Archaeology and nature: hyblean cultural landscape and territorial ...

The urban development of the lower city, the center of city life, begins in the Samnite Age (IV-III century.
BC). In this period are certainly built the temple which will be the Capitol (III sec.) and other buildings, not a
sacred character, such as the so-called Central Termal Baths (III-II century BC.) [1].
During this period, the Samnites put in place a plan of adjustment of defensive fortifications to meet the
demands caused by to the difficult coexistence of Samnites and Romans.
In the Augustan age, Cuma lived its heyday. Cuma played a major role in the troubled events that
accompanied the transition from Republic age to the Empire, the aspect of the ancient city, that looks like to
the modern visitor, is determined to the massive works built in this period: here, in the period of civil wars,
Octavian, the future emperor Augustus, had its base.
In Greek and Roman times the importance of Cuma related to the strategic role assumed by the Port.
In ancient times, the Phlegraean area, characterized by volcanic craters and a coastline with deep bays, was
considered a safe harbor. Both in Greek and in Roman times, the port of Cuma was located in a natural bay,
near the center of the city, in an area morphologically perfect.
The analysis of the sources shows that the Greek port was located on the north side of the Lake of Fusaro,
where it was in direct communication with the sea .
The Greek port was gradually disappeared for the silting up and the bradisism phenomenon that modified
the coastline over the centuries. Today, the ancient coastline is covered by vegetation, and from the top of
the Acropolis it's possible to see the sign of the ancient bay.
On the north side the coastline is characterized from a long and straight beach, which separated the sea
from the lagoons and lakes there were inside of territory, as we can still observe.
Today, there is the Lake of Fusaro within this natural dam, the ancient swamp Acherusia, formed after the
movements and pressures related to the arrangement of the Mediterranean basin during the third geological
era.
Piaget [2] hypothesized that there were two ports in Cuma in Greek time, one was located in the bay on the
north side of the lake of Fusaro and the other one was under the acropolis (Fig.1). This place was used from
Agrippa, admiral of the Roman fleet, to built the roman port.
In fact, in 36 d. C. the admiral Agrippa took charge of operation against Sextus and so he needed a naval
base in the Phlegrean area.
At first he placed the naval base in the Lake of Lucrino, that was very different from what appears now,
because it was more extended than now, but the lake was not deep enough for Roman ships and so
Agrippa used it for military training only (fig. 2).
Moreover, unlike the Lake of Fusaro, the Lake of Lucrino was separated from the sea by sand dunes
exposed to sea currents and to winds. For this reasons, Agrippa decided to place his naval base in the Lake
of Averno, called Porto Giulio, and he built a canal to connect it with the Lake of Lucrino.
Porto Giulio and the Lake of Lucrino were entirely occupied by the shipyard and training military activities
and so it was necessary to find another place near to Porto Giulio, for these reasons Agrippa decided to use
the ancient Greek port of Cuma [2].
He built a connecting tunnel between the Lake of Avernus and the city of Cumae, called Cocceus Cave, and
a tunnel under the Acropolis, the Roman crypt, to create a link from the acropolis to the beach.
Agrippa addressed the problem of the silting up of the Cumae ancient port and he dug what it was covered
over the time. Later he built a connection canal with the lake of Fusaro and closed the original entrance of
the sea with a pier (Fig. 3).
At the end of the war against Sextus the port had no more reason to exist. In fact, in the Gothic period of
Justinian, Cuma was only a well-fortified place. The Roman naval bases were reorganized in others places
and the port of Cumae was completely destroyed: the sand transported by the wind into the area and the
phenomenon of bradisism were the reasons of the total destruction of the two ports. The agricultural
settlements have erased the traces of its existence over the time.
The choice of the study case allowed us to address a number of unusual issues especially related to
reconstruct of archaeolgical landscape, very different from what we can see now, to develop a strategy to
communicate the story of the place and to define a different level of enjoyment of archaeolgical heritage.
Our work is to translate into images, an iconic language, what is traditionally communicated using written
language to improve the public enjoyment.
1120