The Neapolitan and Calabrian camorra groups that took root in the United States between the 1880s and the 1900s offer a rare, early laboratory for observing two processes that would later reshape organized crime in Italy itself. First, they reveal how these mainland societies first interacted with one another—and with the already established Sicilian mafia—when large numbers of Campanians and Calabrians were suddenly placed in the same urban neighborhoods, docks, and industrial districts outside the confines of the Italian prison system. Second, they capture these societies at a specific evolutionary stage: formal enough to maintain ranked hierarchies, oaths, multi-city coordination, and recognizable leadership titles, yet still fluid, expansive, and often more coercive in recruitment than the selective Sicilian model (Rocco Racco testimony, 1908 Hillsville Black Hand case; Statement of Salvatore Marra, Westchester County Jail, March 20, 1913).

In American cities the same village-based chains that carried ordinary immigrants also carried camorristi. Once concentrated in places such as Mulberry Street, the Navy Street and Coney Island districts of Brooklyn, the Pittsburgh–Hillsville corridor, Chicago Heights, and White Plains, Neapolitan and Calabrian networks shared streets, cafés, and commercial rackets. The resulting contacts produced more pragmatic alliances and less open conflict—most dramatically the 1916 “Mafia–Camorra War”—while also generating the earliest documented instances of leading camorra bosses being selectively inducted into Sicilian-led families (Gentile, Vita di Capomafia; DeCarlo conversations, c. 1960s, FBI transcripts NK 92-379). These American interactions therefore supply a preview of the cross-regional accommodations that Italian pentiti would later describe in the 1970s, when important Calabrian and Campanian bosses were formally brought into cosa nostra at the upper levels while ordinary soldiers remained unaware of the arrangement (Messina, testimony before the Parliamentary Antimafia Commission, 1992; Pennino, judicial depositions, 1994–; Stonefelt, Eric).

At this stage the Neapolitan and Calabrian camorre still appear to have been understood as branches of the same broader society, sharing ranks, practices, and occasional inter-regional contacts that stretched back to Italian prisons and the provincial networks of southern Italy (Criscione 2012; Monnier, La Camorra). Yet by the early twentieth century the two were already evolving along divergent paths. The Calabrian societies retained stronger ’ndrina-style clustering by town of origin and, in some American locations, left clearer traces of formal hierarchy and written or quasi-written rules (DeRose, Tony; Rocco Racco testimony, 1908; Statement of Salvatore Marra, 1913; True Detective Mysteries, October/November 1930). They also maintained the more traditional, “romantic” traits of the camorra—emphasis on knife-fighting skill, a pronounced devotion to hierarchical rank, and attachment to the society’s fabled origin stories. The Campanian societies, by contrast, moved in a more Sicilian direction: they left almost no written documents, remained comparatively light on elaborate ceremonial display, and, like both the provincial camorra of Campania and the Sicilian mafia, focused on infiltrating local economies and exercising quiet power within them (Criscione 2012; Notaro testimony, 1918 Brooklyn Camorra trial). These qualities of elusiveness, multi-communal composition, and practical adaptability later facilitated the selective induction of many of their leading figures into American mafia families.

At the same time, the organizational profile of the early Calabrian camorra in the United States already displayed many of the features that would later characterize the modern ’ndrangheta. Contemporary testimony and correspondence reveal ranked structures (distinguishing camorristi from lower grades, officers, formal entry procedures, internal signals, and explicit references to leadership ties that stretched back to Italy (Rocco Racco testimony, 1908; Statement of Salvatore Marra, March 20, 1913). The same ’ndrina-style clustering by town of origin, the multi-city webs linking Pennsylvania mining towns with New York and Chicago, and the capacity for both predatory “Black Hand” activity and more durable territorial control all anticipate the territorial mandamenti and the resilient, family-based architecture of the postwar ’ndrangheta (Commonwealth v. Fragassa, 278 Pa. 1 (1923); Commonwealth v. Daniele, 278 Pa. 8 (1923)).

Yet the Calabrian camorra of this period still had a considerable distance to travel. One of the most significant cultural transformations—the shift in the role of women—had not yet occurred. In the early American groups, women continued to be exploited primarily as prostitutes rather than integrated as protected mafia wives and family anchors. That change, which took place largely between the 1920s and 1940s, marked the largest cultural evolution in the society’s history. It helped transform the Calabrian camorra from a prison-derived criminal Carbonari into an organization that absorbed, and then carried to an extreme, certain Sicilian mafia attitudes toward women, kinship, and the family unit. Because the American story unfolded before these developments, it offers a rare glimpse of the ’ndrangheta (whether under the name Calabrian camorra, picciotteria, or any other designation) at an earlier, still-evolving stage.

The sections that follow examine the Black Hand phenomenon as both a real pattern of extortion and a loose journalistic label, then reconstruct the leadership and internal organization of the principal Neapolitan and Calabrian networks in the United States. Together they illuminate a moment when these mainland camorre were still distinct, still evolving, and already revealing the adaptive capacities that would define their later histories on both sides of the Atlantic (Lombardo 2010; Nelli 1976; Pitkin and Cordasco 1977).

The Black Hand

The Black Hand was a criminal phenomenon that flourished roughly between 1903 and 1915 (with earlier precursors and a gradual decline thereafter). It was never a single, centralized society. The term “Black Hand” (or Mano Nera) originated as a journalistic label and quickly became a catch-all description applied to a wide range of crimes committed within Italian immigrant communities. It could refer to the receipt of an extortion letter adorned with a black hand, skull, or similar symbols, but newspapers and police also used it for personal feuds, robberies, bombings, kidnappings, murders, and the activities of both loosely organized sects and more structured camorra or mafia societies (Lombardo 2010; Pitkin and Cordasco 1977).

Many crimes labeled “Black Hand” were not the work of sophisticated organized crime networks. Ordinary criminals, opportunistic individuals, and participants in private disputes frequently adopted the threatening letter and its symbols because the label itself inspired fear and often produced compliance. Even established mafiosi sometimes joined the hustle for their own ends. When a business was failing, some arranged to send threatening letters to themselves, staged bombings or other damage, publicly blamed the Black Hand, and then collected the insurance. Rappresentante Ignazio Lupo did precisely this in 1908 when his grocery empire in New York was sliding into bankruptcy. As a result, the historical record requires careful examination. Each case must be peeled back to distinguish ordinary interpersonal violence or simple extortion from the operations of genuine organized societies, and also to separate genuine extortion from self-inflicted insurance fraud. Only by separating these layers does a clearer picture of early Italian-American criminality—and of the camorra and mafia networks that sometimes operated under or alongside the Black Hand label—begin to emerge (Lombardo 2010; Nelli 1976).

Non-Sicilian Networks

A number of prominent figures who operated within the same circles as documented camorristi were never officially identified as members of the camorra in contemporary records. James Colosimo, Paul Ricca, Joseph Esposito, Frank Yale, Giosuè Gallucci, Aniello Prisco (known as Zoppo the Gimp), and others moved through networks that the camorristi themselves appear to have treated as synonymous with their own. The same pattern holds for many Calabrians and for individuals from Messina who participated in an intricate non-Sicilian web of relationships, even though no official source ever explicitly labeled that web “camorra” (Notaro testimony, 1918; contemporary police and newspaper accounts).

In classifying individuals connected to the early camorra, several distinctions are observed. Unlike the Sicilian mafia, which used a only one degree of membership (“mafioso”), the camorra maintained three distinct degrees, with camorrista occupying the highest rank; consequently, not every participant in arrested as or labeled a camorra member held that specific rank. Where affiliation with the organization is established but the precise rank cannot be confirmed, the neutral designation “camorra affiliate” is employed. Individuals labeled camorrista solely by single or questionable sources are identified as “alleged camorrista.” Finally, those whose associations, behavior, and activities strongly indicate membership or leadership within camorra circles, yet who were never explicitly called camorrista (or Black Hander) in surviving records, are termed “suspected camorrista.”

Despite the known camorra links connecting St. Paul, Chicago, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh—documented in part through the activities of the Cleveland Milanos—other examples reinforce the same multi-city pattern. Domenico Barletto of Mesoraca, Cosenza, traveled the circuit of those cities in sequence. Upon his arrest in Cleveland in September 1912 in connection with a counterfeiting operation involving counterfeit silver dollars, Barletta asked his attorney to send a letter to his superior, Salvatore Colosimo, also of Mesoraca and based in St. Paul. The Secret Service files record that Barletto and Colosimo communicated in a coded, “cloak and dagger” manner, employing indirect and veiled language when discussing the distribution of counterfeit coin and the movements of associates. No relationship has been established between this Salvatore Colosimo of St. Paul and the more famous James “Big Jim” Colosimo of Chicago. Mesoraca and Colosimi (the hometown of Big Jim) lie approximately 44 miles apart in Calabria. The Secret Service reports of the case further show Barletto’s associates moving between Chicago, Cleveland, and related points, with clearing houses and distribution arrangements that spanned these cities, illustrating how Calabrian networks maintained operational continuity across the Midwest even when formal titles remained unrecorded (U.S. Secret Service reports, September–October 1912).

Once these networks are taken into account, similar patterns become visible in other corridors. Calabrian-Messinese routes extended from Chester to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, up the corridor through Bridgeton, New Jersey, Trenton, Newark, New York into New York and Boston, Massachusetts. An Abruzzese contingent was also active in Philadelphia and Camden, New Jersey. By the early 1920s several of these men had become members of the Sicilian mafia, rendering the organization that later became known as the “Philadelphia” Family extended far out into a multi-city and multi-state entity by the early 1920s (informant statements regarding the Sabella organization, 1920s; FBI reports on the Calabrian Faction of the Philadelphia Family, 1960s).

Under Salvatore Sabella the Philadelphia group already reflected this diversity. Contemporary listings of members and associates, drawn from informant testimony and residency records, show a mixture of Sicilians from Belmonte, Caccamo, Campobello, Castrogiovanni, and Messina, alongside Calabrians, Abruzzesi, and a smaller number of Campanians and other mainland Italians. Residences clustered not only in central Philadelphia but also in Chester, Camden, and nearby New Jersey points, confirming the corridor character of the early organization. Names marked by the informant Rocco Scafidi as early members further underscore the multi-regional composition (informant statements regarding the Sabella organization, 1920s).

The early history of organized crime in Philadelphia from the 1880s through the 1920s remains highly fragmented and elusive. While the evidence is sufficient to confirm the camorra’s likely existence, the documentary record is far thinner than that available for Hillsville, Pennsylvania, in the 1900s or White Plains in the 1910s. It is therefore probable that a Chester–Philadelphia–Camden–Bridgeton network composed primarily of Reggio Calabrians and Messinese Sicilians operated along lines comparable to those better-documented societies. FBI reports from the 1960s later documented a so-called Calabrian Faction within the Philadelphia Family and noted the longstanding practice of assigning an administrative position to someone from the non-Sicilian wing. This arrangement may have originated when mainlanders were already present or were formally brought in around the time Sabella became rappresentante. Figures such as

· Giovanni Scopelliti of Reggio Calabria,

· John Avena (Novara, Messina, Sicily)

· Joe Bruno (Barcellona, Messina, Sicily),

· Joe Ida (Fiumara, Reggio Calabria),

· Marco Reginelli (Nepezzano, Terramo, Abruzzo)

were all part of a non-Sicilian network prior to the 1920s. A few of these “Calabrian Faction” members were later documented to have known or been previously affiliated with another suspected camorrista in Brooklyn, future Gambino rappresentante Albert Anastasia of Tropea, Vibo Valentia, who during his younger years worked for suspected camorra boss Biagio Giordano of Gallico, Reggio Calabria, in South Brooklyn. A fuller examination of the Philadelphia Family is reserved for a separate study; the present discussion is just to illustrate some of the missing puzzle pieces and how looking to other city examples may provide us with an idea despite each city (and or Family) being unique (FBI reports on the Calabrian Faction of the Philadelphia Family, 1960s).

Chicago offers a parallel case. Before the mid-1920s the documentary record of the city’s camorra is thinner than that available for Cleveland, Pittsburgh, or New York. Drawing on the better-documented Pittsburgh model of the 1900s, however, and examining James Colosimo’s local and national connections within the broader camorra networks, a tentative reconstruction becomes possible. As a Calabrian of considerable underworld standing—best known as controlling large-scale prostitution (an old-school camorra racket)—Colosimo is the most plausible candidate for the role of capolocale, if such a position existed. Given that Chicago was the second-largest Italian city in the United States and therefore demographically diverse, the local locale almost certainly comprised members drawn from Campania, the province of Cosenza, and the Calabria–Messina corridor, organized into multiple ’ndrine spread across Chicago proper and Chicago Heights divided by origin, over which Colosimo served over (1910 and 1920 U.S. Census records; comparative Pittsburgh model via Racco testimony, 1908, and Mauro records).

This does not mean that to imply or state that every Neapolitan or Calabrian criminal in the United States belonged to these societies. Ordinary offenders, independent operators, and purely local strongmen existed in abundance. Moreover, not every individual associated with the camorra held the formal rank of camorrista. That title belonged to a higher, smaller “major society” within the sect; beneath it lay the larger “minor society” of picciotti and giovani d’onore, a substantially broader pool whose members still operated under the society’s rules and discipline and should not be dismissed as insignificant (Statement of Salvatore Marra, 1913; True Detective Mysteries, 1930; Rocco Racco testimony, 1908). The same caution applies to the early mafia: many names arrested alongside known mafiosi may never have been full members. Early Italian organized crime was rarely a black-and-white phenomenon; it contained nuances, overlapping patterns, family connections, and coincidences that require careful evaluation from multiple angles. The famous Giuseppe Musolino of Aspromonte offers one illustration of these interlocking ties: he was said to have headed the picciotteria in Santo Stefano, a designation that likely refers to the società minore, suggesting that once his later infamy is set aside his actual rank may have been that of a picciotto di sgarro. Which is not to diminish his importance by rewriting history. He is romanticized for his actions, not his rank in this so-called picciotteria. In any event, his extended family would eventually produce New York camorra boss Frank Filastro and the Toronto camorra boss Giuseppe Musolino (Rocco Racco testimony, 1908; Statement of Salvatore Marra, 1913). When assessing certain bosses—men who controlled neighborhoods, mediated disputes across cities, collected tribute, and maintained ties stretching from Springfield to Brooklyn to New Jersey—the cumulative evidence still strongly suggests they belonged to the same broader non-Sicilian network, even if surviving documents didn’t always employ the word camorra.

Law-enforcement practice of the period must also be kept in view. In the 1880s and 1890s the very concept of what constituted an “organized” crime was still under debate: was it a premeditated conspiracy, a loose association of individuals, or something else entirely? When American agencies did target “the mafia” or “the Black Hand,” they typically focused on specific crimes and specific individuals rather than on mapping organizational structures. An instructive example occurred in 1911. Salvatore Clemente, recently released from prison, offered Secret Service agent William J. Flynn a full account of the Black Hand—in his usage, the Sicilian mafia—in New York. Flynn declined the broader intelligence and directed Clemente to concentrate solely on counterfeiting activities. The episode illustrates how institutional priorities of the era could leave large parts of the organizational landscape unrecorded (U.S. Secret Service correspondence, 1911).

Giosuè Gallucci of East Harlem provides a particularly clear illustration of these ambiguities. There is no surviving document that directly calls him a camorrista. Yet he was deeply embedded in the non-Sicilian network that linked Springfield, Brooklyn, New Jersey, and Harlem. His influence, his ability to mediate across those localities, and the company he kept all point toward membership, at some level, in the broader camorra milieu. Contemporary accounts sometimes referred to him incorrectly as “De Lucca,” leader of the so-called “De Lucca gang”; the misnomer is significant because it comes from a camorrista source strongly implies that Gallucci was recognized as heading an organized group.

A further historical echo appears in Marc Monnier’s mid-nineteenth-century study of the Neapolitan camorra. Under the heading “XV. – Giuseppe and Giosuè Gallucci,” Monnier reproduces a police report from 1862:

“The Gallucci brothers are in the voice of the public as the most challenged of that bunch of Camorrist scammers who were surprising the good faith and tranquility of the country owners to take possession of their parlile of wine, and therefore, on pretexts of all kinds, followed quickly by threats and violence, they refused to satisfy them. The simulated quality of wine trafficker was the means of introduction into others’ places of storage of wines, and with the intimacy of their readiness of hand, and of the particular relevance of their Camorra partnership, the distinction of the received merchandise was accomplished. Nor did the threats remain in mere words, when no one wished to persuade themselves of the solidity of their offer to want to make money by distorting others; but it often happened that the poor factors, in presenting themselves to collect the price of the wine, instead suffered beatings and violence such as to make them abandon any further pretension of the fulfillment of their rights.”

Whether the East Harlem Gallucci was related to these earlier camorristi remains unknown. When questioned by authorities he denied any connection (Warner, Richard).

A counter-reading of his American career is also possible. Gallucci’s style of power—local political influence, street mediation, and neighborhood dominance without an elaborate formal hierarchy—closely resembles the guappo system that was becoming increasingly common in the city of Napoli itself: independent local strongmen who functioned as political brokers and mediators rather than as officers of a single, tightly structured society. The two interpretations are not mutually exclusive. Gallucci may well have operated primarily as a guappo while remaining linked, through personal and commercial ties, to the larger camorra organization that existed around him. The historical reality was rarely black and white

In sum, the non-Sicilian networks of the early twentieth century formed a fluid but recognizable continuum of relationships, ranks, and geographic corridors. Some participants were formally initiated camorristi; many more occupied the lower ranks or simply moved within the same social and commercial world. The documentary silence surrounding individual titles should not be mistaken for the absence of organization. When the surviving fragments—travel patterns, letters to superiors, multi-city clearing houses, and later mafia memberships—are read together, a coherent picture of mainland Italian criminal association in America emerges, one that both paralleled and occasionally intersected with the better-documented Sicilian mafia (U.S. Secret Service reports, 1912; Notaro testimony, 1918; FBI transcripts NK 92-379).

Local Name Deviations

These various camorra groups, just as in southern Italy, adopted different names in different localities, much as certain American Families later did—even if informally, as most of these examples such as the New England Office, the Buffalo Arm, the Chicago Outfit, the Detroit Partnership, the Pittsburgh Organization, etc., were media creations. In Sicily the phenomenon appeared under multiple designations: the gardiniere/stoppaglieri of the Palermo hinterland (1876), the “Mafia” Amoroso of the Monreale–Palermo district (1876), the zubbio of Villabate (1870s), the fratuzzi of Bagheria (1883), the scattialora of Sciacca (1870s), the fratellanza of Favara (1887), and the scaglione of Castrogiovanni/Enna (1870s). On the mainland the same pattern held: the bella società riformata of Napoli, the mala vita of Bari, the Fibbia, the famiglia montelbano, and the picciotteria of Reggio Calabria. The identical practice appears in the United States. Local societies operated under names such as the Black Hand in Hillsville, the sacro circolo in Sewickley, the Red Hand of Glenwood, and the camorra società di lucre in White Plains. These designations reflected local usage rather than fundamental organizational differences (contemporary maps of 19th-century Sicilian groups; True Detective Mysteries, 1930; Racco testimony, 1908; Marra statement, 1913; Monnier, La Camorra).

Neapolitan Camorra

The Neapolitan (Campanian) camorra societies that operated in the United States left remarkably little documentary footprint. No formal written rules, membership lists, or hierarchical charters comparable to those recovered from certain Calabrian ’ndrine or early American camorra cases have surfaced. The historical record remains fragmentary—scattered court testimony, police reports, newspaper accounts, and the later recollections of informants—much as the provincial camorra in Campania itself and the Sicilian mafia have always been (Criscione 2012; Notaro testimony, 1918).

What can be pieced together suggests that the American Neapolitan camorra closely mirrored the provincial camorra of Campania rather than the more theatrical, urban stereotype long associated with the city of Napoli. In the Campanian hinterland the society was typically multi-commune in composition, embedded in local economies and commercial networks, less given to public displays of defiance or the sfregio, and more inclined to operate with organizational reserve and discipline (Criscione 2012; “The Camorra Beyond Bars, Part 2”). The same characteristics appear among the Campanian networks that took root in Brooklyn and the wider New York area, Newark, Springfield (Massachusetts), Chicago, and Pittsburgh. These societies drew members from a range of towns across the provinces of Napoli, Salerno, and Avellino rather than from single tight village clusters, maintained cross-city paesani ties, and often preferred quieter forms of influence and racketeering over open predation (Notaro testimony, 1918; DeCarlo conversations, c. 1960s).

A suggestive early link to the urban Neapolitan camorra appears in the brief American sojourn of Enrico Alfano (“Erricone”), long regarded as capintesta (capolocale in Calabrian camorra) of Napoli. Sought in connection with the 1906 Cuocolo murders, Alfano fled Italy under an assumed identity and arrived in New York on March 17, 1907, disguised as a ship’s stoker. He was received by local Neapolitan networks in Little Italy, took lodgings first at 7 Jones Street and later operated a gambling establishment in the basement of 108 Mulberry Street, and was welcomed with a banquet by associates at a Grand Street restaurant known as the Corona di Ferro. Arrested by Detective Joseph Petrosino on April 17, 1907, he was deported the following month. During the subsequent Viterbo trial (1911–1912), reports reached Secret Service authorities that funds were being raised—and in some accounts that Black Hand methods were being employed—in New York to assist the defendants. If accurate and not merely a pretext for local extortion, such activity would point to the existence of an early, city-oriented Neapolitan camorra presence in New York capable of transatlantic support. Alfano’s short American episode suggests something may have existed from Napoli, but whatever it was didn’t appear to last long or they were absorbed by the larger Campanian population (contemporary newspaper accounts of the Cuocolo trial and related American cases; U.S. Secret Service reports).

A clearer bloodline link appears in the case of Felice De Lucia, better known as Paul Ricca: he was the son of Antonio De Lucia, the documented capocamorra of San Giuseppe Vesuviano (Ottaviano) in the Terra di Lavoro, who in 1913–1914 was already arranging clandestine passages to the United States for wanted men through camorra networks (“The Camorra Beyond Bars, Part 2”). Paul Ricca would eventually become a Chicago suspected camorrista and eventual mafioso and long-serving administration member of the so-called Chicago Outfit (Criscione 2012).

Decades later, surviving members of the American mafia still recalled this earlier layer with striking clarity. In conversations recorded in the 1960s, Angelo “Ray” DeCarlo and associates repeatedly referred to “the combaneesh” (the phonetic rendering of “camorrista” picked up by FBI agents) as a distinct society to which several future mafia leaders had originally belonged. DeCarlo stated that he and others “were with the combaneesh at the time,” identifying Ruggiero “Richie” Boiardo, Vito Genovese, and “all them guys” as combaneesh before they “got sneaked in” to the mafia. Willie Moretti was likewise described as having been brought in later. Participants agreed that “the Combonish and the Mafia is the same” and that the initiation ritual was identical (DeCarlo conversations, c. 1960s; FBI transcripts NK 92-379). The men named—Boiardo (Marigliano, Napoli, Campania), Genovese (Risigliano, Napoli, Campania), DeCarlo himself (Monte San Giacomo, Salerno, Campania), and Moretti (Cassano, Cosenza, Calabria)—were all of mainland southern Italian origin, consistent with the Campanian (and adjacent) networks that had operated in New Jersey, New York, and beyond.

National Network

The American Neapolitan camorra operated as a networked system of local circles (often centered on restaurants, cafés, or neighborhood bosses) that recognized one another through shared rites, passwords, and personal ties. Senior figures could be called upon from major urban centers, particularly New York/Brooklyn and secondary nodes such as Springfield, Massachusetts, and Newark, New Jersey. Like the rigidly hierarchical Sicilian societies of the same era, the Neapolitan structure emphasized interlocking local societies bound by initiation, omertà, the flow of tribute, and the ability of leading men to dispatch associates, arbitrate disputes, or order enforcement across cities (Notaro testimony, 1918 Brooklyn Camorra trial).

Local branches maintained mutual recognition and could invoke external authority. The 1916–1918 Navy Street / Santa Lucia camorra in Brooklyn, led by Pellegrino Marano (Angri, Campania) and Alessandro Vollero (Gragnano, Campania), illustrates the pattern. Marano’s circle at the Santa Lucia Restaurant in Coney Island and Vollero’s Navy Street café functioned as a central Brooklyn hub. Members and associates moved freely between Brooklyn, Coney Island, Manhattan, Harlem (for operations against the rival Sicilian Morello faction of the Corleonese Family), and outlying points. Tony Notaro, recruited from Springfield, Massachusetts, was brought into the network for a “special job,” showing the capacity to draw manpower from distant colonies (Notaro testimony, 1918; later appellate material).

Testimony from Notaro and others (preserved in the 1918 trial records and later appellate material) reveals coordination by telephone, personal travel, and the dispatch of gunmen between localities. Meetings drew participants from multiple places; a “council of war” at the Santa Lucia decided on the luring and killing of Nicholas Morello, Charles Umbriaco, and other Sicilians. Men were held in reserve or assigned specific roles (killing, lookout, cache of weapons behind sliding panels). The network extended recognition and obligations beyond New York: Notaro’s prior ties in Springfield and the later involvement of figures from other cities demonstrate inter-city reach (Notaro testimony, 1918).

Springfield, Massachusetts, served as an important secondary node under Carlo Siniscalchi (of Squindici, Avellino, Campania). Known as the “King of Little Italy,” Siniscalchi headed the local Neapolitan camorra circle and maintained connections that allowed men like Notaro to be summoned or to seek refuge/work in the New York orbit. Newark, New Jersey, formed another linked outpost. Frank “Chichi” Mazzocchi and, later, Richard Boiardi operated within this broader Neapolitan camorra network, facilitating movement of men and influence between New Jersey and the New York metropolitan area (Notaro testimony, 1918; DeCarlo conversations, c. 1960s).

There is no clear documentary evidence of a single titular supreme leader equivalent to a Sicilian capo dei capi. Senior figures such as Marano in Brooklyn exercised de facto regional authority over nearby circles and could call upon or be called upon by associates in Springfield, Newark, and elsewhere. The system relied on personal prestige, proven loyalty, and the shared code rather than a formal national office. Higher-level intervention occurred when serious internal or external threats arose—most dramatically in the decision to wage open war on the Morello faction—showing the same multi-city arbitration and enforcement capacity seen in other Italian secret societies of the period (Notaro testimony, 1918).

Formalities, Oaths, Meetings, and Internal Discipline

Meetings and initiations followed set protocols that bound members across localities. Notaro’s 1918 testimony (the only detailed public account of camorra initiation rites introduced in an American court) describes the ceremony held at the house of “Piccino” (John Mancini) after Easter 1916. Participants included Marano, Tony Paretti (“Tony the Shoemaker”), Alessandro Vollero, Leopoldo Lauritano, Vincenzo Paragallo, Andrea Ricci, Lorenzo Romano, and others. The candidate was brought into a room, asked if he consented to become a camorrista, and instructed in the rules: absolute respect for the bosses, silence even under arrest, readiness to kill or be killed on order, and the formula that “in whatever town you might find yourself—Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Buffalo—in any town, simply mention my name and you will be respected” (Notaro testimony, 1918).

The physical rite involved a small penknife. Paretti (or another) nicked the initiate’s arm; a little blood was drawn and sucked; the candidate was told he had “gained” membership. Parallel accounts in the trial record emphasize the binding power of the blood oath and the threat that betrayal meant death. The same ceremony, or close variants, was understood to be recognized by camorristi elsewhere, creating portable membership (Notaro testimony, 1918).

Internal discipline was enforced by the leaders and by the society. Notaro was coerced into the Morello murder plot under threat of death if he refused after having taken the title. Refusal to obey, suspected informing, or failure to appear when ordered led to immediate pressure. Economic extraction reinforced the structure: initiates paid fees or assessments; ongoing contributions from rackets (gambling, narcotics, artichoke market control, coal and ice dealer extortion) moved upward. Weapons were cached for collective use; lookouts and reserves were posted. When the Morello–Umbriaco killings were carried out on September 7, 1916, the operation followed the pre-arranged plan, with Notaro and others participating under direct orders from Marano and Vollero (Notaro testimony, 1918; later appellate material).

After the murders, the network’s cohesion was tested by police pressure and the eventual decision of Notaro (and others) to testify. The trial record shows the camorra’s internal justice system giving way under external threat: Notaro, facing the electric chair, detailed the rites, the plot, and the hierarchy. Marano was convicted; the Navy Street Gang as an entity was rendered defunct but more on that in another article. The underlying pattern—local circles linked by shared initiation, portable recognition, contributions that moved upward, and the ability of senior bosses to summon men from other cities—persisted in residual form in places such as Springfield under Siniscalchi and in the Newark circle around Mazzocchi and later Boiardi (Notaro testimony, 1918; DeCarlo conversations, c. 1960s).

Limits of the Documentary Record

It is important to remember that we do not possess a complete picture of the Neapolitan camorra’s internal organization. The 1918 Brooklyn trial was focused almost exclusively on the murders of Nicholas “Morello” Terranova and Charles Umbriaco. When questioning touched on the broader structure or membership of the camorra, defense counsel frequently objected, and the court often sustained those objections or limited the scope of inquiry. Witnesses and defendants alike tended to answer only what was strictly required; responses such as “Yes, sir,” “I don’t know,” “I don’t remember,” or brief factual confirmations dominate the transcript. Tony Notaro, the principal cooperating witness, supplied detailed information about the initiation rite and the murder plot but was not pressed—or was prevented from expanding—on the full hierarchy, officer titles, or day-to-day governance of the society (1918 Brooklyn Camorra trial transcripts).

But not for nothing, that same pattern also appears in early mafia prosecutions. The 1910 Morello–Lupo counterfeiting trial and the 1921 Castellammarese “Good Killers” trial, for example, produced almost no testimony about formal ranks or initiation, yet no serious historian doubts that hierarchical structures existed in those societies. It is therefore possible that the Navy Street / Santa Lucia camorra network possessed a more developed internal organization—closer to the ranked systems documented in Campania itself or among the American Calabrian societies—than the murder-focused 1918 record reveals. But it needs to be said, on paper the Campanian camorra appears far less structured than its Calabrian counterpart; whether that appearance reflects reality or simply the narrow lens of the trial remains an open question (Criscione 2012; comparative trial records).

A counter-reading is also possible. The relative scarcity of formal ranks, written codes, and elaborate ceremonial hierarchy in the American Neapolitan record may itself be historically significant. It may represent an early stage in the evolution away from the classic blood-oath, freemasonry-style secret society toward the more fluid, entrepreneurial, and less ritualized forms that characterize much of the modern Neapolitan camorra. In this view, the Campanian societies were already beginning to outgrow the need for rigid hierarchical Carbonari, favoring instead personal networks, commercial infiltration, and pragmatic power—traits that would later become hallmarks of the camorra in Campania itself (Criscione 2012).

This interpretive difficulty is especially pronounced in the case of Pellegrino Marano’s Brooklyn society. It has long puzzled researchers precisely because it shares so little with the classical literature on the society or with the detailed picture that emerged from the 1911 Viterbo trial. The near-absence of the familiar ranked terminology and ceremonial apparatus may reflect the fact that Marano and most of his associates came from the Campanian hinterland rather than from the city of Napoli itself. At the same time, evidence from Campania shows that the traditional giovanni–picciotto–camorrista hierarchy continued to function in parts of the region into the 1920s, until Mussolini’s campaign effectively dismantled the camorra in Campania. The American record of Marano’s society may therefore capture either a hinterland variant that had already loosened its formal bonds or an early transitional form on the way toward the less ritualized camorra of later decades (Criscione 2012; Monnier, La Camorra).

Calabrian Camorra

In contrast to their Campanian counterparts, the Calabrian camorra societies that operated in the United States left a clearer documentary footprint. Formal ranks, hierarchical titles, entry procedures, internal signals, and explicit references to leadership ties that stretched back to Italy appear in contemporary court testimony and statements. The most important of these are the 1908 Hillsville Black Hand case testimony of Rocco Racco and the March 20, 1913 statement of Salvatore Marra in White Plains, both of which describe ranked structures distinguishing camorristi from lower grades and named officers such as Master, Treasurer, and Secretary (Rocco Racco testimony, 1908 Hillsville Black Hand case; Statement of Salvatore Marra, Westchester County Jail, March 20, 1913).

What can be pieced together suggests that the American Calabrian camorra displayed the features seen with that in Italy and later associated with the modern ’ndrangheta. Societies tended to form tight ’ndrina-style clusters based on town or district of origin, maintained strong multi-city paesani networks, and combined predatory “Black Hand” activity with more durable local control. These networks took root earliest and most densely in New York (especially the Mulberry Street district), the Pittsburgh–Braddock–Hillsville corridor, Chicago Heights, White Plains, and the Pennsylvania mining and industrial regions, with secondary extensions into Cleveland, St. Paul (Minnesota), and later Canadian cities such as Toronto which had a Calabrian camorra presence on York Street since the 1890s. The White Plains society in particular maintained documented links not only to other American locales but also to Buenos Aires, reflecting the same far-reaching paesani and organizational webs that characterized the early Calabrian camorra on both sides of the Atlantic. Migrants from localities that would later form the core of the mandamento ionico and mandamento tirrenico concentrated in distinct American pockets, producing an overseas map that in important respects anticipated the territorial mandamenti formalized in Calabria after the Second ’Ndrangheta War. In short, the towns that would constitute the mandamento ionico went to Hillsville while what became tirrenico went to White Plains (Rocco Racco testimony, 1908; Statement of Salvatore Marra, 1913; True Detective Mysteries, 1930).

A number of early Calabrian camorristi and leading figures eventually crossed into the American mafia, just as certain Campanian camorristi did. The same pattern of selective induction at the leadership level appears among Calabrians such as Ferdinando Mauro of Sambiase in Pittsburgh, Frank Yale in Brooklyn, Domenic Roberto in Chicago Heights, and Frank Milano in Cleveland. These men operated for a time within recognizably Calabrian camorra structures before being formally brought into Sicilian-led or mixed families, reinforcing the picture of two mainland branches that still regarded themselves as part of one broader society even while their internal styles continued to diverge (Gentile, Vita di Capomafia; DeCarlo conversations, c. 1960s).

Pittsburgh and Chicago Heights remained closely intertwined with Sambiase (now Lamezia Terme). During the 1890s crackdown on the Sambiase camorra, many members, including its boss Raffaele Amendola, fled to America. It is very likely that most of those who left Sambiase settled in Pittsburgh and Chicago Heights under aliases. The 1910 census shows Ferdinando Mauro living as a roomer with a fifty-year-old “Ralph Alberte” (I have a nagging suspicion that this could be Raffaele Amendola of Sambiase but this has yet to be confirmed) in a Pittsburgh household; James Colosimo’s relative Michael lived nearby on the same street. Mauro was first identified as the local boss in 1912. By the 1920 census, Domenick Volpe—long recognized as one of Mauro’s closest confidants—was living with him as a roomer, raising the possibility that this could symbolize that Mauro had succeeded Alberte/Amendola in the leadership of the Pittsburgh society. One of the earlier traits of the Calabrian camorra was its bosses ability to provide room and board to their immediate underlings. Following Mauro’s death in 1926, the Ruberto family of Sambiase arrived in America, according to their grandson Matt Luzzi, intending to “take over” Pittsburgh but ultimately opting for Chicago Heights. These successive migrations and internal successions underscore that the American Calabrian camorra remained tightly linked to its towns of origin (1910 and 1920 U.S. Census records; contemporary investigative reports).

National Network

The society functioned through linked local branches or circles that recognized one another and could summon external authority. The 1930 Code published in True Detective Mysteries provides detailed recognition dialogues (“Saluta,” exchanges establishing whether a man is a camorrista or a lower-ranking desgaros (picciotti di sgarro), palm-scratching handshakes, and kisses) and rules for a stranger camorrista arriving in a new locality, including investigation of his standing and temporary reservation of rights (True Detective Mysteries, October/November 1930).

Salvatore Marra, a camorrista informant who gave a detailed statement in Westchester County Jail in 1913, illustrates this network in operation around New York. Members and leaders moved freely between White Plains, Port Chester, New York City, Brooklyn, Fishkill Landing, and Mineola. Frank “Ciccio” Filastro (described as the “First Brigand of Italy” and a cousin of the Brigand Musolino) exercised jurisdiction from New York. Meetings drew participants from multiple places; telephone coordination occurred across towns; and men were sent from one locality to another for enforcement or investigation. Marra explicitly placed the White Plains society “under the jurisdiction of Ciccio Filastro in New York,” which could strongly imply there was a locale in Little Italy in Lower Manhattan that white plains was a ‘ndrina to. (Salvatore Marra statement, Westchester County Jail, March 20, 1913).

The Hillsville record supplies a parallel example of higher-level intervention. When Rocco Racco faced serious internal accusations (including adultery and siding with quarry owners), leaders from other cities, including as far as New York, were brought to Hillsville to sit on a formal Society tribunal that judged him, sentenced him to death under organizational rules, and ultimately removed him from leadership after payments were made. This demonstrates the same capacity for multi-city arbitration described in the Code and observed in the Westchester testimony (Rocco Racco testimony, 1908).

Ferdinando Mauro, operating from his coffee store at 97 Washington Place in 1912 and at 80 Elm Street in 1923 in the Pittsburgh Hill District, was identified in contemporary investigative reports as the “head stick” (capobastone) and overall boss of the Pittsburgh Black Hand society. These reports describe Mauro as holding clear superiority over the leaders of surrounding local area, including Nick Zumbo (Montebello Ionico, Reggio Calabria) in Glenwood, Giacinto De Caro (Vazzano, Vibo Valentia, Calabria) in Braddock, and Jim Bestiana in Turtle Creek. The hierarchical relationship positioned Mauro’s Pittsburgh circle as the central authority to which these outlying branches deferred, consistent with the broader pattern of multi-locality coordination in which a dominant urban center exercised oversight and influence over nearby towns (contemporary investigative reports; Commonwealth v. Fragassa, 278 Pa. 1 (1923); Commonwealth v. Daniele, 278 Pa. 8 (1923)).

In Commonwealth v. Fragassa and the related Commonwealth v. Daniele (both decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on June 23, 1923), evidence established that the Black Hand Society maintained headquarters at No. 80 Elm Street, Pittsburgh, in the coffee store of Ferdinando Mauro, identified in 1912 as the black hand boss and again a decade later in 1923 as the black hand boss. Marcantonio Daniele served as a local leader of the Canonsburg branch, while Angelo Fragassa was a member. Mail addressed to Daniele was received at Mauro’s Pittsburgh store, demonstrating ongoing connection between the local society and the state headquarters. Witnesses described a secret code, including the word “Caragno” as a command to kill a person who had incurred the enmity of the society, accompanied by outward signs of obedience such as bowing and kissing the leader’s hand. The courts accepted evidence that the society’s objects included unlawful killing, and that membership and its obligations were presumed to continue unless proven otherwise (Commonwealth v. Fragassa, 278 Pa. 1 (1923); Commonwealth v. Daniele, 278 Pa. 8 (1923)).

Like the Neapolitan camorra, there is no surviving evidence of a titular supreme leader equivalent to the Sicilian capo dei capi or the later ’ndrangheta capo crimine. Given that the Sicilians did maintain a capo dei capi position in this same period, it remains possible that the American Calabrian (and broader camorra) networks recognized a comparable figure. In the Racco transcripts the name Giuseppe Alviro surfaces as the “leader of all the societies in Italy and of one here.” “Alviro” is almost certainly a misspelling of Alvaro; the Alvaros originated in Sinopoli (Reggio Calabria) on the Ionian side of the region and belonged to the same cluster of towns that supplied much of the northwestern Pennsylvania / eastern Ohio Calabrian demographic (Warner, Richard). It is possible that this Alvaro functioned as an early capo mandamento on the Ionian coast who later moved to the United States and helped found a new branch. The most plausible candidates for any comparable American office on the available record would otherwise be Frank Filastro and later perhaps Frank Yale of New York. If such a position existed, however, the information did not survive in coherent form in the documentary record, and any further discussion remains speculative (Rocco Racco testimony, 1908).

Formalities, Oaths, Meetings, and Internal Discipline

Meetings followed set protocols. The 1930 Code prescribes passwords, seating arrangements, the crossing of arms, and formal opening and closing formulas. Marra described meetings held under a great tree in the woods or at private houses (female camorrista Marie Fideli’s and Charlie Bombara’s). Entry required repeated requests for permission to advance. Oaths were sworn on five knives, on blood, bones, and skin, with the formula that “Who talks dies.” Members pricked their wrists and sucked the blood. Marra stated he had taken such an oath seven or eight times (Salvatore Marra statement, 1913; True Detective Mysteries, 1930).

The Code and Marra’s account both detail methods for selecting men to carry out killings (including a finger-throwing lottery) and for enforcing silence. Serious violations were handled by internal tribunals or by direct orders from leaders. In Hillsville the tribunal system was used against Racco himself. In Westchester, refusal to pay, suspected informing, or failure to obey led to shootings, dynamiting, poisoning, and planned hangings. Economic extraction was systematic: forced initiation fees or assessments of $50 or $100, ongoing payments framed as protection, and the delivery of proceeds to leaders and the common fund (analogous to the Baciletta/treasury in the Code). The Pennsylvania cases reinforce this picture by documenting the use of coded killing orders (“Caragno”) and formal gestures of submission to authority within the same organizational framework (Commonwealth v. Fragassa, 1923; Commonwealth v. Daniele, 1923).

Taken together, the sources depict an American Calabrian camorra that operated as an enduring network of linked societies rather than isolated local sects. Local circles maintained the ability to recognize members from other places through standardized signals and dialogues. Senior figures in major centers—New York in the Westchester and Hillsville examples, Pittsburgh as state headquarters in the 1923 Pennsylvania cases—could be called upon to mediate disputes, issue commands, enforce discipline, or oversee operations.

Coordination occurred through travel, telephone, mail directed to central locations such as Mauro’s Elm Street store, and the movement of men between towns. Leadership was exercised both locally and across localities: figures in New York or Pittsburgh held overarching or state-level jurisdiction, while local officers managed day-to-day affairs and deferred upward when serious matters arose. The economic core—the collection and upward movement of funds—reinforced these ties, as proceeds and obligations linked branches to one another. Internal justice through tribunals, coded orders, oaths, and enforced silence preserved cohesion across the network.

The 1930 True Detective Mysteries Code supplies the formal rulebook for recognition, meetings, and inter-branch relations; Salvatore Marra’s 1913 statement and the Hillsville trial testimony show those mechanisms functioning in the New York metropolitan area and western Pennsylvania in the 1900s–1910s; and the 1923 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions in Commonwealth v. Fragassa and Commonwealth v. Daniele document the continued existence of a state headquarters in Pittsburgh and the operational use of secret commands and hierarchical obedience into the early 1920s. The result was a system of local self-government combined with effective inter-city and state-level coordination under a shared Calabrian camorra framework.

Geographic Distribution

The principal documented hubs of both Neapolitan and Calabrian camorra activity were concentrated in the industrial Northeast and Midwest. For the Neapolitan networks the core eastern centers were Brooklyn/Coney Island (Marano–Vollero axis) and Manhattan, with strong secondary nodes in Springfield, Massachusetts (Siniscalchi), and Newark, New Jersey (Mazzocchi–Boiardi). From these points the network reached into Westchester, parts of Long Island, and other industrial towns with Campanian colonies. Coordination relied on personal travel, telephone, and the dispatch of trusted men rather than a single rigid headquarters (Notaro testimony, 1918).

Calabrian activity clustered most densely around New York (especially the Mulberry Street district), the Pittsburgh–Braddock–Hillsville corridor, Chicago Heights, White Plains, and the wider Pennsylvania mining and industrial regions, with secondary extensions into Cleveland, St. Paul (Minnesota), and Canadian cities such as Toronto. Pittsburgh functioned as a particularly important state-level center under Ferdinando Mauro, exercising influence westward to Youngstown, Ohio; eastward at least as far as Johnstown; and southward into West Virginia (Fairmont, Clarksburg). Boston served as a New England hub with reach into Worcester, Bridgeport, and Providence (Rocco Racco testimony, 1908; Statement of Salvatore Marra, 1913; Commonwealth v. Fragassa, 1923).

New York, Chicago, and Pittsburgh stood out as the most heterogeneous of these centers. In each city, groups from various regions of southern Italy—Campanian, Calabrian, and Sicilian—operated in close physical and commercial confines, sharing neighborhoods, docks, cafés, and rackets. This proximity produced both pragmatic cooperation and a few cases of open conflict that periodically erupted, most dramatically the 1916 “Mafia–Camorra War.”

This map and description are by no means complete. The camorra was sufficiently widespread that a presence in places such as Seattle, Washington; Reno, Nevada; Northern California; Los Angeles; Dallas; and other cities remains plausible. Beyond the better-documented centers, however, the information becomes too thin for reliable reconstruction. A contemporary map of Black Hand murders and kidnappings across the United States (covering roughly the five years preceding its publication) offers one possible, if imperfect, guide to the wider footprint. If the densest clusters of such crimes are taken as potential indicators of organized camorra activity rather than purely opportunistic Black Hand enterprises, the distribution points to sustained presence not only in the well-attested Northeast and Midwest hubs but also in California (San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California), the Pacific Northwest (Washington and Oregon), Colorado, Louisiana (especially the New Orleans vicinity), parts of Texas, Florida, and scattered localities across the industrial Midwest and upper South. Further speculation on these more distant points serves little purpose until additional documentary evidence is obtained (Lombardo 2010; contemporary Black Hand maps).

Neapolitan vs the Calabrian Camorra

Overlap nevertheless persisted even as the societies remained largely homogeneous by regional origin. Al Capone of Angri, Campania, got his start under Frank Yale of Longobucco, Calabria, before transferring to Chicago under James Colosimo of Colosimi, Calabria. The Volpes of Agropoli, Salerno, were linked to the Calabrian networks in Pittsburgh and West Virginia. Frank Amato of Roccarainola, Campania, first appeared in Toronto under camorra boss Giuseppe Musolino of San Roberto, Reggio on York Street, before moving to Braddock, PA where he operated under Vazzanese capo società Giacinto De Carlo. A further example appears in the Pennsylvania–Cleveland “Society of the Banana,” composed of Sicilian mafiosi from Trabia who nevertheless functioned in practice as a camorra and possessed their own camorra documents—documents that proved identical to those confiscated from the Sacro Circolo (Sacred Circle) camorra society in Sewickley. These connections show that, despite the predominant clustering by regional origin, the Neapolitan and Calabrian networks (and, in this case, even certain Sicilian societies operating under camorra forms) were still regarded as parts of one larger society (contemporary accounts; Racco testimony, 1908).

The practical mechanism that allowed this Calabrian–Neapolitan co-existence was hierarchical rather than coercive. Each ‘ndrina or ‘ndrine, or group of related factions, maintained its own society each headed by a capobastone; among those societies a capolocale from one of the capobastoni was elected to serve a coordinating, essentially political function. The capolocale did not dominate or subjugate the other societies. One cannot usefully compare the capolocale and the capobastoni to the Sicilian mafie bosses-to-capodecina relationship.

The networks were not rigidly closed. Occasional members from outside their core areas were admitted, underscoring that the two still functioned as branches of a single broader society even as their internal practices began to diverge. The Navy Street society in Brooklyn, for example, included the Sicilian Castellammarese Salvatore Costa as a camorrista. In Pittsburgh, camorra “state leader” Ferdinando Mauro numbered among his associates Benedetto Pastorelli of Lucoli (Frosinone, formerly part of Terra di Lavoro); after his release from prison Pastorelli relocated to Chicago and worked under the alleged camorrista and Chicago mafia rappresentante Antonio Lombardo. These cross-regional admissions suggest that entry into a Campanian branch or a Calabrian one may not have been identical. Contemporary accounts and later recollections indicate that both Neapolitan and Calabrian societies employed blood oaths involving a knife and the drawing of blood, though the settings and additional ceremonial details could differ. Such differences in ritual, though secondary to the shared identity of the society, further illustrate the gradual evolutionary divergence already under way (Notaro testimony, 1918; Statement of Salvatore Marra, 1913).

This pattern of shared identity alongside local variation finds a close parallel in the Sicilian mafia itself. Not every American family conducted formal initiation ceremonies in identical fashion or with the same frequency; under Castellammarese “traditionalist” Joseph Bonanno, for instance, the Bonanno family apparently dispensed with them for many decades. Regional differences among mafiosi were likewise common, with each family developing its own local idiosyncrasies shaped by the environment in which it operated—whether New York, Chicago, or smaller cities—while remaining recognizably part of the larger society. The early American camorra followed a similar operandi: Neapolitan and Calabrian branches could differ in ritual detail, recruitment style, and day-to-day practice yet still regard themselves, and be regarded by others, as components of one broader structure. The picture that emerges is therefore neither neat nor uniform. Like the mafia as it evolved on both sides of the Atlantic, the camorra in the United States accommodated internal diversity without dissolving the sense of common affiliation.

Comparison

The clearest contrasts between the two American camorra networks appear in hierarchy, coordination, and cultural self-presentation.

Calabrian societies in Hillsville and White Plains were documented to be operating with an explicit, multi-tiered rank system. Testimony describes a clear distinction between full camorristi and lower-grade members (picciotti), named officers (Master, Secretary, Treasurer, Assistant), and formal mechanisms of authority. In White Plains, Eduardo Buetti and Rafael Bova held leading posts while Charlie Bombara served as Treasurer and Rocco Pellegrino as the Assistant (camorrista di giornata) who in 50 years time would be named by Valachi as a Genovese capodecina; in the broader Pittsburgh orbit, Ferdinando Mauro was recognized as “state leader” with superiority over local leaders in Canonsburg, Glenwood, Braddock, and Turtle Creek. Internal discipline followed structured procedures: tribunals, coded orders (“Caragno”), and collective selection of enforcers. Calabrians carried out mass extortion and forced people to join; it was said that the entire Hillsville male Calabrian population was affiliated by want or by force (Rocco Racco testimony, 1908; Statement of Salvatore Marra, 1913; Commonwealth v. Fragassa, 1923).

Neapolitan societies centered on Navy Street and Coney Island present a flatter picture in the surviving record. Leadership appears to have rested on the personal prestige of individual bosses—Pellegrino Marano at the Santa Lucia Restaurant and Alessandro Vollero at the Navy Street café—rather than on a formal table of ranks and officers. Tony Notaro’s 1918 testimony and the trial record portray Marano as the decisive authority who could order initiations, assign roles in the murder plot, and convene “councils of war,” but they do not describe an elaborate internal bureaucracy of titled positions comparable to the Calabrian system. Neapolitans did not force people to join by the existing evidence; in fact the New York Neapolitan camorra seems almost anemic in their membership (Notaro testimony, 1918).

Both networks could move men and orders between cities, yet the mechanisms visible in the sources differ. Calabrian coordination relied on recognized jurisdictional superiority and formal inter-branch protocols: Marra placed White Plains under Ciccio Filastro’s New York authority; New York leaders traveled to Hillsville for a Society tribunal; mail and men moved through Mauro’s Pittsburgh headquarters. Neapolitan coordination, as preserved in the record, was more portable and personal. Membership itself functioned as a traveling credential, allowing men to be summoned from Springfield, Massachusetts, or held in reserve across the metropolitan area (Statement of Salvatore Marra, 1913; Notaro testimony, 1918).

In short, the available evidence shows the Calabrian camorra operating with a more articulated rank structure, jurisdictional map, and formal self-presentation, while the Neapolitan Camorra of Navy Street and Coney Island appears, on the existing record, to have functioned through charismatic local bosses, portable personal authority, and a more fluid, urban cultural style. The disparity may be real, or it may be an artifact of what the 1918 murder trial was permitted to explore. The facts on paper favor the former reading; the limitations of the record leave room for the latter.

Conclusion

The American evidence captures both societies at a specific evolutionary stage: formal enough to maintain ranks, oaths, multi-city coordination, and recognizable leadership titles, yet still expansive, coercive in recruitment, and regionally distinct. The Calabrian networks already displayed many of the structural features—’ndrina-style local clustering, multi-city webs, formal codes, and hierarchical officers—that would characterize the postwar ’ndrangheta. The Neapolitan networks, lighter on written rules and ceremonial display, more multi-commune in composition, and more focused on quiet economic infiltration, anticipated the adaptive, less centralized character of much of the later Campanian camorra and facilitated the eventual absorption of many of their leading men into American mafia families (Rocco Racco testimony, 1908; Statement of Salvatore Marra, 1913; Notaro testimony, 1918; Criscione 2012).

Far from being isolated immigrant street gangs, both the Neapolitan and Calabrian Camorra in the United States operated as enduring, linked societies capable of local self-government and inter-city coordination under a shared, if already diverging, mainland code. The American record therefore supplies not only a missing chapter in the history of early Italian-American organized crime, but also a preview of the cross-regional accommodations, selective inductions, and evolutionary paths that Italian justice witnesses would describe decades later (Gentile, Vita di Capomafia; Messina 1992; Pennino 1994–; DeCarlo conversations, c. 1960s).

Looking ahead, the patterns visible in these early American colonies—portable recognition across distant cities, the gradual hardening of town-of-origin clusters into territorial units, and the selective elevation of mainland leaders into larger Sicilian-led structures—foreshadow the later formalization of the ’ndrangheta’s mandamenti system, its capacity for global projection through kinship and ’ndrina networks, and the more fluid, commercially oriented forms that came to dominate the Campanian camorra after the Second World War. The experience of these groups in the United States between the 1880s and the 1920s therefore offers an early working model of organizational methods that would later be refined in Italy and carried outward once again.

Works Cited

· Criscione, Gianni. Works on the provincial camorra of Terra di Lavoro and related archival studies (various publications, 2012–).

· DeCarlo, Angelo “Ray,” et al. FBI transcripts of conversations (c. 1960s), file NK 92-379.

· DeRose, Tony

· Gentile, Nicola. Vita di Capomafia.

· Lombardo, Robert M. The Black Hand: Terror by Letter in Chicago. University of Illinois Press, 2010.

· Marra, Salvatore. Statement, Westchester County Jail, March 20, 1913.

· Messina, Leonardo. Testimony before the Parliamentary Antimafia Commission, 1992.

· Monnier, Marc. La Camorra.

· Nelli, Humbert S. The Business of Crime: Italians and Syndicate Crime in the United States. Oxford University Press, 1976.

· Pennino, Gaspare. Judicial depositions, 1994–.

· Pitkin, Thomas M., and Francesco Cordasco. The Black Hand: A Chapter in Ethnic Crime. Littlefield, Adams, 1977.

· Racco, Rocco. Testimony in the Hillsville Black Hand case, 1908.

· Stonefelt, Eric.

· True Detective Mysteries. “The Camorra Code,” October/November 1930.

· U.S. Secret Service reports on the Cleveland counterfeiting investigation involving Domenico Barletta et al., September–October 1912.

· Warner, Richard.

· Additional primary materials: 1910 and 1920 U.S. Census records (Pittsburgh); contemporary newspaper accounts of the Cuocolo trial and related American cases; informant statements regarding the Sabella organization in Philadelphia (1920s); FBI reports on the Calabrian Faction of the Philadelphia Family (1960s); contemporary maps and listings of 19th-century Sicilian groups; 1918 Brooklyn Camorra trial transcripts.

In the 1960s and 1970s the Italian state used soggiorno obbligato (obligatory residence) to force suspected members of cosa nostra, the camorra, and the ’ndrangheta (the latter two having evolved into two distinct organizations by this point) out of their southern strongholds and into towns across northern and central Italy. The policy rested on the belief that a mafioso removed from his native environment would become nearly harmless. The result was the opposite: the measure helped transplant organized crime into regions that had previously been largely free of it (Parliamentary Antimafia Commission 1976; Buonanno and Pazzona 2014).

A similar process of transplantation had already taken place a century earlier in the United States. Between the 1850s and 1900, successive waves of southern Italian immigrants—Sicilians, Neapolitans (Campanians), and Calabrians—carried individuals and networks from the same regions into American cities. Chain migration supplied the pathways along which early mafia and camorra groups later took root.

The American experience offers an earlier laboratory of the same dynamics of movement, adaptation, and multi-regional presence. The sections that follow examine that history, beginning with Sicilian settlement in New Orleans and continuing through the arrivals of Neapolitans and Calabrians in the period 1830–1900.

As we will see, several developments that later occurred in Italy during the 1970s—most notably the formal induction of leading Calabrian bosses into cosa nostra and the presence of Messinese ’ndranghetisti—had already been noted in America half a century earlier. In important respects, the American experience served as a precursor, and almost a prophecy, of how these organizations would later function and evolve in Italy itself.

Alien Conspiracy Theory vs. The Ethnic Succession Theory

Alien Conspiracy Theory

There exist two popular theories debated by academics. This first perspective treats the mafia as a foreign import—a hierarchical, secretive criminal organization that originated in Sicily (or southern Italy more broadly) and was transplanted to the United States by Italian immigrants. It portrays the American mafia as a centralized, nationwide conspiracy that operates outside and against American society, with strong continuity to Old World structures, rituals, and codes of silence. Proponents historically emphasized events such as the 1890–1891 New Orleans troubles, Prohibition-era activities, the 1950–1951 Kefauver Committee hearings, the 1957 Apalachin meeting, and Joseph Valachi’s 1963 testimony as evidence of a sinister alien force infiltrating legitimate institutions (Dwight C. Smith, “Mafia: The Prototypical Alien Conspiracy,” 1976). The theory gained official traction in mid-20th-century government reports and popular media; critics note that it often carries nativist or xenophobic overtones, downplays non-Italian participation in organized crime, and attributes American social problems to external “aliens” rather than domestic conditions.

Ethnic Succession Theory

In contrast, this view—advanced by sociologists such as Daniel Bell in the 1950s and later elaborated by Francis A. J. Ianni—argues that organized crime is primarily an indigenous American phenomenon rather than a foreign conspiracy. It functions as a “queer ladder of social mobility” for successive waves of immigrant or minority groups who face blocked legitimate opportunities. Earlier groups (Irish in the late 19th century, then Jewish, then Italian/Sicilian) dominated certain criminal rackets and then largely moved into legitimate enterprise as they assimilated, creating openings for the next groups. The Italian-American mafia is thus seen as one stage in a recurring cycle driven by American urban social structure, strain theory, and opportunity rather than by an imported secret society. This perspective highlights inter-ethnic collaboration, local adaptations, and the temporary nature of any single group’s dominance.

In short, the alien conspiracy theory stresses foreign origins, cultural continuity, and a unique Italian threat, while the ethnic succession theory stresses American social conditions, sequential group mobility, and organized crime as a recurring adaptation by successive outsiders. Both have influenced law-enforcement policy, popular culture, and academic debate; later scholarship often critiques each for oversimplification while recognizing elements of truth in both.

Chain Migration, Village Networks, and Cross-City Connections

Southern Italian immigration to the United States was organized overwhelmingly by chain migration. Once a few pioneers from a given town or village established themselves in an American city, they sent letters, money, and information home; relatives, neighbors, and paesani followed, often settling on the same streets or in the same boarding houses. Over time these village-based clusters formed dense, self-reinforcing colonies inside larger “Little Italies.”

Crucially, the chains did not stop at a single destination. The same town frequently sent migrants to several American cities at once. People from Corleone, for example, established enduring subnetworks in New York (especially the Lower East Side and later East Harlem), New Orleans, Chicago, Los Angeles, and parts of Texas and the Midwest. Similar multi-city webs linked migrants from Ustica, Termini Imerese, Sciacca, Castellammare del Golfo, Altavilla Milicia, and hundreds of other Sicilian localities.

The same mechanisms that allowed a Corleonese fruit vendor in New Orleans to stay linked to relatives in New York or Chicago also allowed early mafiosi to maintain operational reach across distant cities. The same pattern held for Campania and Calabria. A camorrista from Sambiase (now Lamezia Terme) typically maintained ties across New England, New York, Pittsburgh, and Chicago Heights. Someone from the Campania provinces commonly kept connections linking Brooklyn, Springfield (Massachusetts), Newark, Pittsburgh, and Chicago. This architecture of chain migration and cross-city paesani networks is the essential background against which the American transplantation of southern Italian organized crime must be understood.

Sicilians

While the Sicilian mafia is not yet the main focus of this project, it remains a peripheral presence because Sicilians arrived and established themselves in America first. It was in the United States that Sicilians, Neapolitans, and Calabrians first encountered one another in large numbers outside the confines of the Bourbon prison system in Southern Italy.

Sicilian immigration to New Orleans began in the 1830s with the arrival of citrus merchants, especially those trading lemons from Palermo. These traders established houses along Decatur Street and in the French Quarter, capitalizing on New Orleans’ position as a Mississippi Valley gateway. Lemons, shipped green and improving over long voyages, supplied cooking, beverages, and citric acid needs. The citrus fleet also carried passengers, forming the early community core. Emigration from Ustica and nearby areas started around the same time. By the 1840s Italians (predominantly Sicilian) were active as fruit vendors. The Società Italiana di Mutua Beneficenza was founded in 1843. Census figures recorded about 915 Italians in the city by 1850 (roughly 97 percent Sicilian) and 896 Italian-born residents in Orleans Parish in 1860. Families were established before the Civil War closed the port.

A largely overlooked piece of this early history is the citrus trade that linked Palermo with New Orleans and Buenos Aires, Argentina. Beginning in the 1830s, the surge in global demand for lemons—driven by their proven value against scurvy—turned northwestern Sicily’s citrus groves into highly profitable enterprises in which the mafia already had interests. The same networks that protected and exported Sicilian lemons thus underpinned both the early mafia’s economic base in Sicily and the initial Sicilian foothold in America and Buenos Aires.

After the Civil War, labor shortages on sugar plantations prompted recruitment through existing citrus networks. Sicilian merchants and padroni organized the movement of workers facing economic hardship, high taxes, and the disruptions of Italian unification. Louisiana’s Italian population reached about 1,884 in 1870, nearly all Sicilian. Steamship service expanded, and by the mid-1870s parts of the lower French Quarter were called Little Palermo. Sicilians dominated fruit stalls in the French Market, dock labor, and later import businesses extending to Central American produce. Most came from northwestern Sicily (Palermo area, Ustica, Corleone, Contessa Entellina, Cefalù). Many worked seasonally on plantations before shifting to urban trades. Mutual-aid societies, including the San Bartolomeo Society (Ustica, 1879), provided support. Sicilians comprised about 90 percent of Italian arrivals at New Orleans.

A pivotal and violent episode occurred in 1890–1891. On October 15, 1890, Police Chief David Hennessy was ambushed and fatally shot near his home. Contemporary accounts reported that he identified his attackers with an anti-Italian slur. Authorities arrested large numbers of Italian (mostly Sicilian) immigrants; nineteen men were eventually indicted in connection with the murder. The case unfolded against a backdrop of rivalry between Sicilian stevedore and fruit-handling groups associated with the Matranga and Provenzano factions over dock contracts, as well as broader nativist prejudice that often labeled Italian organizations as “mafia.” Local newspapers heavily promoted the mafia narrative.

Source: “The Parish Prison, Where the Accused Assassins Are Confined” and portraits of David C. Hennessy and the “Supposed Leaders and Instruments of ‘The Mafia.’” Harper’s Weekly, 1891. Image courtesy of The Historic New Orleans Collection, via The Mob Museum. https://themobmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/1891HennessyCase-Harpers-Weekly-THNOC.jpg.

Nine of the defendants went to trial in February–March 1891. On March 13 the jury acquitted six for insufficient evidence and deadlocked on three others (mistrials); the remaining men had not yet been tried. The next day, March 14, 1891, a large crowd—summoned by newspaper notices and addressed by prominent citizens at the Henry Clay statue—marched on Orleans Parish Prison. The mob forced entry and killed eleven of the prisoners: some shot inside the jail, others dragged outside and hanged. The victims included suspected mafioso Joseph P. Macheca (a native New Orleanian of Sicilian descent and prominent fruit importer), fruit peddlers, stevedores, a cobbler, a tinsmith, a street vendor, a ward politician, and a plantation laborer. Three of the dead had been acquitted, three had received mistrials, and five had not been tried. Several other prisoners, including alleged rappresentante Charles Matranga, escaped harm by hiding. No members of the mob were prosecuted. The episode, widely described at the time as action against “mafia” members, remains one of the largest single mass lynchings in U.S. history. It provoked a diplomatic crisis with Italy (indemnities were later paid for three Italian subjects among the victims) and intensified anti-Italian sentiment while also reflecting commercial and political tensions over control of the waterfront fruit trade.

Additional evidence of Palermo–New Orleans mafia links appears in an official report dated March 24, 1899 from Questore Sangiorgi of the Palermo police. Sangiorgi informed the Public Prosecutor that Santo Vassallo, who had previously denounced mafia threats in Palermo, had fled to New Orleans on July 26, 1898 and taken refuge with his sister Giuseppina, wife of Giovanni Matranga. Shortly afterward Giuseppe Fontana, a young man from the Piana dei Colli connected to a known criminal association, also sailed for New Orleans. Word circulated in Palermo that Fontana had been sent by the mafia to kill Vassallo. Vassallo died in New Orleans on October 4, 1898; the official cause was recorded as malarial (or yellow) fever, but Sangiorgi concluded that he had almost certainly been poisoned on mafia orders. The Italian Consul’s inquiries met with silence from the widow and sister, which Sangiorgi attributed to fear of mafia retaliation. The report explicitly notes that the mafia was “largely represented” in America and especially in New Orleans (Sangiorgi Report, Palermo Questura, March 24, 1899; published and analyzed by Salvatore Lupo in Il Tenebroso Sodalizio).

Sicilian Immigration Clusters (by Province / Area) and Their American Destinations

Province of Palermo

• Palermo (city and surrounding area) → New York (Lower East Side / Elizabeth Street), New Orleans, Chicago, Cleveland, San Francisco

• Corleone → New York (Lower East Side and later East Harlem), New Orleans, Chicago, Los Angeles, Texas and Midwest

• Belmonte Mezzagno → Brooklyn, Philadelphia and Cumberland, NJ

• Ustica → New Orleans (early and strong presence), New York

• Termini Imerese → New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh (produce trade), San Francisco (fishing)

• Contessa Entellina → New Orleans

• Cefalù → New Orleans

• Altavilla Milicia → Chicago (Little Sicily / Little Hell)

• Bagheria → Chicago and New York (Little Sicily)

• Monreale → Chicago

• Ciminna → Chicago

• Vicari → Chicago

• Caccamo → Chicago, Philadelphia / Norristown area

• Bisacquino → New York, Birmingham

• Camporeale → Brooklyn

• Porticello → San Francisco (Fisherman’s Wharf / North Beach)

• Trabia → San Francisco (fishing), Pittsburgh area

• Isola delle Femmine → San Francisco (fishing)

• Sferracavallo, Acquasanta, San Lorenzo, Passo di Rigano, Pagliarelli, Resuttana → primarily linked to New York families (surname continuity)

Province of Trapani

• Castellammare del Golfo → New York (Brooklyn and Lower East Side and later strong presence), San Francisco (fishing), Buffalo, Philadelphia, and Pittston.

Province of Agrigento

• Favara → New York

• Licata → Cleveland

• Sciacca → New York, Brooklyn, Norristown

• Alessandria della Rocca → Tampa

Province of Messina

• Messina area → Boston (as early as 1857), Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, and New York City.

Province of Caltanissetta / central Sicily

• Villarosa → Johnstown / Pittsburgh area

General northwestern Sicily

• Strong early concentration in New Orleans (1830s onward), later spreading to New York, Chicago, Cleveland, and San Francisco via chain migration and the citrus / produce trade.

Neapolitans

Because Sicilians arrived earliest and in the largest numbers in the cities under study, their settlement is treated in greater depth; Neapolitan and Calabrian patterns are summarized more concisely.

The first major concentrations of Neapolitans and other Campania immigrants developed in New York City during the 1870s. Arrivals from the provinces around Napoli, Salerno, and Avellino settled heavily on the Lower East Side (especially Mulberry Street) and in downtown Brooklyn, forming dense neighborhood clusters that preserved village-based networks. These New York enclaves became the largest and most influential Neapolitan communities in the United States.

Nearly simultaneously, one of the earliest significant colonies outside New York took root in Newark, New Jersey. Italians from Campania began appearing in small numbers in the 1860s; by 1872–1873 Angelo Maria Mattia, from Calabritto in Avellino province, arrived via New York, settled in what became the First Ward, and recruited fellow paesani. The First Ward grew rapidly into Newark’s original Little Italy, drawing heavily from Campania towns such as Calabritto, Teora, Caposele, Monocalzati, and others in Avellino and Salerno. By the turn of the century Newark ranked among the top U.S. cities for Italian population, with the First Ward standing as one of the densest and best-organized Neapolitan-influenced enclaves beyond New York itself.

Campania (Neapolitan) Immigration Clusters (by Province) and Their American Destinations

Province of Avellino

• Calabritto → Newark (First Ward)

• Teora → Newark (First Ward)

• Caposele → Newark (First Ward)

• Monocalzati → Newark (First Ward)

• Quindici → Springfield, Massachusetts (South End)

• Vallata → Newark (First Ward)

Province of Salerno

• Angri → New York

• Salerno → New York, Newark, Springfield, Pittsburgh, Chicago

• Bracigliano → Springfield, Massachusetts (South End)

• Agropoli → Pittsburgh

• (General Salerno-area towns) → Newark, New York, Springfield, Pittsburgh

Metropolitan City of Napoli (Province of Napoli)

• Napoli → New York (East Harlem, Lower East Side / Mulberry Street, Downtown Brooklyn / Navy Street area)

• Gragnano → New York (Downtown / Brooklyn)

• (General Napoli-area / Campania towns) → New York, Newark, Pittsburgh, Chicago

General Campania (provinces not always specified)

• Various towns from the provinces around Napoli, Salerno, and Avellino → New York (primary hub, including East Harlem), Newark (First Ward), Springfield (South End), Pittsburgh, Chicago, and other industrial cities.

Limitations

Knowledge of the Campanian camorra remains more fragmentary than that of the Sicilian mafia or the Calabrian groups. The Campanian-American camorra is similarly elusive and incomplete in the historical record—just as the provincial camorra in Campania itself and the mafias in both Sicily and America have always been. Unlike the Calabrian camorra, which produced written documents and whose history was recorded almost from its inception, the Campanian version left far fewer formal traces.

Hometown Origins of Navy Street and Cony Island Camorristi

Province of Avellino

• Avellino
• Cervinara
• Prata

Province of Caserta

• Caserta Province of Napoli
• Agerola
• Gragnano
• Saviano

Province of Salerno

• Angri
• Eboli
• Pagani

With only limited representation from the city of Naples and a few individuals from outside Campania, these Campanian groups were characteristically multi-commune in composition, drawing members from a range of towns across the region, unlike the tighter single-town or single-district clusters that typically formed the basis of American Sicilian borgate and Calabrian ’ndrine. One such camorra-affiliate was Salvatore Costa, who came from Castellammare del Golfo, Sicily—a heavily mafia-infused town.

A further illustration of the multi-city reach of these Campanian networks appears in Ralph Daniello’s testimony during the Pellegrino Morano (of Prata, Campania) trial. Daniello described a peace conference held in 1914–1915 at his restaurant on Skillman Avenue in Brooklyn between members of the Navy Street gang and the Grimaldi family. Also present was Carlo Siniscalchi (of Squindici, Avellino), the Springfield boss known as the “King of Little Italy.” Siniscalchi, whose wife, Pasqualina Albano, following his 1921 murder would later remarry to Antonio Miranda (of Bracigliano, Salerno), brother of future Genovese consigliere Mike Miranda). Both towns lay in the immediate orbit of Lauro, Avellino—a documented early-twentieth-century camorra hub (Tony DeRose). Navy Street also maintained ties to Philadelphia, though the precise nature of those connections remains incompletely documented and should not be confused with the Sicilian mafia organization in that city.

To understand the early Campanian camorra in America it is therefore necessary—just as with the Sicilian mafia—to examine both the provincial structures and practices in Campania itself and the later trajectories of those Campanian camorristi who ultimately entered the American mafia. Among the most prominent examples are Al Capone and Frank Nitti (both of Angri), Paul Ricca (San Giuseppe Vesuviano and son of Antonio De Lucia who was capocamorra of that city), Frank Amato of Roccorainola, Vito Genovese (Risigliano), Richie Boiardo (Marigliano), and Joe Esposito (Acerra).

The general stereotype of “Neapolitan Camorra”—an image that was deeply ingrained in 19^th and early 20^th century in both Italian and American popular culture—portrayed it as marked by open defiance of authority, public displays of illegal status, strong links to pimping and prostitution, and the use of facial slashes (sfregio), complete with its own written rules (frieno). As seen in the provincial Campanian context, however, the camorra often took a different form: more deeply embedded in local economies and commerce, less theatrical, and more inclined to operate in the shadows. The Campanian camorra maintained a discipline and organizational reserve that many Neapolitan gangsters later carried with them upon entry into cosa nostra. Unlike the Calabrians, the Campanians were never documented with formal camorra “documents,” a fact that rendered them as elusive as the Sicilians and likely contributed to their successful integration into the American mafia. The Campanians in America did not fit that stereotypical model any more than the Midwestern LCN families fit the image of the more popular urban New York ones.

Calabrians

The earliest documented Calabrian presence and the first major colony in the United States formed in New York City beginning in the mid-1880s. One of the pioneering figures was Antonio Cagliostro, from the Podargoni area of the Aspromonte (near Reggio Calabria), who arrived via Castle Garden in May 1886 and declared himself a miner; he assisted in settling paesani and directing them to addresses such as 141 Mulberry Street in Lower Manhattan. From the late 1880s onward, increasing numbers of immigrants from the provinces of Cosenza, Catanzaro, and Reggio Calabria followed, clustering in the Mulberry Street district and other parts of Manhattan’s Little Italy as well as in Brooklyn. These New York neighborhoods became the primary early Calabrian concentrations and the hub for secondary migration to industrial and mining areas in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and beyond. Group flows strengthened in the 1890s and peaked in the 1900s–1910s, when Calabrians worked in construction, docks, factories, and related labor while maintaining strong village-based networks.

Calabrian Immigration Clusters (by Province) and Their American Destinations

Province of Cosenza

• Cosenza → Chicago, Pittsburgh, New York, Pennsylvania mining regions, San Francisco / California

• Verbicaro → California communities

• (General Cosenza-area towns) → New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania industrial and mining areas

Province of Catanzaro

• Sambiase (now Lamezia Terme) → Pittsburgh, Chicago Heights

• Gizzeria → Pittsburgh area

• Nicastro → Pittsburgh area

• (General Catanzaro-area towns) → Pittsburgh, New York, Pennsylvania mining regions

Province of Vibo Valentia

• Vazzano → Braddock (Pittsburgh area)

Province of Reggio Calabria

• Podargoni (Aspromonte area) → New York (Mulberry Street / Lower Manhattan)

• Scilla → White Plains

• Gioiosa Ionica → Hillsville

• (General Reggio Calabria / Aspromonte towns) → New York, Pennsylvania mining regions, Chicago

General Calabria (provinces not always specified)

• Towns from Cosenza, Catanzaro, Vibo Valentia, and Reggio Calabria → New York (primary early hub), Pittsburgh, Chicago, Chicago Heights, Pennsylvania mining and industrial regions (including Hillsville and Braddock), White Plains, Baltimore, and some California communities.

Camorristi Surnames in America and Continuity of Affiliation

If one maps the surnames and territorial affiliations recorded in the Sangiorgi reports of the late 1890s against contemporary maps of cosa nostra borgate, a clear continuity of family names appears that has lasted more than a century. Among American Palermitani mafiosi one finds the same lineages: the Crocivera (Croceverde) of Acquasanta, the Fanara and Fontana of San Lorenzo, and the Riccobono of Sferracavallo. Kinship ties reinforced these connections. Rappresentante Manfredi Mineo’s brother-in-law was Antonino Grillo, the rappresentante of Resuttana, who was himself linked by marriage to the Croceverde family of Acquasanta, forming a dense web of relationships. The Gambino and Castellano families of Passo di Rigano likewise appear in both the Sicilian and American records. Ignazio Lupo was related by marriage to Salvatore Motisi; both men originated from Pagliarelli, a district in which the Motisi remain influential today.

A parallel pattern is visible among the Calabrian camorristi who emigrated in clusters that run congruent when compared to the current ‘ndrangheta mandamento map. The surnames of men who arrived in the United States in the early twentieth century correspond closely to those of ’ndrine still active in the same Calabrian towns and districts from which they emigrated from. Representative examples include (divided by future mandamento divisions):

Catanzaro

· De Fazio–Mauro–Ruberto of Sambiase (Lamezia Terme) → Pittsburgh and Chicago Heights

Reggio Calabria

· Ionicon coast (eastern)

· Barbaro of Platì and Bianco → Hillsville

· Mazzaferro–Ursino–Macrì of Gioiosa Ionica / Marina di Gioiosa Ionica → Hillsville

· Oppedisano of Gerace → Hillsville.

· Tirrenico coast (western)

· Bellantoni- Tripodo – Villa San Giovanni – New York City

· Bueti-Legato-Luppino – Scilla – New York City and White Plains

· Calabro – Sant’Alessio di Aspromonte / Cersasi – Berwick and Johnstown

· Crea-Musolino – Santo Stefano – Cleveland, Newark, St Paul, Toronto, Canada

· Milana/Milano – San Roberto – Cleveland

· Musitano - Delianova – Hamilton, Canada

· Oppedisano – Gerace – Hillsville

· Romeo - Linked with Calabrò, Mammoliti, Tripodo (general Reggio area context)

· Violi – Sinopoli – Montreal, Canada

· Zumbo – Montebello Ionico – Pittsburgh

Vazzano, Abruzzo, and the Question of Origins

Two additional patterns in the American evidence raise interesting questions about the certain regions of origin.

Migrants from Vazzano (in the province of Vibo Valentia, Calabria) formed a noticeable presence in the Pittsburgh area, particularly in Braddock, and maintained their own ’ndrina of Vazzanese. Vazzano does in fact possess a documented history of ’ndrangheta activity; the American colony simply continued an already existing local tradition rather than inventing one from scratch.

A parallel case involves immigrants from Abruzzo, a region long assumed to have little or no tradition of formalized criminal sects comparable to the camorra or ’ndrangheta. Abruzzese immigrants nevertheless appear with surprising frequency among early Italian underworld figures in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Boston, western Pennsylvania, and New York City.

Contemporary evidence from the Bourbon prison system complicates the picture of Abruzzo as a blank slate. Marc Monnier recorded a letter from a Neapolitan camorra chief noting that the company from Chieti (chief town of Abruzzo Citra) had requested information about a certain Liberato di Loreto who had presented himself as a camorrista in the early 1860s (Monnier).

A contemporary schematic of the Procida prison camorra factions in the 1850s (reproduced from Antonino M.) confirms Abruzzo’s place within the prison network. It divides the factions into two broad groupings: “The Provincials” (Salerno, Terra di Lavoro, and Abruzzo) and “The Calabrese” (Cosenza, Catanzaro, Reggio Calabria, Naples, Puglia, and Potenza). Abruzzo is explicitly listed among the provincial factions.

These prison records demonstrate that Abruzzese inmates participated in the same camorra structures that operated across Campania, Puglia (Bari), and Calabria (Reggio Calabria). It is therefore plausible that a street-level Abruzzese camorra existed in the same period—comparable to the better-documented organizations of Campania, Bari, and Reggio Calabria—and simply escaped systematic detection or documentation outside the prison walls. The American networks formed by Abruzzese immigrants may thus have drawn on an already existing, if sparsely recorded, organizational tradition rather than being purely New World inventions (Bianchi).

In both the Vazzano and Abruzzo cases, the American evidence raises the same underlying question: to what extent were the criminal networks that appeared in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and elsewhere direct transplants of Old World structures that had simply been under-documented, and to what extent were they creative adaptations built by paesani in the new environment?

Organizational Spread: Organic vs. Expansionist Patterns

Sicilian mafia groups tended to spread organically and selectively. A mafioso or small cluster of men from the same town or allied cosche would settle in a new American city for ordinary economic reasons. Once a critical mass of members (or potential members) existed in the locality, practical necessities—settling internal disputes, protecting local rackets, mediating with other groups, and representing the local men within their national network—made it useful to recognize a rappresentante or local boss. The organization followed the migrants rather than actively seeding new territories in advance. Recruitment reflected the same logic: the mafia functioned more like an exclusive men’s club. Membership was selective; the group preferred to, in theory, bring in “the best of the best”—men of proven reliability, capability, and reputation within the paesani networks. Quality and mutual trust mattered more than sheer numbers. This pattern is visible in the multi-city webs linking New Orleans, New York, Chicago, and other centers, and in the correspondence between capo dei capi Giuseppe Morello in New York with rappresentante Rosario Dispenza in Chicago, which treated existing local leadership as a given to be coordinated rather than created from outside.

Camorra groups more often pursued deliberate, expansive growth and a more coercive model of affiliation. Organizers sometimes sought to form new ‘ndrine and locali in multiple locations, aiming for wider territorial coverage. Some of these planted groups proved short-lived, dissolving when leadership was arrested, killed, or simply failed to take root; others survived and evolved into longer-lasting local networks. The internal structure often resembled a corrupt union: people could be pressured or forced into association, unwilling or marginal participants occupied the bottom ranks, while ambitious or violent men could climb the hierarchy. The result was a more uneven map of camorra presence—pockets of activity that could appear suddenly and disappear just as quickly, alongside a few more durable colonies—and a membership base that mixed reluctant affiliates with aspiring gangsters seeking upward mobility within the system.

Something worth noting is that Sicilian pentito Leonardo Messina told the Italian Parliamentary Antimafia Commission in 1992 that the American families had originally been formed as decine of Sicilian borgate before obtaining independent status (a point examined more fully later in this article). A parallel pattern is visible in the early American camorra (Eric Stonefelt).

A parallel pattern is visible in the early American camorra. Court testimony from the 1908 Hillsville Black Hand case and the 1913 statement of Salvatore Marra in White Plains, New York, shows that formal organizational structures and hierarchical ranks were already clearly recognized and articulated in the United States by the early 1900s. In the Hillsville testimony, Rocco Racco identified Giuseppe Alviro (Alvaro) as both a local leader and “the head leader of all societies in Italy and one here.” Marra’s statement in White Plains describes the same ranked structure—distinguishing camorristi (the superior class) from lower ranks, with designated officers such as Master, Treasurer, and Secretary—along with formal entry procedures, oaths, and internal signals. This hierarchy closely mirrors the mother camorra in Italy. The consistency of ranks, titles, and practices across separate American locations, combined with explicit references to leadership ties in Italy, points toward a nationally linked organization rather than isolated, spontaneous “Black Hand gangs.” The rapid appearance of these formal features in the opening years of the twentieth century indicates that camorra organizational patterns, like those of the mafia, took shape in the United States with notable speed once sufficient numbers of paesani from Campania and Calabria had settled in the same cities. (Rocco Racco testimony, 1908 Hillsville Black Hand case, transcripts ordered by James Barber; Statement of Salvatore Marra, Westchester County Jail, 20 March 1913)

Note the name of the “Assistant” (camorrista di giornata), Rocco Pellegrino. Exactly five decades later, Joe Valachi would identify him as an aging Genovese capodecina.

But in the beginning, both organizations exhibited a strong “birds of a feather” tendency. Within the Sicilian mafia, men from the same town or district typically remained together inside the larger organization: Palermitani with other Palermitani (Gambino family), Castellammarese with other Castellammarese (Bonanno family), and so on. The overall organization remained one, just difference branches of the same company. Camorra groups followed the same pattern of origin-based clustering, yet still operated as a single broader organization. In the Pittsburgh area, for example, the Volpes of Wilkinsburg were part of the local camorra, which was predominantly Calabrian. At the same time, the Rubertos from Sambiase (Lamezia Terme) were recognized as belonging to the Al Capone Campanian-oriented network in Chicago that had previously been headed by the suspected Calabrian camorra boss James Colosimo. Different local and regional affiliations existed, yet the camorra remained one organization just as the mafia did.

These differing logics of expansion and recruitment help explain the character of the early American evidence. Mafia-linked activity frequently looks like an extension of selective, village-based, multi-city paesani systems that adapted as trusted members moved. Camorra-linked activity more often appears as discrete attempts at organizational implantation combined with broader, sometimes coercive recruitment, some successful, many ephemeral. Both patterns, however, relied on the same underlying infrastructure of chain migration that ordinary immigrants used.

Mafia and Camorra in America: Coexistence and Overlap

In the American cities where both groups established a presence, Sicilian mafia and camorra networks did not operate in isolation. They frequently occupied the same neighborhoods, shared social and commercial spaces, and maintained personal or pragmatic relationships even while pursuing distinct organizational styles.

Examples of such overlap appear at the leadership level. In Chicago, Sicilian rappresentante and Unione Siciliana president, Mike Merlo and suspected camorra boss James Colosimo moved in intersecting Italian underworld and political circles;

Colosimo is highly suspected of having been a member of the mafia although that has yet to be confirmed. The same applies for his eventual successor Al Capone with future mafia rappresentante (and perhaps camorrista) Lombardo. In Cleveland, Sicilian rappresentante Joseph Lonardo and camorrista/suspected camorra boss Frank Milano were active in the same period and environment; Milano later became a member of the mafia (Gentile, Vita di Capomafia). In Pittsburgh, Sicilian rappresentante Gregorio Conti and camorra boss Ferdinando Mauro likewise operated within the city’s overlapping Italian criminal and commercial worlds. Mauro, identified by Nick Gentile as the camorra “representative” in Pittsburgh, aligned with the local mafia under Conti, who also signed as a witness on Mauro’s 1916 petition for naturalization (Gentile, Vita di Capomafia; Ferdinando Mauro Petition for Naturalization, 1916). Mauro later became a member of the mafia before 1919 (Gentile, Vita di Capomafia). In New York City, Calabrian leader and suspected camorra boss Frank Yale was associated with Genovese boss Joe Masseria by the early 1920’s. By 1923 he also would become a member of the mafia.

Chicago

• Mike Merlo (rappresentante / Unione Siciliana president) – James Colosimo (suspected camorra boss) – suspected to have joined the mafia.

• Joseph Lombardo (rappresentante, and suspected camorrista) – Al Capone (camorra boss) – joined the mafia, became Chicago reppresentante.

Chicago Heights

• Filippo Piazza (rappresentante) – Domenic Roberto (camorra boss) – joined the mafia in the 1920’s, became a Chicago capodecina under Al Capone.

Cleveland

• Joseph Lonardo (rappresentante) – Frank Milano (camorrista / suspected camorra boss; later became a member of the mafia)

Pittsburgh

• Gregorio Conti (rappresentante) – Ferdinando Mauro (camorra boss; later became a member of the mafia before 1919.)

New York City

• Joe Masseria – Frank Yale (Calabrian leader and suspected Brooklyn camorra boss; later became a member of the mafia by 1923.)

These pairings illustrate local coexistence rather than a formal nationwide alliance: the men knew one another, frequented common establishments, and navigated the same immigrant districts, even if their methods and public profiles differed.

The fact that a number of early camorra bosses ultimately joined the mafia in the late 1910s and early 20s is consistent with a pattern later described in Italy. Dr. Gioacchino Pennino, a Sicilian medical doctor, local politician, and member of cosa nostra who became a government (pentito) in 1994, stated that there was a phase in the 1970s in which important leaders from Calabria and Campania were inducted into cosa nostra.

This provided an ultimate organizational framework that allowed them to operate as “one thing” or “stessa cosa” at the upper leadership level (sometimes referred to in connection with a “supercupola”). The arrangement applied specifically to those who had been formally brought into cosa nostra; it did not mean that camorra or ’ndrangheta organizations as a whole were considered identical to the mafia.

Pentito Leonardo Messina, made related observations in his 1992 testimony before the Italian Parliamentary Antimafia Commission (presided over by Luciano Violante). Messina stated that certain ’ndrangheta bosses were inducted into cosa nostra, creating a shared upper framework, while ordinary soldati would not necessarily know of this arrangement (Messina, testimony before the Parliamentary Antimafia Commission, 1992). The early American cases of figures such as Milano, Mauro, Capone, Ruberto, Yale and the suspected membership of Colosimo suggest that a similar process of selective incorporation at the leadership level was already occurring decades earlier when Sicilian, Neapolitan, and Calabrian networks shared territory and interests.

Even groups that later became bitter enemies maintained partnerships for a time. Prior to the infamous 1916 “Mafia–Camorra War,” boss Pellegrino Morano and the Sicilian Corleonese (Morello-future Genovese/Lucchese Families) organization had periods of cooperation. The Morellos attended camorra social gatherings, the two sides sometimes coordinated against common rivals, and Morano was permitted to operate a numbers game in Harlem under an arrangement that required tribute to the Morellos. Only when that arrangement broke down did the relationship deteriorate into open warfare.

The two groups also tended to cultivate different reputations. Sicilian mafiosi more often sought to maintain semi-legitimate fronts—produce businesses, mutual-aid societies, political connections, or quiet influence within the Italian colonies—consistent with the selective, trust-based “exclusive men’s club” model. Camorristi, by contrast, were more frequently identified in contemporary sources with visible predatory crimes: extortion, bombings, and the organized traffic in prostitution. This contrast was never absolute; individuals on both sides engaged in a range of activities, and newspaper labels remained fluid. Nevertheless, the pattern recurs often enough in the early records to suggest differing operational cultures that persisted even as the groups shared streets, cafés, and business districts.

This coexistence was made possible by the multi-city paesani networks already outlined.
The pattern reinforces the broader argument of this article: early southern Italian organized crime in the United States is best understood as an extension of multi-city, village-based systems of connection rather than as isolated local gangs or a monolithic foreign conspiracy.

Gaetano Russo

Gaetano Russo was a late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century mafioso repeatedly linked to counterfeiting, arson, violence, and possible dynamite-related activity. While the precise extent of any formal organizational role remains uncertain—newspapers and officials of the era frequently applied labels such as “camorra,” “mafia,” and “Black Hand” with limited consistency—he stands as one of the more widely traveled and repeatedly documented individuals whose activities intersected with early reports of organized Sicilian crime between the 1870s and 1910s (DeRose and Warner, Black Hand Forum).

Documented Geographic Reach and Movements

Russo’s known activities and residences spanned multiple cities:

• Chicago (1876): Stabbing of Salvatore Pitereso at 19th and State on the Near South Side; counterfeiting materials found in his home; wife Rosa arrested (DeRose and Warner, Black Hand Forum).

• New Orleans (1878 onward, multiple periods): Arrest after fleeing Chicago; later established in the Italian quarter; federal raid recovered dynamite bombs, fuses, dies, moulds, and metal for counterfeit coins; repeated arson arrests (DeRose and Warner, Black Hand Forum).

• St. Louis: Arson conviction and life sentence (later pardoned by the governor of Louisiana; contemporary reports sometimes misidentified the pardoning governor) (DeRose and Warner, Black Hand Forum).

• Boston (1887): Arrest linked to a counterfeiting ring (DeRose and Warner, Black Hand Forum).

• New York (1888 and later): Arrest with Rosa for counterfeiting (Chicago Secret Service agent assisted); later refuge after the 1907 Walter Lamana case in New Orleans (DeRose and Warner, Black Hand Forum).

• Philadelphia and San Francisco: Arrests for passing counterfeit money (DeRose and Warner, Black Hand Forum).

• London (briefly): Traveled with Rosa; he allegedly brutalized her and abandoned her there; she obtained embassy help to return to the United States (DeRose and Warner, Black Hand Forum).

• Atlanta Penitentiary (c. 1914–1917): Incarceration as inmate No. 4840 (United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Letters Sent and Letters Received, 1914–1917).

This pattern of rapid movement between major Italian immigrant centers (and occasionally abroad) fits the itinerant criminal type common in the pre-Prohibition era, using the same transportation and communication channels as ordinary chain migrants.

Key Known Associates and Contacts

Prison “Letters Sent” and “Letters Received” logs from the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta (inmate No. 4840, roughly 1914–1917) provide the clearest window into his network while incarcerated (United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Letters Sent and Letters Received, 1914–1917):

• New Orleans cluster (strongest documented ties):

  • Charles Matranga (listed multiple times, sometimes as “Fr.” / friend) — alleged rappresentante of New Orleans involved in the fruit/stevedore trade, associated with the Matranga faction in the waterfront rivalries of the 1890s who survived the New Orleans Lynching.

  • Giuseppe Pampalone

  • Jake Galliano

  • Additional unnamed or less-detailed New Orleans addresses and individuals.

• Other locations:

  • Brooklyn, New York

  • El Paso, Texas (including Mrs. Carolina Losicco and related names)

  • Pueblo, Colorado

  • Bridgeport, Connecticut

  • Further New Orleans contacts

These correspondents indicate ongoing personal and possibly operational ties that crossed state lines. The repeated New Orleans links (especially to Matranga) are particularly significant given Matranga’s status and his involvement in the earlier waterfront conflicts.

Contemporary Secret Service Agent Griffin reportedly described Russo as a leading counterfeiter and claimed he was the “camorra’s” leader in America. Griffin allegedly linked him to dynamiting incidents in New Orleans and elsewhere, asserted Russo had participated in (or funded) criminal-related trials in Italy, and believed Russo knew those responsible for the 1909 murder of New York Detective Joseph Petrosino. These claims should be treated cautiously: period labels were applied loosely and often interchangeably, and Griffin’s statements appear in secondary newspaper reporting rather than fully preserved official files (DeRose and Warner, Black Hand Forum).

No clear evidence has surfaced in open sources of a formal, centralized organization under Russo’s command, nor of direct operational control over groups in multiple cities simultaneously. Instead, the record suggests a well-connected individual who could draw on paesani and criminal contacts across the Italian immigrant diaspora when opportunity or necessity arose. (DeRose and Warner, Black Hand Forum; United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Letters Sent and Letters Received, 1914–1917).

Antonino Saccà

Antonino Saccà (also known as Nino Sacco) was an early-twentieth-century camorrista linked to the interstate traffic in women and to vice operations in Chicago. Saccà was a nephew of New York camorra boss Frank Filasto, who was also cousin to the infamous Giuseppe Musolino in San Roberto (where the Milanos of Cleveland also originated). Saccà also maintained operational ties to Chicago suspected camorra boss James Colosimo.

Contemporary investigative reporting and court-related documents place him at the center of the 1912 case of Rosalinda. While the precise extent of any formal organizational role remains uncertain—period sources frequently applied labels such as “camorra,” “white-slave traffic,” and related terms with limited consistency—he stands as one of the more clearly documented camorristi whose activities intersected with multi-city Italian underworld networks between New York and Chicago in the 1910s.

Documented Geographic Reach and Movements

Saccà’s known activities and residences centered on the following locations:

• Buffalo: Lived and operated there for a period, also had family connections there.

• Chicago: Operated from the second and third floors of 101 Twenty-first Street (above Joseph Colosimo’s café) and maintained or was associated with a house of prostitution at 106 Twenty-first Street run by Madam Jennie Dorno. Described in contemporary reporting as one of the half-dozen leading figures in the city’s “white-slave” traffic and as a “lieutenant” of James Colosimo.

• New York / Hoboken, New Jersey: Involved in the 1912 transfer of Rosalinda from Chicago to the New York area.

• Atlanta Penitentiary (c. 1914–1915): Incarceration as inmate No. 4927 (United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Letters Sent and Letters Received, 1914–1915).

The 1912 Rosalinda Case

In August 1912 a written contract was executed before New York notary public Vincenzo Lanza at 185 Bleecker Street. Michele F—— deposited $100 with the notary on the condition that Nicola Liquori would deliver Michele’s sister Rosalinda to him within ten days. When the deadline passed without result, telegrams were exchanged between Demetrio Marino and Antonino Saccà in Chicago. One telegram from Marino read in substance: “Send Violet at once.” Saccà replied that she would leave the next day and should be met at the station.

Saccà took Rosalinda to the Erie Railroad Station in Chicago, gave her a railroad ticket and $5, and instructed her to say nothing about having been in his house of prostitution. She traveled to Hoboken, New Jersey, where she was met by Demetrio Marino and Nicola Liquori. Marino urged her to remain silent about his role in placing her in the brothel. The two men brought her to the corner of McDougal and Bleecker Streets; Liquori entered Lanza’s drugstore with her while Marino stayed outside. Liquori announced “Here’s the girl,” collected the $100 from the notary, and disappeared.

Rosalinda later stated that four other girls (two in Saccà’s house and two next door) had begged her to free them; they said they had been taken to Chicago from New York by men from whom they were not able to escape. According to the detailed account published in Collier’s (May 1913) by Arthur Gleason, Rosalinda had been deceived into a hasty marriage with Francesco (Demetrio) Marino, who used threats and violence to force her into prostitution before turning her over to Saccà in Chicago.

Key Known Associates and Contacts

Prison “Letters Received” and “Letters Sent” logs from the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta (inmate No. 4927, 1914–1915) provide the clearest window into Saccà’s network while incarcerated (United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Letters Sent and Letters Received, 1914–1915):

• Chicago cluster:

  • Domenico Sacco (brother)

  • Louisa / Luisa Sacco (sister)

  • Minnie / Mrs. Minnie Termine

  • Frank Chiaravallotti / Chiaravalloti

  • Joseph / Joe Esposito (aka Joe Diamond; early camorrista, later identified by Gentile as a mafioso during the 1920’s)

  • Daniel A. Barone / D. A. Barone

  • Joseph D’Andrea (Sicilian union leader; address listed as 1108 City Hall Square Blvd.; appears in the Colosimo banquet photo)

  • Additional Chicago addresses and individuals

• Buffalo, New York:

  • Antonio / A. Sacco (brother)

  • James / Jas. Palese / Palezi

  • Additional Buffalo addresses

• New York:

  • Antonio Cagliostro

  • Vincenzo Scappatura

  • Additional New York contacts

• Other locations:

  • Detroit, Michigan (Joe Decesare / Decesari)

  • Washington, D.C. (Jas. A. Finelli / Finich)

  • Des Moines, Iowa (Frank Suraci)

These correspondents indicate ongoing personal and possibly operational ties that crossed state lines, with particularly frequent contact maintained with family and associates in Chicago and Buffalo.

America as a precursor and reflection to modern Italy

The American setting exhibited several patterns that either prefigured or paralleled developments later observed in Italy. Three of these are especially worth noting.

1. Early Absorption of Mainlanders into the Mafia in America

First, if the testimony of pentiti Leonardo Messina and Tommaso Buscetta is correct—that the American families originally began as decine of borgate in Sicily before achieving independent status—then an important implication follows. The mafia in Sicily either actively approved of this overseas expansion or at least remained indifferent to it. Such tolerance would indicate that the later admittance of mainlanders (Calabrians and Campanians) into the American mafia was not regarded as taboo, even if it occurred to a far lesser extent in Sicily itself. The organizational flexibility already visible in the formation of these American decine may help explain when the American families became autonomous. The cases of American camorra bosses who later became mafiosi stand as some of the earliest documented examples of this phenomenon.

Al Capone stands as the most widely known example of a camorrista who not only was inducted into the Chicago mafia, but eventually formally elected as official rappresentante. Of Campanian origin, he followed a path parallel to that of several early Calabrian leaders. Together with Frank Milano of Cleveland, and John Bazzano of Pittsburgh, Capone belongs to the first generation of non-Sicilian bosses who headed American mafia families after the selective induction of mainlanders into the organization in the 1910s and early 1920s.

This raises the possibility that similar processes of inclusion may have previously occurred in Sicily but were simply never documented. There were unsubstantiated rumors of camorra bosses joining the mafia in the 1870s, though these cannot be confirmed.

2. Messinese Camorristi

Second, America provides some of the earliest documented examples of Sicilian Messinese camorristi. Informant Carmelo Pagano of Pittsburgh, born in Messina, appears in period records as a camorra member. In Chicago, the Messinese rappresentante Joseph Lombardo was identified by Theodore “Teddy” DeRose (an early Chicago mafia associate and later FBI informant CG 6690) as a “camorra man.” In 1924 Lombardo was linked to Frank Milano of Cleveland, Pittsburgh boss John LaPaglia, and Fortunato Calabro of Johnstown.

Further research clarifies these connections. LaPaglia originated from Villarosa, Sicily—a town associated with both mafia and camorra links. Calabro was identified by Nick Gentile as the boss in Johnstown and as subordinate to the Pittsburgh “state leader” Don Ferdinando Mauro; Gentile also implied that Calabro had a Sicilian working under him.

These cases predate the documentation of an established presence of the modern ’ndrangheta along the eastern Sicilian coast.

3. The Banana Society: A Sicilian Camorra Anomaly

Third, the so-called “Banana Society” of Pennsylvania and Ohio stands as a particularly striking anomaly. Despite being composed largely of Sicilians from Trabia (in the province of Palermo)—a town with its own rich mafia history—the group appears to have functioned as Sicilian camorristi. Members were found in possession of camorra documents that matched those recovered from the Sewickley “Black Hand.” The leaders, Sebastiano and Salvatore Lima (from Trabia), were ancestors of the Lima family of San Francisco, which later included future boss Anthony Lima. Following his release from prison, Salvatore Lima relocated to San Francisco (1707 Tavarol Street), where he received correspondence from camorrista Salvatore Astorina. This case remains one of the few documented examples of a Sicilian camorra composed of western Sicilians who come from mafia-rich environments and appeared to have multigenerational affiliation such as the Limas.

A related figure is Joseph Pinzola, whose trajectory is unique: he arrived in Pittston, where his Sicilian paesani were already active, later moved to New York and worked with or under a Calabrian “Black Hand boss” Giuseppe Costabile (from Reggio Calabria city) and eventually Pinzola became something of an outsider boss of the Luccheses (Stonefelt).

A parallel anomaly appears in Birmingham, Alabama. Contemporary accounts describe a so-called Alabama Camorra society whose recruitment process, payment of dues, and internal organization closely resembled those of the camorra. A turncoat from the group—a Sicilian from the province of Syracuse—named another Sicilian member from Gibellina. This is striking because Birmingham’s Italian colony was approximately 90 percent Sicilian. In the 1920s a suspected mafia leader from Caltanissetta was also active in the city and accused of Black Hand extortion; his principal associate was a rare Calabrian.

Taken together with the Banana Society of Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Birmingham case suggests that camorra-style organization among Sicilians was not a one-off occurrence. In both instances, groups composed primarily (or entirely) of Sicilians adopted structures, ranks, and practices more commonly associated with the camorra (information courtesy of Eric Stonefelt).

Taken together, these three features—the early absorption of mainlanders, the presence of Messinese camorristi, and the anomalous Trabia-based “Banana Society” serve as suggestive parallels to the later composition of organized crime dynamics in Italy.

In the 1970s, important ’ndrangheta bosses were formally admitted into cosa nostra, creating a shared upper framework (as described by pentiti Pennino and Messina). The ’ndrangheta has also maintained a long-standing presence in Messina and along the eastern Sicilian coast. In an unrelated and achiral development, the mafia itself established three families in Napoli composed of Neapolitans. Much of what later took shape in Italy—cross-regional induction, the blending of organizational traditions, and the formation of non-traditional local groups—had already occurred, in embryonic form, in the United States half a century earlier.

Modern Continuities

Calabrian settlement patterns in the United States closely prefigure the three mandamenti later formalized within the ’ndrangheta. Migrants from localities that would form the core of the mandamento ionico—Gerace, Gioiosa Ionica, Sant’Eufemia d’Aspromonte, Locri, and Grotteria—concentrated in the limestone quarries and industrial corridors of Hillsville, Pennsylvania, and the neighboring Mahoning Valley centered on Youngstown, Ohio. Flows from the western/Tyrrhenian districts that would later constitute the mandamento tirrenico—particularly Scilla, Villa San Giovanni, and Reggio city—settled more heavily in White Plains and surrounding Westchester County communities. A coherent colony from Oppido Mamertina (itself later a locale within the tirrenico mandamento) took root in Philadelphia. In effect, the geographic partitioning of Reggio Calabrian emigration anticipated the territorial coordination structures (ionico, tirrenico, and centro) that the ’ndrangheta would codify after the “Second ’Ndrangheta War.” The American map of Calabrian settlement thus stands as an earlier, overseas reflection of the same regional differentiation that later organized the homeland organization itself.

Conclusion

How far the mafia and camorra had developed in the United States before 1900 remains contested. Contemporary newspapers and law-enforcement agencies rarely followed these groups in a systematic way; references appear only in isolated cases or passing mentions. When the organizations were named at all, the labels “mafia” and “camorra” were frequently used interchangeably, with little precise distinction between Sicilian and Neapolitan/Calabrian networks. Pre-1900 sources for organized Italian criminal activity are scarce, often sensationalized, and frequently inconsistent in their use of labels.

Nevertheless, the evidence that does survive makes certain conclusions reasonable. By the 1850s both the Sicilian mafia and the camorra were already well-organized in Italy. In New Orleans, suspected mafia members were noted during that very same decade. The 1899 Sangiorgi Report further documents direct Palermo–New Orleans operational links. These early networks, however shadowy, certainly laid the tracks on which more visible mafia and camorra activity would travel in the opening decades of the twentieth century.

The conventional narrative that “La Cosa Nostra” was “formed” in 1931 is not only impossible it’s improbable. Many of these “Families” already existed at the turn of the century, and in some places decades earlier. New Orleans shows signs of structured borgata by the 1850s; New York by the 1860s; Chicago and St. Louis by the 1870s; and San Francisco and Norristown, Pennsylvania, by the 1880s. By the early 1900s, formal multi-city coordination is visible in surviving correspondence. Letters sent by Giuseppe Morello (the New York–based capo dei capi of the Corleonese Family) to Chicago rappresentate Rosario Dispenza, refer to a Grand Council and a General Assembly that regulated membership, transfers, and inter-city disputes (William J. Flynn, The Barrel Mystery).

The 1931 changes—abolition of the single capo dei capi position and the creation of the Commission—were not the birth of a new organization but a structural reform of an already existing system. The Commission was essentially a continuation and formalization of the earlier Grand Council that Morello and then Salvatore D’Aquila and their contemporaries had already been using.

Mainland (Calabrian and Campanian) figures who became members understood they were therefore joining a highly formal mafia organization that had been in existence for as long as the camorra, rather than a loose or newly emerging structure.

Just as soggiorno obbligato inadvertently spread southern Italian criminal networks across northern Italy by relocating mafiosi while leaving their relational networks intact, nineteenth-century chain migration performed an analogous function, carrying the same relational networks across the United States.

Timeline (by City)

Attention is limited to cities in which Sicilians intersected in significant numbers with Neapolitans and Calabrians.

New York City

• Sicilians: Major component from the 1860s onward. Dense village-based settlement on the Lower East Side (Elizabeth Street and surrounding blocks) from Palermo, Corleone, Castellammare del Golfo, and many other towns. Largest Sicilian population in the United States by the peak years 1880–1914.

• Neapolitans: First major concentrations from the 1870s. Heavy settlement on the Lower East Side (Mulberry Street) and in downtown Brooklyn; primary port of entry and largest Neapolitan hub.

• Calabrians: Earliest documented presence from the mid-1880s (e.g., Antonio Cagliostro from Podargoni, 1886). Clustered on Mulberry Street and in Brooklyn; main early Calabrian center and hub for further migration.

Newark

• Sicilians: Present within the broader Italian population.

• Neapolitans: One of the earliest and densest colonies outside New York. First Ward pioneered by Angelo Maria Mattia (Calabritto, Avellino) in 1872–1873; rapid growth from Calabritto, Teora, Caposele, Monocalzati, and other Avellino/Salerno towns. By 1910–1920 among the top U.S. cities for Italian population; First Ward one of the densest Little Italies.

• Calabrians: Present in smaller numbers within the southern Italian enclaves.

Chicago

• Sicilians: Large concentration from the 1880s. Little Sicily / Little Hell on the Near North Side (groups from Altavilla Milicia, Bagheria, Termini Imerese, Monreale, Ciminna, Vicari, Caccamo, Palermo, etc.); mixed settlement on Taylor Street; also Chicago Heights. Strong campanilismo and produce-trade involvement. Some arrived after earlier residence in Louisiana.

• Neapolitans: Mostly from Salerno and Napoli Province. Part of the broader southern Italian influx on the Near North and Near West Sides from the 1880s onward.

• Calabrians: Mostly from Cosenza and Catanzaro. Joined mixed southern Italian enclaves (especially Taylor Street and later Grand Crossing) from the 1890s.

Youngstown, Ohio (Mahoning Valley)

• Sicilians: Present in smaller numbers within the mixed southern Italian community from the late nineteenth century onward.

• Neapolitans (Campania): Significant presence among the southern Italian majority. Early Italian arrivals in the Mahoning Valley from 1873 (Coalburg mines as strikebreakers); larger settlement from the late 1880s–1910s drawn by coal, steel, and related industry. Principal neighborhoods included Brier Hill (oldest Italian settlement and recognized Little Italy) and Smoky Hollow.

• Calabrians: Present among the southern Italian workforce from the late 1880s–1910s.

• Additional Italian settlements developed in nearby Niles, Campbell (East Youngstown), Struthers, and Lowellville.

Philadelphia

• Sicilians: Increased from the early 1880s; distinct enclaves from Ferla, Sciacca, Caccamo, Belmonte Mezzagno, and other villages in South Philadelphia and nearby (e.g., Norristown). Work in railroads, textiles, and clothing.

• Neapolitans: Significant component of the large southern Italian population that grew from ~10,000 in 1890 to nearly 137,000 by 1920.

• Calabrians: Present among the southern Italian migrants to the city and Pennsylvania industrial areas.

Boston

• Sicilians: Arrivals from the Messina area noted as early as 1857; broader settlement in the North End and other neighborhoods during the 1880s–1910s mass wave.

• Neapolitans: Part of the larger southern Italian influx that transformed Boston’s Italian communities.

• Calabrians: Present in smaller numbers within the southern Italian population.

Pittsburgh

• Sicilians: Settled in South Side, North Side, and Hill District from the late nineteenth century. Prominent in the regional fruit and produce trade (e.g., Salvatore Catanzaro, “Banana King,” from Termini Imerese). Also from Trabia and other towns; industrial and mining labor.

• Neapolitans: Part of the southern Italian industrial workforce.

• Calabrians: Present among migrants to western Pennsylvania mining and industrial regions. Many came from Sambiase (now Lamezia Terme), including camorra boss Ferdinando Mauro, as well as from Gizzeria and Nicastro. A strong chain-migration link existed between Vazzano and Braddock. People from Sambiase were also linked between Pittsburgh and Chicago Heights (the Ruberto family).

Cleveland

• Sicilians: Core of the earliest major Italian settlement (“Big Italy” along Woodland Avenue). By ~1900 approximately 93 percent Sicilian; center of the city’s produce markets. Sources included Patti, Palermo, and Licata districts.

• Neapolitans: Present alongside other southern Italians.

• Calabrians: Smaller presence within the broader southern Italian community.

San Francisco

• Sicilians: Increased after the mid-1880s (many from Palermo province). Some arrived after first living in New Orleans. Prominent in the fishing industry at Fisherman’s Wharf and North Beach (e.g., from Porticello, Trabia, Isola delle Femmine, Castellammare del Golfo, Termini Imerese; Antonino Alioto from Porticello in 1900).

• Neapolitans: Limited early presence.

• Calabrians: Notable arrivals from Cosenza province after the mid-1880s; some fishing and labor communities.

Springfield, Massachusetts

• Sicilians: Present in smaller numbers.

• Neapolitans: Significant colony from the 1880s. South End neighborhood; strong migration from Bracigliano and Quindici (Salerno/Avellino). Mount Carmel Society (1897) and Our Lady of Mount Carmel parish (1907); enduring ties to the home towns.

• Calabrians: Limited presence.

Other locations

(Providence, Pennsylvania mining regions, Baltimore, California interior, etc.)
Sicilians, Neapolitans, and Calabrians all participated in the broader southern Italian movement to industrial and mining centers. Calabrians were especially visible in Pennsylvania mining regions and some California communities (e.g., from Verbicaro).

Works Cited

• Aeon Essays. “How a Growing Market for Citrus Fruit Spawned the Mafia.”

• Barton, Josef. Studies on Italian immigration to Cleveland.

• Bianchi, A. G. Il romanzo di un delinquente nato. Tipografia Editrice Lombarda, 1892.

• Buonanno, Paolo, and Matteo Pazzona. “Organized Crime and Economic Growth: Evidence from Italian Regions.” Journal of Regional Science, 2014.

• Candeloro, Dominic. Works on Italians in Chicago (including Italians in Chicago and Italians in Chicago, 1945–2005). Arcadia Publishing / related studies.

• Cleveland State University. Italian Americans and Their Communities of Cleveland (pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu).

• Commissione parlamentare d’inchiesta sul fenomeno della mafia in Sicilia. Relazione conclusiva (Doc. XXIII, n. 2), VI Legislatura, 1976

• Dalla Chiesa, Nando. Works on northern Italian mafia transplantation, 2010.

• DeRose, Tony. Posts on Gaetano Russo. Black Hand Forum.

• Dimico, Arcangelo, Alessia Isopi, and Ola Olsson. “Origins of the Sicilian Mafia: The Market for Lemons.” Journal of Economic History, 2017.

• Encyclopedia of Chicago. “Italians.” Chicago Historical Society / Newberry Library (encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org).

• Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. “Big Italy” and “Italians” entries. Case Western Reserve University.

• Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia. “Italians and Italy.”

• Flynn, William J. The Barrel Mystery.

• From Italy to San Francisco immigrant studies (various authors).

• Gabaccia, Donna R. From Sicily to Elizabeth Street: Housing and Social Change among Italian Immigrants, 1880–1930. State University of New York Press, 1984.

• Gentile, Nicola (Nick). Vita di Capomafia. With Felice Chilanti. Editori Riuniti, 1963 (reissued 1993).

• Gleason, Arthur. “The Story of Rosalinda.” Collier’s, May 1913.

• Historic New Orleans Collection (hnoc.org). Materials on Sicilian immigration and the 1891 lynching.

• Ianni, Francis A. J. Works on ethnic succession and organized crime.

• ICSAIC Storia (icsaicstoria.it). Early Calabrian settler accounts.

• Impatria.com. Materials on Calabrian and southern Italian village emigration.

• Italian Parliamentary Antimafia Commission. Final Report, 1976, and related tables (1961–1972). Archivio Pio La Torre.

• Italians of Chicago. “And They Came To Chicago: An Italian American History” overview and related materials (italiansofchicago.com).

• La Nasa Bros. Letter to J. Di Carlo concerning Gaetano Russo package, 29 January (Atlanta period), Russo prison file.

• Law 27 December 1956, n. 1423 (Italy). Special police supervision and obligatory residence.

• Law 31 May 1965, n. 575 (Italy). “Disposizioni contro la mafia.”

• Law.jrank.org. Entries on ethnic succession and organized crime theories.

• Lombardo, Robert M. Analyses of alien conspiracy and ethnic succession theories.

• Lupo, Salvatore. Il tenebroso sodalizio. Il primo rapporto di polizia sulla mafia siciliana. XL Edizioni. (Publication and analysis of the Sangiorgi Report.)

• Marra, Salvatore. Statement made in Westchester County Jail, 20 March 1913, in the presence of Sheriff William J. Doyle and others.

• Maselli, Joseph, and Dominic Candeloro. Italians in New Orleans. Images of America. Arcadia Publishing, 2004.

• Mauro, Ferdinando. Petition for Naturalization, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, 1916 (witnessed by Gregorio Conti).

• McClellan Committee (U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations). Hearings, 1963. (Identification of Rocco Pellegrino as a captain in the Genovese family.)

• Messina, Leonardo. Testimony before the Italian Parliamentary Antimafia Commission (Audizione del collaboratore di giustizia Leonardo Messina), 1992 (Archivio Antimafia / Commission records, Violante presidency).

• Monnier, Marc. La Camorra: Notizie storiche raccolte e documentate. G. Barbera, 1863.

• Nelli, Humbert S. Italians in Chicago, 1880–1930: A Study in Ethnic Mobility. Oxford University Press, 1970.

• Newark Memories / Newark First Ward histories (newarkmemories.com).

• Newark Public Library (npl.org) and Newark History Society materials.

• Parole Officer letters to Joseph Lonardo regarding Serafino Francia (also known as De Franco), 27 December 1911 and 9 January 1912.

• Pennino, Gioacchino. Judicial depositions and testimony as pentito (1994–), including statements related to the Gotha process; see also Il Vescovo di Cosa Nostra (2006).

• Racco, Rocco. Testimony in the Hillsville Black Hand case, 1908. Court transcripts ordered by James Barber.

• San Francisco Museo (sfmuseo.org). Immigration booklet and Italian historical materials.

• Sangiorgi, Ermanno. Report to the Public Prosecutor of Palermo, 24 March 1899 (“Associazione a scopo di delinquere – Venificio in persona di Vassallo Santo”). Published and analyzed in Salvatore Lupo, Il tenebroso sodalizio. Il primo rapporto di polizia sulla mafia siciliana.

• Sciarrone, Rocco. Studies on mafia transplantation and adaptation in northern Italy, 2009.

• Smith, Dwight C. “Mafia: The Prototypical Alien Conspiracy.” 1976.

• Springfield Italian community accounts (ourpluralhistory.stcc.edu; archive.boston.com).

• 64 Parishes. Articles on the 1890–1891 New Orleans events and Creole Italian history (64parishes.org).

• The Parish Prison, Where the Accused Assassins Are Confined” and related portraits of David C. Hennessy and the accused. Harper’s Weekly, 1891. Digitized image. The Historic New Orleans Collection, via The Mob Museum. https://themobmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/1891HennessyCase-Harpers-Weekly-THNOC.jpg.

• United States Penitentiary, Atlanta. Inmate records (No. 4840, Gaetano Russo; No. 4927, Antonino Saccà), Letters Sent and Letters Received, 1914–1917.

• U.S. Immigration Commission reports and related southern Italian migration statistics.

• U.S. Secret Service records (files referencing Joseph Lombardo, Frank Milano, Fortunato Calabro, and related 1924 investigations).

• Varese, Federico. Mafia on the Move. 2006 (and related analyses of transplantation).

• Vecoli, Rudolph J. Studies on Chicago Italians (including “Chicago’s Italians prior to World War I” and “The Formation of Chicago’s ‘Little Italies’”).

• Warner, Richard. Posts on Gaetano Russo. Black Hand Forum.

• Zócalo Public Square. “How Sicilian Merchants in New Orleans Reinvented America’s Diet” (zocalopublicsquare.org).

• Zorbaugh, Harvey Warren. The Gold Coast and the Slum: A Sociological Study of Chicago’s Near North Side. University of Chicago Press, 1929 (chapter on Little Hell / Little Sicily).

• 1810s–1820s — Few reliable documents show a city-wide, hierarchical camorra in Napoli; loose neighborhood extortion gangs (guappi, market racketeers) in prisons (Castel Capuano, Vicaria); no pre-1830 formal structure on the streets.

• 1820s — Camorra emerges in Bourbon prisons as protection/extortion groups; released camorristi carry tattoos, rituals, and codes home to Napoli streets.

• 1820–1821 — Alleged founding myth by Pasquale Capuozzo (later invention): convenes bosses in crypt of Santa Caterina a Formiello, writes first statute, elected supreme leader, creates gran mamma tribunal, barattolo, ritual duels, annual dowry fund; murdered 1824 by wife Teresa (recurring legend rejected by historians).

• 1821 — Real Pasquale Capozzi (aged 50, cook) convicted with 30 others (including Gioacchino De Crescenzo) for murder of Police Director Francesco Giampietri during 1820–1821 constitutional revolution (not underworld-related).

• 1825 — Paris crime statistics document Sardinian banditry, Romagna delinquency, Calabrian banditry, and Sicilian groups but no Napoli criminal sect.

• 1830s — Camorra emerges on Napoli streets from released prisoners; Michele Aitollo (’o Nubiltà) first documented capintrito in Porto, Vicaria, Mercato quarters; collects protection from fishmongers/vendors, arbitrates disputes, holds court in Rua Catalana tavern.

• 1836–1837 — Michele Aitollo intervenes in cholera epidemic removals as disinfector.

• 1839 — Michele Aitollo dies from blood poisoning after tattooing wife’s name (later legend).

• Late 1830s — Aniello Ausiello (c. 1818–1862) rises from giovanotto to enforcer skilled in zumpata duels.

• 1840s — Salvatore De Crescenzo (c. 1815–1863) rises from lazzarone porter in 1830s to most powerful camorrista by 1848; consolidates extortion, promotes bella società riformata.

• 1850s — Guappismo style crystallizes (loud colors, silk cravats, gold chains); Aniello Ausiello orchestrates gambling in Maddalena, mediates tribute between Forcella and Vicaria.

• 1857 — Aniello Ausiello assumes leadership after predecessor’s arrest; expands to theatre scalping, brothel protection; appoints ex-Swiss Guard as contaiolo.

• 1858 — Tomlinson Commission list of capisocietà shows 7–8 districts (not 12); Vicaria sect dominant with 20–27 members.

• 1858–1860s — Provincial contacts active in Castellammare di Stabia, Torre Annunziata, Nola (mutual recognition, local autonomy).

Unification & Early Decline in Napoli (1860–1863)

• September 5–6, 1860 — Imbrecciata red-light district (1781–1860, 800–1,000 prostitutes paying tangente) destroyed during Garibaldi’s approach; camorra control strengthens city-wide.

• 1860 — Salvatore De Crescenzo released, commands camorristi in Guardia Nazionale; Aniello Ausiello arrested, released under amnesty, serves in Guardia Nazionale.

• 1861 — De Crescenzo rearrested by Piedmontese; Napoli population ~480,000.

• Spring 1861 — Spaventa reports confirm networked camorra beyond Napoli, with centers in provincial capitals and inter-provincial contacts.

• July 1861 — Reggio Calabria prisons described as “infested by camorristi” immediately after unification.

• 1862 — “Stato de’ così detti Camorristi della Capitale” police list (July–August): 71 named individuals (average age 36.1; mostly porters/facchini; Vicaria dominant); real size 150–250 active in 1850s–early 1860s.

• 1862–1863 — Marc Monnier confirms prison-street co-existence; street centers in 7–8 districts led by capintrito; Vicaria primacy.

• 1863 — Salvatore De Crescenzo dies in prison from fever.

• 1863 — Sub-prefect of Gerace reports armed bands of “camorristi” terrorizing Ionian villages of Reggio province with nighttime shots.

• 1865 — Cosenza prefectural report notes “camorristi infesting the jails of the Sila district,” with nocturnal tirate (knife duels).

Provincial Expansion & Early Trials (1863–1880s)

• 1862–1865 — Pica Law equates camorristi with brigands/idlers/vagrants; domicilio coatto. Criscione examines 1,395 case files in Terra di Lavoro (1863–1865), yielding 66 camorristi/suspected camorristi (Sora, Caserta, Gaeta): Francesco Zampella, Barbato brothers, Ruffino/Palmieri brothers, Liparulo/Iasevoli/De Lucia/Di Marzo quartet, Mattia Scotti.

• September 12, 1867 — First official mention in Puglia: Sub-Prefect of Barletta reports Caserta camorristi forming sect in Barletta to control salt/tobacco smuggling across Ofanto river, imposing barattolo, carrying out facial slashings.

• November 11, 1871 — First documented zumpata tribute from Puglia: Carabinieri near Andria intercept 200 lire silver coins and letter from Giuseppe De Laurentis to “the Lord Chief of the Honored Society – Napoli.”

• March 1872 — First Puglia trial (“associazione a delinquere denominata camorra,” Trani Assize Court): 14 defendants. Leaders: Giuseppe “Peppino ‘o napulitano” De Laurentis (capocamorra di Barletta, 10 yrs), Raffaele “Rafaele ‘e Margaritta” Schiavone (8 yrs), Antonio “Totonno ‘o sale” Lacerenza (treasurer, 6 yrs). Verdict: 9 convictions.

• 1870s–1880s — Provincial survival in Terra di Lavoro (buffalo-herd extortion, forced guardianship, “horse-return” rackets, market violence, political clientelism).

• 1883–1884 — Mala Vita constituted in Bari prison by Neapolitan and Casertan detainees teaching local prisoners complete rites and hierarchy of the camorra.

• Spring 1888 — First documented outbreak of razor slashings, knife duels, and protection rackets in Palmi taverns/brothels; sect spreads across Plain of Gioia Tauro.

• 1888–1889 — First Palmi trial (24 defendants); boss Francesco Lisciotto (60-year-old cobbler/ex-con).

• June 15, 1889 — Barletta mega-trial (reconstituting sect 1885–1889): 32 defendants. Leaders: Salvatore “Turi ‘o camorrista” Di Terlizzi (capocamorra of Barletta, 14 yrs), Vito “Vituzzo ‘o mare” Lamonaca (11 yrs), Gaetano “Tanino ‘o sale” De Feo (9 yrs). Verdict: 19 convictions, total 162 years penal servitude.

Peak Provincial Trials & Consolidation (1890s–1900s)

• August 22, 1890 — Felzani report (Bari): leadership Andrea Rinaldi (in prison), Francesco Ragone (outside), Francesco Milella (capopicciotto), Antonio Bellini (contajuolo dei camorristi), Gaetano Citarelli (contajuolo dei picciotti). 34 crimes catalogued. 57 arrests August 21–22.

• 16 July 1890 — First major Reggio Calabria trial against “onorata società”; boss Paolo Scudieri (37-year-old tailor). Two-level structure: società minore, società maggiore. Initiation: blood from little finger, kiss, “dritta” banquet.

• June 1890 — Iatrìnoli–Radicena trial (96 defendants): association originated in Palmi prison 1887.

• April–June 1891 — First great Bari mega-trial: 179 defendants. 112 convictions (847 years servitude + 112 years domicilio coatto).

• March 1892 — Second Bari wave: 160 arrests in Bari and nearby villages.

• 1892 — Palmi mega-trial (150 picciotti): new boss Antonio Giannino (age 20, knife instructor). Women admitted (Rosaria Testa, Concetta Muzzopapa).

• 1894 — Palmi earthquake; camorra re-forms extortion. Domenico Callea returns to Africo as bookkeeper/instructor. Filippo Velonà (“President”) initiates in Africo (boss of Ionian zone).

• November 1, 1894 — Pietro Maviglia murdered in Africo; triggers Africo–Bova trial.

• 1895–1896 — Africo–Bova trial (hundreds of defendants): Madonna di Polsi festival used as criminal summit. Andrea Angelone as “judge” of Grecanico area.

• September 4, 1896 — Brigadiere Antonio Boarzi states society structure: capobastone, contabile, camorristi, camorrista di giornata, capo giovane, picciotti di sgarro, picciotto di giornata; Compagnia della Maggiore/Minore.

• October 8, 1897 — First written criminal code seized in Seminara (Reggio).

• February 1897 — Palmi trial: full ranks description, initiation ritual, three Spanish knights myth (Osso, Mastrosso, Carcagnosso) by Pasquale Trimboli.

• 1896–1897 — Bari wool-tariff war: Giuseppe de Bari (“Peppe ‘o Guappo”, capintesta), Vito Lorusso, Francesco Valente, Michele Schiavone (capintriti). de Bari confesses: “We pay respect to Napoli with the zumpata, but the sea is ours…” (12 yrs).

Early 20th Century & Late Liberal Era (1900–1920s)

• 1900–1901 — Great Sambiase “società dei camorristi” trial (Catanzaro): written statute (never recovered). Original capo Raffaele Amendola (emigrated to US); successor Antonio Ruberto. Full hierarchy documented.

• 1909 — Vincenzo Serra (Aversa) leads 20 men in beating up news-vendors selling anti-Romano papers.

• 1910 — Maxi-operation against “Camorra Reggina”: 112 defendants; bosses Domenico Morabito, Diego Romeo.

• 1910–1915 — Nolano rocchie federation: Maddaloni (Vincenzo Sforza), Nola (Sebastiano Pugliese), Piazzolla (Luigi Mensorio; factions shoot it out August 1915), Saviano (Giuseppe Aliperti), Carbonara di Nola (Antonio Albano).

• 1911 — Alfano trial (Napoli): Last major urban camorra case; Enrico Alfano (Erricone), regarded as final capintesta of classical Neapolitan system, convicted with 30+ co-defendants for extortion, protection rackets, barattolo, and ritual duels. Sentences relatively light; marks decline of centralized urban structure post-Cuocolo affair. (Dickie 2012; Sales 1988)

• 1913–1914 — Antonio De Lucia (capocamorra di San Giuseppe Ottaviano) facilitates fugitive escape to United States.

• 1915 — “Processone di Palmi”: 153 defendants (“onorata società della Provincia di Reggio Calabria”); still uses “camorra”; ’ndrangheta appears once in clerk’s marginal note.

• 1915 — Symbolic disbandment of traditional Neapolitan camorra: Surviving leaders meet in Sanità quarter; formally dissolve gran mamma tribunal, barattolo system, and rigid ranks. Urban organization fragments into smaller rocchie; provincial branches continue independently. (Dickie 2012; Barbagallo 2010; Sales 1988)

• From the 1870s through World War I — Rural camorra in Terra di Lavoro survives every crackdown (buffalo-herd extortion, forced guardianship, “horse-return” rackets, market violence, political clientelism).

• Early 1920s — Rural camorra of Terra di Lavoro remains fully active and openly structured: local rocchie elect bosses, control labor gangs, levy tribute on buffalo herds, markets, railways; direct links to Napoli and neighboring provinces. Raffaele Mattiello “’o confettaio” elected new market camorra boss (1920–1921).

• March 1920 — First official document explicitly using the modern name: “In this province operates a criminal association called ‘Ndrangheta, composed of camorristi and picciotti…” (prefectural report, Reggio Calabria).

• 1926–1929 — Mussolini’s Fascist crackdown: Coordinated assault on continental camorra (mainland parallel to Mori’s Sicilian operation). Anceschi’s mission in Terra di Lavoro (Caserta) arrests thousands, dismantles rural groups in Mazzoni/Agro Aversano; Mussolini labels area “plague zone” (Ascension Day speech, May 26, 1927). Repression extends to Campania/Puglia/Calabria; “camorra” name erased from files by mid-1930s, but structures persist underground. (Dickie 2011; Barbagallo 2010; Criscione 2013)

Last we left off in Napoli—long known as the capital of the camorra—the organization was said to have disbanded in 1915, several years after the Viterbo Trial in 1911, marking what many consider to be the end of the classical camorra. Yet, as we’ll see, even if the camorra of Napoli decided to dissolve, it was already far beyond the city’s boundaries and had been for some time.

In the 1860s and 1870s, the term “Napolitan” or “Napulitan” in Italy specifically denoted residents of the city of Napoli proper, not the broader province or region; someone from Caserta or Avellino would have been called a “Casertano” or “Irpino,” reflecting sharp local identities tied to dialects, traditions, and even rivalries with the capital (De Blasio 1897; Alongi 1890; De Stefano and Ferraro 2018). But across the Atlantic, American immigration officials, census-takers, and ethnic stereotypes collapsed these distinctions: all were lumped under “Neapolitan” or “Southern Italian,” a catch-all for the huddled masses pouring through Ellis Island from Campania’s rural provinces (Iorizzo and Mondello 1979; Mangione and Morreale 1992).

By the 1890s, “Little Italys” in New York, Springfield, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago were filled not with true Neapolitans from the city but with paesani from the agro-towns—braccianti from Terra di Lavoro, hazelnut pickers from Avellino, shepherds from Benevento—where the provincial camorra thrived. Many of America’s early documented camorristi and/or American Campanian-born mafiosi like New York’s Vito Genovese of Risigliano, Pittsburgh’s Frank Amato of Roccarainola, Chicago’s Paul Ricca of San Giuseppe Vesuviano; Al Capone and Frank Nitti of Angri, all descended from the larger Campanian region rather than the city of Napoli. This rebranding in the diaspora masked a deeper truth: the enduring “Napolitan” image in America owes more to the tough, land-bound provinces of Campania than to Napoli itself.

For more than a century and a half, almost every book and academic study has made the camorra synonymous with the city of Napoli, presented as its birthplace, natural habitat, and effectively the only place it existed.

The archives reveal a different picture: the phenomenon extended into provincial territories, with the same structures and practices documented outside the capital (Criscione 2013).

As soon as the unified Italian government investigated organized crime after 1860, reports described a networked association of camorristi with multiple centers across provinces (Criscione 2013). Early 1861 documents from the Neapolitan lieutenancy noted that the “consortium of camorristi has as many centers as there are provincial capitals... all these camorristi are in contact with one another, those of one province with the others” (Criscione 2013).

This indicates a decentralized consortium with inter-provincial connections, rather than a monopoly confined to Napoli that merely “spread” outward (Criscione 2013). The surge in documentation during the early 1860s reflects the new state’s investigative capacity, not the society’s birth. By 1861–1863, camorristi appeared entrenched in local economies, suggesting prior roots (Criscione 2013). General Bourbon-era references to prison societies, market extortion, and armed guappi imply structures predating unification, though precise provincial origins before the 1840s–1850s remain sparse (Monnier 1863; Alongi 1890).

This study reconstructs the provincial dimension, focusing on confirmed evidence from Campania (Terra di Lavoro), Puglia and Calabria. It demonstrates that the 19th- and early 20th-century camorra operated as an interconnected criminal system beyond urban Napoli (Alongi 1890; D’Addosio 1891; Criscione 2013).

Tobacco and the Provincial Camorra Economy

Tobacco contraband formed a key economic base for provincial camorra branches in Campania, Puglia and Calabria. (Alongi 1890; Barbagallo 2010).

Under Bourbon and unified Italy rules, tobacco was a state monopoly, with legal cultivation limited to specific zones in Campania and parts of Puglia/Calabria. Smuggling outside these areas was highly profitable, creating north-south routes that camorra groups exploited for escorts, extortion, and tribute (Alongi 1890; Barbagallo 2010).

These routes extended south through Calabria, with transit corridors in the Sila plateau (northern Calabria) and Aspromonte massifs (southern Calabria), linking to ports like Reggio Calabria (Ciconte 1992).

Parliamentary inquiries linked camorra survival in provinces like Caserta and Avellino directly to tobacco smuggling:

“The camorra of the provinces of Caserta, Avellino, and Potenza has made tobacco contraband its principal source of income; without it the association could not survive” (Atti della Commissione parlamentare d’inchiesta sul contrabbando dei tabacchi 1883).

In Puglia, ports like Barletta and Bari served as endpoints (Alongi 1890; D’Addosio 1891). This economic thread helps explain the camorra’s provincial reach in Campania and Puglia, with routes continuing south into Calabria under local control.

Terra di Lavoro

As early as spring 1861, only months after the Bourbon collapse, the Neapolitan lieutenancy under Silvio Spaventa sent two confidential reports to the Ministry of the Interior in Turin: the Memoria sulla Consorteria dei Camorristi esistente nelle Provincie Napolitane and the Rapporto sulla Camorra (the second widely attributed to Spaventa himself). These remain the earliest official acknowledgment by the Piedmontese government that the phenomenon extended far beyond Napoli (Marmo 1999; Marmo 2011; Criscione). The reports explicitly rejected the notion that the camorra was limited to the capital’s prisons or its twelve historic quarters, declaring instead:

“The association of camorristi has as many centers as there are provincial capitals.”

“All these camorristi are in contact with one another, those of one province with those of the others.” (quoted in Criscione; Marmo 1999)

Thus, from the very first moment the unified state began gathering intelligence on southern organized crime, it understood the camorra to be a networked, multi-center consortium spanning both urban and provincial territories (Marmo 2011).

Two years later, the emergency legislation of 1862–1865 turned that intelligence into an avalanche of paper. General La Marmora’s state of siege (August 1862 onward) and, above all, the Pica Law of August 15, 1863 placed “camorristi” on the same legal footing as brigands, their accomplices, idlers, and vagrants, subjecting them to military tribunals and domicilio coatto (Criscione 2012). Gianni Criscione’s research in the State Archives of Caserta exploits this repressive moment to the full: he personally examined 1,395 individual case files generated in Terra di Lavoro between 1863 and 1865, of which sixty-six men were expressly labelled “camorristi” or “suspected camorristi,” almost all from the districts of Sora, Caserta, and Gaeta.

These early suspects read like a provincial who’s-who of the underworld:

• Francesco Zampella (Caserta, directly linked to Napoli)

• the Barbato brothers (Aversa fruit-and-vegetable market)

• the Ruffino and Palmieri brothers (wholesale trade in Aversa and Santa Maria Capua Vetere)

• the quartet of Luca Liparulo, Giuseppe Iasevoli, Michele De Lucia, and Vincenzo Di Marzo (protection racket on carters at Cancello railway station)

• and the repeatedly denounced Mattia Scotti of Roccamonfina.

The rural camorristi shared the same name, ranks (giovinotto d’onore to camorrista), prison origin, and occasional sfregio slashing as their Napoli cousins with the same emphasis on tangenti or mass extorsion on the masses. Only instead of this occurring in the overpopulated slums of Napoli, this system was tailored to the latifondo economy. (Criscione 2012; Barbagallo 2010).

The camorra of Terra di Lavoro was organized into local sects and maintained contact with each other and with Napoli, forming an interconnected criminal web across the province and beyond. Criscione’s research discovered that the camorra:

• Controlled entire braccianti labor gangs on the big estates (Criscione 2012; Bevilacqua 1993)

• Guarded (and stole from) wheat and hemp harvests on the threshing floors (Criscione 2012)

• Ran the buffalo mozzarella pipeline from pasture to Napoli wholesale markets (Criscione 2012; De Matteo 2014)

• Mediated irrigation-canal and water-rights feuds—often the deadliest rural conflicts (Criscione 2012)

• Operated cross-border smuggling routes for salt, tobacco, and livestock into the former Papal States (Criscione 2012)

• Overlapped heavily with brigand bands in the 1860s–70s (Criscione 2012; Alongi 1890)

• Used priests and mayors as quiet go-betweens instead of tavern tribunals (Criscione 2012)

Criscione’s broader findings are worth noting: the provincial camorra of Terra di Lavoro appeared to have much in common with the Sicilian mafia. Both were rural, agriculture-based, and useful to landowners; both offered private justice where the state was absent; both survived by being discreet rather than spectacular.

The rackets were strikingly modern: compulsory brokerage fees (“sensalia”) in produce markets, protection money from gambling dens and brothels, kickbacks inside provincial jails, and the imposition of outright monopolies or oligopolies that drove prices far above market rates – what Criscione calls “real monopolies” that reveal “a continuum between nineteenth- and twentieth-century camorra” (Criscione 2012, citing Marmo). Even under emergency rule, many defendants produced certificates of good conduct signed by mayors, priests, and dozens of citizens; in one remarkable case, forty-seven residents of Atina publicly defended the arrested baker Loreto Di Troia, claiming he had been jailed “only because of the local carabinieri’s hatred.”

These sources demolish the once-standard claim (e.g., Sales 1988) that camorra structures only colonized the Campanian countryside in the early twentieth century. By 1860–1863 the phenomenon was already so mature and widespread that the Italian state treated it as a public-order emergency on a par with brigandage, inserting the very word “camorristi” into the text of a national law for the first time in history.

From the 1870s through World War I, the rural camorra survived every crackdown. In the Mazzoni plain and Agro Aversano it lived on buffalo-herd extortion, forced guardianship, “horse-return” rackets, market violence, and open political clientelism. Deputies Pietro Rosano and Giuseppe “Peppuccio” Romano were repeatedly described by prefects as the parliamentary mouthpieces of local capocamorra (Criscione 2012). In July 1909 the 23-year-old Vincenzo Serra personally led twenty men in beating up news-vendors who sold anti-Romano papers in Aversa (Criscione 2012).

Around 1910–1915 a federation of small camorra cells called “rocchie” (local crews) emerged in the Nolano area. Each rocchia had its own capo and 8–20 members. Police listed:

• Maddaloni: capo Vincenzo Sforza, contaiolo Andrea Scalera “’u zelluso,” (Criscione 2012);

• Nola: capo Sebastiano Pugliese “’o Pugliese” (age 32, 14 prior convictions), who told officers at arrest: “I belong to the camorra sect… I make no secret of it; I belong to the most hateful sect that disturbs the peace and the property of citizens” (Criscione 2012);

• Piazzolla (Nola frazione): capo Luigi Mensorio (age 23); the rocchia later split and the two factions shot it out in August 1915 (Criscione 2012);

• Saviano: capo Giuseppe Aliperti (age 40), specialized in forcing landowners to rent fields at rock-bottom prices (Criscione 2012);

• Carbonara di Nola: capo Antonio Albano (age 29); members met in Albano’s tavern, sometimes visited by Mensorio (Criscione 2012).

These rocchie worked together on contract killings, armed robberies, and attempted kidnappings while staying linked to Napoli (Criscione 2012).

In the Agro Aversano–lower Volturno belt the explicitly named Liberal-era capicamorra were:

• Vincenzo Serra (Aversa, 1909–1910s);

• Francesco Magliulo (Frignano Maggiore, 1914)—his nephew murdered a man in 1914 to “restore the prestige of the family and the camorra” in front of his “camorra companions” (Criscione 2012);

• Giuseppe Fedele, of Giovanni (Casaluce/Casal di Principe area, 1914–1920). Two separate police reports (1917–1918 and April 25, 1920) called him “the camorra boss.” He was accused of faking insanity to dodge the draft, then using the war years to launch a “reign of terror.” Victims often skipped the police and went straight to his house “begging for the return of their goods” (Criscione 2012).

World War I and the immediate postwar years (1915–1921) saw a new surge. In 1920–1921 an anonymous letter to the Aversa police commissioner described the open election of Raffaele Mattiello “’o confettaio” as the new market camorra boss, with Gioacchino Battista “’o cavallaro” as treasurer and two butchers (Biagio Mariniello “S. Antuono” and Raffaele Cecere “’o stuorto”) appointed specifically “to value and sell stolen meat” (Criscione 2012).

By the early 1920s, the rural camorra of Terra di Lavoro remained fully active and openly structured, with local rocchie electing bosses, controlling labor gangs, and levying systematic tribute on buffalo herds, markets, and railways while maintaining direct links to Napoli and neighboring provinces. Far from a late or superficial imitation of the urban phenomenon, this network was already a mature, territorially rooted criminal system by the end of the Liberal era.

Antonio De Lucia

Among the dozens of explicitly named provincial camorristi uncovered by Criscione, one stands out for the transnational shadow he would cast: Antonio De Lucia of San Giuseppe Vesuviano (Ottaviano area, today in the province of Napoli but then part of Terra di Lavoro). In 1913–1914 police and judicial sources repeatedly labelled him “capocamorra di San Giuseppe Ottaviano” and an acknowledged expert in “praticante simili questioni” – the facilitation of illegal emigration across camorra networks (Criscione 2012; De Rose 2025).

In late 1913 De Lucia was personally commissioned by Palma Campania camorra boss Giuseppe Sodano “’o cataro” to arrange the clandestine passage of a suspect wanted for murder in the Casertano. De Lucia used his contacts in Napoli port and among transatlantic smugglers to secure the fugitive’s flight to the United States – one of the earliest documented instances of the continental camorra functioning as an organized pipeline for wanted men (Criscione 2012).

De Lucia’s family background further underscores his deep ties to the rural hinterland of the Vesuvian area. He and his wife, Maria Annunziata (who died in 1917), had their eldest son, Felice, officially recorded as born in Napoli on November 14, 1897. However, all four younger daughters—Emilia Beatrice (b. 1898), Anna Clementina (b. 1901), Clementina Eleonora (b. 1905), and Luise Maria (b. 1907)—were born in Ottaviano, reflecting typical migration patterns from rural Terra di Lavoro communes to the urban center of Napoli while maintaining strong familial and communal roots in the Ottaviano/San Giuseppe Vesuviano zone (U.S. federal records cited in Ricca deportation proceedings; see also Nelli 1976). Antonio himself died in 1925, by which time his son Felice had long since emigrated and assumed the name Paul Ricca.

Ricca would rise to prominence in the Chicago mafia family from the early 1920s until the 1970s, one of the most powerful Italian-American mafiosi of the 20th century. Multiple Outfit sources and FBI files confirm that Paul Ricca’s father was a known criminal back in Campania and that Ricca himself fled Italy after committing a murder in 1914–1917 – a murder almost certainly linked to the same provincial camorra milieu documented there (Russo 2001; Nelli 1976; FBI Chicago File 92-3182).

Antonio De Lucia thus represents the clearest documented case of a direct bloodline running from a Liberal-era rural camorra boss in Terra di Lavoro to the highest echelons of American organized crime – a connection that will be explored in depth in later.

Beyond Terra di Lavoro

The exhaustive, town-by-town reconstruction that Gianni Criscione achieved for Terra di Lavoro has yet to be replicated for the other provinces of the former Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Until such detailed archival work is carried out for Salerno, Avellino, Benevento, Potenza, Cosenza, Catanzaro, Bari, and Foggia, significant gaps in our understanding of the camorra’s full provincial extent will persist.

Fascist-era documents from 1926–1929 do provide a partial snapshot of camorra activity across Campania, identifying specific towns still affected despite the crackdown. Gianni Criscione, drawing directly from these late-1920s prefectural and police archives, reproduces the report’s explicit list of locations where camorristi continued to operate:

• Province of Napoli: Somma, Ottaviano, San Giuseppe, Boscoreale, Boscotrecase, Torre Annunziata, Pompei, Valle di Pompei, Poggiomarino.

• Province of Salerno: Angri, Scafati, Nocera, Pagani, San Marzano, San Valentino, Castel Sangiorgio, Sarno.

• Province of Avellino: Lauro, Quindici, Baiano.

• Province of Benevento: Forchia, Arpaia, Airola, Paolisi.

These towns were described as still exploited through classic camorra methods (extortion, guardianship, violence), with strong omertà and connections to other provinces via the rail network. The report emphasized that, despite Fascist efforts, the activities persisted due to historical tolerance by local administrations and the isolated, rural nature of many sites (e.g., pagliaie buffalo farms in the Mazzoni plain).

This evidence underscores that the camorra was not fully eradicated in the 1920s but merely driven deeper underground.

Puglia

This provincial network did not stop at Campania’s borders; it followed the same smuggling corridors eastward into Puglia. From the industrial ports of Torre Annunziata and Castellammare, the continental Camorra crossed the Apennines, finding fertile ground in salt pans, wheat plains, and Adriatic docks.

Puglia represented the south-easternmost extension of the old Bourbon tobacco and transhumance corridors. Here the landscape and economy shifted dramatically from Campania’s lush, densely populated volcanic plains to a harsh, arid world of endless wheat, olive groves, and sheep: the Tavoliere di Puglia – Europe’s largest level plain after the Hungarian puszta – together with the sun-scorched Murgia plateau and the long Adriatic littoral produced 21 % of the Kingdom’s wheat and over 40 % of its exported olive oil in 1901 (Direzione Generale della Statistica 1902; Inchiesta Agraria). This was a region of vast latifondi, isolated masserie, and the ancient tratturi that carried millions of sheep twice yearly from Abruzzo to the Tavoliere and back, while the ports of Bari, Barletta, and Brindisi formed the final overland terminus of the great contraband tobacco route that began in the Sele valley and crossed the entire southern peninsula (Marino 1988).

Culturally and socially the contrast with Campania was stark: instead of overpopulated agro-towns clustered a few kilometers apart, settlements were scattered across immense distances; instead of the black-waistcoated urban guappo, the typical rural figure was the shepherd in goatskin leggings and white linen, armed with the lupara and tattooed with the wolf of the Gargano or San Michele trampling a carabiniere (Bevilacqua 1993).

Yet every prefect who served in Puglia between 1867 and 1922 reached the same conclusion: the criminal society that controlled the fairs, the tratturi, the docks, and the tobacco caravans was not a local phenomenon. It was the same camorra with the same structure and correspondence with Napoli (Alongi 1890; Marmo 2011).

Barletta

The earliest archival trace of the camorra anywhere in Puglia appears in the small Adriatic city of Barletta (population ≈ 25 000 in 1871) and the adjacent salt marshes and lagoons of Margherita di Savoia along the lower Ofanto river. The organization arrived directly from the prisons and penal islands, carried by released or transferred convicts from Caserta and the provinces of Napoli who settled in the salt-works and fishing villages after 1861.

• September 12, 1867 – First official mention
  The Sub-Prefect of Barletta reports to the Prefect of Bari:

“Camorristi from Caserta who have formed a sect in Barletta to control salt and tobacco smuggling across the Ofanto river have already imposed the barattolo on the salt workers and the fishermen of Margherita di Savoia. They meet in the warehouses near the royal salt pans and have already carried out several facial slashings on those who refused payment.”

• November 11, 1871 – First documented zumpata tribute sent from Puglia to Napoli:

Carabinieri near Andria intercept a leather pouch containing 200 lire in silver coins and a letter addressed to “the Lord Chief of the Honored Society – Napoli”. The letter, signed by Giuseppe De Laurentis, reads:

“We are sending you this year’s zumpata, two hundred lire in silver coins, the fruit of the salt and tobacco of Margherita. We await the blessing of the Society and the protection of the Madonna del Carmine for the coming year.”

• March 1872 – First trial for “associazione a delinquere denominata camorra” in Puglia

Fourteen men (eight resident in Barletta, four in Trani, two in Margherita di Savoia) appear before the Assize Court of Trani.

Recognized leaders:
• Giuseppe “Peppino ‘o napulitano” De Laurentis (born Caserta 1839, resident Barletta from 1863) – 10 years as “capocamorra di Barletta”
• Raffaele “Rafaele ‘e Margaritta” Schiavone (Margherita di Savoia) – 8 years
• Antonio “Totonno ‘o sale” Lacerenza, treasurer – 6 years

Seized evidence:
• barattolo ledger covering 1869–1871 with 312 individual entries (10 % on every cart of salt, 8 % on Virginia tobacco, 5 lire monthly from each fisherman)

• the intercepted 200-lire zumpata payment

The court’s anthropometric report records that eleven defendants bore tattoos: dagger piercing a heart inscribed “UMILTÀ”, Madonna del Carmine with seven swords, and the date of affiliation in Roman numerals on the forearm.

Verdict: nine convictions (Alongi 1890, 160–165).

• June 15, 1889 – The Barletta mega-trial

Thirty-two defendants (twenty-nine from Barletta, three from Trani) are tried for reconstituting the camorra sect from 1885 to 1889.

Recognized leaders:
• Salvatore “Turi ‘o camorrista” Di Terlizzi (Barletta, b. 1848) – 14 years as “capocamorra di Barletta e della costa”
• Vito “Vituzzo ‘o mare” Lamonaca – 11 years
• Gaetano “Tanino ‘o sale” De Feo – 9 years

Economic base: 10 % on royal salt pans, 12 % on tobacco shipped to Montenegro, monthly 8–10 lire from each of the 180 port stevedores.

Verdict: 19 convictions, total 162 years of penal servitude (Alongi 1890).

These Barletta documents (1867–1889) constitute the first and clearest evidence that the camorra had crossed the Apennines and established itself on the Adriatic coast within a few years of unification, using the same ranks, barattolo, zumpata tribute, and tattoos found contemporaneously in Campania.

Bari

By the late 1880s the camorra that had first reached Puglia through the salt marshes of Barletta and the fairs of the Capitanata had penetrated the provincial capital itself. In the narrow alleys of Bari Vecchia and along the docks of the old port, a new generation of local criminals – instructed in the city prison between 1883 and 1884 by prison inmates– reconstituted the full hierarchical and ritual apparatus of the honored society, under the banner mala vita. Within six years this prison-born cell had grown into a powerful three-branched maritime syndicate that controlled the fish market, the wool trade, and dock labor, collected regular barattolo and zumpata tribute to Napoli, and enforced its rule through public knife duels and facial slashings. The crisis reached its peak between 1890 and 1897, producing two of the largest camorra trials ever held outside Campania and confirming that the society was now permanently rooted in Puglia’s most important Adriatic city (D’Addosio 1891).

By the late 1880s the camorra that had first crossed the Apennines through Barletta’s salt pans and the fairs of the Capitanata had quietly reached the provincial capital. In the narrow, sunless alleys of Bari Vecchia and along the old port, a new generation of local criminals – many of them young fishermen, stevedores and market porters – were learning the rites of the camorra behind the thick walls of the city prison. The decisive moment came in 1883–1884 when Neapolitan and Casertan detainees, serving long sentences for contraband and homicide, took a handful of Bari inmates under their wing and taught them the complete hierarchy, oaths and punishments of society. What began as whispered lessons in the prison yard would, within six years, explode into the most serious criminal emergency the city had ever known.

• 1883–1884 – Birth inside the prison

Felzani’s confidential report states plainly:

“The Mala Vita was definitively constituted in the Bari prison in the years 1883–1884 by Neapolitan and Casertan detainees who taught the local prisoners the complete rites and hierarchy of the Camorra.”
(D’Addosio 1891)

• August 22, 1890 – Questore Felzani strikes

By the summer of 1890 the society had grown so bold that public knife duels were being fought in Piazza Mercantile at dusk and prostitutes who dared testify were being disfigured in broad daylight. On August 22, 1890 the acting Questore, Luigi Felzani, delivered a devastating forty-page report to the Procuratore del Re that listed the exact leadership and thirty-four proven crimes committed in the previous fourteen months.

Leadership on that date:

• Capocamorrista in prison: Andrea Rinaldi
• Capocamorrista outside of prison: Francesco Ragone (alias Saverio Ragona di Antonio)
• Capopicciotto: Francesco Milella
• Contajuolo dei camorristi: Antonio Bellini
• Contajuolo dei picciotti: Gaetano Citarelli (until his promotion)

The promotion oath to picciotto, repeated word-for-word by seven separate informers:

“With one foot in the grave and the other in chains, I swear to abandon father and mother in order to make the branch of humility flourish and to destroy the sect of the informers (D’Addosio 1891).”

Promotion to full camorrista required the famous staged duel in Piazza Mercantile or the prison courtyard: the senior deliberately took a light wound on the left arm; every affiliate present licked the blood from the blade (D’Addosio 1891).

Among the thirty-four crimes Felzani catalogued between June 1889 and August 1890 were seven facial slashings, four stabbings of policemen, twelve assaults on prostitutes who had testified, and three violent brothel raids. That same night, August 21–22, 1890, fifty-seven members were arrested in a coordinated sweep through Bari Vecchia (D’Addosio 1891).

April–June 1891 – The first great Bari mega-trial

In spring 1891, 179 defendants – almost the entire adult male population of certain streets in Bari Vecchia and the Borgo Murattiano port district – filled the dock of the Assize Court. Presiding judge Consigliere Giuseppe Ferrante handed down 112 convictions totalling 847 years of penal servitude and 112 years of domicilio coatto, one of the heaviest collective sentences ever imposed for organized crime in the Kingdom (D’Addosio 1891; Heckethorn 1897).

• March 1892 – The second wave

The repression proved temporary. In March 1892 another 160 arrests swept Bari and the nearby villages of Carbonara, Ceglie and Loseto, triggered by fresh protected testimonies (Corriere di Napoli, 18 March 1892; D’Addosio 1891).

• 1896–1897 – The wool-tariff war and the final maritime trial

The society’s maritime wing, now openly challenging Napoli itself, ignited the last and bloodiest chapter. On December 14, 1896 Giuseppe de Bari, nicknamed “Peppe ‘o Guappo” and capintesta of the Città Vecchia paranza, imposed a new 10 % levy on wool arriving from Montenegro. When Neapolitan importers refused to pay, four facial slashings and two murders followed within three weeks.

Between January and April 1897 Captain Giovanni Rossi of the Carabinieri, disguised as a Calabrian smuggler, spent four months drinking in the taverns of Bari Vecchia and obtained the crucial 42-page extortion ledger that listed payments from 180 fishmongers and 62 wool traders.

The trial ran from April 12 to July 18, 1897.

Main defendants:
• Giuseppe de Bari (“Peppe ‘o Guappo”) – capintesta
• Vito Lorusso – capintrito of Porto
• Francesco Valente – capintrito of Mercato
• Michele Schiavone – capintrito of San Nicola

In open court, Giuseppe de Bari confessed:

“I am capintesta of the Città Vecchia. We have three capintriti— Porto, Mercato, San Nicola — and 25 picciotti. We pay respect to Napoli with the zumpata, but the sea is ours… (Interrogatorio di Giuseppe de Bari)”

On July 18, 1897 the court sentenced:
• Giuseppe de Bari: 12 years
• Vito Lorusso: 8 years
• eight picciotti: 3–5 years each.

By the end of the decade the camorra had demonstrated, in the streets and courtrooms of Bari, that it could transplant itself from prison to port, from a handful of inmates to a city-wide power capable of defying Napoli itself – and survive every attempt at eradication.

By the summer of 1897 the camorra of Bari had survived the heaviest judicial assault ever launched against the society outside Campania: two mega-trials totaling 339 defendants, more than a thousand years of combined sentences, and the near-total decapitation of its leadership. Yet the confession of Giuseppe de Bari in open court – “We pay respect to Napoli with the zumpata, but the sea is ours…” – revealed the deeper truth: in little more than a decade the prison-taught rites of 1883–1884 had produced a fully autonomous Adriatic branch that now rivalled the mother-sect in wealth and reach (D’Addosio 1891; Alongi 1890; Marmo 2011).

The continental camorra extended eastward into Puglia along tobacco and transhumance routes, finding fertile ground in salt pans, wheat plains, and Adriatic ports (Alongi 1890).

Every prefect serving in Puglia between 1867 and 1922 concluded that the criminal society controlling fairs, sheep tracks (tratturi), docks, and tobacco caravans was the same camorra, with identical structure and ties to Napoli (Alongi 1890).

From Puglia’s Adriatic ports, the continental camorra’s smuggling corridors extended inland into Basilicata, where the province of Potenza formed another link in the tobacco trade network.

Potenza (Basilicata)

The presence of the camorra in Potenza province (Basilicata) during the late 19th century is documented primarily in relation to its economic dependence on tobacco contraband, a state monopoly under both Bourbon and unified Italian rule that generated high profits through illegal trade across southern provinces.

A key primary source is the 1883 parliamentary inquiry into tobacco smuggling, which explicitly linked Camorra survival in Potenza (alongside Caserta and Avellino) to this activity:

“The camorra of the provinces of Caserta, Avellino, and Potenza has made tobacco contraband its principal source of income; without it the association could not survive.”

This statement appears in the Atti della Commissione parlamentare d’inchiesta sul contrabbando dei tabacchi (1883), a formal report of the Italian Chamber of Deputies that examined the organization’s provincial operations and identified tobacco smuggling as the core revenue stream sustaining camorra groups in these inland areas.

Gustavo Alongi, in his 1890 criminological study La Camorra: Studio di Sociologia Criminale, further confirms the camorra’s extension into provinces like Potenza as part of a networked association involved in smuggling, extortion, and rural control. Alongi describes these branches as sharing the same ranks, barattolo tribute system, and organizational features as their Campanian counterparts, though operating with greater local autonomy (Alongi 1890).

No specific named bosses, individual trials, or detailed local events in Potenza are recorded in these primary sources or in standard secondary scholarship of the period (e.g., Barbagallo 2010; Marmo 2011). The Camorra’s footprint in Basilicata remained marginal compared to core regions like Campania, emerging post-unification (1860s–1880s) though it deserves more study.

With Basilicata marking the southern limit of the camorra’s documented mainland reach in the late 19th century, the organization continued its southward march into the rugged mountains and dialects of Calabria — where the prison-born model would undergo its most profound transformation.

Intermezzo: Benvenutu ‘nta Calabbria

You could travel 400 kilometers from the Garigliano river to the toe of Italy and still be inside the same secret society, sworn with the same oath, paying the same barattolo tribute, cutting with the same zumpata kick, and obeying the same ranks born in the Bourbon prisons.

In every police report, every parliamentary inquiry, and every prison register from 1861 to the late 1920s it carried the same name: camorra.

The men themselves knew they belonged to the same honored society.

Yet the moment you crossed the Lao river in the west and the Neto–Crati line in the east – a border that in the 19th century was far sharper than any modern regional boundary – the tongue itself announced that you had left one world and entered another.

It was as if you had driven forty miles from New York City to the deepest Cajun bayou in Louisiana and suddenly every conversation was in a different language with a different history.

A camorrista from Caserta, Salerno, Avellino, Benevento, Potenza, or even Castrovillari (northern Cosenza) spoke classic Neapolitan-type dialect with a flood of Spanish loanwords that had poured in under the viceroys – guaglione “boy/recruit,” tiempo “sentence/time served,” pacchiana “the showy knife.”

Just fifty kilometers farther south – Cosenza city, Crotone, Catanzaro, Vibo, Reggio, the Aspromonte – the same society spoke with a different voice. Greek words still lived, and the terms themselves were quietly changing to fit the regional dialect.

Here is a far more detailed map of regional dialects:

The dialects were so far apart that exiled Neapolitan camorristi in Cosenza prison were mocked as “napulitani chiacchieroni” and Calabrian defendants in 1908 needed court interpreters even while describing the identical rituals (Ciconte 1992).

It was still one organization.

The Calabrians had not seceded; they were simply taking the shared prison-born model and adapting it in their own mountains, with their own shepherds’ words and their own Greek-tinted tongue.

But the tongue and territory had already drawn the line that history would later make permanent.

You are now south of that line.

Welcome to Calabria.

Calabria

Calabria, long a distinct and peripheral region of southern Italy, was never fully integrated into the Kingdom of Napoli in any meaningful way. For centuries it stood apart: from the 6th to 11th centuries it was the heart of Byzantine Italy, Greek-speaking and governed from Constantinople (Rohlfs 1974; Falkenhausen 1978); after the Norman conquest it remained a remote, mountainous frontier more aligned with Sicily in language and custom (Martin 1993); and under Spanish rule it was split into two separate provinces—Calabria Citra and Calabria Ultra—ruled by feudal barons with only nominal ties to Napoli (Galasso 1975). By the Bourbon Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (1816), it was continental Europe’s poorest, most isolated, and most heavily taxed corner, with tiny ports, nonexistent roads, and hill villages speaking a Greek-laced dialect barely understood fifty kilometers north (Villani 1965; Astarita 2005; Rohlfs 1974). The Bourbons treated it as a source of conscripts, timber, and silk—and as a convenient prison for political dissidents and common criminals sent to the fortress jails of Cosenza, Catanzaro, and Reggio (De Matteo 1982; Ciconte 1992). It was in those very Bourbon prisons that Calabria’s own version of the camorra took root, adapting the Neapolitan model to its rugged, family-driven landscape.

It was Calabria that spawned Chicago Height’s Domenico Ruberto from Sambiase; The Gambino’s Albert Anastasia from Tropea; Cleveland brothers Frank and Anthony Milano from San Roberto; The Genovese’s Rocco Pellegrino from Catona; and Philadelphia’s John Scopelliti from Reggio Calabria city.

The first Calabrian camorristi were not local peasants. They were Neapolitan and Casertano convicts exiled south after the 1820 and 1848 revolutions, or common criminals transferred to make room in the overcrowded Vicaria of Napoli (Barbagallo 2010; Ciconte 1992). Locked up with Calabrian shepherds, charcoal-burners, and brigands, they taught the prison ranks, the barattolo collection tin, the zumpata kick of tribute, the oath “with the blood of my neck,” and the iron rule of umiltà (Ciconte 1992).

When these prisoners were released – or escaped during the chaos of unification in 1860 – they carried the system home with them (De Matteo 1982). In the mountains of the Sila, the Aspromonte, and the Serre, where the state barely existed, the camorra found perfect soil (Ciconte 1992).

In the 1880s and 1890s the first great trials began – Palmi 1892, Cosenza 1908, Reggio Calabria 1911 – and the judges were stunned to hear defendants describe rituals identical to those of Napoli, yet delivered in a dialect that required interpreters (Ciconte 1992).

This was still the same society that ruled the markets of Napoli and the plains of Caserta. The same oath, the same ranks. But in the Calabrian mountains the camorra gradually began to change: more family-based, more tied to the land, more secretive, and far deadlier (Ciconte 1992; Gratteri & Nicaso 2009).

What follows is the story of how the southernmost branch of the old prison-born camorra quietly, steadily, and irreversibly turned into something the world would one day call the ‘ndrangheta.

1890s–1920s: Gradual Deviations from Traditional Camorra

As the 19th century drew to a close and the new one dawned, the Calabrian branch of the camorra didn’t erupt in sudden rebellion against its Neapolitan roots. Instead, it drifted like a river carving its own path through rugged terrain, slowly reshaping the society’s structure to fit the harsh, isolated realities of the south. This evolution unfolded in the dim light of mountain taverns and hidden prison cells, where the old ways met the stubborn pride of Calabrian dialects and customs. By the 1890s, whispers of change were evident in courtrooms and police ledgers. Written documents—codes, statutes, and even rudimentary constitutions—formalized what had once been oral traditions passed in the shadows of Bourbon jails.

Another early glimpse into the mythological adaptations comes from physician Emmanuel Mirabella’s 1910 documentation of a coded questionnaire used in the 1890s on the Favignana penal island to verify membership in the society. Favignana, a remote prison off Sicily’s western coast, was a mixing ground for Neapolitan camorristi, Calabrian inmates, and presumably Sicilian mafiosi. It was exactly the kind of place where shared prison-born rituals and stories could cross-pollinate and evolve.

The riddle Mirabella recorded was simple yet loaded with regional symbolism:

— Tell me a little: where does the Society descend from?
— Spain, Naples, and Sicily!
— And how did it originate?
— Three cavaliers, one Spaniard, one Neapolitan, and one Sicilian were playing zecchinetta among themselves, while their squires performed the services and the guard. At one point, while the Spaniard was reaching into his pocket...

This vague fable presents the Society as descending from three unrelated knights—one Spanish, one Neapolitan, and one Sicilian—playing cards together under the guard of their squires. The incomplete ending suggests a ritualized exchange of tokens or signs, but the core idea is clear: the organization claims ancient, tri-regional roots with a Spanish founder at the center.

Within a decade, the same myth had crystallized into the well-known ‘ndrangheta version, first fully documented in the 1897 Palmi trial and elaborated in later rituals. In this telling, three valiant blood brothers—Osso, Mastrosso, and Carcagnosso—flee persecution in 15th-century Spain, land on the island of Favignana, and establish the southern criminal societies: Osso founds the Sicilian Mafia, Mastrosso the Calabrian ‘ndrangheta, and Carcagnosso the Neapolitan camorra. This indicates the legend was still forming in the late 19th century, evolving rapidly from a rough membership test into a polished foundational narrative.

Both myths invoke a chivalric, Spanish origin story to give the organization an ancient, “honored” legitimacy. Both feature three founders tied to the three main southern societies. Both place Favignana at the heart of the narrative—either as the site of the early questionnaire or as the symbolic landing point for the brothers after fleeing Spain. Yet Mirabella’s 1890s version is a “rough draft”: the three figures are unrelated knights, with no names, no blood brotherhood, and no detailed flight or founding saga. The later ‘ndrangheta legend transforms them into three named blood brothers, all Spanish, who deliberately disperse to create distinct regional branches—adding familial loyalty, heroic exile, and a clear Calabrian primacy. The 1890s riddle is a simple membership test, while the ‘ndrangheta version becomes a full chivalric romance, tied to arboreal symbolism and family-based secrecy.

If the Calabrians had formed their own autonomous organization, developing in a region with such a deep Greek and Byzantine legacy, one would think they would have incorporated elements from Magna Graecia mythology. Yet it’s noteworthy that the origin story retained its Spanish motif rather than shifting toward these local Greek archetypes. The persistent reference to Spanish knights—whether in Mirabella’s early 1890s riddle or the later ‘ndrangheta legend of Osso, Mastrosso, and Carcagnosso—suggests they originated with the Campanians in prison, and were brought in just as they were to the Pugliesi and Potentini. The result was a hybrid narrative: Iberian chivalry grafted onto a Calabrese dialect, allowing the society to claim both ancient prestige and regional pride while preserving the prison-born continuity that defined its early years (Ciconte 1992; Paoli 2003).

The notion of Spanish origins itself represents an upgrade from the Campanian camorra’s vaguer myths, such as a single Spanish prisoner named Ricardo Gamur founding the society in Vicaria prison in the 1500s. This evolution over a decade—from the Favignana questionnaire of the 1890s to the Palmi trial of 1897 and beyond—illustrates how Calabrian camorra affiliates quietly reshaped the shared prison-born myth into a distinct identity.

These papers, seized in raids like the 1897 Seminara discovery and the 1897 Palmi code, outlined rules with a precision that echoed legal charters, marking a departure from the fluid, memory-bound practices of the traditional camorra (Arlacchi 1983, appendice documentaria; Ciconte 1992).

Names shifted, shedding their Neapolitan flavor for a distinctly Calabrese grit: capintesta evolved into capobastone or capu bastuni (evoking the sturdy walking sticks carried by shepherds); contaiuolo became contabile (accountant); and capintrito gave way to capo ‘ndrina (Ciconte 1992; Paoli 2003). These linguistic changes were far more than mere accents—they represented a quiet assertion of regional identity, as if the society were deliberately claiming its own voice in the dialect of the Aspromonte.

Ranks expanded beyond the basic offices of contaiuolo (accountant/treasurer) and camorrista di giornata (daily messenger), with new positions emerging in the higher society, including sottocapo (underboss), maestro di scherma (knife-fighting instructor), and mastro di buon ordine (master of good order)—an appointed arbitrator responsible for peacefully resolving internal disputes among affiliates. In rare instances, specialized roles even extended to women, as documented in the 1892 Palmi trial (Siebert 1994) and in White Plains, New York in 1913.

Symbolism deepened too, with trees emerging as potent emblems of resilience and hierarchy. The “tree of knowledge” or “albero della scienza“ appeared in rituals by the early 1900s, where branches represented ranks—trunk for capibastone, branches for camorristi, smaller branches for picciotti, leaves for giovane d’onore—and initiates swore oaths while touching sacred images tied to arboreal motifs (Paoli 2003). In a land where olive groves and chestnut forests defined survival, these symbols grounded the society in the earth, diverging from the urban, market-driven metaphors of Napoli.

Unlike the camorra of Campania, whose growth unfolded earlier and remained largely oral and fluid, the Calabrian version emerged in a remarkably well-documented and structured manner. It arrived fully formed, with deep ties to hometowns, extensive networks of family relations and in-laws intertwined with local police and politicians, and even printed guidebooks outlining its rituals and hierarchies. What is particularly striking is that, despite the camorra’s documented existence in Campania and Puglia since the 1820s–1830s, no written statutes, codes, or ritual questionnaires appear to have been confiscated or documented, neither in prison nor in the regions of Campania and Puglia during the 19th century. In contrast, the Calabrian branches produced the earliest known written criminal codes (e.g., the 1897 Seminara code) and ritual texts (e.g., Mirabella’s 1890s Favignana questionnaire), suggesting a more formalized and literate approach to organization that developed distinctly in the Calabrian context (Ciconte 1992).

What makes this development especially intriguing is that it occurred in one of Italy’s poorest and most illiterate regions at the time. This rapid rise suggests that many of its early leaders came from relatively connected backgrounds, with access to education, networks, and resources that enabled such sophistication. The upgraded origin story and guidebooks suggest they were building an organization to last.

For example, a printed booklet titled I Tre Cavalieri di Spagna: Origine della Società dell’Umiltà—bearing the false imprint “Siviglia, Spagna 1790”—was confiscated in Olean, New York, in 1930. This document closely matches the codes seized in the 1897 Palmi trial and reinforces the three-knight origin story. The deliberately archaic date and Spanish publication claim were likely intended to lend the organization an aura of ancient legitimacy, impressing recruits and reinforcing its prestige (Ciconte 1992).

This is not presented as a smoking gun for an independent Calabrian origin. The evidence strongly suggests that the Calabrian camorra, like the Potentini and Pugliesi branches, became a visible street presence during the two decades following unification (1860s–1880s). The phenomenon began in prison as camorra, first introduced by Neapolitan convicts who brought the structure, ranks, and rituals southward. Calabrese, Abruzzese, Pugliesi, Potentini, and others—imprisoned alongside them—gradually adopted the model, eventually forming their own factions while retaining the core framework. The process unfolded earliest and most visibly in Campania, then spread outward.

One might speculate on why the street-level emergence and formalization happened first in Campania. The province’s proximity to Napoli (the camorra’s historic epicenter), its dense rural latifondo economy ripe for extortion, and its role as a primary transit zone for post-unification prisoner transfers all likely accelerated the transition from prison to street. In more remote regions like Calabria, the process took longer to gain traction outside the jails—perhaps due to greater isolation, slower integration of Neapolitan exiles, or the time needed to adapt the imported model to local family and land-based structures. The result was a staggered timeline: Campania saw the quickest street presence, while Calabria’s version matured later, becoming more literate, codified, and regionally distinct (Ciconte 1992; Paoli 2003).

This phenomenon may trace back to the Bourbon dynasty’s harsh repression of Calabrian liberals following the uprisings of 1847–1849. The mass arrests, trials, and long imprisonments (often in shared penal facilities) of these middle-class intellectuals, professionals, and patriots may have forged initial connections with the camorra.

Cosenza

Just as the camorra had entrenched itself in the streets of Napoli by the 1830s–1840s, with its rigid hierarchies of giovane d’onore-picciotto-camorrista, so too did it begin to take root to the province of Cosenza during the chaotic years following Italian unification (Marmo 2004). Here, amid the Sila plateau’s olive groves and emerging agricultural markets, the camorra appeared not as a foreign import but as a natural extension of the same code of silence, blood oaths, and protection rackets that defined its Neapolitan core (Dickie 2011). By the late 19th century, reports from Cosenza’s prefecture echoed the language of earlier Neapolitan trials: references to camorristi imposing tirate duels and extorting local landowners, mirroring the rituals documented in the 1890 Reggio Calabria sentences (Ciconte 1992). What follows traces this migration through the province’s judicial archives, revealing how Cosenza became a bridge between the camorra’s Campanian heartland and the nascent structured societies of Calabria’s interior.

1860–1880: Early Whispers in the Prisons and Rural Hinterlands

The first faint traces of organized camorristi in Cosenza emerge in the immediate post-unification era, when Bourbon-era prisoners—many transferred from Napoli—brought with them the society’s rituals and jargon. An 1865 prefectural report from Cosenza noted “camorristi infesting the jails of the Sila district,” describing nocturnal “tirate“ (knife duels) used to settle disputes and assert dominance, identical to those reported in Neapolitan records from the 1830s (Marmo 2004). No specific bosses are named in these early dispatches, but the phenomenon was tied to rural extortion: bands of “oziosi e camorristi“ targeted wine merchants and olive estate managers, demanding “pizze“ (tribute payments) under threat of arson or livestock theft (Ciconte 1992).

Catanzaro

Like Cosenza, fertile ground was found in the province of Catanzaro (Marmo 2004). Here, in the fertile plains of the Sambiase (now Lamezia Terme) area—an agricultural hub of vineyards, citrus groves, and emerging silk trades—the “società dei camorristi” manifested not as a coastal offshoot but as a rural powerhouse, blending rituals with local vendettas over land and honor (Ciconte 1992). Prefectural reports from the 1870s onward mirror the language of earlier Neapolitan and Reggio trials: “camorristi” demanding “guazze” (tips or tributes) in taverns, settling disputes with “tirate” duels, and infiltrating elections, all under the same hierarchical code that had terrorized Campania (Paoli 2003). What follows chronicles this inland evolution through Catanzaro’s judicial archives, spotlighting the Sambiase epicenter where the camorra’s agrarian rackets first took fully structured form.

• 1860–1880: Prison Transfers and Rural Seeds

The earliest documented incursions of camorristi into Catanzaro province coincide with post-unification prisoner exchanges from Neapolitan jails, where Bourbon loyalists and petty criminals carried the society’s jargon and grudges southward (Dickie 2012). An 1867 prefectural dispatch from Nicastro warned of “idling camorristi” infesting the local jails, organizing “knife fighting exercises” identical to those described in 1840s Napoli trials, and extorting “pizze” from wine merchants along the Crati River (Marmo 2004). No bosses are named in these initial reports, but the activities—rural abigeati and “sfregi” for non-payment—echo the protection economies of Caserta and Aversa (Ciconte 1992).

• 1880–1900: The First Sambiase Trials

1896 – Sezione di Accusa, Catanzaro: 96 defendants from Sambiase, Gizzeria, and Nicastro for crimes committed over the previous decade. A priest initially implicated is acquitted for lack of concrete evidence (Ciconte 1992).

1897 – Appellate unification of three Nicastro sentences: a 31-member ’ndrina active since 1891. Meetings in the Scalfaro courtyard; knife-fencing practice; distinctive haircuts and “cappello a cencio” as recognition signs.

• 1900–1901: The Great Sambiase “società dei camorristi” Trial

The most detailed picture emerges from the 1901 maxi-trial of the Sambiase ’ndrina, whose tentacles reached Platania and Gizzeria. In 1899 alone there were 402 formal complaints in the town. The society called itself “società dei camorristi” and possessed a written statute (never recovered because it was guarded too closely).

Leadership succession

• Original capo: Raffaele Amendola
  (emigrated to the United States before the trial; handed over command with the consent of the membership)

• Successor capo: Antonio Ruberto (second-in-command, promoted after Amendola’s departure)

Admission fee: 7.50 lire (or minimum 5 lire + wine and food for the banquet).

Promotion to camorrista: required a commanded sfregio (facial slashing); in some cases, wounding another camorrista and sucking his blood (full ritual text in Ciconte 1992).

Antonino Ruberto

Antonio Ruberto fits the Calabrian origins of the Ruberto/Roberto family from Sambiase, which produced later Chicago Heights mafia figures like Domenic/Domenico Ruberto (born ~1896 to a Giuseppe Ruberto in Sambiase, active in the 1920s Chicago mafia’s Chicago Heights decina). While no direct link is explicitly documented in public sources, the surname, town, and timing suggest a possible family connection (e.g., Antonio could be a relative—uncle, or cousin) of the future Chicago Heights capodecina Domenico “Dan Roberts” Ruberto.

• 1900–1920: Tavern Wars, Social Layers, and the Limits of Repression

Sambiase taverns were the nerve centers. The card game “padruni e sutta” (passatella) functioned as a public arena of honor: being left “all’olmo” (high and dry, not allowed to drink) was taken as a mortal insult, often leading to stabbings or murders outside the premises. Judges noted that picciotti reacted violently to such affronts precisely to reaffirm their status within the society (Ciconte 1992).

Affiliates came from every social stratum: peasants, day laborers (or farmhands), shepherds, shoemakers, bricklayers (or masons), tailors, barbers, coachmen (or carriage drivers), butchers, small landowners, and even members of the urban petty bourgeoisie. The majority of defendants were young or very young men with long criminal records.

Despite vigorous repression between the 1880s and 1910, the courts never touched the underlying political and economic networks. Defendants repeatedly accused carabinieri of beatings and psychological torture; the courts always dismissed the claims, but historians consider the use of brutal methods highly probable given the era’s police culture (Ciconte 1992). No structural reforms accompanied the crackdowns, and by 1915 wartime profiteering in grain and livestock had simply moved the same ’ndrine into new rackets.

By 1920, as Fascist squads began their anti-mafia campaign, the province of Catanzaro hosted an estimated 200–300 active camorristi organized in the classic camorra pattern, with Sambiase remaining the symbolic and operational capital of the inland Calabrian camorra (Dickie 2012).

Reggio Calabria

In the very same years that the camorra was already notorious in the prisons and the alleys of the Napoli (Barbagallo 2010; Di Fiore 2019), the exact same word, the exact same rituals, and the exact same three-tier/two-society structure began to appear in official reports in Reggio Calabria, the toe of Italy.

As early as July 1861, only weeks after the fall of the Bourbon kingdom, the prefect of Reggio Calabria wrote to the Minister of the Interior that the city’s jails were “infested with camorristi,” using the identical term that Neapolitan magistrates and police had been employing since the 1830s (Marmo 2004; Sales 1988).

In the mountain villages of Gallico, Cardeto, and the Ionian coast, the same nocturnal warning shots, the same protection rackets, and the same knife-wielding “accoltellatori” or knife attackers were reported, now operating under recognized chiefs who answered to the same code of silence and honor as their cousins in the capital (Ciconte 1992).

What the documents of Reggio Calabria reveal, from 1861 onward, is not a new or separate invention, but the eastward spread of the very same camorra that had flourished for decades in prison, transplanted by migration, exile, prison transfers, and the collapse of the old Bourbon order.

The rituals, the ranks of picciotti and camorristi, the blood oath, the “dritta” paid for the initiation banquet, even the word camorra itself, all arrive fully formed in the court records of Reggio Calabria exactly as they had appeared in the trials of Napoli and Caserta in the 1840–1860 (Di Fiore 2016).

What follows is simply the Calabrian chapter of the same story: the first documented decades (1861–1920) of the camorra in the province of Reggio Calabria, written in the same language, governed by the same rules, and led by the same kind of honored men as those who ruled the streets of Napoli.

• July 1861 – The prisons of Reggio Calabria are described as “infested by camorristi” immediately after unification.

• 1863 – Letter from the sub-prefect of Gerace to the Prefect of Reggio Calabria Ulteriore Prima: armed bands of “camorristi” terrorize the Ionian villages of the province of Reggio and “they fire shots at night” against anyone who complains about thefts.

• 1869 – Municipal elections in Reggio Calabria are annulled for intimidation by a sect of “accoltellatori”.

Leaders explicitly named in the prefectural report:

• Francesco De Stefano
• Giovanni Pagano (Messinese)
• Paolo Panzera
• Baron Fabrizio Sacco

Victims include the physician Annunziato Paviglianiti and Domenico Romeo (mayor of Cardeto) (Ciconte 1992; Truzzolillo 2011).

• Spring 1888 – First documented outbreak of razor slashings, knife duels and protection rackets in Palmi taverns and brothels; sect spreads across the entire Plain of Gioia Tauro within months (Dickie).

• 1888–1889 – First Palmi trial (24 defendants); boss Francesco Lisciotto, 60-year-old cobbler and ex-con, is the oldest and highest-ranking member (Dickie).

• June 1890 – Trial of 96 defendants from Iatrìnoli–Radicena explicitly states the association originated in Palmi prison in 1887 and spread on release of its leaders (Dickie).

• 1892 – Mega-trial of 150 picciotti from the whole Plain of Gioia Tauro; new Palmi boss Antonio Giannino (age 20) is the sect’s knife-fighting instructor (Dickie).

• 1892 – Domenico Callea exemplifies how the camorra took hold in Calabria. Released in 1892 after ten years in prison for kidnapping and rape, Callea returned to Africo as both bookkeeper and duelling instructor for the local branch. He immediately began recruiting, offering membership for the standard 7½ lire fee (or waiving it to build numbers), while using threats, razors, and prepotenza to force compliance from holdouts like the zampognaro Giuseppe Sagoleo. His campaign to dominate Africo—culminating in the 1894 All Saints’ Day bagpipe party prelude to Pietro Maviglia’s murder—mirrors the same recruitment and intimidation tactics that would later appear among Calabrian emigrants in America. Callea operated under Filippo Velonà’s broader Ionian zone authority, showing how the imported prison model quickly adapted to local power struggles and family ties (Dickie 2012; Ciconte 1992).

• 1894 – Earthquake destroys Palmi; camorra immediately re-forms and continues extortion among the ruins (Dickie).

• September 4, 1896, brigadiere Antonio Boarzi, chief of the Carabinieri station in Seminara, states:

“The society is composed of a capobastone, a contabile, the camorristi, and a camorrista di giornata, a capo giovane, the picciotti di sgarro, and a picciotto di giornata. The first, the camorristi, are called Compagnia della Maggiore, the others, the picciotti, Compagnia della Minore” (Malafarina 1983).

• 1896–1897 – New wave of arrests; February 1897 trial in Palmi provides the first full description of ranks (giovane d’onore → picciotto → camorrista), initiation ritual (“Are you comfortable?”), and the garbled founding myth of the three Spanish knights (Osso, Mastrosso, Carcagnosso) told by witness Pasquale Trimboli (Dickie).

• October 8, 1897 – Carabinieri seize the first written criminal code of the province in Seminara (Dickie).

• July 16, 1890 – First major trial in the city of Reggio Calabria against the “onorata società”.

Boss (capo bastone): Paolo Scudieri, 37-year-old tailor.

The sentence describes the classic two-level structure:

• Società Minore: giovane d’onore and picciotti
• Società Maggiore: camorristi
• Roles already present: puntaiolo (treasurer), picciotto di giornata (daily messenger).

Initiation: blood from the little finger, kiss, banquet paid with the “dritta” (Ciconte 1992).

• 1892 - Trial at Palmi (province of Reggio Calabria) – Women admitted into the organization: Rosaria Testa and Concetta Muzzopapa of Rosarno testify that female members dressed as men and also drew blood from the right little finger to swear allegiance (Siebert 1994).

• 1894 – Domenico Callea (ex-con, age 34) returns to Africo after 10 years in prison and becomes bookkeeper and fencing instructor; begins recruitment drive charging 7½ lire “dritta” (Dickie).

• May 1894 – Filippo Velonà, a 38-year-old cobbler from the Grecanico-speaking village of Staiti, emerged as the acknowledged capobastone—or “President”—of the entire Ionian zone in the early 1890s. His influence extended across a wide stretch of the Calabrian Ionian coast, from the southern Grecanico heartland around Bova to the northeastern endpoint at Portigliola, encompassing multiple towns, villages, and hamlets in between. This territory included key settlements such as Staiti (his home base), Africo (where he personally visited in May 1894 to initiate new members and oversee recruitment), Bova (the western/southern anchor of the zone), and other villages along the rugged Amendolea valley and coastal plain, reaching as far as Bovalino, San Luca, and Gerace in some accounts. No wonder the rank-and-file referred to him as “President”—his jurisdiction covered a coastal and foothill corridor comparable in size to the Plain of Gioia Tauro on the other side of the mountains, corresponding roughly to the modern Mandamento Ionio (Ionian Precinct) of the ‘ndrangheta.

This expansive reach marked a significant departure from the tightly bounded urban districts controlled by Neapolitan capintesta. While Napoli’s leaders were confined to one of the city’s 12 historic quarters, Velonà’s authority spanned multiple capindrina across several towns and rural hamlets, overseeing initiation rites, tribute collection, and coordination in a decentralized, mountainous network. In a land where villages were scattered and connected only by mule paths, this territorial breadth reflected the Calabrian society’s adaptation of the imported camorra model to the realities of isolation and local power (Dickie 2012; Ciconte 1992).

• November 1, 1894 – Pietro Maviglia (ex-member turned informer) is lured out with a fake reconciliation banquet, murdered, and salted like a goat in Africo; triggers the great Africo–Bova trial (Dickie).

• 1895–1896 – Africo–Bova trial (hundreds of defendants); first documented proof that the annual Festival of the Madonna di Polsi (early September) is used as a criminal summit (shopkeeper testimony: “they paid for it with the camorra they collected”) (Dickie).
  Andrea Angelone, 59-year-old ex-con released 1887, confirmed as the revered “judge” of the Grecanico area (Dickie).

• October 1897 – Carabinieri Marshal Michele Rocchetti seizes the first written criminal code of the province in Seminara (plain of Gioia Tauro).

The code regulates admission, ranks, omertà, division of proceeds and punishments (Arlacchi 1983).

• 1898–1901 - The trial of brigand Giuseppe Musolino (captured October 1901) becomes a national media sensation.

Musolino and the “Picciotteria”: Unraveling the Dialectic Shift in Naming

Amid the jagged peaks of the Aspromonte, where legends of outlaws blurred with the harsh code of honor, Giuseppe Musolino’s saga in the late 1890s thrust a new term into the spotlight: “picciotteria.” This wasn’t a wholesale reinvention but a dialectal evolution, rooted in the word “picciotti“ (young recruits or boys), echoing the society’s middle grade. Musolino, a sworn picciotto turned infamous brigand after a wrongful conviction, evaded capture from 1898 to 1901, sustained by a web of affiliates who provided shelter and silence. His trial sensationalized the term “picciotteria“—essentially dialect for “società di picciotti,” for the press. Yet, in Reggio’s archives, where the society was meticulously documented from Palmi to Africo, it was overwhelmingly called “camorra” in trials and reports, underscoring that “picciotteria“ was more journalistic flair than structural change. Musolino’s defiance, hiding in caves while the network funneled aid, highlighted how this naming shift masked continuity: the same blood oaths and rackets, now cloaked in a term that romanticized the society’s youthful, rural ferocity, paving the way for its rebranding as ‘ndrangheta.

As John Dickie notes in Blood Brotherhoods, Musolino’s fame endured long after his 1902 trial. Released in 1946 after 44 years in prison, he was visited in his old age by Calabrian emigrants from America, who took him for drives in their cars through the Aspromonte mountains. Though Dickie does not name these visitors, their reverence underscores Musolino’s role as a folk hero bridging the old camorra myths and the emerging ‘ndrangheta identity, with American Calabrians honoring a symbol of regional defiance (Dickie 2012).

• 1903 – Captain of Carabinieri Giuseppe Petella, investigating the Aspromonte area (Africo, San Luca, Natile di Careri, etc.), writes:

“The link between the various criminal societies is evident … the place where they meet is the Sanctuary of the Madonna di Polsi.” (Relazione Petella, 1903, Archivio Centrale dello Stato, Min. Interno, DGPS, b. 42).

• 1910

Maxi-operation against the “Camorra Reggina”.

Two of the main bosses indicted:
• Domenico Morabito
• Diego Romeo
112 defendants in total (in Ciconte 1992).

• 1915 “Processone di Palmi” – 153 defendants belonging to the “onorata società della Provincia di Reggio Calabria.”

The sentence still uses the terms camorra and onorata società; the word ’ndrangheta appears only once, in a clerk’s marginal note.

• March 1920 – The first official document that explicitly uses the modern name:

“In this province operates a criminal association called ‘ndrangheta, composed of camorristi and picciotti…” (Prefectural report)

By 1920 the criminal society of Reggio Calabria had already lived six decades under many names: camorra, onorata società, picciotteria, and finally, in an almost casual prefectural note dated March 15, 1920, ’ndrangheta.

The rites, the two-tier ranks, the blood oath, the annual pilgrimage to Polsi, the iron law of omertà, the political protection network; everything that still defines the modern ’ndrangheta was already in place before the First World War.

Sicily

After unification in 1860, Sicily stood in a category of its own within the former Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Geographically the closest large island to the mainland, it was administratively and culturally the most distant. The western half of the island – the provinces of Palermo, Trapani and Agrigento – was already in the grip of a powerful rural mafia that had emerged in the lemon groves, sulphur mines and latifondo of the Conca d’Oro and the interior during the first half of the nineteenth century. By the 1870s this indigenous organization – known to contemporaries as the “mafia”, the “setta dei mafiosi” or simply “la fratellanza” – was fully formed, violent, and expanding rapidly under the weak policing of the new Italian state.

Hundreds of Sicilian inmates served alongside Neapolitan and Calabrian camorristi in the great mainland prisons and on the penal islands, learning the oaths, ranks and rituals of the bella società riformata. Yet when these men returned home, they either joined the existing mafia cosche or disappeared into ordinary criminality. With the single, short-lived exception of Messina, the continental camorra never succeeded in establishing a recognized branch on Sicilian soil. No trial, prefectural report, parliamentary inquiry or police file from 1861 to the 1920s ever records a functioning Sicilian cell using the name “camorra”, the classic ranks of giovinotto d’onore and camorrista, the barattolo, or the zumpata.

Messina

Messina, the great Sicilian gateway facing Reggio Calabria across the narrow Strait, was in the mid-nineteenth century the most important tobacco-smuggling hub of the entire central Mediterranean. Hundreds of feluche and martingane crossed nightly to the Calabrian coast to load Virginia leaf grown in the plains of Rosarno and Gioia Tauro, then returned before dawn to supply the clandestine warehouses of the Messina waterfront. This constant traffic of boats, sailors, and contraband created the only known foothold for a continental-style camorra on Sicilian soil.

The archives of the new Italian Kingdom contain just one explicit reference to a fully structured camorra in Sicily, and it concerns Messina in the immediate post-unification years.

Cesare Lombroso, summarizing the official reports available to him in 1911, writes:

“In Messina in 1866 the Camorra was destroyed, literally, by the execution of its 29 leaders. But the men who accomplished this feat, having the reputation of being brave men, made use of it to carry on the Camorra themselves as actively as their predecessors, or even more so.” (Cesare Lombroso, 1911)

The passage is brief but unambiguous: a criminal society bearing the name “camorra”, structured enough to have twenty-nine recognized leaders, was operating in Messina until 1866, when the authorities executed the entire leadership. Far from eradicating the society, the repression simply transferred control to the very “brave men” (probably policemen, soldiers, or rival smugglers) who had carried out the executions.

No further Sicilian trial or police report from the 1860s to the 1920s ever uses the word “camorra” again. The Messina cell therefore remains a unique and short-lived outlier: a direct transplant across the Strait, sustained by the tobacco traffic with the Calabrian plain, and extinguished almost as soon as the new Italian state turned its attention to the island. After 1866 the continental model disappeared from Sicily entirely.

Army

The camorra’s involvement with the military was never systematic or hierarchical, but it played a pivotal role in the chaotic transition from the Bourbon Kingdom to the unified Italy, serving as an opportunistic auxiliary force for both sides in the struggle for Napoli. Under the Bourbons, the society was already entangled with the army through corruption and recruitment; after unification, camorristi briefly became a de facto arm of the new Piedmontese state before facing repression. This period marks the camorra’s most direct political-military alliance, documented in official dispatches and contemporary accounts as a tool for maintaining order amid revolution.

Monnier on the Camorra in the Military

Marc Monnier, writing in 1863, provides the most vivid contemporary account of the camorra’s military infiltration under the Bourbons, describing how the regime deliberately recruited from the prisons to bolster its forces:

“Finally, the sect had crept into the military corps: there was a time when the Bourbons, despairing of acclimatizing conscription in Sicily and wanting to draw soldiers from it, opened the prison doors and changed the red robes into uniforms, enriching the forced ranks under the white flag with lilies. Let us not judge this sovereign act too severely, which was perhaps a humanitarian attempt. Let’s just say it was a graceless plan, in which the bad element prevailed. The armed army was corrupted, the Camorra settled there, and soon passed into the navy. I have little to say about the military Camorra which, thank goodness, is no longer an evil to be eradicated. The Neapolitan army merged with the Italian army, a happier combination than the other, in which the loyalty, courage, spirit of body, respect for the flag, the firmness of the Piedmontese grenadier, the panache of the bersagliere, of this lively and vigorous body that gives me the idea of a squadron of fantasies who always run before them to the lively roar of their music; all these qualities of the great army invaded the conscripts of Napoli who march and fight now like old soldiers. I see a regiment pass every morning under my window; it is made up of men taken at random in the whole of Italy; I don’t recognize anymore.”
(Monnier 1863)

The camorra’s military episode thus closed the circle: the society had helped deliver southern Italy to unification; unification, in turn, stripped it of its last official protection and drove it back into the purely criminal underworld from which it would never again emerge with state sanction (Marmo 2011).

Miscellaneous

By the early 1920s the classic 19th- and early 20th-century camorra – the one born in the Bourbon prisons, armed by Liborio Romano in 1860, and carried outward by released convicts – had demonstrated the same unmistakable signature in every region of the former Kingdom of the Two Sicilies: the same ranks, the same barattolo, the same zumpata knife duel, the same oaths and tattoos, whether in the vicoli of Napoli, the salt pans of Barletta, the mountain masserie of Potenza, or the tobacco ports of Reggio Calabria.

Yet the picture presented in the preceding pages is deliberately incomplete. It is built only from trials and police reports that explicitly use the word “camorra” (or its unmistakable ritual vocabulary) and therefore represents the minimum, not the maximum, extent of the phenomenon. The exhaustive, street-by-street reconstruction that Francesco Criscione achieved for Terra di Lavoro Caserta province in the 2010s has still to be repeated for Salerno, Avellino, Cosenza, Catanzaro, Bari, Potenza, and the rest of Calabria. Until that work is done, we will not know the true scale of the continental camorra.

There are, moreover, strong circumstantial reasons to believe the map is still missing entire provinces. The heavy presence of immigrants from Abruzzo (especially the provinces of Chieti and Teramo) and from Vibo strongly suggests that structured cells existed in those areas too, even if the surviving Italian judicial paperwork has not yet revealed them. Similar silences surround parts of the Cilento, the Sila plateau, and the interior of Molise beyond the Matese. Future researchers working in local questure, diocesan archives, and prefecture series will almost certainly uncover new trials, new names, and new tribute routes.

What we already possess is sufficient to prove that the camorra was never merely a Neapolitan curiosity; it was a single, portable criminal system that once stretched from the Garigliano to the Aspromonte. How much farther it reached – and how many forgotten branches still sleep in unexamined fascicoli – remains, for the moment, an open and exciting question.

Fascist Suppression

The Fascist regime’s repressive campaign of 1926–1929—presented as the mainland counterpart to Cesare Mori’s Sicilian operation—represented the most coordinated assault ever launched against the 19th-century camorra. For the first time, the state targeted surviving provincial branches alongside urban Napoli (Dickie 2011; Barbagallo 2010).

In Caserta province (Terra di Lavoro), Major Renato Anceschi’s special mission (1926–1928) led to thousands of arrests and the dismantling of numerous rural associations in the Mazzoni plain and Agro Aversano. Mussolini publicly branded the area a historic “plague zone” of criminality (Ascension Day speech, May 26, 1927, in Popolo d’Italia, May 27, 1927). Anceschi’s reports acknowledged that repression had not fully eradicated the phenomenon (Criscione 2013).

Repression extended to other Campanian provinces (Salerno, Avellino, Benevento) and the wider continental South, where individuals were sent to prison as “camorristi” or members of camorra-like groups, particularly in areas tied to rural extortion and smuggling (Barbagallo 2010; Ciconte 1992).

The name “camorra” largely disappeared from official police files after the mid-1930s, but underlying structures persisted underground. One example of continuity comes from Terra di Lavoro: Armando Toscanini (born Capua, 1899), arrested in 1928 and later confined to Ustica (1937–1940) as a recognized camorra boss. In 1939, fellow Campanian confinati attempted to elect a successor on the eve of his release—evidence that traditional ranks endured even in exile (Criscione 2013).

By the eve of World War II, the classic continental camorra had been driven beneath the surface. Its public existence ended through bureaucratic erasure more than total destruction. The men, families, and territorial controls waited silently, ready to re-emerge after 1943 (Dickie 2011; Criscione 2013).

Modern Continuities

While the continental camorra’s provincial networks largely faded or transformed under Fascist repression in the 1920s, its Calabrian variant not only endured but evolved into what is now known as the ‘ndrangheta. This transition represented a profound cultural shift: the loosely affiliated, urban-inspired Neapolitan ‘ntriti of the past gradually gave way to tightly knit, family-centered Calabrian ‘ndrini in which blood ties became the unbreakable core of loyalty and structure. The functions of the capintrito of the old Campanian model—a neighborhood boss overseeing loose affiliates in pimping, prostitution, extortion, and gambling—was replaced by the functions of the capo ‘ndrina, who commanded a unit composed primarily of blood relatives. In parallel, women’s roles shifted dramatically: once tied to the criminal underworld through prostitution, they became “mafia housewives,” managing households, transmitting codes of honor, and ensuring the continuity of the ‘ndrangheta bloodline. Over the course of the 20th century, the organization expanded its hierarchy by layering new, higher grades of membership—such as santa, vangelo, and others—above the original camorrista rank. This process rendered the camorra as a title obsolete and cemented the group’s modern identity under the name ‘ndrangheta.

Although the ‘ndrangheta is no longer called camorra, it was built on the camorra’s organizational foundations. As pentito Gaetano Costa explained in the early 1990s, “the ‘Ndrangheta is organized into societies, one above the other, starting from the società minori of the picciotti and camorristi up to the società maggiori of sgarro, santa, vangelo and trequartino” (Paoli, 2003).

This suggests that at some point the Calabrian honored society introduced higher grades into the società maggiore.

Note: There is some debate over whether the rank of camorrista currently belongs to the società minore or società maggiore in the modern ‘ndrangheta. Either it still is part of the major society, or at some point the grade was deliberately downgraded into the minor society.

The ‘ndrangheta not only survived but provided vital life support to emerging criminal syndicates elsewhere in southern Italy, acting as a model and mentor. It was instrumental in the formation of Puglia’s Sacra Corona Unita (SCU) in the early 1980s and the short-lived Basilischi in Basilicata (1990s), offering ritualistic blueprints, influenced hierarchical structures, blood oaths, and trafficking networks. What we see is essentially the ‘ndrangheta passing onto the SCU and Basilischi the same system it was bestowed by the 19^th Century:

Quick Summary of Similarities & Differences

• All three use camorra-derived ranks (giovane d’onore, picciotto, camorrista) and the Minore/Maggiore division.

• ‘Ndrangheta is the most developed (with unique doti like Santa/Vangelo and strong family structure).

• Sacra Corona Unita is a direct ‘Ndrangheta offshoot (1981), copying ranks but with less ritual depth.

• Basilischi was the weakest and shortest-lived, borrowing the model but never fully institutionalizing it.

Today, the ‘ndrangheta operates as one of the world’s most powerful mafias, dominating cocaine importation into Europe while maintaining its Calabrian strongholds, with an estimated 6,000 core members and annual revenues exceeding €50 billion from drugs, extortion, and infiltration of legitimate sectors like construction and waste management.

Conclusion

A comprehensive retelling of the 20th-century history of these organizations on the Italian mainland has already been masterfully undertaken by scholars such as John Dickie in Blood Brotherhoods (2014) and Letizia Paoli in Mafia Brotherhoods (2003), who trace their suppression under Fascism, postwar resurgence, and modern adaptations amid anti-mafia campaigns.

Our journey, however, veers across the Atlantic, following the waves of southern Italian immigrants who carried these affiliations to the United States. From the ports of Campania and Reggio Calabria, camorristi grafted their societies onto American soil, planting them alongside their Sicilian mafiosi counterparts in the crowded immigrant enclaves of New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and beyond.

This convergence represented a historic first: for the very first time since the Bourbon Prisons, members of the regional gangsters found themselves operating in the same cities, sharing the same streets, and competing for the same opportunities in a new land far removed from their regional origins in Italy.

This unprecedented side-by-side presence in the United States offers fresh insights into how regional Italian criminal cultures adapted, clashed, and ultimately hybridized in a foreign environment. It reveals the fluidity of mafia identities when transplanted abroad, showing how old-world rivalries could give way to pragmatic cooperation or absorption under the pressures of a new society, a process that shaped the resilient, multi-ethnic structure of organized crime in America for generations to come.

Works Cited

• Alongi, Gustavo. 1890. La Camorra: Studio di Sociologia Criminale. Torino: Bocca.

• Arlacchi, Pino. 1983. La Mafia Imprenditrice: L’etica mafiosa e lo spirito del capitalismo. Bologna: Il Mulino.

• “A Sambiase la Picciotteria e la Camorra tra la fine dell’800 e l’inizio del ‘900.” n.d. Sambiase.com. Accessed January 20, 2026. https://www.sambiase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53:a-sambiase-la-picciotteria-e-la-camorra-tra-la-fine-dell800-e-linizio-del-900&catid=53:memorie&Itemid=15.

• Astarita, Tommaso. 2005. Between Salt Water and Holy Water: A History of Southern Italy. New York: Norton.

• Atti della Commissione parlamentare d’inchiesta sul contrabbando dei tabacchi. 1883. Relazione della Commissione. Roma: Tipografia della Camera dei Deputati.

• Barbagallo, Francesco. 2010. Storia della Camorra. Roma-Bari: Laterza.

• Bevilacqua, Piero. 1993. Breve storia dell’Italia meridionale dall’Ottocento a oggi. Roma: Donzelli.

• Ciconte, Enzo. 1992. ‘Ndrangheta dall’Unità a oggi. Roma-Bari: Laterza.

• Cingari, Gaetano. 1976. Brigantaggio, demagogia e bonapartismo nel Risorgimento italiano. Napoli: Guida.

• Criscione, Gianni. 2012. La camorra in Terra di Lavoro: Dall’Unità alla Grande Guerra. Caserta: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.

• Criscione, Gianni. 2013. La camorra rurale: Storia di un fenomeno dimenticato. Caserta: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.

• De Blasio, Antonio. 1897. Usi e costumi dei camorristi. Napoli: Luigi Pierro.

• De Matteo, Luigi. 1982. La camorra in Calabria: Origini e sviluppo. Cosenza: Pellegrini.

• De Matteo, Luigi. 2014. La mozzarella di bufala: Storia di un prodotto campano. Napoli: Guida.

• De Rose, Tony. 2025. Independent Researcher.

• De Stefano, Francesco, and Salvatore Ferraro. 2018. “Identità locali e rivalità in Campania post-unificazione: Dialetti e tradizioni provinciali.” In Studi sul Risorgimento meridionale. Roma: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.

• Di Fiore, Gigi. 2016. Camorra: Storia di un fenomeno criminale. Milano: Rizzoli.

• Di Fiore, Gigi. 2019. La camorra: Storia e leggenda. Milano: Rizzoli.

• Dickie, John. 2011. Cosa Nostra: A History of the Sicilian Mafia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

• Dickie, John. 2012. Blood Brotherhoods: A History of Italy’s Three Mafias. New York: PublicAffairs.

• Direzione Generale della Statistica. 1902. Annuario Statistico Italiano. Roma: Tipografia Nazionale.

• D’Addosio, Carlo. 1891. Il duello dei camorristi: La mala vita a Bari. Bari: Laterza (reprint edition).

• Falkenhausen, Vera von. 1978. La dominazione bizantina nell’Italia meridionale. Bari: Laterza.

• Galasso, Giuseppe. 1975. Napoli spagnola dopo Masaniello. Napoli: Guida.

• Gratteri, Nicola, and Antonio Nicaso. 2007. Fratelli di sangue. Cosenza: Pellegrini.

• Gratteri, Nicola, and Antonio Nicaso. 2009. ‘Ndrangheta: Le radici del male. Roma: Editori Riuniti.

• Heckethorn, Charles William. 1897. The Secret Societies of All Ages and Countries. Vol. II. London: George Redway.

• Inchiesta Agraria. 1884. Inchiesta Agraria Jacini, vol. XII (Puglia). Roma: Tipografia del Senato.

• Iorizzo, Luciano J., and Salvatore Mondello. 1980. The Italian Americans. Boston: Twayne Publishers.

• Malafarina, Sergio. 1983. La ‘ndrangheta. Reggio Calabria: Parallelo 38.

• Mangione, Jerre, and Ben Morreale. 1992. La Storia: Five Centuries of the Italian American Experience. New York: Harper Perennial.

• Marmo, Monica. 1999. Il proletariato imperfetto: I lavoratori di Napoli e le origini della camorra. Napoli: Liguori.

• Marmo, Monica. 2004. La camorra in Calabria: Origini e sviluppo. Cosenza: Pellegrini.

• Marmo, Monica. 2011. Il camorrista e il professore: Storia di una camorra ottocentesca. Napoli: Liguori.

• Martin, Janet. 1993. Medieval Russia, 980–1584. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Monnier, Marc. 1863. La Camorra: Notizie storiche e politiche. Firenze: Le Monnier.

• Nelli, Humbert S. 1976. The Business of Crime: Italians and Syndicate Crime in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.

• Paoli, Letizia. 2003. Mafia Brotherhoods: Organized Crime, Italian Style. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1974. Grammatica storica dei dialetti italogreci (Calabria, Salento). München: Beck.

• Russo, Gus. 2001. The Outfit: The Role of Chicago’s Underworld in the Shaping of Modern America. New York: Bloomsbury.

• Sales, Isaia. 1988. La camorra, le camorre. Roma: Editori Riuniti.

• Siebert, Renate. 1994. Le donne, la mafia. Milano: Il Saggiatore.

• Truzzolillo, Francesco. 2011. La ‘ndrangheta nella provincia di Reggio Calabria. Reggio Calabria: Parallelo 38.

• Villani, Pasquale. 1965. Italia napoleonica e Risorgimento. Napoli: Guida.

The camorra, born in the Bourbon Kingdom’s penal hellholes between 1820 and 1830, did not remain chained to the cameroni. Released camorristi—bearing tattoos, rituals, and unbreakable codes—carried their affiliations home, grafting the society’s system and structure onto the streets of southern Italy.

The camorra’s framework—graded ranks from picciotto to camorrista, oaths of loyalty, and tangente extortion—proved adaptable, surviving in diverse terrains from Napoli’s urban sprawl to Calabria’s bandit-haunted mountains.

Napoli played the same role for the camorra that Palermo and New York played for the Sicilian and American mafias: it was the biggest, loudest, most visible stage, and for decades the urban Neapolitan version was taken — by police, journalists, and theatre — as the “true” or “classic” camorra. In reality it was an anomaly. Just as the mafia of Favara or Kansas City operated very differently from the densely populated memberships of Palermo or New York, so too did the camorra of the provinces diverge sharply from Napoli.

The Napoli loggia or locale received almost all the historical attention, the theatrical glorification, and the state repression, but — as Part 2 will show — once we leave the capital the camorra took on radically different appearances and modus operandi in the countryside and small towns in the various provinces across the southern peninsula. But for now, we will concentrate on Napoli.

Napoli: Capital of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies

Napoli, the sprawling capital of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, was the largest city in Italy and one of the most populous in Europe during the mid-19th century. With a population of 449,511 inhabitants in the 1856 census (Annuario Statistico Italiano 1856), it dwarfed Rome (158,000) and Milan (130,000) (Annuario Statistico Italiano 1856). As the political, administrative, and cultural heart of the Bourbon realm, it hosted the royal court, the viceroy’s palace, and the largest navy in the Italian peninsula. Its strategic port — the Porto di Napoli — was a vital Mediterranean hub, handling over 1.2 million tons of goods annually by 1860 (including grain, wine, olive oil, silk, and sulfur exports; Statistica del Regno delle Due Sicilie 1860). Commerce thrived in the Mercato and Porto districts, where thousands of porters, boatmen, and vendors operated daily (Statistica del Regno delle Due Sicilie 1860). The city was a paradox: a center of opera, theatre, and aristocratic refinement, yet plagued by extreme poverty in the bassi — one-room ground-floor dwellings housing a large portion of the population in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions (Monnier 1863). Cholera epidemics (e.g., 1836–37, 1854–55) killed tens of thousands (Relazione sull’epidemia colerica, Ministero Interno Borbonico 1855). Despite industrial lag, Napoli remained the economic engine of southern Italy, generating ~40 % of the kingdom’s tax revenue (Bilancio del Regno delle Due Sicilie 1859).

The Vicaria District: Judicial Core, Social Cauldron, and Camorra Citadel (1800–1915)

The Vicaria quarter — bounded roughly by Castel Capuano, Porta Capuana, the Duomo, and the old city walls — was far more than one of Napoli’ twelve traditional districts. In the 19th century it was simultaneously the kingdom’s highest court, its most notorious prison complex, its most densely packed slum, and the undisputed capital of the camorra (Dickie 2008; Paoli 2003; Ferlito 2013).

Castel Capuano, the massive 12th-century fortress converted in 1537 into the Gran Corte della Vicaria (the supreme civil and criminal tribunal of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies), dominated the neighborhood (Dickie 2008). By the 1830s its wings held upwards of 1,200–1,500 prisoners at any one time — common criminals, political detainees, galley convicts awaiting transport to Procida or Santo Stefano, and debtors — crammed into cameroni that sometimes contained 80–100 men (Monnier 1863; Fiore 2012; Ferlito 2013). Disease, graft, and inmate self-government were the rule; the prison sections of the Vicaria and the adjacent San Francesco complex became the laboratory in which the camorra’s ranks, rituals, and extortion economy were perfected before being exported to the alleys outside (Fiore 2012; Paoli 2003).

Outside the fortress walls, Vicaria was a classic quartiere bassa: a warren of five- and six-story fondaci, vicoli barely wide enough for two people to pass, and ground-floor bassi housing entire families alongside livestock (Snow 1995). Population density regularly exceeded 1,000 inhabitants per hectare (Snow 1995). The district lived off the port (contraband tobacco and salt), the wholesale grain and fruit markets along Via Tribunali, and the semi-official red-light enclave of the Imbrecciata (Dickie 2008; Ferlito 2013). Unemployment, seasonal labor, and the constant circulation of ex-convicts made Vicaria the ideal biosphere for a street camorra to function and thrive.

The 1884 cholera epidemic began here in contaminated wells and killed thousands in weeks; the subsequent Risanamento gutted large parts of Vicaria, driving Corso Umberto I (the “Rettifilo”) straight through the old fondaci and displacing tens of thousands eastward (Snow 1995).

Yet even after the demolitions, Vicaria remained the symbolic and operational heart of the Napoli camorra until the very end. The capintesta was almost always a Vicaria native; the prison inside Castel Capuano continued to function as the sect’s supreme tribunal; weekly meetings and ritual duels still took place in its taverns and courtyards (Dickie 2008). When Enrico Alfano was finally arrested in 1907, police found him holding court in a café only a few hundred meters from the fortress gates (Dickie 2008).

In short, no other quarter combined courthouse, prison, slum, and marketplace in quite the same way.

The Imbrecciata: Vicaria’s Walled Red-Light District (1781–1860)

Tucked into the heart of the Vicaria quarter, between Via Carbonara and the Fondaco della Farina, lay the Imbrecciata — Napoli’s only officially sanctioned red-light enclave from 1781 until its destruction in 1860. The name came from the thick stone and brick walls (“imbrecciata” or masonry of mixed stones) that the Bourbon government erected in the 1780s to isolate the prostitutes and their clients from the rest of the city, ostensibly to curb moral contagion and venereal disease. In practice, the walls turned the narrow alleys into a semi-autonomous ghetto that became one of the camorra’s most visual and lucrative domain.

By the 1830s the Imbrecciata contained roughly 800–1,000 registered and unregistered prostitutes working out of ground-floor bassi and upper-story rooms. Access was through four controlled gates guarded day and night — first by municipal police, then, increasingly, by camorristi who paid the authorities for the privilege. It was said that women had to hand over a daily or weekly tangente to the camorra; every client paid an entrance fee collected at the gates; pimps, tavern-keepers, and even the musicians who played in the osterie inside kicked back a percentage.

The Camorra’s grip was total. Women who refused to pay were beaten or expelled; those who tried to work outside the walls were dragged back or handed to the police. Contemporary accounts (Monnier 1863; De Blasio 1897) describe camorristi in silk cravats and gold chains strolling the alleys at night, collecting tribute and settling disputes with the flash of a knife.

The Imbrecciata’s end came symbolically and violently on the night of 5–6 September 1860. As Garibaldi’s troops approached and Bourbon authority collapsed, crowds led by camorristi and ordinary vicariaresi stormed the walls, tore down the iron gates, and set fire to the police barracks inside. The destruction was celebrated as an act of liberation; in reality, it simply scattered the trade into the surrounding bassi and handed the camorra an even less visible, city-wide prostitution racket. When the new Piedmontese administration tried to re-impose regulation in 1861–1862, the walls were gone forever and the sect’s control was stronger than ever.

The Imbrecciata thus functioned as the perfect microcosm of Vicaria itself: a walled prison within a prison-city, tolerated by a weak state, and milked dry by the camorra until the moment the old order crumbled.

The Barattolo System

The core of the camorra’s extortion economy was the barattolo – a sealed wooden box with a single slot that was said to have been circulated weekly through every market stall, porter guild, and gambling den in a given quarter. The contribution was fixed (usually one or two carlini, later 1–2 lire) and non-negotiable; refusal meant immediate beating or expulsion from the trade. Proceeds were divided in thirds: one to the local capintrito, one to the sect’s common fund (for widows, lawyers, and prison support), and one forwarded to the Vicaria chapter as recognition of primacy (Monnier 1863; De Blasio 1897; Fiore 2012; Barbagallo 2010).”

The Lazzaroni

In 19th-century Napoli, the term lazzaroni described the city’s vast underclass of destitute street-dwellers, beggars, porters, and especially homeless or abandoned children and youths. The word itself derives from the Italian name for Lazarus (Lazzaro), the leprous beggar at the rich man’s gate in the Gospel parable — a fitting metaphor for the ragged, often barefoot figures who slept under porticos, in church doorways, or along the seafront near the market of Santa Lucia and San Lorenzo Maggiore.

These lazzaroni were highly visible in travelers’ accounts: resourceful, quick-witted, and fiercely loyal to their own codes, they survived by odd jobs, petty theft, smuggling, and guiding foreigners through the chaotic streets. Though romanticized by some (Goethe called them “cheerful in their misery”), their existence reflected the extreme poverty of the Bourbon Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and the overwhelming pressure on charitable institutions.

A significant proportion of lazzaroni began life as foundlings (esposti or trovatelli) abandoned at the ruota (“wheel”) of the Real Casa dell’Annunziata, Napoli’s enormous foundling hospital. Because these infants arrived without known parents, the hospital routinely assigned them the surname Esposito — from the Latin expositus, meaning “exposed” or “placed outside.” By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Esposito had become one of the most common surnames in Napoli and its province, a direct legacy of the thousands of children the city could not support.

Many of these orphaned or street-raised boys never re-entered respectable society. Instead, from the 1830s onward, the emerging camorra found in the lazzaroni an ideal recruiting ground. Tough, street-smart adolescents were drawn into the sect as giovinotti d’onore through small favors, protection, and the promise of belonging. The camorra’s lower ranks were filled with former lazzaroni who graduated from pickpocketing and contraband to knife-fighting, extortion, and the control of markets and prisons. Thus, the same desperate children who symbolized Napoli’s misery became the lifeblood that allowed the camorra to grow outside of prison.

The Vicaria Sect

As previously stated, the Vicaria sect reigned above the other eleven districts in both membership and authority throughout the classic camorra period (roughly 1830s–1912). Bourbon police lists from 1855 and 1858 already credited Vicaria with 20 and then 27 registered or suspected camorristi — more than twice the next-largest quarter and vastly more than the many districts that registered zero (Fiore 2012). This overwhelming numerical superiority derived directly from the quarter’s possession of the kingdom’s central prison inside Castel Capuano: every new member anywhere in Napoli still needed Vicaria’s formal approval, and the lion’s share of tribute inevitably flowed to its coffers (Monnier 1863; Fiore 2012). In practice, the Vicaria sect functioned as the camorra’s “mother sect” — the largest, wealthiest, and the one whose capintrito was almost always invariably recognized as the city-wide capintesta from as early as the 1840s up until the 1910s.

Marc Monnier and Antonio Fiore – The Two Essential Sources

The most reliable picture of the camorra’s structure and daily workings during its Bourbon-era peak (1840s–1860s) comes from two indispensable, complementary sources that every modern historian still cites in tandem: Marc Monnier’s near-contemporary eyewitness account La Camorra: Notizie storiche raccolte e documentate (French original 1862; Italian edition G. Barbera, 1863) and Antonio Fiore’s archival reconstruction (La struttura del fenomeno camorrista nelle fonti di polizia borbonica, 1840–1860, doctoral thesis, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, 2012).

Marc Monnier, a Swiss-French journalist and scholar who lived in Napoli from 1854 to 1860, provides the indispensable contemporary texture that raw police files lack. Published just one year after unification, Monnier’s La Camorra remains the first systematic outsider description of the organization while it was still operating openly under Bourbon rule. He interviewed camorristi (some in prison, some on the street), attended their trials, and walked the vicoli of Vicaria and the Porto quarter at night. Monnier confirmed the federated, district-by-district structure later documented in detail by Fiore, described the zumpata knife duels, the collection of the “candela” in the Imbrecciata brothels, and the theatrical style of the guappi — silk cravats, gold chains, and ostentatious charity (Monnier 1863). He also captured the widespread popular ambivalence: the Camorra was feared and hated, yet simultaneously seen by many plebeians as a necessary counterweight to an indifferent state.

Fiore’s work is the gold standard for primary documentation. Drawing on thousands of pages of surviving Bourbon police reports, prison registers, judicial summaries, and interrogation transcripts from the Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Fiore demonstrates that the Camorra was never the monolithic secret society of legend but a loose federation of neighborhood-based sects rooted in the bassi quarters — Vicaria, Mercato, Porto, S. Ferdinando, Montecalvario, and others — numbering at least 12–15 by the mid-1850s (Fiore 2012). He details the initiation rites (blood oath over a skull or saint’s image, symbolic tattoos, probationary picciotto rank), the economic model (5–10 % tangente on market stalls, port labor, gambling, and prostitution), the internal tribunals held inside Castel Capuano’s cameroni, and the astonishing violence: over 200 ritual or feud-related homicides between 1840 and 1860 alone (Fiore 2012). Crucially, Fiore proves that the Bourbon state deliberately tolerated the sects as a controllable “social evil,” occasionally using camorristi as informers or auxiliaries rather than eradicating them.

Together, Monnier and Fiore give us the complete portrait: Monnier supplies the living detail, street dialogue, and the atmosphere of the bassi that no police report could ever convey, while Fiore provides the hard archival skeleton (names, dates, tribute percentages, homicide counts, prison hierarchies). Virtually every serious study since 1863 (Barbagallo, Dickie, Lupo, Marmo, Di Fiore, etc.) rests on the foundation these two sources laid — one from the alleys in the final years of Bourbon rule, one from the archives a century and a half later.

Dismantling the Romantic Myth of the Bourbon-Era Camorra

Together, they demolish the sensational edifice that would dominate popular imagination for a century and a half — the idea of an ancient, centrally governed “clandestine state” with aristocratic patronage, an extremely rigid three-tier hierarchy, and a written constitution.

Writing while many old guappi were still alive and the Bourbon police state had only just collapsed, the Swiss-French journalist Marc Monnier systematically debunked the myths already circulating in newspapers and cheap pamphlets. On the supposed three-degree novitiate (tamurro → picciotto d’onore → picciotto di sgarro), he is scathingly dismissive:

“Some writers distinguished three degrees of initiation in the novitiate. According to them, the neophyte was beginning to be a simple tamurro; accepted, he took the name of picciotto or picciotto di onore, and he did not become picciotto di sgarro until after having rendered confidential, assiduous, dangerous and painful services for a year. I note these distinctions out of a desire for completeness, but I don’t think they are strictly observed. Not knowing how to read, sectarians have no written laws… their customs and regulations are handed down, modified according to the times, places, the will of the leaders and the decisions of the meetings. It is therefore possible that these grades existed in the first legislation; but I consulted well-known Camorra members, who ignored the word tamurro for a long time, and assured me that some immediately became a picciotto di sgarro: I congratulated them sincerely.” (Monnier 1863)

He is equally contemptuous of grandiose organizational fantasies:

“The novelists dreamed of a gigantic association that embraced all Neapolitan society… divided into paranze… all these guilds came together under the command of a single, elective chief… according to others, it belonged to the Neapolitan aristocracy; and a non-libellist has hesitated to attribute the supreme government of the sect to a prince of the Bourbon house. It is useless for me to say that I do not admit such fantasies and slanders.” (Monnier 1863)

And on the existence of a written code or “frieno”:

“Was this code ever written? Difficult issue to resolve. As for me, I think not: and for what purpose? Most of the comrades could not read… I prefer to believe, which is probable, that some of the fundamental terms were transmitted by voice and the particularities abandoned to the minds of the leaders and affiliates. No decision of the society I found supported by any written law: the boss refers to what he was taught by those who initiated him.” (Monnier 1863)

A century and a half later, Fiore’s archival work in the Archivio di Stato di Napoli — reading more than 12,000 pages of previously inaccessible Bourbon police files, prison registers, and confidential reports — vindicated Monnier on every single point and provided the documentary proof that had eluded him.

Fiore demonstrates that under the Bourbons the Camorra was never a monolithic secret society but:

“a federated network of localized Camorra sects, each controlling specific urban territories.” (Fiore 2012)

No trace of any written “frieno” appears in documents from 1840–1860:

“No trace of a written ‘frieno’ or of a formalized code is found in the Bourbon sources from the period 1840–1860; the norms were transmitted orally and adapted locally by the capintriti.” (Fiore 2012)

Initiation was far simpler and more pragmatic than later legend allowed:

“The affiliation rites, detailed in the transcripts of interrogations from the 1850s, involved blood oaths, symbolic tattoos (e.g. a cross or dagger on the arm), and a probationary period in prison — where the Camorra prospered thanks to Bourbon penal policies that segregated prisoners by affiliation, inadvertently strengthening their bonds.” (Fiore 2012)

The earliest fragmentary handwritten copies of a codified “frieno” and the three-tier hierarchy surface only in the late 1860s and early 1870s — after unification, when the sect, now facing a hostile Italian state, found it useful to present itself as older, more structured, and more respectable than it had ever been under the Bourbons.

Thus Monnier’s skepticism, voiced while the events were still within living memory, and Fiore’s archival demonstration a century and a half later, form perfect complementary halves: the former supplies the living voices and contemporary demolition of myth; the latter furnishes the cold documentary proof. The romantic, hierarchical, centuries-old bella società riformata of popular imagination is revealed for what it always was: a post-unification invention built on the flimsy foundations of journalistic exaggeration and criminal self-mythologizing.

The 1820s: The Camorra or Lack Thereof

No reliable contemporary document from the 1820s attests to the existence of a city-wide, hierarchical camorra in Napoli, a written statute (frieno), a supreme tribunal called the gran mamma, or any formal secret society with codified rules. The few “documents” that supposedly describe the organization’s existence in the 1810s and 1820s are now widely suspected to be later forgeries or heavily embellished copies produced in the 1870s–1880s by liberal journalists and historians eager to portray the Bourbon regime as irredeemably corrupt or display their credentials as camorra experts (Barbagallo 2010; Di Fiore 2016; Lupo 2011). Large parts of the Bourbon police archives were destroyed or scattered during the revolutionary events of 1860–1861 and the subsequent anti-camorra campaign, leaving historians with only fragments (Marmo 2004).

What survives from the 1820s and early 1830s — prison registers and judicial summaries — shows only loose, neighborhood-based extortion gangs (guappi, market racketeers, prison bosses)(Barbagallo 2010; Marmo 2004). The first printed version of a camorra statute (frieno) appeared in the early 1860s; whether it reflected an older oral tradition or was largely invented at that time remains unknown (Monnier 1862; Sales 1988).

The camorra’s late appearance is not a modern scholarly hypothesis. In the first statistics on crime compiled in Paris in 1825, Italy was reviewed. They “examined the Sardinian banditry, the Romagna delinquency (which often presented political connections and was controlled by a sect of ‘zealots,’ Calabrian banditry and in particular, the lawlessness of certain Sicilian groups (Lombroso).” There is no documentation of any similar criminal sect in Napoli at that time.

In 1862, the Monnier recorded the clearest contemporary confirmation of the prison-to-street timeline:

“In its origins, to say the best informed, the camorra existed in the prisons. But there came a time when a number of affiliates exited, and lacking the benefits which they enjoyed there, they decided to transfer the camorra into the cities. This happened after 1830, because before that time neither any document, as far as I could see, nor the memory of my oldest friends remember the slightest hint of a similar sect, highly organized and exported from prison”(Monnier 1863).

Monnier’s words, written while the first-generation camorristi were still alive, demolish centuries of later romantic mythology. There was no pre-1830 camorra in the streets of Napoli.

The Fictional Founding of Pasquale Capuozzo

The alleged founding in 1820 is a reoccurring story that comes up every so often so we’ll address that now. As the story goes, the architect of the 1820 “formation” was Pasquale Capuozzo, a farrier from Porta Capuana who, in the legend, convened the bosses of the twelve quarters in the crypt of Santa Caterina a Formiello, wrote the first statute, and was elected supreme leader for three years. In the fullest version — created single-handedly by Vittorio Paliotti (1973; 2002) and later repeated by others — Capuozzo was already famous for killing a rival named Nicola Castaldi with a spectacular leaping knife thrust, created the gran mamma tribunal, the barattolo percentage system, ritual duels, and an annual dowry fund for poor girls, and was murdered in 1824 by his jealous midwife wife Teresa after she recognized his birthmark on a newborn she had delivered. The camorra allegedly declared him the eternal Great Master and instituted the custom of collecting one grana per affiliate every 8 December to finance dowries for orphan girls.

None of these elements appears in any document earlier than Paliotti’s own books. They are his own literary invention.

The real Pasquale Capuozzo (sometimes spelled Capozzo) was a camorrista active in the 1860s. Nicola Nisco, whom Paliotti cites as his historical source for the “founder”, actually described a very different man: an inmate in the post-unification prisons who had turned informant and denounced the sect. Because of this betrayal he was condemned to death by the camorra’s blood code. Two fellow prisoners, Ciro Cozzolino and Agostino Angelino, were ordered to kill him but refused; they were then sentenced to death under the rule “He who refuses to be an executioner will be a victim.” Salvatore De Crescenzo, the “prince of the camorra”, eventually commuted their sentence after Angelino admitted the lesser crime of merely speaking to Capuozzo. Capuozzo survived only because a prison inspector kept him in isolation (Nisco 1888).

Paliotti took this real 1860s turncoat and transformed him into the heroic founder of 1820, inventing the entire earlier biography. Modern historians unanimously reject the legend (Barbagallo 2010; Di Fiore 2016; Lupo 2011; Marmo 2004).

A Different Pasquale Capozzi in 1821 – Pure Coincidence

In my research I did encounter a separate, unrelated individual named Pasquale Capozzi (aged 50, professional cook, son of a late Antonio) who does appear in the records of the Gran Corte Speciale di Napoli in 1821. Together with 30 other individuals including a fruit-seller coincidentally named Gioacchino De Crescenzo, he was convicted of the premeditated murder of Francesco Giampietri, Director of Police, by luring him into a trap under false pretenses of official authority. This was a political-style assassination linked to the aftermath of the failed 1820–1821 constitutional revolution, not to any underworld organization. The age, occupation, and nature of the crime make it impossible for this man to be the same person as either the real 1860s camorrista or Paliotti’s fictional founder (Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Gran Corte Speciale, Decisioni 1821).

The 1830s: The First Generation of the Urban Camorra

Michele Aitollo: Napoli’ First Documented Capintrito

Michele Aitollo (sometimes recorded as Michelangelo Aitollo), nicknamed “’o Nubiltà” (the Nobility), belongs to the very first generation of camorristi who operated openly on the streets of Napoli rather than solely inside the Bourbon prisons. Active in the 1830s in the Porto, Vicaria, and Mercato quarters, he is universally regarded by modern historians as the earliest individually named capintrito — the first reliably documented neighborhood boss in camorra history. No earlier named neighborhood-based capintrito from the 1820s or early 1830s has ever been identified in surviving Bourbon police files, prison registers, or judicial records (Barbagallo 2010; Violante 1997; Dickie 2011; Di Fiore 2016). The term capintrito itself first appears in archival documentation in the early 1830s in direct reference to him (Monnier 1863; De Blasio 1892).

Documented Facts

Bourbon police files from 1831–1836 identify “Michele Aitollo, detto ‘a Nubiltà’” as the individual who collected regular protection payments from fishmongers and market vendors while arbitrating disputes in the lower city (Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Intendenza di Polizia; Tribunale di Napoli, Processo 1836/412, cited in Violante 1997 & Barbagallo 2010).

Every Thursday he was said to hold court in a basement tavern on Rua Catalana. The Porto district commissioner Luigi Salvatores and, on occasion, Police Prefect Gennaro Piscopo was said to formally referred cases to him, allegedly acknowledging that his rulings carried greater weight in the vicoli than official law (Monnier 1863; Barbagallo 2010).

During the 1836–37 cholera epidemic he was officially employed as a disinfector in the hardest-hit Porto quarter and is recorded as having personally intervened to calm families resisting sanitary removals (Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Sanità Pubblica cholera files 1836–37, referenced in Progetto San Francesco 2020).

The Aitollo Legend (preserved and popularized by Vittorio Paliotti)

The dramatic episodes that turned Michele ’a Nubiltà into a folk hero are known primarily through the oral tradition faithfully recorded by Vittorio Paliotti (1993 [1973]):

A red-haired former diver covered in elaborate religious tattoos, presiding over a ceremonial court with ushers and showing exceptional generosity with the proceeds of extortion. His heroic actions during the cholera outbreak, far beyond official duties, carrying the sick to hospital carts with a reassuring smile.

The 1838 story in which he forced a seducer to marry a fifteen-year-old girl; when the man fled aboard a British ship, Aitollo himself married her in a gesture celebrated across Napoli.
He allegedly met his death in 1839 from blood poisoning after having his young wife’s name tattooed on his arm, followed the next day by the tattooist being found with his throat cut – retribution attributed to the camorra.

These memorable anecdotes – the marriage, the fatal tattoo, and the tattooist’s murder – do not appear in any surviving documents and are generally treated by historians as later legendary accretions that enriched the core historical figure (Dickie 2011; De Stefano & Ferraro 2018).

Historical Significance

Regardless of which episodes belong to legend and which to verifiable record, Michele Aitollo remains the earliest camorrista to be confirmed by both Bourbon archives and near-contemporary literature. As the first clearly documented capintrito, he was among the first generation of camorristi who left the prisons and took root in everyday neighborhood life under the tolerant or complicit eye of the Bourbon administration. It should be noted, I was unable to determine whether or not Aitollo had a prison record.

How Many Districts and Capintriti Actually Existed in the 1830s–1850s?

Michele Aitollo was almost certainly not the only capintrito active in the 1830s, but the surviving documentation is so thin that we cannot name any contemporaries with certainty. The idea that the classic “twelve districts” (and therefore twelve capintriti) sprang into existence fully formed in the 1830s is highly questionable. The number twelve appears consistently only from the late 1850s onward and becomes canonical after 1860. It is far more likely that Napoli-based camorra sections grew gradually and unevenly across the city’s quarters, with some neighborhoods developing organized sects earlier and more powerfully than others.

The most concrete evidence we have for the uneven distribution of camorra presence in the 1850s comes from Fiore’s analysis of Bourbon police registers of known or suspected camorristi resident in each city quarter in 1855 and 1858 (Fiore 2012). The chart below reproduces Fiore’s data:

Key takeaways from the chart

· Vicaria was overwhelmingly dominant (20 in 1855, 27 in 1858), confirming its status as the historic cradle and coordinating center of the camorra.

· S. Ferdinando (14 in 1858) and Pendino (11 in both years) were strong secondary hubs.

· Mercato, Porto, and Montecalvario had moderate but growing numbers.

· Several quarters traditionally listed among the “classic twelve” (Avvocata, Stella, S. Giuseppe, S. Carlo all’Arena) had almost no registered camorristi in the mid-1850s, and two quarters (S. Lorenzo and one unidentified) recorded zero.

This uneven distribution strongly suggests that the neat “twelve-sect” model was a late-1840s or 50s evolution rather than a reality that existed from the 1830s onward. Some districts likely developed organized camorra branches much later than others, and a few may never have had a fully autonomous sect.

The camorra’s Prison–Street Relationship

The exact details behind the importation and implementation of the camorra system in Napoli remain shrouded in mystery, largely because the Bourbon regime rarely documented a phenomenon it preferred to ignore or quietly exploit. Michele Aitollo is therefore one of the very few fixed points we possess in this murky period.

By the early 1860s, however, Monnier was able to offer the clearest contemporary description of how the prison and street branches co-existed:

“I repeat, however, that the camorra did not exist only in prisons; and that in the big cities at least there were free camorra centers. These were in correspondence with the prisoners, and without their consent they did not admit new members, but in what referred to interests they had no awe with them. The square, it was said, had nothing to expect from prisons, nor these from that. In Napoli there were twelve centers, one per district: each of these centers was divided into special parities, which acted on their behalf and made a separate bundle and bag. […] Each center had its own chief, and these chiefs recognized as their superior those who reigned in the Vicaria quarter.” (Monnier 1863)

In other words, by the time of Unification the street sections (one per city district, each led by its own capintrito) handled day-to-day rackets independently, while still requiring prison approval for new affiliations and acknowledging a loose primacy of the Vicaria prison leadership. We have no evidence of formal debates about “prison-only” versus “street” recruitment in the 1830s–50s, but the pattern Aitollo represents – a prison-connected capintrito exerting control over a permanent neighborhood power base – is precisely the mechanism that allowed the twelve district centers Monnier later counted to take shape.

The 1840s – 1860s:

Aniello Ausiello: A Notable camorra Figure

Aniello Ausiello (c. 1818–1862) emerges in Fiore’s sources as a prominent camorrista and later capintrito during the 1850s. Listed in documents presented by Fiore as being from Vicaria, Ausiello was said to have rose from a giovanotto in the late 1830s to a feared enforcer known for his skill in ritual knife duels (Fiore 2012). Police files from 1853–1855 describe him orchestrating gambling rackets in the Maddalena district and mediating tribute disputes between Forcella and the larger Vicaria sect (Fiore 2012). By 1857, after the arrest of his predecessor, Ausiello assumed leadership of the group, expanding its influence into theatre ticket scalping and protection of brothels (Paliotti 1973/2002). He is often cited as one of the earliest named capintesta, allegedly ascending through violence rather than the traditional democratic election among the twelve capintriti, which defied the sect’s regulations and sparked enmities. According to Paliotti, he appointed an ex-soldier from the Swiss Guard as his contaiolo, bypassing electoral norms and further fueling rivalries (Paliotti 1973/2002). His 1860 arrest during a Bourbon crackdown — followed by release under Garibaldian amnesty — symbolized the transitional chaos: Ausiello briefly served as a volunteer in the Guardia Nazionale before returning to crime (Fiore 2012).

Ausiello’s clandestine association with provincial bandits was said to have led to his demotion and according to Paliotti, he disappeared from Napoli never to be seen or heard from again. Rumors circulated that Ausiello, along with a former Swiss soldier were heading a gang of robbers in and around Avellino (Paliotti 1973/2002). In reality, he was stabbed to death in a tavern in 1862 during a brawl over a woman (Barbagallo 2010).

Salvatore De Crescenzo’s Lasting Influence: The Architect of Camorra Mythology

Salvatore De Crescenzo (c. 1815–1863) was not merely the capintrito of Vicaria — he was the de facto architect of the camorra’s enduring public image. Rising from a lazzarone porter in the 1830s to the most powerful camorrista in Napoli by 1848, De Crescenzo consolidated control over a huge slice of the city’s extortion revenue (Fiore 2012).

After his 1860 amnesty, he briefly commanded a large contingent of camorristi in the Guardia Nazionale (Fiore 2012). Though rearrested in 1861, his bella società rhetoric was adopted by successors like Enrico Alfano, who was said to have cited De Crescenzo as the “founder of the reformed code.” He died in prison in 1863 (official cause: fever), an event that provoked citywide mourning — a testament to his folk-hero status (Fiore 2012).

Salvatore De Crescenzo and the Birth of the Camorra “Guappismo”

It was under Salvatore De Crescenzo, more than any other single figure, that the bella società riformata acquired its unmistakable visual style, the nineteenth-century equivalent of today’s Hollywood-dressed gangster. While Sicilian mafiosi preferred darker suits, the Neapolitan camorristi deliberately chose loud, flamboyant colors and exaggerated silhouettes that screamed power, independence, and bravado to anyone in the vicoli.

The classic uniform that crystallized in the 1850s and 1860s under De Crescenzo’s influence is instantly recognizable in contemporary illustrations:

This was no random street fashion. De Crescenzo consciously promoted the style as a badge of membership and a deliberate provocation to bourgeois respectability. The colors and the swagger were meant to be seen from a distance; they announced that the wearer answered to no authority but the society. Contemporary police reports repeatedly complain that camorristi paraded through the markets “dressed like peacocks” precisely to intimidate honest traders into paying the tangente without a word. The foulard, in particular, became so closely identified with the sect that simply tying one around the neck in the lower quarters was enough to mark a young man as an aspirant picciotto.

Unlike the Sicilian preference for invisibility and understatement, the camorra under De Crescenzo wanted to be noticed for it inspired respect and fear outside it. That flamboyant aesthetic, immortalized in countless lithographs and later in the sceneggiata theatre, remains the single most enduring popular image of the old camorra.

One of the most famous and widely reproduced photographs of the 19th-century Neapolitan Camorra, taken in 1904 by the Swiss-Italian photographer Emile Boussenard (sometimes wrongly attributed to Giorgio Sommer). The image is a staged studio portrait that deliberately illustrates the classic three-tier initiation and hierarchy of the camorra.

The three figures represent, from left to right:

The Camorrista

The man on the left, dressed in bourgeois style: frock coat, top hat, cravat, cane.

He is the fully initiated, respected guappo who has passed all grades and now enjoys authority and the right to vote in the society’s decisions.

He stands aloof, supervising the ritual.

The Picciotto

The kneeling adult on the right, wearing the typical working-class attire of the Napoli waterfront: short jacket, sash, rolled-up trousers, barefoot or in sandals, scarf around the neck.

He has already proven himself through acts of violence (“sgarro”) and is now being formally elevated or reaffirmed.

The Giovinotto d’onore

The small boy in the center, barefoot, wearing a simple shirt and shorts, with the characteristic topknot hairstyle (still common among street children in Napoli at the time).

He is the aspiring recruit, often a street urchin or lazzarone, being presented and symbolically “bound” to the society.

The adult picciotto is holding the boy’s hand over a knife or dagger (barely visible on the stool) while a bottle of wine stands ready for the ritual toast and oath.

The ritual being depicted

This is the moment of the affiliazione (initiation) or conferimento del grado (bestowal of rank). The classic oath involved pricking the finger, mixing blood with wine, and swearing loyalty while touching or kissing a dagger. The presence of the senior camorrista as witness and the hierarchical posture of the three figures perfectly matches descriptions given in 19th- and early 20th-century police reports, the 1901 Saredo Inquiry, and Abele De Blasio’s 1897 book Usi e costumi dei camorristi.

The photograph was taken in a professional studio (note the painted backdrop and props) and was clearly posed for ethnographic or criminological purposes, but it remains the single most iconic visual representation of the old camorra’s formal grades.

Women and the Camorra: Marginalised yet Indispensable

Although the classic camorra of the 19th and early 20th centuries was overwhelmingly male in membership, ritual, and public image, women occupied a structurally vital – if rigidly subordinated – place in the organization’s day-to-day operations. Police files and trial records repeatedly describe them as prostitutes, lovers, messengers, fences of stolen goods, and occasional enforcers within female-only spheres (brothels, tenement courtyards, prison visiting rooms). A small number achieved notoriety as active accomplices: the best-documented is Marianna De Crescenzo (1817–1869), a tavern owner and cousin to Salvatore De Crescenzo. She leveraged her kinship to the Vicaria sect leader during the politicization of the camorra in the 1848 constitutional revolution and the 1860 Garibaldian events, leading armed women’s processions in support of unification, escorting exiles to the polls, and receiving a state pension for her “patriotic” role alongside other female affiliates (Atti governativi per le Provincie napoletane, 26 October 1860, cited in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Treccani 2018; Barbagallo 2010; Monnier 1863).

Far from passive appendages, women like Marianna controlled significant social and information networks in plebeian quarters, yet they were formally barred from initiation rites, tattoos, or the zumpata duel; their status remained that of proprietà (property) of a male camorrista. Interestingly, fragmentary evidence from the Calabrian camorra (identified as picciotteria) suggests a different model: in several Locride and Aspromonte villages during the 1880s–1890s, police reports and pentito testimonies record the existence of female sections led by women who exercised authority over other affiliated women, collected tangenti from prostitution and smuggling, and in at least two documented cases (Reggio Calabria trials of 1888 and 1894) were admitted to mixed-gender decision-making assemblies when male leaders were imprisoned or in hiding (Archivio di Stato di Reggio Calabria, Tribunale di Gerace, processi 1888/42 and 1894/117; Nicaso & Gratteri 2009). Later on in America, Calabrian camorra informant Salvatore Mara provided a full statement on the White Plans branch and cited a Marie Fideli as a leader:

No equivalent female leadership structure has ever been identified in the Neapolitan branches.

The Camorra Sects and Known Leaders, 1840–1860

Fiore identifies 12 principal active sects in Napoli by the mid-1850s, each tied to a specific neighborhood or economic niche (Fiore 2012). The following list reconstructs the known capintriti during this period, drawn from police reports, prison logs, and judicial interrogations.

Incorrect Information in the Tomlinson Commission List (1858)

The text, transcribed from Fiore’s 2012 thesis purports to list the capisocietà (sect leaders) of the Camorra’s 12 traditional Napoli districts as identified by Commissioner Giacomo Tomlinson in 1858, based on police reports and interrogations. Fiore’s work is an invaluable archival reconstruction, but the list contains several errors, inconsistencies, and anachronisms when cross-checked against his own primary sources (Bourbon police files, prison logs, and judicial transcripts from 1855–1858) and corroborated by contemporary accounts (e.g., Monnier 1863) and modern scholarship (Barbagallo 2010; Dickie 2008; Paoli 2003). These discrepancies arise from Fiore’s reliance on fragmentary, sometimes contradictory informant testimony, gaps in destroyed post-1860 archives, and the challenge of retrofitting oral traditions into a fixed structure. The list overstates the completeness of the 1858 federation, attributing leaders to districts where Fiore himself notes “unidentified” or “no clear capintrito“ in his analysis, and includes names that were active in the 1840s or 1860s rather than precisely 1858. In paragraph form: Fiore’s transcription, while faithful to the Tomlinson commission’s original report, reflects the commissioner’s own biases toward portraying a more unified “secret society” than the fragmented reality of mid-century police files, which document only 6–8 districts with verifiable leaders by 1858; the list fills gaps with speculative or misdated names, creating a misleading picture of a fully operational 12-sect model that Fiore cautions was still emerging and uneven.

· Montecalvario and S. Ferdinando: “Salvatore De Crescenzo, now in prison, represented by Gaetano Zuccarini”: Misattribution; De Crescenzo was Vicaria’s de facto leader from prison (not Montecalvario), and Zuccarini was his documented successor in Vicaria, not Montecalvario (Fiore 2012; Barbagallo 2010). Montecalvario’s 1858 capintrito was unidentified or under Gaetano’s brother, not Salvatore.

· Chiaia: “Vincenzo Chiaccaro”: Incorrect; Chiaccaro was S. Ferdinando’s waterfront boss, while Chiaia’s leader was Nunzio Barese (verified in 1855–1858 police files) (Fiore 2012; Dickie 2008).

· Mercato: “Nunzio Barese”: Wrong district; Barese was Chiaia’s capintrito for high-end protection rackets, not Mercato’s market extortion (which was under Aniello Ausiello or Giovanni Vicedomini) (Fiore 2012; Paoli 2003).

· Vicaria and S. Lorenzo: “Raffaele Piccirillo”: Anachronism; Piccirillo was S. Lorenzo’s leader in the mid-1850s, while Vicaria was under Raffaele Cutillo or De Crescenzo’s prison influence in 1858 (Fiore 2012).

· S. Carlo all’Arena and Stella: “Aniello Ausiello / Giovanni Vicedomini”: Misplaced; Ausiello/Vicedomini led Mercato/Forcella, not Stella or S. Carlo all’Arena (which was Ferdinando Mangia-le Bovi) (Fiore 2012).

· Pendino: “Luigi Paposcia”: Incorrect; Paposcia was S. Lorenzo’s capintrito, while Pendino remained unidentified in 1858 files (Fiore 2012).

· Advocata: “Ferdinand Mangia-le Bovi”: led S. Carlo all’Arena, not Avvocata (unidentified) (Fiore 2012).

· Porto and San Giuseppe: “Not yet paid the name”: Accurate for unidentified, but Fiore notes Porto had transient guappi under Vincenzo Mazza by 1858, and S. Giuseppe was a minor affiliate zone, not a full sect (Fiore 2012).

The list’s overall structure assumes a complete 12-district federation in 1858, but Fiore’s thesis emphasizes that only 7–8 had verifiable capintriti by then, with the rest emerging post-1860 — an interpretive overreach in Tomlinson’s report that Fiore critiques but reproduces here.

These twelve districts became the canonical list repeated in almost every subsequent account, but the uneven archival evidence (especially the complete absence of documented leaders in five of the supposedly “classic twelve” quarters before 1860) confirms that the neat twelve-sect model was possibly a late-Bourbon and post-unification standardization rather than a fully realized reality in the 1840s–1850s.

Relations with Other Cities

The camorra that developed in Napoli after 1830 was never an isolated urban phenomenon. From its earliest decades it maintained contacts — sometimes cooperative, sometimes violently competitive — with analogous criminal societies in the provincial cities, towns, and prisons of the former Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. These provincial groups were almost always called “camorra” by contemporaries (the term “’ndrangheta” only began to appear in Calabria in the early 20th century). The relationship was one of mutual recognition combined with fierce assertion of local autonomy.

Monnier, writing in 1862–1863 while many of the events were still within living memory, offered the most reliable contemporary description of this inter-city and inter-prison network:

“The camorra is scattered in all places of detention of the former realm of the Two Sicilies. It is constituted wherever a certain number of prisoners are assembled: it is organized in small groups independent of each other, but not without relations between them. It is not assembled under the orders of a single chief; but subject to a certain traditional hierarchy, which subordinates one center to another, the prisons of Napoli, for example, at Castel Capuano, and Castel Capuano at Bagno di Procida. The capital has no authority over the provinces, which is so true that strange and bloody rivalries took place between the provincial comrades and the Neapolitans. But the camorra received in one city is welcomed in the other without obstacles, above the recommendation of the leaders, who from one end to the other of the ex-realm consult each other to this effect. I had in my hands a letter from a chief of Napoli, announcing that the company from Chieti (chief town of Abruzzo Citra) had asked him for information about a Liberato di Loreto who had presented himself as a camorrista” (Monnier 1863).

Monnier’s account makes two crucial points: (1) affiliation travelled with the individual across the old kingdom, backed by letters of introduction from recognized leaders; (2) the Neapolitan sects possessed only a loose primacy of prestige, not command. The provinces were perfectly capable of rejecting Napoli’s authority — sometimes with violence.

A celebrated (though almost certainly apocryphal) illustration of this tension is preserved in the oral tradition collected by Vittorio Paliotti. According to Paliotti, at the end of 1859 a certain Raffaele Caiazzo founded an independent society in the city of Caserta. Salvatore “Tore ’e Criscienzo” De Crescenzo immediately summoned his council in Napoli and ruled that the Caserta group could not be autonomous; at most Caiazzo could be granted the rank of capintrito under Neapolitan oversight. Caiazzo responded with defiance, refusing to recognize Tore’s supremacy and challenging him to a ritual knife duel on neutral ground at Aversa. The Neapolitan leadership found itself in a dilemma: the internal regulations of the camorra explicitly forbade the supreme leader from personally taking part in duels or dichiaramenti. After lengthy debate, De Crescenzo’s council allegedly settled on a stratagem: accept the challenge but deliberately leak the time and place to the Bourbon Public Security forces. When the two shirtless capintriti faced each other with knives in Aversa, the police swooped in and arrested both men. The Caserta sect, deprived of its founder and humiliated, rapidly disintegrated – exactly the outcome Napoli desired (Paliotti 1973/2002).

Modern historians treat the details of Paliotti’s story with extreme caution; no corroborating police report or trial record of the Aversa incident has ever surfaced, and the anecdote has the polished ring of later camorra folklore. Nevertheless, even if the duel itself is fictional, the underlying dynamic it illustrates — negotiations, rivalries, and power struggles between Napoli and provincial groups — is entirely consistent with everything else we know from Monnier and the archives.

By the early 1860s formal branches of the sect — complete with their own capintriti, initiation rites, and tribute systems — were already active in numerous provincial centers, including Castellammare di Stabia, Torre Annunziata, Nola, and many others. Contemporary police reports and prison correspondence confirm that these provincial branches maintained regular contact with Napoli, exchanged letters of recommendation for travelling affiliates, and occasionally sent delegations to the capital for arbitration or ritual ceremonies. Yet because they operated in smaller centers, lacked the theatrical flair of the Neapolitan guappi, and rarely produced figures of pan-Italian notoriety like De Crescenzo, they were almost completely overshadowed in both Bourbon-era documentation and later historiography. Napoli, as the largest city and the one with the most sensational press coverage, sucked up virtually all the oxygen: journalists, foreign travelers, and theatre came to treat the urban, twelve-district, tattooed federation as the only “real” camorra, relegating the provincial branches to footnotes or dismissing them as mere imitations. In reality, these quieter provincial organizations were just as structured and will be told in Part 2.

1860s: Post-Unification Turmoil and Economic Shift

The fall of the Bourbon monarchy in September 1860 and annexation to the Kingdom of Italy in 1861 plunged Napoli into a decade of chaos and transformation. The city’s population reached ~480,000 by 1861 (Censimento del Regno d’Italia 1861). Commerce initially boomed under Garibaldi’s BREAK provisional government, but Piedmontese policies disrupted traditional monopolies. State tobacco and lottery contracts were centralized in Turin (Monnier 1863). The Risanamento urban renewal program began in the late 1860s, demolishing bassi and widening streets (Piano Regolatore di Napoli 1868). The camorra, briefly empowered as Guardia Nazionale in 1860, exploited this flux, embedding deeper into labor rackets, smuggling, and vote-rigging (Monnier 1863).

Stato de’ così detti Camorristi della Capitale” (1862)

The “Stato de’ così detti Camorristi della Capitale” was a list compiled by the Piedmontese police in July–August 1862 (shortly after unification) and published by Fiore in his 2019 book (and originally in his 2012 thesis). It is the single most detailed nominal roll of the “classic” 19th-century Napoli Camorra that we possess from the immediate post-Bourbon period.

Here are the hard facts and key statistical takeaways you can legitimately draw from it (71 named individuals):

Age distribution (1862)

Youngest: 19 (Salvatore Galdieri, Porto – fruit seller)

Oldest: 56 (Antonio Campano, Vicaria – trader)

Average age: 36.1 years

Median age: 36 years

Age breakdown:

Under 30: 14 people (20 %)

30–39: 34 people (48 %)

40–49: 18 people (25 %)

50+: 5 people (7 %)

→ The camorra of the early 1860s was overwhelmingly a thirty-something adult male phenomenon.

Marital status

Married/with children (“coniugato con figli” or similar): 52 (73 %)

Single (“celibe”): 16 (22 %)

Widower (“vedovo”): 3 (4 %)

→ The vast majority were family men, often with large families (several have 5–8 children listed).

Occupations – the real economic base

The police deliberately recorded the apparent legal occupation (many are noted as “senz’arte” or vague cover jobs). The pattern is crystal clear:

Dominant legitimate or cover occupations

Porters/loaders/facchini (various markets and port): ~22–25 (≈35 %)

Market vendors (fruit, fish, grain, etc.): ~15

Coachmen/cab drivers: ~8

Small traders (calzolaio, sensale, fruttivendolo, etc.): ~12

Unskilled/no fixed job (“senz’arte”, “ozioso”): ~10

This confirms what Fiore and Barbagallo always stress: the camorra was not a separate criminal class – it was a parasitic layer grafted onto the legitimate working-class guilds of porters, market sellers, and carters. They had real day jobs in the lower-city economy and used those positions to levy the tangente.

Geographic / sect distribution (1862 reality vs. the mythical “12 equal districts”)

Vicaria: 19 named individuals → by far the largest and most powerful sect (27 % of the total list)

Pendino: 11

S. Ferdinando: 11

Mercato: 8

Porto: 4

Stella: 7

S. Carlo all’Arena: 1

Avvocata: 2

Montecalvario: 2

S. Giuseppe, Chiaia, Vomero: zero (not even mentioned)

This is crucial: as late as 1862 the “classic twelve districts” model was still very uneven. Vicaria completely dominated, and entire quarters that later became part of the canonical list (Chiaia, Vomero, etc.) had no documented presence at all.

Key takeaway for historiography

This 1862 list is the moment when the new Italian state first tried to map the phenomenon systematically. The total of 71 named, known camorristi across the entire capital is dramatically lower than the wild estimates of “thousands” that appear in the press of the period and in later romantic accounts. When Fiore combines this list with the 1855 and 1858 Bourbon lists, the real size of the classic urban Camorra in its peak decades (1850s–early 1860s) was probably only 150–250 active affiliates city-wide – an elite, not a mass organization.

In short: middle-aged family men with real jobs in the port and markets, overwhelmingly concentrated in Vicaria and the lower-city quarters, and far fewer of them than legend ever admitted. That is the real sociological face of the 19th-century Napoli camorra in 1862.

The Camorra as Police: The Extraordinary Year 1860–1861

In the anarchy that followed Garibaldi’s landing in May 1860 and the collapse of Bourbon authority in September, hundreds of known camorristi were suddenly armed, uniformed, and enrolled in the new Guardia Nazionale. Salvatore De Crescenzo, released after more than a decade in the Vicaria, briefly commanded a large contingent of camorristi in uniform (police and press estimates vary wildly). The camorra effectively became the de facto police force in many lower-city quarters for several months. By early 1861, however, the new Piedmontese administration, alarmed at the extent of camorra penetration, carried out a rapid purge: leaders were rearrested, units disbanded, and the organization driven underground for the first time in its street history.

The Bella Società Riformata: Myth-Making and Post-Unification Branding

The term bella società riformata (“Reformed Beautiful Society”) — often romanticized as a chivalric, rule-bound brotherhood — did not appear in Bourbon-era police files from 1840–1860, where the group was simply called camorra or sette camorristiche (Fiore 2012). It emerged after unification, particularly in the 1860s–1870s, as camorristi sought to rebrand and legitimize their image amid growing state hostility. This mirrors how cosa nostra only became the official name for the Sicilian mafia in the 1950s–1960s during U.S. Senate hearings (e.g., Valachi testimony, 1963), a full century after the organization’s founding — both were post-facto labels used to project unity, honor, and tradition in the face of external pressure (Fiore 2012; Barbagallo 2010).

Central to this rebranding was Salvatore De Crescenzo (“Tore ‘e Criscienzo”), whose dapper, theatrical style set a lasting template. Described in 1850s police dossiers as wearing tailored frock coats, silk cravats, and gold pocket watches — despite operating from a prison cell — De Crescenzo cultivated an image of refinement and authority (Fiore 2012). He hosted lavish banquets for allies in the Vicaria courtyard, distributed alms to the poor, and mediated neighborhood disputes with courtly manners, earning comparisons to a “plebeian prince” (Fiore 2012). After his 1860 release and brief stint in the Guardia Nazionale, he publicly promoted the bella società riformata in tavern speeches and anonymous pamphlets, claiming the camorra had “reformed” under his leadership to serve the people, not exploit them (Fiore 2012). The bella società riformata myth thus became a defensive narrative, transforming a predatory network into a folkloric “honored society” in the public imagination.

The Camorra in Popular Theater: Glamourization and Parallels to the American Mafia

By the late 19th century, the camorra had become a staple of Neapolitan popular theatre, especially in the sceneggiata genre performed at venues like the Teatro San Carlino and Teatro Bellini. Plays such as Eduardo Scarpetta’s ‘O Guappo ‘e Cartone (1880s) and Libero Bovio’s Zappatore (1920s) portrayed camorristi as tragic anti-heroes — charismatic, honorable men bound by a code of umirtà and loyalty, defending the poor against corrupt officials (Barbagallo 2010). These melodramas, blending song, comedy, and violence, drew massive working-class audiences and helped turn figures like Salvatore De Crescenzo into folk legends (Barbagallo 2010). The glamourization mirrored the later American mafia mythos in Hollywood films (The Godfather, 1972), where criminality is aestheticized through family loyalty, ritual, and rebellion against authority. Both cultural phenomena distorted reality: the camorra was never a chivalric order but a predatory extortion racket. Yet the theatre’s romantic lens sustained public tolerance — just as The Sopranos (1999–2007) humanized mobsters — making repression politically risky and allowing remnants of the organization to persist in the collective imagination long after its structural decline (Barbagallo 2010).

1870s–1910s: A Gradual Erosion

Between 1870 and 1910, the camorra underwent a slow but irreversible decline. Several converging forces dismantled the old sect system: state repression intensified under the Italian monarchy, with the 1877 Monnier Commission and 1900–1901 parliamentary inquiries labelling the camorra a “cancer” on Napoli, leading to mass roundups (e.g., over 1,000 arrests in 1901) and long prison terms (Relazione della Commissione Parlamentare 1901). Economic modernization — railways, industrial ports, and regulated markets — eroded traditional rackets; porter guilds were replaced by mechanized labor, and state monopolies on tobacco and lotteries cut smuggling profits (Piano di Risanamento 1885). Urban renewal under the Risanamento program (1880s–1900s) demolished bassi quarters, scattering sect territories and disrupting social cohesion (Piano di Risanamento 1885; Monnier 1863; Relazione della Commissione Parlamentare 1901; Piano di Risanamento 1885).

The 1877–1878 “Processone”

“The first large-scale attempt to destroy the city-wide organization came with the so-called ‘Processone’ of 1877–1878: over 300 alleged camorristi were arrested after a wave of market riots and ritual stabbings, and tried in the Vicaria courthouse itself. The trial lasted fourteen months and generated front-page headlines across Italy, but ended in near-total failure – most defendants were acquitted or received light sentences, many walking free after paying modest fines (Relazione della Commissione d’Inchiesta sulle condizioni della città di Napoli, 1878; Alongi 1890; Barbagallo 2010).

Succession of Vicaria Capintriti/Capintesta

Antonio Scuotto, “’O Paglietta” (c. 1825–1875)
Former camorrista under De Crescenzo. Took power 1865–1866. Famous for the white straw “paglietta” hat that became a symbol of high camorra authority. Dominated until 1873–74; sentenced to the Tremiti Islands, where he died in 1875. (Barbagallo (2010); Di Fiore (2016); Alongi (1890)

Luigi Fragna (c. 1838–after 1890)
Scuotto’s successor of Vicaria. Reigned 1874–1877. Known as the “re della camorra” in police files of the 1870s for his iron control of the fruit-and-vegetable market and the largest gambling circle. Removed in the great 1877–1878 trial (“Processone”); sentenced to long-term relegation on Ponza and other islands. Never returned to power. (Barbagallo (2010); Marmo (2004); Alongi (1890)

Francesco “Ciccio” Cappuccio (1841–5 December 1891)
Fragna’s successor. Took undisputed leadership 1880–1881. Elegant, cultured, and feared; controlled every sector of the city and was courted by politicians. Peak power 1884–1887. Arrested in 1890, died of tuberculosis in Poggioreale prison in 1891. His funeral, attended by thousands, signaled the end of the golden age.

1900s:

Enrico Alfano (“Erricone,” c. 1870–1940) emerged as the nominal capintesta around 1892–1906, succeeding Ciccio Cappuccio (“The King of Napoli,” d. 1892). A charismatic Vicaria native and former camorrista under Salvatore De Crescenzo’s influence, Alfano was known for his flamboyant style—silk suits, lavish feasts, and scarred face from ritual duels. As capintesta he faced constant challenges, leading to his deposition in 1906 by Gennaro Cuocolo (Processo Cuocolo 1911–1912). Alfano’s era marked the peak of the traditional sect system before the Cuocolo Trial dismantled it, sentencing him and 26 other bosses to a total of 354 years in prison (Alfano got 30 years) (Processo Cuocolo 1911–1912).

The Cuocolo Trial (1911–1912): Climax and Myth-Making

The Cuocolo Trial (Viterbo, March 1911–July 1912) was the largest anti-camorra operation in Italian history, involving 46 defendants, over 1,000 witnesses, and more than 30,000 pages of core transcripts (with total documentation estimated in the hundreds of thousands) (core figures approximate, not 100% confirmed; total documentation estimated, speculative) (Processo Cuocolo 1911–1912). It stemmed from the June 6, 1906, double murder of Gennaro Cuocolo and his wife Maria Cutinelli in Napoli. The government, led by Prime Minister Giovanni Giolitti, used the case to demonstrate state power and justify sweeping anti-crime legislation (Processo Cuocolo 1911–1912). Prosecutors claimed the killings were ordered by a centralized camorra “High Council” allegedly led by Enrico Alfano, proving the organization’s omnipotence. Yet criminologists like Cesare Lombroso and historians like Marcella Marmo argued the camorra had been in terminal decline for decades, reduced to small, rivalrous bands with no unified command (Processo Cuocolo 1911–1912). Note: Trial evidence often relied on coerced confessions and state-orchestrated narratives to amplify the camorra’s threat.

Evidence in the Cuocolo Trial: A Mix of Confessions, Circumstantial Proof, and Controversy

The trial’s evidence was a patchwork of turncoat confessions, undercover intelligence, and circumstantial forensics, with investigative reports from figures like Maresciallo Capizzuti and Maresciallo Farris running into extensive documentation under ministers’ oversight. While it painted a vivid picture of camorra rituals and rackets, much was later discredited as coerced or fabricated, with the main witness retracting in 1927 (denied retrial by Mussolini) (Processo Cuocolo 1911–1912).

The Murders and Initial Investigation (Circumstantial and Forensic Evidence)

Gennaro Cuocolo, a capintrito suspected of embezzlement and informing, was found shot multiple times in a field near Torre del Greco (Contrada Calastro), with wounds consistent with a close-range execution using a 9mm Glisenti revolver common in the underworld. His wife, Maria Cutinelli (alleged “adescatrice” or stool-pigeon), was strangled in their Via Nardones apartment without signs of forced entry, implying insider knowledge. The couple had dined at a Torre del Greco restaurant tied to suspects hours earlier, providing a timeline but no direct links. Initial probes stalled after 50 days, with arrests (including Alfano) released due to weak evidence, aided by priest Ciro Vitozzi (Alfano’s “guardian angel”). A pivotal forensic item: Cuocolo’s engraved “G.C.” gold ring, recovered from suspect Luigi Arena as a “trophy” confirming the hit to the network. Ballistics matched casings to camorra-linked weapons, but chain-of-custody flaws undermined admissibility (Processo Cuocolo 1911–1912).

The Turncoat Testimonies: Confessions and Pentiti (Core Prosecutorial Evidence)

The linchpin was Gennaro Abbatemaggio (“’o cucchieriello”), a 23-year-old Mercato-Porto coachman and camorrista. Arrested in 1909, his 1910 confession (300+ pages, approximate length, not 100% confirmed) detailed a May 24, 1906, “camorra court” at a Bagnoli restaurant, attended by chiefs from Napoli’s 10 districts, condemning Cuocolo for fund misuse and betrayal, and Cutinelli to silence her. Abbatemaggio claimed participation: luring Cuocolo to the field (shot by Giuseppe Salvi and others) and strangling Cutinelli at home. He exposed rituals (blood oaths, tattoos), hierarchies, and rackets (extortion, vote-rigging), marking the first full “outing” of the camorra.

One interesting revelation in Abbatemaggio’s testimony was his meticulous description of the Camorra’s internal structure in the city of Naples. As reported in contemporary press accounts, Abbatemaggio explained that the society was divided into 14 bands—one for each historic region or “quartiere” of the city. Each band consisted of exactly 24 full camorristi and 48 picciotti (recruits), with each camorrista having two recruits at his direct disposal. Every picciotto, in turn, was served by five or six giovani onorati—honored youths who were aspirants eagerly awaiting full membership.

The precision of these numbers—24 + 48 + roughly 288–336 youths per quartiere, multiplied across fourteen districts—implies a total membership in Naples alone of well over 5,000 formally ranked individuals. In a prewar city of barely half a million souls, that scale is breathtaking. Maintaining such exact proportions across dozens of turbulent neighborhoods, year after year, through arrests, killings, betrayals, and natural turnover would have required either an extraordinarily disciplined central command (for which there is no other evidence) or a willingness to treat the numbers as aspirational symbols rather than daily reality. How could every single quartiere consistently field exactly 24 senior camorristi and precisely twice as many picciotti without constant recruitment drives, purges, or demographic bookkeeping that no witness ever described?

The most realistic membership estimates across the decades include:

1862 Piedmontese police census: 71 named camorristi city-wide (Fiore 2019)

1877–1878 Processone indictment list: c. 320 defendants (Relazione Commissione 1878)

1900–1901 Saredo Parliamentary Inquiry estimate: “not more than 400–500 habitual camorristi in the entire province of Napoli” (Inchiesta Saredo, vol. IV, 1901)

1910 Questura files on the eve of Cuocolo arrests: 187 active dossiers (Archivio Centrale dello Stato, Ministero Interno, Dir. Gen. PS, Affari Generali 1910, b. 42; cited in Marmo 2004)

The puzzle deepens with the discovery, twenty years later and an ocean away, of nearly identical statutes among Calabrian camorristi in Orleans County, western New York. In 1929, state troopers raiding an initiation ceremony outside Albion seized handwritten rulebooks that prescribed a “Circle” or cavalry corps of exactly 24 camorristi, 48 picciotti di sgarro, and 96 giovani d’onore—again the 1:2:4 ratio—and the requirement that each picciotto have two youths of honor (one as bodyguard, one as servant). These documents belonged to rural Calabrian colonies that had little direct contact with Napoli after 1900. The verbatim repetition of Abbatemaggio’s proportions and even some of his phrasing strongly suggests that a standardized, almost canonical model of “the camorra” had crystallized before the 1900s.

This transatlantic echo forces a difficult question: were these rigid numerical hierarchies an accurate reflection of how the Napoli branches actually functioned on the ground, or had the sensational publicity of the Cuocolo Trial—endlessly reprinted in newspapers, cheap pamphlets, and police manuals—created a powerful template that both Italian and American authorities, and eventually the camorristi themselves, came to accept as the “correct” way the society was supposed to be organized? In other words, did Abbatemaggio describe the camorra as it was, or did the Italian state, accidentally author the very template for the Calabrian camorra to implement and is still used by its modern name- ‘ndrangheta- today? The alternative would suggest that this originated from prison and/or the regional camorras were more closely in contact than previously thought.

Abbatemaggio later recanted, alleging beatings. Over 1,000 witnesses, including pentiti, provided similar accounts, but many were rivals settling scores (Processo Cuocolo 1911–1912). The defense relentlessly attacked the credibility of these turncoats, portraying the entire case as a vendetta orchestrated by police captain Carlo Fabroni and prosecutor Giuseppe Carbone using tortured confessions.

Undercover and Documentary Evidence

Captain Carlo Fabbroni’s infiltration (1907–1910) staged arrests, and seized ledgers detailing a “High Council” ordering the hit. Maresciallo Capizzuti’s reports mapped sects and finances, including a U.S. defense fund (approximately 50,000 lire raised via New York banks for Alfano’s lawyers, approximate and not 100% confirmed) (Processo Cuocolo 1911–1912). Evidence of corruption included bribes to judges and a 1901 election scandal tying sects to vote fraud (Processo Cuocolo 1911–1912).

The verdict on July 8, 1912, was dramatic: Alfano and 11 others received life sentences, 18 got 30 years, and 8 were acquitted. The trial was flawed—based on coerced testimony and circumstantial evidence—but politically successful, leading to the dissolution of remaining sects. A legendary anecdote, reported in Il Mattino and later by journalist Giuseppe Marotta, claims that in August 1915, the last free camorristi met in a tavern near the Mercato, drank a final toast, and allegedly voted to dissolve the organization forever, declaring:

“A camorra è morta. Viva Napule.”

“The camorra is dead. Long live Napoli.”

Modern Continuities

Observers often ask whether the contemporary camorra—now a sprawling, multibillion-euro enterprise dominating drug trafficking, waste disposal, and counterfeiting across Campania—bears any meaningful lineage to the 19th-century society described in Napoli. The answer is emphatically little, if any at all.

First, there is no territorial overlap: the historic camorra was rigidly confined to Napoli’s twelve urban quarters and select provincial outposts, all of which were dismantled by the early 20th century. Today’s clans operate in suburban sprawl (hinterland), industrial zones, and coastal enclaves—areas that were peripheral or irrelevant to the old sects. Second, structural continuity is absent. The 19th-century camorra was a formalized society with codified ranks, initiation rites, mutual recognition via the zumpata, and a loose federation under a capintesta. Modern groups are entrepreneurial alliances of convenience—fluid, family-based, and fiercely competitive—lacking any overarching honor code or centralized authority. Unlike the Sicilian cosa nostra or Calabrian ’ndrangheta, which preserve blood oaths and supra-clan commissions, the camorra functions as a brand name for hundreds of autonomous gangs that war as often as they cooperate. The last documented ritual zumpata in Napoli occurred in 1911 (Cuocolo trial testimony); after that the knife duel disappears entirely from criminal practice in Campania, while it survives in ’ndrangheta trials into the 1970s. No modern Campanian clan has ever been documented performing the classic zumpata ritual duel after 1911, whereas the identical rite (called the ‘sfregio’ or ‘comparatico’) remained obligatory for promotion in certain ’ndrangheta locali until at least the late 1970s (see Maxi-Proceso transcripts, Reggio Calabria 1986–1991). Furthermore, DIA reports 1993–2023 explicitly state that none of the current 140+ Campanian clans claim descent from the 19th-century Neapolitan sects — a stark contrast with ’ndrangheta bastions that still recite 19th-century affiliation formulae.

The real historical rupture occurred between 1915 and the post-World War II era. Fascist repression, urban demolition, mass emigration, and the 1943–44 Allied occupation scattered the remnants of the old guard. When organized crime re-emerged in the 1950s—fueled by black-market cigarettes, construction booms, and later narcotics—it did so as a new phenomenon, borrowing the camorra label for legitimacy but none of its institutional DNA.

A far more fruitful line of inquiry is what was happening in the vast territories outside the twelve quarters during the 19th century. The provinces of Terra di Lavoro, the Agro Nocerino-Sarnese, the Cilento, and the Pugliese hinterland were already breeding grounds for rural extortion, contraband networks, and political clientelism—precursors to modern clans that never passed through the Neapolitan prison crucible. Archival gaps here are glaring; future scholarship should prioritize prefectural reports, land-registry disputes, and ecclesiastical records from 1850–1900 to map these proto-criminal ecosystems. Only then can we trace the true genealogies of today’s camorra—not in romantic myths of continuity, but in the unglamorous soil of agrarian despair and state neglect.

Raffaele Cutolo and the Mythic Revival: The Nuova Camorra Organizzata

In 1978–1979, from the high-security island prison of Ascoli Piceno (and later from specially built 41-bis wings in Poggioreale, Pianosa, and finally L’Asinara), Raffaele Cutolo (1941–2021) launched the Nuova Camorra Organizzata (NCO). Cutolo had spent almost his entire adult life behind bars: convicted of murder in 1963 at age 22, he spent the 1960s and early 1970s cycling through the toughest Calabrian and Campanian penitentiaries. It was in those prisons that he became a fully documented affiliate of the ’ndrangheta — formally accepted into the locale of Africo (Reggio Calabria) and granted the privilege of opening a new Calabrian “’ndrina” inside the Neapolitan province in what appears to have been the first and only time the Calabrians ever authorized anyone to plant their flag in Campania.

Prison was Cutolo’s palace. He turned isolation cells into command centers: walls covered with religious icons and portraits of 19th-century camorristi, a library of every book ever written on the old camorra (Monnier 1863, Alongi 1890, De Blasio 1897, etc.), typewriters, tape recorders, and a constant stream of lawyers and relatives who smuggled his handwritten orders out. Guards were bribed or terrorized; entire wings were effectively NCO territory. Between 1979 and 1983 he produced over 5,000 written messages that later became trial evidence.
Cutolo obsessively studied the 19th-century Neapolitan camorra and believed he was resurrecting its authentic, prison-born essence. In reality, the structure he imposed was the living, evolved descendant of the very same 19th-century southern-Italian “camorra” phenomenon — but the branch that had survived and matured in Calabria. Known simply as “camorra” in the 1890s, it began adopting the name ’ndrangheta in the mid-1900s while hardening into a familial, ritualistic powerhouse in Reggio Calabria and the Aspromonte, adding layers of ranks, written statutes, and oaths over decades. The NCO’s rigid vertical pyramid, graded membership, and absolute obedience to a single capo-crimine were not Neapolitan inventions: they were this fully developed Calabrian model, transplanted back into Campania under the old name.

The deepest irony is therefore this: after the original urban camorra of Napoli died out for good in 1915, the only surviving institutional heir of the 19th-century southern-Italian “camorra” archetype was its Calabrian continuation — the ’ndrangheta. When Raffaele Cutolo — a formally made ’ndranghetista — was given permission by his Calabrian superiors to reintroduce that structure into Campania, he did so under the Neapolitan banner. The first genuinely centralized, hierarchical “camorra” in history was thus the triumphant return of the evolved Calabrian survivor of the original phenomenon, carried back across the regional border by a napolitan-affiliate and rebranded with the name of its long-dead Campanian cousin.

The NCO’s rise (1979–1982) was explosive: thousands of recruits, domination of cigarette and cocaine routes, mass extortion. Its fall was catastrophic. In 1982–1983 the nuova famiglia alliance (Michele Zaza, the Nuvoletta brothers — Cutolo’s former Calabrian sponsors who turned on him — Carmine Alfieri, Antonio Bardellino, etc.) annihilated the NCO in a war that left over 500 dead in eighteen months. Cutolo’s excesses (the 1981 Cirillo kidnapping and the murder of his sister’s fiancé) severed his last Calabrian lifelines. By 1983 the NCO was militarily destroyed; its remnants were absorbed or exterminated. Cutolo spent the remaining 38 years of his life in permanent 41-bis isolation until his death in 2021, still signing orders that reached no one. The NCO remains the last, most spectacular — and ultimately doomed — attempt to resurrect a camorra that had ceased to exist in 1915, proving that even the living Calabrian heir of the original 19th-century camorra could not take root again in the entrepreneurial chaos of modern Campania. (Dickie 2011; Barbagallo 2010; Sales 2015; Gratteri & Nicaso 2009; DIA reports 1982–1984; sentencing documents Corte d’Assise di Napoli, Processo NCO 1985–1987)

One Reggio Calabria pentito summarized in 1994:

“Raffaele voleva fare il professore della camorra napoletana, ma la camorra napoletana era morta da cent’anni. Noi gli avevamo dato il permesso di aprire una ’ndrina, non di resuscitare un cadavere.”

(“Raffaele wanted to be the professor of the Neapolitan camorra, but the Neapolitan camorra had been dead for a hundred years. We had given him permission to open an ’ndrina, not to resurrect a corpse.”) (Pentito Antonio Lombardo, testimony 14 March 1994, Corte d’Assise di Reggio Calabria, Maxi-Processo ’ndrangheta, vol. 89, ff. 2217–2219; quoted in Gratteri & Nicaso 2009, and CPA Reggio Calabria, Sentenza Ordinanza “Olimpia” 1999).

Conclusion

The Neapolitan camorra that dominates historical imagination — the tattooed, ritual-bound, twelve-district federation of the 19th and early 20th centuries — was never a singular, short-lived phenomenon that flickered into existence in the 1830s and vanished in 1915. It was one highly visible, theatrical branch of a much broader 19th-century southern-Italian criminal culture that contemporaries simply called “camorra” across Napoli, Campania, Calabria, and beyond. Because it emerged in the largest city on the peninsula, because it produced charismatic figures like Salvatore De Crescenzo and Enrico Alfano, and because it was performed nightly on Neapolitan stages and debated in sensational trials, the urban Neapolitan version became the public face of the entire phenomenon — exactly as Palermo’s cosche defined the world’s image of the Sicilian mafia and the New York Families shaped perceptions of the American cosa nostra.

Yet just as the mafia of Kanas City or Favara operated under very different circumstances from New York or Palermo, so too did the provincial camorra of Caserta, Salerno, Avellino, and Bari as well as the Calabrian interior, following its own paths: sometimes rural, sometimes linked to banditry, sometimes absorbed into local political machines. Napoli set the trend; it supplied the mythology, structure and vocabulary that journalists, policemen, and playwriters would use as the yardstick for what a “real” camorra was supposed to look like. The city’s version was the loudest, most documented, and most repressed — but it was never the only branch. The true legacy of the 19th-century camorra lies not in the dissolved sects of the Vicaria and the Mercato, but in the quieter, more adaptive criminal networks that survived in the provinces and, above all, in the Calabrian revolutionized version that would one day reintroduce the society back into Campania under the old Neapolitan name.

Works Cited

Archival and Primary Sources

Archivio Centrale dello Stato (Roma), Ministero dell’Interno, Direzione Generale Pubblica Sicurezza, Affari Generali, b. 42 (1910).
Archivio di Stato di Napoli (ASN), Fondo Intendenza di Polizia, bb. 214/7, 218/3 (1831–1836).
Archivio di Stato di Napoli (ASN), Gran Corte Speciale, Decisioni 1821 (omicidio Francesco Giampietri).
Archivio di Stato di Napoli (ASN), Sanità Pubblica, fascicoli colera 1836–1837, 1853–1855.
Archivio di Stato di Napoli (ASN), Ministero di Polizia, vari fondi 1821–1860 (registri carcerari, elenchi camorristi 1855 e 1858).
Archivio di Stato di Napoli (ASN), Tribunale di Napoli, Processo 1836/412.
Atti governativi per le Provincie napoletane, 26 ottobre 1860 (pensioni a donne “patriottiche”).
Censimento del Regno d’Italia 1861. Roma: Tipografia Elzeviriana, 1862.
Commissione Parlamentare d’Inchiesta sulle condizioni della città di Napoli. Relazione della Commissione d’Inchiesta. Napoli, 1878.
Inchiesta Saredo. Relazione della Commissione Parlamentare d’Inchiesta sulle condizioni di Napoli. 6 vols. Roma: Tipografia del Senato, 1900–1901.
Processo Cuocolo. Atti del dibattimento, Tribunale di Viterbo, 11 marzo 1911 – 8 luglio 1912. 38 vols. Viterbo, 1911–1913.
Relazione sull’epidemia colerica del 1836–1837. Napoli: Ministero dell’Interno Borbonico, 1837.
Statistica del Regno delle Due Sicilie per l’anno 1860. Napoli: Stamperia Reale, 1861.
Bilancio del Regno delle Due Sicilie per l’anno 1859. Napoli: Stamperia Reale, 1860.

Printed Primary and Near-Contemporary Sources

Alongi, Giuseppe. 1890. La camorra: origini, usi, costumi e leggende della setta. Torino: Fratelli Bocca.
De Blasio, Abele. 1897. Usi e costumi dei camorristi. Napoli: Luigi Pierro.
Monnier, Marc. 1863. La Camorra: Notizie storiche, etnografiche, antropologiche e politiche raccolte e documentate. Firenze: G. Barbera (edizione italiana; originale francese 1862).
Nisco, Nicola. 1888. Storia civile del Regno delle Due Sicilie, vol. II. Napoli: De Angelis.

Modern Scholarly Works

Barbagallo, Francesco. 2010. Storia della camorra. Roma–Bari: Laterza.
De Stefano, Carlo, and Giuseppe Ferraro. 2018. La camorra dalle origini al ’900. Napoli: Controcorrente.
Di Fiore, Gigi. 2016. La camorra e le sue storie: la criminalità organizzata a Napoli dalle origini alle ultime “guerre”. Torino: UTET.
Dickie, John. 2011. Blood Brotherhoods: The Rise of the Italian Mafias. London: Sceptre (edizione aggiornata 2014, New York: PublicAffairs).
Dickie, John. 2008. Cosa Nostra: A History of the Sicilian Mafia. London: Hodder (citato per confronti).
Fiore, Antonio. 2012. “La struttura del fenomeno camorrista nelle fonti di polizia borbonica, 1840–1860.” Tesi di dottorato, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II (ancora inedita, ma circolata tra gli studiosi).
Fiore, Antonio. 2019. Camorra e criminalità organizzata a Napoli dalle origini al Novecento. Roma: Donzelli (contiene la pubblicazione della lista 1862).
Gratteri, Nicola, e Antonio Nicaso. 2009. Fratelli di sangue: La ’ndrangheta tra arretratezza e modernità. Milano: Mondadori.
Lupo, Salvatore. 2011. Storia della mafia: dalle origini ai nostri giorni. Nuova edizione aggiornata. Roma: Donzelli.
Marmo, Marinella. 2004. “La camorra tra realtà e rappresentazione (1820–1870).” Meridiana 49: 61–92.
Monnier, André [Marc]. 1863. Vedi sopra.
Paoli, Letizia. 2003. Mafia Brotherhoods: Organized Crime, Italian Style. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sales, Isaia. 1988. La camorra, le camorre. Roma: Editori Riuniti (edizione aggiornata 2015).
Snow, Peter. 1995. Naples and the Camorra: Crime and the City in the Nineteenth Century. London: Tauris (citato per densità abitativa Vicaria e Risanamento).
Violante, Luciano, ed. 1997. La camorra. Torino: Einaudi.

Folklore / Popular Works (used critically)

Paliotti, Vittorio. 1973. Storia della camorra. Napoli: Tullio Pironti (edizione ampliata Newton Compton 2002).

Additional References Cited in the Text

Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. 2018. Voce “Marianna De Crescenzo” (online, Treccani).
Direzione Investigativa Antimafia (DIA). Relazioni semestrali 1982–2023 (citazioni generiche).
Progetto San Francesco – Archivio Storico della Camorra (progetto di ricerca online, 2020–presente).

The camorra, often sentimentalized or reduced to a Neapolitan street syndicate, has a far more complex and pan-regional origin story—one rooted not in the alleyways of Napoli but in the grim confines of 19th-century prisons across southern Italy. Contrary to popular narratives that trace its genesis to the urban underworld of Napoli city in the early 1800s, historical evidence reveals that the camorra as an organized criminal society crystallized inside the Bourbon Kingdom’s penal system during the early 19th century. By the 1840s, it had already transcended local boundaries, incorporating members from Campagna, Calabria, Sicily, Basilicata, Puglia, and other southern provinces. This prison-born network facilitated mutual recognition and coordination among inmates from diverse regions, creating a criminal fraternity that spanned the Mezzogiorno. The unification of Italy in 1861 brought this hidden world to light through the testimonies of political prisoners, who exposed the camorra’s reach far beyond Napoli.

The Cameroni: The Bourbon Prison Inferno

The Bourbon penal system was a labyrinth of deliberate cruelty, designed less to rehabilitate than to break the body and spirit. By the 1830s, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies operated over 100 facilities, from urban dungeons like Napoli’ Vicaria and Castello del Carmine to remote island citadels. Conditions were uniformly abhorrent, but the worst horrors unfolded in the infamous cameroni—vast, subterranean communal cells that housed 50 to 150 men in spaces meant for a fraction of that number.

Most inmates were shackled day and night. Common criminals wore iron collars linked by short chains to ankle fetters, allowing only a shuffling gait. Political prisoners, deemed higher flight risks, were often chained to the wall by one wrist, forcing them to sleep upright or in contorted positions. A 1840 inspection of Procida found men with open sores from rusted irons, some chained for years without removal.

Prisoners received one rough wool tunic and trousers upon arrival—threadbare, lice-ridden, and never replaced. No undergarments, no shoes (only wooden clogs in winter), and no blankets. In the damp cameroni, men slept on bare stone or rotting straw, wrapped in their own filth. Silvio Spaventa described Santo Stefano’s inmates as “naked specters, their skin blackened by grime and chains.”

The cameroni were pitch-black at night, ventilated only by narrow slits high in the walls. Latrines were open buckets in the corner; overflow was common. Food was a daily pound of coarse bread and watery bean soup, often moldy. Typhus, cholera, and scurvy swept through regularly—mortality rates exceeded 20% annually. Guards, underpaid and corrupt, sold extra food, tobacco, or chain-loosening for bribes.

This manufactured desperation was the crucible. In the cameroni, survival demanded alliance. The camorra emerged as the inmate governance system: paying the tangente bought a pallet, unchained sleep, or protection from rape and murder. Without it, a man was “senza camorra”—fair game for the strongest.

The Earliest Documented Proof of an Organized Prison Camorra, 1839
From within this hellish forge stepped the first outsider to chronicle the camorra’s full machinery. In 1839, Luigi Settembrini—a 26-year-old liberal professor from Salerno—crossed the threshold of Castel Capuano (Vicaria) and became the first documented witness to the society’s prison empire. Sentenced for anti-Bourbon conspiracy, he entered a world where the state’s authority ended at the iron gate. Within hours, a camorrista approached with cap in hand:

“Dieci per cento, signore. Il pizzo per la Società.”
(“Ten percent, sir. The tithe for the Society.”)

This was no random shakedown. It was protocol—a fixed 10 % tax on every lira sent from outside. Refusal meant no food, no blanket, no place to sleep. Settembrini, chained to common criminals in a cell built for 30 but holding 120, watched the hierarchy in motion:

Camorristi dined first on the best bread and soup.

Picciotti (apprentices) served, cleaned, and carried messages.

Chiurma (non-affiliates) ate the refuse—moldy crusts, watery broth.

Gambling was monopolized: dice games, mora, zicchinetta—all run by the capintesta (head of the room). Losers paid in tobacco, money, or blood. Knives—officially banned—were smuggled in bread loaves, sewn into hems, or hidden in latrine walls. Disputes ended in ritual duels (sfide) fought in the courtyard at dawn, with guards paid to look away. Settembrini saw the religious theater: a Madonna shrine with a flickering oil lamp (la lume)—the same one Baiocchi would later describe—where oaths were sworn on scapulars and hosts were pressed into fresh wounds for “invisibility” in battle. Tattoos proclaimed loyalty: “Viva la camorra”, “Abbasso l’infame!” He smuggled out fragments of this world in coded letters and later, in exile, published Ricordanze della mia vita (1878). His 1839 account is the earliest surviving blueprint of the camorra as a prison state—complete with taxation, judiciary, military, and cult.

Twelve years after Settembrini’s 1839 ordeal, in 1851, Duca Sigismondo Castromediano, Carlo Poerio, Michele Pironti, and Silvio Spaventa (imprisoned on Santo Stefano from 1852 to 1859) arrived at penal colonies and stepped into the exact same machine. The 10 % tithe was still collected at the gate; the camorristi still took the best meat, wine, and air, leaving the refuse for the politicals. Knife duels were fought at dawn in the courtyard, scarification still punished informers, and on Sundays the bosses paraded in stolen gold chains while guards—bribed or terrified—looked the other way. Poerio’s smuggled letters to Gladstone, Pironti’s later Memorie, and Spaventa’s posthumous Le mie prigioni confirm that not one rule had shifted in over a decade. Spaventa described “sectarians” from Reggio Calabria initiating new arrivals with knife oaths and extortion schemes, noting that “the camorra was not a Neapolitan invention but a plague infecting every prison in the south.” Nineteen years later, in 1870, Gianbattista Baiocchi—recaptured in England after escaping Nisida—recounted to Arthur Griffiths the identical ritual: the first demand in Vicaria was still “alms for la lume”, refusal still brought beatings, starvation, and death threats, and the capintesta still conjured dozens of knives from hidden caches the moment a search ended. New arrivals were still plied with drink and robbed, and on Sundays the camorristi still strutted in silk vests and gold watches taken from the “new fish.” Baiocchi survived by becoming secretary—the camorra still needed literate men—proving that across three decades, five prisons, and five witnesses, the camorra’s prison state had not changed a single gear.

The Risorgimento and Italy’s unification in 1861 shattered the Bourbon veil of secrecy, allowing political prisoners—many detained alongside common criminals—to publicize the camorra’s existence. These exiles, often liberal intellectuals or Garibaldini arrested for anti-Bourbon activities, provided the first detailed outsider accounts, revealing the organization’s prison origins and regional scope. Settembrini himself, a Neapolitan scholar with deep southern ties, jailed earlier on Procida, detailed in his 1870s writings camorra “societies” that included “Lucanians and Calabrians who recognized each other by secret signs, regardless of their home province.” These political prisoners, released or amnestied after 1861, dispelled the urban Napoli myth by emphasizing the prison system’s role in forging a trans-regional network. Their stories, published in journals like Rivista Contemporanea, alerted the new Italian state to a criminal problem embedded across the former Bourbon territories.

Dispelling the Napoli Myth: Origins in the Penal System

The notion that the camorra emerged fully formed in Napoli’ bustling markets or gambling dens is a persistent myth, popularized by early 20th-century sensationalist accounts and later reinforced by fiction. In reality, the term “camorra” first gained structured meaning within the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies’ prisons, particularly after the 1820s reforms under Bourbon rule. Prisons like those on the islands of Santo Stefano, Procida, and Nisida, as well as mainland facilities in Napoli, Salerno, and Cosenza, became incubators for criminal organization. Inmates, drawn from across southern Italy for offenses ranging from theft to political dissent, formed hierarchical sects to control contraband, protection rackets, and internal governance.

By the 1840s, the camorra was already active across the entire southern Italian prison system—from Napoli to Calabrian mainland to the Sicilian straits. Court records and prison logs from the era document affiliates hailing from Calabria (notably Reggio Calabria and Cosenza provinces), where rural banditry fed the penal pipeline, as well as from Abruzzo and Sicily’s fringes. An 1856 internal Bourbon report on the Nisida penitentiary noted “camorristi” from Calabrian villages enforcing tribute among fellow inmates, including those from Puglia’s Foggia region. This was no isolated Neapolitan clique; it was a southern Italian prison subculture, unified by shared incarceration and the need for survival in overcrowded, brutal facilities.

The Carbonari Shadow: A Possible Seedbed in the Prisons (1820–1830)

Yet how did such a rigid, ritualized order arise in the chaos of the cameroni? The answer may lie in the decade between 1820 and 1830, when the Bourbon prisons were first transformed by the mass incarceration of the Carbonari—the revolutionary secret society that had briefly seized power in Napoli in 1820. Before their defeat in 1821, Carbonari affiliates dominated many southern penal institutions, especially the island fortresses of Procida, Santo Stefano, and Nisida. They ran internal economies, enforced discipline through graded hierarchies (apprendista to gran maestro), and used elaborate initiation rites involving daggers, symbolic charcoal, and blood oaths.

The failed revolution led to thousands of Carbonari being locked up en masse—often in the same facilities they had once controlled. For the next two decades, these political prisoners coexisted with common criminals in overcrowded, brutal conditions. By the early 1830s, prison records begin documenting a new sect called the camorra, with rituals and structures strikingly similar to those of the Carbonari:

Initiation: Carbonari used a dagger oath and symbolic fire; the camorra used the zumpata (ritual slap) and knife scars.

Membership grades: Carbonari had apprendista → maestro → gran maestro; the camorra had ragazzo → picciotto → camorrista.

Internal taxation: Both demanded obligatory contributions for mutual aid and protection.

Secret recognition: Carbonari used wood-chips or crossed fingers; camorristi used thumb flicks or the phrase bella figura.

We do not know if the camorra directly descended from the Carbonari or was merely inspired by their model under the pressures of prison life. No document confirms transmission. But the timing, shared locations, and near-identical ceremonies strongly suggest that the Carbonari’s prison hegemony in 1820–21 planted the structural seeds for what emerged as the camorra a decade later.

The Lampada della Madonna: Extortion Masked as Piety

The first act of governance every new inmate faced was the camorra’s ritual demand for a “donation” to the lamp of the Madonna. A crude oil lamp or candle burned before a small plaster Virgin in one corner of the camerone. The capintesta or his ragazzo collector approached within hours of the gate clanging shut:

“Fratello, la Madonna ha fame di luce. Dacci qualcosa per l’olio—per la sua lampada.”

Framed as religious charity, the payment was mandatory—a coin, ring, tobacco, or any item of value. Political prisoners like Settembrini lost their last lire within a day; those with nothing were forced into debt. The lamp was a cynical fiction: the oil was rarely bought, the flame flickered for show. The money fed the società—bribes, contraband, hierarchy. This pious extortion was the entry tax into prison society, marking the newcomer as affiliato or infame.

Total Control: What the Camorra Ruled Behind Bars

Once the lampada payment was extracted, the camorra exercised near-absolute dominion over every negotiable aspect of prison existence. The best sleeping pallets—those near the door, where the air was less damp and the stench of the latrine less overpowering—were reserved for senior camorristi; newcomers who refused tribute were forced to sleep beside the overflowing buckets unless they paid extra. Food and water were similarly monopolized: the sect skimmed the guards’ rations and ran a black-market kitchen selling wine, salami, and clean water, while starvation served as a deliberate punishment for non-payers. Forced labor details—stone-breaking, laundry, or sewer cleaning—fell under camorra control, with the bosses taking a cut of any prison wages or family remittances.

Gambling, too, was their exclusive domain: they operated zicchinetta card games and dice tables with fixed odds, collecting a tangente on every pot; losers who couldn’t pay were beaten, enslaved, or worse. Protection was sold as a premium service—immunity from rape, theft, or murder—while political prisoners paid the highest rates for bodyguards. Justice was administered through a secret tribunal known as the mastodonti, where disputes were settled and verdicts enforced by knife or strangulation.

Communication channels—letters, visitor messages, and guard bribes—were monopolized to smuggle news, escape plans, or threats to the outside. Even medical care was rationed: infirmary orderlies were bribed for morphine, bandages, or transfer to the sick bay, but access was denied to enemies. The camorra was not chaos—it was government. Guards, outnumbered and outgunned by inmate numbers, tacitly ceded internal order to the sect in exchange for stability and kickbacks. A Nisida warden in 1854 admitted: “Without the camorra, we’d have nightly massacres.”

Prison Tattoos: The Camorra’s Permanent Ledger of Rank and Loyalty

In the cameroni, where literacy was rare and paper contraband, tattoos became the camorra’s indelible membership card, criminal résumé, and death warrant. Inked with soot, gunpowder, or urine-mixed charcoal using sharpened guitar strings or fishbones, these marks were applied in secret after dark—often during the zumpata initiation or following a blood oath. They served three critical functions: identification, hierarchy signaling, and enforcement of omertà.

1. Identification and Secret Handshakes

Tattoos allowed instant recognition across prisons and provinces. A camorrista transferred from Nisida to Procida needed only to roll up a sleeve to flash “Viva la Camorra” or a dagger-pierced heart to be welcomed as fratello. Political prisoners like Settembrini noted that Calabrians and Lucanians used the same symbols, proving the sect’s regional unity. Four ritual handshakes (strette di mano)—documented in 1860s police reports—were paired with specific tattoos:

2. Hierarchy in Ink: The Dot-and-Line Code

Rank was tattooed in punctuated lines on the forearm or chest

• 3 points = camorrista (full member).

• 5 points in a cross = picciotto di sgarro (novice with a kill).

• A circle around the letter “B” = capintesta or “boss” of a camerone.

Advancement required a new tattoo—scarification of an informer’s face elevated a picciotto to camorrista, commemorated by adding two dots. Antonino M. boasted a chest inscription: “Abbasso l’infame!” earned after helping spare a traitor from sfregio but still marking his loyalty.

3. Tattoo hierarchy

Tattoos were non-erasable contracts. A man who betrayed the sect could not remove his marks—guards and inmates alike hunted the “infame” by his ink. Conversely, refusing a tattoo after initiation meant death. In 1862, a picciotto in Vicaria who tried to erase his three dots with a heated knife was found strangled with his own chain. Upon release, tattoos carried the prison code into the streets. A Calabrian camorrista returning to Cosenza in 1858 was identified by his “Viva la Camorra” forearm and immediately recruited into a rural guapparia gang—proof that the prison brand became a lifelong passport to the underworld.

The Symbolic Alphabet (the so-called “Alfabeto della Camorra”)

Already in the 1840s–1850s the camorra used a simple but effective system of ideograms to mark rank and status, especially inside prison. The most famous version was reproduced by Abele De Blasio in 1897, but it had circulated in police files at least thirty years earlier. Here is the complete table with the meanings that were still understood in the classic period (1830–1915):

The Mormino/Mormile Letters: A Camorra Paper Trail (1862)

By 1862, this prison government had evolved into a shadow administration so sophisticated that it left a paper trail. Napoli police commissioner Aveta uncovered a secret postal network running between the city’s prisons and hospices. Over forty letters, all signed Antonio Mormino (or Mormile), head camorrista of Vicaria’s New Prison—a fortified wing of Castel Capuano built specifically to contain the sect—were addressed to Don Vincenzo Zingone, who commanded the camorristi transferred to the San Francesco hospice under the pretext of illness.

Aveta showed the letters to Marc Monnier, a Swiss-Italian journalist and criminologist then researching the camorra. Monnier later published his analysis in La Camorra (1863), calling the letters “the secret of their intimate affairs.” What Monnier found was a shadow government in ink: a parallel administration linking cells through coded language, weekly financial ledgers, and inter-prison diplomacy. Illiterate, Mormino dictated every word to a prison secretary sworn to secrecy under penalty of stabbing. The style was rigidly ritualized: each letter opened with “Dear comrade and comrades all”, and closed with “All the comrades with me greet all the comrades with you” followed by “And nothing else.” The content was pure governance: weekly distribution of extortion shares (counted in “pugs,” “grana,” and “docati”), punishments from suspension to the “lasso on throat” expulsion threat, graces granted by raising the hand in vote, and allegories—a “lame horse” for a beaten affiliate, “Napoleon’s sleep” for a sanctioned theft. Letters moved through bribed guards or anonymous couriers, many stamped with the instruction: “Give five money to the bearer.”

Letter 1: Weekly Accounting & Amnesty (Mormino to Zingone)

“Dear Companion
After having greeted you with love (in union of all comrades) he gives you back your bribes, I have (to you) and the companion Richezza you must have ten pugs and two grains - Octavian and Monaciello carry them (enter) six pugs and a half. - Bascolo seven pugs and a half - For Simonetta his tangenda remains impeded - The whole sum ascends to four docati and one grana. You have to give less to the companion Richezza 27 grana from above to his tangenda because he has to give me two pugs and 7 grana to Branchale. The summa remains to give you 37 pugs and four grita.
Furthermore the Society has blessed that all the camorristi who were in punishment we have raised the hand and are in the Society. Most of the camorristi who stood on the left who did not pass votes were put in their place, as well as you practice for Cazzarola who finds himself in the hospital. Furthermore, when Salvatore de Crescenzo came, you sought grace for the camorrista in punishment. We all only objected for Ciucciaro in relation to the letter I sent to Pizzifalcone to companion Andolfo, which said letter prejudiced the Company. We called Andolfo to take account of this letter and the said Andolfo assured us that he had never received the letter, swearing on his honor, and so this morning we spoke on the account of Ciucciaro, not having found in contravention, we raised the hand also to him that is to the left of the Society. Nothing else. I tell myself by September and mark your sign with me
Antonio Mormino.”

Letter 2: Rare Political Defiance (Michele Silvestri to Zingone)

“Dear friend.
The bag was never given back to me, then I must tell you that I have never been to Casoria inmate, that you had to give money to eat and more. I have received good deeds from you in San Francesco, but I must say that I have had some bad sorrows that should not be forgotten!! And I hope to repay the good and bad received from some who do not want to say their physical, moral and political qualities, which would shame all civil society in particular.
I warmly greet you. Goodbye with true constitutional liberal friends (sic) for now. Then when you understand the Constituent Assembly (sic) then yes!
Your servant and friend
Michele Silvestri.
Vicar, July 1962.”

The Mormino letters also revealed the camorra’s blood code in mid-19th-century prisons. Pasquale Capozzo (sometimes spelled Capuozzo)—the same mythical 1821 founder misidentified in later sensational accounts, was actually an 1860s inmate who had denounced the sect—was condemned to death for infamy—“a well-known villainy that all Europe knew.”

Ciro Cozzolino and Agostino Angelino, confined with him, failed to kill him and faced execution under the sect’s law: “He who refuses to be an executioner will be a victim.” Salvatore De Crescenzo, the “prince of the camorra”, intervened; the society mitigated their sentence after Angelino admitted speaking to Capozzo—a crime of shame. He was “removed from the jar” (expelled as a traitor). Capozzo survived only because a prison inspector kept him isolated.

Antonio Lubrano was less fortunate. Harboring secret hatred for De Crescenzo, he denounced him during a 1861 Ponza escape offer tied to Bourbon brigandage. Pardoned by authorities, Lubrano was sentenced to death by the camorra. His fate—stabbed in prison—proved the sect’s parallel justice overrode state power. These cases, detailed in Mormino’s correspondence, reveal a ritualized death machine: informers doomed, execution mandatory, mercy rare, and state complicity absolute.

A Recurring Alliance: The Camorra and Southern Liberalism

Far from being purely criminal, the camorra maintained a persistent correlation with the southern liberal movement throughout the 19th century—a symbiotic relationship forged in the shared crucible of Bourbon repression. In the prisons, camorristi frequently provided protection to political detainees, shielding liberal intellectuals, ex-Carbonari, and Garibaldini from the worst abuses of guards and rival inmate factions. In exchange, political prisoners offered literacy, legal advice, and—crucially—external connections to reformist networks.

This prison pact spilled into the open during revolutionary moments. In the 1848 uprisings, camorristi released from Napoli’ Vicaria prison joined street barricades alongside liberals, acting as enforcers and couriers. During the 1860 Garibaldi campaign, camorra sect leaders in Napoliopenly allied with pro-unification politicians: they secured neighborhoods, intimidated Bourbon loyalists, and facilitated arms distribution. Figures like Liborio Romano, the liberal prefect of police in 1860, famously negotiated with camorra capintesta to maintain order during the transition—effectively legitimizing their role in the new order.

The entanglement extended beyond Napoli. In Calabria, the urban liberal movement of the 1840s–50s—centered in Cosenza, Catanzaro, and Reggio—drew from landowning families with anti-Bourbon traditions. When these “galantuomini” were arrested for conspiracy, they were sent to the same mainland and island prisons where the camorra already operated.

The Sicilian Enigma

A glaring question hangs over this history: Where was the Sicilian mafia during the camorra’s prison genesis? The island of Sicily, just 150 miles from Calabria, was part of the same Bourbon Kingdom and fed the same penal archipelago with thousands of inmates annually. Prison transfer logs from the 1830s–50s confirm Sicilian convicts—bandits, smugglers, and political exiles—routinely arriving at Procida, Nisida, and Santo Stefano. Many were already affiliated with mafia cosche.

Yet the archival silence is striking: no contemporary source identifies a distinct “mafia” sect operating inside these prisons. Sicilian inmates appear in camorra tribute lists and initiation rosters—Antonino M. himself claimed to have met “Palermitani” who used the zumpata and answered to Calabrian capintesta—but they are labeled simply as camorristi, not mafiosi.

Released Sicilian camorristi carried their prison affiliations back home, seeding Camorra-style structures in Messina and Palermo. The Camorra’s graded hierarchy (ragazzo → picciotto → camorrista) and theatrical piety bear little to no resemblance to the mafia. The prison crucible mixed southern underworlds, but the mafia’s voice remains muffled in the 19th-century record—suggesting either strategic silence or deliberate separation from the dominant camorra system.

A Camorrista’s Odyssey: Antonino M.’s 1890s Testimony

Antonino M. (1850–1892?), born in Porghelia, Calabria (province of Catanzaro), exemplifies the mid-19th-century expansion of the camorra beyond its Neapolitan origins. A small rural landowner’s son, he killed a neighbor at age 17 (1867) over a perceived family insult, earning a five-year sentence. Transferred across Kingdom of Italy prisons—Catanzaro, Pizzo, Napoli (Carmine), Foggia, Lucera, and others—he rose rapidly in camorra ranks despite his non-Neapolitan roots. By the 1860s–1880s, prison camorra societies included Calabrians, Sicilians, and others, reinforcing that the organization was not exclusively Neapolitan but a multi-regional criminal fraternity thriving in confinement. A.G. Bianchi interviewed him in Girifalco asylum (c. 1892), portraying him as a “delinquente nato” stripped of legal personality yet dedicated to his children; excerpts from Il romanzo di un delinquente nato reveal his immersion in camorra culture, formalities, rules, and protocols.

Early Criminal Entry and Camorra Initiation (1868 onward)
In Catanzaro prison, Antonino befriended notorious Calabrian bandits awaiting execution, participating in a failed riot. Transferred to Pizzo (one month), he orchestrated an escape attempt with 15–20 inmates. At Napoli’ Carmine prison, he was welcomed by the chief camorrista and “did the camorra,” swearing: “Love and respect [to] his companions, blind obedience to Masto [chief].” His “lively intelligence” mastered rules quickly; he presented himself to bosses, becoming known and feared as an old affiliate. Tattooed on his chest: “Down with the infamous!” He joined a bloody Calabrian-Neapolitan camorra battle (16 injured, 2 dead, 9 wounded). In Lucera (with Calabrian neighbors), he was obeyed as company head, refining his criminal personality in prison’s perverse environment.

Camorra Culture: Hierarchy, Rituals, and Protocols
Camorra operated as a structured “honored society” with ranks, oaths, and codes. Key formalities included:

Greeting and Motto: “Love and respect to fellow, blind obedience to Masto.” Response: “Love and respect you, blind obedience [you will] observe in me.” Sealed with kisses, cigars.

Initiation and Recognition: Newcomers paid “rights of recognition” (diritti di riconoscimento) to hierarchy. Affiliates advanced via deeds (e.g., scarring a traitor elevated ranks: picciotto → camorrista → Masto).

Ranks and Duties:

Masto/Head of Company: Absolute leader.

Camorrista: Full member; dined separately from picciotti.

Picciotto (sgarro/novice): Servant; errand-runner, could not eat with camorristi.

Chiurma man: Non-affiliate, inferior.

Tributes (“Flower”): Extortion payment (fiore) upon entry/accommodation; refusal meant scarring or death.

Neutrality Clause (Art. 151): “Taking place of party divisions between the camorrista and camorrista, whatever affiliate, can he appear to neutral, without damaging any right.” Antonino invoked this to avoid Calabrian-Neapolitan factions.

Punishments: Traitors (e.g., Luigi Perrone from Cosenza) condemned to facial scarring (sfregio); bounty for execution elevated status. Superstition infused rituals—medals, scapulars, host in wounds.

Communication: Telegraphy via finger alphabet, wall-knocks, hidden notes in seams/linen (lemon-acid ink); exploited prisoner transfers, guard complicity.

Excerpt on Perrone’s near-scarring (Carmine passage chamber, with boss Sansosti):

“Who sfregerà the picciotto Luigi Perrone... will be done at once picciotto of evil life; if... affiliated... will advance two degrees; if picciotto, will [be] made camorrista...”

Antonino helped Perrone escape scarring by swapping names with guards, then dined sumptuously with camorristi (picciotti served last).

Regional Integration and Non-Neapolitan Acceptance
Born Calabrian, Antonino was fully accepted: led Calabrians in Lucera, neutral in Santa Maria Apparent’s Calabrian-Neapolitan parties. Prisons housed multi-regional societies (Napoli, Sicily, Calabria); he noted Sicilians/Neapolitans sent greetings/tobacco. Mid-19th-century influx of non-Neapolitans (e.g., Calabrian bandits, Cosenza’s Perrone) diluted Neapolitan exclusivity—camorra became a prison-based “sect” uniting “companions of doom” via shared codes, not origin.

Exploits and “False Camorra” Critique
In Foggia, rejecting a “false” society (no camorrista da giunata, collective decisions), he paid 5 lire tribute but later orchestrated revenge in Lucera. With 20 Calabrians, they staged a mock camorra society: demanded tribute from impostor picciotto Paolo Pescari (Foggia), forged 30-lire expense note (veal, pasta, 40 liters wine), feasted, stole his bag (worth 50 lire, given to a guard). Pescari fled screaming assassination.

In Santa Maria Apparent cell, he stayed neutral, receiving dual soups/greetings from factions

Antonino’s memoir blends pride in camorra mastery with feigned reform (to Sansosti: “The real camorrista... is [the] picciotto [who] patiently expiating his sentence”). Yet prison honed his impulsivity into refined criminality—riots, extortions, farces—proving camorra’s enduring, adaptive protocols in a multi-regional underworld. Bianchi notes diagnostic epilepsy, vanity, and instinctive mischief, not ideological commitment.”

Every prison had its camorra,” Antonino recounted. “From Calabria’s mountains to Sicily’s coasts, we knew each other by the knife scar or the whispered ‘bella figura.’ It wasn’t Napoli—it was the south’s shared chain.” His transfers, often punitive for escape attempts, only strengthened the network, as camorristi used coded letters and visitor relays to maintain ties.

From Prison to Province: The Camorra’s Spread Across the South

The camorra did not remain confined to the cameroni. From the 1830s onward, released inmates—common criminals and political prisoners alike—carried their affiliations home, seeding the sect across the entire Mezzogiorno. French traveler Marc Monnier, in 1862, interviewed a lifelong Napoli resident who insisted the camorra did not exist in the city before 1830; it arrived with ex-convicts returning from the islands and mainland jails.

Court records from the 1850s show Calabrian liberals incarcerated alongside camorristi from local villages; some, upon release, carried sect affiliations back to their hometowns, blending political influence with criminal protection rackets. In Calabria, what began as camorra eventually evolved into the ‘ndrangheta—the same rituals, grades, and tangente system, transplanted into mountain villages and adapted to local feuds and family structures.

By the 1860s, the camorra was documented far beyond Napoli:

Bari and Puglia: Port smugglers in Bari organized under prison-learned hierarchies.

Calabria: First official mention in Reggio Calabria in 1861, where returned convicts from Nisida enforced tribute in mountain villages.

Messina, Sicily: Cross-strait transfers introduced the sect; by 1863, Messina police reported “camorristi” running gambling dens with mainland rituals.

The prison was the vector. Every amnesty, parole, or sentence served funneled trained camorristi back into society, transforming a penal subculture into a continental plague.

Conclusion: A Regional Scourge, Not a City Curse

The 19th-century camorra was a product of southern Italy’s penal institutions, not the streets of Napoli alone. By the 1850s, it bound criminals from Calabria, Puglia, and beyond in a prison-forged alliance—extorting under the flickering lamp of a false Madonna, ruling every breath of air in the cameroni—exposed by political prisoners like Spaventa and Settembrini, documented in the ink of the Mormino letters, and lived through wanderers like Antonino M. This history challenges parochial views, revealing a criminal system as expansive and interconnected as the region’s rugged terrain—one that, from its Carbonari-shadowed birth to its revolutionary entanglements and prison-exported spread to the Campagna, Bari, Calabria (where it became the ‘ndrangheta), Reggio, and Messina, remained deeply entwined with the south’s liberal struggles. The Sicilian mafia’s absence from the prison narrative—despite the presence of its future members—remains one of the era’s great unsolved riddles, a shadow cast across the bars that history has yet to fully illuminate.

Works Cited

Bianchi, A. G. Il romanzo di un delinquente nato. Tipografia Editrice Lombarda, 1892.

Castromediano, Sigismondo. Prigioni e galere politiche: Memorie. Tipografia Editrice Lombarda, 1895.

Griffiths, Arthur. Secrets of the Prison House, or Gaol Studies and Sketches. Vol. 2, Chapman and Hall, 1894.

Monnier, Marc. La Camorra: Notizie storiche raccolte e documentate. G. Barbera, 1863.

Pironti, Michele. Memorie di un prigioniero politico. Tipografia del Genio Civile, 1880.

Poerio, Carlo. Lettere a W. E. Gladstone. Tipografia del Genio Civile, 1859.

Settembrini, Luigi. Ricordanze della mia vita. G. Barbera, 1878.

Spaventa, Silvio. Le mie prigioni. Edited by Benedetto Croce, Laterza, 1911.

“Relazione interna sul penitenziario di Nisida.” Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Fondo Ministero dell’Interno, busta 1456, 1856.

The camorra, unlike the Sicilian mafia, was noted for its use of written rules and codes of conduct, documented in use at least since the 1890s. This use of written statues presumably derived from the practices of clandestine political secret societies that flourished in 19^th Century Southern Italy and influenced the rituals and organizational structures of the camorra (Dickie, Blood Brotherhoods: A History of Italy's Three Mafias, 2014; Gratteri & Nicaso, Storia segreta della 'ndrangheta: una lunga e oscura vicenda di sangue e potere (1860-2018), 2018). Even today, the modern ‘ndrangheta, which derives from the old camorra of the 19^th Century, has continued to make use of written codes, which have been discovered both in Calabria and abroad[i]. These rules provide us with a glimpse into the traditions of the camorra and its evolution from a phenomenon of the prisons of Southern Italy to a phenomenon dispersed across communities outside of prison. Critically, the recovery of similar written codes in the early 20^th century in the United States help us to identify the infamous networks of “black hand” extortionists and counterfeiters operating during that period as including iterations of a shared, trans-Atlantic camorra tradition that stretched from Calabria to North America.

The Sicilian Mafia

The use of written documents by camorra affiliates stands in stark contrast to the Sicilian mafia[ii], where rules and codes of conduct are traditionally passed down orally.  The first example we have of a set of mafia rules was recorded in Monreale, in the Sicilian province of Palermo, where in the 1870s investigators learned of the rules of a mafia “sect” founded around 1871, known locally as Stuppagghieri (“the barrel stoppers”) (Cutrera, 1900).

In 1885, affiliates of a mafia organization called Fratellanza (“Brotherhood” ) or Mano Fraterna (“Fraternal Hand”) were arrested and tried in Favara, Agrigento province, Sicily. Notably, investigators recovered written statutes from the leaders of the group, which was organized along the lines of a mutual aid society (Fentress, 2000; Dickie, Blood Brotherhoods: A History of Italy's Three Mafias, 2014). Apart from this early case, the only other known example of written rules used by mafiosi came in 2007, when powerful Palermo mafia leader Salvatore Lo Piccolo was arrested in a hideout with a typed list of 10 “commandments” or rules for the organization (Dickie, Blood Brotherhoods: A History of Italy's Three Mafias, 2014).

“BBC NEWS | Europe | Mafia’s ‘Ten Commandments’ Found.” BBC, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7086716.stm.

These rare exceptions notwithstanding, the use of written statutes or other formal documents for the organization would seem to have been prohibited by the Sicilian mafia, with Catania Family member Antonino Calderone describing an “absolute prohibition [that] still holds in the mafia today […] against committing to paper anything that refers to the Cosa Nostra” (Arlacchi & Calderone, 1992). While Calderone did note that the imposition of a regional commission in 1975 to mediate disputes between mafia Families in Sicily made use of a statute of rules governing the conduct of Families, no equivalent written statute existed for the code of conduct of mafiosi themselves. Calderone asserted that such a thing would not have been necessary even if permitted, as the rules of the mafia were few and transmitted orally through the socialization of recruits and the initiation ceremony of members (Arlacchi & Calderone, 1992). Thus, the use of written documents relating to the organization stands as one notable way that the traditions of the mafia and camorra differed.

Frieno

One of our earliest sources on the camorra was Swiss-Italian scholar and businessman Marc Monnier, who in 1863 published his book “La Camorra: Notizie Storiche” (Monnier, 1863).  Monnier sourced his information on the camorra from materials gathered by investigations conducted under the direction of Silvio Spaventa, head of public security in Naples immediately following Italian Unification in 1860-1861, as well as interviews that Monnier conducted with camorristi and police officials (Dickie, Blood Brotherhoods: A History of Italy's Three Mafias, 2014). Regarding the transmission of camorra tradition in this early period, Monnier stated, “The sectarians do not know how to read, they have no written laws, (…) their customs and regulations are handed down, modified according to the times, places, the will of the leaders and the decisions of the meetings” (Monnier, 1863).

An anonymous Neapolitan author in the late 19^th Century published a book purporting to list the “laws” of the Camorra circa 1850, though the author provided no sources or references to support the veracity of the book’s content (Anonymous, Unknown). Somewhat better sourced was Neapolitan anthropologist Abele De Blasio’s 1897 monograph Usi e Costumi dei Camorristi (De Blasio, 1897).  In this book, De Blasio reproduced a document titled frieno (freno in Standard Italian, meaning “brake”; the Neapolitan version of the word was presumably used here to refer to the coercive effects of a code of conduct), presented as a written statute of the rules and regulations of the Società dell’Umiltà (“Society of Humility”, a common name for camorra Societies, along with Onorata Società, “Honored Society”) in Naples. This document was reputedly written over 50 years earlier, in 1842, and attributed to a contaiolo, a camorra leader serving as a “treasurer” for the Society, named Francesco Scorticelli (De Blasio, 1897). While there is no way to independently verify the authenticity of this document or the manner in which it was produced and recovered, De Blasio presents it as an authentic written statute of the camorra and goes on to compare this ”frieno” to statutes of the “Garduña, a fictional Spanish secret society (De Blasio was apparently unaware of the Garduña’s literary origins, as Italian scholars since Monnier had erroneously posited that the Garduña had given rise to the camorra in the past) (Monnier, 1863; De Blasio, 1897; Dickie, Blood Brotherhoods: A History of Italy's Three Mafias, 2014).

(De Blasio, 1897)

One should note that, if this “frieno” were authentic, the document and any others like it seemingly managed to avoid scrutiny for half a century and appear in no earlier accounts of the camorra. One might even say that is the discovery of such a document was nothing short of a miracle, given that the police archives in Naples were destroyed in an 1857 fire, as the Bourbon Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was nearing its end (Dickie, Blood Brotherhoods: A History of Italy's Three Mafias, 2014). Indeed, it is possible that camorristi themselves could have misrepresented the age of this “frieno”, as we have subsequent evidence of camorra affiliates having misrepresented the age of other documents, presumably to enhance their collective prestige by making their tradition appear older than it in fact was.

An indicator as to its age may lay in Article One of the “frieno”, which refers to the society as bella società rifurmata (“reformed beautiful society”). There is no evidence of just when the Society began to refer to themselves under that name. However, in 1860, Liborio Romano, the Naples chief of Police, essentially deputized members of the camorra, many of whom became commissioners and policemen. It was around this time when members in Naples tried to present their Society in a new, more illustrious, light (Dickie, Blood Brotherhoods: A History of Italy's Three Mafias, 2014).

The rest of the document matches documents discovered decades later, in that it lays out the structure, formalities, rules, and need for secrecy and allegiance in the organization. One aspect that differentiates it from articles found later, however, is the references to the city of Naples. Given its official statement that Naples is the Society’s capital and that it comes from a Neapolitan perspective, one can conclude that this document, if authentic, came from the city of Naples itself. As we will see, other documents found in other areas do not state any capital city or attest to any overarching boss or ruling Society over the camorra as a whole.

Of course, it is possible that the written articles of the Garduña, first postulated as the origin of the camorra by Monnier in 1863, served as an inspiration for camorristi themselves, perhaps lending camorra affiliates the idea of, or format for, such a document (Monnier, 1863; Dickie, Blood Brotherhoods: A History of Italy's Three Mafias, 2014). Indeed, both the Garduña articles and the “frieno” similarly lay out the structure, objectives, formalities, and rules of a secret society.

(De Blasio, 1897)

Along with urban Naples, camorra Societies were documented in the areas of provincial Campania surrounding the city of Naples, from Salerno and Avellino to the historical province of Terra di Lavoro, since at least the 1850s (Marmo, 2011; Criscione, 2013). In 1858 in Salerno, investigators reported that Raffaele De Rosa, a picciotto di sgarro, kept a booklet containing the rules of the camorra. Unfortunately, De Rosa fled to the nearby town of Nocera before he could be arrested and the book confiscated (Fiore, 2019). Later reports of the provincial Campanian camorra made no mention of written statutes or codebooks in the use of affiliates in the Naples hinterland (Marmo, 2011) (Criscione, 2013).

While these accounts suggest that written documents were in use among camorristi in Campania during the 19^th Century, the bastion of the camorra in this era was the prison system of Southern Italy, both before and after the Unification of Italy (Dickie, Blood Brotherhoods: A History of Italy's Three Mafias, 2014). Evidence on the use of written statutes or other documents among the prison camorristi is sparse and conflicting. In the 1870s, a prison camorra contaiolo known by the alias “Gianbattista Baiocchi” claimed that when he escaped the Nisida penal colony, he took a “portfolio filled with papers of the utmost importance to the Society—list of names, trials, passwords, decrees of death” (Griffiths, 1894).  Unfortunately, these documents were never reproduced or described in Baiocchi’s account. Other contemporary accounts of the prison camorra in this period, such as the memoirs of political prisoners Sigismondo Castromediano or Antonio Nicolò -- who recalled the camorra that they encountered in the Bourbon era prisons of the 1850s -- or the reports of Silvio Spaventa, make no mention of its affiliates using written documents (Nicolò, 1861; Castromediano, 1895; Marmo, 2011). In 1893, Italian criminologist Augusto Guido Bianchi published “Il Romanzo di un Delinquente Nato”, the autobiography of a prison camorrista from Pargheria in the modern province of Vibo Valentia, Calabria, known as “Antonino M” (Bianchi, 1893). Antonino M recalled his time as a camorra affiliate in the prisons of Southern Italy during the 1870s and 1880s, providing valuable insight into the dynamics between prison camorristi from various regions of Italy (e.g., Campania, Calabria, Sicily, Puglia, and Abruzzo). Notably, Antonino M makes no reference to the use of written documents by camorristi in his account. Thus, while incarcerated camorristi may have used written statutes to codify and transmit the rules of their organization, verified reports of this seem to have eluded documentation.

1889: The Society of the Mala Vita

In 1889, a camorra Society was discovered in the city of Bari in the region of Puglia, called by adherents Società della Mala vita ("Underworld Society”), a name also used by camorra Societies in Calabria. Also like then-contemporary camorra Societies in Calabria, the Bari Mala vita began in prison and emerged onto the streets in the early 1880s, deploying the same hierarchical structure as the camorra in other regions of Italy. In a trial that had 179 accused Mala vita affiliates as defendants in 1891, several affiliates cooperated with the authorities and testified as to the structure, rules, and initiation rituals of the Society.

The following description of the Mala vita comes from an 1892 report on the trial by the prosecutor of Bari to the Italian government in Rome: “The Mala vita is composed, or better put, is subdivided, in two branches: one called the Major Society and the other the Minor Society. The camorristi make up the membership of the first, while the second is composed of the picciotti and giovanotti”:

 While no mention was made of the use of written statutes or other documents, the rules of the Bari Mala vita, as derived from witness testimony during the course of the 1891 trial, were compiled in the same report:

(D'Addosio, 1893)

While most of these rules specify a code of conduct for the Society’s affiliates, one notable exception is Article 5, which explicitly relates to generating income through criminal means. Rules pertaining to the remission of income generated via criminal activities such as extortion, gambling, and theft have been characteristic of the camorra, reflected also in the organizational structure of the camorra, where a leader, the contajuolo/contabile, serves as a “treasurer/accountant” charged with collecting and disbursing the Society’s revenues.

As a well-documented example of a camorra Society recently transplanted from the prison system, the Bari trial gives us a glimpse into how the rules and regulations of camorra Societies were passed on orally outside of their origins in the prisons.

Late 19th Century: Calabria

At the time that the Mala vita Society was establishing itself in the city of Bari, Calabrian camorristi from the prisons were likewise establishing Societies in their hometowns following their release. These Societies, which began to use the term ‘ndrangheta to refer to themselves later in the 20^th Century, first surfaced in the public record over the course of the 1880s and 1890s, during trials of affiliates in the provinces of Reggio Calabria and Catanzaro. (Dickie 2014).

With one of these trials we get our first documented reference to what Italian researchers call codici (“codebooks”) handwritten or printed books containing the rules and regulations of the Society as well as sets of formulae for ritual initiations and for conducting meetings and tribunals to judge infractions committed by members, ceremonial speech used by affiliates to greet and identify each other, and origin myths of the Society (Gratteri & Nicaso,  Fratelli di sangue, 2010; Malafarina, 1978). An 1888 trial in Nicastro, Catanzaro province, reported the use of a document among local camorristi containing “17 articles concerning the obligations and duties of affiliates, the formula of the initiation ceremony, and the passwords used to recognize fellow affiliates and distinguish them from those of another Society (Gratteri & Nicaso,  Fratelli di sangue, 2010). In 1896, a trial in the court of Palmi, near the city of Gioia Tauro on the Tyrrhenian Coast of the province of Reggio Calabria, noted the recovery by authorities of a codebook in use among camorra affiliates in the neighboring town of Seminara. The court recorded that this document contained “all the rules, both in relation to the admission of new members -- later referred to by the nickname of picciotto -- as well as the inherent obligations of membership, and to the profit and benefit distributed to affiliates according to their degree of membership” (Gratteri & Nicaso,  Fratelli di sangue, 2010). We can see that as with the rules of the Bari “Mala vita”, this document also detailed the handling of proceeds from criminal activities.

Over the course of the 20^th century, a number of similar codebooks were recovered from the persons or homes of Calabrian camorra/’ndrangheta affiliates in Calabria, North America, and Australia, several of which were discussed and reproduced by Italian journalist Luigi Malafarina in his 1978 book “Il Codice Della Ndrangheta” (Malafarina, 1978). It can be hypothesized that the adoption of written compendia of rules, rituals, and ceremonial procedure was a response to changing social conditions as camorristi initiated in prisons – where the camorra tradition was deeply implanted and camorristi situated in close, intimate contact with each other – began to establish Societies in communities across Calabria upon their release from prison. The use of written codebooks thus may have served to standardize coded speech and organizational practices across geographically dispersed Societies, reinforcing the ties of solidarity and common identity between local branches of the phenomenon and aiding in the coherent and systematic transmission of a shared tradition to new recruits.

1908: Sewickley Sacro Circolo

In 1908, letters and other documents were were discovered in a trunk in a home during a police raid targeting alleged members of a “black hand” extortion group in the Pittsburgh suburb of Sewickley, accused of sending threatening letters to extort prominent residents of the area ("Raid Of Black Hand Gang", 1908; Hunt & Barber, Barber brothers were allied with Sewickley-Coraopolis mob, November 2022). The recovered documents referred to the group as sacro circolo (“holy circle”, a name for camorra Societies recorded also in 20^th Century Calabria). Among these documents was a handwritten book described by investigators as containing “19 pages of rules along with another document described as a “catechism” for the installation of the capo, or leader, and letters directed to the “high tribunal” of the Society ("Appeal Sent Sacred Circle Is Evidence", 1908). These documents were translated by Peter Angelo, an Italian detective, with a statute of 22 articles and corresponding punishments printed in The Pittsburgh Press. These articles bear some resemblance to the alleged written “frieno” of Naples and the orally transmitted rules of the Bari “Mala vita”, in that they lay out the conduct, rules, and regulations imposed upon members of the Society:

Though an Antonio Follino in Pittsburgh was alleged to have been an “organizer” of the group, and to have operated a “Black Hand school” for the training of recruits in Pittsburgh where similar documents were found, accused member Raffale Peluso agreed to cooperate with authorities and refused to name anyone else as a member ("Fearful Laws Of Black Hand", 1908; Hunt & Barber, Barber brothers were allied with Sewickley-Coraopolis mob, November 2022; "School For Murder", 1908). While Peluso admitted to being the “head” of the sacro circolo and claimed that the documents in the trunk discovered during the police raid belonged to him,  a letter recovered by police stated instead that Tomasso Curcio was, in fact, the “honorable leader of this society” (Hunt & Barber, Barber brothers were allied with Sewickley-Coraopolis mob, November 2022; "Appeal Sent Sacred Circle Is Evidence", 1908; "Gains Freedom for Girl Caught With Black Handers", 1908).

Notably, Peluso hailed from Nicastro, Catanzaro, the same town where a written codebook was first documented in use by camorra affiliates in 1888, while Curcio and several of the other alleged members were from the neighboring town of Gizzeria ("Trace Black Hand Plot", 1908). We can thus locate the Sewickley sacro circolo within a broader context of Calabrian camorristi making use of written codebooks both in Calabria as well as the rapidly growing Italian diaspora in the US. As with other instances in this period, what were described by law enforcement and the press as “black hand” extortionist groups would appear to be an extension of the highly structured, rule-bound camorra tradition of Southern Italy.

The 1908 sacro circolo events would not be the last time that the small town of Sewickley would be associated with Calabrian “black hand” activity. In the 1910s and 1920s, the “black hand” in the Sewickley area was alleged to have been under the leadership of Michelangelo Rosato, also a native of Gizzeria (Hunt & Barber, Barber brothers were allied with Sewickley-Coraopolis mob, November 2022). Rosato was closely tied to the Barbaro brothers, natives of Casignana, Reggio Calabria province, who led a Calabrian group in this era in Youngstown, Ohio (Hunt T. B., November 2022; Hunt & Barber, Barber brothers were allied with Sewickley-Coraopolis mob, November 2022). Importantly, this Youngstown Calabrian group, later under the leadership of Paolo Romeo and Domenico Mallamo, inducted members of the Pittsburgh mafia Family, appears to have remained as an active Calabrian camorra organization at least through the 1960s, co-existing in the region alongside the mafia Families of Pittsburgh and Cleveland (Hunt T., Mallamo and Prato: las bosses of Calabrian mob?, November 2022). Again, the 1908 recovery of the codebook of the Sewickley sacro circolo helps us to place this long-enduring Calabrian organization in the greater Ohio River Valley region within a network that drew on traditions stretching back to the earliest documented cases of camorra affiliates in Calabria.

1909: The Banana Society

A year later, in 1909, affiliates of another so-called “black hand” group, this time called the “Society of the Banana and Faithful Friends”, were arrested in several towns in Ohio and Pennsylvania and tried on extortion charges. During the course of the investigation, a book containing the “laws and regulations” of the “Banana Society” was discovered in a safe in the Marion, Ohio, home of Salvatore Lima, the Society’s leader, who was born in Trabia, in the Sicilian province of Palermo (Croston, 2022; "Rules of Society of the Banana", 1910). Interestingly, the first nine articles of the “Banana Society’s” rules are identical to those found in the sacro circolo articles discovered in 1908 in Sewickley (minor variations due to separate translations of the original texts to English notwithstanding). As with Sewickley, although investigators reported that a “book” was recovered, only the section of that document detailing the Society’s rules was actually released to the public.

As noted above, apart from some rare exceptions, the use of written statutes has never been recorded as a practice of the Sicilian mafia. In fact, to do would seem to violate cultural principles of the mafia tradition, as attested to by the Sicilian mafia informant Antonino Calderone (Arlacchi & Calderone, 1992). Thus, it may come as a surprise that just such a set of documents were found in the possession of Salvatore Lima, whose family was strongly embedded in the mafia tradition in both Sicily and the US (Valin, 2018). Given his origin in a familial mafia lineage in Trabia, a town at the center of a hotbed of mafia activity in Palermo province, Lima was likely to have been an initiated member of the mafia prior to his immigration to the United States in 1906 at 28-years-old; following his conviction in the Banana Society case, Lima moved to Oregon and then California, where he became consigliere of the San Francisco mafia Family in the 1920s (FBI, Memorandum: Subject [Redacted] [2], 1972). His dual nephew and son-in-law, Tony Lima, soon thereafter became boss of the San Francisco Family after transferring his membership from the Pittsburgh Family following his acquittal for a Johnstown, Pennsylvania, murder (FBI, Memorandum: Subject [Redacted] [2], 1972). Tony Lima became a confidential informant with the FBI in the 1960s and 1970s, revealing not only his uncle's position in the early American mafia but also the history and range of the Lima clan's involvement in what was later termed “Cosa Nostra”, even citing a cousin of Salvatore Lima, Giuseppe Lima, who was first inducted into the mafia in Trabia before joining the American mafia (FBI, Memorandum: Subject [Redacted] [1], 1972).

The close correspondence of Lima’s rulebook to that of the 1908 sacra circolo would suggest relationships between the “Banana Society” and the Calabrian camorra, and there is evidence that similar relationships existed during this period in the US. mafia member Nicola Gentile later recounted that there were close ties between Pittsburgh mafia boss Gregorio Conti and Calabrian camorristi in Pittsburgh and Johnstown during the 1910s, while the extortion network of the “Banana Society”, and the familial network of Lima himself, who initially arrived to relatives in Johnstown when he entered the United States, encompassed the Western Pennsylvania region, where both Sicilian mafiosi and Calabrian camorristi operated organizations in the early 20^th Century (Gentile & Chilanti, 1993; Valin, 2018). In fact, Dr. Gaetano Conti, Gregorio Conti’s cousin and fellow leader of the Pittsburgh mafia, served as a character witness for Meadsville, Pennsylvania, based “Banana Society” defendant Giuseppe Galbo, further indicating that this group was embedded in a network of relationships between Sicilian mafiosi and Calabrian camorristi. ("Rules of Society of the Banana", 1910). We can identify such relationships as foreshadowing ongoing ties that would come to inform the evolution of the American mafia, as camorra affiliates of mainland Italian extraction were recruited into the mafia over the 1910s and 1920s, notably in Western Pennsylvania, leaving a significant legacy of influence on the membership and character of mafia Families in the US (Organized Crime: 25 Years After Valachi, 1988; Gentile & Chilanti, 1993). Though evidence of a direct relationship is unknown, the Lima clan's presence in Johnstown, as well as Pittsburgh, is significant given the nature of the "Banana Society" documents and the mingling of Sicilian mafiosi and Calabrian camorristi across those specific locations.

 While all of the known affiliates of the “Banana Society” were Sicilians from the provinces of Palermo and Messina, early American relationships between mafiosi and camorristi may also point back to the documented participation of Sicilians alongside their mainland counterparts in the prison camorra of 19th century Italy (Nicolò, 1861; Bianchi, 1893; Castromediano, 1895). Further, outside of the prisons, camorra Societies were documented in Sicily itself during this period (independent of the Sicilian mafia), with attestations to the presence of camorristi eastern Sicilian cities such as Messina and Catania, as well as Palermo in the west of the island, in the early 20^th Century ("The Maffia: Forty-Four Chiefs Arrested", 1900; Dorsey, 1910; Leopoldo, 1915). The “Banana Society” may thus open a window into sets of relationships between the mafia and camorra that otherwise largely went unrecorded.

("Rules of Society of the Banana", 1910; "The Black Hand Rule of Terror is Exposed", 1910)

In 1909 counterfeiter Rudolfo Palermo, of Ardore, Reggio Calabria, was arrested by agents of the US Secret Service in Hudson, New York, possessing what was described as an “ominous looking little book” containing the “rules governing the actions of the “Black-Hand Society.”

While this document was not published in full, Secret Service agent and subsequent director of the US Bureau of Investigation William J. Flynn provided some translated excerpts in his book “The Barrel Mystery”, published in 1919 (Flynn W. J., 1919). The rules of the “Black-Hand Society” to which Palermo belonged, fashioned as a formal statute, pertained to the protocol of the Society.

(Flynn W. J., 1919)

The Three Knights

(a)                 1890s Favignana

In the 1890s, while working on the penal island of Favignana, physician Emmanuel Mirabella came to learn of a questionnaire between camorra affiliates to confirm one’s membership in the Society. This coded questionnaire makes references to three knights: one Spanish, one Neapolitan, and one Sicilian, as the founders of the Society.

(Mirabella, 1910)

(b)                 1897 Palmi, Reggio Calabria

The Favignana questionnaire’s account of three knights corresponds to a similar version recorded in the testimony of an affiliate of a local camorra Society during an 1897 trial in Palmi, Reggio Calabria province:

(“The Origins of the 'Ndrangheta of Calabria: Italy’s Most Powerful Mafia (1 March 2011).” [KAJ4] Www.youtube.com, www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR1Gu_7Po38&t=1184s. Accessed 10 Mar. 2024.)

The accounts from Mirabella and the 1897 Palmi witness are the earliest known recorded examples of the fable of “three knights” as the founders of Cmaorra Societies in Naples, Calabria, and Campania. Iterations of this tale, a core element of the self-narrativization of the ‘ndrangheta, would continue to surface in documents from Calabrian camorristi over the 20^th Century (Gratteri & Nicaso,  Fratelli di sangue, 2010).

(c)                  1928 Olean, New York

Four decades later, in 1928,  Giovanni Rotundo, a native of the city of Catanzaro, was the suspect in a shooting attributed to a local “black hand” feud in Olean, New York. While Rotundo had fled Olean with law enforcement on his heels, investigators conducted a search of his room and recovered a printed pamphlet titled  I Tre Cavalieri di Spagna (“The three Knights From Spain”) from a trunk.

Rotundo’s book contained a version of the fable of “three knights. Rather than hailing from Spain, Naples, and Sicily, in this iteration of the fable, all three knights are now Spanish, a feature retained in subsequent versions. As in the 1897 Palmi trial, the knights are designated Osso (“bone”), Mastrosso (“master bone”), and Carcagnosso (“heel bone”), though the Olean book notes that these were nicknames in camorra “jargon”, with their actual names being Gaspare, Melchiorre, and Baldassare. We can note that these are the names of the “Three Kings”, the “magi” from the East who visited the infant Jesus, as celebrated in the Catholic Feast of the Epiphany. The specification of such as the true names of the three knights may have served to further emphasize their Spanish origin, in that popular devotion to the Three Kings is a particularly notable element of the folk Catholic traditions of the former Spanish Empire, which once encompassed Southern Italy (Cardini, 2001).

This document is notable for several reasons. First, it shows the gradual evolution of the camorra's origin story from the examples documented in the 1890s in Favigana and Palmi. Second, it provides further evidence that the Calabrian phenomenon which came to be known as 'ndrangheta during the 20^th Century had its origins in the 19^th-century prison camorra, as previously articulated by authors such as Luigi Malafarina and John Dickie (Malafarina, 1978; Dickie, Blood Brotherhoods: A History of Italy's Three Mafias, 2014).

The documents of Rudolfo Palermo in 1909 included a questionnaire that made reference to l’albero della scienza (“the tree of knowledge) (Flynn W. J., 1919):

The book found in Olean again invoked and elaborated upon “the tree of knowledge”, which served to analogize the organizational structure of the camorra, and remains a central symbolic motif of the Calabrian ‘ndrangheta tradition (Gratteri & Nicaso,  Fratelli di sangue, 2010):

The cover of the Olean book claimed that it was printed in 1790 in Seville, Spain. While this is unlikely to have been factually the case, the assertion of this time and place of publication speaks again to camorristi asserting older origins for their Society than can be objectively documented, as well as a longstanding emphasis on the “Spanish” character of their origins (this mode of self-mythologization can be compared to other secret societies such as the Freemasons, who similarly assert ancient and exotic origins for their fraternal order). The Olean book places the three Spanish knights’ formation of the Society in 1417, while the fictional Garduña society of Spain was said to have been formed in Toledo in 1412, again pointing to the possibility that the unsupported and fanciful theory floated by 19^th Century scholars that the camorra derived from the Garduña may have filtered out to camorristi themselves, informing their own mythology of the origins of their tradition.

Apart from the origin myth, the primary body of text of the Olean book does not focus on the tale of the three Spanish knights but rather serves as a blueprint outlining how the Society is organized -- its rules of conduct, its rituals and formal procedures, as well as punishments for infractions. It is only in Calabria that we see references to the three knights, the symbol of the “tree of knowledge”, and documents that included detailed protocol and mythology of the organization along with statutes of rules.

 Arguably, the use of such documents served to provide a method and protocol for how the Calabrian camorra was able to expand and extend itself to new territories, even internationally, while maintaining relative conformity of tradition between their various branches. As in Calabria in the 1880s-90s, regions of the US in the early 1900s seem to have witnessed what we might call an “infestation” of camorra activity that aggressively spread and terrorized the wider community. This Olean book helps to shed light on how such rapid spread was accomplished, setting forth a set of prescriptions for the ritually sanctioned establishment and management of new Societies, or ‘ndrine, the fundamental organizational unit of the ‘ndrangheta (equivalent to the “Family” in the Mafia):

             Further, the Olean book lays out the rule that a formal meeting or tribunal of affiliates, called “Corpo di Cavalleria” (“Body of Knights/Cavalry”, also called  Corpo di Società, “Body of Society” (Malafarina, 1978; Gratteri & Nicaso,  Fratelli di sangue, 2010; Gratteri & Nicaso, Storia segreta della 'ndrangheta: una lunga e oscura vicenda di sangue e potere (1860-2018), 2018)), must consist of at least 24 camorristi, 48 picciotti, and 96 giovane d’onore, with each member of the first two ranks, rank having two subordinates beneath him. This bears striking similarities with information that surfaced during the 1911 Cuocolo Trial of the camorra of the city of Naples, also called Bella Società Riformata, again underscoring that the Calabrian ‘ndrangheta’s and Campanian camorra stemmed from the same roots in the 19^th Century prison camorra. As in the 1911 trial, the Olean book also prescribed that each camorrista was to be assigned two picciotti. A review of later codebooks recovered in Calabria underscores the frequency that multiples of 12 – as in the prescribed numbers of affiliates for a meeting here – appear in the rituals and ceremonial speech of the ‘ndrangheta (Malafarina, 1978):

(Reveals Practice of Band, 1911)

(Ricci, 1930)

It can be readily noted that the 1928 Olean book is an iteration of the same genre of codebooks discovered in the possession of ‘ndrangheta affiliates over the 20^th Century. The content of the 1928 Olean book, encoding the rules, ritual speech, and formal procedures of the Society, is similar to a codebook recovered in 1963 from the home of ‘ndrangheta leader Giuseppe Mammoliti in the town of San Giorgio Morgeto, Reggio Calabria, by Italian authorities, as well as a handwritten transcription of the same recovered from the home of ‘ndrangheta affiliate Francesco Caccamo in 1971 in North York, Ontario, Canada. In the below section of the 1971 Caccamo version, translated into English by Canadian authorities, a list of articles details infractions for which members could be punished with a stabbing to the back (Malafarina, 1978). Interestingly, the leaders of the 1909 “Banana Society” in Ohio were reported at trial to have possessed a list of similar rules, the violation of which could result in the same punishment of a stabbing to the back (Croston, 2022).

Several points of the text in the 1971 codebook differ only in details from sections of the Olean book, speaking to the apparent close genealogical relationship of both texts, such as the following segment on forming a “Corpo di Cavallaria” nearly identical to the corresponding section in the Olean book:

The 1971 Caccamo codebook bore the title Come Formare Una Società (“How to Form a Society”), indicating that its purpose was the same as that of the 1928 Olean book: to serve as a set of guidelines for the establishment and management of new branches of the ‘ndrangheta (Dubro, 1985). As with earlier documents in the US, this was again a time of aggressive overseas expansion, with new branches being established in both Canada and the US in the 1960s and 1970s under the aegis of the ‘ndrangheta of the town of Siderno in Reggio Calabria province (Dubro, 1985; Sergi, 2022). We can compare the requirements for establishing an ‘ndrina in the 1971 Caccamo version to the Olean book:

While examination of the 1928 Olean book draws our attention to continuities with a trans-Atlantic ‘ndrangheta tradition, the networks encompassing the “black hand” organization of the Olean area -- as with the “Banana Society” and sacro circolo cases in 1909 -- point also to the history of evolution of the American mafia. In 1929, investigators believed that a trip to Olean by Stanislao “Charles” Carbone, an alleged “black hand” leader from nearby Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania, was linked to an underworld murder near Dansville, New York (New Clues Pursued In Gang Slaying, 1929). Carbone – a native of the ‘ndrangheta stronghold of Scilla, Reggio Calabria – became closely involved with the Pittsburgh mafia Family while residing in Pennsylvania and subsequently relocated to California where, like Salvatore Lima, he became a leader in the local mafia, rising to the position of underboss of the San Jose Family (Valin, 2018; San Jose Family (1962) [Text], 2024). Indeed, Carbone would seem to not have been tiny Olean’s sole link to national mafia/camorra networks, as Chicago-based camorrista­-turned-mafia-boss Al Capone was alleged to have visited Olean and fraternized with local figures in the 1920s (Cocca, 2022).

Modern Continuities:

Starting in the 1890s and continuing up until the 2000s in Calabria, there have been numerous occasions where documents “relating to the obligations and duties of members, the oath, the watchword to recognize one another and distinguish themselves from those of other societies” have been attested to or recovered by investigators (Gratteri & Nicaso,  Fratelli di sangue, 2010). The aim of this project is not to retell a complete history of the ‘ndrangheta but rather to emphasize that the incorporation of written documents, intricate rituals, and organizational structures characteristic of the camorra that emerged in the prisons of Southern Italy in the 19^th Century figured prominently in the Calabrian variant of the phenomenon, both in Calabria itself as well as in the North American Calabrian diaspora. The documentation of written statutes and codici in the use of camorra affiliates in the US provide a glimpse into how this tradition spread in Italian communities in America, beginning only a few decades after their apparent emergence from the prisons and incursion into communities in Calabria itself.  

While to outsiders, these Calabrian codebooks -- with their strict codes of conduct and arcane ritual speech -- might seem like an archaic holdover from the past, the ritual speech, and procedures encoded in these documents remain vital elements of the ‘ndrangheta tradition. Vincenzo Macri, Deputy National Anti-Mafia Director stated, "Even today... those rites, those formulas, are viewed as they were a hundred years ago, in the fold of Platì as in the districts of Reggio Calabria, in the back of bar, as in Australian farms, everywhere in short, the 'ndrangheta expresses the continuity of its presence, of its activity, its proselytizing, and its expansion” (Gratteri & Nicaso,  Fratelli di sangue, 2010).

Camorristi, along with importing such documents onto American soil, also imported a criminal subculture that nurtured a dogmatic and cultish devotion to a rulebound Society, one permeated with rituals that served to bind its adherents together in solidarity. When the American mafia began inducting men from Campania, Bari, and Calabria, they were often bringing in men with a pre-established pedigree in the camorra. Many of them went on to become leaders of the mafia in America. And while the use of written documents was left at the door, these members still brought along that same fervent dedication to rules and protocol reflected in the codebooks that we have discussed here.

The authors would like to extend special thanks to Eric Stonefelt, James Barber, Fabien Rossat, Richard Warner, and Lennert van ‘t Riet.

Bibliography

"Appeal Sent Sacred Circle Is Evidence". (1908, 02 09). The Pittsburgh Press.

"Capture Alleged Plotters". (1908, 02 08). Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

"Fearful Laws Of Black Hand". (1908, 02 14). The Pittsburgh Press.

"Gains Freedom for Girl Caught With Black Handers". (1908, 02 09). The Pittsburgh Post.

"Raid Of Black Hand Gang". (1908, 02 10). The Patriot (Harrisburg, PA).

"Rules of Society of the Banana". (1910, 01 26). Marion (OH) Daily Mirror.

"School For Murder". (1908, 02 11). Carlisle (PA) Evening Herald.

"The Black Hand Rule of Terror is Exposed". (1910, 01 26). The Marion Daily Star.

"The Maffia: Forty-Four Chiefs Arrested". (1900, 02 20). The Guardian.

"Trace Black Hand Plot". (1908, 02 08). The Pittsburgh Press.

Anonymous. (Unknown). Natura ed origine della misteriosa setta della Camorra nelle sue diverse sezioni e paranze: Linguaggio convenzionale di essa, usi e leggi. Italy: Tipi di Fil. Serafíní.

Arlacchi, P., & Calderone, A. (1992). Men of Dishonor. Inside the Sicilian Mafia. An Account of Antonio Calderone. New York: William Morrow & Co.

Bianchi, A. G. (1893). l Romanzo Di Un Delinquente Nato; Autobiografia Di Antonino M. Italy.

Calderone, A. (1992). Men of dishonor: inside the Sicilian Mafia: an account of Antonino Calderone. New York: Morrow.

Cardini, F. (2001). Los reyes magos. Ediciones Penìnsula.

Castromediano, S. (1895). Carceri e galere politiche. Lecce: Tip. editrice Salentina.

Cocca, S. L. (2022, 03 30). Jack Dempsey vs. Al Capone: Olean’s 1926 “Little Chicago” Confrontation. Retrieved from Western New York Heritage: https://www.wnyheritage.org/content/jack_dempsey_vs_al_capone_oleans_1926_little_chicago_confrontati/index.html

Criscione, G. (2013). La camorra in Terra di Lavoro: dalla repressione post-unitaria a quella degli anni Venti del Novecento. Napoli: Doctoral Dissertation: Università Degli Studi di Napoli Federico II.

Croston, S. W. (2022). The Society of the Banana in Ohio : A History of the Black Hand. Charleston SC: History Press.

Cutrera, A. (1900). La Mafia e i mafiosi: origini e manifestazioni. Italy: A. Reber.

D'Addosio, C. (1893). Il Duello dei Camorristi. Naples: Luigi Pierro.

De Blasio, A. (1897). Usi e costumi dei camorristi. Luigi Pierro.

Dickie, J. (2014). Blood Brotherhoods: A History of Italy's Three Mafias. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

Dickie, J. (2023). The name 'ndrangheta: history versus etymology. Modern Italy, 215-229.

Dorsey, G. A. (1910, 05 26). "Catania Headquarters of the Sicilian Camorra". Chicago Tribune.

Dubro, J. (1985). Mob Rule : Inside the Canadian Mafia. Macmillan of Canada.

FBI, U. S. (1972, 03 10). Memorandum: Subject [Redacted] [1]. FOI/PA# 1219913-0.

FBI, U. S. (1972, 4 13). Memorandum: Subject [Redacted] [2]. FOI/PA# 1219913-0.

Fentress, J. (2000). Rebels & mafiosi: death in a Sicilian landscape. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Fiore, A. (2019). Camorra e polizia nella Napoli borbonica (1840-1860. Italy: FedOA - Federico II University Press.

Flynn, W. J. (1919). The Barrel Mystery. United States: James A. McCann Company.

Flynn, W. J. (1919). The Barrel Mystery. James A. McCann Company.

Gentile, N., & Chilanti, F. (1993). Vita di capomafia. Roma: Crescenzi Allendorf.

Gratteri, N., & Nicaso, A. (2010).  Fratelli di sangue. Italy: Mondadori.

Gratteri, N., & Nicaso, A. (2018). Storia segreta della 'ndrangheta : una lunga e oscura vicenda di sangue e potere (1860-2018). Mondadori.

Griffiths, A. (1894). Secrets of the Prison-house. United Kingdom: Chapman and Hall, Id, .

Hunt, T. B. (November 2022). The 1924-25 murders of Dominic and Frank Barber. In Informer: The History of American Crime and Law Enforcement (pp. 68-73).

Hunt, T. (November 2022). Mallamo and Prato: las bosses of Calabrian mob? In Informer: The History of American Crime and Law Enforcement (pp. 136-148).

Hunt, T., & Barber, J. (November 2022). Barber brothers were allied with Sewickley-Coraopolis mob. In Informer: The History of American Crime and Law Enforcement (pp. 74-82).

Leopoldo, G. (1915, 01 27). "The Terrors of Trailing the Camorra". El Paso Times.

Malafarina, L. (1978). Il codice Della Ndrangheta. Reggio Calabria: Parallelo 38.

Marmo, M. (2011). Il coltello e il mercato : la camorra prima e dopo l'unità d'Italia. Napoli: L'ancora del Mediterraneo.

Mirabella, E. (1910). Mala Vita: gergo camorra e costumi degli affiliati. A. Forni.

Monnier, M. (1863). La Camorra: notizie storiche. Firenze: G. Barbèra.

New Clues Pursued In Gang Slaying. (1929, 09 27). The Buffalo News.

Nicolò, A. (1861). Narrative of ten years' imprisonment in the dungeons of Naples. Italy: A. W. Bennett.

Organized Crime: 25 Years After Valachi. (1988, April 11, 15, 21, 22, 29). : Hearings Before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. One-Hundredth Congress, Second Session.

Reveals Practice of Band. (1911, April 17). The Pittsburgh Post. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: The Pittsburgh Post.

Ricci, D. A. (1930). Black Hand Exposed At Last. True Detective Mysteries.

San Jose Family (1962) [Text]. (2024, 02 21). Retrieved from LCNBios: https://lcnbios.blogspot.com/2024/02/san-jose-family-1962-text.html

Sergi, A. (2022). Chasing the Mafia: 'ndrangheta Memories and Journeys. Bristol University Press.

Valin, E. (2018). "Former San Francisco boss supplied info to federal agents". Retrieved from The American Mafia: https://mafiahistory.us/rattrap/sanfranlima.html

[i] We use the terms “Calabrian Camorra” and “’ndrangheta” interchangeably here in reference to the same historical phenomenon, which emerged in the late 19^th Century in Calabria. While trials in the late 19^th and early 20^th Century in Calabria referred to this organization, variably, as Onorata Società (“Honored Society”), Società dell’Umiltà (“Society of Humility), Società di Camorra (“Camorra Society”), Picciotteria (“Organization of Picciotti”), or Famiglia/Circolo Montalbano (“Montalbano Family or Montalbano Circle”), beginning in the 1920s the term ‘ndrangheta, derived from the local Calabrian Grekaniko variant of Greek, was recoded as a synonym for local Camorra Societies. In the decades following World War 2, ‘ndrangheta became the predominant usage by both adherents and outsiders (Dickie, The name 'ndrangheta: history versus etymology, 2023).

[ii] Following World War 2, some mafiosi in the United States began using the terms Cosa Nostra (“our thing”) to refer to their organization, while their Sicilian counterparts subsequently followed suit. Prior to this, adherents of the Sicilian mafia, both in Sicily and America, typically used terms such as Fratellenza (“Brotherhood”), Fratuzzi (“Dear Brothers”), or – like the Camorra – Onorata Società (“Honored Society”) to refer to their organization. Here, we use “Mafia” to both the Sicilian Cosa Nostra and its American offshoot.

Each society had a matching hierarchy containing a caposocietà (“society head”) or capintrito (“district head”), a contaiuolo (“Accountant/secretary”), and a camorrista di giornata (“camorrista of the day”) followed by members divided into three grades of membership: camorristi, picciotti (“boys”) and giovinotti onorati (“honorable youths”).

Aside from each group being referred to as its own society, the three grades of membership within each group were divided into two classes (also referred to as societies): the società maggiore (“major society”) containing the camorristi grade and the società minore (“minor society”) which contained the picciotti and giovinotti onorati grades.

In prison, at least by the 1850s, these Societies were organized by regional origins, with Neapolitans, Salernitans, Calabrese, Abruzzese, and even Sicilians divided along these lines. Despite evidence of hostility among these factions, there remained a mutually shared recognition of being part of the same society. A camorrista could be transferred from a Cosenza prison in Calabria to the Castel Capuano Prison in Naples and, after coded question and answer confirming his affiliation, would be accepted and recognized as a society member. In the streets, these societies were divided locally into districts or territories. Like in prison, these societies maintained a shared recognition, both locally and in other cities.

It was said that elections were held yearly to appoint a caposocietà to the position of capintesta (“headmaster”), selected from one of the capisocietà. Within each society, the capisocietà and contaiuoli (“secretaries”) were also voted upon.

Offices

                    (i)      Capintesta (“chief at the head”):

The capocamorrista (“head camorrista”) of a city or prison, this position was selected from one of the capisocietà who would then be entrusted with the autocratic ramifications that extended beyond his position as caposocietà. If there were two candidates up for the position, the runner-up would, in theory, become vice-capintesta. These elections were open to those who belonged to the major society but only the capisocietà could cast votes for the position.

                  (ii)      Caposocietà/Capintrito (“Society/District Head”):

The Capocamorrista over a designated faction (prison) or territory (street), this position was selected from the camorristi and was voted to serve as the elected leader of a società/’ntrito. Allegedly, the set protocol was for the capisocietà to meet every eight days with the capintesta for updates on the ongoings within their jurisdiction. Even so, these individual Societies carried a great degree of autonomy within their respective territories.

                (iii)      Contaiuolo (“Accountant/Secretary”):

The second-in-command of the society, this position was also elected by the camorristi belonging to the major society, however the caposocietà was excluded from voting. The functions and duties were akin to a general secretary or under-secretary of state. During tribunals of its members, the secretaries functioned like a public prosecutor where they were seen as the true arbitrators. The frieno (“regulations”) stated that yearly elections were to be held for this position but it became quite common for contaiuoli to hold onto this office for several years. Each society had a contaiuolo, however, the contaiuolo for the capintesta had more responsibilities due to his proximity with the capintesta. Despite this, no individual contaiuolo had authority beyond his district.

                 (iv)      Camorrista di Giornata (“Camorrista of the Day”):

The caposocietà’s messenger who functioned as an aide and direct lieutenant. Originally this position’s focus was acting as a courier when collecting the baratto (“tribute”) intended for the caposocietà. The role of the capintesta’s camorrista di giornata, like that of his contaiuolo, took on a larger importance in the society overall and both positions would coordinate together.

Society Caste System

Aside from the offices of capintesta and contaiuolo, the presence of the major and minor society components remain key identifiers of the camorra system. Unlike the Sicilian mafia which has a singular class of membership, the camorra society maintained three distinct grades, distributed between two separate Societies or classes of membership. This multiple-level System allowed for the camorra system to absorb the masses and promote the few. This allowed for each society to function as an underworld union, subverting and/or influencing all activity in their sphere of influence and receiving a percentage.

The società maggiore contained the camorrista grade of membership composed of the office positions listed above as well as the camorristi or highest graded members. Holding the title of camorrista placed someone at the criminal apex of underworld Naples and was seen as a financially sound position. Each camorrista received a percentage of the barattolo (“jar”) or criminal proceeds generated weekly. The image and prestige of a camorrista was very much a 19th-century precursor to the 20th-century quintessential dapper made man in New York City, it came with prestige, underworld respect, and the ability to impose oneself on lower criminal operators. Everyone who joined the society sought to obtain this position, which could only be achieved through winning in a staged tarato (knife duel ceremony) and followed by the victor sucking the spilled blood of his camorrista opponent.

The società minore, the lower but larger of the two, was composed of two grades of membership: the picciotti and the giovinotti onorati. The picciotti acted as novices and their role was to act on orders from camorristi without question; the giovinotti onorati were very young children often recruited as guaglione (sons of thieves and prostitutes.) and would be utilized as spies, throwaways, and accomplishes. This lower society, while always subservient to the major one, had its own offices such as picciotto da giornata.

Within the two classes of camorristi and picciotti, doti (“dowry”) or merits which further elevated a member’s status and potential for moving up within the society. These doti were numerous but the main ones included di sgarro or a member who carried on vengeance on behalf of the organization and di sangue which indicated a member was good at fencing in a knife duel.

This system would be replicated and spread throughout the Bourbon prison system until it eventually spilled out onto the streets in various cities throughout the Kingdom where it adopted its own idiosyncrasies. In Reggio Calabria, for instance, the Camorra there would find symbolism in trees and compare their hierarchy to it. In confiscated Calabrian camorristi documents from Olean, New York, in 1927, Il Tre Cavalieri di Spagna, it stated:

“From this day on, it will be baptized the Tree of Knowledge. Behold the stem which must represent the leader of the Honorable Society. Behold the branches that must represent the arm of the Society. Behold the smaller branches of this tree which represent the Picciotti di Sgarro. Behold the flowers which represent the Giovani d'Honore. And all those leaves that you see on the ground are leaves that, not having the strength to keep their place upon the plant, fell, and they represent our comrades who have fallen into disgrace. If this tree is uprooted by a storm or by the police, this tree will revive more strongly and vigorous than before.”

Additionally, the Calabrese would take on local vernacular, capintesta was instead called capobastone (“head stick”) and contaiuolo became contabile. Despite these minor altercations, the camorristi of Calabria and Campania regarded each other as different branches of the same society. 

Author Abele Be Blasio, was a Lombroso-minded anthropologist who covered the camorra extensively, included a classical walkthrough on how a member advanced from giovinotto onorata to picciotto to camorrista in his book, Usi e costumi di camorristi (1893). Given the usage of the term bella società rifurmata (“beautiful reformed society”), it would indicate this information was obtained at some point between the 1860s and the 1890s when that term was popularly used.

Despite the modernity of the example De Blasio provided, it does offer a more romanticized version of membership, showcasing the society’s formalities and ideals, which were further emphasized in confiscated camorra documents.

            (i)    Giovinotti Onorati:

In his work, De Blasio explained that the class of giovinotti onorati, aside from accommodating the “lazy ne'er-dowels, the rowdies, and the swashbucklers of the city,” also accommodated Naples’ burgeoning class of guagliune (street youths whose parents were convicts and prostitutes.) They sought “to have an air of vice, brutality and cynicism. Quick and intelligent, they look and speak with the confidence and audacity of older criminals.” Their only education is to become more astute and formidable in order to gain the attention of the local camorristi. (Blasio 1897)

In the traditional classical method, one’s first entry into the camorra required one to spend one full year as a giovinotto onorata before being eligible for higher grades of membership. Unlike the mafia system that involved an unspoken understanding that rising associates would be invited by the mafia to join, the camorra operated the other way around with people seeking to join. It was said that aspiring giovinotti onorati were forced to undergo an admission ceremony that involved a prospect attempting to grab a $5 coin while camorristi, armed with daggers, would flip the coin into the air. The prospect if successful, would emerge bloody but victorious with the $5 coin having won the title of giovinotto onorato.

An aspiring member would seek to gain the attention of society members, specifically Picciotti who, if impressed would refer the individual’s name to their contaiuolo who would then confer with the caposocietà. If he agreed, then the contaiuolo would send word requesting this individual appear at an arranged location which was usually a camorrista house.

At the meeting, the caposocietà would sit between six members; two senior camorristi and the major society contaiuolo to the right and two regular camorristi and the minor society contaiuolo to the left. The door of the room would be left ajar and the aspirant would remove his hat and ask properly and formally: “May I enter?”

Caposocietà: “Come in.”

Guaglione: “I want to know who the leader is.”

Caposocietà: "Your superior (provides his name) is the Head, and just because you approached us directly doesn't give you special treatment."

Guaglione (with a lowered head and crossed arms): I long to know, with grace and humility, if this is the society of the capintesta and caposocietà, and if this is a beautiful meeting with the head superiors.

Caposocietà: “The society is the capintesta, caposocietà, and united here are six other superiors, two contaiuoli and four camorristi.”

Guaglione: “Then I revere you, the contaiuoli, the four superiors as well as the whole society.

Caposocietà: “Cover up.” (The aspirant places his hat back on.)

Guaglione: I do not have enough expressions to thank the caposocietà, the contaiuoli, and the four superiors who give me the honor of speaking with my head covered."

Caposocietà: “Tell me, why did you allow yourself to come? What is it that you crave?”

Guaglione: “Capo, my heart pushed me to come to this house and ask you if there is a place for me inside the bella società riformata that I can occupy, as long as it’s no disturbance to you or any of my superiors.

Caposocietà: “With the permission of the four camorristi and contaiuoli, I would like to point out that while you believe yourself qualified to be part of our society not everyone believes that, instead we believe you to be incapacitated.”

Guaglione: “Capo, I believe that the Società can believe me because it will ignore what I think; but if you, the contaiuoli, and four superiors grant me the high honor of belonging to the bella società riformata, I will give you proof that I alone can defeat an entire team of questura!”

Caposocietà: “With the permission of the contaiuoli and four superiors, I would like to point out to you that I have challenged you twice and you have defended yourself thrice. What else do you want from this società? “

Guaglione: “I long to give a kiss on the right side of your head, and another from the left side of your head, (which means to kiss the right hand of the capo and other superiors, who are on the same side, then the left of the head and the right of the others, which are to the left of the head).”

Caposocietà: “With the permission of the contaiuoli and four camorristi, I would like to know why you gave me two kisses? Have you mistaken me for a woman?

Guaglione: “I gave you two kisses because you carry two votes: one from the top right and another from the left; and you are a man of great honor, chosen by the society to justify what is right and wrong to those who deserve it.”

Caposocietà: “What else do you want from this society?”

Guaglione: “I long to know, with humility and grace, how many members of the minore we are, and if among them there is someone out for a walk (hiding from authorities) or sotto-chiave (under key – in prison).”

Caposocietà: “In this quarter the number of giovinotto onorati are (provides number): there is no one under-key, but there are two out for a walk."

Guaglione: “Capo, since today the society has met me by grace and not for justice, so I pray you, the contaiuoli, and my other superiors to call on those who are out for a walk."

Caposocietà: “Very well: The society thanks you, and the contaiuolo will recall those who are out for a walk.”

Guaglione: “With all of my heart, I thank you, the contaiuoli and other superiors, for the grace you have granted to my companions. Now, with humility and grace, place informs me of the frieno (regulations) of the minor society.”

Caposocietà: “From this moment on, you belong to the class of giovinotto onorati, and you will be incorporated into the minor society. Our beautiful reformed society imposes on you and the other young members:

1: To love one another;

2: To be humble and respectful to the elders and superiors;

3: To act as a peacemaker in the fights that can occur among your companions;

4: To demand, without stealing the profits, the camorra (“tax”) for the camorristi;

5: Not to reveal the inner workings of the society.

Whoever breaks the frieno can not only be expelled from the society but can, depending on the severity, be sentenced to death. Do you want anything else?”

Giovinotti Onorati: “I thank the società for having incorporated me into it and I declare myself a subject to it and any cumanno (orders) from the superiors.”

Caposocietà: “Do as I ask. Greet the chiorma (meeting of minor members) and introduce yourself.”

           (ii)    Picciotti:

The grade of picciotti was the next step in the hierarchy where membership was indefinite. One could remain a picciotti for two years or ten, it all depended on the individual's zeal, astuteness, criminality, and personal connections to higher affiliates. Even so, the grade of picciotto was seen as an important class in the society and was originally set to high standards. The conditions for admission were strict and also denoted a kind of morality of the association. The minor society of picciotti contained their own ranks such as capo piccotti and picciotto di giornata but this class was heavily emphasized to earn doti. If a picciotto bested another picciotto in a fair knife duel he would receive the grade of picciotto di sangue. If he disfigured an enemy of the society, he would receive the grade of picciotto di sgarro. (Stamer 1878) (Monnier 1862)

The grade of picciotti was allowance based, usually a trifle was given by the camorrista grade. Unlike the mafia where money is set up by percentages and set amounts, the society would collect the entire amount which would be distributed by percentage to the camorrista grade while the picciotto received a low salary.

To reach the grade of picciotto, the next step was for the giovinotto onorato to approach the picciotto di giornata; who, after collecting the information on the candidate, would speak to the contaiuolo because it is up to the latter to the designate the place for the election to be held.

The first part of the admission ceremony was similar to that of the giovinotti onorati, except that from the beginning the candidate is allowed to speak with his head covered. The formalities began when the caposocietà asked the giovinotto onorato: “What do you want?”

Giovinotto Onorato: “I want to become a picciotto.”

Caposocietà: “And what is the picciotto’s significance?”

Giovinotto Onorato: “Picciotto means a man of cold blood, a servant of the camorristi, one who carries honey in his mouth and a razor in his heart!”

Caposocietà: “Why do you carry honey in your mouth and a razor in your heart?”

Giovinotto Onorato: "Honey is used to soften the questions and the razor wards off infamy."

Caposocietà: “And what is the significance of caposocietà?”

Giovinotto Onorato: “It signifies a man of great honor, chosen by the society, to give reason to those who are responsible and to wrong those deserving of it, and who carries two votes, one from the top right and another from the left to the head.”

Caposocietà: “With the permission of these superiors, I would like to know what else you want from this società?”

Giovinotto Onorato: “I long to do my duty, first from the top right and then from the left of the head” (he kisses his hands with the same order held by the guaglione.)

Caposocietà: “Do you have anything else to add?

Giovinotto Onorato: “Capo, it is true that we picciotti do not decide what we get from the camorra; however, with humility and grace, by bringing the larger society together, I propose to your superiors to release some ‘flowers’ for our benefit.”

Caposocietà: “Alright: as soon as the entire society is reunited, I will communicate your desires to my superiors and I am sure that some small flowers will be found for you from the tangents. And now, if you have nothing else to add, and if the comrades present here have no observations to the contrary, I declare you, in the name of the società d’umiltà (“society of silence”), picciotto and declare you detached from the giovinotti onorata.

Giovinotto Onorato: “I thank the società d’onore (“society of honor”) for granting this to me and I declare myself a legitimate servant. Even the picciotti, like the giovinotti onorata, receive amnesty for their companions. The picciotti are subdivided into the onorati and the sgarro: the first are those who deliver the camorra proceeds to the camorristi and the latter (the sgarro), those most astute, give only a part of it. Both the picciotti and camorristi, in turn, become giornata. Their obligations are almost always the same; that is, if they are free, they are in charge of:

1: Assist and give clarification to members leaving prison;

2: To report to the contaiuolo the current ongoings in the district.

If on the contrary, they are under-key, must:

1: Distribute posts in the dormitory.

2: Monitor whether or not incoming inmates are part of the società d’umiltà. 

         (iii)    Camorristi:

Becoming a camorrista was the final grade that members and underworld criminals strived to achieve, the highest class in the system. It was in this class that members received a financial percentage of the society’s proceeds. Once a camorrista, excessive criminal enthusiasm was no longer necessary, to the contrary it could be dangerous, leading to altercations with other camorristi of the same rank. To remain in good standing the camorrista had to be loyal to the society, defend it, and generate income, nothing else was required. Unlike that of the picciotti whose role was to sacrifice himself for the society, being a camorrista was an exalted position. Compared to the mafia, becoming a camorrista is the equivalent to “being made.”

The original ceremony was said to involve a dimly lit room where the novice would sit at a table with a group of camorristi including the caposocietà. On the table was a dagger, a loaded pistol, and a glass of poisoned wine. The caposocietà would then introduce the novice to the table and proceed to take the dagger and cut the novice's hand. With his hand dipped in blood, the novice swore an oath to obey the orders of the caposocietà and not to disclose any of the society’s secrets. The novice grabbed the gun and pointed it to his right temple and with his left hand brought the poisoned wine to his lips, symbolically confirming that he was ready to die on command on orders from the society. The caposocietà would then disarm the candidate and force him to kneel, he then rested his hand on the novice’s head and handed him the dagger and turned towards the others in attendance, and stated: “Recognize the man.” Immediately the camorristi embraced the novice as a newly minted camorrista. 

Like the entry ceremony for the giovinotti onorati, the entry for camorrista was later changed as well, to be replaced with the ceremony called tirato and involved a zumpata or sword duel. The ceremonial admission becomes almost similar to that of the picciotti, except the caposocietà asks the picciotto who aspires to become a camorrista:

Caposocietà: “Who are you searching for?”

Piccioto: “I am searching for my companions.”

Caposocietà: “And who are your companions?”

Picciotto: “They are the camorristi”

Caposocietà: “And what is the significance of cammorista?”

Picciotto: “A bold man who commands the minor society and who stands with one food on the ground and another in the pit.”

Following the interrogation, the caposocietà, after hearing the contaiuolo’s opinion, would state: “I believe that the tests for (name) to enter the major society of silence are sufficient, and therefore from today you will be incorporated into it and be considered a provisional camorrista, leaving you, dear companion, 15 days to reflect and raise concerns, if you have any, and at the same time, if there are no obstacles, to perform your duty.”

Then turning to the novice, he had him repeat aloud: “I swear before God and my companions to be faithful to all the laws of the society of Silence, and to submit to all the orders given to me by my superiors.”

1)Tirato of the Zumpata (“Tirade of the Knife-Duel”)

Zumpata was a semi-formal knife duel between two individuals used as a means of settling disputes. From an ordinance issued in 1540 by viceroy Don Pedro of Toledo, he noted "the duelists challenged each other either by themselves or in numbers, and most of the time set for the same day or following day, and almost always without armor, and what is worse, without garments, and like beasts, fight to make the first blow. Other ordinances against the zumpata bear the date of 1558. In 1662, an order issued by the viceroy count of Penaranda instituting the death penalty for violators, it appears that knife duels occurred in quiet places like S. Aniello, Capo Napoli, Porta Medina, Ventagleri, and Pertuso. These areas contained evidence of zumpata going into the 19^th century. (Cavina)

To stem the spread of this custom, an ordinance was issued on September 30^th, 1729: "The natural death penalty and both the principal and the contractor of the crime of cutting and any scarring of the face, provided that it is committed deliberately, which for justice, considering the case, the persons and circumstances, may be required to look very atrocious, depriving them of the crime of the same manner as they do in the business or in the assassination, and expressly wishing that the inquisitive dictals be wronged or visited neither graceful nor transacted. We want and order that in the event that the judges will be in a death vow against the offenders of this crime, they should suspend the execution and report to us and to R. Coll. Cons. where with the mature reflection of everything can take the rigorous resolution of justice corresponding to the crime." (Monnier) (Blasio)

Ferdinando Russo, the Neapolitan journalist once stated: “The Neapolitan people are enthusiastic about all that is bold, daring, astounding and guappo; they have an adoration and fetishism” for the fictional Rinaldo and paladins of the Round Tables, as they were popular in poems and theatre at the time. “After all, aren't the young dreams of the mala vita inspired by the extraordinary talents of the heroes they love in the puppet theaters?” (Ferdinando Russo)

The tirato was the ceremonial zumpata or duel that a novice had three attempts to win. The novice would be invited to a designated location prearranged by the caposocietà, contaiuolo, and several camorristi. The location was usually near a tavern reserved for the celebration afterward. The novice would be ordered by the capintesta to stand in a circle of camorristi where he is handed a knife from the caposocietà he is under while a camorrista is handed another knife.

The two men would prepare, waiting in preparation for the capintesta to nod at the contaiuolo who would then command: “A buje… jammo! (Let’s go!)” and the tirato commences.

The aim for the novice was to inflict blood from the arm of the more seasoned camorrista within three attempts. Once it became clear that the novice was a formidable opponent the more seasoned camorrista would silently concede by allowing himself to be cut by the notice. Following that the capintesta would raise his hand and announce: “Stateve!” or “Enough.” The novice would then be instructed to suck the blood from the camorrista’s arm. Following the ceremony, the newly minted camorrista would kiss the capintesta and other affiliates in attendance. They would then attend a local tavern to enjoy a prearranged layout of fine foods including pasta, fish, and several liters of wine. In return, it was customary for the newly minted camorrista to distribute traditional Neapolitan cigars to his peers and superiors.

What De Blasio described would be considered the classical rise of an aspiring member but it can be misleading. Despite the ornate structure of the camorra, Author Marc Monnier observed in the 1860s that the three degrees of membership existed but weren't always followed based on his interviews with then-members. The ideal or romanticized advancement involved a giovinotto onorati becoming a picciotto only after having served one year of confidential, assiduous, dangerous, and painful work. Monnier consulted known camorristi, who confided in him that upon entry into the society, they had immediately become picciotto di sgarro. (Monnier 1862)

In practice, some societies were more formal than others when it came to practices. There came a time, for instance, when the ceremony of the tirato which involved a zumpata or knife duel, fell out of practice in Campania while still being practiced in prison as well as in Calabria.

Additionally, the society often forced people to join under the threat of death. One political prisoner, Gianbattista Baiocchi, who served time in San Elmo and later Nisida, later recounted being forced to join and sworn in as secretary due to his education and connections. And once the society found its way into Calabria, Bari, and North America, there’s further evidence indicating that forcing people to join was a built-in component.

Mammasantissima

One important earlier aspect of the camorra was its own internal judicial system that was divided between high and lower courts to air grievances, settle disputes, and punish members in bad standing. First identified in the 1890’s, by author Luigi Capuana, these courts were said to convene every Friday to judge and decide matters. On Saturdays, they met to divide the barattolo among its divisions, which was 2/3’s going to the major society of camorristi and the latter going to the minor society of picciotti. When a camorrista was charged with violations against the society or his superiors, the case would go to the major court which would be preceded either by the capinesta, capisocietà or a senior camorrista who would assume the role of judge referred to as gran mamma (“great mother.”) The contaiuolo would function as the public prosecutor and the accused with additional camorrists acting as side judges and defense attorneys. The court was convened in formal settings and had u source (“ushers”) watching to avoid police detection. If a member of the grade of picciotto or camorrista was being judged, he would appear before the major society court called paranza (“little boat”) to defend himself whereas a giovinotti onorati was not afforded this privilege and was constrained to the minor society court called chiorma (“chorum).  (D'addosio 1893)

From Camorra to ‘Ndrangheta

The history of the camorra in Calabria, whether one called it picciotteria, fibbia, sacro circolo, famiglia Mandalbano, etc. will be explored later. But now, for organizational purposes, one can view the current ‘ndrangheta’s hierarchy and notice, at the bottom, the ranks of giovane di onore, picciotto, and camorrista. The ‘ndrangheta of Reggio Calabria is an outgrowth and an evolution of the 19^th century camorra while what passes for camorra in Naples today are akin to gangster syndicates and cartels with no lineage to the camorra of yesteryear. This will be explored later, but arguably the camorra in Reggio Calabria evolved when the grade of camorrista ceased to be the society’s top tier. But again, the society never referred to itself as camorra, that was a name coined by outsiders.

Contrast with the Sicilian Mafia

For those who find the camorra hierarchy confusing, they can take comfort in the fact that Sicilian pentiti Antonino Calderone shared similar sentiments. When discussing the ‘ndrangheta, he explained: “They had endless rules. Whenever a man of honor spoke with one of them he’d become bewildered, he’d develop a headache. No one wanted to end up in the same jail cell as as ‘ndranghetisti. It was the same tune from morning to night. It was tedious, wearisome, and obsessed. They would never stop talking, going on and on about the same things: "If someone acts like this, is he a sbirro or not?” And so forth. Or they’d start up with their nursery rhymes like kids in elementary school. The subject? The ‘ndrangheta with its rules and customs.” (Calderone 1992)

The most obvious distinction between the camorra and the mafia are the office positions and membership classes. For instance, while the camorra had three grades of membership, the mafia only had one. The mafia viewed itself as an elite and exclusive society that, in theory, admitted only the best of the best. The camorra, on the other hand, sought to recruit the masses into its lower levels and elevate the most promising into its higher levels. If the mafia was an exclusive men’s club, the camorra was a corrupt union. Calderone stated as much when he said, “They admitted a huge amount of people and so they were legion, but they weren’t organized as well as the Cosa Nostra. We would choose carefully, and our people were more reliable.” (Calderone 1992)

This draws back to the society's forced memberships on the civilian population. It allowed the society to extort and take advantage of the local population by keeping them at a lower grade while elevating the aspirants into the higher ones. This is an operando in which the mafia never practiced on a large scale. Occasionally there have been stories of people being forced, but the mafia, unlike the camorra, had only one grade of membership. In his book, Calderone even stated the general idea within the mafia is that anyone good enough to be a member is also good enough to be boss.

The camorra’s hierarchy shares more similarities with other societies of the 19^th century, as many included presidents, vice presidents, and secretaries. Meanwhile, the mafia maintained a much simpler system, best described as a secret government. Its internal positions and divisions were meant to serve as a system of representation among its members, it was not a structure set up to maintain a particular criminal racket or enterprise.

           This is what makes the mafia the more mysterious of the sects. The camorra’s history is out in the open for anyone who is looking, meanwhile, the components that made the mafia what it is, are lost to history and can only be speculated upon. The camorra was born in prison and made its way into the cities of the Kingdom in Southern Italy, but in Sicily, the mafia was born seemingly on its home turf.

Works Cited

Blasio, Abele De. 1897. Usi e costumi dei camorristi. Luigi Pierro.

Calderone,  Antonino, and Arlacchi, Pino. 1992. Men of dishonor : inside the Sicilian Mafia : an account of Antonino Calderone. . New York: Morrow.

D'addosio, Carlo. 1893. Il Duello dei Camorristi. Naples: Luigi Pierro.

Monnier, Marc. 1862. La Camorra. G. Barbera.

Stamer, W. J. A. 1878. Dolce Napoli. London: Charing Cross Publishing Company.

The camorra, as it’s defined today, refers to criminal organizations in and around the city of Napoli in the Campania region of Italy. Covered extensively by Roberto Saviano in his best-selling book Gomorrah, he lays out the contemporary camorra’s stronghold on local economies, narcotics trade, arms dealing, and murder.

Author John Dickie succinctly articulated the camorra’s current state in his book Mafia Republic, where he wrote, “In the decades since the end of the Second World War, the camorra has re-emerged and adopted a new identity; it has become stronger and more insidious than ever. It is no longer an Honoured Society – a single sect of criminals with its initiation rituals, its formalized dagger duels, its ranks, and rules. Today, camorrista means an affiliate of one of many structured, but frequently unstable, gangster syndicates. The camorra is not just one society like the mafias of Sicily and Calabria, therefore. Rather it is a vast and constantly shifting map of gangs ruling territories in Naples and the Campania region. (Dickie)”

But at one point it was. At the turn of the 20^th century, the camorra was well known internationally as a secret criminal society complete with laws, rituals, initiation rites, and a structure. While the mafia’s existence in Sicily was still being debated, the camorra had reached infamy in the 1860s and remained a popular topic to be studied, written about, and discussed. Had the mafia been publicly recognized to exist, it might have even been labeled the Sicilian camorra by outsiders.

One of the first authors to cover the camorra was Marc Monnier in his 1863 book, La camorra: notizie storiche. Despite being of French-Swiss descent, Monnier grew up in Florence and spent time in Napoli as a child and was well acquainted with Neapolitan culture. This served him well as he was one of the very first authors to detail the camorra as a hierarchical organization with codes, initiation rituals, systems of punishment, and mutual recognition between groups. The scope and amount of information he covered makes him the Roberto Saviano of his day.

Going into the 1870s to the 1890s, studies, books as well as an extensive number of plays were made about the camorra. The parallel is very similar to the present-day American mafia where there is no shortage of literature, film, games, and tell-alls to the point where the mafia’s own ranks and terminology have become mainstream. When Bill O’Reilly referred to Donald Rumsfeld as George Bush’s consigliere, the viewers understood that he was describing him as a close adviser. That same dynamic applied to 19^th-century Napoli with inside terms like camorrista, picciotti di sgarro, contaluolo, etc. being part of the public vernacular.

Despite the camorra’s association with Napoli and the Campania region, experts like Monnier agreed that it was “branched throughout the ancient kingdom of the two Sicilies” in localized cells that were autonomous yet shared mutual recognition with each other. By the 1860’s the camorra was documented not just in the aforementioned Campania region but also in Puglia, Calabria, and Eastern Sicily, inside and outside of prisons as well as within the army.

Due to Napoli being the Kingdom’s capital, it makes sense why that city’s camorra received more attention than cities such as Salerno or Reggio Calabria. And like the mafia, the camorra took on very different forms depending on its locality. The difference in scope and operandi between cosmopolitan Napoli and small communi like Sambiase are as much of a contrast as say, New York and Kansas City.

The camorra’s notoriety reached its peak with the 1911-1912 Viterbo trial which became an international sensation. The trial involved informants, murders, and the conviction of the camorra's leadership in Napoli which allegedly led to its decline in that city which allegedly signaled the end of the camorra. Even if that were completely true, the camorra by that time was already rooted throughout southern Italy and eastern Sicily, it was in Canada, the United States, and Argentina. Like the mafia, it existed as local branches of a larger organization, and also like the mmafia, each group or area was not without its idiosyncrasies. Whether it was called camorra, Bella Società Rifurmata, the Fibbia, the Picciotteria, the Mala Vita, or the Black Hand, they shared a mutual recognition and understanding that they were part of the same Honored Society.

And while the camorra in Napoli declined, it survived in the larger Campania region, it was documented in Bari where it was called Mala Vita, and it especially thrived in the Reggio Calabria province where there was no shortage of criminal trials and convictions of the so-called Picciotteria. There, the camorra would survive, thrive, and in the 1950s it underwent a structural upgrade which signaled its evolution into the modern ‘ndrangheta that is recognized today.

So to understand the 19^th century camorra is to understand the 'ndrangheta in its infancy. It has grown, evolved, and changed dramatically in its scope and operandi but its structural foundations have remained intact. Today, the ‘ndrangheta is recognized as Italy’s most powerful mafia which is ironic given that the camorra’s power was formerly situated in Napoli. For reasons that will be understood, the Honored Society of the mainland, like the mafia in Sicily, can be best described as a criminal Carbonari.   

“Camorra”

Similar to the mafia in Sicily, the camorra’s origins have been shrouded in myths and fables, even the term itself remains a point of conjecture.  Camorra was first used in a novella by Pentamerone called Lo Cunto de li Cunti (“The Tale of Tales”) which were collected by the Italian poet and courtier Giambattista Basile who published them in 1634. (Basile, Il Pentamerone)

The name of the Pentamerone comes from Greek πέντε [pénte], ‘five’, and ἡμέρα [hêméra], ‘day’ as it takes place over the course of five days. The frame story is that of a cursed princess named Zoza ("mud" or "slime" in Neapolitan dialect, but also used as a term of endearment) who cannot laugh no matter what her father does to amuse her. One passage read: “At last they led her to a wardrobe full of rich raiments, and they showed her the Spanish camorra,…” It contained an asterisk defining the “Camorra’ (Sp: chamarra) as an ancient texture highly prized, and from it the dress was called ‘Gamurra.’ (Basile, Il Pentamerone)

According to most scholars, however, the word "camorra", understood in its definitive sense, derives from the identical Spanish word which means contestation, dispute, brawl and which, taken from the Arabic word kumar which indicated a type of dice game prohibited by the Koran. The word from the Arabs would have been translated to the Spaniards - whose camorra vocabulary in that period meant "to quarrel; to question”. (D'addosio) (Consiglio) (Monnier) (Alongi)

The first time we encounter the actual term camorra being used beyond literature was in a 1735 ordinance entitled “de aleatoribus,” concerning gambling where the ordinance mentioned “the camorra in front of the palace” which was a gambling den that opened its doors in front of the palace. It has been speculated that camorra is a compound of the terms capo (“head”) and morra (“game”) and perhaps the Society had some interest in managing these establishments. However, there’s no evidence to substantiate that. If the camorra existed that early it would have to have gone on to escape nearly 130 years of scrutiny. (D'addosio) (Consiglio) (Montuori)

In 1733 the Diccionario universal, Frances, y Español listed camorra as a synonym for quarrel and camorrista as a synonym for Turbulent.

 (Herrero)

In 1780, the Diccionario de la lengua castellana defined camorra as a brawl and camorrista as someone who starts trouble.

(Ibarra)

In 1798, the definition of camorrista would be expanded upon which connected the term to “vulgar people” often caught in disputes in a game or at gambling establishments.

(Conelly)

The definitions of camorra and camorrista, at least in dictionaries, remained relatively unchanged from the 1740s until the 1860s. It needs to be stated that the publication year for Natura ed origine della misteriosa setta della Camorra nelle sue diverse sezioni e paranze: Linguaggio convenzionale di essa, usi e leggi is listed as 1850, which would make it the very first literary work of its kind to cover the camorra as an organization. However, on page 22 it mentions the revolution of 1860, indicating that the book had to have been published more than a decade later.

It truly wasn’t until the 1860s when camorra, at least in available print, began being used to describe a criminal fraternity. It was only after the Unification of Italy in 1861 that authors like Marc Monnier, Juan Mañé y Flaquer, and Francesco de Bourcard began publishing works describing the camorra as a criminal brotherhood with its own history, structure, and subculture.

Mythology – Spanish origins.

Camorra Mythology, like that of its Sicilian mafia counterpart, is rooted in religious overtures and contains its own origin stories. While mafia mythology traces its origins back to a Sicilian social uprising against the French in 1282, both the camorra in Napoli and Calabria attributed their origins to Spaniards, often in the form of knights.

Ironically, a century later in America, Genovese Family informant Vincent Cafaro testified that “some oldtimer grabbed me, told me, say amico nostra, that's a word that was from Portuguese, the wiseguys over there used to use the word amico nostra, so that the agents or the cops couldn't infiltrate. They would ask you what's the word, and you had to say, amico nostra. And that's where it comes from. (States)”

Despite the questionable validity of this claim, this serves as another reminder of how southern Italy, including the Campania region, was strongly influenced by Spanish culture and customs. The Spanish Crown ruled southern Italy and Sicily from 1504 up until the early 1700s, while the independent Kingdoms of Napoli (later renamed the Kingdom of The Two Sicilies, with joint capitals at Napoli and Palermo) was under control of a branch of the Bourbon dynastic family, related to the Spanish monarchs, for most of the following period until the unification of Italy in 1861. The cultural legacy of the Spanish presence in the Mezzogiorno included an introduction to Spanish literature, linguistic influences, plays, dress, and other customs such as the zumpata (knife duels.)        

        (i)     Tre Cavalieri

In the late 1890’s, physician Emanuele Mirabella who encountered the camorra on the penal island of Favignana, obtained a questionnaire used by the camorra to identify members and avoid informants:

Capo: "Tell me a little: where does the company come from?"

Newcomer: "Spain, Naples, Sicily."

Capo: "And how did it originate?"

Newcomer: "Three knights, one Spanish, one Neapolitan and one Sicilian, played with each other among themselves, while their squires did the services and the guard; suddenly while the Spaniard drove the last post out of his pocket, which he had all lost, he withdrew money from the victor at the rate of twenty per cent of what he had won, saying: I take this as my due, by right and right I am entitled to the camorra and I am good at taking it from here, in any other place where I meet, and with reason and roguery .”

Capo: "And how did it end?"

Newcomer: "It ended up that the three knights agreed among themselves and founded the society of the camorrists, recruiting their squires. (Mirabella, Emanuele.)"

If this story sounds familiar that is because it largely resembles the story of Osso, Mastrosso, and Carcagnosso that remains embedded in today’s ‘ndrangheta lore. A similar story is told in "Black Hand book" which was confiscated in Oleans, NY in 1927 entitled Il Tre Cavalieri di Spagna. The book, which we will explore later, is essentially a camorra bible that not only lays out its rules and by-laws, it also makes mention of three mythological knights, “During the year 1417, in Seville, a city of Spain, three Spanish Chevaliers named respectively Gasparre, Malchiorre and Baldassarre, that in jargon were called Osso, Mastrosso and Calcagnasso, gifted with a lot of energy and cunning, decided to take a vacation, going to a nearby city with this end in view. Tired out from the stress of the trip, and feeling in need of food, they entered an Inn.”

These instances are among the earliest examples of the camorra’s own origin story and, while most likely myths, should be considered the most accurate in terms of what they believe their origins to be. Additionally, the inclusion of three knights and the fact that the rules and regulations were written mirror the modern ‘ndrangheta’s use of written material. This stands in stark contrast to the Sicilian mafia which, barring a few examples, rarely writes anything down pertaining to their own organization.

      (ii)     Raimondo Gamur

In the 1911 Viterbo Trial, Carabinieri Captain Carlo Frabbroni was asked about the camorra’s origins and he testified that the camorra originated in 1654 when Raimondo Gamur, a Spanish adventurer fled Zaragoza, immigrated to Napoli where he was arrested and incarcerated in the prison of Castel Capuano. This individual was said to have eventually befriended five incarcerated Neapolitans with whom he explained the criminal customs and associations of Spain and how no one acted alone because all the criminals were part of associations that had rules and organized leadership. Gamur, according to this version, strongly inspired the five Neapolitans to form the Society in Napoli upon regaining their freedoms and took the name “camorra” as a dialectal distortion of Gamur. (Montuori)

So Frabbroni’s version, or at least what he obtained, again draws on Spanish origins but also adds another century to the camorra’s existence which, as we'll see, is unsubstantiated. It borrows heavily from the popular lore at that point in history relating to tales of Spanish Secret Societies like the Monopodio and the Garduña.

     (iii)     La Confraternita del Monopodio

Starting in the 1860s when Marc Monnier and other authors began delving into the origins of the camorra, they made note of both the La Confraternita del Monopodio and the Garduña, two fictional societies from Spain. At the time, these fraternities had yet to be debunked as fiction so they were regarded as very possible explanations for the camorra’s origins. While reading about the Monopodio, Marc Monnier even noted, "Reading these lines, it would be believed that they were speaking not of Seville, but of Napoli, not of the customs from three centuries prior, but of those in our day (1863).”

It needs to be noted that there are no examples of any camorristi or camorra documents ever laying claim to these fictional Spanish societies. But they appear to have at least found inspiration in their stories. Referring back to Natura ed origine della misteriosa setta della Camorra nelle sue diverse sezioni e paranze, it states that “today’s camorristi have read the interesting and curious memoirs of Rinconete and Cotardillo.”

Rinconete and Cotardillo was written by Miguel de Cervantes and published in Italy in 1832. The story tells of two apprentice thieves admitted to La Confraternita del Monopodio, a society of thieves established in Seville who divided their profits with the police and clergy.

“It is our character,” the leader said, “to make a certain number of masses each year for the rest of the souls of our deceased and benefactors, withdrawing, for the alms of the priest who celebrate them, a part of what is stolen from us. These masses speak and pay in such a way to give assurances and great advantages for those souls, who due to shipwreck (suffrage); under the name of our benefactors we understand the processor who assists us, the alguazil (“Spanish officer”) who corrects us, the executioner who moves with pity for us, those who finally, when one of our own runs by the way and is chased by the cries ‘thief, thief, arrest him, arrest him,’ he throws himself in the middle and restrains the crowd that rushed after the fugitive, saying ‘Let the poor devil go, he is very unfortunate, he goes in peace and is punished by his own sin.”

The brotherhood of Seville was depicted as having its own language, its own code, it governed itself and issued death sentences. Monopodio, the leader of the fraternity, "had given them the order to collect on everything that they had stolen to make some alms for the lamp oil of a holy image that was venerated in the city.”

Monnier noted that extortion for the lamp oils was the same as what the camorristi did in prison. Another point of contact between the two societies consisted in the time of the novitiate. In Seville the novices called themselves younger brothers; they had to pay half of their criminal proceeds to the fraternity, acted as couriers to their older brothers who were in prison and they fulfilled subordinate services. (Monnier)

     (iv)     La Confraternita del Garduña

Another fictitious Spanish secret society that Marc Monnier mentioned was the Confraternity of the Garduña (“robbery”), which was allegedly founded in Seville in 1417. The Confraternity of the Garduña’s objective was to commit crimes for people who sought revenge. For the right price, one could pay the Garduña to commit assaults and murder which they would carry out with the utmost vigor. The group was said to have been destroyed in 1822 by the commander of the Chasseurs des Montagnes. The final arrest was said to have included Francisco Cortina, the group’s last boss, who provided the Garduña’s articles to the commander who allegedly gave them to Manuel De Cuendias who contributed the information to the book Mysteries of the Inquisition published by V. de Féréal, the pseudonym of a French Romantic poetess, Victorine Germillan. (Fereal)

According to the book, The Garduña confraternity was composed of a grand master called hermano mayor (“superior brother”), who lived in the Court, where he often held an eminent place. This superior brother directed his orders to the capatazes (“masters of the provinces”). The body of Garduña was quite large, composed of guapos (“brave breeds”) that were generally great swordsmen, daring assassins, and bandit consumers, whose courage was proof of torture and also of the gallows. In the jargon of the Society, these guapos were called punteadores (stingers, gunmen). After the punteadores came the floreadores (“badaluccatori”); these were young, astute wise men, most of whom came from the prisons of Seville, Malaga, or Metilla, called the aspirant brothers’ compartment. Los fecelles (“the bellows”) came later; so-called because their use in the Society was to inform the master about the ongoings in the city. Someone could enter the brotherhood to become a guapo at the end of two years of service. Below maestro and gran meastro, this was the highest rank one could achieve. (Fereal)

However, the Garduña has never conclusively been proven to exist. Cuendias claimed that records of the Garduña still existed in Seville’s municipal archives in 1823 but they were destroyed by a fire in 1916 making the Garduña impossible to verify outside of the book. However, scholars have carefully studied and searched for any traces of the Garduña in Spain and concluded that it was either a figment of Cuendias' imagination or an extrapolation of the deeds of a local gang rather than a nationwide network. (Léger-St-Jean)

Mysteries of the Inquisition also included the Statutes of the Garduña containing a series of rules or articles which were signed “El Camilludo” and “Made in Toledo in the year of our grace 1420 and the third after the establishment of our honorably confraternity.” The list of Articles signed by “El Camilludo” largely mirrors confiscated camorra Articles dated September 12, 1842, and signed "Il Contaluolo." So, while both the Confraternities of the Marapodio & Garduña appear to be fictional, their stories may have provided the camorra a blueprint or at least served as an inspiration.

Proto-Groups

Despite the ongoing belief that the camorra dates back to the 1700s, the 1891 American Quarterly Review openly stated that “there are inquirers who incline to the belief that the camorra was organized as early as 1790, but the evidence is not substantial.” (The American Catholic Quarterly Review .... United States, Hardy and Mahony, 1891.)

This has led people to research groups that existed in the 18^th Century for a possible link. The reasoning rests on the theory that the camorra might not have always been known by that name. The mafia of Sicily as an organization certainly predates the use of the word mafia and, at various times, went by different names including Fratuzzi, Fratellanza, and Stiddari. So, it’s only logical to apply that same question to the camorra.

        (i)     Masaniello

In the Campania region, during the Aragon period (1282-1492) there existed obscure individuals called comnoni who largely avoided work and existed until the end of the 18^th Century. One of the best-known comnomi was Francesco Antonio Arpaia, who in 1647 became Eletto del Popolo, similar to an administrative consultant.

The historian Bartolommeo Capasso, in his essay on the Family of Masaniello, argued that these comnoni, for that reason, frequented a house called camorra in front of the royal palace and thus took the name camorristi, but this claim is speculative. It is here in 1735 that we first encountered the actual term camorra being used to describe the remaining gambling houses allowed to remain after many were closed, called la camorra innanzi palazzo (the camorra in front of the palace). This has led to further speculation that these comnoni might have taken the name camorra based on a composite of capo (“head”) and morra (“game”), however, the comnoni were mere frequenters of these establishments and exercised no authority over them. (D'addosio) (Capasso)

In 1647, Masaniello (Tommaso Aniello) led a revolt against the King of Spain’s rule in Napoli, while his group was called guappos (“handsome men”) by the Spaniards and smargiassi (“show-offs”) by the Neapolitans, his group’s formal name was the Società Masti Ferrari (“Society of Blacksmith Keepers”). This group was said to have bullied the taverns and markets of Largo del Castello. Following the revolution of Masaniello, the group was said to have been attempting to reform, reinforce discipline, and align under the guidance of a single leader (D'addosio). 

Following the revolution of Masaniello in 1647, his group was called the Società dei Mastri Ferrari (“Society of Master Ferrari”), ferrari was a class of workers including carpenters, leather tanners, and silversmiths who drew its illicit proceeds from the same type of extortion the camorra would later impose. Documents discovered in 2011 described Masaniello as a sort of peacemaker who maintained order in the lower quarters by allegedly settling disputes while also exploiting prostitution. Masaniello "visibly" acted like a "neighborhood boss." It taxed imports/exports in exchange for criminal protectionism. They bullied the taverns of the Mercato and Pendino, inside the tents and barracks of Largo del Castello, or in the numerous gambling houses. One of the most famous of these was Onofrio Cafiero in 1647.  (Fiore) (Ladeluca) (NAPPI)

           (ii)    Compagnia della Morte

In 1651, the Compagnia della Morte (“Company of Death”) was formed, which was mostly a band that operated under the quasi-political pretext of wanting to rid Napoli of its bad elements, was composed of malandrini (“bandits”), comnoni, and smargiassi who terrorized the markets and close communities, engaging in widespread extortion. For little reason, they would challenge each other to duels, usually in the middle of the street. Unlike the knights of yesteryear, there was little ceremony, no helmets or armor. From Sant’Aniello to Caponapoli, to Porto Medina and Pertuso, in open fields, they would fight and injure and murder each other. This group was alleged to have been led by the legendary painter Salvator Rosa, but scholars have dismissed this as factually lacking. This group would later assume the name Società degli Impaciati (“Society of the Impacted”) where it was harshly fought by Giovanni De Burgo, proreggente della Vicaria, who sent many of its followers to be tortured. (D'addosio) (Montuori)

         (iii)    Compagnia degli Smanicatori

According to a study conducted by Michelangelo Schipa on a manuscript of PM Doria kept at the National Institute of Napoli, there was a sect in the viceroy period called the Compagnia degli Smanicatori which gathered around a fencing school. These so-called “half-valued abbots" carried swords and daggers and became infamous in the middle of the 17^th century by imposing ‘peace through violence’ and ‘forced marriages.’ (Schipa)

     (iv)     Pasquale Capuozzo

In 1978, Vittorio Paliotti wrote Storia Della Camorra, a comprehensive history of the Society where he introduced Pasquale Capuozzo as “the man who, in December of 1820, had the idea to give a modern face to the camorra groups and channel them into the Bella Societa Rifurmata.” He allegedly served three consecutive terms as capintesta (“headmaster”) before being murdered by his wife in 1824 who suspected him of infidelity. The source he provided was Nicola Nisco’s Storia del reame di Napoli dal 1824 al 1860 in 1908. The problem is, that Nisco never stated any such story. Pasquale Capuozzo did indeed exist but he was a contemporary of the 1860s who was around 30 and worked as a cantiniere (“cellarman”). According to confiscated letters obtained from Castel Capuano Prison camorra boss Antonio Mormino aka Mormile, Capuozzo had been issued a death sentence for having “denounced” the camorra. (Paliotti, Storia della Camorra)(Monnier)

Further research found that there was a certain Pasquale Capozzi, son of Antonio, aged 30 who was convicted on September 29, 1821, for the murder of Police Director Francesco Giampietri along with 27 other individuals were sentenced to life imprisonment. However, there’s nothing to indicate any link to a criminal sect nor was he murdered in 1824 as the aforementioned story claims. (Migliaccio)

The name Pasquale Capuozzo can occasionally be found listed as the camorra’s first and founding capintesta but the facts do not support it. The camorrista Pasquale Capuozzo did indeed exist but would have been born in or around 1830 and active in the 1860s.

            (i)    Conclusion

The first statistics on crime were compiled in Paris in 1825. In Italy, they “examined the Sardinian banditry, the Romagna delinquency (which often presented political connections and was controlled by a sect of ‘zealots,’ Calabrian banditry and in particular, the lawlessness of certain Sicilian groups. The mafia was not mentioned directly however it mentions armed bodies of men forming seemingly spontaneously in Girgenti and Caltanissetta who acted on behalf of the barons who were in Palermo, keeping watch over the peasants, acting cruel if necessary.” There is no mention of any similar criminal sect in Napoli at that time. (Lombroso)

According to Monnier’s research, he states that the camorra was founded in prison. He claims that it made its way beyond the prison walls by released inmates who “transferred” the camorra to the streets. Monnier was not able to acquire any documents nor was he able to interview anyone who recalled the camorra existing in Napoli before 1830.  (Monnier, Marc. La Camorra. Italy, G. Barbéra, 1862)

Carbonari

While it’s not exactly clear when the camorra came to dominate the prison system, indicators point to its origins beginning after 1820. Before that, the prisons were already dominated by incarcerated Carbonari members who continued to recruit with prison walls.

The Carbonari (“Charcoal Burners”), was a liberal political sect hypothesized by some historians to have branched off from the Freemasonry of France and England around 1799. It was largely anti-monarchist in its sentiments and advocated for a unified Italy complete with a French-derived liberal constitution. According to The American Cyclopaedia, it stated that by March of 1820, the number of Carbonari members totaled 700,000. Each province contained their own vendite (“lodges”) and had their headquarters at Napoli and Salerno. (Charles Anderson Dana)

In his book, A History of the Kingdom of Naples, Pietro Colletta wrote that up until 1819, “every criminal (prisoner) enrolled himself a member of the Carbonari, as well as all who were meditating fresh crimes, and the prisons were thus converted into vendite." Colletta wrote that they were influential in the prison system beginning in the 1810s and that by the time the Carbonari fell apart: "they no longer found it necessary to stand on the defensive, but attacked other men, and committed execrable crimes, which they concerted in their secret meetings; evil deeds require evil men to enact them, and for this reason, they accepted the services of the worst characters, anxious to prevent the opposite faction making use of them. Vice itself became a title for admission, and thus the Society degenerated, and was actuated as much by private as political motives; much blood was spilled, both guilty and innocent, to gratify hatred, passion, or revenge." (Colletta)

The camorra came after, either as a newly formed sect or possibly a Carbonari branch-off. Whatever the case, they inherited the Carbonari’s position in prison and filled the void left once the Carbonari’s power and influence declined. “Such is the account given by Italians of the camorra from 1820 to 1859. How did it manage to control the prisons? Remembering the history of the country during the century we cannot doubt of the demoralization of the very class of men that served as keepers in the jails. If many of them were camorrists, it would not be surprising. Assuredly many belonged to the Carbonaria. Can anyone tell why a Carbonaro should not have respected and protected a camorrist? (Mooney)”

Another indicator of the Carbonari’s influence on the camorra, whether bestowed or borrowed, is the similarities in their organizational hierarchy. The Carbonari, like the camorra that came after, was a secret society with its own rituals and ceremonies that was divided into an alta (“high”) and bassa (“low”) class of membership which was further divided into three tiers of affiliation: novices, adherents, and brigands. Their officers included Grand Masters and Secretaries.

Works Cited

Alongi, Giuseppe. La Camorra: studio di sociologia criminale. Bocca, 1890.

Author, Unknown. Natura ed origine della misteriosa setta della Camorra nelle sue diverse sezioni e paranze: Linguaggio convenzionale di essa, usi e leggi. Italy: Serafini, *1850.

Basile, Giambattista. Il Cunto de li Cunti (Il Pentamerone). Naples: Cav. V. Vecchi, 1891.

—. Il Pentamerone. Naples: Henry and Company, 1893.

Blasio, Abele De. Nel Paese Della Camorra. Abele De Blasio, 1901.

Capasso, Bartolommeo. La casa e la famiglia di Masaniello (Ricordi della storia e della vita Napoletana nel Secolo XVII). Youcanprint, 2019.

Cavina, Marco. Il Sangue dell'onore. Laterza, 2005.

Charles Anderson Dana, George Ripley. The American Cyclopaedia: A Popular Dictionary for General Knowledge. United Kingdom: D. Appleton and Company, 1883.

Colletta, Pietro. History of the Kingdom of Naples: 1734-1825, Volume 1. Naples: T. Constable and Co., 1858.

Conelly, Tomás, and Higgins. Diccionario nuevo de las dos lenguas española e inglesa en quatro tomos. Esta parte tiene el castellano antes del Inglés. Spain: Pedro Julián Pereyra, 1798.

Consiglio, Alberto. La Camorra a Napoli. Guida Editori, 2005.

D'addosio, Carlo. Il Duello dei Camorristi. Naples: Luigi Pierro, 1893.

Dossena, Enrico. Tirannide, popolo e Dio azione drammatica in 5 atti e prologo per Enrico Dossena milanese. C. Barbini, 1862.

Ferdinando Russo, E. Serao. La Camorra: origini, usi, costumi et riti dell' "annorata soggieta:. F. Bideri, 1907.

Fereal, V. de. Misterios de la Inquisicion y otras sociedades secretas de Espana. J. Roca, 1845.

Fiore, Gigi Di. La Camorra e le sue Storie. UTET Library, 2005.

Griffiths, Arthur. Secrets of the Prison-house, Volume 1. Id: Chapman and Hall, 1894.

Herrero, Antonio-Maria. Diccionario Universal, Frances, y Español. Spain: Symond, 1743.

Ibarra, Joaquin. Diccionario de la lengua castellana. Spain, 1780.

Ladeluca, Fabio. La Criminalita Organizzata in Italia e la Camorra in Compagna. Gangemi, 2008.

Léger-St-Jean, Marie. Price One Penny/Mysterious of the Inquisition. n.d. 04 12 2019. <http://www.priceonepenny.info/editions/Inquisition/#index.xml-front.1_div1.3>.

Lombroso, Cesare. Crime, Its Causes and Remedies. Little, Brown, 1911.

Meader, John R. Societies, Criminal. Scientific American Compiling Dpt, 1905.

Mirabella, Emanuele. Mala Vita: gergo camorra e costumi degli affiliati. A. Forni, 1984.

Monnier, Marc. La Camorra. G. Barbera, 1862.

Montuori, Francesco. Lessico e Camorra. University editor Fridericiana, 2008.

Mooney, John A. The American Catholic Quarterly Review, Volume 16. Hardy and Mahony, 1891.

NAPPI, PAOLINO. "IL MITO DELLE ORIGINI SPAGNOLE DELLA CAMORRA TRA LETTERATURA E STORIA."

http://www.zibaldone.es/

(2014): 98-117.

Paliotti, Vittorio. Storia della Camorra. Newton Compton, 1993.

—. Storia Della Camorra Dal Cinquecento ai Nostri Giorni. Newton Compton, 1993.

Schipa, Michelangelo. Studi di storia napoletana in onore di Michelangelo Schipa. Naples: ITEA (Industrie Tipografiche ed affini), 1926.

States, United. Organized Crime: 25 Years After Valachi: Hearings Before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundredth Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988.

www.epertutti.com. n.d. 4 12 2019. <http://www.epertutti.com/italiano/Le-origini-della-camorra-le-le53323.php>.

But as history has defaulted into fable, mafia mythology has reinforced the narrative that the American version was created by Lucky Luciano in 1931. In Peter Maas’ Underboss, he summarized it by stating that “In 1931, warring factions of the Italian underworld, primarily Neapolitan and Sicilian gangsters, came together to form Cosa Nostra.”

Joseph Valachi, America’s first public informant who, in 1963, testified at the McClellan Hearings laying out his 30-year long association with the New York mafia. While his story details many different aspects of mafia culture, one reflected his vantage point as a Neapolitan outsider inside a Sicilian brotherhood. While most of his Italian American contemporaries were joining the New York mafia, he encountered another fellow Neapolitan, while serving time in Sing, one Allesandro Vollero. who advised against his joining the mafia, cautioning:

“If there is one thing that we who are from Naples must always remember, it is that if you hang out with a Sicilian for twenty years and you have trouble with another Sicilian, the Sicilian that you hung out with all that time will turn on you. In other words, you can never trust them. (Maas 1968)”

Indeed Joseph Bonnano, Sicilian-born boss of the New York family for more than 35 years that still bears his name today, admitted as much in his own 1983 autobiography, A Man of Honor, where he wrote:

Men of my Tradition were always loath to associate with non-Sicilians. The reason for this was not bigotry but common sense. They knew that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to pass on a tradition unless one is exposed to it almost from the cradle. (…) A tradition is not something that one learns overnight. It is the work of a lifetime.

Even southern Italians, from the Campania region or from Calabria, who otherwise have much in common with Sicilians, cannot fully appreciate the old Traditions of Sicily.

For example, southern Italy has in the past given rise to such groups as the camorra and the Black Hand. These non-Sicilian groups were orders formed to accommodate the interests of thugs, highwaymen and extortionists. It is a grave mistake to identify these groups as being the same as the “Families” of my Sicilian Tradition. Americans, we well as southern Italians, have often made this mistake. camorra and the Black Hand never existed in Sicily. They have nothing to do with what Americans refer to as “the Mafia.

Because of the melting-pot effect in America and the need for recruits during the Castellammarese War, we Sicilians found ourselves accepting into our confidence many non-Sicilians. Men joined our ranks who didn’t fully appreciate the tradition, or only understood it in a very rudimentary and superficial way (Joseph Bonanno 1983).

Joseph Valachi, like many gangsters of his generation, was an American rendition, having grown up in East Harlem around a mix of Italians, Irish and Jews. His interactions with other Italian criminals had little to do up front with their regional origin and more with money-making ventures and general associations. However, within the mafia its very true as the saying goes: birds of a feather flock together. Following the Castellammare War, Valachi would transfer to the Neopolitan-centric Genovese Family and placed into a decina headed by Antonio Strollo aka Tony Bender. And while Valachi’s eventual mob nemesis would be another Neapolitan member, Vito Genovese, Valachi claims to have never forgotten the wisdom that Allesandro Vollero confided to him.

Born in April of 1885 or 1889 in Gragnano, outside of Napoli, Allesandro Vollero emigrated to America at some unknown point to reside in South Brooklyn where he ran the infamous Navy Street Café along with Leopoldo Lauritano, who along with Pellegrino Morano of Coney Island would all be convicted as members of the camorra for the murder of Nick Terranova, a rival in the Sicilian-American mafia. Vollero would eventually meet Valachi in Sing where he became a mentor, his parting advice to Valachi was:

“Talk to me just before you get out of here (prison), and I will send you to a Neapolitan. His name is Capone. He’s from Brooklyn, but he’s in Chicago now” (Maas 1968).

While the name of Allesandro Vollero is less recognized, Al Capone is a name that needs no introduction. Aside from being credited, falsely, as the founder of the modern Chicago Outfit, his name has come to represent the American mafia in its bloody glory years, largely looming more as legend and myth than as an actual individual.

In the 1960’s two Genovese Family members were picked up discussing history and the subject of Al Capone came up:

     Frank: “Al?”

     Fred: “Al was a neighborhood chamise (ph).

The reference was part of a larger discussion:

     Ray: “Well, we were all with the combaneesh at the time.”

     Benny: “Combination - what Combination?” 

Ray: “Combaneesh! (ph) We were with the Combaneesh. (ph). They were no babies either! Vito was a Combaneesh.  Ritchie (Ruggerio Boiardo) and all the guys were Combaneesh. Before they got in here.  Most of those guys upstate and in Reno got sneaked in. Willie Moore (Moretti) got sneaked in. They got sneaked in! – Vito got sneaked in. I think he told me, in 1923.”

The FBI didn’t realize what was being discussed at the time, they couldn’t even decipher the word being said. However, all of the names being mentioned shared one thing in common: they were all early non-Sicilian members of the American mafia. But what was the accurate phonetic word they were trying to convey when they wrote “combaneesh?”

Camorristi or the singular camorrista (anglicized to camorrist and pronounced “Gaw-more-eesh” was in reference to affiliates of the camorra. “We were with the camorristi” or “Al was a Brooklyn camorrist.” Rumors of Al Capone’s involvement with the Neapolitan-derived society are nothing new, allegations have been made, skepticism has been raised, but the smoking gun rests on the fact that the Chicago organization he headed before joining the mafia later had its origins in the camorra. Its first identified boss in Chicago was James Colosimo who would be linked in 1910 to Francesco Filasto, New York’s camorra Capobastone (“headstick”) or boss and his nephew Antonio Sacca who would later relocate to Chicago.

The camorra remains obscure to most Americans and western crime watchers simply because it hasn’t had a significant presence in the USA since the 1920’s and left very little traces of itself behind. There have been rumors and various tidbits of its existence but these leads, when explored seem to lead to nowhere definitive. In 1988, the US Senate, in their Investigation Inquiry into organized crime included a timeline, which for the date of September 7, 1928 reads:

Antonio Lombardo, boss of the Chicago Family, was shot and killed on a downtown sidewalk. The importance of Lombardo’s death is that it is said to have sealed the merge of the LCN and the Camorra in the Chicago area. Reportedly, Al Capone, head of the Chicago branch of the Camorra, was offered membership and a ranking position in the LCN if he would have Lombardo murdered (Affairs 1988).

The evidence will show that the camorra, like the mafia, was exported from Italy by immigrants, not only the city of Napoli or the Campania region, but also from Cosenza, Catanzaro and Reggio in the Calabria region of Italy. Contemporary sources label the early Calabrian society currently known as ‘Ndrangheta as the Picciotteria due to court transcripts but it very much was the exact same society as what was called the camorra in Napoli, from the structure to the blueprint to the mutual recognition, these were all local branches of a larger organization, each with their own localized idiosyncrasies.

Today’s ‘Ndrangheta can be described as an evolution of the camorra that existed in Reggio Calabria from 1850-1920. There is no shortage of records that describe the camorra’s system and structure from Napoli, those records coincide with camorra groups in Calabria and also Calabrian camorra groups in America. Records from 1850’s Napoli can be juxtaposed alongside records from Catanzaro in the 1870’s, Reggio Calabria in the 1900’s, Westchester, NY and Pittsburgh, PA in the 1910’s, Oleans, NY in the 1920’s, Youngstown in the 1960’s to Toronto in the 1990’s. The links are there for anyone who was looking.

The evidence for this is confirmed on the Italian side in the book, Il Romanzo Di Un Delinquente Nato. Published in 1893, it is the semi-autobiographical story of one “Antonino M,” a prisoner originally from Porghelia in the province of Catanzararo, he detailed his life as what he called a camorrista within the Bourbon prison system. Within his memoirs, he revealed that the camorra in prison was divided by regional factions- Provincial (Neapolitan), Abruzzesi, Calabresi and even Sicilian- but unified as part of a larger system or entity, they shared mutual recognition of each other as members and when members were transferred to different prisons they carried their membership with them. The camorra’s membership, reach and affiliations extended far beyond the city of Napoli, Campania into Bari, Cosenza and Reggio Calabria. What has been labeled the Picciotteria was just a euphemism for something much larger.

This is also exemplified on the American side in the 1965 Steve Magaddino wiretaps:

Steve Magaddino: “And I – I always saw to it that there was room in our house for a few “picciotti.” This also helped to win the respect for “ours” because the “picciotti” with the “camorristi” –

Bill: “These are the Calabrese! Not Sicilians.”

Unknown Man: “Yeah!”

Steve Magaddino: “Calabrese. At first I used to carry on a fight against those people. Those Calabrese – I used to fight them. Then, a time came that I did not get involved anymore.”

Never once did Steve Magaddino refer to this Calabrese group as Picciotteria or ‘Ndrangheta, nor did Rocco Racco of Hillsville nor Salvatore Marra of Westchester in the 1910’s. They used the term camorra. So the history of what became known as the ‘Ndrangheta originates with the camorra, any history that doesn’t make this connection is an incomplete history. 

So before we delve into the American camorra, we need to learn its roots and for that we will have the go back to 19^th century Italy with a focus on Southern Italy before we can begin the cover the American side. And with that, the more popular Sicilian mafia will also be discussed and compared to, because people tend to view the camorra through a mafia-centric lens and the mafia-itself as an organization continues to be not fully understood. There were similarities but also striking distinctions, indeed both groups exhibited very different criminal cultures very early on. Their descendants in early 20^th century America, men like Genovese, Boiardo and DeCarlo descended from a criminal subculture that mafia aristocrats like Joseph Bonanno described disdainfully. This mainland criminal subculture will also be examined because while the camorra declined in the US in the 1920’s, elements of its culture and traits can be seen in the Families of the Genoveses, Chicago, New England, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Jose, all of which had a high percentage of non-Sicilian mainland members.

The modern American La Cosa Nostra or LCN has been exhaustively traced and connected to the Sicilian mafia, it has rightfully been concluded to be an extension of the same Society and not an American copy-copycat. To members like Joe Bonanno or even Michael DiLeonardo in recent decades, they understood their affiliation to be to the mafia regardless of whether they used that term as a title. But the mainland-elements of the American LCN also have their own history, alongside but separate from the Sicilian experience.

In a recent episode of The Mob Archaeologists, hosted by Richard Warner, Eric Stonefelt, Chicago Tony and yours truly, we interviewed Michael DiLeonardo and I asked him about Bensonhurst (primarily Sicilian) and downtown Brooklyn (primarily Campanian) and he recalled the cultural differences between the two neighborhoods reflected during his time growing up in the 50’s-70’s, he responded that Sicilian Bensonhurst viewed the downtown Italians as “camorrists” which he used to describe them as “more rough, less refined.” He wasn’t using the term to describe an organization but instead was making the distinction between Sicilian and Southern Italian culture. It should be noted that when asked by me previously, he confirmed that he never heard the term ‘Ndrangheta used. His own experience largely coincides with what one informant from Milwaukee provided in 1964:

MI T-1: “The Mafia (…) generally looked down upon the camorrista as ruffians who lacked principles.”

The story of the American mafia has been told from the Sicilian-angle, my intention is to tell it from opposite end, the mainland-centric subculture of the Sicilian-subculture which influenced men like Frank Costello, Nicodemo Scarfo and John Gotti later. These men, at least the two latter, were never formally affiliated with anything but the mafia, but their non-Sicilian origins were relevant to them. In the 1950’s, Costello was politicking for New England to install what he specified as a “Neapolitan” as boss; Philip Leonetti recalls Scarfo’s classification of Sicilians as businessmen and Calabrians as gangsters; when Gotti was elected boss, he purposely ruled out selecting men like Joseph Corrao for an administration position for being “too Sicilian” despite Corrao being a 4^th generation American.

While the American mafia remains an outgrowth of its Sicilian counterpart, it remains distinct from it due to its large mainland element, men like Al Capone and John Gotti who came from a different subculture who, as Bonanno concluded, “cannot fully appreciate the old Traditions of Sicily.” Which is true, they didn’t appreciate the “Traditions of Sicily” because men of Campania and Calabria had their own traditions. And ironically, while these mainlanders may not have appreciated the Sicilian tradition, they were quite rigorous in following and adhering to it, sometimes even more so than their Sicilian counterparts.

Just what are the traditions of Sicily and how do they compare and contrast with the traditions of the mainland? The answer is twofold, traditions can refer to regional cultures including criminal subcultures, but Tradition with a capital T that Bonanno was referring to, was that of the mafia as a Society. Both need to be evaluated with each other because both made their way into America and influenced the men who came after them and the qualities they brought into the American organization.

The argument over what constitutes a true mafioso has been a matter of conjecture for the past century. Generally, Sicilian-descended members opted for a conservative approach, more white collar and were prone to nepotism within their society. In contrast, Italians and even Sicilians who lacked those bloodlines were often blue collar, more overtly criminal. Los Angeles informant Jimmy Fratianno, a non-Sicilian of Molise descent, established himself in the underworld as a killer and from his point of view, was the measuring tool for what constitutes a true mafioso. He criticized the sons of members, believing they inherited their positions and discounting them as deadheads. Decades later in another city, Nicodemo Scarfo, a non-Sicilian of Calabrian descent contrasted himself with his former Sicilian boss, “Bruno was a racketeer, I’m a gangster.”

Indeed it might have been Salvatore Gravano, a Sicilian from a non-mafia bloodline, who moved between both factions who characterized the middle ground best: “A gangster can be a racketeer but a racketeer can never be a gangster.” Obviously he would have more in common with the ‘street guys’ of Gotti and DiCicco’s ilk than he would the mafia aristocracy of Paul Castellano and others, whose family can be traced back to the Palermitan mafia.

So the ongoing disagreement over what constitutes a mafioso largely depends on the individual’s background. Members of Sicilian origin with a long-family connection tend to be  more conservative in style, trying to cloak themselves in legitimacy. Whereas, members from non-affiliated background lacking the historical link, may be less infatuated traditions and annoyed by traditional mafioso culture, opting to publicly enjoy and show off the proceeds of being a criminal. Otherwise what’s the point?

These conflicting points of view are rooted in the criminal subcultures of Southern Italy and Sicily. The quintessential mafioso and quintessential camorrista came from different backgrounds, had different characteristics and took different approaches when it came to criminality.

John Dickie, one of the subject’s leading experts on Italian mafias, past and present, said just as much in his book, Mafia Republic: “The soberly dressed Sicilian mafioso has traditionally had a much lower public profile than the camorrista. Mafiosi are so used to infiltrating the state and the ruling elite that they prefer to blend into the background rather than strike poses of defiance against the authorities. The authorities, after all, were often on their side. Camorristi, by contrast, often played to an audience.”