Baal Lebanon inscription
The inscription
MaterialBronze
WritingPhoenician
Created8th century BCE
Discovered1874-1875
Limassol, Limassol District, Cyprus
Present locationCabinet des Médailles, Paris

The Baal Lebanon inscription, known as KAI 31, is a Phoenician inscription found in Limassol, Cyprus in eight bronze fragments in the 1870s. At the time of their discovery, they were considered to be the second most important finds in Semitic palaeography after the Mesha stele.[1]

It was purchased in 1874–75 by a Limassol merchant named Laniti from a scrap metal dealer, who did not know of their previous provenance. A copy was passed to Julius Euting, and after Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau secured its acquisition by the Cabinet des Médailles,[2] the inscription was published in full by Ernest Renan in 1877.[3]

It is particularly notable for having mentioned Hiram I. It is the only Phoenician inscription to suggest a "colonial" system amongst the Phoenician domains.[4]

Fragments

Ernest Renan assigned each of the eight fragments of a letter to aid him in the reconstruction of the entire inscription: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H. In his opinion, the reconstructed inscription was sequenced E, F, A, B, C, D – he could not find a place for fragments G and H. The fragments are transcribed as the following:

Therefore, per Renan's reckoning (E+F+A+B+C+D), the inscription reads, "...and governor of Carthage, servant of Hiram, king of Sidonians, has dedicated to Ba'al-Lebanon, his Lord, good brass...", with fragments G and H having no certain placement within the overall structure.

Gallery

Notes

  1. ^ Clermont Ganneau, 1880, p.181, "My own observations may, perhaps, serve to confirm the truth of the remark of M. Renan about the palaeographical rank of these fragments, "which may claim the second place, immediately after the Moabite Stone," and to show that their historical is not under their palaeographical value."
  2. ^ Clermont-Ganneau, HIRAM, KING OF TYRE, the Atheneum, April 17, 1880
  3. ^ E. Renan. Notice sur huit fragments de pateres de bronze portant des inscriptions pheniciennes tres-anciennes: Journal des savants, August 1877, p. 487—494: "Les huit fragments dont nous présentons la reproduction au public ont été achetés par le Cabinet des antiques de la Bibliothèque nationale à M. Laniti, négociant à Limassol, dans l'Ile de Chypre. M. Laniti les avait lui-même achetés, avec plusieurs autres sans inscriptions, chez un marchand de ferraille, qui ignorait provenance antérieure. L'esperànce de trouver quelques autres fragments du même ensemble peut n'être pas considérée comme entièrement perdue... Voici, du reste, un fait matériel, qui peut n'être pas sans intérêt pour les personnes qui ne se rendent pas compte de la sûreté de nos méthodes paléographiques. Avant que M. Laniti nous eût fait passer les fragments maintenant acquis par le Cabinet des antiques, nous en avions eu une connaissance indirecte. Il y a un peu plus d'un an, le savant M. Euting, qui est la personne d'Allemagne la plus habile en ces études, voulut bien nous, communiquer une copie qu'il avait reçue de Chypre. C'étaien nos fragments, mais cópies à la suite les uns des autres, comine une seule inscription."
  4. ^ Nathan Pilkington (4 October 2019). The Carthaginian Empire: 550–202 BCE. Lexington Books. p. 126. ISBN 978-1-4985-9053-2. In contrast, other scholars have argued that Phoenician colonies may have been governed by the mother city, at least during the earliest colonial period. The position is based on the interpretation of KAI 31, an 8th century BCE inscription found in Cyprus. The text records: 'סכן קרתחדשת עבד חרם מלך צדנם' 'Governor of the New City, servant of Hiram, the King of the Sidonians.' From this inscription, therefore, it is possible to argue that the Tyrian King possessed a regular system of colonial administration that centered on the presence of a designated Soken/Governor. It must be noted that KAI 31 is the only inscription of this type. No similar inscription has been found in the Phoenician colonies in the western Mediterranean. Because Cyprus was the most proximate colonial sphere to the Phoenicia, it is possible that Phoenician polities exercised forms of direct administration in Cyprus that were not possible in more distant colonial foundations.

References

Categories