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 significant role played by the dissemination of products that, although known and
studied 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 quarter
and the end of the 8th century BC, the movement of craft products like those emanating from
the Phlegraean area is all the more important because it is bound up with a series of human
contacts and movements that are specific to this historical juncture. To begin with, these
relationships 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 and
so wide-ranging that they cannot be fully understood unless we interpret distribution as
involving not only objects but also the language and the particular technical and stylistic
features that define them.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PITHEKOUSSAN-CUMAEAN POTTERY

It is well enough known that the Greeks who settled on the coasts of Campania soon
initiated a complex variety of craft activities, ranging from metalworking to ceramics. No
pottery workshops earlier than the Hellenistic period have yet been identified on Ischia
(Cuozzo et al. 2006: 25); they are still completely unknown at Cumae, although traces of
metal foundries of the 6th century BC have been found there (Gasparri & Greco 2007: 1079).
Although the location of the production sites is still not clear, the quality of the items made

98 FRANCESCA MERMATI

in them leaves us in no doubt that from the outset the production was of a high quality
(Greco & Mermati 2007a: 14950).
Inevitably, the first phase of production is largely influenced by Euboean taste
(dAgostino 2009: 188); this is soon joined by new elements from different areas of the
Greek homeland. The origin of the settlers defines the first products, such as chevron
skyphoi1 and Aetos 666 kotylai,2 along with some specimens decorated with birds.3 There
are also patterns that characterise the specifically Euboean figurative language, and thus
that of the Euboean colonists, among them those typical of the Cesnola style. Of the two
centres, these elements are so far attested only on the products of Ischia. The same is true
of 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 at
Cumae (Cuozzo et al. 2006: 212, pl. 2.B; Gasparri & Greco 2009: 84, fig. 21). In this respect,
it seems reasonable to emphasise once again the considerable differences between the
documentation from Pithekoussai and Cumae. The new explorations show an increasing
chronological closeness between the two centres: characterised essentially by the same
cultural background, they are beginning to look nearer also in material reality.
With the passage of time, and certainly by the last quarter of the 8th century, the
production was enriched by the new ideas that were beginning to circulate in the
Mediterranean along with new products. Since the Phlegraean coast was certainly a
point of passage and exchange, new influences were obviously greater and perceived
earlier there: this is normal in transit areas, and does not contradict the hypothesis that
the ethnicity of the Pithekoussan community was from the outset rather more varied
than is usually believed (Ridgway 2004: 29). The new models that are accepted display
a particular preference for Corinthian products: there is a clear transition from a phase
in which Euboean material predominates over a more Corinthianising one, also involving
the 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 in
fact 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 cylindrical
pyxis, the aryballos (initially globular, then gradually more ovoid) and the flat-bottomed
lekythos. The local versions of these objects are made to resemble their models more
closely by the use of a light yellow slip, which covers not only the visible parts of the
external surface of the vessels, but often the bottom and inside as well perhaps by
immersing the object in the liquid; the possibility that this effect could be achieved by
using 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 the
local workshops (Neeft 1987: 5965; Ridgway 2004: 23); they may well have covered the
local clay, which was pink or light orange in colour and rich in golden mica and small
black volcanic inclusions. Although Corinthian pottery was among the most popular at
this stage, other influences were also available. They include Attic wares, responsible not
only for a genuine reworking of themes such as horse racing (as seen on the well known
oinochoe from the acropolis of Cumae: Greco & Mermati 2005: 587, 5967, fig. 22) and
ranks of armed soldiers,4 but also the use of forms such as the broad squat lekane, and of
individual motifs such as the S braid. The role of Pithekoussai and Cumae as a cultural
crossroads is further confirmed by the arrival of pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean,
which influences the local workshops and provides them with a distinctly international
tone. This is the case of the Kreis- und Wellenbandstil aryballoi and horn-shaped
lekythoi, which are also more or less faithfully reproduced locally. The Red Slip plates and
tripod- and footed cups are also immediately accepted and adapted (Figs 15).
Thanks to the acquisition of a wide variety of features from many different quarters,
Phlegraean ceramic production acquires a unique and highly original figurative and formal
language: outside its own area, its particular character is readily identifiable precisely
by the degree of hybridism that is typical of contact areas. It is probably these features,

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.
Fig. 3 Footed cup from S. Montano necropolis,
sporadic. Max diam. 11.7cm, height 8.1cm.

After Buchner & Ridgway 1993

After Buchner & Ridgway 1993

Fig. 5 Footed cup from S. Montano necropolis,

T.272. Max diam. 12cm, height 6.6cm.
After Buchner & Ridgway 1993

Fig. 4 Footed cup from S. Montano necropolis, T.271.

Max diam. 12.9cm, height 9.9cm. After Buchner & Ridgway 1993

100 FRANCESCA MERMATI

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 difficulties, already mentioned, of locating the Phlegraean potters workshops,
it is clear that their products were highly mobile from the earliest stages of their output
so 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 of
Pithekoussan-Cumaean pottery, already complex, is rendered all the more so by its intimate
relationship with the foundation dates of the two settlements. Uncertainty in this respect
has in fact given rise to a debate that has continued for many years: it concerns not only
the exact chronology of the actual foundations, but also the question of priority of one over
the other, along with the assessment of the chronological dcalage involved. This debate is
far 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 of
the major research project known as the Progetto Kyme, conducted jointly since 1994 by
three Neapolitan institutions: the Universit di Napoli Federico II, the Istituto Universitario
Orientale, and the Centre Jean Brard.5 As a result, the time lag that seemed to divide the
two 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 two
phenomena: Ridgway 2004: 178; dAgostino 2009: 18790).
Clearly, this factor is particularly relevant to the artefacts attributable to the first stage
of production, for the obvious reason that the items made in the two sites soon become so
homogeneous that they cannot readily be identified by mere autopsy; Mssbauer analyses
and optical emission spectroscopy are of very limited value in this case, since they are
unable to distinguish completely between the characteristics of the clay used in the two
locations (Jones & Buxeda i Garrigs 2004: 8992). There are accordingly problems in the
attribution of a source to the earliest material, which in turn complicates the chronological
discussion; in terms of interpretation, on the other hand, there is not much point in trying
to dissect a group of items that are uniform in manufacturing technique, decorative style
and formal typology, and thus amount to an exceptionally coherent cultural expression.
It is accordingly better to use the term Pithekoussan-Cumaean to identify the whole
production, even though the first objects attributed to it should in fact be attributed most
probably 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 (Mele
2003: 34; dAgostino 2009: 1901) and it seems logical to assume that the Greeks who first
circulated along the Phlegraean coasts, and brought the pottery of their homeland with
them, 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 to
be immediately recognisable outside the areas of its production. Almost a century ago, in
fact, Gabrici could assign Cumaean production or models to some items found elsewhere in
Campania, at Suessula, Capua, and in the Valle del Sarno, as well as in many parts of modern
Lazio, especially at Tarquinia, which developed a production that was strongly inspired by
its Phlegraean counterpart (Gabrici 1913: 372403). The oinochoai in particular are easily
identified, for they are the most common from the outset and eventually come to characterise
the 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 Campania
are known not only in adjacent areas such as the Valle del Sarno,6 but also at Carthage and
in Sardinia.7 Even objects in the Cesnola style, which (as we have seen) characterises the

PITHEKOUSSAN-CUMAEAN POTTERY IN THE ARCHAIC PERIOD 101

initial phase of production, move towards the interior of Campania and arrive in the Valle
del Sarno (Greco & Mermati 2006).
Of the approximately 1000 recorded units attributable to the Pithekoussan-Cumaean
production, 223 items (almost 25%) intact or reconstructed in their complete profile
were found outside the area of production. They are distributed in Campania (162; from
Avella, Calatia, Capua, Gricignano dAversa, 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 Almuecar). 18 specimens, preserved in museum collections, are of uncertain
origin (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 Middle
Protocorinthian phases (i.e. between the last quarter of the 8th century and the first of the
7th (Table 2). These data are essentially the same as those related to the activity of the
Phlegraean 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 mainly
to the management practices of indigenous and Phoenician funerary contexts; it tells us
regrettably little about the presence of these objects in relation to domestic and other
non-funerary activities. We are nevertheless able to trace the movement of many shapes in
the Pithekoussan-Cumaean repertoire.
It is very significant that Campania and modern Lazio are the destinations not only of
the most common elements in the Pithekoussan-Cumaean production; they also attract
well-defined sets of products in easily identifiable groups that can in some cases be attributed
to a single craftsman. For example, as already noted, the Ischia-Cumae-Tarquinia oinochoai
are 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: 3234). The same is true of the so-called Gruppo delle Volute
aryballoi (Mermati 2012:1801), consisting of six vases, only one from Cumae (tomb XLIV:
see Gabrici 1913: 249, 320, 325, 349, pl. XLIX, 8), while the other five found their way to
Capua, Calatia,8 Suessula and Pontecagnano. One kotyle and one aryballos of the painter
dei Pesci a Tratteggio comes from Caere (Greco & Mermati 2007b: 1545; Sartori 2002:
345, pl. 21, figs. 46 ab), and the same applies to many other objects attributable to
different 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 for
the funeral banquet (such as jugs, cups and plates), and those relating to the preparation of
the body of the deceased for burial (such as bottles and small containers for unguents). The
different forms evidently meet different needs, and should therefore be linked to different
phenomena of distribution.
The Valle del Sarno has the most Phlegraean exports (41 items);9 at the time of the
foundation of Cumae, this area was inhabited by people of what is conventionally known
as the Cultura delle Tombe a Fossa, organised in widespread settlements based on
agricultural activities (Cerchiai 1995: 26). In all probability, the exchange of products
cultivated in the plain, favoured by the closeness between the two areas, was one of the main
reasons 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 of
cultivation are attested. Tools appropriate to this activity are also lacking in the graves:

102 FRANCESCA MERMATI

120

100

80

60

40

20

A*

Incerta provenienza

13

Tuscania

Tarquinia

Sulcis

Suessula

Satricum

Valle del Sarno (San Marzano, San ValenJno Torio, Striano)

29

Roma (Esquilino)

PraJca di Mare

Pontecagnano

25

Nola

Napoli (Pizzofalcone)

1
1

Montesarchio

Gricignano d'Aversa

Gioia Tauro

Castel di Decima

Cartagine

Capua

CalaJa

Caere

11

Bologna

1
4
1
1

4
2

Avella

Almunecar (Spagna)

1
1

Key: Oinochoe; C: Jug; D: Lekythos; G: Aryballos; J: Hydria; L: Krater; M: Skyphos; N: Kotyle; O: Kantharos; R: Babys feeding bottle;

T: Lekane; U: Plate; V: Pixis

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

PITHEKOUSSAN-CUMAEAN POTTERY IN THE ARCHAIC PERIOD 103

Tuscania
Tarquinia
Sulcis
Suessula
Satricum
Valle del Sarno
Roma (Esquilino)
Pra6ca di Mare
Pontecagnano
Nola
Naples
Montesarchio
Gricignano
Gioia Tauro
Castel di Decima
Cartagine
Capua
Cala6a
Caere
Bologna
Avella
Almunecar

Capua

Cartagine

10
Cala6a

Caere

Bologna

Avella

Almunecar

TG I

MG II-TG I

Castel di
Decima

20
Gioia Tauro

Gricignano
Naples
Montesarchio
d'Aversa
(Pizzofalcone)

Nola

30
Pontecagnano

12

3
2

21

2
2

1
4

7
6

TG II

TG I-TG II

TG II-PCA
PCA
PCA-MPC
MPC

TPC

MPC-TPC

CA

TPC-CA

Pra6ca di
Mare

40

Roma
Valle del Sarno Satricum
(Esquilino)

17

Table 2 Objects found outside Cumae and Pithekoussai. Distribution in relation to chronological phases

Suessula

Sulcis

Tarquinia

50

Tuscania

104 FRANCESCA MERMATI

25

38

41
From grave
106

Perhaps from
grave
From
se7lement
From
sanctuary
Other
804

Uncertain

Table 3 Provenance contexts of the objects

it is therefore conceivable that agricultural and commercial connections with the inland
peoples were effected by water transport and that the products of such activities were also
involved in trade with the coast (De Spagnolis 2001: 41).
In addition to local elements of traditional native type, the graves in the Valle del Sarno
often (and at an early stage) include a single foreign vessel: precisely the PithekoussanCumaean oinochoe in one or other of its many variations. More examples of this shape are
attested than those of any other; it is clearly the form that was most welcome, judging from
the fact that as many as 124 examples have been found outside the place of its production
during the period under review. It is certain that non-Greek purchasers would readily
identify 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 of
non-Greeks, these two items encapsulate the Greek way of drinking wine.
It is in addition significant that this area also saw the creation of the olla-hydria in
the Cesnola style, with a profile that is the result of the encounter between a typically
indigenous form and a wholly Greek one (Fig. 6). The two forms are so different in
structure and characteristics that their combination can only be the result of a specific
request by consumers, who probably also influenced the choice of iconography. The latter
is by no means random, and assumes a knowledge of the symbolism it expresses in Greek
terms. 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, very
old and well-established understanding. This relationship could not have been limited to
more or less regular and simple exchanges of goods: it must have covered many social and
cultural aspects of the Valle del Sarno communities, with social changes that were far from
insignificant.
Another area heavily affected by the presence of Pithekoussan-Cumaean vessels is
undoubtedly the whole Campanian mesogaia, the area between the rivers Volturno and
Clanis 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 more
complex, and all the more so due to their location on waterways: these define 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 strong
and well articulated partner for the newly formed Greek polis; and, unlike the Valle del
Sarno, it would have shared with it interests beyond those related to the supply of cereals

PITHEKOUSSAN-CUMAEAN POTTERY IN THE ARCHAIC PERIOD 105

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 Phlegraean
oinochoe, accompanied by drinking vessels.
However, two facts call for reflection. Firstly, we should note that, in addition to other
forms, the mesogaia like Pontecagnano receives aryballoi, which seem to be less in demand
elsewhere. They are required for the preparation of corpses prior to burial: it could be that
the Greek custom of anointing the dead resonated with the funerary rituals of Villanovan
type as distinct from others unguent vessels seem in fact to be less common in the Valle
del Sarno before the 7th century. A second aspect that distinguishes the contacts between the
Greek coast and the mesogaia from other areas affected by this trade and that is also found at
Pontecagnano is the greater presence of Corinthian pottery, mostly aryballoi and cups. This
is perhaps attributable to the higher volume of exchanges between these two areas.
Pontecagnano has yielded 40 ceramic items that can be defined as Phlegraean.
Although this centre is not, as already mentioned, the only place of Villanovan origin
affected significantly by these contacts, it is certainly the best known and most significant
for a number of reasons. The relationship here seems to start a little later, in Late
Geometric II, reaching a peak in the Middle Protocorinthian phase. Here too the most

106 FRANCESCA MERMATI

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

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 specific form that
looks like a babys feeding bottle,10 which is one of the most typically Euboean features
of the Pithekoussan-Cumaean repertoire. The dynamics of trade between Pontecagnano
and the Phlegraean coast were not stimulated by the same mechanisms that affected the
admittedly receptive Valle del Sarno: this is due to cultural differences at the point of
reception (Fig. 7). In fact, the whole Pontecagnano context is different, and much more
complex, with links (like the Greek communities) both with the coast and the hinterland.
The settlement complexes, more centralised and structured, were in direct contact with
the 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 to
a marked and progressive degree of Hellenisation, which led to the acquisition of typically
Euboean habits and rituals, such as cremation burial in stone cists containing the burnt
bones of the deceased wrapped in a cloth, covered with a mound, and indicated by a ring of
stones (Cerchiai 1995: 67).
What also seems to characterise Pontecagnano more strongly than the other Campanian
settlements is the precocious contact and use of the Greek decorative language: this is most
probably due to the activity of Greek potters (some of them perhaps Pithekoussan) working
locally. The close relationship between the indigenous centre and the Phlegraean settlements
is 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 (Bailo
Modesti & Gastaldi 1999: 20-21, 667, 73, tab. 5.23, with previous bibliography) which should

PITHEKOUSSAN-CUMAEAN POTTERY IN THE ARCHAIC PERIOD 107

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

be ascribed to the same group of hybrid products and mixed traditions as the olla-hydria from
the Valle del Sarno. However, they are perhaps more significant, amounting as they do to a
version of a local form, usually realised in red impasto, but decorated and made of purified
clay. 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, which
have the same mixed characteristics: when published, they were attributed to craftsmen who
were probably Euboean (Bailo Modesti & Gastaldi 1999: 1921).
Etruria
Moving further north, to the Etruscan area, Caere is the centre that currently seems to be
most affected by finds of Pithekoussan-Cumaean pottery (15 items). The items concerned
are mostly oinochoai, which began to arrive no earlier than the Early Protocorinthian phase
to establish themselves here too by Middle Protocorinthian. It is through them that we
can follow the northward movement of Phlegraean products, which gradually diminishes
until it is reduced to the few examples found to the north of Caere itself. It now seems clear
that 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 acculturation
are dynamic, and inevitably lead to the counter-acculturation of the interlocutor in terms
of what is most functional for the receiving culture (Bernardini & Zucca 2005: 18). In the

108 FRANCESCA MERMATI

areas affected by the contact, a real contest

arises between societies that have much in
common but are nevertheless disiguales
(in Aubets happy phrase, referring to the
contacts that led to the Orientalising period:
Aubet 2005). After all, both sides are being
stimulated by contact with something new;
and it is often possible to feel a real anxiety
to manage the new element by adapting it
to the aesthetic sense and background of
the recipient.
Following contact with the indigenous
peoples, even Greek vases of purified clay
Fig. 9 Fragment of plate from Cumae, Forum.
began to grow appendages and attachments

Drawing by the author
that were, and continued to be, much more
appropriate to impasto vessels (Greco & Mermati 2005: 585, 5902, nos 12, figs. 14).
Meanwhile, the local impasto repertoire soon begins to feature cups skyphoi and kotylai
with unequivocally Greek profiles 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 spread
of the Pithekoussan-Cumaean production here takes on a different appearance, which is
also and above all based on the transmission of forms and decorative elements. Rather
than simply acquiring items (although they do also arrive), these centres appear to
be interested in the formal and stylistic vocabulary that they carry. Among the areas
that import Pithekoussan-Cumaean vessels, Etruria clearly does most to transform the
prototypes. Although this phenomenon is also visible in Campania, first in impasto shapes
and then applied to wheel-made pottery, it is the workshops of Caere and Tarquinia that
do 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 Phlegraean
profile, is covered with different patterns and details. The Ischia-Cumae-Tarquinia fish
become large and exaggerated: covered with scales, they lose their linearity and stylisation
to become real, live fish, which move in a world that is more animated and no longer
Geometric there are even palm trees there, which are indeed the hallmark of the repertoire
that is typical of the Pittore delle Palme (Martelli 2000: 17, figs. 234). The traditional
Euboean 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 worth
pointing out that the Phlegraean centres were perhaps involved in the development of this
motif 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 flat lip, dating to the Middle Protocorinthian period (Fig. 9). It is made of Phlegraean
clay and decorated with bands on the inside, with the most significant decoration on the
outside: between two bands of colour, we see the almost intact profile (with the exception of
the tail) of an unmistakably Etruscan heron. This unique fragment underlines the massive
scale and significance of the influence that was being exercised; it was followed by very
specific developments, that it is too simplistic to define as inspirations, or even imitations.
In sum, it is by no means an exaggeration to say that Etruria imports the style rather than
objects.
In addition, we must not forget that the presence of authentic ateliers founded by
Pithekoussans in Etruria has long been postulated; according to Martelli, they were staffed
by local artisans, and accordingly became progressively more original (Martelli 2000: 254).
The two stages of their production are exemplified by two much discussed objects. The first
is the barrel lekythos from Bisenzio, which finds its closest parallel in the similar lekythos

PITHEKOUSSAN-CUMAEAN POTTERY IN THE ARCHAIC PERIOD 109

from grave 984 at Pithekoussai, dated 750725 BC (Coldstream 2000: 978, figs. 35, with
previous bibliography). Given the presence of Euboean patterns on this Etruscan vase, and
the peculiar elaboration of the form from common Eastern and subsequently Hellenised
models (Coldstream 2000: 93, note 25), it seems reasonable to assume that the vase was
made by a Pithekoussan craftsman working in Etruria. The second is the famous oinochoe
in the British Museum (Martelli 2000: 13, 80, 2534, fig. 25), datable 700675 BC: first
considered Etruscan, then probably Cumaean, and then attributed to an undoubtedly
Etruscan workshop (that of the so-called Pittore dei Cavalli Allungati) managed by a potter
of Phlegraean origin. In addition, recent references to the material from the necropolis of
San Montano on Ischia should prompt us to proceed with caution in the interpretation
of the material from Pithekoussai itself. In fact, although we may be naturally inclined
to attribute it all automatically to Greek or colonial Greek hands, we should not exclude
different and less obvious possibilities, like the one recently proposed by Hussein: she
suggests that the oinochoe with Metopengattung decoration from Pithekoussai grave 652
is an Etruscan import from Vulci or Tarquinia (Hussein 2009). Although this hypothesis
needs verification,11 it nevertheless underlines the need for a more careful assessment of
the 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 on
Phoenician sites and on sites with Phoenician connections (Almuecar, Carthage and, as
mentioned above, Sulcis). The movement of these specimens is in fact dictated by different
cultural mechanisms. For example, we lose the combination of pouring vessels with poteria,
which is no longer perceived as carrying a specific value: the social management of wine
within these communities, the Oriental way of drinking and the resulting social potential
are well known.12 The Greek object often reverts to being simple foreign domestic pottery,
sometimes casually owned by individuals engaged in commercial activities, and therefore
bringing with them materials of different origin. Thus in Almuecar, a Pithekoussan cup
is accompanied, in a typically Phoenician assemblage, by a kotyle of the same type, but of
Corinthian manufacture: the difference was clearly not perceived by the owner, as both
were Greek cups (Fig. 10). The Pithekoussan cup of Almuecar, however, is a unique case,
since significant commercial dynamics between the Phlegraean coast and southern Spain
are not hitherto well attested (Mermati 2008). In addition, the tomb in question is one
of a number that can be attributed to a social group that is strongly characterised by the
desire to distinguish itself within its community and emphasise its own powerful status
(Delgado & Ferrer 2007: 457); it could thus be that the data is even more interesting and
specific, with a significance that would elude us if we were not aware of the precise context

Fig. 10 Pithekoussan-Cumaean kotyle from Almuecar, T. 19B. Height unknown.

Photograph from Mermati 2008, drawing from Pelliccer Cataln 1963

110 FRANCESCA MERMATI

in the funerary furnishings of this nucleus, it has to be appreciated that items related to
the local area (as attested in the social structure of the settlement) are firmly excluded for
reasons related to the message of power and status that is being transmitted. That both
the foreign cups are on the contrary included among the vessels used for ritual drinking in
the funeral ceremony leads us to believe that they were considered acceptable enough to
be used to express a highly distinctive ritual purpose by an Eastern-influenced group. The
Greek cups are, then, not regarded as strange, or imbued with a significance that goes
beyond the mere fact that they are foreign.
The exchanges with Carthage seem to be rather more evident. The attribution of some of
the items concerned to Phlegraean manufacture has recently been questioned (the reasons
for this, based on autopsy, are set out by Kourou 2002: 95 ff. and summarised most recently by
dAgostino (2009)). Boardman sees them as Greek (Euboean) pots produced in local clay: he
also mentions that some of the Greek pottery of Carthage seems to have been produced on
Ischia (Boardman 2006a: 199). We should, however, bear in mind that the social and cultural
characteristics 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 the
fact 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 in
Carthage the presence of at least thirty Pithekoussan-Cumaean vessels, intact and more or
less fragmentary. It is also worth noting that for Vegas, too, the most frequently imported
pottery at Carthage is Pithekoussan-Cumaean (Vegas 1998: 134).14 If it is also true that the
first Pithekoussai was on the coast of Tunisia, a mixed composition of the social structure
in the area seems entirely reasonable (Boardman 2006a: 1979): this could account for the
activity 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 Phoenician
interlocutors for the Greek communities of coastal Campania. It is also interesting to
note 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 funeral
function) between the contexts concerned, along with their early date, must be included
in the much wider and more complex discussion of early Archaic trade in Euboean pottery
in the Mediterranean. We must not forget that at a very early stage, the main elements in
Greek pottery distribution were in fact simply Euboean drinking cups, first with pendant
semicircles, and then with chevrons and birds. This should obviously be interpreted as the
result of articulated trading mechanisms, in which the Euboeans were among the most
mobile operators in this period and the previous one, fully integrated in the kind of global
trade that has correctly been called pan-Mediterranean (Rathje 1990: 281). They are
certainly not phantoms, as has been controversially suggested assuming a difference
in identity between the carriers and their cargoes in order to reduce the importance of
the phenomenon (Ridgway 2004: 2325, contra S.P. Morris and J.K. Papadopoulos). By the
mid-8th century BC, they were clearly coming to terms with the new situation that came
about as a result of the colonial phenomenon, and the emergence of a powerful new business
partner: Corinth. It is clear that the role of Euboeans continued to be crucial in conveying
new products. Clearly, if Corinth soon begins to be one of the places more in contact with
Carthage for trade, the role of Pithekoussai and Cumae must have been as mediators between
the two geographical and cultural areas (Ridgway 2004: 25, note 31).15 In conclusion, the
Greek pottery of Carthage probably went first to Cumae and Pithekoussai; and Carthage
then became a mediator with the Iberian coast. The same must have happened in reverse
order for the Hispanic products found at Pithekoussai; this would also explain why most of
the 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 more
complex than it appears at first sight. In fact, compared with a clear Phoenician involvement
in trade between the Greeks and the island, we have to bear in mind that the Euboean

PITHEKOUSSAN-CUMAEAN POTTERY IN THE ARCHAIC PERIOD 111

navigators had contacts with the Sardinian coast from a very early stage, which saw them
involved in diverse trade routes that joined East and West via intermediate stages. Indigenous
settlements such as S. Imbenia have yielded very early Euboean material, and it is possible
that these Greek traders would use Pithekoussai as a way station, proceeding from there to
areas where metals could be found, and where Phoenicians were also present for the same
reason. At least in some contexts, it is thus unnecessary to postulate a Phoenician mediation
in trade (Boardman 2006a: 198), which at such an early stage must have been much freer
and more fluid than we used to believe. It would certainly have been favoured by strong
personal relationships between the individuals involved, which means that transactions
could also take different forms that were more personal than simple purchase (Bernardini
& Zucca 2005: 645). Nor should we neglect the recipients perception of Phoenician and
Greek products: they were seen as foreign, and therefore symbols of different customs and
habits. The Phoenician and Greek forms, which constitute real wine services, are indeed
often associated with containers such as amphoras; it cannot be excluded that the actual
product was purchased along with the items appropriate to its consumption (for which
local populations in all probability had different customs; Bernardini & Zucca 2005: 967).
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 traditional
Greek shape (perhaps modified by Italic experience) with traditional Euboean motifs like
facing birds with hatched bodies along with a series of small Corinthian birds. Like the
olla-hydria discussed above, this is a hybrid Greek vase that has a function in the rituals of
the place where it was found. Unlike the hydria, however, it could not have been made to a
specific order: in view of the different cultural milieu in which it was found, the object does
not appear to be the bearer of a specific symbolism, but rather the result of a casual mixture
of elements. The pyxis also functions as an urn for a child burial in the Sulcis tophet. The
presence 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 specific
characteristics of origin and design. Like the cups of Almuecar, in fact, it was not perceived

Fig. 11 Pithekoussan-Cumaean pyxis from Sulcis, tophet. Height 16cm.

Photograph by the author, drawing from Tronchetti 1979

112 FRANCESCA MERMATI

as alien: so it could be used for a wholly Phoenician ritual purpose, carried out in a manner
typical of the place where it was found. It is interesting to consider the choices that lay behind
this isolated case; and it is also worth remembering that Sulcis was a mixed community, with
artisans who could exchange knowledge, and others who could perhaps exchange objects as
well (Bernardini & Zucca 2005: 99104).16 Dare we imagine that the nature of the grave in
question was chosen by a Greek married to a local woman, who decided to bury his son with
the ritual that belonged to his wifes culture? the strong link between the female component
of society and funerary rituals is well known (Delgado & Ferrer 2007: 43, 589). Naturally,
this is only a suggestion. Given, however, the similarity between this vase and another made
in Caere (Rizzo 1989: 29 ff., figs 5860), we may surmise that the particular form of this vase
is due to Etruscan mediation: which in turn implies a GreekEtruscanPhoenician down the
line progress from Ischia to Caere, and thence to Sulcis.
The dynamics of the contact are once again in both directions. From contact with residents
and Phoenician partners, the Phlegraean repertoire receives innovations that we may in part
still miss, but that become concrete in new shapes used for the first time. We may perhaps
see a reminiscence of the Euboean pendant semicircle plate, an item widely circulated in the
Mediterranean, 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; dAgostino 2009: 182). However,
it may perhaps be connected with the acquisition of a new way of containing food (Coldstream
1998; Boardman 2004: 1501), 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; Vives
Ferrndiz Snchez 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 thus
rid of their unpainted or monochrome models, which (although sometimes quite faithfully
reproduced) are soon forgotten by potters, who do not seem to be content with areas filled by
a single colour. At this point, therefore, the plates often have, as well as a fully painted side,
a more dynamic side that is filled with geometric and other patterns (Fig. 12). The fact that the
more decorated side is usually the outer one suggests that the new ornamental style is related
to 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 (another
innovation). It has however been suggested that the holes served to fix the plate as a kind of
lid on a container of perishable material (Boardman 2004: 156) but it should be noted that
the holes are also found on miniaturised shapes, and (up to the 6th century) on pottery with
linear patterns (Gasparri & Greco 2009: 56, figs 78). 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

PITHEKOUSSAN-CUMAEAN POTTERY IN THE ARCHAIC PERIOD 113

by the Phlegraean repertoire, to the point that it gave rise to productions in an authentic
Cumaean style, originating from features that were alien in origin. Finally, sporadic and
isolated objects, such as an aryballos found in the Certosa cemetery at Bologna (Fig. 13),17 and
an oinochoe from Gioia Tauro (Fig. 14),18 should be related to possibly random movements of
rare objects, associated with a single individual rather than with a real commercial current;
their context is difficult to define, and will remain so unless more finds materialise in these
locations (Fig. 15).

CONCLUSION
To follow Boardmans 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 from

Bologna, Certosa necropolis. Height 8.6cm.

Photograph from Martelli 198182

Fig. 14 Pithekoussan-Cumaean oinochoe from

Gioia Tauro. Height not known

Photograph from Neeft Archive

use (Boardman 2004: 14950). The first case may have affected local communities. The
Greek vase is initially seen as being valuable not only because it is foreign, but also because
it 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 various
other objects, such as cheese-graters, that in local communities are seen as expressions of
an attractive heroic world, of which they want to show both their knowledge and to some
extent even their membership (Ridgway 2009: 791). These communities, once they had
acquired and absorbed a certain way of drinking wine, made it the focal moment of a banquet
in order to signify that they belonged to an elite group (Rathje 1990: 283): the activity thus
came to symbolise a new way of managing social activity, to the point that it was thought
appropriate 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 own
aesthetic taste. Phoenicians and Greeks instead responded to a different stimulus. Having
traded the pottery of others, even after having used it (as must have been the case of mixed

114 FRANCESCA MERMATI

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 use
the pottery of the interlocutor all the time, if it was practical to do so. There may have
been an authentic exchange of shapes for the same function, or the acquisition of shapes
required by an acquisition of function.
Otherwise, it will have been more convenient to create hybrids that would respond
to both needs. This may be the case not only for the Phlegraean plates with flat rim and
Hellenised patterns, but for all the mixed productions, combining shapes and decorations
from different cultural backgrounds that were adapted now to one and then to another
user as in the case of the Toscanos and Sulcis productions (Boardman 2004: 158;
Bernardini & Zucca 2005: 99104).
In sum, if objects of Greek type were produced in a foreign land mainly for Greek users
as a result of seemingly insurmountable differences in customs and traditions (Boardman
2006b: 287), this only serves to further confirm the extreme mobility of people in this
chronological 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 clarified some aspects of the Carthaginian objects treated here, and shared his thoughts on this and on
other 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, clarified some of my perplexities, and discussed a number of points
concerning the methodological approach to the topic. Last but not least, I am very grateful indeed to the Editors
of the Accordia Research Papers for their kindness and practical help.

PITHEKOUSSAN-CUMAEAN POTTERY IN THE ARCHAIC PERIOD 115

NOTES
1

3
4
5

6
7

8
9

10
11

12

13
14
15
16
17
18

At Pithekoussai, sporadic examples from the San Montano necropolis and the Stipe dei Cavalli; at Cumae,
in the fortifications (emplekton). Coldstream 1995: note 21, with all previous bibliography; dAgostino
19941995: 44, n. 1, pl. XXXIV; Cuozzo et al. 2006: 154, pl. 2.A.4, fig. 45, with previous bibliography.
At Pithekoussai, from the San Montano necropolis (Tombs 161, 229*, 469, 490, 550, 600; sporadic nos. 5/410), and the Mazzola site: Buchner & Ridgway 1993: 204, 287, 470, 493, 547, 589, 7056 with pls. 63, 138,
145, 164, 174, 2467, CXXXIX, CLXVII, CCXI; Buchner 1972: pl. XCII, 1; Klein 1972: 38, fig. 1.
Pithekoussai, from the San Montano necropolis: Coldstream 1982: 26, note 34; dAgostino 1989: 69, fig. 2;
1990: 76-77; 1992: 53-54, fig. 1.
Particularly fragments from the Mazzola area of Pithekoussai: Buchner 1972: 371; Klein 1972: 38, fig. 2;
Coldstream 2000: 923, 97, fig. 2.
Federico II: Gasparri 1998; 1999; Gasparri & Greco 2007; 2009. Istituto Universitario Orientale: dAgostino,
DAndrea 2002; dAgostino & Fratta 1995; 2000; dAgostino et al. 2005; 2006. Centre Jean Brard: Bats et al.
2009; Brun et al. 2000; 2006; Brun & Munzi 2007.
One from tomb 126: dAgostino 1982: 57, pl. 9, fig. 2; 1999: pl. II, b.
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, two
matching 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 & Zucca
2005: 99, fig. 7.6B, with previous bibliography; Docter & Niemeyer 1994: 1056, n. 04, 08, 09, 10 fig. 3, and
4.a, with previous bibliography; Niemeyer et al. 1996: 50, n. 8; Ridgway 2000: 100.
Ferrante 2006: 118, n. 68, pl. IX, 42, with previous bibliography; Neeft 1987: note 185, no. 6. In addition to
the piece published by Ferrante, Neeft cites at least three more similar examples.
It should be noted at this point that very little is published about the necropoleis of this area. Most of the
specimens examined were studied in the deposits of Palazzo Capua in Sarno, which constitute only a small
fraction of the objects found. The frequency of these vessels in the small sample in question is indicative
of a much more substantial phenomenon, that slowly, and thanks to work in progress, is gradually taking
shape.
The object, inv. no. 67258, is unpublished; it is currently on display in the National Museum of the Agro
Picentino, Pontecagnano.
David Ridgway informed me that the definition 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).
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 of
spices to the drink?).
David Ridgway was of the same opinion; and we also agreed that physical analyses (Mssbauer?) are
required.
Boardman very clearly relates the ethnicity of the potter to the interpretation of cultural phenomena
associated with the production of ceramics (Boardman 2004: 155).
Moreover, given the recent discovery of a locally made Aetos 666 cup at Cumae, it is now necessary to
combine the two centres in the trade from at least the mid-8th century.
It is not impossible that there was a koine of craftsmanship involving Sulcis and Pithekoussai.
Tomb 169: Martelli 19811982: 738, tabs. I-II; Neeft 1987: 645, n. 6.
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 provenience
of the piece.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aubet, M. A. 2005. El Orientalizante, un fenomeno
de contacto entre sociedad disiguales. In Jimnez
Avila, F. J. & Prez, S. C. (eds), Actas del III Simposio
Internacional de Arqueologia de Mrida, Protohistoria
del Mediterrneo Occidental, vol. I: 11728. Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, Instituto
de Arqueologa, Mrida
Bailo Modesti, G. & Gastaldi, P. (eds) 1999. Prima di
Pithecusa. I pi antichi materiali greci del Golfo di Salerno.
Catalogo della mostra, 29 aprile 1999, Pontecagnano
Faiano, Museo Nazionale dellAgro Picentino, Naples

Bartoloni, G. 2005. Vino fenicio in coppe greche? 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:
37582. Accordia Research Institute, London
Bats, M., Brun, J.-P. & Munzi, P.. 2009. Ai
margini della colonia greca di Kyme. In Atti del
quarantottesimo Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia,
Taranto 2008: 52352. Istituto per la Storia e
lArcheologia della Magna Grecia, Taranto

116 FRANCESCA MERMATI

Bernardini, P. & Zucca, R. (eds) 2005. Il Mediterraneo
di Herakles, Atti del Convegno di Studi, Sassari 26
marzo-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 in
the Carthage area. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 25:
195200
Boardman, J. 2006b. Al Mina: Notes and Queries.
Ancient West and East, 4.2: 27891
Botto, M. 2000. Tripodi siriani e tripodi fenici
dal Latium Vetus e dallEtruria Meridionale. In
Bartoloni, P. & Campanella, L. (eds), La ceramica
fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche, confronti,
Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano,
SantAntioco, 19-21 settembre 1997: 6398. Consiglio
Nazionale di Ricerca, Rome
Botto, M. 2008. I primi contatti fra i Fenici e le
popolazioni dellItalia peninsulare. In Celestino,
S., Rafael, N., & Armada, X. L. (eds), Contacto
cultural entre el Mediterrneo y el Atlntico (siglos XIIVIII ane). La precolonizacin a debate: 12348. Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, Madrid
Brun, J. P., Munzi, P., Stefaniuk, L., Morhange, C.,
Pessel, M. & Revel, A. 2000 (2003). Alla ricerca
del porto di Cuma. Relazione preliminare sugli
scavi del Centre Jean Brard. AION. Annali di
Archeologia e Storia Antica,7: 13155
Brun, J. P. & Munzi, P. 2006. Cumes. Mlanges de
lcole Franaise de Rome. Antiquit, 118: 3429.
Brun, J. P. & Munzi, P. 2007. Cumes. Mlanges de
lcole Franaise de Rome. Antiquit, 119, 1: 28799
Buchner, G. 1972. Pithecusa: scavi e scoperte 196671. Atti dellXI Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia,
Taranto 1971: 36174. Arte tipografica, 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 Monografica, vol. 4(testo,
tavole e piante). G. Bretschneider, Rome
Cerchiai, L. 1995. I Campani. Longanesi, Milan
Coldstream, J. N. 1982. Some problems of eighthcentury pottery in the West, seen from the Greek
angle. In La ceramique grecque ou de tradition grecque au
VIIIe sicle en Italie centrale et meridionale, Cahiers du
Centre Jean Brard, 3: 2143. Naples
Coldstream, J. N. 1995. Euboean Geometric
imports from the acropolis of Pithekoussai. Annual
of the British School at Athens, 90: 25167
Coldstream, J. N. 1998. Drinking and eating in
Euboean Pithekoussai. In Batz, M. & dAgostino,
B. (eds), Euboica: LEubea e la presenza Euboica in
Calcidica e in Occidente. Annali di Archeologia e
Storia Antica, Quaderno 12: 30310. Istituto
Universitario Orientale, Naples
Coldstream, J. N. 2000. Some unusual Geometric
scenes from Euboean Pithekoussai. In Damarato
Studi di antichit classica offerti a Paola Pelagatti: 928.
Electa, Milan

Cuozzo, M., DAgostino, D. & Del Verne, L. 2006.

Cuma. Le fortificazioni. 2. I materiali dai terrapieni arcaici.
Annali di Archeologia e Storia Antica, Quaderno 16.
Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples
dAgostino, B. 1979. Le necropoli protostoriche
della Valle del Sarno: la ceramica di tipo greco.
AION. Annali di Archeologia e Storia Antica, 1: 5975
dAgostino, B. 1982. La ceramica greca o di
tradizione greca nellVIII sec. in Italia Meridionale.
In La ceramique grecque ou de tradition grecque au VIIIe
sicle en Italie centrale et meridionale, Cahiers du
Centre Jean Brard, 3: 5567. Naples
dAgostino, B. 1989. Rapporti tra lItalia meridionale
e lEgeo nellVIII sec. a.C. Atti del II Congresso
Internazionale Etrusco, Firenze 1985: 6378. Rome
dAgostino, B. 1990. Relations between Campania,
Southern Etruria and the Aegean in the eighth
century BC. In Descudres, J. P. (ed.), Greek
Colonists and Native Populations: 7385. Humanities
Research Centre, Canberra & Oxford University
Press, Oxford & New York
dAgostino, B. 1992. Prima della colonizzazione.
I tempi e i modi nella ripresa del rapporto tra
i greci e il mondo tirrenico. Atti e Memorie Societ
Magna Grecia, 3rd series, 1: 5160
dAgostino, B. 19941995. La Stipe dei Cavalli di
Pithecusa. Atti e Memorie Societ Magna Grecia, 3rd
series, 3: 9108
dAgostino, B. 1999. Pithecusa e Cuma tra Greci
e indigeni. La Colonisation Grecque en Mditerrane
Occidentale, Collection de lcole Franaise de Rome,
251: 5162. cole Franaise de Rome, Rome
dAgostino, B. 2009. Pithecusae e Cuma allalba
della colonizzazione. In Atti del quarantottesimo
Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 2008:
16996. Istituto per la Storia e lArcheologia della
Magna Grecia, Taranto
dAgostino, B. & dAndrea, A. 2002. Cuma. Nuove
forme di intervento per lo studio del sito antico. Atti della
giornata di Studio Napoli 12 febbraio 2001. Istituto
Universitario Orientale, Naples
dAgostino, B. & Fratta, F. 1995. Gli scavi dellIUO a
Cuma negli anni 199495. AION. Annali di Archeologia
e Storia Antica, NS2: 2019
dAgostino, B. & Fratta, F. 2000. Cuma; il Progetto
Kyme. Gli scavi dellIstituto Universitario
Orientale di Napoli (19941996). Le fortificazioni
settentrionali. In Gialanella, C. (ed.), Nova Antiqua
Phlegraea: nuovi tesori archeologici dai Campi Flegrei:
923. Electa, Naples
dAgostino, B., Fratta, F. & Malpede, V. 2005. Cuma.
Le fortificazioni. 1. Lo scavo 1994-2002. AION. Annali
di 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. LErma
di Bretschneider, Rome
Delgado, A. & Ferrer, M. 2007. Alimentos para los
muertos: mujeres, rituales funerarios e identidades
coloniales. In Interpreting Household Practices, Treballs
dArqueologia 13: 2968

PITHEKOUSSAN-CUMAEAN POTTERY IN THE ARCHAIC PERIOD 117

Docter, R. F. & Niemeyer, H. G. 1994. Pithekoussai:
The
Carthaginian
connection.
On
the
archaeological evidence of Euboeo-Phoenician
partnership in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. In
dAgostino, B. & Ridgway, D., APOIKIA. Scritti in
onore di Giorgio Buchner. AION. Annali di Archeologia e
Storia Antica, NS 1: 10116
Ferrante, S. 2006. Materiali dalla necropoli di
Calatia: la ceramica di epoca orientalizzante ed
arcaica. In Catalogo del Museo Civico di Maddaloni:
10350. Avellino
Gabrici, E. 1913. Cuma. Monumenti Antichi dei
Lincei. 22. Milan
Gasparri, C. 1998. Gli scavi dellUniversit degli Studi
di Napoli Federico II nel Foro di Cuma. Universit degli
Studi di Napoli, Notiziario 3 (18/19, n. s.): 7788
Gasparri, C. 1999. Nuove indagini nel Foro di
Cuma. In Quilici, L. & Quilici, S. (eds), La Forma
della Citt e del Territorio. Esperienze metodologiche
e risultati a confronto, Atti incontro di Studio, S.
Maria Capua Vetere 2728 Novembre 1988: 1317.
L Erma di Bretschneider, Rome
Gasparri, C. & Greco, G. (eds) 2007. Cuma. Il Foro.
Scavi dellUniversit 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. Archaeometrical
characterisation and provenance studies on pottery
found at Velia (Southern Italy). In Erzsbet, J. &
Bir, 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. Luniverso
fenicio. Einaudi, Turin
Greco, G. & Mermati, F. 2005. Cuma in Opicia:
per una revisione delle evidenze in et arcaica. In
Mele, A., Napoletano, M. L., Visconti, A. (eds), Eoli
ed Eolide tra madrepatria e colonie: 58198. Luciano,
Naples
Greco, G. & Mermati, F. 2006. Pithecusa, Cuma e la
valle del Sarno. Intorno ad un corredo funerario dalla
necropoli 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: 179214. Accordia
Research Institute, London
Greco, G. & Mermati, F. 2007a. Cuma, indagini
nellarea del Foro: le produzioni ceramiche dai
livelli arcaici. In Frre, D. (ed.), Ceramiche fini a decoro
subgeometrico del VI secolo a.C. in Etruria Meridionale e in
Campania: 14362. cole franaise de Rome, Rome
Greco, G. & Mermati, F. 2007b. Le ceramiche
arcaiche: problemi di lettura e di analisi. In
Gasparri, C. & Greco, G. (eds), Cuma. Il Foro. Scavi
dellUniversit 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 and

immigrants: a note on Pithekoussai. In Counts, D.
B. & Tuck, A. S. (eds), Koin. Mediterranean studies in
honour of R. Ross Holloway: 757. Joukowsky Institute
Publication 1, Oxford/Oakville, CT
Jones, R. & Buxeda i Garrigs, J. 2004. The identity
of 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: 83114. Brill, Leiden
Klein, J. 1972. A Greek Metalworking Quarter.
Expedition, 14, 2: 349
Kourou, N. 2002. Phniciens, Chypriotes, Eubens
et la fondation de Carthage. Cahier du Centre
dEtudes Chypriotes, 32: 79114
Martelli, M. 198182. Un aryballos cumanopithecusano da Bologna. Studi Urbinati (B), 3, 55: 738
Martelli, M. (ed.) 2000. La ceramica degli Etruschi.
Istituto Geografico de Agostini, Novara
Mele, A. 2003. Le anomalie di Pithecusa.
Documentazioni archeologiche e tradizioni
letterarie. Incidenza dellAntico, 1: 1339
Mermati, F. 2008. Ceramica pithecusano-cumana
in Andalusia? In Adroher, A. M. & Blnquez, J. (eds),
Atti del I Congreso Internacional de Arqueologa Ibrica
Bastetana: 23951. Serie Varia de la Universidad
Autnoma de Madrid, Comunicaciones, 9. Madrid
Mermati, F. 2012. Cuma: le ceramiche arcaiche. La
produzione pithecusano-cumana tra la met dellVIII e
linizio 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
archologische Grabung. Hamburger Museum fr
Archologie und die Geschichte Harburgs (HelmsMuseum), Hamburg
Pellegrini, G. 1912. Catalogo dei vasi greci dipinti delle
necropoli felsinee. Comune di Bologna, Bologna
Pelliccer Cataln, M., 1963. Ein altpunisches
Grberfeld bei Almucar (Prov. Granada).
Madrider Mitteilungen, 4: 938
Rathje, A. 1990. The adoption of the Homeric
banquet in central Italy in the Orientalizing
Period. In Murray, O. (ed.), Sympotica. A
Symposium on the Symposion: 27988. Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Ridgway, D. 2000. Riflessioni sullorizzonte
precoloniale (IX-VIII sec. a.C.). In Atti del
trentanovesimo Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia,
Taranto 1999: 91109. Taranto
Ridgway, D. 2004. Euboeans and others along
the Tyrrhenian seaboard in the 8th century BC.
In Lomas, K. (ed.), Greek identity in the Western
Mediterranean. Papers in honour of Brian Shefton:
1530. Brill, Leiden
Ridgway, D. 2009. La coppa di Nestore e una
grattugia da Vulci. In Bruni, S. (ed.), Etruria e Italia
preromana. Studi in onore di Giovannangelo Camporeale,
vol. 2: 78991. Fabrizio Serra, Pisa & Rome
Rizzo, M. A. 1989. Ceramica etrusco-geometrica da
Caere. Miscellanea Ceretana, I: 939

118 FRANCESCA MERMATI

Rizzo, M. A. 2005. Ceramica geometrica greca
e di tipo greco da Cerveteri (dalla necropoli
del Laghetto e dallabitato). In Bartoloni, G.
& Delpino, F. (eds), Oriente e Occidente: metodi e
discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dellet
del ferro in Italia, Atti dellIncontro di studi, Roma 30-31
ottobre 2003: 33378. Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici
Internazionali, Pisa
Sartori, A. 2002. Caere. Nuovi documenti dalla Necropoli
della Banditaccia. Tombe B25, B26, B36, B69. Comune
di Milano, Milan

Tronchetti, C. 1979. Per la cronologia del tophet di

SantAntioco. Rivista di Studi Fenici, 7: 2015
Vegas, M. 1998. La ceramica de importacion en
Cartago durante el periodo arcaico. Cuadernos de
Arqueologa Mediterrnea, 4: 13345
Vives Ferrndiz Snchez, J. 2005. Trpodes fenicios
entre el Ebro y el Segura: nuevas perspectivas de
estudio. In Celestino Prez, S. & Jimnez Avila, F.
J. (eds), El periodo orientalizante: actas del III Simposio
Internacional de arqueloga de Mrida: protohistoria del
Mediterrneo occidental: 135161. Consejo Superior
de Investigaciones Cientficas, Mrida