doi: 10.2143/AWE.11.0.2175887 AWE 11 (2012) 247-259
PARADIGM SHIFTS IN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY: A RESPONSE TO THE DISCUSSION ON HODOS, LOCAL RESPONSES TO COLONIZATION IN THE IRON AGE MEDITERRANEAN
TAMAR HODOS
It is the delight of every academic to have one’s research stimulate discussion, prompt the reconsideration of previous interpretations and encourage the development of new perspec- tives. Thus, I welcome the comments, criticisms, expansion of topics and exploration of new avenues presented in the preceding contributions in response to ideas I outlined in my 2006 book, Local Responses to Colonization in the Iron Age Mediterranean. These essays exemplify those processes of scholarship that emphasise integration and application, which are as vital to knowledge development as the creation of new fields of study,1 a point worth highlighting in an economic and social climate that demands increasing accountability of research. My book had a very particular focus: specifically a comparative analysis of the responses by communities and cultural groups as witnessed in their material culture to the permanent settlement of Greeks and Phoenicians alongside them. As has been noted by many review- ers, it continues the tradition of a Mediterranean-wide perspective in the study of colonisa- tion that was pioneered in the 1960s, with the publication of J. Boardman’s The Greeks Overseas (1964), A.J. Graham’s Colony and Mother-City in Ancient Greece (1964) and S. Moscati’s Il Mondo dei Fenici (1966),2 each concerned explicitly with the expansion of Greek and Phoenician culture respectively through permanent settlement on foreign shores. These works provided cultural overviews of the Greeks and Phoenicians, which was a ground-breaking development in their time. They emphasised the movement of the Phoenicians and the Greeks, charting the spread of their settlements over the landscape and the extent of distribution of their artefacts. One effect of these studies was to create unified impressions of the Greeks and the Phoenicians each as a cultural group, despite differences in their regional cultural perfor- mances. For example, Graham argues that colonies were regarded by the Greeks as exten- sions of their mother cities and cites a number of examples to support this thesis. Board- man offers regional discussion, distinguishing Euboeans from Corinthians from Chians, for example, but puts forward overarching generalisations, such as the nature of Greek-native relations and the reasons behind colonisation.3 Finally, in his own review of Moscati’s work, Boardman praises the author for his explanation of the Phoenician culture.4 In recent years, scholarship has concentrated on deconstructing these meta-narratives of Greek and Phoenician culture to emphasise explicitly their regional differences. This
1 Boyer 1990; Glassick et al. 1997. 2 English translation in 1968 as The World of the Phoenicians (London). 3 Cook 1965; Woodhead 1965. 4 Boardman 1969.
995066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd5066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd 247247 223/10/123/10/12 12:4412:44 248 T. HODOS
development may be regarded as part of the wider paradigm shift in Western intellectual discourse that engages with post-modernist perspectives, and especially post-colonialism. Post-colonialism originated during the 1980s through the critical literary analyses of H.K. Bhabha and G.C. Spivak, and critical historical analysis by E. Said, who sought to examine how the West produced knowledge of others to support the Western colonial systems of empire. Using such analytical methodology to dismantle the ensuing generalisations of oth- ers and thereby enable the articulation of voices of social groups beyond the dominant ones, during the 1990s in ancient Mediterranean scholarship two spheres of post-colonial empha- sis emerged: how we consider diversity among the colonising populations, and how we regard the impact of these colonising populations on the extant communities.5 The former, which examines differences in cultural practices among those whom never- theless we collectively identify as Greeks and Phoenicians, has been the primary focus of Iron Age scholarship. Journal articles that examined regional diversity amongst the Greeks and Phoenicians began to appear during the very late 1980s and 1990s, culminating in monographs and edited themed volumes some years later;6 such consideration may be noted even in reviews of the original publication of The Greeks Overseas, though.7 The latter, which has dismantled the notion of Hellenisation as a means of interpreting colonial processes (developing from the deconstruction of Romanisation as an interpretative concept),8 has largely been considered only with regard to a specific geographical context (P. van Dommelen on Sardinia, or M. Dietler on France),9 if at all. Local Responses falls clearly into the second category. Both developing from and in contrast to the focus of this category, Local Responses was the first work to take a compara- tive approach in the analysis of the impact of Greeks and Phoenicians upon the populations they resided alongside. It revealed the sheer breadth of material and social responses by these communities to the presence of permanently-settled foreign neighbours, and chal- lenged our assumptions and interpretations about how and why cultures accommodate external social and material influences. Many of the points of discussion in the contributions by Domínguez, Ulf, Sommer and Kistler, above, explore in greater detail certain aspects that I touched upon, often using them as a springboard for further consideration. Thus, Sommer is able to examine the historiography of past approaches to colonisation; Ulf uses the idea of ‘local’ as a means to analyse additional ways in which the term might be conceptualised, using the order of the gods in Homer as a case study; Kistler considers the Sicilian evidence explicitly with regard to the intersection between global and local (the ‘glocal’) practices; Domínguez reflects upon the processes of colonisation and changes in scholarly emphasis in the study of colo- nisation, as well as reconsidering more specific points, such as the nature of early Al Mina, the dominance of Carthage vis-à-vis the Phoenician homeland, and early traded material.
5 Summarised in van Dommelen 2006; Hodos 2010b, 9–11. 6 For example, Aubet 1987; Hall 1997; 2002; Tsetskhaldze 1999; Malkin 2001; Dougherty and Kurke 2003; Lomas 2004. 7 Such as Hammond 1965; Roebuck 1967. 8 For example, Curti, Dench and Patterson 1996; Webster and Cooper 1996. 9 van Dommelen 1998; Dietler 2005; 2010.
995066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd5066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd 248248 223/10/123/10/12 12:4412:44 PARADIGM SHIFTS IN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY 249
What all of them circle around is that we are at the beginning of a new phase of interpre- tational perspective.
New Paradigms Post-colonially-inspired interpretations of the Iron Age Mediterranean that focus upon the experiences of the colonised have sometimes been accused of being nothing more than examples of political correctness. Thus, in the 1999 edition of The Greeks Overseas, Board- man wonders if the recent emphasis on the experiences of the colonised is merely part of a ‘thrusting [of] the desired modern standards on to antiquity and making assumptions about the prejudices of recent generations of scholars’.10 G.R. Tsetskhladze has echoed this more recently.11 These criticisms reflect a dissatisfaction with the change of emphasis because the result appears to write out the coloniser from the narrative, a point suggested by Domínguez here. This is not really the case, however. Post-colonial works have never denied that colonial cultures had profound impact upon the so-called colonised. Rather, post-colonial discourse has sought explicitly to emphasise the acts of agency on the part of the colonised, and to highlight that the changes that ensued in local populations were far more nuanced than direct and/or wholesale adoption of colonial ways of life. In fact, often the result was the development of hybrid cultures that shared elements of both traditions – indeed, colo- nial cultures themselves were also hybrid.12 The previous narratives, on the other hand, were not concerned so extensively with these aspects, focusing instead on the spatial and temporal spread of Greek and Phoenician artefacts and, by association, culture, continuing in the culture-historical tradition.13 As a result, discussion of colonial impact was often superficially examined and widely generalised, giving rise to the concepts of Hellenisation and Romanisation.14 In order to present evidence in support of those other cultural voices that had been previously overlooked or ignored, post-colonial perspectives have needed to present a particular focus. Hence the very title of my 2006 work, for example, which set the parameters for discussion within that volume. In the collection of essays above, Domínguez calls for scholarship more widely to rein- tegrate the role of the coloniser in interpretations of the processes of cultural influences in colonial contexts. Indeed, for much of the past 20 years or so, what has been side-lined is the fact that there remain a number of shared characteristics between various socio-cultural groups in the Iron Age Mediterranean – the very characteristics that gave rise to the cultural generalisations of previous generations of scholarship in the first place. Only very recently have these common traits been given consideration once more.15 This rebalance is part of a
10 Boardman 1999, 268. 11 Tsetskhladze 2006, li. 12 Young 1990; 1995; White 1991. 13 Trigger 1989, 155–206, for example. 14 For a discussion with regard to the Mediterranean, see recently van Dommelen 2006 with bibliography. 15 For example: Hodos 2009, on Greek and Phoenician processes of colonisation and subsequent historical descriptions and interpretations; De Angelis 2011, on historiography of Greek colonisation studies
995066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd5066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd 249249 223/10/123/10/12 12:4412:44 250 T. HODOS
very recent trend that seeks a realignment of perspectives to enable us to step back and assess the sheer range of evidence and interpretations now available, and is one that incor- porates the signs of diversity that we now recognise alongside those shared practices and traditions that gave rise to the culture-historical meta-narratives in the first place. Such a framework that enables this is the model of globalisation. In more recent work, I, myself, have turned to such a framework in order to recontextualise these detailed examinations within a broader, more balanced perspective.16 A model of globalisation as applied to the ancient world draws from contemporary analyses of the processes through which the world is regarded as a coherently bounded place and the ways in which we are made conscious of this sense of one-placeness.17 Globalisation is often considered popularly to be relevant only to the modern world,18 although scholars have argued for its longevity.19 Nevertheless, there are specialists of the ancient world who doubt that the concept really can be applied to the past, for the world in its entirety cannot have been considered to be wholly connected in the past20 and the term as used in today’s society is assumed to be synonymous with Westernisation.21 While these criticisms may appear valid in and of themselves, they reveal a misapprecia- tion of the complexities of globalising processes. One could argue that even today, the impact of global connectedness does not reach the entirety of the globe, despite globalisa- tion being a widely recognised facet of modern society; furthermore, globalisation is not restricted to Western society or even Westernisation.22 ‘Global’ is not the same as ‘univer- sal’: a universal, as more than the totality of things found in the world23 must be global, but global phenomena may not necessarily be universal. In other words, ‘global’ should be more appropriately considered to refer to a particular scale (in my case, this scale is the Mediter- ranean world of the Iron Age). Furthermore, views of globalisation as merely a kind of uniformity overlook two key features to the processes that give rise to the sense of globalisation. The first is that the idea of a global culture incorporates sets of shared practices or bodies of knowledge that trans- gress national or cultural ideas.24 Shared practices are not the same as identically replicated ones, however, but it is this nuance that scholars have tended to overlook. The second facet of globalisation processes is that, paradoxically, one outcome of more intensive contact, com- munication and collaboration is that these actions serve to draw boundaries more strongly between different groups. Thus, with shared aspects comes a greater emphasis on difference
16 Hodos 2009; 2010a–b; in press. 17 Going back to Robertson 1992. More recently, see Waters 1995, 1–25; Tomlinson 1999, 1–31. 18 Witnessed by the impact of works such as Friedman 2005; Klein 2007; Ghemawat 2011. 19 Such as Clark 1997; Tomlinson 1999; Hopkins 2002; Nederveen Pieterse 2004; McNeil 2008; Jennings 2011. 20 Greene 2008, 79–80, for example. 21 For example, Morley 2007, 94–96. 22 Tomlinson (1999, 89–97) outlines the limits of Western globalisation; Appadurai (2001) high- lights the structures that contribute to globalisation and advocates how their limits might be over- come in analytical practice; Ghemawat (2011) provides numerous examples of how ‘global’ connec- tivity transcends individual cultures, in reality creating more of a semi-globalisation. 23 Hopkins 2006a, 7; Bauman 1995, 24; Tomlinson 1999, 94–95. 24 Featherstone 1995.
995066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd5066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd 250250 223/10/123/10/12 12:4412:44 PARADIGM SHIFTS IN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY 251
as a direct reaction to and means of distinguishing from the increasing commonalities. In short, instead of promoting cultural homogeneity, such processes can result in highlighting and reinforcing cultural heterogeneities. Yet this, too, is frequently overlooked.25 As a result, a globalisation framework of interpretation allows us to examine the balance between the shared practices that gave rise to the notion of, say, Greek or Phoenician culture in a broad sense, and the diversities in the practices of those cultures regionally, the varieties of impacts these cultures had on others, and the varying nature of engagement local com- munities had with them, which has been the emphasis of post-colonial scholarship.26
Paradigms in Practice
The Phoenicians A globalised framework that acknowledges the balance between widely shared practices and the articulation of localised difference – one of the paradoxes of the globalisation process – thus allows for some of the authors’ points above to be addressed. For instance, Domínguez notes that similarities in the processes of colonisation by the Phoenicians and Greeks indi- cate that they were more closely related in practice. This is most certainly correct, and, indeed, I have argued this already in greater detail elsewhere.27 Their shared physical settle- ment features and material artefacts in common, alongside other mutual non-material fac- ets (the derivative Greek alphabet from the Phoenician; similar reasons for and mechanisms of territorial control, as assessed by material rather than the limited and biased literary evi- dence; the implications behind common foundation myth tropes), reflect a Mediterranean connectivity that includes shared material interests, social values and socio-cultural knowl- edge of one another, derived no doubt from long-standing elite relations between Greeks and the cultural populations of the eastern Mediterranean, including the Phoenicians. At the same time, however, there are also localised differences. For example, where Greeks and Phoenicians co-exist, such as in Sicily, the Phoenician communities do not dominate the landscape, unlike the Greeks. Instead, their choice of settlement location allows us to consider that it was, indeed, the sea that was the focus of Phoenician territo- rial circumscription in the central Mediterranean.28 As a case study, in the central Mediter- ranean, similarities can be seen in the funerary assemblages of Phoenician Sicily, Malta and contemporary Carthage. In all three, characteristic grave-goods of the 7th century include a Protocorinthian kotyle and the locally produced Phoenician forms of a mush- room-topped jug, a trefoil-lipped jug, and one or two one-handled cooking pots,29 the latter illustrating a particularly close relationship between Sicily and Malta, where a flat- based squat pot form with lug handles was in use on both islands during the late 8th and
25 See Hopkins 2006b for discussion. 26 Hodos 2010b. 27 Hodos 2009. 28 Hodos in press. See also Vella 2004, who illustrates the significance of coastal topographic features and their toponymic significance as metaphors with cultural meaning. 29 Malta and Motya: Sagona 2002, 45–47; Motya and Carthage: Albanese Procelli 2008, 468
995066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd5066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd 251251 223/10/123/10/12 12:4412:44 252 T. HODOS
7th centuries.30 Nevertheless, local production was not identical in each place. For exam- ple, pottery from late 8th- and early 7th-century Motya utilises slightly different forms to Maltese parallels: the Motyan level-lipped ‘mushroom’ jugs have a more bell-shaped body, piriform jugs are wider, and amphorae narrow more sharply towards the base than Maltese examples.31 This leads directly to questions of the mechanisms of exchange and trade. In contrast to Domínguez’s challenge to the notion of an active Phoenician merchant enterprise operating independently from state controlled foreign exchange, Sommer has offered recent argu- ments in support of such a mercantile class.32 In an analysis of Homer’s portrayal of the Phoenicians, Sommer points out that long-distance trade is presented as a multi-cultural endeavour that is organised by economically independent entrepreneurs, who form compa- nies for joint operations, in which the Phoenicians operate on their own behalf beyond their homeland, rather than serving as direct representatives of a palace carrying out admin- istered trade.33 Homer’s description finds support from the Phoenician epigraphic record, which suggests that Phoenician kings of the Iron Age lacked the prominence of their Bronze Age predecessors, their roles increasingly restricted to a religious sphere: the involvement of palace institutions in commodity exchange appears significantly reduced during the Iron Age in comparison with the Bronze Age.34 It must be noted, however, that the restricted nature of this epigraphic evidence – largely royal tomb inscriptions – may better account for what gets recorded in such contexts. Other epigraphic traditions that refer to the Phoe- nicians during this time emphasise the king as judiciary, diplomat, military leader and creator of cities and temples, rather than controlling foreign exchange, but such external views are bound in the biases of their own political, social, cultural and even physical con- texts. The rise of Carthage was, of course, a gradual one, but its increasing influence becomes most obvious during the 7th century (partly due to the nature of the evidence we have available to us). For example, it is during the 7th century that we begin to see a change in burial customs among the Phoenician communities of the Central Mediterranean, notably an increasing preference for inhumation in varied tomb forms rather than cremation, and common ritual practices and grave gift groups (as noted above, mushroom-topped jug, a trefoil-lipped jug, a Greek cup and one-handled cooking pots formed characteristic assem- blages in Carthage, Malta and Sicily).35 These common traditions and practices no doubt facilitated Carthaginian socio-political domination over the Central Mediterranean region.36 One might argue, therefore, that Tyre was able to fall because Carthage was strong, inde- pendent and focused elsewhere without need to concern itself with Phoenicia, having created a new focal point of Phoenician culture in the Mediterranean.
30 Albanese Procelli 2008, 472–73. 31 Albanese Procelli 2008, 472. 32 Sommer 2010. 33 Sommer 2010, 116–17, 122–23. Some scholars have recently gone so far as to argue that ori- gins of capitalism can be found in Homer and Hesiod: Moore and Lewis 2009. 34 Sommer 2010, 122–23. 35 Hodos in press. Decorated ostrich eggs were also included as grave gifts: Pisano 2002. 36 van Dommelen and Gómez Bellard 2008, 8.
995066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd5066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd 252252 223/10/123/10/12 12:4412:44 PARADIGM SHIFTS IN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY 253
Sicily It is within a global framework that Kistler engages in his study of the glocal in Sicily, which closely follows my own recent study on Sicily.37 Despite Kistler’s concerns, noted above in his discussion, the Sabucina building C7 remains an example in practice of the intersection between local and global, and arguments sustain for the pronaos being a hybrid development rather than evidence of cultural continuity. It is the nature of this hybridity that needs clarification, however. Although the site of Mokarta does provide evidence that Sicilian communities utilised the idea of an anteroom, the apsidal nature of the Mokarta anteroom structures contrasts notably with the sharply articulated form of the Sabucina building.38 Furthermore, Mokarta was completely abandoned before the 10th century.39 An architectural memory is unlikely to have lingered for several centuries and then been trans- planted to Sabucina, or even Polizzello, during the 7th century, especially given the geographical distance between them (Mokarta is in western Sicily, while Sabucina and Polizzello are in central Sicily). A more compelling relationship may be drawn from Sabucina itself, whose own Bronze Age phase of occupation (13th–10th centuries BC) included a number of circular structures with curvelinear anterooms similar to the Mokarta examples.40 The limited recovered extent of these walls renders it impossible to say whether they remained curved or were articulated at all (they are also not fully published), although the angle of the juncture between house and annexe is very acute, and contrasts strongly with the angle between the annexe and structure walls of C7, which abuts at nearly a right angle. This still suggests a very different idea of form. At neighbouring Polizzello, the anteroom structures date back to the first half of the 7th century, not long after the site was founded,41 and, like Sabucina C7 and its anteroom, are contemporary with the construction of Greek buildings with anterooms in Sicily. Nevertheless, an architectural memory, or possibly continued use of these structures during the early part of the 1st millennium, may have resulted in the fact that the idea of an annexe for a Sicilian cultic building found common ground with the pronaos form of colonial religious architecture. This is the nature of its hybridity; thus, the adaptation and manipulation of ideas and forms may perhaps be better regarded as a reflection of common understanding and shared values that draw from similar concepts found in each respective culture, even if expressed differently by them. The key in this is that C7 with its annexe served as a cultic building, which is what links its architecture to colonial ideas of religious building types, whereas the earlier circular structures with semicircular annexes were domes- tic or industrial buildings. An interpretation espousing shared understanding is clearly illustrated by Kistler in his discussion of graters and elite drinking rituals. The introduction of these features may also be ascribed to Phoenician activity in the central Mediterranean, however, and very likely alongside Italic activity, rather than instead of. The presence of metal graters in the graves of elite males from Etruria down to Sicily from the 8th century BC has been long
37 Hodos 2010a. 38 Tusa and Nicoletti 2000; Tusa 1999. 39 Tusa and Nicoletti 2000, 966. 40 De Miro 1999, 191–92; Albanese Procelli 2003, 44. 41 De Miro 1999, 188.
995066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd5066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd 253253 223/10/123/10/12 12:4412:44 254 T. HODOS
recognised.42 The Italic examples come from local, rather than colonial, centres, whereas the examples from Sicily include settlements of Greek and Phoenician origin as well as Sicilian settlements.43 The association between such material objects and banqueting in general also has a strong Eastern component, and it has been argued that elements of banqueting we associate with Greek practices, such as reclining, were introduced to the Greeks during the 8th century by Eastern Mediterraneans, perhaps by those who were resident at Pithekoussai itself.44 Indeed, the evidence for Near Eastern influence on Iron Age Greek society is now substantial.45 An Eastern origin may also pertain to the adoption of the reclined banquet by the Etruscans at the same time, as they were in close contact with the Phoenicians in the Tyrrhenian Sea region.46 Therefore, in addition to Kistler’s suggestion that Italic mercenar- ies may have played a role in the dissemination of such practices, it is quite likely that the Phoenicians also played a direct role (and arguments for interpretations favouring global engagement must always be recontextualised into the bigger, global picture). The localised variations evident, however,47 are best regarded as evidence of shared traits, rather than as misinformed replicated practices. Within a global framework, it is the empha- sis on shared ideas rather than identical replication that moves discourse beyond bi-polar (colonial–local) or triangular (colonial–local–hybridised) limits to reveal the complexity of social interactions and of meanings inferred by actions and their material culture patterns. Thus, it is clear that communities negotiated their own relationships with their neighbours, whether Greek, Phoenician or Sicilian, both despite and because of shared traits with their respective culture;48 Domínguez, above, is therefore correct to note that the extent of Phoenician influence differs from place to place. This is also the essence of Sommer’s reconstruction of Palmyra, above.
Networks The connecting factor between the shared practices of globalisation lies in the sense of con- nectivity, which is dependent upon networks of communication. The network model thrives on analysis of the links between interacting units, as I. Malkin et al. have recently neatly outlined in their case for the application of Social Network Analysis to study of the ancient Mediterranean.49 The structures are the patterns of relations between individuals, and it is through the paths created by the social actors within a structural environment that information, ideas, resources and services can be transmitted through and between groups.50 Ulf assesses this concept explicitly to explore how the new order of the gods outlined in the Iliad exemplifies a network that connected cultural actors who shared information and ideas freely and without power plays. Such an approach encourages study of social
42 Ridgway 1997. 43 Kistler 2009, 751, nos. 59–70. 44 Murray 1990, 6. 45 Morris 1992; Gunter 2009. 46 Riva 2010, 146. 47 Etruscans had both seated and reclined banquets, for example (Riva 2010, 146). 48 Hodos 2010a. 49 Malkin et al. 2007, 3. 50 Scott 2000, 9–26; Malkin et al. 2007, 4.
995066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd5066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd 254254 223/10/123/10/12 12:4412:44 PARADIGM SHIFTS IN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY 255
relationships, rather than individual and historical ones, in order to understand social struc- tures, their agents, and processes of creation and development. Its emphasis on the decon- structed components of what connects individuals, groups, places or ideas, thereby assists in decentring assumptions of hierarchies, centres and peripheries. As such, it resonates with other post-modern and post-colonial approaches to reinter- preting the past. Malkin et al. have argued that theoretical frameworks that analyse social and political structures developed within specific geographical boundaries, such as network theories, are an excellent means by which to assess the complex, hierarchical power and interdependent relationships of the ancient Mediterranean world, and to understand the ways in which such social relationships were interlocked and affected by changes within the structure. Such an application is dependent upon a relationship, or balance, between the qualitative and quantitative aspects of evidence from the past, however, especially when compared with the application of network theories to contemporary society, for which more substantially quantitative datasets are available. This does not mean that such models are inappropriate or impossible to use with regard to the past, however. Thus, it is networks – social, economic and geographic – that provided the means for trade, a major facet of ancient study. For the Iron Age Mediterranean, the desirability of particular goods finds origin in the elite acquisition of objects as part of the creation and expression of their social identity.51 This can be illustrated clearly in literary and artistic evidence from the Assyrian empire, and textiles, discussed by Domínguez, above, may be regarded as a case in point. During the early 1st millennium, textiles were often bestowed as royal gifts by the Assyrian kings to individuals ranging from foreign dignitaries to local workers, as a means of decoration for and incentive towards continued valued service.52 Visiting dignitaries and their entourage would receive garments, scarves and shoes; even hostages received such gifts.53 Textiles were also offered to the court by client states as tribute payments and so-called audience gifts; such items were redistributed across many of the palace offices, including scribes.54 The works of Homer are noted for their indications that Phoenician textiles were also highly regarded (for example, Iliad 6. 288–290; Odyssey 15. 415–418). In this context, purple dye becomes significant, especially as Phoenicians are known as fishers of murex, from which natural purple is derived (for example Korobios of Itanos, Crete, the Phoenician purple-fisher who assisted the Therans in the foundation of Cyrene: Herodotus 4. 151–153). I. Morris observes an additional correlation between places with names derived from porphyra and an association with Phoenician interest (for example, Euboea and Kythera, although it is not clear if it was murex, mines or a Phoeni- cian association that lent the name;55 Euboea: Aristotle Historia Animalium 5. 15; Kythera: Stephen of Byzantium Ethnica 391. 12–16). Despite the lack of explicit textual references or archaeological evidence for textile exchange between the East and West during the 7th century, when arguments for trade are well supported by ceramic evidence, there is little reason to doubt that textiles would not have been part of the regular consignments moving
51 Humphreys 1978, 167. 52 Gunter 2009, 164–66. 53 Gunter 2009, 171–72. 54 Gunter 2009, 164–75. 55 Morris 1992, 138; 140.
995066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd5066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd 255255 223/10/123/10/12 12:4412:44 256 T. HODOS
between communities. As with the case for ceramics,56 despite the similarly elite origin of textile consumption, the social value associated with such objects increases their desirability among those wishing to gain access to that social status; as knowledge of their cultural code spreads, such objects can lose their exclusive nature,57 which is partly what gives rise to the more widespread trade in commodities. The role of Al Mina within such socio-cultural and geographical networks remains problematic, notably for the lack of closer dating for much of the North Syrian and Cyp- riot ceramic material, especially in comparison with contemporary Greek wares, with its much tighter chronology. Happily, however, a much better understanding of the eastern Mediterranean assemblage is now available,58 and the publication of the Iron Age ceramics from nearby Kinet Höyük, with its extremely well-stratified contemporary contexts, will no doubt provide an even closer recognition of ceramic development in this region during this period.59 But there is little doubt that Greeks would have been present at Al Mina during this time, as mercenaries or otherwise.60
In Sum The concept of networks is closely allied with ideas of globalisation, especially when globalisation is recognised as the network of intense interactions and interdependencies between people in different geographical locales; these generate a significant increase in the traffic of information, goods and people across cultural and geographical boundaries to achieve a stage of complex connectivity that triggers a host of social changes associated with the formation of a culture of shared understandings between diverse socio-cultural groups.61 The topics raised by the authors above all draw upon the balance between shared ideas and practices between different socio-cultural groups, and the articulation of discrete iden- tities as a result of such ideological and material interaction. These are the building blocks of a globalising framework of interpretation. That the discussions above arising from my 2006 book engage with various aspects of globalisation theory – whether explicitly or implicitly – indicates that this is the paradigm we are now finding most fruitful for analys- ing the complexities of the Mediterranean Iron Age.
Bibliography
Albanese Procelli, R.M. 2003: Sicani, Siculi, Elimi. Forme di identità, modi di contatto e processi di trasformazione (Milan). ––. 2008: ‘Sicily’. In Sagona, C. (ed.), Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology (Leuven/Dudley, MA), 461–86. Appadurai, A. 1986: ‘Introduction: commodities and the politics of value’. In Appadurai, A. (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective (London/New York), 3–63. ––. (ed.) 2001: Globalization (Durham, NC).
56 Crielaard 1999a–b. 57 Appadurai 1986, 38; Douglas and Isherwood 1996, 68–69 and 106. 58 Lehmann 2005. 59 This work is being undertaken by Gunnar Lehmann; but see Hodos et al. 2005. 60 See also Hodos 2008. 61 Jennings 2011, 2 and 29–32.
995066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd5066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd 256256 223/10/123/10/12 12:4412:44 PARADIGM SHIFTS IN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY 257
Aubet, M.E. 1987: Tiro y las Colonias Fenicias de Occidente (Barcelona). Bauman, Z. 1995: Life in Fragments (Oxford). Boardman, J. 1964: The Greeks Overseas (London). ––. 1969: Review of Moscati 1968. ClRev 19.1, 244–45. ––. 1999: The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade, 4th ed. (London). Boyer, E.L. 1990: Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate (New York). Clark, R.P. 1997: The Global Imperative: An Interpretative History of the Spread of Human Kind (Boulder). Crielaard, J.P. 1999a: ‘Early Iron Age Greek Pottery in Cyprus and North Syria: a Consumption- Oriented Approach’. In Crielaard, J.P, Stissi, V. and van Wijngaarden, G.J. (eds.), The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries BC) (Amsterdam), 261–90. ––. 1999b: ‘Production, Circulation and Consumption of Early Iron Age Greek Pottery (Eleventh to Seventh Centuries BC)’. In Crielaard, J.P, Stissi, V. and van Wijngaarden, G.J. (eds.), The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries BC) (Amsterdam), 49–81. Cook, J.M. 1965: Review of Boardman 1964. ClRev 15.1, 95–97. Curti, E., Dench, E. and Patterson, J. 1996: ‘The Archaeology of Central and Southern Roman Italy: Recent Trends and Approaches’. JRS 86, 170–89. De Angelis, F. 2011: ‘Greek Colonization: Approaches, Cultural Relationships, and Exchange. Bollettino di Archeologia online: Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Classical Archaeology, ‘Meetings between Cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean’, Rome, September 22–26, 2008 (Rome)
995066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd5066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd 257257 223/10/123/10/12 12:4412:44 258 T. HODOS
––. 2010b: ‘Local and Global Perspectives in the Study of Social and Cultural Identity’. In Hales, S. and Hodos, T. (eds.), Material Culture and Social Identities in the Ancient World (Cambridge), 3–31. Hodos, T. in press: ‘Colonisation and Cultural Developments in the Central Mediterranean’. In Knapp, A.B. and van Dommelen, P. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of the Mediterranean World in the Bronze-Iron Ages (Cambridge). Hodos, T., Knappett C. and Kilikoglou, V. 2005: ‘Middle and Late Iron Age Painted Ceramics from Kinet Höyük: Macro, Micro and Elemental Analyses’. AS 55, 61–87. Hopkins, A.G. (ed.) 2002: Globalization in World History (London). ––. 2006a: ‘Introduction: Interactions between the Universal and the Local’. In Hopkins 2006b, 1–38. ––. (ed.) 2006b: Global History: Interactions between the Universal and the Local (London). Humphreys, S. 1978: Anthropology and the Greeks (London). Jennings, J. 2011: Globalizations and the Ancient World (Cambridge). Kistler, E. 2009: ‘Connected: cultura simposiale intermediterranea e i gruppi elitari nella Sicilia arcaica’. In Ampolo, C. (ed.), Immagine e immagini della Sicilia e di altre isole del Mediterraneo antico, vol. 2 (Pisa), 743–61. Klein, N. 2007: The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism (New York). Lehmann, G. 2005: ‘Al Mina and the East: a Report on Research in Progress’. In Villing, A. (ed.), The Greeks in the East (London), 61–92. Lomas, K. (ed.) 2004: Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean: Papers in Honour of Brian Shefton (Leiden/Boston). McNeil, W.H. 2008: ‘Globalization: Long Term Process or New Era in Human Affairs?’. New Global Studies 2.1, 1–9. Malkin, I. (ed.) 2001: Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (Cambridge, MA/Washington, DC). Malkin, I., Constantakopoulou, C. and Panagopoulou, K. 2007: ‘Preface: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean’. Mediterranean Historical Review 22.1, 1–9. Moore, K. and Lewis, D. 2009: Is Globalization New? (London). Morley, N. 2007: Trade in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge). Morris, S. 1992: Daedalos and the Origins of Greek Art (Princeton). Moscati, S. 1968: Il Mondo dei Fenici (Milan). Murray, O. 1990: ‘Sympotic History’. In Murray, O. (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion (Oxford), 3–13. Nederveen Pieterse, J. 2004: Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange (Lanham, MD). Orsi, P. 1925: ‘Siracusa. Nuova necropoli greca dei sec. VII–VI’. Notizie degli Scavi, 176–208. Pisano, G. 2002: ‘Beni di lusso nel mondo punico. Le uova di struzzo – II’. In Amadasi, M.G., Liverani, M. and Matthiae, P. (eds.), Da Pyrgi a Mozia: Studi sull’archeologia del Mediterraneo in memoria di Antonia Ciasca (Rome), 391–401. Ridgway, D. 1997: ‘Nestor’s Cup and the Etruscans’. OJA 16.3, 325–44. Riva, C. 2010: The Urbanisation of Etruria (Cambridge). Robertson R. 1992: Globalization, Social Theory and Global Culture (London). Roebuck, C. 1967: Review of Graham 1964. AJP 88.1, 108–10. Sagona, C. 2002: The Archaeology of Punic Malta (Leuven). Scott, J. 2000: Social Network Analysis: A Handbook (London). Sommer, M. 2010: ‘Shaping Mediterranean Economy and Trade: Phoenician Cultural Identities in the Iron Age’. In Hales, S. and Hodos, T. (eds.), Material Culture and Social Identities in the Ancient World (Cambridge), 114–37. Spanò Giammellaro, A. 1998: ‘Gioielli, vetri e uova di struzzo’. In Di Stefano, C.A. (ed.), Palermo Punica, Mostra Museo Archeologo Regionale Antonino Salinas, 6 dicembre 1995-30 settembre 1996 (Palermo), 371–409.
995066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd5066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd 258258 223/10/123/10/12 12:4412:44 PARADIGM SHIFTS IN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY 259
Tomlinson, J. 1999: Globalization and Culture (Cambridge). Trigger, B.G. 1989: A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge). Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.) 1999: Ancient Greeks West and East (Leiden/Boston/Cologne). ––. 2006: ‘Revisiting Ancient Greek Colonisation’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.) Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, vol. 1 (Leiden/Boston), xxiv–lxxxiii. Tusa, S. 2009: ‘Da Mokarta a Monte Polizzo. La transizione dall’età del bronzo finale all’età del ferro’. In Congiu, M., Miccichè, C. and Modeo, S. (eds.), Eiv akra. Insediamenti d’altura in Sicilia dalla preistoria al III sec. a.C. (Caltanissetta), 27–52. Tusa, S. and Nicoletti, F. 2000: ‘L’epilogo Sicano nella Sicilia occidentale: il caso Mokarta – capanna 1’. In Terze Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’area elima, Gibellina–Erice–Contessa Entellina 1997 (Pisa), 963–77. van Dommelen, P. 1998: On Colonial Grounds: A Comparative Study of Colonialism and Rural Settle- ment in First Millennium BC West Central Sardinia (Leiden). ––. 2006: ‘Colonial matters. Material culture and postcolonial theory in colonial situations’. In Tilley, C., Keane, W., Kuechler, S., Rowlands, M. and Spyer, P. (eds.), Handbook of Material Culture (London), 267–308. van Dommelen, P. and Gómez Bellard, C. (eds.) 2008: Rural Landscapes of the Punic World (London). Vella, N. 2004: ‘A Maritime Perspective: Looking for Hermes in an Ancient Seascape. In Chrysosto- mides, J., Dendrinos C. and Harris, J. (eds.), The Greek Islands and the Sea (Camberley), 33–57. Waters, M. 1995. Globalization (London). Webster, J. and Cooper, N. (eds.) 1996: Roman Imperialism: Post-Colonial Perspectives (Leicester). White, R. 1991: The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires and Republics in the Greak Lakes Region, 1650–1815 (Cambridge). Woodhead, A.D. 1965: Review of Boardman 1964. Antiquity 39, 152–53. Young, R. 1990: White Mythologies: Writing, History and the West (London). ––. 1995: Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race (London).
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology University of Bristol 43 Woodland Road Bristol BS8 1UU UK [email protected]
995066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd5066_AWE11_13_Hodos.indd 259259 223/10/123/10/12 12:4412:44