Post by Berter on Feb 5, 2005 13:49:41 GMT -5
BabylonLion said:
But it would be more accurate to call them Phoenician because Carthaginian is limited only to Carthage...Phoenicians founded MANY northern african cities and established themselves.
Actually, I was right when I called them carthaginians : the 'phoenician' settlements founded in north west africa (and those in Iberia) were founded by carthaginians (phoenicians from carthage) not by phoenicians from the motherland (lebanon). I'm sure its new Information for you, as it is for me .
"In North Africa the next site colonized after Utica was Carthage (near Tunis). Carthage in turn seems to have established (or, in some cases, reestablished) a number of settlements in Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, the Balearic Islands, and southern Spain, eventually making this city the acknowledged leader of the western Phoenicians.".
www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/Oldcivilization/phoenicia/colonies/colonies.html
Oh yes most definetely.
A significant genetical impact (GI) of the carthaginians (Cs) on the northwest africans (NWAs) supposes a intensive contact between the two populations. This wasnt the case; Excerpts from the same source :
- "The Phoenicians were not looking for land to settle but for anchorages and staging points on the trade route from Phoenicia to Spain, a source of silver and tin"
- "The Phoenicians lacked the manpower and the need to found large colonies as the Greeks did, and few of their settlements grew to any size"
You would have probably been right if it were question of the GI of the Romans on NWAs, given their numerous and well developed colonies in NW-africa. Examples :
(1) Volubilis (Morocco)
(2) Tigmad (Algeria)
(3) Batna (Algeria)