Phœnicia, the Φοινίκη of the Greeks, the Phœnice, or (in rare cases) Phœnicia of the Romans, was a tract of country, lying to the north of Palestine, along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, bounded by that sea westwards, and eastwards extending to the mountain-crests of Bargylus and Lebanon. The limits of the tract northward and southward are variously stated by ancient authorities, and no doubt varied at different periods; but modern researches seem to indicate that the actual Phœnician occupation did not extend beyond Laodicea (Latakia) on the north and Acre, or at the furthest Carmel, on the south. This would give the coast-line a length of about 200, or, counting main indentations, of 230 miles—a fair mean between the 120 miles of Mr Grote (History of Greece, vol. iii. p. 354) and the 300 of some writers. The width between the coast and the mountain-ridges of Bargylus and Lebanon varies from 8 or 10 to 25 or 30 miles, perhaps averaging 15 miles. The area of Phœnicia proper may thus be reckoned at about 3000 sq. m. The tract included within these limits is one of a remarkably diversified character. Lofty mountain, steep wooded hill, chalky slope, rich alluvial plain, and sandy shore succeed each other, each having its own charm, which is enhanced by contrast. The sand is confined to a comparatively narrow strip along the seacoast, and to the sites of ancient harbours now filled up. It is exceedingly fine and of excellent siliceous quality, especially in the vicinity of Sidon and at the foot of Mount Carmel. The most remarkable plains are those of Acre, Tyre, Sidon, Beyrout, and Marathus—none of them very extensive, but richly fertile, and capable of producing, under any tolerable system of cultivation, luxuriant crops. From the edges of the plains, and sometimes from the very shore of the sea, rise up chalky slopes or steep rounded hills, which at the present day are partly left to nature and covered with trees and shrubs, partly cultivated and studded with villages. The hilly region forms generally an intermediate tract between the high mountains and the plains; but not unfrequently it commences at the water's edge, and fills with its undulations the entire space, leaving not even a strip of lowland. This is especially the case in the central region between Beyrout and Arka, opposite the highest portion of the Lebanon; and again in the north, between Cape Possidi and Jebili, opposite the more northern part of Bargylus. The hilly region in these places is a broad tract of alternate wooded heights and deep romantic valleys, with streams murmuring amid their shades. Sometimes the hills are cultivated in terraces, on which grow vines and olives, but more often they remain in their pristine condition, clothed with masses of tangled underwood.
From the hilly tract, which increases in elevation as it recedes from the shore, rise the two great mountain-regions, separated by a clearly-marked depression in 34° 35' lat. nearly, down which runs the river Eleutherus. The more northern of the two was known to the ancients as Bargylus, and in modern geography bears the name of the Ansayrieh or Nasariyeh mountain-region. It extends from the Orontes near Antioch to the valley of the Eleutherus, a distance of not less than 100 miles, looking down eastward on the lower Cœle-Syrian valley, and westward on the undulating tract known as 'Northern Phœnicia.' Though not comparable to Lebanon, it is a romantic and picturesque region. The lower spurs towards the west are clothed with olive-grounds and vineyards, or covered with myrtles and rhododendrons; between them are broad open valleys, productive of tobacco and corn. Higher up the scenery becomes wild and bold; forests of fir and pine abound, and creep up the mountain-side, in places almost to the summit; while here and there bare masses of rock protrude themselves, and crag and cliff rise into the clouds that hang about the loftiest summits. But the glory of Phœnicia is Lebanon. Extended in a continuous line for a distance of 130 miles, with an average elevation of from 6000 to 8000 feet, and steepest on its eastern side, it formed a wall against which the waves of eastern invasion naturally broke. The flood of conquest swept along its eastern flank, down the broad vale of the Buka'a, and then over the hills of Galilee; but its frowning precipices and its lofty crest deterred or baffled the invader, and the smiling region between its summit and the Mediterranean was, in the early times at any rate, but rarely traversed by a hostile army. This western region it was which held those inexhaustible stores of forest trees that supplied Phœnicia with her warships and her immense commercial navy; here were the most productive valleys, the vineyards and the olive-grounds; and here, too, were the streams and rills, the dashing cascades, the lovely dells, the deep gorges, and the magnificent cedar-trees which gave her the palm over all the surrounding countries for variety of picturesque scenery. The principal rivers of Phœnicia were, in the north, the Badas or Nahr-el-Melk, 6 miles south of Jebili; the Nahr Amrith, a strong-running stream which reaches the sea a few miles south of Tortosa (Antaradus); the Nahr Kublé, which joins the Nahr Amrith near its mouth; and the Eleutherus or Nahr-el-Kebir, which reaches the sea a little north of Arka. In the central region are the Nahr-el-Berid or river of Orthosia; the Kadisha or river of Tripolis; the Ibrahim or Adonis; the Nahr-el-Kelb or Lycus; the river of Beyrout or
Magoras; and the Damour or Tamyras. Finally, towards the south are the Nahr-el-Auly or Bostrenus; the river of Sidon; the Litany or river of Tyre; the Zaherany or river of Sarepta; and the Belus or river of Acre (Akko). These rivers, except the Litany, rise from the western flank of the mountain-chains near their crest, and run in deep-wooded valleys, at right angles to the axis of the chains, which is from north to south, having short courses, but conveying generally a good body of water. The Litany alone has its source on the eastern flank of the mountains, and, running down the Cœle-Syrian valley between Lebanon and Anti-Libanus for a distance of 60 miles, turns suddenly to the west, and passes by a deep gorge through the roots of Lebanon to the sea. The Phœnician seacoast is but slightly indented, and possesses but few prominent headlands. The most important are Carmel, if that may be reckoned to Phœnicia; the Ras-el-Abiad, 10 miles south of Tyre; the Ras-el-Jajunieh, a little north of Sidon; the Beyrout promontory; and in the north Cape Possidi. Natural harbours were wanting, except where littoral islands offered a protection from the prevalent winds, as at Tyre and Aradus; elsewhere nature provided nothing better than open roadsteads; and the famous harbours of the Phœnicians were all of them the work of art.
The geology of Phœnicia is tolerably simple. Both Bargylus and Lebanon are longitudinal ranges of the early cretaceous limestone, a limestone that is soft and pliable, very easily worked, but wanting the qualities needed for the imitative arts. This simple formation is, however, intruded upon by disturbances of igneous origin, especially in the lower ridges. 'Down many of the valleys run long streams of trap or basalt; occasionally there are dykes of porphyry and greenstone, and then patches of sandstone, before the limestone and flint recur' (Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 634). Some slopes are composed entirely of soft sandstone; many patches are of a hard metallic-sounding trap or porphyry; but the predominant formation is a greasy or powdery limestone, and this is the sole material of the higher ranges. The softness of the general material facilitates the formation of a rapid vegetation and the accumulation of vegetable soil, which, washed down by the rivers, covers the more open valleys and the plains which fringe the coast with an alluvium of the most productive character. Its mountain-regions must always have furnished Phœnicia with an inexhaustible supply of excellent timber—fir, pine, and cedar; the lower slopes of its hills were admirably adapted for the cultivation of the olive and the vine, while its maritime plains were equally fitted for the growth of corn and of almost every kind of fruit and vegetable. In mineral products it may have been deficient; but the sandstone of the Lebanon is often largely impregnated with iron, and some strata towards the southern end of the mountain are said to produce as much as 90 per cent. of pure iron ore. An ochreous earth is also found in the hills above Beyrout, which gives from 50 to 60 per cent. of metal. Coal, too, has been found in the same locality. Finally, the geologist Fraas has recently discovered innumerable traces of amber-digging on the Phœnician coast; whence it may be gathered that rare substances were also in the early times among Phœnician products.
Race and Language.—The Phœnicians have been regarded by some as a nation of Hamitic origin, akin to the Egyptians, chiefly on the ground that Sidon is made a descendant of Ham in the tenth chapter of Genesis (verses 6 and 15). But the evidence of language, of physical type, and of mental characteristics far outweighs this argu- ment, which assumes that Genesis x. is framed on strict ethnographic lines, which is disputable. Hence there is a very general, if not a universal, agreement among the more recent ethnologists that the Phœnicians belonged to the Semitic group (Deutsch, Renan, Socin, Levy, Schröder, &c.). Unless historical grounds can be shown for the belief that a nation at some period of its existence changed its language, the form and type of its speech must be regarded as determining, almost beyond a doubt, its ethnography. Now the Semitic character of the Phœnician language is indisputable. It is so closely akin to Hebrew that a moderate Hebrew scholar can understand it without difficulty. Gesenius first, and since his time Schröder and Renan, having subjected the extant remains to the most searching analysis, have satisfactorily shown, not only that Phœnician is predominantly and essentially Semitic, but that it contains no trace in it of any non-Semitic form of speech. Next to Hebrew, its relations are most close with the Assyro-Babylonian form of the Semitic.
Religion.—The Phœnicians were a people in whose minds religion and religious ideas occupied a very prominent place. In all their cities the temple was the centre of attraction, and the piety of the citizens adorned every temple with abundant and costly offerings. The monarchs who were at the head of the various states showed the greatest zeal in continually maintaining the honour of the gods, repaired and beautified the sacred buildings, and occasionally added to their kingly dignity the highly esteemed office of high-priest (Menand. Ephes. Fr. 1). The coinage of the country bore religious emblems, and proclaimed the fact that the cities regarded themselves as under the protection of this or that deity. Both the kings and their subjects commonly bore religious names—names which designated them as the worshippers, or placed them under the tutelage, of some god or goddess. Abd-alonim, Abd-astartus, Abd-osiris, Abdi-milkut, Abd-esmun are names of the former kind; Abi-baal ('Baal is my father'), Itho-hal ('With him is Baal'), Baleazar ('Baal protects'), names of the latter. The Phœnician ships carried images of the gods in the place of figureheads (Herod. iii. 37). Wherever the Phœnicians went they bore with them their religion and their worship; in each colony they planted a temple or temples, and everywhere throughout their wide dominion the same gods were worshipped with the same rites and with the same observances. But, while we have ample evidence of the religiousness of the Phœnicians, the distinctive character of their religion still remains a matter of controversy. This arises, on the one hand, from the scantiness, jejuneness, and almost stereotyped character of the native notices, and, on the other, from the distorted and misleading account of the religion which has come down to us from a Hellenised Phœnician of the first or second century after our era, Philo of Byblus. A tendency has recently shown itself to 'rehabilitate' this writer, from whose work, disfigured as it is by his euhemerism, much more, we are told, may be gathered than some have supposed, if we only read it rightly. But it is exactly this necessity of reading into Philo what is not there that makes reliance on him as an authority unsafe. It is only when corroborated by other writers, or by the native remains, that Philo's statements have any value. The native remains show us that in the later historical times, for which alone they exist in any abundance, the Phœnician religion was a polytheistic nature-worship of a somewhat narrow character. There is reason to believe that, like so many other polytheisms, it had an earlier monotheistic stage. Of this stage the names Baal, El, El-Elioun, Rimmon, Molech, Adonai are traces (Max-Müller, Science of Religion, p. 177 et seq.). Another trace is found in the quasi-universality of Baal and Ashtoreth, names which may be applied respectively to any god or any goddess. But the monotheistic stage passed away at a very early date, and a manifest polytheism succeeded it—a polytheism in which various gods and goddesses (alonim v' alonuth) were recognised by every worshipper, as by the Carthaginian introduced into his play of the Pænuli by Plautus (v. 1, line 1).
Of these gods the most prominent, besides Baal and Ashtoreth, were Melkarth, the special god of Tyre; Adonis, the god of Byblus; Sydyk; Dagon; Eshmun, with his brothers, the seven Cabiri; and Molech. Minor deities were Zephon, Tsad, Sakon, Aziz, and Pa'aa. In the decline of the nation there was a marked tendency to add to the Pantheon by the introduction of foreign deities, as Ammon, Osiris, Phthah or Ptah, Pasht, and Athor from Egypt, Tanata from Syria, Nergal from Assyria, and perhaps others. The notices are too scanty to enable us to trace out in any detail the nature-worship connected with this polytheistic system, but it is certain that Baal and Ashtoreth represented, to a large extent, the sun and moon, while Dagon was a corn-god, Eshmun a hunter-god, Aziz probably a war-god, and the Cabiri artificer-gods; especially connected with ships and navigation. The gods were worshipped with perpetual sacrifice in their temples, with votive offerings and with festivals. A spring festival to Melkarth, 'the Baal of Tyre,' in the month Peritius (Joseph. Ant. Jud. viii. 9, sect. 3), and another to Ashtoreth called 'the brand-feast' (Lucian, De Dea Syra, sect. 10), are especially noticed. Anciently it was not considered right to erect statues to the gods in their temples; but the practice was to represent them by conical pillars of stone or wood (Tacit. Hist. ii. 3). Two terrible rites particularly characterised the religion—human sacrifice and religious prostitution. A divine original was found for the former of these, El having in a time of great danger immolated his only son upon an altar to avert the evil wherewith the land was threatened. Henceforth such sacrifices were from time to time offered by the state when great disasters seemed impending, and individuals appeased the divine anger against themselves by the offering of their children. At Carthage, we are told (Diod. Sic. xx. 14), an image of El, made of metal, was heated to a glow by a fire kindled within it, and the victims, deposited by their parents in its arms, thence rolled into the fiery lap below. First-born, and especially only sons, or virgin daughters, were deemed peculiarly acceptable to the divinities. The godhead, it was thought, demanded the holiest and most costly gifts possible; and this idea, which lay at the root of the child-sacrifice, may be regarded as also explaining the prostitution of virgins in the temples and groves of the 'Queen of Heaven,' which was certainly an established custom (Luc. De Dea Syra, sect. 6; Euseb. Vit. Constant. Mag. iii. 55, sect. 3). The institution of the Galli carried out the same idea, and added a final degradation to a system otherwise sufficiently revolting.
Manufactures and Inventions.—Two inventions connected with manufactures were especially claimed by the Phœnicians—the invention of glass, and the discovery of the purple dye. Glass is said to have been discovered accidentally on the Phœnician coast (see GLASS); but as the Egyptians had manufactured glass for many centuries before the Phœnicians occupied the Mediterranean coast, and as there was a very early trade between Phœnicia and Egypt, it is most probable that the Phœnicians borrowed their glass-making from the Egyptians. What was special to Phœnicia in respect of glass was the excellent quality of the siliceous sand near Sidon and in the Bay of Acre. Their glass was of three kinds, transparent colourless glass, translucent coloured glass, and opaque coloured glass, scarcely distinguishable from porcelain. The first they used chiefly for mirrors (Plin. Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 26); the second for beads, for imitations of gems, and for bottles, jugs, vases, and amphoræ, which are often of extraordinary beauty. Opaque glass was employed in statues and statuettes. The Phœnician purple dye was derived, principally if not entirely, from two shell-fish which were abundant in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Murex trunculus and the Murex brandaris. From these, by careful treatment, a number of tints, varying from blue, through violet and purple, to crimson and rose, were produced, and, by different processes, rendered at once brilliant and permanent. With the purple-dye manufacture was closely connected the manufacture of textile fabrics, wherein the Phœnicians appear to have excelled. 'White wool' from Syria (Ezek. xxvii. 18) and Arabia (ibid. ver. 21), flax from Egypt, and silk from Persia furnished the materials which were worked into stuffs of excellent quality by the Tyrian and Sidonian artisans, who, partly by the brilliancy of their dyes, partly by their skill in embroidery, obtained for those stuffs a precedence over the products of the looms of Egypt and Babylon. Phœnicia also manufactured on a large scale all manner of household utensils and implements, partly in clay, partly in metal, together with ornaments of various kinds, for the purposes of the export trade which she carried on with barbarous and semi-civilised countries.
Navigation, Trade, and Colonies.—The Phœnicians appear as navigators in the earliest Greek (Hom. Od. xv. 415-484), and in some of the earliest Hebrew (2 Chron. ii. 16) notices. They were regarded as familiar with the sea in times anterior to the Trojan war (Herod. i. 1). At first, no doubt, their navigation was timid and cautious. But after a time they became bolder. They sailed direct from headland to headland, and from their own coast to Cyprus, a distance of 70 miles; they continued their voyages during the night, and after a while adventured themselves in the open sea, directing their course by the Polar star, which they found to mark approximately the true north in the seas to which they had access. Their ships, though small, according to our ideas, were well built, and admirably fitted up and arranged (Xen. Econom. sect. 8). For trading purposes they employed ships of a broad, round make (γαῖλοι), but in war they used galleys of a considerable length, which were ordinarily impelled by oars, the rowers sitting on a level, or else in two ranks, one above the other, or sometimes in three. The earliest representations of Phœnician vessels which have come down to us are in the sculptures of Sargon and Sennacherib (circa 700 B.C.); those of the latter showing a double tier of rowers. The crews of these vessels do not appear to exceed the number of twenty-five; but the Phœnician war-galleys in the fleet of Xerxes (480 B.C.) carried a crew of 200 sailors, besides thirty men-at-arms (Herod. vii. 184). Phœnician trade was in part a land trade conducted by travelling companies of merchants, in part a traffic by sea. Of the land trade the best account which we possess is that given in the 27th chapter of Ezekiel (verses 13-24), by which it appears that this traffic extended over the greater part of western Asia, including northern Syria, Syria of Damascus, the land of Israel, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Assyria, Babylonia, parts of Armenia, and much of central Asia Minor. Northern Syria furnished the Phœnician merchants with butz (probably cotton), and with embroidery and precious stones. Syria of Damascus gave the 'wine of Helbon' and 'white wool.' Israel supplied corn of a superior quality, called 'corn of Minnith,' together with pannag, an unknown substance, honey, balm, and oil. Arabia provided spices, as cassia, and calamus or aromatic seed, together with frankincense, and perhaps cinnamon and ladanum. She also supplied wool and goats' hair, cloths for chariots, gold, wrought-iron, and precious stones, together with ivory and ebony, which she probably imported from Abyssinia. Babylonia and Assyria furnished wrappings of blue, embroidered work, and chests of rich apparel. Upper Mesopotamia partook in this traffic. Central Asia Minor, the home of Tubal and Meshech, supplied slaves and vessels of brass. Armenia gave horses and mules of a superior quality. There may have been some further land traffic with Egypt, since the Phoenicians had a settlement at Memphis (Herod. ii. 112), with Persia for silk, and with Central Africa for slaves and skins.
But the land trade of Phoenicia, extensive as we have shown it to have been, was eclipsed by its maritime commerce. The Phoenicians had, in the early times, the command of the entire Mediterranean, of the Propontis, and of the Euxine. They traded largely with the Greeks (Herod. i. 1) and with the natives of almost the entire coast tract between Colchis and the Pillars of Hercules. It was in connection with this maritime trade that they sent out the great bulk of their colonies. Cyprus seems to have been first occupied, then Cilicia, Lycia, Rhodes, Crete, and the Cyclades and Sporades. From these islands the advance was easy to those of the Northern Ægean, Lemnos, Imbros, Thasos, and Samothrace. Then the coast of Thrace was colonised, the Propontis was entered, and a few settlements were perhaps made on the southern coast of the Black Sea. In the opposite direction an advance was made from Crete and Cythera towards the west. The shores of Sicily were occupied, together with the littoral islands and the opposite shores of Africa. Utica, the first African colony, was followed quickly by Hippo Zaritis, Hippo Regius, Hadrumetum, Leptis Major, Leptis Minor, Thapsus, and ultimately by Carthage. The Balearic Islands and the southern parts of Sardinia were soon afterwards occupied, and finally southern Spain and the western coast of Africa, as far as Cape Nun, opposite the Canary Islands. But Phoenician trade far outran Phœnician colonisation. From Tartessus in Spain, outside the Straits, the Atlantic and Bay of Biscay were explored, a trade with Cornwall and the Scilly Islands was established, and the Baltic possibly was entered in the search for amber. North-western Europe was laid under contribution to increase the wealth of the small group of states on the Syrian coast; and at the same time from Lixus, and later from Carthage, western Africa was visited, and a dumb commerce established with the natives of the parts about the Senegal and Gambia. Towards the east, moreover, Phœnicia at one time held a share in the trade of the Red Sea (1 Kings, ix. 26-28), sent her ships into the Indian Ocean, and perhaps pushed her commerce as far as Malabar and Ceylon. As a general rule, she imported raw materials, and exported manufactured articles; but there were exceptions to this rule; and, to some extent, she employed herself in a carrying trade, being the negotiator between the east and west, introducing into Greece the finished productions of Egypt and Assyria, of Babylon and Hindustan, while she conveyed to those countries Greek pottery and Greek works of art, Greek wine, and Greek musical instruments.
Art and Literature.—Phœnician art is wanting in originality, but it is not without a certain amount of merit. In the earlier times Egypt and Assyria, in the later Greece, furnished the 'motives,' at once of the architecture, and of the decorative art of the country. Massiveness, heaviness, and a sparing use of ornament characterise the architecture, or, at any rate, its extant remains, which are chiefly walls, tombs, and sepulchral monuments. The walls of Aradus and Sidon are built of blocks almost equal in size to those of the pyramids. Pyramidal forms occur in the sepulchral monuments, though simple pyramids were not affected. No considerable remains of any temple or palace have as yet been found, and it is doubted whether the so-called temples were not rather small shrines or cells placed within a peribolus, adorned with trees, fountains, walks, colonnades, and cloisters. Such a shrine still exists near Amrith (Marathus), and is known as the 'Maabed,' or 'Temple.' It stands in the middle of an excavated court, and rises to the height of 27 feet. Its only ornaments are a cornice and string-course (Renan, Mission de Phœnicie, pp. 62-68). An erection of more pretension and considerably greater merit, situated near the same place, bears the name of meghazil, 'spindle,' and is much admired by some moderns. M. Renan calls it 'a real masterpiece in respect of proportion, of elegance, and of majesty' (ibid. p. 72). It is, however, no more than 32 feet in height, and, though in good taste, implies but little architectural skill—much less any grandeur of conception. The tombs attached to the monuments are sepulchral chambers of some size, but without ornament. They generally contain either niches for the reception of corpses or sarcophagi. The sarcophagi are in some cases of a highly ornamental character, having elaborate reliefs both on their sides and ends. Two found by General Cesnola in Cyprus, and one discovered near Sidon, are especially interesting. The reliefs on these tombs are decidedly superior to the statuary, which is rude, coarse, and wanting both in tone and elegance. Phœnician art culminates in the embossed metal patere which have been found in so many places, sometimes with Phœnician inscriptions, and always in an unmistakable Phœnician style (Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de l'Art dans l'Antiquité, vol. iii. pp. 759-789; Eng. trans. 2 vols. 1885). The representations on these patere have abundant life and spirit.
The subject of Phœnician literature introduces us to the vexed question of the origin of the Phœnician alphabet, and the amount of credit due to the people for inventing it. The time is long past for echoing the opinion of the Greeks, and regarding the Phœnicians as the original inventors of letters. The hieroglyphical writing of the Egyptians, several of the cuneiform syllabaries, and the script of the Hittites are all of them much more ancient than the earliest Phœnician writing, and must have been more or less known to the Phœnicians before they hit upon their own system. Their alphabet, no doubt, like all others of which we have any knowledge, originated in a picture-writing, but whether their characters were modifications of the Egyptian, or of the Hittite, or of the Cypriot, or were abbreviated forms of a picture-writing peculiar to themselves, will probably never be settled. (For the view that the Phœnician letters are derived from the Egyptian hieroglyphics, see ALPHABET, Vol. I. pp. 185-188, where the forms of the Phœnician letters are shown.) The only merit which they can claim, as inventors or improvers of writing, is that of simplification. They discarded the surplus signs with which other nations had encumbered themselves, as determinatives, ideographs, and the like; they assigned to each character a single definite articulation, and to each articulation a single definite character. They thus got rid of the immense multiplicity of earlier systems, and invented an alphabet the value of which was so transcendent that it has maintained itself ever since, and among civilised nations has superseded every other, having only received certain slight modifications. Their alphabet was invented by the Phoenicians for business purposes, which required despatch; and it was employed almost wholly for business purposes until a comparatively late date. The Phoenicians proper, so long as they remained a nation, scarcely possessed anything that we should call a literature. They employed writing for short inscriptions on votive offerings, on tombs, and on coins; for curt records of the history of their country, or rather of their several towns, and no doubt for commercial transactions, but they scarcely wrote books or indulged in what we understand by the art of composition. One work on a philosophic subject (the atomic theory) is assigned to Mochus, a Sidonian (Posid. ap. Strab. xvii. 2, sect. 22), and one on religion, or rather on cosmogony, almost certainly apocryphal, to Sanchuniathon, a Berytian. But otherwise Phoenician literature belongs, not to Asia, but to Africa. The fragment of the Periplus of Hanno (q.v.), which has come down to us in a Greek dress, shows that the Liby-Phoenicians at any rate could write interesting books of travels; and the Latin writers speak highly of Hiempsal, Mago, Hamilcar, and others, who had composed valuable works upon the history, geography, and 'origines' of Africa, and also upon practical agriculture (Sallust. B. J. sect. 17; Cic. De Orat. i. 58; Amm. Marc. xxii. 15; Solin. Polyhist. sect. 34).
Origin and History.—Two accounts have come down to us of the origin of the Phoenicians. According to Herodotus, Strabo, Pliny, and others, they dwelt anciently on the shores of the Persian Gulf (Erythraean Sea), whence they crossed by land to Syria, and settled on the coast of the Mediterranean. Herodotus (vii. 89) declares this to be their own account of themselves, and Strabo says that there was a similar tradition among the inhabitants of the gulf, who showed, in proof of it, Phoenician temples on some of the islands. Justin, on the contrary, in his epitome of Trogus Pompeius, declares that they were driven out of their country by an earthquake, and passed to the Mediterranean from the 'Syrian lake,' or Dead Sea. This latter version of the story has been connected by some with the destruction of the Cities of the Plain recorded in Genesis. Whichever account is preferred, it would seem that the Phoenicians regarded themselves as immigrants into their country, and not (like most ancient nations) as aborigines. The settlements upon the Mediterranean coast were no doubt made by degrees, and the settlers at different places were, from the first, independent of each other. Among the earliest of the sites occupied were those of Sidon, Arka, Aradus, and Simyra (Gen. x. 15-18). Tyre was not settled till considerably later, and Tripolis was a colony from Tyre, Sidon, and Aradus. Gebal, Akko (Acre), Berytus (Beyrout), and Sarepta are mentioned, together with Tyre, in Egyptian inscriptions of the 14th century B.C. (Records of the Past, vol. ii. pp. 110, 111); and it would seem that from about 1600 to 1300 Phoenicia must have been a dependency of Egypt. But on the decline of Egypt under the twentieth dynasty the flourishing time of Phoenicia began. Sidon especially grew to greatness, and became known as 'Great Sidon' (Josh. xi. 8; xix. 28). Under her hegemony Akko, Achzib, and Aphek were able to resist the conquering Israelites (Judges, i. 31). She even at this time pushed her land dominion as far as Dan or Laish, on the headwaters of the Jordan (ibid. xviii. 7, 8). Her vessels traversed the Mediterranean, and she became known to the Greeks as the chief commercial power in the world, and as eminent in various branches of industry. At the same time she began that system of colonisation which Tyre afterwards pursued with so much success. Her emigrants occupied Citium and other places in Cyprus, the Ægean Islands, Malta, Utica, and other sites on the North African coast, together with many points in Sicily. She also endeavoured to extend her influence into Philistia, and, after colonising Dor (Scylax, Periplus, sect. 104), made war on Ascalon. Here, however, she received a rebuff. The Philistines under Ascalon attacked her by land, and so pressed the siege that the bulk of the citizens fled from the town by sea, and took refuge at Tyre (Justin. xviii. 3), which may thus have acquired her pre-eminence. Certainly in the second period of Phoenician history (1252 to 877 B.C.) Tyre rather than Sidon takes the lead. The Tyrian colonies of Thasos, Abdera in Thrace, Pronectus in Bithynia, Gades, Malaca, Sexti, Carteia, Belon, and a second Abdera in Spain, Caralis in Sardinia, Hadrumetum, and the lesser Leptis in North Africa, Tingis and Lixus on the West African coast are founded. The new Judaean kingdom established by Saul and ruled by David (circa 1050) finds Hiram (Hirôm) of Tyre a powerful neighbour, and enters into friendly relations with him. The friendship continues under Solomon, and both the Hebrew and the Tyrian annals (Dins, Fr. 2; Menand. Fr. 1) mention the communications which took place between them. Hiram gave Solomon timber, and lent him workmen for both his palace and temple, receiving in return large annual payments in corn, wine, and oil, and ultimately obtaining a cession of territory (Cabal), which, however, he did not much value (1 Kings, ix. 10-13). The friendship led on to a participation of Solomon in the Tyrian trade, both with Tarshish, or Tartessus, in Spain (ibid. x. 22), and with Ophir, perhaps the coast of Malabar (1 Kings, ix. 26; x. 11). Hiram reigned forty-three years, and greatly beautified and improved his capital, which he enlarged by substructions and by uniting to it a separate island, besides adorning it with new temples, and probably with a new palace. He is thought to have also sent an expedition to Africa, and reduced the people of Utica to subjection. His dynasty is thus given by Menander: Hiram reigned forty-three years, from about 980 to 936. Baleazar, his son, who succeeded him, reigned seven years, from 936 to 929. Abd-Astartus, Hiram's grandson, then succeeded, and reigned nine years, from 929 to 920, when he was murdered by four of his foster-brothers, the eldest of whom took the throne, and reigned twelve years, from 920 to 908. He was succeeded by a monarch of the ancient stock, Astartus, who also reigned twelve years, from 908 to 896. Ascrimus, a brother of Astartus, then mounted the throne, and reigned nine years, from 896 to 887, when he was murdered by another brother, Pheles, who, after a reign of eight months, was in his turn murdered by Ithobal, priest of Ashtoreth, who held the throne for thirty-two years, from 887 to 855. Ithobal appears as Eth-baal, and is called king of Sidon (1 Kings, xvi. 31), since he probably reigned over both cities. He gave his daughter, Jezebel, in marriage to Ahab, and was thus the means of introducing the Baal worship among the Israelites. The foundation of Botrys on the Syrian coast, north of Gebal, and the colonisation of Aiiza in Numidia are assigned to him. He was succeeded by his son, Badezor, who reigned six years, from 855 to 849, and then gave place to his son, Mattan, who reigned nine, or more probably twenty-nine years, from 849 to 820. At his death the crown fell to his son, Pygmalion, a boy of eight or nine years old. A dispute, however, arose about the succession between Pygmalion and his uncle, Sicharbas (married to Pygmalion's sister Elissa or Dido), and the result was Sicharbas' murder, and the flight of Elissa to the North African coast, where she founded Carthage, 814.
A foreign enemy began to threaten Phœnicia in the reign of Ithobal. Earlier Asiatic monarchs, as Chedorlaomer and Tiglath-pileser I., had made no permanent impression on the Syrian region; but from the time of Asshur-nazir-pal (883-860) Assyria began a series of attacks upon all the tribes and nations in these parts, which resulted in their subjugation and submission to the Assyrian yoke. Asshur-nazir-pal, about 877, was the first to cross the Euphrates, enter the Orontes valley, and commence the conquest of the Syrian tribes. He received tribute from the Phœnician cities of Aradus, Gebal, Sidon, and Tyre. His son, Shalmaneser II., completed the reduction of Phœnicia, defeating Mattan-Baal of Aradus, and compelling the other monarchs to a fixed system of tribute. The relations between Assyria and her vassal then continued peaceful for about a century (840-740). Assyria encouraged the Phœnician land traffic, and the Phœnicians gladly paid their tribute and their homage in return for the protection afforded them. But about 740 a new policy was adopted. Tiglath-pileser II. was an active and enterprising prince, who energetically applied himself to the consolidation and unification of the empire. He began the process in northern Syria, rearranging the population in the various towns, taking from some, and giving to others, adding in most places an Assyrian element, appointing Assyrian governors, and requiring of the inhabitants 'the performance of service like the Assyrians' (Eponym Canon, p. 120, line 28). Among the places thus treated between 740 and 738 were the Phœnician cities of Simyra and Arka. The result was a general awakening of distrust among the Phœnician populations. Simyra and Arka revolted in 720, in conjunction with Hamath, Arpad, Damascus, and Samaria (ibid. p. 126, lines 33-35). Tyre took the alarm even earlier. Under Luliya, or Elulæus, she built herself up a great power, extending her sway over Sidon, Akko, Ecdippa, Sarepta, Hosah, Mahalliba, &c., and at the same time seeking to bring under her yoke the distant island of Cyprus. These movements provoked Assyria to action. About 727 Shalmaneser IV., the successor of Tiglath-pileser II., made an attempt to crush Elulæus from the land side. Baffled in this, he succeeded in detaching from the Tyrian alliance a number of the minor Phœnician towns, and with the help of their fleets assaulted the island Tyre by sea. But the Tyrians defeated his attack, and he was compelled to withdraw and seek to force them to a surrender by cutting off their supplies of water (Menand. Ap. Joseph. A.J. ix. 14, sect. 2). But they withstood him for five years, at the end of which the Assyrian monarch lost his throne by a revolution (722), and Tyre was for many years unmolested. At last, however, Sennacherib (circa 701) felt strong enough to renew the attack, and, having united against Tyre most of the other southern Phœnician cities, drove Elulæus from his throne, and forced him to take refuge in Cyprus. A tranquil period then set in, but only to be followed by further revolts and subjugations. In 680 Abd-Melkarth, king of Sidon, revolted against Esar-haddon, and was captured and slain. Eight years later, in 672, Baal, king of Tyre, who had taken the place of Abd-Melkarth, joined Tirhakah against his suzerain
(Eponym Canon, p. 142, lines 12, 13), and was severely punished (ibid. pp. 144, 145); and about 645 Hosah and Akko both revolted against Assur-bani-pal, the son of Esar-haddon, and were attacked, conquered, and punished with utter destruction. The Assyrian period, which began so fairly in the 9th century, terminated in the 7th in a series of revolts, sieges, and massacres.
The Assyrian power came practically to an end about 630, and Phœnicia found herself once more independent. Tyre again sprang into notice, occupying the foremost place, and establishing a hegemony over the other cities (Ezek. xxvii. 8-11). But this prosperity and glory were short-lived. Within a brief space Phœnicia, and Syria generally, became a bone of contention between Egypt and Babylon, the two powers which made the earliest efforts to profit by Assyria's fall. First Egypt, under Neco (608), occupied the territory, and then Babylon, under Nebuchadnezzar (605), seized it. Tyre received a grievous blow at the hands of this latter prince, who, after a siege of thirteen years, forced the island city to submit to him. Phœnicia remained a Babylonian dependency from 585 to 538, when Cyrus took Babylon, despite the efforts of the Egyptians to make themselves masters of it. A fragment of Menander gives the internal history of Tyre during this interval. Nebuchadnezzar's opponent, it appears, was a second Ithobal, who reigned from about 597 to 573. He was succeeded by his son, Baal II., who held the throne for ten years, from 573 to 563. A revolution then took place, kings being replaced by 'judges,' officers of an inferior status. Of these, Ecnibaal reigned for two months, Chelbes for ten, and Abbarus for three. The office was then divided, as at Carthage, between two, and Mytgon and Gerastartus held it for six years (562-556). But now another internal struggle took place, and the monarchy was restored in the person of a certain Mermal, who was sent for from Babylon, a descendant of the ancient kings. This prince reigned four years, from 556 to 552, and was succeeded by his son, Hiram II., who had a reign of twenty years, from 552 to 532. It was in this king's reign that the Babylonian empire came to an end, and Phœnicia had another brief interval of independence (538 to 527).
The Babylonian was followed by the Persian period, which lasted from 527 till 333. Phœnicia submitted to Cambyses without a struggle, and became an integral portion of the Persian empire. In the arrangement of the provinces she held a place in the fifth satrapy, which was composed of Syria, Phœnicia, Palestine, and Cyprus. She was allowed, however, to keep her native kings, and to organise for internal purposes a native government. Tyre, Sidon, and Aradus united themselves by federal ties, and sent representatives to a common council, which met at Tripolis. An excellent understanding was for some time maintained between the suzerain power and her feudatory, which zealously supported Persia in her various maritime wars, forming the main element of her naval strength. It was Phœnicia which crushed the Ionian revolt at Ladé (495), which caused the failure of the Athenian expeditions to Egypt (460-455), and which enabled Persia to extort from the Lacedæmonians the peace of Antalcidas (387). A curious feature of this period was the intimacy and friendship established between Phœnicia and Athens, which, feeling that its power of coping with Sparta depended greatly on the support of the Phœnician fleet, gave exceptional privileges to the Phœnician people and states. Phœnicians were allowed to settle in Attica, particularly at Phalerum and the Piræus, to erect tombs there, and have their own places of worship, while ultimately (about 370) the relation of proxenia was entered into between Strato, king of Sidon, and the Athenian people. Towards the later part of the Persian period, however, the allegiance of Phœnicia began to waver. Evagoras of Salamis, when in revolt against Mnemon, is thought to have obtained a certain amount of Phœnician support (Kenrick, Phœnicia, p. 405). In the 'War of the Satraps' (366) the defection of Phœnicia from the Persian cause is certain. Later on came the great Phœnician revolt. Encouraged by the successful stand which Nectanebo had made against Ochus, Tennes, king of Sidon—probably the Tabnit of the Sidonian inscriptions—raised (in 351) the standard of rebellion. All the other cities joined him. Alliance was made with Egypt; the Persian garrisons in Phœnicia were massacred, the royal park was plundered, and the stores laid up for the Persian cavalry were destroyed (Diod. Sic. xvi. 41, sect. 5). The first attempt which Persia made to crush the rebellion failed; but in 345 Ochus himself invaded Phœnicia with an army of 330,000 men, and Tennes, regarding resistance as hopeless, submitted, and received the Persians within the walls. But the inhabitants generally refused to submit. Shutting themselves up within their houses, together with their wives and children, they applied the torch to their dwellings, and lighted up a general conflagration. Forty thousand persons are said to have perished in the flames (Diod. Sic. xvi. 45). Tennes, notwithstanding his submission, was executed, and the crown passed to his son Abd-Astartus (Strato II.). The last Sidonian dynasty is traceable for five generations, through the following six sovereigns—Esmunazar I., father of the first Tabnit (circa 460–440); Tabnit I., his son, who married his own sister, Am-Ashtoreth; Esmunazar II., their son, whose tomb is in the collection of the Louvre; Strato I., this Esmunazar's brother, who reigned from about 400 to 361, and was proxenos of Athens; Tennes II., Strato's son, who reigned from 361 to 345, when he was put to death by Ochus; and Strato II., the son of the second Tabnit, who held the throne from his father's death to the final extinction of Phœnician independence (333) by Alexander.
Alexander's invasion of Asia in 334 found the Phœnicians still attached to Persia. The fleet of Memnon, which commanded the Ægean, consisted principally of Phœnician vessels, the contingent of each state being under the direction of the native monarch, or his son. No sign of disaffection showed itself until the defeat of Darius at Issus (333), when the collapse of the Persian power, and the advance of the Macedonians into Syria in overwhelming force, made a change of policy necessary. Aradus, Byblus (Gabal), and Sidon then surrendered themselves; and Tyre would have done the same had not Alexander made the unpalatable demand that he should be received into the island-city. Upon this the Tyrians resolved to defy him, and, under their king, Azemileus, stood the famous siege, which is perhaps the most glorious event in Phœnician history. It was not till all their sister-cities had deserted them, and the Macedonian monarch had filled up the strait between the mainland and their isle, that they were conquered. Then at last the brave and tenacious people succumbed to destiny, and, losing their nationality, became absorbed into the Greco-Macedonian empire.
No native history of Phœnicia has come down to us, and it is questionable whether any such history was ever written. The so-called 'Phœnician History' of Philo Byblus, ascribed by him to Sanchonion, is not historical but mythological. Phœnician history has to be gathered from scattered notices in the Hebrew and classical writers, and from a few—a very few—native monuments. The best modern works on the general subject are Movers's Die Phönizier und das Phönizische Alterthum (5 vols. 1841–56) and Kenrick's History and Antiquities of Phœnicia (1855), to which the writer may perhaps be allowed to add his own History of Phœnicia (1889). There is a valuable article by Movers in the Encyclopædia of Ersch and Gruber, and another chiefly by Gutschmid in the Encyclopædia Britannica; and some excellent essays on the principal characteristics of the Phœnicians, written by Emanuel Deutsch, will be found in his Literary Remains (1874). Recently the attention of scholars has been directed mainly to the three points of the geography of the country, the language and literary remains, and the æsthetic art and architecture. The geography has been largely illustrated by Renan in his Mission de Phénicie (1864), by Walpole in his Ansayrii (1851), by Tristram in his Land of Israel (1865), and by Lortet in La Syrie d'Aujourd'hui (1884). The language and literary remains, which engaged the attention of Gesenius towards the middle of the 19th century, were subjected by him to careful analysis in his important work, Scripturæ Linguæ Phœnicæ Monumenta (1837), which is still an authority of importance; but the work has since been further carried on with remarkable success by Judas, Études démonstratives de la Langue Phœnicienne et de la Langue Libyque (1842); by the Abbé Bourgade, Inscriptions Phœniciennes (1852); by Dietrich, Zwei Sidonische Inschriften (1855); by Ewald, Erklärung der grossen Phönizischen Inschrift von Sidon (1856); by Schröder, Die Phönizische Sprache (1869); and recently by M. Renan and other scholars in the magnificent work entitled Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (Paris, 1881–90), where the Phœnician inscriptions occupy almost the entire first volume. Phœnician art and architecture have been largely discussed by M. Renan in his Mission de Phénicie, and exhaustively treated by M. Clermont-Ganneau in his work, L'Imagerie Phœnicienne (Paris, 1880), and by MM. Perrot and Chipiez in their magnificent Histoire de l'Art dans l'Antiquité (1882–87), where the subject of Phœnicia occupies the third volume. Byways of Phœnician art have been pursued by General di Cesnola in his Cyprus (1877), and by his brother, A. di Cesnola, in his Salaminia (1882); also by Ceccaldi, Monuments antiques de Cypro (1880); by Signor Care, Relazione degli idoli Sardo-fenici (Cagliari, 1875); and by M. de Vogüé, Mélanges d'Archéologie Orientale (1860). Research is still going on upon Phœnician sites, as in the vicinity of Beyrout and Saida (Sidon), and again in Cyprus. The Beyrout journal Le Bachir contains from time to time interesting notices of the objects exhumed in Phœnicia proper, while accounts of the work done in Cyprus have appeared in the Times and elsewhere.