From: eliedw@hedda.uio.no (Elie Dib Wardini)
Subject: Re: Representatives on Lebanon
Organization: UiO
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:12:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.032833.1939@trl.oz.au> faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz
Faris) writes:

>Elie, the books I have read do not distiquish between the Pheonician dialects
>of Sidon tyre etc. Pheonician kingdoms were very independent of each and each
>developed different cultures. The state that the first use of the Alphabet was
>at Ugarit and it is close to pheonician and hebrew.

The dialects of Tyre and Sidon, Byblos etc. are considered to be Phoenician.
THey are very close to Hebrew but have some distinc features. eg. Henrew uses
the verb HYH as the verb to be while Phoenician uses KWN.

As far as the alphabet is concerned, there is discussion on the origines of the
Ugaritic alphabet, it is written in cuneiform contray to the Phoenician written
in a sort of pictoral form. THe question is then: was the Phoenician alphabet
derived from Ugarit or vice versa? It *SEEMS* to me that the consensus is that
the Phoenician alphabet was older, while at Ugarit they used their skills at
writing cones (they also wrote a lot in Akkadian) and tried to copy the
Pheonician alphabet. Don't take my word for it. Check the info and the
discussion in "Ugarit-Forschungen, Internationales Jahrbuch fur die Alterkunde
Syrien-Palastinas". Look for articles especially by: M. Dietrich, O. Loretz,
A.R. Millard and W. Helch. Check especially volumes 4, 6, 11, 18 and 21

>|> 
>|> I personally lean towards seeing Ugaritic as a Canaanite dialect, but the
issue
>|> is not as clear as you would have it.
>
>Scholars do not call it Canaanite, but call it Ugarictic Pheoncian.
 ^^^^^^^^
Give me some names. Since most of the artciles and grammars I have read about
Ugaritic, the discussion is such as I mention it is. The term
Ugaritic-Phoenician has not occured in the material I have read. I don't want
to sound too silly by saying, that the use of this term seems to be reserved
for those who are not specialists.

>|> 
>|> Aziz, Phoenician is the name given to the Cannanites who lived from Akko to
>|> Arwad. Thus to differenciate between Phoenician and Canaanite as you do is
>|> incorrect, unless you can state that a certain Canaanite element was only
found
>
>According to the tablets of Ebla, as I said ealier the region or mountains of
>Lebanon were called "Labunum". It is thought that this means Lebanon and the
>Canaanites applied that name. According to the bible the Canaanites were
living
>in Palestine as well as in Syria. I would be surprised that they did not
occupy
>Lebanon.

Canaanites lived from the South of Palestine to a few kilometres north of the
present borders of LEbanon. THis area was called Canaan (including Lebanon). In
this area there lived many different peoples (according to what they called
each other). The term Phoenicia was coined by the greeks to indicate the people
who lived in the Lebanon area (from Akko and Arwad). These peopled called
themselves Canaanites (and their descendants in Carthago up to the 4th cnt. AD)
and not Phoenicians. THey differenciated themsleves from other Canaanites by
their language and by their calling themselves the Sidonites, Sons of TYre or
Byblos etc. There seems to have been an interconnection between these (even if
they were independant cities) since while saying Sidonites Biblites were
included or vise versa

>|> in Lebanon and not any other Canaanite areas. Remember Philo of Byblos was
>|> writing under a very Hellinized era, thus used the term Phoenician not
>|> Cannanite. Even in Cartago at the time of Augustine (4th cent. AD.!) the
>|> inhabitants called themselves Canaanites while the Romans called them Puni
>|> (from Phoenician).
>
>Yes he used the term Pheonician, and Ugarit proved that what he was saying was
>correct, it was noy sidon, tyre, or Byblos that provided that proof.

Philo of Byblos wrote in the 1st. cent AD!!!! The term Phoencia was used by the
Romans to name the area!!!!!! What Ugarit proved he said was correct is about
the Canaanite religion.

>
>The language of Ebla was old Canaanite or north-west semetic. It was wriiten
>using Sumerian form or Akkadian form and they found dictionaries to go between
>the Ebla and Sumerian languages.

It seems to me that you have made a great discovery! tell us how you came to
this conclusion.

>|> 
>|> The borders have fluctuated, yet it is generally seen that the geographical
>|> borders of Canaan lay a little north of the present Lebanon borders.
>
>No, Canaan extended all the way to the Sinai penisula.

This is in the south.

>|> 
>|> Ugarit is outside Canaan proper so was Ebla.
>
>So Ugarit is Pheonician. Ebla was an empire that include all of todays Syria, 
>Lebanon, Palestine, parts of Iraq and turkey and possibly other places that
>have not been discovered as of yet.

Ah! I give up!

I have to go now! see you later!

> 
> Regards
> Aziz
>

elie wardini