The authors discuss results of long-term Dutch field projects in three regions in Italy and review case studies taken from these study areas in the light of indigenous developments in early Italian centralization and urbanization. By looking at regional developments in the domains of economy, religious and funerary practice as well as that of social relationships, they arrive at the conclusion that material culture was actively used in indigenous contexts. There is a consequent need for re-definition of centralization and urbanization, which in the Italian context are often seen as nonindigenous achievements. Comparative regional research, as suggested by the authors' case studies on the Sibaritide, the Brindisino and the Pontine region, will reveal both general trends concerning the concepts discussed and regional idiosyncrasies depending on regional traditions, histories and the regional landscape. To this end, a new project was launched, known as the Regional Pathways to Complexity project, that is introduced to the reader at the end of this paper.Mediterranean archaeology has a long-established tradition of studies in early urbanization. It is above all the urban success of the Roman town and the Greek ATmMA ET AL.: CASE STUDIES IN INDIGENOUS DEVELOPMENTS 327polis that has attracted majofattention in this regard. Traditionally, the focus of these studies was on physicaLaspects of urbanization, in particular on the development of'an urban lay~out and of monumental architecture. However, in the last three decades research perspectives have widened considerably. In several respects, a very significant contribution to these new approaches was made by the development of the technique of field survey alongside the excavations of urban sites inthe tradit ion of the 'big·dig' . First, the regional scope of surveys·made it possible.to include the wider landscape in urbanization studies and thus to focus on the relationship between town and countryside. This allowed questions to be asked on the town's role as economic centre and the spread of market exchange, on the town's consumer role versus the supply role of the countryside, and on the political and religious relationship between town and countryside. Of course, these questions have long been central to the. debate on urbanisrnamong historians. Archaeology, indeed, has much to of&r in this regard (d. Wq.llace~Hadrill1992). This is even more so sin.ce, secondly, the ability of surveys to monitor long~termtrends in the occupat ional history of a region has made it possible to study such questions from a diac hronic, .developmental perspective, and to give ample attention to centralization processes preceding the spread of urbanism. Thirdly, the surveys' focus on regional landscapes encouraged an interest in internal processes of centralization and urbanization in areas which were previously only marginally considered in studies of ancient urbanism. With regard to these regions, indications of such processes have long been treated merely as signs of the diffusive stre...
