PDA

View Full Version : Phoenician mtdna from sardinia



kingjohn
10-01-18, 20:37
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169

:)

to bad they didn't checked for y dna
we could have known once and for all what was the y haplogroups of pheonicians
without speculating :thinking:

Pygmalion
10-01-18, 23:30
So, what are the implications of this?

According to the article this is evidence that native Nuragic Sardinians were integrated in these Phoenician communities in the island, which was already suggested before by scholars and pretty obvious. But apparently there is also evidence for "European" lineages in Phoenician sites in Lebanon, so was there a migration of native Sardinians eastwards too?

We know there is archaeological evidence for Nuragic Sardinian presence in the first layers of Carthage and Utica in North Africa, but also in Iberian sites like Huelva and Malaga, and before that in bronze age Cyprus which was later settled by Phoenicians.

Angela
11-01-18, 01:27
I haven't read it yet, although I will. How do they know that the "Phoenician" mtDna isn't just Neolithic or Bronze Age mtdna which arrived earlier? Did they drill down deep into the sub-clades and date them?

I also want to read what they mean by "European" mtDna.

Zalloua has rather a history of making claims that don't always hold up, like in the paper where he claimed that yDna J2 in France as well as other places was a signature of the Phoenicians. We now know it was apparently a signature of the Mycenaeans too, so it's much more complicated than he envisioned, and we don't know which groups spread which sub-clades of J2 to different areas.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18976729

A. Papadimitriou
11-01-18, 06:44
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169

:)

to bad they didn't checked for y dna
we could have known once and for all what was the y haplogroups of pheonicians
without speculating :thinking:

If they had just sampled Sardinians we wouldn't be able to tell what is definitely Phoenician and what isn't.

Pausanias mentions Carthaginians used Iberian and Libyan* mercenaries, btw.

*And I don't know who were those 'Libyans' and what haplogroups they could have had. I am not sure if they spoke languages related to Berber or if they could have been related to Ligures (Ligyans) and if Libyans and Ligures could have been related etc. He mentions that Libyans inhabited Corsica.

We need samples from Ancient North Africa too (before the Phoenician expansion).

Either way, that is what Pausanias had written:

VOTIVE OFFERINGS AT DELPHI (CONTINUED)

[10.17.1] XVII. Of the non-Greeks in the west, the people of Sardinia have sent a bronze statue of him after whom they are called. In size and prosperity Sardinia is the equal of the most celebrated islands. What the ancient name was that the natives give it I do not know, but those of the Greeks who sailed there to trade called it Ichnussa, because the shape of the island is very like a man's footprint (ichnos). Its length is one thousand one hundred and twenty stades, and its breadth extends to four hundred and twenty.
SARDINIA (MYTHICAL HISTORY)

[10.17.2] The first sailors to cross to the island are said to have been Libyans. Their leader was Sardus, son of Maceris, the Maceris surnamed Heracles by the Egyptians and Libyans. Maceris himself was celebrated chiefly for his journey to Delphi, but Sardus it was who led the Libyans to Ichnussa, and after him the island was renamed. However, the Libyan army did not expel the aboriginals, who received the invaders as settlers through compulsion rather than in goodwill. Neither the Libyans nor the native population knew how to build cities. They dwelt in scattered groups, where chance found them a home in cabins or caves.
[10.17.3] Years after the Libyans, there came to the island from Greece Aristaeus and his followers. Aristaeus is said to have been a son of Apollo and Cyrene, and they say that, deeply grieved by the fate of Actaeon, and vexed alike with Boeotia and the whole of Greece, he migrated to Sardinia.
[10.17.4] Others think that Daedalus too ran away from Camicus on this occasion, because of the invasion of the Cretans, and took a part in the colony that Aristaeus led to Sardinia. But it is nonsense to think that Daedalus, a contemporary of Oedipus, king of Thebes, had a part in a colony or anything else along with Aristaeus, who married Autonoe, the daughter of Cadmus. At any rate, these colonists too founded no city, the reason being, I think, that neither in numbers nor in strength were they capable of the task.
[10.17.5] After Aristaeus the Iberians crossed to Sardinia, under Norax as leader of the expedition, and they founded the city of Nora. The tradition is that this was the first city in the island, and they say that Norax was a son of Erytheia, the daughter of Geryones, with Hermes for his father. A fourth component part of the population was the army of Iolaus, consisting of Thespians and men from Attica, which put in at Sardinia and founded Olbia; by themselves the Athenians founded Ogryle, either in commemoration of one of their parishes in the home-land, or else because one Ogrylus himself took part in the expedition. Be this as it may, there are still today places in Sardinia called Iolaia, and Iolaus is worshipped by the inhabitants.
[10.17.6] When Troy was taken, among those Trojans who fled were those who escaped with Aeneas. A part of them, carried from their course by winds, reached Sardinia and intermarried with the Greeks already settled there. But the non-Greek element were prevented from coming to blows with the Greeks and Trojans, for the two enemies were evenly matched in all warlike equipment, while the river Thorsus, flowing between their territories, made both equally afraid to cross it.
[10.17.7] However, many years afterwards the Libyans crossed again to the island with a stronger army, and began a war against the Greeks. The Greeks were utterly destroyed, or only a few of them survived. The Trojans made their escape to the high parts of the island, and occupied mountains difficult to climb, being precipitous and protected by stakes. Even at the present day they are called Ilians, but in figure, in the fashion of their arms, and in their mode of living generally, they are like the Libyans.
SARDINIA (HISTORY)

[10.17.8] Not far distant from Sardinia is an island, called Cyrnus by the Greeks, but Corsica by the Libyans who inhabit it. A large part of the population, oppressed by civil strife, left it and came to Sardinia; there they took up their abode, confining themselves to the highlands. The Sardinians, however, call them by the name of Corsicans, which they brought with them from home.
[10.17.9] When the Carthaginians were at the height of their sea power, they overcame all in Sardinia except the Ilians and Corsicans, who were kept from slavery by the strength of the mountains. These Carthaginians, like those who preceded them, founded cities in the island, namely, Caralis and Sulci. Some of the Carthaginian mercenaries, either Libyans or Iberians, quarrelled about the booty, mutinied in a passion, and added to the number of the highland settlers. Their name in the Cyrnian language is Balari, which is the Cyrnian word for fugitives.

Pygmalion
11-01-18, 10:45
If they had just sampled Sardinians we wouldn't be able to tell what is definitely Phoenician and what isn't.

Pausanias mentions Carthaginians used Iberian and Libyan* mercenaries, btw.

*And I don't know who were those 'Libyans' and what haplogroups they could have had. I am not sure if they spoke languages related to Berber or if they could have been related to Ligures (Ligyans) and if Libyans and Ligures could have been related etc. He mentions that Libyans inhabited Corsica.

We need samples from Ancient North Africa too (before the Phoenician expansion).

Either way, that is what Pausanias had written:


I would take what Greek historians said with a grain of salt, they tended to attribute every civilized feature of the foreign people to themselves, for instance they claimed that the Nuragic civilization itself was Greek, from Diodorus:

"When he had completed the labors, because according to the oracle of the god it was advisable that before passing between the gods he sent a colony to Sardinia and put the sons he had had from the Tespiadi in charge, Heracles decided to send, with the children , his nephew Iolaus, since they were all very young.It seems to us necessary to speak before the birth of children in order to be able to make the discourse of the colony more clearly. Tespio, a man of illustrious lineage, of Athens, son of Erechtheus king of the homonymous region, fathered 50 children from numerous wives.
When Heracles was still young but already had an extraordinary physical strength, Tespio wished his daughters had offspring from him. So he invited them to a sacrifice: he offered a splendid feast and sent his daughters one by one. He joined with all, made them pregnant and became the father of 50 children who took the common denomination from the Tespiadi. When they reached the virile age, Heracles decided to send them to the colony in Sardinia, according to the oracle."

"Then Iolaus, constituted the colony, sent to call from Sicily Daedalus, and he built great works that remained until our times (about 90 BC) called, by their architect Dedalea.


He also built large and sumptuous gymnasiums and set up courts and all the other things that lead to prosperity. He called Iolaei the inhabitants by imposing their name on himself, with the agreement of the Tespiadi who gave him this privilege as a father.


Because of his solicitude towards them they were driven to such benevolence as to give him the title of progenitor as a title: therefore in the successive epochs those who offer sacrifices to this god invoke him as father Iolaus, in the same way that the Persians invoke Cyrus."

Then Pseudo Aristoteles said the same things:


"- It is said that on the island of Sardinia there are buildings modeled according to the ancient Hellenic tradition, and many other splendid buildings, and buildings with domed vault with extraordinary proportions ratio.It is believed that these works were raised by Iolaus son of Ificle in the time when, taking with him the Tespiadi sons of Heracles, he transferred the colony to take it away from their places of origin to those districts, because he procured these for the parentado of Heracles , to which any land was located to the West believed belonged [...].
They then say that Sardinia has been, in ancient times, prosperous and dispensing of every product: in fact they tell that Aristeus, who - it is still said - in his time had been the most expert among men in the art of cultivating the fields, were the lord in these places; before Aristeus these places were occupied by many and large birds [...]"

While interestingly enough Strabo considered the natives to be Tyrrhenians:
:

- It is said that Iolaus, leading some of Heracles' sons, came here and they lived together with the Barbarians who occupied the island at the time: they were Tyrrhenians, but then the dominion passed to the Phoenicians coming from Carthage, with whom they fought against the Romans. Subsequently defeated, everything passed under Roman rule.

One of the oldest Greek accounts about Sardinia is that of Simonides of Ceos (VIth century bc):

"Simonides of Ceo's testimony according to which Talos, before entering the service of Minos in Crete, would have resided in Sardinia, provoking on the island the death of many natives, presumably due to the bloody modalities of the death that was inflicted upon them, at the moment of the death they gnashed their teeth, the expression "Sardonic laughter" came from this event according to him"

http://www.academia.edu/31565243/Talos_l_automa_bronzeo_contro_i_Sardi_le_relazioni _pi%C3%B9_antiche_tra_Creta_e_la_Sardegna

53 Sardinian vessels dating to the bronze age were found in Crete so it's possible this testified the prehistoric contacts between the two islands

Angela
11-01-18, 13:23
Bottom line: there's no overlap between the ancient mtDna from "Phoenicia" and from Sardinia. The conclusions are drawn from the presence of three mtDna samples from ancient Sardinia which the authors believe could have come from Phoenicia based upon other factors.

From the paper:
". We only found one haplotype (H3) shared between pre-Phoenician and Phoenician era samples from Sardinia and this can be seen in the network analysis (Fig 2A (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone-0190169-g002)). However, we do not find many mutations separating haplotypes from all the three groups, particularly those in haplogroup H. Two clades (the K1 and U5 haplogroups) contain samples from pre-Phoenician Sardinians only, whereas the W5, N1b1a5 and X2b clades contain only Phoenician Sardinians, and appear to be distant from any pre-Phoenician Sardinian samples and thus we suggest that these are likely Phoenician samples. The T2b3 sample from Beirut is only two mutations removed from a pre-Phoenician Sardinian sample and does not appear to be an indigenous Lebanese lineage but rather a foreign introduction to the Beirut Phoenician population. We carried out DAPC analyses to investigate genetic structuring within our sampling. DAPC performs discriminant analyses (DA) on principle components (PC). Generally, DA resolves between population relationships while ignoring within population variation [28 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref028)]. DAPC uses PCA to resolve within population variation and then performs a DA to resolve between population structure [28 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref028)]. The two DAPC plots (one discriminant function and two discriminant functions) support the pattern found in the network analysis, identifying overlapping signatures of Lebanese samples with the Sardinian Phoenicians, with a clear pre-Phoenician component of the population (Fig 2B and 2C (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone-0190169-g002)). We see that most Phoenician-era samples cluster closely together with pre-Phoenician samples."

I'm not sure I'd make that leap, since none of those appear among their ancient "Phoenician" samples.

"The most common haplogroup seen in our ancient Lebanese and Sardinian samples was the superhaplogroup H, identified in 7 of 14 samples (50%). Five of the Monte Sirai samples (50%) were identified as having H haplotypes (H+16311, H1e1a6, H1bn, H3, and H5d). Haplogroups H1, H3 and H5 are all thought to have a Southwest European origin and to have spread from there after the LGM [42 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref042)Two of the four ancient Lebanese samples belong to haplogroup H (sub-groups H and H34) and a third belongs to the sister clade, R0.]. There were no shared haplotypes between the ancient samples of Lebanon and those from Monte Sirai. However, all sequences belonging to haplogroups H and R0 (ancient samples of Lebanon and Sardinia, and Monte Sirai) are very closely related as they are separated by only few mutations (Fig 2A (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone-0190169-g002)). Olivieri et al. [15 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref015)] also report high levels of H subgroups in their ancient samples (38%) with several closely related lineages to our Monte Sirai samples (HV0j1, H1, H1e1, H1e1a, H3, H3u and H5a)."

I don't see how any of the above is dispositive of any particular connection.

J1c is held to be "Sardinian".

On the so-called Phoenician lineages possibly present in Sardinia, of which there are three:

"The presence of one sample from Monte Sirai, MS10578, a 6 to 12-year-old child that has an N1b1a5 haplotype is of particular interest. Haplogroup N lineages are rare in modern Sardinians. Recently, however, four individuals were identified carrying haplogroup N1b1a9, which appears to be a Sardinian specific haplogroup [15 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref015)]. The coalescence ages of this haplogroup are estimated to be 7.3–9.4 Ky, so this may have been a pre-Neolithic introduction to the island. N1b1a5, however, is more recent (Olivieri et al. [15 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref015)] Fig 3 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone-0190169-g003)), dating to 2.5 Ky, which aligns nicely with a Phoenician/Punic introduction. Brandt et al. [45 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref045)] suggest that N is a marker of Western European Hunter Gatherers as it has been found in Mesolithic samples from Portugal and a Palaeolithic sample in Southern Italy. Ancient samples with haplogroup N1a have been found in early Neolithic sites from Spain and Germany [41 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref041)], but N1b has not been recorded in Neolithic samples outside of the Levant with two exceptions from Anatolia dating to 6500–6200 BCE [48 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref048), 50 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref050)] and between 7500–5800 calBCE [51 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref051)]. N1b is a relatively common haplogroup in Lebanon, with 9 of the 87 (10%) modern samples we sequenced carrying N1b1a subtypes. While we have not found any N1b in our ancient Lebanese samples, it is not unlikely that this haplogroup was introduced to Sardinia via Phoenician contact, either directly from the Levant or via Phoenician/Punic settlements in North Africa, for example Carthage. Fig 3A (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone-0190169-g003)shows that N1b1a lineages have been identified in modern Tunisians [52 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref052), 53 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref053)] and in a modern Moroccan [52 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref052)], as well as in a modern individual from Sicily, another island with known Phoenician settlement [54 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref054)]."

I think this is down to a maybe or possible migration with Phoenicians. The authors themselves seem rather tentative.

"the archaeological sample from Monte Sirai, MS10581, a young female included in a group burial, is, as far as we know, the first W5 identified in Sardinia. The age of W5 has been estimated to be 12.2 Ky [56 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref056)], and while W5 is most commonly found in Northern Central Europe and Britain today (Fig 3B (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone-0190169-g003)), a basal W5 lineage was identified in a Moroccan Berber [56 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref056)], which clusters most closely with our Phoenician sample. Our ancient result from Monte Sirai is indeed significant and establishes a minimum date of late 5th century BCE for haplogroup W5 in the Mediterranean region and, given the Phoenician trade networks, could explain the presence of W5 in North Africa."

They may be on firmer ground here. I'd be interested to hear what other folks think.

"Sample MS10587 from Monte Sirai belonged to haplogroup X2b, with an extra mutation at position 226C. Mathiesen et al. [48 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref048)] report this same signature in a sample (I1499) from Garadna, Hungary dating to 5210–5010 calBCE (see S5 Fig (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.s008)). X2b has also been recorded in an early Neolithic sample from Revenia, Greece, dated to 6438–6264 calBCE [57 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref057)]. Haplogroup X is relatively rare in Europe, generally found at frequencies of less than 1%. The highest frequencies of X in Europe are reported in Catalonia, the Pyrenees and southern Portugal, at about 2.5%. It is found at relatively high frequencies in Druze from the Levant, where it reaches frequencies of up to 15%, including subtype X2b (Fig 3C (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone-0190169-g003)), though we did not identify X haplotypes in any of our modern Lebanese samples. It is possible that X2b was a Phoenician haplogroup introduced to Sardinia either directly from Lebanon or via North Africa, though an earlier, early Neolithic introduction, perhaps via a maritime route [58 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190169#pone.0190169.ref058)] cannot be rejected.

I'm not convinced by the above at all, since it could just as easily have arrived in the Neolithic.

MtDna is not my specialty, so I'm willing to be persuaded, but I would give this a one, maybe two might have arrived with the Phoenicians. I'll have to check to see what percentage these represent of modern Sardinian mtDna.

kingjohn
11-01-18, 15:56
they should have tested y dna in the pheonician sites in sardinia
more than likely that the pheonician sailors were mostly man not woman

regards
adam

p.s
h3 was more than likely absorbed by the pheonicians in sardinia
because h3u was found in 3000-3800 bc sardinian
it probably neolithic in sardinia pre -pheonician :)

Angela
11-01-18, 16:42
they should have tested y dna in the pheonician sites in sardinia
more than likely that the pheonician sailors were mostly man not woman

regards
adam

p.s
h3 was more than likely absorbed by the pheonicians in sardinia
because h3u was found in 3000-3800 bc sardinian
it probably neolithic in sardinia pre -pheonician :)

Nothing about the Phoenician "colonies" indicates that they were colonies like those of the Greeks. Everything I've seen indicates that they were more like trading posts. I think it would be unlikely that they brought very many women with them, and this paper doesn't convince me otherwise.

Pygmalion
11-01-18, 16:58
Nothing about the Phoenician "colonies" indicates that they were colonies like those of the Greeks. Everything I've seen indicates that they were more like trading posts. I think it would be unlikely that they brought very many women with them, and this paper doesn't convince me otherwise.

Precisely, they came in small numbers and integrated into the local population peacefully, while Greek colonists came in huge numbers and violently according to their own sources.

Angela
11-01-18, 17:24
Precisely, they came in small numbers and integrated into the local population peacefully, while Greek colonists came in huge numbers and violently according to their own sources.
Most large folk migrations include some degree of violence because there is more disruption and the "natives" are not going to be happy about giving up their land. That's to be expected. The Amerindians were relatively friendly when the Europeans were few. That changed.
I think the comparison to the Phoenicians might be something like the British and French and German colonialism of the 19th century. The Greek colonization was more like the Boers.
However, I just started reading "Carthage Must Be Destroyed" by Richard Miles. (I got tired of it looking at me accusingly from my bed-stand! ) I'll be interested to see if there was a change after the Levant fell to the Assyrians. I'm already braced, from the reviews, for a pretty partisan take on it. He's definitely " Team Carthage". It's a pity, imo, when historians do this; it makes their conclusions suspect.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/apr/24/carthage-must-be-destroyed-miles

Pygmalion
11-01-18, 17:30
Most large folk migrations include some degree of violence because there is more disruption and the "natives" are not going to be happy about giving up their land. That's to be expected. The Amerindians were relatively friendly when the Europeans were few. That changed.

I think the comparison to the Phoenicians might be something like the British and French and German colonialism of the 19th century. The Greek colonization was more like the Boers.

However, I just started reading "Carthage Must Be Destroyed" by Richard Miles. (I got tired of it looking at me accusingly from my bed-stand! ) I'll be interested to see if there was a change after the Levant fell to the Assyrians. I'm already braced, from the reviews, for a pretty partisan take on it. He's definitely " Team Carthage". It's a pity, imo, when historians do this; it makes their conclusions suspect.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/apr/24/carthage-must-be-destroyed-miles

Yes but I don't know how much the parallel between Phoenicians in South Europe and Europeans in America fits, from a military technology standpoint they were more or less on the same level, with Iberians and Sardinians using Atlantic bronze cut and slash swords, bronze spearheads and arrowheads and even using some iron blades occasionally, while when Europeans conquered the Americans they had fire weapons and steel armor vs obsidian clubs.

Angela
11-01-18, 17:34
Yes but I don't know how much the parallel between Phoenicians in South Europe and Europeans in America fits, from a military technology standpoint they were more or less on the same level, with Iberians and Sardinians using Atlantic bronze cut and slash swords, bronze spearheads and arrowheads and even using some iron daggers occasionally, while when Europeans conquered the Americans they had fire weapons and steel armor vs obsidian clubs.

Obviously, everyone knows that there was a disparity in technology in the Americas versus the situation in the Bronze Age in Europe. That wasn't my point.

A. Papadimitriou
12-01-18, 07:08
I would take what Greek historians said with a grain of salt, they tended to attribute every civilized feature of the foreign people to themselves, for instance they claimed that the Nuragic civilization itself was Greek, from Diodorus:


This isn't true about Pausanias, though.

He says, for example:

The first sailors (including Greeks) didn't have the knowledge or the ability to create cities.

The first city was founded by Iberians.

After Aristaeus the Iberians crossed to Sardinia, under Norax as leader of the expedition, and they founded the city of Nora. The tradition is that this was the first city in the island,

After that Greeks founded Olbia and Ogryle.

A fourth component part of the population was the army of Iolaus, consisting of Thespians and men from Attica, which put in at Sardinia and founded Olbia; by themselves the Athenians founded Ogryle

Later Trojans moved and settled with the Greeks

When Troy was taken, among those Trojans who fled were those who escaped with Aeneas. A part of them, carried from their course by winds, reached Sardinia and intermarried with the Greeks already settled there.

But later

The Greeks were utterly destroyed, or only a few of them survived. The Trojans made their escape to the high parts of the island, and occupied mountains difficult to climb, being precipitous and protected by stakes.

From the things written in ancient sources people take with a grain of salt whatever they don't like usually.

bicicleur
12-01-18, 08:14
From the things written in ancient sources people take with a grain of salt whatever they don't like usually.

nevertheless they should be taken with a big grain of salt

bicicleur
12-01-18, 08:20
Most large folk migrations include some degree of violence because there is more disruption and the "natives" are not going to be happy about giving up their land. That's to be expected. The Amerindians were relatively friendly when the Europeans were few. That changed.
I think the comparison to the Phoenicians might be something like the British and French and German colonialism of the 19th century. The Greek colonization was more like the Boers.
However, I just started reading "Carthage Must Be Destroyed" by Richard Miles. (I got tired of it looking at me accusingly from my bed-stand! ) I'll be interested to see if there was a change after the Levant fell to the Assyrians. I'm already braced, from the reviews, for a pretty partisan take on it. He's definitely " Team Carthage". It's a pity, imo, when historians do this; it makes their conclusions suspect.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/apr/24/carthage-must-be-destroyed-miles

weren't the Boers going inland to work the fields and raise cattle, while the Greeks often founded a colony on an island or a peninsula with the goal of just trading with the locals?

Zanatis
12-01-18, 09:10
I believe that both cases of how Phoenicians and Greeks created colonies should be treated in a case to case basis.

Greeks werent always moving en masse to a new colony unless they were driven out of their homeland but external factors. In my cases what we call Greek colonies were simply more developed cities that had relations with Greek city-states and traded a lot with them, eventually even hosting Greek merchants but in no way they constituted the majority.

Then you have cases when 10,000 Greeks moved to a certain of Magna Graecia for example, so the same could be said about Phoenicians.

The problem with Greeks is that how could you possibly measure their actual genetic imput on the Balkans and South Italy when both peoples were almost genetically identical since earlier eras.

Pygmalion
12-01-18, 10:52
This isn't true about Pausanias, though.

He says, for example:

The first sailors (including Greeks) didn't have the knowledge or the ability to create cities.

The first city was founded by Iberians.


After that Greeks founded Olbia and Ogryle.


Later Trojans moved and settled with the Greeks


But later


From the things written in ancient sources people take with a grain of salt whatever they don't like usually.

Well, I take what they said with a grain of salt because I know most of what they said about Iberian and Sardinian history is wrong.

For instance Nora is not the oldest city in Sardinia, Since Solky, which was a Tyrian colony and not a Carthaginian one is older by over a century, and so is Monte Sirai itself, or depending on the definition of city Nuragic proto-urban centers like Sant'Imbenia or Serri are even older, furthermore Nora certainly wasn't founded by Iberians, the oldest layers of the city belong to the Phoenician culture, and there is not a single fragment of Iberian pottery anywhere in the whole island, so no evidence of stable Iberian presence in Sardinia, while the contrary isn't true as archaeologists have found and are still recently discovering Nuragic pottery in many Iberian sites dating to as far as the Xth century bc, so the migration took place in the opposite direction.

Then the chronology of the supposed Greek founding of Olbia is all wrong, since the city only dates back to the Punic era (late 6-early 5th century bc), and was Punic, the presence of a Greek settlement prior to that is hotly debated and if there was any it was in the 7th century bc, certainly not during the period of the Trojan war.

A. Papadimitriou
12-01-18, 11:53
Well, I take what they said with a grain of salt because I know most of what they said about Iberian and Sardinian history is wrong.

For instance Nora is not the oldest city in Sardinia, Since Solky, which was a Tyrian colony and not a Carthaginian one is older by over a century, and so is Monte Sirai itself, or depending on the definition of city Nuragic proto-urban centers like Sant'Imbenia or Serri are even older, furthermore Nora certainly wasn't founded by Iberians, the oldest layers of the city belong to the Phoenician culture, and there is not a single fragment of Iberian pottery anywhere in the whole island, so no evidence of stable Iberian presence in Sardinia, while the contrary isn't true as archaeologists have found and are still recently discovering Nuragic pottery in many Iberian sites dating to as far as the Xth century bc, so the migration took place in the opposite direction.

Then the chronology of the supposed Greek founding of Olbia is all wrong, since the city only dates back to the Punic era (late 6-early 5th century bc), and was Punic, the presence of a Greek settlement prior to that is hotly debated and if there was any it was in the 7th century bc, certainly not during the period of the Trojan war.

The problem with what you write is that I didn't say that what Pausanias said was true. (I posted it mainly because he had said that Carthaginians used Iberian and Libyan mercenaries which is something that I don't believe someone would make up)

But if Greeks in general "tended to attribute every civilized feature of the foreign people to themselves" (which isn't true), you should wonder why he said that the first city was founded by Iberians. What he had heard or saw to reach that conclusion?

And then, why he said the people of the island (even those who according to him mainly descended from Trojans) had a mode of living similar to the 'Libyans'? And who were those Libyans?

Pygmalion
12-01-18, 12:17
The problem with what you write is that I didn't say that what Pausanias said was true. (I posted it mainly because he had said that Carthaginians used Iberian and Libyan mercenaries which is something that I don't believe someone would make up)

But if Greeks in general "tended to attribute every civilized feature of the foreign people to themselves" (which isn't true), you should wonder why he said that the first city was founded by Iberians. What he had heard or saw to reach that conclusion?

And then, why he said the people of the island (even those who according to him mainly descended from Trojans) had a mode of living similar to the 'Libyans'? And who were those Libyans?

There was a tradition among ancient historians, especially among those in the Roman era, to think that the indigenous inhabitants of Sardinia were Libyans or came from Libya, Cicero for instance in his "Pro Scauro" oration repeated in many instances that Sardinians were a mix of Phoenicians and Africans, and that Sardinia was the same as Africa.
Perhaps it's because Sardinians spoke Punic, we know that Sardinian cities were of Phoenician culture and that Punic was still spoken at least until the 2nd century AD as testified by bilingual inscriptions found in the island, as you probably know modern Sardinians are the direct descendants of Neolithic settlers from Europe so now we know that the theory about their North Africa origins isn't true and North African admixture is insignificant among Sardinians.
The only historian to break this tradition was Strabo who claimed the natives were Thyrrenians.

Angela
12-01-18, 14:45
Actually, no, not everyone decides what to take with a grain of salt in the ancient sources depending on some sort of agenda. I take everything they say about absolutely everything with a grain of salt, and, in fact, never use their writings to support any argument whatsoever, unless I include a lot of caveats, because it's all just too unreliable, at least when they're relaying the "history" of events before their own time.

In those cases they're just relaying rumors, or myths, not things they actually witnessed or for which they have some sort of documentary evidence.

I don't know where people get this idea that they were "historians" in the sense we use that word today, and even today we have to examine the accounts of modern historians very carefully in terms of their sources.

Now we don't have to rely on this kind of "evidence" any more, because we have ancient dna, and it has already falsified some of the things written by these authors.

The Sardinians are actually a prime example. We now know their genetic composition, and any claim that they are "African", or "Libyan" in the sense of "North African" is completely falsified. That alone should tell you that to rely on these authors for "ethnic" information is absurd.

Also, as the paper itself points out, the Phoenician impact, such as it was, was in the southwestern tip of the island. It did not extend island wide. Whatever any recoverable y dna might show about these Phoenician settlements, the authors have not shown any extensive intrusion of foreign mtDna, which would support the fact that this was not a folk migration.

@Zanatis,
I would be very interested to know your sources for the proposition that the Phoenicians established colonies which were more than trading outposts, i.e. the result of folk migrations, that expanded their territorial range etc.

alexfritz
12-01-18, 15:21
There was a tradition among ancient historians, especially among those in the Roman era, to think that the indigenous inhabitants of Sardinia were Libyans or came from Libya, Cicero for instance in his "Pro Scauro" oration repeated in many instances that Sardinians were a mix of Phoenicians and Africans, and that Sardinia was the same as Africa. Perhaps it's because Sardinians spoke Punic, we know that Sardinian cities were of Phoenician culture and that Punic was still spoken at least until the 2nd century AD as testified by bilingual inscriptions found in the island, as you probably know modern Sardinians are the direct descendants of Neolithic settlers from Europe so now we know that the theory about their North Africa origins isn't true and North African admixture is insignificant among Sardinians. The only historian to break this tradition was Strabo who claimed the natives were Thyrrenians.

that is the point in specifics about Cicero 'pro scauro' in has to be viewed in a special context, a lawyer defending his client M.A.Scaurus by highlighting implying the sardinians to be punic/carthaginian meaning enemy in character not ethno-cultural; what i have puzzled together so far is that of course Carthage itself being settled by Phoenicians from the Mediterranean coast of the Levant; The native Libyans (aka Berbers) were always an integral part of Carthage as it becomes clear when just looking at Carthaginian armies from Himera(early 5th century BC)>2nd Punic-war(late 3rd century BC); Another peoples that became an integral part of the Phoenicians in the west and later Carthage were the Iberians (South and West Iberia) amongst whom many Phoenician colonies existed as early as the late Bronze-age/~900BC; Nancy H. Demand - The Mediterranean Context of Early Greek History (2011)
9617

What further illustrates the role of the non-Phoenician peoples i.e. Libyans and Iberians in the context of Carthage, is the historical settlement of Phoenician/Punic colonies on Sardinia; In Pausanias (X/XVII) we are informed that the Phoenician/Punic colonies were first settled by Libyans sailing under Sardo (a semi-mythical person) and than Nora was founded by Iberians sailing under Norax; Archaeologically Phoenician/Punic colonies started to exist in Sardinia since the 8th/7th century BC (Aubet 2001/p.236) and are seemingly all coastal; Pausanias also mentions that the Iberians and Libyans at one point revolted from the Carthaginians (rule) on Sardinia, yet the Nora-stele of the 8th century BC clearly illustrates that the language in use (adm) was Phoenician, plus that the island/(or people) was known as Sherden [SRDN] app after Sardo who established the first Phoenician/Punic colonies if it does however apply to an ethnonym than it could even be a recorded endonym;

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dOwuUvquNFM/UxQgXahBQJI/AAAAAAAAB3I/Jf0NQHCmqF0/s1600/y450.png

the 'tophets' of sardinia are also very valuable for ccarthaginian/phoenician child sacrifice myth or reality? tophets have also been excavated in numerous other Phoenician/Punic colonies such as at Motya in Sicily but especially on Sardinia (Tharros/Nora/Sulcis/Monte Sirai); It seems to depend on the inscription of the stele with stelae that have the inscriptions of mlk 'dm designate urns with human remains and stelae with the inscriptions mlk 'mr or molchomor designate urns with animal (usually lamb/sheep) remains; Francesca Stavrakopoulou - King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities (2004)
9618

alexfritz
12-01-18, 15:48
add to #21 @pygmalion
i would not say it as such about north-african admixture, what i have seen so far is this, there are two types of north-african components, Tunisian_Berber a most unadmixed component whether EUR or SSA (Henn et al / Botigue et al / Quinto-Sanchez et al) and the Mozabite/Saharawi component which is SSA admixed. Of course modern North African groups display a large Berber ancestry yet only if the Tun_Berber is the sole component but if one factors in also the Saharawi/Mozabite component than modern North Africans tend to be overwhelmingly of the latter instead of the former Old?Berber (Henn et al K=8 / Botigue et al K=6) whereas Sardinians do not seem to correspond to the Mozabite/Saharawi component as in Günther et al http://www.pnas.org/content/112/38/11917/F3.large.jpg < http://www.pnas.org/content/112/38/11917.full
but do to the old Tun_Berber component as in Shriner et al/Paschou et al;

A. Papadimitriou
12-01-18, 16:03
There was a tradition among ancient historians, especially among those in the Roman era, to think that the indigenous inhabitants of Sardinia were Libyans or came from Libya, Cicero for instance in his "Pro Scauro" oration repeated in many instances that Sardinians were a mix of Phoenicians and Africans, and that Sardinia was the same as Africa.
Perhaps it's because Sardinians spoke Punic, we know that Sardinian cities were of Phoenician culture and that Punic was still spoken at least until the 2nd century AD as testified by bilingual inscriptions found in the island, as you probably know modern Sardinians are the direct descendants of Neolithic settlers from Europe so now we know that the theory about their North Africa origins isn't true and North African admixture is insignificant among Sardinians.
The only historian to break this tradition was Strabo who claimed the natives were Thyrrenians.

But I don't believe modern Northern Africans are representative of the people whom he had labeled 'Libyans'. [I think it is apparent from my first post. The first time I read it I found confusing the fact he mentions that Libyans came from Corsica to Sardinia. That's why I had wondered in the past if a copying mistake is possible and if he could have originally written 'Ligyans' (=Ligures).]

Apart from that concerning Sardinians their mostly EEF genetic profile seems probably consistent with (some) ancestry from the Trojans. [Based on what he writes we would expect the people of the mountainous regions to be more Trojan-like.]

By the way, I have made the choice to believe that myths are probably based on real events, so I consider the myth of Aeneas for example to be a result of a real movement (though not necessarily a movement that made a big impact).

The term Tyrrhenian (Tursenian) is used inconsistently in ancient sources. I will check how Strabo uses it.

--------
People from Europe (especially Germanics and some Slavs) often used medieval Greek sources to construct their national myths. When they managed to make those myths appear as facts they started attacking the sources they have used.
--------
Among ancient authors Herodotus is one who has suffered the most. If you don't believe it, see that article.
The author is Korean (which is important) and he doesn't try to prove that everything Herodotus had written was true or that he was unbiased.

https://www.academia.edu/10885180/HERODOTUS_SCYTHIANS_VIEWED_FROM_A_CENTRAL_ASIAN_PE RSPECTIVE_ITS_HISTORICITY_AND_SIGNIFICANCE

O Neill
12-01-18, 16:13
This isn't true about Pausanias, though.

He says, for example:

The first sailors (including Greeks) didn't have the knowledge or the ability to create cities.

The first city was founded by Iberians.


After that Greeks founded Olbia and Ogryle.


Later Trojans moved and settled with the Greeks


But later


From the things written in ancient sources people take with a grain of salt whatever they don't like usually.

Guys its all in britain Greeks founded Albian and Argyle after kicking out the trojans.
Didnt they all (most) of the greeks have blonde hair ? My guess Germanic celts invading britain.
They chased them all the way to the mountains in northern scotland.
It was about control of tin mining in cornwall.

Pygmalion
12-01-18, 16:22
But I don't believe modern Northern Africans are representative of the people whom he had labeled 'Libyans'. [I think it is apparent from my first post. The first time I read it I found confusing the fact he mentions that Libyans came from Corsica to Sardinia. That's why I had wondered in the past if a copying mistake is possible and if he could have originally written 'Ligyans' (=Ligures).]

Apart from that concerning Sardinians their mostly EEF genetic profile seems probably consistent with (some) ancestry from the Trojans. [Based on what he writes we would expect the people of the mountainous regions to be more Trojan-like.]

By the way, I have made the choice to believe that myths are probably based on real events, so I consider the myth of Aeneas for example to be a result of a real movement (though not necessarily a movement that made a big impact).

The term Tyrrhenian (Tursenian) is used inconsistently in ancient sources. I will check how Strabo uses it.

--------
People from Europe (especially Germanics and some Slavs) often used medieval Greek sources to construct their national myths. When they managed to make those myths appear as facts they started attacking the sources they have used.
--------
Among ancient authors Herodotus is one who has suffered the most. If you don't believe it, see that article.
The author is Korean (which is important) and he doesn't try to prove that everything Herodotus had written was true or that he was unbiased.

https://www.academia.edu/10885180/HERODOTUS_SCYTHIANS_VIEWED_FROM_A_CENTRAL_ASIAN_PE RSPECTIVE_ITS_HISTORICITY_AND_SIGNIFICANCE

I doubt any Trojan settled in Sardinia, first of all while there is evidence for direct contacts between Sardina, Cyprus and Crete during the bronze age there is none for Troy or Anatolia as far as I know, the reason why Trojans were said to have settled in Sardinia is probably the same as why they were often brought up for other people like the Romans, it was a very popular myth and the story about Trojan refugees settling in the West was used to unify Mediterranean people, just like later religion also fulfilled the purpose of unifying people through a common mythology, same goes for other myths like Hercules who was said to have sent a colony to Sardinia and to have gone to Iberia for his labors.

Angela
12-01-18, 16:35
add to #21 @pygmalion

i would not say it as such about north-african admixture, what i have seen so far is this, there are two types of north-african components, Tunisian_Berber a most unadmixed component whether EUR or SSA (Henn et al / Botigue et al / Quinto-Sanchez et al) and the Mozabite/Saharawi component which is SSA admixed. Of course modern North African groups display a large Berber ancestry yet only if the Tun_Berber is the sole component but if one factors in also the Saharawi/Mozabite component than modern North Africans tend to be overwhelmingly of the latter instead of the former Old?Berber (Henn et al K=8 / Botigue et al K=6) whereas Sardinians do not seem to correspond to the Mozabite/Saharawi component as in Günther et al http://www.pnas.org/content/112/38/11917/F3.large.jpg
but do to the old Tun_Berber component as in Shriner et al/Paschou et al;

The Tunisian Berber cluster is a MODERN cluster which is highly drifted. (It also contains a significant amount of SSA.)This use of modern clusters to infer admixture in ancients is extremely problematic.

Pygmalion
12-01-18, 16:47
Most of the Phoenician towns are in the coast like you said Alex but some aren't, Othoca for instance was inland by the Thyrsus river and Monte Sirai which is the site in the article was on a hill though not far from the coast, by the way it should be noted that archaeologists always differentiate between the Phoenician period in Sardinia and the Punic one, the Phoenician one starts in the late 9th century bc and ends with the Punic one which starts in the late 6th century bc, this is because archaeologists noticed the appearence of Punic burials and necropoleis such as this one at Mont'e Sirai (though the town itself was founded by Phoenicians in the 8th century bc) or that of Pani Loriga or again the one at Cagliari known as the Tuvixeddu necropolis, the samples in question are from the Punic period, not the Phoenician one.

This distinction traditionally made by archaeologists is backed by ancient historians who speak of a Carthaginian invasion of Sardinia taking place in the 6th century bc, a war lasting decades which saw many battles according to the Roman historian Justinus, according to whom the Carthaginian lost the initial battle in Sardinia but finally prevailed in the end, I don't trust ancient sources that much but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Angela
12-01-18, 17:16
Othoca is near Oristano. I guess it depends on how you define "inland".

https://www.weather-forecast.com/locationmaps/Oristano.12.gif


Monte Sirai is near Carbonia:
http://www.vacances-location.net/holidays-rental/maps/detailed/italia/sardegna/carbonia-iglesias.png

From Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Sirai

"Given the excellent location of the hill, the site was inhabited since the neolithic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic) age. Some nuragic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuragic) towers witness an important anthropization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropization) in the first half of the II millennium BC.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Sirai#cite_note-sard-1) The first Phoenician records date back to 730 BC circa,[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Sirai#cite_note-sard-1) at the same time of other coastal cities of Sardinia. The town is built around the so-called mastio, a sacred place that undergone several renovations, perhaps with defensive function. "

"The town was affected by the Carthaginian conquest in the 6th century BC.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Sirai#cite_note-sard-1) A dozen new families settled subsequently in Monte Sirai, as witnessed by many hypogeum-tombs of Punic types; the rite of cremation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation), prevalent during the Phoenician period, was substituted by the entombment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entombment)."

See also:
https://www.tharros.info/ViewSites.php?cat=109&lng=en

"Monte Sirai is a punic-roman settlement on the top of the mount Sirai near Carbonia. The site is strategically situated in the middle of the mining districts of the Sulcis and the Iglesiente. "

" The ancient town was built on a strategic location between the mining districts and the fertile plains of south-western Sardinia, at only twenty kilometers from the ancient phoenician-punic-roman port of Sulki (Sant'Antioco)"

A series of papers on Monte Sirai:
https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Monte_Sirai

One that is particularly interesting:
https://www.academia.edu/34769124/M._Guirguis_C._Murgia_R._Pla_Orqu%C3%ADn_Archeoant ropologia_e_bioarcheologia_nella_necropoli_di_Mont e_Sirai_Carbonia-Italia_._Risultati_delle_analisi_su_alcuni_contest i_della_prima_et%C3%A0_Punica_fine_VI-inizi_IV_sec._a.C._Folia_Phoenicia_1_2017
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Monte+Sirai/@39.1833314,7.3627278,8z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x12e7a7f8ba447a27:0x1b8e71a44feaa 347!8m2!3d39.1833333!4d8.4833333!5m1!1e4

Pygmalion
12-01-18, 17:36
Othoca is near Oristano. I guess it depends on how you define "inland".

https://www.weather-forecast.com/locationmaps/Oristano.12.gif


Monte Sirai is near Carbonia:
http://www.vacances-location.net/holidays-rental/maps/detailed/italia/sardegna/carbonia-iglesias.png

From Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Sirai

"Given the excellent location of the hill, the site was inhabited since the neolithic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic) age. Some nuragic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuragic) towers witness an important anthropization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropization) in the first half of the II millennium BC.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Sirai#cite_note-sard-1) The first Phoenician records date back to 730 BC circa,[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Sirai#cite_note-sard-1) at the same time of other coastal cities of Sardinia. The town is built around the so-called mastio, a sacred place that undergone several renovations, perhaps with defensive function. "

"The town was affected by the Carthaginian conquest in the 6th century BC.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Sirai#cite_note-sard-1) A dozen new families settled subsequently in Monte Sirai, as witnessed by many hypogeum-tombs of Punic types; the rite of cremation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation), prevalent during the Phoenician period, was substituted by the entombment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entombment)."

See also:
https://www.tharros.info/ViewSites.php?cat=109&lng=en

"Monte Sirai is a punic-roman settlement on the top of the mount Sirai near Carbonia. The site is strategically situated in the middle of the mining districts of the Sulcis and the Iglesiente. "

" The ancient town was built on a strategic location between the mining districts and the fertile plains of south-western Sardinia, at only twenty kilometers from the ancient phoenician-punic-roman port of Sulki (Sant'Antioco)"

A series of papers on Monte Sirai:
https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Monte_Sirai

One that is particularly interesting:
https://www.academia.edu/34769124/M._Guirguis_C._Murgia_R._Pla_Orqu%C3%ADn_Archeoant ropologia_e_bioarcheologia_nella_necropoli_di_Mont e_Sirai_Carbonia-Italia_._Risultati_delle_analisi_su_alcuni_contest i_della_prima_et%C3%A0_Punica_fine_VI-inizi_IV_sec._a.C._Folia_Phoenicia_1_2017
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Monte+Sirai/@39.1833314,7.3627278,8z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x12e7a7f8ba447a27:0x1b8e71a44feaa 347!8m2!3d39.1833333!4d8.4833333!5m1!1e4

I've found a really interesting video about Monte Sirai on youtube, there were basically two towns, the Phoenician one on a hill and another around an older Nuraghe which is considered to be a native settlement with mixed Phoenician and Nuragic features:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjMcGDyJ3lo

Reconstruction of the latter settlement:

http://www.sistemamuseo.it/data/immagini_musei/gallery/album_134/20120123151902_IM000579_web.jpg

alexfritz
12-01-18, 18:34
Most of the Phoenician towns are in the coast like you said Alex but some aren't, Othoca for instance was inland by the Thyrsus river and Monte Sirai which is the site in the article was on a hill though not far from the coast, by the way it should be noted that archaeologists always differentiate between the Phoenician period in Sardinia and the Punic one, the Phoenician one starts in the late 9th century bc and ends with the Punic one which starts in the late 6th century bc, this is because archaeologists noticed the appearence of Punic burials and necropoleis such as this one at Mont'e Sirai (though the town itself was founded by Phoenicians in the 8th century bc) or that of Pani Loriga or again the one at Cagliari known as the Tuvixeddu necropolis, the samples in question are from the Punic period, not the Phoenician one.

This distinction traditionally made by archaeologists is backed by ancient historians who speak of a Carthaginian invasion of Sardinia taking place in the 6th century bc, a war lasting decades which saw many battles according to the Roman historian Justinus, according to whom the Carthaginian lost the initial battle in Sardinia but finally prevailed in the end, I don't trust ancient sources that much but I thought it was worth mentioning.

yes they might not have been on the coast directly yet coastal in the broadest sense, and how many actually existed? from what i have seen maybe ~ten at best with those of substance necropolii/tophets prob ~5; for the punic/charthage chronology i have found these two links;
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content/download/ac:159453/CONTENT/Pilkington_columbia_0054D_11226.pdf An Archaeological History of Carthaginian Imperialism
https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/carthaginian_settlement.pdf

as for the ancient sources, i think the context is always vital to understand the broad message with a good example was cicero 'pro scauro' as also in pausanias (X/XVII) there is a mention that the sardinian highlands were never taken by the carthaginians app only the lower fertile lands; sards do feature fighting for carthage(hamilchar) at Himera in 480bc indicating an allegiance with carthage by some at least;

Angela
12-01-18, 18:40
The Ligures were allied with the Phoenicians too. So were a lot of groups resisting the Roman yoke. Alliances changed with circumstances, as they do today.

Imo people should not be inferring any sort of genetic ties necessarily from these things.

@Pygmalion,
Thanks for the info.

Pygmalion
12-01-18, 18:49
yes they might not have been on the coast directly yet coastal in the broadest sense, and how many actually existed? from what i have seen maybe ~ten at best with those of substance necropolii/tophets prob ~5; for the punic/charthage chronology i have found these two links;
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content/download/ac:159453/CONTENT/Pilkington_columbia_0054D_11226.pdf An Archaeological History of Carthaginian Imperialism
https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/carthaginian_settlement.pdf

as for the ancient sources, i think the context is always vital to understand the broad message with a good example was cicero 'pro scauro' as also in pausanias (X/XVII) there is a mention that the sardinian highlands were never taken by the carthaginians app only the lower fertile lands; sards do feature fighting for carthage(hamilchar) at Himera in 480bc indicating an allegiance with carthage by some at least;

Sardinia is actually the place where most topehts were found in the Mediterranean, they've found more tophets in Sardinia alone than in all the rest of the Mediterranean:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273293693/figure/fig5/AS:[email protected]/Figure-1-Map-of-the-western-and-central-Mediterranean-showing-the-distribution-of-11.png


As for the number of Phoenciian/Carthaginian cities in total it's difficult to say, I would say a dozen in total, some that were thought to be Carthaginian like Cornus and Nabui have recently been classified as founded only by natives or at least so I had read.

For those who speak Italian I've also found another video about Sulky/Sant'Antioco and according to Bartoloni who's excavated the site for decades the children in the tophet were mostly fetuses so he doesn't really agree with the child sacrifice hypothesis:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upBvdqQgECE

Sulky/Sant'Antioco seems to have been one of the biggest cities in the island along with Calaris, far bigger than Monte Sirai, according to Bartoloni most of the population was native.

Zanatis
12-01-18, 18:53
@Zanatis,
I would be very interested to know your sources for the proposition that the Phoenicians established colonies which were more than trading outposts, i.e. the result of folk migrations, that expanded their territorial range etc.


My proposition was to analyze every colony in a case to case basis and not generalize like you did. You claimed that Greeks actually founded all their colonies while Phoenicians were all about trading outposts. Pretty immature if you ask me, and not that your statement matters since you're not a historian, archaeologist, or geneticist for that matter.


I don't have knowledge much knowledge on Phoenicians, but a quick research shows that they lacked the population or necessity to establish large cities like those of the Greeks, but of course there were exceptions like Carthage, while the rest had about 1,000 inhabitants.

Angela
12-01-18, 19:07
My proposition was to analyze every colony in a case to case basis and not generalize like you did. You claimed that Greeks actually founded all their colonies while Phoenicians were all about trading outposts. Pretty immature if you ask me, and not that your statement matters since you're not a historian, archaeologist, or geneticist for that matter.


I don't have knowledge much knowledge on Phoenicians, but a quick research shows that they lacked the population or necessity to establish large cities like those of the Greeks, but of course there were exceptions like Carthage, while the rest had about 1,000 inhabitants.

When I ask a polite question I expect a polite response. Or don't they teach that in the Balkans? Keep a civil tongue in your head or your stay is going to be very short.


"I don't have knowledge much knowledge on Phoenicians, but a quick research shows that they lacked the population or necessity to establish large cities like those of the Greeks, but of course there were exceptions like Carthage, while the rest had about 1,000 inhabitants."

That is the consensus, which is why I was interested to know whether you had found something to the contrary.

Pygmalion
12-01-18, 19:31
My proposition was to analyze every colony in a case to case basis and not generalize like you did. You claimed that Greeks actually founded all their colonies while Phoenicians were all about trading outposts. Pretty immature if you ask me, and not that your statement matters since you're not a historian, archaeologist, or geneticist for that matter.


I don't have knowledge much knowledge on Phoenicians, but a quick research shows that they lacked the population or necessity to establish large cities like those of the Greeks, but of course there were exceptions like Carthage, while the rest had about 1,000 inhabitants.

1,000 inhabitants seems like an underestimation, even Monte Sirai which was one of the smallest Phoenicians towns in Sardinia had 1,500-2,000 inhabitants and the biggest cities like Sulky were much bigger, I had read that based on its necropolis it could have reached 10-20,000 inhabitants during the Punic era.

Angela
12-01-18, 19:34
1,000 inhabitants seems an underestimation, even Monte Sirai which was one of the smallest Phoenicians towns in Sardinia had 1,500-2,000 inhabitants and the biggest cities like Sulky were much bigger, I had read that based on its necropolis it could have reached 10-20,000 inhabitants during the Punic era.

That's interesting. Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to read it.

Pygmalion
12-01-18, 19:42
That's interesting. Do you have a citation for that? I'd like to read it.

Those facts are mentioned in the videos I've linked, in the first video the archaeologist Michele Guirguis mentions that according to their estimations the acropolis of Monte Sirai reached a population of about 1,500-2000 inhabitants, while in the second video both Bartoloni and the other archaeologist mention several times that the Phoenician city of Solky was equal in size to the current city of Sant'Antioco above it (12k inhabitants) and that the necropolis spanned for 8 hectares, I'll try to find the paper which mentioned more or less the same thing now.

Angela
12-01-18, 20:37
Those facts are mentioned in the videos I've linked, in the first video the archaeologist Michele Guirguis mentions that according to their estimations the acropolis of Monte Sirai reached a population of about 1,500-2000 inhabitants, while in the second video both Bartoloni and the other archaeologist mention several times that the Phoenician city of Solky was equal in size to the current city of Sant'Antioco above it (12k inhabitants) and that the necropolis spanned for 8 hectares, I'll try to find the paper which mentioned more or less the same thing now.

Thanks, Pygmalion.

Michele Guirguis is the author of the papers in my link above. I haven't read all of them yet. It may be in there.

I'm definitely going to watch the videos.

Pygmalion
21-01-18, 17:17
One thing that should be noted is that most of the names of the Phoenician cities in Sardinia do not seem to be of Phoenician origin, for instance Nora probably originated from Nurac/Nuraghe, the bronze age stone towers found all over the island.

Caralis, modern day Cagliari which is the biggest city in the island and perhaps already was the biggest city during the Punic era, has a native name too apparently:

The name Karali, according to Max Leopold Wagner ascribable to the protosardinian [14], is composed of a root * kar and the suffix -ali and finds comparisons with toponyms Carale di Austis, Carallai di Sorradile, Caraglio of Corsica, Caralis of Panfilia and 'Isauria and Caralitis of Pisidia. The root "kar" in ancient Mediterranean languages meant "stone / rock" and the suffix "al" gave collective value; Karali would have been formed, which would mean "rocky place".

Sulky too, the name of the other big city during the Punic era, doesn't seem to be a Phoenician name.

Pygmalion
01-02-18, 15:25
From Piero Bartoloni, an archaeologist who has excavated many Phoenician sites in Sardinia for decades, particularly Sulky and Monte Sirai, here he is talking about Sulky:

"...However, an indispensable help is given by the archaeological investigations that have been carried out in Sardinia and in particular in Sulky and its surroundings during the last century and that at least partly compensate for the bleak picture. The first traces of life in Sant'Antioco are to be placed in the Neolithic age, even if the morphology and the structure of the island have always been an obvious natural fortress and therefore allow us to believe that it has constituted an excellent refuge for man from the earliest times. However, the first traces of human settlements on the island of Sant'Antioco are represented by two menhirs, ie two monolithic steles erected along the isthmus connecting Sardinia to the island. More consistent evidence of life on the island of Sant'Antioco are to be placed always in the Neolithic period, in this case around 2500 BC. The most concrete remains are represented by some Domus de Janas, of the type consisting of no more than two successive cells. These are some hypogeal chambers dug into the tufa, practiced in a relief behind Is Pruinis beach. The most impressive and most interesting nuraghe of the district was the one located on the top of the hill of the Savoy castle that dominates the city. It was a complex nuraghe, consisting of a central tower - perhaps but not necessarily the oldest of the building - surrounded by at least two other towers connected to each other. This is what emerges from the foundations of the Phoenician-era building and the Punic-era tower that were erected on the nuraghe and which are currently partly included in the structures of the aforementioned castle, built in the eighteenth century of our era. The nuraghe, probably active in its primary function between 1400 and 1200 BC, was certainly inhabited until the early years of the eighth century BC. and there are traces of the presence of a village of circular huts on the slope that opens up north of the tower.


The first evidence of a stable presence of the Phoenicians, the last to reach Sardinia after the Mycenaean navigators, North-Syrians and Cypriots, can be dated around 780/770 BC. and also in Sulky there are clear clues, also attributable to this period. In fact, the oldest objects found in the area of ​​the town can be dated no later than 780/770 BC. Thanks to these archaeological elements, which approach the founding date of the ancient Sulky to that of Carthage, which traditionally arises in 814 BC, at the current state of research the city is considered the oldest among those built by the Phoenicians in Sardinia . It is not even remotely conceivable that all the inhabitants of Phoenician culture who settled in Sulky and subsequently Mount Sirai as well as in all the other Phoenician foundation cities of the Sardinian coast were of Eastern origin. We must think rather of a mixed population composed of a minority of Phoenicians of the East and a majority of inhabitants of Nuragic lineage. The presence of strong groups of people of native origin and the real possibility of mixed marriages especially in the first years of the foundation of the city is suggested for example by some testimonies related to the oldest funerary practices in use in the district and some everyday objects, as well as the pots, which, as an exterior form, were undoubtedly of a Nuragic type, but were manufactured using the lathe and, therefore, with a technology imported from the Phoenicians. The village was planted on a ridge formed by trachitic rocks or, better ignimbrite ones, which ran parallel to the coast and separated from the hills behind it, constituting a further natural defense. Thus, the Phoenicians settled permanently in Sulky around 780/770 BC. building an inhabited center that from the beginning was of considerable size and that spread out on the slope to the east of the old Nuragic tower. The original urban agglomeration occupied an area of ​​about fifteen hectares, practically of equal extension to that relative to the inhabited center of the Middle Ages. The Phoenician necropolis instead extended along the coast south of the city, behind the ancient port and had an extension of about three hectares. the global urban structure of the settlement is not known in detail nor the totality of the original road network nor do we know the detailed topography of the ancient Phoenician settlement, but only a part of the wall structures that compose them emerge in the modern urban area. It has been found that the houses from the Phoenician period were of the usual type in the motherland and generally in the whole area of ​​the Near East, that is, formed by several rooms gathered around a central courtyard."

http://www.comune.santantioco.ca.it/cms/la-storia/sulky-fenicia-e-punica.html

Pygmalion
01-02-18, 15:42
"...In any case, thanks to its vast commercial network and its two ports straddling the isthmus, the lagoon and the Gulf of Palmas, the city quickly became a metropolis of great wealth and started to control the territory of south western Sardinia which still today bears the name of Sulcis. The testimonies of its commercial activities have emerged from the excavations carried out in the town and speak to us from the first half of the eighth century BC. of stable relations with Tyre and with the other Phoenician cities of the eastern motherland, of links with Cadiz and with the other Phoenician centers of Andalusia, of very close exchanges with the Etruscan world and with the Greek environment of Euboea and the Magna Greecian colonies. The Phoenician community spent a period of about two hundred and fifty years of quiet commercial, agricultural and domestic activity in the town of Sulky until - around 540 BC, when Carthage, a Phoenician city of Tyrian origins located on the African coast between Sicily and Sardinia, following an imperialist policy aimed at conquering the coastal territories of the western Mediterranean, decided to set foot in Sardinia to take possession of it and effectively insert it into its metropolitan territory. For some time now, the North African city seemed to have expressed its expansionist ambitions, establishing some colonies in the North African area, but only around the middle of the 6th century BC these intentions really took shape in all their violence and drama with the invasion of the western part of Sicily and with the consequent conquest of Motya and of the Phoenician centers present in the territory. In fact, with two successive invasions, the one which happened precisely around 540 and the other towards 520 b.C., Carthage invaded Sardinia. The succession of events is widely known, that is, how an army commanded by General Malco, already victorious in Sicily, came to the island first. It is told by old and unfortunately scarce sources that the Carthaginian commander, after ups and downs, was severely defeated, probably by a coalition of Phoenician cities whose head was probably Sulky, and forced to re-embark towards Carthage. It is not to be excluded that against the Carthaginian army also nuragic troops intervened, both as allies, and as mercenaries of the Phoenician cities. Although temporarily defeated, Carthage continued to develop its hegemonic policy aimed at supremacy in the waters of the Tyrrhenian Sea. Proof of this are the events that resulted in the naval battle fought in the Sardinian Sea, probably to be found in the waters of Corsica, perhaps in Alalia, and the alliance with the Etruscan city of Caere, now Cerveteri, highlighted by the well-known gold plates of Pyrgi.

Later - around 520 b.C. - Carthage made another attempt and its armies passed under the command of Asdrubale and Hamilcar sons of Magone, conqueror of the Iberian peninsula. This time the Carthaginian armies defeated the resistance opposed by the inhabitants of the Phoenician cities of Sardinia. In fact, as evidenced by the significant traces of destruction, the hostilities of the North African city were mainly directed towards these centers and therefore especially towards Sulky. So, after fierce fighting, Carthage firmly took possession of Sardinia, so much so that, already in 509 BC, in the framework of the first peace treaty with Rome, handed down from the Greek historian Polibio, the island, if it was not literally assimilated to its metropolitan territory , was strictly controlled so that foreign sailors were prevented from landing and from the realization of any form of trade if Carthaginian officials were not present. In any case, like most of the Phoenician cities of Sardinia, Sulky also came out severely damaged by the Carthaginian conquest. The African metropolis, which had conquered Sardinia to take over the considerable agricultural resources of the island, brought settlers transported from the coasts of North Africa to the Sulcitan city. Many areas of the island, especially the hilly ones, were abandoned because they were unsuitable for the landowner-type agriculture carried out by Carthage, while numerous new settlements arose in the plains. So, while in the previous centuries the island had constituted a fundamental node of exchange between East and West and between the North and the South of the Mediterranean, the entirety of Sardinia was practically assimilated by the metropolitan territory of Carthage and was totally and strictly closed to internal trade. In particular, all imports from Etruria and Greece ceased, while only those subjected to Carthage's mediation were permitted and under the strict control of its officials."

Now, about the Punic necropolis (so the one founded after the Carthaginian conquest of the city), I've found this information:

"The Punic necropolis of Sant'Antioco is certainly among the most important in the Mediterranean for the vastness of the funeral plant, for the architectural richness and for the numerous finds discovered during the excavations of the tombs. The area currently visible dates back to a period between the fifth and the end of the third century. a.C., at the time of the Carthaginian conquest in Sardinia.

Since the extension of the necropolis exceeds 6 hectares and considering that each tomb covers an area of about 40 square meters, we can hypothesize a number of about 1500 hypogea. From these data we can estimate the population of the ancient Sulky in about 9000-10.000 units, certainly among the most populous and extensive cities in the whole Mediterranean area."

http://www.parcogeominerario.eu/index.php/sulcis/siti-culturali/necropoli-punica-santantioco?lang=it

Hauteville
04-02-18, 17:57
Without Y-DNA and autosomal it's not a good study about Punic DNA.

Pygmalion
07-02-18, 11:36
The individual affected by beta-thalassemia buried in the necropolis of Carales was a native Sardinian, however I can't get full access to the article, he's dated to the 3rd century bc - 1st century ad, the necropolis of Tuvixeddu was mostly used during the Punic era and is considered to be one of the biggest Punic necropolis but it was also used during the Roman period

https://scontent.fmxp4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/27545561_1725562107483726_913050223690165467_n.png ?oh=a86ea634768f48a6663b4b4bee386806&oe=5B1545A6