Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T07:29:14.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Western Phoenicians: Colonisation and Assimilation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

C. R. Whittaker
C. R. Whittaker
Affiliation:
Churchill College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has long been canonical to deny the Phoenicians a place in the ranks of the true colonisers of the Western Mediterranean. ‘The expansion of the Phoenicians’, says Moscati, ‘and later of the Carthaginians was predominantly commercial with no intent of conquest, requiring no stable settlements or mass emigration of the population.’ And although Moscati goes on to qualify this statement by admitting that, of course, some stable settlements did ensue, they were, he says, ‘in no way dependent on the phenomenon of expansion’. Thus by this thesis the Phoenicians may set up ‘comptoirs’, ‘relais’, ‘escales maritimes’, ‘établissements’, ‘Erkundungsfahrten’, ‘Factorei’, ‘teste di ponti’ and ‘emporia’, but never anything which might qualify as a colony in Maunier's terms, as emigration plus government.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 20 , 1974 , pp. 58 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 58 note 1 Moscati, S., The world of the Phoenicians (Eng. ed. 1968), pp. 101–2Google Scholar; cf. Pace, B.'s vivid description in Arte e civiltà della Sicilia antica I (1958), 231Google Scholar, quoted by Tusa, V. in L'espansione fenicia nel Mediterraneo = Studi Semitici xxxviii (1971), 175Google Scholar.

page 58 note 2 Tusa, , Archéologia xx (1968), 68Google Scholar; cf. Finley, M. I., The Ancient Greeks (rev. ed. 1971), p. 38Google Scholar.

page 58 note 3 Warmington, B., Carthage (Penguin, 1964), p. 27Google Scholar.

page 59 note 1 Harden, D., The Phoenicians (rev. ed. 1963), pp. 76–7Google Scholar; Picard, G., Carthage (Eng. ed. 1964), p. 31Google Scholar; Garbini, G., ‘I Fenici in Occidente’, Stud. Etrus. xxxiv (1966), 123Google Scholar.

page 59 note 2 Cintas, P., Manuel d'archéologie punique (1970), pp. 248 ff., esp. pp. 262–4Google Scholar; but against C.'s early date for the priest bronze of Cadiz, see Harden, op. cit. p. 313, putting the date in ‘the fifth century or earlier’.

page 59 note 3 Beloch, J., RhM xxxiv (1894), 111–32Google Scholar; Forrer, E., Festschrift F. Dornseiff (1953), pp. 85–93Google Scholar; Carpenter, Rhys, AJA lxii (1958), 38 ff.Google Scholar; rightly criticised by van Berchem, D., Syria xliv (1967), 73 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 59 note 4 Schulten, A., Tartessos (ed. 2, 1950), p. 48Google Scholar; convenient summaries of the Toscanos/Trayamar sites by Niemeyer, H. G. and Schubart, H. are in L'espansione fenicia (see p. 58 n. 1), pp. 150–60Google Scholar; to which now add Arch. Anz. (1972), 231–4Google Scholar.

page 60 note 1 Niemeyer, /Schubart, , Toscanos…1964 (Madrid. Forschung. Bd. 6, 1969), pp. 80, 83–4Google Scholar; Arch. Anz. (1972), 232–3Google Scholar; Catalán, M. Pellicer, Mad. Mitt. iv (1963), 29Google Scholar, although P. does not believe in direct imports from the east at Almuñecar.

page 60 note 2 Pellicer, loc. cit. pp. 9–39; y Bellido, A. García, AEA xliii (1970), 18Google Scholar, although the Osuna example, as well as those at Almuñecar, was, contra G., found in situ.

page 60 note 3 Leclant, J., ‘Relations entre l'Égypte et la Phénicie’ in Ward, W. A. (ed.), The role of the Phoenicians in the interaction of Mediterranean civilizations (1968), p. 13Google Scholar; Culican, W., ‘Almuñecar, Assur and Phoenician penetration of the Western Mediterranean’, Levant ii (1970), 28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 61 note 1 Bisi's case for a variety of dates is sound, but why must all be imported from Carthage? Bisi, A. M., ‘I pettini d'avorio di Cartagine’, Africa ii (1967/1968), 11–74Google Scholar; full bibliography in Blázquez, J. M., Tartessos y los orígenes (1968), pp. 149 ff.Google Scholar; Winter, I. J.'s paper, reported in AJA lxxv (1971), 217Google Scholar, claims to prove Phoenician manufacture in the late eighth to early seventh centuries, but no details are quoted.

page 61 note 2 Freijero, A. Blanco, AEA xxxix (1966), 23Google Scholar; Barnett, R. D., JHS xxiv (1934), 6Google Scholar; Boardman, J.JHS lxxxiii (1963), 200CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 61 note 3 Pellicer, loc. cit. (p. 60 n. 1), 20; García y Bellido, loc. cit. (p. 60 n. 2), 35.

page 61 note 4 García y Bellido, loc. cit. (p. 60 n. 2), 37; referring to tumulus H at Cruz del Negro, see Bonsor, G., Rev. Arch. xi (1899), 274 ff. and 321–3Google Scholar.

page 61 note 5 Garbini reads ‘Astarte of Iberia’, but this is less than certain; most refs. collected by Amadasi, M. G. G., Le iscrizioni fenice e puniche delle colonie in occidente = Studi Semitici xxviii (1967), 149–51Google Scholar; to which add Delacor, M., Mélanges Univ. St.-Joseph xlv (1969), 321–41Google Scholar; van den Branden, A., RSO xliv (1969), 103–8Google Scholar; Krahmalkov, H., OA xi (1972), 211Google Scholar.

page 62 note 1 Blanco, and Luzon, , ‘Pre-Roman silver mines at Río Tinto’, Antiquity xliii (1969), 124 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for the Ría de Huelva in the early marketing of metal, and especially distribution of ‘carp's tongue’ swords, see July, J. J., ‘Le marché du métal en Médit. occidentale, etc.’, Opusc. Rom. vi (1968), 53–5Google Scholar.

page 62 note 2 Cintas, P., Manuel, pp. 269 ffGoogle Scholar. contains almost every reference; supplemented by Rebuffat, , REA lxxiii (1971), 167Google Scholar.

page 62 note 3 Bellido, García y in L'espansione fenicia (p. 58 n. 1), 48–9Google Scholar.

page 62 note 4 Avienus, , Or. Mar. 85Google Scholar; cf. 266–70; Arrian, An. 2. 16. 4; Pliny, , NH 8. 156Google Scholar; Sallust, , Hist. 2. fr. 5 (Maurenbrecher)Google Scholar.

page 62 note 5 Strabo, 3. 2. 11, quotes Stesichorus; 3. 5. 5, for Onuba; Bosch-Gimpera, P., CRAI (1972), 469–70Google Scholar, claims on the slenderest of evidence to detect Phoenician ‘factories’ at a number of sites in Spain, one of which was in the Huelva region at Aljaraque; unfortunately I have not been able to see the discussion of dates or evidence of the latter site by Blázquez, J. M. and Luzon, J. M., Notas Arqu. Hisp. (1971), 304–31Google Scholar.

page 62 note 6 Pliny, , NH 4Google Scholar. 120 ita Punica lingua saepem significante.

page 63 note 1 del Villar, E. H. and Robinson, G. W., Los suelos de la península Luso-Ibérica (1937), pp. 208–11Google Scholar.

page 63 note 2 For all refs. to CIS I. 144 (the Nora stone), see Amadasi, op. cit. (p. 61 n. 5), 83 f.; the reference to a temple in SRDN seems to be certain; for other evidence, a catalogue has been made by Cecchini, S. M., I ritrovamenti fenici e punici in Sardegna = Studi Semitici xxxii (1969)Google Scholar; summaries by Barreca, F. in L'espansione fenicia (p. 58 n. 1), 11 and 17Google Scholar; Moscati, S., ‘La penetrazione fenicia e punica in Sardegna’, Mem. Acc. Lincei (cl. sc. mor.) ser. 8. xii (1966), 228–9Google Scholar, with refs.; Bosch-Gimpera, P., ‘Les Phéniciens, leurs prédécesseurs et les étapes de leur colonisation en Occident’, CRAI (1972), 464–8Google Scholar, presents the tenuous evidence which might support Phoenician contacts as early as the eleventh century.

page 63 note 3 Barreca, F. in L'espansione fenicia (p. 58 n. 1), 11Google Scholar; Lilliu, G., ‘Rapporti fra la civilità nuragica e la civiltà fenicio-punica in Sardegna’, Stud. Etrus. xviii (1944), 323 ff.Google Scholar, argued for early Phoenician influence upon nuraghic fortifications and bronze industry in the eighth century; but his ‘modus vivendi’ could have been no more than the result of adventurers followed by coastal settlements.

page 63 note 4 Detailed evidence on Monte Sirai is published in four vols. in Studi Semitici, nos. 11, 14, 20, 25 (1964–1967); summaries and additional information by Barreca, F. in L'espansione fenicia (p. 58 n. 1), 20Google Scholar; for the ‘keep’, see Barreca, in Monte Sirai III, esp. pp. 25–8Google Scholar.

page 64 note 1 Moscati, , Monte Sirai IV. 95Google Scholar; Barreca, , Archéologia xx (1968), 76–7Google Scholar; Moscati, , ‘Penetrazione’ (p. 63 n. 2), 216 and 241Google Scholar; Barreca, , Monte Sirai III. 136Google Scholar.

page 64 note 2 Monte Sirai III. 114–17Google Scholar, Moscati, , ‘Penetrazione’ (p. 63 n. 2), 221Google Scholar and Archéologia xx (1968), 58–63Google Scholar and The role of the Phoenicians (p. 60 n. 3), pp. 71–2.

page 64 note 3 For refs., see Tusa, V., in L'espansione fenicia (p. 58 n. 1), 175–89Google Scholar; the Spanish bronze ‘Reshef’ is noted by Blázquez, op. cit. (p. 61 n. 1), p. 34; the Sardinian example, above (p. 63 n. 3).

page 64 note 4 Tusa, V., in Ricerche puniche nel Mediterraneo centrale = Studi Semittci xxxvi (1970), 49Google Scholar; Tamburello, I., Not. Scav. xxiii (1969), 227–315Google Scholar, points out that the seventh century tombs so far discovered are probably not in the oldest part of the town.

page 65 note 1 Giustolisi, V., Kokalos xvi (1970), 164–5Google Scholar and Cronia Paropo Solunto (Sicilia archeologia che scompare, no. 1, 1972), esp. p. 34Google Scholar.

page 65 note 2 Carpenter, Rhys, AJA lxii (1958), 43Google Scholar; contra, Moscati, S. in many articles, esp. ‘La Sicilia nel mondo punico’, Kokalos xiv/xv (1968/1969), 295–307Google Scholar; for pottery comparisons, see Bisi, A. M., ‘L'irradiazione semitica in Sicilia’, Kokalos xiii (1967), esp. 42–3Google Scholar.

page 65 note 3 For political independence, see Merante, V., ‘Sui rapporti greco-punici nel Medit. occidentale nel VI sec. a.c.’, Kokalos xvi (1970), 101–2Google Scholar; Motyan trade with the East in Bisi, he. cit. (above, n. 2), 38–9; Almuñecar evidence in Pellicer, loc. cit. (p. 60 n. 1), 18–19; Rachgoun discussed by Vuillemot, G., Reconnaissances aux échelles puniques d'Oranie (1965), pp. 79 f.Google Scholar; cf. ibid. p. 326; West African trade in Bisi, A. M., ‘Aspetti e problemi della ceramica punica arcaica dipinta’, Stud. Magrebini ii (1968), 1–43Google Scholar, although B. points out the confused state of understanding still.

page 65 note 4 14. 48. 5.

page 65 note 5 Diod. 11. 86. 2 f.; 13. 54. 6; but see Pareti, , Sicilia Antica, p. 72Google Scholar and Kokalos v (1959), 159–73Google Scholar; for Pentathlus, see Diod. 5. 9. 2–3, Paus. 10. 11. 3, and the remarks of Finley, M. I., Ancient Sicily (1968), p. 37Google Scholar.

page 65 note 6 Diod. 13. 54. 2–3.

page 65 note 7 Coldstream, J. N., Not. Scav. xxiv (1970), 563–80Google Scholar summarises evidence and dates; cf. Whitaker, J. I. S., Motya (1921), pp. 48 f.Google Scholar, for his belief that more than funerals travelled along the causeway to Birgi; Mingazzini, P., Motya iv = Studi Semitici xxix (1968), 107–8Google Scholar argues that Motya included the Isola Grande too, and that the cothon was not used for ships.

page 66 note 1 Loc. cit. (p. 65 n. 1).

page 66 note 2 Cintas, , Manuel (p. 59 n. 2), pp. 315 f., 367 f.Google Scholar, criticised by Rebuffat, , REA lxxiii (1971), esp. 174–5Google Scholar.

page 66 note 3 Cintas, , Manuel (p. 59 n. 2), pp. 316 f., 374, 428, 438Google Scholar; Harden, , Phoenicians (p. 59 n. 1), p. 95Google Scholar; at Motya a sand level was put down whenever the tophet needed reorganisation, Ciasca, A., Motya VI = Studi Semitici xxxvii (1970), 71–2Google Scholar.

page 66 note 4 Diod. 5. 16; Carter, T. H., ‘Western Phoenicians at Lepcis Magna’, AJA lxix (1965), 143–200Google Scholar; Haynes, D. E. L., The antiquities of Tripolitania (1955), p. 107Google Scholar.

page 66 note 5 Bisi, A. M., Kokalos xiii (1967), 42Google Scholar; Cintas, P., Karthago v (1954), fig. 35Google Scholar; in general, see Cintas, , Manuel (p. 59 n. 2), pp. 249 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 67 note 1 Livy 34. 62.

page 67 note 2 17. 3. 16.

page 67 note 3 Villard, Fr., BAM iv (1960), 1–26Google Scholar; Pellicer, loc. cit. (p. 60 n. 1), 29; Niemeyer, /Schubart, , Toscanos…1964, pp. 83–4Google Scholar; Cintas, , Manuel (p. 59 n. 2), pp. 375–82Google Scholar.

page 68 note 1 Arist., Ps.-, de mirac. ausc. 136Google Scholar; Strabo, 2. 3. 4.

page 68 note 2 Vuillemot, op. cit. (p. 65 n. 3), esp. pp. 79 f., 122, 155 (‘des rapports assez lointains avec Carthage’), 279.

page 68 note 3 Vuillemot, op. cit., esp. pp. 45–6.

page 68 note 4 Herodot. 4. 196; Scylax, Ps., GGM (Müller), pp. 94, 112Google Scholar; Hecataeus, , Jacoby, , FGH I, p. 44, no. 339Google Scholar; cf. no. 347; for discussion, see Gsell, , HAAN II. 115 fGoogle Scholar.

page 68 note 5 V. himself recognises the similarity, but suggests settlements of Spanish–Phoenician garrisons (!), op. cit., p. 93; cf. pp. 128, 133, 150.

page 69 note 1 Op. cit., pp. 93 f., 155 (for pigs), 128, 133, 140 (for buildings which V. himself says resembled native ‘gourbis’, and which Cintas, in Carthage, Archéologia Viva (1968/1969), 61Google Scholar, significantly, though misleadingly, describes as ‘peasant Punic’).

page 69 note 2 Février, J. G., ‘Origines de l'habitat urbain en Maurétanie Césarienne’, Jour. Sav. (1967), 107–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 69 note 3 Vuillemot, op. cit., pp. 40, 53; cf. above, p. 65 n. 7, for Motya's cothon.

page 69 note 4 Tusa, V., Atti e mem. primo congr. internaz. micenologia (1968), III. 1197 ff.Google Scholar; Cintas, P., Éléments d"étude pour une protohistoire de la Tunisie (1961), esp. pp. 29 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 69 note 5 Cintas, , Manuel (p. 59 n. 2), pp. 386 ff.Google Scholar; Ciasca, A., Motya VI, pp. 71–2 (cf. p. 66 n. 3)Google Scholar, creates a prima facie case for not accepting the assumption of equal density, since at Motya older sections of the tophet were reorganised as new areas were opened up – making the figure, if anything, smaller; Rebuffat, , REA lxxiii (1971), 169Google Scholar, is severe on the ‘firstborn’ theory.

page 70 note 1 Cf. Vallet, G., La città e il suo territorio (Atti del 7. convegno di studi sulla Magna Graecia 1967 (1968)), pp. 109 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 70 note 2 Justin 18. 5. 10–11; cf. incolas loci…commercio gaudentes, 18. 5. 8.

page 70 note 3 Justin 18. 5–6; Sallust, , BJ 78Google Scholar. 4.

page 70 note 4 Desanges, J., ‘Rex Muxitanorum Hiarbas’, Philologus cxi (1967), 304–8Google Scholar; on Cyrene, see e.g. Romanelli, P., La città e il suo territorio (above, n. 1), 167 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 70 note 5 Cintas, , Carthage (p. 69 n. 1), 57Google Scholar; for red ochre, see Gsell, , HAAN IV. 442 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 70 note 6 Epinat, and Novak, , BAC (1900), 157Google Scholar (‘qui ne paraissent pas être franchement phéniciens’); Anziani, , MEFR xxxii (1912), 258Google Scholar; A.'s whole article (pp. 255–60) summarises earlier work; for Teboura, Cintas, P., BAC (1946/1949), 863–8Google Scholar.

page 71 note 1 E.g. Pliny, , NH 5Google Scholar. 24, Diod. 20. 55. 4.

page 71 note 2 G.C., and -Picard, Ch., Daily life in Carthage (Eng. ed., 1961), pp. 132 ff.Google Scholar, although the date of the figurines and references are not given.

page 71 note 3 Camps, G., Aux origines de la Berbérie: Monuments et rites funéraires protohistoriques (1962), pp. 414 ff.Google Scholar, is much more cautious than Cintas, P., Céramique punique (1950), p. 414Google Scholar.

page 71 note 4 Phoenician abstention, Herodian 5. 6. 9; Porph., de abstin. 1. 14; cf. Sil. Ital. 3. 23–7 (at Gades); Herodot. 4. 186 says some Eastern Libyans also abstained, but this was probably not so in the West to judge by Vuillemot's evidence (p. 69 n. 1).

page 71 note 5 Nieymeyer, /Schubart, , Toscanos…1964, pp. 105 ff., 115Google Scholar; and Mad. Mitt. ix (1968), 105, 112Google Scholar.

page 71 note 6 G. Lilliu, loc. cit. (p. 63 n. 3); Moscati, S., ‘Penetrazione’ (p. 63 n. 2), 218Google Scholar; and in The world of the Phoenicians (p. 58 n. 1), p. 214.

page 72 note 1 Bisi, A. M., Kokalos xiii (1967), 46–7Google Scholar.

page 72 note 2 Vallet, op. cit. (p. 70 n. 1), 117, 123; Herodot. 4. 159.

page 72 note 3 Camps, G., Aux origines de la Berbérie: Massinissa, ou les debuts de l'histoire = Libyca viii (1960), 46 ff.Google Scholar; G. and C. Ch.-Picard, op. cit. (p. 71 n. 2), p. 88.

page 73 note 1 Niemeyer, /Schubart, , Arch. Anz. (1972), 234Google Scholar; Toscanos…1964, pp. 81, 105 ff.; Catalán, M. Pellicer, AEA xlii (1949), 9Google Scholar.

page 73 note 2 Barreca, F., Monte Sirai III. 25Google Scholar; Moscati, S., ‘Penetrazione’ (p. 63 n. 2), 247Google Scholar; Barreca, , in L'espansione fenicia (p. 58 n. 1), 20–1Google Scholar.

page 73 note 3 Cintas, , Manuel (p. 59 n. 2), pp. 434–5Google Scholar.

page 73 note 4 Jacoby, , FGH I, p. 44, nos. 338, 340Google Scholar.

page 74 note 1 Lepore, E., La clttà e il suo territorlo (p. 70 n. 1), 29 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 74 note 2 Cohen, R. and Middleton, J. (ed.), From tribe to nation In Africa (1970), p. 6Google Scholar; cf. Humphreys, S., Par. Pass. xxii (1967), 385–6Google Scholar.

page 74 note 3 18. 6. 2.

page 74 note 4 J. Goody, ‘Marriage policy and incorporation in N. Ghana’, in Cohen/Middleton, op. cit. (above, n. 2), pp. 114 ff., esp. p. 139; Maunier, R., The sociology of colonies (Eng. ed., 1939), pp. 120 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 74 note 5 Maunier, op. cit. (above, n. 4), pp. 8–10.

page 75 note 1 Durkheim, E., The division of labor in society (4th Eng. ed., 1960), p. 131Google Scholar; Eisenstadt, S. N., The absorption of immigrants (1954), p. 228Google Scholar; cf. Coldstream, , BICS xvi (1969), 1–8Google Scholar, for examples of Phoenician entrepreneurs at Rhodes also in the late eighth century.

page 75 note 2 Goody, loc. cit. (p. 74 n. 4), p. 132.

page 75 note 3 Eisenstadt, op. cit. (above, n. 1), p. 235.

page 75 note 4 Eisenstadt, op. cit. (above, n. 1), pp. 229–30, makes this observation about rural immigrants to Eastern France.

page 75 note 5 Cohen/Middleton, op. cit. (p. 74 n. 2), pp. 15–16.

page 76 note 1 For Sardinian pressures, see the signs of destruction at Monte Sirai in the later sixth century, Barreca, F. in L'espansione fenicia (p. 58 n. 1), 23Google Scholar; in Spain, Toscanos' last period is in the earlier part of the sixth century, Niemeyer, /Schubart, in L'espansione fenicia, 156Google Scholar; and Gsell, , HAAN I. 416, 443 fGoogle Scholar. gives references to obscure stories about Iberian attacks.

page 76 note 2 Maunier, op. cit. (p. 74 n. 4), p. 107.

page 76 note 3 Picard, C., Stud. Magreb. ii (1968), 77 ff.Google Scholar; Tusa, V., in Ricerche puniche (p. 64 n. 4), 44Google Scholar; Bisi, A. M., Le stele puniche = Studi Semitici xxvii (1967), esp. 55 (earliest date), 193–4Google Scholar; cf. Garbini, G., Stud. Etrus. xxxiv (1967), 127 ffGoogle Scholar. for a different theory of anthropoid iconography deriving directly from Phoenicia; for the Libyan aniconic tradition, see Gsell, , HAAN VI. 161Google Scholar.

page 76 note 4 A male Astarte may appear in Hispania 14, Garbini, G., RSO lxii (1967), 6–8Google Scholar.

page 77 note 1 G. and C. Ch.-Picard, op. cit. (p. 71 n. 2), p. 148, with refs.; cf. Cintas, P., in Carthage (p. 69 n. 1), 4 ff.Google Scholar, for the variety and date of ‘Tanit’ symbols; Bisi, , Le stele puniche (p. 76 n. 3), 193, 208 ff.Google Scholar, gives the Levantine origins of the solar disc and baetylic triangle; the Azib N'Ikkis figures are discussed and illustrated by Simoneon, A., BAM vii (1967), 91–134Google Scholar.

page 77 note 2 Camps, , Monuments (p. 71 n. 3), pp. 534–5Google Scholar; Leglay, M., Saturne africain: Histoire (1966), pp. 321 ff.Google Scholar; for eating of dogs, see Justin 19. 1; Pliny, , NH 5. 1. 15Google Scholar; cf. Vuillemot, op. cit. (p. 65 n. 3), P. 303, for dog bones with other animal bones on the Oranian sites.

page 77 note 3 Op. cit. (p. 75 n. 1), p. 109.

page 77 note 4 Harden, op. cit. (p. 59 n. 1), pp. 53–4, 76.

page 77 note 5 E.g. Saunders, N. K., Levant iv (1972), 141Google Scholar, describes the Phoenicians as a ‘monopolistic commercial power’; Carpenter, Rhys, in Carthage (p. 69 n. 1), 34Google Scholar, imagines a fantastic ‘Punic triangle’ from Carthage–Sicily–Sardinia to blockade ‘Greek commercial competition’.

page 77 note 6 Homer, Od. 14. 285, 15. 416 ff.; Herodot. 4. 152, 1. 163.

page 77 note 7 Leclant, J., in The role of the Phoenicians (p. 60 n. 3), pp. 9–11Google Scholar.

page 78 note 1 Morel, J.-P., Par. Pass. xxv (1970), 287Google Scholar.

page 78 note 2 Cintas, P., Contributions à l'étude de l'expansion carthaginoise au Maroc (1954), p. 10Google Scholar; Vuillemot's Oranian sites are all within 80 km of each other and make nonsense of the idea of evenly spaced staging posts; op. cit. (p. 65 n. 3), pp. 47–50.

page 78 note 3 Savory, H. N., Spain and Portugal (1968), pp. 214 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Blázquez, op. cit. (p. 61 n. 1), p. 207, for the Celtic name of Arganthonios.

page 78 note 4 See, e.g., Moscati, , The world of the Phoenicians (p. 58 n. 1), p. 19Google Scholar; Culican, W., Levant ii (1970), 31Google Scholar; contra Garbini, G., Stud. Etrusc. xxxiv (1966), 116 ff.Google Scholar, who believes the decline of Phoenician cities was in the eighth century and somehow assisted Greek expansion (see esp. p. 118) – neither of which is a sustainable proposition.

page 78 note 5 Moscati, , OA vii (1968), 193Google Scholar; Garbini, , Stud. Etrusc. xxxiv (1966), 127 ff.Google Scholar; contra Bisi, A. M., Kokalos xiii (1967), 54–7Google Scholar, in spite of B.'s own excellent analysis of the differences between Carthaginian and Motyan pottery.

page 78 note 6 Morel, J.-P., Par. Pass. xxi (1966), 380–1Google Scholar.

page 79 note 1 Vallet, , in La città e il suo territorio (p. 70 n. 1), 109 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 79 note 2 Recent work on Phocean colonies and emporia summarised by Morel, J.-P., Par. Pass. xxi (1966), 378–420Google Scholar; xxv (1970), 285–89; there appears to be a conflict between Vallet, /Villard, , Par. Pass. xxi (1966), 181–4Google Scholar who suggest a period of gestation from ‘comptoir’ to apoikia, and Benoit, /Jehasse, , Par. Pass. xxi (1966), 394Google Scholar, who justify the view expressed here. Lepore describes Velia as less concerned with a fertile chora than with a harbour surrounded by fortified outposts, the consequence of the Phocean political structure of a trading oligarchy and small demos; see the summary and references by di Vita-Everard, G., Par. Pass. xliii (1970), 290–6Google Scholar.

page 79 note 3 I am extremely grateful to Professor E. Lepore for reading this article and making a number of suggestions for its improvement. It does not follow, of course, that he approves of all I have said. He has drawn my attention to the book by Tarradell, M., Economía de la colonización fenicia (1968)Google Scholar, which unfortunately I was not able to get hold of. As far as I can judge from secondhand references, Tarradell agrees with me about the primacy of Gades in the region from Mogador to the east of Almeria, but he believes in a network of Carthaginian sub-colonies from Sicily to Villaricos in Spain, for which I know of no evidence during the period discussed in this paper.