see above, pp. 24 – 25. Even Servius could remark that it was not possible to find a con-
sensus about the true origin of the city (Aen.7.678): Ando 2001, 392. The topicality of
the general problem is clearly seen in the discussion in Aubet 2001 of the value of the
traditional classical foundation dates for Phoenician settlement in the Western
Mediterranean: “In this sense, to consider the western establishments as the end result
of a more or less long-term process of trial and error and barter, like the one described
by Herodotus on the Altantic coasts of Africa (Herod. 4:96), is not the same as to
interpret the Phoenician expansion as a socio-economic phenomenon, arising from
needs that are of an equally economic nature, but are concrete and set within a defined
time space” (195; cf. 201). See Lomas 2004, 5 – 6, for a discussion of what is at stake in
the language of “pre-colonisation” in debates over Western Greek settlement.
Ridgway 1992, 110 – 11.
For differing speculation on Timaeus’s interest in the Romans’ Trojan con-
nections, see Vattuone 1991, 275 – 86; Gruen 1992, 27 – 28, 37 – 38; Erskine 2001, 152;
Hillen 2003, 83 – 86.
Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom.1.67.4 = FGrH566 F 59.
Polyb. 12.4b – c1 = FGrH566 F 36.
On the “invention of tradition,” see the influential collection of essays in
Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983.
Brown 1958, 59; Pearson 1987, chap. IV; Walbank 1989 – 90, 47 – 48, 53; Vat-
tuone 1991, 286, 308, 310, 318. Modern students of Greek and Phoenician colonization
regularly wish to preserve both the classical literary tradition and the evidence of
archaeology by positing a very similar Timaean pattern of traces in the precolonizing
period proper being picked up by the actual colonization itself: for discussion, see
Aubet 2001, 200 – 201, on Phoenician scholarship; Ridgway 2004, 17 – 18, on Greek.
Jacoby, FGrH555, Komm., 489; seconded by Prinz 1979, 162 – 63. Heracles, on
the other hand, had already made his impact felt: Pearson 1987, 59 – 62. On Pindar’s
techniques, most clearly embodied in the stories of Cyrene, see Calame 2003; in gen-
eral, on “double foundations” in mythic and in historical time, see Malkin 1998, 4.
Jacoby, FGrH555, Komm., 489.
Testimonia alone can very seldom help on this kind of point. If Livy’s account
of Hercules and the Ara Maxima, for example, had not survived except in paraphrase,
we would have a totally misleading impression of how Livy reported a “mythological”
event in a history with distanced reporting techniques of analepsis (1.7.3 – 14).
Cf. Dougherty 1991 for the way that colonization is figured by Greeks as a
return, not an intrusion.
Quite how this retracing or refoundation might have worked is an extremely
vexed topic: Vattuone 1991, 274 – 86; Gruen 1992, 37 – 38.
Vattuone (1991, 289 n. 70) claims that Timaeus very probably had the same pat-
tern for Carthage as for Rome. Certainty is not possible, but in the absence of any evi-
notes to pages 93 – 95