Mountains of Silver and Rivers of Gold: The Phoenicians in Iberia 1842171771, 9781842171776

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
Foreword
Preface
Chapter 1: Settlement topography
Chapter 2: Cemeteries
Chapter 3: Gadir (Cádiz)
Chapter 4: The Phoenician settlements and their hinterland
Chapter 5: Metals
Chapter 6: The sixth century: crisis or transition?
Appendix: Phoenician pottery – the Far Western sphere
Notes
Bibliography
Supplementary bibliography
List of illustrations
Glossary of technical terms
Index

Citation preview

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER & RIVERS OF GOLD

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA STUDIES IN THE ANCIENT WORLD VOLUME 1

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER & RIVERS OF GOLD

The Phoenicians in Iberia ANN NEVILLE With a Foreword by R. J. A. Wilson

Oxbow Books for the Department of Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies University of British Columbia

A mo thuismitheoiri

I have arrived from my foreign land. I have passed through countries and have heard about your being, you of the primordial state of the two lands, you who have engendered what exists. In you your two eyes shine. Your Word is the way of life that gives breath to all throats. Now I am in the horizon, flooded by the happiness of the harija oases, and I speak to it like a friend. In me there is a source of health, of life, beyond your shores. Hieroglyphic inscription on an Egyptian alabaster urn from Tomb 1 of the cemetery of Cerro de San Cristóbal, at Almuñécar (Granada) UBC STUDIES IN THE ANCIENT WORLD: VOLUME 1 Series editor: R. J. A. Wilson First published in 2007 by Oxbow Books, Oxford for the Department of Classical, Near Eastern & Religious Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T 1Z1 © Ann Neville 2007 ISBN-13: 978-1-84217-177-6

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library Cover photographs by courtesy of Professor H. G. Niemeyer, Hamburg Front cover: Trayamar (Málaga), Tomb 1, c. 650 BC, during excavation Back cover (right): Bronze statuette of a male divinity, from Cádiz; height 31 cm; (below) The site of Toscanos (centre) as it appeared in 1961, looking south-east; the low-lying ground in the centre and right of the photograph were covered by sea in antiquity This book is available direct from Oxbow Books, Oxford

www.oxbowbooks.com and

The David Brown Book Company PO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA (Phone: 860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468) This publication was grant-aided by the Publications Fund of the National University of Ireland, Galway, and by a subvention from the University of British Columbia. Designed by Charlotte Westbrook Wilson Printed in Great Britain at Short Run Press, Exeter

Contents Foreword, by R. J. A. Wilson Preface 1 2 3 4 5 6

Settlement topography Cemeteries Gadir (Cádiz) The Phoenician settlements and their hinterland Metals The sixth century: crisis or transition?

Appendix: Phoenician pottery – the Far Western sphere Notes Bibliography List of illustrations Glossary of technical terms Index

7 9

11 47 83 105 135 159

171 175 209 232 235 236

Foreword by R. J. A. Wilson

This book is the first volume of a new series, University of British Columbia Studies in the Ancient World, published by Oxbow Books for the Department of Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies at UBC. The series aims to make available monographs on a variety of subjects within the remit of the research interests of the Department, but with an emphasis on archaeology in its broadest interpretation. Future volumes will deal with nineteenth-century excavations at Carthage (by Joann Freed, of Wilfred-Laurier University, Waterloo) and with Greek temple-building from an ancient architect’s perspective, the latter book containing selected papers written by the late Jos De Waele (University of Nijmegen). I am grateful for the collaboration of Oxbow Books, and in particular to David Brown for agreeing to accept the new series under the umbrella of Oxbow, a company which has done so much for archaeological publishing over the past two decades. The present volume by Ann Neville, Mountains of Silver and Rivers of Gold, provides an important fresh synthesis of the extraordinary evidence for the Phoenician presence in southern Spain and Portugal. The Phoenicians have always been something of a Cinderella in English-language archaeological publishing. While there is an enormous bibliography on the Greek ‘colonization’ movement, very little has been written in English about the parallel and approximately contemporary settlements of the Phoenicians overseas, and especially their achievements in the far west of the Mediterranean. It is true that the doyenne of such studies, María Eugenia Aubet Semmler, published in 1987 a book later issued in English as Phoenicians in the West: politics, colonies and trade (Aubet 1993), now re-issued in a much expanded second edition; but this is a book (despite its title) which offers a very broad sweep of its subject over the eastern as well as the western Mediterranean, and only three out of the eleven chapters deal with Phoenician settlements in Iberia (Aubet 2001). Before the publication of the present book, Aubet's account has remained the most detailed summary in English of the astonishing discoveries of Iberian-based archaeologists over recent decades, work which has remained largely unknown to those who have not read the original reports in Spanish and Portuguese. The discovery only in the late 1980s that the Phoenicians also settled on the Atlantic coast of Portugal (e.g. at Abul: Mayet and da Silva 2000), a very foreign environment to anyone used to

the quieter shores of the Mediterranean, has revolutionized our understanding of Phoenician ambition, as is fully recounted in the pages that follow. The story is an exciting one, told here by Ann Neville in a lively and very readable account, rich in detail and searching in its analysis. It is an account which not only assesses in full measure the discoveries old and new in Iberia, but also sets them in their wider geographical, social and economic context: Ann Neville is fully aware of Phoenician, Egyptian and Greek interaction all over the Mediterranean during the period that interests her (principally the eighth to sixth centuries BC), and each relevant scrap of evidence has been duly scrutinized and utilized. In addition she has also covered the equally fascinating theme of cultural interaction between the Phoenician settlements on the coast and those of the indigenous Iberians in the interior. Ann Neville has now left archaeology and it has not proved possible for her to take account of publications which have come out in the last few years. That there has been a delay between the submission of the manuscript and its appearance now is in no way due to the author; it has been more to do with her editor's extensive commitments in administration, research and teaching, and his recent transatlantic move. The last item in her bibliography dates to 2005, and takes account of the latest exciting developments in the excavation of the El Carambolo sanctuary at Carmona (see p. 198 n.162); but research which was published in 2003 and 2004 has also not been systematically culled for this book. The rest of this Foreword is therefore intended to draw the reader’s attention to some recent publications which have a bearing on the themes of Ann Neville’s book. It was precisely the absence, referred to above, of information in English on Phoenicians in the West that prompted publication in 2002 of The Phoenicians in Spain (Bierling 2002), a book which might seem at first sight to cover the same topic as the present work. Its subtitle, however (A collection of articles translated from Spanish), is significant: the book is not a synthesis of its subject at all, but usefully makes available for the first time in English certain key papers published between 1978 and 1997. Not surprisingly most are cited in their Spanish original versions in Neville’s bibliography below; but readers should be aware that the following items listed there are now available in English in Bierling’s book: Aubet Semmler 1977–78 and 1987;

8

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Niemeyer 1986b; Pellicer Catalán 1986b; Ruiz Mata 1986a and 1993a; and Schubart 1986; while González Prats et al.’s 1997 paper on La Fonteta (Bierling 2002, 113–25) covers exactly the same ground as Neville’s González Prats 1998. Brief up-to-date summaries of Phoenician settlement in Iberia are presented by Arteaga 2004 and Schubart and Maaß-Lindemann 2004, contributions to the catalogue of an important exhibition on the Phoenicians held that year in Karlsruhe. Useful too is the monograph by Ana Maria Arruda (2002) summarizing the current state of our knowledge of the settlements on the Atlantic coast of Portugal, and their relations with the indigenous peoples of the interior. López Castro has stressed the privileged social status of the Western élite, and raised again Assyrian aggression as a possible motive for Phoenician migration (2006; cf. pp. 122 and 163 below). The important cemetery at Cerro de San Cristóbal at Almuñécar (also known as Laurita) has recently been published (Pellicer Catalán 2007), while the excavations at Toscanos and Cerro del Alarcón, often mentioned below, have now received monograph treatment from Hermanfrid Schubart and his collaborators (Schubart 2002). Two recent BAR monographs touch on topics discussed in Mountains of Silver: Domínguez Pérez (2006), in a book on Cádiz from the fifth to the third centuries BC, a period referred to only in passing by Neville, inevitably shares common ground in discussing problems of Gadir’s topography, while Hunt Ortiz’s technical and science-based study of metallurgy in south-west Spain from Chalcolithic times onwards includes a section (2003, 356–71) on the orientalizing period, where finds from sites treated below (Ch. 5) are further discussed and in part illustrated. A third BAR volume (Morgenroth 2004, with bibliography up to 1998) handles some of the same material as Neville but in a very different way and with a narrower focus: there is no treatment there, for example, of the key sites in Portugal, and there is a marked emphasis on small-finds typology. In addition to these monographs there has been the usual output of conference volumes: the annual proceedings of the Eivissa ‘archaeological days’ continue to have much of value (e.g. Escacena Carrasco 2004; Sala Sellés 2004 on Phoenicio-Iberian relations); a conference on funerary customs in honour of Dr Pellicer Catalán includes a statistical analysis of the Puig des Molins cemetery (Fernández Gómez-Pantoja and Costa Mas 2004); and the Atti of the V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, held in Marsala and Palermo in 2000, are also now in circulation (Spanò Giammellaro 2005), with further papers on Iberian topics. None of this material detracts in any way from the substantial achievement of Mountains of Silver, nor

with one exception do these fresh publications call for radical revision of the views put forward in the current book. For example, the excavation reports listed above present in full the evidence for conclusions which have been available for years in substantial preliminary reports, already fully absorbed into Neville’s discussion. The one exception concerns the chronology of the earliest Phoenician contacts with Iberia, and here the new radiocarbon revolution, with its ability to narrow dates to within a few decades rather than provide only a broad chronological framework as previously (Bayliss et al. 2007), is likely to have a profound effect on discussions of Mediterranean chronology in the first millennium BC, as Ann Neville herself predicts (p. 175 n.1). This is currently a hot topic: the jury is still out on the early results, and the pages of several academic journals have been buzzing with heated debate (Finkelstein 2003; Bruins, van der Plight and Mazar 2003b; Finkelstein and Piesetzky 2003). The implications of all this for the history of the earliest Phoenician contact with the Iberian peninsula have recently been presented in a searching paper by Brandheim (2006). The earliest Greek pottery found so far in the West, a Euboean skyphos and an Attic pyxis of Middle Geometric II type, has been traditionally dated to c. 770/60 BC (see p. 159 and pp. 204–5 n.3); but this dating has now been thrown wide open by radiocarbon-14 dates from Israel, especially from Tel Rehov, which point consistently to a ninth-century-BC chronology for the introduction of Middle Geometric, both I and II (Bruins, van der Plight and Mazar 2003a; Coldstream 2003; Coldstream and Mazar 2003). If that is right, the earliest Greek pottery in Carthage belongs to the last quarter of the ninth century, in line with the traditional foundation date of that city in 814 BC; the foundation of Pithekoussai must be pushed back to c. 800 BC rather than c. 750 as at present; and the earliest Phoenician contact with Huelva, on the basis of both new radiocarbon dates and the earliest Greek pottery there (if carried by Phoenicians, as seems likely), may go back to soon after 900 BC (González de Canales Cerisola et al. 2004, 2006; Nijboer and van der Plicht 2006). This is stirring stuff indeed, and the continuing debate looks set to dominate Mediterranean studies of the first millennium BC for some time to come. But all this is to anticipate. A Foreword is meant to whet the appetite, not to serve up the hors d’oeuvre. It is time to turn the page and let Ann Neville lay before you the feast of evidence that makes up Mountains of Silver and Rivers of Gold. Enjoy! R. J. A. Wilson

Note: references above, if not found in the main Bibliography, are cited in full in the Supplementary Bibliography on p. 231.

Preface This book was in origin a doctoral thesis, submitted to the School of Classics at Trinity College, Dublin, in 1998. However, such has been the pace of scholarship in the subject since that time that to prepare it for publication large areas have been rewritten, and I have changed my views on many key aspects of the topic. The book’s title, taken from Pliny (NH IV.115), who refers to the alluvial gold of the Tagus, and Strabo (III.2.11), who talks of a ‘silver mountain’ in southeast Spain, reflects the traditional view based on the ancient authors that the principal reason for the Phoenician interest in Iberia, and the focus of all their efforts, was to gain access to its mineral wealth. Such a view, while generally accepted, is considerably nuanced here. As both a student and an academic, I am grateful for the help given to me by many people. Chief among those is Professor R. J. A. Wilson, now Professor of the Archaeology of the Roman Empire and Head of the Department of Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies at the University of British Columbia, but who as Louis Claude Purser Associate Professor of Classical Archeology at Trinity was invaluable in the early stages of my work, and who has never failed to help and encourage me since. I am also grateful to him for accepting this book in the series University of British Columbia Studies in the Ancient World and for providing a subsidy towards the cost of its publication. He has also acted as my editor, contributed a Foreword, and seen the book through the press; in addition he has kindly compiled the index. Professor B. B. Shefton displayed both his great erudition in this subject, and unfailing enthusiasm and kindness to me as a student. To Professor Kathleen Coleman, formerly Professor of Latin at Trinity College, Dublin, and now at Harvard,

I owe especial thanks for the great kindness she showed me and the interest she gave my work in an area so far removed from her own scholarly interests. I would also like to thank Professor Brian McGing of Trinity College, Dublin, for all his support and encouragement, and for most generously supporting my application for funding towards the cost of the artwork. In this respect I would like to thank the Centre for Mediterranean & Near Eastern Studies at Trinity College Dublin for their support. Professor Richard Harrison of the University of Bristol read my chapter on mining and metallurgy and provided many clarifications and helpful comments. Catherine Martin prepared the maps and site plans, and Michelle Comber was responsible for redrawing all the artefacts; their expertise and artistic skill have made a major contribution to the volume. I am also very grateful to Professor H. G. Niemeyer of Hamburg, who kindly loaned his historic colour photographs which grace the covers of this book. I could never have written this book without my time in Spain, where a Spanish Government Scholarship allowed me to spend a year as a student of the Departamento de Historia Antigua at the University of Seville. While there, I benefitted from the expert knowledge and advice of Dr. Mari Cruz Marin Ceballos, for which I shall always be grateful. I am also delighted to have the chance at last to acknowledge fully, and to thank for all his help, Dr. Salvador Ordoñez Agulla, who took the trouble of sending to Galway copies of the most recondite articles on the archaeology of the lower Guadalquivir. Finally, to my family and to Pangur for putting up with me for all this time, thank you. Ann Neville

1

Settlement topography Introduction

The Greek and Roman historical tradition is quite explicit in placing the start of Phoenician expansion in the far west in the late twelfth century BC, with the foundations of Gadir and Lixus, beyond the Straits of Gibraltar in Spain and Morocco respectively, as well as that of Utica in Tunisia. After over thirty years of intensive research and excavations in these areas, conventional archaeology is equally categorical in asserting that there is still no incontrovertible proof of any permanent Phoenician settlement in the Atlantic and the western Mediterranean basin much before the eighth century BC.1 The archaeological record places the earliest Phoenician occupation in Iberia on the Andalusian coast, where a dense network of small settlements has been found along a coastal strip, covering the modern provinces of Cádiz, Málaga, Granada and Almería as far north as Alicante (Fig. 1.1).2 This area shows continuous Phoenician occupation over 200 years, from the beginning of the eighth century until the midsixth century; some settlements continue under Carthaginian influence, and display a marked Punic character right down to the Roman period. From this central area of settlement, the Phoenicians expanded to occupy other parts of Iberia during the eighth and seventh centuries, reaching the coasts of Portugal, Alicante and the Balearic Islands, as well as Algeria, and Atlantic Morocco in North Africa. Some of these sites were known and referred to by the classical authors, but the scale of Phoenician settlement in Iberia has only become clear with the start of sustained archaeological investigation from the 1960s onwards. We have a number of references to Cádiz among the ancient authors, as well as quite detailed accounts of its topography. This is undoubtedly due to its economic importance and peculiar location, on the Atlantic, on the edge of what was terra incognita for the Greeks and, for a long time, also for the Romans.3 The other Phoenician sites on the Mediterranean coastline, and the Atlantic, passed largely unremarked by classical historiography, as the most important conflicts in the region, namely the Second Punic War and the Roman civil wars, took place elsewhere. We have therefore to rely for our information on geographers such as Strabo, who dedicated Book III of his Geography to Iberia, and Avienus, who wrote a periplus of the Spanish coastline,

as well as on the Elder Pliny. All preserve valuable information concerning the origin of these sites, and Strabo gives us the story of the foundation of Cádiz, as told by the inhabitants of that city. However, neither Strabo nor Pliny claim to be exhaustive in their description of the settlements and peoples of southern Spain, and in general mention only those Phoenician foundations which were still prosperous cities in their own day.4 Thus, while the evidence from the ancient texts provides us with some useful information, for a historical reconstruction of the Phoenician enclaves in Iberia our primary source is the archaeological data.5

The key Phoenician sites

Before discussing any of the settlements in detail, let us start with a brief survey of all the sites in Iberia which show signs of Phoenician occupation during the eighth century BC.6

Morro de Mezquitilla The earliest known Phoenician site on the Mediterranean coast of Spain is that located at Morro de Mezquitilla, in the province of Málaga. It lies on a hill rising some 30 m above sea level, just to the east of the mouth of the Algarrobo river, and some 300 m away from the modern coastline (Fig. 1.2). Here six phases of Phoenician settlement have been identified, ranging from approximately 800 BC (Phase I) to the sixth century BC (Phases V–VI), making its foundation roughly contemporary with that of the Phoenician Castillo de Doña Blanca in Cádiz.7

Almuñécar The next area to be settled by the Phoenicians was at Almuñécar, in the province of Granada, known to us from its coins of the Roman era as F(irmum) I(ulium) SEXS, or in its Neo-Punic issues as sks (Fig. 1.2).8 Strabo refers to a failed attempt by the Phoenicians to establish themselves at Sexs before they eventually settled at Gadir soon after the Trojan war (3. 5. 5). Although the existence of the Phoenician colony of Sex or Ex somewhere on the Andalusian coast between Málaga and Almería was well documented in the classical sources, its location was discovered only with the chance find of a cemetery situated on the slopes of the Cerro de San Cristóbal, a promontory 1 km to the north-west of Almuñécar castle, in the ancient centre

12

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig.1.1 Phoenician settlements in Iberia

Key: 1 Sa Caleta; 2 Ibiza; 3 Guardamar/El Estaño; 4 Villaricos/Baria; 5 Adra (Abdera); 6 Almuñécar (Sex); 7 Chorreras; 8 Morro de Mezquitilla; 9 Toscanos/Alarcón/Peñon; 10 Malaka; 11 Cerro del Villar; 12 Montilla; 13 Cerro del Prado; 14 Cádiz (Gadir); 15 Castillo de Doña Banca; 16 Tavira; 17 Cerro da Rocha Branca; 18 Abul; 19 Alcaçova; 20 Quinta de Almaraz ; 21 Santa Olaia

of the town. This cemetery consisted of some twenty shaft graves, containing cremations in large alabaster urns of Egyptian origin. It was the first Phoenician necropolis to be discovered in Spain, and gave rise to renewed archaeological and historical interest in this area. The cemetery was dated by its excavator to the first half of the seventh century BC, based on the discovery of two Protocorinthian kotylai in tomb 19B,9 but this dating was subsequently modified, on the basis of the analysis of the forms of Phoenician pottery found in the tombs, to a time somewhere between the very late eighth and the late seventh centuries BC.10 Initial excavations in the ancient centre of the town revealed materials which dated back only as far as the

sixth century; but more recently various areas of settlement in and around the ancient centre of Almuñécar have been located which can be firmly dated to the eighth century.11 The earliest settlement levels were found at various points on the hill of Cerro de San Miguel, in the old centre of the town, among them at El Majuelo (underneath a Roman fish-sauce factory), where abundant Phoenician red slip ware was found. In accordance with the relative chronology devised by H. Schubart which establishes chronological progression according to the increase in width of the rims of Phoenician red slip plates, the El Majuelo plates, with their narrow rims, can be dated to the first half of the eighth century.12 Phoenician red slip pottery dating

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

to the early eighth century was also found in another

part of the Cerro de San Miguel, at the Plaza Eras del Castillo. But what is especially interesting is that at both these locations Phoenician pottery was found alongside indigenous Late Bronze Age pottery, and in Eras del Castillo the indigenous pottery made up some 98% of the total. Thus it seems clear that the earliest Phoenicians who came to Almuñécar chose to live in an already established indigenous settlement; on the basis of the archaeological evidence, they soon became a dominant part of the population, giving a semitic name to the new mixed settlement.13 According to a geological research programme of the German Archaeological Institute, ancient Almuñécar was located directly on the ancient coastline, along the shores of an open maritime bay. This would make Sexi conform to the settlement pattern adopted by the Phoenicians in Iberia, who generally preferred sites directly adjacent to the ancient coastline. It originally took the form of a peninsula jutting out to sea between two bays, providing two sheltered harbours, and flanked on either side by the rivers Seco and Verde – as we will see, a characteristically Phoenician location.14 Chorreras Datable to the middle of the eighth century BC is the settlement of Chorreras, situated on a rocky coastal

13

promontory less than 1 km east of Morro de Mezquitilla (Fig. 1.2). This site is interesting for two reasons. Unlike many other Phoenician sites, it was not subsequently reoccupied after its abandonment by the Phoenicians; so excavations can reveal more of the ancient site-plan than is normally possible. Also it was occupied for a very limited period of time, with only one habitation level, dating from roughly 750 to 700 BC. This relatively short period of occupation, before the final, apparently peaceful, abandonment of the settlement, means that here we can observe the eighth-century habitation structures and artefacts unencumbered by the subsequent building which we find on other sites. For this reason Chorreras is one of the best examples available of the urban structure and material culture of an eighth-century Phoenician site in Spain.15 Casa de Montilla Equally shortlived was the settlement at Casa de Montilla, near San Roque on the Mediterranean coast of the province of Cádiz (Fig. 1.2).16 Here an indigenous Late Bronze Age site was located at the mouth Fig. 1.2 Phoenician and indigenous settlements in Mediterranean Andalusia during the eighth to sixth centuries

14

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

of the river Guadiaro which provided a direct link with the Guadalquivir valley via Ronda. In the second half of the eighth century this site came into close contact with the Phoenicians: Phoenician pottery, chiefly amphorae, has been found in large quantities at the settlement. Most of the Phoenician pottery comes from a zone 125 m away from the indigenous site; almost no local pottery was found, and the materials are wholly Phoenician in character. This area has been interpreted by the excavators as a small Phoenician colony, founded close to the indigenous site and occupied for some fifty years before being abandoned c. 700 BC.

Toscanos Some 7 km west of Morro de Mezquitilla is the Phoenician settlement of Toscanos, on the bank of the Vélez river, near the coast (Fig. 1.2). The settlement on the summit of the hill of Toscanos was undoubtedly the central nucleus of Phoenician occupation around the former maritime bay which existed between Cerro del Mar, the hill on the other side of the Vélez river, and the hill of Toscanos. The ancient remains situated on these hills were once thought to be those of the Phocaean colony of Mainake mentioned in the ancient sources.17 The settlement at Toscanos is one of the best known Phoenician sites in Spain, having been excavated by the German Archaeological Institute from 1964 until the mid-1980s. These excavations revealed an occupation of the site dating from c. 730 BC to somewhere in the first half of the sixth century BC. The Phoenician settlement at Toscanos clearly had import-

ant mercantile and commercial functions, as the presence of harbour installations and an imposingly large central warehouse building reveal.18 In the seventh century the settlement expanded to include the nearby hills of Cerro del Peñón and Cerro del Alarcón (Fig. 1.3). Cerro del Peñón may have been originally the site of a cemetery, but by the seventh century it was also used for metallurgical activities, as we can see from the large quantities of slag and the presence of a smelting furnace, possibly that of a smith, on the slope above the settlement nucleus.19 The Cerro del Alarcón, to the north-west of Toscanos, seems to have had a defensive purpose, housing first a large rectangular building, which has been interpreted as a military outpost, and then a fortification wall. This defensive wall ran from Alarcón over the Peñón and undoubtedly served to protect and enclose the by now extensive site of Toscanos, which had expanded to the north to enclose the harbour bay at Manganeto and to the west to Cerro del Peñón.20

Adra Also dating to the second half of the eighth century is the site known to the classical historians as Abdera, located to the east of the modern city of Adra in the province of Almería (Fig. 1.2). Initial excavations at the site, on the edge of the former estuary of the Río Grande, revealed nothing earlier than the fifth century.21 Recent rescue excavations, however, identified four levels of occupation of the site, the earliest datable to the second half of the eighth century and the latest to the fourth century BC.22 Fig. 1.3 Map showing Toscanos, its outlying areas at Cerro del Alarcón and Cerro del Peñón, as well as the harbour at Manganeto: all were enclosed by the settlement’s fortification wall. Toscanos’ cemetery was located across the river at Cerro del Mar (top right).

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

La Fonteta Far away from the cluster of settlements on the Costa del Sol, the Phoenicians around 750 BC founded a settlement at La Fonteta, in Guardamar, situated in the province of Alicante (Fig. 1.2). This is the most northerly Phoenician site so far identified on the coast of mainland Spain. It is located on the mouth of the river Segura, facing the island of Ibiza, where further Phoenician settlements are attested from the seventh century onwards (Fig. 1.1). La Fonteta provides us with a unique insight, not just into the urbanism of the Phoenician foundations in Iberia, but also into the economic and commercial strategies of the eastern settlers, and their contacts with the indigenous population.23 The settlement was occupied for approximately 200 years, from the mid-eighth century down to the mid-sixth century BC. The foundation level revealed very few materials, and the only signs of construction came from a series of holes, which may represent post-holes, either belonging to the earliest, timber houses on the site, or representing the remains of some kind of defensive structure, perhaps a palisade.24 However, by the last decade of the eighth century, the site had at least one more substantial dwelling, a rectilinear structure, divided up into a number of rooms. The construction techniques used were still rather flimsy, in that the walls were made of mud, with no sign of the mudbricks or masonry socles which we find in eighth-century Phoenician houses in the settlements on the Costa del Sol. At La Fonteta, by contrast, the base of the walls was simply supported by some irregularly-shaped stones. However, despite the simplicity of its construction, this was a large and complex building, the full extent of which is still not known. During the seventh century La Fonteta acquired more solid buildings, and by the end of the century it was surrounded with a fortification wall. The economic activities attested at the site point to the importance of metallurgy, with signs of iron, copper and silver production, probably drawn from the rich mineral deposits in the hinterland of the settlement; metals were clearly obtained by means of trade with the nearby indigenous settlements (see further below, pp. 27–30).

El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño One of the most interesting aspects of the Phoenician settlement of La Fonteta is the possibility that it had a small fortified outpost some 2 km away, situated at El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño, on the mouth of the river Segura. It overlooked what was at the start of the last millennium BC a vast lagoon which constituted the lower stretches of the Segura and Vinalopó rivers (Fig. 1.2). Its strategic position allowed it to control the

15

traffic entering the river, which was the main artery of communication and an important link to the indigenous and Phoenician sites in the interior. The river also provided access to the mineral resources of southeast Spain, chiefly the silver mines at Linares (active during this period), where many orientalizing objects have been found.25 Finally the settlement at El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño protected the best site for the Phoenician port, at the bay of La Rinconada which opens on to the river Segura.26 The site at El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño was first occupied in the late eighth century BC. From the start it was surrounded by a fortification wall, which adopted a characteristically oriental form: it was based on a system of casemates, like the fortification of the Phoenician site at Castillo de Doña Blanca, near Cádiz.27 A peculiar feature of the urbanism of El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño is the fact that even within the area intra muros there was a further division of the space: a large wall, more than 1 m in width, delimits a trapezoidal area which has been described as a form of acropolis within the settlement.28 Within this carefully marked out zone there are signs of metallurgical activity, including the working of lead and the presence of at least one tuyère. The site may therefore have been used in the cupellation of silver, a mineral extractable locally from the veins of argentiferous galena of the Sierra de Orihuela and the Callosa del Segura. The excavators have suggested that this division of the internal space of the settlement points to the existence of a hierarchy at El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño, and one which controlled the production of metal resources.29 The buildings at the site were in typical Phoenician style, that is, rectilinear in ground-plan, with stone socles, adobe walls and beaten-earth floors, and its pottery consisted of typically Phoenician materials, along with some hand-made ware (Fig. 1.4). The settlement at El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño was to be short-lived: occupation lasted from the end of the eighth century to the mid- or late seventh century BC. It was abandoned without any evidence of violence or destruction, and the scarcity of ceramics and other finds at the site suggests that the inhabitants may simply have left taking most of their possessions with them. Excavations there are still on-going and in time will no doubt provide us with a greater understanding of the site and of Phoenician occupational and economic strategies in the lower Segura region. González Prats believes that El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño was an outpost founded by, and dependent on, the nearby site of La Fonteta. Its function was clearly to control and guard access to the river Segura and watch over what may have been the main harbour of the area, at La Rinconada.30 This view raises questions

16

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 1.4 El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño, pottery: (i) red-slip plate; (ii) amphora; (iii)–(iv) polychrome ware

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

about the abandonment of El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño. Although the abandonment of the site is as yet not precisely dated, González Prats choses to link it with the building of a fortification at La Fonteta. The wall at the latter site seems to have been constructed in great haste, built right on top of what had been a flourishing metal-producing workshop, and using among its building materials the grave-markers from the settlement’s necropolis. So why was this done? Was there some external threat which forced the inhabitants of La Fonteta to enclose their settlement within sturdy fortifications, abandoning the area extra muros, and consolidating all the Phoenician population of the region within the one heavily-defended site? Whatever the nature of this threat, it does not seem to have come from the indigenous population, as the nearby indigenous site of La Peña Negra (Fig. 1.2) had a thriving Phoenician community living and working in their settlement at this time: it was clearly in close contact with La Fonteta which it supplied with pottery (see Chapter Four, p. 118).31 Perhaps the events of the late seventh century BC at La Fonteta and El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño simply foreshadow the crisis which was to hit the Phoenician communities in Iberia in the sixth century BC.

Cerro del Villar The last securely dated eighth-century Phoenician site is situated at Cerro del Villar, some 4 km from the Phoenician town of Malaka, the modern Málaga (Fig. 1.2). What is now a low hillock about 6.30 m high, situated in the alluvial plain of the Guadalhorce river, was in Phoenician times a small island with a surface area of approximately 260 m by 200 m, located in the centre of an extensive marine inlet into which the Guadalhorce river drained.32 Excavated using a combination of archaeological, geological and paleoenvironmental techniques, the site at Cerro del Villar has yielded valuable data concerning the interaction of the Phoenician settlement with its environment. The importance of the Guadalhorce site was its geographical location, at the entrance to one of the largest and most important Mediterranean rivers of Andalusia: this waterway acted as a means of communications between Upper Andalusia and the mineral resources of Tartessos. Cerro del Villar had as its hinterland the Guadalhorce valley which provided optimum conditions for intensive irrigation agriculture. Our evidence shows that this is precisely what the Phoenicians at El Villar practised: the remains of various different types of cereals, as well as mills for grinding the corn, have been found at the site.33 The island site of El Villar was intensively occupied from the eighth to the sixth centuries by a thriving and apparently prosperous

17

settlement, which expanded to occupy the whole surface of the island, an area of almost 10 ha, making it and Castillo de Doña Blanca, near Cádiz, among the largest Phoenician settlements in Iberia. Cerro del Villar had strong industrial functions. During the seventh century the processing of fish products as well as dyeing were carried out there; but, by the sixth century, one of the most important industrial activities seems to have been pottery production, for which the Phoenicians at El Villar had excellent raw materials in the clay deposits of the Guadalhorce valley.34 While the choice of site might have been favourable from an economic perspective, it was not the most appropriate for human occupation. Geomorphological analysis of the area around El Villar has revealed the silting up of the former Guadalhorce estuary: as a result the island of El Villar disappeared around the beginning of the sixth century BC.35 Low-lying areas of the Phoenician settlement were subject to periodic floods and eventually had to be abandoned, so that settlement concentrated only in the centre of the island. The island of El Villar was abandoned very suddenly around 580/570 BC. Significantly it is precisely at this time that the nearby Malaka first becomes an important port and trading settlement, and it was soon to become, with Gadir, the most important Phoenician city in Spain, under the hegemony of Carthage.36 These initial eighth-century settlements show the Phoenicians establishing themselves on small islands or low promontories along the lower reaches of all the most important rivers on the Andalusian Mediterranean coast, at sites which lay in close proximity to the ancient coastline. These offered their settlers easy navigation along both maritime and fluvial trade routes, and access to the rich natural resources located in the hinterland of their settlements.

The oldest Phoencian settlements in Spain

For a closer examination of the urban structure and the nature of settlement in these earliest Phoenician sites, it is the places which are not named as Phoenician colonial centres in our literary sources – Toscanos, Morro de Mezquitilla and Chorreras – which have provided the richest eighth-century habitation levels, and where we can best appreciate the exact nature of the initial Phoenician settlement in these small coastal enclaves. Morro de Mezquitilla in the eighth century BC Morro de Mezquitilla is the oldest Phoenician settlement on the Mediterranean coast of Andalusia, with Phoenician occupation starting at the site c. 800. The

18

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 1.5 Morro de Mezquitilla, plan of the site in the eighth century (above) and the seventh century (below)

earliest settlement levels (which were labelled B1 by the excavators) consist of large rectangular dwellings, one of which has sixteen rooms (Fig. 1.5 (a)). The walls, which are preserved to a height of up to 1 m, are made from sun-dried brick and covered with a reddishbrown plaster on the outside. At intervals the walls have openings which would have provided access between rooms, and there were high thresholds

with steps on either side. In two places hearths could be observed. The rooms have rectangular ground-plans which are not always regular. They tend to be large, e.g. 4.20–4.80 m by 3 m, and are occasionally subdivided. In total, we can distinguish three separate construction complexes which belonged to the earliest phase of occupation at Morro de Mezquitilla. The largest of these is Building K which extends over 19 m in length and is some 11m wide; it is divided into at least sixteen rooms. Building K was not built in a single phase, as the obtuse and acute angles of its walls show. The walls are sometimes joined slightly irregularly, and some of the rooms are also irregular, as we can see from the plan.37 (Fig. 1.5 (a)) The eastern portion of the building may be the oldest; the western part, which partially overlies a metallurgical workshop, could have been added later. Between Building K and Building I, situated further south and only partially documented, there seems to have been a narrow street which runs through all the western part of the settlement area. This street is characterised by a green-coloured surface, its colour deriving from the organic material contained in its composition. Building H, immediately to the east of I, differs slightly in its orientation from buildings K and I and it is quite likely that Building H is slightly later than Building I.38 Significant too for the economic role of the settlement is the discovery of the remains of metallurgical workshops: these are contemporary with the first buildings on the site, and indeed some of them at least are slightly earlier.39 This area is located in the southwest of the archaeological zone occupied by the residential buildings. Here several furnaces were found, some of which show signs of having been renovated on several occasions. Near the furnaces, which show strong signs of burning, slag remains were found; there were also fragments of ventilation tubes, especially bellows nozzles, sometimes with metal remains still adhering to them. The nozzles found here prove that smelting was carried out in the settlement, and thus these workshops would have been for metallurgical purposes. In addition, fragments of large clay jars were found which had drops of melted metal still adhering to them. Analysis of the slag remains has proved that the metal being processed was iron.40 Obviously the metallurgical activities attested here are not those of primary smelting, as in that case there would have been far greater signs of combustion on the furnaces, and a larger amount of slag would have been produced. It is more likely that we have here a workshop designed to re-smelt and process the metal – perhaps even a

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

smithy. In any case, the fact that a metallurgical workshop was in operation during the initial occupation of the site provides us with important evidence as to the settlement’s economic activities.41 Despite its very early dating, the initial occupation of the Morro de Mezquitilla hill (Phase B1) shows well-planned buildings, with an urban structure characterised by large houses; these measured up to 15m long and were divided into up to sixteen rooms. As Aubet points out, both the uniform orientation of the earliest houses, as well as their lay-out along regularly-planned streets, point to a degree of urban planning worthy of a settlement of some rank. Some of the buildings at Morro de Mezquitilla, such as Building K, suggest the presence of a population with a relatively high standard of living.42 This is interesting given the building’s construction in the earliest phase of occupation at the site, and also the clear evidence for social stratification which Morro de Mezquitilla and the other colonial sites present during the seventh century. Fig. 1.6 Chorreras, the urban layout of the eighth-century site

19

Chorreras in the eighth century BC The other eighth-century site, Chorreras, also presents evidence of a planned urban structure, with large isolated houses laid out on both sides of wide, fairly regular streets (Fig. 1.6). Unlike the urban development typical of the seventh-century settlements, where we see a more dense occupation of the urban site (when the spaces between adjoining buildings are often reduced to a minimum), in Chorreras there is a considerable feeling of space, with large open areas between the houses.43 Here too, as in Morro de Mezquitilla, we have large buildings consisting of various, more or less rectangular, rooms. Deviations from the right angle, as we find in the wall linking rooms O and S, are clearly caused by the presence of a street, which runs through the excavated area in a WNW/ESE direction; it is up to 2.5 m wide. Again, like the buildings at Morro de Mezquitilla, those at Chorreras do not have a uniform orientation.44 The ground-plan of some of the houses at the latter could be restored in their entirety, and they generally show

20

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

large buildings with no evidence of the very modest single-room constructions which we find at Toscanos a century later.45 In addition to their large size these houses are also solidly constructed. The walls have socles made from regular masonry, which consist of boulders, occasionally secured with clay, with large squared stones or ashlars placed at the corners or the entrances to the rooms.

Toscanos in the eighth century BC Our knowledge of the eighth-century buildings and urban structure of Toscanos is limited by the more intensive land-use and greater concentration of buildings which we find in the seventh century. However we can still discern the outline of the earliest occupation of the hill-top site from roughly c. 730–700 BC (Phases I and II) (Fig. 1.7). Initially a group of Phoenician settlers occupied a small mound, the Cortijo de Toscanos, which dominates the plain of the Vélez river. There they built several large, isolated dwellings bounded by streets or paths similar to those of the contemporary settlement at Chorreras. To this first phase belongs House A, of which only one room was uncovered. It is unclear whether this building had a residential or a commercial function, but the former seems to be the more likely. Immediately to the north and west of House A are areas of public passage. During this first phase of construction, the area to the west of House A remained free of any construction for a distance of about 15 m.46 After this initial phase of occupation the settlement grew larger and was more densely occupied during Phase II. Building A was enlarged by Annex B to the west, and almost at the same time, on the other side of the pathway which passes to the north of House A, House D was built.47 Houses H and K were now added. Of these houses only parts of the walls’ socles were preserved. These were made of stones set in clay mortar; on top of them rose the sun-dried mudbrick walls. The buildings at Toscanos were all made up of several rooms and can be unequivocably categorised as residences; indeed at least H and K can be classified as luxury dwellings. Building H was divided into three aisles, of which the two side aisles were considerably narrower than the central aisle. These aisles were subdivided into rooms. In the centre of the building there was a large room which was perhaps an open courtyard, from which access could be gained to the other rooms of the house.48 As in Chorreras, here too the buildings do not share the same orientation; the axis of each one varies slightly from that of the adjoining constructions. At the same time other buildings were so obviously taken into consideration when new ones were built that one gets

the impression that some sort of original plan was being respected.49 During Phase II, still within the eighth century, we can observe a tendency towards urban agglomeration, perhaps in response to a second wave of colonists – or was simply due to an increase in population. The construction of up-market houses is especially noteworthy, and such dwellings are also found at the same date in Morro de Mezquitilla (B1) and Chorreras. So, as Aubet points out, the earliest architecture on these sites marks the arrival in the region of family groups or individuals of a relatively high economic level.50 Perhaps we can infer from the presence of such large buildings in the earliest levels of these settlements that the élites who become visible through the construction of monumental tombs in the seventh century were present at these sites right from the beginning of their occupation. There is reason to believe that Toscanos’ first system of fortification belongs to the two oldest phases of urban development. This defensive structure consists of a deep V-shaped ditch, about 70 m of which is still preserved: it defines the western border of the middle of the site, while to the south and east the settlement’s centre was bordered by a beach and the river bank (Fig. 1.7). This escarpment has an almost perfect 45o slope and was surely part of a more expansive defence system, which was later filled in and built over.51 Similar defensive systems are found in the East and Palestine in a tradition which goes back to the Bronze Age, and the V-shaped profile of a rock-cut trench at Motya in Sicily may also be similar.52 The existence of this early system of fortification could help to explain the differences in urban structure between Phases I and II at Toscanos and that of Chorreras. In both settlements we find an architectural system based on buildings of considerable size, arranged alongside streets or pathways. In contrast to Toscanos, however, the urban structure of Chorreras is more generously laid out, with large open spaces between the buildings and a more extensive area of occupation; buildings cover a surface area of some 350 m.53 However, in Toscanos, by the time we reach the new surge of building at the turn of the eighth and start of the seventh centuries, every square metre of land had been used when the Warehouse Building C was constructed. This would indicate that the settlement, limited by a rigid boundary, was already suffering from a lack of space. Taken together, the evidence we have from the earliest phases of occupation at Morro de Mezquitilla, Chorreras and Toscanos does not support the traditional view of the first generation of Phoenician colonists which arrived at the Andalusian coast as

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

Fig. 1.7 Toscanos, the urban layout of the eighth-century site (top) Phase 1, (right) Phase 2

being made up only by small groups of traders and adventurous sailors involved in metallurgical prospecting and exploration of the area round the Straits. Instead, sites like Chorreras and Morro de Mezquitilla prove that, from at least 750 BC onwards, important nuclei of colonial population were present on the eastern Mediterranean coast of Andalusia, and they occupied stable, prosperous centres which, as in the case of Chorreras, were occasionally quite large

21

in size. Judging from the presence of a fortification wall at Toscanos, and large dwelling houses at Morro de Mezquitilla and Chorreras (and the metallurgical workshops attested at the former site), we have an initial population which was not negligible in size, which was certainly organized enough to carry out large building projects on a community scale (as indicated by the V-shaped ditch) and which was socially complex.54

22

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

The seventh century: housing and urban change

Reorganization at Toscanos, Morro de Mezquitilla and Cerro del Villar From 700 BC onwards (Toscanos III, Morro B2), all these Phoenician enclaves, and especially those on the Vélez and Algarrobo rivers, display clear signs of internal reorganization and a qualitative leap in their economic structures. Well-established Phoenician sites show signs of internal growth which in turn leads to a growing complexity in the urbanism of the sites, both in the organisation of the urban area and in the structure of the residential and service areas.55 This qualitative leap can best be observed in Phase III of Toscanos, with the construction of Building C in the centre of the settlement hill (Fig. 1. 8). Its orientation clearly differs from that of the earlier houses belonging to phases I and II. It is larger than the other structures and its building technique is far superior, consisting of rubble stones interspersed with ashlars, and topped with a mud-brick superstructure.56 It was composed of three wings with at least two storeys. An important indication of its original function is provided by a comparison with buildings, also threewinged, at the harbour of Motya, which were considered by their excavators to have been storehouses or magazines.57 This conclusion is supported by the presence of a large quantity of transport and storage amphorae found in the building, confirming its function as a central installation for merchandise. Similar warehouse buildings of a comparable date

Fig. 1.8 Toscanos, warehouse (Building C) and the urban layout of the seventh-century site

have been found in Palestine, for instance at Hazor (Fig. 1.9).58 In the East a warehouse with commodities such as grain, oil or wine was characteristic of every market centre. The majority of these large repositories were privately owned and great stocks of merchandise were stored in them for speculative purposes.59 We do not know if the warehouse played a similar role at Toscanos; but it is clear that in contrast to the previous buildings in the area it represents a relatively impressive structure, occupying a central place in the life of the community. With its construction we see a structurally new and different use of the area. When Warehouse Building C was built, small dwellings or huts, with a far more careless and flimsy construction technique, appear for the first time in the vicinity of the building (Houses E, F and G) (Fig. 1.8). Their small size and simple structure (House F consists of only one room) suggests that they may have been intended for the staff of the warehouse and its services. So once again we have evidence of social differentiation and specialised occupations in the colonial population.60 The construction of Warehouse Building C in the centre of the settlement also brings with it all the signs of a concentration of the structures in that area. Building C closely adjoins the west wall of Houses A and H which had been extended by an additional structure to the west. The space left between the older constructions and Building C is barely sufficient to allow a connection via a narrow stairway between the higher street to the north and the pathway along the beach.61 To make room for the warehouse, parts of standing structures were demolished, something which had not happened during the earlier phases of settlement in this area. It is thus obvious that the intention was to make Building C as large as possible, but at the same time it was difficult to obtain the necessary space. This could indicate that by the turn of the eighth century the settlement, limited by a rigid boundary, suffered from a lack of space, and may well have been densely occupied throughout the entire area enclosed by its defensive structure. The reorganization and restructuring of urban space during the seventh century can also be observed at Morro de Mezquitilla (Phase B2). Here the seventh century brings with it a new phase of construction (Fig. 1.5 (b)). Fresh buildings were constructed on top of the old sun-dried brick houses of B1, and their orientation is completely different to that of the structures of the previous phase. Their construction technique is different too. In the eighth century the mud-brick walls were built by simply placing them on top of levelled ground, but in the seventh century the walls have a stone base which was placed in a found-

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

Fig. 1.9 Toscanos, warehouse Building C (I), with comparable buildings from Iron-Age Palestine: (II) and (III) Tell en-Nasbeth, four-room houses 1 and 2; (IV) Hazor, Area G, Building 10037C, from level VI

ation trench. By comparison with the earlier buildings, especially Building K, a much more complex and solid construction technique was used in this second phase.62 According to its excavator, this new building phase with its more substantial structures indicates the progressive consolidation of the Phoenician settlement – after a first phase of occupation which, despite the large size of some of its constructions, seems almost provisional by comparison.63 It is interesting to compare the different urban structures of Morro de Mezquitilla and Toscanos in the seventh century. At Morro de Mezquitilla we find buildings aligned along streets which are terraced to follow the slope of the hill, whereas in Toscanos the houses are in isolated

23

groups, which are located around port, industrial and commercial installations, such as the Warehouse Building C. Perhaps this different urban layout reflects differences in function between the two sites.64 At Cerro del Villar, too, the seventh century was a time of prosperity. During this period the site was occupied by large rectangular dwellings, some with more than six rooms, arranged around a central open courtyard (Fig. 1.10). The site also showed signs of urban planning, with the buildings sharing the same north-south orientation, and arranged around open spaces or streets, some of which were pebbled. Several of these buildings show signs of a diversified economy, with evidence of dye-production, fishing and storage. Others have been categorised by their excavator as luxury dwellings, with direct access to the sea by means of a private jetty, accessible from the house via a stone staircase.65 The picture of increasing prosperity which we observe in the internal structuring of the settlements and their new density of occupation in the seventh century is confirmed by their growth in size. The seventh century represents the period of maximum economic growth for all these coastal centres, except for the odd exception, such as Chorreras and Casa de Montilla, where the place was abandoned. In the case of Chorreras the abandonment was a peaceful and apparently organised one, and it seems likely that its population simply transferred to Morro de Mezquitilla, only 1 km away. The latter enjoyed a better location in terms of its situation on the bank of the river Algarrobo, on a hilltop overlooking the sea. An influx of fresh settlers might well explain the new construction work and the increased prosperity in seventh-century Morro de Mezquitilla. Expansion at seventh-century Toscanos Once again it is Toscanos that best exemplifies the phenomenon of the growth in size of these seventhcentury Phoenician enclaves. During the course of this century, the settlement expanded to include the Cerro del Peñón and the Cerro del Alarcón, the two hills immediately adjoining the site to the north-west and south-west. On the hill of Toscanos itself the settlement grew to cover the north side of the hill, down to what was in Phoenician times the harbour bay at Manganeto (Fig. 1.3). The growth in the size of the enclave visible during this period brought with it differentiated uses of the settlement space, with clearly demarcated residential and mercantile quarters in the central core of the site, at the hill of Toscanos, surrounded by outlying areas on the hills of Alarcón and Peñón which were used for military and industrial purposes respectively, as we will see.

24

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 1.10 Cerro del Villar, sector 2, seventh-century building The Peñón is situated to the SW of the hill of Toscanos from which it is separated by a small depression. With a height of 91.9 m it is the highest peak of this area, and strategically it is of major importance in any defensive system of Toscanos. The Peñón was first investigated in the excavations of 1964 which revealed only very slight remains of Phoenician settlement on the summit of the hill.66 The discovery of a bronze thymiaterion of probable eastern origin at the Peñón, which would once have formed part of the grave goods of a burial, may well indicate that there was a necropolis somewhere on the hill.67 The recent discovery of a fragment of an alabaster urn found on the eastern slope of the Peñón, similar to those often used as cinerary urns in Phoenician cemeteries in Iberia, points in the same direction.68 It was the 1978 and 1984 excavations, however, which first revealed significant signs of Phoenician settlement on the hill, dating to the seventh and the first part of the sixth centuries BC.69 These failed to

uncover any traces of a cemetery but located the remains of a considerable metallurgical quarter on the eastern slope of the Peñón. Here a smelting furnace, used to produce iron, was found, along with slag, semi-smelted residue and bellows pipes. The large amounts of slag found in the vicinity of the furnace could not all have been produced by that single structure and the fact that the slag extends downhill over a considerable area provides important indications as to the scale of the metallurgical industry on the east slope of the Peñón.70 Analysis of the slag proves that the metals processed here were chiefly iron, with occasional finds of copper.71 Fragments of red slip ware, the Phoenician quality table-ware, in the area around the furnace, date the Phoenician occupation of this part of the hill to the second half of the seventh century at the earliest, while pottery found on the lower slopes of the Peñón are clearly earlier in date. A few sherds from Etruscan kantharoi prove that settlement in this area continued until the sixth century.72

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

From the evidence at our disposal, therefore, the Peñón was used as a possible cemetery and certainly as an industrial quarter during the seventh century. This clear division of space was probably the result of practical considerations to avoid pollution from the toxic emissions produced by the furnaces, and also the possibility of iron oxide seepage into the water supply.

Seventh-century defences Further evidence of settlement dating to the seventh century has come from the Cerro del Alarcón, the hill overlooking Toscanos to the north-west (Fig. 1.3). Alarcón enjoys a strategically favourable position controlling access to Toscanos from several directions, which must have given it a special significance in Phoenician times. The earliest settlement there on the western slope of the hill is dated to the first half of the seventh century, or perhaps even earlier, by Protocorinthian imports.73 This coincides with the latest phases of occupation at Toscanos itself. Alarcón gradually acquired greater strategic importance as a defensive outpost of the core settlement, which had extended to the north as fas as Manganeto and in a southerly direction to the Peñón. The 1967 excavations first revealed the defensive role which Alarcón played in terms of the protection of the settlement nucleus at Toscanos.74 Here on the hill a large rectangular stone-built construction was erected, with the obvious intention of occupying the highest part of Alarcón. The walls are conspicuously large, with widths of 1 m and more, and in addition they were strengthened in places. The building materials were soft white limestone, probably quarried from the Peñón, which was interspersed with a few isolated pieces of slate. These stone walls rose to a height of up to 1.4 m and served as a socle for the sun-dried mudbrick walls which rise above and which show signs of having been renewed at least once.75 The floors inside the building reveal only slight traces of use. Outside, especially to the east and south, that is in the area away from the slope, several walls were added to the building and represent new rooms, indicating a longer period of use for the building complex. On the peak of Alarcón no further settlement buildings were found. Given the size, ground plan and construction technique of the rectangular building, it is unlikely that we are dealing with a simple dwelling house. These considerations, together with its position on the summit of Alarcón, point to the possibility that this was a building erected to fulfil some public purpose. If we exclude cult or ritual purposes, for which there is no evidence, then it is possible that such a massive building in so exposed a location was

25

planned as a military outpost. Such an outpost on the hill of Alarcón, dominating access to the settlement of Toscanos from several directions, is extraordinarily significant for the defense of Toscanos. It could have served as an observation post, as well as sheltering a small detachment, which from here could intervene effectively against an enemy advancing into the valley. In this role the rectangular building would have had a defensive function, acting as a secure house or small fort. Wall reinforcements of considerable size on the enemy sides and outbuildings on the inner sides could have had a special purpose in such a context. A construction of this kind could be seen as the predecessor of the later defensive wall on the hilltop and sides of Alarcón.76 The defensive function attributed to the rectangular building on the summit of Alarcón is continued by the later fortification wall which runs from Alarcón to the Peñón, down through the valley dividing the two. It also runs from Alarcón in the direction of the Manganeto peninsula, directly north of the harbour bay of Toscanos (Fig. 1.3). Thus this defensive wall would have enclosed all the areas of Phoenician settlement around Toscanos, closing off access to Toscanos through the Vélez valley as well as through the valley between the Peñón and Alarcón. The wall can be divided into two parts, a north-facing outer front made from large regular blocks of Peñón limestone, and a southern inner front made from slate. There seems to have been a slight chronological difference between the construction of the outer limestone wall and the inner slate one, as the limestone wall was in places completely destroyed when the slate one was built (Fig. 1.11).77 We do not know how long a time elapsed between the destruction of the limestone wall and the building of the slate wall but it must have been at least a decade, according to the excavator. For the construction of the limestone wall a date around 600 BC or soon after is to be taken as probable, based on the finds. The re-adoption of the course of the older wall, and also the lack of finds of later date, make it extremely unlikely that the more recent slate wall was begun very much later, for instance in the Roman or medieval periods. The construction of this defensive structure must have been caused by some specific historical situation, probably a threat to the Phoenician settlement from the Vélez valley itself, or from the far side of the Zafarraya Pass to the north of Toscanos. A change in this situation might then have led to the neglect, abandonment and destruction of the first limestone wall. However a recurrence of the unsettled situation – so one must assume – caused a renewal of the wall as a slate wall. The construction of both the limestone

26

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 1.11 Cerro del Alarcón, fortification wall and the slate walls, given their extension and building techniques, represented a considerable effort on the part of the Phoenician settlers.78 During the first half of the seventh century, therefore, the western slope of Alarcón, and then in the second half of that century, the peak of the hill as well, were included within the area of the Phoenician settlement; we can assume that the other slopes also bore some form of occupation which it is now impossible to recognise, given the intense erosion which has affected this part of the site. The extension of the area occupied by the Phoenicians during the seventh century to reach the hills lying above the original inhabited nucleus of Toscanos, and the protection of this settlement through defensive works, reflect the growing importance of the foundation, its economic and social achievements, and its capability to react to external threats.79 The existence of a possible military outpost or watch-tower, guarding access to the central settlement, and which was reinforced by a later defensive wall, is worthy of comment. Up until recently Toscanos was believed to have been the only Phoenician site east of the Straits of Gibraltar provided with a defensive wall. Now, however, more and more Phoenician settlements in the Peninsula are believed to have been so fortified: defensive walls have recently been found at Castillo de Doña Blanca in Cádiz, La Fonteta at Guardamar and also El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño (both in Alicante), as well as at the Phoenician sites of Cerro da Rocha Branca, Tavira, Abúl and Santa Olaia in Portugal.80 Although excavation has failed to reveal any but the most tenuous traces of the urbanism of Phoenician Cádiz, the name given to the settlement by its first settlers, Gadir, means fortified or enclosed place, strongly implying the existence of a city wall there too.81 At Doña Blanca, Cerro da Rocha Branca and Abúl the wall was built at the same time as the foundation of the settlement, just as at Toscanos the eighth-century site was protected by a V-shaped ditch, which as we have seen may have served as a basis for a protective palisade. Obviously some sort of defensive structure was always deemed necessary at

Toscanos, as even when the V-shaped ditch was filled in, it was replaced by the military building on top of Alarcón, and then by the wall enclosing Alarcón, Peñón and the hill of Toscanos itself. The question is why was such attention paid to the defence of the site here, when none of the other sites immediately surrounding it felt it necessary to take such elaborate precautions. It is tempting to link the emphasis on defence at Toscanos with the presence of the Warehouse Building C. Both features distinguish this site from its neighbours, and obviously the presence of the warehouse implies the centralisation and storage of a great quantity of goods. It was perhaps for this reason that the inhabitants of Toscanos went to such lengths to defend their site.

New seventh-century foundations in Iberia

Introduction The picture of increasing economic prosperity in the seventh century which we first observed in the restructuring of the urban site of Toscanos, with the construction of the Warehouse Building C, and in phase B2 of Morro de Mezquitilla, with its new, more solidly-built dwelling houses, is confirmed by the growing size of the settlements themselves. The dramatic increase in the area of occupation by the Phoenician settlers of Toscanos during this period speaks eloquently of the success of the eighth-century foundation. However the economic prosperity visible in the growth of the pre-existing sites is more dramatically reflected in the foundation of new settlements. These extended in two directions from the core settlement area along the coast of Andalusia, to cover the Mediterranean coast of Iberia, north to the Balearic islands, and south to Algeria, while in the Atlantic there were new foundations along the coasts of Portugal and Morocco. Cerro del Prado Some half a dozen new Phoenician settlements were founded in Spain in the seventh century. From west to

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

east the first is Cerro del Prado, near San Roque in the province of Cádiz (Fig. 1.2).82 This settlement was located on a promontory between the Guadarranque and the Arroyo de la Madre Vieja rivers, on the edge of the bay of Algeciras, immediately to the west of Gibraltar, and only 1.5 km north of the Roman city of Carteia, a toponym of Semitic origin. It was occupied from the second half of the seventh century to the midfourth century BC, when the silting of the Guadarranque and Arroyo de la Madre Vieja rivers caused the loss of its harbour. The settlement yielded large amounts of pottery, of which amphorae and pithoi were by far the most numerous throughout all levels of occupation, by comparison with the fine table ware which is poorly represented: this suggests that the site had primarily commercial functions. Cerro del Prado has been linked with the marine sanctuary, apparently dedicated to Astarte, which was situated in Gorham’s Cave in Gibraltar.83 Cerro del Castillo, Villaricos and Cabecico de Parra In the province of Málaga, Phoenician remains have been found at Cerro del Castillo in Fuengirola, which corresponds to the Roman town of Suel, another toponym of probable Phoenician origin. The evidence consists of pottery so far dating only from the sixth century onwards, but it seems likely that the site was founded in the seventh century.84 In Almería, the ancient town of Baria, the modern Villaricos, was located at the mouth of the river Almanzora, dominating access to the former bay into which the river flowed (Figs 1.1 and 1.2). It became a flourishing town with a marked Carthaginian influence during the Punic period, and it is known chiefly for its necropolis which contained thousands of burials dating down as far as the Roman period.85 Although generally regarded as a Punic site, it has been suggested that the oldest levels of both the settlement and the necropolis date to the seventh century, which would make it a Phoenician foundation.86 It owed its foundation and prosperity to the rich mineral resources of Herrerías, some 3 km to the north of the town, which were intensely exploited from the third millennium onwards for their copper, silver, gold and lead ores.87

Cabecico de Parra Still on the Almanzora river, but a few kilometres inland from Villaricos, another Phoenician settlement has been identified at Cabecico de Parra.88 It was situated on a small peninsula between the Arteal and Almanzora rivers, and it is dated by its pottery to the seventh century. Like that of Villaricos, its foundation was due to the exploitation of the local mineral resources, and these were obviously important enough

27

to account for the presence, not just of these two sites, but also a further five settlements identified in the immediate area by the German Archaeological Institute: most of these however date to the later Punic period.89 Cabecico de Parra was situated next to the mines, and as the Almanzora river was at that time navigable, it is possible that the ores were transported to the site and from there shipped to Villaricos. The site at Cabecico de Parra may have had its cemetery at Loma de Boliche where cremation burials in urns revealed materials from the seventh to the sixth centuries, if not earlier.90 It is obvious that the mineral resources of Herrerías exerted a strong attraction on the Phoenicians, given the intensity and duration of settlement at Cabecico de Parra right down to and throughout the Punic period.

La Fonteta Founded in the eighth century, the settlement at La Fonteta, on the Segura river at Guardamar in Alicante, must be classified among the Phoenician successstories of the seventh century (Fig. 1.2). After a rather precarious start, more solid, and quite large, buildings appear in the course of the seventh century; these structures are divided into several rooms and have sun-dried brick walls resting on masonry socles. In the second third of the century an active metallurgical workshop was established, with abundant copperand iron-slag, and other signs of intense metallurgical activity. We know the name of one of the artisans who worked there, or at least of someone who lived in this part of the settlement, since he scratched it as a graffito on a red-slip lamp. The owner of the lamp bore the name of MLQRTYSP, a typically Phoenician, and more specifically Tyrian name, based on the name of the chief god of Tyre, and patron of the Tyrian colonial ventures, Melqart.91 This active metallurgical workshop was abandoned rather suddenly in the last quarter of the seventh century, and demolished to make way for a large and impressive fortification wall which surrounded the site, measuring some 7 m wide, and which its excavators estimate could have reached a height of close to 9 m. It consisted of a stone socle reaching a height of some 4/5 m, on top of which rose a mudbrick superstructure; the whole construction was plastered with a thick layer of bright orange clay. This defensive system was further strengthened by the presence of a ditch or fossa, situated some 6 m in front of the external face of the wall.92 The discovery of Phoenician stelai incorporated into the Islamic fortifications at La Fonteta strongly suggests that the settlement had its own necropolis, and also provides evidence of a link between La Fonteta and the nearby Phoenician site of

28

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Ibiza: there identical stelai were found in the earliest burials on the island.93 Despite the demolition of the workshop, metallurgical activities did not entirely end at La Fonteta. Evidence of silver, copper and lead production, as well as a possible smelting furnace were found dating to the first half of the sixth century. The site at Guadamar is unmistakably oriental in its materials, yielding in its pottery the R–1 amphorae, red-slip plates, grey ware, and pithoi which are characteristic of the pottery assemblages of the Phoenician sites in the Far West, as well as such typically Phoenician materials as ivory bracelets and ostrich eggs, and Egyptianizing amulets.94 Up to the last third of the seventh century, almost all the pottery at the settlement comes from Phoenician sites in Andalucía; so La Fonteta, both in its foundation date and pottery, is an integral part of the colonisation movement which led to the establishment of so many Phoenician settlements in the extreme south of the Pensinsula. By the end of the seventh century and during the first half of the sixth centuries, the settlers were no longer dependent on imports from Andalucía to meet their demand for pottery: now most of it came from the nearby Phoenician pottery-workshop established in the indigenous site of La Peña Negra (discussed in Chapter Four, p. 118).95 By this time, too, the Phoenician occupation of the mouth of the Segura had extended to incorporate a third site, this one with a possible ritual nature. Situated immediately to the SW of La Fonteta is the thirteenth-century fortress of El Castillo de Guardamar. Located on a hill dominating the right bank of the Segura river, this was used as a shrine from the fifth century BC right down into late Roman times. However it was also occupied during the Phoenician period, with typically Phoenician ceramics alternating with local hand-made materials.96 Whether the occupation at the Castillo de Guardamar had a primarily strategic or ritual nature during this time it is as yet impossible to say. However, the existence of a shrine would make sense in the context of facilitating contacts between Phoenicians and the local people, contacts which seem to have been close and beneficial for both sides, as we will see. Phoenician coastal settlements and their relationshp with the hinterland: the site at La Peña Nigra The functions of the settlements at La Fonteta and El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño have to be understood in relation to the resources offered by their hinterland. Starting in the eighth century the indigenous sites in the region had been receiving Phoenician products in large quantities, chiefly in the form of pottery, especially red-slip ware and amphorae. This is most

evident at Los Saladares (Alicante), La Peña Negra (Alicante) and Castellar de Librilla (Murcía), among other sites such as El Monastil and La Sierra de Camara (both in Alicante) (Fig. 1.2).97 These settlements possessed a number of features to interest the Phoenicians: at La Peña Negra, for example, the production of bronze weapons and objects, and access to the Atlantic Late Bronze Age trade circuits; at Castellar de Librilla, the mineral resources (copper, iron and galena) which that site controlled; at Los Saladares, a strategic position in the network of regional trade routes; while the sites at El Monastil and La Sierra de Camara provided access to the Vinalopó river, and by means of this acted as a link between the coast and the resources of the interior.98 Certainly, the mineral resources in particular were important enough for a Phoenician enoikismos to be set up at the settlement of La Peña Negra in the seventh century, producing typically Phoenician-style pottery, particularly amphorae, and orientalizing jewellery (see Chapter Four, p. 118). The explanation for the Phoenician interest in La Peña Negra seems to lie in its active bronze production which specialised in such typically Atlantic types as swords of the Monte Sa Idda type and palstaves, produced on a large scale, probably right from the start of the occupation of the site in the ninth century.99 A metallurgical workshop, in operation during the first half of the eighth century, has been discovered at the settlement (Fig. 1.12). This took the form of a rectangular building with curved corners, measuring some 8 m by 4.5 m, and made up of only one room. Inside the building there were two structures; one in the western corner was made up of a clay platform, roughly square in shape. The presence here of a large number of loom-weights around the platform suggests that it represents the base of a loom. In the centre of the building was a smelting furnace, circular in shape and some 60 cm in diameter, with a small hole for the introduction of the fuel and the crucible to the interior of the combustion chamber. The area around the smelting furnace shows signs of burning, and outside the building a large spoil heap contained clear signs of metallurgical activity, with slag, charcoal, ash, and most significantly, more than 400 fragments of moulds used to shape the objects produced by the workshop. Obviously the metal produced in the smelting furnace was poured into the moulds outside the workshop.100 There is no sign of any residential use of the building, and it seems therefore that it should be interpreted as a dedicated workshop, used for the manufacturing of metal and textiles, although it is unlikely that both activities would have been carried out at the same time.101

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

Fig. 1.12 La Peña Negra, plan of metallurgical workshop (top) and associated finds: (1) fragments of casting moulds; (2) plaster casts produced from these moulds

Analysis of the moulds has revealed the nature of the metal objects manufactured at La Peña Negra. These could be divided into two main types: tools and

29

weapons, all of the Late Bronze Age Atlantic type. Among the weapons was at least one sword of the characteristic Late Bronze Age carp’s-tongue variety,

30

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

represented in the Huelva hoard (discussed below, Chapter Five, pp. 137–40). Others belonged to a different version of the same type, the so-called VenatRonda-Sa Idda variety.102 Represented too was the winged axe, an Atlantic type of weapon, but one with clear Mediterranean origins, going back to the end of the third millennium BC in Anatolia. It was added to the Late Bronze Age Atlantic repertory at the end of the second millennium.103 What is particularly interesting for us is that it is precisely this object, manufactured in the first half of the eighth century BC at the indigenous site of La Peña Negra, that we find produced more than a century later in the metallurgical workshop in the nearby Phoenician site of La Fonteta. Locally available ores, from the mountains of the Sierra de Crevillente, were exploited to provide the raw materials for the metal production carried out at La Peña Negra. It is also possible that the settlement marked the end of an overland route, linking it with the north-east part of the Meseta, where the typesite of the Late Bronze Age in that region, Soto de Medinilla in Valladolid, shows many similarities with La Peña Negra, in its buildings, pottery and metal production.104 Certainly the location occupied by La Peña Negra was an important one, as the area was singled out for settlement from the Chalcolithic down into the Iberian period: a whole series of settlements succeed each other over the centuries, of which La Peña Negra was just one.105 One question that naturally arises from the discoveries at La Peña Negra is this: if the site served not just as a production centre for Atlantic-type bronze metallurgy, but also acted as a channel for metal objects and raw materials from deep in the interior of the Peninsula, what happened to these objects? The level of metal production at the site was so intense that La Peña Negra has been termed ‘one of the most important central points of western European metallurgy’.106 Yet in spite of this intensive metal production there, no evidence of any finished Atlantictype metal objects has been found at La Peña Negra, either in the settlement or in its necropolis. Obviously, as González Prats has pointed out, the objects produced at the site were designed for export only, rather than for local use. So where did they go? On present evidence it seems that they had two primary destinations, in two different cultural spheres: the first to Sardinia, where objects identical to those produced in La Peña Negra have been found in hoards there, and the second to the Phoenician sphere, for example to the nearby site of La Fonteta. Here, in the seventh-century levels of occupation, there is extensive evidence of metallurgical actvities which included the production of a typical Atlantic

object of the Late Bronze Age, the winged axe, the same object produced in the indigenous eighthcentury metallurgical workshop at La Peña Negra.107 This would suggest that the absence of Atlantic-type objects at La Peña Negra, where they were produced, was due to the fact that they were acquired by the Phoenicians at La Fonteta. There they were engaged in metal-producing activities of their own (centred around copper-, silver- and iron-production, on what seems to have been a quite intensive level). The Phoenicians probably also traded for raw materials and finished goods with La Peña Negra and the other indigenous sites nearby which controlled access to the mineral resources of the region. Signs of such trade come from the find of orientalizing treasure made at La Peña Negra, which is discussed in Chapter Four (p. 118).

Sardinia, Cyprus and the Levant

The presence of objects in Sardinian hoards identical to those manufactured at La Peña Negra shows that contacts between the two regions were close, within the context of the Late Bronze Age Atlantic trading system.108 Sardinia did not only look west, however. Since at least the thirteenth century BC the island had been in close contact with Cyprus, and it seems that, with the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces, the Cypriots may have stepped in and occupied the role previously played by the Mycenaeans in the trading routes between the central and eastern Mediterranean.109 Their presence in Sardinia seems to have been particularly strong, with Cypriot smithing tools found on the island, and clear Cypriot influences in the local art work. The Cypriot interest in Sardinia is linked to the latter’s rich mineral resources, and probably also to its central role in the Late Bronze Age Atlantic exchange systems.110 Mention of Sardinia raises the question of how and why the Phoenicians reached Iberia, and the possible Cypriot contribution to their decision to involve themselves on a significant scale in the Peninsula, together with the exploitation of its resources. Contacts between Cyprus and the Levant had been close since prehistory, and from the ninth century BC the Phoenicians had established a permanent colony on the island, at Kition. The Phoenicians were therefore certainly aware of the Cypriots’ trading activities, and of their interest in Sardinia and the central Mediterranean. In this context, it seems plausible that knowledge of the mineral resources and wealth of Iberia may have first come to the attention of the Phoenicians through the Cypriots, and especially through the active involve-

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

ment of Cypriots in Sardinia. The few pieces of evidence which we have for the earliest Phoenician presence in Sardinia seem to back this up. The famous Nora stone now in Cagliari records a Phoenician text, commemorating a dedication made by settlers on the island in honour of the god Pumay – a deity so far attested primarily in Cyprus. The inscription has been dated on palaeographical grounds to the ninth century, but that date has often been rejected: it is regarded as being too early to fit the chronology assigned by general consensus to the start of the Phoenician presence in the central Mediterranean, that is the eighth century BC. However, in the context of a permanent Phoenician presence in Cyprus from the ninth century onwards, and increasing signs of their presence in the Aegean in the tenth and ninth centuries, their arrival in Sardinia in the ninth, associated with or following a Cypriot presence on that island, is not unlikely.111 Once in Sardinia, the Phoenicians were ideally placed to learn of, and to get to know for themselves, the Iberian peninsula and its potential. It is significant that the rich mineral resources of Iberia, which the Phoenicians would have heard of from the Cypriots or their Sardinian trading partners, would have been those obtainable through the Atlantic Late Bronze Age trading circuits, rather than the silver of the Iberian Pyrite Belt. When the Phoenicians established a permanent presence in Iberia, conventionally dated to the start of the eighth century, the minerals of the Pyrite Belt, which contained such sites as Rio Tinto, were being exploited on a small scale and primarily for copper, with signs of only a limited interest in silver. By contrast, the circulation of copper and tin, as well as finished bronzes throughout the Atlantic region, and as far as Sardinia, was intense. It may therefore primarily have been the resources of an Atlantic Iberia which first attracted the Phoencians. In this context the ‘eccentricity’ of Gadir on the Atlantic coast of Iberia, which has often been remarked upon, becomes highly significant. One of the chief motivations for this very carefully chosen site (as is clear from the foundation legend recorded in Strabo III. 5. 5) may well have been to tap into the Atlantic trading system. Thus when the Phoenicians reached Iberia, their first foundation, and the controlling centre of all their activities in the Peninsula, was on the Atlantic, ideally located to tap into the indigenous Atlantic Late Bronze Age trade and manufacturing circuits. However, this interest in the Atlantic resources of Iberia was overshadowed by their subsequent spectacular exploitation of the precious metals of the Iberian Pyrite Belt. These were still being exploited during the Roman period and are thus

31

rightly celebrated by Classical authors, who of course were totally unaware of the primarily Atlantic orientation of production and exchange at the start of the last millennium BC. The metallurgical workshop at La Peña Negra was in operation in the first half of the eighth century, before the Phoenicians established a permanent presence at the site. However, Phoenician materials were found in levels associated with the workshop and earlier. Obviously the Phoenicians were attracted to La Peña Negra because of its important role in the Atlantic Late Bronze Age metal trade. Although the metallurgical workshop dates only to the eighth century, evidence of metal-production there has been found going back to the first phase of the occupation of the site, in the tenth to ninth centuries BC.112 We have claimed that it is precisely the access to metals within the Atlantic Late Bronze Age trading-system that attracted the Phoenicians to Iberia, and that this knowledge was acquired from the Cypriots, who were actively involved in Sardinia. At La Peña Negra, too, the Phoenicians seem to have been following in the footsteps of earlier visitors from the Mediterranean. Contact between the Vinalapó region and the Mediterranean is attested by the Villena treasure, found near Villena, on the upper reaches of the Vinalopó, 60 km from the present coast and 40 km north of La Peña Negra. Weighing some 10 kg, the treasure is made up of eleven gold bowls, two gold and three silver bottles, twenty-eight cylindrical bracelets, as well as smaller items and fragments of gold, amber and iron. It has no archaeological context and is dated to sometime between the thirteenth and the tenth centuries BC. Ruiz-Gálvez Priego has analysed the treasure and suggests that either it provides an indication of direct Cypriot contacts with Iberia, or that it was brought to the Peninsula by Sardinian traders as a gift to a local prince or leader.113 If she is right, then the presence of the Phoenicians at La Peña Negra from at least the eighth century shows them appearing on a well-trodden path, one which was first frequented by the Cypriots or their trading partners, the Sardinians.

Phoenician shipwrecks

In general, the presence of a Phoenician industrial quarter at La Peña Negra, one of the most important metal-producing sites in the region, and the foundation of two Phoenician settlements at the mouth of the Segura river, which offered an ideal link to the hinterland, points to an intensification of the contacts between the colonial sites of Andalusia and this region. Thus the area around the Segura river may

32

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

well have acted as a distribution point for the goods coming from Andalusia towards the Balearics and the Central Mediterranean, as the discovery of a Phoenician shipwreck at Bajo de la Campana, off the Murcía coast, seems to indicate (Fig. 1.2). Its cargo consisted of tin and lead ingots and ivory in bulk, as well as pottery, made up of such typically far western products as the ubiquitious R–1 amphora and the tripod-bowl, along with some central Mediterranean material. Given these objects, it very probably came from the Phoenician sites in Portugal and Atlantic Morocco.114 Two other wrecks dating from the Phoenician period have been identified in subaquatic prospections at La Playa de la Isla, just south of Bajo de la Campana. Associated with these wrecks was ceramic material similar to that contained in the other ship, again typically Phoenician materials from the extreme western Mediterranean, such as the R–1 amphora, the pithos and the tripod bowl.115 Judging by the Phoenician and the small amount of indigenous pottery associated with the Playa de la Isla wrecks, which all unequivocably dates to the seventh century, the ships can with relative confidence be assigned to this period. What is interesting in this context is the discovery of ingots of metallic lead which formed part of the cargo of the ships. The total absence of silver in these ingots suggests that they were formed as the by-products in the cupellation of argentiferous galena to produce silver.116 This raises the possibility that the Phoenicians were exporting from Iberia not only the silver of the famous Iberian pyrite belt but also associated metallic by-products, such as these lead ingots. Obviously these wrecks indicate that this area was one much frequented by Phoenician shipping. The wrecks, and the settlements in the provinces of Murcia and Alicante, represent the archaeological confirmation of what Avienus later wrote about this part of the Spanish coast: ‘the Phoenicians formerly lived in these places’ (Ora Maritima, 460), and they also confirm the accuracy of his statement when he tells us that this region marked the northern limit of the territory of Tartessos, in other words the extent of the territory under the direct influence of the Phoenicians (Ora Maritima, 462–3).

Phoenicians on Ibiza

The success of the Phoenician commercial contacts in this area may have been one of the reasons for their occupation of an important point in the regional and international trade routes during this time: that of the island of Ibiza.117 Here, during the seventh century, a group of settlers, apparently from the Phoenician

enclaves in Andalusia, judging by their pottery, occupied the island, setting up a small establishment at Sa Caleta on its south-west coast (Fig. 1.1).118 The site was located on a small peninsula which jutted out into the sea, with a sheltered bay to the west at Cala Jondal, and a stream providing fresh water nearby. The main harbour seems to have been located to the west, at Cala Jondal.119 The settlement was evidently a success, as the whole area of the peninsula (originally some 4 ha, now considerably less due to erosion) is densely covered with the settlers’ houses, which followed the usual rectilinear ground-plan; there were stone socles for the walls, which were made from sun-dried mud-bricks. The pottery found at Sa Caleta, both wheel-made and hand-made, was all imported, and analysis of its clay points to an origin in the south of Iberia, a circumstance which is confirmed by its forms. These consist of small amounts of the usual red-slip ware, as well as pithoi and R–1 amphorae, the latter making up almost all the pottery found at the site (Fig. 1.13).120 The settlement obviously also had access to the Central Mediterranean trade routes, as the presence of Phoenician amphorae from Sardinia, Sicily and Carthage indicates. Metals played an important role in the economy of Sa Caleta, since considerable quantities of argentiferous galena, some of it semi-smelted, were found throughout the site, both in the houses and outside. Analysis has proved that the mineral came from the mines at San Argentera, in the east of the island, and it was clearly used to produce silver and lead. Iron-smelting was less prominent among the site’s activities, since iron slag and a furnace were found in only one house. Bronze too may well have been worked at the site. The settlement at Sa Caleta had a limited life, from sometime in the third quarter, or, at the earliest, the second half, of the seventh century to the first years of the sixth century BC. Its abandonment was peaceful, and well organised, as the entire population apparently all left together, leaving only a few small objects and broken pottery behind them. It is possible that they simply left to join the settlers in what is now the city of Ibiza, only 10 km away and visible from the site, and where a Phoenician settlement had existed for a few decades (Fig. 1.1). Ibiza offered better conditions for settlement than Sa Caleta. It was situated in an area with abundant water supplies, and on the best natural harbour of the island, favouring more intense commercial activities. Ibiza was traditionally thought to have been a Carthaginian foundation, based on the evidence of Diodorus.121 However, the discovery of a number of cremation burials, at the cemetery of Puig des Molins,

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

dating to the end of the seventh and the early sixth centuries BC, proves that the site was already occupied before the influence of Carthage became apparent towards the end of the sixth century (Fig. 2.16).122 The burials are interesting for the information they give us on the early settlement there. They are all poor, with scanty grave goods, and none of the opulence associated with contemporary Phoenician burials in Andalusia. Judging by the demographic structure of the burials, none of the early population was much over thirty, and the evidence points to an early group of settlers consisting of young families, as women and children are well represented. A large quantity of pottery dating to the last quarter of the seventh century has also been found at the site. This consist of types which are typical of those produced in the

Fig. 1.13 Sa Caleta, Ibiza, R–1 amphora

33

Andalusian colonial enclaves, such as R–1 amphorae, pithoi and grey ware.123 However, although the range of pottery attested in the earliest levels of occupation at Ibiza is similar to that from Sa Caleta, there is one important difference. Analysis of the earliest pottery from the site of Ibiza shows that it is almost all locally made.124 In other words, unlike Sa Caleta, the settlement at Ibiza was self-sufficient, at least in terms of its pottery production, and had become less reliant on the Phoenician sites of mainland Iberia. It is interesting, too, to note that, among the archaic pottery produced at Ibiza, the characteristically western R–1 amphora is well represented, suggesting that there must have been an occupation and exploitation of the rural hinterland of the site right from the very start of settlement there.125 Based on these finds, and on the geological investigations of the bay of Ibiza carried out by the German Archaeological Institute in 1989, a hypothetical reconstruction of the early topography of Ibiza is possible (Fig. 1.14). The first occupation seems to have taken place at the western end of the Bay of Ibiza, on what was then a spur jutting out into the bay, and where the hill of Puig de Vila, with the fortress of Ibiza and the cathedral, is now located. At the foot of the hill lay a sheltered port, where a large amount of pottery dating from 625/600 BC has been found. To the west, the hill of Puig des Molins was the site of the cemetery used down to the Roman era (Fig. 1.14). The Bay of Ibiza was then far larger and deeper than it is at present, forming a magnificent natural harbour. There were three islands in the centre of the bay, Illa Plana, which is now joined to the mainland, Illa Grossa, and the tiny island of Botafoch. Illa Plana was the site of an important sanctuary to Tanit founded towards the end of the sixth century BC.126 The nearest Phoenician settlement to Ibiza, at La Fonteta in Alicante, must have had a cemetery, although its location is still unknown. However, some baetyl-shaped stelai, which were probably originally used as grave markers, were incorporated into the defensive wall of the Islamic-period settlement at the site. Their interest for us lies in the fact that they are almost identical to those used in the earliest tombs from the necropolis at Ibiza. Given that the analysis of the pottery from the earliest levels of Ibiza shows that much of it seems to have been imported from the Phoenician settlements in Iberia, then the proximity of La Fonteta to Ibiza (it is the closest Phoenician site to the island), as well as the similarity of burial customs between the two settlements, raises the possibility that the earliest inhabitants of Sa Caleta and Ibiza might have come from La Fonteta de Guardamar in Alicante.127

34

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 1.14 (left) Reconstruction of the topography of the Bay of Ibiza, showing the position of the ancient coast-line

Other sites with Phoenician material in the hinterland

Possibly the main function of Ibiza during the preCarthaginian period was to trade with the Spanish Levant, Catalonia and the Gulf of Leon.128 Based on the finds of Phoenician pottery in these regions which consist almost exclusively of the R–1 amphorae, and more rarely other large containers such as pithoi, this trade was organised around food products, either wine or oil.129 The recent finds from the indigenous settlement of L’Alt de Benimaquía, near Denia in the province of Alicante, suggest that at least in south-east Spain the R–1 amphorae were likely to have contained primarily wine rather than oil. Here, in the sixthcentury levels of occupation, signs of intensive wineproduction were found, associated with wheel-made amphorae, primarily of the R–1 type, along with pithoi. The predominance of wheel-made pottery, some of it made locally, and the fact that the fortification wall of the settlement shows strong signs of Phoenician influence, point to a close cooperation between Phoenicians and the indigenous inhabitants, in a similar pattern to that from La Peña Negra. Once again the emphasis seems to be on the trade and production of foodstuffs.130 The Phoenicians in the Spanish Levant and northern Spain also traded in Egyptian scarabs and

Fig. 1.15 (below) Aldovesta (Benifallet, Lower Ebro, Tarragona), plan of warehouse

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

amulets which are found in cemeteries and settlement sites in these regions. These objects were found in coastal sites, often located close to a river, and were then redistributed to indigenous sites further inland. The discovery of a warehouse at Aldovesta (Baix Ebre, Tarragona), on the lower Ebro river, gives us an insight into how this trade was carried out (Fig. 1.15). The site consisted of only one building, with rooms devoted to storage, domestic purposes, and stables. The storage area contained more than a hundred R–1 amphorae, which made up 57% of the total pottery assemblage, and almost 100% of the storage jars.131 As the site at Aldovesta cannot be regarded as a village, but was occupied by a small number of individuals, the number of amphorae by far exceeded the needs of its inhabitants: it must have functioned as an entrepôt where the products obtained by trade with the Phoenicians were stored and redistributed in the hinterland. The presence of a large number of bronze objects, most of which were broken, and that of a mould used to produce spits, indicates that the Phoenicians received bronze in exchange for their wine and oil.132 The occupation of Aldovesta dates to the second half of the seventh century and continued down into the first quarter of the sixth century BC. This corresponds to the period when Phoenician contacts with northern Spain and the Languedoc, as far north as Narbonne, were at their strongest. The purpose of this trade, as the evidence from Aldovesta suggests, was to obtain metals, chiefly bronze. The region was also important in that it provided them with access to the tin resources of Atlantic Europe in Armorica and Britain, accessible via the isthmus of Aquitania, following the route that went from Narbonne to Bordeaux, through the valleys of the Aude and Garonne.133 This was the route described by Avienus (Ora Maritima, 146–151).

Summary The sites founded in Spain during the seventh century BC greatly increase the areas in contact with the Phoenicians, from the central part of Andalusia up as far north as southern France. They seem to have been established largely to carry out trade with the indigenous inhabitants of the regions where they were located, in a concerted effort to exploit the locally available resources, chiefly minerals, and to tap into the pre-existing trade routes which in the Spanish Levant and Catalonia gave them access to the Late Bronze Age Atlantic trade circuits. Similar objectives were to lead to the foundation of a number of sites in Atlantic Iberia in the eighth and seventh centuries, as far north as central Portugal.

The Phoenicians in Portugal: Atlantic trading circuits

35

Introduction It is an often repeated truism that the Straits of Gibraltar act as a dividing point in the settlement pattern adopted by the Phoenicians in Iberia. Thus, in contrast to the plethora of sites east of the Straits, to the west of Gibraltar there is only Cádiz; the eccentricity of its location has been the subject of frequent comment.134 However, this situation reflects merely a difference in research between Portugal and Spain, rather than any real difference in the pattern of Phoenician settlement on either side of the Straits. Unlike Spain, where the Phoenician presence has been the focus of intense investigation since the 1960s, it was only at the end of the 1980s that a substantial Phoenician presence in Portugal began to be suspected, and only from 1990 has the presence of Phoenician colonies in Portugal been formally acknowledged.135 Recent research has revealed that the coastline of Portugal was occupied by a number of Phoenician sites from the late eighth and seventh centuries BC, while there was regular contact between the Phoenician settlements in Andalusia and the indigenous occupants of southern and central Portugal from the eighth century. The reason for the prompt and persistent Phoenician interest in Portugal and the Atlantic region was generally the availability of important mineral resources, gold, lead and especially tin. The last of these was one of the basic constituents of the alloy bronze, and a mineral which was extremely rare in the ancient world; large amounts of it were concentrated in the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula. This Phoenician interest in the metals of Atlantic Iberia is specifically acknowledged by Greek and Roman writers, from the sixth century BC down to the Roman period.136 As well as its own mineral resources, Portugal also offered the Phoenicians access to the rest of Atlantic Europe, which was then engaged in an intense circulation of metals and other items. This Atlantic Bronze Age economic system centred around all the major metal-producing regions of northern Europe, the Armorican Peninsula, the Gironne and Loire valleys in western France, as far west as south-east England and Ireland. It reached its peak in the eighth century BC, by which time the system had expanded to come into contact with the central Mediterranean, especially Sardinia.137 The tin resources of north-west Portugal enabled this region to develop a flourishing bronze production-industry from 1000/900 BC onwards, and the products of this industry were absorbed by the Atlantic Bronze Age economic system.

36

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 1.16 Map showing Phoenician (open circles) and indigenous settlements (solid circles) in Portugal Other parts of the Iberian Atlantic seaboard were incorporated into this trade circuit, especially Central Portugal, in the region between the Sado and Mondego estuaries, which developed its own bronze production industry, and in general the whole Extremadura area, with its gold, lead and tin resources, formed an extension of the trade system.138 Portugal also provided access to the tin and gold fields of Galicia, a key region in the Atlantic Late Bronze Age system. This involvement in a highly developed system of exchange allowed a growing stratification of indigenous society in Portugal, with the establishment of large fortified sites in the estuaries of the most important rivers: these controlled access to the mineral resources of the interior, and a series of dependant agricultural and minero-metallurgical sites

in their hinterland.139 It was these sites that were to come into contact with the Phoenicians during the eighth and the seventh centuries BC. In fact it is striking that the oriental materials found in Portugal are concentrated precisely in the indigenous sites located in the estuaries of the country’s large navigable rivers, the Guadiana, Gilão, Arade, Sado, Tagus and the Mondego. These sites obviously attracted the Phoenicians because they allowed and controlled access to the interior, and also because they could be used as landing places on the way to the tin-fields of the extreme north-west of Iberia (Fig. 1.16).140 Cerro da Rocha Branca The Phoenicians established a number of bases in Portugal to facilitate their contact with the indigenous population. In the Algarve, in southern Portugal, a

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

small settlement was founded at Cerro da Rocha Branca, between Portimão and Silves, according to the excavator, at the end of the eighth century or start of the seventh century BC (Fig. 1.16).141 The site chosen for settlement is similar to those favoured by the Phoenicians for their enclaves in Spain. It is located close to the coast, on a peninsula surrounded on two sides by the river Arade, which gave access to the fertile agricultural land and deposits of gold, copper and iron in the region which had been exploited since the Bronze Age. The location of the site was an easily

Fig. 1.17 Cerro da Rocha Branca, Silves, Portugal, Phoenician pottery: (i)–(ii) red-slip plates; (iii) grey ware bowl; (iv)–(v) amphorae

37

defensible one, and security was obviously important for its settlers, as the neck of the peninsula was protected by a defensive wall, made from large stone blocks and marked by rectangular towers, protecting the settlement from possible attacks by land. The area enclosed by the wall was occupied by rectangular buildings, with stone socles and adobe superstructure. Its pottery, which consists of red slip and grey ware, as well as amphorae of a typically western type, links Cerro da Rocha Branca very firmly with the Phoenician settlements in Spain, although contact with

38

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

the indigenous society was evidently close, given the large quantities of hand-made local pottery found at the site (Fig. 1.17).142

Tavira Excavations currently in progress in the town of Tavira in the Algarve, east of the regional capital of Faro, have the potential to enrich substantially our understanding of the behaviour and objectives of the Phoenicians in Portugal (Fig. 1.16). Here, on the Alto de Santa Maria hill in the heart of the old city, the Portuguese archaeologists, Drs Maria and Manuel Maia, have uncovered the remains of an indigenous Late Bronze Age settlement; located close to the coast on the bank of the river Gilão, it comes into contact with the Phoenicians, perhaps as early as the eighth century BC.143 While the first levels of settlement at Tavira reveal purely indigenous hand-made pottery, pattern-burnished ware and the so called cerámica de decoración digitada, both types familiar in SW Spain, Phoenician pottery gradually increases until it becomes wholly dominant in the ceramic assemblage at Tavira. In contrast to the other Phoenician settlements in Portugal, where amphorae and large storage vessels generally make up the bulk of the pottery, at Tavira the Phoenician fine table ware, red-slip ware, is dominant; the closest parallels for the forms and decoration found in Tavira come from the Phoenician site at Castillo de Doña Blanca, closely linked to Gadir itself. Oriental influence is also visible in the fortification wall built at the settlement, which is of casemate-type,

a style of fortification found in Iberia at Castillo de Doña Blanca and in the Levant in the seventh/sixthcentury-BC wall at Beirut.144 In the seventh century there is evidence of burials at Tavira, with, among the grave goods, high-quality red-slip pottery and a finely-decorated ivory pyxis. There is also clear evidence of the economic activities of the inhabitants of Tavira. Metallurgy is attested here, with silver- and copper-slag found at the site, and the remains of a smelting furnace. When we examine all the evidence from Tavira, it is clear that we are dealing with an indigenous site which enters into intense and sustained contact with the Phoenicians (apparently from the region of Cádiz, judging by the pottery). These Phoenicians seem to have rapidly become the dominant element at the settlement (by what means it is impossible to tell). Here at Tavira, as elsewhere in Portugal, the primary interest of the settlers was the metals obtained by navigation of the river Gilão into the hinterland of the site. Some of the metals were then processed at Tavira before being shipped on, perhaps to Gadir. The archaeological work at Tavira is only just beginning, and further excavation will undoubtedly improve our knowledge of this fascinating site.145 Certainly if it is confirmed that the arrival of the Phoenicians at the site took place in the eighth century BC as the excavators suspect, then that would put the settlement at Tavira among the first wave of colonial foundations in Iberia. As one of the earliest Phoenician settlements in Portugal, and the one closest to Cádiz, it

Fig. 1.18 The Phoenician landscape: a view of the lower Guadiana, the river dividing Spain and Portugal

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

would tell us much of the interest which Gadir had in penetrating the Atlantic Late Bronze Age trading circuits, and establishing a lasting presence in the metal-rich region of southern Portugal. There are signs of contact with the Phoenicians in the indigenous sites controlling the estuaries of all the main rivers along the Atlantic seaboard of Portugal, from the Guadiana in the extreme south as far north as the Mondego (Fig. 1.18). These contacts can be traced through the presence of imported wheelmade pottery, the red-slip and grey ware, as well as amphorae and pithoi, found in the pottery repertories of the indigenous sites. In fact, the abundant presence of amphorae in these sites suggests that wine and oil may have occupied a prominent place among the goods offered by the Phoenicians. As at Tavira, all the imported ceramic material is very similar to the pottery produced in the colonial sites of southern Spain. In the Sado river region, these materials are found at Setúbal and Alcácer do Sal, located at the mouth of the river and at the interior of its estuary respectively (Fig. 1.16).146

Alcácer do Sal and Sétubal At Alcácer do Sal contact with the Phoenicians seems to have been particularly intense. The pottery of the orientalizing level of occupation at the site, which dates to the period between the seventh and sixth centuries BC, contains only some 11.5% of hand-made pottery, a figure which declines to 8.7% by the end of this period, while some of the buildings adopt the rectilinear ground-plan introduced to Iberia by the Phoenicians.147 In addition, the cemetery at Alcácer do Sal included among its grave-goods scarabs, decorated ostrich eggs, and double-spring fibulae.148 At the mouth of the Sado, Setúbal has also yielded Phoenician pottery during phases I and II of the occupation of the site. The same period brought with it a rapid decline in the percentage of hand-made pottery, from 84% of the total to some 24%.149 Abul The reason for such a marked Phoenician influence at these two sites lies in the presence of a small colonial settlement at Abul, occupying a peninsula on the right bank of the Sado estuary. The site was occupied sometime between the second quarter and the middle of the seventh century, down to the first quarter of the sixth century BC (Abul A) (Fig. 1.19), when it was dismantled and its building materials reused to create a further settlement on another hill close to the original settlement, in turn occupied down to the fifth century (Abul B). Abul is the most extensively excavated Phoenician site in Portugal, and it therefore

39

gives us a good insight into Phoenician urbanism in the region. In a fascinating development, the important role of religion has been demonstrated by the excavations, both for ritual, and also, very possibly, for economic purposes. Abul A went through two phases of occupation, with a remodelling of the settlement sometime in the second half of the seventh century, probably as a result of the settlement’s need for expansion.150 The pottery consists of red-slip and abundant grey ware, along with amphorae (all of Vuillemot’s R–1 type), all of which have numerous parallels in native and colonial contexts in southern Spain; this suggests that Abul’s inhabitants probably originated from the Phoenician colonies in Spain.151 Recent petrographical analysis on the pottery from Abul confirms that a large part of it was indeed imported, with a significant amount coming directly from Castillo de Doña Blanca.152 The settlement at Abul was probably founded to take advantage of the access which the Sado river provided to the interior of Portugal, and possibly also to the important copper resources of the south-west of the country. Along with the Tagus, the Sado river region was an important source of gold, and this may also have been a consideration in the Phoenicians’ choice of settlement.153 Frankenstein suggests that the Sado and Tagus rivers had a significant role in the regional commercial network of Atlantic Iberia, linking the copper resources of south-west Portugal and the lead of Extremadura with the tin and gold of the north-west; the trade therefore in metals passing through Alcácer do Sal might have played a factor in attracting the Phoenicians there.154 Certainly there is evidence of metallurgical activities at Abul, with finds of a tuyère similar to that from the metal workshop at Morro de Mezquitilla, as well as slag. The excavators suggest that the metal treated here may have been iron, something of obvious value within the trade circuits of the region, which were still immersed in the Atlantic Late Bronze Age patterns of production and exchange.155 Certainly it seems that the region was important enough for the Phoenicians to continue to frequent it even after the abandonment of the settlement at Abul A in the first quarter of the sixth century. After a hiatus, the end of the sixth century sees the construction of a small shrine on the hill overlooking the ruins of the Phoenician settlement. The building, set in an open-air courtyard, was rectilinear in plan with benches running along the walls of the rooms. Its material culture is an evolved version of that from Abul itself, so the shrine was definitely built for and used by people of Phoenician origin.156 The activities undertaken there, with signs of fires, and the finds of the bones of many small and very young animals, are

40

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 1.19 Abul (Portugal), plan of the Phoenician settlement: (i) urban layout; (ii) pottery

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

strongly reminiscent of those from the site at Montemolín on the Corbones river in the province of Seville (discussed below, pp. 131–2). What it points to is the great importance of religion to the Phoenicians – something that also struck the Greeks and the Romans, who associated the foundation of shrines with the earliest Phoenician settlements in the western Mediterranean and beyond. In fact we may see at Abul a similar pattern to that from Kommos in Crete, where the Phoenicians founded a temple in an area with active trading activities and access to iron as a means of entering into the economic activities of the region.157 With the abandonment of the settlement at Abul, therefore, the Phoenicians obviously still wanted to maintain a presence in this economically important region, and may well have decided that the foundation of a shrine would allow them to do precisely that.

Quinta de Almaraz, Lisbon and Santarém Evidence of an active Phoenician presence north of the Sado comes from a cluster of sites along the Tagus, at Lisbon, Quinta de Almaraz near Almuda, and Santarém (Fig. 1.16). On the estuary of the Tagus we find a small Phoenician site in close contact with the indigenous sites downstream, which provided it with access to the resources of the interior. The site at Quinta de Almaraz occupies a spur of land which dominates the mouth of the Tagus estuary. It seems to have had two moments of occupation: on one part of the spur, there is evidence of an indigenous Late Bronze Age settlement, with purely local hand-made pottery; while on the lower part of the spur the pottery is dominated by wheel-made Phoenician materials. Here red-slip ware, the Phoenician fine table ware, is prominent among the pottery assemblage, and this site has produced more red-slip ware, with a greater variety of forms, than anywhere else in Portugal (although the on-going results from Tavira may change this). Indigenous hand-made pottery, on the other hand, is rare, making up less than 3.6% of the materials in one part of the site. We can therefore view Quinta de Almaraz as a Phoenician settlement, founded in the second half of the seventh century, according to the classification of its pottery – two radiocarbon dates, when calibrated, point to its occupation during the ninth century or the start of the eighth century. Either it was founded after the abandonment of the indigenous settlement there, or else co-existed with it – a situation we find also at Casa de Montilla (Adra), on the Guadiaro river in Cádiz. Quinta de Almaraz may well have produced some of its own pottery and used it to trade with the indigenous sites upstream; the latter had been in

41

contact with the Phoenicians since the eighth century, judging by the pottery finds. Phoenician pottery has also been found in the cloister of the cathedral in Lisbon, dating to the eighth and seventh centuries. Associated with the Phoenician materials were copper- and possibly also tin-slag.158 Further up the Tagus, orientalizing pottery was also found at Santarém, dating from the eighth to sixth centuries BC, and it soon came to dominate the pottery at the site.159 The Tagus may have attracted the Phoenicians because of its alluvial gold resources mentioned by Pliny (NH IV. 115): however, it was also important because, as the largest river in the Peninsula, it provided access deep into the interior of Iberia and acted as a channel whereby the tin, silver and copper of Extremadura could all easily reach the coast. Judging by the close parallels between the Phoenician pottery found in Lisbon and Almaraz, and that produced by the colonial sites in Andalusia, as well as by the proliferation of orientalizing luxury goods found in the areas alongside the Tagus (around Cáceres and Toledo), the river was an important route for Phoenician trade.160 The choice of the Tagus as a route for Phoenician commercial expansion helps to explain the many orientalizing objects and influences far into the interior of Iberia, such as the treasure of Aliseda and the enigmatic palace-sanctuary at Cancho Roano.161

Santa Olaia The most northerly Phoenician settlement in Portugal is located at Santa Olaia on the Mondego river (Fig. 1.16).162 Here a strong oriental influence is visible in the urbanism, pottery and activities of the site. The settlement, located on the mouth of the river, dominated a bay, providing it with an ideal position both for maritime and fluvial navigation. In fact it contained several features, including a mole, which allow us to speak of a port attached to the site.163 It was fortified and within the walls the houses followed the typically Phoenician pattern of a rectilinear groundplan, with stone socles and adobe superstructure. These houses were built on a number of terraces which covered the hillside site, and which were supported by retaining walls. In one area excavation of the retaining wall shows it to have been built with the pier-and-rubble construction technique characteristic of Phoenician architecture. A very similar wall, with a comparable function, was found in the indigenous site of Huelva, where it has been interpreted as an introductory gift from the Phoenicians to the inhabitants of the settlement, and where it appears in other sites in southern Spain (Carmona and Niebla, for example), it has been taken as infallible evidence of the presence of Phoenicians.164

42

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Santa Olaia appears to have had an extensive industrial quarter, with smelting furnaces, similar to those found at Toscanos, as well as lime-kilns to provide lime for use in the cupellation process.165 Large amounts of iron ore were also found at the site, so clearly metal production played an important role in the economy of the settlement. It is obvious that the iron produced at Santa Olaia would have provided an attractive trading commodity to exchange for the metals (especially the tin and gold) of the Beira region where the site is located. An interesting feature of the metallurgy carried out at Santa Olaia is that no moulds or any signs of the production of metal objects are attested there, perhaps indicating that the metallurgical activities were designed to carry out only an initial processing of the minerals, before they were shipped elsewhere.166 The Phoenician pottery found at the site (red-slip ware, grey ware, some bearing Phoenician grafitti, amphoras and pithoi) all points to a seventh-century date for the foundation of the settlement. Orientaltype materials are also found during the sixth century, but by the fifth century the site comes under the influence of the Celtic culture of the Meseta.167 The settlement at Santa Olaia was in close contact with the large indigenous site at Conimbriga, situated on the opposite side of the Mondego. It too has revealed Phoenician materials, and clearly the iron produced at Santa Olaia could have been traded with the inhabitants of Conimbriga.168 Although, as we have noted, Santa Olaia marks the most northerly Phoenician settlement so far located in Portugal, it is clear that it did not mark the limit of Phoenician activities in the region. Only very recently have typical Phoenician materials, such as amphorae and table ware, started to be recognised in the earliest castros of the metal-rich region of Galicia in the extreme north-west of Spain. Clearly the gold and tin of that area, along with its important bronzeproduction industry, must have attracted the Phoenicians. However it is still open to debate how contact was made. Avienus speaks of the indigenous peoples of the north-west of Iberia sailing south to meet the Phoenicians and trade with them. Perhaps in this way the Mediterranean materials reached the extreme north-west. Perhaps also the Phoenicians sailed north from bases such as Santa Olaia. Or perhaps there was a mixture of both situations. What is clear is that the identification and analysis of Phoenician materials in the extreme north-west of Iberia will have much to tell us about the limits of Phoenician activity in the Atlantic sphere, and about the extent of their influence in the development of the Castro culture.169

Conclusions

When looked at as a whole, the Phoenician presence in Portugal was clearly concentrated on the coast, with settlements and trade along the lower stretches of the major rivers. This provided them with access to the interior, as well as landing places on the way to the tinfields of the north-west. Trade with the indigenous peoples seems to have extensive, and aimed at acquiring from them the natural resources under their control, basically metals. In return for tin, gold and the other mineral resources of Portugal, the Phoenicians offered access to hitherto almost unknown technical advances, such as iron, wheel-made pottery, fine wines and olive oil. This picture thus closely conforms to the traditional explanation offered for the Phoenician presence in western Europe – the search for metals. The Phoenician presence in Portugal should be viewed in conjuntion with their settlements in Alicante and Ibiza and their trading activities in this region, up as far as southern France. In both Portugal and south-east Spain one of the chief attractions for the Phoenicians was the flourishing indigenous Late Bronze Age Atlantic metal trade, of which La Peña Negra was an integral part. The settlement at La Fonteta may well have been founded to consolidate and intensify pre-existing trade contacts with La Peña Negra, and it was followed a century later by a Phoenician enoikismos at the indigenous site. La Fonteta was also probably linked with the earliest Phoenician presence on Ibiza, possibly at Sa Caleta and more definitely at the Bay of Ibiza. The function of Ibiza was to trade with the indigenous society of northern Spain and southern France, a trade which was centred around the exchange of food products for metals, especially bronze, as the warehouse site of Aldovesta indicates. Ibiza and La Fonteta therefore emphasise the importance, and the attractions, that the indigenous Late Bronze Age metal-trade had for the Phoenicians. The early chronology attributable to Castillo de Doña Blanca, La Fonteta and Tavira, all dated to the eighth century, according to pottery-based chronology, shows that right from the start of permanent settlement in Iberia, the Phoenicians had a good knowledge of the indigenous societies there, and of their economic activities. They were also able to focus on what was important to them – in this case the preexisting indigenous trade and exchange of metals, originating in the Atlantic regions of the Peninsula.

Phoenician settlements in Atlantic North Africa

Both the archaeological and literary evidence makes it clear that North Africa, from Algeria to Morocco, was

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

incorporated into the economic sphere of Phoenician Iberia from the eighth century BC. A number of authors tell us that the Phoenicians travelled beyond the Straits of Gibraltar and sailed far down the Atlantic coast of North Africa. These ventures into the Atlantic are particularly associated with Gadir, the Phoenician Cádiz.170 Analysis of the pottery from this area points to close links between Iberia and North Africa within the Phoenician context at four places: in Algeria at Rachgoun and Mersa Madakh, and in Morocco at Lixus and Mogador (Fig. 1.20).

Rachgoun The island of Rachgoun, 2 km from the mouth of the river Tafna, off the coast of Algeria (Fig. 1.21), was occupied by a small settlement with its associated cemetery from the seventh to the fifth centuries BC.171 The pottery from the settlement and cemetery showed clear similarities with that produced in the Phoenician sites of Iberia. Thus the so called Cruz del Negro urns, the pithoi, the R–1 amphorae and the tripod bowls from Rachgoun are all characteristic of the Phoenician sites in Iberia, and are rarely found in Carthage or the central Mediterranean (Fig. 1.22).172 The similarities with Iberia extend to the imported pottery at Rachgoun.

43

The Attic SOS amphora found on the island is a frequent import in the Phoenician sites in Iberia, appearing at Toscanos and Cerro del Villar in Málaga, and at Aljaraque in Huelva. It also occurs at sites in the far western Phoenician koiné, such as Mogador in Morocco, but it is apparently absent in Carthage.173 Aubet Semmler has pointed out the similarities between the burial practices attested at Rachgoun, with their cremations in Cruz del Negro urns, and the indigenous cemeteries in the Guadalquivir valley, which share the same burial ritual and cinerary urn. According to her, these similarities reflect contact between the indigenous inhabitants of south-west Iberia and North Africa, as both the burial ritual (cremation in urns placed in shallow holes in the ground) and the cinerary urn (the Cruz del Negro amphora) have only been found in the context of the indigenous cemeteries in Tartessos.174 However, the discovery of the first burials at the Phoenician settlement of Ibiza shows that the use of Cruz del Negro cinerary urns buried in the ground is not the exclusive prerogative of the indigenous population of southwest Iberia. In fact, the recently discovered Iron Age Fig 1.20 Map showing Phoenician settlements in North Africa

44

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 1.21 (left) The island of Rachgoun (Algeria), seen from the south

cremation burials in Tyre follow an identical ritual, in cinerary urns which are remarkably similar to the Cruz del Negro vessels.175 There is therefore nothing either in the burial rite or the artefacts found at Rachgoun which might lead us to believe that the Iberian influences are exclusively the result of interactions with the indigenous Tartessian society (although this does not exclude some contacts), but within the framework of Phoenician navigation and trade.176

Fig. 1.22 (below) Rachgoun, pottery: (i) R-1 amphora; (ii) pithos; (iii)–(iv) Cruz del Negro urns

Mersa Madakh Further evidence of contact with the Phoenician sphere in Iberia comes from the small settlement of Mersa Madakh, some 50 km east of Rachgoun (Fig. 1.21). While the majority of the pottery consisted of hand-made ware, the wheel-made pottery was represented by large quantities of the R–1 amphorae, along with some examples of the Cruz del Negro urn. This indicates that Mersa Madakh shared Rachgoun’s orientation towards the west rather than to Carthage and the central Mediterranean.177

Lixus Contact with Iberia continued west of the Straits along the Moroccan coastline. According to the literary evidence, Lixus (the semitic lks) is one of the first Phoenician settlements in the far West, founded along with Gadir and Utica shortly after the Trojan war (Fig. 1.21).178 Nothing has however been found there which could securely date the foundation of the settlement to a period earlier than the eighth century BC. The site was situated on good agricultural land, in one of the

few natural harbours along the very inhospitable Moroccan coastline. It was also located on the river Loukkas, which provided it with easy communications with the interior, from where it could obtain gold and ivory. It also had access to copper, iron and lead in the Atlas mountains.179 The oldest pottery from Lixus shows strong links with that of the Phoenician sites in Iberia. The R–1 amphorae, pithoi and tripod

SETTLEMENT TOPOGRAPHY

bowls are types which are distinctive western productions, only occasionally found in the central Mediterranean.180 It is possible to be even more precise, and state that the similarities are closest between the Lixus material and that from the Phoenician site at Castillo de Doña Blanca, a place intimately associated with Cádiz.181 These similarities beween the Iberian pottery and that of Lixus extend

Fig. 1.23 Mogador (Morocco), Phoenician pottery: (i–iii) red-slip ware; (iv) tripod bowl; (v) R–1 amphora; (vi, a–b) two-spouted red-slip lamp

45

also to the hand-made ware found at the latter site, which shows close links to that found in the indigenous sites of southern Spain, and occasionally also in colonial contexts there.182

46

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Mogador Lixus also served as a stopping point on a route that went south to Mogador, another site which belongs to the Ibero-Phoenician koiné (Fig. 1.21). Mogador was a conspicuous spot, as it was one of only three islands along the 1,000 km of the Atlantic coast of Morocco, and thus allowed the Phoenicians to follow their usual practice of choosing a small island close to the coast for settlement.183 The island was inhabited from the first half of the seventh century down to the mid-sixth century; however, even during this period, occupation appears to have been seasonal only.184 No walls have been found there, and the only signs of dwellings come from some hearths and floors of beaten earth. The inhabitants of Mogador may therefore have lived in flimsy huts or perhaps in tents, as did those Phoenicians who visited the island of Cerne in Africa described in the Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax.185 The only stone structure found on the island is a large quadrangular pillar, 1.47 m long, with a small cavity near the top, which may have been a baetyl, and served a religious purpose, acting as an altar or shrine.186 Undoubtedly Mogador was a small trading post periodically visited by Phoenician sailors and traders and used by them as a base from which to trade with the inhabitants of the mainland.187 The settlement at Mogador has yielded a lot of pottery, the majority of which consisted of amphorae and large storage jars, with only very small amounts of fine table ware, as one would expect in a settlement with a primarily commercial function. As in the case of Lixus, the pottery here attests to very close links with the Phoenician settlements in Iberia (Fig. 1.23). These links are visible not just in the types of Phoenician pottery which are found there, the red-slip plates and bowls, the tripods, the incense burners, the Cruz del Negro urns and the R–1 amphorae, all of which are characteristic of the pottery production of the Phoenician sites in Iberia, but also in the imported pottery found in Mogador. The Attic SOS amphorae and Chian amphorae at Mogador are also found at Toscanos, as are the Cypriot Bichrome IV vessels.188 All these pottery types, both Greek and Phoenician, are found in Iberia, but the closest parallels for the Mogador material comes from Castillo de Doña Blanca, a site (as we have seen) in the immediate orbit of Cádiz. The links are so close, both in the types of vessels represented and the clay, that the excavator of

Castillo de Doña Blanca has claimed that Mogador ‘depended absolutely on Cádiz’.189 Despite the 1,000 km separating Cádiz from Mogador, it is clear that the latter site was fully incorporated into the Phoenician koiné of Iberia, and given the similarity in the pottery between Doña Blanca and Mogador, it seems likely that Cádiz was the origin of the materials found on the island. Scylax tells us that the Phoenicians frequented this area in search of ivory and the skins of exotic animals. Obviously the animal skins are not detectible archaeologically, although elephant bones were found on Mogador, and 13 tusks from African elephants were found in the wreck of a seventh-century Phoenician ship at Bajo de la Campana, off the coast of Murcía (Fig. 1.2). Trade in unworked ivory and ivory objects was part of the Phoenician long-distance trade in luxury goods and the Phoenician cities played a prominent role in supplying worked and unworked ivory to Israel, Assyria and Greece.190 Of all the North African sites discussed so far, only Lixus could claim to have reached some degree of urban development, although the extent of its urbanism in the seventh and sixth centuries is still open to question.191 The other sites never went beyond the level of small settlements, in the case of Mogador occupied only seasonally; they were founded to carry out a specific purpose, either commercial or strategic, and abandoned as soon as they were no longer necessary.192 However their importance for us is that they show that a large area of the Mahgreb was actively involved in the commercial and strategic activities of the Phoenician colonies in Iberia. Obviously, as in Greece, the sea could unite rather than divide, and in this case North Africa and Iberia belong to the same geographical unit: Braudel called it the Mediterranean Channel, with its Atlantic extension, an area whose inhabitants had been in contact with each other since early prehistory.193 The unification of the area north and south of the Straits is visible in a number of different areas, especially the pottery, where the same types recur in indigenous and colonial contexts in Iberia and North Africa and are only occasionally found further east (see Appendix for details). This unity of pottery production was first identified by Tarradell in the early 1960s, and he coined the term Círcolo del Estrecho to describe the sites of Iberia, western Algeria and Morocco.

2

Cemeteries Introduction

Our knowledge of the nature and function of the Phoenician settlements in Iberia comes not only from the investigation of the settlements themselves, but also from the cemeteries adjoining these sites. Often the graves of these earliest colonists offer us greater insights into the identity of the settlers, their activities and social position, than the places where they lived and worked. The latter have very often been rendered inaccessible to archaeology by their continuous occupation down through the centuries, as is most notably the case with Cádiz. The cemeteries associated with several Phoenician foundations have been located. Generally they follow a distinct pattern in terms of their location, tending to be situated on a low hill next to the sea and close to the settlement area which they serve. But their most characteristic geographical feature is that they are separated from the habitation sites by water, normally being situated on the opposite side of the river from the settlement area itself.1 This settlement pattern is obviously not randomly chosen, since we find similar arrangements in Phoenicia itself: the Iron Age necropolis of Tyre, for example, is situated on the mainland at Ushu, or Paleotyre, on a beach separated by more than one kilometer of sea from the island city itself.2

Fig. 2.1 Map of Eastern Andalusia showing the location of Phoenician settlements and their cemeteries

We know of only a handful of definite Phoenician cemeteries in Iberia which belong to the first period of Phoenician settlement there during the eighth and seventh centuries (Fig. 2.1) – Toscanos on the hill of Cerro del Mar, on the left bank of the Vélez river; Morro de Mezquitilla, at Trayamar, on the right bank of the Algarrobo; and the recently discovered cemeteries at Lagos, near Chorreras, and Cortijo de Montañéz, near Cerro del Villar. At Almuñécar there is the necropolis located on the hill of Cerro de San Cristóbal, with at least some burials corresponding to this period in the largely Punic-period cemetery at Puente de Noy, while in Ibiza there are the earliest burials in the Puig des Molins cemetery. There are also possible Phoenician burials at Castillo de Doña Blanca within a tumulus on the hill of Las Cumbres, at Tavira in southern Portugal, and also at La Fonteta in Alicante, where the stelai incorporated into the Islamic fortification wall strongly suggest the existence of a Phoenician necropolis at the site. In the sixth century we often have a change in the location of cemeteries, corresponding to the change in settlement pattern frequent during this time.3

Cerro de San Cristóbal

The first of these cemeteries to be discovered was that

48

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

located on the Cerro de San Cristóbal hill, at Almuñécar in the province of Granada (Fig. 2.1). It was found accidentally in 1962 by some workers building houses on the hill of the Cerro de San Cristóbal. This is a promontory 1 km to the north-west of the Castillo de Almuñécar, the old centre of the town, where the Phoenician settlement of Sexi is thought to have been located. While levelling the site, deep shafts began to appear, some three to five metres deep, which contained at the bottom large alabaster jars, in which were found cremated human remains, and a variety of grave goods. The construction workers discovered and looted eight graves (nos 4–11), and the whole site would surely have been lost had it not been for the decisive intervention of a local woman, Laura de Prieto Morena, who alerted the authorities to the existence of the site, and in whose honour its chivalrous excavator, Manuel Pellicer Catalán, named the cemetery Laurita. Nowadays more prosaic archaeologists and historians prefer to call it by its location, Cerro de San Cristóbal, and it will be referred to by the latter name here. The site was excavated in 1962 by Pellicer, who found a total of 20 graves representing all the burials on that site.4 The graves extended over an area approximately 650 m2, following the slope of the hill, aligned in a north–south direction; they formed two rows which are at the most six metres apart from each other.5 The graves themselves were uniform in structure, consisting of roughly circular or oval shafts, with a maximum diameter of between 1.50 m and 2.50 m, and a depth of between 2 m and 5 m (Fig. 2.2). Their typology corresponded to Tejera’s groups VI and VI,6 while Pellicer divided them into five groups, depending on the position of the cinerary urn, and the existence of either one or two lateral niches: (i) with the cinerary urn in a lateral niche at the bottom of the shaft, and the niche blocked off by one or more stone slabs (Tombs 3, 14, 17 and 20) (ii) with two niches and two burials (Tombs 15 and 19)

(iii) with a double burial in a niche and in an irregular cist (Tombs 1 and 3)

(iv) with the cinerary urn sunk into the bottom of the shaft and protected by large blocks of stone (Tombs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 16) (v) without a burial.7

The niches are oriented to the north in tombs 1, 2, 3 and 17, and to the south in tombs 14 and 15. But the chief peculiarity of the Cerro de San Cristóbal necropolis was the cinerary urns, which are all, without exception, alabaster jars, some of which carry hieroglyphic inscriptions and cartouches of various

Fig. 2.2 Cerro de San Cristóbal necropolis at Almuñécar: (above) section of tomb 2; (opposite) grave goods from tomb 2, an alabaster urn, a two-spouted lamp, two jugs and a plate

Egyptian pharaohs (Fig. 2.3). The urns were placed in an upright position, sunk into the floor of the niche or the shaft itself, with their handles towards the side of the niche; their cartouches, if they had any, turned to face the entrance of the niche, as if to frighten off an intruder.8 These urns contained burnt human bones, which had previously been separated from the ashes, together with unburnt objects of personal adornment. They were found either uncovered, or covered simply by a stone. Some of the urns had been repaired before they were placed in their shaft with patches of alabaster attached with tin clamps, as in the case of the urn found in tomb 3A or 15A. Almost all the urns were stained with red ochre.9 The grave goods consisted of plates, in one instance still containing the bones of a bird or rodent, and trefoil and mushroom-lip jugs, which are frequently

CEMETERIES

found in funerary contexts and generally in association with one another (Fig. 2.4).10 The trefoil jug was designed for holding liquids, such as water or wine, while the mushroom-lip jug owed its name to the large, rounded, flat disk which made up its mouth and which was designed for the pouring of oils or unguents.11 Both these jugs showed signs of having once contained organic material. Lamps and Protocorinthian kotylai were also found in some of the tombs, as were decorated ostrich eggs containing ochre. These grave goods were placed on top of, or

49

near to, the cinerary urn, protected by large blocks of irregular schist, some weighing up to half a ton. The rest of the fill of the shaft contained blocks of medium sized schist in a clayey medium.12

Parallels These graves are unusual in at least two respects, their structure and their burial urns (Fig. 2.5). In terms of their structure, that of deep circular or oval shafts, the only direct parallels are found in other Phoenician cemeteries in the Peninsula itself, at Casa de la Viña

50

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 2.3 (left) Cerro de San Cristóbal cemetery, Almuñécar, Shaft Grave 17, Egyptian alabaster urn with a representation of Bes and a cartouche of the Pharaoh Osorkon II; height 45cm.

Fig. 2.4 (opposite) Cerro de San Cristóbal, Almuñécar, Phoenician pottery: (i) red-slip mushroom-lip and trefoil jugs: (1) grave 13; (2) grave 20; (3) grave 19; (4) grave 12; (ii) red-slip plates; (5) grave 2; (6) grave 15b; (7) grave 16; (8) grave 17; (9) context unknown and Lagos: at both these the shaft was also used for burial, as far as we can judge from the very poor state of preservation of the graves found there.13 Outside the Peninsula, other similar graves are found only in Carthage in the early necropolis of Juno.14 In contrast to those at the Cerro de San Cristóbal necropolis, the Carthaginian pozzi are smaller and much shallower, reaching depths of only 1.20 m on average, compared with depths of up to 5 m at Almuñécar. The shafts at the Juno necropolis in Carthage correspond to Pellicer’s type D, with a central hollow cut into the floor of the shaft, into which the urn is placed. The other type of burial found at Almuñécar, with the urns in lateral niches, is not found at Carthage, where the niches were used to hold grave goods only.15 In general, these shafts are quite different from the more common form of eighth- and seventh-century

Phoenician method of cremation, that is, cremations placed in shallow cavities or holes in the ground.16 These cremations can be in urns, small stone boxes (either monolithic or made from two hollowed-out blocks), or otherwise simply placed in the earth without any protection, or perhaps wrapped in cloth which has not survived. Examples of this kind of simple burial are found both in the East and the West, most notably in Hama in northern Syria at the start of the Iron Age, Athlit on the Palestinian coast in the eighth and seventh centuries, and recently in Tyre itself. Here the Iron Age necropolis was located in 1997 on a beach in the eastern part of the Roman and Byzantine necropolises, and is currently being excavated by Professor Aubet of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra of Barcelona. It consists of cremation burials ranging from the tenth to the seventh centuries and which take the form of

CEMETERIES

51

52

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 2.5 Cerro de San Cristóbal necropolis at Almuñécar, (left) section of tomb 12; (below left) drawing showing contents including an alabaster urn, a red-slip trefoil and mushroom-lipped jug, and a red-slip plate

cinerary urns, with accompanying grave goods, buried in shallow holes in the sand of the beach.17 In the West, similar cremations are found in the early cemetery at Motya dating to the eighth century, on the island of Rachgoun off Algeria, dating to the seventh, and in Phoenician and Phoenician-influenced cemeteries in the Iberian Peninsula in the seventh and sixth centuries at Frigiliana in Málaga, Puig des Molins in Ibiza and La Joya in Huelva.18 So apart from a partial parallel in the Juno necropolis in Carthage, the shaft grave of the type found at Cerro de San Cristóbal, with a lateral, irregularlyexcavated niche into which the burial is placed, along with its grave goods, is unknown in the western Phoenician area. Hitherto similar graves have been found only in the East, such as at the Bronze Age necropolis near Sidon which, however, contains only inhumations.19 According to their excavator, the Almuñécar shaft graves are the result of a mixture of two distinct traditions, the shaft being of Tyrian or Sidonian origin, where it is used for inhumation only, and cremation which came from northern Syria. The mixture of burial rite and grave structure is, it is surmised, the result of ethnic mixing.20 Tejera suggests that it was the cremation burials near the Phoenician colonies between Mount Carmel and the north of Athlit and Dor, influenced by Tyrian and Sidonian traditions, which could have been the origin of the shaft graves at the Cerro de San Cristóbal.21 While the question of the origins of the cremation burial in the shaft grave must remain unclear, all we can say at the moment is that this method of burial, with only one exception, remains unique to the Iberian Peninsula. Cinerary urns With the other distinguishing feature of the Cerro de San Cristóbal necropolis, the alabaster jars used as cinerary urns, we are on firmer ground (Fig. 2.6). These hold the cremated remains of not more than one individual, along with small personal items, usually pieces of jewellery or scarabs, placed there for their apotropaic value. Four of the urns bear the cartouches of Osorkon II, Takelot II and Sheshonq III, pharaohs of the XXII dynasty who reigned in succession to one another in the ninth and eighth centuries.22 The inscription on the alabaster urn in tomb 16 was originally attributed by Pellicer to Sheshonq II, an obscure figure of whom very little is known. This was corrected by Kitchen, who identified the cartouche with

CEMETERIES

Fig. 2.6 Almuñécar, Egyptian alabaster and marble urns

53

54

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Sheshonq III, who reigned from 825 to 773, thus bringing us into the eighth century.23 Therefore, the three pharaohs represented at Cerro de San Cristóbal now stand as Osorkon II (874–850), Takelot II (850–825), and Sheshonq III (825–773). These jars can be accepted as genuine Egyptian products, and not merely Phoenician imitations – such as the glass jug from the treasure at Aliseda in the province of Cáceres, with its pseudo-hieroglyphic inscription.24 They are made from calcite, a form of calcium carbonate which was extracted from the Sinai in the eastern desert of the Nile.25 Their forms all have abundant parallels in Egypt, and the hieroglyphic texts inscribed on the urns of tombs 1 and 15 are wholly Egyptian in both style and content: they must have been the work of someone completely familiar with the Egyptian language and script as well as Pharaonic religion. In other words, as Gamer-Wallert has pointed out, they were produced by an Egyptian, not a Phoenician imitator.26 All this seems clear enough. The question is how did the seventeen alabaster urns found in situ in the Cerro de San Cristóbal necropolis, the largest group of such vessels to be found outside Egypt, reach the Phoenician settlement at Almuñécar?27 Judging by the texts inscribed on two of the urns in Almuñécar, these jars were originally manufactured as recipients for wine, a product in which Egypt had a long tradition.28 This idea is supported by the fact that the inscriptions on other, roughly contemporary, alabaster jars found in Thebes, Assur and the mouth of the Barbate river in the province of Cádiz, invariably refer to wine.29 We can assume that these vessels travelled to Spain on Phoenician carriers, given the fact that they have always appeared there in either wholly Phoenician contexts, such as the Cerro de San Cristóbal necropolis, or in native settlements which had strong links with the Phoenicians.30 From the cuneiform inscription found on one such alabaster jar, in the palace of Assurnasirpal II at Assur, we are told that this particular container, containing oil, came from the treasure of Abdimilkuti, king of Sidon, which had been looted by the Assyrians in c. 677. Thus we know that these Egyptian jars were present in Phoenicia itself, originally containing wine, as we can infer from the hieroglyphic text inscribed on the jar.31 There are two theories as to how such jars reached the Phoenician cities: either that they were part of an illicit trade in antiquities robbed from Egyptian royal tombs, where several such jars have been discovered,32 or they were simply the result of commercial exchanges with Egypt and especially of Egypt’s diplomatic dealings with its Asiatic neighbours. The second theory seems the more likely, given

the proliferation of this kind of material outside Egypt throughout several centuries,33 and the close contact that the Phoenician cities enjoyed with Egypt during the first centuries of the first millennium. It is also supported by the volume of Egyptian products of all kinds found in the Peninsula, evidently brought by the Phoenicians as a result of trade with Egypt.34 These commercial and diplomatic exchanges with Egypt’s neighbours consisted of offering certain types of produce, whether as gifts or in trade, in containers which enhanced their value. Clearly the Phoenicians must have valued the containers more than their contents, as is proved by the fact that they used jars, originally designed to contain wine, as cinerary urns in their cemeteries. Perhaps the hieroglyphic inscriptions carried on some of the jars were felt to have some kind of apotropaic or magical function as they did in the scarabs and scaraboids which the Phoenicians buried with their dead.35 The date of the burials As for the dating of the necropolis at Cerro de San Cristóbal, we have various possibilities depending on whether we follow the dating given by the alabaster urns36 – that offered by the presence of the two Protocorinthian kotylai found in the grave goods of burial B in tomb 19 (Fig. 2.7)37 – or the Phoenician graffiti painted on the urn in tomb 3.38 Pellicer identified the kotylai as belonging to the first blackfigure style, dating them to the first quarter of the seventh century,39 and on this basis he assigned a date of the first half of the seventh century to the whole necropolis. Shefton subsequently re-examined the pieces and attributed one to the end of the eighth century, while the other, which in his view could have been an imitation from Pithekoussai or Cumae, he dated to the first half of the seventh century.40 Padró rejected the kotylai as a valid indication of the dating of the necropolis. He points out that tomb 19 which contained the kotylai also contained a cinerary urn of the alabastron type. Parallels for the latter have been found dating from the XXVth and XXIVth dynasties, that is, from the second half of the eighth through to the seventh centuries, making it one of the most recent of all the burial urns in the necropolis.41 In addition, tomb 19 itself is the grave furthest away from the settlement of Sexi. If we can accept the premise that generally in Phoenician cemeteries the latest tombs are those located furthest away from the habitation site, that would make tomb 19 the latest of all the burials at the Cerro de San Cristóbal.42 He prefers to rely on the evidence given by the urns themselves. The new dating of the cartouches gives us pharaohs who reigned from c. 874 to 773, providing a chronological

CEMETERIES

Fig. 2.7 Cerro de San Cristóbal cemetery in Almuñécar, Shaft Grave 19, two Protocorinthian kotylai, in the Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Granada; height 16.5cm and 16.4cm. range from the second half of the ninth to the first half of the eighth centuries, with the possibility that some of the urns might be slightly more recent again. He gives as the earliest possible start of the burials at Almuñécar the reign of Osorkon II (874–850), and feels that burials could not have continued throughout the seventh century, given the general absence of Greek pottery and other objects characteristic of Phoenician cemeteries in the seventh century, such as the ceramic burial urn and the double-spring fibula.43 We can also look at the Phoenician pottery itself to provide us with evidence for the dating of the site (Fig. 2.4). Plates can be dated according to the width of their rims in relation to the diameter of the plate as a whole. The narrower the rim in relation to this diameter, the earlier it is in the series. With the passage of time, the rims progressively get wider.44 The mushroom-lip jugs also show typological development which can be used to set them in a chronological framework. Here the salient point is the height of the neck ridge. A ridge lower on the neck and nearer the body of the vessel is indicative of a later date.45 Following these criteria, Negueruela examined the ceramic grave goods and came to the conclusion that tombs 13 and 20 are the oldest, with a date towards the end of the eighth century, while the remaining tombs cover the period down to the end of the third quarter of the seventh century.46 Given the progress made in the studies of the material remains of the Phoenician colonies on the Andalusian coast, and the definition of more exhaustive stratigraphical sequences based on Phoenician pottery, Negueruela’s conclusions can be accepted as valid as far as they go. Unfortunately, however, of the twenty tombs published by Pellicer, only seven could be dated by analysis of their pottery, as Phoenician

55

pottery was not present in the other tombs. But as some of the latest pottery forms were found precisely in those tombs whose urns had cartouches (tomb sixteen with the cartouche of Sheshonq III and tomb seventeen with that of Osorkon II), it seems that to disregard the evidence of the pottery, and give the necropolis a start in the early eighth century, based on the Egyptian cartouches, would be a mistake; in any case there is a strong possibility that the alabaster urns, which were valuable and exotic objects, may have been placed in the graves as heirlooms.47 The necropolis on the hill of Cerro de San Cristóbal is in fact exceptional in many aspects. A mere twenty graves yielded Egyptian alabaster urns, with royal cartouches, in shaft graves, both unparalleled elsewhere. In addition, there are two examples of Greek pottery of the late eighth and early seventh centuries, a considerable quantity of Phoenician red-slip pottery, and the earliest appearance of iron in a stratified context in the Iberian Peninsula (in tomb 19). As the first cemetery to be excavated in Spain which could be definitely identified as Phoenician rather than Punic, it provided the first archaeological corroboration of what was already known from Classical sources and from a few sporadic finds without any firm archaeological context – the existence of Phoenician settlements on the south-east coast of the Iberian Peninsula. The Cerro de San Cristóbal cemetery is also exceptional in terms of its relationship to other Phoenician cemeteries outside Spain. Compared with the roughly contemporary early cremation burials at Motya, it stands out in terms of the elaborateness of the tombs, and the effort put into their construction (shafts up to five metres deep compared with shallow hollows in the rock at Motya), and also in terms of the opulence of

56

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

its grave goods. In contrast to the Egyptian alabaster cinerary urns, in Motya we have pottery urns or simple loculi to house the mortal remains of the settlers there. More significantly, at Motya only 9% of the pottery was made up of imports (of which the most numerous were kotylai), and very often we find local imitations in place of the imported Protocorinthian, with two-handled cups acting as substitutes for Protocorinthian kotylai.48 The Almuñécar cemetery also clearly outshadows in terms of its wealth the contemporary burials from Tyre. Exceptional, too, is the clear Carthaginian influence visible in the structure of the tombs and their grave goods. Apart from the Cerro de San Cristóbal necropolis, shaft graves with cremation burials have been found only in Carthage, and it is only in Carthage that we find Egyptian alabaster jars used to hold cremated human remains.49 The Cerro de San Cristóbal necropolis also provides the only example of decorated ostrich eggs which have been found in a Phoenician context of the eighth and seventh centuries. In the light of these differences we could perhaps hypothesize that Almuñécar was colonized by a different ethnic group from the people who settled at Toscanos, Chorreras, Morro de Mezquitilla and the other sites on the Mediterranean littoral of Spain. Alternatively, these links with Carthage may merely reflect a group of settlers who apparently enjoyed closer trade relations with the African city than did the other Phoenician sites in Spain, and who could afford to add ostrich eggs to the list of imported exotica found in the cemetery.50 Other burials at Almuñécar? It is obvious that the twenty graves of the ‘Laurita’ necropolis could not represent all the burials of the eighth- and seventh-century Phoenician enclave of Sks. Not all the inhabitants of the settlement could have afforded an alabaster urn imported from Egypt for their ashes, and twenty tombs are too few to account for a time span of circa one hundred years.51 Consequently we must suppose that the Cerro de San Cristóbal cemetery was not the only one to serve the early years of the Phoenician settlement at Almuñécar, and that some other burial place for the economically less privileged inhabitants of the area must have existed. During the building work which led to the discovery of our necropolis, a burial in a pottery cinerary urn was discovered at the foot of the Cerro de San Cristóbal hill, but Pellicer was unable to obtain any further information about it.52 Perhaps this find came from a further undiscovered part of the early burial area at Sexi, now destroyed by building on the site.

The necropolis at Lagos

Further west, in the province of Málaga, another Phoenician cremation cemetery was discovered fifteen years ago during building work in the valley of the river Lagos, on the Mediterranean coast of Andalusia. This site is 8 km east of Torre del Mar, where the Phoenician site of Toscanos is located, and only 3 km from the Algarrobo valley, with its Phoenician settlement at Morro de Mezquitilla and necropolis at Trayamar (Fig. 2.1). The Lagos river is now dry, but must once have been a good means of communication with the interior, as well as providing suitable conditions for irrigation agriculture. The valley itself is flanked by two high promontories, to the west by Cerro y Mar, also known as Chorreras, where a large eighthcentury Phoenician settlement was located, and to the east by a slightly lower promontory, the Cerro de la Molineta. These form a small bay which is in turn an excellent natural port and harbour. On a clear day from the top of these hills it is possible to see the Vélez valley, where Toscanos was located, the bay of Málaga and the valley of the Guadalhorce river, all areas occupied by the Phoenicians. As Aubet has pointed out, the mutual interrelation between the various Phoenician sites in this area was obviously close in terms of visibility and reference points for navigation.53 Immediately adjoining the Cerro de la Molineta hill to the east is a slightly lower hill, the Cerro Carchín, and, in the track which runs between these two hills, the remains of a Phoenician cremation burial were first discovered in October 1989 (Fig. 2.8). During the construction of a road, mechanical diggers uncovered a fossa dug in the rock which still contained an alabaster urn, in an upright position, with cremated human remains inside. Unfortunately, because of financial constraints, the subsequent rescue excavations in Spring 1990 could only investigate those areas disturbed during the building work, and, as a result, the size, boundaries, density and spatial characteristics of the necropolis at Lagos must all remain unknown. However, judging by the presence of deep shafts cut into the natural schist rock in areas near to the cremation burial, which were found empty of any contents, we can infer that there must have been other graves which have long since been looted of their grave goods.54 The shafts and small fossa cut into the natural schist were protected or hidden by large blocks of slate and reached an average depth of about 1 m. The only structure located by the excavation which could be definitely identified as a burial was grave 1A, with its alabaster cinerary urn, although the remains of another cremation, 1B, were also found. The fossa in which grave 1A was found has an elongated oval

CEMETERIES

Fig. 2.8 Lagos, Málaga, necropolis, grave goods: (i) alabaster funerary urn; (ii) silver swivel-pendant with scarab; (iii) amphora; (iv) pithos; (v) red-slip plate; (vi) fragment of a bronze ring

shape, approximately 0.60 m in height and with a diameter of roughly 0.29 m. As it had been almost destroyed by bulldozers, it is impossible to tell whether the grave took the form of a simple fossa designed to contain one or more burials, or whether it

57

constituted only the lateral niche of a much larger shaft grave, similar to those found at the Cerro de San Cristóbal necropolis at Almuñécar.55 Fragments of red-slip pottery were found at the bottom of the burial fossa; there were also further

58

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

pottery fragments in the area immediately around the fossa, along with burnt human bones coming from another cremation burial 1B. These were probably originally contained in the pottery amphora, the fragments of which were found with the bones. Grave 1B itself was not located, and must have been destroyed in the building work, but the excavator believes that it may have been situated somewhere on the slopes of the Cerro de la Molineta hill. As the pottery fragments discovered in the area around grave 1A were mixed up with the cremated bones of grave 1B, it is impossible to determine to which of the burials these objects should be assigned. Part of an amphora, a pithoid vase with two handles, and a small red-slip plate were identified from the fragments. Other fragments could be assigned to some kind of large vessel, probably another amphora, although its exact form could not be determined. All the Phoenician pottery discovered at Lagos was found to show remarkable similarities with the pottery from the nearby Chorreras in terms of its finish, and the clay itself. Although none of the forms identified in Lagos allow us to date the burials with absolute precision, they can be used to assign a date somewhere at the end of the eighth century.56 While the majority of the alabaster urns from the cemeteries at Almuñécar, Trayamar and Cerro del Mar share the same elongated oval shape, the Lagos jar, 35 cm in height, is smaller, and with its torpedo shape, has a different form from that of its counterparts in Andalusia.57 Closer to our vessel in form than the Almuñécar jars are two jars found in Andalusia, but without any known archaeological context. They have the same pointed shape and have similar handles to those on the Lagos jar. One was found 200 years ago in Churriana, near the Phoenician settlement of Cerro del Villar, at the site of a suspected Phoenician cemetery.58 The other comes from the Puerto de Santa María, or the mouth of the Barbate river, both in the province of Cádiz, and bears a hieroglyphic inscription identifying its owner as a priest buried in Thebes in the XXIInd Dynasty.59 The latter jar offers the closest parallel in the Iberian Peninsula to the jar from Lagos, although other very similar jars have been found in the East.60 Apart from the pottery and the alabaster urn, the only other significant finds were a bronze ring and a silver pendant with a scarab, dated to the first half of the first millennium. This object is very similar to a scarab mounted in a silver swivel ring, found in grave 3 at the Cerro de San Cristóbal necropolis, the same grave which provided a torpedo-shaped jar similar to the jar from grave 1A at Lagos.61 Given the quality of the grave goods, it is obvious that we are dealing with two relatively rich burials,

which in terms of their composition and quality are at least comparable to the grave goods from Almuñécar. Yet nothing that could be securely identified as a burial was found in the area round graves 1A and 1B at Lagos, a circumstance which may indicate that we are dealing with a secondary or peripheral sector of a necropolis, the centre of which was perhaps situated on the top of the Cerro de la Molineta hill. The situation of the graves themselves is surprising. Located on the edge of the Lagos valley and adjacent to the Algarrobo valley, they are only 1.8 km away from the Phoenician settlement of Chorreras, suggesting that these graves may well have been linked to this site. Chorreras was occupied over approximately fifty years, from the middle of the eighth century, and yet no burials corresponding to the settlement have, as yet, been located. The only necropolis in the Algarrobo valley is the chamber tomb cemetery at Trayamar dating to the seventh century, by which time the site at Chorreras had already been abandoned. Therefore it seems likely that the two burials at Lagos may have formed part of the cremation necropolis of the settlement at Chorreras. This theory is supported by the pottery found at Lagos, which dates to the late eighth century and is very similar to the pottery from Chorreras.62 If this is indeed the case, and we can link the burials at Lagos with the Phoenician occupation of the hill of Chorreras, then that would indicate that the site at Chorreras was not linked directly to the control of the territory of the Algarrobo valley, as was previously supposed, but instead was linked to the valley of the river Lagos,63 changing our picture of the functions and purpose of the Phoenician settlements in this area.

The necropolis of Toscanos

Only 8 km west of the necropolis at Lagos is the Vélez valley with its hill-top sites at Toscanos, Cerro del Peñón and Cerro del Alarcón. While the settlement remains of the eighth and seventh centuries are relatively well known, we have less information about the cemetery corresponding to the early Phoenician occupation of the Cortijo de los Toscanos.64 The discovery of a bronze Phoenician thymiaterion which apparently came from the Peñón hill led its excavators to suspect that the early necropolis must have been situated there. But despite the fragments of an alabaster urn found on the eastern side of the Peñón, the most recent excavations on the hill have uncovered only industrial and some residential remains.65 In the Museo Arqueológico Nacional in Madrid there are several objects dating to the Phoenician era which were discovered in the eighteenth century at Casa de la Viña on the hill of Cerro del Mar, directly

CEMETERIES

Fig. 2.9 Casa de la Viña, Cerro del Mar (Málaga), mushroom-lip and trefoil red-slip jugs and four alabaster vessels

59

60

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

across the river from the settlement at Toscanos (Fig. 2.9). These objects consist of a mushroom-lip and a trefoil jug, both covered in a characteristic Phoenician red slip, and dated on stylistic criteria to the midseventh century,66 and four alabaster urns, dated by comparison with those from Almuñécar to sometime between the late eighth and the seventh centuries. Judging by the large size of two of the urns, and their shape, they may well have been used to hold cremated remains, whereas the small size of the other two urns suggests that they were probably grave goods and were used to hold perfumes.67 Given these finds, it was probable that the eighth- and seventhcentury necropolis of Toscanos was to be located somewhere on the slopes of Cerro del Mar. But it was not until the 1978 excavations that this cemetery was finally located. On the western slope of the Cerro del Mar hill, the side directly overlooking the settlement, twenty-eight definite and fourteen probable shaft graves were found extending over an area of 350 m2 (Figs 1.3 and 2.1).68 As the necropolis had been built over during the Roman era, all that was left of the burials was the floor of the shaft graves, with a rectangular or square ground plan, cut into the natural rock. An additional hollow inside the bottom of the shafts, measuring between 0.50 m and 0.70 m in diameter, was evidently designed to hold the cinerary urn of each burial. In one of these structures the base of an alabaster urn was found still in situ and two more fragments of alabaster urns were found on the surface of the hill.69 In addition, inside the remains of these shaft graves, or in their immediate vicinity, small fragments of red-slip pottery were found. These have not been helpful in providing a date for the burials at Casa de la Viña, but the discovery in one of these graves of a fragment of a Protocorinthian kotyle, with a linear geometric style of decoration, gives us a date right at the beginning of the seventh century. This date should represent only the start of burials here, while the better preserved grave 14 provides us with the last phase of burial at this site. This is a fossa grave which must be dated to the sixth century, judging by its form and the few remains of pottery found there.70

Shaft graves in Iberia: an evaluation

The cremation necropolis at Casa de la Viña is the last site to be definitively identified as a Phoenician necropolis belonging to the first period of burials which extends grosso modo from the late eighth century (Cerro de San Cristóbal, Lagos) to the seventh century (Casa de la Viña), with a possible burial area at Cortijo de Montañez (Fig. 2.10), associated with the settlement at Cerro del Villar.71 These graves form a distinct group which, as we will see later, differs

significantly from the subsequent burials in the later seventh and sixth centuries, both in terms of funerary structure and ritual. From the mid seventh-century onwards we see an increasing opulence in the graves, with ashlar-built chamber tombs, reached by a rockcut dromos. Instead of the single burials which make up the majority of the shaft graves, now we have tombs which seem to have been used as family vaults, with successive burials in the same chamber stretching over a period of two or more generations. It is interesting to note that the later seventh century, when increasing amounts of investment, labour, time and planning were invested in the construction of large, imposing chamber tombs, is also the time when the Phoenician settlements themselves reached the height of their prosperity: new, more solid and imposing constructions superseded older buildings on these sites at this time, new sites proliferated, and existing settlements expanded to occupy new areas. This phenomenon of growing ostentation in the tombs built in the later seventh century is not limited only to Spain, but is also found in other areas of Phoenician settlement such as at Carthage and on Malta, and is shared by many of the burials in the indigenous society of southwestern Iberia. In comparison, the cemeteries we have examined form a coherent group in terms of their structure (the use of the shaft graves for single or occasionally double burials) and the burial method which is, without exception, cremation. These cremations, as far as we can tell, did not occur in situ and there must have been at least one ustrinum, or common funeral pyre, for each necropolis. So far none of these ustrina has been identified in the Peninsula, with the exception of that at Tumulus 1 in the Las Cumbres cemetery at Castillo de Doña Blanca, discussed below. The charred remains were carefully separated from the ashes, perhaps by sieving, and placed in alabaster urns. These are the distinguishing feature of this initial group of cemeteries, in which all the burials, with the possible exception of grave 1B from Lagos, were placed in alabaster urns, apparently of Egyptian manufacture. In the chamber tombs, alabaster jars are still found as cinerary urns, but now they appear in conjunction with pottery cinerary urns; the latter are generally simple amphorae, which have been given a red slip to mark their new purpose and distinguish them from those used for less solemn functions.72 The alabaster cinerary urns are accompanied by grave goods, generally some combination of the mushroom-lip and trefoil jugs, and the simple saucer-shaped lamp and plate, all with the characteristic red slip. But the identifying feature of this group of early cemeteries is the use of cremation. No eighth-century inhumations have

CEMETERIES

61

Fig. 2.10 Cortijo de Montañez (Málaga), material from the cemetery been found, and their first appearance is in the chamber tombs of the seventh century. Partial parallels to the cremation burials in shaft graves have been noted in the Juno necropolis at

Carthage which also provides, as we have seen (p. 56), the only known instance of alabaster jars used as cinerary urns outside the Iberian Peninsula. However in general these graves show more differences than

62

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

similarities when we compare them with contemporary burials in the other Phoenician sites scattered throughout the Mediterranean. In terms of their form73 and their cinerary urns they are exceptional. They are also unusual in terms of size. This earlier period accounts for only fifty definite burials and fourteen probable ones (along with the as yet uninvestigated possible shaft graves from the Las Cumbres cemetery at Castillo de Doña Blanca) in a period which extends over a century, compared with figures in the thousands for later Punic cemeteries. Overall the picture is one of relative uniformity in the burials, with no marked differences of wealth or status emerging from them. This may well be because both the ritual and the objects chosen for the burial were determined by tradition and did not reflect the social status of the individual buried there. By comparison with the roughly contemporary cremation necropolis at Motya, however, clear differences do emerge. A general comparison of the two cemeteries gives the impression that the Spanish burials reflect a wealthier community than that in Sicily, or at least a community with access to international commercial circuits linking the eastern and western sides of the Mediterranean. Such links are witnessed abve all by the presence of Egyptian alabaster urns and imported Protocorinthian kotylai, as well as by North African ostrich eggs. But, as in Sicily, we do not see any sharp distinctions in wealth and status, unlike the tombs built in succeeding generations, where imposing ashlar chamber tombs alternate with simple shaft graves. The simpler forms of burial such as the shaft graves and cremations in shallow cavities in the rock, which initially were prevalent across all social classes, now become the prerogative only of the less privileged sectors of society.74

Chamber tomb burials

Trayamar This new style of tomb is best exemplified in Spain by the necropolis at Trayamar, situated only 3 km to the east of the Lagos cemetery, on a hill which rises up from the coast and the alluvial land of the current river valley; the cemetery is on the west bank of the Algarrobo river, directly opposite the settlement area which it served, on the summit of the hill of Morro de Mezquitilla (Fig. 2.1).75 Here five built tombs, each with access via a dromos, were found. All the Trayamar tombs are made up of a single rectangular chamber sunk into the ground at a depth of up to 4.50 m and constructed from ashlar blocks. The entrance to the chamber is invariably found on one of the narrow sides, and always opens onto a dromos which in tomb 1, the only tomb in which the dromos could be

excavated, was a simple narrow ramp cut into the natural earth. The entrance is oriented towards the east in the direction of the settlement at Morro de Mezquitilla. The tombs all display slight differences in their construction techniques, which may be due to chronological differences, or partly also to different traditions in the workshops or on the part of the masons responsible for their erection. The tombs also display the use of wood in their construction, it seems for decorative as well as practical purposes. As for their external appearance, it is possible that they were originally surmounted by small tumuli, as tomb 1 had once been covered by a small conical mound.76 Construction work on the hill of Trayamar in the 1930s first brought to light the existence of this necropolis, and tomb 1 was then partially excavated by the workmen who discovered it, and its contents dispersed. The remaining tombs were excavated in 1967 and 1969 by the German Archaeological Institute in Madrid, which carefully documented them before they were destroyed in the course of constructing agricultural terraces shortly afterwards. Although tomb 1 had been damaged by the building work which led to its discovery, the burial chamber itself was still recognisable, consisting of an ashlar chamber approximately 1.90 m wide by 2.50 m long (Fig. 2.11). Two stages of burials were found, separated by a short interval of time during which the ceiling of the chamber seems to have partially collapsed. The roof was ridged and made of wood and seems to have been placed at a height of 1.70 m above the floor of the chamber. A bronze nail, found on the chamber floor at some distance from the burials, was probably once part of the framework of the roof. The chamber door is located in the southern half of the eastern wall and is crowned by a lintel made up of two flat blocks with an obliquely-cut joint. The door opens directly onto the narrow access ramp, the floor of which was not levelled and is slightly concave. The door of the chamber was sealed by a conglomerate of stones made up of roughly-hewn blocks and boulders. The grave goods had been robbed in the 1930s but, from what remained, it was possible to identify two burials which succeeded each other with a certain interval of time between them (Fig. 2.12). Working on the assumption that when we have two examples of a particular object, we can assign one of the objects to each burial, the grave goods of each burial consisted of two rough-walled amphorae, two red-slip amphorae with lids, two circular supports to keep the amphorae upright, two mushroom-lip jugs and two trefoil jugs. The red-slip amphorae acted as cinerary urns, and were provided with lids and placed upright on the circular supports. They were surrounded by their

CEMETERIES

Fig. 2.11 Trayamar (Málaga), cemetery, drawing of chamber tomb 1, seen from above

grave goods consisting of the jugs, the rough-walled amphorae, a lamp, a plate, an incense burner and some personal objects. In the dromos fragments belonging to several vases and amphorae were found together with a complete red-slip plate.77 Only 600 m away from tomb 1, two other chamber tombs (tombs 2 and 3) had been totally destroyed during the construction of agricultural terraces. By questioning the workers who had destroyed the tombs, and observing the remains, the excavators were able to ascertain that tomb 2 measured 3.80 m by 2.00 m, and was approximately 2.5 m high. The chamber was buried at a depth of between 1.50 m and 2 m below the surface, and its walls were built from rectangular blocks of limestone which probably came from the Cerro del Peñón, the hill overlooking the Phoenician site of Toscanos. The entrance to the chamber was in its narrow eastern side. No traces of the dromos, which probably consisted of a ramp cut into the natural rock, now remain. Inside the tomb there were two alabaster urns containing cremated human remains. The workers who had witnessed the destruction of the tomb said that it had also contained

63

numerous bones, presumably the remains of inhumations which would indicate the coexistence of both rites, or a prolonged use of the chamber not reflected in its remaining contents. In addition, it contained the fragments of two amphorae, some closed forms of vessel, a lamp and a support.78 In the case of tomb 3, the only information we have comes from the descriptions of the workers who were there at its destruction. The chamber tomb seems to have been roughly the same size as tomb 4 (discussed below), with a rectangular ground-plan, ashlar walls and eastward orientation. There seem to have been fewer finds than in tomb 2, although they included at least one alabaster cinerary urn. Unfortunately none of the pottery vessels mentioned by the workers have been preserved.79 Tomb 4 also consists of a burial chamber, partially built from limestone blocks, with a wooden covering and an entrance on the eastern side. It measures 3.90 m long and 2.90 m wide. The east and west walls of the chamber are the gable walls, designed to support the roof of the structure. They are higher than the side walls and more crudely constructed, being made from pieces of slate and gravel held together with mud. The chamber seems to have had a flat wooden ceiling, the remains of which have been found inside the building, and a ridged roof. The most peculiar aspect of this structure is the presence of a groove between 7 cm and 8.5 cm high and 7.5 cm wide, on top of the third and fourth row of masonry. The groove was probably originally used to insert a wooden band which would have had practical as well as decorative functions in the tomb. Between these two wooden bands, in the fourth layer of ashlars, there were two niches in the centre of the western and northern walls.80 Inside the chamber there were three cremations (4a, 4b and 4c), dating to the first period of use of the tomb, and two inhumations from the second phase of use; in addition, there were many finds which could not be definitively assigned to any one particular burial. The cremations were found on small stone slabs and must have been originally placed in containers made from perishable material (perhaps wood, or baskets as in Carthage). Cremations 4a and 4b were found in the south-west and north-west corners, while cremation 4c was found in the centre of the chamber, beside a broken amphora which would have originally acted as its container. It seems to be slightly more recent than the other cremation burials. Two mushroom-lip jugs were also found on the floor as was a two-beaked lamp; all three vases may be assigned to cremations 4a and 4b. Two mushroom-lip jugs and a group of vessels found in the south-east corner of the chamber are more difficult to assign to any particular burial, although

64

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 2.12 Trayamar (Málaga), tomb 1, selection of grave goods: (i) red-slip amphora with lid and support; (ii) roughwalled amphora; (iii) red-slip mushroom-lipped jug; (iv) red-slip trefoil jug; (v) incense burner; (vi) two-spouted lamp

CEMETERIES

given the fact that they show parallels with tomb 1 they could belong to the earlier cremation burials. The three cremation burials belong to the first phase of use of the tomb. Only when a layer of reddish clay between 5 cm and 8 cm deep had been formed were two or possibly three inhumation burials deposited, all of which were found in an exceptionally poor state of preservation. The remains of the skeleton of the 4d burial were found in the north-west corner of the chamber tomb, and its disturbed appearance indicates that it must have been robbed, given the wealth of its golden adornment, the remains of which were found scattered around the body.81 Burial 4e had much more modest grave goods, consisting of items of pottery and only one small gold ring; it appears not to have been disturbed by robbers. The niche in the south wall was empty but that in the north wall contained a small ivory box, while that in the west wall held two trefoil jugs, a mushroom-lip jug and a bronze double-spring fibula. Other objects in a secondary position on the floor of the chamber included an amphora and a fragment of iron which probably belonged to the grave goods. However other finds situated in various strata laid down inside the chamber were obviously the result of offerings placed on top of the tomb after it had been closed, and which subsequently fell inside the burial chamber after its roof collapsed. These offerings consisted of complete plates and fragments of red-slip pottery, as well as some red-slip closed vessels. They can be paralleled with the find of a red-slip plate deliberately placed in an upright position in the dromos of tomb 1, directly outside the door to the burial chamber.82 One final tomb, tomb 5, was identified during the excavations of the site. Along with tombs 4, 3 and 5, it was destroyed by terracing work on the site and thus could not be systematically investigated. It was situated between tomb 1 and the group of tombs 2, 3 and 4. According to the workmen who destroyed it, tomb 5 was also a chamber tomb, some 7 m by 4 m, with a longitudinal axis in a north-west to south-east direction. None of the contents were recovered, although it is possible that the tomb may have contained at least one alabaster urn.83 The dating of the chamber tombs can be based only on the almost complete tomb furniture of tombs 1 and 4. The differences in construction technique notable in the tombs themselves can just as easily be a reflection of different workshops and construction traditions used in their building as the result of chronological differences between the various tombs. So, judging by the similarity of their grave goods, tombs 1 and 4 were occupied roughly at the same time, with tomb 1 being slightly older than tomb 4, perhaps dating around 650.

65

However, before the later burial 1b took place in tomb 1, tomb 4 was built with its cremation burials 4a, 4b and 4c, at the beginning of the second half of the seventh century. One of these cremations must be contemporary with burial 1b and probably with one of the inhumations of the second phase, in the late seventh century. The most recent finds in strata 8 of tomb 4 can be dated to c. 600, when the funerary cult at this tomb was abandoned.84 These five chamber tombs represent the only burials at Trayamar to have been scientifically recorded; all but one have since been destroyed by agricultural work. However they do not constitute all the burials at this site. According to the labourers who witnessed the destruction of tomb 3, burials in shafts cut into the rock were also discovered in the area around tombs 2 and 3 (in addition to the chamber tombs themselves). If this were indeed the case, then it is possible that the Phoenician necropolis at Trayamar also contained shaft graves like those in the cemeteries at Almuñécar, Lagos and Cerro del Mar. Either these represent a phase of burials earlier than the mid-seventh-century chamber tombs, and contemporary with the similar cemeteries at Almuñécar and Lagos, or perhaps these simpler tombs represent the burials of those who did not have the means to have large, imposing and costly tombs built to house their mortal remains.85

Chamber tombs in Almuñécar: Puente de Noy The same type of monumental tomb was discovered in excavations of a Phoenician necropolis on the hill of Puente de Noy at Almuñécar (Fig. 2.1). This necropolis is far more extensive than its predecessor at the Cerro de San Cristóbal, and contains burials dating from the seventh to the first centuries, bringing us right down to the Roman era.86 The majority of burials take the form of inhumations, and the most common form of grave is the fossa, dated by the grave goods and parallels with other cemeteries to the fifth and fourth centuries. However two particularly spectacular tombs have been found which date to the second half of the seventh and the sixth centuries. These take the form of an ashlar-built chamber tomb with a dromos (tomb 4 of ‘zone C’), and a deep shaft with a lateral chamber (tomb 1 of ‘zone E’).87 Tomb 4C was very poorly preserved and all that remained of its grave goods were fragments of a plate and a bronze nail; the latter might indicate that the burial ritual in use in this tomb was inhumation in a wooden coffin (Fig. 2.13). The chamber itself measured approximately 3.20 m long by 2.20 m wide and was 4 m high. It had a niche in the front wall next to the entrance and probably had a ridged roof made from large stone slabs. Entrance to the chamber was via a rock-cut dromos and the

66

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 2.14 Puente de Noy, Tomb 1E: (above) isometric drawing; (opposite) grave goods

Fig. 2.13 Puente de Noy cemetery, Almuñécar, plan of Tomb 4c; pottery found within

entrance faced east, just as at Trayamar. Many of these features recall the chamber tombs at Trayamar, but the materials recovered in the area of the dromos date to the fifth century. The discovery of two carved stone lions in the area near the tomb may indicate that it had some form of external monument, marking its location; this was probably similar to the funerary tower we find in the East, generally associated with chamber tombs. As it is only in the Achaemenid

period that these structures acquire monumental proportions, we can fix the mid-sixth century as a terminus post quem for this tomb. The continuation of finds down to the fifth century suggests its use as a family vault over several generations. The monumental aspect of this tomb indicates the existence of a wealthy class who could afford such ostentatious burials, and of workshops specialising in large scale funerary constructions to satisfy such needs.88 Closer in age to the Trayamar tombs is tomb 1E, dating to the second half of the seventh century, which consists of a deep shaft, some 7.5 m long, with a lateral burial chamber, measuring some 3.45 m wide with a depth of 1.90 m (Fig. 2.14). The chamber contained several burials, including one cremation, and an inhumation inside a wooden sarcophagus. Although the tomb had been robbed, the excavators were able to recover quite a number of pottery objects, including red-slip plates datable to the second half of the seventh century, and two amphorae also dating to the seventh century.89 One interesting feature is the discovery in the access shaft of a large quantity of fragments of plates which appeared at different levels in the shaft and seem to have been broken and thrown down there intentionally during some kind of

CEMETERIES

funerary ritual which took place while the shaft was being covered with earth.90 Apart from the plates, fragments of a jug, a carinated bowl and some East Greek vases were also found. Chamber tombs in Iberia: Mediterranean parallels The tombs from the cemeteries at Trayamar and Puente de Noy are the oldest chamber tombs known

67

so far in the Iberian Peninsula. They are also the only ones attributable to the first period of Phoenician colonisation, that is, the eighth and seventh centuries, before the transition to the Punic period; the latter phase is conventionally dated in Iberia from the sixth and fifth centuries onwards.91 The tombs obviously represent a dramatic change in burial structure from the earlier shaft graves, both in terms of their monu-

68

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

mentality and the introduction of a new burial ritual, that of inhumation. However these chamber tombs are far from unique in the Phoenician world, and are paralleled by more or less contemporary burials in Utica, Carthage and Cyprus. Three built chamber tombs have been identified at Utica in northern Tunisia, of which tomb 8 from the ‘Nécropole de l’île’ appears to be the closest to the Trayamar tombs.92 It has a simple, almost isodomic construction technique, and displays between the third and fourth courses of ashlars a space which may have been destined to hold a wooden beam, indicating that here there was a similar alternation of wooden and stone elements to that in the tombs at Trayamar. As in tomb 4 at Trayamar, tomb 8 has a niche in the centre of the back wall. However tomb 8 differs from the Trayamar tombs in several aspects, including its roof, which was flat and made from long stones which covered the chamber.93 Unfortunately none of the original grave goods of tomb 8 have survived and its dating can therefore be approximate only. The chamber tomb burial is well represented in Carthage where it appears in the second quarter of the seventh century, contining until the end of the sixth century. Especially frequent there in the DouimèsDermech necropolis and on the Byrsa hill, it is in general found in those parts of the cemeteries which are regarded as being among the oldest in the city.94 In Carthage the single built tomb, opening on to a lateral shaft or dromos, is represented by less than one hundred burials out of the more than three thousand tombs excavated there. Its high cost, in terms of transport of materials and the numerous skilled workmen required for its construction, would have made this form of burial accessible only to the very rich.95 In terms of their typology, the Carthaginian tombs are closer in form to the Utica example than they are to those from Spain. They share the same flat stone ceiling, above which a pitched roof, made from sloping stone slabs, acted as a relieving arch, easing the load of earth on the tomb’s ceiling. The pitched roof was concealed at the front by a facing wall built in horizontal courses. This gave the tomb a frontal emphasis which does not seem to have been the case at Trayamar, where the gable walls were rather neglected and sometimes more crudely constructed than the side walls.96 However some of the Carthaginian tombs do show, by the presence of grooves in the upper part of the walls, that a wooden framework existed or perhaps even a wooden ceiling. Such a feature is found in the most luxuriously decorated tombs, such as that of Yada’milk (discussed below).97 While the built tombs from Carthage, Utica and Trayamar display general similarities in terms of their

structure and typology, they have enough differences to show that they came from the same koine but do not seem to have had a direct influence on each other. It therefore appears that we have to look elsewhere for the prototype of the Trayamar tombs. Schubart and Niemeyer suggest that the built chamber tombs may derive from the Late Bronze Age built tombs of Ugarit, which with their niches in the walls and entrance via a shaft or steep stair, share some common characteristics with the Phoenician chamber tombs of the western Mediterranean.98 Benichou-Safar, on the other hand, prefers to see the origin of the built tombs in Egyptian funerary architecture which, in the burial chamber of the royal pyramids, or the mastabas of the chief dignitaries, shows an organization in hypogea with a shaft providing access to them.99 Although she regards the Egyptian influence as fundamental for the Carthaginian built tombs, she admits that the use of a sloping dromos to provide access to the burial chamber at Trayamar is a reflection of an Anatolian tradition transmitted via Cyprus, where it appears in the necropolis of Palaeopaphos, Tamassos, Amathus and Salamis.100 In any case, wherever the ultimate origin of the Phoenician-built tombs of the western and central Mediterranean may lie, the tombs at Trayamar display, as Schubart and Nimeyer have pointed out, a Phoenician and specifically Tyrian construction tradition in their alternation of wood and stone in the walls of the burial chamber – a tradition reflected, moreover, in the accounts of the building of the temple and palace of Solomon in Jerusalem by Phoenician architects and builders, lent out for this purpose by Hiram of Tyre.101 This same alternation of three rows of stone and one row of beams is also found in Bronze Age Ugarit and early Iron Age Palestine, and this and other parallels link the tombs of Trayamar with the Phoenician cities and the Syro-Palestine area in general.102 Given the divergences between the Spanish tombs and their counterparts in North Africa, it seems that we must put aside a direct North African influence, and attribute the building of the Trayamar chamber tombs to architects working in a specifically eastern tradition.

Burials and society

As well as providing us with insights into the various constructional techniques adopted, a comparison with similar contemporary burials in other parts of the west Phoenician world offers us glimpses of the kind of society reflected by these ornate tombs. A level of wealth and ostentation comparable with that at Trayamar is also found in Carthage with the grave of Yada’milk (Fig. 2.15). This is also a large chamber

CEMETERIES

69

Fig 2.15 Carthage, tomb of Yada’milk, selection of grave goods, including the so-called ‘Carthage medallion’ (vii) tomb, richly decorated and provided with splendid grave goods, including an engraved medallion with the oldest Punic inscription found at Carthage. It is dedicated to Astarte and Pygmalion by Yada’milk, son of Padai. Yada’milk is very probably one of the two

bodies buried in the tomb, and must have once worn the engraved medallion. By the palaeography of the medallion’s inscription and the presence of a Protocorinthian skyphos, the tomb can be dated approximately to the first half of the seventh century.103

70

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

In its structure, grave goods and abundance of silver and gold jewellery, the burial from Carthage is similar to the Trayamar chamber tombs, especially number 4 with its richly adorned inhumation burials which date to the same period, that is, the second half of the seventh century. The inscribed golden Yada’milk medallion from Carthage is directly comparable with the gold medallion found in tomb 4 at Trayamar for instance.104 These chamber tombs, the construction of which would have involved architects, stone-cutters, carpenters and numerous workmen, evidently represented a considerable expenditure. The high cost of the tombs would have made this form of burial the prerogative of the very rich only, while the less affluent still continued to be buried in the simpler shaft or fossa graves which we find alongside the chamber tombs of Carthage and Spain. It is tempting to link these costly and extravagant burial structures to the settlements of the seventh century which, in Spain at least, show signs of consolidation and economic prosperity far greater than that of the initial eighth-century period. In Toscanos, the seventh century was the time when the central Warehouse Building (‘C’) was built, and the settlement expanded into the nearby hills, with an area of metallurgical workshops, processing copper and iron. At Morro de Mezquitilla in particular, whose inhabitants were buried at Trayamar, the seventh century brought with it a renewal of the existing urban structure with the old mud-brick houses being replaced by more solid, stone-built constructions, some of which are quite large and imposing in size. Undoubtedly the wealth reflected in the architecture of settlements and cemeteries was the result of the profits from the Spanish silver trade, then at its peak, as well as those from the equally lucrative Late Bronze Age Atlantic trade circuits. The ostentation of the seventhcentury burials in Phoenician society in Spain is reflected, and if anything, surpassed, by that of the indigenous cemeteries there, where the characteristic Phoenician ‘funerary service’ of red-slip jugs and plates is replicated in bronze, and where the grave goods sometimes include truly spectacular items, such as the walnut and bronze war chariot of tomb 17 at La Joya, the cemetery of the orientalizing settlement of Huelva.

Funerary rituals: cremation versus inhumation

The Trayamar tombs are interesting too in that in tomb 4 for the first time we see the appearance of inhumation, with burials 4d and 4e dated towards the end of the seventh century. We have seen that cremation was the preferred burial ritual in the eighth- and seventhcentury cemeteries in Spain, with all the burials at the Cerro de San Cristóbal, Lagos and Casa de la Viña

conforming to this pattern. The earliest burials in Trayamar, too, are cremations (in tomb 1), but with tomb 4 we find inhumations appearing for the first time, in this case sharing the same burial chamber with two cremations which preceded the inhumations by at most a few decades. Inhumation was soon to become the predominant burial rite in the Phoenician cemeteries of the Iberian Peninsula, at first alternating with, then gradually superseding, cremation as the century progressed. By the end of the sixth century it was to become the predominant burial ritual in Spain until it was replaced by cremation in the third century, this time under the influence of Hellenistic practices. The absolute predominance of cremation in the earliest phase of Phoenician colonisation is not exclusive to Spain. Cremation is predominant too in Sicily, where in the early cemetery at Motya almost all the burials are cremations,105 and in Sardinia where it accounts for all the burials at Nora and Bithia, and 91% of those at Monte Sirai.106 Cremations are also found in North Africa where, in the seventh-century cemetery at Rachgoun in Algeria, inhumations make up only a very small percentage of burials, again all corresponding to children.107 The only exceptions to the predominance of cremation in the west Phoenician settlements are found in the Central Mediterranean with Malta, where no cremations have been found, and at Utica in Tunisia, where all the burials attributable to the eighth and seventh centuries are inhumations. In Carthage, too, the situation is the opposite to that in Spain, Sicily and Sardinia. Here cremation is very much a minority ritual, confined to the earliest cemeteries only (Dermech, Juno, Byrsa), and it disappears completely around 600, not reappearing again until the last two centuries of the city’s existence.108 This brief examination of the funerary rituals practised in the Phoenician colonial settlements provides us with the impression of relative uniformity in the burial rituals used there: there is a general predominance of cremation up to the sixth century, with only a few exceptions, notably that of Carthage. The problems begin when we compare this picture with the situation in the Levant, where the cemeteries of the early part of the first millennium show an absolute predominance of inhumation, with cremation burials appearing only sporadically.109 Indeed it has sometimes been assumed that Semitic religious concepts were opposed to cremation, and the diffusion of this practice in the Levant from the end of the Bronze Age and the early Iron Age has generally been attributed to the penetration of new groups of peoples in this area, the Sea Peoples.110 However it has recently been shown that some of the examples of cremation which had been assigned to the settlement of the Sea Peoples

CEMETERIES

actually predate them,111 or else are much later – as for example at Deve Hüyük, where the majority of cremations date to the eighth and possibly the seventh centuries.112 It is only at Hama that cremation definitely appeared at the beginning of the Iron Age, but that may be due to Anatolian or Hittite influences, or simply because of the differences observable between Hittite and North Syrian burials: we may be dealing here with an independent development of the ritual which coexists with the majority of the inhumations.113 Certainly it is true that we do not have to wait for the arrival of the Sea Peoples for the introduction of cremation to the Near East. Bienkowski has compiled a list of cremation burials in Mesopotamia, North Syria, Anatolia and Palestine, all of which predate the Iron Age and some of which are significantly earlier than the twelfth century.114 Moreover in Phoenicia itself the recently discovered tenth-to seventh-century necropolis of Tyre consists of numerous cremations in urns, buried in the ground, and accompanied by red-slip pottery.115 Elsewhere in the region, the spread of cremation seems to have been gradual, with the first cremations appearing as sporadic occurrences within a tradition where inhumations are dominant.116 Some cremations were found at Tambourit, a few kilometres south of Sidon, dating to the last quarter of the ninth century, others in northern Phoenicia at Tell Arqa, near Tripoli, dating to the end of the eighth century or the start of the seventh century.117 More cremations are found in those areas of Palestine under Phoenician influence, at Achziv, datable to the eighth century, and at Athlit, where the cemetery of a Phoenician colony was found. All the burials at this site bar one are cremations and date to the seventh century. The only exception belongs to the sixth century when inhumation here again becomes the rule.118 None of these cremations are comparable in form or in context. At Khaldeh and Achziv cremations were the exception, while they are predominant at Athlit.119 The oldest cremations in a Phoenician context at present are those from Tyre itself, where they start in the tenth century, and from southern Palestine, at Tell Fara, in the Jordan valley, and at Tell Ajjul and Tell er-Regeish, near Gaza; these date from about 950 to the end of the ninth century.120 It is interesting that on present evidence cremation appears in Tyre, and in the supposed Phoenician colonies of southern Palestine, as it does in the Phoenician colonies of the Central and western Mediterranean. Therefore the archaeological evidence tends to disprove the theory that cremation was something that was inherently foreign to the semitic character. Thus cremation, far from being exceptional in the context of the Iron Age Syro-Palestine area, is attested

71

in a series of burials that stretch from Hama in the north, down through Phoenicia, and into the extreme south of Palestine, reaching back far earlier in time than the arrival of the Sea Peoples who, it was thought, introduced this burial rite to the Near East. The preference for cremation in the East helps to explain the preponderance of this ritual among the Phoenician colonies in the central and western Mediterranean. It is interesting in this respect that the only areas which differ significantly in their burial practices during the eighth and seventh centuries are located in North Africa, at Utica and Carthage. This would seem to indicate that the social or ethnic composition of the initial group of colonists there differed from that of other sites in the Phoenician diaspora. If we are to believe the foundation legend of Carthage, its initial settlers were not drawn from those groups apparently more commonly involved in the journeys to the West, but included representatives of the highest social classes at Tyre, and also a strong Cypriot element. Given that island’s emphatic preference for inhumation, perhaps the predominance of that ritual in early Carthage could reflect the influence of Cyprus.121 It has generally been the custom to affirm that funerary practices are the most conservative element in any society’s ideological structure and therefore the most resistant to change. Thus any alteration in these rituals must be the result of profound changes in the structure or ideology of the society in question,122 and may well indicate the infiltration of that society by new ethnic groups.123 However, in the vast majority of cases known ethnographically, a society is not defined by only one type of burial practice, but will undertake several different forms of burial, and these forms will often be correlated with the status of the deceased. These different burial treatments may be used to distinguish the rich from the poor, and adults from children, but as African ethnography shows, they may also be reserved for lepers, those killed by lightning, twins, suicides and many other categories impossible to identify archaeologically.124 Ethnographically one of the features characterizing burial rites is their speed of change and their relative instability.125 If we take the case of Mycenaean and Dark Age Athens, burial changes from multiple burial by inhumation in rockcut chamber tombs in the Mycenaean period, to single burials and cremations in the Submyceneaen, Protogeometric and Geometric periods, returning to inhumation again in the second quarter of the eighth century, and finally back to cremation again around 700. But despite the considerable changes in burial rituals there was no invasion of Attica or any considerable immigration during the period of the eleventh to the

72

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

sixth centuries.126 The same can be observed in Rome, where the evidence suggests that there were no changes in religious belief to explain the switch from cremation to inhumation in the second century AD, and these two practices were in no way distinguished either in funerary regulations or by funerary terminology.127 In the chamber tombs of Trayamar, where we gain our earliest evidence of the practice of inhumation by Phoenician settlers in Spain, we see the coexistence of inhumation and cremation in the same burial chamber with only a short interval of time separating both rituals. Both inhumation and cremation are housed in the same burial structure, the chamber tomb, and both share the same grave goods, so that the pair of mushroom-lip and trefoil jugs, the plate, lamp and amphorae are common to both burial rites. The only difference seems to be one of wealth: inhumation 4d with its rich gold jewellery is wealthier than the three cremation burials in the chamber, but then again it is also wealthier than inhumation 4e. The imposing ashlar-built chamber tomb is used to house both rituals indiscriminately at Trayamar. Here it seems that we are dealing with a continuity of social and religious practices, the only change being in the treatment of the body itself. While it may be an exaggeration to claim, as Cook does, that such a change may be due to nothing more than a change in fashion,128 perhaps the diversity of rites indicates only uncertainty as to the length of time which is appropriate to assign to the corpse before it assumes its definitive form, that is the skeleton. Some leave this function to the earth, while others prefer to activate this process of reduction.129

Phoenician funerary rituals

Grave goods As we have seen, the differing treatments given to the deceased in no way affects the grave goods chosen to accompany him or her. They form a relatively homogeneous group composed mainly of high-quality pottery vases, finished with a burnished red slip that marks them out as belonging to Phoenician fine tableware. The most common ceramic form is the mushroom-lip jug, the presence of which is characteristic of the tombs of the eighth and seventh centuries, not just in Spain but in Carthage and Sicily too (Fig. 2.4).130 This jug, with its small capacity and peculiarly shaped mouth, was obviously intended to contain perfumed oils or perfumes, rather than liquids, so its function in the tomb would be associated with the cleanliness and purification of the corpse, and also the possible pouring of libations, as we find in the

classical lekythoi. Its form is typical of the SyroPhoenician to the extent that it has been called the Phoenician ‘calling card’.131 It is never found outside the Semitic world, and the form itself disappeared to be replaced by Greek forms of unguentaria which fulfilled the same function in a funerary context.132 The mushroom-lip jug is invariably accompanied by another jug, the trefoil jug, which is characterised by a three-lobed mouth (Fig. 2.4). The earliest examples of this form are piriform, with a double cylindrical handle and a little bulge on the body on a level with the lower attachment of the handle.133 Like the mushroom-lip jug, the trefoil jug is a form which is well represented in the East and it is an important component of the red-slip ware assemblage.134 It seems to have derived from metallic prototypes, and examples of this form in bronze have been found in indigenous, orientalizing contexts in Spain, for instance in the orientalizing necropolis of La Joya in Huelva.135 This form was designed to hold liquids, like wine or water, and was probably deposited as some kind of offering in the tomb.136 While both these jugs are forms designed for pouring liquids, food was also represented in the grave goods of this period. The wealth of the deceased determined the number and variety of containers and serving vessels to be placed in the tomb. Richer burials are characterised by the presence of various amphorae, sometimes of very high quality, such as that used as a cinerary urn in burial 4d at Trayamar.137 The amphorae could also be used to contain liquids, as is shown by the amphora no. 559, in tomb 1 at Trayamar, where a line found on the inside of the vessel indicates the presence of some kind of liquid.138 But generally the most common serving vessel in the Spanish burials is the simple red-slip plate (Fig. 2.4), which at the Cerro de San Cristóbal was found still containing the bones of a bird or rodent.139 The plate form also served as a support for the saucer-shaped oil-lamp, on which the pinching of the rim in two places close together creates two lips or spouts. Plates are also very well represented among the offerings made outside the tombs, as at Trayamar where a plate was found in tomb 1 deliberately placed on its side at the start of the dromos, leaning against the sealed door of the burial chamber. More plates were found in the offering strata which formed on top of tomb 4.140 With the exception of the lamp, all these pottery forms were used to contain or symbolize offerings of food and drink. It is interesting that this ‘funerary service’, which shared the same forms as the tableware and pottery used by the living, did not include any Phoenician drinking vessels. Instead the Phoenicians preferred to use Protocorinthian kotylai as

CEMETERIES

drinking vessels, and these forms are found in tomb 19 at the Cerro de San Cristóbal, in the earliest burials at Motya, and frequently appear in Carthage from the end of the eighth century up to the mid-seventh century, when they were replaced by cups of Etruscan bucchero nero sottile (thin-walled black ware) which fulfilled the same function.141 The mushroom-lip and trefoil jugs, plates and amphorae are the most commonly occurring grave goods in Spain. They also form part of the ‘canon’ of grave goods established in the Phoenician colonies during the course of the seventh century. The only forms of the ‘canon’ not found in Spain were the spherical jars or ‘chamber pots’, so well represented at Motya.142 In the early Spanish tombs this grave good inventory is not always completely represented. However, with the adoption of the chamber tomb, the grave goods conformed more fully to the canonical form, and at Trayamar this was more or less adhered to, again with the exception of the spherical pots. Apart from this core of pottery grave goods, there were other objects which could also be included, such as the incense burners found in burials 1a and 1b at Trayamar, and items such as the pottery stands, which had no ritual significance but were placed in the tombs to keep the amphorae in an upright position. There was also the occasional occurrence of items linked to Phoenician eschatology, such as amulets,143 ostrich eggs and the use of red ochre.144 While the picture of an increasingly rigid appearance of certain objects in Phoenician burials of the eighth and seventh centuries might indicate that we are dealing with very well defined notions of death and the afterlife, it would be hazardous to make such assumptions.145 Certainly, the almost constant presence of vessels used to contain food and drink, and the frequent remains of actual foodstuffs found in them, might indicate that the Phoenicians were providing for the physical needs of the deceased in the underworld, and believed in the ‘bodily’ survival of the dead. However it is hard to imagine that they felt cremated bones would need the food and drink placed beside them, and often at Carthage these food offerings were placed outside the sarcophagus or cist containing the body, and thus were physically out of reach of the dead person.146 At the same time, although the grave goods represented in the tombs of the eighth and seventh centuries are all taken from the standard household tableware repertory, it is obvious that by placing them in the grave they do have some special significance and in no way represent merely a random sample.147 The problem lies in trying to establish the criteria which determined their selection.

73

Commemoration of the dead Cicero in the first century mentions the celebration of a procession in Nora from the city to the necropolis where ceremonies were carried out which included a banquet or feast.148 The remains found at tomb 4 at Trayamar and tomb 1E at Puente de Noy suggest that some kind of funerary feast or libation was also carried out in the Phoenician cemeteries in Spain. In tomb 4 at Trayamar a large quantity of fragments of red-slip plates, along with amphorae, lamps and red-slip, closed vase-forms and incense burners, were found in a secondary position in strata which had accumulated inside the burial chamber as a result of the collapse of the wooden ceiling of the tomb. Judging by the gradual increase in the width of the rims of the plates, and, following the relative chronology devised by Schubart,149 these pieces of pottery were placed on top of the tomb immediately after the first burials; they continued to be deposited there, even after the tomb was sealed for the last time, right down to c. 600.150 This succession of items of pottery can only be interpreted as the remains of some kind of cult or ritual act, repeated at intervals, often on a large scale, over a prolonged period of time.151 None of them have been found unbroken and, while this may have been due simply to the collapse of the roof of the chamber, the fact that a number of fragments of incense burners were found among the plates can only point to the existence of some kind of ceremonies carried out either next to, or directly on top of, the tomb.152 In addition to the incense burners, the pottery forms consisted of amphorae, jugs, lamps, and plates which formed the ritual vessel par excellence. Taken together, the pottery offerings placed outside the tomb by and large reflect the funerary service included among the grave goods inside the tomb. A similar ritual involving the breaking of plates was observed at Tomb 1E at Puente de Noy, where a large number of fragments of pottery vessels, especially plates, were found at varying depths in the shaft which served as access to the burial chamber. The excavator has suggested that these vessels might have been deliberately broken and thrown down into the shaft while it was being filled up with earth, or were used in some kind of secondary ritual after the burial.153 Broken plates were also found in the infill and dromos of tomb 66 in the Punic cemetery of Jardín at Cerro del Mar in the Vélez valley.154 Ritual activity at this tomb also included the burning of incense, symbolized by the presence of an incense-burner, found in a secondary position outside the tomb itself. Some kind of comparable ritual has also been identified in the recent excavations of the early necropolis at

74

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Byrsa in Carthage, and from the Iron Age cemetery at Tyre. In Tyre pottery vessels were deliberately broken against the tomb, functioning, according to Aubet, as an offering, as well a ceremony to mark the closure of the grave.155 In Carthage, in the simple inhumation graves on the south side of Byrsa, the sand-fill nearly always included numerous fragments of plates and dishes, the latter decorated with a red slip, indicating that they must be assigned to the early period of occupation of Carthage, during the eighth and seventh centuries. The fill also contained fine particles of charcoal. These finds are interpreted by Lancel as the remains of a funerary feasting ritual to which both the charcoal and the receptacles, which were deliberately smashed and thrown into the tomb at the same time as the fill, bear witness.156 Further evidence comes from the seventh-century cremations at Puig des Molins in Ibiza where in one case red-slip plates were thrown onto the pyre while it was still burning, and the presence of kid bones suggests an offering of food. Another grave shows signs of possible libations, indicated by the presence of an Etruscan kantharos of bucchero nero. In the cemetery at Cruz del Negro in Carmona many of the dishes were apparently deliberately broken, or were pierced with small holes to prevent their further use. At the burial area of Tumulus 1 at the Phoenician settlement of Castillo de Doña Blanca, which seems to have been used for both Phoenician and indigenous burials, signs of ritual activity include the burning of incense and perfumed oil (represented by the presence of red-slip incense burners and oil bottles), and possible ritual drinking, all in the context of fires lit as part of the ritual.157 In addition to funerary rituals such as the ones described above, there is also the possibility that the ritual slaughter of an animal occurred on the occasion of funerals.158 What kind of ritual is represented by these often considerable quantities of pottery? According to Schubart and Niemeyer, at Tomb 4 at Trayamar they are offerings left on top of the tomb after its closure, while Ramos Saínz and Jiménez Flores prefer to see them as the visible remains of funerary banquets held on top of the tomb.159 In favour of the latter interpretation is the literary evidence from the Bronze Age Levant which refers to the celebration of official symposia or banquets in commemoration of the dead, involving the consumption of large quantities of wine.160 This is the marzeh, a term denoting both the festival and the religious body. It appears to have been a social grouping confined to the élite levels of Phoenician society, like the Greek thiasos, and its meetings involved heavy drinking, as well as sacrifices in honour of the dead.161

The existence of such a body in the homeland, which drew its members from the upper levels of Phoenician society, can help to explain the rituals carried out in the Phoenician cemeteries in Iberia and elsewhere. Certainly at Trayamar the presence of vessels for storage (amphorae), display (bowls), and pouring (jugs) suggest drinking or libations, accompanied by the burning of incense (incense burners). We have seen that the chamber tombs were used to hold burials stretching out over several generations, and probably represented family vaults. Judging by the scale and ostentation of the tombs and of the commemorative rituals carried out there, those buried there came from the highest levels of colonial society. Any attempt to identify them must be based on an examination of the social structure of contemporary Phoenicia. Argument continues over who was behind the planning and organisation of the Phoenician expansionary movement – the state, in the form of the Tyrian monarchy, or private enterprise, represented by large commercial firms, generally organised along kinship lines.162 However, given the fact that the foundation of the colonies took place precisely at the time when the kings of Tyre had become practically puppet figures dominated by the Assyrian empire, it is widely thought that it was Phoenician private enterprise which played the major role in the organisation of the whole colonial network. To be a professional trader was a disgrace in Homeric Greece, but not so in Tyre, ‘the crowned city, whose merchants are princes, whose traders are the most honoured on earth’, according to Isaiah (23. 8). It is clear that the successful traders formed an important and honoured part of Phoenician society; and in this context we should probably think of the Phoenician merchant Odysseus claims to have met in Crete, who had a house and property in Phoenicia and entertains Odysseus as his guest for nearly a year (Odyssey XIV. 285–97). This class of successful merchant can probably be identified with the hubur or commercial association which appears in the eleventh-century Egyptian Tale of Wenamon, controlling a large number of ships that travel between Phoenicia and Egypt. From Ugaritic and biblical texts, these commercial associations seem to have been organised around family groups, or guilds of merchants, and were formed to provide the capital for building ships and protection against losses and damage, in a kind of all risk insurance, as Katzenstein says.163 In this light it is tempting to associate the wealth and inceasing ostentation of the burials in south-western Spain with the western representatives of these commercial firms, whose descendants continued to honour them long after their deaths.

CEMETERIES

Burials and social stratification

What kind of society is reflected in the cemeteries of Andalusia? First of all by their very existence they testify to the existence of permanent settlements situated along the coast of southern Spain, inhabited by settlers who had chosen to live and die in the far west of the Mediterranean. The chamber tombs of Trayamar show that we are not dealing with trading posts occupied by a skeleton population of traders, sailors and some artisans, with the few scattered graves representing the burials of seamen or traders who had met with an accidental death here in Spain. Obviously these large tombs demanded time, energy, planning and capital, and they reflect the presence of people who had decided to make their home permanently in the West, and who left family behind them to perform rituals at their tomb over several generations.164 When we compare the Trayamar tombs with the large, well-constructed dwelling houses at Morro de Mezquitilla we get the impression of orderly prosperous communities, open to the maritime trade routes which brought imported items like the Egyptian alabaster jars and Protocorinthian kotylai, and where the succession of burials in family vaults across several generations provides us with a confirmation of the consolidation of the colonial population. The cemeteries also reflect clear social stratification. The shaft graves at Almuñécar with their imported Greek pottery, Egyptian alabaster jars and ostrich eggs are relatively wealthy burials reflecting a community which enjoyed access to all the most important trade routes of the Mediterranean. They certainly give the impression of greater wealth than the roughly contemporary cremation necropolis at Motya, with its scarcity of imported materials.165 Despite their greater wealth, however, the shaft graves at Cerro de San Cristóbal are still overshadowed by the imposing ashlar-built chamber tombs constructed by succeeding generations of settlers. This would seem to indicate that we are dealing with an increasing level of wealth and resources, reflected in the archaeology of the settlements themselves and the evidence of Phoenician activities in Iberia, which show the seventh century to represent the peak of success and prosperity for the Phoenicians in Spain. In this context it is interesting that the burials from Iberia far overshadow in terms of grave-type and grave goods any of the contemporary burials from Tyre. The Phoenicians chose to separate the living from the dead, situating their cemeteries at a distance from the settlements, separated from them by a river, the sea, or simply by distance. The problem in identifying such cemeteries is that they are not at all monumental in their external appearance. The number of stelai or

75

other monuments such as tumuli visible and still in situ is tiny, and we do not know how many have been destroyed or removed since antiquity.166 This makes such cemeteries difficult to identify, and in Spain their discovery has generally come about accidentally. Often they were recognised only after their partial destruction, as in the case of Lagos. Such circumstances mean that our current picture of the cemeteries in Iberia is bound to be partial. Indeed, despite the ever-accumulating number of Phoenician settlements in Portugal, nothing that can definitely be termed a Phoenician cemetery has been identified there, with the possible exceptions of one burial at Tavira in the Algarve, and the strongly orientalizing cemetery of Alcácer do Sal at Senhor dos Mártires on the Sado river. We do not know how many graves have been destroyed and how many are waiting to be discovered. Our knowledge of Phoenician burials in the Iberian Peninsula is therefore based at present chiefly on the roughly fifty graves discussed so far – twenty at Cerro de San Cristóbal, two at Lagos, four chamber tombs at Trayamar, the five from Tarifa (at least some of which may be later than our period), and finally the small number of burials at Casa de la Viña and Cortijo de Montañéz. These figures are tiny when compared with the volume of burials in the Punic period, with 3,000 at the cemetery at Villaricos in Almería, and a similar number in the Punic levels at Puig des Molins. Based on the small number of burials in the Phoenician period, it has been suggested that ‘as far as the funerary practices are concerned, far from expressing the presence of permanent groups of population made up of various generations, they seem to reflect unstable population groups, communities that have not set up a true social presence in the area.’167 However, the small number of burials so far found for the eighth and seventh centuries is not necessarily a faithful reflection of the numbers of settlers in this region at the time. Apart from the obvious hazards of lost or still undiscovered graves mentioned above, there is also the very real possibility that the fifty or so burials corresponding to this period may represent the graves of the upper strata of the colonial society alone, and therefore cannot be used to make any kind of statements about the number of settlers and the nature of colonial society at this time. Given the level of wealth and conspicuous consumption reflected first by the shaft graves, and then most imposingly, by the chamber tombs at Trayamar and Puente de Noy, this is a very real possibility, and one which is shared by contemporary burial practices at Athens: there Ian Morris has convincingly argued that the burials throughout the Dark Age and down to the late sixth

76

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

century, with only a brief hiatus, represent solely those of the governing élite of Athenian society at the time.168 Certainly, to return to the Phoenician context, the burials in both shaft graves and chamber tombs in Iberia have been shown to be wealthy in comparison with contemporary Phoenician burials elsewhere in the koine, and even in the mother city itself. In the ongoing excavations of the Iron Age cemetery at Tyre, Aubet has identified tomb 8 as one of the richest burials so far uncovered. Dating from the seventh century, its large and impressive cinerary urn was imported from Cyprus, and the grave itself was carefully constructed, consisting of a stone-lined fossa. The grave goods contain imported Greek pottery as well as local red-slip ware, along with polychrome terracotta statuettes; the later represent an armed horseman, two temples or altars, and a funerary mask of a bearded man – perhaps the deceased himself.169 Impressive, certainly: but nothing in either the structure of the grave, or the grave goods, can stand comparison with the burials from Spain. Aubet has argued that the Al-Bass burials excavated so far at Tyre do not represent those of the wealthiest sectors of Tyrian society, and this is probably true. For these burials, so far still undiscovered in the homeland, we have to turn to Iberia. There the alabaster cinerary urns, obtained from Egyptian royal tombs, or as the result of international diplomatic and commercial exchanges in Asia, can hardly be expected to be within the grasp of the farmers, herdsmen and fishermen who made up a large proportion of the settlers in these coastal enclaves (see Chapter Four below, pp. 105–34); and yet we find them used as cinerary urns almost without exception throughout the shaft-grave burials of the eighth century and the early seventh. In the seventh century, the evidence for commemorative funerary rituals continuing for over fifty years at chamber tomb 4 at Trayamar clearly represents a group aware of its origins in the region, and eager to commemorate them with often lavish rituals.170 In fact the very existence of formally defined cemeteries associated with the Phoenician enclaves may have status implications. It is possible that areas formally set aside for the exclusive disposal of the dead may reflect the existence within society of ‘unilineal corporate descent groups, tracing their lines from the buried ancestors, and using the cemetery as a symbol to legitimise the monopolisation of access to vital resources’.171 In the context of the Phoenician settlements in Spain, such a group would be the western representatives of the great commercial firms, organised in family groups, who played a vital role in the Phoenician expansionary movement, and

whose burials we undoubtedly see in the chamber tombs at Trayamar and Puente de Noy. As we have seen, the opulence and splendour of the merchant classes of Tyre was condemned by Isaiah. Could it be that in the shaft graves of Almuñécar and the chamber tombs of Málaga we see their burials? Non-élite burials: the evidence Thus, if the fifty or so burials discussed so far represent solely those of the élite, where are the burials of the lower strata of society? There is some evidence that there may well have been a number of simpler and less grandiose shaft graves in the area around the chamber tombs of Trayamar.172 However, given the level of wealth associated with the shaft graves in other cemeteries in the region, these burials could still represent those of an élite group in society, either a sub-élite, or simply élite burials which predated the change in burial rite from shaft graves to chamber tombs. For the graves of the humbler elements of colonial society we have to look to the periphery of the western system, those at Puig des Molins in Ibiza and at Rachgoun in Algeria. Ibiza While the large Punic cemetery at Puig des Molins in the city of Ibiza has been known for over a century, the burials of the early period of the colony at Ibiza were discovered only in the 1980s (Fig. 2.16).173 These consisted of more than forty cremation burials, dating from between the second half of the seventh century and early in the sixth century. The deceased were generally cremated in a common funeral pyre, or ustrinum, and then the cremated remains were placed either in holes in the rock (some natural, some artificially created), or in urns, or perhaps sometimes in receptacles of perishable material, and then covered with stones and earth. The most elaborate burials were a number of fossa graves, in some of which the deceased were cremated in situ and then buried. Despite the simplicity of the burials, however, there are signs that several were covered with simple undecorated stone stelai, or arrangements of stones to mark the position of the grave.174 No alabaster urns were found, and the grave goods were scanty and in general poorer than their equivalents on the Peninsula, consisting of small personal objects, such as amulets and the occasional piece of jewellery, usually silver. There is no sign of the funerary service which was so striking a feature of the grave goods in the Phoenician cemeteries in Andalusia. Here, out of one group of thirty-eight burials, the grave goods were restricted to five oil bottles, one lamp, two small bowls and a hand-

CEMETERIES

77

Fig. 2.16 Puig des Molins cemetery (Ibiza), early cremation burials with pottery from them, including (i) a typical Cruz del Negro cinerary urn; (ii) an oil bottle; (iii) a lamp; and (iv) hand-made pots

78

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

made pot. The cinerary urns were pottery jars, all of the Cruz del Negro type. Their use as cinerary urns is striking in this context, given that they were often used for this purpose in indigenous cemeteries in southern Spain. According to Gómez Bellard, the cremation burials in the Cruz del Negro urns are the oldest, dating to the second half of the seventh century, while the fossa burials and the cremations placed in the rock are slightly later. However, in total all the burials cover a period of no more than fifty years, or two generations, and correspond to the first years of the Phoenician settlement at the city of Ibiza. Analysis of the cremated remains from thirty-eight of these burials points to a society of pioneers which had not yet achieved demographic stability. While the bones represent women and men in roughly equal amounts, the cremation burials at Puig des Molins belong to individuals who were not much more than thirty years old at the time of death, with the majority of burials representing children of less than six years old and adults of between twenty and thirty. Although the high level of infant burials is to be expected, the predominance of deaths among adults from 20 to 30 years old, and the lack of individuals who were much more than thirty, is surprising, especially since we can exclude epidemics and violent deaths as a possible cause, as the burials cover a period of some 50 years. Perhaps this demographic structure may reflect the burials of the first generations of settlers at Ibiza who, judging by the evidence of the cremations, were made up of families with young children.175

Rachgoun A similar form of burial to that practised in the oldest levels of the cemetery at Puig des Molins was found in the necropolis at Rachgoun in Algeria (Figs 1.21 and 1.22). Rachgoun is a small island 2 km from the Algerian coast, facing the mouth of the river Tafna. Despite its distance from Iberia, the similarity in both form and decoration of the pottery found in the island’s settlement and cemetery points to close links with Spain, and particularly with Castillo de Doña Blanca and Gadir.176 On the north side of the island, the so-called nécropole de phare (‘necropolis of the lighthouse’) was excavated in the 1950s and contained some 114 burials: 101 cremations, nine inhumations and four instances where both rites were found juxtaposed. The inhumation burials were of children, all less than eight years old. The cremations were of two types. The first consisted of cremations in cinerary urns, where the bones were separated from the ashes and put into urns, many of the Cruz del Negro type, and then placed upright in a hole in the ground, propped up by stones The urns were generally

covered with a small stone or a plate, and sometimes contained items of jewellery and weapons. The second type of cremation burial involved cremation in a shallow pit directly at the place of burial. The remains may have originally been put into some kind of basket or left without any container.177 Personal items were burnt with the deceased and consisted of jewellery, amulets and weapons. Burials of both types were accompanied by a variety of pottery grave goods. Red-slip mushroom-lip and trefoil jugs, as well as plates and bowls were found, along with oil bottles, tripods and the occasional animal-shaped askoi. There was also much hand-made pottery, some imitating Phoenician forms, while other items showed a marked resemblance to indigenous Iberian forms. The cemetery dates from the second half of the seventh century down to the close of the sixth century, and served the small settlement located on the southern side of the island. On the basis of their pottery, Rachgoun and Ibiza were clearly part of the southern Andalusian cultural system, centred round Gadir and the enclaves along the Costa del Sol. However, while their pottery seeks its inspiration from this region, their burial practices are quite distinct. The simple cremations buried in shallow cavities in the rock have few obvious similarities with the shaft graves and chamber tombs of Granada and Málaga, and are far more reminiscent of the early cremation cemetery at Motya and the recently discovered Iron-Age cremation cemetery from Tyre itself.178 The differences are striking, too, in the level of wealth reflected in the grave goods and burial structure. The number of grave goods was noticeably poor among the cremations at Puig des Molins, where even the pottery was very scarce. In Rachgoun they are more numerous, but still consist basically of pottery, with none of the imported Greek items that we find at Almuñécar. There was no evidence of spectacular wealth at Puig des Molins and the nécropole de phare, and nor are we likely to find any. The settlements at Ibiza and Rachgoun were outposts, one commercial and the other military (judging by the weapons found in the burials at Rachgoun). Although Ibiza was destined to become a large and thriving port city from the late sixth century onwards under the hegemony of Carthage, the early years of settlement at the site appear to have been precarious. The pottery, which consists largely of imports from southern Spain, points to a group of settlers sent out by the Phoenician enclaves there to found a settlement which would tap the resources of the indigenous communities in Catalonia and southern France; in addition it was intended to act as a stopping point for traffic from Sardinia, Sicily and the eastern

CEMETERIES

Mediterranean. The early settlers were a pioneering community, occupying a few isolated points on the south coast, who had not yet expanded to settle and exploit on a large scale the fertile territory of the island, which was to provide their successors with a profitable trade in agricultural surpluses, exported in locally-produced amphorae.179 As for Rachgoun, it was obviously reasons of strategic necessity that lead to its habitation from the seventh to fifth centuries. The island is extremely inhospitable, with a very thin soil cover and poor vegetation (Fig. 1.21, p. 44). Although when it was first settled its vegetation cover must have been denser, the needs of the community, both domestic and funerary, must soon have exhausted the trees on the island, and the settlers would have been frequently dependant on imports of wood and other items of basic necessity.180 However, its position in a large bay facing the mouth of the river Tafna enabled it to control the coast on both sides, as well as any traffic up and down the river itself. The author of the Periplus of Scylax (111) refers to the island as akra, ‘the fortress’, and only its strategic position explains why it was occupied for two centuries.181 Its abandonment in the fifth century may be linked with the foundation of the town of Siga, on the mainland facing the island, which offered far more favourable conditions for settlement and urban development. Taken together, the relatively modest levels of wealth and the simple graves found at Ibiza and Rachgoun point to sectors of society with a far less elevated social position than those buried in the shaft graves and chamber tombs of Málaga and Granada. They also suggest that in the latter regions the graves of their less socially privileged counterparts are still to be discovered, or else have not yet been correctly evaluated. Other non-élite burials? The cemeteries at Ibiza and Rachgoun have been discussed in some detail. However they are not the only ones in the Far Western Phoenician koine which differ in terms of wealth and burial structure from their counterparts in the Costa del Sol. The sixthcentury burials at Herrerías in Almería, close to the ancient silver, copper and lead mines in the Sierra de Almagrera, consisted of cremations placed in holes up to one metre deep. Often the bones were found in urns, either crude hand-made jars, or wheel-made oval urns, decorated with painted bands. The grave goods were small metal objects found with the hand-made urns, or decorated ostrich eggs, small pieces of jewellery, and two-spouted lamps and plates (some red slip), accompanying the wheel-made urns. The cemetery, which dates probably to the first half of the sixth

79

century, may well have been a mixed Phoenician and indigenous burial ground, given the varying cinerary urns and grave goods. Siret suggested that it could represent the final resting place of those involved in the exploitation of the rich mineral ores in the Sierra Almagrera.182 The cemetery at Frigiliana, in the province of Málaga, close to the Phoenician sites of Toscanos and Morro de Mezquitilla, is similar to those at Ibiza and Rachgoun (Figs 2.1 and 2.17).183 Here the burials are cremations in urns, placed in small holes in the ground and covered with a stone or plate. The cinerary containers are of various types, including Cruz del Negro urns and pithoi, and they contain the grave goods, which consist of scarabs, tweezers, and fibulae. The burials at Frigiliana date throughout the sixth century and have been variously interpreted by their excavators first as Phoenician, and then as ‘indigenous’ Tartessian, despite the fact that Tartessian culture had its focus in south-west Spain, far away from the coastal plain of Málaga which was densely occupied by the Phoenicians.184

Phoenician or Iberian? The funerary evidence

The cemeteries at Boliche and Frigiliana have not received much scholarly attention, largely because they are difficult to fit into the existing paradigm of Phoenician colonisation in Iberia. With their cremation burials, often in Cruz del Negro urns, they bear far too close a resemblance to the ‘Tartessian’ cemeteries of the Guadalquivir valley. For that reason they have been classified as mixed (Boliche) or indigenous (Frigiliana), influenced through contact with Phoenician colonists, as the result of a process of acculturation, into adopting and imitating Phoenician burial rites.185 The problem in classifying Iberian and Phoenician burials, and distinguishing between them, is that we have no indigenous burials from the centuries immediately before the Phoenician presence in Spain to enable us to establish what was the basic burial practice of these people. Phoenician burial practices also vary considerably, as we have seen. When burials do appear in the Tartessian cemeteries of the Guadalquivir valley and associated regions, they display a bewilderingly wide variation of rituals, and it is impossible to pick out and identify the typical indigenous burial rite of this period.186 According to the most widely accepted interpretation of the cemeteries in southern Spain, Phoenician burials are limited to those associated with the colonial settlements on the coasts of Cádiz, Málaga, Granada and Almería, as well as Ibiza, while everywhere else the burials are indigenous. Limiting the dead

80

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 2.17 Cortijo de las Sombras, Frigiliana (Málaga), cremation burial, with selected grave goods: (i) Cruz del Negro cinerary urn; (ii) double-spring fibula; (iii) tweezer; (iv) scarab Phoenicians to this area also restricts the contacts of the living Phoenicians with the Iberians to the strictly commercial, and does not allow us to identify the presence of elements of Phoenician buried among the Iberian communities. Thus the colonial enclaves were founded and existed largely to facilitate and increase trade with the inhabitants – and by trade is meant

trade in silver. This model for Phoenician settlement in Spain is one which is based on the traditional view of Phoenician colonisation in general as being wholly commercial in its objectives, with no interest in any of the factors which played so prominent a role in the contemporary Greek colonial movement – agricultural deficit, overpopulation, social tensions, and so on.

CEMETERIES

81

The problem with this model, however, as Belén and Escacena have pointed out, is that it is becoming increasingly inadequate in the face of the accumulating evidence that contacts between the two sides were far more intense than has traditionally been thought.187 The obvious example is the settlement at Castillo de Doña Blanca in Cádiz, with its associated cemetery at Las Cumbres, which are discussed in detail in Chapter Three. Here the site was initially thought to be an indigenous settlement which acted as the continental ‘foothold’ of the island city of Gadir. This was despite the presence of Phoenician pottery in large quantities, and the wholly oriental construction techniques and agricultural practices there. The significant representation of indigenous pottery at the site, and the cemetery, which showed both Phoenician and indigenous settlers sharing the same burial space under a communal tumulus, with burial rites which looked suspiciously like those in the Guadalquivir valley, did not fit the picture of strictly commercial contacts between the two sides. In Carmona, at the heart of the Guadalquivir valley, recent excavations by María Belén in the Barrio de San Blas, located in the casco antiguo of the city, have uncovered a complex of buildings, dating from the second half of the seventh century, or beginning of the sixth down to the midfifth century, which were wholly oriental in their construction techniques and decoration. One of the rooms in the oldest of the buildings contained four

Fig. 2.18 Carmona (Sevilla), decorated pithos showing a procession of griffins: (top) profile; (above) the surviving part of the decorated frieze

82

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

carved ivory spoons and three decorated pithoi placed at the three corners of the room. The most elaborately decorated of these portrayed a procession of winged griffins interspersed with floral motifs (Fig. 2.18), while the others were painted with flowers and lotus buds. Analysis of the clay from the pithoi showed that they were manufactured in Carmona itself, obviously by someone fully conversant with oriental decorative traditions – presumably a Phoenician craftsman, or someone trained by one. The whole complex of buildings has been interpreted by its excavator as a Phoenician shrine, given the consistently and unambiguously oriental nature of its form and finds.188A Phoenician religious building in Carmona was obviously built by, and for, Phoenicians resident in the city, and the existence of such a community would clarify the reason for the persistence of Carmona’s strong and lasting links with PhoenicoPunic culture down to the late Roman Empire.189 For our purposes the interest of these finds lies in the fact that the possible sanctuary building is located in the area of the city closest to the cemetery at Cruz del Negro. This cemetery, which was first excavated in the 1890s by George Bonsor, was interpreted by him as wholly oriental, serving the Phoenician agricultural colony of Carmona, but was reinterpreted as an indigenous orientalising burial ground, given the impossibility of imagining Phoenicians resident so deep in the heartland of Tartessian territory.190 In fact, the cemetery at Cruz del Negro displays the same burial rites, cremations placed in urns (the characteristic two-handled globular or oval decorated amphorae which were named after the site), and buried in shallow holes in the ground, as we see in Puig des Molins, Rachgoun and Frigiliana. It is a burial rite which is also found in Motya in Sicily, and also in the Phoenician homeland, at Tyre itself. Dating from the eighth century down to the fifth century, the cremation burials at Cruz del Negro contained some spectacular grave goods, chiefly in the form of decorated ivory combs and other small toilet items. These objects are thought to be the work of a local workshop which also produced similar examples found in Carthage and the Heraion at Samos, where they are dated to 640/630.191 The presence of such typically Phoenician items as decorated ostrich eggs, swivel seal-rings, and especially the large quantity of deliberately broken Phoenician pottery, echoing the funerary rituals at Trayamar and Puente de Noy, was not enough to convince the majority of scholars that the cemetery at Cruz del Negro was Phoenician. Instead,

the burial ritual of cremations in urns, and the fact that several of the cinerary urns were hand-made, meant that it had to be an indigenous cemetery, while the large number of Phoenician products simply indicated ‘a highly-developed power of acquisition’ on the part of those buried there.192 Even more damningly this interpretation does not take into account the palaeotopography of the region of Carmona at the start of the first millennium. Although now deep inland, in the Phoenician period it was very close to the Atlantic coast, as the Guadalquivir river opened into a wide marine bay just below Hispalis and El Carambolo: what are now the Marismas of the Doñana National Park was then the Atlantic ocean (Fig. 4.6).193 It also fails to consider the similar burial rites and cinerary urns in Puig des Molins, Rachgoun and Frigiliana, as mentioned above. To back up the point that cremation burials in urns in shallow cavities in the ground is a characteristically Tartessian burial practice, we are forced to make Rachgoun an indigenous Iberian cemetery, with all the problems that this involves (see Chapter One, pp. 43–4), and to ignore its occurrence in areas outside the Iberian Peninsula. In the case of the cremations at Puig des Molins, we cannot assign them to an indigenous population since, as far as we know, the island was unoccupied at the time of the establishment of the Phoenicians there.194 Frigiliana is situated in an area heavily colonised by the Phoenicians, and to make it indigenous we have to suppose that the local inhabitants chose to follow burial rites practised by their south-western neighbours hundreds of kilometres away. All in all it is facile to judge the ethnicity of burials on their location or on their cinerary urns. Not every colonist could afford imported alabaster urns and the use of Cruz del Negro urns might indicate burials of those with a more humble social position than the great traders buried in Trayamar and Almuñécar, as we can see in the case of Ibiza. The presence of hand-made indigenous ware among the burials might suggest a mixed population or simply the use of local items in the grave goods. To judge accurately the ethnicity of those buried in the cemeteries of the orientalizing era in Andalucía and Extremadura it is necessary to examine critically the burials in their entirety, in terms of burial rite, grave goods and historical context. Even then, given the lacunae that exist in our knowlege of the burial practices of both sides, the whole topic is bound to continue to be controversial.195

3

Gadir (Cádiz) Introduction

Cádiz was one of the most famous cities of antiquity. Celebrated for its wealth, high spirits and the success of its commerce, the city had a reputation for opulence which was legendary. Renowned too was its Herakleon, where the god Hercules was worshipped with a Phoenician ritual; its oracle was consulted by such notables as Hannibal and Julius Caesar.1 But although Roman Gades was a famous and celebrated city, not much is known about its predecessor, the Phoenician GDR or Gadir.2 Three thousand years of continuous occupation and the use of the ruins of the ancient city as a quarry since late antiquity have obliterated all the ancient landmarks, and rendered large-scale archaeological investigations of the site impracticable (Fig. 3.1). The location of the earliest Tyrian colony is still a subject of controversy, as is the configuration of the site itself. While ancient Cádiz was located on one of a series of small islands, situated in the bay of Cádiz, three millennia of sedimentation and marine erosion mean that the modern city now forms a long, narrow peninsula attached to the mainland.3 So unlike the Phoenician settlements east of the Straits of Gibraltar, which were largely ignored by ancient authors and where archaeology is almost exclusively our sole source of evidence, Cádiz by con-

Fig. 3.1 View of modern Cádiz from the Torre de Tavira, the highest point of the ancient city

trast, through its Atlantic location, on the edge of the then known world, and through the fame of the city in Hellenistic and Roman times, was referred to several times by the ancient sources. Especially noteworthy was its shrine dedicated to Hercules – references which provide us with valuable information regarding the city’s origins and foundation.4

Gadir in the ancient sources

Strabo and Velleius Paterculus All the ancient texts are in agreement in making Gadir a Phoenician settlement, founded at the very end of the twelfth century, after the fall of Troy. Strabo is the first author to date the foundation of the city, which he puts sometime after the fall of Troy (I. 3. 2). Velleius Paterculus (I. 2. 3), writing in the first half of the first century AD, tells us that: ‘About this time, also, the fleet of Tyre, which controlled the sea, founded in the farthest district of Spain, on the remotest confines of our world, the city of Cádiz, on an island in the ocean separated from the mainland by a very narrow strait.’ These events were placed during the time of the Heraclids, eighty years after the fall of Troy. As the fall of Troy was dated to 1184/3, according to Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, the foundation of Gadir would have been founded according to this chronology in 1104/3.5

84

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Velleius (I. 2. 3) goes on to say that Utica on the North African coast, another Phoenician foundation, was only slightly later, founded ‘a few years’ after Gadir.

Pliny Pliny in his Natural History tells us that Gades was founded by Tyre, and later on says that the temple of Hercules in Lixus was slightly earlier than that in Gadir. He further states that the foundation of the temple of Apollo at Utica, and by inference, that of the city itself, took place 1178 years before his own time (NH V. XVII. 76; XVI. 40; XIX. 63). As his Natural History was dedicated to Titus in the year of his sixth consulship, in AD 77, that would place the foundation of Utica in 1101, a date which corresponds with that given by Velleius, who placed the foundation of Utica, as we have seen, a few years after that of Gadir in 1104/3.

Pseudo-Aristotle and Mela The On wondrous things heard, attributed to Aristotle and written at an unknown date, says that Utica was founded 287 years before the foundation of Carthage.6 If therefore we take the date given by Timaeus for the foundation of Carthage, which he assigns to 814, that would give us a date of 1101 for the foundation of Utica, which again coincides with the date given by Pliny. Finally, Pomponius Mela, a Spaniard writing around 43 or 44 AD, dates the foundation of Gadir vaguely to the years immediately after the fall of Troy (III. 6 (46)). These texts by five different authors display a remarkable coherence in their dating of the foundation of Gadir, Utica and Lixus to the final years of the twelfth century, but this very unity has served to render their testimony suspect. According to Bunnens, the dating of the start of the Phoenician presence in the extreme west of the Mediterranean to shortly after the end of the Trojan war is the result of an intellectual controversy about the scientific and historical veracity of the Homeric poems. As Strabo decided to join the side of those who defended the Homeric poems as sources of real historical value, he was forced to place them among the legendary navigators who had travelled the world immediately after the fall of Troy, in order to claim the Phoenicians as a possible source of information for Homer.7 The association of the Phoenicians with the travels of Hercules in the extreme West, which we find several times in the work of Strabo, led to the attribution by Velleius of the date of the return of the successors of Hercules, the Herakleides, to Greece, eighty years after the fall of Troy, to the foundation of the Phoenician foundations in the West. Thus these texts should be seen as the

result partly of a hellenistic intellectual controversy, and partly also of a desire to attribute a remote and heroic past to cities which, at least in the case of Gadir, were flourishing and prosperous when these texts were written in the first century AD.

The foundation myth of Gadir

However, although the date assigned to the foundation of Gadir by Strabo and the authors who followed him has been shown to lack a historical basis, this does not necessarily have to invalidate his account of the circumstances of that foundation: ‘In telling stories of the following sort about the founding of Gades, the Gaditans recall a certain oracle, which was actually given, they say, to the Tyrians, ordering them to send a colony to the Pillars of Herakles: the men who were sent for the sake of spying out the region, so the story goes, believed, when they got near to the strait at Calpe, that the two capes which formed the strait were the ends of the inhabited world and of Herakles’ expedition, and that the capes themselves were what the oracle called ‘pillars,’ and they therefore landed at a place inside the narrows, namely where the city of the Exitanians now is; and there they offered sacrifice, but since the sacrifices did not prove favourable they turned homeward again; but the men who were sent at a later period went on outside the strait, about fifteen hundred stadia, to an island sacred to Herakles, situated near the city of Onoba in Iberia, and believing that this was where the Pillars were they offered sacrifice to the god, but since again the sacrifices did not prove favourable they went back home; but the men who arrived on the third expedition founded Gades and placed the temple in the eastern part of the island but the city in the western’.8 This account was based on information he received from the inhabitants of Gadir itself: ‘In telling stories of the following sort about the founding of Gades, the Gaditans recall a certain oracle . . .’. His source here may well have been the philosopher Posidonius of Apamea, who visited Gadir c. 100 to investigate the Atlantic tides.9 Bunnens rejects this passage as merely ‘une fable grecque’, stating that the whole narrative is designed to support the idea that the pillars of Hercules were located in Gadir. He also rejects the idea that the Phoenicians founded two colonies before their final successful attempt in Gadir, and concludes that if the narrative is indeed the work of some Gaditans then these must have been hellenised.10 While it is true that the whole narrative bears a strong Greek influence, with the Phoenician colonisation of the far West taking place following the prompting of an oracle (just as Delphi encouraged colonial foundations in the Greek

GADIR

West),11 nevertheless every area mentioned in the text as having been visited by the Tyrian expedition shows evidence either of direct Phoenician settlement or of strongly Phoenician-influenced, orientalizing native occupation. The first area where the the Tyrian delegation tried to settle was the ‘city of the Exitanians,’ otherwise known as Sexi, the modern Almuñécar in the province of Granada. As we have seen, this site was occupied in the eighth century by a flourishing Phoenician settlement with a necropolis which yielded spectacular grave goods, demonstrating strong links with the eastern Mediterranean. However Sexi was situated in a very sparsely populated area, without any appreciable mineral resources, and one which was separated from the resources of the hinterland by a chain of mountains running parallel to the coast. Thus if we accept that Gadir was founded primarily to tap the rich silver mines of Tartessos, and also, as increasingly seems apparent, to gain access to the active Late Bronze Age Atlantic trade circuits, then the area around Sexi would indeed, as Strabo’s story says, have been unsuitable for such a purpose.12 The second abortive attempt at settlement was made at ‘an island sacred to Herakles, situated near the city of Onoba in Iberia.’ The town of Onoba is the modern town of Huelva, capital of the province of the same name (Fig. 4.1). This settlement was situated in the heart of the mineral-rich area of south-western Spain, the Iberian pyrite belt, which was one of the most important metallogenic provinces in Europe, with substantial quantities of copper, silver, gold and iron.13 It was home to a large, thriving and organised community who controlled the extraction of metals and the metal trade in this part of the Peninsula.14 In fact, it may well have been the very size and organisation of the settlement at Huelva which prevented the Phoenicians from establishing themselves in a separate settlement there, even though the site they had chosen, on an off-shore island at the mouth of the Tinto and Odiel rivers, which combined good defensive conditions with easy access to the hinterland, was one which was characteristic of most Phoenician sites in the West, and was similar to that eventually occupied by Gadir.15 Strabo tells us that the island near Huelva where the Phoenicians attempted to settle was dedicated to Hercules. In the area of the Barra de Huelva, in the sea off Huelva, several small statues of Syro-Egyptian divinities of the kind known as the ‘smiting god’ have recently been discovered.16 Similar figures have also been found in Cádiz, in the sea off the island of Sancti Petri, the site of the city’s Herakleion (Fig. 3.5; see below).17 While the stylized nature of such represent-

( CADIZ )

85

ations makes it difficult to identify with precision the individual deity being represented, it is tempting to associate the Huelva statues with Melqart, the Tyrian god whose temple was established in Cádiz, given their similarity to those from Cádiz, and Strabo’s statement that an island near Huelva was dedicated to Hercules, the Greek syncretic representation of the Phoenician Melqart. This would indicate that there may well have been a shrine dedicated to Melqart off the city of Huelva, perhaps situated on the island of Saltés or nearby.18 All this evidence shows that the Gaditan informants of Strabo or Posidonius, hellenised or not, had a good knowledge both of the geography of the south coast of the Peninsula and of the history of the settlements located there. Whether this passage reflects the difficulties of crossing the Straits of Gibraltar in adverse meteorological conditions, as some authors believe,19 or is the echo of exploratory precolonial voyages likely to have been carried out by the Phoenicians as a form of ‘market research’,20 I believe that Bonnet is right when she speaks of the ‘imperialisme de l’objet’ to the detriment of a close analysis of the texts.21 While the choice of a date does indeed seem to reflect a late process of systematization of the old legends of mythological travels in the far West, the actual circumstances of the foundation narrative given by Strabo appear to find their confirmation in the archaeological record of these places. For this reason, this version of the city’s foundation does contain valuable information concerning the origin of Gadir, whatever the date we choose to assign to its foundation.

Melqart, the Divine King

It is interesting that according to Strabo, the Gaditans believed that the foundation of their city was the result of a divine oracle. The god in question is not mentioned, but there can be no doubt that it was Melqart or MLK QRT, the ‘king of the city’, and chief divinity of Tyre.22 An oracle of Melqart was responsible for the foundation of Tyre itself according to one source, and Melqart was also involved in the foundation of Carthage.23 Thus the chief god of Tyre, Melqart, is indissolubly associated with the two most important Phoenician foundations in the central and western Mediterranean, with the metropolis and chief player in the Phoenician move westwards, Tyre itself, and with Phoenician expansion in general. While our evidence for the role of Melqart in the foundation of the principal western colonies is based mainly on literary sources which are all, without exception, late and non-Phoenician, the fact that Melqart appears in the Greek and Roman authors as the divinity

86

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

associated with Phoenician expansion overseas shows that in their eyes Melqart was the patron of the Tyrian foundations in the West, and thus, in the words of Bonnet, ‘their chief adversary against whom they would oppose their national Herakles, glorious explorer of the western Mediterranean’.24

The origins of Melqart Melqart was a relatively recent arrival in the Tyrian pantheon. He does not appear in the Ras Shamra texts and we first hear of him only in the tenth century, in relation to a religious reform carried out by Hiram I of Tyre.25 Our first iconographical representation of the god dates to the end of the ninth century.26 As his name suggests, Melqart is closely linked to the ruling dynasty and in some ways represents the mythical ruler of the city, the archetypal king of Tyre, responsible for the well-being and protection of its citizens, as we can see from the terms of the treaty between the seventh-century king of Tyre, Baal, and his Assyrian counterpart, Assarhadon.27 Many aspects of the personality of Melqart can be explained by examining the origins of the god, what has been termed the ‘prehistory’ of Melqart. Although attested only in the last millennium BC, it seems that Melqart is an evolution of a much older divinity or group of divinities found throughout the SyroPalestinian region during the second and third millennia BC. These are the rulers (mlk, mlkm) who upon their death are ritually placed among the ancestors of the ruling monarch, where they are given the status of ancestors of the royal house; they are also asked by the king to ensure the prosperity and well-being of the royal family and the entire community over which they once reigned. By the time of the archives of Ugarit in the second millennium BC, these dead kings are referred to as the Rephaim. They are the ancestors of the royal family who enjoy a privileged status among the dead, and when invoked by the ruling monarch, they can return to the city they once ruled to provide it with benefits such as children for the king, fertility to the land, healing for the sick, and prosperity for the whole city and its inhabitants. During the first millennium BC, it seems that Tyre chose to develop further this tradition, and instead of worshipping the ancestors of the king as a collectivity, promoted the figure of mlk, the king, to a specific form, Mlk qrt, the king of Tyre. The Tyrians chose to raise him from the status of ancestor to that of a full divinity, one whose human origins were not forgotten but were celebrated in his egersis, an annual ritual when he once again undergoes death but returns to life. It is this ‘human’ aspect of Melqart, a god who was once king, that probably provides the key to under-

standing his assimilation with Herakles, the ‘divine hero’, who like Melqart is at once human and divine.28 Given the close association between god and ruler, it is not surprising that royalty were directly involved in the cult of Melqart, with Hiram playing a prominent role in the worship of the divinity, and Elissa, the daughter of the king of Tyre, married to the chief priest of Melqart, her uncle Acherbas, whom, we are told, held the first place in the city after the ruler himself.29 Therefore it should not surprise us that Melqart played an important role in the move westwards, with shrines and sanctuaries dedicated to him situated in all the main areas of Phoenician interest along the shores of the Mediterranean and beyond.

Religion and the Phoenician colonial process

Temples of Melqart in the Mediterranean and beyond It is interesting to note that, in the accounts of the establishment of Phoenician settlements, the foundation of the settlement is often accompanied or preceded by the establishment of a temple. Sometimes, as Bunnens points out, only the temple is mentioned, as in the case of Lixus. Thus we get the impression from the ancient authors that the foundation of Phoenician settlements was associated with the foundation of shrines or sanctuaries to their gods.30 So it seems that wherever the Phoenicians chose to settle, they invariably brought their gods with them.31 Such an impression is confirmed by epigraphical evidence. The controversial Nora stone in Sardinia seems to have been set up to commemorate the dedication of a monument to the god Pmy, represented by a temple, an altar, or perhaps even the stone itself,32 while a Phoenician shrine has been identified at Kommos in Crete.33 In second-century Delos we find a group of Phoenician traders, the Heracleists of Tyre, asking Athenian permission to build a temenos dedicated to Herakles as ‘founder of the fatherland’, undoubtedly in this context the Tyrian Melqart.34 Temples to the great Phoenician goddess Astarte are found in the Tyrian quarter at Memphis in Egypt, in Cyprus at Kition and probably Cythera, at Tas Silg in Malta where the Phoenician temple occupies the site of a prehistoric religious complex, and in the West at Eryx in Sicily and Sicca Veneria in western Tunisia;35 but the divinity most closely involved in the great expansionary movement westwards is the national god of Tyre, Melqart. He is associated with the most distant Phoenician foundations of Gadir and Lixus, both of which are situated on the Atlantic coasts. According to Herodotus, there was a temple dedicated to him in Thasos in Greece, and it has been suggested that he

GADIR

was the god originally worshipped at the Ara Maxima in Rome.36 He is invoked in Tarsis, Malta and Delos as the archegetes,37 a term usually reserved for eponymous or founding heroes, protectors of the city or presumed ancestors, reflecting Melqart’s character as mythical founder of the city of Tyre and the god responsible for the well-being and protection of his human worshippers.38 Unlike his counterpart Astarte, who generally can be taken as continuing the local cults of indigenous female divinities, nowhere is this the case for Melqart.39 It seems his Tyrian character remained uppermost, and even when he was later subsumed by his Greek counterpart, Herakles, and Roman successor, Hercules, many of the features of his worship were unaltered, even though they were puzzling or foreign to later generations of worshippers.40 Melqart always remained true to his name as the lord of Tyre, the divine representation of the ruler of the city, and as such may well have had a special role to play in the Phoenician colonisation movement. A passage of Diodorus Siculus (XX. 14. 1) refers to Melqart as ‘Hercules who accompanies the colonists’. This may indicate, as Bunnens observes, that Melqart presided over the new colonial foundations, a premise supported by Diodorus’ account of how the first Carthaginians used to send one-tenth of their public revenues to the temple of the god in Tyre.41 Bonnet emphasises what she terms the official and national character of the god as divine counterpart of the temporal ruler, founder of the metropolis itself, and inventor of navigation.42 Undoubtedly the chief function of these sanctuaries which we find in all the areas of the Mediterranean associated with the Phoenicians was the need to provide a place where Phoenician sailors and traders could continue to honour their gods, and it is clear from their position that these sanctuaries were closely linked to maritime trade.43 But the diffusion of the cult of Melqart may not have been the result of national piety alone. Several factors indicate that these sanctuaries could have had an important role to play in the economic life of the regions in which they were situated. An economic role for the sanctuary? It is generally accepted that it was trade that brought the Phoenicians to the central and western Mediterranean, and in particular, a need for the precious metals which were abundant in these regions and were far less widely available in the East. While we see the Phoenicians establishing international trade relations through treaties or agreements concluded between heads of state, such as that between Hiram I of Tyre and Solomon of Israel, and the treaties between Rome

( CADIZ )

87

and Carthage, this form of agreement was only possible if the parties involved were at a comparable level of social development.44 The situation was completely different in the far West where the Phoenicians met peoples who lacked a strong centralised state, such as were found in the East, and who were at a far more primitive level of development than the Phoenicians themselves. In such circumstances trade could take the form of the famous ‘silent exchange,’ which Herodotus (IV. 196) describes between the Carthaginians and their neighbours in North Africa. But given the disparity of the parties involved, and their clear lack of familiarity with one another, with no common language or customs, there was always the danger that one of the parties would be tempted to defraud the other, or worse.45 The best way of overcoming initial distrust and of ensuring and safeguarding continuing trade was to establish a sanctuary to a Phoenician divinity in the area where they had come to trade. ‘The sanctuary legitimised the Phoenician presence on foreign soil and created the conditions necessary for peaceful relations with the natives’.46 As Van Berchem has pointed out, in a time when there was no international law to regulate and protect trade and the traders who carried it out, ‘with a supernatural presence transforming into sacrilege any act of violence or plain fraud, the altars of the gods were the scene of the first peaceful meetings and the first transactions between strangers’.47 The Phoenician temple may also have offered the right of asylum to shipwrecked travellers, as one interpretation of a passage of Herodotus (II. 115) suggests. This would have provided an additional assurance of protection for visitors and merchants.48 The semitic practice of sacred prostitution, with temple officials of both sexes offering their services to the visitor in return for offerings to the temple, must have provided an additional incentive for visiting the sacred site, and may indeed have formed part of the hospitality offered by the temple.49 In fact the existence of a direct link between Phoenician sanctuaries and commercial transactions is explicitly commented on by a source contemporary with the Phoenician colonial movement. The Old Testament prophet Ezekiel records an oracle he received from Yahwe addressed first to the king of Tyre, and then to the god of the city, clearly Melqart. In it Yahwe laments the corruption of the Tyrian god and says: ‘In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence and you sinned . . . In the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade, you profaned your sanctuaries.’ Ezekiel XXVIII, 16–18

88

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Thus the commercial role of the Tyrian temples, and in particular that of Melqart, was clearly marked enough to draw down the wrath of the prophet. In order for the authority of the god as guardian of the transactions carried out under his auspices to be accepted by the local inhabitants, the god himself had to be recognised and accepted by them. In this context the Phoenicians enjoyed the advantage of having a form of religious worship which was characterised by the elaborateness and complication of its ritual. This may well have been, as van Berchem suggests, an important factor in the acceptance of Melqart among the inhabitants of the various areas of the Mediterranean and beyond where his shrines were set up.50 In return for his services, the god benefited from the transactions carried out under his protection, and this is probably the reason why his sanctuary at Gadir in particular became famous for its great wealth.51 Given the economic aspect of Melqart’s personality, we can now see why his shrines are found in all the areas where the Phoenicians went to trade, some situated in regions with important mineral deposits,52 and others in major craft centres,53 where they could obtain manufactured products to use in their trade with the natives. Such considerations also explain why the temple of Melqart in Gadir occupied an important position in the life of the city right down to the end of antiquity.54

The topography of Phoenician Cádiz

As we have seen, the date and circumstances of the foundation of Phoenician Gadir are the subject of controversy, as is the very configuration and topography of the city itself. While a glance at the map shows that the modern city of Cádiz is made up of a long narrow peninsula which stretches from the mainland out into the Bay of Cádiz, the descriptions given by Pliny, Avienus, Strabo and Pomponius Mela are of a city located on a number of islands, explaining the plural form of its name both in Greek and Latin (Fig. 3.3). It is obvious that three millennia of continuous marine erosion on the western side of the bay, added to the silting caused by alluvial deposits laid down by the river Guadalete on the eastern side of the bay, have profoundly altered the topography of this area, explaining why the exact location of the ancient city has been the cause of such controversy. According to the description given by the ancient authors, the bay of Cádiz was occupied in antiquity by an archipelago composed of three main islands, two of which were occupied by the first Tyrian settlers (Fig. 3.3). Pliny (NH IV. 22), citing among his sources Polybius and Timaeus, states that there were three islands but describes only two: Kotinoussa, which owed its name to the abundance of olives growing there, and a smaller island, Erytheia, also known as Aphrodisias, which the Gaditans them-

Fig 3.2 Map of the peninsula of Cádiz, showing a reconstruction of the geography of the former archipelago as it would have appeared in Phoenician times

GADIR

Fig 3.3 Palaeo-topography of the Bay of Cádiz during the Phoenician period

selves called the Insula Iunonis (‘the Island of Juno’).55 This is where he places the city of Gadir. According to the accounts given by Strabo and Mela, the main island was long and narrow with a promontory at each end: the city of Gades was located at the western end of the island, while at the eastern end stood the temple of Hercules.56 Judging by the description given by these authors, we can surmise that already by Roman times there was considerable confusion about the original topography of the bay and the location of the city and its sanctuaries, undoubtedly due to the changes in the geomorphology of the bay and its islands.57 The key to reconstructing the geography of this area in the Phoenician period lies in the recent discovery of

( CADIZ )

89

a channel linking the side of the modern peninsula directly exposed to the ocean with the interior of the bay of Cádiz, from ‘La Bahía’ to ‘La Caleta’ (Figs 3.2 and 3.3). This so-called ‘Bahía–Caleta channel’ thus divided the widest part of the peninsula of Cádiz in two at its northernmost end, perpendicular to the coast, and delimited a small island some 1,500 m in circumference which is now occupied by the nineteenth-century quarter of the city.58 The Bahía–Caleta channel was deep and wide, measuring some 150/200 m wide and some 9 m deep, and had sloping banks. Given its size, it is unlikely to have been artificial in origin, and may once have represented a bed of the Guadalete river.59 It seems clear that this channel was exploited by the Phoenicians and used as the port of

90

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

the first settlement there,60 a circumstance which may have contributed to its rapid infilling. Given the fact that this channel is not mentioned in any of the ancient authors, it seems likely that its infill had been completed by Roman times.61 With the loss of the Bahía-Caleta channel what had originally been two islands, the Erytheia and Kotinoussa of Pliny’s narrative, became the long narrow island described by Mela and Strabo.

The location of Gadir It is generally agreed that the Phoenician colony, which Avienus describes as having once been a fortress, the arx Gerontis, must have been situated somewhere within the area of the casco antiguo, or old centre of Cádiz. It most probably lay in the area of the Torre de Tavira, the highest point of the modern city, and one which has yielded some of the oldest Phoenician objects found so far (Figs 3.1 and 3.2).62 These include the so-called ‘priest of Cádiz,’ a bronze statuette of Ptah which has been dated to between the eighth and the sixth centuries.63 It was found during building work in 1928 at a depth of five metres below street level; an ashlar structure was found nearby, ten metres below street level, suggesting that this is an area with a deep stratigraphy.64 Indeed excavations carried out in the area once occupied by the island have revealed few traces of urban remains. Some flimsy dwellings constructed from very poor building materials and with correspondingly poor finds have been dated to the sixth century, while recent and still unpublished excavations in Calle Concepción Arenal uncovered the remains of rectilinear dwellings dating to the end of the eighth century.65 Further excavations carried out in 1998 in the Casa del Obispo in the Old Cathedral, close to Calle Concepción Arenal, found the remains of a masonry structure with, in its interior, imported Greek pottery, as well as indigenous and wheel-made ware, both dating to the seventh century.66 So insubstantial, in fact, are the signs of occupation of Gadir during the eighth and seventh centuries that Diego Ruiz Mata has proposed that during this period the main nucleus of Phoenician settlement was not located on the archipelago at all, but instead was concentrated on the nearby mainland site of Castillo de Doña Blanca (Fig. 3.3). This is situated close to the modern town of El Puerto de Santa María, and was a large and flourishing Phoenician settlement during the eighth and seventh centuries and beyond. He argues that the islands were not occupied on a permanent basis until the sixth century, and then only under the influence of Carthage. Before then they were used primarily as religious sites only, and the signs of settlement located under the streets of modern Cádiz

correspond primarily to economic activities, chiefly fishing. In his view, the failure to locate remains of more substantial setttlement on the islands during the first period of occupation is not due to erosion or other changes in the palaeotopography of the site, but simply to the fact that for many centuries the archipelago of Cádiz was peripheral to the main nucleus of settlement area, Phoenician Gadir itself, located at Castillo de Doña Blanca.67

Erytheia Pliny tells us that the island of Erytheia, where the prius oppidum Gadium was situated, was also called Aphrodisias, while the locals referred to it as the Insula Iunonis.68 This is most probably the island which, according to Avienus (OM 315–17), was dedicated to Venus Marina, undoubtedly the Phoenician Astarte, who was worshipped there at her temple which had a deep crypt and an oracle. This temple may well have been situated around the Punta del Nao (Fig. 3.2), an area of reefs, submerged by the high tide, at the foot of the modern Castillo de Santa Catalina. Since 1969 the waters round these reefs have yielded a series of objects which seem to have a marked ritual aspect, consisting of various heads with negroid or Egyptianizing traits, incense burners and thymiateria, small terracotta female figures and miniature amphorae, which have dated this sequence of finds from the end of the seventh or early sixth down to the third centuries. Given the type of objects found and their wide chronological sequence, it is unlikely that they would have come from a shipwreck, and it seems that we should regard them as offerings to the goddess which were ceremonially thrown into the water as votive offerings by the faithful.69

Kotinoussa As for the second island mentioned by our sources, Kotinoussa, this extended from the area occupied by the modern Castillo de San Sebastián down to the islet of Sancti Petri.70 Here Pliny (NH IV. 120) puts the sanctuary of Kronos, the Phoenician Baal Hammon, across from the shrine to Venus/Astarte: thus the entry to the channel dividing the two islands, which served as the port of the Tyrian colony, was marked by the presence of twin sanctuaries.71 It seems very likely that, on the small elevation now occupied by the Castillo de San Sebastián, there once rose the temple of Baal Hammon. It was from the sea to the south of the Castillo de San Sebastián that our only archaeological evidence for the monumental architecture of Phoenician Cádiz comes. (Fig. 3.4) This consists of a small limestone protoAeolic capital, 27 cm high and 30 cm wide. Given the fact that it is rounded on top it could not have had any

GADIR

Fig. 3.4 Limestone proto-Aeolic capital found in the waters off Cádiz, now in the Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Cádiz; height 27 cm; width 30 cm.

architectonic function and must have been purely decorative, possibly serving to mark the entrance to a temple. It has been dated on the grounds of similarities to capitals from Megiddo, Jerusalem and Tyre to the eighth or seventh centuries.72 Excavations carried out in the area of the former island of Kotinoussa have failed to reveal any evidence of Phoenician settlement, confirming the evidence of Strabo and Pliny that the earliest settlement was very limited in size: it was not until the construction of Balbus’ Didyme in Roman times that Gades jumped from Erytheia to Kotinoussa.73 Up to then Kotinoussa was occupied only by the shrine to Baal Hammon (Strabo’s Kronion), the Phoenician necropolis, and the most famous of Gadir’s shrines, that of Melqart, later to become the temple of Hercules Gaditanus.74 The sources agree in placing the Herakleion on the opposite end of the island to the city,75 and there is general agreement that its location corresponds to the area of the modern islet of Sancti Petri, situated 18 km south of the Torre de Tavira, and site of the earliest Tyrian settlement. This distance coincides with the figure of 12 miles between the colony and the sanctuary given by Strabo and the Roman Itineraries.76 Sancti Petri is now an islet some 400 m to 500 m long which has been cut off from the main body of what was once Kotinoussa by the force of the Atlantic. This process was already complete by the Roman imperial era, judging by the fact that we are told that the sanctuary occupied the entire surface of the island on

( CADIZ )

91

which it was built,77 and that it was vulnerable to flooding from the sea during the spring tides of the summer solstice.78 Given these circumstances, it is not surprising that the majority of the archaeological finds which can be ascribed to the temple from both Phoenician and Roman times have come from the waters immediately surrounding Sancti Petri.79 These include the most recent discoveries of five Phoenician bronze figures in an archaic style representing a masculine divinity of the type known as the ‘Smiting God’ (Fig. 3.5).80 They were found in a cavity in the rock in shallow waters between Sancti Petri and terra firma and may represent offerings from a favissa of the temple which marked the centre of the sanctuary’s sacred area, as Corzo suggests.81 Excavations carried out by Corzo in the south-east part of Sancti Petri in 1985 have shown that the area occupied by the islet represents only a peripheral part of the sacred enclosure; the central area of the shrine, with the main monuments of both the Phoenician and Roman temple, is now under water, precisely in that part of the sea which yielded the bronze statuettes. The excavation uncovered various levels of occupation which seem to have begun around the seventh century.82

The temple of Melqart As for the appearance of the temple, we have only written evidence on which to rely, and none of our sources gives a clear picture of its appearance. Arrian says that both the architecture and the sacrificial rites of the temple reveal its Phoenician origin (Alex. II. 16. 4). This is confirmed by Appian (Iber. I. 2), and others stress its great antiquity and sumptuousness (Silius Italicus III. 17–20; Diodorus V. 20. 2). Based on the information provided by Graeco-Roman sources and a comparison with Phoenician temples elsewhere, García y Bellido has suggested that the temple at Gadir originally consisted of a large temenos with an open courtyard, which may have been porticoed and which had within it the naos or temple building.83 We know that the temple had no images or visual representations of the god, a circumstance which surprised many of our sources.84 Inside the temple were the relics of Hercules who was said either to have died in Spain,85 or to have had his remains transferred from Tyre (Justin XLIV. 5. 2). A similar monument may well have existed in the temple of Melqart in Tyre and, according to Bonnet, this indicates that the temple in Cádiz was closely linked to its Tyrian counterpart. Such a link is also evident in the accounts we have of the worship of the god in Cádiz, which remained markedly oriental in character even as late as the Roman imperial era.86

92

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 3.5 (left) Bronze statuette of an oriental-type divinity from Sancti Petri in Cádiz, now in the Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Cádiz; height 31 cm (35 cm including the support on the right foot)

Fig. 3.6 (right) Marble anthropoid sarcophagus, now in the Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Cádiz; approximate height 2.15 m

GADIR

Burials Apart from the two shrines to Kronos/Baal Hammon and Melqart/Herakles, Kotinoussa was occupied only by a vast necropolis until the erection of Cornelius Balbus’ Neapolis.87 The burials of the Phoenician era were found in the modern area of Puertas de Tierra, within the cemetery of the later Punic city, and on the side of the island facing Erytheia (Fig. 3.2). Generally speaking, the burials become more numerous as we approach Erytheia, the island on which the first Tyrian settlement was located. There is also a clear link between the chronology of the burials within the Phoenician and Punic eras and their location, with the burials tending to become more modern as we approach the Herakleion.88 The oldest Phoenician burials are all cremations, either in a simple or a double rectangular fossa, carried out in situ and then simply covered with earth.89 The burials can be dated from the start of the sixth century to the end of that century. The grave goods, which consist generally of decorated ostrich eggs, two-spouted oil lamps and some carnelian and gold beads, are not particularly impressive, and do not bear comparison with the spectacular anthropoid sarcophagi of fifth-century Cádiz (Fig. 3.6).90 In terms of the position of the necropolis of Phoenician Cádiz, it is interesting to note that it conforms to the standard pattern of location of the cemeteries of the Phoenician sites on the other side of the Straits, situated as it is across from the settlement nucleus, separated from it by a body of water.91

Antipolis The third island of the archipelago on which the Phoenicians settled is called Antipolis by Strabo and is the area formerly known as the Isla de Léon, now San Fernando (Fig. 3.3). No Phoenician finds or settlement remains have been made there, but enormous quantities of shells of the murex trunculus species of shellfish were found, showing that the former island was the site of purple-manufacturing factories.92 It may have been reserved exclusively for industrial purposes, given the offensive smell produced in the process of extracting the dye.

The relationship of Gadir with its hinterland

It is evident that the geography of the city of Cádiz has changed fundamentally since the time of the first Tyrian foundation, and in many ways the site chosen for the Phoenician settlement seems an odd one: it is located in an area which was difficult to reach by sea, given the considerable navigational difficulties involved in the crossing of the Straits which divide the

( CADIZ )

93

Mediterranean from the Atlantic.93 However, as Strabo’s account of the foundation of Gadir shows, it was obviously a carefully chosen site, and one that must have offered advantages which outweighed the difficulties involved in reaching it. As an island site, Gadir replicated the settlement pattern habitual in Phoenician sites in the western Mediterranean in general, such as Motya, situated on the island of San Pantaleo, off Sicily, and in the Iberian Peninsula, the site of Cerro del Villar on the other side of the Straits, and of course that of Tyre itself. Such a situation offered the advantages of an easily defensible site, which avoided the perils involved in too close a contact with the mainland and its inhabitants.94 In addition to its defensibility, Phoenician Gadir allowed easy access to the hinterland, with its location at the mouth of the river Guadalete, not far from the valley of the Guadalquivir. During the last millennium BC, the lower stretches of these rivers formed large estuaries in an area which is now largely marshland, but which was then occupied by a network of indigenous sites, particularly dense around the edges of the Guadalquivir estuary. The Guadalquivir river was navigable almost as far as Corduba, and provided access to the fertile agricultural lands on either side of the river, as well as to the mining regions of Aznalcóllar, with its rich silver deposits, and to Huelva, which controlled the metal resources of Rio Tinto.95 In addition to its immediate hinterland, Gadir, with its Atlantic location, provided and controlled access to the Atlantic coasts of Portugal and Africa, regions which show increasingly clear evidence of economic and cultural links to the city.96 Thus in terms of strategic location, the site chosen by the Tyrian delegation under the direction of Melqart could not be bettered, especially when we take into consideration that the only thing lacking for the successful survival of the enclave, a foothold on the mainland, was soon provided by the Phoenician site at the Castillo de Doña Blanca. The Phoenician site at Castillo de Doña Blanca According to Strabo (III. 5. 3; C 169), ‘As for their city, the one they lived in at first was very small indeed, but Balbus of Gades (. . .) founded another for them (. . .) and the city which is composed of the two they call ‘Didyme,’ although it is not more than twenty stadia in circuit, and even at that not crowded. For only a few stay at home in the city, because in general they are all at sea, though some live on the continent opposite the island.’ This division of the habitation areas, described by Strabo, between the islands in the bay of Cádiz and the mainland, was a situation which began almost as soon as the city was founded, with the establishment

94

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

of a Phoenician enclave at Castillo de Doña Blanca, on the coast overlooking the main nucleus of the city on Erytheia. This pattern of island city with some occupation on the mainland is a reflection of what we find in Tyre with its outer suburbs at Ushu or Palaeotyre on the mainland. As recent research has shown, the Phoenician settlement at Castillo de Doña Blanca was an integral part of Gadir, and one which provides us with very valuable information as to the nature of early urbanisation in Gadir, and its trading and commercial activities. Such information is impossible to obtain from the island of Erytheia itself, given the intensity and continuity of occupation there from Phoenician times to the present day.97 In fact, the contrast between the fourishing city of the eighth and seventh centuries at Castillo de Doña Blanca, and the situation in the archipelago of Cádiz, where almost no evidence of settlement has been found from that period, has led Diego Ruiz Mata, director of the excavations at Castillo de Doña Blanca, to claim, as noted above (p. 90), that his site represents the true Gadir, the heart of Phoenician settlement in the region. In his view the islands were used only for religious and economic purposes with real settlement starting there only from the sixth century. Castillo de Doña Blanca is situated close to Cádiz, in the municipal district of the town of Puerto de Santa María: it lies at the edge of the Sierra de San Cristóbal which rises to a height of 124 m, and separates the coastal plain from the interior (Fig. 3.3). Although in antiquity it was situated directly on the coast and had at least one harbour, now it is cut off from the sea by extensive marshland, the result of alluvial deposits laid down by the nearby Guadalete river. The position of the settlement on a small natural elevation, some 15 m above sea level, next to the small bay which must have acted as its port (it shows signs of having been artificially enhanced during the Phoenician period), and close to the Guadalete estuary, explains the reason for the foundation of the site, which served as a commercial enclave connecting Gadir and the indigenous communities in its hinterland.98 As well as the advantages of a sheltered and secure harbour, Castillo de Doña Blanca provided access to the Guadalete river. The latter was navigable for several kilometres inland and was close to the Guadalquivir, the main artery of communications between the coast and the Tartessian hinterland. The mouth of the river, which now forms the wetlands of the national park of Coto de Doñana, was then a wide maritime bay stretching as far inland as Seville.99 Thus, in the Phoenician period, the sites around Cádiz were far better situated to communicate by ship with the heartland of Andalusia than they are at present. In addition, the position of Doña Blanca

enabled it to provide abundant supplies of fresh water to the island city where it was very probably in short supply, agricultural produce from its fertile hinterland, stone which was undoubtedly used for construction in Gadir, as well as space for expansion which was lacking in the archipelago. All these natural advantages explain why it soon grew to become such an important settlement in size, urban development and trade.100 History of settlement at Castillo de Doña Blanca The settlement itself forms a small artificial hillock, rectangular in shape due to its system of defensive walls, and measuring some 340 m long by 200 m wide in its north–south axis (Fig. 3.7). Behind the settlement is its necropolis, Las Cumbres, which covers an area of some 100 ha, and was probably separated from the habitation site by a channel of water, again replicating the characteristic division of cemetery and settlement area which we find in the Phoenician sites east of the Straits.101 The Sierra de San Cristóbal was first settled in the Copper Age, during the third millennium and in the first half of the second, on the coast at La Dehesa, to the east of Castillo de Doña Blanca, and in the area subsequently occupied by the Phoenician settlement itself. There are signs of a Middle Bronze Age occupation of the Sierra, followed by a hiatus. Then in the Late Bronze Age we find one nucleus of indigenous population, on the highest point of the sierra, at Las Cumbres, with only one phase of occupation dating to the pre-Phoenician Late Bronze Age, probably in the ninth century. Immediately after the Phoenician foundation, the Las Cumbres site was abandoned and its inhabitants probably moved to Castillo de Doña Blanca. Thus the Phoenicians occupied an uninhabited site at Castillo de Doña Blanca, and they remained there until the fourth and third centuries. Then the settlement expanded to occupy the Las Cumbres area further up the hill, before the occupation of both Doña Blanca and Las Cumbres was finally abandoned at the end of the third century, in the case of the former at least, probably as a result of the Second Punic War.102 The urban characteristics of Castillo de Doña Blanca As for the urban structure of the settlement, it seems that right from the beginning the site was enclosed by its own system of defensive walls, part of which has been excavated. They consisted of a broad masonry socle, with mortar used to fix the stones in place. The wall itself was made up of irregular masonry set in clay which in the excavated area reaches a height of more than three metres. This first wall may well have had a system of casemates as one of its successors had, and was probably surmounted by a further stretch of mud-brick wall, bringing the total height of the fortifi-

GADIR

Fig 3.7 Map of the Sierra de San Cristóbal, showing the location of ancient settlement there

cations up to some 5/6 m. In front of the wall there was a trench, measuring some 20 m in width and 4 m in depth, and which seems to have served a defensive purpose, protecting the settlement walls.103 This early defensive structure continued in existence throughout the sixth century, but it was replaced in the fifth and again in the fourth/third centuries with another defensive system, this time following the typical oriental model of the casemate wall, made up of alternating large rectangular rooms and towers. This is an arrangement attested also in recent excavations of the seventh-century levels of occupation at Beirut.104 The earliest residential structures at Castillo de Doña Blanca date to the eighth century, and are found in an area of more than 1,000 square metres in what the excavator has called the barrio fenicio (Fig. 3.8). Here the houses are laid out in terraces because of the sloping ground on which they are built, and are separated by narrow streets or laneways (Fig. 3.9). They are made up of three or four rooms with masonry, or sometimes simple mud-brick, walls which reached a height of between 2 m and 2.5 m, and reddish clay floors, sometimes intercalated with thin layers of lime.

( CADIZ )

95

The walls were plastered with clay and then whitewashed. The roof was undoubtedly thatched and had a wooden framework. The doorway was generally at the corner of the house and there was one or two steps from the street into the house. The door jambs were made from stone blocks, and stone blocks were occasionally found in the centre of the walls, an oriental construction technique also found in Huelva, Carmona and Niebla.105 Most of the houses had an oven used to bake bread (Fig. 3.10). This was a small domed clay structure, approximately 1 m in diameter and 0.5 m high, with a slabbed stone floor, and there were numerous clay structures inside the houses which were probably used as benches, hearths or recipients for pottery containers.106 At the foot of the lower terrace of houses there was a v-shaped trench, approximately 3 m wide and 2 m deep, which may have been used either for channelling water or for the defence of the residential area (Fig. 3.8).107 No remains of a wall or fencing of any kind have been found in the trench, and it seems that the trench itself must have been the sole line of defence here, as the walls of the houses are extremely close to its edge. In front of this

96

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig 3.8 (above) Castillo de Doña Blanca, plan of the eighth-century urban layout Fig. 3.9 (below) Castillo de Doña Blanca (Cádiz), general view

trench a further trench was discovered in the 1991 excavations measuring between 10 m and 12 m wide and between 4 m and 5 m deep; it too appears to have had a clear defensive function.108 Judging by the layout of the earliest eighth-century system of fortifications and their relative distance from the contemporary residential area, the so called barrio fenicio, we can surmise that right from the beginning the settlement at Castillo de Doña Blanca assumed considerable proportions, probably already by c. 730/720 covering an area of some 7 ha. That is almost the same size as the area occupied by the later Punic site. This is a considerable size for a settlement of this era, especially when we compare it with Gadir, which did not grow to more than 7 ha or 8 ha until the construction of Balbus’ Neapolis. Given its size, fortifications and high degree of urban organization by he end of the eighth century, we have to assume, as its excavator points out, that the Phoenician settlement at Castillo de Doña Blanca was a genuine town rather than a simple emporium occupied seasonally for trading purposes.109 With its carefully planned layout of terraced houses, divided by narrow streets and enclosed by a thick fortification wall, we are reminded of the other Phoenician settlements to the east of the Straits, and it is obvious that the first settlers at Castillo de Doña Blanca, like those on the Mediterranean coast, who expended so much energy and resources into building their settlements, were planning on the

GADIR

( CADIZ )

97

Fig. 3.10 Castillo de Doña Blanca, view of a house with an oven permanent occupation of these coastal sites so far away from their homes in the eastern Mediterranean.

The economy of Castillo de Doña Blanca Careful excavation of the site at Castillo de Doña Blanca, and especially of the stratified midden in use from the eighth to the third centuries, allows us to reconstruct some of the economic activities of its inhabitants. Analysis of the animal bones from the midden reveals an agricultural strategy similar to that practised in the other Phoenician sites on the Mediterranean coast of Andalucía, in particular that at Toscanos. Just as at Toscanos, in Doña Blanca there was considerable emphasis put on stockbreeding, and particularly cattle-rearing, for meat production, but also for traction.110 The cattle at Doña Blanca may well have had an important role in the ploughing of the fields used to grow the wide variety of crops attested at the site. Barley and wheat were the most important cereals during the eighth and seventh centuries, but pulses and leguminous plants were also cultivated, and several new species of plants were introduced, including the chickpea, almond and the cultivated grape (vitis vinifera). The evidence points to a mixed agriculture combining cereal growing with horticulture, with protein coming from cattle, and also from fishing which was extremely important, with shellfish, freshwater and marine species (deep sea as well as coastal) all well represented. The agriculture practised at Doña Blanca was clearly a specialist business,

probably involving full-time work, given the level of time and resources needed, for instance, to go deepsea fishing, or to engage in specialised stockrearing.111 Clearly not everyone at Doña Blanca was a trader.

Pottery The site at Castillo de Doña Blanca was initially thought to be a native settlement, which through its proximity to Gadir received strong orientalizing influences in both its pottery production and construction techniques.112 However, in addition to the purely Phoenician nature of the construction techniques and layout of the settlement, and the introduction of plants and animals previously unknown in the Peninsula, an examination of the pottery repertory proves that the site was fully oriental in character, showing strong links, first of all with the Levant, and subsequently with the other Phoenician sites in Iberia, and Atlantic North Africa. The pottery from the site comes mainly from the barrio fenicio and the areas around the settlement wall, and can be divided chronologically into three phases: the eighth-century material which makes up the first phase of pottery production, and which displays strong links with the Levant; and the material produced in the second and third phases, from the end of the eighth century and throughout the seventh, which by then had begun to display those features which characterise the pottery production of the extreme western Mediterranean. The earliest ceramic material

98

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig 3.11 Castillo de Doña Blanca, eighth-century pottery: (i) red-slip mushroom-lip jug; (ii)–(iv) red-slip plates; (v)–(vi) red-slip bowls; (vii) imported Sagona Type-2 amphora; (viii) one-spouted lamp

consists almost entirely of fine table ware, red-slip ware, with an almost complete absence of the bichrome or polychrome decorated ware generally found on the less high-quality large storage jars or pithoi (Fig. 3.11).113 Among the red-slip forms, the plates are very frequent, and provide valuable dating evidence for the start of the occupation of the site.114 The plates at Castillo de Doña Blanca have narrow rims, between 20 mm and 30 mm on average, which occasionally reach up to 35 mm; in the Phoenician sites in the province of Málaga this would indicate a date in

the mid-eighth century.115 Other red-slip forms are paterae or carinated bowls of different sizes, covered with a very high quality red slip;116 mushroom-lip and trefoil jugs,117 which bear a strong resemblance to their eighth-century oriental prototypes;118 and singlespouted lamps.119 Amphorae are also commonly found at Castillo de Doña Blanca, especially the R–1 type, which occurs extensively in Phoenician enclaves in the south of the Iberian Peninsula and Ibiza, as well as in the areas under their influence in Portugal, the north-eastern Mediterranean coast and Morocco.120

GADIR

But there is evidence of contacts with the central Mediterranean as well, in the form of a large number of amphorae typical of those produced in Carthage and Tunisia.121 Other types are imported from the East, and suggest continued contact with that area. Some of these eastern imports correspond to Sagona’s type-2 amphora which is found widely on the Levantine coast between 760 and 700.122 Other imports are the Samaria-ware bowls characteristic of levels VII–V of Tyre, dated to the first half of the eighth century.123 In general, the pottery of the first years of occupation at Doña Blanca points to close and continued links with the motherland, with some contact with the central Mediterranean, and to a relatively high economic level, judging by the predominance of fine table ware, and imports of high-quality pottery from the East. Ruiz Mata points out that the varied origins of the amphorae found at Doña Blanca indicates that the settlement functioned as an international port, receiving and redistributing imports from the central and eastern Mediterranean.124 The fact that the pottery from the Phoenician sites at Lixus in Morocco and Tavira in Portugal bears such a strong resemblance to that from Doña Blanca implies that the trade carried out at Doña Blanca may have had a strongly Atlantic orientation, which given its location is completely logical. In this context, the settlement may have acted as an entrepôt, receiving goods from the eastern and central Mediterranean and channeling them on to the Atlantic regions, which increasingly show signs of having been one of the main factors in attracting the Phoenicians to Iberia. This hypothesis of the site as an international trading centre is reinforced by written evidence. So far more than 80 graffiti have been found on pottery dating to the eighth and seventh centuries. In some cases these refer directly to the eastern Mediterranean, with references to the Levantine city of Akko, for example, and also to Eshmun, the chief deity of Sidon.125 The barrio fenicio was abandoned at the end of the eighth century, perhaps following an earthquake, and the second and third phases of pottery, dating from the end of the eighth century and throughout the seventh, come from this area which was subsequently used as a dump until it was reoccupied in the fifth and fourth centuries.126 The second and third phases show quite distinct changes from the older pottery, with the largescale manufacture of polychrome decorated pottery, mainly on pithoi, urns, small amphorae and bowls (Fig. 3.12). This polychrome ware consists of wide red bands, framed by black stripes, and it is often decorated with concentric circles.127 The turn of the eighth century also marks the large-scale appearance of grey ware, in plates, paterae and bowls.128 The red-slip

( CADIZ )

99

forms continued to be manufactured, but now the plates have wider rims following the same chronological evolution that we see in the Phoenician settlements and cemeteries in Málaga (p. 12).129 In their form and decoration they are exactly similar to the plates from Mogador, and this similarity to the Moroccan pottery is found in the red-slip carinated bowls which in Castillo de Doña Blanca are again very similar in typology to forms found in Mogador.130 Amphorae continue to be mostly of the R–1 form; the Levantine Sagona type 2 form now disappears, perhaps indicating an increased reliance on the local production of amphorae and their contents, rather than on imports from the motherland. The amphorae are now more numerous than in the preceding phase, testifying to a new growth in the settlement’s commercial activities with the coming of the seventh century, the period which marks the very apogee of Phoenician activities and prosperity in the West.131 Thus, from the turn of the eighth century onwards, we find a wider variety of ceramic types, with the introduction, in enormous quantities, of polychrome painted ware , as well as of grey ware. Ruiz Mata has suggested that ‘so many differences, in such a short time, suggest the presence of new stimuli, from the end of the eighth/start of the seventh century, coming perhaps from Cyprus or the Phoenician cities’.132 Throughout the seventh century the pottery of Doña Blanca shows clear links, not only with the neighbouring Phoenician sites on the Mediterranean coast of Andalusia, but also with the Atlantic sites on the Moroccan coast, especially Mogador, and with those in Portugal, where the excavators at Tavira have commented on the many similarities between the pottery there and that of Doña Blanca.133 This unified material culture is specific to the Phoenician Far West and is not found in Carthage, Motya and the other great Phoenician sites of the central Mediterranean. It seems that for the purposes of trade this region formed a distinct, autonomous unit, which scholars have called the ‘provincia cultural occidental’ or ‘el círculo del estrecho’, independent of Carthaginian influence until well after the sixth century, and we should probably link it with the search for metals, which the sources tell us brought the Tyrians to the far end of the Mediterranean and beyond.134 While the pottery of Doña Blanca corresponds to that of the other Phoenician enclaves in Iberia, there is one important difference: the levels of indigenous hand-made pottery are far higher here than in other sites in Iberia, where often they make up only a tiny percentage of the total pottery assemblage. The indigenous pottery consists mainly of bowls, cups and large storage vessels, the so called thistle-vases, because of

100

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig 3.12 Castillo de Doña Blanca, seventh-century pottery: (i) and (ii) pithoi with polychrome decoration; (iii) and (iv) red-slip plates; (v) tripod bowl; (vi) two-spouted lamp

their thistle-shaped form (Fig. 3.13). These were used for storing solids and liquids and most were found still in situ inside the houses.135 The hand-made ware at Doña Blanca underwent the same process of evolution that we see in contemporary indigenous settlements, gradually becoming less frequent in number, and more limited in type, as wheel-made ware becomes predominant, until by the seventh century it makes up only 10% of the total.136

The indigenous population at Castillo de Doña Blanca Does the greater representation of indigenous handmade pottery at Castillo de Doña Blanca reflect a

greater representation of the local population among its inhabitants than we find in many of the sites to the east of the Straits? The answer at the moment seems to be yes, for a number of reasons. We saw that the Phoenician settlers who reached the Bay of Cádiz at the start of the eighth century chose for their new foundation a previously unoccupied site, but one which was in close contact with a Late Bronze Age indigenous settlement, situated slightly further up the Sierra de San Cristóbal at Las Cumbres (Fig. 3.7). This settlement seems to have been abandoned when the Phoenician site was established, and its inhabitants may well have joined the new colony, given the very visible presence of indigenous pottery at the site.137

GADIR

( CADIZ )

Fig 3.13 Castillo de Doña Blanca, indigenous, hand-made pottery: (i)–(vii) carinated bowls, eighth century; (viii)–(x) burnished bowls, seventh century

But not all the indigenous population of the Sierra de San Cristóbal was absorbed by Doña Blanca. There are signs of a further Late Bronze Age occupation 3 km from Castillo de Doña Blanca, at Las Beatillas. The Las Beatillas settlement coexisted alongside the

101

Phoenicians, and it continued to be occupied down to at least the early seventh century, receiving imports from Doña Blanca, largely of pottery.138 But the real proof of the close ties linking the new settlers with the local population comes from the cemetery on the

102

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Sierra de San Cristóbal. Instead of the very characteristic shared burial rites which we find in the other colonial settlements in Spain, the inhabitants at Doña Blanca chose to bury their dead alongside their indigenous neighbours, to some extent participating also in their burial rituals.139

The evidence of Las Cumbres The cemetery of Las Cumbres is situated on the southern side of the Sierra de San Cristóbal, less than 500 m away from the settlement at Doña Blanca (Fig. 3.7). Although it extends over an area of some 100 ha, so far only three burial areas have been excavated, out of the 90 to 100 tumuli, and other burial structures identified by survey at the site. Two of these burial structures date to the period between the seventeenth and fifteenth centuries, corresponding to the end of the Copper Age and start of the Bronze Age in the region, while the burial area that interests us is Tumulus 1, which was in use throughout the eighth century; it was closed at the end of that century with the erection of the mound of the tumulus over the burials. The area enclosed by the tumulus contains the burials of the Phoenician settlement at Doña Blanca, and probably some belonging to its indigenous predecessor.140 Tumulus 1 is located on the slope of a small ridge, close to two other tumuli which have yet to be excavated. It consists of a small circular hill,

defined by stones at its south-east, south-west and north-west ends, and contains at least 62 cremation burials (Fig. 3.14). The central area of the tumulus is occupied by a collective funerary pyre, or ustrinum, where the cremations were carried out. The burials were placed around the ustrinum and had a variety of forms: the simplest had no urns, and little or no grave goods, and the ashes were simply placed in small hollows in the ground, and then covered with stones. More elaborate forms of burial consisted of small fosse dug into the rock with the ash urn in the centre, covered and protected by small stones. The grave goods were placed inside the urn and around it. Some of the burials were covered with a layer of red clay similar to that used to form the floors of the houses at Doña Blanca. This would have served to seal the burials and perhaps to act as an indicator of sacred space in the time before the mound of the tumulus was raised. There are no obvious indicators of sex or rank in the external appearance of the burials, and the excavators have suggested that prestige was indicated by the place occupied in the funerary circle.141 The earliest burials have indigenous hand-made ash urns consisting of large biconical vases, burnished pots with incised geometric decoration, or thistlevases, each with its wide flaring mouth. The burials have very few or no metal objects. By the end of the eighth century, wheel-made ash urns were used, most

Fig 3.14 Las Cumbres necropolis, Tumulus 1, showing the location of possible Phoenician burials

GADIR

commonly those of the Cruz del Negro type.142 Other pottery types used as grave goods in the latter period of the cemetery’s use are hand-made cups and pots, wheel-made Cruz del Negro urns, incense burners, red-slip paterae, and small perfume jars, either of alabaster or pottery, as well as on one occasion a tripod and a red-slip plate. Metal objects consist of bronze belt-buckles, double-spring fibulae and iron knives, the latter a sure sign of Phoenician influence. There is evidence of some ritual activity which would have been carried out at the site before the necropolis was closed with the erection of the tumulus. This takes the form of fires, associated with significant quantities of pottery fragments. The pottery types consist in the majority of cases of red-slip incense burners, oil bottles (sometimes decorated with red slip, sometimes not), and decorated cups. These cups are the most frequent object found associated with the fires, and their use seems to have been restricted to ritual activity, as they are not found in the settlement, and are very rare among the grave goods from the burials.143 They are high-quality pottery items, decorated with red geometric patterns. Other drinking vessels are Phoenician bichrome bowls and fine-ware cups. The drinking vessels suggest that the consumption or libation of some form of liquid (wine?) was an integral part of the ritual activity carried out here. And this ritual activity also included the burning of incense and perfumed oils, symbolised by the presence of incense burners and oil bottles. Many of these items seem to have been deliberately broken after use. This inevitably reminds us of similar acts of libation at the Phoenician cemeteries of Trayamar in Málaga and Puente de Noy in Granada.144 In the Iron Age necropolis at Tyre, funerary rituals involved the breaking of pottery, and in some cases fires were also lit at the graves. However there is clearer evidence of a Phoenician presence at Las Cumbres, in the form of several burials grouped around a small secondary tumulus in the south-west sector of the mound, still included within the overall structure of Tumulus 1. The centre of the secondary tumulus is occupied by an elaborate burial structure, which is made up of a circular masonry wall, with a floor covered with fine beach-sand deliberately brought to the site. This structure houses the cremated remains of an adult and child, contained within two Cruz del Negro urns, along with abundant grave goods. These consist of an incense burner, a red-slip support and bottle, two alabaster perfume flasks, two gold and two alabaster beads, several burnt shells, and a hand-made pot; inside one of the urns there were a bronze belt buckle, a glass bead and a silver pendant. Around this structure there were thirteen cremation

( CADIZ )

103

burials, crowded together and sometimes superimposed, which contained Phoenician wheel-made pottery and metal grave goods. This area probably dates to the last period of the cemetery’s use, and is one that was obviously set apart from the main body of the cemetery by its peripheral position and more elaborate central burial structure. The burials within the circular masonry wall have been interpreted as Phoenician by Ruiz Mata and Pérez: if this is the case, it is the first instance of a Phoenician buried in an indigenous context known in the Iberian Peninsula, and shows that the close connections between Phoenicians and the indigenous population continued even in death.145 However, even if we interpret this cluster of burials as those of a local population heavily influenced by daily contact with the Phoenicians, it still provides us with a picture of Doña Blanca as a mixed settlement – one where perhaps the Phoenicians played a dominant role, judging by the architecture, fortifications and pottery, and signs of ritual activity of a strongly eastern kind at Tumulus 1, but where the indigenous population had an important, indeed integral, role to play. Both communities influenced each other in life – and in death.146

The significance of Castillo de Doña Blanca The burials in Tumulus 1 are a rich source of information about the nature of the relationship between Oriental settlers and the local population, but one which at the moment provides us with more questions than answers.147 What is certain is that our interpretation of Phoenician settlement in Iberia is radically altered by the evidence from both the settlement at Castillo de Doña Blanca and its necropolis, which show far closer contact between Phoenicians and Iberians than has traditionally been imagined. Taking as its starting point the viewpoint of classical authors, we may note that the traditional model assigned to explain the reasons behind the Phoenician presence in the Iberian Peninsula has been their search for metals. Thus the search for silver brought them to Iberia where contact between the new settlers and the indigenous Iberians was limited to commercial exchanges to achieve the primary purpose of Phoenician interest in the Far West – the acquisition of precious metals on a large scale.148 However this model has a number of serious limitations; the theory that contact between the settlers and the local inhabitants was restricted primarily to a commercial context fails to account for the deep and lasting effect which Phoenician culture had on indigenous society. A good example is the Guadalquivir valley with, according to the conventional interpretation, no Phoenician colony nearby to explain such a culture change. In other areas, too, it is

104

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

hard to imagine that society would be so profoundly transformed through commercial contact, no matter how intense and sustained it was.149 In this context the evidence from Doña Blanca shows that contacts between Phoenician settlers and the local inhabitants were not driven purely by commercial considerations. Phoenician and Tartessian were, it seems, prepared to live together and to some extent share the same burial rituals. This is only logical in the context of the investigations carried out by Ruiz Mata and his team in the areas around the Bay of Cádiz, and between the Guadalquivir and the Guadalete rivers as far inland as the Sierra de Gibalín. These have revealed that this region was densely populated at the time of the establishment of the Phoenician settlement at Doña Blanca.150 Ruiz Mata has suggested that the presence of indigenous pottery at Doña Blanca is the result of the peaceful coexistence of Phoenicians and Iberians, either because of the pressure of native population in the area, or out of a need for labour in the settlement; there are, however, several other possible scenarios, such as the incorporation of local people, mainly women, through intermarriage.151 It is clear that the commercial model of Phoenician colonisation in Iberia needs to be re-evaluated in order to achieve a more balanced understanding of Phoenician activities there. The settlement at Castillo de Doña Blanca is important not only for its own sake, but also for the insight it gives us into the kind of construction techniques and urbanisation which might have existed in Gadir. More importantly, it supplies us with crucial

information concerning the trading activities and commercial contacts of Cádiz during the eighth and seventh centuries and beyond. We have seen that the commercial hinterland of Gadir went far beyond the Bay of Cádiz, stretching out into the Phoenician sites of Málaga and Granada, Alicante and Ibiza, as well as far into the Atlantic, along the coasts of modern Portugal and Morocco. The similarities in the pottery of Lixus and Mogador to that from the Spanish Phoenician sites and Tartessian settlements along the Guadalquivir valley shows that North Africa was an integral part of the trading area of Gadir, and seasonal trading posts such as that at Mogador and also Rachgoun on the Moroccan coast could well have been founded at the instigation of Gadir itself. The Atlantic regions of Iberia also exerted a strong attraction on the Phoenicians, with more and more settlements discovered on the Portuguese coast during the last 20 years. In this context the location of Gadir is very significant, and it may well have acted as a bridgehead for Phoenician activities in the Atlantic area, given the similarity between the pottery at Tavira, for instance, and Castillo de Doña Blanca. It therefore seems that, despite the elusive and enigmatic nature of the remains found under modern Cádiz, the wealth and industry of the Tyrian colony at Gadir can still be glimpsed in the pottery fragments which have been found from Morocco to Almería, thereby confirming the ancients’ view that, of the Phoenician foundations in the West, along with Carthage, the most important was Cádiz.

4

Introduction

The Phoenician settlements and their hinterland

From the evidence presented in the previous chapters, it will have become obvious that Phoenician settlement along the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts of Iberia was dense, intense and long-lasting throughout over two hundred years, from the beginning of the eighth century, if not earlier, to the sixth century, when changing economic and political circumstances brought with them profound alterations to the settlement pattern in this area. In any discussion of the function and purpose of the Spanish settlements, it has generally been the custom to associate them with the search for metals, which, according to classical tradition, was the main motivation for the Phoenician expansionary movement westwards. In this context Spain was the obvious choice for such a dense settlement pattern, given the country’s spectacular mineral riches, and more especially its abundance of silver. However, while such an explanation may appear plausible at first sight, on closer examination it fails to account both for the density of the settlement pattern along the coastline of the Costa del Sol, and for the location of the sites themselves in an area which contains no significant mineral resources, no appreciable local population with which to trade, and which is separated by a chain of mountains from the metal resources and the autochthonous population which controlled them. It is undoubtedly true that it was the mineral resources of the Far West that drew the first Phoenician traders and settlers to make the long and often arduous journey from one extremity of the Mediterranean to the other, but it is also true that this explanation does not by itself explain the situation and density of the Phoencian settlement pattern in all the regions touched by this phenomenon. Why so many sites so close together in Spain and Sardinia, while in North Africa, Sicily and Malta the needs of the Tyrian traders were apparently adequately serviced with only a handful of settlements? Nor does the metal trade account for all the activities in which the various sites throughout the Meditteranean were engaged. While servicing the international trade routes does seem to be one of the most important functions of the great Phoenician centres at Motya, Panormus and Solunto, why in Sardinia do we have a large number of smaller sites which, right from the beginning, display a con-

siderable interest in expanding and controlling the fertile land which made up their hinterland? Agriculture and the provision of an outlet for population surpluses are not expected to account for every single Greek colonial foundation, and some colonies do seem to have had a predominantly commercial function, such as the earliest Euboean colony in the West at Pithekoussai on Ischia. Obviously Phoenician objectives were equally varied and might be expected to be different, depending on the differing resources and possibilities available in the areas where they settled. Obviously, too, trade and the needs of navigation were not the only factors which played a role in the formation and structuring of the settlement pattern. Manufacturing, industrial activities and agriculture must also have been important considerations. It is often forgotten that no matter how acute their commercial sense, Tyrian traders too had to eat. The research carried out over the last thirty years has shown that all these factors played a role in the various Western foundations, and obviously in the case of individual sites some were more important than others. In this chapter the Spanish settlements will be considered in relation to the natural environment which made up their hinterland, and we will see the various ways in which the settlers exploited the natural resources available to them. Nearly a thousand years later Strabo (III. 2. 8) praised the wealth of southwestern Spain which, he said, alone among all the countries in the world, combined an abundance of mineral resources with great natural fertility. The archaeological evidence shows that the Eastern Mediterranean settlers, too, were aware of, and exploited, the many natural advantages available to the inhabitants of the southern coastline of Spain.

The natural environment: landscape and climate

Modern geographers have divided Andalusia into two distinct geographical zones, Lower Andalusia, with the Guadalquivir valley and the Sierra Morena, which is oriented towards the Atlantic, and Upper Andalusia, comprising the Penibaetic mountains to the east, and which opens on to the Mediterranean.1 The Phoenician sites of Cádiz and Castillo de Doña Blanca are situated in Lower Andalusia, on the Atlantic. As

106

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig 4.1 Location map showing indigenous settlements and cemeteries in Tartessos and associated regions

Key: Indigenous settlements: 1 Acinipo, Ronda (Málaga); 2 Alhonoz, Ecija-Herrera (Seville); 3 Aljaraque (Huelva); 4 Arcos de la Frontera (Cádiz); 5 Mesas de Asta (Cádiz); 6 Ategua, Santa Cruz (Córdoba); 7 Carmona (Seville); 8 Cástulo, Linares (Jaén); 9 Cerro de la Mora, Moraleda de Zafayona (Granada); 10 Cerro de las Cabezas, Santiponce (Seville); 11 Cerro de las Vacas (Cádiz); 12 Cerro de los Infantes, Pinos Puente (Granada); 13 Cerro Gordo, Gilena (Seville); 14 Cerro Macareno, La Rinconada (Huelva); 15 Cerro Salomón, Rio Tinto (Huelva); 16 Chinflón, Rio Tinto (Huelva); 17 Colina de los Quemados (Córdoba); 18 Ebora, Sanlúcar de Barrameda (Cádiz); 19 Huelva; 20 Lebrija (Seville); 21 Llanete de los Moros, Montoro (Córdoba); 22 Setafilla, Lora del Río (Seville); 23 Montemolín, Marchena (Seville); 24 Niebla (Huelva); 25 El Peñón de la Reina, Albodoluy (Alméria); 26 Porcuna (Jaén); 27 Puente Tablas (Jaén); 28 Quebrantahuesos, Rio Tinto (Huelva); 29 San Bartolomé, Almonte (Huelva); 30 Santaella (Córdoba); 31 Spal(i) (Seville); 32 Tejada la Vieja (Huelva); 33 Torreparedones (Córdoba) Indigenous cemeteries: 34 Los Alcores, Carmona (Seville); 35 La Joya (Huelva); 36 Medellín (Badajoz); 37 Setefilla (Seville); 38 La Aliseda (Cáceres); 39 Cancho Roano (Badajoz); 40 Torres Vedras (Lisbon) noted above (p. 93), the geography of this part of Andalusia was very different in the first centuries of the last millennium before Christ than it is now (Fig. 4.1). The Guadalquivir river, which now runs through the marshlands of the Coto de Doñana National Park before entering the sea at Sanlúcar de Barrameda, then entered the sea just below the modern city of Seville, with the Atlantic ocean penetrating up as far as this city in the form of a wide maritime gulf. The location of Gadir and Castillo de Doña Blanca close to this Atlantic Gulf allowed their inhabitants to sail up as

far as Seville/Hispalis and, from there, probably on smaller ships, up into the Guadalquivir river. The river acted as the chief means of communication with the fertile agricultural land of the interior on either side of the river itself, and with the rich silver deposits of the mining region of Aznalcóllar and the indigenous settlement of Huelva which controlled the metal resources of Rio Tinto.2 Their Atlantic location also allowed the Phoenician settlers in Gadir and Doña Blanca easy communications with the indigenous communities in Portugal, then involved in an intense

THE PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR HINTERLAND

trade in metals (both finished objects and raw materials), as well as with North Africa, which may have provided gold and other valuable commodities, such as ivory. The sites located to the east of the Straits of Gibraltar are not so well situated from the point of view of regional communications. They are located on the Mediterranean coastal plain of Upper Andalusia, separated from the interior by the mountains of the Cordillera Penibética, the inner and more southerly belt of the Cordillera Bética.3 The climate of Andalusia is basically Mediterranean with short, wet winters, becoming colder at higher altitudes and in inland areas, and summers which are dry from early June to late September, if not longer, with temperatures which can rise to 40oC and beyond.4 In Upper Andalusia temperatures and precipitation are strongly influenced by relief and distance from the Mediterranean, with the upland areas of the interior receiving significantly higher rainfall than the coast; the latter has an average annual rainfall of 300/400 mm, and often receives much less.5 The area occupied by the Phoenician settlements east of Gibraltar, on the littoral of the provinces of Málaga, Granada and Almería, forms a narrow coastal plain, cut off from the interior by the Penibaetican Cordillera. This mountain range is located at an average distance of 20 km from the sea, forming a formidable and often impenetrable barrier between the coast and the interior. The coastal plain is divided up into a series of narrow, fertile alluvial valleys, in the estuaries of which the Phoenician sites are generally located.6 Although cut off from the interior by the mountains, communication is possible through the courses of the rivers themselves, most notably in the cases of the Guadiaro, Guadalhorce and Vélez rivers, all of which are dominated by a Phoenician settlement. The Vélez river in particular, on which the site of Toscanos is situated, provides direct access to the mining areas of the eastern Sierra Morena, and the areas of Ronda, Antequera and the vega of Granada through the Zafarraya pass.7 The Guadalhorce river, on which the eighth-century settlement of Cerro del Villar is located, is another important channel of communication with the interior, linking the coast with the uplands of Granada and the provinces of Corduba and Seville. It may well be the overland route from Malaka to Tartessos recommended by Avienus as an alternative to the crossing of the straits by sea during adverse weather conditions.8 It was this region of narrow river valleys, cut off from the interior by high mountains, which the first settlers chose for their homes. It is remarkable how similar the landscape is to that which they left behind, where the Lebanese coastal plain is divided from the

107

open lands of the interior of Asia by the anti-Lebanon range, and split into numerous narrow river valleys by the rocky outcrops of these mountains which often run down to the sea itself.9 In building their settlements, too, the Phoenician colonists opted for sites which reproduced the distinctive locations of their mother cities. Ezekiel, in his invective against Tyre, addresses it as the city which ‘dwells at the entrance to the sea, merchant of the peoples on many coastlines’:10 the chief Phoenician cities were all situated on the coast, either on the mainland itself, dominating a bay or small inlets which acted as natural ports (such as Byblos, Berytus and Sidon), or on small islands situated close to the coast (as in the case of Tyre and Arvad).11 In the West their preference for coastal locations continued, and the settlement pattern which Thucydides describes for the earliest Phoenician presence in Sicily is characteristic of the other regions of the Phoenician koine also.12 Such a location for their sites offered the advantages of combining secure defensive conditions with good means of communication with the hinterland, and we can see this pattern repeated in the locations chosen for the Phoenician sites on the southern Spanish coasts. Most of the Phoenician sites there are now situated on small natural elevations, alongside a river, and close to the shoreline, overlooking the flat alluvial land on either side of the riverbed. The only exception is Cádiz which now forms a long narrow peninsula, jutting out into the Bay of Cádiz. It has always been thought that the Phoenicians chose these sites because of the presence of the rivers which were used to connect the settlements to the sea, but recent geological investigations carried out by the German Archaeological Institute and the Geologisch-Paläontologisches Institut of the University of Kiel have shown that the flat alluvial land cutting off the settlement remains from the sea is the result of relatively recent sedimentation processes, caused by extensive deforestation and the resulting soil erosion in the mountains behind the coastal plain.13 Hence a site such as Toscanos in the province of Málaga, which is now some 1,300 m distant from the modern coastline, was once located at the side of a very deep marine or brackish inlet which penetrated far into what is now flat farmland (Fig. 1.3).14 On the northern slope of the settlement hill itself, Toscanos had its own small harbour complex at Manganeto, with an artificial platform built at the edge of the former shoreline and which is now buried deep under the alluvial deposits laid down by the river Vélez.15 The geological investigations carried out by the University of Kiel have confirmed the Phoenician preference for settlement sites on peninsulas in the

108

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

interior of a marine bay, or sometimes right on the shore, where the former bay opened out into the sea. The settlements of Toscanos, Morro de Mézquitilla, Adra, Montilla and, later on, Villaricos and Málaga, all conform to this pattern which we find again in Lixus in North Africa.16 Sites which were especially protected and isolated from the hinterland, while still offering easy access to the sea, were also favoured. Hence we find peninsulas situated inside a marine bay, as in the case of Cerro del Prado and Almuñécar (Fig. 1.2), where the settlement is located on a small peninsula jutting out into the bay between the marine inlets into which flowed the twin rivers of the Seco and the Verde.17 But the ideal combination of security with ease of communication was offered by the situation of Tyre itself, on a small island facing the coast, and this situation was reproduced in Spain with the settlement of Cerro del Villar, on an islet in the estuary of the Guadalhorce river, and Cádiz, situated on a small archipielago in the bay of the same name.18 The identification of the ancient coastline of Mediterranean Andalusia provides us with a clear picture of what constituted the ideal location for the first Phoenician settlers to reach Spain: easy access to the sea through the bays and inlets which also acted as natural harbours and landing places, providing shelter from adverse winds and currents; settlement sites which combined ease of communication with good natural defensive conditions; and, most importantly of all it seems – as this factor is a constant in all the Phoenician sites so far found on the Peninsula – access to a river which acted as the ideal means of communication with both the immediate hinterland of the site, and with the indigenous settlements beyond.

Settlement density The most striking feature in terms of the location of the southern Spanish sites is not their coastal situation, however, but rather the great density of settlement which we find along the coastlines of the modern provinces of Cádiz, Málaga, Granada and Almería (Fig. 1.2). The latest geological and archaeological research has brought the number of definite Phoenician settlements along the Andalusian coast up to at least eighteen,19 with several others representing Phoenician or Phoenician-influenced indigenous settlements stretching up as far north as Alicante, and Ibiza. It must be stressed that these figures are anything but definitive. Undoubtedly there are more settlements which have yet to be discovered, or lie forever out of reach under the cement foundations of the holiday apartments and tower blocks of the Costa del Sol. So far all the archaeological research along the coastline of the Costa del Sol has only served to prove

the truth of Avienus’ description of the coast between Málaga and Almería as formerly home to a crowd of Phoenicians.20 One of the most remarkable aspects of the settlement pattern in this area is that the sites are not evenly distributed along the coast but instead are clustered close together, sometimes with only a few kilometres distance from one to the next. Thus, between the site at Cerro del Villar and Málaga, there is a distance of only 4 km as the crow flies. Toscanos is 7 km away from Morro de Mezquitilla, while Chorreras is a mere 800 m away from Morro de Mezquitilla.21 This dense concentration of settlements has generally been contrasted to that to the west of the Straits of Gibraltar, where up to recently Cádiz was the only site which could be securely identified as Phoenician. However even there, the coastal area is beginning to fill up, with sites located at Castillo de Doña Blanca, Tarifa and Cerro del Prado, as well as a sanctuary to Astarte at Gorham’s Cave in Gibraltar (Fig. 1.1). On the Portuguese coasts excavations in the 1980s and 1990s have identified a growing number of Phoenician settlements from the Algarve in the south to the Mondego in the north. Such a density of settlement has been found nowhere else in the Phoenician world, with the possible exception of Sardinia. In Africa the average distance between settlements was some 30–40 km.22 There must therefore have been good reason for the Phoenicians, after navigating from one extreme of the Mediterranean to the other, to have set up such a large number of sites in a string of pearls pattern in precisely this one area.23 The problem lies in trying to identify the factors which induced the Phoenicians to settle so intensively on the Mediterranean coastiline of Andalusia for almost three centuries, with many of the settlements continuing under Punic influence right down to the Roman period. The rationale behind settlement location The most obvious reason would seem to be metals. After all there is almost unanimous agreement among both ancients and moderns that it was the search for metals which drew them to the Far West in the first place.24 But, while the Peninsula itself is one of the richest metallogenic provinces in Europe, the area occupied by the Phoenician settlements is one which is lacking in any significant mineral resources, and which is separated by the Penibaetican mountains from the metal-producing areas, located in the Iberian Pyrite Belt of south-west Spain.25 The only mineral available in significant quantities within easy reach of the Costa del Sol settlements is the iron from deposits in the mountains of Ronda, Archidona, Antequera, the Upper Guadalhorce and the Alpujarras.26 These

THE PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR HINTERLAND

deposits, while valuable, can hardly compare with the spectacular silver deposits of the province of Huelva, where the Rio Tinto mines, in addition to silver, also yielded gold, copper, iron and lead.27 By themselves they are hardly sufficient to account for such intense settlement in the area over more than two hundred years, as Aubet points out, given that iron is the most common mineral in the Mediterranean basin.28 Metallurgical workshops have been found in several of the Phoenician sites in this part of Spain – most notably at Toscanos, Morro de Mezquitilla, Adra and Guardamar where iron was processed – but with the exception of Guardamar (which was founded to tap into the existing metal trade oriented around the Late Bronze Age Atlantic circuits and to receive the silver of the mines located in the hinterland of the settlement) – any activities carried out at these sites were very much small-scale, and must have served merely to satisfy the internal needs of the settlements.29 If access to the mineral resources of the Peninsula was indeed the most important consideration in the choice of a site, then Cádiz is far better situated than the Costa del Sol settlements, located as it is close to the mouth of both the Guadalete and Guadalquivir rivers which provide direct links to the silver mines of the interior.30 Since direct and immediate access to the mineral resources of the Peninsula does not seem to have been the determining factor in the location of these settlements, then how are we to explain such a large number of small sites located so close together along the Mediterranean coast of Andalusia? This is a question which has puzzled a lot of authors, and various solutions have been put forward to explain it. One of the most obvious would be to view them as settlements established to carry out trading activities with the indigenous population of the interior. However, as we have seen, the situation of the coastal enclaves, cut off from the main centres of population in the south-west with their spectacular wealth in metals, is not an ideal one for trade. Some of these sites, it is true, were located along natural communication routes with the interior, such as Toscanos, on the Vélez, and Cerro del Villar, on the Guadalhorce, both offering connections with the south-east and the Guadalquivir valley. Indeed, the area around both these rivers was chosen for intense Phoenician settlement, implying that communication with the interior was an important consideration. But, judging by the lack of finds along the course of the Vélez and its affluents, only the Guadalhorce was regularly used as a link with the interior, perhaps because it offered the most direct route to Tartessos, while the other Phoenician settlements were located on rivers which did not provide

109

any significant links with the interior, so trade could not have been their primary raison d’être. The existence of a large-scale local trade with the indigenous population of the immediate hinterland has been queried, since the number and quality of imported objects found in indigenous contexts in Upper Andalusia remains surprisingly low – especially when compared with the situation in the south-west.31 However the differences between the nature of Phoenician trade with the south-west and the south-east may be due to differences in the societies of the two regions, or more probably, to the lack of mineral resources in the hinterland of the Phoenician sites, which made the giving of luxury items such as are found in the cemeteries of the south-west unattractive to the Phoenicians.32 Another explanation for the proliferation of sites in this region is that these settlements owed their existence to the difficulties involved in crossing the Straits, and therefore were founded to provide refuge for travellers who had to wait for a favourable wind before they travelled on to the Atlantic.33 However difficult the crossing from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, this explanation of the function of the sites east of the Straits fails to take into account the Phoenician skill at navigation, for which they were famous throughout antiquity (after all, Gadir was founded to the west of the Straits, on the Atlantic, and several Phoenician sites have been discovered along the Portuguese coast as far north as the Mondego river, and also far down the Atlantic coast of Morocco). Moreover, it suffers from the additional inconsistency of failing to explain why, if such a large number of sites was necessary to support navigation in this area, is this pattern not repeated elsewhere in the Phoenician world? Most crucially of all, however, it still does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the need to have so many landing places so close together.34 Other explanations have focussed on a more theoretical framework, such as that put forward by Aubet, who has adopted the model of the commercial diaspora, first developed by Curtin, in an attempt to explain the role and function of these settlements.35 Once again this theoretical approach, while interesting, fails to address the issue as to why the settlement pattern adopted by the Phoenicians should vary so much from region to region, with only a few large centres in Sicily and North Africa, while in Sardinia, and more especially in Spain, such a dense concentration of sites was deemed necessary, and indeed flourished, for so long. The reason must lie in the natural resources which drew the Phoenicians to settle in this area in the first place and, more specifically, in the functions carried out by these settlements during the course of their existence.

110

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

The Phoenicians and the environment: the role of the Costa del Sol sites

It is a topos of any study on ancient urbanism that Phoenician settlements were founded primarily to serve commercial or navigational purposes while the Greeks, when establishing sites overseas, did so with a view primarily to found agriculturally self-supporting population centres. The detailed results of the excavations carried out over the last thirty years along the Costa del Sol, however, have shown that the Greeks were not alone in their preoccupation with agriculture, and the view that trade was the principal consideration of the Phoenician settlers overseas is very much a crude and over-simplistic one. The analysis of animal bones found at several of the Phoenician sites provides us with an insight both into the kind of environment which surrounded these sites and the economic activities carried out there. The settlements were optimally situated to carry out mixed agriculture. They were located each in its own river valley, contiguous to the ancient coastline, and thus were able to exploit the agricultural possibilities offered by the fertile alluvial land of the river valley, which could be enhanced by the use of irrigation with the water which was readily available from the river. The proximity of these settlements to the sea offered the inhabitants the chance to supplement their diet through fishing which could also be carried out in the rivers. The sea also provided the dye-producing snails, the famous murex, which the Phoenicians used to produce purple dye. As well as the resources available from their immediate hinterland, the foothills of the mountains, which formed the back-drop to the agricultural land, provided grazing for herds of livestock, along with game animals and timber for shipbuilding, construction and industrial purposes. The faunal evidence From the results of animal bone analysis, it seems clear that in the Phoenician era, the climate was damper than it is now, with more abundant rainfall, and a far denser cover of deciduous forestry. The presence of forests we can infer from the abundant bones of red deer, and also wild boar and wild cat, found in the indigenous settlements of Cerro de la Tortuga, which lies some 3 km north-west of the Phoenician site of Málaga (Fig. 6.2). The bones of wild boar and red deer have also been found at Toscanos and at the Tartessian site of Cabezo de San Pedro in Huelva.36 The results obtained from the analysis of animal bones found during the excavations of the Phoenician settlements provide us with valuable insights into the economic and agricultural activities carried out there, and the social composition of the settlements them-

selves. Toscanos in particular is a rich source of animal remains with the bones of both domesticated animals, and wild species represented at the site, as well as fish and shellfish.37 The composition of the animal remains allows us to identify which were the most economically valuable animals to the inhabitants of the site. Cattle made up 49% of the identified fauna from the oldest occupation levels of the site, and this figure steadily increases throughout the period of Phoenician occupation at Toscanos until they make up 80% of the animal remains in the final levels of Phoenician occupation.38 The economic importance of cattle here is in contrast to their position in contemporary indigenous settlements such as Cerro de la Tortuga, located close to the Phoenician setttlement of Malaka, the modern Málaga, and where at least half the meat was supplied by sheep and goats, with cattle providing no more than approximately one-third of the meat supply.39 The emphasis on the role of cattle at Toscanos may soon have led to specialised stock-breeding, and it is possible that the animals, whose remains were found at the site, were not merely acquired by exchange with the natives but carefully bred there, using techniques designed to produce a much heavier-built animal.40 Although the size of the cattle at Toscanos cannot be estimated due to the poor preservation of the find material, the width of their limb bones can be compared with that of similar finds from other sites and the resulting comparison shows that the cattle from Toscanos were considerably more heavily-built than those from late Bronze Age indigenous sites.41 The role of cattle was obviously not limited to their importance as meat suppliers, and they may also have been used as work animals. In view of the fact that the majority of the animals found at Toscanos were adults,42 we must assume that they were used for other purposes, such as traction, which may imply a progressive increase in the use of the plough and cultivation in general, as Aubet proposes, as well as suggesting that milk-production was an important consideration for the settlers at Toscanos.43 The possibility that cattle played a significant role as workanimals is supported by the animal bones from the Phoenician site of Castillo de Doña Blanca, associated with the Tyrian colony at Cádiz (see above Chapter Three, p. 97). Here too most of the cattle bones came from adult specimens, with a lack of sub-adult individuals, which would have been present if the main goal of cattle rearing on the site was maximum meat production; while the discovery of a castrate among the cattle further points to the use of cattle as draught animals.44 Thus at Doña Blanca, as at Toscanos, it seems that the goal of Phoenician cattle rearing was to produce multi-purpose full-grown adults.

THE PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR HINTERLAND

The economic importance of cattle in Toscanos also provides us with a glimpse of the social composition of the Phoenician settlers there. Although cattle were the single most important suppliers of meat at the site, in the early phases of occupation small ruminants, consisting of sheep and goats, were also an important source of meat, supplying 42.5% of the total meat consumption in the earliest strata I–II, a figure which steadily declines as cattle assume an increasingly important position in the meat supply.45 This change in emphasis may reflect changes in the social organisation of the settlement itself, as H. P and M. Uerpmann suggest. In the very warm climate of Toscanos the use of large animals, such as cattle, for meat would have brought with it considerable problems of meat preservation for the average family or small group of consumers. Thus the choice of cattle as the main suppliers of meat suggests that there was a definite organisation of meat distribution to larger consumer groups.46 The preference for small ruminants as a meat source in the initial phases of occupation at the site, on the other hand, implies the existence of small autonomous consumer groups, such as individual families perhaps, who later became more dependent on a specialised production of livestock for slaughter.47 In other words, the possibility exists that given the preference of many of the earliest inhabitants of Toscanos for goat- and sheep- rearing, either they were not exclusively agriculturists, or they were self-sufficient in their meat production; while later on this more autonomous form of food production was replaced, or at the very least superceded, by specialised cattle-rearing for traction, draught, and perhaps also milk and cheese, and finally for the meat supply, by settlers for whom agriculture played a more important, if not exclusive, role in their lives. This hypothesis of growing specialisation in the activities carried out by the settlers is supported by data from other sites, and from the fish bones and mollusc remains from Toscanos itself.

Fishing The large number of fish remains found at Toscanos indicates that fishing was an important economic activity there. Despite the fragility of fish bones the number of remains which have been preserved is large enough to infer the existence of a population group who specialised in fishing.48 Such a supposition is supported by the composition of the remains themselves. Fish represented at Toscanos include both littoral and pelagic species, indicating that some fishing must have been carried out at considerable distances from the coast. Therefore it is quite possible that fishing was undertaken by people for whom it was their main economic activity, given the time expenditure

111

involved in this activity, and also the specialised equipment needed (boats, nets, harpoons, etc).49 Such a view is further supported by the later specialisation of many of these Phoenician settlements in the fishpreservation industry, especially in the production of fish-sauce, garum, for which they became famous from the fifth century right through the Roman period.50 The importance of fishing in the archaic period of Phoenician settlement was not confined to Toscanos, as excavations at other sites have revealed. Recent excavations at both Castillo de Doña Blanca and Cerro del Villar have placed particular emphasis on the recording and analysis of areas frequently ignored in older excavations: that is plant and animal remains which are valuable in terms of the information they can provide relating to both the natural environment of the sites and the economic and subsistence activities of the settlers. It is thus no coincidence that these sites, and in particular Cerro del Villar, provide eloquent evidence of an intense exploitation of fish resources throughout the occupation of the settlement. At Cerro del Villar on the Málaga coast, a large seventh-century building, made up of numerous small rectangular rooms grouped around a central courtyard, was used for various functions related to fishing. One of the rooms stored fishing equipment, such as lead weights, hooks and harpoons, while another room contained large quantities of murex shells. A small stairway from one of the rooms linked the house with its own jetty, providing it with a direct connection with the sea.51 Analysis of the ichthyofauna found at the settlement shows that right from the start the settlers made full use of the abundant fish sources provided by their coastal and fluvial location. The level of fish bones from the earliest levels of occupation there has been called ‘enormous’ but the absence of the larger more commerically viable species, such as the scombridae, and the concentration on smaller littoral species (such as sardines and also the boquerones so beloved of modern Andalusians) points to an intensive fishing industry, using small scale nets, designed to provide food for the settlers rather than raw materials for the preserved fish industry.52 However by the last levels of occupation at the site, belonging to the beginning of the sixth century, the strategy has changed and we see an increase in the capture of the scombridae, pointing to a change in the focus of the fishing industry, from the supply of fresh fish to the production of the commercially attractive fish-sauce or preserved fish which could then be traded in the amphorae produced on a large scale at El Villar.53 At Castillo de Doña Blanca the analysis of the fish and shellfish remains proves that fishing was very probably one of the most important of the animal resource-cropping strategies, with an

112

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

extraordinarily varied repertory of fish represented among the finds.54 At Cádiz enormous heaps of murex trunculus shells were found on Antipolis, one of the former islands that made up the city, suggesting that purple-dye production was carried out there.

Conclusions So the faunal remains of several of the Phoenician settlements in Andalusia testify to the intensity of the agricultural and fishing activities carried out at these sites, but they also point to the existence of a clear division of work responsibilities in the cropping strategies practised there. The increased emphasis on cattle rearing at Toscanos in the seventh century indicates that we are dealing with an element of the population for whom agriculture was not subsidiary to their commercial or mercantile interests, and who were skillful enough to produce animals which were notably more sturdy and well-built than the cattle of the indigenous settlements surrounding them. The volume of the fish bones found at Toscanos and Castillo de Doña Blanca shows that fish was an important source of food for the settlers and one which was in all likelihood obtained by professional fishermen. When we compare our knowledge of the agricultural and subsistence patterns of these settlements with the evidence from other areas of society, some interesting conclusions can be made. In the seventh century, agriculture and fishing were carried out by sectors of society for whom this was their principal, if not their sole, activity. They would then have supplied other sectors of the colonial society, notably the élites whose existence we can infer both from the elaborate chamber tombs at Trayamar and Tarifa, Puente de Noy and Tavira, and the imposing houses at Toscanos and Morro de Mezquitilla, as well as the metalworkers who produced iron at both these sites. By the seventh century, therefore, the colonial population seems to have diversified into a number of groups carrying out specialised economic activities, among whom full-time farmers had an important role to play. The existence of full-time agriculturalists should not surprise us. Given the density of the population to be fed in these sites it would have been extremely difficult, not to mention unprofitable, to satisfy all or most of their subsistence needs by means of trading with the natives.55 We know that this is not the reason the Phoenicians came to Spain, and indeed the evidence points to a well established and successful mixed agriculture practised at these sites, and also to the production of agricultural surpluses, notably in those areas where the Phoenicians enjoyed considerable specialisation, wine and oil production. These agricultural products could be used to trade with the

indigenous inhabitants of south-west Spain who controlled the all-important mineral resources, for the sake of which the Phoenicians had made the journey to the Far West. The increasing predominance of cattle at Toscanos points to an intensification of the agricultural activities, away from the self-sufficent sheep- and goat-rearing of the initial phases of occupation, to an ever increasing use of the plough and cultivation in general.56 However, for a clearer picture of Phoenician agriculture we need to look away from Toscanos, to the site at Cerro del Villar in the province of Málaga, where the evidence of Phoenician cereal growing and exploitation of the hinterland is clearest.

The Phoenician site of Cerro del Villar: an example of cereal cultivation

Cerro del Villar was first identified as a Phoenician site following the excavations of 1966–67 which defined two main phases of occupation, from the second half of the seventh century down to the fifth to fourth centuries.57 However the excavations carried out by M. E. Aubet from 1986 onwards have proved that settlement at the site began a century earlier, during the latter part of the eighth century, and continued down to the start of the sixth, when the abandonment of permanent occupation there can be precisely dated by Etruscan bucchero and East Greek pottery to 580–70.58 These excavations are especially significant for our purposes in that they have included rigorous analysis, not only of the urbanism of the site itself, but also of the pollen, faunal and geomorphological evidence, in an attempt to reconstruct the environment around El Villar and to understand the Phoenician settlement in terms of its relationship to its hinterland.59 The geomorphology of the site The results of these analyses have shown that the site at El Villar was originally situated on a small island, measuring some 250 m by 200 m, in the middle of the delta of the river Guadalhorce (Fig. 1.2). This was a conspicuous choice for the location of a settlement, since it was the only island on this side of the Straits along the whole length of coastline colonised by the Phoenicians, and, for this reason, must have constituted an easily recognisable landmark for ships sailing towards the Atlantic.60 But, while the site was certainly optimally situated for shipping and navigational purposes, it was not an ideal place to live. Geomorphological research carried out by Professor Aubet’s team revealed that the island was actually a fluvial bar, with the typical oval shape of such formations.61 The island was limited in size and, at its highest point, was a mere 5 m above sea level. As such it was vulnerable to flood-

THE PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR HINTERLAND

ing from both the river itself and the sea, and the evidence shows that the settlement suffered from disastrous flooding on at least two occasions, leading to the progressive abandonment of the slopes of the island in order to concentrate the settlement area in the centre of the island where it was less vulnerable to flooding.62 Ultimately it was the threat of flooding, which grew progressively more severe over the life of the settlement, as the Guadalhorce delta was silted up by the alluvial deposits laid down by the river, that caused its abandonment. Its inhabitants may well have moved to the nearby site of Málaga, ancient Malaka, which was developed into the main urban centre of the whole region just as El Villar was abandoned.63

The settlement and its hinterland Thus, in view of the serious problems associated with settlement on the island of El Villar, why did the Phoenicians stay there for almost two hundred years? The answer lies in the situation of the island itself. It was located in the delta of the Guadalhorce river, the longest and most important river in the province of Málaga, which, unlike most of the other rivers in the province, never dried up in the drought of the summer months, and was characterised by the high volume of water which it contained. The river served as the principal channel of communications between the coast and the main area of Phoenician economic interest, the south-west of the Peninsula, via the plains of Antequera and the province of Seville.64 Thus the fluvial location of the site combined the possibility of easy communication with the resources, both mineral and agricultural, of the interior, and also provided an abundant source of water, available throughout the year, which could be used to irrigate any cultivation practised on the mainland around the settlement. The maritime environment of the settlement, was also exploited to the full, as we have seen, in terms of its fish resources.65 The immediate hinterland of the site at El Villar is estimated by its excavator to have covered some 18 square km. This area was exceptionally fertile and ideal for any form of agriculture, thanks to the rich alluvial deposits laid down by the Guadalhorce river, and the permanent supply of water from the river, while the foothills of the mountains behind the site were suitable for pasture and stock breeding.66 The hinterland of the site also provided stone and marble for construction purposes and high-quality clay for use in the production of pottery in which the settlement specialised.67 The one natural resource that was conspicuous by its absence was access to metals. The only minerals accessible from the site are some lowgrade iron deposits in the Sierra Blanca at Marbella

113

some 40 km away. Economically these were not significant and we have no evidence that they were ever exploited in antiquity. There is also some argentiferous lead about 10 km from the settlement, but rigorous analysis of the economic activities carried out at El Villar shows that metallurgical activities are extremely poorly attested; we can therefore discount the availability of minerals as the chief factor in the choice of El Villar as an area of settlement.68

The ancient environment Judging by the analysis of pollen and plant remains found at the settlement, the inhabitants of El Villar were aware of this area’s potential and exploited it to the full. The diachronic analysis of the plant and faunal remains found at the site enables us to reconstruct the changing environment around El Villar, over the course of the eighth, seventh and sixth centuries. The evidence indicates that at the time of the foundation of the settlement in the latter part of the eighth century the area around the colony was occupied by coastal wetlands, inhabited by otters and lynx, with pine-forest occupying the hinterland of the site. However as we move into the final levels of occupation at El Villar it is clear that the landscape has changed quite notably, with a decline in the level of forestation, and a corresponding increase in areas of open space occupied by scrub and bushes. The wild fauna corroborates this picture.69 This interpretation of the environmental evidence is backed up by the faunal remains coming from the indigenous site of Cerro de la Tortuga, situated only 5 km away, at the northern edge of the Guadalhorce valley. Here the presence of deer, wild boar and wild cat seems to point to the existence of considerable areas of deciduous forests in the mountains on the edge of the valley up to the fourth century, but the presence of horse and donkey bones, the latter in large quantities, suggests that deforestation had occurred here too, with open grassland alternating with wooded areas.70 Phoencian agriculture: the evidence from El Villar and Doña Blanca The plant and faunal remains from the Guadalhorce valley thus testify to a clear and dramatic degradation of the area around El Villar. Since we have to rule out metal-smelting or large-scale metallurgical activities as the cause of the deforestation there, the only remaining possibility is that the change in the landscape is the consequence of intensive agriculture practised in the lower Guadalhorce valley, perhaps helped by the fuel requirements of that other industry at El Villar, large-scale pottery production. Such a conclusion is supported by several finds in the settlement. A large

114

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig 4.2 Cerro del Villar, Sector 8: (i) plan of possible market or commercial area; (ii) amphorae found there

number of stone hand-mills used for grinding corn were found at El Villar in seventh- and sixth-century levels, implying that cereal growing was an important activity in the area around the site.71 Plant remains found at El Villar from the earliest levels of settlement points to large scale cereal production (64%) right from the start of occupation of the site, with leguminous plants (20%) and viticulture (16%) also represented. Large-scale cereal growing continued there in the seventh century, with barley as the most common species (55%), followed by wheat (33.3%) and oats (11.1%). Several leguminous plants are also attested, including peas, and pulses are represented in the form of lentils. In the sixth century grape remains are found in significant quantities in amphorae which appeared in a building used for large-scale pottery production. The grapes could have been eaten fresh, dried and turned into raisins, or used for wine making, but the fact that they are found inside amphorae points to wine production, especially given the fact that El Villar was a major amphora-producing centre in the seventh and sixth centuries, implying that the amphorae were used as containers for locally produced products, probably in this case wine.72 The hypothesis of locallymade amphorae manufactured as containers for locally-produced wine is backed up by the evidence of the plant remains which show that by about 600 the

cultivation of the vine had jumped to occupy 26% of the plant remains attested at the site.73 When we compare the data from El Villar with that obtained from plant analysis at Castillo de Doña Blanca we gain a clearer picture of Phoenician agricultural strategies at both sites. In the seventh-century levels of Doña Blanca, barley and wheat are the most common cultivated plant species, as at El Villar. Cereal cultivation alternated with horticulture here too, with pulses and leguminous plants identified, including lentils, beans and peas, and chickpeas, the presence of the last at Doña Blanca provides the earliest evidence for their cultivation in the Iberian Peninsula. Cabbage is also attested and cultivated grape pips (vitis vinifera) are found consistently throughout all the occupation strata.74 The combination of cereal growing with horticulture indicates a carefully planned, well thought out crop-growing strategy with pulses providing protein, which is vital as a complement to starch-rich cereals, and also as a substitute for meat consumption. Pulses also play a crucial role in maintaining the fertility of soils which are used in cereal growing, by putting nitrogen back into the soil. The plants cultivated at Doña Blanca point to an emphasis on cereal-growing for human and animal consumption, combined with high-protein horticultural products and grape growing, and in the similar mix of plants cultivated at El Villar we can infer a similar objective.75

Occupation of the rural hinterland: the evidence from El Villar At El Villar the animal remains indicate that cereal growing and horticulture were combined with the stockrearing which we find at other Phoenician sites in the region. In the seventh and sixth centuries cattle, sheep and goats were all bred there, and this herding would seem to have been most intensive in the hills surrounding the settlement, which also provided game animals.76 In fact stock rearing would have had an important role to play in increasing the fertility of the soil used for cereal growing through the provision of manure to be used as fertiliser.77 But the most interesting result of the analysis of the hinterland of this site is the indication that the practice of what would seem to be quite intensive agriculture also led to the creation of a number of small rural settlements, dependent on the central nucleus of settlement on the island itself, which were involved in the agricultural activity carried out on the mainland. During the Phoenician period there was a small settlement at La Loma del Aeropuerto, only 2 km north of El Villar, on the mainland, and situated directly on the ancient coastline.78 The ceramic materials from the site show a mixture of indigenous Late Bronze Age pottery and

THE PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR HINTERLAND

Phoenician materials. Given the very summary nature of the excavations there, the precise cultural attribution of the settlement, Phoenician or indigenous, is difficult to say with precision. However its proximity to the island settlement, and the presence of considerable amounts of Phoenician materials, indicate that it was in close contact with Cerro del Villar and may well have had some Phoenicians resident there, if indeed it was not a direct Phoenician foundation in the first place.79 Situated close to Loma del Aeropuerto lies the site of Campamento Benítez, where Phoenician pottery dates its occupation during the seventh and sixth centuries, perhaps in terms of the agricultural activities which formed the basis of the island settlement’s economy.80 Given the island situation of the principal Phoenician settlement, and the often quite intensive labour requirements demanded by irrigation agriculture, the establishment of small outlying settlements on the mainland is an obvious necessity to facilitate the agricultural activites carried out in the extensive hinterland of El Villar.81 Thus we could be dealing with a settlement pattern here similar to that found in the valleys of the Algarrobo82 and the Vélez, which again has a number of small settlement sites a few kilometres from the Phoenician enclave,83 or even with an archaic precursor of the pattern of rural settlement found in the island of Ibiza in the Carthaginian period. There small rural cemeteries scattered throughout the island attest to intensive agricultural activities, carried out in small settlements specialising in the production of wine and oil, which was then exported in the island’s characteristic amphorae.84 Certainly in the context of the immediate hinterland of Cerro del Villar, the inhabitants of the outlying settlements may not have been entirely or even primarily Phoenician. The lower Guadalhorce valley had a number of indigenous sites occupied during the life of the settlement of El Villar. They have all revealed the presence of Phoenican materials and thus must have maintained some sort of contact, whether direct or indirect, with the Phoenicians at Cerro del Villar. Although we cannot reconstruct with any certainty the mechanisms of contact between both societies in the region, the very location of Cerro del Villar, on a small, easily accessible and undefended island, points to relatively good, or at least peaceable relations between both sides.85

Conclusions What is clear from the description of the natural environment in the Guadalhorce valley, and the activities carried out there, is that agriculture was among the principal economic activities at the Phoenician site of El Villar, carried out in the fertile alluvial land of the valley and the foothills of the mountains surrounding

115

it. With little evidence of metallurgical activities there, only intensive agriculture, perhaps combined with the fuel needs of the other major industry at the site, largescale pottery production, could have caused the extensive deforestation which we can trace through the changing profile of the pollens, charcoals and seeds found in the area. The Guadalhorce valley with its rich alluvial soils and copious supplies of water was ideal for agriculture, and all the evidence points to the fact that the Phoenicians understood and took full advantage of this. Cerro del Villar is one Phoenician site whose raison d’être cannot be wholly explained in terms of the metal trade, or navigational needs. The chief resource of the site was its location, in the lower Guadalhorce valley with its rich agricultural potential and access to the major communication routes of the region, and this was sufficient to attract and keep settlers there for nearly two hundred years. The example of El Villar should make us wary of assigning all Phoenician foundations to the metal trade, or navigational purposes, or strategic control of trade routes, all of which have been suggested as possible explanations for the density of settlements in this one area. The evidence of plant and animal remains shows that the settlers along the Costa del Sol coastline did not limit themselves to one activity. Rather our information points to a diversified economy, with a wide range of activities being carried out there; small-scale metallurgical activities at Toscanos, Morro de Mezquitilla, Adra and Cerro de Villar, pottery production at all the sites, especially Chorreras and El Villar, trade and storage at Toscanos as exemplified by Warehouse Building C, along with a mixed agriculture, combining cereals and horticulture in the fertile land of the river valleys, with stock-rearing in the hills behind the settlements, and a full use of the abundant fish stocks available from the sea and the rivers. In an area with no appreciable mineral resources and poor connections to the hinterland, the real resource is the land, and it is only agriculture that can explain the cluster of sites, all sharing the same location, along the narrow coastal plain of Mediterranean Andalusia. Nor should there necessarily be anything incongruous in this picture of the Phoenician as farmer. Their reputation as the unscrupulous and opportunistic traders of antiquity has overshadowed their skill as builders, artisans and farmers. Mention has already been made of Magon and the Carthaginian expertise in agriculture. Here is one case where commerce did not overshadow cultivation. The evidence from Spain suggests a successful and prosperous agriculture which formed the basis of the great food-processing industries of the Punic period. The size of the cattle from Toscanos is very probably the result of selective

116

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

breeding of the kind recommended by Magon and designed to produce a stronger and sturdier animal. Nor were they content with merely improving existing economic species. The domestic hen and the donkey first appear in Iberia in Phoenician and Phoenicianinfluenced sites, as does the cat.86 The cultivation of the vine and olive, if not actually introduced by the settlers, was greatly stimulated by them, and they were responsible for the introduction of several new plant varieties.87 The hypothesis of agriculture as a prime consideration in the establishment of these sites is not to deny the Phoenician interest in metals. It was obviously this which drew them to the Peninsula, as both literary and archaeological evidence prove. But once there, they needed something to exchange with the natives in return for the silver and precious metals of south-west Spain, and this trade was one in which the agricultural surpluses produced in the Costa del Sol sites could have had an important role to play.

Commercial agriculture? The Phoenicians and wine

There is very little evidence of wine-making in Iberia before the arrival of the Phoenicians. The grape is indigenous to Iberia but only in the form of vitis silvestris, the uncultivated, non-wine-producing variety. This was eaten at least as far back as the Chalcolithic period there.88 But on present evidence there are almost no signs of the cultivated grape, vitis vinifera, and wine-making, in the period predating the eighth century and as a result it is widely believed that it was the Phoenicians who introduced viticulture to Iberia.89 Certainly, there is no indication of large-scale commercial wine-making before the arrival of the Phoenicians. This is not surprising as viticulture is a crop that makes heavy demands of time, resources and labour. As Greene points out:

While knowledge of the domesticated grape and of the relatively simple techniques of fermentation are sufficient to permit winemaking to satisfy subsistence wants, a successful production above levels of household consumption carries heavier prerequisites: a fund of accumulated capital, an existing external demand, and a network of exchange to service that demand.90

These must be added to the long start-up period necessary in the cultivation of the vine, both in terms of the time needed to produce a harvestable crop and also that needed to produce and age the wine. For the Phoenicians, on the other hand, these requirements did not constitute such an obstacle. They had a long history of wine-production, and more importantly, of producing wine to be used as a tradegood. In the Early Bronze Age wine was among the

luxury products which Byblos exported to Egypt and by the Late Bronze Age wine was exported, among other things, by the Levantine cities in their characteristic Canaanite jars.91 Therefore, from many points of view, wine was an ideal trading commodity for the Phoenicians to develop in Iberia. They had the resources to invest in the initial set-up and they had experience in its production. More importantly, while relatively cheap to produce, wine could be traded with the Iberians as a status-enhancing novelty, just like the bronze jugs we find in Tartessian tombs during this period, and which were perhaps associated with winedrinking, but with the difference that wine was far cheaper to produce, especially when the transport costs of shipping it from the eastern Mediterranean were eliminated, and it was also a product that could be turned out in vast quantities.

The amphora evidence This is where the R–1 amphora is relevant (Fig. 1.13). One of the most characteristic elements of the pottery repertory of the Phoenician sites in southern Spain is the R–1 amphora.92 It was first classified by Vuillemot in his excavations at the Phoenician site of Rachgoun in Algeria as his type R–1,93 and it is one which we find in all the Phoenician sites in Iberia, where it was produced in large quantities, apparently right from the start of pottery production at these settlements.94 The R–1 amphora was widely distributed at Phoenician sites in the far west of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, occurring in considerable quantities at Mogador in Atlantic Morocco, up through Lixus and Rachgoun in Algeria, on to the colonial sites in Andalusia and up as far as the Phoenician foundation at Ibiza in the Balearic Islands.95 Outside the Iberian Peninsula and its area of influence, the R–1 amphora is found less frequently, with examples identified at Carthage, Motya, Sardinia (Monte Sirai, Sulcis and Sant’Imbenia), Pithekoussai, and the Italian mainland.96 It is therefore a form which seems to be characteristic of the Phoenican koine of the Far West, and one which enjoyed great success, not just in the colonial sites of this area, but among the native settlements which traded with the colonists, from the Tartessian sites of Lower Andalusia, all along the Meditteranean coast of Spain, up to Catalonia and as far as Languedoc in southern France.97 In all these areas the R–1 form of amphora is found so frequently that it constitutes the ‘type-fossil’ for the identification of Phoenician activities in Spain and southern France. It was obviously manufactured on such a large scale that ‘one can consider that the R–1 type was the only amphora produced by the west Phoenician workshops at this time, at least on a large scale’.98

THE PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR HINTERLAND

Obviously the R–1 amphorae were not produced and exported for their own sake; they must clearly have appealed to settler and native alike because of their contents. We cannot identify with absolute certainty the original contents of the R–1 amphorae – and this statement also applies to all Phoenician and Punic amphorae outside the East99 – but on balance it seems likely that it was originally some kind of food product, probably either wine or olive oil, the standard produce contained in amphorae in the ancient world.100 But whatever the nature of the amphora’s contents, it was clearly being produced in such large quantities, right from the start of the Phoenician presence in Iberia, that it necessited the production of a specially designed type of transport-container, the R–1 amphora. This was not only produced by the Phoenician sites in Iberia, it was also introduced by them into the indigenous pottery repertory. Examples occur at sites such as La Peña Negra in Crevillente, where a Phoenician enoikismos, specializing in amphora production, was located in the seventh century. Again the question is: what did these amphorae contain? Although for the moment the answer must remain open, there is just enough evidence to point to an association between the R–1 amphora and wine. For instance, the indigenous settlement of L’Alt de Benmaquía, near Denia in Valencia, was occupied during the sixth century. Here a fortified settlement was built which specialised in the production of wine on a large scale. Associated with the production area are large numbers of amphorae, most of them deriving directly from the R–1 type.101 In the Phoenician settlements, too, we have the occasional find of an R–1 amphora containing grape pips, such as at Cerro del Villar. Vitis vinifera was apparently an important crop for the settlers at Cerro del Villar. It is first represented in levels dating from the end of the eighth century where it makes up 16% of the total of plant remains, and it continues down to the start of the sixth century, where it represents some 25.8% of the plant remains attested there.102 In Castillo de Doña Blanca finds of vitis vinifera have been discovered in all the strata investigated.103 The finds of R–1 amphorae in the tombs of Phoenician settlers at Trayamar, in association with red-slip jugs, and plates, further strengthens the view that these vessels held wine. Wine had an important role to play in the libations honouring the dead in the funerary cult carried out at these tombs, as we have seen (pp. 73–4). The R–1 amphorae, or their contents, were also considered important enough to be buried among the symbols of status in the graves of the Tartessian princes at La Joya in Huelva. In Tomb 17, in addition to the chariot and harness, ivory casket, and

117

alabaster unguent bottle, bronze mirror, incenseburner and dish, there is also a bronze jug, and two R–1 amphorae, undoubtedly placed here as real or symbolic containers of wine.104 Therefore on present evidence it seems that the Phoenicians introduced the cultivation of the wine-producing vitis vinifera grape to Iberia, seeking to use it as a product which had valueadded status-enhancing properties among the local population (and also within Phoenician society itself). It was a product which could be produced on a large scale and offered in exchange for other products in which the Phoenicians were interested, the silver of the south-west for instance, or access to the metal routes and resources of the Atlantic Bronze Age in northern Spain. Crucially, at least at first, it was a product, the manufacture of which was confined to the Phoenician settlements. This helps to explain the function of the pottery workshop at the important metallurgical site of La Peña Negra in Alicante. The amphorae and other large storage jars produced here had to contain something. Perhaps the Phoenicians were offering the secret of the production of wine to this, their most important clientele in the region. In this context it is interesting that when the indigenous settlers of L’Alt de Benimaquía chose to create an amphora-type for the wine produced at the site, they looked to the Phoenician pottery repertoire. Most of the amphorae types they produced are simply more evolved versions of the old R–1 type, as if there was an association between the container and the contents. Certainly by the seventh century, manufacture of the R–1 amphorae was no longer confined to the Phoenician settlements alone. We have evidence of pottery workshops in several indigenous sites, such as Cerro de los Infantes in Granada and Acinipo in Ronda (Fig. 4.1).105 Clearly by then this trade in food products had become so successful in creating a demand, that at least some areas of the indigenous society had moved to the creation of their own resource, as is evident from L’Alt de Benimaquía.106 According to Pseudo-Aristotle and Diodorus, the Phoenicians made huge profits in Spain by acquiring large quantities of precious metals, particularly silver, from the natives in exchange for olive oil and worthless gewgaws.107 When we compare this with the huge number of R–1 amphorae found distributed throughout the areas of Phoenician influence in North Africa, Spain and southern France, where in some sites they make up almost 100% of the imported amphorae found there,108 we are confronted with strong evidence for the existence of a trade in foodstuffs. This trade, perhaps primarily in oil or wine or both, was between the colonial sites of Andalusia (where they were

118

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

made), and the indigenous sites controlling access to the metals of southern Spain, on the one hand, and the trade routes of northern Spain and southern France (which connected the tin-producing regions of Atlantic Europe with the Mediterranean), on the other.109

La Peña Negra Confirmation of this trade in food products for metals and access to the Atlantic trade circuits is provided by the evidence from La Peña Negra de Crevillente in Alicante (Fig. 1.2). Evidence that the Phoenicians were present here comes from the large amount of wholly Phoenician pottery produced in situ, and the finding of potter’s marks on locally produced R–1 amphorae, as well as Phoenician grafitti found on a locally manufactured red-slip plate. All this suggests that there was a pottery workshop run by Phoenicians, perhaps from the southern colonies, especially in view of the discovery of an identical potter’s mark on an R–1 amphora from Morro de Mezquitilla in Málaga. There also seems to have been specialised jewellerymakers resident at La Peña Negra, judging by the presence at the site of orientalizing jewellery, complete with the tools necessary for its production, and a bronze mould found in a burial near the settlement and used for the production of repoussé-decorated oval medallions of a wholly oriental style.110 The reason for Phoenician interest in La Peña Negra seems to lie in its active bronze production which specialised in such typically Atlantic types as carp’s tongue swords and axes, produced on a large scale from the start of occupation at the site. Locally available ores, from the mountains of the Sierra de Crevillente, were exploited to the extent that the site has been termed ‘one of the most important central points of western European metallurgy’,111 and it seems to have marked the end of an overland route linking the metal-rich areas of central Portugal with the Mediterranean. Of the imports to La Peña Negra the most numerous are the R–1 amphorae, many of which were produced in the Phoenician enclaves in Andalusia, to judge from the results of clay-analysis. These amphorae were either shipped directly from the sites in this area, or alternatively may have reached La Peña Negra through the Phoenician settlement set up in the eighth century at Guardamar, on the mouth of the river Segura, close to La Peña Negra. All in all the evidence for an active Phoenician presence in this region confirms the comment by Avienus that in the region of the Segura river, ista Phoenices prius loca incolebant, ‘the Phoenicians inhabited those places first’ (OM 456–60), and that La Peña Negra (the ancient Herna) marked the northern limit of Tartessos (OM 462–3).112

The role of agriculture in the Phoenician economy This trade in food products fits in very well with the evidence we have for the kind of activities carried out at the colonial sites in southern Spain. We have seen that access to mineral resources and navigational considerations are not enough to explain the prosperity of so many colonial foundations over two hundred years, just as we have also seen that agriculture played a far more important role in these settlements’ economy than is generally recognised. The advanced agricultural and stock-breeding techniques attested at these sites, together with the fertility of the land surrounding them, and the relatively limited population occupying these small sites, must have produced agricultural surpluses which went beyond the subsistence agriculture generally attributed to them. This it was to do again from the sixth century onwards, when food production became the chief economic activity of the Punic settlements here.113 Obviously these agricultural surpluses were put to use, and it is here that the scale of pottery production carried out at all these sites becomes significant. We have seen that the R–1 amphorae were produced in large quantities at all the Oriental sites in Spain, apparently right from the start of pottery production there. We have also seen that these amphorae almost certainly contained food products, most probably oil or wine. Since these amphorae were obviously manufactured to store locally-produced resources, in view of their presence on a large scale in the indigenous settlements throughout the area of Phoenician influence in the Far West, there is convincing evidence for a trade in food products produced at the Phoenician sites. The trade was the result of an agriculture orientated to the production of surpluses in certain products, which could then be traded for others, most probably the Spanish metals.114 At the site of El Villar agriculture obviously occupied a prominent position in the range of activities carried out there, if indeed it was not the reason for the foundation of the site in the first place. The main manufacturing activity on the island seems to have been pottery production, represented by transport amphorae and large storage vessels, on a scale which its excavator has described as ‘intense’, and which almost excludes the production of the characteristic fine table ware, the red-slip ware, well represented at other sites in the region.115 Given the production on a large scale of amphorae in which this pottery workshop, and indeed the settlement of El Villar itself, specialized, can we assume that this manufacturing activity was designed to provide containers for the agricultural surpluses produced in the hinterland of the settlement, either from areas directly under

THE PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR HINTERLAND

Phoenician control or as a result of some sort of exchange with the local population? If the answer is yes, then we are left with a picture of the exploitation of the hinterland of these settlements that is considerably more sophisticated than the traditional image of the Phoenician as peddlar of gewgaws of heterogeneous origin and doubtful worth.116 Certainly it is true that the small size of the potential chora surrounding these sites means that the area available to be farmed by the Phoenicians must always have remained limited, especially since at that time the sea penetrated far deeper inland than it does now: it would be wrong to think that Spain had the extensive and opulent latifundia observed in North Africa by Agathocles in his invasion of Cape Bon, at the end of the fourth century.117 Rather than large properties concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, the mixed agriculture practised in the alluvial valleys of the Costa del Sol suggests small landholdings owned or worked by the colonists, with the possibility that certain areas were held in common ownership for grazing or hunting purposes.118 In fact it is a picture very similar to what we know of the agricultural practises of Phoenicia itself, where a diversified intensive agriculture was also practised, based on cereals, the vine and olive as staples, supplemented with vegetables and fruit trees, and additional protein coming largely from sheep and goats.119 We know that, in Phoenicia, Tyre had for a long time been suffering from what Aubet has termed an ‘agricultural deficit’, and from the time of Hiram I we have numerous Biblical references to the various palliative measures undertaken by that monarch to remedy this situation, brought on by overpopulation and the limited availability of agricultural land.120 Several of the ancient authors mention problems of overpopulation in Phoenicia, and two of them explicity assign the Tyrian expansionary movement to an attempt by Tyre to provide an outlet for its surplus population.121 This provides us with the kind of factors, overpopulation and agricultural crisis, more generally associated with the Greek colonial movement than with the Phoenician. In the light of such a situation in the homeland, it seems natural that the availability of good agricultural land would have been appreciated and exploited as a factor in the choice of sites for potential settlements, as Whittaker first suggested in the 1970s.122

Phoenicians and Iberians: commercial contacts only?

While the Phoenician enclaves on the southern coasts of Spain have been intensively investigated over the

119

last thirty years, very little attention has been paid to their indigenous neighbours in the areas immediately surrounding the colonial sites. As a result, one of the statements frequently made about the Mediterranean coastal plain where the Phoenician settlements are found is that there was apparently only a small indigenous population in the area. This is often cited as an important factor in the Phoenician decision to settle there in great numbers, especially given the contrast with western Andalusia, the heartland of Tartessos, which was densely populated throughout this period; there large settlements controlled all the points of access to the key mineral and agricultural resources of the region.123 According to this theory, the Phoenicians were able to settle and exploit the local resources in any way they wanted, free from constraints imposed by the locals, who were too few in number and not sufficiently organised to prevent this. However, the Mediterranean coastal plain was not unoccupied when the Phoenicians arrived, and indeed contact between colonists and locals may have been far closer than was previously thought. The indigenous society of Upper Andalusia during the Phoenician occupation formed, from a cultural point of view, part of the south-eastern Bronze Age. In the south-east, the collapse of the highly developed El Argar culture in c. 1200 had brought with it a period of apparent crisis, when the settlement pattern, agriculture, economic production, pottery and metallurgy were all totally reorganised during the Late Bronze Age.124 There is little evidence of hierarchy or social stratification during this period, and it appears in general to have been one of recession, perhaps brought on by drastic changes in the environment.125 Thus, according to the traditional view of Phoenician settlement, the first settlers to arrive in the coastal plains of Malaga, Granada and Almeria would have found an area almost empty of any indigenous population, who preferred to settle in the upland areas further inland. Consequently, contacts between the two sides would have been limited to the strictly commercial, as witnessed by the abundant amphorae and other oriental pottery found in the indigenous sites of the interior.126 However research carried out in the 1990s in the province of Málaga has proved that the theory of the absence of indigenous population in the areas around the Phoenician settlements is a reflection more of a lack of investigation than of a real absence of settlement. In general our understanding of the dynamics and development of the indigenous society in the immediate hinterland of the Phoenician settlements during this period is far from ideal, largely due to the fact that the Late Bronze Age of Upper Andalusia has been perceived as less ‘glamourous’ than the often spectacular

120

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

finds from the contemporary society of Lower Andalusia, Tartessos, and the subsequent development of the classical Iberian culture in the south-east. With only a handful of exceptions (for instance, at Acinipo), there have been few large-scale excavations, with most of the work consisting of surface survey. The absence of stratified deposits has led to problems in distinguishing, for instance, local indigenous handmade pottery from its Phoenician counterparts.

The pottery evidence It is generally believed that the Phoenicians targeted for settlement sites which were unoccupied and would thus have little or no indigenous occupants. However, many Phoenician settlements contain indigenous pottery, sometimes in considerable quantities. In the province of Granada, the Phoenician settlement at Almuñécar yielded, as well as its spectacular shaftgrave burials, an initial level of settlement in the very

early eighth century where Phoenician pottery made up a mere 2% of the total. This tiny amount is in contrast to the large amount of indigenous Late Bronze Age ware, suggesting that the site was already occupied by the local population when the new settlers arrived (Fig. 4.3).127 Hand-made pottery is found in other Phoenician sites in the region, including Toscanos, where it is most common in the initial phases of occupation, as well as Chorreras and Morro de Mezquitilla.128 The handmade pottery at these sites is often similar in form and decoration to pottery found in indigenous sites in the interior, and its presence at the Phoenician sites has been attributed by Schubart, Niemeyer and Pellicer to Phoenician acquisition of local products, possibly foodstuffs.129 However, given the variety of forms attested, both open and closed, and their variation from site to site, they might well indicate the incorporation of an element of the local population, rather

Fig 4.3 Indigenous Iberian pottery from (i) Cueva de los Siete Palacios, Almuñécar and (ii) Morro de Mezquitilla

THE PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR HINTERLAND

than a hypothetical trade in foodstuffs (such as the honey trade postulated by Schubart, Niemeyer and Pellicer).130 The settlement at Toscanos was situated only a few kilometres away from two indigenous sites up-river on the Vélez, at Vélez-Málaga and Cerca Niebla, the latter located a mere 2 km away; while the Phoenician sites of Cerro del Villar and Málaga were located close to three indigenous sites, those at Cerro Asperones, Cerro Cabello and Cerro de la Tortuga.131 Therefore there exists the possibility, as Whittaker suggested, that these colonial sites incorporated on their foundation some element of the local population. Unfortunately, the only way to identify the presence of indigenous inhabitants is through their pottery, and with the adoption of the potter’s wheel by the Iberians, the presence of indigenous elements in the colonial sites becomes much harder to recognise.132 However, judging by the fact that even in the initial levels of occupation at Toscanos the hand-made ware never made up more than a few per cent of the total pottery assemblage, the number of indigenous inhabitants in the colonial centres such as Toscanos, Morro and Chorreras could not have been very considerable.133 The co-existence of settlers and local inhabitants is well attested on the Atlantic coast of Spain, at Castillo de Doña Blanca, where indigenous Late Bronze Age pottery was found in very significant quantities.134 This cannot be attributed to commercial contacts alone, as the burials at the cemetery of Las Cumbres, where both Phoenicians and locals shared a communal tumulus, testify. Given the similarity between the indigenous ware at Doña Blanca and that produced by nearby sites in the province of Cádiz, it seems likely that the Iberians living at Doña Blanca came from the surrounding area, probably from the Late Bronze Age site of Las Cumbres, only a few kilometres away from the new foundation; the latter was abandoned, apparently peacefully, at the time of the establishment of the colonial site.135 The indigenous population living at Doña Blanca, Toscanos and the other colonial sites could have come from two distinct groups – either through intermarriage with local women, or from the provision of labour, especially in agriculture.136 Whatever the role of the Iberian inhabitants, their pottery is not found restricted to any one area in the settlement, but appears to be dispersed throughout it. This implies that the indigenous inhabitants were not confined to a peripheral area of the site but formed an integral part of the colonial society, perhaps simply because they were not numerically very important. We can thus exclude situations like that attested at the Greek colony of Emporion, at Gerona in the northeast of

121

Spain, where a wall separated the Greek quarter from that of the local population, forming what Strabo and Livy call a dipolis, or dual city.137

The nature of the Phoenician/Iberian contacts It is clear that relations between colonisers and locals were close and that Iberians could live in the colonial sites. But the situation could also be reversed, and Phoenicians could live in an indigenous context, as we can see from the case of Casa de Montilla in the province of Cádiz (Fig. 1.2).138 Here an indigenous Late Bronze Age site was located at the mouth of the river Guadiaro, which provided a direct link with the uplands of Ronda. In the course of the second half of the eighth century, this site came into close contact with the Phoenicians, with Phoenician pottery, chiefly amphorae, found in large quantities at the settlement. Contact was obviously close and intense enough for this site to substitute completely its indigenous pottery production for wheel-made Phoenician types within, at the most, fifty years. Most of the Phoenician pottery comes from Trench 3 of the excavation, where almost no local pottery was found, and where the materials are wholly Phoenician in character. This area has been interpreted as a small Phoenician colony founded close to the indigenous site. However as Trench 3 is less than 125 m from the Late Bronze Age site, rather than viewing it as a discrete Phoenician foundation, can we not envisage a mixed settlement here where a group of Phoenicians came to live at an already established indigenous site? Could they not have formed a separate barrio, or district, on the lines of the Tyrian quarter described by Herodotus (II. 112) in Memphis, or perhaps, to use an example from Iberia, in a situation similar to that of the indigenous site of La Peña Negra in Alicante? The presence of Phoenician settlers at the latter site during the seventh and sixth centuries is undeniable.139 On the basis of the current evidence, therefore, we can see that contact between both sides was close, and some at least of the indigenous settlements in the coastal region of Málaga seem to have been integrated into the colonial system, given their location so close to enclaves such as Cerro del Villar, Toscanos and Morro de Mezquitilla. Although, our knowledge of them is limited, they seem to have been small, unfortified settlements, dedicated primarily to agriculture.140 The geography of the province of Málaga offers a sharp contrast between the coastal plain, where the Phoenician settlements were located, and the mountainous interior dominated by the Cordillera Subbética, which divides Mediterranean Andalusia from the Guadalquivir valley. However contact between the two regions is possible via the river valleys and the

122

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

mountain plains, and these areas are dominated by large indigenous settlements, of which Acinipo and Ronda are perhaps the best known examples. Clearly, then, all the major routes controlling the lines of communication from the interior to the coast were under the control of the indigenous society, as the proliferation of indigenous settlements in clusters along such key points of communication as the upper Guadalhorce valley indicates.141 Judging by the finds of typically Atlantic-type objects, such as the carp’s tongue sword at Almargen, close to the upper Corbones, and a mould to make another Atlantic-type sword (of the Monte Sa Idda type) from Ronda, it is clear that the indigenous society of this part of Upper Andalusia was dominated by élite groups engaged in the same circulation of Atlantic-type objects as we find in lower Andalusia.142 Given the location of these settlements, it is not surprising that they soon came into contact with the Phoenicians, who would have needed the consent of the indigenous society to follow these routes of communication to the interior. This was especially true in wintertime, when communication by sea with the Guadalquivir and Cádiz would have been difficult and dangerous. We can trace these contacts through the changes in indigenous society of which Acinipo is one of the best examples (Fig. 4.1). The settlement first came into contact with the Phoenicians in the mid-eighth century, according to the conventional archaeological orthodoxy, and this contact with the settlers had a profound effect on the urban structure of the site. Insubstantial circular huts were substituted by rectangular houses built on stone foundations, and changes in agriculture were greatly stimulated by the introduction (or at the very least intensification) of the cultivation of the grape and the olive, as well as the introduction of iron.143 So far the main difference in the Phoenicians’ dealings with the society of Upper Andalusia and those with Lower Andalusia, the Tartessian heartland, is that none of the spectacular products which we find in Tartessos have their counterpart here. There are a number of reasons for this, the traditional one being the lack of mineral resources in this part of Upper Andalusia. But perhaps the real reason is the absence of burials contemporary with the Phoenician presence here, or rather the failure up to now of archaeologists to find them.144

Agricultural colonization? The Wagner and Alvar model

Another area where the issue of contact between the Phoenicians and the indigenous population continues to be highly polemical is the interior of Andalusia.

Here, according to one of the most innovative investigative theories of Phoenician settlement, elements of Phoenician population could have penetrated deep into the interior, to reach the heartland of Tartessos, with the establishment of nuclei of largely agricultural settlements there. Based on a model first put forward in the 1970s by Whittaker, Wagner and Alvar rejected the customary explanation for the Phoenician presence in Iberia as being wholly aimed at the extraction of large amounts of silver, and other metals, from Tartessus. Instead they suggest that there were three main periods of Phoenician activity in the far west and central Mediterranean: precolonization, from the tenth century onwards, when the first contacts were made; colonisation in the eighth century, with the establishment of permanent settlements in Spain, Sicily, Sardinia and North Africa; and, most controversially, a second wave of migration from the Levant in response to the acute pressure put on the region by Assyrian military occupation. This second wave of colonisation took place in the seventh century, and included not just merchants and craftsmen, but also, crucially, farmers who had been displaced by an agricultural crisis brought on by environmental damage, a shortage of agricultural land, population growth and Assyrian aggression.145 The new settlers were responsible for the growth in size of the pre-existing Phoenician settlements, in Sicily, Carthage and Spain, as well as the foundation of new settlements in these areas. The most controversial aspect of this theory is the authors’ claim that the new settlers, who were mainly farmers, sought to reproduce the conditions of their lives in the homeland, and thus established small agricultural enclaves in the fertile land of the Iberian interior, in the Guadalquivir valley, and possibly Extremadura. The presence of groups of population permanently settled in the heartland of Tartessos would explain the reason why this region was so profoundly and lastingly influenced by the Phoenicians, in areas which it is hard to imagine would have been transformed by commercial contact alone – religion and burial practices. Instead of identifying cemeteries with oriental artefacts and burial rituals as those of an ‘orientalizing’ indigenous population who had adopted Phoenician customs (basing their argument chiefly on the cemetery at Cruz del Negro, near Carmona, and similar burials at Setefilla in Seville and Medellín in Extremadura: see Fig. 4.1), they claim that these burials are either those of oriental settlers, or of Iberians who display such a degree of oriental influence that they must have been in close contact with Phoenician settlers in the area. The appearance of materials in these cemeteries which are oriental in character but exceedingly rare

THE PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR HINTERLAND

in the colonies on the coast means that we cannot attribute their occurrence in the Guadalquivir valley to influence from the Andalusian coastal settlements: they have to belong to the hypothetical second wave of settlers.146 These settlers would have engaged in subsistence agriculture, forming independent communities in the area around Carmona (the existence of which is reflected in the cemetery at Cruz del Negro), or simply incorporating themselves into pre-existing indigenous settlements: there they were accepted and eventually integrated into indigenous society, leaving as the only record of their presence lasting and pervasive semitic influences influences in the local culture which are otherwise hard to explain. Wagner and Alvar’s theory of agricultural colonization has not received a favourable response from the majority of Spanish scholars, being either openly rejected or largely ignored.147 However, in comparison with the wholly commercial model of Phoenician settlement (discussed above in Chapter Two), it is more flexible in that it allows for factors other than the strictly commercial to account for the colonisation movement, and it admits that contacts between settlers and native population were far closer than they have traditionally been admitted. It also makes clear that such a large-scale undertaking as the Phoenician expansionary movement cannot be solely attributed to the search for raw materials alone, however great the Phoenician commercial aptitude. Rather, like the Greek colonies, commerce and agriculture were not mutually exclusive, and the examination of the pottery production of the colonies on the Mediterranean coast of Spain has shown that the foodstuffs produced and packaged by them may have had an important role in the trade with the inhabitants of the Spanish Levant, Catalonia and Languedoc within the Atlantic commercial system. The agricultural colonisation model of Wagner and Alvar also allows for the diachronic development of the Phoenician settlements with foundations which had been established for reasons of navigation, or trade, such as Motya, or the exploitation of local resources such as the Spanish enclaves, subsequently serving other purposes as well – relieving population pressure and providing an outlet for those fleeing an adverse political situation at home. In other words, in their emphasis on insufficient agricultural resources to support a growing population, and the desire of some of that population to escape oppression at home, we have a model which is not unlike that of Greek colonisation: hence perhaps some of the hostility generated to it. But however plausible Wagner and Alvar’s model is on an abstract level, it must stand or fall against the evidence, both archaeological and textual,

123

which is available for the activities of the Phoenicians in Iberia and their contact with the local population. In this respect the appearance of new evidence, and the reinterpretation of existing data, is providing a situation more supportive of the presence of Phoenicians in the Guadalquivir valley region than has generally been accepted.

The palaeo-topography of the ‘interior’ of Tartessos

Wagner and Alvar argued for the presence of Phoenician settlers in the Guadalquivir valley who settled as farmers in the interior of Tartessos. But as we have seen, the Lower Guadalquivir valley, with its cluster of sites showing strong signs of Phoenician interest, such as Carmona, El Carambolo and Seville itself, was not located deep in the interior, as it is now, but was then situated on the edge of the Atlantic ocean, like Gadir itself (Figs 4.1 and 4.6).148 Therefore, if we find Phoenicians settled in large numbers on the coasts of Andalusia, along the Costa del Sol, and the Bay of Cádiz, then surely there is nothing strange in the idea that they established at least a token presence in the lower Guadalquivir valley, equally coastal. Such settlement also had the advantage of providing easy access to the mineral-rich regions of the Sierra Morena and Cástulo, as well as to the trans-continental routes linking Andalusia with Extremadura, the Meseta and central and northern Portugal, and finally to the indigenous population who controlled access to these metals and trade routes. Thus Wagner and Alvar’s theory of agricultural colonisation can be said to be in some ways already superseded by the results of the geological investigations of the German Archaeological Institute. We do not have to view any Phoenicians present in this region primarily as farmers; their presence here could simply be a response to the same motivations that led them to establish themselves in Gadir and Doña Blanca, for instance.149 But even if the motivation is changed, to trade and commerce rather than primarily agricultural considerations, there are increasingly clear signs of a strong Phoenician presence in the Guadalquivir valley region, brought to light largely by the excavations and research carried out here by Doctors Belén and Escacena of the University of Seville. Carmona The evidence for a strong oriental influence in Carmona, in the province of Seville, has already been discussed in Chapter Two (pp. 81–2). Here a pronounced Phenico-Punic influence has long been visible, both on a historical and archaeological level, well

124

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 4.4 The Phoenician landscape: view of the Guadalquivir valley from Carmona into the Roman period.150 Much of this influence significantly predates the Carthaginian period, and instead points to a prolonged and sustained contact with the Phoenicians in the centuries preceding the presence of Carthage in the region (Fig. 4.4).151 Evidence for this contact has been accumulating, from the find of a wall of a characteristically Phoenician rubble and masonry type, dating to the sixth century, to the more dramatic discovery of a late seventh- or early sixth-century shrine or temple building, in the part of the city closest to the strongly Phoenicianinfluenced cemetery at Cruz del Negro (Fig. 4.5).152 Given the wholly oriental nature of what we know of the building’s construction techniques and contents (so far only one room has been excavated), with carved ivory spoons, and pithoi decorated with griffins and lotus flowers, we have to admit the presence in Carmona of Phoenician masons, potters and vase painters: judging by the analysis of the clay, the pithoi were manufactured in Carmona. The possible templebuilding itself, with its oriental construction techniques and furniture, was built to serve either an indigenous community which had become so influenced by oriental culture that its religious practices had become virtually indistinguishable from those of the Phoenicians, or the Phoenician community resident in Carmona. In either case we are dealing with lasting and sustained contact between Phoenicians and Iberians at Carmona – in other words the stable presence of Phoenicians, apparently peacefully residing in an indigenous context in the Guadalquivir valley, in a similar situation to that at La Peña Negra in Alicante.

The presence of a Phoenician community in Carmona is not surprising given its control of the communication routes in the region and its fertile hinterland. The settlement is located on the natural communication route linking Cádiz and Cástulo, an important source of silver, and which was to become the via Augusta in Roman times. Other routes link the city with the province of Málaga and the Phoenician settlements there. Its situation on the river Corbones, a tributary of the Guadalquivir, provided it with a direct link to Seville, with its important sites of Cerro Macareno and El Carambolo (discussed below). Also, as we have seen, while now located deep inland, Carmona was then less than a day’s journey from the Atlantic ocean, and equally was accessible by land from the Phoenician colonies on the Mediterranean coast of Andalusia.153 Thus there should be nothing incongruous in the idea of a Phoenician settlement in the region of Carmona, close to the Atlantic coast, and with the Corbones and Guadalquivir allowing it access to the interior. In the eighth century it was a strongly defended site, surrounded by formidable defensive walls, and still in Roman times Caesar was to call the former Carmo longe firmissima totius provinciae civitas, ‘the strongest town by far in the entire province’ (Bellum Civile, II. 19. 4).154

El Carambolo Further evidence of a possible Phoenician presence in the Guadalquivir valley comes from Seville, at El Carambolo, a hill some 3 km from the city. The site of El Carambolo is located at a key point for trade and

THE PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR HINTERLAND

Fig 4.5 Carmona, Phoenician cult building: (above) plan; (below) ivory spoons found within it

125

126

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig 4.6 (left) Map showing palaeo-topography of the mouth of the Guadalquivir river

Fig. 4.7 (above) El Carambolo (Sevilla), orientalizing treasure, now in the Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Sevilla; it consists of 21 pieces of jewellery, weighing in total almost 3 kg. communications (Fig. 4.6). It is situated on a promontory dominating the Guadalquivir, at the point where goods transported from the coast by large sea-going ships may have had to be transferred to smaller river boats, and in a location which was equidistant between Cádiz, Huelva and Córdoba. This gave it, and the city of Seville in general, a key position in the west–east trade within the Peninsula.155 El Carambolo received its first Phoenician pottery in the eighth century which, apart from the usual R–1 amphorae, included red-slip ware of exceptional quality.156 It was there that a hoard of sumptuous gold jewellery was found showing a mixture of oriental and Atlantic traditions (Fig. 4.7).157 The most remarkable find from that site, however, is the so called Astarte of Seville, a bronze statuette of the goddess now in the Archaeological Museum in Seville (Fig. 4.8). From the inscription at the base of the statue we know that it is an ex voto dedicated by two Phoenician brothers to the goddess Astarte in gratitude for having granted their prayers.158 The statuette is clearly oriental and was probably made in Cyprus or Phoenicia itself, sometime in the eighth century.

However we have no way of knowing where it was inscribed, and whether it made the journey west before or after its dedication to the goddess. With its obvious sacredness it is unlikely that it came from the Andalusian coastal colonies as part of a commercial cargo to be traded with the local inhabitants. As Wagner points out, no matter how acute his commercial acumen was, it is hard to imagine a Phoenician trafficking in a sacred object.159 Blanco has suggested that given the appearance of the treasure and also the abundance of extremely high-quality pottery of Phoenician manufacture, we have to interpret El Carambolo as a shrine, and in this context the presence of the statuette of Astarte makes sense.160 Thus we have to imagine that two Phoenician brothers who were present in the area dedicated the statuette to Astarte at her shrine in gratitude for the assistance she had given them.161 The exact cultural assignation of El Carambolo is still a matter which excites great controversy, with argument raging between those, such as Aubet, who view it as an important Tartessian settlement and economic centre, occupied before the arrival of the

THE PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR HINTERLAND

127

Phoenicians, while others, such as Belén, Escacena and Amores, argue that the presence of wheel-made pottery in the oldest levels at the site indicates that the occupation of El Carambolo does not pre-date the arrival of the Phoenicians in the lower Guadalquivir. Rather than viewing it as a settlement, given the abundance and high quality of its ceramic materials (both the Phoenician and the locally-made Carambolo ware, which possibly draws its inspiration from Greek geometric pottery), as well as the markedly ritual character of the metal objects found there, they argue that it must be viewed as a shrine. In this context it was most likely a Phoenician shrine to the goddess Astarte, closely linked to the island site of Hispalis/Seville which Belén and Escacena also argue is a Phoenician foundation.162 The presence of a shrine to Astarte in such a key point for trade makes sense, as she, like Baal Saphon and Melqart, was linked to navigation, and her shrines were located at key points for shipping (such as at Gadir, Malta and Pyrgi).

Coria del Río A further possible shrine which also seems to have been frequented by the Phoenicians is located close to El Carambolo at Coria del Río (the former Caura) (Figs 4.6 and 4.9). Here an indigenous settlement was situated on the Cerro de San Juan, a hill some 27 metres high, which dominates the modern town. Although there are signs of some neolithic occupation, it was not Fig. 4.8 (above) El Carambolo (Seville), bronze statuette of Astarte, now in the Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Sevilla; height 16.5cm.

Fig. 4.9 (right) The Phoenician landscape: view of the Guadalquivir at Coria del Río (Seville), with the ferry-boat

128

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig 4.10 Coria del Río (Seville), altar from the cult building

until the end of the third millennium, or start of the second, that the site was settled on a permanent basis, an occupation which continued, apparently without a break, down to the present day.163 In the grounds of a school located on top of the hill, Dr Escacena of the University of Seville located a complex of superimposed rectangular buildings, which succeeded each other over some three centuries, each with the same orientation and plan, from the mid-eighth century down to the end of the sixth. The structure dating from the second half of the seventh century is dominated by an altar in the shape of an oxhide, located in the centre of the room and measuring some 80 cm by 55 cm, and 15 cm in height (Fig. 4.10).164 The floor of the room is covered with red clay, as is a clay bench which runs along one of the long sides of the room. This building has been interpreted by Escacena as a sanctuary which was in use for almost all the first half of the first millennium, with the altar of the seventh-

century Sanctuary III orientated towards the rising sun of the summer solstice.165 The presence of anchors associated with the shrine leads him to claim that it was dedicated to the Phoenician god, Baal Saphon, a divinity with power over the natural elements, most particularly the storm, and in this capacity he was worshipped as the protector of navigation by sea. We know that Baal Saphon was worshipped in Tyre, as he is invoked in the seventh-century treaty between Asarhaddon, king of Assyria, and the Tyrian king Baal, as the storm god, one who can unleash a tempest on those who anger him. In his temple in Ugarit, he was worshipped as the protector of navigation, with anchors left there as votive offerings to the god.166 In the Cerro de San Juan complex at Coria, outside the building a large number of cattle bones were found associated with ashes, and these have been linked to the shape of the altar, implying that the divinity was worshipped here by the sacrifice of cattle.167 But obviously, if the complex at Coria was a sanctuary dedicated to a Phoenician divinity, then it had to have been built by Phoenicians and designed to serve worshippers, at least some of whom were Phoenician. In other words, at least some of the inhabitants of the Tartessian Caura were Phoenicians. In this context the buildings excavated around the possible shrine-complex are quite informative. The earliest of these date to the eighth century. Up to seven successive building phases have been identified dating from this period down to the latter part of the sixth century. The houses seem to have been rectilinear in structure, with stone foundations or socles made from locally available stone, and reaching no more than one metre in height. Above them the walls were made of mud-brick. At least some of the houses were subdivided into rooms and had a floor made of beaten red earth. The walls were plastered and covered with lime, and in some cases there is evidence of internal benches or platforms attached to the walls. In other words, the urbanism we find in the area next to the possible sanctuary is of a type familiar to us from the Phoenician settlements on the Andalusian coast, and far removed from the circular huts of the Tartessian society. Thus we are dealing either with a strongly Phoenician-influenced form of urbanism or with a Phoenician community located next to a shrine in the heart of an indigenous community, a pattern of urbanism which we find elsewhere – for instance in Egypt, where Memphis had a Tyrian quarter grouped around the shrine to Astarte.168 Coria del Río was an appropriate place for a sanctuary dedicated to successful navigation. At the start of the last millennium before Christ it was located on the estuary of the Guadalquivir, just before it entered

THE PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR HINTERLAND

Fig 4.11 Coria del Río (Seville), imported materials: (i) globular vessel probably made to contain perfumed oil; (ii) pottery alabastron; (iii) marble bowl

into the wide maritime gulf, opening into the Atlantic ocean and referred to as the sinus Tartessii in the Ora Maritima of Avienus (line 265) (Fig. 4.6). Therefore, the ancient Caura, which occupied a high promontory jutting out into the river, could be said to control access to the Guadalquivir for any ships entering the river from the Atlantic.169 It would also be a prominent landmark for navigation, occupying the highest hill on the eastern part of the estuary. Certainly there are abundant signs that the settlement benefitted from its strategic position. As we have seen, it was singled out for continuous occupation from the Copper Age onwards, and in the first millennium signs of a Phoenician presence at the site become increasingly clear. Old finds from Coria have been studied by Dr María Belén of the University of Seville. These include items of direct Phoencian manufacture, such as redslip table ware, but also other objects acquired by the Phoenicians in the eastern Mediterranean (Fig. 4.11).

129

Among these are a small round flask, probably designed to hold perfumed oils or unguents, and decorated with horizontal bands running across the body of the vessel. This item was probably manufactured in the eastern Mediterranean, and very similar vessels have been found in the cemeteries at Tharros and Carthage, dating to the start of the seventh century.170 Other items are of Greek manufacture. These are fragments of decorated pottery, possibly of Ionian origin, which can be dated by comparison with similar pottery found in Huelva to the first half of the sixth century. A further Greek import is the globular vessel with a marked foot, and two handles occupying the upper part of the body of the vase. It is decorated with curved bands of dark paint occupying the space between the handles, with broad horizontal bands decorating the body of the vessel below, and is probably another Ionian import dating to the seventh

130

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

from Montemolín and Carmona, were identified at Coria.173 None of these items have a clear archaeological context. All we know is that they come from Coria. However, the diverse origins and high quality of some of these objects indicate that Coria was a place of some importance for the eastern Mediterranean traders, Phoenician and also very possibly Greek, who frequented it, and brought perfumed oils and fine wines with them. Given the remarkable state of preservation of these objects, Belén believes that they are unlikely to have come from a settlement context and instead may have come from the shrine building on top of the hill of Cerro de San Juan. If she is right, then they would represent offerings to the god, or items linked to the religious activity carried out there. This religious activity seems to have involved the consumption of fine wines and the sacrifice of animals, predominantly cattle, judging by the bones found in front of the supposed cult building, and perhaps they should be seen in the context of worship of the Phoencian god, Baal Saphon, as Escacena suggests.174 The presence of a shrine dedicated to a Phoenician god in the centreof an indigenous settlement raises important questions as to the nature of contacts between the Phoenicians and the indigenous inhabitants of the Guadalquivir valley, issues which should with luck become clearer with the full publication of this important site. Fig. 4.12 Coria del Río (Seville), imported items of Greek manufacture: (i) vase of possible East Greek origin; (ii) Corinthian aryballos; (iii) Chian amphora

or early sixth century (Fig. 4.12).171 Fragments of a Chian amphora designed to hold high-quality Chian wine point to the importation of fine wines to Coria, either directly by the Greeks or by means of Phoenician intermediaries (Fig. 4.12).172 Two bronze spits from Coria, one coming from the settlement’s necropolis, were used in the preparation of meat in a banquet or ritual context. These items may have been brought by the Phoenicians or by the eastern Greeks themselves who are clearly attested in Huelva at the end of the seventh and start of the sixth centuries. Other items point more clearly to the Phoenicians. A Phoenician alabastron and oval Corinthian aryballos attest to the importation of perfumes to Coria, while a small marble bowl forms part of the Phoenician trade in stone objects (Figs 4.11 and 4.12). In addition, fragments of decorated pottery, possibly from pithoi, similar to those found in a probable religious context

Seville With another possible Phoenician shrine situated upriver from Coria at El Carambolo, then it is likely that the Phoenicians were marking the entrance to the heartland of Tartessian territory with shrines, at the hugely strategic point where the Atlantic meets the Guadalquivir. These shrines were designed to propitiate the local population with whom they had come to trade, and who controlled access to the mineral resources of the interior of Spain, along the Sierra Morena and the upper Guadalquivir, as well as the agricultural resources of the fertile region of the Guadalquivir valley.175 In other words they are replicating here in the Guadalquivir a pattern of behaviour attested in the literary sources for the foundation of Gadir: the establishment of a temple, associated with the establishment of permanent nuclei of Phoenician population (at Carmona, and perhaps also Seville and Caura itself) and more definitely the opening of favourable, and profitable, relations with the local population. This is a pattern of behaviour which seems a constant in the Phoenician dealings with foreign peoples, from Crete in the east, via Malta, and Pyrgi to Iberia and Lixus in the extreme west.

THE PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR HINTERLAND

El Carambolo is situated only 3 km from the city of Seville which in the eighth century was already receiving Phoenician pottery in significant quantities. The origin of the city’s former name, Hispalis, is linked to the Semitic root, spl, ‘to be low’, with the additional term y, which means ‘island’, ‘peninsula’ or ‘coast’ in Phoenician.176 Such a name is very appropriate for the early settlement at Seville, which was then located on low-lying ground, only a few kilometres from the mouth of the Guadalquivir, and in Phoenician times formed a small island situated close to where the river entered the Atlantic (Fig. 4.6).177 Given the existence of a Semitic name for the city of Seville, it is possible that it was a Phoenician foundation – or at the very least a site with a significant Phoenician quarter which ended up giving its name to an indigenous settlement, as Belén and Escacena have suggested.178 Certainly the archaeological evidence supports the idea of close contact with the Phoenicians on a large scale from the eighth century onwards.179 And in this context, having

Fig 4.13 Montemolín, Marchena (Seville): plan of rectilinear buildings C and D

131

established a presence close to the mouth of the Guadalquivir, the most important river in Andalusia, it was customary practice for the Phoenicians to build some kind of temple or shrine to one of their divinities – in this case Astarte – who would preside over the transactions carried out there and the contact between the two sides.180 Montemolín Further evidence for a stable Phoenician presence (and most probably Phoenician communities) in the Guadalquivir valley comes from Montemolín further down the river Corbones from Carmona (Fig. 4.1). This is a strategically located indigenous settlement, founded in the pre-Phoenician Late Bronze Age, sometime during the tenth or ninth centuries, on a high hill which dominates the area, which offers a visible link with other important regional centres, such as Carmona and Osuna. It is located on two major regional routes, that along the Corbones, linking the

132

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

coast of Málaga with the Guadalquivir region, and that which links the Atlantic coast with the mineralrich area of Cástulo. In other words Montemolín is located on the routes connecting the Atlantic and Mediterranean regions with the Guadalquivir.181 The hill of Montemolín is located on the banks of the Corbones, and is by far the highest of three hills, one of which, that of Vico, it is joined to. Vico is a tell with a continuous occupation from the Late Bronze Age right down to the Roman imperial period.182 In comparison with Vico, the hill of Montemolín is much higher (171 m high) and forms a kind of acropolis. Its commanding location may have singled it out as a suitable site for a series of buildings which in their construction techniques, finds and size, clearly deviate from ordinary domestic buildings, and from indigenous Iberian traditions, and may well indicate that it acted as the ritual or ceremonial centre for the main settlement located at Vico. There is a clear Phoenician influence in three out of four buildings constructed there during the orientalizing period of occupation at the site (Fig. 4.13). These buildings are remarkably large (up to 210 m2). As well as showing the typically Phoenician-influenced rectilinear layout, in their design of a number of rooms arranged around a large open courtyard, they display a type of groun-plan hitherto unknown in the Peninsula; rather it bears a close resemblance to contemporary houses in the Syria-Palestine region. Thus in the period from the seventh century down to the mid-sixth, the hill at Montemolín was occupied by four of these buildings in total, with no more than two in existence at any one time. Each was built on top of the ruins of its predecessor, following the same design and orientation, suggesting a continuity in the activities carried out here. The site at Montemolín has been interpreted by its excavators as a shrine which received a strong Phoenician imput in terms of its design and in the pottery found and produced there: in the seventh and sixth centuries the latter included pithoi painted with such typically oriental motifs as griffins and bulls interspersed with stylised lotus flowers (Fig. 4.14). All this evidence, as well as an orientalizing treasure found at the site, suggests close and sustained contact with the Phoenicians, who were interested in Montemolín because of its strategic position at the intersection of a number of inter-regional trade routes.183 Certainly the region around the site seems to have been prosperous and densely populated during this period, as surveys undertaken in the area attest.184 The supposition of direct contact with the Phoenicians is confirmed by the site’s lasting links with Punic culture. Although Montemolín seems to have been

Fig 4.14 Montemolín, Marchena (Seville): decorated pithos showing a bull-motif

abandoned in the latter part of the sixth century, it was reoccupied in the third, during the Second Punic War, possibly by a Carthaginian military camp.185

Conclusions

All the accumulation of evidence points to close and lasting contact between the indigenous population and the Oriental settlers far beyond the hinterland of the coastal colonies, even without providing definitive proof of that elusive phenomenon, a Phoenician farmer in the Spanish interior. I believe that despite the opposition of those who want to limit the presence of Phoenicians in significant numbers to the colonial sites on the Andalusian coastline, and contacts between settlers and locals to the strictly commercial, the view that there were stable communities of foreigners established within the indigenous society is far less problematical than the traditional ‘commercial’ model of settlement in Iberia. Firstly, it is one which

THE PHOENICIAN SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR HINTERLAND

fits the literary evidence available. Strabo tells us that ‘the people (sc. the Iberians) became so utterly subject to the Phoenicians that the greater number of the cities in Turdetania (sc. Tartessos) and of the neighbouring places are now inhabited by the Phoenicians’.186 Secondly, it is one which is consonant with the evidence for Phoenician contacts with the indigenous inhabitants in other parts of the Mediterranean, most notably the Aegean, where Phoenician craftsmen and potters taught their skills to the local community in Attica, Crete and Rhodes, and who may have formed one of the ways in which the Phoenician alphabet was transmitted to the Greeks.187 This pattern of cohabitation is continued in Italy, where there is quite strong evidence from Pithekoussai that there was an oriental community living in the Euboean colony.188 Thirdly, and perhaps most crucially, there is the evidence of strong Semitic influence persisting well into Roman times in areas where the only justification for such influences is the supposed ‘commercial’ contacts with Gadir and the Phoenician colonies in Malaga, Granada and Almeria, situated often hundreds of miles away, centuries before. The commercial model of settlement and contacts between both sides in Iberia is, therefore, too limiting, in that it makes rigid distinctions between ‘Phoenician’ and ‘Iberian’ settlements and areas of influence. However the reality was considerably less tidy than that, and points to the existence of many mixed towns, with indigenous settlers living in a Phoenician context, such as as Castillo de Doña Blanca in Cádiz, and the reverse, with Phoenicians living in indigenous sites, such as La Peña Negra in Alicante, Casa de Montilla in Cádiz and Tavira in the Algarve. What also emerges with ever increasing clarity from the excavations in the lower Guadalquivir over the past decade is the importance of religion and the foundation of sanctuaries at key points of contact and interaction between both sides. Almost every strategic point for navigation in southern Iberia is marked by the presence of a Phoenician shrine. In Gibraltar, where the Atlantic meets the Mediterranean, there is Gorham’s Cave, dedicated to Astarte, and whose earliest levels are now proven to date back to the Phoenician period. Moving on to Cadiz, Tyrian Gadir, we find there shrines to Astarte and her consort Melqart, and further on into the interior of Tartessos, where the confluence of the Guadalquivir with the Atlantic was marked by the existence of twin shrines to Astarte at El Carambolo and Baal Saphon at Coria del Rio. Finally, in the interior, there is the strongly Phoenician-influenced shrine at the important metal-rich site of Cástulo in the upper Guadalquivir. There is also evidence for further shrines in the key strategic sites of Carmona and

133

Montemolín. Archaeologists and historians are united in the view that it was the wealth and resources of Iberia which attracted the Phoenicians. And to gain access to these resources the shrine seems to have had a crucial role to play, but equally it is clear that the shrine not only helped to facilitate contact with the local population, but also served those elements of Eastern Mediterranean population, whose presence is becoming more evident along the Guadalquivir river and its tributaries. We have come a long way in our appreciation of Phoenician rural settlement and agriculture since B. S. J. Isserlin lamented the total lack of archaeological research on this topic.189 Recent work in Sardinia, in particular, has revealed a distinct preoccupation with expansion into the hinterland by the Phoenician cities on the coast. This is especially witnessed by the example of Sulcis (San Antioco), which had a chain of small satellite fortresses, such as Monte Sirai and Pani Loriga (consisting of isolated buildings and small groups of tombs), which controlled the access to the mineral and agricultural resources of the interior, over a radius of fifteen to twenty kilometres from the city.190 That such fortresses were not exclusively military is proved by the presence of burials of women and children in the necropolis of Monte Sirai, and by the general lack of weapons found in the tombs. At Pani Loriga, apart from the defensive structures, there is also a residential quarter, a tophet and a large necropolis with approximately 150 tombs. The presence of these structures provides us with a confirmation that the territorial penetration of Sulcis was aimed at the control of the sub-coastal plain and was supported by a network of installations of mixed rural and military character. They served to define the territory controlled by the Phoenicians, and to house communities dedicated to the exploitation of local resources over an area, which as Barreca observes, corresponds roughly to the size of the chora of a Greek city.191 Such dramatic evidence of the Phoenician interest in creating and controlling a dependent chora has not so far been found in Spain. However we can trace some similarities in the settlement pattern adopted in both areas. Only in Spain and Sardinia do we find a dense network of colonial settlements attesting to the importance of both regions for the Phoenicians, undoubtedly due to the presence of abundant mineral resources in both areas.192 In both regions, the Phoenicians were able to develop a colonial strategy free from the interference by the Greeks, which so influenced their settlement pattern in Sicily, for instance. And perhaps most significantly of all, although we have not found any of the military outposts in Spain (with the possible exception only of

134

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Cerro del Alarcón at Toscanos) which are a feature of the Phoenician occupation of Sardinia, there is clear evidence, in the multiplication of settlements which we find along the Andalusian coastline and the south-

western coast of Sardinia, of a desire to secure and control the resources of these areas, in what Bondi calls ‘un sistematico controllo territoriale’, for the exclusive use of the settlers.193

5

Metals Introduction

It has by now become a topos of Phoenician history that their interest in the areas, both immediately beyond their own frontiers, and in the central and western Mediterranean, was motivated largely by the search for metals, particularly precious metals. In such a context, Phoenician interest in Iberia, which, as we have seen in previous chapters, was sustained and intense, is a logical response to its mineral wealth. For all the metals known and exploited in antiquity were found in the Peninsula, often in spectacular amounts, and we have clear evidence of direct Phoenician involvement in metal-processing and trade, which extended from the Mediterranean south to the Atlantic north-west.

Evidence for metal-working in the Phoenician sites

Although our sources emphasise that Spanish silver resources were the main focus of Phoenician interest, the archaeological evidence for metallurgical activities found in the Phoenician settlements on the Peninsula points mainly to iron-smelting. The presence of iron slag in the Phoenician levels at Cabecico de Parra, near Villaricos in Almería, and in seventh-century strata at Abdera in Almería, where iron slag and fragments of tuyères were found,1 indicates that iron was processed in the Phoenician sites in Spain. Excavations in the recently discovered Phoenician settlement at Cerro da Rocha Branca in southern Portugal have also uncovered indications of iron production.2 More substantial evidence of iron production comes from Morro de Mezquitilla in Málaga province, where the remains of metallurgical workshops were found contemporary with the first levels of occupation at the site, at the start of the eighth century, if not slightly earlier. These consisted of several furnaces which showed strong signs of burning, and were associated with slag remains, ventilation tubes and tuyères, some of which still bore traces of metal.3 The slag was identified as iron slag.4 Schubart has suggested that the workshops identified here did not carry out the primary smelting required to obtain iron bloom, but were used to resmelt and process raw iron, and might thus represent a smithy.5 The remains of an iron-producing furnace were also discovered at the Phoenician site of Sa Caleta on the island of Ibiza.6 In the Phoenician settlement at La

Fonteta in Alicante iron was worked in a metallurgical workshop which has also revealed signs of coppersmelting. The metallurgical workshop can be dated to La Fonteta III, that is, to the years between 670 and 635, before it was abandoned to make way for a fortification wall.7 It is interesting that a number of fragments of sandstone moulds were found of a type designed to produce a typically Atlantic-type artefact, the winged axe. Many more fragments of these moulds were found at the nearby indigenous site of La Peña Negra, indicating that the metallurgical workshops at both sites were closely associated, and also that the Phoenicians were producing an Atlantic-type object.8 Obviously metal-working was an important function of the settlement at La Fonteta, as finds from a rubbishdump in La Fonteta VI, dating from between 600 and 580/560, reveal the presence of copper, iron and silver, all being worked at the site, and the final levels of occupation there from c. 560/550 contained smelting furnaces.9

Iron-working at Toscanos Iron working is also well attested at the site at Toscanos in Málaga province. Here many finds of metallurgical residues, such as iron slag and fragments of crucibles and tuyères, were found in excavations of the settlement nucleus. The 1984 campaign also uncovered a smelting furnace on the eastern slope of the outlying hill of Cerro del Peñón, overlooking the centre of the settlement.10 The hill has now been divided into a number of agricultural terraces, and it was on Terrace II, some 22/23 m above sea level, that the remains of the furnace were uncovered. These consisted of an oval combustion chamber, some 30 cm wide, probably originally domed in shape, which was constructed from mud bricks, laid while still damp and covered on the inside by a layer of mud. The combustion chamber still contained slag and metal casting-cakes, and numerous fragments of bellows nozzles were found immediately beside it, which would originally have been used to provide ventilation during the smelting process.11 Running downhill from this structure was a channel some 30 cm wide, and 30/40 cm deep, filled with a mixture of charcoal and slag along its entire length. There was a corresponding channel situated above the combustion chamber which drained into it, which contained charcoal remains and small particles of slag, mixed

136

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

with a thin layer of sand. Obviously the lower part of the channel was used to tap the slag produced in the metallurgical process, while the excavators suggest that the upper channel may have been used as the loading hole of the combustion chamber.12 The pottery found near the furnace dates it to the second half of the seventh century. Chemical analysis of the slag remains shows that iron was the primary metal processed on the Cerro del Peñón.13 As at Morro de Mezquitilla, the evidence does not indicate that the metallurgical processes carried out here were intended to obtain raw iron from iron ore, but rather points to a process whereby both the iron bloom and scrap metal were reworked to form a new working material.14 Among the pottery finds in the area of the furnace were fragments of thick-walled hand-made jars, covered on their inner side with a layer of copper which had apparently been smelted into them. This suggests that copper was occasionally smelted in this area also, just as it was at Morro de Mezquitilla.15 Judging by the large amount of slag uncovered, both in the area around the furnace, and lower down on the slopes of the Peñón, there may originally have been more than one furnace here, although further excavations failed to uncover any traces of them.16 Certainly both the furnaces at Morro de Mezquitilla and Toscanos showed signs of having been renovated on several occasions; this, and the large amount of slag yielded by the latter site, attest to the intensity of the metallurgical activies undertaken at both settlements.17

The role of iron in the economy of the Phoenician settlements

The finds of slag from Abdera and Cabecico de Parra, and the discoveries of smelting furnaces at Morro de Mezquitilla and Cerro del Peñón as well as at Santa Olaia, show that metallurgical activities in general, and the production of iron in particular, were well developed at these sites, and formed an integral part of the economic activities of the Phoenician settlements in the Far West. Moreover, this occurred right from the start of Phoenician colonization in Iberia, judging by the date of the finds from Morro de Mezquitilla. Obviously the metallurgical activities carried out at these sites represent Phoenician exploitation of locally available resources. Iron is widely available in the mountains behind the Andalusian coastal settlements, with large concentrations in the provinces of Almería, Granada and Málaga itself.18 However to suggest that ‘one of the main causes of Phoenician colonisation on these southern coasts was none other than the exploitation and industrialisation of iron ore from local

sources’19 and that ‘the Phoenicians on the southern coast had one of their principal sources of wealth in the exploitation . . . of iron ore’ is a claim unsupported by the evidence at our disposal.20 None of the remains of metallurgical activities found in the settlements on the south coast, the Balearics and Portugal point to large-scale specialised production, as we will see, for instance, in the mining and smelting of silver in the Tartessian sites in the province of Huelva. Nor should this surprise us. Iron ore is the most commonly occurring mineral in the world, with 4.2% of the earth formed from iron or its compounds.21 There are countless deposits in the ancient world, and in this context it is hardly likely that the Phoenicians would have set up settlements at the edge of the known world to tap such a widely available resource.22 As we have seen, the smelting furnaces found at Toscanos and Morro de Mezquitilla seem to have been used not for the primary smelting of iron ore, but rather for the smelting of a mixture of a semi-treated bloom and scrap metal, most probably to satisfy the internal demands of the colonists. Similar installations have been found in other contemporary sites such as the Euboean colony of Pithekoussai on Ischia and, most notably, in the eighth-century settlement levels of Carthage, between the Roman Cardo XV and the ancient shoreline, where an orthogonally laid-out metallurgical quarter with iron slag and tuyères has been discovered.23 The Phoenician sites would have had to be self-sufficient in this regard, as iron had not at the time been exploited by the Iberians: its use is generally regarded as having been introduced to the Peninsula by the oriental settlers.24 However, although the Phoenicians may not have come to Iberia chiefly to obtain iron, the metal did serve a purpose for them – they used it as a trade good to exchange for those metals in which they were really interested, namely silver in the south-west, and bronze, tin, copper and gold in the north-west. In this respect iron was the ideal commodity for trading exchange. It was readily available to the settlements on the Mediterranean coast of Andalusia, and it was easily processed and produced by a people for whom it had been familiar for centuries. But in Iberia iron was still very much a novelty, and as such it could be used to produce objects to trade with the local population, in particular status-enhancing gifts to the local élites.25 In this respect the evidence from Santa Olaia is instructive. This, the most northerly Phoenician site in Iberia, shows signs of large-scale metallurgical activity, apparently centred around iron production. Given the settlement’s location (it lies on the Mondego river in the metal-rich region of the Portuguese Beiras, and on the doorstep of the El Dorado of ancient Iberia,

METALS

Galicia), it was almost certainly founded to trade with the metal-rich north-west region of Iberia. The latter was home to rich gold and tin resources, with a flourishing bronze industry, and also offered access to the Atlantic Late Bronze Age trade circuits. In this context, iron made a very enticing trading material, precisely because of its novelty status. It could be offered to the local élites along with other unfamiliar and exciting products, such as wines and olive oil, carried in the ubiquitous R–1 amphorae. It is perhaps not coincidental in this respect that the Baiões hoard, found in an undated context up-river from Santa Olaia, contains one of the first indications of the presence of iron objects in the North-West, alongside some ritual objects indirectly inspired by eastern Mediterranean prototypes.26 Another interesting question raised by the discovery of metallurgical residues in so many of the Phoenician settlements in the Peninsula is what were the sources of the iron treated and produced there. As we have seen, there were plentiful supplies of iron relatively close to the sites at Morro de Mezquitilla, Toscanos and Abdera, but none in the area forming their immediate hinterland or chora. Therefore, we have to imagine them either seeking it out and extracting it themselves, or trading for it from the local population, who would apparently have had to be made aware of its existence and value by Phoenician stimulus. The whole question of the sources of the iron produced at the Phoenician settlements in Spain, and the means which they used to obtain it, is one which still remains poorly researched and understood.

The Iberian Pyrite Belt

The real mineral wealth of the Peninsula lay elsewhere, to the west of Toscanos and the other Phoenician settlements on the Mediterranean coast, in the provinces of Huelva and Seville, the area which the Greeks knew as Tartessos. In this region lies the Iberian Pyrite Belt, covering an area of some 250 km by 35 km, from Aznalcóllar in south-west Spain to Aljustrel in southern Portugal: it constituted one of the richest metallogenic provinces in the ancient world, with silver, gold, iron and copper occurring in large quantities there (Fig. 5.1).27 The richest minerals are found concentrated under the surface iron-sulphate and ironoxide gossans in the secondary enrichment zone, with copper, silver and gold appearing there at much higher values than the unaltered primary deposits below.28 The ancients were well aware of the valuable minerals contained in this belt, and Strabo and Herodotus, among others, lavish praise on the mineral wealth of southern Spain.29

137

Pre-Phoenician metal-production Of the 60 pyrite deposits which make up the Iberian Pyrite belt, 52 are located in the province of Huelva, making this by far the richest metallogenic area in the Iberian Peninsula, and therefore it is logical to assume that this area was the most intensely exploited from the earliest times onwards.30 It is likely that the first mining operations were restricted to the isolated veins of native copper which are frequent in this area;31 but the first definite evidence we have for the beginning of mining in south-west Spain is in the Chalcolithic (fourth/third millennia), when it was copper ores that were extracted and smelted.32 After a hiatus, perhaps the result more due to a lack of evidence for the Middle and early Late Bronze Ages in this region, than to a real break in exploitation of the ores here, we have a number of Late Bronze Age sites, probably belonging to the early part of that period; many of them were located on top of Chalcolithic mining and metallurgical sites, which again show evidence exclusively of copper production.33 The best known of these is the site of Chinflón, some 3 km east of the village of El Pozuelo, in the municipal area of Zalamea la Real, Huelva; it lies approximately 12 km south-west of Rio Tinto (Fig. 5.1). Here, close to a group of dolmen burials, a mining site, apparently first occupied sometime in the third millennium, was re-occupied between the end of the ninth and the start of the seventh centuries, and used for the production of copper. No wheel-made ware was found on the site, nor were there any signs of Phoenician imports.34 The absence in Chinflón of the Phoenician imports which are so characteristic of the later eighth- and seventhcentury silver-producing sites, and the similar absence of all evidence of silver production in these tenth- to ninth-century sites, suggest very strongly that it was not until the establishment of the first Phoenician sites in Spain, in the early eighth century, that silver first began to be mined in the mountains of Huelva on a large scale. The evidence suggests that, in the two centuries preceding this, we are dealing with a smallscale production of copper from local resources which was later superseded by the development of the silvermining industry in the Orientalizing period.35 The Huelva Hoard and the pre-Phoenician metal trade in Iberia This is confirmed by what we know of the economy of the local pre-Phoenician Late Bronze Age society. Arguably the most famous find of the period immediately preceding the colonial era in Spain is the deposit of bronze objects discovered during the dredging of the harbour of Huelva city in 1923.36 This hoard consists of more than 400 objects, mostly weapons, and all

138

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

of the Atlantic Bronze Age type, with the exception of the fibulae which indicate a Mediterranean origin (Fig. 5.2). It has a calibrated C-14 date of the late tenth to the early ninth century. It is tempting to connect this huge collection of bronze objects, some more than a century old at the time of their deposition in the harbour, with the copper-production industry directly upriver from Huelva, in the area around Rio Tinto, as Davies first suggested in 1935.37 In view of the overwhelmingly Atlantic orientation of the trade routes and artefacts of

Fig 5.1 Map of the province of Huelva, showing the mining and metallurgical sites discussed in the text

Key: 1 Chinflón; 2 Cerro Masegoso; 3 Minas de Masegoso; 4 Cueva del Monje; 5 Junta de la Gila; 6 Rio Tinto – Cerro Solomón, Quebrantahuesos, Corta Lago; 7 Monte Romero; 8 La Parrita; 9 Cerro de las Tres Aguilas

METALS

Fig. 5.2 Bronze weapons and a fibula from the Huelva hoard the pre-colonial Late Bronze Age in the region around Huelva and southern Spain in general, it seems that the abundant copper resources of the south-west could have had an important role to play in the bronzeproduction industry of north-west Spain, which had plentiful supplies of tin but had to import its copper. In such a context the concentration on copper production evident in the mineralised areas of Huelva, and in the Sierra Morena at Setefilla, is a logical response to the demand for this raw material by the inhabitants of

139

north-western Spain. In this trade in copper, the settlement of Huelva could have first begun to play the role of metallurgical and commercial centre which it was to assume later, as Ruiz Mata suggests.38 However the scale of metal production in this period seems to have been very far from the almost industrial proportions which the silver-extraction industry was to assume in the following centuries. The relatively modest level of copper production may have been due to the fact that the crude mining techniques of the period made access

140

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

to the rich sources of copper in the copper sulphides and sulphide masses impossible, and meant that only the superficial veins of malachite could be tapped. This remained the situation down into the Roman era, when copper began to be mined on a large scale at Rio Tinto.39

The origins of silver production in Huelva

This leads us to one of the most vexed questions in protohistorical Spanish metallurgy: did silver production in Huelva precede the Phoenicians, and were the origins of the sophisticated metallurgical technique used in the orientalizing period (cupellation) an indigenous development or due to colonial intervention? The traditional view has been that the evidence for the production of silver points to an apparently insatiable demand for this resource from the mid-eighth to the mid-sixth centuries, in other words precisely coinciding with the Phoenician presence in the Iberian Peninsula. Given that everywhere evidence for its production is associated with clear signs of Phoenician interest, in terms of pottery and other oriental goods appearing in the mining and metallurgical sites of Huelva and elsewhere, then (so the traditional view goes) there must be a direct link between these two phenomena – the development of silver-production and the Phoenician presence in Spain. Such a view is, moreover, supported by what literary evidence there is available.40 Others, chiefly Rothenberg and Blanco, have rejected this view, based principally on the stratigraphy from the Corta Lago metallurgical site in Rio Tinto. Before we attempt to find a solution to this apparent impasse, it is important to consider the archaeological evidence on which these two opposing opinions are based. The development of silver mining from the eighth century onwards can be clearly traced in a number of sites, associated with the minerals of Rio Tinto in Huelva, and those of Aznalcóllar to the east in the province of Seville.

Rio Tinto The obvious place to begin any investigation of the development of silver mining in this period is in the pyrites of Rio Tinto, in the western foothills of the Sierra Morena, some 75 km north-east of Huelva town (Fig. 5.1). This is the largest single mining site of antiquity, and the volume of slag associated with ancient mining operations here has now been estimated at some six million tons. It originally extended over an area some 1.5 km long, 0.5 km wide and with an average depth of 6 m.41 The majority of this ancient slag is the result of silver smelting, as copper began to be mined here on a large scale only in the Roman period. The silver-ores came from the zone of second-

ary enrichment between the overlying gossan and the massive sulphide deposit below. The ores were contained in the argentiferous jarosites, a layer of clay, up to 1.5 m thick, of varying colours, which contained, among other minerals, gold, lead and antimony, together with irregular quantities of silver. These jarosites only form in arid climates from the degradation of pyrite in a silica-rich environment. Directly beneath this jarositic layer are the copper-rich layers mined by the Romans.42 The last pocket of silver-rich jarositic earth was mined during the late nineteenth century and the assays taken then are our only indication of the value of the ore extracted at Rio Tinto. These assays give figures which vary from 3.1 kg of silver per ton of ore to nothing at all. Harrison gives the figure of 0.6 kg of silver per ton of ore as that produced by the richest mines in operation today, and, in comparison, the Rio Tinto assays are extraordinarily rich.43

Cerro Salomón From the late eighth century onwards we have clear evidence of the exploitation of silver on a large scale at Rio Tinto. This can be seen most clearly in the settlements at Cerro Salomón and Quebrantahuesos, and the stratified slag heap at Corta Lago (Fig. 5.3). The main lodes at Rio Tinto are divided by a ridge which once held four peaks, some now lost to opencast mining. Cerro Salomón, which has been partially mined away, is 515 m in height, and on its slopes rises the Tinto river which gives the area its name. While the river Tinto has been poisoned by iron salts leached out from the main ore bodies, fresh water is provided from a number of springs at the base of the hill, offering favourable conditions for human habitation.44 The main reason for the establishment of the settlement, however, lies in the rich minerals contained in the hill itself, and which apparently were once visible inside a cave at the foot of the mountain, the Cueva del Lago; here they could have easily been tapped without the need for shaft and gallery mining.45 The top of the hill was covered by the remains of what was both a mining and a metallurgical settlement which extended over an area of approximately 1 km (Fig. 5.4). The site was densely occupied from the end of the eighth century to the end of the seventh century, with a second period of occupation indicated for the north-eastern part of the settlement by the presence of an Attic kylix dated to the fourth century.46 There is no discernible street plan, and the site consists of a number of rectangular houses divided up into small rooms, arranged in no apparent order and built from undressed, dry stone. The walls had no foundations, suggesting that the roofs were made from some

METALS

141

Fig. 5.3 Map based on a late-nineteenthcentury chart of Rio Tinto, showing the location of Cerro Salomón, Corta Lago and Quebrantahuesos light material, such as thatch, and some of the floors were covered with slate slabs.47 Most of the objects found inside the houses were related to metallurgical activities, indicating that they had once been used as metallurgical workshops. These objects included granite pestles and stone mortars, probably used to crush the mineral before its treatment, together with slag, charcoal, droplets of lead and numerous fragments of tuyères. The fact that slag was scattered throughout the houses at Cerro Salomón, and not found in large concentrations in one area of the site, suggests that metal-founding was carried out as a small-scale domestic activity by the inhabitants of the settlement.48 Analysis of the slag shows it to have been silver-slag, with a rich silver content of some 600 gr per ton, while the presence of lead droplets indicates that the technique used to refine the silver was that of cupellation, the standard metallurgical process used in the production of silver in this period in south-western Spain.49 No traces of a furnace were found on the site, although a hearth was discovered in one of the rooms, about 1 m in diameter and 40 cm deep; it contained ashes and partially burnt bones. The presence of the

bones could imply that this was more than a domestic hearth, as bone ash is the material traditionally used to make crucibles.50 No real slag heaps were found on the top of Cerro Salomón, and it is clear that the hill-tops at Rio Tinto were reserved for habitation sites and workshops, while the mining and main smelting activities were carried out below. At Cerro Salomón, the remains of primitive mining shafts, consisting of low galleries, were found on the slopes of the hill, and another probable pre-Roman shaft has been identified on the hill below the site of Quebrantahuesos. These had been dug out by the stone hammers and picks found in large numbers in Rio Tinto and other mining sites in Huelva province, although it is probable that the first miners at Rio Tinto obtained their ore firstly from the Cueva del Lago and similar cave-mines, where the veins would have been accessible without the need for the labour-intensive shaft- and gallery-mining.51 The main smelting sites for the mineral extracted from Cerro Salomón and the other peaks at Rio Tinto were situated at the bottom of the hills, and in the adjoining terrain, areas which are now covered by extensive slag

142

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

heaps. Smelting was carried out here perhaps for health reasons, as the fumes produced from the smelting of silver are extremely toxic.52

Corta Lago Some of the ore extracted from the slopes of Cerro Salomón was probably smelted at the Corta Lago site on the north-east side of the hill (Fig. 5.3). This site consists of a section of an ancient slag heap, with some building remains, some 8 m high and more than 500 m long, which were exposed in the excavation of an open-cast mine. According to the analysis of the Corta Lago section undertaken by Rothenberg and Blanco, silver smelting first began here in the pre-Phoenician Late Bronze Age, and continued until the Roman period, when copper and iron were also exploited for the first time. They found that until Roman times the slag which makes up the Corta Lago section is the result of many separate metallurgical working surfaces, each one the result of a single furnace run. While the mining techniques attested at Cerro Salomón and Quebrantahuesos are rudimentary, the metallurgical processes seem to have been highly evolved right from the earliest levels at Corta Lago. Stone-built, clay-lined furnaces were used to produce proper tapped slag, and crucible fragments point to the use of either casting or cupellation procedures.53

Quebrantahuesos More settlement remains were found at Quebrantahuesos, situated on the mountain ridge of Cerro Salomón, to the east of that settlement. Rather than a discrete habitation site, Quebrantahuesos should be considered as a continuation of the settlement at Cerro Salomón. Like those at Cerro Salomón, the buildings at Quebrantahuesos were roughly rectangular in shape and built from locally available undressed stone, with no evidence of any organised planning of the settlement space. The finds of slag, crucible fragments and tuyères, together with a semicircular stone structure, filled with slag and charcoal, which may represent a smelting furnace, indicated that here too the settlement functioned as both a residential and workshop area. The high silver content of the slag, as well as the discovery of a lump of litharge, suggest that silver was the metal extracted and cast at the site by means of cupellation.54 On the basis of the pottery, Quebrantahuesos was occupied from the late eighth century down to the fourth century, although in view of the poverty of the finds, it seems that this occupation may have only been seasonal, as in the case of the contemporary metallurgical settlement at nearby San Bartolomé de Almonte in Huelva.55 The reason for the continued occupation of the site over 400 years was

the mining and processing of silver. Silver slag is scarce is the Late Bronze Age level of the site, increasing dramatically in the seventh and sixth centuries, only to decrease again in the succeeding Iberian period until the site was abandoned in the fourth century.56 While the initial levels of occupation at the site belong to the Late Bronze Age, wheel-made ware is already present in significant quantities, representing 9.12% of the total pottery assemblage for this period, and this figure increases to some 57.63% in the following period, dated to the seventh and sixth centuries, and coinciding with the apogee of metalproduction at the site.57

The Phoenicians and the production of silver in Huelva These three sites offer incontrovertible evidence that silver began to be extracted and exploited on a large scale from the eighth century onwards. It is equally clear that this change in emphasis, from the small-scale copper mining of the pre-Phoenician Late Bronze Age to the extraction of silver on a scale which has often been termed industrial, is the result of Phoenician influence. This can be shown by the composition of the pottery yielded by the above sites. The pottery found at Cerro Salomón and Quebrantahuesos is the standard indigenous pottery of the orientalizing period in south-western Spain, with parallels in Cabezo de San Pedro, in the city of Huelva, and in the Tartessian metallurgical site of San Bartolomé de Almonte in Huelva province (Fig. 5.7).58 But from the earliest levels of occupation at Cerro Salomón, Phoenician imports are present, and, in a later phase of occupation of the site, they make up some 25-30% of the total pottery assemblage.59 The same can be said about the neighbouring site of Quebrantahuesos.60 A comparable picture of Phoenician involvement emerges from the Corta Lago slag heap. Imported wheel-made ware is found almost from the very start of silver-smelting activities here, and in significant quantities, c. 19%. This figure rises to c. 70% of the total ceramic assemblage in subsequent strata at the site.61 Even if Rothenberg and Blanco are correct in assigning the start of silver smelting at Corta Lago to the prePhoenician Late Bronze Age, these pottery imports show a significant, and speedy, Phoenician interest in the processes carried out here. The pottery from Rio Tinto tells us that right from the start of large-scale silver-mining there, apparently in the latter part of the eighth century, the mining and smelting of silver were controlled and carried out by the indigenous inhabitants of south-west Spain. However, at the same time, the presence of Phoenician pottery in significant quantities, from the start of occupation at Cerro

METALS

Salomón and Quebrantahuesos (Fig. 5.4), points to Phoenician interest and involvement in the silver production carried out here and in the other sites at Rio Tinto. While the argument continues as to the ultimate origin of the silver-smelting technology, indigenous or allocthonous, it is unquestionable that it was Phoenician interest and influence which provided the stimulus for the population of this region to increase dramatically their production of silver. The end result was that it became the most valuable commodity in the indigenous economy, and one that was responsible

Fig. 5.4 Cerro Salomón, Rio Tinto (Huelva), plan of urban lay-out and materials found: (i) Phoenician amphorae; (ii) indigenous pottery (‘cerámica de decoración digitada’)

143

for the rapid and ostentatious enrichment of the most powerful sectors of society, both native and oriental.

Cupellation

While Phoenician interest in silver-production at Rio Tinto is clear, the problem of the origin of the metallurgical techniques attested there is still problematic. Cupellation is a two-step process consisting of smelting followed by the cupellation itself. For the smelt, lead was necessary to prevent excessive loss of the silver during the smelting process. In the case of the

144

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

jarositic ores used to produce silver at Rio Tinto, lead would have been added to the ore to collect and concentrate the silver. The argentiferous lead produced from the smelting of the jarosite generally contained traces of copper, arsenic, antimony and bismuth, all already present in the jarosite itself. These would turn into litharge during the cupellation, and only gold and some bismuth would be left in the silver. The gold was not generally recovered from the silver, even though the technology existed to do so, but the undesirable bismuth could be eliminated through repeated cupellation. Cupellation consisted of heating the metal until the lead separates from the other metals, part of it adhering to the cupel as litharge, which absorbs the oxides of most of the other metals; the remainder passes into the air as lead-oxide, leaving a button of silver behind.62 Cupellation would take place either in cupellation hearths, where the furnace consisted of a dome-shaped hood made of a thick refractory material, with openings for the tuyères and to add fuel or remove litharge, or else simply in small open cupellation dishes.

Monte Romero The discovery of a silver-smelting workshop to the west of Rio Tinto at Monte Romero, near the village of Almonaster la Real in the province of Huelva, provides us with a clear picture of the kind of metallurgical techniques used to refine silver in this period (Fig. 5.1).63 Here the ore came from the nearby mine of Monte Romero, where the silver-bearing deposit outcropped at the surface, and was therefore easily accessible even to primitive mining techniques. The ore was first roasted and then smelted in furnaces made from layers of slate and clay, lined on the inside with clay. Then the silver was separated from the lead in cupellation dishes, of which twelve complete examples were found at the site (Fig. 5.5). These were circular dishes measuring some 12 cm in diameter. Although bone-ash is generally regarded as the best material for cupellation hearths and dishes, this was not found in the cupellation dishes at Monte Romero. The finds from the site point to the use of relatively sophisticated metallurgical processes to refine and produce the silver – but what was their origin?

Fig. 5.5 Monte Romero (Huelva): (i) cupellation dish; (ii) slagged pottery; (iii) tuyères

METALS

Cupellation and the Phoenicians Rothenberg and Blanco contend that, as there were no mines in Phoenicia, the Phoenicians had no specialist skill or knowlege of extractive metallurgy to pass on, and thus the use of cupellation attested at Rio Tinto, and other sites in south-west Spain, owed nothing to Phoenician expertise.64 However, this technique is one which was not exclusive to Spain, and was well known in the eastern Mediterranean. It was practised during the Aegean Bronze Age at the silver mines in Laurion, in Attica, and is one with which the Phoenicians were clearly familiar, given its occurrence at the Phoenician settlement of Castillo de Doña Blanca, near Cádiz.65 This site yielded clear signs of significant metallurgical activities linked to the production of silver. Silver slag was found attached to many pottery fragments, as were double-tube tuyères, similar to those found both at Toscanos and Cerro Salomón. But most importantly for our purposes, blocks of metallic lead were discovered in a building dated to the second half of the eighth century, suggesting that silver was either produced there, or that the lead necessary for its extraction through cupellation was supplied by the inhabitants of Doña Blanca to the mining and metallurgical sites in the interior. Some of these inland sites, such as the mines at Aznalcóllar in the province of Seville, were lacking in lead, and thus were dependent on outside sources of supply for the production of silver.66 All this shows an intimate connection between the Phoenicians and metals in terms of metallurgical procedures, not just in the metal-working (for which even Rothenberg and Blanco concede that they were famous).67 They too were obviously familiar with the addition of lead to silver-ore to obtain the precious metal through cupellation, as the presence of lead blocks at Doña Blanca shows.68 Therefore given the clear association between the Phoenicians and this technique for the refining of silver it is tempting to assign its introduction at Rio Tinto to Phoenician intervention there, especially given the unfailing correlation, both at Rio Tinto and elsewhere in south-west Spain, between Phoenician colonisation and the development of large-scale silvermining. This argument has been strengthened by the relative paucity of evidence linking the exploitation of silver to the pre-Phoenician era. Up to now the only direct evidence to suggest that the use of cupellation to refine silver predated the Phoenicians comes from the stratigraphy published by Rothenberg and Blanco for the Corta Lago mine at Rio Tinto.69 The lowest levels of the stratigraphy which indicated that silver was being smelted there were dated by the excavators to the Late Bronze Age (twelfth–ninth centuries) by the pottery found there, in other words to the pre-Phoenician

145

period. This is contested by Ruiz Mata, who has raised serious doubts about the dating assigned to this stratigraphy.70 However, leaving aside the controversy about the origin of the Corta Lago site, recent archaeological discoveries in the region of Rio Tinto seem to have placed the origin of this technology firmly in the hands of the native population of this part of Spain. La Parrita A Middle Bronze Age cist-burial cemetery was discovered at La Parrita, near the village of Nerva, in the Rio Tinto area, associated with a pit filled with Middle Bronze Age pottery and slag, and containing a crucible

Fig. 5.6 La Parrita (Huelva), miner’s hammer and pottery from the metallurgical area

146

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

with silver still adhering to it (Fig. 5.1). Slag containing a high quantity of silver, and lead was also found in one of the tombs. It has been suggested that the area around the pit, with its burnt earth, could have been used for the cupellation of the silver-lead compound in open pottery containers (Fig. 5.6). Such a procedure would account for the high percentage of lead found in the cupel.71This find attests not only the production of silver in a fully pre-colonial context, the mid-second millennium, but also, the native origin of the development of the cupellation technique of silver smelting.72

Cerro de las Tres Aguilas Further evidence of prehistoric silver mining comes from the settlement of Cerro de las Tres Aguilas, which lies 1 km to the north of La Parrita (Fig. 5.1). Dated to the south-west Bronze Age of the second millennium, this site yielded large amounts of mineral and scoria, as well as cupels similar to that from La Parrita. The mineral when analysed proved to be gossan, containing extremely high quantities of gold, silver and lead, which could only have come from the upper levels of the oxidised gossan with its high percentages of silver and lead. These would have been easily accessible even with the primitive techniques employed by these early miners.73 The finds from La Parrita and Cerro de las Tres Aguilas seem to offer definite proof that silver was produced through cupellation as far back as the midsecond millennium. However the fact that cupellation was known to the inhabitants of this area during the Middle Bronze Age does not necessarily imply that this knowledge was applied almost a millennium later. As we have seen, there is little reliable evidence for the production of silver in the period immediately preceding the arrival of the Phoenicians in Spain, that is, early in the eighth century. At this time the local metallurgical activities seem to have concentrated primarily on the production of copper to satisfy the Atlantic Late Bronze Age trade circuit in which the south-west was immersed. In this context it seems unquestionable that it was the demand on the part of the recently established colonists, with their enticing bronzes, ivories, fine wines and oil, that provided the stimulus for the local chieftains to switch their mining activities from the production of copper to that of silver. This would explain not just the start of large-scale silver mining at Rio Tinto in the late eighth century, but also the fact that all the mining and metallurgical sites investigated so far in other parts of Huelva and in Seville seem to date roughly to the same period, and again show signs of Phoenician influence from the start of their first occupation.74

Huelva The development of the settlement of Huelva from the ninth century onwards provides us with an insight into how profoundly Phoenician intervention altered the economy of this area. Given the site chosen for the settlement, it seems obvious that Huelva’s main role lay not in agriculture but in the commercial relations which its strategic location favoured. At the start of the first millennium BC it was situated on a peninsula, in the centre of a deep bay, which served as an excellent natural harbour (Fig. 5.7). The two rivers which flowed into the bay, the Tinto and Odiel, provided a direct line of communication with the mineral resources of the interior.75 Thus Huelva shared the characteristic location of the Phoenician colonial sites, situated on the coast, at the mouth of a river. The foundation of the town, probably in the tenth, or at the latest, the ninth century, may have been related to the exploitation of the copper ores in the interior of Huelva province in the pre-Phoenician Late Bronze Age, a supposition confirmed by the discovery of the Huelva hoard.76 Certainly it seems that around this time the production and trade in metal was directed primarily at the production of copper, with almost no evidence of the silver production which was to become so abundant in the two succeeding centuries. Only one instance of silver production has been identified from allegedly pre-Phoenician levels in Huelva city.77 From the eighth century onwards, however, with the appearance of the first wheel-made pottery, the finds of silver slag and the evidence of metal production become numerous and are dispersed throughout the city – evidence which suggests that a large part of the population was involved in the production of this resource.78 At the same time the settlement had expanded greatly, moving out from its original nucleus on the Cabezo de San Pedro hill to occupy the adjoining hills. The houses are rectilinear now made from mud-brick, with masonry socles (which often include slag used as a building material), in contrast to the circular cabins, made from organic materials, which we suspect made up the initial settlement. The prosperity of the site can also be seen in its graves. The necropolis of La Joya has yielded some of the most sumptuous grave goods of this period in Spain, and, very significantly, also silver slag in many of the tombs there, clearly reflecting the prosperity that the silvertrade had brought to Huelva.79 Given the unvarying link between Phoenician-associated goods and the evidence for silver production in the settlement of Huelva, it can be assumed that it was the demand for silver by the Phoenicians that resulted in the hugely increased scale of production of this resource, and indeed to the shift in emphasis away from the

METALS

Fig. 5.7 Map of the mining and metallurgical sites in southwestern Iberia, with suggested reconstruction of the ancient coastline

production of copper which is attested for the tenth and ninth centuries in Huelva.

Other metallurgical sites

Given the great mineral wealth of the entire province of Huelva and the fairly rudimentary mining technique used by the miners of this era, it can be expected that mineral extraction was not confined to Rio Tinto and its adjoining areas, but extended to take advantage of any readily accessible source of silver in the mineralised area of the Pyrite Belt. Recent excavations have confirmed that Rio Tinto was not the only silver-producing region at this time, and have allowed us to gain a greater insight, not just into the metallurgical and extractive procedures used, but also into the whole infrastructure used for the safe transport of the minerals to their final point of destination in

147

the Peninsula, before their export to the central and eastern Mediterranean.

The Sierra Morena The Sierra Morena is an obvious source of mineral wealth. This mountainous range, which forms the most southerly part of the southern Meseta, lies immediately to the north of the Guadalquivir valley and is part of the Iberian Pyrite Belt.80 As such it has large quantities of gold, silver, copper, zinc and lead, among other minerals, and it is clear that these resources were exploited from earliest times onwards, although subsequent large-scale exploitation of these ores has made the exact evaluation of the extent of early operations almost impossible.81 The proximity of the Sierra Morena to the Guadalquivir river meant that any metals produced there could easily have been

148

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

transported down to the coast, which was then much further inland than at present, and helps to explain the considerable quantity of Phoenician items, especially amphorae, found in the indigenous settlements which cluster along the entire length of the river’s course.

Aznalcóllar The mineral-rich area of Aznalcóllar lies in the province of Seville, just over the border from Huelva province, at the south-east end of the Iberian Pyrite belt, and is an area which seems to have been intensely exploited in antiquity for its silver ores (Fig. 5.7).82 The mineral composition of the Aznalcóllar mines is essentially similar to that of Rio Tinto, with oxidised gossan covering primary deposits of unaltered pyrites, while between lies the secondary enrichment zone, where the richest concentration of metaliferous ores is found.83 The exploitation of the minerals at Aznalcóllar follows a similar pattern to that at Rio Tinto. While the first evidence of mining at Aznalcóllar dates from the Chalcolithic and points to the exploitation of copper, the Late Bronze Age colonial period brings with it a huge increase in the level of activities undertaken here, with two sites identified at the mines, both apparently linked to silver production.

Cerro del Castillo The first of these is situated at Cerro del Castillo, at the northern end of the modern village of Aznalcóllar, on the right bank of the river Agrío. This site consists of a flat plateau surrounded by the remains of a defensive wall, part of which dates to the Late Bronze Age colonial period. The wall is associated with handmade pottery, with no evidence of wheel-made ware. Judging by its pottery, the site was first occupied in the pre-Phoenician Late Bronze Age, and seems to have been continuously inhabited up until at least the Middle Ages. An ancient mining gallery was found in the hillside below the settlement, and evidence of silver production, in the form of silver slag, was discovered at the site itself, but unfortunately without a proper archaeological context; so we cannot put a precise date on the start and duration of metal production at this settlement. However the slag was of the free silica type, a kind of slag generally found immediately before or in association with Phoenician materials.84

Los Castrejones The second site associated with the mines was found on the other side of the river from Cerro del Castillo, at Los Castrejones, strategically situated at the edge of the mines. It too was protected by a sloping defensive wall, built from slate and apparently reinforced by

towers. The settlement was occupied from the eighth to the sixth centuries, and seems to have been a mining and metallurgical settlement dedicated exclusively to the production of silver. Numerous mining tools were found there, including miners’ hammers, and mortars used to crush the mineral, as were almost 46 kg of slag, pottery fragments with slag still adhering to them, and a portion of a silver ingot.85 Analysis of the mineral found at Los Castrejones shows that it very probably came from the Aznalcóllar mines, where the remains of an ancient mining system designed to exploit the gossan were found.86

Transportation of the ore and development of specialist metallurgical centres

Judging by the settlement remains found at Aznalcóllar, its rich silver ores first began to be exploited in the eighth century, reflecting contemporary developments at Rio Tinto. However, while at Rio Tinto, much of the smelting and general metallurgical activities were carried out in the area of the mines themselves, at Aznalcóllar the minerals produced there were frequently transported to other sites where they could be further processed. This was done for a number of reasons, largely economic. As the habitation sites in the mining area were restricted to small mining settlements, occupied probably only seasonally, it is obvious that the silver produced there would not have remained there. Rather it would have been transported to the settlements controlling the production of this resource, where it would have stayed in the hands of the local élites, or more likely (given the large number of Phoenician objects found in these settlements) would have been traded with the oriental merchants. They in turn would have exchanged for it their amphorae, containing wine, oil, or perfume unguents, as well as luxury goods made from ivory and precious metals. Given, then, that the product of the mines would have to be transported sooner or later, there were several factors which made it economically more advantageous for the mineral to be transported after some initial treatment, rather than to transport the prized final product, the silver itself. Chief among them was likely to be the need for large amounts of wood to be used as fuel for the metallurgical processes. As Forbes has pointed out, the availability and especially the quality of the fuel determine the temperature attained in the furnace, and this in turn is largely responsible for the possibility of working certain ores and using certain processes, so that the fuel determines to some degree the melting and smelting activities of the early smith.87 The fuel used in the metallurgical processes in south-west

METALS

Spain took the form of charcoal produced from the local evergreen oaks, the quercus ilex, regarded by Theophrastus as the best source of charcoal and the most appropriate for the first smelting of silver ore.88 The quantities of wood required for roasting and smelting the ores have been calculated at 90.2 kg of wood to produce 1 kg of copper, and approximately the same amount of wood to produce 0.1 kg of silver.89 Given these figures, such wood as there was in the mountainous areas around the mines would soon have become exhausted. Transporting the minerals to areas where this resource was readily available was easier, and more secure, than transporting large quantities of wood to the mines and then transporting the silver.90 The metallurgical centres were generally well communicated, either situated near to a river or the sea, thus facilitating the transport of the metals to the settlement where they would be traded; or they also acted as the commercial centre itself, as in the case of Huelva. Therefore, in general, the separation of the extractive and processing areas provided greater control over the production of the resource. The mines at Aznalcóllar seem to have been the first link in a chain, which went from the extractive centre itself to a strategically situated storage and redistribution centre, and from there passed on to a metallurgical settlement. The latter was located on the edge of the Guadalquivir estuary, from which the metals were transported to the final exporting centre, at the mouth of the river, Gadir.

San Bartolomé The settlement of San Bartolomé, located some 2.5 km north-east of the town of Almonte in Huelva province, is an example of a purely metallurgical settlement, situated in an area with no mineral resources of its own (Fig. 5.7). The ores processed at this site had to be transported from elsewhere, and analysis of the constituent properties of the slag (more than 3,000 kg) and minerals found at San Bartolomé shows that it came from the mines at Aznalcóllar, some 40 km away.91 San Bartolomé may initially seem an odd choice for a metallurgical settlement, with no immediately accessible minerals, and lacking any direct access to the coast; but at the start of the last millennium, as we have seen (pp. 105–06), it was situated right on the edge of the Guadalquivir estuary, which then formed a large lagoon, opening out onto the sea a little below the city of Seville, and extending from San Lucar de Barrameda in the east to El Rocío in the west (Fig. 5.7). This lagoon covered an area of some 1,400 km2, offering far greater possibilities for navigation than the marshes which now cover the lower course of the river, as a reading of some of the ancient authors and the profusion of ancient sites in the area of

149

Fig. 5.8 San Bartolomé de Almonte (Huelva), plan of part of the site, zone I.B the marshes confirms.92 It therefore had direct access to the most important channel of communication in Lower Andalusia. In addition, the composition of its soil made it ideal for metallurgical activities. The lime in the soil was an essential component in the production of cupels; it also acted as a flux in the metallurgical procedure.93 The settlement at San Bartolomé extended over some 40 ha, and consisted of flimsy circular or oval huts, made from organic material, arranged into a number of nuclei, perhaps indicating family or work groups, but with no evidence of any previous planning of the settlement space (Fig. 5.8).94 Each hut had only one layer of occupation, suggesting that they were probably only occupied on a seasonal basis and then abandoned. Some of the huts were associated with oval or circular trenches, and given their narrowness and the large amount of slag found in them, it seems likely that these were used as metallurgical workshops rather than dwellings. The presence of slag in the cabins, however, does indicate that metal-working was also carried out in the living areas, just as it was at Cerro Salomón.95 The settlement was occupied for approximately two centuries, from the end of the pre-Phoenician Late Bronze Age, c. 800, to the end of the seventh century.96 During this time the pottery at the site was overwhelmingly indigenous hand-made ware, strokeburnished and coarse ware, similar to that found in the native sites of Huelva and the lower Guadalquivir (Fig. 5.9). There are relatively few Phoenician imports,

150

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

and none at all in the first phase of occupation at San Bartolomé. When they do appear, from the second half of the eighth century, at first they tend to be very few in number and represent exotic objects, such as oinochoai or unguentaria. In the next phase of occupation of the site, which occupies the whole of the seventh century, the Phoenician imports are more varied and make up the amphorae, red-slip table ware and grey ware so common in both Phoenician settlements and orientalizing sites elsewhere in the Peninsula.97 Given the unusual composition of the first wheel-made pottery, and its low incidence, it is unlikely that we are dealing with a large-scale Phoenician presence at the site, and its excavators have suggested that the composition of the earliest imported pottery reflects the beginning of contact and trade between the two social groups, rather than active Phoenician collaboration in the economic activities undertaken here.98 Judging by the results of the analysis of the wheel-made pottery, it is possible to

Fig. 5.9 San Bartolomé de Almonte (Huelva), pottery: (i) stroke-burnished ware; (ii) strainer, a type of pot associated with metallurgical activities; (iii) ‘cerámica de decoración digitada’; (iv) red-slip oil bottle

identify these imports as having originated from Castillo de Doña Blanca; in other words, as this site is regarded as an extension of the Phoenician colony of Cádiz, the Phoenician pottery came directly from Gadir itself rather than from Huelva.99 This is an important distinction which allows us to identify the respective areas of influence of the two trading centres. The comparative infrequency of the wheel-made ware is reflected in the overall lack of any great orientalizing influence in the structure of the site. With its insubstantial round huts and lack of urban planning or defensive wall, it shows that any outside influence had little effect here: once again the production of silver lay firmly in the hands of the indigenous inhabitants of south-west Spain. Peñalosa San Bartolomé is not the only metallurgical centre in the area, and recent excavations have uncovered several small indigenous metal-working sites devoted

METALS

to the production of silver and dependent on the minerals produced by the Sierra Morena in general, and the Aznalcóllar mines in particular. One such settlement is at Peñalosa (Fig. 5.7), in the municipal district of Escacena del Campo, in the eastern part of Huelva province, near the border with the province of Seville.100 Like San Bartolomé, the site at Peñalosa consisted of small circular or oblong huts, constructed from organic material, and arranged with no apparent planning. Again, as at San Bartolomé, the pottery here is predominantly indigenous, hand-made and burnished ware, with Phoenician influence indicated by the presence of just one wheel-made red-slip bowl. The Phoenician interest in this site is undoubtedly due to the silver production attested by the presence of metallic lead, necessary for the extraction of silver in the cupellation process, as well as finds of slag, slagged pottery and tuyères.101 The site at Peñalosa is considerably smaller than San Bartolomé and was occupied for only a short period of time, from the end of the ninth to the middle of the eighth century.

Cerro de la Matanza Another site in this area with signs of metal production is Cerro de la Matanza (Fig. 5.7), again in the municipal district of Escacena del Campo, about 3.5 km south of the settlement at Tejada la Vieja. Although it has not been excavated, the remains of stone tools and silver slag have been found at the site, which may well have had a defensive wall. Its pottery dates the occupation of the settlement from the Chalcolithic down to the Roman period. As it has no mines in its immediate hinterland, the origin of the ore treated there must be open to speculation. It is possible that it could have come from Aznalcóllar, although until the constituent properties of the slag have been analysed, this is only a hypothesis.102 In general the spatial analysis of the Sierra Morena area and its foothills between the Tinto river to the west and the Guadiamar to the east has revealed a total of thirty-six ancient mines, although not all of them would belong to our period.103 Associated with these ancient mines are a number of settlements which clearly functioned in terms either of direct resource production (the silver slag of Cerro de la Matanza), or of the coordination and control of access to the mines and their mineral resources. Access could also be controlled to rivers which acted as the channels of communication, linking the mines and metallurgical centres with the commercial centres down river. The most important of these in size and strategic function was undoubtedly the settlement at Tejada la Vieja, which combined metallurgical activities with a strategic location close to the mines, permitting it to act

151

as a storage and redistributive centre for the silver ore mined at Aznalcóllar. Tejada la Vieja Tejada la Vieja is located in the municipal district of Escacena del Campo, just over the border from the province of Seville, and close to the settlements at Peñalosa and Cerro de la Matanza (Fig. 5.7). It is strategically situated in the foothills of the Sierra Morena between the mountains of the Sierra Morena to the north, and the fertile agricultural land, the campiña, to the south. It is located close to a number of major routes of communication, linking the mineral-rich areas with the commercial centres along the river Guadalquivir. Some 3 km north of Tejada lies the mountain pass of La Garganta, which gives access to the mines of Rio Tinto. The road from Tejada to Rio Tinto passes through Aznalcóllar, and continues from there on to San Bartolomé and El Rocío, on the western edge of the Guadalquivir estuary, where slag of similar appearance to that found at San Bartolomé has been found.104 Another road passes through Tejada, linking the fords over the Tinto at Niebla and the Odiel at Gibraleon in the west with a ford over the Guadalquivir near Alcala del Río.105 Tejada is also linked to the Guadalquivir through the Guadiamar river, which flows into the Guadalquivir estuary. The commanding position of Tejada on a plateau 160 m above sea level gave it a great visibility over the surrounding area, and it was essentially its frontier position between the minerals of the Sierra Morena and the Guadalquivir estuary which explains its importance and prosperity throughout a period of some four hundred years.

The urban character of Tejada The site was first excavated by A. Blanco in 1974–75 as part of the Huelva archaeo-metallurgical survey, but these excavations dealt primarily with the last phases of occupation there, during the fifth and fourth centuries BC. At that stage the settlement was occupied by large solidly-built, rectangular structures which were arranged in orderly blocks, divided by wide streets (Figs 5.10 and 5.11).106 Of the initial settlement we are less well informed. The site seems to have first been occupied at the end of the eighth century, and perhaps originally took the form of the circular huts, or cabañas, found at San Bartolomé and Peñalosa.107 If so, these were very soon replaced by more substantial structures, the remains of which are limited to red clay floors found in the excavations of Fernández Jurado and his team. The most striking feature of the site, and one which still impresses to this day, is the thick defensive wall

152

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 5.10 Tejada la Vieja (Huelva), plan. 1 City wall with circular and rectangular buttresses; 2 Metallurgical area with mineral washery; 3 Stockage area; 4 Block of dwellings; 5 Public building and storage area

surrounding the settlement (Fig. 5.12). This wall is very roughly built, consisting of an inner and outer construction: the outer wall is slightly trapezoidal in shape, made from large limestone blocks joined without any mortar, and the area between the walls was filled with earth, rubble and pottery. It was subsequently reinforced with a number of square and circular buttresses. This defensive wall seems to be contemporary with the earliest moments of occupation at the site, being built at the end of the eighth century. It was, however, subject to continual repairs

and reinforcements throughout the settlement’s entire history, largely due to the careless nature of its construction.108 The presence of a defensive wall is a distinctive feature in an area where other settlements were generally unwalled, as is the size of the site, some 6.4 ha, making it large in comparison with other settlements of this period. Tejada and the metal trade The pottery fragments associated with Tejada’s wall provide a date for its construction at the end of the

METALS

Fig. 5.11 Tejada la Vieja (Huelva), general view

Fig. 5.12 Tejada la Vieja (Huelva), view of the fortification wall

153

154

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 5.13 Tejada la Vieja (Huelva), slag used as a building material in the final phase of occupation

eighth century. The presence among the typical indigenous burnished and hand-made ware of some fragments of wheel-made ware shows that while Tejada is an indigenous settlement, Phoenician influence was present right from the start of occupation there.109 The reason for Phoenician interest in the site lies in its proximity to the mineral wealth of Aznalcóllar and the use which it made of its strategic situation. Right from the earliest moments of occupation at Tejada, we find slag, ore and pottery types which are generally associated with metallurgical activities, as well as a significant increase in the so-called cerámica con decoración digitada, indigenous hand-made coarseware pottery, decorated with applied finger impressions and sometimes incised decoration, which is unfailingly associated with mining and metal-working in all the Tartessian sites in which it appears.110 These signs of metal-working continue to be found throughout the succeeding strata of occupation at the settlement, right down to the second half of the fifth century, although the general crisis in the metal trade evident in all the major metallurgical and commercial sites in the Tartessian area from the sixth century means that from this period onwards metalproduction at Tejada assumes a far lesser importance (Fig. 5.13).

While it is clear that Tejada’s association with the metal trade is the reason for its prosperity, as witnessed by the intensive building activities carried out there, and the regular planned urbanism found in the later levels of occupation, the overall amount of slag found at the site is small for a settlement of its size; it is, for example, insignificant compared with the large quantities uncovered at nearby San Bartolomé. In addition, no signs of smelting furnaces have been found at Tejada, in contrast to the situation in Huelva, San Bartolomé and the Rio Tinto sites.111 All in all, the evidence of metallurgical activities at Tejada is more consonant with a level of production designed to meet the settlement’s internal requirements than the production of large quantities of metal for export.112 The answer to this apparent contradiction of a site situated next to one of Europe’s richest mineralised regions with little evidence of metal-production lies in the ore exploited at San Bartolomé. It will be remembered that this site was one devoted apparently exclusively to smelting silver, as the huge quantity of more than 3,000 kg of slag found there amply demonstrates. However, as San Bartolomé was located in a region with no mineral resources of its own, the silver ore processed there had to be brought in from elsewhere. Analysis of samples of ore found at Tejada has

METALS

shown that they are identical with the ore worked at San Bartolomé, and the content of lead and copper in the San Bartolomé samples points to Aznalcóllar, rather than Rio Tinto, as the source of the minerals worked at both sites.113 Thus the role of Tejada seems to have been that of a mining rather than a metallurgical centre, a settlement where the ore produced at Aznalcóllar was stored and redistributed for further treatment in specialised metallurgical centres, such as San Bartolomé. The latter was situated close to the Guadalquivir and the coast, from where the silver could be transported to its final point of destination in the Peninsula, Gadir.114 Thus metal-working settlements situated on the edge of the Guadalquivir estuary, like San Bartolomé and El Rocío (Fig. 5.7) (where slag similar to that from San Bartolomé was found) were dependent on Tejada for the supply of silver-ore which was not available to them in their hinterland. Although San Bartolomé is some 40 km away from the Aznalcóllar mines, there are no major obstacles to communication, as most of the intervening distance consists of flat agricultural land, the campiña, which links the mountains with the Guadalquivir valley and the ancient coastline. An alternative route, along the Guadiamar river, which flows from the Sierra Morena into the Guadalquivir estuary, could also have linked the two settlements. This fluvial route culminated in the settlement of Chillar, situated right on the edge of the former estuary, which was occupied in the seventh and sixth centuries and from where the metal could have been shipped down to Cádiz.115 In this context, the role of Tejada la Vieja as a centre for the accumulation and redistribution of silver-ore to small dependent metallurgical centres helps to explain its size and prosperity in a region where the great majority of other settlements were small and unwalled groups of flimsy huts. The importance assumed by Tejada, apparently right from the first moments of occupation there, judging by its size and the presence of a defensive wall, may be the reason for the abandonment of the smaller metallurgical settlement at Peñalosa, only 4 km from Tejada, in the mid-eighth century, for a site which was strategically of greater importance in terms of the control of the region and its resources.

Destination of the silver production in the Sierra Morena Analysis of the constituent properties of ancient slag and ore allows us to trace the silver route further downstream and to identify its final destination. It has already been noted that the settlement of El Rocío, situated right on the banks of the former Guadalquivir estuary, on what was then the shores of a wide coastal

155

inlet, has provided evidence of silver-rich slag similar to that found at San Bartolomé. Slag with constituent properties comparable to that from San Bartolomé has also been identified in seventh-century strata at the Phoenician site of Castillo de Doña Blanca, at the mouth of the Guadalete river, close to the Guadalquivir.116 As the settlement at Doña Blanca is now regarded as an outpost of the Tyrian colony of Gadir, this presents us with the possibility that the silver-ore mined at Aznalcóllar and distributed through Tejada down to San Bartolomé and El Rocío could have had its final destination in Phoenician Gadir. Metallurgical analysis provides us with further confirmation of Gadir as the ultimate destination for the silver of this region. The silver produced in all the Tartessian sites in south-west Spain at this time was the result of cupellation, a process which relies on lead to separate the silver from the gangue. Therefore the presence of lead in the silver ore is vital for a successful extraction of the metal. Lead is present in the ores mined from Rio Tinto, but is found only in extremely small quantities in the Aznalcóllar ore, and thus had to be added artificially to the ore before it could be successfully smelted.117 In this context the presence of metallic lead might be expected in sites dependent on Aznalcóllar for the provision of silver ore. In fact it has been found in San Bartolomé and Peñalosa, while it is entirely absent from Huelva and the other metallurgical sites processing ore produced by the Rio Tinto mines.118 The presence of metallic lead not only indicates that the Tartessians were skilled metallurgists, and were fully aware that lead was a vital element in the whole cupellation process, but it also provides us with another link between Gadir and the Aznalcóllar mining complex. For a large quantity of metallic lead, with a similar composition to that found in Peñalosa, has been found in Doña Blanca, apparently placed for storage in a building dating to the second half of the eighth century.119 The discovery of metallic lead at Doña Blanca indicates that the Phoenicians at Gadir may well have been supplying metallic lead to the silver-smelting sites of the interior, and therefore were directly involved with the metallurgical activities carried out by them. An alternative possibility is that the inhabitants of Doña Blanca were using the lead to undertake their own silver-smelting at the site.120 In either case the evidence of direct links between Aznalcóllar and the Phoenicians of Gadir was strengthened by the lead isotope analysis undertaken by the Isotrace Laboratory at Oxford University, which showed that the numerous litharge fragments found in eighth-century levels of Doña Blanca came from the smelting of minerals mined at Aznalcóllar.121

156

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

The pottery evidence The link between Gadir and the silver-producing region of the Sierra Morena and Guadalquivir estuary suggested by metallurgical analysis is confirmed by similarities in the pottery of these two areas. While the indigenous pottery of San Bartolomé shows close links to that from the Huelva area, the same is not the case with the wheel-made ware. X-ray diffraction and infra-red analysis of the Phoenician pottery found at San Bartolomé has indicated that it has an identical composition to that from Doña Blanca, and therefore was very probably imported from there.122 This concurs with the wheel-made pottery from Tejada which is far more similar to that found in the Phoenician and indigenous sites of the lower Guadalquivir area than that from the settlement of Huelva.123 Therefore, both the pottery found in the metal-producing sites of the Guadalquivir region, and the metallurgical analysis of the materials found there, point to strong and close links between this area and Doña Blanca, ultimately Gadir. In this context, the often remarked upon ‘eccentricity’ of Gadir’s location, cut off from the other colonial sites in Spain and from the Mediterranean itself, becomes understandable. Situated next to the mouth of the Guadalete, and not far from the Guadalquivir, it was ideally located to communicate with the indigenous settlements which clustered along the banks of that river and to use the river itself. The latter was the most important single channel of communications in this region, and allowed access both to the agricultural resources provided by its fertile valley, and to the minerals of the Sierra Morena and the mountains of Huelva.124 Thus, although the island location of the city may seem to imply distrust of the continent and a desire for isolation, it also offered it far closer communications with the Peninsula than those enjoyed by its counterparts in eastern Andalusia, separated as they were by the Penibaetican mountains from the indigenous communities in the interior.

The Guadalquivir as a route for Phoenician trade

The profusion of oriental and orientalizing objects found in the indigenous settlements which cluster along the banks of the Guadalquivir, and, most spectacularly, in the cemeteries (where the most valuable items were found), testifies to the interest this area held for the Phoenicians (Fig. 4.1). However the distribution of these objects all along the course of the river, as far upstream as Cástulo in the province of Jaén, clearly demonstrates that the mines at Aznalcóllar were not the culmination of Phoenician interest in the

resources of this region, and that the route from Tejada to San Bartolomé and down to Cádiz was only one of a number of possible routes along which the mineral and agricultural resources of the Guadalquivir hinterland were channelled.

The tumbas principescas If we look at the distribution of the richest Tartessian burials, the so-called tumbas principescas (Fig. 5.14), we see that many of them are centred on the Guadalquivir and, in general, they follow the major routes of communication to the mineral resources of the Sierra Morena and Extremadura, be they fluvial or terrestrial.125 Thus, leaving aside the burials in the cemetery of La Joya in Huelva and at Niebla, which are clearly linked to the exploitation of the Rio Tinto mines, we have in the Guadalquivir valley the tombs at Cañada de Ruiz Sánchez, Acebuchal and Setefilla, in Seville province, which were all situated in strategic points along the transhumance routes, or on the natural passes controlling the mineral resources of the Sierra Morena.126 Similarly, up-river in Córdoba province, the settlement at Colina de los Quemados, near Córdoba, also shows signs of metal-production activity, undoubtedly the result of its position on the edge of the Sierra Morena. The evidence of metal production here – in the form of copper slag – coincides with the appearence of the first imports of wheel-made ware and the cerámica con decoración digitada, invariably associated with metal production.127 Its strategic position must also have attracted Phoenician and Tartessian interest, as it was located at the last point of the river that could be reached by small freight ships coming from downstream, thus making it an important fluvial port.128 Further north in the upper Guadalquivir, a grave at Cástulo in Jáen province, which was situated in the mining district of Oretania, has yielded, among other objects, a silver patera similar to those found in orientalising graves in south Italy, as well as various bronze statuettes of the goddess Hathor. This was where Strabo’s famous silvermountain was located, and which was to produce large amounts of silver both in the Barcid and Roman periods.129 At Cástulo, we have evidence both for metal production, in the form of smelting furnaces and mining tools, and for a significant Phoenician interest in the area, judging by the appearance of Phoenician amphorae in large numbers.130 These items suggest that there were regular contacts between this area and the lower Guadalquivir to where the minerals was shipped, as does the pottery from Cástulo during this period, which is closely related to that of the Lower Guadalquivir area.131

METALS

157

Fig. 5.14 Map showing the location of the tumbas principescas (princely burials) in southern Iberia

Key: 1 Acebuchal (Carmona, Seville); 2 Cañada de Ruiz Sánchez (Carmona, Seville); 3 Setefilla (Seville); 4 La Joya (Huelva); 5 Niebla (Huelva); 6 Torres Vedras (Lisbon); 7 La Aliseda (Cáceres); 8 Cástulo (Jaén)

The site at El Carambolo, in the village of Camas just outside Seville, where the celebrated orientalizing treasure was found, has yielded prodigious amounts of Phoenician pottery, with more than 50% of the total pottery assemblage consisting of amphorae, and we find a similar situation at nearby Cerro Macareno, just up river from El Carambolo (Fig. 4.1).132 We have already argued that El Carambolo probably represented a shrine, dedicated to Astarte, who was honoured there with an offering of a statuette by two Sidonian brothers. The establishment of a shrine, perhaps twinned with that at the nearby Coria del Río, and the evidence of intense Phoenician commercial contacts with this area, is undoubtedly to be ascribed to the position of these settlements, located at the point when natural routes of communication linking the gold, tin and agricultural resources of Extremadura join the Guadalquivir. The link between the natural resources of Extremadura and those of the Guadalquivir area helps to explain the importance both of the area around Seville and the concentration of settlements along the right bank of the river.133 The sites in the area of Seville were important, too, in that they acted as ports for the metals which had come down river from

Cástulo and Córdoba. It was in these ports that the metals could be transferred from small fluvial boats to larger ships.134 What is clear from this very brief account of Phoenician trade in the Guadalquivir region is that the whole length of the river was densely populated with indigenous settlements throughout the so-called orientalizing period, and that these settlements were strategically situated to control access to the chief resources of the region, the agricultural wealth of the valley, and the minerals of the Sierra Morena and its hinterland in Extremadura.135 In this light, the predominance of indigenous pottery in all the mining and metallurgical sites we have examined makes sense. Controlling the principal routes of access to the mines, the population of this region was able to maintain a firm hold on the extractive and refining processes themselves, and thus, as is clear from the proliferation of oriental objects in the settlements, gain ample recompense in return for Phoenician access to the metals produced in this area. In the context of mineral wealth coming from varying sources (such as Cástulo, Córdoba and Extremadura), controlled by a number of sites all along the Guadalquivir and its tributaries, the

158

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

route from Aznalcóllar, through Tejada and down to San Bartolomé and El Rocío, must have constituted just one of the areas which the Phoenicians tapped to obtain their coveted silver. The Guadalquivir valley was the scene of such intense contacts between Phoenician and native precisely because it acted not just as a source of metals and possibly agricultural products, obtained from its own hinterland, but because, as the most important channel of communications in southern Spain, it was into this river that the routes (and with them, the resources from other areas) accrued. Hence the river provided access not just to the silver and copper along its own course, but also to the resources of all the regions situated to the north – the silver and tin of Extremadura, and the gold fields of the Atlantic northwest. This lies at the heart of the apparent paradox that while Phoenician settlement was dense along the Mediterranean coast, the majority of ‘oriental’ objects are found on the other side of the mountains, in the indigenous settlements of the Guadalquivir valley.

Differing forms of economic exploitation in Iberia?

It is in this context that we have to examine Fernández Jurado’s claim that the complex of settlements which were dependent on the mines at Aznalcóllar represents an example of a colonial-type economy directly dependent on Cádiz, in contrast to the open market situation prevalent in Huelva city. He claims that the Phoenicians entered into contact with the inhabitants of the mineral-rich region close to the Guadalquivir estuary to ensure an alternative source of metal to that produced in Rio Tinto and controlled by Huelva.136 In other words, according to his hypothesis, during the period of maximum silver production, from the eighth

to the sixth centuries, there were two main routes along which the silver produced in the mountains of Huelva and Seville reached the Phoenicians: that going from Rio Tinto, along the Tinto, down to Huelva, and that leading from the mines at Aznalcóllar, through Tejada (as a mining and redistributive centre), and along to small dependent metallurgical centres like San Bartolomé; from here the mineral was processed before being transported to the edge of the Guadalquivir estuary, from which it passed directly to Cádiz. In such a system, given the greater wealth and level of oriental, and later Greek, influence visible in Huelva, that settlement would have functioned as an emporium where traders, Greek and Phoenician, were free to enter and barter for the bullion; the Tejada route, on the other hand, was directly dependent on Cádiz, and here a colonial-type economy existed. The problem with this theory is that, given the level of production during this period, and the abundance of mineral resources in south-west Spain generally, it is extremely unlikely that the silver trade and transport network were restricted to just two routes. Recent work in the mining town of Niebla (Fig. 5.7), on the Tinto river, some 30 km up-river from Huelva, has shown that the distinction between the mining and transport networks centred on Tejada and Huelva may be an artificial one. The similarity between the pottery of Tejada and that of Niebla suggests that contacts between the two areas may have been closer than previously thought, and it is possible that some of the minerals from Aznalcóllar may have ended up in Huelva, perhaps along the route that was later to become the Roman road which led from Ilipa (Niebla) down to Hispalis.137 In such circumstances, distinctions between colonial and market economies based on the separation of different trade routes are largely artificial.

6

The sixth century: crisis or transition?

The picture of busy colonial activity which has been built up for the eighth and seventh centuries came to a drastic halt in the sixth. This period has been termed an age of crisis, or in a more nuanced evaluation, an age of transition. It sees a dramatic change, and occasionally a rupture, across a whole range of key areas: settlement pattern, burial practice, economic activities, and a possible change in the geo-political structure of the whole colonial process, with the weakening of links with the East and the establishment of closer bonds with Carthage. The sixth century also brings with it for the first time a direct Greek presence in the areas of Phoenician influence in south-western Iberia. In comparison with the preceding centuries, the sixth century has received less scholarly attention, and our understanding of many key areas is still woefully inadequate. In fact it may well be that what has been interpreted in many areas as rupture or hiatus is due simply to lack of research, and the current tendency is the view that the sixth century is one of: Rather than a ‘crisis’ it is better to say that Phoenician society in the Far West was undergoing a profound restructuring, a process of adaptation to the new political and economic reality which was being forged in Iberia and the central and western Mediterranean, and whose manifestations appear most clearly in the sixth century but which were also visible previously.1

Despite this, it is clear that the sixth century brings with it a whole series of changes that was to transform utterly the Phoenician presence in Iberia. One of the first signs of change is the arrival of new people in the area of Phoenician influence: from the late seventh century onwards, there are clear signs of a direct Greek presence in contact with both the Phoenician and indigenous populations of south-western Iberia.

The Greeks in Iberia

The Greek presence in Iberia is attested archaeologically by the discovery of materials of Greek origin, overwhelmingly pottery, but with the odd metal object, in the Phoenician and indigenous sites of the southern coastline of Iberia (Fig. 6.1).2 Their presence is not confined to the sixth century. Greek pottery has shown up in Iberia from the mid-eighth century onwards, with the discovery of a MG Attic pyxis in Huelva, followed by finds of Greek pottery in Phoenician contexts. The most striking example of this

is the two protocorinthian kotylai from the Cerro de San Cristóbal cemetery at Almuñécar, which we have discussed above. But Greek pottery is also found in the eighth and seventh centuries across a whole range of Phoenician sites in the region – Cádiz, Toscanos, Cerro del Villar, Castillo de Doña Blanca and Morro de Mezquitilla among others.3 However, its context, always in Phoenician settlements or indigenous sites which attracted a strong Phoenician presence, such as Huelva, which controlled access to the mineral-rich Rio Tinto area, and the tiny amounts of pottery involved,4 indicate that the pottery was unlikely to have been carried to Iberia directly by a Greek ship and a Greek crew. Instead, we have to assume that the Phoenicians acquired it somewhere en route to the far west, either in the Aegean or the central Mediterranean, where Pithekoussai in particular shows strong signs of contact with Phoenicians.5 Therefore for the eighth century and the first two thirds of the seventh century, we have what Shefton calls the ‘happy symbiosis of Greek material and Phoenician carriers’.6

Samians in Iberia?

However, as we move into the second half of the seventh century, both literary and archaeological evidence concur in suggesting that for the first time we have a direct Greek presence in Iberia. Herodotus tells us that the first Greeks to reach the Far West came from the eastern Aegean. Set into the narrative of the foundation of Cyrene he says:

a Samian vessel [was] bound for Egypt, under the command of a man called Colaeus . . . Easterly winds however, prevented them from getting there, and continued so long that they were driven away to the westward right through the Pillars of Heracles until, by a piece of more than human luck, they succeeded in making Tartessus. This place had not at that period been exploited and the consequence was that the Samian merchants on their return home made a greater profit on their cargo than any Greeks of whom we have precise knowledge with the exception of Sostratus of Aegina . . . A tenth part of their profits, amounting to six talents, they spent on the manufacture of a bronze vessel, shaped like an Argive wine-bowl, with a continuous row of griffin’s heads round the rim; this bowl, supported upon three kneeling figures in bronze, eleven and a half feet high, they placed as an offering in the temple of Hera. (Histories IV. 152)

160

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 6.1 Greek pottery in Iberia: (i) Attic MG II pyxis, Huelva; (ii) Euboean bird bowl, Huelva; (iii) Ionian cup, Huelva; (iv) Chian amphora, Málaga; (v) local imitation of a LG Euboean skyphos, Cerro del Villar; (vi) SOS amphora of Euboean origin, Cerro del Villar The date of this episode is given by its association with the foundation of Cyrene, which took place between 640 and 630. Although there are some elements of legend in the story (the theme of the hero being blown

off-course by winds to a fabulous destination goes back to the Odyssey, as Domínguez Monedero points out), this is the first historical reference to the Greeks in Iberia.7 We have some archaeological evidence indica-

THE SIXTH CENTURY

tive of links between Samos and Iberia, which significantly date to the very period to which Herodotus places his narrative, the last third of the seventh century. These are the discovery in Samos in a stratified context of a number of decorated ivory combs, very similar to those found in seventh-century graves in the Guadalquivir valley, and undoubtedly of Iberian manufacture. The examples found in Samos can be dated to between 640 and 630.8 More significant is the discovery at Cerro del Villar of a group of imported Greek ceramics in the 1987 and 1989 excavations at the site. These have been analysed by Cabrera who dates them to the the turn of the seventh century or the early years of the sixth century. Of these the vast majority she identifies as being of Samian origin. They consist of Ionian cups of various types, whose clay and typology point to a Samian origin.9 There are also hydriae and other large closed shapes, as well as amphorae, to all of which she assigns a Samian origin. One of the cups has an inscription in Ionian dialect, unfortunately now illegible.10 The problem with this hypothesis, as she herself recognises elsewhere, is that it is very difficult to separate archaeologically Samians from Phocaeans, and even if the pottery is from Samos, given the fact that the island was a major trading centre, with an international sanctuary attracting sailors from all over the eastern Mediterranean, the pottery could easily have been acquired there by the Phocaeans on their way west.11 Domínguez Monedero has taken up Cabrera’s analysis and suggested that given the homogeneity of the materials, as well as their lack of quality, they must have reached El Villar directly through Greek trade (either Samian or Phocaean), rather than by means of Phoenician intermediaries, as is also the case in Huelva.12 If he is correct, then we have for the first time in Iberia, evidence of trade and contact between the Phoenicians and Greeks in the context of a Phoenician settlement. Cerro del Villar was in many ways an ideal choice for such transactions. In her excavations there, Aubet has identified a porticoed street with buildings opening directly on to it, and with one of them still containing amphorae in situ. She has interpreted this area as a market place (Fig. 4.2). Also El Villar was a conspicuous spot for anyone sailing along the Iberian coast, as it constituted a small off-shore island, which would definitely have served as a landmark for navigation. So if Cabrera and Domínguez Monedero are right, then we might have a picture of Greek sailors putting in to seek shelter and supplies, as well as engaging in a spot of trading, at a convenient Phoenician settlement, on their way further south to the tantalising metal resources of

–

CRISIS OR TRANSITION ?

161

Tartessus/Huelva. It is interesting also that even when El Villar was abandoned, and its settlers moved to the site of Malaka, the modern Málaga, Greek visitors still continued to call at the new site, as we can tell from the pottery found there.13 Perhaps it is in such evanescent Greek frequentation of the Phoenician settlements of southern Iberia that we should interpret the much later references in Greek authors to Phocaean colonies on the southern coast of Spain, colonies which have never been found.14

The Phocaeans

Another passage of Herodotus points to a further group of Ionian Greeks in southern Iberia, the Phocaeans: The Phocaeans were the first Greeks to make long sea voyages; it was they who showed the way to the Adriatic, Tyrrhenia, Iberia and Tartessus. They used to sail not in deep, broad-beamed merchant vessels, but in fifty-oared galleys [pentekonters]. When they went to Tartessus they made themselves agreeable to Arganthonius, the king, who had ruled the place for 80 years, and lived to be 120. Indeed, this person took such a fancy to them that he asked them to quit Ionia permanently and settle wherever they liked on his own land; the Phocaeans, however, refused the offer, whereupon the king, hearing that the Median power was on the increase in their part of the world, gave them money to build a wall round their town (Histories I, 163–40).15

Olmos has analysed this passage and he suggests that its sources come from a Phocaean tradition with additional information, probably from Delphi.16 There are a number of important differences between this story and the earlier one. Firstly, it is much more detailed than the story of Colaeus, with precisions about what type of ship they used and their relationship with the local power, represented in the story of Arganthonius. Also, by contrast with the story of the Samians, here there are no references to any individual Greek, and Olmos feels this reflects the fact that the Phocaean presence in the west was the result of a systematic process of trade and contact between both sides.17 The use of pentekonters as the means of transport also gives this a more official aspect, one involving the city as a whole, which was forced to take to the sea to provide them with an outlet for the difficulties that faced them on land, both political and economic, as Justin points out.18 However, although the official aspect of this first contact is emphasised, it is clear from the context of the text that the Phocaeans had no intention of establishing themselves permanently in Iberia, and that their presence was commercial rather than colonial, as Olmos points out.19 He suggests that their pentekonters may have also acted as their

162

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

dwellings, even in Iberia. Therefore it is interesting that the Phocaeans here are acting in a way that is more generally regarded as typically Phoenician – the commercial exploitation of hitherto unknown territory with the objective of bringing home great wealth to the metropolis. The text fits well with our understanding of the commercial activities of the Phocaeans from the late seventh century onwards. With increasing political and military pressure on northern Ionia, first from the Lydians and then the Persians, the Phocaeans turned outwards to trade with Egypt at Naucratis, alongside the Samians, and then in the sixth century to Italy where they established close relations with the Etruscans at Tarquinia and Caere.20 But is this picture of a direct Phocaean presence in Tartessus backed by archaeological evidence? The answer would seem to be a provisional yes. Our best evidence comes from Huelva. Here the 1980s excavations in the centre of the old city provided evidence of a solid eastern Greek presence which extended over a century, from the end of the seventh century to the end of the sixth.

Greek material in Huelva

Huelva seems to have been singled out as the focus of Greek interest in south-western Iberia. From the end of the seventh century onwards Greek pottery is found across a whole range of Phoenician sites in the region, but nowhere in the same quantity or variety of types as we find in Huelva itself. It is clear that the settlement was the focus of Greek activity in Iberia for a whole century, the goal of the Greek merchants and sailors reaching Iberia. The Greek materials in Huelva are represented by a mixture of high-quality items and mass-produced items of mediocre quality, the latter heavily outnumbering the former.21 The better-quality items were clearly designed to be gifts, offered as a means of establishing good relations with the ruling élite of Huelva. The vast bulk of pottery from Huelva and elsewhere in Iberia is made up of items from eastern Greece, Samos and the north Ionian coast, of which the majority seem to be cups, items whose shape made them easy to transport. Amphorae are less well represented, but it has been established that some 76% of those reaching Huelva belong to types conventionally attributed to the transport of olive oil.22 Greek olive oil was obviously an enticing and attractive product to both the local and Phoenician population, as the SOStype amphorae, which are found across a whole range of Phoenician sites, testify. This is interesting given what we know of Phoenician production and trade in Iberia. Since this seems to have focussed heavily on wine production, perhaps the Greek olive oil filled a

gap in the market, elsewhere saturated by wine of Phoenician origin?23 The number of Greek imports reaching Huelva undergoes a series of waves. From the end of the seventh century to 560 there is a steady increase in the levels of Greek pottery reaching the site, with a dramatic jump visible in the period from 590/580 onwards. However after 560 the number of Greek imports starts to decline, dropping to a trickle which comes to a complete end at the close of the sixth century. As the number of Greek imports drops so too does their quality, and their composition also changes, with the level of eastern Greek materials steadily declining until they are finally replaced by Attic and western Greek imports.24 The gradual loss of eastern Greek materials from the mid-sixth century onwards is undoubtedly due to political events in Ionia, with the conquest of the region by the Persians, the capture of Phocaea and the westward migration of its population. But Phocaean interest in Huelva was already in decline from 560/540, before the city fell, and before the defeat of the Phocaeans at Alalia in Corsica, at the hands of the Etruscans and Carthaginians. The situation in Huelva is echoed also in Málaga where from 530 onwards Greek imports decline drastically, and eastern Greek materials disappear, to be replaced by Attic pottery.25 The reason may be simple and due not to major political and military events in the east but to economic factors in southern Iberia itself: that is, a reduction in the production of silver in south-western Iberia, due to the exhaustion of easily accessible surface deposits. If, as seems clear, the level of silver produced in Rio Tinto and elsewhere started to drop from the mid-sixth century onwards, then it was simply not worth the while of Greek traders to make the long journey to the south, when they could gain access to the rich silver mines of south-eastern Iberia, in the Cástulo region, far more easily from their new base at the significantly-named Phocaean colony of Emporion in northern Spain, which was founded c. 600. From that date onwards Greek materials are concentrated in the Segura and Vinalopo valleys, the route to the silver of the interior, and close to what was to become the great mining centre of Carthago Nova, Cartagena.26 The traditional attribution, therefore, of the disappearance of the Greeks from southern Iberia as being the result of the closing of the Straits to them by the hostile Phoenicians in the wake of the battle of Alalia, may give way to the more prosaic situation of a fall in the metal production of the south-west which made this region no longer attractive to the now definitively western Phocaeans of Emporion and Massalia.

THE SIXTH CENTURY

Crisis in the silver trade

It is clear that the second half of the sixth century brings with it a profound crisis in the previously flourishing silver production industry across a whole range of sites. In Huelva there are clear signs of the decline in the production of silver from the second half of the sixth century, a decline which is significantly associated with a drop in the number of Greek imports. This decline is accompanied by an end to building activity at the settlement, along with a reduction in the amount of urban space occupied, both indications of a drop in population there.27 Burials at the ostentatiously wealthy cemetery of La Joya also cease at this time. The reason for this economic crisis in Huelva seems almost certainly due to the drop in the production of silver in the sites controlled by it in the Rio Tinto region. The whole network of metal-production sites which were built up in the eighth and seventh centuries enters into crisis in the sixth. This sees the abandonment of some sites whose raison d’être seems to have been silver production, as is the case of Peñalosa and San Bartolomé de Almonte, at the end of the sixth century. Others, such as Tejada la Vieja fare better, but even here it is clear that the second half of the sixth century is a time of instability and apparent insecurity. It is now that the fortifications of the city are reinforced, with the strengthening of the city wall.28 At the same time the economy of the settlement moves away from a concentration on the metal trade to a more diversified approach, with an emphasis on agriculture and herding.29 Metallurgical production decreases and gradually draws to a close, with signs that the minerals being exploited are now far poorer than those in the initial period of occupation of the settlement.30 Tejada manages to survive the crisis that brought Tartessian society to a close, but it never recovered its previous prosperity and it was abandoned at the beginning of the fourth century.

Internal factors

It is, therefore, clear that the complex chain of production, transport and processing sites which channeled the silver from the mineral-rich areas of the interior to the port of Huelva broke down irrevocably in the latter part of the sixth century. The traditional view has been that the cause lay in the exhaustion of the more easily accessible surface deposits of the mineral. The mineral resources of the pyrite belt were not totally exhausted by their intense exploitation during the orientalizing phase, as they were also extensively worked during the Roman period. In fact, even in the sixth century with the decline of the silver-trade, not all of the metallurgical sites of this region were aban-

–

CRISIS OR TRANSITION ?

163

doned. In some, for instance Tharsis and Aznalcóllar, production continues down to at least the fifth century, but at a very much reduced level.31 Therefore it is possible that the death of the silver-trade was due not only to internal factors, the possible exhaustion of the more easily accessible surface deposits of the mineral, but also to a break in the chain of external demand, with a loss of interest in the eastern Mediterranean for the silver resources of the extreme west.

External factors: the Assyrians

This brings us to an analysis of the political and economic situation of the eastern Mediterranean, and the implications of that for the Iberian peninsula. From the previous chapters it is clear that the Phoenicians were attracted to Iberia and singled it out for settlement because of the resources which it offered, both mineral and agricultural: these could be used both to sustain the colonial society and to send back to the eastern Mediterranean to feed their own economy and meet the Assyrian demands for tribute. Assyrian pressure on the Phoenician cities has often been viewed as the cause of the Phoenician expansionary movement. It was therefore an effort to provide raw materials, particularly metals, to pay the heavy demands for tribute by the Neo-Assyrian empire that brought the Phoenicians to the West, and may well have guaranteed their survival.32 The Assyrians were particularly interested in silver, which from the eighth century was used as a standard against which the value of all other goods was measured, and by the seventh century silver designated for currency was clearly distinguishable from that used for manufacture in Assyrian records.33 In this respect Iberia was ideal as a source for silver, and the evidence in the eastern Mediterranean shows the accumulation of the metal on a large scale by the Assyrians. Frankenstein points out that, from a situation of extreme scarcity of silver in the ninth and early eighth centuries, silver becomes increasingly available from the eighth century onwards in Assyria, so much so that by the end of the seventh century the Assyrians were over-supplied and the value of silver there plummeted.34 Hence a decline in the demand for silver by Assyria may have contributed to the end of the silver trade in south-west Iberia, and may also explain the increasingly severe treatment meted out to the Phoenician cities in the seventh century by Assyria.

Carthaginians in Iberia and the fall of Tyre

Another important event in the eastern Mediterranean is often cited as a major contributing factor to the

164

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

reconfiguration of the Phoenician colonial sphere in the Far West: that is the fall of Tyre to the neoBabylonian empire in 572 after a thirteen-year siege.35 Although archaeological evidence points to the heterogeneity of the Phoenician identity, the literary tradition, both classical and biblical, attributes the Phoenician colonial endeavour to the work of Tyre, and the wealth of the city of Tyre is memorably celebrated by Ezekiel.36 Therefore, according to many scholars, the fate of Tyre could have had grave repercussions throughout the Phoenician colonial sphere, and the effects of this event have frequently been interpreted as marking the end of Tyrian control over its colonial foundations in the western Mediterranean; it may also have allowed the emergence of its greatest colony, Carthage, as the hegemon of the Phoenician settlements in the central and western Mediterranean.37 However, unlike the capture of Jerusalem, which involved the sack of the city, the murder of the royal family and mutilation of the king, as well as the deportation of its population, Tyre seems to have escaped relatively lightly, as even Ezekiel is forced to admit.38 The terms of submission were the imposition of a new dynasty and a Babylonian governor in the city. As Alvar points out, ‘it was not a case of the destruction of a city, but rather the imposition of a new set of alliances and dependencies which had as their objective the acquisition of the profits generated by Phoenician trading activity . . . Therefore, the intention of the Babylonians was not to finish Tyre off, but to participate in the profits generated by its economy.’39

The role of Carthage

The other major external factor assigned to account for the multiple changes in settlement pattern and economic activities in Iberia is often linked to the ‘fall’ of Tyre to the Babylonians: that is, the emergence of Carthage as an international power and, more particularly, as the dominant force over the Phoenician settlements in Iberia.40 Thus, taking advantage of the weakness of the metropolis and the breaking of ties between Tyre and the western colonies as a result of its conquest by the Babylonians, Carthage stepped in and assumed hegemony over the Phoenician sites in Sicily, Sardinia and Iberia. In Iberia a military conquest enabled the Carthaginians to block the crossing of the Straits to any other Mediterranean states, allowing them to monopolize access to the resources and trade routes of the region, which they maintained under rigid control until the Roman conquest.41 However the view of a direct Carthaginian conquest of Iberia, or at least that part of it occupied by the Phoenician settle-

ments, during the sixth century, has increasingly become the target of criticism.42 Based on the analysis of Carthaginian imperialism given by Whittaker, many authors argue that the nature of Carthaginian foreign power aimed at political hegemony, rather than military conquest and the direct occupation of extensive tracts of territory in the central and western Mediterranean. According to this view, Carthage from the sixth century onwards behaved far more like fifthcentury Athens towards its allies in the Delian League than as a great expansionary imperial power. With a shortage of agricultural land and resources at home in the period prior to the conquest of an African chora in the fifth century, Carthage looked to international trade as a means of finding those resources which it lacked at home. To safeguard and increase its trade Carthage formed a whole series of alliances with the Phoenician settlements of Iberia and the central Mediterranean. These alliances, while originally designed to benefit both sides, gradually came to favour Carthage because of its greater maritime and political power, allowing it eventually to control the foreign policy of its allies, to speak in their name in international negotiations, and to manipulate them for the greater economic benefit of Carthage.43 In the case of Iberia, Carthage seems to have been able to control access to the resources of the Peninsula, metals, silver, iron and tin, fish-sauce and agricultural products, by means of alliances with the Iberian and Phoenician settlements.44 It did not establish new settlements of its own in the pre-Barcid period, relying on the preexisting Phoenician sites which were allied to it, and some of which seem to have attracted a substantial level of Carthaginian settlers (Ibiza, Villaricos and Almuñécar).45 The presence of typically Carthaginian materials in Iberia is relatively limited before the end of the fifth century, but it seems that Carthaginian interest in Iberia intensified from then on, as the reference to Iberia in the Roman-Carthaginian treaty of 348 attests. However it was not until the late third century in the wake of the defeat of Carthage in the First Punic War that the direct conquest of Iberia was felt to be necessary. Thus, if this view is correct, in the absence of a massive Carthaginian presence in Iberia before the Barcid period, then the changes visible in so many aspects of Phoenician life there are unlikely to be a direct response to the influence of Carthage.46

Settlement change in the Iberian peninsula in the sixth century

We have looked at some of the changes that took place in the sixth century in terms of the arrival of new peoples, as well as the major political events in the

THE SIXTH CENTURY

eastern Mediterranean and their possible repercussions in Iberia. None of these have been found adequate to account wholly for the myriad of changes observable in the Phoenician settlements in Iberia during this period. But what exactly were these changes, and can we identify some possible causes for them? The most striking change which takes place in the sixth century is a reconfiguration of the Phoenician population of Iberia and associated regions in north Africa, with the abandonment of what appear to have been previously thriving foundations across the whole colonial area, and the establishment of new settlements (Fig. 6.2). Thus, starting in the core area of Phoenician settlement in Iberia, the Atlantic and Mediterranean coastlines of southern Spain, we see the abandonment of the following sites: in the province of Málaga, at Cerro del Villar, a peaceful and apparently organised abandonment of the site took place in the first quarter of the sixth century, or around 570.47 Toscanos with its associated sites of Cerro del Peñón and Alarcón was abandoned at the start of the sixth century. In Almería the settlement at Adra, the Abdera of the classical authors, shows a hiatus corresponding to the period

–

CRISIS OR TRANSITION ?

165

between the second half of the sixth and the fifth century, when occupation of the site apparently resumes.48 A further hiatus is recognisable at Cabecico de Parra, where the site seems to have been abandoned during the sixth and fifth centuries, only to be reoccupied during the fourth. Further north along the Spanish coast, the site of El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño in Alicante was abandoned, in an apparently peaceful and organised manner, around the second half, or possibly towards the end, of the seventh century. The population may well have taken refuge at the nearby site of La Fonteta de Guardamar, where a fortification wall was hurriedly built at around this time, complete with a defensive ditch in front of the wall, designed to provide additional protection for the settlement.49 The whole defensive complex belongs to La Fonteta IV, dated to c. 635/25. Also at this time the area of the settlement outside the walls was abandoned, with the population taking refuge inside the defended area. The wall seems to have been built quickly, leading to the abandonment of a flourishing metallurgical workshop, which was simply sealed and filled with stone and earth to provide a (not ideal) base for the wall. However, other pieces of evidence do not

Fig. 6.2 Phoenician and indigenous settlements in Mediterranean Andalusia during the Punic period (sixth–third centuries BC)

166

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

indicate a period of crisis, or a breakdown in relations with the local population. Not all the Phoenician population in the Segura region was sheltered safely behind the 7-metre thick defensive wall of La Fonteta. Some continued to live and work within the context of the neighbouring indigenous settlement of La Peña Negra, where the Phoenician community ran a thriving pottery-workshop supplying La Peña Negra and also La Fonteta. Also the settlement at La Fonteta continued to be occupied, with a substantial metalproducing aspect to its economy, for almost another century after the construction of the wall: its final abandonment did not take place until c. 545. Around the same time, La Peña Negra was also abandoned, amid signs of burning and destruction.50 La Fonteta did not long outlast its indigenous neighbour. We can only speculate that with the destruction of La Peña Negra, and the breakdown in the Atlantic Late Bronze Age metal trade, La Fonteta lost its chief raison d’être, and like so many other sites linked to the metal trade in southern Iberia, it was abandoned in the mid-sixth century.

Atlantic Iberia and north Africa

This process of reconfiguration of the settlement pattern can also be observed on the Atlantic coastlines of Iberia and North Africa. In the area of modern-day Portugal there are signs of insecurity and uncertainty, indicated by the building of fortifications in some sites and the abandonment of others. In Cerro da Rocha Branca in the Algarve, this period sees a reinforcement of the fortifications of the settlement, with the building of a new wall and the addition of projecting towers. The construction technique used is far more careless than that of the original wall, and the excavators have suggested that the area enclosed by the new fortifications was reduced. Although the site continued to be occupied until the Roman period, the sixth and fifth centuries show a drop in the level of imported materials, perhaps indicating a period of economic crisis.51 However despite this, the materials found in the settlement from the fourth and third centuries show that it never entirely lost contact with the area of Turdetania/Tartessos. In other parts of Portugal the sixth century brings with it more drastic changes. In Abul on the Sado river the settlement was abandoned in the early sixth century and was not reoccupied.52 A similar picture can be obtained from North Africa. Mogador, the most southerly Atlantic site occupied by the Phoenicians, was abandoned in the early sixth century.53 The same holds true of Rachgoun, another island site, located in Oranie, in western Algeria, which was abandoned at the end of the sixth

or early in the fifth century. Both Mogador and Rachgoun are special cases: both island sites, they have few natural resources and little to make human habitation attractive. Mogador seems never to have been occupied on a permanent basis; instead it was frequented by sailors and traders. Rachgoun seems to have been a strategic outpost with a military function, judging by the weapons in the graves. In both cases a change in external circumstances may have meant that their occupation was no longer necessary and led to their abandonment. It is chiefly this pattern of abandonment which we see throughout the sixth century in all the areas settled by the Phoenicians that has given rise to the term ‘crisis’. In many cases the factors behind this abandonment are not clearly understood. For our best glimpse of this process once again it is the settlement of Toscanos in the Vélez valley in Málaga, a place which offers the clearest insight into the changes in settlement pattern during this period.

Crisis or reconfiguration? The evidence from the Vélez valley

We have already seen in Chapter One how the seventh century was a period of great prosperity for Toscanos, involving large-scale building activity, with the construction of Warehouse Building C, and the reorganisation of the central area of the settlement. It also saw the expansion of the site to occupy the outlying hills of Cerro del Peñón and Cerro del Alarcón, along with the construction of a harbour at Manganeto. But from the latter part of the seventh century onwards, there seems to have been an increasing concern for the security of the enclave, with the building of a number of structures linked to the defense of the settlement. These are, as we have seen, the large rectangular building occupying a commanding position on the summit of the Alarcón hill, which would have controlled access to Toscanos from a number of directions. Given the solid nature of its construction (with walls more than 1 m wide in places, and with additional reinforcements), it is unlikely to have been an ordinary domestic dwelling, and its excavators believed it to have served a strategic function, acting as a fort or outpost, guarding access to the site.54 The possible military functions of Alarcón were further strengthened by the building of a fortification wall linking the hill with the neighbouring hill of Cerro del Peñón, and also running towards the harbour of Toscanos. Thus the wall would have closed off access to the settlement at Toscanos from several directions. This structure had two separate phases of construction, with an earlier limestone wall built around 600, followed at least a decade

THE SIXTH CENTURY

later by a more carelessly built slate wall. The dates of the construction of the wall are significant, for they coincide with a major reorganisation of the central settlement area on the hill of Toscanos itself. The settlement was dominated by its large central warehouse which played a key role in the local economy, given the preponderance of large storage vessels over all other types of pottery, many of which were housed in this structure. However in Toscanos V, dated to the first few decades of the sixth century, Warehouse Building C was abandoned, probably as a result of fire, as were the adjoining luxury dwellings A and H, and also the simpler structures E, F and G. The whole area was levelled and a large scale reorganisation of this area was carried out, one which is difficult to understand given the thorough disturbance of the zone in both Roman and modern times. However it seems that the outlying parts of the settlement were also affected, as large-scale building activity in the area west of the centre of the settlement (the so-called ‘Quadermauerbereich’) also seems to date from this period. The excavator of Toscanos, Professor Niemeyer, believes that Toscanos V, with its major economic changes, seems to reflect a change in the social structure of the settlement.55 If this is true, then this change was not enough to save the settlement: it was abandoned at the end of Toscanos V, with reoccupation of the hill not taking place until the Roman imperial period. So what was going on in Toscanos? The increasing emphasis on, and evident preoccupation with, the settlement’s security, would lead us to believe that its inhabitants felt there was a threat to its security, and, judging by the layout of the defensive structures, this threat was believed to come from inland, the Vélez valley, rather than from the sea. It is tempting to relate the situation at Toscanos, for instance, with the few pieces of literary evidence which we have concerning the relationship of the Phoenicians with the Iberian population during this period – texts which point to a significant deterioration in the relationship between the two sides, and which we will discuss below. However, the abandonment of what had been the flourishing site of Toscanos need not be symptomatic of a crisis in the whole Phoenician population in Iberia. Even though Toscanos was abandoned at the start of the sixth century, there is no break in the continuity of settlement in the Vélez valley. Some 500 m to the north of Toscanos, for example, the cemetery of Jardin is located.56 This contained burials, both cremations and inhumations, which stretch from the sixth century down into the fourth, and it seems likely that at least the earliest of these burials overlap with the last years of settlement at Toscanos. The later burials probably served a community located on the other side of the

–

CRISIS OR TRANSITION ?

167

Vélez, on the hill of Cerro del Mar, thus following the standard Phoenician practice of using a river to separate the settlement from the necropolis. Here a settlement with a marked Punic influence existed from at least the fifth century down into the Roman imperial period.57 Therefore, despite the abandonment of Toscanos, the Phoenician population did not leave the Vélez valley: it merely moved across the river to Cerro del Mar. Toscanos may well have been abandoned because its economic activities, its trade and the mercantile functions centred around the warehouse, with some manufacturing and industrial activities, were no longer relevant in the changing economic circumstances of the sixth century. Certainly the functions of Cerro del Mar were different, centred on what was to be the dominant resource-production strategy among the Phoenician settlements from the sixth century onwards – that is, the production and export of fish-sauce.

The foundation of Málaga

The picture we get from Toscanos in the sixth century, of the abandonment of a settlement, and the movement of the population elsewhere, with a possible change in economic activities, is also reflected in the Guadalhorce valley, with the abandonment of Cerro del Villar around 570. The population may simply have shifted from the island site of El Villar to the mainland, where the Phoenician settlement of Malaka, the modern city of Málaga, was located only some 4 km west of the site.58 Malaka offered far greater potential for urban development than El Villar with its unstable island location and frequent flooding. Malaka by contrast was located on a large maritime bay, which provided it with a sheltered harbour and ideal conditions for shipping. It was also located close to two rivers, the Guadalmedina and the Guadalhorce. The latter is the largest river in the Costa del Sol region, and provides the site with easy access to the interior of Andalusia and the Guadalquivir valley, by means of the upland regions around Antequera and Ronda and the Genil depression. As we have seen, this may well be the overland route from Malaka to Tartessos recommended by Avienus, as an alternative to the crossing of the straits by sea during adverse weather conditions.59 The site was also located close to the north African coast and to the Straits of Gibraltar, while far enough away not to suffer from the adverse shipping conditions associated with the crossing from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic.60 In terms of communications, therefore, whether fluvial, overland and maritime, both with the interior and with adjoining regions of Iberia and North Africa,

168

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Malaka is by far the best situated Phoenician foundation on the Mediterranean coast of Andalusia. The first Phoenician population established itself at this favourable location at the very beginning of the sixth century. Here the settlement was divided into two parts right from the start, the acropolis or upper town on the Alcazaba hill occupying a total space of 1 hectare, and the lower town or port area centred around the San Agustín hill next to the ancient coastline, and which reached a maximum extension of some 16 hectares.61 In the succeeding centuries Malaka became a major port in contact with the Central Mediterranean and the Aegean, with a thriving commerce based on its salting and fish-sauce industries.62

The hinterland of Cádiz in the sixth century

This picture of continuity of population, if not always of settlement, among the Phoenicians in Iberia is confirmed by adjoining sites in the region. The neighbouring settlement of Morro de Mezquitilla continued to be occupied, and prosperous, down to the first century BC, and judging by the amphorae found at the site it, too, was active in the fish-sauce trade.63 Other sites also provide evidence of continuous development rather than hiatus or rupture. The best example of this comes from Castillo de Doña Blanca in Cádiz. Here, after a period of apparent economic instability in the sixth century, represented by a decline in construction standards and poorer quality ceramics,64 the settlement seems to have recovered in the fifth, with the building of a new casemate fortification wall, and a reorganization of the urbanism of the site. Certainly the settlement recovered and continued to prosper to the extent that by the third century it felt the need to expand, and occupied a point further up the eastern edge of the Sierra de San Cristóbal at Las Cumbres.65 Wine-production appears to have played a significant role in the economy of both Doña Blanca and Las Cumbres, with signs of wine production found at both settlements. In addition, the presence of numerous imported amphorae from the central Mediterranean and North Africa points to a continuous active trading role among the Phoenician population of this area: probably both sites were involved in the active trade in salted-fish products discussed below. It is, however, the study of the evolution of the pottery made at Doña Blanca from the sixth century onwards that illustrates the internal dynamic of the settlement. What is clear is that while the sixth century and the centuries that followed show important changes in the pottery production of the settlement, in terms of decoration and typology,66 many of the new forms which started appearing at this time

reflect an evolution from forms which already existed in the eighth and seventh centuries. In other words, as far as the pottery is concerned, what emerges is a picture of continuity rather than, say, the arrival of new people or, as Ruiz Mata says: ‘It is the same people, Tartessians and Phoenicians, acting on the same Tartessian territory . . . There are no reasons to see in them any other people.’67 If we accept the close link which existed between Castillo de Doña Blanca and Gadir, logical given the proximity of the two sites, then the continuous pottery sequence from Doña Blanca, stretching from the early eighth century down to the final abandonment of the settlement in the late third century, presents us with a picture, as the literary evidence tells us, of Gadir as an ally of Carthage. It is certainly in commercial contact with Carthage, and presumably also in political contact, but as far as the archaeological evidence is concerned there is absolutely no sign here of an intrusion of the Carthaginians in the sixth century or the centuries that follow.

Changing economic patterns: the rise of the fish-sauce trade

So the sixth century, rather than representing a hiatus or break in the pattern of settlement, reflects a reconfiguration of the urban pattern, with a change from the numerous small settlements of the previous two centuries to the appearance of larger settlements, such as Malaka, Sexi, Baria/Villaricos and Ibiza, which in time become truly urban in character. A similar pattern of consolidation is visible in the indigenous society of southern Iberia, which at this time was undergoing a process of change which was to lead it from its orientalizing phase to the emergence of the classical ‘Iberian’ culture. We have seen that the decline in the metal trade which had dominated the economy of both Phoenicians and Tartessians since the eighth century brought with it signs of economic recession, and social change. Those settlements most closely associated with the metal trade were either abandoned or had to find a new means of survival. Thus Tejada la Vieja changed from metallurgy to agricultural activities, and it seems that there was a general reorganization of the economy of the indigenous settlements of the region away from the old trading activities with the Phoenicians, centred on their metal resources, and back to a more traditional agricultural-based economy.68 This period also saw a change in the settlement pattern of the region, not just with the abandonment of the old minero-metallurgical settlements, but also with the consolidation of the population, which was now concentrated in the large fortified oppida, the appear-

THE SIXTH CENTURY

ance of which was the main characteristic of ‘Iberian’ culture throughout Mediterranean Iberia. In the southwest many of these oppida were existing settlements which took on a new importance, with the most powerful, such as Carmona, dominating an extensive territory, and subjugating other cities.69 Although we are ill-informed about the internal dynamics of indigenous society at the time, it is clear that the end of the metal trade must have brought with it drastic changes to a society whose economic activities had centred around metal-production and trade with the Phoenicians. We have a number of texts from the Classical authors referring to open hostilities between the inhabitants of the region and the Phoenicians. Macrobius and Justin, for instance, describe an attack by sea by the rex, Theron, on Gadir, an attack which is foiled by the timely intervention of Carthage.70 However, these texts raise far more problems than they solve, the main one being that they fail to provide a date for when these events purport to have taken place. There is therefore nothing to indicate that they occurred in the sixth century; in fact they could have taken place at any time between the foundation of Gadir and the arrival of the Barcids in Iberia.71 One thing, however, is clear in the dynamic of the relations between Phoenicians and Iberians during the sixth century: the crisis in the metal trade led to a reorientation of the contacts between both sides, with an apparent loss of intensity in the trading relations between them. Among the Phoenician cities there was a move away from the old patterns of commercial agriculture, oriented towards trade with the indigenous inhabitants who controlled access to the resources of the interior, both mineral and agricultural, to the production of the one resource directly under the control of the Phoenician population in their coastal enclaves: that is, fish-sauce. The production and export of fish-sauce was to become one of the great industries of the Phoenician cities in Iberia from its beginnings in the sixth and fifth centuries right down to the late Roman period, and in some cases beyond.72 We have already seen that fishing was an important industry in some of the Phoenician settlements from at least the seventh century onwards, and the origins of the production and trade in fish-sauce may well go back to this period. This is suggested above all by the presence of fish spines in a Phoenician amphora in the indigenous settlement of Acinippo in the mountainous interior of Andalusia, and also by the recent find in Cádiz of seventh-century R–1 amphorae associated with abundant fish remains, along with an amphora containing fish found in the possible market area of Cerro del Villar.73 But at this stage any production of fish-

–

CRISIS OR TRANSITION ?

169

products was designed to fulfil the needs of colonial society itself, or at best to act as a minor trade product: it was not yet felt necessary to create a specific amphora-form for them, as we find later on, and fishproducts were generally carried in the R–1 amphora, which was more usually associated with other products.74 In addition, although the volume of fishbones from the earliest levels at El Villar is very large, and points to an intense exploitation of fish resources right from the start of occupation there, the fish remains belong to small littoral species. It is not until the end of occupation at the site, at the beginning of the sixth century, that we see a change to the exploitation of the commercially valuable scombridae. This change in the species targeted, when combined with an almost industrial level of production of amphorae and large storage jars (the pithoi) at the site, points to a very probable beginning of the commercial fish-sauce industry at Cerro del Villar even at this early date.75 The large-scale production of salted-fish and fishsauce generally first took off at the end of the sixth century in the city of Cádiz and its immediate environs, and it was already fully established by the start of the fifth century, a fact corroborated by references to Iberian fish-sauce in fifth-century Greek authors.76 This was logical given the city’s Atlantic location, which provided it with ideal access to the rich fish resources of the region, in particular those of the Moroccan coastline, which are the origins of the ‘pescaito frito’ served in the bars and restaurants of modern Andalusia, and of course its proximity to the spawning routes of the tunny. The tunny and other members of the scombridae family migrate from the colder waters of the Atlantic into the Mediterranean in May and June, passing through the Straits, to return to the Atlantic once spawning is complete, at the end of June and during July.77 Cádiz was also ideally located to provide access to the other main raw material of fish-sauce, salt, available from the marshes in the mainland opposite the archipelago.78 The decision to exploit the abundant fish resources on a large scale was also logical for a people whose very name was a by-word for purple dye, the production of which, extracted from the murex trunculus or murex brindaris sea-snail, involved similar processes to the preservation and the processing of fish.79 By the start of the fifth century the fish-sauce industry in southern Spain seems to have been already fully established, with the appearance of the first factories in Cádiz and the nearby Puerto de Santa María, and the possibility that some at least of these were already operating at the end of the sixth.80 By this time the salted fish industry was clearly dedicated to producing its products in large quantities, and for

170

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

export. By the mid-fifth century Iberian salted fish was reaching the eastern Mediterranean, as the evidence from Corinth shows. Here excavations from the so-called ‘Punic Amphora Building’ found fragments of the characteristic fish-sauce amphora of Gadir and southern Spain, the Mañá-Pascual A–4a, in many cases still containing pieces of fish. Analysis of the clay of these vessels shows them to have come from either southern Atlantic Spain or the opposite region of northwestern Morocco, in other words either from Gadir itself or the area under its direct economic influence.81 Clearly, therefore, with the decline of the silver trade, the Phoenician cities had found another source of revenue, in the production of fish-products on a

large scale to trade in Iberia and throughout the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, a trade which was to continue to be lucrative throughout the Roman period.82 Taken as a whole, the sixth century, though a period of profound disruption and change, presented a series of challenges to the Phoenician population of Iberia, which on the whole they met and to which they adapted. Certainly they continued to be a distinctive and important presence in southern Iberia in the centuries to come, as the Romans found when they came to Iberia in the third century. As Strabo put it in the first century AD, ‘the Phoenicians . . . occupied the best of Iberia and Libya before the age of Homer, and continued to be masters of those regions until the Romans broke up their empire’.83

Appendix: Phoenician pottery – the Far Western sphere

Iron Age Phoenician pottery can be divided into two groups: bichrome and red slip. The bichrome group, consisting of red, black and white concentric circles, is the earliest, dating from c. 1200 to c. 850, while it is the red-slip group, dating from c. 850 to c. 550, which is found in the Phoenician colonies.1 The pottery repertory of the colonies shows some forms which are derived from the motherland (typically, the red-slip mushroom-lip and trefoil jugs and plate), and are found in all the regions occupied by the Phoenicians, while others are specific to the area where these enclaves were located, and develop as a result of contacts with the indigenous populations there. The most marked example of this is the so called grey ware found in Iberia and North Africa.2 However even the most common pottery forms found throughout the colonies show regional variations in their shape or in the application of the red slip. As we have already seen, the pottery of the extreme western Mediterranean and the Atlantic regions – Iberia, western Algeria and Morocco – has a number of forms found only very occasionally or not at all in Carthage and the colonies of the central Mediterranean. Some of these peculiarly western forms are derived from oriental prototypes which are little used in Phoenicia, while others are influenced by contacts with the indigenous society. A characteristically western production, and one which was found in large numbers in Phoenician and indigenous sites in this region, is the R–1 amphora, also known as the amphore à sac, or Schubart and Lindemanns’ Type 1 (Fig. 1.13). This is an oval-shaped amphora, some 60–70 cm in height, with a rounded or flat base, globular shoulders, and small thick handles, with a circular section, situated at the carination of the shoulder. The surface of the amphora is generally left untreated, but sometimes a white or yellow slip was added, covering the entire vessel. It is a form which derives from the Bronze Age Canaanite jar, with direct prototypes in Tyre from the eleventh century, and especially in the ninth century, when this type is very abundant there, and probably represented the model for that produced in such quantities in the Far West.3 It is only occasionally found in Carthage and the central Mediterranean where another type of amphora also derived from the Canaanite jar was common.4 Another large storage jar, the distribution of which was confined to Iberia and its associated regions, is the

pithos, so named because of its similarity to the Minoan form. This is a large jar, with an elongated oval body, and two or four small double circular handles which go from the rim of the jar to the upper part of the body. It has a short neck, in the shape of an inverted cone, and it is generally decorated with dark stripes and bands around the upper part of the body. This form is found at a number of sites in the east but is not common there, and it is also rare in the central Mediterranean (Fig. 7.1).5 Related to the pithos is the neck amphora or Cruz del Negro urn, named after the cemetery in southwestern Spain where it was found in large numbers (Fig. 7.2).6 This has a globular or oval body, with a flat base, two double handles, and a high carinated neck, with a pronounced mouth. Like the pithos, it is often decorated with painted bands and stripes on the body of the vessel. It probably derives from the Phoenician Iron Age neck-ridge jugs, but these only have one handle. The Cruz del Negro urn is another characteristically western form, found only occasionally in the central Mediterranean, and with marked differences to its western counterpart.7 All the above forms have their origin in the pottery of Phoenicia, but developed from forms which were little used there (the pithoi) or assumed specifically ‘western’ characteristics not found elsewhere (the Cruz del Negro urns and the R–1 amphorae). Another type of specifically western pottery displays the influence of indigenous Iberian wares, and such influence was behind the production of the grey ware found in large quantities in the Phoenician and orientalizing settlements in Iberia (Fig. 7.3). This grey ware was first recognised in the north-east of Spain, and was thought to have been introduced to Spain by Greeks from Phocaea. When it began to appear on many sites in southern Spain, both Phoenician and Iberian, it became clear that some of the grey ware was associated with the Phoenicians. Now we can distinguish two groups: that brought by the Phocaeans and distributed in north-eastern Spain in the sixth and fifth centuries; and that manufactured first in the Phoenician settlements and then subsequently in indigenous sites in southern Spain from the eighth century onwards.8 Grey ware was a popular product, since it is found in all Iberian sites with orientalizing levels as far as Portugal and North Africa, but it is not characteristic of pottery production

172

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

in the East.9 The hand-made Late Bronze Age pottery of south-western Iberia often included a grey to black coloured ware decorated with a burnish; the wheelmade productions applied this technique to oriental shapes, typically the plates and bowls which are otherwise associated with the red-slip fine table ware. These may have been produced for export to the Iberian settlements, but were also found in the Phoenician sites themselves, although, significantly, never in a funerary context. In this case it seems that the

Fig. 7.1 The pithos: (i) Chorreras (Málaga); (ii) Castillo de Doña Blanca (Cádiz); (iii) Rachgoun (Algeria); (iv) La Peña Negra (Alicante)

Phoenicians applied their more advanced manufacturing techniques to produce a type of pottery which would appeal to their indigenous ‘customers’ by offering a combination of new shape but familiar colour. Although the pottery of the far western Phoenician colonies is derived from that produced in the homeland, it quickly developed its own style. This can be clearly seen in the pottery from the earliest settlement levels at Morro de Mezquitilla and Castillo de Doña Blanca, the two oldest Phoenician settlements in Spain.

APPENDIX : PHOENICIAN POTTERY

Fig. 7.2 The Cruz del Negro urn: (i) Ibiza; (ii) Cortijo de las Sombras, Frigiliana (Málaga); (iii) Cruz del Negro, Carmona (Sevilla); (iv) Mogador (Morocco) Fig. 7.3 Grey ware: (i) Cerro del Prado (San Roque, Cádiz); (ii) La Peña Negra (Alicante); (iii) Cerro da Rocha Branca (Silves, Portugal); (iv) Huelva

–

THE FAR WESTERN SPHERE

173

174

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER AND RIVERS OF GOLD

Fig. 7.4 Samaria ware or Phoenician fine ware: (i) Morro de Mezquitilla (Málaga); (ii) Huelva

Fragments from at least two thin-walled, high-quality red-slip bowls known as Samaria ware, or Phoenician Fine Ware, were found in the oldest levels at Morro de Mezquitilla, and are also attested at strata V/IV and III/II of Tyre, dating to the second half of the eighth century (Fig. 7.4).10 At Castillo de Doña Blanca the Phoenician fine ware bowls are apparently even earlier than those at Morro de Mezquitilla, corresponding to Tyre strata VII–V, which dates to the first half of the eighth century.11 At Morro de Mezquitilla, the Samaria ware fragments are associated with several pottery forms which are of eastern origin, and do not survive in the pottery produced in the Phoenician colonies overseas.12 However, despite the presence of forms which indicate very close links with the Levant, the earliest pottery at Morro de Mezquitilla is already clearly ‘western’.13 As the pottery of the earliest levels of settlement in Iberia already displays some individual traits, this raises interesting questions about the dating of the first wave of Phoenician colonies in Iberia, and the lack of any secure archaeological evidence for the presence of colonists in Iberia before the eighth century. The fact that the pottery produced in Iberia and its associated regions in North Africa is free from any significant Carthaginian influence during the eighth and seventh centuries14 also leads to questions as to how this western sphere was organised and what precisely was the role of Cádiz.

Notes Notes to Chapter One 1. Velleius Paterculus I. 2. 3; Pliny, NH XVI. 40; XIX. 4. 63; Strabo III. 5. 5; Pomponius Mela III. 6. For a critical discussion of the traditional dating of the earliest Phoenician foundations provided by the literary evidence, see Bunnens 1979 and Wagner 1983. Our understanding of the dating of the Phoenician presence in Iberia may well dramatically change in the course of the next decades, given the divergent dates for this phenomenon provided by the calibrated radiocarbon-14 method of dating. The samples for Iberia, both from Phoenician settlements and indigenous sites associated with them, are collated by Aubet 2001, 372–81, and provide the biggest selection of radiometric dates currently available for Phoenician colonization anywhere in the Mediterranean. The resulting dates are hugely significant on two fronts. They point to the establishment of permanent Phoenician settlements in Iberia going back to the early to mid-ninth century BC. Morro de Mezquitilla, in the Algarrobo valley on the coast of Málaga, dated by conventional archaeological methods to the early eighth century, and regarded as the oldest Phoenician settlement in Iberia, has provided a sample from the first level of Phoenician occupation which, when calibrated, offers a date of (calibrated) BC 894–835. Similarly, the neighbouring site of Toscanos is dated by a sample from its earliest level of occupation to the very beginning of the eighth century (calibrated BC 795). These dates would imply that the Phoenicians first established themselves on the Mediterranean coast of Andalusia in the ninth century. But what is equally important is that the earlier dating provided for these two Phoenician settlements is confirmed by the sequence of dates offered by the indigenous settlements which entered into contact with the Phoenicians (Aubet 2001, 374–79). These again point to the arrival of the earliest Phoenician imports in sites such as Acinipo, located in the hinterland of the coastal colonies, to the ninth century. An equally early date is suggested by the samples from Phoenician settlements in the Tagus estuary and the Algarve. The divergence between the dates provided by the radiometric and conventional systems of dating would seem to support the view of those who have criticised the traditional methods of relative dating in what has been termed the ‘second radiocarbon revolution’ (James 1993; Renfrew and Bahn 1996, 122–38; Castro Lull and Micó 1996). This issue still has not been fully incorporated into the discussion of the Phoenician presence in Iberia where dating obtained by conventional archaeological methods is overwhelmingly used. For reasons of con-

2. 3. 4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

venience, therefore, and unless otherwise indicated, the dates given here are those derived from conventional archaeological methods. All dates in the text are BC. Aubet 1987. For references to Cádiz, see below Chapter Three, pp. 83–5. Claims not to be exhaustive: Strabo III. 3. 3; Pliny, NH III. 3. 28. Strabo correctly identifies as Phoenician foundations Malaka, Sexi and Abdera – the modern Málaga (III. 4. 2) Almuñécar (III. 5. 5) and Adra (III. 4. 3) (Wulff 1996). The ancient texts provide us with a general confirmation that southern Spain was settled by the Phoenicians: ‘the Phoenicians . . . occupied the best of Iberia and Libya . . . and continued to be masters of those regions until the Romans broke up their empire’ (Strabo III. 2. 14), and ‘these people (sc. the Iberians) became so utterly subject to the Phoenicians that the greater number of the cities in Turdetania (sc. Tartessos, south-western Iberia) and of the neighbouring places are now inhabited by the Phoenicians’ (III. 2. 13). Avienus, in his Ora Maritima, stresses that the coastal region around Málaga was crowded with Phoenicians in former times: ‘In the past, numerous cities were built on this coastline and many Phoenicians occupied these places previously. Now the deserted land extends its inhospitable sands, and the fields doze and sleep, devoid of cultivators’ (Ora Maritima, 438–43). The foundation of Ibiza is mentioned (Diodorus V. 16), but Phoenician settlement in Portugal is completely ignored, presumably because these sites had long since vanished. For a full list of all references to Spain in the classical authors, see Schulten 1922–52. The sites of Cádiz and Castillo de Doña Blanca, both settled in the eighth century, are discussed in detail in Chapter Three, pp. 83–104. Schubart 1979; 1983. As we have seen, some C-14 analyses were carried out which, when calibrated, produced dates of 894/835 for the oldest level of Phoenician occupation, and dates of 1429/1411 (probably reflecting the pre-Phoenician occupation of the site) and 786 for an area conventionally dated to the first half of the eighth century. If accepted, these dates push the initial occupation of the site back into the ninth century. For ancient references to sks, see Pellicer 1986b and Pastor 1983. The toponym Seks seems to be identical with that of Suks(u), attested in the Levant from the middle of the second millennium BC and preserved in the name of Tell Sukas in Syria. On this basis, Lipinski

176

9. 10.

11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

NOTES TO PAGES 12–26 has suggested that the town of Seks in Granada could have been founded by emigrants from Suks(u) (Lipinski 1984, 118–19). Pellicer 1962. Negueruela 1985, 204; Negueruela 1981. The chronology of the imported kotylai has also been modified by Shefton, who identified the pieces as products of Pithekoussai, dating from the late eighth and first half of the seventh centuries (Shefton 1982). Pellicer 1964b; Molina Fajardo 1983; Molina Fajardo 1984a; Molina Fajardo and Bannour 2000. Schubart, Niemeyer and Pellicer 1969a; Schubart, Niemeyer and Pellicer 1969b; Schubart 1976; Molina Fajardo 1986, 198. Molina Fajardo and Bannour 2000, 1645. Arteaga et al. 1988, 117–20. Gran 1981; Aubet 1974; Aubet, Maass-Lindemann and Schubart 1975; Maass-Lindemann 1983. Hoffmann 1986; Schubart 1987; Schubart 1988b. For a fuller discussion of this site and the contacts between Phoenicians and Iberians, see Chapter Four, p. 121. Schulten 1928, 575; see also Niemeyer 1979–80 and 1980b. For the harbour bay of Toscanos at Manganeto to the north of the site, see Arteaga, 1982a and 1988; for the warehouse, Niemeyer 1982a. Niemeyer, Briese and Bahnehmann 1988b; Niemeyer 1986a. For a full discussion of the metallurgical activities at the site, see Chapter Five, pp. 135–6. Schubart 1988a; Schubart 2000. Fernández Miranda and Caballero 1975. Suárez et al. 1989; López Castro et al. 1991. González Prats 1998; González Prats 1991; González Prats, Ruiz Segura and García Menarguez 1999; González Prats and Ruiz Segura 2000; González Prats and García Menarguez 2000. The economic and commercial activities of La Fonteta are discussed in Chapter Four, pp. 27–8 and 118. González Prats 1998, 197–8. For Linares, see Blázquez 1986. González Prats 1998, 207. For Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño, see García Menárguez 1994 and 1995; González Prats and García Menarguez 2000. González Prats and García Menarguez 2000, 1530. González Prats and García Menarguez 2000, 1532. González Prats 1998, 205 and 207. González Prats 1998, 206–7. Aubet and Carulla 1986. Aubet 1993a, 474. Aubet 1992a, 76. Aubet 1988, 246. For Málaga see Gran 1991. We find similar deviations from the right angle in Chorreras, but there it is caused by the presence of a road or pathway running between the buildings. Schubart 1985, 148–51. Schubart 1986, 63; Schubart 1985, 148; Schubart 1999; Mansel 2000a.

40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.

59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

Keesmann and Hellermann 1989, 106–08. Schubart 1986, 63; Schubart 1985, 148. Aubet 1986c, 18. Aubet, Maass-Lindemann and Schubart 1979, 100–02; Aubet, Maass-Lindemann and Schubart 1975, 146. Aubet, Maass-Lindemann and Schubart 1975, 144. Aubet, Maass-Lindemann and Schubart 1979, 102. Niemeyer 1990, 480; Niemeyer and Schubart 1968, 80. Niemeyer 1982b, 110. Schubart and Maass-Lindemann 1984, 57–8 and 61. Niemeyer 1990, 480. Aubet 1993b, 259. Niemeyer 1990, 483; Schubart, Niemeyer and Lindemann 1972, 17–18; Niemeyer 1979, 228–29. Yadin 1972; for Motya, see Isserlin 1982, 116–117 and Tusa et al. 1972, 79. Aubet 1983, 818–9; Niemeyer 1986b, 113. Aubet 1983, 823–4; Aubet 1986c, 18; Aubet 1995, 50. See the changes in orientation and function in the ground plan of the seventh century sites as compared to that of the eighth century (Schubart 1985, 150–3; Arteaga 1987, 219–20). Niemeyer 1982b, 112; Niemeyer and Schubart 1968, 81–2. Isserlin 1982, 115–16; Isserlin and du Plat Taylor 1974, 91. García y Bellido, Schubart and Niemeyer 1971, 153; Yadin 1972, 167–9. Tripartite structures, sometimes called bit hilani, have also been found in Tell Abu Hawam, Beth Shemesh, Lachish, Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell el Kheleifeh, Megiddo and Beersheba. For full bibliographical references, see Warning-Treumann 1978, 25. Aubet 1993b, 261. Aubet 1993b, 263; Niemeyer 1990, 482. Niemeyer 1990, 483; Niemeyer 1982b, 111. Schubart 1986, 66–7; Schubart 1997, 24. Schubart 1986, 67. Arteaga 1987, 220; a similar urban design to that at Morro de Mezquitilla has been observed at the Phoenician site of Cerro del Villar (Aubet 1992a, 74). Aubet 1997a, 200. Schubart, Niemeyer and Pellicer 1969a, 11–21. Niemeyer and Schubart 1965, 74; Niemeyer and Schubart 1970, 96–101. Niemeyer, Briese and Bahnemann 1988b, 155. Niemeyer, Briese and Bahnemann 1988b; Niemeyer 1979, 247. Niemeyer, Briese and Bahnemann 1988b, 158–163; Niemeyer, 1986a. Keesmann 1988, 171. Niemeyer, Briese and Bahnemann 1988b, 164–70. Maass-Lindemann 1988. Niemeyer and Schubart 1968, 92–4. Schubart, Niemeyer and Lindemann 1972, 29–30; Schubart 1988a, 177. Schubart 1988a, 180–1; Schubart 2000. Schubart 1988a, 182 and 188. Schubart 1988a, 188. Schubart 1988a, 188.

NOTES TO PAGES 26–32 For Castillo de Doña Blanca, see Chapter Three, pp. 93–104; for Guardamar, El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño and the Phoenician sites in Portugal, see pp. 27–30 and 35–42. 81. For Gadir, see Chapter Three, pp. 83–93. 82. Pellicer, Menanteau and Rouillard 1973; Urreich et al. 1990; Rouillard 1978. The site was completely destroyed by the installation of a butane gas depot there. 83. See Chapter Three, p. 131. 84. For a full bibliography, see Martín Ruiz 1995, 256. 85. Aubet 1986b. 86. Alcaraz 1988; Alcaraz 1989. 87. Some of these ores were worked in the Phoenician period, as silver slag was found in the oldest tombs at Villaricos dating to the seventh century (López Castro 1995, 38). 88. López Castro, San Martin and Escoriza 1987–88. 89. Arteaga et al. 1985, 118–19. 90. Osuna and Remesal 1981. Three red-slip plates found among the grave goods can be dated to the eighth century BC. 91. Elayi, González Prats and Ruiz Segura 1998. The name MLQRTYSP means ‘Melqart has added’, in this case probably a son to the family (the bearer of the name), or some other supplementary gift. The name fits in well with Melqart’s benevolent nature, and he is elsewhere invoked to ensure the birth of children to a family. For Melqart, see Chapter Three, pp. 86–8. 92. González Prats, Ruiz Segura and García Menarguez 1999, 274–6; a height of 10 m is estimated for the fortification in González and Ruiz Segura 2000, 42. 93. Ramón 1996, 73. 94. For a discussion of the typical pottery types in Iberia, Morocco and Algeria, see pp. 171–4. 95. González Prats 1999, 118. 96. González Prats and García Menarguez 2000, 1531–2. 97. For a bibliography and full discussion of La Peña Negra, see Chapter Four. There is a large bibliography for Los Saladares, but most of it is contained in Arteaga 1982b. For El Castellar de Librilla, see Ros Sala 1991 and Ros Sala 1993. For El Monastil and La Sierra de Camara, see Poveda 1994. 98. Aubet 2001, 339; Poveda 1994. González Prats 2000 points out that a Phoenician trade route along the Vinalopó river can be traced by the presence of potter’s marks from pottery made in the Phoenician enoikismos at La Peña Negra and found in El Monastil and La Sierra de Camara, as well as an ivory pyxis from El Monastil. 99. González Prats and Ruiz-Gálvez Priego 1989. 100. González Prats 1992; González Prats 1993a; Blasco 1993, 161–2. 101. Ruiz-Gálvez 1998, 254–5. The workshop also contained the burial of an infant in the southern corner, and that of a decapitated goat or sheep in the northern corner. 102. González Prats 1992, 246. For a discussion of Atlantic Late Bronze Age metal production, see pp. 35–6. 80.

103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111.

112. 113. 114.

115.

177

Coffyn 1985, 199. Ruiz-Gálvez 1998, 255–57; González Prats 1992, 253. González Prats 1983, 15. González Prats 1993b, 147; González Prats 1982, 1986 and 1991. González Prats 1998, 210. For relations between Iberia and Sardinia, see Giardino 1992. Ruiz-Gálvez 1997, 98. For contacts between Cyprus and Sardinia, see Lo Schiavo, MacNamara and Vagnetti 1985; Knapp 1990; and Sherratt and Sherratt 1991. Ridgway and Serra Ridgway 1992. The Nuragic site of Sant’Imbenia, on the NW of the island, has revealed, along with abundant Phoenician pottery, two hoards of bronze ingots, packed into amphoras of Phoenician type, one imported and one locally made. Associated with these hoards, fragments of Euboean pottery were found, including a skyphos with pendent semi-circles. The pendant semi-circle skyphos from Sant’Imbenia belongs to Kearsley’s Type 5, dating to the late ninth and early eighth centuries BC, and represents the oldest Greek import in Sardinia after the Mycenaean period. It may well be the oldest Greek vase in the west, as Ridgway (1995, 80) points out. What is interesting is that the evidence from Sant’Imbenia adds to the picture of active Phoenician involvement in the Atlantic Bronze Age trading system (here in Sardinia in the late ninth or early eighth century BC) parallel to their similar involvement in the Iberian end of the system, in the Mediterranean at La Peña Negra and in the Portuguese sites in the Atlantic. The earlier date provided by Sant’ Imbenia provides further evidence that their involvement in this trade circle may have started in the central Mediterranean and gradually moved west. For Sant’ Imbenia, see Bafico et al. 1997 and Ridgway 1995. My thanks to David Ridgway for informing me of the site and for his encouragement and interest. It is interesting that Docter’s analysis of the amphorae from Carthage has allowed him to identify a curious, partially wheel-made and partially hand-made class of amphora, very frequent in the earliest levels of Carthage down to the mid-seventh century. Originally thought to be central Italian in origin, these amphorae have proved to come directly from Sant’Imbenia (Docter 1999, 93; Docter 2000). The presence of these amphorae in Carthage provides us with another link between the Nuraghic world and the Phoenicians. Ruiz-Gálvez 1997, 105. Ruiz-Gálvez 1997, 100–02. Aubet 2001, 341; Roldán, Miñano and Martín Camino 1991. The ivory took the form of thirteen elephant tusks, bearing Phoenician inscriptions. The inscriptions were dated to the fifth century BC, on epigraphical grounds, however, such a date does not fit the archaeological materials: see in general, Martín Camino 1994, 295–7. Roldán et al. 1994; Negueruela et al. 2000.

178

NOTES TO PAGES 32–35

116. Negueruela et al. 2000, 1672. 117. The island of Ibiza was the last stop on the so-called island route from Tyre to Gadir, which starts with Cyprus and continues through Asia Minor, the Ionic sea, Sicily, the Spanish Levant and the Straits of Gibraltar, following the current which in these regions runs from east to west. The return journey from Gadir to Phoenicia would generally have followed the southern route along the north African coast, where the current went from west to east. The existence of these routes helps to explain the proliferation of Phoenician objects and sites in the areas along the island route, and also the relative scarcity of Carthaginian objects in Iberia during the pre-Punic period, as Carthage was reached on the return route from Spain to Tyre (Aubet 2001, 182–7; Picard 1982). 118. Ramón 1991 and 1999; Schulz 1993 and 1997. 119. Some Bronze Age remains were found at Cala Jondal, as were fragments of R–1 amphorae, indicating that it had been in use in the pre-Phoenician period and also in the earliest years of the Phoenician occupation of the island (Maass-Lindemann 1997, 47; Maass-Lindemann 1994, 170). 120. Out of the wheel-made pottery from the site, a total of 84.67%, 86.03% consisted of R-1 amphorae (Ramón 1999, 152). 121. Diodorus 5. 16: ‘There comes first an island called Pityussa . . . it has a city named Eresus, a colony of the Carthaginians. And it also possesses excellent harbours, huge walls and a multitude of well-constructed houses. Its inhabitants consist of barbarians of every nationality, but Phoenicians preponderate. The date of the founding of the colony falls 160 years after the settlement of Carthage.’ Timaeus dates the foundation of Carthage to 814 BC and this is probably the source Diodorus is using here. Ibiza (Ebusus) is a Semitic toponym, the Phoenician/Punic ‘ybsm, or ‘island of the balsam tree’. 122. For these burials, see Chapter Two, pp. 76–8: Gómez Bellard 1990 and 1995; Ramón 1996. 123. Gómez Bellard 1991. 124. Ramón 1994, 361–2. 125. Ramón 1994, 362 and 365. 126. Gómez Bellard 1993a; Ramón 1994; Schulz 1993 and 1997; Maass-Lindemann 1994 and 1997. 127. González Prats 1998, 204–5; Ramón 1996, 71–74: Ramón 1999, 150. 128. Sanmartí 1991, 122; Arteaga, Padró and Sanmartí 1986. 129. The R–1 amphora is a peculiarly western product, characteristic of the Phoenician sites in Iberia and associated regions, found in large quantities in native and colonial contexts there, and only sporadically in the Central Mediterranean. See Appendix and Chapter Four (pp. 116–18 and 171) for a discussion and bibliography of this pottery type. The contents of these amphorae were enticing to the inhabitants, of Iberia as wine and oil were introduced to the Peninsula by the Phoenicians, or at the very least their cultivation was enormously stimulated through Phoenician influence.

130. González Prats 2000. 131. The only exception to this is one Mañá A1 amphora, a type typical of the early production at Ibiza (Mascort, Sanmartí and Santacana 1991, 1076). Aldovesta is clearly indigenous in that all the domestic pottery consists of local hand-made wares, but the Phoenician influence is obvious not just in the amphorae, but also in the building itself, which, as well as the usual oval ground-plan, contains several rectilinear rooms, something not previously found in the architecture of the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age. 132. In this respect they were following the pattern of behaviour ascribed to them by some of our sources; see Pseudo-Aristotle, On marvellous things heard, 135. 133. Arteaga, Padró and Sanmartí 1986, 312; Jully 1983, 806. 134. Bunnens 1986b. 135. Pellicer 1998. One of the major problems in evaluating the nature of the Phoenician presence in Portugal is that research on the topic is still in its infancy. In contrast to the Phoenician sites in Spain, which have been exhaustively researched and published, in Portugal most of the sites identified as Phoenician have been published only in the form of short initial reports, often based on sondages of very limited extent, given the difficulties involved in excavating in sites which are still occupied today. Unfortunately, in some cases, such as that of the strongly orientalizing cemetery of Senhor dos Mártires in the Sado estuary, excavations remain very poorly documented. In the case of Cerro da Rocha Branca in the Algarve even the dating of the published materials and the stratigraphy of the site have been called into question, as we will see. For all these reasons it is frequently difficult to distinguish between settlements which are predominantly Phoenician in character, and indigenous settlements which may have entered into contact with the Phoenicians. In general any site in Portugal with signs of being occupied before the appearance of Phoenician materials is classified as being an indigenous orientalizing settlement, an approach which if followed in Spain would make Almuñécar, for instance, an indigenous settlement. For this reason there is disagreement as to which of the many sites along the seaboard of Portugal, with Phoenician materials, constitute Phoenician settlements, with some scholars regarding Abul on the Sado river as the only true Phoenician foundation. It is perhaps no coincidence in this respect that Abul is the only site in Portugal with Phoenician materials to have been extensively excavated (with the exception of Santarém) with eight campaigns from 1990 to 1997, undertaken jointly by the French Archaeological Institute in Portugal and the Museu de Arqueologia e Etnografia do Distrito de Setúbal (Mayet and Tavares da Silva 2000). But even here the full extent of the settlement has not been excavated. However the situation is gradually improving, with the recent appearance of the important monograph by A. M. Arruda on the Phoenician presence in Portugal (Arruda 1999–2000).

NOTES TO PAGES 35–43 136. Starting with Hecateus of Miletus, who says that Cadiz is the ‘emporion which absorbs the tin of the Cassiterides and the silver of Tartessos’. According to Strabo, ‘the Artabrians . . . live in the farthest part of the north and west of Lusitania, the soil has silver, tin and white gold . . . the ten islands of the Cassiterides, situated to the north of the port of the Artabrians, have metals of tin and lead, which, along with skins, they change for ceramics, salt and bronze utensils which the Phoenician merchants of Gadir bring’ (Strabo III. 2. 9 and III. 5. 11). 137. Ruiz-Gálvez 1986. Argument continues over who was responsible for the expansion of the Atlantic Bronze Age exchange-system into the Mediterranean – its indigenous participants or the Phoenicians who were actively involved in Iberia and Sardinia from the start of the eighth century at the latest: see Ruiz-Gálvez 1986. 138. Frankenstein 1976 and 1997. 139. Belén and Chapa 1997, 79–80; Ferreira da Silva and Varela Gomes 1992, 129–64. 140. Arruda 1996; Correia 1996. 141. Correia 1995, 239; Varela Gomes 1993. This date, and the whole stratigraphy of the site has been called into question by A. Arruda, for whom the materials published by Varela Gomes cannot be earlier than the end of the sixth century (Arruda 1999–2000, 56). Unfortunately the site is now destroyed, so it will not be possible to clarify this important question. 142. Varela Gomes 1993, 101. 143. Garcia Pereira Maia 2000. 144. At Tavira the wall dates to the second half of the eighth century; it is still visible behind the remains of the Mediaeval city wall, accessible through the Pensâo Castelo on Rua de Libertade, the main street of Tavira. For Beirut, see Markoe 2000, 81; for Castillo de Doña Blanca, see Chapter Three, pp. 93–7. 145. I would like to thank Dr Maria Garcia Pereira Maia and Dr Manuel Maia for permitting me to work on the on-going excavations at Tavira in May 2003. To them and their foreman Senhor Ferro I owe a debt of gratitude. Among the finds from the excavations is a sherd with a grafitto on both sides, in Phoenician on one side, and in the Tartessian script on the other. The Phoenician inscription is the longest to be found so far in Iberia, and is still awaiting decipherment. 146. Mayet and Tavares da Silva 1993. 147. Mayet and Tavares da Silva 1993, 129–31. 148. Cavaleiro Paixão 1981; Aruda 1999–2000. 149. Mayet and Tavares da Silva 1993, 132; Mayet and Tavares da Silva 1996; Mayet, Tavares da Silva, and Makaroun, 2000; Schattner 1998, no. 216. 150. Mayet and Tavares da Silva 1993, 134. 151. Mayet and Tavares da Silva 1993, 135–8; Mayet, Tavares da Silva and Makaroun 2000, 850. 152. Mayet and Tavares da Silva 2001, 252–3. Some 40% of the red slip ware analysed from Abul A came Castillo de Doña Blanca and the grey ware from Abul A is again closest to Castillo de Doña Blanca (Mayet and

153. 154.

155. 156. 157.

158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165.

166. 167. 168. 169. 170.

179

Tavares da Silva 2000). The same picture of close links with Doña Blanca comes from the pottery at Tavira. Frankenstein 1976, 189. Frankenstein 1976, 186–9. In support of this theory, some evidence of metallurgical activity was found at Abul (Mayet and Tavares da Silva 1996, 56). Another resource offered by Alcácer do Sal was, as its name indicates, salt. This was vital in the preservation of fish, an industry in which the Phoenician sites of Iberia specialised from the fifth century BC onwards, and there are increasing signs of its presence in the seventh and sixth centuries BC as well. Mayet and Tavares da Silva 2001, 252. Mayet and Tavares da Silva 2001, 253–4. Mayet and Tavares da Silva 2000. Further occupation of the area around the shrine complex of Abul B is possible but has not yet been confirmed by excavations or survey. For Kommos, see Chapter Three, p. 86. It is interesting that a small altar was found, occupying the centre of the courtyard in the second phase of Abul A, and its excavators suggest that a similar altar may also have existed in the first phase of occupation at the site (Mayet and Tavares da Silva 2000), confirming the importance of religion for all periods of settlement at Abul. Pellicer 1998, 97; Cardoso 1996; Amaro 1993; de Barros, Cardoso and Sabroso 1993. Arruda 1993. A sample from the stratum where the earliest Phoenician pottery was found provided a calibrated C-14 date of 900/780. Aubet 1994, 253–4. For Aliseda and Cancho Roano, see Harrison 1988, 63–4 and 132–4. Correia 1993; Pereira 1993 and 1996; Arruda 2000. Correia 1995, 241. For Huelva, see Chapter Five, p. 147; for this type of construction technique generally, see Sharon 1987. For its occurence in Niebla, see Belen et al. 1993; for Carmona, see Chapter Four, p. 124. For a full account of Phoenician metallurgical techniques in Iberia, see Chapter Five, passim. Arruda 2000, 171–3. Pellicer 1998, 98. Correia 1993. For this fascinating question, see Hidalgo and de la Peña 2000. Diodorus V. 20. 1–2 (probable source: Timaeus): ‘The Phoenicians who, from ancient times, accomplished incessant navigations with a commercial objective, created numerous colonies in Libya and other places, not less numerous, in the regions of Europe situated near the west. Their projects having succeeded as they wished, they obtained great riches and wanted to navigate beyond the columns of Hercules on the sea that is called the Ocean. And first of all in the Straits themselves, which are near the Columns, they founded on the European side, a city which they called Gadeira (Cádiz).’ Strabo XVII. 3. 3: ‘From the same source [fables told about North Africa] is the tradition of

180

171. 172. 173.

174. 175.

176.

177. 178.

NOTES TO PAGES 43–46 former establishments of the Tyrians in the gulfs beyond this point [the Emporian Gulf – a point located to the south of Lixus] which are now deserted – not less than three hundred cities which the Pharousians and the Nigritans destroyed. These are situated, they say, at a distance of thirty days march from Lynx (Lixus).’ Strabo’s probable sources for this is Artemidorus who found the story in Eratosthenes (Strabo XVII. 3. 8). Strabo II. 3. 4 also tells the story of a certain Eudoxus of Cyzicus who, when sailing down the north African coast, was blown off course; landing beyond Ethiopia, he discovered a carved wooden prow in the shape of a horse, which the locals had recovered from a shipwreck. Returning to Egypt, he was told that it came from Cádiz. ‘In this town, while the rich sail in large ships, the poor sail in small boats which are called horses because of the figures sculpted on the prow. They use them to fish in the region of Lixus in Mauretania. Some of the captains recognised in this sculpted prow a ship which like many others had gone far beyond Lixus and never returned.’ For a full discussion of the burials at Rachgoun, see Chapter Two, pp. 78–9; Vuillemot 1955 and 1965. See pp. 171–4 for a full discussion of these pottery types. Picard 1982; Shefton 1982, 338–39; Johnston and Jones 1978, 120–21; Niemeyer 1984b. Aubet 1986a, 114–15. For the cremation burials at Ibiza and the Iron Age cemetery at Tyre, see Chapter Two, pp. 76–8. The archaic cremation cemetery at Motya also shares the same burial rite of cremation in urns set in shallow hollows in the ground. Hand-made pottery was found both at Rachgoun and Mersa Madakh, which Vuillemot compared with indigenous Iron Age Iberian pottery, but such pottery is found in small quantities in most of the Phoenician sites in Iberia, and may have been carried with them to north Africa in the much same way as Attic and East Greek pottery. The links between south-west Spain and North Africa were not instituted by the Phoenicians, as they had existed since the lower Palaeolithic, but from the eighth to the sixth centuries BC these contacts became more intense as a result of active Phoenician navigation both north and south of the Straits (Ponsich 1975). Lancel 1995b, 789; Vuillemot 1965, 131–55. Pliny NH XVI. 40 and XIX. 63; Velleius Paterculus I. 2. 3. It is interesting that these three sites, singled out by Classical authors as the first of the Phoenician colonial foundations in the West, all have a temple to Hercules, undoubtedly the Tyrian Melqart. For a full discussion of these texts and their historical value, see Chapter Three, pp. 83–4. Strabo (XVII. 3. 2) tells us: ‘On proceeding outside the Straits at the Pillars with Libya on the left, one comes to a mountain which the Greeks call Atlas . . . Nearby is a small town above the sea which the barbarians call Tinx, though Artemidorus has given it the name Lynx, and Eratosthenes Lixus. It is

179. 180. 181.

182. 183. 184.

185. 186.

187.

situated opposite Gadeira at a distance of 800 stadia, which is about the distance of each of the two places from the strait at the pillars.’ Aranegui et al. 1992, 9–10; Aubet 1994, 257. Maass-Lindemann 1992, 175–80; Habibi 1992. At both sites red-slip ware makes up the most common pottery type in the oldest levels of settlement, with very little polychrome ware, and no grey ware. In Lixus the plates have a red slip which covers not just the interior but also the exterior of the vessel. This is a feature which is not often found in pottery from the Phoenician sites east of the Straits, but is common in that from Doña Blanca. The mushroom-lip jugs at Lixus have ridges on the shoulder and a spherical body, a type which is close to its eastern prototypes, but very rare in the West, apart from Lixus and Castillo de Doña Blanca (Belén et al. 1996). For Castillo de Doña Blanca, see Chapter Three, pp. 93–4. Belén et al. 1996, 342. Other examples of island settlements are Motya, on the island of San Pantaleo, off the coast of Sicily, Cerro del Villar in Andalusia, and in the Atlantic, Cádiz. The most notable island city is, of course, Tyre. Jodin 1966. The fact that Mogador was not a fully functioning settlement meant that there was no pottery production carried out on the island, hence the inhabitants’ tendency to repair carefully broken items where possible, and sometime to improvise. Some of the lamps are crude hand-made versions of the more usual wheel-made, saucer-shaped lamps (López Pardo 1996). Mogador has also provided some 100 graffiti out of 5,000 Phoenician pottery fragments now in the Museum of Rabat. Most of these graffiti are very simple, just names or initials, and were probably used to indicate that a particular plate or amphora belonged to one individual. In other words, as Ruiz Cabrero and López Pardo (1996) suggest, the inhabitants of the island were not organised in family groups. Scylax, 112, in Müller 1882 I, 94. The Phoenicians generally tended to establish centres of worship for their divinities everywhere they went, and these may have also facilitated their commercial contacts with the local population: see Chapter Three, pp. 87–8. In this respect Scylax is very instructive: ‘beyond the island of Cerne it is not possible to sail due to the shallowness of the sea, the mud and algae . . . The traders are Phoenicians. When they reach the island of Cerne they land their cargo ships and raise their tents on Cerne. But the cargo, after having unloaded it from their ships, they transport in small boats to the continent. The Ethiopians are on the continent. It is with these Ethiopians that they trade. [The Phoenicians] sell [their goods] in exchange for the skins of gazelles, lions and leopards, as well as the skins and tusks of elephants and domestic animals. The Phoenician traders bring them unguents, Egyptian stone, Attic pottery and choes. These forms are those which can be acquired during the feast of the Choes. These

NOTES TO PAGES 46–52

188. 189.

190.

191.

192.

193.

Ethiopians live off meat, drink milk and they make large quantities of wine from their own vines, although the Phoenicians also bring it to them. [The Ethiopians] also have a large city to which the Phoenicians also sail.’ The identification of Mogador with Cerne is tempting since it marks the most southerly Phoenician settlement known in Africa. The pottery repertory, with its Attic SOS amphorae and profusion of oil bottles (at least 34 have been found at the site), fits the description of the materials offered by the Phoenicians to the Ethiopians. Strabo XVII. 3. 2 mentions a kolpos emporikos, south of Lixus, ‘which contains settlements of Phoenician merchants’. López Pardo 1990, 282–3. Ruiz Mata 1986c, 260; López Pardo 1990, 288. The links with the region of Cádiz are confirmed by the discovery of a fragment of stroke-burnished ware at Mogador, typical of the indigenous pottery production of south-western Andalusia (Jodin 1966, 167). Baslez 1992, 236–7. There was also a flourishing ivory industry in southern Iberia. A large number of small decorated ivory objects were found in the tombs of south-west Iberia during the seventh and sixth centuries BC and are regarded as the product of a local workshop (Aubet 1979 and 1980). Ponsich claimed to have excavated a series of temples, the oldest of which, Temple H, an impressive absidal strucure, he believed went back to the seventh century BC. The date of this building has, however, been seriously questioned (Niemeyer 1992). The poverty of the finds at Mersa Madakh, with only a few items of imported pottery, which when broken were carefully repaired and reused, has led to its interpretation as a small fishing village. The strategic position of Rachgoun, on an island some 2 km from the river Tafna, allowed it to control the maritime traffic along the coast on either side of the island, as well as any traffic up and down the river itself. Weapons were found in several of the burials and the author of the Periplus of Scylax (111) refers to the island as akra, the fortress. Only its strategic position explains why it was occupied for two centuries. See Chapter Two, pp. 78–9, for a further discussion of the site. Frankenstein 1976, 205; Braudel 1972, 108. According to Braudel, the Mediterranean Channel extends from the Straits of Gibraltar in the west to Cape Matifou, near Algiers and Cabo de la Nao, near Valencia, in the east, and forms one of the ‘narrow seas’ of the Mediterranean, along with the Adriatic, the Aegean and the Tyrrhenian sea, where intense maritime communication is carried out. These ‘narrow seas’ are then linked up by long-distance traders who cross the ‘maritime saharas’ of the Ionian and western Mediterranean basins.

Notes to Chapter Two 1. The necropolis on the Cerro de San Cristóbal at Almuñécar is divided from the settlement by the river Seco, while at Toscanos the earliest cemetery is located

2.

3.

4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

181

at Casa de la Viña on Cerro del Mar, the hill on the opposite bank of the Vélez river to the settlement. This pattern also holds true for the cemetery at Trayamar, located on the eastern bank of the Algarrobo river, with Morro de Mezquitilla, its settlement area, on the western bank. This pattern is repeated again in the case of the burial area at Lagos, if it is true that it does correspond to the enclave of Chorreras (see below). Aubet 1994, 46; Aubet 1998. The cemetery of the island settlement of Cerro del Villar shares a similar location, at Cortijo de Montañez, on the mainland, close to the sea and the river Guadalhorce, in whose estuary the settlement is located (Aubet, Maass-Lindemann and Martín Ruiz 1995). The location of the cemetery of Gadir echoes that of its mother city of Tyre, in that the city was located on the island of Eritheia and its necropolis was on the adjacent island of Kotinoussa. This period is represented by the cemeteries of Jardín, situated to the north of Toscanos, on the right bank of the Vélez river, and those at Puente de Noy and Cerro de Velilla at Almuñécar, successors to that on the San Cristóbal hill; see Aubet 1986b. Pellicer 1962. An abbreviated version was published in German: Pellicer 1963. All references will be made to the Spanish original. Pellicer 1962, 9. That is, simple shaft graves in type VI and shaft graves with a lateral chamber in type VII: Tejera 1979, 79. Pellicer 1962, 11. Ramos 1986, 64. Pellicer 1962, 11. As in the early cemetery at Motya where they form the most frequent ceramic group, occurring in association with a cooking pot 124 times in 160 tombs: see Tusa et al. 1978, 63–4. For an analysis of these forms see Maass-Lindemann 1986 and Negueruela 1983. Bikai 1978a, 35, calls this form the ‘calling card’ of the Phoenicians, as it has appeared in every area where the Phoenicians settled, and is a form not used outside the Phoenician world: Negueruela 1983, 261 and 271. Pellicer 1962, 11. Casa de la Viña is the early necropolis of Toscanos: Niemeyer 1982a, 185–204. For Lagos, see Aubet et al. 1991. Benichou-Safar 1982. These correspond to her type IV, ‘pozzi cylindriques à incinération’: 69–71. Lindemann, 1974, 122–3. Tejera 1975, 198–202. Riis 1948; Johns 1937. For Tyre, see Seeden 1991 and Aubet 1998. For Motya, see Whitaker 1921, 206–60, Tusa et al. 1972; Tusa et al. 1978; for Rachgoun, Vuillemot 1955. For Frigiliana, see Arribas and Wilkins 1969, 215–34; La Joya, Garrido and Orta 1978. Lindemann 1974, 123. Pellicer 1964a, 397; Ramos 1986, 34. Tejera 1975, 206–07; Tejera 1979, 83–4. The urns in tombs 17, 20, 16 and 1 respectively: Pellicer 1962, 52; Padró 1985, 92–3.

182 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

28.

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

NOTES TO PAGES 54–60 Kitchen 1973, 53. Pellicer 1962, 50; Blázquez 1975, 60–3. Lucas 1962, 59–60. Gamer-Wallert 1971, 407–08. For an analysis of their forms, see Padró 1985. We also have to consider the marble jar with the cartouche of Apophis I, a Hyksos monarch of the XVth dynasty, who reigned from the end of the seventeenth to the start of the sixteenth centuries BC. This vessel may well have come from the Cerro de San Cristóbal, as it was found in the possession of a family who had property there. If that is the case, then it is an interesting example of the deposition of a much older object in a later tomb, such as happened with the famous alabaster statuette of Astarte, carved in the Orient in the seventh century, and placed in an Iberian tomb in the cemetery of Tutugi in Galera in the province of Granada sometime in the fifth century (Harrison 1988, 138; Cabré 1920). The Hyksos urn is the only one of the Egyptian urns from Almuñécar not to be made of alabaster: see Molina Fajardo and Padró 1983, 35–44. In addition, three further uninscribed alabaster urns were discovered by the authors in private ownership. They date them on the basis of parallels with the Cerro de San Cristóbal materials to the Third Intermediate Period. These vessels must have come from the tombs looted by construction workers in 1962. Recently a further alabaster urn was discovered in private ownership, and again it seems to have been looted from the San Cristóbal cemetery (Molina Fajardo and Bannour 2000, 1646). For a translation and commentary on the inscriptions, see Padró 1986. That on the jar from tomb 15 seems to contain veiled references to the mysteries of Hathor. According to Padró’s analysis, both texts are religious, and allude to the original contents of the vessels – wine. For the examples from Assur, see Culican 1970a. For the Barbate jar, see García y Bellido 1970, 11–21 and Gamer-Wallert 1976 for a translation and commentary. For such objects in indigenous contexts, see Padró 1976–78. Culican 1970a, 29 for a translation of the text. Gamer-Wallert 1971, 408. Padró 1985, 50–1. Leclant 1968, 12–14; for Egyptian products in Spain, see Padró 1983a. Padró 1985, 51–3. Cintas 1970, 435–7; Padró 1985, 53–6. Pellicer 1962, 63–5. Ferron 1970. Pellicer 1962, 63–5. Shefton 1982, 338–9. Padró 1985, 54. Ramos 1991, 254. Padró 1985, 54. Schubart 1976. Negueruela 1983, 259–69; Negueruela 1991, 202. Negueruela 1985; Negueruela 1981.

47. 48. 49. 50.

51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

Negueruela 1985, 204. Tusa 1983, 189; Tusa et al . 1978, 63–65. See above and Cintas 1970, plate 80 for an illustration, and Merlin 1918. There is increasingly clear evidence for contacts between Carthage and the Phoenician cities of Iberia in terms of the pottery, both Phoenician and indigenous Iberian, found in the earliest levels of occupation at Carthage: see Mansel 2000b, Docter 1999 and Vegas 1989 and 2000. Padró 1985, 56. Pellicer 1962, 5. Aubet et al. 1991, 10. Aubet et al. 1991, 13. Aubet et al. 1991, 15. Aubet et al. 1991, 17–44. This shape is represented at the Cerro de San Cristóbal necropolis only by the jars from tombs 3 and 12, which, however, have no handles (unlike the Lagos jar). Pérez Die 1983. García y Bellido 1970, 11–21; Gamer-Wallert 1976. That found in Asarhaddon’s palace in Assur has a very similar form and the same semi-circular handles: Culican 1970a, 28–9. Padró 1985, 58–9. Aubet et al. 1991, 19. Aubet et al. 1991, 10. For the settlement of Toscanos, see above in Chapter One, p. 14. Niemeyer 1970; Niemeyer, Briese, and Bahnemann 1988b. Almagro Gorbea 1972, 181–3. Pérez Die 1976, 911. Niemeyer 1979, 247; Arteaga 1981. Baena 1978. Niemeyer 1979, 248; Niemeyer 1982b, 109. The identity of the necropolis of El Villar has been disputed. There is a possible Phoenician necropolis at Churriana, near Torremolinos, perhaps corresponding to the settlement of Cerro del Villar. Here a number of alabaster urns and an orientalising ivory plaque were found: see Pérez Die 1983 and Padró 1985a, 39–43, who, however, questions the authenticity of the ivory plaque. Recent studies, on the other hand, prefer to locate the cemetery of Cerro del Villar in the Cortijo de Montañez, where a group of Phoenician pots were found in the nineteenth century, apparently in the context of a cremation cemetery, with burials in shaft graves or fosse (Figs 1 and 10). The forms and decoration of the pots link them to the pottery production of the late seventh and the sixth centuries in El Villar. Thus, Cerro del Villar, the island settlement, seems to have had its cemetery nearby, on the mainland, replicating the pattern of the division of settlement area and necropolis by water (Aubet, MaassLindemann and Martín Ruiz 1995). It is possible that the finds at Churriana do represent a necropolis but one belonging to an as yet unidentified Phoenician settlement in the area around Cerro del Villar (Aubet et

NOTES TO PAGES 60–70

72. 73.

74.

75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88.

89. 90. 91.

al. 1999, 47). Surface survey at Las Cumbres, the cemetery of the Phoenician settlement at Castillo de Doña Blanca in Cádiz, has indicated the probable presence of shaft grave burials, among the 90 to 100 tumuli so far identified at the site. Until investigation of this cemetery is undertaken, nothing more definite can be said about it. For the burials at Las Cumbres, see Córdoba and Ruiz Mata 2000 and Chapter Three, pp. 102–03. Negueruela 1991. The shaft graves in Spain are far deeper than those in Carthage: at Almuñécar the shafts reach a maximum depth of five metres, compared to an average of one metre for the shafts with cremation burials in Carthage. As exemplified, for instance, in the seventh-century cremation necropolis at Puig des Molins, where the cinerary urns in cavities in the rock were accompanied by relatively poor grave goods: Gómez Bellard 1990, 153–64. For the Phoenician settlement at Morro de Mezquitilla, see above in Chapter One, p. 11. Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 191–4; it was also published in German (Schubart and Niemeyer 1975). Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 118–26. Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 126–8. Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 130–1. Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 131–9; Schubart 1969, 42–3. They consist of a magnificent gold pendant decorated with a relief and granulation technique; see Niemeyer 1980a. Several small conical gold pendants were also found: see Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 145–6. Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 139–43. Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 189–90. Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 236–7. Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 130. Judging by some fragments of Phoenician red-slip plates found in the necropolis, burials there may even go back as far as the eighth century: Molina Fajardo 1986, 201. Molina Fajardo, Ruíz Fernández and Huertas Jiménez 1982. Jiménez 1996, 38–42. For the funerary monument, see Almagro Gorbea 1983. Molina Fajardo and Huertas Jiménez 1983, 81–6. Molina Fajardo and Huertas Jiménez 1983, 58; Ramos 1986, 117; Jiménez 1996, 41. Chamber tombs have been identified at the popular surfing site of Tarifa in Cádiz. Here five chamber tombs were found on an island off the coast, la Isla de las Palomas. Their contents are uninformative, and amphorae found elsewhere on the island point to a date ranging from the sixth to the second centuries BC for the frequentation of the site (Martín Ruiz 1995, 60). Earlier in date are a number of burials from Tavira in the Portuguese Algarve. Found at the bottom of a silo containing Islamic materials, a possible shaft grave was identified, with fine red-slip ware, including a

92. 93.

94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101.

102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109.

183

mushroom-lip jug typical of a funerary context, and a decorated ivory pyxis. This structure is dated by its pottery to the seventh century BC. Close to this, there is a further possible burial structure, circular in shape and made from masonry, dated by its finds also to the seventh century. My thanks extend to Drs Maria and Manuel Maia for letting me view their finds. At the Las Cumbres cemetery in Cádiz, there are a number of circular masonry chambers, extending up to 2 m in height, and covered by burial tumuli (Córdoba and Ruiz Mata 2000, 760). Until they are excavated it is impossible to assign a date to them (the hill on which they are located was occupied from the third millennium onwards), but even at a most tentative level it is interesting that the circular masonry burial structure at Tavira (for which no parallels inside or outside Iberia have yet been found) could perhaps be similar to these circular masonry structures at Las Cumbres. In many other aspects the links between Tavira and Doña Blanca, the settlement area corresponding to the Las Cumbres cemetery, are close. Cintas 1954, 117–22. The other two tombs have not been published in detail, so we know little of their structure except that they have a niche in their back wall: see Moulard 1924. Cintas 1954, 117. The difference in roofing may simply be the result of a difference in the strength of the materials used. The soft local limestone used at Trayamar was not strong enough to bear the pressure of the earth above the chamber, so a sloping wooden roof had to be used: see Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 174. Benichou-Safar 1982, 135–65. Benichou-Safar 1982, 137; Lancel 1995a, 48–50. Lindemann 1974, 127; Lancel 1995a, 47. Lancel 1995a, 48; Delattre 1897, 15. Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 196–7. Benichou-Safar 1982, 364–8. Benichou-Safar 1982, 368; Jiménez 1996, 56–60. Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 197–8; see also 1 Kings 6. 36: ‘He (Solomon) built the inner court with three courses of hewn stone and one course of cedar beams.’ 1 Kings 7. 12: ‘The great court had three courses of hewn stone round about and a course of cedar beams; so had the inner court of the house of the Lord and the vestibule of the house’ (translation of The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, London 1966). Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 197–8. Gras, Rouillard and Teixidor 1991; Delattre 1897, 15; for the medallion, see Ferron 1958. Gras, Rouillard and Teixidor 1991, 181. There are 143 cremations and 5 inhumations, all of the latter corresponding to infant burials: Gasull 1993. For Sardinia, see Bartolini 1981. Vuillemot 1955 and 1965. Benichou–Safar 1982, 329–35. For instance at Khaldeh, 10 km south of Beirut, where of 178 tombs dating from the tenth to the end of the eighth centuries, there were only two cremations (Saidah 1966).

184

NOTES TO PAGES 70–74

110. Riis 1948, 44; Harden 1971, 122. 111. As at Alalakh, in Syria, where all the cremations belong to the Bronze Age (Gómez Bellard 1990, 164). 112. Bienkowski 1982; Gómez Bellard 1990, 164. 113. Bienkowski 1982, 81–4. 114. Bienkowski 1982, 88–9. 115. Seeden 1991; Aubet 1998. 116. For instance at Khaldeh, where two cremations are found dating to the eighth century (Saidah 1966, 60 and 64–6). 117. Saidah 1977; Thalmann 1978; Bienkowski 1982, 85. 118. Johns 1937. 119. Bienkowski 1982, 85. 120. Culican 1973; Gómez Bellard 1990, 167. 121. Gómez Bellard 1990, 172; Baurain 1988; Bisi 1988. 122. Ramos 1991, 255–6. 123. Hence the initial attribution of the cremation burials in the Levant to the Sea Peoples: Bienkowski 1982, 80. 124. Ucko 1969; Gómez Bellard 1990. 125. Ucko 1969, 273. 126. Cook 1960, 178; Morris 1987, 18–22. 127. Ucko 1969, 274; Momigliano 1963, 103; Nock 1937; Morris 1992, 31–69. 128. Cook 1960, 178. 129. Audin 1960; Gómez Bellard 1990. 130. For Sicily, see Tusa et al. 1978, 63–4; for Carthage, Lancel 1995a, 56, and Benichou-Safar 1982, 291. 131. Bikai 1978a, 35. 132. Jiménez 1996, 66. 133. Lancel 1995a, 55. 134. Maass-Lindemann 1986, 230–1. 135. Garrido and Orta 1970 and 1978. 136. Negueruela 1983, 291. 137. Negueruela 1991, 200, suggests that this amphora was covered with a red slip to mark its new sacred function. 138. Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 121. Perhaps the liquid in question was milk, which is found in some amphorae at Carthage (Benichou-Safar 1982, 263). 139. In Carthage, some plates found in early tombs still had the remains of fish, birds, small mammals, mushrooms, almonds etc. inside them (Benichou-Safar 1982, 263–4). 140. They also appear in a similar context at the Byrsa necropolis in Carthage (Lancel 1995a, 54, and see below). 141. Lancel 1995a, 58–60. Lancel suggests that the Phoenicians were attracted by the thinness of their sides, which gave these vessels an almost glass-like quality. 142. The canon consisted of a mushroom-lip and trefoil jug, a lamp with its corresponding plate, one or two spherical jars, and one or two amphorae (Lindemann 1974, 124; Lancel 1995a, 55). 143. The most common amulets are scarabs, adopted from Egyptian religious beliefs. These would have been worn by the deceased during his lifetime, and were buried with him. To continue to protect him after his death, they had to be in close contact with him: hence

144.

145. 146. 147. 148.

149. 150.

151.

152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158.

we find them placed in the cinerary urn as at tombs 3, 16 and 20 at Cerro de San Cristóbal. The ostrich egg is found only in tombs 10 and 19 at Cerro de San Cristóbal, and does not become common until the influence of Carthage becomes more generalised in the sixth century. It is associated with ideas of regeneration and birth, an association which is strengthened by the fact that it is frequently used as a container for red ochre – as in tomb 19A at Almuñécar, which also has regenerative connotations. Perhaps for this reason nearly all the cinerary urns at Cerro de San Cristóbal were stained with the substance (Ramos 1986, 105–11). Ucko 1969, 265. Lancel 1995a, 54. Ucko 1969, 266; Pigott 1969. Pro Scauro 6.11: cum agerent parentalia Norenses omnesque suo more ex oppido exissent (‘It was the time when the people of Nora were holding their festival of the Dead and had all, after their due custom, left the city’). Schubart, Niemeyer and Pellicer 1969a; Schubart, Niemeyer and Pellicer 1969b; Schubart 1976. Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 201–05 and 237. The fact that the first layer of pottery was found directly on the floor of the chamber might indicate that they had been placed inside the tomb by the mourners, immediately after or during the funeral, before the chamber was sealed (Jiménez 1994, 135). The offerings on top of the tomb went from stratum 2 down to stratum 8. The number of items tended to get smaller as time passed. Thus stratum 1 (placed inside the tomb) consisted of 14 plates, an amphora, a closed vase and a pot; stratum 2 had 8 plates, and a lamp; stratum 3, 7 plates, 2 pots, 3 jugs and 2 lamps; stratum 4, 1 plate and 1 amphora; stratum 5, 2 plates. However, from stratum 6 onwards the offerings started to increase again. Stratum 6 had 6 plates, 3 closed vases, a pot and a bowl; stratum 7, 8 plates, 2 amphorae, a pot and 2 jugs. The final stratum, 8, was the most spectacular in terms of finds: 347 red-slip plates, 2 incense burners and 14 closed red-slip vases (Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 151–89; Jiménez 1994, 135). Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 202. Molina Fajardo and Huertas Jiménez 1983, 58. Schubart and Maass-Lindemann 1995, 122. Aubet 1998, 139. Lancel 1995a, 54; Lancel 1982, 362. Córdoba and Ruiz Mata 2000. For a full discussion, see Chapter Three, pp. 102–03. Benichou-Safar 1982, 278–82. Finds of slaughtered animals have been made in Carthage and in Spain, at tomb 11 at the necropolis at Jardín, near Toscanos, where a goat was found buried in a tomb with the ends of all its limbs missing (Gómez Bellard 1990, 202; Schubart, Niemeyer and Lindemann 1972, 34; Schubart and Maass-Lindemann 1995, 59). Animal bones were also found in the Cruz del Negro cemetery

NOTES TO PAGES 74–82

159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165.

166.

167. 168. 169. 170. 171.

172. 173. 174. 175.

(Maier 1999). In the southern necropolis at Tharros, graves 4 and 9 revealed goat bones, which in at least one case had been cremated (Molina 1984b, 81 and 83). Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 202; Ramos 1986, 115; Jiménez 1994, 135. Jiménez 1994, 128–33; Rathje 1991; Markoe 2000, 120. Markoe 2000, 120. Bondi 1978; Bondi 1988; Moscati 1992, 45–57. Katzenstein 1983, 599; Aubet 1994, 106–10. Aubet 1994, 286. Contrast the limited occurrence of the imported pottery items at Motya, and the use of pottery or stone cinerary urns there, with the universal use of the imported Egyptian alabaster vessel as a cinerary urn in the early group of Spanish cemeteries. Gras, Rouillard and Teixidor 1991, 164. The evidence for the existence of such funerary monuments in Spain is slight. At Tumulus 1 in the Las Cumbres cemetery at Castillo de Doña Blanca in Cádiz, the Phoenician burials are incorporated under the tumulus which probably reflects an indigenous tradition (see Chapter Three, pp. 102–03). There is a possible tumulus above tomb 1 at Trayamar and the remains of two sculpted lions from Puente de Noy. Simple undecorated stone stelai were placed above three of the sixth-century cremation burials in the Puig des Molins cemetery at Ibiza (Gómez Bellard 1990, 147). Similar stelai were incorporated into the Islamic fortifications at La Fonteta in Alicante, and may well come from a necropolis dating to the Phoenician period. The fact that a funerary cult was carried out above tomb 4 at Trayamar for years after its final closure would indicate that the tomb had to have some kind of marker to enable the celebrants to be sure of its location. In Tyre it seems that stelai were used to single out the most important graves in the cemetery, and several of them were decorated with a human effigy (Aubet 1998, 139). Aubet et al. 1991, 19. Morris 1987. Aubet 1998, 141. Jiménez 1994. Morris 1987, 52–3; see also Goldstein 1981 and Parker Pearson 1999, 29–31 and 136–9. This view was first suggested by Saxe as his hypothesis 8 in his analysis of the social dimensions of mortuary practices, and has been criticised by Parker Pearson ‘as the wondering where the next meal is coming from’ view of the significance of cemeteries and ancestors (Parker Pearson 1999, 137). Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 130. The existence of these burials is inferred from descriptions given by the drivers of the bulldozers which destroyed them. Gómez Bellard 1990; Fernández 1986; Fernández, Gómez Bellard, Gurrea 1984; Costa, Fernández Gómez and Gómez Bellard 1991; Gómez Bellard 1995; Ramón 1996. The stelai were found associated primarily with the fossa graves (Ramón 1996). Gómez Bellard 1990, 186–200. For the history of

176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184.

185. 186. 187. 188.

189.

190.

191. 192. 193. 194.

185

Phoenician settlement on Ibiza, see above, Chapter One, pp. 32–3. For a fuller discussion, see Chapter One (pp. 43–4) and Chapter Three (p. 104). Vuillemot 1955; Lancel and Lipinski 1992, 369; Gómez Bellard 1990, 169. Seeden 1991; Aubet 1998. Gómez Bellard 1986. For a more detailed discussion of the early history of Ibiza, see above, Chapter One (pp. 32–3). Vuillemot 1955, 36–7; Vuillemot 1965, 105. Vuillemot 1965, 37–8; Fantar 1993, I, 71–5. Gómez Bellard 1990, 170; Osuna and Remesal 1981; Siret 1908. Arribas and Wilkins 1969. A recent cluster analysis of the Frigiliana cemetery came to the conclusion that it most closely resembled the burials at Tumulus I, at Las Cumbres (the cemetery associated with the Phoenician settlement at Castillo de Doña Blanca), which seems to contain the burials of both the colonists and local inhabitants incorporated into the settlement. Despite this, the study concluded that Frigiliana was indigenous: Martín Ruiz, Martín Ruiz and Esquivel Guerrero 1996. Aubet 1986a. Ruiz Delgado 1989; Torres 1999. Belén and Escacena 1995; Belén and Escacena 1997a. Belén et al. 1996a; Belén et al. 1997; Belén et al. 2000; Belén and Escacena 1995, 92–4; Belén and Chapa 1997, 142–3. The closest parallels for the spectacular pithoi currently on display in the Museum of Carmona come from the nearby site of Montemolín (Marchena, Sevilla), on the Corbones river. Here in the context of a wholly oriental building-type, pithoi were found decorated with a procession of animals. See Chapter Four for a full discussion of this site (pp. 131–2). The ultimate model for these unique pieces must come from the Phoenician settlements in Iberia, and in this context Ruiz Mata has recently announced that many fragments of pottery decorated with comparable figurative scenes have been located in the on-going excavations at Castillo de Doña Blanca; these finds remain, however, as yet unpublished. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Chapter Four, pp. 123–4. Bonsor 1899, 273–85; Maier 1999; Aubet 1986a. The cemetery at Cruz del Negro was the subject of further excavation in the 1990s: see Gil de los Reyes et al. 1989; Amores et al. 1993a and 1993b; Pérez Quesada and Amores 1998. Aubet 1979; Freyer Schauenburg 1966. Aubet 1976–78, 270. Borja 1995; Arteaga, Schulz and Roos 1995; Arteaga and Roos 1995; Schulz 1995. Gómez Bellard 1993b who speaks of ‘the apparent inexistence of indigenous population at the arrival of the Phoenicians’. His view is opposed by Ramón 1994, who cites some evidence of Bronze Age finds, including axes, and it is interesting that some of these

186

NOTES TO PAGES 82–86

finds were in the area chosen by the Phoencians for their first settlement on the island, at Sa Caleta. In any case the evidence for an indigenous occupation of the island of Ibiza at the time of the arrival of the first Phoenician settlers is slight, and there are no signs of the spectacular Talayotic culture found on the neighbouring islands of Majorca and Minorca: see Pericot 1972 and Fernández Miranda 1997. 195. For instance, the orientalizing necropolis at Medellín, Extremadura, which has many similarities with the Frigiliana and Cruz del Negro cemeteries. Is it wholly indigenous, or does it represent the burials of Phoenicians working on the gold and tin routes of the Iberian north-west, or is it a mixture of both (Almagro Gorbea 1991b)? A neat, if rather extreme, solution to the problem of the interpretation of the burial evidence in this period is that of Escacena, who interprets the complete lack of burial evidence in south-western Iberia, in the periods both immediately preceding and following the Phoenician presence, as the result of indigenous burial practices which left no archaeological record – such as exposure of the corpse. The burials of the orientalizing period would then all belong to the colonists (Escacena 1989).

Notes to Chapter Three 1. García y Bellido 1951. Its reputation for high spirits was due largely to the notorious puellae gaditanae, exotic dancers who were apparently indispensable to the success of a Roman party: see, among others, Pliny, Ep. I. 15 and Juvenal, Sat. XI. 162–4. These puellae gaditanae may represent a continuation in a profane context of what was originally the semitic religious practice of sacred prostitution (Jiménez 2001). 2. The name of the city means ‘wall’, ‘enclosed place’ or ‘fortified place’ in Phoenician as Pliny, NH. IV. 120, and Avienus, OM, 267–8, both point out (Lipinski 1984, 82; Bunnens 1979, 155). 3. The existence of a number of islands is reflected in the plural form of the name given to the city by the Greeks, tá gádeira, and by the Romans, Gades, Gadium, where the noun is a feminine plural (García y Bellido, 1951, 77–9). The location of the city on the Atlantic ocean, facing 4. regions the identity of which remained vague and nebulous to the Greeks, meant that a number of legends were located there: for instance, Atlas, the garden of the Hesperides, Medusa, Gerion and Habis, as well as the nostoi of some of the Homeric heroes. The expansion of the Greek world, with the start of the colonisation movement from the eighth century BC onwards, and their growing familiarity with the Central Mediterranean, meant that these legends, many of which had originally taken place in Italy, were now moved further west (Millán 1999; Wagner 1986; Plácido 1989). 5. For Eratosthenes, see Jacoby 1923– , II, B, no. 241 F 1a; Apollodorus, Jacoby 1923– , II, B, no. 244 F 61. 6. Hett 1936, Chapter 34.

7. 8. 9.

10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23.

24. 25. 26. 27.

Bunnens 1979, 188–200; Bunnens 1986, 188–9. Strabo III. 5. 5, C 169–70; translation: Jones 1968. Strabo tells us later that Posidonius regarded the story of the foundation of the city as a pseûsma phoinikikon (III. 5. 5, C 170), so it was obviously one with which Posidonius too was familiar. The text is included among the fragments of Posidonius by Jacoby 1923– II, A, no. 87 F 53, although it is sometimes attributed to Timaeus, for instance by Hübner 1910, col. 447; see also Bunnens 1979, 195. Bunnens 1979, 194; see also Bunnens 1986, 122. It is interesting, in this context, that while Bunnens regards the foundation legend of Gadir as Greek, for the Greeks it was a Phoenician lie (Strabo III. 5. 5). Bonnet 1988, 206. For the role of Delphi in Greek colonisation, see Malkin 1987, 17–91. Wagner 1988, 421. Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 53; Davies 1935. For Huelva, see Fernández Miranda 1991; Fernández Jurado 1986. For the metal trade, see Ruiz Mata 1989; Rothenberg and Blanco 1981. For the settlement pattern followed by the Phoenicians, see Thucydides VI. 2. 6 on Sicily, and Ezechiel XXVII. 3. Also Gras, Rouillard, Teixidor 1991, 61–70. Gamer-Wallert 1982, 46–61, plates 11–24; Fernández Miranda 1986, 252. For this type of statue in general, see Bisi 1980 and Bisi 1986. Blanco 1985; Perdigones 1991. Marín and Lomas 1992, 130–1. Marín points out, in support of this suggestion, that a small terracotta head, apparently representing Hercules-Melqart, was found at Saltés. For instance, Gasull 1986 and Aubet 1986c, 13. Niemeyer 1981. Bonnet 1988, 204. One of his titles is Ba’al Sor, or the lord of Tyre, see CIS I, 122 and 122b. For Tyre, see Nonnos of Panopolis, Dionysiaca, XL 311–580 and for the temple of Melqart at Tyre, see Herodotus II, 43–4; for Carthage, see Justin, XVIII. 4. 2–15 and XVIII. 5. 1–17. Bonnet 1988, 165–6. Josephus, AJ VIII. 144–7; contra Apionem, I. 18. Josephus tells us that the king was the first to celebrate the egersis of the god, that is, his ritual awakening from the sleep of death. On a stele now in the Aleppo Museum in Syria, and dedicated by Bar-Hadad, a high official at the court and perhaps a relative of the king of Aram, Hazaël: see Albright 1942; Bonnet 1986, 218 and Leick 2000. Bonnet 1988, 40–2; Pettinato, 1975; Poveda 1999. According to the terms of the treaty, Melqart and Eshmun, between them, were responsible for providing all the elements necessary for the well-being of the people of Tyre, such as food and clothing and unguents. Melqart is also associated with the discovery of the purple dye which was one of Phoenicia’s most important manufacturing activities, and most

NOTES TO PAGE 86

28.

29.

30.

importantly for our purposes, with the invention of navigation (Nonnos, Dionisiaca XL. 443–68). He was the god prayed to for a safe journey at sea, as we learn from a text of the third-century AD Christian writer, Heliodoros of Emesus, Aethiopica IV. 16–17 (Bonnet 1988, 67). This aspect of the god is perhaps illustrated by the appearance of a marine divinity riding a hippocamp who may represent Melqart on archaic coins of Tyre (Dussaud 1948, 206). In the context of Melqart’s role as patron of navigation, it is interesting to note that Melqart, chief god of Tyre, makes his appearance precisely at the beginning of Tyre’s maritime power, during the reign of Hiram I, the king who organised the famous long-distance trading expeditions in a ‘joint venture’ with Solomon. For the origins of Melqart and his worship, see Ribichini 1985 and Lipinski 1970. This practice of worshipping gods who undergo experiences of death and rebirth is not confined to Tyre, but seems to have been a feature common to Phoenician religion in the first millennium BC. The most famous example is Adonis of Byblos whose worship, at least from the classical period onwards, about which we are best informed, centred around a three-day festival commemorating his death and rebirth: Strabo XVI. 2. 18; Lucian, De Dea Syria, 6–9. Eshmun, too, the chief god of Sidon, is also attributed as having mortal origins, and was raised to the status of a god after undergoing a violent death: Damascius, Isid. 302. In fact, our best ancient source for Phoenician religion, Philo of Byblos, distinguishes two different types of divinities among the Phoenicians: ‘immortal’ gods, those who do not undergo death, such as Baal and Astarte, and ‘mortal’ gods whom he defines as: ‘those who had in some way rendered a service to the people. Seeing in them benefactors and authors of many benefits, they adore them as divinities as soon as they die . . . In particular they place the names of their kings either on some of the elements of the universe or on some of those regarded as gods’: Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica I. 9. 29; Ribichini 1985, 68. Justin, XVIII. 4. 3–5. This association between the sovereign and the god is continued in Carthage where those involved in the ritual egersis of Melqart are invariably drawn from the chief magistrates and high priests of the city: Bonnet 1986, 215–16. In Philadelphia (Amman in Jordan), it is the gymnasiarch who is the egers(iten tou) Heraklóus, the semitic mqm ‘lm mtr ‘strny, as is the case also at Ramleh, west of Jerusalem. In Cyprus, it is the supreme magistrate. The predominance of senior officials among the holders of this office reinforces what Bonner calls the ‘official and national’ aspect of the cult (Bonnet-Tzavellas 1983). Bunnens 1979, 282–3. This is confirmed by Herodotus II.44, who tells us that the temple of Melqart in Tyre was founded at the same time as the city, some 2,300 years before Herodotus’ own day. This gives us a date sometime in the first centuries of the third millennium, a time frame which has now found its archaeological

31.

32. 33.

34. 35.

187

confirmation in a sounding carried out in Tyre (Jidejian and Lipinski 1992). Even when the settlement itself was very precarious, with only temporary or seasonal habitation of the site: see, for instance, the stone monolith erected at the Phoenician settlement of Mogador off the North African coast (Jodin 1966 and López Pardo 1992, 95–6). We have several instances of the importance of their gods to the Phoenicians resident or travelling through Iberia. These include references to Melqart and Eshmun scratched as graffiti on pottery from La Fonteta and Castillo de Doña Blanca respectively, and the famous statuette of Astarte from El Carambolo, which was dedicated to the goddess by two brothers from Sidon in gratitude for favours received. Amadasi Guzzo and Guzzo 1986. Shaw 1989; Shaw 2000. During the first millennium a shrine occupied the site of a Minoan coastal settlement. It had three phases of use (A, B, C), and in Temple B, dating from 800/600, three baetyls were found, along with two faience figurines, one representing the Egyptian goddess Sekhmet; the latter shares some of the aspects of Astarte in her guise as warrior goddess (Baurain and Bonnet 1992, 119–21). Phoenician pottery, mostly amphorae, was found in the area around the shrine and dates back to the founding of Temple A, in the late eleventh century. The temple at Kommos, with its coastal location, offered a convenient stopover point for ships, where the crews and local inhabitants could worship. It evidently served as a focal point for trade, given the huge numbers of Phoenician amphorae found near the temple; and it also allowed easy access to the interior of the island, where there is now clear evidence for a Phoenician presence during this time. What is significant is that the temple not only served as a place of worship for the Phoenicians, but ‘the major use of both temples A and B was by the indigenous population’ and so ‘the function, besides the cultic one, may also have been utilitarian – bestowing divine protection for fair reciprocity in trade relations’ (Shaw 1998, 20). Temple B was not only used by the Phoenicians and Cretans: graffiti on seventh-century local cups found associated with the temple reveals the presence of traders or sailors from central Greece, and contemporary with these grafitti are a large number of amphorae from East Greece, Cyprus and also Phoenician-type (the last perhaps coming from North Africa), which were found in a building close to the temple. Thus Kommos always had a strong international presence and commercial function, going back to the Bronze Age when Italian or Sardinian pottery is found there, along with Canaanite types, among others. These factors, as well as its flourishing iron-working centre, explain why it attracted the attention of the Phoenicians from a very early date. Ins. Delos 1519; Bonnet 1988, 371–5. For Astarte, see Grottanelli 1981, 118–23 and Bonnet 1996.

188 36. 37.

38.

39.

40. 41.

42.

NOTES TO PAGES 87–88 For Thasos, see Herodotus II. 44, and Pausanias V. 25. 12. For Hercules at Rome, see van Berchem 1959–1960. This idea is disputed by Bonnet 1988, 294–304. For Tarsis, see Dio Chrysostom, Orationes, XXXIII. 1. 47; Malta: CIS I. 122 and 122b and Delos, CIS I. 1519. Bonnet 1988, 245–6. For the meaning of the term archegetes, see Strabo VIII. 5. 5, C365, citing Ephorus (Jacoby 1923– , 70 F118): ‘They (= Eurysthenes and Procles) were not even honoured with the title of archegetae, an honour which is always paid to founders’ (translation Jones 1968); cf. also Malkin 1987, 241–50 for a general discussion of the term. In the Delos inscription he is referred to as ‘Herakles, author of the greatest goods for humanity’. We can see this most notably in Malta, where the sanctuary reuses an ancient megalithic temple (Grottanelli 1981, 122–3), while the temple of Astarte at Kition in Cyprus was superimposed on the ruins of an indigenous Bronze Age temple. In the bilingual EtruscanPunic Pyrgi tablets from Caere in Etruria, we find Astarte associated with the Etruscan goddess worshipped at this sanctuary (Bonnet 1988, 279–91; Bonnet 1996). This association of the Phoenician and native deity is logical if we consider that the foundation of the cult to Astarte was a method of establishing good relations with the local inhabitants: see pp. 126–7. In addition, Astarte was closely associated with Melqart in Tyre, with the possibility that Hiram dedicated a common temple to the two divinities (Bonnet 1988, 35–6). This possible association between Astarte and Melqart is continued in Gadir, where the island of Erytheia was dedicated to Astarte (Pliny NH, IV, 120; Avienus OM, 305–317; Marín Ceballos 1993, 354–5). Such as the lack of a cult statue and the shaved heads of the priests at Gades. Diodorus, XX. 14. 2; Bunnens 1979, 284–5 and Bunnens 1986a, 121. Bunnens suggests that this offering may represent the profit (bénéfice) which accrued to the temple in return for its financial investment in the colonial ventures, but this is unlikely, given what we know of the economic role of the temple in Tyre: see Marín 1993, 355. The temple of Melqart in Tyre also apparently benefitted from Carthaginian war booty (Diodorus XIII. 108. 4; Justin XVIII. 7. 7). According to Polybius XXXI. 12, the god received offerings of the first fruits, transported on a specially selected ship from Carthage to Tyre, as well as annual sacrifices in his honour carried out by Carthaginian officials (Quintus Curcius IV. 2. 10, confirmed by Arrian II. 24. 5). Bonnet-Tzavellas 1983. For Melqart as the inventor of navigation, see Nonnos, Dionisiaca XL, 443–68. Bonnet observes that by this myth, the destinies of Tyre, Melqart and navigation are inseparable right from the beginning, making Melqart, the divine representation of the Tyrian monarchy, the most likely candidate for the tutelary divinity who presided over such an important venture as the Phoenician maritime expansion (Bonnet 1988, 33).

43.

44.

45.

46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

In Gadir, Phoenician sailors and navigators visited the temple of Melqart to offer him sacrifices once they had achieved their objectives in the area (Avienus, OM 358, taken from the fifth-century-BC Athenian writer, Euktemon; and Strabo III. 5. 5, C 170). The siting of the shrine to Melqart on the Canopic mouth of the Nile was surely due to the fact that this was the only branch of the river which the Egyptian authorities opened to maritime commerce, as Grottanelli (1981, 118) points out. Gibraltar which marks the transition from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic had its shrine which has recently been linked with the nearby Phoenician settlement at Cerro del Prado (Belén and Pérez 2000). Here the shrine was in a cave, accessible by sea, with a prominent stalagmite which may have given it a sacred character, and the divinity worshipped appears to have been Astarte. The use of the cave as a sanctuary may well go back to the seventh century, but most of the offerings date from the fifth to the third centuries (Culican 1972). For the agreements made by Hiram and Solomon see I Kings 5. 1–11, and I Kings, 9. 10–14, concerning the building of the temple of Jerusalem, and I Kings 9. 26–8 and 10. 22, for their joint venture to Ophir in search of precious metals; for the treaties between Rome and Carthage, see Polybius III. 22–5. Bunnens 1979, 284. In this context it is interesting to note that the Homeric poems constitute our only insight into the attitude and perspective of the native peoples to the Phoenician traders who arrived on their shores. Given the wariness and suspicion with which they were viewed (see, for instance, Odyssey XIV. 295–381; XIV. 347–517), it is not surprising that the Phoenicians felt they had to resort to some means of overcoming this in the interest of securing trade relations with the people of the regions which they frequented. See Latacz 1990, 11–21, for the depiction of Phoenicians in Homer. Van Berchem 1967, 76; Ribichini 1983, 30. Van Berchem 1967, 76. Rebuffat 1966; Aubet 1994, 239–41. Jiménez 2001. Van Berchem 1967, 77. Porphyrios, De Abst. I. 25, who describes the temple as plousiotatos (‘very rich’). Such wealth must have consisted of the pecunia and ornamenta mentioned by Caesar: BC, II. 18. In Roman times Hercules Gaditanus was one of the few gods who had the right to receive legacies (Ulpian, Dig. XXII. 6). In the third century, before the arrival of the Romans, the temple of Melqart may have acted as the mint of Gadir (Ruiz de Arbulo 2000, 24) implying a close relationship between the temple and the economy of this most economically oriented city. The great wealth accumulated by Phoenician temples meant that the sanctuaries were frequently attacked and plundered, and some had strong defensive fortifications. For attacks on the Herakleion at Cádiz, see the passage from Porphyrios cited above, which tells the story of the siege of the

NOTES TO PAGES 88–91

52.

53.

54.

55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

63. 64.

65.

temple by Bogud of Mauretania in 38, and the semimythical account given by Macrobius, Sat. I. 20. 12, which deals with an attack on the temple from the sea at an unspecified date by a local chieftain. Its wealth meant that it was plundered several times during the Roman civil wars of the first century: see García y Bellido 1967, 161–2 for references. For the plundering of the temple of Astarte in Malta, see Cicero, ii in Verr. 2. 4. 103–05, and for Eryx, Polybius II. 7. 9–10. In the case of the temples of Astarte, sacred prostitution must have greatly contributed to the temples’ revenues (Grottanelli 1981, 128–9). For instance at Thasos, where the Phoenician presence was due to the rich gold mines on the island and on the Thracian mainland around Mount Pangaeum (Herodotus VI. 46–7). The Phoenician shrine at Kommos has been linked to the rich iron ores of Crete, and excavations at Kommos have identified the presence of an iron-working centre there (Markoe 2000, 172). Such as the Tyrian quarter at Memphis in Egypt with its temple of Astarte: see López Pardo 1992, 97. In the late fifth century AD, when nothing was left of the once flourishing city, Hercules Gaditanus was still worshipped at his temple: Avienus, OM, 270–4: nos hic locorum praeter Herculaneam solemnitatem vidimus miri nihil. From kótinos – a wild olive tree. Mela III. 46; Strabo III. 5. 3. Aubet 1994, 229. Aubet 1994, 232; Fernández Castro 1995, 179–82; Martín Ruíz 1995, 47–55; Vallespin 2000. Ramírez 1982, 78–81; Lomas 1991, 50–6. Ramírez 1982, 82; Escacena 1986, 41–2. Ramírez 1982, 82. Avienus, OM, 304; Escacena 1986, 43; Ramírez 1982, 85; Aubet 1994, 232; Perdigones 1991, 222. Lipinski 1984, 86–9; Blázquez 1975, 95–7, plates 26 A–B; Harden 1971, 88–90 and 197; Gamer-Wallert 1978, 78–80. Escacena 1986, 43. The circumstances concerning the discovery of the statuette and the ashlar structure are disputed by Ruiz Mata. He claims that excavations carried out during the 1980s in the area close to the Torre de Tavira failed to produce anything except Roman levels of settlement, with no signs of any older materials or deep stratigraphy (Ruiz Mata 1999a, 289–90). Corzo 1991, 80–1; Martín Ruíz 1995, 49. An interesting feature of the excavations carried out in this area was the discovery of a number of infant burials (ranging from new-borns to children up to 10 years old) where death may have been caused by blows to the head. These finds have been interpreted as a tophet by their excavator, and he links them with the ritual murder later forbidden in Gades by Julius Caesar (Cicero, Pro Balbo 43; Corzo 1991, 81; Corzo 1983, 20–22; Gómez Bellard 1992b). However the burial rites are different from those generally associated with a tophet, in that

66. 67. 68.

69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75.

76.

77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84.

189

the corpses are inhumed and not cremated as one would expect, and the child burials are found alongside those of adults. In fact, the fractures in the skulls may have been caused post-mortem by pressure of the earth on fragile infant bones. At present we have no secure evidence for the presence of a tophet anywhere in Iberia. Ruiz Mata 1999a, 299. Ruiz Mata 1999a and 1999b. NH, IV. 120. Pliny calls it the prius oppidum Gadium to distinguish it from the neapolis, known as the Didyme, built by L. Cornelius Balbus the younger, to alleviate problems of overcrowding (Strabo III. 5. 3). The new city was already under construction in April of 46, according to Cicero (ad Att. XII. 2. 1). Escacena 1986, 44–5; Perdigones 1991, 222; Blanco, 1970, 50; Ruiz Mata 1999a, 302. Ramírez 1982, 86; Aubet 1994, 233. Corzo 1991, 81. Blázquez 1975, 167–8; Lipinski 1984, 84–6; Pemán 1959. Escacena 1986, 47. The definitive article on the Hercules worshipped at Cádiz is that of García y Bellido 1963. Poseidonios in Strabo III. 5. 3, C 169: ‘The city of Gades is situated on the westerly parts of the island; and next to it, at the extremity of the island and near the islet, is the temple of Cronus: but the temple of Heracles is situated on the other side, facing towards the east, just where the island runs, it so happens, most closely to the mainland, thus leaving a strait of only about a stadium in width. And they say that the temple is 12 miles distant from the city (. . .); yet the distance is greater than that, and amounts to almost as much as the length of the island’ (translation: Jones 1968); Mela III. 46 confirms this: ‘the island is a stretch of land which ends in two cornua, one of which houses the town, the other the temple of Hercules’ (for commentary, see García y Bellido 1963, 74–7). Strabo III. 5. 3, C 169; Antonine Itinerary, 408. 3 and 4. See also Pliny, citing Polybius, who gives the precise dimensions of the island: 12 miles long and 3 miles wide (NH, IV. 119). In Roman times the Herakleion was linked to the city by a road which is still visible in places: see García y Bellido 1967, 156, and García y Bellido 1963, 77–80. Philostratos, Vita Apoll., V. 5. This passage refers either to the author’s own time, the early third century AD, or to that of Apollonios, the second third of the first century AD. Poseidonios in Strabo III. 5. 9, C 174–175; Silius Italicus III. 32–44. García y Bellido 1963, 82–93. Blanco 1985; Perdigones 1991. Corzo 1991, 83. Corzo 1991, 83. García y Bellido 1963, 100–31; García y Bellido 1967, 157–61. Silius Italicus, III, 30–31; Philostratos, Vita Apoll., V, 5. The god was represented only on an altar which

190

85. 86.

87. 88. 89.

90. 91. 92. 93.

94.

NOTES TO PAGES 91–94 depicted the twelve labours, and on the doors of the sanctuary which had only ten of the labours. These representations were the result of the identification of Melqart with the Greek Herakles and what suprised the Greek and Roman commentators was the lack of a cult image of the Tyrian Hercules, Melqart (Bonnet 1988, 213). Arnobius, Adv. Nat. I. 36; Sallust, Jug. XVIII. 3 and Mela, III. 46 who says that the bones of the god were kept in the temple at Gades. Bonnet 1988, 211 and 78–80; for the ritual used in Cádiz see Diodorus V. 20. 2, Arrian, Anab., II. 16. 4, Appian, Iber., I. 2; García y Bellido 1967, 162–4 and Aubet 1994, 238–9. The famous columns of Hercules bore illegible inscriptions which were written in characters which were neither ‘Egyptian nor Indian’ (Philostratos, V. Apoll. V. 5) and which both Strabo, III. 5. 5, following Poseidonios, and Philostratos place inside the sanctuary, probably next to the altar according to Porphyry, De Abst. I. 25. The columns in Gades seem to reflect the two pillars in the temple of Melqart in Tyre, which Herodotus describes in II. 44, again emphasising the apparent unity in design and ritual between the sanctuary of the metropolis and that of the colony. The Phoenician city must have been very limited in size, and may well have remained confined to the north of the Bahía-Caleta channel until the formation of Balbus’ dipolis (Aubet 1994, 232). Escacena 1986, 48. Perdigones 1991, 223; Perdigones, Muñoz and Pisano 1990. See Ruiz Mata 1999a, 299 for an account of the latest excavations in Cádiz, and for the discovery of further early sixth-century burials. A seventh-century proto-Attic oinochoe, now in the National Archaeological Museum in Copenhagen, is said to have come from a tomb in Cádiz, clandestinally excavated in the second half of the nineteenth century. If this provenance can be accepted as correct, it might suggest an earlier date for the start of burials at Gadir than is currently archaeologically attested (Shefton 1982, 368). Blanco and Corzo 1981; Kukahn 1951, 23–34. Aubet 1994, 232. Strabo III. 5. 3, C 169. Aubet 1994, 229. For the difficulties involved in reaching Gadir by sea, Gasull 1986. The discovery of a Phoenician settlement on the mouth of all the major rivers in Portugal, as far north as the Mondego, shows that the difficulties of crossing the Straits and navigating the Atlantic may have been overestimated by many researchers. As far as we can tell, the archipelago of Gadir was largely uninhabited on the arrival of the first Tyrian settlers. Indigenous settlement remains on the islands date to the Copper and Bronze Ages and there is no evidence for any human settlement there at the time of the foundation of the Phoenician enclave (Escacena 1986, 48–9). Very often, the Phoenicians

chose uninhabited sites in Iberia for their settlements, which were either virgin territory or had been unoccupied for centuries, as in the case of Morro de Mezquitilla which too had settlement remains at least a millennium older than the Phoenician strata. However, in other cases (Tavira, Casa de Montilla and Almuñécar for instance) they were quite happy to establish themselves in close association with, or within, a pre-existing indigenous settlement. 95. Ruiz Mata 1993a, 25 and 36–41; see also Strabo III. 1. 9. 96. Marín and Lomas 1992, 129. For the influence of Gadir in these regions and the so called ‘Circle of the Straits’, see Ponsich 1975 and Gran 1992. See also above, Chapter One, p. 46. 97. For Castillo de Doña Blanca, see Ruiz Mata 1993b. 98. Certainly trade rather than defence seems to have been the main purpose of the settlement, as otherwise it would have been situated higher up in the mountains, in a place with a better view of the hinterland (Ruiz Mata 1986c 241; Ruiz Mata 1993a, 41–2). The mountains cut off Doña Blanca from the interior and allow it a view out to sea only (Ruiz Mata 1999a, 305). 99. Arteaga, Schulz and Roos 1995. 100. Ruiz Mata 1993a, 42; Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, 15–19. It is interesting to note, in this respect, that Doña Blanca’s coastal location, next to a major river providing it with easy communications with the hinterland, is very similar to the settlement pattern adopted by the Phoenician enclaves at the other side of the Straits on the Mediterranean coast of Spain: see Chapter Four, pp. 107–08. 101. Ruiz Mata 1991a; Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1989. 102. Ruiz Mata 1993a, 43–4; Ruiz Mata 1994, 3–4. The final abandonment of Castillo de Doña Blanca can be dated very precisely to 215/210 by the discovery of a hoard of 46 Carthaginian coins hidden or simply left behind in one of the houses on the site (Alfaro and Marcos 1994). The abandonment may well have been violent, judging by the signs of fire, and the bodies of men and horses lying in front of the defensive walls, as well as numerous catapults and stone bolts found in the final levels of occupation. It is probably to be linked to the second Punic War, and the Roman presence in this region at the time. However more prosaic factors may also have played a role as, by that time, the mouth of the Guadalete was already silting up, and the settlement may simply have moved to the nearby Puerto de Santa Maria, the most important site in the area from the Roman period onwards. Such factors may well also have motivated the abandonment of the third-century settlement at Las Cumbres, regarded as an extension of Doña Blanca. Here the abandonment of the site seems to have been peaceful, and coincided with the abandonment of Doña Blanca. What is curious, however, is that the abandonment of the Las Cumbres settlement appears to have taken place suddenly, with the population simply leaving behind many of their possessions (Niveau de Villedary and Ruiz Mata 2000, 897).

NOTES TO PAGES 94–100

103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111.

112. 113.

114. 115.

116.

117.

118. 119.

Perhaps the abandonment of both sites has to do with the reorganization of the Punic population of the area by the Romans. Ruiz Mata 1994, 7; Ruiz Mata 1993a, 48. A similar defensive system is found at La Fonteta in Alicante, where a V-shaped trench protects the fortication wall (González Prats and Ruiz 2000, 43). Ruiz Mata 1994, 7–9; Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, 99–103; for Beirut see Markoe 2000, 201–02. Ruiz Mata 1993a, 46; Ruiz Mata 1991b, 94. Ruiz Mata 1994, 9; Ruiz Mata 1993a, 46–7. Ruiz Mata 1993a, 48; Ruiz Mata 1994, 9; Ruiz Mata 1987a, 381. Ruiz Mata 1993a, 48. Ruiz Mata 1993a, 45. Morales et al 1994, 37–71; for a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Chapter Four, pp. 110–11. For evidence of specialised animal breeding, see Chapter Four, p. 110. Ruiz Mata 1986b; Ruiz Mata 1986a, 542–9. Ruiz Mata 1993a, 48; Ruiz Mata 1994, 11. The fact that this fine table ware accounts for almost the entire pottery production of the site in the initial facies is most unusual for the settlements in the Peninsula. At Toscanos, for instance, it amounts to no more than 10% (Schubart, Niemeyer and Pellicer 1969a; Schubart, Niemeyer and Pellicer 1969b). Schubart 1976. See Chapter One, p. 12. Widths within such a range would make them at least contemporary with strata I and II of Toscanos and Chorreras, and the lower levels of Morro de Mezquitilla, dated to the mid-eighth century (Ruiz Mata 1986c, 244–7; Ruiz Mata 1993a, 49–51; Ruiz Mata 1994, 11). However, the author points out that, in the examples from Castillo de Doña Blanca, the width of the rim of the plate varies in accordance with its total diameter, so that plates with a larger diameter tend to have wider rims and vice versa (Ruiz Mata 1993a, 49–51). Therefore, in measuring the width of the rim we have to keep in mind the total diameter of the plate before making any decision as to the dating of the plate. Such forms are frequent in the East, in Hazor in levels VIII (ninth century) and VII–V (end of the ninth to 732), and are found in Tyre in levels IV (from 760 to 740 BC) and II–III (740–700), and in Spain at Chorreras in the mid-eighth century. For references, see Ruiz Mata 1986c, 247. These have been found in nearly every house on the site. In other settlements their use is confined to funerary contexts only (Ruiz Mata 1993a, 51; Ruiz Mata 1994, 11). One of the trefoil jugs from Doña Blanca had a black surface, something which is found in examples from Tyre (Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, 56). Ruiz Mata 1991b, 91; Ruiz Mata 1986c, 247–8. A feature which normally indicates a relatively high dating, as one-spouted lamps are most commonly found in the East, while the two-spouted variety is the most frequently represented in the West.

191

120. Ruiz Mata 1993a, 52–4; Maass-Lindemann 1986, 228. See Chapter Four, pp. 116–17, for a full discussion of this amphora and its distribution. 121. Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, 58. 122. This type of amphora has a short vertical neck, carinated shoulders and pointed base (Ruiz Mata 1986c, 248–50; Sagona 1982, 75–8). 123. Ruiz Mata 1994, 11; Ruiz Mata 1993a, 54. This ware is also found in the lowest levels of Morro de Mezquitilla where the pottery production is still very closely linked to the East. See Appendix, pp. 172–4. 124. Ruiz Mata 1999a, 305. 125. Ruiz Mata 1999a, 306. The reference to Eshmun on the graffito from Doña Blanca consitutes the earliest written reference to the god so far attested. A theophoric name, BD’SM N, meaning ‘through the work of Eshmun’, is attested from the indigenous settlement of La Peña Negra in Alicante, written on a locally-made red-slip plate (González Prats 1982, 364, 384–5; González Prats 1999, 112). 126. Ruiz Mata 1993a, 55–6. 127. The pithoi at Castillo de Doña Blanca are very similar in their decoration, form and firing to those from Mogador, the Phoenician trading post on the Atlantic coast of Morroco (Jodin 1966). It is interesting that several of the pithoi from Doña Blanca were decorated with figurative motifs of fantastic animals and exotic flowers. Similar decorations were found on pithoi from a mid-seventh-century context, in what has been interpreted as a possible Phoenician religious building in the indigenous site of Carmona in the Guadalquivir valley in Seville province (Belén et al. 1996a, 15–17). 128. For the grey ware, see Belén 1976 and Roos 1983. 129. Ruiz Mata 1986c, 250–1. 130. Ruiz Mata 1986c, 251; for the Mogador plates, see Jodin 1966, 77–84 and fig. 15 a and b. 131. Ruiz Mata 1986c, 259–60; Ruiz Mata 1993a, 56. 132. Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, 64. The economic prosperity and growth in the size and number of the Phoenician colonies in Iberia during the seventh century has often been attributed to the influx of large numbers of new settlers from the East: see Chapter Four, pp. 122–3. 133. Dr M. Maia and Dr M. Maia, personal communication. 134. Maass-Lindemann 1992; Maass-Lindemann 1990b; Docter 1999. For a discussion of the sites and pottery types that make up this culture, see Chapter One, passim, and Appendix, pp. 171–4. 135. Ruiz Mata 1994,11; Ruiz Mata 1993a, 54–5; Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, 59. 136. Ruiz Mata 1986b, 97. As the final publication of the excavations at Doña Blanca is still in progress, the percentages of hand-made versus wheel-made pottery and the changes in these figures over time are not available. 137. The form and decoration of the indigenous pottery at Doña Blanca is restricted to the Late Bronze Age sites in the area around the Bay of Cádiz and not found

192

138.

139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145.

146.

147.

148. 149.

NOTES TO PAGES 100–108 elsewhere, indicating that its users may well have come from the immediate vicinity of the site (Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, 59). Ruiz Mata and González Rodríguez 1994, 220. It is interesting that survey and limited excavation at this site show that, despite its proximity to Doña Blanca, the Las Beatillas settlement consisted of the indigenous circular cabins typical of the Tartessian Late Bronze Age, and its pottery was still mostly handmade; Phoenician pottery is scarce even at the start of the seventh century (Ruiz Mata and González Rodríguez 1994, 220). For Phoenician burial rites, see Chapter Two, passim. Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1989; Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, 113–22; Córdoba and Ruiz Mata 2000. Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, 117. For a discussion of this pottery type, see Appendix, p. 171. Córdoba and Ruiz Mata 2000, 762. See Chapter Two, p. 73. The obvious parallel is that of Pithekoussai, where a Phoenician family was buried in the cemetery of the Greek colony (Ridgway 1992, 111–18). Ruiz Mata and Pérez cite the case of the burial of a Phoenician craftsman in a Bronze Age tholos tomb in Crete (Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, 120). However, this is not an exact parallel, as the tomb was rededicated in a Phoenician manner, and there were no contemporary Cretan burial (for this tomb, see Niemeyer 1984a). The form of burial, cremation in urns (many of which are of the Cruz del Negro type), is also found in a purely Phoenician context at Puig des Molins, for instance. What is different at Doña Blanca is their incorporation into the burial tumulus. It would be interesting to know whether the signs of ritual activity associated with some of the burials are found linked with those of orientalizing type only, or are also found together with those burials devoid of Phoenician materials. There are several other tumuli visible at Las Cumbres, none of which have been excavated yet. As the area of the cemetery has not been fully investigated, it is always possible that there are other burials of an exclusively Phoenician type which could alter our interpretation of the Tumulus 1 evidence. We have to await further investigation of the site, and the full publication of the Tumulus 1 findings. Aubet 1994, 241. In Carmona, for instance, which is generally characterised as an indigenous settlement in commercial contact with the Phoenicians, we find evidence of strong oriental influence in the burials of the Roman period (Bendala 1982; Belén 1994; López Castro 1992). This model also ignores the evidence of the ancient authors, for instance, Strabo III. 2. 13: ‘The people [sc. the inhabitants of Iberia] became so utterly subject to the Phoenicians that the greater number of the cities in Turdetania (the area corresponding to Tartessos) and of the neighbouring places are now inhabited by the

Phoenicians.’ For a more detailed discussion of this issue see Chapter Four, pp. 132–3. 150. Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, 126; Ruiz Mata and González Rodríguez 1994. 151. Ruiz Mata 1994, 11; Ruiz Mata 1993a, 54–5. In the Greek colonial context, local women may often have been incorporated into the colony as wives of the colonists: see Van Compernolle 1983.

Notes to Chapter Four 1. Harrison 1988, 22; Naval Intelligence Division 1941, 9–80. 2. Ruiz Mata 1993a, 25 and 36–41; Schulz 1995. 3. Warning-Treumann 1978, 17. 4. Harrison 1988, 22. Warning Treumann 1978, 17–18; Harrison cites figures 5. of less than 250mm rainfall a year for parts of coastal Almería and Murcía (Harrison 1988, 22). Aubet 1987, 57. 6. 7. Aubet 1994, 268–269; Warning-Treumann 1978, 20. 8. Avienus, OM, 178–82; Aubet 1987, 56; Aubet and Carulla 1986, 425–6; García Alfonso 1999, 51. This route was obviously freqently used, given the number of Phoenician finds along it: see Sillières 1990, 537–42. 9. Moscati 1973, 24–6; Decret 1977, 18–21; Aubet 1994, 20–5. 10. Ezekiel, 27. 3. Translation, revised standard version, London 1966. 11. Aubet 1994, 22; Moscati 1973, 25. 12. Thucydides VI. 2. 6: ‘There were also Phoenicians living all round Sicily. The Phoenicians occupied the headlands and small islands off the coast and used them as posts for trading with the Sicels.’ 13. There is an extensive bibliography on the subject, see chiefly, Niemeyer, Briese and Bahnemann 1988a, Arteaga et al. 1988 and Arteaga et al. 1985. 14. Hoffman and Schulz 1988; Schulz 1983. 15. Arteaga 1985; Arteaga 1982a and Arteaga 1988. 16. Schubart 1993. 17. Utica on the North African coast shares this type of location, on a peninsula between two lateral bays; see Schubart 1993, 73. 18. Schubart 1993, 72–3; Arteaga et al. 1988 117–20 and 123–5; Arteaga et al. 1985 120–1. For Cádiz see Ramírez 1982. A similar location was chosen for the Phoenician site of Mogador in North Africa: see Jodin 1966. 19. See above Chapter One, passim. 20. Ora Maritima, 440; 459–60. 21. Aubet 1994, 266; Aubet 1987, 55. 22. Moscati 1989, 143. 23. This term was first used by Niemeyer 1984a to describe the settlement pattern along the southern Spanish coastline. 24. Diodorus Siculus V. 35. 4–5. See also, for instance, Gras, Rouillard and Teixidor 1991, 107–14. 25. Gasull 1986, 194. There are some sources of argentiferous galena in the province of Málaga but there is no evidence that these were exploited in this period

NOTES TO PAGES 108–111

26. 27. 28. 29.

30. 31. 32. 33.

34.

35. 36. 37. 38.

(Rodríguez et al. 1996). For the mineral resources of south-west Spain see Chapter Five. Rodríguez et al. 1996; Warning-Treumann 1978, 39; Arteaga 1976–78, 43–4. Rothenberg and Blanco 1981. Aubet 1994, 269. Keesmann, Niemeyer and Golschani 1983; Keesmann and Hellermann 1989, 92–117. The discovery of ironproduction across a number of Phoenician sites in Andalusia, Portugal and Ibiza may be due to the fact that this metal was first introduced to Iberia by the Phoenicians, and therefore that the settlers had no means of obtaining the metal other than by producing it themselves or importing it from the Eastern Mediterranean; the latter was a costly business when there were abundant supplies of ore available locally. Iron could also have been used to trade with the locals in exchange for other metals, as seems to have been the case at La Fonteta at Guardamar in Alicante. Silversmelting is attested at the Phoenician sites of Villaricos in Almería and Sa Caleta in Ibiza, as well as at Abul and Cerro da Rocha in Portugal. These exploited locally available sources of ore. See below Chapter Five, especially pp. 135–7. Small-scale metallurgical activity is also attested at Cerro del Villar, in association with a possible market place or commercial area at the site (Aubet 1997a, 203). See above Chapter Three, p. 94. Gasull 1986, 196; Aubet 1977–78, 84; Aubet 1982. Another view is that the lack of such finds in the south-east is due to the relative absence of cemeteries in this area. Gasull 1986, 200–02, followed by Moscati 1989, 146–7. This idea is developed by Aubet 1987, 61–2, who suggests that sailors and travellers, often forced to wait for considerable periods of time for a favourable wind before crossing the Straits, could have provided the extra manpower needed to plant and harvest the crops cultivated at these sites, especially at Cerro del Villar. Wagner 1987, 333–4. Given the Phoenician navigational skill, Moscati’s idea (1989, 146–7), that so many settlements were founded to ensure immediate refuge for ships caught in adverse natural conditions, is extremely unlikely: see Alvar 1981, 66–89. Curtin 1984; Aubet 1994, 299–300. Aubet 1987, 58; Aubet and Carulla 1986, 427; Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1973, 79–82. For Cabezo de San Pedro, see von den Driesch 1973. For the fauna of Toscanos, see Schüle 1969, 124; Soergel 1968; Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1973, 35–65. Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1973, 86, fig. 24. Cattle appear to have occupied an important position among the domestic animals at the Phoenician site of Cerro da Rocha Branca in the Algarve in Portugal, where, with 37.5% of the total animal bone remains, they make up by far the most important element in the food supply there. However, the importance of cattle did not prevent the inhabitants from occasionally resorting to more unusual types of meat. Marks on the bones of a

39.

40.

41. 42. 43.

44. 45. 46.

47. 48. 49. 50.

193

fox terrier indicate that the dog had been eaten, apparently in a stew, while donkey was also an occasional source of protein (Cardoso 1993, 124). The use of dogs as a source of food is corroborated by Justin XIX. 1. 10–12 and may also be corroborated by the dog-remains found at Cerro del Villar (Aubet et al. 1999, 338). Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1973, 90. This distinction does not apply among the Phoenician and indigenous sites in Portugal, where cattle formed the most important source of meat for both communities (Cardoso 2000). We know that the Carthaginians at least were very interested in the question of stock-breeding. Magon in his treatise on agriculture gave very precise indications as to the identification of the ideal cow, and also provided instructions as to how best to ensure the health and prosperity of cattle (preserved in Columella, VI. 1. 3, and Varro, de Re Rustica, II. 5. 18. See Gsell 1920, 1–52 for references; and see also Lancel and Lipinski 1992b and Lipinski 1992b. Uerpmann and M. Uerpmann 1973, 49–52. The finds from the Phoenician-influenced Cerro de la Tortuga also point to a stockier type of cattle than their late Bronze Age predecessors. Soergel 1968, 112, who in the 1964 excavation materials found only one animal that was less than four years old, and five that were slaughtered at 5–6 years of age, out of a total of nine identified individuals. Aubet 1987, 59. The use of cattle for traction is supported by the archaeological data which have identified morphological changes in some lower limb bones which may be the result of the demands of work (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1973, 93–94). A similar exostosis was observed in level XVI (dated to the end of the eighth or early seventh centuries) at the Phoenician site of Castillo de Doña Blanca, and attributed to the use of the animal as a draught beast (Morales et al. 1994, 45). Morales et al. 1994, 40–5. Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1973, 86, table 24. Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1973, 86–7. In this context the fact that many of the amphorae found in the area of the warehouse at Toscanos contained preserved meat (Docter 1999, 92) is interesting, in that it suggests a specialised production of meat for trading purposes. Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1973, 87. Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1973, 87; Lepiksaar 1973; Uerpmann 1972. Strabo III. 2. 7 praises the abundance and variety of fish found along the coasts of southern Spain. Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1973, 87; Niemeyer 1982b, 117; Niemeyer 1982a, 185–204. See Mela II. 94 and Strabo III. 4. 2 and in general Curtis 1991. This garum was known and appreciated in fifthcentury Athens (Aristophanes, Frogs 475; Eupolis, Marikas [ed. Kock], FCA I, 186; Antiphanes in Athenaeus III. 118d; FCA II, 43. See Tsirkin 1979, 549–50 and López Castro 1993. It is possible that garum

194

51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

56.

57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

73. 74.

NOTES TO PAGES 111–116 was being produced as early as the eighth and seventh centuries and traded with the Iberians, given the discovery of a Phoenician amphora containing fish in the indigenous, inland site of Acinippo in the Sierra of Ronda (Aguayo, Carrilero and Fernández Martínez 1991). Fish was also found inside an amphora in the settlement at Cerro del Villar (Aubet 1997a, 203–4). The amphora in question was found in a porticoed area, which Aubet views as a possible market: if so, it emphasises the possibility that fish was being preserved and bottled as a trade good, long before the large-scale production and commercialization of this resource from the fifth century onwards. Aubet 1992a, 74–5; Aubet 1990; Aubet 1991a. Aubet 1999, 43; Aubet et al. 1999, 339. Aubet 1999, 46; Rodríguez Santana 1999. Roselló and Morales 1994a; Moreno 1994. Niemeyer 1986b, 117, estimates the population of seventh-century Toscanos (including the out-lying sites of Alarcón and Peñón) as from 1,000 to 1,500 people. That of Doña Blanca during the same period may have been some 1,000 to 1,200 individuals. Although these are two of the largest sites, given the overall number of settlements, we are still dealing with a considerable colonial population. Aubet 1987, 58–60. She uses the low incidence of swine found among the animal remains at Toscanos (never more than 11% – a figure which sinks to a mere 1.5% in the most recent levels of Phoenician occupation) to support her theory of intensive agriculture practised in the Vélez valley, as this animal is generally incompatible with intensive cereal cultivation. Arribas and Arteaga 1975; Arribas and Arteaga 1976. Aubet 1988, 246–7; Aubet 1992a, 76. Aubet 1991c; Aubet 1999; Aubet et al. 1999. Aubet 1991c, 626. Aubet et al. 1999, 29–32. Aubet 1993a, 474. For Malaka see Martín Ruiz 1995, 66–9 and Gran 1991. Aubet 1994, 276; Aubet and Carulla 1986, 426. In addition to the water supplied by the Guadalhorce, there were several fresh water springs in the vicinity of the site which could have provided water for the settlement (Aubet 1991c, 622). For the fish, see Aubet 1999. Aubet 1992a, 72–3; Aubet 1993a, 474. Aubet and Carulla 1986, 429. Aubet and Carulla 1986, 430; Aubet 1997a, 198; Aubet et al. 1999, 43–44. Aubet 1988; Aubet 1999, 42–45; Ros and Burjachs 1999. Aubet 1987, 58; Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1973, 68–83. Aubet and Carulla 1986, 426; Aubet 1991c, 624. Aubet 1993a, 477–8; Aubet 1997a. Right from the earliest level of occupation at the site, amphorae are represented in very large quantities, making up the predominant ceramic form throughout the whole sequence at the settlement (Aubet et al. 1999, 87). Aubet 1999, 47; Aubet et al. 1999, 337. Chamorro 1994.

75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

81. 82.

83. 84. 85. 86.

87. 88. 89.

90. 91. 92. 93.

Chamorro 1994, 35; Isager and Skydsgaard 1992, 43. Aubet 1993a, 477–8; Montero 1999. Bondi 1985, 177–8. Aubet 1989, 381; García Alfonso 1999; Martín Ruiz 1999. That is the view tentatively expressed by Martín Ruiz 1999. Aubet 1992a, 73–4; Aubet 1993a, 479; Aubet et al. 1999, 47. Two further sites have yielded archaeological materials, at San Julián which dates from the Punic period of the fifth to third centuries, when the site acted as a sanctuary, and at Churriana, where the remains seem to reflect the existence of a necropolis dating to the Phoenician period (see above, p. 60 in Chapter Two). However it is more likely that the cemetery of El Villar is situated at Cortijo de Montáñez (Aubet, MaassLindemann and Martín Ruiz 1995) and the remains from Churriana must correspond to an as yet unidentified Phoenician settlement in the area or perhaps to those at Loma del Aeropuerto or Campamento Benítez. There is also a short–lived indigenous settlement in what was to become the Phoenico-Punic city of Málaga, only 6 km away from Cerro del Villar (Fernández et al. 1997). See below for details. In the Algarrobo valley close to the cemetery of Trayamar an indigenous settlement was found at Los Pinares, dating to the second half of the seventh century. This has been identified as a small indigenous site apparently dependent on the Phoenician settlement at Morro de Mezquitilla (Aubet 1995a, 145; Recio 1993, 132). Aubet 1987, 60; Gran 1971; Gran 1981. Gómez Bellard 1986; Gómez Bellard 2000; Benito et al. 2000. García Alfonso 1999. Von den Driesch 1973, 12; Hernández 1992; Cardoso 2000. The oldest reliable date for the appearance of the hen (gallus gallus domesticus) in Iberia comes from eighth-century levels at Castillo de Doña Blanca, and it is also found in an early sixth-century context at Cerro del Villar (García Petit 1999). The chickpea and the almond, both first attested in Spain at Phoenician sites (Aubet 1991b, 103). Guerrero 1995, 77. For instance, Guerrero 1995, 77 and Domínguez Monedero 1995, 47. Before the arrival of the Phoenicians wine occasionally reached Iberia as an exotic gift or trade good: for instance, the famous Mycenaean pottery found at the Llanete de los Moros site, near Montoro in Córdoba, consisted of a cup and a krater, shapes associated with wine drinking, at least in the Argolid where they were manufactured (Martín de la Cruz 1988). Greene 1996, 316. Greene 1996, 311; Leonard 1996. For a fuller discussion of this type, see Appendix, p. 171. Vuillemot 1965, fig. 17 and 104–06; Benoît 1965, 56–7,

NOTES TO PAGES 116–118

94.

95. 96. 97.

98. 99. 100.

101.

102. 103. 104. 105. 106.

type A. It is type 1 in Maass-Lindemann’s classification of the Phoenician pottery of Spain (MaassLindemann 1986, 234) and also in Schubart and MaassLindemann 1984, 119–24. It is Ramón’s T-10.1.1.1 and T-10.1.2.1 (Ramón 1995, 229–31) and Docter’s CdE form (Docter 1999). For instance, among others, at Chorreras (Aubet 1974, figs 10, 17 and 19; Aubet, Maass-Lindemann and Schubart 1975, fig. 8), at Toscanos (Schubart and Maass-Lindemann 1984, 119–24), and at Guadalhorce, where it was the only amphora identified by the first excavations at the site (Arribas and Arteaga 1975). At Castillo de Doña Blanca, it is the most frequent amphora type of the eighth and seventh centuries (Ruíz Mata and Pérez 1995, 57–67). See Ramón 1995 for an exhaustive list of all the locations where this amphora has been found. For Mogador, see Jodin 1966, 122–32; Lixus: MaassLindemann 1992, 177–8 and Maass-Lindemann 1990b; Rachgoun: Vuillemot 1965, 62–7, fig. 17, 1. Ibiza: Ramón 1981, 30–5. Maass-Lindemann 1986, 234; Docter 1999, 106–07. It has oriental prototypes, but there are clear differences between its eastern predecessor and the form in which it appears in the western Meditteranean. In southern Spain it appears in Cerro Salomón, Huelva, El Carambolo (Seville) and Carmona among many others (Schubart and Maass-Lindemann 1984, 124). See Ramón 1995, 73–95 for a full list of find–spots; for the Spanish Levant, see González Prats 1986 and Ribera and Fernández 2000; for Catalonia see Sanmartí 1991; Arteaga, Padró and Sanmartí 1986; for Languedoc, see Benoît 1965, 56–66. Ramón 1981, 16; Maass-Lindemann 1986, 234. Ramón 1981, 16. Schubart and Arteaga 1986, 510; Arteaga, Padró and Sanmartí 1986, 306; Sanmartí 1991, 120; Grace 1961, 1 and Peacock and Williams 1991, 31. In fact it may well be wrong to think that they invariably carried only one product, either wine or oil. Given the discovery of a Phoenician amphora containing fish bones, in the indigenous site of Acinippo (Ronda), in the mountains behind the Phoencian coastal sites, there is always the possibility that preserved fish was among the food products transported and traded in these containers (Aguayo, Carrilero and Fernández Martínez 1991, 571). The Bronze Age Canaanite jars, while usually associated with wine, also carried a whole range of other products. Docter suggests that many of his CdE1 amphorae from the warehouse area at Toscanos were used to contain meat preserves (Docter 1999, 92). Gómez Bellard and Guerin 1994, 17; Gómez Bellard and Guerin 1995, 255. Aubet et al. 1999, 337. Ruiz Mata 1995. Guerrero 1995, 95. Cerro de los Infantes, Contreras, Carrión and Jabaloy 1983; Acinipo, Padial et al. 2000. Docter traces the evolution of the R–1 type, which he

107.

108. 109.

110. 111.

112.

195

terms the CdE 1 (Círculo del Estrecho), and he notes the evolution and expansion of the type. They came to be produced outside the Phoenician settlements themselves, firstly during the period of growth in the latter part of the seventh century, and then during the so–called ‘crisis’ of the sixth. He says that such enlarged production may have been the result of emigration of potters from the Phoenician sites during the sixth century (Docter 1999, 92). On wondrous things heard, 135; see Ross 1913; and Diodorus V. 35. 4–5. From the Periplus of ‘Scylax’, we see a similar form of exchange between the Phoenicians and the native peoples on the west coast of Africa, with the latter offering animal skins and ivory in return for unguents, Attic pottery and wine jars, Pseudo-Scylax 112 in Müller 1882, 94. PseudoAristotle’s mention of the Phoenician trade in gewgaws (áthurmata) seems to find its archaeological confirmation in the numerous scarabs found in indigenous contexts in the Spanish Levant and Catalonia as far north as the Languedoc. These and the amphorae seem to have formed the basis of Phoenician trade with the local people there. For a list of such finds in Iberia and France, see Padró 1976–78. For instance at Aldovesta on the Ebro river in northeastern Spain, Mascort, Sanmartí and Santacana 1991; Sanmartí 1991, 121. Arteaga, Padró and Sanmartí 1986, 312–4; Briard 1979, 192–208. The supposition of a significant Phoenician involvement in oil production and trade is supported by the appearance in the Phoenician sites of southern Spain of Attic amphorae of the SOS type, which would originally have contained oil. These Shefton identifies as possible trade goods, exchanged with the Spaniards in return for silver, and most probably acquired in Pithekoussai, see Shefton 1982, 338–42; also, Gill, 1988. In addition, small oil bottles designed to hold perfumed oil or unguents, and of clear Phoenician manufacture, are found in many Phoenician sites in the central and western Mediterranean and in certain native sites in Spain: see Ramón 1982. Pottery: Röllig 1983; jewellery: González Prats 1976–78. González Prats 1993, 147; González Prats 1986; González Prats 1982; González Prats 1991; RuizGálvez Priego 1997. A further confirmation of the existence of a flourishing metals for food exchange comes from the site of Aldovesta, discussed in chapter 1. Here what seems to have been an indigenous warehouse was located on the lower reaches of the Ebro river, an important link with the interior of northern Spain. The materials found here consisted overwhelmingly of R–1 amphorae, along with clear signs both of the production and trade of bronze items. The finds of numerous bone Egyptian-style scarabs and amulets in the indigenous cemeteries of northern Spain, when combined with the evidence for a trade in wine and oil, provides archaeological corroboration of the statement of

196

113. 114.

115.

116.

117. 118. 119.

NOTES TO PAGES 118–121 Pseudo-Aristotle, that the Phoenicians in Iberia exchanged trinkets (athurmata) and olive oil for metals. Bunnens 1986b. This hypothesis of a commercial agriculture carried out by the Phoenician settlements in Spain was first suggested by Schubart and Arteaga 1986, and further developed by Wagner 1988, 426–7. The latter takes this one step further to hypothesize that the agricultural activities carried out there were the result of a strategy implemented by Gadir, which must, therefore, have significantly predated the other Phoenician sites in the Peninsula, probably as a result of precolonial frequentation of this region. While the archaeological evidence supports the first part of his theory, the whole precolonisation issue is exceedingly thorny, and I do not think that the pottery production of the other Andalusian Phoenician settlements can be used to support this premise. Aubet 1988, 247; Aubet 1991b, 103; Barceló et al. 1995; Aubet et al. 1999, 149–285; Curià et al. 2000. Some 3.2 tons of pottery were found associated with the pottery workshop, more than 74,000 fragments. The potter’s workshop at El Villar ‘estuvo especializado en la producción de recipientes de almacenamiento y transporte, en su mayoría sin tratamiento, siendo la forma más representada, el ánfora’ (Curià 2000, 1476). The view that the major activity of the site at El Villar was to produce agricultural surpluses, which would then be put into amphorae and traded, is perhaps confirmed by the recent identification of what may have been a market, opening on to one of the main streets of the settlement (Fig. 4.2). This consists of a porticoed structure, providing access to small rectilinear rooms which opened on to the street. These small rooms, similar to Roman tabernae, contained amphorae (including one with fish remains), and Aubet has suggested that they functioned as a kind of shop, used to display and store trade goods (Aubet 1997a, 203). Given the specialisation of the settlement in two areas of production – agriculture and the manufacture of large storage containers (basically amphorae) – the major trade goods which this market would have to offer would be locally-produced agricultural products. In addition, Cerro del Villar was located in an ideal position in which to engage in trade. Its island location made it a neutral venue for traders from the interior and the coast to meet, as Aubet points out (Aubet 1997a, 209–11); also its postion on the largest river in Andalucía, and one of the few natural routes of communication in this region providing access to the heartland of Tartessos, meant that goods produced at El Villar could easily, and cheaply, be transported by river to be traded with the metal-rich indigenous communities of the interior of Iberia. Diodorus XX. 8. 3–4; confirmed by Polybius I. 29. 7. López Castro, unpublished. Hopkins 1985, 235–51; López Castro, unpublished.

120. Aubet 1994, 75–7. 121. Curtius Rufus IV. 4. 20; Justin, Epitome, XVIII. 3. 50; Tertullian, De anima, 30; Sallust, Jugurtha, XIX. 1–2. 122. Whittaker 1974. 123. Bondi 1983; Sierra 1988, 478. 124. Pellicer 1986a; Molina González 1978. 125. Carrilero et al. 1993; Wagner 1993, 86. 126. Aubet 1992b. 127. Molina Fajardo 1983; Molina Fajardo and Bannour 2000. 128. Schubart, Niemeyer and Pellicer 1969a, 128–40; Schubart and Maass-Lindemann 1984, 140–6. For Chorreras, Aubet, Maass-Lindemann and Schubart 1979, 119–24; Morro de Mezquitilla: Schubart 1985, 165. 129. Schubart, Niemeyer and Pellicer 1969a, 140. 130. This is the view, for instance, of Martín Ruiz 2000. 131. For Cerca Niebla and Vélez-Málaga, see Gran 1971 and Gran 1981. For the sites around El Villar and Málaga, see Recio 1993 and García Alfonso 1999. Excavations in the Plaza de San Pablo, in the city of Málaga in 1996, uncovered the remains of at least one fondo de cabaña, or hut, associated with a series of silos, and dated by its pottery (overwhelmingly hand made) to the latter part of the eighth century (Fernández et al. 1997). The silos point to the existence of agricultural activities and there are also signs of metallurgical activities. The site seems to have been occupied for only a short time, from the last quarter of the eighth down to the start of the seventh centuries, and perhaps only on a seasonal basis. What is significant is its proximity to the contemporary Cerro del Villar, only 6 km away, and also that it is situated in the heart of what would become the most important Phoenician and Punic city in the region from the early sixth century onwards, Malaka. 132. The fact that the majority of the indigenous ware at Toscanos, as in the other Phoenician sites, comes from the first stratum of occupation at the site, and then steadily diminishes, might simply reflect the adoption of the potter’s wheel by the indigenous population through Phoenician influence, and not the gradual reduction in the number of locals present there. However, there are more profound problems with the identification of ethnicity based solely on technical considerations, i.e. hand-made pottery = Iberian, and wheel-made = Phoenician, as is frequently the case in the study of Protohistorical Iberia. A fundamental problem is that it is often difficult to distinguish between indigenous pottery and the hand made pottery of the Phoenicians. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Phoenicians seem to have occasionally made and used hand-made pottery (see for instance the evidence from Sa Caleta where some of the handmade pottery reflects indigenous Iberian traditions while others clearly does not, Ramón 1999, 150–1). Hand-made pottery has also been found in Phoenician contexts in the Lebanon itself (Martín Ruiz 2000, n. 2) while the cargo of a Phoenician ship wrecked off the coast of Iberia contained some hand-made pottery

NOTES TO PAGES 121–124

133.

134.

135. 136.

137. 138. 139.

(Negueruela et al. 2000, 1672), so we should be wary of making the automatic assumption that hand-made pottery is invariably a sign of the presence of nonPhoenicians and hence a reliable indicator of ethnicity. There is also the more fundamental problem as to how to use archaeological evidence to reconstruct patterns of ethnicity. From this perspective technological factors such as the use or absence of the potter’s wheel are the least reliable in terms of distinguishing Phoenician from Iberian, as Escacena points out (Escacena 1992, 323; Escacena 2000, 123). This problem of trying to identify and distinguish foreign settler from local inhabitant based primarily on the presence or absence of certain objects becomes even more acute in the funerary context, as we have seen in the case of cemeteries like Cruz del Negro at Carmona, when these criteria, and the location of the cemetery (coastal = colonial, while internal = indigenous) are used to determine the identity of those buried there. In the 1964 excavations at Toscanos the total quantity of hand-made pottery was 265 fragments, compared with some 10,000 fragments of wheel-made ware (Schubart, Niemeyer and Pellicer 1969a, 128). At Morro de Mezquitilla more hand-made pottery was found, but the majority of this belonged to the fully prehistoric strata of occupation (Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, 91–102). Therefore, if we accept the view that hand-made pottery is a good marker for the presence of members of the Tartessian community, the number of indigenous inhabitants at these sites would seem to have been considerably smaller than at Castillo de Doña Blanca in Cádiz. No exact figures are available, as the site still has not been fully published. It is interesting that the recent excavations at Carthage identified some hand-made pottery, which in its decoration and form clearly corresponds to that from south-western Iberia, and more particularly to that found in Castillo de Doña Blanca and its immediate environs (Mansel 2000b). As to how it got to Carthage, carried there among the cargo of ships from the active port of Doña Blanca, or perhaps among the personal possessions of some individuals from Doña Blanca, whether Phoenicians or Iberians, must remain a tantalizingly open question. See Chapter Three, pp. 100–03. Martin Ruiz makes the point that the incorporation of members of the indigenous population into the workforce must have generally taken place at the level of non-specialist labour, which in turn could have lead to distinctions in status between the different ethnic groups living in these sites (Martin Ruiz 2000). Strabo III. 4. 8; Livy XXXIV. 8. 4–9; López Castro 1995, 41–6. Hoffmann 1986, 196–9; Schubart 1987. We have already seen that a similar situation pertained at Tavira in southern Portugal: here a Late Bronze Age indigenous settlement comes into contact with the Phoenicians, apparently during the eighth century.

140. 141. 142.

143.

144.

145. 146.

147. 148.

149. 150.

197

These soon become dominant at the site, judging by the pottery and the construction of an oriental-style casemate wall. Súarez Padilla et al. 1996. Recio 1993–4; Recio 1996. Aubet 1995a, 140 and 145. Almargen was located close to a key natural route of communication, the Corbones river, an affluent of the Guadalquivir, on which was located the key indigenous sites of Carmona and Montemolín, both of which show strong signs of Phoenician influence. The presence of an engraved stele at Almargen, similar to those from Montemolín and Carmona, further up the Corbones, is an indication of its strategic location, and also very possibly, its links with the other sites (Aubet 1995a, 145). Carrilero 1993. Acinipo seems to have been singled out for intensive contact with the Phoenicians. Radiocarbon dating provides a series of dates for the orientalizing levels there, the first right at the start of the ninth century (Aubet 2001, 374–5). A large number of Phoenician amphorae were found there, most of the R–1 type, and the majority have now been shown to have been made from locally-available clay rather than imported from the coastal colonies (Padial et al. 2000). Famously, however, Acinipo was selective in its approach to the ‘benefits’ brought by the Phoenicians. Five houses were excavated at the site, all apparently contemporary, but two preserved the traditional oval ground-plan, while the other three adopted the rectilinear architecture introduced to Andalusia by the Phoenicians (Martin Ruiz 1995, 217). García Alfonso 2000, 1800. The only exception are the burials at Pinos Puente, at Cerro de los Infantes in the interior, and the much disputed cemetery at Cortijo de las Sombras in Frigiliana (Málaga), close to the Mediterranean coast, and discussed above (pp. 79–80). Wagner and Alvar 1989; Alvar and Wagner 1988; Wagner 1983a; Whittaker 1974. The materials in question are the Cruz del Negro urns and the single-spouted lamps, as well as the decorated ivories, none of which are found in the coastal colonies until the seventh century, and even then in very small numbers. For a discussion of the Cruz del Negro cemetery, see Chapter Two above, p. 82. See, for instance, the recent comments on the subject by the most distinguished scholar in the area (Aubet 2000, 31). Arteaga, Schulz and Roos 1995; Schulz et al. 1992; Arteaga and Roos 1995; Schulz et al. 1995. Belén and Escacena 1997a, 110. On a historical level – in the town’s pro-Carthaginian stance in the second Punic War, and its participation, along with the Punic towns of Malaka and Sexs (Málaga and Almuñécar), in the uprising against the Romans in 197 (Livy XXXIII. 21. 6); and on an archaeological level – in the use of characteristically Phoenican-style building techniques down to the Roman period, in the mortuary practices of the Roman era and the town’s coin types, where the figure of

198

151. 152. 153. 154. 155.

156.

157. 158.

159. 160.

161.

162.

NOTES TO PAGES 124–128 Melqart was a frequent choice (Tsirkin 1985; Bendala 1982). Wagner 1989. Belén et al. 1993; Belén and Escacena 1995, 93–4; Belén et al. 1997; Belén et al. 2000; Belén 2001a; AlmagroGorbea and Moneo 2000, 17. Belén and Escacena 1997a, 104. For the city walls, see Maier 1999, 111. Strabo III. 2. 3: ‘The Baetis . . . is navigable for approximately one thousand two hundred stadia from the sea up to Corduba and the regions a little higher up. . . Now up to Hispalis (Seville), the river is navigable for merchant vessels of considerable size, that is, for a distance not much short of five hundred stadia; to the cities higher up the stream as far as Ilipa, for the smaller merchant vessels; and as far as Corduba, for the river-boats.’ Negueruela 1979–80, 348–9. According to Negueruela, the red slip ware from El Carambolo consists of ‘Oriental forms which are surprising in the purity of their parallels and their quality . . . thus [El Carambolo] must be a very important centre, with first-class pottery materials, directly linked to the East.’ Aubet 1992c; Fernández Gómez 1997, 45–57. The text of the inscription on the base of the statue reads: ‘B’lytn, son of D’mmlk, and ‘bdb’l, son of D’mmlk, son of Ys’l, made this throne for Astarte-hr, our lady, since she has heard the voice of their words.’ Bonnet believes that certain palaeographical traits link the statue with the region of Sidon, which would be appropriate, as together with Eshmun Astarte was the chief deity of that city, and was referred to as Astarte of the Sidonians in the Old Testament (Bonnet 1996, 127–33; Lipinski 1984, 102–17). The other leading deity at Sidon, Eshmun, is invoked in a graffito from Castillo de Doña Blanca and is present in a theophoric name scratched as a graffito on a locally-made red-slip plate from the indigenous metallurgical settlement of La Peña Negra in Alicante (Ruiz Mata 1999a; González Prats 1999, 112). Wagner 1983a, 45–6. Blanco 1979, 96. The site at El Carambolo is extremely problematic in that it was poorly excavated and published (Carriazo 1973). In addition, the Astarte has no known archaeological context, having been donated to the Museum by someone who received it from a construction worker, who in turn found it during building work at the site (Lipinski 1984, 102). As well as the treasure and statuette of Astarte there are further pieces of evidence to back up the view that El Carambolo was a shrine. These are the presence of a bronze thymiaterion, or incense burner (Izquierdo and Escacena 1998), along with numerous stones which Belén and Escacena suggest could have been aniconic representations of Astarte (Belén and Escacena 1997a, 112). Amores 1995; Belén and Escacena 1997a; Escacena 2000, 94–114; Belén 2000, 70–5; contra Aubet 1992–3. In support of the view that El Carambolo was a shrine to

Astarte founded by the Phoenicians is the fact that unlike the vast majority of indigenous sites in the region, it did not survive the collapse of Phoenician influence in the area in the sixth century. Instead it was hurriedly abandoned, amid signs of uncertainty and fear of violence (the hiding of the treasure). Our understanding of El Carambolo is likely to be transformed by the excavations which took place there in late 2002 in the context of the construction of a new hotel on the hill. These found that the site was occupied during the Calcolithic to the Early Bronze Age period, and then after a long hiatus was reoccupied in the mid-eighth century when a monumental building was constructed on the top of the hill. It was made in the typical orientalizing style of rectilinear architecture, with stone socles and mud-brick superstructure, with benches running along the interior of the walls. The building had a large central courtyard around which the rooms were arranged. The building complex went through several phases of remodeling and had several striking features, among which was the use of sea-shells to pave all the open-air areas or zones of passage; in some areas there are even signs of columns. Excavation at the site found that Carriazo’s famous fondo de cabaña where the treasure was found was in fact a large fossa or pit used as a dump for rubbish from the nearby buildings. It is clear from this very brief account that the new excavations have transformed our understanding of this key site and make the hypothesis of El Carambolo as a shrine, or at least as a settlement with a large central building complex perhaps used as a political seat as well as for religious purposes, much more likely. What is striking is the scale and ostentation of the architecture of El Carambolo. When we add to this the nature of the finds from the site, the treasure and statue of Astarte, the high-quality pottery both of Phoenician and the so-called Carambolo ware, we are dealing with a settlement of the greatest importance. Only 10% of the site has been excavated so far, and the work there is still unpublished (Fernández Flores and Rodríguez Azogue, 2005). It goes without saying that further work on the hill is of the highest importance in terms of the insight it may provide us into the development of the society of the Lower Guadalquivir and the nature of its contacts with the Phoenicians. My sincerest thanks to Dr Salvador Ordoñez of Seville University for informing me of this. 163. Escacena and Izquierdo 2001, 126–7. There are some signs of an apparent hiatus in the pre-Tartessian period, a feature which is common to many of the indigenous sites in the lower Guadalquivir region, but the cultural sequence clearly shows a fully prePhoenician Late Bronze Age occupation of the Cerro del San Juan hill. 164. The altar had an earlier phase, apparently of the same shape, although higher, and with a small hole in one of the short sides (Belén 2000, 70). The excavation is still unpublished. For a preliminary account, see Escacena unpublished, Escacena 2000 and Escacena and

NOTES TO PAGES 128–132

165. 166.

167.

168.

169.

170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175.

Izquierdo 1994 and 2001, as well as Belén 2000, 69–70. The motif of the oxhide is also visible in the pectorals of the El Carambolo treasure, and a drawing of an oxhide-shape made in coloured clay, and situated in the centre of the floor of a room, comes from the indigenous site of El Oral on the lower Segura, close to La Fonteta, dating to the late sixth and fifth centuries (Abad and Sala 1994 192–3). Most famously the oxhide-shaped altar is also found at the palacesanctuary of Cancho Roano in Extremadura. Escacena and Izquierdo 2001, 129. Lipinski 1995, 244–51. Melqart, as chief god of Tyre, seems to have appropriated Baal Saphon’s functions as protector of navigation: see above, Chapter Three, p. 86. It is significant in view of Escacena’ assertion that Baal Saphon was the divinity worshipped at Coria that the Ora Maritima of Rufus Avienus (lines 255–66) refers to a sacred promontory dedicated to Zeus Cassius located near to the former mouth of the Guadalquivir (Escacena and Izquierdo 2001, 148). Kasios is the Greek version of Saphon, the current Djebel el-Aqra in the Lebanon, the sacred mountain which gave the god his name: see Lipinski 1995, 244–5. Belén 2000, 70. It is interesting in this context to note that at least one of the four buildings which dominated the ‘acropolis’ of Montemolín, Building D, was also associated with the slaughter, perhaps ritual, of domestic animals: see below for details. Escacena and Izquierdo 2001 claim that these houses were home to a small Phoenician port of trade located inside the indigenous Caura. Thus this community built houses of a Phoenician kind, and a sanctuary which enabled them to carry on their traditional religious practices. In this context it is a pity that as yet the pottery from this area has not been published. as this could give us a greater insight into the activities and perhaps also identity of the occupants of this part of the Cerro de San Juan. Escacena 1993, 24. Coria is still an important crossingpoint of the river, with ferries transporting cars and other vehicles across the Guadalquivir, and even in the modern period it still occasionally attracts exotic foreign visitors. A statue in the town commemorates a visit by an envoy of the emperor of Japan, who stopped at Coria on his way to the court of Philip II. Belén 1993, 42–3. Belén 1993, 42. Chian amphorae have been found elsewhere in Iberia in Phoenician contexts: see Belén 1993, 46. Belén 1993, 45–8. Belén 1993, 49–50; Escacena unpublished. From all these angles Coria was particularly attractive to the Phoenicians. Only 3 km south of the Cerro de San Juan hill at Coria, and also on the edge of the Atlantic, a Tartessian-period settlement dedicated to silver-production, was identified in a recent rescue excavation at Cerro de la Albina in the modern town of Puebla del Río (Fig. 5.7). Its urbanism, consisting of the typically Tartessian circular cabins, seems similar to

176. 177. 178.

179.

180.

181.

182. 183.

199

that of Peñalosa. Escacena and Izquierdo (1994, 165) suggest that it was under the control of Coria. If they are right, then the production of silver, as well as its strategic location, helps to explain the importance of Coria, and also perhaps the Phoenician interest in establishing a shrine there, as a means of ensuring good relations with the inhabitants of the Cerro de San Juan. Belén and Escacena 1995, 91. Arteaga, Schulz and Roos 1995. Belén and Escacena 1995, 91. The same root Spl gave its name to the coastal plain of southern Palestine which was called Sepela, the Low Country: Lipinski 1984, 100. Should we therefore perhaps think of settlers from southern Phoenicia inhabiting this region? Pellicer 1997; Campos, Vera and Moreno 1988. From the results of this excavation, wheel-made pottery was probably present in the oldest level of settlement, and went on to become predominant from the start of the orientalizing period onwards (73% wheel–made in comparison with 27% hand-made); here this can be dated to at the latest to 725, a very early date in comparison with other sites in the region. Some building remains were found at the site which show the characteristically Phoenician rectangular ground-plan already at the end of the eighth century, or the start of the seventh century. The authors of this report have stressed that these dates place Seville among the earliest sites to show evidence of Phoenician contacts, undoubtedly due to its strategic position in terms of communication and trade routes (Campos, Vera and Moreno 1988). Astarte is attested elsewhere in Iberia at a comparable date – in Gadir where she had a temple close to that of Melqart, and also possibly at Gorham’s Cave, at the Straits (Belén and Pérez López 2000). Thus all three sites of worship of the goddess were located at strategic points of communication, perhaps because of her associations with the sea (Baurain and Bonnet 1992, 87, and see above, Chapter Three, p. 86). Certainly El Carambolo was the centre of intensive Phoenician trade. 50% of the wheel-made pottery from the ‘Poblado Bajo’ at the site was made up of amphorae, confirming its importance for Phoenician commercial interests (Ruiz Mata 1986c, 259). Its key position in major regional land routes may explain why it, and its equally stratigically located neighbour, Carmona, were marked with a decorated stele. The example from Montemolín is carved with representations of a human figure accompanied by a bow and arrow and mirror. This type of monument in the indigenous Late Bronze society of south-west Iberia mark the transition from one region to another. See Chaves and de la Bandera 1982 and Ruiz-Gálvez Priego 1995a. De la Bandera et al. 1993, 33. Chaves and de la Bandera 1991; de la Bandera et al. 1995, 317; Chaves and de la Bandera 1984; Chaves et al. 1993, Millán 1996; Chaves et al. 2000.

200

NOTES TO PAGES 132–136

184. Ferrer et al. 1998; Ferrer, Oria and García Vargas 2000. The number of sites in the region dating to the orientalizing period (seventh to sixth centuries) shows a marked increase in comparison with the preceding centuries. The majority are small agricultural sites. 185. Montemolín may very possibly the site of Ilipa where the decisive battle of the Second Punic War was fought. Certainly it showed strong signs of Carthaginian influence, with a typically Carthaginiantype tomb consisting of a vertical shaft giving access to a lateral chamber found near the site in the nineteenth century, as well as two pieces of relief sculpture both typical of late Carthaginian funerary iconography (Ferrer 1999) suggesting the presence of a possible Carthaginian cemetery there. In addition numerous coins of Hispano-Carthaginian type were found at the site dating to this period. Based on this evidence it has been suggested that Montemolín was the site of a Carthaginian military camp and possibly also a mint (Ferrer 1999, 198; Chaves 1990). 186. Strabo III. 2. 13 (also confirmed by III. 2. 14): ‘the Phoenicians . . . occupied the best of Iberia . . . and continued to be masters of those regions until the Romans broke up their empire.’ See also Avienus, Ora Maritima, 375–7, 421, 440 and 459. 187. Coldstream 1982. According to Coldstream, ‘nowhere in the Aegean did the Phoenicians form a separate community; on the contrary they mixed quite freely with the locals.’ 188. Ridgway 1992, 111–18. 189. Isserlin 1983. 190. Bondi 1987; Barreca 1986; Moscati 1986, 263–82. 191. Bondi 1987, 164; Barreca 1971. 192. Mainly copper, silver and lead in Sardinia: MassoliNovelli 1986. 193. Bondi 1983, 381.

Notes to Chapter Five 1. López Castro, San Martin and Escoriza 1987–88, 160; Suárez et al. 1989, 148; López Castro et al. 1991, 987. Varela Gomes 1993, 87. Iron slag has also been found 2. associated with orientalizing pottery in emergency excavations in the cloister of the cathedral in Lisbon (Amaro 1993, 185), and significant amounts of iron slag and also metallurgical furnaces were found further north at the Phoenician settlement at Santa Olaia. In general almost all the Phoenician sites in Portugal show evidence of small-scale metallurgical activities, with signs of silver-, copper- and ironproduction, as discussed in Chapter One. Schubart 1985, 148; Schubart 1983; Schubart 1999; 3. Mansel 2000a. 4. Keesmann and Hellermann 1989. 5. Schubart 1985, 148. 6. For Ibiza, see Ramón 1991. 7. González Prats 1998, 200. 8. See Chapter One above (pp. 28–30) for a full discussion of La Peña Negra. 9. González Prats 1998, 208.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17.

18.

19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24.

For the Toscanos finds, see Schubart and Niemeyer 1969, 209 and Niemeyer 1982b, 116–7; for Cerro del Peñón, Niemeyer, Briese and Bahnemann 1988b. Niemeyer, Briese and Bahnemann 1988b, 159. Keesmann and Niemeyer 1989, 100. Keesmann 1988, 171. Keesmann 1988, 171; Keesmann and Niemeyer 1989, 106. Keesmann and Hellermann 1989, 103–4. Large handmade jars, similar to those found in the immediate vicinity of the oven on the Peñón, were also involved in metallurgical processes at Morro de Mezquitilla (Schubart 1986, 63). Niemeyer 1986a. Keesmann and Niemeyer 1989, 101. The intensity of the chemical processes going on inside the furnaces, and the materials from which they were built, meant that they would frequently have had to be repaired or reconstructed (Craddock 1995, 156–89). Rodríguez et al. 1996; Warning-Treumann 1978, 19–20; Arteaga 1976–78, 43–4. Strabo III. 2. 8 praises the abundance and quality of iron ore in southern Spain, and the wealth of the Peninsula in this resource is mentioned by Pliny, NH III. 3. 30; Silius Italicus I. 228; Solinus XXIII. 2 and Justin XLIV. 1. 5. Schubart and Arteaga 1986, 509. Arteaga 1976–78, 43. Forbes 1972, 189. For ancient sources of iron see Healy 1978, 62–5. Ridgway 1992, 93 and 99–100. For Carthage see Rakob 1991, 1163 and Lancel 1995, 43. Tylecote 1992, 47; Rovira 1993. Recently, however, it has been claimed that iron was being smelted by the indigenous occupants of the Iberian Peninsula contemporary with, if not before, the establishment of the first Phoenician settlements there, and thus the introduction of iron-working to the Peninsula was not the result of Phoenician initiative: see Ros Sala 1993 and Arana and Pérez Sirvent 1993. This claim is based on the discovery of two iron-smelting furnaces in the indigenous settlement of El Castellar de Librilla in Murcía, the first dating to the second half of the eighth century. However, as none of the metallurgical evidence from this site can be definitively assigned to preorientalizing levels, and there is a high percentage of Phoenician pottery found in the occupation levels contemporary with the earliest furnace (46.35% of the total pottery), we cannot definitively exclude the possibility that the iron-smelting technology attested here was introduced directly by the Phoenicians themselves. This is suggested especially by the large amounts of Phoenician domestic pottery present at the site. Most of it is tableware, and the absence of the more usual amphorae (1.98% of the wheel-made ware) and storage vessels (1.32% of the wheel-made ware) would seem to indicate a Phoenician context, or at the very least the result of indigenous contact with similar processes in a Phoenician context. The possibility of Phoenician involvement here is rendered all the more

NOTES TO PAGES 136–141

25.

26.

27. 28. 29.

likely given that the region of the Segura-Guadalentín rivers, in which El Castellar is located, was the scene of intense Phoenician interest and occupation from the end of the eighth century onwards: see Aubet 1994, 289–93. For the Phoenician pottery found at El Castellar, see Ros Sala 1991. Another possibility discussed by Ruiz-Galvez Priego is that iron filtered through to Iberia by means of the indigenous exchange system of the Atlantic Late Bronze Age. At the moment, either possibility or both can be argued. What is certain is that at the time of the arrival of the Phoenicians, iron was an almost unknown novelty to indigenous society throughout Iberia, a fact which the Phoenicians certainly used to their advantage. Iron knives, spearheads and a sword were found in the burials at the orientalizing cemetery of La Joya in the town of Huelva, in tombs 5, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19: Garrido and Orta 1970; Garrido and Orta 1978. Of these objects the most frequent are the knives or daggers, sometimes decorated with ivory- or silvercovered handles. It is possible that these objects had a strictly utilitarian function, but given their decoration and material – iron was almost unknown in Spain before the arrival of the Phoenicians – they may also have been offered and received with a symbolic purpose as status-enhancing elements. Knives and daggers had been exchanged as ceremonial items by royal élites of the eastern Mediterranean in the second millennium BC. Iron knives (frequently with ivory handles) also circulated at a slighly lower social level, across a variety of early Iron Age sites, in funerary and settlement contexts, in the Aegean, Cyprus and the Levant, as ‘a status-enhancing novelty in a combination of artefact type and material which up to now had been the rare preserve of relatively few’ (Sherratt 1994). They perhaps performed a similar role in the ostentatious burials at La Joya as the imported Egyptian alabastra, Phoenician bronze ewers and basins, ceremonial bronze chariots, and gold jewellery, as symbols of the rank and power of their possessors. For the Baiões hoard, see Coelho Ferreira da Silva, Tavares da Silva and Lopes 1986. Even if it can be argued that the hoard shows signs of contact with Cyprus, perhaps by means of Sardinia, in other words, that the iron objects reached there through an indigenous trade network, and not by Phoenician enterprise, this makes no difference to the argument presented here. Iron was a novelty to Iberia and as such was exploited by the Phoenicians from Santa Olaia and other sites to trade for other, more enticing metals. Jones 1981, 33–4; Júdice Gamito 1988, 19–21. Jones 1981, 33; Healy 1978, 24–7; Fernández Jurado 1989b, 157; Kassianidou 1992a, 88–92. ‘Although the aforesaid country has been endowed with so many good things, still one might welcome and admire . . . its natural richness in metals. For the whole country of the Iberians is full of metals. . . But, as for Turdetania and the territory adjoining it, there is

30. 31. 32. 33.

34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

41.

42. 43. 44. 45.

46. 47.

201

no worthy word of praise left to him who wishes to praise their excellence in this respect. Up to the present moment, in fact, neither gold, nor silver, nor yet copper, nor iron, has been found anywhere in the world, in a natural state, either in such quantity or of such good quality.’ Strabo III. 2. 8, C 146; cf. Herodotus IV. 152 and I. 163. See also Stesichorus, apud Strabo III. 2. 11, C 148; Posidonius, apud Strabo III. 2. 9, C 147 and Athenaeus VI. 233. Ruiz Mata 1989, 214. Ruiz Mata 1989, 214. Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 164–5. Examples are the sites at Chinflón, Cerro Masegoso, Minas de Masegoso, Cueva del Monje and Junta de la Gila, all investigated in the Huelva archaeometallurgical survey: Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 36–81 (Fig. 56); Ruiz Mata 1989, 214–7. Copper production dating to the eighth century is also attested at the settlement of Setefilla, located at the southern edge of the Sierra Morena, close to the Guadalquivir river (Fig. 47) (Aubet et al. 1983). Ruiz Mata 1989, 214; Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 36–42; Rothenberg and Blanco 1980; Pellicer and Hurtado 1980. Ruiz Mata 1989, 217. For the Huelva hoard, see Almagro Basch 1940; RuizGálvez 1995a. Almagro Gorbea 1977, 524–5; Davies 1935, 117. Ruiz Mata 1989, 217–8. Pérez Macías 1995, 428. See, for instance, Wagner 1983b, 5–11; Ruiz Mata, 1989, 232–7; Diodorus V. 35. 4–5: ‘The natives did not know how to exploit it [silver], but the Phoenicians realising this to be the case, bought the silver in exchange for items of very little value.’ These figures are the result of a new survey of the gossans carried out in 1982, which helped to reconstruct the original topography of Rio Tinto before mining operations began, and established that a figure of approximately 6,000,000 tons is far more likely than that of some 16,000,000 traditionally attributed to the site (Rothenberg et al. 1989, 65–6; Harrison 1988, 150). Williams 1949–50, 515–7; Williams 1933–34, 631–3; Salkield 1970; Craddock 1995, 28–9. Harrison 1988, 150; Rothenberg et al. 1989, 59; Allan 1970, 6–7. The average value of these ores today is some 40 gr. of silver per ton and 2.5 gr. of gold per ton of ore. Salkield 1987, 2–6; Harrison 1988, 149–51. Apparently the mineral-rich veins in the Cueva del Lago, the source of the Tinto river, and which was destroyed by mining in the nineteenth century, stood out like the veins of a dissected corpse. This rather lurid description comes from R. Rua Figueroa, Ensayo sobre la historia de las minas de Rio Tinto, Madrid 1859, quoted by Blanco and Luzón 1969, 124–31. Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 28–9. Cerro Salomón was also the site of a Roman mining town (Jones 1980). Blanco, Luzón and Ruiz Mata 1970, 10–11.

202 48. 49. 50. 51.

52.

53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

NOTES TO PAGES 141–146 Blanco, Luzón and Ruiz Mata 1969, 155–6. Fernández Jurado and Ruiz Mata 1985. According to Pliny, NH XXXIII. 31. 95, this method of refining silver continued to be used in the Spanish silver mines of the Roman period. Salkield 1987, 6; Blanco, Luzón and Ruiz 1970, 14. Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 98–111. Late Bronze Age miners at Chinflón used a small circular shaft, 80 cm in diameter, with footholds cut into its sides, to gain access to the major calcopyrite ore lode (Rothenberg and Blanco 1980, 45). Crude hole mines or horizontal galleries have also been found at several sites which yielded Phoenician-type pottery, but as they were also worked subsequently, we cannot definitively assign them to the Phoenician period (Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 171). Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 98–100; Harrison 1988, 152. Exposure to fumes from silver-smelting produces a condition known as saturnism, which, if untreated, can be fatal. In Roman times Spanish silver-smelters took preventive measures to minimise exposure to fumes; see Strabo, III. 2. 8: ‘They build their silversmelting furnaces with high chimneys so that the gas from the ore may be carried high into the air; for it is heavy and deadly.’ Fernández Jurado, 1988–89a, 207–9, has claimed that some of the skeletons from the orientalizing cemetery of La Joya in Huelva show deformations of the hands and fingers characteristic of saturnism, but this claim needs to be backed up by scientific analysis of the bones before it can be taken seriously. Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 101–6; Harrison 1988, 153; Kassianidou 1992a, 95–7. Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 100–01; Pellicer 1983; Kassianidou 1992a, 98–9. Ruiz Mata 1989, 218–22. Ruiz Mata 1989, 222. Pellicer 1983, 69–71. Ruiz Mata 1989, 234–5; Blanco, Luzón and Ruiz Mata 1969, 126–32. Blanco, Luzón and Ruiz Mata 1969, 132–8; Ruiz Mata 1989, 235. Pellicer 1983, 69–71. Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 172. The stratigraphy of Corta Lago has been questioned and will remain problematic until its detailed publication, which is in progress: see Ruiz Mata 1989, 232–3. Tylecote 1992, 45; Fernández Jurado 1989b, 160; Kassianidou 1992a, 32–44; Craddock 1995, 216–31; Izquierdo 1997. Kassianidou 1992b; Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 84–7. Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 172. Gale and Stos-Gale 1982. Ruiz Mata 1989, 237–8. Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 172. The Phoenician term for a gold-smith, nsk hrs, ‘smelter of gold’, suggests that cupellation was the method used by them to purify precious metals: see Lipinski 1992a.

69. 70.

71. 72. 73. 74.

75. 76. 77.

78.

Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 101–06 and 172. Ruiz Mata 1989, 232–3. He rejects the identification of the pottery fragments published by Rothenberg and Blanco as belonging to the pre-Phoenician period. He disputes their analysis of the Corta Lago stratigraphy, claiming that the lowest level of the Corta Lago stratigraphy already contains Phoenician wheelmade ware, and in the next level, wheel-made ware is predominant. Therefore, according to Ruiz Mata, the analysis of pottery from Corta Lago essentially provides the same picture of Phoenician involvement right from the start of silver production at Rio Tinto. However, others strongly dispute this assertion, claiming that the lowest levels consist of prePhoenician and fully prehistoric Late Bronze Age deposits. These ‘fully support the view that the Rio Tinto lodes were known, and exploited, before the arrival of the Phoenicians. The pottery associated with these levels includes a large fragment of a plain shouldered bowl, of a type only known in the Late Bronze Age, 11th–10th centuries BC.’ (R. J. Harrison, personal communication). But again this view is contradicted by Amores, the archaeologist responsible for the publication of the Corta Lago materials. After studying the evidence from Corta Lago, he claims that initial analysis of the site was based on incomplete information, and that the lowest stratum did indeed contain Phoenician amphorae (Izquierdo 1997, 92). Until this issue is resolved both sides will continue to use Corta Lago to back up their opposing stances. The figures are silver – 273 ppm (parts per million), copper – 204 ppm, and lead – 613 ppm (Pérez Macías 1995, 431–4). Rothenberg 1984; Rothenberg et al. 1989, 62; Harrison 1988, 154. Pérez Macías 1995, 432–4. A similar view is taken by Izquierdo 1997, 96, who points out several problems with the view that the evidence of silver-production through cupellation, in a fully pre-colonial context, proves that the Tartessians were familar with, and used, the same technique to produce silver before the arrival of the Phoenicians. Her main objection to this view, however, is the lack of continuity between the society of MBA Iberia and its LBA successors. Ruiz-Gálvez 1995b. The oldest settlement remains come from the hill of Cabezo de San Pedro, which shows an initial prePhoenician Late Bronze Age level (Ruiz Mata 1986a, 539). Blázquez et al. 1992, 256. The finds, consisting of litharge and metallurgical remains adhering to crucibles, do not have a proper stratigraphical context, but were collected rather than excavated during building work on the hill; thus their attribution to the pre-Phoenician levels of the settlement cannot be beyond dispute. Fernández Jurado 1989a, 347; Garrido 1994; García Sanz 1988–89. The remains of what were apparently

NOTES TO PAGES 146–154

79.

80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90.

two smelting furnaces were found on the site of number 6, Calle Puerto (Fernández Jurado and Ruiz Mata 1985, 28–9; Fernández Jurado 1988–89). However, based on the diameter of the excavated furnace (1.50 m), Kassianidou (1992a, 100–01) has concluded that it cannot have been a smelting furnace. She claims that it is more likely to have been a cupellation hearth for a silver refining workshop, rather than an indication that the site was used for primary smelting of silver-ore. Garrido and Orta 1970; Garrido and Orta 1978. Slag was found in some very wealthy burials. For instance, in Tomb 5, along with a bronze jug and ewer, pieces of iron, gold jewellery, amber beads and fragments of decorated ivory (Garrido and Orta 1970, 33); and in Tomb 9 with a bronze shield, iron dagger, gold and amber jewellery, ivory plaques and four alabaster containers, (Garrido and Orta 1970, 51). The placing of slag in the tombs of La Joya was a practice which we also find in graves of the Middle Bronze Age in Huelva, in tomb 6 of the cist grave cemetery of La Parrita, for instance (Pérez Macías 1995, 431). Harrison 1988, 19–22. Ruiz Mata and Fernández Jurado 1986, 253. Hunt 1994. Hunt 1994, 38; Ruiz Mata and Fernández Jurado 1986, 253. Hunt 1994, 40; Hunt 1995, 448–9. Hunt 1994, 40–1; Hunt 1995, 449–50. Hunt 1994, 40–1. Forbes 1964, 103; Healy 1978, 148–9. Theophrastus, Enquiry into Plants V. 9; III. 8. 5–7; IX. 2. 1. Traces of charcoal have been found at Rio Tinto, as a layer of fine dust at Corta Lago (Craddock 1995, 192). Allan 1970, 10–11; Harrison 1988, 154; Craddock 1995, 189–95. Fernández Jurado 1993. In the Roman period, lack of fuel led to the transport of iron ore from the mines of Elba to Populonia for smelting, as fuel supplies were plentiful there (Forbes 1964, 108). The separation of the extractive and metallurgical processes is also found in Nuraghic Sardinia, where the workshop centres where smelting was carried out were often located outside the actual mining area (Giardino 1995, 294). There are signs of deforestation in south-west Spain during our period. Analysis of pollen diagrams from two mires in the province of Huelva shows a significant level of deforestation in the period from 1600 to 500 BC (Stevenson and Harrison 1992). The authors reject any link between the deforestation attested during this period and silver-mining in the province of Huelva during the Late Bronze Age and Phoenician period, on the grounds that their analysis sites are too far from the Rio Tinto mines. But, as the city of Huelva is only 15 km away, it is possible that the large-scale metallurgical activities undertaken there during the seventh and first half of the sixth centuries could be one reason for the decline in the levels of oak which have

91.

92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107.

108. 109. 110. 111.

112.

203

recovered by 500, when exploitation of silver in the south-west had almost ceased. Ruiz Mata 1981, 151. Kassianidou 1992a, 103–07, has suggested that, given the large size of one of the ‘furnaces’ excavated at the site, it is extremely unlikely to have been used as a smelting furnace, or even a cupellation hearth; in fact the slag at San Bartolomé may be the result of silver-refining and not primary smelting. However, whatever the true nature of the metallurgical procedure carried out there, it is undeniable that the raw material, either in the form of ore or semi-refined metallic lead, could not have come from the immediate vicinity of the settlement. Judging by the analysis of the ore, it had been extracted from the mines at Aználcollar, and therefore the chain of extractive centre and dependent metallurgical workshops still remains intact. Strabo III. 2. 5; III. 1. 9; Mela III. 5; Pliny, NH III. 1. 11–12; Caro 1989, 87–91; Díaz 1989; Menanteau 1978; Menanteau and Pou 1978. Ruiz Mata and Fernández Jurado 1986, 11–13. Ruiz Mata 1981, 154. Ruiz Mata 1981, 156. Ruiz Mata and Fernández Jurado 1986, 236–7. Ruiz Mata and Fernández Jurado 1986, 219–28. Ruiz Mata and Fernández Jurado 1986, 235. Galván 1986. Fernández Jurado, García Sanz and Rufete 1990. Fernández Jurado 1993, 138–9. García Rincón 1987, 195–8. García Rincón 1987, 202. Ruiz Mata 1981, 150. In Roman times the Rio Tinto mines were linked by road to Hispalis (Seville) (Jones 1980, 148). Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 231. Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, 227–80; Fernández Jurado 1987, 110–15. Fernández Jurado 1987, 154. Blanco and Rothenberg claimed an earlier date for the foundation of the settlement, sometime in the Middle to Late Bronze Age (eleventh century), while the defensive wall was built later, in the ninth to eighth century (Blanco and Rothenberg 1981, 234–54). Both these dates are called into question by later excavations at the site, which failed to uncover any evidence of a Middle Bronze Age occupation (Ruiz Mata 1989, 229–31; Fernández Jurado 1987, 155). Fernández Jurado 1987, 95–109. Fernández Jurado 1987, 125. Fernández Jurado 1987, 154–7. In the final levels of occupation at the site, some circular stone-built structures have been found, which are similar in shape and dimensions to the furnaces found in Huelva. However, the lack of any slag or ore, or signs of burning, makes this interpretation unlikely, and it has been suggested that they were used either as pottery kilns or silos (Fernández Jurado 1987, 112–13). Fernández Jurado 1987, 113.

204

NOTES TO PAGES 155–159

113. Fernández Jurado and Ruiz Mata 1985, 24–5; Ruiz Mata and Fernández Jurado 1986, 260; Lamela, Martínez and Alonso 1986; Fernández Jurado 1989b, 160–3. 114. Its function primarily as a storage point for the Aznalcóllar ore is confirmed by the discovery of a possible ore washery in the final levels of occupation at the site which was used to separate the mineral from the worthless gangue (Fernández Jurado 1987, 112). Given the large quantities of water necessary for such a process, Tejada was an ideal place to undertake activities of this kind. As well as its on-site water sources, it was situated close to the springs of Fuente Grande and Fuente Chica, which were later to provide water for the Italica aqueduct (Blanco and Rothenberg 1981, 232). 115. Pellicer 1983a. An alternative route could also have existed, linking Aznalcóllar directly with the Guadiamar, by land from the mines to the site of Cerro de la Cabeza de Olivares, on the bank of the river, and occupied from the Late Bronze Age to the Roman period, and from there on to the settlement at Chillar and the Guadalquivir estuary (Pellicer 1983a, 835). 116. Ruiz Mata 1986a, 540. 117. Fernández Jurado 1993, 154. 118. Fernández Jurado 1993, 154 and fig. 1 on 162. 119. Ruiz Mata 1989, 237; Fernández Jurado 1993, 154–5. 120. See above, p. 145. 121. Hunt 1994, 41. 122. Galván 1986, 275–315. 123. Rufete 1987, 146–7; Rufete 1989. 124. Strabo III. 2. 3 praises both the mineral and agricultural wealth of the Guadalquivir valley and its hinterland, and this whole area was densely populated in Roman times. 125. Aubet 1984, 446. 126. Aubet 1984, 446; for these cemeteries, see Bonsor 1899; Bonsor and Thouvenot 1928; García y Bellido 1960. The settlement at Setefilla has yielded clear signs of metal-working, dating both to the pre-Phoenician Late Bronze Age and the Orientalizing period: see Ruiz Mata 1989. In addition signs of silver-production dating to the seventh century have been found at Cerro de la Albina (La Puebla del Río) on the edge of the Guadalquivir estuary, only 3 km south of the Cerro de San Juan hill at Coria, with its Phoenician shrine. Its urbanism, consisting of the typically Tartessian circular cabins, seems similar to that of Peñalosa. Escacena and Izquierdo (1994, 165) suggest that it was under the control of Coria. 127. Blanco, Luzón and Ruiz Mata 1969, 141–9. The mineral wealth of the Sierra Morena was to be one of the reasons for the opulence of Roman Corduba. A succession of the wealthiest men in Spain came from the city, culminating in the unfortunate Sextus Marius who, Tacitus (Ann. 6. 19) tells us, was forced to commit suicide so that Tiberius could confiscate his wealth. The name of the Sierra Morena may well derive from him (Knapp 1983, 39–40).

128. Strabo III. 2. 1. 129. Strabo III. 2. 11. The mines in this area were responsible for a large part of the financing of the Second Punic War: Polybius X. 38. 7; Pliny NH XXXIII. 96; Blanco 1963. 130. Blázquez 1984; Blázquez 1975, 230; Blázquez and Valiente Malla 1982. 131. Wagner 1983a, 29. 132. De Mata 1973, 555; Florido 1985. Here the majority of amphorae from the mid-eighth down to the sixth century belong to Vuillemot’s R–1 type. For Cerro Macareno, see Pellicer 1982 and Pellicer 1978. Here too the amphora was the most common imported pottery type at the site, and the presence of large quantities of amphorae at both sites points to a trade in foodstuffs, probably wine or olive oil. 133. Wagner 1983a, 28–9. Southern Extremadura constituted a natural extension to the mountainous northern area of western Andalusia, and thus to the hinterland of the Guadalquivir valley itself. Extremadura was important both for its own sake, in terms of its silver, gold copper and tin, and agricultural resources, and also as a link to the rich mining region of north-west Spain, along the route which in Roman times was to become the road from Hispalis to Asturica. Its role in the Tartessian economy is demonstrated by the finds of pottery and orientalizing objects in a series of sites such as Medellín, Siruela and Aliseda (Almagro Gorbea 1977). 134. Rouillard 1991, 73; Pellicer 1983a, 832–6; Strabo III. 2. 1. 135. Aubet 1977–78, 87; Aubet 1982. 136. Fernández Jurado 1989a, 351–5; Ruiz Mata 1989, 243. 137. Belén 1995, 365.

Notes to Chapter Six 1. López Castro 1995, 57. The metal objects are obeloi found in Huelva and Coria 2. del Río at the edge of the former Guadalquivir estuary in Seville province: see Belén 1993, 48 for Coria, and Fernández Jurado 1988–89a, 202–07. A bronze griffin protome originally belonging to a cauldron, and of probable Samian manufacture, was found in the antiquities market in Madrid in 1933, with a provenance in southern Spain (Shefton 1982, 351). Two early Greek helmets have been found in southern Spain. One, of Corinthian type, was found on the banks of the Guadalete river in Jérez in 1938, and was dated by Snodgrass to the very early seventh century (Shefton 1982, 345). The other, also of Corinthian origin, was found in the Odiel river in Huelva, and dates to the mid or second half of the sixth century (Cabrera 1988–89, 73–4). Also found near Seville was a Phocaean coin, a myshemihekte, dated to just before the mid-sixth century (Shefton 1982, 352). Eighth-century Greek pottery in Iberia: Attic pyxis 3. dating to the GM II period, c. 770–60, found in the Calle Palos in Huelva, without any archaeological context. The fragment was decorated with a horse motif. It is probably an introductory gift offered by the

NOTES TO PAGES 159–163

4.

5.

6.

Phoenicians, to be paralleled with the oriental-type pottery from the pier-and-rubble wall found on the Cabezo de San Pedro, and of a similar date. Also from Huelva, and again without stratigraphical context, are two geometric skyphoi of Euboean origin, one decorated with a representation of a bird. Their dating is problematical, but Cabrera chooses to date their arrival in Huelva to the second half of the eighth century (Cabrera 1988–89, 45). Finally from Huelva, and once again without a stratigraphical context, is a fragment of a Protocorinthian kotyle, dating to the late eighth century. The remaining examples of Greek pottery dating from the eighth and early seventh centuries are found in Phoenician contexts in Iberia. From Castillo de Doña Blanca comes a fragment of a Euboean skyphos of Late Geometric date, as well as an Attic SOS amphora and a Corinthian type-A amphora both found in a context dating to the second half of the eighth century (Cabrera 1995, 389; Cabrera 1994b, 25) The most common type of Greek import is the Attic oil amphora of the SOS type. This is found in Doña Blanca, Toscanos and Cerro del Villar (where it is a Euboean imitation), Morro de Mezquitilla, La Fonteta and Ibiza (Shefton 1982, Vegas 1999 and Curiá 1999). Also imported in quantity are Corinthian fine ware: Protocorinthian kotylai and skyphoi are found in Almuñécar, Toscanos, El Peñón and La Fonteta, as well as Huelva: Rouillard 1991, 25. At Toscanos Greek pottery amounted to only 123 fragments out of 50,000 pottery fragments recorded in the 1967 excavations, or 0.25% of the total for that campaign (Niemeyer 1984b, 212). Domínguez Monedero 1996, 20, suggests that the Greek imports were regarded as luxury items, appreciated precisely because of their rarity. The fact that some Greek items were imitated at Toscanos and El Villar would seem to back this theory up. Note the two Euboean skyphoi from Huelva and the fact that at least one of the Protocorinthian kotylai from Almuñécar is an imitation, probably produced in Pithekoussai, according to Shefton 1982, 338 and 342. At Cerro del Villar imitations of Euboean Late Geometric skyphoi were produced (Curià 1999, 137), as they were at Toscanos: see Briese and Docter 1992 and Rouillard 1990. Also at El Villar a complete SOSamphora was found; its clay, shape and decoration point to a Euboean imitation, with an origin probably in the city of Chalcis (Cabrera 1994a, 100–02). SOS amphorae were also imitated in Pithekoussai, and Attic and local imitations of this type of pottery are found in large numbers there, as are Protocorinthian kotylai. Therefore Pithekoussai may well be the source of the Greek material reaching Iberia at this time, especially given the increasing evidence for a Phoenician presence on Ischia, and crucially the evidence for contacts between Pithekoussai and the Phoenician settlements in Iberia (Cabrera 1994, 25; Docter and Niemeyer 1994). Shefton 1982, 343.

7. 8.

9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

205

Domínguez Monedero 1996, 29. Freyer-Shauenburg 1966. They may not necessarily have been brought to Samos by Colaeus. The Phoenicians also frequented the great sanctuary of Hera, and they could have left the combs as an offering to the goddess (de Polignac 1992, 122–3, and 1995). Olmos suggests that it is through contacts of this sort that the Samians learnt of the Far West and its wealth (Olmos 1989, 506). Cabrera 1994a, 103–04. The cups are Isler’s type a; Furtwangler’s type 2 and Villard and Vallet’s type B.2. De Hoz 1994. There is another Ionian inscription on a cup from Huelva: see Fernández Jurado 1988–89b, 251–2. Cabrera 1988–89. Domínguez Monedero 1996, 30. Gran Aymerich 1991a, 128–39; Olmos 1991. This is very likely the case of Mainake, according to Strabo, the most westerly of the Phocaean colonies (III. 4. 2) and one which he locates on the Mediterranean coast of Andalusia: see Niemeyer 1980b. Compare this passage with Justin XLIII. 3. 5–6: ‘The Phocaeans, because of the smallness of their territory and its poverty, were forced to be more expert in matters of the sea than of the land; devoting themselves to fishing, trade and piracy, which in those days was even an honourable profession, they increased their fortune. As a result of this, they ended up daring to go as far as the edge of the Ocean.’ Olmos 1989, 505. Olmos 1989, 507. Olmos 1989, 507. Olmos 1989, 509. ‘Arganthonius . . . took such a fancy to them that he asked them to quit Ionia permanently and settle wherever they liked on his own land; the Phocaeans, however, refused the offer.’ Domínguez Monedero 1996, 34–6; Domínguez Monedero 1993, 231–8. For the Greek materials in Huelva, see Cabrera 1988–89, 1995 and 1997; also Garrido and Ortega 1994. Cabrera 1988–89, 65–7. For Phoenician wine-production, see Chapter Four above, pp. 116–18. Cabrera 1994b; 1995. There are also Etruscan materials attested in Huelva and some Phoenician sites, such as Málaga and Cerro del Villar. However since they always appear in association with Greek materials, it is probable that they were brought to Iberia by the Phocaeans who were also active in Etruria (Fernández Jurado 1988–89c). Aymerich 1991, 128–39. Cabrera 1988–89, 76. Rufete and García Sanz 1995, 29. García Sanz and Rufete 1995, 21–2. García Sanz and Rufete 1995, 21–2; Fernández Jurado 1987, 164. Fernández Jurado 1987, 164. Pérez Macías 1995, 438. Frankenstein 1979 contrasts the favourable treatment

206

33. 34.

35. 36.

37.

38. 39. 40. 41.

NOTES TO PAGES 163–164 awarded to Tyre with the vassal status of Judah and Israel. Frankenstein 1979, 271. Frankenstein 1979, 291. An important factor in the decline of Assyrian demand for silver and sumptuary products in general may well also be the growing weakness of the Neo-Assyrian empire, where dynastic struggles were followed by the fall of Ashur to the Medes in 614 and its capital Nineveh to the Babylonians in 612; the collapse of the whole empire followed soon after. The circumstances surrounding the event are poorly understood: see Kuhrt 1995, vol. 2, 591 and Liverani 1995, 683. For the heterogeneity of the Phoenician identity see Frankenstein 1979, 288: ‘During the LBA and the Iron Age there was no unified ethnic identity, other than that imposed by others, for the inhabitants of the Levantine coast. ‘Canaanite’ and ‘Phoenician’ were terms that were applied to the heterogeneous populations of the coastal cities by their contemporaries. Ezekiel mentions the diverse origins of the merchants, elements of the army, and even the participation of the inhabitants of Sidon, Arvad and Byblos in Tyrian maritime ventures. The term ‘Phoenician therefore refers to a category of people involved in certain recognisable activities rather than to a single ethnic group . . . By taking on the Phoenician language and ideology, people of different origins could take part in characteristic Phoenician activities, and thereby become identified as Phoenicians.’ See for instance Harrison 1988, Schulten 1924 and Lancel 1995a. Perhaps one of the chief reasons why the fall of Tyre to Nabuchodonossor is given such significance by many scholars is because of the lovinglydetailed and exultant account of the destruction of the city given in Ezekiel XXVI. Ezekiel XXIX. 17–8; Alvar 1991. Alvar 1991, 23. Aubet 1986b. Such a view goes back to the great hispanist Adolf Schulten who in his book Tartessos (Madrid 1924) makes the Carthaginian military conquest of Iberia in the sixth century responsible for the destruction of the flourishing philhellenic civilization of Tartessos, the expulsion of the Phocaeans from southern Iberia, with the destruction of their colony at Mainake, and the closure of the Straits of Gibraltar to all but Punic traffic. Although individual elements of Schulten’s model were questioned, his thesis that Iberia was conquered by the Carthaginians went unchallenged until the 1980s, and is still held by some to account for the great changes visible in the archaeological record of the sixth century (López Castro 1994; Ferrer 1996). The main pieces of evidence generally cited to support such a reconstruction are the treaties between Rome and Carthage given by Polybius, various references by Pindar to the Straits as the limit of navigation for the Greeks, and several references in the ancient

42. 43.

44.

45.

46.

authors to the presence of the Carthaginians in Iberia (see Wagner 1994 and Alvar 1993 for details). López Castro 1991 and 1994; Wagner 1989 and 1994. Whitaker 1979; Wagner 1994, 11. For Carthaginian political representation of its allies see the various treaties between Carthage and Rome where Carthage speaks not only for itself but for the states allied to it. For economic exploitation of allied states by Carthage see Aristotle’s reference to the Carthaginian practice of sending excess population to settle abroad (Politics XI. 1273b), a practice perhaps recognisable in Iberia by the reference to Libyo-Phoenicians in some ancient authors. Wagner 1994, 17; Wagner 1989; Plácido, Alvar and Wagner 1991. We know from references in Livy and Polybius that Gadir, economically and politically the most important Phoenician settlement in Iberia, was an ally of Carthage. In other words it had preserved its autonomy even under the Barcids, the period of the most intensive Carthaginian presence in Spain. The actions of Gadir during the Second Punic War show that loyalty to Carthage would not prevent the city from protecting its own interests. Its pragmatic stance ironically ensured it the same legal status among the Romans as it had enjoyed with the Carthaginians, becoming a civitas foederata, and the culmination of this policy came with the consulship of a citizen of Gadir, L. Cornelius Balbus the Elder, in 40 BC, the first provincial to hold the highest office of the Roman Republic, and the triumph of his nephew, the consular L. Cornelius Balbus the Younger in 19 BC. All of these sites were founded long before Carthaginian interest in the Peninsula becomes apparent. Ibiza in particular was the focus of intense Carthaginian interest and almost certainly colonization, evident in the great jump in burials in the Puig des Molins cemetery from the end of the sixth century onwards, and in the intensive occupation and agricultural exploitation of the island from the fifth century. The sanctuary of Tanit at Illa Plana displays in its materials clear links with the Punic Central Mediterranean. Carthaginian interest focussed on the island because of its strategic position in terms of east-west trade routes and also its intensive commercial activities (Costa 1994; Benito et al. 2000; Fernández and Costa 2000). Villaricos also shows a far greater Carthaginian influence than the other Phoenician sites on the southern Spanish mainland. The problem with fully evaluating the nature of the Carthaginian presence in Iberia during the pre-Barcid period is that, in contrast to the Phoenician period, it has been far less intensively researched. This is despite the fact that the earliest archaeological investigation at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth century into the Phoenician/Punic presence in Iberia focussed on those sites which have provided our best insight into the Carthaginian period in Spain, that is Villaricos, Ibiza and the later burials in Cádiz. See Ferrer 1996 for a complete historiographical analysis of Punic Spain.

NOTES TO PAGES 165–169 47. 48. 49.

50.

51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

60. 61. 62. 63.

A subsequent occupation of the settlement area in the Punic period seems to have been industrial rather than residential, and centred around a pottery kiln. This hiatus may not reflect an actual abandonment of the settlement since some Greek pottery corresponding to this period was found there, but without any stratigraphical context. Excavations at El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño are not complete, and it is possible that further work on the site will modify the date of its final abandonment (González Prats 1998, 207). Thus the link between the abandonment of El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño and the building of the fortification at La Fonteta is not absolutely certain. González Prats 1993b, 152: González Prats 1983, 14. Signs of violence include the destruction of the socalled megaron house of Sector II, and also that of the fortification wall in Sector VII. At this time a goldsmith hid his treasure of finished jewellery and raw materials. Varela Gomez 1993; see the comments by Arruda 1999–2000, 56 on the dating and stratigraphy of Rocha Branca. Until further excavations take place at Abul it is impossible to tell whether there was further non-ritual occupation of the site: see above Chapter One, pp. 39–41 for details. Jodin 1966, 187. It is significant that all the reinforcements to the walls are located on the side which would have first exposed to enemy attack. For all references see above, Chapter One, pp. 25–6. Niemeyer 1982b, 113. Schubart and Maass-Lindemann 1979a, 1979b and 1995; Maass-Lindemann and Schubart 1975. Gamer 1972; Arteaga 1979, 1981 and 1997. According to Martín Ruiz 1995, 76, unpublished excavations by Arteaga point to the foundation of the settlement in the sixth century. For Malaka, see Gran 1987, 1991a and 1991b. Avienus, OM 178–82. Strabo III. 4. 2 also comments on the location of Malaka, saying that it is the first port and city in the region of the straits, and speaks of its close trade relationship with the nearby North African coastline. Strabo also comments on its typically Phoenician appearance and contrasts it with the ruins of the nearby Mainake, the location of which is still disputed. Gran 1991a, 159; Gran 1992, 60–2. Gran 1991a, 160. Aubet 1995b, 58. Marzoli 2000: she comments: ‘the amphorae found in Morro de Mezquitilla indicate that from the start of the fifth century BC onwards the settlement, far from having suffered a crisis as has been supposed, and without having had any interruption of occupation, seems to have undergone a profound restructuring as well as commercial, and probably also, productive, development, on a considerable scale.’

64. 65. 66.

67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.

74. 75. 76. 77. 78.

79. 80.

207

Ruiz Mata 1987b, 313. Niveau de Villedary and Ruiz Mata 2000. For instance, the disappearance of some forms which had been common in the seventh century, such as the tripod bowl, and the gradual disappearance of the red slip which had been characteristic of Phoenician table ware from the start of Phoenician presence in Iberia (Ruiz Mata 1987b, 302), as well as important changes in the amphorae. Ruiz Mata 1997, 350. Belén and Chapa 1997, 147–8. Belén and Chapa 1997, 148; see also Escacena and Belén 1997. Macrobius, Saturnalia I. 20. 12; Justin, Epitome XLIV. 5. 1–2. Rerences to an attack on Gadir are also found in Atheneus IV. 9. 3 and Vitruvius X. 13. 1, in the context of explaining the origin of the battering ram. Alvar, Martínez and Romero 1992, 46. See Curtis 1991b, 300 for a discussion of the latest fish-sauce factories, some of which were apparently still in operation in the sixth century AD (Rhode in Tarraconensis and Troia in Lusitania). For Acinippo and Cerro del Villar, see note 50 to Chapter Four on p. 111 for references. For Cádiz, see Frutos and Muñoz 1996, 139 and Lavado et al. 2000, 870–1. These remains were found on the northern edge of the island of Erytheia, next to the Caleta-Bahía channel of the Guadalete river. Here fragments of Ramón’s T–10.1.2.1 (the R–1 amphora) were found associated with abundant fish remains and shellfish in an area which was dedicated to the production of fish-sauce in succeeding centuries. Frutos and Muñoz 1996, 145. Aubet 1999, 46. See Curtis 1991a, 50 for the appreciative references in Attic authors to Iberian fish-sauce, in particular that from Gadir, Cádiz. López Castro 1993, 354; Mederos and Escribano 1999, 104. López Castro 1993, 354–5. The final requirement of the fish-processing industry was fresh water, a vital ingredient in the preservation process, and this was presumably available from the mainland, especially the area around the lower Guadalete. Curtis 1991a, 65–6. Frutos and Muñoz 1996, 147. Early fish-sauce factories in Cádiz are in the Plaza de Asdrúbal and Avenida de Andalucía/corner of Ciudad de Santander, both in the former Kotinoussa, and dating to the first half and the beginning of the fifth century respectively. There is another possible fifth-century factory on the site of the former Teatro de Andalucía, in Erytheia. On the mainland, close to El Puerto de Santa María, there is the factory of Las Redes, on the Fuentebravía beach, founded around 430, and survey in the area has revealed more than twenty small fish-processing sites dating from the fifth to the third centuries, between the Guadalete and Salado rivers, most with Attic blackglaze pottery. For references to all these sites, see

208

81.

82. 83.

NOTES TO PAGES 169–174 Frutos and Muñoz 1996, Belén and Escacena 1997b, 143–5 and Ruiz Mata 1997, 349 and 1987b. Also associated with the fish factories are a number of potters’ workshops, specialising in the production of the Maña-Pascual A4 amphora, although these workshops are later in date, with the earliest in Torre Alta, San Fernando (the former Antipolis) dating to the third and second centuries (Frutos and Muñoz 1994). Evidence of fish-sauce production, though later, is also found among the Phoenician settlements in the Mediterranean, at Almuñécar, the Phoenician Seks, and also at Cerro del Mar in the Vélez Valley. Strabo mentions Málaga as an important centre of fish-sauce production (III. 4. 2), and Morro de Mezquitilla also seems to have been involved in the trade in fish-sauce products, from at least the fifth century onwards, given the presence there of the Maña-Pascual A–4 (Ramón’s T–11.2.1.3) (Marzoli 2000, 1633–4). Williams 1978, 1979 and 1980; Maniatis et al. 1984; Curtis 1991b, 301–2. The Maña-Pascual A–4 amphorae are also found in Olympia, Athens, Carthage, Sardinia, Italy and the Balearics, and inside Iberia as far north as Galicia (Belén and Escacena 1997b, 144). Langóstena 2001. Strabo III.2.14.

Notes to Appendix 1. Bikai 1992, 97; Culican 1982, 68. 2. Gómez Bellard 1992a, 98. 3. Gómez Bellard, 99; Schubart and Maass-Lindemann 1984, 119; Maass-Lindemann 1986, 228. 4. For a further discussion of this pottery type, see Chapter Four above, pp. 116–18. 5. Gómez Bellard 1992a, 100; Schubart and MaassLindemann 1984, 74. 6. For the Cruz del Negro cemetery, see Chapter Two above, p. 82.

7. 8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14.

Gómez Bellard 1992a, 100; Schubart and MaassLindemann 1984, 71–4. Grey ware is found in Toscanos from the earliest level of occupation (Phase I) onwards and in an Iberian context at Cabezo de San Pedro (Huelva), Cerro Macareno (Seville) and Pinos Puente (Granada) from the end of the eighth century. In Alcores de Porcuna it was imported from the second half of the eighth century (Roos 1983; Bélen 1976). Chamorro 1987, 212; Roos 1983, 162. Maass-Lindemann 1990a, 171; Aubet 1994, 263. Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, 58. The Samaria ware is the highest quality table ware produced by the Phoenicians and is widely distributed in the East and Cyprus, but up to now none has been found in the area between Cyprus and Iberia (Bikai 1978b, 52–3). Maass-Lindemann 1990a, 176. Maass-Lindemann 1990a, 174–6. Carthaginian amphorae were found at Toscanos and Castillo de Doña Blanca, along with a plate and a small bowl. These amphorae, which are extremely common in Carthage and the Central Mediterranean, make up only 3.1% of the amphorae at Toscanos (Docter 1994). Carthaginian amphorae are also found in eighth-century Doña Blanca, along with Corinthian and Eastern Mediterranean types (Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, 58). The number of objects in Carthage associated with Iberia has traditionally been viewed as limited, consisting of one ivory comb and the handle from a typically Iberian bronze bowl (Picard 1982). However excavations by the University of Hamburg in the earliest levels of occupation of the site revealed the presence of typically far western materials, such as Vegas’ amphorae ‘mit Schulterknick’: these have a clear origin in southern Spain, and date largely to the eighth century (Vegas 1989, 256; Vegas 1992, 188; see also Docter 1999).

Bibliography Abbreviations AAA Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía AEA Archivo Español de Arqueología AJBA Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology APL Archivo de Prehistoría Levantina BMB Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth BRAH Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia CNA Congreso Nacional de Arqueología CPUG Cuadernos de Prehistoria de la Universidad de Granada EAE Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España EVO Egitto e Vicino Oriente HA Huelva Arqueológica MM Madrider Mitteilungen NAH Noticiario Arqueológico Hispánico REA Revue des Études Anciennes RSF Rivista di Studi Fenici References ABAD CASAL, L. and SALA SELLÉS, F. 1994 ‘El Oral (San Fulgencio, Alicante): un poblado ibérico antiguo en el sureste de la Península Ibérica,’ MM 35, 183–211 ACQUARO, E. 1988 ‘Il tempio nella precolonizzazione fenicia,’ in E. Acquaro et al. (eds), Momenti precoloniali nel Mediterraneo antico (Rome), 187–89 AGUAYO DE HOYOS, P., CARRILERO MILLÁN, M. and FERNÁNDEZ MARTÍNEZ, G. 1991 ‘La presencia fenicia y el proceso de aculturación de las comunidades del Bronce Final de la depresión de Ronda,’ Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 9–14 novembre 1987, Volume II (Rome), 559–71 ALBRIGHT, W. F. 1942 ‘A votive stele erected by BenHadad I of Damascus to the god Melcarth,’ BASOR 87, 23–9 ALCARAZ HERNÁNDEZ, F. M. 1988 ‘Excavación de urgencia en Villaricos. Cuevas de Almanzora, Almería 1988’, AAA 1998, 26–9 ALCARAZ HERNÁNDEZ, F. M. 1989 ‘Excavaciones arqueológicas de urgencia en Villaricos. Cuevas de Almanzora, Almería 1988’, AAA, 30–2 ALFARO, C. and MARCOS, C. 1994 ‘Tesorillo de moneda cartaginesa hallado en la Torre de Doña Blanca (Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz)’, AEA 67, 229–44 ALLAN, J. C. 1970 Considerations on the antiquity of mining in the Iberian Peninsula [Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper no. 27] (London) ALMAGRO BASCH, M. 1940 ‘El hallazgo de la ría de Huelva y el final de la Edad del Bronce en el Occidente de Europa’, Ampurias 2, 85–143 ALMAGRO GORBEA, M. 1972 ‘Dos jarros paleo-púnicos del Museo Arqueológico Nacional hallados en la Casa de la Viña’, MM 13, 172–83

ALMAGRO GORBEA, M. 1977 El Bronce Final y el período orientalizante en Extremadura (Madrid) ALMAGRO GORBEA, M. 1983 ‘Los leones de Puente de Noy’, in F. Molina Fajardo (ed.), Almuñécar, arqueología e historia I (Granada), 89–104 ALMAGRO GORBEA, M. 1991a ‘El mundo orientalizante en la Península Ibérica’, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 9–14 novembre 1987, Volume II (Rome), 573–99 ALMAGRO GORBEA, M. 1991b ‘La necrópolis orientalizante de Medellín’, I–IV Jornadas de arqueología feniciopúnica (Ibiza), 233–43 ALMAGRO GORBEA, M. and MONEO, T. 2000 Santuarios urbanos en el mundo ibérico (Madrid) ALVAR, J. 1981 La navegación prerromana en la Península Ibérica: colonizadores e indígenas (Madrid) ALVAR, J. 1991 ‘La caída de Tiro y sus repercusiones en el Mediterráneo’, in La caída de Tiro y el auge de Cartago. V jornadas de arqueología fenicio-púnica [Ibiza 1990] (Ibiza), 19–27 ALVAR, J. 1993 ‘El ocaso de Tarteso’, in J. Alvar and J. M. Blázquez (eds), Los enigmas de Tarteso (Madrid) 187–200 ALVAR, J., MARTÍNEZ MAZA, C. and ROMERO, M. 1992 ‘La supuesta participación de Cartago en el fin de Tarteso’, Habis 23, 39–52 ALVAR, J. and WAGNER, C. G. 1988 ‘La actividad agrícola en la economía fenicia de la Península Ibérica’, Gerión 6, 169–85 AMADASI GUZZO, M. G. and GUZZO, P. G. 1986 ‘Di Nora, di Eracle gaditano e della piú antica navigazione fenicia’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 59–71 AMARO, C. 1993 ‘Vestígios materiais orientalizantes do claustro da sé de Lisboa’, in A. Tavares (ed.), Os fenícios no território português [Estudos Orientais IV] (Lisbon), 183–92 AMORES CARREDANO, F. 1995 ‘La cerámica pintada estílo Carambolo: una revisión necesaria de su cronología’, in Tartessos 25 años después 1968–1993 Jerez de la Frontera. Actas del Congreso Conmemorativo del V Symposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular (Jerez), 159–78 AMORES CARREDANO, F. et al. 1993a ‘Cambio cultural y mecanismos de transformación de la sociedad tartésica durante el bronce final y el orientalizante en el bajo Guadalquivir: el caso de Carmona, Setefilla y El Carambolo. 1ª campaña, 1991. Documentación gráfica’, AAA 1993, 149–53 AMORES CARREDANO, F. et al. 1993b ‘Cambio cultural y mecanismos de transformación de la sociedad tartésica durante el bronce final y el orientalizante en el bajo Guadalquivir: el caso de Carmona, Setefilla y El

210

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carambolo. 2ª campaña, 1992. Excavación sistemática en la necrópolis de La Cruz del Negro (Carmona, Sevilla)’, AAA 1993, 154–8 ARANA CASTILLO, R. and PÉREZ SIRVENT, C. 1993 ‘El trabajo del hierro en el poblado protohistórico de El Castellar de Librilla (Murcia). II: estudio mineralógico’, in R. Arana Castillo et al. (eds), Metalurgia en la Península Ibérica durante el primer milenio a.C. Estado actual de la investigación (Murcia), 111–29 ARANEGUI, C. et al. 1992 ‘Le recherche archéologique espagnole à Lixus: bilan et perspectives’, Lixus. Actes du Colloque de l’Institut des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine de Rabat [Collection de l’École Française de Rome 166] (Paris-Rome), 7–15 ARRIBAS, A. and ARTEAGA, O. 1975 ‘El yacimiento fenicio de la desembocadura del Río Guadalhorce (Málaga)’, CPUG [Serie monográfica 2] (Granada) ARRIBAS, A. and ARTEAGA, O. 1976 ‘Guadalhorce, eine phöniko-punische Niederlassung bei Málaga’, MM 17, 180–208 ARRIBAS, A. and WILKINS, J. 1969 ‘La necrópolis fenicia del Cortijo de las Sombras (Frigiliana, Málaga)’, Pyrenae 5, 185–245 ARRUDA, A. M. 1993 ‘A occupaçäo da idade de ferro da Alcáçova de Santarém no contexto da expansäo fenícia para a fachada atlântica peninsular’, in A. Tavares (ed.), Os fenícios no territorio português [Estudos Orientais IV] (Lisbon), 193–214 ARRUDA, A. M. 1996 ‘Os Fenícios no Ocidente’, in J. de Alarcão (ed.), De Ulisses a Viariato. O primeiro milénio a.C. (Lisbon), 35–45 ARRUDA, A. M. 2000 ‘Tartessos y el territorio actual de Portugal’, in Argantonio rey de Tartessos [Fundación El Monte], 164–77 ARTEAGA, O. 1976–78 ‘Problemática general de la iberización en Andalucía Oriental y en el Sudeste de la Península’, Simposi Internacional Els Orígens del món Ibéric [=Ampurias 38–40], 23–60 ARTEAGA, O. 1979 ‘Avance sobre las nuevas excavaciones en el Cerro del Mar. Campaña de 1976’, NAH 6, 261–73 ARTEAGA, O. 1981 ‘Cerro del Mar (Málaga). Campaña de 1978’, NAH 12, 291–7 ARTEAGA, O. 1982a ‘Die römischen Öfen vom Manganeto bei Torre del Mar (Málaga)’, MM 23, 234–46 ARTEAGA, O. 1982b ‘Los Saladares-80. Nuevas directrices para el estudio del horizonte protoibérico en el Levante meridional y sudoeste de la Península’, HA 6, 131–83 ARTEAGA, O. 1985 ‘Los hornos romanos del Manganeto, Almayate Bajo (Málaga). Informe preliminar’, NAH 23, 175–93 ARTEAGA, O. 1987 ‘Perspectivas espacio-temporales de la colonización fenicia occidental. Ensayo de aproximación’, Iberos: Actas de las I Jornadas sobre el Mundo Ibérico, Jaén 1985 (Jaén), 205–28 ARTEAGA, O. 1988 ‘Zur phönizischen Hafensituation von Toscanos’, in Niemeyer, Briese and Bahnemann 1988a, 127–41 ARTEAGA, O. 1997 ‘Las influencias púnicas. Anotaciones

acerca de la dinámica histórica del poblamiento fenicio-púnico en occidente a la luz de las excavaciones arqueológicas en el Cerro del Mar’, in M. E. Aubet Semmler (ed.), Los fenicios en Málaga (Málaga), 155–94 ARTEAGA, O. et al. 1985 ‘Investigaciones geológicas y arqueológicas sobre los cambios de la línea costera en el litoral de la Andalucía mediterránea. Informe preliminar (1985)’, AAA 1985, 117–22 ARTEAGA, O., PADRÓ, J. and SANMARTÍ, E. 1986 ‘La expansión fenicia por las costas de Cataluña y del Languedoc’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 303–14 ARTEAGA, O. et al. 1988 ‘Geologisch-archäologische Forschungen zum Verlauf der andalusischen Mittelmeerküste’, in Niemeyer, Briese and Bahnemann 1988a, 107–26 ARTEAGA, O., SCHULZ, H. D., and ROOS, A. M. 1995 ‘El problema del ‘Lacus Ligustinus.’ Investigaciones geoarqueológicas en torno a las marismas del bajo Guadalquivir’, Tartessos 25 años después 1968–1993. Jerez de la Frontera. Actas del Congreso Conmemorativo del V Symposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular (Jerez de la Frontera), 99–135 ARTEAGA, O. and ROOS, A. M. 1995 ‘Geoarchäologische Forschungen im Umkreis der Marismas am Río Guadalquivir (Niederandalusien)’, MM 36, 199–218 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1974 ‘Excavaciones en Las Chorreras (Mezquitilla, Málaga)’, Pyrenae 10, 79–108 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1976–78 ‘La cerámica a torno de la Cruz del Negro (Carmona, Sevilla)’, Simposi Internacional Els origens del Món Ibéric [=Ampurias 38–40], 267–87 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1977–78 ‘Algunas cuestiones en torno al período orientalizante tartésico’, Pyrenae 13–14, 81–107 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1979 Marfiles fenicios del bajo Guadalquivir I, Cruz del Negro [Studia archeologica 52] (Valladolid) AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1980 Marfiles fenicios del bajo Guadalquivir II, Acebuchal y Alcantarilla [Studia archeologica 63] (Valladolid) AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1982 ‘Zur Problematik des orientalisierenden Horizontes auf der Iberischen Halbinsel’, in Niemeyer 1982c, 309–55 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1983 ‘Aspectos de la colonización fenicia en Andalucía durante el VIII’, Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 5–10 novembre 1979, Volume III (Rome), 815–24 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1984 ‘La aristocracia tartésica durante el período orientalizante’, Opus 3, 445–68 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1986a ‘Contactos culturales entre el bajo Guadalquivir y el noroeste de Africa durante los siglos VII y VI a.C.’, Gli interscambi culturali e socioecomici fra Africa settentrionale e l’Europa mediterranea (Naples), 109–44 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1986b ‘La necrópolis de Villaricos en el ámbito del mundo púnico peninsular’, Homenaje a Luis Siret (Seville), 612–24

BIBLIOGRAPHY AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1986c ‘Los fenicios en España: estado de la cuestión y perspectivas’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 9–30 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1987 ‘Notas sobre la economía de los asentamientos fenicios del sur de España’, Dialoghi di Archeologia 3o serie, anno 5, n. 2, 51–62 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1988 ‘Cerro del Villar (Guadalhorce, Málaga). Estudio de los materiales de la campaña de 1987’, AAA 1988, 241–9 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1989a ‘Cerro del Villar 1989. Informe de la segunda campaña de excavaciones arqueológicas en el asentamiento fenicio de la desembocadura del Guadalhorce (Málaga)’, AAA 1989, 377–81 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. (ed.) 1989b Tartessos. Arqueología protohistórica del bajo Guadalquivir (Barcelona) AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1990 ‘Proyecto Cerro del Villar (Guadalhorce, Málaga): estudio de materiales 1990’, AAA 1990, 304–06 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1991a ‘Excavaciones en el Cerro del Villar (Guadalhorce, Málaga) 1991’, AAA 1991, 346–47 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1991b ‘El asentamiento fenicio del Cerro del Villar (Guadalhorce, Málaga)’, I–IV Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Ibiza), 101–05 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1991c ‘Notas sobre las colonias del sur de España y su función en el marco territorial: el ejemplo del Cerro del Villar (Málaga)’, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 9–14 novembre 1987, Volume II (Rome), 617–26 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1991d ‘Die Phönizische Niederlassung von Cerro del Villar (Guadalhorce, Málaga)’, MM 32, 29–51 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1992a ‘Nuevos datos arqueológicos sobre las colonias fenicias de la bahía de Málaga’, Lixus. Actes du Colloque de l’Institut des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine de Rabat [Collection de l’École Française de Rome 166] (Rome), 71–8 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1992b ‘Andalousie’, in Lipinski 1992c, 31–2 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1992c ‘El Carambolo’, in Lipinski 1992c, 89–90 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1992–1993 ‘Maluquer y el Carambolo’ Tabona 8, 320–50 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1993a ‘Proyecto: Cerro del Villar, Guadalhorce (Málaga). El asentamiento fenicio y su interacción con el hinterland’, Investigaciones arqueológicas en Andalucía 1985–1992 (Huelva), 471–9 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1993b The Phoenicians and the West (Cambridge) AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1994 Tiro y las colonias fenicias de Occidente, 2nd ed. (Barcelona) AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1995a ‘Las colonias fenicias de Málaga y su perifería indígena’, Homenaje a la Dra. Dª Milagro Gil-Mascarell Boscà, Extremadura Arqueológica 5 (Cáceres-Mérida), 137–50 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1995b ‘From trading post to town in the Phoenician-Punic world’, in Cunliffe and Keay 1995, 47–65

211

AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1996 ‘Notas sobre arqueología funeraria fenicia en Andalucía’, in E. Acquaro (ed.), Alle soglie della classicità. Il Mediterraneo tra tradizione e innovazione (Pisa-Rome), 495–508 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1997a ‘Un lugar de mercado en el Cerro del Villar’, in M. E. Aubet Semmler (ed.), Los fenicios en Málaga (Málaga), 197–213 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1997b ‘A Phoenician market place in southern Spain’, in B. Pongratz-Leisten, H. Kühne and P. Xella (eds), Ana sadî Labnani lu allik. Beiträge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen. Festschrift für Wolfgang Röllig (Neukirchen-Vluyn), 11–22 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1998 ‘Une nécropole récemment découverte à Tyr’, in Liban l’autre rive. Exposition présentée à l’Institut du monde arabe du 27 octobre 1998 au 2 mai 1999 (Paris), 139–41 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 1999 ‘La sequencia arqueoecológica del Cerro del Villar’ in A. González Prats (ed.), La cerámica fenicia en Occidente: centros de producción y áreas de comercio. Actas del I Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios, Guardamar del Segura, 21–24 de noviembre de 1997 (Alicante), 41–68 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 2000 ‘Cádiz y el comercio atlántico’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 31–41 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 2001 The Phoenicians and the West, politics, colonies and trade, 2nd edition (Cambridge) AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. and BARTHÉLEMY, M. (eds) 2000 Actas del IV congreso internacional de estudios fenicios y púnicos, Cádiz, 2 al 6 de octubre 1995 (Cádiz) AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. and CARULLA, N. 1986 ‘El asentamiento fenicio del Cerro del Villar (Málaga): arqueología y paleogeografía de Guadalhorce y su hinterland’, AAA 1986, 425–30 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E., MAASS-LINDEMANN, G., and SCHUBART, H. 1975 ‘Chorreras, eine phönizische Niederlassung östlich der Algarrobo Mündung’, MM 16, 137–78 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E., MAASS-LINDEMANN, G., and SCHUBART, H. 1979 ‘Chorreras, un establecimiento fenicio al este de la desembocadura del Algarrobo’, NAH 6, 89–138 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E., MAASS-LINDEMANN, G., and MARTÍN RUIZ, J. A. 1995 ‘La necrópolis fenicia del Cortijo de Montañez (Guadalhorce, Málaga)’, Cuadernos de arqueología mediterránea 1, 217–38 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. et al. 1983 La Mesa de Setefilla, Lora del Río (Sevilla). Campaña de 1979 [EAE 122] (Madrid) AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. et al. 1991 Las sepulturas fenicias de Lagos (Vélez-Málaga, Málaga) (Seville) AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. et al. 1999 Cerro del Villar – I. El asentamiento fenicio en la desembocadura del río Guadalhorce y su interacción con el hinterland [Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura] AUDIN, A. 1960 ‘Inhumation et incineration’, Latomus 19, 312–22 and 518–32 BAENA DEL ALCÁZAR, L. 1978 ‘Fragmentos de vasos de alabastro en yacimientos fenicios de la provincia de Málaga’, Anejos de Baetica 1, 159–65

212

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BAFICO, S. et al. 1997 ‘Fenici e indigeni a Sant’Imbenia (Alghero)’, in P. Bernadini, R. D’Oriano and P. G. Spanu (eds), Phoinikes B SHRDN. I Fenici in Sardegna, nuove acquisizioni [Oristano, Antiquarium Arborense, luglio–dicembre 1997] (Oristano), 45–53 BALDACCHINO, J. G. and DUNBABIN, T. J. 1953 ‘Rock tomb at Ghajn Qajjet, near Rabat, Malta’, Papers of the British School at Rome 21 [n.s. 8], 32–41 BANDERA, DE LA, M. L. et al. 1993 ‘Montemolín. Evolución del asentamiento durante el Bronce Final y el período orientalizante (Campañas de 1980 y 1981)’, Anales de arqueología cordobesa 4, 15–48 BANDERA, DE LA, M. L. et al. 1995 ‘El yacimiento tartésico de Montemolín’, Tartessos 25 años después 1968–93. Actas del Congreso Conmemorativo del V Symposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular (Jerez de la Frontera), 315–32 BANDERA, DE LA, M. L. and E. 1998 ‘Indicios de carácter económico y ritual de tradición próximo oriental en el sur de Iberia’, in J. L. Cunchillos et al. (eds), ‘Actas del Congreso “El Mediterráneo en la Anti-güedad: Oriente y Occidente”’, Sapanu. Publicaciones en Internet II [http://www.labherm.filol. csic.es] BARCELÓ, J. A. et al. 1995 ‘El área de producción alfarera del Cerro del Villar (Guadalhorce, Málaga)’, RSF 23, 147–81 BARRECA, F. 1971 ‘Sardegna’, in L’espansione fenicia nel Mediterraneo [Studi Semitici 38] (Rome), 7–27 BARRECA, F. 1986 ‘The Phoenician and Punic civilisation in Sardinia’, in M. S. Balmuth (ed.), Studies in Sardinian Archaeology, vol. II: Sardinia in the Mediterranean (Ann Arbor), 145–70 BARROS, DE, L., CARDOSO J. L., and SABROSO, A. 1993 ‘Fenícios na margem sul do Tejo’, in A. Tavares (ed.), Os fenícios no território português [Estudos Orientais IV] (Lisbon), 143–81 BARTOLINI, P. 1981 ‘Contributo alla cronologia delle necropoli fenicie e puniche di Sardegna’, RSF 9, 13–32 BASLEZ, M. F. 1992 ‘Ivoire – commerce’, in Lipinski 1992c, 236–7 BAURAIN, C. 1988 ‘Le rôle de Chypre dans la fondation de Carthage’, in E. Lipinski (ed.), Studia Phoenicia VI. Carthago (Leuven), 15–27 BAURAIN, C. and BONNET, C. 1992 Les phéniciens. Marins des trois continents (Paris) BELÉN DEAMOS, M. 1976 ‘Estudio y tipología de la cerámica gris en la provincia de Huelva’, Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos 79.2, 353–89 BELÉN DEAMOS, M. 1993 ‘Mil años de historia de Coria: la ciudad prerromana’, in Azotea [Revista de Cultura del Ayuntamiento de Coria del Río] 11–12, 35–61 BELÉN DEAMOS, M. 1994 ‘Fenicios en Andalucía occidental. Diez años de investigación (1980–90)’, Hispania Antiqua 18, 495–518 BELÉN DEAMOS, M. 1995 ‘El yacimiento tartésico de Niebla (Huelva)’, Tartessos 25 años después 1968–1993. Actas del Congreso Conmemorativo del V Symposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular (Jerez de la Frontera), 359–79 BELÉN DEAMOS, M. 2000 ‘Itinerarios arqueológicos por la

geografía sagrada del extremo occidente’, in B. Costa and J. H. Fernández (eds), Santuarios fenicio-púnicos en Iberia y su influencia en los cultos indígenas. XIV Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Eivissa, 1999) (Ibiza), 57–102 BELÉN DEAMOS, M. 2001a ‘Arquitectura religiosa orientalizante en el bajo Guadalquivir’ in D. Ruiz Mata and C. Celestino Pérez (eds), Arquitectura oriental y orientalizante en la Península Ibérica [Centro de estudios del Próximo Oriente, lenguas y culturas del antiguo Próximo Oriente 4] (Madrid), 1–16 BELÉN DEAMOS, M. 2001b ‘La cremación en las necrópolis tartésicas’, in R. García Huerta and J. Morales Hervás (eds), Arqueología funeraria: las necrópolis de incineración (Cuenca), 37–78 BELÉN DEAMOS, M. et al. 1993 ‘Arquitectura de tradición fenicia en Carmona (Sevilla)’, Spal 2, 219–42 BELÉN DEAMOS, M. et al. 1996a Apuntes para un centro de interpretación de la ciudad en la casa-palacio Marqués de las Torres Carmona (Carmona) BELÉN DEAMOS, M. et al. 1996b ‘Fenicios en el atlántico. Excavaciones españolas en Lixus: los conjuntos y ’, in M. A. Querol and T. Chapa (eds), Homenaje al profesor Manuel Fernández–Miranda, [Complutum Extra 6 Volume 1] (Madrid), 339–57 BELÉN DEAMOS, M. et al. 1997 Arqueología en Carmona (Sevilla). Excavaciones en la Casa-Palacio del Marqués de Saltillo (Seville) BELÉN DEAMOS, M. et al. 2000 ‘Presencia e influencia fenicia en Carmona (Sevilla)’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 1747–61 BELÉN DEAMOS, M. and CHAPA BRUNET, T. 1997 La edad del hierro (Madrid) BELÉN DEAMOS, M. and ESCACENA, J. L. 1995 ‘Interacción cultural fenicios-indígenas en el bajo Guadalquivir’, Kolaios. Arqueólogos, historiadores y filólogos. Homenaje a Fernando Gascó (Seville), 67–101 BELÉN DEAMOS, M. and ESCACENA, J. L. 1997a ‘Testimonios religiosos en Andalucía occidental’, Spal 6, 103–31 BELÉN DEAMOS, M. and ESCACENA, J. L. 1997b ‘Economía y sociedad en la Turdetania de lso siglos V–IV a.C.’, in J. Fernández Jurado, P. Rufete Tomico and C. García Sanz (eds), La Andalucía ibero-turdetana (siglos VI–IV a.C.) [Huelva Arqueológica XIV] (Huelva), 137–60 BELÉN DEAMOS, M. and ESCACENA, J. L. 1998 ‘Testimonios religiosos de la presencia fenicia en Andalucía occidental’, in J. L. Cunchillos et al. (eds), ‘Actas del Congreso “El Mediterráneo en la Antigüedad: Oriente y Occidente”’, Sapanu. Publicaciones en Internet II [http://www.labherm.filol. csic.es] BELÉN DEAMOS, M. and PÉREZ LÓPEZ, I. 2000 ‘Gorham’s Cave. Un santuario de navegantes en el Estrecho’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 531–42 BENDALA GALÁN, M. 1982 ‘La perduración púnica en los tiempos romanos. El caso de Carmo’, HA 6, 193–203 BENICHOU–SAFAR, H. 1982 Les tombes puniques de Carthage.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Topographie, structures, inscriptions et rites funeraires (Paris) BENITO, N. et al. 2000 ‘Ibiza púnica: la colonización agrícola. Algunos planteamientos para su estudio’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 305–12 BENOÎT, F. 1965 Recherches sur l’hellenisation du midi de la Gaule (Aix-en-Provence) BIENKOWSKI, P. A. 1982 ‘Some remarks on the practice of cremation in the Levant’, Levant 14, 80–9 BIKAI, P. 1978a The Pottery of Tyre (Warminster) BIKAI, P. 1978b ‘The late Phoenician pottery complex and chronology’, BASOR 229, 47–56 BIKAI, P. 1992 ‘Céramique – orient’, in E. Lipinski (ed.), Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique (Paris–Brussels), 96–8 BISI, A. M. 1980 ‘La diffusion du “Smiting God” syropalestinien dans le milieu phénicien d’Occident’, Karthago 19, 5–14 BISI, A. M. 1986 ‘Le “Smiting God” dans les milieux phéniciens d’Occident: un réexamen de la question’, Studia Phoenicia IV. Religio Phoenicia (Namur), 169–87 BISI, A. M. 1988 ‘Chypre et les premiers temps de Carthage’, in Lipinski, E. (ed.), Studia Phoenicia VI. Carthago (Leuven), 15–27 BLANCO FREIJEIRO, A. 1963 ‘El ajuar de una tumba de Cástulo’, AEA 36, 40–69 BLANCO FREIJEIRO, A. 1970 ‘Nuevas piezas fenicias del Museo Arqueológico de Cádiz’, AEA 43, 50–61 BLANCO FREIJEIRO, A. 1979 Historia de Sevilla I. La ciudad antigua (Seville) BLANCO FREIJEIRO, A. 1985 ‘Los nuevos bronces de Sancti Petri’, BRAH 182, 207–16 BLANCO FREIJEIRO, A. and J. M. LUZÓN 1969 ‘Pre-Roman silver miners at Riotinto’, Antiquity 43, 124–31 BLANCO FREIJEIRO, A., LUZÓN NOGUÉ, J. M., and RUIZ MATA, D. 1969 ‘Panorama tartésico en Andalucía occidental’, Tartessos y sus problemas, V Symposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular (Barcelona), 119–62 BLANCO FREIJEIRO, A., LUZÓN NOGUÉ, J. M., and RUIZ MATA, D. 1970 Excavaciones arqueológicas en el Cerro Salomón (Rio Tinto, Huelva) [Anales de la Universidad Hispalense, series: Filosofía y Letras no. 4] (Seville) BLANCO FREIJEIRO, A. and CORZO, R. 1981 ‘Der neue anthropoide Sarkophag von Cádiz’, MM 22, 236–43 BLASCO, M. C. 1993 El bronce final (Madrid) BLÁZQUEZ MARTÍNEZ, J. M. 1975 Tartessos y los orígenes de la colonización fenicia en Occidente, 2nd ed. (Salamanca) BLÁZQUEZ MARTÍNEZ, J. M. 1984 ‘Cástulo, capital of the mining district of Oretania’, in T. F. C. Blagg, R. F. J. Jones and S. J. Keay (eds), Papers in Iberian Archaeology [BAR International Series 193] (Oxford), Volume II, 396–428 BLÁZQUEZ MARTÍNEZ, J. M. 1986 ‘La colonización fenicia en la Alta Andalucía (Oretania). Siglos VIII–VI a.C.’, RSF 14, 53–80 BLÁZQUEZ MARTÍNEZ, J. M. and VALIENTE MALLA, J. 1982 ‘Asimilación de estímulos coloniales en las

213

cerámicas del poblado de la Muela de Cástulo’, HA 6, 185–91 BLÁZQUEZ MARTÍNEZ, J. M. et al. 1992 ‘Las cerámicas del Cabezo de San Pedro’, in J. M. Blázquez, Fenicios, griegos y cartagineses en Occidente (Madrid), 240–60 BONDI, S. F. 1978 ‘Note sull’economi fenicia – I. Impresa privata e ruolo dello stato’, EVO 1, 139–50 BONDI, S. F. 1983 ‘I fenici in Occidente’, in Forme di Contatto e Processi di Trasformazione nelle Società Antiche [Scuola Normale Superiore and École Française de Rome] (Pisa-Rome), 379–407 BONDI, S. F. 1985 ‘L’alimentazione nel mondo feniciopunico. L’aspetto economico-industriale’, in L’alimentazione nell’antichità (Parma), 169–84 BONDI, S. F. 1987 ‘La colonizzazione fenicia’, in M. Guidetti (ed.), Storia dei Sardi e della Sardegna I (Milan), 147–71 BONDI, S. F. 1988 ‘Sull’organizzazione dell’attività commerciale nella società fenicia’, Stato, Economia, Lavoro nel Vicino Oriente antico (Milan), 348–62 BONNET-TZAVELLAS, C. 1983 ‘Le dieu Melqart en Phénicie et dans le bassin Méditerranéen: culte national et officiel’, Studia Phoenicia II (Leuven), 195–207 BONNET, C. 1986 ‘Le culte de Melqart à Carthage: un cas de conservatisme religieux’, Studia Phoenicia IV. Religio Phoenicia (Namur), 209–22 BONNET, C. 1988 Melqart. Cultes et mythes de l’Héraclès Tyrien en Méditerranée [Studia Phoenicia VIII] (Leuven) BONNET, C. 1996 Astarté. Dossier documentaire et perspectives historiques [Contributi alla Storia della religione fenicio-punica – II] (Rome) BONSOR, G. 1899 ‘Les colonies agricoles pré-romaines de la vallée du Bétis’, Revue archéologique3 35, 126–59, 232–325 and 376–94 BONSOR, G. and THOUVENOT, R. 1928 Nécropole ibérique de Setefilla, Lora del Río, Sevilla (Bordeaux-Paris) BORJA BARRERA, F. 1995 ‘Paleogeografía de las costas atlánticas de Andalucía durante el holoceno mediosuperior. Prehistoria reciente, protohistoria y fases históricas’, in Tartessos 25 años después 1968–1993. Jerez de la Frontera. Actas del Congreso Conmemorativo del V Symposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular (Jerez de la Frontera), 73–97 BRAUDEL, F. 1972 The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world in the age of Philip II (London) BRIARD, J. 1979 The Bronze Age in Barbarian Europe (London) BRIESE, C. and DOCTER, R. 1992 ‘Der phonizische Skyphos: Adaptation einer griechischen Trinskshale’, MM 33, 25–69 BUNNENS, G. 1979 L’expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée. Essai d’interprétation fondé sur une analyse des traditions littéraires [Institut Historique Belge de Rome 18] (Rome) BUNNENS, G. 1986a ‘Aspects religieux de l’espansion phénicienne’, Studia Phoenicia IV. Religio Phoenicia (Namur), 119–25 BUNNENS, G. 1986b ‘Le rôle de Gadès dans l’implantation phénicienne en Espagne’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 187–92

214

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CABRÉ, J. 1920 La nécropolis ibérica de Tútugi (Galera), provincia de Granada [Junta Superior de Excavaciones y Antigüedades XXV] (Madrid) CABRERA BONET, P. 1988–1989 ‘El comercio foceo en Huelva, cronología y fisionomía’, in J. Fernández Jurado (ed.), Tartessos y Huelva, Huelva Arqueológica X–XI. 3, 41–100 CABRERA BONET, P. 1994a ‘Importaciones griegas arcaicas del Cerro del Villar (Guadalhorce, Málaga)’, in P. Cabrera Bonet, R. Olmos and E. Sanmartí (eds), Iberos y griegos: lecturas desde la diversidad. Simposio internacional celebrado en Ampurias, 3 al 5 de abril 1991, Huelva Arqueológica XIII. 1, 97–121 CABRERA BONET, P. 1994b ‘Comercio internacional mediterráneo en el siglo VIII a.C.’, AEA 67, 15–30 CABRERA BONET, P. 1995 ‘Cerámicas griegas en Tartessos: su significado en la costa meridional de la Península desde Málaga a Huelva’, in Tartessos 25 años después 1968–1993. Actas del Congreso Conmemorativo del V Symposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular (Jerez de la Frontera), 387–99 CABRERA BONET, P. 1997 ‘La presencia griega en Andalucía, siglos VI al IV a.C.’, in J. Fernández Jurado, P. Rufete Tomico and C. García Sanz (eds), La Andalucía ibero-turdetana (siglos VI–IV a.C.) Actas de las jornadas celebradas en el foro iberoamericano de La Rábida (Palos de la Frontera, Huelva) 16 al 18 de marzo de 1994, Huelva Arqueológica XIV (Huelva), 367–90 CAMPOS, J. M., VERA, M., and MORENO, M. T. 1988 Protohistoria de la ciudad de Sevilla. El corte estratigráfico San Isidoro 85–86 [Monografías de Arqueología Andaluza 1] (Seville) CARDOSO, J. L. 1993 ‘Contribuição para o conhecimento da alimentação em contexto fenício. Estudos dos restos da Rocha Branca (Silves)’, in A. Tavares (ed.), Os fenícios no território português [Estudos Orientais IV] (Lisbon), 109–26 CARDOSO, J. L. 1995 ‘Os Povoados do Bronze Final a Norte do Estuário do Tejo’, in S. O. Jorge (ed.), A Idade do Bronze em Portugal. Discursos de poder (Lisbon), 126 CARDOSO, J. L. 1996 ‘O povoamento no Bronze Final e na Idade do Ferro na região de Lisboa’, in J. de Alarcão (ed.), De Ulisses a Viariato. O primeiro milénio a.C. (Lisbon), 73–81 CARDOSO, J. L. 2000 ‘Fenícios e Indígenas em Rocha Branca, Abul, Alcácer do Sal, Almaraz e Santarém. Estudo comparado dos mamíferos’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 319–27 CARO BELLIDO, A. 1989 ‘Consideraciones sobre el Bronce Antiguo y Pleno en el Bajo Guadalquivir’, in Aubet Semmler 1989b, 85–120 CARRIAZO, J. de M. 1973 Tartessos y El Carambolo (Madrid) CARRILERO MILLÁN, M. 1993 ‘Discusión sobre la formación social tartésica’, in J. Alvar and J. M. Blázquez (eds), Los enigmas de Tartessos (Madrid), 163–85 CARRILERO MILLÁN, M. et al. 1993 ‘La colonización fenicia en el sureste de la Península Ibérica’, Actas del I Coloquio de Historia Antigua de Andalucía, Córdoba 1988 (Córdoba), 95–105

CASTRO MARTÍNEZ, P., LULL, V. and MICÓ, R. 1996 Cronología de la prehistoria reciente de la Península Ibérica y Baleares [BAR International Series 652] (Oxford) CAVALEIRO PAIXÃO, A. M. 1981 ‘Ein neues Grab mit Skarabäus in der eisenzeitlichen Nekropole Olival do Senhor dos Mártires – Alcácer do Sal/Portugal’, MM 22, 229–335 CHAMORRO, J. G. 1987 ‘Survey of archaeological research on Tartessos’, AJA 91, 197–232 CHAMORRO, J. G. 1994 ‘Flotation strategy: method and sampling plant dietary resources of Tartessian times at Doña Blanca’, in Roselló and Morales 1994b, 21–36 CHAVES TRISTÁN, F. 1990 ‘Los hallazgos numismáticos y el desarrollo de la segunda guerra púnica en el sur de la Península Ibérica’, Latomus 49, 613–22 CHAVES TRISTÁN, F. and DE LA BANDERA, M. L. 1982 ‘Estela decorada de Montemolín (Marchena, Sevilla)’, AEA 55, 137–47 CHAVES TRISTÁN, F. and DE LA BANDERA, M. L. 1984 ‘Avance sobre el yacimiento arqueológico de Montemolín’, in T. F. C. Blagg, R. F. J. Jones and S. J. Keay (eds), Papers in Iberian Archaeology [BAR International Series 193 (I)] (Oxford), 145–53 CHAVES TRISTÁN, F. and DE LA BANDERA, M. L. 1986 ‘Figürlich verzierte Keramik aus dem Guadalquivir-Gebiet. Die Funde von Montemolín (bei Marchena, Prov. Sevilla)’, MM 27, 117–50 CHAVES TRISTÁN, F. and DE LA BANDERA, M. L. 1991 ‘Aspectos de la urbanística en Andalucía occidental en los s. VII–VI a.C. a la luz del yacimiento de Montemolín (Marchena, Sevilla)’, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 9–14 novembre 1987, Volume II (Rome), 691–714 CHAVES TRISTÁN, F. and DE LA BANDERA, M. L. and FERRER ALBELDA, E. 1992 ‘Montemolín. Informe de la campaña de estudio de materiales de 1992’, AAA 1992, 353–9 CHAVES TRISTÁN, F. and MARÍN CEBALLOS, M. C. 1993 ‘L’influence phénico-punique sur l’iconographie des frappes locales de la Péninsule Ibérique’, Studia Phoenicia IX. Numismatique et histoire économique phéniciennes et puniques (Louvain), 167–95 CHAVES TRISTÁN, F. et al. 1993 ‘Proyecto: Investigación arqueológica en Montemolín’, Investigaciones arqueológicas en Andalucía 1985–1992. Proyectos (Huelva), 505–07 CHAVES TRISTÁN, F. et al. 2000 ‘El complejo sacrificial de Montemolín’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 573–81 CINTAS, P. 1954 ‘Nouvelles recherches à Utique’, Karthago 5, 88–154 CINTAS, P. 1970 Manuel d’archéologie punique (Paris) COELHO FERREIRA DA SILVA, A., TAVARES DA SILVA, C. and LOPES, A. 1986 Depósito de fundidor do final da Idade do Bronze do Castro da Senhora da Guia (Baiões, S. Pedro do Sul, Viseu) (Porto) COFFYN, A. 1985 Le bronze final atlantique dans la Péninsule Ibérique (Paris) COLDSTREAM, J. N. 1969 ‘The Phoenicians at Jalysos’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 16, 1–8

BIBLIOGRAPHY COLDSTREAM, J. N. 1982 ‘Greeks and Phoenicians in the Aegean’, in Niemeyer 1982c, 260–75 CONTRERAS, F., CARRIÓN, P. and JABALOY, E. 1983 ‘Un horno de alfarero en el Cerro de los Infantes (Pinos Puente, Granada)’, CNA 16 (Zaragoza), 533–5 COOK, R. M. 1960 ‘Archaeological argument: some principles’, Antiquity 34, 177–9 CÓRDOBA ALONSO, I. and RUIZ MATA, D. 2000 ‘Sobre la construcción de la estructura tumular del Túmulo 1 de Las Cumbres (Castillo de Doña Blanca)’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 759–70 CORREIA, V. H. 1993 ‘Os materiais pré-romanos de Conímbriga e a presença fenícia no baixo vale do Mondego’, in A. Tavares (ed.), Os fenícios no territorio português [Estudos Orientais IV] (Lisbon), 229–83 CORREIA, V. H. 1995 ‘The Iron Age in south and central Portugal and the emergence of urban centres’, in Cunliffe and Keay 1995, 237–62 CORREIA, V. H. 1996 ‘Os povoados da 1ª Idade de Ferro do Sul de Portugal’, in J. de Alarcão (ed.), De Ulisses a Viriato. O primerio milénio a.C. (Lisboa), 82–7 CORZO SÁNCHEZ, R. 1983 ‘Cádiz y la arqueología fenicia’, Anales de la Real Academia de Bellas Artes de Cádiz 1, 5–29 CORZO SÁNCHEZ, R. 1991 ‘Cádiz fenicia’, I–IV Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Ibiza), 79–88 COSTA RIBAS, B. 1994 ‘Ebesos, colonia de los cartagineses. Algunas consideraciones sobre la formación de la sociedad púnico-ebusitana’, Cartago, Gadir, Ebusus y la influencia púnica en los territorios hispanos. VIII jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Ibiza 1993) (Ibiza), 75–143 COSTA RIBAS, B., FERNÁNDEZ GÓMEZ, J. H., and GÓMEZ BELLARD, C. 1991 ‘Ibiza fenicia: la primera fase de la colonización de la isla (siglos VII y VI a.C.)’, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 9–14 novembre 1987, Volume II (Rome), 759–95 COSTA, B. and FERNÁNDEZ, J. H. 2000 ‘El establecimiento de los fenicios en Ibiza: algunas cuestiones actualmente en debate’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 91–101 CRADDOCK, P. T. 1995 Early metal mining and production (Edinburgh) CULICAN, W. 1970a ‘Assur, Almuñécar and the Phoenician expansion into the Mediterranean’, Levant 2, 28–38 CULICAN, W. 1970b ‘Phoenician oil bottles and tripod bowls’, Berytus 19, 5–18 CULICAN, W. 1972 ‘Phoenician remains from Gibraltar’, AJBA 1, 110–45 CULICAN W. 1973 ‘The graves at Tell Er-Regeish’, AJBA 2, 66–103 CULICAN, W. 1982 ‘The repertoire of Phoenician pottery,’ in Niemeyer 1982c, 45–78 CUNLIFFE, B. and KEAY, S. (eds), 1995 Social complexity and the development of towns in Iberia from the Copper Age to the second century A.D. [=Proceedings of the British Academy 86] (Oxford) CURIÀ, E. 1999 ‘Las cerámicas griegas y etruscas del corte 5’, in M. E. Aubet Semmler et al., Cerro del Villar – I, el

215

asentamiento fenicio en la desembocadura del río Guadalhorce y su interacción con el hinterland [Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura], 137–8 CURIÀ, E. et al. 2000 ‘La organización de la produción de cerámica en un centro colonial fenicio: el taller alfarero del siglo VI a.n.e. del Cerro del Villar (Málaga)’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 1475–85 CURTIN, P. D. 1984 Cross-cultural trade in world history (Cambridge) CURTIS, R. I. 1991a Garum and salsamenta: production and commerce in materia medica (Leiden) CURTIS, R. I. 1991b ‘Salt-fish products around the Strait of Gibraltar’, JRA 4, 299–305 DAVIES, O. 1935 Roman mines in Europe (Oxford) DECRET, F. 1977 Carthage ou l’empire de la mer (Paris) DELATTRE, A. J. 1897 ‘La nécropole punique de Douïmes. Fouilles de 1893–1894’, Cosmos 46, 1–31 DEL OLMO LETE, G. and AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. (eds) 1986 Los fenicios en la Península Ibérica [Aula Orientalis 3–4] (Barcelona) DE POLIGNAC, F. 1992 ‘Influence extérieure ou évolution interne? L’innovation cultuelle en Grèce géométrique et archaïque’, in G. Kopcke and I. Tokumaru (eds), Greece between East and West: tenth to eighth centuries B.C. (Mainz), 114–27 DE POLIGNAC, F. 1995 Cults, territory and the origins of the Greek city-state (London and Chicago) DÍAZ DEL OLMO, F. 1989 ‘Paleogeografía tartésica’, in Aubet Semmler 1989b, 13–23 DOCTER, R. F. 1994 ‘Karthagische Amphoren aus Toscanos’, MM 35, 123–39 DOCTER, R. F. 1999 ‘Transport amphorae from Carthage and Toscanos: an economic-historical approach to Phoenician expansion’, in A. González Prats (ed.), La cerámica fenicia en Occidente: centros de producción y áreas de comercio. Actas del I Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios, Guardamar del Segura, 21–24 de noviembre de 1997 (Alicante), 89–109 DOCTER, R. F. 2000 ‘Carthage and the Tyrrhenian in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. Central Italian transport amphorae and fine wares found under the Decumanus Maximus’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 329–38 DOCTER, R. F. and NIEMEYER, H. G. 1994 ‘Pithekoussai: the Carthaginian connection. On the archaeological evidence for Euboeo-Phoenician partnership in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.’, in B. D’Agostino and D. Ridgway (eds), Apoikia. I più antichi insediamenti greci in occidente: funzioni e modi dell’organizzazione politica e sociale. Scritti in onore di Giorgio Buchner (Naples), 101–15 DOMÍNGUEZ MONEDERO, A. J. 1993 La polis y la expansión colonial griega, siglos VIII–VI (Madrid) DOMÍNGUEZ MONEDERO, A. J. 1995 ‘Del simposio griego a los bárbaros bebedores: el vino en Iberia y su imagen en los autores antiguos’, in S. Celestino Pérez (ed.), Arqueología del vino. Los orígenes del vino en occidente (Jerez de la Frontera), 25–72

216

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DOMÍNGUEZ MONEDERO, A. J. 1996 Los griegos en la Península Ibérica (Madrid) DUSSAUD, R. 1948 ‘Melqart’, Syria 25, 205–30 ELAYI, J., GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A., and RUIZ SEGURA, E. 1998 ‘Une lampe avec inscription phénicienne de la Fonteta (Guardamar, Alicante)’, RSF 26, 229–42 ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. 1986 ‘Gadir’, in G. Del Olmo Lete and M. E. Aubet Semmler (eds), Los fenicios en la Península Ibérica (Barcelona), 39–58 ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. 1989 ‘Los turdetanos o la recuperación de la identidad perdida’, in Aubet Semmler 1989b, 297–338 ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. 1992 ‘Indicadores étnicos en la Andalucía prerromana’, Spal 1, 321–43 ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. 1993 ‘El primer ensayo fundacional: Coria preurbana’, in Azotea [Revista de Cultura del Ayuntamiento de Coria del Río] 11–12, 23–34 ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. 2000 La arqueología protohistórica del sur de la Península Ibérica (Madrid) ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. unpublished ‘Fenicios e indígenas en el bajo Guadalquivir. El caso de Coria del Río’, in Fenicios e indígenas en el Mediterráneo: modelos de interacción. II encuentros de primavera, El Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz, unpublished lecture ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. et al. 1993 ‘Proyecto estuario. Actuaciones de 1993’, AAA 1993, 142–8 ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. and BELÉN DEAMOS, M. 1997 ‘El poblamiento en la Baja Andalucía durante los siglos V y IV a.C.’ in J. Fernández Jurado, P. Rufete Tomico and C. García Sanz (eds), La Andalucía iberoturdetana (siglos VI–IV a.C.) [Huelva Arqueológica XIV] (Huelva), 31–59 ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. and IZQUIERDO DE MONTES, R. 1994 ‘Proyecto estuario. Intervención arqueológica de 1994’, AAA 1994, 161–6 ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. and IZQUIERDO DE MONTES, R. 2001 ‘Oriente en occidente: arquitectura civil y religiosa en un “barrio fenicio” de la Caura tartésica’, in D. Ruiz Mata and C. Celestino Pérez (eds), Arquitectura oriental y orientalizante en la Península Ibérica [Centro de estudios del Próximo Oriente, lenguas y culturas del antiguo Próximo Oriente 4] (Madrid), 123–57 FANTAR, M. H. 1993 Carthage. Approche d’une civilisation (Tunis) FERNÁNDEZ, J. H. 1986 ‘Necrópolis del Puig des Molins (Ibiza): nuevas perspectivas’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 149–75 FERNÁNDEZ, J. H., GÓMEZ BELLARD, C. and GURREA BARRICARTE, R. 1984 ‘La première période de la colonisation punique à Ibiza’, in W. H. Waldren et al. (eds), The Deya conference of prehistory. Early settlement in the Western Mediterranean islands and their peripheral areas [BAR International Series 229] (Oxford), 785–96 FERNÁNDEZ, J. H. and COSTA, B. 2000 ‘La investigación fenicio-púnica en Ibiza a principios de los años noventa’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 1519–26

FERNÁNDEZ, L. E. et al. 1997 ‘Un poblado indígena del siglo VIII a.C. en la bahía de Málaga. La intervención de urgencia en la Plaza de San Pablo’, in M. E. Aubet Semmler (ed.), Los fenicios en Málaga (Málaga), 215–51 FERNÁNDEZ CASTRO, M. C. 1995 Iberia in prehistory (Oxford) FERNÁNDEZ FLORES, A., and RODRÍGUEZ AZOGUE, A. 2005 ‘El complejo monumental del Carambolo Alto, Camas (Sevilla). Un santuario orientalizante en la paleodesembocadura del Guadalquivir’, Trabajos de Prehistoria 62.1, 111–38 FERNÁNDEZ GÓMEZ, F. 1997 Tesoros de la antigüedad en el valle del Guadalquivir (Seville) FERNÁNDEZ JURADO, J. 1986 ‘La influencia fenicia en Huelva’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 211–25 FERNÁNDEZ JURADO J. 1987 Tejada la Vieja: una ciudad protohistórica [Huelva Arqueológica 9] (Huelva) FERNÁNDEZ JURADO, J. 1988–89a ‘Aspectos de la minería y metalurgia en la protohistoria de Huelva’, in J. Fernández Jurado (ed.), Tartessos y Huelva [Huelva Arqueológica 10–11] (Huelva), 179–214 FERNÁNDEZ JURADO, J. (ed.), 1988–89b Tartessos y Huelva [Huelva Arqueológica 10–11] (Huelva) FERNÁNDEZ JURADO, J. 1988–89c ‘Presencia de cerámicas etruscas en Huelva’, in Fernández Jurado 1988–89b, 101–20 FERNÁNDEZ JURADO, J. 1989a ‘La orientalización de Huelva’, in Aubet Semmler 1989b, 339–70 FERNÁNDEZ JURADO, J. 1989b ‘La metalurgia de la plata en época tartésica’, in C. Domergue (ed.), Minería y metalurgia en las antiguas civilizaciones mediterráneas y europeas (Madrid), 157–65 FERNÁNDEZ JURADO, J. 1993 ‘Plata y plomo en el comercio fenicio-tartésico’, in R. Arana Castillo et al. (eds), Metalurgia en la Península Ibérica durante el primer milenio a.C. Estado actual de la investigación (Murcia), 140–2 FERNÁNDEZ JURADO, J., GARCÍA SANZ, C. and RUFETE TOMICO, P. 1990 ‘Prospección con sondeo en Peñalosa (Escacena, Huelva)’, AAA 1990, 184–90 FERNÁNDEZ JURADO, J., RUFETE TOMICO, P. and GARCÍA SANZ, C. 1994 ‘Cerámicas griegas del solar nº 5 de la C/ Méndez Núñez de Huelva’, in P. Cabrera, R. Olmos and E. Sanmartí (eds), Iberos y griegos: lecturas desde la diversidad. Simposio celebrado en Ampurias, 3 al 5 de abril de 1991 [Huelva Arqueológica XIII] (Huelva), 49–66 FERNÁNDEZ JURADO, J. and RUIZ MATA, D. 1985 ‘La metalurgia de la plata en época tartésica en Huelva’, II reunión de economía antigua de la Península Ibérica, Barcelona 1982 [Pyrenae 21], 23–44 FERNÁNDEZ MIRANDA, M. 1986 ‘Huelva, ciudad de los tartesios’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 227–61 FERNÁNDEZ MIRANDA, M. 1991 ‘Tartessos: indígenas, fenicios y griegos en Huelva’, in Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 9–14 novembre 1987, Volume I (Rome), 87–96

BIBLIOGRAPHY FERNÁNDEZ MIRANDA, M. 1997 ‘Aspects of Talaotic culture’, in M. S. Balmuth, A. Gilman and L. PradosTorreira (eds), Encounters and transformations. The archaeology of Iberia in transition [Monographs in Mediterranean archaeology 7] (Sheffield), 59–68 FERNÁNDEZ MIRANDA, M. and CABALLERO ZOREDA, L. 1975 Abdera. Excavaciones en el Cerro de Montecristo (Adra, Almería) [EAE 85] (Madrid) FERREIRA DA SILVA A.C. and VARELO GOMES, M. 1992 Proto-história de Portugal (Lisbon) FERRER ALBELDA, E. 1996 La España cartaginesa. Claves historiográficas para la historia de España (Seville) FERRER ALBELDA, E. 1999 ‘La olvidada “necrópolis fenicia” de Marchena (Sevilla)’, Spal 8, 101–14 FERRER ALBELDA, E. et al. 1998 ‘Informe de la prospección arqueológica superficial de urgencia del término municipal de Marchena (Sevilla)’, AAA 1998, 1032–46 FERRER ALBELDA, E., ORIA SEGURA, M. and GARCÍA VARGAS, E. 2000 ‘La prospección arqueológica superficial del término municipal de Marchena y la conservación del patrimonio histórico’, in Actas de las V Jornadas sobre Historia de Marchena (Historia de Marchena. Volumen V). El patrimonio y su conservación (Marchena), 75–103 FERRON, J. 1958 ‘Le médaillon de Carthage’, Cahiers de Byrsa 8, 45–6 FERRON, J. 1970 ‘La inscripción cartaginesa pintada en la urna cineraria de Almuñécar’, Trabajos de Prehistoria 27, 177–90 FLORIDO NAVARRO, M. C. 1985 ‘Las ánforas del poblado orientalizante e iberopúnico del Carambolo (Sevilla)’, Habis 16, 487–513 FORBES, R. J. 1964 Studies in ancient technology VIII (Leiden) FORBES, R. J. 1972 Studies in ancient technology IX (Leiden) FRANKENSTEIN, S. 1976 Phoenician and Greek expansion and their impact on local societies in Iberia and south west Germany, Ph.D. thesis, University of London FRANKENSTEIN, S. 1979 ‘The Phoenicians in the far west: a function of neo-Assyrian imperialism’, in M. G. Larsen (ed.), Power and propaganda. A symposium in ancient empires [Mespotamia 7] (Copenhagen), 263–94 FRANKENSTEIN, S. 1997 Arqueología del colonialismo. El impacto fenicio y griego en el sur de la Península Ibérica y el sur-oeste de Alemania (Barcelona) FREYER-SCHAUENBURG, B. 1966 ‘Kolaios und die westphönizischen Elfenbeine’, MM 7, 89–108 FRUTOS REYES, G. DE and MUÑOZ VICENTE, A. 1994 ‘Hornos púnicos de Torre Alta (San Fernando, Cádiz)’, Arqueología en el entorno del bajo Guadiana (Huelva), 1–35 FRUTOS REYES, G. DE and MUÑOZ VICENTE, A. 1994 ‘Hornos púnicos de Torre Alta (San Fernando, Cádiz)’ Arqueología en el entorno del Bajo Guadiana (Huelva), 393–414 FRUTOS REYES, G. DE and MUÑOZ VICENTE, A. 1996 ‘La industria pesquera y conservera púnico-gaditana: balance de la investigación. Nuevas perspectivas’, Spal 5, 133–65

217

GALE, N. H. and STOS-GALE, Z.A. 1982 ‘Cycladic lead and silver-metallurgy’, Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 76, 169–224 GALVÁN, V. 1986 ‘Análisis de pastas cerámicas’, in Ruiz Mata, D. and Fernández Jurado, J. (eds), El yacimiento de época tartésica de San Bartolomé de Almonte (Huelva) [Huelva Arqueológica 8] (Huelva) 275–315 GAMER, G. 1972 ‘La excavación en el Cerro del Mar’, NAH 1, 43–51 GAMER-WALLERT, I. 1971 ‘La inscripción del vaso de alabastro de la tumba número uno de Almuñécar (Granada)’, CNA 12, 401–08 GAMER-WALLERT, I. 1976 ‘Die Hieroglypheninschrift auf dem Alabastergefäss in Puerto de Santa Maria’, Habis 7, 223–8 GAMER-WALLERT, I. 1978 Ägyptische und ägyptisierende Funde von der Iberischen Halbinsel (Wiesbaden) GAMER-WALLERT, I. 1982 ‘Zwei Statuetten syroägyptischer Gottheiten von der “Barra de Huelva”’, MM 23, 46–61 GARCÍA ALFONSO, E. 1999 ‘La cuenca baja del Guadalhorce. Mundo indígena e interacción fenicia arcaica’, in M. E. Aubet Semmler et al., Cerro del Villar – I. El asentamiento fenicio en la desembocadura del río Guadalhorce y su interacción con el hinterland [Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura], 48–57 GARCÍA ALFONSO, E. 2000 ‘La colonización fenicia arcaica y el mundo indígena de la Andalucía mediterránea y su traspaís. Una propuesta de análisis’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 1799–1804 GARCÍA MENÁRGUEZ, A. 1994 ‘El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño, Guardamar del Segura. Un poblado protohistórico en el tramo final del río Segura’, in A. González Blanco, J. L. Cunchillos Ilarri and M. Molina Martos (eds), El mundo púnico. Historia, sociedad y cultura [Cartagena 17–19 noviembre 1990] (Murcia), 269–80 GARCÍA MENÁRGUEZ, A. 1995 ‘Avance sobre las excavaciones en yacimientos con fases del hierro antiguo en el tramo final del río Segura (Guardamar del Segura, Alicante)’, Actas del XXII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología (Zaragoza), 225–9 GARCIA PEREIRA Maia, M. 2000 ‘Tavira fenícia. O território para Ocidente do Guadiana, nos inícios do I milénio a.C.’, in Fenicios y territorio. Actas del II seminario internacional sobre temas fenicios (Alicante), 121–50 GARCÍA PETIT, J. 1999 ‘Sobre algunos restos de avifauna en el Cerro del Villar’, in M. E. Aubet Semmler et al. (eds), Cerro del Villar – I. El asentamiento fenicio en la desembocadura del río Guadalhorce y su interacción con el hinterland [Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura], 319 GARCÍA RINCÓN, J. M. 1987 ‘Aproximación al estudio espacial del área de Tejada la Vieja’, in J. Fernández Jurado (ed.), Tejada la Vieja: una ciudad protohistórica [Huelva Arqueológica 9] (Huelva), 195–202 GARCÍA SANZ, C. 1988–89 ‘El urbanismo protohistórico de Huelva’, in J. Fernández Jurado (ed.), Tartessos y Huelva [Huelva Arqueológica 10–11] (Huelva), 143–75

218

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GARCÍA SANZ, C. and RUFETE TOMICO, P. 1995 La ciudad de Tejada la Vieja (Huelva) GARCÍA Y BELLIDO, A. 1951 ‘Iocosae Gades’, BRAH 129, 73–122 GARCÍA Y BELLIDO, A. 1960 ‘Inventario de los jarros púnico-tartésicos’, AEA 33, 44–63 GARCÍA Y BELLIDO, A. 1963 ‘Hercules Gaditanus’, AEA 36, 70–153 GARCÍA Y BELLIDO, A. 1967 Les religions orientales dans l’Espagne romaine (Leiden) GARCÍA Y BELLIDO, A. 1970 ‘Algunas novedades sobre la arqueología púnico-tartessia’, AEA 43, 3–49 GARCÍA Y BELLIDO, A., SCHUBART, H., and NIEMEYER, H. G. 1971 ‘Espagne’, in F. Barreca et al. (eds), L’espansione fenicia nel Mediterraneo, relazioni del colloquio in Roma, 4–5 maggio 1970 (Rome), 145–60 GARRIDO, J. P. 1994 El hábitat antiguo de Huelva, períodos orientalizante y arcaico [EAE 171] (Madrid) GARRIDO, J. P. and ORTA, E. 1970 Excavaciones en la necrópolis de la Joya, Huelva (1ª y 2ª campañas) [EAE 71] (Madrid) GARRIDO, J. P. and ORTA, E. 1978 Excavaciones en la necrópolis de la Joya, Huelva (3ª y 4ª y 5ª campañas) [EAE 96] (Madrid) GARRIDO, J. P. and ORTEGA, J. 1994 ‘A propósito de unos recientes hallazgos cerámicos griegos arcaicos y orientalizantes en Huelva’, in P. Cabrera, R. Olmos and E. Sanmartí (eds), Iberos y griegos: lecturas desde la diversidad. Simposio celebrado en Ampurias, 3 al 5 de abril de 1991 [Huelva Arqueológica XIII] (Huelva), 49–66 GASULL, P. 1986 ‘Problemática en torno a la ubicación de los asentamientos fenicios en el sur de la Península’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 193–202 GASULL, P. 1993 ‘El sistema ritual fenicio: inhumación e incineración’, MM 34, 71–82 GIARDINO, C. 1992 ‘Nuragic Sardinia and the Mediterranean: metallurgy and maritime traffic’, in R. H. Tykot and T. K. Andrews (eds), Sardinia in the Mediterranean: a footprint in the sea. Studies in Sardinian archaeology presented to Miriam S. Balmuth [Monographs in Mediterranean archaeology 3] (Sheffield), 304–16 GIARDINO, C. 1995 The West Mediterranean between the 14th and 8th Centuries B.C. Mining and metallurgical spheres [BAR International Series 612] (Oxford) GILL, D. W. 1988 ‘Silver anchors and cargoes of oil: some observations on Phoenician trade in the western Mediterranean’, Papers of the British School at Rome 56 [n.s. 43], 1–12 GIL DE LOS REYES, S. et al. 1989 ‘Informe preliminar sobre el resultado de la excavación de emergencia de la necrópolis tartésica de la Cruz del Negro (Carmona, Sevilla)’, AAA 1989, 611–12 GOLDSTEIN, L. 1981 ‘One-dimensional archaeology and multi-dimensional people: spatial organization and mortuary analysis’, in R. Chapman, I. Kinnes and K. Randsborg (eds), The archaeology of death (Cambridge), 53–69 GÓMEZ BELLARD, C. 1986 ‘Asentamientos rurales en la

Ibiza púnica’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 177–92 GÓMEZ BELLARD, C. 1990 La colonización fenicia de la isla de Ibiza [EAE 157] (Madrid) GÓMEZ BELLARD, C. 1991 ‘Ibiza en época arcaica: estado actual de la investigación’, I–IV Jornadas de arqueología fenicio-púnica (Ibiza), 21–5 GÓMEZ BELLARD, C. 1992a ‘La céramique – Occident’, in Lipinski 1992c, 96–101 GÓMEZ BELLARD, C. 1992b ‘Tophet’, in Lipinski 1992c, 461–3 GÓMEZ BELLARD, C. 1993a ‘Die Phönizier auf Ibiza’, MM 34, 83–107 GÓMEZ BELLARD, C. 1993b ‘La colonización feniciopúnica en Ibiza’, Historia Antiqua 17, 451–60 GÓMEZ BELLARD, C. 1995 ‘Baléares’, in V. Krings (ed.), La civilisation phénicienne et punique. Manuel de recherche (Leiden), 762–75 GÓMEZ BELLARD, C. 2000 ‘Avance del estudio de un paisaje rural púnico y romano: Es Cubells–Cala d’Hort (Ibiza)’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 353–62 GÓMEZ BELLARD, C. and GUERIN, P. 1994 ‘Testimonios de producción vinícola arcaica de L’Alt de Beimaquía (Denia)’, in P. Cabrera, R. Olmos and E. Sanmartí (eds), Iberos y griegos: lecturas desde la diversidad [Huelva Arqueológica XIII], 2, 9–31 GÓMEZ BELLARD, C. and GUERIN, P. 1995 ‘Los lagares del Alt de Benimaquía (Denia): en los inicios del vino ibérico’, in S. Celestino Pérez (ed.), Arqueología del vino. Los orígenes del vino en occidente (Jerez de la Frontera), 245–70 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. 1976–78 ‘El tesorillo de tipo orientalizante de la Sierra de Crevillente’, Simposi internacional. Els origens de Mons Iberic [Ampurias 38–40], 349–60 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. 1982 ‘La Peña Negra IV. Excavaciones en el sector VII de la ciudad orientalizante’, NAH 13, 305–418 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. 1983 ‘Peña Negra, prehistoria y protohistoria en la Sierra de Crevillente (Alicante)’, Revista de arqueología 28, 6–15 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. 1986 ‘Las importaciones y la presencia fenicias en la Sierra de Crevillente (Alicante)’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 279–301 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. 1991 ‘La presencia fenicia en el Levante peninsular y su influencia en las comunidades indígenas’, I–IV Jornadas de arqueología fenicio-púnica (Ibiza), 109–15 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. 1992 ‘Una vivienda metalúrgica en la Peña Negra (Crevillente-Alicante). Aportación al conocimiento del Bronce Atlántico en la Península Ibérica’, Trabajos de Prehistoria 49, 243–57 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. 1993a ‘La metalurgia del Bronce Final en el sudeste de la Península Ibérica’, in R. Arana Castillo et al. (eds), Metalurgia en la Península Ibérica durante el primer milenio a.C. Estado actual de la investigación (Murcia), 19–43 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. 1993b ‘Ausgrabungen in der

BIBLIOGRAPHY frühgeschichtlichen Siedlung von Herna (La Peña Nebra/Crevillente, Prov. Alicante’, MM 34, 142–52 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. 1998 ‘La Fonteta. El asentamiento fenicio de la desembocadura del río Segura (Guardamar, Alicante, España). Resultados de las excavaciones de 1996–97’, RSF 26, 191–213 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. 1999 ‘Las cerámicas fenicias de la provincia de Alicante’, in A. González Prats (ed.), La cerámica fenicia en Occidente: centros de producción y áreas de comercio. Actas del I seminario internacional sobre temas fenicios, Guardamar del Segura, 21–24 de noviembre de 1997 (Alicante), 111–28 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. 2000 ‘Fenicios e indígenas en el Levante peninsular’, in Fenicios e indígenas en el Mediterráneo: modelos de interacción. II encuentros de Primavera, El Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz 1998, El Puerto de Santa María, 107–18 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. and RUIZ-GÁLVEZ PRIEGO, M. 1989 ‘La metalurgia de Peña Negra en su contexto del Bronce Final del occidente europeo’, XIX Congreso Nacional de Arqueología (Zaragoza), 367–76 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A., RUIZ SEGURA, E. and GARCÍA MENARGUEZ 1999 ‘La Fonteta 1997. Memoria preliminar de la segunda campaña de excavaciones ordinarias en la ciudad fenicia de la desembocadura del río Segura, Guardamar (Alicante)’, in A. González Prats (ed.), La cerámica fenicia en Occidente: centros de producción y áreas de comercio. Actas del I Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios, Guardamar del Segura, 21–24 de noviembre de 1997 (Alicante), 257–301 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. and GARCÍA MENARGUEZ, A. 2000 ‘El conjunto fenicio de la desembocadura del río Segura, (Guardamar del Segura, Alicante)’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 1527–38 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. and RUIZ SEGURA, E. 2000 El yacimiento fenicio de La Fonteta (Guardamar del Segura. Alicante. Comunidad Valenciana) (Valencia) GRACE, V. R. 1961 Amphoras and the Ancient Wine Trade [American School of Classical Studies at Athens] (Princeton) GRAN AYMERICH, J. M. J. 1971 ‘Sondeos arqueológicos en “Cerca Niebla”, sobre el valle del Río Vélez, provincia de Málaga’, CNA 12, 409–24 GRAN AYMERICH, J. M. J. 1981 ‘Excavaciones arqueológicas en la región de Vélez-Málaga’, NAH 12, 300–74 GRAN AYMERICH, J. M. J. 1986 ‘Málaga, fenicia y púnica’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 127–47 GRAN AYMERICH, J. M. J. 1988 ‘Málaga fenicio-púnica y el Estrecho de Gibraltar’, Congreso Internacional El Estrecho de Gibraltar Ceuta noviembre 1987 (Madrid), 577–91 GRAN AYMERICH, J. M. J. 1991a Málaga phénicienne et punique. Recherches franco-espagnoles 1981–1988 (Paris) GRAN AYMERICH, J. M. J. 1991b ‘Málaga phénicienne et punique. Bilan des campagnes de fouilles 1980–86’, in Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Roma 9–14 novembre 1987, Vol. III (Rome), 901–11 GRAN AYMERICH, J. M. J. 1992 ‘Le détroit de Gibraltar et sa projection régionale: les données géo-stratégiques de

219

l’expansion phénicienne à la lumière des fouilles de Malaga et des recherches en cours’, Lixus. Actes du Colloque de l’Institut des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine de Rabat [Collection de l’École Française de Rome 166] (Paris-Rome), 59–69 GRAS, M., ROUILLARD, P., and TEIXIDOR, J. 1991 El universo fenicio (Madrid) GREENE, J. A. 1996 ‘The beginnings of grape cultivation and wine production in Phoenician/Punic North Africa’, in P. McGovern, S. Fleming and S. Katz (eds), The origins and ancient history of wine (Amsterdam), 311–22 GROTTANELLI, C. 1981 ‘Santuari e divinità delle colonie d’occidente’, La religione fenicia, matrici orientali e sviluppi occidentali [Atti del colloquio in Roma, 6 Marzo 1979] (Rome), 109–37 GSELL, S. 1920 Histoire Ancienne de l’Afrique du Nord IV (Paris) GUERRERO AYUSO, V. M. 1995 ‘El vino en la protohistoria del Mediterráneo occidental’, in S. Celestino Pérez (ed.), Arqueología del vino. Los orígenes del vino en occidente (Jerez de la Frontera), 77–104 HABIBI, M. 1992 ‘La céramique à engobe rouge phénicien de Lixus’, Lixus. Actes du Colloque de l’Institut des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine de Rabat [Collection de l’École Française de Rome 166] (Paris-Rome), 145–53 HARDEN, D. 1971 The Phoenicians, 2nd. edition (Harmondsworth) HARRISON, R. J. 1988 Spain at the dawn of history (London) HEALY, J. F. 1978 Mining and metallurgy in the Greek and Roman world (London) HERNÁNDEZ CARRASQUILLA, F. 1992 ‘Some comments on the introduction of domestic fowl in Iberia’, Archaeofauna 1, 45–53 HETT, W. S. 1936 Aristotle, minor works (London) HIDALGO CUÑARRO, J. M. and DE LA PEÑA SANTOS, A. 2000 ‘Los contactos entre el área galaica y el Mediterráneo durante la prehistoria reciente’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 807–13 HOFFMANN, G. 1986 ‘Estudios geológicos en el valle del río Guadiaro’, AAA 1986, 196–9 HOFFMANN, G. and SCHULZ, H. D. 1988 ‘Coastline shifts and Holocene stratigraphy on the Mediterranean coast of Andalusia (south-eastern Spain)’, in A. Raban (ed.), Archaeology of Coastal Changes. Proceedings of the First International Symposium “Cities on the Sea – Past and Present, Haifa, Israel, September 22–29 1986 [BAR International Series 404] (Oxford), 53–70 HOPKINS, D. C. 1985 The Highlands of Canaan. Agricultural life in the Early Iron Age (Sheffield) DE HOZ, J. 1994 ‘Apéndice: el gráfito griego de Guadalhorce’, in P. Cabrera Bonet, R. Olmos and E. Sanmartí (eds), Iberos y griegos: lecturas desde la diversidad. Simposio internacional celebrado en Ampurias, 3 al 5 de abril 1991 [Huelva Arqueológica XIII, 1], 122–5 HÜBNER, E. 1910 ‘Gades’ RE VII/I, col. 447 HUNT ORTIZ, M. A. 1994 ‘Minería y metalurgia prerromanas en Aznalcóllar’, Revista de arqueología 158 (June 1994), 36–41

220

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HUNT ORTIZ, M. A. 1995 ‘El foco metalúrgico de Aznalcóllar, Sevilla, técnicas analíticas aplicadas a la arqueometalurgia del suroeste de la Península Ibérica’, in Tartessos 25 años después 1968–1993. Actas del Congreso Conmemorativo del V Symposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular (Jerez de la Frontera), 447–73 ISAGER S. and SKYDSGAARD, J. E. 1992 Ancient Greek agriculture. An introduction (London and New York) ISSERLIN, B. S. J. 1982 ‘Motya: urban features’, in Niemeyer 1982c, 113–31 ISSERLIN, B. S. J. 1983 ‘Phoenician and Punic rural settlement and agriculture: some archaeological considerations’, Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 5–10 novembre 1979, Vol. I (Rome), 157–63 ISSERLIN, B. S. J. and DU PLAT TAYLOR, J. 1974 Motya, a Phoenician and Carthaginian city in Sicily. Vol. I (Leiden) IZQUIERDO DE MONTES, R. 1997 ‘Sobre la copelación de la plata en el mundo tartésico’ Spal 6, 87–101 IZQUIERDO DE MONTES, R. and ESCACENA, J. L. 1998 ‘Sobre El Carambolo: “la trompeta de Argantonio”’, AEA 71, 27–36 JACOBY, F. 1923 Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Leiden) JAMES, P. 1993 Centuries of darkness. A challenge to the conventional chronology of old world archaeology (New Brunswick, NJ) JIDEJIAN, N. and LIPINSKI, E. 1992 ‘Tyr’, in Lipinski 1992c, 477–80 JIMÉNEZ FLORES, A. M. 1994 ‘Ritual funerario y sociedad: el banquete funerario en las necrópolis fenicias de la Península Ibérica’, in J. San Bernadino Coronil, A. J. de Miguel Zabala and F. J. López de Ahumada del Pino (eds), Kolaios. Un periplo de cinco años. Miscelánea de estudios sobre la antigüedad (Seville), 127–43 JIMÉNEZ FLORES, A. M. 1996 Ritual funerario y sociedad en las necrópolis fenicias de época arcaica de la Península Ibérica (Écija) JIMÉNEZ FLORES, A. M. 2001 ‘Cultos fenicio-púnicos de Gadir: prostitución sagrada y puellae gaditanae’, Habis 32, 11–29 JODIN, A. 1966 Mogador, comptoir phénicien du Maroc Atlantique [Études et travaux d’archéologie marocaine 2] (Tangiers) JOHNS, C. N. 1937 ‘Excavations at Pilgrim’s Castle, Athlit (1933), cremated burials of Phoenician origin’, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 6, 121–52 JOHNSTON A. and JONES, R. E. 1978 ‘The SOS amphora’, Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 73, 103–41 JONES, G. D. B. 1980 ‘The Roman mines at Riotinto’, JRS 70, 146–65 JONES, H. L. 1968, The geography of Strabo III [Loeb Classical Library] (London) JONES, M. P. 1981, ‘Mineral deposits in the Huelva Province’, in B. Rothenberg and A. Blanco Freijeiro (eds), Studies in Ancient Mining and Metallurgy in SouthWest Spain (London), 33–4

JÚDICE GAMITO, T. 1988 Social Complexity in Southwest Iberia 800–300 B.C. [BAR International Series 439] (Oxford) JULLY, J. J. 1983 ‘Présence phénico-punique en Languedoc méditerranéen et en Catalogne’, Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 5–10 novembre 1979, Volume III (Rome), 805–15 KASSIANIDOU, V. 1992a Monte Romero (Huelva). A silverproducing workshop of the Tartessian period in south-west Spain (unpublished Ph.D. thesis), Institute of Archaeology, University of London KASSIANIDOU, V. 1992b ‘Monte Romero, a silverproducing workshop of the seventh century B.C. in south-west Spain’, Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies (IAMS) Newsletter 18, 7–10 KATZENSTEIN, H. J. 1983 ‘The Phoenician term HUBUR in the report of Wen-Amon’, Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 5–10 novembre 1979, Volume II (Rome), 599–602 KBIRI ALAOUI, M. and LÓPEZ PARDO, F. 1998 ‘La factoría fenicia de Mogador (Essaouira, Marruecos): las cerámicas pintadas’, AEA 71, 5–25 KEESMANN, I. 1988 ‘Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung des archäometallurgischen Fundmaterials der Grabung 1984 am Cerro del Peñón’, in Niemeyer, Briese and Bahnemann 1988a, 171 KEESMANN, I., NIEMEYER, H. G. and GOLSCHANI, F. 1983 ‘Schlakenfunde von Toscanos’, MM 24, 65–75 KEESMANN, I. and HELLERMANN, B. 1989 ‘Mineralogische und chemische Untersuchungen an Schlacken vom Morro de Mezquitilla’, MM 30, 92–117 KEESMANN, I. and NIEMEYER, H. G. 1989 ‘Un centro primitivo de la elaboración de hierro en la factoría fenicia de Toscanos’, in C. Domergue (ed.), Minería y metalurgia en las antiguas civilizaciones mediterráneas y europeas I (Madrid), 99–108 KITCHEN, K. A. 1973 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (Warminster) KNAPP, A. B. 1990 ‘Ethnicity, entrepreneurship and exchange: Mediterranean inter-island relations in the Late Bronze Age’, Annual of the British School at Athens 85, 115–53 KNAPP, R. C. 1983 Roman Corduba (Berkeley) KUHRT, A. 1995 The Ancient Near East, c. 3000–330 BC (London and New York) KUKAHN, E. 1951 ‘El sarcófago sidonio de Cádiz’, AEA 24, 23–34 LAMELA, M., MARTÍNEZ, J. and ALONSO, A. 1986 ‘Análisis metalúrgicos’, in D. Ruiz Mata and J. Fernández Jurado (eds), El yacimiento metalúrgico de época tartésica de San Bartolomé de Almonte (Huelva) [Huelva Arqueológica 8] (Huelva), 263–74 LANCEL, S. 1982 Byrsa II. Mission archéologique française à Carthage. Rapports préliminaires des fouilles 1977–1978, (niveaux et vestiges puniques) [Collection de l’École Française de Rome 41] (Rome) LANCEL, S. 1995a Carthage, a history (Oxford and Cambridge, MA) LANCEL, S. 1995b ‘Algérie’, in V. Krings (ed.), La civilisation

BIBLIOGRAPHY phénicienne et punique. Manuel de recherche (Leiden), 786–95 LANCEL, S. and LIPINSKI, E. 1992a ‘Rachgoun’, in Lipinksi 1992c, 369 LANCEL, S. and LIPINSKI, E. 1992b ‘Agriculture,’ in Lipinksi 1992c, 9–10 LANGÓSTENA BARRIOS, L. 2001 La producción de salsas y conservas de pescado en la Hispania romana (II a.C. – VI d.C.) (Barcelona) LATACZ, J. 1990 ‘Die Phönizier bei Homer’, in U. Gehrig and H. G. Niemeyer (eds), Die Phönizier im Zeitalter Homers (Mainz), 11–21 LAVADO, M. L. et al. 2000 ‘El asentamiento antiguo de Cádiz a través de las últimas excavaciones arqueológicas’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 869–79 LECLANT, J. 1968 ‘Les relations entre l’Egypte et la Phénicie du voyage d’Ounamon à l’expedition d’Alexandre’, in W. A. Ward (ed.), The role of the Phoenicians in the interaction of Mediterranean civilisations (Beirut), 9–31 LEICK, G. 2000 ‘Melqart’, in P. Bienkowski and A. Millard (eds), Dictionary of the ancient Near East (London), 194 LEONARD, A. 1996 ‘“Canaanite jars” and the Late Bronze Age Aegeo-Levantine wine trade’, in P. McGovern, S. Fleming and S. Katz (eds), The origins and ancient history of wine (Amsterdam), 233–55 LEPIKSAAR, J. 1973 ‘Fischknockenfunde aus der phönizischen Faktorei von Toscanos’, in J. Boessneck (ed.), Studien über frühe Tierknochenfunde von der Iberischen Hallbinsel 4, 109–19 LINDEMANN, G. 1974 ‘Phoenikische Grabformen des 7./6. Jahrhunderts v. Christus im westlichen Mittelmeerraum’, MM 15, 122–35 LIPINSKI, E. 1970 ‘La fête de l’ensevelissement et de la resurrection de Melqart’, in A. Firet (ed.), Actes du XVIIe rencontre assyriologique international, Hay-surHeure, 30–58 LIPINSKI, E. 1984 ‘Vestiges phéniciens d’Andalousie’, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 15, 81–132 LIPINSKI, E. 1992a ‘Métallurgie’, in Lipinski 1992c, 289–90 LIPINSKI, E. 1992b ‘Magon’, in Lipinski 1992c, 268–9 LIPINSKI, E. (ed.), 1992c Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique (Paris-Brussels) LIPINSKI, E. 1995 Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique [Studia Phoenicia XIV] (Leuven) LIVERANI, M. 1995 El antiguo oriente. Historia, sociedad y economía (Barcelona) LO SCHIAVO, F., MACNAMARA, E. and VAGNETTI, L. 1985 ‘Late Cypriot imports to Italy and their influence on local bronzework’, Papers of the British School at Rome 53 [n.s. 40], 1–69 LOMAS SALMONTE, F. J. 1991 Historia de Cádiz. Entre la leyenda y el olvido. Epocas antigua y media 1 (Madrid) LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. 1991 ‘Cartago y la Península Ibérica: ¿imperialismo o hegemonía?’, in La caída de Tiro y el auge de Cartago. V Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Ibiza 1990) (Ibiza), 73–86 LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. 1992 ‘La colonización fenicia en el sur de la Península Ibérica. 100 años de investigación’,

221

Actas del seminario celebrado en la facultad de humanidades del campo universitario de Almería, 5–7 junio 1990 (Almería), 11–79 LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. 1993 ‘La producción fenicia occidental de salazón de pescado’, II Congresso Peninsular de Historia Antigua, Coimbra 18–20 outubro 1990 (Coimbra), 353–62 LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. 1994 ‘Cartago y la Península Ibérica en la historiografía española reciente (1980–1992)’, Hispania Antiqua 18, 519–32 LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. 1995 Hispania Poena. Los fenicios en la Hispania romana (Barcelona) LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. unpublished ‘Hacia una definición del territorio colonial fenicio en el sur de la Península Ibérica’, III Congreso Peninsular de Historia Antigua (Vitoria, July 1994), unpublished lecture LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L., SAN MARTIN MONTILLA, C., and ESCORIZA MATEU, T. 1987–1988 ‘La colonización fenicia en el estuario del Almanzora. El asentamiento de Cabecico de Parra de Almizaraque (Cuevas del Almanzora, Almería)’, CPUG 12–13, 157–69 LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. et al. 1991 ‘La colonización fenicia en Abdera: nuevas aportaciones’, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 9–14 novembre 1987, Volume III (Rome), 981–9 LÓPEZ PARDO, F. 1990 ‘Mogador, “factoría extrema” y la cuestión del comercio fenicio en la costa atlántica africana’, 5ième congrès international d’histoire et d’archéologie de l’Afrique du Nord, Avignon (Paris), 277–96 LÓPEZ PARDO, F. 1992 ‘Reflexiones sobre el origen de Lixus y su Delubrum Herculis en el contexto de la empresa comercial fenicia’, Lixus. Actes du Colloque de l’Institut des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine de Rabat [Collection de l’École Française de Rome 166] (ParisRome), 87–101 LÓPEZ PARDO, F. 1996 ‘Informe preliminar sobre el estudio del material cerámico de la factoría fenicia de Essaouira (antigua Mogador)’, in M. A. Querol and T. Chapa (eds), Homenaje al Profesor Manuel Fernández Miranda [Complutum Extra 6 (I)], 359–67 (Madrid) LÓPEZ PARDO, F. 2000 El empeño de Heracles (La exploración del Atlántico en la Antigüedad) (Madrid) LUCAS, A. 1962 Ancient Egyptian materials and industries, 4th edition (London) MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. 1983 ‘Chorreras 1980’, MM 24, 76–103 MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. 1986 ‘Vasos fenicios de los VIII–VI en España. Su procedencia y posición dentro del mundo fenicio’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 227–48 MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. 1988 ‘Alarcón. Vorbericht über die Funde aus der Grabungskampagne 1984’, in Niemeyer, Briese and Bahnemann 1988a, 189–97 MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. 1990a ‘Orientalische Importe vom Morro de Mezquitilla’ MM 31, 169–77 MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. 1990b ‘Die phönikische Keramik von Lixus im Vergleich mit südandalusischer Keramik’, MM 31, 186–93

222

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. 1992 ‘A comparison of the Phoenician pottery of Lixus with the West Phoenican pottery of Spain’, Lixus. Actes du Colloque de l’Institut des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine de Rabat [Collection de l’École Française de Rome 166] (ParisRome), 175–80 MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. 1994 ‘Küstenforschung auf Ibiza 1989. Bodenproben und Lesefunde. Punische und römische Keramik’, MM 35, 157–82 MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. 1997 ‘Investigaciones sobre las antiguas líneas de costa en Ibiza realizadas en 1989. Sondeos geológicos y prospección en superficie: cerámica púnica y romana’, in H. D. Schulz and G. Maass-Lindemann, Prospecciones geo-arqueológicas en las costas de Ibiza (Ibiza), 33–59 MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. and SCHUBART, H. 1975 ‘Jardín. Vorbericht über die Grabung 1974 in der Nekropole des 6/5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.’, MM 16, 179–94 MAIER, J. 1999 ‘La necrópolis tartésica de La Cruz del Negro (Carmona, Sevilla), ayer y hoy’, MM 40, 97–114 MALKIN, I. 1987 Religion and Colonisation in Ancient Greece (Leiden) MANIATIS, Y. et al. 1984 ‘Punic amphoras found at Corinth, Greece: an investigation of their origin and technology’, Journal of Field Archaeology 11, 205–22 MANSEL, K. 2000a ‘Los hallazgos de metal procedentes del horizonte fenicio más antiguo BI del Morro de Mezquitilla (Algarrobo, Málaga)’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 1601–14 MANSEL, K. 2000b ‘Consideraciones sobre la importancia de los productos indígenas en Cartago durante los siglos VIII y VII a.C. A propósito de la cerámica decorada a mano’, in Fenicios y territorio. Actas del II Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios (Alicante), 169–87 MARÍN CEBALLOS, M. C. 1993 ‘Reflexiones en torno al papel económico-político del templo fenicio’, Homenaje a José María Blázquez II (Madrid), 349–62 MARÍN CEBALLOS, M. C. and LOMAS, F. J. 1992 ‘Cádiz fenicio-púnico y romano’, Dialoghi di Archeologia 3ª serie, 10.1–2, 129–43 MARKOE, G. E. 2000 Phoenicians (London) MARTÍN CAMINO, M. 1994 ‘Colonización fenicia y presencia púnica en Murcia’, in A. González Blanco, J. L. Cunchillos Ilari and M. Molina Martos (eds), El mundo púnico. Historia, sociedad y cultura [Cartagena 17–19 noviembre 1990] (Murcia), 293–324 MARTÍN DE LA CRUZ, J. C. 1988 ‘Mykenische Keramik aus Bronzezeitlichen Siedlungsshicten von Montoro am Guadalquivir’ MM 29, 79–92 MARTÍN CÓRDOBA, E. 1993–1994 ‘Aportación de la documentación arqueológica del Cerro de Capellanía (Periana, Málaga) a los inicios del primer milenio a.C. en la provincia de Málaga’, Mainake 15–16, 5–35 MARTÍN RUIZ, J. A. 1995 Catálogo documental de los fenicios en Andalucía [Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura] (Andalucía) MARTÍN RUIZ, J. A. 1996 Las sepulturas principescas del período orientalizante tartésico (Málaga)

MARTÍN RUIZ, J. A. 1999 ‘Informe preliminar sobre el yacimiento de la Loma del Aeropuerto (Churriana, Málaga)’, in M. E. Aubet Semmler et al. (eds), Cerro del Villar – I. El asentamiento fenicio en la desembocadura del río Guadalhorce y su interacción con el hinterland [Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura], 57–64 MARTÍN RUIZ, J. M. 2000 ‘Cerámicas a mano en los yacimientos fenicios de Andalucía’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 1625–30 MARTÍN RUIZ, J. M., MARTÍN RUIZ, J. A., and ESQUIVEL GUERRERO, J. A. 1996 ‘Análisis arqueológico y estadístico de la necrópolis del Cortijo de las Sombras (Frigiliana, Málaga)’, in F. Wulff Alonso and G. Cruz Andreotti (eds), Historia antigua de Málaga y su provincia (Málaga), 167–75 MARZOLI, D. 2000 ‘Anforas púnicas de Morro de Mezquitilla (Málaga)’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 1631–44 MASCORT, M., SANMARTÍ, J., and SANTACANA, J. 1991 ‘Aldovesta. Les bases d’un modèle commercial dans le cadre de l’expansion phénicienne au nord-est de la Péninsule Ibérique’, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 9–14 novembre 1987, Volume III (Rome), 1073–79 MASSOLI-NOVELLI, R. 1986 ‘The Geology and Natural Resources of Sardinia’, in M. S. Balmuth (ed.), Studies in Sardinian Archaeology II: Sardinia in the Mediterranean (Ann Arbor), 2–7 MAYET F. and TAVARES DA SILVA, C. 1993 ‘Presença fenícia no baixo Sado’, in A. Tavares (ed.), Os fenícios no territorio português [Estudos Orientais IV] (Lisbon), 127–42 MAYET F. and TAVARES DA SILVA, C. 1996 ‘Abul: um estabelecimento fenício no Baixo Sado’, in J. de Alarcão (ed.), De Ulisses a Viariato. O primeiro milénio a.C. (Lisbon), 52–9 MAYET, F., TAVARES DA SILVA, C. and MAKAROUN, Y. 2000 ‘Abul et la présence phénicienne sur l’Atlantique’ in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 849–57 MAYET F. and TAVARES DA SILVA, C. 2001 ‘Abul e a arquitectura orientalizante na costa portuguesa’, in D. Ruiz Mata and C. Celestino Pérez (eds), Arquitectura oriental y orientalizante en la Península Ibérica [Centro de estudios del Próximo Oriente, lenguas y culturas del antiguo Próximo Oriente 4], 249–60 MEDEROS, A. and ESCRIBANO, G. 1999 ‘Pesquerías gaditanas en el litoral atlántico norteafricano’, RSF 27, 93–113 MENANTEAU, L. 1978 ‘Les anciens étiers de rive gauche des marismas du Guadalquivir’, Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez 14, 35–72 MENANTEAU, L., and POU, A. 1978 ‘Les marismas du Guadalquivir: apport de la télédétection et de l’archéologie à la reconstitution du paysage’, Caesarodunum 13, 174–92 MERLIN, A. 1918 ‘Tombeaux de la colline dite ‘de Junon’’, Bulletin archéologique du Comité, 288–312 MILLÁN LEÓN, J. 1996 ‘Protohistória de Marchena y su

BIBLIOGRAPHY entorno’, in Actas de las I Jornadas sobre Historia de Marchena (Historia de Marchena. Volumen I) (Marchena), 19–35 MILLÁN LEÓN, J. 1999 Cádiz y el mar (Écija) MOLINA FAJARDO, F. 1983 ‘El Bronce Final y la colonización fenicia’, in F. Molina Fajardo (ed.), Almuñécar, Arqueología e Historia I (Granada), 21–34 MOLINA FAJARDO, F. 1984a ‘Excavaciones en el casco de Almuñécar’, in F. Molina Fajardo (ed.), Almuñécar, Arqueología e Historia II (Granada), 121–83 MOLINA FAJARDO, F. 1984b ‘La necropoli sur de Tharros’, RSF 12, 77–101 MOLINA FAJARDO, F. 1986 ‘Almuñécar a la luz de los nuevos hallazgos fenicios’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 193–216 MOLINA FAJARDO, F., RUÍZ FERNÁNDEZ, A., and HUERTAS JIMÉNEZ, C. 1982 Almuñécar en la antigüedad. La necrópolis fenicio-púnica de Puente de Noy (Granada) MOLINA FAJARDO, F. and HUERTAS JIMÉNEZ, C. 1983 ‘La tumba fenicia 1E de Puente de Noy’, in F. Molina Fajardo (ed.), Almuñécar, Arqueología e Historia I (Granada), 57–88 MOLINA FAJARDO, F. and PADRÓ I PARCERISA, J. 1983 ‘Nuevos materiales procedentes de la necrópolis del Cerro de San Cristóbal (Almuñécar, Granada)’, in F. Molina Fajardo (ed.), Almuñécar, Arqueología e Historia I (Granada), 35–56 MOLINA FAJARDO, F. and BANNOUR, A. 2000 ‘Almuñécar a la luz de los nuevos hallazgos fenicios’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 1645–63 MOLINA GONZÁLEZ, F. 1978 ‘Definición y sistematización del bronce tardío y final en el sudeste de la Península Ibérica’, CPUG 3, 159–232 MOMIGLIANO, A. 1963 ‘An interim report on the origins of Rome’, Journal of Roman Studies 53, 95–121 MONTERO, M. 1999 ‘Informe de arqueofauna’, in M. E. Aubet Semmler et al. (eds), Cerro del Villar – I. El asentamiento fenicio en la desembocadura del río Guadalhorce y su interacción con el hinterland [Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura], 313–18 MORALES A. et al. 1994 ‘The mammals’, in Roselló and Morales 1994b, 37–80 MORENO, R. 1994 ‘Los moluscos’, in Roselló and Morales 1994b, 143–84 MORRIS, I. 1987 Burial and ancient society: the rise of the Greek city state (Cambridge) MORRIS, I. 1992 Death ritual and social structure in classical antiquity (Cambridge) MOSCATI, S. 1973 The world of the Phoenicians (London) MOSCATI, S. 1986 Italia Punica (Milan) MOSCATI, S. 1989 Tra Tiro e Cadice [Studia Punica 3] (Rome) MOSCATI, S. 1992 Chi furono i Fenici? (Turin) MOULARD, J. 1924 ‘Fouilles et découvertes à Utique’, Bulletin archéologique du Comité 1924, 141–53 MÜLLER, C. 1882 Geographi Graeci Minores (Paris) MUÑOZ VICENTE, A. and PISANO, G. La necrópolis feniciopúnica de Cádiz, siglos VI–IV a. de C. [Studia Punica 7] (Rome)

223

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE DIVISION 1941 Spain and Portugal I, The Peninsula [Geographical Handbook Series] (London) NEGBI, O. 1982 ‘Evidence for early Phoenician communities on the eastern Mediterranean Islands’, Levant 14, 182–97 NEGUERUELA MARTÍNEZ, I. 1979–80 ‘Sobre la cerámica de engobe rojo en España’, Habis 10–11, 335–59 NEGUERUELA MARTÍNEZ, I. 1981 ‘Zur Datierung der west-phönizischen Nekropole von Almuñécar’, MM 22, 211–28 NEGUERUELA MARTÍNEZ, I. 1983 ‘Jarros de boca de seta y de boca trilobulada’, Homenaje al Profesor Martín Almagro Basch II (Madrid), 259–79 NEGUERUELA MARTÍNEZ, I. 1985 ‘Sobre la fecha de la necrópolis “Laurita” de Almuñécar’, NAH 22, 191–210 NEGUERUELA MARTÍNEZ, I. 1991 ‘La necrópolis fenicia “Laurita” de Almuñécar,’ I–IV Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Ibiza), 199–205 NEGUERUELA MARTÍNEZ, I. et al. 2000 ‘Descubrimiento de dos barcos fenicios en Mazarrón (Murcia)’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 1671–9 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1970 ‘Zum Thymiaterion vom Cerro del Peñón’, MM 11, 96–101 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1972 ‘Orient im Okzident – Die Phöniker in Spanien. Ergebnisse der Grabungen in der archäologischen Zone von Torre del Mar (Málaga)’, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 104, 5–44 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1979 ‘Toscanos, campañas de 1973 y 1976 (con un apéndice sobre los resultados de la campaña de 1978)’, NAH 6, 219–59 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1979–1980 ‘A la búsqueda de Mainake: el conflicto entre los testimonios arqueológicos y escritos’, Habis 10–11, 279–306 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1980a ‘The Trayamar medallion reconsidered’, in R. Y. Ebied and M. J. L. Young (eds), Oriental Studies Presented to B. S. J. Isserlin (Leiden), 108–13 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1980b ‘Auf der Suche nach Mainake: der Konflikt zwischen literarischer und archäologischer Überlieferung’, Historia 29, 165–89 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1981 ‘Anno octogesimo post Troiam captam . . . Tyria classis Gadis condidit? Polemische Gedanken sum Gründungsdatum von Gades (Cádiz)’, Hamburger Beiträge zur Archäologie 8, 9–33 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1982a ‘Die phönizische Niederlassung Toscanos: eine Zwischenbilanz’, in Niemeyer 1982c, 195–206 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1982b ‘El yacimiento de Toscanos. Balance de la investigación 1964–1979’, HA 6, 101–30 NIEMEYER, H. G. (ed.) 1982c Die Beiträge des Internationalen Symposiums über ‘Die Phönizische Expansion im westlichen Mittelmeerraum’ in Köln 1979 [Madrider Beiträge 8] (Mainz) NIEMEYER, H. G. 1984a ‘Die Phönizier im Zeitalter Homers’, Jahrbuch der Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 31, 3–94 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1984b ‘Griechische Keramik in phönizischen Faktoreien. Der Befund der Kampagne 1967

224

BIBLIOGRAPHY

in Toscanos (Málaga)’, in H. A. G. Brijder (ed.), Ancient Greek and related pottery. Proceedings of the international vase symposium in Amsterdam, 12–15 April 1984 (Amsterdam), 214–17 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1986a ‘Trabajos arqueológicos realizados en las faldas orientales del Cerro del Peñón, yacimiento de Toscanos, Torre del Mar (Vélez-Málaga)’, AAA 1986, 422–4 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1986b ‘El yacimiento fenicio de Toscanos: urbanística y función’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 109–26 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1990 ‘The Phoenicians in the Mediterranean: a non-Greek model for expansion and settlement in Antiquity’, in J. P. Descoeudres (ed.), Greek colonists and native populations: Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology held in honour of Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall (Oxford), 469–89 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1992 ‘Lixus: fondation de la première expansion phénicienne, vue de Carthage’, Lixus. Actes du Colloque de l’Institut des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine de Rabat [Collection de l’École Française de Rome 166] (Paris-Rome), 45–57 NIEMEYER, H. G. 1995 ‘Phoenician Toscanos as a settlement model? Its urbanistic character in the context of Phoenician expansion and Iberian acculturation’, in Cunliffe and Keay 1995, 67–88 NIEMEYER, H. G., BRIESE, C. and BAHNEMANN, R. (eds) 1988a Geologisch-archäologische Forschungen zum Verlauf der andalusischen Mittelmeerküste, Forschungen zur Archäologie und Geologie von Torre del Mar 1983/84 [Madrider Beiträge 14] (Mainz) NIEMEYER, H. G., BRIESE, C. and BAHNEMANN, R. 1988b ‘Die Untersuchungen auf dem Cerro del Peñón’, in Niemeyer, Briese and Bahnemann 1988a, 155–71 NIEMEYER, H. G. and SCHUBART, H. 1965 ‘Ein ostphönikisches Thymiaterion vom Cerro del Peñón (Almayate Bajo, Provinz Málaga)’, MM 6, 74–83 NIEMEYER, H. G. and SCHUBART, H. 1968 ‘Toscanos und Trayamar, Vorbericht über die Grabungskampagne 1967’, MM 9, 76–105 NIEMEYER, H. G. and SCHUBART, H. 1970 ‘Zum Thymiaterion vom Cerro del Peñón’, MM 11, 96–101 NIVEAU DE VILLEDARY, A. M. and RUIZ MATA, D. 2000 ‘El poblado de Las Cumbres (Castillo de Doña Blanca): urbanismo y materiales del s. III a.C.’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 893–903 NOCK, D. 1937 ‘Cremation and burial in the Roman Empire’, Harvard Theological Review 25, 321–59 OLMOS, R. 1989 ‘Los griegos en Tartessos: una nueva contrastación entre las fuentes arqueológicas y las literarias’, in Aubet Semmler 1989b, 495–521 OLMOS, R. 1991 ‘Le facteur grec à Málaga et dans le contexte des installations phéniciennes du littoral andalou’, in J. Gran Aymerich, Málaga phénicienne et punique (Paris), 140–6 OSUNA RUIZ M. and REMESAL RODRÍGUEZ, J. 1981 ‘La

necrópolis de Boliche (Villaricos, Almería)’, APL 16, 373–441 PADIAL, B. et al. 2000 ‘Estudios analíticos de un conjunto de ánforas de tipología fenicia occidental del asentamiento protohistórico de Ronda la Vieja (Ronda, Málaga)’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 1841–50 PADRÓ I PARCERISA, J. 1976–78 ‘Datos para una valoración del “factor egipcio” y de su incidencia en los orígenes del proceso de iberización’, Simposi Internacional Els origens del Mon Ibèric [Ampurias 38–40], 487–509 PADRÓ I PARCERISA, J. 1983a ‘Los fenicios y la distribución de objetos egipcios en el extremo Mediterráneo occidental’, Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 5–10 novembre 1979, Volume I (Rome), 65–75 PADRÓ I PARCERISA, J. 1983b Egyptian-type documents from the Mediteranean littoral of the Iberian Peninsula II. Study of the material. From western Languedoc to Murcia (Leiden) PADRÓ I PARCERISA, J. 1985 Egyptian type documents from the Mediteranean littoral of the Iberian Peninsula III. Study of the material. Andalusia (Leiden) PADRÓ I PARCERISA, J. 1986 ‘Las importaciones egipcias en Almuñécar y los orígenes de la colonización fenicia en Iberia’, Homenaje a Luis Siret (Seville), 526–9 PARKER PEARSON, M. 1999 The archaeology of death and burial (Stroud) PASTOR MUÑOZ, M. 1983 ‘Fuentes antiguas sobre Almuñécar (Sexi Firmum Iulium)’, in F. Molina Fajardo (ed.), Almuñécar, Arqueología e Historia I (Granada), 205–35 PEACOCK, D. P. S. and WILLIAMS, D. F. 1991 Amphorae and the Roman economy, an introductory guide (London and New York) PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1962 Excavaciones el la necrópolis púnica “Laurita” del Cerro de San Cristóbal (Almuñécar, Granada) [EAE 17] (Madrid) PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1963 ‘Ein altpunisches Gräberfeld bei Almuñécar (Prov. Granada)’, MM 4, 9–39 PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1964a ‘Relaciones de la necrópolis púnica del Cerro de San Cristóbal de Almuñécar con el Mediterráneo occidental’, CNA 8, 393–405 PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1964b ‘Actividades de la delegación de la zona de la provincia de Granada durante los años 1957–1962’, NAH 6, 303–50 PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1978 ‘Tipología y cronología de las ánforas prerromanas del Guadalquivir, según El Cerro Macareno’, Habis 9, 365–400 PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1982 ‘Las cerámicas del mundo fenicio en el Bajo Guadalquivir: evolución y cronología según el Cerro Macareno (Sevilla)’, in Niemeyer 1982c, 371–403 PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1983a ‘Yacimientos orientalizantes del bajo Guadalquivir’, Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 5–10 novembre 1979, Volume III (Rome), 825–36 PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1983b ‘El yacimiento protohistórico de Quebrantahuesos (Riotinto, Huelva)’, NAH 15, 61–91

BIBLIOGRAPHY PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1986a ‘El bronce reciente e inicios del hierro en Andalucía oriental’, Habis 17, 433–75 PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1986b ‘Sexi fenicia y púnica’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 85–107 PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1997 ‘El nacimiento de Sevilla’, Boletín de la Real Academia de Bellas Artes de Santa Isabel de Hungría 25, 231–54 PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1998 ‘La colonización fenicia en Portugal’, Spal 7, 93–105 PELLICER CATALÁN, M. and HURTADO, V. 1980 El poblado metalúrgico de Chinflón (Zalamea la Real, Huelva) [Publicaciones del Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Sevilla] (Seville) PELLICER CATALÁN, M., MENANTEAU, L., and ROUILLARD, P. 1973 ‘Para una metodología de localización de colonias fenicias en las costas ibéricas: el Cerro del Prado’, Habis 8, 217–51 PEMÁN, C. 1959 ‘El capitel, de tipo protojónico, de Cádiz’, AEA 32, 58–70 PERDIGONES MORENO, L. 1991 ‘Hallazgos recientes en torno al santuario de Melkart en la isla de Sancti Petri (Cádiz)’, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 9–14 novembre 1987, Volume III (Rome), 1119–32 PERDIGONES MORENO, L. 1991 ‘La necrópolis feniciopúnica de Cádiz (siglos VI al IV a.C.)’, I–IV Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Ibiza), 221–7 PERDIGONES MORENO, L., MUÑOZ VICENTE, A. and PISANO, G. 1990 La necrópolis fenicio-púnica de Cádiz, siglos VI–IV a. de C. [Studia Punica 7] (Rome) PEREIRA, I. 1993 ‘Figueira da Foz. Santa Olaia’, in A. Tavares (ed.), Os fenícios no territorio português [Estudos Orientais IV] (Lisbon), 285–304 PEREIRA, I. 1996 ‘Santa Olaia’, in J. de Alarcão (ed.), De Ulisses a Viariato. O primeiro milénio a.C. (Lisbon), 60–5 PÉREZ DIE, M. C. 1976 ‘Notas sobre cuatro vasos egipcios de alabastro procedente de Torre del Mar (Málaga) conservados en el Museo Arqueológico Nacional de Madrid’, Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos 79, 903–22 PÉREZ DIE, M. C. 1983 ‘Un nuevo vaso egipcio de alabastro en España’, Homenaje al Profesor Martín Almagro Basch II (Madrid), 237–43 PÉREZ MACÍAS, J. A. 1995 ‘Poblados, centros mineros y actividades metalúrgicas en el cinturón ibérico de piritas durante el bronce final’, in Tartessos, 25 años después 1968–1993. Actas del Congreso Conmemorativo del V Symposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular (Jerez de la Frontera), 417–46 PÉREZ MACÍAS, J. A. 1996 Metalurgia extractiva perromana en Huelva (Huelva) PÉREZ QUESADA, P. and AMORES CARREDANO, F. 1998 ‘Georreferenciación de la planimetría e imágenes digitales en arqueología. Aplicación en la necrópolis de “La Cruz del Negro” (Carmona, Sevilla)’, Spal 7, 9–24 PERICOT GARCÍA, L. 1972 The Balearic islands (London)

225

PETTINATO, G. 1975 ‘I rapporti politici di Tiro con l’Assiria alla luce del trattato tra Asarhaddon e Baal’, RSF 3, 145–60 PICARD, C. 1982 ‘Les navigations de Carthage vers l’ouest. Carthage et les pays de Tarsis aux VIII–VI siècles’, in Niemeyer 1982c, 161–73 PIGOTT, S. 1969 ‘Conclusion’, in P. J. Ucko and G. Dimbleby (eds), The domestication of plants and animals (London) PLÁCIDO SUÁREZ, D. 1989 ‘Realidades arcaicas de los viajes míticos a Occidente’, Gerión 7, 41–51 PLÁCIDO SUÁREZ, D., ALVAR, J. AND WAGNER, C. G. 1991 La formación de los estados en el Mediterráneo occidental (Madrid) PONSICH, M. 1975 ‘Pérennité des relations dans le circuit du Détroit de Gibraltar’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II. 3, 655–84 POVEDA NAVARRO, A. 1994 ‘Primeros datos sobre las influencias fenicio-púnicas en el corredor del Vinalopó’, in A. González Blanco, J. L. Cunchillos Ilari and M. Molina Martos (eds), El mundo púnico. Historia, sociedad y cultura [Cartagena 17–19 noviembre 1990] (Murcia), 489–502 POVEDA NAVARRO, A. 1999 ‘Melqart y Astarté en el Occidente mediterráneo: la evidencia de la Península Ibérica (Siglos VIII–VI a.C.)’, in B. Costa and J. H. Fernández (eds), De Oriente a Occidente: los dioses fenicios en las colonias occidentales. XII jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Eivissa 1997), 25–61 RAKOB, F. 1991 ‘Neue Forschungen zur archaischen Siedlungstopographie Karthagos’, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 9–14 novembre 1987, Volume III (Rome), 1161–4 RAMÍREZ DELGADO, J. R. 1982 Los primitivos núcleos de asentamiento en la ciudad de Cádiz (Cadiz) RAMÓN TORRES, J. 1981 Ibiza y la circulación de ánforas fenicias y púnicas en el Mediterráneo Occidental (Ibiza) RAMÓN TORRES, J. 1982 ‘Cuestiones de comercio arcaico: frascos fenicios de aceite perfumado en el Mediterráneo central y occidental’, Ampurias 44, 17–41 RAMÓN TORRES, J. 1991 ‘El yacimiento fenicio de Sa Caleta’, I–IV Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Ibiza), 177–87 RAMÓN TORRES, J. 1994 ‘El nacimiento de la ciudad fenicia de la bahía de Ibiza’, in A. González Blanco, J. L. Cunchillos Ilari and M. Molina Martos (eds), El mundo púnico. Historia, sociedad y cultura [Cartagena 17–19 noviembre 1990] (Murcia), 325–67 RAMÓN TORRES, J. 1995 Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental (Barcelona) RAMÓN TORRES, J. 1996 ‘Puig des Molins (Eivissa). El límite NW de la necrópolis fenicio-púnica’, Pyrenae 27, 53–82 RAMÓN TORRES, J. 1999 ‘La cerámica fenicia a torno de sa Caleta (Eivissa),’ in A. González Prats (ed.), La cerámica fenicia en Occidente: centros de producción y áreas de comercio [Actas del I Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios, Guardamar del Segura, 21–24 de noviembre de 1997] (Alicante), 149–214 RAMOS SAÍNZ, M. L. 1986 Estudio sobre el ritual funerario en

226

BIBLIOGRAPHY

las necrópolis fenicias y púnicas de la Península Ibérica (Madrid) RAMOS SAÍNZ, M. L. 1991 ‘El ritual funerario en las necrópolis fenicias de la Península Ibérica’, I–IV Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Ibiza), 253–56 RATHJE, A. 1991 ‘Il banchetto presso i Fenici’, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 9–14 novembre 1987, Volume III (Rome), 1165–68 REBUFFAT, R. 1966 ‘Hélène en Égypte et le romain égaré’, REA 68, 245–63 RECIO RUIZ, A. 1993 ‘Vestigios materiales cerámicos de ascendencia fenicio-púnica en la provincia de Málaga’, MM 34, 127–41 RECIO RUIZ, A. 1993–94 ‘Prospecciones arqueológicas: un modo de aproximación al conocimiento de los procesos de interacción indígenas-fenicias en el valle del Guadalhorce (Málaga)’, Mainake 15–16, 85–107 RECIO RUIZ, A. 1996 ‘Iberos en Málaga’, in F. Wulff Alonso and G. Cruz Andreotti (eds), Historia Antigua de Málaga y su provincia. Actas del Primer Congreso de Historia Antigua de Málaga (Málaga 1994) (Málaga), 59–69 RENFREW, C. and BAHN, P. 1996 Archaeology, theories, methods and practice, 2nd. ed. (London) RIBERA, A. and FERNÁNDEZ, A. 2000 ‘Las ánforas del mundo fenicio-púnico en el País Valenciano’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 1699–1711 RIBICHINI, S. 1983 ‘Temple et sacerdoce dans l’économie de Carthage’, Bulletin archéologique du comité des travaux historiques 19b, 29–37 RIBICHINI, S. 1985 Poenus advena, gli dei fenici e l’interpretazione clasica [Istituto per la civiltà fenicia e punica, Consiglio Nazionale delle Richerche] (Rome) RIDGWAY, D. 1992 The first western Greeks (Cambridge) RIDGWAY, D. and SERRA RIDGWAY, F. R. 1992, ‘Sardinia and history’, in R. H. Tykot and T. K. Andrews (eds), Sardinia in the Mediterranean: a footprint in the sea. Studies in Sardinian archaeology presented to Miriam S. Balmuth [Monographs in Mediterranean archaeology 3] (Sheffield), 355–63 RIDGWAY, D. 1995 ‘Archaeology in Sardinia and south Italy 1989–94’, Archaeological Reports for 1994–95, 75–96 RIIS, P. J. 1948 Hama II (3): Les cimetières à crémation (Copenhagen) RODRÍGUEZ SANTANA, C. G. 1999 ‘Las ictiofaunas del Cerro del Villar’, in M. E. Aubet Semmler et al. (eds), Cerro del Villar – I. El asentamiento fenicio en la desembocadura del río Guadalhorce y su interacción con el hinterland [Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura], 320–4 RODRÍGUEZ VINCEIRO F. J. et al. 1996 ‘Aproximación a los recursos abióticos durante la protohistoria en la provincia de Málaga’, in F. Wulff Alonso and G. Cruz Andreotti (eds), Historia Antigua de Málaga y su provincia. Actas del Primer Congreso de Historia Antigua de Málaga, Málaga, 1994 (Málaga), 189–204 ROLDÁN BERNAL, B., MIÑANO DOMÍNGUEZ, A. and MARTÍN CAMINO, M. 1991 ‘El yacimiento arqueológico subacuático de “El Bajo de la Campana”‘, CNA 21, 965–74

ROLDÁN BERNAL et al. 1994 ‘El fondeadero de la playa de la isla. Avance preliminar’, in A. González Blanco, J. L. Cunchillos Ilarri and M. Molina Martos (eds), El mundo púnico. Historia, sociedad y cultura, Cartagena 17–19 noviembre 1990 (Murcia), 503–16 RÖLLIG, W. 1983 ‘Phönizische Gefässinschriften vom Morro de Mezquitilla’, MM 24, 132–44 ROOS, A. M. 1983 ‘Zur frühen grauen Drehscheibenware auf der Iberischen Halbinsel’, MM 24, 153–76 ROS SALA, M. M. 1991 ‘Presencia fenicia en el área murciana: los materiales de la fase II de El Castellar de Librilla (Murcia)’, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 9–14 novembre 1987, Volume III (Rome), 1197–1204 ROS SALA, M. M. 1993 ‘El trabajo del hierro en el poblado protohistórico de El Castellar (Murcia). I: análisis arqueológico’, in R. Arana Castillo et al. (eds), Metalurgia en la Península Ibérica durante el primer milenio a.C. Estado actual de la investigación (Murcia), 71–109 ROS, M. T. and BURJACHS, F. 1999 ‘Paleovegetación del Cerro del Villar’, in M. E. Aubet et al. (eds), Cerro del Villar I. El asentamiento fenicio en la desembocadura del río Guadalhorce y su interacción con el hinterland [Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura], 65–71 ROSELLÓ E. and MORALES, A. 1994a ‘The fishes’, in Roselló and Morales 1994b, 91–142 ROSELLÓ E. and MORALES, A. (eds) 1994b Castillo de Doña Blanca. Archaeo-environmental investigations in the Bay of Cádiz, Spain (750–500 BC) [BAR International Series 59] (Oxford) ROSS W. D. (ed.), 1913 The works of Aristotle translated into English VI (Oxford) ROTHENBERG, B. 1984 ‘Miners’ tombs help date early work at Rio Tinto’, Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies (IAMS) Newsletter 7 (December 1984), 1–3 ROTHENBERG, B. and BLANCO FREIJEIRO, A. 1980 ‘Ancient mining and smelting at Chinflón (Huelva, south-west Spain)’, in P. Craddock (ed.), Scientific Studies in Early Mining and Extractive Metallurgy [British Museum Occasional Papers 20] (London), 41–55 ROTHENBERG, B. and BLANCO FREIJEIRO, A. 1981 Studies in Ancient Mining and Metallurgy in South-West Spain (London) ROTHENBERG, B. et al. 1989 ‘The Rio Tinto enigma’, in C. Domergue (ed.), Minería y metalurgia en las antiguas civilizaciones mediterráneas y europeas I (Madrid), 57–70 ROUILLARD, P. 1978 ‘Brève note sur le Cerro del Prado, site phénicien de l’ouest, à l’embouchure du río Guadarranque (San Roque – Cadix)’, MM 19, 152–61 ROUILLARD , P. 1990 ‘Phéniciens et Grecs à Toscanos. Note sur quelques vases d’inspiration gréco-géométrique de Toscanos (1967)’, MM 31, 178–85 ROUILLARD , P. 1991 Les Grecs et la Péninsule Ibérique (Paris) ROVIRA LLORENS, S. 1993 ‘La metalurgia de la Edad del Hierro en la Península Ibérica: una síntesis introductoria’, in R. Arana Castillo et al. (eds), Metalurgia en la Península Ibérica durante el primer milenio a.C. Estado actual de la investigación (Murcia), 45–70

BIBLIOGRAPHY RUFETE TOMICO, P. 1987 ‘La cerámica con engobe rojo de Tejada’, in J. Fernández Jurado (ed.), Tejada la Vieja: una ciudad protohistórica [Huelva Arqueológica 9] (Huelva), 146–7 RUFETE TOMICO, P. 1989 ‘La cerámica con barniz rojo de Huelva’, in Aubet Semmler 1989b, 375–94 RUFETE TOMICO, P. and GARCÍA SANZ, C. 1995 Huelva en época tartésica (Huelva) RUIZ CABRERO, L. A. and LÓPEZ PARDO, F. 1996 ‘Cerámicas fenicias con graffiti de la isla de Essaouira (antigua Mogador, Marruecos)’, RSF 24, 153–79 RUIZ DE ARBULO, J. 2000 ‘El papel de los santuarios en la colonización fenicia y griega en la Península Ibérica’, in B. Costa and J. Fernández (eds), Santuarios feniciopúnicos en Iberia y su influencia en los cultos indígenas. XIV jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Eivissa, 1999) (Ibiza), 9–56 RUIZ DELGADO, M. M. 1989 ‘Las necrópolis tartésicas: prestigio, poder y jerarquías’, in Aubet Semmler 1989b, 247–86 RUIZ-GÁLVEZ PRIEGO, M. 1986 ‘Navegación y comercio entre el Atlántico y el Mediterráneo a fines de la Edad del Bronce’, Trabajos de Prehistoria 43, 9–42 RUIZ-GÁLVEZ PRIEGO, M. (ed.) 1995a Ritos de paso y puntos de paso. La Ría de Huelva en el mundo del Bronce Final europeo [Complutum extra 5] (Madrid) RUIZ-GÁLVEZ PRIEGO, M. 1995b ‘El hallazgo de la Ría de Huelva en su marco paleogeográfico’, in M. RuizGálvez Priego (ed.), Ritos de paso y puntos de paso. La Ría de Huelva en el mundo del Bronce Final europeo [Complutum extra 5] (Madrid), 15–20 RUIZ-GÁLVEZ PRIEGO, M. 1997 ‘The west of Iberia: meeting point between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic at the end of the Bronze Age’, in M. S. Balmuth, A. Gilman and L. Prados-Torreira (eds), Encounters and transformations. The archaeology of Iberia in transition [Monographs in Mediterranean archaeology 7] (Sheffield), 95–120 RUIZ-GÁLVEZ PRIEGO, M. 1998 La Europa atlántica en la Edad del Bronce. Un viaje a las raíces de la Europa occidental (Barcelona) RUIZ MATA, D. 1981 ‘El poblado metalúrgico de época tartésica de San Bartolomé (Almonte, Huelva)’, MM 22,150–70 RUIZ MATA, D. 1986a ‘Aportación al analisis de los inicios de la presencia fenicia en Andalucía sudoccidental, según las excavaciones del Cabezo de San Pedro (Huelva), S. Bartolomé (Almonte, Huelva), Castillo de Doña Blanca (Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz) y El Carambolo (Camas, Sevilla)’, Homenaje a Luis Siret (Seville), 537–56 RUIZ MATA, D. 1986b ‘Castillo de Doña Blanca (Puerto de Santa María, Prov. Cádiz). Stratigraphische Untersuchung einer orientalisierenden Ansiedlung,’ MM 27, 87–115 RUIZ MATA, D. 1986c ‘Las cerámicas fenicias del Castillo de Doña Blanca (Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz),’ in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 241–63 RUIZ MATA, D. 1987a ‘Informe sobre la campaña de

227

excavaciones de 1987 realizada en el Castillo de Doña Blanca (El Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz)’, AAA 1987, 380–4 RUIZ MATA, D. 1987b ‘La formación de la cultura turdetana en la Bahía de Cádiz a través del Castillo de Doña Blanca’, Iberos. Actas de las I Jornadas sobre el Mundo Ibérico, Jaén 1985 (Jaén), 299–314 RUIZ MATA, D. 1989 ‘Huelva: un foco temprano de actividad metalúrgica durante el Bronce Final’, in Aubet Semmler 1989b, 209–43 RUIZ MATA, D. 1991a ‘El túmulo 1 de la necrópolis de las Cumbres’, I–IV Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Ibiza), 207–17 RUIZ MATA, D. 1991b ‘Los fenicios en la Bahía de Cádiz, según el Castillo de Doña Blanca’, I–IV Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Ibiza), 89–97 RUIZ MATA, D. 1993a ‘Los fenicios de época arcaica – siglos VIII/VII a.C. – en la Bahía de Cádiz. Estado de la cuestión’, in A. Tavares (ed.), Os fenicios no territôrio português [Estudos Orientais IV] (Lisbon), 23–71 RUIZ MATA, D. 1993b ‘Proyecto: la colonización fenicia en la bahía de Cádiz a través del Castillo de Doña Blanca. Puerto de Santa María’, Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Andalucía 1985–1992 (Huelva), 489–96 RUIZ MATA, D. 1994 ‘El poblado fenicio del Castillo de Doña Blanca. Introducción al yacimiento’, in Roselló and Morales 1994b, 1–19 RUIZ MATA, D. 1995 ‘El vino en época prerromana en Andalucía occidental’, in S. Celestino Pérez (ed.), Arqueología del vino. Los orígenes del vino en occidente (Jerez de la Frontera), 161–212 RUIZ MATA, D. 1997 ‘Fenicios, tartesios y turdetanos,’ in J. Fernández Jurado, P. Rufete Tomico and C. García Sanz (eds), La Andalucía ibero-turdetana (siglos VI–IV a.C.). Actas de la Jornadas celebradas en el Foro Iberoamericano de La Rábida 16 al 18 de marzo de 1994 [Huelva Arqueológica XIV] (Huelva), 325–65 RUIZ MATA, D. 1999a ‘La fundación de Gadir y el Castillo de Doña Blanca: contrastación textual y arqueológica’, Complutum 10, 279–317 RUIZ MATA, D. 1999b ‘Visión actual de la fundación de Gadir en la bahía gaditana. El Castillo de Doña Blanca en el Puerto de Santa María y la ciudad de Cádiz. Contrastación textual y arqueológica’, Revista de Historia de El Puerto 21, 11–88 RUIZ MATA, D. and FERNÁNDEZ JURADO, J. 1986 El yacimiento metalúrgico de época tartésica de San Bartolomé de Almonte (Huelva) [Huelva Arqueológica 8] (Huelva) RUIZ MATA, D. and PÉREZ, C. 1989 ‘El Túmulo 1 de la necrópolis de “Las Cumbres” (Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz)’, in Aubet Semmler 1989b, 287–95 RUIZ MATA, D. and GONZÁLEZ RODRÍGUEZ, R. 1994 ‘Consideraciones sobre asentamientos rurales y cerámicas orientalizantes en la campiña gaditana’, Spal 3, 209–56 RUIZ MATA, D. and PÉREZ, C. 1995 El poblado fenicio del Castillo de Doña Blanca (El Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz) [Ayuntamiento de El Puerto de Santa María, Concejalía de cultura] (El Puerto de Santa María)

228

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SAGONA, A. G. 1982 ‘Levantine storage jars of the 13th to 14th Century B.C.’, Opuscula Atheniensia 14, 75–78 SAIDAH, R. 1966 ‘Fouilles de Khaldé. Rapport préliminaire sur la première et deuxième campagnes (1961–1962)’, BMB 19, 51–90 SAIDAH, R. 1977 ‘Une tombe de l’age du fer à Tambourit (région de Sidon)’, Berytus 25, 135–46 SALKIELD, L. U. 1970 ‘Ancient slags in the south west of the Iberian Peninsula’, VI congreso internacional de minería y metalurgia. La minería hispana e iberoamericana I (Leon), 85–98 SALKIELD, L. U. 1987 A technical history of the Rio Tinto mines: some notes on exploitation from pre-Phoenician times to the 1950s [The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy] (London) SANMARTÍ, J. 1991 ‘El comercio fenicio y púnico en Cataluña’, I–IV Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Ibiza), 119–36 SCHATTNER, T. G. (ed.), 1998 Archäologischer Wegweiser durch Portugal (Mainz) SCHUBART, H. 1969 ‘Colonias fenicias en la región de Málaga’, Arbor 280, 37–45 SCHUBART, H. 1976 ‘Westphönizische Teller’, RSF 4, 179–96 SCHUBART, H. 1976–78 ‘Excavaciones en el Morro de Mezquitilla, 1976’, in Simposi internacional Els orígens del Món Ibèric, Barcelona-Empúries 1977 [Ampurias 38–40], 559–66 SCHUBART, H. 1979 ‘Morro de Mezquitilla. Informe preliminar sobre la campaña de excavaciones de 1976’, NAH 6, 175–209 SCHUBART, H. 1983 ‘Morro de Mezquitilla. Vorbericht über die Grabungskampagne 1982 auf dem Siedlungshügel an der Algarrobo-Mündung’, MM 24, 104–31 SCHUBART, H. 1985 ‘Morro de Mezquitilla. Informe preliminar sobre la campaña de excavaciones de 1982 realizada en el asentamiento fenicio cerca de la desembocadura del río Algarrobo’, NAH 23, 143–74 SCHUBART, H. 1986 ‘El asentamiento fenicio del siglo VIII a.C. en el Morro de Mezquitilla (Algarrobo, Málaga)’, in Del Olmo Lete and Aubet Semmler 1986, 59–83 SCHUBART, H. 1987 ‘Hallazgos fenicios y del Bronce Final en la desembocadura del río Guadiaro (Cádiz)’, AAA 1987, 200–27 SCHUBART, H. 1988a ‘Alarcón, Vorbericht über die Grabungskampagne 1984 im Bereich der phönizischen Siedlung und der Befestigungsmauer’, in Niemeyer, Briese and Bahnemann 1988a, 172–88 SCHUBART, H. 1988b ‘Endbronzezeitliche und phönizische Siedlungsfunde von der Guadiaro Mündung, Prov. Cádiz. Probegrabung 1986’, MM 29, 132–65 SCHUBART, H. 1993 ‘Investigaciones geológicas y arqueológicas sobre la relación costera de los asentamientos fenicios en la Andalucía mediterránea’, in J. Alvar and J. M. Blázquez (eds), Los enigmas de Tartessos (Madrid), 69–79 SCHUBART, H. 1999 ‘La forja fenicia del hierro en el Morro de Mezquitilla’, in A. González Prats (ed.), La cerámica fenicia en Occidente: centros de producción y áreas de

comercio. Actas del I Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios, Guardamar del Segura, 21–24 de noviembre de 1997 (Alicante), 241–54 SCHUBART, H. 2000 ‘Alarcón. El yacimiento fenicio y las fortificaciones en la cima de Toscanos’, in A. González Prats (ed.), Fenicios y territorio. Actas del II Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios, Guardamar del Segura, (Alicante), 263–94 SCHUBART, H. and ARTEAGA, O. 1986 ‘El mundo de las colonias fenicias occidentales’, Homenaje a Luis Siret (1934–1984) (Seville), 499–525 SCHUBART, H. and MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. 1979a ‘Jardín, informe preliminar sobre las excavaciones de 1974’, NAH 6, 141–9 SCHUBART, H. and MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. 1979b ‘Jardín, informe preliminar sobre las excavaciones de 1976’, NAH 6, 151–75 SCHUBART, H. and MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. 1984 ‘Toscanos. El asentamiento fenicio occidental en la desembocadura del río de Vélez. Excavaciones de 1971’, NAH 18, 38–157 SCHUBART, H. and MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. 1995 ‘La necrópolis de Jardín’, Cuadernos de arqueología mediterránea 1, 57–213 SCHUBART, H. and NIEMEYER H. G. 1969 ‘La factoría paleopúnica de Toscanos’, Tartessos y sus problemas. V Symposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular (Barcelona), 203–19 SCHUBART, H., NIEMEYER, H. G., and PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1969a Toscanos. La factoría paleopúnica de la desembocadura del río de Vélez. Excavaciones de 1964 [EAE 66] (Madrid) SCHUBART, H., NIEMEYER, H. G., and PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 1969b Toscanos. Die altpunische Faktorei an der Mündung des Río de Vélez 1: Grabungskampagne 1964 [Madrider Forschungen 6] (Berlin) SCHUBART, H., NIEMEYER, H. G., and LINDEMANN, G. 1972 ‘Toscanos, Jardín y Alarcón. La campaña de excavaciones de 1971’, NAH 1 (Madrid), 9–41 SCHUBART, H. and NIEMEYER, H. G. 1975 Trayamar. Die phönizischen Kammergraber und die Niederlassung an der Algarrobo Mündung [Madrider Beiträge 4] (Mainz) SCHUBART, H. and NIEMEYER, H. G. 1976 Trayamar: los hipogeos fenicios y el asentamiento en la desembocadura del río Algarrobo [EAE 90] (Madrid) SCHÜLE, W. 1969 ‘Die tierische Reste der altpunische Niederlassung von Toscanos’, in H. G. Niemeyer and H. Schubart, Toscanos. Die altpunische Faktorei an der Mündung des Río de Vélez 1: Grabungskampagne 1964 [Madrider Forschungen 6] (Berlin), 124 SCHULTEN, A. 1922–52 Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae I–VI (Barcelona) SCHULTEN, A. 1924 Tartessos (Madrid) SCHULTEN, A. 1928 ‘Mainake’, in Real-Lexikon PaulyWissowa 14, 575 SCHULZ, H. D. 1983 ‘Zur Lage holozäner Küsten in den Mündungsgebieten des Río de Vélez und des Río Algarrobo (Málaga)’, MM 24, 59–64

BIBLIOGRAPHY SCHULZ, H. D. 1993 ‘Stratigraphie und Küstenlinien in Holozän von Ibiza’, MM 34, 108–26 SCHULZ, H. D. et al. 1995 ‘Holozäne Küstenlinie am Unterlauf des Río Guadalquivir zwischen Sevilla und der Mündung in den Atlantik’, MM 36, 219–32 SCHULZ, H. D. 1997 ‘Estratigrafía y líneas costeras durante el holoceno en la isla de Ibiza’, in H. D. Schulz and G. Maass-Lindemann, Prospecciones geo-arqueológicas en las costas de Ibiza (Ibiza), 11–31 SEEDEN, H. 1991 ‘A tophet in Tyre?’, Berytus 39, 39–82 SHARON, I. 1987 ‘Phoenician and Greek ashlar construction techniques at Tel Dor, Israel’, BASOR 267, 21–42 SHAW, J. W. 1989 ‘Phoenicians in southern Crete’, American Journal of Archaeology 93, 165–83 SHAW, J. W. 1998 ‘Kommos in southern Crete: an Aegean barometer for east-west interconnections’, in V. Karageorghis and N. Stampolidis (eds), Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus–Dodecanese–Crete 16th–6th century BC (Athens), 13–27 SHAW, J. W. 2000 ‘The Phoenician shrine, ca. 800 BC, at Kommos in Crete’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 1107–1120 SHEFTON, B. B. 1982 ‘Greeks and Greek imports in the south of the Iberian Peninsula. The archaeological evidence’, in Niemeyer 1982c, 337–70 SHERRATT, A. and SHERRATT, S. 1991 ‘From luxuries to commodities: the nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age trading systems’, in N. H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age trade in the Mediterranean (Jensered), 351–86 SHERRATT, S. 1994 ‘Commerce, iron and ideology: metallurgical innovation in 12th–11th century Cyprus’, in V. Karageorghis (ed.), Cyprus in the 11th century B.C. (Nicosia), 59–106 SIERRA DEL MOLINA, R. M. 1988 ‘El estrecho como línea de demarcación en el comportamiento comercial fenicio: demografía y formas de asentamiento’, Congreso Internacional El Estrecho de Gibraltar, Ceuta, noviembre 1987 (Madrid), 473–80 SILLIÈRES, P. 1990 Les voies de communication de l’Hispanie méridionale (Paris) SIRET, L. 1908 Villaricos y Herrerías. Antigüedades púnicas, romanas, visigóticas y árabes [Memorias de la Real Academia de la Historia] (Madrid) SNODGRASS, A. 1971 The Dark Age of Greece (Edinburgh) SOERGEL, E. 1968 ‘Die Tierknochen aus der altpunischen Faktorei von Toscanos’, MM 9, 111–15 STEVENSON, A. C. and HARRISON, R. J. 1992 ‘Ancient forests in Spain: a model for land-use and dry forest management in SW Spain from 4000 BC to 1900 AD’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 227–47 SUÁREZ, A. et al. 1989 ‘Abdera: una colonia fenicia en el sur este de la Península Ibérica’, MM 30, 135–49 SUÁREZ PADILLA, J. et al. 1996 ‘Aproximación a la dinámica poblacional del litoral occidental malagueño durante la antigüedad: protohistoria’, in F. Wulff Alonso and G. Cruz Andreotti (eds), Historia Antigua de Málaga y su provincia. Actas del Primer Congreso de Historia Antigua de Málaga (Málaga 1994) (Málaga), 177–87

229

TAVARES, A. (ed.) 1993 Os fenícios no territorio português [Estudos Orientais IV] (Lisbon) TEJERA GASPAR, A. 1975 ‘Orígenes y paralelos de las tumbas fenicias y púnicas de Andalucía’, Habis 6, 197–213 TEJERA GASPAR, A. 1979 Las tumbas fenicias y púnicas del Mediteráneo occidental (Sevilla) THALMANN, J. P. 1978 ‘Tell Arqa 1978–79. Rapport provisoire’, BMB 30, 61–75 TORRES ORTIZ, M. 1999 Sociedad y mundo funerario en Tartessos [Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana 3] (Madrid) TSIRKIN, Y. B. 1979 ‘Economy of the Phoenician settlements in Spain’, in E. Lipinski (ed.), State and temple economy in the Ancient Near East 2 (Leuven), 547–64 TSIRKIN, Y. B. 1985 ‘The Phoenician civilisation in Roman Spain’, Gerión 3, 245–70 TUSA, V. 1983 ‘La Sicilia fenicio-punica: stato attuale delle richerche e degli studi e propettive per il futuro’, Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. Roma 5–10 novembre 1979, Volume I (Rome), 187–97 TUSA, V. et al. 1972 Mozia VII. Rapporto preliminare della missione congiunta con la Soprintendenza alle Antichità delle Sicilia Occidentale (Rome) TUSA, V. et al. 1978 Mozia IX. Rapporto preliminare della Missione congiunta con la Soprintendenza alle Antichità della Sicilia Occidentale (Rome) TYLECOTE, R. F. 1992 A history of metallurgy, 2nd ed. (London) UCKO, P. J. 1969 ‘Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains’, World Archaeology 1.2 (October 1969), 262–80 UERPMANN, M. 1972 ‘Archäologische Auswertung der Meeresmolluskenreste aus der westphönizischen Faktorei von Toscanos’, MM 13, 164–71 UERPMANN, H. P. and UERPMANN, M. 1973 ‘Tierknochenfunde aus der phönizischen Faktorei von Toscanos und anderen phönizisch beeinflußten Fundorten der Provinz Málaga in Südspanien’, in J. Boessneck (ed.), Studien über frühe Tierknochenfunde von der Iberischen Halbinsel 4, 35–100 ULREICH, H. et al. 1990 ‘Cerro del Prado. Die Ausgrabungen 1989 im Shutthang der phönizischen Ansiedlung an der Guadarranque-Mündung’, MM 31, 194–250 VALLESPIN, O. 2000 ‘La Caleta: puerto antiguo de Cádiz’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 915–21 VAN BERCHEM, D. 1959–60 ‘Hercule Melqart à l’Ara Maxima’, Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia 32, 61–8 VAN BERCHEM, D. 1967 ‘Sanctuaires d’Hercule-Melqart, contribution à l’étude de l’expansion phénicien en Méditerranée’, Syria 44, 73–109 and 308–38 VAN COMPERNOLLE, R. 1983 ‘Femmes indigènes et colonisateurs’, Forme di Contatto e Processi di Trasformazione nelle Società Antiche [Collection de l’École Française de Rome] (Pisa-Rome), 1033–49 VARELA GOMES, M. 1993 ‘O estabelecimento fenício-

230

BIBLIOGRAPHY

púnico do Cerro da Rocha Branca (Silves)’, in A. Tavares (ed.), Os fenícios no território português [Estudos Orientais IV] (Lisbon), 73–107 VÁZQUEZ HOYS, A. M. 1992 ‘Lixus en el panorama religioso fenicio de occidente’, Lixus. Actes du Colloque de l’Institut des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine de Rabat [Collection de l’École Française de Rome 166] (Paris-Rome), 103–13 VEGAS, M. 1986 ‘Céramique archaïque de Carthage’, Cahiers des Études Anciennes 19, 121–33 VEGAS, M. 1989 ‘Archaische und mittelpunische Keramik aus Karthago’, Romische Mitteilungen 96, 209–66 VEGAS, M. 1992 ‘Carthage: la ville archaïque. Céramique d’importation de la période du géométrique récent’, Lixus. Actes du colloque organisé par l’institut des sciences de l’archéologie et du patrimoine de Rebat avec le concours de l’école française de Rome, Larache 8–11 novembre 1989 [Collection de l’École Française de Rome 166] (Rome), 181–9 VEGAS, M. 1999 ‘El ánfora griega del estrato V’, in M. E. Aubet Semmler et al., Cerro del Villar – I, el asentamiento fenicio en la desembocadura del río Guadalhorce y su interacción con el hinterland [Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura], 136 VEGAS, M. 2000 ‘La cerámica fenicia del siglo VIII en Cartago’, in Aubet Semmler and Barthélemy 2000, 1237–46 VON DEN DRIESCH, A. 1973 ‘Nahrungsreste iberischer Herkunft aus einer tartessischen und einer spätbronze-zeitlichen bis iberischen Siedlung in Südspanien’, in J. Boessneck (ed.), Studien über frühe Tierknochenfunde von der Iberischen Halbinsel 4, 9–31 VUILLEMOT, G. 1955 ‘La nécropole punique du Phare dans l’Ile Rachgoun (Oran)’, Libyca 3, 7–62 VUILLEMOT, G. 1965 Reconnaissances aux échelles puniques d’Oranie (Autun) WAGNER, C. G. 1983a Fenicios y cartagineses en la Península Ibérica: ensayo de interpretación fundamentado en un análisis de los factores internos (Madrid) WAGNER, C. G. 1983b ‘Aproximación al proceso histórico de Tartessos’, AEA 56, 3–35 WAGNER, C. G. 1986 ‘Tartessos y las tradiciones literarias’, RSF 14, 201–28 WAGNER, C. G. 1987 ‘Fenicios y cartagineses en la Península Ibérica. A propósito de una publicación reciente’, Gerión 5, 317–44 WAGNER, C. G. 1988 ‘Gadir y los más antiguos asentamientos fenicios al este del Estrecho’, in Actas del Congreso Internacional El Estrecho de Gibraltar, Ceuta 1987 I (Madrid), 419–28

WAGNER, C. G. 1989 ‘The Carthaginians in ancient Spain: from administrative trade to territorial annexation’, in H. Devijver and E. Lipinski (eds), Studia Phoenicia X. Punic Wars [Proceedings of the conference held in Antwerp 1988] (Leuven), 145–56 WAGNER, C. G. 1993 ‘La implantación fenicia en Andalucía. ¿Esquema unidireccional o problemática compleja?’, Actas del I coloquio de historia antigua de Andalucía, Córdoba 1988 (Córdoba), 81–94 WAGNER, C. G. 1994 ‘El auge de Cartago (S. VI–IV) y su manifestación en la Península Ibérica’, in Cartago, Gadir, Ebusus y la influenica púnica en los territorios hispanos. VIII jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Ibiza 1993) (Ibiza), 2–22 WAGNER, C. G. 1995 ‘Fenicios y autóctonos en Tartessos. Consideraciones sobre las relaciones y la dinámica de cambio en el suroeste de la Península Ibérica’, Trabajos de Prehistoria 52, 109–26 WAGNER, C. G. and ALVAR, J. 1989 ‘Fenicios en Occidente: la colonización agrícola’, RSF 17, 61–102 WARNING-TREUMANN, B. 1978 ‘West-Phoenician presence on the Iberian Peninsula’, Ancient World 1, 15–32 WHITAKER, J. I. S. 1921 Motya, a Phoenician colony in Sicily (London) WHITTAKER, C. R. 1974 ‘The Western Phoenicians: colonisation and assimilation’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 200, n.s. 20, 58–79 WHITTAKER, C. R. 1978 ‘Carthaginian imperialism in the fifth and fourth centuries’, in C. R. Whittaker (ed.), Imperialism in the ancient world (Cambridge), 59–90 WILLIAMS, C. K. 1978 ‘Corinth 1977: forum south-west’, Hesperia 47, 15–20 WILLIAMS, C. K. 1979 ‘Corinth 1978: forum south-west’, Hesperia 48, 107–24 WILLIAMS, C. K. 1980 ‘Corinth excavations 1979’, Hesperia 49, 108–11 WILLIAMS, D. 1933–34 ‘The geology of the Rio Tinto mines, Spain’, Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy 43, 593–678 WILLIAMS, D. 1949–50 ‘Gossanized breccia-ores, jarosites, and jaspers at Rio Tinto, Spain’, Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy 59, 509–20 WULFF ALONSO, F. 1996 ‘Fuentes literarias sobre Málaga antigua’, in F. Wulff Alonso and G. Cruz Andreotti (eds), Historia Antigua de Málaga y su provincia. Actas del Primer Congreso de Historia Antigua de Málaga (Málaga 1994) (Málaga), 335–51 YADIN, Y. 1972 Hazor [The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1970] (Oxford)

Supplementary bibliography compiled by R. J. A. Wilson

ARRUDA, A. M. 2002 Los Fenicios en Portugal. Fenicios y mundo indígena en el centro y sur de Portugal (siglos VIII–VI a.C.) [Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 5-6] (Barcelona) ARTEAGA, O. 2004 ‘Die phönisch-punischen Häfen in Westen’, in Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe 2004, 118–25 AUBET SEMMLER, M. E. 2001 The Phoenicians in the West. Politics, colonies and trade, 2nd ed. (Cambridge) BADISCHES LANDESMUSEUM KARLSRUHE (ed.) 2004 Hannibal ad portas: Macht und Reichtum Karthagos (Stuttgart) BAYLISS, A., MEADOWS, J., WHITTLE, A. and WYSOCKI, M. 2007 ‘The new radiocarbon dating revolution’, Current Archaeology 209, 9–20 BIERLING, M. R. (ed.) 2002 The Phoenicians in Spain. An archaeological review of the eighth–sixth centuries B.C.E. A collection of articles translated from Spanish (Winona Lake, Indiana) BRANDHEIM, D. 2006 ‘Zur Datierung der ältesten griechischen und phönizischen Importkeramik auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. Bemerkungen zum Beginn der Eisenzeit in Südwesteuropa’, MM 47, 1–23 BRUINS, H. J., VAN DER PLIGHT, J. and MAZAR, A. 2003a ‘C14 dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings’, Science 300, 315–18 BRUINS, H. J., VAN DER PLIGHT, J. and MAZAR, A. 2003b ‘Response to “Comment on “C14 dates from Tel Rehov. Iron-Age chronology, Pharaohs and Hebrew Kings”’, Science 302, 568 COLDSTREAM, J. N. 2003 ‘Some Aegean reactions to the chronological debate in the southern Levant’, Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 30, 247–58 COLDSTREAM, J. N. and MAZAR, A. 2003 ‘Greek pottery from Tel Rehov and Iron Age chronology’, Israel Exploration Journal 53, 29–48 DOMÍNGUEZ PÉREZ, J. C. 2006 Gadir y los fenicios occidentales federados V–III A.C. Dialéctica aplicada al territorio productivo turdetano [BAR International Series 1513] (Oxford) ESCACENA CARRASCO, J. L. 2004 ‘Tartessos (des)orientado’, in Fernández Gómez 2004, 7–55 FERNÁNDEZ GÓMEZ, J. H. (ed.) 2004 Colonialismo e interaccíon cultural: el impacto fenicio púnico en las sociedades autóctonas de Occidente [XVIII Journadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Eivissa 2003)] (Eivissa) FERNÁNDEZ GÓMEZ-PANTOJA, J. H. and COSTA MAS, B. 2004 ‘Mundo funerario y sociedad en la Eivissa arcaica. Una aproximación al análisis de los enter-

ramientos de cremación en la necrópolis del Puig des Molins’, in González Prats 2004, 315–408 FINKELSTEIN, I. 2003 ‘Comment on “C14 dates from Tel Rehov. Iron-Age chronology, Pharaohs and Hebrew Kings”’, Science 302, 568 FINKELSTEIN, I. and PIESETZKY E. 2003 ‘Wrong and right. High and low. C14 dates from Tel Rehov and Iron Age chronology’, Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 30, 283–95 GONZÁLEZ de CANALES CERISOLA, F., SERRANO PICHARDO, L. and LLOMPART GÓMEZ, J. 2004 El emporio fenicio precolonial de Huelva (ca. 900-770 a.C.) (Madrid) GONZÁLEZ de CANALES CERISOLA, F., SERRANO PICHARDO, L. and LLOMPART GÓMEZ, J. 2006 ‘The precolonial Phoenician Emporium of Huelva’, Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 81, 25–41 GONZÁLEZ PRATS, A. (ed.) 2004 El mundo funerario. Actas del III Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios, Guardamar del Segura, 3–5 de mayo de 2002. Homenaje al Prof. D. Manuel Pellicer Catalán (Alicante) HUNT ORTIZ, M. A. 2003 Prehistoric mining and metallurgy in South West Iberian Peninsula [BAR International Series 1188] (Oxford) LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. 2006 ‘Colonials, merchants and alabaster vases: the western Phoenician aristocracy’, Antiquity 80, 74–88 MAYET, F. and TAVARES DA SILVA, C. 2000 L’établissement phénicien d’Abul (Portugal). Comptoir et sanctuaire (Paris) MORGENROTH, U. 2004 Southern Iberia in the early Iron Age [BAR International Series 1330] (Oxford) NIJBOER, A. J. and VAN DER PLICHT, J. 2006 ‘An interpretation of the radiocarbon determinations of the oldest indigenous-Phoenician stratum thus far, excavated at Huelva, Tartessos (south-west Spain)’, Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 81, 41–6 PELLICER CATALÁN, M. 2007 La necrópolis Laurita (Almuñécar, Málaga) en el contexto de la colonización fenicia [Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 15] (Barcelona) SCHUBART, H. 2002 Toscanos y Alarcón. El asentamiento fenicio en la desembocadura del Río Vélez. Excavaciones de 1967–1984 [Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 8] (Barcelona) SALA SELLÉS, F. 2004 ‘La influencia del mundo fenicio y púnico en las sociedades autóctonas del sureste peninsular’, in Fernández Gómez 2004, 57–102 SPANÒ GIAMMELLARO, A. (ed.) 2005 Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, 3 vols (Palermo)

List of illustrations 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

1.7 1.8 1.9

1.10

1.11

1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20

Phoenician settlements in Iberia (after Wagner 1995, fig. 1) Phoenician and indigenous settlements in Mediterranean Andalusia during the eighth to sixth centuries (after Aubet 1995b, fig. 2) Toscanos, its outlying areas at Cerro del Alarcón and Cerro del Peñón, as well as the harbour at Manganeto, its fortification wall and cemetery (after Niemeyer 1995, fig. 14) Pottery from El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño (after García Menárguez 1994, fig. 4) Morro de Mezquitilla, plan of the site in (a) the eighth century and (b) the seventh century (after Schubart 1986, figs 3 and 4) Chorreras, the urbanism of the eighth-century site (after Fernández Castro 1995, fig. 13.3) Toscanos, the urbanism of the eighth-century site (after Niemeyer 1990, figs 11 and 12) Toscanos, plan of the warehouse (Building C) and the urbanism of the seventh-century site (after Fernández Castro 1995, fig. 13.3) Warehouse (Building C) at Toscanos, with comparable buildings from Iron Age Palestine (after Fernández Castro 1995, 13.3 and Niemeyer 1984a, fig. 43) Cerro del Villar, sector 2, plan of seventh-century building (after Aubet 1989, fig. 1) Plan of the fortification wall at Cerro del Alarcón (after Schubart 1988a, fig. 4) Metallurgical workshop and associated finds from La Peña Negra (after Ruiz-Gálvez Priego 1997, figs 9.5a and 9.5b) R-1 amphora from Sa Caleta, Ibiza (after Ramón 1999, fig. 3) Reconstruction of the topography of the Bay of Ibiza, showing the ancient coastline (after Gómez Bellard 1995, fig. 2) Plan of the warehouse at Aldovesta (Benifallet, Lower Ebro, Tarragona) (after Mascort, Sanmartí and Santacana 1991, fig. 2) Phoenician and indigenous settlements in Portugal (after López Pardo 2000, fig. 2) Phoenician pottery from Cerro da Rocha Branca, Silves, Portugal (after Varela Gomes 1993, figs 10, 16 and 17) The Phoenician landscape: view of the lower Guadiana, the river dividing Spain and Portugal (photograph A. Neville) The Phoenician settlement at Abul in Portugal (after Mayet and Tavares da Silva 1996, fig. 2 and Aubet 1994, fig. 81) Phoenician settlements in North Africa (after Lancel 1995a, fig. 49)

1.21 The island of Rachgoun seen from the south (photograph R. J. A. Wilson) 1.22 Pottery from Rachgoun, Algeria (after Vuillemot 1965, fig. 17) 1.23 Phoenician pottery from Mogador, Morocco (after Niemeyer 1984a, fig. 26) 2.1 Map of Eastern Andalusia, showing the location of Phoenician settlements and their cemeteries (after Aubet 1996, fig. 1) 2.2 Shaft grave and grave goods from the necropolis at Cerro de San Cristóbal, Almuñécar, tomb 2 (after Pellicer 1962, fig. 6) 2.3 Egyptian alabaster urn with a representation of Bes and cartouche of the Pharaoh Osorkon II from Shaft Grave 17, Cerro de San Cristóbal cemetery, Almuñécar. Height 45 cm. Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Granada (photograph Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Madrid, F940) 2.4 Phoenician pottery from Cerro de San Cristóbal, Almuñécar (after Pellicer 1986b, figs 8 and 9) 2.5 Shaft grave and grave goods from the necropolis at Cerro de San Cristóbal, Almuñécar, tomb 12 (after Pellicer 1962, figs 14 and 15) 2.6 Egyptian alabaster and marble urns from Almuñécar (after Molina Fajardo and Padró 1983, fig. 6, and Molina Fajardo and Bannour 2000, fig. 5) 2.7 Two protocorinthian kotylai from the Cerro de San Cristóbal cemetery in Almuñécar, now in the Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Granada; height 16.5 cm and 16.4 cm (photograph Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Madrid, F933) 2.8 Grave goods from the necropolis at Lagos, Málaga (after Aubet et al. 1991, figs 12, 20, 25, 48, 49 and 50) 2.9 Mushroom-lip and trefoil red slip jugs and four alabaster vessels from Casa de la Viña, Cerro del Mar (Málaga) (after Almagro Gorbea 1972, figs 1 and 2 and Pérez Die 1976, fig. 5) 2.10 Materials from the cemetery at Cortijo de Montañez (Málaga) (after Aubet, Maass-Lindemann and Martín Ruiz 1995, fig. 2) 2.11 Chamber tomb 1 from the cemetery at Trayamar (Málaga); the tomb chamber measured internally 1.90 m wide by 2.50 m long (after Martín Ruiz 1995, fig. 204) 2.12 Selection of grave goods from tomb 1 at Trayamar (after Schubart and Niemeyer 1976, figs 12 and 13) 2.13 Tomb 4C and remaining grave goods from the Puente de Noy cemetery at Almuñécar (after Molina Fajardo, Ruiz and Huertas 1982, fig. 66) 2.14 Isometric view of Tomb 1E from the Puente de Noy Cemetery at Almuñécar with its most representative

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18

2.19 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

3.5

3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9

3.10 3.11

3.12

3.13

3.14

grave goods (after Molina Fajardo and Huertas 1983, fig. 1 and Molina Fajardo 1986, fig. 11) Selection of grave goods from the tomb of Yada’milk in Carthage (after Niemeyer 1984a, fig. 56) Early cremation burials from the Puig des Molins cemetery at Ibiza, with typical cinerary urn and grave goods (after Gómez Bellard 1993a, fig. 14 and Ramón 1995, figs 4, 5 and 6) Cremation burial, cinerary urn and grave goods from the cemetery at Cortijo de las Sombras, Frigiliana (Málaga) (after Arribas and Wilkins 1969, figs 4, 5, 8, 16) Decorated pithos from Carmona (Seville), showing a procession of griffins (after Belén et al. 1997, fig. 34) Cremation burial and grave goods from the Cruz del Negro cemetery in Carmona (Seville) (after Bonsor 1899, figs 73, 76–90, 116; Maier 1999, fig. 6) View of modern Cádiz from the Torre de Tavira, the highest point of the ancient city (photograph A. Neville) The peninsula of Cádiz with a reconstruction of the geography of the former archipelago in Phoenician times (after Escacena 1986, fig. 2) Palaeo-topography of the Bay of Cádiz during the Phoenician period (after Escacena 1986, fig. 1) Limestone protoaeolic capitel found in the waters off Cádiz, now in the Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Cádiz; height 27 cm; width 30 cm (photograph Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Madrid, I948 [B. Grunewald]) Bronze statuette of an oriental-type divinity from Sancti Petri in Cádiz, now in the Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Cádiz; height 31 cm (35 cm including the support on the right foot) (photograph Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Madrid, R164–86–8/16 [P. Witte]) Marble anthropoid sarcophagus, now in the Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Cádiz; approximate height 2.15 m (photograph Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Madrid, R41–94–7 [P. Witte]) Map of the Sierra de San Cristóbal with the location of ancient settlement there (after Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, fig. 11) The urbanism of the eighth-century settlement at Castillo de Doña Blanca (after Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, fig. 33) View of Castillo de Doña Blanca (Cádiz) (photograph A. Neville) Castillo de Doña Blanca, view of house with oven (photograph A. Neville) Eighth-century pottery from Castillo de Doña Blanca (after Ruiz Mata 1993a, figs 7 and 8) Seventh-century pottery from Castillo de Doña Blanca (after Ruiz Mata 1993a, figs 10 and 12) Indigenous pottery from Castillo de Doña Blanca (after Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, figs 16 and 22) Tumulus 1 at Las Cumbres with the location of possible Phoenician burials. Source: Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, fig. 36)

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11

4.12 4.13 4.14 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

233

Indigenous settlements and cemeteries in Tartessos and associated regions (after Fernández Castro 1995, 13.1) Cerro del Villar, sector 8: possible market or commercial area with amphorae found there (after Aubet 1997a, figs 1 and 2) Indigenous pottery from Almuñécar and Morro de Mezquitilla (after Molina Fajardo and Bannour 2000, fig. 2, and Schubart 1976–78, fig. 4) The Phoenician landscape: a view of the Guadalquivir valley from Carmona (photograph A. Neville) Phoenician cult building from Carmona with ivory spoons (after Belén and Escacena 1997a, fig. 1) Palaeo-topography of the mouth of the Guadalquivir (after Escacena 1993, no number) Orientalizing treasure from El Carambolo (Seville), now in the Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Sevilla. It consists of 21 pieces of jewellery weighing in total almost 3 kg (photograph Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Madrid, R–33–94–9 [P. Witte]) Bronze statuette of Astarte from El Carambolo (Seville), now in the Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Sevilla; height 16.5 cm (photograph Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Madrid, PLF–1592 [P. Witte]) The Phoenician landscape: view of the Guadalquivir at Coria del Río (Seville) with the ferry-boat (photograph A. Neville) Altar from the cult building at Coria (after Escacena 2000, fig. 3.21) Imported materials from Coria: (i) globular vessel probably made to contain perfumed oil; (ii) pottery alabastron; (iii) marble bowl (after Belén 1993, figs 4, 7 and 8) Imported materials of Greek manufacture from Coria: (i) vase of possible East Greek origin; (ii) Corinthian aryballos; (iii) Chian amphora (after Belén 1993, figs 4, 6 and 7) Montemolín, Marchena (Seville), plan of rectilinear buildings C and D (after Chaves and de la Bandera 1991, fig. 4) Decorated pithos from Montemolín, Marchena (Seville) showing a bull-motif (after Chaves and de la Bandera 1986, fig. 1) Map of the province of Huelva showing the mining and metallurgical sites discussed in the text (after Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, fig. 18) Bronze weapons and a fibula from the Huelva hoard (after Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, fig. 8) Late nineteenth-century map of Rio Tinto showing Cerro Salomón, Corta Lago and Quebrantahuesos (after Rothenberg and Blanco 1981, fig. 12) Cerro Salomón, Rio Tinto (Huelva), urbanism and materials (after Blanco and Luzón 1969, figs 2 and 3) Metallurgical materials from Monte Romero (Huelva) (after Kassianidou 1992a, figs 6.7 and 6.8) Miner’s hammer and pottery from the metallurgical area at La Parrita (Huelva) (after Pérez Macías 1996, figs 5 and 6)

234 5.7 5.8 5.9

5.10 5.11

5.12 5.13 5.14

6.1

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Map of the mining and metallurgical sites in southwestern Iberia, with a reconstruction of the ancient coastline (after Izquierdo 1997, fig. 1) Plan of San Bartolomé de Almonte (Huelva) (after Ruiz Mata 1981, fig. 3) Pottery from San Bartolomé de Almonte (Huelva) (after Ruiz Mata 1981, figs 7, 8, 10 and 12) Map of Tejada la Vieja (Huelva) (after García Sanz and Rufete 1995, no number) View of Tejada la Vieja (Huelva) (photograph A. Neville) View of fortification wall at Tejada la Vieja (Huelva) (photograph A. Neville) Slag used as a building material in the urbanism of the final levels of occupation at Tejada la Vieja (Huelva) (photograph A. Neville) Map of the tumbas principescas or princely burials in Iberia (after Aubet 1984, fig. 1) Greek pottery in Iberia (after Cabrera 1988–89, fig. 1; Gran Aymerich 1991, fig. 50; Vegas 1999, fig. 58a; Curiá 1999, fig. 62a)

6.2 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Phoenician and indigenous settlements in Mediterranean Andalusia during the Punic period (sixth–third centuries BC) (after Aubet 1995b, fig. 3) The pithos (after Aubet 1983, fig. 4; Ruiz Mata and Pérez 1995, fig. 21; González Prats 1986, fig. 9; Vuillemot 1965, fig. 17) The Cruz del Negro urn (after Gómez Bellard 1993a, fig. 4; Arribas and Wilkins 1969, fig. 14; Aubet 1986a, fig. 2a; Kbiri Alaoui and López Pardo 1998, fig. 2) Grey ware (after Ulreich et al. 1990, fig. 18; González Prats 1986, fig. 6; Varela Gomes 1993, fig. 17; Fernández Miranda 1986, fig. 11) Samaria ware or Phoenician fine ware (after MaassLindemann 1990a, fig. 1 and Fernández Miranda 1986, fig. 8)

Maps and plans were drawn by Catherine Martin, and artefacts by Michelle Comber.

Glossary of technical terms This glossary is not meant to be exhaustive, since most specialist terms are explained in their context in the text. For specialist Phoenician or Punic terms, see the very comprehensive work by E. Lipinski (ed.), Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique, 1992 (= Lipinksi 1992c).

Bucchero – Etruscan earthenware pottery common in preRoman Italy, chiefly between about the seventh and early fifth centuries BC. Characteristically the ware is black, sometimes grey, and often shiny from polishing. Dromos – a corridor leading to a chamber tomb Enoikismus – practice whereby one ethnic group sets up a small settlement within the boundaries of a larger settlement occupied by a different ethnic group Fibula – a brooch Favissa – term borrowed from the Latin favissae and which designates subterranean storage areas of temples. In the Phoenician context, this word is used to refer to fosse dug into the ground (like the Greek bothros), where surplus ex votos or liturgical materials from a sanctuary were placed after ritual execration. Numerous terracotta figurines found along the coast near Tyre could come either from Phoenician wrecks or be attributed to the existence of maritime favissae, as very probably was the case at Gadir (Cádiz). Fossa – burial in which the body is placed in a rectangular, stone-lined pit Kantharos – a deep drinking cup with high vertical handles Kotyle – a deep drinking cup with small horizontal handles Lekythos (plural lekythoi) – a tall flask with a narrow neck and a single handle, used for containing oil or unguents Murex – marine gastropod from which the Phoenicians extracted their famous purple dye, the only permanent dye found in nature. Large piles of crushed murex shells found in the outskirts of many Phoenician cities, including Gadir, attest to this activity, and its importance. Murex was subdivided into various purple-producing species: murex trunculus; buccinum; purpura haemastoma and murex brandaris. Pliny (NH IX. 121–41) describes the production of the dye in Tyre during the Roman period.

Pithos – a large clay storage vessel which gets its name because of its similarity in shape and appearance to its Bronze Age Aegean counterparts Pyxis – a lidded cosmetic or jewellery box Scombridae – tuna, mackerel and bonitos are members of this family, which represents some 50 species. Scombridae are fast-swimming, wide-ranging pelagic fishes. They often swim in schools and prey on other fishes. Many species are very important in commercial harvests. Skyphos – a two-handled drinking cup, not as deep as a kotyle or a kantharos Stele (plural stelai) – a vertical slab of stone, (normally) used as a grave marker Thymiaterion – Greek word used to designate one of numerous types of incense burners used in Phoenician cult practice, from the eighth century onwards, both in the East and West. Tophet – Hebrew word used in the Old Testament for the place in the valley of Ben-Himmon, on the edges of Jerusalem, where children were offered up in the Molk sacrifice (see II Kings 23.10). Scholars have linked this to the Aramaean word tepah, ‘to place on the fire’, an etymology suggesting that the tophet corresponds to the pit filled with flames described by Diodorus XX. 14. 6. Archaeologists have given the name tophet to the sacred areas found in many Phoenician and Punic sites in the Central Mediterranean, and which were used to hold the cremated remains of young children, and sometimes also, of small animals. Argument rages over the exact nature of the ritual carried out at these sites, and whether it can be linked to the molk sacrifice referred to, and condemned, in the Old Testament. So far no tophet has been found in Iberia, although Julius Caesar, as governor in Spain, is said to have forbidden infant sacrifice among the inhabitants of Gadir. Ustrinum – site for the cremation of a corpse and which was not associated with a grave or burial. The ustrinum was generally a common cremation place, where the body was burnt and then the ashes buried elsewhere.

Index

compiled by R. J. A. Wilson References to principal discussions of the indexed item are in bold; italicized numbers refer to illustrations. Passim refers to scattered references throughout the pages indicated. Notes are not indexed except where new material, not signposted in the text, is introduced. The names of modern scholars, and glossary entries, are not indexed.

abandonment, of settlement 13–15 passim, 17, 23, 32, 39, 41, 94, 99, 100, 112, 155, 161, 165–7, 168 Abdera 14, 136, 137, 165 Abdimilkuti, king of Sidon 54 Abúl, in Portugal 26, 39–41, 166, 178 n.135, 193 n.29; 1.19 Acebuchal, burials at 156 Acherbas, priest of Melqart at Tyre 86 Achziv, in Palestine 71 Acinipo, near Ronda 117, 120, 122, 169, 175 n.1, 194 n.50, 195 n.100 adobe, use of 15, 37, 41 Adonis, of Byblos 187 n.28 Adra (see also Abdera, Casa de Montilla) 14, 41, 108, 115, 165 Africa, north, Phoenician settlements in 11, 42–6, 62, 68, 70, 71, 84, 87, 93, 97, 104–9 passim, 117, 119, 122, 164–8 passim, 171, 174, 178 n.117; 1.20 Agathocles, of Syracuse 119 agriculture (see also barley, cereals, oats, wheat) 17, 56, 97, 105, 110–12, 113–14, 115, 116, 118–19, 121, 122–3, 133, 146, 163, 169, 193 n.40 Akko, in Israel 99 alabaster 12, 24, 48–50, 52–6, 58, 60–63 passim, 65, 76, 82, 103, 117; 2.2–3, 2.5–6, 2.8.i, 2.9 alabastron 130; 4.11.ii Alalakh, in Syria, burials at 184 n.111 Alalia, in Corsica 162 Alarcón, see Cerro del Alarcón Al-Bass, cemetery at Tyre 76 Alcácer do Sal 39, 75 Alcores de Porcuna 208 n.8 Aldovesta 35, 42, 195 nn.108 and 112; 1.15 Aleppo, in Syria 186 n.26 Algarrobo, river 11, 22, 23, 47, 56, 58, 62, 115 Aliseda, treasure of 41, 54 Aljaraque 43 Aljustrel, mining region at 137 Almanzora, river 27 Almargen, sword from 122 almond 97, 184 n.139, 194 n.87 Almuñécar (see also Cerro de San

Cristóbal) 11, 47, 48–56 passim, 58, 65, 78, 82, 85, 108, 164, 178 n.135, 190 n.94, 194 n.50, 208 n.80; 2.6, 4.3 alphabet, transmission of 133 Alpujarras 108 altar 46, 179 n.157, 189–90 n.84; of Melqart 87; oxhide-shaped 128; 4.10 Amathus, in Cyprus 68 amber, objects of 31, 203 n.79 amphorae 14, 22, 27, 28, 32–5 passim, 37, 39, 42–6 passim, 58, 60–6 passim, 72–6 passim, 79, 82, 98, 99, 114, 116–18, 119, 121, 126, 137, 148, 150, 156, 157, 161, 162, 168–71 passim, 177 n.111, 178 nn.119–20, 187 n.33, 193 n.46, 197 n.143, 199 n.180, 208 n.14; 1.4.ii, 1.13, 1.17.iv–v, 1.22.i, 1.23.v, 2.8.iii, 2.12.i–ii, 3.11.vii, 4.2, 5.4.i; production of 99, 111, 114, 116–17, 118, 169, 208 n.80; Attic SOS 43, 46, 162, 181 n.187, 195 n.109, 205 n.3; imitation of 162; Euboean SOS 6.1.vi; Chian 46, 130; 4.12.iii, 6.1.iv; miniature 90 amulets 73, 195 n.112; Egyptian, Egyptianizing 28, 35, 76, 78 Anatolia, Anatolian 30, 68, 71 anchors 128 Ande, river valley of 36, 37 animal, bones of (see also boar, cat, cattle, deer, dog, donkey, elephant, horse) 39, 74, 97, 110, 115, 130; skins of 46, 195 n.107 Antequera, plains of 108, 113, 167 antimony 140, 144 Antipolis, island of 93, 112 Aphrodisias, island of 88–9, 90 Apollo 84 Apollodorus 83 Apophis I 182 n.27 Appian 91 Aquitania 35 Arade, river 36 Ara Maxima, in Rome 87 archegetes 87 Archidona 108 Arganthonius, king of Tartessus 161 Armorica, tin resources of 35 Arrian 91 Arroyo de la Madre Vieja, river 27 Arteal, river 27 Artemidorus 180 nn.170 and 178 Arvad, island of 107, 206 n.36 aryballos 130; 4.12.ii ashlar masonry, use of 20, 22, 60, 62, 63, 65, 68, 72, 75, 90 askoi 78 Assarhadon, Assyrian king 86, 128, 182 n.60 Assur 54, 182 n.60, 206 n.34 Assurnasipal II, Assyrian king 54

Assyria, Assyrian 46, 54, 86, 122, 128, 163 Astarte 69, 87, 126–7, 187 nn. 28 and 33, 188 n.39; sanctuary of 27, 108, 127, 128, 133, 157, 188 n.43; statuette of 126, 182 n.27, 187 n.31; 4.8; temple of 86, 90, 131, 188 n.39, 189 nn.51 and 53, 199 n.180 Athens 164, 193 n.50; graves at 75–6; Athenian 86; amphorae 208 n.81 Athlit, in Palestine, burials at 50, 52, 71 Attic, Attica (see also amphorae) 133, 145, 162; burials in 71; kylix 140; pottery 195 n.107, 207 n.80; pyxis 159, 204 n.3; 6.1.i Avienus, author 11, 32, 35, 42, 88, 90, 107, 108, 118, 129, 167, 199 n.166 axe 118, 185 n.194; winged 30, 135 Aznalcóllar, mining region of 93, 106, 137, 140, 145, 148, 149, 151, 154–8 passim, 163

Baal Hammon 86, 90, 93, 187 n.28 Baal Saphon 127, 128, 130, 133 Babylonian 164, 206 n.34 baetyl 46; baetyl-shaped stele 33 Baiões, hoard 137 Bajo de la Campana, shipwreck 32, 46 Balbus, L. Cornelius (the elder) 206 n.44; (the younger) 91, 93, 96, 189 n.68, 190 n.87, 206 n.44 banquets, funerary 74, 130 Barbate, river 54, 58 Bar-Haddad 186 n.26 Baria (see also Villaricos) 27, 168 barley 97, 114 baskets 63, 78 beads, of alabaster 103; of amber 203 n.79; of carnelian 93; of glass 103; of gold 93, 103 beans 114 Beirut (see also Berytus) 38, 95 belt-buckles, of bronze 103 Berytus (see also Beirut) 107 Bes 2.3 bird, bones of 48, 72, 184 n.139 bismuth 144 Bithia, in Sardinia, burials at 70 boar, wild, bones of 110, 113 Bogud, of Mauretania 189 n.51 Boliche, cemetery at (see also Loma de Boliche) 79 bones, see animal, bird Bordeaux 35 bracelets, of ivory 28; of gold 31 brick (see also mud-brick, sundried) 18, 20, 22, 27, 32 Britain, tin resources in 35 bronze, objects of 31, 35, 58, 62, 65, 70, 72, 90, 91, 103, 117, 126, 138, 146, 156, 159, 203 n.79, 204

n.2, 208 n.14; 2.8.vi, 3.5, 4.8, 5.2; production of 28–30, 32, 35, 42, 118, 136–7, 139 bulls, decoration on pottery 132; 4.14 burial rites (see also cremation, funerary rituals, inhumation) 102, 122 Byblos, in Lebanon 107, 116, 187 n.28, 206 n.36 Byrsa, see Carthage

Caananite, jar 171, 187 n.33, 195 n.100 cabbage 114 Cabecico de Parra 27, 135, 136, 165 Cabezo de San Pedro 110, 142, 146, 202 n.76 cabins (see also huts) 192 n.138, 199 n.175 Cáceres 41 Cádiz (see also Gadir) 11, 26, 35, 38, 43, 45–7 passim, 81, 83–104, 108, 110, 112, 122, 124, 126, 133, 150, 155, 158, 159, 168, 169, 174, 206 n.46; 3.1–6 Caere, in Etruria 162, 188 n.39 Caesar, Julius 83, 124 Calpe, Strait of 84 Campamento Benítez, settlement at 115 Cañada de Ruiz Sánchez, burials at 156 Cancho Roano 41, 199 n.164 Cape Bon, in Tunisia 119 capital, see proto-Aeolic Carmona (Carmo) 41, 74, 81–2, 95, 122, 123–4, 130, 131, 133, 169, 191 n.127, 192 n.149, 195 n.97, 197 n.142; 2.18; 4.4–5 carnelian, bead of 93 Cartagena (Carthago Nova) 162 Carteia, Roman town 27 Carthage (see also Yada’Milk) 17, 43, 44, 63, 68, 71–3 passim, 78, 82, 84, 85, 87, 99, 104, 124, 129, 136, 159, 164, 168, 169, 178 n.117, 184 nn.138–40 and 158, 187 n.29, 197 n.134, 200 n.185, 208 nn.81 and 14; amphorae from 32, 99, 116, 177 n.111; necropolis, at Byrsa 68, 70, 73, 74; at Douimès-Dermech 68, 70; of Juno 50, 52, 56, 60, 61, 70 Carthaginian (see also Punic) 11, 27, 32, 34, 50, 56, 68, 87, 90, 115, 124, 132, 162, 163–4, 168, 174, 178 n.117; 2.15 Carthago Nova, see Cartagena cartouches, Egyptian 48, 52, 54, 55, 182 n.27; 2.3 Casa de la Viña, cemetery at 49, 58, 60, 70, 75, 181 n.1; 2.9 Casa de Montilla (see also Adra) 23, 41, 121, 133, 190 n.94

INDEX casemates 15, 38, 94–5, 168, 197 n.139 Castellar de Librilla 28 Castillo de Doña Blanca 11, 15, 17, 26, 38, 39, 42, 45–7 passim, 60, 62, 74, 78, 81, 90, 93–104, 105, 106, 108, 110–14 passim, 121, 123, 133, 145, 150, 155, 156, 159, 168, 171, 172, 174, 185 n.166, 187 n.31, 194 nn.55 and 86, 195 n.94, 197 n.133, 198 n.158, 208 n.14; 3.8–13; 7.1.ii Cástulo 123, 124, 132, 133, 158, 159, 164 cat, domestic 116; wild 110, 113 cattle, rearing of (see also livestock) 97, 110–11, 112, 114, 115–16, 130 cauldron 204 n.2 Caura 127, 128, 130 Celtic, influence 42 cemetery (see also necropolis) 11–12, 14, 24, 27, 33, 34, 39, 47–82, 93, 94, 101–03, 109, 121, 122, 123, 124, 145–6, 156, 167, 178 n.135, 200 n.185; 2.10–11, 2.13–14, 2.16, 4.1 Cerca Niebla (see also Niebla), indigenous site at 121 cereals, production of 17, 97, 112, 114, 115, 119 Cerne, island of (see also Mogador) 46, 180–1 n.187 Cerro Asperones, indigenous site at 121 Cerro Cabello, indigenous site at 121 Cerro Carchín, in Lagos, burial at 56 Cerro da Rocha Branca, in Portugal 26, 36–8, 135, 166, 178 n.135, 193 nn.29 and 38; 1.17, 7.3.iii Cerro de la Albina 199 n.175, 204 n.126 Cerro de la Cabeza de Olivares 204 n.115 Cerro del Alarcón 14, 23, 25–6, 58, 134, 166; 1.3, 1.11 Cerro de la Matanza 151 Cerro de la Molinetta, in Lagos 56, 58 Cerro de las Tres Aguilas 146 Cerro de la Tortuga 110, 113, 121, 193 n.41 Cerro del Castillo 27, 148 Cerro del Mar (see also Casa de la Viña) 14, 47, 58, 60, 65, 73, 167, 181 n.1, 208 n.80; 1.3 Cerro de los Infantes, indigenous site at 117 Cerro del Peñón 14, 23, 24–5, 58, 63, 135–6, 165, 186; 1.3 Cerro del Prado 26–7, 108; 7.3.i Cerro del Villar (see also El Villar) 17, 23, 43, 47, 58, 60, 93, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112–15, 117, 121, 159, 161, 165, 167, 169, 180 n.183, 181 n.2, 193 nn.29 and 38, 194 n.86, 205 n.24; 1.10, 4.2, 6.1.v–vi Cerro de San Cristóbal, cemetery at 11–12, 47–56, 57, 58, 60, 65, 70, 73, 75, 159, 181 n.1; 2.2–5, 2.7

Cerro de San Juan, hill at Coria del Río 127, 128, 204 n.126 Cerro de San Miguel 12, 13 Cerro de Velilla 181 n.3 Cerro Macareno 124, 157 Cerro Masegoso, mining site at 201 n.33 Cerro Salomón, mining area at 140–2, 145, 149, 195 n.97; 5.3–4 Cerro y Mar, in Lagos 56 chamber tombs 58, 60–1, 62–8, 72, 75, 76, 78, 79, 112 charcoal 135, 141, 142, 149 chariot, of walnut and bronze 70, 117 cheese, production of 111 Chian, Greek pottery 130; 4.12.iii, 6.1.iv chickpea 97, 114, 194 n.87 Chillar 155 Chinflón, mining site at 137, 202 n.51 chora 133, 137, 164 Chorreras 13, 19–20, 21, 23, 47, 56, 58, 108, 115, 120, 121, 176 n.37, 191 nn.115–16, 195 n.94; 1.6, 7.1.i Churriana 58, 182 n.71, 194 n.80 Cicero 73 climate 105, 107, 110, 111, 140 coffin, of wood 65 Colaeus, of Samos 159, 161, 205 n.8 Colina de los Quemados, at Córdoba 156 combs, of ivory 82, 161, 208 n.14 Conimbriga, in Portugal 42 copper 15, 24, 27–31 passim, 37–41 passim, 70, 79, 85, 109, 135–40 passim, 142, 144, 146, 147, 149, 155, 156, 158 Corbones, river 41, 122, 124, 131–2, 197 n.142 Cordillera Bética, mountains 107 Cordillera Penibética, mountains 107 Cordillera Subbética, mountains 121 Córdoba (see also Corduba) 126, 157 Corduba (see also Córdoba) 93, 107, 204 n.127 Coria del Río 127–30, 133, 157, 199 n.175, 204 n.126; 4.9–12 Corinth, in Greece, Corinthian (see also Protocorinthian) 170, 204 n.2; Corinthian amphorae 208 n.14; aryballos 130; 4.12.ii corn, see cereals Corsica 162 Corta Lago, mining site 140, 142, 145, 203 n.88; 5.3 Cortija de las Sombras, see Frigiliana Cortijo de Montañéz, cemetery at 47, 60, 75, 181 n.2, 194 n.80; 2.10 Coto de Doñana 94,106 cremation (see also, ustrina) 12, 27, 32, 43–4, 48, 50–2, 55–6, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 70, 71, 73, 76, 78, 79, 82, 93, 102, 103, 167; 2.16–17 Crete 74, 130, 133, 192 n.145; Cretans 187 n.33 crucibles 28, 135, 141, 142, 145, 202 n.77

Cruz del Negro, cemetery at 74, 82, 122–4 passim, 184 n.158, 197 n.132; urns 43–4, 46, 78, 79, 103, 171; 1.22.iii–iv, 2.16.i, 2.17.i, 2.16.i, 2.17.i, 7.2 Cueva del Monje, mining site at 201 n.33 Cueva de los Siete Palacios, at Almuñécar, pottery from 4.3.i Cumae, in Italy 54 cuneiform 54 cupellation 15, 41, 140–2 passim, 143–6, 151, 155, 203 n.78; 5.5.i Cyprus, Cypriot 30–1, 68, 71, 76, 78, 86, 99, 126, 178 n.117, 187 nn.29 and 33, 201 n.26, 208 n.11; Cypriot, bichrome ware 46 Cyrene, in Libya, foundation of 159–60 Cythera, in Cyprus, probable temple at 86

daggers (see also knives) 203 n.79 deer, wild red, bones of 110, 113 defensive walls (see also fortifications) 94–5, 133, 148, 150–2 passim, 155, 203 n.107; 5.12; lack of 150 deforestation 107, 113, 115, 203 n.90 Deve Hüyük, cemetery at 71 Delian League 164 Delos, in Greece 86, 87 Delphi, in Greece 84, 161 density, of Phoenician settlement 108–09, 112, 158 Didyme 91, 93, 189 n.68 Diodorus 32, 87, 91, 117 dipolis, ‘dual city’, at Cádiz 190 n.87; at Gerona 121 ditch, defensive (see also trench) 20, 21, 26, 27, 165, 167 Djebel el-Aqra, in Lebanon 199 n.166 dog, bones of 193 n.38 Doña Blanca, see Castillo de Doña Blanca donkey, bones of 103, 193 n.38 Dor, in Israel 52 Douimès-Dermech, cemetery of, see Carthage dromos (see also chamber tomb) 72, 73 dwellings (see also houses) 18, 20, 21, 23, 167; 5.10 dye, production of; dyeing (see also purple) 17, 23, 93, 110, 112, 169

earthquake 99 East Greek, pottery 67, 112; 4.12.i Ebro, river 35 egersis (religious awakening ritual) 86, 186 n.25, 187 n.29 Egypt, Egyptian, Egyptianizing 12, 28, 34, 48, 54–6, 60, 62, 68, 74–6 passim, 85, 86, 90, 116, 128, 159, 162, 180 nn. 170 and 187, 182 n.27, 184 n. 143, 185 n.165, 188 n.43, 190 n.86, 195 n.112, 201 n.25; 2.3, 2.6 El Argar, culture 119 El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño 15–17, 26, 28, 165; 1.4

237

El Carambolo (see also Carmona) 82, 123, 124–7, 130, 131, 133, 157, 187 n.31, 195 n.97, 198 n.162; 4.7–8 El Castellar de Librilla, iron furnace at 200–01 n.24 El Castillo de Guardamar 28 elephant, tusks of (see also ivory), bones of 46, 177 n.111 Elissa, daughter of king of Tyre 86 El Majuelo 12 El Monastil 28 El Oral 199 n.164 El Peñón, Corinthian pottery at 205 n.3 El Rocío 155, 158 El Villar (see also Cerro del Villar) 118 Emporion, Greek colony at 121, 162 enoikismos 28, 42, 117, 177 n.98 Eratosthenes 83, 180 nn.170 and 178 Erytheia, island of 88–9, 90, 91, 93, 94, 181 n.2, 188 n.39, 207 n.73 Eryx, in Sicily 86, 189 n.51 Eshmun 99, 186 n.27, 187 nn.28 and 31, 198 n.158 ethnic, ethnicity 52, 56, 71, 82, 196–7 n.132, 197 n.136, 206 n.36 Etruscan 24, 73, 74, 112, 162, 205 n.24; pottery, bucchero 73, 74, 112; kantharoi 24 Euboean, amphora 6.1.vi; colony 105, 133, 136; pottery, bird bowl 6.1.ii; skyphos 177 n.111, 205 nn.3 and 5; SOS-type amphora 205 n.5; 6.1.v Eudoxus, of Cyzicus 180 n.170 Exitanians, city of (see also Almuñecar, Sexi) 84, 85 Extremadura 36, 39, 41, 82, 122, 123, 156, 157, 158, 204 n.133 Ezekiel 87, 107, 164, 206 n.37 faunal evidence, see animal, bones feasting 73, 74 fibula 39, 55, 65, 79, 103, 138; 2.17.ii, 5.2 fish, fishing (see also fish-sauce, sardines, scombridae, shellfish, tunny) 23, 76, 90, 97, 110, 111–12, 113, 115, 169, 179 n.154, 184 n.139, 195 n.100, 196 n.116; fish-sauce, production of 12, 17, 111, 164, 167, 168–70 flooding, threat of 91, 112–13 food, foodstuffs 34, 42, 72–4 passim, 111–121 passim, 123, 186 n.27, 204 n.132 forest (see also deforestation) 110, 113 fortification, wall (see also ditch, defensive; oppida; trench, defensive; wall, defensive) 14, 15, 17 20, 21, 25–6, 27, 34, 38, 96, 163, 165, 166–7, 168, 207 n.50; 1.11, 5.12; Islamic 27, 47, 185 n.166 Frigiliana, cemetery at 52, 79, 82, 197 n.144; 2.17, 7.2.ii fruit trees 119 furnaces, for metalworking 18, 24, 25, 28, 32, 38, 42, 135–6, 141,

238

INDEX

142, 144, 148, 154, 156, 203 nn.78, 91 and 111 Gadir (see also Cádiz) 11, 17, 26, 31, 38, 39, 43, 44, 78, 81, 83–104, 109, 121, 123, 127, 130, 133, 149, 155, 156, 160–70 passim, 178 n.117, 181 n.2, 196 n.114, 199 n.180, 206 n.44 galena 28, 32, 192 n.25 Galicia 42 Garonne, river valley of 35 garum, see fish-sauce Geometric, Greek pottery 127; 6.1.i Gerona, Greek quarter at 121 Gibraltar, Straits of (see also Pillars of Hercules; Straits) 11, 26, 35, 43, 44, 83, 85, 107, 108, 167, 178 n.117, 206 n.41; Gibraltar, Gorham’s Cave 27, 108, 133, 188 n.43, 199 n.180 Gilão, river 36, 38 Gironne, valley of 35 glass, bead 103; jug 54 goats, see sheep gold 9, 27, 35–7 passim, 39, 41, 42, 44, 85, 107, 108, 136, 137, 144, 146, 147, 157, 158, 189 n.52, 202 n.68, 203 n.79, 207 n.50; objects of 31, 65, 70, 72, 93, 103, 126 graffiti, Phoenician (see also inscription) 27, 42, 99, 118, 179 n.145, 180 n.184, 187 nn.31 and 33, 198 n.158 grape (see also wine) 97, 114, 116, 117, 122 Greece, Greek, Greeks (see also Athens, Attica, Corinth, Delos, Delphi, Olym-pia, Phocaeans, Samos) 46, 84, 86, 119, 121, 123, 129–30, 133, 158, 159–63, 169, 192 n.151; 4.12, 6.1; pottery (see also Attic, East Greek, Geometric, Ionian, Protocorinthian) 46, 75, 76, 90, 159–63; 6.1; absence of 78 grey ware, pottery 28, 33, 37, 39, 42, 99, 150, 171–2; 1.17.iii, 7.3 griffins, winged, decoration on pithos 82, 132; 2.18; on bronze bowl 159; protome 204 n.2 Guadalete, river 88, 89, 93, 94, 104, 109, 155, 156, 204 n.2 Guadalhorce, river 17, 56, 107–09 passim, 112, 113, 115, 122, 167; site at 195 n.94 Guadalmedina, river 167 Guadalquivir, river 14, 43, 79, 81, 82, 93, 94, 103–05 passim, 109, 121–31 passim, 133, 146, 149, 151, 155–8 passim, 161, 167; 4.4, 4.6, 4.9 Guadamar, see La Fonteta Guadarranque, river 27 Guadiamar, river 151, 155 Guadiana, river 36, 39; 1.18 Guardamar 118 Guardiaro, river 14, 41, 107, 121 Hama, in Syria, burial at 50, 71 hammer, of stone 141, 148; 5.6 Hannibal 83 harbours, importance of (see also port) 13–15 passim, 23, 27, 32, 33,

56, 94, 107, 108, 137, 146, 166, 167, 197 n.143 Hathor, goddess 156, 182 n.28 Hazor, Iron Age house at 22, 191 n.116; 1.9.iv hearth 18, 46, 95, 141, 144 Hecataeus, of Miletus 179 n.136 Heliodorus 187 n.27 helmet, Corinthian 204 n.2 hen, domesticated 116 Hera, temple of (see also Samos, Heraion) 159 Herakleides, successors of Hercules 84 Herakleion, at Cádiz (see also Hercules) 85, 91, 93, 189–90 n.84 Herakles (see also Herakleion, Hercules, Melqart) 85–7 passim, 93 Hercules (see also Herakles, Melqart) 83–5 passim, 87, 89, 91, 180 n.178 herding (see also stockraising) 161 Herna (see also La Peña Negra) 118 Herodotus 86, 87, 121, 137, 159, 161, 187 n.30 Herrerías, burals at 79; resources of 27 hieroglyphs, Egyptian 48, 54, 58; pseudo-hieroglyphic 54 hinterland, relation between Phoenician settlements and 28–31, 105–34 Hiram I, of Tyre 68, 86, 87, 119, 187 n.27, 188 n.39 Hispalis (Seville) 82, 127, 131, 158 Hittite, influences 71 hoard (see also treasure) 137–40, 146, 190 n.102 Homer, Homeric (see also, Odyssey) 74, 84, 87, 119, 187 n.27, 188 n.45 horses, bones of 113 houses (see also dwellings) 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 32, 41, 70, 75, 95, 112, 122, 140, 141, 146, 207 n.50; 3.10 hubur, commercial association 74 Huelva 30, 41, 52, 70, 85, 93, 95, 106, 109, 110, 117, 126, 129, 130, 137, 146–7, 149, 150, 154–9 passim, 161, 162, 163, 195 n.97, 201 n.25, 203 n.90, 204 nn.2–3, 205 nn.10 and 24, 208 n.8; 5.2, 6.1.i–iii, 7.3.iv, 7.4.ii hut (see also cabin) 22, 46, 122, 128, 149–51 passim, 155, 196 n.131 hydriae 161 Iberians, contacts with Phoenicians passim and 119–34 Ibiza 15, 28, 32–3, 42, 47, 52, 76–8, 79, 115, 116, 135, 164, 168, 205 n.3, 206 n.46; 1.14 Illa Plana, Tanit worship at 206 n.45 incense burner (see also, thymiaterion) 46, 63, 73, 74, 90, 103, 117; 2.12.v ingot 32, 148 inhumation, burial 52, 60, 63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 78, 167 inscription (see also graffiti) 31, 69,

86, 126, 161, 177 n.114, 182 n.28, 190 n.86 iron 15, 18, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30–2 passim, 37, 41, 42, 65, 70, 85, 103, 108, 109, 112, 113, 122, 135–7, 164, 189 n.52; earliest use of, in Iberia 55, 136, 200 n.24 Isaiah 76 Ischia, in Italy (see also Pithekoussai) 105, 136 ivory 28, 32, 38, 44, 46, 65, 82, 107, 117, 146, 161, 177 n.98, 182 n.71, 183 n.91, 195 n.107, 201 n.25, 203 n.79, 208 n.14; 4.5 Jardín (Cerro del Mar), cemetery at 73, 167, 181 n.3, 185 n.158 Jerusalem 68, 91, 164 jewellery (see also bracelet, fibula, pendant) 28, 52, 72, 76, 78, 79, 118, 126, 203 n.79, 207 n.50; 4.7 jugs, mushroom-lipped 48–9, 55, 60, 62, 63, 65, 72, 73, 78, 98, 171, 180 n.181, 183 n.91; 2.2., 2.4–5, 2.9, 2.12.iii, 3.11.i; trefoil 48–9, 60, 62, 65, 72, 73, 78, 98, 171; 2.2, 2.4–5, 2.9, 2.12.iv; other 67, 70, 74, 117, 203 n.79 ‘Juno, island of’ 89, 90 Junta de la Gila, mining site at 201 n.33 Justin 91, 169, 205 n.15 Khaldeh, near Beirut, in Lebanon 183 n.109, 184 n.116 Kition, in Cyprus 30, 86, 188 n.39 knives, of iron 103, 201 n.25 Kommos, in Crete 41, 86, 189 n.52 Kotinoussa, island of 88, 90–1, 93, 181 n.2, 207 n.80 kotylai, see Protocorinthian Kronos 90, 93 kylix (cup), Greek (see also Attic) 140

La Fonteta 15, 17, 26, 27–8, 30, 33, 42, 47, 135, 165–6, 185 n.166, 187 n.31, 191 n.103, 193 n.29, 205 n.3 Lagos, cemetery at 47, 50, 56–8, 60, 62, 65, 70, 75, 181 n.1; 2.8; river 56, 58 La Joya, cemetery at 52, 70, 72, 117, 156, 163, 201 n.25, 202 n.52 La Loma del Aeropuerto, settlement at 114, 115 L’Alt de Benimarquía 34, 117 lamp 27, 60, 63, 72, 73, 76, 79, 93, 98; 1.23.vi, 2.2, 2.12.vi, 2.16.iii, 3.11.viii, 3.12.vi La Parrita, cemetery at 145–6, 203 n.79; 5.6 La Peña Negra 17, 28–30, 31, 42, 117, 118, 121, 124, 133, 135, 166, 198 n.158; 1.12, 7.1.iv, 7.3.ii La Playa de la Isla, shipwrecks at 32 La Puebla del Río, see Puebla del Río La Rinconada, harbour at 15 Las Beatillas, settlement at 101 Las Cumbres, cemetery at 47, 60, 62, 81, 94, 100, 103, 121, 183 nn.71 and 91, 185 nn.166 and 184; settlement at 168; 3.4, 3.14

La Sierra de Camara 28 Laurion, in Greece 145 lead, ingots of 32; objects of 111; working of 15, 27, 28, 32, 35, 36, 79, 109, 140–7 passim, 155 leguminous plants 97, 114 lekythoi 72 lentils 114 life-expectancy 78 lime, lime-kilns 42 Linares, silver mines at 15 lions, stone carving of 66, 185 n.166 Lisbon 41 livestock, rearing of (see also cattle) 110, 111, 113, 115 Livy 121 Lixus, in Morocco 43, 44–5, 46, 84, 86, 99, 104, 108, 116, 130, 180 nn.170 and 178 Llanete de los Moros, Mycenaean pottery at 194 n.89 Loire, valley of 35 Loma de Boliche, cemetery at (see also Boliche) 27 loom, loomweights 28 Los Castrejones, mining settlement at 148 Los Pinares, indigenous settlement at 194 n.82 Los Saladares 28 lotus-flower, decoration 132 Loukkas, river 44 Lydians 162 lynx 113

Macrobius 169 Magon, of Carthage 115, 116, 193 n.40 Mainake 14, 205 n.14, 206 n.41, 207 n.59 Málaga (see also Malaka) 52, 76, 99, 108, 110, 113, 121, 161, 162, 167–8, 194 n.81, 205 n.24; 6.1.iv Malaka (see also Málaga) 17, 107, 110, 113, 161, 167–8, 197 n.150 Malta 60, 70, 86, 87, 105, 127, 130, 188 n.39, 189 n.51 Manganeto, bay of 14, 23, 25, 107, 166; 1.3 marble, objects of 113, 130, 182 n.27; 2.6, 3.6, 4.11.iii Marius, Sextus, of Corduba 204 n.127 market area, in settlement 161, 169, 193 n.29, 194 n.50, 196 n.116; 4.2 marzeh (religious body, festival) 74 mask, funerary 76 Massalia (Marseilles) 162 meat preserves (see also cattle) 195 n.100 medallion, of gold 69, 70; 2.15.vii; decorated 118 Medellín, burials at 122, 186 n.195 Medes (see also Persians) 206 n.34 Megiddo, in Israel 91 Mela, see Pomponius Mela Melqart (see also Herakleion, Herakles, Hercules) 85–8, 91, 93, 127, 133, 186 n.18, 198 n.150, 199 nn.166 and 180 Memphis, in Egypt 86, 121, 128, 189 n.53

INDEX Mersa Madakh, in Algeria 43, 44, 181 n.192 Meseta 30, 42, 123, 147 metallurgy, metallurgical 14, 15, 18–19, 21, 24, 27–8, 30, 31, 38, 39, 42, 70, 113, 135–51 passim, 154–8 passim, 163, 165, 168; 1.12, 5.6–7, 5.10 metals (see also bronze, copper, gold, lead, metallurgy, mines, silver, tin) 135–8; metal production (see also bronze, production of) 17, 28–30, 31, 42, 108–9, 142, 154, 163; metal trade, end of 166 military outpost 14, 25, 26, 133–4 milk, production of 110, 111, 184 n.138 mills, for corn-grinding 17, 114 Minas de Masegoso 201 n.33 mineral resources (see also metals) 15, 17, 27, 28, 30–1, 35, 36, 42, 85, 93, 105, 106, 108, 109, 112, 113, 115, 118, 122, 123, 130, 133, 135–58 passim, 161, 163, 168, 169; 5.1 mines, mining (see also metals) 27, 32, 79, 85, 93, 136, 140–2 passim, 151, 155, 157; 5.1, 5.7 mirror, of bronze 117; representation of 199 n.181 Mogador, in Morocco 43, 46, 99, 104, 116, 166, 187 n.31, 191 n.127, 192 n.18; 1.23, 7.2.iv Mondego, river 36, 39, 41, 42, 108, 109, 136 Montemolín 41, 130, 131–2, 133, 185 n.188, 197 n.142, 199 n.167; 4.13–14 Monte Romero, silver-smelting site at 144; 5.5 Monte Sirai, in Sardinia, amphorae at 116; burials at 70, 133 Montilla (see also Casa de Montilla) 108 Morro de Mezquitilla 11, 13, 17–19, 20, 21, 22–3, 26, 39, 47, 56, 62, 70, 75, 79, 108, 109, 112, 115, 117, 118, 120, 121, 135–7 passim, 159, 168, 172, 174, 175 n.1, 181 n.1, 190 n.94, 191 nn.115 and 123, 194 n.82, 197 n.133, 208 n.80; 1.5, 4.3.ii, 7.4.i mortar (binding agent) 20, 94; absence of 152; (for grinding) 141, 148 Motya, in Sicily 93, 105, 116, 123, 180 n.183, 181 n.10; cemetery at 52, 55–6, 62, 70, 73, 75, 78, 82, 99, 180 n.175; defences at 20; warehouse at 22 moulds, used in metal production 28–9, 35, 118, 122, 135; 1.12; absence of 42 Mount Carmel, in Israel 52 mud, walls of (see also adobe, mudbrick) 15 mudbrick (see also sun-dried brick) 25, 27, 32, 70, 94, 95, 128, 204 n.162 murex brindaris 169; murex trunculus 93, 110–12 passim, 169 Mycenaean, pottery 194 n.89 nail 62, 65

Narbonne, in France 35 Naucratis, in Egypt 162 necropolis (see also cemetery) 27, 33, 56, 58, 62, 72, 73, 75, 85, 93, 94, 103, 130, 133; 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, 3.14 Niebla (see also Cerca Niebla) 41, 95, 156, 158 Ninevah, in Iraq 206 n.34 Nora, in Sardinia 73; inscription from 31, 86; burials at 70 North Africa, see Africa, North

oak (quercus ilex) 149, 203 n.90 oats 114 obeloi 204 n.2 ochre, red 48, 49, 73 Odiel, river 85, 146, 204 n.2 Odysseus, meeting Phoenician merchant 74 Odyssey (see also Homer) 74, 160 oil, olive 34, 35, 39, 42, 54, 112, 115–19 passim, 137, 146, 148, 162, 204 n.132; oil bottle 76, 78, 103, 150, 180 n.187, 195 n.109; 2.16.ii, 4.11.i, 5.9.iv; oils, see perfumes, unguents, oinochoai 150 olives (see also oil) 88, 122 Olympia, in Greece, amphorae at 208 n.81 Onoba, city of (see also Huelva) 84, 85 oppida 168–9 oracle, at Cádiz 83–5 passim, 90 Oretania, mining district at 156 oriental, construction techniques 81, 95, 97, 124, 198 n.162; decorative traditions 82; imports 36, 99, 119, 122, 126; influence 38, 85, 97, 98, 118, 123, 126, 158; 3.5; settlers 103, 122, 136, 191 n.132; orientalising 15, 28, 30, 39, 41, 42, 70, 72, 75, 82, 118, 122, 132, 142, 150, 156, 157, 168, 178 n.135; 4.7 Osorkon II, pharaoh 52, 54, 55; 2.3 ostrich eggs 28, 39, 49, 56, 62, 73, 75, 79, 82, 93 Osuna 131 otters 113 oven 95; 3.10 overpopulation, as factor in population movement 119, 123, 189 n.68 oxhide, altar in shape of 128, 199 n.164; 4.10 Padai, see Yada’milk ‘palace-sanctuary’ 41 Palaeopaphos, in Cyprus 68 Palaeotyre, in Lebanon 94 Palestine, defensive systems in Bronze Age 20; warehouses in 22; 1.9.ii–iv; tombs 68, 71 palisade 15, 26 palstaves, production of 28 Pani Loriga, in Sardinia 133 Panormus, in Sicily 105 paterae 98, 99, 103, 156 peas 114 Peñalosa 150–1, 155, 163, 199 n.175, 204 n.126 pendant, of gold 183 n.81; of silver 58, 103; 2.8.ii

Penibaetican mountains (see also Cordillera Penibética) 107, 108, 156 pentekonters 161 perfumes (see also unguents) 60, 72, 74, 103, 129, 130, 148; 4.11.i Persians (see also Medes) 162 pharaohs, Egyptian 48, 52–4 Philo, of Byblos 187 n.89 Phocaeans 161–2, 171, 205 n.24; coin of 204 n.2 pig, see swine Pillars of Hercules (see also Gibraltar, Straits of; Straits) 84, 159, 179 n.170, 180 n.178 Pinos Puente, burials at 197 n.144; grey ware at 208 n.8 Pithekoussai, in Italy 54, 105, 116, 133, 136, 159, 176 n.10, 192 n.102 pithoi 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 39, 43, 44, 79, 82, 98, 99, 124, 130, 132, 169, 171; 1.22.ii, 2.8.iv, 2.18, 4.14, 7.1 plant remains (see also cabbage, grape, leguminous plants, lentils, peas, pulses, vine) 97, 113–17 passim Plaza Eras de Castillo 13 Pliny the Elder 9, 11, 41, 84, 88, 90, 91, 202 n.49 Pmy, see Pumay Polybius 88 Pomponius Mela 84, 88–90 passim population estimate 55 port (see also harbour) 15, 41, 89, 99, 107 Portugal, Phoenicians in 35–42 and passim; 1.16 Posidonius of Apamea 84, 85 pottery (see also amphorae, Attic, Chian, Corinthian, Cypriot bichrome, East Greek, Etruscan, Geometric, grey ware, Ionian, jugs, Mycenaean, red-slip) indigenous 13, 14, 32, 38, 39, 41, 78, 81, 82, 90, 99, 100, 102, 120–1, 142, 148, 149, 151, 154, 157; 3.13, 4.3, 5.4.ii; Phoenician passim and 171–4; production of 17, 28, 30, 33, 41, 46, 97–100, 113, 114, 115, 118, 121, 123, 168, 177 n.98 prostitution, sacred 87, 186 n.1, 189 n.51 proto-Aeolic, capital 90–1; 3.4 proto-Attic, oenochoe 190 n.89 Protocorinthian 25; kotylai 12, 49, 54, 56, 60, 62, 72, 75, 159, 205 nn.3 and 5; 2.7; skyphoi 205 n.3 Pseudo-Aristotle 84, 86, 88–90 passim, 117 Pseudo-Scylax, Periplus of 46, 79, 180 n.187, 181 n.192, 195 n.107 Ptah, statuette of 90 Puebla del Río 199 n.175, 204 n.126 Puente de Noy, cemetery at 47, 65–7, 73, 75, 76, 82, 103, 112, 181 n.3, 185 n.166; 2.13–14 Puerto de Santa María 58, 169, 190 n.102 Puig des Molins, burials at 32–3, 47, 52, 74, 75, 76–8, 82, 206 n.45; 2.16 pulses 97, 114

239

Pumay, Sardinian god 31, 86 Punic (see also Carthaginian) 11, 27, 47, 55, 62, 67, 69, 73, 75, 76, 82, 93, 96, 108, 115, 117, 118, 123, 132, 167, 170, 178 nn.117 and 121, 184 n.158, 190–1 n.102, 194 n.80, 196 n.131, 197 n.150, 206 nn.41 and 45–6, 207 n.47; 6.2 purple, manufacture of (see also dye-production) 93, 110, 112, 169, 186 n.27 Pygmalion, dedication to 69 Pyrgi, in Italy 127, 130, 188 n.39

Quebrantahuesos, settlement at 140, 141, 142, 143; 5.3 Quinta de Almaraz, in Portugal 41

Rachgoun, in Algeria 43–4, 52, 70, 76, 78–9, 82, 104, 116, 166, 181 n.192; 1.21–22; 7.1.iii radiocarbon dating 175 nn.1 and 7, 179 n.159, 197 n.143 rainfall 107 Ras Shamra, texts of 86 red-slipped pottery, Phoenician 12–13, 24, 28, 32, 37–9 passim, 41, 42, 46, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 70–4 passim, 76, 79, 98, 99, 103, 117, 118, 126, 129, 150, 151, 171, 174, 177 n.90, 180 n.181, 183 nn.86 and 91, 184 n.137, 207 n.66; 1.4.i, 1.17.i–ii, 1.23.i–iii, 2.5, 2.8.v, 3.11.i–iv, 3.12.iii–iv; 5.9.iv, 7.4 Rephaim, ancestor kings 86 Rhodes 133; fish-sauce at 207 n.72 ring (see also seal-rings) of bronze 58; 2.8.vi; of gold 65; of silver 58; 2.8.ii Rio Grande, estuary 14 Rio Tinto, mining region at 93, 106, 109, 137–48, 150, 151, 154–6 passim, 158, 159, 162, 163, 203 n.88; 5.3–4 Rome 72; Ara Maxima at 87 Ronda (see also Acinipo) 14, 108, 121, 122, 167 rural settlement, Phoenician 33, 114–15, 133

Sa Caleta 32, 33, 42, 135, 186 n.194, 193 n.29; 1.13 Sado, river 36, 39, 41, 75, 166 Salamis, in Cyprus 68 Saltés, island of 85 salting industry 168, 169–70, 179 n.154 Samaria-ware, bowls of 99; 7.4 Samos, in Greece 159–61; Heraion at 82, 205 n.8; Samian 159–61, 204 n.2 San Argentera, mines at 32 San Bartolomé de Almonte 142, 149–50, 151, 154–8 passim, 163; 5.8–9 sanctuary (see also ‘palace sanctuary’, shrine), of Astarte 27, 108, 128; of Baal Saphon 128; of Melqart 86–8, 133; on Samos 161; at San Julián 194 n.80; of Tanit 33 San Julián 194 n.80 Sanlúcar de Barrameda 106

240

INDEX

Santa Olaia, in Portugal 26, 41–2, 136, 137, 200 n.2 Santarém, in Portugal 41 Sant’Imbenia, in Sardinia 116, 177 n.111 sarcophagi (see also coffin), use of 66, 73, 93; 3.6 sardines 111 Sardinia 30–1, 35, 70, 78, 86, 105, 108, 109, 122, 133, 134, 164, 201 n.26, 203 n.90; amphorae in 32, 116, 208 n.81 saturnism 202 n.52 scarabs 34, 39, 52, 54, 58, 79, 184 n.143, 195 nn.107 and 112; 2.8.ii, 2.17.iv scombridae 111, 169 Scylax, see Pseudo-Scylax seal-rings 82 Sea Peoples 70–1 Seco, river 13, 108 Segura, river 15, 27, 28, 31, 118, 162 Sekhmet, goddess 187 n.33 Senhor dos Mártires 75, 178 n.135 Setefilla, burials at 122, 156; copper production at 139, 201 n.33 Setúbal, in Portugal 39 Seville 94, 106, 107, 122–4 passim, 126, 127, 130–1, 149, 157, 158, 208 n.8 Sexi, Sexs (see also Almuñécar) 11, 13, 48, 54, 56, 85, 168, 197 n.150 shaft-graves 12, 48, 49–50, 52, 55, 56, 60–2 passim, 65–7 passim, 70, 75, 76, 78, 79, 120 sheep, goats 110–12 passim, 114, 119, 177 n.101, 185 n.158 shellfish (see also, murex) 110 Sheshonq III, pharaoh 52, 54, 55 shield 203 n.79 shipwrecks, Phoenician 32, 46, 90, 196 n.132 shops 196 n.116 shrine (see also sanctuary, temple), possible 28, 46, 82, 128, 130; certain 39, 41, 83, 86, 124, 126, 127, 133, 157; 4.5 Sicca Veneria, in Tunisia 86 Sicily (see also Eryx, Motya, Panormus, Solunto) 62, 70, 72, 78, 86, 93, 105, 107, 109, 122, 164, 178 n.117, 196 n.132; amphorae from 32 Sidon, in Lebanon 52, 54, 71, 99, 187 n.31, 198 n.158, 206 n.36; Sidonian 52, 157 Sierra Blanca, iron deposits in 113 Sierra de Almagrera, mines in 79 Sierra de Crevillente 118 Sierra de Gibalín 104 Sierra de San Cristóbal 94, 100–02 passim, 168; 3.7 Sierra Morena 105, 107, 123, 130, 139, 147–8, 151, 155–7 passim Siga, in Algeria 79 Silius Italicus 91 silver 9, 15, 27, 30–2 passim, 38, 41,

70, 79, 80, 85, 93, 103, 105, 109, 116, 117, 122, 135–58 passim; objects of 31, 76, 156; 2.8.ii skyphos, Euboean 177 n. 111 slag 14, 18, 24, 27, 28, 32, 38, 39, 41, 135–6, 140–2 passim, 145–6, 148, 149, 151, 154, 155; 5.5.ii, 5.13 smelting 14, 28, 32, 38, 42, 135–6, 140–3, 148, 149, 154–6 passim, 203 n.79 smith, smithy 19, 135, 148; tools of (see also hammers, mortars) 30 ‘smiting god’ type, statuette of 85, 91; 3.5; back cover social stratification 47, 62, 71, 74, 75–9, 82, 110, 111, 119, 167, 168, 201 n.25 Solomon, king of Israel 68, 87, 187 n.27 Solunto, in Sicily 105 Sostratus, of Aegina 159 Soto de Medinilla, Bronze Age site at 30 spits, of bronze 130 spoons, of ivory 82; 4.5 statuette (see also terracotta) of bronze 90, 91, 126, 156; 3.5, 4.8 stelai 27–8, 33, 47, 75, 76, 185 n.166, 197 n.142, 199 n.181 Strabo 9, 11, 31, 83–5 passim, 88–91 passim, 93, 105, 121, 135, 137, 156, 162, 163, 164, 170, 179 n.136, 179–80 n.170, 199 n.175, 204 n.124, 205 n.14 Straits (see also Gibraltar, Straits of) 93, 94, 96, 100, 109, 112, 162 streets 19, 23, 140, 151 Suel, Roman town of 27 Sulcis, San Antioco in Sardinia 116, 133 swine 197 n.56 swords, of carp-tongue type 29, 118, 122; of Mount Sa Idda type 28, 122; of Venat-Ronda-Sa Idda type 30 symposia, see banquets

Tacitus, historian 204 n.127 Tafna, river 43, 78, 79 Tagus, river 9, 36, 39, 41 Takelot II, pharaoh 54 Tale of Wenamon 74 Tamassos, in Cyprus 68 Tambourit, in Lebanon 71 Tanit, worship of 33, 206 n.45 Tarifa, burials at 75, 112, 183 n.91; site 108 Tarquinia, in Italy 162 Tarsis 87 Tartessus, Tartessian 17, 32, 43, 44, 79, 82, 85, 94, 104, 107, 109, 110, 116–23 passim, 126, 128, 133, 136, 137, 142, 154, 159, 161–3 passim, 166–8 passim, 179 n.145; 4.1 Tas Silg, in Malta 86 Tavira, in Portugal 26, 38–9, 41, 42, 47, 75, 99, 104, 112, 133, 183 n.91, 197 n.139 Tejada la Vieja 151–5, 156–8

passim, 163, 168; 5.10–13 Tell Ajjul, in Jordan 71 Tell Arqa, in Lebanon 71 Tell en-Nasbeth, in Palestine, houses at 1.9.ii–iii Tell er-Regeish, in Jordan 71 Tell Fara, in Jordan 71 Tell Sukas, in Syria 175 n.8 temple (see also sanctuary, shrine) 41, 84–7 passim, 89–91 passim, 124, 128, 131, 180 n.178, 181 n.191 terracotta, statuettes 76, 90, 186 n.18 textiles 28 Tharros, in Sardinia 129, 185 n.158 Tharsis, mining region at 163 Thasos, island, in Greece, temple on 86; gold mines on 189 n.52 thatch, possible use of 141 Thebes, in Egypt 54, 58 Theophrastus 149 Theron, king of Gadir 169 thiasos 74 thistle vases 99–100, 102 Thucydides 107 thymiaterion (see also incense burner) 24, 58, 90, 198 n.161 Tiberius, emperor 204 n.127 Timaeus 88, 178 n.121, 179 n.170 timber (see also wood) 110 tin 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 118, 136, 137, 139, 157, 158, 164 Tinto, river 85, 146, 151, 158 Titus, emperor 84 Toledo 41 tophet 133, 189 n.65 Toscanos 14, 20–1, 22–6 passim, 42–7 passim, 56, 58–60, 63, 70, 79, 97, 107–12 passim, 115, 120, 121, 134, 135–6, 137, 145, 159, 165–7 passim, 175 n.1, 191 nn.113 and 115, 194 n.55, 195 n.94, 208 n.14; 1.3, 1.7–9; back cover Trayamar, cemetery at 47, 56, 58, 62–5, 66–8 passim, 70–6 passim, 82, 103, 117, 181 n.1, 185 n.166; 2.11–12; front cover treasure 31, 41, 54, 126, 132, 157; 4.7 trench, defensive (see also ditch) 95–6, 191 n.103 tripod 78, 103 tripod-bowl 32, 43, 44–5; 1.23.iv, 3.12.v Troia, fish-sauce production at 207 n.72 Troy, fall of 83–4 tumbas principescas 156–8; 5.14 tumulus 47, 62, 74, 75, 81, 102, 103, 183 n.91; 3.14 tunny 169 Tutugi, tomb at 182 n.27 tuyère, use of 15, 39, 135, 136, 141, 142, 144, 145, 151; 5.5.iii tweezers 79; 2.17.iii Tyre, in Lebanon 27, 44, 47, 50, 56, 68, 71, 74–8 passim, 82, 85–7 passim, 91, 93, 94, 99, 103, 107,

128, 163–4, 171, 174, 178 n.117, 187 n.30, 191 n.116; Tyrian 52, 83, 84–8 passim, 90, 91, 93, 99, 105, 110, 121, 128, 133, 155

Ugarit, temple at 28; texts of 74, 86; tombs of 68 unguentaria 72, 150 unguents (see also perfumes) 49, 117, 129, 148, 186 n.27, 195 nn.107 and 109; lack of 150 urbanism, urban character, signs of 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 39, 41, 96, 104, 110, 112, 122, 128, 151–2, 154, 168, 208 n.175; 1.7–8, 1.19, 3.8 urns, see alabaster; Cruz del Negro Ushu, suburb of Tyre 94 ustrina, ustrinum 60, 76, 102 Utica, in Tunisia 11, 44, 68–71 passim, 84, 192 n.17

vegetables (see also cabbage, leguminous plants) 119 Vélez, river 14, 20, 22, 25, 47, 56, 58, 73, 107, 109, 115, 121, 166–7 Vélez-Málaga, indigenous site at 121 Velleius Paterculus 83–4 Venus Marina, worship of 90 Verde, river 13, 108 Vico, hill of, at Montemolín 132 Villaricos, cemetery at 27, 108, 164, 168, 177 n.87, 193 n.29, 206 n.46 Villena, treasure 31 Vinalopó, river 15, 28, 31, 162 vine 114, 116, 119 viticulture (see also grape, vine, wine) 114, 116

wall, defensive 25–6, 37, 97, 161, 166; 1.11, 5.10 walnut 70 warehouse buildings 14, 22, 23, 26, 35, 42, 70, 115, 166–7, 193 n.46; 1.8–9, 1.15 watchtower 26 water supply 25, 95, 140, 194 n.65, 204 n.114, 207 n.78 weapons (see also sword) 28, 29, 78, 133, 137, 166; 5.2 wheat 97, 114 wine (see also grape, viticulture) 34, 35, 39, 54, 72, 74, 103, 112, 114, 115, 116–18, 129, 137, 146, 148, 168, 204 n.132 wood, use of (see also oak, timber, walnut) 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 73, 79, 95, 149 workshop 17, 18–19, 21, 27–8, 30, 31, 39, 82, 117, 118, 135, 141, 144, 165, 166, 196 n.115; 1.12 Yada’milk, son of Padai, tomb of, at Carthage 68–70; 2.15 Yahwe 87 Zeus Cassius 199 n.166 zinc 147

Spine bulk 11.25 mm + 6 mm board allowance 15 mm

Back

15 mm

The Phoenicians in Iberia

Trim page height =

Ann Neville graduated in Classical Studies from the National University of Ireland at University College Dublin, where she also obtained her MA; she has a PhD from the University of Dublin at Trinity College. After holding teaching posts at University College Dublin and Galway, she now works as the Education Development Officer for Age Action Ireland in Dublin.

279.4 mm +6 mm board allowance

Front cover: Trayamar (Málaga), Tomb 1, c. 650 BC, during excavation Back cover (right): Bronze statuette of a male divinity, from Cádiz; height 31 cm; (below) The site of Toscanos (centre) as it appeared in 1961, looking south-east; the low-lying ground in the centre and right of the photograph were covered by sea in antiquity. Cover photographs by courtesy of Professor H. G. Niemeyer, Hamburg

University of British Columbia Studies in the Ancient World 1

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER & RIVERS OF GOLD The Phoenicians in Iberia

The traditional picture of the Phoenicians in Iberia is that of wily traders drawn there by the irresistible lure of the fabulous mineral wealth of the El Dorado of the ancient world. However, a remarkable series of archaeological discoveries, starting in the 1960s, have transformed our understanding of the Phoenicians and allowed us to glimpse a picture of life in the Far West that is far richer, and more complex, than the traditional mercantile hypothesis. Drawing on both literary and archaeological sources, this book offers an in-depth analysis of the Phoenicians in Iberia: their settlements, material culture, contacts with the local people, and their agricultural and cultural, as well as commercial, activities. It concludes that the Phoenician presence in Iberia gave rise to a truly western form of Phoenician culture, one that was enriched by and drew from contacts with the local population, forming a characteristic identity, still visible when the Romans arrived in the Peninsula.

NEVILLE

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER & RIVERS OF GOLD

15 mm

Front

15 mm

MOUNTAINS OF SILVER & RIVERS OF GOLD

The Phoenicians in Iberia ANN NEVILLE

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA STUDIES IN THE ANCIENT WORLD: VOLUME 1 OXBOW BOOKS

Oxbow Books 15 mm

15 mm 15 mm

Trim page width = 215.9 mm + 3 mm board allowance

Trim page width = 215.9 mm + 3 mm board allowance

15 mm