The Individuality of Portugal

Dan Stanislawski

Chapter 7:Contacts between the Ancient Civilizations of the Eastern Mediteranean and Iberia


One frequently meets claims that there was contact between the far western coasts of present Spain and Portugal and Crete of Minoan times. It is not only a seductive idea but it makes a reasonable hypothesis, for the Minoans were good navigators, traders, and seekers of metals. Had they known anything of the Iberian Peninsula they might well have been attracted; however, while it is quite possible that the Mediterranean island route to the west was used by them, (1) as yet there is no convincing evidence that it was. The excavations of Almería culture at Los Millares, which may be dated as of 2000-1800 B.C., presented certain items reminiscent of Aegean cultures, but there is no evidence that would clearly demonstrate connection. Such items may represent nothing more than casual parallelism. Other finds of a somewhat later period in Spain make better evidence of contact [87] with the eastern Mediterranean lands, for they can be neatly equated with materials of Egyptian Tell-el-Amarna of 1400-1200 B.C. The Egyptian trade items of this period of time are well known to Spanish archaeology and almost surely may be associated with Phoenician intermediaries. As of the present date, such items may be taken as the earliest evidence of direct contact between Iberia and the eastern Mediterranean navigators. (2)


It could not have been long after this time that easterners gained a greatly increased knowledge of Iberia and interest in it. In a sense, there was a westward movement that was the southern counterpart of a similar movement in the north. The chronology of contacts between the eastern Mediterraneans and Iberia is roughly comparable to that of the Central European contacts with north and northwest Iberia. The earliest passage of Phoenician ships through the straits of Gibraltar was probably made during the general period of time when the Central European farmers and pastoralists were first entering the Cantabrian region. These events preceded the first millennium B.C.

Later, Greek exploration and trade grew, following the example given by neighboring Phoenicia, perhaps as early as the ninth century and certainly by the end of the seventh century B.C. Such contacts can be equated in time with the acceleration of the east-west movement of peoples and cultures which took place in the north with the advent of the Celts, who may have appeared in Iberia as early as 900 B.C., and the main force of which was felt by the sixth century. Between the sixth and the third centuries B.C., while the lands of the western Mediterranean were developing under the influence of active and aggressive Greeks and Carthaginians, northern Iberia was changing under the influence of Celts of later arrival from beyond the Pyrenees.

[89] There was a difference, however, between the early contacts along the Mediterranean coasts and those of the Central Europeans with northern Iberia. It was not opportunity for settlement that drew men along the southern coasts, but trade and quite probably fishing, and perhaps evaporation of sea water for salt. Sidon, the mother of many other Phoenician settlements at home and abroad, bore a name meaning fishers' town, and the Phoenician settlement, in approximately the present location of Málaga, bore the name Malach, which means salting place. (3) It was the attraction of metals that drew the early Greeks beyond the straits of Gibraltar and along the western coasts of Spain.


It is possible that the early merchant wayfarers sailed up the west coast to trade directly with Galicia. But if they did, the coast of present Portugal represented a gap in their interest, for there is almost no record of them there. (4) It would seem that Portugal was then, as through so many periods of time before and after, apart from the main stream of events. It possessed no great source of silver such as the mines of Andalusia, nor of copper or tin (with slight exceptions in both cases). With her metals, Spain was a magnet for the early traders, whereas Portugal attracted casual traders at most. A few Punic settlements in the south were devoted to fishing, salt-making, and perhaps some farming, but none of these has left a record of importance. There is sufficient knowledge of such settlements, however, to assure us that Portugal was not entirely unknown or untouched by developments, even though it was offside. In part, it was affected directly, but the more important results were indirect.

The history of the revolutionary events involved in the contacts [90] between Phoenicians, Greeks, and Carthaginians in their commerce with Iberia is the basis for the understanding of the ultimate domination of the whole peninsula by Mediterraneans from Rome. In order to understand the effect upon Portugal we must use, for the most part, evidence dealing with Spain; indirect as it is, it has important bearing upon the development of the Portuguese character and nation.


At the time of their first contacts with the west, the earliest Phoenicians and Greeks encountered a culture area with fundamentally similar characteristics throughout. It extended along the Mediterranean coasts, slopes, and adjacent interior valleys, from the Pyrenees to the Guadiana River. (5) The population had been long rooted in the area, probably as far back as the Neolithic period or even ear1ier. (6) With their usual perspicacity, the Greeks recognized this area as being essentially homogeneous and sharply different in culture from the Celtic territories of the interior and of the north and west peripheries. (7)


This cultural homogeneity was not reflected, however, in political unity, which has led to confusion in interpreting the early accounts of peoples. Many politically disparate peoples were essentially of the same culture, and the application in many cases of several different names to the same group has not increased understanding.

For example, frequently met are the names Ligurian and [91] Turditanian, but the precise identification of these peoples is almost impossible to make. The first, according to Hesiod, were the oldest inhabitants of the Iberian peninsula. (8) Eratosthenes and Strabo mention them as being at the extreme west of the peninsula, including, it would seem, Andalusia and the Algarve of Portugal. Many writers believe them to have been the ur-stock of the peninsula, dislodged from the south (except for the Algarve) by the Iberians, and from the north by the Celts (except for the Basques, whom Schulten believes to be a remnant of the Ligurians). However, the evidence is more contradictory than enlightening, and the question remains vexed. (9)

The derivation and distribution of the Turditanians is also far from clear. Probably they may be equated with the Tartessians of the middle and lower Guadalquivir valley and perhaps the term should include the people of the area of Huelva and beyond to the present Portuguese border. (10) Merchants and miners from this general area may have found their way into Portugal and established colonies at the time in which Argaric culture was flourishing in Spain. The Ora Maritima indicates that some of them may have been as far north as the location of present Alcácer do Sal of the western Alentejo. Ptolemy mentioned them as being in the areas of present Moura and Beja of the eastern Alentejo (11) and their influence may have spread as far north as the Mondego River in Middle Portugal; but for none of this do we have firm and conclusive evidence.

In the earliest Greek texts the term "Iberian" is found, referring to peoples at the extreme southwest of present Spain, the region of Huelva. (12) Yet in later texts of the Greeks the term is applied to all peoples of the Mediterranean area of present [92] Spain. (13) Still later all non-Celtic peoples of the interior and north were called Iberians, and ultimately the name became generalized for the peninsula. (14) Originally the term had cultural and perhaps ethnic meaning, but this was lost in its later use.

Indisputably, one of the important Iberian groups was that of the Tartessians, wealthy farmers and traders in metals. (15) It was their knowledge of the sources of metals that first brought them in touch with the Phoenicians and Greeks. They knew the coasts to the west and northwest of their home, for the tin and gold that they traded came from Galicia. (16) They were also able to furnish silver, copper, and lead, which came to them from the Guadalquivir River basin. (17) It appears that tin was the product of greatest importance at the time. The early centuries of the pre-Christian millennium were times of great opulence along the coast of Galicia. That this wealth was due to tin may be inferred from the fact that the Greeks used the term Cassiterides to identify the area. However, the question as to the ultimate source of tin is moot. In spite of the lack of archaeological evidence it seems likely that, in the earliest years of trading, it came from alluvial deposits along the river banks of Galicia. There is a possibility, however, that Bronze Age connections with French Brittany and with the British Isles had [93] continued and that the Galicians were merely purveyors of tin from those places. (18) This basic necessity of bronze-users was scarce in the other parts of the Phoenician and Greek world. There was no tin in all of North Africa, Asia Minor, Caucasia, Cyprus, mainland Greece, and the Greek islands. The mines of Tuscany were small (19) It is no wonder that both Galicia and the Tartessians were prosperous and that the Phoenicians and Greeks were attracted to the area.

The Tartessians were named after the region in which they lived, Tartessós, probably the Biblical Tarshish with which Hiram of Tyre traded for metals in the tenth century B.C. (20) It is likely that the name at first had no geographical significance, merely meaning, to the Phoenicians, the market place for metals. (21) Later, with the overriding importance of the lower Guadalquivir Valley in such traffic, the name was pre-empted for it, especially after the foundation of Gadir (Cádiz) by the Phoenicians.


The ancient Tyrian settlement, Gadir, may be dated from 1000 B.C. There are numerous and convincing arguments supporting such a date, (22) even though archaeology does not as yet bear it out, and some pre-historians deny it vigorously. Dixon would bring the date down to the eighth or seventh century B.C, (23) but not all of his arguments are convincing. He claims [94] that Gadir, being farther from the mother city, could not have been founded before Carthage, in spite of the fact that history is replete with examples demonstrating that the maxim, "the nearer, the sooner," is not valid in the matter of colonization. (24) It seems obvious that its foundation was due to its position facing the metal market of Tartessós. Also, it was an excellent place for the settlement of traders who, in the tradition of the eastern Mediterranean, were probably pirates as well, and if not, were certainly conscious of the threat of piracy. The site, at that time, was not connected with the mainland but separated from it by a deep channel, sufficiently wide to serve for defense. With its numerous wells of potable water and fine pasture for cattle, it was a stronghold of obvious attractions. In fact, the name Gadir, or Agadir, probably signified fortress or castle. (25) Its location is much like the sites of early Tyre, Sidon, and other cities of Phoenicia.

Some time after the settlement of Gadir, the Phoenicians founded the city that was to become the most famous of their colonies; Carthage was founded in 814 B.C. (26) In the same general period of time, numerous little fishing and salting settlements were founded along the coasts that stretched from Cape S. Vicente in the west through the south of Portugal and along the Mediterranean to Cape Gata of modern Spain. (27)


The earliest Greek ventures may perhaps be dated as of the ninth or the eighth century B.C. Possibly Rhodian and Chalcidian sailors were in the western Mediterranean at this time. (28)[95] García believes that for the last half of the eighth century there is clear evidence of traffic with the islands and along the western coasts of the Mediterranean, picking up the metals for which the Phoenicians had long been trading. The line of Ionian names stretching along the islands and coasts of the western Mediterranean and to the Atlantic coast of Portugal -- the names with the oussa termination -- can probably be ascribed to this early period. (29) These names are interesting and important in dating the arrival of the Greeks in western waters. (30) They mark the island route of the early Greek navigators. Starting from Syrakoussai in eastern Sicily, they may be followed through Ichnoussa (Sardinia), Meloussa (Menorca), Rornyoussa (Mallorca) and Pityoussa (Ibiza). The latter three, even now, are identified on maps as the Balearics or Pityusas (for example, in the Stieler Atlas). The oussa names extend westward to the straits of Gibraltar and up the Atlantic coast of Portugal to Ophioussa, in the region of Lisbon, and the general area of Portugal plus Galicia may have been vaguely termed Ophioussa. (31)

If one could merely say "Greek" and thus clear up the question of early contacts, the matter would be much simplified. However, various Greeks were involved, and as they were not all of the same viewpoint and intent, it is of some value to try to determine which groups were concerned in these earliest contacts.


Herodotus said that it was Greeks from the city of Phocaea in Asia Minor who were first to navigate in the western Mediterranean waters. It may seem temerous to question the facts of the father of history, but García does so convincingly. The Phocaeans, says he, arrived late upon the scene, profiting by [96] earlier maritime contacts. Nor does he accept the statement that the interesting and important voyage of Kolaios, the Samian, was a voyage of discovery of Tartessós for the Greeks. This widely heralded seventh century journey was, to him, merely one -- although perhaps the most profitable and spectacular up to that time -- of many such voyages that had been made by Rhodians, Chalcidians, Samians, and others. (32)

Whatever the dating may be -- and the archaeological inquiry has far to go -- the Phocaeans certainly became the most active and effective Greeks in the area. Their colonization had energy and breadth and was the only one in the western Mediterranean with lasting results. (33) If one can believe that necessity is the mother of invention, or at least of effort, one can understand why relatively humble Phocaea achieved her success. Situated upon a good harbor near the mouth of the important Hermos (Gediz) River in Asia Minor, it was limited by the earlier activities and monopolies of more important neighbors, Miletus, Ephesus, and Samos, which had colonized vigorously around the eastern Mediterranean. Phocaea had to look farther afield for a sphere of profitable activity. There is no specific evidence that this activity was connected with the decay of Tyre, but there is such a coincidence in time. Tyrian decline had begun by the end of the eighth century B.C. and was notable during the following century. This was the time of the voyage of Kolaios the Samian (650 B.C.), the founding of the Phocaean colony of Massalia, present Marseille (600 B.C., or approximately then), (34) and the founding of Alalia in Corsica (640 B.C., or approximately forty years prior to Massalia). (35) [97] Some time before the end of the century, Mainake, the most westerly of Phocaean colonies, was founded near Málaga. (36)

This century was one of intimacy between Phocaeans and Tartessians. The reign of Arganthonios of Tartesss began in the seventh century B.C. (37) The ancient sources spoke of his eighty-year reign but probably, in typical Greek fashion, they dramatized a dynasty or a period by creating a mythical longevity for a single ruler. Whether this represented one ruler or several does not alter the fact that there was frequent and close contact between Tartessós of the period and Phocaea. This was the period of the Phocaean maritime dominance (38) and also the period of time during which the Tartessian king lent money to the Phocaeans to build their fortifications against the threat of the Persians. (39)


The period of the decline of Tyre was not only important for the Ionian Greeks, but also for the Tyrian colony of Carthage. During the time of Phocaean colonization, Carthage too was expanding. As early as 653 B.C. it had established the colony on Ibiza of the Balearics, which lay athwart the Greek island route to the west. (40) After 573 B.C., when Tyre fell to the Babylonians, Carthage showed increasing independence. Competition for western metals was growing between the two great rivals, Carthage and Greece. It is reasonable to assume that the friendship of Arganthonios (or that of his dynasty), through [98] almost a century of time, was more than mere affection and amiability. It probably represented a form of alliance in which the Tartessians aided the Phocaeans in their struggle against the threat to their mother city. In return, Greeks supported the westerners against the growing aggressiveness of Carthage and the Punic colony of Gadir, which threatened the area of Tartessós.

Almost from the time of their founding of Gadir the Phoenicians showed their expansionist tendencies. It was not long before they were using the island as a base of attack against the mainland and the Tartessians. (41)

The Greeks were usually neither pacific nor friendly neighbors when the prospect of gain was apparent. In this they differed little from the Phoenicians. However, in their relations with the Tartessians they had no desire, it would seem, for control of land or people, but merely wanted to trade their products, especially olive oil and wine, for Tartessian metals. (42) In fact, the history of Greek contacts with Iberians is one of amity, and the hospitality of the Iberians toward Greeks was proverbial. (43) The purposes of both peoples were served by friendly intercourse and mutual support against the common enemy, especially after the increased importance and the expanded ambition of Carthage. A major clash and a final decision [99] as to complete dominance of the area was inevitable. This was speeded by events in the eastern Mediterranean area.


In the middle of the sixth century B.C., events took their course in a rapidly changing scene. In 546 B.C., Cyrus, the Mede, captured Sardis and the Lydian monarch, Croesus. The fright that this occasioned among lonians nearby caused a mass migration of perhaps half of the population of Phocaea from Asia Minor to their Corsican colony of Alalia. (44) When the generals of Cyrus took Phocaea, all the men in this city of probably five to seven thousand people had gone. (45) This population figure suggests the large number of available vessels, and points to the commercial importance of the city at that time.

The Alalia settlement proved to be of short duration, for its position on the Tyrrhenian Sea, through which so much traffic moved between Carthage and Etruria, made it a threat to this major route of commerce. It must be remembered that in those days along the Mediterranean only small distinction existed between trade, fishing, and piracy. The Greeks were as cold-blooded and grim a group of predators as could be found. All ships were prepared to exploit any possible opportunity of gain. Not only was the trade route threatened, but so also were Punic interests in Sardinia. Obviously, neither the Carthaginians nor the Etruscans could tolerate such a situation. They united their forces, each furnishing sixty vessels to a battle fleet. This fleet was opposed by sixty Phocaean vessels which, although trimmer and more effective, were decisively defeated, sometime between 540 and 535 B.C. (46) Carthage may then have sealed the straits of Gibraltar, as Carpenter suggests. (47) More likely, the [101] straits had been largely sealed for a long time, but after the battle the land route between Mainake and Tartessós was also blocked. Mainake itself was destroyed by the Carthaginians toward the end of the century, (48) to end its traffic and its competition with the Carthaginian settlement in the location of present Málaga. (49)

This period of Carthaginian supremacy may have given rise to the legends of sea monsters and other dangers of the Atlantic. Pindar, in the middle of the fifth century, spoke of the dangers beyond the Gates of Hercules. The Greek capacity for mythologizing real events may have given birth to the superstitious fears which plagued at least some mariners down to the time of the Age of Discoveries. There were sea monsters certainly, after Carthaginian dominance of the western Mediterranean, but they were under the command of Carthaginians.


As Carthage had inherited the western empire of Tyre, so did Massalia fall heir to that of her mother city, Phocaea. Greek trade became centered here, with the end of Phocaean maritime enterprise in the west of the Mediterranean. Trade through France to Brittany and beyond had been undoubtedly important to the Massaliotes previous to this time, but the record had been obscured by the greater drama of the struggle on the Mediterranean.

During the last half of the sixth century B.C., during which time Carthaginians grasped complete power in the west, the prosperity of Galicia -- presumably based upon tin -- declined. (50) This decline may have been due simply to the change from the sea route, by way of the straits, to that from Massalia, via the [102] French rivers, to the northwest and ultimately to Britain. But the question must be raised as to why Carthaginian control would have reduced the importance of the Galician area if it had been a primary producer of tin. The Carthaginians were aggressive traders and presumably would not have appropriated a productive area from the Greeks just to watch it languish.

There are several possible explanations. (1) It may have been simply a matter of the playing out of the placer tin in the Galician area. (2) More likely, the Galicians had for some time been not producers, but purveyors, of tin from French Armorica or the British Isles. If this were true, the direct land route from Massalia would have skirted the Carthaginian barrier and eliminated Galician middlemen. (3) It is possible that interest in tin diminished because of the increasing use of iron. (4) The Carthaginians had little coinage until the fourth century B.C., and that for payment of mercenaries. The great demand for bronze by Greeks was for armor and sculpture. As Carthaginian archaeology indicates little interest in either, tin may have had little importance to them. (51) Moreover, at approximately the same period of time there was an increased interest in silver. The Phoenicians had early been interested in silver, (52) and during the centuries of the rise of Greek trade the demand was increased by the avidity with which the Greeks of Asia Minor sought it for coinage. (53) Metal from the rich mines in the area of the headwaters of the Guadalquivir River (54) was brought downstream to Tartessós. Perhaps the richest of ancient silver mines was that of Mastia (or Massia), a region second only to Tartessós in commercial importance. The ancient prosperity of the region and of its most important city, also named Mastia (or Massia), the later Cartago Nova, and probably the site of the present Cartagena, was based upon silver mining (55) [103] through several centuries. Great amounts were mined under the direction of Hannibal in the third century B.C., and it was still a large operation at the time of Polybius in the succeeding century. (56)


Prior to the battle of Alalia the Carthaginians had conquered Sardinia (57) (one of the oussa links in Greek traffic), partly by the use of mercenaries recruited from their seventh-century colony of Ibiza (another oussa link). Beyond the straits of Gibraltar the early Punic settlement of Gadir gave them strategic control of that region. Besides these important strongholds, there were others, of lesser importance but adding to total Carthaginian strength. Greek commercial activity in Iberia was ended and Carthage was less inhibited in the spread of its control. Tartessós, which had feared the Carthaginians and had allied itself with the Greeks, was left without support and was destroyed. (58) In the following century, probably twenty thousand Iberian mercenaries were fighting in Sicily for the Carthaginians. (59) Fourth-century evidence indicates that some Celts were also serving as mercenaries in the Carthaginian forces. (60)

There was an increasing reliance upon mercenaries from the peninsula, not only from the fringes but from deep within the interior as well. In the late third century B.C., Hannibal's army included Celtiberians from the northern interior, Galicians from the extreme northwest, Lusitanians from Middle Portugal, [104] Vetones from the middle Tajo drainage -- and these do not complete the list. (61) Such troops, however, were something other than pure mercenaries; many had been forcibly impressed into service. In spite of Hannibal's amazing campaigns in Italy, it may be wondered if they might not have been even more spectacular had there been no bitter opposition in Iberia to his forcible draft of troops. During earlier centuries no general antagonism in Iberia seems to have been engendered by the Carthaginians. Locally there may have been antagonism, such as probably existed between the Carthaginians and the Tartessians, but for the tribes of the interior the Carthaginians may have had a friendly appeal. They offered an opportunity to fight with pay. It was later, when the Carthaginians had expanded their power and increased their need for troops, that their tactics changed with regard to these tribes of the interior, which had long served as a source of manpower. When Hannibal, in desperate need for troops and under economic pressure, forcibly impressed some of them into his armies, the others reacted in bitter opposition. The tribes of the interior were a bellicose lot. An opportunity to fight for pay was not distasteful to them but a demand that they submit to enslavement was another matter. According to Strabo they resisted Hannibal as they later did the Romans for somewhat the same reasons. (62)

Nevertheless, tens of thousands of mercenaries were introduced to new lands and cultures of the middle and eastern Mediterranean. Since this process had been going on from as early as the sixth century B.C. and many men had returned to the peninsula, the effect upon attitudes of the peoples of the meseta and even some of the remote western coasts may have been considerable.

In the area of present Portugal, Carthage recruited a few [106] mercenaries, but aside from this it apparently had interest only in coastal stations. For example, there is no record of Carthaginian exploitation of the copper of the Alentejo, which Romans later mined at Aljustrel (63) As all of southern Portugal is poor in tin, silver, and gold, there was little there to distract them from their preoccupation with such places as Andalusia and Murcia, except for the profitable fishing for tuna, mackerel, and other less important species, and the evaporation of salt for the preparation of fish for export. This was the basis of several Carthaginian settlements along the Algarvian coast and even up the west coast to the mouth of the Sado River. (64) One wonders also if they may not have been interested in certain aspects of farming on the Algarvian littoral. Carthaginians were good farmers, and although their expeditions were concerned with commerce primarily, and not with settlement for its own sake, dried figs had long been an item of their commerce out of Ibiza. (65) As figs thrive now in the Algarve and have been important in its economy through all time for which we have information, one wonders if the Carthaginians had not added this item to their list of commercial products by introducing the tree to southern Portugal.

The events related in this chapter are concerned with the Mediterranean shores of present Spain, and only slightly with those of Portugal. During the centuries which have been considered, commerce and communications were bringing the southern shores of Iberia in contact with the affairs of the East, whereas the western coasts of Iberia, the Portuguese coasts, remained isolated and out of touch with the more advanced civilizations of the eastern Mediterranean. It is part of a persistent [107] pattern of history in Iberia. The character of Spain was shaped, in part, by the contact with the eastern Mediterranean lands during the millennium prior to the birth of Christ. Such contact had little effect upon Portugal.

Notes for Chapter 7

1. Rhys Carpenter, The Greeks in Spain, p. 17.

2. António García y Bellido, Hispania Graeca, I, 5-7.

3. Charles L. Cutting, Fish Saving, pp. 18, 21.

4. There are slight exceptions; for example, there is the Egyptian scarab of the seventh century B.C. that was found in a pre-Celtic level at Alcácer do Sal. See Fedro Bosch Gimpera, "Two Celtic Waves in Spain," Proceedings of the British Academy, XXVI (1940), 79.

5. And perhaps even to the Rhone. See Juan Maluquer de Motes, "Pueblos Ibéricos," Historia de España, Tomo I, Vol. III, Pt. 2, Chap. 1, 309.

6. Ibid., p. 306; António García y Bellido, La Península Ibérica en los comienzos de su historia, pp. 51-52; Luis Pericot García, Las Raices de España, p. 55.

7. Maluquer de Motes, "Pueblos Ibéricos," Historia de España, Tomo I, Vol. III, 306, 309.

8. Pierson Dixon, The Iberians of Spain and Their Relations with the Aegean World, p. 2.

9. Pedro Bosch Gimpera, Etnología de la Península Ibérica, pp. 631-634.

10. Maluquer de Motes, "Pueblos Ibéricos," Historia de España, Tomo I, Vol. III, 310-311.

11. See Pedro Bosch Gimpera, "Los Iberos," Cuadernos de Historia de España, IX (Buenos Aires, 1948), 71.

12. García y Bellido, La Península Ibérica, pp. 45-47.

13. Ibid., p. 51. Martínez Santa-Olalla and Almagro have been inclined to deny the existence of an ethnically distinct group to be called Iberians (Pericot, Las Raices de España, p. 54), but as time goes on this anti-Iberian position is becoming more and more difficult to maintain. Almagro himself in his later publications has altered his earlier view (Ibid., p. 56).

14. Bosch Gimpera, "Los Iberos," Cuadernos de Historia de España, IX, 6.

15. Pericot García, Las Raices de España, p. 56; Dixon, The Iberians of Spain, p. 9; Maluquer de Motes, "Pueblos Ibéricos," Historia de España, Tomo I, Vol. III, 309; Bosch Gimpera, "Los Iberos," Cuadernos de Historia de España, IX, 5.

16. C. Torres Rodriguez, "La Venida de los Griegos a Galicia," Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, VI (1946), 211, 218; Casimiro Torres, "Las Kassitérides," Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, IV (1945), 624; Maluquer de Motes, "Pueblos de la España céltica," Historia de España, Tomo I, Vol. III, Pt. 1, 78.

17. Maluquer de Motes, "Pueblos Ibéricos," Historia de España, Tomo I, Vol. III, 339.

18. Torres, "Las Kassitérides," Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, IV (1945), 624-632.

19. Torres Rodríguez, "La Venida de los Griegos a Galicia," Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, VI (November 6, 1946), 218, quoting Quiring.

20. António García y Bellido, La Península Ibérica en los comienzos de su historia, pp. 170-171.

21. Bosch Gimpera, "Los Iberos," Cuadernos de Historia de España, IX, 51.

22. António García y Bellido, Hispania Graeca, I, 32-37. Phoenician ivories from Carmona, east of Seville in the Guadalquivir Valley, can probably be dated as of the tenth century B.C. See W. F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine, Pelican Books, p. 123.

23. Dixon, The Iberians of Spain, p. 23.

24. H. R. W. Smith, in his review of García y Bellido's Hispania Graeca in the American Journal of Archaeology, LVII, No. 1 (January, 1953), 31-36. The earliest Greek find in Spain is that of the Jerez helmet of the seventh century B.C. This also is the find farthest from Greece bar only one, the Huelva helmet.

25. García y Bellido, Hispania Graeca, I, 34.

26. Ibid., p. 46.

27. António García y Bellido, "Colonización Púnica," Historia de España, Tomo I, Vol. II, 331.

28. García y Bellido, Hispania Graeca, I, 61, 77.

29. Ibid., p. 77.

30. Carpenter, The Greeks in Spain, p. 33. Schulten first recognized them, and later the idea was more fully exploited by Carpenter.

31. García y Bellido, España en los comienzos de su historia, map, p. 186.

32. García y Bellido, Hispania Graeca, I, 121, 124. Another point of view is expressed by H. R. W. Smith in his review of García y Bellido's Hispania Graeca, American Journal of Archaeology, LVII, No. 1 (January, 1953), 33. Smith does not deny the thesis of García but says that he can find no reason to believe that the Phocaeans reached Tartessós prior to the time of Arganthonios, the Tartessian king friendly to the Greeks, or before the voyage of Kolaios.

33. García y Bellido, Hispania Graeca, I, 97.

34. Ibid., p. 115.

35. Ibid., p. 156.

36. Within twenty miles to the east, says García y Bellido (Hispania Graeca, I, 130-131). Smith suggests (in a review of Hispania Graeca, op. cit., p. 34) that it might even be at approximately the outskirts of present Málaga

37. 630-550 B.C., according to García y Bellido, Hispania Graeca, I, 129; or 620-540 B.C., according to Dixon, The Iberians of Spain, Appendix.

38. 584-540 B.C., according to García y Bellido, Hispania Graeca, I, 144; or 577-533 B.C., according to Dixon, The Iberians of Spain, Appendix.

39. Dixon, The Iberians of Spain, p. 48.

40. Garcia y Bellido, Hispania Graeca, I, 103.

41. García y Bellido, "Colonización Púnica," Historia de España, Tomo I, Vol II, Pt 3, 331-332.

42. Dixon, The Iberians of Spain, p. 15, and Carpenter, The Greeks in Spain, p. 96, state that the olive and the vine were introduced into Spain by the Greeks. Olive oil was exported from Greek Akragas to Carthage in the first half of the first millennium B.C. See T. J. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks, p. 221. There is no reason to suppose that it was not also sent to Iberia, even though J. G. D. Clark in Prehistoric Europe, the Economic Basis, p. 116, doubts such an early introduction into the west. Wine made from grapes is very old in the countries of the eastern Mediterranean, and the Phoenicians were famous merchants of wine. No doubt the Greeks traded in wine with Iberia, but it may have been Phoenicians who introduced it there. See H. F. Lutz, Viticulture and Brewing in the Ancient Orient, p. 31.

43. Maluquer, "Pueblos Ibéricos," Historia de España, Tomo I, Vol. III, 307

44. García y Bellido, Hispania Graeca, I, 177, 181.

45. Ibid., p. 183.

46. Ibid., pp. 185-186. Carpenter dates it as 535 (The Greeks in Spain, p. 18). Herodotus speaks of the Phocaean victory. If they did achieve a Victory, it was Pyrrhic, for the result was disastrous.

47. Carpenter, The Greeks in Spain, p. 34.

48. García y Bellido, Hispania Graeca, I, 149.

49. Founded probably in the eighth century B C. Dixon, The Iberians of Spain, p. 24.

50. Torres, "Las Kassitérides," Cuadernos de Estudios Gallegos, IV (1945), 627.

51. H. R. W. Smith (personally transmitted note)

52. García y Bellido, Hispania Graeca, I, 30-31.

53. Dixon, The Iberians of Spain, p. 33.

54. Mines near present Linares. Carpenter, The Greeks in Spain, p. 37.

55. Ibid., pp. 28-29. Cartago Nova, present Cartagena, was founded bynthe Carthaginians in 221 B.C. Ibid., p. 91.

56. Dixon, The Iberians of Spain, p. 34.

57. García y Bellido, Hispania Graeca, I, 147.

58. If there was no one city of that name, it is not important to the larger fact that the area as a whole was put under the control of the Carthaginians of Gadir. Carpenter, The Greeks in Spain, pp. 34-35.

59. The Carthaginians made a bargain to save themselves before Syracuse, leaving their allies and mercenaries behind. The Iberians were then enlisted as a unit into Syracusan forces. Later, some of them served in Greece.

60. García y Bellido, Hispania Graeca, I, 23-24.

61. A. A. Mendes Corrêa, "A Lusitania pré-romana," História de Portugal, I, 175.

62. J.García Mercadal (trans. and ed), Viajes de extranjeros por España y Portugal, p.115.

63. Manuel Torres, "La Península hispánica, provincia romana, 218 a. de J. C. -- 409 de J. C.," Historia de España, II, 333. This may also be due to Carthaginian lack of interest in bronze.

64. García y Bellido, "Colonización Púnica," Historia de España, Tomo I, Vol. II, 385.

65. Ibid., p. 379. However, whatever was the Carthaginian contact with southern Portugal, it was not sufficient to alter, materially, the indigenous stratum. A. A. Mendes Corrêa, Raízes de Portugal (2nd ed.), p. 83.