Motya, a Phoenician colony in Sicily

Preface

IN writing the following pages on Motya and the excavations that have recently been carried out there, my primary object has been to give archaeologists and students of ancient history the benefit of the knowledge and information that it has been possible to acquire regarding a hitherto comparatively little known ancient site.

Although the exploration so far made has been confined almost entirely to the fortifications and outskirts, or fringe, of the old Phoenician city, and the greater part of the area which this town probably occupied still remains untouched, the work that has been accomplished has undoubtedly revealed much which was previously unknown to us, and has thrown light on several points hitherto more or less obscure.

On no other Phoenician site, perhaps, are so many ruins of an important fortified city still to be found standing in situ at the present day as at Motya. Once overcome and destroyed, as it was, by the elder Dionysius, Motya apparently ceased to exist as a town, and such of its ruins as were allowed to remain, first by its Greek conquerors, and later by the Carthaginians themselves when founding the new city of Lilybaeum, were covered up by the protecting soil and debris, and have probably thus remained, untouched by the hand of man, until the present day. In this lies the great archaeological interest and importance of the site.

San Pantaleo, as the island has been called for many years past, has been visited from time to time by archaeologists and those viii MOTYA

interested in ancient history, but its ruins have never before been systematically excavated.

The old name of Motya, which for so many centuries had lapsed into oblivion, is, however, gradually coming into use again, and the work which is now being carried out on the island has already had the effect of reviving in some measure an interest in the site of the once mighty stronghold of Punic power in Sicily.

The idea of excavating the buried remains of Motya first occurred to me some forty years or more ago, but it was not until many years later and after overcoming innumerable obstacles and difficulties that I became sole proprietor of the little island, and was finally enabled to give effect to the project that I had for so long cherished in pectore, and commence the work of exploration. During the first few years fair progress was made and much of interest was brought to light, but with the outbreak of the Great War work was arrested and has since been at an almost complete standstill.

The result, however, of the excavations which it has so far been possible to carry out at Motya may, on the whole, be considered as fairly satisfactory, and will, I trust, prove to be of some service to archaeologists and to those interested in Phoenician history ; while I further venture to hope that the account I have given of our work may also form a contribution not altogether without value to science in general.

For any errors and shortcomings of which I may have been guilty in this volume I must claim the indulgence of my readers.

In conclusion, to those who have in any way aided me in carrying out what I may truly say has been a labour of love to me, I beg to tender my warmest thanks. To Dr Thomas Ashby, Director of the British School in Rome, who has kindly read through the greater part of the MS., as well as to Professor Biagio Pace, of the University of Palermo, both of whom have given me the benefit of their valuable advice on many points and assisted me generally in my work, I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude.

PREFACE ix

My indefatigable fellow-worker at Motya throughout all these years has been the Cav. Giuseppe Lipari-Cascio, of Marsala, and to him, I may add, is in great part due the creation of the little archaeological museum now existing on the island.

The late Professor A. Salinas, for many years Director of the National Museum in Palermo, who had always taken the keenest interest in Motya, assisted me in various ways at the outset of our exploration campaign, and until he was called to Messina after the great earthquake which devastated that town in 1908. His death occurred shortly afterwards. Professor E. Gabrici, who succeeded to the Directorship of the Palermo Museum, has also afforded me all the assistance in his power and facilitated recent work at Motya.

To another, now no more, the late Mr C. F. Gray of Marsala, [ was indebted for much kind assistance in connection with the purchase of land at Motya, as well as in acquiring some interestng archaeological objects from the site of Lilybaeum and its neighbourhood.

Mr G. F. Hill, of the British Museum, has been most kind in assisting me in working out the coins, together with Dr Ashby and Professor van Buren, of the American Academy in Rome. Among Dther friends who have taken an interest in the work at Motya, and issisted me in connection with it, I must mention Mr Frank Hird md Professor Taramelli, Director of the Cagliari Archaeological Museum.

Finally, I have to thank Messrs G. Bell & Sons, and specially VIr Edward Bell, for the care and attention bestowed on the publication of this volume, the printing of which has been :arried out by Messrs Neill & Co. of Edinburgh in their customary excellent style.

JOSEPH I. S. WHITAKER.

PALERMO,

March 1921.

Contents

PAGE

I BIBLIOGRAPHY xii

JST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...... xiii

Part I Jhapter

I. LACK OF HISTORICAL RECORDS OF MOTYA— PHCENICIA

AND THE PHOENICIANS i

II. PHOENICIAN CITIES AND COLONIES . . . .21

III. SICILY AND ITS EARLIER INHABITANTS . . 34

IV. THE PHOENICIANS IN SICILY .... 42 V. THE GREEKS IN SICILY ...... 59

VI. THE SIEGE AND FALL OF MOTYA .... 75 VII. MOTYA AFTER ITS FALL— LILYB^UM ITS SUCCESSOR . 92

Part II

I. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AT MOTYA IN THE PAST . in

II. SUMMARY OF RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AT

III. THE FORTIFICATIONS OF MOTYA . . . .137

IV. THE GATEWAYS OF MOTYA . . . ... 163

V. THE COTHON OF MOTYA 185

VI. THE HOUSE OF THE MOSAICS AND THE " CAPPIDDAZZU "

RUINS -194

VII. THE MOTYAN CEMETERIES ... .206

/III. THE MOTYA MUSEUM .... .261

NDEX -355

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BESIDES the works of the ancient writers, the following are among those which have been consulted in the compilation of this volume :—

J. HOUEL, Voyage pictoresque des lies de Sidle, de Malte et de Lipari, Paris, 1782.

W. H. SMYTH, Sicily and its Islands, London, 1824.

G. DENNIS, Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria, London, 3rd ed., 1883.

A. DE LUYNES, " Recherches sur 1'emplacement de 1'ancienne ville de Motya," in Mon.

Ant. e Bull. Institute corrispondenza arcbeologica, Rome, 1855. G. UGDULENA, " Sulle monete punico-Sicule," in Mem. R. Accad. Scienze, Palermo, 1857. A. SALINAS, Su di alcune monete puniche di Motya, Palermo, 1858.

Relazione R. Museo Palermo, Palermo, 1873.

Le Mura Fenicie di Erice, Palermo, 1883.

E. RENAN, Mission de Phenicie, Paris, 1861.

J. SCHUBRING, " Motye-Lilybaeum," in Philologus, xxiv., Gottingen, 1863. A. HOLM, Geschichte Siciliens in Altertbum, Leipzig, 1870-1898. T. FISCHER, Beitrdge zu phystscbe Geographie der Mittelmeerldnder besonders Siciliens, Leipzig, 1877.

F. S. CAVALLARI, " Scavi e scoperte a Solunto," in Bull. Com. Ant. Sic. viii., Palermo, 1 875. Sulla topografia di talune cittd Grecbe in Sicilia, Palermo, 1884.

and A. HOLM, Topografia archeologica di Siracusa, Palermo, 1883.

G. POLIZZI, / monumenti di antichitd e d'arte della provincia di Trapani, Trapani, 1879. I. COGLITORE, " Mozia — Studi storico-archeologici," estratto dal Uarcbivio stories

Siciliano, anno viii., ix., Palermo, 1884.

PERROT et CHIPIEZ, Hist, de I'art dans Vantiquite, vol. iii., Paris, 1882-1904. G. RAWLINSON, Phoenicia (Story of the Nations Series), London, 1890. E. A. FREEMAN, History of Sicily, in 4 vols., Oxford, 1891-1894. G. PATRONI, " Nora — Colonia Fenicia in Sardegna," estratto Mon. Art. R. Accad.

Lincei, vol. xiv., Roma, 1904.

G. M. COLUMBA, " I porti della Sicilia," Monografia storica dei porti deW antichitA

nell* Italia insular e, Roma, 1906.

A. Mosso, Le origini della civiltd Mediterranea (Preistoria), Milano, 1910. E. GABRICI, Sulla origine dello stile geometrico di Cuma, Napoli, 1911.

B. PACE, " Prime Note sugli scavi di Mozia (1906-1914)," R. Accad. Lincei, Roma, 1916 " Arti ed artisti della Sicilia antica," R. Accad. Lincei, Roma, 1917.

degli scavi, Roma, 1919.

A. DE GREGORIO, Studi archeologici iconografici, Palermo, 1917. P. ORSI, Numerous monographs and notes, chiefly in the Bull, di Paletnologia Italians

in Mon. Ant. della R. Accad. Lincei, and in Notizie degli Scavi, from 1889 onwardf R. P. DELATTRE, Numerous publications on Carthage and its cemeteries, in varioi]:

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Enamelled alabastron from Motya, from a drawing by the Author (colourplate) ......... Frontispiece

Map of the Stagnone di Marsala . . to face page i

PAGE

Archaic sculpture : lions and bull . . 115

Phoenician inscription .... . 116

Gold statuette of a bull . . . . .119

Marble vase from Lilybaeum . . I25

Type of wall A .... . . . 143

Blocks of stone prepared for the island . ... 144

Type of wall C . 145

Type of wall D . 147

Type of wall E ..... ... 147

Wall showing different types of construction . 149

Eastern Staircase ...... • I55

PLAN A. — The Eastern Staircase and fortifications . .156

The South-Eastern Staircase ..... . 161

PLAN B. — The South-Eastern Staircase and fortifications . 162

The Northern Gateway ...... .165

PLAN C. — Northern Gateway and fortifications ... .166

The Northern Gateway, from Houel . . . . . . .167

PLAN D. — (Detail) Inner gateways, North Entrance . . . .170

Amphorae laid out to dry near kiln . . . . . . .173

Sarcophagi at North Gateway . . . . . . . .176

The Southern Gateway ...... 179

Battlements ...... . .181

Sandstone gutter-pipe ...... -183

PLAN E. — The Cothon and the South Gateway . . .186

The Cothon . . 187

The Cothon and its channel before excavation ..... 193

Z4A. Mosaic pavement ..... . 196

Mosaic pavement ..... . 197 xiv MOTYA

FIG.

PLAN F. — The House of the Mosaics .

25. A Doric capital .....

26. Base of Ionic-Attic column

PLAN G. — The " Cappiddazzu " ruins

27. The early Necropolis at Motya .

28. Group of sarcophagi at Birgi

29. A large sarcophagus from Birgi .

30. Terracotta sarcophagus from Lilybaeum

31. Sarcophagus showing a Greek kylix

32. Cremation burial urn. No. 2 .

33. Cremation burials. Nos. 5 and 6

34. Burial urn with uncremated remains. No. 7

35. A stone box-shaped tomb. No. 9

36. A stone box-shaped tomb. No. 10

37. Group of cremation-burials. No. II .

38. Group of cremation-burials. No. 12 .

39. Trench in newly discovered burial-ground .

40. Trench in newly discovered burial-ground .

41. Prehistoric articles .....

42. Ancient pottery sherds ....

43. Fragment of a crucible ....

44. Hand-made pottery .....

45. Terracotta whorls .....

46. Bases of altars ......

47. Stone font or basin .....

48. Marble cone ......

49. Stone cippus

50. Early-period stelae .....

51. Later-period stelae .....

52. Later-period stelae .....

53. Later-period stelae .

54. Stelae from Lilybaeum ....

55. Statuette of a female divinity

56. A sphinx in sandstone ....

57. A sphinx in sandstone ....

58. Lions' heads in stone and marble

59. Head of a marble statue ....

60. A marble platter .....

61. An architectural detail ....

62. A concave stone drum ....

63. A lava millstone . . . ...

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xv

PAGE

A lava grinder and slab ......... 284

A sandstone slab with emblem ........ 284

A stone slab with palm emblem . . . ... . . .285

Archaic Greek inscription ......... 287

Archaic Greek inscription . . . . . . . . 287

Arabic inscription .......... 288

Phoenician inscription (Lilybaeum) ....... 289

Phoenician inscription (Lilybceum) ....... 289

Cinerary 'urns from Motya . . . . . . . . 297

Early pottery from Motya ......... 297

Motyan pottery .......... 299

Later types of pottery ... ..... 301

Later pottery ........... 3O1

Large amphorae .......... 303

Large amphorae .......... 303

Cinerary urn of unusual form and size ...... 3°4

Stamp on a roof-tile .......... 305

Roughly made figurines ......... 306

Loom and fishing-net weights ........ 307

Proto-Corinthian or Early-Greek pottery . . . . . . 310

Pro to-Corinthian or Early Greek . . . . . . 311

Proto-Corinthian or Early Greek . . . . . . 311

Attic ware. Black figures on red . . . . . . .312

Proto-Corinthian or Early Greek . . . . . . 313

Attic. Black figures . . .... . 313

Attic. Black figures . . . . . . . . -3*3

Attic. Red figures . . . . . . .. . • 3r3

Attic. Red figures . . . . . ... . . • 3X4

Attic and imitation of Attic. Black varnished . . . . 315

South Italian . . .-. . . . . • 3T7

South Italian ........ • 31?

South Italian . ...... . 318

Etruscan Bucchero . . .. . . . -3*8

Ornamental terracotta . . . . . . . . .319

Terracotta figurines .......... 32°

Terracotta. Mother goddess ... . . 321

Fragments of ornamented basins ... ... 323

Motyan arulse ........ . 325 xvi MOTYA

MB.

105. Motyan arulae .....

106. Arula from Selinus ....

107. Phoenician glass ....

108. Phoenician necklaces ....

loq. Amulets ......

no. Silver necklaces ....

111. Silver signet-rings ....

112. Silver finger-ring, inscribed

113. Silver earrings . ...

114. Knife-blades ...

115. Emblem of Tank ....

1 1 6. Amulet. Sacred axe

Map of Motya, showing its principal ruins

STAGNONE DI MARSALA^

5 Km

[To face p. i

A PHOENICIAN COLONY IN SICILY

PART I CHAPTER I

LACK OF HISTORICAL RECORDS OF MOTYA PHOENICIA AND

THE PHOENICIANS

OWING to the great dearth of historical records of the period when the Phoenician colonies in Sicily existed, and our consequent extremely limited knowledge regarding those early settlements, any attempt to write what may be called a history of Motya must necessarily be attended with considerable difficulty, and at the best, it is to be feared, can result in but a qualified success. Any continuous history of Motya is out of the question, for little more, indeed, can be done than to collect and piece together such fragmentary notices regarding the colony as have been handed down to us by the earlier historians, supplementing this meagre information by the knowledge we have been able to acquire by inference from the excavations which have recently been undertaken and are now being carried out on the site of the ancient city.

Before proceeding to speak of Motya itself," it may not be out of place, for the benefit of those not well versed in Phoenician history, to say something first of the remarkable people who founded this once important and prosperous colony, and of the mother-country from whence sailed the intrepid mariners and adventurous settlers who first visited the shores of the then little-known Sicily, at a date probably not less and possibly more than twenty-eight centuries ago.

This brief sketch of Phoenicia and the Phoenicians, together with a short notice of Sicily and its earlier inhabitants, will, it is hoped, pave the way to a clearer understanding of what may be said later on, and help to render the story of Motya somewhat less incomplete than it would otherwise be ; though, unfortunately, here again a lamentable lack of historical records confronts us, particularly of those left us by the Phoenicians themselves. We are thus obliged to depend on the scanty information contained in the few notices and inscriptions which have escaped destruction, and on the cursory and probably not always reliable accounts given us by the writers of other nations with whom the Phoenicians had dealings.

It may be here observed that the only Phoenician of whose writings fragments have come down to us is Philo of Byblus, who lived towards the end of the first century A.D., and wrote in Greek. He states, iiowever, that what he relates in his so-called Phoenician History has been translated from the works of the earlier Phoenician writer Sanchoniathon, who was born, either at Tyre or at Berytus, a few years before the Trojan War, and wrote in his native language a history, in nine books, of the theology and antiquities of his own country and of the neighbouring states. As a writer Philo of Byblus does not rank high, either for the form or substance of his work ; but a good deal of what he tells us, although fantastic and unreliable, is curious and, to a certain extent, instructive, the description he gives of the origin of the world being particularly remarkable for the novelty of its conception. As a history, however, Philo's work is not of much use ; indeed, it is more mythological than historical.

Apart from what is told us in the Bible concerning Phoenicia and the Phoenicians, our chief source of information on the subject is Herodotus, the Father of History, and to him we are indebted for much of our knowledge regarding the country and its people. Some information is also to be obtained from extracts of the Tynan Annals by Josephus, from Menander of Ephesus, as also from Justin's epitome of Trogus Pompeius ; but with these exceptions little is to be learned from the early writers.

It may perhaps appear strange at first sight that a state which occupied the position which Phoenicia undoubtedly did at one time, with a people naturally shrewd and intelligent, and above all so

PHAP. i.] PHCENICIA AND THE PHOENICIANS 3

pre-eminently practical, should have left so few traces behind it. Apart from the lack of historical documentary records, there is unfortunately comparatively little in any way now remaining in the country once inhabited by the Phoenicians to bear testimony to their occupation of it for so many centuries. Admitting even the scarcity of Phoenician literature, and the fact of what there was having been restricted chiefly to commercial transactions and religious inscriptions or epigraphs, one might still have expected to meet with something more than we do, telling us of the people and its life-history. Later occupations and successive generations dwelling in the land have, however, swept away most of what the Phoenicians wrought during their time, and but few traces now remain of those who for so long a period ranked among the most important people of the day.

No ancient art heritage probably has suffered more at the hands of later generations than that of Phoenicia has done, and, as observed by Renan,1 of all antiquities the Phoenician is that which has been most broken up and crumbled away. Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and Mohammedans have each and all, in turn, contributed to the work of destruction by demolishing the ancient buildings and making use of their material for newer constructions. In some cases, perhaps, religious sentiment or superstition may in part have been to blame for this, Phoenician monuments having probably been looked upon as unworthy of being allowed to remain.

Of the importance at one time of Phoenicia, and specially as a maritime power, there can be no doubt, although one cannot help thinking that the country did no^ make the most of the position it then held. Small though it was in itself, Phoenicia seems never to have been a united country, with a solid basis, but was broken up into many separate townships, each independent of the others, and subject to constant changes, with a consequent detrimental result. Each city or settlement appears to have been expected to act for itself, and often, in times of need, was left to shift for itself as best it could. A total lack of unity and confederation seems to have prevailed, and this failing was not confined to 1 Renan, Mission de Phtnicie, p. 8 1 6.

the mother-country alone, but extended to most of her colonies as well. Under such circumstances, and with this lack of a proper hegemony, Phoenicia in its earlier stages, the old Phoenicia, as it may be called, seems never to have been able to consolidate its position thoroughly, or to take the place it might and should have done among the nations of the day. Although undoubtedly great from a" commercial point of view, it never became a really powerful state politically, or maintained an army capable of holding its own against others, but was forced to yield to one power after another in succession.

To its offspring, the men of the New City, to the great Carthage which represented Phoenicia in the later stage, was it left to carry out what the older country had failed to do ; and Carthage, adopting totally different methods and carrying all before her, worthily accomplished her mission and eventually became the greatest power of her day.

Carthage, though refraining from extending her territorial possessions around her own city, exercised supreme rule and authority, not only over her own settlements in other parts and those of the older Phoenicians, but also over alien peoples who had come under her influence, making use of them as might be required, or helping them in case of need. To the formerly independent colonies of the old Phoenicia, although but a sister-state, she wisely assumed the role of a mother-country, a part which the elder Phoenicia had never seen fit to adopt, except in name. Carthage in this respect, as well as in many others, followed a very different policy from that of the mother-country, and from the first, under her highly developed forgi of government, struck out a line of her own, which eventually raised her to the great and unique position she occupied in the history of the world.

The Phoenicians, though by some ethnologists held to have been of Hamitic origin and akin to the Egyptians, are by most authorities supposed to have been a Semitic race, closely allied to the Hebrews. Their language, indisputably Semitic in its character, as well as both their physical and moral characteristics, are strong arguments in support of this supposition.

CHAP, i.] PHCENICIA AND THE PHCENICIANS 5

The race appears to have originally inhabited the shores of the Persian Gulf, but at some early period, prior to the Trojan War, abandoning that country, it migrated by land westward, and eventually settled on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. Whether this migration took place in consequence of an earthquake, as stated by Justin, or whether it was due to differences and warfare with neighbouring people, or whether again it was simply out of a spirit of enterprise and love of adventure, it is difficult, not to say impossible, to tell. Be this as it may, it seems certain that the Phoenicians were not aboriginal in Syria ; indeed, according to Herodotus,1 they themselves stated that they had migrated from the Red Sea.

The date of their settlement on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean is obscure. Like the Egyptians, the Phoenicians themselves claimed a very remote antiquity, but this probably referred to a period of their existence anterior to their migration from further east. Herodotus, when visiting Tyre in the fifth century before Christ, was told by the priests of the temple of Hercules that two thousand three hundred years had elapsed since the foundation of that city.2 If this were true, and as Tyre was not founded until some time after the arrival of the Phoenicians on the Mediterranean coast, it would take the date of their settlement back to about 2800 B.C. Little, however, is heard either of the people or their country until a much later date.

Between the seventeenth and the thirteenth century B.C. Phoenicia apparently, if not an actual dependency of Egypt, was intimately connected with that country, and continued to be so until the decline of Egyptian power about the middle of the thirteenth century B.C. During this early period of Phoenician history Sidon appears to have been the chief town, but now Tyre took the foremost place, and retained it until nearly the middle of the ninth century B.C. In the course of these four centuries Phoenicia, under the leadership of Tyre, attained a great position in the then known world and acquired considerable wealth and importance.

On the extension, however, of Assyria's conquests and her advance westward, in the ninth century B.C., Phoenicia deemed it 1 Herod., vii. 89. a Herod., ii. 44.

prudent to submit to this powerful state and became her tributary vassal ; but somewhat later, in consequence of Assyria attempting to impose more grievous conditions on her dependencies, Phoenicia asserted herself, and for a short while resisted successfully, though finally becoming entirely subdued.

When Assyrian rule came to an end in the seventh century B.C., Phoenicia regained her independence, though only for a short time, for her country was soon afterwards overrun by both the Egyptians and the Babylonians. Against the latter, under Nebuchadnezzar, she resisted for a considerable time, while Tyre endured a siege lasting no less than thirteen years, though she was finally forced to surrender, and Phoenicia became a dependency of Babylon from 585 to 538 B.C.

On the Persians, under Cyrus, overcoming Babylon, Phoenicia again regained her independence for a short while, but in 527 B.C. she submitted to Cambyses and became part of the Persian Empire, though retaining her own rulers and government, together with other rights. For several years this state of things continued, the relations between Phoenicia and Persia being apparently friendly and harmonious, the former supporting her suzerain state and being of special service to Persia in her naval warfare.

About the middle of the fourth century B.C., however, Phoenicia broke away from Persia, and another period of strife and petty warfare ensued, lasting until 333 B.C., when Darius was defeated at Issus, and Macedonia, under Alexander, completely overcame Persia. On Alexander's advance in Syria, the greater part of Phoenicia at once submitted to him, Tyre alone resisting, and standing the memorable siege which forms perhaps the finest page in the whole Phoenician history. Forced, however, at last to succumb, Tyre was practically destroyed, and Phoenicia became absorbed into the Graeco-Macedonian Empire.

Later on, coming under the rule of the Seleucidae, Phoenicia as a country, although Tyre and other towns regained a certain importance, seems gradually to have lost her individuality and become more and more Greek. Finally, in 69 B.C. Phoenicia, together with the rest of Syria, came under Roman rule, and continued so apparently for the remainder of her history.

CHAP, i.] PHOENICIA AND THE PHOENICIANS 7

The territory occupied by the Phoenicians extended along the Mediterranean sea-coast from a little south of lat. 33° to a little north of lat. 35°, or, roughly speaking, the seaboard between Mount Carmel on the south and within a few miles of Laodicea on the north, its eastern boundaries being formed by the mountain ranges of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, with Bargylus and Casius further north.

The extreme length of this narrow tract of country was little more than two hundred miles, while its breadth varied from only a very few miles at its narrowest part to thirty or forty miles at its widest portion, the total area of the territory probably not exceeding 3500 square miles.

The country selected by the settlers for their new home, although comparatively insignificant in extent, appears to have been well chosen for various reasons. Its arable land, though not extensive, was remarkably fertile, and its vegetation rich and varied, while its climate and salubrity left nothing to be desired. In addition to these natural advantages, the country possessed two important physical features which rendered it eminently suited to a people like the Phoenicians, devoted to maritime commerce and averse from warfare. On the west its relatively extensive coast-line, indented with numerous small natural harbours and havens of refuge, offered all that they could desire for their trading purposes,1 while its waters supplied an abundance of fish, and, above all, an abundance of the shell-fish so valuable to them for the dye it produced. Eastward, the lofty mountains, constituting the frontier of the territory on that side, afforded an admirable protective barrier and minimised the danger of invasion by land on the part of hostile forces. These mountain regions in themselves possessed an inestimable source of wealth in their vast forests of coniferous trees, while their lower slopes were rich in olive-groves and vineyards.

Although the Phoenicians do not seem to have been great agriculturists, a fact probably due to the limited extent of their territory adapted to cultivation, one may be sure that their industrious people will have made the most of such suitable land as

1 Some of the best harbourages which formerly existed along this coast appear now to be choked up with sand.

they had, especially as its soil was said to be so fertile. Whether they produced sufficient corn and similar produce for their own requirements, however, is doubtful. One certainly hears of their receiving corn in large quantity from other countries.

Among the arboreal vegetation of the plains and lower ground the palm-tree, although perhaps not indigenous to the country, formed an important feature, and its Greek name 0o/w(- has, by some authorities, been supposed to have been the origin of the name Phoenicia. The words Punic and Punicus have the same origin, being derived from the Latin pcenus, also meaning palm-tree. The etymology of the name Phoenicia, however, seems to be very uncertain, many authorities preferring to trace it to the word 0oti>o'e, or blood-red, with reference either to the colour of the celebrated dye, or to the swarthy complexion of the people of the country, while others again derive it from Punt, the name given by the Egyptians to the land peopled by the Arabians.