Ever since Professor Gatti's epoch-making paper in 1960, the Circus Flaminius and its buildings have been the subject of intensive argument. The problems involved are many and complex; this paper is an attempt to make sense of them by concentrating in the first instance on the implications of the ancient evidence, both as to the nature of the Circus itself (Section I) and on the history of its development and the buildings within it (II). There follows a discussion of Gatti's theory about the position of the Circus and of Professor Marchetti Longhi's objections to it (III), and a critical consideration of some of the ideas advanced on the basis of Gatti's position (IV), in particular Dr. Coarelli's identification of the temple of Bellona (V). A brief conclusion (VI) sums up what I believe the combined evidence implies.

In his Hellenistische Reliefbilder published from 1889 to 1894 Schreiber illustrated 131 objects, mostly relief panels, but also glass, stucco and drawings. His collection included most of the so-called landscape reliefs of any importance, and here lies its value for the modern student. Schreiber did not accompany this lithographic collection with a commentary and it is the intention of this article to present as much information as can be gathered about the objects illustrated.

Schreiber's other writings make it clear that he considered these objects as Hellenistic products of Alexandria. F. Wickhoff in his Wiener Genesis (translated by Mrs. A. Strong, 1900) held that landscape reliefs were a branch of Roman art. Thus began the controversy which still rages today over the origin of landscape reliefs. The protagonists have ranged themselves on the side of Schreiber or Wickhoff, with an occasional voice raised in support of Asia Minor as source of these reliefs (P. Perdrizet, 1906, RA, 225–35); at present the Alexandrianists seem to be dominant. The landscape reliefs themselves, however, have never before been studied thoroughly and arguments have largely been based on unjustifiable assumptions from similarity of subject matter between reliefs of unknown provenance.

The area under study comprises primarily the eastern section of Lucania south of the stretch of the Via Appia from Gravina to Venosa (Fig. 1); the purpose is to examine the network of principal ancient roads (Fig. 3). The terrain imposes limits on the siting of these roads, but, as will be seen, changes in the distribution of population shifted the importance of various routes at different times. The literary sources, ancient and medieval, offer some assistance in ascertaining the location of some of the routes, but the main tools are air photography and autopsy.

II. The Written Sources

These are somewhat sparse and have produced several problems that themselves require elucidation. They are:

1. The Itinerarium Antonini. This describes three routes through the area under study:

(a) In lines 104.1–104.4, part of a long route from Mediolanum to Regio, we read Venusium civitas, Opino 15, ad fluvium Bradanum 28, Potentia 24.

(b) In lines 113.1–5, part of a route from Equum Tuticum to Regio, we read Venusia, ad Pinum 12, Ipnum 12, Caelianum 40, Heraclia 28. None of the figures is secure.

Ever since the discussion of Orpheus in Bosio's Roma Sotterranea (1632, 627 ff) the problem of pagan mythological figures in early Christian art has aroused much attention. Until quite recently, however, it was generally believed that Orpheus was the only such figure to appear, so that discussion naturally centred on his peculiar acceptability to the Christians. But the discovery of important new material and the renewed interest amongst scholars in the pagan element in early Christian art have recently led to the consideration of other pagan gods and heroes in this light. Some of these characters appear only once or twice in Christian settings, or may have a Christian significance only on isolated occasions. But for all the five figures that will be studied here—Orpheus, Bellerophon, Sol, Ulysses, and Hercules—some kind of sustained Christian interpretation has been proposed, and in each case several representations are involved. The purpose of this paper is to collate the claims made for these various mythological figures, to re-assess some of the conclusions which were reached in earlier studies and have now been rendered out-of-date by the discovery of new examples, and to attempt some general conclusions about the role of these pagan mythological figures in early Christian art up to the mid sixth century.

In 1971 a joint programme of research into the history, architecture and archaeology of the now ruined Abbey was organised under the direction of Dr. A. T. Luttrell, then Assistant Director of the British School at Rpme. The historical survey, by Dr. Luttrell with assistance from Miss Ishbel Adams, and the architectural study of the existing remains, by Dr. F. K. B. Toker, have already been published (Luttrell, Toker and Adams, 1972: cited below as Part I). The preface to that report sets out the aims of the whole project and its background. The archaeological excavations were planned to supply information about those parts of the Abbey's structure no longer visible above ground, the earlier stages of its construction, and concerning the life of its inhabitants; it was also hoped that from the pottery found in the excavations a local ceramic series might be constructed. The excavations were carried out on behalf of the British School at Rome, in 1971 and 1972 under the direction of Hugo Blake assisted by Tom Blagg, and in 1973 under the direction of Tom Blagg, who has been responsible for editing the present report.

Although the main purpose of this article has been that of presenting as full and objective an account as possible of the surviving medieval towers in Tuscania, believing that ‘facts’ rarely speak for themselves, I have attempted in the first two sections to set the building of the towers within the context of the social and political changes and topographical transformations that were taking place between the end of the tenth century and the end of the fifteenth century. One result of this has been to indicate how the role of towers themselves underwent change during that period.

The towers covered by this survey are all those of medieval date which do not form part of the town walls (for which, see: Andrews and Gibson 1972) and are not church towers (for which, see: Serafini, 1927, 85–7; Raspi Serra, 1971). It may be noted in this connection that the term ‘tower-house’ (Italian, casa-torre) is more properly applied to towers, or tower-like structures, adapted for permanent domestic residence, than to the type of refuge tower to which many of the examples in Tuscania belong. Since the uses to which towers were put often varied during the long span of their existence, however, ‘tower-house’ has on occasion been used as a blanket term for any tower of the types found in this catalogue.

On balance far more is known of trade in luxury goods during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries than of trade in essential foodstuffs and minerals such as wheat and salt. This is surprising in a way, because the sources that refer to commodity movements, such as commercial treaties, are often far more eloquent on vital topics such as grain than they are on the myriad luxury items that passed through Acre, Messina and other great ports of the late twelfth century. Partly this emphasis on high-class goods has been the responsibility of recent historians, who saw in the spasms of Mediterranean trade the key to European economic development; partly it is the fault of the treaties and privileges that survive, for there is no knowing whether, say, two hundred salmae of wheat that a monastery was allowed to export free of tolls represented all its export capacity, part of that capacity, or an amount normally well above that capacity—a purely notional figure.