What is an emporion and what role did emporia play in Mediterranean archaic trade?

Paddy Altern 2012 What is an emporion and what role did emporia play in Mediterranean archaic trade? 1. Introduction This essay first considers useful definitions of emporia1, accounting for how emporion sites function in archaeologically perceptible networks and the ter s variable use in historical sources. It also considers diachronic change and variability of roles at settlements which might be considered emporia. This leads away from culture-history distinctions of Greek and Phoenician to ard ore e ta gled o siderations of interactions among many parties over time with these interactions changing via a ate e t Horde & Pur ell, , i te sifi atio a d . This analysis of connection and multiple sources of agency draws particularly on the work of Malkin (2011), Dietler (2005; 2009) and Ridgway (2007). This leads one to a definition of emporion which is closer to a function than an ontological description. The role of emporia is to facilitate connection within and, most clearly in the archaeological record, between networks. This is essential to the fulfilment of microregional opportunities (Horden & Purcell, 2000; although they take a far narrower view of emporia). Emporia appear in a broad spectrum of settlements of different origin, size, ___location and organisation. They are ot a arro t pe like Pola i s port of trade . Their initial purpose need not have been as emporia and the emporion role may be one of several contemporaneous functions. 1 I do not italicise emporia or emporion, taking them as words adopted into English. 1 Paddy Altern 2012 2. Emporia and Networks We must first set emporia in a conceptual context (Fig.1.). Fig.1. Emporia serve connectivity within networks which will vary between core types provided here and facilitate interaction between networks, which may be similar or very different types. Source: Malkin 2011, 10 after Barabisi 2003. The core argument of this essay is that archaic networks changed over time and thus the emporia within them must be similarly dynamic. For example, the Greeks may be seen to have a distributed network from 8 th Century to early 6th Century and then a decentralised network through the rest of the archaic and the classical period, particularly that of Phocaea (Malkin, 2011; Figs.3&5), until the rise of the centralised network of Rome (Fig.2). The Phoenicians on the other hand may be seen as initially a decentralised network (driven by city-states a d ot a Phoe i ia ide tit , ith esse tiall state-sponsored network development in the Early Iron Age), before entanglement with the Greek open period of a more distributed network (see Sommer, 2007) and then the Carthaginian elements coalesce in the period of decentralised networks (Figs.2&3). 2 Paddy Altern 2012 Indigenous networks (and one might here include the Etruscans who appear to remain focussed on city-states - Dietler, 2007) seem to be decentralised, with local elites. Indigenous access to the networks of Greeks and Phoenicians is often controlled at points of interaction. That role of interaction is itself one useful definition of emporia (very much the thesis of the Dietler & LopezRuiz volume, 2009, though they do not engage with network terminology). The most important emporia are the nodes connecting networks. Naukratis connects the centralised network of Egypt with the distributed early archaic network of the Greeks. Later, Massalia connects the decentralised networks of the Rhone, Languedoc, Hallstatt and Iberia with the decentralised network of Phocaea (Dietler, 2005; 2009; Sanmarti, 2009). Massalia eventually becomes the main hub for the Phocaeans (Figs.3&4). But emporia are more numerous than such vital nodes. Emporia are all settlements which clearly serve the network. Without connectivity they would not exist. To generalise that emporia serve connectivity is not to sidestep a typological discussion. Rather it is to note that the sheer variability of emporia: in origin, life-span, roles within network, size and population makes a typological description of limited value (see Sommer, 2007; Malkin, 2011; Ridgway, 2007; Dietler, 2009; 2005). We are instead capturing a d a i : the ide ariet of age ies respo si le in the Mediterranean for the particular uses made of the opportunities of ea h i roe olog Horde & Pur ell, distribution in Fig.4. A , . That is what creates the o posite Mediterra ea et ork to which Phoe i ia s, Greeks a d i dige ous populatio s, settled a d o ile groups, traders and producers of commodities, mercenaries and slaves each o tri uted “o er, , ). We have multi-agent histories (Dietler, 2009) and thus interaction rather than active-passive relationships (Ridgway, 2007). 3 Paddy Altern 2012 Decentralised Distributed Decentralised Centralised Fig.2. Chronology and the conceptual periodization by type of network, essentially a synthesis of Malkin (2011), Ridgway (2007) and Dietler (2009) in the conceptual framework of connectivity of Horden & Purcell. Source: Dietler, 2009, 4 annotated by P.Altern. 4 Paddy Altern 2012 Fig.3. An e a ple of de e t alisatio , Areas of commercial influence in the Weste Medite a ea ased o the diffusio of a pho ae (original caption). Spheres of influence may have anachronistic connotations but seems a useful description of the late Archaic changes to decentralised networks. Source: Sanmarti, 2009, 71. Fig.4. Distribution of Massaliote amphorae showing the cluster and hub forms of a decentralised network. Source: Hermary, 2002, 67. 5 Paddy Altern 2012 Fig.5. The Phocaean network shows that decentralised networks were not just regional spheres of influence but also Pan-Mediterranean. The impacts of Persian expansion, refugees and piracy seem to cast the Phocaeans as agents of terminal ha ge fo the ope et o ks of the 9th-7th Centuries (Serra Ridgway, 1990; Malkin, 2011). Source: Malkin, 2011, 145. 3. Early definitions and variability The philology of the emporion has been exhaustively studied (Wilson, 1997; Moller, 2000; Malkin, 2011; Osborne, 2007; Reed, 2003; Bresson, 2003 to name a few). The key point to draw is that there was no consistent definition in the historical sources and little agreement among modern scholars as to what an emporion is. Herodotus calls Naukratis a polis and Aegina an emporion (Moller, 2000, 184, 77), yet one might naturally reverse the terms. Pithekoussai is now viewed as emporion and apoikia (respectively Ridgway, 2007; Hansen & Neilsen, 2004) probably starting as one and becoming the other as Cumae develops a chora (De Angelis, 2002). “a t I e ia is a nuragic settlement which acted as an emporion (Ridgway, 2007). La Rabita (Dietler, 2009), Sainte Blaise (Dietler, 2005), Penya Negra (Belarte, 2009), Pyrgi (Serra Ridgway, 1990), La Picola (Rouillard, 2009) and Aldovesta (Sanmarti, 2009) show similar traits as lo al e poria, although they may be small incomer foundations overwhelmed by the numbers of indigenes 6 Paddy Altern 2012 attracted. Huelva was an emporion and becomes a colony (Lopez-Castro, 2006; Gonzalez de Canales et al, 2006). The latter phases Huelva into Preolo ial E porita a d Colo ial-E porita . This diachronic change seems the case for many Phoenician trading posts (Niemeyer, 1990). Wilson (1997) makes a cogent argument that emporion concepts and actual roles change over time, which suits the network periodization, Fig.2. Of primary importance is the role in the network. The emporion/apoikia debate and other historical distinctions are thus secondary, important for the understanding of site-specific identity (Wilson, 1997; Ridgway, 2007). Foundation stories, mythic or otherwise, are in any case serving connectivity (Malkin, 2011, Chapter: Network and Middle Grounds). The earliest such settlements in the Central Mediterranean seem to be mixed Levantine and Euboean (Hodos, 2009; Boardman, 2006). Thus whilst it is important to study how and where emporia caused populations to interact it is the emporia role as network nodes which is definitional. Many of the references of this essay provide maps with dots representing the frogs arou d the po d to illustrate ultural or trade connections or networks depending on their thesis (examples Figs.4-7). Exactly what the origins were of the dots becomes secondary. Whether they were set up by a city-state, spru g up arou d sile t trade (Polanyi, 1963 citing Herodotus), served the periplous or were planned agricultural settlements on fertile regions (like Megara Hyblaia: De Angelis, 2002 who sees the trade / agriculture debate as false), they served the network and thus have, generally, Far fro eedi g to hoose itio s… e should, o , e surprised the emporia functions discussed below (Fig.6). et ee if the o er ial or agraria a ere disti guisha le Horde & Pur ell, , . In the same way that Bresson (2003) and Osborne (2007) see traders across social classes and from within each polis, so that variety of people are active across the network. There is no need to limit ourselves, Polanyi style (1963), to a particular definition of who was active at an emporion. Similarly there is 7 Paddy Altern 2012 no need to limit settlements to only one role (Koshelenko & Marinovitch, 2000). They can have several at the same time, some of which fall clearly under the network functionality of emporia and some which fall outside (but can still happen at emporia). Agriculture for local subsistence is the most obvious of these. One might see some crafts for non-trade goods similarly (Fig.6). Other sites may be primarily strategic but also serve as emporia (Fig.7). Fig.6. The incomers emporion which might be defined as primarily a trading post on a defensible coastal position, with good harbourage and timber sources for ship-building (Jackson, 2000) is important but only one part of the emporion function within archaic trading networks. Indigenous sites and those of other olo isi g g oups a e also o e ted odes p o idi g the exchange of goods, of beliefs and ideas with mutual cultural impact. Emporia in this example are points of connection to local cabotage networks as well as supporting the import of goods from other regions (here Massalia and Southern Iberia). Source: Belarte, 2009, 92. 8 Paddy Altern 2012 Fig.7. The Phoenician network and its key points. Note that these cover a very wide range of settlements from the strategic Motya, Utica and Gades to metals-focussed Huelva and the many small productive sites of Iberia. Source: Niemeyer, 2000, 95. 9 Paddy Altern 2012 4. Emporia Roles Once one has set definitional limitations aside and see the emporia as a function in networks, it is immediately clear how essential emporia were to archaic trade. As we put the people back into history via agency and interaction (Dietler, 2009; Ridgway, 2007), we see that network nodes facilitate a huge range of endeavours – all of which are factors in developing trade . These extend far beyond places and objects of exchange to include o te t, o su ptio , the role of ati e peoples, a d a u dersta di g of the sheer o ple it of the Mediterra ea orld Flet her, indigenous element must not be underestimated. , . The This is not just to acknowledge the famous multi-lingual, multi-ethnic tablets of Penc Maho, Emporion and Pyrgi (Sanmarti, 2009; Dietler, 2005; Serra Ridgway, 1991) but also to give consideration to the realities of settling on foreign shores. The incomers need to serve purposes useful to the indigenous people and their networks (Dietler 2005; 2009). 4.1 Exchange and Production Emporia can be the site of point to point long-distance trade, local cabotage (Horden & Purcell, 2000), act as gateways (Arles: Dietler, 2005; Naukratis: Moller, 2000; Pyrgi: Serra Ridgway, 1991) and provide trade-good production (Dietler, 2005 on Massalia; Sanmarti, 2009; Belarte, 2009 in Iberia; Hodos, 2000 in Anatolia). All of these elements of trade can exist at an emporion. As Wilson argues (1997), the physical separation of foreign trade is primarily a Classical occurrence, with the possibility of specific exceptions like Naukratis. The variety of activities is inherently understated in the archaeological record (Rouillard, 2009). The periplous combined with a breadth of products lost to us now: slaves, textiles, garum, food and timber (Fletcher, 2012) to create mixed cargoes and crews (Greene et al, 2011; Rouillard, 2009, 138-9 review of wrecks; Fig.9). 10 Paddy Altern 2012 Emporia literally allowed you to be closer to your customer, whether by serving their tastes by adapting what is imported (Paleothodoros, 2007; Osborne, 2007; Dietler, 2005) or by importing craftsmen. The latter has striking examples: there are few imports at Kinet Hoyuk (Hodos, 2000), Pithekoussai (Ridgway, 2007) or Cerro del Villar (Aubet, 1993). The technologies and styles are imported, not the pots. Dietler (2005) finds that i ports are phased out i the ‘ho e as Massalia s raft populatio gro s. As Cli e dis usses for the Bro ze Age, defi i g i ports i d a i networks is extremely challenging. Import substitution seems a natural development: De Angelis (2002) notes at Megara Hyblaia several generations which seem focussed on the mother city links, but there is a transformation in the archaeological record to a far more diverse connectivity of a mature colony. Iberia sees the same transition (Fig.8). As above, diachronic change means that emporia become colonies with broader populations, roles and more complex organisation. emporion role of connectivity remains however. 11 The Paddy Altern 2012 Fig.8. Pottery assemblages showing clear diachronic change and local production. Emporia are no more static than the networks and populations that they serve. Limiting definitions are not explanatory. Methodologically o e ight uestio “a a ti s ha it of a e agi g hi h asks the a ia ilit which is a key theme of this essay – Aldovesta and Emporion show very different profiles, but most of the sites do approximate to these averages (Sanmarti, 2009, 59-61). The sites considered are generally small and classic interface facilitating emporia. Source: Sanmarti, 2009, 60. 12 Paddy Altern 2012 Fig.9. The mix of Phoenician and non-Phoenician ceramics in a single archaic wreck site. Source: Negueruela et al, 1995, 192. 4.2 Security and Control Grea es follo s Miletos s trade routes o sideri g e ide e for frie d, foe, currents, climate and coastline and ably shows the challenges seafarers faced. Whilst risky, these would involve only a fraction of the taxes and chances of robbery faced overland (Dietler, 2005). Emporia are a safe harbour against pirates and can be a base for them: there seems a link between archaic piracy and geographic expansion. Aegina and Phocaea were famously piratical as were several other founding poleis of Naukratis (Moller, 2000). Although Jackson (2000) thinks raiding was exaggerated he sees the Egyptian motive for Naukratis as a preventative measure against piracy which may explain its Panhellenic nature. Scott (2000) thinks that warships were only numerous in the Classical period, but raiding does seem to have been a regular supplement to elite agricultural income. 13 Paddy Altern 2012 Malkin (2011) suggests Phocaean piracy as a catalyst for the end of the archaic distributed network. Reed (2003) sees raiding (piracy on land) as an essential part of elite employment. In Herodotos the Phocaeans go to Tartessos in warships (Malkin, 2011). Emporia facilitate political control of trade and the ability to tax it (Purcell, 2005). The alien population and its ideas can be kept aside. This is clear in Classical Athens (Wilson, 1997; Burke, 1992) but is probably also the basis for Naukratis (Moller, 2000) and explains the appeal to the indigenous elites of sites such as Pyrgi which are close but also separate (Serra Ridgeway, 1990). It may also explain the small size of those emporia which do not develop into colonies; they are kept that way by the locals (Belarte, 2009). Political control stops local settlement at what otherwise is a strong population attraction of a port. 4.3 Cultural transmission and Identity It is not just objects which are exchanged. Alphabets and languages are key to trade and archaic Greek expansion (Osborne, 2007; Moller, 2007) and the earlier Phoenician (Markoe, 2000). sedimentation of knowledge. Written communication assists the I dige es at e poria are tra slator a d tra s itter of ideas fro the outside orld the re ipie t, ‘idg a , , 145). Foxhall (1998) notes the need for consumers to know what is available, to reate Os or e s dis ri i ati g de a d layers of contact (von Reden, 2007). populatio a d i for atio , . This happe s ia A diaspori network of commodity, e ha ge “o er, , o the Phoenicians). He also notes that even in 4th Century AD, Punic was spoken and the population of Numidia called themselves chanani (presumed Canaanite). It is this gradual but profound impact which we see in the domestic and production architecture where local and incomer networks meet (Figs.10-11). 14 Paddy Altern 2012 Fig.10. The transmission of Phoenician forms in Iberia is a combination of emulation and adaptation for trading and storage purposes. Source: Belarte, 2009, 96. Fig.11. Belarte offers an interesting dynamic for the incomer/indigene relationship. Imitation of Phoenician forms appears to be dropped and then Greek forms copied after an interval where native forms reappear. Some habits stick, like wine production, others fall away when contact is not maintained. Source: Belarte, 2009, 99. 15 Paddy Altern 2012 A key element of this connectivity is religion, facilitated by syncretistic practices this can move around networks (Malkin, 2011, 8; Figs.12-18). Sometimes a network can even be understood better by their presence (Fig.17). Some of these sanctuaries reflect the same indigene/incomer emulation and acculturation dynamic evidenced in Figs.10-11 taken into symbolic form (Figs.13-15). However, Serra Ridgway (1990) demonstrates at Pyrgi how temple sites can reflect on specific political, cultural and economic linkages (Fig.12) rather than gradual acculturation. The temples at Naukratis and Gravisca are surely also a symbol of connection and tolerance whilst performing practical trading functions (Moller, 2000; Malkin, 2011, 143, 150). Emporia require the demand for exchange and the acceptance of local populations (Dietler, 2009). This is greatly facilitated by shared symbolism and shared risk management via prayer and ritual (Figs.16-18). Sanctuaries were frequented by a cosmopolitan crowd with beliefs either shared or sufficiently variants on a particularly theme (Aprhrodite, Astarte, Ute). Greeks and Etruscans donate at sanctuaries at Gravisca (Deamos, 2009, 212). The Pyrgi temple is itself a melange of Etruscan and Corinthian styles (Serra Ridgway, 1990, 522). Fig.12. Plan of the sanctuary at Pyrgi, showing religion as important in itself but also as an effective statement of connection, political and economic, evidenced by the gold tablets. Like many other emporia sites these temples 16 Paddy Altern 2012 face the sea not the city inland. They protect the sailors and traders and function as part of the network. Source: Serra Ridgway, 1990, 514. Fig.13. The sanctuary at Cancho Roano shows the power of the spread of ideas beyond the coastal emporia in its Phoenician form, a o hide alta as also found here (see Fig.14). Source: Celestino-Perez, 2009, 243. Fig.14. Connectivity and the symbolism of shape Part 1. The Carambolo sa tua ith its appa e t o hide alta . “ou e: Dea os, 2009, 206. 17 Paddy Altern 2012 Fig.15. Connectivity and the symbolism of shape Part 2: the Carambolo treasure. Source: Deamos, 2009, 202. Fig.16. Cup from Naukratis with Greek dedication to Aphrodite. Empereur, 2002, 30. 18 Source: Paddy Altern 2012 Fig.17. Aphrodite cult sanctuaries in the Miletos colonial network. This is a complex compounding of risk management and identity. Sanctuaries served spiritual and practical roles, acting as treasuries and trading bases. Their distribution thus helps us reconstruct networks. Source: Greaves, 2000, 41. 19 Paddy Altern 2012 Fig.18. Phoenician religious rites and trading vessels in combination. Despite the emporia network, archaic trading was a risky, and highly profitable business. Source: Lopez-Bertrand et al., 2008, 347. 5. Conclusion An emporion is a network node which serves the function of that network as entrepôt or safe haven and most particularly can also serve the interaction between networks as a gateway. It must always be understood as a site of multiple agencies as that is a prerequisite for an emporion to last. Emporion roles develop over time; so Massalia and Carthage become colonies whilst Cerro del Villar disappears. Those colonies remain emporia in the relevant functions, as does Megara Hyblaia which was always primarily the centre of a chora. The emporia functions within their essential purpose of connectivity were wide ranging. The material remains of the essential mechanics of exchange or production for exchange are only part of the story. Emporia also facilitate the exchange of ideas, symbols, consumption patterns, craft practices and even religion. These are the glue which holds cosmopolitan emporia themselves together and also attaches the emporion to its local region hi terla d creates entirely the wrong understanding). Such vital roles invite control, hence the tendency towards decentralised rather than distributed networks over time, or indeed control may be the explanation of their foundation, as at Naukratis. 20 Paddy Altern 2012 References Aubet, M., 1993. The Phoenicians and the West. CUP: Cambridge. Belarte, M., 2009. Colonial contacts and Protohistoric Indigenous Urbanism on the Mediterranean Coast of the Iberian Peninsula 91-107 Dietler, M., Lopez-Ruiz, C., 2009. Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Boardman, J., 2006. Early Euboean settlements in the Carthage area. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25:195-200. Bresson, A., 2003. Merchants and politics in ancient Greece: social and economic aspects. In, Zaccagnini, C. (ed.) Mercanti e politica nel mondo antico pp.139-163. Rome. Burke, E., 1992. The economy of Athens in the Classical Era: some adjustments to the primitivist model. Transactions of the American Philological Association 122:199-226. Celestino-Perez, S. Precolonizationa dn Colonisation in the interior. Dietler, M., Lopez-Ruiz, C., 2009. Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Cline, E., 2005. The multivalent nature of imported objects. In Laffineur & Greco (eds.) Emporia. Universite de Liege. De Angelis, F., 2002. Trade and agriculture at Megara Hyblaia. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21:299-310. Deamos, M., Phoenicians in Tartessos. 193-214 Dietler, M., Lopez-Ruiz, C., 2009. Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Dietler, M., Lopez-Ruiz, C., 2009. Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. 21 Paddy Altern 2012 Dietler, M., 2005. Consumption and Colonial Encounters in the Rhone Basin of Fra e. Mo ographes d Ar haeologie Mediterraneenne. Dietler, M., 2007. The Iron Age in the Western Mediterranean. In Scheidel, Morris and Saller (eds.) The Cambridge Economic History of the GraecoRoman World. CUP: Cambridge. Dietler, M., 2009. Colonial Encounters in Iberia and the Western Mediterranean: An Explanatory Framework (3-48)Dietler, M., Lopez-Ruiz, C., 2009. Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Empereur, J-V., 2002. Les Grecs en Egypte. In Karageorghis, V. (ed.) The Greeks Beyond the Aegean: from Marseilles to Bactria. Onassis Foundation USA. Fletcher, R., 2012. Opening the Mediterranean: Assyria, the Levant and the transformation of Early Iron Age trade. Antiquity 86:211-220. Fo hall, L., . Cargoes of the heart s desire: the haracter of trade in the Archaic Mediterranean world. In Fisher, N., van Wees, H. (eds) Archaic Greece: new approaches and new evidence pp.295-310. Gonzalez de Canales, F., Serrano, L., Llompart, J., 2009. The two phases of Western Phoenician expansion beyond the Huelva finds: An Interpretation. AWE 8:1-20. Greaves, A., 2000. Miletos and the sea: a stormy relationship. In Oliver, Brock, Cornell, Hodkinson (eds.) The Sea in Antiquity. BAR International Series 899. Archaeopress: Oxford. Greene, E., Leidwanger, J., Ozdas, H., 2011. Two Early Archaic shipwrecks at Kekova Adasi and Kepce Burnu, Turkey. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 40: 60-68. 22 Paddy Altern 2012 Hansen, M., Neilsen, T., 2004. An inventory of Archaic and Classical poleis. Oxford Hermary, A., 2002. The Greeks in Marseilles and the Western Mediterranean. In Karageorghis, V. (ed.) The Greeks Beyond the Aegean: from Marseilles to Bactria. Onassis Foundation USA. Hodos, T., 2000. Kinet Hoyuk and Pan-Mediterranean exchange. In Oliver, Brock, Cornell, Hodkinson (eds.) The Sea in Antiquity. BAR International Series 899. Archaeopress: Oxford. Hodos, T., 2009. Colonial engagements in the global Meriterranean Iron Age. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19:221-241. Horden, P., Purcell, N., 2000. The Corrupting Sea. Blackwell: Oxford. Jackson, A., 2000. Sea raiding in Archaic Greece with special attention to Samos. In Oliver, Brock, Cornell, Hodkinson (eds.) The Sea in Antiquity. BAR International Series 899. Archaeopress: Oxford. Koshelenko, G., Marinovitch, L., 2000. Three Emporia of the Kimmerian Bosporus. In Tsetskhladze, Prag, Snodgrass, (eds.). Periplous. Thames & Hudson: London. Lopez Bertrand, M. et al., 2009. Could you take a picture of my boat please? The use of significance of Mediterranean ship representations. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 27:341-357. Lopez Castro, J., 2006. Colonials, merchants and alabaster vases: the western Phoenician aristocracy. Antiquity 80:74-88. Malkin, I., 2011. A Small Greek World. OUP: Oxford. Markoe, G. 2000. The Phoenicians. Berkeley: University of California Press. Moller, I., 2000. Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece. OUP: Oxford. 23 Paddy Altern 2012 Moller, I., 2007. Classical Greece: Distribution. In Scheidel, Morris and Saller (eds.) The Cambridge Economic History of the Graeco-Roman World. CUP: Cambridge. Negueruela, I, et al., 1995. Seventh-Century BC Phoenician vessel discovered at Playa de la Isla, Mazarron, Spain. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24:189-197. Niemeyer, H., 2000. The Early Phoenician City-States on the Mediterranean: Archaeological elements for their description. In Hansen, M. (ed.) A Comparative Study of Thirty City-state Cultures pp. 89-115. Copenhagen. Osborne, R., 2007. Archaic Greece. In Scheidel, Morris and Saller (eds.) The Cambridge Economic History of the Graeco-Roman World. CUP: Cambridge. Paleothodoros, D., 2007. Commercial networks in the Mediterranean and the diffusion of Early Attic Red-figure pottery (525-490 BCE). Mediterranean Historical Review 22:165-182. Polanyi, K., 1963. Ports of Trade in Early Societies. Journal of Economic History 23:30-45. Purcell, N., 2005. The ancient Mediterranean: the view from the custom house. In Harris (ed.) Rethinking the Mediterranean pp.200-232. OUP: Oxford. Reed, C., 2003. Maritime traders in the ancient Greek world. CUP: Cambridge. Ridgway, D., 2007. Some reflections on the early Euboeans and their partners in the Central Mediterranean. In Mazarakis Ainian, A., (ed.) Oropos and Euboea in the Early Iron Age. University of Thessaly. Rouillard, P., 2009. Greeks and the Iberian Peninsula: Forms of exchange and Settlement Dietler, M., Lopez-Ruiz, C., 2009. Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. 24 Paddy Altern 2012 Sanmarti, J., Colonial Relations and Social Change in Iberia (seventh to theird cenruries BC) 49-92 Dietler, M. Dietler, M., Lopez-Ruiz, C., 2009. Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Scott, L., 2000. Were there polis navies in Archaic Greece? In Oliver, Brock, Cornell, Hodkinson (eds.) The Sea in Antiquity. BAR International Series 899. Archaeopress: Oxford. Serra Ridgway, F., 1990. Etruscans, Greeks and Carthiginians: the sanctuary at Pyrgi. In Descoeudres, J. (ed.) Greek colonists and native populations. Clarendon: Oxford. Sommer, M., 2007. Networks of Commerce and Knowledge in the Iron Age: The Case of the Phoenicians. Mediterranean Historical Review 22:97-111. Von Reden, S., 2007. Classical Greece: Consumption. In Scheidel, Morris and Saller (eds.) The Cambridge Economic History of the Graeco-Roman World. CUP: Cambridge. Wilson, J-P., 1997. The nature of Greek overseas settlements in the archaic period: emporion or apoikia? In Mitchell & Rhodes (eds.) The development of the Polis in Ancient Greece. Pp.199-207. 25