The Ancient Ports of Cumae Author(s): R. F. Paget Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol.

58, Parts 1 and 2 (1968), pp. 152-169 Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/299704 . Accessed: 24/03/2011 19:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

THE ANCIENT

PORTS OF CUMAE

By R. F. PAGET (Plates vii-xiii)

Cumae was the firstcity founded by Greek colonists on the mainland of Italy. It attained pre-eminencefor a time in the Bay of Naples and its influencewas exercised over a wide area for more than 500 years. Yet the detailed phases of its long historyare still very nebulous and patchy. Referencesin ancient writersdeal mainly with its conthe risingpowerof Rome. Little excavationhas been carriedout on the site (apart tactsw%ith fromthe cemeteries)and the published information is mostlyof a general nature, more suited to touristappreciationthan to thatof serious students. Serious studentsdo not lack in the problemspresentedby Cumae, but theymay perhapslack familiarity interest withits topography. Whateverits faultsof scholarshipmay be, this presentstudy is at least the productof eightyears' residenceanldassiduous delvinginto the archaeologyof the Cuma/ Bacoli Peninsula. The storyof Cumae is naturallydivisibleinto two stages ; the Greek and the Roman. Most accounts begin with a discussion about the date of its foundation,and where the colonists came from. But it is not the date that interestsus here in this enquiry; it is the reason why exploring sailormen not only visited here but chose Cumae as their tradingstation,when there were apparentlymore attractivesites at Misenum and other places round the Bay of Naples ; to say nothingof all the sites theywill presumablyhave passed by on their voyage from Greece. In my book on my discoveries at Baia, In the Footstepsof Oopheus1I suggestedthat the first explorers,sailing up fromthe south along the coast of the Gulf of Salerno and the southernside of the SorrentoPeninsula encountered a northeasterly wind at the end of the peninsula and thus were unable to proceed northeastinto the Bay of Naples. They therefore crossed the narrowstrait,to the south side of the island of Capri, to wait for the wind to veer, whence they crossed to Ischia, which would be plainlyvisible,while the mountainsin the depth of the Bay of Naples may well have been only vaguely discernible in the haze. Trading interestsmay explain the preference forthis area to the neglectof othersnearerhome. Nor need the generalattractions of the region be irrelevant. The strangevolcanic cratersand lakes of the Phlegrean Fields may well have been already sanctifiedby the Italiote indigenes to the gods of the Infernal Regions, thus creatingan importantcentre of commerce and religious pilgrimage. But sailors would settle at a place for one reason and one reason above all others, namelythattherewas a good shelteredharbourfortheirships.2
I. THE GREEK HARBOUR

In the whole course of historysea power has usually been the key to militarydominance.3 But, for this power to be effective, the fleets,both naval and commercial,must have good harbours with adequate dockyard facilities. There must also be good land communications betweenthe port or ports and the (preferably nearby) metropolisand the principalcentresof population and industry. In thisrespectCumae offers an apparentenigma. The citywas largelyconfined to the immediatearea of the base of the acropolis, cut off fromthe main land mass on the north
1 R. F. Paget,In theFootsteps ofOrpheus (London: Robert Hale, I 967). 2 We know little about the harbour-facilities at Ischia, where according to Livy (8, 22), the Greeks had made a settlementbefore they moved over to colonise the better-endowed position of Cumnae. The island is very subject to volcanic activity. Strabo (5, 4, 9) mentions several eruptions of Mt. Epomeo in Greek times, one in the early period, another about the time of Hiero of Syracuse that was alluded to bv Pindar (in Pyth. I, 33), and a third said by Timaeus the historian to have occurred 'shortly before his ownttime ', i.e. about 350 B.C.;

and Pliny (NH 2, 203) tells of another-perhaps identical with the one Timaeus knew of-that destroyeda town and createda lake, which is actually the modem harbour of Porto d'Ischia. Apart from Porto d'Ischia the island is not specially well provided with protectedanchorages; but the eruptions that occurred before and after ancient times make the positionhard to recover. See further G. Buchner and A. Rittmann,Originee passato dell'isola d'Isehia (Naples, 1947) ; D. Buchner-Niola, L'Isola d'Jschia, studiogeografico (Naples I o65). 3 Captain A. T. MIahan, The Infduence of SeaPower in History(Loridon I&92).

THE ANCIENT PORTS OF CUMAE

I53

by reedy marshes,or even an open Bay (Lake Licola, now drained), and on the south by Lake Fusaro (Acherusia). The only good access fromthe land was by a narrowridge of higherground about 500 yards wide on the east side. The coastline, for many miles on either side of the acropolis, presents a long line of unbroken sand-dunes, upon which grew a forestof scrub knownto Strabo as the ' Silva Gallinaria '.4 Today thereis no sign of a rivermouth,or even of a cove or bay,in whichships could shelter,forat least 5 miles on eitherside of Cumae. Faced with this picture,historiansand archaeologistsare prone to speak of Cumae as offering a safe beach ratherthan a shelteredharbour.5 They tend to thinkof the warships of antiquity,in early times at least, being drawn up on the beach in orderlylines, as at hard,sandy beach, exposed the siege of Troy.6 Unfortunately forthe sailor a long,straight, quadrant,is not a ' safe beach ', it is a death trap.7 to all the gales in the westerly Even today, the Mediterraneanlongshoremanis no rough weather sailor. There is still the traditionof the ' sailing season ', fromApril to September,that governed Roman the emptyvessels were drawn out, and still are, but naval strategy. During the off-season mark and storm-wavebreakingpoint. The in shelteredharbours,well above high-water of drawing out a vessel of any size on an open beach are obvious, even on a difficulties calm day; with any sea, the operationwould be impossible. No sailor would choose an exposed beach for this seasonal exercise; still less could such expedients be used all the year round for vessels of a fleetthat would, normally,have to be in a state of instant ships be drawnout under readinessto put to sea as required. Neithercan loaded merchant any conditions,as the hulls would strain and soon become unseaworthyby bumping on the hard sand. The ancient ships were very lightlybuilt, mostlyfastenedwith trenails (wooden dowels), and theyworked and leaked badly in a seaway, keeping a large part of their crews constantlyemployed ' at the pumps '. By the middle of the fifthcentury fleetsconsistedof heavy vessels as well as light scouting craft,and the bigger commercial waters ships were of considerablesize. Lead anchorsfoundby JohnD. Lewis in off-shore in this area would on modern calculations imply ships with a displacementof from 500 vessels of to a possible maximum of I,500 tons. Pliny the Elder speaks of corn-carrying this size in use in his day.8 But, however that may be, all wooden ships, whatevertheir size, have to be drawn out of the water at regularintervals,for bottom paintingand the removal of toredo-infested wood. Right from its foundation Cumae required a proper harbour. It is true,of course, that some cities,originally sited withouta thoughtforsea-power or sea-communications,have had to make shiftwith what harbour facilitiesthey could findsubsequently,and reasonably adjacent. Rome is an example, and harbour-developmentat Ostia and Portusreflect Until the Claudian harbourwas completed, her difficulties. at the mouth of the it was the practice forthe large merchantvessels to anchor off-shore Tiber and discharge their cargo into lightersfor the passage up-river.9 But there is a world of difference between anchoringoffa lee-shore on a calm day for the purpose of working cargo and making that same lee-shore a permanent mooring site, exposed to dangers of sudden on-shore gales, such as befell Octavian at Scyllaeum in 38 B.C. and lighterships and an even again at Velia in 36, where he lost six heavy ships, twenty-six largernumberof Liburnian galleys in a single night. These sudden gales are a featureof generally the TyrrhenianSea. They are caused by the meetingof opposed air currents, round thunder-clouds,giving rise to whirlwindsand waterspouts. They are of short duration,but while theylast, windspeeds and seas are very dangerous,especially to fairweathersailors who love to hug the shore. So, unless one is going to argue thatthe sailors
See Strabo 5, 4, 4, who calls it a OXN ealvc8rj. 5 Thus J.Boardman, The GreeksOverseas(London 1964) I83, to take a recentexample.
4

6 In Homer's Iliad XIV, 30-36. But in view of their objective-Troy itself-the Greeks may have had littlechoice. 7 Compare Strabo's words (5, 4, 4): 'according to some Cumae is named afterthe waves (kumata), for the neighbouringshore is surfyand exposed to the wind '.

8 The anchors were found by John D. Lewis and Robert Love, Jr., in I965 offthe Galli islands, on the south side of the Sorrento peninsula: they are now in the museum at Salerno. For the size of vessels see esp. L. Casson, The Ancient Mariners (London 1959), esp. pp. I26 ff.,I74 f. 9 Dion. Hal. 3, 44; Strabo 5, 3, 5. Cp. R. Meiggs, Roman Ostia 5' If.

154

R. F.

PAGET

rules of seamanship, or bent on turningthemat Cumae were ignorantof the elementary theirchoice of site is indeed strange,if therewas selves into self-sufficient agriculturalists, no harbour to sheltertheirships. There are, of course, obvious harbour sites in the area, some of which Cumae came to controland perhaps use as harboursin due course; but none of themis near enough to account for the choice of that site for permanent settlement,which only an adjacent harbour could justifyfrom a sailor's point of view. With such considerationsin mind, therefore, I was led to seek what evidence I could find for the existence of a harbour at Cumae itself,and I found it, as mighthave been expected,in the obvious place, namelyin the former outletfromthe lake of Fusaro and the connectionwith the sea at its northend near the acropolis. It may seem strangethat no one had noticed it before,but the reason why it had so far escaped discoveryby archaeologistswas, quite simply,a lack of knowledge of the sailor's problems, and failureto appreciate the absolute necessityfor a good sheltered harbour; secondly, the silting up and overgrowingby jungle of the former harbour sites, to say nothingof their conversion into fertilefarm land. There are also the effects of bradyseismto bear in mind. As thisphenomenonis by no means understood, a note on its workingsis perhaps desirable. Bradyseismis the name givento the rhythmic rise and fall of the land, withrespectto the sea, in coastal areas in the centralMediterranean. It is especially prevalentalong the west coast of Italy, and in particularin the Naples area. The intervalsbetween the oscillations amount to centuriesand the amplitudes can be as much as several metres. Care must be taken to distinguishsuch movementsfromother tectonicmanifestations. Some recently published observationsby A. E. Guntherseem to have confused' raised beaches ' -changes of level due to the climatic variations in the Glacial Period-with true local 10 The island of Nisida, Capo Miseno, and the islands of bradyseismic movements. Ischia and Procida all exemplify ancient sea-levels which are raised beaches,11yet at the same time theyalso demonstrate the local effects of bradyseism. All round this coast, and in practicallyeverycraterof the Phlegrean Fields, there is still residual movement,often manifestedby hot springs. Bradyseismiceffects are peculiar to each crater,whence the importance of the term ' local'. Thus at the great Market at Pozzuoli (or 'Tempio di Serapide') where the phenomenon was firstdiscovered and studied, the sea is already 9 feet above the floorof the building and risingat the rate of half an inch a year.12 At Baia by contrast, though only three miles away, sections of the old Via Herculanea, which was a usable road in classical timesfromMisenum to Puteoli, are today more than I8 feetunder water. By contrastagain, at Lake Avernus, less than a mile fromBaia, the general land level seems to be much the same as it was in Augustus' day, though there are certain locally active spots round the lake shore. Turner's picture of the Bay of Baia, painted in c. I823 (and now in the Tate Gallery,London), gives a striking impressionof the position of the water-linein his day and indicates the changes during the interval. The beach extendsalmost200 yardsfurther eastwardsin the picturethan it does today. These tectonic movements of bradyseismand other changes of sea-level impose a general need for caution in calculating what was realistic at any particularperiod along this changingcoastline ; furthermore each separate localityrequires individual study. To take an example, to claim that there was no need for a harbour at Cumae because the splendid port of Misenum was only about three miles away, raises the question of the topographyof Misenum in the eighth centuryB.C. It is more than possible that at that time,and foran extensiveperiod both beforeand after, therewas no harbourat Misenum; bradyseismiceffects could well have left Misenum an island. It was only when the floor of the narrowstraitbetween the island of Procida and the mainland rose, and the water became so shallow as to impede the throughcurrents,that sand would be deposited to form the dyke between Lago Miseno and the sea. Except for a narrow channel with
10 ' Redrawing the Coastline of Southern Italy', Illustrated London News, Jan. i8, I964. But his views have been challenged on scientificgrounds: see N. C. Flemming and A. N. Burton, 'Marine Levels in South Italy', Nature cciii (I964), io6o ff.; H. Schliager, Rom. Mitt. lxxi (I964), 245 ff.

11 For other examples, see C. B. M. McBurney, The Stone Age of NorthernAfrica (London I960), iiz; F. E. Zeuner, Dating thePast4 (I958), 127 ff.; and the worksof A. C. Blanc quoted by these writers. 12 See A. Maiuri, I Campi Flegrei3(I958), 24 f.

JRS vol.

LVIII

(I968)

PLATE

XIII

00 04
A.

..'is3',

t
jl W ;

aa
_
l_ E

<E

.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@ , * #t a o wX-iDu57r

z~~~~~~~~~~~~~

z S?~~~~~~~~~~~~

1)1

_z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

,Dgj [; _~t z

THE 20

ANCIENT

PORTS

OF CUMAE

I55

feetof water on the island side, this straittoday has only some I2 feetover the greater part of its width. The general nature of the topography,in short, indicates that Capo of Gaeta further Miseno, Monte di Procida, the acropolis of Cumae, and the promontory northhave all been islands at some time in the past.13 filled The acropolis at Cumae is the remains of an ancient lava plug which formerly a crater,now eroded away, The base consists of two kinds of rhyolitelava, one lightish grey in colour and finein texture,and the other darkerand with coarser crystals. These lavas are overlaid by the usual local beds of hard yellow tufa rock and capped by friable greytufa,which formsthe crest of the hill. From the acropolis a low ridge extendsto the a shallow bight,about 6oo yards long (see fig. 5). At the southernend of south, forming this bight a small promontory(hereafter referredto as ' the promontory') marks the of a small subsidiarycrater. Immediatelyadjacent to this, a second crateris termination delineated by the continuationof the ridge,which eventuallybends round to join the high ground at Torregaveta. beach, covered with sand-dunes and The shorelineto the northconsists of a straight backed by a maze of lagoons and alluvial marshesoccupyingthe whole of the big bight of the Appenninesterminating northwardsat Mondragone (ancient Sinuessa) some I 5 miles from Cumae. To the south the geology is quite different. The coast is still a straight line fromthe base of the acropolis to Torregaveta, but it consists of a hard rock floor, covered by only a lightdeposit of sand-dunes. This formsthe dyke between Lake Fusaro and the sea. Inside this bar, Lake Fusaro (the ancient marsh of Acherusia) is not a seamade lagoon, but a true geological lake, resultingfrom residual tectonic pressures and movementsconnected with the formationof the Mediterranean Basin in Tertiary Geological times. Such pressurescame fromthe south and west and theyresultedin the fracture of the craterfloorwith subsequent tiltingdownwards towards the east. In the dip so formedwater fromspringsaccumulated and formedLake Fusaro, and as these waters along the narrowtrenchwhich led northto an exit into the filledthe dip theyoverflowed mentioned above. It was here where the two craters sea at the end of the promontory adjoined that a weakness in the earth's crust would allow the sea to erode the channel. Even today hot springs along the east bank of the lake shew that movement has not entirelyceased. Such geological conditionsoffer a far more permanentbasis forcontinuous existence than lagoons, which can change theirposition and extentwith almost everytide and every gale of wind.14 At the time of the foundationof Cumae, it seems likelythat here in Lake Fusaro, with its natural outlet to the sea and an ample supply of freshwater to maintain a currentto prevent silting,were the essential conditions requisite for the harbour on the spot. Why then, it may be asked, is the harbour not open and obvious today ? First, I think,because the volume of surplus water produced by the hot springsdiminished,and so failed to provide sufficient currentto keep the silt in suspension and carryit out to sea. of bradyseism. Whilst the land at the Cumae end of the Secondly, because of the effects of a couple of feet lake is today some 3 or 4 feetabove the lake-level,there is a difference between this and the Torrregavetaend, which seems to have retained its Roman level, as in the days thus permitting the tunnel and ramp (see below) to functionas effectively of Octavian. Third, and by no means least, the insidious constant action of the winds
13 As was shown by Professor Blanc for Monte Circeo, Zeuner o.c., note II, 224. True, we cannot always be sure what is due to geological movements and what to bradyseismof a local and volcanic nature. We may note that in Ischia there are indications of considerable changes of level in historic times,D. Buchner-Niola (o. c., note 2), 9 ff. 14 The destructive power of the sea in local gales can be terrifying. In November I966 the storm which caused the floodingat Florence washed away the isthmus connectingPunta Pennata (the northern arm of Portus Misenus) to the mainland, leaving a channel ioo hundred yards wide and I2 feet deep. Before this I had observed that the isthmus was ioo yards wide and composed of sand-dune; but

it had the appearance of having been a permanency for many centuries. It is easy to picture the effects of a storm on an area already reduced to near sealevel by bradyseism. My geological knowledge of these phenomena is derived from some research I did on the structure of the Warwickshire,Birmingham (S. Staffs) and Kent Coalfields. These resulted in papers in 1936 for the Institution of Mining Engineers and the Coal Trade Review on the Birmingham coalfield, and some unpublished reports on the structure of the North Kent coal seams made to the Chislet Colliery. These researchesdealt with the formation of lagoons and the effectsof faulting in the coalfields.

156

R. F. PAGET

(mainly from the south-west) carryingsand into the northernpart of the lake, and the invasion of the jungle into every dried-out patch of mud. It is impossible to assess the of these forcesthroughoutantiquity,but it is obvious that they hold relativeinteractions ofthe harbour. the keyto the fortunes This Greek harbour, which comprised the trench, or gut, leading north from the outlet to the sea at the had a very restricted main body of the lake to carrythe overflow, end of the promontory. Here a channel less than Ioo feet wide is formed between the promontoryand the rocky floor of the upturned edge of the crater formingthe dyke the harbour has a separatingthe lake fromthe sea. Justto the south of the promontory small indentation,or cove, on the east side, which may well have served as the main anchorage,as there are traces of a road leading up the shallow valley towards the amphitheatre,around which some settlementseems to have taken place in Greek times.15 All this can be appreciated quite easily on the ground and also on the aerial photograph(see P1. ix), and the cove with the channel provides ample accommodation for a considerable period type of vessel which was in vogue during the formative number of the fifty-oared of Cumae's greatness. So much for the field evidence and signs on the ground. But granted that all this was possible, is there any evidence in the accounts of Cumae's historyto support such theories ? Cumae in its Greek period was at the height of its power towards the end of the sixth centuryB.C. under an aristocraticgovernment. In 524 B.C. it was attacked by the Etruscans, who, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus,16 advanced from the area round the present Lago di Patria to the northand attacked up the northernslope of the due ridge connectingthe acropolis of Cumae with the mainland. Their defeatwas chiefly to the initiativeof one man, Aristodemus,who made skilfuluse of his cavalry. Twenty years later in 504, there was another Etruscan threat; the aristocratsof Cumae distrustedAristodemus,but were obliged to make use of him. With the idea of gettingrid of him, according to Dionysius, they sent him to meet the threatwith only ten ships and inferiortroops. But he was again victorious at Aricia and returned by sea to meet a hero's welcome fromthe populace and set himselfup as tyrantof Cumae, with various resultssuch as I have described elsewhere.17 But for my presentpurpose, the description of his returnfromAricia, as told by Dionysius, is worthnoting (ch. 7, I): ' he sailed in with his ships decked out with flags (dressed overall!) into the harbours (plural, note: theywere When the soldiers disembarked, EiS TOrS T-V KuvalcovXlpEvaS)of Cumae ... met by theirfathers and mothersand all the restof theirkinsmen,theirchildrenand their the generalwithjoy and wives who embracedthem . . . and all the othercitizens,receiving applause, conducted him to his house'. This account suggeststhat Cumae had more than one harbour. It is possible that there were in fact two harboursthere at the time, as the littlebay to the northof the promontory, whichwas laterto be the site ofAgrippa's harbour, may then have been a deep-waterinlet,thus providingthe two harbours,one on each side of the promontory.This kind of site was much soughtafterby exploringGreek seamen for their tradingbases, it would seem. Syracuse is an obvious example. There is also the possibilitythat Lake Licola (now drained) which lay immediatelyto the north of the acropoliswas then a wide open bay. However, Dionysius in the course of the same passage harbours to Cumae as being Mistressof the Seas and of the mostconvenient (ch. 3, z) refers roundMisenum(AtpE'vcov ETFrKalpoTCOV), a phrasewhich KparTovaa TCXv lTEpi Mtu'rivov opens up various possibilities. It is perhaps best to leave the question open, as one harbour to support my theory,and this Dionysius implies. I on the spot at Cumae is sufficient leave it to readers more learned in source-criticism than myselfto decide whetheror not opportunity Dionysius is reliable on such mattersof detail in a contextwhich clearlyoffers forrhetorical exaggeration. But at least no one can claim thatthereis no ancientevidence
15 The city walls in the sixth century,so far as they have been traced, did not reach as far as the amphitheatre(see E. Gabrici, Mon. Ant. xxii, 1913, II f.). But some early potteryhas certainlybeen found in the neighbourhood and near the Villa

Vergiliana, see A. G. McKay, Naples and Campania

(I962),
16

17

Ant. Rom. 7, ch. 3-8. In the book cited above, note I.

63.

THE ANCIENT PORTS OF CUMAE

157

4i
I4
t
_,Roman

Acropolis
-

of Cumae

Oscan and town

I. '
< \ I

Promontory

(,,
"

Jand

Original Greek port later fishing

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.

~FUSARO

VGaveta

I
V >

haBrokenuines show ~extension in 37 B.C.

FIG. 5.

CUMAE: THE GREEK HARBOUR

Drawn by Helen Waughfromsketch-map by theauthor

158

R. F.

PAGET

here as a solution of the enigma of Cumae-the Greek in support of what I am presenting maritimecolony with no harbour. the sum totalof Cumae's be regardedas in reality Nor need the ten ships ofAristodemus naval might. For, afterthe death of Aristodemus,the Etruscans again attackedCumae in 474 B.C., this timeby sea. On this occasion Cumae invokedthe help of Hieron of Syracuse. The decisive engagementwas foughtoffCumae, in which the combined fleetsof Cumnae and Syracuse were victorious. Most of the creditwas taken by Hieron, who was not even pointis thata Cumaean fleetwas presentand thatCumae was present. For us the important thatthe attackwas made, and met,by sea.18 At this time, the object of the attack; further at least, Cumae would seem to have had a considerablenavy (requiringadequate harbour facilities)which was a factorof no littleimportancein the struggle. It is just possible that we still have a visible sign of her share in the spoils of victory; for it has been suggested by Etruscan prisonersfrom thatthe so-called Grottoof the Sibyl at Cumae was constructed this battle. Althoughthe section of the Dromos is ' Mycenean ' in styleit also recalls that 19 Etruscantombs,at Tarquinia forinstance. ofthefifth-century Fiftyyears afterthe battle,aftera long period of peaceful penetration,Cumae fell to the Samnites.20 According to Strabo, many of the Greek customs and ways of life were women. to remain,thoughthe Samniteshelped themselvesto all the best-looking permitted the Samnites who remainedsettled Owing to this prolongedperiod of peacefulpenetration, at Cumae will have been mainly the comparativelyeducated merchantsand their staffs and labour, a class which formedthe link betweenthe Greek cultureand the Italiote tribes who formedthe market. This was the social structuregenerallyin Campania and in the toe of Italy, whereverthe Greeks had establishedsettlements. The arts of writingand the overthe whole region. and interchanged of religionwere thus diffused mysteries at sea declined. She had, probablyfromquite But at the same time Cumae's activity industry. Strabo calls attentionto it, when he says early times, established a fish-salting it was a well-knowncentre for the catchingof large fish.21 But by this time Rome was becoming dangerous to oppose and the Samnites do not seem to have been interestedin a navy. As a resultthe harbourswere probablyallowed to decline, and silted maintaining remained active, as cove to the south of the promontory up, until perhaps only the fishing only rowing boats are used for tunny fishing. There was, in addition, a considerable industrywhich may well go back to this period; her flaxthreads and cords net-making are praised by Pliny the Elder.22 I have also found numerous loom weights at Cumae, showingthat therewas a well-foundedweaving trade in linen or wool. We knowall too littleof Cumae in the Oscan period,but we catchanotherglimpseofthe ofSouth Italy.Hannibal master townduringtheSecond Punic War,whenHannibalwas virtual badly needed a good harbouron the westerncoast of Italy; in 2I5 B.C., accordingto Livy, he made no fewerthan threeattemptsto seize Naples, being ' most anxious to gain control of a coastal town and create a safe connectionby sea with Africa', but he failed in all his attempts. In the next year he was to make an assault on Puteoli forthe same reason. But and so to breakthroughthe close late in 215 B.C. he had triedto captureCumae by trickery, by the Roman guard keptby the Romans on these coastal towns. He was quicklyforestalled commander in Campania, the consul Ti. Sempronius Gracchus. Evidently the harbour of Cumae, though it was now less importantthan that of Naples, was still well worth Hannibal's attention.23 So it may well have come about that,by the timeof the comingof the Romans, nothing channel but by Lake Fusaro and its overflow offered was leftof the excellentport facilities
18 The role played by the Cumaean fleet is admitted by the scholiast on Pind., Pyth. I, 7I and and for the helmet dedicated by Diod. I I, 5 I; Hieron at Olympia, and now in the BritishMuseum, see Tod, GHI no. 22. Other indications of a navy are to be seen in Dion. Hal. 7, 3, 4 and 7, 7, 4 (a mentionof dockyards). 19 Cp. A. G. McKay, o.c. note I5, 66 ff. 20 Strabo5, 4, 4; Diod. 12, 76 (under42I B.C.); Livy 4, 44 (under 420 B.C.). 21 Strabo 5, 4, 4: iCai8? Kai Kxirdal Trap' aiToos ipaplorat. see L-S-J, s.v. The word KfTosis used of tunny-fish,

22 Pliny,HN cp. Cato, Agr. 135; Grattius, i9, ii; Cyneg.35. 23 For the attempts on Naples, see Livy 23, I-1 5; for Puteoli, 24, 23, 6. For the assault on Cumae, 23, 35-37; again, Livy stresses Hannibal's anxietyfor a port (36, 6-' quamquam haud modice cupiebat ut, quia Neapolim non potuerat, Cumas saltem maritimam urbem haberet, tamen . . .'). The consul Gracchus also had a naval force under his command at Cumae (Livy 23, 38, 3), but we are not told where it was based.

THE ANCIENT PORTS OF CUMAE

159

connectedwith the lake by an overcove to the south of the promontory, the littlefishing and the acropolis congrown ditch,and possibly a marshyarea between the promontory taininga fewmuddy creeksusable by small craft.
II. THE ROMAN HARBOUR

Frank E. Brown, the presentDirector of the American Academy in Rome, has done much fine work at Ansedonia near the peninsula of Orbetello. Here he discovered and excavatedthe ancientRoman portof Cosa.24 Helping himin thisworkin I965 was JohnD. archaeologicalresearch,diving in Italian coastal Lewis, who has done a lot of underwater waters. It was a talkgivenby Lewis in Naples thatgave me the missingclue to the possible existenceof a Roman port at Cumae. I have much pleasure in quoting fromthe unpublished notes he kindlygave me forthis article. problemof ' The usable lifeof ancientportswas oftenconditiorned by the troublesome silting. Sediment from rain and small streams quickly settles to the bottom of a small harbour,especially if it is confinedby a narrowentrance. Without dredgingequipment modernharbourswould do the same. The only solution in ancienttimeswas to keep the waterin the enclosed harbourmovingand thus to keep the silt in suspension. To keep the theirportsso as to take advantage watermoving,the ancientharbourengineersconstructed throughmanof the naturalresourcesavailable to them. In some cases riverswere diverted a continuousflow tanksand thenintroducedinto the harbour,thus providing made settling had to turnto the sea itself the harbour-engineer of water. When riverswere not avrailable, for assistance. The sea-water,provided it was sand-free,could be used both to reduce water within siltingby means of a created flowof water,and for dilutingthe silt-carrying the harbouritself. ' Obtainingand collectingthe sea-waterat a highermean level than that of the surtidal common practicetoday,wherea significant roundingsea by means of locks is a fairly tideless MediterraneanSea such a method cannot be range exists. But in the relatively of locks was known to the there is no evidence that the construction applied, and further turned to the wind and the resultingwaves to Romans. The ancient harbour-engineers providetheirflowof waterforde-silting. When a portionof the harbourborderingon the of the prevailing winds,and thus thatof the seas also, it was a simple sea facedthe direction a ramp over which the waves could sweep. The waves thus spilled water task to construct where it was held at an elevationhigherthan sea-level. The level into a collecting-basin, of the ramps which in turn was to which this water was raised, depended on the height. conditionedby the mean heightof the waves that the prevailingwinds could be expected to produce. Sluice-gatesat the innerend of the collectingbasin kept the waterthereuntil the desired level had been reached; at which time the sluice-gateswould be opened as necessaryto release the water into the enclosed harbour. The resultwas a flow of water out throughthe harbourentrancetowardsthe sea. 'An example of this de-siltingsystemcan be seen at the ancientport of Sidon, where the ramps, collecting-basinand sluice-gates are still plainly visible. Although it is not completelysubstantiated,it is probable that the system was in fact invented by the Phoenicians. thistime definitely Roman, is the ancientport 'Another example of port construction, of Cosa. This was an early Latin Colony (273 B.C.) established by the Romans on the Etruscan coast. The harbourthere,an inland lagoon, had an ingeniousde-siltingarrangerockyand water was obtained froma part of the coast that was relatively ment. Silt-free a littledistancefromthe port entrance. The waterwas fed througha systemof sand-free, canals cut in the rock,to a collectingbasin. As at Sidon, when the waterin the basin had reached the desired level, the inner sluice-gates would havrebeen opened and the water water,introducedintothe harbourat a allowed to flowinto the harbour. Thus the silt-free higherlevel, caused the water to flowout throughthe entranceand so reduce silting. At Cosa therewas more than one such intakeforthe collectionof water,facingin such a way
24

F. E. Brown, ' Cosa I:

History and Topography', AMAARxx (i95i),

89 ff.

I 6o

R. F. PAGET

that between themthey could take advantage of all the prevailingwinds and wave action encounteredthere,in the north-east/south-east quadrant(see P1. xiii). 'That this problem was common to otherports is documentedby ancient writers.25 At otherlarge portssuch as Tyre, Alexandria,and even Apollonia, there is the possibility were constructed, but nothinghas yet been found to conthat some similararrangements firm this hypothesis. The problemmust have been just as greatat Portus Julius,Agrippa's harbour at Avernus, but so far I have not yet found out how the de-siltingwas accomplished there. In generalthe absence of deep-waterportsalong the Italian coast forcedthe to build theirharboursin shallowlagoons or man-madebasins. In additionto the engineers de-siltingby flushingout the harbour, a series of discontinuousmoles was often built, in and out of the harbour,yet damped the swell of which allowed the waterto flowfreely can be seen at Misenum and at Puteoli. Breakthe waves. Examples of this construction waters,when required,were made of loose-fitting the waterto flow rocks,whichpermitted betweenthem; finally, when large moles were necessary, throughholes were constructed in them,to increasethe flowof waterat the harbourentrance.' In a discussionat the site of Portus Juliuswith Lewis, the authorsuggestedthat siltfreewTater mighthave been proTidedby Avernusitself. Today the level of the lake is about a couple of feetabove sea-level. It seems likelythatit was the same or virtually the same in Agrippa's day to judge fromthe positionand level of the ' Galleryof Cocceius' (on which would give a differential head at low water of some 4 feet. Of course, more later). Thnis to utilise Avernus at one and the same time as a dockyardand as a collectingbasin for surplus w"ater, (a) a systemof sluice-gatesforthe controlof the water,and (b) a systemof were not knownto the Romans), or a roller-ramp locks (which apparently over which the ships could be hauled in and out of the lake, would be required. Roller-rampswere a commonpractice,used even to transport ships over the isthmusat Corinth. I shall revert to this matterlater in this study. But first, beforeconsidering the workof Agrippa in this area, a briefhistoricalexcursus would seem proper,to carrythe storyof Cumae fromthe point at which we leftit to the time of Octavian, and to set the scene forthose operations which broughtnaval importanceonce again to this area in general and to Cumae in particular,althoughforonly a veryshorttime. There is always a tendency, unless verygreatcare is taken,to lose sightof the passage of time in the past, to thinkthat conditions,say, in 500 B.C. would per se be those of 44 the fact that this is the same intervalof time as that separatingus from B.C., overlooking Columbus. WVhen JuliusCaesar was assassinatedin 44 B.C. a long time had elapsed since the heyday of Greek Cumae and therewas probablylittleto suggestthata new chapterwas about to begin in the storyof its harbour. As we have seen, row-boatsmay well have been using the littlefishingcove on the south side of the promontory, whilstthe bight on the north side may have had a usable inlet amongstits marshycreeks,where the fishermen engaged in the tunny-fishing could land and salt theircatch. A tranquilenough scene, remotefrom the main currentof history. In 45 B.C. the two sons of Pompeius Magnus had raised a revoltin Spain, but were defeatedat the battle of Munda by Julius Caesar. Both escaped fromthe battle,but the elder,Gnaeus, was soon capturedand slain. The younger,Sextus, was more fortunate and survived Caesar. In the confusion that followed the Ides of March he was appointed Admiralby the Senate and succeeded in collecting together a considerablefleet, withwhich
25 The scouring-channeland sluices in the port of Sidon are referred to by Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon i ff.),and the remainshave been carefully studied by A. Poidebard and J. Lauffray, Sidon, amenagements antiques du port de Saida (Beyrouth 195I), 5I ff. When the port of Ephesus silted up in the second centuryB.C. (cp. Livy 37, 14, 5), Attalus II of Pergamumatterhpted to increase

theflow bya narrow channel (Strabo14,

large port of Seleucia Pieria on the Orontes had acute silting problems ; a rock-cut tunnel was designed to produce a scouring acLion, evidentiy

I, 24).

The

in Flavian times (CIL III, 6702; cf. Paus. 8, 29, 3 and Eibanius, Or. xi, 159 ; for other sources see P-VV II A, II90 if.; and Poidebard and Lauifray, O.C., 31 ff.). Ancient engineers often elsewhere would employ a scouring currentto meet the danger of silting: e.g. Ostia (Plut., Caes. 58, I), Ravenna (Strabo 5, 1, 5 ; Pliny, HN 3, I 9 ; Jordanes, Getica 29, 147 ff.), Caesarea in Palestine (Jos., Ant. J. 15, 33I-41); and for Cnidus, Alexandria and Apollonia see K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Antike Hafenanlagen(Kijo BeiheftXIV, 1923).

JRS vol. LVIII (I968)

PLATE VII

.7~~~~~~~~~~~c

.;

'

\'

X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F

JRS vol. LVIII (I968)

PLATE VIII

4~~~~~~~.
..i'S<:

ON

e~~_

CUMAE: ( I) AIR-PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HARBOUR AREA. (2) KEY: A = PHAROS, B-B-B =ENTRY FROM SEA, C-C = ENTRY GUT WITH MOLE, D =TURN INTO INNER BASIN, E = INNER BASIN, F =CAREENING BEACH AND SLIPWAYS, G-G = QUAY AREA, H = ENTRY TO TUNNEL UNDER ACROPOLIS, J-J= LINE OF CAVE OF THE SIBYL, K-K = CANAL FROM LAKE FUSARO, L = THE PROMONTORY, M =ANCIENT PORT AND FISHING COVE, N-N = PRESENT SHORE-LINE (see pp. 155 if., I66 if.) (I)

Photograph fromtheauthor'scollection. Copyright reserved. (2) Drawn by Helen Waugh

JRS vol.LVIII

(I968)

PLATE IX

_
; vjj--.r ^ .:t ^ .z . ?. o t. .

*: -

K 1#..;,>.e %wI - | i I _ I
_. . t. z . o
Sd

F3s

1:

ffi

lEi
S

gJ1_ !
_.
N n

B jS F Ss11
w_ . .

- 11
|

*
i:

dt

_,

_-%

_a

.?

;,3?_

lR!C;i_

,*.u_

w
*

__
_1=

_
.;_4?-d

...

:
j

.:

..
. e. ,..i;

,.
*: - : ? g-tkies-;g;j_ R,:':e:i *_E__L_L9DS
Z

:# w _

w _
f J

_. _KN_E
_rs

._'

FiS _K_
u
_ii di

'__
,. .8
. i.: ?

z#
4o:: ^ :: . .. ?< ?. ::|-

?ei 31l

_y' _v?_. ? t; _|?1

'. ':'&Sih: .?

.. *g

__

__l _i

|
,.,

...

. Ii

_E|W
_ __lk.lFF :i. ?. ss i T .. * : . .. . :: ?.g.x e . *^?: '; e '%!: .?x .is .:?.:,4.&iiRb.8ses..

.. .

..

st :. i.}Jf:

a
i .s_ a&sS 7 p !

?:.: :;i.:Z-fe-

bui.??>X..=:>...:::.s ?CStw'

ilt 1. _r.ts-|R;_?st .s .f g a >RsZ s_ .s s

_.Y. ._'X' :;S 9. >. .._W..'. !1|11 Dil2zw_[jX_

si

_.? >rffilFe i .:

is i: .

_P

w t

F .. w-_'F: .....................................
fi. .::

._ .........................................

: .!a:Ea

. ._!X0

...............

1
? ;. 1

,*' A

tw

.
...................

ts

!'iS

,_
., s 8.: ;i:

l::'

.................

* Sb32Lihlilf35:: siil S3|;

at> t",_ :_
.^_ .......................... ?>sg|

_
-_ljiwW
-:
..

.................................

|;W_R

i._

;
k

.; s ;_
w . ''

g
::

[_

. }:

,.

;
'S

i'':?

r ; ..................... |
.7
t m

,-.'; sif?Bl@?ilS_ ....

.'e

..

xS

Be

.,>

i'

's'

gf
| . :

? ::
..

B.s

?#:< rSxe

*;|2

_
_ : i:

li.

.?

,tVSI

_s

CUMAE,THE ROMANHARBOUR: ( I ) REEDS MARKTHE COURSEOF THE ENTRYCHANNEL. (2) THE ENTRYGUT (seepp. I 66 ff. )

Photographs b) theauthor.Copyright reserved

JRS vol. LVIII

(I968)

PLATE X

f.#~~~~~~~4

CUMAE, THE ROMAN HARBOUR:

()

ENTRY INTO INNER BASIN, LOOKING SE. (2) EDGE OF RAISED QUAY AREA, LOOKING N.

(see pp. 166 if.)

reserved Photographs by theauthor. Copyright

JRS vol. LVIII (I968)

PLATE XI

__

)A;_

k_

CUMAE, THE PHAROS:

(I)

VIEWED

FROM SE. (2)

DETAIL,

SHOWING

OPUS RETICULA TUM

(see p. 166)

reserved Photographs by theauthor. Copyright

JRSvol. LVIII (I968)

PLATE XII

s ~ ~~~~~i

Z' jf

'.i

TORREGAVETA, THE TUNNEL:

(I)

LANDWARD ENTRANCE, LOOKING S. (2) RECESSES FOR SLUICE SEAWARD END (see pp. 166 if.)

INSTALLATIONS

NEAR

Photographs by (I) F. A. Lepper (z)

J. D.

Lewis. Copyright reserved

THE

ANCIENT

PORTS

OF CUMAE

i6i

he got controlof Sicily, one of the main sources of the corn-supplyof Rome. Meanwhile, Octavian's bid forpower had begun and the rule of the Senate in Italy had been replaced of Octavian,Antonyand Lepidus (November, by thatof the so-called Second Triumvirate, 43 B.C.); under the terms of their agreement,Sicily was among the areas assigned to Octavian, whilst Sextus was proscribed,with the sole 'result that he was joined by all the malcontentswho could get to him, as he was in due course by many Italian cities which fearedtheymightbecome prizes ofwar and be used by the Triumvirsas settlements fortheir to deal efforts veteransoldiers. Sextus' raids on the coasts of Italy began. Octavian's first him before he went to join Antonyat Philippi were quite withoutsuccess. Sextus *with continuedto grow in strength, establishing garrisonsat various points on the Italian mainby the fleetof Staius Murcus. land, and afterPhilippi (October, 42 B.C.) he was reinforced Thus began a long strugglewhich lasted down to the autumn of 36 B.C., with only one afterthe Peace of Misenum in 39. Despite several obscuritiesin matters briefintermission fromthe ancient can be reasonablyreconstructed of detail,the ebb and flowof thisstruggle fromthe accounts of Appian and Dio Cassius.26 sources,in particular Sextus' hold on the mainland would seem to have fluctuatedduringthis period, but there may well have been times when he was in practical militarycontrol of the greater fromItaly by Agrippa, part of SouthernItaly. In 40, he personallywas forcedto withdraw but he left certain garrisonsbehind; under the terms of Misenum, he was to abandon these, but when the war broke out again this was one of the termssaid not to have been carried out. His range at sea was wider still. In 40 his Admiral Menas (Menodorus in Appian) raided many parts of Etruria,captured Marcus Titius offthe coast of Narbonese Gaul and got possession of Sardinia (another serious blow for the Rome corn-supply). In 38 Menecrates raided Volturnumand other parts of Campania. In a summaryof the struggle,Florus says that Sextus ravaged Puteoli, Formiae, Volturnum,in due course the whole of Campania, thePontineIslands, Aenaria (Ischia), and even the mouthsoftheTiber. Strabo also recordsthat,at some time in his career,his admiralsraised bands of piratesin the Silva Gallinaria.27 His hold on off-shore islands like Ischia was probably fairlycon28 tinuous,thoughthe Lipari Islands seem to have been, fora time,an exception. In such circumstancesit is not surprisingto find Octavian building ships, or fitting them out and makingready for sea, as far northas possible, and well out of harm's way. garrisoned, such They were then broughtsouth to advanced bases which could be strongly as the inletsround the Bay of Naples, and at Tarentum; thence he convergedon Sicily as plan both best he could down the east and west coasts of Calabria. In this grand strategic Italy's lack of good harboursand the hazards of stormwere to make troubleforhim, more than once. Thus in 38 he broughtwarships fromRavenna and an army from Gaul and on Sicily, stationed them at Brundisium and Puteoli, preparingfor a pincer-movement the Italian coastal defences with numerous garrisonsto watch for having strengthened Sextus' raids. He also orderedmanynew warshipsto be built at Rome and Ravenna. The Ravenna to Tarentum. Here the new shipsfrom EasternFleet moved down fromBrundisium joined up and the combined squadrons proceeded south to Rhegium, whilst the infantry kept up withthemmarchingdown by land. The WesternFleet (or part of it, includingthe new ships built at Rome) startedto coast south towardsthe same rendezvous,fromsomewhere in Etruria.29 One evening,just before sunset, this fleet under the command of Calvisius Sabinus sighted a large fleetunder Menecrates, barringtheir passage, offthe northpoint of Ischia. Calvisius took shelterforthe night,accordingto Appian, in the bay OTrEp K'wjrTscvvUE?vyov)while Menecrates spent the beyond (?) Cumae (?S rOvKOATOV ?rOV day the Caesareans lost more ships nightat Ischia. In a battleoffCumae on the following withdrewto than the Pompeians, but Menecrates was killed and his second-in-command Sicily. Afteranother night spent in the aforesaid bay, Calvisius repaired his ships and
26 Appian, BC 4, 84-86; Dio 48, 17-29, 2; Livy, Per. 123 forthe eventsto Philippi. From there to the peace of Misenum: Appian, BC 5, i8, 25, 67-74; Dio 48, I9,3-20, 30-3I, 36-38; Livy, Per. I27; Florus 4, 8; Velleius 2, 72-73, 77; Plut., Ant. 32. From Misenum to the appointment of Agrippa: Appian, BC 5, 77-96; Dio 48, 45-49; Livy, Per. i28; Velleius 2, 79; Plut., Ant. 35.

Strabo 5, 4, 4. Dio 48, 48, 6; cp., however, Appian, BC 5, 97. Rhegium and Vibo remained loyal to Octavian, as he promised them that they would not be made veteran colonies: Appian, BC 4, 86. 29 Appian, BC 5, 78, 8o ff.; Dio 48, 46 ff.
27 28

i 6z

R. F. PAGET

proceeded on his way south. This bay was probably in the space later occupied by Lago Licola (now drained)just to the northof the Acropolis. It would have been quite open to no shelterfromthat quarter,but therewould be ample room fora large the west, affording fleetwith some screeningfromswell fromthe southwest. the picture,not as a base of any importance,however; only as Cumae thus re-enters an emergency shelterforthe night(and it musthave been a calm night). But its importance was shortlyto be increased. Octavian's great plans went awry. He was at Rhegium as Calvisius' fleet approached the Straits of Messina. In attemptingto effecta junction Octavian sailed out towards the narrows,but was interceptedby one of Sextus' admirals the worst of the action when he with a squadron based on Messina. Octavian was getting a still was saved by the timelyarrivalof Calvisius. The combined squadrons then suffered greaterdisaster; when offScyllaeum,theywere caught by an on-shoregale. The lightly built ships were unable to ride the gale and were drivenon to the rockyshoreor brokenup withouta fleet. by the seas. In the morningOctavian was practically All this time Sextus was safe inside the harbour at Messina. Why he did not follow up his advantageis a mystery.But the whole laborious buildingof a new fleethad again to be undertaken by Octavian. Dio puts this disasterin 38 B.C., and Appian says it was in the spring.30It was not until well on in 37 that Octavian had a conference withAntonyat Tarentum and obtained of new ships had some i2o ships fromhim. In the meantime,however,the construction begun and it may have been as earlyas the end of 38 thatCalvisius was replaced as Admiral by Agrippa. Reviewing his general position in 37, it would seem, Octavian decided to operationsagainstSextus untilthe springof 36. He presumablyhad had postpone offensive the sound advice of Agrippa, who wanted to make certainthat this time his preparations were adequate to meet the case.31 The problem facingAgrippa was not just that of replacingthe men and ships lost in the disaster. The new ships would have to be assembled, put togetherand fittedout in such a way that theywould stand up betterboth to battle and to storm,and finallygo into action with crews who had been properlytrained in seamanship and naval warfare, and moreoverexercised in theirnew ships. Some of the necessarywork had been put in hand by Octavian and, it would seem, beforeAgrippa took command of the fleet. Dio says that already in 38 Octavian had begun building ships ' all over Italy, one mightsay', and who were expected to give them volunfromhis friends, collectingslaves forrowers: first tarily,and then fromothers,senators,knightsand wealthymen of lower status. He spent VECOv)and the collection of ships (vau-rr yia TCA)V this year and the next in the construction and trainingof rowers. He supervised all this himself,but put Agrippa in charge of the 'making ready ' of the new fleet (TrapaKiuEV TOU vCa-rIKOI), and Agrippa got the fleet very zealously, for hulls were being built all along the coasts of fittedout (Ei?lpy&acoTO) -T rcapacaxacaxic 'ITraia T &ap).32 Suetonius again Italy (EyiyVETo PV yap EV Trra&-T1 tells us that 20,ooo slaves were freed and trained as oarsmen for this purpose,33a figure which suggestsabout a hundred ships, mostlyno doubt the big newlyimprovedquinqueremes fitted with cataphracts. It can be presumed that most of the hulls were built fairly undecked hulls fromany distancein this regionof sudden near, as the problemof bringing gales must have been immense,to say nothingof threatsof raids by Sextus. At any rate, it was in the Naples area thatAgrippa assembled his fleetwhen he had prepareda suitable harbour for them.34 This was the fleetwith which Octavian himselfsailed fromPuteoli on i July,36 B.c. At the same time Taurus sailed fromTarentum with a squadron made up of vessels and their crews given by Antony,and Lepidus simultaneouslyleft Africa with his own fleet,with a view to effecting a junction of all three. But it would seem that it was Agrippa's fleetalone that won the battle of Mylae and also formedthe bulk of the fleetat Naulochus, where the finaldecision was won.35
Appian, BC 5, 89. Appian, BC 5, 93, 95; Dio 48, 49, 2; 49, I. 32 Dio 48, 49; cp. Appian, BC 5, 92. 3 3Suetonius, Div. Aug. i6. 34 Dio 48, 5 I, 5, which makes clear that the decking, as well as the trainingof the rowers,was
30
31

done at Portus Julius

~ETrroiIoE rs
KarEpparTTE, TE Va1E KaD TOJS

(ExrEi8

-r&XTa a

-r&s EgarXOUS
Kai 7rS jEv

35 For this part of the struggle,see Appian, BC 5, 97-I22 ; Dio 49, I-I I, I .

pETaraS eOpoiE, E ETr'NKpicov EpETTEIV cYKEi). TOli&S

THE ANCIENT PORTS OF CUMAE

I63

Agrippa's new ships had theirshare of misadventures with the weather,but the gale that hit them offVelia on theirway south (and caused Taurus to run back forTarentum) was not the cripplingdisasterthatit mighthave been; even so, six heavyships and twentysix lighterones with a still largernumberof Liburnian galleyswere lost. Bad enough,but not a repeatof the disasterat Scyllaeum.36When it came to fighting, both the ships and the well-trained sailorsprovedtheirworth. Accordingto Dio, the ships were heavierthan those of the Pompeians, they had greaterfreeboardand carried forecastlesand aftercastles and more marines. They could resistthe rams of the enemy and even bend back the beaks of theirships by the violence of theircollision. Appian agrees: theymay have been slower, but theywere less easily damaged ; the Caesarean sailors were inferior to the Pompeians in seamanship, but they were stronger. At Mylae the Caesareans made great use of their = corvi,a formof boarding-browfittedwith beaks and also of their ' Ravens ' (KO6pOcES, grapplingirons). At Naulochus a new formof ' secretweapon' inventedby Agrippa was employed. This was the ' Snatcher' (&p-rac), which could be firedfroma catapultfrom some distance off. It also had a grapplingiron, which made fast to the enemyvessel and was then hauled in by tackles.37 Though Octavian had his vicissitudesin this campaign, the finaloutcome,thanksto this fleet, was completevictory. Quite apart fromthe inventionof secretweapons, the preparationand trainingof this vital fleetin undisturbedsecuritywas a triumphfor Agrippa. All depended on the provision of an adequate naval base forthe purpose, and this Agrippa provided de novo. Not at Puteoli, where the lay-outof the commercialharbour,althoughof considerablesize, was unsuited to shipbuildingor repair and fitting out on such a scale. The basins and quays are stillvisible and confirm this. But the area was well-knownto Octavian and to Agrippa, as one of the ancestralhomes of the Julianfamily was the greatvilla on the southernpoint of the Bay of Baia. It was here on the peninsula of Bacoli/Cuma, in the lagoons and lakes, thatperfect conditionsexistedforthe creationof the new fleet(see fig.6).38 Agrippa's choice forhis harbourfellon the lakes of Lucrinus and Avernus,those landlocked watersin the recessesof the Gulf of Pozzuoli, which lie so near the coast that Strabo could think of them as Gulfs of the Tyrrhenian Sea.39 In those days Lake Lucrinus presenteda somewhat different appearance fromthat which it does today; it had then a far greaterextension,as its southernshore lay just inside the now submerged Via Herculanea, while beforethe sudden eruptionof Monte Nuovo in September I538 its northern shores may have been as much as a couple of miles further inland, along the base of Monte of Puteoli, the whole lake thus forming Barbaro and the foothills a sheet of waterabout two miles square. Althoughgenerallytoo shallow to act as a harbourforbig ships, it was still fromLake Fusaro in that quite suitable for the trainingof recruitoarsmen.40 It differed the dykeseparating it from thesea is composed ofsand-dunes,thrown up by marinecurrents and the wind. Strabo tells us that this dyke gave trouble,as the waves in winterwashed over the wagon-roadalong it; Agrippa had accordingly to raise and repairit.41 But at the same time it was a simple matterto dig a canal throughit and so connect the Lake with the sea. It is just possible that Agrippa originallyconsidered that he could create sufficient harbourand dockyardfacilities forhis purpose by using the Lucrine alone, having opened a canal at the Pozzuoli end of the dyke(opposite the Arco Felice Railway Station). Here the entrancewould be protectedfromthe seas, fromall quadrants,by the moles of Puteoli, plus a line of new moles built by Agrippa. If so, he seems to have reckonedwithoutApollo, if we may believe the commentsof Servius on Vergil's referenceto the opening of this harbour. As Agrippa opened up the new channel and cut down the sacred groves in the craterof Avernus, a great stormhit the Bay. To have been noted, the stormmust have done a greatdeal of damage to the new harbourworks,and may well have caused Agrippa to re-assess the problem. (A similar storm hit this area in November I966, as already
Appian, BC 5, 98-99; Dio 49, I. Dio 49, I; Appian, BC 5, io6, II8-II9. Appian curiously enough has nothing to say about Agrippa's preparations. See, however, Dio 48, 49-51 ; Suetonius, Div. Aug. i6; Velleius 2, 79; Florus 4, 8; Vergil, Georgics2, i6i ff.,with
37 38

36

7I7 a.u.c.;

comm. ad loc. ; Cassiodorus, Chron. under the year Pliny, HN 36, I25; Strabo 5, 4, 4-7. 39 Strabo5, 4, 5. 40 For the oyster-beds,started here c. IOO B.C., see Val. Max. ix, i, I ; Pliny,HN 9, i68. 41 Strabo 5,4,6.

i64
CUMAE

R. F. PAGET

Gallery of

arbaro ~~~~~~~~B

Monte "

Amphitheatre L. Avernus L. Lucrinus

tt

_; a^~~~~~Anien etent

-conjetural,)

o~ ~~L
i |
/

Fuar !.Fusr
V

\j[2<Villa / R / 'Zii//O

=6

GULF PUEL

OF

BAY.

* Villa

11

O~racle~/( 9k R
t

<

Vilia

<\ *

~~~~~~~~~PuntaPent

\ 2Q illVl

TH E

OF

FIG. 6.

THE BACOLI PENINSULA IN 37 B.C.

Drawn by Helen Waughfromsketch-map bytheauthor

THE ANCIENT PORTS OF CUMAE

I65

Punta Pennata withthe mentionedabove in n. 14, and washed away the isthmusconnecting mainlandat Portus Misenus, leaving a channel over a hundredyards wide). If also from the southwest(the only dangerousquarterhere), the stormin 37 B.C., althoughnot directly affecting the actual entrance,as this was protectedby the moles, may well, at the west end of the lake, have filledup the whole area with sand and possibly the whole extentof the lake may have been shallowed. In such circumstances it would have been clear to Agrippa thatthe Lucrine lake by itselfwas unsuitableforthe new dockyard.42 However that may be, he certainly proceeded to cut a second canal at the west end of the dyke,traces of which can still be seen at the Avernus end, on the line of the present outflow channel. Here he would have had the siltproblemto deal with,in orderto keep this canal open. In this connectionLewis and I thinkhe may have provided sluice-gatesto in and out of the utilisethe waterof the craterlake, and drawnthe ships over a roller-ramp station. Or, if the level of water in craterof Avernus where he establishedhis fitting-out above the sea-level due to springwater,the steadyoutflowalong Avernuswas permanently the canal would solve the problem. The troubleis that we do not know the precise levels in Roman times. materialsand storesdown fromportsfurther Agrippaalso had the problemof bringing northto a suitable discharge-point adjacent to his new oase. One could wish that more were now to be seen on the ground today. Remains of what look like extensivebuildings, which some have identifiedas dockyards,are to be found at various points round the fromthe considerableremainsof a largethermal shoresof the craterlake ; theseare distinct in the northeast establishment cornerwhichseems to date fromAugustanor Julio-Claudian thatthe eruptionof Monte Nuovo neitherdamaged times.43 It is remarkable, incidentally, this nor depositedany ash upon it, showingthatthe eruptiveforceswere onlyjust sufficient to build the cone. This is in great contrastto the eruptionof Vesuvius in A.D. 79, with clouds of ash that buried Pompeii, destroyedthe Heraion at the mouth of the River Sele, some 6o miles to the south, and even deposited a layer of ash on Paestum, several miles on.44 further Here then was Portus Julius,Agrippa's chosen harbourand trainingbase forhis new fleet; secure frominterruption by the enemy,but at the same time not all that easy of increase of population. access or capable of accommodatinga large, if only temporary, of months, Quite apartfromthe timefactor(and all his preparations occupied onlya matter it would seem), his problemsof space and communications musthave been tremendousand and fitting out of the ships (even allowingfor required radical solution. The construction hulls built elsewhere) was one thing; the living quarters and exercise-groundsfor the crews was another. The rowers, including Suetonius' twenty thousand freed slaves, catching crabs in the practice-shipson Lake Lucrinus, dockyard workers,shore staff, garrisontroops and the marinesto man the new ships, a total of several thousands . . . all had to be housed in the neighbourhoodand fed, clothed and armed. Moreover, all the raw materialsand even, probably,some of the timber(though Agrippa did cut down the forestson the spot and theyare said to have been large trees) had to be broughtfromelsewhere,fromfurther north,in the constantthreatof hostile raids ; so theywere probably all transported by sea in well-escorted convoys. These storeswould compriseiron anchors iron nails and forgings, all the innumerablethings about a ship, and lead sail-earrings, canvas, rope, weapons, water-breakers, oars, masts, bosun's stores, etc. etc.-a probable is included. No doubt Baiae was already total of manythousandtons,when the food-grain of its crews, but fairlywell organisedforthe maintenanceof a fleetand the entertainment this abnormal demand would be quite beyond existingresources. An unloading supplyof Lake Lucrinus, portforthe convoyswas essential.We have alreadypointedoutthe defects
42 The storm is attestedby Servius' commentary on Verg., Georg. 2, i62 (= 'Servius Auctus', ed. 'Agrippa in secundo vitae suae Thilo iii, 235): dixit excogitasse se ut ex Lucrino lacu portum faceret. Verum huius operis gloria Augusto cessit. Indignatumideo dixit, quia quo tempore in Lucrinum lacum mare immissum est, deinde, terra effossainter ipsum Lucrinum et Avernum, contigit ut duo lacus miscerentur,tanta tempestas orta est ut prodigii loco habita sit et nuntiatumsit, simula-

crum Averni sudasse; propter quod pontificesib, piacularia sacra fecerunt '. 4 See Maiuri, o.c., note i2, 154 f. for remains of the navalia ; a drawingof the remainsmay be found in A. D'Arrigo, Natura e Tecnica nel Mezzogiorno (1956), 624. There is early imperial masonry, not easily datable, under the bath-buildingknown as the 'Temple of Apollo', see Maiuri, o.c., I58 f. 44 P. C. Sestieri, Paestum4(1958), 34.

i66

R. F. PAGET

besides which the whole of the Portus Julius, including Avernus, must have been fully occupied withships in all stagesof buildingand fitting out, while the lake itselfwas shallow and the scene of the recruittraining. Misenum was over fivemiles away and the only road runningalong the base of the cliffs was not onlywashed by the waves but also open to raids fromthe sea. Puteoli again was not only threemiles away but the road was along the dyke which was cut in two places by the entrycanals. There was also the question of bringing the convoyspast Ischia and Procida, which in 38 B.C. were known to be in the controlof Sextus at the time of the engagementwith Menecrates, and were probably still hostile. The distance across the base of the peninsula fromAvernus to Cumae is only some i,500 yards. Agrippa conceived the masterly plan of drivinga tunnelfromlake level in Avernus to the city of Cumae, and anothertunnel under the acropolis to the beach. Here in the he created a new harbour (see P1. vii bight between the acropolis and the promontory and fig.7). Whether or not Cocceius was the architectof the tunnel which bears his name is a forhistorians to argueabout.45 But the creationon thisoccasion oftheportof Cumae matter seems theonlypossiblereasonforits construction by Strabo's time,as the convoyswere thus saved the extradangerousmilesthrough the islands and round Cape Misenum.46 The stores could be unloaded in security,and transported by a short road entirelyprotectedfrom enemy action, as it was all undergroundexcept for a short gap dominated by the city of Cumae. The dating of these tunnelsreceivessupport fromthe extensiveuse of opus reticulatumat all appropriatepoints along them.47 The creationof the new portat Cumae was not simplya matter of excavation. We have alreadydiscussed the probable conditionof the site as littlemore than an overgrown ditch. and most obvious problem was that of de-silting. One feels he must have Agrippa's first been acquainted with Cosa, which was probablyone of his supply portsin Etruria,and he recognised similar conditions here. If I am right,he obtained his sand-freewater by driving the tunnel (which still exists, see P1. xii) under the hill at Torregaveta at the south end of Lake Fusaro, in which ramp and/or sluice-gatesallowed the seas to spill over into the lake, and so createthe necessaryartificial head of waterforthe de-silting; he then connectedthe Lake withthe new harbourby a canal, at the northend of which,at the proother sluice-gateswere in all probabilityinstalled. Here at the end of the promontory, montoryAgrippa closed the original entrancefrom the sea with a long mole to form a new channelinto the new harbour(see fig.7 and P1. Ix). The excavationof the completely innerbasin providedthe soil to construct the new mole and two othershortmoles delineating the opening into the inner basin (P1. x, i). At the northend of the innerbasin thereis a raised area which would have been quays, as the tunnelunder the acropolis startsfromthe north-eastcorner of this (P1. x, 2). At the head of the long dog-leg channel fromthe sea, on the west of the quay area, thereseems to have been an open beach. Its primary purpose would be to allow any residual swell to break freelyand so give a quiet berthin the inner of basin. It was doubtless also used as a careeningbeach and slipwayforthe construction some of the new hulls. The sea entrywas provided with a Pharos on the northside (P1. xi), where remains of a square chamberwalled in unmixed opus reticulatum still crown a small outcrop of the naturalrock. The course of the entrancechannel can stillbe followedon the groundby the exuberantgrowthof brightgreen marshyplants along its whole length. The aerial photograph(P1. viii) also shows such detailsveryclearlyby the differences in tone-valuesalongthe ancientshore-lineand the course of the canal fromthe Lake. On a roughday, especiallyat
45 Strabo 5, 4, 5 and 7 appears to say clearlythat this tunnel and that from Naples to Puteoli were built by the same man, see Beloch, Campanien2 83 f., and doubts (e.g. Mommnsen's in CIL x) seem misplaced. Strabo adds that Cocceius, by building tunnels,was following'an ancestraltraditionof the region', which must mean that he lived in Campania. His fullname was L. Cocceius Auctus, and he was a freedman of L. Cocceius and C. Postumius Pollio (another well-known architect). He has left his signature on the temple of Augustus at Puteoli (CIL x, I614), which is the modem Duomo, and

on part of a large pediment from Cumae (CIL x, 3707), which may be part of a building associated with the tunnelor the road thatpassed throughit. 46 The cape is a well-known hazard, cp. Tac., Ann. 15, 46; and according to legend Misenus was

drownedthere,Verg.,Aen. 6,
i8.
47

174;

Strabo i, z,

I take it as certain,with A. Maiuri, o.c., note f., that the tunnel fromAvernus to Cumae and that driven beneath the acropolis are part of the same scheme. Both had a similar systemof lighting by shafts.
I2, 135

THE ANCIENT PORTS OF CUMAE

167

0 4) -c) (o

0~~~~~~~~~~~~0 ~~~~~~~~X 0.U

LO~~~0 ~0~)
a,-c =

00

CL <

C~~~~~~o
(D

<
0
coC 0

C~~~~~~'
o c

E0

01
,-0

E 0

0~~~~I

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0<~~~~~~~

0~~~~

0~~~~~~~~~

I68

R. F. PAGET

low water,the patternof the breakersindicatesthe entrancestill,by a patch of greenwater with the seas white on eitherside in the shallowerwater of the sandbanks. is less than The narrowoutlet of the ancient harbour at the end of the promontory icc feetwide. It was probablyhere, as said above, that Agrippa installedhis sluice-gates, water. Unfortunately timeand modern cove as thefinalreserveofsand-free usingthefishing have demolishedall tracesof theseworks. But thisis the place where enterprise agricultural a modernengineer would set his controlpoint. The course of the long entrychannel with the dog-leg turn into the inner basin between the rockybank of the Silva Gallinaria and the new long mole, some 2zo yards long, is still veryimpressive(Pls. ix and x). At the northernend of the mole the ships turned almost i8o degreesto pass into the innerbasin throughthe two smallermoles. This plan, prevent sand from enteringthe inner basin. besides damping swell, would effectively Traces of the supportingarches forthe quays are visible at severalpoints along the western margin. The floorof the innerbasin is quite flat,and withthe stillintactmoles close alongfeelingof being on a harbourbottomat low tide. side, walkingin it today givesa fascinating The actual floormust be some I2 to I5 feetbelow today's level. The basin is about 250 yards square, ample to accommodatea convoyof a couple of dozen sizeable merchantships featureis the complete absence of potsherds; the true and theirescorts. One interesting floorlies well below and coveredwithwind-blownsand. In the tunnelunder the hill at Torregaveta,Lewis noted copies of the technique used the head of water sluice-gatesto assist in retaining at Cosa, in the provisionof non-return The workwas so welldesigned is opus reticulatum. as is visible (P1. XII, 2). Such masonry to this day, in keepingthe lake clear of silt.48 that it is still functioning and constructed Finally provisionwould have been made for the defence of the new port. And here Agrippa may have utilised the flatwhich lies parallel to the so-called Sibyl's Cave about 75 feet above the harbourlevel. Maybe archersor catapaults were installed and the long opening on to the flat. gallery was used as the sally-portwith its numerous lightshafts was carriedout on the Whetherthis be so or not, extensiveconversionin opus reticulatum at thisdate. 9 ofthe lightshafts exterior So much forwhat can be seen on the ground. Naturallyexcavationmightsupply much the dating to the time of Agrippa. But I hope to and maybe confirm more information, have shown that all the worksI have described have a claim to be considereda part of the one strategicplan. Together they comprisewhat seem to me, in the circumstancesthen obtaining,essentialadjuncts to the ' Portus Julius' scheme,which is attestedas his. Their in myview,by what remainsabove ground,supplemented existenceis amplydemonstrated, methods,whereverthey can by details revealed by the aerial photograph. The structural be observed,are of a typewhich pointsto this period. Finally,it is hard to thinkof another occasion on which so much labour and expertisewould have been deployed in this area. In all likelihood,Cumae had littlemore than the small fishingcove to attestits maritime

48 The opus reticulatum,apparently the only evidence for the date of these works, was observed by myself and confirmedby Lewis. By Seneca's time, the site was occupied by the villa of Servilius ancient descripVatia (see Ep. 55 for an interesting tion); and perhaps the name Torregavetais derived from'Torre di Vatia ' (as suggestedby McKay, o.c., note 15, 4). The Roman masonryis mostlycovered by modern repairs, but reticulatemasonry can be seen in the south wall of the canal near the point where it enters the Lake Fusaro. From here, some yards furthertowards the sea, several sluice-gate recesses can be seen in the tufa walls on both sides of the canal (P1. XIII, 2), and are very similar to those at Cosa (Brown, o.c., note 23, 94 f.). The tunnel that pierces the hill of Torregaveta is some io m. high and 3 m. wide; it has some brickvaulting,probably also of Roman date. The seaward entrance to the tunnel, which is inaccessible except by boat, was studied by Lewis in

April, i968, to whom this note owes much. The deep water is fed into the tunnel over a lip (now some 2 m. below the surface), before passing down the gentlysloping floorof the tunnel. On the south side of the entrance a spur of tufa projects into the sea; beyond this, some 4-5 m. furtherout, two masonry jetties, now just awash, were angled to deflectthe waves like trainingwalls towards the spur and the tunnel entrance,and to make the most of the frequentwesterlywinds. Anotherfeatureparalleled at Cosa is the skylightshaft cut in the roof of the tunnel at a point some 6 m. from the entrance; its purpose was apparentlyto reduce the shock of waves as they broke in the tunnel entrance in very rough weather. 49 Compare Maiuri, o.c., note iz, I23 ff. But his identificationof this very defensive-lookingtunnel with the Sibyl's Cave remains a mere guess, and has its difficulties.I need not discuss these here, but see now M. Napoli, Atti IV Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia I05 ff.

THE ANCIENT PORTS OF CUMAE

I69

interests fromthe Samnite conquest in 420 until 37 B.C., as we have seen. As forits subsequent history, there is no evidence for its having any naval importance,or harbour,and historyat the time of the Gothic wars of though it re-enteredthe stage of international Justinian, it was onlyas a land stronghold.50 As forPortus Julius,its decay was equally rapid. Within a few years of the defeatof Sextus, Octavian emerged as the sole masterof the Roman world and Italy entered on a long period of peace and prosperity; the war-timeprovisionsat Avernus and Cumae became redundant. The Roman naval bases were re-organised, with the Italian fleetsbased on Misenum and Ravenna. The date at which the Augustan base at Misenum was first establishedis not certain,thoughsuch meagreevidence as we have is thoughtto point to a time earlyin Augustus' reign.51 Wheneverthis occurred,neglectwould veryquicklyhave led to the siltingup of the harbours at Cumae and Avernus, and bradyseismmay well have added its contribution. In this fertileregion, even a single season's neglect would result in virtualclosure, by the encroachmentof the jungle and wind-blownsand, comproductof so much thoughtand labour even pletingthe destruction of all this monumental more rapidlythan it had been devised. At any rate Misenum arose as the replacement. Here there are the remains of considerable port works,not only the two main moles at the mouth of the harbour,but also caves and tunnelsthroughPunta Pennata and on the Misenum side which probablydenote House ' on the hill fromwhich sites of warehouses. There was a theatreand an ' Admiralty Pliny the Elder and his nephew saw the great black mushroom cloud that heralded the eruptionof Vesuvius in A.D. 79. 52 But that is anotherstory; mine is that of Cumae, and it is told, both of the Greek harbourand of the Roman. The account of the lattermay seem somewhatunduly prolix, but I hope it is more informative than the ten lines with which Suetonius described the eightlong yearsof war. alle AntiIn conclusion,I wish to thankProfessorDe Franciscis,the Soprintendente chita forCampania, forhis kind permissionto carryout my researchesat Cumae, and also Col. JohnD. Lewis and the many otherfriendswho have made encouragingand helpful suggestions. Bacoli, Naples, Italy
50 The major buildings of the Roman town date mainlyfromthe late Republic and Augustan periods, with some additions in the later empire-see W. Johannowsky, Enc. Arte Antica, s.v. Cuma (I959); but neithertheynor the inscriptionsthrowany light on the fateof the port. Belisarius placed garrisonsin Naples and Cumae in A.D. 536; to him both sites were simply strongpoints and easily defended. Recaptured by Totila, Cumae was once more besieged by Narses in A.D. 552-3. See J. B. Bury, HistoryoftheLaterRoman Empire ii, i 8o, 23 I, 27I-77; A. Maiuri, Par. d. Pass. I949, 4I if. 51 Cp. Tac., Ann. 4, 5; Suetonius, Div. Aug. 49; C. Starr, The Roman ImperialNavy I3 ff.
52 The site of the ' Admiralty House ' can be fairly clearly established from the letters of Pliny the younger. In this area, in February I968, a shrine of the local Augustales (?) was discovered, quite by accident, with two statues representing Vespasian and Titus: more recently still, an adof an equesjoining chamber containingfragments trian statue of Nerva has come to light. These interestingfinds are to be published by the Italian authorities: in the meantime, see the report by ProfessorA. De Franciscis in the issue of II Mattino for 5 July,I968.