Introduction: Phoenician Religion and Cult across the Mediterranean

The religion that the Phoenicians practiced is still largely unknown, mainly due to the dearth of original Phoenician written sources. The only canonical religious Phoenician text we know of, the creation myth, written in the sixth century BCE by Sanchuniathon, a priest from Beirut, is almost entirely lost to us. Only a few quotes were preserved in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea (Praeparatio evangelica), dated to the fourth century CE, and to a lesser extent in Porphyry’s treaties (Adversus Christianos), dated to the third or fourth century CE. And none of these are direct quotes but instead are quotes from a heavily Hellenized Greek translation of the original text composed by another priest, Philo of Byblos, during the first century CE (Baumgarten 1981; Edwards 1991: 213; Markoe 2000: 119; Ribichini 2001: 121). However, even if this text had been better preserved, it would have been relevant only for a narrow chronological time frame within the long history of Phoenicia and the Phoenicians, since religion, like other aspects of human life, evolves and changes in accordance with the geopolitical reality. The situation becomes even more complex once the Phoenicians settle parts of the Mediterranean basin, coming into contact with new populations, cultures, and ideas, and a hybrid culture somewhat different from that of the homeland is formed. And although over six thousand Phoenician and Punic inscriptions from various periods were found over the years, the majority reveal little information about Phoenician religion other than names of deities, clients, and rituals (Clifford 1990: 55; Ribichini 2001: 120).When turning to exterior sources, the situation is seemingly far better. The Ugaritic mythological and ritualistic texts provide a solid base for the understanding of the Canaanite pantheon (Cross 1973; Pardee 2002), the Hebrew Bible offers useful information on the prominent deities in Phoenicia, and various classical authors provide us with a relatively abundant amount of information on Phoenician deities, rituals, and myths. However, we must remember that these texts are often both biased and anachronistic, and therefore we cannot rely on them too heavily (Clifford 1990: 55; Schoville 1998: 170–71).Fortunately, archaeology can help us fill in some of the blanks, and it provides us with an ever-growing database on Phoenician religion as it evolved throughout the ages, mainly through epigraphic evidence such as theophoric names and dedicatory inscriptions. The available evidence seems to indicate that during the first millennium BCE, the Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon narrowed significantly, and instead of an extended family of deities, the focus was on a divine triad or, more likely, a divine pair. According to Josephus (Contra Apionem 1.1.18), Hiram I built temples for Jupiter, Heracles, and Astarte in Tyre, who can be identified with El, Melqart, and Astarte, and yet unlike the latter two, El is hardly mentioned in Phoenicia.1 The far more common scheme in Phoenicia was of a divine pair consisting of a male and female deity, most often identified with Baal and Astarte. These deities assumed the role of patron of the city, its people, and, perhaps most importantly, the royal family (Edrey 2019: 141–42). Baal was also a “dying and rising” deity, which is another common theme in the mythologies of the ancient Near East likely signifying the cycle of nature (Clifford 1990: 57–58; Markoe 2000: 116–19). The shift in importance from the head of the pantheon to his offspring, which represented the state and the king, was a common practice in the first millennium BCE throughout the ancient Near East, with examples of deities such as Assur, Marduk, Horus, and Zeus (L’Heureux 1979: 71–108; van der Toorn 1995: 2046). This was also a common practice in the southern Levant as demonstrated by national gods such as Qos in Edom, Chemosh in Moab, or Milcom in Ammon (Block 2013). Such changes do not seem to stem from a profound theological revolution but rather manifest the sociopolitical reality of the age during which the Bronze Age political system of city-states gave way to nation states. A similar phenomenon occurred in Phoenicia: however, not on a national level but rather on the city-state level. At the beginning of the first millennium BCE, the cult of several divine pairs was institutionalized in the major Phoenician centers, such as Melqart and Astarte at Tyre, Eshmun and Astarte at Sidon, and Baal and Baalat Gebal at Byblos (Clifford 1990; Edrey 2019: 141–47). These seemingly distinct city-based pantheons led many scholars to argue that each Phoenician city-state followed its own system of beliefs, religious practices, festivals, and rituals (Gubel 2000: 204; Peckham 2001: 20; Woolmer 2011: 98). However, it is commonly accepted today that the unique deities worshipped in each Phoenician city-state are simply a localized manifestation of the same divine pair/triad, as reflected by their interchangeable names, similar attributes, and divine responsibilities, and that the Phoenicians shared a common system of beliefs that can be interpreted as a pan-Phoenician religion (Edrey 2019: 141–47). This view is reflected even more clearly in their cultic practices as they appear in the archaeological record. If archaeology can fill in some of the blanks of Phoenician religion, its contribution to the reconstruction of Phoenician cultic practices is far greater. Archaeology offers us insights into the practical sphere of Phoenician religion through its cult-related material culture, exhibited in sacred architecture, funerary practices, cultic paraphernalia, animal remains, and epigraphic evidence. But while religion represents an official system of beliefs maintained by an authority via a hierarchical clergy, at its top the king or other members of his family as high priests (KAI 14; Ackerman 2013), cultic practices can also represent popular elements influenced by various traditions that at times may directly contradict the laws of the religion. Unfortunately, artifacts and ecofacts frequently lack a broader context, which is where we must turn back to the written sources for a contextualized interpretation. Therefore, the study of Phoenician religion and its cultic practices, and any other aspect related to the Phoenicians, must draw from all the available sources.And this is exactly what the articles presented in this special double issue of JEMAHS demonstrate. They are an amalgam of the study of various cultic artifacts, iconographic, funerary, and epigraphic evidence, in the attempt to reconstruct the religious beliefs and cultic practices of the Phoenicians throughout various periods and across the Mediterranean world:The first article, presented by Hélène Sader deals with the contribution of archaeology to the understanding of Phoenician religion through a case study of standing stones that were found at Tell el-Burak and their possible connection to local industries. A similar find is discussed by Ann E. Killebrew in her article, which deals with a standing stone and other artifacts often associated with cult, found at Tel Akko and related to large-scale Phoenician iron smithing activities at the site during the Persian period. Ida Oggiano and Fabio Porzia present Persian-period figurines of the enthroned bearded man and his possible association to another popular figurine, the pregnant female, suggesting that they may be understood as a divine couple in what the authors refer to as an “open relationship.” Giuseppe Garbati also discusses divine relations between various Phoenician deities in the homeland and across the Phoenician Mediterranean. The Persian period is featured again in an article presented by the present author, which argues that certain changes in Phoenician religion and cult during the Persian period can be explained by Achaemenid / early Zoroastrian influences. Fanni Faegersten and Carolina Lopez-Ruiz discuss the volute motif in Phoenician art and iconography through various media, such as ivories, stone, and wood, and its symbolic meaning. Adriano Orsingher examines Levantine terracotta models dated to the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, identifies them as portable shrines, and compares them to similar examples from across the Mediterranean. He then explores their possible use in funerary rituals. Meritxell Ferrer and Mireia López-Bertran also deal with funerary rituals, exploring the use of bread and the sense of taste in the creation of the ephemeral community of mourners. Federica Spagnoli presents the results of the renewed Sapienza University excavations at the Ras il-Wardija Sanctuary at Gozo and its possible link to the cult place at Tas-Silġ and the goddess Astarte. Manuel Álvarez-Martí-Aguilar reviews the underwater deposition of Phoenician bronze figurines, dated between the eighth and seventh century BCE and found off the southwestern coasts of the Iberian Peninsula. He suggests they were votive offerings intended to appease the ocean following the occurrence of catastrophic marine floods. And last, but not least, Moshe Fischer, Alexander Fantalkin, Itamar Taxel, Liora Bouzaglou, and Oren Tal also study a maritime cult. They present an assemblage of clay boat models unearthed at Yavneh-Yam and discuss the boats’ possible function as votive objects and their implications for Phoenician maritime activities in the Mediterranean during the Persian and Hellenistic periods.The image that arises from these contributions and previous studies on Phoenician religion and cultic practices reveals a complex and ever-evolving system of beliefs, rituals, and practices that at the same time is rooted in a long-held shared Bronze Age Canaanite heritage. The authors demonstrate that at least some of the iconographic, religious, and cultic practices that the Phoenicians used and observed remained relevant across time and space. Furthermore, religion is not just a system of laws that guides a person through various life events, it is also a key factor in the formation of identity. The shared cult-related material culture that the Phoenicians display across the Mediterranean indicates that they also shared a common identity, which we today identify as Phoenician.