Originalveröffentlichung in: I Fenici: ieri, oggi, domani, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei,

Commissione per gli studi Fenici e Punici, Rom, 1995, S. 203-214

Phoenician and the Phoenicians in the Context of the

Ancient Near East

Wolfgang Rollig

During the last decades a consensus has emerged that the world of
the Ancient Near East showed and, indeed, possessed a remarkable uni­
formity. This d oes not mean that no d ifferences exist between the
Babylonian-Assyrian culture in the east, multicultural Anatolia in the
north, Egypt in the south and the area of Syria and Palestine which is cen -
tral for our investigations. To be sure - there are differences, not only be­
tween the great cultures just named, but also between the political and geo­
graphical d efined regions in Syria proper. Still one cannot overlook that in
many spheres like language and literature, religion and custom, commerce
and technology there are close interconnections which cannot be d ue to
chance. Hence the reciprocal links between the cultures on the one hand ,
and the d iscrete d ifferences on the other have always d rawn my interest.
The Phoenicians as a people who not only showed a special ability to as­
similate foreign influences but who also played a prominent role in the
transfer of cultural achievements therefore have stirred up my attention.
During my early stud ent years I was much influenced by a book of
an author who d isplayed a wide-ranging perspective coupled with an un­
usual competence in various field s of research; this was W. F. Albright
«From Stone-Age to Christianity»'. Here for the first time the various cul­
tures are brought into focus and compared over wid e range, includ ing not
only the linguistic but the archaeological d ata, too. On another tack I had
the good fortune to stud y und er some scholars who very much stimulated
me in my end eavors to transgress the bord er-lines between the separate
d isciplines: Albrecht Alt as an historian of Ancient Israel; Ad am
Falkenstein, Johannes Fried rich and Wolfram von Sod en in Assyriology

1
German translation Von der Steinzeit zum Christentum. Monotheismus und
geschichtliches Werden, r e v i s ed e d i t i o n in S a m m l u n g D a l p , B d . 5 5 ( B e r n 1949).
204 Wolfgang Rollig

with different points of main emphasis. So I received a good training in

Ancient Oriental languages, but none of these scholars was especially con­
cerned to delve into the mysteries of the Phoenician and Punic cultures.
This meant I had to study on my own the voluminous and in some respects
frustrating works of Movers 2 and Meltzer/Kahrstedt3. Both authors mostly
refer to Greek and Roman sources, but I felt the desire to go back to the
original inscriptions - though these in fact contribute less to our under­
standing of history and culture than I then expected.
What then ensued was a close study of the inscriptions and their
languages where the famous but outdated «Handbuch der nordsemitischen
Epigraphik» 4 forming a valuable adjunct to Zellig S. Harris' «Phoenician
Grammar* 5 , soon joined by Johannes Friedrich's «Ph6nizisch-punische
Grammatik» 6 . O f somewhat wider scope, the monograph by Z.S. Harris on
Hebrew and Phoenician within the context of the Canaanite languages7
was one of the best contributions to comparative semitics available in the
fifties. It also showed with paradigmatic force, how far a comparative
method in the field of language could go to yielding a better understanding
of historical and cultural processes.
The first fruit of my attempts to integrate philology, palaeography
and cultural history was the then moderately daring undertaking of the
commented re-editing - together with Herbert Donner — of a selection of
Canaanite and Aramaic Inscriptions8. The aim of this work was to present
a reevaluation of the in this days available and, in our opinion, pertinent
source material for the Phoenician, Punic, Moabite, pre-exile-Hebrew and

2
F . E . M o v e r s , Die Phonizier, 2 Bde., Berlin 1841-1856.
3
O . M e l t z e r - U . K a h r s t e d t , Geschichte der Karthager, 3 B d e . , B e r l i n 1879. 1 8 9 6 .
1913.
4
M a r k L i d z b a r s k i , Handbuch der nordsemitischen pE igra
p hik, 2 B d e . , 1898.
5
Z e l l i g S. H a r r i s , A Grammar of the Phoenician Language: O
A S , 6, N e w Haven
1936.
6
J . F r i e d r i c h , Phonizisch-p unische Grammatik: A n a l e c t a O r i e n t a l i a , 3 2 , R o m 1951.
7
Z e l l i g S. H a r r i s , Develop ment of the Canaanite Dialects. An investigation in linguis­
tic history: A O S , 16, N e w H a v e n 1939.
8
H . D o n n e r - W . R o l l i g , Kanaandische und aramaische Inschriften, 3 Vols., 1st
E d i t i o n 1 9 6 0 - 1 9 6 4 , 4 t n E d i t i o n 1 9 7 8 - 8 0 . A r e v i s e d a n d e n l a r g e d e d i t i o n o f the 1 s t v o l u m e
i s in p r e p a r a t i o n , b u t a r e e d i t i o n o f the 2 n c * v o l u m e is not i n t e n d e d . W i t h respect t o the
H e b r e w i n s c r i p t i o n s , w h i c h h a d b e e n s o m e w h a t n e g l e c t e d in K A I , in the n e x t m o n t h s w i l l
s e e p u b l i c a t i o n o f a c o m p r e h e n s i v e r e e d i t i o n , m o s t l y c o m p i l e d b y J o h a n n e s R e n z but w i t h
s o m e contributions by myself.
 Phoenician and the Phoenicians in the Context of the Ancient Near East 205

Ancient Aramaic cultures, based on a palaeographical scrutiny of the orig­

inals and accompanied by a commentary of philological and material ob­
servations. The difficult financial situation of the time made it largely im­
possible to collate the original inscriptions; only photographs were used,
but these had to be checked carefully. But I was well aware that many im­
provements could be achieved by a closer study of the original inscriptions
- and, in the intervening years, many colleagues have contributed to this
task. It should be remembered that, at that time, I could contact only W.F.
Albright in Baltimore, James Fevrier in Paris and G. Levi Delia Vida in
Rome - and they gave me their unstinting support. Shortly after publication
of K A I , the field of Phoenician and Punic studies was significantly en­
larged by new discoveries and finds; these owed much to advances in the
exploration of new regions of research initiated by Sabatino Moscati and
his school in Rome, by F.M. Cross in the USA, by M. Sznycer in Paris, by
M. Fantar in Tunisia, and by scholars in Israel and elsewhere.

Looking at these developments over the last thirty years, it is pos­

sible to state that we now possess a fairly comprehensive documentation of
written sources from the centuries of Phoenician and Punic penetration in
the Mediterranean world. Just in the last years a substantial series of publi­
cations has been published which explores, on the basis of the material
now available, the ramifications of different themes arising from the tradi­
tional Greek and Latin sources in comparison with the evidence from the
northwest Semitic inscriptions9. In addition, a keen and ongoing reevalua-
tion of the material culture, together with vigorous on-the-ground explo­
ration and excavation-activities have intervened, permitting publication of
new compendia on the history and culture of the Phoenicians.10 Then too,
there was mise en scene of large-scale exhibitions11, which have promoted

9
F o r e x a m p l e t h e b o o k o n M e l q a r t b y C . B o n n e t , (= Studia Phoenicia VIII), Leuven-
N a m u r 1 9 8 8 ; the v o l u m e b y F. B r i q u e l - C h a t o n n e t , Les relations entre les cites de la cote
p henicienne et les royaumes d'lsrael et de Juda: O L A , 4 6 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; the c a r e f u l l i n v e s t i g a ­
t i o n s o n B a a l H a m m o n b y P a o l o X e l l a ( R o m a 1991).
10
S. M o s c a t i , / Fenici ( R o m a 1 9 6 5 ) = Die Phoniker ( Z u r i c h 1 9 6 6 ) ; A . Parrot - M .
C h e h a b - S. M o s c a t i , Les Pheniciens ( P a r i s 1 9 7 5 ) = Die Phonizier ( M u n c h e n 1977). In the
last y e a r s f o l l o w e d : M . G r a s - P. R o u i l l a r d - J. T e i x i d o r , L'univers p henicien ( P a r i s 1989);
C. Baurain - C. Bonnet, Les Pheniciens. Marins des trois continents (Paris 1992); M . E .
A u b e t , The Phoenicians and the West ( C a m b r i d g e 1993).
11
Friihe Phoniker im Libanon: R h e i n i s c h e s L a n d e s m u s e u m B o n n , 81*1 D e c . 1983 -
th
22 J a n . 1 9 8 4 ; Les Pheniciens et le Monde Medilerraneen. p
As ects d'une civilisation cos­
mopolite, Bruxelles, Generate de B a n q u e , 6 t n M a r c h - 6 t h M a y 1986; / Fenici, Palazzo
 206 Wolfgang Rollig

not o n l y a b etter understanding in the b roader pub lic b ut also stimulated

further research.
But despite all the sub stantial progress that has taken place over
the last decades, further research is ab solutely necessary. Permit m e to
single out three f i e l d s o f future investigation as representative o f m a n y
others:

1. M e a n i n g o f words, i.e. a comprehensive dictionary.

2. Literary structure o f the inscriptions, i.e. stylistic analysis.
3. Origin o f the Phoenicians, i.e. history.

I . - T o b egin with an e x a m p l e o f a disputed word I adduce a well

k n o w n passage f r o m the Karatepe inscription. In K A I 26 A II 18 - III 1 w e
>
read ySb nk bn bcl k rntryS wylk zbh 1 kl hmsk tzbh ymm >lp ... and in the
parallel-text C I V 2-4: wzbb >S y[ J'lm k l hmsk t z z zbh y[mm] >[lp
w h i c h has b een translated f o r e x a m p l e b y G i b s o n 1 2 «I m a d e Baal
K R N T R Y S d w e l l in it. N o w let people b ring a sacrifice for all the images,
the yearly sacrifice o f one o x ...» and C I V 2-4 1 3 « A n d the sacrifice w h i c h
[a man shall b ring for] all the images o f this god is this: the [yearly] sacri­
fice o f [one] o x ...». It should be noted that in the inscription on the statue
the « i m a g e o f the g o d » is referred to twice - but with the expression sml
14
Un ( K A I 26 A I V 15.19). F. B r o n rightly notices in his c o m m en t a r y : «En
c o n c l u s i o n , on peut dire que cette phrase, si le sens general en est clair, n'a
pas encore trouve d'explication grammaticalement satisfaisante».
This situation lead G. Garbini15 to another interpretation.
Departing f r o m Jes. 30,1 linsok massek k ah he takes in consideration «le
cerimonie religiose... di una alleanza» and comes for the Karatepe-inscrip-
tion to an approximative translation «intronizzazione» 1 6 .

G r a s s i V e n e z i a , M a r c h - N o v . 1 9 8 8 ; Die Phonizier im Zeitalter Homers, K e s t n e r M- useum

H a n n o v e r , 14 t h Sept. - 2 5 th
N o v . 1990 etc.
12
J . C . L . G i b s o n , Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, V o l . I l l ( 1 9 8 2 ) , pp. 5 0 s.
13
T S S I I I I 5 2 s..
14
F . B r o n , Recherches sur les inscriptions pheniciennes de Karatepe, Geneve-Paris
1 9 7 9 , p. 9 8 .
15
G . G a r b i n i , L'iscrizione fenicia di Karatepe : A l O N , 4 1 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , pp. 1 5 6 - 1 6 0 , e s p e c .
1 5 8 ss.
16
P r e c i s e l y G . G a r b i n i g a v e m e in a p r i v a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n the t r a n s l a t i o n « s t r i n g e r e
u n ' a l l e a n z a » f o r J e s . 3 0 , 1 u n d « s a r a o f f e r t o u n s a c r i f i c i o per o g n i a l l e a n z a : u n s a c r i f i c i o a n -
 Phoenician and the Phoenicians in the Context of the Ancient Near East 207

Some years ago D. Hawkins re-examined t he hieroglyphic-luwian

t ext 17 and st at ed his opinion, t hat hmskt corresponds in t his t ext t o t he
hier.-luw. hapari- «river-land(s)» l8 . This, however, poses some difficul­
ties. Hawkins proposed to translate «and all the M S K T will cause to come
a sacrifice to him...». This grammatical construction is indeed possible.
The preposition 1 together with the pronominal suffix 3. masc. sing, (not
represented in the script following the orthography of this text) can be
found also in K A I 26 A III 16, i.e. quite close to our phrase19. The word-
order with the accusative before the dative is the normal one and is also to
be prefered here, since it stresses the combination of the verb «to go» in
the Jiphil-form with «sacrifice» as object. The subject of this verb, kl hm -
skt, is what poses the major problem20.
The translation «all the images», used in most of the earlier transla­
tions of the text, can refer to the root nsk with the meaning «to pour out»
or «to cast», which is sometimes documented in Phoenician-Punic inscrip­
tions 21 . But it has been noted, too, that the derivation «cast image of a

n u a l e . . . » f o r K a r a t e p e II 19 - III 1 a n d «il s a c r i f i c i o c h e sara o f f e r t o a l i a d i v i n i t a , a n a l o g a -

m e n t e (k-1-) a q u e s t a a l l e a n z a , e q u e s t o : u n s a c r i f i c i o a n n u a l e . . . » ibid. Statue I V 2 - 4 . In this
c o n t e x t it s h o u l d b e stressed that the text o f the statue is c o r r u p t at this p l a c e : T h e s c r i b e
c a m e f r o m t h e e n d o f l i n e 2... > L M t o l i n e 4 Z Z B f J Y[mm\, n o t e d this m i s t a k e a n d i n ­
serted the m i s s i n g w o r d s p l u s a s u p e r f l u o u s Z in s m a l l e r letters a b o v e l i n e 4 a n d b e g a n
again, with Z B H b u t w i t h o u t e r a s i n g the first Z . T h e text s h o u l d be read: ( 2 ) . . . / ] ' L M (3)
K L H M S K T <Z> (4) <Z> Z B H Y [ m m . . . a n d is t h e r e f o r e i d e n t i c a l w i t h the text f r o m the
L o w e r Gate-inscription A .
17
A . M o r p u r g o D a v i e s - J . D . H a w k i n s , The Late Hierog lyphic Luwian Corpus: Some
New Lexical Reco
g nitions : Hethitica, 8 (1987), pp. 270-272.
18
It s h o u l d b e c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n to the fact, that this f o r m o f the n o u n is s o m w h a t a b ­
n o r m a l . T h e usual f o r m is hapati- . cf. J . T i s c h l e r , Hethitisches etymolo
g isches Glossar, I
( 1 9 8 3 ) , p p . 163 s. w i t h r e f e r e n c e s a n d F. S t a r k e , Untersuchung en zur Stammbildung des
keilschrift-luwischen Nomens: S t B o T , 31 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , p. 5 1 4 w i t h n o t e 1898.
19
C o m p a r e a l s o ytn I « h e g i v e s to h i m » in the C e b e l Ires D a g i - i n s c r i p t i o n 2 B and 7
A
20
H . P . M i i l l e r in h i s t r a n s l a t i o n o f the K a r a t e p e - i n s c r i p t i o n ( T U A T I [ 1 9 8 2 / 5 ] , p. 6 4 3 )
felt this p r o b l e m a n d translated « u n d sie w e r d e n all d e n ( G o t t e r - ) S t a t u e n O p f e r d a r b r i n g e n »
t o g e t h e r w i t h the c o m m e n t a r y . « D a >nk nach wjlk fehlt, ist nicht A z i t a w a d d a S u b j e k t : I m
f o l g e n d e n s c h e i n t an d a s O p f e r der L a i e n bei drei groBen Festen g e d a c h t z u s e i n » .
21
C f . D I S O p. 180, in a d d i t i o n nsk bis N K a r t h . l i n e 6 ; bn nsk «the s o n o f the s m i t h » G .
G a r b i n i : S t . E t r . , 4 5 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , pp. 5 8 ss. ( S c h a l e T y s k i e w i c z ) ; P N bnsk as a p r o f e s s i o n a l s o in
N e a P a p h o s M . S z n y c e r : R D A C , 1 9 8 5 , pp. 2 5 3 ss.
208 Wolfgang Rollig

g o d » is a hapax l e g o m e n o n in P h o e n i c i a n 2 2 ; also that it is improbable that

the image o f the g o d received a sacrifice and not the deity itself 2 3 . O n the
other hand the term «river-lands» has n o equivalent in the Phoenician d i c ­
tionary. But the root behind the noun m skt, namely nsk, is well k n o w n not
only in Phoenician (and Ugaritic) with the meaning «to pour, to cast» 2 4 but
also in A k k a d i a n with the m o r e general meaning «to shoot, to hurl, to
scatter, etc.» 2 5 , where derivations such as nasiktu «horizontal», nasku in
combination with Siddi «faraway stretches ( o f land)» and nasikatu (pi.)
«far a w a y lands» are also k n o w n 2 6 . W i t h reference to this usage I propose
to interpret m skt as a noun o f the magfa7(f)-formation, designating l o c a l i ­
ties, in the fern, plural (i.e. m assakot) and with the meaning «(river)-
(
plains». It designates — in contrast to m q «plain», which together with
>
dn « A d a n a » o n l y occurs in our text, — all the river valleys (both smaller
and larger) in the T a u r u s mountain range, where human habitation and
agriculture were possible. T h i s expression has its correspondance in the
w e l l k n o w n Seha-river-land o f Hittite sources, the modern Meander ( B i i y u k
Menderes) v a l l e y 2 7 . A g a i n this example makes it clear that only by bearing
in m i n d the different cultures o f the A n c i e n t Near East w e can find satis­
factory explanations for the phenomena behind the epigraphic evidence.

2. - W i t h regard to the literary structure o f Phoenician and Punic

inscriptions some first steps have already been taken 2 8 . S o m e texts, for e x -

22
T h e c o m p a r a b l e t e r m «the statue o f the d i v i n e A u g u s t u s » in K A 1 122 (= [ F T 2 2 ) 1
r e a d s hnskt S 'lm 'wgsts, t h e r e f o r e g i v i n g a d e r i v a t i o n in the f o r m qatl/qitl f r o m the r o o t
nsk. - O n the o t h e r h a n d , the d e r i v a t i o n is s u p p o r t e d b y the H e b r e w term m assekah «image
o f a d e i t y » , cf. f o r e x a m p l e C h . D o h m e n , Theologisches Worterbuch zu
m Alten Testa
m ent,
4 ( 1 9 8 2 - 8 4 ) , p p . 1 0 0 9 - 1 0 1 5 . T h e p r o p o s a l o f G . G a r b i n i , in the t w o attestations o f m skt in
the K a r a t e p e - i n s c r i p t i o n a n d m sk ym m in K A I 1 4 , 3 a n d 12/13 ( E s h m u n a z o r ) t o translate
« a l l e a n z a » d o e s not fit the h i e r o g l y p h i c - l u w i a n text o n the o n e s i d e a n d m a k e s n o s a t i s f a c ­
t o r y s e n s e in the P h o e n i c i a n text o n the other. C f . the d i s c u s s i o n in the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d ar­
t i c l e o f D o h m e n in T h W A T , a l s o w i t h respect to the n o t i o n « a l l i a n c e » .

23
G . L e v i D e l i a V i d a , Osservazioni all'iscrizione fenicia di Karatepe: AN
L R, 8/4
( 1 9 4 9 ) , pp. 2 8 5 s.
24
D I S O , p. 180.
25
C A D N 2 , p p . 15 ss.

26
R e f e r e n c e s cf. in C A D N , p. 2 6 s.

27
S e e G . d e l M o n t e - J . T i s c h l e r : R G T C , 6 / 1 , pp. 5 4 7 s.; 6 / 2 , p. 144.
28
S e e Y . A v i s h u r , Stylistic Studies of Word-Pairs in Biblical and Ancient m
Se itic
Literatures: A O A T , 2 1 0 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; F. S t e p h a n , Les inscriptions pheniciennnes et leur style,
 Phoenician and the Phoe nicians in the Conte xt of the Ancie nt Ne ar East 209

ample the Kulamuwa inscription ( K A I 24), attracted the attention of schol­

ars - with the result that their formal structure was repeatedly studied29.
Others, however, were set aside and never subjected to close formal analy­
sis. Thus F. Bron made a careful investigation of the Karatepe inscription
— but without assigning a chapter to the formal aspects of this longest
Phoenician inscription so far known. On the other hand, many very in­
structive and enlightening examples towards a structural analysis of this
text may be found in the article co-authored by M.G. Amadasi Guzzo (on
the Phoenician text) and A. Archi (on the Hittite text)30. It is no surprise to
find this very instructive article placing its central focus on comparison of
both texts, the Hittite one and the Phoenician one. Further, it is possible to
go deeper into the literary and rhetoric structure of this text — also by
means of comparison with Assyrian royal inscriptions31. As far as the gen­
eral structure of the Karatepe inscription is concerned it is fundamental to
realize that it follows the pattern of a building inscription. The formal parts
are:

1. Self-introduction of the author,

2. Expanded self-introduction with deeds,
3. Building inscription,
4. Requests concerning the builder, the city and its inhabitants.
5. Curse formula,
6. Concluding request for the author.

But if one goes deeper into the rhetoric structure one sees surprising simi­
larities in sentence-patterns. I cite one passage only:

B e i r u t 1985, a n d t h e u n p u b l i s h e d P h D thesis o f O m a r A l - G h u l , De r Aujbau e

d r nordw
e st-
es mitisch
e n e
W ihinschrift
e n (vom 10.-4. Jh. v. Chr), T u b i n g e n 1991.
29
T . C o l l i n s , The Kilamuwa Inscription - a Phoe nician e
Po m: W O , 6 ( 1 9 7 0 - 1 ) , pp.
1 8 3 - 1 8 8 ; M . O ' C o n n o r , The Rhe toric of the Kilamuwa Inscription: B A S O R , 226 (1977),
pp. 1 5 - 2 9 ; S . D . S p e r l i n g , KAI 24 Re -e xamine d: U F 2 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , pp. 3 2 3 - 3 3 7 .
30
A . A r c h i - M . G . A m a d a s i G u z z o , La bilingue ef nicio-ittita eg roglifica di Karat
ee p :
V i c i n o O r i e n t e , 3 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , pp. 8 5 - 1 0 2 .
31
C f . M . G . G u z z o A m a d a s i , Influe nce dir
e ct
e de la Me sopotamie sur le s inscriptions
e n Plie nicie n: H . - J . N i s s e n - J . R e n g e r ( E d t . ) , Me sopolamie n und se ine Nachbam: Berliner
B e i t r a g e z u m V o r d e r e n O r i e n t , B d . l ( 1 9 8 2 ) , pp. 3 8 3 - 3 9 4 . F o r further a k k a d i a n , a r a m a i c
a n d h e b r e w p a r a l l e l s see J C . G r e e n f i e l d , Scripture and Inscription: e
Th Lite rary and
e
Rh toric e
El e
m nts in Some Early Pho
e nician Inscriptions: H. G o e d i c k e (Ed.), e
N ar
East
e rn Studi
e s... W.F. Albright ( 1 9 7 1 ) , pp. 2 6 5 - 2 6 8 .
210 Wolfgang Rollig

(
1 6 - 1 3 : w-mP >nk qrtp(r
c <
w-p l >nk ss 1 ss
(
w-m gn 1 m gn
(
w-m hnt 1 mfynt b(br bcl w-'lm
w-Sbrt m lsm
>
w-trq nk kl hr( *Skn b^s
i > >
w-yfn nk bt dny bn (m
w-pcl ^nk ISrS >dny n cm
w-ySb >nk <1 ks3 >by
w-St >nk$lm "tkl
m lk
w->p b>btp<ln kl m lk b$dqy
w-bhkm ty
w-bn (m Iby3,2

It shou ld be noted that the clau ses repeatedly begin with w- plu s a verbal
f o r m and the f o l l o w i n g pronou n o f the l.Pers.Sing.; also that nearly every
sentence is identical in length. In places where this scheme is not u sed, a l ­
>
li terati on i s used i nstead — thus ss 1 ss - m gn *2 mgn - m b.nt (1 m ljtnt33.
T h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a b(br b(l w^lm i s emphazi sed by i ts posi ti on at the

32
Translati on:

A n d I f i l l e d the g r a n a r i e s o f P a h a r .

A n d I added horse o n horse,

a n d s h i e l d o n s hi e l d

and a r m y on army,

b y the g r a c e o f B a a l a n d the g o d s .

A n d I shattered di s s e n t e r s ,

A n d I e x t i r p a t e d e v e r y e v i l w h i c h w a s i n the land.

A n d I f o u n d e d the h o u s e o f m y l o r d o n p l e a s u r e .

A n d I a c t e d k i n d l y t o w a r d s the o f f s p r i n g o f m y l o r d ,

A n d I let h i m si t o n h i s fathers throne.

A n d 1 m a d e p e a c e w i t h e v e r y ki n g .

A n d i n d e e d e v e r y k i n g treated m e as a father

because o f m y ri ghteousness, and

because o f m y w i s d o m , and

b e c a u s e o f m y g o o d n e s s o f heart.
33
O n m e t o n y m y i n ss, m gn a n d m ijnt a n d p a r a l l e l s w i t h t h e O T c f . J . G r e e n f i e l d : 3SS,
11 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , p p . 1 0 3 - 1 0 5 .
 Phoenician and the Phoenicians in the Context of the Ancient Near East 211

end of the list and is also used so in II 6 and III 11. As to b }r$ and bn (m
the preposition b- is used invariably, while the second sentence ends with
the same noun as the third. Again the series of homogeneously formulated
sentences is followed by three parallel expressions, each of them intro­
duced by the preposition b-. Clearly an intensification is intended by using
longer words or a word pair. I could also take the analysis deeper by in­
cluding the following sentences, too, for example the parallelism between
>g bl >S <bd kn lbt mpS ...I 15f.and >$ bl <n kl hmlkm >S kn lpny ... I 19.
However, my concern here was only to show the need for careful investi­
gation of the literary structure of the inscriptions — and this is possible for
most of the non-economic texts. I am convinced that the way to improved
grammatical and substantival understanding of the content of the some­
times very condensed texts (which can only be understood with difficulty)
is through paying attention to the literary structure of the inscriptions — as
has been the case in OT studies ever since Gunkel. But it has to be admit­
ted that for the literary heritage of most of the Ancient Near Eastern cul -
tures this accurate analysis of the texts is not yet done.

3. - Origin of the Phoenicians. A better understanding of lexical

items and of the literary structure of inscriptions - as well as progress in
other scholarly branches - is indispensable if a deeper understanding of
Phoenician history and culture is to be achieved. Many new inscribed ob­
jects have been found in recent decades and an increasing stream of infor­
mation has resulted. Nevertheless, the primary sources of Phoenician his­
tory are scarce and our picture of the development of the different cities,
their political and economic institutions, their religious and cultural life
remains imperfect and is indeed in a deplorable state. Even the definition
of the object of our research, the «Phoenicians», is widely disputed34. Here
not only the scarcity of available epigraphic material, but also the debate
over basic methodology have been responsible for a far-reaching misap­
prehension. Nevertheless, in the recent years a minimal consensus has

34
C f . the r e c e n t l y p u b l i s h e d article b y H e l e n a P a s t o r B o r g o n o n , Die Phonizier : Eine
r
beg iffsgeschichtliche r
Unte suchung: H a m b u r g e r Beitrage zur A r c h a o l o g i e , 15-17 ( 1 9 8 8 -
1 9 9 0 ) , p p . 3 7 - 1 4 2 a n d the r e p l y b y S. M o s c a t i , Nuovi studi sull identita fenicia: M e m . mor.
A c c . L i n c e i , S e r . 9 / 4 ( 1 9 9 3 ) , pp. 9 - 1 4 . S o m e y e a r s a g o I tried to c o l l e c t the e v i d e n c e f o r a
p h i l o l o g i c a l f o u n d e d d e f i n i t i o n o f the character o f the « P h o e n i c i a n s » in an article « O n the
O r i g i n s o f the P h o e n i c i a n s * in B e r y t u s , 31 ( 1 9 8 3 , p u b l i s h e d 1 9 8 5 ) , p p . 7 9 - 9 3 . I a m sure
that the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l e s t i m a t i o n w a s right, but in the light o f b r o a d e r e v i d e n c e , c o l l e c t e d
b y G . G a r b i n i a n d P. X e l l a ( s e e the f o l l o w i n g n o t e s ) , I h a v e to alternate m y c o n c l u s i o n s .
 212 Wolfgang Rollig

been achieved insofar as the beginning o f the so called «Phoenician» h i s ­

tory c o i n c i d e s (archaeological speaking) with the Iron I-Period. But - as G .
Garbini and P. X e l l a have s h o w n with the help o f the Ugaritic s o u r c e - m a ­
terial - the cultural tradition f r o m the B r o n z e - A g e is unbroken 3 5 . Garbini
adduces a text 3 6 with a list o f «families» f r o m ( in A k k a d i a n ) al AlaSia31
w h i c h contains besides Hurrian, A n a t o l i a n and other names s o m e Semitic
names o f the particular Phoenician type. T h e central question with refer­
ence to this document is, h o w far it can be interpreted as evidence of a type
o f « P h o e n i c i a n » population group at C y p r u s or in the M editerranean, or if
it demonstrates a specific type o f personal names in Ugaritic. T h i s list
nowhere refers to «Phoenicians» or to inhabitants o f one o f the well k n o w n
Phoenician cities. But the evidence collected b y P. X e l l a is m u c h stronger
with respect to the interconnections between Ugarit and the cities at the
seashore and the continuation o f not o n l y the onomastic but the cultural
heritage at all during the «dark ages». T h i s poses further problems insofar,
as the specific cultural m o d i f i c a t i o n s w h i c h led to the formation of the
« P h o e n i c i a n » culture, registered as a special entity by foreign peoples as
the Greeks, should have had specific reasons not yet explained.
In this respect, the investigation o f a surprisingly increased inci

35
I r e f e r t o G . G a r b i n i , Sull'origine dei Fenici: L a Parola del Passato, 2 7 2 (1993), pp.
321-331 a n d a v e r y s u b s t a n t i a l u n p u b l i s h e d p a p e r o f P . X e l l a e n t i t l e d Ugarit et les
Pheniciens. Identite culturelle et rap p orts historiques .
36
U T 1 1 9 = K T U 4 . 1 0 2 . G a r b i n i f u r t h e r o n a d d u c e s the n e w l y f o u n d f u n e r a r y u r n s
a n d i n s c r i p t i o n s o n s t e l a e f r o m T y r e a n d c o n c l u d e s f r o m h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n that the b u r n i n g
o f the d e a d is u n c o m m o n i n P h o e n i c i a : « q u e s t a s i g n i f i c a c h e l a c o m p o n e n t e n o n s e m i t i c a
della popolazione della Fenicia si e r a i n t e g r a t a m o l t o r a p i d a m e n t e c o n l'elemento
s e m i t i c o . . . » (p. 3 3 1 ) . I n t h e light o f the p u b l i c a t i o n o f the stelae a n d the a r c h a e o l o g i c a l a n d
a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n s published b y H. Seeden, J . C o n h e e n y , A . Pipe and H. Sader
i n B e r y t u s , 3 9 ( 1 9 9 1 ) p p . 3 9 ss. a n d w i t h respect t o the w e l l - f o u n d e d article o f M . G r a s - P .
R o u i l l a r d - J . T e i x i d o r o n The Phoenicians and Death in the s a m e v o l u m e , pp. 1 2 7 - 1 7 6 this
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c a n n o t g r a n t e d as v a l i d . It s e e m s o b v i o u s that a l s o i n h i s t o r i c a l periods
c r e m a t i o n o f y o u n g i n d i v i d u a l s t o o k p l a c e b e s i d e s the i n h u m a t i o n o f adult a n d o l d e r h u m a n
b e e i n g s . T h i s q u e s t i o n s h o u l d b e d i s c u s s e d in a w i d e r c o n t e x t a n d is o f s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e
f o r o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e P h o e n i c i a n c u l t u r e i n c o n t r a s t to the s u r r o u n d i n g c u l t u r e s in
the m e d i t e r r a n e a n .

37
T h e « c i t y » o r « c o u n t r y » A l a S i a is o f t e n n a m e d in hittite s o u r c e s and i d e n t i f i e d s i n c e
1 9 5 2 w i t h the i s l a n d o f C y p r u s , c f . G . F . d e l M o n t e , Die Orts- und Gewassernamen der het-
hitischen Texte: R e p e r t o i r e G e o g r a p h i q u e d e s T e x t e s C u n e i f o r m e s , 6/1 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , p. 6 ( w i t h
r e f e r e n c e s ) ; 6 / 2 ( 1 9 9 2 ) , p. 2.
 Phoenician and the Phoenicians in the Context of the Ancient Near East 213

dence of early arrow heads by B. Sass38 is of special interest. It gives hints

to an increasing influ ence of a younger Semitic su perstratu m especially in
the field of onomastics. Thou gh the onomasticon of the early pieces, well
defined by their special kind of early alphabetic script, bears a su spiciou s
resemblance to the onomasticon of the Late Bronze Age tradition as repre­
sented by the texts from Ugarit and the Amarna correpondence 39 , the
younger texts - judged by their script - show a more common Phoenician
(and to an extent Hebrew) onomasticon. If it is proven now that no cultural
and political change took place in the cities of the Phoenician mother-land
and its hinterland, but that archaeological and linguistical continuation is
stated, than it should be explained why alternations in customs took place
which gradually led to this typical formation of a culture as the Phoenician
of the First Millennium has been. If the roots of this culture are in the
Second Millennium, also — for example — in such a sensitive domain as
the religion, we should evaluate the principles which defined the specific
culture which came in contact to the Israelite Monarchy on the one side,
the Assyrians on the other, - and which spread with such a surprising suc­
cess in the Mediterranean. Again, I think, comparison with other Near
Eastern political, economical and religious institutions and their models of
development and interaction must be taken in consideration - but this goes
far from my subject today.
If this is true in such a limited case it is much more obvious for the
real facts of political, economic and religious history 40 . It should be re­
membered that tradition has not handed down a complete series of events
sufficient to reconstruct the political history of even a single city state on

B e n j a m i n S a s s , The Genesis f
o the Alphabet and its Development in the Second
Millenium B.C. : A g y p t e n u n d A l t e s T e s t a m e n t , 13 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . A f t e r the p u b l i c a t i o n o f this
s y n t h e s i s c f . the s u m m a r y in the article Fleches pheniciennes inscrites: 1981-19911, b y P.
B o r d r e u i l , R B , 9 9 ( 1 9 9 2 ) , p p . 2 0 5 - 2 1 3 a n d F . M . C r o s s , Newly Discovered Inscribed
Arrow-heads fo the Eleventh Century BCE in the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem: Eretz -
Israel, 3 ( 1 9 9 2 , A . B i r a n - V o l u m e ) , pp. 2 1 * - 2 6 * .
39
C f . n o w the v o l u m e o f R . S . H e s s , Amarna Personal names: A S O R D i s s . Ser., V o l .
9 ( 1 9 9 3 ) a n d h i s p a p e r o n Cultural Aspects f
o Onomastic Distribution in the Amarna Texts:
U F , 2 1 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , pp. 2 0 9 - 2 1 6 .
40
T o cite a g a i n a n e x a m p l e f r o m the K a r a t e p e i n s c r i p t i o n : T h e article J . D e s h a y e s -
M . S z n y c e r - P . G a r e l l i , Remarques sur les monuments de Karatepe: R A , 75 (1981), pp.
3 1 - 6 0 d e m o n s t r a t e s the a c h i e v m e n t p o s s i b l e b y a c l o s e c o o p e r a t i o n o f several specialists in
the f i e l d o f the A n c i e n t N e a r East.
 Wolfgang Rollig

the Phoenician coast41. Thus there is little prospect of achieving a satisfac­

tory explanation of the complex interaction between the Phoenician heart­
land, its hinterland, its colonies and its neighbors in the Mediterranean.
What is needed now is a search for new source material coupled with a
better understanding of the existing texts, and a consideration not only of
written docum ents but also of rem nants of the m aterial culture. Thus a
close cooperation between archaeologists, epigraphists and historians
only, as practised for example during the investigations in Sardinia, brings
us to a position from which a satisfactory picture of the Phoenician-Punic
culture and its interrelationship with neighbouring cultures is to be assem­
bled. Let us proceed step by step towards this goal.

41
T i s is also true for so well known places as Tyre, cf. the carefully treated History of
Tyre by H. J. Katzenstein (Jerusalem 1973).