the nature of the Iberian settlements, the result is as good an overall account of the Phoeniciancivilization as we could hope to find. Since this is a fast-moving field, and apparently smalldiscoveries can re-shape the archaologists' appreciation of a whole period, it is unlikely to seemdefinitive for long. The already copious bibliography has been much enlarged in this edition (pp.382-425), but is infuriating to try to use; it is almost impossible to find there any particular study,since the whole is split into so many separate sub-sections.The topic is specifically that of the Phoenicians. The Carthaginians are discussed in so far asthey are in origin a Phoenician colony, but the period which follows the eclipse of thePhoenicians and the rise of the Carthaginians (in the sixth century B.C.) is not in the focus of this book. The original Spanish title refers to Tyre, rather than to the Phoenicians, and, onceTyre ceases to have any hold over the Western Mediterranean, events are out of this study'sbrief. But the great length of the book, which is accompanied by many excellent photographs,not only from the Iberian Peninsula, almost no padding and only a small amount of repetition,shows what a great deal is now known, or can at least be now deduced, about theseremarkable people.The need for a second edition is due not just to the discoveries in Andalucía, of course, not leastbecause Tyre and the Lebanon in general have been more available for archaeological studysince the general end of hostilities there. The book starts with the question (the title of Chapter 1), "Who were the Phoenicians?" They were the Biblical Canaanites, based roughly within theborders of modern Lebanon. Not the least of the virtues of this book are the many excellentmaps, which enable us to visualize the geography and the connections between the people of different places at several different times. Thus the map on page 15 makes it clear how far thePhoenicians were indeed confined to the Mediterranean coast, despite trading with the areas totheir East. Their ports and their maritime expertise and contacts are shown as dominating their relations with neighbouring civilizations throughout this period. They were not a unified state,which is why it makes sense to see the westwards expansion as an enterprise of Tyre rather than of the whole of Phoenicia.Professor Aubet has mixed feelings about the debate between modern historians andarcheologists over the different kinds of evidence for dates and events. The controversybetween those who accept early dates given by historians (most notably Velleius Paterculus,pp.195-97) for the founding of Gadir (Cádiz), in the second millennium B.C., and thearchaeological evidence for its founding in the eighth century B.C., is seen firmly from thearchaeologists' camp, and her own evidence seems more or less conclusive.The ancient historiographers, it is suggested, wished to tie in the founding of Gadir directly withthe siege of Troy, and an elastic insouciance over chronology was the byproduct of thatartistically-inspired desire. But the same Classical historians also tell us that the Phoenicians'empire was inspired by its silver trade, and here archaelogy supports their assessment. In fact,written accounts of many kinds are thoughtfully exploited where they can be helpful in thereconstruction of events, and necessarily so, for without written accounts she and her colleagues are "faced with a mass of decontextualized empirical information" (27).