Metapontum or Metapontium (Ancient Greek: Μεταπόντιον, romanized: Metapontion) was an important city of Magna Graecia, situated on the gulf of Tarentum, between the river Bradanus and the Casuentus (modern Basento). It was distant about 20 km from Heraclea and 40 from Tarentum. The ruins of Metapontum are located close to the village of Metaponto, Basilicata, Italy.
Though Metapontum was an ancient Greek Achaean colony, various traditions assigned to it a much earlier origin. Strabo ascribes its foundation to a body of Pylians, a part of those who had followed Nestor to Troy. Solinus also mention that it was established by Pylians. While Justin tells us it was founded by Epeius, the hero who constructed the wooden horse at Troy; in proof of which the inhabitants showed, in a temple of Minerva, the tools used by him on that occasion. Another tradition, reported by Ephorus, assigned to it a Phocian origin, and called Daulius, the tyrant of Crisa near Delphi, its founder. Other legends carried back its origin to a still more remote period. Antiochus of Syracuse said that it was originally called Metabus, from a hero of that name, who appears to have been identified with the Metapontus who figured in the Greek mythical story as the husband of Melanippe and father of Aeolus and Boeotus.
Whether there may have really been a settlement on the spot more ancient than the Achaean colony, is impossible to be determined. It is known that at the time of the foundation of this city the site was unoccupied; the Achaean settlers at Crotona and Sybaris were therefore desirous to colonize it, in order to prevent the Tarentines from taking possession of it. With this view a colony was sent from the mother-country, under the command of a leader named Leucippus, who, according to one account, was compelled to obtain the territory by a fraudulent treaty. Another and a more plausible statement is that the new colonists were at first engaged in a contest with the Tarentines, as well as the neighbouring tribes of the Oenotrians, which was at length terminated by a treaty, leaving them in the peaceable possession of the territory they had acquired. The date of the colonization of Metapontum cannot be determined with certainty; but it was evidently, from the circumstances just related, subsequent to that of Tarentum, as well as of Sybaris and Crotona: hence the date assigned by Eusebius, who would carry it back as far as 774 BCE, is wholly untenable; nor is it easy to see how such an error can have arisen. It may probably be referred to about 700-690 BCE.
There are very few mentions of Metapontum during the first ages of its existence; however, it seems certain that it rose rapidly to a considerable amount of prosperity, for which it was indebted to the extreme fertility of its territory. The same policy which had led to its foundation would naturally unite it in the bonds of a close alliance with the other Achaean cities, Sybaris and Crotona; and the first occasion on which we meet with its name in history is as joining with these two cities in a league against Siris, with the view of expelling the Ionian colonists of that city. The war seems to have ended in the capture and destruction of Siris, but our account of it is very obscure, and the period at which it took place very uncertain. It does not appear that Metapontum took any part in the war between Crotona and Sybaris, which ended in the destruction of the latter city; but its name is frequently mentioned in connection with the changes introduced by Pythagoras, and the troubles consequent upon them. Metapontum, indeed, appears to have been one of the cities where the doctrines and sect of that philosopher obtained the firmest footing. Even when the Pythagoreans were expelled from Crotona, they maintained themselves at Metapontum, whither the philosopher himself retired, and where he ended his days. The Metapontines paid the greatest respect to his memory; they consecrated the house in which he had lived as a temple to Ceres, and gave to the street in which it was situated the name of the Museum. His tomb was still shown there in the days of Cicero. The Metapontines were afterwards called in as mediators to appease the troubles which had arisen at Crotona; and appear, therefore, to have suffered comparatively little themselves from civil dissensions arising from this source.
At the time of the Athenian expedition to Sicily, 415 BCE, the Metapontines at first, like the other states of Magna Graecia, endeavoured to maintain a strict neutrality; but in the following year were induced to enter into an alliance with Athens, and furnish a small auxiliary force to the armament under Demosthenes and Eurymedon. It seems clear that Metapontum was at this time a flourishing and opulent city. From its position it was secured from the attacks of Dionysius of Syracuse; and though it must have been endangered in common with the other Greek cities by the advancing power of the Lucanians, it does not appear to have taken any prominent part in the wars with that people, and probably suffered but little from their attacks. Its name is again mentioned in 345 BCE, when Timoleon touched there on his expedition to Sicily, but it does not appear to have taken any part in his favour. In 332 BCE, when Alexander, king of Epirus, crossed over into Italy at the invitation of the Tarentines, the Metapontines were among the first to conclude an alliance with that monarch, and support him in his wars against the Lucanians and Bruttians. Hence, after his defeat and death at Pandosia, 326 BCE, it was to Metapontum that his remains were sent for interment. But some years later, 303 BCE, when Cleonymus of Sparta was in his turn invited by the Tarentines, the Metapontines, for what reason we know not, pursued a different policy, and incurred the resentment of that leader, who, in consequence, turned his own arms, as well as those of the Lucanians, against them. He was then admitted into the city on friendly terms, but nevertheless exacted from them a large sum of money, and committed various other excesses. It is evident that Metapontum was at this period still wealthy; but its citizens had apparently, like their neighbors the Tarentines, fallen into a state of slothfulness and luxury, so that they were become almost proverbial for their lack of vigor.
It seems certain that the Metapontines, as well as the Tarentines, lent an active support to Pyrrhus, when that monarch came over to Italy; however, they are not mentioned during his wars there, nor it is known the precise period at which they passed under the yoke of Rome. Their name is, however, again mentioned repeatedly in the Second Punic War. They were among the first to declare in favor of Hannibal after the battle of Cannae; but notwithstanding this, their city was occupied by a Roman garrison some years later, and it was not until after the capture of Tarentum, in 212 BCE, that they were able to rid themselves of this force and openly espouse the Carthaginian cause. Hannibal now occupied Metapontum with a Carthaginian garrison, and seems to have made it one of his principal places of deposit, until the fatal battle of the Metaurus having compelled him to give up the possession of this part of Italy, 207 BCE, he withdrew his forces from Metapontum, and, at the same time, removed from thence all the inhabitants in order to save them from the vengeance of Rome.
From this time the name of Metapontum does not again appear prominently in classical history; and it seems certain that it never recovered from the blow thus inflicted on it. But it did not altogether cease to exist; for its name is found in Pomponius Mela who does not notice any extinct places; and Cicero speaks of visiting it in terms that show it was still a town. That orator, however, elsewhere alludes to the cities of Magna Graecia as being in his day sunk into almost complete decay; Strabo says the same thing, and Pausanias tells that Metapontum in particular was in his time completely in ruins, and nothing remained of it but the theatre and the circuit of its walls. Hence, though the name is still found in Ptolemy, and the ager Metapontinus is noticed in the Liber Coloniarum (p. 262), all trace of the city subsequently disappears, and it is not even noticed in the Antonine Itineraries where they give the line of route along the coast from Tarentum to Thurii. The site was probably already subject to malaria, and from the same cause has remained desolate ever since.
Though Metapontum is mentioned less than of Sybaris, Crotona, and Tarentum, yet all accounts agree in representing it as, in the days of its prosperity, one of the most opulent and flourishing of the cities of Magna Graecia. The fertility of its territory, especially in the growth of wheat, vied with the neighbouring district of the Siritis. It is known that the Metapontines sent to the temple at Delphi an offering of a golden harvest, perhaps referring to a sheaf or bundle of corn wrought in gold. For the same reason an ear of wheat became the characteristic symbol on their coins, the number and variety of which in itself sufficiently attests the wealth of the city. They had a treasury of their own at Olympia still existing in the days of Pausanias. Herodotus tells that they paid particular honors to Aristeas, who was said to have appeared in their city 340 years after he had disappeared from Cyzicus. They erected to him a statue in the middle of the forum, with an altar to Apollo surrounded by a grove of laurels. From their coins they would appear also to have paid heroic honours to Leucippus, as the founder of their city. Strabo tells, as a proof of their Pylian origin, that they continued to perform sacrifices to the Neleidae.
The site and remains of Metapontum have been carefully examined by the Duc de Luynes, who has illustrated them in a special work. No trace exists of the ancient walls or the theatre of which Pausanias speaks. The most important of the still existing buildings is a temple, the remains of which occupy a slight elevation near the right bank of the Bradanus, about 3 km from its mouth. They are now known as the Tavola dei Paladini. Fifteen columns are still standing, ten on one side and five on the other; but the two ends, as well as the whole of the entablature above the architrave and the walls of the cella, have wholly disappeared. The architecture is of the Doric order, but its proportions are lighter and more slender than those of the celebrated temples of Paestum: and it is in all probability of later date. Some remains of another temple, but prostrate, and a mere heap of ruins, are visible nearly 3 km to the south of the preceding, and a short distance from the mouth of the Bradanus. This spot, called the Chiesa di Sansone, appears to mark the site of the city itself, numerous foundations of buildings having been discovered all around it. It may be doubted whether the more distant temple was ever included within the walls; but it is impossible now to trace the extent of the ancient city. The Torre di Mare, now the only inhabited spot on the plain, derives its name from a castellated edifice of the Middle Ages; it is situated 2.5 km from the sea, and the same distance from the river Basento, the ancient Casuentus. Immediately opposite to it, on the sea-shore, is a small salt-water basin or lagoon, now called the Lago di Santa Pelagina, which, though neither deep nor spacious, in all probability formed the ancient port of Metapontum.
Metapontum was thus situated between the two rivers Bradanus and Casuentus (Basento), and occupied (with its port and appartenances) a considerable part of the intermediate space. Appian speaks of a river between Metapontum and Tarentum of the same name, by which he probably means the Bradanus, which may have been commonly known as the river of Metapontum. This is certainly the only river large enough to answer to the description which he gives of the meeting of Octavian and Antony which took place on its banks.
The monumental development of the asty of Metaponto, that is of the actual urban center, in contrast with the polis that embraces a wider territory, takes place in the central decades of the 6th century BC, when the entire space is redesigned according to a rigid geometric regularity. A large central north-south axis (plateia) becomes the generating principle of the entire plant and separates the two major public spaces of the agora and the sacred area.
In the latter there are the remains of four main temples, of which the major ones, temple A and B have a non-archaic orientation but, rotating slightly towards the east, they align with the new geometries of the urban layout.
Instead, the two minor temples C and D retained their original archaic orientation. Few blocks remain of temple C, perhaps dedicated to Athena, dating back to 580 BC. in which there is a first phase which seems to have never been completed as well as in the case of the temple of Apollo (B). The latter reaches an advanced state (temple B I) dated around 570 BC. There is also a second phase of the temple of Apollo (temple B II) coeval with temple A II, the temple of Hera (Temple A I) of which only the foundations are present. A second temple was built on the first temple dedicated to Hera (temple A II). a majestic plan consisting of 8 columns on the front and 17 on the long sides. The nearby temple B, dedicated to Apollo Likaios, has slightly smaller dimensions and like the previous ones are in Doric style. Only the foundation trench remains of the temple D, but the numerous erratic pieces allow to date it to 470 B.C. and to assert that it was in ionic style and dedicated to Artemis. In the center of the sacred area another small temple is named after Dionysus. In front of the entrances of the temples there are the remains of the altars with various decorative elements.
In the agora there are the manteion dedicated to Apollo and the imposing hemicyclical structure of the theater with stone steps which, during the second half of the fourth century BC, replaced the archaic circular structure called ekklesiasterion, intended to host city assemblies.
The lack of a hilly slope forced the invention of an artificial relief maintained by a retaining wall with the entrances at the top of the steps. The theater of Metaponto constituted a unicum which architectural model anticipated the forms of the future Roman amphitheater. Near the theater there are also the remains of the temple dedicated to Zeus Agoraios, protector of the agora.
To the south there is a large portico and a trapezoidal fence with the remains of two imposing structures, identified by some historians as a place dedicated at the prediction of religion mystery and also visited by the shaman Aristea of Proconnese. The city is protected by a 6th century BC wall with monumental entrances. Several excavation campaigns carried out in the area delimited between Bradano and Basento rivers have brought to light finds that attest to the presence of numerous farms, which allows us to assert that at least half of the inhabitants lived in the surrounding countryside that was divided into regular lots, being the farms of the various settlers. Such division occurred no later than the first half of the fifth century BC.
In fact, the interest of the Greek colonists was also directed to the whole surrounding territory, the chora, fertile then as much as nowadays, which immediately became the focus of works for the creation of the necessary infrastructures and the erection of extra-urban sanctuaries which represent the most striking signs of the presence of these new people and mark the boundaries for the polis of Metaponto. The most important of these sanctuaries, the only one left standing, is the one called Tavole Palatine, an imposing temple with a Doric colonnade, 12 columns on the long side and 6 on the short side, built in the late 6th century BC. and placed near a sacralized spring as it was common in the Greek world. The temple dedicated to Hera, protector of the borders, today preserves 15 standing columns.
At Metaponto, Antileon fell in love with a young boy of exceptional beauty and extraordinary physique, as well as illustrious family, named Hypparino. Antileon, however much he had planned, had in no way succeeded in tying him to himself; so, finally he faced him, at the exit of the gym, where the boy used to spend a lot of time, and he confessed that he had such a desire to be with him that he was able to endure any suffering and/or do whatever he had ordered him to be with him. Hypparino then ordered him in mocking tone to bring down the rattle of alarm from a fortified place of the city walls of Metaponto, a place heavily guarded in defense of the tyrant by the name of Archelaus.
Obviously Hypparino was convinced that never could his suitor accomplish such a feat. Antileon accepted the challenge and entered the castle stealthily, he ambushed the sentry of the alarm, killed him and, completed the feat, he returned at Hypparino with the bell, the latter received him with much favor and from that moment they loved each other very much. But since the tyrant Archelaus was attracted by the beauty of the boy and was a man capable of taking him even by force, Antileon, studied a strategic plan not to lose his partner. He told Hypparino to pretend to accept the tyrant’s advances and enter the court and at the first opportunity to kill him. So it was. The tyrant was killed at a convenient moment as soon as he left the house, he was slaughtered by Hypparino and Antileon, who had meanwhile entered the fortress. The two fled in a hurry and would have been able to save themselves if they had not run into a flock of sheep tied together. The young men continually stumbled and were captured by the guards and executed. When the city returned to the ancient order, that is, without a tyrant at the head, the inhabitants of the city placed a bronze statue for Antileon and Hypparino, the heroes of Metapontus, who had killed the terrible tyrant Archelaus, and a law was passed forbidding from then on to lead the sheep to pasture tied together.
In this regard it should be remembered that the literary sources mentioned the killing of the Metaponto tyrant Archelaus by Antileon and Hypparino, and it is therefore likely that just such characters (or other illustrious members of their genos) is to report the extraordinary funeral complex of the archaic period cited as tomb 2 (to the side) of the Crucina Necropolis.
Inside this funeral complex, we can distinguish some pair depositions in single rooms specially built, with rich outfits (of weapons and services of Lydia) dating back to little more than the half of the sixth century BC.. The tomb is made of limestone blocks hastily reused. It was intended for a person of rank, from the rich ornamental apparatus that covered the person (a polos in gilded silver foil on the head, a silver necklace and pins on the garment), and in which the resort of decorative motifs (such as the protomi of ram) similar to panoply today in the United States was to be a heraldic symbol and to indicate that it belonged to a specific family group of considerable importance at local level.
We are in the Archaeological Park of Metaponto, commonly known as Apollo Licio and on a rave arches we find an engraving. The reference seems to be to his tyrant Archelaus. Next to it is a photo of a block of architrave of the Temple dedicated to Apollo with the archaic inscription autoi kai ghenei (to himself and to his own ghenos), which is thought to refer to the tyrant Archelaus.
A direct reference to the tyrant and his ghenos is in the inscription engraved on a block of the architrave of the temple dedicated to Apollo. Evidence of the existence of a tyrant at Metapontion includes not only evidence from collected sources, but also from a complex of three generations of aristocratic tombs that cover the chronological period of the late 7th century to the middle of the 6th century BC, discovered in the necropolis of Crucinia, just outside the city walls. In one of these a woman wore a hairstyle with polos richly decorated with silver figures in relief that include the head of a ram, a symbol associated with the ghenos of the tyrant. The woman lay near a disturbed grave, from which comes the extraordinary helmet with the head of ram now preserved in St. Louis, where the occupant of the tomb could be the tyrant himself.
Judging by the construction activity in the city, the entire colonial polis of Metaponto, or chora and asty, was undergoing a rapid and significant change in the middle of the sixth century B.C. Who was responsible? While it is certainly exhilarating to think that decisions were made by subjects sitting in the kria and in the back structures, there is another possibility that must be carefully considered: that of the intervention of a tyrant who would have started the building program, the construction of the two great temples and the public meeting place, as well as the orthogonal urban plan. This tyrant would be the offspring of an aristocratic family, but at the same time a champion of the cause of the growing number of those who did not own plots of land, as opposed to the powerful clans or ghene. This was clearly the kind of grand display of power that tyrants, like Pisistrate of Athens, could grasp.
