Talk:Phoenicia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sirs, I want to pointed our an unaccuracy in this article, The article said that the Temple of Solomon was builded following a Phoenician design wich is not correct. According to the Bible the architectural plans was made by the Jewish and they follow the divine guidance or inspiration. Martin R. RodriguezJan 03, 2005 11:47 P.M.

Page merged with [[Phoenicians]]; see also Talk:Phoenicians. - Hephaestos 06:05 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Notice: Readers are cautioned to approach this entry with reserve and compare the current text with suppressed information in the 'Page history' in order to reach their own conclusions has been added at the head of this page. Note that it is perfectly NPOV. Wetman 08:34, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, how in the world is the phrase "suppressed information" NPOV? It makes a value judgment about those who allegedly "suppressed" the information. Isn't there a more consistent way to handle disputed pages like this on Wikipedia? Jdavidb 23:23, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What would be preferred (to use the passive voice that is considered by many to be more NPOV)? information that has been made to disappear Any phrase that doesn't eliminate the sense that factual material has been removed will suit the situation. Wetman 02:00, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
How about using whatever standard text is used on other articles? Something like "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I'm sure you'll recognize that those who removed the material do not consider it to be factual, so you can't just say it's factual. Both the wording on the page and the one you just suggested are very loaded with your POV. There are a lot of other articles on Wikipedia that have conflict but manage to alert readers to that fact without claiming the article has been manipulated with ulterior motives. Jdavidb 14:11, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Guess what? There was a standard text. It's there now. Jdavidb 05:19, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Excellent. As for "facts" those who removed the material do not consider it to be factual, so you can't just say it's factual there are no facts in archaeology. What's been removed is mainstream interpretation. The "considerations" of Zestauferov who suppressed the mainstream interpretations are actually known only to Zestauferov. As far as "suppressed is concerned: has anyone looked in the wastebasket? I don't think so. Suppressed is suppressed.Wetman 06:28, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just keep bad-mouthing me to everyone why don't you?Zestauferov 08:26, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
(Wikipedia is transparent, thus Users develop their reputations through their own actions. "Bad-mouthing" is a characterization demonstrably typical of this User. "Disputed neutrality" is not an equivalent of text suppressed.) Wetman 19:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Erm... we entered a truce post-dating this discussion didn't we? Check your talk page [1]. What are you doing chasing water under the bridge here 5 months on? I am quite happy to go through our wranglings on the various talk pages and delete them with you if they bother you. All the best.Zestauferov 14:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lars, I notice you're trying to put in a link to the Swedish article [[Fenicien]] The thing is, though, there isn't one at http://sv.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Fenicien, which is where the link points to... Brion VIBBER

Doh, do you only create links to pages that already exist? Lot of links lead to pages (within this Wiki) that do not yet exist. If there will ever be a Swedish article on Phoenicia, its name will be Fenicien, because that is the proper spelling in Swedish, just like Phönizien is the proper spelling in German. Now, an article on Fenicien actually does exist on some Swedish-language wiki somewhere on the web, but unfortunately not on the Swedish Wikipedia. --user:LA2

Good point! The problem is that the inter-language links (currently, at least) have no way of distinguishing a link to an article that does exist (and thus, contains potentially useful information for the info-seeker) from one that doesn't exist (where someone who's already knowledgable may want to start an article). My impression is that at this point, if a large portion of those links go to empty pages without warning, people are just going to end up ignoring them on the assumption that they're useless. If we want them to make the distinction (like links within the wiki do), we should probably bring the topic up on intlwiki-l and/or wikipedia-l. --Brion VIBBER

Google for "Interwiki" to find ways to link different wiki sites to each other. This is a job for the system owner (Jimmy), though, that developers don't have much say about. One way to make more of the Spanish language links useful is to link to the Sevilla project instead of es.wikipedia.com. That too is a (major) decision for Jimmy. --user:LA2

Very dissappointing, but I guess this is an inevitable downside of wikipedness. The Lebanese & Maltese are descendants of the Phoenicians (not to be confused with Canaanites) so if the article dealt solely with those nations' influence it would have been better. Phoenicia was a geographical term while Phoenicians represent the Puntite ethnic group, the two must not be confused. There are many cases where similar origins in name should not be confused with identification. Phoenicians were nomads of the wind. Phoenicia is a term covering a very wide area connecting the various isolated ports they made an impact on in the Eastern Mediterranian.

The ethnic make-up of the people now living in the area called "Phonicia" in ancient times is even more mixed than it was 2500 years ago. Lebanese and Maltese are not "descendants" of Phoenicians any more than they are of "Byzantines." This pseudo-ethnic stuff is faded-- put it back in the attic.Wetman 19:25, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I notice that Andre Engels omitted the part about Phoenicians not to be confused with Canaanites. But since the Biblical table of nations is frequently used to identify peoples in the area, how can descendants of Put be called Canaanites after his brother? Compare the situation with the British occupation of Ireland Sjould we then call the Brits who lived there Irish? Like the Brits the Phoenicians have their own ancestral & native origin distinct from the people whose land they occupied. History should never be over simplified. I think the point should be put back in for a more precise definition.

Sensible adults are not using 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 ("the Land of Punt" indeed!) is not surely known. Maybe comparing the situation with the English in Ireland isn't helpful.Wetman 19:25, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
According to the sources I have read on it (Maria Eugenia Aubet, "The Phoenicians and the West", the Phoenicians called themselves can'ani (Phoenicians being a Greek word).
Dating is important. When were Phoenicians calling themselves can'ani? 8th-7th centuries BCE?
Regarding the Biblical genealogy "Canaan was the father of Sidon his firstborn (...)" (Genesis 10:15) Given that the Sidonites were Phoenicians, and that in the Bible the term is often used to denote Phoenicians, it would seem to me that the Phoenicians were indeed descendants from Canaan. Regarding Put, I have not seen the Bible mention anything about his descendants. Andre Engels 12:42, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Begin with archaeology, history and linguistics. Then have a look at those Biblical "genealogies." Otherwise you'll remain in a constant state of this kind of confusion. Wetman 19:25, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good point, but the circumstances have already been jumbled by referring to Canaan as Phoenicia in the first place. In this case of course "phoenicians" i.e. the people who inhabited "Phoenicia" would have called themselves Can'ani just as the vast majority of Irish (or any other nation) under the British occupation in the past would not have called themselves Brits. Unfortunately as was the case for a short time with Ireland, the name of the occupying force stuck with the natives. It is actually as incorrect to refer to Canaan as Phoenicia as it is to refer to Ireland (or other ex-empire lands) as Britain -a mistake still propagated in some less accurate children's books. Phoenicia was actually only a collection of city kingdoms conquered by the Sea Peoples of whom very little is know other than that whicvh some archaeologists have theoretically pieced together. Though Sidon was the shining conquest of the phoenicians after which their Hanseatic-like league was named, it was not founded by phoenicians but by Canaanites and only conquered by Phoenicians. The conquest of Canaanite towns by the mysterious Sea-peoples which you mentioned were cvalled Phoenicians by the Greeks is comparable to the Viking occupation of British towns. Viking influence can be found all over the UK but it would be wrong to call the English or celts Vikings. I have my info from David Rohl a very critical and scientific Egyptologist who himself is only re-organising * re-iterating observations & theories postulated by other very emminent egyptologists & Levant archaeologists of the past.

I didn't know David Rohl, but judging from what I see about him on the web, he seems to be indeed an eminent but also a controversial egyptologist. His theories should, in my opinion, be considered just that - theories. Time will tell whether or not they get accepted by mainstream historians. What is the evidence of what you are writing here? What evidence does he have? And what do other historians say about it? Andre Engels 09:20, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Unfortunately wikipedia is a hobby for me so I do not have the time I would love to really apply mysself to researching the answers you require, but I believe the subject is to be dealt with in some detail in his upcomming book "Lords of Avaris" and can suggest reading his book Legend for a start but only if you have already read A Test of Time or Pharoes & Kings first. I should also say that there are some mistakes in Legend which might not be caught by the layman. I will try to re-word the comments I inserted on the page considering your point of view when I have more time to think carefully and lets see how it emmerges. User:Zestauferov

They are classified as one of the nations in the four directions from Israel Gomer being the north, Persia to the east, Cush to the south, and Put to the west. Can anyone turn this into information? When? By whom? Any particular book of the O.T.? Wetman 07:32, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ezekiel 38:5, Talmud & the christian book of Revelations 20:8 (common knowledge to those interested I think). By the way, you know how Hittites language was called Hittite but then people realised that it wasn't but it was already too late? And then how Hebrew is known by everyone as Hebrew a semetic language but in fact it is a dialect of Canaanite and the term semetic has dropped out of use because the hebrews were the only Shem people using a dialect of languages used by those classified biblically as Ham? Well guess what? The language known to most as phoenician is probably not realy phoenician either, but who knows for sure? BUT the term semetic really is a dying archaicism preservedonly by bible perfectionists. No offense if anyone is a biblical perfectionist just think about it carefully. It really is more correct to use the term North-East Afroasiatic, so I will have to change that again.
Now concerning Wetman's classifications of semetic languages, I am going to have to check because I have now seen three different classifications. Wetman's seperated Ugaritic and Amorite, but grouped Hebrew, Aramaic and Phoenician etc. as Canaanite. The one on Wikipaedia seperates Aramaic & Ugaritic but groups Phoenician & Hebrew & Amorite etc. as Canaanite. As far as I have been taught ALL of these languages constitute the so-called Canaanite branch of Northeast Afroasiatic formerly/archaically known as the semetic group. For now for the sake of consistency I have retained the Wiki version, though perhaps this is not necessary here at all because it is already dealt with under the Semetic Languages entry. Zestauferov 12:37, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not my classification, of course Semitic (not Semetic) languages are an established group within the new umbrella group of 'Afro-Asiatic' languages. (Arabs don't like to be told they speak a Semitic language!) Hebrew a dialect indeed "Shem people"? I won't enter into an edit battle with a zany. Wetman 21:53, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is the text suppressed by Zestauferov: 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.

External link

Wetman 22:00, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Wetman, firstly I am disappointed you call me zany, I have always tried to be totally cordial with you, But if it is my old-fassioned use of english which rubs you the wrong way then I can only appologise and bequest tolerance for it is just the way I am. Secondly I did not "suppress" any data. I think you knowing I am a Jew might have formed a predjudice that I have some kind of anti-phoenecian aganeda? If you read the article again you will see that the only info from above that is not in the current article is the following somewhat jumbled sentence.

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.

I did not even replace it with my own opinion but simply made the text match what already appears on Wikipaedia elsewhere. Your persistent use of the outdated term Semetic instead of Northeast Afroasiatic indicates to me you believe, to paralel a fundamentalist argument I have heard (my parenthesis):

"as a chosen people the Hebrews cannot have lost their original Shemite (I used "shem people" to facilitate comprehension) language and adopted a dialect of the 'estranged' Canaanite (not a "shem-people") people amongst whom they settled."

Please tell me I am mistaken. If so then why are you so adamant about the use of this inappropriate and dated biblical linguistic terminology? Is it because as you indicate above you are trying to insult Arabs? Don't you realise that by your statement you are showing a predjudiced POV? Lets use the less controvercial language for a truely NPOV in this article.

Zestauferov 03:16, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please excuse me if I did not act in a prudent manner. I felt a paragraph to be rather inadequate. Posted next is the original:

The Phoenicians left no written records. They inherited an alphabet from the Ugarit Canaanite culture of northern Syria and disseminated the concept along Aegean trade routes, to coastal Anatolia, Crete and eventually Mycenean Greece.

D.E. Cottrell 08:30, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Phoenicians really did leave no written records all we have are inscriptions presumed beyond reasonable doubt to be Phoenician.

Also can we really tollerate Andre Engles suppressing all that info he has deleted especially considering his previous act of vandalism? It is well known that there is a fundamentalist bible believing agenda to proove the Lebanese are Canaanites in order to justify future genocide. Lebanese claim Phoenician origins and ALL ancient sources without exception mention their origin from the Eritrean sea. The Canaanites and the Phoenecians occupied the same places simmultaneaously.

Ok. Added it again. Andre Engels 17:04, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Looking at Andre's recent edits, it seems to me that reasonably useful information was removed in the course of his "edit war with himself." It may not have deserved the promininent place it had in the article, but I think it mostly belonged there, if only to give perspective on claims elsewhere that certain ethnic groups or nations are, or may be, descended from the Phoenicians. As well as I can reconstruct, here is the removed material:

"The Lebanese, Maltese, Lybians and even some Somalians still consider themselves descendants of Phoenicians along with certain other island folk in the Mediterranean. Interestingly enough oral-tradition is fairly constant, but none more strikingly than the Lebanese. Phoenicians left few written records, and the first places that can be looked to to back up traditions that the Phoenicians were not indigenous to the area where they flourished, are Egyptian records, Herodotus, the geographer Strabo and Pliny. All indicate that the cultural homeland of the Phoenicians lay with colonies to the south in the Red Sea. Where they came from and just when they arrived and under what circumstances have long been argued among archaeologists. With the rise of ethnic nationalism in the 19th century and the destructive clashes of ethnicities in former Phoenecian lands during the 20th century, theories of foreign or autochthonous ethnic origins of Phoenicians have erased, promoted or misapplied with sometimes rabid urgency to further modern agendas. They are 'not' to be confused with the Biblical Canaanites which applies only to the pre-Hebraic aboriginals of mainland Canaan.
"Egyptologists have established that the name comes from their Puntian origin."

From this, only the statement about Herodotus, Strabo and Pliny was retained. Reference to Puntians was dropped elsewhere as well

Also a few odd deletions further down, like "a number of northern Phoenician cities established themselves as significant maritime powers" had the word "northern" dropped and the phrase "After Buto" was dropped from qualifying "Byblos".

The following paragraph was also dropped:

"Phoenician merchants had been employed to handle Egypt's trade from as early on as the Old Kingdom. By the 3rd Dynasty, it was no longer exotic goods like lapis-luzuli being transported to the nile by Poenite ships, but, through the thriving Phoenician ports like Byblos, the famous wood of the cedars of Lebanon and pine woods from the levantine coast to the timber-poor Nile Valley in exchange for the gold that came up the Nile from the south."

Again, it seems to me that this material belongs in the article. It may belong there along with discussion that some scholars disagree; it may belong in a section on controversial theories; whatever. Both sides should cite sources in the article. Mere removal seems to me to be inappropriate.

This may not be exhaustive. I've only had a very brief 15-minute break on which to look at this.

I believe I have no axe to grind here. I know relatively little about the topic, I'm just looking at process here. As far as I can tell, there was no consensus to remove this material. Wikipedia can discuss conflicting (or even discredited) theories in the article, not just in the talk page. -- Jmabel 21:46, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the removal of the piece on various ethnicities claiming to get back to the Phoenicians should be there, although its location needs to be changed. The other pieces I do not agree have to be in. Andre Engels 15:03, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The Lebanese, Maltese, Lybians and even some Somalians still consider themselves descendants of Phoenicians along with certain other island folk in the Mediterranean. Interestingly enough oral-tradition is fairly constant, but none more strikingly than the Lebanese.
This one I should indeed not have removed
With the rise of ethnic nationalism in the 19th century and the destructive clashes of ethnicities in former Phoenecian lands during the 20th century, theories of foreign or autochthonous ethnic origins of Phoenicians have erased, promoted or misapplied with sometimes rabid urgency to further modern agendas.
Not really much content here
They are 'not' to be confused with the Biblical Canaanites which applies only to the pre-Hebraic aboriginals of mainland Canaan.
That's the theory of the person who wrote this; there are plenty of people who say differently.
But it is interesting to see that you do not allow for the official Lebanese stance taught in schools under the curriculem that they were not aboriginal Canaanites, but migrants from the "Red Sea" whatever sea that may really mean.Zestauferov 07:37, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I do _allow_ for it. I just do not think we should get it as "the" truth.
Egyptologists have established that the name comes from their Puntian origin.
There are many theories regarding the origin of the name 'Phoenicians'. To call one of them 'proven' is extremely POV.
"northern" and "after Buto"
Again text that is incorrect if one has another theory about Phoenician origin
Phoenician merchants had been employed to handle Egypt's trade from as early on as the Old Kingdom. By the 3rd Dynasty, it was no longer exotic goods like lapis-luzuli being transported to the nile by Poenite ships, but, through the thriving Phoenician ports like Byblos, the famous wood of the cedars of Lebanon and pine woods from the levantine coast to the timber-poor Nile Valley in exchange for the gold that came up the Nile from the south.
Has nothing to do with Phoenicians, but with Puntians. And even so, I have my doubts whether such a theory about Puntians is mainstream anyway.
"...were originally Puntians (from which their name derives) a mercantile, Sea People."
And again. Stating one theory as correct. Actually, there's three equations here, each of which is just a theory - not only the one between Phoenicians and Puntians, but also that the Puntians are one of the Sea Peoples, and that the Phoenicians descend from the Sea Peoples.
A sea people does not imply THE sea people unless one is not very careful in ones reading. Phoenicians were without a doubt a mercantile sea people as were the Puntians or Poenit as they were properly called. Why not remove info to other articles where the info may be more appropriate as many wiki editors do with a note indicating where the info has been removed to. If you do not know enough to edit in this way then perhaps you are not the right person to be re-writing this article?Zestauferov 07:37, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
They did not orignate this idea [the alphabet]
Again one that is true or not depending on one's theory of Phoenician origin.
Why are you so intent on trying to assert that the Phoenicians were a direct continuation of the Canaanites? Do you support the fundamentalist idea that modern nations claiming descendant from Phoenicia like the Lebanese should be eradicated because they are nothing more than Canaanites? You are supporting a very sinister agenda whether you are aware of it or (like non-Hebrew nationalists claiming aboriginal status in lands once called Canaan) not.Zestauferov 07:37, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I am _not_ trying to assert it. I am just trying to _remove_ the assertion that they are not. And of course I do not support that idea, don't be ridiculous. I find this quite a heavy claim to make. But at least I now understand why this is so important for you. That doesn't make it any more acceptable for Wikipedia though.
Accusing such finds as driven by foreign agendas, nations claiming descent from Phoenicians are consistent in their own legends describing origins from the coasts of the Arabian sea.
Just an attempt to push one theory down or throats again. Also incorrect, checking the internet for Lebanese-nationalist website on the Phoenicians, the first thing I find is http://phoenicia.org/phoeleb.html - being a diatribe against not in favor of a Red Sea origin. Tentatively I would say Lebanese-nationalistic sites tend to favor either an autochtonous or a mixed origin for the Phoenicians, although what I have is too little to make a real statement.
Not incorrect the curriculem in Lebanese schools teaches the origin theory stated, and the objection to being grouped as the same with the Canaanites is one held by the more affluent intelligensia while the site you link to is obviously by groups unaware of the fundamentalist torah agenda to ensure all Canaanites have been eradicated.Zestauferov 07:37, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Don't you see how this shows the weakness of your arguments? I don't care what the 'fundamentalist torah agenda' is. Something does not suddenly become false because it is being supported by someone with abhorrent views. Andre Engels 22:19, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
We are not talking about someone with abhorrent views we are talking about thousdands of people with a mind to accomplish what they believe by any possible means.Zestauferov 01:50, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Whatever. Whoever they are, with however many or few, and whatever tragic consequences they draw from a certain theory, does nothing to either validate or invalidate that theory. Andre Engels 13:38, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Note that we are still giving this theory a whole paragraph, against hardly a few words for the others. I just intended to rewrite the article to give it as a theory rather than using one theory as a basis of our statements about Phoenicians. Andre Engels 15:03, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is it possible that we could supplement this page with one (or two) on theories about the origins of the Phoenicians and who might be descended from them, with eveidence for and against each, then merely summarize here and point to those articles for further detail? In those articles, we could get into the details of who holds what theory, what political agendas these might be serving, etc. Even a false belief, if widely held, is worth discussing in sociological terms. -- Jmabel 17:59, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Phoenicia is sometimes spelled Phoinikia. Balderdash! This is simply misinformed. The literal Greek transliteration Phoinikia sticks out in an English sentence as a preposterously pretentious display of an author's familiarity with the Classics. Wetman 17:58, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Zestauferov has recently replaced, "Some ancient sources (Egyptian records, Herodotus, the geographer Strabo and Pliny) state that they originated from the area of the Indian Ocean (or Red Sea)," with "All ancient sources (Egyptian records, Herodotus, the geographer Strabo and Pliny) state that they originated from the area of Eritrean Sea (originally the Arabian Gulf)," and added in his comment, "Please give one source which states otherwise if you know of any." I have no idea of the facts of this, but since Zestauferov's new statement flat out contradicts what was here before, I'd sure appreciate if the person who wrote this before about the Indian Ocean would weigh in, if only to say, "Oops, you're right!" -- Jmabel 03:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

None of these sources, not even "Egyptian records" say that the Phoenicians originated in the Indian Ocean or the Red Sea, that's the trick! They may make statements that can be twisted by a biased reader to suggest such an interpretation might be marginally possible. And quite naturally, no sources specifically deny that the Phoenicians came from the Indian Ocean-- why would they? Nor from Ultima Thule, the land of the Hyperboreans or the Garden of the Hesperides. You might as well comb Pliny for references to unicorns and go harass a biologist with your "sources"!
The sensible approach: find the source. cut and past it. analyze what the source meant and why that 1st century Roman might have thought such and so. Zestauferov has no genuine interest in offering information. Wetman 03:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thankyou Wetman and a vey good day to you too. There is no trick all the refrences refer to the same place. If you have evidence to the contrary Wetman why don't you post it instead of making up "Balderdash". Zestauferov 04:19, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here's Herodotus (all I have handy right now) on their 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".

(My source is the 1954 Penguin Classics edition; Aubrey de Sélincourt is the translator). Note that Herodotus closes the section with the disclaimer that everything he's said is just a report on Persian opinion, and the Greeks have their own version, which he hasn't addressed. Later I'll see what Pliny and Strabo say; perhaps Zestauferov can point out his Egyptian sources? —No-One Jones 04:32, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here we have something that is in fact highly ambiguous; it could mean what Zestauferov takes it to mean, or it could mean exactly what it says: Persian ethnographers thought that the Phoenicians came from somewhere (it is not at all clear from the context exactly where that is) on the Indian Ocean. Any bets on what the other sources will say? —No-One Jones 04:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


"it could mean what Zestauferov takes it to mean, or it could mean exactly what it says" But Zestauferov takes it to mean exactly what it says, i.e. Eruthrês kaleomenês thalassês = the so called Eritrean Sea, so this above quoted comment is realy esoteric. Now as for a discussion of where the Eritrean sea was that is not for an article on Phoenicia, but it is for the article Eritrean Sea so any Indian Ocean hypothesis (which I have absolutely nothing against) would be perfect there. But the article should be clear that the classical origin is from the Eritrean(Erythraean) Sea. Zestauferov 03:02, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tyre, which may have been named after their ancestral island of Tyros/Dilmun (Bahrain) I removed this text, because it confuses the late Greek name of the former Dilmun, "Tylos," with an imagined prototype for the ancient city of tyre. No connection. See Dilmun Wetman 19:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Why is this page so contentious? And why do people keep alternately adding material with dubious citations (or none at all), and wholesale deleting other material without comment? The latest round of this is by the anonymous User:66.32.150.23. I'm not reverting, because I have no idea whether the new material is more or less accurate than what it replaces. What I do know is that people keep stating as fact matters over which there is obviously a great range of opinion even among respectable scholars. Would someone with knowledge of the topic and without an axe to grind please come through this article (probably looking at previous versions as well) and turn it into something that says which reputable scholars say what, instead of a battleground? -- Jmabel 01:34, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

This needs to be reconsidered: ...trading culture that spread right across the Mediterranean during the first century BC A century picked at random? Phoenician colonies from Tyre, and Punic colonies from Carthage are not jumbled by the reading amateur. This entry should discuss the Tyrian coloniews, and refer with a link to the Carthaginian ones. I don't edit this junk any more so it's up to you folks. Wetman 19:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phoenicia/Archive_1&oldid=63051665"