Zorus, and Carchedon (Philist. ap. Syncell. p. 172, s. 324, Fr. 50, ed. Didot; Appian. Pun. 1; Euseb. Chron. 8. a. 978). Dido's name, and that of the city too, are also given in the form of Carthagena, and Dido is represented as the daughter of Carchedon (Kaplayéva; Syncell. p. 183, s. 345). The name of the city is also said to have been at the first Origo (Syncell. p. 181, s. 340). All writers are agreed that Carthage was a colony of Tyre, and that it was one of the latest Phoenician settlements on the African coast of the Mediterranean (287 years later than Utica, according to Aristotle), but further than this we have no certain knowledge of its origin. Regard being had to the traditions of its peaceful settlement, and to the earlier establishment of great commercial cities by the Phoenicians on the same coast, and also to the fact, which may be regarded as pretty well established (see below), that the city was founded at the period of the highest commercial prosperity of Tyre, there would seem to be much probability in the conjecture (Becker, in Ersch and Gruber's Encyklopädie), that the city originated in a mere emporium (or, in modern language, a factory, like that in which the Anglo-Indian empire had its first beginning), esta | blished jointly by the merchants of the mother city and of Utica, on account of the convenience of its position; and that it rose into importance by the natural process of immigration, from Utica especially. Such a gradual origin would in part account for the great variety of dates to which its foundation is ascribed; though another cause of this variety is, doubtless, to be sought in the assigned date from which the Greek and Roman authors have made their computations, sometimes from the fall of Troy, sometimes from the foundation of Rome, and sometimes from the commencement of the Olympiads. Besides these, and the era used by Eusebius, namely, from the birth of Abraham, there is an important computation, from the building of the temple by Solomon, which Josephus gives from old Phoenician documents preserved in his time at Tyre, as well as from Menander of Ephesus. In order to exhibit the various statements in one view, they are here presented in a tabular form, showing the dates as actually given by the several authorities, and also the corresponding years B. C. To facilitate the comparison, the dates of the eras themselves are also stated. BIRTH OF ABRAHAM. Euseb. Common date B. c. 2151.] Philistus places it about the same time, but his exact date Common date.] Ditto. Euseb. Chron. Arm. s. a.] 38th year of David's reign. 25th year of Solomon. Euseb. Chron. Arm. s. a. Timaeus, ap. Dionys. Hal. i. 74, F. 21, ed. Didot: Rome and Carthage, founded about the same time, in the 38th year before the first Olympiad. 40 Serv. ad Virg. Aen. iv. 459. FOUNDATION OF ROME.] CHRISTIAN ERA.] 9°33 IV. SITUATION.-A general description of that | part of the coast of Africa on which Carthage stood has been given under AFRICA. On the W. side of the great gulf (anciently called Sinus Carthaginiensis, and now G. of Tunis), formed by the Apollinis Pr. (C. Farina) on the W. and Mercurii Pr. (C. Bon) on the E., there is a line of elevated ground between the salt marsh called Sebcha-es-Sukara, on the N., and the Lagoon which forms the harbour of Tunis on the S., terminating eastward in the two headlands of Ras Ghamart and Ras Sidi Bou Said (or C. Carthage, or Carthagena), of which the former lies a little NW. of the latter. Ras Ghamart is above 300 feet high, C. Carthage above 400 feet. The latter lies in 36° 52′ 22′′ N. lat., and 10° 21' 49" E. long., and forms the culminating point of the ridge of elevated land just referred to, which sinks on the W. to the level of the adjacent plains. This ridge was in ancient times an isthmus, uniting the peninsula on which Carthage stood to the mainland. Its breadth at the time of the destruction of Carthage did not exceed 25 stadia (2) geog. miles, Polyb. i. 73; Strab. xvii. p. 832), which still corresponds to the distance in some places between the salt-marsh on the N. and the port of Tunis on the S. The width, however, must have been much less at the time of the foundation of Carthage; for the same causes must have been continually acting to enlarge the isthmus as those which ultimately effected its union on the N. side with the mainland, namely, the alluvial deposits of the river Mejerdah [BAGRADAS], and the casting up of silt by the force of the NW. winds, to which the coast of the gulf is exposed without a shelter. Through these influences, the sea which washed the peninsula on the N. has been converted partly into the salt-marsh already mentioned, and partly into firm land, upon which the village of El-Mersa (i. e. the Port), adorned with the villas of the Tunisians, bears witness by its name to the change that has taken place; and by the same causes, the port or bay of Tunis, once a deep and open harbour, has been converted into a mere lagoon, with only 6 or 7 ft. of water, and a narrow entrance called Fum-el-Halk or Halk-el-Wad, i. e. Throat of the River, or Goletta, i. e. the Gullet. (Shaw, p. 150, p. 80, 2nd ed.; Barth, Wanderungen, fc., pp. 72, 80-82, 192.) Dr. Henry Barth, the latest and best describer of the site, is inclined to believe that the whole isthmus is of late formation, and that the peninsula once presented the appearance of two islands, formed by the heights of Ras Ghamart and C. Carthage; a conjecture which remains to be tested, as its author observes, by geological investigations. On one side, however, namely, at the SE. extremity of the peninsula, between C. Carthage and the mouth of the harbour of Tunis, the currents of the gulf have not only kept the coast clear of deposit, but have caused an encroachment of the sea upon the land, so that ruins are here found under water to the extent of nearly 3 furlongs in length, and a furlong or more in breadth (Shaw, L. c.). Shaw estimates the whole circuit of the peninsula at 30 miles. On this commanding spot, just where the African coast juts out into the very centre of the Mediter-united a colony to her metropolis appears to have ranean, and approaches nearest to the opposite coast of Sicily; between the old Phoenician colonies of UTICA and TUNIS (Polyb. i. 73), and in sight of both; stood the successive Punic, Roman, Vandal, and Byzantine cities, which have borne the renowned name of CARTHAGE; but not all of them within the same limits. The details of the topography are much disputed; and their discussion will be best postponed to the end of this article. Meanwhile the position of the peninsula, and its relation to the surrounding sites will be seen from the subjoined map, which gives an outline of the whole region known under the Romans as ZEU GITANA. been carefully observed on both sides. For we find the Tyrians refusing to follow Cambyses when he meditated to attack Carthage by a naval expedition (B.C. 523), and appealing to the mighty oaths by which their paternal relation to her was sanctified. (Herod. iii. 17-19.) On the other hand, in the second commercial treaty with Rome, B. C. 348, the parties to the treaty are "the Carthaginians, Tyrians, Uticeans, and their allies." (Polyb. iii. 24: where the idea that either Tysdrus or some unknown Tyrus in Africa is intended is merely an arbitrary evasion of an imaginary difficulty.) Again, we find the Tyrians, when attacked by Alexander, turning their eyes naturally towards Carthage, first as a source of aid, and afterwards as a place of refuge, whither the women and children and old men were actually sent. (Diod. xvii. 40, 41, 46; Q. Curt. iv. 2.) The religious supremacy of the mother city was acknowledged by an annual offering to the temple of Hercules at Tyre of a tithe of all the revenues of Carthage, as well as of the booty obtained in war (Justin. xviii. 7); a custom, it is true, omitted in the period of prosperity, but at once resorted to again under the pressure of calamities, which were ascribed to the anger of the neglected deity. (Diod. xx. 14.) V. HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES. The history of Carthage is so interwoven with the general course of ancient history, especially in the parts relating to its wars with the Greeks of Sicily and with the Romans, that it would be alike impracticable and superfluous to narrate it here with any approach to fulness. We can only attempt a brief sketch, to be filled up by the reader from the well-known histories of Greece and Rome. The great work of composing a special history of Carthage, worthy of the present state of ancient scholarship, remains to be performed by some one who may superadd to a perfect knowledge of Greek and Roman history a thorough acquaintance with the language and antiquities of the Semitic races, and a vast power of critical research. The History of Carthage is usually divided into three periods:-the first extending from the foundation of the city to the beginning of the wars with Syracuse, in B. C. 480, and ending with the defeat of the Carthaginians by the Greeks under Gelon at Himera (but see just below); the second from this epoch to the breaking out of the wars with Rome, B. C. 480-265; the third is occupied with the Roman, or (as they are usually called, from the Roman point of view) the Punic Wars, and ends with the destruction of the city in B. C. 146. It seems a far better arrangement to extend the first period down to B. c. 410, when the Carthaginians resumed those enterprises in Sicily to which the battle of Himera had given a complete check; and thus to include in one view the great development of their power. The second period will then be devoted almost entirely to her struggle with the Greeks, during which her empire was not materially increased, and her decline can hardly be said to have begun. The third period is that of her "Decline and Fall." To these must be added the history of the restored city under the Romans, the Vandals, and the Byzantine rule, down to the Mohammedan conquest, and the destruction of the city by the Arabs in A.D. 698. In round numbers, and allowing for the uncertainty of the date of the original founda-period, acknowledging, in some sense, the supremacy tion, the histories of the two cities fill the respective spaces of 750 and 850 years. i. First Period.- Extension of the Carthaginian Empire. 9th century-410 B. C.-The first period is by far the most interesting, but unfortunately the most obscure, from the want of native authorities. It embraces the important questions of the Internal Constitution and Resources of the State, its Commerce, Colonies, and Conquests, and its Relations to the surrounding Native Tribes, to the older Phoenician Colonies, and to its own Mother City. 1. Relations to the Mother City. - With respect to Tyre, Carthage seems to have been almost from its foundation independent; but the sacred bond which 2. First steps towards Supremacy.-At what time, and from what causes, Carthage began to obtain her decided pre-eminence over the other Phoenician colonies, is a point on which we have no ade. quate information. Much must doubtless be ascribed to her site, which, we may assume, was discovered to be better than those even of Utica and Tunes; and something to the youthful enterprise which natu rally distinguished her as the latest colony of Tyre. The conquests of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings in Phoenicia, and their repeated attacks on Tyre [TYRUS], would naturally drive many of the inhabitants of the old country to seek a new abode in the colonies, and especially in the most recent, the strength of which would, at the same time, receive a new development from the diminished power of the metropolis; and, as the Greek maritime states obtained much of the lost commerce of Tyre in the Levant, so would Carthage in the West. But the want of historical records prevents our tracing the steps of this transference of power. 3. Relations to the older Phoenician Colonies. — A like obscurity surrounds the relations of Carthage to the older Phoenician colonies of N. Africa, such as UTICA, TUNES, HIPPO, LEPTIS (the Greater and the Less), HADRUMETUM, and others; all of which appear to have been at an early period, like Carthage herself, practically independent of the mother country; and all of which are found, in the historical of Carthage. But that supremacy was not an absolute dominion, but rather the headship of a confederacy, in which the leading state exercised an undefined, but not always undisputed, controul over the other members, whose existence as independent states seems always to have been recognised, however much their rights may have been invaded. The treaties with Rome, already referred to, mention the allies of Carthage, by which we can hardly be wrong in understanding these cities, which therefore were not subjects. In the case of Utica especially, it is remarkable that her name is not mentioned in the first treaty; but in the second, she appears on an equality with Carthage, as one of the contracting powers; which obviously suggests that, in the in-served by Sallust (Jugurth. 18); but it is probably terval, changes had been effected in the position of the allies towards Carthage, which Utica alone had successfully resisted. It seems, in fact, that all these cities, except Utica, had been rendered tributary to Carthage, though preserving their municipal organization. Leptis Parva, for example, paid the enormous assessinent of a talent a day, or 365 talents every year. (Liv. xxxiv. 62.) The period during which the change took place must have been that which followed the battle of Himera, when, induced by that defeat to abandon for a time her projects of further conquests in Sicily, she turned her attention to the consolidation of her power at home. As for Utica, to the very latest period of the existence of Carthage, she retained her separate political existence, in such a manner as to be able to side with Rome against Carthage, and to take her place as the capital of the new Roman province of Africa. The temper in which Carthage used her supremacy over these allies is one of those points in her history on which we need the guidance of more impartial authorities than we possess. The Greek and Roman writers accuse her of arrogance and oppression; and we can easily believe that she pursued the selfish policy of a commercial aristocracy. In the hour of danger from the revolts of her African subjects, some of the chief Phoenician cities refused to abandon her; but their support may have been prompted by the motive of common safety. They were faithful to her cause in the Second Punic War, but in the Third most of them deserted her. Their fidelity in the former case is more to the credit of her rule than their ultimate defection is against it; for her cause in the final struggle was so hopeless, that self-interest is a sufficient motive for the course they pursued in abandoning her. But, even then, examples of fidelity were by no means wanting; and while the rewards obtained by Utica attest the selfish motives of her defection, the severe penalties inflicted on the allies of Carthage show that her deepest danger had called forth proofs of attachment to her, which indicate better antecedents than mere oppression on the one side, and resentment on the other. But however exaggerated the statements of her enemies may be, and however little their own conduct gave them the right to become accusers; to deny that they contain much truth would not only be contrary to the laws of evidence, but inconsistent with all we know of the maxims of government pursued by even the best of ancient states. The chief difficulty is to distinguish, in such statements, what refers to her Phoenician allies, and to her African subjects: the strongly condemnatory evidence of Polybius, for example, applies primarily to her treatment of the latter; though the former may possibly be included under the denomination of raîs móλeơi. (Polyb. i. 72.) On the whole, we may suppose that the case of Leptis gives a fair example of that of the Phoenician allies; and that the chief hardship they endured was the exaction of a heavy tribute, which their commerce enabled them, however reluctantly, to pay. 4. Relations to the Peoples of Africa. With respect to the native tribes, we must carefully observe the distinction, which is made both by Herodotus and Polybius, between those who had fixed abodes and who practised agriculture, and those who were still in the nomad state. This distinction is confirmed by the curious tradition already mentioned as pre to be accounted for, not by referring the two peoples to a different origin, but by a regard to the different circumstances of those who roamed over the scattered oases of the desert and semi-desert regions, and those who inhabited the fertile districts in the valley of the Bagradas and the terraces above the N. coast. (Comp. AFRICA and ATLAS.) Herodotus distinctly assigns the river Triton, at the bottom of the Lesser Syrtis, as the boundary between the Libyans who were nomads, and those who had fixed abodes and tilled the land; the former extending from the confines of Egypt to the Lesser Syrtis, the latter dwelling in the districts afterwards known as Byzacium and Zeugitana, a portion of which districts formed the original territory of Carthage. All these tribes are included by Herodotus under the general name of Libyans; the several peoples, whether nomad or agricultural, being called by their specific names, such as AUSENSES, MAXYES, ZAUECES, GYZANTES, &c. The distinction runs through the whole Carthaginian history, although different names are used to mark it. Polybius applies the name of Libyans to the immediate subjects of the Carthaginians and inhabitants of the original Carthaginian territory; while he designates the free people of Africa, who served in their armies as mercenaries, by the collective name derived from their mode of life, Nomads or Numidians; still calling each tribe by its proper name. That he does not, like Herodotus, distinguish those also whom he calls Libyans in general by the specific names of their tribes, may be taken as a proof that their very names had been lost in their complete subjection to Carthage. The new position taken up by certain of these nomad tribes, under Ma. sinissa and other chieftains, in the later period of the Punic Wars, gave a territorial sense to the Numidian name; but the primary distinction, which we have here to observe, was between the comparatively civilized tribes of Zeugitana and Byzacium, with fixed abodes and agricultural pursuits, whom Polybius calls Libyans, and the Nomad tribes who surrounded them on the E., the S., and the W. a. The Libyans. With the former the Carthaginians were of course brought into contact from their first settlement on the tongue of land, for which tradition assures us they paid a tribute to the Libyans even down to the time of Darius the son of Hystaspes (Justin xviii. 5). But such a relation could no more be permanent than the treaties of white men with American Indians. As they increased in strength, the Carthaginians not only ceased to pay the tribute, but reduced the Libyans to entire subjection. The former lords of the country, driven back from the coast and pent up in the interior, tilled the soil for the profit of their new masters, whether as tenants or still as nominal owners we know not, nor does it matter, for all that they might call their own was held at the mere pleasure of the sovereign state. They were subject to the caprice of Carthaginian officers, and to any exaction of money and men which the exigencies of Carthage might seem to demand. Their youth formed the only regular army (as distinguished from mercenaries) which Carthage possessed; and, as a specimen of their taxation, they were made, in the first Punic War, to contribute fifty per cent. on the produce of their land, while those of them who inhabited the cities had to pay twice their former amount of tribute. No respite or remission was given to the poor, but their persons were seized in default of payment. Their uneasiness under this heavy yoke is shown by the ardour with which they joined the mercenary soldiers in their revolt from Carthage. (Polyb. i. 72.) district of Zeugitana, and afterwards Byzacium also, This relation is continually dwelt upon, not only as the main cause of the ruin of Carthage, but as a decided proof of her short-sighted policy. On this point Arnold has the following excellent remarks (History of Rome, vol. i. pp. 480, foll.):-"The contrast between Carthage exercising absolute dominion over her African subjects, and Rome surrounded by her Latin and Italian allies, and gradually communicating more widely the rights of citizenship, so as to change alliance into union, has been often noticed, and is indeed quite sufficient to account for the issue of the Punic Wars. But this difference was owing rather to the good fortune of Rome and to the ill fortune of Carthage, than to the wisdom and liberality of the one and the narrow-mindedness of the other. Rome was placed in the midst of people akin to herself both in race and language; Carthage was a solitary settlement in a foreign land. The Carthaginian language nearly resembled the Hebrew; it belonged to the Semitic or Aramaic family. Who the native Africans were, and to what family their language belonged, are among the most obscure questions of ancient history... But whateversions may be discovered as to the African subjects of Carthage, they were become so distinct from their masters, even if they were originally sprung from a kindred race, that the two people (peoples) were not likely to be melted together into one state, and thus they remained always in the unhappy and suspicious relation of masters and of slaves, rather than in that of fellow-citizens or even of allies." b. The Libyphoenicians. - Besides these pure native Libyans, another race grew up in the land round Carthage (in Zeugitana and perhaps on the coast of Byzacium), from the mixture of the natives with the Phoenician settlers, or, as Mövers supposes, with a Canaanitish population, akin in race to the Phoenicians, but of still earlier settlement in the country. (Diod. xx. 55; Mövers, Gesch. d. Phoenizier, vol. ii. pt. ii. pp. 435-455, ap. Grote, vol. x. p. 543.) Of these half-caste people, called Libyphoenicians (Aupoívices), our information is but scanty. They seem to have been the chief occupiers and cultivators of the rich land in the immediate vicinity of the city, especially in the valley of the Bagradas; while the Libyans in the S., towards the lake Triton, remained so free from Phoenician or Punic blood, that they did not even understand the Phoenician language. (Polyb. iii. 33.) Like all half-castes, however, the Libyphoenicians seem to have been regarded with suspicion as well as favour: and means were devised to dispose of their growing numbers with advantage to the state as well as to themselves, by sending them out as the settlers of distant colonies, in Spain, for instance, and the W. coast of Africa, beyond the Straits. (Scymn. 195, 196.) The voyage of Hanno, of which we still possess the record, had for its object the establishment of 30,000 Libyphoenician colonists on the last-named coast. (Hanno, Peripl. p. 1; comp. LIBYPHOENICES.) The region occupied by the people thus described, and entirely subject to Carthage, never extended further than the lake of Triton on the S., nor than Hippo Regius (if so far) on the W.; and this district may therefore be considered as the territory of Carthage, properly so called, the Tepioikis of the city, as a Greek would say. It included at first the c. The Nomads.-Beyond these limits, along the coast to the E. and to the W., in the valleys of the Atlas, and in the oases of the half desert country behind the sea-board, from the Pillars of Hercules and the W. coast to the frontier of Cyrenaica, the land was possessed (except where Phoenician and Carthaginian colonies were founded, and even in such cases up to their very walls) by the Nomad tribes, whom Carthage never attempted to subdue, but who were generally kept, by money and other influences, in a sort of rude and loose alliance. They were of service to Carthage in three ways: they furnished her army with mercenary soldiers, especially with the splendid irregular cavalry of whose exploits we read so much in the Punic Wars: they formed, on the E., a bulwark against Cyrene: and they carried on the important land traffic with the countries on the Niger and the Nile, which was a chief source of Carthaginian wealth. The nomad tribes of the country between the Syrtes were those most intimately connected with Carthage. It may be added that Diodorus expressly divides the inhabitants of Libya (meaning the part about Carthage) into four races, namely, the Phoenicians who inhabited Carthage; the Libyphoenicians, of whom his account is unsatisfactory; the Libyans, or ancient inhabitants, who still (in the time of Agathocles) formed a majority of the population, and who bore the greatest hatred to Carthage for the severity of her rule; and lastly the Nomads, who inhabited the great extent of Libya, as far as the deserts. (Diod. xx. 55.) 5. Colonies of Carthage in Africa.— It is evident that the rule of Carthage over the settled Libyans, and her influence over the Nomads, would have been confined within the limits of her immediate neighbourhood, but for the system of colonization, which gave her at least the appearance of imperial authority over the whole N. coast of Africa, W. of Cyrenaica. The original purpose of her colonies, as of every other part of her proceedings, was commercial; and accordingly, with the exception of those already referred to as established in her immediate territory |