Urban Foundations? Colonial Settlement and Urbanization in the Western Mediterranean

University Press Scholarship Online British Academy Scholarship Online

Mediterranean Urbanization 800-600 BC Robin Osborne and Barry Cunliffe

Print publication date: 2005 Print ISBN-13: 9780197263259 Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2012 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197263259.001.0001

Peter Van Dommelen

DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197263259.003.0007

Abstract and Keywords This chapter examines the relation between urbanization and colonial settlement in the western Mediterranean and evaluates whether the Mediterranean should be considered an urban region. It investigates the interconnection between urbanization and colonialism and analyses archaeological evidence for early colonial settlement, focusing on Greek colonization in South Italy and Sicily and the Phoenician presence on the Tyrrhenian islands and the Spanish south- east coast. The findings indicate that the urban fabric of many colonial foundations does not necessarily have to be understood in urban terms.

Keywords: urbanization, colonial settlement, western Mediterranean, colonialism, South Italy, Sicily, Tyrrhenian islands, Greek colonization, Phoenicians

Introduction ASSERTIONS THAT ‘THE MEDITERRANEAN IS AN URBAN REGION’ (Braudel 1972, 278) leave little doubt that the prominence of urban settlement in the Mediterranean is a powerful topos that has long dominated archaeological and historical debates. The ubiquitous presence and ancient (pre-)histories of towns and cities as well as their recurrent critical role in Mediterranean history do indeed appear to justify the proclaimed ‘urban tradition’ of its historiography. But as the primacy of this urban tradition is now being called into question (Horden and Purcell 2000, 90–2), the alleged uniformity of Mediterranean urban settlements can also be shown to be more apparent than real. In particular, there exists a very basic distinction between the eastern and western regions that is particularly important for studies of the earlier stages of urban settlement: whereas in most of the eastern Mediterranean urbanization can be

Page 1 of 21

The relevance of this simple observation is readily underscored by the fact that most urban centres of the Classical and Roman periods in the western Mediterranean, just as indeed many of today’s cities in this region, first came into existence as colonial foundations. Because of their long urban histories and their colonial, usually Greek, origins, these settlements are generally assumed to have been urban in character right from the very first moment of their foundation. As a corollary, it is also frequently assumed that urbanism was a colonial innovation in the western Mediterranean that was first introduced by Phoenician and Greek colonizers from the eighth century BC onwards.

(p.144) The latter claim, however, is increasingly being criticized as a colonialist one for presenting urbanization as an exclusively colonial introduction (Attema et al. 1998, 326–9). Instead, it is argued that urbanization was just as often an indigenous innovation, and increasing evidence of regional urbanization processes from many regions of the western Mediterranean supports this view. A good example are the Iberian oppida whose development is now generally discussed in terms of urbanization and state formation (Ruiz Rodríguez 1997; Cunliffe and Fernández Castro 1999).

The urban nature of the earliest phases of the colonial foundations in the western Mediterranean is similarly not beyond doubt. There are good reasons for scrutinizing the character of the early colonial settlements and the conditions of the first centuries of their existence, because the study of ancient colonial settlement has long been marred by colonialist assumptions (van Dommelen 1997a).

The aim of this paper is accordingly in the first place to take a closer look at the interconnections between the notions of urbanization and colonialism. The second aim is to follow up the theoretical considerations through the detailed and critical examination of the relevant archaeological evidence for early colonial settlement. Focusing my discussion on the eighth and seventh centuries, I will consider both Greek colonization in South Italy and Sicily, and the Phoenician presence on the Tyrrhenian islands and the Spanish south-east coast. In these regions, I will pay particular attention to Tharros on the island of Sardinia, Megara Hyblaea on Sicily, and Metapontum on the Ionian coast of South Italy.

Urbanization and Colonialism The relationship between colonialism and urbanization is deeply rooted in their shared association with the notion of civilization. The idea that ‘power, civilization and prosperity seem always to have radiated’ from towns has a long history just as leading an urban lifestyle has long been equated with the essence of being civilized (Horden and Purcell 2000, 90): the Romans, for instance, explicitly located civilization in the towns (in Rome in particular), as is vividly demonstrated by the term urbanitas denoting ‘the polish and culture of a civilised man’ (Wallace- Hadrill 1991, 247). The absence of urban settlements in regions such as north-west Europe was similarly cause for ancient geographers to characterize them as uncivilized (e.g. Strabo, Geographia 4.1.5). More recent claims like Braudel’s that ‘it is because of the towns that man’s life has taken on a faster rhythm than it would under natural conditions’ testify no less to the critical role that modern scholarship attributes to towns. This statement also reveals a deep- rooted assumption that urban life is somehow the opposite condition to what is ‘natural’. (p.

Page 2 of 21

145) Braudel was indeed convinced that ‘the history and the civilisation of the [Mediterranean] sea have been shaped by its towns’ (1972, 278; cf. Horden and Purcell 2000, 90–1).

The association between colonialism and civilization is perhaps even more firmly ingrained in modern scholarship. Western thinking about civilization has long centred on European civilization, highlighting in particular its dual roots in classical antiquity and Christianity as the reasons for its perceived superiority (Rowlands 1987, 46–8). As European countries colonized the globe and encountered other cultures from the fifteenth century onwards, it was colonialism that increasingly provided the terms for asserting the superiority of European civilization. The most explicit instance of this perspective emerged in the later nineteenth century when European colonization was defined as a mission civilisatrice, insisting that it was a moral duty for Europe to spread Western civilization and to educate the uncivilized regions of the world (Pagden 2001, 143–4; cf. van Dommelen 1997a, 307).

Ancient colonialism began to play a role in the European understanding of civilization by the late eighteenth century, when certain European countries started to regard Greece as the ‘birthplace of the European spirit’ (Morris 1994, 11). The well-established view that Europe had culturally and intellectually descended from the Roman Empire was founded on a clear cultural continuity, as for instance marked by the persistent use of Latin, but to claim a direct relationship between Classical Greece and Prussian Germany or Victorian England was clearly much less straightforward (Marchand 1996, 3–74; Turner 1989). The Greek colonies of Magna Graecia were seized upon, because they provided a tangible and thus seemingly incontestable link between Greece and north-west Europe through which the ancestral Greek ‘incomparable splendor and creative vigor’ had been transferred (Pugliese Carratelli 1996b, 141). The persisting influence of this view is best demonstrated by the major exhibition ‘The first western Greeks’ which was organized in Venice in 1996. In the introduction to the 800-page accompanying catalogue, in which fifty-four leading academics summarize current scholarship, Greeks are not only celebrated for their ‘remarkable humanity and intellectual richness’ but ‘colonial Hellenism’ is also explicitly identified as ‘the vehicle for the diffusion of Greek civilization in the West’ (Pugliese Carratelli 1996c).

Because of this intimate entanglement between urbanization and colonialism, the study of Greek and Phoenician colonial settlements has from the beginning been fraught with colonial prejudice and biased oversights. The archaeological record, moreover, appeared to support the assumption that urbanization in the western Mediterranean was a colonial innovation, as most of the Greek and Phoenician foundations in Italy and Spain clearly stood out among contemporary indigenous settlements in terms of building (p.146) techniques, architectural style, and settlement layout. The fact that many colonial foundations such as Naples, Cadiz and Syracuse became archetypal ancient cities and continue to be urban centres to this day has understandably barely encouraged critical reflection on the early phases of these settlements.

It is thus fitting that critical reactions to colonialist thinking about urbanization in the western Mediterranean have coincided with the emergence of post-colonial thinking. Well ahead of the exposure of the colonial roots of Classical archaeology and the critical revision of its biased perspectives on ancient colonialism (Mattingly 1996; van Dommelen 1997a; De Angelis 1998), the contribution of indigenous Iron Age communities to urbanization processes in Spain and Italy was already highlighted in the late 1980s. Greek colonial settlement in South Italy has for instance been argued to have been one factor among several others in regional urbanization

Page 3 of 21

This conceptual shift has largely been promoted by the emergence of an alternative perspective on urbanization. Conventional approaches have concentrated on formal aspects such as defensive structures, central planning, monumental architecture, and public buildings for both civic and ritual purposes, the presence or absence of which in a particular settlement provided criteria for regarding it of urban status or not (Damgaard Andersen et al. 1997a, 13). This approach has been widely adopted in Mediterranean archaeology, where the construction of specific types of monumental architecture such as Greek-style temples and civic spaces such as an agora or bouleuterion has often been taken as evidence of urbanization (cf. Antonaccio 1997, 170–80). A slightly modified version of this approach goes back to Weber and Childe and defines ‘urban features’ in functional terms such as administration or artisanal activities rather than physical elements. Such criteria as evidence for a division of labour and a ‘variegated building typology’ have been used to argue that the Phoenician colonies in eastern Andalusia presented some urban characteristics (Niemeyer 1990, 484–7).

The alternative perspective, by contrast, does not situate urbanism at a single settlement but focuses on the functional relationships between settlements in their wider regional context (cf. Snodgrass 1991, 11–15). It most importantly regards urbanization as a process, in which both city and country are involved in a complex series of long-term regional developments (Damgaard Andersen et al. 1997a, 10–12; van Dommelen 1997b; Attema et al. 1998). From this ‘processual’ point of view, urbanization was not only not an exclusively colonial invention but also a primarily regional and indigenous process: in this regional view, settlement patterns in regions throughout the (p.147) western Mediterranean have revealed a closer connection to pre-colonial settlements than to colonial foundations. In south-east Italy, for instance, the transformation of prominent indigenous settlements into ‘Hellenized’ urban centres has turned out to be more closely related to their key role in long-term processes of change in indigenous society both before and during the early colonial periods than to the direct influence or domination of allegedly urban colonial centres (Lomas 1994; Attema et al. 1998, 343–57; cf. below). Still more significant is the observation that in most, if not all, cases where reliable evidence is available, the appearance of rural settlement tends to postdate the colonial foundation by more than a century, suggesting that the colonial settlements did not forge town-country relationships with their hinterland until well after their establishment. In some regions such as west central Sardinia, this process took more than three centuries (van Dommelen 1997b; cf. below) but even the Greek colonies in South Italy and Sicily did not settle their chorai immediately: even the earliest rural sites in the hinterland of Metapontum trail the foundation of the colony itself by nearly half a century (Carter 1990, 409–10).

Urban Features and Regional Functions As the ‘processual’ view of urbanization has begun to undercut the urbanizing influence of colonial establishments, attention has resolutely shifted towards indigenous developments of settlement nucleation and increasing social complexity. As a result of the increasingly ‘nativist’ orientation of this perspective, however, little consideration is nowadays given to the role of colonial settlements in urbanization processes, even if many of the colonies eventually became key urban centres of the regional settlement systems. In particular, there appears to be little interest in the so-called ‘urban features’ of colonial settlements like city walls and temples: were all of these present from the first moment of foundation? If not, which ones emerged later and,

Page 4 of 21

PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright British Academy, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for details see: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/ privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: Yale University; date: 01 August 2017 Urban Foundations? Colonial Settlement and Urbanization in the Western Mediterranean most importantly, under which circumstances? Nor is the question asked how the colonial settlements eventually acquired urban functions: were they subsumed in existing indigenous regional organization or did they impose a new colonial settlement system on the region? And what role, if any, did the ‘urban features’ play in these evolving contexts?

In order to assess these questions on the basis of concrete archaeological evidence, I shall examine a number of Phoenician and Greek colonial foundations in Sardinia, South Italy, and Sicily, scrutinizing in particular the presence or absence of ‘urban features’.

(p.148) Sardinia The implications and contradictions of the questions highlighted above clearly come to the fore in Sardinia, where several Phoenician colonies were established around the mid-eighth century BC. Of particular relevance for the present discussion are Sulcis and Tharros in, respectively, southern and west central Sardinia: the former settlement was founded around the middle of the eighth century on a small island off the south-west coast of Sardinia, while the latter was established on the San Marco peninsula in the Bay of Oristano during the later decades of the same century BC (Figure 7.1). Because the colonial settlement of Sulcis and the wider region of west central Sardinia have been the object of long-term research projects, there is a wealth of evidence for both urban and rural settlement in these regions (see van Dommelen 1998, 69–159 for an overview with references).

(p.149) In both regions a contrast can be observed between the urban features presented by Sulcis and Tharros at a relatively early stage of their existence and the limited influence exerted by these foundations on their hinterland, which meant that town and country did not become integrated until the late fifth or early fourth century BC.

The urban appearance of these Phoenician colonies derives in the first place from the dense fabric of the settlement itself. This is particularly well attested in Sulcis, where a small portion of the built-up area has been excavated that dates back to the eighth century BC.1 It consists of two streets at a right angle that are lined by tightly packed Figure 7.1. Map of southern Sardinia in the seventh to sixth centuries BC, showing the houses. The houses themselves are carefully location of Phoenician colonial settlements constructed of lime-plastered mudbrick and the main Iron Age settlements discussed walls on a low base of small stones and in the text. appear to consist of two to three rooms (Bernardini 1997). The evident similarities with the early phases of Carthage underscore the apparently urban nature of the early Phoenician settlement at Sulcis (Niemeyer and Docter 1993; cf. Verga 1997, 108–15).

Page 5 of 21

The urban status of both Phoenician settlements is furthermore demonstrated by the presence of a tophet, which is an open-air sanctuary unique to Phoenician settlements in the central Mediterranean. It consists of an enclosure in which urns were deposited containing the cremation remains of stillborn babies and infants as well as of animals (Figure 7.2). Because tephatim exclusively occur in the major settlements of the central Mediterranean and consistently yield the oldest finds, these sanctuaries are thought to have been inaugurated in the earliest foundation phase. They are interpreted as basic urban institutions that express the autonomy of the settlement and its community. Because inscriptions on stelai from later phases show that a tophet was also used by people from the wider area around the main settlement, the presence of a tophet expressed the status of the settlement as the regional urban centre in both a civic and ritual sense (Moscati 1992; Aubet 2001, 254–6; cf. Bernardini 1996, 542–4).

Phoenician expansion into the hinterland of either Tharros or Sulcis was, however, limited to the establishment of a single secondary settlement at a strategic position in the later eighth century BC: in west Figure 7.2. View of the tophet of Tharros central Sardinia, Oth-oca was founded on a (from Rivista di Studi Fenici 3:1 (1975), fig. 3). low knoll on the inland shore of the Bay of Oristano, and in southern Sardinia, Monte Sirai was established high up on an isolated plateau, allowing a good overview of both the inland area and the coast, including Sulcis (see Figure 7.1). At the same time, a general dearth of imported objects in contemporary Iron Age contexts suggest that exchange contacts between the Phoenician colonies and the Nuragic communities of the interior remained very limited throughout the seventh and sixth centuries. (p.150) Neither Tharros nor Sulcis can therefore be argued to have been part of the existing Nuragic settlement system, let alone to have functioned as an urban centre in their respective regions. As demonstrated by regional surveys, west central Sardinia subsequently witnessed a further expansion of colonial settlement in the late sixth century, when the town of Neapolis was established and a handful of small rural settlements appeared (see Figure 7.1). From that time onwards, indigenous settlements throughout the region entered into closer contacts with the colonial towns, suggesting that Tharros was gradually becoming a point of reference in the region. It is nevertheless only from the early fourth century BC onwards that there is unambiguous evidence for Tharros assuming a central function in the region (van Dommelen 1997b, 264–9).

The situation is further complicated by the changes that Nuragic society was going through since approximately the ninth century BC. In terms of the Iron Age settlement pattern, villages replaced nuraghi, the monumental Bronze Age dwelling-towers, as the main habitation structures. Although these settlements were mostly located in the vicinity of a nuraghe, it was the so-called ‘reunion huts’ rather than the traditional towers that represented the focal points of Iron Age Nuragic villages. The ‘reunion huts’ were communal, perhaps public, buildings associated with both ritual and authority, perhaps because they served as the meeting-places of elders or élite members (Blake 1998, 151–2).

At a regional level, it appears that places such as Su Nuraxi (Barumini) and perhaps Brunk’e s’Orku (Guspini) or Sa Domu Beccia (Uras) maintained and perhaps strengthened their role of leading district centres. The well-sanctuary of Sant’Anastasia (Sardara), which had previously been an exclusively ritual centre, strengthened its regional position after the ninth century, as

Page 6 of 21

PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright British Academy, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for details see: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/ privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: Yale University; date: 01 August 2017 Urban Foundations? Colonial Settlement and Urbanization in the Western Mediterranean the construction of a ‘reunion hut’ and the presence of precious (p.151) imports suggests that the place gained political influence and effectively became a political regional centre too (Lilliu 1986; Webster 1996, 158–65). It is clear that Tharros had no part to play in this well-developed and fully indigenous settlement system featuring several urban functions (Køllund 1997). It is in fact significant that the colony only became more prominent in the wake of further and as yet poorly understood changes in the indigenous settlement system in which Sant’ Anastasia was abandoned and the core shifted inland (cf. van Dommelen 1997b, 247–55).

The archaeological evidence makes it clear that, from a regional point of view, urbanization cannot be seen as an exclusively colonial process, even if it was the colonial settlement of Tharros that eventually emerged as the urban centre of the region. At the same time, however, Tharros already showed urban features before it took up its regional role, which begs the question of the meaning of these elements.

South Italy and Sicily In the South of Italy and on Sicily, the urban nature of the Greek colonial foundations has usually been taken for granted, as the colonies have always been accepted as poleis. It has in fact been suggested that the colonial foundations preceded the towns of mainland Greece in the development of the polis (Malkin 1987, 262–6; cf. Snodgrass 1991, 10–11). It is therefore worth noting that the ‘urban features’ of the Greek colonial settlements are substantially more equivocal than those of their Phoenician counterparts. The settlements of Megara Hyblaea in south-eastern Sicily and Metapontum in Basilicata on the central Ionian Gulf probably provide the best evidence to demonstrate this point, because they have not been built over in the post- classical period (Figure 7.3).

Located on a level plateau on the inner shore of the Bay of Augusta near the Cantera stream (Figure 7.4), Megara Hyblaea was established in a previously uninhabited area soon after the mid-eighth century BC. It laid claim to an area as large as 60 ha., in which five distinct quarters were sited. Each of these was carefully laid out with the houses situated in a regular plan of more or less rectangular plots that was organized along a slightly different axis in each area. In the area around the later agora, which remained an open space until the construction of monumental temples in Figure 7.3. Map of South Italy and Sicily, the late seventh century BC, the grid was showing the regions and places discussed in the text. oriented along two converging axes. The earliest houses themselves were rather unassuming single-room constructions. Although the city-wall itself was not built until the mid-seventh century BC, the limits of the settlement area were defined from the outset by three ‘peripheral’ or ‘sub-urban’ shrines on the south-eastern, north-western, and north-eastern outskirts of the plateau (see Figure 7.4). All three have yielded votive offerings dating (p.152) back to the earliest phases of the settlement (Di Vita 1996, 266–8; de Polignac 1995, 125–6).

Page 7 of 21

A similar picture has emerged from the ongoing excavations in Metapontum, which was founded in the early seventh century on the shore of the Ionian Gulf. The settlement is situated on the coastal plain between the rivers Bradano and Basento, near the estuary of the former stream and the ancient coastline (see Figure 7.3). The later built-up area of some 150 ha. between the two rivers was organized from the very beginning by a regular plan of rectangular plots. This area was only sparsely settled in the early phases and the houses constructed were very simple buildings; the absence of burials suggests nevertheless that it was an area reserved for habitation. This is supported by the presence of an earthen Figure 7.4. Plan of Megara Hyblaea, wall just north of the built-up area: it showing the regular settlement layout in the predated the city walls, but its function was ‘agora area’ and other major features. apparently not so much defensive as that of a boundary marker separating the inhabited area from the outer chora (Yntema 2000, 13–16). As in Megara Hyblaea, several shrines were inaugurated at the time of the foundation of the settlement, but in Metapon-tum only one of these was situated at the edge of the settlement itself. The other shrines were situated further inland at the limits of the chora and, although the earliest evidence for settlement in the chora dates to the sixth (p.153) century BC, the early seventh-century votive deposits of San Biagio and Tavole Palatine suggest that at least the extent of the chora was defined at a much earlier date (Carter 1994, 168–71). Since the internal land divisions of the chora date to the sixth and fifth centuries, it appears that both settlement in and actual land use of the chora did not take off before that time. Colonial rural settlement, moreover, only became widespread from the second half of the sixth and the first half of the fifth centuries BC, although a small number of indigenous settlements existed in the area in the preceding period (Carter 1990, 409–10; 1994, 171–4).

In both Megara Hyblaea and Metapontum, it is the careful planning of the settlement areas and the establishment of the shrines in the earliest stages of the colonial foundations that offer the main arguments for attributing urban status to these settlements from the outset. It is also clear that the (p.154) settlements were organized by a centralized authority that oversaw the layout and implementation of the regular town-plan, just as the foundation of the shrines no doubt staked off what we could term a ‘colonial space’ as opposed to the indigenous areas further inland (cf. de Polignac 1995, 98–106). At the same time, however, the urban appearance of both settlements at these early stages was rather incomplete, as public buildings and fortifications were not constructed until a much later date. The plots of land in Megara Hyblaea were, moreover, so large that it seems unlikely that they supported just a house. These plots were presumably also used as horticultural fields or orchards, which is clearly at odds with the alleged urban character of the settlement. The earliest dwellings in Metapontum may have clustered more closely together but they made up separate settlement cores (Yntema 2000, 14– 15). More significantly, the early settlement did not have much impact on the wider region, even if the Greek shrines had defined a fairly large ‘colonial space’ beyond the settled area: the chora

Page 8 of 21

PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright British Academy, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for details see: http://britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy/ privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: Yale University; date: 01 August 2017 Urban Foundations? Colonial Settlement and Urbanization in the Western Mediterranean remained uninhabited and was initially cultivated only extensively. Even the close contacts that the colony initially maintained with the nearby indigenous settlement of Incoronata did not lead to greater regional integration, as Incoronata was abandoned by the late seventh century BC (Carter 1994, 162–8).

Comparison of the archaeological evidence first of all points out the broad similarities between the early stages of these colonial settlements: neither the early Greek nor the Phoenician settlements appear to have fulfilled any urban function in the settlement systems of the regions in which they were established. However, all foundations presented one or more ‘urban features’ from the earliest stages, which means that both the Phoenician and Greek colonial situations were, paradoxically, characterized by colonial foundations that presented an ‘urban appearance’ to varying degrees but yet did not fulfil any of the economic, social, or political functions that are normally associated with urban status. An incomplete urban appearance was in fact a consistent aspect in South Italy and Sicily, where regular land divisions and a grid plan were a persistent and apparently critical element of the earliest Greek settlements but where any other ‘urban features’ were equally conspicuously absent (Fischer-Hansen 1996, 349–51).

In the second place, the differences between the Greek and Phoenician settlements should not be overlooked, either, as it was the latter ones that appeared most consistently urban: both the tophet sanctuary and the densely built settlement layout gave the Phoenician foundations a much more convincing urban appearance than their Greek counterparts, which in many cases appear to have combined housing with cultivation within the regular street plan. Similar evidence from the early phases of Syracuse suggests that the case of Megara Hyblaea may have been the rule rather than the exception for at least the Sicilian Greek foundations (Di Vita 1996, 272).

(p.155) It is finally worth noting that both Phoenician and Greek colonies gradually completed their urban appearance as they eventually became urban centres in their regions, thus posing the question how and to what extent these ‘urban features’ eventually did become associated with urban functions.

Page 9 of 21

Urban Appearances in Colonial Networks The key question to be answered regards the urban appearance of the colonial foundations: if, as the nativist view of urbanization alleges, the presence of ‘urban features’ in the early colonial settlements did not denote urbanization, the obvious question is what meanings these features did carry in the early colonial contexts.

For the Phoenician colonial foundations, Hans-Georg Niemeyer (1995) has made the fundamental contribution of drawing attention to the wider context of the architecture and layout of the Phoenician colonies. His starting-point was the Phoenician settlements of eastern Andalusia in the province of Malaga, in particular Toscanos (Figure 7.5), where extensive excavations have exposed a settlement that from its earliest beginnings in the mid-eighth century BC presented a strikingly urban appearance: it was not only made up of tightly packed houses that consisted of several rooms and that were located along a regular street, but it was also enclosed by a defensive ditch. Remains of sporadic buildings and iron smelting suggest that industrial activities took place in the immediate vicinity of the built-up area (Figure 7.6). This ‘industrial periphery’ was much later enclosed by a large stone wall (Niemeyer 1995, 69–71; Schubart 2000). Despite the ostensibly ‘urban fabric’ of the settlement core and the associated artisanal activity, Niemeyer concluded that Toscanos could not be regarded as an urban settlement because of the absence of a chora or, more generally, because of the lack of an economic and political hinterland (Niemeyer 1990; 1995, 72–3). A survey of the other Phoenician settlements on the Andalusian coast, which are all similarly characterized by a habitation area with an ‘urban fabric’ and nearby industrial installations, led to the same conclusion, that ‘Phoenician settlements such as Toscanos were not cities’ (Niemeyer 1990, 485; cf. Niemeyer 1995, 77–85; Aubet 1995, 50–1).

Niemeyer has also carefully demonstrated that the ‘urban fabric’ of the Phoenician settlements in Andalusia was closely related to Levantine traditions of urban architecture and layout. In terms of building techniques, house plans, building types, and street layouts, the Andalusian settlements clearly matched both contemporary cities in Figure 7.5. Map of the south coast of Andalusia showing the principal Phoenician the Levant and Phoenician Carthage colonial settlements. (Niemeyer 1995, 74–7). This is well illustrated by the so-called ‘warehouse’ of Toscanos (see Figure 7.6, C), which has recently been demonstrated to have been a combination of a warehouse and a public covered market of a type that (p.156) (p. 157) is common in the Levant, housing Figure 7.6. Plan of Toscanos in the late eighth century BC, showing the ‘warehouse both small stores and workshops (Aubet area’ (after Niemeyer 1990, fig. 14). 2000). A comparable building, albeit of a less grand construction but with a similar function and similarly associated with small workshops, has been identified at Cerro del Villar further down the Malaga coast (Aubet 1997; 2000, 31; cf. Figure 7.5 above). Given the extensive and coherent nature of the urban appearance of Toscanos and the other Phoenician settlements in Andalusia, it is all the more remarkable that these settlements did not fulfil any urban

Page 10 of 21

While this simple observation adds very little to our understanding of the urban appearance of these settlements, the close ties between the Andalusian and Levantine settlements suggest that the Phoenician settlers simply constructed their houses and settlements in the architectural traditions of their homeland. It is questionable, however, whether the urban connotations of these traditions that were rooted in and reflected long-term urbanization processes in the Levant, were relocated to the Andalusian context, too. Because the context of the colonial situation in Andalusia was very different from the Levantine setting of urban centres that were well integrated in regional settlement systems, the meanings associated with the ‘urban-style’ forms of architecture and town planning are unlikely to have been perceived in exactly the same way in the Andalusian settlements. It is on the contrary far more probable that the ‘urban appearance’ of the Phoenician settlements was perceived as signifying the presence of Phoenician or Levantine settlers: given the colonial setting, the ‘foreign’ and colonial appearance of the newly established settlements is likely to have transformed the perception of the architectural tradition, as it distinguished the new establishments most markedly from the indigenous Andalusian settlements.

This interpretation is supported by the ‘market-place’ identified in Cerro del Villar, because it differs in several respects from conventional oriental types, including the ‘warehouse’ in Toscanos. It is first of all a much simpler building, without the carefully finished ashlar masonry, which suggests that its presence in Cerro del Villar was not so much due to Levantine urban tradition, but rather because it met a real need in the Andalusian situation. At the same time, Cerro del Villar was a much smaller settlement than the Levantine urban centres, whose markets catered for the surrounding regions; the Andalusian settlements instead appear to have functioned as focal points of commercial contacts between the indigenous and colonial inhabitants of the local areas in which they were situated, that is, as simple trading posts grouped around a ‘market-place’ (Aubet 1997, 209–10). The different, ‘less urban’ appearance of the ‘market-place’ in Cerro del Villar consequently represents an adaptation of this type of building to the colonial context (cf. (p.158) Aubet 1997, 205–9). Its significance is that it demonstrates the material transformation of Levantine architectural traditions in Andalusia, which makes it all the more plausible that the meaning and perception of these building styles had changed, too.

A somewhat different situation can be discerned in west central Sardinia, where Tharros was home to the specialized artisanal production of jewellery and precious stones such as gems, scarabs, and seals (Moscati 1987). Although this is precisely the kind of artisanal activity that is associated with urbanization, none of these products found its way from Tharros into the hinterland of west central Sardinia. Instead, they were widely distributed throughout the Phoenician world of the seventh-century central Mediterranean, which suggests that it was not inland Sardinia but the network of nearby Phoenician settlements that constituted the hinterland of Tharros (cf. Perea Caveda 1997, 136–9). It was only much later, from the fourth century BC onwards, when Tharros had effectively become the regional urban centre of west central Sardinia, that certain specialized products such as stamped mortars were distributed in its regional hinterland (Manfredi 1991).

Page 11 of 21

The absence of a tophet in the minor Phoenician settlements of Sardinia similarly points to a central role of the major colonies within the colonial world of Sardinia. Just as Tharros was the main point of reference for Oth-oca (and Neapolis later on), Sulcis was the urban centre of the colonial world of south-west Sardinia, that is for places like Monte Sirai, Pani Loriga and San Giorgio di Portoscuso (see Figure 7.1; cf. Moscati et al. 1997, 50–6).2

These observations put the urban appearance of Tharros in a different light, because they suggest that the contrast between the ‘urban features’ and the absence of urban functions might have been more apparent than real. They indicate that the apparent contrast may well have been produced by a somewhat narrow understanding of ‘urban functions’ in exclusively territorial terms - the region of west central Sardinia in the case of Tharros. While neither the Sardinian nor the Andalusian Phoenician colonies can be seen as the urban hub of their immediate regional hinterland, Tharros and Sulcis can instead be regarded as centres of a ‘colonial hinterland’ that stretched seaward rather than inland, with connected settlements situated along the coast and further overseas. Other major colonial settlements such as Cadiz, Motya, perhaps Ibiza, and of course Carthage itself are likely to have functioned along similar lines. The urban appearance of these major Phoenician colonial settlements can thus presumably be understood in terms of a ‘colonial’ or perhaps even better a ‘maritime’ form of urbanism.

(p.159) Constructing Colonial Appearances The situation in South Italy, meanwhile, was quite different, as the earlier discussion has already made clear, because the early phases of the Greek colonies generally presented few ‘urban features’, the most consistent of these being the regular grid plan. The Greek colonies nevertheless acquired a markedly ‘more urban’ appearance from the mid-seventh century BC onwards, when monumental temples were erected and other public spaces such as the agora were architecturally decked out (Mertens and Greco 1996, 252–6). As in the Phoenician case, this development did not coincide with the adoption of urban functions in the region, even if there obviously were regular contacts between the Greek settlers on the coast and the indigenous inhabitants of the interior: both Greek and indigenous items were regularly exchanged, albeit at a limited scale (Whitehouse and Wilkins 1989, 103–16). It has been suggested that the rural shrines of the early colonial phases that stake out the colonial space occupied by the settlement and its chora played a major role as meeting places for these exchanges (Whitehouse and Wilkins 1989, 115–16). This not only explains the importance of these shrines as early colonial institutions but it also implies that their significance and meaning were colonial rather than urban in nature (cf. de Polignac 1995, 104–5).

With regard to the meaning of an emerging ‘urban appearance’, the interpretation of the Phoenician ‘urban fabric’ as conditioned by Levantine architectural tradition cannot easily be extended to the early Greek colonial settlements for the simple reason that monumental architecture and densely built insulae were just emerging or did not exist at all in eighth-century Greece and Ionia: the Greek settlers who arrived in Sicily and South Italy simply did not come from a background that was as urbanized as the Levant. This point is supported by the early ‘urban appearance’ of later Greek colonies such as Elea, where the city walls for instance go back to the sixth-century foundation period: unlike their eighth-century predecessors, the settlers arriving in Elea in the later sixth century could draw on well-established architectural traditions (Bencivenga Trillmich 1990; cf. Mertens 1990, 374).

Page 12 of 21

Because of the more or less contemporary appearance and joint roots of monumental architecture in Greece and South Italy, it is usually assumed that the temples and city walls carried the same meanings and had the same connotations in both regions (Mertens 1996, 315). Yet, because the colonial context of Sicily and South Italy was radically different from the Greek and Ionian situations where integrated regional settlement systems were developing (Morris 1991), the Sicilian and South Italian colonies in general and the monumental buildings in particular must inevitably have been perceived in quite different terms from those built in Greece and Ionia. The fact that colonial architecture is usually grander and more impressive has for instance been (p.160) interpreted as a sign of ‘self-preservation and self- expression’ (Mertens 1990, 377), underlining implicitly that the significance of these buildings should be sought in the settlements themselves rather than in the surrounding region. This fits quite well with the view that the Greek colonies were involved in and perhaps led the way in the formation process of the polis (Malkin 1994; Snodgrass 1994, 8), because it concerned political and civic life within the colonial settlements and it did not depend on their integration in a regional settlement system. It is therefore quite plausible that the appearance of monumental temples in the colonies must be associated with the creation of a polis (de Polignac 1995, 118– 27). In Sicily, it is Megara Hyblaea that has yielded the best evidence to support this claim as the construction of monumental temples and public buildings in the previously open agora area around the mid-seventh century signalled an increased importance of the colonial settlement itself, even if much ritual activity continued to take place in the shrines on the periphery of the colonial space (de Polignac 1995, 125). On the South Italian mainland, Achaian colonies such as Sybaris, Croton, and Metapontum similarly demonstrate that ‘urbanization’ and polis formation were essentially a sixth-century phenomenon, with some cases such as Metapontum starting as early as the late seventh century (Morgan and Hall 1996, 199–215).

The continued importance of the peripheral shrines must have added a further dimension to the ways in which monumental architecture was perceived in the colonial settlements: because they defined the limits of the colonial space of either the built-up area or the chora, the colonial aspect of monumental architecture can hardly have failed to gain prominence, as the large temples set off the colonial presence against the indigenous inhabitants in the surrounding areas. This is most evident in the chora of Metapontum (see Figure 7.3), where the Heraion of Tavole Palatine on the banks of the Bradano at the eastern edge of the chora was transformed into an impressive Doric temple where high status gifts were offered (Carter 1994, 171–5). This is all the more interesting because it has been noted that these temples should perhaps not so much be regarded ‘as sub-urban sanctuaries, but as urban, as they belong in an overall, urban unity’—as long as urban is understood as a reference to the built environment of the settlement (Fischer-Hansen 1996, 350).

The meaning of monumental architecture in the Greek colonies can thus be found in the settlements themselves and in their self-contained and self-defined presence on the Sicilian and South Italian shores. This is entirely in line with the image of the Greek colonial foundations as relatively isolated and economically self-supporting settler colonies that were primarily focused on and concerned with themselves (cf. Morgan and Hall 1996, 214–15). Such a perception could hardly have been more different from that associated with (p.161) the emerging urban centres in Greece, where the monumental appearance is likely to have signalled the central importance of these centres for the surrounding region (Snodgrass 1991, 11–20).

Page 13 of 21

The question that finally remains to be answered is why the Greek colonies abandoned their secluded existence and how they became dominant regional centres. The key to this question lies in the development of the indigenous Iron Age settlement systems rather than in the expansion of colonial settlement: even if the expansion of colonial exploitation of and settlement in the chora turned the colonial foundations into central places of some sort, their influence remained strictly confined to the boundaries of their chorai. While exploitation of the chorai was certainly intensified through the rural farms, the self-supporting Greek colonial settlements essentially continued to keep aloof from their regional context.

As numerous regional studies in south-east Italy have demonstrated over the past two decades, the eighth to fifth centuries were a period of critical changes for indigenous settlement. During the eighth and seventh centuries, a small number of prominent hilltop settlements such as Gravina, Monte Sannace, Oria, and Cavallino emerged as the leading Iron Age centres, which became gradually surrounded by smaller settlements. As has been demonstrated most convincingly in the Salento, a complex settlement system organized around primary and secondary centres gradually came into place (Yntema 1993, 155–63; Burgers 1998, 173–94). The sixth century witnessed a further stage in this process, when the regional centres abandoned their traditional appearance of clustered wattle-and-daub huts in favour of Greek-style houses, Greek-style fortifications, densely organized, more or less regular street plans, and the establishment of prominent sanctuaries (Yntema 2000, 35). At the same time, many smaller sites were abandoned, while the secondary sites were reconstructed along similar lines, albeit on a significantly less grand scale. In short, the ongoing regional urbanization processes were upheld while the settlements, especially the central ones, were reconstructed in a distinctly Greek style (Whitehouse and Wilkins 1989, 116–22; Yntema 1991; 1993, 155–76; Herring 1991; Lomas 1994; Burgers 1998, 173–224; Attema et al. 1998, 343–58; cf. Figure 7.3).

As this brief and somewhat simplified outline indicates, it was, ironically, the indigenous adoption of Greek-style ‘urban features’ which (re)created an association between these elements and the function of the settlements. It was part and parcel of the increasing interaction between the indigenous centres and the colonial foundations on the coast from the sixth century onwards, which has conventionally been termed ‘Hellenization’. Just as portable items of material culture were not only adopted, either by importing or imitating them, but also appropriated in the indigenous contexts, the new architectural style must have been given new meanings as appropriate in the indigenous (p.162) situations (Antonaccio 1997, 188). Because these contexts were primarily urban, it is quite likely that features such as fortifications and the presence of a monumental temple in particular became indeed associated with urban functions. The fact that the large sanctuaries were among the earliest monumental buildings erected in the regional centres suggests that the monumental temples on the edges of the colonial chorai were instrumental in the contacts between colonies and indigenous centres in more than one way (Whitehouse and Wilkins 1989, 110; Yntema 1993, 170; cf. de Polignac 1995, 107–10).

Conclusions: Colonial Foundations My discussion of the early phases of Phoenician and Greek colonial foundations in the western Mediterranean started from recent claims that urbanization in the western Mediterranean has been a primarily indigenous development. While this contention is abundantly supported by the archaeological evidence, it is at the same time also evident that it does not tell the whole story either: at least some of the Phoenician settlements not only presented a distinctly urban appearance but also fulfilled some kind of urban function. Precisely because urban function and

Page 14 of 21

Rather than focusing on the regional development of urbanism, I have traced the limits of the regional perspective on urbanization. First and foremost among these is the inability of the regional approach to recognize urban networks that are not regionally based or associated with a regional settlement hierarchy. The colonial network of the Phoenician settlements is the best case in point. Another limitation of the regional perspective is that it ignores the significance of the ‘urban appearance’ of settlements: since the form and style of settlements, as those of any kind of material culture, are neither accidental nor meaningless, their appearance cannot be ignored but must be appreciated in their specific context (cf. Georgopoulo 2001, 20).

The Phoenician case study has illustrated these points best, as it shows that the ‘urban fabric’ of many colonial foundations does not necessarily have to be understood in (functionally) urban terms. Culturally specific features such as the tophet are much more significant in this respect, because their occurrence can be associated with the more prominent settlements of the Phoenician colonial networks and they thus seem to be a much more reliable marker of urbanization. The recognition that the major Phoenician settlements can be regarded as the colonial or maritime equivalents of urban centres is important because it both examines these settlements in their colonial (p.163) context and deepens our understanding of the notion of urbanization. The Phoenician case also demonstrates that taking the urban appearance of a settlement seriously does not inevitably imply a return to checklists of urban features. Instead, it opens the way for appreciating the various meanings of the built environment of a settlement. Even if topographic analyses of the colonial cityscapes as detailed as those carried out in the Venetian colonies in Crete may not be feasible for ancient colonial settlements (Georgopoulo 2001), closer attention for the specific reasons and contexts in which monumental buildings were erected makes much more sense of these buildings, as the market-places of Cerro del Villar and Toscanos have shown.

The same principles apply to the Greek colonial settlements of South Italy and Sicily, even if the different contexts and backgrounds necessarily gave rise to rather different developments and meanings of urban fabric. Despite the conventional view of these colonies as urban centres, it has become clear that their urban appearance had little to do with regional organization but was instead closely associated with colonial self-representation and the narrow local focus of the settler community. The close match with the limited sphere of interaction observed in colonial burial rites supports this conclusion, too (Shepherd 1995).

At a more general level, my discussion has shown that in the colonial contexts of the western Mediterranean urbanization and colonialism were intimately entangled in a variety of ways and that neither can be fully appreciated without the other. It also entails qualification of the distinction between urbanization processes in the eastern and western Mediterranean that I made at the beginning of this chapter, since urbanization was a ‘homegrown’ development throughout the region: even if colonialism did not introduce urbanization in the western Mediterranean, it certainly did influence the course of developments in different ways and at various moments in time. As several of the regional studies in south-east Italy have demonstrated, urbanization was most of all a long-term process, that started well before the colonial settlements were founded and that was fundamentally transformed by the evolving colonial situations.

Page 15 of 21

References

Bibliography references:

Antonaccio, C. 1997: Urbanism at archaic Morgantina. In Damgaard Andersen, H.et al. (eds) (1977b), 167–93.

Attema, P. A. J., Burgers, G.-J., Kleibrink, M. Maaskant and Yntema, D. 1998: Case studies in indigenous developments in early Italian centralization and urbanization: a Dutch perspective. European Journal of Archaeology 1:3, 326–81.

Aubet, M. E. 1995: From trading post to town in the Phoenician-Punic world. In Cunliffe, B. and Keay, S. (eds) (1995), 47–66.

(p.164) Aubet, M. E. 1997: Un lugar de mercado en el Cerro del Villar. In Aubet, M. E. (ed.), Los Fenicios en Málaga (Malaga), 197–213.

Aubet, M. E. 2000: Arquitectura colonial e intercambio. In González Prats, A. (ed.), (2000), 13– 45.

Aubet, M. E. 2001: The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade, 2nd edn (Cambridge).

Bartoloni, P. 1997: Monte Sirai. in Bernardini, P.et al. (eds) ( 1997), 84–9.

Bencivenga Trillmich, C. 1990: Elea: problems of the relationship between city and territory, and of urban organization in the archaic period. In Descoeudres, J.-P. (ed.) (1990), 365–71.

Bernardini, P. 1996: Le origini della presenza fenicia in Sardegna: tipologie di insedi-amento e cronologia. In Acquaro, E. (ed.), Alle soglie della classicità: Il Mediterraneo tra tradizione e innovazione. Studi in onore di Sabatino Moscati (Pisa and Rome), 535–45.

Bernardini, P. 1997: L’insediamento fenicio di Sulci. In Bernardini, P., et al. (eds) (1997), 58–61.

Bernadini, P., D’Oriano, R., and Spanu, P. (eds) 1997: Phoinikes b Shrdn: I Fenici in Sardegna. Nuove acquisizioni (Oristano).

Blake, E. 1998: Sardinia’s nuraghi: four millennia of becoming. World Archaeology 30, 59–71.

Braudel, F. 1972: The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (London).

Burgers, G.-J. 1998: Constructing Messapian Landscapes: Settlement Dynamics, social Organization and Culture Contact in the Margins of Graeco-Roman Italy (Amsterdam).

Carter, J. 1990: Metapontum: land, wealth, and population. In Descoeudres, J.-P. (ed.) (1990), 405–441.

Carter, J. 1994: Sanctuaries in the chora of Metaponto. In Alcock, S. and Osborne, R. (eds), Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece (Oxford), 161–99.

Page 16 of 21

Cunliffe, B. and Fernández Castro, M. 1999: Torreparadones and the development of urban systems in central Andalucía. In Cunliffe, B. and Fernández Castro, M., The Guadajoz Project: Andalucía and its Hinterland, I. Torreparadones and its Hinterland (Oxford), 423–54.

Cunliffe, B. and Keay, S. (eds) 1995: Social Complexity and the Development of Towns in Iberia: From the Copper Age to the Second Century AD (Oxford).

Damgaard Andersen, H., Horsnaes, H. W. and Houby-Nielsen, S. 1997a: Urbanization in the Mediterranean in the ninth to sixth centuries BC: an introduction. In Damgaard Andersen, H.et al. (eds) (1997b), 9–15.

Damgaard Anderson, H., Horsnaes, H. W., Houby-Nielsen, S., and Rathje, A. 1977b: Urbanization in the Mediterranean in the Ninth to Sixth Centuries BC. Acta Hyperborea 7 (Copenhagen).

De Angelis, F. 1998: Ancient past, imperial present: the British Empire in T. J. Dunbabin’s The Western Greeks. Antiquity 72, 539–49.

Descoeudres, J.-P. (ed.) 1990: Greek Colonists and Native Populations. Proceedings of the first Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology held in honour of Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall, Sydney 9–14 July 1985 (Oxford).

(p.165) Di Vita, A. 1996: Urban planning in ancient Sicily. In Pugliese Carratelli, G. (ed.) (1996a), 263–308.

Fischer-Hansen, T. 1996: The earliest town-planning of the western Greek colonies: with special regard to Sicily. In Hansen, M. H. (ed.) (1996), 317–73.

Georgopoulou, M. 2001: Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies: Architecture and Urbanism (Cambridge).

González Prats, A. (ed.) 2000: Fenicios y territorio. Actas del II seminario internacional sobre temas fenicios. Guardamar del Segura, 9–11 de abril de 1999 (Alicante).

Hansen, M. H. (ed.) 1996: Introduction to an Inventory of Poleis. Copenhagen Polis Centre 3 (Copenhagen).

Herring, E. 1991: Power relations in Iron Age southeast Italy. In Herring, E., Whitehouse, R., and Wilkins, J. (eds), Papers of the Fourth Conference of Italian Archaeology: The Archaeology of Power (London), 117–33.

Horden, P. and Purcell, N. 2000: The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History (Oxford).

Køllund, M. 1997: Urbanization in Nuragic Sardinia. Why not? In Damgaard Andersen, H.et al. (eds) ( 1997b), 229–42.

Lilliu, G. 1986: Società ed economia nei centri nuragici. In Ugas, G. and Lai, G. (eds), Società e cultura in Sardegna nei periodi orientalizzante e arcaico: Rapporti tra Sardegna, Fenici, Etruschi e Greci. Atti del 1 convegno di studi ‘Un millennio di relazioni fra la Sardegna e i paesi del Mediterraneo’, Selargius-Cagliari, 29–30 novembre, 1 dicembre 1985 (Cagliari), 77–87.

Page 17 of 21

Lomas, K. 1994: The city in southeast Italy: ancient topography and the evolution of urban settlement, 600–300 BC. Accordia Research Papers 4, 63–77.

Malkin, I. 1987: Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece (Leiden).

Malkin, I. 1994: Inside and outside: colonization and the formation of the mother city. In D’Agostino, B. and Ridgway, D. (eds), Aπoιkíα. I piu antichi insediamenti greci in occidente: funzioni e modi dell’organizzazione politica e sociale. Scritti in onore di Giorgio Buchner. AION n.s. 1, 1–9.

Manfredi, L. 1991: I bacini decorati punici di Tharros. Atti del II congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici (Rome), 1011–18.

Marchand, S. 1996: Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750–1970 (Princeton, NJ).

Mattingly, D. 1996: From one imperialism to another: imperialism in the Maghreb. In Webster, J. and Cooper, N. (eds), Roman Imperialism: Post-colonial Perspectives (Leicester), 49–69.

Mertens, D. 1990: Some principal features of West Greek colonial architecture. In Descoeudres, J.-P. (ed.) (1990), 373–83.

Mertens, D. 1996: Western Greek architecture. In Pugliese Carratelli, G. (ed.) (1996a), 315–46.

Mertens, D. and Greco, E. 1996: Urban planning in Magna Graecia. In Pugliese Carratelli, G. (ed.) (1996a), 243–62.

Morgan, C. and Hall, J. 1996: Achaian poleis and Achaian colonisation. In Hansen, M. H. (ed.) (1996), 164–232.

Morris, I. 1991: The early polis as city and state. In Rich, J. W. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds) (1991), 24–57.

(p.166) Morris, I. 1994: Archaeologies of Greece. In Morris, I. (ed.), Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. (Cambridge), 8–47.

Moscati, S. 1987: Le officine di Tharros (Rome).

Moscati, S. 1992: Il santuario dei bambini (tofet) (Rome).

Moscati, S., Bondì, S., and Bartoloni, P. 1997: La penetrazione fenicia e punica in Sardegna: Trent’anni dopo. Memorie della accademia nazionale dei Lincei, classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche 9, 1–140.

Niemeyer, H.-G. 1990: The Phoenicians in the Mediterranean: a non-Greek model for expansion and settlement in antiquity. In Descoeudres, J.-P. (ed.) (1990), 469–89.

Niemeyer, H.-G. 1995: Phoenician Toscanos as a settlement model? Its urbanistic character in the context of Phoenician expansion and Iberian acculturation. In Cunliffe, B. and Keay, S. (eds) (1995), 67–88.

Page 18 of 21

Niemeyer, H.-G. and Docter, R. 1993: Die Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus von Karthago. Vorbericht über die Kampagnen 1986–1991. Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, römische Abteilung 100, 201–44.

Pagden, A. 2001: Peoples and Empires: Europeans and the Rest of the World from Antiquity to the Present (London).

Perea Caveda, A. 1997: Phoenician gold in the western Mediterranean: Cádiz, Tharros and Carthage. In Balmuth, M., Gilman, A. and Prados-Torreira, L. (eds), Encounters and Transformations: The Archaeology of Iberia in Transition (Sheffield), 135–40.

Polignac, F. de 1995: Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City-State (Chicago).

Pugliese Caratelli, G. (ed.) 1996a: The Western Greeks: Classical Civilization in the Western Mediterranean (London).

Pugliese Carratelli, G. 1996b: An outline of the political history of the Greeks in the West. In Pugliese Carratelli, G. (ed.) (1996a), 141–76.

Pugliese Carratelli, G. 1996c: The western Greeks. In Pugliese Carratelli, G. (ed.) (1996a), 14– 15.

Rich, J. W. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds) 1991: City and Country in the Ancient World (London).

Rowlands, M. 1987: Repetition and exteriorization in narratives of historical origins. Critique of Anthropology 8, 43–62.

Ruiz Rodríguez, A. 1997: The Iron Age Iberian peoples of the upper Guadalquivir valley. In Díaz- Andreu, M. and Keay, S. (eds), The Archaeology of Iberia: Dynamics of Change (London), 175–91.

Santos Velasco, J. 1989: The transition to a society with a state in the South East of the Iberian peninsula (6th–4th century BC). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 8, 213–26.

Schubart, H. 2000: Alarcón. El yacimiento fenicio y las fortificaciones en la cima de Toscanos. In González Prats, A. (ed.) (2000), 263–94.

Shepherd, G. 1995: The pride of most colonials: burial and religion in the Sicilian colonies. In Fischer-Hansen, T. (ed.), Ancient Sicily. Acta hyperborea 6 (Copenhagen), 51–82.

Snodgrass, A. M. 1991: Archaeology and the study of the Greek city. In Rich, J. W. and Wallace- Hadrill, A. (eds) (1991), 1–24.

Snodgrass, A. M. 1994: The nature and standing of the early western Greek colonies. (p.167) In Tsetskhladze, G. R. and De Angelis, F. (eds), The archaeology of Greek Colonisation: Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman (Oxford), 1–10.

Turner, F. 1989: Why the Greeks and not the Romans in Victorian Britain? In Clarke, G. (ed.), Rediscovering Hellenism: The Hellenic Inheritance and the English Imagination (Cambridge), 61–81.

Page 19 of 21

Vallet, G. 1973: Espace privé et espace public dans une cité coloniale d’Occident (Mégara Hyblaea). In Finley, M. (ed.), Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne (Paris), 83–94. van Dommelen, P. 1997a: Colonial constructs: colonialism and archaeology in the Mediterranean. World Archaeology 28, 305–23. van Dommelen, P. 1997b: Some reflections on urbanization in a colonial context: west central Sardinia in the 7th to 5th centuries BC. In Damgaard Andersen H., et al. (eds) (1997b), 243–78. van Dommelen, P. 1998: On Colonial Grounds: A Comparative Study of Colonialism and Rural Settlement in 1st Millennium B. C. West Central Sardinia (Leiden).

Verga, F. 1997: L’urbanistica della città di Tharros ed il rapporto con il territorio. In Acquaro, E., Francisi, M., Ingo, G. and Manfredi, L. (eds), Progetto Tharros (Rome), 107–20.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1991: Elites and trade in the Roman town. In Rich, J. W. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds) (1991), 241–72.

Webster, G. 1996: A Prehistory of Sardinia 2300–500 BC. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 5 (Sheffield).

Whitehouse, R. and Wilkins, J. 1989: Greeks and natives in south-east Italy: approaches to the archaeological evidence. In Champion, T. (ed.), Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology (London), 102–26.

Yntema, D. 1991: The birth of a town. The settlement of Oria in southern Italy from the Iron Age into the Hellenistic period. Mededelingen van het Nederlands instituut te Rome. Antiquity 50, 102–14.

Yntema, D. 1993: In Search of an Ancient Countryside: The Amsterdam Free University field survey at Oria, province of Brindisi, South Italy (1981–1983) (Amsterdam).

Yntema, D. 2000: Mental landscapes of colonization: the ancient written sources and the archaeology of early colonial-Greek southeastern Italy. BaBesch 75, 1–49.

Notes: (1) In Tharros, no houses predating the fifth century BC have been excavated.

(2) This is indirectly confirmed by the creation of a tophet at Monte Sirai in the mid-fourth century BC, when the settlement was substantially expanded and arguably became independent (Bartoloni 1997).

Page 20 of 21

Page 21 of 21