- Mariassunta Cuozzo –
and culturally diverse components; Greeks, Phoenicians, indigenous peoples (Ridgway,
2000). The island shows a distinctive artisanal and commercial physiognomy: in the
second half of the eighth century bc Pithekoussai establishes a broad network of relations
of interaction whether with Etruria and the Etruscan cities of Campania or with the
native sphere, which implies in the fi rst place the mobility of artisans above and beyond
the circulation of raw materials and/or goods and the diffusion in Etruria, as in Campania
and in other regions, of products of “Greek type” reworked to suit the taste and needs
of the local elites (Gras 2000; D’Agostino 2011a; Cerchiai 2010). The foundation of
Cumae, traditionally dated to 725 bc, but according to new discoveries probably even
older, implies signifi cant changes in the Tyrrhenian and Campanian equilibria.
The development of the relations between Greeks and local populations has turned
out to be quite diverse: if with the Etruscan sphere and the Etruscan components of
Campania, especially with neighboring Capua, there prevails an agreement based on
respect and reciprocal exchange that can be traced over a long period through alternating
phases, in contrast, in the case of the indigenous sphere, after the violent conquest of
the Phlegraean littoral, attested by the ancient sources (Phlegon of Tralles in FGH II
257), the local populations will be in part reduced to a servile condition, in part pushed
towards the hinterland and the Apennine zones to the borders of the Samnite territory.
The period between the Early and Middle Orientalizing (last quarter of eighth to mid/
third quarter of seventh century bc), represents for Campania a moment of extraordinary
fl owering (Fig. 16.2). The history of the Etruscan components of the region is known
above all through the rich documentation of Pontecagnano and the ager picentinus that
in recent years has been enriched by the results of new excavations at the site of Monte
Vetrano (Cerchiai et al. 2009; Campanelli 2011).
The physiognomy of the composite material culture for Pontecagnano between the
end of the First Iron Age and the Orientalizing period confi gures a role of the fi rst order
in the scope of the Tyrrhenian and the Mediterranean: the Picentine center (ager picentinus)
appears to be a true and proper crossroads of peoples and cultures, bound by tight bonds
as much to the Etruscan and Latial (Latin) world as to the Greeks of Pithekoussai and
Cumae; intensive relations are attested with Greece and with Phoenician and/or Near
Eastern components; complex relationships that also imply phenomena of mobility are
documented with the surrounding Campanian and Italic communities, fi rst with the
groups of Hirpini of the so-called Oliveto Citra-Cairano horizon, the communities of the
valley of the Sarno, Capua, and the Enotrian sphere (Fig.16.3).
The affi rmation of powerful aristocracies of a hereditary character is attested in the
funerary sphere by the well-known phenomenon of the “princely tombs,” a sign of
recognition and of the comprehensive solidarity of the Tyrrhenian elites whether of
Greek, Etruscan, or indigenous origin, which transcends ethnic differences in favor of the
expression of an above-normal status (see Debating Orientalisation): from Tomb 104 of the
Fondo Artiaco at Cumae, to the “princely” tombs of Etruria and Latium, via tombs 926–
928, 4461 and now also 2465, a woman’s tomb (Fig. 16.2, 16.4) of Pontecagnano (Cuozzo
2012). Although the “princely” customs were foreshadowed by the exceptional assemblage
of Fornaci tomb 922, still datable to the end of the First Iron Age (D’Agostino 2011), the
princely tombs that constitute a distinctive sign of the aristocracy in the Tyrrhenian region
seem until now absent at Capua in the full Orientalizing period. It is possible, however,
that this absence is to be attributed to the current state of research and to the vast backlog
of evidence that remains unpublished (Bellelli 2005; Johannowsky 1996).