The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean

by Carolina Lopez-Ruiz

  Roppa, A. 2015. “La ceramica fenicia da nuraghe S’Urachi e dal villaggio di Su Padrigheddu (San Vero Milis, Sardegna): aspetti cronologici e funzionali.” Onoba: Revista de Arqueología y Antigüedad 3: 129–46.

  Sanciu, A. 2010. “Fenici lungo la costa occidentale sarda. Nuove acquisizioni.” Journal of Fasti, http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2010-174.pdf.

  Santocchini Gerg, S. 2014. “‘Mercato sardo’ e ‘mercato fenicio’: materiali etruschi e interazioni culturali nella Sardegna arcaica.” In Materiali e contesti nell’età del Ferro sarda. (Rivista di studi fenici 41.1–2), edited by P. van Dommelen and A. Roppa, 75–86. Rome: Fabrizio Serra editore.

  Stiglitz, A., E. Díes Cusí, D. Ramis, A. Roppa, and P. van Dommelen. 2015. “Intorno al nuraghe: notizie preliminari sul progetto S’Urachi (San Vero Milis, OR).” Quaderni della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Cagliari e Oristano 26: 191–218.

  Tronchetti, C. 2014. “Cultural Interaction in Iron Age Sardinia.” In The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean, edited by A. B. Knapp and P. van Dommelen, 266–85. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  Tronchetti, C., I. Chessa, L. Cappai, L. I. Manfredi, V. Santoni, and C. Sorrentino. 1992. Lo scavo di via Brenta a Cagliari. I livelli fenicio-punici e romani. Supplemento ai Quaderni della Soprintendenza Archeologica per le Province di Cagliari e Oristano 9. Cagliari: Soprintendenza Archeologica per le province di Cagliari e Oristano.

  Tronchetti, C., and P. van Dommelen 2005. “Entangled Objects and Hybrid Practices: Colonial Contacts and Elite Connections at Monte Prama, Sardinia.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 18, no. 2: 183–208.

  Usai, A. 2006. “Osservazioni sul popolamento e sulle forme di organizzazione comunitaria nella Sardegna nuragica.” In Studi di protostoria in onore di Renato Peroni, 557–66. Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio.

  Van Dommelen, P. 2005. “Urban Foundations? Colonial Settlement and Urbanization in the Western Mediterranean.” In Mediterranean Urbanization 800–600 BC, edited by R. Osborne and B. Cunliffe, 143–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press and the British Academy.

  Van Dommelen, P., and A. Roppa 2014. Materiali e contesti dell’età del ferro sarda. Rivista di studi fenici 41.1–2. Rome: Fabrizio Serra editore.

  Webster, G. S. 2015. The Archaeology of Nuragic Sardinia. London: Equinox.

  Chapter 35

  Sicily

  Salvatore de Vincenzo

  Thucydides (6.2.6) reports that the Phoenicians were present all over Sicily, where they occupied islands and hills near the sea and traded with the Sicels. After the arrival of the Greeks, the Phoenicians conceded large parts of the island to them, pulling back toward Motya, Soluntum, and Panormus, where they lived in the immediate vicinity and in alliance with the Elymians (map 35.1).

  Map 35.1 Map of Sicily. Circles mark Greek settlements, squares Phoenician settlements, and triangles indigenous settlements.

  Source: De Vincenzo 2013a: 9, fig. 2.

  The arrival of the Sicels may have taken place 300 years before Greek colonization—following Thucydides’s writings—hence, at the end of the second millennium bce. Accordingly, the Phoenicians would have entered the stage between the eleventh and the eighth centuries bce. As a matter of fact, first contacts were made within the scope of a wider exchange between indigenous and Aegean-Levantine groups. A tangible Phoenician presence in Sicily, as expressed by pottery, however, is attested only during the course of the eighth century bce. Historical records on Sicily go back to the sixth century bce. At this time various attempts were made by the Greek colonies, especially by Selinus, a border polis to the Phoenician territories, to gain influence and to extend their territorial power in Sicily.

  The episode of the Carthaginian “Dux” Malchus between 545 and 535 bce is particularly important for determining the beginning of Carthage’s influence on Sicily (Geus 1994: 196–98). According to Iustinus (Justin), Malchus fought long and successfully in Sicily and afterward in Sardinia, where he was finally defeated (Just. 18.7.1–2). This event has received much attention by researchers, but opinions differ as to the reasons for the Punic campaign in Sicily. The discussion can be summarized along two opposite hypotheses: the campaign is interpreted either as (1) an attack on the Phoenician colonies of the island, or (2) as an act of supporting the Phoenicians of western Sicily. According to the latter hypothesis, Carthage had the goal of preventing the expansion of the Greek polities of Selinus (Selinunte) and Akragas (Lat. (Agrigentum)/Gr. Akragas) in order to keep them away from the Tyrrhenian Sea. The support of Carthage in the rise of Pythagoras, the tyrant of Selinus, speaks in favor of this assumption.

  The hypothesis of a Carthaginian attack on the Phoenician cities relies mainly on destruction layers, which can be demonstrated especially in Motya. The fortifications of Motya show traces of a destruction that took place around the middle of the sixth century bce (Ciasca 1995). At the same time, however, an expansion of the city is noticeable. Test pits in the tophet have shown a reconstruction and an enlargement of this area, as well as a corresponding distribution of stelae in the course of the sixth century (Ciasca 1992). In the same period, a new type of terracotta is attested—namely female protomes and male masks, which were previously common in North Africa. According to the supporters of the conquest hypothesis, all these elements point to a closer connection with Carthage and the beginning of its territorial power in western Sicily (Bondì 1980; Tusa 1985).

  Phoenician Phase

  Scant archaeological evidence exists for a Phoenician presence on Sicily at the end of the eighth century bce. The earliest phases of the Phoenician cities of Solunt (Greek Solous) and Palermo (mentioned by Thucydides) are still almost unknown. Solunt was located by the latest excavations on the hill Solanto. Here a necropolis has been brought to light, but like that in Palermo, it cannot be dated prior to the beginning of the sixth century (Greco 2000). The city itself can be localized, but the internal organization of the new foundation remains obscure. Phoenician Solunt was destroyed in 397 bce by Dionysios I, together with other cities of the Punic sphere in the west, and rebuilt on the Catalfano mountain at a yet unknown time in the fourth century bce (Diod. Sic. 14.48.4–5, 14.78.7).

  Palermo, in turn, has an uninterrupted settlement record. The Phoenician settlement was laid out on a limestone platform, which extended into the sea, and was limited to the west by a broad and fertile plain. Two rivers, the Papirethos and the Kemonia, which are north and south of the platform, border the peninsula. Despite the presumed foundation of the city at the end of the eighth century bce, the oldest finds are from the end of the seventh century. The oldest phase of the city corresponds to the Paleapolis (“Old Town”) on the westernmost part of the platform. However, only a necropolis but no settlement contexts were discovered during emergency excavations. Artifacts from an area beneath the modern Palazzo Vescovile, which are mixed with Hellenistic layers, could also hint to the earliest phases. The said area delineates according to some scholars a boundary between the Paleapolis and the Neapolis (“New Town”) of ancient Palermo, as two districts are reported by the written sources. Between the end of the sixth and the beginning of the fifth centuries bce a fundamental reconstruction of the city took place. The necropolis expanded farther westward and eastward, leaving a space of 200 m between itself and the city walls. Furthermore, a road between the city and the necropolis was laid out. Despite insufficient stratigraphic observations, the construction technique of some wall sections also suggests the city wall was constructed at the end of the sixth century bce. Regarding the oldest phase of the city, test pits in the easternmost area of the Neapolis showed that a general leveling of the Archaic and Classical building structures took place from the fourth century bce onward, as evidenced by finds dated to the seventh to fifth centuries (Spatafora 2009: 223–24).

  This earliest archaeological evidence relating to the Phoenician presence in Sicily, however, is associated with the city of Motya (figure 35.1) (Nigro 2004, 2011, 2015).
The city is a particularly good representation of the development, organization, and identity of Phoenician cities of West Sicily.

  Figure 35.1 Plan of Motya.

  Source: Famà 2009: 272, fig. 1b.

  Motya is located on the island of San Pantaleo. Diodorus Siculus reports that the island was a peninsula in Punic times (Diod. Sic. 14, 50; Polyaenus 5, 2, 61). Only a small part of the town has been excavated, comprising the Necropolis, the tophet, the sanctuary “Cappidazzu,” and the North Gate. Other important excavated sectors of the town are the southern fortification, the Kothon, and the temple at the South Gate.

  Taking into consideration the pottery, the chronological sequence within these contexts cannot be dated before the end of the eighth century bce. The oldest strata derive from the three sanctuaries of the city: the Cappiddazzu sanctuary, the tophet, and the sanctuary at the South Gate. The earliest phase of the Cappiddazzu sanctuary, which was excavated during the 1970s, includes only a few caves filled with ashes and animal bones, possibly votives. In this phase, the sacred space is interpreted as an open-air sanctuary. Only in a later period, from the middle of the seventh century bce onward, a small shrine appeared. According to recent research, some of the presumed ritual pits are seen in connection with the emergence of the first building. However, in this early phase of the sanctuary much remains in the dark (Nigro 2009).

  The same is true of the first phase of the South Gate sanctuary, discovered and carefully excavated by Lorenzo Nigro. Parts of a marl clay floor covered by a thick ash layer are connected with the early days of this cult. The ground plan of the first building is unknown. After a destruction in the middle of the sixth century bce, which produced the ash layer, a second construction phase followed. The new building had four rooms, which clearly resembled Levantine patterns. The building’s decoration shows proto-Aeolic capitals.

  Starting with the second phase, a canal from the sanctuary led into the Kothon (perhaps after the name of the Greek vase, kothon), which is now no longer interpreted as the inner harbor of the city but, rather, as a sacred pond. Inside the basin, a water source has been found, which is connected with a well in the temple. Astronomical observations have shown that the sanctuary was oriented toward the Orion constellation. The monumentalization of the sanctuary is most likely to have occurred only after the middle of the sixth century bce.

  Other structures considered to be Phoenician are found in the tophet and its temple (Bernardini 2005). During its first phase, the sanctuary consisted of a temenos, wherein a small sacellum, resembling an aedicula, was erected. Prior to the sacellum existed the urnfield. In the western part of the temenos, there is a broad rectangular space of unknown function, and also a well, which was probably used in a ritual context. The very few urns of the first phase of the tophet are dated to the turn of the eighth century bce and through the seventh century bce. Only seven urns have been studied by means of natural sciences. Four of them contained undetermined bones (whether human or animal), two contained various unidentified animal bones, while another urn included mussel remains. (For the tophet in the Punic world and its interpretation, see chapter 21, this volume.)

  Almost all urns of the first phase (layer 7) are small, handmade pots and small plates which are poorly preserved and often difficult to detect. Among them, however, in the central sector of the urnfield, excavators also found large, painted wheel-thrown vases of local production. Some of them show decoration in a Phoenician tradition—for example, small amphorae with a red-slip ornamentation and black lines. Since the urns were not accompanied by Greek or Sicel pottery, the dating of artifacts is difficult. The forms of the urns correspond to those from the necropolis. The tophet must, therefore, be considered contemporaneous with the necropolis.

  During the second phase of the tophet (layer 6), the local handmade pottery continues, admittedly in more developed forms, while Phoenician and Greek pottery are absent. The finds are dated to the seventh century bce. From this phase onward, we find jugs with a cylindrical neck and one-handed spherical pots (cooking pots), which likewise occur in the necropolis. The earliest graves of the necropolis also produced indigenous ash urns, which were made at the end of the eighth century bce. In the course of the seventh century bce, new forms occur—namely trefoil-mouth jugs with and mushroom-shaped jugs, which are typically Phoenician forms and hence commonly regarded as signs of a Phoenician identity within the burials (Vecchio 2013) (for Phoenician pottery, see chapter 22, this volume).

  The data from the residential areas of Motya, which have been excavated in different parts of the city, are less abundant (Famà 2002). Their first phase is dated between the end of the eighth century bce and the beginning of the seventh century bce, based primarily on findings of the foundation layers of the sixth century bce.

  In the second half of the sixth century bce, the settlement underwent extensive development evident throughout the city—the tophet was restructured by an expansion to the west and the characteristic stelae are attested increasingly from this point onward. The fortification of the city was renewed for this period (second phase). This chronology is based on the sequence of the graves, some of which were built during the sixth century bce. The first monumentalization of the Cappiddazzu sanctuary, as well as that of the temple at the Southern Gate, took place in the same phase. This monumental phase of Motya has led to the reconstruction of a similar, preexisting city plan at the turn of the eighth to the seventh centuries bce, despite the obvious lack of evidence and only on the basis of pottery outside a stratified context. The few testimonies from the first phase, especially pottery sherds, do not permit a comprehensive picture of the development and features of a Phoenician Motya in this earlier period.

  In this regard we should mention the large quantity of indigenous pottery found during the numerous excavations on the peninsula. The artifacts might actually indicate that indigenous populations not only traded with Phoenician newcomers in Motya but also that the two ethnic groups inhabited the site contemporaneously. The majority of artifacts in the necropolis, as well as in the Cappiddazzu sanctuary (first phase), consist of local pottery forms. Furthermore, all the urns of the first phases of the tophet are local products, while many archaeologists hypothesize that the central rituals associated with Phoenician identity took place there. The wide distribution of native pottery, accompanied by Phoenician goods, as revealed in the necropolis, has long been neglected, but this fact alone can be interpreted as a manifestation of a mixed culture in the city. Moreover, with the exception of pottery, Phoenician findings in Motya are scarce, which could hint of a continuous infiltration of Phoenicians in an already existing local society instead of a new foundation by Phoenicians (Bernardini 2005; Blasetti Fantauzzi and De Vincenzo 2012).

  To sum up, considerations about the urban organization of Motya before the remodeling in the second half of the sixth century bce must remain tenuous (Famà 2009). In the second half of the sixth century bce, the essential changes in Motya are framed within the expansion of Carthage in the western Mediterranean, and most likely the reorganization of the city has to be seen in this light.

  Punic Phase

  Given the available evidence, the modes of the Punic expansion in Sicily remain obscure. The first treaty between Rome and Carthage in 509 bce seems to provide some insight. The text states that Carthage controlled an undefined region of Sicily (Polyb. 3.22.10). In this area, the Romans could not do anything without the permission of Carthage. This treaty thus shows that Carthage, at least since the end of the sixth century bce, had political control over western Sicily. The relevant passage in Polybius’s text does not reveal, however, whether the Punic eparchia encompassed only the region of the old Phoenician settlements or whether Punic control extended over a larger territory.

  The ash layers in the South Gate temple of Motya and within the first construction phase of the city walls have been attributed without further assessment to a Carthaginian destruction of the Phoenician cities of western Sicily. B
ut there are no compelling reasons to bring this into connection with the campaign of Malchus. The destruction of Motya appears, however, to be part of the armed conflicts of the sixth century bce, when different populations, such as Greeks, Etruscans, older Phoenician settlers, and Carthaginians competed for hegemony in the central and western Mediterranean. It is, therefore, possible that the said destruction of Motya took place in the context of the constant wars between Segesta and Selinus (Selinunte). But one must not disregard the Greek interest in the territory around Motya. An attempted attack by Pentathlos occurred near Lylibaeum. In addition, Diodorus Siculus reports that the Spartan Dorieus founded a colony called Heraclea in Drepanon at the foot of Mount Eryx around 510 bce (Diod. Sic. 4.23.3). This episode shows how easily the Greeks could penetrate the Elymian–Phoenician territory (De Vido 1997). Therefore, a possible destruction of Motya in the context of disputes between the Phoenician–Elymian Alliance and the Greeks is conceivable, and in fact the Malchus campaign may have been carried out with the aim of protecting the Phoenician cities against Greek incursions.

  In the early fifth century bce, Carthage attempted to extend its territorial power on the island. This enterprise, which originated as a consequence of the confrontations with the influential Greek poleis on Sicily, led to repeated conflicts, culminating in the Battle of Himera in 480 bce. After its defeat by Syracuse and Agrigentum (Akragas), Carthage refrained from further military operations in Sicily during the fifth century bce (Pugliese Carratelli 1985: 43–44). In 410 bce, however, Segesta was threatened by Selinus. This time, a campaign was organized under the leadership of Hannibal. The war between Syracuse and Carthage began in 409 bce and ended ca. 405 bce, resulting in a Punic victory. It has become clear that the imperial policy of the North African mother city toward this island changed over the course of military operations, after Selinus and Himera were destroyed and Agrigentum and Gela came under Punic control. A concrete organization of the Punic eparchia of Sicily, however, cannot be assumed until after the state treaty of 366 bce, with the delay due to Carthage’s internal problems and an additional war against Syracuse.