Phoenician mtdna from sardinia

[alexfritz]

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)


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;

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)

 

[alexfritz]

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]

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/H..._PERSPECTIVE_ITS_HISTORICITY_AND_SIGNIFICANCE

 

[O Neill]

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]

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/H..._PERSPECTIVE_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]

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]

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]

Othoca is near Oristano. I guess it depends on how you define "inland".

Monte Sirai is near Carbonia:

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

"Given the excellent location of the hill, the site was inhabited since the neolithic age. Some nuragic towers witness an important anthropization in the first half of the II millennium BC.^[1] The first Phoenician records date back to 730 BC circa,^[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] A dozen new families settled subsequently in Monte Sirai, as witnessed by many hypogeum-tombs of Punic types; the rite of cremation, prevalent during the Phoenician period, was substituted by the 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..._VI-inizi_IV_sec._a.C._Folia_Phoenicia_1_2017

 

[Pygmalion]

Othoca is near Oristano. I guess it depends on how you define "inland".

Monte Sirai is near Carbonia:

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

"Given the excellent location of the hill, the site was inhabited since the neolithic age. Some nuragic towers witness an important anthropization in the first half of the II millennium BC.^[1] The first Phoenician records date back to 730 BC circa,^[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] A dozen new families settled subsequently in Monte Sirai, as witnessed by many hypogeum-tombs of Punic types; the rite of cremation, prevalent during the Phoenician period, was substituted by the 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..._VI-inizi_IV_sec._a.C._Folia_Phoenicia_1_2017

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:

 

[alexfritz]

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.ed...3/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]

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]

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.ed...3/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:

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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