A Comparative Insight into Encounters, Territorialities, Identities, and Violence: Phoenicians in Southwestern Iberia and Portugese in Africa

80 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES NO 14 A COMPARATIVE INSIGHT INTO ENCOUNTERS, TERRITORIALITIES, IDENTITIES, AND VIOLENCE: PHOENICIANS IN SOUTHWESTERN IBERIA AND PORTUGUESE IN AFRICA PEDRO ALBUQUERQUE Pedro Albuquerque, Doctor, post-doctoral researcher FCT, Uniarq, University of Seville Chair CIPSH of Global Studies, Aberta University, Portugal e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4800-7343 Dr. Pedro Albuquerque (Lisbon, 1978) is in the present-day a post-doctoral researcher from Foundation for Science and Technology (Portugal), Uniarq, University of Seville and Chair for Global Studies, Aberta University. His PhD thesis was focused on a comparative study of Tartessos from an archaeological and literary point of view. He is author of several papers of crosscutting research about the Iberian Iron Age Archaeology, the depiction of ancient Iberian communities in Classical and Near Eastern literature, and in the sixteenth century Historiography. He is currently working on the Iron Age and Roman settlement of the Lower Guadiana Valley (eighth century BC to first century AD) in the context of a project dedicated to the enhancement of the archaeological heritage in the Luso-Spanish frontier. His research interests also focus on the Cartography and the construction of borderlands from the Middle Ages to the present-day. He is also researcher in several international projects, both in Portugal and Spain. 81 PEDRO ALBUQUERQUE ABSTRACT By examining the relationship between territoriality and identity construction, this paper aims to provide a comparative analysis of three contexts where encounters between foreign colonial powers and local autochthonous communities took place. The comparison is thus focused on the interaction between Africans and Portuguese in two different contexts (Sa~o Jorge da Mina/ Elmina, Ghana between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries, and colonial Angola from the 1850ís onwards), on the one hand, and on the encounters between Phoenicians and Autochthonous communities of Southwestern Iberia (Tartessos?) in the first half of the first Millennium BC. This study raises new questions about the role played by sanctuaries and violence in the deconstruction of indigenous territorial perceptions and the subsequent construction of colonial territories in the Iron Age of Southwestern Iberia. Also in examination are the relevance and usefulness of a comparative methodology in the analysis of encounters between diverse cultural actors as expressed in the archaeological record. Keywords: Iron Age, Ancient Iberia, comparative history, cultural encounters, Sa~o Jorge da Mina, Angola, Phoenicians 82 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES NO 14 INTRODUCTION1 This paper examines three different historical contexts, seen by the author as comparable case studies. Firstly, a focus is placed on the wealth of archaeological evidence relating to the Phoenician expansion along the Southwestern territories of the Iberian Peninsula and the issues it raises. After that, the focus shifts towards the Portuguese presence in the Ghanaian commercial trading post Sa~o Jorge da Mina and, subsequently, towards the Portuguese colonial project in Angola. This contribution aims at examining the impact of the Phoenician presence among the autochthonous communities in the Iberian Peninsulaís Iron Age by reassessing the archaeological and the historical records in a comparative view. The limits of comparison have been the subject of discussion since the earliest publications on the relationship between History and other Social Sciences at the end of the 19th century. Nevertheless, the comparative method helps to raise new questions and, hence, to validate hypothesis, to identify singularities and to define future research paths (Bloch, 1928; Bintliff, 1991; Kocka, 1999; cf. Werner, Zimmermann 2005), in this case on the Iberian Iron Age Archaeology. This perspective focuses mainly on changing territorialities and identity discourses as consequences of encounters. The three historical contexts examined here are viewed as sharing substantial commonalities, crucial in the development of a comparative analytical methodology capable of reassessing the archaeological and the historical records in novel ways. The wealth of written sources, oral traditions and, to a lesser extent, the archaeological record found in the African contexts of the fifteenth ñ twentieth centuries can be used to gauge the impact of Near Eastern/Phoenician communities on the lives of indigenous populations of Iron Age Iberia from a comparative perspective, as well as the etic depiction of the pre-roman communities in written sources. The choice of case studies or comparison units is determined by what we wish to know about one of 15 The abbreviations of the ìGreek-English Lexiconî (Liddell and Scott) and the ìOxford Latin Dictionaryî were used. The author would like to thank Ms. Clareana Marques for the care taken in reviewing this text, as well as the reviewers for their thorough comments on the first version of this paper. 83 PEDRO ALBUQUERQUE them. That is, by identifying some case studies in African contexts (e.g., the impact on indigenous territorialities), it is possible to raise new questions to the Phoenician presence. The common denominator in all three situations is that they represent the establishment of a foreign presence in a previously occupied territory which paved the way for different kinds of interaction depending on the power relations. Such encounters between different lifeways, political organizations, and ideology and identity discourses often lead to the development of new hybrid realities. The examination of African cases for comparative purposes is then useful for questioning our perspectives about encounters, on the one hand, and about the written sources which depict other communities, on the other. Then, this paper highlights the impact of such intercultural contacts in the material record and the reconstruction (or deconstruction) of identities. Territorial markers are especially relevant as they reflect territorial perception and, thus, are one of the clearest indicators of drastic changes or adaptations (Henriques 2004). The main issue in this discussion is, then, how to recognize in the archaeological record the response of indigenous communities to foreign input, which provides a complementary view that does not focus only on peaceful commercial contacts and political alliances between equals. A complementary and equally pertinent issue is how to recognize changes in the foreign response to indigenous inputs. Within this scope, we consider that violence (both implicit and explicit) is present in these contacts, while also assessing the role of resident communities in the construction of colonial identities (Gosden 2008). The diversity of sources available (travel accounts, political documents, chronicles, iconography, etc.) allow us to identify some of these aspects and to discuss the image of pacific encounters between the Phoenicians and the autochthonous Iron Age communities of Southwestern Iberia between Cadiz (Spain) and Sagres (Portugal), both in inland and coastal territories. It is noteworthy that the scarcity of direct Phoenician sources is not balanced out by the existence of other Eastern, Greek, or Latin texts. These Phoenicians, as well as the Iberian Iron Age communities, are depicted from an etic point of view. Consequently, we consider that these sources do not constitute per se evidence for the examination of encounters in the Iberian Peninsula, but they provide information about territorialities and identity construction through territorial markers. From the outset, we are dealing with aprioristic views of these encounters. The image of a fascinated indigenous (Moreno 2001) 84 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES NO 14 that accepts the ìprogressî and emulates Near Eastern aesthetics and habits is often present in the historical and archaeological discourse. Conversely, explicit or implicit violence in these contacts has received limited attention from scholars. For example, the study of African cases reveals that strictly commercial contacts like the first centuries of Sa~o Jorge da Mina (1482 onwards) do not change drastically a communityís cultural background (e.g., religious beliefs, mortuary practices). However, colonial encounters (far more violent) with hegemonic purposes in Angola from the second half of the nineteenth century onwards bring about significant changes in many aspects of populationsí lifeways. The identification of these issues is then applied to the examination of the Indigenous-Phoenician encounters in Southwestern Iberia from an archaeological point of view, considering, e.g., the role of oriental-style sanctuaries built on strategic places. Why this comparison matters? The statements presented here can shed some light on the so-called tartessic question. Tartessos is frequently perceived as a hybridization of Phoenician and indigenous communities or as a result of a ìselective acculturationî of its elites within peaceful contacts (see a thorough discussion about these encounters in Celestino and LÛpez-Ruiz 2016, with different perspectives about this topic). By raising different questions on territoriality and identity constructs based on the African cases, an attempt is made to present a complementary view of these encounters. That is why it is useful to take a first look on two important concepts: territory and territoriality. TERRITORY AND TERRITORIALITY AS KEY CONCEPTS FOR COMPARISON ìTerritoryî can be conceived from three points of view: physical/ environmental, social, and thought/symbolic (Criado 1999, 6). ìTerritorialityî determines the relationship between a group and others by creating and maintaining borders (Castro and Gonzaˇlez 1989, 10ff.; cf. Henriques 2004, 20). We consider here that territorial perceptions reflect the sense of belonging of a collective personality, which differs from a ìcartographicî way of depicting territories (Tilley 1994). So, as I. Castro Henriques argued, ìThe territory is the space needed for the installation of structures and communities invented by men, and is also indispensable for the creation, preservation and strengthening of identityî (Henriques 2004, 20, translated by the author). 85 PEDRO ALBUQUERQUE This challenges us to ìthink outside the mapî and to discuss the relevance of territorial markers as elements recognized by groups in the construction of collective identities. In other words, territorial markers embody a way of thinking. Hypothetically, the newcomers reshape the indigenous territories and can generate conflicts or even the destruction and desacralization of previous markers. Territoriality and symbolic construction of landscape has received limited attention by Iberian Iron Age scholars. These issues are critical to understanding and characterising intercultural encounters and the impact of new social, political, and economic realities in spaces previously controlled by resident communities. Newcomers create foundation myths and accounts that invoke old frequentations of these spaces, e.g., the Tyrian expedition for the foundation of Gadir (related to Melqart-Hercules) as transmitted by Strabo (3.5.5; cf. Pi., N. 3.19ñ25). On the other hand, it is not difficult to find accounts describing the destruction of markers such as places of cult or necropolises associated with autochthonous communities. In ancient literature, the integration of these communities in a colonial system is then a major concern, particularly when considering the possible destruction of existing tangible symbols of collective memory and the construction of new ones in the context of the reorganization of landscape by the newcomers, as can be seen in African cases (Henriques 2004; Nordman 2005). Let us take a couple of examples from ancient sources to illustrate these statements. Herodotus described sanctuaries as places that centralize and symbolize collective identities and political partnerships (Panionion: Hdt. 1.142ñ143; 148; Zeus Kariosí sanctuary in Mylasa: Hdt. 1.171; see Saviano 2018; cf. Hdt. 8.144, and Albuquerque 2014, 80ñ92). On the other hand, the Old Testament (OT) also provides good examples of the relationship between territorial markers, identity, and collective memory (e.g., Wright 1961, 169ff.; Margueron 1984, 24; Glinister 1997, 62ff.; Mari.ˇn 2010; Kim 2014, 276ff; see Ex. 19.9ñ 13; Gn. 28.10ñ22; 35.6ñ8 and 13ñ15; Dt. 12.3; J. A. J. 8.318). This association between territorial markers and identity is also cogent for the study of Phoenician colonization strategies in Southwestern Iberia, namely the construction of sanctuaries in areas of strategic access to raw materials and trade routes, particularly after the seventh century BC. Until then, this use of sanctuaries as territorial markers with associated political, religious, and economic roles was unknown to the indigenous communities. This is critical to question what the impact of these buildings in local lifeways was, but firstly it is useful to consider the two African cases discussed here to identify some issues of these encounters, as well as clues for its interpretation. 86 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES NO 14 SA~O JORGE DA MINA AND ANGOLA It must be stated that the two African cases were chosen because they represent two different kinds of interaction between resident communities and Portuguese groups in different moments. The first case was well studied from an archaeological perspective which was related to Portuguese documents and oral traditions. The second one was studied by I. Castro Henriques from a thought-provoking point of view (2004). The process of the destruction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of territorial perceptions in colonial Angola is also well documented and studied, which is a reason for choosing these cases for our comparative analysis. Sa~o Jorge da Mina (SJM) was a fortified trading post founded in 1482 by the Portuguese on the Costa do Ouro (Gold Coast, West Africa). The Portuguese built this fortified settlement for commercial purposes with no ambition of conquering or exploiting adjacent territories by force or political alliances, what J. Alvar called a nonhegemonic contact mode (Alvar 2000). Its founders, attracted mainly by the regionís gold wealth, sought to monopolize the trade and to protect it with a permanent settlement (Baalong 1993, 52ff; DeCorse 2001). The first encounters between the foreign newcomers and the local resident communities reveal the interests of each of these parties (About the baptism of local leaders and their reluctance, see Baalong 1993, 60ss.; Barros, quoted in Braˇsio 1952, 24ñ26; DeCorse 2001, 179ñ180) and can be examined from the point of view of territoriality. After initial negotiations that brokered the acceptance of the newcomers by the neighbouring communities, confrontations between the former and the latter broke out due to the use of a sacred rock as a quarrying site (R. Pina, Ch. 2, apud Serra 1790, 16; cf. Barros, apud Braˇsio 1952, 27): Before he withdrew, the captain went with the craftsmen he had brought to lay the foundation of the fortress [with stone] which they took from the top of some high rocks which were sacred to the blacks and adored by them. [...] When the blacks saw so much damage being done to their sacred rocks, and their hopes of salvation destroyed, they reach very strongly and, burning with fury, took up their arms and treated the workmen so harshly that they could not resist and fled back to their boats. (Translated by M. Newitt 2010, 94) The examination of this example is stimulating, as it exposes the existence of a natural marker not recognised as such by the 87 PEDRO ALBUQUERQUE Portuguese. Even after an initially favourable reception by local elites, sources reveal that the Portuguese were not widely accepted in this new land and had to negotiate their position constantly (Baalong 1993, 60). Moreover, it seems that the hinterland trade routes were controlled by Africans (Ibid., 73). This means that the encounters between the latter and the Portuguese, though tense, were quite different from later colonial contacts in the nineteenth century, because there was no systematic destruction of local sacred places or buildings (DeCorse 2001, 180ñ181), or even control of trade routes. The Portuguese were a minority in a territory controlled by local political powers, continually changing as they were integrated into the Atlantic trade. These changes affected mostly local economic systems, now responding to the new demands of gold and slaves from the settlers of SJM and the European merchants (DeCorse 2001, 175ff.). These changes lead to the abandonment of some regions, while previously peripheral territories stood out in the African new political contexts. In sum, the communities either integrated the new systems or protected themselves from it (MacIntosh 2001). The Eurocentric image of the locals as passive receptors and emulators of European lifeways does not survive a rigorous analysis of the relevant written, oral, and archaeological sources. The integration of imported goods into existing African lifeways and the survival of indigenous ceremonies and religious beliefs reveal that commercial contacts did not have such a deep impact on the behaviours and the material culture (latu sensu) of both groups involved in these encounters. Also noteworthy is the fact that African food consumption habits, a most telling identity marker and social relationship indicator, did not change drastically with European presence, notwithstanding the acquisition of imported pottery by the resident communities (DeCorse 2001, 177ñ178). However, colonial rule did prompt truly striking changes in the lifeways of indigenous population during the nineteenth century. As C. DeCorse (2001) argues: Even more telling is the gradual disuse and destruction of formerly sacred groves. Such transformations may be indicative of an increasing tempo in the changes that occurred in coastal Ghana. Yet, even so, such changes cannot be divorced from their distinctive local context and indigenously articulated expression. (DeCorse 2001, 191) These phenomena can be linked directly to the increasing role of the Europeans in African affairs, and even with the domination and 88 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES NO 14 knowledge of the hinterland, as can be seen in the colonial rule of Angola by the Portuguese. The common denominator in these historical contexts was the impact of colonization on the exploitation and organization of landscapes, which was always adapted exclusively to the interests of the Europeans. The colonial administrative reorganisation of an area was tantamount to significant changes in the resident communities. For the colonizer, the land was alienable, while for the Africans it was inhabited by forces of nature, by spirits and by ancestors (Henriques 2004). Founding accounts, ceremonies, the daily life of populations, their economic activities or even production logistics, legitimized the construction of identity discourses both on the territorial perception and occupation (Henriques 2004, 14ñ22). In this context, territorial markers again were a significant part of the perpetuity of the emic perspective of collective identity and history. They were a useful reminder of an old episode (e.g., the founding of a village) and a vehicle for the consecration of space (Tilley 1994, 20ñ21). Thus, the deconstruction of the preexisting structures and markers was a strategy to impose a new political and economic reality with European overtones. In other words, it proceeded to desacralize African territories, integrating them into the symbolic system of Western representation, which included the delimitation of properties, new borders, and the mapping of the colonized territory (Garcia and Santos 2000; Henriques 2004, 30ff., images 15ñ18). This process had four main phases. It started with a long tradition of commercial contacts with African leaders. Subsequently, a discreet foreign presence was established in a village or on its outskirts with outsiders separated from the local communities and dependent on their sovereigns. The convergence and reorganization of existing commercial spaces followed. And, finally, the Portuguese proceeded with the destruction of the African ìcommercial housesî and imposed their dominance (Henriques 2000, 77). The latter coincided with the migration and subsequent rise of the White population. Consequently, there was a clash between territorial perceptions, organization and ìcivilizational logicsî. The colonizer was the one overturning ìAfrican systems of land occupation and management, replacing them with the violence of individual property and the logic of industrial production [...]î (Henriques 2004, 14ñ15, translated by the author). The new mode of conceiving, organizing, and perceiving the human landscape led to a new social order determined and ruled by the White, which affected social and economic habits and traditions 95 PEDRO ALBUQUERQUE in the Low Guadalquivir prior to the Phoenician presence (Escacena 1995). The lack of archaeological contexts for this corpus of information is an obstacle for the proper identification and characterization of mutual influences. Notwithstanding, little attention has been paid to the presence of weapons both in the stelae and in the hoard as a possible indicator of an escalating violence prior to the founding of permanent Phoenician settlements. In the last decades, some scholars postulated the existence of violence associated with the abandonment of settlements and the construction of defensive structures in search for protection (Moreno 1999, 164ñ165; Od. 1.398). This process can be compared with the early modern texts about the slave trade, as it is described, e.g. by the Flemish trader E. de la Fosse (1479ñ 1480; see also McIntosh 2001 for the slave trade in Senegambia from an archaeological perspective): [...] they brought us women and children for sale, who we bought, and then we resold them in the same places or elsewhere. Mother and son cost us in this act a razor, and 3 or 4 large brass rings. Then, when we were already in the Mina de Ouro, we sold women and children for a good 12 or 14 pesos of gold, and each peso worth 3 estrelinos of gold. The profit was enormous. (Alvim 1992, 62, translated by the author) The description provided by De la Fosse can illustrate the acquisition of prestige goods. This kind of trade had a significant impact on the populations and was crucial for the development of militarized communities and for the displacement of human groups. It, then, can be postulated that violence or even slave trade was (at least partially) in the agenda of the newcomers and their first contacts in the Iberian Peninsula. For the sake of this argument, it is also noteworthy that heroic tales, like the works of Heracles in the Far West, have more to do with an idea of violent conquest of the world ends than with peaceful relations with the ìOtherî (Wagner, 2008). On the other hand, Warrior stelae, brilliantly compiled and examined by S. Celestino (2001) as manifestations of the precolonial (i.e., Tartessian) communities and of the acquisition of prestige goods, were then reinterpreted as a manifestation of slave capture expeditions in hinterland taking as examples the African cases (Moreno 1999; 2000; Wagner 2005) and a possible motive for the large voyages along the Mediterranean by the Phoenicians before the foundation of permanent settlements. This led us to another topic also related with the identification of Indigenous communities, i.e., the interpretation of handmade 96 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES NO 14 pottery in Iron Age sites. Some archaeologists, when finding materials that fit into Late Bronze Age (or non-Phoenician) typologies, tend to automatically postulate that the in-question site is autochthonous (e.g., Castro Marim: Oliveira 2012; Arruda et al. 2017; Tavira: Maia and Silva 2004). However, even considering the participation of local groups in oriental-style settlements (Wagner 2005, 184ñ185), there are no clear indicators of hybridization. The presence/ absence of handmade or wheel-made pottery does not necessarily prove that the ones who used it were locals or newcomers, except if it is considered that some of these goods are used for the negotiation or for the affirmation of individual identity (when related, e.g., with the consumption of a particular kind of food). Micro-scale archaeological analysis is then necessary to provide a new insight into these questions. Notwithstanding, there are other features that can be used for the interpretation of these processes from the point of view of territoriality or settlement patterns. The cases exposed below allow us to state that cult buildings, let alone walled settlements, can be manifestations of tense or unequal relations between locals and newcomers based on the deconstruction of territorial perceptions. It must be noted that this does not necessarily exclude hybridization, entanglements, or complicities. It is not implausible that hostility and mistrust could be a common behaviour of these communities, particularly at the onset of contacts or even during the (re)organization of the territory by the foreign groups. As mentioned above, the so-called Phoenician or oriental-style sanctuaries were erected in strategic places that allowed settlers to control the trade routes between the sea and the inland territories. So, the first Iron Age occupation of Spal (present-day Seville) in the ninth century BC (Escacena and Garci.ˇa Fernaˇndez 2012) is believed to have been complemented by the Carambolo sanctuary, founded on the opposite riverbank of the Guadalquivir River. This site was found in 1958 by workers during the construction of a building for the Sociedad de Tiro de PichÛn and was particularly relevant for the invention (not for the ìdiscoveryî) of an archaeological image of Tartessos by scholars such as J. Maluquer de Motes and J. de Mata Carriazo. The former considered that indigenous or non-Phoenician material culture should be identified as Tartessian even before the findings of El Carambolo (cf. the papers collected in Bandera and Ferrer, eds., 2010, and the historiographic works of M. Aˇlvarez Marti.ˇ- Aguilar; Celestino and LÛpez-Ruiz 2016, 11ñ16). Before the twentyfirst centuryís excavations carried out in this site, M. Belén and J. L. Escacena (1997; cf. Correa 2000) postulated that the placename 97 PEDRO ALBUQUERQUE Spal has a Semitic origin and, consequently, that the present-day Seville was founded by the Phoenicians and that El Carambolo could be a Phoenician sanctuary. Recently, M. Torres Ortiz (2016) has argued that the site was first occupied by a Late Bronze Age community and, consequently, it would not have been a Phoenician foundation or even a sanctuary. The role played by this hypothetical earlier (stable?) occupation in the context of the Guadalquivir River traffic is not well known, leaving the process without plausible and convincing explanation. Was there a continuity? Or a rupture? If the first supposition is accepted, why did this building follow a Near Eastern model? If, alternatively, there was a rupture, what was this buildingís meaning in indigenous territorial perceptions? If the interpretation previously proposed in this article is accepted, this cult building can be seen as a dismantling of existing territorial perceptions and a strategy for imposing a new power and its ideology on a reorganized territory. A scenario of complicity cannot and should not be excluded, but traces of prior use may indicate that the El Carambolo sanctuary is a testimony to first contacts or, alternatively, that the place was sacred to the indigenous people (Fernaˇndez and Rodri.ˇguez 2010, 214ff. proposed that there is a possibility of a ritualistic use of this space by the previous settlers). Also noteworthy is the fact that the sanctuary was built on a hilltop that stands out visibly in the landscape and that it seems to reproduce a Near Eastern way of thinking (see, e.g. the sacralization of hills in the OT: De Vaux 1992, 370ñ373; cf. Psalms 2.6 and 3.5, Isaiah 27; Ezekiel 20.40). Its architecture, construction materials, helioscopic orientation, shell floors and the altars of its subsequent phases suggest a reproduction of a foreign ideology and its possible imposition on the organization and control of the Guadalquivirís trade route (Escacena and Vaˇzquez 2009, 57ff.; Fernaˇndez and Rodri.ˇguez 2010, 219ñ221; Escacena 2018, 143ff.; cf. Ezekiel 47.1; De Vaux 1992, 417; GÛmez Pen~a 2017). The settlement pattern also seems to reflect, as J. L. Escacena (2018) has recently suggested, a Phoenician trend which has been identified in other sites, namely Onoba (Huelva)-Aljaraque, and Ayamonte-Castro Marim. The city was built on the eastern side of a river, while the sanctuary was erected on the western side. However, it must be noted that Lisbon and Almaraz are urban enclaves that occupy both sides of the Tagus River, but no sanctuary has been found there. Yet, according to Straboís account, the founders of the first Phoenician colony in the Iberian Peninsula ì[Ö] founded the temple 98 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES NO 14 in the eastern part of the island, and the city in the westî (Str. 3.5.5, translated by Hamilton, Falconer 1857). Our knowledge of this temple has been dependent solely on the written sources and the findings of statuettes near Sancti-Petri (Caˇdiz) (Corzo 2005). More recently, however, archaeological work in the nearby Chiclana unearthed a fortified settlement founded in the ninth ñ eighth century BC (Bueno Serrano and Cerpa Nin~o, 2008), i. e. with the same chronology of Castillo de Don~a Blanca (Escacena 2018, 148), and built following Near Eastern models, evidence which could hypothetically reinforce Escacenaís (still unconfirmed) statements. This scholar adds that the (probably apotropaic) shell floors identified in the Teatro CÛmico of Caˇdiz could be part of a cult place dedicated to Astarte (Ibid., 147ñ 150), but these remains are essentially urban. Back on the Baetis Valley, Caura (Coria del Ri.ˇo, Seville), Montemoli.ˇn (Marchena) and Carmo (Carmona, Seville) are additional regional examples of cult places built on strategic trade route locales. As in other cases, these sites reflect a choice made by their builders to occupy a place of prominence in the surrounding landscape, a clear indicator of their importance as territorial markers. Caura has been identified by M. Belén with the Mons Cassius mentioned by Avienus (fourth century AD), i.e. a possible sanctuary dedicated to Zeus Cassius or Baal-Saphon (Avienus O.M. 255ñ257; Belén 1993, 49; Escacena and Izquierdo 2001, 123ñ126; for the identification of the Mons Cassius, see Bonsor 1922, 27ñ28). Erected at the beginning of the eighth century BC and associated with a ìPhoenician neighbourhoodî, the cult building sits on the San Juan hill and faces the Cerro de Cantalobos, an indigenous habitat located on the opposite elevation. These hills dominated the maritime landscape of Lacus Ligustinus. Some scholars admitted that Caura was previously occupied by an autochthonous community, basing their assumptions on the interpretation of this placename as Indo-European (Padilla 1993; on the issues raised using placenames as sources for the archaeologists, see Albuquerque, 2018, with previous bibliography). Notwithstanding, the oriental origin of this building and of its functionality are clearly demonstrated, for example, by its architecture during its five construction phases (eight ñ sixth centuries BC), by its open spaces and red floors, and by the possible use of the royal cubit of c. 55 cm (Escacena and Izquierdo 2001, 147; about the seventh century BC altar, see GÛmez Pen~a 2010, 142; 2017). Montemoli.ˇn (Marchena) was located inland, near the Corbones river (tributary of the Guadalquivir). It occupies a prominent place in the surrounding landscape and is associated with the nearby Vico settlement, a clear indicator of its importance as a territorial marker 99 PEDRO ALBUQUERQUE (Chaves and Bandera 1982). The occupational sequence of this sacrificial complex between the tenth and the sixth centuries BC reveals several overlaps between buildings with different architectural features, which seem to evidence a hybrid mode of visual communication. Wheel-made pottery was gradually introduced throughout the second half of the eighth century BC (phase II), together with a large building of stone, mud, and adobe (Bandera et al. 1993, 22ñ 25). In the next phase (IIIA, end of the eighth century BC), an orthogonal building (B) coexisted with an oval-shaped structure (A), which overlapped the building of the previous phase. Both had red-painted floors, a feature which usually distinguishes oriental buildings. By the middle of the seventh century BC, the building C overlapped B, and a few years later, the D overlapped A. The last phase was the compartmentalisation of building C during the sixth century BC. The incomplete stratigraphy of the nearby settlement, Vico, can be useful for comparison with the evolution of Montemoli.ˇn, as revealed by the substitution of the circular by the orthogonal plant, and the integration of new techniques and products from the end of 8th century BC onwards. The site was still inhabited after the abandonment of the sacrificial complex (Bandera and Ferrer 2002, 127ñ 128; 144). Not far from Spal ñ El Carambolo, Carmo is also interpreted as an indigenous settlement located in the vicinity of Lacus Ligustinus (for the attempts of defining its occupational sequence and indigenous origins, see the works of J. M. Carriazo ñ K. Raddatz, and Amores ñ Pellicer, quoted in Pellicer 2007, 235ff; Mederos 2008, 121ñ123). In this city, a sanctuary was built at the beginning of the seventh century BC on San Blas neighbourhood (Marqués del Saltillo Palace and Diego Navarro St., 20), a prominent location possibly previously used as a metallurgical workshop (Romaˇn and Belén 2007, 500ñ501). Given the archaeological data from other parts of Carmo, it is possible to state that the sanctuary was erected on an unoccupied locale in the same period as the Alcoresí necropolises (Bonsor 1899 [1997]; Amores 1982; Jiménez 2002). The most interesting feature is the buildingís downfall in the middle of the sixth century BC. It was abruptly abandoned without traces of violence and all that was in use at that time was left behind. Some vessels contained remains of birds (wild pigeons, partridges, and chickens) and fish (sea bream and a ray) in anatomic position. The building was reoccupied in the fifth century BC, after a period of dereliction, and was not used again as a cult place. The seventh century BC, therefore, seems a crucial period for the examination of territoriality processes in Southwestern Iberia. 100 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES NO 14 As it was then that not only the maximum development of sanctuaries like El Carambolo occurred, but also the foundation of new ones along the Atlantic coast and inland. Sanctuaries such as those built in Onoba (Huelva), Baesuris (Castro Marim), Balsa (Tavira), Abul and Beuipo (Alcaˇcer do Sal) were important territorial markers in the context of the fluvial and maritime trade routes and key for the control of access to raw materials. These, however, raise some noteworthy questions regarding the indigenous or exogenous roots of the places where they were built, which will be explored in the next paragraphs. Following Escacenaís settlement pattern hypothesis, Aljaraque (Huelva) may have also been a seventh ñ sixth century BC sanctuary that reproduced or was inspired by oriental models in its architecture, like its shell floor and the vessel associated with it (Escacena 2018). The apotropaic meaning of these floors, as proposed by this author in previous papers, can be compared to other Near Eastern examples and written sources (see the aforementioned comments on Teatro CÛmico of Caˇdiz shell floor). The archaeologists who excavated this site in 1968 overlooked its possible ritualistic purposes (Blaˇzquez et al. 1971). Additionally, archaeologists have unearthed a building in Méndez Nuˇn~ez Street (Huelva) that has been correctly interpreted as a cult place, judging by the materials found in it. This building was probably in use until the fifth century BC, even after a tsunami in the first quarter of the sixth century BC (Osuna et al. 2000; Gonzaˇlez de Canales et al. 2010). Underneath it, a deposit containing materials dated from c. 900ñ770 was found, but the circumstance of its remotion is an obstacle for a proper interpretation of the occupational sequence. Other scholars have associated presentday Saltés with the island consecrated to Herakles/Melqart, using as a reference Straboís account of the second Tyrian expedition to the Far West in the search of the Pillars of this hero (Str. 3.5.5). The findings of a terracotta ìHeraklesí headî around 1925 and bronze statuettes, during underwater works, have been also used as arguments to postulate the existence of a sanctuary on this island (Mederos 2006, 170ñ171; Truszkowski et al. 2007). The identification of the founders of the ancient Onoba/Onuba has too been debated, as has the role of this city as a symbol of the indigenist paradigm of Tartessos (see recent discussions of the identification of Huelva with Tari/Tartessos in Padilla 2016; Ferrer and Prados 2018). This city is commonly viewed as an autochthonous/ precolonial foundation. Such an indigenous origin has yet to be 101 PEDRO ALBUQUERQUE sufficiently proved, even despite the efforts of researchers to find and overestimate data that could fit these views. The Ri.ˇa de Huelva hoard, the hand-made pottery found in different parts of this settlement (particularly in Cabezo de San Pedro and Cabezo de la Esperanza), its toponym, and other findings that indicate the performance of metallurgical and agricultural activities, have all been considered indicators of an indigenous origin (Padilla 2016, 97ñ98; Escacena 2018, 151). In a very similar fashion, the extraordinary variety of ceramics present in Huelvaís oldest phases has been used to suggest the existence of a multicultural community in that city (Padilla 2016, 100). Both Castro Marim (Baesuris) and Tavira (Balsa) have comparable interpretation issues. The lack of clear archaeological indicators has, yet again, not prevented their widespread identification as sites founded by indigenous communities. The former was founded on an elevation of a peninsula in the vicinity of the right bank of the Guadiana River, and is barely mentioned in written sources (It. Ant. 425.6 and 431.4ñ8; Rav. 305.9; it is absent from Str. 3.1.9). This identification is based on legends of coins (cf. Arruda 1999ñ 2000, 36). Its most telling feature is its positioning which affords visual control over the Guadianaís mouth and provides great defensibility, both exceptionally relevant in the context of the terrestrial and fluvial trade routes (among many others, Arruda et al. 2009; 2017; Oliveira 2012). Other sources reveal that Castro Marim was still a Peninsula in the sixteenth century (cf. DíArmas 1510; Klein 2019). Inland, Mértola was a relevant port located at the end of the navigable section (Albuquerque and Garci.ˇa Fernaˇndez 2017). The first phase of this site is represented by a pit located on a peripheral area; the second by the construction of houses with an orthogonal plan on areas unoccupied during the seventh century BC. This may indicate a growth of the settlement during this period or, alternatively, an ex-novo occupation. This leaves us with a conundrum. If we accept the first hypothesis, then an integration of this site in the Mediterranean koine without clear signs of adaptation is to be assumed. If, in turn, we postulated that the site is an Iron Age foundation, the pit and the data found in it cannot be properly integrated in the analysis of a historical process, as we saw in Huelvaís case. Whether Castro Marimís expansion was the result of internal changes, or the imposition of new models, is a question that remains unanswered. What seems clear, though, is that after the seventh century BC (phases II and III), the site followed strictly oriental models. Such a trend is particularly visible, during the phase III, in the construction 102 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES NO 14 of a cult building with an altar and shell floor and in its surrounding urbanism (Arruda et al. 2007; 2009). Less than 25 km away, towards the West, is the ancient site of Balsa, underneath what today is the city of Tavira. It too was interpreted as an autochthonous foundation, due to the findings of Late Bronze Age material culture. In this case, the previous occupation of this site seems to be more obvious or, at least, more visible than in Castro Marim, but the interpretation of this process is still challenging (Arruda 2014; Covaneiro and Cavaco 2017, 221ñ223). This site is located on Santa Mariaís hill, at the mouth of the Gila~o river, and was first occupied at the end of the eighth century BC. This choice of location reveals that, from outset, its settlers were interested in the benefits of the contacts with the sea and the hinterland. In this period, there were people living and being buried in Ayamonte, at the right bank of the Guadianaís mouth (Marzoli and Teyssandier 2019), as well as in Castro Marim Iron Age seems a time of growth for this settlement, with an apparent intensification of nautical activities and a noticeable concern for defence. The building of a strong wall with casemates appears indicative of social environment in turmoil, from the end of the seventh century BC onwards. However, it is noteworthy that Castro Marim was not fortified during this period, even considering that the Gila~o and Seco rivers were not navigable as the Guadiana (Maia, apud Pappa 2015, 12). Excavations carried out at Taviraís Palaˇcio da Galeria uncovered an assemblage associated with ritual pits (or bothroi). The partially published findings were recently re-examined by E. Pappa (2015) in a work that lent new credence to the interpretation of the building as a cult place. Previous research postulated the existence of a cult to Baal in Balsa, citing evidence that ranged from references in the placename to Baal-Shamen (Maia and Silva 2004; see discussion in Albuquerque 2018, 149) to possible depictions of religious symbols relating to Baal or Melqart on coins produced between 47 and 44 BC and laconic data from later Classical sources (cf. Albuquerque 2014, 202ñ204). Such speculation can neither prove the existence of a cult place in Balsa, nor can it relate the iconographic evidence to lost foundation accounts (Maia and Silva 2004). However, the available data does suggest that the interpretation of Palaˇcio da Galeria as a Phoenician sanctuary can be accepted, even if it is as a necropolis later sacralised (Arruda et al. 2008, 148ñ149; Pappa 2015, 47). An indigenous origin for this settlement, its cult place or even the necropolis found in Convento da Grac¸a cannot be categorically postulated (Arruda et al. 2008). 103 PEDRO ALBUQUERQUE Located at the westernmost point of Portugalís southern coast, the Sagres Promontory, also known as Hieron Akroterion (the ìSacred Capeî), was considered to be the end of the inhabited world (Str. 3.1.4). References to the use of this natural territorial marker are far from conclusive as are the different interpretations of the textual tradition about a place that is archaeologically invisible (Albuquerque 2014, 206ñ208). Unsurprisingly, this type of geographical landmarks was often sacralized, especially due to their importance for seamen and their association with the aforementioned bamot (Marin 2010). Unfortunately, the lack of archaeological data prevents further discussion here. Lastly, we would like to highlight the problematic case of Castro dos Ratinhos (Moura, Portugal), a fortified settlement located on a hilltop near an unnavigable section of the Guadiana River. Recent excavations on this site have unearthed a plausible early date sanctuary, apparently the end of the ninth century BC. The structure identified as a cult place displays an orthogonal plan. Further pointing to this being a Phoenician milieu, are a possible ashera and a betyl found in its interior. As around this unique building, houses kept their circular plant. In addition, iron or wheel-made pottery are absent. Scholars have been prone to postulate that Castro dos Ratinhos was a typical Late Bronze Age site in which a Phoenician or orientalstyle sanctuary was raised only to be destroyed some 30 years later (Berrocal Rangel and Silva 2010). It is tempting to see this process as an example of the construction of a new territorial marker associated with a foreign ideology that stood out in this settlement for c. three decades. Curiously, after the fire that destroyed the temenos and the sanctuary, a new building was raised with the ìoldî circular model. The examination of the short life of this sanctuary is problematic due to the excavation methodology, which compromised the stratigraphical and chronological interpretation of the site (Ibid., 51ff.), but it is clearly a case of an unsuccessful imposition of a new ideology, symbolized by a marker erected on a place that is far from discrete in the context of this settlement. Although this could be conjectural, let us take the example of 1 Kings 16.31ñ33, which describes the marriage between the king Achab and Jezebel, daughter of the Ethbaal of Sidon (cf. Briquel-chatonnet, 1998): the former built, in the context of this contract, an altar to Baal and an Asherah in the building founded by him in Samaria. Is it possible that Ratinhosí sanctuary was built within an unequal relationship or was part of a political treaty? 104 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES NO 14 RETHINKING PHOENICIAN COLONIZATION FROM A COMPARATIVE POINT OF VIEW These last lines will hopefully help outline some guidelines for a more complete understanding of the range of relations and dynamics that must have taken place in the encounters between Mediterranean and Indigenous communities in the Southwestern Iberia based on the comparison with African cases. Even though limited in number, the cases examined show that archaeological research is still dealing with interpretation issues when it comes to the before-after of these encounters. The interpretation of these processes must go beyond the identification of hand-made or wheel-made pottery with indigenous or foreign presence. Scholars do often admit that indigenous communities had different local responses to external stimuli and postulate a diversity of ìindigenizationsî of the elements associated with the newcomers (an example in Cruz Andreotti 2019), but often overlook signs of violence, as well as the relationship between territoriality and identity discourses. This is especially relevant for the interpretation of the dissemination of cult buildings throughout Southwestern Iberia. As stated above, territorial markers can be used as symbols of the ties between a community and the land, structuring identity discourses and the collective image of the past. Construction, as well as destruction, of cult buildings and necropolises can be a consequence of a new dominant ideology being imposed upon a territory. We must insist that territoriality embodies a way of thinking and conceiving collective identities and social relationships. It is, thus, essential to recognise that opportunistic collaboration and forced compliance do not necessarily mean that a group adopts the architectural models, territorialities, and lifeways of the newcomers without questioning them. It is naÔve to postulate that there were sites founded exclusively by newcomers without the help or participation of local communities, or that the foreign groups remained unaffected by indigenous presence. This topic is widely discussed by S. Celestino and C. LÛpez-Ruiz (2016). Even admitting that previous cultural phases are poorly documented, it seems obvious that the establishment of sanctuaries in locations of strategic relevance for trade routes and that of necropolises in unused sites are novelties that can be associated with the arrival of the Phoenicians in Southwestern Iberia in the Iron Age. Equally quite telling, food and drink consumption and the imitation of ceramic wares point toward a hybridization of identities, lifeways, the so- 111 PEDRO ALBUQUERQUE De Vaux, R. (1992). Instituciones del Antiguo Testamento. Barcelona: Herder. DeCorse, Ch. R. (2001). An Archaeology of Elmina. Africans and Europeans on the Gold Coast. Washington, London: SIP. DeCorse, Ch. R., ed. (2001). West Africa during the Atlantic Slave Trade: Archaeological Perspectives. London, NYC: LUP. Detienne, M. (2008). Comparing the Incomparable. Standford: SUP. Dietler, M. and LÛpez-Ruiz, C. eds. (2009). Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia. Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous relations. Chigaco: UCP. Escacena, J. L. (1995). ìLa etapa precolonial de Tartessos. Reflexiones sobre el ìBronceî que nunca existiÛ.î In: Tartessos 25 an~os despueˇs (1968ñ1993). Jerez de la Frontera: Ayuntamiento de Jerez de la Frontera, 179ñ214. Escacena, J. L. (2018). ìHuelva-Aljaraque y el patrÛn poblacional fenicio de la costa tartésica.î In: Campos, P. (ed.) Arqueologi.ˇa y territorio en la provincia de Huelva: veinte an~os de las Jornadas de Aljaraque (1998ñ2017). Huelva: DiputaciÛn de Huelva, 137ñ177. Escacena, J. L. and Garci.ˇa Fernaˇndez, F. J. (2012). ìLa Sevilla ProtohistÛrica.î In: Beltraˇn Fortes, J. and Rodri.ˇguez Gutiérrez, O. (coords.) Hispaniae urbes. Investigaciones arqueolÛgicas en ciudades histÛricas. Sevilla: EUS, 763ñ814. Escacena, J. L. and Izquierdo, R. (2001). ìOriente en Occidente: Arquitectura Civil y Religiosa en un Barrio Fenicio de la Caura Tartésica.î In: Celestino, S. and Ruiz Mata, D. (eds.) Arquitectura Oriental y Orientalizante en la Peni.ˇnsula Ibeˇrica. Madrid: CSIC, 123ñ157. Escacena, J. L. and Vaˇzquez, M. I. (2009). ìConchas de salvaciÛn.î Spal 18, 53ñ84. Estermann, C. (1983). Etnografia de Angola (Sudoeste e Centro). Lisboa: IICT. Fernaˇndez, A. and Rodri.ˇguez, A. (2010). ìEl Carambolo, secuencia cronocultural del yacimiento. Si.ˇntesis de las intervenciones 2002ñ 2005.î In: Bandera, M. L. and Ferrer, E. (coords.) El Carambolo: 50 an~os de un tesoro. Sevilla: EUS, 203ñ270. Ferrer, E. (2018). ìEl ri.ˇo que nos lleva. Caura y el poblamiento en la desembocadura del Tartessi Amnis.î In: Escacena, J. L., GÛmez Pen~a, A. and Pérez-Aguilar, L. G. (coords.) Caura: Arqueologi.ˇa en el Estuario del Guadalquivir. Sevilla: EUS, 73ñ96. Ferrer, E. (2019). ìEthnic and Cultural Identity among Punic Communities in Iberiaî. In: Cruz Andreotti, G. (ed.) Roman Turdetania. Romanization, Identity and Socio-Cultural Interaction in the South of the Iberian Peninsula between the 4th and 1st centuries BCE. Leiden: Brill, 70ñ88. 112 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES NO 14 Ferrer, E. and Prados, E. (2018). ìTarteso = Huelva: una identificaciÛn controvertida.î In: Campos, P. (ed.) Arqueologi.ˇa y territorio en la provincia de Huelva: veinte an~os de las Jornadas de Aljaraque (1998ñ 2017). Huelva: DiputaciÛn de Huelva, 217ñ248. Finley, M. I. (1976). ìColonies: An Attempt at a Typology.î Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 26, 167ñ188. Garci.ˇa Fernaˇndez, F. J. and Garci.ˇa Vargas, E., eds. (2014). Comer a la moda: Imitaciones de vajilla de mesa en Turdetania y la Beˇtica occidental durante la Antig¸edad (S. VI A.C. ñ VI D.C.). Barcelona: UB. Garcia, J. C. and Santos, M.a E. M. (2000). ìA representac¸a~o antes da alienac¸a~o: imagens cartograˇficas da organizac¸a~o do espac¸o angolano (c. 1883 ñ c. 1930).î In: Santos, M.a E. M. (dir.) A Aˇfrica e a instalac¸a~o do Sistema colonial (c. 1885 ñ c. 1930). Lisboa: CEHCA/ IICT, 91ñ115. Glinister, F. (1997). ìWhat is a Sanctuary?î Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glˆtz 8, 61ñ80. GÛmez Bellard, C., Pérez Jordaˇ, G. and Vendrell Beti.ˇ, A., coords. (2020). La alimentaciÛn en el aˇmbito fenicio-puˇnico: producciones, procesos y consumos. Sevilla: EUS. GÛmez Pen~a, A. (2010). ìAsi.ˇ en Oriente como en Occidente: el origen oriental de los altares taurodérmicos de la Peni.ˇnsula Ibérica.î Spal 19, 129ñ148. GÛmez Pen~a, A. (2017). La piel de toro como si.ˇmbolo religioso y marcador identitario de la colonizaciÛn fenicia de la peni.ˇnsula ibeˇrica. Una lectura darwinista. PhD Thesis. University of Seville. Gonzaˇlez de Canales, F., Serrano, L. and Llompart, J. (2010). ìEl inicio de la Edad del Hierro en el Suroeste de la Peni.ˇnsula Ibérica, las navegaciones precoloniales y cuestiones en torno a las ceraˇmicas locales de Huelva.î In: Pérez, J. A. and Romero, E. (eds.) IV Encuentro de Arqueologi.ˇa del Suroeste Peninsular. Huelva: SPUH, 648ñ697. Gosden, C. (2008). Arqueologi.ˇa y Colonialismo: el contacto cultural desde 5000 a.C. hasta el presente. Barcelona: Bellatierra. Hartog, F. (1991). Le miroir díHeˇrodote. Essai sur la repreˇsentation de líautre. Paris: Gallimard. Henriques, I. C. (2000). ìComércio e organizac¸a~o do espac¸o em Angola (c. 1870ñ1950).î In: Santos, M.a E. M. (dir.) A Aˇfrica e a instalac¸a~o do sistema colonial (c. 1885 ñ c. 1930). Lisboa: CEHCA/ IICT, 71ñ90. Henriques, I. C. (2004). TerritÛrio e Identidade. A construc¸a~o da Angola Colonial (c. 1872 ñ c. 1926). Lisboa: UL/CH. 113 PEDRO ALBUQUERQUE Henriques, I. C. (2020). A descolonizac¸a~o da HistÛria. Portugal, a Aˇfrica e a Desconstruc¸a~o de Mitos Historiograˇficos. Lisboa: CaleidoscÛpio. Horta, J. S. (1995). ìEntre histÛria europeia e histÛria africana, um objecto de charneira: as representac¸ıes.î In: ColÛquio Construc¸a~o e Ensino da HistÛria de Aˇfrica. Lisboa, Grupo de Trabalho do Ministério da Educac¸a~o para as Comemorac¸ıes dos Descobrimentos Portugueses, 181ñ200. Horta, J. S. (2009). ìSer ëPortugue ∧∧ ∧∧ ∧ sí em terras africanas: vicissitudes da construc¸a~o identitaˇria na ëGuiné do Cabo Verdeí (sécs. XVIñXVII).î In: Matos, S. C., Henriques, I. C., Fernandes, H. and Horta, J. S. (eds.) Nac¸a~o e Identidades. Portugal, os portugueses e os outros. Lisboa: UL/CH, CaleidoscÛpio, 261ñ274. Jiménez, A. M. (2002). Pueblos y Tumbas: El impacto oriental en los rituales funerarios del Extremo Occidente. Écija: Graˇficas Sol. Kashtan, N. (2000). ìPhoenicia, Palestine and the Sea: Biblical and Hellenistic Perceptions of the Coast.î In: Aubet, M. E. and Barthélemy, M. (eds.) Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de estudios fenicios y puˇnicos, Vol. IV. Caˇdiz: SPUC, 379ñ384. Kim, S. (2014). The Concepts of Sacred Space in the Hebrew Bible: Meanings, Significance, and Functions. PhD Thesis. Boston University. Klein, T. (2019). ìEstudios geoarqueolÛgicos en Ayamonte y su entorno.î In: Marzoli, D. and Garci.ˇa Teyssandier, E. (eds.) La necrÛ- polis fenicia de Ayamonte (Huelva): Memoria de la excavaciÛn del an~o 2013, estudios previos y complementarios. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucia, 19ñ28. Kocka, J. (1999). ìStoria comparata.î In: Enciclopedia delle Scienze Sociali, Vol. 8. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 389ñ396. Lowery, R. H. (1991). The Reforming Kings: Cults and Society in First Temple Judah. Sheffield: JSOT Press (=Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 120). MacIntosh, S. K. (2001). ìTools for Understanding Transformation and Continuity in Senegambian Society: 1500ñ1900.î In: DeCorse, C. R. (ed.) West Africa during the Atlantic Slave Trade: Archaeological perspectives. London, NYC: LUP, 14ñ37. Maia, M. G. P. and Silva, L. F. (2004). ìCulto de Baal em Tavira.î Huelva ArqueolÛgica 20, 171ñ194. Margueron, J.-C. (1984). ìProlégome`nes a` une étude portant sur líorganisation de líespace sacré en Orient.î In: Roux, G. (dir.) Temples et sanctuaires. Seˇminaire de recherche 1981ñ1983. Travaux de la Maison de líOrient. Lyon: Maison delíOrient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux, 23ñ36. 114 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES NO 14 Mari.ˇn Ceballos, M. C. (2010). ìImagen y culto de Astarté en la Peni.ˇnsula Ibérica. I: las fuentes griegas y Latinas.î In: Bandera, M. L. and Ferrer, E. (coords.) El Carambolo: 50 an~os de un tesoro. Sevilla: EUS, 491ñ512. Mari.ˇn Ceballos, M. C. and Jiménez Flores, A. M. (2004). ìlos santuarios fenicio-puˇnicos como centros de sabiduri.ˇa: el templo de Melqart en Gadir.î Huelva ArqueolÛgica 20, 215ñ239. Marti.ˇn-Aguilera, B. ed. (2018). Repensar el colonialismo: Iberia, de colonia a potencia colonial. Madrid: JAS Arqueologi.ˇa. Marzoli, D. and Garci.ˇa Teyssandier, E. (2019). La necrÛpolis fenicia de Ayamonte (Huelva). Sevilla: Junta de Andaluci.ˇa. Mederos, A. (2006). ìFenicios en Huelva, en el siglo X AC, durante el reinado de Hi. ∧∧ ∧∧ ∧ ra ∧∧ ∧∧ ∧ m I de Tiroî. Spal 15, 167ñ188. Mederos, A. (2008). ìEstratigrafi.ˇas para Tartessos: Don~ana, Mesas de Asta, Cateia, Carmona y Huelvaî. Spal 17, 97ñ136. Moreno, F. J. (1999). ìConflictos y perspectivas en el mundo precolonial tartésico.î GeriÛn 17, 149ñ177. Moreno, F. J. (2000). ìTartessos, Estelas, Modelos Pesimistas.î In: Uriel, P., Wagner, C. G. and LÛpez Pardo, F. (eds.) Intercambio y Comercio preclaˇsico en el Mediterraˇneo. Madrid: CEFYP, 153ñ174. Moreno, F. J. (2008). ìEn El CorazÛn de las tinieblas. Forma y dinaˇmica en la colonizaciÛn fenicia de Occidente.î GeriÛn 26, 35ñ60. Moret, P. (2004). ìEthnos ou Ethnie? Avatars anciens et modernes des noms des peuples ibe`res.î In: Cruz Andreotti, G. and Mora Serrano, B. (eds.) Identidades eˇtnicas ñ identidades poli.ˇticas en el mundo prerromano hispano. Maˇlaga: CEDMA, 32ñ62. Newitt, M. (2010). The Portuguese in West Africa, 1415ñ1670. Cambridge: CUP. Nordman, D. (2005). ìIdentidades territoriales.î In: Boissinot, P. and Rouillard, P. (coords.) Lire les territoires des socieˇteˇs anciennes. Meˇlanges de la Casa Velaˇzquez 35 (2), 147ñ157. Oliveira, C. F. P. (2012). ìO Bronze Final no Castelo de Castro Marim.î In: Jiménez Aˇvila, J. (ed.) Siderum Ana II: El rio Guadiana en el Bronce Final. Anejos de AEspa, LXII. Mérida, IAM, CSIC, 345ñ362. Osuna, M., Bedia, J. and Domi.ˇnguez, A. M. (2000). ìEl santuario protohistÛrico hallado en la calle Méndez Nuˇn~ez (Huelva).î In: Cabrera, P. and Santos, M. (coords.) Cera`miques Jo`nies díe`poca arcaica: centres de producciÛ i comercialitzaciÛ al Mediterrani Occidental. Monografies Emporitanes 11, 177ñ188. Padilla, A. (1993). ìCaura: el topÛnimo.î Azotea 11, 63ñ64. 115 PEDRO ALBUQUERQUE Padilla, A. (2016). ìHuelva y el inicio de la colonizaciÛn fenicia de la Peni.ˇnsula Ibérica.î Pyrenae 47 (1), 95ñ117. Pappa, E. (2015). The Phoenician Sanctuary of Palaˇcio da Galeria in Tavira (Portugal). Cuadernos de Arqueologi.ˇa Mediterraˇnea 23. Pech Salvador, C., Rizo Garci.ˇa, M. and Romeu Aldaya, V. (2009). ìEl habitus y la intersubjetividad como conceptos clave para la comprensiÛn de las fronteras internas. Un acercamiento desde las propuestas teÛricas de Bourdieu y Sch¸tz.î Frontera Norte 21 (41), 33ñ52. Pellicer, M. (2007). ìPasado y presente de la investigaciÛn protohistÛrica en Carmona.î In: Bendala, M. and Belén, M. (dirs.) El Nacimiento de la ciudad: la Carmona ProtohistÛrica. Sevilla, Carmona: EUS/Ayuntamiento de Carmona, 227ñ255. Romaˇn Rodri.ˇguez, J. M. and Belén Deamos, M.a (2007). ìFenicios en Carmona: novedades arqueolÛgicas.î In: Bendala, M. and Belén, M. (dirs.) El Nacimiento de la ciudad: la Carmona ProtohistÛrica. Sevilla, Carmona: EUS, Ayuntamiento de Carmona, 479ñ510. Ruiz Cabrero, L. and Wagner, C. G. (2005). ìDavid, SalomÛn e Hiran de Tiro: una relaciÛn Desigual.î Isimu 8, 107ñ112. Saviano, M. (2018). ìIl santuario di Zeus Cario a Milasa.î In: Radici. Studi di storia e storiografia greca offerti a Clara Talamo. Roma: Aracne, 79ñ98. Serra, J. C. da (1790). Collecc¸aı de livros ineditos de historia portugueza, dos reinados de d. Joaı I., d. Duarte, d. Affonso v., e d. Joaı II. Lisboa: Academia Real das Sciencias de Lisboa. Sommer, M. (2011). ìColonies ñ Colonization ñ Colonialism: A Typological Reappraisal.î AWE 10, 183ñ193. Sommer, M. (2012). ìHeart of Darkness? Post-colonial Theory and the Transformation of the Mediterranean.î AWE 11, 235ñ245. Stein, G. (2005). ìThe Comparative Archaeology of Colonial Encounters.î In: Stein, G. (ed.) The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives. Santa Fe, Oxford: School of American Research, 3ñ31. Tilley, C. R. (1994). A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments (Explorations in Anthropology). Oxford: Berg. Torres Ortiz, M. (2016). ìAlgunas consideraciones cronolÛgicas sobre el yacimiento tartésico de El Carambolo.î Cadernos do Museu da Lucerna 1, 79ñ96. Truszkowski, E., Villanueva, H. and Villanueva, M.-Ch. (2007). ìUne te ∧∧ ∧∧ ∧ te díHéracle`s en terre cuite a` Huelva.î Revue Archeˇologique 2, 269ñ292. 116 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES NO 14 Vives-Ferraˇndiz, J. (2005). Negociando encuentros: situaciones coloniales e intercambios en la costa oriental de la Peni.ˇnsula Ibeˇrica (ss. VIIIñVI a.C.). Barcelona: Universidad Pompeu Fabra (=Cuadernos de Arqueologi.ˇa Mediterraˇnea 12). Wagner, C. G. (2005). ìFenicios en el Extremo Occidente. Conflicto y violencia en el contexto colonial arcaico.î Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 8 (2), 177ñ192. Wagner, C. G. (2008). ìTiro, Melkart, Gadir y la conquista simbÛlica de los confines del mundo.î In: Gonzaˇlez, R., LÛpez, F. and Pen~a, V. (eds.) Los Fenicios y el atlaˇntico. Madrid, CEFYP, 11ñ29. Werner, M. and Zimmermann, B. (2005). ìBeyond Comparison: Histoire Croisée and the Challenge of Reflexivity.î History and Theory 45 (1), 30ñ50. Wright, E. G. (1961). ìThe Temple in Palestine-Syria.î In: Friedman, D. N. and Wright, G. E. (eds.) The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, vol. I. NYC: Anchor Books, 169ñ184.