The Organisation and Exploitation of the Colonial Chora Between the Late ArchaicPeriod and the Classical Period: Himera

Alessandro GuaggentiIntroduction

The Greek chora offers an insight into an important and often overlooked aspectof the Greek world, that being the rural life of the polis. The Chora provided,agriculturally and economically for the Greek cities and constituted a significantproportion of the population of the states, as well as being a place to which townsmenwould commute. These aspects obviously influenced the economic situation of the city,but also the religious, political and social characteristics and policies of the cities.However the organisation, importance and exploitation of the Greek chora can bewidely variable across the Greek world, especially in relation to mainland Greece. Thechora which developed in the Greek colonies would have had distinct differences inrelation to those of the homeland, and the colonial chora offers an insight into thesedifference and, in turn, the character and aims of Greek colonisation, specifically in thearchaic period. This essay aims to evaluate the use, organisation and importance of thehinterland through the evaluation of a specific case study of the chora in the colonialGreek world, alongside considering it in relation to other examples.

Fig 1: Himeran Chora (represented in dark green), after Vassallo, 2005, p.90

Studies focusing on the Greek chora have only recently come to the forefront ofstudy, thanks to the advancement of modern archaeological techniques, the results ofwhich can be studied in relation to the ancient sources and classical studies.Archaeological techniques, notably non-intrusive surveying, has allowed the creationof a corpus of knowledge on large swathes of rural land surrounding Greek cities.Notable studies are those of Metaponto in southern Italy1 and also in large areasaround the Black sea2, particularly in the region of the Crimea. In Greece itself anumber of studies have been particularly insightful, with examples being seen at theancient city of Megalopolis in the Peloponnesus and around Athens in Attica, amongothers.

In focusing on a specific area for this essay, a territory in the region of northernSicily was chosen. This consisted of the chora of the ancient Greek city of Himera.Founded by Zanklaeans, Greek colonists from the north-eastern tip of Sicily, in 648B.C3, the city was part of a second wave of Greek colonisation in the westernMediterranean. Other contemporary Greek foundations can be seen at Selinunte,Agrigento and Kamarina in Sicily4, alongside Massalia5 and Alalia6 in Southern Franceand Corsica, Poseidonia7 and Laos in south-western Italy, and a large number ofGreek colonies in the Black sea region. This era of colonisation has evolved from theprevious one seeing developments in division, organisation and efficiency of the chora,influencing the foundation and territorial aspects of Himera.Defining the Himeran Territory

In this essay I shall be looking at the Himeran territory primarily in the archaic andclassical periods and therefore it will be necessary to define the territory of Himera inthese two periods first. From the founding of the city up until the late fifth century it islikely that Himera controlled a territory (fig 1.) which spread southward through the SanLeonardo, Himera and Torto river valleys1. As well as the definition of the Himeranchora, archaeological investigations have built up a picture detailing the Himeransphere of influence throughout Sicily2 (fig 2.) during the archaic and early classical

1 Carter, 2006.2 Doonan, 2006; Avram, 2006; Ochotnikov, 2006; Kryzickij, 2006; Bujskick 2006; Kutajsov, 2006; Zinko2006.3 Thuc. 6.2.4 Thuc. 6.2.5 Timaeus Ps.-Scymn. 209-214 [= FGrHist 566 F71.]; Thuc. 1.13.6 Herodotus 1.165-167.7 Strabo, 252.1 Vassallo, 1996, 203.2 Vassalo, 1996, 202.

periods. What is most evident from this picture is the impact of the naturalsurroundings, within which Himera was placed, on the development of economicinteractions of the early colony and thus in turn the political development of the state.

Enclosing initially an area of around 16km from the city3, Himera expanded, by theclassical period, to an area of c.1260 km24. Of this land, around 70-90% is believed tobe agricultural, equating to an agricultural area of around 94,500 ha5. This makes theterritory of Himera the fourth most fertile and agriculturally productive of the multitudeof ancient Greek states in Sicily (Table 1.). Therefore it is understandable that agriculturewould have laid at the heart of this colony influencing many aspects of the polis.

The Himeran chora, on its eastern and western extremities, is bound by themountainous and hilly terrain of the Madione and Monti Sicani regions. Along thenorthern side, a coastal plain, a typical aspect of Greek colonies, makes up a smallpercentage of the territory, and quickly rises into upland areas.

These upland areas, along with the mild precipitation experienced in this part ofthe island (Table 2.), facilitates the creation of smaller rivers which filter into the threemain valleys, allowing the land in this area to be particularly well watered and fertile.

3 Vassallo, 1996, 202.4 DeAngelis, 2000, 132.5 DeAngelis, 2000, 133.

Fig 2: Himeran sphere of influenced based on the distibution of Himeran type K480 cups, after Vassallo, 2005, 83.

Territory sizein km2 (and

ha)Percentage ofagricultural

landAgriculturalland in ha*

Number ofpeople

supportable**Syracuse 1000

(100,000)86.5% 86,500 108,125-144,165

Kamarina 670(67,000)

90% 60,300 75,375-100,50

MegaraHyblaia

400(40,000)

83% 33,200 41,500-55,333

Leontinoi 830(83,000)

80% 66,400 83,000-110,665

Katane 830(83,000)

60% 49,800 62,250-83,000

Naxos 600(60,000)

59% 35,400 44,250-59,000

Zankle 1,120(112,000)

57% 63,840 79,800-106,400

Himera 1,260(126,000)

75% 94,500 118,125-157,50

Selinous 1,500(150,000)

86% 129,000 161,250-215,000

Akragas 2,500(250,000)

87% 217,500 271,875-362,50

Gela 1,350(135,000)

86% 116,100 145,125-193,500

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov DecRainfall (mm)

109 95 64 42 81 14 6 16 44 90 90 130

This land was situated around the main trade routes, those being theaforementioned three valleys. These lead southward through areas of nativesettlements, and on to the territories of the southern Sicilian Greek cities (Selinunte,Agrigento and Gela)(fig 3.). The importance of these contacts can be identified in the

Table 2. Average precipitation of the province of Palermo, after DeAngelis, 2000, 121.

Table 1. Summary of the hypothesized agricultural productivity capacities calculated for Sicily's Greekcity-states, after DeAngelis, 2000, 125.

classical sources relating to Himeran interaction with Akragas6 and Selinunte7 in thearchaic age.

From this information, one sees a large and diverse landscape which the city ofHimera came to control, and through an understanding of the geographical featureswe can have a competent understanding of main routes of penetration into thehinterland which were bounded by areas of rich agricultural potential.

The Himera Survey

Himera and its territory is fortunate enough to have been the focus of survey work,lasting from 1981-1985, which has facilitated the identification of a number of sitesaround the ancient city. Many other areas in the island have suffered from this lack ofarchaeological technique which creates a large unknown in Sicily on determining therelationship between the city and its hinterland. The work by Alliata, Belvedere,Vassallo, and Vallet8, has covered an area of around 16-18 km sq, close to the actualcity (fig 4.), between the Torto and Imera rivers, and illustrates a range of site typeswithin in the Himeran chora during the archaic and classical period, which has been6 Aristotle, Rhetoric, 2.20; Also see Polyaenus 5.1.3-4.7 Diod. 11.21.4-5.8 Aliiata, Belvedere, Vassallo, Vallet, 1988.

Fig 3: Plan of Himeran routes leading into Selinuntine, Akragantine and Geloan territories, afterGoogle Earth 2014, using AWMC Antiquity a la carte overlays 2012.

further complimented by modern scholarship which has looked further inland in theHimeran chora9.

9 Vassallo, 1999; 1996; 2007; Belvedere, 1989; DeAngelis, 2000; Vassallo and Zirone, 2006;

Fig 4. Area of the Himera III survey with the identification of sites relevant to this essay.After, Belvedere, 1988, 198.

It is now evident that in the lowland area of the coastal plain running along thenorthern edge of Himeras territory, there is imposed an organised linear grid plan10(fig 5.). This information has come from the prospective study of satellite imagery,however no further work has come to light, as of yet, so only small tracts of the divisionhave been identified. Further work will highlight the exact layout of such a division butso far it is nonetheless evident in this part of the Himeran chora. This land organisationcan be seen reflected in many Greek colonial sites across the Mediterranean and Blacksea, with examples seen notably at Metaponto11 (fig 6.) and Chersonesus12 (fig 7.).However, it is this technique which we see being largely absent in homeland Greeceduring the archaic and classical periods13 and it seems to be a defining, individualquality of only colonial Greeks.

Further inland in the Himeran chora, this organised, linear land division seems tobe absent and can be assessed as unnecessary for a number of reasons here. Firstly,

10 Marescalchi, 1988, 47-53. (in Himera III).11 De Julius, 2001, 79-116; Carter, 2006, 91-132.12 Nikolaenko, 2006.13 In Attica for instance there seems to have been no single Attic settlement pattern. Whitley, 2001, 382.

Fig 5. Indcations of grid plan imposed on the area of the coastal plain, between the Himeraand Torto rivers, after Marescalchi, 1988, 49.

this furrowed land division allowed the irrigation of fields on the coastal plains14. This isa situation which does not need to be addressed inland due to the natural irrigation ofland by the small upland rivers and streams which drain down into the valley. It is onlyin the lowest and flattest areas which would need such irrigation (a problem formodern day farmers in this types of areas), and at this level the land is too narrow orstill too uneven as to be able or worth imposing such an organised division of land.The territory of the inland regions will be further discussed at a later point, but for themoment we must return to the Himeran survey itself.

The majority of the research in this survey pertains to the material evidence foundthroughout the research area. From this material a number of few native sites wereidentified alongside those described as fattoria15, or farmsteads, relating to specificperiods16.

14 Isager and Skydsgaard, 1995, 153.15 Vassallo, 1988, 57.16 See figure 4.

Fig 6. Plan of the chorra of Metaponto, showing agrarian land divisions and the location offarmsteads, after Carter, 2006, 83.

Fig 7. Aerial photo of the area between the Streleckaja and Omega bays in the Chersonese,after Nikolaenko, 2006, 161

FarmsteadsThe territory of Himera displays a large range of farmstead sites, which are found

across the territory of the chora. However, the majority of the sites are found in closeproximity to the city due to this being the area of the intense survey carried out in theregion. Other farmstead sites have nonetheless been identified in the chora but in amore sporadic way. We must keep in mid that this is not necessarily due to an areawhich saw less abundance of such sites, but due to the lack of consistentarchaeological methodology throughout the region.

Initially we see only a few archaic sites. Of the total sites found during the survey todate between the archaic and classical period, the archaic sites make up just 11%whereas the classical sites make up 89% of those found, or three sites compared to2414. Further afield we have sites which indicate the presence of classical farmsteads, aslikely evidenced by the assemblage of material evidence.

What can be interpreted from this set of data is the fact that there was an initialbasic occupation of the hinterland via farmsteads during the archaic period15, at siteswhich seem to stretch to the furthest possible distance from the city, although stillbeing close enough to enable commuting to and from the site. However these sitesare few, and spread out. In the classical period there is a sudden rise in the occupationof the Himeran hinterland studied in the survey and there is also the appearance, orpossibly rise, of sites further into the hinterland16 (fig 8.). This can possibly be attributedto the victory of the Greeks following the Carthaginian invasion of 480 B.C17 and theunification of the two states of Akragas and Himera, under Akragantine control.

14 Belvedere, 1988, 198.15 Belvedere, 1988, 200.16 Belvedere, 1988, 200. infatti numerose fattorie di questo periodo.17 Diodorus Siculus XI.20;

Fig 8. Location of farmsteads in the Himeran chora from the Archaic (red) to Classical (yellow) periods,after Google Earth., 2014.

However, in relation to the layout of these sites, their development typologically,or information of their owners and occupiers, there is little to discuss. This is due to thelack of actual intrusive excavations of any of these farmstead sites in the hinterland. Forinformation on such possible structures we must look further afield in Sicily andattempt to overlie a possible general rule of such structures in the Himeran chora.

The territories of both Kamarina and Gela on the south coast of Sicily allow for thebest examination of examples of farmstead structures, which are also closely related,chronologically, to the sites identified in the chora of Himera. From the examples thatwe see represented in each of the territories (fig 9.) we see that the il cortile appareuna parte essenziale degli edifici rurali siciliani18, and occupied a central location of thestructure so as to serve the number of rural functions demanded of it. A kitchen isoften located in one corner (usually the south-east) of the building, and in many casessome buildings exhibit a small tower (pyrgos)19. Rooms mostly show evidence linkingthem to areas of working areas rather than rooms in which to stay, highlighting theaspect of commuting, rather than continuous private habitation.

These examples are not only distinct to Greek Sicily, or even the colonial Greekworld, but are often seen in mainland Greece20 and seem to be part of a general styleof edifice built to function for the rural production of a plot of land (fig 10.).

18 Stefano, 2002, 98.19 Stefano, 2002, 103.20 Whitley, 2001, 378.

Fig 9. Plans of some rural edifices found in the territories of Camarina and Gela, dating fromthe late archaic periods to the late classical period, after Stefano, 2002, 95.

Sites Considered Villages or Towns

The next sites to be considered are of a more urban nature but are neverthelessinstrumental in the Himerans relationship with their countryside21. A number ofhellenised centres have been identified along the routes of the San Leonardo, Tortoand Imera valleys22 (fig 1.). The sites are almost always located at strategical points forboth defense, control and organisation. They are fairly evenly spread out, spaced fromeach other by no more than 10 km, except in few exceptional cases along the Tortoriver valley. There distance implies control of an area spaced around 5km from thecenter. This would appear in keeping with what has been earlier defined in relation tofarmsteads around the city of Himera. However, many of these native, hellenised siteshave only been the subject of small, sporadic investigations23, although there are someas to which a more intensive archaeological investigation has been applied.

The most detailed example of these sites, and that which applies a good templateto the region is that of Colle Madore in the area of Lercara Friddi24 (fig 11.). Theoccupation of this site is consistent with that of Himera, both being uninhabited fromthe end of the fifth century onwards25. This site controlled a strategical point at thehead of the river Torto, just within the border of Himeran territory26. Not only was thisthe most direct route from Himera to Akragas, but there was also a pass at this point,crossing into the San Leonardo valley27. Located around the site have been found afew possible farmstead sites, but they are most notable in the hellenistic period28

21 Belvedere, 1988, 199:limportanza di altre forme di occupazione del territorio, come quella costituita daisantuari extra-urbani e dai santuaretti rurali; Valet, 1987, 82, 89-90.22 Vassallo, 1996; 200723 Vassallo, 2007.24 Vassallo, 1999.25 Vassallo, 1999, 75: Dopo il V secolo a.C. Non stata ancora trovata sul Colle traccia di rioccupazione26 See fig 1.27 Vassallo, 1999,8: La posizione di privellegio del colle nel passagio dal versante settentrionale a quellomeridionale dellisola28 Vassallo, 199, 14.

Fig 10. Reconstruction of a farmstead, also showing the structures per plot of land in the hinterland ofCamarina, after Stefano, 2002, 102.

Fig 11. Territory around Lercara Friddi and Colle Madore, with surrounding archaeological sites,after Vassallo, 1999, 14.

The site illustrates growing interaction with Greeks from the founding of Himera,up until the sixth century B.C, in the third quarter of which it formally falls under thecontrol of the Greek colony29. The site exhibits evidence of the Himeran Greeksrelationship with their territory through religious identity. A small temple was built inthe second half of the sixth century (fig 12.), in a working area of the site, based on aGreek type, particularly modelled on the types seen in Himera at this time30. Thelocation of the site in this working quarter seems to be of particular interest for thismoment in time. It seems metal was worked in this area, and the territory surroundingis known for its sulphur deposits, a product sought after by Greeks, particularly inrelation to colonisation31. Its location therefore, no doubt relates to the Greek influencein this area through trade and the number of Greeks frequenting the site for thesereasons. More interesting is to who the sacellum seems to be dedicated, that beingHeracles32.

Heracles is rather central to what we know of Himeran mythology and religion,and even more central to the colonial Greece in the west. The travels of Heraclesthroughout the western Mediterranean are renown, and he seems even moreapparent in his travels throughout Sicily33. As to Himera we are told that Heracles

29 Vassallo, 1999, 69.30 Vassallo, 1999, 43, 50; Bonacasa, 1970, 53-74, 77-83, 122-132, 134-148.31 Homer. Odyssey. 22.481-485. Odysseus turned to Eurycleia: Now, old nurse, bring sulphur to cleanseaway this pollution; bring fire as well, so that I may purify the house.32 Vassallo, 1999, 50.33 Apollodorus, 2.5.10; Pausanius 4.36.3; 8.24.1; 8.24.3; Diodorus Siculus 4.23-24; 5.4.

Fig 12. Plan of the Sacellum at Colle Madore, after Vassallo, 1999, 44.

bathed in the springs found near the city before continuing westward34. However, thelocation of this sanctuary in Colle Madore is more notable. We can compare this toanother Heracles sanctuary known in the Island from around this period35. This othersanctuary was located in the territory of Selinus36, a southern Greek colony which couldbe reached from Himera through the San Leonardo valley. Like the example at Himerait is located on the border of the Greek choras territory which seems to be the centraltheme in its dedication here. Heracles sanctuaries can be understood in this way if welook back to the deity himself. Related to us through a passage in Theocritus37,mentions how the poplar is sacred to the god38, and the identification of poplars as atree located on borders is furthermore evident. It would seem that Heracles had aparticular identity with ancient borders or territorial definitions39. In this way we seehow Greeks identified with their territory, which was influenced by economic andpolitical factors, and attempted to define such limits through mythical and religiousidentity, further manifested physically through the construction of similarly designedsanctuaries based on the ideal of the polis, exploiting a consistent image, alongsidemarking the land, to themselves and others.Ethnographic Comparison - Vicari

In an effort to understand the relationship of ancient Himerans with thesurrounding countryside, I shall compare modern information on a particular familyfrom Vicari with the land that they own and farm. Vicari40 is known to have beeninhabited from the prehistoric period, and it undertook the process of himeranhellenisation at the same time as Colle Madore41. Sitting on a calcarous spur 800m high,Vicari dominates the San Leonardo valley and has consistently been a strategical point,commanding a lower fertile valley, an area which is known and referred to amongstlocal inhabitants as the granaio di roma42.

In looking at this area I have collected agricultural information from a single familyliving in the village. In doing this, and analysing my findings, I have attempted to seeconsistencies with information that we already know about Himera in relation to itsterritory and also to see if the data retrieved can be applied to the ancient context of34 Pind. Olympian Ode 12; Nemean Ode 12; Diodorus Siculus, 4.23.1; 5.5.1.35 Sixth century B.C.36 DeAngelis, 2003, 152-153.37 Theocritus is thought to be a Greek native of Sicily.38 Theocritus, 2.121; also see Virgil. Aeneid. 8.276-277.39 Cato the Elder. 6.3: Around the borders of the farm and along the roads plant elms and some poplars;for discussions on this also see Laurie, 2000, 155.40 For its location in the Himeran chora please refer to Figure 141 Vassallo, 2007, 122.42 Antonino Guaggenti, pers. comm., 15.03.14.

archaic and classical Himera.Firstly information on land holdings was collected. These were then plotted onto

satellite imagery (fig 13.) and information was collected on the topographical featuresof the farms alongside agricultural uses. Furthermore, information was collected on thegeneral use of the farms and how the fields were cultivated. This has all been collatedand displayed through tables (table 4.).

Piece of land Commune CultivationGuardiola/Chiachiaro Vicari Hay, broad beans, wheat.Rocca Ferruze Vicari Hay, broad beans, wheat,

almonds, tomatoes,melons, grapes, other smallamounts of vegetables fordomestic use.

Serpa Vicari Hay, broad beans, wheat.Ossuncuddu Vicari Hay, broad beans, wheat.Manche Caccamo Olives (on flat ground),

almonds, wheat.Fontana Oliva Vicari Hay, broad beans, wheat.

Table 4. List of contradi/farms owned by Guaggenti family, and the produce cultivated, AntoninoGuaggenti, Giuseppe Guaggenti Sr., Giuseppe Guaggenti jr, pers. Comm., 14.03.14.

Fig 13. Location of farms owned by the Guaggenti family. In the centre can be seen the town of Vicari,after Google Earth 2014.

This shows that the land owned is all within a distance of 2.36km from the centrallocation of the village of Vicari, and each piece of land is around 0.85 km from another.This layout shows that owned land occupies a fairly widely spread area, on territorywhich slopes downhill towards the river bed.This allows for well watered fields withgood drainage and open to winds. This area would make the most of the averagerainfall and allows the production of a number of crops. The crops grown areillustrated on table 4, and are most suited to these soils, choice of which is alsoinfluenced by demand, with each crop being rotated every year to create the mostefficient circumstances for crop growth43. Olive groves are not apparent on thesefarms and tradition in the area shows that olive trees are cultivated, but only grownaround the edge of the farms, in order to create small production and create fieldboundaries44. However, the production of the farms are largely for commercial use,although a portion of one farm (Contrada Rochhe Ferruze) is used for privateproduction and self sufficiency45. Few structures occupy the land, with only one smallstorage structure located ons Rocche Ferruze.

The distance of the farms from the main centre of habitation (Vicari), is a reflectionof something we see in the survey work done around Himera. This allows an ease ofcommuting between the rural and urban spheres, which in today's society is necessarydue to the midday rest from the hottest point of the day.

In relation to the produce of the land in comparison to ancient times, we knowvery little since there is no evidence from archaeo-botanical information. Some smallinferences are recorded by ancient sources46. Crops seem to be fairly consistent, inmodern times at least. However these traditions seem to go back beyond memory andcan possibly be continued characteristics of farming since ancient times. Certainly thelocal tradition of the San Leonardo valley being the granaio di Roma47 stems fromthis ancient past. Large amounts of Amphorae at Himera narrate the production andtrade of wine and olives at least, produce that still seems rather prevalent in the regionaround Himera (fig 14).

One clear difference we see in this region, from satellite imagery, is the lack ofequal tracts of land organised by linear divisions,as is seen on the plains by the coast.This surely must be due to reasons of more changeable and mountainous terrain inwhich is inviable to create such boundaries. Instead fields grow up naturally aroundroads into the countryside, imitating a rippling effect, adapting to the surroundingtopography which it is situated on.43 Giuseppe Guaggenti, Antonino Guaggenti, pers. comm., 15.03.14.44 Antonino Guaggenti, pers. comm., 15.03.14. footnote on the cycle45 Giuseppe Guaggenti Sr., pers. Comm., 15.03.14.46 Athenaeus, Theocritus.47 Antonino Guaggenti, pers. comm., 15.03.14.

Fig 14. Image detailing the agricultural use of the land surrounding the city of Himera, and within theresearch area of the Himera III survey, after Vassallo, 42.

ConclusionFrom this information, and the close comparisons we can make between this

modern information and what we have on the ancient Himeran chora, we can applysome of this ethnographic study to the ancient Himeran context. Families may haveowned a number of farms, spread out at a distance close to their area of habitation,either the central polis of Himera or one of the further outlying centres, but certainlyno further than five kilometers from the urban space, so as to allow daily commuting.These outlying centers control the territory they overlook, occupying defensivepositions and guarding not only the farms of their inhabitants, but also the main traderoutes in the wider geographical picture. They would have gradually fallen underHimeran control as the city expanded during the archaic age, first through a process ofHellenisation and then more formally during the mid sixth century and into the fifthcentury B.C. With the creation of this delimited chora with specific boundaries, we seethe creation of Greek sanctuaries located on the peripheries as the Himerans begin torelate and interact physically with their territory. These sanctuaries, built on thefoundations of specific beliefs and myths which lies at the heart of the polis, is exportedthrough the construction of sanctuaries based on the type-form found in the mainsanctuary of the polis on the acropolis.

The rural landscape is further physically altered through the scarring of the landwith entrenched land divisions, now visible in satellite imagery, and limited to areascapable of such alteration. However the land, with the application of crop rotation andsuitable variety crops for the soils and topography illustrate the fact that the land was,for its majority, used to exploit its fullest agricultural potential.

In this way through a number of means, both economically, politically andreligiously, the Greeks of Himera associated and depended heavily on their chora.There are similarities seen with many of the other colonial choras, but other than thefact that there are shared structural forms for farm buildings, there is little similaritiesbetween mainland Greece and its more distant colonial world. The period in whichthese colonies were founded facilitated the construction of a new ideal and form to thisvirgin countryside, to which the Greeks could organise and rapidly transform to theiralready established beliefs, ideals and technology. This is seems to be expressly evidentin the rich information, both classical and archaeological, of the polis of Himera and itschora.

Bibliography

Ancient Sources

Apollodorus, Translated by Hard, R. (1997). The Library of Greek Mythology. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Athenaeus, translated by Olson, D.S. (2006). The Learned Banqueters, bks 1-3.106E.London: Harvard University Press.Athenaeus, translated by Olson, D.S. (2006). The Learned Banqueters, bks 3.106E-5.London: Harvard University Press.Athenaeus, translated by Gulick, C.B. (1929). The Learned Banqueters, bks 6-7.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Athenaeus, translated by Olson, D.S. (2006). The Learned Banqueters, bks 8-10.420E.London: Harvard University Press.Athenaeus, translated by Gulick, C.B. (1929). The Learned Banqueters, bks 10.420E-11.London: Harvard University Press.Athenaeus, translated by Olson, D.S. (2010). The Learned Banqueters, bks 12-13.594B.London: Harvard University Press.Athenaeus, translated by Gulick, C.B. (1929). The Learned Banqueters, bks 14.653B-15.London: Harvard University Press.

Aristotle, translated by Freese, J.H. (1926). The Art of Rhetoric. London: WilliamHeinemann.

Cato the Elder, translated by Hooper, W.D. (1934). On Agriculture. London: HarvardUniversity Press.

Diodorus Siculus, translated by Oldfather, C.H.(1946). The Library of History. London:Harvard University Press.

Herodotus, translated by Waterfield, R. (1998). The Histories. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Homer, translated by Murray, A.T. (1919). The Odyssey. London: Harvard UniversityPress.

Pindar, translated by Lattimore, R. (1942). The Odes of Pindar. London: The University ofChicago Press.

Polyaenus, translated by Shepher, R. (1793). Strategems of War. London: George Nicol.

Strabo, translated by Jones, H.L. (1960). The Geography of Strabo, bks 3-5. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

Theocritus, translated by Wells, R. (1989). The Idylls. London: Penguin Classics.

Thucydides, Translated by R, Warner. 1954. The Peloponnesian War. Suffolk: PenguinClassics.

Virgil, translated by Fairclough, H.R. (1916). The Aeneid. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress.

Modern Sources

Alliata, V., Belvedere,O., Cantoni, A., Cusimano, G., Marescalchi, P., Vassallo, S. (1988).Himera III. Roma: L'Erma di Bretschneider

Bilde, P.G. And Stolba, V.F. (2006). Surveying the Greek Chora: The Black Sea Region in aComparative Perspective. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Carter, J.C. (2006). Discovering the Greek Countryside at Metaponto. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.

Champion, Craige B.. "Timaios (566)." Brills New Jacoby. Editor in Chief: IanWorthington (University of Missouri). Brill Online, 2014. Reference. The University ofReading. 27 April 2014

De Angelis, F. (2000). Estimating the Agricultural Base of Greek Sicily .Papers of theBritish School at Rome. 68, p.111-148.

De Angelis, F. (2006). Going against the Grain in Sicilian Greek Economics . Greece andRome. 53 (1), p. 29-47.

De Angelis, F. (2012). Archaeology in Sicily 20062010. Archaeological Reports, 58, pp123-195 doi:10.1017/S0570608412000026

De Angelis, F. (2003). Megara Hyblaia and Selinous: The Development of Two Greek CityStates in Archaic Sicily. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology.Skydsgaard, J.E. And Isager, S. (1995). Ancient Greek Agriculture: An Introduction.London: Routledge.Nenci, G. and Vallet, G. (1992). Bibliografia Topografica Della Colonizzazione Greca inItalia e Nelle Isole Tirreniche: IX. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Nenci, G. and Vallet, G. (1992). Bibliografia Topografica Della Colonizzazione Greca inItalia e Nelle Isole Tirreniche:X. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Nenci, G. and Vallet, G. (1992). Bibliografia Topografica Della Colonizzazione Greca inItalia e Nelle Isole Tirreniche:XIV. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Nenci, G. and Vallet, G. (1992). Bibliografia Topografica Della Colonizzazione Greca inItalia e Nelle Isole Tirreniche:XXI. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Nikolaenko, G. (2006). The Chora of Tauric Chersonesos and the Cadastre of the Fourthto Second Century B.C. In: Bilde, P. and Stolba, V Surveying the Greek Chora: The BlackSea Region in a Comparative Perspective. Aarhaus: Aarhaus University Press. p.151-175.Vassallo, S. (2006). La guerra ad Himera. Il Sistema Difensivo Della Citt e Del Territorio:Guerra e Pace in Sicilia e Nel Mediterraneo Antico (VIII-III sec. a.C). 1 (1), p.315-330.

Dunbabin, T.J. (1948). The Western Greeks. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Vassallo, S. (2005). Himera: Citta Greca. Palermo: Regione Siciliana. Assessorato deiBeni Culturali, Ambientali e della Pubblica Istruzione. Dipartimento dei Beni Culturali,Ambientali e dellEducazione Permanente .

Vassallo, S. (2010). Lincontro tra indigeni e Greci di Himera nella Siciliacentro-settentrionale (VII V sec aC). In: Treziny, H. Grecs et Indigenes de la Catalogne ala Mer Noire. Aix-en-Provence: Centre Camille-Jullian. p.41-54.

Vassallo, S. and Zirone, D. (2006). La villa rustica di Contrada San Luca (Castronovo diSicilia, Palermo). In: Vaggioli, M.A. Immagine e Immagini della Sicilia e di Altre Isole delMediterraneo Antico. Pisa: Scuola normale superiore. p.671-678.Vassallo, S. (1996). Il Territorio di Himera in Eta Arcaica. Kokalos. XLII (1), p.199-229.

Vassallo, S. (ed). (2007). Archeologia nelle vallate del Fiume Torto e del San Leonardo.Roccapalumba: Regione Siciliana. Assessorato dei Beni Culturali, Ambientali e dellaPubblica Istruzione. Dipartimento dei Beni Culturali, Ambientali e dellEducazionePermanente.

Whitley, J. (2001). The Technology of Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.