Eshmunazar_II_sarcophagus

Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II

Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II

6th-century BC Phoenician royal coffin

The sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II is a 6th-century BC sarcophagus unearthed in 1855 in the grounds of an ancient necropolis southeast of the city of Sidon, in modern-day Lebanon, that contained the body of Eshmunazar II (Phoenician: đ€€đ€”đ€Œđ€đ€đ€†đ€“ ÊŸĆĄmnÊżzr, r. c. 539 â€“ c. 525 BC), Phoenician King of Sidon. One of only three Ancient Egyptian sarcophagi found outside Egypt, with the other two belonging to Eshmunazar's father King Tabnit and to a woman, possibly Eshmunazar's mother Queen Amoashtart, it was likely carved in Egypt from local amphibolite, and captured as booty by the Sidonians during their participation in Cambyses II's conquest of Egypt in 525 BC. The sarcophagus has two sets of Phoenician inscriptions, one on its lid and a partial copy of it on the sarcophagus trough, around the curvature of the head. The lid inscription was of great significance upon its discovery as it was the first Phoenician language inscription to be discovered in Phoenicia proper and the most detailed Phoenician text ever found anywhere up to that point, and is today the second longest extant Phoenician inscription, after the Karatepe bilingual.

Quick Facts Eshmunazar II sarcophagus, Material ...
<?>
You may need rendering support to display the Phoenician alphabet characters in this article correctly.

The sarcophagus was discovered by Alphonse Durighello, a diplomatic agent in Sidon engaged by Aimé Péretié, the chancellor of the French consulate in Beirut. The sarcophagus was sold to Honoré de Luynes, a wealthy French nobleman and scholar, and was subsequently removed to the Louvre after the resolution of a legal dispute over its ownership.

More than a dozen scholars across Europe and the United States rushed to translate the sarcophagus inscriptions after its discovery, many noting the similarities between the Phoenician language and Hebrew. The translation allowed scholars to identify the king buried inside, his lineage, and his construction feats. The inscriptions warn against disturbing Eshmunazar II's place of repose; it also recounts that the "Lord of Kings", the Achaemenid king, granted Eshmunazar II the territories of Dor, Joppa, and Dagon in recognition for his services.

The discovery led to great enthusiasm for archaeological research in the region and was the primary reason for Renan's 1860–1861 Mission de PhĂ©nicie, the first major archaeological mission to Lebanon and Syria. Today, it remains one of the highlights of the Louvre's Phoenician collection.

Eshmunazar II

Main article: Eshmunazar II

Eshmunazar II (Phoenician: đ€€đ€”đ€Œđ€đ€đ€†đ€“ ÊŸĆĄmnÊżzr, a theophoric name meaning 'Eshmun helps')[1][2] was the Phoenician King of Sidon, reigning c. 539 BC to c. 525 BC.[3] He was the grandson of King Eshmunazar I and a vassal king of the Achaemenid Empire. Eshmunazar II succeeded his father, Tabnit I, on the throne of Sidon. Tabnit I ruled briefly before his death, and his sister-wife, Amoashtart, acted as an interregnum regent until the birth of Eshmunazar II. Amoashtart then ruled as Eshmunazar II's regent until he reached adulthood. Eshmunazar II, however, died prematurely at age 14 during the reign of Cambyses II of Achaemenid Persia, and was succeeded by his cousin Bodashtart.[4][5][6] Eshmunazar II, like his mother,[7] father and grandfather, was a priest of Astarte.[8][9] Temple building and religious activities were important for the Sidonian kings to demonstrate their piety and political power. Eshmunazar II and his mother, Queen Amoashtart, constructed new temples and religious buildings dedicated to Phoenician gods such as Baal, Astarte, and Eshmun.[9][10]

History

Phoenician funerary practices

The Phoenicians emerged as a distinct culture on the Levantine coast in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550 â€“ c. 1200 BC) as one of the successor cultures to the Canaanites.[11][12] They were organized into independent city-states that shared a common language, culture, and religious practices. They had, however, diverse mortuary practices, including inhumation and cremation.[13]

Archaeological evidence of elite Achaemenid period burials abounds in the hinterland of Sidon. These include inhumations in underground vaults, rock-cut niches, and shaft and chamber tombs in Sarepta,[14] Ain al-Hilweh,[15] Ayaa,[16][17] Magharet Abloun,[18] and the Temple of Eshmun in Bustan el-Sheikh.[19] Elite Phoenician burials were characterized by the use of sarcophagi, and a consistent emphasis on the integrity of the tomb.[20][21] Surviving mortuary inscriptions from that period invoke deities to assist with the procurement of blessings, and to conjure curses and calamities on whoever desecrated the tomb.[22]

The first record of the discovery of an ancient necropolis in Sidon was made in 1816 by English explorer and Egyptologist William John Bankes.[23][24][note 1]

Modern discovery

The sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II was discovered on 19 January 1855[25][note 2] by the workmen of Alphonse Durighello, an agent of the French consulate in Sidon hired by Aimé Péretié, an amateur archaeologist and the chancellor of the French consulate in Beirut.[28][29][30] Durighello's men were digging on the plains southeast of the city of Sidon in the grounds of an ancient necropolis (dubbed Nécropole Phénicienne by French Semitic philologist and biblical scholar Ernest Renan). The sarcophagus was found outside a hollowed-out rocky mound that was known to locals as Magharet Abloun ('the Cavern of Apollo').[28][29] It had originally been protected by a vault, of which some stones remained in place. One tooth, a piece of bone, and a human jaw were found in the rubble during the sarcophagus extraction, showing that the remains of Eshmunazar II had been robbed in antiquity.[28]

Cornelius Van Alen Van Dyck, an American missionary physician, made it to the scene and made a transcript of the inscription which was first published on 11 February 1855 in The United States Magazine.[31][32]

On 20 February 1855, Durighello informed Péretié of the find.[28][29][30] Durighello had taken advantage of the absence of laws governing archaeological excavation and the disposition of the finds under the Ottoman rule, and had been involved in the lucrative business of trafficking archaeological artifacts. Under the Ottomans, it sufficed to either own the land or to have the owner's permission to excavate. Any finds resulting from digs became the property of the finder.[33] To excavate, Durighello had bought the exclusive right from the land owner, the Mufti of Sidon, Mustapha Effendi.[28][33][34]

Ownership dispute

Honoré de Luynes bought the sarcophagus and donated it to the Louvre. Today, the sarcophagus is one of the highlights of the Louvre's Phoenician collection.[note 3]

Durighello's ownership of the sarcophagus was contested by the British vice-consul general in Syria, Habib Abela,[36][37] who claimed he had entered into agreements with the workers and the landowner to assign and sell him the rights to any discoveries.[note 4] The matter quickly took a political turn; in a letter dated 21 April 1855 the director of the French national museums, Count Émilien de Nieuwerkerke, requested the intervention of Édouard Thouvenel, the French ambassador to the Ottomans, stating that "It is in the best interest of the museum to possess the sarcophagus as it adds a new value at a time in which we start studying with great zeal Oriental antiquities, until now unknown in most of Europe."[37] A commission was appointed by the governor of the Sidon Eyalet, Wamik Pasha, to look into the case, and, according to the minutes of the meeting dated 24 April 1855, the dispute resolution was transferred to a commission of European residents that unanimously voted in favor of Durighello.[33][39][40][38]

The United States Magazine reported on the issue of the legal dispute:

In the meantime, a controversy has arisen in regard to the ownership of the discovered monument, between the English and French Consuls in this place, one having made a contract with the owner of the land, by which he was entitled to whatever he should discover in it; and the other having engaged an Arab to dig for him, who came upon the sarcophagus in the other consul's limits, or, as the Californians would say, within his "claim".

— United States Magazine correspondent, 1855, p. 379[41]

Péretié purchased the sarcophagus from Durighello and sold it to wealthy French nobleman and scholar Honoré de Luynes for £400. De Luynes donated the sarcophagus to the French government to be exhibited in the Louvre.[33][42][43]

Removal to the Louvre

Péretié rushed the sarcophagus' laborious transportation to France. The bureaucratic task of removing the sarcophagus to France was facilitated with the intervention of Ferdinand de Lesseps, then the French consul general in Alexandria, and the French minister of education and religious affairs, Hippolyte Fortoul. During the transportation to the Sidon port, the citizens and the governor of Sidon gathered, escorted, and applauded the convoy; they adorned the sarcophagus with flowers and palm branches while 20 oxen, assisted by French sailors, dragged the carriage to the port.[44] At the wharf, the crew of the French navy corvette Sérieuse loaded the sarcophagus' trough, and then its lid, onto a barge, before lifting it to the ship. The commander of Sérieuse, Delmas De La Perugia, read an early translation of the inscriptions, explaining the scientific importance and historical significance of the cargo to his crew.[44][45]

The sarcophagus of King Eshmunazar II is housed in the Louvre's Near Eastern antiquities section in room 311 of the Sully wing. It was given the museum identification number of AO 4806.[29]

  • Maps from Renan's 1864 Mission de PhĂ©nicie
  • The location where Eshmunazar II's sarcophagus was found is highlighted with a red circle.
  • The northwest area of the NĂ©cropole PhĂ©nicienne, showing Magharet Abloun and the tomb of Eshmunazar II
  • Six cross-sections of Magharet Abloun; the Eshmunazar II sarcophagus is marked 'T'
  • Closeup of Charles Gaillardot's map of the Royal necropolis of Sidon showing Tomb of Eshmunazar II

Description

Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II
Picture of the sarcophagus lid
1892 picture of the sarcophagus with the trough inscription visible under the lid

The Egyptian anthropoid-style sarcophagus dates to the 6th century BC[46] and is made of a solid, well polished block of bluish-black amphibolite.[47][43] It measures 256 cm (8.40 ft) long, 125 cm (4.10 ft) wide, and 119 cm (3.90 ft) high.[note 5][29]

The lid displays a relief carving of the figure of a deceased person in the style of Egyptian mummy sarcophagi.[43] The effigy of the deceased is portrayed smiling,[39] wrapped up to the neck in a thick shroud, leaving the head uncovered. The effigy is dressed with a large Nubian wig, a false braided beard, and a usekh collar ending with falcon heads at each of its extremities, as is often seen at the neck of Egyptian mummies.[29][28][39]

Two other sarcophagi of the same style were also unearthed in the necropolis.[48]

Inscriptions

The Egyptian-style sarcophagus has no hieroglyphs; however, there are Phoenician inscriptions on its lid and trough.[28][49][50] De Luynes and American philologist William Wadden Turner believed that the inscriptions were traced directly on the stone free-hand without the use of typographic guides for letter-spacing, and that these tracings were followed by the carving artisan.[51]

The inscriptions of the sarcophagus of Eshmunazar are known to scholars as CIS I 3 and KAI 14; they are written in the Phoenician language and alphabet. They identify the king buried inside, tell of his lineage and temple construction feats, and warn against disturbing his repose.[52] The inscriptions also state that the "Lord of Kings" (the Achaemenid King of Kings) granted the Sidonian king "Dor and Joppa, the mighty lands of Dagon, which are in the plain of Sharon" in recognition of his deeds.[52] According to Scottish biblical scholar John Gibson the text "offers an unusually high proportion of literary parallels with the Hebrew Bible, especially its poetic sections".[50] French orientalist Jean-Joseph-LĂ©andre BargĂšs wrote that the language is "identical with Hebrew, except for the final inflections of a few words and certain expressions."[note 6][53]

As in other Phoenician inscriptions, the text seems to use no, or hardly any, matres lectionis, the letters that indicate vowels in Semitic languages. As in Aramaic, the preposition ŚŚ™ŚȘ (ÊŸyt) is used as an accusative marker, while ŚŚȘ (ÊŸt) is used for 'with'.[54]

Lid inscription

The lid inscription consists of 22 lines of 40 to 55 letters each;[28][55] it occupies a square situated under the sarcophagus' usekh collar and measures 84 cm (2.76 ft) in length and width.[40][43] As is customary for Phoenician writing, all the characters are written without spaces separating each word, except for a space in the 13th line, which divides the text into two equal parts.[56] The lid letters are not evenly spaced, ranging from no distance to a spacing of 6.35 mm (0.250 in). The lines of the text are neither straight nor evenly spaced. The letters in the lower part of the text (after the lacuna on line 13) are neater and smaller than the letters in the first part of the inscription.[51] The letters of the first three lines of the lid inscription are cut deeper and rougher than the rest of the text which indicates that the engraver was either replaced or made to work more neatly.[51]

Trough inscriptions

Comparison of the trough inscription (squeeze copy, top) and lid inscription (annotated photo, bottom)
The two characters of the sarcophagus trough

A copy of the first part (twelve and a half lines) of the lid inscription is carved delicately and uniformly on six lines around the head curvature on the trough of the sarcophagus, with the letters corresponding in size and style to the second part of the lid inscription. An unfinished seventh line matches the first nine characters that form the beginning of the text that begins after the lacuna on the 13th line of the lid inscription.[51][50][56] It measures 140 cm (4.6 ft) in width, significantly wider than the lid inscription.[40]

The relationship between the trough and the lid inscription has been discussed amongst scholars. Turner believed that the similarity of the trough's characters to those of Part II of the lid inscription suggested that the trough was inscribed immediately after the completion of the lid. Turner speculated that this may have been to claim both parts of the sarcophagus as Eshmunazar's property, and suggested that the original intention was to copy the whole of the lid inscription, but after the copy of Part II had started, it was concluded that the ornamental line which runs round the outside of the sarcophagus would have divided the inscription in an unattractive manner. Turner's theory was in contrast to German theologian Heinrich Ewald's earlier proposal that originally the entire inscription had been intended to be engraved around the trough, to represent it as proceeding from his mouth, but error(s) made in the writing caused it to be abandoned, and the inscription started again on the lid.[57]

The external surface of the trough bears also an isolated group of two Phoenician characters. De Luynes believes that they may have been trial carving marks made by the engraver.[58]

Translations

Copies of the sarcophagus inscriptions were sent to scholars across the world,[59] and translations were published by well-known scholars (see below table).[60] Several other scholars worked on the translation, including the polymath Josiah Willard Gibbs, Hebrew language scholar William Henry Green, Biblical scholars James Murdock and Williams Jenks, and Syriac language expert Christian Frederic Crusé.[61] American missionaries William McClure Thomson and Eli Smith who were living in Ottoman Syria at the time of the discovery of the sarcophagus successfully translated most of the text by early 1855, but did not produce any publications.[61]

Belgian semitist Jean-Claude Haelewyck provided a hypothetical vocalization of the Phoenician text. A definitive vocalization is not possible because Phoenician is written without matres lectionis. Haelewyck based the premise of his vocalization on the affinity of the Phoenician and Hebrew languages, historical grammar, and ancient transcriptions.[62]

A list of early published translations follows below:[60]

More information Author, Memoir ...

English translation of the lid inscription

More information Line number, Original Phoenician inscription ...

Dating and attribution

The sarcophagus, along with two others found at the nearby Royal Necropolis of AyaÊża, are considered the only Egyptian sarcophagi that have ever been found outside of Egypt.[note 7] Marie-Louise Buhl's monograph The late Egyptian anthropoid stone sarcophagi confirmed the sarcophagus as belonging to the 26th dynasty,[86] which began in 664 BC and ended with Cambyses II's conquest of Egypt in 525 BC – many centuries after the last of the known Egyptian Stelae in the Levant.[87][88] These three Egyptian sarcophagi are considered to have contained the bodies of the same family – i.e. Eshmunazar II and his parents Tabnit and Amoashtart. Whereas Tabnit's sarcophagus reemployed a sarcophagus already dedicated on its front with a long Egyptian inscription in the name of an Egyptian general, and Amoashtart's was uninscribed, the sarcophagus used for Eshmunazar II was new and was inscribed with a full-length dedication in Phoenician on a clean surface. According to French archaeologist and epigrapher RenĂ© Dussaud, the sarcophagi and their inscriptions may have been ordered by Amoashtart.[89][note 7]

Scholars believe these sarcophagi were originally made in Egypt for members of the Ancient Egyptian elite, but were then transported to Sidon and repurposed for the burial of Sidonian royalty. Gibson and later scholars believe that the sarcophagi were captured as booty by the Sidonians during their participation in Cambyses II's conquest.[91] Herodotus recounts an event in which Cambyses II "ransacked a burial ground at Memphis, where coffins were opened up and the dead bodies they contained were examined", possibly providing the occasion on which the sarcophagi were removed and reappropriated by his Sidonian subjects.[87][92][note 7]

Significance

The discovery of the Magharet Abloun hypogeum and of Eshmunazar II's sarcophagus caused a sensation in France, which led Napoleon III, Emperor of the French, to dispatch a scientific mission to Lebanon headed by Ernest Renan.[93][27][94]

Significance of the inscription

Origins and style influence
Sarcophagus of Harkhebit, also of the 26th dynasty, Saqqara
Later anthropoid sarcophagi from Sidon, 5th century BC. Known as the Ford Collection sarcophagi, now in the National Museum of Beirut.
Comparison between the original Egyptian type to which the Eshmunazar II and Tabnit I sarcophagi belong, and the later derivative anthropoid sarcophagi styles

The lid inscription was of great significance upon its discovery; it was the first Phoenician-language inscription to be discovered in Phoenicia proper.[95][note 8] Furthermore, this engraving forms the longest and most detailed Phoenician inscription ever found anywhere up to that point, and is now the second longest extant Phoenician inscription after the Karatepe bilingual.[97][95][96][98]

Due to its length and level of preservation, the inscription offers valuable knowledge about the characteristics of the Phoenician language and, more specifically, of the Tyro-Sidonian dialect. Additionally, the inscription displays notable similarities to texts in other Semitic languages, evident in its idiomatic expressions, word combinations, and the use of repetition.[25]

Stylistic impact on later Phoenician sarcophagi

The sarcophagi of Tabnit and Eshmunazar may have served as a model for the later sarcophagi of Sidon.[note 7] After Tabnit and Eshmunazar II, sarcophagi continued to be used by Phoenician dignitaries, but with marked stylistic evolutions. These local anthropoid sarcophagi, built from the 5th century BC to the first half of the 4th century BC, continued to be carved in the form of a smooth, shapeless body, but used white marble, and the faces were progressively sculpted in more realistic Hellenic styles.[note 7][99][29][100] It is uncertain whether they were imported from Greece or produced locally.[29][99] This type of Phoenician sarcophagi has been found in the ruins of Phoenician colonies throughout the Mediterranean.[29][99]

See also

Notes

  1. [N 1]
    Bankes, who was the guest of British adventurer and archaeologist Hester Stanhope, visited the vast necropolis that was accidentally discovered in 1814, in Wadi Abu Ghiyas at the foot of the towns of Bramieh and Hlaliye, northeast of Sidon. He sketched the layout of one of the sepulchral caves, made faithful watercolor copies of its frescoes, and removed two fresco panels, which he sent to England. The panels are now in the National Trust and County Record Office in Dorchester[24]
  2. [N 2]
    The date of the discovery figures at the top of the copy of the sarcophagus inscription made by Van Dyke (p. 380).[26] Other sources provide a later date (see Jidéjian).[27]
  3. [N 3]
    A 2019 publication by the Louvre writes: French: "RĂ©fĂ©rence constante, repĂšre immuable, le sarcophage d'Eshmunazor est l'une des Ɠuvres phares de la collection phĂ©nicienne du Louvre, autour duquel la collection s'est dĂ©veloppĂ©e et organisĂ©e. Certes sa taille et sa corpulence massive suffisent Ă  attirer l'attention, mais son intĂ©rĂȘt est surtout d'ordre Ă©pigraphique: exceptionnelle par sa longueur comme par l'ampleur des informations historiques qu'elle contient, la graphie de l'inscription gravĂ©e sur ce sarcophage a Ă©tĂ© considĂ©rĂ©e comme la forme classique de l'Ă©criture phĂ©nicienne.", lit. 'A constant reference, an immutable landmark, the sarcophagus of Eshmunazor is one of the highlights of the Phoenician collection at the Louvre, around which the collection has been developed and organized. Admittedly, its length and breadth are enough to attract attention, but its importance is above all epigraphical: exceptional for its length as well as for the extent of the historical information it contains, the script of the inscription engraved on this sarcophagus has been considered the classic form of Phoenician writing.'[35]
  4. [N 4]
    From the minutes of the dispute resolution meeting of 24 April 1855: French: "Le vingt-trois du mĂȘme mois, jour de Mardi, Monsieur Habib Abella met appostion Ă  l'enlĂšvement par Mr. PeretiĂ© dudit Sarophage se prĂ©valant en qualitĂ© de cessionnaire, de titres et droits qui lui avaient etĂ© confĂ©rĂ©s en vertu: (1) D'une convention verbale passĂ©e entre lui et les ouvriers qui auraient trouvĂ© le Sarcophage; (2) D'une cession qui lui aurait Ă©tĂ© faite par Aly Efendi, des droits qui pourraient lui revenir sur le Sarcophage, comme l'ayant dĂ©couvert; (3) D'une vente, qui lui aurait Ă©tĂ© faite dudit Sarcophage par Moustafa Effendi proprietaire du terrain dans lequel le sarcophage a Ă©tĂ© trouvĂ©.", lit. 'On Tuesday 23rd of the same month, Habib Abella opposed the removal by PeretiĂ© of the said Sarophagus, claiming himself as assignee, with the titles and rights that had been conferred on him by virtue of: (1) a verbal agreement made between him and the workers who found the Sarcophagus; (2) an assignment of rights made to him by Aly Effendi over the Sarcophagus as if he had discovered it; (3) a sale, made to him of the said Sarcophagus by Moustafa Effendi, owner of the land on which the sarcophagus was found.'[38]
  5. [N 5]
    Dimensions given in de Luynes report are 2.45 metres (8.0 ft) tall by 1.4 metres (4.6 ft) wide.[40]
  6. [N 6]
    BargĂšs wrote as follows: French: "Sous le rapport de la linguistique, il nous fournit de prĂ©cieux renseignements sur la nature de la langue parlĂ©e en PhĂ©nicie quatre siĂšcles environ avant l'Ăšre chrĂ©tienne; cette langue s'y montre identique avec l'hĂ©breu, sauf les inflexions finales de quelques mots et certaines expressions, en trĂšs-petit nombre, qui ne se retrouvent pas dans les textes bibliques parvenus jusqu'Ă  nous; le fait de l'hĂ©breu Ă©crit et parlĂ© Ă  Sidon, Ă  une Ă©poque oĂč les Juifs de retour de la captivitĂ© n'entendaient dĂ©jĂ  plus cette langue, est une preuve qu'elle s'est conservĂ©e chez les PhĂ©niciens plus longtemps que chez les HĂ©breux eux-mĂȘmes", lit. 'With regard to linguistics, it provides us with valuable information on the nature of the language spoken in Phoenicia about four centuries before the Christian era; this language is shown to be identical with Hebrew, except for the final inflections of a few words and certain expressions, in very small numbers, which are not found in the biblical texts which have come down to us; the fact that Hebrew was written and spoken in Sidon, at a time when the Jews returning from captivity no longer heard this language, is proof that it was preserved among the Phoenicians longer than among the Hebrews themselves.'[53]
  7. [N 7]
    According to Thomas Kelly, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Minnesota: "Of prime importance [for the dating of 'Es-mun'azor II] is the sarcophagus in which Esmun’azor was buried; it is clearly of Egyptian manufacture and must have been transported to Sidon from Egypt. Moreover, 'Esmun'azor's father Tabnit and a woman frequently assumed to be his wife Am'astart, mother of 'Esmun'azor Il, were also buried in Egyptian sarcophagi that must have been brought to Sidon. (The woman's identity, however, is not certain.) All three sarcophagi have been assigned to the 26th dynasty, which came to an end with the Persian conquest of Egypt. While the sarcophagus of Tabnit was the only one that was completely worked in Egypt before being transported to Sidon, all three are stylistically similar and Buhl has suggested that they were products of the same workshop. It is universally assumed that they must have come to Sidon as booty from a military campaign in Egypt. That assumption seems reasonable enough, for they are, so far as I am aware, the only Egyptian sarcophagi that have ever been found outside Egypt proper. Moreover, these Egyptian sarcophagi seem to have been models for the manufacture of anthropoid sarcophagi at Sidon. Numerous examples, worked in marble and dating mostly from the latter half of the fifth and early half of the fourth centuries B.C., have been found in the city. Though inspired by Egyptian models, these locally manufactured sarcophagi are also under heavy Greek influence. This is important, for their stylistic similarity to products of Greek sculpture allows them to be dated within reasonable limits, though not with absolute certainty. Kukahn dates the earliest of these Sidon sarcophagi to the second quarter of the fifth century B.C.; Kleemann would date them about 475 B.C., while Buhl assigns them to the decade 470-460 B.C. The three Egyptian sarcophagi of Esmun’azor II, Tabnit, and the unidentified woman must, accordingly, have been brought to Sidon earlier."[90]
  8. [N 8]
    Lehmann wrote in 2013: "Alas, all these were either late or Punic, and came from Cyprus, from the ruins of Kition, from Malta, Sardinia, Athens, and Carthage, but not yet from the Phoenician homeland. The first Phoenician text as such was found as late as 1855, the Eshmunazor sarcophagus inscription from Sidon;"[96] Turner wrote in 1855: "Its interest is greater both on this account and as being the first inscription properly so-called that has yet been found in Phoenicia proper, which had previously furnished only some coins and an inscribed gem. It is also the longest inscription hitherto discovered, that of Marseilles – which approaches it the nearest in the form of its characters, the purity of its language, and its extent – consisting of but 21 lines and fragments of lines.[97]

References

Citations

  1. [1]
    Hitti 1967, p. 135.
  2. [2]
    Jean 1947, p. 267.
  3. [3]
    Elayi 2006, p. 22.
  4. [4]
    Elayi 2006, pp. 5, 22.
  5. [5]
    Amadasi Guzzo 2012, p. 6.
  6. [6]
    LipiƄski 1995, pp. 135–451.
  7. [7]
    Ackerman 2013, pp. 158–178.
  8. [8]
    Elayi 1997, p. 69.
  9. [9]
    Elayi & Sapin 1998, p. 153.
  10. [10]
    Amadasi Guzzo 2012, pp. 8–9.
  11. [11]
    Motta 2015, p. 5.
  12. [12]
    Jigoulov 2016, p. 150.
  13. [13]
    Jigoulov 2016, pp. 120–121.
  14. [14]
    Saidah 1983.
  15. [15]
    Torrey 1919, p. 1.
  16. [16]
    Renan 1864, p. 362.
  17. [17]
    Hamdy Bey & Reinach 1892, p. 1.
  18. [18]
    Luynes 1856, pp. 1–2  Mentions the grotto
  19. [19]
    Macridy 1904, p. 8.
  20. [20]
    Gras, Rouillard & Teixidor 1991, p. 127.
  21. [21]
    Ward 1994, p. 316.
  22. [22]
    Luynes 1856, pp. 8–9.
  23. [23]
    Lewis, Sartre-Fauriat & Sartre 1996, p. 61.
  24. [24]
    JidĂ©jian 2000, pp. 15–16.
  25. [25]
    Long 1997, p. 261.
  26. [26]
    United States Magazine correspondent 1855, p. 380.
  27. [27]
    JidĂ©jian 2000, p. 17.
  28. [28]
    Luynes 1856, p. 1.
  29. [29]
    Caubet & Prévotat 2013.
  30. [30]
    Klat 2002, p. 101.
  31. [31]
    United States Magazine correspondent 1855, pp. 379–381.
  32. [32]
    BargĂšs 1856, p. 1.
  33. [33]
    Klat 2002, p. 102.
  34. [34]
    Renan 1864, p. 402.
  35. [35]
    Briquel-Chatonnet & Meaux 2019, p. Back cover.
  36. [36]
    Fawaz 1983, p. 89  Accurate title of Habib Abela
  37. [37]
    Tahan 2017, pp. 29–30.
  38. [38]
    Chancellerie du Consulat général de France à Beyrouth 1855.
  39. [39]
    Holloway, Davis & Drake 1855, p. 1.
  40. [40]
    Luynes 1856, p. 2.
  41. [41]
    United States Magazine correspondent 1855, p. 379.
  42. [42]
    BargĂšs 1856, p. 40.
  43. [43]
    King 1887, p. 135.
  44. [44]
    Luynes 1856, p. 3.
  45. [45]
    JidĂ©jian 1998, p. 7.
  46. [46]
    Renan 1864, p. 414.
  47. [47]
    JidĂ©jian 2000, pp. 17–18.
  48. [48]
    Buhl 1959, p. 34.
  49. [49]
    Turner 1860, pp. 48, 51–52.
  50. [50]
    Gibson 1982, p. 105.
  51. [51]
    Turner 1860, p. 52.
  52. [52]
    Rosenthal 2011, pp. 311–312.
  53. [53]
    BargĂšs 1856, p. 39.
  54. [54]
    Donner & Röllig 2002, p. 3.
  55. [55]
    Turner 1860, p. 48.
  56. [56]
    Turner 1860, pp. 51–52.
  57. [57]
    Turner 1860, pp. 52–53.
  58. [58]
    Luynes 1856, p. 5.
  59. [59]
    Turner 1860, pp. 48–50.
  60. [60]
    Turner 1860, p. 49.
  61. [61]
    Salisbury 1855, p. 230.
  62. [62]
    Haelewyck 2012, p. 82.
  63. [63]
    Salisbury 1855, pp. 223–224.
  64. [64]
    Turner 1855, pp. 246–247.
  65. [65]
    Rödiger 1855, pp. 648–658.
  66. [66]
    Dietrich & Gildemeister 1855, pp. 35–37.
  67. [67]
    Hitzig 1855, pp. 54–55.
  68. [68]
    Schlottmann 1867, pp. 46–47.
  69. [69]
    Luynes 1856, pp. 4–9.
  70. [70]
    Ewald 1856, pp. 70–71.
  71. [71]
    BargĂšs 1856, pp. 6–12.
  72. [72]
    Munk 1856, pp. 13–16.
  73. [73]
    Levy 1864, Multiple dictionary entries marked with "Sid.".
  74. [74]
    Haelewyck 2012, pp. 80–81.
  75. [75]
    Amadasi Guzzo 2019, p. 207.
  76. [76]
    Amadasi Guzzo 2019, p. 209.
  77. [77]
    Gzella 2011, p. 70.
  78. [78]
    Gzella 2011, p. 71.
  79. [79]
    Amadasi Guzzo 2019, p. 210.
  80. [80]
    Amadasi Guzzo 2019, p. 213.
  81. [81]
    Gzella 2011, p. 63.
  82. [82]
    Amadasi Guzzo 2019, p. 218.
  83. [83]
    Gzella 2011, p. 72.
  84. [84]
    Amadasi Guzzo 2019, p. 217.
  85. [85]
    Gzella 2011, p. 61.
  86. [86]
    Buhl 1959, pp. 213–215.
  87. [87]
    Elayi 2006, p. 6.
  88. [88]
    Versluys 2010, p. 14.
  89. [89]
    Dussaud, Deschamps & Seyrig 1931, Plaque 29.
  90. [90]
    Kelly 1987, pp. 48–49.
  91. [91]
    Gibson 1982, p. 102.
  92. [92]
    Buhl 1959, pp. 32–34.
  93. [93]
    Contenau 1920, p. 19.
  94. [94]
    Sader 2016, p. 59.
  95. [95]
    Van Dyck 1864, p. 67.
  96. [96]
    Lehmann 2013, p. 213.
  97. [97]
    Turner 1855, p. 259.
  98. [98]
    Schade 2006, p. 154.
  99. [99]
    Dussaud, Deschamps & Seyrig 1931, Plaque 30.
  100. [100]
    Vlassopoulos 2013, pp. 271–273.

Sources

Further reading
Share this article:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Eshmunazar_II_sarcophagus, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.