When in 700 bc Sennacherib removed king Luli of Tyre from Sidon, the latter fled to Cyprus. Through an inscription of the time, we know that the city of Kition was a Phoenician colony with a governor (skn) under the authority of Tyre. The case of Cyprus is unique. Its proximity to the Phoenician coast (so much so as to be visible from the Lebanese mountains) meant that the island had been in close contact with the Near East from the Late Bronze Age, especially with Ugarit. Ugarit kept a group of its representatives in Cyprus, and had in its own port a group of Cypriot and Mycenaean merchants. In the Early Iron Age, Phoenician presence in Cyprus, attested through pottery remains and inscriptions, significantly increased. This increase first happened around the coast, but then mainly in the south-east, around Kition. The rest of the island saw the settlement of the Greeks, while the hinterland saw the rise of local independent states. The former unity of this island (namely, Late Bronze Age Alashiya), then, began to be broken down into a network of city-states of different origins and speaking different languages. Among these city-states, the Phoenician element became one of the prevailing ones.
In the tenth and ninth centuries bc, Cyprus was the only place in which the Phoenicians had already established some settlements. In the rest of the Mediterranean, they did not yet have fixed colonies. This indicates that there were no waves of migrations in this phase. However, the situation changed in the eighth century bc, with the appearance of Phoenician ‘colonies’ in several areas of the Mediterranean. These colonies are partly attested in Greek sources, which sometimes provide us with a foundation date, and partly attested archaeologically. The quantity and typology of the archaeological remains indicate a fixed presence of Phoenician groups. Phoenician colonisation is a phenomenon that developed, both chronologically and in terms of procedures, alongside Greek colonisation. The latter also took place after a previous pre-colonial phase of trade and navigation to specific areas of the Mediterranean. Moreover, in some areas, the Phoenicians had preceded the Greeks, and vice versa. Be that as it may, the two developed around the same time, leading to a bona fide division of the coasts and other influential areas throughout the Central and western Mediterranean.
It is clear that this phenomenon was an innovation in the way trade was pursued in the Mediterranean. It would be anachronistic to date colonisation to an earlier phase in which trade was more flexible. Similarly, it is equally clear that at a certain point it became impossible to maintain the old system without adapting it to the developments of the time. Generally speaking, the causes for these changes were probably linked to the context of the colonisers’ homeland, that of the lands colonised, and the types of resources sought after. In the early first millennium bc, the political organisation of the local populations living in the western Mediterranean significantly improved. This development led to their increasingly important role in both production and trade. Between the eleventh and ninth centuries bc, Phoenician merchants monopolised the means required for commercial activities (from ships to commercial expertise) and benefited from a marked divide in the value of goods. In the eighth century bc, however, the rising local kingdoms became far more active participants, making a seasonal trade of few ships insufficient. From a purely economic, political and military perspective, these changes also led to the necessity of a far stronger presence in the area. Regarding the materials required by the merchants from the east, the rise of colonies marked the shift from a phase mainly concerned with the acquisition of metals, to one that appreciated agro-pastoral products as well as the availability of abundant land and workforce. The latter were still underused compared to the Phoenician coasts.
Admittedly, colonisation could have been a phenomenon promoted by the colonisers’ homeland. This initiative, then, could have been aimed at convincing the latter to leave their lands and venture in riskier, but more promising, endeavours. Unlike Phoenicia, we possess better attestations on the potential internal causes of colonisation from Greece. In this case, colonisation was linked to internal political conflicts and the emergence of new social classes unable to find an adequate place in their homeland. The legend of the foundation of Carthage (Tunisia), according to which the city was founded by a number of political figures who had escaped some internal conflicts in Tyre, is attested in the Greek (and then Roman) tradition. It is probable, however, that it mixed up the causes for Phoenician colonisation with those of Greece.
The little evidence we have on relations between Tyre and Carthage (qrt-hdst, literally, ‘new city’) indicates that, just like for the Greeks, a colony was not an autonomous political entity. It was dependent on its homeland. We know that Carthage continued to send a yearly tribute to Tyre centuries later. This indicates that the city was taxed just like the other cities of the kingdom of Tyre. Moreover, Carthage did not have a ‘king’ like the Phoenician cities, but was ruled by ‘judges’ (sptm, or sufetes in Latin). Its government was therefore similar to the other subordinate centres and Tyre itself in those few years in which its legitimate king was captive in Babylonia. The distance from the homeland undoubtedly made colonies virtually autonomous. However, this political dependence implies an official foundation of these colonies, rather than one pursued by rebellious groups seeking freedom and independence from Phoenicia.
Some scholars have suggested that the establishment of colonies could have been due to the increasing Assyrian pressure on the Phoenician cities, although this is a rather late explanation of the beginnings of Phoenician colonisation. After all, up until the time of Esarhaddon, Tyre (the main protagonist of this colonising process) does not seem to have suffered excessive pressures from the Assyrians. Moreover, later on, relations between the Phoenician cities and the Mesopotamian empires allowed the maintenance of a certain degree of political and economic autonomy. The latter allowed the maintenance of those processes that benefited the empires themselves, but that could not take place through direct imperial control. Just as in the case of the Greeks in Asia Minor escaping the Persians, the few groups of refugees escaping imperial pressure could only have moved to already colonised areas. Overall, then, internal socioeconomic problems and external imperial pressures do not seem enough to justify Phoenician colonisation. It is most likely, then, that the latter developed in order to adapt to the developments taking place in the Mediterranean.
Colonisation led to a clear division of the Mediterranean between the Greeks and the Phoenicians. The Phoenician colonies ‘skipped’ the Central Mediterranean, both in the north (in the Aegean and Ionian Sea) and in the south (Cyrenaica). As modern scholars have pointed out, this distribution of colonies indicates that there was no technical need for colonies to be so close to each other as to require just one day to reach them by sea. Therefore, Phoenician colonies were mainly concentrated in western Sicily (Motya, Panormos, Soluntus), Malta, Pantelleria, Tunisia (Carthage and Utica), Sardinia (Nora and Tharros among others), the Balearic Islands, and southern Spain (Cadiz and others). It was a compact network, concentrated on the central archipelagos and on peninsulas (without moving further inland). It also combined areas rich in minerals (Sardinia and Spain) with densely populated areas and strategic points for the control of maritime routes.
The prompt separation of the colonies from Phoenicia led one of them, Carthage, to take on a hegemonic role. In turn, Carthage became the starting point of another wave of colonisation focused on the African coast (Tripolitania, Algeria and Morocco) and on already Phoenician areas, such as Spain and Sardinia. The history of the Phoenician colonies and of Carthage is outside the scope of the present volume both in terms of its geographic and chronological delimitations. The rise of the Carthaginian empire and its clash with the Romans is well known. For now, it is only important to note that through these colonial outposts the Phoenicians managed to continue their exploration of distant lands in a constant search for new routes and materials. Around 600 bc, the Near Eastern Phoenicians even prolonged the Red Sea route by circumnavigating Africa on behalf of the Egyptian king, Necho. In turn, the Carthaginians passed the Pillars of Hercules, reaching England in the north (Himilco, ca. 450 bc) and the Gulf of Guinea in the south (Hanno, ca. 425 bc).
World History
