The art of Carthage (share pics if you can find them)

[sumskilz]

I was thinking the exact same thing for a while now.
All those statuetes pictured, seemed of Semitic people. Not of Black Africans.

Here's an eight page thread on that topic from not too long ago: Black Hannibal?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I'm reading about Hannibal and they keep comparing the guy to Herakles in all of these primary sources. Aside from that Hannibal went to the temple of Herakles in Iberia prior to marching off for Italy. Given this information how likely is it that the man being depicted in these coins is in fact Hannibal Barca? We got the little wreath or crown and the club so I would definitely say that it is Herakles/Melkart.

Hannibal Barca?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hamilcar Barca?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Is there an issue with the Livius.org website. I use it quite a bit because of how convenient it is though I would prefer to go directly to a primary source but that takes a while to find what it is you are looking for if you don't know exactly what ancient source or part of said texts you need to go.

[Roma_Victrix]

As explained earlier, Sumskilz has his reservations about the claims of Livius.org, but I've already confirmed from other websites that there are several Barcid-era Carthaginian coins that are mused my numismatists to depict Hannibal or other members of his aristocratic family. It is quite possible that these coins actually do depict Hannibal and Hamilcar.

[ArmoredCore]

^ I do miss that show.

Perhaps a good many of Carthage's subjects (not its ethnic Phoenician citizens) in Africa were black, since some of the Numidians could have been mixed race or of full sub-Saharan lineage. That's just my own guess based on no precise piece of evidence, though. Unfortunately, as we have seen, not much of Carthage's artwork has survived, but I don't think I've seen a single piece of Carthaginian art depicting a sub-Saharan person. If someone can share something to that effect (I'm assuming ArmoredCore might barge in here at any moment) then I would be appreciative. I think Sumskilz, in other threads, has already provided mountains of archaeogenetic data and DNA analysis to prove this and that about the anthropology of various North African peoples, including ancient Libyans, Berbers, Egyptians, and Kushites.

There are plenty of numismatic collections from the Phoenicians and Carthagenians on the net. All of them do not show "romanic", 'greek" or "semitic" looking phoenicians.

And as for symbolism, many of them include images of the Dwarf African god Bes. You don't get more black African than that. Bes was the god of dance and song is the basis of the naming of the Mediterranean Island called Ibeza according to many sites on the net. And it is on Ibeza that many of the coins with Bez and other black African features are found. Carthage was a cosmopolitan society. They had colonies in Spain and Southern Europe. Their armies included soldiers from Spain. And it is precisely because of their colonies in Europe near Rome that they came into conflict. So it shouldn't be shocking that there would be some folks of different types seen in their coinage. Not to mention that in Lebanon and Syria to this day there are populations who are much darker than Europeans. So again we know humans are diverse in features and this idea that ancient populations around the Mediterranean were all one 'type' is just doesn't match reality. Not to mention the name Europe comes from Europa, who was a Phoenician Noblewoman abducted by the Greek God Zeus.

"With the Shammar Bedouin Tribe militia in Hasakah province, #Syria

https://twitter.com/mmvickery/status/540895768287379456

Here is a site with some of the coins showing bes:

http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/gems/scarab/scarab37.htm



But that is simply one of many different times of images found in Phoenician/Carthagenian art from around the Mediterranean. Some is strongly Egyptian influenced, some Near Eastern Influenced and some is Greek influenced, again reflecting the cosmopolitan nature of both the Phoenicians and later Carthagenians. The Phoenicians had outposts in Europe even before Carthage.

Full list of coins/scarabs:
http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/gems/scarab/scarab.htm

Hence this finding below should not be surprising as the Phoenicians and Carthagenians had settlements in Spain:

This is the first ancient DNA to be obtained from Phoenician remains and the team’s analysis shows that the man carried a rare European haplogroup that likely links his maternal ancestry to locations somewhere on the North Mediterranean coast, most likely on the Iberian Peninsula

http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago612764.html

Just as you also have this (the presence of Africans in Punic Iberia):

http://ibdigital.uib.es/greenstone/c...005v30p611.pdf

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

That bottom one looks like Benedict Wong.

[sumskilz]

I saw some sort of recent finds and remembered this thread, relevant to post #29.

From Tyre 153–152 BC, found near the Sea of Galilee (the scale is 2 cm):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Same story, but 144-143 BC for this one:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[conon394]

How relevant? Or even post #29...

I the broadest possible strokes I can see date palm as weak but large cultural iconography that might connect Carthage to the Levant several 100 years after it end. However I still don't see a basis to so easily dismiss the MET point of pun coin image (preceding #29). Coins were clearly a late 'thing' for Carthage and more or less produced as needed for wars and for dealing with Greeks. seeing as Carthage decided not to have any kind of coherent and consistent monetary policy that they would make a decision for simple market demand in Sicily for Sicily seems a reasonable assertion.

[sumskilz]

How relevant? Or even post #29...

I the broadest possible strokes I can see date palm as weak but large cultural iconography that might connect Carthage to the Levant several 100 years after it end. However I still don't see a basis to so easily dismiss the MET point of pun coin image (preceding #29). Coins were clearly a late 'thing' for Carthage and more or less produced as needed for wars and for dealing with Greeks. seeing as Carthage decided not to have any kind of coherent and consistent monetary policy that they would make a decision for simple market demand in Sicily for Sicily seems a reasonable assertion.

The date palm was associated with fertility and probably a symbol of Aštart, which would make it more enduring, and it seems to be associated with a goddess on the coin. Also, see posts #32 and #36.

[Keyser]

While I'm at it, I think the Melqart/Heracles association is weird. Melqart seems to have been venerated in the Levant long before there was much contact with the Roman/Greek world. In inscriptions from the Levant, he's referred to as bᶜl ṣr "Master of Tyre / Baal of Tyre" or mlqrt bṣr "King of the City in Tyre / Melqart in Tyre". Josephus quotes the claim that Hiram tore down the ancient temples of the Tyre in order to build temples to Heracles and Astarte, but a bilingual text from Malta associates Melqart/Heracles as being the "Master of Tyre". Herodotus and 2nd Maccabees also associate Heracles with Tyre, but from what we know from local sources he was more of a storm god or sky god.

I am reacting to this a bit late but hey...

I am not sure myself, but i've read "Carthage must be destroyed !" By Richard Miles and he adress this quite extensively...
Although he don't really explain why this connection was made in the first place (other than "hey ! It was the greek interpretatio"), his point is mainly on how Hannibal may have conscienciously tried to appear as some kind of a new Herakles(/Melqart) reenacting the western journey of this god, but in reverse, as some kind of propaganda act aimed at the greeks and (southern) italians. It was interesting.

I think, having read his arguments, that the connection between the two gods may not lie in who they are supposed to be, or what they represent, or in similarities in the liturgical aspects, but, more probably in their role regarding the colonisation of the western mediterranean.
Herakle's trip to the west had laid a mythological preseance to later greeks colonial enterprises. And similarly, Melqart's cult, as the patron god of Tyre, the main phoenician city to colonise the west, may have played a role (with maybe myths and legends backing the colonisation too, myths and legends similars to those of Herakles... Or at least, similar enough that some greeks may ponder them for a while and conclude : "Wow, but that Dude is just Herakles !" )

Regarding the association between the two gods, it's no miracle, it would seem, that the largest temple to Melqart in the western mediterranean was so close to the "pillars of Hercules".

The book also point, quite convincingly, but i am no expert on italian, greek or punic religion, that in archaïc Italy, the greek interpretatio wasn't the only one influencing italian religion and that punic Melqart influenced the italianised Herakles, Hercules. And that Tanit and Astarte may similarly have influenced the cult of italic goddesses at some point.

[Roma_Victrix]

The book also point, quite convincingly, but i am no expert on italian, greek or punic religion, that in archaïc Italy, the greek interpretatio wasn't the only one influencing italian religion and that punic Melqart influenced the italianised Herakles, Hercules. And that Tanit and Astarte may similarly have influenced the cult of italic goddesses at some point.

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing! Reading between the lines of Roman propaganda disparaging Carthage and its legacy, I've always wondered about the many facets of Carthaginian influence on Roman culture, art, religion, etc. At the very least we have a fairly good grasp on the military technology of Carthage that was inherited by Rome, particularly nautical engineering for ships of naval warfare.

[Keyser]

Carthage's influence on archaïc Rome seem to have been more important than what is usually imagined/aknowledged.

Carthage treaties with Rome were first signed immediately after the republic was established in Rome (and the political similarities between the two republics should be noted (although not overstated either since there were differences as well) but it's not as simple to understand when each side evolved (and how) in the system we identify as typical of their republics. And the terms used for the carthaginian magistrates are confusing (are "Basileos" kings ? Priests ? Early Consuls/Suffetes ? Etc.)) wich makes understanding the political evolutions on their side difficult too.

Anyway there was a punic "quarter" in Rome.
Roman aristocrats were hosts/friends to punic aristocrats/merchants when they travelled (for business).

So, all in all, it's hard to think that there wasn't any form of cultural exchange going on at the same time as the trade (attested by the treaties).

Of course, Carthage evolving from an ally (even if a distant, not very reliable and interested one) to a mortal foe and the even strongest and more durable hellenistic influence that took place in parrallel in Rome (And in Carthage too...) is what makes it difficult to imagine nowaday.

I am of the opinion that past historiography insisted too much on the differences between the two city-states rather than on the similarities.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

And the terms used for the carthaginian magistrates are confusing (are "Basileos" kings ? Priests ? Early Consuls/Suffetes ? Etc.)) wich makes understanding the political evolutions on their side difficult too.

Initially they did have kings alongside suffetes, if I'm not mistaken that only changed when Magonids were overthrown.

I am of the opinion that past historiography insisted too much on the differences between than the two city states rather than on the similarities.

In the eyes of early modern european historians, european Rome represented a virtuous society, foreign Carthage a decadent, even perverse one. The opinion of François-René de Chateaubriand is one example of that.

[Keyser]

Initially they did have kings alongside suffetes, if I'm not mistaken that only changed when Magonids were overthrown.

Yes, that is the main opinion (and probably the correct one).

But what is making things a bit more complex, from what i understand, is that latter, what we understand today as "suffetes", were sometimes called basileos by greek sources too (and rex (wich is confusing), or consul (wich would seem more logical given the similarities (but maybe then, the unknown differences made the term less logical than it would seem), or even other terms (wich i can't remember right now), by latin sources).
And we don't really know if the Magonids were kings, as in the semitic "MLK" or if it was another kind of magistrature simply translated as kings by greeks.

Afaik (or remember) even what seems to be attested by archeology, from punic sources, as a "rab mahanet", ie chief of the camp/the army, a generalissimo, the equivalent of a greek strategoi, the position of someone like Amilcar or Hannibaal, could be called "king" by greek sources.

So the exact evolution of the Carthaginian political system (toward the two-headed republic with a senate, a popular assembly and a council of one hundred judges) is not really understood.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

There is a possibility that at times powerful individuals would seize the dictatorial powers for some time and rule in the manner of greek Tyrannos.
My memory of their political history is quite blurry, but I think that happened a few times. Of course we can't know for sure wheter the greek authors knew the exact political function of certain individuals, that is were they translating a title whose position they fully understood, or wrote about someone who appeared to them as a monarch and thus named him Basileus.

[sumskilz]

Afaik (or remember) even what seems to be attested by archeology, from punic sources, as a "rab mahanet", ie chief of the camp/the army, a generalissimo, the equivalent of a greek strategoi, the position of someone like Amilcar or Hannibaal, could be called "king" by greek sources.

That's interesting. I haven't come across that term, but I know the words. rab is great as an adjective and someone great as a noun. Rabbi in Hebrew is the same word. maḥănet is more camp than army, because it's from a verb that means "to encamp" but it can mean army like the guys you encamp with. Doesn't sound like a king, if you're the great one out of the camp, it has more of a first among equals kind of vibe.

[Hanny]

That's interesting. I haven't come across that term, but I know the words. rab is great as an adjective and someone great as a noun. Rabbi in Hebrew is the same word. maḥănet is more camp than army, because it's from a verb that means "to encamp" but it can mean army like the guys you encamp with. Doesn't sound like a king, if you're the great one out of the camp, it has more of a first among equals kind of vibe.

try a search for Punic military ranks, and go to the org page which will give the many military and civil ranks with the rb rab prefix. D Hoyas in hannibals dynasty covers it also and is an excellent read.

[sumskilz]

try a search for Punic military ranks, and go to the org page which will give the many military and civil ranks with the rb rab prefix.

Just checked it out. This is funny to me:

It was my understanding that the špṭ (šōpeṭ in Hebrew, identical to your reference) was a judge (British English: magistrate?) in Carthage. Were these magistrates given gubernatorial positions? Or am I thinking of another word?

EDIT: Sure šōpeṭ is judge in the Hebrew but that's not the only reason why I mention this. Krahmalkov himself looks in context to see the use of špṭ and identifies it as judge (or "adjudge"). For example, if we look at it as a verb in the Punic [Hebrew: š-p-ṭ]:
wkl 'š lsr t-'bn z by py 'nk wby py 'dm bšmy wšpṭ tnt pnb'l brḥ 'dm h'
"As for anyone who shall remove this stele without my permission or without the permission of someone authorized by me, Tinit-Phanebal shall adjudge the intent of that person."

The translation of "judge" for šōpeṭ in the Bible is a little misleading. Samson was a šōpeṭ, so if by judging you mean burning down people's crops and killing them with a donkey jawbone, then yes.

[Keyser]

That may, indeed, mean a magistrature with powers of justice, much like the roman consulship (and other roman magistratures) with their associated imperium and lictors, rather than a judge in a more litteral meaning (like maybe was the case in the council of the one hundred).

[conon394]

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing! Reading between the lines of Roman propaganda disparaging Carthage and its legacy, I've always wondered about the many facets of Carthaginian influence on Roman culture, art, religion, etc. At the very least we have a fairly good grasp on the military technology of Carthage that was inherited by Rome, particularly nautical engineering for ships of naval warfare.

We do what naval technology?

---------------

@sumskilz

On the coins and the palm. I still think the MET has rather the better ideal. I agree the palm is picked out of their own (Carthage) iconography. But its clear coinage was just a tool for Carthage largely for the use of others. I don't think there is any reason to look for enduring religious associations besides an obvious one that Greeks and others would see a shiny coin and one that was from the Carthys.

By comparison say to the much more understood Athenian approach to money and the slow walk into bronze currency via the Eleusinian coins so as to not impact the AOE brand with bronze until it was clear that would not be issue - for monetary reasons. Not just abhorring a vacuum and assuming some death and rebirth symbol with respect to bronze coins and Athens... or equally why Athens clung to a deeply archaic Athena/owl (and often slapdash) for the whole time of it's independence in striking coins. Must be the religious significance of the owl in Athens or some such right?

[sumskilz]

On the coins and the palm. I still think the MET has rather the better ideal. I agree the palm is picked out of their own (Carthage) iconography. But its clear coinage was just a tool for Carthage largely for the use of others.

Initially (before I found their source), I was more skeptical because it sounded like a hypothesis forwarded by someone who wasn't aware of the history of the symbol. I was mistaken about the latter, their source mentions both. I don't actually find the two explanations mutually exclusive when it's recognized that the palm had previous long history as symbol in Phoenician culture. That it was used in particular on coins because it was recognizable to foreigners may very well be true, although I don't find that explanation necessary. Tyre was still using the same image on their coins hundreds of years after Carthage was no more, same reason?

Here is one from the Second Century CE:



Wikipedia makes this claim:

By the time King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon was conducting the 13-year siege of Tyre starting from 585 BC, Carthage was probably independent of her mother city in political matters. However, close ties with Tyre still remained, Carthage continued to send annual tribute to Tyre (for the temple of Melqart) at irregular intervals over the centuries.

I've read that elsewhere, but does anyone know what primary source it's based on? The temple of Melqart was also a temple to his consort Aštart. Related?