Page:Philological Museum v2.djvu/702

692 692 Miscellaneous Observations. ernmost part of Italy must be considered of great antiquity, he argues against Niebuhr (Vol. i. p. 75) that the dominion of Sybaris over the country between the two seas before 242 U. C. and the foundation of Pyxus by Micythus in 280 U.C* do not exclude the possibility of the existence of Lucanians in those parts : as the Sybarites, like all the otKer Italiots, had no dominion in the mountains, and those to which Micy- thus led his Rhegian colony on the Lucanian territory was either uninhabited at that time on account of the unhealthi- ness of the place, or left uncultivated by the natives (Vol. i. p. 323). Micali denies that Lucumones was the name of a class (Vol. II. p. 76), and he thinks that the walls of the Etruscan cities do not bear the mark of having been built by serfs, and cannot be considered as proofs of the vassalage of a large part of the population ; but that they appear to be the works of wise citizens, having nothing in their construction which ex- ceeds the power of free though not large communities : espe- cially as there was plenty of stone either on the spot or in the neighbouring mountains (Vol. i. p. 135). The singular build- ings in Sardinia called Nuraghi (of which an account may be seen in the Journal des Savans, 1827, p. 206), by Niebuhr apparently attributed to the Tyrrhenians (Vol. i. p. l^^), and by Letronne to the Etruscans, are considered by Micali as Carthaginian. He likewise thinks that they were not places of burial ; but he does not indicate his own opinion as to their destination more distinctly than by saying that they were pro- bably " for the public use."^' The construction of some of them, being high conical towers, surrounded by smaller towers connected with a wall containing a casemated passage, seems to shew that they were used for some purposes of defence (Vol. ii. p. 46-8.). Micali remarks (Vol. i. p. 152. ii. 150) that Niebuhr, mis- led by some inaccurate account, cites the theatre of Fiesole as a colossal building of the Etruscans (Vol. i. p. Q^^ 107) ; but that the work is entirely Roman, and of no very ancient date. In the passages referred to, Niebuhr evidently appears to con- sider the theatre at Fiesole as an Etruscan work : he likewise uses it as an argument to prove that Greek dramas, either originals or translations, were performed at Fiesole (p. Ill):