Upon the determination of the balance of power of the old Orient,

upon the political life of their neighbours, the petty states of this

district in reality never exerted a positive influence. At the most,

their existence and their policy of the moment helped in the decision

of some questions of relatively small importance in the course of

world-historic events. Would we be more interested in the history

of Tyre and Sidon than in that of Gaza and Ashdod, if the first

communication of the East with the West had not been opened chiefly by

the Phœnicians; and if a Phœnician colony, Carthage, a most dangerous

rival first to the Greek towns of Sicily, and afterward to the rising

world-power of Rome, had not fought the bitter struggle for supremacy

on the coast-lands of the western half of the Mediterranean--a struggle

which, after a long past poor in feats of arms, immortalised the

name of the Punic race? The fame that illuminates the figures of the

generals Hamilcar and Hannibal is reflected on the history of the

mother country.

It is no new thing in the history of races for a reorganisation of

the national life of an active people to take place in its colonies

and emigrant fragments. We may cite the foundation of the states of

the Veragri, and of the Normans, and the rise of the United States of

America out of the settlements of New England. But, as these examples

show, this seldom comes to pass without the evidence of considerable

sacrifice of national individuality. Generally such new political

formations involve at the same time a more or less complete change of

national character, a great portion of which is sacrificed in the

adaptation to changed conditions of life; but few traces of such a

change can be observed amid the Phœnicians in their colonial cities.

Moreover, we are only now, since excavations in Greece have brought

to light considerable quantities of remains from pre-Homeric times,

beginning to put a correct estimate upon the sum of fruitful

suggestions and finished products which the Phœnician seafarers and

traders together with their wares brought to the nations of the

West, and above all to Greek art. In this way, the expansion of the

Phœnicians exercised an enduring influence upon the whole course of the

history of civilisation in all later times.

What fitted them to become, in this sense also, an historically

important people was, besides the tenacity of will with which they

pursued their aims, a high degree of intellectual receptivity, which

enabled them to assimilate with ease the attainments of foreign

culture; and also the adaptability and insight with which they could

make themselves at home even in entirely foreign surroundings.

Of the favourableness, or unfavourableness of circumstances, they were

no more independent than any other people on earth has been. It even

appears that, in accordance with some law, they achieved results only

when, in the course of their undertakings, they came in contact with

nations whose civilisation was still in process of formation, or at

least, during the period of contact, did not attain to any importance

of its own.

But the skill with which they were able to turn just such circumstances

to their own advantage, and to continue a national existence in the

midst of such an environment (this highly developed capacity for

adaptation was their peculiar inheritance) was something that at

least would have been utterly impossible with the cultured races of

the Nile and the Euphrates. It was chiefly due to the fact that, not

national elements, but those which had been learned and borrowed from

foreign races, predominated in Phœnician culture. This made culture a

comfortable garment, took from it and its wearers the awkwardness that

would have developed in case of a more independent origin, kept it free

from many fast chains and immutable faults which come with a uniform

national culture and an isolated history of development.

As the scene of the history of the Phœnicians varies in extent with the

location of their settlements, Phœnicia is less a fixed geographical

idea than a name, which would simply designate in general that portion

of the Syrian coast, whose chief population was of Phœnician descent.

Accordingly, the origin of the name “Phœnicia” (Phoinike) which the

Greeks gave to this stretch of coast, is to be found in the Greek name

of the inhabitants: “Phoinix,” the plural “Phoinix” and not “Phoinikes”

from the name of the country.

“Phoinix” is formed like “Cilix,” the “Cilician,” and denotes the

Phœnician as a man of reddish-brown complexion, as in Greek “phoinos”

is the name of a colour varying from a brownish to a deep red. The same

root which is in “phoinos” and “Phoinix” is also found in “Pœnus,” “the

Punic,” which was the form given by the Italian races to the name they

heard from the mouths of the Greeks of Greece proper (Hellas).

Word formations like that of Phoinix, not being very common in Greek as

names of races, the Greeks did not always keep in mind the fundamental

meaning of Phoinix, and very early began to devise artificial

etymologies for it, which have in part proved to be quite arbitrary

and absurd but in part have found approval among modern savants. Nor

have the latter, on their side, neglected to increase the number of

unsuccessful attempts at interpretation. It is not necessary to enter

here into a discussion of the majority of these explanations, upon

a refutation of the assertion that the Phœnicians received their

name from Phoinix, a brother of Cadmus, or that the word “dyers in

red” designates them as “purple merchants,” or even “robbers” and

“murderers,” and other such notions, for they are now things of the

past. Nevertheless they are in some degree on the right track, inasmuch

as in them Phoinike is regarded as the derived, and Phoinix the root

word.

As the date-palm and its fruit first became known to the Greeks

through the medium of the Phœnicians, this tree was likewise called

by them Phoinix, the “Phœnician” palm. So in antiquity it was a

widespread interpretation to make Phoinike come, not from Phoinix, “the

Phœnician,” but from phoinix, “date palm,” making Phoinike signify the

“land of palms,” “the land of the date palm.” Among moderns, Movers in

particular has brought forward many reasons for the correctness of this

explanation.

Athenæus expressly mentions dates as a valuable article of Phœnician

trade; but it is perhaps a great mistake to take them for a product of

Phœnicia instead of a mere article of commerce, for the fruit of the

_Phœnix dactylifera_ does not reach maturity at all in Phœnicia. Little

can be proved from the representation of the palm tree on coins whose

origin may be traced solely to Grecian prototypes.

Finally, it is a philological impossibility that after the form

Phoinike, as the name of the country, has been derived from phoinix,

“date palm,” such a form as Phoinix as a designation of the inhabitants

could ever have been in turn the result of derivation from this name of

the country.

[Illustration: PHŒNICIAN TERRA-COTTAS IN THE LOUVRE]

PHŒNICIAN HISTORY IN OUTLINE

A PRELIMINARY SURVEY COMPRISING A CURSORY VIEW OF THE SOURCES OF

PHŒNICIAN HISTORY, THE SWEEP OF EVENTS, AND A TABLE OF CHRONOLOGY

Of the sources for this history it is hardly possible to do more

than to say that they hardly exist in any tangible form, and to echo

Heeren’s complaint:

“The severest loss which ancient history has to mourn, a loss

irreparable, is that of the destruction of the records that should

inform us of the affairs, the government, and the enterprises of the

Phœnicians. In proportion to the vast influence which this nation

had in the civilisation of mankind by its own great inventions and

discoveries (the invention of alphabetical writing is alone sufficient

to show their importance), by its numerous colonies established in

every quarter, and by its commerce extending even beyond these; the

more sensibly we feel the gaps which the loss of these records leaves

in the history of the human race. It is the conviction of the extent of

this loss that gives the few fragments which have been preserved out

of the great mass, a peculiar attraction to the historian; and though

it may be impossible to compile from them a history of the Phœnicians,

yet they will probably enable him to draw a tolerably faithful picture

of the general character and genius of this nation in its various

undertakings.”

The Phœnicians were a Semitic people, probably an early offshoot, like

the Canaanites, from the parent stock; a people of remarkable industry,

intelligence, and enterprise. Their country lay in southern Syria,

between the Lebanon Mountains and the Mediterranean Sea, a strip of

land about two hundred miles in length by thirty-five at its greatest

width. Phœnicia was never a united state, but rather a confederacy of

cities. At the time of our earliest knowledge Sidon stood at the head,

but in the thirteenth century, B.C. Tyre became the most important.

FIRST PERIOD--TO THE SUPREMACY OF TYRE (3800-1100 B.C.)

3800 B.C. The empire of Sargon of Agade is believed to have

included Syria and the shores of the Mediterranean.

2750 Foundation of Tyre, according to Herodotus’ account.

1950 One of the Elamite sovereigns of Babylon appears to have

reduced a large part of Syria to subservience, which

state of affairs does not last long.

1635 Aahmes I visits Zahi (southern Phœnicia) in his invasion

of Asia, after the expulsion of the Hyksos.

1590 Tehutimes I appears to have made the Phœnicians pay tribute.

1530 Tehutimes III lays waste the land of Zahi; again in 1516.

1506 Arka (Akko) destroyed by Tehutimes III. Phœnicia is made

tributary.

1500 Settlement of the Phœnicians in Cyprus. From this time on

colonisation of the shore of the Mediterranean becomes

active. Rhodes, the Cyclades, the islands of the Thracian

coast, Samothrace, and Thasos are occupied. The stations on

the Ægean are early abandoned--but the Phœnicians remain in

Cyprus until ousted by the Dorians.

In the twelfth century B.C. the later Ramessides lose their

dominion over Phœnicia. Egyptian culture and civilisation

left little trace on Phœnicia, whereas the influence of

Babylonia was very strong. After the loss of Phœnicia by

Egypt, a number of petty feeble states arise.

About this time the colonists have reached the western shore

of the Mediterranean, and Gades (Cadiz) and Tarshish in

Spain are founded. The Atlantic is discovered, and according

to classical accounts tin is brought from the mines of the

Cassiterides, which by some authorities is said to mean the

Scilly Isles and Cornwall, by others the island near Vigo in

Spain.

1110 Tiglathpileser I of Assyria visits Phœnicia in his

military campaigns.

SECOND PERIOD (1100-538 B.C.)

Up till now Sidon has stood at the head of the Phœnician

cities, but the hegemony is lost to Tyre. The first king of

1020 whom we have any knowledge is =Abibaal.=

980 [or 969] =Hiram I=, his son, succeeds. He fortifies the

island of Tyre; makes war against the Cypriotes who have

refused tribute, and again subjugates them. Is the friend of

Solomon.

936 =Baalbazer=, Hiram’s son, succeeds him.

929 =Abdastarte=, his son, succeeds.

920 Is killed by a conspiracy of his foster-brothers.

=Metuastarte=, the eldest of the assassins seizes the throne.

908 =Astarte=, a scion of Hiram’s house, reigns in conjunction

with Metuastarte.

896 =Astarym=, brother of Metuastarte, succeeds.

887 Is murdered by another brother, =Phelles=, who takes the

throne, but the same year he also is killed by =Ithobaal= or

=Ethbaal=, a priest of Astarte, who thereby becomes king.

In after years Jezebel, Ithobaal’s daughter, marries Ahab of

Israel.

876 Asshurnazirpal of Assyria invades Phœnicia and erects

a stele at the Nahr-el-Kelb, near Berytus. Tyre, Sidon,

Tripolis, and Aradus hasten to send presents, and he does

not trouble them further. Ithobaal founds Botrys, probably

as a means of defence against the Assyrians, also Aoza in

Africa.

855 =Baalazar=, Ithobaal’s son, succeeds to the throne of Tyre.

854 Battle of Qarqar. Victory of Shalmaneser II over Ben-Hadad

II of Damascus and his allies. King =Mettenbaal= of Aradus

takes part with the Syrians in the battle.

849 =Metten I=, Baalazar’s son, succeeds.

842-839 According to Shalmaneser’s record he takes tribute from

Tyre, Sidon, and Byblus, but this may mean that voluntary

presents are sent.

820 =Pygmalion=, Metten’s son, succeeds at age of nine.

812 He slays his uncle Sicharbas, the regent.

813 Flight of Elissa, Pygmalion’s sister and Sicharbas’

wife. She founds Carthage.

804-803 Adad-nirari III’s armies reach Phœnicia, and exact

tribute from Tyre and Sidon.

773 Death of Pygmalion. The list of Phœnician kings given by

Menander comes to an end.

738 Tiglathpileser III invades Syria, where a coalition has

been formed to evade tribute. He returns to Assyria with

rich treasure; amongst it the tribute of =Hiram (II)= of

Tyre and =Sibittibi’li= of Byblus.

734 Byblus and Aradus pay tribute. Tyre does so under force.

Tyre is still practically an independent state.

728 =Elulæus=, king of Tyre, rules under the name of =Pylas=.

Revolt of the Cittæi in Cyprus subdued.

727 According to Josephus, Shalmaneser IV attacks Elulæus.

Sidon, Akko, and Palætyrus submit, and Tyre is captured

after a five years’ siege. But there is no mention of this

in Shalmaneser’s records, and it is extremely probable that

Josephus confuses these events with those that actually took

place in the reign of Sennacherib.

In his annals, Sargon II speaks of Tyre as of a town that

belongs to him.

701 Sennacherib invades Syria where Hezekiah of Judah and

other princes are planning a strong rebellion against

Assyria. =Elulæus= (=Luli=), king of Sidon, flees at the

Assyrian’s approach. Sennacherib makes the city the capital

of a new province, and =Ithobaal= its king. The cities

of the coast are ravaged, and Phœnician commerce greatly

interfered with.

The colonial power of Tyre now begins to decay. The

Assyrians settle themselves in Cyprus, and the Dorian

migration has already driven the Phœnicians from the

Grecian islands.

695 An independent kingdom is established at Tarshish.

690 The Phœnicians begin to lose their hold on Sicily.

680 =Abd-milkot=, king of Sidon, with Sandurri of Kundu

and Sizu, revolts against Assyria. Abd-milkot flees at

Esarhaddon’s approach and the latter besieges Sidon.

678 Fall of Sidon after a siege of nearly three years. The

city is destroyed, and a new one, Kar-Asshur-akhe-iddin

built on its ruins.

Abd-milkot beheaded.

Phœnician and Cypriote kings make submission to Assyria.

671 =Baal I= of Tyre revolts unsuccessfully against Esarhaddon.

In submission he sends his own son Yahi-melek to the

Assyrian court.

668 Asshurbanapal succeeds Esarhaddon on the Assyrian

throne. With the help of Tyre he compels =Yakinlu=, king

of Aradus, to submit. Subsequently Yakinlu is deposed

and his son =Azebaal= given the throne. After this time

the Phœnicians begin to throw off the Assyrian yoke, an

achievement made easy by Asshurbanapal’s struggle with

Shamash-shum-ukin in Babylonia. The recovery of

independence is a peaceable one.

636 Is the last date we possess of an Assyrian governor in

Phœnicia.

625 The Scythian tribes invade Phœnicia from the northeast.

610 Africa circumnavigated for Neku II by Phœnician seamen.

608 Battle of Megiddo, and submission of Syria to Neku II.

Phœnicia once more under Egyptian dominion.

605 Battle of Carchemish. Defeat of Neku by Nebuchadrezzar.

Phœnicia comes under the rule of Babylonia. Phœnicia now

remains docile to Nebuchadrezzar until stirred up by

Uah-ab-Ra, Pharaoh of Egypt, who enters into an alliance

against Babylonia with Tyre and Sidon, after proceeding

against them by land and sea.

587 Nebuchadrezzar besieges Tyre, of which =Ithobaal II= is

king.

574 Fall of Tyre. Ithobaal removed to Babylon and =Baal II=

put in his place.

564 Death of Baal II. The government of Tyre is reorganised,

and a suffet is placed over the city.

563 A three months’ interregnum in which the high priest

=Abba= is at the head of affairs, then a rule of two

suffets--one for the island and one for Palætyrus. A

state of anarchy arises.

557 =Balatorus=, an elected king, rules for one year.

556 =Maharbaal= (or =Merbaal=), a member of the exiled royal

family is sent from Babylon to be king.

552 =Hiram III= succeeds his brother Maharbaal.

538 Capture of Babylon by Cyrus of Persia. Phœnicia becomes

a Persian province. Tyre sinks into insignificance and Sidon

becomes the leading city. Aahmes II of Egypt occupies Cyprus.

THIRD PERIOD (538-332 B.C.)

532 Death of Hiram III. Phœnicia, Palestine, and Syria

become the fifth Persian satrapy.

530 Carthage becomes an independent power.

525 The Phœnicians furnish a fleet for Cambyses’ war in

Egypt.

496 Phœnician fleet shares in the Persian victory off Lade.

480 =Tetranestus=, king of Sidon, =Mapen= of Tyre and

=Merbaal= of Aradus accompany Xerxes to Greece. Phœnician

fleet takes part in the expedition.

466 Battle of Salamis. Phœnician and Persian fleet defeated

by the Greeks at Eurymedon.

455 Phœnician fleet is sent to aid Persians to reconquer

Egypt for Artaxerxes I.

449 Defeat of the Phœnician fleet by the Athenians off

Cyprus.

405 Battle of Ægospotami. Phœnician fleet aids Athens to

defeat the Spartans.

400 =Straton I= comes to the throne of Sidon. He is the son

of =Tabnit= (=Tennes I=), and grandson of =Eshmunazer I=, a

descendant of Tetranestus, and succeeds his elder brother

=Eshmunazer II=, who has died a minor.

394 Phœnician fleet helps the Athenians to defeat the

Spartans at Cnidus. Friendly relations between Sidon and

Athens.

390 Evagoras of Salamis in Cyprus storms Tyre, which is

now in an enfeebled condition.

361 Straton I of Sidon joins Tachus of Egypt against the

Persians and is killed by his wife to prevent falling into

the hands of the enemy. =Tabnit (Tennes) II= succeeds him.

352 Tennes leads a revolt of Phœnicia against Persia, Cyprus

joins him.

345 Tennes betrays Sidon to Artaxerxes III, who afterwards

puts the king of Sidon to death. Cyprus subdued. Tyre

resumes the leading position in Phœnicia.

333 Battle of Issus. Aradus and Byblus and Sidon join

Alexander the Great. Tyre besieged by Alexander.

332 Capture of Tyre by Alexander. =Azemilcus=, the king, is

spared, but eight thousand Tyrians are slain, and thirty

thousand sold as slaves. End of Tyre’s political existence.

The foundation of Alexandria also makes it lose much trade.

The Phœnicians cease to be a great nation.

FOURTH PERIOD (332 B.C.-636 A.D.)

331 Alexander forms Phœnicia, Syria, and Cilicia into one

province, over which he places Menes.

323 Death of Alexander. Phœnicia occupied alternately by

Ptolemy and by Antigonus and his son Demetrius. Ptolemy

finally retains possession (287).

315 Siege of Tyre by Antigonus.

246-198 Struggle between the Seleucidæ and Ptolemies for

Phœnicia.

The Seleucidæ left in possession of Phœnicia after the

surrender of Sidon (198).

The trade of Media and the Red Sea is diverted to Alexandria

in Egypt.

125 Tyre and Sidon are practically independent after the

Tyrians put Demetrius II to death.

86 Syria, worn out by the civil wars of the Seleucidæ puts

itself under the dominion of Tigranes, king of Armenia.

67 Phœnicia and Syria return for a short time to the

Seleucidæ after the victories of Lucullus.

63 Pompey reduces Syria to a Roman province.

44-42 Cassius divides Phœnicia into small principalities.

Antony gives Phœnicia to Cleopatra, but reserves freedom of

Tyre and Sidon.

20 Augustus deprives Tyre and Sidon of their liberties. He

founds a Roman colony called Augustana, at Beirut (Berytus),

which has a famous law school under the dominion of Rome.

Tyre and Sidon have no political importance, but retain

their commercial and manufacturing interests. They continue

to have no historical importance until

193-194 A.D. Tyre and Laodicea take part in the struggle of

Septimius Severus and Pescennius Niger for the emperorship.

Niger sends troops to Tyre, which burn and pillage the city.

201 Severus recruits the population of Tyre and gives it

a colonial title. Tyre and Berytus enjoy the monopoly of

producing that dye known as the imperial purple. As part

of the second Syrian province of Rome, their prosperity

616 increases until the Persian king, Chosroes II, subjugates

Syria (including Phœnicia) and rules it until

622 when the Byzantine emperor regains control.

636 Battle of the Hieromax. As a result the Emperor

Heraclius abandons Syria to the Mohammedans.

FIFTH PERIOD (633-1516 A.D.)

Under the rule of the caliphs Phœnician civilisation suffers

no decay. Tyre maintains its commercial importance.

1100-1110 Baldwin and the Crusaders capture all the

Phœnician cities except Tyre.

1111 Siege of Tyre begun by Baldwin. He abandons it during

the winter.

1124 Siege and capture of Tyre by the Crusaders.

1187 Saladin overthrows the kingdom of Jerusalem.

Tyre begins a heroic defence against him.

1189 Relief of Tyre by Guy de Lusignan. Capture of Acre

(Akko) by Philip Augustus and Richard Cœur-de-Lion.

1192 Treaty of peace with the Mohammedans. The Christian

territory extends from Joppa to Tyre.

Acre becomes the chief commercial centre of the Phœnician

coast and 1291 is taken by the sultan of Egypt, to whom

other Syrian towns also submit.

1516 Selim I conquers the whole of Syria, which since then

has been included in the Ottoman empire.

CARTHAGINIAN HISTORY IN OUTLINE

FIRST PERIOD (813-410 B.C.)

814-813 B.C. Carthage, according to tradition, is founded by

Elissa, sister of King Pygmalion of Tyre, who fled from her

brother. The Phœnicians find the land occupied by Libyans

whom they dispossess. They also manage to get some kind of

control over the nomads in the outlying regions of their

new domain. The official heads of the government were the

suffets, similar to the Roman consuls. There may have been

only two in office at a time, serving for one year, but

capable of re-election.

600-550 Malchus, mentioned by Justin, who calls him “king”

of Carthage. Successful wars in Africa and Sicily undertaken

to extend the city’s commerce. Malchus defeated in Sardinia;

he turns against Carthage.

550-500 Decline of Tyre after Persian conquest. Carthage

becomes independent (530). Mago, father of Hasdrubal and

Hamilcar succeeds Malchus. It is to the efforts of this

family that Carthage owed her supremacy. Hasdrubal’s sons

are Hannibal, Hasdrubal, and Sappho; Hamilcar’s are Himilco,

Hanno, and Gisco. Carthaginian supremacy established over

Sardinia, Balearic Isles, parts of Sicily, Liguria, and

Gaul; in the course of which conquests there occurred a

536 sea-fight of the Etruscans and Carthaginians against

the Phocæans of Aleria, in Corsica. Phocæans victorious,

but their losses oblige them to abandon Corsica.

509 Commercial treaty between Carthage and Rome restricting

Roman commerce in Punic waters.

500 Expedition of Hanno and Himilco to colonise west

African coast, and to explore the Atlantic. Britain

discovered.

480 Expedition against Agrigentum and Syracuse in

conjunction with Persian invasion of Greece. Battle of

Himera. Hamilcar defeated with great loss by Gelo of

Syracuse.

SECOND PERIOD (410-264 B.C.)

410 Renewal of attempts of Carthage to reduce Sicily. Hannibal,

son of Gisco, storms Selinus. Agrigentum destroyed by

Hannibal and Himilco. Death of Hannibal. Himilco attacks

Gela.

405 Treaty between Carthage and Dionysius of Syracuse

secures Carthaginian conquests in Sicily.

398 Dionysius attempts to expel Carthaginians from Sicily.

In the ensuing war all Sicily falls before the Punic arms.

Dionysius is besieged in Syracuse, but pestilence breaks

out among the Carthaginians, and they are defeated. Himilco

starves himself to death.

397 Libyans revolt against Carthage. The city has a narrow

escape.

396-392 Mago leads an expedition against Syracuse, which is

not successful.

380 Mago’s second Sicilian expedition defeated at Cabala.

The whole of Sicily is nearly lost, but Mago’s victory

at Corsica restores the Carthaginian power. The Halycus

recognised as boundary to Carthaginian possessions in Sicily.

368 Dionysius again tries to expel the Carthaginians.

Is unsuccessful and dies. Dionysius II makes peace with

Carthage.

345 Timoleon of Corinth, having liberated Syracuse from her

tyrants, makes war on Carthage.

340 Battle of the Crimissus. Carthaginians defeated with

severe loss. Peace restores the boundary on the Halycus.

Greek cities declared free.

333 Carthaginians send help to the Tyrians besieged by

Alexander the Great.

310 Agathocles of Agrigentum besieges Carthage, but is

recalled by revolt of Agrigentum.

306 Peace between Carthage and Agrigentum. It lasts

until Agathocles dies (289). His death encourages the

Carthaginians to extend their dominions, until

277 the Syracusans call on Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, for help

against Carthage, and he aids them to drive the

Carthaginians from the west of Sicily and besieges them

in Lilybæum. Carthage and Rome united against him.

276 Pyrrhus quits Sicily.

265 Carthaginians go to the aid of Campanian mercenaries

besieged in Messana (Messina) by Hiero of Syracuse. Another

party in Messana appeals to Rome.

THIRD PERIOD (264-146 B.C.)

264 First Punic war (for the possession of Sicily). Romans

occupy Messana. Retreat of the Carthaginians and Syracusans.

Hiero joins the Romans. Roman successes in Sicily.

260 Sea-fight off Mylæ. Carthaginians defeated by Romans.

256 Sea-fight off Ecnomus. Carthaginian fleet defeated.

Romans invade Africa.

255 Carthaginians under Xanthippus defeat the Romans under

Regulus. Loss of Roman fleet on homeward voyage.

254 Roman victory at Panormus.

253 Roman fleet destroyed in a storm.

249 Battle of Drepanum. Carthaginian victory.

248-243 Success of Carthaginians under Hamilcar Barca on

Italian coast and in Sicily.

242 Battle off Ægates islands. Romans under Catulus defeat

Carthaginian fleet.

241 Hamilcar Barca makes peace, agreeing to evacuate Sicily

and to pay indemnity. Sicily lost to the Carthaginians.

241-237 Civil war in Carthage. Mercenaries rise against the

citizens.

238 Sardinia and Corsica lost by Carthage to Rome.

236-219 Carthaginian conquests in Spain under Hamilcar,

Hasdrubal, and Hannibal. Attempt to convert Spain into a

Carthaginian province. By an understanding with the Romans,

the Ebro is recognised as the Carthaginian boundary.

219 Saguntum captured by Hannibal.

218 Second Punic war (for the possession of Italy). Roman

army despatched to Africa.

218 Hasdrubal opposes the Scipios in Spain. Hannibal crosses

the Alps and wins victories of the Ticinus and the Trebia.

Hannibal crosses the Apennines.

217 Battle of Lake Trasimene. Hannibal defeats the Romans

and ravages the country as far as Apulia.

216 Battle of Cannæ. Roman army annihilated. Hasdrubal

ordered to join Hannibal in Italy. He is prevented by a

defeat on the Ebro.

215 Philip of Macedon allies himself with Carthage.

214 Carthaginians land in Sicily.

212 Romans recover their position in Sicily. Carthaginian

successes in Spain.

211 Philip of Macedon’s attention occupied by a coalition

against him in Greece. Romans besiege Capua. Hannibal fails

to relieve Capua. Hannibal at the gates of Rome. Hannibal’s

retreat from Rome. Fall of Capua.

209 New Carthage in Spain taken by the Romans. Battle of

Bæcula and defeat of Hasdrubal. Hasdrubal crosses the

Pyrenees and Gaul, and appears in the north of Italy.

207 Battle of Metaurus. Hasdrubal defeated and slain. The

last hope of the Carthaginians is gone.

206 Carthaginians finally expelled from Spain.

204 Scipio invades Africa.

203 Scipio defeats the Carthaginians. Hannibal recalled to

Carthage.

202 Battle of Zama. Scipio defeats Hannibal.

201 Peace with Rome. Carthage resigns the right to wage

foreign wars and promises to pay a heavy indemnity. The

supremacy of the West passes to Rome. Hannibal governs

Carthage, and reforms the Constitution. He plans an

alliance with Antiochus of Syria against Rome.

195 Hannibal expelled from Carthage.

183 Death of Hannibal.

183-150 Internal dissensions between the Roman and

national parties. Encroachments of Masinissa of Numidia.

151 War between Carthage and Masinissa. The Romans claim

this a breach of treaty and prepare for a siege of Carthage.

149 Third Punic war. Siege of Carthage.

146 Carthage taken and destroyed. Her territories become

Roman provinces, and are organised as such.

FOURTH PERIOD (146 B.C.-697 A.D.)

122 Caius Gracchus leads a colony which founds the city of

Junonia on the site of Carthage. The colony is unsuccessful.

29 Augustus sends out a colony which attains to great

prosperity.

439 A.D. Genseric captures Carthage and makes it the capital of

the Vandal kingdom.

533 Carthage is stormed by Belisarius and incorporated in

the eastern Roman empire.

697 Carthage destroyed by the general of caliph

Abdul-malik.

[Illustration: PHŒNICIAN VASE]

[Illustration: AQUEDUCT OF TYRE]

CHAPTER I. LAND AND PEOPLE

Phœnicia proper, even in its most flourishing state, was one of the

smallest countries of antiquity. It comprised that part of the Syrian

coast extending from Akko to Aradus, [Arvad] a narrow strip of land

about two hundred miles in length, from north to south; and probably

nowhere more than thirty-five miles in width. This short line of

coast, rich in bays and harbours, was covered with lofty mountains,

many of which ran out into the sea and formed promontories, and whose

heights, covered with forests, supplied the most valuable material in

the construction of the fleets and habitations of the Phœnicians. The

larger range of these mountains bore the name of Libanus [Lebanon],

and the other parallel range, the Antilibanus, lay eastward towards

Syria. The sea, which broke with great fury upon this rocky shore, had

probably separated some of these promontories from the mainland, and

which, forming little islands at a small distance from the shore, are

not less worthy of note than the mainland itself, being everywhere

covered with extensive colonies and flourishing cities. Thus Aradus,

the most northern frontier city of Phœnicia, was built on one of these

islands; and opposite to it on the mainland was Antaradus, which

derived its name from it. About eighteen miles to the south of this

stood, and still stands, Tripolis; and at a like distance Byblus, with

the temple of Adonis; and again, farther south, Berytus. Keeping along

the coast, we come to Sidon at nearly the same distance; and finally,

fourteen or fifteen miles farther, towards the southern boundary of the

country, was erected, upon another island, the stately Tyre, the queen

of Phœnician cities. The space between these places was covered with a

number of towns of less import, but equally the abode of industry, and

widely celebrated for their arts and manufactures. Among these were

Sarepta [Zarephath], Botrys, Orthosia, and others; forming, as it were,

one unbroken city, extending along the whole line of coast and over the

islands; and which, with the harbours and seaports, and the numerous

fleets lying within them, must have afforded altogether a spectacle

scarcely to be equalled in the world, and must have excited in the

stranger who visited them, the highest idea of the opulence, the power,

and the enterprising spirit of the inhabitants.

Although these cities existed altogether in the flourishing period of

Phœnicia, history has given us some account of the manner and time

of their successive foundations. They were colonies of one another;

and, like all other colonies of the ancient world, were founded either

for purposes of trade, or by bodies of citizens who left their native

abode in consequence of civil dissensions. The oldest of them, “the

first-born of Canaan,” according to the Mosaic record, was Sidon, the

foundress of the trade and navigation of the Phœnicians. Sidon was

the parent of Tyre. In the first place, merely as a staple for her

own wares; but the daughter soon waxed greater than the mother, and

successfully rivalled her. In the blooming period of Phœnicia, Sidon

was only the second Phœnician city in point of extent, though still

rich and mighty, and secured in a great measure by her excellent

harbours from ruin and decline, so long as the maritime commerce of

the Phœnicians should endure. Arvad was founded by another colony from

Sidon, and owed its origin to a civil broil in this city, which drove

the discontented party to seek a new abode.

Palætyrus, founded by Sidon, and situated on the mainland, continued

a powerful, rich, and flourishing commercial city till the time of

Nebuchadrezzar, the Babylonian-Chaldean conqueror; against whom it had

to defend itself during a siege or blockade of thirteen years; but that

he in reality ever took or destroyed it, as is commonly asserted, there

is no historical proof. During this blockade, the greater part of the

inhabitants took refuge upon a neighbouring island, already furnished

with numerous establishments and buildings, and thus founded the island

city of Tyre, which, favoured by its strong position, soon equalled the

parent city, and not only outlived the Babylonian and Persian empires,

but continued to increase as the ancient Tyre declined. It was finally

captured by Alexander, after an obstinate resistance; but he robbed

it less of its ancient opulence and splendour by his arms, than by

the foundation of Alexandria, which henceforth became the great seat

of the commerce of the world, though Tyre did not altogether decline.

In the midst of this city stood the temple of the principal deity of

the Tyrians, the protecting god of the city, as its name, Melkarth,

signifies. This deity was called by the Greeks the Tyrian Hercules,

though entirely different from their god bearing the same name; hence

the myths of the two are often confounded. The worship of the Tyrian

deity was introduced into the most distant parts of the world to which

that people penetrated and founded settlements; he was honoured as the

national god by the independent colonies of Tyre, who were wont to

acknowledge his supremacy by solemn embassies. The city was protected

by high walls of cut stone; and had two harbours, one on the north

towards Sidon, the other on the south towards Egypt. The mouth of the

latter could be closed by immense chains.

Let us now inquire what was the internal government of these cities?

What their relation with each other? Whether they formed one general

confederation? or whether they remained entirely separate states,

without any common tie? These questions demand our serious attention.

The remarks above made upon the nature of the country readily explain

why the Phœnicians could never become a conquering nation, and the

founders of a great monarchy, such as that of the Chaldeans, the

Persians, and others. They must have been well satisfied, if they could

protect their little territory from the invasions of such powerful

Asiatic conquerors; and being, from the earliest times downwards a

people dwelling in cities, they could have had no idea of taking the

long marauding expeditions common to nomad nations.

In order to obtain a correct idea of the political state of Phœnicia,

it is necessary to have a general notion of the rise and progress

of civil government among the Syrian tribes. As far as the light of

history carries us back, we everywhere find a number of single cities,

with the territory around them, under a monarchial form of government;

the sovereign power being placed in the hands of kings or princes.

Examples certainly are to be met with where some of these cities and

their monarchs obtained a decided preponderance (Damascus is at once

an instance) and assumed to themselves a degree of authority. This,

however, was a kind of forced alliance, which extended no farther

than the exaction of tribute and subsidies in times of war, without

depriving the subjected cities of their government and rulers. Syria,

while independent and left to itself, never became organised into one

state or one monarchy.

Here, then, we trace the groundwork of the Phœnician government. This

country, like Syria, never became one state; but, from the earliest

period down to the Persian monarchy, was always divided into a number

of separate cities, each with its little territory around it. Some

writers have stated positively the precise extent of the dominions of

each city. Thus Antaradus, and the territory about it, formed part

of the domain of Aradus, to which it lay opposite; thus Sarepta came

within the dominion of Sidon, etc.

Allied cities, however, were certainly frequent in Phœnicia; indeed it

seems very probable, that at certain times all the cities of Phœnicia

formed one confederation, at the head of which stood originally Sidon,

and afterwards Tyre. Even as early as the Mosaic period, alliances

among these cities were common; the necessity of their common

defence from foreign attack, which separately they were too weak to

withstand, must naturally have led to this system. Neither were these

confederations confined to Phœnicia alone; they prevailed also in the

countries colonised by the Phœnicians; and Carthage in Africa, as well

as Gades [or Gadeira] in Spain, stood at the head of the settlements

in these districts without, however, obtaining a complete authority

over them. A common religion, the worship of the Tyrian Hercules,

the national and colonial deity, formed likewise a bond of union for

all these cities, both of the mother country and the colonies, and

strengthened and preserved the connection between them.

It is the nature, however, of all such confederations, to be liable

to frequent changes; they vary indeed according to the political

interests, and even the power and views of the separate states.

Many changes of this kind must have arisen in this quarter, by the

foundation and growing prosperity of the inland colonies; and many

modifications must have taken place as these acquired sufficient

strength to assume a kind of independence of the parent states. In

the present case, in which we shall confine our observations to the

flourishing period of Tyre,--that is, the period from Solomon to Cyrus,

or at least Nebuchadrezzar,--it will be sufficient to show that Tyre,

in the sense just stated, was always the dominant city of Phœnicia.

This may be inferred, in the first place, from the description given of

Tyre by the prophet Ezekiel. Sidon and Arvad [Aradus] were at this time

her allies, and supplied their contingents of soldiers and sailors.

This being proved of the largest and most distant city of Phœnicia, no

doubt can be well entertained respecting the smaller and nearer.

Besides, the subjects and allies of Tyre, and their revolts against

the capital, are more than once expressly spoken of in history. The

most striking proof of this is preserved in Josephus, from the works

of Menander. For when King Shalmaneser undertook his expedition into

western Asia and against Phœnicia, the allied cities, Sidon, Palætyrus,

Akko, and many others, revolted against the Tyrians, and submitted to

the king of Assyria. They went so far indeed as to fit out a fleet

against them, which was defeated by the Tyrians, who thus secured

themselves from further danger.

By comparing these fragments of Phœnician history and its government

with the accounts that are left us respecting the state of Carthage,

we obtain something more than bare historical conjecture, as we find

a striking similarity between the government of the mother country

and the colonies. What Tyre was towards Sidon, Arvad, Tripolis, etc.,

Carthage was towards Utica, Leptis, Adrumetum, and other cities. It

not only seems quite natural, that in cities inhabited by one people,

and so frequently called upon to struggle against their common and

powerful enemies, alliances should be formed, and by alliances a kind

of authority be conceded to the mightiest; but it is also consonant

with the whole tenor of ancient history, that colonies should adopt the

government of the mother state.

It may be concluded, then, from these facts, that the Phœnician cities

formed together one confederation, at the head of which, in the period

of their greatest splendour and perfect independence, stood Tyre. At

the time of their subjection to Assyria and Persia, the bond that

connected them necessarily became loosened, the other cities paid

their tribute and furnished their contingents to Persia instead of to

Tyre; the latter, however, still preserved its rank, and was always

considered the chief city of the land.

The next question, namely, What was the internal government of the

Phœnician cities? is equally difficult and obscure.

However desirable it may be to trace out accurately the gradual rise

and progress of civic government in these, the earliest commercial

cities, want of information limits us to a few general observations.

_First_, then, there can be no doubt but that each Phœnician city had

its own proper government, and that in this respect they were perfectly

independent of each other. They always appear so, as the following

pages will evince, upon every occasion, and in every period of their

history; being never spoken of but as separate states.

_Secondly_, It seems equally certain, that the chief authority was

placed in the hands of kings, and certainly of hereditary kings,

although political parties many times fomented revolutions by which

new families were raised to the throne. This is especially shown by

the history of Tyre; a catalogue of whose kings is extant in Josephus,

from the time of Hiram, the contemporary of David, till the siege of

the city by Nebuchadrezzar. Even under the dominion of the Persians,

the royal dignity was preserved, though the monarchs were now only

tributary princes, obliged to furnish money and ships to the Persians,

and to attend them, when required, in their military expeditions. The

kings of Tyre appear in this state in the expedition of the Persians

against Athens, and even as late as the overthrow of Persia and the

capture of Tyre by Alexander. As Tyre had its proper kings, so also

had the other Phœnician cities, Sidon, Aradus, and Byblus. These are

mentioned in various periods, and even as late as the Macedonian

conquest.

_Thirdly_, Notwithstanding the existence of the royal dignity, the

government was certainly not despotic; nay, the monarchial power was

so strictly limited as to render it almost republican. It was indeed

well-nigh impossible that despotism could have endured for so many

centuries in commercial states, which can thrive only in the atmosphere

of political liberty. A large maritime commerce requires a spirit of

enterprise and resolute activity altogether incompatible with despotic

government. Even the repeated political changes which took place in all

these cities, and more particularly in Tyre, as well as the continual

departure of colonies and their settlement in distant parts of the

world, are circumstances which not only could not have been brought

forth by despotism, but are the legitimate offspring of free nations.

Many particulars which warrant this conclusion may still be found

in Phœnician history, notwithstanding the general scantiness of its

information.

Next to the kings stood the Phœnician magistrates. These conjointly

sent ambassadors. Indeed, at certain periods, a general congress of

the great Phœnician cities was wont to be held, when the kings in

council with the sanhedrim deliberated upon the common affairs of the

confederacy. Tripolis was the place destined for the common assembly of

the three principal cities.

Besides this, there is no question but the authority of the monarchs

was very essentially limited by religion. The priests in these states

formed a numerous and powerful class, and seem to have stood next in

rank to the kings. Sicharbas, or Sichæus, the chief priest of the

principal temple, was the husband of Dido [Elissa], and brother-in-law

to King Pygmalion. His persecution and death by the latter, gave rise

to those serious commotions which ended in the emigration of that

numerous colony which founded the city of Carthage. The political

influence of the Phœnician priests of Baal among the Jews, which caused

a revolution in the state, is sufficiently well known. Among a people

like the Phœnicians, where everything so much depended on sanctuaries

and religion, the priesthood could scarcely fail to have a large share

in the government, though we are not in a situation to determine

precisely its extent.

The prophet Ezekiel in his prophecy against the king of Tyre, gives

us a somewhat deep insight into the power of the prince of that city.

He is pictured as a powerful prince, living in great splendour; but

still as the ruler of a commercial city, which by its trade filled his

treasury; as one who encourages and protects commerce by his wisdom and

policy; but who, in the end, degenerating to craft and injustice, is

threatened with the punishment of his misdeeds. “With thy wisdom and

with thy understanding,” Ezekiel cries, “hast thou gotten thee riches;

with gold and silver hast thou filled thy treasury by means of the

greatness of thy commerce. Full of wisdom sealedst thou great sums;

thou dwellst in a garden of God, ornamented from thine infancy with

precious stones, clothed with fine garments. But traffic has enriched

thee with ill-gotten wealth and thou hast sinned.” From this remarkable

passage it may at least be gathered, that the revenue of the Tyrian

kings, and without doubt that of the princes of the other cities also,

was derived from commerce; but whether from the customs, or, which

seems more probable, from a monopoly of some of the branches of trade,

or from both, cannot be decided.[b]

ORIGIN OF THE PHŒNICIANS

As is seen on examination of the different names which were in

course of time applied to the Phœnicians, they are not as a race to

be separated from the rest of the Canaanites, especially from the

various elements of the pre-Israelitish population of Palestine. Their

history is only that of a section of the Canaanite race, the history

of that portion which, as far back as the times to which the earliest

historical information concerning this territory refers, had fixed

its abode, not in the interior of Palestine but on the edge of the

sea, along the coasts of the strip of country which bordered it on

the north as far as those level stretches of the coast lands of Syria

which extended to the northwestern slopes of Lebanon. Although in the

matter of descent no difference can be discerned between them and the

other Canaanites, historical science must, nevertheless, regard them

as a different people. It is in this sense that they are spoken of as

the Phœnician race, the Phœnician people. They, and the inhabitants

of the colonies which they founded, alone have a claim to the name of

Phœnicians.

We can only guess at the manner in which the settlement of the

Phœnician country by the Canaanites was effected, but the occurrences

which afterwards took place in the interior of Palestine point to the

assumption that the Canaanites did not spread inwards from the coast.

It is not easily conceivable that at first they possessed merely those

long narrow stretches of land and only subsequently extended their

settlements from thence over those portions of the country west of

Jordan of which they were masters before the Israelites. From ancient

times there prevailed, as far as can be discovered, an endeavour on the

part of the population of the interior, to approach the flat country

on the coast, where the fruitful fields were in any case much more

attractive than the mountains and hilly districts which, even in the

time of the Israelites, were still partly covered with forest.

It may be concluded, therefore, that the Canaanite population of

Phœnicia had at some time immigrated thither, either from the southern

strips of the Syrian coast or from the northern portions of the

interior of Palestine. But if this be so, the immigration must still

be looked upon as an event which was completed at a distance of time

historically so remote, that a distinct and faithful recollection

of it can hardly have been preserved by the Phœnicians themselves.

Even a possibility that a dim notion of these occurrences may have

lingered, at least in isolated legends, is scarcely to be calculated

on. Rather should we expect all real knowledge of the kind to be early

extinguished, and that the Phœnicians in their new home, as a result

of the historical development through which they passed, should have

early come to regard themselves as the primitive inhabitants of the

country. As a fact there do exist notices respecting what purport to be

Phœnician traditions, the age and to some extent the authenticity of

which cannot indeed be determined, but which seem to indicate that at

least in Hellenic and still later times, the Phœnicians cherished this

opinion. Every people considers itself autochthonous, directly it has

ceased to remember its origin.

On the other hand, there are accounts which tell of an immigration of

the Phœnicians, and even of an immigration from regions lying farther

south. The first who speaks of this is Herodotus. In the description of

the collection of Xerxes’ army which he sketches in the seventh book

of his work, he says: “As regards the Phœnicians, they formerly dwelt,

as they themselves say, on the Erythræan Sea. From thence they passed

transversely across Syria and now dwell there on the seashore.”

Most of the remaining notices of the coming of the Phœnicians from the

Erythræan Sea, which are found in the writings of the ancients, are

to be referred to this assertion of Herodotus. The few other isolated

references may be passed over in silence, with the exception of the

one concerning the origin of the Phœnicians furnished by Justin in his

extracts from the historical works of Pompeius Trogus. What he tells us

is as follows: “The people of the Tyrians are descended from Phœnicians

who, disquieted by an earthquake, left their first home on the inland

sea of Syria (_ad Syrium stagnum_), and soon after settling on the

nearest seacoast, there built a town, which they called _Sidon_ on

account of the abundance of fish, for the fish is called ‘sidon’ by the

Phœnicians.” The statement that “sidon” means “fish” is incorrect, but

it has at least the sense of “fishing.”

The inland sea, the _Syrium stagnum_ which is here mentioned, is said

to be not far from the Syrian coast. This has been thought to refer

to the Lake of Gennesareth, the Sea of Galilee, with its abundance

of fish. But as _stagnum_ means a body of water with no outlet, this

interpretation is improbable. Christian Carl Josias Bunsen seems rather

to have found the real one, when he expressed the opinion that the Dead

Sea is meant, and that the earthquake which is said to have induced the

Phœnicians to quit the shores of that sea was the same to which the

destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is ascribed in the Bible. The tale

of the destruction of these towns apparently lies at the root of the

idea that in this region, immeasurable ages ago, there existed a higher

civilisation than was known in historical times, and which belonged

to races other than those which dwelt there in the historical period.

The higher the idea which men formed of this ruined civilisation, the

less could they impute its disappearance exclusively to chance, and the

blind forces of the rude powers of nature. When legend glances back to

the prehistoric past, she always regards the overthrow of the noble and

beautiful as the direct result of a crime.

Compared with one another, the two accounts allow us to conclude

the existence of a common tradition, in which the division of the

peoples into different tribes is explained generally, and its cause is

conceived to have been a great natural disturbance, a transformation

of the earth’s surface which is said to have occurred in the region

round about the Dead Sea. In the reports which underlie the statements

of Justin, or rather the sources of Pompeius Trogus, the history of

the rise of the Phœnicians began with this catastrophe and therefore

probably the general history of the various offshoots of the Canaanite

section of humanity. On the other hand, in the Bible narrative, the

same tradition is applied to connect it with the rise of two races

which afterwards dwelt in the vicinity of that catastrophe. The

peculiar nature of the catastrophe and the circumstance that just such

great convulsions of the earth give occasion to new adjustments of the

relations of peoples, lead to the conclusion that the joint tradition,

which may be inferred from the two presentations, again refers back to

a conception which cannot have arisen in the north of Palestine or in

its coast districts, but only in the immediate neighbourhood of the

Dead Sea, and in face of tokens which witness in eloquent language to

the effects of the mighty forces of nature. In other words, a legend of

local origin which ascribed the creation of the Dead Sea to a powerful

convulsion of the earth, formed the germ of a legendary cycle with much

common groundwork, in which the chief importance was assigned to the

region of the Dead Sea and an earthquake which is said to have done its

work there. This cycle consisted of a series of legends whose subject

was the destruction of a lost civilisation which had attained a high

pitch of excellence, and expression was thereby given to the conviction

that the history of nations is not indeed to be traced back to its

first starting-point, the origin of man, but that nevertheless the

human race must have had a common origin.

If we ask with which race this legendary cycle developed, it is evident

that we have here to do with a tradition of Canaanite origin which can

have arisen only amongst those Canaanites who had their seat in the

inland district, which lies in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea. When

it arose, cannot of course be determined. The Biblical account comes

from the so-called Yahvistic narrator, who wrote as is assumed about

the middle of the ninth century B.C. No doubt, however, the tradition

on which this narrator draws is of much more ancient origin.

At best then we conclude that the information of Herodotus and Justin

was derived from a Canaanite legend, in which a region by the Dead Sea

was regarded as the starting-point of a division of the nations. And

the starting-point was placed there, not because it was historically

certain that such a movement of nations had begun in that place, but,

on the contrary, because the starting-point was really unknown. But

that region was said to have been the scene of a violent transformation

of the earth’s surface, which had swallowed up the flourishing

settlements of antiquity, and in their place created a dreary waste.

It was only for this reason that the legend for the division of the

nations was there localised.

The early study of navigation in Phœnicia, the development of the

Phœnician race into a seafaring commercial people, the international

character of their proceedings--in short all those peculiarities

attending the appearance of this people in history, which have always

required explanation--have been readily ascribed to their former

sojourn on the shore of the Erythræan Sea. For the idea is, that it

was not by any means in a state of savagery, but as skilled seamen,

as experienced traders, conversant with all the achievements of the

civilisation of southern latitudes and prepared for every contingency,

that the Phœnicians for some cause not further explained, changed

their home and sought out the Mediterranean coast of Syria. Although

it has never been asserted that this event could belong to historical

times, with it the explanation of historical problems, which so

far as it is admissible, at all times is to be drawn entirely and

without arbitrary suppositions from the condition and situation of

the Phœnician settlements on the Syrian shore, is relegated into the

region of the entirely unknown. As a matter of fact, those particular

regions which have been specially represented as the primitive home

of the Phœnicians, namely, the Babylonian coasts of the Persian Gulf

and those which lie to the west of them, are so little qualified to

favour the rise of navigation, owing to the want of suitable woods,

that, as Aristobulus informs us, when Alexander the Great conceived

the design of bringing the coast district of eastern Arabia under his

dominion, both seamen and portable ready-made ships had to be brought

from Phœnicia to Babylon, and this was actually done with the express

intention of making of Babylonia, what it had never hitherto been,

namely, “a second Phœnicia.”

Thus neither those statements which make the Phœnicians the primitive

inhabitants of their country, nor those which represent them as

immigrants, have any convincing force. It is in itself probable that

they were originally native not to Phœnicia but to some place farther

south, and in the interior of Palestine; but not because we have

information to that effect, but solely on account of the outlying

position of their settlements, representing the most northerly extent

of territory of the Canaanites. Amongst the peoples of antiquity the

Phœnician is not indeed the only one which must not be regarded as

autochthonous, although all the accounts of their immigration which we

possess are unworthy of credit. As a rule no conjectures can be brought

forward, as to the road by which this or that people reached its place

of abode. That this is possible in the case of the Phœnicians is one of

the exceptions. They can only have reached their homes from the south,

and that which urged them forward was, as has already been emphasised

above, that same movement of peoples, which, starting from the northern

territories of Arabia, has always produced an effect in the south of

Palestine.[c]

CHAPTER II. EARLY HISTORY AND INFLUENCES

BEGINNINGS OF THE HISTORY AND CIVILISATION OF PHŒNICIA

According to the opinion of eminent geologists Phœnicia was an

inhabited country at some wholly prehistoric period, long before

the first appearance of the Phœnicians. Nevertheless neither skulls

nor other portions of the skeletons of the primitive, prehistoric

inhabitants have been found there up to the present time. But on the

floor of particular caves, of which there are many on the western

slopes of Lebanon, are certain strata composed of the remains of burnt

coal and ashes, potsherds, splinters of the bones of animals, and flint

stones of various shapes. The whole, as it were, cemented together by

calcareous sinter, into a kind of brecciated mass as hard as stone.

The bones of animals have been declared to be those of a species no

longer extant, but they exhibit no trace of having been modelled.

On the other hand the flints, which exist in great quantities, are

regarded as products which are certainly the work of human hands. At

least, experts who have gone deep into this department of inquiry,

have expressed the conviction that shapes such as these exhibit could

not have come into existence in any other way, by means of any fall of

rock or chance splitting of masses of flint. Unfortunately, however,

a class of shapes is in question concerning whose origin doubt and

hesitation are permissible. There is no object amongst them which bears

on the face of it either the unmistakable impress of a tool or a sure

sign of polishing or careful fashioning. It also seems as though the

deposits on the floors of those grottos which have been the principal

subjects of investigation had in no instance remained undisturbed.

Further confirmation must consequently be looked for before the

existence of a population of Phœnicia which was prehistoric in the

geological sense, can be regarded as an established fact, and even then

the generation which exclusively employed tools of such a rough form

as these flint fragments must in any case have been, would be divided

by an immeasurable gulf from the generations which were subsequently

established in the same country.

It is in no way probable that when the Phœnicians chose the lowlands

on the west side of the Lebanon chain as their place of abode they

took possession of a tract of country which had as yet practically no

population. But we have not the slightest grounds for guessing the

stage of civilisation of the predecessors whom they encountered there,

nor to what race these belonged. Certain scholars have indeed sought to

answer the question, why it was in Phœnicia that in early times a much

higher development of civilisation appeared than in most of the other

countries inhabited by members of the Semitic family of peoples, by the

hypothesis that the branch of Semites which immigrated there found, as

did those who settled in Babylonia, a population entirely different in

endowments and descent, and who had long been in possession of a many

sided civilisation; with these they may have intermingled, and from

the complete amalgamation first proceeded that section of humanity,

which bears in history the name of Phœnicians. This hypothesis has no

other foundation than the idea that otherwise it would be necessary to

attribute to a Semitic people qualities which are denied to the Semitic

family generally.

As already shown, the exact point of time at which the race of

Phœnicians established its claims to a home in Phœnicia, cannot be

computed. It is still more impossible to fix its date than it is to

determine the first commencement of historical development in Egypt

and Babylonia, because in Phœnicia there is a total lack of monuments

which might afford some kind of glimpse at such far remote distances

of the past as are revealed by the earliest monuments of Egyptian and

Babylonian origin. It may, however, be regarded as established that a

consistent development, preparing the way for results which are known

to history, began much later in Phœnicia than in the Nile Valley and

the territory at the mouth of the Euphrates and the Tigris. Like the

Babylonians and Egyptians, the Phœnicians were subsequently unable to

refrain from drawing up a chronological scheme of their own history,

embracing an inconceivably long period. At least Julius Africanus, a

Christian chronographer who wrote in the first quarter of the third

century A.D., mentions incidentally that there were versions of

Phœnician history in which the latter was made to go back no less than

30,000 years. But this is quite a modest total when we remember that

Babylonians are said to have asserted that their reckoning extended

back 480,000 years. In what manner the enormous number of 30,000 years

was attained may be guessed. A brief span of time would be filled by

historical occurrences and lists of rulers.

As to primitive history, properly so called, or if it is preferred,

the sojourn of the Phœnician people in its first and original home, it

is probably not touched on in any way. In all probability the lion’s

share was accorded to the gods, and to a plan of arrangement designed

to bring the doctrine of the rule of the gods on earth, and especially

in Phœnicia, into the framework of a regular chronological system. Such

a scheme was required, because the lists of rulers were not limited

to the enumeration of historical personages, but began with mythical

figures and with gods. Therefore, on the whole, there is nothing behind

these high figures, if they have been accurately reported, beyond a

chronology of the Phœnician cosmogony and stories of the gods.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 2750 B.C.]]

Of much more ancient origin and of much greater positive value is

another date which is given by Herodotus. He asserts that during

his stay at Tyre, which may be placed in the year 450 B.C., certain

priests of the sanctuary there which was consecrated to the god

Hercules (_i.e._ Melkarth) responded to his question as to how long

the temple had been standing, by saying that that temple had been

erected when the town was founded, and that that event had happened

2300 years before. According to this the founding of Tyre would fall

somewhere in the year 2750 B.C. B. G. Niebuhr has declared himself very

sceptical of the trustworthiness of the informants to whom Herodotus

owed this intelligence. But even if their estimate is not to be taken

as exact, and was not derived direct from records of the founding of

the temple, and if it is also uncertain whether Herodotus was not

merely informed of the period at which, in Phœnicia, the founding of

the oldest city in that country began, still in itself few objections

can be found to the correctness of this estimate as on the whole an

approximately accurate date. It stands to reason that on practical

grounds it was to the interest of the priesthood of that temple to

bring exaggerated notions of its age into circulation. But in doing

this, since they expressly invoke the notorious age of the town, they

had every inducement to keep within the bounds of what was generally

regarded as possible. At best, therefore, their estimate will be the

earliest date with which the contemporary inhabitants of Phœnicia

believed that they might associate their historical recollections

generally. It was not merely a date such as is derived from simple

love of romancing; otherwise they would have gone further back. In

fact about twenty-five hundred years before Christ the Canaanites had

actually taken up their abode in Phœnicia.

[Illustration: THE STAR OF THE EAST]

As everything points to the presumption that we have no historical

information which stands in the way of free invention as to the age

of the towns, this fact should serve to confirm the theory that the

origin of the towns of Phœnicia did not take place under the influence

of historical events of a violent character, and that the character

of the conformation of the soil of the whole territory which favoured

the isolation of the different sections, had its effect at a very

early stage of their development. This was all the more to be expected

because the rest of the Canaanites exhibited only slight tendencies

towards national unity, a want which may perhaps be explained by the

probability that their original home was also the border territory

of the cultivated land of Syria, and that presumably the force of

circumstances under which the transition to the life in fixed abodes

was completed had not been enough to banish all remains of the nomad’s

disposition. Even at the time of the immigration of the Israelitish

tribes, the land west of Jordan was not, according to all appearance,

thickly populated, and although along the Syria coast, a greater

density of population had long prevailed, yet even in Phœnicia itself

the first scattered settlements had little of the character of

townships until the development of an active maritime trade, which

continually drew fresh sections of the inhabitants of the lowlands

to the neighbourhood of the landing-places. But for this very reason

the fact that subsequently every separate section of the Phœnician

country was referred to solely as the appendage and domain of each

great coast city, should not lead us to the conclusion that these

sections corresponded to a primitive division of the Phœnician race

into separate branches. What this phenomenon really points to is rather

mainly an historical effect arising from the geographical peculiarities

of Phœnicia. And if the population was not everywhere of pure Phœnician

origin, especially in the northern districts--it apparently received

continual accessions from the territory of Lebanon and the inland

country south of the latter--it is still not to be admitted that

distinctions of tribe influenced the choice of the country to be

settled.

There is a special tendency to assign a peculiar position to the men

of Byblus and Berytus. But the reasons which have prompted it are by

no means conclusive; the fact that these two towns are not mentioned

in the table of peoples is explained by the general application of

the term “Sidonian.” It is true that in another passage of the Old

Testament (Joshua xiii. 5) the Byblites are apparently not included

under the general name of Sidonians. But if the general sense of this

passage has not been distorted by numerous interpolations, which can

scarcely be conceded, still, the independent and separate importance of

Byblus will appear as a historic fact and not as one to be referred

to the prehistoric founding of the city by a tribe of non-Phœnician

origin. A writer who, as in this case, wishes to point out to his

fellow tribesmen the tracts of country they are to subdue, concerns

himself rather with states and political units than with ethnological

problems. As regards the separate existence of Byblus, we need only

ask the question whether as a town not founded by Phœnicians it could

have become what it did: namely, a pre-eminently sacred place, a centre

of religious life and thought which had no second in this country--in

fact, the Mecca of the Phœnicians. The coins of this city make it clear

that to them “Kaddischat” (_i.e._, the “holy”) and Gebal (_i.e._,

Byblus) were regarded as identical names. Here special honour was paid

to “El” or, as the Greeks said, Kronos, who was the highest conception

of God in Phœnician theology. Here, too, the service of the “Lady of

the City,” Astarte, acquired, with all the unrestraint of the primitive

sensuousness inherent in the notion of a goddess of love and vitality,

a more distinct and potent shape than in the rest of Phœnicia. In the

territory of Byblus, moreover, lay the scenes in which love once united

the goddess with the youthful ruler Adonis, the most beautiful of the

gods, and where at the instigation of a jealous deity, his deadly

enemy, her lover met his early death from the tusk of a wild boar.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 2800 B.C.]]

The surmises concerning the diverse origin of the original inhabitants

of the towns of Phœnicia lose still more importance from the fact that,

like Syria generally, Phœnicia first becomes the scene of historical

events only in connection with the development of other countries, and

had evidently long before then been subjected to foreign influences.

One of the most ancient records of the history of the world, a relief

which the Egyptian King Sneferu caused to be set upon a rock in the

Wady Magharah, shows us the Egyptians, somewhere about the year 2800

B.C., as conquerors of the Mentiu [or Mentu], the nomad tribes of Mount

Sinai.

In this warlike expedition they fought for the possession of the tracts

of that inhospitable mountain region where copper ore was to be found,

but long before this there appear to have been manifold relations

between the inhabitants of the Nile Valley and the people of Anterior

Asia--relations which rested mainly on the exchange of merchandise. For

instance, it was doubtless as an article of commerce that the produce

of those copper mines first became known in Egypt. It was only when

this source threatened to fail them that the nation, little warlike

as its temper was, determined by the subjection of the predatory

inhabitants of the mountains to secure itself a regular supply of

the invaluable ore which was not obtainable in Egypt. Whether, as

has been assumed, the operation of friendly relations went so far

that the influence of ancient Egyptian art may even be traced in the

most ancient statues of Babylonia, is a question which must remain

undecided. The stiff appearance of the figures which has been taken

as a sign of this is probably better explained by the hardness of the

material in which the works were executed in order that they might be

able to last for all time, and also by the lack of convenient tools. On

the other hand, even in the treatment of separate portions of the body,

more attention is paid to the shape of the internal structure on which

the outer depends, and more regard had to the modelling than is found

in the formal style, where the chief attention is paid to rendering the

general outline, and which is characteristic of Egyptian art. These

differences are the beginning of a line of development peculiar to the

sculpture of the Babylonians and Assyrians. Still, even in the Egypt of

the pyramid age, there is much which points to very early commercial

relations, regularly subsisting between it and the Semitic countries.

Far greater importance must be attached to the influence exercised

by the Babylonian civilisation on the nationalities of Syria, before

the conditions which are seen to have prevailed in historical times

began to take visible shape. Although it may have begun to make

itself felt later than that which came from Egypt, this influence was

still from the first more enduring and penetrating. Two routes led

the civilisation of Babylonia to the countries of the west. The one

ascends the course of the river Euphrates, and has its outlet somewhere

at the top of the Bay of Issus, in the northeast of the interior

of Syria. Here the land of the Kheta borders the Euphrates, or, as

the Assyrians name it, the land of Khatti. It was chiefly from this

territory, that is, from the extreme northwest of Mesopotamia, that

the Babylonian--subsequently the Assyrio-Babylonian civilisation--made

its way into Syria, and similarly in Syria itself it spread mainly in

the direction of from north to south. The wide circuit which it takes

is necessitated by the fact that it is only on the upper course of

the Euphrates that the great Syrian desert, which extends between the

eastern borders of Palestine and the right bank of the Euphrates, comes

to an end.

The other route also shuns the great desert land and turns in a

southwesterly direction from the estuary of the two rivers towards the

north of Arabia. From here also Babylonian civilisation only reached

Palestine and Syria by a circuitous path which led moreover through

tracts of country whose natural conformation refuses its inhabitants

any impulse towards the reception of an advanced civilisation. This

route, however, supplies a more direct connection with the actual

starting-point and home of the civilisation of Babylonia. In all ages

the zone of this southern thoroughfare, which stretches from the

country of the Euphrates to the land east of Jordan and down to the

south of Palestine, has in great part formed a home for nomads and

semi-nomads. Of all Eastern nations, Babylonia exercised in the west

of Palestine and the coast plains of Syria the greatest influence on

the unstable populations of this zone. The habits of life which from

all time have distinguished most of the tribes dwelling here,--namely,

the Bedouin habits,--can only be pursued so long as each separate tribe

has a wide range. As during long periods of isolation the layers of air

that cover the steppe roll up into balls of cloud which suddenly break

in heavy storms on the surrounding countries; so when the density of

the population has increased to such an extent that this zone can no

longer feed its inhabitants, a movement sets in which induces whole

tribes to seek a new home in the cultivated land in the neighbourhood,

and thus once more leave sufficient space for those who remain behind.

Whilst the lands of the nomads give up their surplus population,

those tribes which previously dwelt farther off arrive in the near

neighbourhood of the arable districts, and gradually approach the level

of the inhabitants of the latter. That form of existence which is the

only one possible in the purlieus of a zone habitable only for nomads

and semi-nomads, necessitates, from the very facts of the case, that

most of the attainments of the civilisation of other and more happily

situated countries must forever remain of little value to the dwellers

of that district. The civilisation of Babylonia could no more be

imitated here as a whole than any other phase of development resting

on division of labour, on wealth, and the development of the idea of

property.

Such regulated conditions and restrictions of the will of the

individual as prevailed in Babylonia must, in any case, have always

been in the highest degree repugnant to the unrestrained inhabitants

of this zone, which lived only in the present, and must have seemed by

no means worth striving after, as even in the present day European

conditions have no attraction for most of the dwellers in Arabia. The

ingenious products of industry they no doubt regarded as desirable

valuables and adornments, and sought to obtain them without thinking

of the possibility of learning to make such things for themselves.

The only inventions which they really adopted were certain simple and

practical ones, the use of which gave them light, and whose employment

was permitted even by the primitive existence which they led, and

besides these they received whole series of religious conceptions in

which they imagined themselves to perceive an important increase and

extension of their own knowledge. On the other hand, the wanderings to

and fro which prevailed amongst the tribes, secured a rapid and general

diffusion of any acquisitions they might make.

[Illustration: PHŒNICIAN VASE]

The influence of Babylonia on the rise of the civilisation of Syria

would consequently, as far as regards the immigration of the Canaanites

and the lands in the south of the great Syrian desert considered as

its route, have been at first limited to a few main features. On the

other hand the influence which the same civilisation acquired in Syria

from the north, by virtue of its early extension in the countries

of the upper course of the Euphrates, was probably equally old and

far more complete. The race of the Hittites concerning whose origin

and descent little is known, may have had a special part in this as

intermediaries. But it is uncertain when the presence of this influence

in Syria begins. The peoples of Syria were made in the highest degree

susceptible to Babylonian civilisation by the fact that by descent

and language they belong primarily to the Semites. For although the

civilisation of Babylonia is probably not originally the product of

a Semitic race, yet in Babylonia itself individual tribes of Semitic

origin had made this civilisation their own in an age which belongs

to the prehistoric period, and had transformed it so as to give it

a Semitic character. And the elements of culture which penetrated

into Syria from the northern territories of the Euphrates had passed

through still further modifications and adaptations, and had laid

aside whatever was foreign to the Semites. Merely on this account,

it is obvious that what was transmitted could have retained little

that was of a specifically Babylonian complexion. Everything in Syria

which seems to bear this character on the face of it was, perhaps,

just because this is so distinctly obvious, not borrowed in very

ancient times, more probably adopted later; for the relations with the

Assyrians lasted for centuries, and there was, speaking generally,

no geographical boundary on the northeast between Syria and the

countries of the Euphrates. At best such phenomena are due to a revival

and renovation which left little standing that bore a true Syrian

stamp, even if anything of the kind was attempted. Even the Assyrians

themselves took all the trouble imaginable to copy the Babylonians as

exactly as possible, and the peoples of Syria, who were still less

independent in spirit, did the same so far as they were under the

influence of the Assyrians. And even many centuries before the power of

the Assyrians reached such a height that they were compelled to adjust

themselves to it, they had derived everything that we call cultivation

from the Babylonian sphere of civilisation.

Above all, the religious conceptions of the peoples of Syria were

remoulded by it. Most of the attempts which were made with the object

of formulating the native beliefs into a system were only brought about

subsequently, as the Assyrio-Babylonian example became known. But not

merely the interpretation of the existing worship and belief, not only

the theology must have become more and more closely assimilated to

the Assyrio-Babylonian pattern, but also, in the course of time, the

names and artistic representations of the gods. For instance, we are

informed that in the towns of the Philistine plains a god of the name

of Dagon enjoyed specially high honour. He is frequently represented

on coins, bearded and with long locks of hair, and holding a fish in

either hand: the lower half of the body ends in a fish’s tail covered

with scales and provided with fins. Both the name and the manner of

representation distinctly point to a connection with Babylonia. In

this case, according to all appearance, we are not dealing with a god

whose worship was only introduced by the Philistines, but with an

ancient Canaanite deity. He was also worshipped by the Canaanites of

the interior. If we may trust the statement of Philo, in the Phœnician

accounts of the beginnings of human civilisation it was to Dagon that

the discovery of the nourishing properties of corn and the invention

of the plough were ascribed. Now amongst the gods of Babylonia there

is also found a god named Dagon or Dakan who figures in several

inscriptions as the author of the laws, and it is also known that there

were Babylonian legends which referred the first regulations of human

life to teachings said to have been imparted by beings who were half

men, half fish. Further, in Babylonian and Assyrian art we frequently

find such hybrid creatures as well as human forms disguised as fish,

the head of a fish’s skin, which hangs down the back being placed on

the head of each figure. Up till now, however, we have no explanation

of what these figures are meant to signify nor do we know by what name

they were called. Nevertheless a model of this kind probably furnished

the original for that representation of Dagon which was usual amongst

the Canaanites. If he passed as the god of agriculture and its rules,

he might still have adopted this shape. In any case the form is proof

of Babylonian influence. As to the name, it is very probable that it

was really of Semitic origin, but reached the Canaanites by way of

Babylonia together with the conception of the god of the cultivation

of the soil, which it denoted, and this may even have happened when

they had not yet fixed their abode in Palestine. But as regards the

pictorial representation, it is in the highest degree improbable that a

people of essentially inland origin should from the first have imagined

the divine protector and patron of agriculture as half man, half fish,

and with fishes in his hands. The Canaanites can only have lighted on

this strange manner of representing him when they had been already

long established in Palestine, when divine beings of this form had

become known to them through numerous designs imported from Babylonia,

and it seemed as though no essential distinction existed between the

conception of these beings and that of Dagon. Presumably the most

decisive point of union was afforded by the name Dagon. Etymologically

it signifies no more than a god of “corn” = _dagan_, but it also sounds

like the word _dag_ which means “fish,” and so easily lends itself

to a double meaning which directly justifies and explains the design

afterwards adopted from the name of the god.

In other cases Babylonian names seem to have dislodged the original

designations of Syrian deities. But the same may be said of the

Egyptian influences which, penetrating into Syria from the south, and

especially into the coast districts, encountered those of Babylonia and

Assyria.

With all this it must not be forgotten that the civilisation of the

peoples of Syria did not stop at mere borrowing. In its beginnings

it was not indeed an independent and uniform creation; but still the

diversities of the separate districts lent it a certain variety,

and the distribution of the different tribes gave a great deal of

individuality. We may presume that the civilisation of the districts

connected with the countries on the Euphrates first reached a

considerable height and that then the other parts of Syria, in their

various degrees, merely followed this development. In some details the

influence of the earliest civilisation of northern Syria, or at least a

special connection with it, betrays itself among the Phœnicians.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 1500 B.C.]]

The gods Anat and Reschuf, seem to have reached the Phœnicians from

North Syria at a very early period. So far, indeed, it is only certain

that they were worshipped by the Phœnician colonists on Cyprus.

However, the name Anat appears in the names of several towns in the

Holy Land (in Beth-Anat and perhaps also in Anatoth), and a trace of

the name Reschuf is still recognisable in the name of the coast town

Arsuf. Portraits of these deities are displayed on the monuments of

the Egyptians, who had appropriated them during their intercourse with

Syria. The circumstance that the Egyptians were fond of representing

both deities with the town goddess of Kadesh on the Orontes, points

to Reschuf as well as Anat having been received into the Phœnicians’

system of gods from the pantheon of the northern portion of Syria. From

the closing sentence of the treaty which Ramses II concluded with the

Kheta [Hittites], it even seems that Anat was worshipped in many towns

in the Hittite kingdom.

THE COLONIES

The settlement of the island of Cyprus by Phœnicians must have begun

at a very early period, and probably took place at the beginning of

the complete occupation of the mainland. In this process Phœnicia

acquired an outland only a day’s journey from the coast of Syria, with

favourable harbours on the side facing that coast, and sources of

wealth of the most various kinds. The Phœnicians were most attracted by

copper, the “Cyprian earth,” which along with iron and silver was found

in the mountain range in the middle of the southern half of the island.

It is probable that they acquired that masterly skill in mining which

was the wonder of ancient times, not in Lebanon, but in the process of

exploiting the copper treasures of Cyprus.

In most places there is no trace in historical times of distinction

between autochthonous Cypriotes and descendants of the immigrant

Phœnicians. It is only in places where there is a continuous flow

of maritime intercourse from Phœnician districts, that we find an

element of pure Phœnician nationality in the inhabitants. The political

conditions of the island took shape quite in the same form as in

Phœnicia and in Canaanitish Palestine. Here, too, the more flourishing

municipal communities acquired supremacy over the neighbouring

districts under the sovereign superintendence of town kings; in this

way, it is true, they did not form an organic unit of political

independence, but they formed different kingdoms of small area which

corresponded to an equal number of town districts. Certain dynasties

succeeded for a while in reducing several of these town districts

to subservience, but at the first opportunity the league of kingdoms

which had been thus expanded breaks up very easily into its original

constituents.

Excavations recently carried on in Cyprus have brought to light seals

on which are engraved pictorial representations of Babylonian form, and

inscriptions in Babylonian cuneiform writing, with names of ancient

Babylonian sovereigns. These seals which reach Cyprus in the form of

rarities in the course of barter and exchange, show how ancient are the

trade communications extending from the districts about the mouth of

the Euphrates and the Tigris to the shore lands of northern Syria.

The wars which the Egyptians repeatedly waged from about 2830 B.C. with

the Bedouin races of Sinai, exercised upon the political relations of

Syria no more influence than the punishment executed by the Egyptian

king, Pepi, upon an Aamu tribe, the Herusha, so that for the whole

period of time from 2750 B.C., until the rise of the second [New]

Theban Kingdom of Egypt, there is no political incident to note further

than the conjecture that about the year 1950 B.C. one of the Elamite

sovereigns of Babylonia appears to have reduced a large part of Syria

to ephemeral subservience. Before the beginning of the second half of

the second millennium B.C., must also be placed the commencement of the

colonising activity of the Phœnicians, the first forcible occupation of

Cyprus, possibly also the inauguration of trade with the large islands

of the Grecian archipelago in the farther west. Moreover, before this

point of time, under the influence of the states of Mesopotamia, the

culture of those lands to the northeast and to the north of Syria had

begun to take on the complexion which makes them similar to the culture

of Babylonia. Many productions of this superimposed culture were

already popularised in Egypt in the time of the Middle [Old Theban]

Kingdom.

Whether the invasion of Egypt by the Hyksos, to which the Middle

Kingdom was exposed, was preceded by upheavals in the political

relations of Syria is not known. The Hyksos, at the time of their

expulsion, appear to have found support in the population of southern

Palestine. The conquest of the Hyksos’ stronghold of Avaris [Ha-Uar]

under the Theban king Aahmes (I), is closely connected with the

conquest of the town of Sherohan [Sharhana] in southwestern Palestine,

and it is from this point that can be traced the beginning of the

attempt by the Pharaohs to subdue Syria. To what a wide extent Egyptian

culture must have expanded in the Syrian lands during the period in

which the Canaanite princes ruled the provinces of Lower Egypt may be

easily gathered.

The so-called expulsion of the Hyksos mainly consisted in the removal

of a foreign dynast and his troops, and not in the expatriation of a

whole people; yet the battles which this result entailed had hardened

the Egyptians into a warlike race, and the national army thus created

gave the kings of the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties a weapon which they

utilised for centuries afterwards, partly to reduce broad stretches of

foreign territory to their sovereignty or supremacy, partly also from

time to time to impose new constitutions on the reduced territories,

and to pillage to the fullest extent districts whose inhabitants had

proved rebellious. In the most important centres they subdued, they

placed Egyptian garrisons, introduced Egyptian officials to collect

taxes as they became due, erected strongholds in places where, for

strategical reasons, they seemed likely to be of advantage; a king of

the XXth Dynasty even goes so far as to boast of having raised a temple

to Amen in Canaan. They are animated, however, by no set intention

to incorporate one province after another with their empire; their

nearest concern is to press as far north as possible, to the North

Syrian foreland of the Euphrates. They succeeded from time to time,

although always for a short space only, in procuring free communication

with the banks of the great mysterious torrent which did not run north

as did their own Nile at home, but flowed in the direction of the

distant south. Here was the turning-point of the trade route along

which the “bluestone of Babel” and so many other rare products of

Mesopotamia found their way to the “wretched” Ruthennu, the inhabitants

of Syria. Thus at a comparatively cheap rate could be produced a number

of the coveted articles which the commerce between northern Syria and

the Canaanite country had made expensive.

Concerning events that take place in Phœnicia the Egyptian monuments

of this time give us little information. Aahmes seems to have visited

this scene of action, for by the country of Zahi, which is mentioned in

an inscription of his, the Egyptians understand that slice of Syria to

which Phœnicia belongs.

Without compromising themselves by a useless defence, the cities of

Phœnicia already appear to have done homage to Tehutimes I, and to have

discharged tribute. They must have been well content for the sovereigns

of Egypt to rout the robber hordes of the mountains in Lebanon and

Bekaa, and for a foreign jurisdiction and a foreign power to restore

peace and order in northern Syria by the force of arms. True, they

themselves did not always escape from these encounters with impunity.

Tehutimes III repeatedly entered Phœnicia at the head of his army. On

his return from Tunep in the twenty-ninth year of his reign, he sacked

at harvest time the whole country of Zahi. The great corn stores lying

ready to be threshed were commandeered, and an equal store of wine

and oil. In the thirty-fourth year he took two cities of the land of

Zahi, and in one of his last campaigns he destroyed the city of Arkali,

_i.e._, Akko. In the reports of the campaigns of Tehutimes III there

is no mention of Tyre and Sidon. By the term “dwellers in the harbour”

(their overthrow being alluded to in a poetical description of the

power of this monarch) we should, however, comprehend the inhabitants

of the coast towns of Phœnicia. Gaza and Joppa are repeatedly mentioned

at this time.

In the annals of Tehutimes III, Keft ships and Kepuna ships laden with

timber are mentioned. In the poetical description of victory mentioned

above, the land of Kefa is placed together with Asebi, _i.e._, with

Cyprus or with a territorial portion of this island. We may hazard the

conclusion that in Kefa are comprehended the islands of the “great

sea,” _i.e._, of the Mediterranean; at all events it is not to be

looked for in Phœnicia. Otherwise Tehutimes III would have included

Kefa as the scene of his achievements in the annals along with Zahi and

the lands of the Ruthennu. Moreover, the Keft people, represented by

the Egyptians, do not in the slightest degree resemble the Canaanites.

Clearly the Egyptian artists do not find in them the characteristic

features which they are so fond of representing in the Semites of

Anterior Asia, even until they pass into the régime of caricature.

The successor of Tehutimes III was Amenhotep II, of whose campaign in

Syria we have but fragmentary evidence. His rule and that of his son

Tehutimes IV lasted but a short while. Then came Amenhotep III, who

reigned more than thirty-six years, and to him succeeded Amenhotep IV,

called Khun-aten, the strangest of all the Pharaohs, who held his court

not at Thebes, but in a new imperial capitol which he built for himself

in the city known to-day as Tel-el-Amarna. He it was who had thoughts

of converting the Egyptian religion to a monotheistic system. A

particularly lucky stroke of fate has saved from ruin at Tel-el-Amarna

a number of historical documents of the most valuable nature, which

belonged to the state archives of Khun-aten, and which have only

recently come to light from the hidden repositories in which they were

preserved from destruction.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 1400-1200 B.C.]]

It was the discovery of these tablets that first gave the means for

estimating correctly the extension of Babylonian civilisation in

Anterior Asia even at this period. In those Syrian districts which

were completely under the dominion of Egypt, men used the Babylonian

cuneiform character and the Semitic idiom of Babylonia in written

intercourse with the Egyptian court, and like the Aramaic in the

Persian epoch, this idiom was the official language of diplomatic

negotiations, and was consequently studied even in Egypt itself.

The confusion which followed in Egypt on the decease of the unwarlike

Khun-aten, facilitated a gradual increase in the power of the kingdom

of the Kheta, already forwarded by the policy of that prince and

his predecessor which had been directed rather to maintaining their

possessions than to an extension of power. The peoples of Syria were

left to themselves until, under Hor-em-heb, Egypt again began to

acquire internal cohesion; Seti I, however, was the first who was able

to reconquer much of the lost territory. He managed to advance through

Syria, to the frontiers of the Kheta kingdom, and to return home with

a rich booty. His son and successor, Ramses II, renewed the struggle

for the possession of northern Palestine, and conducted, with varying

success and through long years, a war against the Kheta and their

allies. Finally a treaty of peace was concluded between the two powers,

by which little more was left to the Egyptians than the dominion over

the coast lands of Palestine, in which they were from henceforth

able,--at least while Ramses II ruled,--to maintain themselves

undisturbed. A strip of the Phœnician coast may also have remained

under the suzerainty of this Pharaoh.

The arrangement with the Kheta remained in effect, not merely down to

the close of the long reign of Ramses II, but also during that of his

son Meneptah, and placed the districts of Syria where Egypt retained

a free hand in a state of dependence for several generations. One

of the Pharaohs of the XXth Dynasty, Ramses III, also succeeded in

re-establishing for a short time the dominion of Egypt, at least in

the south of Palestine. In the eighth year of this king’s reign, the

kingdom of the Kheta succumbed to the onslaught of a national migration

for which a host of tribes from distant countries had joined together.

Carrying their wives and children with them, the invaders made their

way through Syria to the eastern frontier of Egypt. Amongst the tribes

from which this enterprise started the Egyptians make mention of the

Pursta (Pulista?). It is not impossible that this name denotes that

same people to whom Palestine owes its name, the foreign nation of

the Philistines. The assertion that the Askalonians, _i.e._, the

Philistines, destroyed Sidon, is not to be taken quite literally, and

only to be regarded as referring to the devastation and plundering of

a part of Phœnicia. The repulse of the Pursta and their allies is one

of the last signs of life still displayed by the effete Egypt of the

period of the XXth Dynasty. The later Ramessides soon entirely lost

that dominion over the districts of southern Palestine which Ramses II

could still call his own. Centuries went by before armed intervention

in the affairs of Syria could be again ventured on from the Nile Valley.

By the sixteenth century B.C., and before that date, though how much

earlier it is impossible to say, the Phœnicians were familiar with the

whole of the Ægean Sea, which they had probably reached in the first

instance by way of the south coast of Asia Minor and the island of

Rhodes. From the harbours of Rhodes it was a simple matter to sail to

the smaller isles of the archipelago, and so, by easy stages, to the

Ægean coasts of Greece and Asia Minor. It is probable that, in pursuit

of their commercial enterprises, they visited every nook and corner

of this part of the Mediterranean, establishing factories where the

conditions were favourable, and trading-stations on islands near the

shore, or at such points on the mainland as seemed least liable to

attack, instructing the natives in the art of mining where minerals

were to be had, or taking the work in hand themselves.

VOYAGES AND TRADING-STATIONS

The records of their presence which have come down to us are scanty,

and in some cases of doubtful authenticity. The statements of Greek

authors to the effect that certain cities, buildings, or forms of

worship, were erected or instituted by the Phœnicians, often mean no

more than that their real origin was unknown. The names of Cyclopean,

Pelasgian, and Phœnician were indiscriminately bestowed on all relics

of venerable antiquity, and even when the Homeric poems were composed,

the Phœnician occupation of the Greek archipelago lay far back in

the remote past. In the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_, the Phœnicians

appear only as dwellers in Phœnicia, or the land of Sidon, mariners

and traders, whose business leads them to and fro in great waters,

far from their homes, and who now and again cast anchor in one spot

for a twelvemonth or so, as occasion offers. We hear much of their

doings, of the splendour of their goblets of wrought silver, and their

embroidered stuffs, the product of Sidonian looms; of the jewels of

gold and amber they offer for sale; of their dishonest and knavish

tricks, of how they cheat simple folk of their property, and then sell

them into slavery, induce maidservants to come on board their galleys

with stolen goods and their masters’ children, and then, quickly

hoisting sail, carry off the sons of noble houses to be sold as slaves

at the next port they reach. But this is no true description even of

the period when the Greek epics came into being, except in so far as it

makes Sidon the chief depot of the unmatchable products of the art and

industry of northern Syria. The episodes in the _Odyssey_ which treat

of Phœnician knavery are later interpolations. Nor are the deductions

as to Phœnician expansion drawn by certain scholars from certain proper

names in Greece very convincing, as, for all their ingenuity, they rest

on internal evidence alone.

The Phœnicians colonised Rhodes, as they had colonised Cyprus, though

not to the same extent. The centre of their settlements was Jalysus,

opposite the coast of Asia Minor, at the northern end of the island;

Cameiros, on the east, is also said to have been a Phœnician city.

They established settlements in several of the Sporades and Cyclades,

in Thera, Melos (where they found sulphur and alum), and Oliaros

(Antiparos). The island of Cythera supplied them with a station for the

purple murex fishery, and a starting-point for voyages to the west and

to the Peloponnesian coast. Whether they had any settlements in Crete

is uncertain, but they certainly had some close to the coast of Thrace,

for Herodotus speaks with wonder and admiration of their gold mines in

the island of Thasos. They are said, but on insufficient evidence, to

have colonised Samothrace. Nor is it impossible that some venturesome

mariners may have sailed through the Hellespont and Bosphorus to the

Pontus Euxinus, and established Phœnician factories on the north coast

of Asia Minor.

Schliemann’s excavations at Hissarlik, Mycenæ, Tiryns, and Orchomenos,

and other discoveries of the relics of pre-Homeric civilisation,

have brought to light a number of objects unmistakably Phœnician,

or copied from Phœnician models, which prove that, in externals at

least, the civilisation of the islands and coasts of the Ægean had

far more affinity with that of northern Syria than with that which

was destined to arise in Hellas. To take but a single example, the

walls of Hissarlik, Tiryns, and Mycenæ, when complete, must have borne

a strong resemblance to those of the strongholds of Palestine and

northern Syria, as represented in Egyptian works of art. We do indeed

find some attempts at originality among the relics of this period, as,

for instance, in the shapes and decorations of the earthen vessels of

Argolis, but, generally speaking, the foreign element preponderates;

though it must remain an open question whether everything that

indicates the ascendency of Asia Minor in this early stage of

civilisation came by way of the sea, or whether some of it may not

have been due to the gradual spread of Asiatic influences. Of Egyptian

influence, direct or indirect, there is hardly a trace.

[Illustration: PHŒNICIAN BOTTLE WITH TRIPLE BODY]

We must not, however, exaggerate the range of Phœnician influence. The

great cities in which it was dominant perished early, and little or

nothing of it penetrated to the interior of the mainland. Nor do the

Phœnicians seem ever to have been undisputed masters of the Ægean;

their stations were early abandoned, in Rhodes they had to maintain

their ground against the Carians and were finally ousted by the

Dorians. The north of Cyprus was early peopled by Greeks. In details

and externals, there are many links between this early pre-Homeric

civilisation and that which we find reflected in the Greek epics, but

such remains of the former as survived were confined to a few island

and seaboard tribes, and even among them, were undergoing a process

of transformation. Its most important legacy was an acquaintance with

the practical arts. The Phœnician vessels, sorry craft as they were,

served as models to the Greeks, Phœnician gains by sea spurred them to

imitation, and we are probably right in supposing that they learnt from

the Phœnicians how to steer by the pole-star at night. A few details

of the architecture of Tiryns, Mycenæ, and Hissarlik were adopted by

the later architecture of Greece, though the difference of material

had deprived them of their significance. Technical art in certain

places and industries long remained faithful to patterns of Asiatic

origin, as is manifest in the pottery of Melos and Rhodes, some bronzes

lately discovered in Crete, and above all, as we should expect, in the

manufactures of Cyprus.

The most important acquisition which the Greeks owed to the Phœnicians,

was the art of writing, and the Canaanite alphabet, which, however,

the latter had not acquired themselves at the time when North Syrian

influence was in the ascendant in Greece. The Greeks adopted it

at a later period, as they had shortly before adopted a system of

weights and measures, closely akin to that which obtained in northern

Syria, though they do not seem to have owed this last solely to the

Phœnicians. Their commercial institutions and pecuniary transactions

may have followed Phœnician models in many respects; for example, the

Phœnicians were the first people whose commerce beyond sea made it

necessary for them to insure legal protection for life and property by

means of securities.

Where large numbers of Phœnicians lived together on foreign soil, they

united to form distinct corporations with magistrates of their own.

It was to the interest of these scattered communities to maintain

intimate relations with some great city in their native land, and the

mutual obligations thus incurred, were associated with the worship of

the local divinity of the mother city. If, however, a Phœnician merely

desired to make a brief stay in some foreign port, he put himself under

the protection of a resident of good repute, and became his guest.

At parting, a potsherd was broken in two, one half being kept by the

host, and the other by the departing guest, who was thenceforth bound

to extend a like protection to his former host, any member of his

family, or any person employed in his affairs. When the latter desired

to recommend any one to the protection of his former _protégé_, he

gave him the broken potsherd to present as his credentials; if the

two halves fitted, the bearer’s identity was established. Among the

Greeks, this system of reciprocal hospitality (_proxenia_), took the

place of the modern consular service. The Phœnicians in Greek cities

were also money-lenders, and advanced loans at interest on ships and

cargo, and in banking the Greeks probably learned much from them. It is

unlikely that such a city as Carthage, into which wealth flowed from

all quarters, should have been without a regular banking system, and

a kind of money market. From Crete and Cythera, the Phœnicians sailed

to the western end of the Mediterranean, allured no doubt by rumours

of the mineral wealth of Spain. Sicily, Malta, Gozzo, Cossura, and the

African coast, west of the great Syrtis, were at first no more to them

than necessary anchorages and stations for obtaining provisions on the

long voyage through the straits that divided Europe from Africa to

the mouth of the Guadalquivir. The development of Phœnician colonies

followed the sea route to Tartessus, and it was not until the route was

well established that certain places along it rose into importance.

Cadiz, the farthest point of it, was older than Utica; Lixos, on the

African coast, beyond the straits, was said to be older than Cadiz.

Tarshish yielded not only silver in immense quantities, but gold, lead,

and other metals; the fisheries were profitable, and probably even then

tin and amber found their way from the far north to the countries at

the western end of the Mediterranean basin.

The Sidonians had been foremost in occupying the Ægean; the western

half of the Mediterranean was the sphere of Tyrian enterprise. With

the sole exception of Leptis Magna, on the western margin of the great

Syrtis, every Phœnician colony there, as far as our information goes,

was founded either from Carthage or directly from Tyre. Carthage sends

tribute and ambassadors to the temple of Hercules at Tyre, her founders

are the founder of Tyre and the goddess Dido, whom legend transforms

into a Syrian princess. The Tyrian Melkarth is the reputed progenitor

of the Carthaginians; it is he who subdued the Libyan tribes who

opposed the first colonists, and who opened a gateway to the Atlantic

to his people, setting up great pillars of rock on either hand, as

beseems a god whose token is two pillars. The most important Phœnician

settlement in the south of Sicily was Heracleia Minoa or Rosh Melkarth,

_i.e._, Melkarth’s Head (Cape Melkarth). Again, just as the Greeks

sometimes called Phœnician wares “Sidonian,” so certain articles of

Phœnician commerce are called in Old Latin _sarranic_, a word derived

directly from _Sur_. The fact that the Tyrians represented Phœnicia

in western waters does not necessarily imply their supremacy at home.

It seems more likely that they had, by right of discovery, a kind of

monopoly of the trade with Tarshish and the western Mediterranean--a

situation paralleled by the partition of the world between Spain and

Portugal when the two sea-routes to the Indies were first discovered.

The enormous profits of this trade, however, undoubtedly secured Tyre

the leading place in Phœnicia, after the loss of the colonies in the

Ægean.