Mariani, M. 2015. “Sant’Imbenia e i processi di formazione urbane nel nordovest della Sardegna durante l’età del Ferro.” In Le città visibili. Archeologia dei processi di formazione urbana-I, edited by M. Rendeli, 11: 225–58. Rome: Officina Etruscologia.
Marzoli, D., J. Suárez, and M. Torres. 2014. “Die Meerenge östlich von Gibraltar am Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit (9.-8.Jh.v.Chr.). Zum Forschungstand.” Madrider Mitteilungen 55: 167–211.
Minc, L. D. 2006. “Monitoring Regional Market Systems in Prehistory: Models, Methods, and Metrics.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25: 82–116.
Nigro, L. 2005. Mozia XI. Zona C. Il Tempio del Kothon. Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicia-Punica II. Rome: Missione Archeologica a Mozia.
Núñez, F. J. 2008. “Western Challenges to East Mediterranean Chronological Frameworks.” In A New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology, edited by D. Brandherm and M. Trachsel, 3–27. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Núñez, F. J. 2014. “The Ceramic Repertoire of the Iron Age.” In The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre-Al Bass II. Archaeological Seasons 2002–2005, edited by M. E. Aubet, F. J. Núñez, and L. Trellisó, 261–371. Beirut: Direction Générale des Antiquités.
Núñez, F. J. 2015. “The Lowest Levels at Bir Massouda and the Foundation of Carthage: A Levantine Perspective.” Carthage Studies 8: 7–45.
Oggiano, I. 2000. “La ceramica fenicia di Sant’Imbenia (Alghero-SS).” In La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna, edited by P. Bartoloni and L. Campanella, 235–58. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.
Pingel, V. 2006. “Comentarios a las dataciones por radiocarbono del Morrro de Mezquitilla (Málaga).” In Morro de Mezquitilla. El asentamiento fenicio-púnico en la desembocadura del río Algarrobo. Anejos Mainake nº 1, edited by H. Schubart, 147–51. Málaga: Diputación de Málaga,
Rakob, F. 1989. “Karthago. Die frühe Siedlung.” Römische Mitteilungen 96: 155–208.
Ramon, J. 2010. “La cerámica fenicia del Mediterráneo extremo-occidental y del Atlántico (s. VIII–VI a.C.). Problemas y perspectivas actuales.” In Motya and the Phoenician Ceramic Repertoire between the Levant and the West 9th-6th Century BC: Proceedings of the International Conference held in Rome, 26th February 2010, edited by Lorenzo Nigro, 211–53. Rome: Missione archeological a Mozia.
Recio, A. 1990. La cerámica fenicio-púnica, griega y etrusca del sondeo de San Agustín (Málaga). Málaga: Diputación Provincial.
Rendeli, M. 2012. “Risposte locali al commercio mediterraneo all’inizio del I millennio a.C.: la Sardegna occidentale.” In Actas del Seminario Internacional Interacción social y comercio en la antesala del colonialism, edited by M. E. Aubet and P. Sureda, 135–51. Barcelona: Publicaciones del laboratorio de arqueología.
Sanchez, V. M., L. Galindo, M. Juzgado, and M. Dumas. 2011. “La desembocadura del Guadalhorce en los siglos IX y VIII a.C. y su relación con el Mediterráneo.” In Gadir y el Círculo del Estrecho revisados, edited by J. C. Dominguez, 185–200. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz.
Schubart, H. 1983. “Morro de Mezquitilla. Vorbericht über die Grabungskampagne 1982 auf dem Siedlungshügel an der Algarrobo Mündung.” Madrider Mitteilungen 24: 10–131.
Shaw, J. W. 2000. “The Phoenician Shrine, ca 800 B.C., at Kommos in Crete.” In Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos, edited by M. E. Aubet and M. Barthelemy, 1107–19. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz.
Spanò, A. 2002. “Strutture in mattoni crudi nelle aree “industriali” di Mozia.” In Da Pyrgi a Mozia. Studi sull’archeologia del Mediterraneo in memoria di Antonia Ciasca, two vols., edited by M. G. Amadasi, M. Liverani and P. Matthiae, 545–53. Rome: Università degli studi di Roma.
Torres, M., E. López, J. M. Gener, M. A. Navarro, and J. M. Pajuelo. 2014. “El material cerámico de los contextos fenicios del “Teatro Cómico” de Cádiz: Un análisis preliminary.” In Los fenicios en la bahía de Cádiz. Nuevas investigaciones, edited by M. Botto, 51–82. Pisa-Rome: Ed. F. Serra.
Tusa, V. 1978. “Relazione preliminare degli scavi eseguiti a Mozia negli anni 1972, 1973, 1974.” In Mozia IX. Rapporto preliminare delle campagnedi scavi 1972—1974, Studi Semitici 50, edited by A. Ciasca, G. Coacci Polselli, N. Cuomo di Caprio, M. G. Amadasi Guzzo, G. Matthiae Scandone, V. Tusa, A. Cutroni Tusa, and M. L. Uberti, 7–90. Rome: Centro Nazionale delle Ricerche.
Tusa, V. 2000. “Il santuario fenicio-punico di Mozia, detto di “Cappiddazzu.” In Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos (Cádiz 1995), edited by M. E. Aubet and M. Barthelemy, 1397–416. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz.
Xella, P., ed. 2012–2013. The Tophet in the Phoenician Mediterranean. Verona: Essedue.
Zamora, J. A., J. M. Gener, M. A. Navarro, J. M. Pajuelo, and M. Torres. 2010. “Epígrafes fenicios arcaicos en la excavación del Teatro Cómico de Cádiz.” Rivista di Studi Fenici 38, no. 2: 203–36.
Chapter 7
Phoenicia Under the Achaemenid Empire
Vadim Jigoulov
Study of the Achaemenid period (550–330 bce) has undergone nothing short of a revival around the turn of the twenty-first century, among both European and American scholars. All aspects of the empire have received academic attention: archaeology, numismatics, iconography—to name just a few. Some foundational works on the period have paved the way for more focused studies (e.g., contributions by Amélie Kuhrt [e.g., 2007] and Pierre Briant [e.g., 2002]). Regional studies of the Achaemenid period have also emerged with greater frequency. For example, Elspeth Dusinberre (2003) explored the world of Achaemenid Sardis, and prolific contributions by Josette Elayi (e.g., Elayi 2018) and Alain Elayi focused on Phoenicia proper, while this author’s work on Achaemenid Phoenicia attempted to sketch the social history of the region.
This chapter covers several aspects of Achaemenid Phoenicia, including literary sources, epigraphy, numismatics, and material culture. In the course of this overview, Achaemenid Phoenicia is presented as a largely compliant subject of the Persian Empire, but consisting of actors mostly mindful of their own economic and political interests. The term “Phoenicia” is used throughout for the sake of convenience, with an understanding that the designation is external and carries some inherent biases (e.g., see Quinn 2017). Used in the Greek world to denote the collective lands (and inhabitants) of roughly the area of modern Lebanon, the term is as descriptive as it is pejorative, reflective of the economic and political competition of the region with Greece. A more precise but unwieldy term is the “Phoenician city-states,” which we will use interchangeably with “Phoenicia.”
Achaemenid Phoenicia in Literary Sources
Classical Sources
Classical Greek texts have played an extremely important role in reconstructions of the history of the Persian-period Phoenician city-states. Nevertheless, Phoenicia in Classical sources appears in the context of conflicts, and consequently such descriptions are fragmentary (e.g., Mazza 1999). Additionally, the Classical texts are often biased against Phoenicians, who are frequently engaged in political and economic competition with Greece. Overall, though, Achaemenid Phoenicia appears as a set of powerful independent city-states that economically dominated the eastern Mediterranean region in the sixth to fourth centuries bce.
According to Classical authors, Phoenicians were united by a shared cultural heritage, as they inhabited the land from Tell Sukas to Akko. The very terms “Phoenicia” and “Phoenicians” are creations of Classical authors who frequently saw them as ethnically homogenous, divided only by the boundaries of the individual city-states of Byblos, Sidon, Tyre, Arwad, Amrit, Berytus (Beirut), and Sarepta. Greek authors had been familiar with the Phoenicians even before the rise of the Persian Empire, knowing them as skillful mariners and dye and glass producers who were not above deceit and craftiness. The latter characterization undoubtedly reflected their status as competitors of the Greeks in the economic sphere.
The attitudes expressed toward the Phoenicians in the Classi
cal works fluctuated. They reached their negative fever pitch by the Persian period as Phoenicia became part of the Persian Fifth Satrapy (cf. Herodotus 3.91), and Sidon emerged as a powerful player on the Levantine coast. The attitudes expressed by Classical authors were often negative, presenting the Phoenicians as uncouth yet shrewd barbarians. With the waning of the Phoenician fortunes and the deterioration of relations between the Persians and the Phoenicians, the negativity subsided (on the Phoenicians in Classical sources, see also chapter 44, this volume).
Ancient Jewish Writings
Ancient Israelite texts do not refer to this area by the term “Phoenicia” but, rather, they speak of individual city-states—specifically Tyre and Sidon. The latter is depicted as the dominant city-state, with Tyre being a close second. Texts dated to the late Persian and Hellenistic periods (e.g., the Books of Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Joel, Zechariah, etc.) refer to Tyre and Sidon and their inhabitants as one geopolitical unit, which would correspond to the Classical definitions of “Phoenicia” and “Phoenicians.” This shift can be explained by these two cities’ loss of their economic and political vitality and their autonomy in the middle of the fourth century bce and their insignificant status in the aftermath of Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Levant.
Epigraphic Evidence from Achaemenid Phoenicia
Indigenous Phoenician literature from the Persian period is limited to occasional inscriptions, much fewer in number compared to the documentation of earlier periods (cf. chapter 16, this volume). Reasons for the paucity of Persian-period epigraphic evidence include the destruction of archaeological evidence by subsequent occupations and the use of more fragile writing media (papyri, wax tablets, leather, etc.) on the mainland. Monumental inscriptions, however, stand out among the entire epigraphic corpus. They are typically represented by funerary inscriptions on stone. Their number is significant and their relative narrative and contextual richness are informative about Persian-period Phoenician city-states.
The surviving inscriptions are rather monotonous and have been thoroughly described and commented on in the secondary literature (e.g., Gibson 1982). They are usually in some Phoenician dialect (not attested in the Tyrian dialect) and are votive or funerary in nature. As such, the inscriptions mostly deal with religious and political matters.
Persian-period Phoenician inscriptions can be classified as primary (inscriptions from Phoenicia proper), secondary (inscriptions found in Phoenicia in languages other than Phoenician and seal inscriptions), and tertiary (Phoenician inscriptions found outside of Phoenicia proper).
Primary Phoenician Inscriptions
Primary inscriptions come from several sites in Phoenicia. In the areas of Antaradus, Arwad, and Amrit, the two most important inscriptions are associated with the temple of Amrit (Ma‘abed) (Bordreuil 1985; Dunand and Saliby 1985). Their text indicates worship of Eshmun, the most important deity of Sidon in the late sixth through early fifth centuries bce, as well as Melqart, associated most frequently with Tyre. The Ma‘abed inscriptions also point to cultural and economic connections with Cyprus. In Byblos, the most significant inscriptions are those of Shiptibaal (KAI 9), Yehawmilk (KAI 10), and Batnoam (KAI 11). In combination with other epigraphic finds from the area, these inscriptions suggest an eventful political atmosphere in Byblos, a lack of Persian authoritarian influence on the city’s royal succession, and the increasing influence of Sidon in its cultural and economic spheres. In Sidon, the most significant inscriptions are the Tabnit inscription (KAI 13) and the inscription of Eshmunazor II (KAI 14), originating from the area of the temple of Eshmun at Bustan esh-Sheikh. Historians have also reconstructed the inscriptions of Bodashtart and the Baalshillem inscription (e.g., Bordreuil 1990; Kaiser and Borger 1983). Generally speaking, Persian-period Sidonian inscriptions reveal interactions between local Sidonian royalty and Persian imperial authorities, the continued veneration of the divine consorts Astarte (Ashtart) and Eshmun, and clues about the development of sarcophagi production (e.g., Elayi 2004, 2006). Inscriptions from Sarepta, Tyre, the Akko coastal plain, and western Galilee dated to the Persian period are rather rare and largely insignificant.
Secondary Epigraphic Sources
Quite a few inscriptions dated to the Persian period in languages other than Phoenician have been discovered in the Phoenician area, including inscriptions in Aramaic, Hebrew, Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite, Akkadian, Greek, and Cypriot. The presence of the epigraphic evidence in the latter two languages may indicate closer economic and cultural ties between the Phoenician city-sates and the Aegean than in other periods. These ties and the corresponding influence of Greek art in Achaemenid Phoenicia have been discussed in analyses of inscribed seals as testimony to the wider acceptance of the Aegean tastes and artistic repertoires in this period (Gubel 1993; see also chapter 23, this volume).
Tertiary Epigraphic Sources
Among the Phoenician inscriptions from this period found outside the mainland, three testimonies are noteworthy: the inscription from Piraeus in Greece (KAI 60), a decree of an Athenian politician Cephisodotus (Kephisodotos) in honor of the King of Sidon Straton (Abdashtart I), and a group of fragmentary inscriptions from Cyprus (KAI 37). The first inscription suggests that there was an established Sidonian community in Greece in the fourth and third centuries bce, and that it maintained a distinct cultural identity there. The second one shows a certain gravitas of the Sidonian king as he visited Greece. Lastly, the inscriptions from Cyprus demonstrate ties between Cyprus and the Phoenician homeland in that period. Overall, this epigraphic evidence suggests substantive cultural and economic relations between the Phoenician Levantine mainland and the broader Mediterranean world during the Achaemenid period.
Epigraphic Evidence and Conclusions
Generally, epigraphic evidence connected with Achaemenid Phoenicia points to several developments. First, it underscores the distinct regional preference for several deities associated with particular city-states (Melqart and Astarte at Tyre, Baal and Baalat the Mistress at Byblos, and Eshmun and Astarte at Sidon) (for complete discussion, see Jigoulov 2010: 67–70). Second, the evidence suggests the increasing importance of the deities Eshmun and Astarte, a development paralleling Sidon’s growing influence in the region under the Achaemenids. Third, the evidence indicates the autonomous position of the Phoenician city-states, which were somewhat immune to the ideological agenda of the Achaemenid imperial authorities (Jigoulov 2010: 70). Lastly, although autonomous, the Phoenician city-states exhibit considerable compliance with and loyalty to the Persian imperial authorities.
Numismatic Evidence from Achaemenid Phoenicia
After a fairly long period under the aegis of the Greek numismatics, coinage from Persian-period Phoenicia became a burgeoning field of study starting in the 1990s. Most of the synthesizing and cataloguing work has been performed by J. Elayi and A. G. Elayi (Elayi and Elayi 2004, 2009, 2014a, 2014b). Some efforts have been hampered by the unknown provenance of the discovered coinage hoards, the problem of forgeries, and the state of the numismatic market. Nevertheless, we can sketch the following numismatic overview of the Phoenician coinage from the Persian period (for Phoenician coins in general, cf. chapter 25, this volume).
The four major mints (in Byblos, Tyre, Sidon, and Arwad) started producing coinage in the fifth century bce, although debates on precise dates continue. The coinage they produced is characterized by such common traits as maritime iconography, metals used (silver and bronze), the employed weight standard (13.9 g/0.49 oz.), and its primary use for intraregional trade. The introduction of coinage in the Phoenician city-states, first in Byblos, followed by Tyre and Sidon, in the middle of the fifth century bce was initiated by the local authorities as a result of encounters with the cash economy of Greece, without any external pressure to do so from the Achaemenid imperial administration (Jigoulov 2010: 107). Coinage in Phoenicia was mostly used for supporting local trade, as opposed to exporting the currency. There was no uniform monetary system among the Phoenician ci
ty-states, and each produced its own coinage, the weight standard serving the local needs instead of being coordinated with the standards in Greece or Persia. Because Phoenician city-states actively participated in Persian military endeavors by providing its most valuable naval contingent, a greater need for more nuanced interstate financial transactions necessitated the development of coinage.
Archaeological Evidence
The archaeological record of Achaemenid Phoenicia is sparse and lacunal, owing to the destruction of remains by subsequent occupations. Additionally, the existing Lebanese infrastructure prevents archaeologists from doing wide-scale excavations. However, a variety of material remains linked to Achaemenid Phoenicia have been instrumental for understanding the period.
Among the most typical archaeological finds from the Phoenician homeland are pottery, religious architecture, “pier and rubble” buildings, burials, murex shells deposits, and sarcophagi. In the Persian period, the Phoenicians frequently emulated earlier, Iron Age pottery, especially the jugs, juglets, and “face”- and “bes”-type vases (Dever 1997: 466; Stern 2001: 517–18). The Persian period saw a continuity of pottery types from the previous periods. Also, pottery imports from the Mediterranean, especially Greece, increased. Attic imports into the area fluctuated depending on the political processes taking place in the Mediterranean. For example, Attic imports decreased in the middle of the fifth century bce owing to stronger ties between Phoenicia and the Persian Empire. As those ties weakened in the fourth century bce, the imports increased.
The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean Page 13