BEYOND STEREOTYPES: “PHOENICIAN” IDENTITY AND MATERIAL

CULTURE

LAMIA SASSINE

UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the degree of MA in

Artefact Studies of University College

London in 2014

1

Abstract

“Phoenician” culture is one that has often been stereotyped and defined based on these

stereotypes. Consequently, it became a self-fulfilled prophecy. Is “Phoenician” identity trapped in

pre-constructed spatio-temporal frames and ideas of what it should be? The following paper seeks

to answer this question by looking at the material culture of the central Levantine coast during the

Iron Age, especially in three main aspects: material culture of production, consumption, and the

supernatural. The case studies that illustrate each aspect are examined in a framework which

takes into account the regional and temporal contexts and seek to establish their uniqueness in

relation to the surrounding region and the preceding era. They show that the stereotypes are the

result of technologies that are spread around the Mediterranean; and that while “Phoenician”

identity is deeply rooted into the Late Bronze Age, the spatial picture is much more complex as it

is very fragmented and raises the problem of boundaries.

2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor, Cyprian Broodbank, for his pertinent and always honest

advice; my friend and proofreader Yara Idriss for reviewing my work; all my previous professors,

both at UCL and AUB because I would not have had the knowledge to produce this without

them; my family for their support; my friends for coping with the side effects of writing this

dissertation; and finally anyone who has expressed an interest in my work, as this is always

extremely stimulating.

3

Table of Contents

Preface ............................................................................................................................................. 6

Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 7

I. In Context ................................................................................................................................. 7

II. Aims and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 2: Theory and Concepts ................................................................................................... 11

I. Identity and materiality in depth ............................................................................................. 11

II. Can identity be translated into material culture? ................................................................... 12

III. Deconstructing the “Phoenicians” ....................................................................................... 14

Chapter 3: Making ......................................................................................................................... 18

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 18

II. Metalwork ............................................................................................................................. 19

III. Ivory ........................................................................................................................................ 21

IV. Purple dye ............................................................................................................................ 24

V. The pottery industry at Sarepta ............................................................................................. 25

VI. Synthesis .............................................................................................................................. 27

Chapter 4: Using ............................................................................................................................ 30

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 30

II. Pottery ................................................................................................................................... 31

III. Language and Script ............................................................................................................ 34

IV. Synthesis .............................................................................................................................. 37

Chapter 5: Believing ...................................................................................................................... 39

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 39

II. Religious architecture ............................................................................................................ 40

III. Cemeteries and burial practices ........................................................................................... 42

4

IV. Sarcophagi ........................................................................................................................... 43

V. Synthesis ............................................................................................................................... 45

Chapter 6: Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 48

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 52

5

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Bronze bowl from Nimrud (courtesy of the British Museum)....................................... 19

Figure 2: Middle Bronze Age weapons from Byblos (after Gernez 2008) ................................... 20

Figure 3: Map of the "Phoenician" ivory find spots (after Hermann and Laidlaw 2013) ............. 22

Figure 4: Classic Phoenician versus Phoenician ivory panels (after Hermann and Laidlaw 2013)

....................................................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 5: Kiln R from Sarepta and its associated workshop (after Anderson 1990) ..................... 27

Figure 6: The development of globular jugs into mushroom lipped jugs (after Anderson 1990) . 32

Figure 7: Strainer spouted jug (after Anderson 1990) ................................................................... 33

Figure 8: Diagram of Semitic languages (after Huehnergard 2011) ............................................. 35

Figure 9: Phases of Phoenician script ............................................................................................ 36

Figure 10: Left to right: the temple of Sarepta (after Pritchard 1978), the temple of Amrit (after

Dunand and Saliby 1985), the temple of Tell Sukas (after Riis 1970), and the temples and altar on

the podium of the Eshmun sanctuary (after Stucky 2005) ............................................................ 41

Figure 11: Typical cremation burial assemblage from Tyre (after Aubet 2010) ........................... 43

Figure 12: Timeline of sarcophagi from the central Levantine coast ............................................ 44

6

Preface

The following paper is not a typical dissertation. Most of my colleagues in Artefact Studies have

chosen to work on a single site or assemblage, while I opted for a broader focus, both temporally

and spatially. This is because I will be looking at identity; a topic which I feel requires more than

just one case study to be understood in the best possible way. Hence, this paper is more

theoretical than a standard Artefact Studies dissertation, but in this foreword, I aim to

demonstrate that despite the fact that it does not focus on particular objects, my dissertation is

still artefact based.

One of the wider aims of the degree in Artefact Studies is to encourage students to think about

objects from a human perspective in order to understand how and why people made them and

used them. In this dissertation, I hope to try and achieve exactly this goal: I will be looking at

material culture from a specific region and time (the Iron Age central Levantine coast) in order

to better understand who the people who produced it were as a culture. Beyond this, material

culture is actually my basis for answering a question concerning a whole population and how it

has been interpreted, as I investigate how different aspects of material culture form parts of

identity.

This paper will be based on theories and concepts I have been introduced to during the course of

my program, while at the same time try to project a new light on things. I do not claim to revoke

or disprove all the theories that have been made about the “Phoenicians”, but to look at them

with more critical eyes and to open the door for discussion. However, questioning this identity

while using evidence from a literature that has already established the material culture as being

“Phoenician” proved to be quite a challenge at times. I had to constantly remind myself not to

fall into the clichés and ease into a certain terminology and to always stay critical of what I was

reading even though I was using it as evidence.

Besides looking at the literature with skepticism but without losing the facts, another obstacle I

became aware of is that some of my case studies only came from one site; and that it is risky to

generalize based on such scarce evidence. In most cases, I tried my best to provide as many

examples as possible, but the fact remains that the region I am focusing on is quite under studied

and that future discoveries may reinforce my conclusions or on the contrary disprove them.

7

Chapter 1: Introduction

I. In Context

The “Phoenician” culture is one of the most notorious cultures from the Iron Age Mediterranean.

First, we need to clarify that the term “Phoenician” is used here to refer to the Iron Age (c.1200-

300 BCE) population of the central Levantine coast, stretching north from Arwad and South to

the region around Dor, and not taking into consideration the Punic world. This culture is usually

studied as its own separate entity which has specific characteristics. However, a closer look

shows us that this individuality is not indisputable, and that many of the particularities of

“Phoenician” culture seem to be victims of overgeneralization. Therefore, this paper tries to take

a different perspective on “Phoenician” culture and to determine whether or not we can talk about

a “Phoenician” identity. This question will be answered by looking at the material culture from

the central Levantine coast, and seeking similarities and differences with earlier periods (up to the

Middle Bronze Age), and geographically with the surrounding area, mainly Palestine. We will

also be in search of uniformity from within the central Levantine coast during the Iron Age.

Before heading deeper into the question of material culture and identity, we need to understand

the origins of the “Phoenician” world, or what is thought to be so. The end of the Bronze Age

saw the collapse of some important political powers of the Levant such as Egypt and the Hittite

Empire, around 1200 BCE. This left a power vacuum, which may have favored the rise of the

“Phoenician” city-states (Stieglitz 1990, 10). The end of the Late Bronze Age is often associated

with the sea people, a variety of ethnic groups that start settling in the Southern Levant around

this period (Gilboa 2005, 47). This is supported by the fact that many Bronze Age sites get

destroyed and witness a complete shift in settlement pattern. However, the picture is more

obscure on the central Levantine coast, where the archaeological record is somewhat more

fragmentary, and much of what is known about this transitional period comes from textual

evidence (Bikai 1992, 132). Contrarily to what happened elsewhere in the Levant, the cities of

the central Levantine coast show continuity, apart from Tyre which had a brief period of decline

before prospering again thanks to Sidonian support (Stieglitz 1990, 11). This implies that the

Phoenicians may not have been that different from the Canaanites, a term used to designate the

Bronze Age population of the Levant (Gilboa 2005, 50), although some scholars believe that

completely new populations did replace the Canaanites (Dever 1992, 108). This is matter we will

8

come back to when examining the question of “Phoenician” identity, but for now, let us look at

the main sites involved in this study.

There are about fifty cities thought to be “Phoenician” that are known to this day on the

Levantine coast, the most famous being Arwad, Byblos, Sidon, and Tyre (Niemeyer 2000, 192).

Historically known to be kingdoms, each ruled a portion of territory and controlled other less

major sites. It seems logical then that these cities will be the ones I focus on in this paper.

However, they do not all have the same weight in terms of state of research. For instance, very

little is known about Arward whereas Sidon benefited from a number of seasons of proper

excavations and publication; so inevitably, more of my case studies will come from there.

Moreover, all of these cities have been under continuous settlement since the Iron Age (at least),

and the majority of their remains from this period now lies under modern infrastructure (or was

erased when the Romans settled them, as is the case for Byblos). Hence, I will also be looking at

smaller sites such as Sarepta in order to complete the picture. One of the most important aspects

of this research when it comes to the sites and case studies is that it covers the entire central

Levantine coast.

Arwad and Tyre were respectively the northernmost and southernmost “Phoenician” kingdoms,

and were both located on islands (Markoe 2000, 205.) The occupation of Arwad dates back to the

third millennium BCE but we can only speculate about the layout of the city and how it looked

like in Antiquity (Markoe 2000, 206.) Further South, Byblos has been settled since the Neolithic

and has been excavated mostly by Dunand; but the Iron Age levels remain one of the most

enigmatic areas of the city (Jidejian 1971, 57). It is quite a different situation from Sidon, which

was a noteworthy Phoenician city with a large area under its control (Markoe 2000, 200). The

city had been prosperous since the Bronze Age, but somewhat lost importance to Tyre in the

tenth century BCE and only regained it in the Persian period (Belmonte-Avilés 2003, 89). Tyre’s

heritage is also deeply rooted in the Bronze Age. However, it was not until the Iron Age that this

city acquires its notoriety, and it is believed to be not only one of the most influential

“Phoenician” cities, but also the one to have started the trend of Mediterranean expansion, as well

as the founder of Carthage (Joukowsky 1992, 45).

9

II. Aims and Objectives

The main objective of this dissertation is to reexamine “Phoenician” identity and define it, in

order to understand the dynamics of the central Levantine coast in the Iron Age better. In fact,

most of what is known about the “Phoenicians” actually comes from the Punic world (Markoe

2000, 13), and while more research on the Levantine coast is starting to take off, there is still no

global understanding of “Phoenician” identity (Gilboa 2005, 251). In investigating “Phoenician”

identity and its expression through material culture from the central Levantine coast, I hope to

question existing stereotypes which led us to conceptualize the idea of a “Phoenician” culture and

try to fit findings to conform to this idea.

In fact, there is more to this issue than mere concern about the actual definition of the term

“Phoenician”. From a scholarly point of view, it is important to detach this concept from the

stereotypes associated with this term in order to get an unbiased and more relevant understanding

of it. Moreover, this paper has an outreach that goes beyond scholarly impact, and deals with the

perception of “Phoenician” identity in Lebanon today. Many modern day Lebanese identify with

the “Phoenicians”, and claim that they are descended from them, without really understanding

what this means or implies. This pride and self-stimulated sense of belonging are a result of the

many stereotypes used to define the “Phoenicians”, especially in popular culture and the minds of

the general public. Therefore, even though this work is not focused on cultural heritage, it

partially aims at changing the idealized image people have of the “Phoenicians” and at proving

that the picture is actually much more complex than these stereotypes lead us to believe.

In order to achieve this, the following chapters will be dedicated to concepts illustrated by a

diversity of examples and case studies. These themes will be the key components of identity

forming through material culture, and will be focused on three main spheres of activity: making,

using, and believing; all three being major domains of expression that should help us understand

more about “Phoenician” identity. The chapter on making will be focused on craftsmanship, with

specific case studies on ivory work, purple dye industry, metal working, and pottery manufacture;

the one on using will mainly be based on pottery and language (through writing); and finally

believing will be based on death, rituals and religion, with particular attention given to burial

practices, sarcophagi types, and temple architecture. Each of these chapters will have an

introductory part in which I explain how this concept is materially expressed and how it relates to

10

identity; and I will then look at the examples to try and answer the main research questions.

Eventually, I will conclude my dissertation with a chapter which ties all my results together and

attempts to give an overview of what really hides behind “Phoenician” identity. However, before

digging into the evidence, the next chapter will place this work in a relevant theoretical

framework and elaborate on the relationship between material culture and identity.

11

Chapter 2: Theory and Concepts

I. Identity and materiality in depth

I now wish to elaborate on what the concept of identity means in terms of archaeology. The

primary distinction that can be made is individual versus group identity. Here, I will essentially

be concerned with group identities, which also have several categories such as religion, gender,

social status, ethnicity, etc… (Diaz-Andreu et al. 2005, 1). “Phoenician” identity falls within the

ethnic identity aspect. The distinction between ethnicity and identity may seem ambiguous, but it

is expressed in two ways: 1) Hierarchy wise, ethnic identities are group identities, but group

identities do not necessarily have to be ethnic identities (MacSweeney 2009, 102). 2) Meaning

wise, ethnicity is a more politically charged term (Sherratt 2005, 27). This is because many

archaeologists originally regarded ethnicity as a biological trait (mainly with culture-historical

archaeology), and often justified it to legitimize the presence of certain modern populations in

certain places. However, going back to the very origins of the word, we find that the term ethnos

in ancient Greek was originally used to designate groups of animals or people. Later on, it started

to be an indicative of foreign populations (Sherratt 2005, 31). This concept is really essential to

understanding both identity and ethnicity. In fact, many scholars argue that there can be no

conception of identity without the idea of an “other” (Sherratt 2005, 27). Therefore, identity is

something that is forged by contrasting it to something radically different. In opposition to that

sense of otherness, group identity is balanced by a sense of belonging to a certain community.

People do not simply aggregate because of the otherness, they also do because they share certain

ways of life. This sense of collectivity is sometimes overlooked by archaeologists (MacSweeney

2009, 112), but I believe that in order to speak of identity it should be more or less on an equal

level with otherness. These ideas revoke the fact that identity is biological, and rather argue for it

being a socio-cultural construct (Hall 1997, 32).

Another characteristic of ethnic identity (and all other group identities) is that it is not a rigid

concept. It can change over time, or according to circumstances. It is a concept that has many

different manifestations and scales (Insoll 2007, 54). Therefore, the boundaries of ethnic identity

are not clear cut and can be quite flexible (Diaz-Andreu et al. 2005, 98), especially since the

sense of adherence to a certain ethnic group can change over time (for example, it could be

reinforced under threat) (Hall 1997, 33). Hence, for the purpose of this dissertation, I will speak

12

about ethnic identity as a cultural concept that is flexible and defined mainly by a duality between

a sense of belonging and the perception of otherness.

Let us now move on to materiality and material culture. The concept of it, as touched upon in

Chapter 1, is relatively simple to understand; as material culture is composed of all the tangible

things made, modified, or used by humans. Therefore, the main ambiguity in material culture lies

not in what it is but rather how it is employed, manipulated, and studied. Approaches to material

culture and materiality have a tendency to be very focused on objects themselves, sometimes at

the expense of the human aspect (Hodder 2012, 30). In this paper, I hope that they will be more

integrated with a socio-cultural approach in order to benefit the elaboration a big picture.

Moreover, objects and people are codependent (Hodder 2012, 38, 86). Indeed, humans make

objects and then get used to their existence; they become an indissociable part of their lives.

However, they also need to maintain these objects, which themselves become dependent on the

people responsible for them. Therefore, “things create people and people create things” (Johnson

2010, 264). To add to the complexity of this picture, we must also keep in mind that objects do

not exist in a vacuum. Some objects could not exist without others, hence the importance of

context (Hodder 2012, 33). This may seem like basic information to any archaeologist but it is

important to constantly remind oneself that material culture without contextualization is

worthless. Of course, recorded archaeological contexts are a great first step in facilitating

interpretation, but the more information we can get about how, where, why, and by whom and

object or assemblage were used the better.

II. Can identity be translated into material culture?

Material culture is a subject that has often been related to the study of identity in general, and of

ethnic identity specifally (Hates and Hodos 2010, 5). As previously mentioned, culture-historical

archaeologists had a tendency to directly associate certain forms of material culture with certain

ethnic groups. This was particularly the case for pottery types (Sherratt 2005, 26). However, the

picture is much more complex. It is too simplistic to argue that the presence or absence of a

certain type of pottery accounts for the presence or absence of a certain ethnicity, just as it is too

simplistic to associate arbitrary destruction layers to historically recorded events. On the one

hand, pots and other objects travelled, with or without the people who originally made them. On

the other hand, one aspect is not enough. Today, we would not express our identity only through

13

the kitchenware we use, or the clothes we wear, or the way we bury our dead. Therefore, a

combination of aspects of material culture would be more informative than only one; hence the

large number of case studies I will use for this dissertation.

However, if we can indeed consider objects as a material transcription of identity (Sofaer 2007,

2), they might not be enough to “speak” to us clearly. There is much more to be taken into

consideration. First, ethnic identity cannot be defined only by materials but also by the context of

these materials (Diaz-Andreu et al. 2005, 87). This is due to the fact that perceptions of ethnic

identity change according to circumstances, therefore the interpretation of materials with regards

to this prospect should also depend on those circumstances. In addition to this (and to help

understand contexts and circumstances), historical evidence should be combined to artefact

studies in order to trace back identity (Hall 1997, 182). Hall worked with Greek identity and

therefore had numerous literary sources at his disposition; but it might be trickier when it comes

to Phoenician identity given the scarcity of textual data1.

Another argument of Hall’s is that ancient peoples did not use material culture to determine their

ethnic identity. Rather, it was mostly a marker to set boundaries with regards to other ethnicities

(Hall 1997, 142), to distinguish themselves from otherness. So is this what archaeologists should

look for? Boundary zones and purposefully distinctive objects? I see this as quite a blurry area

since the concept of otherness and how people actually perceived themselves as different is quite

elusive. In fact, I find Hall’s conclusions quite pessimistic. His aims are similar to mine in that he

is looking for markers of Greek identity, and hence his study should be a good basis for mine.

However, he does not really find these markers in material culture and concludes that material

culture cannot be used to track identity. Some of my case studies produced similar results, but

this does not mean that material culture is very interlinked with identity. It simply means that in

some particular cases, there is nothing about material culture that is unique enough to speak of a

certain identity. Maybe it should be completed by another domain, or maybe this identity is a

construct that people use out of convenience and/or habit. However, let us not jump to

conclusions too early.

1 I shall return to this issue below.

14

Before I start explaining how all these concepts actually relate to “Phoenician” identity

specifically, I would like to briefly summarize what I think about the connections between

material culture and identity, which will be the basis for this dissertation. Material culture

definitely has a role in shaping identity because it is a form of expression (Hates and Hodos 2010,

34). Therefore, when people make things or use them in a certain way, they are leaving a trace of

themselves in the objects. It might be quite difficult to identify this trace when we excavate the

objects, but contexts, parallels, and literature should help. On a large scale, these traces can be

found on whole assemblages and at different sites and still be related to each other, forming

networks. However, one network alone does not constitute a distinctive identity, but rather

assemblages of networks which have some things -such as iconography for example- in common

do. This also means that one network can be part of different identities, but this is somehow

beyond the scope of this paper.

III. Deconstructing the “Phoenicians”

We are now almost ready to start investigating the material culture of the Late Bronze and Iron

Age central Levantine coast; but before we start exploring it, we need to break down the ideas we

already have about who the “Phoenicians” were in order for them not to influence our

interpretations. If we were to follow Hall’s logic, we would also need to investigate texts from

the period. However, the sources are really scarce and consist mainly of royal inscriptions. They

will not be disregarded, but we will come back to them later, when evaluating them against

material evidence. The rarity of textual sources adds a whole new challenge to our task since we

cannot know if and how “Phoenicians” saw themselves as different from other cultures and as

similar to each other, across cities on the central Levantine coast.

What we do have though, are texts from cultures that interacted with the “Phoenicians”. There are

the Egyptians, whose most famous contribution is the story of Wenamun, in which an Egyptian

official travels to Byblos and faces resistance from the city’s ruler. However, despite its realistic

character, this text is considered to be fictional and it was written well after the time of the

narration (Baines 1999, 211). This story has been used to argue for continuity in Byblos after

1200 BCE. There is no significant historical account dealing with the “Phoenicians” before the

Classical period, but the problem with the fact that Wenamun is fictional is that it is addressed to

Egyptian people, may thus contain some propaganda (Baines 1999, 231). Therefore, even though

15

it has the advantage of dealing with people from the central Levantine coast, Wenamun is not a

very reliable source of information about them.

The “Phoenicians” were also mentioned in contemporary Assyrian texts, not as a unified

population group but as independent city-states (Oded 1974, 40). Mostly, these sources are annals

informing us about the political and economic relationships between the Assyrian empire and the

“Phoenician” city-states. In a way, the Assyrian sources are probably the most objective ones

when it comes to “Phoenician” identity, but this is because they are not very informative about it

either. In fact, these sources -as opposed to the Homeric ones for instance- do not really provide

descriptions of the “Phoenicians” as individuals with specific characteristics associated with

them, although they are very useful in providing information about the political structure. They

inform us for instance that some cities were independent and paid tributes to the Assyrian empire

while others, such as Sidon, were annexed to it as provinces for some periods of time (Elayi

1983, 45).

Another source that mentions the “Phoenicians” is the Bible. Needless to say it is quite

problematic in terms of date as it was compiled much later than the Iron Age, though some of it

was probably written during this time. The large majorities of biblical studies are dedicated to

Southern Levantine groups. What has been done on “Phoenicians” and the Bible concerns mainly

toponymy and the etymology of place names. For example, Tsirkin (2001) tried to trace the

origins of the names “Phoenicia”, “Sidon”, and “Canaan” mainly basing himself on the Bible.

Both the terms “Phoenicia” and “Canaan” seem to be related to the color purple, although it is

impossible to determine if the name of the place comes from that of the color or vice versa. There

are many other possible interpretations of the word “Canaan”, but what really matters is that it

was the indigenous designation of the central Levant. Linguistically speaking, it would seem as

though “Phoenicia” is a Greek translation of “Canaan”. However, modern scholarship does not

use the terms interchangeably, but rather in two distinct temporal contexts with “Phoenicia”

being understood as the Iron Age version of “Canaan”. This division is conventional and not

actually justified by historical events on the central Levantine coast proper (Aubet 2011, 12);

which reinforces the need for a reexamination of material culture and a better understanding of

what “Phoenician” really means.

16

Concerning the evidence from the Greek world, one important piece to consider is the Homeric

texts, which are actually contemporary with the period which we are interested in. Another

significant fact is that the Greeks started using the term “Phoenician” between 1200 and 700 BCE

(Sherratt 2010, 122), so the fact that we use it exclusively for the Iron Age is not only a result of

the conventional Bronze/Iron Age separation, as it would be anachronistic to start speaking of

“Phoenicia” earlier. However, the picture that the Homeric epics paint of the “Phoenicians” is a

complicated and delicate one to understand. The “Phoenicians” seem to be very contradictory

people. Sometimes, they are perceived as honest merchants and skilled craftsmen, while others

they are regarded as sneaky crooks. This can be explained by the fact that the Iliad and the

Odyssey are a compilation of accounts; therefore these are the views of different people (Sherratt

2005, 35). To put it neutrally, the “Phoenicians” were viewed as tradesmen who sold “trinkets”

(this is the literal translation), probably for more than they were worth. These views are not based

on nothing, as some objects found at the cemetery of Lefkandi testify. These objects were all of

Levantine origin and clearly damaged; the hypothesis being that they were looted from tombs and

sold as tokens with significant legacies to their owners (Sherratt 2010, 134). While this may be a

fact, the image that the literature gives of them becomes emphasized, eventually leading to

stereotypes being created.

Moreover, these stereotypes are being based on a very small portion of the population. Indeed,

the Greeks were only using the term “Phoenician” to designate maritime people in the Aegean,

not necessarily caring where they came from or how representative these people were of the

whole population (Sherratt 2005, 36.) In fact, “Phoenicians” as perceived by the Greeks are the

“other”, the group of people that the Greeks distinguish themselves from and define themselves

against (Sherratt 2005, 36). The Homeric epics do not paint a clear picture of the “Phoenicians”,

and they are quite hellenocentric. “Phoenicians in Homer’s epics are thus in part a Greek

invention, created in the process of defining Greek identity” (Sherratt 2010, 136). What defines

“Phoenician” identity then? This is what we will try to answer in the following chapters.

What the literature provides us with is a tangle of points of view, which, put together with some

facts, merge into stereotypes. The “Phoenicians” were great tradesmen. The “Phoenicians”

invented the alphabet. The “Phoenicians” made fine purple dye. The “Phoenicians” conquered

the Mediterranean Sea, etc…Some of these stereotypes are emphasized in modern days, and we

17

fall into a slippery slope: perhaps this emphasis is due to discoveries that reinforce them, but

perhaps scholars feel the need to give interpretations that confirm these stereotypes because they

are already well established. Therefore, does “Phoenician” identity become a self-fulfilling

prophecy? There are two ways of tackling the subject without risking to fall into expected

paradigms. The first one would be to ignore the existence of the stereotypes and proceed as if we

knew nothing. However, this solution could lead to overlooking some actual facts and important

information. The other possibility would be to handle the evidence with care and to break down

all the stereotypes in order to see if they are founded on something. In other words, it means

going back to the material evidence and examining it in context to look for any patterns, keeping

in mind that these patterns might be different from what we expect based on general assumptions

about the “Phoenicians”. It is this approach that I will be trying to follow in the upcoming

chapters.

18

Chapter 3: Making

I. Introduction

The “Phoenicians” were renowned in Antiquity not only for being great navigators and tradesmen

but also highly skilled craftspeople. The Homeric texts give a glimpse of this reputation in some

passages; often praising the textile working skills of the Sidonians (Markoe 2003, 209). Those

skills are also mentioned in the Bible and later on by classical authors; and even in modern

scholarship they are implied in terms such as “Orientalizing”, which is understood as being the

stage in which Ancient Greek or Etruscan art were influenced by Levantine culture, usually

thought to be the “Phoenician” culture because it was the one with the most contact with the

Central Mediterranean and the Aegean. Despite the recent rethinking of this concept (Riva and

Vella 2006), we fatally fall into another stereotype about the “Phoenicians” as a consequence of

this well-anchored idea. The danger in this does not lie in the fact that we might expect

“Phoenician” objects to be particularly well crafted, but rather in the reverse phenomenon.

Indeed, given that “Phoenician” items are supposed to be quite fine and elaborate, there is a risk

of labelling any finely made object that roughly fits the dates and cannot really be identified as

“Phoenician”. I am speaking here of finds made outside of the geographical zone of the central

Levantine coast that get ascribed a “Phoenician” origin almost by default. We are not only talking

about isolated finds but about whole assemblages found across the Levant and the Mediterranean.

The examples of the ivories and metal bowls, to which I shall return below, illustrate this

categorization by default. In fact, these objects were attributed a “Phoenician” origin by

elimination: they could not be Greek because they were too stylistically different; they could not

be Syrian because they had too many Egyptian elements, and they could not be Egyptian because

those elements were used out of context (Frankfort 1954, 188). “Phoenician” would then be the

most likely option given the textual evidence, although it may not be the only possibility.

The aim of this chapter will therefore be to further investigate “Phoenician” craftsmanship in

order to reconsider the accuracy of this stereotype. Can we undeniably ascribe a “Phoenician”

origin to objects such as metal bowls and ivories that were never found on the central Levantine

coast? Moreover, what about the evidence from the coast? What does it tell us about

craftsmanship between the Middle Bronze and Iron Ages? In order to answer these questions, I

19

will be focusing on four case studies, from the Levantine coast and beyond. First, I will look at

evidence for metalwork, before moving on to the case of the ivories. I will then look at evidence

for purple dye industry and finally at the pottery production at Sarepta.

II. Metalwork

Metalwork is among the renowned “Phoenician” luxury exports found across the Mediterranean.

It is represented mainly by a range of bowls made of bronze, silver, or gold found in Nimrud and

at various sites in Cyprus, Etruria, and Greece (Figure 1). None of them have been excavated on

the central Levantine coast, although it is generally assumed that they were “Phoenician”.

These bowls have been the

subject of a recent [conference

and forthcoming publication]

study by Feldman (2014), who

examined them as a vehicle of

identity of their owners. She

mainly looked at the

inscriptions on the bowls,

which were written in local

languages (matching their

places of discovery), all of

which claim ownership of the

vessels. What is really

interesting about this study is

that she relates the bowls to

the identity of the consumers

rather than that of the

manufacturers.

Assuming we admit that these bowls were made by the “Phoenicians”, Feldman’s interpretation

begs the question of the role of the producers in relation to the significance of the bowls. Why are

such objects not found on the mainland if indeed they were made by the “Phoenicians”? These

Figure 1: Bronze bowl from Nimrud (courtesy of the British Museum)

20

bowls are actually not very informative about the culture of the people who made them, but rather

about the people who used them. Of course, one could study their iconography and take an art-

historical perspective on the matter, but in terms of archaeological context we do not know much.

Moreover, Markoe’s hypothesis that these objects may have been made by emigrant craftsmen

(Markoe 2003, 214) seems plausible but may complicate the picture even more. It is likely

because the metals were probably obtained locally given their scarcity on the Levantine coast.

However, given the lack of evidence from “Phoenicia”, one wonders where those emigrant

artisans would have learned the techniques. Another problem when it comes to where these

vessels were manufactured is that since there are no parallels from the central Levantine coast,

they cannot be associated with production centers (Markoe 2003, 210) and it is therefore difficult

to establish a proper classification and to formally attribute an origin to these vessels. Hence, I

believe that it is erroneous to call them “Phoenician” as long as we have not established the

substantiality of this culture and defined it; which cannot be properly done with finds coming

from beyond its geographical borders.

On the Levantine coast, the picture is quite fragmentary. Apart from some tools found at Sarepta

(Pritchard 1978, 111), there is very little evidence for metalworking and workshops of the Late

Bronze and Iron Ages (Negbi 1974, 159). However, other Levantine sites such as Megiddo and

Beit Shean show evidence for continuity in the metal objects between the 13th

-14th

and the 11th

-

12th

centuries. Moreover, there is a relatively low number of metal objects from such sites that

display Aegean influence (Negbi 1974, 170), which would argue against the idea of a whole new

ethnic group settling in the region. While these conclusions cannot be extrapolated and applied to

the central Levant, they provide a certain outlook on what may have happened at a regional scale.

Probably the best studied metal objects from the Lebanese coast are those found in Byblos,

dating back to the Middle Bronze Age mainly, as the Late Bronze and Iron Ages levels of the site

are badly preserved and therefore not very informative (Gernez 2008, 74). What is known about

these objects is that they were found in deposits under the floors of the various temples (Negib

and Moscowitz 1966, 21), and that they consisted mainly of weapons, both ceremonial ones and

ones that had been used (Gernez 2008, 77) (Figure 2). It is believed that they were used as

symbolic deposits related to specific divinities, given that they bear signs that vary according to

the contexts in which they have been found (Gernez 2008, 78). More important than details about

21

the production and depositing of these weapons is the fact that they are the proof that metal

workshops existed since the Middle Bronze Age on the central Levantine coast. Hence, it would

be logical to assume the continuity of these workshops, even though they have not been found

yet.

III. Ivory

We will now move on to a case similar to that of the metal bowls in that it consists of an

assemblage of objects labelled as “Phoenician” but which have not been found on the central

Levantine coast, except for isolated finds from Byblos and Sarepta. Groups of ivories, consisting

majorly of furniture panels but also of small objects such as boxes and statuettes, were found at

one site in Cyprus, on Crete, and in Etruria, but mainly at Samaria (Paslestine) and Nimrud

(Assyria) (Hermann and Laidlaw 2013, 84) (Figure 3). In Nimrud, the “Phoenician” ivories were

the most common of the imported types (Herman and Laidlaw 2013, 87), and in Samaria, they

also exist in a large number (Suter 2011, 221). Stylistically, I will base my evidence on the study

of the Nimrud assemblage, which is followed by Sutter for the Samaria ivories as well.

Figure 2: Middle Bronze Age Weapons from Byblos (after Gernez 2008)

22

In order to understand whether the “Phoenician” appellation is justified, let us first consider the

dates of those ivories. According to Hermann and Laidlaw, they arrived at Nimrud between the

9th

and the 8th

centuries BCE (2013, 84); and it is unlikely that their production predates the 9th

century BCE (Winter 1976, 20). The Samaria ivories are also dated to the 9th

-8th

centuries BCE

(Suter 2011, 219). Therefore, the timeframe fits within the framework of the Early Iron Age and

the beginning of “Phoenician” civilization. Another factor arguing for a “Phoenician” origin of

the ivories is their find spots. Despite the fact that they have not been found on the central

Levantine coast, all the places where they have actually been found were within the trading

network of its Iron Age population (Winter 1976, 14). Moreover, the Samaria and Nimrud ivories

display very strong similarities which suggest that they might have been formed in the same

workshops, or even that they were part of the same furniture sets (Suter 2011, 220). However, the

lack of workshops or evidence from the central Levantine coast poses a serious problem when it

comes to confirming this hypothesis.

Figure 3: Map of the "Phoenician" ivory find spots (after Hermann and Laidlaw 2013)

23

On the other hand, what are the stylistic factors that led scholars to call these ivories

“Phoenician”? In general, they are distinguished from other types by being less loaded and

having taller figures (Hermann and Laidlaw 2013, 88). Hermann and Laidlaw then divide this

group into “Classic Phoenician” and “Phoenician” subcategories (Figure 4). The Classic

Phoenician group is very uniform, and all the ivories belonging to it are likely to have been

carved in the same workshop (Hermann and Laidlaw 2013, 89). The main differences between

the Classic Phoenician and Phoenician groups is that the former is very regular, where all the

motifs of a certain design are carved on rectangular panels and wear the same pleated apron skirt

whereas the latter are carved on various shapes and wear different garments (Hermann and

Laidlaw 2013, 90). Moreover, the Classic Phoenician group is the only one with double frames

and inlays (Hermann and Laidlaw 2013, 93). There are further classifications related to the

iconographic elements of the ivories, such as the “ornate” group, the “Egyptianizing” group, or

Figure 4: Classic Phoenician versus Phoenician ivory panels (after Hermann and Laidlaw 2013)

24

the “goddesses/queens” group (Hermann and Laidlaw 2013, 89); but what matters in terms of

identifying the “Phoenician” ivories as such is that they have many Egyptian elements. Despite

such characteristic, the ivories were not made there because their style deviates too much from

the Egyptian repertoire, for example in the fact that there are no narratives and that most the

scenes are ritualistic (Hermann and Laidlaw 2013, 93). Nevertheless, it is quite interesting that

standard Egyptian motifs such as the wedjat or the scarab become the indicator for “Phoenician”

ivories (Hermann and Laidlaw 2013, 41). It could be quite confusing but I believe it is a

significant example of the crossing of cultures at the time (if indeed we admit that the

“Phoenicians” were a specific people and that those ivories were produced by them).

One final clue for the “Phoenician” nature of the ivories is that some of them had marks (possibly

makers’ marks or fitters’ marks) and that those marks were written in the Phoenician and the

Aramaic alphabets (Hermann and Laidlaw 2013, 119). Therefore, it would seem that there is

sufficient evidence to believe that the ivories were produced on the Levantine coast, although

undeniable proof would involve substantial findings on that coast. The question remains though

as to what extent these ivories can actually be associated with “Phoenician” identity; and I shall

return to this matter in the synthesis below.

IV. Purple dye

Probably one of the most widely spread stereotypes about the “Phoenicians” is the one

concerning the production of purple dye. Again, the historical sources are perhaps to blame here

in accentuating this characteristic, since the skills of the “Phoenicians” in terms of purple dye

were praised in some of the most famous texts of Antiquity. The earliest account describing the

process in which the dye was made is that of Pliny the Elder (McGovern and Michel 1990, 153),

and dates back to about a millennium later than the period we are interested in. What this fact

tells us is that “Phoenician” purple dye production was famous enough to be accounted for

centuries after it started being established, and that it may have continued until later periods.

Purple dye was highly valued; some scholars even assume that it was within the same standards

as gold (Ziderman 1990, 98). This is economically understandable given that about 1000 murex

shells were needed to produce one gram of dye (McGovern and Michel 1990, 153). In addition to

this, the manpower required and difficult conditions linked to the dye industry make it likely that

it did have a high value (hence the “royal purple” appellation). Two types of dye were produced

25

from murex shells: a blue purple called hyacinth and a red purple, which is the infamous Tyrian

purple (Ziderman 1990, 99). Lower quality dyes were also produced from non-shell materials

(such as beetles), perhaps as cheaper imitations of the shell purple dyes (Ziderman 1990, 100).

As far as the archaeological evidence is concerned, indications of possible workshops are attested

from Ugarit, Sidon, Sarepta, Tyre, and Akko (Guckelsberger 2013, 9). Wilde (1836, 294) actually

discovered pits filled with murex shells in Tyre back in 1836. A mound of discarded shells used

to make hyacinth and a separate one of the species used for Tyrian purple were found near Sidon

during the 19th

century as well (Ziderman 1990, 99). The most definite evidence comes from

Sarepta though (since it has been systematically excavated), where purple traces inside some jars

have been analyzed and proved to be from murex shells (McGovern and Michel 1990, 153). It

was mainly the discard place of the shells that has been excavated, though the workshops were

probably nearby (Pritchard 1978, 127); and it has yielded evidence for a continuous production of

purple dye from the Late Bronze Age until the Roman period. The most extensive period of

production was the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age though (Reese 2010, 114).

It would seem as though the Iron Age population of the central Levantine coast did produce

purple dye. However, they are far from being the earliest users of the technique. In fact, Crete has

evidence for purple dye production since the Middle Bronze Age (Guckelsberger 2013, 3), and it

is also attested in Egypt, Troy, and Cyprus (Reese 2010, 126). Why is it that the “Phoenicians”

get so much credit for it then? It may be that they perfected the technique but given the typical

failure of textiles to survive in the archaeological record, it might prove quite tricky to assess this.

Even more importantly, was purple dye a marker of identity for the Iron Age people of the

Levantine coast? We shall consider this in perspective with the other crafts mentioned in this

chapter in the synthesis below.

V. The pottery industry at Sarepta

Moving away from luxury goods, the last case study I will consider in this chapter concerns a

type of craft that is not specifically “Phoenician” as it existed since the Neolithic and was

practiced by the majority of civilizations. In term of pottery, major differences between cultures

occur in shapes and decorations, as well as in the way the industry is structured. In will focus on

the latter in order to find out whether or not there is something distinctive about the pottery

26

industry on the central Levantine coast in the Iron Age. In order to answer this question, I will be

using the site of Sarepta as my principal source of evidence.

Sarepta, one of the only settlements of the central Levantine coast where the Iron Age levels have

been thoroughly excavated, has yielded evidence for an entire industrial quarter. This area housed

workshops for metalwork, purple dye, and an olive press (Pritchard 1978, 111). However, the

most important industry was the pottery making one, with a total of twenty-two kilns excavated,

ranging from the 15th

to the 4th

centuries BCE. Two additional kilns have been found in the

residential area of the site (Anderson 1990, 199). Considering that each kiln could contain up to

200 storage jars (Anderson 1990, 203), and that the site was not excavated in its entirety, we can

safely assume that the industry must have been quite extensive. The pottery industry of Sarepta

supplied a surplus of materials to be exported, presumably packaging for liquids produced in

Tyre, as Sarepta was under the control of this city-state for most of its history (Sommer 2010,

124).

All of the kiln structures were associated with workshops and settling basins that were used to

levigate the clay (Figure 5) (Anderson 1987, 49). As far as their architecture is concerned, the

kilns were two story bilobate structures consisting of two kidney shaped chambers separated by a

tongue-shaped wall. This wall would have supported a domed roof above the loading chamber.

The earliest kilns were rather oval shaped and they get rounder with time. However, this

transition was gradual, and no kiln structure appears to have witnessed an abrupt change

(Anderson1987, 42).

Is this kiln structure symptomatic of the Iron Age Levant or is it particular to Sarepta? Those

kilns have no parallels from the Late Bronze Age or earlier on a regional scale (Anderson 1990,

204). In fact, the closest early parallels come from the Aegean and in particular Crete in the Late

Helladic III period (which is equivalent to the Late Bronze Age in the Levant) (Anderson 1990,

206). There are also parallels from Akko in the Early Iron Age (207). Later on (in the Iron Age

II), Megiddo offers good parallels through kilns with a similar structure, although they are not

very well studied and understood (Anderson 1990, 209). Kilns are also attested in Palestine but

these are usually rectangular in shape (Anderson 1990, 208). Therefore, it would seem that

bilobate domed kilns were more or less typical of the central Levantine coast, although they start

27

to appear earlier than the Iron Age and hence argue for some level of continuity, at least in terms

of pottery manufacture.

Figure 5: Kiln R from Sarepta and its associated workshop (after Anderson 1990)

VI. Synthesis

All of the aforementioned crafts were prominent products of the Iron Age, but all of them also

have precedents that go back to the Late Bronze Age at the latest. Therefore, in terms of dates,

these findings argue for continuity between the Late Bronze and Iron Ages and hence suggest that

their makers did not change in between the periods. However, let us not fall into

oversimplification and hastily conclude anything before reconsidering certain questions that I

have raised in this chapter.

Firstly, there is the fact that we are not even sure that some of those very specialized crafts were

made on the central Levantine coast. There is definite evidence for the pottery and purple dye

industries; however the other two cases are slightly more problematic. In the case of the ivory, it

28

is actually quite difficult to find a workshop because ivory carving does not require much more

than small tools that can easily be transported and therefore will probably not have survived in

abandoned sites. Hence, the only thing we can hope for is waste material and unfinished pieces,

none of which have been found from the period we are looking at here. For both this and the

metal bowls, a couple of possibilities remain plausible. They could have been made on the

Levantine coast; or they could have been made elsewhere; or they could have been crafted by

Levantine or other artisans in their places of discovery…If we want to understand the role they

play in “Phoenician” identity, we have to assume that they were made by central Levantine

people, whether in their homeland or away. However, this is not definite evidence and it is simply

a hypothesis which, if disproved, will invalidate the claims I make in the next paragraph.

So what do these objects tell us about the people who made them? In the decoration of both the

metalwork and the ivories, heavy Egyptian influence is attested; which consolidates the idea of

continuity since close contacts with Egypt are known since the Early Bronze Age. Another trend

that seems to be happening with these objects is that on a large scale, they were produced for a

very specific clientele, which is probably not representative of the whole “Phoenician”

population. We are talking here about an entire population crafting goods that seem to be made

specifically for export. Of course, the pottery industry would have been needed to supply the

locals as well, but as we have seen previously, Sarepta produced an important surplus (Sommer

2010, 124). Most likely, the vessels would then have been shipped as containers for wine or oil.

Ivories and metal vessels were also obviously exported, and according to the literary evidence,

the same seems to go for purple dye. Therefore, this characteristic is symptomatic of

“Phoenician” craftsmanship, in that it consists of portable goods that cater for the demand of

clients (Sommer 2010, 132). The identity of these clients remain enigmatic, as they are equally

likely to be Levantine or coming from other areas of the Mediterranean. The most solid

assumption that can be made about them though is that they were probably quite prosperous and

must have formed part of a certain elite, given the quality of the goods (Suter 2011, 224). This in

itself can be considered as an indicator of a certain degree of specificity in the Iron Age Levant,

the population of which might have specialized in the production of some items. This hypothesis

also fits well with the fact that these people were also merchants and navigators who traded a lot

in the Mediterranean. Still, we must not forget that most of the crafts and skills mentioned in this

29

chapter have roots that predate the Iron Age, and that therefore they might not be specifically

“Phoenician”.

30

Chapter 4: Using

I. Introduction

So far, we have looked at identity through crafted goods, focusing on specialist categories which

made the “Phoenicians” famous and gave birth to some stereotypes. We will now be looking to

answer this in a dual way: first by shifting our focus from “Phoenician”-specific technologies to

more mundane material culture, and second, beyond the production perspective, examining it in

terms of consumption. The evidence gathered in the previous chapter led us to suggest that some

of the specialist crafts may have targeted a specific social group that was not necessarily

representative of all the “Phoenician” population. What I wish to look at now, therefore, is

material culture that might tell us more about the central Levantine population and that was

undoubtedly used by them. Hence, the categories of material culture that will be investigated in

this chapter are two of the most commonly used commodities: pottery and language. Language

here will be treated mainly through its material form, which is text; and therefore what will be

investigated here is the Phoenician script. 2

Once again, these two domains do not come to us free of any stereotypes, which is why it is

crucial to reexamine them from a new perspective. “Phoenician” pottery types are renowned for

being quite fine and recognizable, both the ones from the homeland and those that started there

but were then exported to the Punic world. As for language, it holds one of the biggest

misconceptions about the “Phoenicians”: the fact that they invented the alphabet. What this

chapter seeks to do is understand where these ideas come from, establish their veracity, and draw

conclusions about what this means in terms of “Phoenician” identity.

One may question the grouping of pottery and text in a single chapter about consumption, but

they are both considered here as forms of material culture which people use in a very widespread

way. Text as such may not be very widespread yet, but it is usually assumed that Phoenician

language was commonly consumed. What we know from the material evidence is that it was used

in all the important cities; however, it may not have been used by the whole population. In terms

of identity, language is one of the most prominent things which bring people together, and

therefore I will base my chapter on this principle. The fact that the same language was used in

2 When talking about Phoenician language and script, I will not be using the inverted commas, as I am not

questioning its viability as a language and a writing system.

31

different cities should be a strong enough argument to use it as one of the main elements in terms

of consumption. As far as pottery is concerned, we have already argued that it is not in itself an

ethnic indicator. However, it is a type of artefact too important to be dismissed, and if considered

in relation to other artefact types, contexts, and sites (and not in an isolated vacuum), it can tell us

just as much as other forms of material culture. In this chapter, I tackle pottery and language in a

similar way, first looking at them from a point of view of technological innovation: how they

evolved and came to be what they were during the Iron Age. Then, I will look at their contexts of

use, while always trying to delineate spatio-temporal borders and seek answers to the main

concerns of this paper.

II. Pottery

Large scale typological studies of Iron Age pottery from the central Levantine coast are relatively

recent, considering that pottery typologies were one of the oldest trends in archaeology; and start

with Bikai’s sequence of the pottery of Tyre in 1978 (Ciasca 1995, 138). This is in part due to the

scarcity of material, and almost all that is known about “Phoenician” pottery comes from Tyre,

Sarepta, and Dor. In terms of surface treatment, the pottery has been divided in two phases: an

earlier one represented by bichrome ware, which starts to appear in the mid-11th

century BCE;

and red-slipped ware, whose first occurrences are attested in the 8th

century BCE (Bikai 1978,

75). Bichrome ware consists of black and red paint on white clay (Schreiber 2003, ix). Its

decoration features mainly geometric motifs, such as concentric circles, triangles, or lozenges

(Anderson 1990, 37). This type of pottery has direct antecedents in the Late Bronze Age

(Anderson 1990, 36; Homsy 2003, 252; Bikai 1978, 56). The Late Bronze Age pottery is similar

to that of the Iron Age one in terms of shapes and decoration; though some patterns only get

introduced in the Iron Age (Gilboa 1999, 5). Gilboa explains this discrepancy by ascribing a

Cypriot origin to the Early Iron Age potter from the central Levantine coast (especially in

Southern “Phoenicia”), and argues that the scope of the trading network was reduced at the end

of the Late Bronze Age, which resulted in more trade between the Levant and Cyprus than with

the Aegean (Gilboa 2005, 62). While this is a likely possibility, it does not explain the theory of

Cypriot settlement on the mainland, which is also goes against the general trend in “Phoenician”

scholarship since it is generally agreed that the people from the mainland influenced Cyprus and

not vice versa (Schreiber 2003, 308).

32

Before we go further into discussing identities though, we need to know more about the evolution

of the shapes. Contrarily to the surface treatment, most shapes remain consistent throughout the

Iron Age and have a very smooth evoution. This is illustrated by the development of globular

jugs (Figure 6), which are attested in monochrome, bichrome, and red-slip because they have

been in use during all of those stylistic periods (Anderson 1990, 42). Although they appear in

contemporary contexts, this type seems to be derived from the flask, a vessel that has roots in the

Late Bronze Age (Anderson 1990, 43). In fact, the flask seems to have been the Levantine

equivalent of the Mycenaean stirrup jar, as it too was produced in many sizes and was probably

used as a container for oil (Anderson 1990, 45). Another shape that has a long life history is the

so-called Canaanite amphora, which actually goes back to the Late Bronze Age and was found in

large quantities in shipwrecks dating from this period. Again, its shape evolves with the base

Figure 6: The development of globular jugs into mushroom lipped jugs (after Anderson 1990)

33

getting pointier and the neck

disappearing with time, but the

essential shape is continuous from the

Late Bronze Age and occurs all across

the Levant (Grace 1956).

The strainer spouted jug (Figure 7) too

is a shape that occurs in monochrome,

bichrome, and red-slip periods; and

therefore remains a consistent type

throughout the Iron Age (Anderson

1990, 40). However, this type of vessel

is also found at Philistine sites. In

terms of shape, “Phoenician” and

Philistine strainer spouted jugs are

extremely similar, and the distinction

between them is made through the

decoration. The “Phoenician” vessels are decorated with geometric patterns while Philistine ones

are known for their metope designs and are usually regarded as more crude (Anderson 1990, 38).

Strainer spouted jugs are only one example of how amalgamated the pottery of “Phoenicia” is

with that of Philistia and Cyprus. This is particularly true for the Southern part of the coast, the

region between Sarepta and Dor, where the Early Iron Age pottery shows more influence from

Cyprus and the Aegean than that of the Northern Levant (Gilboa 2005, 64). Moreover, some

trends such as red slip wares or strainer spouted jugs appear earlier in Philistia, whereas others

appear simultaneously and have parallel developments in “Phoenicia” and Philistia (Anderson

1990, 41; Gilboa 2005, 64). This makes it extremely complicated to differentiate between

cultures and designate specific identities through the ceramics (Ciasca 1995, 138), especially

since the pottery across sites in the Southern Levant has many similarities but is not exactly the

same everywhere.

Ceramic studies are also tricky in the sense that they tend to focus a lot on typologies and

constructing sequences, sometimes at the expense of context. In fact most of the publications tell

Figure 7: Strainer spouted jug (after Anderson 1990)

34

us very little about the context in which these ceramics were found, with the exception of the

most recent ones from Tyre, which deal mainly with the assemblage from the al-Bass cemetery

(Núñez Calvo 2001), Beirut (Jamieson 2001), and Byblos (Homsy 2003). Unfortunately, the

latter two sites have poorly preserved Iron Age levels and therefore not much can be drawn from

there. Anderson does try to give an explanation for the use of strainer spouted jugs, which are of

quite a peculiar shape. Their use is still debated, and amongst the proposed possibilities are: beer

jugs, sprinklers, ‘teapot’ (to filter infusions), or as a container used to filter from the outside, for

example to make perfumed oil (Anderson 1990, 40). All these uses fall under the everyday

category, though the strainer spouted jugs is almost one of a kind when it comes to studying

domestic pottery. In fact, table wares were usually undecorated (Gilboa 2005, 54); and most of

the aforementioned ceramic repertoire is, and hence it consists of commercial vessels that were

probably made to be sold (most likely as containers). To this day, there is no publication that

deals explicitly with crude or undecorated wares such as cooking pots. The only exception to this

is the Canaanite amphora, but this shape also happens to be the transport vessel par excellence.

This is problematic in the sense that we might not have a full scope and therefore we are at risk of

drawing conclusions with missing information that may be crucial. However, even if these

decorated vessels were sold, it does not necessarily mean that they were exported. Hence, if they

were sold in markets within the sites and their immediate vicinity, they would still be used in

domestic contexts afterwards (and sometimes in funerary contexts after this, as attested by the

finds from Tyre al-Bass). Therefore, these studies cannot be dismissed on the account that they

are not representative enough, but one must keep in mind that there is a lot more data that needs

to be examined.

III. Language and Script

Phoenician is a North West Semitic language from the Canaanite family (Figure 8). It is written

in a script that differs from Aramaic mainly in that it does not use vowels. It has two main

periods: Archaic and Classical, the latter being divided in Middle and Late Classical (Figure 9)

(Markoe 2005, 108). The oldest form of direct evidence for the use of this language is the

inscription on the sarcophagus of Ahiram, found in Byblos and dating back to the late 11th

century BCE (Amadasi Guzzo 1995, 19). Since it is a dead language, we need to rely on material

evidence in order to understand its development, hence the focus of this section on script.

Phoenician is written in an alphabetic script renowned for being the first one in the world.

35

However, its history goes way back to Middle Bronze Age Sinai, where Levantine miners had

adapted the principle of acrophony, which Egyptians used to transcribe foreign names into

hieroglyphs, to establish the Proto-Sinaitic script. Following from this, a similar script called

Proto-Canaanite started to develop in the Southern Levant. These scripts set the stage for the

development of the Phoenician alphabet (Markoe 2005, 111). In fact, more than half of the

Phoenician letters were adapted from Proto-Canaanite and Proto-Sinaitic signs (Sass 1988, 161).

In parallel, other scripts started flowering around the Levantine coast. The city of Ugarit

developed its own alphabet derived from cuneiform during the 14th

century BCE, and it is also

thought that this might be a predecessor of Phoenician. Another interesting case is that of Byblos,

which had a short-lived and undeciphered writing system known as pseudo-hieroglyphic during

the Middle Bronze Age (Markoe 2005, 111). The use of the Proto-Canaanite alphabet began in

Southern Palestine, while in the North the Ugaritic alphabet and pseudo-hieroglyphic script were

being used; but these died out at the end of the 2nd

millennium which also marks the spread of the

Phoenician alphabet (Sass, 1988, 162).

Figure 8: Diagram of Semitic languages (after Huehnergard 2011)

36

Figure 9: Phases of Phoenician script

In fact, Phoenician had regional variations; for instance Byblos and Cyprus had individual

dialects. The standard dialect used in official affairs was that of Sidon and Tyre (Markoe 2005,

109). The fact that different dialects existed might be linked to the political independence of the

cities of the central Levantine coast. It is actually an important thing to consider when talking

about identity because it shows that while a common language existed, so did regional

differences, which emphasizes the fragmentary nature of the “Phoenician” coast. Moreover, I also

link the development of the alphabet itself to this independence of the city-states, in that it

resulted in a lesser need for centralized political and economic structures. The alphabet was a

technological innovation that greatly facilitated communication and daily use of writing. This

must have improved the degree of literacy at the time, which also explains why so many

alphabets start developing then, and why they spread towards the West. People naturally adopted

the system that was easier to learn (Joffe 2002, 435; Sass 1988, 168). As it became simpler to

communicate in writing, it is likely that more independent businesses started developing because

it meant that they could keep their own records and did not need to refer to a higher more literate

institution or power to regulate things for them. Therefore, this is also linked to the spread of

“Phoenician” culture in the Mediterranean as the central Levantine Iron Age population exported

not only crafted goods but also a new communication technology.

In terms of context of use of language, we are faced with the problem that most of the written

evidence is now lost. In fact, the writing medium changed at the same time as the script did, and

more perishable materials such as papyrus started to be used (Markoe 2005, 110). Therefore, the

37

only surviving texts from the region are the ones that were engraved in stone and some potsherds

with single letters indicating their former contents or owners (Markoe 2005, 110). These

surviving inscriptions (excluding the ones from the Punic world and Cyprus) include some stelae

from Tyre, the Ahiram and Batno’am sarcophagi (Byblos), the Tabnit and Eshmunazar

sarcophagi (Sidon), the Eshmun babies (a collection of statues from the temple of Eshmun in

Bustan-el-Sheikh), some unprovenanced arrowheads, a funerary inscription from Tartous (near

Arwad), and a now lost stone inscription of Bodashtart (Bustan-el-Sheikh). Most of these are

votive, commemorative, or funerary texts. Historical sources from the Classical period prove that

archives and such documents did exist, but that they were not written in durable materials

(Markoe 2005, 110). This is an interesting point because it shows that the stone inscriptions were

deliberately written to last, and that the people who wrote them were conscious of their contexts.

An interesting example to illustrate this is the case of the Bodashtart inscription. This inscription

was recorded in photographs in the 1960s. It is located somewhere in the region of the Awwali

River, which runs near the Eshmun temple in Bustan-el-Sheikh. It is dated to the 6th

century

BCE, and is a dedicatory inscription that says that Bodashtart made important building works on

the site of the Eshmun temple, probably having to do with water management (Xella and Zamora

2004, 295). It is interesting because Bodashtart was not a king by heredity, and therefore this

inscription serves a purpose of legitimization (Xella and Zamora 2004, 294). Thus, this example

shows that the inscriptions set in stone (literally) were written with a specific agenda and were

actually meant to last.

IV. Synthesis

What can be gathered from the evidence about text and pottery is that, in both cases, something

new happens in the Iron Age. However, these new developments are not of a sudden nature, as

both bichrome pottery and the invention of the alphabet have deep roots in phenomena that had

been happening since the Late Bronze Age at least. In addition to this, both the development of

the alphabet and the evolution of many pottery shapes and decorative styles happened gradually

over time. This implies continuity in terms of population, as one might expect a sharper break in

material culture if a whole new population group was to be introduced. I do not disagree with the

fact that “Phoenician” pottery and language are very recognizable and specific to the Iron Age,

but I think that it is a result of natural internal developments rather than that of a population shift.

Moreover, going back to the stereotype about the alphabet being a “Phoenician” invention,

38

although we have seen that it is not the earliest one technically speaking; it is likely that this

conceived opinion is a result of the Phoenician alphabet’s exportation throughout the region, as

well as the fact that it formed the basis for the Greek alphabet. Therefore, like many of the

commodities we have previously encountered, its fame is due to its widespread availability, thus

generating stereotypes.

In terms of time, it seems that no new “Phoenician” identity was created and that it was a

continuation from the Late Bronze Age, at least in terms of pottery and language. It is spatially

that the picture is more complicated. First, there is some fragmentation on a regional level; and

while the overall picture seems to be quite unified; if we look more closely, we can see that there

are variations between sites, especially between the Northern and Southern parts of the central

Levantine coast. This is illustrated in the different dialects of Phoenician language, but also in the

fact that there is more of a foreign trend in the pottery from the South, meaning that the pottery

from Southern sites looks more similar to Aegean and Cypriote pottery, at least in the Early Iron

Age. To complicate things even further, there is a lot of amalgamation with material culture from

Cyprus and Palestine, especially in terms of pottery in the South. Anderson argues that this “must

be interpreted as a mutually shared economic fashion rather than a cultural or ethnic indicator”

(Anderson 1990, 41), which I agree with given that this amalgamation is almost exclusive to

pottery. However, rather than providing answers to questions we were previously asking

ourselves, this raises new ones, concerning the boundaries of “Phoenicia”. Is the region between

Sarepta and Dor a buffer zone between two identity groups to the North and South of it? If so,

can it still be considered as part of “Phoenicia” or should it be taken separately? These are all

complicated topics, which need to consider factors such as the political independence of city-

states, other forms of material culture, and the fact that the state of research is far superior in the

South. Therefore, this chapter has provided some answers when it comes to temporal definition

of “Phoenician” identity, but has raised many more in terms of geographic delineation.

39

Chapter 5: Believing

I. Introduction

Having considered material culture in terms of production and consumption, we will now move

on to a different manifestation of it; that is the material culture of rituals, religion, and death.

Religious beliefs and ritualistic practices are an important domain of expression and identity, and

hence, the aim of this chapter will be to look at their material aspect. Moving away from

“standard” material culture such as pottery or metal objects, we will now be focusing on the

material culture of the supernatural. A new limitation we face here is that this concept is trickier

to interpret than ordinary production centers or domestic contexts, because of the scarcity of

textual information about this (in the case of the central Levantine coast in the Iron Age) and also

because there is no real understanding of what it meant from an emic perspective. However, one

must keep in mind that this material culture was still produced and used by the living population

of the central Levantine coast, the same population that produced and used all the materials

discussed above. Therefore, while it is true that we should proceed more carefully here, the same

questions will be asked and the same answers will be sought, the main one being: is there

anything spatially or temporally distinctive about the material culture of religion, rituals, and

death on the central Levantine coast during the Iron Age? This chapter will tackle this question

by looking at three main aspects: religious architecture, funerary practices, and sarcophagi types.

Before moving on to material culture proper, I would like to briefly discuss “Phoenician”

religion. According to the information gathered from various textual sources, there seems to be

continuity between the deities worshipped in the Bronze Age and those worshipped in the Iron

Age, as many of them are derived from older Mesopotamian gods. These deities were also

worshipped all over the Levant, the exception to this being the rise of Judaism in the South

(Markoe 2005, 115); and therefore the “Phoenician” coast is not in isolation with regards to this

aspect. Most important cities had two chief deities, a male and a female one (Markoe 2005, 116).

While these gods are not the same for every city, they share certain attributes (Clifford 1990, 56).

However, this tradition of having a city-god goes back to the Bronze Age, where cities in

Mesopotamia also had their chief deities, often the equivalents of Levantine ones. The distinction

comes with the increasing importance of certain deities such as Eshmun or Astarte in the first

millennium BCE (Markoe 2005, 116). However, simply considering this would not be enough to

40

speak of a specifically “Phoenician” religious identity. Therefore, in terms of religion in the strict

pantheonic sense, the central Levantine coast merges into preexisting regional patterns. However,

the material culture should provide more evidence as to whether or not this trend is true for

everything in the domain of beliefs.

II. Religious architecture

It is quite an arduous task to try and track changes in temple architecture from the Late Bronze

Age until the end of the Iron Age as there is no excavated religious building with a sequence that

covers this whole period to this day. More so, no major temples have been discovered in the

major cities of the central Levantine coast for the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages (Mierse 2012,

117). We therefore need to rely on evidence from smaller sites to cover for this period. The

temple of Sarepta was a relatively small (about 18 m²) rectangular building discovered at the

edge of the industrial area. Its walls were lined with benches that must have been occupied with

votive offerings in the two phases during which it was in use (8th

and 7th

centuries BCE). Most of

these offerings were recovered around a pillar at the center of the back wall, which was probably

a libation stone (Mierse 2012, 114). Tell Sukas also housed a number of small shrines, but

contrarily to those at Sarepta, these were spacious enough to include a large number of people,

which may testify for different practices (Mierse 2012, 136).

However, the lack of open space in Sarepta may have come from a lack of space in general, as

the temple was built inside the city. In fact, later temples such as the temple of Eshmun in

Bustan-el-Sheikh and the temple of Amrit do possess this feature of openness and are in fact

monumentalized versions of the shrines of Tell Sukas (Mierse 2012, 147). Chronologically, the

temple of Amrit dates back to the 8th

or 7th

centuries BCE, and is therefore contemporary with the

temple of Sarepta. However, this temple is much larger (almost 250 m²), and has a different plan.

It has a portico encircling a square courtyard, which was assumed to be filled with water, and at

the center of which lies an Egyptianized cella. The closest city to this sanctuary was Arwad,

about 6km to the North. The proximity to an important city is a property shared by the temple of

Eshmun, which lies about 2km North of Sidon. The oldest phase of this sanctuary dates back to

the 6th

century BCE and its newest buildings are from the Hellenistic period. The only remain

from the oldest phase is a monumental podium on which the temple once stood. Reconstructions

by Stucky suggest that two temples originally stood on this podium, an older Levantine one with

41

an in antis plan; and a later one built like a small Greek temple on an extension of the podium,

and with Persian columns in the cella. The in antis temple plan was a typical trend which was

attested since the Middle Bronze Age all across the Levant. In its most basic form, it consists of a

long rectangular building with a projecting entrance, where two freestanding columns are

sometimes located. Figure 10 shows all five temples mentioned in this section, and we can see

that while all of them have a rectangular plan, only the old temple from Eshmun (the one in a

horizontal axis) actually fits the description of a typical Levantine temple.

Figure 10: Left to right: the temple of Sarepta (after Pritchard 1978), the temple of Amrit (after Dunand and Saliby 1985), the temple of Tell Sukas (after Riis 1970), and the temples and altar on the podium of the Eshmun sanctuary (after Stucky 2005)

What the evidence tells us is that there seems to be no typical kind of temple plan from the Iron

Age on the central Levantine coast, and that a lot of factors seem to be affecting their

architecture. Although there are some common features, nothing is really distinctive about these

temples and there is not much matter that allows us to group them in a single type. In strictly

architectural terms, they all seem to be derived from older examples. However, we can still see a

trend in that large monumental sanctuaries such as the Eshmun temple and the Amrit temple are

built outside the main cities, which hosted smaller temples, most probably due to lack of space.

An exception to this would be the temple of Melqart in Tyre, which is reported in historical

sources for having been a significant monument of the city. However, the exact location of this

temple is not known and it may be that it was not located on the island proper. This break

between cities and sanctuaries is a distinctive characteristic that appears on the central Levantine

coast during the Iron Age, as older sites as had their main temples located on the acropolis, in the

vicinity of palaces.

42

III. Cemeteries and burial practices

Another important aspect of supernatural material culture is the way people deal with death,

because it can be considered as a “social mechanism for building social memories and identities”

(Aubet 2010, 151), where the rituals and practices performed for the dead are actually a way for

the living to express a sense of belonging. The cemetery of Tyre-al Bass is the most complete

case study of an Iron Age cemetery on the central Levantine coast, and hence will provide the

basis for this section.

First and foremost, it should be noted that this site has an occupation sequence with relatively

little change through time in term of grave goods (Aubet 2010, 155). It covers the entire Iron

Age, from 1200 BCE3, and is continuously in use until the end of the Roman period, though only

the Iron Age levels will be of interest here. The first shift in these practices is recorded at the end

of the early Iron Age (around 900 BCE), when simple inhumation burials are replaced by

cremation burials (Aubet 2010, 153). Inhumation graves are also attested in the Late Bronze Age

cemetery of Sidon-Dakerman (Saidah 2004), although not much is known about the Iron Age

layers of this site. Concerning the cremation burials at Tyre, there were three types of graves:

single urn burial, which was the rarest type and very rich in grave goods; double urn burial, with

one urn containing the ashes and another containing the bones that had not completely burned

down, this type being the most common; and finally clusters of double urns, in spaces delineated

by pebbles and associated with family groups (Aubet 2010, 146-148). Most of the graves

contained a standard assemblage of pots consisting of a mushroom lip jug, a trefoil jug, a flat

plate (covering the urn), and a drinking cup or a bowl (Figure 11) (Aubet 2010, 146). In addition

to this, the communal tombs contain evidence that suggest a funerary meal. Aubet (2010, 154)

proposes the following reconstruction: at the time of cremation, the dead person was cremated,

sometimes with some offerings such as scarabs. Then another purifying fire was lit, which was

followed by a meal after which the cookery was smashed and the tomb closed. The vessels left as

grave goods contained traces of wine, honey, meat, and fish; and they are probably a way to

include the dead in the funerary feast. This practice is attested at many other sites including Sidon

(in the Late Bronze Age layers and not exactly in the same kind of process but still a funerary

meal) (Doumet-Serhal 2010, 121) Byblos, Qatna, Ugarit, and sites in the Southern Levant.

3 Note that the very early Iron Age levels cannot be excavated because they are now embedded in the bedrock due

to action from the sea.

43

Therefore, it is not geographically limited to “Phoenicia”, although it is seen in the Biblical texts

as a foreign practice (Aubet 2010, 153).

There are other questions raised by the cemetery of Tyre, such as where does the shift between

inhumation and cremation come from? It is quite a significant change in practice and only lasts

about 200 years. It

could be linked to a

change in population

group, as Tyre was

associated with a

destruction phase,

but the dates do not

match the time of the

Late Bronze Age

collapse. The fact is,

it seems that the Iron

Age central

Levantine coast did

not have a specific and

common way of burying

people. The Iron Age cemetery of Khalde, South of Beirut, is another example of a cemetery with

mixed inhumation and cremation burials. A proper funerary meal is not attested there but there is

definite evidence for food offerings inside tombs. Therefore, as with the temples, the evidence for

funerary practices is also quite mixed; and although some new trends appear, they cannot be

exclusively attributed to the central Levantine coast.

IV. Sarcophagi

In addition to cremation and inhumation burials, a portion of the Iron Age population of the

central Levantine coast also used sarcophagi. Therefore, the last case study for this chapter will

be an investigation of the sarcophagi from Sidon, Byblos and Arwad (including Amrit). Two

major types of sarcophagi are attested from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: architectural and

anthropoid sarcophagi (Figure 12). The architectural sarcophagi can be plain box-shaped

Figure 11: Typical cremation burial assemblage from Tyre (after Aubet 2010)

44

sarcophagi or “thecas”, which means that they are shaped like a rectangular box with a pyramidal

lid and are similar in aspect to Greek temples. The anthropoid sarcophagi, on the other hand, also

have two styles: an Egyptianizing style and a Hellenicizing style (Elayi and Haykal 1996, 62).

Figure 12: Timeline of sarcophagi from the central Levantine coast

The oldest type of sarcophagi are the plain monolithic architectural ones from the royal tombs of

Byblos, dating back to the Late Bronze Age. These stone sarcophagi were extremely large in size

and they were discontinued in the first millenium BCE (Elayi and Haykal 1996, 62).The “techa”

sarcophagi, as illustrated by the sarcophagus of Batnoam- also from the royal necropolis of

Byblos- appear around the beginning of the 4th

century BCE (Elayi and Haykal 1996, 114). As far

as the anthropoid sarcophagi are concerned, the earliest ones are the Egyptianizing type,

examples of which include the sarcophagi of Eshmunazar and Tabnit from the royal tombs of

Sidon (5th

century BCE). The emergence of this style of sarcophagus in the Levant actually

coincides with its reappearance in Egypt around the same period (Elayi and Haykal 1996, 66).

The transition period between the Egyptian and the Greek types happens somewhere around the

mid-5th

century BCE (Elayi and Haykal 1996, 73). Anthropoid sarcophagi are attested in Arwad,

45

Sidon, and also in Cyprus. In most instances, they are made of stone. However, a group of terra

cotta anthropoid sarcophagi dating back to the 5th

or 6th

century BCE was found in Amrit as well.

Terra cotta sarcophagi were not a common find on the central Levantine coast, but there are

examples from Egypt and Southern Palestine. However, these instances are about a millennium

older than the ones from Amrit, which are probably a derivation from the stone anthropoid

sarcophagi rather than the Egyptian and Palestinian terra cotta ones. Moreover, it is likely that

terra cotta sarcophagi were common but that they have not survived due to the fragility of the

material. This argument is reinforced by the fact that terra cotta sarcophagi may be a

development of Middle and Late Bronze Age jar burial and of the concept of funerary masks

(Elayi and Haykal 1996, 111).

Therefore, there is no real uniformity in the types of sarcophagi from the Levantine coast,

although there are many parallels and similar forms. The sarcophagi manifest the same trend as

the temples and the funerary practices, in that there is a lot of disparity between the different

types, despite significant common stylistic elements such as the Egyptianizing features attested

both in Amrit on terra cotta sarcophagi and in Sidon on stone ones. In terms of time though, there

is a significant gap of 500 years during which the only known sarcophagus from the central

Levantine coast is the sarcophagus of Ahiram from Byblos (11th

century BCE). This sarcophagus

does not fall into any of the categories mentioned above, and it is a particular case because it is

believed that it has been reused. Moreover, this case does not fill the Early Iron Age gap or

explain the significant increase in sarcophagus use after 500 BCE. It is also interesting that there

are no known sarcophagi from Tyre-al Bass, and therefore it cannot be taken for granted that

sarcophagi were simply an expression of higher status. Therefore, one must ask: what are the

implications of this in terms of “Phoenician” identity?

V. Synthesis

A common conclusion that can be drawn from the pantheon, burial rites, religious architecture,

and sarcophagi is that while there are some common elements linking the findings together, there

is nothing strikingly unique about them. Moreover, there are some clear discrepancies between

some sites and others, and sometimes even within the same site. Indeed, no clear temple plan can

be immediately labelled as “Phoenician” because the evidence at hand is quite disparate. In terms

of burial practices, it is even more so given that some sites show evidence for cremation, others

46

for simple inhumation in pits, and others for inhumation in sarcophagi. In Sidon, there is even

evidence for a case of mummification (Elayi and Haykal 1996, 116), though this is probably an

exceptional example. This begs the following question: If we assume that cultic practices in

general can be indicative of identity, and if finding evidence for the same cultic practices across a

large space means that this space was probably occupied by the same population group, then

what do heterogeneous findings tell us? Does the fact that so many different practices exist mean

that there were that many groups of people? I believe that while these examples cannot be relied

upon in order to claim the existence of a “Phoenician” identity, they do not necessarily represent

different ethnic populations. As has been established, there was a lot of cultural interaction in this

region at that time, with some groups migrating into the Levant from the Aegean and other

places. Moreover, the influence of Egypt on the Levantine coast was attested since the Bronze

Age, as indicated by many finds at Byblos. Therefore, influence of other groups could explain a

lot of the variations in material culture, from sarcophagi to temple styles. It could also reflect

different social groups, especially in the case of burial practices and sarcophagi. As we have seen,

there were no children buried in the cemetery of Tyre, which must mean that they were

considered socially different. On the other hand, while supernatural material culture may be the

aspect with the most discrepancies, we must not forget that they exist in other instances, such as

pottery. Therefore, they cannot be solely explained by foreign influences and cross-cultural

contacts; and it seems more and more evident that the central Levantine coast was very

fragmented in terms of spatial patterning of the material culture.

These variations could also mean that identity cannot only be spotted by uniform material

culture; and while there are indeed a lot of dissimilarities and no real uniqueness, the material

culture of religion, rituals, and death still has some sort of common ground and is not absolutely

random. This is reflected in the fact that every city had two chief deities, in the act of funerary

feasting, or in that of using sarcophagi. Probably the strongest indicator for a temporally specific

aspect is the idea of having two main city gods, which incidentally is more of a historico-

theological fact than proper material culture. Therefore, material culture in terms of burials and

temple architecture cannot serve as a categorical marker for “Phoenician” identity, if indeed there

is one. The reason for this is that it is not homogenous enough, and more so not distinctive

enough from everything around it, in both the temporal and the spatial dimensions. It actually

puts the Levantine coast in a broader framework from which it does not really detach itself. This

47

is interesting compared to the material culture of production and consumption, which have cases

so particular that stereotypes were generated out of them. In the case of supernatural material

culture, there were barely any stereotypes to provide a basis as to what may seem typical, and this

is because there is nothing really typical about it. However, this fact does not disprove the

existence of a “Phoenician” identity, because it cannot be taken separately from the previous

findings.

48

Chapter 6: Conclusions

The aim of this paper was to question unchallenged ideas about the “Phoenicians”, and to

determine whether or not the identity of this population could be defined through their material

culture. In order to answer this, we tackled some of the most prominent stereotypes relating to the

“Phoenicians” in three main domains: craftsmanship, consumption, and material culture of the

supernatural. While these spheres have yielded slightly different syntheses, some general patterns

still emerge. The first conclusion we can draw from our analysis is that more research is needed,

especially when it comes to studying domestic contexts and objects. In fact, a lot of my examples

had to be based on finer material culture because of the scarcity/unavailability of published

matter on the subject of more mundane artefacts. Hopefully, in the near future, the research done

in the very well documented Punic world will be an influence and example for work being done

in the East as well, which should provide great comparative materials and open the door for even

deeper investigation of “Phoenician” identity. Meanwhile, the rest of my conclusions have to stay

based on what is already known from the central Levantine coast.

Another common conclusion is the fact that all the stereotypes I have investigated come from

material culture that has been exported. From the alphabet to purple dye to precious ivories, etc,

everything renowned for being specifically “Phoenician” was something that traveled with the

people. It is extremely interesting considering that it is the geographical spread of these objects

that made them cross temporal barriers. Moreover, while none of the stereotypically

“Phoenician” elements of their material culture was actually invented in the central Levantine

coast during the Iron Age, their renown make it seems so. This is probably the critical point

where facts become stereotypes, but it also highlights another relevant issue. It is not a

coincidence that these particular objects became famous, and there must be some degree of

expertise in their production on the central Levantine coast during the Iron Age. This is linked to

the idea of exportation because these goods could not have been sold in a Mediterranean-wide

market if they were not well-crafted. A stereotype which we have not really dealt with in this

paper is the one saying that the “Phoenicians” were great tradesmen and navigators, which again

ties back to this idea of the spread of the material culture which generated a significant

predefined image of this culture. In chapter 2, we mentioned how this image was created notably

by the Greeks, who saw the “Phoenicians” as their “other” and used it to define their own

49

identity. The findings we have made here support this argument as the picture depicted by the

stereotypes, generating from exported material culture, is one seen from the outside.

Naturally, the next question arising from this is also one we asked ourselves at the beginning of

this paper: were the “Phoenicians” simply an expression of otherness coming from other cultures

which then got magnified by stereotypes or is there actually a perceptible sense of identity from

within the central Levantine coast in the Iron Age? With hardly any literary evidence from the

inside, this question will remain partially unanswered. However, evidence from the categories of

material culture studied in the previous chapters provides us with some clues as to how to solve

this problem. In terms of time, and with regards to the idea of the “Phoenicians” being a

population group different than the Bronze Age settlers of the central Levantine coast, I think it

can be safely said that this hypothesis is invalid. In fact, there is almost nothing in the material

culture that does not have solid anchorage in the Late Bronze age at the latest, the only exception

being the cremation burials at Tyre al-Bass.4Therefore, the “Phoenicians” are probably

descendants of the Late Bronze Age population of the central Levantine coast, who became

notorious when they started wandering around the Mediterranean and trading specialist products.

However, spatially, the picture is not as smooth. The material culture shows a lot of

dissimilarities between sites, especially in the cases of funerary practices, dye industries, and

script. Nonetheless, despite the fact that every site has some unique particularities, the main

patterns in material culture are common to every site. For instance, a red-slipped vessel is equally

likely to orginiate from any of the main sites mentioned. The fact that this uniformity exists is a

strong argument for the existence of a population sharing a certain set of techniques, beliefs,

linguistic characteristics, and by extension, culture and identity on the central Levantine coast

during the Iron Age.

On the other hand, it is still difficult to determine the limits of the “Phoenician” homeland. To the

West and the East, the Mediterranean Sea and the Lebanon mountains provide natural borders.

The Northern boundary is also relatively easy to determine, and is situated just North of Arwad,

where the territory of Ugarit, whose material culture is very different from that of the cities of the

central Levantine coast, starts. It is to the South where this is more complicated to define.

4 However, as long as the earlier levels at the site cannot be reached, we will have to assume that this is a particular

change that happens in Iron Age II.

50

Usually, the region around Dor is thought to be the southernmost part of “Phoenicia”. However,

Dor itself has a very mixed material culture, with a level of influence both from Cyprus and

Philistia that surpasses that of any other site north of it. I believe that this phenomenon is

explicable given the proximity of this site to Philistine ones. In my opinion, there is no real

border to the South because the material culture changes gradually over there. This makes sense

since “Phoenicia” was not a unified political entity, and therefore there does not need to be clear

cut differences between “Phoenician” sites and neighboring ones. It is a natural tendency that

geographically close entities are more similar than ones that are further apart, which would

explain the case of the Southern area.

However, it is also true that Dor, being located in modern Israel, has been dealt with differently

than the sites in Lebanon. In fact, the proportion of excavated in Israel is far superior to that of

excavated site in Lebanon, and the former are often better documented and published. This is a

result of the countries’ respective policies in term of archaeology, as it is difficult to obtain

excavations permit in Lebanon, whereas Israel grants more liberty to foreign institutions.

Moreover, the latter also benefited from the interest in Biblical archaeology, which triggered

many projects in the region. One of the consequences of this is that we then fall into a scholarship

predetermined by modern boundaries and by the different agendas of institutions and political

bodies. There are differences between the material culture of Lebanon in the Iron Age and that of

Palestine, but these differences are likely to be emphasized by the way in which the results are

treated. Hence, it becomes tricky to distinguish between ancient and modern boundaries,

especially since they are not determined by the same factors. One might wonder then if modern

boundaries are determined by ancient ones, or vice versa.

It is a well-known fact that archaeology often serves to justify modern political agendas,

especially in the Near East (Seeden 1994, 146). Much of what has been done in Israel/Palestine

was to find evidence for an Israelite culture and justify the Israeli occupation. However, the case

of Lebanese people who claim that they have “Phoenician” origins is different. It has been used

politically, but not in such a major way, and it is mainly an identity crisis. In fact, most people in

modern Lebanon who call themselves “Phoenician” are Maronite Christians rejecting the idea of

Arabism. In a way, this leads us back to where we started, and the question of “Phoenician”

identity. How can people decide that they are “Phoenician” if they cannot define what it means in

51

an Iron Age context, before extrapolating and using it in the present? It seems as though

“Phoenician” today is the otherness to Arab, just as it was to Greek in the Iron Age. So what is

actually “Phoenician”? Can we drop the quotation marks and actually define it precisely through

the material culture? It would seem as though this issue raises more questions than it provides

answers. With the exception of pottery and script, it seems that the things that are ascribed a

“Phoenician” nature are those that are roughly assumed to originate from the central Levantine

coast, the main examples being metal bowls and ivories. In these instances, “Phoenician” is a

designation for things of uncertain precise origin. There is a high possibility that they actually

came from the central Levantine coast, and it is not necessarily wrong to assume so. However, it

is fallacious to base the definition of “Phoenician” on such objects, and to assume that they were

representative of all the population of the central Levantine coast. It is also important to

remember that this population did not call itself “Phoenician”, so why should we? After all, can

we impose an identity on a group that was not conscious of it?

In summary, what we have gathered is that the Iron Age population of the central Levantine coast

is directly descended from the Iron Age, and had close links with the Philistines in the South,

which led both to a mix in material culture and a blurring of boundaries, especially given the

modern divisions in this region. It has been stereotyped, especially with its material culture that

was spread around the Mediterranean. In the homeland though, this material culture exhibits both

uniformity on a large scale, and some dissimilarities between sites, which probably has to do with

the fact that they were independent cities. Therefore, I would define “Phoenician” identity as a

Greek invention, emphasized by stereotypes and adopted in modern times. It is also slightly

anachronistic in the sense that the term was invented in the Iron Age, but the culture goes back to

the Late Bronze Age. This is not the identity that the inhabitants of the Iron Age central

Levantine coast related to. However, there is undeniable common ground to the material culture

of the former inhabitants of all these cities, which justifies the use of a term to designate them as

a group. Nonetheless, “Phoenician” identity should not be reduced to its stereotypical definition,

as it is much more complex than that and varies regionally, just like most modern identities.

52

Bibliography

Amadasi Guzzo, M.G. 1995 “Les inscriptions” in Krings, V. La civilisation Phénicienne et

Punique Leiden : Brill. 19-28.

Anderson, W.P. 1987 “The kilns and workshops of Sarepta (Sarafand), Lebanon” Berytus 35:41-

66.

Anderson, W.P.1990 “The beginnings of Phoenician pottery: vessel shape, style, and ceramic

technology in the early phases of the Phoenician Iron Age” Bulletin of the American

School of Oriental Research 279:35-54.

Anderson, W.P.1990 “The pottery industry at Phoenician Sarepta (Sarafand, Lebanon), with

parallels to kilns from other east Mediterranean sites” in McGovern, P.E. Cross-

Craft and Cross-Cultural Interactions in Ceramics IV Westerville: The American

Ceramic Society: 197-216.

Aubet, M.E. 2012 « La nécropole Phénicienne de Tyr-Al Bass : idéologie et société d’après les

données archéologiques » Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaise Hors-

Série 8 :45-54.

Baines, J. 1999 “On Wenamun as a Literary Text” In: Assman, J., and Blumenthal, E. Literatur

und Politik im Pharaonischen und Ptolemäischen Ägypten: Vorträge der Tagung

zum Gedenken an Georges Posener 5.-10. September 1996 in Leipzig 209-233.

Cairo: Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale.

Belmonte-Avilés 2003 Cuadernos de Arqueologia Mediterranea 9.

Bikai, P. 1978 The Pottery of Tyre Warminster : Aris & Phillips.

Bikai, P. 1992 “The Phoenicians” In: Ward, W.A., and Joukowsky, M. The Crisis Years: the 12th

century B.C. from Beyond the Danube to the Tigris Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/ Hunt

132-141.

Ciasca, A. 1995 “La céramologie” in Krings, V. La civilisation Phénicienne et Punique Leiden :

Brill. 137-147.

Clifford, R. 1990 “Phoenician religion” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research

279:55-64.

53

Dever, W. 1992 “The Late Bronze-Early Iron I in Syria-Palestine” In: Ward, W.A., and

Joukowsky, M. The Crisis years: the 12th Century B.C. from Beyond the Danube to

the Tigris Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/ Hunt 99-110.

Diaz-Andreu, M., Lucy, S., Babic, S., and Edwards, D. 2005 The Archaeology of Identity New-

York: Routledge.

Doumet-Serhal, C. 2010 “Sidon during the Bronze Age: burials, rituals and feasting grounds at

the "college site"” Near Eastern Archaeology 73(2-3):114-129.

Dunand M., and Saliby N. 1985 Le temple d'Amrith dans la Pérée d’Aradus Paris : Bibliothèque

Archéologique et Historique.

Elayi, J. 1983 « Les cités Phéniciennes et l’empire Assyrien à l’époque d’Assurbanipal » Revue

d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 77 (1) :45-58.

Elayi, J., and Haykal, M. R. 1996 Nouvelles Découvertes sur les Usages Funéraires des

Phéniciens d'Arwad Paris : Gabalda.

Feldman, M. 2014 The Inscription of Identity and Memory on Iron Age "Phoenician" Metal

Bowls, c. 1000-600 BCE [Lecture at the Joukowsky Institute] April 7, 2014.

Accessed from:

http://brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/video/feldman/embed.html

[10/07/2014]

Frankfort, H. 1954 The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient London: Penguin.

Gernez,G. 2008 « A new study of metal weapons from Byblos : preliminary work » 5th

International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East :73-88.

Gilboa, A. 1999 “The dynamics of Phoenician bichrome pottery, a view from Tell Dor” Bulletin

of the American School of Oriental Research 316:1-22.

Gilboa, A. 2005 “Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician coast: a

reconciliation: an interpretation of Sikila (SKL) material culture” Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 337: 47-78.

Gilboa, A. 2005 “Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast: a

reconciliation: an interpretation of Sikila (SKL) material culture” Bulletin of the

American School of Oriental Research 337: 47-78.

Grace, V. 1956 "The Canaanite jar" in Weinberg, S. The Aegean and the Near East: Studies

presented to Hetty Goldman on the occasion of her seventy-fifth birthday Locust

Valley: University of Michigan. 80-109.

54

Guckelsberger, M. 2013 Purple Murex Dye in Antiquity (unpublished thesis).

Hall J. 1997 Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hates, S., and Hodos, T. 2010 Material culture and Social Identities in the Ancient World

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hermann, G., and Laidlaw, S. 2013 “Assyrian Nimrud and the Phoenicians” Archaeology

International 16:84-95.

Hermann, G., and Laidlaw, S. 2013 Ivories from Nimrud London: The British Institute for the

Study of Iraq.

Hodder, I. 2012 Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things

Oxford: Wiley.

Homsy, G. 2003 “Des céramiques de l’Age du Fer provenant de Byblos-Jbeil” Bulletin

d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaise 7 :245-279.

Huehnergard, J. 2011 “Proto-Semitic language and culture” in The American Heritage Dictionary

of the English Language, Fifth Edition Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Insoll, T. 2007 The Archaeology of Identity: a Reader New-York: Routledge.

Jamieson, A.S. 2001 “The Iron Age pottery from Tell Beirut 1995” in: Sagona, C. Ceramics of

the Phoenician-Punic world: Collected Essays. Leuven: Peeters. 7-226

Jidejian, N. 1971 Byblos through the Ages Beirut: Dar el Machreq.

Joffe, A. 2002 “The rise of secondary states in the Iron Age Levant” Journal of the Economic and

Social History of the Orient 45 (4): 425-467.

Johnson, M. 2010 Archaeological Theory. An Introduction Oxfrod: Wiley-Blackwell.

Joukowsky, M. 1992 The Heritage of Tyre: Essays on the History, Archaeology, and

Preservation of Tyre Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co.

MacSweeney, N. 2009 “Beyond ethnicity: the overlooked diversity of group identities” Journal

of Mediterranean Archaeology 22 (1):101-126.

Markoe G. 2003 “Phoenician metalwork abroad: a question of export or on-site production?” in

Stampolidis, N. and Karageorghis, V. (eds) Ploes. Sea Routes … Interconnections in

the Mediterranean, c. 1600-600 BC, Procedings of the International Symposium

held in Rethymnon, Crete September 29th-October 2, 2002:209-216.

Markoe, G. 2000 Phoenicians London: British Museum Press.

55

McGovern, P.E., and Michel, R.H. 1990 “Royal purple dye: the chemical reconstruction of the

ancient Mediterranean industry” Acc. Chem. Res. 23(5):152-158.

Mierse, W.E. 2012 Temples and Sanctuaries from the Early Iron Age Levant: Recovery After

Collapse Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Negbi, O. 1974 “The continuity of the Canaanite bronze work of the Late Bronze Age into the

Early Iron Age” Tel Aviv 1:159-172.

Negib, M., and Moskowitz, S. 1966 “The "foundation deposits" or "offering deposits" of Byblos”

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 184:21-26.

Niemeyer, H.G. 2000 “The early Phoenician city-states on the Mediterranean: archaeological

elements for their description” In: Hansen, M.H. A Comparative Study of Thirty

City-State Cultures: an Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre

Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters 89-115.

Niemeyer, H.G. 2004 “The Phoenicians and the birth of a multinational Mediterranean society”

In: Rollinger, R., Ulf, C., and Schnegg, K. Commerce and Monetary Systems in the

Ancient World: Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction: Proceedings of the

Fifth Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage

Project, held in Innsbruck, Austria, October 3rd - 8th 2002 Stuttgart: Steiner 245-

256.

Núñez Calvo, F.J. 2001 “Tyre-al Bass: potters and cemeteries” in: Sagona, C. Ceramics of the

Phoenician-Punic world: Collected Essays. Leuven: Peeters. 7-226

Oded, B. 1974 “The Phoenician Cities and the Assyrian Empire in the Time of Tiglath-pileser

III” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 90 (1):38-49.

Pritchard, J.B.1978 Recovering Sarepta, a Phoenician City: Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon,

1969-1974, by the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania Princeton,

Guilford: Princeton University Press.

Reese, D.S. 2010 “Shells from Sarepta (Lebanon) and East Mediterranean purple dye production”

Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 10(1):113-141.

Riis P. 1970 The North-East Sanctuary and the First Settling of Greeks in Syria and Palestine

Copenhagen: Publications of the Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia.

56

Riva, C., and Vella, N. 2006 Debating Orientalization: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Change

in the Ancient Mediterranean. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology: Vol.10.

London: Equinox.

Saidah, R. 2004 Sidon et la Phénicie Méridionale au Bronze Récent Beirut : Institut Français du

Proche-Orient.

Sass, B. 1988 The Genesis of the Alphabet and its Development in the Second Millennium BC

Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Schreiber, N. 2003 The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age Boston: Brill.

Seeden, H. 1994 “Search for the missing link: archaeology and the public in Lebanon” In:

Gathercole, P., and Lowenthal, D. The Politics of the Past London: Routledge 141-

159.

Sherratt, S. 2005 “Ethnicities, 'ethnonyms' and archaeological labels. Whose ideologies and

whose identities?” In: Clarke, J. Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission

and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean Oxford: Oxbow 25-38.

Sherratt, S. 2010 “Greeks and Phoenicians: perceptions of trade and traders in the early first

millennium BC” In: Bauer, A., and Agbe-Davies, A. Social Archaeologies of Trade

and Exchange: Exploring Relationships Among People, Places, and Things Walnut

Creek: Left Coast Press.119-142.

Sofaer, J. 2007 Material Identities Oxford: Blackwell.

Sommer, M. 2010 “Shaping Mediterranean Economy and Trade: Phoenician Cultural Identities in

the Iron Age” in Hates, S., and Hodos, T. Material culture and social identities in

the ancient world Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:114-137.

Stieglitz, R. 1990 “The geopolitics of the Phoenician littoral in the Early Iron Age” Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 279: 9-12.

Stucky, R. 2005 Das Eschmun-Heiligtum von Sidon. Architektur und Inschriften Reinach :

Birkh user.

Suter, C. 2011 “Images, tradition, and meaning: the Samaria and other Levantine ivories from the

Iron Age” in Frame, G., Leichty, E., Sonik, K.,Tigay, J., and Tinney, S. A Common

Cultural Heritage: Studies on Mesopotamia and the Biblical World in Honor of

Barry L. Eichler Maryland: CDL Press.

Tsirkin, J.B. 2001 « Cannan, Phoenicia, Sidon » Aula Orientalis 19(2):271-279.

57

Wilde, W.R. 1836 “On the purple dye of Tyre” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy

1836(1):293-295.

Winter, I.J. 1976 “Phoenician and North Syrian ivory carving in historical context: questions of

style and distribution” Iraq 38(1):1-22.

Xella, P., and Zamora, J.A. 2004 « Une nouvelle inscription de Bodashtart, roi de Sidon, sur la

rive de Nahr el Awwali près de Bustan es-Seh » Bulletin d’Archéologie et

d’Architecture Libanaise 8 :273-300.

Ziderman, I. 1990 “"BA" guide to artifacts: seashells and ancient purple dyeing” The Biblical

Archaeologist 53(2):98-101.