<i>Poenus plane est</i>— but who were the ‘Punickes’?

Prag, Jonathan R. W.

doi:10.1017/s0068246200003214

Cited by 47 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(6) García Riaza 2011 We have an extensive bibliography on the matter, ironically called Punica fides. Among other works, the following can be consulted : Dubuisson 1983;Prag 2006;Erskine 2013;Khrustalov 2015;Modrow 2017, p. 161-167. (8) (13) Which would imply some independence from its state institutions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Jura conloqui. Mechanisms in Official Interviews with Punic Leaders in the Time of the Roman Republican Expansion

Rosselló Calafell

2021

ktema

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Direct, official contact between leaders took place in various politico-military circumstances during the period of the Roman Republican expansion. One of these situations is the conloquia, or face-to-face interviews between military chiefs. This diplomatic practice, previously studied by scholars such as García Riaza, has a series of common procedures, as we can deduce from reading the classic texts. These mechanisms seem to have been observed and shared by the Carthaginian commanders and those of other communities and states of the Mediterranean West, which would place us in front of a common framework of diplomatic practice.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Jura conloqui. Mechanisms in Official Interviews with Punic Leaders in the Time of the Roman Republican Expansion

Rosselló Calafell

2021

ktema

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Augustine only uses the alternative term phoenix once ( De civitate Dei 4.10). For the Latin usage of phoenix and punicus more generally, see: Prag, 2006; forthcoming. We shall use ‘Punic’ in this article to refer to the western dialect of Phoenician spoken in North Africa, in line with standard scholarly practice, but we shall not import this modern distinction into Augustine's own account.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Augustine's Canaanites

Quinn¹,

McLynn²,

Kerr³

et al. 2014

Pap. Br. Sch. Rome

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a widespread idea that the people we call 'Phoenician' called themselves 'Canaanite'. This article argues that the only positive evidence for this hypothesis, a single line in the standard editions of Augustine's unfinished commentary on Paul's letter to the Romans, where he claims that 'if you ask our local peasants what they are, they answer 'Canaanite'', is prima facie highly unreliable as historical evidence, and on closer inspection in fact is almost certainly an editorial error: our examination of all the manuscriptsthe first to have been carried outestablished that what the peasants were really asked in the archetype was not quid sint -'what they are'but quid sit -'what is it', a phrase that would most obviously refer to their language. While this new reconstruction of the archetype does not necessarily mean that quid sit was what Augustine originally wrote, this passage cannot be used as positive evidence for Canaanite identity in late antique North Africa, or anywhere else.C'è un'idea diffusa che il popolo che noi chiamiamo 'Fenici' chiamasse se stesso con il nome di 'Canaaniti'. Il presente articolo sostiene che la sola testimonianza che va nella direzione di quest'ipotesi è prima facie estremamente inaffidabile come fonte storica. Si tratta di un'unica riga nell'edizione standard del commentario incompiuto di Agostino alla lettera di Paolo ai Romani, in cui si dice che 'se tu chiedi ai nostri contadini locali che cosa siano, essi rispondono 'Canaaniti'' e che a una verifica più dettagliata corrisponde quasi certamente a un errore redazionale. Il nostro riesame di tutto il manoscrittoil primo a essere stato effettuatoha stabilito che ciò che nell'archetipo viene chiesto effettivamente ai contadini non è quid sintovverosia 'che cosa sono'ma quid site quindi 'che cos'è', una frase che si riferisce con probabilità al loro linguaggio. Mentre questa nuova ricostruzione dell'archetipo non implica necessariamente che quid sit fosse ciò che Agostino originariamente scrisse, questo passaggio non può essere usato come una prova dell'identità dei Canaaniti nella tarda antichità in Nord Africa o in qualsiasi altra localizzazione. 'OUR RUSTICS'Only very rarely do we hear ancient peasants speak, and then their voices are usually translated into the language of the political élite. There is therefore every reason to attend to two single-word utterances that Augustine of Hippo 1 The origins of this paper lie in a series of conversations between Jo Quinn, Stephen Heyworth and Jonathan Prag, and we are extremely thankful to the two latter for their ongoing advice and enthusiasm. We also gratefully acknowledge the help given to us by

show abstract

“…‘Phoenician‐Punic’ is a more ambiguous term which I shall nevertheless use to make a general reference to all of the aforementioned peoples. For a lengthier discussion on the limits and problems regarding the use of this terminology, see Prag ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Colonial Representations and Carthaginian Archaeology

Ortega

2013

Oxford J Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary In spite of the interest generated by Phoenician‐Punic Archaeology, this area of study has always been underestimated by comparison with Classical Archaeology. One of the main reasons for this is the persistence of a colonial representation of the ancient Mediterranean which assumes Greek culture to be the supreme expression of civilization. Other groups may imitate it through an acculturation process: Hellenization. As we shall see, this representation pervades even the Phoenician‐Punic history and archaeology university textbooks. Starting with the various reasons leading to this situation, I aim to focus on the interpretation given to the ancient excavations at Carthage and, specifically, to its architectural and urban record, since this was the area of study where the prejudices about the Phoenician‐Punic culture found an (albeit misunderstood) archaeological proof. I shall argue that the misinterpretation of these excavations is the key to understanding later developments and the general underestimation of Phoenician‐Punic Archaeology.

show abstract

Poenus plane est— but who were the ‘Punickes’?

Cited by 47 publications

References 16 publications

Jura conloqui. Mechanisms in Official Interviews with Punic Leaders in the Time of the Roman Republican Expansion

Jura conloqui. Mechanisms in Official Interviews with Punic Leaders in the Time of the Roman Republican Expansion

Augustine's Canaanites

Colonial Representations and Carthaginian Archaeology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About