10.13125/caster/5205
Cronologia e riti dalla necropoli di Sulky: la tomba 1 della “Via Belvedere”. La tomba ipogea della necropoli di Sulky è situata al margine sud-occidentale della necropoli composta da tombe a camera. I corpi dei defunti sono accompagnati da un ricco corredo composto da piatti, coppe, lucerne, brocche rituali e anfore, sia di uso domestico che commerciale. Alcuni gioielli completano il corredo. La presenza dei Greci in Sardegna, anche se solo temporanea, è stata Greci in Sardegna, anche se solo temporanea, è stata a lungo discussa. I reperti disponibili sembrano suggerire che popolazioni focesi possano essersi insediate in Sardegna dai primi decenni al fine del VI secolo a.C. Un esempio efficace di conflitto tra i Fenici, i Sardi e i Greci che vivevano nell’isola può essere suggerito dagli eventi che interessarono sia l’insediamento di Cuccureddus, nei pressi di Capo Carbonara, che il sito di Santa Maria di Villaputzu, l’antica Sarcapos, presso la foce del Flumendosa.
application/pdf
2532-1110
5205
en
Piero Bartoloni
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0
Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche
necropoli
The Greeks and Sardinia at The Dawn of the 6th Century BC. Chronology and Rites of the Necropolis of Sulky: Tomb 1 in Belvedere street
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster
8
Saggi e studi
2023-02-23
2022-04-15
2023-02-22
2023-02-23
1
Piero Bartoloni
2023/02/23
10.13125/caster/5205
2532-1110
necropoli
it
The Greeks and Sardinia at The Dawn of the 6th Century BC. Chronology and Rites of the Necropolis of Sulky: Tomb 1 in Belvedere street
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/article/download/5205/5376
8
Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche, 8 (2023)                      Sezione: Saggi e Studi
Rivista della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Cartagine    Articolo presentato il 15/05/2022
http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/index                 Accettato in data 19/07/2022
issn 2532-1110; doi: 10.13125/caster/5205                  Pubblicato in data 22/02/2023




                                                                                                  CaSteR, 8 (2023)




The Greeks and Sardinia at The Dawn of the 6th Century BC. Chronology
and Rites of the Necropolis of Sulky: Tomb 1 in Belvedere street

Piero Bartoloni
SAIC
mail: bartoloni.piero@gmail.com


                                                                                   In memoriam Glenn E. Markoe
                                                                                  (NY City 1951, Kenwood 2012)




   At the beginning of the 1980s, after a number of field experiences in Sardinia at the
archaeological sites of Bithia, Monte Sirai and Sulky, I suggested a chronological seriation1
based mainly on the combination of Phoenician and Punic and Greek pottery, especially of
Euboic,2 Corinthian3 and Attic origin,4 according to the respective chronologies proposed
in the indicated period. At a later time, I suggested reconsidering this Phoenician and Punic
chronology of Sardinia, basing this assumption on the historical events that involved Sardinia
during the 6th century BC. In fact, between approximately 600 BC and 510 BC, the waters
around Sardinia were the scene of decisive events for the history of the Mediterranean.
Actually, during this period sources report events whose protagonists were the Phocaeans,5
the Carthaginians and the Caeretans, such as the foundation of Marseille, the battle of Alalia6
and the military campaigns of Malchus and the Magonids, approximately around 540 BC
and 510 BC,7 respectively, in any case before the treaty between Carthage and Rome in
509 BC.8 With regard to the naval battle of Alalia, Jean-Paul Morel formed the interesting
hypothesis that it was fought not by Carthaginian crews, but by ships armed by the Punics
of Sardinia,9 nonetheless, although probable Greek remains appear in the Sulky grave goods,
as will be seen later, nothing else actually proves their participation in the conflict, nor that
the weapons come from that theatre of war. Moreover, Carthage’s interests and the problems

    1
        Bartoloni (1981a), 13-31; Bartoloni (1983a), 491-500, Bartoloni (1983b), 47-62.
    2
        AA.VV. (1975); AA.VV. (1978); AA.VV. (1982).
    3
        Amyx, Lawrence (1975).
    4
        Sparkes, Talcott (1970).
    5
        Morel (2000), 19-36.
    6
        Gras (2000b), 37-46.
    7
        Bondì (1997), 63-66.
    8
        Meloni (1947), 107-13.
    9
        Morel (2006a), 1730.

cc-by-nd
                                               Piero Bartoloni


caused by the Phocaean action were so wide-ranging that their direct participation cannot be
excluded.
    Actually, sources of Greek-oriental tradition and myths narrate the multiple links between
Greek colonization and Sardinia10 and it is obvious that, in addition to commercial interests,
one of the major drivers of the Phocaeans’ migration towards the Mediterranean West was
demographic pressure.11 At present, thanks to new interpretations of events and sources, to
the results of archaeological investigations and, last but not least, to the data proposed by
archaeometry, I believe we can return to the chronological seriation before the turn of the
century I originally proposed, i.e. shifting the pottery-based chronology by at least a quarter
of a century.
    At the same time, to find a historical justification to the possible change of the funeral
rite from incineration to inhumation, I suggested to chronologically place this change in
conjunction with Malchus and his feat, which I assumed was motivated by Carthage’s desire
to take possession of Sardinia,12 thus importing customs already in place in Carthage. In
fact, as seems most logical, the military interventions in Sardinia guided by Malchus and,
later, by Hasdrubal and Hamilcar are some of the most impressive episodes in the history of
the central-western Mediterranean, imagined and planned with a broad and circumstantial
6thsion.13 These events must necessarily be seen in close connection with what had pre6thously
occurred along the coast of western Sicily, where the Phoenicians’ trading acti6th ty in Sicily,
and in particular in the city of Motya, had been seriously damaged by the feat of Pentathlos
of Knidos.14 In particular, these events were probably also justified by Carthage’s need to
reopen the Tyrrhenian route and, above all, to remove Sardinia from eastern-Greek influence,
in particular the city of Olbia, the settlements of the north-eastern coast and other centres
of the Lower East Campidano. These actions currently appear strongly associated with the
aggressive attitude of the Phocaeans settled in Alalia, who raged along the eastern coast of
Sardinia, as suggested by the well-known passage by Herodotus.15 In fact, most of these small
settlements on the western shore of the Tyrrhenian Sea seem to have features that are more
those of trading centres than urban ones,16 even in the age before the one under examination,
as if some circumstances had somehow limited or prevented their development. On the other
hand, as pointed out by the late Víctor Guerrero Ayuso, as seems obvious, not even the
Valencia and Alicante coasts,17 as well as the Balearic ones, were free from the often-unwanted
attention of the Phocaeans, as can be inferred from both shipwrecks and their cargo, which
show the intensity and origin of the commercial trade.18
    A concrete example of the conflict between the Phoenicians of Sardinia and the eastern
Greeks present on the island, caused by the piracy actions carried out by the Phocaeans,19
can be suggested by the events which involved the settlement of Cuccureddus20 near Capo
Carbonara, which can perhaps be associated to the site of Santa Maria di Villaputzu, the
   10
        Nicosia (1981), 423-26, 435.
   11
        Gras (1985), 394-408.
   12
        Bartoloni (1981a), 28-29; Bondì (1997b), 67-69.
   13
        Moscati (1997), 99.
   14
        Moscati (1986), 28-29; Bondì 1997b, 67
   15
        Erod. I, 166, 1-2.
   16
        Bartoloni (1990b), 157-67; Bartoloni (1996b), 165-75; Sanciu (2010), 1-12.
   17
        Almagro-Gorbea, Lorrio Alvarado, Torres Ortiz (2021), 22-30.
   18
        Guerrero Ayuso (2010), 131-160.
   19
        Morel (2006), 358-428.
   20
        Bartoloni (1989b), 237-44; Bartoloni (2009a), 18, 23, 40, 47, 67-72, 93, 104-106, 126, 259, 271.


                                                      2
                          The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


ancient Sarcapos.21 The events regarding the settlement of Cuccureddus, not agreed upon by
some,22 but as recently proposed convincingly by Michele Guirguis,23 represent one of the
most important episodes in the conflicts between Phoenicians and Greeks for the control of
landing places and commercial routes of the Tyrrhenian Sea, which ended with the battle of
Alalia.24 On the other hand, it is widely shared knowledge that the peaceful and constructive
coexistence between the Phoenicians and the Euboic element was a fact, while similar attitudes
cannot be counted among the Phoenician element and the cities of Doric and Ionic lineage,
as widely attested since 1970 by the late historian Vitaliano Merante.25 Therefore, sharing
what has been argued since 1982 by Giovanni Ugas with a propositional formula26 and, later,
in 1984 by Ugas himself with Raimondo Zucca,27 I believe that at least in the first half of the
6th century BC the presence of Greek settlers of Ionic lineage in eastern Sardinia was a less
imperceptible fact than one might believe. Carlo Tronchetti is of the opposite opinion: in
1996 he excluded the presence of Greek inhabitants on the island after the 7th century BC,
while reporting a considerable amount of Greek products.28 David Montanero Vico seems to
share this opinion, although he suggests a date shortly after the mid-6th century BC.29
    Ignazio Didu, in his careful analysis written in 2003, proposed, albeit doubtfully and very
cautiously, a Greek presence in the enclave of Olbia,30 in the north-eastern part of the island.
However, also in the light of discoveries made both previously and in more recent times,
it seems convincing that this presence occurred between the first decades and the mid-6th
century. Numerous clues now confirm this and one cannot dismiss the hypothesis that both
the coastal region of Olbia and Ogliastra, as well as the hinterland of the eastern Campidano,
may have experienced a strong Greek-oriental influence, to be connected with a material as
well as commercial presence.31
    As a corollary, the analysis related to the presence of Eastern Greeks in the lands facing the
Tyrrhenian Sea, who, as confirmed by the investigations carried out by Rubens D’Oriano,
not only knew Sardinia very well, but as mentioned previously, had already settled there,
with their epicentre in Olbia, in the last quarter of the 7th century BC. It certainly is not a
random chronological datum devoid of concrete evidence, since as early as 1981 Francesco
Nicosia had perceived a hiatus in Greek testimonies in the island and identified 620 BC as
the beginning of a third phase.32 The events in Olbia support this, since, even if only in parts,
with its natural port the city controlled and closed the Strait of Bonifacio to the south, a
vital passage for the route that led from the Tyrrhenian Sea to the north-eastern basin of the
Mediterranean and Marseille. Crossing from the Straits of the Rhone to Olbia presumably
took about six days at sea.33 It should be noted, in fact, that the Phoenician presence in the
Tyrrhenian Sea was already considerable, both along the coasts of Sardinia, and on the islands,

   21
        Zucca (1984), 29-46; Zucca (2001), 311-15; Bartoloni (2009a), 69-70, 106, 183; Manunza (2013), 387.
   22
        Acquaro, Conti (1998), 7-13; Bartoloni (2000d), 125-28.
   23
        Guirguis (2019a), 67-97.
   24
        AA.VV. (2000).
   25
        Merante (1970), 98-138.
   26
        Ugas (1982), 463-478.
   27
        Ugas, Zucca (1984), 58-86.
   28
        Tronchetti (1996), 565.
   29
        Montanero Vico (2018), 389-93.
   30
        Didu (2003), 107-20.
   31
        Ugas, R. Zucca (1984).
   32
        Nicosia (1981), 462.
   33
        Mastino, Zucca (1991), 215.


                                                     3
                                           Piero Bartoloni


including the island of Ischia and Giglio,34 and that the main landing points were already
occupied by Greeks of Euboic origin, by the Phoenicians and by the Etruscans. Moreover,
the same function was carried out to the north by the lagoon port of Alalia, which closed
the passage of the Strait of Bonifacio in a tightly controlled grip. This situation is certainly
not accidental but can only be part of a well-planned strategy. Some clues definitely cannot
herald certainty, but coincidences are too numerous and circumstantial not to take due note
of them.35
    The eastern Greek influence probably reached as far as Ogliastra and the eastern part
of the Medio-Campidano, as suggested by Rubens D’Oriano’s research36 and the further
work carried out by Giovanni Ugas.37 Therefore, Malchus’s feats both in Sicily and Sardinia
should be considered as part of the problem created by repeated attempts at settlement, partly
accomplished, but subsequently crushed,38 made by the eastern Greeks along the coasts of the
three large islands of the central Mediterranean.
    In this regard, it is worth mentioning that Alberto Ferrero della Marmora, during his
stay in Sardinia between 1819 and 1826, the year Voyage en Sardaigne was published in
Paris, found three Corinthian helmets and some greaves in an underground tomb in Sulky.
One of them, together with a greave, was later acquired by the Royal Armory of Turin and
the remaining two by the National Archaeological Museum of Cagliari.39 These weapons
belong to the defensive equipment of several hoplites, since each soldier, in addition to the
helmet, mainly wore his left greave, on the most vulnerable leg. The chronology proposed
by the most recent studies places these defensive weapons between 580 and 540 BC.40 The
helmets, one of which is in an excellent state of preservation, have been correctly attributed:
“...to the most authoritative members of a rich and powerful local family...”41 rather than to
Greek mercenaries inserted in the community of Sulky. However, it is unlikely to be personal
equipment, but rather spolia conquered in the conflict that opposed an eminent personage
of Sulky, part of the armies of Malchus or the Magonids, to the Greeks temporarily stationed
in Sardinia. In any case, the discovery of defensive weapons of Greek origin datable to the
6th century BC in a Phoenician environment is not to be considered exceptional, given also
the Corinthian-style helmets found in the southern sector of the Iberian Peninsula.42 Nor
should we forget the Corinthian helmet stolen and disappeared in Germany, found together
with the fragments of two other specimens43 in a shipwreck along the coast of the island of
Giglio,44 well known to the Phoenicians, perhaps belonging to a Phocaean ship. Therefore,
ha6th ng ascertained incidentally that in this period eastern Greeks travelled with their ships
in the Tyrrhenian Sea, Greek weapons might have been laid as part of triumphal grave goods
in the burial of a Sulky “hero”, a reminder of his participation in feats of arms and his value.

   34
      Bartoloni (1986), 226.
   35
      D’Oriano (2000), 205-16; D’Oriano (2004a), 37-48; D’Oriano (2005), 58-74; D’Oriano (2008), 9-25;
D’Oriano (2010), 10-25; D’Oriano (2011), 171-81; D’Oriano (2021), 323-31. D’Oriano, Oggiano (2005),
169-199.
   36
      D’Oriano (2004b), 102-103, 107, tav. I.
   37
      Ugas (1982), 463-78.
   38
      Moscati (1986), 29.
   39
      Bartoloni (1988c), 132-38; Botto (2017), 498-504, figg. 494, 500-501.
   40
      Quesada Sanz, García González (2018), 177-88; Graells i Fabregat (2021), 161-89.
   41
      Botto (2017), 504.
   42
      Martín Ruiz, García Carretero (2018), 279-93; Quesada Sanz, García González (2018), 117-198.
   43
      Galasso (2012), 1-2.
   44
      Bartoloni (1986), 219-26.


                                                  4
                          The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


    According to the lucid historical analysis recently presented by Raimondo Secci, which
takes up with new and richer documentation what had already been suggested by Giovanni
Garbini,45 the decisive action of Carthage in the central-western Mediterranean should not be
limited to the 6th century BC, but is already e6th dent in the previous period, i.e. since the 8th
century BC.46 The result of Raimondo Secci’s work is certainly not devoid of consequences,
because not only does it downsize what I considered the decisive intervention of Carthage in
Sardinia, but the chronology of events itself needs to be reassessed, as well as consequently
the chronology of Phoenician and Punic pottery, which can be moved forward by at least
25 years. This is certainly supported without a doubt also by the archaeometric analyses
recently carried out by Michele Guirguis47 and the recent studies on Phoenician and Punic
pottery in Sardinia by Rosana Pla Orquin.48 The same can be said for the change in funeral
rites,49 not necessarily sudden, as I suggested in recent decades,50 but progressive, as shown
by the funerary practices of the necropolis of Monte Sirai51, and not necessarily linked to
the Carthaginian intervention of 540 BC. It is the result of new customs that were gradually
established, already started in the early years of the 6TH century BC,52 as highlighted by the
grave goods of the tomb of 6th a Belvedere in Sulky, examined herein.
    The contents of a recent contribution by Martín Almagro Gorbea, Alberto José Lorrio
Alvarado and Mariano Torres Ortiz,53 if put in relation to the above-mentioned historical
events occurred in Sardinia between the middle and the end of the 6TH century BC, are
illuminating to reconstruct the history of the central-western Mediterranean. In fact, it
completes the framework of the consequences related to the Phocaean intervention in the
indicated area and the reactions of the people involved by such interferences. The Phocaean
political and commercial intervention,54 although remarkable in many ways, turns out to be
late in an already consolidated historical framework.
    A clue in this sense, more relevant than it may appear, is offered to us by the pottery in
use in Carthage, Cagliari and Ibiza, also compared to the vase production of the site of Vélez
Málaga in the second half of the 6th century BC and the first decades of the following century.
In fact, the materials from the necropolis in Cagliari reflect the series of historical events that
involved Sardinia from the last years of the 6th century BC onwards.55 Symptomatically, as will
be noted, in addition to those found in the coeval hypogea of Carthage, in particular in the
area of Ard el-Kheraïb56 and Douimes57 since it is the most documented, for what concerns
the end of the 6th century BC, the V century BC and the end of the following one, the fictile
forms closest to ours, for the same reasons, are those from the necropolis of Puig des Molins
of Ibiza. This confirms the close dependence of the Pityusic islands on Carthage, reflected


   45
        Garbini (1966), 111-47.
   46
        Secci (2019), pp, 181-82.
   47
        Guirguis (2019b), 115-21, figg. 11.2-11.
   48
        Pla Orquín (2021), 53-78.
   49
        López-Bertran (2019), 139-53.
   50
        Bartoloni (1981a), 29.
   51
        Guirguis (2010a), 189-94; AA. VV (2015), 1-15.
   52
        Guirguis (2010a), 174-76; Guirguis (2011), 22-26.
   53
        Almagro-Gorbea, Lorrio Alvarado, Torres Ortiz (2021), 1-48.
   54
        Almagro Gorbea (2015), 417-33.
   55
        Bartoloni, Bondì, Moscati (1997), 70-77, 81.
   56
        Merlin, Drappier (1909), 5-20.
   57
        Delattre (1897b), 169-77.


                                                     5
                                               Piero Bartoloni


in a chronology anticipated by more than a century by the Diodorean tradition.58 A further
and indirect confirmation of this is represented by the materials of the necropolis of Jardin,
almost coeval to those mentioned. The vascular forms of this funerary facility are instead the
result of an evolutionary process with in the Phoenician community of the southern coast
of the Iberian Peninsula in symbiosis with the local element,59 thus totally distant from the
Carthaginian influence.
    If one observes the geographical location of the sites mentioned in conjunction with
the historical period, it is clear that these sites, Cagliari and Ibiza, were the cornerstones of
the Carthaginian reaction to the colonial policy and a sort of “bridgehead” of the military
operations that followed. Therefore, the correspondence of ceramic shapes could represent
the direct consequence of the Carthaginians’ stay onsite for an extended period. Material
evidence of this conflict is described by Joan Ramon Torres on the basis of arrowheads found
in the southern bay of the island of Ibiza, especially associated to the town and its immediate
surroundings.60 The city, especially thanks to archaeological acti6th ties, appears to have been
founded around 600 BC, thus coinciding with Massalia.
    As pointed out by Paolo Bernardini since its first discovery,61 both for its topographic
position and its shape, our hypogeum is among the most ancient ones as to this layout and
structure. As a consequence of these considerations, in the light of the investigations carried
out in this work, at present we can suggest the years between the end of the first quarter
and the first years of the second quarter of the 6th century BC, i.e. between 580 and 570 BC
for the chronology of the first use of tomb N. 1 in 6th a Belvedere. It should be noted that
the chronology suggested by Paolo Bernardini was between the far end of the 6th and the
very first years of the 5th century BC,62 based at least in part on the dating of the transport
amphorae found in the tomb, thus following what I suggested in the works related to this
type of vessels,63 dating I then connected to the intervention of the Magonids Hasdrubal and
Hamilcar. Actually, as far as the amphorae present in the hypogeum are concerned, as will be
seen, they are not homogeneous, but also chronologically at least partly different from each
other, as can be inferred from their respective rims: if the one of amphora N. 1 (Pl. I),64 clearly
the latest, appears datable to around the mid-6th century BC,65 at least two seem to be linked
to the type pertaining to the first half of the century66 and, therefore, to a period before the
one proposed initially. The most damaged specimen67 that was perhaps below the others,68
transport amphora N. 66 (Pl. LXV),69 belongs chronologically to the type in vogue between
the first and second quarter of the 6th century BC.70 In this regard, it should be noted that in
order to avoid further unnecessary repetitions or overlapping data, the indi6th dual finds will
be listed here following the progressive number used in the official inventory of the branch

   58
        Diod. V, 16, 2-3.
   59
        Schubart, Maass-Lindemann (1995), 57-216.
   60
        Ramon (2020), 205-35.
   61
        Bernardini (2006), 112.
   62
        †Bernardini (2021) [2013], 389-93.
   63
        Bartoloni (1988a), 45-47, figg. 8, D2-D3, 9, D4; Bartoloni (1988b), 95-96, 105-106, figg. 6-7.
   64
        Inv, MC 193229; Inv. MSA 10362.
   65
        Bartoloni (1988a), 95-96, fig. 7, d.
   66
        Bartoloni (1988b), 45-46, fig. 8, D2-D3.
   67
        Inv, MC 193293; Inv. MSA 10426.
   68
        Bernardini (2008a), 657, fig. 9, 1.
   69
        Inv, MC 193293; Inv. MSA 10426.
   70
        Bartoloni (1988a), 95, 105, fig. 6, a.


                                                       6
                          The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


office of the Archaeological Superintendence of Cagliari in Sant’Antioco, which should in
theory reflect the order in which the finds were collected from the hypogeum. The next
commercial amphora,71 dating to the first years of the 6th century BC, therefore part of the
grave goods of one of the first burials in the hypogeum, belongs to a type widely distributed
in Sardinia, as confirmed by some specimens, cited as examples, found in towns well known
for their commercial activity72 and in peripheral locations73 apparently distant from possible
centres of production.
    The traces of the archaic cemetery related to the Phoenician settlement, between the 8th and
6th centuries BC, have now at least temporarily disappeared, as they are completely covered by
the current town. However, road works and the renovation of residential buildings over the
past years led to the discovery of some pit tombs, containing fragments of burnt human bones
and some objects belonging to the accompanying grave goods. A part of the latter, including
a so-called mushroom-lipped jug, coming from a lens of burnt earth, is still preserved among
the materials of a private collection in Sant’Antioco and is so characteristic that it has allowed
not only to attribute the remains to the particular funeral rite of incineration, but also to give
a precise chronological collocation to the burial, which, in this specific case, is the second
half of the 7th century BC. The tomb in question, no longer visible today, was found in
the current centre of Sant’Antioco near Piazza Italia (Figg. 1-2), which houses the so-called
Roman spring and, more precisely, in 6th a Perret, a road that starts from the northern corner
of the square and that, mo6th ng eastwards, reaches the sea. The burial was not more than
120 metres from the ancient coastline and since it probably was not isolated, it was fully
aligned with the characteristic topographical location of Phoenician necropolises of coastal
settlements, known both in Sardinia and elsewhere and located mainly near the sea.74 A
further necropolis, with a burial not prior to the second half of the 7th century BC, was found
in the north-western part of the ancient settlement of Sulky. The recent discovery of some
pits in the southern sector of the Punic necropolis has led to the hypothesis of the presence of
an incineration necropolis. However, these pits show no visible traces of combustion either
inside or in their immediate vicinity. Moreover, among the isolated materials recovered in
the area during earthworks, very few can be ascribed to the Archaic period and none of them
can be attributed with certainty to the funerary environment. However, the presence of two
distinct archaic funerary facilities would not be a novelty, as confirmed by the case of the
settlement of Tharros.75
    The location of the Phoenician76 and Punic77 necropolis has been often discussed, even
recently, on different occasions and in relation to objects from the funerary facility and
preserved in public and private collections. In any case, the sectors of the ancient urban area of
Sulky occupied in the course of time by spaces intended for the dead are well known, at least
as far as topographical and urbanistic aspects are concerned.78 Summarizing the topographical

   71
      Inv, MC 193231; Inv. MSA 10364.
   72
      Finocchi (2009), 373-467, figg. 29-34.
   73
      Marras (1983), 161-162, fig. 3, c-d; Secci (1998), 158, 168, fig. III, 29.
   74
      Pellicer Catalán (1962); Bartoloni (1996a); Aubet, Núñez, Trellisó (2004), 41-62; Tusa (2016); Mazzariol
(2021), 93-128.
   75
      Bartoloni (1981a), 25-27; Ferrari (1984), 97-106, fig. 1; Del Vais (2006), 7-41; Del Vais, Fariselli (2012),
261-82.
   76 Bartoloni (2004), 87-91.
   77
      Bartoloni (1989a), 41-49.
   78
      Bartoloni (1987), 57-73; Bernardini (2005a), 63-80.


                                                        7
                                              Piero Bartoloni


situation, in addition to small rural burial areas,79 two necropolises were identified where the
rite of incineration prevailed. The first and oldest, according to what would seem to result
from the material finds, was located near the coast80 and, more precisely, in a sector that
from the area behind the port reached the first slopes of the hill which rose to the west of
the coastline. The chronology would seem to be between 800 and 550 BC. Another funerary
installation of Phoenician age, for the moment testified by an incineration monosome tomb,
can be dated between the last years of the 7th and the first years of the following century.81 This
funerary facility must be prior to the previous one and was probably created as a consequence
of the progressive expansion of the housing area towards the west and areas that could be
cultivated. Because of the cultural progress and the evolution of rituals, which now involved
polysome hypogeal burials, the necropolis was placed on the above-mentioned hill, west of
the coastal line. For a description of the hypogeal necropolis of Sulky it is advisable to refer
to Paolo Bernardini’s work, who directed research acti6th ties in the cemetery between 1998
and 2008. The contribution summarizing his experience was published in 2018.82
    The sector of the necropolis which is currently at least partly visible (Fig. 1) has a sub-
triangular shape and is located to the east of the Savoy Castle, near the area which has been
indicated as a place of worship during Roman Republican age. The Punic funerary facility of
ancient Sulky had, at the peak of its maximum expansion, a probable extension of over six
hectares, occupying an area that today includes the sector between the surroundings of the
parish church and the land around the Savoy fort, up to the centre of the current town. The
tombs were mainly underground, thus dug into the thickness of the bank of trachytic tuff
that occupies the surface of part of the island of Sant’Antioco. The tuff layer is the result of
the millennial consolidation of volcanic ash, which, together with red trachyte, was erupted
many million years ago by a volcano that still exists today, located in the channel of Sardinia,
about 50 kilometres south-west of the island. The denomination of the zone is ambiguous,
since it is not clearly divided between the almost homophonous toponyms of “Is Pirixeddus”
(small wells), from the Sardinian term “Pirì” (well) or “Is Spirixeddus” (small souls).83 Given
the presence of numerous wells and cisterns of Phoenician age dug in the area of the ancient
adjacent settlement84 and perhaps also of the numerous dromoi created in the ground and at
least partly known and visible for a long period of time, it is reasonable to be in favour of the
first one.
    Given its chronology, the funerary facility was presumably created immediately after
Carthage’s progressive consolidation in Sardinia, which occurred around the first half of
the 6th century BC. The necropolis, which was expanded in the following centuries, until
the Roman conquest of Sardinia that took place in 238 BC, consists mainly of hypogeal
tombs, often on different levels. This was due to the thickness and compactness of the tuff
bank on which the necropolis stands. The monumental complex of the Sulky Punic funerary
complex represents undoubtedly one of the best examples of this type with in the Phoenician
and Punic settlements of the Mediterranean. The vastness of the area which underwent
archaeological investigation and the extension of the part open to the public allow a total
and complete knowledge of each monument. In consideration of the fact that, together with
   79
        Bartoloni (2012c), 75-81.
   80
        Bartoloni (2004), 87-91.
   81
        Bartoloni (2009b), 71-80.
   82
        Bernardini (2018), 97-116.
   83
        Bartoloni (1981a), 22-24; Bartoloni (2017), 266-81.
   84
        Bernardini (1988), 75-76; Unali (2014), 12-16, 93-95.


                                                      8
                           The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


Tuvixeddu, it is one of the largest and best-preserved Punic necropolises in Sardinia, currently
larger than the one in Cagliari,85 certainly easier to visit and in better condition than the
two necropolises in Tharros,86 the Sulky funerary complex has allowed to clarify many of
the social and economic aspects of the Carthaginian civilization on the island, thus, of the
ancient history of Sardinia. If the necropolis as a whole is dominated by hypogeal tombs,
characteristic both of the cultural environment and the historical period, there are, however,
also some rare examples of pit tombs.
    The burials meant for children and in no case attributed to adults were instead represented
by large amphorae with no neck and no base, therefore of a commercial type. The large clay
container was cut near the mouth or a rectangular door was opened, also near its opening.
This was clearly to facilitate the introduction of small bodies inside the amphora. Stones were
placed on the mouth of the vessels, so that the rephaim, the spirits of the small deceased,
would not flee, disturbing the peace of the living. The amphorae were placed in a pit and
buried. However, it should be added that at least in one case remains of infants have been
reported, precisely four fallen teeth of children found in hypogeum 12 PGR, perhaps laid on
the floor.87
    As for hypogeal tombs, mainly meant for the burial of several bodies, they are present in
three distinct types, which, at least in one case, represent a precise chronological criterion.
In the Sulky area there are rare cases of hypogeal tombs holding only one body, perhaps
reserved for eminent individuals.88 The access corridor generally consists in a ramp, with
numerous steps flanking it for about two thirds of its total length. The width of this ramp
seems to vary according to the chronology of the tomb to which it leads. In fact, in the oldest
type of tomb, relating to the mid-6thor the early 6th century BC and which will be referred
to later, the width is uniform along the entire length of the ramp and normally exceeds 1.5
metres. In the later type, instead, characteristic of the necropolis from the mid-5th century
BC onwards, the width of the access dromos decreases significantly, sometimes also in relation
to the greater depth to be reached, very rarely exceeding 1 metre. At the end of the staircase,
which usually occupied two thirds of the corridor, there is a landing of the same width with
a surface of not more than 2 or 3 square metres. The hatch of the underground chamber
opens at the base of the back wall, at a level slightly higher than the floor of the landing.
This is to prevent rainwater from overflowing into the chamber or, at any rate, to limit its
infiltration. The dimensions of the hatch are generally quite small and do not exceed 1.5
metres in height, while its width does not reach 1 metre. In ancient times it was closed by
means of a large stone slab, as wide as the dromos and high enough to occlude the passage.
Another closing system, used especially when after numerous openings the door was broken
or was used differently,89 was that of building with in the thickness of the hatch a wall made
of unhewn stones, bound together with mortar mud, or large bricks of clay dried in the sun.
Beyond the door threshold there was the burial chamber, which, in the first and oldest type
consisted in a single rectangular cell, with the access located mostly along one of the two short
sides. It was approximately 4 metres in width by 5 metres in length, with a consequent usable
surface between 20 and 25 square metres. Along the walls there were rectangular niches
originally considered similar to the “false doors” of Egyptian hypogea, that is, accesses to
   85
        Stiglitz (1999).
   86
        Del Vais (2006), 7-4; Del Vais, Fariselli (2012), 261-83.
   87
        Lancia (2021), 254-55.
   88
        Bernardini (1999), 133-46; Bernardini (2005a), 63-80.
   89
        Bernardini (2018), 104.


                                                         9
                                             Piero Bartoloni


the underworld, but they could contain part of the grave goods accompanying the deceased.
The walls, floor and ceiling were normally lacking decorations, but there are examples in
the Sulky necropolis, even if embryonic, of walls with lines of colour, especially red as it was
related to funerary symbolism. However, it should be noted that inside the chambers there
were sometimes monolithic structures in tuff stone, whose main purpose was to support the
wooden bier above the ground. See for example tomb 2AR90 and tomb 12 PGM.91 In the
latter case, both editors assumed that at the top of the two blocks of tuff two baetyls were
carved in relief,92 in what now seems to have become a frantic search for hidden thus more
striking meanings, even where there were none. In fact, there is reason to believe that these
are rather the two grooves bearing the two beams that in turn supported the funeral bed, as in
the case of the above-mentioned tomb 2AR, where, however, the two blocks have no grooves.
    The hypogeal chambers belonging to the second type were much larger than those of the
first and oldest one. In fact, the peculiar feature and substantial difference that distinguished
them from the hypogea of the first type, illustrated above and prior to the mid-5th century
BC, lays in the larger usable surface, as well as in the smaller spaciousness and width of the
access corridor. The chambers of this period, in fact, had a large rectangular cell divided into
two parts, often identical and symmetrical with the exception of a central partition, which,
detached perpendicularly from the back wall and ceiling, came up to about 2 metres from the
access door and that, of course, was meant to help in supporting the ceiling. In the case of
some tombs no longer visible today, some partitions and pillars were found in recent decades,
built artificially with overlapping stones that almost touched the ceiling, supporting it in case
of sudden collapse. The space between the pillars and the ceiling was in all likelihood filled
with wooden wedges, now disappeared. Two-part underground chambers with non-specular
and twin compartments are visible, the result of the underground expansion of the rooms,
in a continuous search for additional space for burials. The total usable surface of hypogea of
this type normally exceeds 25 square metres, reaching in some cases even 30 square metres.
Once again rectangular niches are often visible, which sometimes housed part of the grave
goods. There is in fact a further type that has asymmetrical hypogeal chambers, but these
hypogea probably pertain to the first type that underwent extensions over time. This is the
final phase of the hypogeal necropolis of ancient Sulky. The chambers have extensions, when
allowed by the proximity of the hypogea, and rectangular pits suitable for holding bodies.
Even the accompanying grave goods undergo radical changes, with a reduction in the number
of containers, which from functional become symbolic. The certainty of this consideration
is confirmed by the prevalent presence of earthenware vessels, i.e. turned on a lathe, but not
put in the oven.93
    The size of the burial chambers, as well as the number of bodies contained therein, which
sometimes reaches 25 or 30 indi6th duals, with in a fairly wide span of time, allow us to
assume the presence of family tombs. Something that, moreover, had been hypothesised
even with regard to archaic incineration tombs, which are often found grouped in distant
agglomerations, clearly separated from each other. The need to have hypogeal tombs would
seem to prove the presence of family groups aware of their role in the society of Sulky.
Of considerable interest in this regard is the work by Eilat Mazar on the burials of family

   90
        Bartoloni (1987), 57-73.
   91
        Lancia (2021), 247-59.
   92
        Bernardini (2010), 1262-63, figg. 1-2; Lancia (2021), 249, fig. 2.
   93
        Guirguis, Unali (2012), 2011-29; Muscuso, Pompianu (2012), 2031-59.


                                                   10
                        The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


units.94 As accurately recorded by Michele Guirguis,95 these family groups follow the ritual of
symbolic and virtual incineration and adopt a type of burial in vogue in Carthage since the
beginning of the 7th century BC.96
   It is possible that in ancient times one or more brotherhoods of grave diggers, born for
this purpose, were in charge of the maintenance and funerary acti6th ties of the necropolis.
Moreover, it has been calculated that, to obtain underground chambers of such size, even
though they were dug in a material of little solidity such as tuff, the work of a specialized
worker was in all likelihood necessary for the duration of approximately two months.97
   The sector of the Punic necropolis facing the current 6th a Belvedere has been known since
1942, when Salvatore Puglisi gave news of investigations concerning three hypogea which,
in his opinion, did not present traces of tampering.98 Paolo Bernardini later referred to these
acti6th ties in his work on the jewels of the necropolis.99 In the following years and also on
this occasion I myself dealt with one of the three tombs explored by Salvatore Puglisi, which
in reality did not appear to be intact, but had been extensively remodelled.100 The necropolis
of 6th a Belvedere is mentioned further with the subsequent exploration of tomb N. 1 treated
here. Paolo Bernardini refers to the discovery of the hypogeum in conjunction with the
progression of the works.101
   The apparent difference of opinion expressed by Paolo Bernardini in the various reports
produced over time certainly does not represent second thoughts, but repeated reflections,
aimed at a correct interpretation of the data. There is no information on the orientation of
the chamber tomb nor is it e6th dent in the plan of the hypogeum, so it is possible to assume
that the access to the dromos was on the northern side, according to the published plan.102
The bodies of four deceased were laid there, three with their heads towards the southern wall
and their feet towards the access hatch, two of them in the corners and one in the centre of
the wall, while the remaining body was along the right side of the entrance wall, with its head
towards the north-eastern corner. It is not possible to know if the bodies inside the hypogeum
belonged to blood relatives or, if they did, what was the degree of kinship between them,
since, according to the reports listed in the bibliography, no analysis was carried out on the
meagre bone remains preserved. Moreover, it must be remembered that the ca6th ty occupied
by the burial in a later period was used by a house above it as the cesspool of a latrine and that
the contamination of human bone remains combined with the dispersion of sewage would
have probably affected the results of the analysis itself.
   The fictile objects contained in the underground chamber are 48 divided into nine types,
including six transport amphorae,103 three domestic amphorae with a carinated shoulder,104



   94
        Mazar (2004), 15-16, 21-23.
   95
        Guirguis (2010a), 34-40.
    96
        Lancel (1982), 263-364.
    97
        Bartoloni (2000a), 73.
    98
        Puglisi (1942), 106-15.
    99
        Bernardini (1991), 196. 191-205.
    100
         Bartoloni (1993), 93-95.
    101
         Bernardini (2006a), 112; Bernardini (2007), 151-57; Bernardini (2008), 657-58; Bernardini (2009),
28, 61-62; Bernardini (2010), 1257, 1265-66; (†Bernardini 2019), 1303, 1319; (†Bernardini 2021), 389-401.
    102
         Bernardini (2007a), 158, fig. 1.
    103
         NN. 1-3, 8, 58, 66.
    104
         NN. 5, 43, 55.


                                                   11
                                                 Piero Bartoloni


eight domestic amphorae,105 11 expanded-rim jugs,106 ten bifoil-mouthed jugs with biconical
body,107 a jug with circular mouthand biconical body,108 four omphalos plates,109 four basins110
and a carinated cup.111 As for the objects belonging to the personal belongings of the single
deceased, whose images are the work of Ugo Virdis, a photographer from Carbonia, there are
three gold pendants,112 a silver ring with an ellipsoidal mount,113 a silver ring with a steatite
scarab,114 a silver earring laminated in gold,115 four iron rings of different sizes,116 an iron
nail,117 11 bone hemispheres,118 a glass bracelet,119 eight gold necklace beads,120 a small gold
ring121 associated with four glass paste necklace beads,122 a necklace made of 18 carnelian,
glass paste and bone beads,123 an alabastron,124 an amulet depicting a hand125 and a bone pyxis
in four fragments.126
    The fact that the hypogeal tomb was opened and 6th sited several times to place the bodies
of new deceased is confirmed by the obvious repositioning of the objects belonging to the
various grave goods that took place over time, during the repeated depositions because of the
need to find space for new burials and their accompanying goods. As can be inferred from the
published image,127 the large commercial amphora was placed above the body located along
the right side of the northern wall. The deposition place of jug N. 1bis inside a commercial
amphora is quite atypical although not entirely unusual.128 As a matter of fact, it is not a
vessel meant to hold the ashes of the deceased, as it is used as transport container, whereas
the jug is a vessel for pouring wine129 and not a dipper.130 Amphora N. 1, at least in the case
of the tomb in question, was laid down because it was used to preserve food, as confirmed
by the discovery inside this amphora, as well as in the other similar containers, of animal
bone remains. The insertion of a vessel inside another one, in particular of dippers inside


    105
          NN. 4, 6, 10-13, 90-91.
    106
          NN. 14, 21, 23, 29-30, 32, 37, 56, 60, 63, 89.
    107
          NN. 1bis, 24, 26, 28, 31, 33, 41 59, 61-62
    108
          N. 22.
    109
          NN. 16, 38, 46, 67.
    110
          NN. 7, 9, 44-45.
    111
          N. 27.
    112
          NN. 77, 82, 86.
    113
          NN. 25, 84.
    114
          NN. 75, 79.
    115
          N. 70.
    116
          NN. 71-72, 74, 78.
    117
          NN. 81.
    118
          N. 76.
    119
          N. 39.
    120
          NN. 69, 85
    121
          N. 73.
    122
          N. 73.
    123
          N. 83.
    124
          N. 68.
    125
          N. 88.
    126
          N. 92
    127
          Bernardini (2008a), 657, fig. 9, 1.
    128
          Núñez (2004), pp, 63-66, 71, 78, 83-84, 86, 90, 95-97, 100, 102-103, 113-117; Aubet (2012), 45, 47,
fig. 4.
    129
          Niveau de Villedary y Mariñas (2004), 402-403, fig. 14; Bernardini (2005b), 9-10, tav. VI, 2
    130
          Muscuso (2008), 23-24, fig. d, I-IV, IX-X; Bartoloni (2017), 267, 270, figg. 22-24.


                                                        12
                        The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


amphorae, the latter unspecified whether commercial or domestic, is reported without the
support of further critical comments in the grave goods of tomb 11AR.131
    An element of strong interest is that the six transport amphorae found in the underground
chamber, at least judging by their shape, belong to non-homogeneous but successive moments
and, consequently, it is reasonable to suppose that they could have been placed there at
different times. It must be remembered that while in the published plan four skeletons are
shown,132 in the contributions concerning the tomb the human remains of at least six indi6th
duals are indicated,133 but we actually do not know if this was the number of the bodies laid
down to rest, given that the floor of the tomb itself was immersed in water and sewage for
a long time, with the consequent deterioration of part of the bone remains. A clue can be
provided by the number of ritual vessels, especially expanded-rim jugs and bifoil-mouthed
jugs, which form 11 pairs since in both cases the two canonical ritual vessels are present.134
In this regard, the plan of the tomb is of little help, since not all commercial amphorae can
be distinguished and the one that would appear to be the oldest, indicated with progressive
number N. 66,135 which is the most damaged among the specimens of its type, seems to have
been found, piled up together with most of the other similar vessels, in the corner to the left
of the access door.136 The result is that the custom of dedicating food offerings contained
with in commercial amphorae would seem to be limited in time to the period between the
second quarter and the end of the 6th century BC, as also confirmed by the hypogeal tombs
of the necropolis of Monte Sirai, where four transport amphorae of the same type were
found,137 similar to the later type present in our tomb, two of which currently on display at
the Archaeological Museum “Ferruccio Barreca” in Sant’Antioco, next to the two statues of
sitting lions.
     At the beginning of the discussion about the grave goods found in the tomb, it is necessary
to point out that the numbers given by the Archaeological Superintendence will be used,
which concern all grave goods, but not the bones of the deceased. It seems evident, also from
what emerges from the chronology of part of the finds, that the numbers were given based on
the sequence of their collection and, in some cases, on their state of preservation. In fact, in
the latter case we refer to objects N. 89-91 (Pls. LXXXVII -LXXXIX), all of which were vessels
collected in fragments and then restored. Therefore, even though no precise rationale seems
to emerge in the sequence of the collection of the objects, in the following discussion the
numbering attributed in origin will be preserved. It was deduced from the images deposited
in the archives of the Sant’Antioco peripheral branch of the Superintendence of Cagliari.
Finally, we would like to remind you that in the aforesaid list there are no numbers 15, 40
and 80, which were not given and therefore do not refer to any find.
    As for the clay finds, they are 48 vessels, divided into 39 closed and 9 open shapes. They
are probably local products, but while ritual vessels do not show signs of repeated use, the
few domestic vessels, consisting mostly in basins (Pls. VII, IX, XLIV-XLV) show traces of use,
confirmed by the e6th dent wear of the ring base. All the other vessels, including expanded-

   131
       Melchiorri (2013), 1171.
   132
       Bernardini (2008), 657, tav. 9, 1.
   133
       Bernardini (2007), 152.
   134
       Bartoloni (1996a), 26, 52-53, 62, 65, 92-93, 102-104; Bartoloni (2000a), 68, 70, 75-76, 89-90, 107-
108, 110-12, 133.
   135
       Inv. MC 193293; MSA 10426.
   136
       Bernardini (2008), 657, fig. 9, 1.
   137
       Barreca (1964), 11-56, tav. XXIX.


                                                   13
                                                 Piero Bartoloni


rim jugs and bifoil-mouthed jugs, do not pro6th de clear indications of their use, with the
exception of some oil lamps which show clear traces of combustion in their spouts (Pls. XVII,
XLIX L-LI, LIII).
    As far as the accompanying grave goods are concerned, by way of anticipation it should be
noted that there are no imported ceramics. This is not surprising, since it should be related
to the relative antiquity of the original depositions. In fact this type of pottery comes almost
exclusively from the Attic environment and concerns finds datable from the second half of
the 6th century BC, concentrated mainly from the second half of the 5th century BC to the
last years of the 4th century BC.138
    Not all the objects found in the hypogeum in 6th a Belvedere are unpublished, 16 finds
have been published on one or more occasions,139 edited by Paolo Bernardini himself. In
particular, commercial type amphorae N. 1140 and N. 2141 are documented, as well as the
domestic amphora with carinated shoulder N. 5,142 the basin N. 7,143 the expanded-rim jug N.
14,144 the biconical-type jug N. 24,145 the carinated cup with handles N. 27,146 the additional
expanded-rim jug N. 29,147 the second domestic amphora with carinated shoulder N. 43,148
an additional basin N. 45,149 the only omphalos plate N. 46,150 the two-spout oil lamps with
handles N. 51151 and N. 54,152 the third and final domestic amphora with carinated shoulder
N. 55,153 a third commercial amphora N. 58154 and a second biconical type jug N. 61.155
    The critical description of the finds will take place by following the criteria I used in all
research on the subject, starting with the clay vessels before analysing the other objects, in our
case especially jewellery and amulets. As for the clay vessels, as is my custom, priority will be
given to open shapes.
    Three plates were part of the grave goods, all of the archaic type (Pls. XVI, XLVI, LXVI).
The three vessels have a wide rim, an omphalos of equivalent diameter, an indistinct foot
and a bottom with a flat suspended umbo, which establishes their rough chronology. In fact,
this technical peculiarity is usually associated with open shapes up to the mid-6th century
BC. The shape of the first vessel (Pl. XVI) is rich in archaisms compared to the other two
specimens. In fact, its appearance is less agile, with a less slender and projecting rim, and
can be associated with similar finds from the end of the 7th century BC or the first years
of the following century, such as the plates found in chronologically similar burials in the

   138
       Tronchetti (1992), 364-69; Tronchetti (2003), 179; Tronchetti (2021), 35-36.
   139
       NN. 10362-01, 10364-02, 10367-05, 10369-07, 10376-14, 10385-24, 10388-27, 10390-29, 10403-43,
10405-45, 10406-46, 10411-51, 10418-53, 10414-54, 10415-55, 10421-61.
   140
       Bernardini (2007a), 158, 3.
   141
       Bernardini (2008a), 657, fig. 9, 2; Bernardini (2009), 28, 61, fig. 27, 1 (r).
   142
       Bernardini (2009), 28, 61, fig. 27, 2 (c, r); †Bernardini (2021), 392, fig. 2 (l).
   143
       Bernardini (2007a), 158, 6; Bernardini (2008a), 657, fig. 9, 5.
   144
       Bernardini (2009), 28, 61, fig. 27, 3 (l, c).
   145
       Bernardini (2009), 28, 61, fig. 27, 3 (c, r).
   146
       Bernardini (2009), 28, 61, fig. 27, 4 (c).
   147
       Bernardini (2009), 28, 61, fig. 27, 3 (r).
   148
       †Bernardini (2021), 392, fig. 2 (c).
   149
       Bernardini (2008a), 657. fig. 9, 4.
   150
       Bernardini (2009), 28, 61, fig. 27, 3 (r).
   151
       Bernardini (2007a), 158, 5.
   152
       Bernardini (2009), 28, 61, fig. 27, 4 (r).
   153
       Bernardini (2007a), 158, 4; Bernardini (2009), 28, 61, fig. 27, 2 (l, c); †Bernardini (2021), 392, fig. 2 (r).
   154
       Bernardini (2008a), 657, fig. 9, 3; Bernardini (2009), 28, 61, fig. 27, 1 (l).
   155
       Bernardini (2009), 28, 61, fig. 27, 3 (s).


                                                        14
                          The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


necropolises of Tharros,156 Bithia,157 Monte Sirai158 and Sulky itself.159 While the first plate
mentioned (Pl. XVI) belongs to a type widely distributed in Sardinia, the other two, both for
their shape and, as far as plate N. 67 is concerned, for its decoration, clearly belong to the
type locally in vogue in the second half of the 7th century BC.160
    The only cup161 belongs to a type that seems peculiar to the Punic setting of Sulky.162 It is
certainly a local production,163 which, agreeing with what was stated by Michele Guirguis,
can be considered: “...of Ionic inspiration...”, 164 in any case Greek, given the absence of
similar products declared to be autochthonous in the eastern area. Obviously some specimens
from the area of Sulky can be mentioned.165 This type probably derives from a carinated cup
present in the area of south-western Sardinia,166 to which handles were added. The oldest
example seems to be the one found in an incineration tomb of the necropolis of Monte
Sirai,167 which confirms the chronology of the first half of the 6th century BC attributed to
our cup. Some rare and very similar examples outside Sardinia are found in Carthage and in
the sanctuary of Tas-Silg on the island of Malta.168 This not only confirms the chronology
proposed for our hypogeal chamber tomb, but also reveals that this period was characterised
by the tradition of the funeral banquet and the probable use of wine for the libation in
memory of the deceased.169 There are further examples, but clearly later according to an
internal evolutionary process.170
    The purely domestic objects include four large basins (Pls. VIII, X, XLIII-XLIV), whose
function was probably that of preparing food. Their presence among the finds of the Sulky
necropolis has also been reported recently.171 There is no lack of finds in the area of the
settlement,172 thus directly linked to their primary functional use,173 which, as far as the
rim is concerned, refer to one of our specimens (Pl. XLIV). Two types can be recognized,
distinguishable based on their rim: one with a rim provided with a barely noticeable projecting
shape174 (Pls. VIII, XLIV) and the other one strongly carinated (Pls. X, XLIII). The latter
recalls models of the Syro-Palestinian area, where it was probably used as a container to
prepare food.175 In fact, the contexts of the finds are both in the residential area, datable


   156
         Del Vais (2013), 25-27, 55, SA 134.
   157
         Bartoloni (1996), nn. 147, 155, 74, fig. 19, tavv. X-XI.
     158
         Bartoloni (2000), n. 92, fig. 32; Botto, Salvadei (2005), 112, 114, fig. 24; Guirguis (2010), 105-106,
fig. 168.
     159
         Muscuso (2008), 11-12, fig. a, II.
     160
         Bartoloni (1983c), 211, 219, fig. 9, f; Pla Orquin (2021), 58, fig. 8, F.
     161
         Bernardini (2009), 28, 61, fig. 27, 4 (c).
     162
         Bartoloni (1982), 294, fig. 2, e.
     163
         Muscuso (2008), 15-16, figg. B, VI.
     164
         Guirguis (2010b), 193, 209, fig. 22.
     165
         Marras (1982), 295-96; Marras (1992), 179-80; Balzano (1999), 84-92, figg. 248-54.
     166
         Bartoloni (2000a), 101, 143-145, n. 6, fig. 25; Botto, Salvadei (2005), 95, 98, fig. 14, g.
     167
         Bartoloni (2000a), 86, 102, n. 141, fig. 35; Muscuso (2008), 16.
     168
         Ciasca (2000), 1288, 1292, fig. 1.
     169
         Bernardini (2008a), 639-641; Bartoloni (2012a), 8-19.
     170
         Botto, Salvadei (2005), 95, 100, fig. 14, i, l.
     171
         Guirguis (2021), 226-27, fig. 4, b-c.
     172
         Campanella (2008), 139-40, 437.
     173
         Guirguis (2021), 226-27, fig. 4, e.
     174
         Vegas (1987), 409, fig. 13, 137.
     175
         Amiran (1969), 202-203, tav. 64, 23-25; Lehmann (1996), 369, tav. 9, nn. 59/2-59/3.


                                                     15
                                              Piero Bartoloni


in Tell Keisan to the first years of the 6th century BC, 176 and in the funerary one,177 in the
latter case with a chronology in: “ ... the second half of the eighth century BC or early in
the seventh century.”178 There is no lack of more ancient evidence, as for example in ‘Atlit
(MB)179 and Hazor (LB),180 where, in addition, there is also a specimen referable to Iron
I, therefore contemporary to similar finds from Megiddo.181 As far as the western area is
concerned, there is an already mentioned very similar basin in terms of shape and chronology
from the settlement of Carthage,182 some similar but not identical vessels in a context about
a century earlier from the necropolis of Byrsa183 and a small basin from Gorhan Cave in
ancient Calpis.184 As for similar basins found in Sardinia, we can mention those that came to
light in Sulky itself,185 Monte Sirai186 and presumably in Othoca,187 in the Tharros area. As
for other sites outside the island, it is worth mentioning Motya;188 for further mentions of it,
as well as chronology, please refer to the recent work by Michele Guirguis.189 The presence
of these basins, clearly used, with in the burial of Via Belvedere suggests an at least symbolic
desire to nourish the dead, confirmed by fragments of animal bones, belonging to parts of
food deposited and found preserved inside transport amphorae. The basins were probably
used for the preparation of semolina,190 the base and main food component of the diet in the
Phoenician and Punic world. As mentioned above and as proven by the state of preservation
of the ring disk of the base, visibly worn, the basins had been used several times before their
deposition inside the burial. In conclusion, the basins, which are among the oldest finds in
the tomb, can be dated presumably between 580/570 BC and in any case in the first half of
the 6th century BC. This chronology is indirectly confirmed by the only finding of a type that
can be remotely compared to ours, considering that the chronology attributed to the finds of
the CRON 500 deposit is to be placed after 500 BC.191
    As far as oil lamps are concerned, given their two-spout structure, they are objects of
western origin, in consideration of the prevalence in the eastern area of the type with only
one oil wick.192 There are basically two types: the traditional one, without a foot and with
a convex bottom,193 and the other one with a peduncle applied to the bottom, which was
the handle.194 Whereas the first type had a vast and decidedly cosmopolitan diffusion and
   176
        Briend, Humbert (1980), 147, 151, tav. 33,
   177
        Alexandre, Stern (2001), 191.
    178
        Alexandre, Stern (2001), 184-86, fig. 3, 12-13.
    179
        Mazar, Ilan (2014), pp 113-15, fig. 5.
    180
        Amiran (1969), 128, tav. 39, 14.
    181
        Amiran (1969), 193-94, tav. 60, 1-3, 61, 1-5.
    182
        Vegas (1987), 409, fig. 13, 137; Vegas (1998), 159-60, fig. 5, 61.
    183
        Lancel (1982), 326, 329, 336, 342, figg. 518, A 186.1, 548, A 142.3.
    184
        Culican, (1972), 121, 138, fig. 7 E.
    185
        Muscuso (2008), 18-20, fig. c, III; Bernardini (2018), 104, fig. 7, d.
    186
        Balzano (1999), 129, fig. 35, 320.
    187
        Del Vais (2009), 226, 228, fig. 4, B-I.
    188
        Vecchio (2002), 224-25, tavv. 17-18.
    189
        Guirguis (2021), 225-26, 228, fig. 4, B-D.
    190
        Buonopane (2015), 69-79.
    191
        Campanella (2008), 239-40.
    192
        Lehmann (1996), 445-48, tavv. 81-82.
    193
        Michetti (2020), 113-15, fig. 9.
    194
        Deneauve (1969), 24, 227, tavv. IV, 2, XVII, 2; Rodero Riaza (1980), 22-23, 90-91, fig. 33, 3-5; Acqua-
ro, Bartoloni (1986), 196, 209, fig. 8; Ciafaloni (1987), 92-93, fig. 12, 48; Fernandez (1992), 189, 209, 310;
figg. 107, 116, 172; Gaudina (1995), 61-68, fig. 1-3; Gaudina (1996), 53-55, fig. 1, a-d; Ben Jerbania (2008),
18, 36-37, 44-45, tavv. V, F1231a, VI, F1232b; Muscuso (2008), 15-17, fig. b, VIII; Bartoloni (2015), 110-11,


                                                     16
                         The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


is represented by four oil lamps (Pls. XIX, XXXV, XLI, LXIII), the other one, peculiar and
unmistakable thanks to its base support, is represented by 17 specimens and appears linked
to a well-defined period that, on the basis of the chronology of the tomb itself and of the
bibliographical evidence, can be dated to the 6th century BC (Pls. XVII -XVIII, XX, XXXIV,
XLVI-LIII, LVI, LXIV, LXXXV).195 In the following period the handle tends to disappear, at
least as far as the evidence offered by the finds in the main towns of the island is concerned,
as shown for example by the necropolis of Tuvixeddu, where oil lamps with handles are
totally absent.196 In the eastern area, on the other hand, the type with peduncle is rarely
present, as also suggested by Gunnar Lehmann and Elisabetta Gaudina.197 In fact, only the
base peduncle defines the chronology of this type, since nothing else characterises the object
and the manual interventions to create the spouts do not allow to establish a chronological
sequence. In particular, if sometimes it has been thought that it was possible to establish that
oil lamps of western manufacture were later based on the distance between their spouts, this
procedure does not offer certain guarantees, precisely because of the manual intervention.198
As mentioned, only a few oil lamps present traces of combustion, to be precise only nine
out of 21 specimens (Pls. XVII, XXXV, XXXVIII, XLVII , XLIX, LI-LII, LIV, LVII), among
which only one oil lamp (Pl. XXXV) has no peduncle. This suggests that, given the total
absence of ring bases, needed for support,199 the ritual that motivated their presence in the
hypogeum had become purely symbolic. It is undoubted that the shape is now widely known
and its cultural itinerary is also clear, moving from the East to the West. However, as stated
repeatedly, it is also clear that, without a precise context, the shape is not datable if not
referring it to a very long period. The finds from Tharros, mainly from sectors affected by
landfills resulting from investigations carried out in the urban area,200 allow us to understand
how the shape with handle had a domestic use aside from the ritual one.
    The fact that our tomb “photographs” a particular moment of the evolutionary process
concerning the customs of the funerary rite in use in Sulky is a constant in the archaeological
research carried out in the hypogeal necropolis of Sulky. Moreover, the fact that the
accompanying grave goods, sometimes wrongly presented as crystallized as a result of a
superficial or at least hasty analysis,201 is suggested by the presence or absence of some vessels.
Among other things, the presence of numerous oil lamps, the most numerous type of object
in our grave goods, is striking and breaks supposed false habits. In fact, as a rule, oil lamps
are scarcely or not represented202 in the contexts of the later period, and they do not appear
in the poorly documented previous grave goods.203 In fact, Tomb 1 of Via Belvedere is rightly
considered by Michele Guirguis one of the most ancient hypogeal tombs204 and the declining
use of oil lamps in this context can already be perceived with regard to tomb 9 PGM, slightly
later, where grave goods include oil lamps, but in a much smaller number.205 In addition, for

fig. 145; Bartoloni (2019), 52-53, fig. 4, 15.
     195
         Provoost (1976), 9.
     196
         Bartoloni (2016a), 15, 39-41, figg. 69-118.
     197
         Lehmann (1996), 447, tav. 81, 428/1-2; Gaudina (1995), 67.
     198
         Maass-Lindemann (1982), 102; Bartoloni (1992), 421.
     199
         Muscuso (2008), 33, fig. f, VII-XI.
     200
         Gaudina (1995), 61-70; Gaudina (1996), 53-59.
     201
         Melchiorri (2007), 66, 80-82; Melchiorri (2013), 1162-72.
     202
         Melchiorri (2007), 61-102.
     203
         Bartoloni (2009b), 71-80.
     204
         Guirguis (2021), 226.
     205
         Guirguis (2021), 225, 227, fig. 2, A-B.


                                                    17
                                             Piero Bartoloni


example, there are no oil lamps in tomb 2 AR, dated between 510 and 490 BC.206 In any case,
the scarce evidence of burials of Phoenician age in the area of the city of Sulky does not seem
to suggest the presence of oil lamps.207 A testimony of considerable interest is provided by
what Ferruccio Barreca said at the time in relation to the underground necropolis of Monte
Sirai: «Moreover, oil lamps, so abundant in Punic tombs, are totally absent here, both in the
archaic phase and in the late phase. »208 Therefore, it seems e6th dent that the use of oil lamps
in Phoenician and Punic grave goods in the Sulky area is neither constant nor obvious and,
above all, does not represent a valid chronological indicator.
   Starting our examination of closed shapes, we should note the presence of the so-called
expanded-rim jugs and sometimes, with an at least simplistic definition, mushroom-lipped
jugs. I do not think it is appropriate to summarise the history of this ceramic shape, since I
believe it is sufficient to recall how it appeared in cemetery areas of Phoenician centres of the
East from the end of the Late Bronze Age,209 to become customary as of the 9th century BC
(Late Iron A).210 In Sardinia the type is present in Sulky itself since its oldest type, reported in
the area of the settlement in stratigraphic layers related to the late 9th century BC.211 The
shape forms an inseparable pair with the bifoil-mouthed jug since, as noted for many years
now, it is part of grave goods that at least between the 8th and 4th centuries BC are part of the
funeral ritual.212 Its main function, as suggested by the shape of its mouth, was probably to
spread the liquid contained in it, most likely ointment, on the body of the deceased.213 In
some circumstances some authors, perhaps not considering or not perceiving the fluidity of
ceramic shapes and their use, have contested this reconstruction, mentioning jugs of this type
found in non-sacred contexts,214 or lacking the shaping of the neck necessary to carry out this
function.215 However, it is clear that the two variants could coexist and that this funerary
function was in vogue in a very precise period, between the end of the 8th century BC and the
end of the 4th century BC, according to an aspect of the ritual, which, as we know, was not
constant and tended to vary over time. As suggested by the analysis ordered by Maria Eugenia
Aubet Semmler, the ointment was mostly made of honey and oil.216 Obviously this is regardless
of other possible uses, which, however, do not seem primary, at least in this specific period.
The determination of the chronology of this vessel depends on the evolutionary process of the
indi6th dual shapes, which includes peculiar aspects and variations over time of the rim,
neck, shoulder, belly and foot. Among the variants that determine chronology we must
undoubtedly include the decoration.217 In any case, it is necessary to underline that, while the
shape undergoes an evolution from its origin common to all regions of the central
Mediterranean, from the end of the 7th century BC a further variant gains ground in Sardinia,

   206
       Bartoloni (1987), 61.
   207
       Bartoloni (2017), 266-81.
   208
       Barreca (1964), 55.
   209
       Peserico (1996), 51-70; Núñez (2017), 1-18.
   210
       Mazar (2004), 43, 56-62, figg. 7-9; Núñez 2013a, pp, 472-8, fig. 1; Núñez (2014), pp, 296, 298, fig.
3.54; Núñez (2015), 239, fig. 3, a, 4.
   211
       Guirguis, Unali (2016), 84, 94, fig. 6, A.
   212
       Bartoloni (1981a), 22-23; Bartoloni (1996), 52; Bartoloni (2000), 68-69; Guirguis (2010a), 91, figg.
101-102; Pla Orquin (2021), 56-61.
   213
       Peserico (1996), 156-57.
   214
       Perra (2016), 233, 247, fig. 3, 3.
   215
       Botto (2014), 399-400.
   216
       Aubet (2013), 78.
   217
       Esu (2000), 154, fig. 2; Guirguis (2010a), 18; Guirguis (2010b), 191.


                                                    18
                          The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


only in the centres of the area under the influence of Sulky. This area includes finds coming
from the centres of Sulky,218 Monte Sirai219 and Paniloriga,220 while the settlements of Tharros
and Othoca to the northand those of Bithia and Nora to the east are excluded. A sequence of
this shape, of the following one and, in general, of some other aspects of Phoenician and
Punic vase ceramics in Sardinia was also proposed by Paolo Bernardini on two occasions,221
but with no further comment. The evolutionary process of jugs with an expanded rim found
in Sardinia unravels from the prototypes,222 whose peculiar features with respect to oriental
specimens223 are the sub-cylindrical neck with central prominence, the sub-spherical belly
and the ring foot. The following shapes, very close in time, each of which can be estimated in
less than twenty years, are all characterized by their neck, which became slightly truncated-
conical, and by their belly, which acquired a sub-trapezoidal shape. The ring base is always
present.224 Two further jugs with expanded rim, probably from the Sulky area, are slightly
later, with truncated-conical necks, bellies with a rectangular section and ring-shaped bases.225
As will become obvious, these variants can only be inspired by the numerous contacts and
exchanges that took place over time between different regions of the Mediterranean and, in
particular, with regard to the Phoenician centres of Sardinia, the central Mediterranean
area.226 This should not be surprising, since it took slightly over one day at sea to reach Motya
from Carthage and Sulky could be reached from the NorthAfrican coast in about two days.227
Given that, in archaic times, especially as regards the pottery production of indi6th dual sites,
there are no commercial transactions of containers of sacred or domestic use,228 apart from
commercial amphorae, this does not exclude that craftsmen could travel.229 Actually, even if
the shapes and their production methods are characteristic of each production site, at least
until the entire 7th century BC, the single shapes cannot be attributed with certainty to a
specific workshop, without analysing clays and pigments. One example among all is jug
B110(Al-O)A with expanded rim found in Pithekoussai and correctly classified as a “jug
imported from the east.”230 In fact, the jug has a nearly identical comparison in a similar vessel
from the necropolis of al-Bass,231 as reported by Francisco Núñez himself.232 However, the
same vessel also has further comparisons, apparently just as adherent, among the finds from
the necropolis of Motya, in this case with a chronology between the last quarter of the 8th
century BC and the first quarter of the 7th century BC.233 There are also comparisons with the

   218
       Bartoloni (2011), 71, fig. 1.
   219
       Bartoloni (2000a), 107, fig. 32, 87.
   220
       Botto (2012), fig. 7, a.
   221
       Bernardini (2008b), 537-596; Bernardini (2009), 19-69.
   222
       Bartoloni (2020a), 65, 70-72, figg. 5-6.
   223
       Núñez (2015), 238-39, fig. 3- a, 4, 3- b, 5.
   224
       Bartoloni (2017), 267, 276, 278-79, figg. 58, 68, 77.
   225
       Bartoloni (2017), 267, 279, figg. 75, 78.
   226
       Peserico (1998), 27-42; Peserico (1999), 125-35.
   227
       Bartoloni (1988d), 72-77; Bartoloni (1991), 9-15.
   228
       Bartoloni (1981b), 34; Bartoloni (1983b), 36; Delgado Hervás (2011), 9-48; Sáez Romero (2011), 49-
106 Niveau de Villedary y Mariñas (2011), 107-164.
   229
       Secci (2018), 356.
   230
       Nizzo (2007), 124.
   231
       Núñez Calvo (2013b), 53, 56, fig. 17, d.
   232
       Núñez Calvo (2013b), 55-56, fig. 18, b.
   233
       Vecchio (2015), 90, 151, tav. 18.1, 172-74; Tusa 2016, tavv. III, 3/e, IV, 4/a, VII, 6/b, XXVI, 28/a, XL,
46/a, LX, 70/a, LXX, 82/g, LXXIII, 8/b, LXXXII, 94/a, LXXXIII, 95/a, XCIV, 106/c, XCVII, 109/b, CXII,
126/c, CXXXIX, 163/c.


                                                      19
                                               Piero Bartoloni


necropolis of Byrsa, in Carthage, datable to the first quarter of the 7th century BC.234 As can
be imagined, the chronology of the finds depends on the variations they underwent over
time. In the case of jugs with an expanded rim, as mentioned above, the shapes of the neck
and belly are decisive for their dating. For the ten specimens of the Belvedere Tomb 1, their
relative chronology was elaborated on the basis of the previous parameters, which have been
known for a long time.235 Therefore the oldest jug, datable to the first quarter of the 6th
century BC, is in all probability N. 14 (Pl. XV), decorated with several groups of three lines
of black paint, as can be inferred from the surviving group of lines outlined on the upper part
of the shaped neck. Similar examples can be found in the necropolis of Sulky itself, 236 and in
those of Monte Sirai237 and Paniloriga.238 Next is jug N. 21 (Pl. XXI), which differs from the
previous one in the shape of its belly, which is slightly less tapered, and whose parallels are in
the same sites.239 Its decoration has two groups of four black lines applied to the belly,
separated by a pair of two black lines. Next is jug N. 37 (Pl. XXXVII), which is decidedly
similar but with a belly that is slightly more tapered downward. Once again, the decoration
is obtained with four groups of lines of black paint distributed on the belly at irregular
intervals. A close comparison can be made with a similar jug from tomb 9 PGM in Sulky.240
Jug N. 56 (Pl. LV) follows, lacking part of the handle. Both the lip and body are adorned with
groups of three lines traced in black paint. The shape of this vessel is undoubtedly similar to
the previous one, therefore the same comparisons can be made. With jug N. 30 (Pl. XXX) we
are now in the second half of the 6th century BC. There is nothing to add regarding the
decoration, which is similar to the previous ones. A corresponding comparison can be made
with jug N. 35 from the necropolis of Monte Sirai.241 With jugs N. 32, 29 and 60 we are now
at the end of the 6th century and close to the 5th century BC. The decorations do not differ
from the previous ones. Comparisons come from other hypogea of Sulky itself: among all,
those of tomb 2 AR, which are also arranged chronologically and illustrated from the oldest
to the most recent,242 and of tomb 12 AR.243 Further comparisons can also be found in Sulky:
in particular in tomb 10 AR,244 from which 13 vessels come, of a type very similar to the
aforementioned jugs N. 32, 29 and 60, all grouped chronologically with in the second half of
the 5th century BC, with the oldest and latest specimens identifiable respectively in N. 27245
and numbers 32 and 37.246 The work related to tomb 11 AR is of no use for possible valid
comparisons.247 As far as the later specimens of this type are concerned, however, a comparison
for our specimen N. 29 is with another jug from tomb 9 PGM,248 while vessel N. 23 is
   234
       Lancel (1982), 295, 297, 299-300, 343, 348, figg. 430-31, 438, 569-70.
   235
       Bartoloni (1983b), 44-45, fig. 1, a-f.
   236
       Bartoloni (1983b), 44, figg. 1, a.
   237
       Bartoloni (1983), 44, fig. 1, b; Bartoloni (2000a), figg. 30, 73, 32, 87, 36, 144, tavv. XIV, d, XVII, e,
XXVIII, c; Guirguis (2010a), 76-77, figg. 46-47.
   238
       Tore (2000), 337-38, 340, fig. 4, b.
   239
       Bartoloni (2000a), 107-108, fig. 26, 16, 32, 85, 35, 139, 39, 185, tav. XVII, e, XXVIII, e; Guirguis
(2010a), 75, 100-101, figg. 38-39, 143-44, 147-48; Pla Orquin (2021), corredo 259, 58-59, fig. 9.
   240
       Guirguis (2021), 225, 227, fig. 3, a.
   241
       Barreca (1964), 48, tav. XXXII, 35.
   242
       Bartoloni (1987), 62, fig. 4, a-c; tav. IX, a-c.
   243
       Tronchetti (2002), 155, tav. XII, 2-3.
   244
       Melchiorri (2007), 61-102.
   245
       Melchiorri (2007), 92-93, tav. XVIII, 27.
   246
       Melchiorri (2007), 94-95, tav. XVIII, 32, XIX, 37.
   247
       Melchiorri (2013), 1162-72, figg. 5, 7.
   248
       Guirguis (2021), 225, 227, fig. 3, b.


                                                      20
                          The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


comparable to the similar vessel N. 10 from tomb 3A,249 which, we recall, like the previous
one, is a Sulky burial. Vessel N. 10 (Pl. LXII), although apparently devoid of decoration, is
undoubtedly similar to the same type of jug found in tomb N. 324 of the necropolis of
Monte Sirai.250 The last jug with an expanded rim from the Belvedere 1 tomb has a shape
which is now clearly unkempt and very distant from the prototypes. It is a tired version of the
shape which can be compared to vessel N. 53 of tomb 11 of the necropolis of Monte Sirai.251
    A separate description must be reserved to the biconical jug N. 22 (Pl. XXII), since it is
clearly an unfinished vessel and was perhaps intended to represent and replace the jug with
an expanded rim, always associated with the biconical jug, otherwise called bifoil-mouthed
jug. In fact, our specimen was not completed with the partial closure of the foils of its wide
circular lip, which normally gave origin to the two characteristic foils of the mouth. We do
not know the reasons, maybe the craftsman intended to create a vessel that had the functions
of a jug with an expanded rim. In the Sulky area similar comparisons are not known, but
the type of jug from which our shape originates is known, and the sequence of the particular
shape can be reconstructed, with a prominence in the middle of the belly, from the simplest
exemplar, represented by a simple sharp corner,252 to the most complex one, also indicated by
a band in relief,253 as in our case.
    The so-called bifoil or biconical jugs follow, thus defined in the first case by virtue of the
mouth that is composed of a pourer and a further foil onto which the handle is grafted, and
in the second case in relation to the body of the jug, which in the later specimens is made of
two opposing cones. The shape derives from ritual jugs present in Phoenician burials since
the Iron Age IA,254 which constantly accompanied jugs with an expanded rim, to which
it is always associated in the funeral ritual. The shape was transferred to colonies in the
Mediterranean West at an early time, with no substantial differences in shape, but in most
cases losing the distinctive feature of the decoration, which in the original specimens showed
a series of three or four lines engraved between the shoulder and the belly.255 In western
specimens, these engraved lines are reminisced by groups of mostly black paint traced on
the same part of the body.256 Finally, it is necessary to point out that the use of painted lines
instead of engravings is a phenomenon that implies an archaic taste, since it involves vessels,
especially from Sardinia and Sicily, datable between the middle of the 7th century and the


   249
        Muscuso (2017), 331, fig. 2, 10.
   250
        Pla Orquin (2021), 56-57, figg. 5, A; 6, A.
    251
        Amadasi, Brancoli (1965), 99,114, tav. XXXVIII.
    252
        Guirguis (2021), 225, 227, fig. 2, f.
    253
        Bartoloni (1987), 62, 64, 69, fig. 4, d, tav. IX, d.
    254
        Vibert Chapman (1972), 87-88, 132-33, figg. 10, 171, 26, 139, 143-44, 259; Núñez (2004), 135-37,
141, 145, 150, 152-53, 156, 160-62, 165, 175, 181, 183, 189, figg. 50, 3-52, 3, 56, 3, 60, 2, 65, 3, 67, 3-68, 2,
72, 3, 75, 3-4-77, 3, 80, 2, 90, 2, 96, 3, 98, 2, 104, 3.
    255
        Lancel (1982), 267, 295-96, 302-303, 312, 315, 319, 321, 337, 344, 353, 355, figg, 340, 428-29, 444-
45, 489-90, 496-97, 496-97, 554-55. 589-90; Bernardini (2000), 33-34; Bartoloni (2014), 18-20, 50, fig. 7, tav,
VII; Bartoloni (2016b), 245-47, tav. II; Tusa 2016, tavv. I, b-II, b, VII, c-VIII, b, XV, c-XVI, b, XIX, a, XXI,
b, XXIII, b, XXV, a_XXVI, b, XXVIII, a, XL, b-XLII, b, XLVI, b, L, b, LII, b, LV, o, LVIII, b-LIX, b, LXI, b,
LXVIII, d, LXXIX, b, LXXXIII, b, LXXXV, a-LXXXVI, a, XCII, b, XCIV, b, XCVII, a, XCIC, b, CI, a-CII,
b, CIV, b- CV, a, CXII, b, CXV, b, CXVII, b, CXXIII, a, CXXVI, a, CXXX, d, CXLII, 4 ; Marzoli, Garcia
Teyssandier (2018), 205-207, figg. 179, c-180, c, 181, b.
    256
        Bartoloni (1996), figg. 18, 132, 29, 306, 34, 387; Bartoloni (2000a), fig. 25, 11, 29, 61, 30, 74, 36,
150, 37, 156, 38, 170, 39, 187, 189; Tusa (2016), tavv. XLVII, a, LXXVIII, b, LXXXIV, a, CXIV, c, CXXIC, a,
CXXXVIII, b; Spagnoli (2019), 26, 49-50, 95-96, figg. 3.10, tav, 2, 7.


                                                      21
                                               Piero Bartoloni


first decades of the following century, while the oldest jugs generally do not present traces of
paint decorations other than that of the entire surface, mostly red slip.
    As for the so-called bifoil-mouthed jugs from Monte Sirai, a chronological seriation has
recently been proposed by Rosana Pla Orquin, who includes in the same typology257 both
bifoil-mouthed and beaked spout jugs.258 It must be pointed out that the shapes of these
two types of vessels in the central Mediterranean area begin to separate and differentiate
themselves as early as the second half of the 8th century BC, then recombine towards the
end of the following century. Obviously, the chronological seriation proposed by Rosana
Pla Orquin concerns the jugs found in the settlement of Monte Sirai, belonging to the area
of south-western Sardinia, which, as mentioned above, is an area in its own right as to the
evolutionary aspects of pottery starting from the end of the 7th century BC.
    With regard to this type of jug found in our hypogeal tomb, we can record the presence
of ten specimens (Pls. XXIV, XXVI-XXVIII, XXXI, XXXIII, XL, LVIII, LX). The specimen
that can be considered the oldest among the examples of this type in the grave goods (Pl. LX),
has its mouth and upper part of the neck covered with red paint, according to a custom that
involves similar jugs since the second half of the 7th century BC.259 The handle, always double-
rod until the beginning of the V century BC, also refers to archaic and archaizing examples260
and is connected from the posterior foil of the mouth to the junction in relief between the
lowered shoulder and the piriform belly. The foot is indistinct and the bottom has a wave
section. The decoration is completed by a group of four lines of black paint, which replace
the original engravings, outlined immediately under the junction in relief. The chronology is
characteristic of the type and can be placed at the end of the first quarter of the 6th century
BC. The jug (Pl. XL) follows chronologically; it does not present substantial typological
variations, except for the lack of decoration in black paint that simulated the engraved lines
under the junction line. The jug (Pl. LVIII), on the other hand, can be dated to the second
quarter of the 6th century BC, characterised by its mouth and upper part of the neck with
traces of red paint and by its shoulder and lower part of the belly on which two groups of four
and two lines of black paint are traced, respectively. This specimen completes the series of jugs
with indistinct foot, a chronological peculiarity that brings us back to a period not later than
the second quarter of the 7th century BC. In the period around the mid-6th century BC a jug
appears, which presents an innovation invol6th ng the foot, no longer indistinct, but with a
hint of a distinct support, which from that moment on will be peculiar to this form. Jug N.
2 (Pl. II), in addition to being important from a typological point of view, is of particular
interest because it is the jug found inside an amphora (Pl. I). As mentioned, even if the
amphora in question had contained wine, we could have expected the presence of a dipper, a
vessel used to pour wine from the container into the cup, not of a bifoil-mouthed jug, a vessel
used to contain and pour the same beverage.261 During the second half of the 6th century
BC, the two jugs N. 23 and 41 follow (Pls. XXIII, XLI), the older one characterised262 by
the red paint that covers the entire upper part, from the mouth to the junction line between

   257
       Pla Orquin (2021), 56-57, fig. 7.
   258
       Whitaker (1921), 297, fig. 73; Bisi, (1977), 27-28, tav. V, l; Maass-Lindemann (1982), 192, tav. 28;
Spanò (2000), 316, 319, fig. 38; Bartoloni (2010a), 63, 81, figg. 52-53; Caltabiano (2014), 210, 212, fig. 2, 1.;
Tusa (2016), 81, tav. 10/c, 13/c, 26/a, 60/a, 93/b, 101/a, 156/a.
   259
       Bartoloni (1996a), 102, fig. 13, 79.
   260
       Bartoloni (2017), 268, 272-73, figg. 1-2, 4, 35-47, 59-60, 76, 79.
   261
       Botto (2014), 398-99.
   262
       Guirguis (2010a), 142-43, figg. 261, 267.


                                                      22
                           The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


the shoulder and the belly, while the later one is characterised by the red paint decoration of
the mouth and part of the neck and handle. Three groups of lines of black paint are traced
on the belly: the group occupying the central part of the belly consists of three lines, while
the peripheral groups have four lines each. In conclusion, the proposed chronology of the
second half of the 6th century BC fits well with that of the similar jug and remaining materials
placed in the niche of tomb 12 PGM, dated instead: “...nei primi decenni del V sec. a.C. ...”
while the imported Greek materials are considered: “...leggermente precedenti....”263 In the
same burial such chronology is confirmed by the concomitant presence of a carinated cup,
of an oil lamp with handle of a type well documented by Michele Guirguis,264 of a small
dipper again with a high handle and by the decoration with a band of red paint framed by
groups of lines of black paint of the domestic amphora with a figurative scene illustrated
on the shoulder.265 In the Belvedere Tomb 1, two specimens can be dated to the end of the
6th century (Pls. XXXI, XXXIII): both are still characterised by twin handles and by the
decoration with groups of lines of black paint on the belly. An unusual decorative scheme,
which, however, tends to disappear rapidly after the end of the 6th century BC, is constituted
by wavy lines which appear on the shoulder of the vessels listed. As far as the decorative
scheme of the wavy lines is concerned, it makes its appearance in the area of south-western
Sardinia towards the end of the 7th century BC, as illustrated by grave goods from the city
of Sulky266 and from the settlement of Monte Sirai.267 Further evidence comes from the
necropolis of Sulky,268 of Monte Sirai269 and, rarely, of Paniloriga,270 and of Cagliari,271 as
well as from private collections in the Sulcis area.272 The decorative scheme also recurs in the
repertoire of Motya, but from the first half of the 7th century BC,273 and the same can be seen
in the decorative repertoire of pottery from Carthage.274 The last two vessels (Pls. XXXIV,
XXXVII ) are placed chronologically in the first decades of the 5th century BC and, as can
be seen, their shape preserves very few features reminiscent of jugs of the oldest depositions.
Considering the published illustrations of the vessels of this burial, one can fully perceive
the evolution of the typology. The first vessel has definitively lost its black paint decoration,
which could have hardly totally vanished, and the other jug, clearly later, retains instead two
groups of lines of black paint traced on the belly, the upper one counting four and the lower
one counting three lines.
    The amphorae of the domestic type, which are present in a considerable number, include
those characterised by a carinated shoulder, which stand out (Pls. VII, XLII, LIV) and
somehow confirm the relative antiquity of the tomb in Via Belvedere. The type probably
   263
       Lancia (2021), 252, fig. 3.
   264
       Guirguis (2010b), 187-88, fig. 16.
   265
       Lancia (2021), 255, fig. 5.
   266
       Bartoloni (2009b), 71-72, fig. 1, tav. 1.
   267
       Esu (2000), 154, fig. 2.
   268
       Bernardini (2004), 273; Melchiorri (2007), 87, tav. XVI, 7, XVII, 21-22; Guirguis (2010a), 18; Guirguis
(2021), 224, 230, fig. 4, A.
   269
       Bartoloni (2000a), 111, 114-15, fig. 29, 63; Bartoloni (2000c), 21-22, fig. 2, a, tav. III, a; Botto, Salvadei
(2005), 130-31, fig. 41, c; Guirguis (2010a), 79-80, 94, 123, figg. 60-61, figg. 202-203.
   270
       Tore (2000), 342, fig. 6; Guirguis (2010a), 57-58, fig. 17.
   271
       Bartoloni (2016a), p 26, figg. 501-502.
   272
       Bartoloni (2017), figg. 47, 50, 71.
   273
       Spagnoli (2019), 20, 25, 29-31, 51, 53, fig. 3.3, 3.8, 3.15, 3.17-3.18, 4.2-4.3, tavv. 4, 2-3, 5, 1, 3, 10, 2,
   274
       Harden (1937), 64-65, fig. 3, j; Cintas (1970), tavv. XIX, 98-99, XXI, 112-XXII, 117, XXVI, 22,
25-XXVII, 31-32, 35, 40, XXIX, 61-XXX, 66, 71, 74, XXXI, 79-81, 86, 89-91, XXXIII, 96-99, XXXIV, 104,
107, XXXVI, 125.


                                                        23
                                             Piero Bartoloni


originates from transport amphorae, equipped with an indented area on the shoulder,275
which in turn derive from commercial types in use in the Near East.276 Two of the same
amphorae, as reported by Paolo Bernardini,277 were found among the goods of the archaic
necropolis of Monte Sirai,278 where they were dated one279 to the second half of the 6th century
BC, and the other one280 to the first quarter of the 6th century BC. In 2008, an incineration
tomb was found in the western area of Sulky itself,281 whose grave goods included a carinated
amphora, perhaps used as a container for ashes.282 In addition, other specimens both from the
inhumation necropolis283 and a private collection in Sant’Antioco284 are preserved, including
three more vessels of this type. In light of what has been proposed for the chronology of the
6th a Belvedere tomb under examination, it is deemed appropriate to re6th se the chronology
of the above-mentioned vessels and thus of both the Monte Sirai and Sulky burials illustrated
previously. Therefore, amphora N. 59 of the necropolis of Monte Sirai should be anticipated
by 25 years, so it can be dated between 580 and 575 BC, while the chronology of amphora
N. 99 from the same necropolis could date back to the last years of the 7th century BC. Thus,
in parallel, the carinated-shoulder amphora from the western necropolis of Sulky could also
have the same chronology. Therefore, considering both the shape and the decorative syntax
of the three carinated-shoulder amphorae from our tomb, for amphora N. 55 (Pl. LIV) a
chronology referable to the first years of the 6th century BC can be suggested, while for the
two similar vessels N. 5 and 43 (Pls. VI, XLII) a dating with in the following decade, i.e.,
between 580 and 570 BC, seems appropriate. As for the type, it should be remembered that
the amphora is present in Sulky since the 8th century BC. In fact, the most ancient attestation
is a decorated fragment found in the area of the so-called Cronicario, datable to the last
decades of the 8th century BC.285 As mentioned above, there is an abundance of further
evidence in the necropolis of Monte Sirai286 and Tharros.287 In Carthage there are instead
numerous attestations, coming both from a residential environment and a sacred or funerary
one. As for the first case, we can mention a container, entirely reconstructable, from the area
of the Decumanus.288 As for necropolises, for example, excavations in Junon289 brought to
light a richly decorated specimen, of nearly identical dimensions (27.5 cm) to those of the
container previously mentioned as coming from the Decumanus (28.5 cm), while, from the
one in Byrsa, on the other hand, at least four specimens are attested, datable to the early
7th century BC,290 accompanied by a container of similar but not identical shape.291 Also in
   275
        Ramon (1995), 274-78, fig. 108.
   276
        Bisi (1970), 31, 33, 52-53; Ciasca 1985, 323-27; Ramon (1995), 274-76; Bettles (2001), 187-78, fig.
4.1-4.2; Pedrazzi (2007), Tipo 5-1, 71-86.
    277
        †Bernardini (2021), 391.
    278
        Bartoloni (2000a), figg. 28, 59, fig. 22, 99.
    279
        Bartoloni (2000a), 135, tomb 20.
    280
        Bartoloni (2000a), 135, tomb 35.
    281
        Bartoloni (2017), 273, fig. 7.
    282
        Bartoloni (2009b), 71-80.
    283
        Bartoloni (1983b), 46, fig. 4, c.
    284
        Bartoloni (2017), 280, figg. 49-50; Muscuso (2014), 76, 90, SAB 274.
    285
        Bartoloni (1990b), 53-54, 79, fig. 12; Bernardini (1991a), 668-69, fig. 4, a.
    286
        Guirguis (2010a), 80-81, figg. 60-61.
    287
        Molina Fajardo (1984), 86, 100, fig. 14, j.
    288
        Vegas (1999), 154-55.
    289
        Fantar (1972), 22-23.
    290
        Lancel (1982), 277, 284, 289, 291, 294, 304, 306, 311, 316; figg. 383-84, 418-19, 456-57, 480-81.
    291
        Lancel (1982), 287, 289, figg. 401-402.


                                                    24
                         The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


Carthage, but in the tophet, among the urns published by Donald Harden292 included in the
first chronological phase, therefore all earlier than ours, a carinated-shoulder amphora was
found, accompanied by a stamnoid olla, while, in the second phase, an amphora that seems
to be close to the type found in Sulky came to light. As for the investigations carried out in the
tophet by Pierre Cintas, the situation seems to change radically, because the documented finds
include the entire chronological sequence of the type, from the 8th to the 6th century BC.293
Some exemplars need to be mentioned also as regards the Phoenician context of Motya,294
both from the necropolis and from the tophet. Finally, the specimen of probable Carthaginian
origin found on Rachgoun island295 is to be noted, which is known in the Phoenician area
along the coast of southern Iberia.296 In conclusion, the type of domestic amphora with
carinated shoulder, after its appearance in the central-western Mediterranean, seems to have
consolidated in several variants, including the one with a swollen shoulder,297 which would
deserve specific study.
    The analysis of the shapes continues with domestic amphorae with convex shoulders. This
type is very common and almost ubiquitous in burials in the Sulky area between the end of
the 7th and 4th centuries BC.298 As suggested by Sara Muscuso herself, the origin of the shape
is probably to be found in amphorae of Greek origin, such as the amphorae of the so-called
“SOS” type,299 in turn perhaps mediated in the Iberian environment through the so-called
“Cruz del Negro” type.300 This is an amphora which, as indicated by its own conventional
definition, seems to derive from the type first documented in a significant number in the
Tartessian necropolis of Cruz del Negro,301 in western Baetica. The problem of the origin of
amphorae of this type is still under scrutiny, since, while, as mentioned above, on the one
hand it can be considered a return origin, from the West to the East, as in the now clear case
of the caliciform vase,302 on the other hand one cannot exclude a derivation from oriental
models, which are rare,303 or from Greek models and, in particular, from the Attic amphorae
of the so-called “SOS” type.304 In any case, recent investigations in the area of the ancient
settlement of Sant’Antioco have brought to light a further fragment belonging to an amphora
of the above-mentioned Cruz del Negro type, which, in relation to its surface and paste, would
appear to be of Iberian origin.305 This event in itself is not extraordinary, given the presence
of vessels of the same origin and chronology, including another amphora and a cuenco, found
in the same setting and with a similar dating.306 The amphora in its Sulky aspect does not
   292
       Harden (1937), 71-72, fig. 4, h.
   293
       Cintas (1970), tavv. XIX, 97-100, XXXIII, 93, 96-102, XXXIV, 103-108.
   294
       Tusa (2016), 83, fig. 103/a, 163/a.
   295
       Vuillemot (1955), 7-62, tav. IV, 2.
   296
       Schubart, Niemeyer (1976), 122, 124, fig. 12, nn. 547, 557.
   297
       Bartoloni (2000c), 21-22, 26, fig. 2, a, Tav. III, c.
   298
       Muscuso (2008), 26-28, fig. e, VI-VIII; Guirguis (2010a), 76-77, figg- 43-44.
   299
       Johnston, Jones (1978), 103-41; Lucchese (2009), 77-84; Pratt (2015), 213-45.
   300
       Aranegui Gasco (1980), 99-115; Maier Allende (1992), 95-119; Kbiri Alaoui, López Pardo (1998), 5-25;
Martín Ruiz (1995), 121-122, figg. 106-107; Muscuso (2008), 27-28.
   301
       Aubet (1978), 267-287; Aranegui Gascó (1980), 99-115; Jiménez Barrientos (1990), 215-222; Maier Al-
lende (1992), 95-141; Kbiri Alaoui, López Pardo (1998), 9-15, figg. 2-4; Torres Ortiz (1999), 80-85; Rodríguez
Muñoz (2006), 93-108; Torres Ortiz (2008), 632-635.
   302
       Bartoloni (2003), 169-171; Bartoloni 2015, 82-85.
   303
       Shai, Maeir 2012, 335, 356-357, fig. 14.16, JG2.
   304
       Bartoloni (2012b), 83-84.
   305
       Bartoloni (2018), 21, 34, fig. 57.
   306
       Bartoloni (1990a), 47, 74, fig. 7, 125; Bartoloni (2008), 1602-1603.


                                                     25
                                              Piero Bartoloni


seem to have obtained much fortune outside Sardinia,307 but there are several examples on the
island and, in particular, in Sulky,308 in the necropolis of the settlement of Monte Sirai309 and
in Tharros,310 even with specimens that are almost identical both in size and decoration.311
The shape is well known and is well represented in the Phoenician and Punic world in every
phase of its evolutionary process between the last part of the 7th and the first years of the 4th
century BC.312 As mentioned, this type could derive from amphorae of mainly domestic use
of the so-called SOS class,313 produced in the Athens area in the 8th century BC and well
known to the Phoenician world of the East314 and West, for example in Carthage, in the
Iberian area and in Sardinia, in the centres of Sulky, Nora and Olbia,315 although Catherine
E. Pratt in her recent work does not seem to have taken this into account.316 However, as
is obvious, the origin of the type remains uncertain and considering that the cordon of the
neck on which the handles rest is considered a characterising element indicating similarity,
it is necessary to specify that this feature represents a cosmopolitan technical detail. As far
as this specific period is concerned, the Sulky amphora of a domestic type, maybe mediated
even by the Carthaginian repertory of the 8th century BC,317 fully confirms the chronology
between the last years of the 7th and the first years of the 4th century BC suggested above.318
This, of course, is part of an evolutionary process that is clearly e6th dent over time. The
specimens present in the hypogeum are eight, all apparently similar to each other, but with
formal differences that involve above all the rim and neck. In fact, at least two variants can
be recognized, differentiated on the basis of the diameter of the neck, which appears more or
less small. Amphorae N. 4, 6, 10 and 90 have a narrower mouth and neck (Pls. V, VII, XI,
LXXXVIII), while amphorae N. 11-13 and 91 have a larger mouth and neck diameter (Pls.
XII-XIV, LXXXIX). Unfortunately, we are unable to determine whether these particularities
represent a chronological discriminant, nor can the different decorations contribute to this
particular investigation, since the same decorative syntax appears on amphorae belonging
to different types. This similarity occurs, for example, on the body of the amphorae in Figs.
11 and 12, both decorated with archaic patterns. In fact, another indicative feature is that
the decorative syntax of the amphorae of this older type is very close to that of amphorae
with a carinated shoulder. The decorative scheme, characterized by a red varnish band
framed by two pairs of black lines, widely known also with variants,319 originated in the
Syro-Palestinian area, with its epicentre in southern Lebanon.320 In any case, the domestic
   307
       Docter (2018), 59-75.
   308
       Bartoloni (2012c), 78-79, fig. 2.
   309
       Botto, Salvadei (2005), 130-131, fig. 41, e; Guirguis (2010a), 76-77, 93, 125-126, figg. 43-44, 108-109,
209; Guirguis (2011), 7, 10, figg. 14, 23.
   310
       Acquaro (1980), 87, tav. XXXIII.
   311
       Bartoloni (2000a), 114-115.
   312
       Bartoloni (1983b), 46, fig. 4, a-b.
   313
       Sparkes, Talcott (1970), 187-193, fig. 12; Johnston, Jones (1978), 103-141; Pratt (2015), 213-245.
   314
       Chambon (1980), 173, tav. 44, 2, 128; Badre (1997), 86, 89, fig. 46, 2.
   315
       Vegas (1989), 216; Bartoloni (1990a), 41-42, tav. v, 1; De Rosa (2009), 75-76; Rendeli (2009), 7, 10,
16-17, 19; García Alfonso (2015), 141, 143-144, 146, 148, 151-152, fig. 8.
   316
       Pratt (2015), 238.
   317
       Harden (1937), 64-70, fig. 3; Cintas (1970), 353-356, tavv. XXXIII-XXXIV; Benichou-Safar (2004),
112-113, figg. 3-4.
   318
       Bartoloni (2000b), 103-113; Pisano (1996), 125-144.
   319
       Bartoloni (1983c), 210, 219, fig. 9, d.
   320
       Vibert Chapman (1972), 62-63, 82-83, 109-10fig. 1, 169, fig. 8, 43, fig. 20, 214; Lehmann (1996), n.
246/2, tav. 41, n. 291/2, tav. 47.


                                                     26
                          The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


amphora towards the end of the 7th century presents a peculiar type of decoration which
seems to definitively disappear in the first half of the 6th century BC in Sardinia321 and in the
central Mediterranean.322 In Sardinia this pattern is particularly widespread also associated
with other shapes323 and on the island it is mainly referred to the period mentioned.324 The
second type of decoration includes a scheme of the type called black-on-red, in which several
groups of three or four lines outlined in black paint under the rim and on the shoulder and
belly are applied on a red paint base spread over the entire surface of the vessel. There are a
few late examples among the amphorae belonging to the Cruz del Negro typology that are
decorated in a substantially similar manner.325 However, in this specific case, if it is not a
simple coincidence, this decorative scheme could represent a reminiscence of the decorative
syntax of SOS amphorae that is not too distant, even in terms of chronology.326 In any case,
this assumption could be invalidated by the observation that the decoration that might appear
close to SOS amphorae involves amphorae with convex shoulders of the later type, while the
decoration of the older type is quite different.327 In fact, in vessels of this type the decoration
appears predominantly with wavy lines, lines and bands outlined with bichromatic paint
on an achromatic background or treated with red paint. Such a scheme has already been
encountered several times on the island and, in particular, in Sulky,328 in the necropolis of the
settlement of Monte Sirai,329 and in Tharros,330 even with examples that are almost identical
both in terms of size and decoration.331 Finally, one must not forget the similar type of
decoration on the so-called bouteilles syriennes, found in Tell Keisan in a chronological setting
between the end of the 8th and the first years of the 7th century BC, decorated with groups
of several lines of black paint, but with no handles, thus objectively referred to a different
shape.332 In the end, the decorative scheme composed of groups of three or four lines of black
paint (Pls. XIV, LXXXIX) seems to be later than others. This situation could confirm that
the other different and already described decorative schemes are chronologically earlier and
that the Belvedere hypogeal tomb 1 is to be considered the oldest among similar ones in the
necropolis of Sulky. In fact, the domestic amphorae decorated with several groups of black
paint lines staggered along the body seem to be mainly related to the period after the end of
the 6th century BC, while those with red paint bands surrounded by two groups of two or
three black paint lines belong to an earlier time. In our hypogeum this type of amphorae, also
decorated in a simpler way, but in red paint, are in greater number, while those with the type
of decoration indicated as the later one are represented by only two specimens.


   321
        Bartoloni (2015), 130, fig. 157; Bartoloni (2016a), 57, fig. 285; Bartoloni (2017), 266-67, 269, 275,
278, figg. 7, 49-50, 71; Bartoloni (2019), 46-46, fig. 1, 2.
    322
        Cintas (1970), tav. XIX, 95, 98, tav. XXVII, 34, XXX, 69, XXXI, 81, 86, 88; Spagnoli (2019), 47-48,
54, figg. 3.40, 4.4a.
    323
        Bartoloni (2017), 268, 275, figg. 7, 49-50.
    324
        Orsingher (2013), 180; Bartoloni (2019), 47.
    325
        Martin Ruiz (2004), 99-101, fig. 235.
    326
        Johnston, Jones (1978), 104, tav. 17, a.
    327
        Bartoloni (2019), 43, 47, fig. 1, 2.
    328
        Bartoloni (2012c), 78-79, fig. 2.
    329
        Botto, Salvadei (2005), 130-131, fig. 41, e; Guirguis (2010a), 76-77, 93, 125-126, figg. 43-44, 108-109,
209; Guirguis (2011), 7, 10, figg. 14, 23.
    330
        Acquaro (1980), 87, tav. XXXIII.
    331
        Bartoloni (2000a), 114-115; Esu 2000, 151-61.
    332
        Chambon (1980), 159-60, 162-64, 167, tav. 36.


                                                      27
                                                Piero Bartoloni


    This is because among hypogeal tombs edited to date amphorae of the domestic type
appear with similar decorative patterns with the exception of six amphorae, two from tomb
3A, two from tomb 6 PGM, one from tomb 9 PGM and one from tomb 12 AR,333 but only
those with several groups of lines of black paint are present,334 thus clearly later.
    Beginning the description of the six transport amphorae, these appear to be of a type
quite common in the Sulky area. Our first amphora (Pl. I), is very similar to a transport
vessel found in a tomb of the Phoenician necropolis of Monte Sirai, connected to the first
half of the 6th century BC.335 The presence of six transport amphorae certainly does not mean
that the deceased buried in the chamber were that many, but that in the funeral ritual of the
time the physical presence of these vessels was foreseen, as they were a symbol considered
necessary, while, in the later period, the ritual did not recognize the need for this presence. A
hint of a possible similar ritual is in a rural monosome burial datable to the first half of the
6th century BC, consisting of a pit, in which, in addition to a domestic-type amphora, which
in all likelihood had the function of a cinerary container, there was a transport amphora336
very similar to our second specimen (Pl. III). Both the third and fourth transport vessels (Pls.
IV, IX), which are still widely documented especially in the area of southwestern Sardinia,
can be dated before the second half of the 6th century BC.337 The fift hand sixth vessels
(Pls. LVII, LXV) have a chronology similar to the second amphora, although probably just
slightly older, perhaps at the end of the first quarter of the 6th century BC. As already stated,
the amphorae contained animal bone remains in a purely symbolic amount, in order to
guarantee sustenance in the afterlife to the deceased owner of the vessel.338
    On the contrary, we must highlight the absence in our grave goods and in those of a
slightly later chronology339 of a container, the dipper,340 which instead is omnipresent in grave
goods dating back to the period from the second quarter of the 5th century to the whole 4th
century BC,341 before disappearing again from goods in hypogea of the following centuries.342
As is known, the dipper was a container used to take wine mixed with water inside the crater
and pour it into cups.343 This shows that in the analysis of ancient contexts, no matter which
culture or civilization they belong to, nothing can be taken for granted.344 In conclusion,
from the analysis of the reconstructable grave goods of the Punic necropolis of Sulky, the
concept of “standardization”345 of the goods themselves proves fundamentally wrong, since
in the course of time variables are constant, innumerable and not easy to codify, even if this
may sometimes seem the case to observers who we could certainly define in need of a more
in-depth analysis.
   333
        Tronchetti (2002), 163, tav. VI, 3; Bernardini (2008a), 651, 655, fig. 5, 3; Muscuso (2017), 332-33, fig.
4, 16, 37; Bernardini (2018), 103, fig. 6, b.
    334
        Taramelli (1908), 155-56, fig. 9; Puglisi (1942), 112-14, fig. 5; Amadasi, Brancoli (1965), 115, tav. XLI,
60; Bartoloni (1983b), 46, fig. 4, a-b; Bartoloni (1987), 62, 68, fig. 3, a-c, tav. VIII, a-c; Bernardini (1999),
135-45, tav. IV; Bernardini (2005a), 78, 80, fig. 19.
    335
        Bartoloni (1999), 195-99, figg. 1-3, tav. I, a.
    336
        Bartoloni (2012c), 75-81.
    337
        Bartoloni (1988b), 45-46, fig. 8, D2-D3.
    338
        †Bernardini (2021), 391-92.
    339
        Bartoloni (1987), 57-73.
    340
        Bartoloni (1983b), 43-44, fig. 1, h-j; Muscuso (2008), 23-24, fig. d, I-IV.
    341
        Melchiorri (2013), 1170, fig. 7.
    342
        Guirguis, Unali (2012), 2011-29; Muscuso, Pompianu (2012), 2031-59.
    343
        Bartoloni (2012d), 94-98.
    344
        Melchiorri (2013), 1171.
    345
        Melchiorri (2007), 66, 80-83.


                                                       28
                          The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


    The same opinion has been recently expressed in a short article on the funeral equipment
of a hypogeal tomb of our necropolis,346 in which: “... si lamenta per il V secolo l’assenza di
una seriazione tipologica precisa.”347 In order to fill this gap, it is ad6th sable to delve into the
study and reciprocal internal comparisons of the Sulky materials and carefully consult the
previous bibliography.
    Other non-fictile objects are also part of the grave goods and of the further evidence found
in the tomb. In the description of these finds the order of the inventory numbering will be
followed. The first of these is a silver rod with a circular section and tapered ends (Pl. XXV)
(Inv. MC 193253-MSA 10386), classified as an earring in the inventory, but as a finger ring
in the preliminary publication.348 It should be added that among the finds of the burial there
is a mount similar to a cartouche, characteristic of archaic Punic jewellery,349 defined as a
“decorative plaque” in the inventory (Inv. MC 193311- MSA 10444) and which, as also
suggested by Antonio Sechi,350 could have belonged to the same ring.
    Among the non-fictile finds the blue semi-transparent glass paste necklace N. 39 certainly
stands out (Pl. XXXIX), which has an almost identical parallel also from Sardinia.351 The
manufactured article from Sulky is defined as: “...braccialetto...” in a degree thesis of the
University of Pisa,352 but considering its dimensions, with a diameter of 8.1 centimetres,
it could also be an anklet. The place of production is not certain, while the type is widely
distributed, above all made of precious metals.353 It is certainly interesting to mention
Antonio Sechi’s idea, albeit lacking concrete evidence, of the possible presence in the past of
two animal protomes made of precious metal used as lugs, which went missing in ancient
times.354 Finally, two similar gold bracelets with button terminals come from a royal tomb in
Sidon.355
    N. 68 (Inv. MC 193295-MSA 10428) refers to a small alabaster vase of elongated shape
(Pl. LXVII), probably originally in its usual fusiform appearance,356 equipped with two
prismatic lug handles located immediately under the neck, of a type quite common in the
Archaic period.357 The edge has a cylindrical appearance,358 on an elongated body.359 Our
specimen appears visibly worn and strongly degraded, as has happened with most similar
finds in alabaster, since the purpose of these particular containers was the gradual release
of their perfumed contents.360 As is well known, alabaster, by its nature a soft chalky or
calcite stone, tends to dissolve over time until it disappears. In the area of the cities of
Phoenicia, in particular in Sidon, in necropolises between the 6TH and V centuries BC,

   346
        Lancia (2021), pp. 247-59.
   347
        Lancia (2021), 250.
    348
        Sechi (2006), 55.
    349
        Culican (1985), 134-35, tav. 12, d; Pisano (1987), 83, k. 19/16; Quillard (1987), tav. XVI, 268; Barto-
loni (2000c), 22, 27, tav. IV, a.
    350
        Sechi (2006), 54-55.
    351
        Uberti (1993), 105-106, tav. XVII, 119.
    352
        Sechi (2006).
    353
        Pisano (1987), 86-87, tav. 41, f. 20/20.
    354
        Sechi (2006), 53, 212, 260.
    355
        Hamdy Bey, Reinach (1892), 104-105, fig. 45.
    356
        Aubet (1971), 111-15, tav. I.
    357
        Karageorghis (1960), 550-52.
    358
        López-Grande (2016), 70-71, figg. 3a-3b.
    359
        Laflı, Buora (2020), 439-43, tavv. 1, 3-4.
    360
        López-Grande (2016), 67-88.


                                                     29
                                               Piero Bartoloni


alabastra represented a widely used find.361 Between the end of the VIII and throughout
the 7th century BC, alabaster containers became a status-symbol of eminent personages
who, especially in Carthage362 and Phoenician Iberia,363 put them in their grave goods. We
remember in particular the anthropoid sarcophagi of Cadiz364 and Soluntum365 with the
characters depicted on the lid holding an alabastron similar to ours. In Sardinia a piece of
evidence is provided by a specimen found in the necropolis of Tharros and preserved at the
British Museum.366
    It is worth mentioning a single gold necklace bead (Inv. MC 193296, MSA 10429),367
in the type with cordoned edges and knurled surface (Pl. LXVIII), known in the Phoeni-
cian environment of Sardinia,368 also made of silver.369 The surface is entirely treated with a
knurled decoration traced diagonally with respect to the through holes. The bead is made
of thin gold leaf, maybe originally stretched over a wooden core, at any rate of an organic
and deciduous nature. Seven similar necklace gold leaf beads (Pl. LXXXIII) belong to the
same type, decorated with a denser pattern compared to the previous bead.370 Next there is
a silver earring371, perhaps originally gold laminate, with an elongated elliptical hook, of the
type found also recently in Sardinia made of precious metal, whose pendant could be added
or removed at will.372 The type, shaped as an elongated leech, is widely distributed in the
western Phoenician world and well-known also in Sulky.373 It is worth mentioning some rod
fragments with a circular iron section, including two semicircles (Inv. MC 193298/9, MSA
10430/1), a complete circle with extensions and 14 rod fragments,374 evidently parts of cotter
pins intended for the assembly of the wooden coffin inside the tomb.375 A broken iron nail
with a round head (Inv. MC 193308, MSA 10441), also found in some Tharros tombs376 and
whose use does not seem e6th dent, ends the objects made of this type of metal. Inventory
numbers MC 193300 and MSA 10433 mark what remains of a possible necklace or brace-
let, originally made of four glass paste eye-like beads and a gold ring (Pl. LXXVIII), while
the currently missing beads, presumably made of organic material (wood, leather, etc.) have
obviously disappeared.377 It is necessary to mention two silver rings, one of which is broken
(Inv. MC 193300, MSA 10434) (Pl. LXXIII) and one with a leech-like body, lacking about

   361
        Torrey (1920), pp. 24-25.
   362
        Delattre (1896), 32, fig. 7; Delattre (1905), 129; Delattre (1907), 451-52, fig. 19; Lancel (1982), 322,
325, fig. 507.
   363
        Gamer-Wallert (1978), 21-24, 217, figg. 1, G30, G42, 121, B8; López Castro (2006), 74-88.
   364
        Chiera (1981), 211-16; Almagro-Gorbea, López Rosendo, Mederos Martín, Torres Ortiz (2010), 374,
378-79, fig. 23.
   365
        Tusa (1974), 48-49, tavv. 31-32; Moscati (1987), 80-81, tav. 31.
   366
        Barnett, Mendleson (1987), 172, tav. 96, 12/6.
   367
        Sechi (2006), p.58.
   368
        Barnett, Mendleson (1987), 224, fig. 40, 28/18a; Bartoloni (1990c), n. 101.
   369
        Bartoloni (1990c), n. 102.
   370
        Sechi (2006), 58.
   371
        Sechi (2006), 54.
   372
        Bartoloni (2000c), 22, tav. II, b.
   373
        Bernardini (1991b), 193-94, 202, tav. II, 1-2.
   374
        Sechi (2006), 63-64.
   375
        Delattre (1897), 25, fig. 46; Barnett, Mendleson (1987), tavv. 74, 78, 87, 95, 101, 112, 117, 119, 121,
123, 125, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138; Bartoloni (1987), 60.
   376
        Barnett, Mendleson (1987), 191, 213, 219, 233, 18/35-18/36, 24/51, 26/40-26/41, 31/30-31/31, tavv.
109, 121, 125, 134, 26/40-26/41.
   377
        Sechi (2006), 59.


                                                      30
                       The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


half of its rod (Inv. MC 193301, MSA 10435) (Pl. LXXIV). There are also 11 hemispherical
bone buttons (Inv. MC 193303, MSA 10436), ten of which are smooth with a hole on the
base and one with a hole between the round top and the base. These are probably buttons
that could have been covered with fabric. Some examples come from the necropolis of Thar-
ros, where it is possible to recognize both groups of beads of different sizes378 and groups of
similar beads, as well as the same composition with all round beads hollow at the back and
only one bead with a through hole.379 A completely oxidized silver ring (Pl. LXXVII) must
be also mentioned, as all the objects made of this type of metal found in the underground
chamber. Given its size, the ring (Inv. MC 193305, MSA 10438) could have been used as a
necklace bead or as part of a more complex and larger piece of jewellery.380
    A steatite scaraboid381 of an almost imperceptible elliptical shape which perhaps was meant
to be mounted, probably belonged to the ring with leech-shaped rod mentioned above382
with a tilting mount, characteristic of the type.383 On the mount, surrounded by a double
frame and resting on the exergue, the neb symbol, probably a lion crouching to the right384
rather than a sphinx385 because the tail is curved and turned forward, as is usual when lions
are represented. Along the perimeter there is a circular furrow, while the round top seems to
lack the engraved indications of the protorax, torax and elytra. As is known, the image of the
lion, like the sphinx, represented the pharaoh and expressed his devastating power. The figure
of the crouching lion386 is often accompanied by that of the solar disk positioned behind the
animal’s back,387 which, however, does not seem to appear in our case, although there was
enough space. The image of the crouching lion is not unknown in Sulky, since it also appears
on a scarab found in an enchytrismòs burial of the hypogeal necropolis.388
    The jewellery includes a rectangular gold plaque with a cur6th linear top and spiral hook
(Inv. MC 193304, MSA 10437) (Pl. LXXVI).389 The perimeter of the plaque is decorated
with a row of spheres, while the figurative field is surrounded by a continuous line in relief
and an additional row of spheres inside it. Inside the field and in the centre there is a lozenge
made of nine small spheres,390 on the long sides there are two triangles consisting of six
spheres each,391 while on the short sides there are two other triangles, again made of six small
spheres.392 The same granulation technique is used for two other pendants of circular shape
representing a solar disk superimposed on a crescent moon. Both the disc and the crescent are
surrounded by spheres. The hook of one pendant is tubular with two rings at the ends (Inv.
MC 193313, MSA 10446) (Pl. LXXXIV), while at the ends of the other hook there are two

   378
       Barnett, Mendleson (1987), 11/36-11/43, 19/52-19/67, 22/26-22/40, 23/30-23/44, 24/30-24/49,
25/31-25/37, 171, 195, 206, 209-10, 212-13, 226, tav. 95, 111, 117, 119, 121, 123.
   379
       Barnett, Mendleson (1987), 13/38-13/50, 27/33-27/42, 177-78, 222, tav. 99, 126.
   380
       Sechi (2006), 59.
   381
       Sechi (2006), 61.
   382
       Feghali Gorton (1996), 4.
   383
       Caneva, Delli Pizzi (2014), 496-97, figg. 1-2.
   384
       Matthiae Scandone (1975), 20, tav. I, 5.
   385
       Sechi (2006), 61.
   386
       Matthiae Scandone (1971), 13-14, fig. 2, tav. II.
   387
       Delattre (1897a), 7, fig. 13, XIII; Masson (2010), 28, British Museum.
   388
       Bartoloni (2020), 10, 14-16, tav. V.
   389
       Sechi (2006), 56.
   390
       Pisano (1987), 87-88, tav. 42, c. 8/24.
   391
       Quillard (1987), 281.
   392
       Bartoloni (2010b), 66.


                                                  31
                                            Piero Bartoloni


small roses with six petals (Inv. MC 193309, MSA 10442) (Pl. LXXX).393 The two pendants
appear to have been subject to crushing. A similar specimen comes from the necropolis of
Tharros,394 while the Tharros specimen housed at the British Museum is double-sided and
not specular, since it is decorated on both faces, but with different decorations.395
    The semi-precious jewellery includes a necklace composed of 19 glass paste, steatite and
carnelian beads.396 The latter bead is cut in the shape of a barrel, while a blue glass paste bead
is cylindrical. The four steatite beads, visibly worn, are subcylindrical, while the 13 spherical
glass paste elements are of a traditional type, polychrome and decorated with eyespots.397 It
is worth mentioning an ivory amulet shaped as an outstretched right hand, with the back in
bas-relief, the flat palm and no anatomical indications. In addition, the state of preservation is
precarious because the amulet is missing the fingertips and the lower part of the palm.398 It is
an amulet of notable interest also in relation to its chronology, which, in the later exemplars,
therefore probably like ours, is to be placed not later than the early 6th century BC. The type
draws inspiration from Egyptian models, defined “open hand”.399 The type, generally not
very frequent, is present in Sardinia, especially in the Tharros area.400 A specimen was found
in the necropolis of Utica,401 located on the NorthAfrican coast in front of Sardinia, not by
chance as for the ivory pyxes.
    The series of athyrimata from the Belvedere Tomb 1 is in fact ended by a funerary pyxis
with five fragments, which allow us to reconstruct the type to which it belongs (Pl. XC). It is
undoubtedly a type well known in Sardinia between the second half of the 7th century BC and
the first half of the following century, found in the necropolis of Bithia.402 The shape consists
of two almost twin halves which, being sections of elephant tusks, are slightly elliptical bases /
tops, with a convex rim onto which two parts are grafted, with steps up to the cylinder of the
body, which in turn is grafted onto the other half of the pyxis. The most direct comparisons
can be made with objects included in the grave goods of three tombs of the necropolis of
Bithia403 and, as mentioned, with a pyxis found in a monosome burial of Utica.404 The fact
that the trade of both elephant and hippopotamus ivory405 with the Near East406 and between
the two shores of the western Mediterranean407 was more than flourishing, is confirmed by
the finds; there is also documentation referred to Sardinia.408
    The analysis of Tomb 1 PGM of Via Belvedere, located at the eastern edge of the area of
the great hypogeal necropolis of Sulky and currently in the heart of Sant’Antioco (Fig. 1), is
   393
        Sechi (2006), 57.
   394
        Fariselli, Fiorentino, Morigi, Bettuzzi, Rimondi, Doppiu (2021), 51-52, 69-70, figg. 16, b, 36-38.
    395
        Pisano (1987), 89, tav. 42, g, 6/29.
    396
        Sechi (2006), 60.
    397
        Bartoloni (1990), n. 273.
    398
        Sechi (2006), 61.
    399
        Petrie (1914), 9, 11, tav. I, 11, a-g.
    400
        Barnett, Mendleson (1987), 209, tav. 119, 23/23; Acquaro (1997), 16, 44, tav. III, 64-66.
    401
        Cintas (1954), 113, 116, fig. 42.
    402
        Bartoloni (1996a), 71, fig. 33, 359, tav. XXVI, 4-5.
    403
        Acquaro, Bartoloni (1986), 196-97, 199-201, 220, 223, figg. 19, 22, tavv. III, a-d.
    404
        Cintas (1954), fig. 51; Colozier (1954), 159.
    405
        Banergee, Schuhmacher, Cardoso, López Castro, Ferjaoui, Mederos Martín, Martinez Hanmüller, Ben
Jerbania (2017), 80-105.
    406
        Ben-Shlomo, Dothan (2006), 1-38.
    407
        Mederos Martín (2004), 263-81; Martín Ruiz (2010), 127-38; Marzoli, Banergee, Marcos Sánchez San-
chez-Moreno, Galindo San José (2016), 88-137.
    408
        Lo Schiavo, D’Oriano (2018), 119-48.


                                                   32
                           The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


thus concluded. This analysis was able to prove that the hypogeum, in accordance with its
topographical position, is one of the most ancient of its type, coinciding with the area of the
oldest incineration necropolis. With regard to the funerary objects which accompanied the
deceased in the chamber (Fig. 2), it is undoubtedly worth highlighting the significant presence
of oil lamps of the type with a lower support, while, conversely, the total absence of drinking
vessels is to be noted. These peculiarities undoubtedly concern the modalities of the funeral
rite, which also in this case is chronologically variable, in close relation to the sequence of the
depositions. As far as the chronology of the tomb is concerned, according to what is suggested
by the evolutionary process of the single ceramic shapes, while the initial date can be placed
in the central part of the first quarter of the 6th century BC, i.e. around 580, its abandonment
is to be placed immediately after the beginning of the following century.



References

AA.VV. (1975), Contribution à l’étude de la société et de la colonisation eubéennes, Napoli.
AA.VV. (1978), Eubei in Occidente, in Atti del convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto.
AA.VV. (2000), MÁXH. La battaglia del Mare Sardonio. Studi e ricerche, Cagliari, Oristano.
AA.VV. (1982), Nouvelle contribution à l’étude de la société et de la colonisation eubéennes, Napoli.
AA.VV. (2015), Piga G.- Guirguis M., Thompson T.J.U., Isidro A., Enzo S., Malgosa A., A case of se-
   mi-combusted pregnant female inthe Phoenician-Punic necropolis of Monte Sirai (Carbonia, Sardinia, Italy):
   HOMO, 2015, 1-15.
ACISFP 1 (1983) Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici (Roma, 5-10 novembre 1979), (=
  CSF, 16), Roma.
ACISFP 2 (1991) Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici (Roma, Roma, 9-14 novembre
  1987), (= CSF, 30), Roma.
ACISFP 4 (2000) Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y PúnicosCádiz, 2 al 6 de octubre de
  1995, Cadiz.
ACISFP 6 (2013) Actas do VI Congresso lnternacional de Estudos Fenícios e Púnicos, Lisboa, 25 de setembro a 1 de
  outubro de 2005, Lisboa.
ACISFP 7 (2019) [2007] Actes du 7th ème congrès international des études phéniciennes et puniques, Tunis.
ACISFP 8 (2018) Atti del VIII Congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici, Carbonia, Sant’Antioco, 21-26
  ottobre 2013 (= Folia Phoenicia, 2 ), Roma-Pisa.
ACISFP 9 (2020) Actas del IX Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos, Mérida, 22 y 26 de octubre
  de 2018, Mérida.
Acquaro, E. (1977) Amuleti egiziani ed egittizzanti del Museo Nazionale di Cagliari, Roma.
Acquaro E. (1980) Tharros, VI. Lo scavo del 1979, RStFen, 8, 79-87.
Acquaro E., Bartoloni P. (1986), Interazioni fenicie nel Mediterraneo centrale: l’Africa e la Sardegna: Gli inter-
   scambi culturali e socio-economici fra l’Africa Settentrionale e l’Europa Mediterranea, Atti del Congresso Interna-
   zionale di Amalfi, 5-8 dicembre 1983, Napoli, 191-228.
Acquaro E., Conti O. (1998) = Acquaro, Conti, Cuccureddus di Villasimius: note a seguire: Ocnus, 6 (1998),
   7-13.
AfRo 17 (2008), L’Africa romana, Atti del XVII convegno di studio (Sevilla, 14-17 dicembre 2006), Roma.
AfRo 18 (2010), L’Africa romana, Atti del XVIII convegno di studio (Olbia, 11-14 dicembre 2008), Roma.



                                                         33
                                                 Piero Bartoloni


AfRo 19 (2012), L’Africa romana. Atti del XIX convegno di studio (Sassari, 16-19 dicembre 2010), Roma.
Alexandre Y., Stern E.J. (2001), Phoenician Cremation Burials at Tel Bira, ‘Atiqot, 42, 183-95.
Almagro Gorbea M. (2015), Los kýlikes del “Pithos Painter” de Mengíbar y Reading y el comercio atlántico en
   la Edad del Hierro, in Navigare necesse est. Estudios en homenaje a José María Luzón Nogué, Madrid, 417-33.
Almagro-Gorbea M., López Rosendo M.ª E., Mederos Martín A., Torres Ortiz M. (2010), Los sarcófagos antro-
   poides de la necrópolis de Cádiz, Mainake, 32, 357-94.
Almagro-Gorbea M., Lorrio Alvarado A. J., Torres Ortiz M. (2021), Los Focenses y la crisis de c. 500 a. c. en el
   Sureste: De La Fonteta y Peña Negra a La Alcudia de Elche, Lucentum, 40, 1-48.
Amadasi M. G., Brancoli I. (1965), La necropoli, in: Monte Sirai – II, Roma, 95-121.
Amiran R. (1969), Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, Jerusalem.
Amyx D. A., Lawrence P. (1975), Archaic Corinthian Pottery and the Anaploga Well (= Corinth, 7, 2), Princeton
  (NJ).
Aranegui Gasco C. (1980), Contribucion al estudio de las urnas de tipo Cruz del Negro, Saguntum, 15, 99-115.
Aubet M. E. (1971), Los hallazgos punicos de Osuna, Pyrenae, 7, 111-28.
Aubet M. E. (2012), La nécropole phénicienne de Tyr AI-Bass: idéologie et société d’ après les données
   archéologiques: L’Histoire de,Tyr au témoignage de l’archéologie, in Actes du Séminaire International, Tyr
   2011, BAAL 8 hs, 45-53.
Aubet M. E. (2013), Cremation and social memory in Iron Age Phoenicia: Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies
   in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella, Munster, 77-87.
Aubet M. E., Núñez F. J., Trellisó L. (2004), La necrópolis fenicia de Tiro-Al Bass en el contexto funerario
   fenicio oriental, HuAr, 20, 41-62.
Badre L. (1997), Bey 003, Preliminary Report. Excavation of the American University of Beirut Museum,
   BAAL, 2, 6-94.
Balzano G. (1999), Ceramica fenicia di Monte Sirai. Le forme aperte del vano C 33, RStFen, 27, suppl., 7-155.
Banergee A., Schuhmacher T. X., Cardoso J. L., López Castro J. L., Ferjaoui A., Mederos Martín A., Martinez
   Hanmüller V., Ben Jerbania I., (2017), Marfil de Hipopótamo procedente de stratos fenicios arcaicos en
   Utica (Tunez), MM, 58, 80-105.
Barnett R.D., Mendleson C. (1987), Tharros. A Catalogue of Material in the British Museum from Phoenician and
   Other Tombs at Tharros, Sardinia, London, 126-257.
Barreca F. (1964), Gli scavi, in Monte Sirai, I. Rapporto preliminare della Missione archeologica dell’Università di
   Roma e della Soprintendenza alle Antichità di Cagliari, Roma, 11-63.
Bartoloni P. (1981a), Contributo alla cronologia delle necropoli fenicie e puniche di Sardegna, RStFen, 9 (1981),
   suppl., 13-31.
Bartoloni P. (1981b), La necropoli di Nora (= CSF, 12), Roma, 11-104.
Bartoloni P. (1982), La necropoli (campagna 1981) in RStFen, 10, 291-95.
Bartoloni P. (1983a), La ceramica fenicia di Bithia: tipologia e diffusione areale: ACISFP 1, 491-500.
Bartoloni P. (1983b), Studi sulla ceramica fenicia e punica di Sardegna (= CSF, 15), Roma.
Bartoloni P. (1983c), La necropoli (campagna 1982), RStFen, 11, 205-21.
Bartoloni P. (1986), Orizzonti commerciali sulcitani tra l’VIII e il VII sec. a.C., RANL, 219-26.
Bartoloni P. (1987), La tomba 2 AR della necropoli di Sulcis, RStFen, 15, 57-73.
Bartoloni P. (1988a), Anfore fenicie e puniche da Sulcis, RStFen, 16, 91-110.
Bartoloni P. (1988b), Le anfore fenicie e puniche di Sardegna (= StPu, 4), Roma.



                                                        34
                           The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


Bartoloni P. (1988c), L’esercito la marina e la guerra, in I Fenici, Milano, 132-38.
Bartoloni P. (1988d = Id., Le navi e la navigazione, in I Fenici, Milano, 72-77.
Bartoloni P. (1989a), Sulcis, Roma 1989.
Bartoloni P. (1989b), La ceramica fenicia: Cuccureddus, RANL, 42, 237-44.
Bartoloni P. (1990a), S. Antioco: area del Cronicario (campagne di scavo 1983-86). I recipienti chiusi d’uso
   domestico e com­merciale, RStFen, 18, 37-80.
Bartoloni P. (1990b), Aspetti precoloniali della colonizzazione fenicia in Occidente, RStFen, 18, 157-67.
Bartoloni P. (1990c), Introduzione al catalogo, in I gioielli di Tharros. Gli ori dei Fenici, Oristano 1990.
Bartoloni P. (1991), Le più antiche rotte del Mediterraneo, in Civiltà del Mediterraneo, 2, 9-15.
Bartoloni P. (1992), Lucerne arcaiche da Sulcis: Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea. Studies
   in Sardinian Archaeology Presented to Miriam S. Balmuth(= Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology, 3),
   Sheffield, 419-423.
Bartoloni P. (1996a), La necropoli di Bitia, I (= CSF, 38), Roma.
Bartoloni P. (1996b), Olbia e la politica cartaginese nel IV secolo a.C., in Da Olbia ad Olbia. 2.500 anni di storia
   di una città mediterranea, Sassari, 165-75.
Bartoloni P. (1999), La tomba 95 della necropoli fenicia di Monte Sirai, RStFen, 27, 193-204.
Bartoloni P. (2000a), La necropoli di Monte Sirai – I (= CSF, 41), Roma.
Bartoloni P. (2000b), La necropoli di Tuvixeddu: tipolo­gia e cronologia della ceramica, RStFen, 28, 79-122.
Bartoloni P. (2000c), La tomba 88 della necropoli fenicia di Monte Sirai, in La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna.
   dati, problematiche, confronti: Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano, Sant’Antioco, 19-21 settembre
   1997, Roma, 17-27.
Bartoloni P. (2000d), Cuccureddus di Villasimius: appunti di microstoria, RStFen, 28, 125-28.
Bartoloni P. (2003), Un vaso caliciforme da Bitia, RStFen, 31, 169-171.
Bartoloni P. (2004), Nuove testimonianze dalla necropoli fenicia di Sulky, RStFen, 32, 87-91.
Bartoloni P. (2008), Nuovi dati sulla cronologia di Sulky, AfRo 17, 1595-1606.
Bartoloni P. (2009a), I Fenici e i Cartaginesi in Sardegna, Sassari 2009.
Bartoloni P. (2009b), Testimonianze dalla necropoli fenicia di Sulky, SCEBA, 7 (2009), 71-80.
Bartoloni P. (2010a), Antonella Spanò e gli studi sulla ceramica fenicia di Sicilia, in Atti della Giornata di Studi
   in onore di Antonella Spanò: Palermo, 30 maggio 2008, Palermo, 55-85.
Bartoloni P. (2010b), L’oro dei Fenici. I gioielli di Sulky, in SardegnaNewsMagazine, 7, 62-73.
Bartoloni P. (2011), Una brocca fenicia da Sulky, SCEBA, 9, 71-73.
Bartoloni P. (2012a), La Sardegna e il vino nell’VIII secolo a.C., in Summer School di Archeologia fenicio-punica.
   Atti 2011, Sassari, 8-19.
Bartoloni P. (2012b), I Fenici a Rachgoun, SCEBA, 10, 67-91.
Bartoloni P. (2012c), Due anfore fenicie dalla periferia di Sulky, RStFen, 40, 75-81.
Bartoloni P. (2012d), Un cratere fenicio da Sulky, SCEBA, 10, 94-98.
Bartoloni P. (2013), Le necropoli fenicie di Sulky, SCEBA, 11, 29-74.
Bartoloni P. (2014), Ceramica fenicia in Sardegna: la Collezione Biggio, SCEBA, 12, 9-59.
Bartoloni P. (2015) Ceramica fenicia di Sardegna: la Collezione Pischedda, SCEBA, 13, 67-142.
Bartoloni P. (2016a), La ceramica fenicia e punica di Sardegna: la necropoli di Tuvixeddu, SCEBA, 14, 9-81.



                                                        35
                                                 Piero Bartoloni


Bartoloni P. (2016b), Una brocca fenicia e la cronologia di Sulky, in “lo mio maestro e ’l mio autore” Studi in onore
   di Sandro Filippo Bondì (= RStFen, 44, 241-52.
Bartoloni P. (2017), Ceramica fenicia di Sardegna: le necropoli di Sulky, FoPho, 1, 266-81.
Bartoloni P. (2018), Ceramica fenicia di Sardegna: inter­vento nell’abitato arcaico di Sulky, SCEBA, 16, 9-36.
Bartoloni P. (2019), Ceramica fenicia e punica di Sardegna: la collezione Giacomina di Sant’Antioco, FoPho,
   3, 41-65.
Bartoloni P. (2020a), 8th century BC Phoenician Pottery from Sulky (Sardinia), FoPho, 4, 65-84.
Bartoloni P. (2020b), Aegyptiaca a Sulky, SCEBA, 18, 8-20.
Bartoloni P., Bondì S. F., Moscati S. (1997), La penetrazione fenicia e punica in Sardegna: MANL, 9, 9 (1997),
   1-140.
Ben Jerbania I. (2008), Les Lampes phénico-puniques dans la Méditerranée occidentale du VII s. au début du
   IVe s. av. J.-C., REPPAL, 14, 15-45.
Bénichou-Safar H. (2004), Le tophet de Salammbô à Carthage. Essai de reconstitution (= CEFR, 342), Roma.
Ben-Shlomo D., Dothan T. (2006), Ivories from Philistia: Filling the Iron Age I Gap, IEJ, 56, 1-38.
Bernardini P. (1988), S. Antioco: area del Cronicario (Campagne di scavo 1983-86): L’insediamento fenicio,
   RStFen, 16, 75-89.
Bernardini P. (1990), S. Antioco: area del Cronicario (Campagne di scavo 1983-86): La ceramica fenicia: le
   forme aperte, RStFen, 18, 81-99.
Bernardini P. (1991a), Un insediamento fenicio a Sulci nella seconda metà dell’VIII sec. a.C., ACISFP II, Roma,
   663-73.
Bernardini P. (1991b), I gioielli di Sulcis, QuadCagliari, 8, 191-205.
Bernardini P. (1999), Sistemazione dei feretri e dei corredi nelle tombe puniche: tre esempi da Sulcis, RStFen
   27, 133-46.
Bernardini P. (2000), I Fenici nel Sulcis: la necropoli di San Giorgio di Portoscuso e l’insediamento del Cro-
   nicario di Sant’Antioco, in La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche, confronti. Atti del Primo
   Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano, Sant’Antioco, 19-21 settembre 1997, Roma, 29-61.
Bernardini P. (2003), I roghi del passaggio, le camere del silenzio: aspetti del rituale funerario nella Sardegna
   fenicia e punica, Quaderni del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Cagliari 1, Cagliari, 257-291.
Bernardini P. (2004), I roghi del passaggio, le camere del silenzio: aspetti rituali e ideologici del mondo funerario
   fenicio e punico di Sardegna, in El mundo funerario. Actas del III Seminario Internacional sobre Temas Fenicios
   (Guardamar del Segura, 3-5 mayo 2002), Alicante, 131-169.
Bernardini P. (2005a) Recenti scoperte nella necropoli punica di Sulcis, RStFen, 33, 63-80.
Bernardini P. (2005b), Bere vino in Sardegna: il vino dei Fenici, il vino dei Greci, in Greci, Fenici, Romani: Inte-
   razioni culturali nel Mediterraneo antico: Atti delle Giornate di Studio (Viterbo, 28-29 maggio 2004), Viterbo,
   1-15.
Bernardini P. (2006), La regione del Sulcis in età fenicia, SCEBA, 4, 109-40.
Bernardini P. (2007a), Recenti ricerche nella necropoli punica di Sulky, in Ricerca e confronti 2006. Giornate di
   studio di archeologia e storia dell’arte, Cagliari 2007, 151-59.
Bernardini P. (2007b), Memorie d’Egitto. Un sepolcro punico da Sulky, in Etruschi, Greci, Fenici e Cartaginesi
   nel Mediterraneo centrale. Atti del XIV Convegno Internazionale di Studi sulla Storia e l’Archeologia dell’Etruria
   (AnnFaina 14), Roma, 138-160.
Bernardini P. (2008a), La morte consacrata. Spazi, rituali e ideologia nella necropoli e nel tofet di Sulky fenicia
   e punica, in: Saturnia Tellus. Definizioni dello spazio consacrato in ambiente etrusco, italico, fenicio-punico,
   iberico e celtico, Atti del Congresso Internazionale (Roma, 10-12 novembre 2004), Roma, 639-658.



                                                        36
                           The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


Bernardini P. (2008b), Sardinia: the chronology of the Phoenician and Punic presence from the ninth to fifth
   centuries BC, in Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology (AncNearEastSt supplement 28),
   Leuven-Paris-Dudley, Ma., 537-596.
Bernardini P. (2009), Dati di cronologia sulla presenza fenicia e punica in Sardegna (IX-V sec. a.C.), SCEBA,
   7, 19-69.
Bernardini P. (2010), Aspetti dell’artigianato funerario punico di Sulky. Nuove evidenze, AfRo 18, 1257-1266.
Bernardini P. (2017), Oltre il sacrificio. Travestimenti e maschere, danze e musiche nei tofet di Mozia e di Sulci,
   in Dialogando. Studi in onore di Mario Torelli, Pisa, 31-37.
Bernardini P. (2018), Aspetti sociali, organizzativi e ideologici nelle necropoli puniche: le tombe a camera di
   Sulky, RStFen, 46, 97-116.
Bernardini P. (2019), Sepolcri a camera dalla necropoli punica di Sant’Antioco, ACSFP 7, Tunis, 1303-24.
†Bernardini P. (2021), Aspetti del v secolo nella necropoli punica di Sant’Antioco, in Il Mediterraneo Occidentale
   dalla fase fenicia all’egemonia cartaginese Dinamiche insediative, forme rituali e cultura materiale nel V secolo
   a.C., Roma, 389-401.
Bettles E. A. (2001), Phoenician amphorae of the Persian period (539-332 BC), in Studies in provenance, econo-
   mic complexity and control, London, Ann Arbor (MI).
Bisi A. M. (1970), La ceramica punica. Aspetti e problemi, Napoli.
Bisi A. M. (1977), La collezione di vasi cartaginesi del Museo di Bruxelles, RStFen, 5, 27-28.
Bondì S. F. (1997a), Lo stato metropolitano di Cartagine: La penetrazione fenicia e punica in Sardegna. Trent’anni
   dopo, MAL 9, 1 (1997), 63-66.
Bondì (1997b) = Id., La politica cartaginese nel Mediterraneo: La penetrazione fenicia e punica in Sardegna.
   Trent’anni dopo, MANL 9, 9, 67-69.
Botto M. (2012), Alcune considerazioni sull’insediamento fenicio e punico di Pani Loriga, RStFen, 40, 267-304.
Botto M. (2014), Le oinochoai di tipo “fenicio-cipriota”. Considerazioni sulla diffusione di una forma vascolare
   fra Oriente e Occidente mediterraneo, CIPOA, 2, 393-418.
Botto M. (2017), Le armi, in La Sardegna fenicia e punica. Storia e materiali, Nuoro, 498-504.
Botto M., Salvadei L. (2005), Indagini alla necropoli arcaica di Monte Sirai. Relazione preliminare sulla campa-
   gna di scavi del 2002, RStFen, 33, 81-167.
Buonopane A. (2015), I cereali nel mondo romano. Le fonti letterarie: La civiltà del pane. Storia, tecniche e simboli
   dal Mediterraneo all’Atlantico, Milano 2015.
Caltabiano A. (2014), La ceramica fenicia e punica dalle necropoli di Cartagine conservata presso i Musées
   Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire di Bruxelles: un aggiornamento in memoria di Anna Maria Bisi, RStFen, 42,
   205-35.
Campanella L. (2008), Il cibo nel mondo fenicio e punico d’occidente Un’indagine sulle abitudini alimentari attra-
  verso 1’analisi dì un deposito urbano di Sulky in Sardegna, Pisa, Roma 2008.
Caneva S. G., A. Delli Pizzi (2014), Classical and Hellenistic statuettes of the so-called “Temple Boys”: A
   religious and social reappraisal, in La presenza dei bambini nelle religioni del Mediterraneo antico, Roma,
   495-521.
Chambon A. (1980), Le niveau 5, Tell Keisan (1971-1976). Une cité phénicienne en Galilée, Paris, 157-79.
Chiera G. (1981), Su un nuovo sarcofago antropoide scoperto a Cadice, RStFen, 9, 211-16.
Ciafaloni D. (1987), La ceramica, in La collezione Torno: materiali fenicio-punici (StPu, 1), Roma, 67-94.
Ciasca A. (1985), A proposito di anfore fenicie, in Studi di paletnologia in onore. di Salvatore M. Puglisi, Roma,
   323-27.
Ciasca A. (2000), Imitazioni di forme esterne nella ceramica di Malta, ACISFP 4, 1287-96.


                                                        37
                                                   Piero Bartoloni


Cintas P. (1954), Cintas, Nouvelles recherches à Utique, Karthago, 5, 89-154.
Cintas P. (1970), Manuel d’archéologie punique, I, Paris.
Cisci S., Martorelli R. (2016), Sulci in età tardoantica e bizantina, RPARA, 88, 277-331.
Colozier E. (1954), Nouvelles fouilles à Utique, Karthago, 5, 156-61.
Coltelloni-Trannoy M. (2011), Les communautés grecques dans les cités africaines: les cas de Carthage, Cirta,
   Thuburnica, RÉG, 124, 549-571.
Culican W. (1972), Phoenician Remains from Gibraltar, AJBA, 1, 110-145.
Culican W. (1985), West Phoenician Luxury Items: Some Critical Notes, HBZA, 12, 119-45.
D’Amato R. (2018), Panoplia di Oplita, in Carlo Alberto. Archeologo in Sardegna, Torino, 150-151.
Delattre A. L. (1886), Carthage. Nécropole punique de la colline de Saint-Louis, Lyon.
Delattre A. L. (1897a), La nécropole punique de Douïmes. Fouilles de 1893-1894, Cosmos, 36, 1-31.
Delattre A. L. (1897b), Un mois de fouilles dans la nécropole punique de Douimes à Carthage (Février 1895),
   RTu 169-77.
Delattre A. L. (1905), Carthage. La nécropole voisine de Sainte-Monique. Groupe de figurines, CRAIBL, 49,
   125-134.
Delattre A. L. (1907), Fouilles de Carthage. Douïmes et la colline dite de Junon, BAC, 1907, 433-53.
Delgado Hervás A. (2011), Delgado Hervás, La producción de cerámica fenicia en el extremo Occidente: hor-
   nos de alfar, talleres e industrias domésticas en los enclaves coloniales de la Andalucía mediterránea (siglos
   VIII-VI a.C.), in Yōserim: La producció alfarera fenicio-púnica en ccidente. XXV Jornadas de Arqueología feni-
   cio-púnica (Eivissa, 2010), Eivissa, 9-48.
Del Vais C. (2006), Per un recupero della necropoli meridionale di Tharros: alcune note sugli scavi ottocente-
   schi, in Beni culturali e antichità puniche. La necropoli meridionale di Tharros, La Spezia, 7-41.
Del Vais C. (2009), I materiali ceramici: Ricerche su contesti sommersi di età fenicio-punica nello Stagno di
   Santa Giusta (OR) (campagne 2005-2007), StSar, 34, 123-49.
Del Vais C. (2010), San Cesario sul Panaro – Siccomonte, in Bibliografia topografica della colonizzazione greca in
   Italia e nelle isole tirreniche, 18, Pisa – Roma – Napoli, 188-259.
Del Vais C. (2013), Le ceramiche fenicie e puniche della Collezione archeologica del Seminario Arcivescovile di
   Oristano, in Il Seminario Arcivescovile di Oristano. Studi e ricerche sul Seminario (1712-2012), II, Oristano,
   3-57.
Del Vais C., Fariselli A. C. (2012), La necropoli settentrionale di Tharros: nuovi scavi e prospettive di ricerca
   (campagna 2009): Ricerca e confronti 2010, in Giornate di studio di archeologia e storia dell’arte a 20 anni
   dall’istituzione del Dipartimento di Scienze Archeologiche e Storico-artistiche dell’Università degli Studi di Ca-
   gliari (Cagliari, 1-5 marzo 2010), ArcheoArte, 1, suppl., Cagliari, 261-82.
Deneauve J. (1969), Les lampes de Carthage, Paris.
De Rosa B. (2009), Le analisi archeometriche sulla ceramica greca ed etrusca, in Nora. Il foro romano. Storia
   di un’area urbana dall’età fenicia alla tarda antichità, 1997-2006, Vol. II. 1 I materiali preromani («Scavi di
   Nora», 1), Padova, 73-96.
Didu I. (2003), I Greci e la Sardegna, Cagliari.
D’Oriano R. (2000), Olbia e la Sardegna settentrionale, in MAXN. La battaglia del Mare Sardonio. Studi e ricer-
   che, Cagliari – Oristano, 205-16.
D’Oriano R. (2004a), Prime evidenze su Olbia arcaica, in Da Olbìa a Olbia. 2500 anni di storia di una città
   mediterranea, Sassari, 37-48.
D’Oriano R. (2004b), Kouroi di Sardegna, QuadCagliari, 21, 95-110.



                                                         38
                           The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


D’Oriano R. (2005), I Serdaioi da Olbia?, PdP, 40, 58-74.
D’Oriano R. (2008), Indigeni, Fenici e Greci a Olbia, in Meetings between cultures in the ancient Mediterranean:
   Roma 2008, International congress of classical archaeology, Roma, 9-25
D’Oriano R. (2010), Indigeni, Fenici e Greci a Olbia, in International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Roma
   22-26 Sept. 2008, BArch, 10-25.
D’Oriano R. (2011), Fenici e Indigeni: la brocca askoide bronzea del nuraghe Ruju di Buddusò, Erentzias, 1,
   171-81.
D’Oriano R. (2021), Olbia fenicia: nuove acquisizioni e riflessioni, in Cartagine, il Mediterraneo centro-occiden-
   tale e la Sardegna. Società, economia e cultura materiale tra Fenici e autoctoni. Studi in onore di Piero Bartoloni,
   II, 323-31.
D’Oriano R., Oggiano I. (2005), Iolao ecista di Olbia: le evidenze archeologiche tra VIII e VI secolo a.C., in Il
   Mediterraneo di Herakles. Atti del Convegno di studi, 26-28 marzo 2004, Sassari-Oristano, Roma, 169-199.
Esu S. (2000), La sintassi decorativa della ceramica fenicia di Monte Sirai, in La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna.
   Dati, problematiche, confronti. Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano, Sant’Antioco, 19-21 Settem-
   bre 1997, Roma, 151-61.
Fantar M. H. (1972), Une tombe punique sur le versant est de la colline dite de Junon, AntAfr 6, 17-27.
Fantar M. H. (1998), À propos de la présence des Grecs à Carthage, AntAfr, 34, 11-19.
Chiara Fariselli A., Fiorentino S., Morigi M. P., Bettuzzi M., Rimondi I., Doppiu K., Oro, argento e fuoco:
   nota multidisciplinare su una cremazione punica arcaica dalla necropoli meridionale di Tharros, Capo San
   Marco, Byrsa, 39/40, 31-86.
Feghali Gorton A. (1996), Egyptian and Egyptianizing Scarabs. A Tjpology of steatite, faience and paste scarabs
   from punic and other Mediterranean sites, Oxford 1996.
Fernandez J. (1992), Excavaciones en la necrópolis del Puig des Molins (Eivissa). Las campañas de D. Carlo Román
   Ferrer: 1921 1929, Eivissa.
Ferrari D. (1984), Per un recupero della necropoli punica di Tharros, OrAn, 23, 97-106.
Finocchi S. (2009), Le anfore fenicie e puniche, in Nora. Il foro romano. Storia di un’area urbana dall’età fenicia
   alla tarda antichità 1997-2006. Volume II.1, I materiali preromani, Padova, 373-467.
Galasso M. (2012), Un elmo corinzio dal relitto del Mercante, loc. Campese, Isola del Giglio (Grosseto), in
   Academia.edu, 1-2.
Gamer-Wallert I. (1978), Àgyptische und agyptisierende Funde von der Iberischen Halbinsel,Wiesbaden 1978.
Garbini G. (1966), I Fenici in Occidente, StEtr 34, 111-47.
García Alfonso E. (2015), Toscanos y la impor­tación en la costa malagueña durante el periodo fenicio arcaico,
   Mai­nake, 35, 137-156.
Gaudina E. (1995), Note di ceramica punica, RStFen, 23, suppl., 61-70.
Gaudina E. (1996), Note di ceramica punica, RStFen, 24, suppl., 53-59.
Giordano A. (2007), Vivere felici in Sardegna, Tesi di Laurea in Storia della Storiografia Antica, AA 2006-2007,
   Università di Bari, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Corso di Laurea in Scienze Storiche e Sociali.
Graells i Fabregat R. (2021), Greek Archaic Panoplies: An Archaeo-iconographic Diachronic Approach, in
   RGZM – TAGUNGEN Band 44, Ancient Weapons. New Research Perspectives on Weapons and Warfare. Pro-
   ceedings of the International Conference, Mainz, September 20th- 21st 2019, Mainz, 161-89.
Gras M. (1985), Trafics tyrrhéniens archaïques, Roma 1985.
Gras M. (2000a), I Greci e la periferia africana in età arcaica, Hesperia, 10, 39-48.
Gras M. (2000b), La battaglia del Mare Sardonio. In ricordo di Gianni Tore, in MAXH. La battaglia del Mare
   Sardonio. Studi e ricerche, Cagliari-Oristano 2000, 37-46.


                                                         39
                                                 Piero Bartoloni


Guerrero Ayuso V. M. (2010), ¿Foceos en el comercio tardoarcaico al norte de Baleares?, Mayurqa, 33, 131-160.
Guirguis M. (2005), Storia degli studi e degli scavi a Sulky e a Monte Sirai, RStFen, 33, 13-29.
Guirguis M. (2010a), Necropoli fenicia e punica di Monte Sirai. Indagini archeologiche 2005-2007, Ortacesus.
Guirguis M. (2010b), Il repertorio ceramico fenicio della Sardegna: differenziazioni regionali e specificità evo-
   lutive, in Motya and the Phoenician Ceramic Repertoire between the Levant and the West 9th- 6th century BC.
   Proceedings of the International Conference held in Rome, 26thFebruary 2010, Roma, 173-210.
Guirguis M. (2011), Gli spazi della morte a Monte Sirai (Carbonia – Sardegna). Rituali e ideologia funerarie
   nella necropoli fenicia e punica (scavi 2005-2010, FastiOnLine, 1-32.
Guirguis M. (2018), I “grandi scavi “nelle necropoli di Tharros e di Sulky: dalla “piccola Californià’ alla risco-
   perta del Sulcis, in Carlo Alberto Archeologo in Sardegna, Torino, 68-79.
Guirguis M. (2019a), I Fenici nella Sardegna sud-orientale: nuovi studi e ricerche a Cuccureddus-Villasimius
   (2016-2018), FoPho, 3, 67-97.
Guirguis M. (2019b), Central NorthAfrica and Sardinian connections (end of 9th-8th century BC). The mul-
   ti-ethnic and multicultural facies of the earliest western Phoenician communities, in Archaeology in Africa.
   Potentials and perspectives on laboratory & fieldwork research, Sesto Fiorentino, 111-25.
Guirguis M. (2021), Scenografia della morte a Sulky (Sant’Antioco) nella prima età punica: considerazioni pre-
   liminari sul contesto della tomba 9 PGM, in Tra le coste del Levante e le terre del tramonto. Studi in ricordo di
   Paolo Bernardini (= CSF, 51), Roma, 221-32.
Guirguis M., Unali, A. (2012), Ipogei sulcitani tra età punica e romana: la Tomba Steri 1, AfRo 19, 2011-29.
Guirguis M., Unali A. (2016), La fondazione di Sulky tra IX e 7th I sec. a.C.: riflessioni sulla cultura materiale
   dei più antichi livelli fenici (area del cronicario, settore II, scavi 2013-2014), in Ubi minor... Le isole minori
   del Mediterraneo centrale dal Neolitico ai primi contatti coloniali, Atti del Convegno di Studi in ricordo di
   Giorgio Buchner, a 100 anni dalla nascita (1914-2014), Anacapri, 27 ottobre, Capri, 28 ottobre, Ischia/Lacco
   Ameno, 29 ottobre 2014, (= ScAnt, 22), Roma, 81-96.
Guirguis M. Piga G., Pla Orquín (2020), La necropoli di Monte Sirai come laboratorio bio-archeometrico:
   nuove datazioni al C14 e analisi del dna antico, ACISFP 9, 1715-23.
Hamdy Bey O, Reinach T., (1892), Une nécropole royale. Fouilles de Hamdy Bey, Paris.
Harden D. B. (1937), The pottery from the precinct of Tanit at Salammbo, Carthage, Iraq, 4, 59-89.
Johnston A., Jones R. E. (1978), The ‘SOS’ Amphora, ABSA, 73, 103-41.
Karageorghis V. (1960) Fouilles de Kition, BCEH, 84, 504-88.
Kbiri Alaoui M., López Pardo F. (1998), La factoria fenicia de Mogador (Essaouira, Marruecos): las ceramicas
   pintadas, AEA, 71, 5-25.
Lafli E., Buora M. (2020), Classical and Hellenistic Containers by Alabaster From Cilicia and Other Regions
    in Asia Minor, in Classical Cyprus. Proceedings of the Conference University of Graz, 21–23 September 2017,
    Wien, 439-73.
Lancel S. (1982), Byrsa II. Rapports préliminaires sur les fouilles 1977-1978: niveaux et vestiges puniques, Roma.
Lancia S. (2021), Il sepolcro 12 PGM della necropoli ipogea di Sant’Antioco, in Tra le coste del Levante e le terre
   del tramonto. Studi in ricordo di Paolo Bernardini (= CSF, 51), Roma, 247-59.
Lehmann G. (1996), Untersuchungen zur spaten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon. Stratigraphie und Keramikfor-
   men zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v.Chr., Münster.
López-Bertran M. (2019), Sensing deathamong the Phoenicians and the Punics (900–200 BC), in Unlocking
   Sacred Landscapes: Spatial Analysis of Ritual and Cult in the Mediterranean, Nicosia, 139-53.
López Castro (2006), Colonials, merchants and alabaster vases: the western Phoenician aristocracy, Antiquity,
   80, 74-88.



                                                        40
                           The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


López-Grande M. J. (2016), Stone Vessels of Egyptian Appearance from Ibiza, TdE, 7, 67-88.
Lo Schiavo F., D’Oriano R. (2018), Il commercio sulle lunghe distanze nella sardegna dell’Eta del Bronzo e
   fino all’inizio dell’Eta del Ferro: il rame, la ceramica, l’avorio, l’ambra, la pasta vitrea, il vino, Pasiphae, 12,
   119-48.
Lucchese 2009 = C. Lucchese, Un simbolo dell’economia aristocratica attica di VII secolo a.C.: la rappresen-
   tazione dell’anfora SOS, in OBELOI. Contatti, scambi e valori nel Mediterraneo antico. Studi offerti a Nicola
   Parise, Paestum, Atene 77-84.
Maass-Lindemann G. (1982), Toscanos. Die Westphonikische Niederlassung an der Mundung des Rio de Vélez
  Lieferung 3: Grabungskampagne 1971 und die Importdatierte Westphonikische Grabkeramik des 7./6. Jhs. V.
  Chr., Berlin.
Maier Allende J. (1992), La necrópolis de “La cruz del negro» (Carmen, Sevilla): excavaciones de 1900 a 1905,
  CuPAUAM, 19, 95-119.
Manunza M. R. (2013), Scavi nella necropoli di Sarcapos (Villaputzu – CA), QuadCagliari, 24, 387.
Marongiu A. (1999), Le grotte di Sant’Antioco. Indagini sulle abitazioni ricavate all’interno degli ipogei punico-ro-
  mani, Sant’Antioco 1999.
Marras L. A (1982), La ceramica ad imitazione dalla necropoli, RStFen, 10, 295-96;
Marras L. A (1983), Su alcuni ritrovamenti fenici nel golfo di Cagliari, RStFen, 11, 159-165;
Marras L. A (1992), Nota su una tazza carenata dalla necropoli ad incinerazione di Monte Sirai, RStFen, 20,
  179-80.
Martín Ruiz J. A. (1995), Catalogo monumental de los Fenicios en Andalucía, Sevilla.
Martin Ruiz J. A. (2004), Los Fenicios en Andalucia, Sevilla.
Martín Ruiz J. A. (2010), El comercio cananeo y fenicio a través del cargamento transportado en los pecios
  hallados en el Mediterráneo, RAMPAS, 12, 127-38.
Martín Ruiz J. A., García Carretero J. R. (2018), Greek Armament from the Southof the Iberian Peninsula
  during the 1st Millennium BC, AJH, 4, 279-93.
Marzoli D., Garcia Teyssandier E. (2018), Die Phonizische Nekropole von Ayamonte. Die Ausgrabung im Jahre
  2013 und Ihre vor- und Begleituntersuchungen, Berlin, 87-211.
Masson A. (2010), Scarabs, scaraboids and amulets, in Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt, London.
Mastino A., Zucca R. (1991), La Sardegna nelle rotte mediterranee in età romana: Idea e realtà del viaggio: il
  viaggio nel mondo antico, Genova 1991, 191-259.
Matthiae Scandone G. (1971), Scarabei egiziani del Museo Nazionale di Palermo, OrAn, 10, 1-26.
Matthiae Scandone G. (1975), Scarabei e scaraboidi egiziani ed egittizzanti del Museo Nazionale di Cagliari,
  Roma.
Mazar E. (2004), The Phoenician Family Tomb N.1 at the Northern Cemetery of Achziv (10th–6thCenturies
  BCEE). Sam Turner Expedition Final Report of the Excavations (= CAM, 10), Barcelona.
Mazar E., Ilan D. (2014), A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at ‘Atlit, ‘Atiqot, 79 (2014), 111-30.
Mazzariol A. (2021), La tomba T36 della necropoli occidentale di Nora, SCEBA, 19, 93-128.
Mederos Martín A. (2004), El pecio fenicio del Bajo de la Campana (Murcia, España) y el comercio del marfil
  norteafricano, Zephyrus, 57, 263-81.
Melchiorri V. (2007), La tomba 10 ARdi Sulci (Cagliari) I. La tipologia tombale e il corredo ceramico, Daidalos,
   8, 61-102.
Melchiorri V. 2(013), Contesti tombali inediti dalla necropoli punica di Sulcis, ACISFP 6, 1162-72.
Meloni P. (1947), La cronologia delle campagne di Malco, StSar, 7, 107-13.



                                                         41
                                                Piero Bartoloni


Merante V. (1970), Sui rapporti greco-punici nel mediterraneo occidentale nel VI secolo a. C., Kokalos, 16,
  98-138.
Merlin A., Drappier L. (1909), La nécropole punique d’Ard el-Kheraïb à Carthage ( = ND, 3), Paris.
Michetti M. L. (2020), Michetti, Cinque lucerne fenicie dal Quartiere “pubblico-cerimoniale” di Pyrgi, in
   Cartagine, il Mediterraneo centro-occidentale e la Sardegna. Società, economia e cultura materiale tra Fenici e
   autoctoni. Studi in onore di Piero Bartoloni, Sassari 2020, 105-19.
Molina Fajardo F. (1984), La necropolis sur de Tharros, RStFen, 12, 77-101.
Montanero Vico D. (2018), Justino, Cartago y la conquista de Cerdeña: las fuentes literarias, ACISFP 8, 389-
  93.
Morel J.-P. (2000), Les Phocéens et la mer Tyrrhéniernne au VIème siècle, MAXH. La battaglia del Mare Sardonio.
  Studi e ricerche, Cagliari-Oristano, 19-36.
Morel J.-P. (2006a), De Marseille à Velia: problèmes phocéens, CRAIBL, 4, 1723-1783.
Morel J.-P. (2006b), Phocaean Colonisation, in Greek Colonisation an Account of Greek Colonies and other Settle-
  ments Overseas, I, Leiden-Boston, 358-428.
Moscati S. (1986), Italia punica.
Moscati S. (1987), L’arte della Sicilia punica, Milano.
Moscati S. (1997), Le fasi della conquista: La penetrazione fenicia e punica in Sardegna. Trent’anni dopo,
  MANL, 9, 1, 99-101.
Muscuso S. (2008), Il Museo “Ferruccio Barreca” di Sant’Antioco: Le tipologie vascolari della necropoli Punica,
  SCEBA, 6, 9-39.
Muscuso S. (2014), La ceramica punica della collezione Biggio, SCEBA, 12, 65-99.
Muscuso S. (2017), La tomba 3a della necropoli punica sulcitana, ACISFP 8, 29-37.
Muscuso S., Pompianu E. (2012), Ipogei sulcitani tra età punica e romana: la Tomba Steri 2, AfRo 19, 2031-59.
Nicosia F. (1981), La Sardegna nel mondo classico, in Ichnussa. La Sardegna dalle origini all’età classica, Milano,
   419-76.
Niveau de Villedary y Mariñas A. M. (2004), El vino en la liturgia funeraria fenicio-púnica: banquetes y li-
   baciones rituailes en la necrópolis de Gadir, in Actas do III Simpósio da Associção Internacional de história e
   civilização da vinha e do vinho, Funchal, 5 a 8 Outubro de 2003, Funchal, 379-415.
Niveau de Villedary y Mariñas A. M. (2011), La producción alfarera extremo-occidental entre los ss. III y I a.C.
   Balance historiográfico y estado de la cuestión: Yōserim: La producció alfarera fenicio-púnica en ccidente.
   XXV Jornadas de Arqueología fenicio-púnica (Eivissa, 2010), Eivissa, 107-164.
Nizzo V. (2007), Ritorno ad Ischia. Dalla stratigrafia della necropoli di Pithekoussai alla tipologia dei materiali,
   Napoli.
Núñez F. J. (2004), Catalogue of Urns: The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre-AI Bass. Excavations 1997-1999,
  BAAL 1 hs, 63-373.
Núñez F. J. (2013a), The Phoenician sequence: Virtues and Dependences, ACISFP 6, 472-81.
Núñez Calvo (2013b), De Tiro a Almuñécar. conexiones metropolitanas de un contexto colonial fenicio, MM,
  54, 27-88.
Núñez F. J. (2014), The ceramic repertoire of the Iron Age, BAAL 9 hs, 261-371.
Núñez F. J. (2015), The al-Bass funerary ceramic set, BAAL 10 hs, 235-54.
Núñez F. J. (2017), The Tyrian cemetery of al-Bass and the role of ceramics in the Phoenician funerary ritual,
  Levant, 1-18.




                                                          42
                           The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


Orsingher A. (2013), La ceramica dagli scavi di Antonia Ciasca al tofet di Mozia (1964-1973), Scuola di Dotto-
   rato in Archeologia, Curriculum Orientale, XXV Ciclo, Roma.
Pedrazzi T. (2007), Le giare da conservazione e da trasporto del Levante. Uno studio archeologico dell’economia fra
   Bronzo Tardo II e Ferro I (ca. 1400-900 a.C.), Pisa.
Pellicer Catalán M. (1962), Excavaciones en la necropolis punica “Laurita” del Cerro de San Cristobal (Almuñecar,
    Granada) (= EAE, 17), Madrid 1962.
Perra C. (2016), L’età del Ferro del nuraghe Sirai, in Daedaleia. Le torri nuragiche oltre l’Età del bronzo. Atti del
    convegno di studi (Cagliari, Cittadella dei musei, 19-21 aprile 2012) («Layers», 1) Cagliari.
Peserico A. (1996), Le brocche ‘’a fungo’’ fenicie nel Mediterraneo. Tipologia e cronologia (= CSF, 36), Roma.
Peserico A. (1998), La ceramica fenicia da mensa: la produzione di Cartagine e delle altre regioni fenicie d’Oc-
    cidente (VIII-VI sec. a.C.), in Produzione e circolazione della ceramica fenicia e punica nel Mediterraneo: il
    contributo delle analisi archeometriche. Atti della 2a Giornata di Archeometria della Ceramica, Ravenna, 14
    maggio 1998, Faenza, 27-42.
Peserico A. (1999), Pottery Production and Circulation in the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean. A Study on
    Open Forms, in Phoenicians and Carthaginians in the Western Mediterranean, (= StPu, 12), 125-35.
Petrie W. M. F. (1914), Amulets. Illustrated by the Egyptian Collection in University College, London.
Pisano G. (1987), Jewellery, in Tharros. A Catalogue of Material in the British Museum from Phoenician and Other
    Tombs at Tharros, Sardinia, London, 78-95.
Pisano 1996 = Ead., La pittura e il colore nell’Occidente punico: una eredità della «tradizione» fenicia: Nuove
    ricer­che puniche in Sardegna (StPu, 11), Roma 1996, 125-44.
Pla Orquín R. (2021), Paesaggi funerari nella necropoli di Monte Sirai (Carbonia): il contesto della tomba 324,
    FoPho, 5, 53-66.
Porru L., Serra R., Coroneo R. (1989), Sant’Antioco, Le catacombe, La Chiesa Martyrium, I frammenti scultorei,
   Cagliari.
Pratt C. E. (2015), The ‘Sos’ Amphora: An Update, ABSA, 110, 213-45.
Provoost A. (1976), Les lampes antiques en terre cuite, L’antiquité classique, 45, 5-39.
Puglisi S. (1942), S. Antioco. Scavo di tombe ipogeiche puniche, NSc, 1942, 106-15.
Quesada Sanz F., García González D. (2018), Las armas de la Tumba del Guerrero de Málaga, in La tumba del
  guerrero. Un enterramiento excepcional en la Málaga fenicia del siglo VI a. C., Sevilla.
Quillard B. (1987), Bijoux carthaginois. II. Porte-amulettes, sceaux-pendentifs, pendants, boucles, anneaux et bagues
  d’après les collections du Musée National du Bardo et du Musée National de Carthage, Louvain-la-Neuve.
Ramon Torres J. (1995), Las ánforas fenicio-púnicas del Mediterráneo central y occidental, Barcelona.
Ramon Torres (2020), Conflit et violence chez les Phéniciens d’Ibiza à l’époque archaïque?, in Cartagine, il
  Mediterraneo centro-occidentale e la Sardegna. Società, economia e cultura materiale tra Fenici e autoctoni. Studi
  in onore di Piero Bartoloni, I, Cagliari, 205-35.
Rendeli M. (2009), La ceramica greca ed etrusca, in Nora. Il foro romano. Storia di un’area urbana dall’età fenicia
   alla tarda antichità, 1997-2006, Vol. II. 1 I materiali preromani («Scavi di Nora», 1), Padova, 7-72.
Rodero Riaza A. (1980), Colección de cerámica púnica de Ibiza en el Museo Arqueologico Nacional, Ibiza.
Sáez Romero A. M. (2011), Alfarería en el extremo Occidente fenicio. Del renacer tardoarcaico a las transforma-
   ciones helenísticas, in Yōserim: La producció alfarera fenicio-púnica en ccidente. XXV Jornadas de Arqueología
   fenicio-púnica (Eivissa, 2010), Eivissa, 49-106.
Sanciu A. (2010), Fenici lungo la costa orientale sarda. Nuove acquisizioni, FastiOnLine 2010, 1-12.
Schubart H., Maass-Lindemann G. (1995), Informe de las excavaciones en la necròpolis de Jardin (Vélez-Mála-
   ga, Málaga). Catalogo (= CAM 1), Barcelona 1995, 57-216.



                                                        43
                                                 Piero Bartoloni


Schubart H., Niemeyer H. G. (1976), Trayamar. Los hipogeos fenicios y el asentamiento en la desembocadura del
   rio Algarrobo, Madrid.
Secci R. (1998), Prospezioni di archeologia punica in Ogliastra, SEAP, 18, 157-69.
Secci R. (2018), Cartagine oltre Cartagine tra VIII e VI sec. a.C.: una retrospettiva storiografica, in Cartagine
   fuori da Cartagine: mobilità nordafricana nel Mediterraneo centro-occidentale fra 7th I e II sec. a.C. Atti del
   Congresso Internazionale (Ravenna, 30 Novembre, 1 Dicembre 2017), Lugano, 351-64.
Secci R. (2019), Giovanni Garbini e la “questione punica”, in «e non appassisca il tuo germoglio spontaneo». Studi
   fenici e punici in ricordo di Giovanni Garbini, Lugano, 179-209.
Sechi A. (2006), Athyrmata fenicio-punici: la documentazione di Sulcis (Ca), Università degli Studi di Pisa, Facoltà
   di Lettere e Filosofia, Corso di Laurea in Conservazione dei Beni Culturali, Pisa.
Shai I., Maeir A. M. (2012), The Late Iron Age IIA Pottery Assemblage from Stratum A3, in Tell es- Safi/Gath
   I: The 1996-2005 Seasons, Wiesbaden.
Spagnoli F. (2019), La ceramica dipinta fenicia e punica a Mozia. Le produzioni e i motivi decorativi (VIIII-IV
   secolo a.C.) (QAFP, 7), Roma.
Spanò A. (2000), La ceramica fenicia della Sicilia, in La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna. dati, problematiche, con-
   fronti: Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano, Sant’Antioco, 19-21 Settembre 1997, Roma, 303-31.
Sparkes B. A., Talcott L. (1970), Black and plain pottery of the 6th, 5thand 4thcenturies B.C. (TAA, 12), Prince-
   ton.
Stiglitz A. (1999), La necropoli punica di Cagliari. Tuvixeddu, un colle e la sua memoria, Cagliari.
Taramelli A. (1908), Scavi e scoperte di antichità puniche e romane nell’area dell’antica Sulcis, NSc, 145-62.
Tore G. (2000), L’insediamento fenicio-punico di Paniloriga di Santadi (Cagliari), in La ceramica fenicia di Sar-
   degna. Dati, problematiche, confronti. Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale Sulcitano, Sant’Antioco, 19-21
   settembre 1997, Roma, 333-46.
Tronchetti C. (1992), Osservazioni sulla Ceramica Attica in Sardegna, in Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A
   Footprint in the Sea. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology Presented to Miriam S. Balmuth (= Monographs in Med-
   iterranean Archaeology, 3), Sheffield, 364-77.
Tronchetti C. (1996), I Greci in Sardegna, in I Greci in Occidente, Milano, 563-66.
Tronchetti C. (2002), La tomba 12 AR della necropoli punica di Sant’Antioco, QuadCagliari, 19, 143-69.
Tronchetti C. (2003), La ceramica attica in Sardegna tra VI e IV sec. a. C.: significato e problemi, in Il greco, il
   barbaro e la ceramica attica: immaginario del diverso, processi di scambio e autorappresentazione degli indigeni:
   Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, 14-19 maggio 2001, Catania, Caltanissetta, Gela, Camarina, Vitto-
   ria, Siracusa, Roma, 177-82.
Tronchetti C. (2021), La Sardegna e il mondo greco nel V sec. a.C., in Il Mediterraneo Occidentale dalla fase fe-
   nicia all’egemonia cartaginese. Dinamiche insediative, forme rituali e cultura materiale nel V secolo a.C., Roma,
   27-38.
Torrey C. C. (1920), A Phoenician Necropolis at Sidon, AASOR, 1, 1-27.
Tusa V. (1974), La civiltà punica, in Popoli e civiltà dell’Italia antica, III, Roma 1974, 9-142.
Tusa V. A. (2016), La Necropoli di Mozia (Sicilia): aspetti topografici, articolazione cronologica e composizione dei
   corredi; Università degli Studi di Sassari, Dipartimento di Storia, Scienze dell’Uomo e della Formazione, Scuola
   di Dottorato di Ricerca in Storia, Letterature e Culture del Mediterraneo, Indirizzo Archeologico, Sassari.
Uberti M. L. (1993), I vetri preromani del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Cagliari, Roma.
Ugas G. (1982), Influssi greco-orientali nei centri tardo-nuragici della Sardegna meridionale, PdP, 104-107,
   463-78.
Ugas G., Zucca R. (1984), Il commercio arcaico in Sardegna: importazioni etrusche e greche (620-480 a.C.), Ca-
   gliari.


                                                        44
                           The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC


Unali A. (2014), Gli scavi del cronicario di Sant’Antioco, in Trent’anni di ricerche: Summer School di Archeologica
  fenicio-punica (= QAS, 5), Carbonia, 12-16, 93-95.
Vecchio P. (2002), Ceramica comune, in Mozia. Gli scavi nella “Zona A” dell’abitato, Bari, 203-73.
Vecchio P. (2015), Ceramica comune fenicia e punica della collezione Whitaker di Mozia. Necropoli e tofet, Roma.
Vegas M. (1987), Karthago: Stratigraphische Untersuchungen 1985. Die Keramik aus der punischen See-
   tor-Straße, MDAI, R, 94, 351-412.
Vegas M. (1998), Cartago fenicio-púnica. Las excavaciones alemanas en Cartago, 1975-1997 (= CAM4), Barce-
   lona.
Vegas M. (1989), Archaische und Mittelpunische Keramik aus Karthago, MDAI, R, 96, 209-265.
Vegas M. (1999), Phoniko-Punische Keramik aus Karthago, in Die deutschen Ausgrabungen in Karthago (Kartha-
   go, 3), Mainz, 93-218.
Vibert Chapman S. (1972), A Catalogue of Iron Age Pottery from the Cemeteries of Khirbet Silm, Joya, Qrayé and
   Qasmieh of SouthLebanon with a Note on the Iron Age Pottery of the American University Museum, Beirut,
   Berytus, 21, 55-194
Vuillemot G. (1955), La nécropole punique du phare dans l’ile Rachgoun (Oran), Libyca, 3, 7-62.
Whitaker J. I. S. (1921), Motya, A Phoenician Colony in Sicily, London.
Zucca R. (1984), Sulla ubicazione di Sarcapos, Studi Ogliastrini,1 (1984), 29-46.
Zucca R. (2001), Greci ed Etruschi lungo la costa orientale della Sardegna, in Ogliastra, Identità storica di una
   Provincia. Atti del Convegno di Studi Jerzu, Lanusei, Arzana, Tortolì, 23-25 gennaio 1997), Senorbì, 311-15.




                                                       45
                                        Piero Bartoloni




Riassunto /Abstract


    Riassunto: Cronologia e riti dalla necropoli di Sulky: la tomba 1 della “Via Belvedere”. La
tomba ipogea della necropoli di Sulky è situata al margine sud-occidentale della necropoli
composta da tombe a camera. I corpi dei defunti sono accompagnati da un ricco corredo
composto da piatti, coppe, lucerne, brocche rituali e anfore, sia di uso domestico che com-
merciale. Alcuni gioielli completano il corredo. La presenza dei Greci in Sardegna, anche se
solo temporanea, è stata Greci in Sardegna, anche se solo temporanea, è stata a lungo discus-
sa. I reperti disponibili sembrano suggerire che popolazioni focesi possano essersi insediate
in Sardegna dai primi decenni al fine del VI secolo a.C. Un esempio efficace di conflitto tra i
Fenici, i Sardi e i Greci che vivevano nell’isola può essere suggerito dagli eventi che interes-
sarono sia l’insediamento di Cuccureddus, nei pressi di Capo Carbonara, che il sito di Santa
Maria di Villaputzu, l’antica Sarcapos, presso la foce del Flumendosa.

    Abstract: Chronology and rituals from the Sulky necropolis: Tomb 1 of the ‘Via Belvedere
The underground tomb of the Sulky necropolis is located at the south-western edge of the
necropolis composed of chamber tombs. The bodies of the deceased are accompanied by a
rich trousseau consisting of plates, cups, oil lamps, ritual jugs and amphorae, both domestic
and commercial. Some jewellery completed the trousseau. The presence of Greeks in Sardin-
ia, even if only temporary, has long been debated. The available finds seem to suggest that
Phocian populations may have settled in Sardinia from the first decades to the end of the
6th century BC. An effective example of a conflict between the Phoenicians, Sardinians and
Greeks living on the island can be suggested by the events that affected both the settlement
of Cuccureddus, near Capo Carbonara, and the site of Santa Maria di Villaputzu, ancient
Sarcapos, near the mouth of the Flumendosa river.

   Parole chiave: Sardegna; Olbia; Greci; Sulci; necropoli.

   Keywords: Sardinia; Olbia; Greeks; Sulky; Necropolis.




   Come citare questo articolo / How to cite this paper
   Piero Bartoloni, The Greeks and Sardinia at The Dawn of the 6th Century BC. Chrono-
logy and Rites of the Necropolis of Sulky: Tomb 1 in Belvedere street, CaSteR 8 (2023), doi:
10.13125/caster/5205, http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/




                                              46
The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC




                           Fig. 1.




                           47
Piero Bartoloni




    Fig. 2.




      48
The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC




                                    II




        I
                                                            III




 cc-by-nd




 IV                                      V



                           49
            Piero Bartoloni




       VI



                       VII




VIII                          IX




                  50
          The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC




X                                                XI




    XII                                          XIII



                                     51
        Piero Bartoloni




  XIV                     XV




                               XVII

XVI




              52
The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC




                                       XIX
XVIII
                                                            XX




   XXI                          XXII                             XXIII




                           53
       Piero Bartoloni




                         XXV



XXIV




XXVI

                               XXVII


             54
         The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC




XXVIII                   XXIX                              XXX




 XXXI                    XXXII                                   XXXIII




                                    55
                   Piero Bartoloni



XXXIV            XXXV                   XXXVI




                              XXXVIII           XXXIX




        XXXVII


                         56
          The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC




XLI                                                                   XLII




  XLIII
                                                        XLIV


                                     57
               Piero Bartoloni




                 XLVI



                                     XLVII


XLV




      XLVIII              XLIX   L




                     58
     The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC




LI                 LII                                     LIII




           LIV




                                          LV




                                59
      Piero Bartoloni




LVI
                              LVII




                        LIX




       LVIII



            60
        The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC




 LX                      LXI                                 LXII




LXIII                       LXIV                                    LXV




                                   61
         Piero Bartoloni




 LXVI




                           LXVII




                             LXIX




LXVIII




               62
The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC



   LXX




                          LXXI




                         LXXII




                                                       LXXIII




                           63
        Piero Bartoloni



LXXIV                                LXXV




                                   LXXVI




                          LXXVII




              64
             The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC



LXXVIII                                                                  LXXIX




     LXXXI                                                               LXXXII




                                             LXXXIV


LXXXIII




                                        65
            Piero Bartoloni


LXXXV                            LXXXVI




        LXXXVII




                                 LXXXVIII




                              LXXXIX



                  66
     The Greeks and Sardinia at the Dawn of the 6th Century BC




XC                                                               XCI




                                                          XCII




                                67
