Talk:Phoenicia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Summary of Views

Lets try to list the conflicting POVs here so that we can see what the forces are that pull against each other on this article keeping it from improving. I personally can think of the following.

1 Phoenicians and Zidonians were native Canaanites their lands, people & culture were one and the same.

2 Phoenicians were a sea-faring merchantile military elite who conquered certain ports and costal/shore areas in the Mediterranean especially those held by the native Canaanites.

2 a They were originally Poenite traders from Eretrea.

2 b They were of unknown origin and ethnicity.

2 c They were Egyptians

2 d They were Sea-peoples

2 e They were Indo-europeans who adopted the local dialects

2 f They were the Israelite tribes of Dan

2 g They were not Canaanites but were of a semitic linguistic origin.

2 h They were Lybians

I cannot think of any more than this. if you can please add to the list so that we can start to separate the historical pictures which fit each of the hypotheses instead of letting them continually merge and swirl around each other.

Zestauferov 15:08, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

==Some additional assertions now hidden in the attic== ( Wetman 16:57, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) ) Are any of these apropos:

• The ethnic make-up of the people now living in the area that was called "Phoenicia" in ancient times is even more mixed now# than it was 2500 years ago. Lebanese and Maltese are not "descendants" of Phoenicians any more than they are of "Byzantines."

Good point from a Genetic perspective, but still we have to be sensitive to national ideas. Celts believe their tradition descends from Scythia. Jews believe their tradition descends from Abraham. Various Meditrranian peoples (and even beyond) believe their tradition descends from the Phoenicians. There is no inherent harm in any of this I think. Why should we make any special point of picking on such a belief? Zestauferov 02:04, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Sensitivity" to nationalism does not go as far as historical falsification. This is the very essence of the problems with this entry. Sensible Celts know that the bogus "Scythian" connection is a 16th century English canard: see entry Scythia. There is no excuse for fraud in this entry or anywhere at Wikipedia. Wetman 22:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Begin with archaeology, history and linguistics. Then have a look at those Biblical "genealogies." Few still use the Biblical "table of nations" —other than to describe the traditional Hebrew views of their neighbors, as reported in Jerusalem in the 7th century BCE. Phoenicians are known to be immigrants into Canaan and are not being confused with Canaanites. Where they came from is not surely known.
• Phoenicians called themselves "can'ani" ("Phoenicians" being a Greek word), the circumstances having been jumbled by referring to Canaan as Phoenicia in the first place. The people who inhabited "Phoenicia" would have called themselves Can'ani. Phoenicia was actually only a collection of city kingdoms conquered by the Sea Peoples.
• Phoenicians really did leave no written records: all we have are inscriptions.
• Phoenician colonies from Tyre, and Punic colonies from Carthage should not be confused. This entry should discuss the Tyrian colonies, and refer with a link to the Carthaginian ones.
• Herodotus on Phoenician origins, with a little bit of editorial bolding:

"Learned Persians put the responsibility for the quarrel on the Phoenicians. These people came originally from the so called Red sea,[1] and as soon as they had penetrated to the Mediterranean and settled in the country where they are today, they took to making long trading voyages."

[1] Eruthrês kaleomenês thalassês in the Greek; translator's note says that this refers to all of the Indian Ocean, and "here", in the translator's considered opinion, "the Persian Gulf is meant".

Deleted text formerly in the article

Is any of the following worth retrieving?

Phoenician was one of the northwestern Semitic languages, those languages that include Amorite and Ugaritic, in addition to the Canaanite languages that include Phoenician, Hebrew and Aramaic. The Canaanite languages constitute a group of closely-related languages and dialects spoken in the ancient Near East, with written records going back to about 1500 BC.

Letters from the 14th century BCE, written in Akkadian, the language of diplomacy at the time, which were discovered at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt, contain solecisms that are not 'mistakes' but actually early Phoenician Canaanite words and phrases.

The earliest known inscriptions in Phoenician come from Byblos and date back to ca. 1000 BC. Phoenician inscriptions are found in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Cyprus and other locations as late as the early centuries of the Christian Era. Punic, a language that developed from Phoenician in Phoenician colonies around the western Mediterranean beginning in the 9th century BCE, slowly supplanted Phoenician, similar to the way Italian supplanted Latin. Punic Phoenician was still spoken in the 5th century CE: St. Augustine, for example, grew up in North Africa and was familiar with the language."

Knowledge of Hebrew aided the reconstruction of Phoenician inscriptions. An early essay in Phoenician language studies was Wilhelm Gesenius (1786 - 1842), Scripturae linguaeque phoeniciae monumenta, 1837, analyzing texts from coins and monumental inscriptions. Nowadays one can study Phoenician in the U.S. at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan and University of Chicago (the only place to study advanced Phoenician).

Details of the historical inter-relations of the Semitic languages are debated by linguists. Especially controversial are the relationships of languages that are not themselves well known, like Amorite, or archaic languages like Eblaite which has features of both Akkadian and Canaanite languages.

[edit]

External link

• The Semitic languages, including Phoenician.

Wetman 16:57, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your additions, Wetman. As with point 3 above, I wonder if there is an anachronism distinguishing Punic from Phoenician (which if there is might simply proove to be another term for Canaanite). Especially since there are no written records and all genuine phoenician inscriptions are Punic, how can we know exatly what Phoenician sounded like unless we are simly reconstructing an early canaanite dialect (which might in such a case be no differnt from the Zidonian or Arvadite dialects)? I think all that can be salvaged here is

1. that a language used in Phoenician Canaan has been reconstructed following the details given above (and can be studied in Harvard etc.).
2. that this language is possibly ancestral in relationship with Punic (which was spoken throughout the mediterranean but particularly in Lybia).Zestauferov 02:04, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
   

• You're all welcome: I'm not defending these propositions, naturally. I'm just ensuring that these thoughts aren't swept into the attic.)
• Maria Eugenia Aubet, The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade, tr. Mary Turton Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2001: review) Useful review. Clarifying>
• "Saint Augustine refers to their books as containing lots of wisdom while he calls Phoenician Punic "Our language." Not Phoenician, just as I'm not speaking the language of Beowulf. Wetman 08:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Right, obviously every language evolves so naturally there must have been an earlier version which has been reconstructed and suitably dubbed Phoenician. I am trying to understand the political motivations behind some POVs in the current article so that I can read through the article more effectively (and hopefully pave the way fro a move categorised article). Can you think why there are people so concerned about calling the Ugaritic alphabet Phoenician, and talking about an almost unattested Canaanite language as Phoenecian? Could it be in relation to aboriginal inhabitants and land claim rights? Is there really any strong legal claim if such is the case? I mean genetically half of Europe comes from the Middle East. Or is there another reason which I am not seeing? Scholastic pride and (blinkered) defense of a life's work and theses?Zestauferov 08:46, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On Punic vs. Phoenician, I belive the distiction is not an anachronism, but a dichotomy between the inscriptions found outside of vs in Canaan, or the dialect proboably mutually intelligible with other Canaanite languages and the one which was proboably not. The distiction should stay due to the 'no original research' principle. If claimed an anachronism, bring sources and present such views.

Libyans? Tunisian?

In the section on origins, an anon recently and without explanation changed "Libyans" to "Tunisian". I have no idea of the facts. There is now a mismatch of singular & plural, but I'm not editing this while I don't even know if it's true. It would make wense that Tunisians might claim descent from the Phoenicians. I have no idea why Libyans would be removed from the list without comment. Will someone with a clue please fix and/or explain. Citations on the fact that different nationalities claim this descent, rather than blind assertion, would be nice, since the matter is obviously controversial. -- Jmabel 00:38, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Century/Millennium

"spread right across the Mediterranean during the first century BC." Surely "millennium" was intended. --Wetman 03:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Something Fishy about the History of Phoenicia

Disputed statement:

Ironically, the Phoenicians themselves are largely silent on their own history, because Phoenician writing has largely perished, since their characteristic writing material was papyrus from Egypt, which has distintegrated.

Amazing it is that papyri which date even approximately one thousand five hundred years older than Phoenicia (of 200 BC) (Moscow and Rhind Mathematical Papyri, Ebers papyrus, Edwin Smith papyrus) are all still intact and legible, but the Phoenicians, who...

1. after 1200 BC, formed a major naval and trading power in the region ... the stacked warships like triremes and quinqueremes probably being Phoenician inventions,
2. invented their own dye which they were especially famous for in their port town of Tyre,
3. discovered transparent glass,
4. shipped tall Lebanon cedars to Egypt,
5. worked to trade tin that they obtained from mines in Spain and Britain,
6. Herodotus says were sent out by pharaoh Necho II (6th century BC) of Egypt to circumnavigate Africa,
7. sailed to Britain (and maybe around Africa) and
8. even invented their own alphabet (Phoenician alphabet)

somehow didn't have the "smarts" to write on something that wouldn't get wet and fall apart!

Repeat: Are we really to believe that the Phoenicians (who [1] invented their own alphabet and [2] were the naval powers of the ancient world) somehow weren't smart enough to realize that they shouldn't write on something that gets wet and subsequently falls apart?

If you believe this tale, you've been fooled by a Phoenician!

Err... Phoenician? ... or do you think maybe ancient/medieval Romans/Britons revising history? See Origins of chess.

Sept 4 2005 Paper represents a massive revolution in written language because it is so compact. The entire Akkadian library complex, including the parts that are not excavated yet, would fit nicely on a small bookcase if re-published in paperback. The Gilgamesh Epic, for example, occupies 12 clay tablets or one very thin pocket-book. I've never heard of a single culture that started writing on paper or papyrus and then moved on to stone or clay tablets because they were more durable! For that matter, information stored on paper is more likely to last than information stored on a computer. I guess we're no smarter than the phoenicians! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.214.129 (talk • contribs) 3 Sept 2005

2-6-05 I added leather parchment to the area on writing and papyrus. Sheep and goats were prevalent here, and other historic cultures in the Levant used parchment which has survived - but only erratically. As to the survival of written records ..... these city/states were sacked more times than most in the area and, in some geologists' opinions, were subject to at least one major tsunami. In the absence of evidence, it is hard to assert that they chose not to create written records on perishable materials. -W (an "anonymous") - as of 02-17-05 WBardwin.

Good edits, W. Log in, why don't you? Most of us non-historians are unaware how recent our manuscripts of surviving Greek literature are. Manuscripts that weren't recopied have perished. The utterly dry sands of Oxyrhyncus preserved some fragments of Menander, but by the second and first century BCE, who was around to read a Phoenician text? All the Etruscan books were lost in very similar fashion, save parts of one whose linen was reused to wrap a late mummy. And vellum doesn't have the plant-cell cellulose that bacteria have such problems digesting. --Wetman 07:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another questionable addition

Would someone more knowledgeable than me please check the recent changes by User:207.108.138.120? Anonymous, no citations, no edit summary, you know the drill. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:18, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

All looks good, apart from Latin puniceus, which I'm not sure about. - Mustafaa 00:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aryan Heritage?

I heard some people say that Phonecians are actually Aryan people, and some say that they are semitic people. I'm confused, are Phonecians Aryans or Semites?--69.19.139.193 02:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am unaware of any respectable scholar making a case that the Phoenicians are Aryan. Sounds crackpot. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I myself have heard about this rumor about Phoenicians being Aryan.--Gramaic 06:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gramaic has changed his remark in the previous line, making my response look like a personal attack, which it was not. The exchange was:

Phoenicians are in fact Aryans. The website http://www.jrbooksonline.com/pob/pob_toc.html discusses this quite well, which happens to be about Phoenician history.--Gramaic 06:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I am unaware of any respectable scholar making a case that the Phoenicians are Aryan. Sounds crackpot. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:08, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

-- Jmabel | Talk 06:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I changed my remark, because the website I provided was not so accurate and I have discovered that it's a white supremacist website. These types of websites never give accurate information. I never meant to put Jmabel in a situation that he was giving a personal attack.--Gramaic 07:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. No offense taken, but I'm sure you can see that my remark only makes sense in terms of what you originally wrote. I'm glad that you now grasp the nature of what you were citing. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:22, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in an unconstructive, or worse, God-forbid, destructive way, in a personal dispute between two fellow-editors, but I'd like to say, Gramaic, with any and all due respect, anyone who insists that the Phoenicians were "Aryan" is guilty of an egregious breach of intellectual and historical honesty. The term "Aryan" has 3 meanings in modern-day parlance, each of which lies in the domain of completely different communities:

• Arius was a 4th Century AD Christian leader whose teachings were the foundation for Arianism. He declared that the then-only-budding idea of Trinitarianism was a pæan to paganism or panentheism or perhaps even to the gnostic idea of pantheism, inherited from the orpheistic and dionysean sects.
• Aryan or Iran refers to the many peoples who speak Indo-Iranian languages, especially those who spoke Avestan and the Indo-European precursor languages of much of south-central Asia, most influential of which, today are Farsi, Kurdish, Pashto, Baluchi, Hindi and Urdu.
• The Aryan race is a mythological construct based in the writings of the Zend Avesta, to describe the speakers of Avestani. This concept was misappropriated and reinterpreted by Nazi proponents of the concept of "Aryan racial purity", to mean "people of pale skin, blue eyes, tall stature, and blond hair", eventhough there is no evidence whatsoever that would lead anyone to conclude that the speakers of Avestani ever matched such a description.

(1)Since the Phoenicians clearly long predate Christianity, the idea that they could have anything to do with Arius would be erroneously fallacious bordering on obscenely ludicrous.

(3)Let's dispense with the 3rd term before addressing the second, since it's much easier to refute. The concept of "Aryan" in this sense is filled almost least of all by the very people whose description was misappropriated to describe them. There are hundreds of millions of people who speak Aryan languages who would be, merely by their skin color, considered to be "less aryan" than the vast majority of Jews, especially those persecuted by the unspeakably wicked Nazis. Those Neo-nazis and Nazi-apologists who say that such peoples are "reprobates" or "retrogrades" who adopted Aryan languages, neglect to consider that the vast majority of peoples who speak their beloved Indo-European languages are "racial reprobates", and that the Finno-Ugric-speaking peoples far better fit the "racial profile", paradoxically, of the "ideal Aryan"...(never mind the heart-attacks that have to be wrought by the appearance of epicanthic folds among the eastern groups of these WHITE-SKINNED PEOPLE! OH NO! CHICKEN LITTLE, WHERE ART THOU? Racial impurity! Surely they've bred with the the impure orientals! This minor glitch in the racism of Nazi Germany was actually overcome by the genius of the Nazi propaganda machine, which pointed out that the "Japanese" had epicanthic folds (although considerably less pronounced), and since they were allies of the Vaterland, they must surely be Aryans as well. (There is no end to the stupidity of which the human mind is capable of convincing itself, apparently.)

(2) The linguistic hypothesis. I take it back. This is the easiest to refute. The Phoenician language is UNEQUIVOCALLY, Semitic, and, despite any nay-saying, appears to have been mutually-intelligible with Biblical Hebrew. For example, the Phoenician city-state which fought the longest, most ardent (and ultimately futile), battle against the expanding Romans, were the Carthaginians. Carthage, a Phoenician outpost. What was the Phoenician name of the city? Qaryaþ Ḥadašt, similar to the Hebrew language Qiryaþ Ḥaðaša, both of which mean "New Town". (Compare English Newton, and Latin Neapolis and Napoli.)

(unsigned; this was User:TShilo12 20 April 2005)

So, to sum up this fascinating discussion of Phoenician origins, an allegedly white supremicist website (I don't know if it really is, because I have better things to do than to read it) says that the ancient Britons were more or less interchangeable with Hebrews. I'll have to call my Rabbi and send some yarmulkes and talises.

Iran/Persia

In the historical context of this article, is it really appropriate to link "Persia" to Iran? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Phoenicia doesnt have anything to do with Iran, (otherwise you have to attach it to every nation in the world) since they all occupied it briefly?!--Skatewalk 03:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Phoenician Origin

A long time ago, I've read that the origins of the Phoenicians are Greek. Is that true?--Gramaic 06:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, in fact the Greeks borrowed their alphabet from Phoenicians (see Cadmus myth and Europa myth). But the name we give to Phoenicians is a Greek name. --Wetman 06:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Phoenician like the Canaanites were Negroes

The men found in Canaan in prehistoric times, the Natufian, was a Negroid. The Capsian tool industry, which doubtless came from north Africa to that region, was also of Negroid Origin. In the Bible, when the first whites races reached the place coming from europe after the last glacial period, they found a black race there, the canaanites, descendants of canaan, brother of mesraim, the egyptian, and kush, the ethiopian, sons of ham.

The Canaanites thus the phoenican, were originally Negroes, already civilized, with whom nomadic, uncultured white tribes later mixed.

Toward the middle of the second millennium 1450 B.C. under the increasing pressure of white tribes who occupied the hinterland and drove the phoenicians back toward the coast, the sidonians founded the first phoenician colonies in Boeotia, where they installed the excess population.

References: Lenormant, Cheikh Anta Diop.

Examples: Babylonians in the time of Dareios I and Artaxerxes II http://greatcommission.com/berlin/60.jpg

http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/we/we11.htm

Arabia was originally settled by two distinct races, an earlier Cushite Ethiopian race and a later Semitic Arabian. 'The Cushites were the original Arabians and dwelt there before Abraham came to Canaan

The Cushites were their superiors in knowledge and, civilization." It had been a Cushite principle to mete out equal justice to aliens. For many years the Semites lived subject to the laws of the Sabaeans, silently increasing in strength. They accepted in part the language, manners and institutions of the Cushites. At last they rose and overthrew those who had given them the light.

I really don't like using "Negro" as a scientific term, given its negative connotations in some circles. Not that I want to go to the extremes of political correctness, but wouldn't Africans of Sub-Saharan origin be a better designation? No, wait, that has an unappealing acronym. What about African-Africans? Afroriginies? Anyway, we established that the Phoenicians were essentially Hebrews in the last section, and that they were black Africans in this one--so I'm pretty much picturing their culture as one large Sammy Davis Junior show. You know, Hannibal with a song in his heart. Works for me.

• Why Hannibal? Hannibal was a Carthaginian, the people who whose descendents are the (Caucasoid) Berbers. Oh, and "sub-Saharan Africans" is a misleading term to apply narrowly to Negroid peoples, as the Capoid peoples (the so-called Bushmen and Pygmies) are also indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa.

PLEASE no one listen to this Nation of Islam pseudohistory. "White" and "non-white" are social constructs dating to the fifteenth century with no basis in bio-anthropology. For actual historians, skin colour is rarely a concern except when dealing with fringe lunatics like the poster above. For the record though, the peoples of the Mediterranean Basin probably looked quite similar then as they do now. The ancient Phoenicians were a Semitic people, and in all likelihood their closest "descendents" today are found amongst the population of Lebanon and Syria. Wormwoodpoppies 19:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to professor Cheikh Anta Diop, I do hope you understand he was not with the Nation of Islam.MrSativa (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• this is a lie!!! Come on ancient paintings of Europa show that she was a white woman and The Phoenicians were famed for their red hair. That is why the Celts who are of Phoeniian Extaction are also known for this. DNA tests do not show any Negroid in modern Lebanese people, especially the Christians. Please don't make senseless statements.

Descendants of the Phoenicians

Some of the Lebanese, Maltese, Tunisian and even some Somalis still consider themselves descendants of Phoenicians...

• • Statement from the "Origin section" in the article.

---

Some Lebanese??? From what I know, at least most of the Americans of Lebanese ancestry are 85% Phoenician. So instead of saying some Lebanese, I would suggest to change the word "some" to the word "most."

The website: http://www.2la.org/english/eng-mainlebam-m.htm#la1 , should be enough proof that most Lebanese are Phoenicians.--Gramaic 04:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A pie chart! Please see the long wrangle on this folk-culture issue in the archive linked at the top of this page. If you're serious about this kind of stuff, read Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, or at least read the Wikipedia article. --Wetman 05:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not serious about any kind of stuff. I just thought the source I cited would be helpful. By the way, I have read the entire article before.--Gramaic 07:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grouchy me. But the Cavalli-Sforza book is one of those reading experiences that sweep cobwebs from one's brain. --Wetman 08:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that Phoenician-descendancy is a very popular theory among Lebanese and there are many Lebanese historians that have written about it. I will try to find the sources, but contrary to what JMabel says, it is not a "minority" view.Yuber 21:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

We have an issue over the meaning of "minority"? Yikes! Of course sentimental patriots among homesick members of the Lebanese diaspora just love to hear about their intrepid and successful Phoenician ancestors— and so much like the modern Lebanese themselves, needless to say... "Popular" indeed, in every sense. In my youth, so far from being homogeneous, Lebanon was the only genuinely cosmopolitan society in that region. Please read edit wars in the talk page archives at Basque, in various transmutations, and Georgia (country), Pelasgians and Ruthenians. All so familiar and stale... --Wetman 23:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see your point here.. Modern genetic tests have showed that Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Israelis are more closely related to each other genetically than to Arabs from the peninsula. Looking at the phenotype of most lebanese today we can tell that they obviously are not Arabs from the peninsula either. So, who are the Lebanese descended from? Either you are claiming that all phoenicians died out or that there were massive Arab migrations to what is now Lebanon. Both theories have been proven false before. By the way, I am not Lebanese, so I am not a homesick member of the diaspora. I refer you to the section on Palestinian ancestry here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian#The_ancestry_of_the_Palestinians

Read there to see that the predominant view of most historians is that populations in the Levant adopted the Arabic language and most of them were not descended from Arabs. Yuber 23:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• I must say, I find Mr. Wetman's views expressed in this last comment to be patronizing in the extreme; a sort of "We know the value of your ancestry traditions better than you do" sort of attitude - directed against (in this case) Lebanese, but tomorrow it might be Chinese...

Incidentally, this same patronizing attitude toward other peoples was the order of the day in 1911, but definitely seems a little stale now...

- Anonymouse1

History is only interesting when it's real. My own New England colonial family has a family association, sporting a coat-of-arms— which would have made my shoemaker 10x great-grandfather cringe with embarassment. Reddens my ears too a bit. My own cousins are just as self-deluded as the Anony-mouse. None of us is quite free of this nonsense. Let us make an effort. --Wetman 03:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Everyone knows the Lebanese couldn't possibly be descendants of the Phoenicians. Here are some very good reasons why.

1) They lived in the same place.

Therefore, it fits in perfectly with the "Too Obvious to be True" (TOTBT) theory. (Especially when we don't want it to be true). Just because people live in the same geographic place as people 3000 years ago does not necessarily mean they are related in any way. Therefore, this is probably a good indication that they are not related after all. All those Phoenician people from 3000 years ago could well have perished without leaving a single descendant, from catastrophe or even genocide. Or, they simply could have moved away to some other country. So the geographic coincidence means NOTHING.

2) It completely goes against the New Way of Thinking for the 21st Century.

Now, we don't want too many folks elsewhere in the world gettin all uppity with some fanciful, romantic notions about being genetically descended from some ancient people. That won't do at all; it's best for the New World we live in today, if most people don't think too hard about such things. (The Romans knew this too, but yet they allowed it to happen, and look where it got them!) Now, in this particular case, it's probably too late, because those folks in Lebanon already seem to have this ridiculous, preposterous notion that they are actually genetically descended from folk who lived 3000 years ago. We probably can't stop them from thinking this foolishness, but at least we can do what little we can, by scoffing to scorn anyone who suggests such a fallacy on the internet. That will help out some (Every little bit helps!)

Everyone knows the Lebanese couldn't possibly be descendants of the Phoenicians?

Saying that the Lebanese people are not decendants of the Phoenicians is kind of strong. How do know this information? Before making such a statement and saying that the link between ancient Phoenicians and modern day Lebanese people is foolish, you need to show proof and cite sources. What you just said is just your personal POV.

'All those Phoenician people from 3000 years ago could well have perished .. or simply moved countries'? - That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard, well one of the dumbest at least, I've heard some pretty dumb stuff before. A civilisation does not just move or perish as you suggest. First of all, only a century ago, do you have any idea how difficult it was just to emigrate compared to today, no planes/trains/cars. People had donkeys and horses strung to carts and some who could afford it boats -- travelling a few hundred miles was equivalent to flying from London to Australia back and forth ten times. My great granfather used to tell me that a whole village would come to say farewall to people travelling a distance between London and Edinburgh. I agree that the Lebanese do get ahead of themselves claiming to be direct descendants of Pheonicians but to be fair, they are the closest to make that claim as do most semites in the region (regardless of what DNA tests suggest). Your point may be valid in a few hundred years at the least, when continuous demographic changes will finally have an impact. But to say it now is jut ridiculous.

Hence, it is impossible that the Indo-Europeans came from South Asia into Europe, that large numbers of Turks migrated from Central Asia to Anatolia, and that peoples from East Asia crossed the Bering land bridge and settled the Americas? Oh, and if we are talking up to a century ago: … and North America was never resettled by people of European and African origin. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're going with this Jmabel? No one is saying it is impossible for large parts of a civilisation to migrate, but for a whole civilisation to move, yes it is impossible. We are not talking about nomads here, we are talking about an established people spread out over many cities. You over simplify things. Maybe in cuckoo land wherever that may be, people can decide to shut shop, pack everything and vacate their houses and their cities to find greener pastures on a land far away, and they all go in one by one into Noah's Arc. See my point?

To the best of my knowledge, here are no more Magyars in Central Asia (where they all were some 1200 years ago). - Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The origins of the Magyars is still disputed to this day. As far as I know there are no more Magyars in Central Asia. 'As far as I know' does not exactly stipulate a fact, I will do some research on it soon but I fear I will end up reading theory after theory all contradicting each other. Good example though.

I suppose I'd better 'fess up now... It was me who made the sarcastic comments above last May 1... starting with "Everyone knows the Lebanese couldn't possibly be..."... I actually think that it's fairly obvious that all modern people are descended from ancient people (and conversely, it's a dead cert that a good many ancient people were ancestors of modern people...) I was just a little incensed by Wetman's tone in responding to me, and so I was trying to lampoon the opposing argument by making it look ludicrous... From all the serious responses I got, it looks like my facetiousness and devil's advocacy went over the heads of some! - sincerely, signed, Anonymouse1

Interesting article on the descendants of the Phoenicians

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature2/index.htmlYuber 23:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

post carthage phoenician metamorphosis?

In H G Well's History of the World he describes a Phoenicians metamorphosis into a crypto culture, becoming Jews subsequent to the sack of Carthage. The gentleman was not especially easily swayed by rhetoric, so I presume he must have had some basis for the assertion, which has superficial credibility in that both groups were semitics, and that the Phoenicians were notable traders and travellers, while the people of various religious books appear to be substantially pastoral farmers or herdsmen. It is easy to imagine Phoenician ancestry becoming inconvenient under Roman rule.

Does anyone have any material on this? (Anon. post by User:220.85.76.106)

H.G. Wells's A Short History of the World 1922, written for those who didn't have time for his Outline of History (1920), is not one of his better works, but it is on-line: [1] Perhaps the reader can identify the passage he has heard about. Or perhaps not... --Wetman 06:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, that's H.G. Wells, not H.G. Well. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

*blush* --Wetman 07:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

...So ended the Third Punic War. Of all the Semitic states and cities that had flourished in the world five centuries before only one little country remained free under native rulers. This was Judea, which had liberated itself from the Seleucids and was under the rule of the native Maccabean princes. By this time it had its Bible almost complete, and was developing the distinctive traditions of the Jewish world as we know it now. It was natural that the Carthaginians, Phœnicians and kindred peoples dispersed about the world should find a common link in their practically identical language and in this literature of hope and courage. To a large extent they were still the traders and bankers of the world. The Semitic world had been submerged rather than replaced...

The Spanish colonies from which we have the likes of Moses Maimonides certainly resemble the punic remnants that evidently occupied very similar places. Augustine's city of god would be a short step for a people with not one but a host of lost cities and temples behind them. Of course, contemporary Russian migrants to palestine might find that a cultural relation to Flaubert's child incinerating temple of Moloch in contemporary Tunisia inconvenient. The question stands though - is there any substance in Wells's assertion? -callmeishmael.

The Lebanese ARE the Phoenicians

Odd that no one has brought this up yet, but geneticist Spencer Wells just concluded that the Phoenicians/Lebanese are the same people with an unbroken lineage back to the Cana'anites, which they said proved that the "Sea Peoples" had no genetic impact at all. So there was never this mix with ancient Greeks. He used DNA found in a site in Lebanon from before the sea people were supposed to have arrived and compared the genes to later Phoenician and modern Lebanese DNA and found it was identical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.72.194.208 (talk • contribs) 5 Nov 2005

The claim of "identical" in an area with this much international traffic, after this many centuries, seems very unlikely to me. Do you have a citation for this? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone with the slightest interest in the Phoenicians would have watched that National Geographic programme "Quest for the Phoenicians". Here is some info: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature2/online_extra.html "Today's Lebanese, the Phoenicians, and the Canaanites before them are all the same people." Don't take my word for it, take Spencer Well's, leader of the Genographic Project. Watch the video clips in this article where he elaborates. http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature2/index.html "International traffic" does not consequently lead to admixture, even though there's no question that no population on Earth is completely homogenous.

The National Geographic article should be listed and its findings briefly reported in the article. --Wetman 22:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand the remark above: I can't possibly be interested in the Phoenicians because I do not watch television? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You're overinterpreting what i said, let's say that you should at least had known of this extensive study which may be the most important and interesting one regarding the Phoenicians in recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.72.194.208 (talk • contribs) 13 Nov 2005

The most amazing part of this whole exchange is that "this guy" has apparently figured out definitively who the "Sea People"s were! What an amazing feat! Finally! A 3000+ year old mystery solved! Who were they exactly? Tomer ^TALK 10:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

He does not "know who they were", he simply states that they did not have a genetic impact. "We're not seeing a significant genetic influence from elsewhere on the coastal population in what was the Levant region," says Wells. "The people are very similar to the groups we see inland in Syria and Jordan, for example, suggesting that there wasn't a huge influx of Sea Peoples or others from outside the area. A cultural shift occurred but not a genetic one. Today's Lebanese, the Phoenicians, and the Canaanites before them are all the same people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.72.194.208 (talk • contribs) 11 Dec 2005

This misses the point. In order to determine that a given population's genetic pool lacks a significant contribution from some other given population, one needs to know first what characterizes the genes of that other population -- in this case, the "Sea People." This is what "Tomer" means by knowing who they were. As the genetic character of the Sea People cannot be be determined, screening definitively for it seems impossible. I did watch the National Geographic special, and had exactly that thought.

The researchers' stronger case is argued from the other direction. The Sea People are assumed to have had the most impact on the coasts. The current coastal people are genetically highly similar to their inland neighbors. Therefore it is unlikely the coastal people interbred with any outsiders to a greater degree than the inland people did.

While stronger, that still isn't a lock. The Sea People era witnessed significant displacement of people throughout the eastern Mediterranean, and was by no means limited to the coasts. Some of the people moving are known in terms of their language or other culture, but others don't even have preserved names. Furthermore, some of the groups referred to by a single name in our records were composed of people of very diverse background. So the relative genetic uniformity of coastal and inland Levantines only requires that any significant input from outside has been pretty much equally distributed between those regions over time.

Culture is of more interest to me than genetics -- though genetics can be of enormous help in tracking the movements of known or likely carriers of culture. So what's of more interest to me is that Phoenician culture is so clearly derived from Canaanite. It's entirely likely the Phoenicians learned from the Sea People -- the Phoenicians learned from everyone. On the other hand, I doubt the introduction of any Sea People element was necessary for Phoenician advances in seafaring. We don't know much about anyone's activities beyond coast-hugging in the Bronze Age or earlier -- except that the people visiting and settling places like Cyprus, and the Near Eastern trade goods, styles and techniques that pop up early even further afield, had to come from somewhere... --Americist 16:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

^ Yes, that sounds really nice, but why is stuff like this then left in? "Some Lebanese, Syrians, Maltese, Tunisians, Algerians and a small percentage of Somalis, along with certain other island folk in the Mediterranean, still consider themselves descendants of Phoenicians." Instead of some useless speculation on who are the modern day descendants of the Phoenicians, why not use actual scientific evidence instead of what some people think they are? Some African Americans believe they're the descendants of the ancient Hebrews too, but i do not see that written on the page about Hebrews.

Habib --83.72.194.208 19:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't we put this hypothesis to a modern test? I say we man a bunch of ancient galleys with Lebanese volunteers. If, a thousand years later, their descendants wind up marching elephants across the Alps into Italy, I'd be willing to grant that they are, indeed, Phoenicians.

DNA evidence

I am new to this, but I'd like to ask that some kind of serious source be given for this statement: "Recent DNA (Y chromosome) studies conducted by the National Geographic Magazine on the bones of ancient Phoenicians and living people from Lebanon and elsewhere in the Mediterranean prove that both Muslims and Christians from those areas carry the same ancient Phoenician genetic material." After that statement there's another one for which an article on HLA is given as a source, but there is nothing explaining where the statement about Y DNA is from. I have the feeling that whoever wrote this may have picked up some slightly confused information, just possibly, because while studies of modern Y DNA are common, and I would not doubt that they show something like what is stated, it is extremely difficult to get Y DNA (as opposed to mitochondrial DNA) from ancient bones. If this has been accomplished, I would very much appreciate having a citation to the source where I could read more about it and inform a lot of other people who would like to know about this. I just did a little web search and found only web and popular sources, nothing I would consider solid. I found this: "Spencer Wells collects DNA from a 2,500-year-old Phoenician mummy's tooth, to extract its unique genetic code and compare it with DNA samples collected from men and women from Lebanon to Tunisia," from http://www.pbs.org/previews/phoenicians/, and other pages like http://phoenicia.org/genetics.html. In the National Geographic article itself, from Oct. 2004, Vol. 206 Issue 4, p26, I could find nothing about any Y DNA being extracted from bones. If anyone can find detailed and accurate information on this, I'd really appreciate hearing about it. Iris-J2 21:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I know of some friends who claim to be Phoenician, I think its a matter of identity and you don't need DNA to prove it. If you identify with the Phoenicians and want to be Phoenician then thats what you are.--Skatewalk 03:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Saint Augustine and Punic

Despite the earlier confident statement on this page that Augustine spoke Punic and (mirabile dictu) refers to books written in it, Augustine's acclaimed biographer Peter Brown states it is in fact "most unlikely" Augustine spoke anything but Latin (Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 2000'; p. 10). Though local languages were spoken alongside Latin by the common folk of Roman Africa, and in remote villages no Latin at all was heard, a man of Augustine's cultural and social position in all likelihood had no more than a smattering of Punic, though he did understand there was some relation between Punic and Hebrew (the latter of which he knew virtually nothing of) - e.g., "Edom" translates as "blood" in both languages (Enarrationes in Psalmos 136,18: Interpretatur autem, quantum dicunt qui illam linguam noverunt, Edom, Sanguis: nam et Punice Edom, "sanguis" dicitur).

Come to think of it, even Augustine's Greek was shaky at best. But that, as they say, is a different story. --84.105.40.55 15:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to interject in the name of factual accuracy...while I can't speak to the case of Punic, in Hebrew, "edom" (אדום) means "red", not "blood", which is "dam" (דם). Tomer^talk 08:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for expansion of "Decline" section

I believe this section could do with some more detail. As it stands, it is a bit too vague. --Impaciente 09:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dead as Dodos

It is good that people are interested in the past and human history especially that of extinct peoples like the Romans, Ancient Greeks, Phoenicians, Scythians and so on. What is not healthy is trying to tie these Dodo peoples with modern living peoples. The Lebanese are a nationality with a territory in West Asia, citizenship, language and culture. The Phoenicians do not have a territory, citizenship, language and culture. They are defunct. Comparing the Phoenicians with modern Lebanese is like comparing the flora and fauna of the Levant in the 21st century with what was present in the same geography many thousands of years ago. What do they have in common? Geography that is all. These two peoples, one living, one extinct have different languages, different cultures, different religions - everything is different. So why on Earth compare the two peoples? Just over two hundred years ago, Australia was totally inhabited by Australian sub groups of humans, now the the same geography is inhabited by diasporic European caucasoids and various Asian peoples. Use some common sense. I am Maltese born, live in Australia and frankly that Wells idea of discovering living Phoenicians in Lebanon, Malta and North Africa is idiotic and a waste of money. There is no way some bones found in a Phoenician style sarcophacus can extract enough DNA to prove anything. Wells cannot even prove that the bones belong to a dead Phoenician. What can be compared are the gene frequencies of living populations. Maybe 50% of Maltese men DNA tested have Y chromosome markers linking them to the Levant or Greece or Turkey or Mars. It doesn't prove actual relatedness. Haplogroups belonging to J or E are found all over Europe in varying frequencies. I suppose every man in York England is descended from Vikings or every Scotsmen from the Scotti or every Finn from Siberian Ugric speakers. Use common sense.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamfromlija (talk • contribs)

"not healthy" you say... lol... "not healthy" for whom?

--ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There is always a continuation of peoples, that's why Scandinavians today call themselves Vikings, and if there's a genetic basis for it, there's no problem if the Lebanese want to see themselves as Phoenicians. And there is genetic basis for it, that's the point, its not just speculation. The modern Lebanese did not come out of nowhere, no human population did, "use common sense". Habib--83.72.194.208 19:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Added the part about Hiram Abiff, the architect of the Temple.--Will314159 05:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Phoenician Government

Having read the Wikipedia article on Phoenicia, I noticed it said relatively little about the ancient empire's form of government. If anybody has any information about Phoenicina government - such as, what type it was and how it worked - I'd love to hear it! (Unsigned)

City states. Each city had its own king. At the article Tyre, you can link to a list of the kings of Tyre, but that's just one city. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Map

There should be a map on the article showing the phoenician land and how it expanded and what countries lie on these land now. --A rihani 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree ~~ Bob Manning

A while back I looked at all the other language articles for a pic and noticed that most of them have none, but that Arabic had a nice map. The only problem was that the legend was in Arabic. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a nice map… The legend text is something like "The Commercial Network of the Phoenicians" (شبکة التجارة الفينيقية). The orange area is just tagged "Phoenicia" (فينيقيا), and the red line is tagged something like "sea route" (طرق بحرية). That would probably suit this article better than what A rihani specifically describes, as Phoenicia proper never underwent much in the way of expansion… --Americist 22:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made and uploaded a version with an English legend. My Arabic's not good enough to be able to tell what license the image is under at the Arabic Wikipedia, so I hope the image is legal. Americist, your Arabic seems to be good: can you check the licensing info for me? — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 07:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Religion

I heard somewhere that the Phoenicians used to worship the clitoris. Is this true?

May I ask where you heard this? Thank you in advance,Oroblanco 06:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Oroblanco

I can't speak for earler Phonecian societies, but this is, strangely enought, entirely true when describing religious practices at the height of the Carthagin hegemony. The armies of Hannibal, in the excitement of battle, unfurled and held erect large bronze clitorises, which they used as battle standards, much as Roman legionnairies looked to their Eagles for inspiration. A Carthaginian commander who lost his clitoris in battle was subjected to severe taunting by the men of other commands who had managed to hold onto their clitorises throughout the day. Indeed, "one hand for your spear, the other for the clitoris" became the rallying cry of Carthaginian standard bearers throughout the Punic wars.

Since this has sat uncommented I would note that the above is a joke. Unless I see a cite to the contrary please disregard the above, several books on the Carthaginians, never come across this nonsense - PocklingtonDan 21:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sea Peoples/Phonecians

"Historian Gerhard Herm further asserts that, because the Phoenicians' legendary sailing abilities are not well attested before the invasions of the Sea Peoples around 1200 BC, that these Sea Peoples would have merged with the local population to produce the Phoenicians, who seemingly gained these abilities rather suddenly at that time. This idea is backed up by archaeological evidence that the Philistines, often thought of as related to the Sea Peoples, were culturally linked to Mycenaean Greeks, who were also known to be great sailors even in this period."

This paragraph is rather out of date with current lines of thinking.

-The Phonecians (or their predecessors) the Canaanites were perhaps some of the most active traders in the Western Mediterranean well before the emergence of true "Phonecian" culture. They had trading links as far west as Crete in the 14th century and, while not dominating Levantine trade during the Late Bronze Age, were certainly one the main players. Thus they did not "rather suddendly" gain sailing ability. Good articles relevant to this point are perhaps the Ulu Burun excavations published by George Bass in 1984 and 1986 (as well as other years).

---

A sidenote to this: The "seapeople incident" is more precisely the destruction of Ugarit. While the feared perpetrators are still debatable, Ugarit - the victim - is pretty well known. It seems obvious that at least some of its population survived, especially traders out on sea. A sudden influx of people (Canaanites from Ugarit) in some cities of the area would be more than logical. As well as a sudden growth in seatrade to at least partially fill in the sudden gap in international trade left open by the demise of the major port of that time.Hirsch.im.wald 17:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Phoenician trade with Cornwall

Someone has added to the Cornwall WP page:

"the history of Polgooth as a main trade centre for Tin is in evidence with tin ingnots stamped with the phoenician mark found in the "White river" at Pentewan proving increasing evidence for cornwalls importance in mining history."

Is there any reliable evidence that this trade existed, please? I have marked the "possibly even Cornwall" statement in this "Phoenicia" article with a request for a citation.

---Vernon White 21:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now amended to statement to make it clear that Phoenician trade with and settlement in Cornwall is a belief, not a fact. ---Vernon White (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but at one time it was a common enough belief to appear in textbooks, say around 120 years ago. (Yes, I have textbooks that are that old). I wonder what it was based on, and what is this about "tin ingots stamped with the phoenician mark" found at Pentewan? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see History of Cornwall talk page = Goodnight, now!

===Vernon White (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The current statement is unfairly dismissive of Phoenician trade with Britain. There should be a distinction between the lack of current archeological evidence, which may only be used to argue against the presence of major permanent settlements, and the existence of trade routes, which based on reliable contempory history did exist. - HHR 22/01/2007

Please provide references to the evidence, which you say exists. T.D. Kendrick says it was dreamed up in Tudor times in his British Antiquity (1950). Todd, Malcolm (1987). The South West to AD 1,000 (Regional history of England series No.:8). Harlow, Essex: Longman. ISBN 0-582-49274-2 (Paperback), 0-582-49273-4 (hardback). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), give a critical examination of the evidence of Phoenician trade with the South West of the U.K

You need references? How about Strabo for a clear and direct statement on the trade, from Cadiz their colony in Spain, to Cornwall. I am puzzled at how people ignore the classical sources just because of 'no archeological evidence' (which simply does fails to PROOVE that was may have occured, not that it did not occur). Also puzzling is how people writing wikipedia articles other wikipedia as their source. 144.82.106.50 16:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Orecalimo

Dead Link

I deleted this link from the "external links" category since it's dead : *Phoenician history Lebanese point of view.

Phoenicians in America ?

I was tempted to remove this whole section since it is such unscientific nonsense, but then again the legends around something are as interesting to read about as the facts sometimes. Since the article on gold has a section on alchemy and notes it is discredited, I felt it was probably correct to keep this section here but note that it is discredited. The text before was a little unencyclopedic and unquestioning, so I have corrected this and left the section in place - any questions, please leave a message on my talk page. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 21:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. No self-respecting encyclopedia or historical resource would include such nonsense. We might as well have a section called "Phoenicians on the Moon" or "Phoenicians in Australia." In fact, I'm going to delete the entire section right now. Thatsfifteenminutes 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a pity that this myth has been deleted, as, no doubt some believer will insert another paragraph at some time in the future. In relation to the "Phoenicians and Cornish Tin" myth, the WP article on Joseph of Aremithia claimed that because of the "well-documented" [Diodorus Siculus] story of Phoenicians in Cornwall is true then Joseph the Tin Merchant is also likely to be true, although without an contemporary evidence. Isn't it better to relate the myth and then indicate scholarly disbelief (with citations)? === Vernon White (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but if you want to fix up that section, by all means have at it. I just don't think it's worthwhile to address bogus rumors (and frankly, one I'd never heard before in years of studying ancient Mediterranean history). Should we address bogus rumors throughout wikipedia, or should we simply provide good information? Thatsfifteenminutes 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's only your POV (opinion) that the sections you deleted are bogus rumours. Many books have been written that address the massive amounts of evidence for Phoenician presence in America. But anyone who writes such a book is immediately ostracised by people like you, and even any reference to such a book is always covered up as much as possible by people like you as we have just now seen. There are photographs of the Phoenician coins that were found at the website, and yes, they have been published. Punic inscriptions have been found from Monhegan Island in Maine, to South America, and there are whole books about this, with photographs of them. But this evidence totally contradicts what powerful people are trying to push about America's history, so they routinely attack such evidence with a vehemence rarely seen in academia, just as I commented before. What we have seen now with this censorship is proving my remarks were 100% correct. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not my point of view. It's fact. The Phoenicians did not come to America. Such claims are as factual as claims that aliens helped build the pyramids at Giza. This is not censorship, it is an attempt to provide people with correct information without confusing them with ridiculous "theories" (such a word shouldn't even be used because a real historical or scientific theory actually has a basis in hard evidence). This is not a debate about "what powerful people are trying to do" to you and your poor censored ideas. Great logic there. Thatsfifteenminutes 16:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should discuss the topic of Phoenicians in America and with the attitude of "these claims have been maid but are given no credence by the professional and academic community". I wonder if there are any sources to back up this assertion though. I know it's hard to find a reference that says "this nonsense is scurrilous" but it would help. Are there no reliable sources who disparage such claims? --Richard 18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The amazing thing is, lots of sources on this subject can easily be found in the public libraries of every single county in the USA, despite all the best efforts of those who want to censor this information from ever being seen. If you want to dispute the info, come up with countersources in your books that dispute it for you - don't just summarily blank it out. The amount of material on the controversy here could fill a dedicated sub-article on Phoenicians in America with ease, and I predict that is exactly what will happen since attempts at censorship or trying to keep people from finding out something, usually backfire on mediums that aren't restricted to a few, but that enjoy popular access, like Wikipedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of books in public libraries that respond to public demand on such topics as "Phoenicians in America". Libraries usually place them in Dewey Decimal class 001.9: Controversial knowledge. In politically incorrect days, this class was labelled "uncertain and spurious knowledge." It would be good to have an article Phoenicians in America, citing all the sources to which User:Codex Sinaiticus refers, together with an evaluation of their reliability. The guide-lines for WikiProject: Saints suggests separation of the facts of the life of a saint from their veneration. Such a separation could be useful to this subject. === Vernon White (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If wiki users are going to continue to replace this section, can we please have someone who will clearly write (at the very beginning of the section) that this is spurious information that has not been proved in any way? Then we'll have ourselves a compromise here. Thatsfifteenminutes 16:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

I am most puzzled by the following phrase at the beginning of the article: "...that spread across the Mediterranean during the first millennium BC, between the period of 1200 BC to 900 BC. " Well, which is it? Thermaland 11:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Etymology of Spain

The article as it now stands claims that the word "Spain" (originally, "Hispania") derives from Phoenician I-Shaphan. Looking at the Hispania article, one encounters a raft of theories concerning the etymology of the name, of which this is but one, and not necessarily the most probable. I have no reason to doubt that there are several credible etymologies, so I've quite simply changed the sentence to "Some scholars believe...". David ekstrand 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article

The Melungeons are also sometimes claimed to be descendants of the Phoenicians.

Take a look at the article Melungeons and you'll know why I want this to stay here until a source is presented.--91.148.159.4 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Arniaz-Villena

I removed the research of Arniaz-Villena from the "Origins" since the research was false and criticised by most genetists and the scientific community.

Major Revision Needed

Several sections on this page are incredibly innacurate - someone might like to get a copy of one of the better recent books on Phoenician scholarship and update it (I'm too busy at the moment to do a full revision). A good starting place would be M. E. Aubet's "The Phoenicians and the West: Politicis, Colonies, and Trade, 2nd Edition." Cambridge: Cambidge University Press, 2001.

Two quick points though -

• The "Origins of the Phoenicians" section is widly innacurate as a brief quote from Aubet's book will illustrate:

"In modern terminology, it is customary to use the name 'Canaanite' to designate those people who spoke North West Semitic and lived in the territory of Syria-Palestine at least from the beginning of the second millenium BC. The same populations, who have a common historical, geographic, cultural and linguistic base, are known as Phoenicians from the year 1200 BC onwards, thus establishing an artifical barrier between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age and conferring chronological implications on the two terms. According to this the 'Phoenicians' succeded the 'Canaanite' from 1200 BC until the conquest by Alexander the Great in 333 BC." (Aubet, pp. 11-12)

Perhaps someone can make a few edits/do some more reading.--Dcsmith 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Cannanites are Semites not Negros!

Just because Egypt conquered their lands and the Hebrews 1500yrs later attached them to Mizraim! (which makes sense, since the Hebrews attached their enemies to Egypt) That don't make them Negros! The Cannanites are simply a branch of the Amorites. They speak the same languae as the Wetsern Semites and thats what they are. The Britannica says they are Amorites, who do you want me to believe an afrocentric or the Britannica?--Skatewalk 03:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)