Punic amphorae in the interior of the Guadalquivir valley: origin, distribution and contents

1 PUNIC AMPHORAE IN THE INTERIOR OF THE GUADALQUIVIR VALLEY: ORIGIN, DISTRIBUTION AND CONTENTS * Eduardo Ferrer Albelda Francisco José García Fernández Violeta Moreno Megías The target of this presentation is to study the circulation of Punic products in the Lower Guadalquivir Valley between the 5th and 2nd centuries BC, and to examine the associated exchange mechanisms and consumption patterns. We will discuss the circulation and consumption of ceramic wares, which are, virtually, the only type that has survived in the archaeological record. We will also focus on amphorae and the products contained within them, as well as other common and table wares. Before going into further detail, we should mention three methodological and conceptual clarifications. First, we should clarify that, by ‘Punic amphorae’ we mean amphorae produced in the former Phoenician colonies in Iberia, such as Gadir and Malaca, and not those from the Central Mediterranean (Carthage, Sardinia, Sicily) which, incidentally, are almost totally absent from the area under analysis, prior to the Second Punic War. A second important point that should be noted is the available sources: written testimonies which refer to this period and geographical region are very scarce and make no reference to economic phenomena. The earliest useful account in this regard (Strabo) was not written until the 1st century BC. Despite obvious anachronisms, Strabo is still a popular source for descriptions of pre-Roman Iberia (cf. Cruz Andreotti 2007). Finally, the sample on which we have based our study is made up of materials found in recent and reliable archaeological excavations undertaken in the cities of Ilipa (Alcalá del Río), Caura (Coria del Río), and *Spal (Seville), all of which survive as modern cities (fig. 1). The material has been compared with finds from other stratigraphic sequences situated in the same area (Italica, Cerro de la Cabeza, Cerro Macareno and Carmona), as well as other coeval contexts on the Atlantic coast of Andalusia and the Algarve, which present very similar archaeological profiles. The sample is large enough for our purpose, which is to point out certain general trends in the circulation of products, consumption habits and trade patterns, as well as the degree of integration of the cities located on the shores of the former estuary of the Baetis River into the economic mechanisms of the area around the Strait of Gibraltar. The sites have not been chosen randomly: all three were important settlements during antiquity. They were situated at key points for navigating the river, and acted as intermediaries between the river and the interior: Ilipa was a river harbour located at the end of the estuary, at the last point of which the tides can still be noted; *Spal was strategically located on a peninsula and was, at least in the last centuries BC, the final port of call for large ships (Str. 3.2.3); Caura, for its part, controlled access to the estuary and the lacus Ligustinus from an elevated position (fig. 1). Ilipa (Alcalá del Río) During the last decade, Alcalá del Río has witnessed a significant number of rescue excavations, which have provided substantial information about the protohistoric and Roman city. These excavations have proven to be especially informative with regard to the city wall and the Imperial forum, as well as the Tartessian necropolis of La Angorilla (Ferrer et al. 2007). Four of these excavations may be highlighted, owing to their size, and to the discovery of well-defined Turdetanian and Roman-Republican contexts: c/ La Cilla 4-6 (Ferrer & * This work is the translated, revised and updated version of a paper published in Mainake XXXII, I (Ferrer et al. 2010). Comentado [CD1]: No son 5? 2 García 2007); c/ Pasaje Real 2-4 (Prados 2007); c/ Antonino Reverte 26-28 (still pending publication); c/ Antonino Reverte 80 (Izquierdo 2007); and c/ Santa Verania 22 (Cervera et al. 2007); the last three involved the excavation of the earliest city wall. During the excavation in c/ La Cilla 4-6, a sequence of occupation was noted, spanning the Iron Age I (7th century) to the earliest centuries AD, and after this, between the Middle Ages and today. Multiple soil and animal-remains samples were taken, especially from the habitational contexts dating to between the 6th and 2nd centuries BC. These samples are currently being analysed. The chemical composition of the clays and the contents of several types of amphorae, especially imported types, have also been analysed (García Fernández et al. 2016). To date, this excavation has provided the earliest and most complete contexts dated to the II Iron Age. The contexts include different fills which cover the latest Iron Age I structures (early 5th century BC), and these would still have been visible at the beginning of the following construction phase, in the 4th century BC (Ferrer & García 2007: 124). Almost all archaeological materials found in association with these contexts are local: thrown common wares and Pellicer B/C amphorae. Alongside these, some high-quality imports are also attested, including Attic black glaze kylixes, ‘Castulo type’ cups and craters (Ferrer & García 2007: 124). However, in the mid-4th century BC, the importation of Greek wares began to wane, and by the end of the century they had totally disappeared. In contrast, from the 4th century BC onwards, amphorae types used for storing fish preserves, which were manufactured in the area of the Strait, become common (Ferrer & García 2007: 117-122). The first to arrive were the types T-11.2.1.3 and T-11.2.1.4, dated to the late 5th and early 4th centuries (fig. 2.1). Their production continued (as T-12.1.1.1 and T- 12.1.1.1/2) in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, at which time they coexisted with the earliest imitations of Graeco-Italian prototypes (Sáez 2008: 640-641). In the late 4th century BC, imports also included the T-8.1.1.2 type (fig. 2.2), which was used to store olive oil and was manufactured in the interior farmlands of the Cadiz region (Carretero 2007a). This type is relatively frequent in pre-Roman contexts in Alcalá del Río, especially in the 3rd century BC. Another characteristic container of the period is the T-8.2.1.1 type (fig. 2.3), which was manufactured in connection with the preserves factories in the Bay of Cadiz (Sáez et al. 2004: 113); however, the variability of the fabrics calls for caution, and other provenances and functions should not be completely disregarded. All these shapes coexisted with local productions, largely the evolved variants of the Pellicer B/C shapes, which were very common in all contexts until the Pellicer D type came to replace them in the 3rd century BC. The arrival of ‘type Kuass’ tableware from Cadiz also took place during this period (Ferrer & García 2007: 122). These types, and local imitations of these types, will continue arriving throughout the 3rd century and most of the 2nd century (fig. 2.13-15), coexisting with burnished Campanian wares in many contexts; in some cases, their presence is attested as late as the 1st century BC (Moreno 2016: 131-133, fig. 68). Their final demise can likely be associated with the emergence of the earliest local imitations of sigillatas. The same cannot be said of kitchen wares inspired by the Cádiz-Punic tradition, as these are practically absent from the contexts under analysis. This is remarkable since the distribution channels were the same, at least partly, as those used for amphorae and ‘Kuass type’ table wares. The arrival of the Cadiz-made T-12.1.1.1 (fig. 2.4-5) and T-8.2.1.1 (fig. 2.8-11) continued throughout the 2nd century BC, and became the dominant type along with the Pellicer D type (fig. 2.12). The earliest imports of the new T-9.1.1.1 type also occurred in the 2nd century and became progressively more common over time, until by the early 1st century they had completely replaced the T-8.2.1.1 type. Also in the 1st century we can note the earliest arrival of the North African Mañá C2 (T-7.4.3.1 and T-7.4.3.3) types, which were manufactured in the area of the Strait between the mid-2nd century and the opening years of Augustus’ reign. They coexisted with Graeco-Italian amphorae and local imitations, and later with the Campanian Dressel 1 types, which were also imitated in Gadir, especially the Dressel 3 1C type (Sáez 2008: 647-648). Both productions often appear in Republican contexts in Ilipa, especially in c/ La Cilla 4-6 and c/ Pasaje Real 2-4. The absence of Central Mediterranean imports, which, as we shall see are present in *Spal and Caura, is to be noted. *Spal (Seville) In Seville, a large number of archaeological excavations have provided abundant information about the period under consideration (García Fernández & González Acuña 2007; Escacena & García 2012). In most cases, these excavations covered small areas and involved the examination of deep stratigraphic sequences, which in many cases has not helped the identification and functional characterisation of the structures discovered. These excavations have, however, yielded a broad range of contextualised material, which have permitted a broad characterisation of commercial activity in the city during the second half of the 1st millennium BC (García & Ferrer 2011). Representative excavations, in chronological order, are Cuesta del Rosario (Collantes de Terán 1977; Vera 1987), c/ Argote de Molina 7 (Campos 1986), c/ San Isidoro 21-23 (Campos et al. 1988), c/ Fabiola 8 (Escudero et al. 1990), c/ Mármoles 9 (Escudero & Vera 1990), c/ Abades 41-43 (Jiménez et al. 2006), Palacio Arzobispal (Mora and Romo 2006) and c/ Alemanes 25 (unpublished). The earliest habitational contexts were documented in the lower strata in c/ Abades 41- 43 and on sounding II in Palacio Arzobispal – contexts which have been dated to the late 4th century. The discovery in these contexts of the earlier varieties of the Mañá-Pascual A4 types (Ramón’s T-11.2.1.3 and T-11.2.1.4), both in primary locations and, as residual material, in later contexts, can be related to the resumption of harbour activity in the late 5th century BC (fig. 3.2-3). Based on a visual examination of the fabrics, the provenances of these amphorae can be discerned: the Bay of Cadiz and the Coast of Malaga. In the late 4th century, these types were progressively replaced by the Cadiz-made variants of the 12.1.1.1 type, which became the predominant type in the region (fig. 3.4). This type coexisted with the local Pellicer B/C types, but these types are much less frequently found here than other nearby sites, for example Cerro Macareno (García & Ferrer 2011: 359-360). The products of Cadiz farmlands started arriving in Seville also in the late 4th century BC, inside T-8.1.1.2-type amphorae. The T-8.1.1.2 (fig. 3.5-8) and type T-8.2.1.1 (fig. 3. 9- 12) were the most common imports in the 3rd century BC. They constitute 43% of all amphorae fragment identified in domestic and abandonment contexts, compared to 15% of Pellicer B/C and 33% of Pellicer D fragments. Although most of the imported amphorae have been found in contexts dating to the second half of the 3rd century or the early 2nd century BC, the proportions indicate the intensity of trade between the city and the agricultural hinterland of Gadir (García & Ferrer 2011: 361-362, Abb. 13-14). As well as the amphorae, the Sevillian harbour also received new kitchen wares which progressively became part of the domestic equipment of Turdetanian settlements. We should note especially here the Punic-inspired GDR 3.1.1 mortar (fig. 5. 1-7), which is frequently attested from the late 4th century BC onwards (García Fernández & González Acuña 2007: 554). Some specimens may have been produced locally (García Fernández & García Vargas 2010: 155), as suggested by the fabrics and by the identification of several examples decorated with red bands (fig. 5.3). However, lidded saucepans are not attested until the 2nd century BC. Although this type originates from the Central Mediterranean, the only example found in Seville, in c/ Abades 41-43 (Jiménez et al. 2006: 299), seems to be a Cádiz-made imitation (fig. 5.9); the shape (GDR 11.1.1) appears to have been enormously popular in Cádiz (Sáez 2005: 163). In contrast, ‘Kuass type’ table wares (fig. 5.10-11) are much less common in the city than in other urban centres in the region (García Vargas y García Fernández 2009: 146; Moreno 2016: 124-127). In these transitional moments, marked by the presence of the Carthaginians and the first stages of the Roman conquest, the volume and pace of exports, including amphorae-stored products, table ware and kitchen wares, were not only maintained, but actually increased 4 (García Fernández & González Acuña 2007: 557-558). The Pellicer D was still the most common type, and the T-9.1.1.1 type (fig. 4. 10.11) began replacing the T-8.2.1.1 type (fig. 4. 1-7), which was present until at least the late 2nd century BC. This period also witnessed the arrival of a few isolated Mediterranean amphorae, Mañá C2 (T-7.2.1.1) and Mañá D (T- 5.2.3.1), which were found in the earliest Republican levels in c/ Argote de Molina 7 (fig. 4.13-14). These are also attested in small numbers in other contexts dating to the late 2nd and early 1st centuries BC (García & Ferrer 2011: 364-365). The turn of the 1st century BC was characterised not only by the mass arrival of Italian Dressel 1 amphorae but also by the imitations produced in Gadir (Dressel 1C). These amphorae coexisted with the late variants of the Mañá C2b type (T-7.4.3.2 and T-7.4.3.3), as suggested by the deposits of amphorae attested in c/ Alemanes 25, dating to the third quarter of the 1st century BC (fig. 4.15-17). Finally, the demand for the T-9.1.1.1 type, which was used to store salted fish preserves, and the local Pellicer D type, was to continue until the end of the 1st century BC (García & Ferrer 2011: 367). Caura (Coria del Río) The Cerro de San Juan, in Coria del Río, is a knoll on the banks of the Guadalquivir, and, during the 1990s, it was subject to a number of archaeological excavations. One of these excavations (Cortes CSJ-A and CSJ-B) recorded a sequence of Iron Age I structures, which were interpreted as a sanctuary and a Phoenician mercantile district (Escacena & Izquierdo 2001). Another excavation, closer to the river (Sondeo CAU/A) revealed a long sequence that began in the Chalcolithic, when the occupation of the settlement became stable. The Turdetanian contexts documented during the course of this excavation correspond to an open area (a courtyard or a street), next to a set of houses (Escacena & Izquierdo 1999). The levels dated to the Iron Age II are composed of a succession of fills which were dumped during the construction of a series of walls. The buildings were probably domestic in nature and are dated to around the 4th century BC. The earliest contexts in Cerro de San Juan have been dated to between the 5th and the mid-4th centuries BC, in the 2nd Iron Age. In this early phase, the local Pellicer B/C types are predominant, but some imports are also attested: e.g. rim of a Corinthian amphora and an Archaic variant of the T-11.2.1.3 type (fig. 6.1-2). By the turn of the 3rd century, these Pellicer B/C types coexisted with the earliest series of the D type. The same trend can be detected among the amphorae for salted products: the earlier T-11.2.1.5 and T-11.2.1.6 types (fig. 6.3- 5), some of which are residual in character, were progressively replaced by the new variety (T-12.1.1.1), which is typical in Cádiz and which became widespread in the late 4th century BC (fig. 6.6-7). The latter became the most common imported type during the 3rd century BC, overtaking such common containers in the region as the T-8.1.1.2 and T-8.2.1.1 types, which are barely represented in these contexts (fig. 6.14-18); only the local Pellicer B/C and, at a later date, D types were more numerous. The repertoire of ‘Kuass type’ table wares is surprisingly varied, especially in the following century, although most known examples have been found in mixed contexts from the top of the sequence (fig. 6, below). The formal variety of both imported and local imitation wares has led to the inclusion of Caura in the primary distribution circles for table wares, as this was in close partnership with Cádiz. Archaeologists have speculated as to the presence of a production centre (Escacena & Moreno 2014). The case for kitchen wares in the Punic tradition is very different; barely a couple of GDR 3.1.1 mortars, probably locally produced, have been recorded (fig. 6.20). During the 2nd and early 1st centuries, the repertoire broadened with the mass arrival of productions from the area of the Strait: T-12.1.1.1 and T-12.1.1./2 (fig. 6.9-13), along with T- 8.2.1.1 and its successors T-9.1.1.1 (fig. 6.19) and T-7.4.3.3. Pellicer D type amphorae were still common, and during this period they begin to feature the profile that characterised the later variants. We should also note, albeit in residual amounts and only in the latest contexts, 5 the presence of the Pellicer B/C, T-11.2.1.3 and T-8.1.1.2 types. Some Central Mediterranean imports have also been recorded, namely three specimens of the Mañá D type (T-5.2.3.1) (although all of them are residual material in later contexts), as well as abundant specimens of the ‘Kuass type’ (cf. García Fernández in press). Discussion Archaeological excavations carried out during recent decades have laid a more solid foundation for the study of trade in foodstuffs, especially in relation to the analysis of the containers in which these foodstuffs were transported, as well as imports of kitchen and table wares between the 5th and 2nd centuries BC. After the so-called ‘6th-century crisis’ or ‘Tartessian crisis’ led to the rearrangement of the socio-political and economic structures, the Lower Guadalquivir entered a period of demographic, productive and commercial recovery, which affected the interior farmlands and, especially, urban centres near the river (Ferrer & García in press). In these centres, the renewal of commercial traffic between the Punic cities on the coast can be attested as early as the late 5th century BC (Ferrer et al. 2008: 241). However, in general we may note that there is a point of inflexion in the 4th century BC. Until that point, Mediterranean imports were present, but only in small quantities, and foodstuffs were commercialised in amphorae (Pellicer B/C) which are assumed to have been locally produced or in amphorae manufactured in the region of the Strait (including the coast of Malaga) and were used to store preserves. From the 4th century BC onwards, the proportion of amphorae made in Cadiz or in the Cadiz-controlled continental farmlands increased exponentially; the high tide of this trend was the 3rd century BC. Most of the imported containers were manufactured in the workshops of Gadir, which turned into the main – and nearly only – commercial intermediary for the riverside cities in the Baetis. Products from further afield started arriving only during the Second Punic War and after the Roman conquest; these products included the Central Mediterranean T-5.2.3.1 and T-7.2.1.1 types, and the Graeco-Italian amphorae of Campanian wine. In any case, these products arrived in Gadir which later redistributed these products elsewhere (García Fernández & García Vargas 2010). Based on a study of the best-known types of amphorae, we can posit that fish products were in high demand in interior markets. No interruption of this trend can be attested between the late 6th or early 5th centuries BC and the 3rd century BC (T-11.2.1.3, T-11.2.1.4 and T- 12.1.1.1). The continuity of these exports is also confirmed by the presence of the T-8.2.1.1, T-9.1.1.1, T-7.4.3.1 and T-7.4.3.3 types, as their presence confirms the uninterrupted flow of preserves amphorae from Gadir between the 4th and 1st centuries BC. The function of *Spal as a consumption, but mostly as a redistribution, centre of these products becomes clear when we analyse archaeological contexts in other nearby settlements. The Roman conquest seems to have had a significant impact in this regard. Based on the distribution data available, we can note that T-8.2.1.1-type amphorae, characteristic of the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, have been found at locations which are never more than 50 km from *Spal; Carmona and Vico, in the farmlands of Seville, are the most distant locations in which the type has been attested (Bandera & Ferrer 2002: 141, fig.16,8). For their part, the T-9.1.1.1 type, which is characteristic of the 2nd century BC, penetrated much further along the Guadalquivir Valley, reaching Corduba and sub-Baetica (Ferrer & García 1994: 46-52). That is, the distribution of the type becomes supra-regional in a context dominated by Rome’s conquest, and these vessels reached even remote regions in the Iberian Peninsula (Carretero 2004). Alongside salted fish and fish sauces, olive oil was also redistributed from Seville to other nearby centres, such as Ilipa. Olive oil was transported in T-8.1.1.2-type amphorae, which are common in 3rd-century contexts. With all probability, the workshops were located in the Cadiz farmlands, and the olive oil which these amphorae contained was produced in 6 factories such as Cerro Naranja, and similar ones located in the territories of Asta, Eboura and Asido (Carretero 2007a: 89-112; 2007b). The role of *Spal as an emporium is, therefore, clear. The predominance of amphorae over other ceramic vessels in all contexts dating to between the 4th and 2nd centuries is indicative of the proliferation of buildings and dumps used for the storage and refuse of commercial containers. On the other hand, the origins of a significant proportion of the containers and table wares, such as the Attic black glazed and the ‘Kuass types’, underline the connection between *Spal and Gadir, as well as the character of the former as a redistribution centre for both local and imported products (García & Ferrer 2011). The composition of ceramic repertoires, especially amphorae, found in *Spal, Ilipa and Caura is not an exception: this is clear when we compare these repertoires with those at nearby sites. The similarities between pottery assemblages can be noted also at sites within the area of influence of the Strait of Gibraltar, including the valley of the Baetis and the lacus Ligustinus, Gadir itself and other sites in the bay of Cadiz and the inland farmlands, the coast of Huelva, the north of Atlantic Morocco and the Portuguese Algarve. In the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, there was a communion of interests that linked Gadir, which received and redistributed imports from all over the Mediterranean, as well as its own products, and subaltern centres such as Onuba, Castro Marim, Mértola and *Spal, which redistributed these products within their own areas of influence, as well as consumption centres of foodstuffs produced in Cadiz (oil, wine?, salted fish). The regularities noted in the provenance and distribution of transport containers also extended, albeit to a lesser extent, to luxury and semiluxury tableware, for example the Attic and the ‘Kuass-type’ wares, as well as to some table and kitchen vessels, such as mortars, fish plates, striped-rim pans, and jars made in the Cadiz workshops. In any case, the assimilation of shapes, function and decoration, as well as the emergence of local imitations, indicates that Punic tableware had a considerable influence on local Turdetanian productions (García & Sáez 2014; Moreno et al. 2014). The recovery of trade activity in *Spal during the 4th and 3rd centuries cannot be considered an isolated phenomenon, but rather a reflection of the economic revival of the Atlantic façade. Some authors draw a link between this revival, the growing Carthaginian presence and the subsequent arrival of North African colonists and restructuration of land ownership (López & Suárez 2002; Carretero 2007a: 196-197). However, other researchers suggest that this evidence indicates the economic and commercial apogee of Gadir (Domínguez Monedero 1995; Ferrer 2000). Revising the literary and archaeological evidence, at any rate, reveals that both interpretations are perfectly compatible, in the sense that the intervention of the Carthaginians in the Iberian Peninsula could have contributed to improve Cadiz’s commercial projection (Ferrer 2007; Ferrer & Pliego 2010; 2013; Ferrer et al. 2017). The archaeological record does not reflect the important role which Carthage played in the expansion of agricultural models in the farmlands near Cádiz (Carretero 2007b) and in the foundation, or re-foundation, of coastal settlements on the Atlantic Andalusian coast (La Tiñosa) and in the Algarve, such as Castro Marim and Tavira (Arruda 2001: 77-78; 2007). These initiatives, which E. de Sousa and A. Arruda have recently defined as the ‘gaditanisation’ of the south-western coast, were fuelled by the transference of population and goods originating from the Bay of Cadiz (Sousa & Arruda 2010). Both theories are not incompatible. It is, indeed, likely that the Carthaginian presence boosted this expansion by providing the terrestrial and naval forces needed to protect the new foundations. Therefore, we suggest that it is not a coincidence that agricultural colonisation, based on Mediterranean models, happened at this precise moment (late 4th and early 3rd centuries), with oil amphorae spreading along the Atlantic coast and the Lower Guadalquivir Valley, and evidence for the presence of Carthaginian troops starting to enter the archaeological record (Pliego 2003; 2005; Ferrer 2007). What seems to be beyond doubt is 7 that this commercial expansion was to determine Cádiz’s role after the Second Punic War, when Cádiz became a crucial link in Rome’s Atlantic policy. The city not only played a fundamental role in the dissemination of goods, but also in building the traditions and consumption habits of the Mediterranean koiné (Chic 1995). References A.M. ARRUDA (2001): “Importações púnicas no Algarve: cronología e significado”, Os púnicos no extremo ocidente, A. Augusto Tavares (ed.), Lisboa, 69-98. A.M. ARRUDA (2007): “A Idade do Ferro do sul de Portugal. Estado da investigação”, Madrider Mitteilungen 48, 114-139. Mª L. DE LA BANDERA ROMERO & E. FERRER ALBELDA (2002), “Secuencia estratigráfica tartesia y turdetana de Vico (Marchena, Sevilla)”, Spal 11, 121-149. J.M. CAMPOS CARRASCO (1986), Excavaciones arqueológicas en la ciudad de Sevilla. El origen Prerromano y la Hispalis Romana, Sevilla. J.M. CAMPOS CARRASCO, M. VERA REINA & Mª T. MONEO (1988), Protohistoria de la Ciudad de Sevilla. El corte estratigráfico San Isidoro 85-6, Sevilla. P. CARRETERO POBLETE (2004): “Las producciones cerámicas de ánforas tipo ‘Campamentos Numantinos’ y su origen en San Fernando (Cádiz): los hornos de Pery Junquera”, Actas del Congreso Internacional FIGLINAE BAETICAE. Talleres alfareros y producciones cerámicas en la Bética romana (ss. II a.C. – VII d.C.), Cádiz, 2003 (BAR Int. Series 1266), L. Lagóstena Barios & D. Bernal Casasola (eds.), Oxford, 433-434. P. CARRETERO POBLETE (2007a), Agricultura y Comercio Púnico-Turdetano en el Bajo Guadalquivir. El inicio de las explotaciones oleícolas peninsulares (siglos IV-II a.C.) (BAR Int. Series 1703), Oxford. P. CARRETERO POBLETE (2007b), “Las villas agrícolas púnico-turdetanas de la campiña gaditana (Cádiz-España)”, Las ciudades fenicio-púnicas en el Mediterráneo occidental, J.L. López Castro (ed.), Almería, 187-208. L. CERVERA POZO, E. DOMÍNGUEZ BERENJENO & E. GARCÍA VARGAS (2007), “Estructuras de época romana en C/ Santa Verania nº 22”, Ilipa Antiqva. De la Prehistoria a la época romana, E. Ferrer Albelda et al. (eds.), Sevilla, 295-310. G. CHIC GARCÍA (1995): “Roma y el mar: del Mediterráneo al Atlántico”, Guerra, exploraciones y navegación: del Mundo Antiguo a la Edad Moderna, V. Alonso Troncoso (coord.), A Coruña, 55-89. G. CRUZ ANDREOTTI (2007), “Acerca de Estrabón y la Turdetania-Bética”, La invención de una geografía de la Península Ibérica II. La época imperial, G. Cruz Andreotti et al. (eds), Málaga, 251-270. F. COLLANTES DE TERÁN Y DELORME (1977), Contribución al estudio de la topografía sevillana en la Antigüedad y en la Edad Media, Sevilla. A.J. DOMÍNGUEZ MONEDERO (1995), “Libios, libiofenicios, blastofenicios: elementos púnicos y africanos en la Iberia Bárquida y sus supervivencias”, Gerión 13, 223-239. J.L. ESCACENA CARRASCO & F.J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ (2012), “La Sevilla protohistórica”, Hispaniae Urbes. Intervenciones arqueológicas en ciudades históricas, J. Beltrán Fortes y O. Rodríguez Gutiérrez (coords.), Sevilla, 763-814. J.L. ESCACENA CARRASCO & R. IZQUIERDO DE MONTES (1999), “Proyecto Estuario. Intervención Arqueológica de 1994”, Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1994, II, 161-166. J.L. ESCACENA CARRASCO & R. IZQUIERDO DE MONTES (2001), “Oriente en Occidente. Arquitectura civil y religiosa en un ‘barrio fenicio’ de la Caura tartésica”, Arquitectura Oriental y Orientalizante en la Península Ibérica, D. Ruiz Mata & S. Celestino Pérez (eds.), Madrid, 123-157. 8 J.L. ESCACENA CARRASCO & V. MORENO MEGÍAS (2014), “Cerámica de tipo Kuass procedente de Caura. ¿Testimonios de un nuevo centro de producción?”, Archivo Español de Arqueología 87, 75-90. J. ESCUDERO, J. LORENZO, M. VERA, Mª T. MONEO & J. CAMPOS (1990), “Las intervenciones arqueológicas en la ciudad de Sevilla en 1987”, Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1987, III, 522-525. J. ESCUDERO CUESTA & M. VERA REINA (1990), “Excavaciones arqueológicas en la calle Mármoles nº 9. La problemática del sector”, Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1988, III, 407-410. E. FERRER ALBELDA (2000): “Nam sunt feroces hoc libyphoenices loco: ¿libiofenicios en Iberia?”, Spal 9, 421-433. E. FERRER ALBELDA (2007), “Fenicios y cartagineses en el Tartessos postcolonial”, Actas del V Congreso de Historia de Carmona. El nacimiento de la ciudad: la Carmona protohistórica, Carmona, 2005, M. Bendala Galán & Mª. Belén Deamos (eds.), Carmona, 195-223. E. FERRER ALBELDA & F.J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ (2007), “Primeros datos sobre la Ilipa turdetana”, Ilipa Antiqva. De la Prehistoria a la época romana, E. Ferrer Albelda et al. (eds.), Sevilla, 103-130. E. FERRER ALBELDA & F.J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ (in press), “Ciudades sin dioses: el problema del siglo V a.C. en el ámbito geográfico turdetano”, Convegno Internazionale di Studi: La Sardegna nel Mediterraneo occidentale dalla fase fenicia all'egemonia cartaginese: il problema del V secolo, Santadi (Cerdeña, Italia), 2013. E. FERRER ALBELDA & E. GARCÍA VARGAS (1994), “Sobre un tipo anfórico púnico-gaditano documentado en el Cerro de la Cruz (Almedinilla, Córdoba)”, Antiquitas 5, 46-52. E. FERRER ALBELDA & R. PLIEGO VÁZQUEZ (2010), “...Auxilium consanguineis karthaginiensis misere: un nuevo marco interpretativo de las relaciones entre Cartago y las comunidades púnicas de Iberia”, Mainake XXXII, I, 525-557. E. FERRER ALBELDA & R. PLIEGO VÁZQUEZ (2013), “Cartago e Iberia antes de los Barca”, Fragor Hannibalis. Aníbal en Hispania, M. Bendala Galán (ed.), Alcalá de Henares, 106- 133. E. FERRER ALBELDA, F.J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ & J.L. ESCACENA CARRASCO (2010), “El tráfico comercial de productos púnicos en el antiguo estuario del Guadalquivir”, Mainake XXXII, I, 61-89. E. FERRER ALBELDA, F.J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ & R. PLIEGO VÁZQUEZ (2017), “Fuga a tres voces sobre la presencia cartaginesa prebárquida en la Península Ibérica”, Entre los mundos: Homenaje a Pedro Barceló, Besançon, 337-358. E. FERRER ALBELDA, E. GARCÍA VARGAS & F.J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ (2008), “Inter Aestuaria Baetis. Espacios naturales y territorios ciudadanos prerromanos en el Bajo Guadalquivir”, Mainake XXX, 217-246. E. FERRER, A. FERNÁNDEZ, J.L. ESCACENA & A. RODRÍGUEZ (eds.) (2007), Ilipa Antiqva. De la Prehistoria a la época romana, Universidad de Sevilla. F.J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ (in press), “El Bajo Guadalquivir en época turdetana: Caura y su entorno”, CAURA. Arqueología en el Estuario del Guadalquivir, J.L. Escacena Carrasco et al. (coords.), Sevilla. F.J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ & E. GARCÍA VARGAS (2010), “Entre gaditanización y romanización: repertorios cerámicos, alimentación e integración cultural en Turdetania (siglos III-I a.C.)”, De la cuina a la taula. IV Reunió d’Economia en el Primer Mil·lenni a.C. (Sagvntvm Extra-9), en C. Mata Parreño et al. (eds.), Valencia, 115-134. F.J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ & D. GONZÁLEZ ACUÑA (2007), Actas del V Congreso de Historia de Carmona. El nacimiento de la ciudad: la Carmona protohistórica, Carmona, 2005, M. Bendala Galán & Mª. Belén Deamos (eds.), Carmona, 525-566. F.J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ & E, FERRER ALBELDA (2011), “Das turdetanische Emporion Spal. 9 Der punische Handelsverkehr im vorrömischen Sevilla (5. – 2. Jh. V. Chr.)”, Madrider Mitteilungen 52, 333-372. F.J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ & A. SÁEZ ROMERO (2014), “Influencias de tradición helenística y centromediterránea en las producciones comunes del área turdetana”, As produções cerâmicas de imitaçâo na Hispania. Actas del II Congreso Internacional de la SECAH – Ex Officina Hispana, Braga, 2013, R. Morais et al. (eds.), Porto, 109-124. F.J. GARCÍA, E. FERRER, P. ÁLVAREZ & Mª M. DURÁN (2016), “Análisis de residuos orgánicos y posibles contenidos en ánforas púnicas y turdetanas procedentes del valle del Guadalquivir”, Sagvmtvm 48, 43-71. E. GARCÍA VARGAS & F.J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ (2009), “Romanización y consumo: cambios y continuidades en los contextos cerámicos de Hispalis en épocas turdetana y romanorepublicana”, Spal 18, 121-155. R. IZQUIERDO DE MONTES (2007), “Fortissimum oppidum. Investigaciones en la muralla romana de Alcalá del Río”, Ilipa Antiqva. De la Prehistoria a la época romana, E. Ferrer Albelda et al. (eds.), Sevilla, 193-209. A. JIMÉNEZ, E. GARCÍA, F.J. GARCÍA & E. FERRER (2006), “Aportación al estudio de la Sevilla prerromana y romano-republicana. Repertorios cerámicos y secuencia edilicia en la estratigrafía de la calle Abades 41-43”, Spal 15, 281-312. F. LÓPEZ PARDO & J. SUÁREZ PADILLA (2002), “Traslados de población entre el Norte de África y el sur de la Península Ibérica en los contextos coloniales fenicio y púnico”, Gerión 20,1, 113-152. G.M. MORA VICENTE & A. ROMO SALA (2006), “Intervención Arqueológica de Urgencia en el Palacio Arzobispal de Sevilla. Los sectores de Archivo y Tribunal. Primera fase de los trabajos. Sondeos I-II-IV. Aportaciones a la Sevilla republicana”, Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 2003, III, 2, 179-196. V. MORENO MEGÍAS (2016), La influencia púnica en las mesas turdetanas. Cerámica de tipo Kuass en el Bajo Valle del Guadalquivir, Sevilla. V. MORENO MEGÍAS, A.Mª NIVEAU DE VILLEDARY Y MARIÑAS & F.J. GARCÍA FERNÁNDEZ (2014), “Nuevas evidencias sobre imitaciones de cerámica de tipo Kuass en el valle del Guadalquivir”, As produções cerâmicas de imitaçâo na Hispania. Actas del II Congreso Internacional de la SECAH – Ex Officina Hispana, Braga, 2013, R. Morais et al. (eds.), Porto, 125-138. R. PLIEGO VÁZQUEZ (2003), “Sobre el reclutamiento de mercenarios turdetanos: el campamento cartaginés de El Gandul (Alcalá de Guadaira, Sevilla)”, Habis 34, 39-56. R. PLIEGO VÁZQUEZ (2005), “Un nuevo conjunto monetal cartaginés procedente de El Gandul (Alcalá de Guadaíra, Sevilla)”, Actas del XIII Congreso Internacional de Numismática, vol. I, Madrid, 2003, C. Alfaro et al. (eds.), Madrid, 531-533. E. PRADOS PÉREZ (2007), “Intervención arqueológica en el sector este de Alcalá del Río. La muralla de la calle Pasaje Real 2-4”, Ilipa Antiqva. De la Prehistoria a la época romana, E. Ferrer Albelda et al. (eds.), Sevilla, 267-282. A.M. SÁEZ ROMERO (2005): “Aproximación a la tipología de la cerámica común púnicogadirita de los ss. III-II”, Spal 14, 145-177. A.M. SÁEZ ROMERO (2008): La producción cerámica en Gadir en época tardopúnica (siglos –III/-I) (BAR Int. Series 1812), Oxford. A.M. SÁEZ ROMERO, J.J. DÍAZ RODRÍGUEZ & R. MONTERO FERNÁNDEZ (2004), “Acerca de un tipo de ánfora salazonera púnico-gadirita”, Habis 35, 109-133. E. SOUSA & A.M. ARRUDA (2010), “A gaditanização do Algarve”, Mainake XXXII, I, 951- 974. M. VERA REINA (1987), “Aportación al conocimiento de la Sevilla antigua. Revisión de la excavación de la Cuesta del Rosario”, Archivo Hispalense 215, 37-60.