The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean

by Carolina Lopez-Ruiz

  Religious architecture in Phoenicia reflected the rising cult of the Sidonian goddess Astarte. Among the more significant structures operating or erected in the period are the Astarte and Melqart temple at Tell Sukas, the temple of Eshmun and Astarte near Bustan esh-Sheikh in the vicinity of Sidon, and the temple of Tanit-Astarte in Sarepta. Temples dedicated to new deities emerged in the Persian period as well. A good example of this development is the Melqart-Heracles temple complex, which is also significant for its use of traditional Egyptian and newly introduced Persian architectural elements (e.g., crenellated architectural embellishments; see Elayi and Haykal 1996: 24–28).

  The “pier and rubble” technique, widely used in the Iron Age Levant, is attested at the Persian-period Phoenician sites as well (e.g., at Al Mina, Beirut, and Akko). The use of the technique suggests continuity in the material culture from the previous eras.

  The same continuity is evident in the burial practices in Achaemenid Phoenicia. Both inhumation and cremation for adults and children were used, continuing the Iron Age practices. Among the more widely used tombs were “vertical shafts leading to a burial chamber, stone-lined pits, and natural caves” (Jigoulov 2010: 121). The burial sites were located at a distance from settled areas. Various decorative elements (terracotta and funerary sculptures) were used near the tombs, their quality depending on the social status of the deceased. Famous for their dye production, Phoenicians of the Persian period left behind mounds of murex shells, particularly near Beirut and Sidon. Finally, the sarcophagi dated to the Persian period exhibit a change in style. Egyptian body-shaped styles popular prior to the fifth century bce are replaced in the fifth and fourth centuries bce by clean slabs of material and male heads with Greek stylizing (Moscati 1999: 356).

  Conclusions

  The evidence described here allows us to suggest some important developments in Phoenicia of the Achaemenid period. Overall, all three areas—political, economic, and social—demonstrate a remarkable flexibility and nimbleness on the part of the royalty of the Phoenician city-states facing geopolitical changes.

  Political Developments

  The Persian period saw a continuation in the changing fortunes of the two major players in the region: the city-states of Tyre and Sidon. The Tyrian economic and political dominance greatly declined in the aftermath of Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Tyre and Sidon in the early sixth century bce, while Sidon found itself rising politically in the era of the Achaemenids. Among the indicators pointing to the rise of Sidon are the spread of the cult of Astarte, the distribution of its coinage, and the evidence from Classical authors (e.g., Herodotus 8.67, 7.96).

  In the Persian period, Phoenicians continued the same political city-state setup established in the preceding centuries. They conducted their affairs independently from each other on the political and economic arenas. However, owing to their linguistic and cultural proximity, such independence was accompanied by a considerable degree of cooperation. The Phoenician city-states demonstrated obeisance and loyalty to their Achaemenid overlords, as expressed through the extensive use of Persian iconographic repertoire, especially on their coinage.

  Toward the end of the fifth century bce, Phoenicia aligned itself closer with the Attic powers, most probably owing to the waning fortunes of the Achaemenids. The Phoenicians, therefore, demonstrated a remarkable adaptability to the changing political circumstances.

  Economic Developments

  The peak of economic activity in Phoenicia occurred between the end of the fifth century bce and the first quarter of the fourth century bce, with a subsequent significant slowdown in the second half of the fourth century bce. Judging by the distribution of Phoenician coinage, Tyre and especially Sidon enjoyed a high level of economic activity and development in the Achaemenid period. Phoenicians were first and foremost interested in acting as trade facilitators rather than importers of goods. Among their exports were glass, dyes, and, as Greek authors indicate, grain. Their trade was concentrated in the hands of traders who were in close collaboration with the royal authorities. The city-state of Sidon held a preeminent place in economic activities and became a political and economic powerhouse; Sidon exerted influence not only on the neighboring Phoenician city-states but also on other entities in the Levant (e.g., Samaria).

  Social Developments

  The material culture of Achaemenid Phoenicia is characterized by “syncretism, eclecticism, and multiculturalism” (Jigoulov 2010: 127). Various foreign-style elements were readily adopted by the Phoenicians, whether those elements originated in Greece, Egypt, Persia, or elsewhere. These traits are especially observed in Phoenician coinage and sarcophagi production.

  Phoenician cultural influence on sites ranging from North Syria southward to Gaza expanded greatly in the Persian period, starting with the beginning of the fifth century bce. Such development was most likely enhanced by imperial powers granting authority over the area comprising Palestine all the way up to Sidon. Another possibility is that the Persian authorities granted trading monopolies to Tyre and Sidon to protect local markets from the incursion of Greek merchants (Edelman 2006).

  Some remarks can also be made regarding the social developments on a micro level. Phoenician households were likely characterized by continuity of domestic architecture and consumption from the preceding neo-Babylonian period (612–539 bce) and bore strong resemblance to households elsewhere in the Levant. However, the Persian period saw an increased number of urban settlements in Phoenicia. Phoenician communities were stratified according to their income levels, which is evident from preferences among the elite and well-to-do for imported housewares from Egypt, Persia, and the Mediterranean (Jigoulov 2010: 131). Additionally, yet another prerogative of the aristocracy and royalty was literacy, which cannot be attested for the majority of the population in the Persian period, unless the populace used highly perishable papyri and parchment.

  References

  Betlyon, J. W. 1982. The Coinage and Mints of Phoenicia: The Pre-Alexandrine Period. Chico, CA: Scholars.

  Bordreuil, P. 1985. “Le dieu Echmoun dans la région d’Amrit.” In Phoenicia and its Neighbours: Proceedings of the Colloquium Held on the 9th and 10th of December 1983 at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel in Cooperation with the Centrum voor Myceense en Archaèisch-Griekse Cultuur, edited by E. Gubel and E. Lipiński, 221–30. Leuven: Peeters.

  Bordreuil, P. 1990. “Bulletin d’antiquités archéologiques du Levant inédites ou méconnues VI.” Syria 67, no. 2: 483–520.

  Briant, P. 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (French 1996). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

  Dever, W. G. 1997. “Syro-Palestinian Ceramics of the Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron Ages.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, volume 1, edited by E. M. Meyers, 459–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Dunand, M., and N. Saliby. 1985. Le temple d’Amrith dans la Pérée d’Aradus. Paris: Geuthner.

  Dusinberre, E. R. M. 2003. Aspects of Empire in Achaemenid Sardis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Edelman, D. 2006. “Tyrian Trade in Yehud under Artaxerxes I: Real or Fictional? Independent or Crown Endorsed?” In Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, edited by O. Lipschits and M. Oeming, 207–46.Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

  Elayi, J. 2004. “La chronologie de la dynastie sidoniennes d’’Ešmun’azor.” Transeuphratène 27: 9–27.

  Elayi, J. 2006. “An Updated Chronology of the Reigns of Phoenician Kings during the Persian Period (539–333 BCE).” Transeuphratène 32: 11–43.

  Elayi, J. 2018. The History of Phoenicia (French 2013). Atlanta, GA: Lockwood Press.

  Elayi, J., and A. G. Elayi. 2004. Le Monnayage de la cité phénicienne de Sidon à l’époque perse (Ve-IVe S. Av. J.-C.). Paris: Gabalda.

  Elayi, J., and A. G. Elayi. 2009. The Coinage of the Phoenician City of Tyre in the Persian Period (5th-4th Cent. BCE). Leuven: Peeters.

  Elayi, J., and A. G. Elayi. 2014a. A Monetary and Political H
istory of the Phoenician City of Byblos in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

  Elayi, J., and A. G. Elayi. 2014b. Phoenician Coinages. Paris: Gabalda.

  Elayi, J., and M. R. Haykal. 1996. Nouvelles découvertes sur les usages funéraires des Phéniciens d’Arwad. Paris: Gabalda.

  Gibson, J. C. L. 1982. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Volume 3. Oxford: Clarendon.

  Gubel, E. 1993. “The Iconography of Inscribed Phoenician Glyptic.” In Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Fribourg on April 17–20, 1991, edited by B. Sass and C. Uehlinger, 101–29. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

  Jigoulov, V. S. 2010. The Social History of Achaemenid Phoenicia: Being a Phoenician, Negotiating Empires. London: Equinox.

  Kaiser, O., and R. Borger. 1983. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments II. Grab- Sarg-, Votiv- und Bauinschriften. Volume 2. Gütersloh: G. Mohn.

  Kuhrt, A. 2007. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period. London: Routledge.

  Mazza, F. 1999. “The Phoenicians as Seen by the Ancient World.” In The Phoenicians, edited by S. Moscati, 628–53. New York: Rizzoli.

  Moscati, S., ed. 1999. The Phoenicians. New York: Rizzoli.

  Quinn, J. 2017. In Search of the Phoenicians. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

  Stern, E. 2001. The Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732–332 B.C.E.). Volume 2. New York: Doubleday.

  Chapter 8

  The Hellenistic Period and Hellenization in Phoenicia

  Corinne Bonnet

  The Question of Hellenization

  Since the nineteenth century, the transformations affecting the entire Near East after Alexander’s conquest have been understood through the concepts of “Hellenism” (Hellenismus, according to J. G. Droysen; see Payen 2005) and “Hellenization,” which emphasize the impact of Greek culture on local cultures (Grainger 1992). However, today many researchers are uncomfortable with or even disagree with the use of these concepts, as they are permeated with colonial thought and cultural hierarchy. These scholars insist on the unique aspects of the Phoenician case, involving early contacts with the Aegean world and the Western diaspora diaspora (Millar 1983; Sartre 2003; Bonnet 2014). To describe and analyze the ethnic, political, social, economic, cultural, and religious recompositions in Phoenicia after 332 bce, scholars now have tools, including those from anthropology and sociology, that enable them to reconstruct more precisely the complexity and fluidity of the situations reflected in the sources.

  From the outset, however, it is important to note the regrettable documentary imbalance that has helped amplify the alleged impact of Greek culture in Phoenicia. The loss of all forms of “Phoenician literature” (see chapter 18, this volume), whatever the genres that may fall under this label, is a serious handicap. When trying to understand the consequences of the conquest, we have no direct evidence from the Phoenicians themselves other than a small group of inscriptions that date from long after the conquest and reveal little about the processes of cultural mixing. The silence of the conquered people—because, as we shall see, the conquest of Alexander did lead to Greek control over Phoenician territories—prevents us from reconstructing both sides of the events. The impact of the conquerors’ voice is thus amplified, reinforcing the idea that Phoenicia was “Hellenized,” or in other words, actively or passively acculturated to Greek lifestyles and thought.

  Recent work on Hellenistic Phoenicia (Sartre 2003; Bonnet, 2014; see also Aliquot 2009 for the Roman period), however, shows that this process was neither unilateral, nor uniform, nor automatic. Field work by anthropologists from a postcolonial perspective has found that the reception and domestication of new cultural products does not necessarily distort indigenous cultures but can, instead, contribute to the preservation, even growth, of traditional social relations. Faced with new things, whether imposed or requested, individuals’ cultural creativity enables unexpected compromises to emerge, although not without occasional conflict. Human agency seems to be seen more among certain categories of people, such as elites, people traveling, or smugglers. Even in a context of domination that limits autonomy, people find new ways to strike a balance, while the amount of each culture in the mix is unpredictable. To speak of “Hellenism” is certainly to suggest a transformation process, but it also means attributing the decisive initiative and influence to the Greeks. It makes Phoenicians disappear under a Hellenic veneer: as we read too often in books about Phoenicia, Phoenician history apparently ended in 332 bce.

  Moreover, the concept of “Hellenism” presupposes the existence of two distinct and bounded entities—“Greek culture” and “Phoenician culture”—whereas on both sides we find composites. Alexander himself was a Macedonian leading a diverse army. As the task of the historian is to reconstruct the past in all its complexity, it is clear that the term “Hellenism” does not do justice to the processes of métissage, especially since this process of cultural interactions began before Alexander. These processes were in fact unstable, unbalanced, and highly differentiated according to the area (urban/rural) and to social categories (elites/ordinary people, men/women, etc.), or depending on the type of activities considered (such as business, politics, or religion). We are therefore very far from Droysen’s idea of “fusion” (Verschmelzung), as well as the binary, antagonist visions of the colonial and postcolonial periods. Many studies by scholars of antiquity have touched on issues of identity, belonging, affiliation, and ethnicity (Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1987; Hall 1997, 2002; Gruen 2005; Versluys 2008; Whitmarsh 2010; Stavrianopoulou 2013; Ager and Faber 2013). They have identified selective or cumulative dynamics along varying scales, such as a Tyrian or a Sidonian from a good family who has a Greek name, speaks and makes a show of his or her use of the Greek language (for example, in acts of devotion), and practices Greek forms of sociability at banquets and gymnasiums, while still being attached to the cult of his or her ancestral gods and cultivating a sense of belonging to an ancient Phoenician lineage descending from Kadmos or Agenor. The fabric of Hellenistic Phoenicia is, in many ways, paradoxical (Ma 2008).

  Studies on the connectivity specific to the Mediterranean at various times (Malkin 2011) now encourage us to think more in terms of networks that foster cultural interweaving, both before and after military conquests. Today, scholars focus on interactions in cultural dynamics along many scales: local, regional, supra-regional, and global. However, from Isocrates at least, Greek culture (paideia) sought to play a universalizing role, without stifling local cultures but, instead, offering them a voice to disseminate their culture on a more global level. For this reason, the current challenge for historians of Hellenistic Phoenicia is to make sense of these multiple arrangements between past and present and between micro identities and broadly shared references. These arrangements involved pragmatic strategies, negotiations, and compromises. They affected the social imaginary, common understandings, cultural transfers, and ways of being, acting, and thinking in a world that was neither Phoenician nor Greek but, rather, “something else.” In other words, more is different, an expression used here to stress that complexity adds unpredictable value to a given phenomenon, an idea which enables us to move beyond simple “Hellenism” considered as the expected result of the conquest of Phoenicia (on applying this saying from physics to Hellenistic Phoenicia, see Bonnet 2014).

  Alexander’s Conquest of Phoenicia: Change and Continuity

  In 333/2 bce, four years after Darius III’s accession to power, the Persian Empire was not in crisis nor, as Pierre Briant has shown (1996), a ripe fruit ready to be picked by Alexander. Certainly revolts had been followed by repression; certainly the annual tribute weighed heavily on economic growth. Yet the organization of the vast Achaemenid Empire had enabled Phoenician cities to thrive as it brought new dynamism to trade routes from the peripheries to the center, and vice versa. The po
tential of the provinces was developed, the road network was well maintained, and government networks of people and infrastructure were solidly established. The kingdom of Sidon, part of the satrapy of the Transeuphrates like all Phoenician cities, served as the base for the Achaemenid administrative and military network. Each Phoenician kingdom managed its own development with its own dynasty and governing bodies, while being subject to annual tribute. The material culture shows that, from the early fourth century bce and even before, relations between the Phoenician cities and the Aegean basin were intense and regular. In fact, other than the Persian Wars, the interactions between the two shores of the eastern Mediterranean have always been strong and creative, as best exemplified in the adaptation of the Phoenician alphabet by the Greeks.

  Attica was a privileged partner of the Sidonians, especially under the reign of Straton I (known as “Abdashtart” in Phoenician; 365–352 bce), called the “philhellene,” who was honored as the proxenos for the Athenians for having served as the go-between for Athenians and Persians (IG II2, 141; ca. 360 bce). Exemption from the metoikion, the choregia, and any taxes (eisphora) was granted to “as many of the Sidonians living in Sidon and enjoying civic rights as visit Athens for purposes of trade”—a clear sign of intense and fruitful relationships between the two groups. From the mid-fourth century bce, the Sidonians were integrating into Athenian trade networks, settling in Piraeus, and introducing their own cults there. Alexander’s conquest of Phoenicia was not a sudden turning point in Phoenician history, although the associated violence and upheavals cannot be denied. What is certain is that cultural transfers from Greece, related to arts and crafts, know-how, and language skills, did not wait for 332 bce to disseminate along various communication routes. If by “Hellenization” we mean this sort of cultural permeability, then Phoenicia began to “Hellenize” itself from at least the fifth to fourth centuries. This is evidenced by the magnificent series of Sidonian sarcophagi (known as the Satrap, the Lycian, The Mourning Women, and Alexander, dated to the period between the late fifth and late fourth centuries bce) inspired by models or made by artists from Asia Minor (Stucky 2015).