Il popolamento della Penisola Sorrentina: Strategie di occupazione del territorio in epoca preromana.

The Sorrento Peninsula, situated between the Gulf of Cuma (Gulf of Naples) and the Gulf of Poseidonia (Gulf of Salerno), plays an active role in the maritime trade networks along the Tyrrhenian coast, serving as a key transit point for routes to and from the north. The historical and archaeological framework of the area is currently complex, due to the sporadic and fragmentary nature of the data. This doctoral research stems from the need to recover and contextualise the data, so that their sporadic nature does not result in a gap but rather forms a functional part of a broader and more complex system of relationships. The main objective of the study is to reconstruct the historical landscape of the Sorrento Peninsula during the pre-Roman periods, from the Iron Age to the Hellenistic Age. Specifically, the research aims to analyse settlement dynamics, investigating the settlement patterns and the evolution of settlements in relation to the geomorphological characteristics of the territory and the strategies for its exploitation. The need to recover and reorganise the fragmented archaeological heritage gives rise to the requirement for a systematic organisation of the data. In addition to data analysis, the digitisation of the data serves another objective of this project: to ensure the accessibility and usability of the recovered information. To investigate the dynamics of settlement in the area, it was deemed necessary to update the archaeological map covering the municipalities of: Vico Equense, Meta, Piano di Sorrento, Sant’Agnello and Massa Lubrense. Currently, the standard reference work for these territories is the 1946 Archaeological Map of the Forma Italiae, developed by P. Mingazzini and F. Pfister. The present research did not focus on the search for new evidence, but on the critical re-contextualisation of existing data with the aim of offering a comprehensive synthesis that constitutes a solid starting point for future research. The first phase of the work focused on the collection of diverse data. The sources consulted included: historical and bibliographical sources, documents from historical and contemporary archives, excavation records, stray finds, public works, and private projects, as well as photographic material and periodical press archives; and historical, technical, topographical, cadastral and thematic maps. Following the data collection, which involved consulting various regional archives, the data were systematised. A system capable of meeting the established needs and objectives was sought. In the field of archaeology, the use of GIS is a well-established tool for spatial data management. The GIS application developed by the National Geoportal for Archaeology (GNA), managed by the Central Institute for Archaeology (ICA), was used. In addition to the collection and standardisation of archaeological data, the project ensures its accessibility via an open-access platform. The use of this system proved fully compatible with the type of data retrieved, the need for dissemination and sharing, and the use of a standard archaeological vocabulary. Subsequently, a digital archive was structured in Excel to facilitate data management. The data were classified according to municipality, locality and area of origin, type of find and chronology. The database was structured using the attribute fields of the GNA model, with the addition of fields designed to meet specific research requirements. Where possible, the fields were indexed according to controlled vocabularies and thesauri developed by the ICCD. The attributes are: Identification ID; Region; Province; Municipality; Toponym/Location; Other routes/specifications (details regarding localisation elements); Year of discovery; Protection status; Type of context; Definition; Typology; Chronological reference; Specific chronology; Validity; Description; Method of discovery; Method of identification; Archive number; Reference number; Repository; Legal status; Georeferencing technique; Positioning method; Sheet; Parcel numbers; Address; Graphic/photographic documentation; Bibliography. The database was subsequently imported into a GIS environment using QGIS software (version 3.34.11 LTR). During this phase, the dataset underwent progressive enrichment with additional information: attributes derived directly from spatial analysis, georeferencing and the topographical localisation of the finds were added. Georeferencing was carried out using the WGS84 global geodetic reference system (EPSG:4326). Where original geographical coordinates were absent, spatial registration was executed through manual georeferencing using cartographic basemaps. The cartographic reference base used for the creation of the Archaeological Map is the Regional Technical Map (CTR). Overlaid onto this were maps useful for locating the finds; specifically, the following were used: cadastral maps, historical and archaeological maps, archival documentation, and excavation plans. The georeferencing of the data and its input into a GIS system formed the basis of the working process to ensure data analysis. The next step involved the analysis and visualisation of the data, utilising the software’s capabilities for data integration and interaction. Consequently, it was possible to generate diachronic and synchronic thematic maps of the territory or of specific areas of investigation. Fixed symbols were assigned to the main attributes to make the visualisation clearer and more intuitive: a colour was assigned to each chronological period and a symbol to each type of find. A key contribution to the analysis phase and the subsequent interpretation of the data were made possible by the integration into GIS of a diverse cartographic framework comprising historical, geological, and morphological maps, LIDAR data and thematic trail maps. The use of these maps has enabled us to address a range of issues concerning the reconstruction of settlement strategies and the possible routes across the territory, allowing us to investigate the relationship between the various centres during different chronological phases and the potential for exploiting natural resources based on local geological characteristics. Analysis of the data has identified the following areas of settlement: Vico Equense; Valico Alberi; Meta; Trinità (municipality of Piano di Sorrento); Cavone (municipality of Piano di Sorrento); Maiano (municipality of Sant’Agnello); Sottomonte (municipality of Sorrento); Sorrento; Cesarano (municipality of Sorrento); Sant’Agata sui Due Golfi (municipality of Massa Lubrense). The centre of Vico Equense is attested by burials that bear witness to continuous occupation from the Late Orientalising Period to the Hellenistic Age. On the basis of morphological characteristics, it has been possible to hypothesise the location of the urban area situated at the site of the current historic centre, situated to the north of the burial ground. Given its location, the most widely accepted hypothesis is that the settlement played a maritime trading role. For this reason, attempts have been made to identify the location of the harbourage, which is thought to correspond to the present-day beach of Marina di Equa. The Valico di Alberi area remains a transit point for pedestrians crossing the southern tip of the Lattari Mountains promontory. In ancient times, it constituted the main route connecting Vico Equense with the central tuff plateau of the peninsula. Evidence of the pass’s use dates back to the Archaic period, but it was undoubtedly in use from much earlier times. The archaeological evidence found in the centre of Meta does not suggest the presence of a settlement, but rather a transit point with hypothetical small residential groups. The settlement at Trinità is thought to have been active from the early 6th century BC, continuing uninterrupted into the Hellenistic period. Based on the evidence, it is hypothesised that it must have constituted an urban centre from the earliest stages of occupation. The settlement at Trinità is currently the only well-documented centre along the inland portion of the Sorrento Peninsula, where the necropolis to the north and east and the urban centre to the west have been identified. The site exhibits a pronounced agrarian and productive orientation, including craft activities that attest to the centre’s economic diversification. Situated at the boundary between two different soil types – calcareous and volcanic – both characterised by similar potential in terms of resource exploitation. The agricultural output comprised a diverse range of Mediterranean cultivars. Specifically, arboreal cultivation included Vitis vinifera (vine), Olea europea (olive), Prunus dulcis (almond), Ficus carica (fig), alongside fruit-bearing species such as Prunus avium (cherry), Cydonia oblonga (quince), Punica granatum (pomegranate), and Junglas regia (walnut). It is possible that the nearby ‘Cavone’ area, situated to the north-west of the Trinità settlement, is associated with a permanent rural occupation linked to the exploitation of the ager belonging to the main settlement. To the west of the Trinità settlement lie two hypothetical centres: those at Sottomonte and Maiano. These areas are attested by the discovery of funerary contexts dating from the Orientalising to the Classical periods. Here too, based on their location and geological characteristics, centres with an agricultural vocation are hypothesised. The settlement of Sorrento was the subject of a previous study published in 2024, which saw the creation of the archaeological map of Sorrento (Di Franco 2024). For this reason, the site has been included only in relation to the neighbouring centres. It must certainly have constituted the main centre during the Hellenistic period, whilst the earlier phases are difficult to define due to the scarcity of archaeological data. The last attested settlement is that of Sant’Agata sui Due Golfi, which is characterised by the greater quantity and quality of evidence from the earliest phases of the Late Orientalising and Archaic periods. Here too, the data are part of a funerary context. This settlement differs from those mentioned so far in that it is situated in a mountainous area, which influenced its strategies for occupation and resource exploitation. Its wealth (evidenced by the grave goods) may have stemmed from a direct link with the settlement of Sorrento and from a mixed economy based on agricultural activities and the exploitation of natural resources. Indeed, the wooded environment is particularly favourable to sheep farming (with all the products this entails, such as milk, cheese, hides and meat) and to hunting, timber production and the cultivation of productive trees such as fruit trees and olive trees. Part of the analytical work was devoted to reconstructing the land transport network of the area. A distinctive feature of the Sorrento Peninsula is its topography, characterised by alternating elevations, mountainous and hilly terrain, plains and natural gorges. For the pre-Roman periods, the research hypothesised a prevalence of maritime navigation over land routes. This study therefore sought to explore the role of the land transport network, evaluating it as a possible alternative to maritime transport. The results of the analysis show that, during the Archaic and Classical periods, maritime routes were predominantly used to reach the centre of Vico Equense, the central tuff plateau (which includes the municipalities of Meta, Sant’Agnello, Piano di Sorrento and Sorrento) and the promontory of Punta della Campanella. Conversely, contact between the centres comprising the central portion of the peninsula appears to have been entirely feasible. The Sorrento area is characterised by the synergy of agricultural resources and the exploitation of maritime potential. Awareness of these benefits and the ability to manage them formed the basis for maintaining the strategic role played within the Campania region. The understanding of the early settlement history of the Sorrento Peninsula remains fragmentary. The scarcity of archaeological data from the Bronze and Iron Ages does not currently allow us to develop a comprehensive interpretive framework. It is conceivable that as early as the Late Orientalising Period, the framework of future urban centres and their spatial layout had already been established, ensuring their stability in the centuries that followed. The productive potential of these centres fits into this system: on the one hand, centres oriented towards maritime trade; on the other, centres with an agricultural vocation, supplying the main resources necessary for the coastal. A relationship of mutual dependence thus emerges, shaping the territory almost as an organic unit – formed through a dense and organised network of relations between the centres of the Sorrento area – open to external contacts and exchanges. This network constitutes, hypothetically, the key element for the resilience of the Sorrento centres during the Classical Age crisis affecting the centres of Campania. The survival and relative prosperity of the Sorrento Peninsula may have stemmed from the role it assumed following the decline and reduction of the neighbouring centres of Pompeii and Stabiae, taking on a more prominent position within regional trade networks. The signs of regional changes pertaining to the 4th–3rd centuries BC are fully reflected in the archaeological evidence from Sorrento. As highlighted, settlement continued in the centres of Vico Equense, Trinità and Sorrento. The restructuring of the agricultural landscape carried out during this period does not appear to have entailed radical changes in the distribution of settlement areas within the agricultural hinterland. The territorial structure during this period appears to have centred on the city of Sorrento, a trend reflected in the need to establish a defensive system between the late 4th and early 3rd centuries BC. Analysis of the data clearly reveals evidence of a shared cultural koiné within the territory, indicative of constant interaction between the centres. This relationship is evident in both material culture and spatial organisation. Common and recurring elements have been identified that shed light on the territorial structure: the location of burial areas along the internal transit routes of the territory (namely to the east and north for inland settlements; east and south for coastal settlements); the organisation of the burial space into family groups, in turn distinguished by the presence of burial enclosures; a common funerary language in the choice of pottery elements comprising the grave goods. The research successfully fulfilled its primary objectives, demonstrating that digital systematisation is not an end in itself, but a useful tool for deciphering the settlement strategies of a complex territory. As hoped, the methodology adopted made it possible to transform ‘mute’ archaeological records into meaningful historical evidence, whilst providing previously unpublished content that allowed further questions to be formulated precisely on the basis of the identification of congruities and, above all, the inconsistencies found in the archaeological record.