Despite the treaty of 405 bce, Dionysius I attacked and destroyed various settlements in western Sicily in 397, as also supported by archaeological data. The war that followed ended with the treaty of 374 bce. In this Greek–Punic treaty, the boundary of Carthaginian territory in Sicily was defined for the first time with the river Halykos as border. As a result, the Greek city of Selinus and its chora were subsumed into Carthaginian territory, as were parts of the chora of Agrigentum. In a tradition stemming from the seventeenth-century ad geographer Philip Cluverius, the ancient Halykos River is commonly identified with the river now known as Platani, flowing past Herakleia Minoa. However, a critical analysis of the literary sources and the archaeological data suggest that the river Halykos is much more likely the current Salso, which flows to the east of Agrigentum. It was not until the treaty of 339 bce, following the defeat of the Carthaginians, that the border of the eparchia was pushed back to the river Lykos/Platani, which does flow near to Herakleia Minoa, as the subsequent treaties make clear. The two river names, therefore—Halykos/Salso and Lykos/Platani—refer to two different borders, reflecting two different political situations at different times. Thus, Carthaginian territory would have expanded once and then contracted at another time. The loss of part of the Punic territory would have been quite a logical consequence of Timoleon’s defeat of the Carthaginians in 339 bce.
After the First Punic War and the Roman conquest of western Sicily, Carthage surrendered its possessions on the island. In 241 bce, Rome sent out a quaestor to control western Sicily, from a base in Lilybaeum. The founding of the vetus provincia Sicilia followed in 227 bce, at the same time that the province of Sardinia et Corsica was also founded, whereupon Gaius Flaminius was dispatched as praetor to Lilybaeum.
Cities
Regarding the urban structure of the cities of the Punic eparchia of Sicily, there is a common tendency by archaeologists to recognize a Semitic matrix, therefore assigning a Punic dating to numerous contexts of Roman times (Wilson 2005). The interventions of Roman times, particularly within the framework of the monumentalization of public areas of the cities in the late period of the Roman Republic, have indeed greatly affected the preceding Phoenician and Punic levels of these settlements, except of course for Motya (De Vincenzo 2013a: 409–39). Nevertheless, the orthogonal urban organization with plateai und stenopoi of the cities of western Sicily, particularly of Palermo, Lilybaeum, and Solunt, was thought to have been implemented already in Punic times. These were considered to follow a Punic matrix, based solely on a calculation of measurement units that belonged to the Punic urbanistic system. However, a reconsideration of the dimensions of the insulae showed that the urban structure of these cities also corresponds to the Roman foot. The use of the Punic cubit as a marker for a Punic matrix of the urban organization in western Sicily is, therefore, forced.
The case of Solunt exemplifies this problem (De Vincenzo 2013b; Portale 2006). The new city, which was founded after the destruction caused by Dionysius I of Syracuse in 397 bce, is located on a plateau on the summit of the Monte Catalfano and shows remarkable differences in elevation, as an area of 18 hectares spans from a height of 235 m to 170 m. In spite of its location on a steep slope, the city presents a regular urban system with orthogonal road axes, which delimit blocks arranged per strigas. Excavations have unearthed three plateiai. The middle one, the Via dell’ Agora, is the main axis and connects the urban area with the plain below. The public area consists of a square of 50 by 20 m, limited to the east by a stoa. North of the stoa a large public cistern is discernible. West of the cistern, on an elevated terrace, lie a theatre, the bouleuterion, and the gymnasium. The sacred buildings of the city are located on the terrace west of the theatre.
The average dimensions of the insulae are approximate 41.50–42 by 81.50–82 m, which has been equated to 80 by 160 Punic cubits. Similarly, it is interesting to observe that the dimensions of the insulae would be 280 by 140 feet if based on the Roman foot. Also interesting is the relation between length and width of the insulae, arranged per strigas, with a ratio of 1:2, as the insulae are twice as long as wide. Elongated insulae are also to be found to a lesser extent in the urban design of Tindari and Alesa, whose city planning has recently been dated to Roman times. Since all public and private buildings can be traced back to the last quarter of the second century bce, it is more likely that the urban planning of Solunt was carried out within the same period, thereby distorting the appearance of the previous Punic center completely. Another element that could support the different urban organization in Roman and Punic times can be seen in the construction of public buildings, like the theatre or the gymnasium, above older Punic private buildings (De Vincenzo 2013b: 771–73).
The most significant evidence for the layout of the urban design of Punic settlements in Sicily seems to emerge from Motya, because it was destroyed in the early fourth century bce and frequented only sporadically in the subsequent phases. The city planning, as far as it can be reconstructed, was not based on an orthogonal grid. Instead, some buildings were aligned to the island’s perimeter, while the buildings in the center followed a different orientation. The organization of Motya, therefore, resembles that of Kerkouane in North Africa (Tunisia) or of Monte Sirai in Sardinia. These sites show particularly interesting features, as they are among the few Punic settlements that do not have construction phases dated to the late Roman Republic and have been extensively investigated. The urban design of Punic settlements in Sicily should have had a similar organization as those sites, with buildings aligned to the settlements’ perimeter and a different orientation in the city center. In this regard, similarities with the Punic settlement on the acropolis of Selinus (Selinunte) becomes considerably important.
The Punic resettlement of Selinus could have taken place in the historical context of the treaty of 339 bce after Timoleon’s victory over the Carthaginians. Within this treaty, the boundary of the Punic eparchy of Sicily was pushed back from the river Halykos/Salso to the river Lykos/Platani. The city then developed its own Punic identity (De Vincenzo 2014). The private buildings of the new Punic foundation were not arranged on the axes of an orthogonal pattern but instead followed the orientation of various sections of the fortification, which dictated the orientation of the city blocks. This could further hint to a nonorthogonal urbanistic organization of Punic settlements in Sicily, which would be characterized by city blocks aligned along the fortification wall and a different, more regular, organization in the central sectors.
The case of Selinus is furthermore important for the definition of the organization of the public area of a Punic city, which we propose to define according to the relationship between the temple and the commercial area. In the area immediately north and east of Temple C at Selinus, a series of twelve aligned rooms were interpreted as open workshops within a portico. This area most likely had a public function, and should be interpreted as a sort of an agora; its commercial character is further attested by the discovery of seals (Helas 2011: 125–30). However, the finding of these objects does not exclude noncommercial use of the building, but could hint at a sacred place already used in Punic times. The presence of seals in a Semitic temple is not unusual because temples functioned also as archives. Support in favor of this hypothesis comes from an extremely widespread type of seal, which shows Heracles/Melqart with a bull, a club, and a dolphin. This iconography appears on coins minted at Selinus as well. The workshops and the area in front of Temple C, in any case, represent the only attested commercial area in a city center (certainly a public area) in the entire Punic eparchy in Sicily. Given the scarcity of data concerning the design of public places in Punic settlements within the entire Mediterranean, the importance of this context is not limited to Sicily.
Fortifications
With regard to the fortification walls of the cities of western Sicily, there is evidence indicating that the earliest phases of the Phoenician and Punic period of Motya originate from the mid-sixth century bce. Th
e fortifications in question in this phase were mudbrick walls resting on stone sockets, in combination with square towers. For the subsequent phase, which can be dated to the end of the sixth century bce and corresponds with the Punic reorganization on the island, there is evidence of reinforcement, again with mudbricks, of the wall sections between the towers. Another reorganization took place in the fifth century bce. At that time, mudbricks were no longer used in the walls, which were instead composed of rubble and hewn stone blocks.
The final phase is documented only by a series of construction measures to strengthen the walls in view of the attack on the island’s Greek poleis, for which Carthage was preparing at the close of the fifth century bce. In this context, one should also mention the construction of the fortification walls in Palermo and Carthage itself, documented in the latter by the construction of the wall in the Magon Quarter (Palermo punica 1998: 87–89). As the literary sources also indicate, the circular fortification of Lilybaeum was the best known and strongest defensive structure among those of the Punic centers of Sicily. Only a very small section of it remains. This fortification is a structure composed of large stone blocks of impressive thickness, further strengthened by a moat. Unfortunately, no other data relating to the Punic phase of the other centers of the eparchia are available. The subsequent Hellenization of the military technology and of the building technique can be discerned in many areas, including western Sicily (e.g., Lilybaeum, Eryx, and Monte Adranone in Sicily, but also Carthage). A significant example of this process is the construction of a double curtain wall (proteichisma) in Lilybaeum, like in Greek Selinus (on the Punic and Greek phases of Selinous, see earlier in chapter). Another example of Hellenization of Punic walls is the opus quadratum of the second phase of the city walls of Eryx (De Vincenzo 2016).
Temples and Cults
It is difficult to decide between the different interpretive models regarding the sacred buildings from Punic Sicily. Recent works suggest the Pfeilertempel was probably the prototype for the Phoenician temple in the Levant and also for its western versions (De Vincenzo 2013a: 217). This has been shown in particular by investigations regarding the temple of the Kothon, and the first phase of the “Cappidazzu” Temple in Motya. Concerning, however, the temple typology of Punic Sicily, in all likelihood the “temple with three cellae” should not be recognized as a proper prototype. The supposed building type of three cellae was discerned in Motya (“Cappiddazzu”), Selinus (Temples A and O), Monte Adranone, Monte Iato, and Soluntum. It is the result of old assumptions projected onto the data, and could not be supported by stratigraphic investigation, though the identification of this type has been repeated uncritically. Hence, while the Pfeilertemple was the prototype for Phoenician Sicily, in Punic Sicily we should recognize as a prototype the temple without peristasis—that is, the type known as oikos or in antis, generally considered of Aegean origin and characterized by an elongated alignment and an entrance on the short side.
There seem to be various examples of this type of temple in Sicily after an attentive reinterpretation of the various contexts, as illustrated especially by the example of Punic Selinus. This is the case, for example, for Temple A or the Temple of Zeus Meilichios, a distyle temple in antis on a low podium built in Punic times. The Temple of Malophoros and the Triolo Nord A also show an elongated alignment and were partly rearranged after the city’s conquest by the Carthaginians. The continuity of cult practices and votive forms in the Malophoros sanctuary in Punic times could be explained with the introduction of the Demeter cult in Carthage in 396 bce, as attested in Diodorus of Sicily’s account (Diod. Sic. 14.77.5) (White 1967). From this point on, the cult is also a Carthaginian cult, but retains Greek elements—for example, with regard to the priesthood (Diod. Sic. 14.77.5). Unlike the Malophoros sanctuary, the cult place of Meilichios underwent a radical reconstruction after 409 bce. It is no longer an open-air courtyard with an altar where votives and stelae were offered to the deity but, rather, a place of worship with a new naiskos. The stelae occur from that time on as twin stelae, most likely connected to a change in the cult (e.g., Antonetti and de Vido 2006; Hinz 1998: 144–54).
Relating to the Phoenician and Punic cults, data on western Sicily are very rare and mainly epigraphic, with inscriptions that refer to the cult of Baal Hammon in the tophet of Motya, in Palermo, and Lilybaeum; to Astarte and Tanit at Motya, Palermo, and Erice; and to Shadrapha in Palermo in the Regina Cave. The largest number of references are recorded in dedications to Baal Hammon, particularly from the tophets of Motya and Lilybaeum. Baal Hammon seems to be particularly attached to tophets in Sicily (especially Motya), as he is in Carthage. The inscriptions date between the end of the sixth and the fifth centuries bce.
A cult of Baal Hammon was also hypothesized for Selinus, in the temenos of Zeus Meilichios, where depositions of pots, terracottas, and the remains of burnt sacrifices were found. These depositions were marked by stelae found near the altar located to the west of the sacellum. The approximately one hundred stelae have been found grouped in four different types (Famà and Tusa 2000). In view of the proximity of the sacred area of Zeus Meilichios to that of Demeter Malophoros and the presence of twin stelae, it is more likely that these stelae evoke Hades and Kore rather than Tanit and Baal Hammon. The fact that the Punic gods do not possess anthropomorphic features, while anthropomorphic representations of Hades and Kore are amply documented, speaks in favor of this idea. Punic usage affected the sacred area of Malophoros, where a clear continuity of worship seems to be documented.
While inscriptions found in Sicily are frequently connected to Baal, they make no reference to Melqart, the other major figure in the Phoenician pantheon. But the deity appears in some anthroponyms of Motya and in the coin legend RŠMLQRT since the second half of the fourth century bce.
The cult of Astarte (Ashtart) seems to be also documented in Motya, where a pottery fragment from the Cappiddazzu shows the dedication LRBT, which has to be read as “to the lady.” According to Paolo Xella, this may, however, refer to Astarte, as well as to Tanit (Ribichini and Xella 1994: 50–51). At Motya, Astarte was recognized in a limestone statuette of the fifth or fourth century bce, depicting a female deity on a throne, the sides of which are two crouching lions, while on the base of the throne there is a fragmentary inscription which was reconstructed as LRB(T). Another statue of an enthroned Astarte, significantly larger and made of limestone, was found at Soluntum. A local manifestation of Astarte was worshiped in Erice (ancient Eryx), probably an indigenous deity equated with the Phoenician-Punic Astarte. This cult, also connected to the practice of sacred prostitution, acquired enormous importance in Sicily, going far beyond the purely religious aspect, as it played a role of particular importance in politics (Lietz 2012).
Necropoleis
Evidence from necropoleis is fundamental when defining the cultural identity of Phoenician and Carthaginian people of western Sicily (Di Stefano 2006; Tamburello 1986). The archaeological data from Motya show that the majority of the Phoenician graves are cremation burials (Tusa 1978). From the mid-sixth century bce, though, one begins to find inhumations in chamber tombs or sarcophagi. This burial ritual is typical until the end of the fourth century bce. At end of the fourth century bce, cremation burials, and specifically secondary cremation burials, become predominant once again (there is evidence of the same situation in Carthage). After this, from the middle of the third century bce, primary cremation burials in rock tombs become the rule, as evidenced by the graves of Lilybaeum and Solunt.
The increase in the frequency of cremation burials in Sicily starting at end of the fourth century bce is not exceptional; such an increase has also been detected in many contexts of the Punic and Greek Mediterranean region. The necropoleis of Tarentum are of particular significance in this respect. There, cremation burial becomes prevalent in the mid-fourth century bce and continued to be widely used until the end of the Roman Republic. From that point on, inhumation burials again represents the most freque
nt form of burial. With regard to grave goods, one can say that in the sixth and fifth centuries bce, Greek and Siceliot pottery was used in addition to Phoenician and Punic pottery. In the two subsequent centuries, though, local products that can be described as “Punified” account for the greatest proportion. These finds reveal close ties with the North African coast.
A clear break can be observed after the Roman conquest of western Sicily, setting in at the second half of the third century bce. Inhumation burials again became widespread, and specifically burials in pits in the ground, as evidenced in Lilybaeum (Bechtold 1999). This burial form remained in use well into the imperial age, but there is no evidence for cremation burials after the end of the late Republican period.
Houses
The case of Selinus is also important for illustrating Punic residential culture in Sicily. The known state of the buildings of the Punic residential area in the Acropolis of Selinus is the result of a repopulation of the urban center in the last quarter of the fourth century bce. In this area, houses were partly built over the Greek houses and some of them occupied the areas between the temples C, A, and O. Many elements of these dwellings are clearly in the Punic tradition, especially the construction technique in opus africanum, which differs significantly from the methods employed in the Greek colonization period. A continuous feature of these houses are the courtyards; from the shape of these courtyards, in turn, we can discern four different house types, which seem to follow eastern Mediterranean traditions.
The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean Page 79
