Phoenician culture spread mainly through cultural exchange(mpg.de)
mpg.de
Phoenician culture spread mainly through cultural exchange
https://www.mpg.de/24574685/0422-evan-phoenician-culture-spread-mainly-through-cultural-exchange-150495-x
43 comments
Phoenicians were a low war civilization. The fact that you had to name a macedonian general to illustrate is telling: the general public barely know phoenician kings or generals despite lasting more than a thousand years through all Mediterraneum, unless we focus on later Carthage which were more belligerant.
As of slaves, of course they had them! It was a normal thing back then.
But the point here is that Phoenicians were traders, not warriors. They built settlements all over the Mediterraneum and then moved goods and culture between them. They were also avid consumers of foreign culture, for example they liked egyptian dead culture so they just copied it.
As of slaves, of course they had them! It was a normal thing back then.
But the point here is that Phoenicians were traders, not warriors. They built settlements all over the Mediterraneum and then moved goods and culture between them. They were also avid consumers of foreign culture, for example they liked egyptian dead culture so they just copied it.
I'd suspect less "euphemism" and more "jargon". It's probably relatively hard to identify whether the culture was carried by means we currently think positively vs negatively about, so it's useful to have a word that doesn't rely on having a way to measure that distinction.
Trade. Phoenicians set up trade posts and like their descendants - the Carthaginians, developed a large trading network over the mediterranean sea.
The Aegean and Sicily were full of greeks and we would've heard if the phoenicians were trying to build an empire there. Instead, we know that phoenicians were name after the purple dye they were selling. What's more, according to legend, Carthage was established after the Levant was conquered by the assyrians.
> The Aegean and Sicily were full of greeks and we would've heard if the phoenicians were trying to build an empire there.
We did hear about it. They did build an empire on Sicily. Sicily was a major territory of Carthage.
We did hear about it. They did build an empire on Sicily. Sicily was a major territory of Carthage.
Phoenicians were part of many civs. They did lots of trade, and were mercantile by nature, they're not known for their conquering.
[deleted]
> The researchers even found a pair of close relatives (ca. second cousins) bridging the Mediterranean, one buried in a North African Punic site and one in Sicily.
This is from over 2500 years ago. How amazing is that, that we have this capacity in DNA analysis now to discover details like this from so long ago?
This is from over 2500 years ago. How amazing is that, that we have this capacity in DNA analysis now to discover details like this from so long ago?
In the 1700s a ring was found in England, inscribed Silvianus with the name Senicianus scratched into it. In the 1800s a curse tablet was found 80 miles away, complaining that Senicianus stole the ring of Silvianus.
There are three different extant clay tablets from Ur (circa 1750 BCE) complaining about the wares of the copper merchant Ea-nāṣir.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-n%C4%81...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-n%C4%81...
Thats seems less interesting to me because they where all found in the copper merchants house. So it was just a records cache.
Ah, my precious…
My vague impression is that the Phoenicians may have been just as important, historically, as the Greeks (first alphabet seems like a huge deal!), but they just didn't leave behind as many records. I remember trying to find a good book on them without succeeding. I wonder if Carthage had beaten Rome, the Phoenicians would take away the "ancient Mediterranean genius" slot away from the Greeks, since the availability of historical materials would be reversed.
Ever wonder why Spain was a civilized province while Gaul and Germany remained hostile frontiers for the Roman republic? Just take a look at the map in this article. Spain originally belonged to Carthage. Large parts of Rome's empire were civilized, not by Rome, but by Carthage and the Phoenicians.
I think you're right that the Phoenicians deserve more credit, as does Carthage. There is yet hope more of their history may come to light. We're unlikely to uncover records on the organic media the Phoenician alphabet was tailored for, but Mesopotamian cultures were contemporaries of the Phoenicians and we're discovering/translating new cuneiform tablets all the time. Entire Mesopotamian cities remain to be discovered, and some significant ones that we know of are likely buried beneath modern settlements.
We may never get the Phonecian's story from their own perspective, but we may yet get a better picture of them from people who didn't have a vested interest in erasing their history.
I think you're right that the Phoenicians deserve more credit, as does Carthage. There is yet hope more of their history may come to light. We're unlikely to uncover records on the organic media the Phoenician alphabet was tailored for, but Mesopotamian cultures were contemporaries of the Phoenicians and we're discovering/translating new cuneiform tablets all the time. Entire Mesopotamian cities remain to be discovered, and some significant ones that we know of are likely buried beneath modern settlements.
We may never get the Phonecian's story from their own perspective, but we may yet get a better picture of them from people who didn't have a vested interest in erasing their history.
We have a lot of documents from Ugarit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugarit
This is mostly a matter of excavating the tells we can see with our eyes. The history is easy to discover, but there's very little interest, so it doesn't get done.
Note that the initial wave of archaeology in Mesopotamia was fueled by popular interest in the Bible. That sputtered out when archaeology turned out not to support most of what the Bible said. So now there isn't interest from people who'd like to see the Bible confirmed, and there also isn't interest from the general public who have no particular connection to the region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugarit
This is mostly a matter of excavating the tells we can see with our eyes. The history is easy to discover, but there's very little interest, so it doesn't get done.
Note that the initial wave of archaeology in Mesopotamia was fueled by popular interest in the Bible. That sputtered out when archaeology turned out not to support most of what the Bible said. So now there isn't interest from people who'd like to see the Bible confirmed, and there also isn't interest from the general public who have no particular connection to the region.
Maybe with enough atheists the bible will turn from religion to mythology and people will become interested again.
Personally at least i find the cultural context the bible sprouted up in to be really interesting.
Personally at least i find the cultural context the bible sprouted up in to be really interesting.
This isn't really what happened. Plenty of Christians are still interested in levantine excavations, and plenty of satisfying evidence has been found for biblical narratives -- eg the Pilate stone and the dead sea scrolls -- but there are now fewer Christians per capita in the West and the middle east has become significantly less stable.
> and plenty of satisfying evidence has been found for biblical narratives -- eg the Pilate stone and the dead sea scrolls
That's not what people wanted. The Pilate stone records the existence of a person named Pilatus. We infer that this was Pontius Pilatus, and there's nothing particularly wrong with that.
But it does nothing to confirm a Biblical narrative. Calling it "satisfying evidence" is similar to picking a fight with someone, losing as badly as you can imagine, and then issuing a press release afterwards to the effect that that outcome was what you wanted all along.
By contrast, a major controversy arising from Mesopotamian archaeology was the discovery of the Mesopotamian flood myth, which severely undermined the Bible by being the obvious source of the myth of Noah while contradicting it in pretty much every particular. That's the kind of thing that destroyed popular interest in Mesopotamian archaeology.
That's not what people wanted. The Pilate stone records the existence of a person named Pilatus. We infer that this was Pontius Pilatus, and there's nothing particularly wrong with that.
But it does nothing to confirm a Biblical narrative. Calling it "satisfying evidence" is similar to picking a fight with someone, losing as badly as you can imagine, and then issuing a press release afterwards to the effect that that outcome was what you wanted all along.
By contrast, a major controversy arising from Mesopotamian archaeology was the discovery of the Mesopotamian flood myth, which severely undermined the Bible by being the obvious source of the myth of Noah while contradicting it in pretty much every particular. That's the kind of thing that destroyed popular interest in Mesopotamian archaeology.
You got a citation crediting the Carthaginians rather than indigenous Iberian cultures?
Try "Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization" by Richard Miles. It is not in dispute that Carthage had a long presence in Spain. If you are arguing that this had no impact on local culture, you'd need to provide some compelling evidence.
Thanks for the recommendation but just to clarify the claim I am querying is that the reason Iberia was “civilised” was due to the Carthaginian presence.
> Large parts of Rome's empire were civilized, not by Rome, but by Carthage and the Phoenicians.
That’s more than a claim that that the Carthaginians held overlordship of southern and eastern Iberia.
> Large parts of Rome's empire were civilized, not by Rome, but by Carthage and the Phoenicians.
That’s more than a claim that that the Carthaginians held overlordship of southern and eastern Iberia.
This is painting the Gauls as far more primitive than they were. They weren’t particularly “uncivilized” (which is far more a compliment than I think you realize), they just didn’t want to be subjugated and thus were subjected to genocide by Julius Caesar.
Perhaps I should have put "civilized" in quotes. We're talking about populations becoming accustomed to living in an large, organized state, paying taxes, and relying on the state for security and redress of grievances rather than warring with their neighbors. Basically, being part of an empire.
It's easier to absorb populations that are already part of an empire into another empire than it is to stitch a collection of sometimes warring tribes with different forms of organization into an empire. When Carthage fell, Rome was able to assume rule of Carthage's former colonies with relative ease, Carthage having already done the hard work of empire building.
Forcing the Gauls to become Romans was a considerably harder thing to do that required much bloodshed. It wasn't all Caesar. Caesar didn't even finish the job. Rome's efforts to absorb Gaul started long before Julius Caesar and continued after him as well. He only led one campaign in Gaul that we happen to have a historical record of, written by Caesar himself, who was a master of self-promotion.
What I was trying to point out is that the difference between Gaul and Spain was that the Romans had to create an imperial province in Gaul, while they inherited one that had already been created by Carthage in Spain.
It's easier to absorb populations that are already part of an empire into another empire than it is to stitch a collection of sometimes warring tribes with different forms of organization into an empire. When Carthage fell, Rome was able to assume rule of Carthage's former colonies with relative ease, Carthage having already done the hard work of empire building.
Forcing the Gauls to become Romans was a considerably harder thing to do that required much bloodshed. It wasn't all Caesar. Caesar didn't even finish the job. Rome's efforts to absorb Gaul started long before Julius Caesar and continued after him as well. He only led one campaign in Gaul that we happen to have a historical record of, written by Caesar himself, who was a master of self-promotion.
What I was trying to point out is that the difference between Gaul and Spain was that the Romans had to create an imperial province in Gaul, while they inherited one that had already been created by Carthage in Spain.
When you say stitch, I hear subjugate.
Fair point about the before and after Caeser. The historical record is pretty clear that enormous volumes of Gauls died during their “civilization” at the hands of Rome.
It’s true that populations that have already been brutalized into an empire are easier to absorb by other empires. I guess I was responding to the language you were using that (to me) presumes that being smashed down and genocided into the murky doublethink of empire is a net positive for the cultures being rapaciously absorbed against their will.
Fair point about the before and after Caeser. The historical record is pretty clear that enormous volumes of Gauls died during their “civilization” at the hands of Rome.
It’s true that populations that have already been brutalized into an empire are easier to absorb by other empires. I guess I was responding to the language you were using that (to me) presumes that being smashed down and genocided into the murky doublethink of empire is a net positive for the cultures being rapaciously absorbed against their will.
> I wonder if Carthage had beaten Rome, the Phoenicians would take away the "ancient Mediterranean genius" slot away from the Greeks, since the availability of historical materials would be reversed.
I don't think we owe the survival of Greek sources to the Romans exclusively. Had Rome been destroyed and wiped out, we wouldn't have Latin texts, but the Hellenistic kingdoms could have carried on and Greek would have remained a prestige language in the Eastern Mediterranean.
I don't think we owe the survival of Greek sources to the Romans exclusively. Had Rome been destroyed and wiped out, we wouldn't have Latin texts, but the Hellenistic kingdoms could have carried on and Greek would have remained a prestige language in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Easter Roman Empire was the Greek part of the empire. It later became the Byzantine empire which was Greek Roman
I don't get how this relates to the counterfactual I was describing.
[deleted]
Is there an instance where "Phoenician" is not 100% bidirectionally synonymous with "Canaanite?" I've wondered why we have two terms for the same group. In this instance it is literally the same peoples and neither term gives, as far as I'm aware, any kind of specialized connotation.
fdb345(1)
Lirael(3)
Wes Anderson’s “The Phoenician Scheme” is coming out in the next few weeks…
> “At each site, people were highly variable in their ancestry, with the largest genetic source being people similar to contemporary people of Sicily and the Aegean, and many people with significant North African associated ancestry as well.”
They say "cultural exchange" but is this a euphemism that includes things like warfare and slavery? Like the way Alexander the Great spread Greek culture?
It seems like the main hypothesis they're ruling out is migration.