Thesis — Brief Overview 2005
My thesis in about colonisation and identity in 1st Millennium BC Sicily. If you are an Archaeologist then colonisation was a simple process. The Greeks arrived from the eighth century and by the fifth everyone was Native or Phoenician on the island. All the natives has become ‘Hellenised’. This is a problem if you’re an Ancient Historian. Ancient History records an uprising by the native peoples against the Greeks in the middle of the fifth century BC. There must have been a defined native identity, but so far archaeologists haven’t the tools to find it.
There is also the question of how acculturation occured. The traditional approach is, in the words of Boardman “The Greeks had nothing to learn and much to teach”. The more recent generation of scholars has a more liberal approach. They argue that the natives could pick ‘n’ choose what they took from Greek culture. It’s an interesting idea, but it breaks down if you still insist the acculturation was all one-way. I’m using extelligent theory to see if there’s a way of showing a plausible model of acculturation.
This model suggests that personal idenitity is related to how you perceive the universe. So there’s not just the issue of buying the material goods, it’s a matter of how you use them. Where I live in the UK baseball bats are very common. Are the natives Americanised, or are they using them in their own way. The lack of baseball diamonds makes me think that there’s more to the bat than baseball.
In Sicily I’m looking at the temples and other civic buildings. Yes, the natives take on the Greek style but do they use them in a Greek way? The Greeks knew that for a temple to work it had to face sunrise. Fieldwork shows that this idea was followed through 100% of the time (which is a worryingly positive statistic). If native temples can be shown to ignore this then I have evidence of Greek material being used in a native way.
Also Greek cities consciously aligned superstructure astronomically. The natives may have aligned infrastructure. Greek culture has nothing to say on infrastructure until the codification of Hippodameon planning, so if native patterns of infrastructure are found in early Greek settlements, could this be evidence of native acculturation of the Greeks?
Google+
Hi Alun,
Your thesis sounds very very interesting. I have to admit I’m very partial to the Phoenicians myself (mostly due to endless hours of playing with pottery hehhe).
You wrote:
There is also the question of how acculturation occured. The traditional approach is, in the words of Boardman “The Greeks had nothing to learn and much to teach”.
—
Typical Boardman. And very symptomatic of the idea that the Greeks are the superior masters who taught the world everything.
You wrote:
This model suggests that personal idenitity is related to how you perceive the universe. So there’s not just the issue of buying the material goods, it’s a matter of how you use them.
—
Very post proc:-)) I actually like this pov and apply it as well when thinking about Sardinia.
You wrote:
In Sicily I’m looking at the temples and other civic buildings. Yes, the natives take on the Greek style but do they use them in a Greek way?
—
A parallel to this is the lovely Phoenicians. They transported tons of Egyptian goodies all over the place, usually it was plates with meaningless hieroglyphics. Kind of like the souvenirs that flood every tourist area:)
Will you be looking at anything else besides temples and astronomy? How about burial practices? I like this thesis of yours, looking fwd to its eventual publication!
I’m post–processual? I sold the thesis to my archaeology supervisor as an exploration of middle-range theory, straight from Binford. My ancient history supervisor sees it more as culture history, so I’d argue I’m 20 or 40 years out-of-date rather than just 10
While I disagree with Boardman, it’s not enough to simply state he’s wrong. He puts it nicely when he says:
I think that post-colonialists are making assumptions and not challenging them. De Angelis has taken Dunbabin’s to task over the imperialist nature of “The Western Greeks”, in Antiquity 1998, but exempted modern researchers from similar analysis because he claims you need 50 years of perspective to spot political pressures on theories. Frankly that argument is so limp it’s wrist is broken.
Am I the only person to spot the striking similarity of Thatcher empowering the individual in the 1980s and the rise of post-processualism and focus on the indiviual in archaeology? Just because post-processualism was Thatcherite doesn’t make it wrong, but I suspect it has had a profound influence on modern archaeology that the traditionalists have, by being “stuck in a rut”, avoided. I was recently told with no irony by a prehistorian that there was “no such thing as society” and systemic models failed because they didn’t account for individuals.
And here I am trying to trying to find a third way between the two. Reflection of the times? Probably, but if I have data and reason then even if I am blinded by the zeitgeist the work will be of some value for later scholars.
As for other data, there’s also a study of city grids. For instance the Carthaginians seem to have used similar cosmological principles in planning Carthage, Motya, Marsala and possibly Palermo. The Etruscans also are known to have expressed cosmology through infrastructure rather than superstructure. This is different to, but does not contradict, Hellenic cosmology. So as well as the Sikels being Hellenised, do the Greeks get Sikelised? Juko Ito notes the earliest axial planning occurs in Sicily, Aveni and Romano have argued for an Etruscan influence in Greek city planning, the second major centre of philosophy away from the coast of Asia Minor is Sicily and Southern Italy. So there may be something to gain from re-reading the Pythagorean sources.
There’s also the fact that cosmology is not the same as astronomy. Dora Crouch has recently published a book on the “Geology of Greek Settlement” or a similar title. The Greeks recognised many of the native deities as Demeter and Persephone, which suggests a strong cthonic connection. In southern Italy there’s further evidence of connections with the underworld. With Etna dominating so much of the east of Sicily I’ll be disappointed if I can’t discuss the geology.
The problem is keeping to the 80k word limit.
The burial evidence is interesting but it’s being picked over by most archaeologists. That doesn’t make examining the data pointless, but a PhD is supposed to be original. Also the burial data is patchily published, so despite there being lots of it it’s not fully representative, so it needs more data to place it in context. Otherwise it simply becomes an argument of opinion.
In addition because I’m arguing that culture is gendered, there should be value in looking for gender-associated artefacts. Loom weights for example. Uniform loom-weights probably indicate a female monoculture, but multiple populations of loom weight types would suggest multiple weaving traditions which in turn suggests multiple female ethnicities.
The big area for expansion is food, which is an excellent indicator of ethnicity. As you have noted, the British eat cute fluffy lambs, but wretch at the idea of eating horse, even though horse is far more delicious. It would be reasonable to assume that the natives and Greeks had differing cuisines, eating different foods and processing them in different ways. There is so much that could be done, but again the data simply isn’t there.
I’m post-processual?
—
*grins* no insult intended:) But the idea that identity depends on how you perceive the universe etc is a fave among the post procs:)
—
I sold the thesis to my archaeology supervisor as an exploration of middle-range theory, straight from Binford. My ancient history supervisor sees it more as culture history, so I’d argue I’m 20 or 40 years out-of-date rather than just 10
—-
Vintage is back in fashion
—
While I disagree with Boardman, it’s not enough to simply state he’s wrong. He puts it nicely when he says:
—
I agree… must learn not to write when half asleep.
—
Most recently a strange kind of political correctness has crept in,
—
That’s not THAT recent… feminist scholars were imposing modern standards on prehistory as far back as the 70s
—
I think that post-colonialists are making assumptions and not challenging them. De Angelis has taken Dunbabin’s to task over the imperialist nature of “The Western Greeks”, in Antiquity 1998, but exempted modern researchers from similar analysis because he claims you need 50 years of perspective to spot political pressures on theories. Frankly that argument is so limp it’s wrist is broken.
—
*g* indeed. And why 50 not 100?
—
As for other data, there’s also a study of city grids. For instance the Carthaginians seem to have used similar cosmological principles in planning Carthage, Motya, Marsala and possibly Palermo. The Etruscans also are known to have expressed cosmology through infrastructure rather than superstructure. This is different to, but does not contradict, Hellenic cosmology. So as well as the Sikels being Hellenised, do the Greeks get Sikelised?
—
This is really interesting. Is there a good plan of the ancient city of Palermo? Pity we haven’t found any Phoenician cities in Malta yet, it would have been interesting for many reasons.
—-
–
In southern Italy there’s further evidence of connections with the underworld.
–
Well I wouldn’t know about Greek stuff but there certainly was in the Neolithic and Bronze Age (See Ruth Whitehouse’s work on caves and cults).
—
PhD is supposed to be original. Also the burial data is patchily published,
—
A lot of things are in those parts unfortunately… you try getting reports for prehistoric sites…
—
In addition because I’m arguing that culture is gendered, there should be value in looking for gender-associated artefacts. Loom weights for example. Uniform loom-weights probably indicate a female monoculture, but multiple populations of loom weight types would suggest multiple weaving traditions which in turn suggests multiple female ethnicities.
—
Hmm that’s assuming weaving is a strictly female task tho…
Why would uniform loomweights indicate a female monoculture?
—-
The big area for expansion is food, which is an excellent indicator of ethnicity. As you have noted, the British eat cute fluffy lambs, but wretch at the idea of eating horse
(PS we eat cute fluffy lambs too… with honey, olive oil, rosemary…)
—
haha yes. Food is definitely an indicator of identity. Just finished reading an amusing article in the Times today about how everyone should eat a Mediterranean diet and live longer
–
even though horse is far more delicious. It would be reasonable to assume that the natives and Greeks had differing cuisines, eating different foods and processing them in different ways. There is so much that could be done, but again the data simply isn’t there.
—
What about texts tho? I thought we knew a bit about Greek food? And I guess you could always get trace elements done on pots..a. if you’re lucky to find them, b. if you’re even luckier to get permits and finance. The use of cooking/food preparation implements should also reveal some info… tho I guess it’ll take forever to analyze all the data! I envy big professors who have large teams of minions… then I remember I’m a minion myself:)
Some replies to things raised:
There’s no good plan of ancient Palermo as far as I know, but limited excavation shows that the modern city is built directly over the ancient grid, at least in places. This is more visible in cities like Marsala, the large open space in the northwest of the city is the archaeological park and the Viale Vittorio Veneto and the Via XI Maggio respect the axis of the Decumanus Maximus.
Loom weights. In Greek society weaving was a female activity carried out in the house. The females would have learned to weave in the traditional style from the elder women in the household using their equipment. When she had her loom etc. I’m assuming she’d want the loom to be built in the way that she learned on. Loom weights have a mechanical function, being of a specific weight and a ideal function in terms of shape etc. If the females are a monoculture then inter-marriage and common fashion would lead me to expect similar weaving techniques, including similar loom weights. However women were less mobile than men in this period, which creates the opportunity for greater local differences. While men had to be recognisably men across Mediterranean society, women were women on a more local scale.
I’d therefore expect some aspect of weaving to locally embedded. The material would have to be of a tradeable quality perhaps, but the trader would have no interest if the loom-weights used to make it were of the right shape, weights or materials. If you learn weaving from your mothers, and the output is ultimately not affected by local differences, then there’s no major pressure to conform, and a mechanism to preserve difference.
In a city with females from differing ethnicities in differing households, because weaving is learned within the house than in a civic environment, these differences should remain for longer periods of time until inter-marriage blends them. I cannot see why females from different localities would use identical loom-weights. However, my reading on loom-weights in neglible, so I’m open to be corrected on this.
As a note of caution, there is plenty of good reason to be sceptical of city-grids as having to be indicative of Sikelisation. Orthogonal planning is simply a very convenient way organising a city, which is why it’s found all over the world. It is plausible that the Greeks worked it out for themselves. It’s still very much thought in progress.