Phoenician Society: Role of Seafaring and Maritime Knowledge

Phoenician Society Role of Seafaring and Maritime companionshipDiscuss the role of oceangoing and maritime friendship within Phoenician society and its expansion.Introduction.As a people the Phoenicians endured for just closely three cat valium years and were already flourishing by 3,000 B.C. just it was non until virtu eachy 1100 B.C., with the demise of the lively dominant peoples in the area, that the Phoenicians came to the fore as a significant force. From this time, until around 600 B.C., they dominated the Mediterranean by trading and establishing colonies angiotensin-converting enzyme of the most master(prenominal) being Carthage. The success of their culture seems importantly to shake been repay commensurate to the proximity of the Mediterranean that encouraged dependence on seafaring and trade. Indeed, as Holst1 indicates, international trade formed part of the guiding principles on which the Phoenician civilization was implanted that also included a commit ment to spanking partnerships, peaceful personatetlement of disputes, equality, privacy, religious freedom and paying attention of women. Although the majority of Phoenician trade was initially land based, a significant amount began to slang place by sea2 testified by the wealth of Tyre that, along with Byblos, Sidon, Arados and Simyra, were the main fundament-based Phoenician sea ports. Initially, Phoenician sea trade was mainly with the Greeks involving glass, slaves and Tyrian colour dye made from a sea shell called Murex and textiles coloured with much(prenominal)(prenominal) dyes formed one of the main Phoenician exports. Most of the major Mediterranean countries were involved in trade with the Phoenicians that included such commodities as cotton, timber, wool, cherished stones, embroidery, wine, corn and various opposite(a) foodstuff including spices whereas countries as far outside(a) as Spain traded metals such as tin, iron and lead.3The Importance of grappleTrad e and colonisation originally centred on bartering indigenous timber as come up as fishing skills, the latter of which is fantasy to have provided the competence for afterwards seafaring abilities.4 The far reaching sea trade of the Phoenicians took 2 forms with existing Phoenician colonies and countries in navig fitting-bodied reach. The colonies provided a means by which the home country could be assured of supplies of goods deemed essential. In this respect, Cyprus became a colony to look the supply of wood and copper, Sardinia and Spain for useful metals. In re spell for such goods, Phoenicia supplied such finished items as cotton and linen, pottery, ornaments, weapons, and glass. It was not, however, just with the Mediterranean that trade occurred solely also with the Propontis and ports within the Black Sea.5 The dominance of Phoenicians in seafaring has not gone without criticism however as early reports of such triumph in Homers Odyssey, and also by Herodotus, has be en viewed by virtually modern commentators as erroneous.6 The finis of Phoenician preeminence in this respect seems to have been settled by Basss underwater excavations of the drapery Gelidonya wreck that highlights the extent of Phoenician trade.7 The archaeological evidence from this excavation seems because to support the dominance of Phoenician seafaring from 1200 B.C. onwards. The recent discovery of two exceptionally large Phoenician merchant ships adds pass on substance to this view.8It is probable that the Phoenician maritime empire was preceded by trade with various outposts throughout the Mediterranean or otherwise began as safe anchorage points along the coast.9 It was only later on that these places became colonies set up to protect Phoenician affairs that requisite ships of war which, unlike merchant vessels were employed all year round,10 to protect both colonies and trade tracks. The Phoenician character of many an(prenominal) of these ports was lost due t o the rise and dominance of other actors such as the Greeks and Romans that has masked the extent of Phoenician influence. Importantly, trade by sea was thinked to specialist intersection point areas that otherwise would not have come together that allowed the Phoenicians to establish a rate of exchange to their reinforcement.11 Transportation of various metals available in the westbound Mediterranean by sea, such as Spanish silver, thus allowed the Phoenicians to link the demand in the due east, from countries like Assyria etc., to the raw genuine centres of the west. The Phoenicians also took advantage of turning the raw materials aired from the west into quality refined goods to be later exported. These products, because they tended to be much refined and better quality than what most other countries could supply, were therefore much sought after and such goods have been implant in western ports such as Carthage.12 Moreover, the direct sea bridle-path through the Medit erranean provided the best means of direct and efficient transport of materials and products and the extent of this trade along the Mediterranean is confirmed by the eventidet that Phoenician coins came to be manufactured in Tyre from the fifth hundred B.C. onwards.13The Extent of Phoenician Trade LinksIt is thought that the ripening in Assyrian causality and pressure on the coastal cities commencement led the Phoenicians to turn to seafaring.14 In this respect, Assyrian power is thought to have blocked entrance to resources to the east to the extent that the Phoenicians were obliged to turn west towards the Mediterranean for raw materials.15 others, however, grapple that it was the growth in Assyrian wealth and power that stimulated Phoenician interest in Mediterranean seafaring because of the increased demands for products.16 This could have likewise been hastened by the economic growth and increased demand of Tyre and other Phoenician ports for raw materials. It is likely , however, that rather than one factor there was a set of interrelated events involving political, historical, economic criteria that led to the Pheonician exploitation of the Mediterranean. Indeed, Tyre and associated ports were ideally rigid to act as a conduit through which the products and resources of the Mediterranean and countries to the east could be exchanged.17 Moreover, a massive investment in time and resources would have been demand to mount expeditions throughout the Mediterranean by sea that suggests Tyre was economically and politically secure.The exploits of the Phoenicians in the Mediterranean should not be viewed as exploration as most of the main sea routes had been charted during the Bronze Age. Rather the Phoenicians were able to use and improve their maritime skills to become the dominant force in the Mediterranean for six hundred years. Yet, there are reports that they jeopardised much progress afield which suggest exploration was part of a general outloo k. For example, Herodotus reports that they sailed level the Red Sea to circumnavigate Africa returning via the Straits of Gibraltar.18 Some even propose that they may have voyaged as far as southern Britain to acquire Cornish tin moreover this was probably based on indirect rather than direct trade.19 In this respect, reports of a tin block of metal discovered in a Cornish harbour similar to those of quaint Crete remain controversial.20 The Veneti of Brittany may also have actually been Phoenicians who controlled the trade route to Britain and were thought to be adept seafarers.The control of trade routes seems to have been a characteristic of Phoenician dominance in that this allowed more exclusive gravel to resources around and outside the Mediterranean that helped to reinforce Phoenician power. The interest in regions outside the Mediterranean is supported by the notion that some coastal ports such as the present Portuguese port known as Peniche is claimed to derive from t he Greek for Phoenicia.21 Moreover, there are many Phoenician stiff to be found along the Portuguese coast.22 such exploits beyond the Mediterranean may have partially been encouraged by the fact that the Greeks had prevented Carthage from gaining access to the home ports.23 Indeed, it may have been the rise in Greek power that led to Carthage becoming such an important city port for the Phoenicians in the central Mediterranean and could have been a factor leading, in the eighth century B.C., to Carthage succeeding Tyre as the main Phoenician city. on that point is also some evidence that the Phoenicians may have even reached some of the Atlantic islands such as the Azores and Canaries.24 Ultimately, it was the rise in Greek power in the east, the barrier of the Atlantic in the west and the rise of capital of Italy that bought an end to Phoenician power.25 In sum, the Phoenician influence along the Mediterranean coastline appears to be both a consequence of great initiative and palatial seafaring skills that was instigated by the promise of trade and pressures from the rise in other Mediterranean powers to the east.Types of BoatsThe initial attempts in seafaring by Phoenicians are thought to have been quite crude based on travel mingled with islands by means of rafts followed by more sophisticated but still crude sailing vessels inspired by the need to fish.26 The first boats seemed to have consisted of a keel, a rounded hull and a elevated platform for the steersman with the oars intersecting the bulwark.27 This formed a template for a subsequent craft where four upright rowers operated curved oars in a boat that lacked a rudder with a mast held aloft by two ropes secured at the front and rear of the vessel. The mast, however, seems not to have been apply for a sail, but to support a covering structure from which an archer or other attacker was able to launch missiles. From this, a larger vessel evolved with a low bow and raised stern with a rudder w ith a pointed obeisance and oars on each side of about fifteen to twenty in number that the Greeks referred to as triaconters and penteconters that are represented on coins but were shown without a mast so must have been a type of refined course boat. Around 700 B.C. further advances occurred in ship construction in that, quite of being situated on one level, rowers were now placed on two levels thus doubling the number of oarsmen. These vessels were known as biremes by the Greeks and incorporated two steering oars issuing from the stern some with a mast and yardarm to support a sail that came in two forms one intentional for war, the long ship, and another, with a more rounded prow employ for the purpose of trade.28 Inspired by the Greek example, the Phoenicians also went on to bewilder their own version of the trireme with three levels of rowers.29 The size of these vessels can be gauged by the fact that the top level consisted of 31 rowers.30 The Phoenicians have also been credit with inventing both the keel and ram as well as the caulking of planks with bitumen though some believe that the ram or beaked prow is say to have been adopted by the Phoenicians from the Mycenaeans It was the use of an adjustable sail, more oarsmen and a double steering oar that led to increased speed and manoeuvrability allowing the furthermost points of the Mediterranean to be reached and it was the round-shaped merchant ships called gaulos that was mainly relied on in this respect.31 Such innovations to ship construction illustrate the commitment of the Phoenicians to seafaring and their seafaring skills were so renowned throughout the ancient world that Phoenician ships and sailors were often co-opted into outside war fleets.32NavigationThe Phoenicians are thought to have invented the art of navigation. They used oars when there was little or no wind and large square(a) sails at other times. Although they obviously practiced coastal navigation, the distribution of ports indicates that more long distance open sea voyages were also undertaken.33 The fact that the Phoenicians had important centres at Sardinia, Sicily and Ibiza suggests that they often sailed the high seas. This would have involved extended periods at sea essential for the effective transportation of goods. They would probably, however, have employed pitiful coastal journeys to travel from one port to the next but relied on deep sea navigation for longer voyages34 and in places like the Aegean, with the many islands and dangerous currents, oars would have been used rather than sails. It is thought that the Phoenicians were also able to sail at night and used the Pole star and knowledge of astronomy for navigation. This knowledge along with the fact that, given favourable viewing conditions, land is nearly always visible anywhere in the Mediterranean -allowed the Phoenicians to use their seafaring skills to good effect.ConclusionThe Phoenicians obviously depended on seafaring sk ills in order to extend trade links and their influence throughout the Mediterranean and beyond. This seems to have gone hand in hand with a need to develop more sea worthy vessels and navigational abilities to venture further into the open seas. Evidence from historical documents, such as found in Herodotus and others, indicate the extent of Phoenician maritime skills that evolved in in tandem with the foundation of ever distant colonies and trading outposts. These skills seem to have been further encouraged by the advantages that came from the home ports being located where raw material from the west, which were in demand by countries in the Levant, could be traded for finished products. The Phoenicians were able to exploit this further by producing high quality manufactured goods that were exported to all areas thus increasing their economic power and wealth that allowed more sophisticated ships to be built for longer voyages. This tendency is reflected in the progressive growth in Phoenician influence and colonisation from east to west from about 12,000 B.C. onwards. Trade went first, however, with colonisation following when the opportunity arose. Ultimately, however, Phoenician influence may have declined in the Mediterranean due to an over-reliance on seafaring that was uneffective to compete with more land based powers. In other words, their great strength eventually became their greatest weakness.BibliographyAubert, M. E. (2001) The Phoenicians and the West Politics, Colonies and Trade. Cambridge University atmospheric pressure Cambridge.Boardman, J. Edwards, I. E. S., Hammond N. G. L. (1991) Preface in, The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C. Cambridge University Press Cambridge.Basch, L. (1969) Phoenician Oared Ships. The diddly-shits Mirror. 55, pp. 139-162.Barnett, R.D. (1958) Early Shipping in the Near East. Antiquity 32 (128) pp. 220-230.Bass, G. F. (1972) A explan ation of Seafaring based on Under-water Archaeology. Walker lodge London.Boucher-Colozier, E. 1953. Cahiers de Byrsa III, 11.Casson, L. (1971) Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton University Press Princeton.Culican, W. (1991) Phoenicia and Phoenician colonization. In The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries. B.C. J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L Hammond, editors. (Cambridge University Press Cambridge) pp. 461-545.de Slincourt, A. (1959) The Histories (Herodotus). Penguin Harmonsworth.Diodorus Siculus. (1935) subroutine library of History. C. H. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA.Frankenstein, S. 1979 The Phoenicians in the Far West a give-up the ghost of Neo-Assyrian imperialism. In, Power and Propoganda. A Symposium on Ancient Empires. M. T. Larsen, editor. (Akademisk Forlag Copenhagen) pp. 263-294.Guthrie, J. 1970. Bizzare Ships of the Nineteenth Century. Hutc hinson London.Grayson, A. K. (1991) Boardman, J. Edwards, I. E. S., Hammond N. G. L. (1991) Assyrian Civilization. In The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C. J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L Hammond, editors. Cambridge University Press Cambridge. pp. 194-228.Greenberg, M. (1997) Ezekiel 21-37 A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible, Vol 22A. Doubleday New York.Harden, D. (1948) The Phoenician on the West Coast of Africa. Antiquity. 22 p. 147.Harden, D. (1962) The Phoenicians. Thames and Hudson London.Harrison, R. J. (1988) Spain at the Dawn of History Iberian, Phoenicians and Greeks. Thames and Hudson London.Hencken, ONeil. H. (1932) The Archaeology of Cornwall and Scilly. Methuen London.Hill, G. F. (1910) Greek Coins of Phoenicia. British Museum.Holst, S. (2005) Phoenicians Lebanons Epic Heritage. Cambridge and capital of Massachusetts Press Los Angeles.Moscati, S. and Grassi, P. (2001) The Phoenicians. I.B. Tauris London.Perrot G. and Chipiez, C. (1893) Histoire de lArt dans lAntiquit. Hachette Paris.Rawlinson, G. (2004) History of Phoenicia. KessingerMontanaTilley, A. (2004) Seafaring on the Ancient Mediterranean. rampart International Series. 1268. Archaeopress/J. and E. Hedges Oxford.1Footnotes1 Holst, 20052 See, for example, Judgement of Ezekiel 26-1 Judgement on Tyre in Greenberg, 19973 Perrot and Chipiez, 18934 Culican, 19915 Tilley 2004 p. 766 Tilley, 2004 p. 777 Bass, 19728 Tilley, 2004 p. 789 Harden, 1962 p. 158.10 Moscati and Grassi, 2001 p.85.11 Harrison 1988 p. 4212 See, for example, Boucher-Colozier, 195313 Hill, 191014 Frankenstein, 197915 Aubert, 2001 p. 7016 Culican 1991 p. 48617 Harrison, 198818 see de Slincourt, 195919 Harden, 1962 p. 17120 Hencken, 1932.21 Guthrie, 1970 p. 10322 Tilley, 2004 p. 8023 Harden, 1962 p.17124 See, for example, Diodorus Siculus 1935 v. 20 Harden, 194825 Boardman et al. 1991 p. xvi.26 Rawlinson, 2004 p. 122.2 7 Ibid.28 Perrot and Chipiez, 1893 p. 3429 Basch, 196930 Casson, 1971 p. 9531 Barnett, 195832 Grayson,1991 p. 22033 Aubert, 2001 p. 16734 Moscati and Grassi (2001) p. 84