525

Résumé

L’objectif de notre communication est de questionner la nature et la fonction de la documentation céramique dans la définition des frontières culturelles. En partant de l’étude de quelques cas variés en Italie méridionale et en Sicile à l’époque archaïque, en contexte d’«acculturation libre» (voisinage ethnique) ou «forcée» (contexte colonial), nous souhaitons esquisser quelques hypothèses de travail sur cette vaste question, faire le point sur les débats historiographiques en cours et sur leur impact dans les études céramiques. Si, pour le contexte grec occidental, l’ancrage des questionnements est au cœur des débats des Congrès annuels de Tarente (depuis 1968), d’autres approches théoriques se sont développées ces dernières années, à partir notamment de la définition d’ethnicité proposée par S. Jones (1997) et des perspectives présentées lors des WAC (World Archaeological Congress). Par ailleurs, notre approche tient compte aussi bien des acquis de l’archéologie historique (Funari et al., 2005, Gosden, 2004) que des études stylistiques et typologiques (M. Bats, F. Croissant, M. Denoyelle, M. Denti). Nous voulons ainsi, en dernière instance, dégager quelques pistes de réflexion sur les rapports complexes entre les individus, leurs techniques et leurs objets en questionnant le rôle des céramiques dans l’affirmation des identités ainsi que leur place au sein des échanges culturels et des métissages en Italie méridionale et en Sicile à l’époque archaïque.

Mots-clés: colonisation, frontière, Grande Grèce, Sicile, ethnicité, archéologie historique, symposion

Abstract

The goal of our paper is to consider the nature and function of ceramic evidence in the definition of cultural borders. Considering the data of some case studies from Southern Italy and Sicily in Archaic period, in the context of “free acculturation” (ethnic borders and peaceful interactions) or “forced acculturation” (colonial context), we propose some working hypothesis about this vast topic and we wish to account for recent historiographical debate and its impact on the study of pottery. In the context of Greek colonies in South Italy and Sicily, these problems are in the very core of the debates at the annual conferences of Taranto (since 1968), but some other theoretical approaches were developed more recently, mainly the definition of ethnicity, as it is proposed by S. Jones (1997), as well as the standpoint presented at the WAC (World Archaeological Congress). Moreover, our perspective also considers recent achievements offered by Historical Archaeology (Funari et al., 2005, Gosden, 2004) and by stylistic and typological studies (M. Bats, F. Croissant, M. Denoyelle, M. Denti). Finally, we seek to establish some working hypothesis on the complex relationship between individuals, their techniques, and their objects, by approaching the role of pottery in the affirmation of identities as well as their place within the cultural exchange and ethnic miscegenation in Southern Italy and Sicily in Archaic period.

Keywords: colonization, borderline, Magna Graecia, Sicily, ethnicity, historical archaeology, symposion

1 (arianna.esposito@u-bourgogne.fr), Université de Bourgogne, Dijon – UMR 6298 ArTeHiS

2 (airton.pollini@uha.fr), Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse - ECA

526

The aim of this paper is to set a method of perceiving the roles and functions of the

ceramic data in the definition of cultural borders. Our analysis is organized in two

parts. First (i), we consider some recent developments of contemporary

historiography on the relationship between cultural identities, cultural contacts

and material culture; then (ii) we examine some case studies of Southern Italy and

Sicily where this theoretical background can be applied. As I. Hodder pointed out

(Hodder, 2001: 5 : « archaeological theory is always ‘of something’»), the

development of the studies on theoretical archaeology has a tendency to make

them too abstract and specialized; thus, Archaeology cannot be dissociated from

real examples.

I Historiographical perspectives:

Confronting Anglophone archaeology and Continental European

traditions3

Studies on the contexts of cultural contact between different civilizations have had

a great expansion recently. Relating to the Archaeology of Greek colonial contexts

(mainly Southern Italy and the Black Sea), and since 1960, the traditional

perspective of a superior and dominant Greek culture that imposes itself on native

communities was openly and rightly questioned (Dyson, 1995: 35). The first clear

evolution was the introduction of the concept of acculturation, taken from

American Anthropology and adapted by Archaeologists working on cultural

contacts in Ancient Mediterranean (Atti Taranto 1961, Gruzinski and Rouveret,

1976, Actes Cortone 1981). This new approach reinforced the idea of the creation

of new and mixed societies and scholars directed their attention to the evidence

from native culture that could be perceived by archaeological remains. The main

data analyzed came from funerary contexts, interpreted as the moment of greater

symbolic expression of those societies (La mort, les morts 1977).

More recently, another concept, ethnicity, once again coming from Anthropology,

was introduced in Archaeological theory. If contexts of contact between cultures

3 These pages are only the first step of a work in progress. Our background, Italian and Brazilian, and our education in

Europe and South America play a central role in the development of our ideas. The interdisciplinary and international session of the conference in Cadiz “The people and the vessels”: approaches from ethnoarchaeology, traceology and experimental archaeology offered us the ideal opportunity to achieve this first step. We wish to thank Lourdes Girón and Jesus Bermejo as well as all the participants in this session. The authors are the only responsible for the ideas expressed in this paper.

527

are still the ones privileged, this new approach insists on the analysis of everyday

objects in order to identify the habitual forms of expression of pertaining to a

cultural identity. Objects are the representation of the cultural group, at the same

time as this group constructs itself by using certain forms of specific decoration:

each group can use everyday objects to distinguish itself according to a set of codes

identified by the members of that specific society4.

Thus, instead of a mixed society relatively homogenous, with a vertical

hierarchical system consisting in the opposition between dominant and dominated

cultures, the concept of ethnicity underlines the heterogeneity of the community,

perceptible by the analysis of objects coming from all groups composing that

society.

Nowadays, the combination of Historical Archaeology and the post-colonial

approach allows a more precise establishment of the forms and modes of

intercultural contacts. In the USA, Historical Archaeology was in the beginning

directed towards the study of remains of the historical period, which is the period

after the conquest of America by European colonists (Orser Jr, 2000 (1992)).

Since then, in America, a neat opposition was created between, on the one side,

Prehistoric Archaeology, attached to the study of native American societies, with

close links with Anthropology, and, on the other side, Historical Archaeology,

closer to History and preoccupied with the material culture produced by an

American colonial society created after the arrival of Europeans (Funari, 1999).

However, Historical Archaeological approach has recently evolved to escape this

initial division and its North-American specificity and to include other historical

contexts. The aim of this opening is to forge new basis of a more international

approach, with an interdisciplinary perspective and a pragmatic orientation

(Funari, 1999: 37-66; Funari, Zarankin, and Stovel, 2005). This approach tries to

promote and widen archaeological research to include related disciplines, insisting

on the dialogue between different representations of the past, most of which were

traditionally marginalized in academia. In this sense, one of the most immediate

consequences consists in the creation of the conditions for a methodology capable

of covering all literate societies, with which the archaeologist is able to confront

4 Among several possible explanations of ethnicity (MESKELL, 2001, p. 189), we prefer to privilege the one that seems to

insist more on the dynamic character of the definition of an identity: S. JONES, 1997. See also: HALL, 1997; HALL, 2002; MALKIN (ed.), 2001.

528

archaeological data with texts (Funari, 1999: 57): basically it means to compare

heterogeneous evidence while respecting their autonomy. If this confrontation

already existed for a certain time in the case of European Classical Archaeology,

and mainly in Italy5, the more general use of this approach underlines the effort to

escape from a hierarchy between those two types of data in the Humanities, where

archaeological evidence was before used mainly to fill in the lacks of Ancient texts

(Small, 1995: 4-5; Small, 1999: 122-136).

At the same time, a particularly interesting consequence of this connection

between archaeological evidence and literary sources resides in the “reading”

artifacts as a text (Dyson, 1995: 25-44; Johnson, 1999: 23-36)6. This method

points out the necessity of deconstructing the archaeological object, like the work

of text analysis, as well as the perception of the role of writer by the archaeologist,

who is the producer of an interpretative text7. If it is necessary to describe

archaeological evidence, this description is itself subjective and dependent on the

intellectual conventions of the archaeologist. The conscience of the role of the

archaeologist as reader/writer makes his work much more complex: this

deconstruction may allow the separated analysis of different items of a sole and

unique object, which means the possibility to individualize several parallel

messages from only one source. It is an element to take into consideration in the

case studies mentioned below.

By its concomitant consideration of the diversity of sources, the historiographical

evolution within North American Historical Archaeology denotes a specific

attention reported on themes such as class exploitation, difference of statuses,

gender History, and ethnicity (Funari, 1999: 57; Meskell, 2001: 187-213; Lawrence

and Shepherd, 2006: 71). In other words, it stresses the relations of power

between social groups and individuals, as well as the means of domination and

resistance8. Therefore, the attention directed towards archaeological evidence as

instrument of an autonomous analysis is related to its sheer nature. As

5 For the contexts that we treat in this paper, we should remind the pioneering studies by Ettore Lepore : LEPORE 2000.

6 Related to the Archaeology of Classical Greek world, see concrete examples in: OBER, 1995, p. 91-123; SMALL, 1995, p.

143-174. 7 The roles of the archaeologist and the acknowledgement of its very subjective aspect were stressed since the end of the

1980s, especially by the means of the critics towards the presumed scientific character of New Archaeology: SHANKS and TILLEY, 1987. These discussions were reassessed and developed within the WAC (World Archaeological Congress), see: UCKO and LAYTON (eds.), 1999. 8 We should underline the possibility of using approaches such as « Third wave feminists » (MESKELL, 2001: 192-194), or

Gender History ( SCOTT, 1986: 1053-1075).

529

archaeological object, we consider basically the objects of everyday life with, in the

forefront, pottery. These methods of analysis were, in the beginning, established

for the study of colonial societies of the Modern period. Nonetheless, some

scholars considered applying those methods in the colonial contexts of Antiquity,

in a perspective in accordance with the postcolonial approach9. In particular, J.

Hall (1997) rightly admits that objects may be understood and used consciously as

iconic indexes of ethnical borders, as are language and religion. Therefore, he joins

some aspects developed by Appadurai or Kopyytoff (Appadurai, 1986; Kopyytoff,

1986) on the social life and biography of objects, adhering to an anthropological

approach that analyzes the relationship between people and artifacts, and

especially the cultural significations attached to objects. In other words, objects

carry symbolic meanings and those same meanings may vary according to whom

interprets them10. M. Hall stresses their relevance when considering what one can

call the “subaltern voices” (Hall, 1999: 193-203; Gosden, 2004). In view of a

relatively great amount of data resulting from varied sources, it becomes possible

to identify aspects of convergence and divergence of those sources. An approach

that seems very promising is the one stressing the contradiction instead of the

convergence. Homi Bhabha (Bhabha, 1994) has shown how hegemonic forms of

control need repetition and differentiation to be effective. The process of repetition

introduces incertitude and panic, whereas the establishment of differentiation

reinforces the contrast; the result is ambivalence. The cultural superiority of the

individual who holds power needs continuous repetition. Therefore, it is in cases

of ambivalence, where different sources at our disposal are contradictory and

impede a clear and univocal interpretation that one can identify the signs of those

individuals in a subaltern position (Hall, 1999: 193) and the indication of power

relation.

What is the contribution of pottery in the understanding of those dynamics?

Pottery was produced and consumed in different places or contexts. Thus, it was

ordered, accepted, recognized or interpreted and used as objects related to the

culture of insertion (Bats, 2010: 9). As a consequence, the question remains of

knowing the portion of import in contrast to the local traditions.

9 For a commentary on the possibility of using the methods of Historical Archaeology in other historical periods, see:

LawrencE and SHEPHERD, 2006: 75; and specifically for this transposition to the colonial movements of Greeks, Phoenicians and Romans, see: CUNLIFFE, 2006: 317. 10

GOSDEN AND MARSHALL, 1999.

530

II Pottery and identities

After commenting some recent theoretical viewpoints, we shall present in this

second part some case studies. It is the opportunity to insist on certain notions

and to test or moderate concepts mentioned above. Magna Graecia and Sicily offer

a particularly favorable testing ground for the assessment of the functions, uses

and roles of Greek pottery in varied cultural and archaeological contexts.

II.1 About hybrid decoration

The first aspect that we consider takes into account the transmission and

adaptations of styles and iconographic representations in Archaic Southern Italy.

It is clearly a very intricate topic that has received important contributions

recently, especially in the last decade. The existence of different artistic identities,

such as the study of pottery can show, conducted scholars to stress the role of

certain sites and certain workshops in the establishment of Western hybrid styles

(Carter, 2006: 60.). Especially the works of Mario Denti (Denti, 1999, 2000 and

2002), Martine Denoyelle (Denoyelle, 1996; Denoyelle and Iozzo, 2009: 47 s.) and

Francis Croissant (Croissant, 2003), on the Orientalizing workshops of

Incoronata, on the painter of Analatos, on the productions in the area of Sybaris

and on the diffusion of Corinthian models in Western Greek world pointed to the

new and mixed character of this production. The main interest relies on the

questions it arises. The composed origin of the communities of the new Western

Greek colonies and the heterogeneous character of the imports conditioned, since

the beginning, those different productions. Beyond the initial exigencies, it now

seems that craftsmen aimed at the creation of something that could be original (by

the novelty of its form, or by the mix of different stylistic elements of the

decoration) and supported with its selective and critical reception of imported

models. The perirrhanterion (fig. 1), or the «aryballos» (fig. 2) or even the dinos

with the representation of Bellerophon (fig. 3) of Incoronata, to cite only a few

examples, ostensibly show the attitude of the craftsman towards his models: they

are all compositions echoing explicitly Corinthian production at the same time as

they distinguish themselves by a consciously eclectic combination, open to the

tastes and contributions of local production (as expressed by the Native pattern a

tenda on the dinos). As a result, the production of this Western workshop reflects

531

more or less all the main styles identified in the Orientalizing Greek world:

Corinthian, but also Argian, Cycladic or even Attic.

This workshop offers then a privileged snapshot of the creative behavior of Greek

craftsmen in context of “free acculturation” (ethnic neighborhood and peaceful

interactions): indeed, the site of Incoronata appears as a “melting pot” for those

phenomena called “protocolonial”, still evanescent from the viewpoint of the

modalities of occupation11. The question of true cohabitation phenomena, whose

nature and modes of development are still subject of vivid debate among scholars

(Denti and Lanos, 2007: 448-451), was taken into consideration. Craftsmen are

able to draw on multiple possible models: the lack of a specific Greek city’s

reference allows an exceptional freedom compared to the traditions followed in

the original city. If one can name this production using the term “style”, it is not as

the expression of a distinctive cultural affiliation, but as the result of interactions

and adoptions established before and after the arrival of Greek colonists.

Therefore, the example of Incoronata can efficiently illustrate the notion of Middle

Ground mentioned by Irad Malkin (Malkin, 2002) to describe several phenomena

of encounters in the colonial Greek world. The Middle Ground is not only a social

metaphor, but also a physical space in which individuals encounter, a place of

negotiation of identities12. There is then a situation in which reciprocal

identification between different cultures needs a process of permanent

reconstruction of societies by the means of the integration of elements coming

from outside. Hence, ethnicity seems a social phenomenon associated with the

compilation of a stylistic repertoire, a search for new handcrafted models aiming

at responding to a massive demand of Greek (or Greek-type) consumption goods

never seen before13.

11

Besides Incoronata, a Greek presence is attested a few kilometers away in several points, on the shores of the future colony of Metapontum (founded at the end of the 7

th century BCE), as well as in the territory of Siris, on the hills of Policoro,

which some scholars identify as the location of the site of Siris-Polieion, colony founded in the middle of the 7th century by

colonists coming from Colophon and running away from Lydian domination (according to Timaeus and Aristotle apud Athenaeus, XII 523c ; Strabo, VI, 1, 14). 12

«A common, mutually comprehensible world», MALKIN, 2002: 152. 13

It is still very uneasy to understand the destination of these exceptional pieces. The hypothesis of an emporion must be taken very carefully, as those vases of Incoronata do not seem to have circulated in the region, with the exception of very rare examples. Work in progress by the team of the University of Rennes, France, directed by M. Denti, proposes the existence of a sacred space and a workshop: DENTI AND LANOS, 2007; DENTI forthcoming.

532

II.2 Pottery: import, uses and adoptions

The second aspect taken into consideration is the relationship between individuals

and pottery with the theoretical viewpoint of Archaeology and Anthropology14.

Indeed, one of the most controversial topics of colonial Archaeology consists in

determining if ethnicity can be identified by material evidence (Burstein, Demand,

Morris, Tritle, 2002 with bibliography). I. Malkin summed up the skepticism of

several scholars when stressing that «pots do not equal people» (Malkin 2001:

195-225). Recently, L. Moscati Castelnuovo underlines that the main difficulties of

such a subject relies on the contradictory or controversial character of data

(Moscati Castelnuovo 2002: 18-19): objects, alone or in association with other

objects, may serve as basis of multiple identities appropriation (Gruzinski and

Rouveret 1976: 181-182). Louis Gernet had already stressed how the estimation

about permanent or consumption objects is dominated by multiple ideas and

feelings (Gernet 1948). Imported objects are not sufficient to carry identities or

cultural habits: instead, individuals determine their values. One of the most

relevant and known example can be seen in the diffusion of the vases connected to

the symposion in the colonial context. An external origin, such as the encounter

with the Greeks, introduces, by emulation, a change in the consumption of wine by

the adoption of consumption goods carrying social prestige.

Beforehand, the foreign origin grants an increased value to those objects. The

magnetism of those foreign objects comes from their use as well as their symbolic

functions when far away from the workshop. The concept of “object of prestige” is

indeed very abstract, mainly in the Archaic period. Secondly, the fact of possessing

those objects is in itself qualifying as an expression of adhesion to an eminent

social group, capable of acquiring those costly objects. This change is adopted by

the native culture according to its own logic and leads to several successive

readjustments. Among them, the habit of drinking wine associated with the

adoption of Greek vases related to the symposion, such as cups and oenochoes,

leads to local production workshops, involving a new specific know-how with a

new production line. The phenomenon of imitation of ceramic repertoire must be

perceived as a complex process, including not only assimilation and adaptation of

14

Especially the notion of social or cultural biography applied to objects: GOSDEN AND MARSHALL, 1999; see DIETLER, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1999.

533

morphological aspects of the imported vase, but also the comprehension of its

functional and ideological value.

When one addresses the problem of the diffusion of the banqueting service, it is

clear that there has been much confusion between function and use. If the function

of an object is determined by its intrinsic character, its use is, on the other hand,

established by the human group that owns it, what that group decides of doing and

how to use it (Ruby 1993:801). And yet, the symposion has traditionally been

considered as a marker of hellenization, carrying a fixed practice. Moreover, our

interpretation models are highly influenced by the Attic reference, whereas the

Greek symposion is far from being univocal, even in the metropoleis (Esposito

2009; Esposito 2010). Recent work on Laconian pottery (Coudin 2009; Pipili

2006) has underlined the diffusion of Laconian black glazed crater: during all 6th

century BCE, they are predominant in certain Western Greek regions and carry, in

association with aryballoi and Laconian cups, a typically Spartan socio-cultural

model of an aristocratic symposion15. If one changes one’s perspective from the

production context to that of use, Anthropology of consumption (Appadurai 1986)

shows that demand is never only an automatic response to access to goods. And it

is even more so in colonial contexts. A change in the context leads to new symbolic

meaning, and to new modes of expression, which can be at the origin of new uses.

And yet, in several cases, the new object does not produce new habits. It rather fits

in an already existent framework, but according to an original logic which modifies

meaning and perception. As states Michel Bats, «soit les objets sont adaptés à la

fonction pour laquelle ils sont requis, soit leur apparence se connecte à la

représentation, directe ou symbolique, de leur culture d’usage» (Bats 2010: 10).

We have to admit, we are unable to entirely tackle this phenomenon at its

beginning, even though very important research has contributed, in the last twenty

years, to identify its range. Thus, in Sicily, at the beginning of Greek colonization,

mixing wine and water does not seem to be a native ritual, at least not in the

funerary contexts: the most largely attested forms of vases are those used to draw,

to pour and to drink, in accordance with the native objects previously used. This

15

Besides earthenware, the object of this conference, metal tableware plays a central role in the diffusion of wine consumption, especially in reference of the Laconian models. Scholars have identified a Laconian production of tableware with specific stylistic characters, showing that its distribution was not limited to internal consumption, but open to export. From the beginning of 6

th century BCE, Laconian influence appears in other productions, mainly in Corinthian and Attic,

which adopt and modify some Laconian forms and decoration models. See: TARDITI 1996.

534

observation suggests that Natives were selective and chose to incorporate to their

tableware only forms already popular in the Sicilian repertoire. Those choices

apparently result in a measured management and selection of objects drawn from

a common symbolic set. In other words, only novelty does not constitute a

sufficient condition to forge adoption or imitation. Rejection or acceptance of an

object depends on the process of identity construction16. The introduction of those

objects in a tomb does not correspond to a simple phenomenon of acculturation,

but rather to a phenomenon of appropriation.

This observation is confirmed by the fact that it was only by the end of the 7th and

beginning of the 6th century that the crater attracts the interest of local

communities and appear henceforth in funerary and domestic contexts, even

though never in a consistent manner. Before the end of the 6th century in the

Native context of Sicily, the Laconian crater occupies an important place at the

center of the banqueting service. Laconian crater is often present in the tombs,

whereas the crater of other series is almost absent17. That’s mainly the case in

Morgantina. On the other hand, the persistence of certain forms, or even certain

associations, also carries meaningful messages. Considering only Sicily and

Morgantina in particular, the persistence of a specific form for generations, which

is the case for example of the carenated cup that changes its form but keeps its

recognizable aspect, contributes to stress the identity status carried by the object.

By the updating of ancient forms such as the carenated cup, objects act as markers

at the same time of a collective identity (belonging to an ethnos and to a specific

territory) and of an individual identity (the status and preservation of ancestral

practices) (Antonaccio 2004, 2005 and 2009: 48-49). The problem for the

archaeologist is to be able to qualify this identity (Cultural? Economic? Social?

Political? Ethnic?).

II.3 Pottery in context

As it is rightly stressed by C. M. Antonaccio, it is not the consideration of the

context, functional, technological and chronological, that helps the archaeologist.

16

On these questions, see also: ESPOSITO-ZURBACH forthcoming, especially in relation to common ware. 17

The situation in Sicily is very interesting in several aspects, due to the diversity of realities between the coastal and internal sites, as well as sites from different ethnè in contact with different influences, such as Greek and Punic. Thus, in three sites of the Sicanes, Marianopoli, Sabucina and Vassallaggi, in Middle-Southern Sicily, for example, one can count several black and red figure vases, with a majority of crater, mainly column crater, and accessorily some cups (Cassel and Droop cups): PANVINI 2006.

535

Contexts are determinant to understand meanings and value changes carried by

the objects, but the study of pottery contributes with multiple data in terms of

technique and style, as well as in terms of diffusion of objects and practices.

However, the archaeological object in itself and the place where it was used also

constitute the basis of symbolic discourses. C. Morgan has also assessed the

question (Morgan 1999 and 2001). She pleads for the observation of parallel

behavior schemes, in one single site, rather than simple parallels between sets of

archaeological evidence, from a site to another. According to such a perspective,

considering together consumption practices in sanctuaries and in other cultic

contexts, such as necropoleis, in one single site, allows to isolate and compare the

systems of exchange, with the concomitant consideration of symbolic and material

information.

Sanctuaries and necropoleis are indeed privileged places for the agonistic

expression of elites. The confrontation between the elite members could happen by

the intermediary of different objects and by the choices taken in sanctuaries and

necropoleis. In other words, those places allow the assurance of an ideological

function of those objects in a set of social values and they can be used to measure

the gaps.

Let us consider for instance two contexts in Basilicata: Timmari and Garaguso. In

each of these two sites, the necropoleis are undoubtedly native: Greek products of

the rich furniture attest the status of the defunct, whose modes of consumption of

prestige tableware signal the presence of local elite in sheer growth. In accordance

with this elitist message by the means of possession of prestige objects, there is a

double affirmation of identity aiming at dissociating Native elites from the rest of

the community.

The two sanctuaries of Timmari and Garaguso, on the other hand, show signs of a

mixed attendance18. They are situated on the margins of the territory of the Greek

colonial city of Metapontum, in a strategic sector, open to contacts with different

Native cultures of the hinterland. These two sacred spaces seem to function as

“free ports”: they are places consciously located outside direct control of the Greek

18

Those sanctuaries of Garaguso and Timmari are situated at the crossroad of transhumance routes, connecting territories inhabited by different ethnè.

536

city so that they could function as a meeting point and a mediation ground,

especially with foreigners (Lepore, 1995). Greeks and non-Greeks participate in

the same rituals: especially the ritual commensality, mentioned by the massive

presence of tableware and pottery for stocking needs, does not need the use of

prestige items, such as Attic pottery, which is otherwise largely attested in Native

necropoleis. The goal here is to ensure a sort of cohesion and to maintain, at the

same time, the cultural distinctions between the groups involved.

Therefore, if one compares the data coming from these two sets, necropoleis and

sanctuaries, within each of those two sites, one can come to the same conclusion.

In the two sanctuaries, Timmari and Garaguso, the existing pottery – mainly matt-

painted and colonial cups – band cups and B2 types – is the expression of identity

of cultures involved in ritual practices (Greek and Native), rather than a marker of

identities or of social differences19. On the other hand, in the respective

necropoleis, material culture, and especially pottery, does not reflect ethnic

identity but rather different interests of groups within the same ethnè. It is more

related to a social conscience than to an ethnic identity.

One of the main difficulties of such a topic treated here lies in the contradictory or

conflicting character of data, and objects, alone or in association with other

objects, can serve as the basis for the appropriation of multiple identities. The

mentioned examples all show, in different degrees, that one should remain

cautious, should test models considering several possibilities between different

sites, and, more important, between different contexts of use within the same site.

The notion of contrastive identity becomes the privileged analysis criterion. The

more the situation of contrast is significant, the more the necessity of defining an

identity is intense. As a consequence, one should give the priority to contexts

showing opposition between several groups, where pottery is used to signal

contrasts according to a complex dialectic of negotiation and resistance, of

adaptation or refusal.

19

In the next phase, after the Lucanian conquest, the situation is completely different: «Nel nuovo mondo globalizzato del IV sec a.C. non si può più distinguere la cultura materiale greca da quella indigena ma, più semplicemente, piccoli santuari legati a singoli abitati in un contesto complessivo di ellenizzazione»: OSANNA 2010, p. 612.

537

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Actes Cortone (1981) = Modes de contacts et processus de transformation dans les sociétés anciennes, Actes du colloque de Cortone (24-30 mai 1981), 1981, Cortone, Scuola Normale Superiore-École Française de Rome.

Atti Taranto (1961) = Greci e Italici in Magna Grecia, Atti del Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, I, 1961, Tarente, Istituto per la Storia e l'Archeologia della Magna Grecia.

La mort, les morts (1977)= G. Gnoli et J.-P. Vernant (eds.), La Mort, les morts dans les sociétés anciennes, 1977, Ischia, Cambridge University Press, 1982.

APPADURAI A. (1986), `Introduction: commodities and the politics of value', in A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 3-63.

ANTONACCIO, C.M. (2004), « Siculo-geometric and the Sikels: Identity and Material Culture in Eastern Sicily », in K. Lomas (ed.), Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean, Leiden: E.J. Brill, p. 55-81.

ANTONACCIO, C.M. (2005), « Excavating Colonization", in H. Hurst and S. Owen (eds.), Ancient Colonizations. Analogy, Similarity & Difference. London: Duckworth, 2005, p. 97-113.

ANTONACCIO, C.M. (2009), «(Re)Defining Ethnicity: Culture, Material Culture, and Identity», in S. Hales, T. Hodos (eds.), Material Culture and Social Identities in the Ancient World, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 32-53.

BATS, M. (2010), «Les objets archéologiques peuvent-ils véhiculer une identité ethnique?», in H. Tréziny (ed.), Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la mer Noire: actes des rencontres du programme européen Ramses2 (2006-2008), Errance, Centre Camille Jullian, 2010, (Bibliothèque d’archéologie méditerranéenne et africaine ; 3), p. 9-12.

BHABHA, H. K. (1994), The Location of culture, London, Routledge.

BURSTEIN, S. M., Demand, N., Morris, I., Tritle, L, (2002), Current Issues and the Study of Ancient History. Publications of the Association of Ancient Historians 7, Claremont, CA: Regina Books

CARTER, J. (2006) Discovering the Greek Countryside at Metaponto, (Jerome Lectures 23), Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press.

COUDIN, F. (2009), Les Laconiens et la Méditerranée à l'époque archaïque, Naples, Centre Jean Bérard.

CROISSANT, F. (2003), «Sur la diffusion de quelques modèles stylistiques corinthiens dans le monde colonial de la deuxième moitié du VIIème siècle», RA 2, p. 227-254.

538

CUNLIFFE, B. (2006), «Afterword: historical archaeology in the wider discipline», in D. Hicks et M. C. Beaudry (eds.), The Cambridge companion to Historical archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 314-319.

DENOYELLE, M. (1996), «Le Peintre d'Analatos : essai de synthèse et perspectives nouvelles», in Antike Kunst, 39, p. 71-87, pl. 13-19.

DENOYELLE, M., IOZZO M. (2009), La céramique grecque d'Italie méridionale et de Sicile: productions coloniales et apparentées du VIIIe au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. Manuels d'Art et d'Archéologie antiques, Paris: Picard.

DENTI, M. (1999), «Per una fenomenologia storico-culturale del linguaggio figurativo dei greci d'Occidente in età arcaica», in M. Castoldi (ed.), Koinà. Miscellanea di studi archeologici in onore di Piero Orlandini, Milan: Edizioni Et, p. 205-211.

DENTI, M. (2000), «Nuovi documenti di ceramica orientalizzante della Grecia d’Occidente. Stato della questione e prospettive della ricerca», MEFRA 112, 2000, 2, p. 781-842.

DENTI, M. (2002), «Linguaggio figurativo e identità culturale nelle più antiche comunità greche della Siritide e del Metapontino», in L. Moscati Castelnuovo (ed.), Identità e prassi storica nel Mediterraneo greco, Milan: Edizioni Et, p. 33-62.

DENTI, M. forthcoming, «Un espace artisanal gréco-œnôtre du VIIe siècle avant J.-C. à l’Incoronata», in A. Esposito, G. Sanidas (eds.), La concentration spatiale des activités et la question des quartiers spécialisés, Symposium international, Lille, 16-17 décembre 2009.

DENTI, M. and LANOS D. (2007) «Rouges, non rougis. Les briques de l’Incoronata et le problème de l’interprétation des dépôts de céramique», MEFRA 2007/2, p. 445-481.

DIETLER, M. (1990), «Driven by Drink: The Role of Drinking in the Political Economy and the Case of Early Iron Age France», Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 9, p. 352-406.

DIETLER, M. (1992), «Commerce du vin et contacts culturels en Gaule au premier âge du fer», in M. Bats, G. Bertucchi, G. Congès, H. Tréziny (eds.), Marseille grecque et la Gaule, Actes du colloque international d'Histoire et d' Archéologie el du 5e Con grès archéologique de Gaule méridionale, Études massaliètes Numéro 3, Aix-en-Provence, Marseille: ADAM éditions, p. 401-410.

DIETLER, M. (1993), «Comparative colonial interaction in Iron Age France», in Actes du XIIe Congrès international des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques, Bratislava 1 - 7 septembre 1991, tome 3, Nitra, p. 262-266.

DIETLER, M. (1994), «Quenching Celtic thirst», Archaeology 47/3, p. 44-48.

539

DIETLER, M. (1999), «Consumption, cultural frontiers, and identity. Anthropological approaches to Greek colonial encounters», in Confini e frontiera nella grecità d'Occidente, ACT 37, Taranto, p. 475-501.

DYSON, S. (1995, «Is there a text in this site ?», in D. B. Small (ed.), Methods in the Mediterranean: historical and archaeological views on texts and archaeology, Leiden, Brill, p. 25-44.

ESPOSITO, A. (2009), «Quelques observations autour de la distribution, des usages et des significations de la céramique grecque en Italie méridionale», in E.M. Moormann & V.V. Stissi (eds.), Shapes and Images Studies on Attic Black Figure and Related Topics in Honour of Herman A.G. Brijder, Amsterdam, p. 11-20 (Babesch Supplementa, 14).

ESPOSITO, A. (2010), «L’Italie au cœur de la Méditerranée (VIIIe-VIIe s.): contextes, transferts, transitions», in R. Etienne, A. Esposito, L. Costa (eds.), La Méditerranée au VIIe siècle av. J.-C. Essais d’analyses archéologiques, éd. de la Maison René Ginouvès, Paris, de Boccard, p. 118-148.

ESPOSITO, A. and ZURBACH, J. (forthcoming), «La céramique commune. Problèmes et perspectives de recherches», in A. Esposito and J. Zurbach (eds.), Céramiques communes et contacts techniques et culturels, Actes de la session ‘Fabrication et fonction : les ‘cultures en contact’ et la céramique commune’ du XVIIe colloque international d’archéologie classique ‘Meetings between cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean – Incontri tra culture nel mondo mediterraneo antico’, Rome, 26 septembre 2008.

GERNET, L. (1948), «La notion mythique de la valeur en Grèce», Journal de Psychologie, XLI, oct.-dec. 1948, p. 415-462; republished in Anthropologie de la Grèce antique, Paris, 1968, p. 93-137.

FUNARI, P. P. A. (1999), «Historical archaeology from a world perspective», in P. P. A. Funari, M. Hall and S. Jones (eds.), Historical Archaeology: back from the edge, Londres, Routledge, p. 37-66.

FUNARI, P. P. A., Zarankin, A. and Stovel, E. (eds.), (2005), Global archaeological theory: contextual voices and contemporary thoughts, New York, Kluwer academic/Plenum publishers.

GOSDEN, C. (2004), Archaeology and colonialism: cultural contact from 5000 BC to the present, Topics in contemporary archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

GOSDEN, C. and Marshall, Y. (1999), "The Cultural Biography of Objects", World Archaeology, 31(2), p. 169–178.

GRUZINSKI, S. and ROUVERET, A. (1976), «Ellos son como niños. Histoire et acculturation dans le Mexique colonial et l'Italie méridionale avant la romanisation», Mélanges de l'École Française de Rome. Antiquité, 1, p. 159-219.

HALL, J. M. (1997), Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

540

HALL, J. M. (2002), Hellenicity: between ethnicity and culture, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

HALL, M. (1999), «Subaltern voices? Finding the spaces between things and words», in P. P. A. Funari, M. Hall and S. Jones (eds.), Historical archaeology: back from the edge, London, Routledge, p. 193-203.

HODDER, I. (2001), «Introduction: a review of contemporary theoretical debates in Archaeology», in I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological theory today, Cambridge, Polity, p. 1-13.

JOHNSON, M. H. (1999), «Rethinking historical archaeology», in P. P. A. Funari, M. Hall and S. Jones (eds.), Historical Archaeology: back from the edge, London, Routledge, p. 23-36.

JONES, S. (1997), The Archaeology of ethnicity. Constructing identities in the past and present, London, Routledge.

KOPYTOFF, I. «The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process», in A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 64-91.

LAWRENCE, S. and SHEPHERD, N. (2006), «Historical archaeology and colonialism», in D. Hicks and M. C. Beaudry (eds.), The Cambridge companion to historical archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 69-86.

LEPORE, E. (2000) (1982), La Grande Grèce: aspects et problèmes d’une colonisation ancienne, Quatre conférences au Collège de France (Paris, 1982), Naples: Centre Jean Bérard

LEPORE, E. (1995), «Strutture sociali ed economiche dei santuari di Magna Grecia», in A. Storchi Marino (ed.), L’incidenza dell’antico. Studi in memoria di E. Lepore. Atti Convegno Internazionale. Anacapri 24-28 marzo 1991, T. I, Naples, p. 43-61.

MALKIN, I. (ed.) (2001), Ancient perceptions of Greek ethnicity, Center for Hellenic studies colloquia, 5, Washington, Center of Hellenic studies, Trustees for Harvard University.

MALKIN, I. (2002), «A Colonial Middle Ground: Greek, Etruscan, and Local Elites in the Bay of Naples», in C. L. Lyons and J. K. Papadopoulos (eds.), The Archaeology of Colonialism, Getty. Research Institute, Los Angeles, p. 151-181.

MESKELL, L. (2001), «Archaeologies of identity», in I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological theory today, Cambridge, Polity, p. 187-213.

MORGAN, C. (1999), «The archaeology of ethnicity in the colonial world of the eighth to sixth centuries BC: approaches and prospects», in Frontieri e Confini. Atti della 37o Convegno internazionale di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto Ott. 1997, Taranto: Istituto per la Storia e l'Archeologia della Magna Grecia, p. 85-145

541

MORGAN, C. (2001), «Ethne, ethnicity and early Greek states», ca.1200-480: an archaeological perspective', in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Harvard: Harvard University Press, 75-112.

MOSCATI CASTELNUOVO, (2002), «Introduzione: Quale identità?», in L. Moscati Castelnuovo (ed.), Identità e Prassi Storica nel Mediterraneo Greco, Milan, Edizioni Et, p. 15-21.

OBER, J. (1995), «Greek Horoi: artifactual texts and the contingency of meaning», in D. B. Small (ed.), Methods in the Mediterranean: historical and archaeological views on texts and archaeology, Leiden, Brill, p. 91-123.

ORSER Jr, C. E. (2000) (1992), Introducción a la arqueología histórica, A. Zarankin (trad. esp.), Buenos Aires, Asociación amigos del Instituto nacional de antropología.

OSANNA, M. (2010), «Greci ed indigeni nei santuari della Magna Grecia», in H. Tréziny (ed.), Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la mer Noire: actes des rencontres du programme européen Ramses2 (2006-2008), Errance, Centre Camille Jullian, 2010, (Bibliothèque d’archéologie méditerranéenne et africaine ; 3), p. 605-612.

PANVINI R., (2006), «Ceramica attica per i Sicani», in J. De la Genière, (ed.), Cahiers du Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, n°1, Les clients de la céramique grecque, (Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres) Paris, p. 85-91 + pl. I-XII, p. 209-220.

PIPILI M., (2006), «The clients of Laconian black-figure Vases», in J. De la Genière, (ed.), Cahiers du Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, n°1, Les clients de la céramique grecque, (Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres) Paris, p. 75-83 + pl. I-VII, p. 201-207.

RUBY, P. (1993), «Tarquinia, entre la Grèce et Sala Consilina. Eléments pour l'étude de la circulation des biens de prestige dans l'Italie centrale et méridionale protohistorique», MEFRA 105, 2, p. 779-832.

SCOTT, J. W. (1986), «Gender: a useful category of historical analysis», The American Historical Review, vol. 91, 5, p. 1053-1075.

SHANKS, M. and TILLEY, C. (1987), Re-construction archaeology: theory and practice, New studies in archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

SMALL, D. B. (1995), «Introduction», in D. B. Small (ed.), Methods in the Mediterranean: historical and archaeological views on texts and archaeology, Leiden, Brill, p. 1-22.

SMALL, D. B. (1995), «Monuments, laws, and analysis: combining archaeology and text in Ancient Athens», in D. B. Small (ed.), Methods in the Mediterranean: historical and archaeological views on texts and archaeology, Leiden, Brill, p. 143-174.

542

SMALL, D. B. (1999), «The tyranny of the text: lost social strategies in current historical period archaeology in the classical Mediterranean», in P. P. A. Funari, M. Hall and S. Jones (eds.), Historical Archaeology: back from the edge, London, Routledge, p. 122-136.

TARDITI, C. (1996), Vasi di bronzo in area apula: produzioni greche ed italiche di età arcaica e classica, Galatina, editore Congedo.

UCKO, P. J. and LAYTON, R. (eds.). (1999), The Archaeology and anthropology of landscape. Shaping your landscape, London, Routledge.

543

Fig. 1. Perirrhanterion, from Incoronata (G. Pugliese Carratelli (eds), Megale Hellas, Milan, 1983, fig. 318)

544

Fig. 2. «Aryballos» (Saggio S), Metaponto: Museo Archeologico Nazionale, N. Inv. 298980 (P. Orlandini, «Due nuovi vasi figurati di stile orientalizzante dagli scavi dell’Incoronata di Metaponto», BdA, 49, 1988, pl. 1).

545

Fig. 3. Deinos (Saggio S), Metaponto: Museo Archeologico Nazionale, N. Inv. 298978/298979 (P. Orlandini, «Due nuovi vasi figurati di stile orientalizzante dagli scavi dell’Incoronata di Metaponto», BdA, 49, 1988, pl. 2).