This pdf of your paper in Communicating Identity belongs to the

publishers Oxbow Books and it is their copyright.

As author you are licenced to make up to 50 offprints from it,

but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide Web
until three years from publication (July 2014), unless the site is a
limited access intranet (password protected). If you have queries
about this please contact the editorial department at Oxbow
Books (editorial@oxbowbooks.com).
 An offprint from
Communicating Identity
in Italic Iron Age Communities

Edited by

Margarita Gleba and Helle W. Horsnæs

© Oxbow Book 2011

ISBN 978-1-84217-991-8
 Contents

Preface vii
Authors ix
List of Abbreviations xiii

Introduction: Communicating Identity in Italic Iron Age Communities – and Beyond 1

Jean MacIntosh Turfa
1.  Communicating Identities in Funerary Iconography: the Inscribed Stelae of Northern Italy 7
Kathryn Lomas
2.  The ‘Distaff Side’ of Early Iron Age Aristocratic Identity in Italy 26
Margarita Gleba
3.  Weaving, Gift and Wedding. A Local Identity for the Daunian Stelae 33
Camilla Norman
4.  Identity in the Tomb of the Diver at Poseidonia 50
E. G. D. Robinson
5.  Communicating Identity in an Italic-Greek Community: the Case of L’Amastuola (Salento) 73
Jan Paul Crielaard and Gert-Jan Burgers
6.  Family and Community: Self-Representation in a Lucanian Chamber Tomb 90
Helena Fracchia

7.  The Inscribed Caduceus from Roccagloriosa (South Italy):
Image of an Emerging ‘Political’ Identity 99
Maurizio Gualtieri
8.  Hybridity and Hierarchy: Cultural Identity and Social Mobility in Archaic Sicily 113
Gillian Shepherd
9.  Wohnen in Compounds: Haus-Gesellschaften und soziale Gruppenbildung
im frühen West- und Mittelsizilien (12.–6. Jh. v. Chr.) 130
Erich Kistler
1 0.  Constructing Identity in Iron Age Sicily 155
Matthew Fitzjohn
1 1.  Constructing Identities in Multicultural Milieux: The Formation of Orphism in the Black Sea
Region and Southern Italy in the Late 6th and Early 5th Centuries BC 167
Jane Hjarl Petersen
1 2.  Greek or Indigenous? From Potsherd to Identity in Early Colonial Encounters 177
Søren Handberg and Jan Klindberg Jacobsen
13. Coinages of Indigenous Communities in Archaic Southern Italy –
The Mint as a Means of Promoting Identity? 197
Helle W. Horsnæs
14.  Corfinium and Rome: Changing Place in the Social War 210
Elena Isayev
1 5.  Aspects of the Emergence of Italian Identity in the Early Roman Empire 223
Gary D. Farney

Plates 233
 Abbreviations
Abbreviations of ancient sources
Amm. Marc. Ammianus Marcellinus
Appian B Civ. Appian Bella Civilia
Caes. B Civ. Caesar Bellum Civile
Caes. B Gal. Caesar Bellum Gallicum
Cic. Att. Cicero Epistulae ad Atticum
Cic. Div. Cicero De divinatione
Cic. Leg. agr. Cicero De lege agraria
Cic. Nat. D. Cicero De natura deorum
Diod. Sic. Diodorus Siculus
Gell. Aulus Gellius
Hdt. Herodotos Historiae
Hom. Il. Homer Illiad
Joseph. Ap. Josephus Contra Apionem
Livy Livy Ad Urbe Condita
Plin. HN Pliny (the Elder) Naturalis Historia
Plin. Ep. Pliny (the Younger) Epistulae
Polyb. Polybius
Ps. Skyl. Pseudo-Skylax Periplous
SHA Ael. Scriptores Historiae Augustae
Aelius
SHA Ant. Pius Scriptores Historiae Augustae
Antoninus Pius
SHA Comm. Scriptores Historiae Augustae
Commodus
SHA Hadr. Scriptores Historiae Augustae
Hadrian
SHA Marc. Scriptores Historiae Augustae
Marcus
SHA Ver. Scriptores Historiae Augustae Verus
Stat. Silv. Statius Silvae
Strabo Geog. Strabo Geography
Suet. Caes. Suetonius, Caesar
Tac. Agr. Tacitus Agricola
Tac. Ann. Tacitus Annales
Val. Max. Valerius Maximus
Ver. Fl. ap. Fest Verrius Flaccus apud Festi
Verg. Aen. Virgil Aeneid
Victor Epit. Victor Epitome
Abbreviations of periodicals, series, books
AA Archäologischer Anzeiger
ActaHyp Acta Hyperborea
AION Annali dell’Instituto Orientale di
Napoli, sezione Archeologia e storia
Antica
AIONLing Annali di Archeologia e Storia
Antica
AIV Archeologia in Veneto
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AM Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische
Abteilung
AmerAnt American Antiquity
AnnPisa Annali della Scuola normale
superiore di Pisa
AntK Antike Kunst
AR Archaeological Reports
ArchCl Archeologia Classica
ArchKorrBl Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt
ASAtene Annuario della Scuola archeologica
di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in
Oriente
AttiMGrecia Atti e memorie della Società Magna
Grecia
AttiTaranto Atti del Convegno di studi sulla
Magna Grecia
AWE Ancient West and East
BABesch Bulletin Antieke Beschaving
BAR British Archaeological Reports
BAR-IS British Archaeological Reports,
International Series
BdA Bollettino d’Arte
BICS Bulletin on the Institute of Classical
Studies of the University of London
BMCR Bryn Mawr Classical Review
BPI Bollettino di paletnologia italiana
BSA Annual of the British School at
Athens
BTCGI Bibliografia topografica della
colonizzazione greca in Italia e
 nelle isole tirreniche. Vols. I–XVII,
1977–2000. Pisa-Roma
CAH Cambridge Ancient History
CAJ Cambridge Archaeological Journal
CIE Corpus Inscriptionum Etruscarum
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
ClAnt Classical Antiquity
CR Classical Review
CronCatania Cronache di Archeologia e Storia
dell’Arte
DialArch Dialoghi di Archeologia
EchCl Echos du monde classique. Classical
Views
EJA European Journal of Archaeology
HBA Hamburder Beiträge zur Archäologie
ILLRP Inscriptiones latinae liberae rei
publicae, H. Degrassi, 1963 and
1965, Firenze
ILS Inscriptiones latinae selectae, H.
Dessau (ed.), 1892–1916, Berlin
IstMitt Istanbuler Mitteilungen
JAnthArch Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology
JdI Jahrbuch des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
JMA Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
LIMC Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae
classicae
MAAR Memoires of the American Academy
in Rome
MeditArch Mediterranean Archaeology.
Australian and New Zealand
Journal for the Archaeology of the
Mediterranean World
MEFRA Mélanges d’archéologie et d’historie
de l’École française de Rome,
Antiquité
MLQ Modern Language Quarterly
MonAnt Monumenti Antichi
MRP Magistrates of the Roman Republic,
T. R. S. Broughton, 1951–1986,
New York
NEA Near Eastern Archaeology
NSc Notizie degli scavi di antichità
OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology
OpRom Opuscula Romana
PBSR Papers of the British School at Rome
PCIA Popoli e civiltà dell’Italia antica
PMLA Proceedings of the Modern Language
Association
PP La Parola del Passato
PZ Prähistorische Zeitschrift
RA Revue Archéologique
RendAcadNazLinc Rendiconti dell’ Accademia
Nazionale dei Lincei
RhM Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
RivFil Rivista di filologia e d’istruzione
classica
RN Revue numismatique
SA Sovetskaya Archeologiya
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum
Graecum
SicArch Sicilia Archeologica
StAnt Storia Antica
StEtr Studi Etruschi
TAPA Transactions of the American
Philological Association
TLE Testimonia linguae etruscae, edited
by M. Pallottino, 1968. Florence
VDI Vestnik drevnej istorii
WorldArch World Archaeology
 5

Communicating Identity in an Italic-Greek Community:

the Case of L’Amastuola (Salento)

Jan Paul Crielaard and Gert-Jan Burgers

In this contribution we present data obtained from recent excavations and surveys in and around L’Amastuola, a
site situated 15 km north-west of Taranto (ancient Taras). The area was inhabited already during the Late Bronze
Age; Iron Age occupation started in the later 8th century BC, probably as a result of a process of indigenous, internal
colonisation. The early 7th century saw the arrival of Greeks at the site, and this marked the beginning of a phase
of seemingly peaceful cohabitation. As is shown by domestic, cultic and funerary evidence, elements of native and
Greek cultural traditions became increasingly integrated, eventually leading to a shared ‘third culture’. We discuss
in detail those aspects of material culture that seem to have been actively employed to express and constitute local
identities. We also consider evidence of supra-local identities in relation to regional and supra-regional networks
and the community’s connectedness with the wider world, including the Italic milieu, as well as other regions on
the littoral of the Gulf of Taranto where similar Italic-Greek communities were located.

South-eastern Italy in the 8th and 7th centuries
BC was a region in motion: there was an influx of
Greek traders and settlers, and groups of indigenous
people were on the move. A small number of sites
had been occupied continuously from the Late
Bronze Age to the Iron Age. These include Scoglio
del Tonno, Torre Saturo and Torre Castellucia – all
of which are in the coastal strip north of the Gulf
of Taranto – as well as Monte Salete and Oria
in inland Salento (Fig. 5.1). However, from the
later 8th century BC onwards, a number of new
settlements were established. The literary tradition
speaks of Spartans founding the colony of Taras
in 706 BC.1 Yet, this is only part of the story. The
archaeological record provides testimony to an
increase in the number of indigenous communities,
especially in inland regions of south-eastern Italy
(e.g. Masseria Vicentino, Muro Tenente, Muro
Maurizio, Li Castelli di San Pancrazio and Valesio).
What we seem to witness is a gradual filling up of the
landscape by indigenous people, on a considerable
scale and contemporary with the arrival of Greek
settlers or even preceding this movement (Burgers
1998, 186–191; Burgers and Crielaard 2008, 346–
349). In addition, we are starting to discern more
and more cases where both movements literally
came together in the shape of settlements that
housed individuals of both indigenous and Greek
origin (e.g. Incoronata, Siris-Polieion, Metapontion-
Andrisani and Lazzazzera plots).2 Such settlements
are relevant to the theme of this volume, considering
that the creation of communities by groups with
different ethnic or cultural backgrounds forced
these groups – whatever their mutual relationship
was – to rethink, redefine and communicate their
identities.
74 Jan Paul Crielaard and Gert-Jan Burgers
Figure 5.1. Map of south-eastern Italy, with place names mentioned in the text (Image by Jaap Fokkema).
As an example of such a mixed settlement, we
present the site of L’Amastuola. It is located some
15 km north-west of Taranto, on a flat-topped,
elongated ridge that reaches an altitude of 200–213
m above sea level (Fig. 5.2). It is about 7.6 km as
the crow flies from the sea. The locality is named
after the masseria (landed estate) that crowns the
highest point of the ridge; the ancient toponymy
is unknown. The L’Amastuola ridge is part of the
undulating landscape that forms a transitory zone
between the flat to slightly sloping coastal area and
the Murge tableland. The L’Amastuola hill is one
of the most prominent hills in this landscape. It is
visible from almost every direction. Standing at the
site, one can overlook a large part of the Gulf of
Taranto and its littoral, including Taranto itself. It
is not only a commanding but also a well defensible
site, due to the steep slopes, especially on the south
and south-west sides of the hill.
In 1988, G. A. Maruggi (ispettrice for the
Soprintendenza Archeologica della Puglia) investigated
154 of an estimated 1000 mostly plundered
graves, located in an area some 800 m south
of L’Amastuola. This was followed in 1991 by
excavations carried out in a limited part of the
south terrace of the L’Amastuola hill. On the basis
of the excavation results and the view of Greek
colonisation then current, the site’s occupation
history was reconstructed as follows. During the
first phase, dated between c. 730/720 and 690/680
BC, indigenous settlers constructed a village of huts,
fortified by an agger-type defensive wall. In c. 680
this ‘Iapygian’ settlement was completely destroyed
by Greek colonists, supposedly during a first stage
of territorial expansion by the colony of Taras. After
this, the Greek intruders started to live on the south
terrace, in rectangular one-room houses and using
wheelmade pottery that replaced the earlier impasto
 5.  Communicating Identity in an Italic-Greek Community 75

Figure 5.2. Contour map of L’Amastuola and environs (Image by Jaap Fokkema).

and matt-painted pottery of indigenous type.
They buried their dead in the cemetery mentioned
above. The main phase of Greek occupation of the
settlement and cemetery was thought to span the
period from the second quarter of the 7th century
to the first decades of the 6th century BC.3
In 2003, VU University Amsterdam was
granted permission to continue research in and
around L’Amastuola, in collaboration with the
Soprintendenza of Puglia. We were intrigued by
the results of the earlier excavations and by the
site’s potential to document the initial phases of
Greek colonisation and, more in particular, the
earliest encounters between Greeks and indigenous
populations in this region. In addition, we chose
the area because of its potential to yield important
information about diachronic developments in the
use and organisation of landscape and settlement
during the pre-colonial and early colonial phases.
Five fieldwork campaigns were undertaken
between 2003 and 2008. The campaigns comprised
stratigraphical excavations, systematic field surveys
of the site and the surrounding region, a systematic
inventory and mapping of the visible traces of the
necropolis, as well as geophysical prospection and
archaeobotanical and zoo-archaeological analyses.4
Our combined excavation and survey data allow us
to reconstruct an occupation history of the site and
76 Jan Paul Crielaard and Gert-Jan Burgers
its catchment area that is fundamentally different
from the one outlined above. First of all, we found
substantial evidence for continuing occupation of
the site’s south terrace down to the mid-5th century
BC. Moreover, we tend to identify the decades
around the mid-5th century BC as the period that
saw the most profound and dramatic changes in
L’Amastuola’s history. Around that time – and quite
suddenly, it seems – habitation on the south terrace
came to an end. After a brief period, it was resumed,
possibly on a grander scale, on the northern slopes
of the L’Amastuola hill and in the valley to its north.
Contemporary with this was a shift in land use.
Until the mid-5th century BC, the site’s immediate
surroundings were devoid of archaeological remains,
suggesting that farmers worked the land from
L’Amastuola, the only settlement nucleus in the
area. However, from the late 5th century BC, small,
rural settlements or farmsteads appeared from which
the surrounding landscape was exploited, a situation
that prevailed until the 3rd century BC (Burgers
and Crielaard 2007, 96–98, 111). For a series of
reasons that are elaborated elsewhere in more detail
(Burgers and Crielaard 2007), we wish to connect
these profound changes around the mid-5th century
BC to the annexation of L’Amastuola by Taras. The
incorporation of L’Amastuola’s territory into the
Tarentine chora probably included ‘colonisation’ by
new farmers living in the hamlets or farmsteads that
we detected in the surveys (Burgers and Crielaard
2007, 106–107).
We also found ample evidence to support
a fundamentally different reconstruction of
the site’s earliest occupation history. The main
difference from earlier interpretations is that we
see clear indications not of Greek aggression
against indigenous inhabitants, but of prolonged
and presumably peaceful cohabitation between
indigenous peoples and Greeks. It is this aspect of
L’Amastuola’s history that forms the main element
of the present contribution. However, before we
proceed, it is necessary to make a brief remark about
how we differentiate between indigenous and Greek
elements among the population of L’Amastuola. An
important clue to this is the difference in traditions
of material culture. Making ethnic distinctions
on the basis of such differences is hazardous, as
theoreticians of ethnicity emphasise, and the easy
attributions of aspects of material culture (along the
lines of ‘pots equal people’) to either Greek or natives,
which have flawed the archaeology of early colonial
encounters, is now discredited (e.g. Jones 1997;
Antonaccio 2004; Hall 2004, 44ff). On the other
hand, we deal with a first contact situation in which
distinctions between cultural or ethnic categories
were probably still relatively sharp. Having said that,
we should reckon with instances of ‘middle ground’
(communication and negotiation in what has been
called a dynamic ‘third space’ between settlers and
natives) or ‘creolisation’ or ‘hybridity’ (fusing of
different cultures), resulting in a new, ‘third culture’
(cf. van Dommelen 1998; Malkin 1998, 5–6; 2004,
355–357). As we will see, there are indications that
this process started almost instantly.
The field surveys make it clear that the Iron Age
settlement at L’Amastuola is preceded by a phase of
Bronze Age occupation in this area, although there
is no evidence of continuous habitation.5 A series of
three large, surface-find concentrations, composed
almost entirely of fragments of handmade impasto,
was found at various distances from the top of the
L’Amastuola hill (Fig. 5.3: A–C). Another, large
Late Bronze Age village site was located 1 km as
the crow flies east of L’Amastuola (Fig. 5.3: D), on
a natural platform at the convergence of two deep
ravines. Its position provides natural protection on
three sides, as well as a low level of intervisibility
(Burgers and Crielaard 2007, 95–96).
These Late Bronze Age sites reveal two things
that help us to appreciate the location of the
settlement of L’Amastuola in the Iron Age. One
is that L’Amastuola was founded towards the end
of the 8th century BC as a new settlement in a
landscape that had not been used, or had been
only marginally used, for centuries. The other is
that the Iron Age re-occupation of the area by
means of L’Amastuola’s foundation took place
under very different circumstances and probably
for very different reasons. Whereas the Bronze Age
‘ravine’ site in its secluded setting was meant to be
virtually invisible, the dominant central location,
the visibility and the accessibility of L’Amastuola
indicate that this site was meant to control and to
be seen.
 5.  Communicating Identity in an Italic-Greek Community 77

Figure 5.3. Bronze Age scatters found during the survey in the vicinity of L’Amastuola (Image by Jaap Fokkema).

Both the excavations and the on-site survey at
L’Amastuola testify to the site’s earliest occupation
towards the end of the 8th century BC. This phase
is represented by fragments of indigenous impasto,
incised relief ware and matt-painted pottery in
bichrome style. Early imports from overseas areas
that belong to the same phase include a fragment of
‘Devoll ware’ from what is now Albania (although
the piece may have reached the site as an antique), a
Thapsos krater and other Corinthian Late Geometric
finewares, and perhaps some of the Corinthian type
A amphorae, which together show that this was not
an isolated community but one that was in contact
with the outside world (Burgers and Crielaard 2007,
102–104).6 In most of the places where we reached
bedrock, we found a layer of reddish-brown erosive
material, often within crevices and holes in the
living rock, that also contained impasto fragments.
This suggests that the earliest settlers on the hilltop
lived on a mostly barren rock surface. Since this
impasto material cannot be precisely dated, it is
possible that the earliest occupation of the site
78 Jan Paul Crielaard and Gert-Jan Burgers
Figure 5.4. Overview of architectural remains on south terrace (Image by Jaap Fokkema).
started somewhat earlier than the later 8th century
(cf. Burgers 1998, 189; Burgers and Crielaard
2008, 346–347). We also have to reckon with the
possibility that this occupation may have been of
a semi-permanent nature, as this material is not
associated with structural remains.
Stronger evidence of indigenous occupation
comes with the earliest preserved traces of
architecture and the stratified finds connected with
them. These include the remains of a curvilinear
hut (Fig. 5.4: A), which was excavated by Maruggi
and attributed by her to the earliest occupation
phase datable between c. 730/720 and 690/680 BC
(Maruggi 1996a, 216–217). Some 65 m to the east,
we found the poorly preserved remains of another
hut (Fig. 5.4: J). The pottery concentration found
on the hut’s floor has a time span that ranges from
the late 8th/early 7th century to a point in time after
the mid-7th century BC. The pottery concentration
consists of hundreds of fragments of matt-painted
pottery; there is only one colonial Greek piece
and virtually no impasto. The concentration also
contained a terracotta spindle whorl, loom weight
and spool, and two whetstones.7 The selective
use of high-quality pottery and the selection of
a limited number of other objects presumably
connected to gender suggest that this was an
intentional deposition. The sherds were partly
burnt and were mixed with burnt organic remains
– including cereals and pulses – which indicates
that the deposition was of a ritual nature (Burgers
and Crielaard 2007, 86–87, 110).
Parts of a surface, but not the remains of
structures belonging to it, were uncovered behind
a partition or terrace wall of later date in the north-
west of the excavation area (Fig. 5.4: C). Smashed
on this surface were a small, undecorated container
or storage jar that contained charred botanical
material, seemingly found in situ, and three matt-
painted vases that represent a period ranging from
the beginning to possibly the third quarter of the 7th
century BC (Fig. 5.5 a–b, d; Burgers and Crielaard
2007, 89, 105).
The huts were protected by an agger that
followed the perimeter of the south terrace. We
also encountered part of this agger in one of our
trenches (Fig. 5.4: F). It is a rampart, 2–2.75 m in
width that slopes down to the south and consists
of large fieldstones laid in an irregular fashion, with
smaller stones placed on top of and between them.
Amidst these stones and in a stratum connected
with the agger’s ‘foundation’, we found pottery
 5.  Communicating Identity in an Italic-Greek Community 79

Figure 5.5. Digital reconstructions of matt-painted pots: a. conical necked jug; b. olletta; c. narrow-necked jug; d. krater
(Drawings by Bert Brouwenstijn).
80 Jan Paul Crielaard and Gert-Jan Burgers
Figure 5.6. Trench plan and photo of Sub-Geometric ritual deposition (Plan by Jaap Fokkema; Photo by Jan Paul
Crielaard).
fragments – matt-painted wares, impasto and a
few Middle Proto-Corinthian pieces – that allowed
us to down-date its construction to around 670
BC. Moreover, immediately south of the hut just
mentioned we found part of a similar wall, curving
to the north-west (Fig. 5.4: I). A magnetometer
survey of this area shows that it was part of a second,
inner fortification wall. The pottery found inside the
hut provides a rough date for the nearby agger wall
that corresponds with the date of the outer agger
(Burgers and Crielaard 2007, 85–87).
The earliest evidence of Greek habitation at
the site is in the form of a number of rectangular
one-room structures, including oikoi α–γ (Fig.
5.4: C), excavated by Maruggi and dated by her
to the period after 690/680 BC on the basis of the
Proto-Corinthian style pottery that is associated
with them. Another indication of Greek presence
is the necropolis that came into use at about the
same period, i.e. second quarter of the 7th century
BC (Maruggi 1996a, 205–215). The burial customs
follow a pattern that we know from Greek sites: the
necropolis was located at some distance from the
settlement and the dead were interred in a supine
position in rock-cut fossa graves of Greek type, and
were accompanied by Greek vases.
To this same early phase belongs a roughly
circular area (Fig. 5.4: H; Fig. 5.6) that contained
much charcoal and ashy material, and a high
concentration of pottery fragments, many of them
burnt. The pottery consists especially of Sub-
Geometric finewares (of which almost 13.5 kg were
retrieved), with a minority of handmade wares (a
little over 6.5 kg). The pottery fragments represent a
limited range of vase shapes. Almost all of them can
be associated with drinking, viz. wine consumption
(Fig. 5.7; Table 5.1).8 Some of the vase shapes can
be associated with communal food consumption
and/or food offerings or food sacrifices, probably of
a ritual nature. After the consumption of food and
drink, the pottery was smashed and the fragments
were left to the flames, as is suggested by the fact
that some sherds of one and the same pot were burnt
while others remained unaffected by the fire.9
We will now attempt a reconstruction of the
site’s early habitation. The prominent hilltop of
L’Amastuola was occupied in the late 8th century
BC. Pottery indicates that the inhabitants had
an indigenous background and were already in
touch with the Greek world prior to the arrival
of the first Greek settlers. The earliest preserved
architectural remains and other artefacts found in
Figure 5.7. Selection of pottery from Sub-Geometric ritual deposition: a–d. skyphoi and one-handled cup; e–g. kraters/
krateriskoi; h–i. hydriai; j–l. oinochoai/jugs; m. flask; n–o. stamnoi; p. limestone shells; q. handmade basin; r. terracotta jug
stopper (Drawings by Bert Brouwenstijn).
82 Jan Paul Crielaard and Gert-Jan Burgers

No. of fragments Weight Minimum no. of

Vase types
(g) individual vessels
Wheelmade, ‘colonial’
drinking vessels (skyphoi, one-handled cups, 181 1,509 20
shallow bowls)
pouring vessels (oinochoai, jugs) 20 898 12
hydriai 145 3,690 10
uncertain: oinochoai or hydriai (body frs.) 173 1,285 –
juglets, flasks 14 262 7
oil flasks 1 6 1
krateriskoi 13 380 4
amphorae (incl. transport amphorae) 44 3,375 –
stamnoi 3 – 3
remnants of medium wares, diagnostic 15 325 1
remnants of medium wares, undiagnostic 251 1,175 1
heavily burnt body frs. 76 575 1
Total 936 13,480 60
Handmade, indigenous
matt-painted wares 79 1,120 6
(incl. krater, amphora, drinking cup, kantharos,
flask, globular vessel)
pithoi 34 4,100 2
basin 1 36 1

cooking wares, impasto 61 1,312 3

Total 175 6,568 12

Other objects
limestone shell 1 16 1
jug stopper 1 125 1
flint (flakes) 2 – 2
Total 4 141 4

Total entire find assemblage 1,115 20,189 76

Table 5.1. Finds in Sub-Geometric ritual deposit

stratified contexts present a picture of an apparently
thriving indigenous community living in oval huts.
Alongside these huts, we find rectangular houses of
Greek type, presumably from c. 675 BC onwards.
Together they are evidence of a mixed community.
Pottery tells a similar story: Greek types exist next
to indigenous ceramics; the latter remained in use
until the later 7th century BC.10
As for the status of this mixed community as
a whole, an important indication is provided by
the site’s defences. A complex defensive system
was constructed in an indigenous tradition around
670 BC, that is, in a period when, according to
literary sources, Spartan settlers had been living
in nearby Taras for more than a generation. This
argues strongly in favour of L’Amastuola’s status as
an independent community. As for the status of the
constituent elements of this community and their
interrelationships, various scenarios are possible.
According to the traditional view, Greeks were
dominant in colonial encounters, but post-colonial
viewpoints favour cohabitation on equal terms,
and Greeks may well have occupied a subordinate
position as traders or as craftsmen in residence
or slaves (or both at the same time).11 Both the
huts and the houses were relatively simple one-
room dwellings that do not testify to much social
differentiation. To this we should add that we are
 5.  Communicating Identity in an Italic-Greek Community
unaware of what was present, for instance, on top
of the L’Amastuola hill, and therefore cannot tell to
what extent these huts and houses are representative
of the original settlement as a whole. The fact is
that rectangular houses became dominant in the
course of time, and in 2008 we actually excavated
a hut that had been replaced by a rectangular stone
dwelling in the later 7th century (Fig. 5.4: E). There
were no signs that the hut had met a violent end.
In fact, more or less the contrary is true, since some
of the hut’s foundation stones had been dug up and
reused for constructing the house. Its location at
exactly the same place and its similar orientation
seem to suggest that hut and house represent two
consecutive phases of continuous inhabitation at
this particular spot.
This brings us to the question of the degree of
social and cultural integration, and to the adherence
to traditions and identities or the redefinition
of identities. Although Greeks and indigenous
peoples seem to have started to live at L’Amastuola
on an equal footing, the archaeological evidence
suggests that, in this early period, integration
varied according to the occasion or context. In the
ritual or cultic sphere, we have the two depositions
of pottery fragments and burnt material in two
locations that are some 22 m apart from each other:
one inside an indigenous hut, where predominantly
matt-painted wares (and an isolated colonial
Greek vase) were found; the other in a hypaethral
setting, where Sub-Geometric dining equipment
and a few matt-painted vessels were used. The
two depositions are more or less contemporary
and the ritual in question seems comparable (i.e.
communal eating and drinking, food sacrifices and
the ritual destruction of dining equipment). In
both cases, the selectivity in types of pottery that
are employed seems to be significant and may be
connected to differences in the composition of the
groups involved in the celebrations or to differences
between the (presumably supernatural) entities that
were venerated or the occasions that were celebrated.
This seems to stem from differences in cultural or
ethnic affiliations or identities. Or, to put it simply,
during this early stage of contact or cohabitation,
Greeks and indigenous populations had their own
celebrations, or may have celebrated together, but
83
then performed rituals in accordance with each
other’s traditions.
In the funerary sphere, we encounter a somewhat
different situation that seems to indicate a measure
of integration. Before we continue, it is important
to point out that whereas for Basilicata there is
evidence of inhumation, often in flexed position,
sometimes in a supine position (Carter 2004,
372–373), for 8th- and 7th-century BC Salento
the burial evidence is very thin. This is taken to
indicate that, in Salento during the 9th to 7th
centuries BC, indigenous populations usually
disposed of their dead in an archaeologically
invisible fashion (Lombardo 1994). When in
the 6th century BC the dead were given formal
burial, they were deposited within the settlement
area, often in the vicinity of houses. Apart from
that, there is some evidence for burial under or
around tumuli (Yntema 2000, 19 n. 23, 28 nn.
31–32, with bibliography). The community at
L’Amastuola did not follow the latter practices. The
location of the formal burial area at a considerable
distance from the habitation zone, the type of
tomb, the manner of interment and the funerary
goods all stand in a Greek tradition. This was quite
understandably taken as proof that the cemetery
housed a burial population of Greek colonists.12
On the other hand, the presumed Greek character
of the burial customs deserves a somewhat
more balanced appraisal. As in many native
and colonial Greek cemeteries, at L’Amastuola
Corinthian pottery forms an important category
of the funerary assemblages. At the same time,
we find that this pottery is extremely rare in the
contemporary domestic contexts at L’Amastuola,
whereas other types of Greek imports occur
abundantly. Corinthian pottery apparently had
distinct ritual or, more specifically, funerary
connotations. We are probably wrong to evaluate
this pottery in ethnic terms, assuming that it was
considered to represent an aspect of Greek culture.
It is more likely that in the Italic world, both
Greeks and natives connected Corinthian ceramics
with ideas about what was proper burial. We may
say that Corinthian or Corinthian-style pottery
was part of a supra-local ‘burial language’ or shared
‘funerary idiom’. In this sense, funerary culture
84 Jan Paul Crielaard and Gert-Jan Burgers
Figure 5.8. Drawing of stele (by Bert Brouwenstijn).
is an important aspect of what Irad Malkin and
others have labelled colonial ‘middle ground’.13
One particular find provides additional support
for this interpretation. When we were mapping the
heavily overgrown necropolis area with the help of
a Total Station, not only were we able to identify
a number of distinct cemetery nuclei, but we also
stumbled upon a c. 1.75 m high stele made of local
stone (Fig. 5.8).14 The form of the stele conveys
an anthropomorphic impression, while the zigzag
decorations running along its border and middle
and on its flanks can be interpreted as a schematic
representation of clothing and a waist belt. It is
obviously very different from contemporary Greek
funerary stelae. It is distantly related to the well-
known Daunian stelae (cf. Norman, this volume) but
has its closest parallels in examples from indigenous
sites in Salento, such as Cavallino, Mesagne and
Muro Tenente.15 The find of this stele suggests
that at least one individual – and by implication,
probably a group of individuals within the burial
population that was interred in this cemetery – had
an indigenous background.
To put it differently, the mixed community
at L’Amastuola adopted a way of burying that
was linked, possibly in a very general way, with
Greek customs, although some individuals seem to
have chosen to add a native touch that expressed
their indigenous identity. In light of today’s
preoccupation with ethnicity, it may be beneficial
to bear in mind that this stele could also refer
to other aspects of the deceased’s social identity.
If we compare our stele to the large corpus of
Daunian stelae, we find indications that the raised
shoulders and presumably also the belt identify the
representation as female.16 Besides, conspicuous
grave markers of this kind were seemingly reserved
for a restricted group of people – an impression
confirmed by some of the other Salentine stelae.
In brief, we may consider the L’Amastuola stele an
expression not only of ethnic identity but also of
gender, status, elite solidarity with peer groups in
indigenous Salento, and amity and connectivity
with a world outside the community proper.
As for the background of the Greek settlers at
L’Amastuola, nothing is known about their precise
origins (nor, for that matter, is anything known
about the origins of the indigenous groups that had
settled at the site before them). The earliest pottery
of Greek type is not very informative in this respect.
The Sub-Geometric pottery that is part of the ritual
deposition just mentioned has good parallels in
material from Incoronata, Metapontion-Andrisani
and Siris,17 and provides a general idea of the
settlers’ cultural horizon, but does not provide clear
indications of their homeland. A related question
concerns the raison d’être of the Greek presence at
L’Amastuola and a handful of comparable sites. It
is quite often suggested that the earliest generations
of Greeks residing in indigenous communities in
south-east Italy were traders.18 However, the picture
that we can distil from contemporary literary
sources suggests that Greek ‘trade’ was mainly the
business of part-time traders and itinerant travellers
 5.  Communicating Identity in an Italic-Greek Community
(Mele 1979). In addition, the idea of resident
traders betrays certain anachronistic notions of the
Archaic economy. For a group of foreign resident
traders to survive in an indigenous environment we
have to assume the existence of specialist traders,
a continuous demand and an organised supply
of trade goods, and some sense of marketing on
the part of producers and middlemen – in short,
a level of organisation of trade that is associated
with ‘factories’ or trading stations known from
early modern European history. The economy of
Greece and the central Mediterranean in the early
Archaic period was heavily based on agriculture.
There are no compelling reasons to think that the
community at L’Amastuola (which was not located
directly on the coast but had access to good arable
land) followed a different pattern. What both
archaeology and literary sources tell us about the
first Greek settlements in southern Italy is that
these were probably the result of private ventures,
with little state interference (Crielaard 1992–93;
2000; Osborne 1998). We may assume that these
Greeks were looking for opportunities (to phrase it
in general terms), and that those expecting to find
them at L’Amastuola were attracted by the site’s
potential, whether this was found in its geographical
position, the presence of an indigenous community
or the existence of comparable settlements in the
vicinity, or a combination of these possibilities (cf.
Carter 2004, 386 on the Metapontine region). For
the indigenes – who were also newcomers at the
site – there may have been similar advantages to
receiving Greeks in their midst. For instance, Greeks
may have been welcomed as allies by communities
that were in the process of carving out their place
within the region’s new socio-political constellations
(Burgers and Crielaard 2008, 350; also Yntema
2000, 33). Greeks may also have provided access to
regional or supra-regional networks. Whatever their
motivations, however, the Greek settlers were there
to stay and became solidly rooted in this place.
After the later 7th century BC, the manufacture of
pottery and domestic architecture in an indigenous
tradition disappeared. Rectangular house types and
Greek types of pottery became the standard. One
could interpret this as Greek culture gradually
becoming dominant, but also as a next, logical step
85
in the process of integration, accommodation and
hybridisation. To put it simply, after one or two
generations, the originally mixed indigenous-Greek
community at L’Amastuola forgot about its roots.
L’Amastuola became one of a series of settlements
that developed in the coastal area around the Gulf of
Taranto (Incoronata, Siris-Polieion, Metapontion-
Andrisani/ Lazzazzera and, slightly later, Termitito;
also Taras and Torre Saturo?). These settlements
shared certain elements of material culture, and it
seems likely that a new identity among the members
of the community at L’Amastuola was shaped in
relation to and in communication with these other
settlements. This development had already started in
the 7th century BC, as is indicated by the pottery
repertoire. The earliest matt-painted pottery is
partly of a local or regional origin, but also includes
Salento Late Geometric (late 8th-early 7th century
BC), whereas later matt-painted that was locally
produced at L’Amastuola is generally of a type that
is otherwise found in the inland region around
Matera, where it is datable around the middle of
the 7th century BC or even later. Markedly, no such
links with the Taranto area existed. If we are allowed
to draw conclusions on the basis of the distribution
of regional styles of matt-painted pottery, we may
say that, during the 7th century BC, L’Amastuola
belonged to the same ‘cultural region’ or contact
zone as the Matera region. As pointed out, the
7th- and 6th-century BC pottery in Greek style
shows a similar orientation towards the region of
Incoronata and Siris (Burgers and Crielaard 2007,
106–107), although in this connection it is fair to
admit that we have less information about what
contemporary pottery from Taras looks like.19
However, this outward-looking tendency becomes
manifest especially during the 6th century BC. For
example, the development towards more complex
and functionally diversified house plans, the use
of relief-decorated storage vessels (Fig. 5.9) or the
adoption of alphabetic writing – all of which are
evidenced at L’Amastuola (Burgers and Crielaard
2007, 103, 107–108, 110) – does not seem to have
been part of the inheritance of the earliest Greek
settlers, but must have been adopted as part of
general trends that are also manifest elsewhere in
south-east Italy20 and, indeed, the Mediterranean.
86 Jan Paul Crielaard and Gert-Jan Burgers

Figure 5.9. Fragments of large relief vases (Drawings by Bert Brouwenstijn).

It is important to realise that this material culture
did not stand by itself but carried with it a whole
world of ideas. More complex house plans were
connected with notions of gender segregation
(Morris 1998, 27–28) and relief-decorated storage
vessels with the notion of conspicuous storage,
signalling wealth and power derived from the
control of surplus (Ebbinghaus 2005). The identity
of the community at L’Amastuola was at this point
in time communicated in the context not of the past
but of the interconnectivity with the contemporary
world around it.
The consequence of a post-colonial approach to
Greek ‘colonisation’ is that we must be more cautious
about describing or interpreting phenomena in the
sphere of cultural encounters, exchanges and socio-
political developments in oppositional, ethnic
terms. We should reconsider to what extent and for
 5.  Communicating Identity in an Italic-Greek Community
which cases such catchphrases as ‘Greek colonists
and indigenous populations’, ‘Greek traders in
native contexts’, ‘Greek–indigenous encounters’,
are appropriate characterisations of the phase that
follows first-contact situations. Such dualistic labels
are hard to reconcile with what ‘accommodation’
and ‘middle ground’ is all about. Moreover, most
scholars now agree that it was only in the 5th
century BC that Greeks started to develop ideas
about ethnicity that envisaged an oppositional
rather than aggregative notion of other ethnic or
cultural groups, bringing with it relatively sharp
boundaries between the Self and the Other (Hall
2002; 2004, 38–39, 45, 50). It is probably more
correct to give more credit to local or regional
entities and identities in our attempts to explain the
sociocultural dynamics in Archaic southern Italy.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Margarita Gleba and Helle
Horsnæs for the invitation to participate in this
conference and for the kind hospitality received at
Copenhagen. We also wish to thank the conference
participants for their comments, Douwe Yntema
for discussing the final draft of this paper with us,
and Bert Brouwenstijn and Jaap Fokkema for the
artwork. Our thanks are also due to our colleagues
of the Soprintendenza ai Beni Archeologici della
Puglia for granting permission to study the site.
Notes
1. Cf. Lombardo 1992, 10ff; 2002, for a discussion
of ancient sources.
2. For summaries of the evidence (and further
references), see Yntema 2000, 7–25; Carter
2004.
3. Maruggi 1996a; 1996b, 258; Burgers and Crielaard
2007, 81–82 for résumé and plan (Fig. 4) of phases
discerned by Maruggi. On L’Amastuola in 7th
century BC Tarentine dependency, see e.g. Osanna
1992, 12; 2001, 208–209; Greco 2001, 176.
4. Burgers and Crielaard 2007 presents a preliminary
report concerning the first three fieldwork seasons
(2003–2005). Brief reports have appeared in Taras
24, 2004 and the following issues.
5. For an inventory of Bronze Age and Iron Age sites
in Taranto area, see Guaitoli 2002, esp. 232–240.
6. On the origin of Thapsos class, see Coldstream
87
2008, 461. There is now evidence that Thapsos
wares were also produced in Achaia (pers. comm.
Anastasia Gadolou).
7. ‘Spools’ were probably weights for (tablet) weaving
of narrow strips of (patterned) textile; see Gleba
2008, 140ff. Concave specimens like this one are
common in the Latial-Etruscan areas of central
Italy but the type is also known from L’Incoronata
(Castoldi 1986, 184 no. 142–143).
8. The circular spot was discovered in 2007; during the
2008 season, we started studying the pottery. The
finds have not been published and our statements
about them must be regarded as preliminary.
9. Sub-Geometric fragments have also been found
in domestic contexts at L’Amastuola, see Maruggi
1996a, 214–215, figs 17–18; 1996b, 262–266;
Burgers and Crielaard 2007, 104, figs 44–45.
10. Cf. Incoronata ‘greca’: Carter 2004, 379.
11. Greek slaves transported to southern Italy: cf.
Homer Od. 20.383, with Rihll 1993, 88.
12. See Maruggi 1996a, 198–202, 218. See, however,
Yntema 2000, 28 n. 31.
13. See Malkin 1998; 2004. There is no doubt that
‘middle ground’ was also found in other domains
of immaterial culture; see e.g. some interesting hints
at bilingualism and the use of indigenous linguistic
idioms in south Italy and Sicily, discussed in Hall
2004, 42.
14. See further Burgers and Crielaard 2007, 99–100.
15. Pancrazzi et al. 1979, 234–5, figs 94–100; Lombardo
1994; D’Andria 2005, 36–37 (Cavallino), 104
(Muro Tenente, reconstruction). Cf. D’Andria and
Dell’Aglio 2002, 53: Archaic ‘cippus’ from Vaste.
16. The form of the L’Amastuola stele parallels the
Daunian stelae ‘with ornamentation’. Stelae of that
category carry such elements as necklaces, fibulae,
aprons, etc., which suggest that they are female.
We wish to thank Camilla Norman for sharing her
knowledge; see also her contribution in this volume.
17. E.g. skyphoi: cf. our Fig. 5.7: B and D, with
Maruggi 1996b, 255; Orlandini and Castoldi
1995, 156 fig. 207 (right); Hänsel 1973, tav. II;
one-handled cups: cf. our Fig. 5.7: C, with Castoldi
1986, 132 no. 71; krateriskoi: cf. decoration of
our Fig. 5.7: F, with De Siena 1986, tav. 42–43;
hydriai: cf. our Fig. 5.7: H–I, with Castoldi 1986,
162 no. 116; stamnoi: cf. our Fig. 5.7: N–O,
with Orlandini and Castoldi 1992, 126–127 figs
188–189; handmade basin: cf. our Fig. 5.7: Q,
with Orlandini and Castoldi 1997, 148 fig. 257.
18. See Herring 2008, recently re-examining evidence
88 Jan Paul Crielaard and Gert-Jan Burgers
for Greek traders residing at native sites. Although
the author acknowledges that the evidence is
elusive, he believes that such traders played a vital
role in social and cultural interactions.
19. A few Sub-Geometric fragments are published in
Maruggi 1996b, 266–267 nos 249–252, 263; no.
249 is a possible import from Siris or Incoronata.
20. Fragments of relief-decorated containers are known
from e.g. Siris (Hänsel 1973, 426–427), Kroton and
Sybaris (Maruggi 1996b, 250, with notes 26 and
29 for references).
Bibliography
Antonaccio, C. M. 2004. Siculo-Geometric and the
Sikels: Ceramics and Identity in Eastern Sicily.
In K. Lomas (ed.), Greek Identity in the Western
Mediterranean. Papers in Honour of Brian Shefton
(Mnemosyne Suppl. 246), 55–81. Leiden.
Burgers, G.-J. 1998. Constructing Messapian Landscapes.
Settlement Dynamics, Social Organization and Culture
Contact in the Margins of Graeco-Roman Italy.
Amsterdam.
Burgers, G.-J. and Crielaard, J. P. 2007. Greek Colonists
and Indigenous Populations at L’Amastuola, Southern
Italy. BABesch 82, 77–114.
Burgers, G.-J. and Crielaard, J. P. 2008. Paesaggi del
contatto. Indigeni e greci nella Murgia tarantina. In
M. Bettelli and C. De Faveri (eds), Prima delle colonie:
organizzazione territoriale e produzioni ceramiche
specializzate in Basilicata e in Calabria settentrionale
ionica nella prima età del ferro, 337–353. Venosa.
Castoldi, M. (1986) I Greci sul Basento. Mostra degli scavi
archeologici all’Incoronata di Metaponto 1971–1984.
Como.
Carter, J. C. 2004. The Greek Identity at Metaponto.
In K. Lomas (ed.), Greek Identity in the Western
Mediterranean. Papers in Honour of Brian Shefton
(Mnemosyne Suppl. 246), 363–390. Leiden.
Coldstream, J. N. 2008. Greek Geometric Pottery. A Survey
of Ten Local Styles and Their Chronology. Revised 2nd
ed. Exeter.
Crielaard, J. P. 1992–93. How the West was Won:
Euboeans vs. Phoenicians. HBA 19/20, 235–249.
Crielaard, J. P. 2000. Honour and Valour as Discourse
for Early Greek Colonialism (8th – 7th Centuries
BC). In F. Krinzinger (ed.), Akten des Symposions ‘Die
Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer. Beziehungen und
Wechselwirkungen 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr.’, Wien, 24. bis 27.
März 1999, 483–490. Wien.
D’Andria, F. 2005. Le trasformazioni dell’insediamento.
In F. D’Andria (ed.), Cavallino, pietre, case e città della
Messapia arcaica, 34–43. Ceglie Messapico.
D’Andria, F. and Dell’Aglio, A. (eds) 2002. Klaohi Zis.
Il culto di Zeus a Ugento. Lecce.
De Siena, A. 1986. Metaponto. Nuove scoperte in
proprietà Andrisani. In Siris-Polieion. Fonti letterarie
e nuova documentazione archeologica (Incontro studi
– Policoro 1984), 135–156. Galatina.
Ebbinghaus, S. 2005. Protector of the City, or the Art of
Storage in Early Greece. JHS 125, 51–72.
Gleba, M. 2008. Textile Production in Pre-Roman Italy.
Oxford.
Greco, E. 2001. Abitare in campagna. In Problemi della
chora coloniale dall’Occidente al Mar Nero. AttiTaranto
40, 171–201. Taranto.
Guaitoli, M. 2002. Il territorio e le sue dinamiche:
osservazioni e spunti di ricerca. In Taranto e il
Mediterraneo. AttiTaranto 41, 219–252. Taranto.
Hänsel, B. 1973. Policoro (Matera). Scavi eseguiti
nell’area dell’acropoli di Ereclea negli anni 1965–
1967. NSc 27, 400–492.
Hall, J. M. 2002. Hellenicity. Between Ethnicity and
Culture. Chicago.
Hall, J. M. 2004. How ‘Greek’ were the Early Western
Greeks? In K. Lomas (ed.), Greek Identity in the
Western Mediterranean. Papers in Honour of Brian
Shefton (Mnemosyne Suppl. 246), 34–54. Leiden.
Herring, E. 2008. Greek Traders in Native Contexts
in Iron Age Southeastern Italy: From Interaction to
Marginality. JMA 21, 111–132.
Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing
Identities in the Past and Present. London.
Lombardo, M. 1992. I Messapi e la Messapia nelle fonti
letterarie greche e latine. Galatina.
Lombardo, M. 1994. Tombe, necropoli e riti funerari in
‘Messapi­a’: evidenze e problemi. StAnt 7, 25–45.
Lombardo, M. 2002. Πήμα Ἵαπΰγεσσι: rapporti con gli
Iapigi e aspetti dell’identità di Taranto. In Taranto e il
Mediterraneo. AttiTaranto 41, 253–290. Taranto.
Malkin, I. 1998. The Returns of Odysseus. Colonization
and Ethnicity. Berkeley.
Malkin, I. 2004. Postcolonial Concepts and Ancient
Greek Colonization. MLQ 65, 341–364.
Maruggi, G. A. 1996a. Crispiano (Taranto), L’Amastuola.
In F. D’Andria and K. Mannino (eds), Ricerche sulla
casa in Magna Grecia e in Sicilia. Atti del colloquio
– Lecce, 23–24 giugno 1992, 197–218. Galatina.
Maruggi, G. A. 1996b. Le produzioni ceramiche
archaiche. In E. Lippolis (eds), I Greci in Occidente.
Arte e artigianato in Magna Grecia, 247–267. Napoli.
Mele, A. 1979. Il commercio greco arcaico. Prexis ed
emporia. Napoli.
 5.  Communicating Identity in an Italic-Greek Community
Morris, I. 1998. Archaeology and Archaic Greek History.
In N. Fischer and H. van Wees (eds), Archaic Greece:
New Approaches and New Evidence, 1–91. London.
Orlandini, P. and Castoldi, M. (eds) 1992. Ricerche
archeologiche all’Incoronata di Metaponto. 2. Dal
villaggio indigeno all’emporio greco. Le strutture e i
materiali del saggio T. Milano.
Orlandini, P. and Castoldi, M. (eds) 1995. Ricerche
archeologiche all’Incoronata di Metaponto. 3. L’oikos
greco del saggio S. Lo scavo e i reperti. Milano.
Orlandini, P. and Castoldi, M. (eds) 1997. Ricerche
archeologiche all’Incoronata di Metaponto. 5. L’oikos
greco del saggio H. Lo scavo e i reperti. Milano.
Osanna, M. 1992. Chorai coloniali da Taranto a Locri.
Documentazione archeologica e ricostruzione storica.
Roma.
Osanna, M. 2001. Fattorie e villaggi in Magna Grecia.
In Problemi della chora coloniale dall’Occidente al Mar
Nero. AttiTaranto 40, 203–220. Taranto.
89
Osborne, R. 1998. Early Greek Colonization? The Nature
of Greek Settlements in the West. In N. Fisher and
H. van Wees (eds), Archaic Greece. New Approaches
and New Evidence, 251–269. London.
Pancrazzi, O. 1979. Cavallino. Scavi e ricerche 1964–
1967. Galatina.
Rihll, T. 1993. War, Slavery, and Settlement in Early
Greece. In J. Rich and G. Shipley (eds), War and
Society in the Greek World, 77–107. London/New York.
van Dommelen, P. 1998. On Colonial Grounds. A
Comparative Study of Colonialism and Rural Settlement
in First Millennium BC West Central Sardinia.
Leiden.
Yntema, D. W. 2000. Mental Landscapes of Colonization:
the Ancient Written Sources and the Archaeology of
Early Colonial-Greek Southeastern Italy. BABesch
75, 1–49.