diffusion of cumaean pottery

8/9/2019 Diffusion of Cumaean pottery

1/25


2/25


3/25


4/25

The Mediterranean distribution

of Pithekoussan-Cumaean

pottery in the Archaic period

Francesca Mermati

“ Pots are for people”(Boardman 2004: 150)

INTRODUCTION

Discussion of the production and circulation of Archaic Greek pottery needs to take account

of the signicant role played by the dissemination of products that, although known andstudied for some time, have in fact never been systematically analysed in their own right.This paper deals with the pottery made in the two Phlegraean centres of Pithekoussai(Ischia) and Cumae (Kyme; modern Cuma) in Campania.

In the period of extensive cultural and commercial activity between the second quarterand the end of the 8th century BC, the movement of craft products like those emanating fromthe Phlegraean area is all the more important because it is bound up with a series of humancontacts and movements that are specic to this historical juncture. To begin with, theserelationships and exchanges concern the Greeks and the indigenous communities settled

in the territories concerned; the latter were progressively more involved in the interaction,and also more distant peoples became involved – among them Etruscans, Phoenicians

and Sardinians, who had already been in touch with the Greek navigators for some time.The consequences of this distributional phenomenon were in addition so important andso wide-ranging that they cannot be fully understood unless we interpret ‘distribution’ asinvolving not only objects but also the language and the particular technical and stylisticfeatures that dene them.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PITHEKOUSSAN-CUMAEAN POTTERY

It is well enough known that the Greeks who settled on the coasts of Campania sooninitiated a complex variety of craft activities, ranging from metalworking to ceramics. Nopottery workshops earlier than the Hellenistic period have yet been identied on Ischia(Cuozzo et al. 2006: 25); they are still completely unknown at Cumae, although traces ofmetal foundries of the 6th century BC have been found there (Gasparri & Greco 2007: 107–9). Although the location of the production sites is still not clear, the quality of the items made


5/25

98 FRANCESCA MERMATI

in them leaves us in no doubt that from the outset the production was of a high quality(Greco & Mermati 2007a: 149–50).

Inevitably, the rst phase of production is largely inuenced by Euboean taste(d’Agostino 2009: 188); this is soon joined by new elements from different areas of theGreek homeland. The origin of the settlers denes the rst products, such as chevronskyphoi1 and Aetos 666 kotylai,2 along with some specimens decorated with birds.3 Thereare also patterns that characterise the specically Euboean gurative language, and thusthat of the Euboean colonists, among them those typical of the Cesnola style. Of the twocentres, these elements are so far attested only on the products of Ischia. The same is trueof hatched birds, sometimes with a broken wing, and of the so-called Black and White style,of which some fragments are now also beginning to emerge from the recent excavations atCumae (Cuozzo et al. 2006: 21–2, pl. 2.B; Gasparri & Greco 2009: 84, g. 21). In this respect,it seems reasonable to emphasise once again the considerable differences between thedocumentation from Pithekoussai and Cumae. The new explorations show an increasingchronological closeness between the two centres: characterised essentially by the samecultural background, they are beginning to look nearer also in material reality.

With the passage of time, and certainly by the last quarter of the 8 th century, the

production was enriched by the new ideas that were beginning to circulate in theMediterranean along with new products. Since the Phlegraean coast was certainly apoint of passage and exchange, new inuences were obviously greater and perceivedearlier there: this is normal in transit areas, and does not contradict the hypothesis thatthe ethnicity of the Pithekoussan community was from the outset rather more variedthan is usually believed (Ridgway 2004: 29). The new models that are accepted displaya particular preference for Corinthian products: there is a clear transition from a phase

in which Euboean material predominates over a more Corinthianising one, also involvingthe SOS amphoras and the East Greek objects that in all probability travelled with them (Bernardini & Zucca 2005: 110, esp. note 105; Mermati 2008: 245). New elements are infact added to the repertoire of shapes and decoration, such as the slender trefoil-mouthed

oinochoe with linear patterns and hourglasses on the neck, the ring vase, the cylindricalpyxis, the aryballos (initially globular, then gradually more ovoid) and the at-bottomedlekythos. The local versions of these objects are made to resemble their models moreclosely by the use of a light yellow slip, which covers not only the visible parts of theexternal surface of the vessels, but often the bottom and inside as well – perhaps byimmersing the object in the liquid; the possibility that this effect could be achieved byusing diluted Corinthian clay has often been considered (Greco & Mermati 2007a: 150,esp. note 33). It is also possible that expatriate Corinthian potters were operating in thelocal workshops (Neeft 1987: 59–65; Ridgway 2004: 23); they may well have covered thelocal clay, which was pink or light orange in colour and rich in golden mica and smallblack volcanic inclusions. Although Corinthian pottery was among the most popular at

this stage, other inuences were also available. They include Attic wares, responsible notonly for a genuine reworking of themes such as horse racing (as seen on the well knownoinochoe from the acropolis of Cumae: Greco & Mermati 2005: 587, 596–7, g. 22) andranks of armed soldiers,4 but also the use of forms such as the broad squat lekane, and ofindividual motifs such as the S braid. The role of Pithekoussai and Cumae as a culturalcrossroads is further conrmed by the arrival of pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean, which inuences the local workshops and provides them with a distinctly ‘international’tone. This is the case of the Kreis- und Wellenbandstil aryballoi and horn-shapedlekythoi, which are also more or less faithfully reproduced locally. The Red Slip plates andtripod- and footed cups are also immediately accepted and adapted (Figs 1–5).

Thanks to the acquisition of a wide variety of features from many different quarters,

Phlegraean ceramic production acquires a unique and highly original gurative and formallanguage: outside its own area, its particular character is readily identiable preciselyby the degree of hybridism that is typical of contact areas. It is probably these features,


6/25

PITHEKOUSSAN-CUMAEAN POTTERY IN THE ARCHAIC PERIOD 99

Fig. 1 Tripod cup from S. Montano necropolis, T. 545.Max diam. 10.4cm, height 5.2cm.

After Buchner & Ridgway 1993

Fig. 2 Tripod cup from S. Montano necropolis,sporadic. Max diam. 13.3cm, height 5.8cm.

After Buchner & Ridgway 1993Fig. 3 Footed cup from S. Montano necropolis,sporadic. Max diam. 11.7cm, height 8.1cm.


Fig. 4 Footed cup from S. Montano necropolis, T.271.Max diam. 12.9cm, height 9.9cm. After Buchner & Ridgway 1993

Fig. 5 Footed cup from S. Montano necropolis,T.272. Max diam. 12cm, height 6.6cm.



7/25


together with the location and the role of Pithekoussai and Cumae in Mediterranean trade,that enabled it to travel to so many (and to such diverse) cultural contexts.

THE SPREAD OF PRODUCTION AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF CONTACT

Despite the difculties, already mentioned, of locating the Phlegraean potters’ workshops,it is clear that their products were highly mobile from the earliest stages of their outputso far attested. They travelled far beyond their local area, reaching places like Carthage,Spain and the Sardinian coast. The question of the starting date of the movement ofPithekoussan-Cumaean pottery, already complex, is rendered all the more so by its intimaterelationship with the foundation dates of the two settlements. Uncertainty in this respecthas in fact given rise to a debate that has continued for many years: it concerns not onlythe exact chronology of the actual foundations, but also the question of priority of one overthe other, along with the assessment of the chronological décalage involved. This debate isfar from the objectives of this paper, and is in any case too large to be summarised here.However, as already hinted, a series of excavations has recently been carried out as part ofthe major research project known as the “Progetto Kyme”, conducted jointly since 1994 bythree Neapolitan institutions: the Università di Napoli Federico II, the Istituto UniversitarioOrientale, and the Centre Jean Bérard.5 As a result, the time lag that seemed to divide thetwo settlements now seems to be very much smaller, although it is still emphasised by many(since it has not been eradicated, and remains essential for a correct reading of the twophenomena: Ridgway 2004: 17–8; d’Agostino 2009: 187–90).

Clearly, this factor is particularly relevant to the artefacts attributable to the rst stageof production, for the obvious reason that the items made in the two sites soon become sohomogeneous that they cannot readily be identied by mere autopsy; Mössbauer analysesand optical emission spectroscopy are of very limited value in this case, since they areunable to distinguish completely between the characteristics of the clay used in the twolocations (Jones & Buxeda i Garrigós 2004: 89–92). There are accordingly problems in the

attribution of a source to the earliest material, which in turn complicates the chronologicaldiscussion; in terms of interpretation, on the other hand, there is not much point in tryingto dissect a group of items that are uniform in manufacturing technique, decorative styleand formal typology, and thus amount to an exceptionally coherent cultural expression.It is accordingly better to use the term “Pithekoussan-Cumaean” to identify the wholeproduction, even though the rst objects attributed to it should in fact be attributed mostprobably to the island settlement which preceded (if only by very little) that on the mainland.The predominantly commercial character of the production has often been stressed (Mele2003: 34; d’Agostino 2009: 190–1) and it seems logical to assume that the Greeks who rstcirculated along the Phlegraean coasts, and brought the pottery of their homeland withthem, continued, once they had settled permanently, to distribute the same products made

in their new home (Rizzo 2005: 358; Ridgway 2004: 26). As already mentioned, this pottery shows characteristics that are distinctive enough tobe immediately recognisable outside the areas of its production. Almost a century ago, infact, Gabrici could assign Cumaean production or models to some items found elsewhere inCampania, at Suessula, Capua, and in the Valle del Sarno, as well as in many parts of modernLazio, especially at Tarquinia, which developed a production that was strongly inspired byits Phlegraean counterpart (Gabrici 1913: 372–403). The oinochoai in particular are easilyidentied, for they are the most common from the outset and eventually come to characterisethe whole production. Their distribution outside Campania has resulted in the modern name“Ischia-Cumae-Tarquinia oinochoai” given to some of them (Greco & Mermati 2007b).

The initial stage of the distribution should however be dated at least to the middle of

the 8th

century BC: fragments of chevron skyphoi and Aetos 666 kotylai made in Campaniaare known not only in adjacent areas such as the Valle del Sarno,6 but also at Carthage andin Sardinia.7 Even objects in the Cesnola style, which (as we have seen) characterises the


8/25


initial phase of production, move towards the interior of Campania and arrive in the Valledel Sarno (Greco & Mermati 2006).

Of the approximately 1000 recorded units attributable to the Pithekoussan-Cumaeanproduction, 223 items (almost 25%) intact or reconstructed in their complete prole were found outside the area of production. They are distributed in Campania (162; from Avella, Calatia, Capua, Gricignano d’Aversa, Montesarchio, Naples, Nola, Pontecagnano, Valle del Sarno, Suessula), modern Lazio, i.e. Latium vetus and Southern Etruria(29; from Caere, Castel di Decima, Pratica di Mare, Rome, Satricum, Tarquinia, Tuscania),Sulcis in Sardinia (1), Gioia Tauro in Calabria (1), Bologna (1), Carthage (10), Spain(1, from Almuñecar). 18 specimens, preserved in museum collections, are of uncertainorigin (Table 1).

As we have seen, these objects belong to a time span between the middle of the 8th century BC and the late 7th, with a peak between the Late Geometric II and MiddleProtocorinthian phases (i.e. between the last quarter of the 8th century and the rst of the7th (Table 2). These data are essentially the same as those related to the activity of thePhlegraean workshops, which are most productive during this half century.

The vessels examined come mainly from funerary contexts, with only a few

fragments from settlements; in addition, some are residual and therefore out of context(Table 3). This circumstance naturally provides only partial information, relating mainlyto the management practices of indigenous and Phoenician funerary contexts; it tells usregrettably little about the presence of these objects in relation to domestic and othernon-funerary activities. We are nevertheless able to trace the movement of many shapes inthe Pithekoussan-Cumaean repertoire.

It is very signicant that Campania and modern Lazio are the destinations not only ofthe most common elements in the Pithekoussan-Cumaean production; they also attract well-dened sets of products in easily identiable groups that can in some cases be attributedto a single craftsman. For example, as already noted, the Ischia-Cumae-Tarquinia oinochoaiare mostly attested far from their place of origin: at Pontecagnano, but particularly at

Caere and Tarquinia, where a similar production is initiated from Phlegraean models (Greco & Mermati 2007b: 323–4). The same is true of the so-called “Gruppo delle Volute”aryballoi (Mermati 2012:180–1), consisting of six vases, only one from Cumae (tomb XLIV:see Gabrici 1913: 249, 320, 325, 349, pl. XLIX, 8), while the other ve found their way toCapua, Calatia,8 Suessula and Pontecagnano. One kotyle and one aryballos of the painter“dei Pesci a Tratteggio” comes from Caere (Greco & Mermati 2007b: 154–5; Sartori 2002:34–5, pl. 21, gs. 46 a–b), and the same applies to many other objects attributable todifferent groups and hands.

Campania

Obviously, however, the immediately surrounding areas are most affected by Phlegraean‘exports’. The available documentation shows that two categories are involved: items forthe funeral banquet (such as jugs, cups and plates), and those relating to the preparation ofthe body of the deceased for burial (such as bottles and small containers for unguents). Thedifferent forms evidently meet different needs, and should therefore be linked to differentphenomena of distribution.

The Valle del Sarno has the most Phlegraean ‘exports’ (41 items);9 at the time of thefoundation of Cumae, this area was inhabited by people of what is conventionally knownas the “Cultura delle Tombe a Fossa”, organised in widespread settlements based onagricultural activities (Cerchiai 1995: 26). In all probability, the exchange of productscultivated in the plain, favoured by the closeness between the two areas, was one of the mainreasons for contact with Pithekoussai and Cumae. We should not, however, underestimate

the fact that this indigenous group used vast areas as cemeteries, where no traces ofcultivation are attested. Tools appropriate to this activity are also lacking in the graves:


9/25


A* C D G J L M N O R T U V

Incerta provenienza 13 1 4

Tuscania 1

Tarquinia 4 1

Sulcis 1

Suessula 5 1 4 4 2

Satricum 2 1

Valle del Sarno (San Marzano, San Valenno Torio, Striano) 29 1 1 3 5 1 1

Roma (Esquilino) 1 1

Praca di Mare 1

Pontecagnano 25 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 2

Nola 1

Napoli (Pizzofalcone) 5 2

Montesarchio 1

Gricignano d'Aversa 2 2 3

Gioia Tauro 1

Castel di Decima 1 1

Cartagine 2 4 4

Capua 4 1 2

Calaa 8 1 1 5 3 1

Caere 11 1 3

Bologna 1

Avella 4 1

Almunecar (Spagna) 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Key: Oinochoe ; C: Jug; D: Lekythos; G: Aryballos; J: Hydria; L: Krater; M: Skyphos; N: Kotyle; O: Kantharos; R: Baby’s feeding bottle; T: Lekane; U: Plate; V: Pixis

Table 1 Quantication and distribution of items from places outside Cumae and Pithekoussai


10/25


0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

A l m u n e c a r

A v e l l a

B o l o g n a

C a e r e

C a l a 6 a

C a p u a

C a r t a g i n e

C a s t e l d i D e c i m a

G i o i a T a u r o

G r i c i g n a n o

M o n t e s a r c h i o

N a p l e s N

o l a

P o n t e c a g n a n o

P r a 6 c a d i M a r e

R o m a ( E s q u i l i n o )

V a l l e d e l S a r n o

S a t r i c u m

S u e s s u l a

S u l c i s

T a r q u i n i a

T u s c a n i a

A l m u n e c a r

A v e l l a

B o l o g n a

C a e r e

C a l a 6 a

C a

p u a

C a r t a g i n e

C a s t e l d i

D e c i m a

G i o i a T a u r o

G r i c i g n a n o

d ' A v e r s a

M o n t e s a r c h i o

N a p l e s

( P i z z o f a l c o n e )

N o l a

P o n t e c a g n a n o

P r a 6 c a d i

M a r e

R o m a

( E s q u i l i n o ) V a l l e d

e l S a r n o

S a t r i c u m

S u e s s u l a

S u l c i s

T a r q u i n i a

T u s c a n i a

M G I I - T G I

1

T G I

1

1

5

8

T G I - T G I I

1

1

T G I I

1

7

1

2

1 2

7

9

1

T G I I - P C A

1

3

1

3

3

P C A

2

4

2

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

P C A - M P C

7

1

1

2

2

2

1

M P C

1

5

4

2

3

1

1

2 1

1

1 7

1

3

2

1

M P C - T P C

3

T P C

3

T P C - C A

2

C A

1

T a b l e 2

O b j e c t s f o un d o u t s i d e C um a e an d P i t h ek o u s s ai .

Di s t r i b u t i oni nr el a t i on t o ch r on ol o gi c al ph a s e s


11/25


it is therefore conceivable that agricultural and commercial connections with the inlandpeoples were effected by water transport and that the products of such activities were alsoinvolved in trade with the coast (De Spagnolis 2001: 41).

In addition to local elements of traditional native type, the graves in the Valle del Sarnooften (and at an early stage) include a single ‘foreign’ vessel: precisely the Pithekoussan-Cumaean oinochoe in one or other of its many variations. More examples of this shape areattested than those of any other; it is clearly the form that was most welcome, judging fromthe fact that as many as 124 examples have been found outside the place of its productionduring the period under review. It is certain that non-Greek purchasers would readilyidentify this object with its provenience. It is clearly not a coincidence that, in numerical

terms, the oinochoai are followed closely by the poteria, or drinking cups: skyphos, kotyle or,less frequently, kantharos. Cups are in fact closely connected, even in colonial assemblages, with oinochoai: together, they constitute the basic drinking service. Evidently, in the eyes ofnon-Greeks, these two items encapsulate the Greek way of drinking wine.

It is in addition signicant that this area also saw the creation of the olla-hydria inthe Cesnola style, with a prole that is the result of the encounter between a typicallyindigenous form and a wholly Greek one (Fig. 6). The two forms are so different instructure and characteristics that their combination can only be the result of a specicrequest by consumers, who probably also inuenced the choice of iconography. The latteris by no means random, and assumes a knowledge of the symbolism it expresses in Greekterms. Although unusual, this is by no means accidental: it presupposes a solid and deep

relationship between this territory and the coastal communities, based on a mutual, veryold and well-established understanding. This relationship could not have been limited tomore or less regular and simple exchanges of goods: it must have covered many social andcultural aspects of the Valle del Sarno communities, with social changes that were far frominsignicant.

Another area heavily affected by the presence of Pithekoussan-Cumaean vessels isundoubtedly the whole Campanian mesogaia, the area between the rivers Volturno andClanis that is centred on the agricultural plain around Capua. Unlike the Sarno area,occupied by scattered villages, the organisation of the settlements in the mesogaia is morecomplex, and all the more so due to their location on waterways: these dene territories,and at the same time afford navigable access to the interior of the Daunian and Samnite

areas. The mesogaia, organised with more internal cohesion, in fact soon becomes a strongand well articulated partner for the newly formed Greek polis; and, unlike the Valle delSarno, it would have shared with it interests beyond those related to the supply of cereals

Table 3 Provenance contexts of the objects

804

106

41

2538

4

From grave

Perhaps from

grave

From

se7lement

From

sanctuary

Other

Uncertain


12/25


Fig. 6 Olla-hydria from San Marzano sul Sarno, T.928. Height 38.8cm. Drawing by author

(Cerchiai 1995: 26). Even in these contexts, the preferred ceramic form is the Phlegraeanoinochoe, accompanied by drinking vessels.

However, two facts call for reection. Firstly, we should note that, in addition to otherforms, the mesogaia – like Pontecagnano – receives aryballoi, which seem to be less in demandelsewhere. They are required for the preparation of corpses prior to burial: it could be thatthe Greek custom of anointing the dead resonated with the funerary rituals of Villanovantype as distinct from others – unguent vessels seem in fact to be less common in the Valledel Sarno before the 7th century. A second aspect that distinguishes the contacts between theGreek coast and the mesogaia from other areas affected by this trade – and that is also found atPontecagnano – is the greater presence of Corinthian pottery, mostly aryballoi and cups. Thisis perhaps attributable to the higher volume of exchanges between these two areas.

Pontecagnano has yielded 40 ceramic items that can be dened as Phlegraean. Although this centre is not, as already mentioned, the only place of Villanovan origin

affected signicantly by these contacts, it is certainly the best known and most signicantfor a number of reasons. The relationship here seems to start a little later, in LateGeometric II, reaching a peak in the Middle Protocorinthian phase. Here too the most


13/25


common forms are oinochoai and drinking cups, with the addition of plates and aryballoi.Interestingly, both Pontecagnano and the Valle del Sarno receive a very specic form thatlooks like a baby’s feeding bottle,10 which is one of the most typically Euboean featuresof the Pithekoussan-Cumaean repertoire. The dynamics of trade between Pontecagnanoand the Phlegraean coast were not stimulated by the same mechanisms that affected theadmittedly receptive Valle del Sarno: this is due to cultural differences at the point ofreception (Fig. 7). In fact, the whole Pontecagnano context is different, and much morecomplex, with links (like the Greek communities) both with the coast and the hinterland.The settlement complexes, more centralised and structured, were in direct contact withthe peoples of the interior, and the Ionian coast through the Vallo di Diano; the Sele river

afforded access to the Poseidonia plain, and thence to the sea. For Pontecagnano, in fact,contact with the Greeks was not limited to the importation of pottery: it extended toa marked and progressive degree of Hellenisation, which led to the acquisition of typicallyEuboean habits and rituals, such as cremation burial in stone cists containing the burntbones of the deceased wrapped in a cloth, covered with a mound, and indicated by a ring ofstones (Cerchiai 1995: 67).

What also seems to characterise Pontecagnano more strongly than the other Campaniansettlements is the precocious contact and use of the Greek decorative language: this is mostprobably due to the activity of Greek potters (some of them perhaps Pithekoussan) workinglocally. The close relationship between the indigenous centre and the Phlegraean settlementsis in fact attested by the movement of craftsmen who seem to arrive at Pontecagnano from

Pithekoussai or Cumae, and create objects such as the ollas in tombs 3892 and 7765 (BailoModesti & Gastaldi 1999: 20-21, 66–7, 73, tab. 5.2–3, with previous bibliography) which should

Fig. 7 Different directions of spread of Pithekoussan-Cumaean pottery in Campania


14/25


be ascribed to the same group of hybrid products and mixed traditions as the olla-hydria fromthe Valle del Sarno. However, they are perhaps more signicant, amounting as they do to a version of a local form, usually realised in red impasto, but decorated and made of puriedclay. They are thus not simple imports, but rather the result of re-working carried out in loco.This suggests that a substantial degree of freedom of execution was left to the craftsman, which in turn implies a fundamental willingness to accept products carrying a language that,though foreign, had nevertheless been known for some time and was therefore well accepted(Fig. 8). We should not forget other objects, dating from the previous quarter century, whichhave the same mixed characteristics: when published, they were attributed to craftsmen who were probably Euboean (Bailo Modesti & Gastaldi 1999: 19–21).

Etruria

Moving further north, to the Etruscan area, Caere is the centre that currently seems to bemost affected by nds of Pithekoussan-Cumaean pottery (15 items). The items concernedare mostly oinochoai, which began to arrive no earlier than the Early Protocorinthian phaseto establish themselves here too by Middle Protocorinthian. It is through them that wecan follow the northward movement of Phlegraean products, which gradually diminishesuntil it is reduced to the few examples found to the north of Caere itself. It now seems clearthat these vessels were probably following the same route as other goods – presumably metal(Gasparri & Greco 2007: 324).

As is well known, however, such routes are always two-way: phenomena of acculturationare dynamic, and inevitably lead to the counter-acculturation of the interlocutor in termsof what is most functional for the receiving culture (Bernardini & Zucca 2005: 18). In the

Fig. 8 Different patterns of spread of Pithekoussan-Cumaean pottery in Campania


15/25


areas affected by the contact, a real contestarises between societies that have much incommon but are nevertheless “disiguales”(in Aubet’s happy phrase, referring to thecontacts that led to the Orientalising period:

Aubet 2005). After all, both sides are beingstimulated by contact with something new;and it is often possible to feel a real anxietyto manage the new element by adapting itto the aesthetic sense and background ofthe recipient.

Following contact with the indigenouspeoples, even Greek vases of puried claybegan to grow appendages and attachmentsthat were, and continued to be, much more

Fig. 9 Fragment of plate from Cumae, Forum. Drawing by the author

appropriate to impasto vessels (Greco & Mermati 2005: 585, 590–2, nos 1–2, gs. 1–4).Meanwhile, the local impasto repertoire soon begins to feature cups – skyphoi and kotylai

with unequivocally Greek proles – decorated with dog-tooth and circle motifs (realised in‘false cord’) that are clearly intended to provide the ‘feel’ of their Greek counterparts.

Etruria is massively affected by this phenomenon, and in a particular way. The spreadof the Pithekoussan-Cumaean production here takes on a different appearance, which isalso and above all based on the transmission of forms and decorative elements. Ratherthan simply acquiring items (although they do also arrive), these centres appear tobe interested in the formal and stylistic vocabulary that they carry. Among the areasthat import Pithekoussan-Cumaean vessels, Etruria clearly does most to transform theprototypes. Although this phenomenon is also visible in Campania, rst in impasto shapesand then applied to wheel-made pottery, it is the workshops of Caere and Tarquinia thatdo more to reinterpret the models: a process that gives rise to products that are decidedly

‘different’. Thus the oinochoe, for example, while retaining its characteristic Phlegraeanprole, is covered with different patterns and details. The Ischia-Cumae-Tarquinia shbecome large and exaggerated: covered with scales, they lose their linearity and stylisationto become real, live sh, which move in a world that is more animated and no longerGeometric – there are even palm trees there, which are indeed the hallmark of the repertoirethat is typical of the Pittore delle Palme (Martelli 2000: 17, gs. 23–4). The traditionalEuboean water birds with long neck and broken wing were also acquired and reprocessed,to emerge as sinuous Etruscan herons; in the process they lose all their original features,and become a typical feature of the repertoire in their new home. At this point, it is worthpointing out that the Phlegraean centres were perhaps involved in the development of thismotif to a greater extent than was previously thought. A sounding in front of the Tempio

con Portico at Cumae has yielded a stray fragment of the carinated bowl of a plate, probably with at lip, dating to the Middle Protocorinthian period (Fig. 9). It is made of Phlegraeanclay and decorated with bands on the inside, with the most signicant decoration on theoutside: between two bands of colour, we see the almost intact prole (with the exception ofthe tail) of an unmistakably Etruscan heron. This unique fragment underlines the massivescale and signicance of the inuence that was being exercised; it was followed by veryspecic developments, that it is too simplistic to dene as inspirations, or even imitations.In sum, it is by no means an exaggeration to say that Etruria imports the style rather thanobjects.

In addition, we must not forget that the presence of authentic ateliers founded byPithekoussans in Etruria has long been postulated; according to Martelli, they were staffedby local artisans, and accordingly became progressively more original (Martelli 2000: 254).The two stages of their production are exemplied by two much discussed objects. The rstis the ‘barrel lekythos’ from Bisenzio, which nds its closest parallel in the similar lekythos


16/25


from grave 984 at Pithekoussai, dated 750–725 BC (Coldstream 2000: 97–8, gs. 3–5, withprevious bibliography). Given the presence of Euboean patterns on this Etruscan vase, andthe peculiar elaboration of the form from common Eastern and subsequently Hellenisedmodels (Coldstream 2000: 93, note 25), it seems reasonable to assume that the vase wasmade by a Pithekoussan craftsman working in Etruria. The second is the famous oinochoein the British Museum (Martelli 2000: 13, 80, 253–4, g. 25), datable 700–675 BC: rstconsidered Etruscan, then probably Cumaean, and then attributed to an undoubtedlyEtruscan workshop (that of the so-called ‘Pittore dei Cavalli Allungati’) managed by a potterof Phlegraean origin. In addition, recent references to the material from the necropolis ofSan Montano on Ischia should prompt us to proceed with caution in the interpretationof the material from Pithekoussai itself. In fact, although we may be naturally inclinedto attribute it all automatically to Greek or colonial Greek hands, we should not excludedifferent and less obvious possibilities, like the one recently proposed by Hussein: shesuggests that the oinochoe with Metopengattung decoration from Pithekoussai grave 652is an Etruscan import from Vulci or Tarquinia (Hussein 2009). Although this hypothesisneeds verication,11 it nevertheless underlines the need for a more careful assessment ofthe complex realities that are emerging in this area: they can be very much more dynamic,

articulate and unpredictable than we have been led to believe.

Phoenicio-Punic contexts

A different approach is needed to account for Pithekoussan-Cumaean items found onPhoenician sites and on sites with Phoenician connections (Almuñecar, Carthage and, asmentioned above, Sulcis). The movement of these specimens is in fact dictated by differentcultural mechanisms. For example, we lose the combination of pouring vessels with poteria, which is no longer perceived as carrying a specic value: the social management of wine within these communities, the Oriental way of drinking and the resulting social potentialare well known.12 The Greek object often reverts to being simple foreign domestic pottery,

sometimes casually owned by individuals engaged in commercial activities, and thereforebringing with them materials of different origin. Thus in Almuñecar, a Pithekoussan cupis accompanied, in a typically Phoenician assemblage, by a kotyle of the same type, but ofCorinthian manufacture: the difference was clearly not perceived by the owner, as both were Greek cups (Fig. 10). The Pithekoussan cup of Almuñecar, however, is a unique case,since signicant commercial dynamics between the Phlegraean coast and southern Spainare not hitherto well attested (Mermati 2008). In addition, the tomb in question is oneof a number that can be attributed to a social group that is strongly characterised by thedesire to distinguish itself within its community and emphasise its own powerful status(Delgado & Ferrer 2007: 45–7); it could thus be that the data is even more interesting andspecic, with a signicance that would elude us if we were not aware of the precise context

Fig. 10 Pithekoussan-Cumaean kotyle from Almuñecar, T. 19B. Height unknown. Photograph from Mermati 2008, drawing from Pelliccer Catalán 1963


17/25


– in the funerary furnishings of this nucleus, it has to be appreciated that items related tothe local area (as attested in the social structure of the settlement) are rmly excluded forreasons related to the message of power and status that is being transmitted. That boththe foreign cups are on the contrary included among the vessels used for ritual drinking inthe funeral ceremony leads us to believe that they were considered ‘acceptable’ enough tobe used to express a highly distinctive ritual purpose by an Eastern-inuenced group. TheGreek cups are, then, not regarded as ‘strange’, or imbued with a signicance that goesbeyond the mere fact that they are foreign.

The exchanges with Carthage seem to be rather more evident. The attribution of some ofthe items concerned to Phlegraean manufacture has recently been questioned (the reasonsfor this, based on autopsy, are set out by Kourou 2002: 95 ff. and summarised most recently byd’Agostino (2009)). Boardman sees them as Greek (Euboean) pots produced in local clay: healso mentions that some of the Greek pottery of Carthage seems to have been produced onIschia (Boardman 2006a: 199). We should, however, bear in mind that the social and culturalcharacteristics of Carthage at this time mean that the use of local clay is not enough to deny

a Pithekoussan hand in the creation of the vases in question. Accordingly, and in view of thefact that the new interpretation is based mainly on autopsy, we prefer here to consider the

previous assignment to Pithekoussan workshops as valid.13 It is thus possible to attest inCarthage the presence of at least thirty Pithekoussan-Cumaean vessels, intact and more orless fragmentary. It is also worth noting that for Vegas, too, the most frequently importedpottery at Carthage is Pithekoussan-Cumaean (Vegas 1998: 134).14 If it is also true that therst Pithekoussai was on the coast of Tunisia, a mixed composition of the social structurein the area seems entirely reasonable (Boardman 2006a: 197–9): this could account for theactivity of Campanian potters working in Carthage for resident Greek (perhaps Euboean)users (Boardman 2004: 156, 158). The city seems to be one of the favoured Phoenicianinterlocutors for the Greek communities of coastal Campania. It is also interesting tonote that the preferred object in the area is the cup (skyphos or kotyle), in sharp contrast with the decided preference, noted above, for the oinochoe in the burial areas of modern

Lazio and Campania. This fact, taking into account the differences (unrelated to funeralfunction) between the contexts concerned, along with their early date, must be includedin the much wider and more complex discussion of early Archaic trade in Euboean potteryin the Mediterranean. We must not forget that at a very early stage, the main elements inGreek pottery distribution were in fact simply Euboean drinking cups, rst with pendantsemicircles, and then with chevrons and birds. This should obviously be interpreted as theresult of articulated trading mechanisms, in which the Euboeans were among the mostmobile operators in this period and the previous one, fully integrated in the kind of globaltrade that has correctly been called “pan-Mediterranean” (Rathje 1990: 281). They arecertainly not ‘phantoms’, as has been controversially suggested – assuming a differencein identity between the carriers and their cargoes – in order to reduce the importance of

the phenomenon (Ridgway 2004: 23–25, contra S.P. Morris and J.K. Papadopoulos). By themid-8th century BC, they were clearly coming to terms with the new situation that cameabout as a result of the colonial phenomenon, and the emergence of a powerful new businesspartner: Corinth. It is clear that the role of Euboeans continued to be crucial in conveyingnew products. Clearly, if Corinth soon begins to be one of the places more in contact withCarthage for trade, the role of Pithekoussai and Cumae must have been as mediators betweenthe two geographical and cultural areas (Ridgway 2004: 25, note 31). 15 In conclusion, theGreek pottery of Carthage probably went rst to Cumae and Pithekoussai; and Carthagethen became a mediator with the Iberian coast. The same must have happened in reverseorder for the Hispanic products found at Pithekoussai; this would also explain why most ofthe Pithekoussan and Cumaean Red Slip ware, imported and imitated, seems to be Punic.

The situation of the contacts between the coast of Greek Campania and Sardinia is morecomplex than it appears at rst sight. In fact, compared with a clear Phoenician involvementin trade between the Greeks and the island, we have to bear in mind that the Euboean


18/25


navigators had contacts with the Sardinian coast from a very early stage, which saw theminvolved in diverse trade routes that joined East and West via intermediate stages. Indigenoussettlements such as S. Imbenia have yielded very early Euboean material, and it is possiblethat these Greek traders would use Pithekoussai as a way station, proceeding from there toareas where metals could be found, and where Phoenicians were also present for the samereason. At least in some contexts, it is thus unnecessary to postulate a Phoenician mediationin trade (Boardman 2006a: 198), which – at such an early stage – must have been much freerand more uid than we used to believe. It would certainly have been favoured by strongpersonal relationships between the individuals involved, which means that transactionscould also take different forms that were more personal than simple purchase (Bernardini& Zucca 2005: 64–5). Nor should we neglect the recipients’ perception of Phoenician andGreek products: they were seen as foreign, and therefore symbols of different customs andhabits. The Phoenician and Greek forms, which constitute real wine services, are indeedoften associated with containers such as amphoras; it cannot be excluded that the actualproduct was purchased along with the items appropriate to its consumption (for whichlocal populations in all probability had different customs; Bernardini & Zucca 2005: 96–7). Along with the products that were acquired came the knowledge of what to do with them,

and hence participation in an exotic and attractive cultural context.In Sardinia, apart from the fragments mentioned above, there is one special item:

a globular pyxis from Sulcis (Fig. 11). It is in fact a true pastiche, combining a traditionalGreek shape (perhaps modied by Italic experience) with traditional Euboean motifs likefacing birds with hatched bodies along with a series of small Corinthian birds. Like theolla-hydria discussed above, this is a hybrid Greek vase that has a function in the rituals ofthe place where it was found. Unlike the hydria, however, it could not have been made to aspecic order: in view of the different cultural milieu in which it was found, the object doesnot appear to be the bearer of a specic symbolism, but rather the result of a casual mixtureof elements. The pyxis also functions as an urn for a child burial in the Sulcis tophet. Thepresence of the cover is functional in the rite, too: such urns are in fact usually covered by

a plate (Gras et al. 2000: 227). The vessel is therefore being used with no regard for its speciccharacteristics of origin and design. Like the cups of Almuñecar, in fact, it was not perceived

Fig. 11 Pithekoussan-Cumaean pyxis from Sulcis, tophet. Height 16cm. Photograph by the author, drawing from Tronchetti 1979


19/25


as alien: so it could be used for a wholly Phoenician ritual purpose, carried out in a mannertypical of the place where it was found. It is interesting to consider the choices that lay behindthis isolated case; and it is also worth remembering that Sulcis was a mixed community, withartisans who could exchange knowledge, and others who could perhaps exchange objects as well (Bernardini & Zucca 2005: 99–104).16 Dare we imagine that the nature of the grave inquestion was chosen by a Greek married to a local woman, who decided to bury his son withthe ritual that belonged to his wife’s culture? – the strong link between the female componentof society and funerary rituals is well known (Delgado & Ferrer 2007: 43, 58–9). Naturally,this is only a suggestion. Given, however, the similarity between this vase and another madein Caere (Rizzo 1989: 29 ff., gs 58–60), we may surmise that the particular form of this vaseis due to Etruscan mediation: which in turn implies a Greek–Etruscan–Phoenician ‘down theline’ progress from Ischia to Caere, and thence to Sulcis.

The dynamics of the contact are once again in both directions. From contact with residentsand Phoenician partners, the Phlegraean repertoire receives innovations that we may in partstill miss, but that become concrete in new shapes used for the rst time. We may perhapssee a reminiscence of the Euboean pendant semicircle plate, an item widely circulated in theMediterranean, known to and liked by the Phoenicians and the Iberians; it is barely present in

the Tyrrhenian area, but widespread in Tyre (Botto 2008: 128; d’Agostino 2009: 182). However,it may perhaps be connected with the acquisition of a new way of containing food (Coldstream1998; Boardman 2004: 150–1), following contact with people of different habits and tastes.The appearance of the footed cups and tripods might lead us to think along the same lines:

they show different practices in wine-making, clearly of Oriental origin (Botto 2000: 67; VivesFerrándiz Sánchez 2005: 1355, 1357; Bartoloni 2005: 379).

Naturally enough, the new forms are soon translated into the Greek decorative language,and then covered with patterns and decoration that match the local production; they are thusrid of their unpainted or monochrome models, which (although sometimes quite faithfullyreproduced) are soon forgotten by potters, who do not seem to be content with areas lled bya single colour. At this point, therefore, the plates often have, as well as a fully painted side,

a more dynamic side that is lled with geometric and other patterns (Fig. 12). The fact that themore decorated side is usually the outer one suggests that the new ornamental style is relatedto the use of the object: at this stage, in fact, it probably also begins to acquire an ornamental value, given the Phlegraean habit of hanging plates on walls by means of two holes (anotherinnovation). It has however been suggested that the holes served to x the plate as a kind oflid on a container of perishable material (Boardman 2004: 156) – but it should be noted thatthe holes are also found on miniaturised shapes, and (up to the 6 th century) on pottery withlinear patterns (Gasparri & Greco 2009: 56, gs 7–8). In sum, this ceramic type is absorbed

Fig. 12 Pithekoussan-Cumaean plates:

a) Mazzola, Pithekoussai; maximum diameter 12.5 cm;b) Cumae, necropolis, T. 64; maximum diameter 21cm;c) Pontecagnano, T. 243, maximum diameter not known

Photographs by the author


20/25


by the Phlegraean repertoire, to the point that it gave rise to productions in an authenticCumaean style, originating from features that were alien in origin. Finally, sporadic andisolated objects, such as an aryballos found in the Certosa cemetery at Bologna (Fig. 13),17 andan oinochoe from Gioia Tauro (Fig. 14),18 should be related to possibly random movements ofrare objects, associated with a single individual rather than with a real commercial current;their context is difcult to dene, and will remain so unless more nds materialise in theselocations (Fig. 15).

CONCLUSION

To follow Boardman’s idea, people buy – and then copy or reinterpret – a foreign object when its use for a particular purpose has become clear, or at least familiar after repeated

Fig. 13 Pithekoussan-Cumaean aryballos fromBologna, Certosa necropolis. Height 8.6cm.

Photograph from Martel li 1981–82

Fig. 14 Pithekoussan-Cumaean oinochoe fromGioia Tauro. Height not known

Photograph from Neeft Archive

use (Boardman 2004: 149–50). The rst case may have affected local communities. TheGreek vase is initially seen as being valuable not only because it is foreign, but also becauseit is connected with a practice – the symposium – and therefore carries a strong cultural value. In addition, this is the same mechanism that underlies the acquisition of variousother objects, such as cheese-graters, that in local communities are seen as expressions ofan attractive heroic world, of which they want to show both their knowledge and to someextent even their membership (Ridgway 2009: 791). These communities, once they hadacquired and absorbed a certain way of drinking wine, made it the focal moment of a banquetin order to signify that they belonged to an elite group (Rathje 1990: 283): the activity thuscame to symbolise a new way of managing social activity, to the point that it was thoughtappropriate and practical to produce their own vessels for the purpose. By decorating the vessels in question in their own way, their participation was brought closer to their ownaesthetic taste. Phoenicians and Greeks instead responded to a different stimulus. Havingtraded the pottery of others, even after having used it (as must have been the case of mixed


21/25


Fig. 15 Diffusion routes of Pithekoussan-Cumaean pottery in the Mediterranean

families or multi-ethnic settlements), it will at a certain point have seemed natural to usethe pottery of the interlocutor all the time, if it was practical to do so. There may havebeen an authentic exchange of shapes for the same function, or the acquisition of shapesrequired by an acquisition of function.

Otherwise, it will have been more convenient to create hybrids that would respondto both needs. This may be the case not only for the Phlegraean plates with at rim andHellenised patterns, but for all the ‘mixed’ productions, combining shapes and decorationsfrom different cultural backgrounds that were adapted now to one and then to anotheruser – as in the case of the Toscanos and Sulcis productions (Boardman 2004: 158 ;Bernardini & Zucca 2005: 99–104).

In sum, if objects of Greek type were produced in a foreign land mainly for Greek usersas a result of seemingly insurmountable differences in customs and traditions (Boardman2006b: 287), this only serves to further conrm the extreme mobility of people in thischronological stage, and the multi-ethnic appearance that certain places assumed. And of

nowhere is this more true than Pithekoussai and Cumae.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank the late David Ridgway for his help and advice during the preparation of these pages; in particular,he claried some aspects of the Carthaginian objects treated here, and shared his thoughts on this and onother matters with me. My gratitude goes also to Andres M. Adroher Auroux, who, with his usual kindness and

goodwill, shared some of his ideas with me, claried some of my perplexities, and discussed a number of pointsconcerning the methodological approach to the topic. Last but not least, I am very grateful indeed to the Editorsof the Accordia Research Papers for their kindness and practical help.


22/25


NOTES

1 At Pithekoussai, sporadic examples from the San Montano necropolis and the Stipe dei Cavalli; at Cumae,in the fortications ( emplekton). Coldstream 1995: note 21, with all previous bibliography; d’Agostino1994–1995: 44, n. 1, pl. XXXIV; Cuozzo et al. 2006: 154, pl. 2.A.4, g. 45, with previous bibliography.

2 At Pithekoussai, from the San Montano necropolis (Tombs 161, 229*, 469, 490, 550, 600; sporadic nos. 5/4-10), and the Mazzola site: Buchner & Ridgway 1993: 204, 287, 470, 493, 547, 589, 705–6 with pls. 63, 138,145, 164, 174, 246–7, CXXXIX, CLXVII, CCXI; Buchner 1972: pl. XCII, 1; Klein 1972: 38, g. 1.

3 Pithekoussai, from the San Montano necropolis: Coldstream 1982: 26, note 34; d’Agostino 1989: 69, g. 2;1990: 76-77; 1992: 53-54, g. 1.

4 Particularly fragments from the Mazzola area of Pithekoussai: Buchner 1972: 371; Klein 1972: 38, g. 2;Coldstream 2000: 92–3, 97, g. 2.

5 Federico II: Gasparri 1998; 1999; Gasparri & Greco 2007; 2009. Istituto Universitario Orientale: d’Agostino,D’Andrea 2002; d’Agostino & Fratta 1995; 2000; d’Agostino et al. 2005; 2006. Centre Jean Bérard: Bats et al. 2009; Brun et al. 2000; 2006; Brun & Munzi 2007.

6 One from tomb 126: d’Agostino 1982: 57, pl. 9, g. 2; 1999: pl. II, b.7 Chevron skyphos: from Sardinia, a fragment from S. Antioco. Aetos 666 kotylai: from Carthage, two

matching fragments of rim, one fragment of rim with connection to the handle, one fragment of rim, twomatching fragments of a vessel wall with handle (which may or may not be part of an Aetos 666 kotyle);from Sardinia, fragments from Sulcis and S. Imbenia, and three more from S. Antioco. Bernardini & Zucca2005 : 99, g. 7.6B, with previous bibliography; Docter & Niemeyer 1994: 105–6, n. 04, 08, 09, 10 g. 3, and4.a, with previous bibliography; Niemeyer et al. 1996: 50, n. 8; Ridgway 2000: 100.

8 Ferrante 2006: 118, n. 68, pl. IX, 42, with previous bibliography; Neeft 1987: note 185, no. 6. In addition tothe piece published by Ferrante, Neeft cites at least three more similar examples.

9 It should be noted at this point that very little is published about the necropoleis of this area. Most of thespecimens examined were studied in the deposits of Palazzo Capua in Sarno, which constitute only a smallfraction of the objects found. The frequency of these vessels in the small sample in question is indicativeof a much more substantial phenomenon, that slowly, and thanks to work in progress, is gradually takingshape.

10 The object, inv. no. 67258, is unpublished; it is currently on display in the National Museum of the AgroPicentino, Pontecagnano.

11 David Ridgway informed me that the denition of this piece by the late Giorgio Buchner and himself as“Euboean?” was based on the appearance of the clay rather than on “disbelief that imitations of Greek

pottery could show up in a predominantly Greek setting” (Hussein 2009: 76).12 Indeed, forms related to drinking wine in a particular way pass from the Phoenician ambiente to the

Greek-Campanian area: this is the case of the tripod- and footed cups (perhaps required for the addition ofspices to the drink?).

13 David Ridgway was of the same opinion; and we also agreed that physical analyses (Mössbauer?) arerequired.

14 Boardman very clearly relates the ethnicity of the potter to the interpretation of cultural phenomenaassociated with the production of ceramics (Boardman 2004: 155).

15 Moreover, given the recent discovery of a locally made Aetos 666 cup at Cumae, it is now necessary tocombine the two centres in the trade from at least the mid-8th century.

16 It is not impossible that there was a ‘koine of craftsmanship’ involving Sulcis and Pithekoussai.17 Tomb 169: Martelli 1981–1982: 73–8, tabs. I-II; Neeft 1987: 64–5, n. 6.18 Unpublished. Reggio Calabria n.inv. 34199; Neeft archive. The photograph, kindly given to me by Dr Neeft

(to whom I owe my knowledge of this piece), is marked “Canerossi, S 27”, which may refer to the provenienceof the piece.

Aubet, M. A. 2005. El Orientalizante, un fenomenode contacto entre sociedad disiguales. In Jiménez Avila, F. J. & Pérez, S. C. (eds), Actas del III Simposio Internacional de Arqueologia de Mérida, Protohistoria del Mediterráneo Occidental, vol. I: 117–28. ConsejoSuperior de Investigaciones Cientícas, Institutode Arqueología, Mérida

Bailo Modesti, G. & Gastaldi, P. (eds) 1999. Prima di Pithecusa. I più antichi materiali greci del Golfo di Salerno.Catalogo della mostra, 29 aprile 1999, PontecagnanoFaiano, Museo Nazionale dell’Agro Picentino, Naples

Bartoloni, G. 2005. Vino fenicio in coppe greche? InHerring, E., Lemos, I., Lo Schiavo, F., Vagnetti, L.,Whitehouse, R. & Wilkins, J. (eds) Across Frontiers.

Etruscans, Greeks, Phoenicians & Cypriots. Studies in honour of David Ridgway and Francesca Romana Serra Ridgway:375–82. Accordia Research Institute, London

Bats, M., Brun, J.-P. & Munzi, P.. 2009. Aimargini della colonia greca di Kyme. In Atti delquarantottesimo Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia,Taranto 2008: 523–52. Istituto per la Storia el’Archeologia della Magna Grecia, Taranto

BIBLIOGRAPHY


23/25


Bernardini, P. & Zucca, R. (eds) 2005. Il Mediterraneo di Herakles, Atti del Convegno di Studi, Sassari 26marzo-Oristano 27-28 marzo 2004. Carocci, Rome

Boardman, J. 2004. Copies of pottery: by and for whom? In Lomas, K. (ed.), Greek identity in the western Mediterranean. Papers in honour of Brian Shefton: 149–62. Brill, Leiden

Boardman, J. 2006a. Early Euboean settlements inthe Carthage area. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 25:195–200

Boardman, J. 2006b. Al Mina: Notes and Queries. Ancient West and East, 4.2: 278–91

Botto, M. 2000. Tripodi siriani e tripodi fenicidal Latium Vetus e dall’Etruria Meridionale. InBartoloni, P. & Campanella, L. (eds), La ceramica

fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche, confronti, Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano,Sant’Antioco, 19-21 settembre 1997: 63–98. ConsiglioNazionale di Ricerca, Rome

Botto, M. 2008. I primi contatti fra i Fenici e le

popolazioni dell’Italia peninsulare. In Celestino,S., Rafael, N., & Armada, X. – L. (eds), Contacto

cultural entre el Mediterráneo y el Atlántico (siglos XII-VIII ane). La precolonización a debate: 123–48. ConsejoSuperior de Investigaciones Cientícas, Madrid

Brun, J. P., Munzi, P., Stefaniuk, L., Morhange, C.,Pessel, M. & Revel, A. 2000 (2003). Alla ricercadel porto di Cuma. Relazione preliminare sugliscavi del Centre Jean Bérard. AION. Annali di

Archeologia e Storia Antica,7: 131–55Brun, J. P. & Munzi, P. 2006. Cumes. Mélanges de

l’École Française de Rome. Antiquité, 118: 342–9.Brun, J. P. & Munzi, P. 2007. Cumes. Mélanges de

l’École Française de Rome. Antiquité, 119, 1: 287–99Buchner, G. 1972. Pithecusa: scavi e scoperte 1966-71. Atti dell’XI Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia,Taranto 1971: 361–74. Arte tipograca, Naples

Buchner, G. & Ridgway, D. 1993. Pithekoussai I. La necropoli: tombe 1-723 scavate dal 1952 al 1961 con appendici di C. F. Russo e F. De Salvia e contributi di J.Close-Brooks, F. R. Serra Ridgway e altri. Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei, Serie Monograca, vol. 4(testo,tavole e piante). G. Bretschneider, Rome

Cerchiai, L. 1995. I Campani. Longanesi, MilanColdstream, J. N. 1982. Some problems of eighth-

century pottery in the West, seen from the Greekangle. In La ceramique grecque ou de tradition grecque auVIIIe siècle en Italie centrale et meridionale, Cahiers duCentre Jean Bérard, 3: 21–43. Naples

Coldstream, J. N. 1995. Euboean Geometricimports from the acropolis of Pithekoussai. Annual

of the British School at Athens, 90: 251–67Coldstream, J. N. 1998. Drinking and eating in

Euboean Pithekoussai. In Batz, M. & d’Agostino,B. (eds), Euboica: L’Eubea e la presenza Euboica inCalcidica e in Occidente. Annali di Archeologia eStoria Antica, Quaderno 12: 303–10. IstitutoUniversitario Orientale, Naples

Coldstream, J. N. 2000. Some unusual Geometricscenes from Euboean Pithekoussai. In Damarato –

Studi di antichità classica offerti a Paola Pelagatti: 92–8.Electa, Milan

Cuozzo, M., D’Agostino, D. & Del Verne, L. 2006.Cuma. Le forticazioni. 2. I materiali dai terrapieni arcaici. Annali di Archeologia e Storia Antica, Quaderno 16.Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples

d’Agostino, B. 1979. Le necropoli protostorichedella Valle del Sarno: la ceramica di tipo greco.

AION. Annali di Archeologia e Storia Antica, 1: 59–75d’Agostino, B. 1982. La ceramica greca o di

tradizione greca nell’VIII sec. in Italia Meridionale.In La ceramique grecque ou de tradition grecque au VIIIe

siècle en Italie centrale et meridionale, Cahiers duCentre Jean Bérard, 3: 55–67. Naples

d’Agostino, B. 1989. Rapporti tra l’Italia meridionalee l’Egeo nell’VIII sec. a.C. Atti del II Congresso

Internazionale Etrusco, Firenze 1985: 63–78. Romed’Agostino, B. 1990. Relations between Campania,

Southern Etruria and the Aegean in the eighthcentury BC. In Descœudres, J. P. (ed.), GreekColonists and Native Populations: 73–85. HumanitiesResearch Centre, Canberra & Oxford University

Press, Oxford & New Yorkd’Agostino, B. 1992. Prima della colonizzazione.

I tempi e i modi nella ripresa del rapporto tra

i greci e il mondo tirrenico. Atti e Memorie Società Magna Grecia, 3rd series, 1: 51–60

d’Agostino, B. 1994–1995. La Stipe dei Cavalli diPithecusa. Atti e Memorie Società Magna Grecia, 3rdseries, 3: 9–108

d’Agostino, B. 1999. Pithecusa e Cuma tra Grecie indigeni. La Colonisation Grecque en MéditerranéeOccidentale, Collection de l’École Française de Rome,251: 51–62. École Française de Rome, Rome

d’Agostino, B. 2009. Pithecusae e Cuma all’alba

della colonizzazione. In Atti del quarantottesimoConvegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 2008:169–96. Istituto per la Storia e l’Archeologia dellaMagna Grecia, Taranto

d’Agostino, B. & d’Andrea, A. 2002. Cuma. Nuove forme di intervento per lo studio del sito antico. Atti della giornata di Studio – Napoli 12 febbraio 2001. IstitutoUniversitario Orientale, Naples

d’Agostino, B. & Fratta, F. 1995. Gli scavi dell’IUO aCuma negli anni 1994–95. AION. Annali di Archeologia

e Storia Antica, NS2: 201–9d’Agostino, B. & Fratta, F. 2000. Cuma; il Progetto

Kyme. Gli scavi dell’Istituto UniversitarioOrientale di Napoli (1994–1996). Le forticazionisettentrionali. In Gialanella, C. (ed.), Nova Antiqua

Phlegraea: nuovi tesori archeologici dai Campi Flegrei:92–3. Electa, Naples

d’Agostino, B., Fratta, F. & Malpede, V. 2005. Cuma. Le forticazioni. 1. Lo scavo 1994-2002. AION. Annalidi Archeologia e Storia Antica. Quaderni 15.Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples

De Spagnolis, M. 2001. Pompei e la Valle del Sarno in epoca preromana: la cultura delle tombe a fossa. “L’Erma”di Bretschneider, Rome

Delgado, A. & Ferrer, M. 2007. Alimentos para losmuertos: mujeres, rituales funerarios e identidadescoloniales. In Interpreting Household Practices, Treballs

d’Arqueologia 13: 29–68


24/25


Docter, R. F. & Niemeyer, H. G. 1994. Pithekoussai:The Carthaginian connection. On thearchaeological evidence of Euboeo-Phoenicianpartnership in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. Ind’Agostino, B. & Ridgway, D., APOIKIA. Scritti in

onore di Giorgio Buchner. AION. Annali di Archeologia eStoria Antica, NS 1: 101–16

Ferrante, S. 2006. Materiali dalla necropoli diCalatia: la ceramica di epoca orientalizzante edarcaica. In Catalogo del Museo Civico di Maddaloni:103–50. Avellino

Gabrici, E. 1913. Cuma. Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei. 22. Milan

Gasparri, C. 1998. Gli scavi dell’Università degli Studidi Napoli Federico II nel Foro di Cuma. Università degliStudi di Napoli, Notiziario 3 (18/19, n. s.): 77–88

Gasparri, C. 1999. Nuove indagini nel Foro diCuma. In Quilici, L. & Quilici, S. (eds), La Forma

della Città e del Territorio. Esperienze metodologiche e risultati a confronto, Atti incontro di Studio, S.

Maria Capua Vetere 27–28 Novembre 1988: 131–7.‘L’ Erma di Bretschneider, RomeGasparri, C. & Greco, G. (eds) 2007. Cuma. Il Foro.

Scavi dell’Università di Napoli Federico II. 2000-2001, Atti giornata di studi, Napoli 22 giugno 2002.Quaderni del Centro Studi Magna Grecia, 5. Naus,Pozzuoli (Naples)

Gasparri, C. & Greco, G. (eds) 2009. Cuma. Indagini archeologiche e nuove scoperte, Atti giornata di studi,Napoli 12 dicembre 2007. Naus, Pozzuoli (Naples)

Gassner, V. & Sauer, R. 2002. Archaeometricalcharacterisation and provenance studies on potteryfound at Velia (Southern Italy). In Erzsébet, J. &

Biró, K. T. (eds), Archaeometry 98, Proceedings of the 31th Symposium Budapest, April 26 - May 3 1998, 547–54. BAR International Series 1043 (III), Oxford

Gras, M., Rouillard, P. & Teixidor, J. 2000. L’universo fenicio. Einaudi, Turin

Greco, G. & Mermati, F. 2005. Cuma in Opicia:per una revisione delle evidenze in età arcaica. InMele, A., Napoletano, M. L., Visconti, A. (eds), Eoli

ed Eolide tra madrepatria e colonie: 581–98. Luciano,Naples

Greco, G. & Mermati, F. 2006. Pithecusa, Cuma e la valle del Sarno. Intorno ad un corredo funerario dallanecropoli di San Marzano sul Sarno. In Herring, E.,Lemos, I., Lo Schiavo, F., Vagnetti, L., Whitehouse,

R. & Wilkins, J. (eds) Across Frontiers. Etruscans, Greeks, Phoenicians & Cypriots. Studies in honour of David Ridgway and Francesca Romana Serra Ridgway: 179–214. AccordiaResearch Institute, London

Greco, G. & Mermati, F. 2007a. Cuma, indagininell’area del Foro: le produzioni ceramiche dailivelli arcaici. In Frère, D. (ed.), Ceramiche ni a decoro

subgeometrico del VI secolo a.C. in Etruria Meridionale e inCampania: 143–62. École française de Rome, Rome

Greco, G. & Mermati, F. 2007b. Le ceramichearcaiche: problemi di lettura e di analisi. InGasparri, C. & Greco, G. (eds), Cuma. Il Foro. Scavi

dell’Università di Napoli Federico II, 2001-2002, Atti

della giornata di Studi Napoli 22 giugno 2002: 311–36. Quaderni del Centro Studi Magna Grecia, 5.Naus, Pozzuoli (Naples)

Hussein, A. M. 2009. Imports, imitation andimmigrants: a note on Pithekoussai. In Counts, D.B. & Tuck, A. S. (eds), Koiné. Mediterranean studies in

honour of R. Ross Holloway: 75–7. Joukowsky InstitutePublication 1, Oxford/Oakville, CT

Jones, R. & Buxeda i Garrigós, J. 2004. The identityof early Greek pottery in Italy and Spain: an

archeometric perspective. In Lomas, K. (ed.), Greek identity in the western Mediterranean. Papers in honour of Brian Shefton: 83–114. Brill, Leiden

Klein, J. 1972. A Greek Metalworking Quarter. Expedition, 14, 2: 34–9

Kourou, N. 2002. Phéniciens, Chypriotes, Eubéenset la fondation de Carthage. Cahier du Centre

d’Etudes Chypriotes, 32: 79–114Martelli, M. 1981–82. Un aryballos cumano-

pithecusano da Bologna. Studi Urbinati (B), 3, 55: 73–8Martelli, M. (ed.) 2000. La ceramica degli Etruschi.

Istituto Geograco de Agostini, NovaraMele, A. 2003. Le anomalie di Pithecusa.

Documentazioni archeologiche e tradizioniletterarie. Incidenza dell’Antico, 1: 13–39

Mermati, F. 2008. Ceramica pithecusano-cumanain Andalusia? In Adroher, A. M. & Blánquez, J. (eds),

Atti del I Congreso Internacional de Arqueología Ibérica Bastetana: 239–51. Serie Varia de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Comunicaciones, 9. Madrid

Mermati, F. 2012. Cuma: le ceramiche arcaiche. La produzione pithecusano-cumana tra la metà dell’VIII el’inizio del VI secolo a.C. Naus, Pozzuoli (Naples)

Neeft, C. W. 1987. Protocorinthian Subgeometric Aryballoi. Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam

Niemeyer, H. G. Rindelaub, A. & Schmidt, K. 1996.

Karthago: die alte Handelsmetropole am Mittelmeer : eine archäologische Grabung. Hamburger Museum für Archäologie und die Geschichte Harburgs (Helms-Museum), Hamburg

Pellegrini, G. 1912. Catalogo dei vasi greci dipinti dellenecropoli felsinee. Comune di Bologna, Bologna

Pelliccer Catalàn, M., 1963. Ein altpunischesGräberfeld bei Almuñécar (Prov. Granada).

Madrider Mitteilungen, 4: 9–38Rathje, A. 1990. The adoption of the Homeric

banquet in central Italy in the OrientalizingPeriod. In Murray, O. (ed.), Sympotica. ASymposium on the Symposion: 279–88. Clarendon

Press, Oxford.Ridgway, D. 2000. Riessioni sull’orizzonteprecoloniale (IX-VIII sec. a.C.). In Atti deltrentanovesimo Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia,Taranto 1999: 91–109. Taranto

Ridgway, D. 2004. Euboeans and others alongthe Tyrrhenian seaboard in the 8th century BC.In Lomas, K. (ed.), Greek identity in the Western

Mediterranean. Papers in honour of Brian Shefton:15–30. Brill, Leiden

Ridgway, D. 2009. La coppa di Nestore e unagrattugia da Vulci. In Bruni, S. (ed.), Etruria e Italia

preromana. Studi in onore di Giovannangelo Camporeale, vol. 2: 789–91. Fabrizio Serra, Pisa & Rome

Rizzo, M. A. 1989. Ceramica etrusco-geometrica daCaere. Miscellanea Ceretana, I: 9–39


25/25


Rizzo, M. A. 2005. Ceramica geometrica grecae di tipo greco da Cerveteri (dalla necropolidel Laghetto e dall’abitato). In Bartoloni, G.& Delpino, F. (eds), Oriente e Occidente: metodi e

discipline a confronto. Riessioni sulla cronologia dell’età

del ferro in Italia, Atti dell’Incontro di studi, Roma 30-31 ottobre 2003: 333–78. Istituti Editoriali e Poligraci

Internazionali, PisaSartori, A. 2002. Caere. Nuovi documenti dalla Necropoli

della Banditaccia. Tombe B25, B26, B36, B69. Comunedi Milano, Milan

Tronchetti, C. 1979. Per la cronologia del tophet diSant’Antioco. Rivista di Studi Fenici, 7: 201–5

Vegas, M. 1998. La ceramica de importacion enCartago durante el periodo arcaico. Cuadernos de

Arqueología Mediterránea, 4: 133–45 Vives Ferrándiz Sánchez, J. 2005. Trípodes fenicios

entre el Ebro y el Segura : nuevas perspectivas deestudio. In Celestino Pérez, S. & Jiménez Avila, F. J. (eds), El periodo orientalizante: actas del III Simposio Internacional de arquelogía de Mérida : protohistoria del Mediterráneo occidental: 1351–61. Consejo Superiorde Investigaciones Cientícas, Mérida

diffusion of cumaean pottery

Documents