Hellenistic and Roman Pontecagnano
V Pontecagnano in Campania
Texte intégral
Phase 1: Hellenistic Pontecagnano
- 1 Gualtieri & Fracchia 1990, 51-56, 95-96; Gualtieri & Fracchia 1990, 151-156; Gualtieri 1993; Gualti (...)
1The monumental architecture of this phase (second half of 4th to early 3rd century BC), exemplified by the substantial socle courses in ashlar masonry, is paralleled by e.g. the building from period I in the nearby Prop. Truono, though this site has only been excavated to a small extent. The best parallels for the Courtyard House are found further south. One site stands out in particular, namely Roccagloriosa. Here at least four building complexes with large flagstone-paved courtyards are documented; they all go back to the 4th century BC1. Complex A on the central plateau covers an area of c. 450 m2, and the shrine/altar arrangement in its porticoed courtyard adds a ceremonial aspect to the building. The courtyard area measures some 10.0 m x 8.0 m (in Prop. Avallone the reconstructed area is c.6.20 x 4.50).
- 2 Russo Tagliente 1992, 219-220.
- 3 Gualtieri & Fracchia 1990, 65-67, fig. 66a-c; Russo Tagliente 1992, 173-180.
- 4 Serritella 1995, 79-82, especially Tomb 4453.
2The use of stone socles and mudbrick for the superstructure is standard, and reinforcement by timber or timber posts are known from other sites, e.g. Altamura loc. La Croce,2 but the semi-circular or circular cuttings in the blocks in the Prop. Avallone structures have not yet found exact matches. When it comes to the interior decoration of the walls, the Courtyard House stands out again due to its polychrome stucco. Generally, one finds red and white only, for instances in room A7/A8 (‘atrium’) in complex A at Roccagloriosa (phase IIB, 325-300 BC) and rooms 11-13 (principal rooms) of the habitation at Moltone di Tolve (second phase of the building dated in the 3rd century BC)3. This polychrome decoration, including motifs such as festoons, can be paralleled by the painted tombs from Poseidonia/Paestum, and especially, not surprisingly, Pontecagnano4.
- 5 For an overview of the material, see e.g. Basilicata 1990; Leukania 1992; Russo Tagliente 1992; Bar (...)
- 6 See Adamesteanu & Dilthey 1992; Russo Tagliente 1995.
- 7 Johannowsky 1990, 36.
3The late 4th century BC is a period with enormous growth in the volume of archaeological material from Southern Italy. Many sites and in particular the indigenous sites present an increasing visibility by the adoption of the use of less perishable material for house construction and more complex layouts, for instance at Pomarico Vecchio and Tricarico, and the increasing employment of ashlar masonry for e.g. fortification work, of which Roccagloriosa is just one example5. Thus the archaeological remains signal a period of growth and represent the peak of the Lucanian communities, also reflected in the rural sanctuaries at e.g. Armento and Macchia di Rossano6 At Buccino (ancient Volcei) in loc. San Stefano the building provided with a dining room belongs to this period as well. The dining room is interpreted as a hestiatorion, forming part of a sanctuary or another public building7 The pavement of the room is noteworthy due to its combined technique employing both mortar (both red and dark), opus tessellatum and a marble disc. The motifs of the central field include a star and dolphins in the corners.
- 8 See e.g. Gualtieri 2003, 30-31.
4The period was marked, indeed, by a considerable increase in the number of rural settlements, reflecting a growth in population density8.
5The first phase in Prop. Avallone no doubt was part of this time of prosperity. The layout of the quarter, the architecture, interior decoration and equipment testify to a community of considerable wealth and resources.
- 9 For a historical overview and references, see Lomas 1993, 39-57; Lomas 1996.
- 10 Fracchia 1993, especially 265-269; Gualtieri 2003, 32-35.
6The later 4th century is also the period in which Rome’s penetration southwards led not only to the forging of diplomatic connections, but also to the establishment of colonies (e.g. the Latin colonies of Cales in 334 BC and Fregellae in 328/312 BC). But it also led to war both between Rome and the indigenous peoples, e.g. due to the founding of Fregellae, and between Rome and the Greek cities. Thus the late 4th to early 3rd century BC (contemporary with our phase 1) is a period of turmoil: e.g. the Second Samnite War (327-303 BC), Third Samnite War (301-295 BC) and the Pyrrhic War (281-270 BC)9. Having defeated both parties (Tarentum, at the head of the Greek cities in Southern Italy, was conquered in 272 BC), Rome founded a new series of colonies: e.g. Venusia in 291 BC (in order to control north-eastern Lucania and Apulia), Poseidonia/Paestum in 273 BC and Beneventum in 268 BC. Traditionally, the Roman conquest of Southern Italy has been seen as a ‘catastrophic’ one, resulting in the cessation of all local production. This picture, however, is now being revised. There is much evidence of continuous habitation and pottery production in indigenous areas in the 3rd century BC10.
- 11 According to Torelli, the comitium was built in the second half of the 3rd cent. BC, and therefore (...)
7It is of course tempting to relate the destruction of the Courtyard House and the other buildings with an historical event around 300 BC, or a little later, but an earthquake is likely as well. In this connection the case of Poseidonia/Paestum should be mentioned. The Roman takeover resulted – naturally – in the creation of a forum with comitium etc. at the expense of the agora and its buildings and monuments, but this was an organized dismantlement; nothing points to a violent conquest of the city, i.e. burning and razing it to the ground11.
Phase 2: Roman Pontecagnano: late Republican period
8In the second phase, most likely beginning during the 2nd century BC with a new destruction occurring before the mid-1st century BC, the rebuilding was restricted to the western insula. We suggest that there would have been no need to include the whole area, either because the population decreased, or because the function originally embedded in the Courtyard House was no longer needed. Perhaps resources were insufficient.
- 12 For examples of Imperial date in Southern Italy, see e.g. Fracchia & Gualtieri 1998-1999, 327.
9The masonry is characterized by the employment of smaller blocks than in phase 1, reused material and tiles. It is not possible to get an idea of the internal division of the insula, but a kitchen or combined kitchen-service room (trench E, perhaps comprising a part of trenches Dn and B?) and a possible workroom (trench Ds) can be identified. The interior architectural decoration of the buildings was simple, comprising monochrome white and/or bichrome (white and red) walls and floors in terra battuta or clay. The pavement of reused roof tiles (irregular type) in the kitchen is typical for rooms exposed to water and finds many parallels in Southern Italy as well as in other places, both in the Hellenistic/Republican period and Imperial age12.
- 13 Strabo 5.4.13.
- 14 Flor. epit. 2.6.11.
10The second phase falls after another period of crisis – this time due to the Second Punic War (218-201 BC). Many towns took the opportunity to revolt against Rome, but Paestum remained loyal. According to Strabo, the Picenes of Picentia sided with Hannibal, and consequently they were expelled from the town13. As mentioned above, there is no clearly detectable occupation phase in Prop. Avallone in the greater part of the 3rd century BC. Regarding the destruction ending this second phase, it is possible that it was caused by one of the many conflicts in the early 1st century BC with the Social War (90-88 BC) followed by the civil wars, e.g. between Sulla and Marius. According to Florus, Picentia, among others, was destroyed and laid waste during the Social War (“....ferro et igne vastantur”)14.
11In order to safeguard the coastline as well as to control the inland, Rome founded a number of colonies in the early 2nd century BC in Southern Italy and this time also in the immediate vicinity of Pontecagnano: for instance Puteoli 194, Salernum 197/194 and Buxentum 194/186 BC.
- 15 Fracchia & Gualtieri 1998-1999, 295-301; Gualtieri & Fracchia 2001, 117-126 and 127-140.
- 16 Fracchia 2001, 72.
- 17 Fracchia & Gualtieri 1998-1999, 300.
12The conclusion reached from investigations in the area, e.g. surveys in the upper Bradano valley and the Mingardo/Bussento region, is that a quite differential development took place. Thus the transformations caused by the Roman presence depended on e.g. topographical location, meaning that the development (i.e. the process of Romanization) reached coastal and fertile inland (such as Vallo di Diano) areas earlier than the rural settlements in e.g. eastern Lucania15. The continuous occupation of hamlets and farmsteads from the 3rd century throughout the 2nd century BC in the ager Buxentinus is interpreted as a sign of a relatively passive Roman presence in that area (despite the founding of a colony)16. The results from the investigations also point to variation within the Roman agrarian systems17.
- 18 Fracchia & Gualtieri 1998-1999, 295, with references; Fracchia 2001, 72.
- 19 Dyson 1983, 12, 140 and 170.
- 20 Romito 1991, 25.
- 21 Romito 1991, 23.
13The spread of villas in the inland from the 2nd century BC onwards is e.g. documented at Buccino (ancient Volcei), located to the east of Pontecagnano. In general, the bulk of material, however, dates from the mid-1st century BC onwards18. This is by no means a coincidence, as a stable situation was only a reality at this point of time. At Buccino the villas at San Nicola (the largest and richest) and San Mauro belong to this later chronological horizon, whereas the villa at Vittimose has a late Republican phase ending in the early 1st century BC. The layout of the villa included e.g. a Corinthian atrium19. At Salerno the villa at San Leonardo is dated no earlier than the end of the 2nd-early 1st century BC20. Room a has a mortar pavement decorated with crosslets, which are arranged in rows laid diagonally to the walls of the room21.
- 22 Lemaire et al. 2000, 164-170, pls. 10-13; Gualtieri 2003, 65-70.
- 23 Ficuciello 2000, 174.
14At Paestum the late Republican period saw building activity in the public as well as private sphere. This included e.g. the basilica in the forum and houses decorated with mortar pavements with and without tessera decoration22. A domus situated in the western quarter was laid out around the end of the 2nd century BC and abandoned in the first decades of the 1st century AD23. The central room of the house (an atrium?) has a mortar pavement decorated with tesserae set at random and framed by a blackand-white mosaic..
- 24 Nappo 1997.
- 25 Dickmann 1997; Dickmann 1999, especially 127-144.
15Further north, in Pompeii considerable building activity took place at the end of the 3rd and the be ginning of the 2nd century BC. Insulae were subdivided, and a new type of housing appeared: row houses (south-eastern quarter)24. These had the following characteristics: central entrance passage with room on either side, rectangular courtyard, and on the far side of this a corridor dividing the rooms situated here and a garden at the back of the plot. In the late 2nd and early 1st century BC many atrium houses were extended by the addition of peristyles, and generally houses were embellished not only architecturally, but also by the display of sculpture25.
- 26 See e.g. Fracchia & Gualtieri 1998-1999, fig. 1; Rossi 1999, fig. 3; Prontera 2003, segmentum VI.VI (...)
16The construction of the Via Popilia in 133 BC through the Vallo di Diano also forms part of the increased activities in the later 2nd century BC. Its course is visible on the Tabula Peutingeriana, passing e.g. Salemum and Icentia, i.e Picentia/Pontecagnano26.
Phases 3-4: Roman Pontecagnano: Imperial period
17The activity was restricted to a new street level and a few stmctures. Squatter-like occupation cannot be ruled out, but most material from this period seems to be rubbish material. In the 3rd century AD the northern area was used as a cemetery.
- 27 For Paestum, see Pedley 1990, 163.
18The final abandonment of both Paestum and Pontecagnano after the 4th/5th centuries AD was caused by the same factor; both sites suffered from flooding resulting in alluvial deposits and lime sedimentation. Strabo records swamps at Paestum already in the 1st century27. In Prop. Avallone the lime sediments found in various strata testify to this particular problem, and especially the northern zone of the excavation area, trenches H and J.
- 28 Works announced in Giglio 2001, introductory note and note 5.
19It is obvious that new excavations in Prop. Avallone could clarify questions related to e.g. the layout of the structures, room distribution and import versus local production. By publishing the results reached so far the knowledge of the ancient settlement of Pontecagnano has been increased considerably. We now have evidence of the existence of a wealthy community in the Hellenistic period and of the partly ruinous state of the area in the late Republican period. Hopefully, the near future will see the publication of material from the sanctuaries, other habitation areas and tombs from Pontecagnano belonging to the periods in question28.
Notes
1 Gualtieri & Fracchia 1990, 51-56, 95-96; Gualtieri & Fracchia 1990, 151-156; Gualtieri 1993; Gualtieri & Fracchia 2001, especially 28-38 and 67-69.
2 Russo Tagliente 1992, 219-220.
3 Gualtieri & Fracchia 1990, 65-67, fig. 66a-c; Russo Tagliente 1992, 173-180.
4 Serritella 1995, 79-82, especially Tomb 4453.
5 For an overview of the material, see e.g. Basilicata 1990; Leukania 1992; Russo Tagliente 1992; Barra Bagnasco 1997, 16-27; Isayev 2000, especially chapter 2 and catalogue.
6 See Adamesteanu & Dilthey 1992; Russo Tagliente 1995.
7 Johannowsky 1990, 36.
8 See e.g. Gualtieri 2003, 30-31.
9 For a historical overview and references, see Lomas 1993, 39-57; Lomas 1996.
10 Fracchia 1993, especially 265-269; Gualtieri 2003, 32-35.
11 According to Torelli, the comitium was built in the second half of the 3rd cent. BC, and therefore the ekklesiasterion served as comitium for some decades (Torelli 1992, 45; Torelli 1999, 15-16). This has been rejected by Theodorescu (see Torelli 1992, Il dibattito, 124). See also D’Ambrosio & Ficuciello 2000 and Gualtieri 2003, 19-23.
12 For examples of Imperial date in Southern Italy, see e.g. Fracchia & Gualtieri 1998-1999, 327.
13 Strabo 5.4.13.
14 Flor. epit. 2.6.11.
15 Fracchia & Gualtieri 1998-1999, 295-301; Gualtieri & Fracchia 2001, 117-126 and 127-140.
16 Fracchia 2001, 72.
17 Fracchia & Gualtieri 1998-1999, 300.
18 Fracchia & Gualtieri 1998-1999, 295, with references; Fracchia 2001, 72.
19 Dyson 1983, 12, 140 and 170.
20 Romito 1991, 25.
21 Romito 1991, 23.
22 Lemaire et al. 2000, 164-170, pls. 10-13; Gualtieri 2003, 65-70.
23 Ficuciello 2000, 174.
24 Nappo 1997.
25 Dickmann 1997; Dickmann 1999, especially 127-144.
26 See e.g. Fracchia & Gualtieri 1998-1999, fig. 1; Rossi 1999, fig. 3; Prontera 2003, segmentum VI.VI.5.
27 For Paestum, see Pedley 1990, 163.
28 Works announced in Giglio 2001, introductory note and note 5.
Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont sous Licence OpenEdition Books, sauf mention contraire.