The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean

by Carolina Lopez-Ruiz

  Fontan, E., ed. 2007. La Méditerranée des Phéniciens de Tyr à Carthage, 2007. Paris: Institut du monde arabe.

  Helck, W. 1995. Die Beziehungen Aegyptens and Vorderasiens zur Aegaeis bis ins 7. Jhdt v. Chr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

  Karageorghis, V. 2010. “Phoenician Marble Anthropoid Sarcophagi and Their Parian Connection.” In Πάρια Λίθος: Λατομεία, Μάρμαρο και Εργαστήρια Γλυπτικής Πάρου. Πρακτικά Α΄ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πάρου και Κυκλάδων, Παροικιά, Πάρος 2–5 Οκτωβρίου 1997, edited by D. Skilarti and Nt. Kastonopoulou, 469–77. Athens: Institute of Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades.

  Kasseri, A. 2012. “Phoenician Trade Amphorae from Methone, Pieria.” In Kerameus paides, edited by E. Kephalidou and D. Tsiafaki, 299–308. Thessaloniki: Society of Andrionite Scholars.

  Lemos, I. S. 2003. “Craftsmen, Traders and some Wives in Early Iron Age Greece.” In Πλoες. Sea routes. Interconnections in the Mediterranean, 16th—6th c. B.C. Proceedings of the international symposium held at Rethymnon, Crete September 29th—October 2nd, 2002, edited by N. C. Stampolidis and V. Karageorghis, 187–95. Athens: University of Crete.

  Markoe, G. E. 2000. Phoenicians. Peoples of the Past. London: British Museum Press.

  Morris, S. P. 1995. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art. Second edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  Muhly, J. D. 1999. “The Phoenicians in the Aegean.” Aegeum 20: 517–26.

  Niemeyer, H. G. 2003. “On the Phoenician Art and its Role in Trans-Mediterranean Interconnections ca 1100–600 BC.” In Πλoες. Sea routes. Interconnections in the Mediterranean, 16th–6th c. B.C. Proceedings of the international symposium held at Rethymnon, Crete September 29th–October 2nd, 2002, edited by N. C. Stampolidis and V. Karageorghis, 201–208. Athens: University of Crete.

  Oikonomaki, A. 2010. “Τα τοπικά αλϕάβητα της Κρήτης στην αρχαϊκή και κλασική περίοδο.” Ph.D. dissertation, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki.

  Papadopoulos, J. K. 2016. “The Early History of the Greek Alphabet: New Evidence from Eretria and Methone.” Antiquity 90, no. 353: 1238–54.

  Popham M. R., L. H. Sackett, and P. G. Themelis. 1980. Lefkandi I. The Iron Age Settlement. Athens: Thames and Hudson.

  Quinn, J. C. 2018. In Search of the Phoenicians. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  Stager, J. M. 2005. “‘Let No One Wonder at this Image’: A Phoenician Funerary Stele in Athens.” Hesperia 74: 427–49.

  Stampolidis, N. C. 1998. Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus—Dodecanese—Crete, 16th–6th c. BC. Herakleion: University of Crete, Ministry of Culture.

  Stampolidis, N. C. 2003a. “On the Phoenician Presence in the Aegean.” In Πλoες. Sea routes. Interconnections in the Mediterranean, 16th–6th c. B.C. Proceedings of the international symposium held at Rethymnon, Crete September 29th–October 2nd, 2002, edited by N. C. Stampolidis and V. Karageorghis, 217–32. Athens: University of Crete.

  Stampolidis, N. C., ed. 2003b. Sea Routes—From Sidon to Huelva. Interconnections in the Mediterranean, 16th–6th c. BC. Athens: Museum of Cycladic Art, Hellenic Ministry of Culture.

  Stampolidis, N. C. 2007. “Eνα κλειστό σύνολο. Ανιχνεύοντας αιγυπτιακές και ανατολικές επιρροές στις µεταθανάτιες δοξασίες της γεωµετρικής-αρχαϊκής Ελεύθερνας.” In Αµύµονα Έργα. Τιµητικός τόµος για τον Καθηγητή Βασίλη Κ. Λαµπρινουδάκη, edited by Α. Α. Laimou, Ε. Simantoni-Bournia, L. Mendoni, and N. Kourou, 19–33. Athens: School of Philosophy, University of Athens.

  Stampolidis, N. C. 2008. Αρχαία Ελεύθερνα, Δυτικός Τομέας/Ancient Eleutherna, West Sector II. Athens: Region of Crete, European Regional Development Fund.

  Stampolidis, N. C., and A. Kotsonas. 2006. “Phoenicians in Crete.” In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, edited by S. Deger-Jalkotzy and I. S. Lemos, 337–60. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  Tiberios, M. 2004. “Οι πανεπιστημιακές ανασκαϕές στο Καραμπουρνάκι Θεσσαλονίκης και η παρουσία των Φοινίκων στο βόρειο Αιγαίο.” In Το Αιγαίο στην Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου, Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συμποσίου, Ρόδος 2002, edited by N. C. Stampolidis and A. Giannikouri, 295–306. Athens: University of Crete and Greek Ministry of Culture, Archaeological Institute of the Aegean Studies.

  Chapter 33

  The Italian Peninsula

  Jeremy Mark Hayne

  The presence of Phoenicians in Italy is often taken for granted by scholars and the public through the material remains that form the backbone of the Orientalizing phenomena which gathered steam in the early/mid-seventh century bce in mainland Italy (map 33.1). However, although the presence of Phoenician material culture on the Italian peninsula has long been noted, evidence of Levantine people’s settlement remains elusive. We have no indication that they built settlements and evidence of funerary practices remains tenuous. Unlike their Euboean counterparts, they created no colonies and a demonstration of their presence is found primarily in “trinkets” and luxury items, principally in female tombs. Lack of information about Phoenicians is partly due to the historical emphasis given to the Greek world as a consequence of the strong Hellenizing perspective scholars had on Italy for most of the twentieth century (Carpenter 1958). As a result, Greek pottery tends to be clearly labeled Corinthian, Euboean, Attic, and the like while Levantine material is more generally labeled “Phoenician,” without specific denomination by city or area, reinforcing the way in which Phoenician material has been historically decontextualized: “Phoenician” objects are usually studied as “art,” with little attempt to understand their vectors or the context in which they were found. This is in part a result of the way Phoenician studies started, when decorations on incised bronze bowls from the Assyrian palace of Nimrud were identified as “Phoenician” by Henry Layard in 1849 and matched, as artwork, with those from the Regolini-Galassi tomb in Cerveteri, Etruria (Vella 2014: 32).

  Map 33.1 Map of the Italian Peninsula, with places mentioned in the text.

  Source: J. Hayne.

  More recently, Mediterranean scholarship, taking on board theoretical work focusing on connectivity and network theory, has underlined “fluidity and connectedness” throughout the region over “static cells, rigid structures and powerful institutions” (Morris 2005: 31). First articulated in The Corrupting Sea (Horden and Purcell 2000), this approach has been recently emphasized in such volumes on the Mediterranean as The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age (Knapp and van Dommelen 2014) and The Making of the Middle Sea (Broodbank 2013), which highlight the movement and interactions of Mediterranean peoples and have underlined that traditional discussions of whether Greeks or Phoenicians arrived first in Italy have raised artificial divides between different ethnic groups. The “Hellenizing” perspective is thus being challenged by historians and archaeologists who look for more local and nuanced origins to developments toward complexity (Burkert 1992: 21; Ridgway 1994; Riva 2010; for the Orientalizing phenomena in general, Riva and Vella 2006). For the study of Phoenicians in mainland Italy, this approach has led to a reassessment of the roles they played in the development of Etruscan societies in the “Orientalizing” period in central Italy, and also the greater importance that Sardinia, with strong links with the Italian Tyrrhenian seaboard from the Late Bronze Age, played in developing Phoenician contact in the early and mid-first millennium bce (Botto 2002: 238–39, 2012: 53; Ridgway 2002).

  The problems of the provenance and context of Levantine material in Italy have been taken up recently by Richard Fletcher, who demonstrates the difficulties inherent in assigning items to places of manufac
ture and to ethnic groups (2007: 44; Lucy 2005). This highlights another recent theoretical approach, taken from material culture studies, which focuses on “object biography.” Objects in circulation can have complex histories and, although it is sometimes possible to research their origins, their “object biography” or intermediate trajectory is often impossible to trace. This is a quandary that affects much of the Phoenician material evidence from the Italian peninsula. A good example is that of the “ribbed bowls,” discussed below. Was a specific bowl directly imported, did it pass through different hands before reaching its final resting place, and more important, in what ways did its meanings change between manufacture and deposit (Kistler et al. 2015)? This is not to deny a Phoenician presence or agency, but it shows we need to exercise caution about vectors and ethnicities when examining material culture. Many of the 2,682 objects in Fletcher’s database, thought to originate in the Levant, may well originate in the western Phoenician colonies of North Africa, Sardinia, or Sicily, and we can never really know how they reached the Italian mainland (on Sicily, see chapter 35, this volume). Furthermore, amulets and athyrmata make up about 90 percent of the imported materials, while ceramic vessels only account for 3.2 percent; jugs, bowls, and cauldrons, which are often given prominence in the literature, account for only 1.3 percent of total Levantine material, showing that scholars are working on only a very limited and often heavily skewed database (Fletcher 2007: 44).

  Bearing these points in mind, this chapter examines the material evidence for Phoenicians in Italy during the eighth and seventh centuries bce, focusing on the relationships with the local Orientalizing communities, although it does not attempt to be exhaustive.

  It seems likely that Phoenicians first contacted the Italian peninsula in the early to mid-eighth century bce, following in the footsteps of Mycenaeans and making use of the network of trading links kept alive by Cypriots with whom they had close contact in Cyprus itself and in Crete. Evidence is mainly from the Tyrrhenian seaboard and increases to reach a peak in the Orientalizing period before dropping off quite rapidly after the middle of the seventh century bce, when Greek material becomes more prominent (Fletcher 2007: 104). A feature of this contact was adaptation to the needs and requirements of the local communities, especially in terms of luxury items either by trade or through Phoenician artisans living in Etrurian settlements. Early Phoenician traders were pioneers, seeking out possible partners around the southernmost part of Italy and along the western seaboard. Alongside Euboeans, with whom they had previous contact in Sardinia and the eastern Mediterranean, they exchanged small “trinkets” probably in return for trading favors (Botto 2008a: 127–29; Fletcher 2007: 105). Although it is generally agreed that Phoenicians first came to Italy in search of minerals, it is noticeable that much of the earliest evidence for their presence is from areas that are not renowned for their mineral wealth—namely Calabria and Campania. Rather, these fertile and densely populated areas suggest that the draw, at least in the earliest period of contact, was agricultural products and human resources. At the same time, we see contact with the developing local wealthy elites, which might bestow the latter with prestige and a greater international presence, suggesting that the earliest contact was also locally driven by the search for power and wealth.

  Southern Italy

  The earliest evidence of Levantine contact in this area comes from the Early Iron Age Sicel cemetery at Torre Galli, Calabria. Two scarabs from the ninth century bce (tombs 67 and 54) have been identified as Egyptian and Levantine, respectively (Pacciarelli 1999: 58), and the presence of ivory on sword handles from various graves has also been interpreted as evidence of trade with Phoenicians (Pacciarelli 1999: 59). Other Cypriot/Levantine materials from the necropolis include hemispherical cups from female tombs. Wheel-turned pottery and the precocious use of iron technology may also have been introduced through contact with eastern traders (Botto 2008a: 129–30). Other notable evidence of Phoenician contact from Calabria comes from a female tomb in the Oenotrian Macchiabate cemetery at Francavilla Marittima, where bronze bowls, glass paste pendants, scarabs, and an incised transport-amphora point to contact with the Near East in the mid-eighth century (Botto 2008a: 147; Martelli 1991: 1054). An incised bronze bowl, from the Strada tomb, and a similar one from the Poggio alla Guardia cemetery in Vetulonia, may both date to as early as the ninth century bce (Nijboer 2006) (figure 33.1[1–2]). As for the vectors, the material from Francavilla is associated with Corinthian pottery, while that from Torre Galli is not, suggesting there was direct local contact with Levantines before the arrival of Greek traders in the latter area. The later addition of a small handle to the bronze bowl (matching similar bowls from Etruria) has suggested a connection with Sardinia (Pace 2014: 132).

  Figure 33.1 (1) Bronze bowl from Francavilla Marittima; (2) Bronze bowl from Poggio alla Guardia, Vetulonia; (3) Ribbed bowl from Castel di Decima; (4) Ribbed bowl from Veio; (5) Tripod cup and Phoenician amphora from Castel di Decima; (6) Bronze jug from Rocca di Papa; (7) Gold laminate inscriptions from Pyrgi.

  Source: (1) Montuoro 1970/1971, fig. 8; (2) Maggiani 1973: 76, fig. 2; (3) Sciacca 2015: 106, fig. 15, no. 4; (4) Sciacca 2015: 104, fig 13, no. 3; (5) Zevi 1975; (6) Naso 2015: 578, fig 3; (7) CIE nos. 6314–6316.

  Farther north, the recently excavated site of Monte Vetrano (Boscariello-Salerno), 3 km from the Iron Age settlement of Pontecagnano, has produced a rich “princess” grave dated to the late eighth century bce, containing a Phoenician/Syrian “Bull Bowl,” a Sardinian bronze boat, and other indigenous materials, reflecting the status of the local wealthy elites, their control of the fertile hinterland, and desire to demonstrate power and wealth through material possessions (Cerchiai et al. 2012–2013).

  The variety of material from the larger settlement of nearby Etruscan Pontecagnano also demonstrates the wide-ranging contacts with other parts of Italy and the Mediterranean (Cuozzo 2013: 302, 307). The earliest contact seems to have been with Euboean traders in the first half of the eighth century bce. Toward the end of the century, Levantine material dominates, with large amounts of pottery, most still unpublished (Botto 2008b: 171; Fletcher 2007: 65). The site’s importance is confirmed by the appearance of ceremonial bronze objects from the Near East at the start of the Orientalizing period (horse frontlet, ribbed bowls, and oinochoai), which, as at Monte Vetrano, suggest exchanges and a desire for foreign relationships by the local elites (Botto 2008b: 170–72; Sciacca 2010: 53, 2015). As elsewhere, the evidence of contact with Phoenicians diminishes during the mid-seventh century bce probably due to the changes in political power in the Near East (Botto 2008b).

  Pontecagnano is also a good example of the role Sardinia played in these early contacts. A selection of Sardinian bronzes (“buttons,” pendants, and miniature baskets) have been found in several tombs from phase 1 (ninth century bce), which echo the evidence of the bronze Nuragic boat found at Monte Vetrano. Similar material also comes from northern Etruria, in areas where a Phoenician presence is also noted (e.g., the San Cerbone necropolis at Populonia) (Lo Schiavo 1994, 2002; Milletti 2012). This evidence points to the existence of local networks between Sardinia and the Etrurian populations along the Tyrrhenian coast, which the Phoenicians could tap into. Although Campania is not known for its metal deposits (Fletcher 2007: 62), it has two great advantages: it is a nodal point for maritime and terrestrial transport and it offers rich agricultural resources, both of which would have been important for Phoenician traders.

  Pithekoussai, a settlement on the island of Ischia, near modern Naples, is perhaps the most emblematic site in Italy for Greek–Phoenician and international interactions and, like no other from this period, demonstrates the fluidity and connectedness of the different Mediterranean communities (D’Agostino 2011). This first and farthest Euboean Greek settlement was cosmopolitan, perhaps chosen by traders as an easily defendable, neutral, meeting place which simultaneously allowed them to tap into the earlier trading routes along the western coast of Italy.
Founded ca. 770 bce, it was from the start a mixed community, about which, despite the predominance of Corinthian material, it can truly be said that “[s]o far no other location, in Greece or the colonies, has yielded objects from such a wide geographical range … [including] the Near East, naturally Greece, Carthage, South Italy, Apulia, Etruria, Sardinia and Spain” (Buchner and Ridgway 1993). Although by no means exhaustively excavated, the wealth of material from the San Montano cemetery and the Monte di Vico acropolis dump demonstrates its importance in the early first millennium bce. It also highlights the difficulties of assigning ethnicities to material remains. Contextual and material evidence have suggested that Phoenicians lived within the indigenous and Greek communities. The evidence includes typically Phoenician red-slip ware, Phoenician amphorae used for infant enchytrismos burials, faience and steatite scarabs, “lyre player” stone seals, and other exotica, as well as a Rhodian transport amphora with Aramaic graffiti and a funerary symbol (Docter 2000: 136–40; Ridgway 1994). Yet, without knowing the history of these objects, which may theoretically have been reused and reformulated, it is difficult to trace them back to a particular ethic group. Funerary evidence also suggests mixed rituals were performed in the same burials (D’Agostino 2011; Kelley 2012). What emerges is evidence of a dynamic and hybrid community of traders, settlers, and locals fruitfully making use of their contacts and interactions to develop trading opportunities not only along the Italian coast but also overseas.

  This does not mean that there was no Phoenician presence, and other indirect evidence is helpful here. For example, metalwork, an important Phoenician skill, was widely practiced. Although distant from the ore-rich areas of Etruria, close contact was maintained between the two areas, as shown by the presence of Elban ores at the main metalworking site of San Vico. It is also worth noting that Pithekoussai in many ways conforms to the traditional geography of Phoenician settlements, as described by Thucydides: offshore, easily defended, but near enough to the mainland to engage in trade. From this point of view, it is noticeable that the nearby mainland Greek settlement at Cumae does not have the same evidence for a Phoenician presence. Overall, the present state of evidence from Pithekoussai suggests a Phoenician presence but also highlights the complexities of identifying social identities from archaeological materials.