> “This provides a new perspective on how Phoenician culture spread—not through large-scale mass migration, but through a dynamic process of cultural transmission and assimilation.”
> “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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Readit News
> “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.
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.
We did hear about it. They did build an empire on Sicily. Sicily was a major territory of Carthage.
Deleted Comment
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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-n%C4%81...
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.
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.
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.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment