>In c. V b.C. the Phoenician settlers disappeared and also their production and echange system. This fact coincides with a spectacular increase of the iron objects in the indigenous contexts of the Iberian Peninsula. So, I don't believe that we can affirm the Phoenician influence had lasted beyond the Roman era.
Well perhaps I was reading too much into it but I thought J. Sanmartín Ascaso was saying in 'Inscripciones fenicio-púnicas del sureste hispánico (I) that Punic language was in use into the 'segunda mitad del s. I a.C. y que continuó hablándose en los primeros tiempos de nuestra Era.' This 'leads me to believe that they did not merely disappear, but that they may have picked up the use of Latin as a matter of adapting to the controlling political power . . . at least on the south-east coast, during the last half of the 1st c. a.C..
Now these earlier sites with iron artefacts are very difficult for me to understand because on the one hand you say <In the Iberian Peninsula it have been discovered a small number of iron
artefacts dated before the arrival of the Phoenicians (around c. VIII b.C.).> and on the other <During this time, no indigenous iron-working evidences has been found.> And Blázquez as well said the Phoenicians brought the use of iron in the 9th c. a.C. but also says iron was among the finds at Villena dated to 1000 a.C. and that there was no Meditteraenean influence indicated at Villena. So I'm wondering how definitive it is. What are these earlier finds? Is it just that we cannot say whether or not their origen was indigenous or imported?
And might you have a reference for these Phoenician knives?
Thanks for your post. Michael Weinert
Javier Larrazabal Galarza
c/J.M. Barandiarán y Ayerbe 3, Escª 2, 2º I.I.
Bilbao 48006
ESPAÑA
Tfno.: +34 630 790020
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
______________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|