Kyme in Opicia: A New Perspective

It is only since 1994 that archaeological research at Kyme (Roman Cumae; modern Cuma) in Campania has seen a resumption, based on a comprehensive strategic plan: it includes the exploration of areas of the ancient city, such as the Forum, that were already known but still under cultivation, along with areas that were unknown but clearly significant for the comprehension of the planning and shape of the ancient city (see the annual reports by S. De Caro [1996] 587-90; [1997] 425; [1999] 824-28; [2002] 657-65; [2003] 599-603). The debate involving the two oldest Greek realities on the Tyrrhenian coast, Pithekoussai (on the island of Ischia) and Kyme, and focused on the chronology of the birth and on the real nature of these two Euboean settlements, was long based on their very different material records. Pithekoussai, thanks to the meticulous archaeological investigations conducted by the late Giorgio Buchner, has yielded an exceptionally articulate dossier of material (Buchner and Ridgway [1993]). At Kyme, discussion was originally derived from the analysis of historical sources combined with the partial and incomplete evidence derived from the exploration associated with the names of Stevens and Gabrici (Valenza Mele [1989]). Subsequent rescue work yielded sporadic and incoherent documentation that was nevertheless indicative of a more substantial reality (Pelosi [1993]). The 'Progetto Kyme', a systematic programme of research conducted by three Neapolitan institutions (see Appendix), was initiated in 1994: Universita degli Studi di Napoli 'Federico II' (Gasparri [1998]; [1999]; Gasparri and Greco [2007]; [2009]); Istituto Universitario Orientale (d'Agostino and Fratta [1995]; [2000]; d'Agostino and D 'Andrea [2002]; d'Agostino et al. [2005]; Cuozzo et al [2006]); and Centre Jean Berard (in addition to the contributions in volumes cited elsewhere in these pages, Brun and Munzi [2007]; [2009]; Brun et al. [2000]; [2006]; [2009]; Bats et al [2009]). The 'Progetto' is still in progress, both in the Roman Forum and in the area overlooking the sea and around the city walls; to date, it has yielded very interesting results that contribute much to the clarification of the stages in the life of the Euboean colony and of the changes in the form of the city. The date of the appearance of a Greek settlement on Ischia is based on the earliest Euboean pottery found on the island; this is generally assigned to a horizon between MGII and LGI (Ridgway [1992] 87). The imported Euboean material known from Greek Kyme was limited until a few years ago to sporadic elements that could be assigned to LGII, which accordingly made it possible to establish a decalage of around 50 years between the two sites (d'Agostino and Soteriou [1998] 363-68; Mele [2009] 107-08); the debate among specialists was focused on the nature and function of the two settlements. Today, the material reality revealed by recent exploration provides a profoundly changed framework, which affords a new perspective regarding the chronology of the birth of Kyme, the form assumed by the first settlement, and the relationship between the incomers and the indigenous population. The dossier of early material has grown considerably, and it is very significant. In a stratigraphic context related to an imposing emplekton constructed between the late sixth and the early fifth centuries BC, investigation of the walls of Kyme (d'Agostino [1999]) has yielded several fragments of chevron skyphoi the type-fossil for these problems assigned by d'Agostino to MGII and related to the examples at Pithekoussai; the debate is still open, and the workshop of provenance is not clear. What needs to be stressed is that this material in all probability comes from the first Greek tombs; it thus bears witness to a permanent Greek presence on the mainland, with only a slight chronological difference in respect of the evidence on the island. But it is mainly from LGI and II, with the predominance of pottery from Corinth (Aetos 666 kotylai and Thapsos cups with and without panel), that the material documentation of Pithekoussai and Kyme becomes identical. The excavations conducted by the team from the University of Naples in buildings overlooking the square of the Forum have greatly enriched the body of the material evidence by yielding a systematic framework for a picture that is completely different from that previously established. The residual material yielded by the research conducted in the plain, at the foot of the acropolis and overlooking the coast, includes many examples of Greek Geometric pottery that can be assigned to the LGI phase: skyphoi and Thapsos cups with and without panel containing a broken and hatched meander. In addition to imported products, there are numerous objects produced locally in the typical socalled Phlegraean clay. The most immediate comparison, for both the formal and the decorative repertoire, is with the material from Pithekoussai; indeed, one has a strong impression that these early vases may actually have been brought to Kyme from Pithekousai. Though residual, this material is fully relevant to the discussion of the foundation date of Cumae (Mele [2003]). In fact, it reopens the debate: the gap between Pithekoussai and Kyme is now much smaller, and fits the information provided by the new excavations at Zancle which, according to the ancient written sources, was founded by Cumaean pirates (Mele [2003]; Bacci [2009] 135). The type-fossil of this chronological phase at Kyme is the Thapsos cup which, together with the Aetos 666 kotyle, is a LGII product; the most relevant point resides in the sheer quantity and diffusion of these types. There are also shapes not represented in the grave-groups reconstructed by Gabrici and hitherto seemingly absent from Kyme, among them kraters, lekanai, cups and kyathoi. A