Talk:Phoenicia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lebanon Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Lebanon, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Syria Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Ancient Near East Portal
This article falls within the scope of the ancient Near East WikiProject. Please participate by editing this article, and help us improve articles to good article standards, or visit the project page.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Archive
Archives
* Talk:Phoenicia/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Is Ugarit Phoenician?

If it is, then 1200BC is too late a starting date for the rise of Phoenicia. If it is not, then the article might read: "Phoenicia was the predominant trading power in the eastern Mediterranean after the downfall of Ugarit 1195BC." By the way: where is the northern end of Phoenicia?Hirsch.im.wald 02:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Punic vs Phoenician

  • Phoenicia the land is coastal Lebanon today. That will never change no matter who invades the lands and settles it!
  • The DNA studies are very weak because, Sicily, Spain, Malta and North Africa experienced the exact same human waves (Muslim Arabs) and (Ancient Germanic/Crusades) all these groups mixed with local populations, so why are we surprised that we share the same DNA with them! Phoenicians themselves were a mixed race just like the rest of the Semites....(Egyptians painted them in diff colors), and something tells me they were simply mogrels. So please keep the DNA claims to the forums in the Eurocentric/Afrocentric websites.
  • Lebanese are Phoenicians because we live in Phoenicia, simple as that. Since we don't have a national Lebanese identity thanks to big brother in Syria..ahemm. I prefer using the term Phoenician Arab, especially that Phoenicia has little to do with Mt. Lebanon.--Skatewalk 17:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenician slaves

Weren’t the Phoenicians famous slave traders, in fact I am sure I once read that their whole society was built on slavery. They weren’t very nice to their slaves either, treating them brutally, using them as handy convenient human sacrifices, and maybe even in occasional cannibalism. (There are plenty of hints that the Greeks and other ancient peoples possibly indulged in many of the same practices - and if the Church wasn’t so sensitive about it possibly even the Romans to.)

Whatever, there is no mention at all of slavery in this article. You may point out that this little more than speculation but surely isn’t half of all history and archaeology at the end of the day. Even a quick search of Google for ‘Phoenician slave’ finds/found quite a few references.

Lucien86 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

86, why don't you look up Phoenician economy at phoenicia.org. As far as cannibalism, you must not watch the movies- eh Hannibal. Donner PartyGodspeed John Glenn! Will 17:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Part of Arab project?

Sure about this one, Skatewalk? Funkynusayri 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Phoenicia is within the Arab world--Skatewalk 05:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it intersected with regions that would become part of the Arab world thousands of years later... but I wouldn't, for instance, include the article on the Roman Empire to be part of WikiProject England, just because England was once a part of the Roman empire... ← George [talk] 05:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. England, the land of the Angles, was in Denmark at the time of the Romans. The etymology of Anglo is from the geometrical "angle" based on the shape of that land. They later migrated to Britian alon with the Saxons- hence Anglo-Saxons. But Britian was certainly part of Rome. Londoninium. All the towns ending ending in chester are latin derivation from latin caster. see castle. uiz: What was the last Roman legio to be withdrawn from Britian? Legio XX Valeria Victrix .Godspeed John Glenn! Will 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nods, unfortunately there isn't a WikiProject Britain, which kind of broke the analogy. :) ← George [talk] 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Knitting it all together, Rome, Phoenicia, and Britian. Although Rome destroyed Carthage and reputedly sowed salt in it ruins, there arose in later years an Emperor of part Punic descent, one Lucius Septemius Geta, so severe he was known as Septimius Severus a.k.a. as the Punic Sulla. Coming full circle, the last of the Severans was indeed born in what is now coastal Lebanon, certainly Phoencia, one Alexander Severus. Septimius Severus died in Eburacum (York), Britian.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that from the genetic perspective there is no reason to include the Phoenicians as "Arabs" for many reasons-first, genetically, the Phoenicians are related to the Jewish people and to the people of Lebanon and Tunisia-not to all or to most of the Arab world and not mainly or only to the Arab world. The Arab world spread later, long after the Phoenician culture and tribes were gone, with the immerging Islam, to this regions. More, their language (i.e. Phoenician's) was similar to Hebrew and not to any kind of Arabic dialect (and as I speak both languages I know the difference (as well as the similarities) very well, more over, I understand all the words I heard in Phoenician as part of my being native Hebrew speaker-actually, if you take an Arabic speaker and an Hebrew speaker and meet them with a Phoenician speaker than you see that the Phoenician would understand the Hebrew speaker almost perfectly, but not the Arab speaker) and while they are genetically related only to small parts of today Arab populations they are much more related to Jews than to the all Arab world (and I don’t suggest to make this article to part of the wiki Jewish project) the Phoenicians were part of the Acadian people which include few ancient nations, but none of them were Arab-at least not then.--Gilisa 07:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. What markers are you using to separate Jews from Arabs in the first place? The only research I know of (and admittedly, I haven't looked in the past year) shows that, of studied populations, follow Cavalli-Sforza's methods, Jews and Arabs are closely related. If there are markers that divide them off into groups, may we know the name of them? 130.166.33.200 (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Dr. Kamaila


  • Well, most closely related populations would be present day Levantines such as Lebanese and Syrians (including Mizrachi Jews), regardless of religion and culture, not Jews or Arabs as a whole. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Funkynusayri , you are actually wrong: Lebanese and Tunisians (don't remember about the Syrians-I have to come over the genetical studies articles again) and Jews-all of them as whole, are the most closely related populations-it includes Ashkenazi Jews as well, but not Ethiopian Jews-that's correct-it's not my wishful thinking-it is just what the scientific studies tell us (I can cite some if it would help). Best--Gilisa (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, this is the only study that has been done: "We're not seeing a significant genetic influence from elsewhere on the coastal population in what was the Levant region," says Wells. "The people are very similar to the groups we see inland in Syria and Jordan, for example, suggesting that there wasn't a huge influx of Sea Peoples or others from outside the area. A cultural shift occurred but not a genetic one. Today's Lebanese, the Phoenicians, and the Canaanites before them are all the same people."[1]

And: "Wells and Zalloua are finding similar results among samples taken in Tunisia, site of ancient Carthage and the largest of the Phoenician colonies. "Less than 20 percent of the genetic lineages found could have come out of the Middle East," Wells continues. "They're showing the markers of aboriginal North Africans. That means the Phoenicians moved into this area and, like the Sea Peoples, had more of a cultural impact than a genetic one."[2]

Funkynusayri (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


There are more studies, and the subject been discussed in high profile. I dont have a lot of time now-but please, read this one as a good start, more to be follow (if the link won't work, just copy it to your address line). Best--Gilisa (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • More studies on Phoenicians, or Middle Easterners in general? Anyway, I couldn't get the link to work, but found this on PNAS: " A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians."[3]

As you probably know, the Middle East is divided into simple north and south clusters, and Syrians are pretty much the same as for example Lebanese, and the Phoenicians were hardly genetically different from their neighbours anyway. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Funkynusayri (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Funkynusayri-find for the word Phoenician in the body of the article-it is definitely not the main interest of it, but they are still mentioned. BTW Jews are most strongly tight to Lebanese and Tunisians from coastal cities and from eras which once were Phoenician settlements-the genetic similarity between these nations is not surprising. Will continue this discussion (+explanations and sources) later, now I must to run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilisa (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Awright, I'd be very interested in more info. Here's a genetic map from PNAS: [4] Funkynusayri (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Actually DNA and study proves that the Lebanese (modern day Phoencia) are in fact different than the Syrians. http://phoenicia.org/ychromodrafteng.html Phoenicia existed in modern day Lebanon, Syria had its own culture, Damascus. Israel/Palestine was Canaan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.134.197 (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenicians and Canaanites

I thought there was no dispute. Phoenicians are Canaanites. The term derives from the same source (the colour purple). If there is a dispute please cite a reference. John D. Croft 06:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "Phoenicians." The problem comes from the alphabet and the epigrams. The well-known Phoenician alphabet did not originate in Syria. If it appears first in other areas of the world, then the Phoenicians can claim to have brought that style of writing to the eastern Mediterranean, but not necessarily to have invented it (unless they were living in those other places, at the earlist times that this script appears). There is disagreement about where the script first appeared, but there was a fad for awhile of calling it the "Iberian script" since it shows up much earlier in Celtic Iberia than it does in the Eastern Mediterranean. Doesn't seem to me you can have it both ways though. If the Phoenicians were from Canaan/Lebanon/Syria, then who were the people in Iberia? Some have claimed that the Celts were, therefore, Semitic, but there, the genetic evidence is very weak indeed. So who invented that alphabet remains a problem.130.166.33.200 (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Kamaila

  • They would most likely not have been Celts in the linguistic sense anyway, but more something similar to Basques. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Homer says the Phoenician homeland is in the Aegean (Lemnos), apparently. I've got a dozen or more articles from the 20th century discussing these various problems with who the Phoenicians really are, but perhaps they've all been resolved recently. So, the citation saying the Phoenicians did not come from the Aegean needs to be provided, not the other way around (unless Homer is thought to be unreliable, in which case more editing of Wikipedia needs to be done than is currently the case).130.166.33.200 (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Kamaila

Here's a main citation, noting that the Phoenicians were quite early in Sardinia, Spain and Sicily: Phoenicians, Carthage and the Spartan Eunomia, by Robert Drews The American Journal of Philology © 1979 These references were way before the Hebrew Bible was ever written down (they're mentioned in the Bible, of course, as well, as being in Cannan) But read the archaeology cited in that article, these weren't Canannite settlements, they were enclaves of craftspeople, temporarily inhabited by Phoenicians while their main settlements were clearly elsewhere. Some have claimed they are from Crete itself or from Cyprus. Their name in Greek, "Phoinikos," follows proto-Hellenic phonological rules, not Semitic phonological rules. "Pho" is a pretty old Indo-European root. Is it a pretty old Semitic root too? (I don't know). At any rate, here are some linguistic citations doubting the Semitic origin of the Phoenicians: Phoenicians in the West, by Rhys Carpenter American Journal of Archaeology © 1958 Archaeological Institute of America, The Name of the Phoenicians, by G. Bonfante Classical Philology © 1941 The University of Chicago Press, and especially: The Name Phoinikes, by E. A. Speiser Language © 1936 Linguistic Society of America. Check those out and tell me who refutes them, I'm not trying to argue, I'd just really like to know where the opposing research is published. Thanks. 130.166.33.200 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Kamaila


Phoenicians come from the Mediterranean Sub-Stratum...if they were Canaanites the Greeks would have called them Canaanites. They have their own individual history, culture, u forgot to mention the purple dye that they are famous for, they get their name from this purple dye, Canaanites and Phoenicians are 2 different groups and I believe that by labeling them as Canaanites you are deleting their identity and blending them in. You also failed to mention the alphabet that they are famous for, the one which the Greeks borrowed and which is the modern day English alphabet You forgot to mention that many Egyptian Pharaohs coffins were made from Cedar of Lebanon during this time. Very unprofessional and poorly done.

It says here in WP that the Phoenicians were descended of Canaan. It also states in WP that their language was split of from the Canaanite language in the Semitic language family. Let's back track, Phoenicians are Zidonians and descended from Sidon. Sidon was Canaan's first born son (Gen 10:15). Canaan was Ham's youngest son (Gen 10:6). Therefore Phoenicians are directly in Ham's bloodline. Ham is the undisputed father of black mankind. It is also understandable that Egyptian coffins would be made of cedar since they were cousins. In King James Psalms 78:51, 105:23-27 and 106:19-22 refer to Egypt as the land of Ham. Tom 04/02/08

  • Phoenicians were a sub-group of Canaanites, it's pretty simple. The terms were not meant to be synonymous. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"Undisputed"? These myths haven't been accepted for ages. — kwami (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternate proof please. Ham's lineage can be tracked throughout the old testament. If anyone has alternate proof disproving the bible or archaeology please cite the research. Also, if the Phoenicians are a sub-group of the Canaanites, the term is synonymous. Tom 04/03/08

  • The Bible isn't proof of anything. A sub-group isn't synonymous with the "macro" group. You couldn't for example say "Phoenicians" and then be referring to Canaanites as a whole. Similarly, you don't refer to all Jews in the world as Ashkenazim. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the 10th century European Ashkenazim aren't descended from the Early African Jews. They were more than 2000 years and a continent away from the Jews mentioned in Amos 9:7. " Are ye not as the children of Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?" But we are talking about Phoenicians who were near contemporary with the Canaanites and still on the continent of their birth. But none of this makes since to you if you feel that the Bible isn't proof of anything. So let's use Archaeology. According to E Pittard, the skulls of Phoenicians were distinctly Negroid. Their noses were flat at the end, and their mouths were wide with thick lips. He also mentioned that the Museum in Carthage that holds the tomb of the priestess of Tanit shows her to be of African origin. "Les Races et L'histoire," pp108,409-410. Paris, 1924. Also refer to B.H. Warmington, "Carthage". Warmington states that the Phoenicians actually called their land Canaan and called themselves Sidonians. p.16.1960,69. Tom 04/04/08

  • Hmmm, that has since been refuted by genetics, anyway, what would the point be? Funkynusayri (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

By whose study. Please cite the author and research. The rule is to submit sourced material. Tom 04/05/08

[edit] Descendants

I think that part of Descendants shoud redit, because who said that Druze are only Descendants of Phoenicians, and this contradicts with what mention in the orgin of Phoenicians in the same articles. --Hasam (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A study done by the AUB on DNA of modern day Lebanese proves that Lebanese Muslims, Christians and Druze are ancestors of the Phoenicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.134.197 (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics

The Genetics discussion looks pretty dubious to me. There are likely to be (and to have been) lots of Y-DNA haplogroups present, both in 1000 BCE and today. As far as I can see that includes Haplogroups J2, J1, E3b, and probably various others too; just as would be found anywhere across the present-day Near East. The various Lebanese populations seem to be pretty similar to each other (or at least, there doesn't seem to be any published evidence that they're not); and the composition pretty much matches the trends you would expect from the gradients across the region as a whole.

But the studies quoted seem very small and very shallow, so if there was some more detailed structuring, or some moderate external admixture (the Minoans or whoever), even if it was there, I'm not sure on this data one would expect to register anything statistically significant. The article about Wells is engaging, but a bit thin. Does he ever tell us what genetic signature he was assuming for the "Sea People/Minoans"? Or why?

I guess it is useful to be able to say that there's nothing in the mix that grossly sticks out, like a sore thumb. But I'm not sure there's anything to let us go any further or be any more definitive than that. Jheald (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the National Geographic article where all that stuff was published would be a better source of information, if anyone could get access to it. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In the section "Origins," there is a referent (These genes) that doesn't seem to refer to anything. AFAIK, you'd have to know you had ancient Phoenician DNA in hand to compare it to more recent people - and you'd best have it from different phases of their development. They show up in history already with boats and as traders, but do we know where their burial grounds are and have they been dug up? Genetic stuff seems really dubious to me. 130.166.33.200 (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Dr.Kamaila

  • I watched the accompanying NG programme, and they apparently used the teeth of different skeletons from different periods. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • me too, I watched the same program in NG, and the time used old samples, one of them from skeleton of a phonecian in a Turkish museum. --Hasam 14:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merger

no to merger bad idea. totally different subjects. Ouedbirdwatcher (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

comment an anon user with only four prior edits mysteriously moved the merger discussion to this talk page today rather than on the punic talk page, where all prior discussion has occurred. in the prior discussion the majority of opinion has been against the merger. very odd sequence of events. i suggest the merger proposal may not be in good faith and this merge tag should be removed. Ouedbirdwatcher (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet

I am moving the following sentence from the article to here, since a prior editor contested it and the sentence as stated cannot be correct:

"The Phoenician alphabet is the ancestor of virtually all modern alphabets.[1]"

Ouedbirdwatcher (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The correct statement would be "The Phoenician alphabet is the ancestor of the Greek, Latin and Cyrillic alphabets". Someone else may be interested in restoring this. --Wetman (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] geographic confusion in introduction

Phoenician civilization extended as far south as Gaza, but Tyre was the "southernmost" boundary of Phoenician culture? Trachys (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is under constant pressure of the soccer-stadium history variety. Gaza was never Phoenician but Philistine. Not worth correcting. --Wetman (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree Philistine aka Canaan, Phoencians were never apart of the Canaanites, that whole subject must be removed. Whoever wrote: Phoenician civilization extended as far south as Gaza, but Tyre was the "southernmost" boundary of Phoenician culture?, Contradicted their selves, Phoenicia was never apart of Gaza. Gaza was Canaanites, its more closer to Egypt than Phoenicia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.134.197 (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Tin Trade

Whilst it is often claimed that the Phoenicians traded as far as Cornwall for tin, it would seem that the tin trade was probably under Veneti control, operating out of Britanny, and that the Phoenicians obtained tin from Celtic middlemen in Spain. The article needs to be amended to reflect this. John D. Croft (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Where'd you read this theory? Very interesting.--Wetman (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at "The appropriation of the Phoenicians in British imperial ideology" by Timothy Champion in Nations and Nationalism Volume 7 Issue 4 Page 451-465, October 2001. The Phoenicians played ambivalent roles in Western historical imagination. One such role was as a valued predecessor and prototype for the industrial and maritime enterprise of nineteenth-century imperial Britain. Explicit parallels were drawn in historical representations and more popular culture. It was widely believed that the Phoenicians had been present in Britain, especially in Cornwall, despite a lack of convincing historical evidence, and much importance was placed on supposed archaeological evidence. Ideological tensions arose from the need to reconcile ancient and modern Britain, and from the Semitic origin of the Phoenicians. This example shows the power of archaeological objects to provide material support for national and imperial constructions of the past. John D. Croft (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Phoenicianism (where I shall insert it) would benefit from this, as would the present article, which begins with a naive "etymology" and drifts along from there. --Wetman (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further etymology.

Is it just a coincidence then, that after the Levantine Phoenician lands fell to Persia, Carthage rose in power in its own right, and rivalled Rome 300 years later? Like a phoenix, so to speak. --70.131.90.151 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It is neat, but it seems the term "Phoenician" came about before the rise of Carthage. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: posted image in Phoenicia does not relate to article and represents a possible copyright infringement

I have reverted the adding of the image Image:AncientPhonecian.jpg twice, provided my excuse and am harassed by the user who uploaded it and have been receiving vandalism warnings from his behalf (which i deleted). Now i'm being harassed and attacked and am in need for mediation or intervention, i underline that my actions were taken as personal attacks for the user User:Gennarous who keeps spamming.Eli+ 20:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you learn to use more rationale and civilised language, calling the addition of an ancient artistic depiction of a Phoenician, to an article entitled Phoenicia "spamming", and inane claims of "harrasing" and "personal attacks" is not an apropriate conduct in the slighest. If you blank a public domain image from an article , such as the ancient artistic depiction of a Phoenician woman, for no apparent reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you can expect the user who uploaded it to send a message to you notifiying that such behaviour is not acceptable. - Gennarous (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any particular stance on this issue, but I would advise both editors to keep a cool head on the issue, as I think both do have the best interests of the article in mind, and are trying to improve it. First, with regards to copyright, I'm not a copyright expert. To me it looks like a painting that is likely in the public domain, but I'm not sure. Would it only not be in the public domain if it were a recreation of sorts? Second, with regards to its inclusion (assuming that it is found to not violate copyright), Elie plus stated that the painting is Minoan, and not Phoenician. I'm not an art expert either, and a quick glance at the image to me does look similar to Minoan works, but given that it came from a book with the word "Phoenician" in its title, the onus is on Elie plus to prove why this is not Phoenician artwork (or, conversely, why this is a Minoan piece). If you can find this image used elsewhere labelled differently, or can lay out a case of why it cannot possibly be Phoenician, that would help your case immensely. Third, I would highly suggest both editors try to come to an agreement on possible third options. Perhaps replace this image with an equally nice image that you can both agree is Phoenician and suitable for the article. Just my thoughts. ← George [talk] 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, consider emailing the author. His email address is listed on the bottom of his website here. ← George [talk] 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • About the image, I remember that someone mentioned that it was just assumed by the author that the girl was Phoenician, because the image was made some place which the Phoenicians apparently controlled at the time, so it might actually be "original research" by the hands of the author of that book. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The book also appears to discuss Minoans, though I'm not sure to what extent; the index has quite a few references to Minoans. ← George [talk] 00:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thank you all for your time. The infamous frescoe that figures on the book's front matter is shot and enhanced by a certain Jurgen Liepe in Akrotiri, in santorini. This is pure Minoan art. the fact that the Phoenicians and the greek akrotirians have had long standing commercial relation is not a secret, in fact the Phoenicians had settled in santorini for centuries. this frescoe however depicts a Minoan woman from akrotiri ,it should be placed in the santorini, akrotiri/ minoan articles. Thank you Gennarous for your vandalism warnings they were fun, i think i know my people's history and art better. tata Eli+ 18:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
oh and the image is copyrighted ... have fun Eli+ 18:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Images that are thousands, not to mention hundreds, of years old can't be copyrighted. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Photographs can be copyrighted though. Someone reviewing the book on Amazon.com noticed this also:"On the cover of this book is a detail from one of the frescoes found on the Greek, Aegean island of Thera (Santorini). This site was destroyed by a volcanic eruption in 1623 BC. It is not "Phoenician", or Lebanese!
On Thera, scenes/decorations depicted on wall frescoes are replicated on the daggers which have been found in the shaft graves of the Greek mainland city of Mycenae. Indeed, the same type of dagger has been found on Thera. Ships depicted on one of the frescoes on Thera are identical to ships depicted on signet rings, as per examples from graves on the Greek mainland site of Tyrins. Boar's tusk helmets depicted on another fresco at Thera are attested to on the entire Greek mainland as well as on Krete and are described in great detail as being worn by the Greeks besieging Troy in Homer's Iliad. A lady depicted on an adjacent fresco to the one pictured on the cover wears ear rings identical to those which are found in another of the shaft graves at Mycenae. The writing of Mycenaeans, known as "Linear B", was translated in 1954 by the Englishman Michael Ventris: it is Greek & dates to the 15th century BC. How do Mycenaean/Greek motifs come to be used as illustrating the world of Lebanese/Phoenicians? This book is propaganda. You don't have to go beyond the front cover to realise this.
Holst's book itself is clearly not a reliable source. His other books are about New Age stuff, the only books published by the publisher of this book are his books which means it is probably self-published. His book has received no scholarly attention and he's published nothing in historical journals.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Fascinating. So it might not apply to a photograph of a coin or an inscribed tablet though. --Doug Weller (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
OK I C thanks ;) Eli+ 17:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenician gods

At the moment this is sourced from Phoenicia.org - a personal website whose author believes in Atlantis, etc -- in other words, an unreliable source. I think it needs deleting and rebuilding (and probably in a different place in the article). While I'm thinking about it, why does the paragraph on genetics say something about purple?--Doug Weller (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Heh, the article is a mess, do with it what you like! Funkynusayri (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Come on, don't be shy, say what you really think about it. :-)--Doug Weller (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
the article is beyond hopeless, it ought to be rewritten from scratch, many important aspects are omitted and the article barely speaks of Gebal (byblos). worse yet is the deities part.... no mention of the mythology or of the ugaritic myths ( the only ones that survived), no mention also of sanchuniaton or Philo !!!!!!!!!!

hopeless really, i'm really hesitating to edit. Eli+ 08:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Association with Hebrew language

What is the reasoning behind rewording "Phoenicians spoke the Phoenician language, which belongs to the group of Canaanite languages in the Semitic language family." to "Phoenicians spoke the Phoenician language, a Canaanite language mutually intelligible with Hebrew"? Also, please provide a better source than the one cited for consideration in the discussion. ← George [talk] 00:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed this website again, but I still think we need a better source, given that this appears to be a personal website and doesn't list an author; for all we know it could be a student's essay. Additionally, while the correlation between ancient Hebrew (prior to a change of alphabet, apparently) and the Phoenician language is an interesting piece of trivia, I still think it makes more sense to list what language branches it is a part of (the Canaanite branch of the Northwest Semitic languages, apparently). ← George [talk] 00:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put instead that its closest living relative is Hebrew. A good compromise, don't you think?--Yolgnu (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This source is good but it still seems like a bit of trivia and I agree with George. [5]--Doug Weller (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved your addition to the Phoenician language article, which is more appropriate, and already discusses the relation of Hebrew and the Phoenician language. I also updated that article to clarify that it was closely related to ancient Hebrew, per Doug's source. Cheers. ← George [talk] 07:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've put what I put here on that page (that Hebrew is Phoenician's closest living relative). By the way, saying that it's most closely related to "ancient" Hebrew is redundant; languages don't become more genetically distant to each other over time.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • They do, Hebrew is a good example, modern Hebrew is quite different from ancient Hebrew, just like all other languages are different from their ancient counterparts, so saying that Hebrew in general is mutually intelligible with ancient Phoenician is rather misleading, since this would only be true of the ancient version. Ancient and modern Hebrew wold hardly even be mutually ineligible. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Languages do change over time, considerably in some cases. Hebrew is certainly one of them.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You clearly didn't read what I said. I'm no longer arguing that Hebrew and Phoenician are mutually intelligible (it's basically impossible to tell, anyway), and I never said that languages don't change over time. Rather, I said that Hebrew is Phoenician's closest living relative, and that languages don't change genetically over time (eg. Italian has higher mutual intelligibility with Old French than Modern French, but in terms of genetic relationship it is equally close to both of them).--Yolgnu (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, take Maltese for example, many would argue that it isn't Arabic anymore. Funkynusayri (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not, but Hebrew is still equally related to both Arabic and Maltese.--Yolgnu (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Phoenician Origin of Britons, Scots and Anglo-Saxons,by Lawrence Waddell

Review: by Roland G. Kent of The Phoenician Origin of Britons, Scots and Anglo-Saxons, Discovered by Phoenician and Sumerian Inscriptions in Britain, by Pre-Roman Briton Coins and a Mass of New History by L. A. Waddell Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 45, (1925) points out that Waddell accepts "the precise historicity of the Chronicles of Geoffrey of Monmouth and everything else that has been handed down about early Britain...The Indo-Europeans, whom he calls Aryans, were in origin the Sumerians, the Hittites, and the Phoenicians, the last named being the sea-going branch. The Phoenicians made a settlement and partial conquest of Britain about 2800 B. c. The "Brutus the Trojan" of the Chronicles, who was really the Peirithoos of Greek legend, came to Britain in 1103 B. c., and conquered Caledonia, thereby giving the start to the story of his slaying the Calydonian boar. These Phoenicians brought with them the sun-worship and Bel-fire rites, of which survivals are to be traced in many places. The INARA of Briton coins is identical in name with the Sanskrit Indra and St. Andrew" Elsewhere Waddell, an Aryan supremacist who thought that Smites contributed nothing of real value, tries to "show that Egypt, far from owing its civilization to indigenous Semitic peoples, had been colon- ized and civilized around 2780 B.C. by Aryan Sumerians led by Sargon of Akkad. Sargon, he argues, was descended from Ikshvaku, the "immortal Aryan," who, as the "greatest" culture hero of all time, is the founder of agriculture and solar religion..." Which is why I removed the reference to the book.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clearing out the article to make way for improving it

I've deleted quite a bit -- there's nothing wrong with deleting huge chunks if it's part of an attempt to improve the article. Go to it. I've also asked an expert about good books, and am told "the standards are Glenn Markoe, The Phoenicians (the most recent); Donald Harden, The Phoenicians; and Sabatino Moscati, World of the Phoenicians." I've just ordered the Markoe book from Amazon and the other 2 from the library.

[edit] Sanford Holst

This New Age writer has published a book on the Phoenicians that is beginning to be used for references. It is self-published (the 'publisher' that publishes his books only publishes his books), so not an acceptable source.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Phoenicia

The first map needs a date. JMcC (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)