Josephus also cites a passage from a Phoenician history by the poorly attested historian Dius (Ag.Ap. 1.106–112, 113–15). Herennius Philo of Byblos (writing in about 100 ce) supposedly translated into Greek a much older Phoenician history by Sanchuniathon. Portions of Philo’s Phoenician History were cited by Eusebius in his Praeparatio evangelica (in turn citing and paraphrasing Porphyry).
How do we evaluate claims made on behalf of historians such as Menander and Dius that they consulted Phoenician archives? Josephus, for example, claims that their histories derive from archives at Tyre: “There are then among the Tyrians writings encompassing many years, publicly written and guarded exceedingly” (Garbini 1980: 286). A similar claim is attributed to Porphyry (Abst. 2.56) by Eusebius (PE 1.9.20–21). Porphyry is concerned with the elusive Phoenician author Sanchuniathon, from whose writings Philo of Byblos allegedly drew. Citing Sanchuniathon’s exact knowledge of Judaica, Porphyry says that Sanchuniathon obtained records (hypomnḗmata) from a certain Hierombalos, priest of the god Ieuo. Porphyry locates Sanchuniathon in the time of Semiramis, a legendary figure whose name derives from Sammu-ramat, wife of the Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad V (823–811 bce). Modern Assyriology has established that she achieved renown during five years as regent for her young son Adad-Nirari III (810–783 bce). Porphyry says that “with a fond regard for truth [Sanchuniathon] collected all the ancient history from city records and temple registers and wrote it up in the Phoenician language” (Eusebius, PE 1.9.10). Sanchuniathon is here represented as having consulted archives (hypomnḗmata, apparently in Byblos) and documents (anagraphōn) housed in temples, having gained access to these sources with the aid of a priest. Josephus’s reference to tas anagraphas “the (inscribed) documents” (Ag.Ap. 1.28) as sources of Egyptian and Babylonian history, the role of priests in safeguarding these records, and the corresponding character of Phoenician archives implied by his mention of ta para tois phoíniksin anagegraména, “things recorded by the Phoenicians” (Ag.Ap. 1.106; Ant. 9.283) call to mind the “temple registers” (tois hierois anagraphōn) that Porphyry records as among Sanchuniathon’s sources.
Josephus’s and Porphyry’s statements are plausible, whether they refer to papyri or to inscriptions. However, no papyri containing a historical narrative have survived from ancient Phoenicia (papyri are only preserved in dry environments, such as in Egypt). Even the chancellery functions implied by seals and bullae do not antedate about 850 bce on the Phoenician mainland. But the existence of archives can be inferred from literary sources and artifacts. The Report of Wen-Amon, for example, mentions a reading ordered by Zakar-baal, the eleventh-century king of Byblos, from “the journal rolls of his fathers” (P. Moscow 120, 2.9). Papyrus documents are attested at Carthage from fiber impressions on surviving bullae (seal impressions) discovered in excavations at Carthage, confirming the existence there of a Punic archive of well over a thousand documents spanning hundreds of years.
The title spr, “scribe,” appears on an Anatolian seal of ca. 700 bce, inscribed in Phoenician, although the accompanying name is Luwian. The title rb sprm, “chief scribe” (lit. “chief of scribes”), occurs in a fifth-century Phoenician text from Cyprus (CIS I 86A.14 = KAI 37:14). The office rb sprm is also attested at Carthage (RES 891.4 = CIS I 6051.4); the title implies scribal colleges. The additional role spr š lḥ, “tablet scribe,” attested at Kition in Cyprus (CIS I 86A.16–17), designated a scribe who wrote on stone tablets and perhaps other material. A scribal archive from Idalion in Cyprus has recently been published (Amadasi Guzzo and Zamora López 2016).
Indirect signs of organized scribal activity and archives in Phoenician cities can be augmented. The Periplus of Hanno the Carthaginian (Heidelberg Codex Palatinus Graecus 398 fol. 55r–56r) survives in a Greek translation or adaptation of a Punic original. The text’s introductory sentence indicates that the document was “set up” (anatíthēmi) in the temple of Kronos (Punic Baal Ḥamōn), perhaps an example of the sort of record envisioned by Josephus that ancient writers would have consulted.
Phoenician inscriptions were still abundant in the second century bce, but they become rare in the first century bce and disappear altogether after that. Briquel-Chatonnet finds no Phoenician inscription later than a Greek-Phoenician bilingual dedication to Hermes and Heracles found at Arwad (Arados), dated to 25/24 bce. Phoenician script did persist in coin legends of the second century ce, even after it had otherwise disappeared (Millar 1968: 63 = 2004: 191). (On inscriptions, see section that follows and chapter 16, this volume, and on the language, see chapter 15, this volume.)
Phoenicians and Carthaginians also appear in numerous Greek and Roman literary works, which I do not list here. The Classical sources show both a great familiarity with their Phoenician-Punic neighbors and also the exploitation of stereotypes about their cultural and sometimes military rivals. (On the Classical sources, see chapter 44, this volume; on Phoenician-Punic literature, see chapter 18; and for their reception in Byzantine literature, see chapter 45, this volume).
Phoenician Inscriptions
Even today, many children in schools still associate the Phoenicians with the alphabet. In part because of Europe’s Greco-Roman Classical heritage and also because the study of Hebrew and the Semitic languages continued in religious communities and universities, a memory of the Phoenicians and their language survived long after the civilization itself had disappeared. The Phoenician alphabet had been deciphered by the end of the eighteenth century. The first corpus of Phoenician inscriptions was published by Gesenius in 1837, and understanding of the Phoenician language incrementally improved over succeeding decades. The discovery and publication of new inscriptions has continued steadily until the present. Interpreting the texts represented in these documents is a more difficult undertaking, largely because the surviving corpus of texts is relatively small, frequently formulaic, and topically restricted. The writing system followed a generally phonetic spelling practice until the late period, so the resulting ambiguities cannot all be resolved.
The Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, Pars Prima (1881–1962), consists of three folio volumes treating 5291 Phoenician and Punic inscriptions. Abbreviated CIS, these tomes remain important for all specialists in Semitic epigraphy. The Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique (RES) began in 1900 as a serialized commentary on Semitic epigraphic texts, but ceased publication in 1950. Smaller samples of Northwest Semitic inscriptions intended for students have also offered valuable comments on individual texts: Cooke 1903; Lidzbarski 1905–1912; Lidzbarski 1907; Slouschz 1942; Donner and Röllig 1966–1969, 2002; Amadasi Guzzo 1967; Magnanini 1973; Gibson 1982; Jongeling and Kerr 2005; and Jongeling 2008.
Studies of inscriptions from particular locations have also made important contributions. Individual scholars have produced serial commentaries on known and newly discovered inscriptions as well. Javier Teixidor’s collected comments on Northwest Semitic inscriptions from 1964 to 1980 (published 1986) are still consulted. The late Maurice Sznycer regularly reported on Phoenician-Punic epigraphy (Sznycer 1983, 1991, 1995, 2000). The annual bibliography published in the Rivista di Studi Fenici from 1973 to 2002 remains a useful resource. Vadim Jigulov has surveyed Phoenician inscriptions pertinent to the Achaemenid period. André Lemaire’s recent Schweich lecture treats Northwest Semitic epigraphy—including Phoenician—in careful detail.
Contemporary estimates suggest the total number of known inscriptions has nearly doubled in the last century. The editors of the Corpus Inscriptionum Phoenicarum necnon Poenicarum, an online database intended to be “a critical edition of all the Phoenician and Punic epigraphic documents” (http://cip.cchs.csic.es/home) offer caution about the difficulties arising from the sources themselves: “The sheer quantity and scattered nature of the documents, spread over a very wide span of time, have severely affected research and caused considerable difficulties in the knowledge, availability and use of these sources.… This lack of verified documents has had repercussions on the very knowledge of
the Phoenician language.”
The Phoenician language is classified among the Northwest Semitic group of languages. Hebrew and Aramaic, also members of this language group, are better attested, and dialects of each are still spoken, so both are important in reconstructing Phoenician. The short bibliography below lists publications that should be consulted by students of the Phoenician language. (On the epigraphic corpus, see also chapter 16, this volume, and on the language, chapter 15, this volume.)
Cuneiform Sources
Cuneiform sources also provide crucial information about the place of Phoenician cities in the international dynamics during the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Achaemenid expansion (see chapters 5, 6, 7, this volume). Some cuneiform texts also cite Phoenician names, providing an interpretation of vocalized words. The grammar by Johannes Friedrich and Wolfgang Röllig (1999) studies every known cuneiform text likely to illuminate Phoenician vocabulary.
Egyptian Sources
Documents produced by Egyptian scribes are only incidentally concerned with Phoenicia or the Phoenician language. The influence of Egyptian culture is especially visible (but not limited to) Phoenician art and imagery, and ritual objects such as amulets and funerary symbols. Phoenician inscriptions produced in Egypt show a small number of linguistic effects from contact with the Egyptian language.
Biblical Sources
References to Tyre, Sidon, and Canaan occur in the text of the Hebrew Bible, and biblical prophetic books, include passages disparaging the pride of Phoenician kings and capitals while tacitly acknowledging the military and commercial superiority of these places. The bibliography below includes some reference works on the subject. (On the Phoenicians in the Hebrew Bible, see chapter 43, this volume).
Personal Names
Phoenician names, like many other ancient Northwest Semitic names, may include nouns, verbs, pronouns, and particles. Often a name is a statement or question, although animal designations may also serve as personal names. Greek and Latin names became more likely to be used among Phoenicians and therefore occur in inscriptions from the later periods. An example of Hellenic influence on naming conventions is the North African personal name kn̊r̊s̊n bn bʿlšlk (Hr. Maktar 64 = KAI 145:40). The form knrsn preserves the Greek name of Kinyras, the father of Adonis in Greek myth.
Material Sources
Archaeological excavation has brought to light voluminous examples of Phoenician and Punic material culture. Pottery is especially important for establishing chronological sequences. The various chapters on different areas of culture and regional studies in this volume provide an update on archaeological research. Besides consulting those, the bibliographical list for this topic provides a number of essential resources.
Levantine Phoenicia
Phoenician civilization developed in the northern coastal areas of West Asia, traditionally referred to as the Levant. The cities Arwad (Aradus), Byblos, Tyre, Sidon, and several others became centers from which the Phoenician language radiated, first northwest into Anatolia, and then west across the Mediterranean, carried by merchants, settlers, and warriors to the coasts and islands of Western Europe and Africa.
Culture, Political and Military Histories, Trade
Works in this section concern various cultural, political, military, and economic features of Phoenician-Punic civilization across the Mediterranean (outside religion, see later section). Below I provide only some reference works on these subjects, amply represented in the chapters of this volume.
Religion
The religious beliefs and practices of ancient Phoenicians are encountered especially in objects made for or used in ceremonies, dedications, and funerary assemblages. Inscribed texts in Phoenician and other languages provide additional first-hand statements about beliefs and practices. (On Phoenician-Punic religion, see chapter 19, this volume.)
References by Subject
Greek Sources
Amadasi Guzzo, M. G., and J.-Á. Zamora López. 2016. “L’archivio fenicio di Idalion: stato delle ricerche.” Semitica et Classica 9: 87–194.
Garbini, G. 1980. I fenici, storia e religione. Naples: Istituto universitario orientale,
Millar, F. 1968. “Local Cultures in the Roman Empire: Libyan, Punic and Latin in Roman Africa.” Journal of Roman Studies 58: 126–34. [Reprinted in H. N. Cotton and G. N. Rogers, eds., Rome, the Greek World, and the East, vol. 2: Government, Society, and Culture in the Roman Empire, 249–64. Raleigh: University of North Carolina, 2004]
Phoenician Inscriptions
Abou Samra, G. 2005. Bénédictions et maledictions dans les inscriptions phénico-puniques. Jounieh: Université Saint-Esprit de Kaslik.
Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1967. Le iscrizione fenicie e puniche delle colonie in occidente. Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, Università di Roma.
Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1990. Iscrizioni fenicie e puniche in Italia. Rome: Libreria dello Stato.
Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1995. “Les Inscriptions.” In La civilisation phénicienne et punique: Manuel de recherche, edited by V. Krings, 19–30. Leiden: Brill.
Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 2006. “Epigrafia fenicio-punica: Documenti, scrittura e conoscenze grammaticali.” In Nuevas perspectivas I: La investiación fenicia y púnica, 17–23. Barcelona: Publicaciones del Laboratorio de Arqueología, Universidad Pompeu Fabra de Barcelona.
Amadasi Guzzo, M. G., and J.-Á. Zamora López. 2016. “L’archivio fenicio di Idalion: stato delle ricerche.” Semitica et Classica 9: 187–94.
Berthier, A., and R. Charlier. 1955. Le sanctuaire punique d’El Hofra à Constantine. Two volumes. Paris: Artes et Métiers Graphiques.
Bonnet, C. 1990. “La terminologie phénico-punique relative au métier de lapicide et à la gravure des texts.” Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 7: 111–22.
Briquel-Chatonnet, F. 1991. “Les derniers témoignages sur la langue phénicienne en Orient.” Rivista di Studi Fenici 19: 3–21.
Cooke, G. 1903. A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cunchillos, J.-L., and J.-Á. Zamora. 2000. Gramatica Fenicia Elemental. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Donner, H., and W. Röllig. 1966–1969. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften (KAI). Second edition, three volumes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Donner, H., and W. Röllig. 2002. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften (KAI5). Fifth edition, volume 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Euting, J. 1871. Punische Steine. St. Petersburg: Commissionaires de l’Académie Imperial des Sciences.
Ferjaoui, A. 1991. “Fonctions et métiers de la Carthage punique à travers les inscriptions.” Reppal 6: 71–94.
Filigheddu, P. 2006. “Die Ortsnamen des Mittelmeerraums in der phönizischen und punischen Überlieferung.” Ugarit Forschungen 38: 149–265.
Friedrich, J., and W. Röllig. 1999. Phönizisch-punische Grammatik. Third edition, edited by M. G. Amadasi Guzzo and W. R. Mayer. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Garbini, G. 1987. “Venti anni di epigrafia punica nel Magreb (1965–1985).” Supplemento della Rivista di Studi Fenici 14: 1–90.
Garbini, G. 1988. Il semitico nordoccidentale. Studi Semitici N.S. 5. Rome: Università degli studi “La Sapienza.”
Garr, W. R. 1985. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 B.C.E. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gesenius, W. 1837. Scripturae linguaeque phoeniciae monumenta quotquot supersunt. Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel.
Gibson, J. C. L. 1982. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Vol. 3: Phoenician Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon.
Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling. 1995. Dictionary of the North-west Semitic Inscriptions. Two volumes. Leiden: Brill.
Jongeling, K. 2008. Handbook of Neo-Punic Inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Jongeling, K., and R. M. Kerr. 2005. Late Punic Epigraphy. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Kerr, R. M. 2010. Latino-Punic Epigraphy. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Krahmalkov, C. R. 2001
. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Leiden: Brill.
Lidzbarski, M. 1902–1915. Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik. Three volumes. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann.
Lidzbarski, M. 1907. Kanaanäische Inschriften (Moabitisch, Althebräisch, Phönizisch, Punisch). Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann.
Lipiński, E., ed. 1992. Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique. Turnhout: Brepols.
Lipiński, E. 2004. Itineraria Phoenicia. Studia Phoenicia 18. Leuven: Peeters.
Magnanini, P. 1973. Le iscrizioni fenicie dell’oriente. Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, Universitá degli Studi di Roma.
Mahjoubi, A., and M. Fantar. 1966. “Une nouvelle inscription carthaginoise.” Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche (8th ser.) 21: 201–11.
Masson, O., and M. Sznycer. 1972. Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre. Geneva: Droz.
Mazza, F. 1978. “Note sul problema dell’ordinatio nell’epigrafia punica.” Rivista di Studi Fenici 6: 19–26.
The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean Page 3
