican Museums Online: Gregorian Etruscan Museum. 2003–2007. Retrieved 18 July 2009.