Evidence for Etruscan-Punic Relations

Author(s): Jean MacIntosh Turfa

Source: American Journal of Archaeology , Summer, 1977, Vol. 81, No. 3 (Summer,
1977), pp. 368-374
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/503012

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/503012?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to American Journal of Archaeology

This content downloaded from

129.199.59.249 on Sat, 17 Jun 2023 23:47:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 368 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY [AJA 81
seems to indicate
based on local styles and on well-stratified the existence
sites. The of written documents
evidence seems to require shortening
(graphai) the Cassibile
concerning trade and military agreements.
The descriptionthe
period by about fifty years and lengthening by Herodotus
Pan- (1.166-167) of the
talica South period by an equal amount of time.
battle over Alalia If probably records the
(ca. 535 B.C.)
this argument is found acceptable,operation
the last major
of such un-
an association between Carthage and
certainty in the Sicilian Iron Age the chronology
Etruscan city-statemayof Caere. A few other ancient
have been resolved: literary sources may attest to similar alliances, but have
lacunae or confusions because their authors were
Pantalica II: 1050/1000 - 950/9oo B.C. somewhat ignorant of Etruscan and Carthaginian his-
Pantalica III: 950/900 - 730 B.C. tory. The preserved works of antiquity record no
HUBERT L. ALLEN spokesmen for either of the two cultures so alien to
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS their Greek and Roman rivals for the western Medi-
terranean.1 The archaeological record of trade goods in
EVIDENCE FOR sites of the two cultures is already much more ex-
ETRUSCAN-PUNIC RELATIONS tensive than the historical references, and in the next
decade it should grow rapidly.
The menace of Etruscan and Carthaginian "piracy" One result of my research, completed in 1974,2 is
to Western Greek and Roman shipping is frequently a list of trade goods indicating Etruscan-Carthaginian
cited by historians, but evidenced only in a few ancient
contact and possibly cooperation. This includes only
battles. Phoenician and Punic trade goodsobjects reachedverified in publications, or identified through
most markets of the Mediterranean, and especially personal examination. It is almost certain that other
those of the West (even Greek Massilia, traditional items from archaeological contexts are attributable
rival of Carthage), while Etruscan pottery and to bronzes
Etruscan or Punic manufacture, but their origins
occur in many Greek and native sites in the West,
cannot (yet) be proven. Many of the artifacts that
Ionia, and the Aegean. Evidence from archaeological characterize Etruscan or Carthaginian culture never
contexts can now be analyzed for indications of in
occur thecontexts outside their homelands (e.g., terra-
actual associations between Etruscan states and the cotta female protomes associated with the cult of the
Carthaginian empire. Punic goddess Tanit). Most characteristic of Etruscan
Aristotle (Pol. 3-5.10-11) is the only ancient authortrade goods are bucchero pottery and bronze utensils
to cite a deliberate, official alliance between Etruscans
and sculpture. Punic goods are usually athyrmata
and the Punic or Carthaginian empire. His reference (luxury items of oriental design), or amphorae of

1 Historical sources in chronological order of the events The main references on Etruscan-Carthaginian relations
they describe: have been: F. von Bissing, "Karthago und seine griechischen
I. Arist. Pol. 3.5.10-11: Etruscan-Carthaginian alliance und italienischen Beziehungen," StEtr 7 (1933) 83-134; Et.
for trade; Boucher-Colozier, "Les Etrusques et Carthage," MEFR 65
2. Diod. Sic. 5.19-20; Pseudo-Arist. 84.3-5: Etruscan- (1953) 63-98; N.N. Zalessky, "Etruski i Karfagen," Drevnii
Punic rivalry over a colony site in the Ocean; Mir 1962 (Moscow) 520-26; M. Pallottino, "Les relations
3. Hdt. 1.166-167: battle over Alalia (ca. 535 B.C.); entre les Etrusques et Carthage du VIIIe au IlIe si&cle av.
4. Polyb. 3.22.4-13: first Rome-Carthage treaty (ca. J.-Chr.," Cahiers de Tunisie II no. 44 (1963) 23-29; J. Ferron,
580 B.C.); "Les relations de Carthage avec l'Etrurie," Latomus 25 (1966)
5. Diod. Sic. 11.51.2; Pind. Pyth. 1.71-75; Hieron dedi- 689-709; A.I. Kharsekin, "Problema etrussko-karfagenskikh
cations, Olympia (on these Etruscan helmets, see L.H. otnoshenii v svete novikh epigraficheskikh dannikh," Vestnik
Jeffery, Local Scripts of Archaic Greece [Oxford 1961] Drevnii Istorii I (1969) 107.
2 My research was supported by a Whiting Foundation Fel-
275, no. 7, and BCH 84 [1960o] 721 and fig. 12):
Cumae, defeat of Etruscans and Carthaginians (ca. lowship for completion of the Ph.D. dissertation ("Etruscan-
474 B.C.); Punic Relations") for Bryn Mawr College, and I must grate-
6. Thuc. 6.103.2: Etruscans with Athenian expedition in fully acknowledge its administration by Bryn Mawr, the help
Sicily (ca. 415 B.C.); of the faculty, especially my advisor, Professor Kyle M. Phil-
lips, of the Department of Classical and Near Eastern Archae-
7. Diod. Sic. 19.1o6.2: Etruscan mercenaries with Hamil-
ology, and of my colleagues at Bryn Mawr. I am likewise
car's expedition against Agathocles (ca. 311 B.C.);
indebted to the directors and staff of museums at the various
8. Diod. Sic. 20.11.1, etc.: Etruscan mercenaries aid sites studied and mentioned here, and to various scholars kind
Agathocles (310o-298 B.C.);
enough to correspond with me. I wish here to request cor-
9. Elogia Tarquiniensia and other inscriptions (see M.
respondence on this or related topics, in the hope that I may
Pallottino, StEtr 21 [1950-1951] 147-71; Heurgon,
offer more detailed information than is presented here, or
CRAI 1950, 212-15; Torelli, StEtr 36 [1968] 467-70);
receive some of the data or interpretations which I have surely
Etruscan involvement in Sicily, possibly also in second
Punic War;
overlooked. The photographs presented here were obtained
through the kindness of M. Abdelmagid Ennabli, Conservateur
io. Livy, passim: Etruscan attitudes during the second
Punic War. du Site et du Mus&e de Carthage (figs. 1-14), and Dofia
Concepcion Blanco-Minguez, Directora, Museo Arqueologico
See also Pfiffig, Historia 15 (1966) 193-210o. Provincial, Cadiz (figs. 15-17).

This content downloaded from

129.199.59.249 on Sat, 17 Jun 2023 23:47:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1977] ARCHAEOLOGICAL NOTES 369
unusual shape. The following isanthropomorphic
objects are some a list of all obj
vases pro-
duced in Etruria,
identified to date that illustrate e.g., the "Bruschi Group"
Etruscan-Carthagin
trade or the influence of that commerce.3
from Tarquinia. See Beazley, Etruscan Vase-
Painting (1947) i88-90.
PUNIC OR PUNIC-INFLUENCED OBJECTS IN ETRUSCAN SIT
ETRUSCAN OR ETRUSCAN-RELATED MATERIAL IN
i. Double-wick lamp and dish; Populonia, Tumu-
lo dei Carri. Florence,
PUNIC SITES
Museo Archeologico.
Minto, Populonia (I943) I27-28.
From Carthage, now in the Mus6e Nationa
2. Faience vases (3), theriomorphic
thage and the Mus6eand anthropo-
du Bardo, Tunis. F
morphic; Cerveteri, Camera degli Alari, and
publication, see Boucher-Colozier, MEFR
Tomb 53. Villa Giulia nos.
63-98; 21172,
Cahiers 21136,
de Byrsa 44843.
3 (i953) I1-38. Al
Punic manufacture possible but
cept no. 92 are not
from proven.
tombs around Cart
3. The Pyrgi Plaques, 3date
1-86 gold plaques,
to the one with
Archaic period.
Punic inscription, 2 with Etruscan inscriptions;
Pyrgi (Caere), sanctuary 1-2. Bucchero
of Uni. skyphoi.
Now in Villa
Giulia. The Punic inscription 3-29. Bucchero and amphorae
the Etruscan("Nikosth
paraphrase record a dedication shape; figs.
to Itheand 2).
goddess
Uni-Astarte by Thefarie 30-35.Velianas,
Bucchero jugs (fig. 3).over
ruler
Kisry-Caere. The dating 36-40. Bucchero
scheme oinochoai
and (fig. 4).
address to
the goddess are Phoenico-Punic 41-54. Bucchero incups (figs. 5 and
attitude. No 9).
other finds at the sanctuary 55-65. Bucchero
havekantharoi (usually t
any connec-
tion with Punic votaries or commerce. See popular Etruscan import in any M
ArchCl 16 (1964) 49-117 and extensive bib- terranean site; figs. 6-8).
liography for succeeding years. 66. Bucchero chalice.
4. Punic coins of the 4th-3rd centuries B.C.; 67a,b. Etrusco-Corinthian piriform aryballo
Punta della Vipera (Caere). See Torelli, StEtr (dubious).
68-73. Etrusco-Corinthian alabastra.
35 (1967) 337.
5. Relief-lid sarcophagus of Laris Partiunus; Par- 74-82. Etrusco-Corinthian globular aryballoi
tiunu Family tomb, Tarquinia. Tarquinia, Mu- (figs. io and ii). After Cahiers de Byrsa
seo Nazionale no. 9871. (See infra nos. 93 3 (I953). N.B. Three other painted ary-
a and b.) Lid has Punic male figure in relief; balloi, listed as Etrusco-Corinthian (nos.
sarcophagus found with Etruscan inscription 124, I25, 127) are instead real Corin-
(CIE 1,1,3, no. 5422) and painting. Herbig, thian fabric, although the painting is
Die jiingeretruskischen Steinsarkophage (1952) shabby (fig. 12). See, however, Colonna,
no. 121, p. 63; pl. 21,a. StEtr 29 (1961) 70, no. 16, and 73,
6. Terra-cotta grotesque mask; Spina necropolis, no. 23.
Tomb i 188. Ferrara, Museo Nazionale no. 83-84. Etrusco-Corinthian cups (fig. 13).
1915. Mostra dell'Etruria Padana e della Cittca 85-86a,b. Etrusco-Corinthian plates.
di Spina I (1961) 339, no. io84; pl. Io6. 87-89. "Genucilia" plates (fig. 14).
7. Punic coin; Poggio del Giro, Sesto Fiorentino. 90oa,b. Bronze "Schnabelkanne" type oinochoai.
See Rilli, Gli Etruschi a Sesto Fiorentino 91. Bronze female figurine, from disturbed
(1964) 35-37; pl. 15a. context in a well. See Colozier, MEFR
* Possibly relating to the influence of Punic 64 (I952) 59-65-
3Not included in this list are several objects which have Roman period who may have been Etruscan ethnics. See
otherwise been cited as relevant to Etruscan-Punic commerce: J. Heurgon, CRAI 1969, 526-51.
i) The pottery deposit in the Tanit sanctuary, Carthage, 5) A terra-cotta reclining figure sarcophagus and imitation
contains vases decorated in Proto-Corinthian style, which Corinthian pottery from Motya cannot now be located and
are not Etruscan in origin and seem similar in fabric to are of doubtful provenance. (See Whitaker, Motya [1921]
locally produced Punic vases. See also Cintas, Ceramique 238-39, and Colozier, MEFR 65 [19531 74.)
punique (1950) 490-504f1. 6) A bronze siren figurine from Menorca is probably Greek,
2) A "cippus" now in the tophet at Carthage, identified as not Etruscan (as are many other Spanish bronze finds). See
Etruscan (Pallottino, ArchCl 16 [19641 14), has scars on Garcia y Bellido, Ars Hispaniae I (1947) 187.
its upper portion as though a wider top section had been Many other examples of pottery and bronzes have been
broken off. It must originally have been quite different in variously identified as Etruscan but cannot be so termed with
shape. certainty. The Punic trade probably supplied oriental com-
3) Terra-cotta "banquetters" figurines, from Tunisia (Colo- modities such as incense, ivory, ostrich eggs, Phoenician glass,
zier, MEFR 65 [1953] 67) are most probably Roman in and the like to Etruria, but since these were not necessarily
date, not Etruscan. manufactured in Carthage, they are not listed in this article.
4) Etruscan inscriptions from Bir Mcherga, Tunisia, are See, however, Torelli, StEtr 33 (1965) 329-65, esp. 358, n. 65;
probably boundary stones erected by immigrants in the
also Mostra dell'Etruria Padana (1961) I, no. 535, pp.- 52-53.

This content downloaded from

129.199.59.249 on Sat, 17 Jun 2023 23:47:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
370 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY [AJA 81

FIG. I. Decorated bucchero amphora,

FIG. 2. Light gray bucchero
Carthage 15.205 amphora

FIG. 3. Bucchero pitcher,

Carthage 894.I3.11

FIG. 5. Bucchero kylix

FIG. 4. Bucchero oinochoe

FIG. 6. Bucchero kantharos

FIc. 9. Buccheroid cup

FIG. 7. Bucchero kantharos FIG. 8. Bucchero kantharos

This content downloaded from

129.199.59.249 on Sat, 17 Jun 2023 23:47:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1977] ARCHAEOLOGICAL NOTES 371
cover); Lilybaion inscription:
92. Ivory plaque with Etruscan necropolis. Mozia,
"mipuinelkarthazie . . Whitaker
. elsph . 750.
Museum no. . .Seena."
Gabrici,
See Pallottino, Testimonia Linguae
NSc 1941, 285-87-
Etruscae (1968) no. 724. No longer
available. Sardinia
93a,b. Relief-lid sarcophagi; Bordj Djedid io8. Bucchero sottile sherds; Monte Sirai
chamber tombs of third century B.C. excavations. See Barrecca, Monte Sirai
Mus6e National de Carthage and the IV (1967) 15, no. 6.
Louvre. See J. Carcopino, MemPontAcc 109. Bucchero sottile pitcher; tomb at Bithia.
I,2 (1924) 109-17. Cagliari, Museo Archeologico (display).

Utica From past excavations of the archaic tombs at Tharros,

in the Museo Archeologico, Cagliari, and the Anti-
94. Bucchero pottery (multiple). See BAC
quarium Arborense, Oristano (Tharros). See M.
19o6, p. cxcvii.
Gras, MEFR 86 (1974) 79-139, catalogue only.
Gunugu (Algeria) IIO-I20. Bucchero oinochoai.
121-143. Bucchero kantharoi with conical feet.
95. Bronze disc with Etruscan inscription (Oristano no. 87 with low, ring base;
"gunigun . . . larthal." Dubious and Cagliari no. 8373 not cited by Gras,
unavailable for study. See Schulten, AA MEFR 86.)
1907, 174-75. 144. Bucchero chalice, Cagliari.
Malta 145-148. Bucchero amphorae ("Nikosthenic"
shape), Oristano.
96. Ivory plaque with low-relief boar; from 149. Bucchero olpe, Oristano.
a well at Ras-ir-Rahab, site of a fifth- 150. Bucchero kylix, Oristano.
century B.C. Punic watch-house or forti- 151. Etrusco-Corinthian alabastron, Oristano.
fied farm. Rabat, Malta, Roman Villa 152-I58. Etrusco-Corinthian aryballoi, Oristano.
Museum. Identification and provenance 159-166. Etrusco-Corinthian cups, Oristano, and
supplied by Mr. William Culican (Uni- British Museum (nos. I856.12.23.38,
versity of Melbourne); soon to be pub- 1856.12.23.46, and 1856.12.23.47.) The
lished by him. last two possibly attributable to the "Pit-
tore delle Macchie Bianche," c.f. Colon-
Nos. 97-00oo are from the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. na, StEtr 29 (1967) 68. Publication of
97. "Genucilia" plate. Ashmolean no. British Museum cups: Bailey, BSA 57
1878.146. (1962) 35-36.
98. Bronze "cut-out" hippocamp, decoration
from a focolare; Ashmolean no. Cadiz
1889.815. See Brown, The Etruscan LionFinds from archaic tombs excavated between 1914 and
(1960) 94, n. i. 1935; all now in the Museo Arqueologico Provincial,
99. Bronze "flesh-hook" (harpago); Ben Cadiz (whose numbers are cited).
Gemmi tombs. Ashmolean no. 1884.65.
ioo. Bronze portable censer; Ben Gemmi 167. Bucchero jug, no. 248 (fig. i5)-
168. Bucchero chalice, no. 302 (fig. 16).
tombs. Ashmolean no. 1882.20o2.
I69a,b. Bucchero pyxis and lid (similar to nos.
53-54, found in Carthage (fig. 17).
Motya (Sicily)
01-0io2. Bucchero sherds (multiple) from tophet It is almost certain that other objects relating to
and habitation areas. Mozia volumes, Etruscan-Carthaginian commerce have been found, but
passim; BSR 26 (1958) 14. are virtually lost due to problems of identification
103. Bucchero fragments (multiple) from (especially if they were only sherds) or lack of prove-
cemetery, area of pyres. Mozia VII nance information. The present record still offers an
(0972) 16-17. unusual picture of commerce. The geographical dis-
104. Bucchero kantharos; Birgi (cemetery tribution of some objects is less "conservative" than
for Motya). Trapani, Museo Nazionale might be expected: some of the earliest bucchero ex-
Pepoli, no. 1190. ports (nos. 167-69) are found in Cadiz, the Phoenician-
105. Bucchero kantharos; Birgi necropolis. Punic city west of the Straits of Gibraltar. No Etrus-
Mozia, Whitaker Museum no. 3100oo. can goods occur in any Punic contexts west of the
io6. Bucchero cup; Motya. Whitaker Mu- Cadiz area (e.g., Atlantic Mogador). The crude terra-
seum no. 630. cotta mask from a tomb at Spina attributed to the
107. Terra-cotta head (Chiusine type urn- third century B.C. (no. 6) has a close parallel from

This content downloaded from

129.199.59.249 on Sat, 17 Jun 2023 23:47:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
372 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY [AJA 81

FIG. Iarybal-
FIG. IO. Etrusco-Corinthian FIG. 12.
I. Etrusco-Corinthian Genuine Corinthian ar
arybal-
los,
los, Carthage 15.125 (c.f.
los, Carthage 15.122 Carthage
no. 12) 15.124, previous
identified as Etruscan

FIG. 13. Etrusco-Corinthian cup, FIG. 14. "Genucilia" plate, Carthage

Carthage 15.I17-similar to cups 05.24. Other examples found in
from Tharros. (Disregard "lid") Carthage and Malta

FIG. 16. Bucchero chalice, Cadiz 30

FIG. 15. Bucchero jug, Cadiz 248

FIG. 17. Buccheroid dishes, Cadiz nos. 3

This content downloaded from
129.199.59.249 on Sat, 17 Jun 2023 23:47:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1977] ARCHAEOLOGICAL NOTES 373
Punic-influenced Iberia (Jerez)4
foundation and
of Carthage around seems
the end of the ninth to h
been copied from some Punic
century B.C.6 and itsor Ibero-Punic
destruction by Rome in the tr
item. Its manufacture insecondthe
century Adriatic
B.C. The autonomy region
of the Etruscan may
dicate Punic interest there
states had just
ended alsoprior to the wars w
by that time.
Rome. The Populonia lamp, dating probably to the sev-
The presence of a sarcophagus (no. 5) representing enth century B.C., is the earliest Punic (as opposed
a Punic priest or suppliant in a third-century Etruscan to Phoenician) object in Etruria; Phoenician-manufac-
family tomb is another unusual phenomenon. Twotured and -transported trinkets, metal bowls, etc. are
other sarcophagi (nos. 93a,b) made according to the earlier. The gold plaques dedicated at Pyrgi in the
same design (unmistakably Phoenician-Punic) by the beginning of the fifth century clearly indicate Punic
same artist (all three in Greek island marble) were involvement with Caere, and the Tarquinia sarcopha-
found in situ in tombs in Carthage. The most likely gus and Spina mask suggest some Punic contact for
explanation, or at least the simplest, is that the artistthe fourth-third centuries B.C.
responsible for them travelled to Tarquinia and there The earliest Etruscan exports are found in both
rendered one more example of a familiar pattern. Carthage (and Utica) and Cadiz, and are the bucchero
The gold-foil plaques from the Uni sanctuary at vessels dating ca. 6oo B.C. Motya, Sicily, also has
Pyrgi pose many problems aside from those of trade archaic Etruscan pottery, as do Tharros and other
relations, but for this study, they do indicate what was Sardinian sites. Only Carthage and Malta, its nearest
probably a common feature of Punic mercantile set- non-African colony, received manufactured goods in
tlements on foreign soil-involvement in the local the fifth through third centuries B.C.
cults. Ancient authors (e.g., Plautus) mock the re- The first treaty between Carthage and Rome, re-
ligious fanaticism of the Phoenician and Carthaginian corded by Polybius,7 very likely reflects the type of
populace, and beneath this mockery is the usual grain agreement negotiated by the Punic empire and any
of truth. Spanish, Cypriot, and Greek sanctuaries (so alien states. In this case, the treaty clearly favors Car-
far) have produced inscriptional evidence of Phoeni- thaginian mercantile interests (a Punic monopoly of
cian or Punic participation and syncretism in the local Sardinia, Sicily, North Africa, and points west), for
dedications. Rome must have had little to offer, or to lose, around
The majority of Etruscan exports occurs in Carthage 509/508 B.C. Etruscan goods in Cadiz, however, are
itself, with other sites involved being Malta, Motya not surprising, since that city, like Utica, had been
in Sicily, Tharros, and other Punic sites in Sardinia. founded long before Carthage and was probably still
While many Etruscan bucchero vessels are found in autonomous. Some Etruscan cities must have been
Greek sites and some in Phoenician Cyprus, there are sending trade goods throughout the Mediterranean
as yet no finds of Etruscan goods in Phoenicia, the by the sixth century B.C. Etruscan trading with Motya
Punic homeland. Materials from the Carthaginian may have been possible for the same reasons as for
trade to Etruria occur in coastal cities only (except Cadiz, or because, like Sardinia, there was no ques-
for a single coin perhaps dropped in the Punic wars): tion of its markets being closed to Etruscans, who had
Populonia, Tarquinia, Cerveteri, and Spina. The Etrus- always dealt with the natives there. Each Etruscan
can pottery imported to Punic sites was probably mercantile state would have independently negotiated
manufactured in coastal, southern Etruria, in the its own treaty, and each was probably important
Etrusco-Corinthian workshops at Tarquinia, the buc- enough economically to merit better considerations
chero centers of Orvieto, Vulci, or Caere, and thethan Rome.
Caeretan factory for "Genucilia" ware. The bronzes Why should there have been treaties at all, if the
are not from northern cities, but may have been only items of commerce were luxury goods, pottery,
produced in Vulci,5 with the exception of the focolare and small manufactured bronzes? What would have
attachment (no. 98), which illustrates a type probably induced Punic merchants in Sardinia and Carthage
made in the region of Chiusi. to purchase very shabby Etrusco-Corinthian pottery at
Historical facts do accommodate the distribution of the same time that they were receiving genuine Corin-
trade items. All discussion of the Etruscan and Car- thian? I suggest that all of the items catalogued here
thaginian cultures is conveniently limited by the are only part of the extra cargoes of ships carrying
4See R. Bloch, "R'marques sur un masque ibero-puniquethage," BAC 1963-1964, I07ff.
d6couvert h Spina," Arte antica e moderna 17 (1962) 54- 7 Polybius 3.22.4-13. The dating of the treaty depends upon
57, fig. IIa; and C.G. Picard, Karthago 13 (1967) 38-39. the absolute date for the establishment of the Roman Re-
50On possible origins and wide European distribution, seepublic and is controversial. It seems that the acknowledged
B. Bouloumie, "Les oinocho6s en bronze du type Schnabel-antiquity of the first treaty and the primitive state of Car-
kanne en France et en Belgique," Gallia 31 (1973) 1-17. thaginian geography described in it really ought to denote
6 The foundation dates for Carthage have long been dis- the 510/509/508 B.C. traditional date. Among many discus-
puted, but exact chronology is not so necessary in this case. sions, some of the more recent are A. Toynbee, Hannibal's
The most recent thorough survey is that of Cintas, Manuel de Legacy I (1961) 519-34, esp. 523; R.E. Mitchell, Historia 20
l'archdologie punique I (1970) 3-242, 382ff. See also Cintas,(1971) 633-55; and Et. Colozier, MEFR 65 (1953) 92.
"La cdramique de Motye et la date de la fondation de Car-

This content downloaded from

129.199.59.249 on Sat, 17 Jun 2023 23:47:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 374 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY [AJA 81
much more necessary commoditiestributed
of foodstuffs,
to modern
or, politics, and they a
more likely, metals, which have not been treaties
honored preservedmilitarily only when t
in their original form. Punic prospecting and control
tually profitable. Their trade relations, m
of metal resources in the western plex
Mediterranean
than modernand economical systems,
Atlantic are well known, as is the existed
Etruscan possession
and flourished only in situation
of iron and copper resources (one both
recalls the Etruscan
parties benefits with no comprom
bronze industries famous in antiquity). Possibly, JEAN
the MACINTOSH TURFA
Carthaginians supplied something, perhaps tin, to
LEIDEN
Etruscan cities in return for some other raw material,
and the manufactured goods were transported along
with this trade.
THE PLATAIAN TRIPOD AND THE
SERPENTINE COLUMN
No metal ingots of the Archaic period have been
found anywhere yet, although an After
archaic
the wreck off the Persians at Plataia, th
victory against
Cap d'Antibes, France,8 has provided evidence
Greek of
allies set upsome
a monument in Delphi which
sort of joint Etruscan-Punic venture,
accordingsince it con-
to ancient sources, consisted of a golden
tained Etruscan amphorae and bucchero pottery
(or gilded) tripod atop aasthree-headed bronze snake
well as a Punic lamp. In the future
on it is likely
whose coils thethat
names of the participants in th
underwater finds of shipwrecks and better
battle identifica-
had been engraved. The precious gold disa
tion of Etruscan and Punic objects
peared in all sites
relatively will
soon, stolen by the Phokians in t
greatly augment this picture. Certainly the work
fourth century in and the serpentine colum
(353 B.C.),
progress at Carthage will have bearing
stood alone onatthe foreign
the time of Pausanias's visit to the
relations of these two cultures whichsanctuary, are inemerging
the second century A.D. Constantine
only now from relative obscurity.the Great took what remained of it to his new capital,
As it seems at present (and the synthesis
Constantinople, herewheresug-
the bronze suffered further
gested represents only a general consideration
vicissitudes. Yet, inof some with other ancient
comparison
of the evidence), Carthage and some Etruscan
monuments, coastal
considerable evidence still remains for the
cities (such as Caere) were generallyPlataian allied
trophy: by com-the base in situ, missing
in Delphi,
mercial agreements, since each could only itssupply
topmost roundcertain block; in Istanbul, a good sec-
necessary commodities without jeopardizing
tion of the serpentine the oth-
shaft on the spina of the ancient
er's provincial markets. In 535 hippodrome,
B.C. Carthage and, in theand Archaeological Museum, a
Caere (at least) united voluntarilysubstantial
to drive pieceoutfromGreek
the head of one of the snakes
competition for the Tyrrhenian Sea; in
(figs. the
1-3). early fifth
In addition, several drawings, wood-cuts,
century there was an important trading
and Turkish post on Caere-
miniatures show the serpentine column
tan soil (Pyrgi-Punicum). However, as itEtruscans
stood in Istanbul seem
through the ages, and the piece
not to have been at Himera or Motya is oftento help their
mentioned by early travellers. Despite this
allies against the Sicilian Greeks, nor
relativedid a Carthagini-
wealth of evidence, the reconstruction of the
an navy arrive at Cumae (474 B.C.)total in monument
time tois supportstill uncertain, and a recent study
the Etruscan fleet against Hieronsummarizing
and the all Western
arguments could only express pref-
Greeks. In the mercenary wars of the fifth
erence, but no and fourth
definite acceptance of previous solu-
centuries, the nationality of the participants
tions.' had little
correlation with any previous alliances. Later,
All scholars during
apparently accept that not one but
the "Punic" Wars, the Etruscan cities gaveform
three snakes relatively
the serpentine column. The basic
little support to either side but occasionally
point of controversy rebelled
concerns the relationship of the
against their Roman garrisons when tripod to Hannibal
the snaky heads. wasAccording to one recon-
nearby and might conceivably profit from
struction and
(ill. I, reward
Solution I), the tripod itself was rela-
their efforts. In general, however,tively
these ancient
small, and each states
of its feet rested on the head
did not react with the idealismofor
oneconsistency at- reconstruction (ill. I,
of the snakes. A second
8 See Benoit: Gallia 16 (1958) 30-31; Recherches surwhat
Istanbul, and l'hel-
remains of the base in Delphi. Both works
linisation du midi de la Gaule (1965) pl. give
41,previous
fig. 6; and
bibliography. Gauer's uncertain opinion is ex-
RStLig 22,1 (1956) 6, 20, fig. 15, and 22, fig. 16. on p. 89; he conveniently summarizes all previous
pressed
positions.
1 The main ancient sources on the Plataian monument are Vital statistics on the column are as follows: the height
Hdt. 9.81 and Paus. 10.13.9. The two most recent studiesof the preserved 29 coils is 5.35 m., with the last coil meas-
on the Serpentine column are by W. Gauer, Weihgeschenke aus uring ca. 0.63 m. in diameter. The diameter on the extant
den Perserkriegen (IstMitt Beiheft 2 [1968]) 75-96, pls. I-4;topmost block, taken at the sinkings, is ca. 1.50 m. 6 more
and A.M. Mansel, "La Colonne Serpentine d'Istanbul" (in coils are postulated to complete the shaft at the bottom, for
Turkish) Belleten 34 (1970) 189-209, figs. 1-22. This latteran additional height of 0.38 m., since the coils taper in
work has good photographs of the section of the shaft in thickness while increasing in diameter. The topmost step,
Istanbul and reproduces many of the Turkish miniatures. now lost, had a presumed diameter of 2.48 m., and a pre-
Gauer has good illustrations of the shaft, the snaky head in
sumed height of 0.35 m.

This content downloaded from

129.199.59.249 on Sat, 17 Jun 2023 23:47:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms